The Journal of Hellenic studies

ΠΣ ΤΩΣ

areas St
Aaa!

BA cone
ΟΝ
"22
"

ie

εἰ

Vira ᾽
ΚΣ:
eh hee Soci

te Poo

too
33

ΣΌΣ ΑΣΟΣ ΣΡ. Το,
πεν ρει τε τ targa tee

227:
eS
oom,

Co
ae

secs ἘΣΤΟΝ,

᾿. =

27.7.1: 7, 71.2.2. oF ot.

ἜΣΤΙ 5 ram:

Arata dod A gb atat
As

THE JOURNAL

HELLENIC STUDIES

TAVAUOL ΠΡ

AMICUS OLAS a

\

Che Society for the Promotion of Wellenic studies

τ POU IGN AL

Pedy NG: 61... Π|5

VOLUME XVI. (1896)

1896

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

ἢ

6,

~I

16.

LV

CONTENTS.

Rules of the Society ...

List of Officers and Members
Additions to the Library ...
Proceedings of the Society, 1895 ὁ.

An Investigation of the Topography of the Region of Sphacteria and
Pylos (Plates 1.--[11.).--ΟαΟ. B. Grunpy

2. Pylos and Sphacteria (Plate VIII.).—ht. M. Burrows ...
3. What People produced the Objects called Mycenean 1—W. Ripceway

. Archaeological Research in Italy during the last Kight Years.—F. von

DuHN

5. Pompeian Paintings and their Relation to Hellenic Masterpieces, with

Special Reference to Recent Discoveries.—TALFOoURD ELy

The Megalithic Temple at Buto: Herodotus I]. 155.—A. W. VERRALL

. On a Group of Early Attic es i ites IV.-VIT.).—R. Ὁ.

BoOSANQUET ...

. Inscriptions from Crete.—J. L. Myres

. Karian Sites and Inscriptions (Plate 1X.) W, Rh. Paton and J. 1.

Myrkrs...

. Karian Sites and Inscriptions : II. (Plates X., XI.).—W. R. Pavon and

J. L. Mypees...

. A Scarab from Cyprus.—G. D. Pieripes ...

I. A Stone Tripod at Oxford (Plate XII.).—Percy Garpner
LI. The Mantinean Basis.— Percy GarDNER

3. A Kylix with a New KAAOS Name (Plate XIIf.).—Crcit Surrn

. The Game of Polis and Plato’s Rep. 422 E.—W. Ripnceway ..
. Excavations at Abae and Hyampolis in Phocis (Plate XIV.).—V. W.
YORKE ...
Kpigraphical Notes from Eastern Macedonia and Thrace.—J. ARTHUR
R. Munro
A Greek Goldsmith’s Mould in the Ashmolean Musewn.—H. Stuart
J ONES
. Report on a ia in Greece, 1896.—CerciL SMITH.
I. General ..
Il. Melos

ΧΧΧΗΪ

ΧΧΧΨΗ͂

CONTENTS.

LIST OF PLATES.

lagoons near Missolonghi.

Lagoons on North Shore of the Gulf of Arta.

Map showing conjectural Positions in Defence and

Koryphasion.
Pylos and its Environs.
Lekythos from Athens.
Lekythi from Eretria.
Lekythos from Athens.
Lekythos at Berlin.

(1) South End of Palaeo-Kastro.
(2) North End of Palaeo-Kastro.

Early Masonry in Caria.

Map of Part of Caria.

Map of the Peninsula of Myndos.
A Stone Tripod at Oxford.

A Kylix with a New KAAOS Name.

The District of Abae and Hyampolis.

Blockade

CONTENTS.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT.

Rough Plan of Koryphasion and Sphacteria ...
Pompeian Wall-paintings ...

Attic Lekythos

Attic Lekythos (Fragments)
Decorations of Lekythi

Yerkessen: Plan of Fort ...
Alizetin : Capital

Urun: Plan of a Fortified House
Ghiuk Chalar from the West

Ghiuk Chalar: East Gate, from Within ...
Azajik ...

Borghaz

Tremil ...

Arslan’s House and Stable

Baghajik

Attau-lu-su ...

Base from Halikarnassos ...
Inseribed Block ...

‘Teké Kalé: Plan...

Teké Kalé: North View of Tower ...
Alinda: Exterior of Large Stoa
Alinda: Interior of Large Stoa
Assarlik : Cist Graves in Enclosure ...
‘Tomb near Geresi

Chambered Tumulus, Ghiuk Chalar ...
Compound Tumulus, Geresi...
Chambered Tumulus, Geresi

Cirele on Kara Dagh (Telmessos)

VALE
57

145, 148, 151

209, 263

vill CONTENTS.

Compound Tumulus, Ghiuk Chala ...

Compound Tumulus (Plan and Section) ...

Ghiuk Chalar: Large Circle: Plan ...

Compound Tumuli: Ghiuk Chalar and Farelia

Chambered Tomb on Orak Island
Sarcophagus: Khalketor

Types of Tombs ...

Built Tomv: Teke Kalé

Built Tomb: Alinda

Rock-cut Tomb: Yenijé
Rock-cut Tomb : Sandama...
Rock-cut Tomb: Farelia
Rock-cut Tomb: Almajik ...
Scarab from Cyprus

Stone Tripod at Oxford

Tripod at Olympia

Basis of Mantineia

Coin of Megara ..

Egyptian Draught-board
Egyptian Draught-men

Ivory Draught-board from Enkomi ...
Gate of Abae

Gate of Abae: Plan ...

Plan of Temple-site, Abae...
Terra-cotta Antefix, Abae ...
Lion's Head, Abae

Greek Goldsmith’s Mould ...
Plaques from Goldsmith's Mould
Plan of Olbia

Tombs at O}bia

Island of Melos, with Part of Kimolos
Site of Greek Town, Melos

328, 329, 330,

RULE'S

OF THE

Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies.

1. THE objects of this Socicty 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 archeological and topographical interest.

111. To organise means by which members of the Society may have
increased facilities for visiting ancient sites and pursuing archeological
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 Vice-Presidents the Treasurer. In the absence of the Treasurer

the Council or Committee shall appoint one of their Members to preside.
b

Ν

4. The funds and other property of the Socicty shall be administered
and applicd 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
zeneral 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 thercof,
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 Secrctary.

7. The Council shall meet as often as they may deem necessary for
the despatch of business.

ὃ. Due notice of every such Meeting shall be sent to each Membcr
of the Council, by a summons signed by the Secretary.

g. Three Members of the Council, provided not more than one of

the three present be a permanent officer of the Society, shall be a
quorum.

10. All questions before the Council shall be determined by a
majority of votes. The Chairman to have a casting vote.

τι. The Council shall prepare an Annual Report, to be submitted
to the Annual Meeting of the Society.

[2. 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 Mecting 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

(4. A General Meeting 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

ΧΙ

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 clected 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 cligible 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 Mecting.

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 Mecting shall have a casting vote. The mode in
which the vote shall be taken shall be dctermined by the President
and Council.

20. Every Member of the Society shall be summoned to the Annual
Meeting by notice issucd 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 clected by the
Council to officiate as President until the next Annual Mecting.

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 reccives

the votes of the majority of those present.
6 2

ΧΙ

25. fhe 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 shal]
not exceed ten.

31. Ladies shall be eligible as Ordinary Members of the Society, and

when elected shail 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.

ΧΕ

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).

VIJ. That the Society’s books (with exceptions hereinafter to be
specified) be lent to Members under the following 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 shall reclaim it

XIV

(5) All expenses of carriage to and fro shall be borne by the
borrower.

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 three months of their coming into the
Library.
X. 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 additional week, and
if a book is lost the borrower be bound to replace it.

The Library Committee.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER.
Miss JANE HARRISON, LL.D.
ΜΕ. WALTER LEAF.
Mk. GEORGE MACMILLAN (fon. Sec.).
Mr. ERNEST MYERS.
REV. W. G. RUTHERFORD, LL.D.
Miss EUGENIE SELLERS.
Mr. ARTHUR HAMILTON SMITH. (fon. Librarian).
SIK Eo MAUNDE THOMPSON, SC_D., De
Mr. TALFOURD. ΕΠ.

Assistant Librarian, MIiss FANNY JOHNSON, to whom, at 22, Albemarle
Strect, applications for books may be addressed.

SESSION 1896—1897.
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 :—

1890.
Monday, November 2nd.
1897.
Monday, February 15th.
Monday, April 12th.
Monday, June 20th (Annual).

The Council will meet at 4.30 p.m. on cach of the above days.

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES.

OFFICERS AND COUNCIL

PROFESSOR

PROF. S.
PROF. INGRAM BYWATER.

H. BUTCHER, Lirt.D.,

FOR

President.

Re Jae, ΤΡ τ, A Gedosy alr 32.) Ne kes

Vice-Presidents.

i)

REV. PROF. LEWIS CAMPBELL.

MR. SIDNEY COLVIN.

PROF. PERCY GARDNER, Lirr.D.

MR. D. B. MONRO.
MR. A. S. MURRAY.

MR. J. ADAM.

MR. J. THEODORE BENT.
MR. H. G. DAKYNS.

MR. LOUIS DYER.

MR. TALFOURD ELY.
MR. ARTHUR J. EVANS.
LADY EVANS.

PROF. ERNEST A. GARDNER.

MISS JANE HARRISON, LE.D.
MR. J. W. HEADLAM.

MR. G. F. HILL.

MR. D.G. HOGARTH.

|

PROF. Ἢ. F.
MR. F. C. PENROSE, F.R.S.
MR. J. k. SANDYS, Lrer.D.
REV. PROF. A.
SIR KE. MAUNDE THOMPSON,
REV. H. F. TOZER,.

PELIIAM.

H. SAYCE, LL.I

1896—1897.

KCB. DC...

PROF. R. Y.. TYRRELL, Litt.D., D.C.L.

Council.

SIRHENRY UW. HOWORTH, K.C.LE., M.P., F.R.S.

MR. M. R. JAMES.

MR. H.STUART JONES.
MR. F. G. KENYON.

MR. WALTER LEAF, Lirr.D.

MR. WILLIAM LORING.
REV. PROF. JOSEPH MAYOR.
MR. J. A. R. MUNRO.

PROF. G. G. A. MURRAY.
MR. ERNEST MYERS.

MR. J. L. MYRES.

MR. R. A. NEIL.

MISS EMILY PENROSE.
PROF. W. M. RAMSAY, D.C.L.
PROF. WILLIAM RIDGEWAY.
MRS Ra We sCHULIZ.

MISS EUGENIE SELLERS.
MR. CECIL SMITH, LL.D.
MR.A. HAMILTON SMITH.
MR. H. B. WALTERS.

RUE Vig Wie WAY EB

Hon. Treasurer.

MR. JOHN B. MARTIN, 68, LOMBAKD STREET, F.C.

Hon. Secretary.

MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN, 29, BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C.

Assistant Secretary.
MR. W. RISELEY.

Hon. Librarian.
MR. ARTHUR H. SMITH.

Assistant Librarian.
MISS FANNY JOHNSON.

Actirg Editorial Committee.

PROF, PERCY GARDNER.

Consultative Editcrial Committee.

| MR. WALTER LEAF.

MR. A.

PROFESSOR JEPB. |] PROFESSOR BYWATER. | SIR FE. MAUNDE TIIOMPSON. | MR
and Mr. CECII. SMITH (ex officio), as Director of the British School at Athons.

MR. DOUGLAS W. FRESHFIELD., |

MESSRS ROBARTS, LUEBOCK ἃ COQ), 15,

Auditors for 1896-97.

Bankers.

LOMPARI

STREET:

H. SMI1TH.

SIDNEY COL\ I>

Mk. ARTHUR J. BUTLER.

CAMBRIDGE BRANCH

OF
THE SOCIETY FO THE ΡΣ
OF SHEEP ENIC STUDIES

OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE FOR 1896-1897.

Chairman.
PROF. CG. EBB, errr DD ΟΣ, LAD MEP.

Vice-Ghairman.

Mr. J. E. Sanpys, Lirr.D.

Committee.
Mr. J. G. FRAZER. Mires; 2. SiKES:
Mr. Henry JACKSON, Lirr.D. Mr. ARTHUR TILLEY.
Mr. M. R. JAmes, Litt. D. Mr. A. W. VERRALL, Lirr.D
Pror. W. RipGeway. Mi. Ὁ, WALDSTEIN, Lyra):

Mon. Seeretarn.

Mr. WALTER FIEADLAM, KING’sS COLLEGE.

xvii

HONORARY MEMBERS.

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES, 4 ΤΠ. le Secretaire du Koi de
Hellenes, Athens, Greece.

Mr. Alfred Biliotti, C.P., H.B.M. Consul for Crete.

Prof. Ὁ. Comparetti, /stituto di Studit Superiori, Florence.

M. Alexander Contostavlos, Athens.

Geheimrath Prof. Ernst Curtius, Matthai Kirchstrasse 4, Berlin.

Mr. George Dennis c/o Lloyds Bank, Limited, 16, S¢ James's Street, S.W.

Prof. Wilhelm Dorpfeld, Ph.D., Director of the German Archeological Institute, Athens

Monsieur P. Foucart, 13, Rue de Tournon, Parts.

Prof. Furtwangler, Maria-Josefa Strasse 8, Munich.

Monsieur J. Gennadius, 21, Hyde Park Place, W.

His Excellency Hamdy Bey, Keeper of the Museum of Antiquities, Constantinople.

Prof. W. Helbig, Villa 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, The University, Berlin.

Prof. 5. A. Kumanudes, Zhe University, Athens.

Mr. Charles Merlin, 10, Observatory Gardens, Campden Hill, W.

Prof. A. Michaelis, Unzversity, Strassburg.

Prof. E. Petersen, /ustituto Archeologico Germanico, Monte Tarpeo, Rome.

LIST OF MEMBERS.
* Original Members. t+ Life Members.
The other Members have been elected by the Council since the Inaugural Meeting.

Abbott, Evelyn, Balliol College, Oxford.

*Abercromby, Lord, 14, Grosvenor Street, W.

+Abercrombie, Dr. John, 23, Upper Wimpole Street, W.
Abram, Edward, 1, Middle Temple Lane, E.C.

*Acland, Sir H. W:, Bart., K.C.B., M.D., F.R.S., Broad Street, Oxford
Adam, James (Council), Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
Agnew, Philip L., 11, Devonshire Terrace, Hyde Park, W.
Ainger, A.C., Eton College, Windsor.

Ainger, Rev. Canon, Masters House, The Temple, E.C.
tAinslie, R. St. John, Zhe School, Sedbergh.
Alford, Rev. B. H., St. Luke’s Vicarage, Nutford Place, W.
Alford, R. G., Willoughby House, East Twickenham.
Allbutt, Professor T. Clifford, M.D., F.R.S., Chaucer Road, Cambridge.
Amherst, Lord, Didlington Hall, Brandon, Suffolk.
Anderson, J. C. G., 166, Union Street, Aberdeen.
Anderson, J. R., Lairbeck, Keswick.
Anderson, Prof. W. Ὁ. F., Firth College, Sheffield.
Anderton, Basil, Pudlic Library, Newcastle-on- Tyne.

*Antrobus,®Rev. Frederick, The Oratory, S.W.

Apostolides, S., 24, Montpelier Road, Brighton.
Archer-Hind, R. D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
tArkwright, W., Adbury House, Newbury.

Awdry, Herbert, Wellington College, Berks.

Bagley, Mrs. John, Washington Avenue, Detroit, Michigan.
Bailey, J. C., 2, Tanfield Court, Temple, E.C.
Baker, F. B., The College, Great Malvern.

Baker, Rev. William, D.D., AZerchant Taylors’ School, E.C.

*Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., M.P., 4, Carlton Gardens, S.W.

*Balfour, Right Hon. G. W., M.P., 24, Addison Road, W.
Ball, Sidney, SZ. John's College, Oxford.
Barclay, James W., M.V., 5, Clarendon Place, Hyde Park Gardens, U

+ Barlow, Miss Annie E. F., Greenthorne, Edgworth, Bolton.

XVill

Barlow, Mrs., 10, Wimpole Street, W.
Barnewall, Sir Reginald A., Bart., 23, Cliveden Place, Eaton Square, S.W.
Barnsley, Sidney H., Pinbury, near Cirencester. F
Barran, J. N., Westfield, Chapeltown, Leeds.
Bather, Rev. Arthur George, 8, Kingsgate Street, Winchester.
Battiscombe, E. M., Eastwood, Monipelier, Weston-super-Mare.
Bayfield, Rev. M. A., Eastbourne College, Eastbourne.
Beare, Prof. J. Isaac, 9, 77inity College, Dublin.
+Beaumont, Somerset, Shere, near Guildford.
Beebee, M. J. L., New Travellers Club, 97, Piccadilly, W.
Belcher, Rev. Henry, St. Michael's Rectory, Lewes.
f Benn, Alfred W.,70, Via Cavour, Florence.
Bennett, 5. A., New University Club, 57, St. James's Street, S.W.
Benson, E. F., King’s College, Cambridge.
Bent, J. Theodore (Council), 13, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Bent, Mrs. Theodore, 13, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Bevan, E. R., 14, Beaumont Street, Oxford.
Bickford-Smith, R. A. H., 45, North Batley, Darlington.
fBikelas, Demetrius, 50, Rue de Varenne, Parts.
Blomfield, Sir A. W., A.R.A., 6, Montagu Place, Montagu Square, W.C.
Blomfield, Mrs. Massie, Port House, Alexandria, Egypt.
Blore, Rev. Dr., St. Stephen’s, Canterbury.
Bodington, Prof. N., Principal of the Yorkshire College, Leeds.
Bond, Edward, C.B., LL.D., 64, Princes Square, Bayswater, W.
Bond, Edward, M.P., E/m Bank, Hampstead, N.W.
Bosanquet, Rev. F. C. T., The Hermitage, Uplyme, Devon.
Bosanquet, R. Carr, Trinity College, Cambridge.
Bougatsos, Christos Ch., Howard House, Arundel Street, Temple, E.C.
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, Chester Square, S.W.
Branteghem, A. van, 28, Rue des Buisson, Bruxelles.
Brinton, Hubert, “ton College, Windsor.
Broadbent, H., Eton College, Windsor.
*Brodie, E. H., 4.M./.S., Grasendale, Malvern.
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, Wevern Square, South Kensington, S.W.
Brown, Prof. G. Baldwin, The University, Edinburgh.
*Browning, Oscar, A7z7g’s College, Cambridge.
*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.
*Burn, Rev. Robert, Trinity College, Cambridge.
Burnet, Prof. J., 1, Alexandra Place, St. Andrews, N.D.
Burton, Sir F. W., 43, γοργά Road, Kensington, W.
Bury, Prof. J. B., Zrintty College, Dublin.
Burge, Hubert M. University College, Oxford.
Burgh, W. de, 32, Albert Square, Ratcliffe, E.
Burrows, Ronald, 21, Kelvinside Terrace South, Glasgow.
Butcher, Prof. 5. H., LL.D. (V.P.), The University, Edinburgh.
f Bute, The Marquis of, K.T., St. John’s. Lodge, Kegent’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, Great Cumberland Flace, W.
Bywater, Prof. Ingram (V.P.), 93, Onslow Square, S.W.
tT Bywater, Mrs., 93, Onslow Square, S.W.
Calvert, Rev. Thomas, 121, Hopton Road, Streatham, S.W.

xix

¢Calvocoressi, L. M., Messrs. Raili Bros., Mellor’s Buildings, L xchange

Liverpool.
Cameron, Dr. James, Registrar of the University, Capetown.

Campbell, Rev. Prof. Lewis (V.P.), 35, Kensington Court Mansions, |W.

Campbell, Mrs. Lewis, 35, Kensington Court Mansions, 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., Haileybury College, Hertford.
Carlisle, Miss, High Lawn, Bowdon, Cheshire.
+Carr, Rev. A., St. Sebastian's Vicarage, Wokingham.
+ Carmichael, Sir T. Ὁ. Gibson, Castlecraig, Dolphinton, N.B.
Carter, Prof. Frank, McGill University, Montrea/.
Cartwright, T. B., Brackley House, Brackley, Northamptonshire.
Case, Miss Janet, 5 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., Zhe Steps, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.
Chance, Frederick, 51, Prince’s Gate, S.W.
Chavasse, A. S., Kempsey, Worcestershire.
{Chawner, G., King’s College, Cambridge.
+Chawner, W., Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

Street East,

Cheetham, J. C. M., Eyford Park, Bourton-on-the- Water, R.S.O., Gloucestershire.

Cheetham, J. Frederick, Eastwood, Staleybridge.
*Christie, R. C., Ribsden, Bagshot, Surrey.
Christian, J. Henry, 18, Devonshire Place, Portland Place, W.
Christian, Rev. G., Redgate, Uppingham.
Churchill, E. L., Eton College, Windsor.
Clark, Charles R.R., British School, Athens, Greece.
tClark, Rev. W. Gilchrist, 9, St. Edmund’s Road, Gateshead-on-Tyne.
Clarke, Joseph Thacher, 3, Co//ege Road, Harrow, N.W.
fClauson, A. C., 12, Park Place Villas, Paddington, Vi’.
Clarke, Somers, 22, Whitehall Court, S.W
Clay, C. F., 38, Great Ormond Street, W.C.
Clerke, Miss Agnes, 68, Redcliffe Square, S.W.
Cobbold, Felix T., Zhe Lodge, Felixstowe, Suffolk.
*Cobham, C. Delaval, 1.8.47. Commis ioner, Larnaca, Cyprus.
Colby, Rev. Dr., 12, Hillsborough Tervace, Lifracombe.
Cole, A. C.,64, Portland Place, W.
Colfox, William, Westmead, Bridf ort.
Colvin, Sidney (V.P.), British Museum, W.C.
Collins, Miss F. H., 3, Bramham Gardens, South Kensington, S.W.
Collins, J. Churton, 51, Vorfolk Square, W.
Colvill, Miss Helen H., Overdale, Shoriland:, Kent.
Compton, Rev. W. C., The College, Dover.

*Constantinides, Prof. M., Coundouriotes Street, Munychia, Pieraeus, Athci:\.

Conybeare, F. C., 13, Norham Gardens, Oxford.

Conway, Sir W. M., The Red House, 21, Hornton Street, W.
Cook. Arthur Barnard, Trinity College, Cambridge.
Cookson, C., Magdalen College, Oxford.

Cookson, C. A., C.B., H.B.M. Consul, Alexandria.

Cordery, J. G., C.S.1., 63, Goldington Road, Bedford.

Corbet, His Honour Eustace K., Native Court of Appeal, Carre.
Corgialegno, M., 21, Pembridge Gardens, W.

Courtney, W. L., 53, Belsize Park, N.W.

Courtenay, Miss, 34, Brompton Sguare, S.W.

Cowper, The Right Hon. Earl, K.G., Panshanger, Herlfori.
Craik, George Lillie, 2, West Halkin Street, S.W.

Crawley, C., 3, Regent Street, S.W.

Crewdson, Wilson, The Barons, Reigate.

XX

¢Crossman, C. S., The College, Winchester.
Crowfoot, J. W.,, Brasenose College, Oxford.
Cruikshank, Rev. A. H., The College, Winchester.
Cust, H. J. C., M.P., Ellesmere, Salop.
Cust, Lionel, 9, Bryanston Square, W.
Cust, Miss Anna Maria, 63, E/m Park Gardens, Fulham Road, S.V’.
Cust, Miss Beatrice, 13, Eccleston Square, S. W.
Dabis, Miss, Holloway College, Egham, Surrey.
Dakyns, H. G. (Council), Higher Coombe, Haslemere, Surrey.
Danson, J. T., F.S.A., Grasmere, R.S.O.
David, W., 8, Hyde Park Terrace, W.
David, Rev. W. H., Kelly College, Tavistock.
Davidson, H. O. D., Harrow, N.W.
+Davies, G. A., Zrinity College, Cambridge.
Davies, Rev. Gerald S., Charterhouse, Godalming.
Deibel, Dr., care of Messrs. Asher, Berlin.
Delamarre, Jules, 4, /passe Royer-Collard, Parts.
De Saumarez, Lord, Shrubland Park, Coddenham, Suffolk.
Dickson Miss Isabel A., Dumnichen House, Forfar.
Dill, 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.
Dragoumis, M. Etienne, Athens, Greece.
Drisler, Prof. Henry, 48, West 46th Street, New York City, U.S.A.
Drummond, Allan, 7, Zunismore Gardens, S.W.
Duch&taux, M. V., 12, Rue del? Echauderie, ἃ Reims.
Duckworth, H. T. F., Merton College, Oxford.
Duhn, Prof. von, University, Heidelberg.
Duke, Roger, 8, Neville Terrace, Onslow Gardens, S.W.
+Dunham, Miss, 37, Zast Thirty-Sixth Street, New York.
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.
Edwards, G. M., Sidney Sussex College, Cambridze.
Egerton, Mrs. Hugh, 11, 7zte Street, Chelsea, S.W.
+Egerton, Edwin H., C.B., H.B.M. Minister, British Legation, Athens, Greece.
Egerton, Miss M., Whitwich Hall, York.
Eld, Rev. F. J., Polstead Rectory, Colchester.
FEllis, Prof. Robinson, 7rinity College, Oxford.
Elwell, Levi H., Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.
Ely, Talfourd (Council), 73, Parliament Hill Road, Hampstead, N.W
Emens, Edgar A., Syracuse University, New York.
Erichsen, Miss Nelly, Woodlands, Elmbourne Road, Upper Tooting, S.W.
Eumorfopoulo, A.,1, Kensington Park Gardens, W.
Evans, A. J. (Council), Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
Evans, Sir John, K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S., Mash Mills, Hemel Hempstead.
ft Evans, Lady (Council), Wash Mills, Hemel Hempstead.
Eve, H. W., 37, Gordon Square, W.C,
Ewart, Miss Mary A., 68, Albert Hall Mansions, S.W.
Fanshawe, Reginald, 37, Pembroke Road, Clifton.
Farnell, u. R., Exeter College, Oxford.
Farrar, Rev. Canon A. S., Durham.
Farrow, Frederic R., 2, Mew Court, Carey Street, W.C.
Farside, William, Thorpe Hall, Robin Hood's Bay, Yorkshire.
*Fearon, Rev. W. A., D.D., The College, Winchester.
Fenning, W. D., Haileybury College, Hertford.
Field, Rev. T., Radley College, Abingdon.
Firminger, W. K., AZerton College, Oxford
Fisher, H. A. L., New College, Oxford.

XX!

tFitzmaurice, Lady Edmond, 2, Green Street, Grosvenor Square, W.
Fitz-Patrick, Di T., 30, Sussex Gardens, Hyde Park, W.
Flather, J. H., 52 Bateman Street, Cambridge.
Flower, Wickham, O/d Swan House, Chelsea Embankment, S.W.
tForbes, W. H., Balliol College, Oxford.
Ford, His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir Francis Clare, G.C.B.,G.C.M.G., H.B.M
Ambassador, British Embassy, Rome.
Forster, Miss Frances, 46, E/m Park Road, S.W.
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.
{ Franks, Sir A. W., K.C.B., F.R.S., 123, Victoria Street, S.W.
Frazer, J. G., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Freeman, C. E., Parkhouse, Southborough, Tunbridge Wells.
*Freshfield, Douglas W., 1, Aivize Gardens, Campden Hill, W.
| Freshfield, Edwin, LL.D., 5, Bank Buildings, E.C.
Freston, Henry W., Parkfield, Prestwich, Lancashire.
*Fry, F. J., Eversley, Leigh Wood, Clifton:
Fry, Right Hon. Sir Edward, Faz/and House, Fatland, near Bristol.
Fullerton, W. Morton, Rue Vignon,Paris.
{Furley, J. S., 10, College Street, Winchester.
Furneaux, L. R., Rossall School, Fleetwood.
Furneaux, Rev. W. M., Repton Hall, Burton-on-Trent.
fGardner, Prof. Ernest A. (Council), 5, St. George's Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.
*+ Gardner, Prof. Percy, Litt.D. (V.P.), 12, Canterbury Road, Oxford.
Gardner, Miss Alice, The Old Hall, Newnham College, Cambridge.
Gardner, Samuel, Oakhurst, Harrow-on-the- Hill.
Gardner, W. Amory, Groton, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Garnett, Mrs. Terrell, 3, Queen Anne’s Gate, S.W.
Geddes, Sir W. D., Principal of the University, Aberdeen.
Gibbs, F. W., Q.C., C.B., 38, Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington, S.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. E., Harrow, V.W.
Glazebrook, Rev. M. G., Clifton College, Bristol.
Godden, Miss Gertrude M., Ridgfield, Wimbledon.
Gonino, Miss G., 30, Lower Belgrave Street, S.W.
Goodhart, A. M., Eton College, Windsor.
Goodrich, Prof. F., S., Albion College, Albion, Michigan, U.S.A.
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, Zvebovir Road, Earl’s Court, S.W.
Granger, F. S., University College, Nottingham.
Graves, A. S., Felsted School, Essex.
Gray, Rev. H. B., Bradfield College, Berks.
Green, Mrs. J. R., 14, Kensington Square, W.
Greenfell, B. P., Queen’s College, Oxford.
Greenwell, Rev. Canon, F.R.S., Durham.
Griffith, G., Harrow, N.W.
Griffith, Miss Mary E., 4, Bramham Gardens, S.W.
Grundy, George Beardoe, Oxford Military College, Cowley, Oxford.
Gurney, Miss Amelia, 69, Emnismore Gardens, S.W.
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, 10, Bury Street, St. James’s, S.W.
Hall, Rev. F.H., Oriel College, Oxford.
Hall, Miss 5. E., 15, Brookside, Cambridge.
Hall, Harry Reginald, 13, Chalcot Gardens, S.W.
Hall, Rev. F.J., Worthaw Place, Potter’s Rar, Herts.
Hall, F. W., Westminster School, Dean’s Yard, Westminster, S.W.

ΧΧΙΙ

Hallam, G. H., Zhe Park, Harrow, N.W.
t+Hammond, B. E., 7rintty College, Cambridge.
Hardcastle, Wilfrid, Beechenden, Hampstead, N. WW.
Hardie, Prof. W. Ross, Zhe University, /:dinburgh.
Hardinge, Miss.
Hardwich, J. M.
*Harrison, Charles, 29, Lennox Gardens, S.W.
Harrison, Miss F. Bayford, Suffolk House, Weybridge.
f¢Harrison, Miss J. E., LL.D. (Council), 13, RBarkston Mansions, Earls Court
S.W
Harrower, Prof. John, The University, Aberdeen.
Hartshorne, B. F., 41, Elm Park Gardens, Chelsea, SW.
Haslam, S., The School, Uppingham.
Haussoullier, Β., 8, Rue Sainte-Cécile, Paris.
+Haverfield, 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, Zhornton Hill, Wimbledon.
Hayter, Angelo G. K., 74, Adelaide Roaa, N.W.
Headlam, Rev. A. C., Welwyn Vicarage. Herts.
Headlam, C. E. S., Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
Headlam, J. W. (Council), 6, E/don Road, Kensington, W.
Headlam, W. G., King’s College, Cambridge.
Heard, Rev. W. A., Fettes College, Edinburgh.
tHeathcote, W. E., Round Coppice, Ivor Heath, Uxbridge.
Heberden, C. B., Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford.
Hedgcock, Mrs. Harrison, 21, Caversham Road, N.W.
Hereford, The Lord Bishop of, Zhe Palace, Hereford.
Herschell, The Right Hon. Lord, 46, Grosvenor Gardens, S.W.
Heydemann, Dr. Heinrich, 7he University, Halle.
Heyer, G., The College, Weymouth.
Hicks, Rev. E. L., 21, Leaf Square, Pendleton, Manchester.
Higgins, Alfred, 16, Kzng Street, Portman Square, W.
Hill, George F. (Council), Arztish Museum, W.C.
tHill, Arthur, British Vice-Consul, Athens, Greece.
Hobhouse, Rev. Walter, 716 School House, Durham.
Hodgson, F. C., Education Department, Whitehall, S.W.
t+ Hodgson, J. Stewart, 1, Audley Square, W.
Hogarth, David G. (Council), \7agdalen College, Oxford.
Holiday, Henry, Oak Tree House, Branch Hill, Hampstead, N.W.
Holland, Miss Emily, 27, Homefield Road, Wimbledon.
Hopgood, Harold B., 17, Whitehall Place, S.W.
Hoppin, J. C., c/o 7. S. Morgan & Co., 22, Old Broad Street, E.C.
Housley, Samuel J., Gymsdal, Waterloo Road, Epsom.
Hornby, Rev. J. J., D.D., Provost of Eton College, Windsor.
tHort, Arthur F., Adoyne, Harrow.
Howorth, Sir Henry H., K.C.I.E., M.P. (Council), 30, Collingham Place, S.W
Huddart, Rev. G. A. W., Kirklington Rectory, Bedale, Yorks.
Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von, 4, Holford Road, Hampstead, N.W.
Hughes, Rev. W. Hawker, Jesus College, Oxford.
Hughes, Miss C., 22, Albemarle Street, W.
Hulse, Miss Caroline M.
Hunt, A. S., Queen’s College, Oxford.
Hutton, Miss C. A., 18, Cheyne Court, Chelsea, S.W.
Image, Selwyn, 6, Southampton Street, Bloomsbury, W.C.
lonides, Alex. A., 1, Holland Park, W.
lonides, Luke A., 47, Marloes Road, Kensington, W.
Jackson, Henry, Litt.D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Jackson, Miss Rose, Longdene, Haslemere.
Jackson, Rev. Blomfield, 29. Mecklenburgh Square, W.C.
Jackson, Rev. W. W., Xector of Exeter College, Oxford.

ΧΧΙΠ

James, A. C., Eton College, Windsor.
*James, The Rev. H.A., D.D., School Jlouse, Rugby.

James, Lionel, S¢. eters College, Radley, Abingdon.

James, M. R., Litt.D. (Council), Azug’s College, Cambridge.
James, Rev. S. R., £lon College, Windsor.

Jannaris, A. N., Ph.D., The University, St. Andrews, N.1.
Jeans, Rev. G. E., Shorwell, Newport, Isle of Wight.
*Jebb, Prof. R. C., D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., M.P. (President), Springheld, Newnham,

Cambridge.

Jenkin, Miss M. L., Carfax, King Charles’ Road, Surbiton.
Jenkinson, F. J. H., Zrinzty College, Cambridge.

Jenner, Miss Lucy A., 39, Addison Road, Kensingion, W.
Jevons, F. B., Zhe Castle, Durham.

Jex-Blake, Miss, Girton College, Cambridge.

Jobling, G. C., 5, Park Villas, Cheltenham.

Jones, H. Stuart (Council), 77znzty College, Oxford.

Keep, R. P., Ph.D., Free Academy, Norwich, Conn., U.S.A.
Keene, Prof. Charles H.. 3, Prospect Place, Cork.

Kelly, Charles Arthur, 30, Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, S.W.

Keltie, J. S., Glendevon House, Compayne Gardens, Hampstead, N.W.
Kennedy, Rev. John, Grammar School, Aldenham, Elstree, Herts.
Kenyon, F. G. (Council), British 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. E., Grammar School, Manchester.

King, Rev. J. R., St. Peter’s Vicarage, Oxford.

King, Mrs. Wilson, 19, Highfield Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
Kirwan, Miss Evelyn, 1, Richmond Gardens, Bournemouth.
Krohn, H. A., 103, Cannon Street, E.C.

Lambros, Spiridion, Athens.

Lang, Andrew, LL.D., 1, Marloes Rd., Kensington, W.

*Lang, R. Hamilton, C.M.G., Ottoman Bank, 26, Throgmorton St., E.C.
Lathbury, Miss, 19, Lingfield Road, Wimbledon, S.W.

Lautour, Miss de, 85, Harcourt Terrace, Redcliffe Square, S.W.
Lawford, Frederick le Breton, 65, /itzjohns Avenue, Hampstead, N.W.
Lawrence, Edwin, M.P., 13, Carlton House Terrace, S.W.

Leaf, Mrs. C. J., Beechwood, Tunbridge Wells.

Leaf, Herbert, Zhe Green, Marlborough.

ft Leaf, Walter, Litt. D., (Council), 6, Sussex Place, Regent’s Park, N.W.

Legge, Miss, 3, Keble Road, Oxford.

Lecky, Mrs., 38, Onslow Gardens, S.W.

Leeper, Alexander, Warden of Trinity College, Melbourne.
Leichtenstein, Moritz, 46, Auriol Road, West Kensington, W.
Leigh, Rev. A. Austen, Provost of Kzug’s College, Cambridge.
Leigh, W. Austen, 2, Morfolk Crescent, Hyde Park, W
Lethbridge, Sir Roper, 36, Victoria Street, S.W.

Lewis, Harry, 51, Holland Park, Kensington, W.

ft Lewis, Mrs. 5. S., Castle-brae, Chesterton Road, Cambridge

ft Lewis,’ Prof. T. Hayter, 12, Kensington Gardens Square, W,

*Leycester, Mrs. Rafe,6, Cheyne Walk, S.W.

*Liddell, Very Rev. H. G., D.D., The Wood House, Ascot, Berks.
Lindley, Miss Julia, 10, Kidbrook Terrace, Shooter's Hill Rd., S.E.
Lindley, William, το, Kidbrook Terrace, Shooter’s Hill Rd., S.E.
Lingen, The Right Hon. Lord, K.C.B.,13, Wetherby Gardens, S.W.
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.

Lloyd-Roberts, H., 1, Pump Court, Temple, E.C.

London, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, The Palace Fulham, S.W.

XXIV

f Lock, Rev. W., Keble College, Oxford.

Lockyer, J. Norman, C.B., F.R.S., 16, Pen-y-Wern Road, South Kensington, S.V
Long, Prof. Albert Limerick, Rodert College, Constantinople.

+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, Royal Crescent, Brighton.

Ludlow, T. W., Cottage Lawn, Yonkers, New York.

Lupton, J. M., Zhe College, Marlborough.

Lupton, Miss M., 7 Earl's Terrace, Kensington, W.

Luxmoore, H. E., Eton College, Windsor.

Lyttelton, Hon. and Rev. E., Hatleybury College, Hertford.

Lythgoe, A. M., 15, Warland Buildings, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.

*Macan, R. W., University College, Oxford.

McDaniel, J. H., Hobart College, Geneva, N.Y.

Macdonald, Miss Louisa, 62, Gower Street, W.C.

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.

MacLehose, James J., 61, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow.

Macmillan, Mrs. Alexander, Bramshott Chase, Shottermill, Surrey.

*Macmillan, George A. (Hon. Sec.),29, Bedford St., Covent Garden, W.C.
Macmillan, Mrs. George A., 19, Zarls’ Terrace, Kensington, W.
Macmillan, M. C., 52, Cadogan Place, S.W.

+Macnaghten, Hugh, Eton College, Windsor.

Macnaghten, The Right Hon. Lord, 3, Vew Square, Lincoin’s Inn, W.C.
McPherson, Miss Florence, Bank House, Maghull, Liverpool.

+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.
Manning, Percy, Vew College, Oxford.

Mano, Constantin, Balliol College, Oxford.

Manos, Grégoire, Greek Legation, Vienna.

Marchant, E. C., St. Paul’s School, West Kensington, W.
tMarindin, G. E., Broomfield, Frensham, Farnham.
tMarquand, Prof. Allan, Princeton College, New Fersey.
Marshall, R., Broomfield, Duppas Hill, Croydon.
Marshall, T., Highfield, Chapel Allerton, Leeds.

Martin, Charles B., The College, Oberlin, Ohio, U.S.A.

*+Martin, John B. (Hon. Treasurer), 68, Lombard Street, E.C.

+Martin, R. B., M.P., 10, 411] Street, W.

+Martyn, Edward, 7z/lyra Castile, Ardrahan, County Galway.

Mason, H. C. F., Hatleybury College, Hertford.
Matheson, P. E., Mew College, Oxford.
Mavrogordato, Pandeli, South Sea House, Threadneedle St., E.C.
Maynard, H. L., Jusior School, Westward Ho, N. Devon.
Mayor, Rev. Prof. Joseph B. (Council), Queensgate House, Kingston Hill, Surrey.
Mayor, R. G., Education Department, Whitehall, S.W.
Merry, Rev. W. W., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.
Milford, Rev. L. S., Hazleybury College, Hertford.
Milliet, P., 95, Boulevard St. Michel, Paris.
Millington, Miss M. V., 27, Morland Square, W.
Milne, J. Grafton, Mansfield House, Canning Town, EF.
Milner, Sir Alfred, K.C.B., 47, Duke Street, St. Fames’s, S.W.
Minet, Miss Julia, 18, Sussex Square, Hyde Park, W.
t+ Misto, John P., Smyrna.
Mitchell, C. W., 195, Queen’s Gate, S.W.

+Mocatta, F. D., 9, Connaught Place, Edgware Road, W.

Moline, Miss J. R., 172, Church Street, Stoke Newington, N.
Monk, C. J., 5, Buckingham Gate, S.W. Υ

Monson, His Excellency the Hon. Sir E. J., K.C.M.G., C.B., H.B.M. Ambassador, Paris
.Μ. ᾿

XXV

Monro, D.B. (V.P.), Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.
Morgan, Miss Sarah, c/o Miss Colville, Overdale, Shortlands, Kent.
Morice, Rev. F. D., 10 Hillmorton Road, Rugby.
*Morley, The Right Hon. the Earl of, 31, Princes Gardens, S.W.
Morris, J. Ε., Zhe Grammar School, Bedford.
tT Morrison, Alfred, 16, Car/ton House Terrace, S.W.
Tt Morshead, E. Ὁ. A., The College, Winchester.
Moss, Rev. H. W., The School, Shrewsbury.
Moule, C. W., Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Moulton, Rev. W. F., D.D., The Leys, Cambridge.
Mount, Rev. C. B., 14, Norham Road, Oxford.
tMou t, J. T., Eton College, Windsor.
Mudie, Mrs., Budleigh, Maresfield Gardens, Hampstead, N.W.
Munro, J. A. R. (Council), Lzmco/n College, Oxford.
Murray, A. S. (V.P.), British Museum, W.C.
Murray, Prof. G. G. A. (Council), The University, Glasgow.
*+Mycrs, Ernest (Council), Brackenside, Chislehurst.
tMyres, J. Linton (Council), Christ Church, Oxford.
Naef, Conrad J., The Admiralty, S.W.
Neil, R. A. (Council), Pembroke College, Cambridge.
Newman, W. L., Pittville Lawn, Cheltenham.
Nicholson, Sir Charles, Bart,, 716 Grange, Totteridge, Herts.
Northampton, The Most Hon. the Marquess of, K.G., 44, Lennox Gardens, S.W.
O’Connor, Arthur, M.P., 5, Essex Court, Temple, E.C.
Ohnefalsch-Richter, Dr. Max, 14, Wharfedale Street, Earl’s-Court, S.W.
Ommanney, Admiral Sir Erasmus K., 29, Connaught Square, W.
Ormiston, Miss F. M., Girls’ High School, Leeds.
ft Oxford, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, Cuddesdon Palace, Wheatley, Oxon,
Page, T. E., Charterhouse, Godalming.
Pallis, Alexander, Ta/oi, Sefton Park, Liverpool.
Parker, Francis W., Cook County Normal School, Englewood, Ill., U.S.A.
tParry, Rev. O. H., 5, Salem Hill, Sunderland.
Parry, Rev. R. St. J., 7rinity College, Cambridge.
Paton, James Morton, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn., U.S.A.
Paton, W. R., British Post Office, Smyrna.
Pears, Edwin, 2, Rue de la Banque, Constantinople.
Peckover, Miss Alexandrina, Bank House, Wisbech.
Peel, Hon. S. C., The Lodge, Sandy, Beds.
Peers, C. R., Harrow Weald Vicarage, Stanmore, Middlesex.
Peile, John, Litt.D., Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Pelham, Hon. Mrs. Arthur, Moorcroft, Monmouth.
Pelham, Professor H. F. (V.P.), 20, Bradmore Road, Oxford.
Pember, E. H., Q.C., Vicar’s Hill, near Lymington, Hants.
*Penrose, F. C., F.R.S.,(V.P.), Chapter House, St. Paul's, E.C.
Penrose, Miss Emily (Council), Bedford College, 9, York Place, Baker Street, W.
*+Percival, F. W., 2, Southwick Place, Hyde Park Square, W.
Perkins, Miss Emma Read, Girls’ Grammar School, Thetford, Norfolk
Perry, Prof. E. D., Columbia College, New York City, U.S.A.
Philips, Mrs. Herbert, Sutton Oaks, Macclesfield.
Pickard, Miss Esther, Gynsdale, Epsom.
Pirie, Miss Emily, Countesswell House, Aberdeenshire.
+Platt, Prof. Arthur, 23, Powys Sguare, W.
Pollock, Sir Frederick, Bart., 48, Great Cumberland Place, W.
+Pond, Prof. C. A. M., University College, Auckland, New Zealand.
Port, Dr. H., 48, Fzzsbury Square, E.C.
Porter, Miss Sarah, Farmington, Connecticut, U.S.A.
+ Postgate, Prof. J. P., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Powell, Sir F. S., Bart., M.P., 1, Cambridge 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., St. Catherine's College, Cambridge.
Prickard, A. O., Mew College, Oxford.

XXV1

Proctor, R. G. C., British Museum, W.C.
Prothero, Prof. G. W., The University, Edinburgh.
{ Pryor, Francis R., Woodfield, Hatfield, Herts.

Psychari, A., 25, Boulevard des Capucines, Paris.

Radcliffe, W. W., Fonthill, East Grinstead, Sussex.

Radford, Dr. W. T., Sédmouth.

+ Raleigh, Miss Katherine A., Zerrick House, Tring.

*Ralli, Pandeli, 17, Belgrave Square, S.W.

+Ralli, Mrs. Stephen A., 32, Park Lane, VW’.

f Ramsay, Prof. W. M. D.C.L. (Council), The University Aberdeen.
Rawlins, F. H., Eton College, Windsor.

Rawnsley, W. F., Parkhill, Lyndhurst, Flants.

Reece, Miss Dora, c/o Mrs. Reece, 13, North Street, Westminster, S.W.
Reid, J. S., Litt.D., Catus College, Cambridge.

+ Reinach, Salomon, 31, Aue de Berlin, Paris.

Rendall, Rev. F., 82, PAilbeach Gardens, S.W.

T Rendall, Prof. G. H., Principal of University College, Liverpool.

Renieri, M. Mario, A¢hens.

Richards, Prof. G. C., University College, Cardiff.

Richards, F., Kingswood School, Bath.

Richards, H., Wadham College, Oxford.

Richmond, W. B., R.A., Bevor Lodge, West End, Hammersmith, W.
Ridgeway, Prof. W. (Council), Hen Ditton, Cambridge.

Ridley, Edward, Q.C., 48, Lennox Gardens, S.W.

Rigg, Herbert A., 12, Stanhope Place, Hyde Park, W.

Robb, Mrs., 46, Rutland Gate, S.W.

Robins, Miss Julia, c/o. Messrs. Baring Bros., Bishopsgate, E.C.
Roberts, Rev. E. S., Caius College, Cambridge.

Roberts, Professor W. Rhys, University College of North Wales, Bangor.
Roberts, Herbert F., 836, Vew York Life Buildings, Kansas City Mi. U.S.A.
Robertson, Charles, Redfern, Colinton Road, Edinburgh.

Robertson, Rev. Archibald, Hatfield Hall, Durham.

Robinson, T. P. G., Ashfield, Rothsay Place, Bedford.

Rochester, The Right Rev.the Lord Bishop of, Béshop’s House, Kennington ParkRoad,S.E
Rogers, Major-General, 14, St. Margare?’s Road, St. Leonards-on-Sea. Seis c}-
Romanos, Athos.

Rome, W., Ozford Lodge, Wimbledon Common, S.W.

y Rosebery, The Right Hon. the Earl of, K.G., 38, Berkeley Square, W
Rotton, J. F., 3, Boltons, West Brompton, S.W. ἈΠῈ
Roundell, C. S., 16, Curzon Street, W.

Rous, Lieut.-Colonel, Worstead House, Norwich.
fRouse, W. H. D., 4, Bilton Road, Rugby.

Rubie, Rev. Alfred E., Zhe Royal Naval School, Eltham, S.E.

Runtz, Ernest, 22, Moorgate Street, E.C.

cages W. G., 13, Cathcart Hill, Highgate, N.

Rutherford, Rev. W. Gunion, LL.D. 19, Dean’ ἢ

Rylands, W. Η.; 6, Woliand Park T. Ls bigs ΩΝ REPS Sols
tRyle, Rev. Prof. H. E., D.D., President ὁ :
Samuel, Mrs. Sylvester, 80, pers cores Sales Sarna
Samuelson, Sir B., Bart., 56, Princes Gate, S. k ne.

Sandbach, Miss R., 16, Draycott Place, ie Soe eae

Sandwith, T. B.,C.B., 29, Bramham Gardens, Earl’s Foust ς :
tSandys, J. E., Litt.D.(V.P.), St. John’s Cpleae Cambrid; dehy

᾽ tage.

Sandys, Mrs., Merton House, Cambridge.

Sgrese λπαιρεοσεν ra Yi Ore ace ga
tScaramanga, A. P., 18, ἘΡΕΙ͂ cues oe ne Se

Schilizzi, John S., 6, Cromwell Houses, S. Ketan rton ee βοή
Schultz, R. Weir (Council), 6, Wandeville Place ee ingitea
Schuster, Ernest, 12, Harrington Gard: Υ Ww

: Lire ᾽ ; CIS, VU

Scot -Skirving, E., The College, Cheltenham.

XXVli

Scouloudi, Stephanos, Athens, Greece.

Scull, Miss Sara A., 1100, M7. Street, V.W., Washington, D.C.

Seaman, Owen, ZJower House, West Hill, Putney, S.W.

Seebohm, Hugh, The Hermitage, Hitchin.

Sellers, Miss Eugénie (Council), A/bemarle Club, 13, Albemarle Street, W.
+Selwyn, Rev. E. C., School House, Uppingham.
fSendall, 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, c/o Messrs. W. Watson and Co., 27, Leadenhall Street, E.C.

Shuckburgh, E. S., Granchester, Cambridge.

Sidgwick, Arthur, Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Sidgwick, Prof. Henry, Litt.D., Zvinity College, Cambridge.

Sikes, Edward Ernest, St. John’s College, Cambridge.

Simpson, H. B., 3, South Street, Park Lane, W.

Sinclair, Captain H. M., R.E., Junior United Service Club, S.W.
*Skrine, H. D., Claverton Manor, Bath.
*Skrine, Rev. J. H., 77inzty College, Glenalmond, Perthshire.

Smedley, J. F., 15, Loudon Road, Tonbridge.

Smith, A. Hamilton (Council), Stokeleigh, Queen’s Road, Weybridge.

Smith, Cecil, LL.D.(Council), British School, Athens.

Smith, Eustace S., 62, Banner Road, Victoria Park, F.

Smith, H. Babington, Stokélezgh, Queen’s Road, Weybridge.
tSmith, Prof. Goldwin, 716 Grange, Toronto, Canada.

Smith, Prof. T. Roger, 7, Gordon Street, Gordon Square, W.C.

Smith, R. Elsey, 7, Gordon Street, Gordon Square, W.C.

Smith, Reginald J., Q.C., 11, Hyde Park Street, W.

Smith, W. G., St. John’s College, Oxford.

Smith, F. E. J., 2, Zanjield Court, Inner Temple, F.C.

Smith, J. A., Balliol College, Oxford.
TSnow, T. C., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford.
tSomerset, Arthur, Castle Goring, Worthing.

Sonnenschein, Prof. E. A., Greenfield Cottage, Harborne, Birmingham.
tSouthwell, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, Zhurgarton Priory, Southwell.

Spiers, Phené, Carlton Chambers, 12, Regent Street, W.

Spooner, Rev. W. A., Mew College, Oxford.

Spring-Rice, S. E., C.B., 1, Bryanston Place, Bryanston Square, W.

Stannus, Hugh, 61, Larkhall Rise, Clapham, S.W.

Stanton, Charles H., Field Place, Stroud, Gloucestershire.

Statham, H. Heathcote, 40, Gower Street, W.C.

Stawell, Miss Melian, Mewnham College, Cambridge.

Steele, Dr., 33, Via S. Gallo, Florence.

Sterrett, J. R. Sitlington, Amhurst College, Amhurst, Mass., U.S.A.
+Stevenson, Miss E. C., 13, Randolph Crescent, Edinburgh.

Stewart, J. A., Christ Church, Oxford.

Stillman, W. J., 50, Via S. Basilio, Rome.

Stillwell, James, 1, Victoria Park, Dover.

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, J. L., Balliol College, Oxford.

Stretton, Gilbert W., Zhe College, Dulwich, S.E.

Strong, Prof. 5. Arthur, 7 St. John’s Road, Putney Hill, S.W’.

Sturgis, Julian R., A/vington, Eyethorne, Dover.

Sturgis, Russell, 307, ast 17th Street, New York.

Sullivan, John, Reform Club, Pall Mall, S.W.

Surr, Watson, 57, Old Broad Street, E.C.

Swanwick, Miss Anna, 23, Cumberland Terrace, N.W.

Tait, C. J., Cathedral Yard, Exeter.

XXVill

+Tait, C. W. A., Clifton College, Bristol.
Tancock, Rev. C. C.
Tarbell, Prof. F. B., Unzverstty of Chicago, Chicago, Iil., U.S.A. z AC ]
Tarring, C. J., Asszstant Judge of H.B.M. Supreme Consular Court and Consul,
Constantinople.
Tarn, W. W., 94, Lancaster Gate, W.
Tatton, R. G., Toynbee Hall, Commercial Street, E.
+ Taylor, Rev. Charles, D.D., Master of oy John’s College, Cambridge.
Rev. T. LL, Jesus Colleye, Oxford.
Ma ce Sir E. Πα δὰ ῬΟΙ, (V.P.), Principal Librarian,British Museum, W.C.
Thompson, E. S., Christ's College, Cambridge.
Thompson, F. E., The Cottage, Preshute, Marlborough.
Thompson, Henry F. H., 35, Wimpole Street, W.
Thompson, J. Eyre, 8, Stone Bucldings, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.
Thursfield, J. R., Fryth, Great Berkhamstead.
Tilley, Arthur, King’s College, Cambridge.
Tottenham, H. R., St. John’s College, Cambridge.
*+Tozer, Rev. H. F. (V.P.), 18, Morham Gardens, Oxford.
+Truell, H. P., F.R.C.S., Clonmannon, Ashford, Co. Wicklow.
Tubbs, Prof. H. A., University Coliege, Auckland, New Zealand.
*+Tuckett, F. F., Frenchay, near Bristol.
*Tuckerman, Mrs. Mary F., 12, Jacopo da Diacceto, Florence.
Tudeer, Dr. Emil, Helsingfors, 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.
*Tyrwhitt, Rev. R. St. J., Ketéloy, Oxford.
Underhill, G. E., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Unwin, T. Fisher, 10, Hereford Square, S.W.
Upcott, L. E., The College, Marlborough.
*Valetta, J. N., 16, Durham Terrace, Westbourne Park, W
+Valieri, Octavius, 2, Kensington Park Gardens, W
Vanderbyl, Mrs. Philip, 51, Porchester Terrace, VW’.
Vardy, Rev. A. R., King Edwards School, Birmingham.
+ Vaughan, E. L., Eton College, Windsor.
Venning, Miss Rosamond, 8, Balcombe Street, Dorset Square, N.W.
Verrall, A. W., Litt.D., Zvinzty College, Cambridge.
Verrall, Mrs. A. W., Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge.
Vickers, Rev. W. V., Knowle Grange, Sidmouth.
*Vincent, Sir Edgar, K.C.M.G., Jmperial Ottoman Bank, Constantinople.
TVlasto, T. A., Bouevaine, Sefton Park, Liverpool.
t Wackernagel, Prof. Jacob, Steinenberg, 5, Bale.
t Wagner, Henry, 13, Half Moon Street, W.
tT Waldstein, Prof. Charles, Ph.D., Litt.D., King’s College, Cambridge.
Walford, Mrs. Neville, 1, Ashburn Place, S.W.
Walker, Rev. F. A., D.D., Dun Mallara, Shootup Hill, Brondesbury, N.W,
Walters, Henry Beauchamp (Council), British Museum, W.C.
Walters, W. C. Flamstead, 3, Sedby Road, Anerley, S.E.
+ Wantage, Lord, K.C.B., V.C., 2, Carlton Gardens, S.W.
Ward T. H., 25, Grosvenor Place, S.W.
Warr, Prof. G. C., 16, Earls Terrace, Kensington, W.
Warre, Rev. Edmond, D.D., Eton College, Windsor.
Warren, Col. G. E. Falkland, C.M.G., 57, Cornwall Road, Westbourne Park, W.
Warren, T. H., President of Magdalen College, Oxford.
Warren, E. P., Lewes House, Lewes, Sussex.
Waterhouse, Edwin, Feldemore, near Dorking.
Waterhouse, Miss M. E., 59,

Edge Lane, Liverpool.

Way, Rev. J. P., The Hall, Rosca πο Ως ἢ

Wayte, Rev. W. (Council), 6, Onslow Sguare, S.W.

t Weber, F. Ρ,, M.D., 19, Harley Street, W.
Weber, Herman, M.D., 10, Grosvenor Street, W.

Wedd, N., King’s College, C. ambridge.

ΧΧΙΧ

Weekes, G. A., Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.
| Welldon, Rev. J. E. C., The School, Harrow, N.W.
Weld-Blundell, Herbert, 7, Park Place, St. James’s, S.W.
Wells, J., Wadham College, Oxford.
Westlake, Prof. J., LL.D., The River House, Chelsea Embankment, S.W.
Westcott, Rev. F. B., School House, Sherborne.
Wheeler, James R., Ph.D., Columbia College, New York City, U.S.A.
f White, A. Cromwell, 3, Harcourt Buildings, Temple.
White, Mrs. Andrew, c/o Prof. White, Corne// University, Ithaca, U.S.A.
White, Prof. J. W., Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
White, J. N., Rockland, Waterford.
White, John Forbes, LL.D., Craigstay, Dundee.
Whitehead, R. R., Box 144, Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Whitehouse, F. Cope, 8, Cleveland Row, St. Fames’, S.W.
Wickham, The Very Rev. E. C., The Deanery, Lincoln.
Wicksteed, Francis W. S., M.D., Chester House, Weston-super-Mare.
Wilkins, Rev. George, 36, 7rinzty College, Dublin.
Wilkins, Prof. A. S., LL.D., Litt.D., The Owens College, Manchester.
Williamson, J. W., Zimasol, Cyprus.
Willson, 5. B. Wynn, St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Wilson, Donald, Wavertree, Beverley Road, Hull.
Wilson, Η. Ὁ. B., Mew College, Oxford.
Wilson, Harry, 447, Oxford Street, W.
Windley, Rev. H. C., St. Colomba’s, Sunderland.
Winkworth, Mrs., Holly Lodge, Campden fiill, W.
Wiseman, Rev. Henry John, Cif/ton College, Bristol.
Wither, H. S.
Wood, Rev. W.S., Uford Rectory, Stamford.
Woodhouse, W. J., Sedbergh, Yorkshire.
t Woods, Rev. H. G., President of T; rinity College, Oxford.
} Wren, Walter, 7, Powzs Sguare,W. °
Wright, Sir R. S., 14, Sz. James’s Place, S.W.
t Wright, W. Aldis, Vice-Master, T: rinity College, Cambridge.
Wright, Prof., John Henry, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
t Wyndham, Rev. Francis M.,.S¢. 27. ary of the Angels, Westmoreland Road, Bayswater, 177.
T Wyse, W., Trinzty College, C ambridge.
Yates, Rev. S. A. Thompson, 43, PAzliimore Gardens, W.
Yorke, V. W., Forthampton Court, T: ewkesbury.
*Young, Rev. Canon E. M., Rothbury, Northumberland.
TYule, Miss Amy, Chdteau Malet St. Etienne au Mont, Pas de Calais, France.

«

AXX

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THE JOURNAL OF HELLENIC
STUDIES.

The University Library, Aéerdeen.

The University College of Wales, Aberystwith.

The Amherst College Library, Amherst, Mass.

The Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass., U.S.A.
The Peabody Institute, Baltimore, GS.

The Johns Hopkins Library, Bal/tzmore.

The Enoch Pratt Library, Baltimore.

The Royal Museum Library, Berlin.

The Royal Library, Berlin.

The Central Free Library, Ratcliffe Place Birmingham (1. 1). Mullins, Esq.)
The Mason Science College, Birmingham.

The Public Library, Boston, U.S.A.

The Boston Athenzum, Boston, U.S.A.

The University Library, Bres/au.

The Library of Clifton College, Ci/ton, Bristol.

The University Library, Californza.

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, Camérzage.

The Fitzwilliam Archaeological Museum, Cambridge.
The Girton College Library, Cambridge.

The University of Chicago Press, Chzcago, [/lino?s.

The University Library, Chrvistzania, Norway.

The Library of Canterbury College, Chrzstchurch, N.7.
The Public Library, Czncinnatz, U.S.A.

The Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.

The University of Colorado, U.S.A.

The University Library of State of Missouri, Ce/umbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
The Public Library, Detro?t.

The Royal Museum of Casts, Dresden.
+The Library of Trinity College, Dudlin.

The National Library of Ireland, Dud/in.

The King’s Inns Library, Dudézz.

The Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

The University College, Dundee.

The Durham Cathedral Library, Durham.
+The Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh.

The University Library, Erlangen.

The University Library, /rezburg im Baden, Germany.
The Philologische Seminar, Gzessen.

The University Library, Glasgow. ἧ

The Ducal Library, Gotha (Dr. W. Pertsch).

The University Library, Géttingen.

The Royal University Library, Grez/swala.

The Dartmouth College Library, Hanover, U.S.A.

The University Library, Hezdelberg (Dr. Zangmeister).
The School] Library, Harrow, NV. W.

The Cornell University Library, /thaca, N.Y.

The University Library, Jena.

The Royal and University Library, Kénigsberg.

The University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.

The Leeds Library, Commercial Street, Leeds.

The Public Library, Leeds.

The Bibliothéque Universitaire, 3, Rwe des Fleurs, Lille, Nord.
The Free Library, Liverpool.

The University College, Liverpool.

+The British Museum, W.C.

The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, W.C.
The Library of University College, London.

The Athenaeum Club, δ αἰ Mall, London, S.WU.

The Burlington Fine Arts Club, Savile Row, London, W.
The Library of St. Paul’s School, Kensington, W.

The London Library, St. James's Square. London, S.W.
The Reform Club, Pa// Mall, London, S.W.

The Royal Institution, A/bemarle Street, W.

The Library, Westminster School, S.W.

XXX]

The Oxford and Camoridge Club, Pall Mall, c/o Messrs. Harrison ἃ Sons, 59, Padd Madd.
The Foreign Architectural Book Society (Charles Fowler, Esq.),23, Queen Anne St., W.
The Sion College Library, Victorta Embankment, E.C.
The College Library, Dulwich, S.L.
The City Library, Lowel/, Mass., U.S.A.
The Bibliothéque Universitaire, Palais Saint Pierre, Lyons.
The Library of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A, (E. F. Riley, Esq.).
The Whitworth Institute, J/anchester.
The Chetham’s Library, Hunts Bank, Manchester.
The Grammar School, Manchester.
The Royal University Library, /arburg.
The Public Library, Me/éourne, Victoria (c/o Messrs. Melville, Mullen ἃ Co.).
The Library of the University of Milan, Wzaw.
The McGill University Library, A7ontreal (C. H. Gould, Esq.)
The Ko6nigliche Paulinische Bibliothek, umster, /.W.
The Royal Library, AZunich.
The Archeological Seminary, Munich.
The University of Nebraska, Vebraska, U.S.A.
The Forbes Library, Worthampton, U.S.A.
The University Library, AZzinmster.
The Free Public Library, Newark, New Jersey.
The Newberry Library, Vewderry, U.S.A.
The Library of Yale College, Vewhaven.
The Astor Library, Vew York.
The New York State Library, A/bany, New York.
The Library of Columbia College, Vew York.
The Free Public Library, Jersey City, New Jersey, U.S.A.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vew York.
The Library of the College of the City of New York, Wew Yors.
The Sachs Collegiate Institute, Vew York.
+The Bodleian Library, Oxford.
The Library of All Souls College, Oxford.
The Library of Worcester College, Ox/ord.
The Library of Ballio] College, Oxford.
The Library of Christchurch, Oxford.
The Library of Exeter College, Oxford.
The Library of St. John’s 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 Bibliotheque de l'Institut de France, Parzs.
The Bibliotheque de l’Université de France, Paris.
The Bibliothéque des Musées Nationaux, Par/s,
The Biblioth¢que Nationale de Paris, Parzs.
The Ecole Normale Supérieur, Paris.
The Library Company, P?/7/adelphia.
The Library of the University of Pennsylvania, /’Azladelphia, Pa., U.S.A.
The Vassar Library, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
The Archaeological Seminary, Zhe University, Prague (Dr. Wilhelm Klein).
The Biblioth¢que de Université, Rennes.
The Library of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
The American School of Classical Studies, Rome, /taly.
The Rossall Library, Xossall, Fleetwood (the Rev. W. H. E. Worship).
The School Reading Room, Rugby, care of Mr. A. J. Lawrence.
The St Louis Mercantile Library, St. Louzs, U.S.A.
The Roya! Library, Stockholm (Messrs. Samson & Wallin).
The Archaeological Museum, The University, Strassburg (per Prof. Michaelis).
The Imperial University and National Library, Strassburg.
The Free Library, Syducy, New South Weadles.
The University Library, Syracuse, New York.
The University Library, Zovonto.
The Library of the University of Illinois, Urbana, /1linoz's.
The Boys’ Library, Eton College, W7nasor.
The Public Library, Winterthur.
The Free Library, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A.
The Williams College Library, Wi//amstown, Mass., U.S.A.

t Libraries claiming copies under the Copyright Act.

XXXil

LIST OF JOURNALS, ὅς: RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
JOURNAL OF HELLENIC STUDIES.

American Journal of Archzology (Prof. A. L. Frothingham, Jr.), of Princetown
University, Princetown, N.Y., U.S.A.

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (published by the French School at A¢hens)

Ephemeris Archaiologike, Athens.

Jahrbuch of German Imperial Archaeological’ Institute, Corneliusstrasse No. 2 II.
Berlin.

Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 9, Conduit Street, W.

Mélanges 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 Rome.

Mittheilungen and Abhandlungen of the Archaeolog. Epigraphisches Seminar of the
University of Vienna.

Mnemosyne (care of Mr. E. J. Brill), Letden, Holland.

Numismatic Chronicle, 22, Albemarle Street.

Philologus. Zeitschrift fiir das klassische Altertum (care of Dietrich’sche Verlags-
Buchhandlung, Gottingen).

Praktika of the Athenian Archaeological Society.

Proceedings of the Hellenic Philological Syllogos, Constantinople.

Revue Archéologique, Parzs (per M. Georges Perrot, 45, rue a’ Ulm).

Revue des Etudes Grecques, Publication Trimestrielle de lI’ Association pour ?En-
couragement des Etudes Grecques en France, Paris.

Transactions of the American School, Azhens.

Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society and Journal of Philology.

JOURNALS, &c., SUBSCRIBED FOR.

American Journal of Philology.

Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift.

Bursian’s Jahresbericht fiir classische Alterthumswissenschaft.
Byzantinische Zeitschrift.

Classical Review. Ξ

Hermes. Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie.

Neue Philologische Rundschau.

Revue de Philologie.

Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie.

Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie

LIST OF
BOOKS, PAMPHLETS ἃ PERIODICALS

ADDED TO THE

LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION
OF HELLENIC STUDIES
1895-6.

Aeschylus. Eschilo Laurenziano (Facsimile of Laurentian codex) .Fol. Florence.
1896.

American Journal of Archaeology. Vol. XI. Nos. 1, 2, 3.
American Journal of Philology. Vol. XVI. Nos. 1, 2.
Annuaire de la Société Frangaise de Numismatique. Pt. I

Archaeological Institute of America. Annual Reports. 4-17. Papers of
Institute ; American Series. Vols. I1—V.; Papers of American School at
Athens. Vol. V. 1892.

Archaeologisch-Epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, ed. O.
Benndorf und E. Bormann. XVIII. 1, 2.

Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift. Vol. XVI.

Boutmy (E.). Le Parthenon et le génie Grec. 8vo. Paris. 1897.
British School of Classical Studies at Athens. Annual, 1894—5.

Bulletin de Correspondance Heilénique. 1895. ΧΙ. XII. 1896. I.—X.

Byzantinische Zeitschrift. V. 1, 2, 3-4.
Cambridge Philological Society. Proceedings, 1895.

Caylus (M. le Comte de). Recueil d’Antiquités. 7 vols. 4to. Paris. 1752-67.
(Presented. )

Christ (W.). Metrik der Griechen und Romer. Second Edition. 8vo. Leipzig.
1879,

Clarac (F. de). Musée de Sculpture. Text. 6 vols. 8vo. Plates. 6 vols. Paris.
1826-53.

Classical Review. Vel. X.
Clerke (A. M.). Familiar Studies in Homer. 8vo. London. 1892. (Prese: ted.

Curtius (E.), and J. A. Kaupert. Karten von Attika. Parts 7-8, erliuternder
Text v. A. Milchhoefer. 4to. Berlin. 1895.

a

XXXIV

Daremberg (Ch.) and Εἰ. Saglio. Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et
Romaines d’aprés les Textes et les Monuments. Parts 13-22 (Dil-Hercules).
4to. Paris.

Dieterich (A.). Nekyia. Beitriige zur Erklirung der neuentdeckten Petrusajo-
kalypse. 8vo. Leipzig. 1895.

Dio Prusaensis, quem vocant Chrysostomum, ed. J. de Arnim. Vol. Il. 8vo.
Berlin. 1896.

Duncker (M.). Geschichte des Alterthums. 7 vols. Fifth Edition. ὅνο.
Leipzig. 1878.

Egypt Exploration Fund. Archaeological Report. 1895-6.

Emmanuel (M.). La Danse Grecque antique. 8vo. Paris. 1896.

"Ednuepis ᾿Αρχαιολογική. 1896. Pts. 1, 2.

Euripides Andromache. Ed. G. Hermann, 8vo. Leipzig. 1838.

Euripides Bacchae. Ed. G. Hermann. 8vo. Leipzig. 1823.

Euripides Bacchae. Ed. P. Elmsley. 8vo. Oxford. 1821.

Euripides De Troica Didascalia. Ed. H. Planck. 8vo. Gdéttingen. 1845.

Euripides Fabulae. Ed. A. Kirchhoff. 2 vols.in 1. 8vo. Berlin. 1867.

Euripides First our Tragedies (Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae. Medea). Ed. Kt.
Porson and J. Scholefield. Third Edition. 8vo. Cambridge. 180].

Euripides Hecuba. Ed. G. Hermann. 8vo. Leipzig. 1831.

Euripides Helena. Ed. G. Hermann. 8vo. Leipzig. 1837.

Euripides Heraclidae. Ed. P. Elmsley. Second Edition. 8vo. Oxford. 1828.
Euripides Hercules Furens. Ed. G. Hermann. 8vo. Leipzig. 1810.

Euripides Medea. Ed. P. Elmsley. Second Edition. 8vo. Oxford. 1828.
Euripides Phoenissae. Ed. G. Hermann. 8vo. Leipzig. 1840.

Euripides Supplices. Ed. G. Hermann. 8vo. Leipzig: 1811.

Falkener (E.). Ephesus and the Temple of Diana. 4to. London. 1862.

(Presented. )

Farnell (L. R.). Cults of the Greek States. 2 vols. 8vo. Oxford. 1896.
(Presented.

Frohner (W.). Collection Tyszkiewicz. Part 4. Fol. Munich. 1896.
Grote (G.). History of Greece. 12 vols. 8vo. London. 1869.

Harrison (J. E.). Myths of the Odyssey in Art and Literature. 8vo. London.
1882. (Presented.)

Hermann (K. F.). Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitaéten. Vol. III. 2. (Lehr-
buch der griechischen Biihnen-alterthiimer v. A. Miillerj. 1886.
Hermes. Vol. XXXI

Hogarth (D. G.). and E. F. Benson. Report on Prospects of Research in
Alexandria. 4to. London. 1895. (Published by Hellenic Society.)

Holm (A.). History of Greece from its commencement to the close of the inde-
pendence of the Greek nation. Vols. 1, 2, translated from the German.
8vo. London. 1894. (Presented.)

Horace. Opera, illustrated from Antique gems by C. W. King, the Text revised,
&c., by H. A. J. Munro. 8vo. London. 1869.

Jahn (O.). Palamedes. 8vo. Hamburg. 1836.
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Vol. XI. 1, 2, 3.

Jahresbericht iiber die Fortschritte’ der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft.
Jahrgang XXIV. Parts 1-7. Supplement Parts 2, 3. 1896.

Josephus. Opera. Ed. B. Niese. Vol. 7. Index. 8vo. Berlin. 1895.

XXXV

Journal οἵ Hellenic Studies. Vol. XVI.
Journal of Philology. Vol. XXIV. No. 47.

Journal of Proceedings of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Vol. {{Π|.
(Third Series), together with Calendar of R.I.B.A.

Lucian. Ed. J. Sommerbrodt. Vol. Il. Part 1. Svo. Berlin. 1893.

Maass (E.). Orpheus. Untersuchungen zur griechischen romischen altchrist”
lichen Jenseitsdichtung und Religion. 8vo. Munich. 1895.

Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire. Vol. XVI.

Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Athenische Abtheilung.
Vol. XXTI. 1, 2.

Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Rimische Abtheilung.
Vol.. X19 15.2; 3:

Mnemosyne. Vol. XXIV.

Monuments Grees. Publiés par l’Association pour 1’Encouragement des Etudes
Grecques en France. Vol. I. Nos. 17,18. 4to. Paris.

Miiller (C.). Geographi Graeci Minores. 3 Vols. Royal 8vo. Paris. 1855 and
1861.

Miller (I. v.) Handbuch der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft. Vol. Lil.
4:0. VoL WEEE. 53.

Miller (K. O.) and J. W. Donaldson. History of the Literature of Ancient
Greece. 3 Vols. 8vo. London. 1858. (Presented.)

Mure (W.). Critical History of the Language and Literature of Ancient Greece.
5 vols. Second Edition. 8vo. London. 1854. (Presented.)

Murray (J.). Handbook for Travellers in Greece, including the Ionian Isles, dc.
Sixth Edition. 8vo. London. 1896. (Presented.)

Mythographi Graeci. Vol. Il. 1. 8vo. Leipzig. 1896.

Naville (E.). Temple of Deir el Bahari. Part I. Plates. Fol. London.
1896. (Egypt Exploration Fund.)

Neue Philologische Rundschau. 1896. Nos. 1-25.

Niese (B.). Geschichte der Griechischen und Makedonischen Staaten. I. ὄνο.
Gotha. 1893. (Handbiicher der alten Geschichte. 11.)

Numismatic Chronicle. Ist Series. Years 1848, 1850, 1852, 1854. (Presented.)
Numismatic Chronicle. New Series. Vols. '.—XX. 1861-1880. (Presented.)
Numismatic Chronicle. 3rd Series. Vol. I. Pts. 1-3.

Paspates (A. G.). Πολιορκία καὶ “AAwots τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ὑπὸ τῶν Οθωμανῶν
ev ἐτει 1453. ὅνο. Athens. 1853. (Presented.)

Paspates (A. G.). Ta Βυζάντινα ᾿Ανάκτορα καὶ τὰ πέριξ αὐτῶν Ἱδρύματα. 8vo. Athens.
1885.

Pauly. JReal-Encyclopidie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft. (Ar—Bar.)
ed. G. Wissowa. Royal 8vo. Stuttgart. 1896.

Philologus. Zeitschrift fiir das classische Altertum. Vol. LV. Pts. 1, 2.

Pohlmann (P.). Grundriss der Griechischen Geschichte nebst Quellenkunde.
8vo. Munich. 1896. (Handbuch ἃ. kl. Alterthumswissenschaft.
Vol; III. ..4.)

Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν ᾿Αθήναις ᾿Αρχαιολογικῇ- ἑταιρείας ὅνο. Athens. 1895.

Revue Archéologique. Vol. XXVIII. Pts. 1, 9, 3. Vol. XXIX. Pts. 1, 2.
1896.

Revue des Etudes Grecques. Vol. IX. Pts. 33, 34.

Revue de Philologic. Vol. XX. 1-8. 1896.

Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie. Vol. LI. 1896.

XXXVI

Rohde (E.). Psyche. Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen. 8vo.
Freiburg (i. B.) u. Leipzig. 1894. (Presented.)

Roscher (W.). Lexicon der griechischen ἃ. rémischen Mythologie. Pts.
32, 33. (Medeia—Mercurius). 8vo. Leipzig. 1896.

Schoell (G. A.). De Origine Graeci Dramatis. 8vo. Tubingen. 1828.

Seebohm (H. E.). Structure of Greek Tribal Society. 8vo. London. 1895.
(Presented. ) “ee.

Smith (C. H.) and H. B. Walters. Catalogue of Greek and Etruscan Vases in
the British Museum. II., IIf.,1V. 1893-96. (Presented.)

Smith (W.). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Second Edition. 8vo-
London. 1863.

Smith (W.). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. 3 vols.
London. 1844.

Smith (W.). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. 2 vols. London,
1854.

Swanwick (A.). Dramas of Atschylus translated. Third Edition. 8vo. London.
1881. (Presented.)

Winckelmann (J.). Monumenti Antichi. 2 vols. fol. Rome. 1767. (Pre-
sented.)

Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie. Vol. XIII.

SESSION 1895-96.

THE First General Meeting was held on November 4th, 1895,
Professor P. Gardner, V.P., in the chair.

Miss Jane Harrison read a paper on the site of the Enneacrunus in
the light of Dr. Dérpfeld’s recent discoveries and theories, and in special
connection with Thucydides, ii. 15. This passage up to the date of
Dr. Dérpfeld’s recent excavations has always been quoted in favour. of
the orthodox view that the primitive city of Athens lay in and to the
south of the Acropolis, z¢., that the words πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος refer back to
τὸ UT αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον. The ancient sanctuaries
mentioned by Thucydides as lying close to this ancient πόλις---2.6., the
sanctuaries of Olympian Zeus, Apollo Pythius, Ge, and Dionysus ἐν
Aduvais—have been identified with the Olympieion, near the Ilissus ;
the Pythion and precinct of Ge, known from Pausanias to have adjoined
it ; and the precinct of the theatre of Dionysus Eleutherius, all lying to
the south and south-east of the Acropolis ; the adjacent Enneacrunus was,
on the same showing, supposed to be on the Ilissus, and the whole passage
was used in support of the famous theory of the ‘ Enneacrunus episode.’
Of all this accredited system of topography Dr. Dorpfeld would make a
clean sweep. He points out that the whole contention of Thucydides
is that the ancient go/zs was much smaller than the Themistoclean city.
How, then, can he adduce sanctuaries lying outside the Themistoclean
wall in support of his argument? Dr. Déorpfeld transplants the primitive
city from the south and south-east to the west and south-west. He claims
to have localized the Enneacrunus under the Pnyx rock, and to have
actually found the precinct of Dionysus Limnzus in the low-lying ground
between the Pnyx, Areopagus, and Acropolis. The precinct there laid
bare contains, unquestionably, an altar, a temple, and, most noticeable of
all, a primitive wine press, this last especially characteristic of Dionysus
Lenaius. The Pythion Dr. Dérpfeld places close to the cave of Aglaurus,
and to this site he refers the passage in the ‘Ion’ (v. 185). Here omens’
were taken from the Pythian lightnings on an altar lying between the
Pythion and the Olympieion;an Olympieion must therefore have once '
existed close at hand. A sanctuary of Ge was seen by Pausanias
immediately before he entered the Propylea. Thus the series of
ancient sanctuaries is complete, and named by Thucydides in their natural
order, going westwards down the hill. Miss Harrison drew attention to

XXXVili

the fact that πρός with the accusative frequently implies not only direction
but proximity, and is used by Thucydides (iv. 110) in describing Torone
to indicate exactly the situation he claims for the sanctuaries in question.
It remained for scholars to decide whether πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος could fairly
be read as near to the primitive fo/zs, instead of, as before, in a southerly
direction.

Mr. E. Gardner said that the brilliancy and persuasiveness of Dr.
Dérpfeld’s exposition and of Miss Harrison’s presentation of his views
must not blind us to the old arguments, mainly of a literary kind, which
had certainly not been entirely disposed of by the new theory. In reference
to the passage in Thucydides, the question was not whether the words
could possibly be interpreted to fit Dr. Dérpfeld’s theory, but what was
their natural meaning; and here all scholars had hitherto been agreed.
It was difficult to believe that if, in mentioning the Olympieion and
Pythion, Thucydides did not mean the temples best known under those
names, he would not have used some distinctive epithet, as he did in the
case of the Dionysion. Again, the terms in which Thucydides referred
to the Enneacrunus did not correspond with the new view of a scanty
spring, stored in reservoirs and supplemented by wells, and ultimately
superseded by an aqueduct bringing water from a distance in the time of
Peisistratus. It was surely more likely that the symbolical bath before
marriage would be associated with the river-god Ilissus than with a scanty
spring or the end of an aqueduct. The epithet γαμοστόλος applied to
Ilissus by Nonnus deserved notice. The topographical and literary
evidence given by Leake and others seemed to favour the old site, and the
geological evidence, so far as available, might be held to support either
view. The area of the new so-called precinct of Dionysus did not seem at
all large enough for the celebration of a great popular festival like the
Lenaia, and the surrounding district must have been too thickly populated
to afford additional space. There was the further objection that, accord-
ing to Dr. Dérpfeld, the whole precinct was closed except for one day in
the year. On these grounds it seemed advisable to suspend judgment
until more definite and certain evidence was available for the solution of a
very complicated problem.

Mr. J. L. Myres said that the detailed geological investigation of the site
of Athens showed, as against Dorpfeld, that there could have been, and
probably was, marshy ground between the Acropolis and the Ilissus, held
up by the rocky north bank of the river, and draining south-west into
Ilissus below the Museum hill: and, as against Dorpfeld’s critics, that the
hollow between Pnyx, Areopagus, and Acropolis was also probably marshy.
As to primeval Athens being south of Acropolis, the statement of
Thucydides was confirmed by the identification of Mycenzan and Stone
Age settlements in the Πελασγικόν. Dorpfeld’s site with the Museum-
Pnyx ridge behind, offered better cover for Pelasgian brigands than
the Llissus bank, which was commanded by watchmen on the Acropolis.

Dr, Sandys, mainly on literary grounds, supported Mr. E. Gardner in

XXXIX

upholding the traditional view until more convincing evidence was forth-
coming.

Sir John Evans thought that a Roman House would hardly have been
built over the site of a sacred well, as seemed to be demanded by Dr.
Dorpfeld’s theory.

Miss Harrison replied briefly to these criticisms.

The Second General Meeting was held on February 17th, 1896,
Professor P. Gardner, V.P., in the chair.

Mr. Edmund Oldfield, on the invitation of the Council, read a brief
summary of his views on the architectural form of the Halicarnassian
Mausoleum, which he had more fully elaborated in three papers read
_ before the Society of Antiquaries in 1893—4. He divided the evidence on
the subject into literary and monumental: I. Passing over several refer-
ences to the building in ancient authors as uninstructive for the present
purpose, he analyzed more closely than had hitherto been done the two
well-known descriptive passages in Martial and Pliny. (1) From the
former, which characterizes the building as “hanging in empty air,” he
argued that the principal story, or Pteron, was composed merely of
columns, pilasters, and piers, without any ce//a within, so as to show on
every side from without a colossal statue at the centre. (2) Examining
the language of Pliny word by word, he showed the true interpretation of
the description of the “ pyramid over the Pteron” to be that it orzgznally
terminated in an apex like that of a Roman meta, rising by twenty-four
steps to a height equal to that of the pyramid below, but that it was trun-
cated by Pythis to make a standing-place for his quadriga. (3) He then
quoted a passage from Guichard’s ‘ Funérailles,’ &c., relating, after an eye-
witness, how the Knights of Rhodes in 1522 discovered the basement of the
monument, the exterior of which, being square in plan and continuously
graduated, is alluded to by Pliny as the pyramzs inferior, truncated to
carry the superstructure, whilst the interior included a large and handsome
room, which was the real and only cella of the monument, with a smaller
sepulchral chamber adjoining, which contained a costly tomb, perhaps
that of Mausolus himself. II. The monumental evidence Mr. Oldfield
limited to buildings posterior to B.C. 353, the date of Mausolus’s death,
and he exhibited illustrations of five, which might fairly be thought
imitations of the Mausoleum, and therefore suggestive of what was its
most characteristic feature. This feature was evidently the open Pteron,
within which, in one example, the central statuary still remained. He
then explained, and illustrated by diagrams, the restoration he himself
proposed, describing successively (1) the Basement; (2) the Podium ;
(3) the Pteron ; (4) the Attic; (5) the Upper Pyramid. He showed that
their aggregate height reached 126 feet, which exactly equalled the length,
and was as 6 to 5 to the breadth of the building’s base, as excavated
by Sir Charles Newton. The addition of the quadriga increased the
whole to the 140 feet mentioned by Pliny. The Pteron was surrounded by

“~

xl

36 columns of rather low proportion, and arranged in pycnostyle order,
to provide for the exceptional weight of the pyramidal roof. By the
63 feet stated as the length of the north and south sides was intended the
length of the octostyle lateral colonnades. The east and west fronts are
distinguished by hexastyle porticoes. The 411 feet given as the Zofus
circuitus was to be measured on the lower step of the Pteron. The
ceilings, both of the ce//a in the basement and of the Pteron, might be
formed of hollow pyramids, similar to some at Panticapeum and near
Camirus. All questions as to the arrangement of the sculptures Mr.
Oldfield reserved for papers he proposed to read elsewhere.

In the discussion which followed, the Chairman, Mr. H. H. Statham,
and Mr. H. Stannus took part, all expressing their admiration of the
paper as a model of archeological argument, though the two latter sug-
gested certain modifications in points of detail.

The Third General Meeting was held on March 30, 1896, Professor
P. Gardner, V.P., in the chair.

Mr. G. B. Grundy read a paper dealing with Thucydides’ narrative of
Sphacteria in considerable detail. The general conclusions arrived at were
that on the vexed question of the existence or non-existence of the lagoon
of Osmyn Aga at the time at which the events on Sphacteria took place,
Captain Smyth, the Admiralty Surveyor, was right, and Col. Leake and
those who followed him wrong. The lagoon did exist as navigable water,
with probably a more or less fully formed bar cutting it off partially from
the Bay of Navarino. The theory that Palzokastro is Sphacteria, and
Agio Nikolo Coryphasium, is untenable, the evidence being very conclusive
as to the identity of Sphagia with Sphacteria, and consequently of
Palzokastro with Coryphasium. The peculiarities of Coryphasium are in
close accord with Thucydides’ narrative, and the position of the walls on
the sea and land sides respectively are determinable with something like
certainty. Thesea attack can only have been made on the south-west coast
of the promontory, the land attack at a gap in the east cliff, near the north
end of it. He did not find, nor did he expect to find, traces which could be
identified even with remote probability with the Athenian fortifications.
The latter were of an emergency character, and the site has been
successively occupied by two considerable settlements, the Pylos of
Pausanias and a great medieval settlement. The blocking of the channels
presents much difficulty. It seems quite impossible to reconcile
Thucydides’ statements with the south channel into Navarino Bay. The
mistake seems to have been a topographical one. Thucydides never
apprehended the existence of any harbour save Navarino Bay, and
consequently imagined that the channels blocked were the two entrances
of that bay. Mr. Grundy was led to believe that the channels blocked
were the entrance to the Voithio Kilia and the Sikia Channel. From the
fulness of detail with which Thucydides describes the sea attack, and the

xli

absence of detail with regard to the land attack, it would seem highly
probable that he relied for his information as to what took place
Coryphasium on one informant; and furthermore a manifest inconsistency
in the account might lead to a suspicion that he wished to give undu
prominence to Demosthenes, the ‘hero’ of the narrative. This tendenc)
was further shown in the account of what took place on the arrival of ¢1
Athenian fleet, where what seems to have been the result of a successful
ruse on the part of Eurymedon is, owing probably to Demosthenes not
having a hand in the affair, ascribed to an incomprehensibly bold resolve,
unsupported by any apparent motive, on the part of the Peloponnesian
fleet. Regarding the fifteen stades mentioned as the length of the island of
Sphacteria, Mr. Grundy was disposed to think that the manifest error arose
from the fact that the part of the island occupied by the Spartans was of
that length. The landing places of the Athenian force were determinable
with practical certainty, and the whole account of the operations on the
island was eminently supported by the local topography. The exploit of
the Messenian captain and his band he apprehended consisted in making
their way along the cliff into a hollow underneath the summit where the
Spartans made their last stand. He ascribed Thucydides’ ignorance of
the existence of the lagoon harbour to the fact that for the events in
Coryphasium and Sphacteria respectively, the historian relied on two sets
of informants, each of whom referred to the piece of water which was the
centre of interest at the time the events they described took place as ‘the
harbour’: the expression meaning to the first the lagoon harbour, to the
second, Navarino Bay.

In the discussion which followed Mr. R. Burrows, of Glasgow University,
agreed with Mr. Grundy in his acceptance of Col. Leake’s identification of
Pylos and Sphacteria. But he maintained that Thucydides did visit the
spot, and was confused on only one, and that a not essential point. The
lagoon of Osmyn Aga was not a separate inner harbour, but an integral
part of the main harbour, and the entrances which Thucydides describes
were, as he expressly says (iv. 8, 6), entrances each side of the island of
Sphacteria, and need not be referred to the distant bay of Voithio Kilia,
which was, indeed, according to Mr, Grundy’s own theory, not an entrance
at all, but a blind alley. The southern of the two entrances must then be
that which now exists at the south of the Bay of Navarino. It is, of ἡ
course, far too broad, and no supposed change of ground can get over the
difficulty. But the description which Thucydides gives of it as offering a
passage for eight or nine ships abreast may have arisen from a thoughtless .
inference drawn from the distribution of the forces with which the
Athenian squadron of fifty ships entered the harbour. In order to prevent
the enemy from escaping, they would naturally have detached ten ships for
the narrow, and forty for the broad entrance (iv. 13, 2,and 14,1). And
they would have entered in both cases five deep, and two and eight or
nine abreast. This fact would not unnaturally lead Thucydides to credit
an excuse made by the Spartans after the event for their insane occupation

xhii

of Sphacteria. They would find it easy and convenient to say that they
had meant to block up the two entrances. Such a proceeding was
impossible, and, of course, did not, as a matter of fact, take place at all
(iv. 13, 4). We can on this theory admit that the brilliant and exact
account Thucydides gives of the battle of Sphacteria was the result of a
visit to the spot, and that he accurately described every point in the
topography except the breadth of the southern entrance. The error in
the length of Sphacteria is best accounted for on paleographical grounds
(iv, 8, 6), the length of the island is twenty-four stades, and xe’ (25), as
near a measurement as could be looked for, could easily be corrupted to te’
(15). Mr. Burrows alluded to the discovery he had made of the ground
plan of the παλαιὸν ἔρυμα on Sphacteria, and of a fragment of the
Athenian walls on Pylos. He thought he could use the former to show
conclusively the path taken by the Messenians in the final surprise, which
was different from that suggested by Mr. Grundy. As regards the walls on
Pylos, he found traces, both in Thucydides and in the necessities of the
ground, of three instead of two walls. It was that πρὸς τὴν ἤπειρον
(iv. 9,2) which he thought he had discovered, but there also must have
existed on the extreme south-east a different one, κατὰ Tov λιμένα (iv. 13,
2), where the Spartans meant on the third day to land and use siege
engines. This could not have been πρὸς τὴν ἤπειρον, for then what need
of landing? The word ἀπόβασις could not, as Mr. Grundy suggested, be
used of the disembarkation of timber.—The Chairman, Sir F. Pollock, and
Dr. Leaf also joined in the discussion.

In answer to difficulties raised by Mr. Burrows, Mr. Grundy said (1)
that the extent of the sandbar between the lagoon and the bay at the time
of the events on Sphacteria could not in the very nature of things be more
than a matter of conjectural calculation ;(2) that he was strongly of opinion
that the fortifications of τὸ πρὸς ἤπειρον and τὸ κατὰ τὸν λιμένα τεῖχος
were identical; that Mr. Burrows’ attribution of the mistake as to the
length of the island to textual corruption seemed perfectly tenable ; (4)
that he could not on the intrinsic evidence of the tale agree with Mr.
Burrows’ belief that Thucydides had ever seen the locality ; (5) that he
thought ‘Mr, Burrows had misunderstood his reference to the hollow
beneath the summit of Sphacteria ; (6) that on the whole, whatever may
have been the case in the last stand at the summit, he thought that Helots
had not been present with the Spartan force at the time of the attack near
the well and during the retreat to the summit. In answer to a further
objection raised by Dr. Leaf with respect to the difficulty of blocking the
Sikia Channel with a hostile force on the north shore of it, Mr. Grundy said
he was inclined to think that the channel could be effectively obstructed
without the northern ships being exposed to missiles from the shore.
(Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xvi., pd.)

The Fourth General Meeting was held on May 4th, 1896, Professor
L. Campbell, V.P., in the chair.

xliii

Mr. Talfourd Ely exhibited photographs of several pictures recently
discovered at Pompeii, and read a paper on three of them, which represent
Heracles strangling serpents, Dirce tied to the bull, and the death of
Pentheus. He pointed out the relation between these three, which are all
connected with Thebes and show the influence of Euripides on art. The
Heracles was traced to an original by Zeuxis mentioned by Pliny. The
myth of Dirce is of a local Beeotian stamp, and suggests a Theban artist.
One Theban artist, Aristeides, is known to us through Pliny. He painted
scenes of terror and of death, and may possibly have created the type of
Dirce. We know that some of his pictures were brought to Italy, and
they may have been ‘copied by Pompeian painters. In the death of
Pentheus, a subject not previously found in the buried cities of Campania,
the composition and the expression of action are excellent. The fully
draped female figures suggest a comparatively early date for the arche-
type, which Mr. Ely thought might possibly be found in the painting of
Pentheus mentioned by Pausanias as existing in a temple of Dionysus at
Athens. Mr. Ely pointed out that one idea was common to the whole
of this Theban trio, viz., the destruction awaiting such as offended against
those dear to Zeus, and the ultimate triumph of his offspring. Besides
this, an outward parallelism existed (as elsewhere in Pompeii) in the size
and position of the pictures, and (approximately) in the number and
grouping of the figures—a symmetry specially characteristic of classic art.
(Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. OV I:, JD; 1143.)

Professor Gardner expressed _ his general approval of the paper,
although he differed in some points of detil.

The Chairman, in expressing the thanks of the meeting, dwelt
particularly on the trouble Mr. Ely had taken to illustrate his paper by
photographs,

The Annual Meeting was held on June 15th, 1896, Sir E. Maunde
Thompson, V.P., in the chair.

The Honorary Secretary read the Council’s Report :—

The Council have again to report a session of useful work and steady
prosperity without any very striking incident. The publication of the
Journal of Flellenic Studies is still the main outcome of the Society’s
efforts, and, under the able guidance of the Editorial Committee, main-
tains an honourable place among periodicals of its class. By special
arrangement with the Council of the Egypt Exploration Fund, members
of the Society received with the last number of the Journal a special report
on the Excavations in Alexandria, by Mr. D. G. Hogarth and Mr. E. F.
Benson, towards the cost of which this Society had made a grant.

The Society has to regret the loss of some important members by
death in the course of the year. Among them special mention is due to
Lord Leighton, who, although his other engagements prevented him from
taking an active part in its management, had from the outset shown a
warm interest in the Society’s work. Dr. J. Henry Middleton, one of the

xliv

Vice-Presidents, who has passed away within the last few days, was among
the earliest members of the Society, and had contributed some valuable
papers to the Journal. His death is the more to be regretted, as it is
known that he was engaged upon a topographical work on Athens, similar
to his handbook on Ancient Rome.

Members will be glad to learn that the British School at Athens, to
which the Society has long been a subscriber, has now been placed upon a »
more satisfactory financial basis,and has done some excellent work during
the past season. The number of well-equipped students has been fully up
to the average, and important excavations have been carried on in the
Island of Melos and for the first time in Athens itself, on the supposed site
of the ancient Kynosarges. A full account of the results will, as usual, be
given next month to the Annual Meeting of subscribers to the School.

In accordance with the traditional policy of helping as far as possible
all projects of research in the field of Hellenic Studies, the Council have
in the course of the year voted grants of £50 to Mr. W. R. Paton towards
some proposed excavations in the neighbourhood of Budrum, and of £30
to Mr. W. J. Woodhouse, a former student of the British School at Athens,
towards additional illustrations for a work on the topography of Aetolia,
which is to be published by the Delegates of the Clarendon Press.

Four General Meetings have been held in the course of the year, and
have been well attended. The papers read have been of remarkable
interest, and have in most cases led to animated discussions. Besides the
papers contributed by members, a special meeting was held in March to
hear a valuable paper on the Mausoleum, which Mr. Edmund Oldfield,
F.S.A., had been invited to read before the Society.

The Council have during the last few months devoted special attention
to the Library, with a view to improving the arrangements for its custody
and management. New bookshelves have been provided and the books are
being rearranged in a more systematic way. Dr. Holden, to whom the
Society is much indebted for his valuable services as Hon. Librarian, has
felt obliged to resign the post on account of ill-health, but the Council
have been fortunate enough to secure in his place the help of Mr. Arthur
Smith, of the British Museum, who has long been an active member of the
Library Committee. Miss Hughes, the Assistant Librarian, has also
resigned her post, the increasing pressure of her duties for the Royal
Asiatic Society rendering it impossible for her to give sufficient attention to
the care of a second library. In her stead the Council have appointed
Miss Fanny Johnson, formerly Head Mistress of the Bolton High School
for Girls, who is at present giving the whole of her time to the work. It is
hoped that the continual presence of a competent Librarian will largely
increase the usefulness of the Library to members. At the same time, as
the funds available for the purchase of books are not large, it has been
thought well to send to members during the past week a circular appealing
for donations of suitable books or pamphlets.

The loan collection of Lantern Slides is still in constant request, and

xlv

during the past year arrangements have been made whereby it is available
to members of the Teachers’ Guild on the understanding that members of
the Society have similar access to the slides belonging to the Guild. This
co-operation with other bodies which have the same object in view cannot
fail to strengthen the position of the Society, and its claims to support
from all those who are interested in the higher branches of Education.

The Treasurer’s Accounts show the financial position of the Society
to be satisfactory. Ordinary receipts during the year were £915 against
£910 during the financial year 1894-95. The receipts from Subscriptions,
including arrears, amount to 4655, against £692. Life Compositions
amount to £63, against £50, an increase of £13, and receipts from
Libraries and for the purchase of back volumes £116, against £122. The
receipts for loan of Lantern Slides amount to £7, against £2, but other
items of ordinary income show no change. The sum of £30 has been
refunded by Mr. Hogarth, being part of the Grant made in 1895 for
Excavations at Alexandria.

The ordinary expenditure for the year amounts to £621, against £730.
Payments for Rent £80, Insurance £15, Salaries £47, and Stationery, &c.
£46, are practically the same as in the preceding year, but the cost of
purchases for the Library shows £39, against £96. The cost of the
Journal, Vol. XV., Parts 1 and 2, has amounted to £394, against £441.
The usual grant of £100 was made to the British School at Athens, and
#23 was paid for printing Mr. Hogarth’s Report. The balance carried
forward at the close of the year under review amounted to £340, against
£169 at the end of the previous financial year.

Since the entrance fee was imposed in January, 1894, about £75 have
been received from this source, a very substantial addition to the Society’s
income.

Twenty-six new members have been elected during the year, while
thirty-seven have been lost by death or resignation. This shows a net
decrease of eleven, and brings the total number of members to 773.

Ten new Libraries have joined the list of Subscribers, which now
amount to 127; or with the five Public Libraries to 132.

It will be seen that although in other respects tht position of the Society
is satisfactory, there has been this year for the first time since its founda-
tion in 1879 an actual falling off in the number of members. The number
of losses has been above the average, while the number of accessions has
been below it. The position so far is not serious, but if the process were
to go on, it would soon become so, Under these circumstances, the
Council feel bound to emphasise their usual appeal to members to do what
lies in their power to make the Society more widely known, so as to bring
in fresh recruits to fill up inevitable gaps in the ranks. Only so can the
continued prosperity and efficiency of the Society be assured.

δι ‘aunf yfi1 waeusvat] “WOH ‘NILAVW ‘a NHOL

“ StOPRDH ΩΣ Na ee ‘y9a4209 11 PUY ρα ‘Yoog ,sIayULG PUL SL2YDNOA ay) YIEM 11 Paredusos YuNodde 511|} PaUlUeXe ΘΛΈ 9 ΔΝ

TX ὉΣ ΣΕ > “yy se ee ss * g6gr ‘ABTA 1518 ‘sroHUeY” 18 OULU ΟἿ,
= gu tgo'r? 2 81 Ξρο τα
o ἕξι ‘oe Oa Gay ae sydeadoioud jo sajes uo Aqesoy ἡ
olen Th ᾿ ei * Se * * * Saplyg 10] } jo ueoy **
£ op 62 ; (paputhess qUvIS) PLUpUrXs|Y) YuesoH Ὁ Ἃ “yy “*
OL Ob CR ene
ς 9 FA Ῥω τυ, ἢ ΠΝ 4 ee ὦ ἐς οὔξι oy Av ει τε
tt yt ore . ° fav. οἰ ς ΣΕ τὰ * sdayuvg 10 ΘΟΕ] ἘΩ͂ . ς 9 z . (ov Ν ΦὙ απ, Be Ὁ Cé6gr a "AON “ae ir]
o & +65 “sss ποσοῦ [euano( yo ΘΟ ΘΒ] ΒΗ “ἢ —'juao aad Ε weysuinjoy jo woHeIOdIO $s
Oo ΤΆ Ἐξ που ον ρον oe OC oa ΣΠΠΒΕΡῊ | Sp aceox δ τς Gn g6gt 2 ταν; δι
ΙΝ 30 saidod oo1'i—pung uonrviojdxq adAsq “| 5 ἘΠ ox ees ae” oe ee SOR kanal)
Ὁ © oor pie SUC Ye ae TOUS SIS ES 4 iT) anerc) oT *H901S 7190 χοᾶ FE sayeAy YINCS MeN UO ΒΡΌΘΡΙΛΤΩ “ἢ
9. 8 ae * + worsstunoD Puy ‘yoog anbeayd “ | o xy gu a:
PG) at * ΟΝ ‘seonon “unuug Aapung ‘| 5 νι τὰ ἢ “ “
"6..." πο Ὁ ΣΝ aBuysog ‘ArauoneIg Πος BE Ege: °«. URE SPARE Ste CAREC Roar eaten aMSSRaTG i,
L €x gf ainjuing pue syoog—yunooosy Aavaqry “| 2 "OLS DORE Age SECO esa Ss ae
6 gr gt ———— ΟΡ} LiL —
0 o tz g6gr ‘Avprasr€ 0} 1v94 900 “A18191925 55 0 Ἐκ ἐξ ο 6 6 Fs es See KER ay Ne ee SBS ELT. aS ω
b 81 zz goat μάν οξ οτχεοί suo" ‘UBUwIGT ‘yssy ‘soreles ‘* | Ὁ ἫΝ Eo.) Sas > se enOlaioganGasicn δ ῳ
Ὁ δ᾽ Sr + δ * gouvinsay ‘ ©: Sine FAO Ὁ τὼ * g6gr—S6gt ‘suondLiosqns ,sisquiayy Oy,
Ὁ 0 08 oe ale Φ΄ γ΄." c6gr ‘aq 0} awahauo Quey Aq | 9 2 601 YR ee τ © + S6gr ‘Avy 1518 qu aouejeg o7,
pS ρων. Ta Sa τος δὲ
“LNNOOOV HSVO
οἱ S ooh or S$ ΘΟ
z 9 Str tS) se a Se Meh he ky Re Le jodeg ae oe Ἶ
€ 1 ἐξ «εν “Oita ee αὐτὰ ϑαϊιλυυδας put Surmescy 5 ες /
δ᾽... Ὁ Be rer διν . aan s =) ὁ Sila ps 2 Gig ως οὐ => a ΟΝ ς * + * γαποσον [582 ΟἹ 'ϑοῦευᾳ *
mo Lege Be ον, Ca ΤΥ ραὴ Suyuyg ‘[] pue Ἵ ‘sid ‘AX ἸΟΛ Ag Omeiog, S/o Ok + ν ΤῸ} 3.5 οὐδὲ 0} ‘b6gx ‘x Ajnf ‘peumnof jo sas ἮΝ
‘ps x Dae y s

‘9621 ‘AVW 1518 DNIGNU UVAA AHL YOU LNNOOOV «SIGNALS OINATTAH AO TVNUNOL AHL),

A comparison with the receipts and expenditure of the last ten years
is furnished by tne following tables :—
ARALY SIS OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS FOR THE YEARS ENDING —

31 ΤΕΣ [π᾿ ay ἯΙ “: ay, Fes May, 31 May, | 31 May, 31 May, | [31 enw 31 May,'31 Mz ay,

1887. 1888. 1889. | het age | (1198 | 1803: ᾿ 1804. 1895 1896
- —| | -----

ὍΝ ete hs Sos £ Latin & CW, Lor
Subscriptions 7 $14 .΄, 537 539 | 545 532 585 554 564 671 678 | 645
Arrears . . ce A? 35 41 | 32 26 39 | 16 | 13 44 14 9
Life Compositions . . - 95 79 | 47 47 | 79 126 95 79 | 50 63
Libraries and Back Vols. . 156 | 119 122 96 118 | 233 161 186 122 11?

| |
PIMOEHOS ἀν (οἷς 20 30 33 34 35 37 39 43 43 43
Special Receipts— | | |

Mr ment) «<< , . ἃ 25 es ἘΞ ]

Mrs. Cohen (Library) ἊΝ r | |

Sir C. Nicholson. . 20 | be na Ϊ re

Laurentian MS. . . τς τα 31 11 37 “= | | | |

| ! Ι
Mr. Ὁ. G. Hogarth /
(Alexandria Grant |
Refunded) . iit eet Bh Ι Ι 30]
Loan of Lantern Slides ak ae 4 4 4 2 | 7
|
Royalty on Sales of seth |
graphs . p 5 5 5 aa - ᾿ |
Loan from Bankers 100 } | !
\ Donations—James Vansittart, ]
| Esq., E.H. Egerton, Esq. 100 Ἢ 5
ἰ Les Per oa) een Se |
B88 | 86: | g10 | 846 898 976 | 878 | 1,034 | 910 | 915 |
Balance from preceding year 622 489 |) = 255 42 151 255 239 259 | 214 τόρ
1510 1,350 | 1,165 888 1,049 1,231 1,117 1,293 1,124 1084

ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEARS ENDING :—

| 31 Μαγ,, 3x May,| 31 May,| 31 May,| 31 May, | 31 May,| 31} May, | 31 May, 31: May,| 31: May,

ἘΠΕ, | 1888, 1889. | 1890. | ee sie 1893. ] 1894. ] τϑος. | x ae
| Ν ΠΕ
κ} ἀκ]. κα eee -
ΝΠ τ τς ΜΠ ΩΣ 15 30 30 30 | 35 50 73 | 80 80
PeSWANCE Bs 4. 5 . - 2 | 3 | 13 1 | Ix II zr 15 15
Salaries DRE ee a 41 46 39 39 39 44 | 49 49 | 49 47 |
4 | | |
i oh 9 : . . - 4 ] 41 | 15 2 76) 8 41 75 96 | 39 |
Stationery, Printing, and } | Ϊ
Saga a 68 54 | 61 55 | 62 fi γι 49 40 | 46 |
Cost of Journal (less sales). | 412 | 583 "875, 397 | 440 | 610 532 475 440 304 |
| ! |
Grants | 150 | 350 100 ttoo | 150 125 100 185 225 100
| | t
Egypt Exploration Fund | |
—t,100 copies of Mr. | | Ϊ ᾿ ]
Hogarth’s Report . | | | } 23 |
i | ' | Ϊ
Investments | 300 τς ] Ι | 46 100 158 |
oan Repaid Mis oss | | | yor as au
Photo Enlargements, Albums, Ϊ |
Lantern Slides, &c.. Σ ρος |e ee | 18 4 4 “
που στιν Mess) os, ἃ | 2 3 ἐξ "ἧς | Ἢ ane
| 1,021 1,095 1,123 737 794 992 858 | 1,079 | 955 744
Balance ... . ᾿ 480 ass | 42 | x51 255 239 | 259 | 214 | 169 340
— SS SSS = τς eS eS ϑψἋΚΛς-.-..--.-. ——— eS ae
1,510 1,350 | 1,165 | ggg | 1,049 £,257 1.117 | 1,293 1,124 | 1084

ee -΄ ---------ς-Ῥ»ρ----ς-----ς-.-ς--------ςς--
* Includes cost of reprinting of Vols. IV. and V. (= £437) less the amount received from sales.
1 The grant of £100 to the School at Athens has been paid since the accounts were made up; see Cash Account.

~ s To

ark =n teal ocr fo aire “-.
—~) eohdig pabesitei sad ye"

TR Apes δῊΣ AEN iV UHIRA pears Bie: ¥. vm
apé@-= @—a - =
‘ ‘
i ‘ river (Meo 2 At ΤΠ septa nani
. | —
Le φΦ ome —
᾿ , ΗΝ 4 ᾿ ΑΞ oo
a. ἃ. ide γ᾽ ἊΝ nh sid ὶ é — ᾿ ὑεῖ ᾿ν ach % mae
Ve . «ὦ 4 ' Ἀσὰ
ἱ ψ ᾿ : ως ᾿ A
δ | Η : ᾿ j
! ᾿ ,
* 4 ! < "ἃ ᾿ς , ἢ
f - 3 oy a } : ty. “᾿ς
» 7 | ΓῊ
᾿ a ἐδ ἴδ TP. ree
: a 1 ©
Σ » Ἢ Ρ᾿- γᾷ ᾿ ΠῚ 1 oan a
c = Ὶ a [ ι ἐ" ᾿ ᾿
.΄. ὦ a Ὦ 4 = Υ͂Σ ai ἢ es 64 a
ΐ ' a ; a3 "
᾽ ᾿ ἀν τὰν ay of }
Β ε i "
᾿ φῇ : Ϊ ΣῪ '
; “ 7 - ! oa i “4
Ὶ f a Ὶ } ᾿
, >| } > ᾿Ξ *
: ; ι
| ᾿᾿ =e Ὁ» φεῖ ut ) re J > ah) i
| oe, Ἂ . " -ᾶι " es ΩῚ —

; ΑΝ aa
oe as εἴ." “εἰ ‘it grr ool en ἡ.

oa J - - παρὸ παν ὧν
. ὗν, ἕν εν is «αὐ tot να tung ea hase ae
4 7 amo KN ¢ . pent ὧν. μα μννς ‘ke Hawg adel sane’ φινίαᾳ, ἐδ κδ τυ
- Ψ
Π ‘> Ὁ
rex ΡΝ

J.H.S. VOL. XVI. (4896) PL, 1.

LAGOONS NEAR
MISSOLONGHI.

Ἶ SCALE |:300,000.
a «| INCH = 4:92 MILES,

colin)
ε
J

Ul
phidaris BR.
( Euenos)

LAGOONS ON NORTH SHORE
OF THE GULF OF ARTA,

SCALE |:300.000.
| INCH = 492 MILES

GULF orf ARTA
(Ambrakia)

AnOHS ATAOM WO cHOOUAJ
ATSA 20 E100 BHT 30 ©

oo τῶν κι Bate
i Cees μόδον,

ATS A τὸ τυ
ἐλ κῶν bk)

SS ,
Ἶ ἘΞ ne OF
-- OITHIO

PALA:O-AVARINO
OR
PALao-KasTRO
ΙΚΟΡΥΦΑΣΙΟΝ

2.η.8. νοι. XVI. (1896) PL. II.

MAP SHOWING CONJECTURAL POSITIONS IN DEFENCE
AND BLOCKADE OF
KORYPHASION

SOALE δ INCHES =) MILE. AA N WALL
| INCH ΞῚ FURLONG = 220 YARDS. 85 8 WALL
CONTOURS 30 FEET VERTICAL ©© PELOPONNESIAN LAND ATTACK

00 VESSELS BLOCKING THE STRAITS:
EE PELOPONNESIAN DETACHMENTS ON SHORE OF BAY
FF POSSIBLE LANDING ON KORYPHASION

g

5 pay
> with sandy shor

Huu OF
Aaio Nigouo 2 ffs

30 e
oe =
εἴ 8
43 §
‘ 8.
\ '
Ὥς As
iy ἰᾷ
Ἶ > - Ἶ
tile Ba?
δ: sa Book
\. sloping sh Ἧ
0
SURVEYED B
SCALE
OONTOUR LINE
60, 120, 180
SOUNOINGS

%400 300 200

500 400 300 200

Town or
NAVARINO

J.H.S, VOL. XVI. (1896) PL. III.

ΔῊ δι VOL XVI, (1806) PL. 1h

ay Ν
_ with randy shore, Send Hilly ELAIW

LAGOON OF OsMYN, AGA

= χὰ
Bar or Voiruio\s
Kitts

PaLwokaerag.
on
1 νι κοτανακικο

PLAIN OF Χεκιλϑ
[Alluvial Ground]

* ‘\

\
a (i asst oF
\y / \

ὧν
, Ξ \ Le eae ei
\ = \ fe fonddward shore
" - mortly rock cli
\ \ gait
\ i cr
(3 ἢ]
Ι f
! Ι
/
|
|
&
\
| t
Ϊ
Ϊ
/

SPHAGIA Istanp \>

Gadaro Paint Ef . 5...

Towx oF
Navasixo

>
3
PYLOS AND ITS ENVIRONS δ
ϑυκνεγεῦ sy G. Β. Grunpy, M.A, ΒΝ Ὁ, Οχεοόπο, Υ

August, 1895 a μή
φολιεῳ NOHERE ) MILE whee oF κάτυδε. ὃ [
Mo ire το κεῖτ ON BEA NGONTS ano SOUNDINGS TW FEET. Το (Dae
Sento TARDE Paces ADMMNALYT SUSU Br μονῶν rocks

ν ἢ \\\
Ὶ } \\ {

‘sco πὸ νοῦ 95 ῃ ῃ ἔνε ἘΠΕ) τὸν 1. (1147. fat top, siden εἰ)
᾿

ἜΚ ς- -Ξ Ἶ πω»

L
we

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS.

[Puates I, ΤΙ, 1171]

PREFACE.

THE expenses of this investigation were to a great extent defrayed by
grants of money which the University of Oxford and the Principal and
Fellows of Brazenose College were kind enough to vote me for the purpose.

Iam greatly indebted to the advocacy of my friends Professor Pelham
and Mr. Macan in obtaining these grants.

In the winter of 1892-31 did some topographical work in Southern
Boeotia. The results of that work were, to myself at any rate, satisfactory
in the sense that I felt when the work was finished that I had done
something towards clearing up my own ideas with regard to important parts
of the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, and that I might possibly, if
I stated my views with sufficient clearness, help to free the minds of others
from difficulties to which the study of those portions of the histories must
inevitably give rise.

In the winter of 1893-4 I did similar work in Italy with regard to the
battles of the Trebbia and Lake Trasimene.

There remained a great question in classical topography which pecu-
liarly interested me and which had never been thoroughly investigated by
any inquirer, the question of the account of the operations at Sphakteria as
related by Thucydides. That persons interested in the matter had visited
the region it is hardly necessary to say, but I cannot find evidence of any
one of these inquirers having made a survey of the country or having stayed
more than a day or two, at most, in the district. Captain Smyth, who made
for the Admiralty the survey which Arnold used in his edition of Thucydides,
must of course have known the region well, but, though he gave Arnold
valuable information, he made his map without the historical end in view.

I venture to think that a more or less hurried investigation cannot be
final in matters of topography when the questions involved are very compli-

H.S.—VOL. XVI. B

2 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY. OF

cated, and of the topographical questions of which I have knowledge, either
from my own investigations or those of others, I know of none so complicated
as those connected with Sphakteria.

Circumstances rendered it necessary for me to do the work in the
summer, and the actual survey was made betwecen the 4th and the 18th of
August of the year 1895. For the work at Sphakteria I could have found
time at Christmas, but I hoped to do similar work at Delium and, possibly,
Mantinea. I was variously advised as to the possibilities of work in the
Greek summer. My brief experience leads me to believe that if you can
stand great heat, and take ordinary precautions as to food and drink, you
can travel safely in districts not peculiarly malarious. But if you have to
work in the neighbourhood of a marshy, muddy lagoon like that of Osmyn
Aga, which lies to the north of the Bay of Navarino, then the summer is not
the time at which the work should be done.

The depths in feet noted on my map are taken from the Admiralty
survey.

The eastern shore of the Lagoon of Osmyn Aga is only approximately
given, but is marked in what must be very nearly its actual position. There
is a great bed of reeds at that end of the lagoon some ten or fifteen feet
high, which prevented me from getting accurate sights on to that shore.
I had intended to determine its exact position, but when I finished the
important portion of the lagoon and the hills of Palaeo-Kastro and Agio
Nikolo after four days’ work, and required half a day more to complete the
east shore of the lagoon, I was warned that five deaths had taken place from
malarial fever among the scanty population of the shores of the lake during
the brief time I had been upon it. No one in its neighbourhood lives to be
over forty, and it is only the severe stress of poverty which induces any one
to reside near it, it being of value asa fishery. It seemed probable that I
should have the fever myself, so I worked hard at the Island of Sphagia in
order to get it finished before I went down.

After consideration I determined to adopt as far as possible the
historical rather than the topographical order in the argument.

I have adopted the English equivalents of the Greek- letters in the
spelling of proper names, save that I have taken the letter y to represent the
Greek upsilon.

The frequent use of the words ‘ possibly,’ ‘ probably,’ ‘almost certainly,’
etc., may be almost wearisome, but is absolutely unavoidable in a paper of
this kind.

Before entering upon a description of the country round Navarino it
will be well to state exactly the application of the geographical names which
it will be necessary to use in the course of it.

Navarino was a few years ago the name of the town now called Pylos.
It is situated on the east side of the south entrance of the bay. The name
Navarino is attributed to the fact that certain Navarrese mercenaries were

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 3

settled there in the time of the Frankish dominion.’ The recent change of
name is due to the zeal for antiquity prevalent in modern Greece. The
Pylos of Homer and Thucydides was, however, several miles distant from
the site of the modern town. For clearness’ sake I shall call the town by
its former name of Navarino.

Sphagia is the name of the reputed Sphakteria, the long narrow island
which shuts in the bay on the west.

Palaeo-Kastvo (also called Palaeo-Avarino) derives its name from the
ruins of a mediaeval castle of large dimensions situated on its summit. It
is the commonly reputed Koryphasion.

Agio Nikolo is the name of the hill north of the last mentioned, divided
from it by the small bay of Voithio-Kilia.

The Lagoon will be spoken of as the Lagoon or Lake of Osmyn Aga.

It will be seen on reference to the map that the Bay of Navarino is
landlocked save for the broad entrance on the south. It is extremely deep,
the greatest depth being something over 200 feet, and depths of 90 feet
being found quite close in shore. As far as can be seen there is no reason
whatever to suppose that its size and appearance generally are very different
at the present time from what they were 400 years before Christ.

The south entrance, which is more than three-quarters of a mile wide,
cannot within the historical period have been appreciably narrower than at
present. It is extraordinarily deep for an entrance channel to a bay. Did
the channel lead into a sea with a rushing tide it would be inconceivable
that such a change could have taken place in it since the year 400 B.c. as
to turn such as passage as Thucydides describes into such a channel as now
exists, and in a tideless sea like the Mediterranean the inconceivability of
such a thing having happened is very much greater. A few facts will show
the force of this remark. The strait is, as has been said, three-quarters of a
mile wide: over 200 feet deep in the middle: 60 feet deep under the cliffs of
Sphagia; 90 feet deep close in shore on the side of the mainland. It is
possible, but improbable, that 2000 years ago the island of Sphagia may
have extended continuously to the detached rock on which the Light House
stands, but it is quite impossible, if Thucydides’ statement be correct, that
this can have been the channel to which he refers as having existed, as he
supposed, to the south of the island he calls Sphakteria.?

The northern channel between Sphagia and Palaeo-Kastro is, as will be
seen, very narrow. Towards the sea it is deep, but the most remarkable fact
with regard to it is that at the end towards the bay it is easily fordable,
there being only about two feet of water. This ford is perhaps 250 yards
across from shore to shore, its breadth being apparently from forty to fifty

1 Professor Curtius, Peloponnesos i. 86, derives the name from a settlement of Avars in this
region at the beginning of the seventh century after Christ.
Thue. iv. 8, 6.

ΒΦ

4 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

yards. On either side the water deepens very rapidly, and on the side
towards the bay, close to the Tortori rocks, the depth of ninety feet is found.
There is a tradition that this shallow ford is due to the fact that the Turks,
after the battle of Lepanto, when the remnant of their fleet took refuge in
this bay, blocked up this north entrance of the harbour with stones and
sunken vessels. This tradition is noted in the Admiralty survey. Whether
it be true or not cannot now be determined, except, possibly, by reference to
Venetian naval archives. My own impression is that a bar is gradually
forming across the Sikia Channel, similar to that which has closed the
Voithio-Kilia Channel of former times.

The island of Sphagia, which is usually identified with the ancient
Sphakteria, presents probably at the present day to all intents the same
appearance and characteristics that it presented 2000 years ago. The
depth of water close in shore on every side of it forbids the supposition that
the wear and tear of the sea can have had much effect upon its outline.
Its length is two and three-qtfarter miles, its breadth varying from
one-third to half a mile. Its area is about one square mile or 640 acres.
The north end of the island consists of a short ridge running east and west
with a dip in the middle of it, having its highest point at the east ex-
tremity. This point is, moreover, the highest summit of the island, having
a height of about 500 feet. From this summit to the bay on the east the
descent is perpendicular—a magnificent cliff—save that between the summit
and the edge of the cliff is a hollow whose bottom is below the level of the
cliff edge, and from which a second line of cliff of no great height extends
to the summit. The north face of the ridge towards the Sikia Channel is
steep but easily climbable, and the west face is the same. The south slope
towards the low-lying part of the island is less steep than the slope on the
north. :
The south end of the island is, roughly speaking, a plateau with an
elevation of some 150 feet above sea level, but having on its northern edge
two hills which rise to about 300 feet. The shores of this part of the
island are for the most part perpendicular cliffs from 100 to 150 feet high.

Between the plateau and the northern ridge lies a portion of the island
amounting to about one-half the area of the whole. Along the east edge
or bay shore of this portion runs a ridge connecting the southern plateau
with the north ridge. It is close to that shore, and forms a great line of
cliffs along it, with a height varying from 300 to 100 feet. There is one
break in the ridge, right opposite the Panagia, noted in the map as the
Panagia Gap. This ridge on its western side slopes steeply down to the
long stretch of low-lying land which forms the greater part of the area of
this portion of the island, whose coast towards the sea is low-lying but
rocky, ‘The island is uninhabited. There is a house close to the chapel of
Panagia, in which a priest sometimes lodges. The amount of cultivation is
insignificant, amounting to little more than an acre in all. The rock of
which the island is composed is largely πῶρος limestone. The surface is
covered with low scrub from one to three feet high, with trees scattered in

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 5

clumps and singly here and there. These trees do not in any case exceed
a height of fifteen feet. They are, as might be expected, most numerous on
the low ground.

On the side towards the bay a landing can only be effected at four
points :—

(1) Near the Tortori Rocks.

(2) The Panagia landing, the best and most frequently used, giving
good access to the island through the Panagia Gap.

(3) The Santa Rosa landing, good in itself, but communicating with the

main portion of the island by a somewhat difficult pathway.
(4) The South landing, not capable of use save in calm weather, but
offering easy communication with the south end of the island.

On the side towards the sea landing would be possible in calm weather
(1) on the Sikia Channel.

(2) on the low, rocky shore from the north-west cape and the bay north
of Gadaro point.

(3) on a similar short stretch of shore between Gadaro point and
the cape next south of it.

Landing on any other part of the shore of the island is practically
impossible.

Palaeo-Kastro, the reputed Koryphasion, is 450 feet high? Its highest
point is towards, but not at, its north end. The east side towards the
Lagoon of Osmyn Aga is an unclimbable cliff extending with varying height
from the Sikia Channel to the Bay of Voithio-Kilia, with but one break
towards its north end. A narrow rocky path ‘eads round the south end of it
on the Sikia Channel. The north face of the hill is a slope broken by a cliff
of considerable height. The west face towards the sea is a very steep slope,
partially broken by a cliff of no great height. The south face is a long slope
which is not very steep until the summit of the hill is neared.

Landing would be possible, except in rough weather, on the Sikia
Channel and the south portion of the west coast towards the sea.

It is when we turn to the lagoon of Osmyn Aga that we have to deal
with the crucial question in the topography of this region. In its present
condition it is a shallow lake, only a few feet deep at most, covering an area
of between one and two square miles. On its novth side it is bounded by
the alluvial plain of Lykos. On its east side is a great bed of reeds and an
alluvial plain extending to the foot of the hills which rise sharply from it.
From these hills numerous streams enter the lake, but in the month of
August they are without water, save the river Jalova. In August of last
year the latter was flowing into the bay, but it is, so it was said, at times

3 Both Leake and Curiius (probably follow- notable example of the dangers of topography
ing Leake) speak of it as 800 feet high, a αὖ sight.

6 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

diverted into the lagoon. The west side of the lake comes within from one
to two hundred yards of the low cliffs of Agio Nikolo. From the Bay of
Voithio-Kilia it is separated by a semicircular sand-bar, two-thirds of the
surface of which is covered with sand-hills, while the north third is also
composed of sand, on the surface at any rate, but is flat and low-lying. The
Lagoon comes close up to the oliffs of Palaeo-Kastro, even in summer. On the
south side it is separated from the Bay of Navarino by a strip of sand and
alluvium, of which the general characteristics are that its shores towards the
lagoon and bay consist of sand-hills, whilst between these sand-hills runs a
long strip of alluvial ground. On the bay side of this sand-bar the water
deepens rapidly, the ten fathom line being quite close in. There are openings
into the lake through the sand-bar at the end towards Palaeo-Kastro. They
are provided with dams, which are sometimes opened in summer to let
water into the lake. In August, 1895, the water of the lake was, as near as
could be calculated with the instruments used in the survey, about one metre
below sea level. This measurement may not be quite accurate, but the bed
of the lagoon is certainly below the level of the neighbouring sea. The
ground on which the lagoon stands is a sandy alluvium.

The great questions are, What is the origin of this lagoon ? and What was
its condition at the time when the events at Sphakteria took place? It is of
the utmost importance to settle this matter, because if it was in existence at
the time at which the events narrated by Thucydides took place, it must
enter into any consideration of the reliability or otherwise of the narrative.

Perhaps the clearest mode of stating the question will be to give first
the views of previous investigators, and then mention the facts which came
to the notice of the writer of this paper in the course of his own
investigation.

The views to be considered are those of Col. Leake, Captain Smyth
(who gave Arnold much information), Prof. Εἰ. Curtius, and Mr. Tozer. It is
needless to say that al] these writers wrote from personal knowledge of the
region, though in some cases that knowledge was derived from a very brief
sojourn there.

Colonel Leake says:4—‘The lagoon encompasses all the eastern
side of the hill of Coryphasium, and is separated from the harbour of
Navarin by another sandy stripe of land, in which there is a narrow opening
which forms the communication between the harbour and the lagoon: there
is a sandy level between the hill and the lagoon, both at the northern and at
the southern extremity of the promontory. Col. Leake then quotes
Pausanias ® (whose account of Pylos will be referred to later). ‘It is here
seen (continues Colonel Leake), that Pausanias, like Thucydides, says not a
word of the lagoon near Coryphasium, which now forms so remarkable a
feature in the topography of Navarin: we may confidently conclude, there-
fore, that it is of recent origin. The mode in which such shallow maritime
salt lakes (by the ancients called λεμνοθάλατται Or στομάλιεμναι) are formed

* Leake, Travels in the Morea, vol. i. p. 413. δ᾽ Pausan. Messen, ch. 36.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 7

in process of time on low sandy shores is well known: and the frequency of
their occurrence on the coasts of the Mediterranean renders the supposition οἵ
the ancient non-existence of the lagoon the more probable in the present
instance. The peninsula of Pylus must in that case have been surrounded
anciently with a sandy plain as Pausanias describes it, and thus the epithet
of Homer becomes so much the more applicable to the Coryphasian Pylus.’
Without at present entering on the particular question of the formation
of the Lagoon at Pylos, it is impossible to leave unchallenged Colonel Leake’s
assumption as to the mode in which such lagoons are formed. No one would
attempt to deny that such lagoons are at a late stage of their existence
supplied by means of land water rather than sea water. It is when we come
to their previous history that Colonel Leake’s apparent though not explicitly
stated theory breaks down before the evidence which is written in large type
all round the shores of the Mediterranean. On this very western coast of
Greece we can see such lagoons both already formed and in process of forma-
tion, namely at the mouth of the Alpheus between Katakolo and Pyrgos, at
Missolonghi and on the north shore of the Gulf of Arta (PI. L.) ; in fact at every
river mouth on this shore of this tideless sea where there is some sort of
protection from the wash of the sea currents. What has happened at these
places on a large scale, has happened elsewhere on a smaller one, the two
factors determining the scale being the amount of protection afforded by the
local natural features, and the size of the river or stream at whose mouth
the lagoons are formed. At Missolonghi, where both factors are strongly in
evidence, the work goes on with great rapidity and on a large scale. The
process may be seen there both in a finished and unfinished stage. The first
point to be noted is this: that these lagoons are formed on sites which were
formerly part of the open sea. Without attempting to enter into any detail
of the dynamics of the question, the process of formation may be described
as beginning with the deposit of detritus at a point near or off the river
mouth or coast, and in a line at right angles to the line of advance of the
waves upon the coast [1.6. parallel to the waves themselves] or in some cases
by the deposit of sea-borne sand in a bar off the coast. This deposit extends
gradually in the form of a long narrow bank until it ends by enclosing a
piece of water which was formerly a part of the sea. In the course of time
this piece of water becomes filled with detritus and what was lagoon
becomes a portion of the mainland. In some places, owing to local cireum-
stances, such as currents, etc., the lagoon formation in this process of the
deposit of detritus can be only imperfectly seen, as for instance at Thermo-
pylae, where the peculiar current of the Euripo or Talanta channel modifies
the general rule. Surely ¢his lagoon formation is something very different
from what Colonel Leake would have us suppose. The amount of débris
brought down by rivers in a land like Greece or even Italy is out of all
proportion to anything of the kind we can observe in our own country.
Greece is mountainous, therefore its rivers are rapid and do not deposit their
detritus in the way that slow-flowing rivers would do. Furthermore the
rivers of that country are subject to torrential floods the like of which are

8 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

rare with us. So much for the general question. It would seem as if
Colonel Leake had begged it somewhat. He has also, it would seem, begged
the question with regard to his quotation from Pausanias. Pausanias says®
“ὑπόψαμμός τε yap ἐστιν ws ἐπίπαν ἡ τῶν ἸΠυλίων χώρα, which Colonel
Leake translates ‘for all around it (Pylos) the country is sandy.’ It is
worthy of note that Colonel Leake only spent one day in his examination of
the region.’

In Arnold’s Thucydides is, as is well known, a long note on the vexed
question of Sphakteria. When the difficulties which beset any one who deals
with intricate topographical questions from the map only are considered, it is
impossible for any one who knows the region well not to admire the
marvellous correctness with which the difficulties connected with it are
stated in that note. It shows how exceedingly keen and able a judge Dr.
Arnold must have been on questions of topography, and it shows too that he
knew enough of the matter to appreciate the limits beyond which it is
dangerous to transgress without personal acquaintance with the ground under
discussion.

Dr. Arnold derived his information from Captain Smyth, who had made
a survey of the region for the Admiralty, and therefore must have been more
or less intimately acquainted with its physical features. Of the lagoon
Arnold says: ‘I consulted Captain Smyth on this point (Col. Leake’s theory)
and he was decidedly of opinion that the lake was gradually filling up,
instead of being of recent formation, and that its history was like that of the
Athenian port of Cantharus “ which through neglect, its low situation, and the
alluvial depositions of a small stream running into it, is now become a mere
lagoon, unfit even to receive the small vessels in use among the modern
Greeks.” If this be the case, the lake was probably in ancient times not
only deeper, but more extensive than at present, so as to come up to the very
eastern foot of the ridge of hills which runs parallel to the coast; and, as
even at present it is larger than the port of the Piraeus, Thucydides might
well have called it a “ harbour of considerable size.” ’

In his account of this region Prof. Curtius contradicts himself in a most
remarkable way with reference to the lagoon. Speaking of the ridge of
which Sphakteria, Palaeo-Kastro, and Agio Nikolo are fragments, and which, as
he says, must have been at some remote geological period connected with the
range on the mainland which runs from Navarino to Modon, he says:§ ‘It is
however, pierced by the sea in two places’ (south entrance of Navarino Bay
and Sikia Channel), ‘so that a part of it has become the elongated island of
Sphakteria: further the sea current, penetrating through the two openings,
has washed out the sandy country which lay behind the coast, and thus
hollowed out inside the coast island a great basin with a semicircular line of
coast.... Jt appears that there once existed three openings, and three
connections between the outer and the inner sea: the northernmost of them has
however, becn silted up again, and so the Island above Sphakteria (1.6. Palaeo-

5 Pais. iv. 36, 5 7 Leake, Morea, p. 401. * Curt. Pelop. ii. p. 178.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 0

Kastro) has become a promontory. The channel referred to is of course that
through the Bay of Voithio-Kilia.

Further on Dr. Curtius says:? ‘To the changes which this region has
passed through since classical times belongs also probably the formation of
the Lagoon, the great salt lake of Osmyn Aga: also the. circular bay of
Voithio-Kilia, which is now being gradually filled up again, does not seem to
have been existent, otherwise the Attic fleet would not have gone to anchor
behind Proté, and Thucydides would not have said so explicitly that no
harbour existed outside the harbour of Pylos. [The italics are not of the
original. |

What does Curtius mean? If Voithio-Kilia did not exist in Thucydides’
time, it certainly did not exist at a previous period. Nor can it have been
both existent and non-existent at the same time. What he says about
Voithio-Kilia in relation to the Athenian fleet shows that Dr. Curtius knows
nothing of the nature of that little bay. Everything about it points to the
fact that as a bay it can never have been possibly used as a harbour for a
fleet. Inside the entrance it is very shallow, in fact there are only a few feet
of water.

Professor Curtius then says: ‘If we suppose, instead of that extensive
stretch of water, the existence of sandflats, the name of “sandy” Pylos
appears still more justified.’

Mr. Tozer takes the same view,’® viz. that the site of the lagoon was a
sandy plain in the time of Thucydides. He says :—

‘At present a lagoon bounds the E. side of this rocky height (Palaeo-
Kastro), but as there has been a tendency for such pieces of water to form all
along this coast since classical times, there is reason to believe that the area
was formerly covered with sand,’

Such then are the views which have been expressed with regard to the
origin of the lagoon by previous observers. It will now be well to take the
evidence obtainable on the spot. The general question of the formation of
such lagoons has been already dealt with. It is written, as has been said
already, on the western shore of Greece in type large enough for all to read.

(1) It seems impossible to doubt that Professor Curtius is right in his
first sketch of the ancient geography of this region. There is the plainest
evidence that the Bay of Voithio-Kilia was originally an entrance into a
northern extension of the great Bay. It may be said, ‘Why may it not be
supposed that the Voithio-Kilia gap in the cliffs has been formed since the
time of Thucydides?’ The answer is, firstly, that the amount of wear and
tear in the rocks at the entrance of that bay which must be assumed under
such an hypothesis is in the highest degree unlikely to have taken place
within the stated period. Secondly, that if such an amount of wear and tear
were assumed in the case of the Voithio-Kilia opening, it would be extremely
illogical to suppose that the Sikia Channel was open at that time; and, if it
were not, Palaeo-Kastro and Sphagia were one.

9. Curt. Pelop. ii. p. 180. 10 Tozer, Lectures on the Geography of Greece.

10 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

(2) Of the two factors necessary for the deposit of detritus both are
present. The north end of the Bay would be protected from sea currents by
Agio Nikolo and Palaeo-Kastro, and any detritus deposited there would
remain. The river Jalova when its water is high must bring down like
other Greek rivers a very large amount of solid matter, and though it does
now partly discharge into the bay, yet it also has a mouth on the lagoon,
and at one time the latter may well have been the sole mouth, until the
lagoon got choked. But it is not from the river Jalova only that the
detritus must enter the lagoon. The plain of Lykos rises with a gentle
slope for several miles to the north of it. In the rains this alluvial plain
must drain into the lagoon, and the amount of solid matter which must be
brought down by small streams at such a season must be very large. There
are other small streams besides the river Jalova which enter the lagoon
from the hills on the east side. If the solid matter brought down by these
streams is not on the site of the lagoon, where is it? It cannot have got
over the sand-bar into the bay. If it 7s there, it must have filled up some
hollow, for many feet of it must have been deposited in the last 2,400 years,
and that hollow must at the beginning of that period have been filled by
water, since its bottom would be many feet below sea level. The lagoon is
in fact on a small scale an example of what is going on on a much larger
scale on the Gulf of Arta and Missolonghi.

(8) The water is brackish. One of two things must be the case.
Either it is true that water is let into the lake through the openings, or it
is on ground impregnated with sea salt, 1.5. on the site of a former arm of
the sea. If the water is let into the lake it is below sea level. It has
already been said that measurements taken with the instruments used in
the survey made the level of water in the lagoon about one metre below the
level of the neighbouring sea. This calculation is not far out, but is not
reliable in accuracy since the only instruments available were not such as
should be used for very accurate levelling. Colonel Leake says,!! and notes
the fact in his map, that there was a free opening into the lagoon from the
bay. Now if these things be so the bottom of the lagoon is at the present
day several feet below sea level. If the sandy plain of Leake, Curtius and
Tozer were there in former times, it must have been above sea level. What
then has become of all those feet of sand which must have lain on the site
of the present lagoon ?

(4) It is hardly conceivable that any one seeing the great cliffs of
Sphagia on the side towards the bay could doubt for one moment that they
are water-worn, ἴ.6. formed by the action of the sea in the course of ages.
But the cliffs of Palaeo-Kastro resemble them in every respect save one:
they are in the same line: they are peculiarly the same in characteristics,
but they have in their northern half what the Sphagia cliffs have not, at
any rate to the same extent, a collection of débris, rocks, etc., at their bottom
showing that deep water has not washed them for some time past. The

4 Leake, Morea, vol. i. p. 412.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 11

southern half however of the great east cliff of Palaeo-Kastro has very
little débris at its bottom, and must have been washed by an arm of the sea
at a comparatively recent period.”

The whole of the evidence obtainable on the spot lends almost over-
powering testimony to the view that the lagoon is the remnant of what was
an extension of the Bay of Navarino on the north, and furthermore such
data of progress as we can obtain from parallel instances all point to the
fact that in the days of Thucydides there must have been water here which
would be navigable over, at any rate, a large extent of its area. Even in
the deep bay itself the soundings show how quickly the river Xerias, a
stream very little, if at all, larger than the Jalova, is filling up the north-
east point of it, and the plain of Xerias is evidently an old arm of the sea.

The writer has felt it necessary to deal with this matter at some length,
because, in the first place, the point is of considerable importance and
interest in the Sphakteria question, and, in the second place, it would be
foolish to contest the views of such authorities as Leake, Curtius and Tozer
without showing good reason for doing so. Such then is the topographical
evidence obtainable on the spot at the present day. If it is to be ignored,
topography had better be done, as in former days, at home. The historical
evidence will be dealt with when Thucydides’ narrative is examined, but the
reference in Pausanias comes rather under the head of topography and had
better be dealt with here. ,

In the account of Pylos and its neighbourhood given by Pausanias,'* he
gives the following facts :—

Koryphasion is 100 stades from Mothone (Modon).
Pylos is on Koryphasion.
Pylos was founded by, etc., etc.

There is there a temple of Athene, a house said to be that of Nestor, a
monument to Nestor, etc.

There is a cave within the city, etc.

Long account of Nestor’s oxen [in quantity equal to all the rest of the
information given about the place].

He thinks that these oxen must have been pastured at some distance
from the city ‘for the country of the Pylians is, generally speaking, some-
what sandy.’ !4

The island of Sphakteria lies in front of the harbour.

12 There are, it must be mentioned, squared _ place, connected with the great mediaeval for-
stones to be found in the water of the lagoon. _ tress on Palaeo-Kastro.
I examined them. Local tradition represented 13 Paus. Messen. 36.
them as remnants of the house of Nestor! 14 ὑπόψαμμός τε γάρ ἐστιν ὡς ἐπίπαν 7 τῶν
They are seemingly remains of some work, πΠυλίων χώρα. Paus, λ7685. 36, 5.
whether causeway, aqueduct or landing

12 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

The facts mentioned by the author have been thus stated at length
because the whole account is a very fair specimen of the kind of topo-
graphical description we find in Pausanias. There is, of course, not a word
about the lagoon or its then representative. This is at the best negative
evidence. Can it be seriously argued by any one acquainted with Pausanias’
method that because he does not mention some natural feature in his
description of any given locality, therefore we are to assume that that
natural feature did not exist in his time? How many important natural
features in various localities in Greece, which we know to have been in
existence in his time, should we not have to erase from the ancient map did
we accept non-mention by Pausanias as evidence of their non-existence !
We might as well argue that the tremendous cliff of nearly 400 feet on the
land side of Koryphasion did not exist in the time of Pausanias. It is the
natural feature of the locality which would certainly be noticed by any one
interested in describing its natural characteristics. But it is not on that side
of topography that Pausanias’ interest lies. It is with the antiquities of
Greece that he is concerned—the temples and the old legends.

The mention of the island of Sphakteria is, as the context shows,
entirely in reference to Thucydides’ narrative of the events which took place
there. The earlier part of Thucydides, Book iv., as the locus classicus on
the subject of Sphakteria, colours every reference to the island which we
find in later classical authors. Thucydides’ account of the topography with
its mistake or mistakes is accepted without any question.

There is another point in reference to Pausanias which we must bear in
mind. He wrote six hundred years after the events at Sphakteria took place,
and it is quite possible that changes in the local circumstances had in the
interval rendered the lagoon unfitted for use as a harbour. As to the deduc-
tions drawn from Homer’s use of the epithet ‘sandy,’ this will best be dealt
with when we come to discuss the site of the Homeric Pylos, and may be left
for the present with the remark that, though the matter cannot be determined
with certainty, yet the slight evidence at present at our disposal points to a
site other than that of the Pylos which Pausanias knew as having been the
site of the Homeric city. ;

It is impossible of course to say on the topographical evidence only what
stage in this geographical evolution of the lagoon had been reached four
hundred years before the Christian era. For this we shall have to have
recourse to the historical evidence.

Though it is a departure from the historical in favour of the topogra-
phical order of the argument, yet it does seem that it might be conventent to
the reader if the conclusion which has been arrived at on the above question
be now stated. The sand-bar between the bay and the lagoon is for the
greater part of its length overgrown with bushes, and for a natural feature of
this kind of considerable height. At the end towards Palaeo-Kastro, where
the channels leading into the lake are at present situated, it is low, and the
vegetation is sparse save in the usual form of sand-grasses. That the lagoon
was in Thucydides’ time navigable as a harbour it is impossible to doubt for

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 13

reasons which have been already stated. The historical evidence, for which
of course we have to rely on Thucydides, is difficult to sift, for the reason that
Thucydides did not understand the nature of the region which he attempted
to describe; but on the whole it seems to point to the fact that there existed
at this time a channel leading into the lagoon harbour at the low point of the
sand-bar which has been mentioned, right under the cliffs of Palaeo-Kastro,
and that the small amount of débris which has collected at the foot of this
portion of these cliffs is due to the existence of this channel. The Voithio-
Kilia channel was apparently already blocked, and as the detritus which has
filled up the lagoon must have come largely from the north, it is highly
probable, from the topographical point of view, that this was the first channel
to be closed. The sand-bar between the bay and the lagoon was, then, as has
been implied, in that state in which we can see the bars of many such lagoons,
viz. it had nearly, but not quite, cut off the former extension of the bay from
the bay itself. It must be mentioned that it is quite conceivable that, even
at the present day, were the exits into the bay to become blocked in flood
time, when much water must be poured into the lagoon, the water might
easily force a channel over and through the north end of the semicircular
sand-bar of Voithio-Kilia, and this is supported by the evidence of the
Venetian historian Garzoni, whom Arnold mentions in his note as saying in
his account of the capture of old Navarino (the Palaeo-Kastro) by the
Venetians in the year 1686, that it stands on a high peninsular rock, being
joined to the mainland by a narrow strip or tongue on its eastern side. In
Garzoni’s time then the lagoon was there.

Those who have read Arnold’s note on Sphakteria will know that two
theories with regard to the matter are there stated :—

(1) That Sphagia is Sphakteria, and conseyuently Palaeo-Kastro is
Koryphasion.

(2) That Palaeo-Kastro is Sphakteria, and consequently Agio Nikolo is
Koryphasion.

The second theory will have to be rejected on the strongest evidence,
but, as the writer knows from personal experience, it is one which may possibly
take hold on the imagination of those who have not seen the ground, and it
will be best therefore to treat it as a possibly admissible theory until a
point in the history is reached where the evidence renders its tenability
impossible.

It will now be well to turn to Thucydides and compare his account
closely with the actualities and possibilities of the site with special reference
to these two theories; for one of them must be true, or else there can be no
truth in Thucydides’ narrative.

It will be plain to any one who considers the question that the existence
of the lagoon harbour at that period is in favour of the theory which -will
have to be rejected, the Palaeo-Kastro-Sphakteria theory, since under it we
should have to suppose the Voithio-Kilia to have been open, and to be the
second entrance of the harbour to which Thucydides refers as having been
blocked by the Peloponnesian fleet.

14 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

In the early summer of B.C. 425 the Athenians despatched a fleet 15 from
Athens for Sicily. It consisted of forty ships. The official commanders in
charge of the fleet were Eurymedon and Sophokles. Demosthenes accom-
panied the fleet in a technically unofficial capacity, but obtained permission
to make use of it, if he thought well to do so, on the coasts of the Pelopon-
nesos. The latter, in accordance with his commission, urged the commanders
to put in at Pylos, καὶ πράξαντας ἃ δεῖ τὸν πλοῦν ποιεῖσθαι,15 a general
expression meaning, as the sequel shows, the establishment of an
ἐπιτειχισμός.

‘They refused to do this. It so happened however that a storm came
on and drove the ships into Pylos. Demosthenes kept urging them forthwith
to fortify the place (for he had joined the expedition for this purpose), and
pointed out the plentiful supply of timber and stones, the natural strength of
the position, and the deserted character both of it and of the country for a
long distance round. Pylos is about 400 stades from Sparta in the land
which was once Messenia, and is called by the Lacedaemonians Koryphasion.
They said, however, that there were plenty of uninhabited promontories in
the Peloponnese if he wished to occupy them and put the state to expense.
But to him the place seemed peculiarly advantageous, there being a harbour
close by, and the Messenians, he thought, who belonged to it of old, and
spoke the same dialect as the Lacedaemonians, would, from it as a base, do
peculiar damage, and would too be a reliable garrison of the place.”

Any one who has seen the Bay of Navarino in a strong wind will have
some difficulty in understanding how it could afford a safe refuge to the fleet
in a storm. A wind from the south or south-west brings with it a dangerous
sea through the broad south channel. On the north the bay is also unpro-
tected from the fierce north wind which is the dangerous wind on this coast
during the summer season. Such a wind blows straight on to the bay over
the plain of Lykos. The modern harbour of Navarino consists of only one
small corner on the south-east side of the bay, and it has been found necessary
to protect it by a breakwater which must have cost a considerable sum of
money, since it is carried out into six fathoms of water. The bay is so large
that in spite of the protection afforded by Sphagia a considerable sea would
be raised by a western gale. Taking the season into consideration it is
highly probable that the storm was from the north. It is of course the fact
that the west coast of Greece is almost destitute of harbours. At the present
day the only one between Navarino and Pylos is at Katakolo, and it is

16 Thue. iv. 2.

6 Jb, iv. 3.

7 Tb, ἀντιλεγόντων δὲ κατὰ τύχην χειμὼν ἐπιγε-
νόμενος κατήνεγκε τὰς ναῦ" ἐς τὴν Πύλον. καὶ
ὁ Δημοσθένης εὐθὺς ἠξίου τειχίζεσθαι τὸ χωρίον
(ἐπὶ τούτῳ γὰρ ξυνεκπλεῦσαι), καὶ ἀπέφαινε
πολλὴν εὐπορίαν ξύλων τε καὶ λίθων, καὶ φύσει
καρτερὺν ὃν καὶ ἔρημον αὐτό τε καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺ τῆς
χώρας: ἀπέχει γὰρ σταδίους μάλιστα ἣ Πύλος
τῆς Σπάρτης τετρακοσίους, καὶ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ Μεσ-

σηνίᾳ ποτὲ οὔσῃ γῆ, καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν οἱ Λακεδαι-
μόνιοι Κορυφάσιον. οἱ δὲ πολλὰς ἔφασαν εἶναι
ἄκρας ἐρήμους τῆς Πελοποννήσου, ἣν βούληται
καταλαμβάνων τὴν πόλιν δαπανᾶν, τῷ δὲ διάφορόν
τι ἐδόκει εἶναι τοῦτο τὸ χωρίον μᾶλλον, λιμένος τε
προσόντος, καὶ τοὺς Μεσσηνίους οἰκείους ὕντας
αὐτῷ τὸ ἀρχαῖον καὶ ὁμοφώνους- τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις
πλεῖστ᾽ ἂν βλάπτειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁρμωμιένους, καὶ
βεβαίους ἅμα τοῦ χωρίου φύλακας ἔσεσθα..

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 15

artificial ; therefore it may be said that the fleet put into the Bay of Navarino
faute de mieux. It may be that they drew up their vessels on the north shore
of the bay, 1.6. on the sand-bar: we are not told, however, that they did so,
and the fact that the commanders had no wish save to push on with their
voyage renders it probable that they anchored. But if so, we should cer-
tainly have expected, considering the length of the stay, to hear something
of the dangerous and difficult nature of the anchorage, such as we hear later
on in the story when this same fleet returns to the bay ; and yet Thucydides
in his highly detailed account of the circumstances relating to Pylos says not
a word of it. Is it not at least possible, if not probable, that this is because the
refuge was not the Bay of Navarino, but the harbour of which the lagoon of
Osmyn Aga isa remnant, where,anchored below Palaeo-Kastro, the ships would
be protected on the west by that hill and on the north by the hill of Agio
Nikolo, whilst on the south the sand-bar would form an effective breakwater.
There is a great deal in the remark which Arnold makes in his note—that the
Bay of Navarino is totally unlike the ancient Greek notion of a harbour.
The question of the site of Pylos is one of great difficulty. In the first
place: Is the Pylos to which Thucydides refers to be taken as what we may
call the Homeric, or is it some town of that name dating from the times of
Messenian independence of Sparta? If it is the former then we have some-
thing to go upon. There are traces, though very faint, of Cyclopean work
on the hill of Agio Nikolo, of which a detailed account will be given later.
On the hill of Palaeo-Kastro there are apparently none, though there are traces
of Greek buildings of a later date. Schliemann did some tentative digging
at various points on the latter hill, but he evidently gave it up as useless.
The places where he dug are still visible. Still the construction of the great
mediaeval fortress on the hill may well have obliterated all traces of Pylos if
they ever existed there.

But if we examine the ancient authorities on this region, Homer,
Thucydides, Pausanias and Strabo, we find traces at any rate of four successive
cities of this name in this neighbourhood, and of these it was not the ruins
of the Homeric city which existed on Koryphasion in Thucydides’ time.1®

Thucydides tells us in this passage that the Lacedaemonians called
Pylos by the name Koryphasion. From its meaning, the Bergspitze, or Peak,
the name would certainly apply more naturally to the hill of Palaeo-Kastro
with its height of 457 feet, than to that of Agio Nikolo, which is only 180
feet high, though both stand out clearly from the low ground of the lagoon.

We now come to a passage of significance when examined in the light of
the local topography. It must be remembered that the real question we are at
present trying to solve is whether the Athenians fortified Agio Nikolo or
Palaeo-Kastro. It will be well to take the text of chapter 4 and that of the
latter half of chapter 5 together.

‘As he [Demosthenes] failed to win over either the generals or the
soldiers to his plan (and he had afterwards communicated it to the taxiarchs

18 For further details v. p. 24.

16 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

also), he was kept in inactivity owing to the bad weather, until the impulse
seized on the soldiers themselves whose time hung heavy on their hands, to
collect and complete the fortification of the place. So they set to work
without any iron tools for masonry work, but bringing stones picked up on
the spot and placing them as each happened to fit in. The mortar, wherever
it was required, having no hods, they brought on their backs, leaning forward
so as to prevent it as much as possible from dropping, and clasping their two
hands behind them to prevent its falling. By every manner of means they
hastened to be beforehand with the Lacedaemonians by finishing the fortifi-
cation of the most assailable points, before they could come to the rescue of
their territory: for the major part of the position was strong by nature and
required no wall.”?

‘The Athenians after fortifying the side of the place towards the
mainland, and the other points, where it was especially required, in six days,
left Demosthenes with five ships to guard the place, whilst with the majority
of the fleet they speeded on their voyage to Kerkyra and Sicily.”°

In these two passages we have the following facts, from which the

topography may be «deduced :—

(1) The stones used for building the fortifications were picked up on the
spot.

(2) The soldiers voluntarily carried up the mud or mortar on their
backs.*!

(3) They paid special, if not exclusive, attention to the parts most open
to attack (τὰ ἐπιμαχώτατα), ‘for the major portion of the position was of
such natural strength as to require no wall.’

(4) They spent six days in fortifying τοῦ χωρίου τὰ πρὸς ἤπειρον καὶ ἃ
μάλιστα ἔδει.

Respecting :—

(1) Stones are plentiful both on Palaeo-Kastro and Agio Nikolo.

(2) The voluntary character of the work would render it exceedingly
unlikely that the soldiers should carry it up to the top of Palaeo-Kastro.

19 ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἔπειθεν οὔτε τοὺς στρατηγοὺς οὔτε
τοὺς στρατιώτας, ὕστερον καὶ τοῖς ταξιάρχοις
κοινώσας, ἡσύχαζεν ὑπὸ ἀπλοίας, μέχρι αὐτοῖς
ὁρμὴ ἐσέπεσε
περιστᾶσιν ἐκτειχίσαι τὸ χωρίον. καὶ ἐγχειρή-
σαντες εἰργάζοντο, σιδήρια μὲν λιθουργὰ οὐκ
ἔχοντες, λογάδην δὲ φέροντες λίθους, καὶ ξυνετί.
θεσαν ὡς ἕκαστόν τι ξυμβαίνοι: καὶ τὸν πηλὸν, εἴ
που δέοι χρῆσθαι, ἀγγείων ἀπορίᾳ ἐπὶ τοῦ νώτου
ἔφερον, ἐγκεκυφότες τε, ὡς μάλιστα μέλλοι
ἐπιμένειν, καὶ τὼ χεῖρε ἐς τοὐπίσω ξυμπλέκοντες,
παντί τε τρόπῳ ἠπείγοντο

τοῖς στρατιώταις σχολάζουσιν

ὅπως μὴ ἀποπίπτοι.
φθῆναι τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους
ἐξεργασάμενοι, πρὶν ἐπιβοηθῆσαι: τὸ γὰρ πλέον

‘ cA
τὰ ἐπιμαχώτατα

τοῦ χωρίου αὐτὸ καρτερὸν ὑπῆρχε, καὶ οὐδὲν ἔδει
telxovs.—Thue. iy. 4.

0 τειχίσαντες δὲ of ᾿Αθηναῖοι τοῦ χωρίου τὰ
πρὸς ἤπειρον καὶ ἃ μάλιστα ἔδει ἐν ἡμέραις ἕξ,
τὸν μὲν Δημοσθένην μετὰ νεῶν πέντε αὐτοῦ
φύλακα καταλείπουσι, ταῖς δὲ πλείοσι ναυσὶ τὸν
ἐς τὴν Κέρκυραν πλοῦν καὶ Σικελίαν ἠπείγοντο. ---
Thue. iv. 5, 2. ‘

21 If the sandy plain of Leake, Curtius, and
Tozer existed at this time on the land side of
Palaeo-Kastro, where did this πηλός come from
that the Athenians found so handy ?

It can have come from nowhere else than the
muddy shores of the lagoon harbour.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 17

The topography of that hill however renders it quite certain that the only
fortifications which Thucydides mentions as having been constructed on it
were quite low down.

(3) Applies in the most striking way to Palaeo-Kastro. The great line
of cliff on the land side renders it a peculiarly strong position and the
difficulty of landing on the sea side is also remarkable.

To Agio Nikolo the expression is with difficulty applicable.

(4) Applied to Palaeo-Kastro the fortification of τὰ πρὸς ἤπειρον
can only have been a wall closing the gap at the north end of the east cliff.
This work would have to be about 170 yards long. We know that there was

another wall low down the south slope, under which the ships were drawn up
behind a stockade.”

On the land side this hill may also be approached by a narrow path
close to the Sikia Channel round the point where the cliff on the east side
abuts on the water, a path which a few men could hold against any number
of assailants. The fortification of this would be the simplest matter possible,
and was probably provided for by an extension of the south wall.

It will be seen on reference to the contoured map that the hill of Agio
Nikolo is by no means a position of remarkable strength. Its eastern side
towards the lagoon is bordered by a clitf from thirty to forty feet high. This
cliff is in some places perpendicular, in others easily climbable. It has
evidently been formed, like the east cliff of Palaeo-Kastro, by the wash of
the water of the former north extension of the bay. The north slope of
the hill is an easy one to the very summit, and is not broken in any way.
The south slope is partially broken by a cliff which forms the north side of
the little bay which will be found marked on the map. To defend this hill
a wall 440 yards long would be required on the north: the east cliff would
require a wall or walls at ‘‘s many climbable parts, and on the south slope
a wall some 150 yards long would be required between the end of the little
bay cliff and the south end of the east cliff. Taking into consideration the
fact that the position is not by nature a strong one, and that the defending
walls were at the best of an emergency character, it seems highly improbable
that this hill could have been successfully defended by a very inferior force
against what was evidently a determined series of attacks on the part of
a greatly superior force, even bearing in mind the notorious incompetence
displayed by the Lacedaemonians in attacks on walls.

The blocking of the channels into the harbour, a statement which
Thucydides makes in such a way that it cannot be ignored, is in favour of
the Palaeo-Kastro Sphakteria theory, If Agio Nikolo was Koryphasion
then Palaeo-Kastro was an island, and the Voithio-Kilia Channel open, and
this channel and the one through the the sand-bar from the bay into the
lagoon harbour were the channels which were blocked.

But it will be well, even at the expense of anticipating the history

*2 Thue. iv. 9, 1.
H.S.—VOL. XVI. Ὁ

18 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

somewhat, to put the Palaeo-Kastro-Sphakteria theory out of the way, in
order that the complications of the story may not be further complicated by
a theory which will have in the end to be surrendered.

It will be seen that on the question of the identity of Agio Nikolo with
Koryphasion the theory cannot be rejected absolutely, though, on the whole,
probability is against it.

But it will also be understood that the above question is inseparably
connected with the question of the identity of Sphakteria. On that it is
impossible to speak too emphatically. Any one who has read the description
of the events which took place on Sphakteria and who has visited the island
of Sphagia can have no manner of donbt as to the identity of the two.
There is a certain resemblance of course between the natural features of
Sphagia and Palaeo-Kastro, but the story which applies in every detail and
consideration to the former is in many respects incomprehensible when
applied to the latter. It is a story of remarkable accuracy, and of such
fidelity to the topographical circumstances of Sphagia that it would be
reasonable to decide the question on this evidence only. If we try to apply
it to Palaeo-Kastro we are met with serious difficulties :—

(1) If the Spartans were on the low ground, the Athenian landing
could not have been conducted in secret, and would have been opposed,
almost certainly with success,

(2) The landing on the Bay side would almost certainly have to be
determined as having taken place at the other end of the island from that
on the sea side, which would make Thucydides’ tale incomprehensible.

(3) The light-armed could never have used the east ridge of Palaeo-
Kastro in the way that Thucydides describes.

(4) The area of ground is far too small for the numbers engaged in
the operations described. .

We must now turn to the other theory. It will be seen from what has .
been already said that there are two main facts which have to be accepted in
the opinion of the writer by any one who would attempt to unravel the
mystery of Sphakteria.

They are:

(1) That there was certainly a navigable piece of water on the site of
the present lagoon, and that it probably had an entrance*into the Bay of
Navarino at the inner end of the Sikia Channel, under the cliff of Palaeo-
Kastro, That a former channel through the Bay of Voithio-Kilia was
already blocked by a sand-bar at the time the events under consideration
took place,”

*8 In the terms of the armistice concluded reference to this estimate of the topography of
between Athens and Sparta in 423 8,0, is a the lagoon:—
‘ passage deserving at any rate of attention with τάδε (δὲ) ἔδοξε Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS 19
(2) That Sphagia is Sphakteria.
And consequently (3) that Palaeo-Kastro is Koryphasion,

It is only by a close examination of Thucydides’ story that we can solve
the apparent incongruity in the co-existence of facts (1) and (2) and under-
stand how it was that Thucydides never came to apprehend fact (1).

We left Demosthenes with his five ships and their crews on Koryphasion,
defended by a more or less complete system of fortification.

The news of the occupation of Koryphasion caused such alarm at
Sparta that the army of invasion then in Attica was immediately withdrawn.”

‘ After the Peloponnesians had retired from Attica, the Spartiates them-
selves and the Perioeki nearest at hand went forthwith to the rescue of
Pylos, but the other Lacedaemonians were later in starting on their march,
having recently returned from the other expedition. They sent round word
through the Peloponnese to come with all speed to help against Pylos, and
sent also for their sixty ships at Kerkyra, which arrived at Pylos after being
conveyed across the isthmus of Leucas, and slipping unobserved by the

Athenian vessels at Zakynthos.

The land force was already on the spot.

? 25

We have certain significant facts in this passage :—

ξυμμάχοις, ἐὰν σπονδὰς ποιῶνται οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἐπὶ
τῆς αὑτῶν μένειν ἑκατέρους ἔχοντας ἅπερ νῦν
ἔχομεν, τοὺς μὲν ἐν τῷ Κορυφασίῳ ἐντὸς τῆς
Βουφράδος καὶ τοῦ Τομέως μένοντας, etc.—Thuc.
iv. 118, 3.

The natural bounds set to a garrison on
Hd Wyepetin would be the sand-bar of the

oithio-Kilia on the north, and the channel
from the lagoon harbour through the sand-bar
separating it from Navarino Bay. Voithio-
Kilia =‘ the ox’s belly.’ It is curious that we
have the same root βοῦς in Βουφράς. Is the
modern name a partial survival of the ancient
one? Is it possible that Τομεύς refers to the
narrow cutting or channel into the bay?
Curtius dismisses the idea as improbable, but
puts forward in its place a theory still more
improbable. His reasons for dismissing it are :
(1) that the Athenians would not have assented
to confinement within Koryphasion, with its
deficiency in water supply. (2) That there is
mention of a mountain Tomaion near Pylos.
The answer to this (1) is that the Athenians
were in possession of Sphakteria, upon which
we know there was a water supply: to (2) that
the authority for the existence of a mountain so
named is Stephanos of Byzantium, who, as far
as can be ascertained, flourished about 500
years after Christ. Curtius identifies it with
the conical hill over two miles south of Nayarino,
.6. about seven miles from Koryphasion, and
certainly that is the only hill in the neighbour-
hood to which the name could be conceived as

in any way applicable. Surely, considering the
serious view which the Spartans took of the
ἐπιτειχισμός at Pylos, it is hardly likely that
they would have assented to an extension of the
range of the garrison beyond the natural borders
of the place ; it is still more improbable that
they would have assented to an arrangement
such as the fixing of the boundary at this
mountain would imply, giving the garrison the
run of a large portion of the Messenian main-
land. It seems far more likely that Τομεύς
refers to the channel mentioned, or possibly to
the knife-like shape of the sand-bar separating
the lagoon harbour from the bay. We never
hear of the -garrison having established them-
seives in occupation of the country round Pylos.
We are only told of plundering raids, and the
words ἅπερ viv ἔχομεν can only refer to Kory-
phasion within something like the limits of the
original occupation.

4 Ib, iv. 6.

35 ἀναχωρησάντων δὲ τῶν ἐκ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς
Πελοποννησίων, οἱ Σπαρτιᾶται αὐτοὶ μὲν καὶ of
ἐγγύτατα τῶν περιοίκων εὐθὺς ἐβοήθουν ἐπὶ τὴν
Πύλον, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων Λακεδαιμονίων βραδυτέρα
ἐγίγνετο ἡ ἔφοδος, ἄρτι ἀφιγμένων ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρας
στρατείας, περιήγγελλον δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὴν Πελο-
πόννησον βοηθεῖν ὅτι τάχιστα ἐπὶ Πύλον, καὶ ἐπὶ
τὰς ἐν τῇ Κερκύρᾳ ναῦς σφῶν τὰς ἑξήκοντα
ἔπεμψαν, αἱ ὑπερενεχθεῖσαι τὸν Λευκαδίων ἰσθμὸν,
καὶ λαθοῦσαι τὰς ἐν Ζακύνθῳ ᾿Αττικὰς ναῦς,
ἀφικνοῦνται ἐπὶ Πύλον: παρῆν δὲ ἤδη καὶ ὁ πεζὸς
στρατός. --- 1. iv. 8, 1, 2,

σ 2

20 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

(1) No expedition against Pylos seems to have started from Sparta until
after the army had arrived from Attica.

Demosthenes, then, and the men left with him must have had time to
strengthen their defences on Koryphasion, a time of which we may be sure
they made use.

(2) The troops which had returned from Attica did not march to Pylos
with the rest. The first land attack, then, was possibly carried out by a
fraction of what was subsequently the besieging army.

The Peloponnesian fleet of sixty vessels had now arrived, but
Demosthenes managed to send news of his dangerous position to the
Athenian fleet at Zakynthos, which came without delay.

‘The Lacedaemonians made preparations with a view to attacking the
fortifications by land and sea, expecting that they would have no difficulty in
taking a structure which had been hurriedly built and had but a small
garrison.’ 6

The points at which the attacks were made will be best described in
dealing with the actual attacks. ͵

‘As they expected that the Athenian vessels from Zakynthos would
come to the rescue, they purposed, if they should fail to take the place (before
their arrival), also to block the entrances of the harbour so that it might not
be possible for the Athenians to come to anchor in it.’ ἢ

If the lagoon harbour is the crucial point in the topography of the
region, this is, as is well known, the crucial point of the history of events.
There is no question as to what Thucydides supposed the nature of the
entrances of the harbour to have been. In the next sentence Thucydides
declares his view of the matter still more explicitly :—

‘For the island called Sphakteria, which stretches along one side of the
harbour and lies near in, renders it safe and makes the entrances narrow,
having on the one side, namely over against the fortification of the Athenians
and Pylos, a passage for two ships at a time, and on the other, towards the
mainland on the other side, a passage for eight or nine....... Their
intention was, then, to close the entrances with ships placed close together
with their prows outwards.’ 33

In the above passages we have details with regard to the nature of the
entrances and also two statements of the intention to close them in the
manner described.

26

oi δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι παρεσκευάζοντο ὡς τῷ
τειχίσματι προσβαλοῦντες κατά τε γῆν καὶ κατὰ
θάλασσαν, ἐλπίζοντες ῥαδίως αἱρήσειν οἰκοδόμημα
διὰ ταχέων εἰργασμένον καὶ ἀνθρώπων ὀλίγων
évévtwy.—Thuce. iv. 8, 4.

7 προσδεχόμενοι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ Ζακύνθου τῶν
᾿Αττικῶν νεῶν βοήθειαν ἐν νῷ εἶχον, ἣν ἄρα μὴ
πρότερον ἕλωσι, καὶ τοὺς ἔσπλους τοῦ λιμένος
ἐμφράξαι, ὅπως μὴ ἦ τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις ἐφορμίσασθαι
ἐς αὐτόν. ---1}. iv. 8, 5..

28. ἡ γὰρ νῆσος ἡ Σφακτηρία καλουμένη τόν τε
λιμένα παρατείνουσα καὶ ἐγγὺς ἐπικειμένη ἐχυρὸν
ποιεῖ, καὶ τοὺς ἔσπλους στενοὺς, τῇ μὲν δυοῖν
νεοῖν διάπλουν, κατὰ τὸ τείχισμα τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων
καὶ τὴν Πύλον, τῇ δὲ, πρὸς τὴν ἄλλην ἤπειρον,
ὀκτὼ ἢ ἐννέα... τοὺς μὲν οὖν ἔσπλους ταῖς ναυσὶν
ἀντιπρώροις βύζην κλήσειν ἔμελλον. -- 7}. iv.
8, 6 seqq.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 9]

That they were actually so closed we gather from a later passage in
chapter 13.

The difficulty raised by this passage is so great that one is tempted to
dismiss it with the remark that Thucydides has made a serious mistake, and
that for historical purposes this statement of his with regard to the blocking
up of these channels must be ignored. That there is a mistake is certain.
The question is (1) Is it historical or topographical? (2) What is its
magnitude? Were there absolutely nothing in the topography of the locality
to support the statement in any way, it would be necessary, taking the whole
history of the operations into consideration, to acquiesce in the view of those
who would ignore it. But how can we so acquiesce when we have in the
entrance of the Bay of Voithio-Kilia and the Sikia Channel two channels
which correspond to all intents and purposes with those to which Thucydides
refers? That the exact truth of the statement as to the number of ships
required to block them would be in any case open to doubt will be admitted,
but that Thucydides believed the channels to be exceedingly narrow is, of
course, evident. The entrance to the Voithio-Kilia is 172 yards broad, but
the fair-way has only a breadth of some 140 yards, owing to the existence of
certain rocks on the south side. The Sikia Channel is 132 yards broad at
the point where the east cliff of Palaeo-Kastro abuts on it. The fair-way
would in this case amount to nearly the breadth of the channel. After seeing
the locality it is not possible to doubt that these are the channels to which
Thucydides refers, but, taking the whole history of the operations into
consideration, it is impossible to suppose that the reasons he gives for blocking
these channels are, topographically speaking, correct. In dealing with
Thucydides we cannot place that reliance on purely topographical statements
which we can on historical statements which topography goes far to support.
The blocking of the channels is explicitly stated as a historical fact several
times. If it were not true there must have been many people in Athens who
would be able to refute it, and taking Thucydides as we find him, we may
feel a high degree of certainty that he would never have made so explicit and
detailed a statement as this without having good grounds for so doing.

Any one who has seen the neighbourhood of Pylos can have no reason-
able doubt that Thucydides had never been there himself. In spite of the
amount of topographical detail which he gives, that detail is all second-hand.
Not merely is this shown by the obvious errors which are present, but also
by the absence of that indefinite something which may be always recognized
by any one who knows a piece of ground off by heart in the description of
another who has also seen it with his own eyes.

We have now before us the difficult task of trying to discover where
Thucydides’ mistake lay. The original cause of the mistake is his failure to
grasp the fact that there were two pieces of water in this neighbourhood
which at different periods of the operations were used as harbours, viz.
(1) The lagoon harbour, (2) Navarino Bay. Of these two he only seems to
have known and recognized the latter, and consequently ascribes to the
lagoon harbour many attributes which really only belong to the bay and vice

22 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

versa. He consequently imagines that it was the two entrances of Navarino
Bay which the Lacedaemonians blocked up with ships, and ascribes to those
two entrances attributes which really belong to Voithio-Kilia and the north
entrance or Sikia Channel. Consequently also he describes those entrances
which were blocked as being on either side of Sphakteria, and introduces
πρὸς ἄλλην ἤπειρον with regard to the southern strait, thus showing still
more clearly the nature of the mistake he made.

But, how, it will be asked, did he ever come to make such a mistake ?
That question can only be answered when the whole story is studied, and the
answer had best be left until we have examined the whole narration.

What, it may be said, was the conceivable object or objects which the
Lacedaemonians had in view in blocking the channels? To answer this we
must consider each channel separately. In the first place the very existence
of the lagoon rendered the blocking of the Voithio-Kilia a most requisite
precaution. The only approach to Koryphasion, for so we may now call it,
on the land side would be over the semicircular sand-bar. If the Athenian
fleet, or part of it, could have got into that shallow bay, taken the sand-bar
and occupied it in force, assault on the land side of Koryphasion would have
been impossible. Furthermore the Athenians could have got their vessels
over that bar into the lagoon harbour, the probable anchorage of the Pelo-
ponnesian fleet. The blocking of the Sikia Channel was still more important.
Communications had to be kept up with the troops who had been stationed
on Sphakteria. This could be best done by blocking the channel both
towards the sea and towards the bay, a measure which would also protect the
mouth of the lagoon harbour which seems to have opened on to the inner end
of that channel.

It was the lagoon harbour out of which the Peloponnesians wanted to
keep the Athenian fleet. Their only interest in the bay consisted in main-
taining communications with the island of Sphakteria. The number of
their vessels was superior to that of the Athenian fleet, and furthermore the
concentrated character of the position which the vessels blocking the channel
would take up must necessarily render Athenian naval tactics of no avail.

In the passage in which the nature of the channels is described,
Thucydides also gives us certain details with regard to Sphakteria. He
describes it as ‘being covered with wood, and, owing to its being uninhabited,
pathless.’ Its μέγεθος, he tells us, was ‘about fifteen stades.’ ”

His description of its surface is in accordance with its state at the
present day. Except on the low part of the island it is terrible ground to
traverse, being covered with sharp limestone rocks and stones hidden by low
brushwood. 2,300 years ago there appears to have been more of the higher
bush, which is, however, still found in patches throughout the island,
especially on the low ground. He describes the island as being about fifteen
stades long, 1.6. about 3000 yards. Much difficulty has been raised with
regard to this point, the island being, as a fact, 2} miles or 4800 yards long.

*9 Thue, iv. 8, 6.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 23

Arnold, in his note on the subject, points out that Thucydides in one place,*°
speaking of Sicily, certainly uses the term μέγεθος in the meaning of
circumference, and says that, if that meaning be taken, it would apply closely
to Palaeo-Kastro. That is the case. Arnold subsequently admits that the
word followed by σταδίους, with no express mention that the circumference is
intended, would certainly be most naturally understood to mean either length
or height. The mistake, for such it almost certainly is, is possibly due to a
mistake on the part of Thucydides’ informant, but probably due to a mistake
on the part of Thucydides himself. This mistake is, very likely, not uncon-
nected with one of two facts :—

(1) The point at which the Athenians landed on the bay side in their
attack on the island is a little more than fifteen stades from the north end.
This point can be identified with certainty.

(2) The southern plateau of Sphakteria was apparently never occupied
by the Spartans. Their southernmost picquets were probably posted on the
the East or West Table Hill, from which they would command a view of the
southern plateau. The Spartan force was too small to render the simul-
taneous occupation of every part of an island 2? miles long a possibility, and
they might well have supposed that an attack on the south end would be
improbable because (1) the Athenians had throughout the war shown a marked
disinclination to face the troops of Sparta on land, (2) landing on the south
end would be always more or less difficult and very often impossible. Any
one who reads Thucydides’ account of the attack on Sphakteria will see that
the extent of the Spartan occupation was thus limited, and reference to the
map will show that the length of the part occupied was almost exactly
fifteen stades or 3000 yards.

Turning to other authors with respect to the identity of Sphakteria, we
find that Pausanias by his almost certain identification of Palaeo-Kastro with
Koryphasion implies that the island which he calls Sphakteria is the modern
Sphagia. Of the island itself he simply says: τοῦ λιμένος δὲ ἡ Σφακτηρία
νῆσος προβέβληται.3ι

Strabo’s mention of the island is likewise brief : 52. καὶ ἡ προσκειμένη
πλησίον τοῦ Πύλου Σφαγία νῆσος" ἡ δὲ αὐτὴ καὶ Σφακτηρία λεγομένη, περὶ
ἣν ἀπέβαλον ζωγρίᾳ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τριακοσίους ἐξ ἑαυτῶν ἄνδρας ὑπ᾽
᾿Αθηναίων ἐκπολιορκηθέντας. ;

Pliny asserts distinctly, as Arnold mentions in his note, that there were
three islands of the name of Sphagia lying in front of Pylos.** This assertion
let any one explain who can.

The context in both cases shows plainly that Sphakteria is mentioned
by both Pausanias and Strabo in reference to Thucydides, Book iv., and that
they both adopt Thucydides’ topography.

It has already been said that, if Sphagia be taken as Sphakteria,
Palaeo-Kastro must be assumed to be Koryphasion.

3° Thue. vi, 1,1. 3! Paus, iv, Messen. 36, 6. 33 Strabo, viii, 4, 83 Pliny Histor. Natur. iv, 12,

24 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

Thucydides informs us that there were remains of a Pylos ou Kory-
phasion: the question is, What is the Pylos to whose remains he refers ?
Ancient geographers are not always trustworthy, but both they and the
historians have a most fortunate tendency to supply the reader with
ineidental information which, when sifted, solves the difficulties which arise
from the errors which they make.

There seem to be traces in various authors of four successive -cities of
the name Pylos in this region :—

1. The ‘ Mykenaean’ Pylos of Homer.

2. What Strabo calls ἡ παλαιὰ Πύλος ἡ Μεσσηνιακή, which may be a
reference to an alternative site which has been suggested for No. 1, but is
probably not so.

3. After the destruction of this city, Strabo says: ὑπὸ τῷ Kopudacio
τινὲς αὐτῶν @knoav’ προσέκτισαν δ᾽ αὐτὴν ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὸ δεύτερον ἐπὶ
Σικελίαν πλέοντες μετ᾽ Εὐρυμέδοντος, etc.

4. The Pylos of Pausanias, certainly founded after the events on
Sphakteria.

Of these the position of No. 1 is not as yet known. There are traces
of very ancient work on Agio Nikolo, which may be remnants of it, and a
certain amount of likelihood is added to the conjecture by the fact that
Voithio-Kilia was probably a channel in Mykenaean days.

No. 4.’s position is almost certainly identified with Palaeo-Kastro by
Pausanias’ mention of the cave within the walls. The cave referred to is that
which is called ‘ Nestor’s Cave’ at the present day. Pausanias also says this
city was on Koryphasion. If so, Palaeo-Kastro was known to Pausanias as
Koryphasion. .

What was known to Pausanias as Koryphasion would, we may apprehend,
have been known to Strabo by the same name. In that case No. 3 was also
on Palaeo-Kastro, with its acropolis on the summit. This, then, would be the
city to whose ruins Thucydides makes reference.

The identification of Palaeo-Kastro with the Koryphasion of Thucydides
is now as complete as we can make it with the data we have at our disposal :
they are:

(1) Its position relative to Sphagia.

(2) Its correspondence topographically with the description of Thucyd-
ides.

(3) The fact that the Pylos whose ruins are mentioned must have been
situated on it.

We may recur briefly to its fortification by the Athenians. It was
fortified on the land side [τὰ πρὸς ἤπειρον] and towards the sea. The nature

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 25

of the east cliff renders it assailable at two and only two places on the land
side :—

(a) At the gap towards the north end of the cliff for a space of 170 yards.

(Ὁ) By a narrow rocky path running close to the Sikia Channel under the
south end of this cliff.

These are absolutely the only possible points of assault, and the second
is so narrow that the ease with which it might be defended would render an
attack by that way improbable. Furthermore it is, as has been said, extremely
likely that the entrance to the lagoon harbour would intervene between (ὦ)
and the sand-bar, rendering its assault by land impossible.

On the sea side we know the wall must have been low down, because we
are told that Demosthenes drew up his ships underneath it. It must have
run from the south end of the east cliff to the shore in a north-west direction
for about 440 yards, for it is only the south-west shore of Koryphasion which
affords the slightest opportunity for landing.

Was the summit of Koryphasion fortified? Probably it was already
partially provided with a wall in the shape of the ancient enceinte wall of the
Acropolis of Pylos; but no mention is made of its fortification. The reference
to the fortification of τὰ πρὸς ἤπειρον cannot refer to it, because, if built on
the summit, that fortification would have been on the top of a cliff 350 feet
high. Moreover there is a very clear reason for the wall in the gap towards
the north end of the cliff. Had it not been there, assailants could have got
on the lower part of the hill, passed round on the sea side, and taken the
defenders of the south wall in the rear. Thanks however to the very marked
characteristics of Koryphasion, we have in respect to the lines adopted in its
fortification to deal with certainties instead of the many mere probabilities in
which Thucydides’ topographical mistake and its results have hitherto in-
volved us. Those probabilities are, it is true, very probable,—how probable
will best be seen by him who examines the whole weight of evidence com-
posed of facts which taken by themselves seem of slight moment.

The Lacedaemonians now took what was destined to be the fatal step of
sending a force to occupy Sphakteria, καὶ παρὰ τὴν ἤπειρον ἄλλους Era€Eav.**

The last words evidently refer to the occupation of the sand-bar between
the lagoon and the harbour, manifestly with the object of preventing the
Athenian fleet from using that shore of the bay to draw up their ships. This
is a significant fact. Suppose the lagoon harbour had not been there, the
land force of the Spartans would have had its left resting on this shore and
in occupation of it in such a way that it would have been impossible for the
Athenians to make use of it. But Thucydides describes its occupation as a
special measure. It is perhaps unnecessary to remark that this occupation
cannot refer to the south-east shores of the bay. They are of such a character
as to render it impossible that they could have been used for landing by the
Athenian fleet, and no conceivable object could have been gained by placing

4 Thue. iy. 8, 7.

26 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

troops there. Thucydides here reproduces the information given him without
seeing its topographical significance, for the very good reason that he did not -
understand the topography of the land to the north of the bay. This uncon-
scious evidence, thus given, is almost more convincing than the same evidence
would have been had it been direct :—

‘For thus (by the occupation of the island and the bay shore) the island
would be hostile to the Athenians, and the mainland too, if it offered no place
for disembarkation. For the shores of Pylos outside the harbour entrance
towards the sea being harbourless, they would have no base of operations
from which to assist their friends, whilst they, the Lacedaemonians, would in
all probability reduce the place without a naval battle and any danger, there
being but little food in it, and as it had been occupied with but little
preparation.’ ®

If we are to suppose the Peloponnesian fleet in occupation of Navarino
Bay, this tale is absolutely inconsistent, and the whole passage shows only too
plainly the inconsistencies into which the mistake which Thucydides has
made drive him. He supposed that the Spartans were going to block the
harbour mouths. We know that, because the cutting off of the men on
Sphakteria is ascribed to the failure to take this precaution. But if they
were going to do this, what does the passage about the occupation of the
mainland and of the island mean, since it is to these precautions that the
future Athenian difficulties are ascribed? If the channels were blocked, as
Thucydides supposed, the Athenians could never have entered the bay.

The fact is, of course, that the occupation of the north and north-east shore
of the Bay of Navarino cut the Athenians off from the only part of its coast
where they could pull up their vessels from the sea. The rest is all cliff of
more or less height. Furthermore, the Sikia Channel must have been blocked
at both ends in order that communication with the island might be main-
tained. Thucydides has taken what his informant told him, no doubt
correctly, but he has never understood the real bearing of the tale. When
the real explanation of the matter is seen, it is easy to understand Thucyd-
ides’ remark, ‘they (the Lacedaemonians) supposed that they would probably
take the place without a sea fight and without danger.’ They might well
suppose so. With their ships blocking the narrow channel of Sikia, with the
remainder of their fleet drawn up either on the sand-bar of Navarino Bay or
at anchor in the lagoon harbour, and with all the north and north-east shore
of that bay occupied with troops, their position was unassailable to all intents
and purposes by the force the Athenians had at their command. The Voithio-
Kilia mouth would be blocked, too. Even had it not been so, that small bay
could not, owing to its nature, have provided an anchorage or harbour for the
Athenian fleet. It is very small, very shallow, and its shores were in the

® οὕτω yap τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις τήν τε νῆσον ἄνευ τε ναυμαχίας καὶ κινδύνου ἐκπολιορκήσειν τὸ
πολεμίαν ἔσεσθαι τήν τε ἤπειρον, ἀπόβασιν οὐκ χωρίον κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς, σίτου τε οὐκ ἐνόντος καὶ
ἔχουσαν: τὰ γὰρ αὐτῆς τῆς Πύλον ἔξω τοῦ δι᾽ ὀλίγης παρασκευῆς κατειλημμένου.--- ΤΠ πο, iv.
ἔσπλου πρὸς τὸ πέλαγος ἀλίμενα ὄντα, οὐχ ἕξεν 8, 8.
ὅθεν ὁρμώμενοι ὠφελήσουσι τοὺς αὑτῶν, σφεῖς δὲ

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 27

enemy’s possession, so that Thucydides’ remark as to the harbourless nature
of the coast outside Pylos is fully justified.

The blockade of Koryphasion was now complete. How complete it was
and how effective it would have been if maintained in its entirety, an exami-
nation of the positions occupied by the Peloponnesians will show.

Demosthenes meanwhile made preparations to repel the threatened
attack.3?7 He had with him the complements of three ships, 1.6. probably about
600 men, together with 40 hoplites from a Messenian privateer. Some of his
men were ill-armed.

These three ships he drew up ὑπὸ τὸ τείχισμα; this shows, as has been
said, that the wall must have been low down on the south-west side, the only
part of the shore of Koryphasion at which landing is possible. The distribu-
tion of his men between the fortifications on the land and sea sides respectively
is somewhat doubtful. Thucydides’ description is not quite clear on this
point. He says :—

‘The majority of his men, both the fully and the partially armed, he
drew up on the side of the position towards the land, which was specially
fortified and secure, with orders to keep off the land force, should it attack ;
he himself however, with sixty picked hoplites and a few archers, went outside
the wall to the sea, to the point where he especially expected the enemy
would attempt to land, a difficult and rocky spot facing the open sea. He
thought that the enemy would be attracted thither and would be sure to
make a dash at that point, because the fortifications were weaker.’

‘The Athenians, never expecting that they would be overmastered at
sea, had not been strongly fortifying this side, whereas the Lacedaemonians
hoped that, having once forced a landing, the position might be taken.’ *

There seems to be an omission in the description of the dispositions of
the defending parties. The manning of the south wall towards the sea must
have been part of the defence, and Thucydides’ language seems to take that
for granted, though he does not expressly assert the fact. Taking it as it
stands, there is a manifest inconsistency in the assertion that the larger part

36 The estimated positions of the Peloponne-
sian land and sea forces when the blockade of
Koryphasion was complete have been for clear-
ness’ sake marked on a special map.

37 Thue. iv. 9.

38 γρὺς μὲν οὖν πολλοὺς τῶν τε ἀόπλων καὶ
ὡπλισμένων ἐπὶ τὰ τετειχισμένα μάλιστα καὶ
ἐχυρὰ τοῦ χωρίου πρὸς τὴν ἤπειρον ἔταξε, προει-
mov ἀμύνασθαι τὸν πεζὸν, ἣν προσβάλλῃ: αὐτὸς
δὲ ἀπολεξάμενος ἐκ πάντων ἑξήκοντα ὅπλίτας- καὶ
τοξότας ὀλίγους, ἐχώρει ἔξω τοῦ τείχους ἐπὶ τὴν
θάλασσαν, ἣ μάλιστα ἐκείνους προσεδέχετοπειρά-
σειν ἀποβαίνειν ἐς χωρία μὲν χαλεπὰ καὶ πετρώδη
πρὸς τὸ πέλαγος τετραμμένα, σφίσι δὲ τοῦ
τείχους ταύτῃ ἀσθενεστάτου ὄντος ἐπισπάσασθαι
αὐτοὺς ἡγεῖτο προθυμήσεσθαι: οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοὶ
ἐλπίζοντες ποτὲ ναυσὶ κρατηθήσεσθαι οὐκ ἰσχυρὸν
ἐτείχιζον, ἐκείνοις τε βιαζομένοις τὴν ἀπόβασιν,

ἁλώσιμον τὸ χωρίον γίγνεσθαι. ---1Ὁ. iv, 9, 2.

This last sentence is taken from Jowett’s
translation of Thucydides. He adopts the
reading in Arnold’s text.

The passage is of well known difficulty. A
satisfactory translation of the words as they
stand in Arnold’s text seems to be impossible.
Dr. Rutherford in his edition of the fourth book
of Thucydides boldly leaves out προθυμήσεσθαι
and substitutes ἐπισπάσεσθαι for the aorist
infinitive and then translates ‘believed they
would be allured’ ete. Though Dr. Rutherford
issomewhat too bold a guide for those unac-
quainted with the crevasses and pitfalls of
textual criticism to follow, yet his (apparently
unsupported) emendation of the text has in this
case the merit of plausibility.

28 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

of the force was at the strongest point, τὰ πρὸς ἤπειρον, and a small fraction
merely with Demosthenes. It is quite evident from the account of the
attack on Koryphasion that Thucydides’ informant was with Demosthenes,
probably one of the sixty hoplites, and these inconsistencies may have crept
in owing to his desire to exaggerate the glorious nature of the defence on his
side. An alternative reason which may be suggested for this manifest
understatement of numbers is the tendency which Thucydides displays
throughout the whole of the Pylos narrative to make Demosthenes the hero
of the story. At the same time it is certain that, for the reasons which
Thucydides mentions, Demosthenes relied but little on the south wall for his
defence on the sea side. He seems to have thought that under the circum-
stances the difficulty of bringing the ships to land would be his best ally, but
is it conceivable that out of the 600 men, more or less, whom he had with
him he only took ‘60 picked men and a few archers’ to defend the landing
place? The place at which the landing was attempted is, as has been said,
the south-west portion of the shore of Koryphasion. It is, as Thucydides
describes it, χωρία χαλεπὰ καὶ πετρώδη πρὸς TO πέλαγος τετραμμένα. The
expectation of the Spartans with regard to the capture of Koryphasion in
case this landing and the south wall was forced, was at any rate reasonable,
since, in that case it would have been possible to take the defenders of the
north-wall in reverse, and the summit or Acropolis would have been the sole
refuge of the Athenians.

In chapter 10 we have the speech of Demosthenes to his men. Though
it does contain topographical statements, yet these, no doubt, as inserted by
Thucydides, are merely Thucydides’ own deductions from the information
which he himself received and which he imparts in the general narrative.

In chapter 11 we have an account of the attack from the sea, and
mention of the fact that the land attack was simultaneous, but of the latter
no details are given.

The sea attack was made with forty-three ships. It was made at the
point at which Demosthenes expected it would be made. From what has been
said, it will be seen that this is in no wise surprising.

‘The Peloponnesians made their assaults in detachments of a few ships,
relieving each other in turn, because it was not possible to put in with more.
They displayed no lack of zeal, and cheered one another on, if by any means
they might force their way and capture the fortification.’

The extent of the low rocky shore is about 350 yards. But this shore is
very far from being unimpeded. Numerous rocks close to it, both above the
water and near to its surface, render it approachable only at intervals by any
vessel bigger than a boat, in fact it is only at small stretches of this 350 yards
that a vessel would be able to get sufficiently near in to reach tle shore in
shallow water with its ἀποβάθρα, the form of landing which seems to have
been attempted. The whole of this part of the narrative is peculiarly in

39 ess » De -~ ᾿ -
9 οἱ δὲ κατ᾽ ὀλίγας ναῦς διελόμενοι, διότι οὐκ χρώμενοι καὶ παρακελευσμῷ, εἴ πως ὠσάμενοι
ἦν πλείοσι προσσχεῖν, καὶ ἀναπαύοντες ἐν τῷ ἕλοιεν τὸ TElxioua.—Thue, iy. 11, 3.

, : ; Ξ
μέρει τοὺς ἐπίπλους ἐποιοῦντο, προθυμίᾳ τε πάσῃ

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 29

accord with the local circumstances as we now see them, and there is no
reason to suppose that they have altered to any appreciable extent since the
events narrated occurred.

The details with regard to Brasidas are possibly ‘written up, but are
also consistent with the local circumstances.”

The attack was repulsed, as also was the attack on the north wall,
though the last fact is not directly stated. The absence of details with
regard to the latter attack is significant. It would seem as if Thucydides’
informant must have been with Demosthenes on the south side, and we may
suspect, at any rate, that Thucydides relied for his account of what took place
on Koryphasion on one informant only.

The idea of an attack on the sea side was apparently given up as
hopeless, and the energies of the Lacedaemonians were now directed to the
attack on the north wall. They sent ships to Asine on the west shore of the
Messenian Gulf for wood, wherewith to make engines,"! ἐλπίζοντες τὸ κατὰ
τὸν λιμένα τεῖχος ὕψος μὲν ἔχειν, ἀποβάσεως δὲ μάλιστα
οὔσης ἑλεῖν μηχαναῖς.

This is one of the most striking examples of the peculiar way in which
an ancient author may unconsciously correct a mistake he has made.

The matter is important and must be stated clearly. In the first place
this wall described as κατὰ τὸν λιμένα is certainly the fortification described
as defending τὰ πρὸς ἤπειρον. It has already been shown that this can only
have been in one place, viz. the gap in the east cliff towards the north end.
here is no gap at the south end, and, as has been said, only a narrow rocky
path leads round the end of the cliff along the shore of the Sikia Channel.
Even if there had been a wall at this end of the cliff, which would have been
superfluous save for a few yards from the shore, it would have been out of
the reach of engines, for the cliff rises very steeply from its southern edge on

ye channel. This wall can have been no other than the north wall. If the
p be now referred to it will be seen that not by any stretch of imagination
could this wall be described as κατὰ τὸν λιμένα, if the λιμήν were the Bay
of Navarino. It would be half a mile from the bay shore, and would face
east, 1.6, not towards the bay at all. This λιμήν cannot be the Bay of
Navarino; it cannot indeed be anything save the lagoon harbour. The
mention of the ease of landing at this point is also noticeable, but in a
minor degree, because the premisses on which any argument drawn from it
are founded are not of the same certainty. Still it must be pointed out that
the exit of the lagoon harbour was probably right under the south end of
the east cliff of Koryphasion, and thus, if this were so, landing at that point
of Koryphasion would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. But at the
foot of the north wall was the south side of the low sand-bar separating the
Voithio-Kilia from the lagoon harbour, and here landing would be peculiarly
easy,—a very necessary consideration, since heavy timber and materials would
have to be landed near the spot where the attack was to take place.

eee THC. IV. Wi, 3,14, ἈΠῸ 1: SUDA 1.8.

30 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

Surely we have in this short passage a transcript of the words in which
Thucydides’ informant described this wall,—words the significance of which
Thucydides never understood because he never apprehended the existence of
the lagoon harbour.

The Athenian fleet now arrived, and with its arrival begins what may be
called the second chapter of the history of the events at Pylos:* a chapter
the information in which must almost certainly have been derived from an
informant or from informants different to the one who described to Thucyd-
ides the events on and about Koryphasion: a chapter which contrasts
markedly with its predecessor in respect of topographical accuracy, and which
also contrasts with it in respect of the comparative absence in it of direct
as distinguished from implied topographical statements.*

The number of the fleet was fifty ships apparently, though the πεντή-
κοντα of the text is not quite certain. As Arnold points out in his note
however, it is stated in ch. 23, 2, of this book that after the twenty ships
arrived from Athens the total number of vessels was seventy. When they
saw the Peloponnesian vessels in the harbour, and the island and coast
occupied with troops, ‘being at a loss where to come to anchor, they sailed to
the island of Proté, which is not far off and is uninhabited, and there passed
the night.’ In the first place what they probably saw on their arrival was a
line of vessels blocking the Sikia Channel both outside and inside (ἐν τῷ
λιμένι) while the rest of the Peloponnesian fleet was either on the sand-bar,
or in the lagoon harbour, probably the former. The position was evidently
not one to encourage an attack. Why did they not stay then in Navarino
Bay instead of going off to Proté, eight miles away up the coast northwards ?
Because, says Thucydides, they were at a loss where to anchor. Thucydides’
reason is a perfectly comprehensible and consistent one. If the sandy shore
on the north and north-east of the bay were occupied, that would of course
be the case in a deep, large, and only partially sheltered bay ; and, in fact,
we know from the subsequent history, when the attractions of a blockade of
Sphakteria induced them to put up with anchorage in the bay, how evil a
place of anchorage they found it. But when we read the next sentence we
are compelled to doubt whether Thucydides got hold, not of the facts (those
show evidence of correctness), but of the motives which prompted the
commanders of the fleet to act as they did. Let us notice how Thucydides
describes what followed :—

‘On the following day they (the Athenians) proceeded to sea cleared
for action to see whether the enemy would be willing to sail out against them
into the open, and if they would not, with the intention of sailing in to
attack them. The latter were not putting out, nor had they, as intended,
blocked the entrances, but were quietly manning their ships on land and

42 Thue. iv. 18, 2. 44 ἀπορήσαντες bmn καθορμίσωνται, τότε μὲν
43 It will be well, perhaps, to leave the ἐς Πρώτην τὴν νῆσον, ἢ οὐ πολὺ ἀπέχει ἔρημος
detailed discussion of this point until the story οὖσα, ἔπλευσαν καὶ ηὐλίσαντο.--- 1. iv. 18, 8.
is finished.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 31

making preparations with the apparent intention of fighting in the harbour,
which was not a small one, any one who sailed in.’

‘The Athenians, perceiving this, went at them through both entrances
and coming bows on to the majority of the enemy’s fleet which was already
afloat and facing them, put them to flight, and pursuing them as far as they
could considering the shortness of the distance, damaged a number of them,
and took five, one of the latter with its crew.’ Then follows a detailed
description of the fight for the vessels ashore, which resulted in the
Lacedaemonians recovering all but the vessels first taken. Then come the
words ‘and the Athenians immediately sailed round the island, and
blockaded it with its intercepted garrison.’ *

There is no cause for supposing that the facts above stated are wrong,
but it is impossible to believe that the story as told gives a true idea of what
really happened. Let us consider for one moment what had taken place.
On the previous day the Athenian fleet had come to the harbour and found
the Peloponnesian fleet in some position which did not offer opportunity for
successful attack, nor yet for blockading Sphakteria. On the next day they
return and find the Peloponnesians in an utterly unprepared state, for which
the sole reason given is that the latter had made up their minds to fight in
the harbour. And this is the very fleet which, a week or two before, had
carefully avoided a conflict with this very Athenian fleet by transport across
the peninsula of Leucas. If we accept this we have two questions to face to
which it is impossible to give an answer even remotely consistent with
probability.

(1) What induced the Peloponnesians to sacrifice the evidently strong
position of the previous day, especially a position which guaranteed the
maintenance of their sole interest in the Bay of Navarino, viz. the retention
of the power of communicating with the island ?

(2) If they were guilty of so strange a lack of judgment, how is it they
were caught in such an unprepared state on the day of battle ?

There is manifestly some great omission in Thucydides’ account of the
matter. The tale resembles Herodotus’ account of the events at Plataea,
true in the main facts, misleading as to motives, and for the same reason
possibly, that the informant from whom the facts were drawn was not
acquainted with the designs of those in command. The informant gives as
motives the reasons which would be present to his mind—the bad harbour
accommodation, and a determination on the part of the Peloponnesian fleet
to face the matter out.

Sri δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ παρασκευασάμενοι ὡς ἐπὶ
ναυμαχίαν ἀνήγοντο, ἣν μὲν ἀντεκπλεῖν ἐθέλωσι
σφίσιν ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν, εἰ δὲ μὴ, ὡς αὐτοὶ
ἐπεσπλευσούμενοι. καὶ οἱ μὲν οὔτε ἀντανήγοντο,
οὔτε ἃ διενοήθησαν, φράξαι τοὺς ἔσπλους, ἔτυχον
ποιήσαντες, ἡσυχάζοντες δ᾽ ἐν τῇ γῇ τάς τε ναῦς
ἐπλήρουν καὶ παρεσκευάζοντο, ἢν ἐσπλέῃ τις, ὡς
ἐν τῷ λιμένι ὄντι οὐ σμικρῷ ναυμαχήσοντες. οἱ
δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖοι γνόντες καθ᾽ ἑκάτερον τὸν ἔσπλουν

ὥρμησαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς, καὶ τὰς μὲν πλείους καὶ
μετεώρους ἥδη τῶν νεῶν καὶ ἀντιπρώρους προσπε-
σόντες ἐς φυγὴν κατέστησαν, καὶ ἐπιδιώκοντες
ὡς διὰ βραχέος ἔτρωσαν μὲν πολλὰς, πέντε δ᾽
ἔλαβον, καὶ μίαν τούτων αὐτοῖς avdpdot.—Thuc.
iv. 18, 8 84ᾳ., 14, 1.

46 καὶ τὴν νῆσον εὐθὺς περιέπλεον καὶ ἐν
φυλακῇ εἶχον, ὡς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀπειλημμένων. ---
Lb. iv. 14, 5.

32 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

The bad harbour accommodation was true enough; that is sup-
ported by the sequel. But there is more behind. [5 there any possibility of
getting at the truth in this case? Taking the story as it stands does it not
read like a successful ruse on the part of the Athenian admirals? They
come on the first day and find the superior Peloponnesian fleet in a defensive
position, blocking the Sikia Channel, where the chances were largely in
favour of the defence. They were probably aware from communications with
those on Koryphasion that the Peloponnesian plan of blocking the entrances
was only put in operation during the daytime, when attack was likely or
possible. So they sailed away north in order to give the impression that
they despaired of raising the blockade for the present at any rate. The ruse
seems to have been successful. The blocking vessels were withdrawn for
the night and before they can take up their position on the following day,
the Athenians are back and on them. One division sails into the Sikia
Channel,” and while part of the Peloponnesian fleet is opposing it, the
remainder put out from the sand-bar into the Bay of Navarino to cover the
rear of the defenders of the channel against the Athenian vessels advancing
through the south entrance. It was the channel, not the bay, whose defence
was all important to them. Defeat follows in the bay and the defenders of
the channel must give way or be taken in reverse. They may have retired
within the lagoon harbour, they may have run on the shore of the sand-bar,
but the channel is lost, and with its loss the blockade of Sphakteria becomes
possible and actual. Let no one think that this sketch is put forward as a
certainty. The only certainty about the matter is that the motives which
Thucydides gives as the sole motives are far from being so, and that the
sketch, though it cannot partake of the nature of certainty, is in accord with
the facts we have at our disposal. The story as told by Thucydides is
sufficiently detailed to show us that the motives he gives are quite inadequate
and indeed inconsistent. The Greeks of this period were not beginners in
the art of war. The objective of either side in this battle in the bay was
quite clear. The Peloponnesians wished to maintain the blockade of
Koryphasion and prevent the blockade of the island, the Athenians to break
up the former and to establish the latter. Thucydides’ own narrative makes
this point quite plain. Thucydides, however, seems either to have been
over-conscientious in abiding by his information, reproducing not only the
facts but also the motives which were reported-to him, or to have suppressed
material points in the story. Some of that information may have been
drawn, indeed, from the Peloponnesian side: if it was, it is peculiarly in
accord with Spartan practice to minimize both defeat and the cause of it.
The defeat must have been a bad one. Wherever the Peloponnesian fleet
was during the remainder of the blockade, drawn up on shore either on the
sand-bar or in the lagoon harbour or at anchor in the latter, it makes no
further attempt to break up the naval blockade of the island.

47 It is worth while noticing that Thucydides both channels. This supports the view that on
mentions expressly the fact that on the second the first day the Sikia was blocked.
day the Athenian fleet poured into the bay by

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 33

But there is, as has been said, a strong Spartan flavour about the story
in so far as it affects the Peloponnesian fleet. A bold determination to
face it out in the open would put a better complexion on subsequent
defeat than the fact of being caught by a ruse unprepared; and the
minimizing of the defeat follows as a matter of course.

Sphakteria was now blockaded.*8 — Relief was impossible exeept by
water, and the defeat of the fleet had destroyed all hope in that direction.
So the Spartans tried neyociation. An armistice was concluded,” the
Lacedaemonians handing over the whole of their war fleet, not merely
that at Pylos, to the Athenians for the interval during which negociation
proceeded. Sixty ships were thus surrendered temporarily.°° Their
stipulation with regar| to the handing over of the fleet shows that the
Athenians were perfectly well aware that even with a defeated fleet in
the lagoon harbour, or on its shores, a blockade would be exceedingly
difficult.

The speech of the Lacedaemonians at Athens! does not in any way
contribute to our knowledge of the circumstances at Pylos. It merely
shows that the Spartan government viewed the situation of those in
Sphakteria with a despair which was infinitely greater than the confidence
with which the Athenians engaged in the blockade regarded it. With
the democracy at home, however, all was confidence, and the negociations
came to nothing, owing to Kleon’s influence, so Thucydides tells us.

The armistice over, the Athenians refused to give up the ships. They
established a patrol of two ships round the island during the daytime, and
all the fleet anchored round it at night, save, when tuere was a wind, on
the side towards the sea. A reinforcement of twenty ships arrived from
Athens, raising the number of the fleet to seventy. Meanwhile the
Peloponnesian attacks on the wall (1.6, the north wall of Koryphasion) are
frequent but unsuccessful.°”

Reference is made to the hardships of the Athenians. The scarcity
of food and water was a serious difficulty.*? The scarcity of water in the
neighbourhood during the summer season may be easily understood by

48 Thue. iv. 15.

νὴ, av. 16.

5° This number mentioned (sixty) increases
the doubt which may be felt with regard to the
details of the naval fight. The number of the
Peloponnesian fleet was originally sixty (16.
iv. 8, 2). From the account of the battle in
the bay we gather that only five (Jb. iv. 14,
especially 4) were taken by the Athenians.
There remained, if this be true, fifty-five vessels.
The terms of the surrender at the time of the
armistice are uncertain. Λακεδαιμονίους μὲν τὰς
ναῦς ἐν αἷς ἐναυμάχησαν... παραδοῦναι (Lb. iv.
16, 1). Does this mean that only the Lacedae-
monian vessels of the Peloponnesian fleet were

H.S.—VOL. XVI.

to be surrendered, or the whole fleet that had
taken part in the fight? The evident object of
the Athenians in securing the fleet renders the
latter alternative by far the more probable of
the two. If, then, the whole number of ships
surrendered was ‘about sixty’ (70. iv. 16,3),
we have to suppose that only about five war
ships of the Lacedaemonian fleet were absent
from this engagement. This may be true, but
it seems improbable that with so insignificant a
reserve the lLacedaemonians should have
ventured upon a naval battle in the harbour.

51 Jb. iv. Ομ}. 17-22.

52 Jb. iv. 23.

53 Jb. iv. 26, 1.

34 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

those who have visited the region. Navarino itself is supplied by springs
seven miles away from the town.

‘For there was not save one fountain in the actual Acropolis of Pylos,
and this not a large one, &c.**

There may be, in fact we may conclude there must have been, a well in or
about the mediaeval fortification of Palaeo-Kastro. It does not, however,
become apparent in the course of the survey. The only well in use at
present near Palaeo-Kastro is at the foot of the cliff, where the sand spit
between the lagoon and the bay abuts on it. It is from sixteen to twenty
feet deep with, apparently, some tunnelling at the bottom of it running
under the hill. The water is good. The extensive mediaeval buildings of
Palaeo-Kastro have largely destroyed all traces of the earlier work of man on
that hill; still it is, of course, possible that a close examination of the site
might discover much which is not presented to the eye on mere inspection.

‘There was a lack of room, too, since they were encamped on a small
space, and as there was no anchorage for the ships some took their meals on
shore in turn, whilst the remainder rode in deep water.’°

The στενοχωρία is explained by the fact that, owing to the steepness of
the gradient, the amount of camping ground on Koryphasion would be small.

The emphatic statement as to the difficulty of the anchorage is curious,
if we consider that no such difficulty is mentioned when the Athenian fleet
first took refuge at Pylos, nor yet when the Peloponnesian fleet was stationed
there. The circumstances were different, of course,in one respect; the sandy
north and north-east shores of the bay were now occupied by troops, and
the vessels could not be drawn up on shore, but there would be the same
possibility of anchoring off these shores as on the previous visit. Is not this
difference of circumstances to be ascribed to the fact that in this second case
the anchorage was in the great exposed Bay of Navarino, whereas in the case
of the first visit it had been in-the smaller and comparatively sheltered
lagoon harbour ?

The island too now called Marathonisi (Fennel Island) is never mentioned
by Thucydides. It is a rugged islet, with shores of steep, but not lofty,
jagged rocks, awkward to land on, even from a boat. It cannot have been of
any use to the fleet in the bay.

The Spartan force in the island must have starved had not the Helots
aud others managed to effect some successful blockade running on the sea
side of Sphakteria.** The part of the coast where they landed may be identified
as the low but rocky shore which extends from the bay near Gadaro point
northwards, Landing there in anything resembling a sea would be difficult
and dangerous.

‘And the hoplites kept watch about the landing places of the island.’ 57

4 οὐ yap ἦν κρήνη ὅτι μὴ μία, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ σῖτον ἐν τῇ γῇ ἡροῦντο κατὰ μέρος, ai δὲ μετέωροι
ἀκροπόλει τῆς Πύλου, καὶ αὕτη οὐ meyaAn.— ὥρμουν.---7ὐ. iv. 26, 3.
Thue. iv. 26, 2. 56 Jb. iv. 26, 5 seqq.

5 στενοχωρία τε ἐν ὀλίγῳ στρατοπεδευομένοις 57 καὶ οἱ ὁπλίται περὶ τὰς κατάρσεις τῆς νήσου

ἐγίγνετο, καὶ τῶν νεῶν οὐκ ἐχουσῶν ὅρμον ai μὲν ἐφύλασσον. ---ἴδ. iv. 26, 7.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS 35

This fact, and the position of the water supply, accounts for the position
of what was evidently the main encampment of the Spartans on the island,
namely, at the foot of the High Cliff Hill.

‘Divers also swam to the island on the harbour side.’

That the swimming under water [if this be necessarily implied in Thucy-
dides’ wording] is an exaggeration there can be no doubt, but that the main
fact is true, viz. that this means of communication with the island was em-
ployed, is exceedingly probable. ‘The Peloponnesians were in occupation of
the sand-bar between the lagoon harbour and the bay, the extreme point
of which was almost certainly within 300 yards of the north end of Sphakteria.

With the events at Athens which resulted in Kleon being appointed to
the command at Pylos* it is not necessary to deal, but before we take the
description of the attack on Sphakteria it will be well to say a few words as
to the extent to which that description accords with the natural features of
Sphagia as they present themselves to us at the present day. If anything
could redeem the topographical errors which we find in the account of the
operations at Pylos, it is the graphic and exact account of the events on the
island. Should any reader of this paper ever visit Sphagia, let him take up
his position on the summit of what has been called on the map for want of a
better descriptive name the East Table Hill, and there read from the 29th to
the 38th chapter of this fourth book of the History. It will be strange if he
does not recognize two things: in the first place, that in those chapters
Thucydides displays his full powers as an historian; secondly, that the
events there described happened on the island of Sphagia and nowhere else,
in fact, the concord between the description and the ground is so striking as
to dispose for ever of the theory that the Sphakteria of Thucydides is to be
identified with Palaeo-Kastro, or with anything else than Sphagia. The
writer of this paper had at one time a leaning towards the Palaeo-Kastro—
Sphakteria view ; but that was before the survey of the island had been made.
After that he.felt that the theory could not be supported save by wilfully
ignoring evidence which carried with it a conviction amounting practically to
certainty.

Kleon arrived at Pylos with the set intention of attacking the Spartans
on Sphakteria.°° An accidental circumstance helped him, The island had been
covered with wood: probably, as has been said, there was at that time more
of the high bush on the island than there is at present. Even now on the
low ground there is a great deal of it. This wood had been accidentally
burnt by the Athenians who landed at either extremity of the island to take
their meals.*' Such accidental fires are only too common in Greece in the
summer, and at times do serious destruction in the now rare forests of the
country. So few landings are there on Sphakteria that it is possible to identifiy
the points on the island at which the Athenians put in as being :—

58 ἐσένεον δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸν λιμένα κολυμβητᾳαὶ nor av. 99,
bpvdpo:1.—Thue. iv. 26, 8. 61 Jb. iv. 80, 2 seqg.
69 Jb, iv. 27 and 28,

36 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

(1) At the North end near the Tortori Rocks, where there is a corner of
land difficult of approach from the rest of the island owing to cliffs.

(2) At the South landing and probably also at the Santa Rosa landing.

We now come to the description of the actual attack. It is of peculiar
interest, because it is possible to follow it in detail on_the spot, and the
identification of the main points is practically certain.

Demosthenes had, before attacking, proposed certain terms of capitulation.
These were refused.”

‘On the following day they put out under cover of darkness, having
embarked all the hoplites on a few ships, and a little before dawn they
disembarked on either side of the island both from the sea and from towards
the harbour to the number of about 800 heavy-armed men.’®

Before referring to the points of landing, the position of the main force
of the Spartans on the island must be determined. It was on the low ground,
so as to be near the landings when the blockade runners put in. It was near
the only well on the island. In such a country as Greece a well is of infinitely
greater importance than in one where summer droughf is the exception and
not the invariable rule. Consequently old wells are maintained with the
greatest care. There is no population on Sphakteria, but it is, and probably
always has been, used for pasturage. It is consequently more than probable
that the only well at present existent on the island is the identical one on which
the Spartan force was dependent for its water supply. That well is situated
at the foot of the High Cliff Hill, opposite that part of the shore towards the
sea where landing is most possible. There, we may conjecture, was the main
encampment of the island force. The blockade had lasted long and the
Athenians had not attempted any attack on the island. From this danger
then the blockaded force might well suppose itself to be fairly free, and hence
have relaxed its precautions against surprise. It is quite certain that its
numbers were insufficient for the occupation of the whole island, and though
the fact is not expressly stated, the whole story shows apparently that no
attempt was made to occupy the southern plateau.

The time chosen for the Athenian landing shows that they wished to disem-
bark unopposed, in fact, any serious opposition at that stage of the proceedings
would have wrecked the whole design. We may be certain then that the
disembarkation took place out of sight and hearing of the Spartan
encampment. This evident fact renders the determination of the landing
places on the sea side almost unmistakable. It can only have been the short
space of low rocky shore which intervenes between the cliffs of Cape Gadaro
and the cape next south of it. The high ridges running from the West
Table Hill to Gadaro Point would effectually render it out of sight and
hearing of any one on the low ground of the island.

* Thue. iv. 30, 4. ᾿ ἑκατέρωθεν, ἔκ τε τοῦ πελάγους καὶ πρὸ τοῦ
63 τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ ἀνηγάγοντο μὲν νυκτὺς, ἐπ᾿ λιμένος, ὀκτακόσιοι μάλιστα ὄντες ὁπλῖται. --
ὀλίγας ναῦς τοῦς ὁπλίτας πάντας ἐπιβιβάσαντε, Jb. iv. 31, 1.
πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἕω ὀλίγον ἀπέβαινον τῆς νήσου

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 37

On the bay side the disembarkation must have been effected either at
the Santa Rosa landing or at the South landing. Though landing at the
latter would not be possible in aught resembling rough weather, yet the very
fact that landing was possible on the sea face of the island shows that the
weather at the time was calm. At the same time the probability is strongly
in favour of the Santa Rosa landing, as being by nature infinitely the easier
of the two, especially for vessels of any size. ‘The south landing lies at the
head of a narrow rocky inlet and is not a convenient one even for a small boat.
On the question of sight and sound the Santa Rosa landing would be safe,
for the south shoulder of the High Cliff Hill rises steeply above it and entirely
separates it from the low ground on the other side of the island.

‘And they advance’ at the double against the first outpost of the island,
For the disposition of the enemy’s force was as follows :—In this first outpost
were some thirty hoplites.’ δ:

Where this outpost was we are not told. It must have been south of
the main encampment. It is very likely that it was posted on either the
East or West Table Hills, and if so, was probably attacked simultaneously by
the two landing parties. The general effect of the first landing seems to
have been that the southern plateau was secured before the disembarkation
of the remainder of the troops was attempted, and this, no doubt, was the
object aimed at.

‘The majority of them with Epitadas the commander held the middle
and more level part of the island in the neighbourhood of the water. © °

As has been already said, this position was almost certainly in the
neighbourhood of the present well, under the High Clitf Hill. The
Athenians, once on the East and West Table Hills, would look right down on
the main encampment of the Spartan force.

‘A small detachment guarded the actual extremity of the island towards
Pylos, which was precipitous on the sea side, and not by any means easily
assailable from the land side. There was a sort of fortification there, of
ancient date and made of unsquared stones, which they thought would be of
use to them if they should be hard pressed.’ °°

This position is quite unmistakable. it was on the hill which forms the
northern extremity and highest point of the island. In the Admiralty map
Cyclopean remains are noted as existing on the summit. There is certainly
something which resembles a polygonal wall on that summit, but the peculiar
resemblance which a face of limestone with its many cracks and crannies
bears to a wall of this kind renders it difficult to speak with certainty in
reference to these supposed remains. ‘c here is nothing whatever to guide us

64 καὶ ἐχώρουν δρόμο: ἐπὶ τὸ ..Ἁ τον φυλακτή- 66 Jb, μέρος δέ τι οὐ πολὺ αὐτὸ τὸ ἔσχατον
ριον τῆς νήσου. ὧδε γὰρ διετετάχατο. ἐν ταύτῃ ἐφύλασσε τῆς νήσου, τὸ πρὸς τὴν Πύλον, ὃ ἦν ἔκ
μὲν τῇ πρώτῃ φυλακῇ ὡς τριάκοντα ἦσαν ὁπλῖται. τε θαλάσσης ἀπόκρημνον καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἥκιστα
—Thue. iy. 81, Σ. ἐπίμαχον: καὶ γάρ τι καὶ ἔρυμα αὐτόθι ἣν

85 μέσον δὲ Kei ὁμαλώτατόν τε καὶ περὶ τὸ ὕδωρ παλαιὸν, λίθων λογάδην πεποιημένον, ὃ ἐνόμιζον
οἱ πλεῖστοι οὐνῶν οἱ ᾿ὠπιτάδας ὃ ἄρχων εἶχε. - σφίσιν ὠφέλιμον ἂν εἶναι, εἰ καταλαμβάνοι

Ib. iv. 31, 2. ἀναχώρησις βιαιοτέρα.

38 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

as to the place where ‘ τοὺς πρώτους φύλακας, mentioned in the first section
of ch. 32, were posted. The words λαθόντες τὴν ἀπόβασιν show, what indeed
is made clear in the previous part of the story, that the Athenians managed
to disembark before the Spartans were aware that aught unusual was
going on.

We then learn that a second and larger body of troops landed on the
island, so that the total Athenian force which was engaged in the attack
consisted of :—

(1) The original landing party of 800 Athenian hoplites.

(2) The second force consisting οἵ:
(a) The crews of between seventy and eighty ships.
(>) 800 archers.
(c) About 800 peltasts.
(d) Messenian auxiliaries.

(c) ‘All those who were posted about Pylos, except the guards
on the wall.’

Arnold ® seems to think that the last mentioned were stationed in the
surrounding country. That is in itself improbable, and a more likely
explanation would seem to be that all those on Pylos, z.c. Koryphasion, who
could be spared from the defence were sent to join the force on the island.
No doubt, since the arrival of the Athenian fleet, that garrison had been
largely increased. It is impossible to estimate even approximately the
numbers of this force, owing to the absolutely indefinite character of (d)
and (e).

Taking (a) at 73 vessels and 150 men per vessel we get over 10,000 men
under this one heading, so that the whole force was very likely not less than
15,000.

To this the Spartans had to oppose a total force of 420 hoplites together
with 2940 Helots, 7f seven light-armed are to be reckoned as accompanying
each hoplite.® But the whole account of the attack seems to point to the
fact that no light-armed were present on the Spartan side during the engage-
ment on the low ground, and again it is difficult to see how the attack of the
Messenians who scaled the cliff could have been so decisive at the end of the
action had not the Spartan numbers been very small. If such were the
numbers, and it seems on examination that the proportion between the two
sides must have been nearly as given above, it is impossible, even in a dry
paper on topography, to pass over the fact without any reference to the
considerations which it evokes. The plain truth is that the long struggle
which began at the well under the High Cliff Hill and was carried on over
the mile of low ground to the foot of the summit, and then up the steep

” Thue. iv. 32, 2. 68 ἡ, Arnold, note to ch. 32. 69 Thue. iv. 8, 9.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. ᾿ 39

ascent of the latter, must have been on the part of the Spartans one of the
most creditable incidents in their great military history. Even in Thucydides’
narrative the Athenians and their allies seem like a pack of yelping hounds
around a dying lion within whose reach they dare not venture. The retreat
must have been very slow even over the level ground: its character forbids
any other supposition. The fight must have lasted nearly the whole day
under a burning summer sun. The odds were immense, yet we hear of no
wavering,” and the little body of men, though much reduced in numbers, is
just as formidable at the end of the day as at the beginning. What a splendid
fighting machine the Spartan army must have been! We know what was
the opinion of the rest of Greece on the subject ; we meet with its expression
in some form or other in almost every chapter of Greek history, but it is only,
perhaps, when we read the unvarnished tale of such a fight as that on
Sphakteria, and call to our minds its full meaning, that we realize on what
solid grounds the great reputation of Sparta among its contemporaries
rested.

We now come to the description of the main attack. An examination
of the map will show that there is one omission in Thucydides’ account which
we can supply with a high amount of probability. It has been mentioned
that the first outpost which the landing party of the Athenians attacked and
overpowered was probably situated on the East or West Table Hill. These
hills were almost certainly occupied in force by the 800 hoplites, while the
rest of their troops landed to cover the disembarkation ; and probably the
shoulder of the High Cliff Hill was occupied also.

The seizing on the higher ground (τῶν χωρίων τὰ μετεωρότατα λαβόντες)
evidently refers to the fact that during the whole of the engagement light
troops kept along the ridge which runs along the bay shore of the island.
The face of this ridge towards the low ground is so rugged that it is difficult
for an unencumbered man to move at anything quicker than a slow walk
upon it. To a hoplite it would be practically untraversable.’?

The mode of attack of the light-armed is described in detail.”* The help-
less condition of the Spartan force exposed on such ground to an attack of
this kind is vividly depicted.” The attack was in front, on both flanks, and on
the rear.

The Spartans, unable to support the attack on the low ground, retreat to
what is called τὸ ἔσχατον ἔρυμα τῆς νήσου, ὃ ov πολὺ ἀπεῖχε. The retreat
must have been difficult, surrounded as they were by foes, and it was certainly
over a longer distance than Thucydides supposed it to be.

77 The only semblance of fear which is without confusion (ξυγκλήσαντες ἐχώρησαν ete. ),
apparent in the whole of Thucydides’ description ἴῃ close order, and this under circumstances of
is the consternation (ἔκπληξι5) which the enormous difficulty and disadvantage.

Spartans felt when they found themselves 1 Thue. iv. 32, 3.
exposed to a method of attack which was new τ, Ib. iv. 33, 2.
to them, and to which they could not ade- 73 1b. iv. 33.
quately reply. Then they are compelled to 74 Jb. iv. 84,
retreat, but the retreat is evidently conducted 15 Jb, iv. 85.

40 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

The point referred to is evidently the summit hill of the island. It was
already garrisoned, and, when they had retired some distance up it, it would
be impossible for the light troops working along the ridge to attack them
from a superior position. With regard to the defence of and attack on
this ἔρυμα, what probably happened is this, From the summit, as will be
seen, the ground slopes away steeply on the north, west and south sides. On
the east side is a cliff of some height which falls into a small hollow which
intervenes between it and the jagged summit of the great cliff which on this
side of the island goes down more than 300 feet sheer into the sea. We may
conjecture that the Spartans, now reduced in numbers, made their last stand
in a semicircle round the north, west and south sides of the summit; and
Thucydides says that ‘the Lacedaemonians defended themselves more easily
than previously, it being impossible to outflank them.’ Ὁ Here the Athenian
force attacked them, without however making any impression.

A Messenian captain suggested the plan of taking the defenders in the
rear, and said he could make his way along the cliffs in such a way as to do
so. Thucydides describes his enterprise thus :—

‘The struggle proving endless, the Messenian commander came to Kleon
and Demosthenes and said that they were labouring to no purpose, but that
if they would give him a division of archers and light-armed for him to get
round to the rear of the foe by a way which he would find, he thought he
could force the approach. Having got what he wanted, he started from a
point out of sight of the enemy, making his way wherever the cliff of the
island afforded a footing, and where the Lacedaemonians, trusting in the
strength of the position, had no one on guard. With much trouble and
difficulty he got round unobserved, and suddenly making his appearance
above their heads,’ οἷο

It would be ultra-refinement of topography to point to any possible way
up or along the cliffs as we see them at present as the probable path of this
Messenian captain and his band, but of some of the details of his adventure
we can be fairly sure. In the first place it must be remembered that the
success of the exploit would depend largely on his being able to appear on
the summit suddenly with a fair number of his men. Had the last part of
the climb been very difficult and only admitted of them getting up slowly one
by one, they must have been cut down as they arrived, for the moment that
they reached the summit their presence there would be apparent to the
Spartans posted immediately beneath and around it. It is evident that this

76 ‘Thue. iv. 35, 4.

τήσατο, ἐκ τοῦ ἀφανοῦς ὁρμήσας ὥστε μὴ ἰδεῖν
77 ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀπέραντον ἦν, προσελθὼν ὁ τῶν

> ‘4 > ΄- ~ ΄
ἐκείνους, κατὰ τὸ ἀεὶ παρεῖκον τοῦ κρημνώδους

Μεσσηνίων στρατηγὺς Ἀλέωνι καὶ Δημυσθένει
ἄλλως ἔφη πονεῖν σφᾶς. εἰ δὲ βούλονται ἑαυτῷ
δοῦναι τῶν τοξοτῶν μέρος τι καὶ τῶν ψιλῶν,
περιιέναι κατὰ νώτου αὐτοῖς ὁδῷ ἧ ἂν αὐτὸς εὕρῃ,
δοκεῖν βιάσασθαι τὴν ἔφοδον. λαβὼν δὲ ὰ

τῆς νήσου προβαίνων. καί ἣ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι
χωρίου ἰσχύϊ πιστεύσαντες οὐκ ἐφύλασσον, χαλε-
πῶς τε καὶ μόλις περιελθὼν ἔλαθε, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ
μετεώρου ἐξαπίνης avapavels, etc.—J/b. iv. 96,

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 41

captain knew or had been told by some of his men of the existence of the
hollow between the summit and the top of the cliff, and that into this hollow
he made his way. The existence of the hollow would be wholly unknown to
any one who had not been on the actual summit, and therefore the plan must
have been devised by some one who had previous acquaintance with the
island. The actual summit is a collection of rocks. They would naturally
not be occupied by the Spartan defenders, who would be in a semicircle round
them on the hill slope. The ascent from the hollow to the summit would
be up a comparatively low and broken cliff, which a fair number of men
could ascend at once. It was this small rocky summit evidently which the
Messenian captain seized. Once there he would, owing to its nature, be very
difficult to dislodge, especially by men who were assailed on the other side by
overwhelming numbers.” No doubt he reached the hollow by climbing along
the line of cliff either from the north or south, starting from a point behind
the ring of Athenian assailants. That he climbed the main cliff from the sea
seems impossible. There are places indeed between the summit and the
Panagia Gap where a good climber could ascend, but none of these places are
near the summit.

After this came the surrender. The rest of the story is not concerned
with matters affecting the topography of the region.

Some General Considerations suggested by the Results of the Investigation.

Such then is the result of a fortnight’s close investigation of the ground
whereon the events which Thucydides describes in the earlier half of his
fourth book took place. The writer can say with confidence what he was
able to say of the field of Plataea—that he knows the ground better than he
knows any area of equal size in his own country. That such is the case is
not due to any peculiar conscientiousness in the conduct of the inquiry, but
to the stern necessity which nature lays on one who would survey her face on
a scale of eight inches to the mile. That necessity is such that, were the
area mapped to be divided into squares of one acre each, it is extremely un-
likely that any one of them would have remained untraversed by the surveyor,
and many of them would have been traversed several, and no small number
of them many times. The result is a knowledge of ground which cannot
be obtained by any other means. It is perhaps necessary to mention these
things in order to show that the writer has at any rate enjoyed unusual oppor-
tunities of learning the ground about which he has written.

It is impossible to close this paper without reference to the interesting
though necessarily partial insight into Thucydides’ method as an historian
which we can obtain from a study of this part of his history. It must of
course be stated emphatically that conclusions drawn from a small portion of
Thucydides’ work cannot and do not claim to have any general application.
Still, if they should seem to be not wholly unfounded, they may contribute in
some small measure to a larger judgment of the method which the historian

42 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

employed,—a judgment which must necessarily, in order to be of any value, be
founded on a larger number of premisses than any single portion of the
history can by itself supply. The writer's only plea for putting them forward
at all is that he has, from the nature of the work, had to study this part of
the history closely, and that he has been able to do this under peculiarly
advantageous circumstances such as few can enjoy.

Thucydides himself, in Book i. ch. 22, is at some pains to explain the
nature of the method he employed in seeking to arrive at historical truth :
τὰ 8 ἔργα τῶν πραχθέντων ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ οὐκ Ex TOD παρατυχόντος πυνθανό-..
μενος ἠξίωσα γράφειν, οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἐμοὶ ἐδόκει, ἀλλ’ οἷς τε αὐτὸς παρῆν, καὶ
παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀκριβείᾳ περὶ ἑκάστου ἐπεξελθών. ἐπιπόνως
δὲ εὑρίσκετο, διότι οἱ παρόντες τοῖς ἔργοις ἑκάστοις οὐ ταὐτὰ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν
ἔλεγον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἑκατέρῳ τις εὐνοίας ἢ μνήμης ἔχοι. *

Of the opportunities he enjoyed for hearing both sides of the historical
question he speaks in v. 26: καὶ ξυνέβη μοι φεύγειν τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ ἔτη εἴκοσι
μετὰ τὴν ἐς ᾿Αμφίπολιν στρατηγίαν καὶ γενομένῳ παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς
πράγμασι, καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον τοῖς Πελοποννησίων διὰ τὴν φυγήν, καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν
τι αὐτῶν μᾶλλον αἰσθέσθαι. ᾿

This passage is, it need hardly be said, of peculiar significance in refer-
ence to the account of the sea fight in the Bay.

Before attempting to ascertain how far Thucydides carried out in his
narrative of the events at Pylos the historical method which he lays down in
his opening book, it will be necessary to examine certain main characteristics
of the story.

In the first place, it may or may not have struck some of those who have
studied the story carefully that it is divisible into two parts, which in
certain respects stand to one another in marked contrast. The first part
carries the tale up to the arrival of the Athenian fleet from Zakynthos, and
closes at the end of the first section of the 13th chapter. The second includes
the rest of the narrative. The first part may be called the ‘ Koryphasion,’
the second the ‘Sphakteria,’ narrative. These two parts are contrasted in
the following respects :—

a. The topography of the first part is stated directly, of the second is to
be gathered in the main by implication.

b. The topography of the first part contains errors and some inconsist-
encies ; the topography of the second part is singularly free from
anything resembling incorrectness.

A table of the direct and implied topographical statements will show
that the above contrasts are justified.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 43

Part 1. Diriecr Torocrarnuy. IMPLIED TOPOGRAPHY.

‘Koryphasion,’ | 1. Ch. 3,2. Plenty of stone and tim-| 1. Ch. 4, 2. Surface of Pylos stony.
ber in Pylos.

2. ,, 4, πηλός obtainable in im-
2. 4, 4, Pylos strong by nature. mediate — neighbour-
hood.
3. 4, 5, Pylos and its neighbour-
hood uninhabited. 3. Ch. 9,1. South wall of Korypha-
sion down near sea.
4. ,, ,, Pylos is 400 stades from :
Sparta. 4, Ch. 11, 2. Practically only one pos-
sible landing place on
5. 4, 4, Lacedaemonians call Py- Koryphasion.

los Koryphasion.

6. Ch. 3, 3. There is a harbour close
by it.

7. Ch. 4, 3. Major portion of Pylos
sufficiently strong to
need no wall.

8. Ch. 5, 2. Athenians build wall on
parts of Pylos towards
the mainland.

9. Ch. 8, 6. Sphakteria lying in front
of the harbour makes
it secure.

10. Ch. 8, 6. The entrances narrow.

», Passage for two ships by
one entrance, for eight
or nine by other.

12. ,, ,, Sphakteria wooded and
without paths.

», Sphakteria about fifteen
stades long.

14. Ch. 8, 8. No harbour outside Pylos.

15. Ch. 9, 2. Demosthenesand his men
adopt the shore line of
defence against attack
on Koryphasion from
the sea side.

16. ,, ,, Rocky nature of landing
place on Koryphasion.

17. Ch. 13,1. The north wall is κατὰ

τὸν λιμένα.

44 AN

Part 2.

‘ Sphakteria.’

|

INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

1. Ch. 13, 4.

σι

Direcr ToroGrarily.

. Ch. 26, 2.

. Ch. 20; 1.

Q
--
τ

bo
=)
μ»

lon
co
μ-
bo

OQ
=
a)
ad
bo

95,

The λιμήν is not small.
|

Only one small spring
in the Akropolis of
Pylos.

Guards placed about

the landing places on |

the island.

Island wooded and un-
inhabited [repeated].

The cliff on the bay |

side of the island
summit.

The old fortification on
the summit.

The rough nature of |

the ground on which

the fight took place.

The fortification on the

summit not far from |

the place where the
battle began.

οι

~I

| 10.

1

Ke

αὐ.

(Ch.

0}

Lach:

. Ch.

. Ch.

4VCh.

Ch:

Huh.

Ch.

Ch.

Imriinp ToroGraryy.

13, 3. The λιμήν (now Bay of
Navarino) a bad an-
chorage.

14,1. Part of the shore of
the harbour admit-
ted of ships being
beached on it.

26, 3. The steep gradients of
Koryphasion.

26, 6. Landing places on the
sea side of Sphak-

teria.

26, 8. Short distance of the
island from the coast
occupied by Pelopon-
nesian forces (ἢ)

30, 2. The places on the island
where the Athenians
put in for meals.

31, 1 & Ch. 32, 1. Determina-
tion of points of land-
ing of the Athenian
force attacking the
island.

31, 2. Southern plateau of
Sphakteria never oc-
cupied by Spartans.

32,3. The use made by
the Athenian light-
armed of the eastern
ridge of the island.

90; The nature of the po-

sition taken up by
the Spartans round
the summit support-
ed by the local topo-

graphy.

cs

36, 1, 2, 3. Possibility of de-
termining from de-
tails given the course
taken by the Messe-
nian captain and his
band.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 45

The contrast as it stands is in itself striking, but it becomes more so if
the minor character of the direct topographical facts given in the second part
when compared with those in the first part be noticed. Nearly the whole of
the difficulty connected with Thucydides’ account of the region is concentrated
in the direct statements 9, 10, 11 and, in a different way, 17 of the first part,
and the indirect statement No. 2 of the same part. Of the statements,
direct or indirect, in the second part only direct statement No. 8 can be
objected to as in any way inaccurate,

If the whole history of the operations be considered it will be seen that
the change in the characteristic of the narrative takes place at that point in
the tale where we should expect to find a change in the source of information
from which the narrative is drawn. It is plain that the events on Koryphasion
were described by an eye-witness. It is also improbable that that member of
the garrison, for so he must have been, was transferred to the fleet after its
arrival. He may have been, of course, but the probability is all the other way.
That being so, it is also probable that the narrative of the events after the
arrival of the fleet was derived by Thucydides from some person or persons
who were on and arrived with the fleet. It may be objected to this argument
that it is all one of probabilities, but it is manifest that in matters of this
kind anything higher in assuredness than probability is rarely attainable,
unless an unwarrantable certainty be assumed. The change of informants
and the determination of the time at which the change took place are, how-
ever, so probable as almost to amount to certainty.

But, with the change of informants, comes a change in the centre of
interest. In the first part of the story the interest is centred in Koryphasion
and its neighbour the lagoon harbour: in the second part it is centred in
Sphakteria and its neighbour the Bay of Navarino. It will be well at this
point to refer briefly to the obvious cause of Thucydides’ mistake on the
harbour question.

Thucydides evidently got his information regarding the events on
Koryphasion from a member of the garrison. It has been already pointed
out that the narrative of events shows that the historian’s informant was one
of those with Demosthenes who resisted the attempt at landing made by the
Peloponnesian fleet.

The silence of Thucydides as to the details not only of the first but of
the subsequent attacks on the north wall gives rise to a strong suspicion that
for the events at Koryphasion at any rate he relied on one informant and one
only. During this time the harbour occupied by the Peloponnesian fleet was
almost certainly the lagoon harbour, the bay being unoccupied,—being, in
fact, not a centre of interest at all. It would therefore be exceedingly
natural for the informant to refer to the lagoon harbour as ‘ the harbour,’
and indeed we have in the words τὸ κατὰ τὸν λιμένα τεῖχος (a practically
indubitable description of the north wall) a striking example of such a
reference, But after the arrival of the Athenian fleet the centre of interest
is transferred to the Bay of Navarino, and the lagoon harbour, and even
Koryphasion too, practically vanish from the story. With this change of

46 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

the centre of interest isa change, we may almost say a necessary change, in
Thucydides’ source of information. To him or to them who gave Thucydides
the information as to what happened after the arrival of the Athenian fleet
the Bay of Navarino would be‘ the harbour’ and he or they would speak of
itas such. The historian evidently supposed that the ‘harbour’ spoken of
by his respective informants was one and the same piece of water—a very
natural mistake when we consider that the clue to the existence of the two
could not be supplied to him, owing to the time of the change of centre of
interest coinciding with the time of the change in the source of information.

This is the great mistake in Thucydides’ topography, the mistake which
colours the whole of the first part of his narrative and makes it so difficult
to understand. Any one who reads the earlier part of the fourth book may
feel that there is an indefinable something wanting in the story and yet in a
sense there—an uncomfortable immaterial presence in the historical room
which could, if materialized, explain the mystery and give us the clue to that
which is incomprehensible. This ghost is the lagoon. In the second part
the mistake vanishes from the story, and the narrative becomes remarkably
clear and accurate.

In his account of Sphakteria Thucydides has plainly set himself to give
a peculiarly detailed and, we may believe, accurate description of events.
With a view to rendering his account more clear he has inserted into it a
number of direct statements with regard to the topography of the region in
which the events he describes took place. Taking Thucydides’ history as a
whole it is noticeable that in the three cases in which he really lays himself
out to give lengthy descriptions of important military operations, namely in
his descriptions of the operations at Plataea, Pylos, and Syracuse respectively,
we find plain evidence of the fact that he, as his history progressed, became
more and more conscious of the necessity of inserting topographical details
for the right understanding of complicated military operations. He seems
to have become indeed, as his work proceeded, more experienced as a military
historian. From the topographical point of view, the Pylos narrative is half
way, or more than half way, between the narratives of Plataea and Syracuse.
In Plataea we have absolutely nothing resembling direct topography, save
perhaps in the description of the route taken by the 212 who escaped from
the town. In the Syracuse narrative we have a wealth of detail which,
though apparently not easy to understand, is nevertheless on the whole
capable of being proved to be correct in the opinion of modern investigators.
In the Pylos narrative we have less detail, and among this a palpable
mistake which confuses the whole story. Unfortunately, the mistake seems
to have been Thucydides’ own. He apparently had made up his mind that
he knew the geography of the region about which he was writing, and as his
tale was on the whole consistent in itself he remained in ignorance of the
mistake he had made. But the mistake is essentially topographical not
historical. It even confirms our faith in him as an historian to find that in
spite of this great mistake most of the historical facts he relates are pecu-
liarly supported by the state of the region at the present time. He must

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 47

have chosen his sources of information well, for the implied as well as the
major part of the direct topography is so accurate. Of his sources of
information we have already spoken. For some reason or other he seems
to have relied for his history of the events at Koryphasion on a single
individual. But that individual must have been a capable observer, The
detail of blocking of the channels was very likely obtained from him, but
the attributing of that operation to the two channels entering Navarino Bay
is Thucydides’ own idea in accordance with his conception of the geography.
The one great inconsistency and seeming error in the historical part of the
story is with reference to the naval battle in the bay, and that is possibly
due to the historian having used information obtained from a Lacedaemonian
source in that part of his narrative. It would however be a failure of
candour not to admit, reluctantly perhaps, but still to admit, that the failure
to give the true causes of the surprise of the Peloponnesian flect is a some-
what glaring defect. The causes suggested in this paper may not be, those
stated by Thucydides manifestly are not, the true ones. Nor, unfortu-
nately, can we acquit Thucydides on the ground that he had not sufficient
military experience to enable him to perceive the defects of the tale as
related by him. Throughout the whole of the Pylos narrative the historian
displays a suppressed but noticeable tendency to make the most of the share
taken by Demosthenes in the whole design and its carrying out, and this,
too, perhaps, at the expense of Eurymedon and his colleague. Can it have
been that, in accordance with this plan, he made little of what was in one
sense the turning-point in the history of the mutual blockades, because
Demosthenes could not claim a share in it? The suggestion may be an
injustice to the historian, but it is an injustice to which he exposes
himself by a manifest lack of that careful inquiry after historical truth
which he himself claims to have instituted with regard to the events
which he relates. After that the story is, as far as can be judged at the
present time, of peculiar accuracy, and of a completeness in marked
contrast to the many obvious omissions in similar narratives in Herodotus,
Polybius or Livy. Such then are the seeming facts which may be
arrived at by a study of this chapter of Greek history. They were not
arrived at in the present case by any sudden or happy inspiration, but by a
minute and somewhat laboured examination. The decision as to whether
such work as this is of any real value as a contribution to history must be
left to others than the writer. He, as it will be seen, takes the perhaps
prejudiced view that if some of the greatest work in history is to retain its
proper place in the education of a critical age, its truth must stand on some
securer foundation than mere faith.

Note A.—On some pre-existing Maps of the Region.
(1) That of Captain Smyth as given in Arnold’s Thucydides.

General outline more accurate than the Admiralty survey. Not contoured.
Fails, especially on Palaeo-Kastro, to give any idea of the cliffs. Important

48 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

mistake in placing the summit of the ridge on Sphagia between the Panagia
(called in this map Marabut) and the Santa Rosa landing, near the middle of
the island, whereas it is on the extreme east edge, and where the summit of
the ridge is shown low ground, as a fact, exists.

(2) Admiralty Survey, dated 1865. Not contoured. General features
of island of Sphagia accurate, save that the apparent peak marked 160 in
the south of the island does not exist as such.

The wall is much too far north.

On Palaeo-Kastro the outline of the mediaeval fort is evidently

sketched ’ in, and is wrong. ,

The shape of Voithio-Kilia is all wrong. Its entrance is given on
the map as 289 yards in width, the actual dimension being 172 yards.

The hill of Agio Nikolo is shown with two summits. The
northern is intended evidently to represent the main summit of the
hill. It is too near the sea. The southern one can only be intended to
represent the summit of the semi-detached hill over the mouth of the Bay
of Voithio-Kilia. It ought to be quite close to the bay.

For the purposes for which it is intended the land features of this map
are no doubt given accurately enough. I have only noted the inaccuracies
lest they should lead to misconception in case the map were used with
Thucydides’ History.

(3) Map in Curtius’ Peloponnesus, vol. τ. ad fin. Includes only Agio
Nikolo, Palaeo-Kastro and the north end of Sphagia.

On the whole a very good map, save that the Voithio-Kilia entrance is
too wide, and the area covered by the mediaeval fort is far too large.

The various maps found in histories of Greece and editions of Thucyd-
ides are apparently copies of either (1) or (2). In several cases I have
noticed that serious mistakes have been made in the copying.

Note B.—The Pylos of Homer.

Though the main object of the survey was to find, if possible, some
solution of the difficulties respecting Sphakteria, yet it will be easily imagined
that I looked for traces of the Pylos of the Mykenaean period. [05 site is as
yet undetermined. Schliemann sought for it on Palaeo-Kastro. The traces
of the tentative excavations which he made there are visible now. They
were evidently of a slight kind, but they seem to have satisfied him that if
the Homeric Pylos were on that hill, all evidence of its existence has perished.
Nor is this surprising. The Pylos of Pausanias almost certainly stood there,
and the mediaeval fortress is a vast memorial of its occupation in later times.
These successive occupations of the site have destroyed apparently all traces
of anything that was anterior to them, for, as far as can be seen, the rock is
very near the surface, so that there is but little prospect that there are
remains buried, as at Hissarlik, beneath the ruins at present visible.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 49

After having seen Palaeo-Kastro and its surroundings I did not, I confess,
regard it as a likely site for the Pylos for whose traces I was looking. I could
not doubt that at so remote a period the channel through Voithio-Kilia into
the lagoon harbour was open, and that Palaco-Kastro was an island. It was
consequently to Agio Nikolo that I turned my attention. The first day on
which I was on that hill, the only point that I noticed was that the upper
part of the hill was terraced. These terraces are evidently slightly cultivated
and are supported at their edges, which are two or three feet high, by small
stones or rocks laid loosely on one another, on a base of much larger stones,
of no very regular shape or size, and to a great extent buried in the earth.
I felt pretty certain that these lower stones were deliberately placed there,
and that at some ancient date ; but still the indications were not such as to
fill the archaeologist with the joy of a notable discovery.

On the next day I was again at Agio Nikolo. I wanted to get sight
from the face of it on to the north wall of the fort on Palaeo-Kastro.
Seeing a flat space of ground hollowed out of the side of the hill, something
like a shallow quarry, I made for that, planted my instruments in the middle
of it, and took sights for about half an hour. Stopping for a moment in the
course of the work (to light my pipe, as a fact), I noticed that I had planted
my table in the middle of what had evidently been an enclosure of very
large stones. The reason that I had not noticed it before was that the surface
of the stones was practically flush with the ground, and they were worn on
the surface by weathering and other causes into an irregular shape. This
enclosure was of the shape of a regular ellipse, with a major axis of thirty-six
yards at right angles to the line of the slope of the hill, and a minor axis of
thirty yards on the line of slope. The stones, it was apparent, were of large
size. The general characteristics reminded me of the stone circle at Mykenae,
which I had but lately seen. Of course there were in this case no upright
slabs, nor was it a circle proper, as, if I remember rightly, the enclosure at
Mykenat is, but the departure from the circular form is in this case possibly
due to its position on the flat space carved out of the hill slope. This space
is, 1 am almost sure, artificial. It commands a magnificent view of the lagoon
and Navarino Bay. That it deserves further examination Iam sure. Time
and money would not have allowed me to do any extensive digging, and as
tentative digging would have been disastrous in proportion to its success, I
left it alone, though I had a permit with me allowing excavation. Had I
discovered anything, and then had to stop my work, every peasant in the
neighbourhood would have tried his hand at it with a view to possible
treasure. The site will, [ hope, be examined during the course of the present
autumn 18 by Mr. Cecil Smith, the Director of the British School at Athens.
My chief fear is that there remains but little depth of earth upon it, and
- that, consequently, one of the chief sources of the supply of what is interesting
and valuable will not be present.

Though there cannot be any certainty about the site until excavation

78 Written Oct. 1895. EK
H.S.—VOL. XVI.

50 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

has been done, still it may be interesting to examine with reference to this
neighbourhood the various details with regard to Pylos which we can gather
from the Odyssey. They do not amount to a great deal and any
correspondence they may have to the local circumstances is, possibly,
accidental, and their slight character makes it further possible that
they may be applicable to other places also; but I suppose that the
discoveries of late years have tended, at any rate, to create an impression
that what we are told in the Odyssey and the Jliad is not purely mythical as
a description of the life and times of which it pretends to treat. The know-
ledge possessed by the author of the island of Ithaca renders it something
more than possible that he knew the city of Nestor, which would be a station
on the voyage from the settlements in the western isles of Greece to the main
centres of Mykenaean civilization in Argos, Lakonia, and Krete. The refer-
ences to Pylos in Homer read very much like those of a man who knew the
place from touching at it in the course of a voyage, but did not know it well.

εἶμι yap ἐς Σπάρτην τε καὶ ἐς Πύλον nyaboevta.”

The term ‘sandy’ is, needless to say, the well-known epithet of Pylos in
Homer. Sandy shores are the exception, not the rule, on the rocky coasts
of Greece. Now the sandy shore in this neighbourhood begins at the north
end of Agio Nikolo and extends in a long unbroken line northward to the
point opposite the island of Proté. South of Agio Nikolo the shore is all
rocky and mostly cliff. The sandy nature of the neighbourhood is of course
a very marked feature of the locality.

Between Agio Nikolo and the hill north of it the country is all sand,
and it is more than likely that the lagoon harbour had a sandy coast at that
time. Curtius and Leake both use the epithet ἡμαθόεις as an argument for
the existence of sand hills on the site of the present lagoon. But the
existence of sand in such quantities as are found in this neighbourhood is
sufficiently rare in Greece with its usually rocky coasts to account forthe use
of the epithet in the Odyssey.

ot δὲ Πύλον, Νηλῆος ἐὐκτίμενον πτολίεθρον,
ἷξον' τοὶ δ᾽ ἐπὶ θινὶ θαλάσσης ἱερὰ ῥέζον,
ταύρους παμμέλανας, ἐνοσίχθονι κυανοχαίτῃ.
ἐννέα δ᾽ ἕδραι ἔσαν, πεντακόσιοι δ᾽ ἐν ἑκάστῃ
εἵατο, καὶ προὔχοντο ἑκάστοθι ἐννέα ταύρους.

Assuming Agio Nikolo to be the site of Pylos this scene must have
taken place on the sandy beach immediately north of it. May not the poet
be describing some scene he has himself witnessed when touching at Pylos ?

ὡς ἄρα φωνήσασ᾽ ἡγήσατο Ἰαλλὰς ᾿Αθήνη
καρπαλίμως: ὁ δ᾽ ἔπειτα pet ἴχνια βαῖνε θεοῖο.
ἷξον δ᾽ ἐς ἸΤυλίων ἀνδρῶν ἄγυρίν τε καὶ ἕδρας,
ἔνθ᾽ ἄρα Νέστωρ ἧστο σὺν υἱάσιν, ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἑταῖροι
dait ἐντυνόμενοι κρέα τ’ ὥπτων ἄλλα τ᾽ ἔπειρον .δ'

79 Hom. Od. ii. 214. 0. 16, ἅττ, 4, 8). 7b. iti. 29.

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS. 51

We can only gather from this that the town was not at the landing
place, which would be the case if it were at the top of Agio Nikolo.

ἀλλ᾽ ay’ ὁ μὲν πεδίονδ᾽ ἐπὶ βοῦν ἴτω, οἷς.
The town was, then, on a hill. The plain would be that of Lykos.
The same fact is deducible from line 429.

\ ᾽ > 7 ΄
τὼ δ᾽ οὐκ ἀέκοντε πετέσθην
ἐς πεδίον, λιυπέτην δὲ Πύλου αἰπὺ πτολίεθρον.53

We have here further confirmation of the fact that the city was on a
ill. Moreover it was on a hill attached to, not separated from, the
mainland. The plain referred to here would be that of Lykos.

There is a fact noted in line 495 of this book which has, I understand,
been looked upon as a difficulty in the description of the journey to Sparta.
I refer to the words:

ἷξον ἐς πεδίον πυρηφόρον δ"

Surely this can be no other than the notoriously fertile Messenian plain.

They came to it on the day after leaving Pylos. This would probably be
the case.

It must not be supposed that this is put forward as serious topography.
I only wish to point out that the few details we can gather from Homer
accord with the situation of the city on Agio Nikolo,

G. BEARDOE GRUNDY.

Note on the Map of Koryphasion showing Positions of Attach: and Defence.

In the course of = discussion following the reading of a paper on the subject of
Sphakteria at a meeting of the Hellenic Society on March 30th of this year, Dr. Walter
Leaf pointed out to me that it was difficult to imagine that the outer line of ships in the
Sikia Channel could have been drawn ujf with one end of the line abutting on the hostile
shore of Koryphasion. The objection is undoubtedly a strong one, and is one which had
occurred to myself. Dr. Leaf thought that the conjecture of a line of ships in that position
could hardly be supported. I admitted that an error in draughtsmanship had placed the
northernmost vessel of the line too close to the shore in the map shown at the meeting. Dr. Leaf
then urged that unless that vessel were close in shore the channel could not be effectively
blocked. My answer to this was and is that owing to the nature of that shore, which is sufti-
ciently described in dealing with the attack of the ships on the promontory, the northernmost
vessel of the line might be practically beyond the reach of such missiles as the Athenians
on shore would have at their disposal, and yet be near enough in to render it dangerous, if
not impossible, for an enemy’s ship to pass between it and the shore, owing to the presence
of rocks both above water and awash off that shore. I feel that there is very strong reason
to assume from Thucydides’ account of what happened on the arrival of tle Athenian fleet
that on the first day the Peloponnesian fleet was in some strong defensive position which
maintained the communication with the island ; and without setting wp any claim to
absolute certainty with regard to my interpretation of that position, yet I think that it
must have been something like what I have shown on the map. Thucydides shows that
the moment that this position was lost, communication with the island was cut off, for he
says, after describing the naval battle on the day following the first arrival of the Athenian
fleet, kat τὴν νῆσον εὐθὺς περιέπλεον καὶ ἐν φυλακῇ εἶχον ὡς τῶν ἀνδρῶν dreAnupevor.—G.B.G.

82 Hom. Od. iii. 421. 83 70, iii. 484. 84 Jb, iii, 495.
E 2

ne) |
Lo

Navarino (town)

Pylos (Homer)
Pylos (Thue. )
Sphagia=Sphakteria

Palaeo-Kastro = Koryphasion =

Dalaeo-Avarino
Hill of Agio Nikolo
Lagoon :ξ
Navarino Bay

[Sikia ager
Sphagia Ἴ

ΕΣ]

Palaco-Kastro [Koryphasion]
[Leake], [Curtius]

Lagoon :
[Jalova, R.]

[Leake] ...
[Leake] ...
[Leake] ...

[Leake and Pausanias]

[Smyth]

[Arnold] ie
Voithio-Kilia [Curtius]

Lagoon [Tozer]

[Palaeo-Kastro]
[Pausanias]

Pausanias
[Sphakteria]

Lagoon

Pylos [Homeric]

Lagoon

[Voithio-Kilia]...
Arnold
Lagoon

Pylos (Thue. Ἢ

Bay of Navarino

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS.

Now called Pylos
Origin of name
Site

Site :
Nomenclature

Origin of name

Name...

Name...

Description ...

South entrance

North entrance

Possible south extension
Description ...

Landing places

Description ...

Height according to tke “ Curtius faites
Landing

Description ... he
Mouth of R. eleva
Openings into—present day
Level .. : =
Description = Leake

_ Origin of such lagoons according a Peake

Teme’ s account of origin partial and misleading.
Comparison with similar lagoons ...

Leake’s argument from Pausanias.. : ὡς
Bese Smyth’s view of the aon of ieecoa se

Curtius’ view—prehistoric geography

Its nature »δὲ se oe

Tozer’s view . be

Topographical evidence of previod: existente of
lagoon

Water-worn cliffs

State temp. Thucydides ᾿

No mention of the lagoon in Pansanias .

Pausanias’ description of Pylos

Nature of Pausanias’ work.. ES

Pausanias’ mention of Sphisktaria

Possibility of change before Pausanias’ time

Not apparently on same site as Pylos (Pausanias)

Estimate of condition in time of Thucydides

Entrance channel ae ἘΣ

Voithio-Kilia channel

Account of Venetian historian

Theories with regard to the narrative

Lagoon harbour and the theories ...

Demosthenes urges its fortification “πὰ

Demosthenes shows the natural strength of it .

: | Its unsuitability as a harbour of refuge ...

f

THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS.

Lagoon

Pylos μον τὐὰρ ἐᾷ
Pylos.. ve

Koryphasion...
[Agio Nikolo] ...

[Palaeo-Kastro]
Agio Nikolo (Hill of)

Palaeo-Kastro—Sphakteria theory

Sphakteria
Sphagia-Sphakteria theory

Lagoon

Koryphasion

The channels which were blocked..

Thucydides ...

Lagoon (harbour) .

The blocking of the Channels
Lagoon (harbour) :
Sphakteria

[Arnold]

[Pausanias]

[Strabo]...

[Pliny] ...
Koryphasion
Pylos...

Agio Nikolo...
Koryphasion
Sphakteria ...
Lagoon harbour

Koryphasion

Lagoon (harbour)
Pylos...
Bay of Navarino
Proté...

Lagoon harbour probably refuge of Athenian
fleet

Identification

Four cities of that name fe

Name ‘ Koryphasion’ points to Palae ο- Kastro was

Fortification of Koryphasion

Details with regard to it and its fortification

Comparison of details with Agio Nikolo and

Palaeo-Kastro

Description ...

Favoured by detail of blocking of channels

Must be rejected on the ne of events on
Sphacteria... 5

Is beyond a doubt Sphagia... -

Difficulties in identifying it with Palaco- Kaokrs:

Statement of main indisputable factors in the
story a ;

Its state at the time of the events a

Support given to the view taken by the terms of
the treaty (note) .. ae ee

News of occupation received at Sparta :

Arrival of Peloponnesian fleet ;

Are we to reject the ‘blocking’ as untrue ?

Statement supported by local topography

Channels to which Thucydides refers

Had never seen Pylos re

Nature of his mistake τὸ

Existence unknown to Mhueydides.

Its object

Possible anchorage of Peloponnesian fleet.

Description by Thucydides

Mistake in its length

Arnold’s note on the subject

Possible cause of the mistake...

Island never wholly occupied by Spartans

Pausanias and Sphakteria ... δεν

Strabo and Sphakteria

Pliny and Sphakteria : ae

Identification dependent on that of Sphakteria...

Four cities of the name .... Σ

Identification of site of Pylos of Thucydides

Ancient remains on it : ἊὋ

Its fortifications

Garrisoned by Spartans

Evidence from occupation of the aud: ber

Further evidence...

Effective nature of the blockade . és

The attack on Koryphasion :

Inconsistency in Thucydides’ account

Attack from the sea—details

Reason for supposing Thucydides relied | on one
informant for events on Koryphasion .

Lacedaemonians send for wood for engines

Unconscious mention by Thucydides

Arrival of Athenian fleet

It finds bay shore occupied...

It goes to Proté ;

Reasons given by Thucydides for its retirement.

54 THE REGION OF SPHAKTERIA AND PYLOS.!

Bay of Navarino

Sphakteria

Koryphasion

Bay of Navarino

Lagoon (harbour)

Bay of Navarino [Marathiowiett
Sphakteria

[Athens]

The Survey ...
Thucydides ...

Fight in the Bay
Inconsistency of the ἘΠΙῸΝ

| Possible explanation of the true nar rabid

_—— Ξ-ΞἜ-.:-:ς-- ὁ ὋὯἷἝςς

Possible source of part of the narrative ..

Blockaded

Armistice

Surrender of fleet

Difficulty as to its number...

Object of Athenians in securing it

Refusal to give it back Wes

Arrival of twenty ships from Athens

Frequent attacks on north wall

Hardships of garrison

Water supply

Lack of space on oryphasion

Difficulty of anchorage
Further evidence ἔξε

Island of Marathonisi never Βέ σεται τον

Blockade running by Helots

Landing places

Main encampment on the Soule

Communication by swimmers

Kleon appointed to command ἊΣ

Accurate topography of account of attack on
Sphakteria

Burning of woodland on dan ae

Points where Athenians landed for meals

Attack on Sphakteria Ἐν

The well on the island

Main encampment of Spartans

Athenian landing

Points of disembarkation .

Position of Spartan outpost

Position of main body ;

Fort at the north summit of the ssl

Landing of main body of Athenian forte

Numbers of Athenian force

Numbers of Spartan force ...

The nature of the fight

Use made by the Athenian light troupe of the
eastern ridge

Retirement of Spartans ἐδ, the suinnitit hae the
island

The exploit of the Metsiatin captain

Probable route adopted by him

Nature of knowledge resulting from survey

His method of arriving at historical truth

History of Sphakteria divisible into two parts ...

Different sources of information for the two parts

Centres of interest of the respective parts »

Cause of Thucydides’ mistake as to the har-
bour :

Development ef topography i in Thucydides’ His.
tory

Some: other bonsiderationd Siippehted by the Story

46
47

J.H.8. VOL. XVI. (1896) PL. VIII.

FIG. 1. SOUTH END OF PALAZO-KASTRO.

FIG. 2. NORTH END OF PALAO-KASTRO.

*

&

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA. 55

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

[Puate VIII.)

Puate VIII. Fiaures 1 anp 2.

These two prints are reproductions from the fine, and not sufficiently well known
illustrations of M. Bory de Saint-Vincent (Lxpédition Scientifique de Morée, Section des
Sciences Physiques, Atlas, Plates [X., X.).

Although not reproducing details with the accuracy of Phokographyy they convey a

correct general impression.

Fig. 1.—View of Palaeo-Kastro (Pylos), looking ἘΣΤΕ ΠΕ Taken from the
north slope of Sphagia (Sphacteria). The Sikia Channel lies in the foreground.

The low detached rocks on the west, or sea, side, where Brasidas made his attack, are
suggested, though not worked out all their distance. The south-east corner, abutting on
the southern sand-bar of the lagoon, is not worked out.

Fig, 2.—View of Palaeo-Kastro (Pylos), looking south-west. Taken from the north
shore of the bay of Boidia Koilia, which lies in the foreground, with Hagio Nicolo to the
right. Sphagia (Sphacteria) is outlined in the background to the left.

The ideas suggested in this paper as to the natural defences of Pylos on the north and
east sides are well illustrated by this print.

Ir is with some diffidence that I publish the following paper. It is
indeed the result of considerable study of the literature of the subject, and
of the best of a week’s work on the spot last autumn. But unfortunately I
never expected, when I went to Pylos, that I should have so much to say
about it, and I took with me neither leave to excavate, nor appliances for
measurements and photography. I feel therefore that my views can scarcely
in the nature of things carry with them the same weight as those which
Mr. Grundy has based on the detailed survey which he conducted
under the auspices of the University of Oxford a week or two before my
visit. I am afraid our conclusions on certain points may prove to differ. My
documentary evidence is at present non-existent,! and my measurements are
one and all rough and approximate. I can only ask Mr. Grundy and the
reader to remember that I spent more than forty hours exploring the ground,
and that, as survey work was unhappily out of the question, I had thus
ample time to form an opinion on the topography of what is after all a very

limited area.

1 I hope to have some plans and photographs may make it easier for the reader to follow my
forthcoming for an early number of the _ line of argument, it lays no claim to being final
Journal. The plan which accompanies this or scientific,
paper is quite rough, and, though I hope it

56 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

The first question we have to face is the identification of Pylos and
Sphacteria. Leake’s view, which has since been generally accepted, is that
the long island of Sphagia was Thucydides’ Sphacteria, and the promontory
of Palaeo-Kastro his Pylos. Where we have to deal so largely in probabilities,
it is satisfactory to be able to begin with a definite assertion. Leake’s view
is undoubtedly the correct one. Apart from any identification of walls,
a close inspection of the ground renders it a certainty. It will be
remembered by those who have studied the question that the recognized
alternative to Leake’s view,2 is to transfer operations to the north, and to
maintain that the promontory we now consider Pylos was in those days the
island of Sphacteria, and that the piece of ground on the other side of Boidia
Koilia, which we may call by its modern name .of Hagio Nikolo, was the
ancient Pylos. There are indeed difficulties in the orthodox view which such
a change of topography might diminish,’ and it is certainly possible that at
some period of history our Pylos was an island.* But it is useless to discuss
the minor advantages which this view would entail in the face of three
insuperable objections.

(1) Hagio Nikolo could not possibly have been Pylos. It is not a
defensible position at all, and so far from answering to Thucydides’ descrip-
tion, and only standing in need of a wall for less than half its extent,? it
would have needed a strong wall to guard at least two-thirds of it.® —

(2) It is inconceivable that two islands should have existed in front of
Pylos.7 The orthodox Sphacteria is too near for Prote,® which is satisfactorily

2 Suggested in Dr. Arnold’s Thucydides.

3 Eg. the southern as well as the northern
entrance to the λιμήν is reduced to a manage-
able breadth. But we may answer that there
is no διάπλους for eight or nine ships in the
Sikia Channel. And it could scarcely have
been four times broader than that at Boidia

convinced that this is no exaggeration.

7 E.g. there would have been a place for the
Athenians to anchor, both before the battle in
the harbour (Jb. iv. 18, 3), and after the
blockade had begun (7d. 26, 3).

The triremes could easily have been drawn
up both on the eastern side of our Sphacteria,

Koilia.

Again, by assuming, with Arnold, that
μέγεθος (Thue. iv. 8, 6) can refer, not only to
length, but to circumference, we can harmonize
the statement that Sphacteria was about fifteen
stades in μέγεθος.

4 Our Pylos would be a not impossible,
though inefficient, Sphacteria. Identification
of the description is difficult, e.g. there is no
level ground in the middle, and there are no
κατάρσεις on the west (70. iv. 26, 7).

5 Ib. iv. 5, 8, τὸ yap πλέον τοῦ χωρίου
αὐτὸ καρτερὺν ὑπῆρχε καὶ οὐδὲν ἔδει τείχους.
Not only could the amount of walling necessary
for Hagio Nikolo by no efforts have been com-
pleted in the time, but Demosthenes could not
have picked out such a position as naturally
defensible. Arnold is quite misleading in the
Memoir at the end of his second volume.

® | went oyer the ground carefully, and am

where the chapel now stands, and at several
places on the western side. There also would
have been no lack of space, and no need for
taking their meals on shore by relays (ib. 26, 3,
στενοχωρία τε ἐν ὀλίγῳ στρατοπεδευομένοις
ἐγίγνετο καὶ τῶν νεῶν οὐκ ἐχουσῶν ὅρμον αἱ
μὲν σῖτον ἐν τῇ γῇ ἡροῦντο κατὰ μέρος, αἱ δὲ
μετέωροι ὥρμουν).

Again, if the southern entrance to the λιμήν
was at the Sikia Channel, could it be described
as πρὸς τὴν ἄλλην ἤπειρον (ib. 8, 6)? If our
Sphacteria were Prote, the description would
have been πρὸς Πρώτην thy νῆσον. If an un-
named island, πρὸς ἄλλην τινὰ νῆσον. In
either case the description πρὸς τὴν ἄλλην
ἤπειρον would be unintelligible.

8 Prote is of course out of the question, be-
cause Thuc. iv. 26, 3 shows it was no use to
the Athenians for the blockade, which it must
have been if so near.

SPHACTERIA

Roven Puan.

TURTORI ROCKS

SPHAGIA SHOAL

Illustrating the views expressed in this paper as to the disposition of the Athenian and Spartan
forces on Pylos and Sphacteria.

A
BB

CC

A’A’

E

FF

GG

Summit of Mount Elias.

Remains of the παλαιὸν ἔρυμα which
Schliemann presumably meant to
describe.

Further remains of the παλαιὸν ἔρυμα
running across the north-west side ofa
hollow.

Traces of a wall of the παλαιὸν ἔρυμα
which ran on the south of the hollow,
and which the Spartans did not
defend.

That part of Mount Elias which bounds
the hollow on the west and south-west,
and prevents approach to it from these
sides.

Gorge by which the Messenians ascended
to the hollow and got to the rear of
the Spartans. ;

The main body of the Athenians as they
directed their attack τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς

ἡμέρας.
Wall of Demosthenes πρὸς τὸ πέλαγος,

N.B.—-The letters A, J, and R are printed so as to cover the ground they refer to.

H

outside which he drew up his men on
the paxia.

Wall of Demosthenes along the shore of
the Sikia Channel.

Wall of Demosthenes which the Spartans
meant to attack with μηχαναί.

Position from which they would have
attacked it.

Part of Demosthenes’ line of defence
which required no wall.

Possible wall of Demosthenes of which
remains still exist.

Remains of stonework in form of inverted
pyramid strengthening weak point in
cliff.

Spartans attacking τῷ κατὰ γῆν στρατῷ.

Fragments of walls resembling in style
those built by Epaminondas at
Messene.

Fragments of possible Cyclopean gateway.

Mediaeval fortress,

Nestor’s Cave.

E is

The other letters by the lines adjacent to them.

58 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

identified at a natural distance further north, and a glance at the map will
be enough to show us that the existence in this position of an unmentioned
island would have interfered at every point with the progress of events.

(3) Sphacteria itself, the orthodox Sphacteria, must be the place where
the great fight took place, and the Spartans fell. Not only does every detail
of the last struggle correspond, but every step that led up to it can be
followed. The most level part of the island is where you would expect it, in
the very centre, and there too, still existing, is the one and only spring of
water Neither could the main body of the Spartans, stationed here, nor
even the detachment in the old fort at the northern peak, see the small body
which guarded the southern extremity. The Athenian hoplites could
overwhelm them, and mount the belt of hills on the immediate south of
the central plain, without once raising an alarm.!® More than this, every
landing-place on the east side is out of sight both from the central plain
and the northern peak, and the light-armed forces of the Athenians could
gather unnoticed. When the main body of Spartans near the well saw
the hoplites who had overpowered their advanced guard marshalled on the
southern hills, and moved forward to meet them,’ these light-armed troops
climbed the hills to their east, threatened their flank, and even got round to
their rear along one of the low ridges which run across the central plain,
and almost stretch to the western sca. Very truly Epitadas and his men
were attacked in front, in rear, in flank. On the western side alone the
Athenians could not hope to pass between them and the sea."

When again Epitadas turned, and forced his way back to the north, we
can follow his course, and see his difficulties. We can notice the rugged
ground and stunted brushwood, and the long low line of hills stretching
along the east, and now and again sending a ridge down into the centre
of the plain.

Even the last struggle is made clear and vivid for us. It can scarcely
be a coincidence that on the north peak there exist to‘this day remains of
fortifications which stand exactly where the παλαιὸν ἔρυμα must have stood,
behind whose walls the Spartans entrenched themselves.% As early as 1865
the composer of the British Admiralty Chart marked ‘ Cyclopean Ruins’ on
the north peak of Sphacteria, and in the J/ittheilungen of the German
Archaeological Institute at Athens (xiv. p. 132) there is a short single page
account of a paper in which on the 23rd of January, 1889, Schliemann
announced his discovery of about forty metres of an undoubtedly
ancient fort, ‘exactly where Thucydides would lead us to expect it. The
curious point is that, just as the note in the Admiralty Chart seems to have
been unknown to Schliemann, who claims that no travellers have noticed the
fort before him, so even Schliemann’s own work, perhaps because described

9 Thue. iv. 31, 2, μέσον δὲ καὶ ὁμαλώτατόν τε 18. Tb, iv. 82, 8 and 33, 1, ἐκ πλαγίου δὲ of
καὶ περὶ τὺ ὕδωρ. ψιλοὶ καὶ κατὰ νώτου.

W Th. iv. 32, 1, λαθόντες τὴν ἀπόβασιν. Ἀν ΘΟ Lando:

11 Jb, iv. 82, 2 and 8, LST ewe oles

12 Jb, iy. 38, 1.

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA. 59

at so much less length than most of what he did, has attracted little
attention. Dr. Dérpfeld has written to me that he knows of nothing published
on the subject since Schliemann’s essay, and this could hardly be the case, if
scholars fully realized its importance. Indeed, in England, it is scarcely
known at all, and has not found its way into any of the text-books on
Thucydides.'®

Schliemann, as I have said, only noticed about forty metres of the fort,
and his description of the three rows of big stones, which still stand in their
places, leads me to think that what he saw was the line of wall which lies
on the north-west, west, and south-west slopes of the highest peak. Before
I show that this view of the fort’s extent, which for a long time was mine
also, is too limited, I had better describe in fuller detail the nature of the
ground.

The top peak in the island of Sphacteria, which, for clearness’ sake, we
had better call by its modern name of Mt. Elias, lies in the north-east of the
island, and directly faces Pylos. On the west, south-west, and north-west
sides, the ground slopes up to Mt. Elias gradually, and here, some yards
below the actual summit, runs the wall which Schliemann saw. Its shape is
preserved to a degree one could hardly have expected. It begins both
south-west and north-west in a curved line, following the shape of the hill,
but the whole of the long western side is broken up by four projecting
rectangular bastions. The stones are large and rough, and, except at one
point, which I will consider later, I could not see the smallest trace of
mortar, nor any other sign of mediaeval workmanship.” The wall is at points
almost perfect for two, or even three, layers of stones, and in one place
is still about 8 feet 6 inches high. Some of the best preserved frag-
ments are hidden by a thick undergrowth of wild olive, wild strawberry, and
other trees. Was it here then, and only here, that the Spartans entrenched
themselves? At first sight it looks more than probable. They would have
had their backs to the peak of the hill, and the ascent to it on the eastern
side is an affair of climbing, and might perhaps be considered too difficult to
need defending. The way that the Messenians came round was, on this
hypothesis, the slope on the extreme north of Mt. Elias. They would follow
up this path to the east, and mount the summit on that side.

But the longer one looks at the place, the more untenable does this

16 Adolf Holm, too, even in the English
translation of his History, which has had
the benefit of his corrections up to 1895, is
astoundingly inadequate. He ignores not only
Schliemann’s researches at Pylos and Sphac-
teria, but even Leake’s. After indulging in
some ὦ priori reflections, he sums up in these
words: ‘The inference is that the details of
the fighting at Pylos were, as some one has
remarked, invented by Thucydides as a counter-
part to Plataea, in order to show how a place
ought not to be besieged’ (chap. xxiii. n. 11).
As at the beginning of his note he says ‘The

history of the taking of Pylos etc. has no doubt
been accurately narrated by Thucydides,’ we
are at a loss as to whether this piece of
Miiller-Striibingism is a joke or a contradiction.
In any vase his treatment of the facts is un-
scientific.

17 IT hope to have pkotographs of all the
walls which I attempt to identify published
hereafter in the Journal. For their approximate
position see my plan, and the key which ac-
companies it. As this gives full details, it will
not be necessary to refer to the plan again
during the course of the paper.

60 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

view become. Mt. Elias does not slope on the eastern side directly into the
sea. It falls into a hollow about eighty feet below the summit, and at an
interval of about fifty yards rises again into a lesser peak, which in its turn
falls precipitously into the harbour. This lesser peak does not run for long
parallel with Mt. Elias, and near its southern extremity bends in towards it.
But about thirty yards before it has’ reached it, almost opposite to the
southern point of the curved wall, the lesser peak ceases to be a peak at all,
and loses itself in a steep gorge, which reaches down into the water.
It is only further west, as an almost direct southern continuation of Mt.
Elias, that the line of sea cliffs rises again to any height. The dip or hollow,
then, between the top of Mt. Elias, and the less lofty line of sea cliffs, widens
towards the north, and narrows towards the south, and so narrow does it
finally become, that there is only a yard or two between the southern Ὁ
extremity of the curved wall, and the point where the gorge ends, and the
eastern sea line becomes once again a precipitous cliff. You could not, in
fact, get into the dip which lies on the east of the summit of Mt. Elias,
without passing within sword distance of this curved wall, or else going right
round by the west to the northern slope. For on the north side there is no
difficulty, and the hollow slopes gradually away into the narrow Sikia
channel, between the island and Pylos.

Now of course it would be quite easy for the Messenians to disembark
at this channel, go straight up into the hollow till they arrived due east of
the summit of Mt. Elias, and then climb it from this side, and take the
Spartans in the rear. For, according to our hypothesis, the Spartans were
facing west, south-west, and north-west, and even from the north-west
corner of the wall it would be impossible to see a force landing where I have
described.8 But the hypothesis assumes both the Spartans and Athenians
to have been intolerably foolish, and assigns all the success of the plan to
luck, and not to the daring of the Messenians. Granting that the
Spartans considered that the eastern side of the summit was impregnable,
and that it was out of the question for any one to approach the hollow from
the north, it would have needed no mountaineers to effect the surprise. All
the language of Thucydides leads us to think that their achievement was a
great one: ἐκ Tod ἀφανοῦς ὁρμήσας ὥστε μὴ ἰδεῖν ἐκείνους κατὰ TO ἀεὶ
παρεῖκον τοῦ κρημνώδους τῆς νήσου προσβαίνων, χαλεπῶς τε καὶ μόλις
περιελθὼν ἔλαθε." 1 ama bad climber, and I entirely decline to believe
that the approach to the hollow from the north, which I did without once
using my hands and knees, and the subsequent ascent of the summit from
the east, which I effected with almost as little difficulty, could ever have
been treated as a great achievement.

But could the Spartans have been foolish enough to leave such an easy
approach unguarded? Would it not be obvious to those of them who
were on the north-west side, that, apart from all question of a surprise, the

18 But those stationed on the north-west could hollow, if they had turned their heads,
certainly have seen them as they ascended the 19 Thuc. iv. 36, 2.

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA. 61

hollow could be reached by any of the main body of the Athenians who
chose to move round that way? And could the Athenians have failed
to move round, directly they found that they were making no head-
way on the west? Would they have fought on there the greater part of
the day,” would the battle have come to a standstill, would the Messenian
general have had to come forward as a deus ex machina," before such a
simple change of attack had been attempted? It is inconceivable.
The Athenians must long before have passed round to the east of the
summit—if they could have done so. This is the whole point. They could
not have done so. Right across the hollow, from the line of sea cliffs to a
north-east point in the slope of Mt. Elias, and thence curving round it till it
meets the north-west corner of Schliemann’s wall, is another line of fortifica-
tion, completely hidden to this day, over almost its whole length, by a thick
overgrowth of brushwood. This it was that prevented the Athenians taking
the Spartans on the rear. This was as much part of the Spartan line of
defence as Schliemann’s wall on the west.

There are two further considerations which show how inadequate was
our former hypothesis as an explanation of the facts. In the first place, the
space between the summit of the hill and the western wall is far too small for
the many hundreds of Spartans and Helots who still survived.” And there
is no room on the summit behind them for the Messenians to have taken up
a position in such numbers that the Spartans considered themselves sur-
rounded,”* and laid down their arms, Secondly, Thucydides does not say that
the Spartans left unguarded that part of the summit, but that part of the
fortification which they thought impregnable. But, on the other hypothe-
sis, whatever fortification existed was guarded, and the surprise was effected
on the side where there was no fortification.

Our conclusion is, then, that the Athenian attack and the Spartan
defence extended from the south point of Mt. Elias to where the wall across
the hollow is bounded by the line of sea cliff. Ample room is thus given
for the Spartan forces, and we have not to assume that both sides
were guilty of gross tactical blunders. The battle naturally came
to a standstill, and the Athenian generals asked each other how
they could possibly surround a force defended by a strong wall on
every side where they could be approached by land. Then it was that
the Messenians came to the rescue, and it was brilliant et and good
climbing by which they won.

The gap in the cliffs at the south end of the hollow is not si palatal
I did not climb the whole way up myself, but I got more than half-way,
and both from that point and from the top could trace a clear path by
which a good mountaineer could finish the ascent. For the Messenians to
reach ΡΝ bottom re- “qapaaes would of course be sinless and it is

ou Thue. iv. 35, 4, τὸ πλεῖστον τῆς ἡμέρας. 23 Jb. iv. 36, 3.

ΡΣ. 18x86, 1s “4 Ib. iv. 35, 2, of δὲ πολλοὶ διαφυγόντες
2 Ib. iv. 35, 2, of δὲ πολλοὶ διαφυγόντες ἐς Td ἔρυμα μετὰ τῶν ταύτῃ φυλάκων ἐτάξαντο
etc. παρὰ πᾶν ὡς ἀμυνούμενοι ἧπερ ἣν ἐπίμαχον.

62 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

interesting to note that a body of men re-embarking at the centre point of
the east side of the island, where the little chapel now stands, could reach
the foot of the gorge without once coming into view of even the south
extremity of the wall. More than this, they could disembark at the foot of
the gorge, and climb in considerable numbers to within a few feet of its
topmost point, without a chance of being seen. Indeed, except for any men
who might have been standing within one or two yards of the south-east
extremity of the wall, twenty men could have reached the south end of the
hollow and got a firm footing before any of the enemy had caught sight of
them. It was of course easy for the Athenians to direct their attack for
the moment to other sides than the south-east, and thus, without exciting
suspicion, to draw off the few men who were stationed at this extreme corner.

Before I could accept this theory, I had first to satisfy myself by a
personal experiment that the Messenians who had just reached the
top of the gorge could be seen by their allies who were attacking from
the land side. They were. certainly out of sight of those on the
west of Mt. Elias. Its summit rose eighty feet between them. On
descending however to a point in the hollow below the north Spartan wall,
where the Athenians would of course be carrying on their attack as
vigorously as on the west, I was easily able to see my dragoman,
as he played the Messenian on the high sea clifis, a few yards
from the top of the gorge. And we thus verified the direct statement of
Thucydides, that the sight of the Messenians on the sky-line—in mid-air, as
he puts it—behind the Spartans, encouraged the Athenian forces, and made
them redouble their attack.

Thucydides is confirmed in another particular, that it was a part of the
fort which was left unguarded by which the Messenians effected their
surprise. There are distinct traces of a wall running along the south side of
the hollow, a few feet from the top of the gorge. I have no doubt that it
was this wall which the Spartans, naturally enough, thought impregnable, and
which, notwithstanding, the Messenians found no obstacle when they had
once climbed the gorge. Again, not only is there on this view ample room
for the Spartans to move, but also for the Messenians to take up a
position behind them, in force, without at once coming to close quarters.
There is a good hundred yards between the north and south walls of the
hollow.

I think then that it is a certainty that the battle was thus
fought. The lie of the ground, and the strategical necessities of the case,
follow so fully the position of the walls, that even should it be maintained
that some part of them is of mediaeval workmanship, I should none the
less believe that it was a mere superstructure on the foundation of the
original fort. There is certainly reason to think that, at the beginning of

» Thue. iv. 36, 2, ἐκ τοῦ ἀφανοῦς ὁρμήσας οἷο. ἐξαπίνης avapavels κατὰ νώτου αὐτῶν τοὺς μὲν
quoted above, τῷ ἀδοκήτῳ ἐξέπληξε, τοὺς δὲ ἃ προσεδέχοντε
* Ib. iv. 36, 2, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μετεώρου ἰδόντας πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπέρρωσε.

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA. 63

this century, there stood some building on the peak which could be repre-
sented by Leake and others as a mediaeval watch-tower.27 There seemed
to me to be traces of a square platform of closc-sct stones at the extreme
south-east corner of Schliemann’s wall, and a watch-tower may well have
stood on it.

It is interesting to remark that it would be casy for any one who saw a
tower at this corner, to miss altogether the existence of the extended line of
wall. For it is this corner alone which a man, waiking from the centre of
the Island, would pass on his way to the actual summit. ‘The wall to the
immediate west is well hidden, and it needs a careful search to discover the
better preserved parts.”

Even in regard to the whole fortification it would be indeed rash to
dogmatize. Mr. Loring’s article on the fortress of Sellasia in the Journal
of Hellenic Studies for 1895, and the criticisms which he there tells us (p. 74)
that Dr. Doérpfeld passed on his conclusions as to the Cyclopean or Hellenic
character of some of the fortifications, would be enough to prove to us, if
proof were needed, that there is scarcely a subject in Greek Archaeology on
which there is greater uncertainty than the even approximate dating of
stone walls. But I confess that I do not believe that any one who compares
these rugged stones, unconnected by mortar or tiling, with the elaborate
workmanship of the Venetian castle, less than a mile away on Pylos, will
doubt that they are the ἔρυμα παλαιὸν λίθων λογάδην πεποιημένον of
which Thucydides tells us.”

Yet there are real difficulties in reconciling the orthodox view of the
whole question with Thucydides’ narrative. They are three in number.

(1) The lagoon ἵ Osmyn Aga is not mentioned. Considering that it
runs along the whole of the eastern side of Pylos, this is a strange omission.

(2) The entrance to the harbour between the southern side of Sphacteria
and the mainland is far too broad, and altogether out of proportion to the
other and northern entrance, which is now known as the Sikia Channel.

Thucydides tells us that the northern entrance to the harbour allowed
space for two ships to pass in abreast, and the southern for eight or nine, and
he adds that the Spartans intended to block up both these entrances by
mooring ships across them.*® While, however, the Sikia Channel is nowhere
more than 600, and at its narrowest point less than 500, feet across, the

27 Leake, Zravels in Morca, vol. i. p. 409,
published 1830. It must be remembered that
Leake’s investigations, excellent as they were,
were confined to a single day, April 27, 1805,
for both Pylos and Sphacteria. It is difficult
to discover how far the same remark in Curtius,
Peloponnesos, vol. ii. p. 179, published 1852, is
the result of independent work, or is merely
copied from Leake. The French Laxpédition de
Morée, vol. i. p. 4, published 1831, notices no

ponnesus, published in 1858, is also silent on
the point.

*8 I wish to lay stress on the fact that not
only is Pylos out of the ordinary track of
scholars in the Peloponnese, but that both in
Sphacteria and Pylos itself the walls I am
discussing might easily escape the notice of any
one who was not making a prolonged and
thorough survey of the place. Moreover, there
are few spots in Greece where less systematic

buildings on the north peak of Sphacteria, and,
what is more important, Mr. W. G. Clark, in
his not sufficiently noticed book on the Pelo-

work has been done.
79 Thue. iv;.31, 2.
30 Jb. iv. 8, 6 and 7.

64 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

southern entrance has a breadth of more than 4,000 feet. Not only is the
proportion rather eight to one than four to one, but it would have been
manifestly impossible for the Spartans to have blocked up a channel over
4,000 feet broad with the ships at their disposal.

(3) Sphacteria is nearly nine stades longer than Thucydides says it is.
He tells us that the island is about fifteen stades long, and it is in fact
nearly twenty-four.

I will take these difficulties in the order in which I have stated
them. But before we consider the question of the lagoon it will be well for
us to discuss fully the topography of Pylos.

The problem we have here to consider is the line of fortification which
Demosthenes defended, and the Spartans attacked. Without a grasp of it
we cannot estimate the part which, on this theory or on that, the lagoon must
have played in the progress of events.

Almost the whole of the eastern side of Pylos is sheer precipice, rising
at points to a height of about 450 feet above the lagoon.2!_ Here there was
no need for a wall. This line of cliff lasts till within a few hundred
yards of the bay of Boidia Koilia on the north, and within perhaps about one
hundred * of the Sikia Channel on the south. This break in the south must
certainly have been defended by a wall, running in the same direction as
the Venetian wall which now stands there. And it would be continued
along the south side, to the point where the Sikia Channel opens on to the
sea, by a wall running not many yards away from the water’s edge. At the
south-west corner, however, the level ground ceases to run down to near the
water, and for several hundred yards a mass of low detached rugged rocks
lie between. Over these rocks no wall could possibly be built, and it is
interesting to note that on the land side of them there are still some of the
foundations of an undoubtedly Hellenic wall of the style used by Epami-
nondas at Messene, dating from the Messenian occupation of Pylos. There
is indeed at one or two -points some rougher work which cannot be
Messenian, and bears no resemblance to the Venetian masonry which lies in
such quantities near at hand. If we agree that the similar wall on the
north-west, which we shall examine later, dates from the time of Demo-
sthenes himself, we shall not hesitate to class this fragment along with it. In
any case Demosthenes’ line of defence must have run here, and it was
outside this part of the wall, among the loose rocks which stretch for a
distance varying between 50 and 100 yards into the sea, that he drew up his
men by the ῥαχία, and repelled Brasidas’ attack.* It was not every point
where a landing could have been attempted, and the Spartans could not
make use of their numbers.** Even the best was bad enough, and we do not
wonder that a handful of determined men could hold their ground.® It is
only when we get some 500 or 600 yards from the Sikia Channel that the

31 Following the Adiniralty Chart of 1865'as _ abutting on the Sikia Channel, a strong one.
against Leake and Curtius, who say 800 feet. 33 Thuc. iv. 10, 4 and 11, 1.

3° Part of this 100 yards would only require * 7b. iv. 11, 3.
a slight wall; the half of it immediately 376. tv. 12,2.

PYLOS AND SPHACTERTA. 65

low rocks yield to steep inaccessible cliffs, and a wall is again unnecessary.
From this point the ground is unchanged for nearly half a mile, till the coast
bends in to the north-east.

Our difficulties however now begin, and the question that faces us is this.
Did Demosthenes occupy the whole of Pylos? For we now begin to see that, if
he did, the extent of his frontier open to attack must have required either a
wall too long for him to have made in the time, or a garrison larger than
that which he had at his disposal. It is true that the cliffs as they slope
north-east are still steep. But they are no longer very high, and at points
are climbable. I doubt if a general who had such a small force available for
sentry duty would have ventured to leave even these cliffs unguarded by a wall.
When, however, we reach the south-west end of the spur of land which juts
into the bay of Boidia Koilia the cliffs cease even to be steep, and a wall would
undoubtedly be necessary. Nor could it be dispensed with for the 200 or
300 yards which separate the shore of Boidia Koilia from the point where the
eastern cliffs over the lagoon cease to be precipitous. On the sand-ridge
beneath them the Spartan army would be stationed in its overwhelming
numbers, and could attack in force for at least half of this 200 to 300 yards.
The rest of it could be climbed and surprised with little difficulty, unless there
was a wall to guard it.*®

We naturally ask ourselves whether Demosthenes had any alternative
to making his line of defence here, and including in it the whole of Pylos.
Considering the hurry in which he had to complete his arrangements, he would
certainly have chosen an alternative if by it he could have lessened the amount
of work to be done.” There was one, obvious and certain. The real, natural
frontier of Pylos is not the shore of Boidia Koilia to the north, and the sand-
ridge to the east, but a line taken across it, from the point where the cliffs end
on the east, to where they become lower on the north-western side. For in
almost a direct line between these two points, running west-north-west, is a
steep and all but continuous line of cliffs. It is below their eastern end that
there lies the great cave of Nestor, and the path up them is so steep that we only
managed to get down at one place, and that with great difficulty. A little
more than 100 yards however from the western end these land cliffs fall
away, and there is a level space by which an enemy could pass through with
tolerable ease to the south. It was here, then, that out of the way of the

36 It is important to remember the words in
which Thucydides describes the guarding of
the mainland side: τοὺς μὲν οὖν... ἐπὶ τὰ
τετειχισμένα μάλιστα καὶ ἐχυρὰ τοῦ χωρίου πρὸς
τὴν ἤπειρον ἔταξε (iv. 9, 2).

On my theory the wall marked L on the
plan would of course be made higher and
stronger than any of the others. And it would
also be true that this was the strongest side of
the place as well as the best fortified. If the
wall however ran down to Boidia Koilia the
land side could not possibly be called the
strongest side of the place, unless the lagoon

H.8:—VOL. XVI.

was land, and the line of eastern cliffs was also
therefore πρὸς τὴν ἤπειρον. ;

37 Thue. iv. ὅ, 2. They finished the work
ἐν ἡμέραις ἕξ, and this was possible because
their aim had been to minimize trouble : παντὶ
τρόπῳ ἠπείγοντο φθῆναι τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους
τὰ ἐπιμαχώτατα ἐξεργασάμενοι πρὶν ἐπιβοηθῆσαι"
τὸ γὰρ πλέον τοῦ χωρίου αὐτὸ καρτερὸν ὑπῆρχε
καὶ οὐδὲν ἔδει τείχους (Jb. 4, 3).

A glance at Plate VIII. Fig. 2 will show the
strength of my argument as to the natural
frontiers of Pylos.

66 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

ordinary visitor to Pylos,** and unnoticed, I expect, since the French expe-
dition of 1830 marked it with a dotted line,® there lie the extensive
remains of a hurriedly built wall of unhewn and unmortared stones. This
is the wall which I wish to connect with the name of Demosthenes, and I think
the argument is fairly strong if we combine the following propositions ΕΞ

(1) Demosthenes must have chosen the line of cliffs from south-east to
west-north-west. They would save him the building of several hundred
yards of wall. Not only would he thus have to defend the base, and not the
two sides of the triangle, but at least half of this base would require no wall
at all, and a quarter more only a slight one.

(2) If he adopted this line of defence he must have built a wall at this
point. Without it the enemy could easily pass to his rear, and there is
nowhere another place where his line could be continued to the sea.

(3) The wall of which the remains exist at this identical point is
exactly what we should expect from the description which Thucydides
gives us.*°

We must however consider all possible objections. There were cer-
tainly three other occupations of Pylos, besides that of Demosthenes. First,
what we may, for want of a better name, call the Cyclopean. Secondly, that
of Epaminondas and the Messenians in the fourth century. And, thirdly,
the Venetian occupation in the middle ages. To each of these can be
assigned a portion of the stonework which still exists on this part of Pylos.
There are traces of massive Cyclopean walls, and what appears to me to be
a gateway of the same age as Tiryns and Mycenae, not far from the spit of

38 1 caught sight of the wall because I
approached Boidia Koilia from the sea as
well as from the land, sailing round the outside
of Pylos. I did this because I wished to ex-
plore all the coast of Pylos. But the wall
would not be seen by any one who approached
by land. Most travellers land at the Sikia
Channel, examine the Venetian castle, and
either descend from it to Boidia Koilia to the
immediate west of Nestor’s cave, or, more
usually, listen to the local guides when they
tell them the climb is impossible, and go round
to Boidia Koilia by the strip of sand which
runs along the bottom of the east cliffs, by the
side of the lagoon.

38 This must be the wall meant by their
dotted lines marked Plate VI. figures 1 and 2.
In the text (vol. i. p. 4) it is called a very large
‘muraille moderne.’ But this is no argument
against my theory.

Plate VIII. in the French Atlas shows that
their only idea of an ancient wall,
at any rate for fPylos, was a _ regular
Hellenic wall, and the description given of
this ‘muraille moderne’ is all in my favour.
For it is ‘composée de quartiers de Roc, posés

les uns sur les autres, comme dans les con-
structions Cyclopéennes ; cette muraille se pro-
longe jusqu’a la mer, et.parait avoir été con-
struite pour défendre le passage.’ The wall is
about seven to nine fect thick. A few of the
stones are Cyclopean in size. But most of
them are such as two or three men could lift.
And the interstices are filled up with small
stones and rubble. The wall itself is perhaps
seven feet high. But it takes advantage of the
nature of the ground, and would present a
front, at many points, of twelve or fifteen feet
to an attacking force.

40 Thuc. iv. 4, 2, λογάδην φέροντες λίθους
ξυνετίθεσαν ὡς ἕκαστόν τι ξυμβαίνοι.

It is interesting to remark that Arnold’s note
on this passage, his idea of the sort of wall
this description would imply, might have been
written for the actual wall that now exists
there. He says that the construction would
resemble Cyclopean architecture, only on a
smaller scale. And that the interstices of the
large stones would be filled with smaller ones.
This is just the sort of point where Arnold’s
true historical insight makes him a valuable
authority to be able to quote in one’s favour.

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA. 67

sand itself! Now the way these walls lie shows that in this period the
two sides of the triangle were the line of defence, and not the base. There
is also a line of wall following almost the same course, but apparently a
little farther from the water, which recalls without doubt the careful, well-
hewn, square-cut wall which Epaminondas built. for Messene.* Finally,
there is the great Venetian castle, which still remains, almost in its entirety,
on the main peak of the promontory,

Now 1 do not mean to say that because both the men of the Cyclopean
age, and the later Messenians, in order to allow space for a complete city life,
made the sides of the triangle and not the base their line of defence, they
therefore had no castle inside of them. Schliemann may be right in finding
traces of Cyclopean walls underneath those of the Venetians. I confess I
did not see them myself. I certainly did see there unmistakable traces
of fourth century walls, worked over by those of the middle ages. But even
if the ‘Cyclopes’ and Messenians both built where the Venetian castle now
stands, they would not have found the wall on the western side’of the base
of much value. It is not a continuation of the line of the Venetian castle,
and you could fairly easily pass to the south between the two. What it is a
continuation of, is a line of defence on the very edge of the cliffs which
mark the base of the triangle, and curiously enough there is a fragment of
wall of the same character, actually on the very edge, considerably farther
north than the corresponding point in the Venetian castle. This piece of
work, filling in as it does a weak point in the cliff, I believe also to have
formed part of the Athenian defences.

So far as the character of the stones goes, the wall which we call
Athenian cannot possibly be referred to the time of Epaminondas. If there
is one style of wail building which is unique and unmistakable, it is that.
Neither can we with any reason assign it to Venetian times. The absence,
so far as I could observe, of any signs of mortar and tiling, and the unhewn
character of the stones, are definite enough differences of style. There is
however some stone work near it, which on this ground might claim to be
Cyclopean. About half way between the sea and the cliffs which form the
base, one sees what at first sight, and at a distance, one has not noticed,‘®
that there is a second line of defence some thirty feet behind the main wall.
But this does not seem to be a second wall. It stretches neither to the rock
on the south-east, nor to the sea on the north-west.*® It seems rather to

41 These remains would I think repay care-
ful investigation. A clearing away of the sand
might produce startling results.

42 E.g. one piece of sixteen blocks of care-
fully built polygonal ‘Messenian’ wall. Of
the bottom row six stones can be seen, and
then it loses itself in the ground. Of the
second row ten perfectly preserved stones
remain.

43 It is what one would naturally expect
that these two occupations should include the

whole of the promontory. They had no need
to hurry through their work of fortification.
And their object was to give space for a whole
city, and all the buildings that a city necessarily
implied.

44 It is in the form of an inverted pyramid.

4 It is not that it cannot be seen from
a distance, but that it looks like a part of
the front wall.

46 It is bounded on the north-west or sea side
by a huge natural rock.

Ἐ ”)

τ--

68 PYLOS AND SPHACTERTIA.

have been a large tower acting as a support to the wall in front of it. Now
this tower is composed of stones of very much larger size than those in the
wall—stones which, so far as their size goes, are not unworthy of Mycenae
or Tiryns. It is possible that this tower existed in Cyclopean days, and that
the Athenians utilized it as a support for their wall. But it is only in their
size, and not in their regular order and grandeur, that the stones resemble
Mycenaean work, and it is difficult to see why the Athenians did not in this
case build their wall in a line with the tower, and to this extent economize
material. It is possible at any rate that the tower was built by the Athen-
ians during the period of the Peloponnesian war, and that its construction
followed the model of the wall in front of it, except in so far that it was
much stronger, and less hurriedly made. In any case the main wall is of
much too small stones to be of Cyclopean date, and therefore I think can
naturally be assigned the position which I have claimed for it.*”

What then of the lagoon? Could it have existed in its present form
in the days of Thucydides ?

We must remember that the argument ex silentio has again and again been
proved invalid. The omission of any mention of the lagoon in the narrative is by
itself no proof of its non-existence. What we have to consider is whether
its existence is inconsistent with the narrative.

If we are content to demand from Thucydides nothing more than a
good general description of the siege, and to allow that he may have been
inexact in details, we need not assume that the lagoon has changed its
character. Pylos could still be called a promontory. The eastern cliffs
are equally impregnable, whatever lies beneath them. There is no reason
in the nature of things why there should not have been two approaches on the
land side as well as one. The Spartan army might attack along the
southern sand-bar, as well as along the shore of Boidia Koilia, and their attack
be equally fruitless. .

If however we find that in the topography of both Pylos and Sphacteria
the accuracy of Thucydides is confirmed in the smallest details by an
examination of the ground, we shall hesitate to reject any of his direct
statements, except in the last possible resort.

We have, then, to face a serious objection. The Bay of Navarino, even
in calm weather, is treacherous and exposed, and it is difficult to see what
protection a large fleet would find in it during a storm.48 One thing we
can be sure of, and that is that such a fleet would never anchor close to the
Sikia Channel, exposed to the full force of the currents, and the wind from
the open sea. It would choose either the extreme north-east, or the ex-
treme south-east corner of the bay. Even if the Athenians beached their ships,
it is highly improbable that they would choose the narrow strip of sand

47 The reservations I made above as to the discussed might well be classed as mediaeval,
certainty of my identification of the ruins on if Dr. Dorpfeld’s criticisms on Mr. Loring’s
Sphacteria apply with even greater force to walls at Sellasia are correct.
those on Pylos, because of the mediaeval 48 Thue. iv. 3, 1, χειμὼν ἐπιγενόμενος κατ-
settlement. The tower that I have just ἤνεγκε Tas vais és τὴν Πύλον.

PYLOS AND SPHACTERTA. 69

between Pylos and the western of the two small outlets which connect the
lagoon with the bay. Besides all the other inherent improbabilities, there
would not have been room there for forty ships.“ Unless, however, they
were somehow or other cooped up in this narrow strip of land, we are on the
horns of a dilemma. If the two fish-sluices were any broader than they
are now, and could not be forded or roughly bridged without effort, the
haphazard character of the occupation of Pylos has to be abandoned. The
Athenians would not be within reach of Pylos at all, and would never, as
Thucydides affirms, have fortified the place because they were tired of
loitering about with nothing to do.6 They would have had to walk several
miles round the east and north sides of the lagoon, in order to get to it.

If however connection was direct along this southern sand-bank, another
difficulty presents itself. What can be meant by the point on the side of
the harbour which the Spartans intended to attack, after their failure to
effect a landing on the west? Thucydides expressly says that at this point
the Athenian wall was high, but that landing was feasible, and siege engines
could be brought to bear.*t The ground which this naturally suggests is
the small space on the eastern side between the Sikia Channel and the high
cliffs, the point from which the southern sand-ridge now stretches across the
lagoon.” If the ridge had not yet been formed, and the lagoon was part of
the harbour, there must still have been an easy slope outside the Athenian
wall where a landing could be effected, and engines used. A glance at the
character of the ground shows that this slope is an integral part of Pylos,
and is not formed of alluvial deposit.

Now, if there was direct connection between Pylos and the main-
land along the southern sand-bank, this cannot be the place about which
Thucydides is talking. It was accessible from first to last to the Spartan
army, the engines, when procured, would be used by that army and not by the
fleet, and the remark as to landing being feasible is pointless and out of
place.*? We are thus forced to look for our identification elsewhere, and the

ἘΠῚ ΠΟ: ‘iv. 2, 2. where Brasidas failed to effect his landing, are

50 Jb. iv. 4, 1.

51 Jb, iv. 18, 1, ἐλπίζοντες τὸ κατὰ τὸν
λιμένα τεῖχος ὕψος μὲν ἔχειν, ἀποβάσεως δὲ
μάλιστα οὔσης ἑλεῖν μηχαναῖς.

52 On my theory of the fortifications of
Pylos, this must have been the place where
Demosthenes drew up his ships ὑπὸ τὸ τείχισμα
(1b. iv. 9,1). It was an excellent place for
it, though of course quite unfit for the heaching
of the whole Athenian fleet. The only other pos-
sible place would be on the sand-ridge by Boidia
Koilia, where they could be beached, either from
the sea, or, if the lagoon was open to the south,
from the harbour. But this of course cannot
be the place, if the north line of defence ran, as
I have described it, along the line of cliff, and
not near the sand-ridge and the shore of Boidia
Koilia. The steep shore of the Sikia Channel,
and the loose rocks towards the south-west

of course in any case out of the question for
the beaching of ships.

53 If we accept the view that the lagoon was
part of the harbour, the footpath which now
runs below the east cliffs, and by which one
can walk from the Sikia Channel to Boidia
Koilia need not cause us any difficulty. There
is no reason to suppose that it was continuous,
at a time when the lagoon was part of the
harbour, and its shores subject to the washing
of the sea, and not yet blocked by the alluvial
deposit of streams possessed of no outlet. Even
if it was continuous, it would have been im-
possible to convey μηχαναί along it from Boidia
Koilia to the extreme south-east slope. An
attack there would thus still be an attack of
the fleet, and not of the army, and remarks
about ἀπόβασις are in point.

70 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

west being out of the question, because not on the side of the harbour, and
the ground around Boidia Koilia equally so, because accessible from the land,
we have to fall back upon the not very appropriate shore of the Sikia Channel.
I do not go so far as to say that it is impossible that this is the ground which
Thucydides had in view. But it would be difficult to land there, and the
Athenian wall was probably built so near the water's edge that there can
scarcely have been room for siege engines to be brought into play, even if
their disembarkation were once effected. It is then improbable, though
not impossible, that the lagoon existed in its present form in the time of
Thucydides. We must at least consider whether any other theory as to its
condition is open to less serious difficulties.

It has been suggested that the lagoon may at that time have been part .
of the mainland. It will be noticed that the argument as to the need of a
place for ἀπόβασις on the side of the harbour can be directly used against
such a theory, though it is only one of the horns of a dilemma if we |
maintain that the lagoon existed in its present form. But it has been
disproved on more cogent grounds than these. Dr. Philippson, the geologist of
the Peloponnesus, has told us * that the change has been a change of sea to land,
and not of land to sea. First the sand-bank at Boidia Koilia was formed by
the alluvial deposit of all the rivers which open on to the bay, swept as it
was by the current towards the north. Then much later came the southern
bank, which finally completed the lagoon. It was formed at the point where
the northern streams, now unable to find an outlet at Boidia Koilia, met the
Xerias and the Jalova, as the current of the bay still drifted them on from
the south.

I learn too, that Mr. Grundy has brought forward abundant evidence to
prove that the land theory of the lagoon is untenable. Without further
argument we may dismiss it from consideration.

How then are we to deal with the two views that are now left to us,
that. one, or that both of the sand-banks are late creations ?

The latter suggestion we must at once reject. It is obvious that, if we
are right in our identifications of Pylos and Sphacteria, the sand-bank at
Boidia Koilia must have existed in the time of Thucydides. Without it
Pylos would have been an island, not a promontory. Nor would this merely
mean that Thucydides was guilty of the wrong use of a word. The
Spartans have no place where they can make their land attack,°?
and the whole story falls to pieces. The case is quite different with
the southern sand-bank. If we count it as altogether absent, the lagoon
becomes a part of the harbour, and causes no difficulty in the narrative,
while, in the north-west corner, by Boidia Koilia, it allows of a sheltered
anchorage for the Athenian fleet when it first puts in at Pylos. Ifit existed
in a slightly different position, and did not stretch across the whole breadth
of the present lagoon, it even offers a possible new solution of the second of

*.

54 Topographische und Hypsometrische Karte des Peloponnes, Dr. Alfred Philippson, Berlin
1891, vol ii. p. 354. 5 Tinie. ely Ὁ ᾽

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA. 71

our three difficulties. Grant that the southern sand-bank ran in Thucydides’
time not to the north, but to the south of the Sikia Channel, that its western
end was near the Turtori rocks, or even where now lies the shallow ground
called the Sphagia shoal, and the main difficulties about the southern
entrance to the harbour fade away. The water enclosed between Boidia
Koilia and this southern bank becomes the harbour itself, the northern
entrance is still through the Sikia Channel, but the southern entrance passes
between the east coast of Sphacteria and the Turtori rocks, or the Sphagia
shoal. The right proportions of distance can be secured, and both entrances
could, so far as breadth goes, have been blocked up. Moreover, the land-
locked harbour thus formed far better represents the Greek idea of a λιμήν
than the huge and stormy bay which we have otherwise to suppose to be
the one mentioned in the ἰοχί.

The difficulty in accepting this view is, however, sufficiently obvious.
We have no authority whatever for assuming that the sand-bank could have
entirely changed its position. The soundings of the Admiralty Chart of
1865 show, that though there is a considerable extent of very shallow water
all along the west shore of the present harbour and the south side of the
sand-belt, there are hundreds of yards of a depth of at least nine to ten
fathoms which must be assumed to have then been land, for any such
hypothesis to hold. There is no natural explanation as to how such a huge
belt of sand could be bodily removed several hundred yards away.

Nor have we probability more on our side if we assume any other
change in the sand-bank. It is possible for instance, but not probable,** that
the Sikia Channel curved to the north as soon as it had passed between
Pylos and Sphacteria, and entered the present lagoon at the first of the
two narrow fish-sluices, which at the present time are its only connection
with the harbour. That a sand-ridge ran across the stretch of shallow water,
of not greater depth at any point than a quarter of a fathom,®® where the

56 Whether this could have been done with
the ships at their command placed ἀντιπρῴροις,
in the ordinary, and probably, though not
certainly, correct interpretation of that word,
I am not concerned to argue. The breadth
would be small enough to give a prima facie
plausibility to a theory that a policy of block-
ing had been intended. The point as to the
impregnable character of the blocking would
be a natural afterthought of the Spartans.
There is nothing in the phrase νῆες ἀντίπρῳροι
to put out of the question the translation
‘ships with their prows facing each other.’ I
have howeverexamined all the passages I can find
in which the word occurs in Greek, and have to
admit that usage seems to give little support to
this view. For other difficult places in which
the word occurs in Thue. ef. vii. 36, 3 (bis), vii.
40,4. Hisuse of the word πλαγίαις ἴῃ vil. 59, 2
is in favour of the ordinary view. Herodotus,
in vii. 36, when describing Xerxes’ bridge over

the Hellespont, is more precise in his language,
and uses neither word.

57 Arnold has some good remarks on this in
the Memoir at the end of his second volume.

58 T am doubtful to what age to assign the
remains of a mole, seen by me and mentioned
by most of those who have written on the sub-
ject, which run out from Pylos immediately
inside the Sikia Channel in a south-east direc-
tion. At the period when it was made, the
lagoon could not have been land, nor could the
Sikia Channe have curved then to the north.
But its existence is consistent with any theory
that argues that he lagoon was part of the
harbour, or any‘ hat places the southern bank
of the lagoon south of the Sikia Channel.

59 All the following measurements in fathoms
and cables are taken direct from the Admiralty
Chart of 1865. It may be as weil to add that
10 sea cables = 1 sea mile = 6,080 feet.

72 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

Sikia Channel at the present day opens on to the harbour. That the second
entrance, ‘looking towards the other part of the mainland, lay between the
eastern edge of this hypothetical continuation of Sphacteria, and a strip of
sand stretching out westward from the mainland. That it lay in fact either
by the second of the fish-sluices, or yet further east, where the soundings still
mark four fathoms to the very edge of the sand.

I confess, however, that on the evidence before us I cannot see any
valid ground for creating a second entrance at any point in the immediate
south of the lagoon. Any view which considers that the lagoon, or an
extension of the lagoon, was the ancient harbour, will have to face the fact
that Thucydides describes one of the places where Demosthenes landed his
eight hundred hoplites, to attack the first Spartan outpost, as ‘on the side of
the harbour.’® But this place was without doubt on the extreme south of
Sphacteria, and could not intelligibly be described as ‘on the side of’ the
lagoon, or any extension of the lagoon. A point of Sphacteria which might
be described as ‘on the side of the lagoon’ is the old fort at the extreme
north-eastern peak, and this would be as good a description as that which
Thucydides actually gives of it, as ‘looking towards Pylos.’* So that we
should have to imagine, that in distinguishing between two remote points,
Thucydides uses, as mutually exclusive terms, phrases which would apply
equally well to one of the points, and equally badly to the other. It is as if,
in locating France and Spain, one said that France looked towards Germany,
but that Spain was on the side of Switzerland. The only conclusion, on such an
hypothesis, would be that Thucydides used the word ‘ harbour’ in two senses,
that here he meant the sheet of water which is now the Bay of Navarino,
but that, when he was describing the entrance, he referred to an inner
basin.

We have, I think, to fall back on the old traditional view, with all its
difficulties, and to suppose that Thucydides really did mean that the second
Athenian squadron entered by the huge opening which now separates the
south of Sphacteria from the fort of Neokastro. How then are we to account
for our difficulties? It has been suggested by Curtius® and Grote,® that
there has been some change of ground here, and that the entrance was
originally narrower. Unfortunately, there is scarcely any even moderately
shallow ground between the two points. Granting a change of ground of
four fathoms on the Neokastro side, and five and a half fathoms on that of
Sphacteria, we save less than one sea cable, and then are at once plunged
into depths of from eighteen to twenty fathoms on the one side, and twelve
to twenty on the other. It is doubtful how far these twelve fathoms extend.
Even if it is to the extreme point possible according to the Chart, with a
plunge of thirty fathoms immediately beyond it, we save only a little more
than another sea cable, and reduce the distance from nearly six and a half
sea cables to about four and a quarter. We must remember, too, that this is

69 Thuc. iv. 31, 1, πρὸς τοῦ λιμένος, 83 History of Greece, part 11. chap. 11].
8 70, iv. 31, 2, πρὸς τὴν Πύλον, note.
62 Peloponnesos ii. p. 180.

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA. 73

an unwarrantably large allowance of change of ground, considering that there
is only one single point in the whole of the Sikia Channel six fathoms deep ;
that you can get three separate lines across it, a quarter, one and a quarter,
and two and a quarter fathoms deep; and that in the Bay of Boidia Koilia
there is also only one point as deep as six fathoms, and that two fathoms’
allowance of earth would fill up the greater part of it. All the result we
can get from any possible change of ground is to reduce the four thousand
feet to about two thousand seven hundred. Even then the distance is too
long as compared with the Sikia Channel. Nor do I believe for a moment
that we have any right to reclaim more than a half at most of these one
thousand three hundred feet.

Our only hope of throwing light on the subject is to ask ourselves on
what kind of evidence Thucydides could have based his measurements of
these sea distances. We must remember that an ancient historian had no
scientific instruments at his command, and that he could only judge his longer
measurements by the eye, or by the amount of time it took himself or
some one else to ride, or walk, or sail them. Now it is a curious fact that
from several points in the harbour “ἢ the southern entrance looks smaller than
it really is. Dr. Arnold indeed remarks, that in some account given of the
Battle of Navarino,®° it is described as only six hundred yards broad, whereas
in fact it is more than double that breadth. The eye may have misled
Thucydides.

But we can go further than this. We can examine the test which
Thucydides himself shows us was his main guide in making this measure-
ment. He himself tells us that the northern channel allowed room for two
ships to sail in at a time, and the southern for eight or nine.“ Now these
words show us that Thucydides did not indeed take a boat, and find out how
Jong it took him to pass from shore to shore, but that he did judge by some
definite movement of ships in the two channels. What was this movement
likely to be? And who was the person from whom Thucydides would most

‘4 I think also from some pointson Sphac- escaped me in the voluminous and unindexed
teria. But I unfortunately omitted to take pages of Marshall’s Royal Naval Biography,
exact notes of this point. though I have searched it under every name I

65 Dr. Arnold says that this was in ‘James’ could think οἵ. Captain Burrows, R.N.,
Naval History,’ and apparently no one has to Chichele Professor, Oxford, has kindly looked
this day verified his reference. But not only is through some other naval authorities for me,
there no trace of such astatement in any edition but can find no trace of the statement. The
of James, but there is no edition extant to which _—_ nearest thing to it is where Sir H. Coddrington
Dr. Arnold could have referred. The second says, in a letter written from his father’s ship :
edition was published in 1826, and naturally ‘The entrance at the south end is narrow enough
contained no account of the battle of Navarino. to render working inconvenient for a large
James died in May 1827, four months before ship.’ See Selections from the Letters of Sir H.
the battle, and no demand was made for a Coddrington, p.18. It must be remembered
third edition till 1837, when it was edited and that this passage does not come to much, as
continued up to date by Captain Chamier. But ‘working’ means, technically, tacking against
the second vol. of Arnold’s Thucydides was afoul wind. This would require a good deal
published in 1832. I cannot believe that οἵ space. ’

Arnold invented the statement. But where he 86 Thuc. iv. 8, 6, τῇ μὲν δυοῖν veoiv διάπλουν
got it from 1 cannot yet discover. It may have τῇ δὲ. . ὀκτὼ ἣ ἐννέα,

74 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

naturally get his information? One can hardly put the question without
suggesting the answer. It would surely be the Athenian fleet whose
movements would in Thucydides’ mind be most closely connected with the
width of those two channels. And it would be one of the Athenian admirals,
or at least one of the trierarchs, from whom he would get his information.
How many ships did the Athenian fleet consist of, when it entered those two
channels and attacked the Spartans? Thucydides expressly tells us that it
was exactly fifty sail strong.°7 Now when he had been told that these fifty
ships had entered the harbour, in order to catch the Spartans in a trap,®
what is the next question which Thucydides would have asked? Surely it
would have been this: How did you divide your forces? With how many
ships abreast did you enter each channel? What too must have been the
answer of the Athenian commander? What must have been the strategy of
any capable admiral who had to deal with a huge entrance like that
between Neokastro and Sphacteria, and a narrow entrance like the Sikia
Channel? How could he have covered both entrances equally thoroughly,
and allowed no chance for the enemy to escape?® Surely he would have
detached ten ships for the Sikia Channel, and sent them in. two abreast, in
column of five. He would have taken forty ships for the southern channel,
and drawn them up in five loosely extended lines, of which the first three or
four consisted of eight or nine ships abreast. This is how a good sailor must
have acted to cover the ground, and this was the evidence which Thucydides,
with nothing but his rough eye measurements to correct him, naturally, yet
most unfortunately, took for his measurement of the channels.

Thucydides, however, does not merely make a mistake as to the breadth
of the southern entrance. He ascribes to the Spartans an intention which
on our view of the topography they could not possibly have fulfilled. No
amount of ships which the Spartans had at their command could have
blocked up the southern entrance to the bay.

We must remember that Thucydides recognizes that in fact no attempt
was ever made to carry out this idea”? But the further question arises
whether the impossibility of such a policy was not too self-evident for the
idea of it ever to have arisen in a sane mind.” It is difficult to believe that
the Spartan authorities could have seriously considered it. It is inconceiy-
able that it seemed so practicable to them that it was an essential, though,
in fact, a neglected supplement to the landing of troops in Sphacteria. But

67 Thuc. iv. 138, 2, νῆες τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων the Athenian admirals to enter by both

channels.

παραγίγνονται πεντήκοντα.

65. Jb. iv. 14, 1, καθ᾽ ἑκάτερον τὸν ἔσπλουν
ὥρμησαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς.

69 There was ἃ real probability that at the

last moment the Peloponnesian fleet might try ἢ

to escape by one of the entrances. They had
pursued this policy ever since their defeats by
Phormio, ¢.g. Thuc. iii. 83 and iv. 8. It
was the remembrance of these instances of
running away, the latter of which had only
occurred a few days previously, that decided

Otherwise they would never have
risked dividing their forces in face of superior
numbers (ib. iv. 8, 2 ἑξήκοντα).

70 Th, iv. 13, 4, οὔτε ἃ διενοήθησαν φράξαι
τοὺς ἔσπλους ἔτυχον ποιήσαντες.

11 Mr. W. G. Clark (Peloponnesus, p. 221)
has already noticed that, quite apart from the
question of the southern entrance, the Sikia
Channel would have been almost impossible to
blockade, because of the cross fire from the
Athenian Wall on Pylos,

PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA. 75

it is highly probable that some of the prisoners of Sphacteria, from whom
Thucydides doubtless heard the Spartan side of the story, when asked to
explain their apparently senseless action in garrisoning that island, brought
this forward as an excuse. We need not imagine bad faith, or deliberate
invention. The breadth of the southern entrance was no longer before their
eyes, and events seemed to prove that the holding of Sphacteria could only
have been justified by a simultaneous blocking up of the harbour mouths.
The mutual interdependence of these two policies is indeed only apparent.
We may conjecture that Brasidas, who was of course, till he was disabled,’*
the guiding spirit on the Spartan side, did not consider the possibility of an
Athenian siege of Sphacteria. His self-confidence would indeed make him
believe that he could reduce Pylos before the Athenian fleet arrived. But
even apart from this, he would have scouted the idea of that fleet instituting
a blockade off a stormy coast, where it had no base of operations on island or
mainland, no chance of procuring provisions, and a powerful fleet facing it,
ready to give battle the moment an opportunity offered. Brasidas would
have beached his ships, and guarded them with his land force till the enemy’s
fleet had become disorganized. There is little doubt that if he had done
so he would have soon had his chance. It was the armistice that allowed
the Athenian fleet to procure provisions, and it was their immunity from an
attack by sea that gave their blockade any hope of success.’* Fortunately
for them Brasidas was placed hors de combat, and, as was always the case in
the first half of the Peloponnesian War, his absence meant the demoralization
of Spartan strategy. The first day that the Athenian fleet arrived his
policy was maintained, and the Spartans did not offer battle. The next day
that policy was reversed, half-heartedly, it must be noticed, and partially
reversed.” And the Athenians had their great chance.

If the fleet, then, had not been lost, the troops on Sphacteria would have
been invaluable. After their surrender the Spartans, not realizing this point,

7 Thue. iv. 12, 1,

τὸ We may well believe he would have done
so if he had not fallen. It must be remembered
that this happened on the first day, and prob-
ably early in that. See Thuc. iv. 12 passim
and 7). 13,1, ταύτην μὲν οὖν τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ
τῆς ὑστεραίας μέρος τι προσβολὰς ποιησάμενοι
ἐπέπαυντο.

74 Wor their difficulties see Thuc. iv. 26, 2
and 3, and 7b. 27, 1.

The Spartans could perhaps have raised the
blockade even after the battle in the harbour if
they had not been strategically demeralized,
and in an utter panic as to the safety of the
garrison of Sphacteria. Their ships on the
spot were still numerous (a considerable number
of the sixty which were given up at the armi-
stice, Thuc. iv, 16, 1 and 8), and quite safe
when properly beached and guarded by the
land forces (2b. iv. 14, 4).

75 This view is drawn from the narrative of
Thue. iv. 18, 8 to 14, 1. Thucydides says
directly that the first day that the Athenian
fleet arrived the Spartans did not offer battle
but remained in the harbour. That this meant
beaching is ὦ priort probable, and is directly
deducible from the statement that the second
day ἡσυχάζοντες ἐν τῇ γῇ τάς τε vais ἐπλήρουν
etc. For the indecision cf. τὰς μὲν πλείους καὶ
μετεώρους ἤδη τῶν νεῶν etc. with αἱ δὲ καὶ rAnpov-
μεναι ἔτι πρὶν ἀνάγεσθαι ἐκόπτοντο. This
indecision can only be accounted for by the
fact that there was a sudden, and only a half
accepted change of policy. ‘This policy was
perhaps not one of greater daring, but of greater
caution. It may have arisen from distrust of
the help that could be given by the land force,
and may have aimed at escape. The Athenians
at any rate, as we have seen, thought it worth
while to guard against this contingency.

76 PYLOS AND SPHACTERIA.

thought of a more obvious, but very misleading, excuse for their blunder.
Thucydides unfortunately connected it with the information he had elsewhere
acquired as to the division of the forces with which the Athenian fleet
entered the harbour.

For our other great difficulty we have no such explanation to offer.
Nothing can get over the fact that Sphacteria is far longer than Thucydides
tells us it is. There is no chance that any part of the island was detached
from the rest in his day. The ground even at the lowest point is far too
hard and solid for that.” We must candidly confess that either Thucydides
or his text is wrong by more than a mile. I should not be disposed to deny
the possibility of the former alternative. Thucydides does indeed describe
the last battle so exactly that he can hardly have failed to have been on the
spot. But a brilliant and accurate description of the important features of the
ground is quite compatible with a mistake as to a particular which does not
affect any point in the narrative. A modern historian knows only too well
how often some one detail has to be mentioned which was overlooked in the
personal visit to the battle-field, and is too unimportant to justify a return to
it. Where maps were practically non-existent, Thucydides. may surely have
hesitated to revisit Sphacteria and tramp the whole length of the island on
foot, and have contented himself with getting this one detail from some of
the Spartan or Athenian troops.

An error in the text of Thucydides is also conceivable. It has been
already suggested by Mr. W. G. Clark that xe’ (25) may easily have got
corrupted into ve’ (15). It may also be noticed, that, if we return to the old
Attic notation, AAP (25) could as easily have dropped its first A, and
changed into Af (15). The island is in fact close on twenty-four stades
long, and twenty-five stades would be as accurate a measurement of its up
and down hill surface as we have any right to expect. In the case of
numerals such corruptions can be paralleled elsewhere.” If we altered the
one numeral we should at least have to alter nothing else, whereas a textual
alteration in the number of ships that could sail abreast through the southern
entrance would make the remark about the barring up of the harbour even
more obviously unintelligible than it now is. We must at least remember
that we have no alternative but one or other of these two theories. It is little
use to discuss with Arnold whether μέγεθος can refer to circumference as well
as to length, and whether, if so, it is not curious that the circumference of our
Pylos is exactly the fifteen stades which Thucydides ascribes to Sphacteria.
We have already come on other grounds to the fixed and certain conclusion
that our Sphacteria is Thucydides’ Sphacteria, and our Pylos his Pylos.

RonaLtp M. BurRRows.

76 We can only congratulate ourselves that, extension opposite Neokastro does not make it
if we accept the hypothesis of an extended longer at all.
north-east sand-bank across the Sikia Channel, 7 See Jowett’s Thucydides vol. ii. notes on
we do not at any rate make the island much 1, 57, 6, and i, 103, 1, and authorities there
longer than it is already, and that a south-east mentioned.

WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED THE OBJECTS CALLED
MYCENEAN ?

AT Mycenae in 1876 Dr. Schliemann lifted the corner of the veil which
had so long enshrouded the elder age of Hellas. Year by year ever since
that veil has been further withdrawn, and now we are privileged to gaze on
more than the shadowy outline of the picture of a far back age. The picture
is still incomplete, but it is now possible to trace the salient points. Can we
in comparing it with pictures of certain peoples who have dwelt in and
reigned at Mycenae, pictures preserved for us elsewhere, identify it as that of
any previously known? The object of this little essay is to make such an
attempt.

Τ'

The name Mycenean is now applied to a whole class of monuments—
buildings, sepulchres, ornaments, weapons, pottery, engraved stones—which
resemble more or less closely those found at Mycenae. I think I am right
when I say that archaeologists are unanimous in considering them the
outcome of one and the same civilization, and the product of one and the
same race.

These monuments are not confined to the Peloponnesus, nor to the
mainland of Hellas. They are found in many widely distant spots. For
instance, certain engraved stones, some bean-like in shape, some glandular,
have been so frequently found in the Greek islands as to be known as ‘Island
gems. Such stones have been found in Crete in considerable numbers; and
Mr. A. J. Evans’ recent brilliant discoveries in Crete, and his masterly paper
on ‘Primitive Pictographs, have riveted more closely than ever the atten-
tion of scholars not only to such gems, but to the whole area of Mycenean
antiquities. Let us now enumerate the different regions in which Mycenean
remains have been found.

I. PELOPONNESUS.—(@) Argolis, (1) Mycenae. The Cyclopean walls and
gateway; the shaft graves of the Acropolis with their rich contents of gold
ornaments and gold cups, pottery, etc.; the beehive tombs, eight in number,
of the lower city, and the sixty-one quadrangular rock-hewn graves, with their
contents. (Schliemann, Mycenae and Tiryns, 1878 ; Tsountas, Mykenai, 1892.)

The pottery is of two kinds. All of fine yellowish brown clay: but one
class is distinguished by a lustrous dark brown varnish, decorated with marine

78 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

plants or animals, the other by their dull brown and red coloured painting, and
by their decoration and shape. The decoration consists of narrow brown lines
alternating with wide red ones. Horizontal lines and bands of spirals are its
regular features.!. As the pottery is one of the chief features by which the
Mycenean civilization is detected, it is important to note its peculiarities. At
Mycenae there have also been found the remains of a prae-historic palace
similar to that found at Tiryns and on the Acropolis at Athens.

(2) Tiryns. Schliemann brought to light here the now famous palace,
with its fragments of wall-paintings (one of them a man with a bull’), frag-
ments of pottery, and the fragments of an alabaster frieze inlaid with
blue glass.

(3) Nauplia. This was the port of Tiryns, and must have been in close
relation always to it. Here there is a beehive tomb, the excavation of which
has brought to light the usual forms of Mycenean objects.*

(4) The Heraewm. Professor Waldstein’s excavations have brought to
light Mycenean pottery and a number of Mycenean gems. To the south-east
of the Heraeum a beehive tomb has been excavated, exhibiting Mycenean
remains and also showing by its contents that it was still used for interments
in classical times.*

(5) Midea. Mycenean pottery has been found here.

(b) Laconia. A beehive tomb opened at Vaphio produced the usual kinds
of Mycenean objects, including the gold cups now so famous, the very zenith
of Mycenean art. It contained some forty-one engraved gems,

(c) Arcadia, though as yet little searched for Mycenean remains, has
yielded at least one gem from Phigalia.®

Il. Avrrica.—The remains of the Cyclopean walls and the prae-historic
palace and Mycenean pottery have been found on the Acropolis.6 Beehive
tombs of great importance have been discovered at Menidi, Spata and Thori-
cus, containing the usual objects of Mycenean age. That at Menidi is of
special interest, as the fragments of pottery found in the dromos or approach
to it show an unbroken series of Mycenean, Dipylon, Attie black and red-
figured vases. This, as has been pointed out, mdicates an unbroken con-
tinuity of worship at the tomb.

III. Bozor1a.—(1) Orchomenus.’ The great beehive tomb, known as the
treasury of Minyas. Schliemann brought to light Mycenean remains such as
the roof slabs decorated with elaborate spirals.®

(2) Cyclopean remains are found at Goulas in the lake Copais.®

1 Schuchhardt’s Schliemann’s. Excavations, 5 Milchhofer, Anfange der Kunst, p. 54,

p. 186-7. (Engl. Trans.) ὁ Schuchhardt, p. 298.
2 Schliemann, Z'iryns, 1886. 7 Ib.
% Schuchhardt, p. 162-163. 8 Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. ii. 132.

£21075 Ὁ. 91; ® Schuchhardt, pp. 151, 162.

———— ————- - ΌΥΣΘΌ

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 79

IV. Pxocts.—Delphi. The French have excavated a tomb of Mycenean
age near Delphi.

V. TuessaLy.—At Dimni near Volo the opening of a beehive tomb has
revealed a number of Mycenean objects of the usual type, including a gem of
lapis lazuli, The discovery of a gem of this material in this region is not
without some significance.

VI. Asta Minor.—(1) Troad. At Hissarlik remains of the Mycenean
kind have been found in abundance. The ‘Second City’ exhibits the older
kind, but the ‘Sixth City’ has yielded those of the finest period of
Mycenean art.!°

(2) Titane in Acolis.

VII. Cyprus.—Mycenean pottery has been found in considerable quan-
tities in Cyprus.

Curiuwm bas yielded important Mycenean remains to Mr. Walters.

VIII. RuopEs.—Mycenean remains, including pottery and engraved
gems, have been found in the tombs of Ialysus and Cameirus.

IX. THERA.—Mycenean pottery of the earlier period. The pottery is
found with a stratum of pumiceous tufa super-imposed.

X. Metos, THerasia, Naxos, Ios, Amorcos and Paros have also
yielded Mycenean objccts.

XI. Eeypt—{1) Καλή.
(2) Tel-cl-Amarua.

Professor Flinders Petrie found Mycenean pottery at both these places."

XII. Crete—tThere is a prac-historie building at Cnossus, either a
palace like those of Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens, or the Labyrinth, or the old
Cretan Common Hall; at Goulas the remains of a Mycenean city; and
Mycenean gems have been found everywhere, especially in the south-eastern
part of the island. These gems sometimes bear characters identified with
certain characters found on the necks of vases from Mycenae and Attica and
closely resembling those on the Hittite gems from Asia Minor.”

XII. Irary.—(1) Bologna. Bronze objects belonging to the late Bronze
and early Iron Age identified by Evans as Mycenean in design.

(2) Etruria. Similar objects have been found at Corneto.

10 Schuchhardt, op. cit. p. 190. A. J. Evans, ‘Primitive Pictographs,’

11 ‘Egyptian Bases of Greek History,’ J.H.S. J.H.S. vol. xiv.
vol. xi.

80 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

(3) Latium. The ancient town of Signia exhibits remains of polygonal
masonry.

(4) Magni Graeciu. There are many remains of prac-historic towns in
the region afterwards occupied by the Iapygians, where Mycenean pottery
has been found, and like discoveries have been made in Sieily.

Archaeologists are agreed in regarding all the objects found in these
various and widely distant regions as the outcome of the same civilization
and the same people.

Who were the people who had the great gift of developing on the
northern side of the Mediterranean a culture which may be regarded as in-
dependent of those of Egypt and Mesopotamia? This culture exercised a
far-reaching influence into central, northern and western Europe during the
Hallstadt period. For if on the one hand the people of the Mycenean period
received in Italy and Greece the amber of the Baltic, so they in turn sent
their bronze work into the distant and mysterious regions beyond the sources
of the Istros and the dense aisles of the Hercynian forest, regions into which
it was said by them of old time Heracles had once journeyed in his quest for
the Hind of the Golden Horns.

What people produced the Mycenean civilization is the most important
problem in archaic Greek history. Any attempt to solve it must be conducted
with extreme caution and freedom from dogmatism.

It is evident from the wide diffusion of their remains that the race which
produced these works was one which must have possessed in its time great
political power around the basin of the eastern Mediterranean. Such a race
can hardly have perished without leaving some echo of its deeds behind.
For there seems in some parts of the area which they once occupied, such as
Attica at the tomb of Menidi, to be evidence that there has been no break in the
continuity of the local worship and local art of pottery from the Mycenean
age proper down to the Attic red-figured vases.

The Greeks above all other people have left to us copious traditions
respecting the early history of their land, its early occupiers, their inter-
relations, and their racial divisions. If we find an unbroken continuity in
the history of the pottery produced in Attica; and find that the people who
once made the gold rings found in the tombs of Mycenae, which may be
dated as at least prior to 1200 B.c., and the rings and gold ornaments found
in a Mycenean grave in Aegina of about the eighth century B.c., used the
same standard for weighing gold as that which was employed by the Greeks
of classical times (known as the Euboic), there is every reason for believing
that the continuity of historical tradition from the earlier period was equally
unbroken at least in certain areas, which the Greeks themselves are
unanimous in declaring had suffered no change of inhabitants from the very
remotest epoch.

In the Homeric poems we have a picture of an age and a civilization
closely resembling that revealed to us in the tombs of Mycenae. We may

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN? 81

assume by anticipation that the men of the early Mycenean period were in
the Bronze Age. This I shall prove at length later on, so far as it needs proof.

If we were now to set about an inquiry into the question of what race
created the objects found in Great Britain belonging to the Bronze Period,
we should probably set about it somewhat thus: Literary tradition tells us
that before the people now called English were finally evolved by the
amalgamation of the various races which lived in the island, there were
dominant here, successively, Celts, Romans, and Saxons. Now at no time
were the Saxons the sole occupants of the island, although their speech
ultimately became the language of almost all the island. For they subdued
and assimilated to themselves the people whom they found already in the
island, whom we usually describe as Romano-Britons ; who again consisted
but to a small extent of Romans, even applying that term to the hetero-
geneous mass of colonists and soldiery from all parts of the Roman Empire
sent here, the chief element being the old Celtic population conquered and
assimilated to the Roman culture.

Of this Celtic population we get some scanty accounts from the ancient
writers, such as Caesar, Diodorus, Strabo, Tacitus. This literary evidence
has not even escaped the suspicions of the sceptic. For instance, the
Annals of Tacitus have been regarded by some as the forgery of Poggio, the
finder of the manuscript at Fulda. This charge’ has however been swept
away, just as a literature on the subject, as copious as that on the
Bacon-Shakespeare craze, was springing into existence, by the discovery of
indubitable evidence that there was a MS. of the Annals at Fulda centuries
before Poggio’s time.

But even those who do not doubt the authenticity of the Annals raise
grave suspicions as regards the veracity of Tacitus in certain matters, just
as Caesar’s truthfulness as regards his invasions of Britain has been doubted
by others.

Yet after after all this scepticism no one questions the general truth of
the statements of these historians—that the Romans came into England and
found it already occupied by not only different tribes, but by different races.

For the coming of the Saxons we have certain traditional evidence,
certain statements about Hengist and Horsa, which are frequently regarded
by clever men as fabulous, certain documents written by Nennius and Gildas,
by Bede, an Anglo-Saxon Chronicle written by the monks at Peterborough,
and a poem called the Lay of Beowulf which gives us a picture of Anglo-
Saxon life, what weapons they used, and how they fought. This poem may
be roughly regarded as standing in the same relation to early English life and
manners as Homer does to those of éarly Greece. Though monkish chroniclers
are constantly held to be lars, no one doubts now that there was a coming of
the Angles and Jutes and that in the process of time they gradually con-
quered most of England, the last echoes of their long wars being heard in
the Arthurian legends. Some of the older population, pressed hard in their
old homes, went and settled in Armorica among their Celtic cousins from
whom they had been separated for centuries.

H.S.— VOL, XVI. G

82 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

Now it would be easy to find some antiquary who held that the
bronze weapons found in the Anglo-Saxon parts of England were of
Anglo-Saxon -origin. A famous antiquary ascribed almost every earth-
work seen anywhere in England to Carausius, the barbarian who made
himself Emperor in Britain. If one said to such a person, ‘ What evidence
have you that they are Saxon?’ he would reply that the description of the
mode of fighting, the dress and weapons of the Saxons given in the Lay of
Beowulf fitted exactly the bronze weapons in England, for they had shields
and spears, and battle-axes and swords. If you pointed out to him that the
Saxon poem spoke of these weapons as made of iron, he would say ‘I admit
that it is a difficulty but the resemblances are’so many that the discrepancies
may be jetisoned.. He would not get many to support him at the present
day. Yet we shall see that the attitude of Greek archaeologists in dealing
with the Mycenean age is not more rational. We may take then as fairly
truthful the statements that Celtic tribes, whether red Celts, or black Celts,
or Picts, were spread over all this island, and that it had a native name of its
τ own before the Romans came and called it by a name derived from some
other tribe, Britannia instead of Albion, a name in its turn replaced by that
of England, derived from that tribe of Angles who gradually absorbed into
their own tribal name all the other tribes of the island. Ifwe find in certain
areas, into which according to the written traditions of Romans and Saxons
neither of these races ever got, bronze implements and pottery of a peculiar
kind, we shall be fully justified in regarding these objects as not the creation
of Roman or Saxon, but of that race who are said by the written traditions
of the Romans to have been the occupants of the whole island at the time
of Caesar’s invasion. If we find that in Cornwall, where English is now the
only language, down to 200 years ago, another speech still lingered on which
was not Teutonic, but clearly shown by its remains to be one of the Celtic
languages, we shall most certainly be justified in holding that the fact of a
people now speaking the English language is no proof that they were origin-
ally’ Anglo-Saxon, or belonged to any branch of the Teutonic race. It is
equally possible and it is highly probable that the same process took place in
early Greece, as it certainly did in Italy, where Latin became the language
not merely of the cognate Umbrian and Oscan peoples, but even of the
Etruscans, who are now generally held to have spoken a non-Aryan tongue.
Race after race made its way from the north into the Greek peninsula and
these races were divided into numerous tribes. Pelasgians, Achaeans, and
Dorians in turn were the dominant races, and into each in turn came tribes
perhaps of different origin, who came to be called by the name of the master
race, Pelasgians, Achaeans, or Dorians, who eventually in turn came under
the all-embracing name of Hellenes just as the descendants of the Belgic
tribes, of the older inhabitants of England, Roman settlers, Saxons, Angles
and Jutes have all been merged into the common name of English. This
certainly is the view of the early state of Hellas given by Thucydides; and
the analogy of all other countries shows that his doctrine is sound. ‘ Before
the Trojan war Hellas appears to have done nothing in common; and as it

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN!? 38

seems to me the whole of it as yet had not even this name; nay, before the
time of Hellen, the son of Deucalion, it does not appear that this appellation
existed at all, but that in their different tribes, and the Pelasgian to the
greatest extent, they furnished from themselves the name (of the people).
But when Hellen and his sons had grown strong in Phthiotis, and men invited
them for their aid into the other cities and from associating with them,
separate communities were now more commonly called Hellenes: and yet
not for a long time after could that name prevail amongst them all. And
Homer proves this most fully ; for, though born long after the Trojan war, he
has nowhere called them all by that name, nor indeed any others but those
that came with Achilles out of Phthiotis who are the very original Hellenes,
but in his poem he mentions Danaoi, Argeioi, and Achaioi.’

Scholars are now practically unanimous in regarding the civilization of
the Mycenean age as the product of that Achaean race, whose glories
enshrined in the Jliad and Odyssey rest deathless. Yet learned men are not
without misgivings respecting this identification and various differences’
more or less important have been pointed out between the civilization
of Mycenae and that of the Homeric Greeks. For instance the latter
burnt the bodies of their dead, whilst on the other hand the graves of
Mycenae prove that the bodies were buried intact, possibly in some cases
embalmed.

It is therefore perhaps worth while to reconsider the question anew,
taking a brief survey in turn of the various races who once dwelt on the
spots where these remains have been discovered, and, after a careful
use of the strictest method possible in the rejecting and selecting of
the various elements, finally to indicate that which seems the fittest to
survive.

It is obvious that we must start our search in a region, or regions, where
(1) Mycenean remains are found in great abundance, and (2) where we can
show from the Greek writers that no great number of separate races ever
dwelt.

On looking down the list of regions where objects of the Mycenean
period have been found, two areas especially lend themselves to such an
inquiry—Peloponnesos and Crete. The consensus of the Greek writers
assures us that the former was mainly occupied by three races, two of whom—
the Achaeans and Dorians—came in successive waves. Thus in Laconia in
historical times we find three distinct layers of population: (1) the Spartiates
who formed the ruling caste, the descendants of the Dorians who at some
period later than the composition of the Homeric poems entered Pelopon-
nesus, and conquered certain portions of it ; (2) the Perioeci, who represented
the descendants of the Achaeans, conquered by the Dorians; (3) the Helots,
the descendants of the race which the Achaeans found in possession of the
land, and whom they reduced to serfdom in those regions which they
conquered. These Helots were almost certainly the same race as the
Arcadians, who in their native fastnesses seem to have been able to keep

out both Achaean and Dorian.
G 2

84 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

In the Homeric poems we find Argolis with its cities such as Mycenae,
and Laconia with Sparta its capital, held by the Pelopidae. In classical
times Dorians are the rulers of both districts.

It is in this part of Hellas that we meet the chief remains of the
Mycenean epoch, and we may well assume as a starting-point that the
remains are the outcome of either the Achaeans, or that old race that
preceded the Achaeans.

Let us now turn to Crete, where, as already stated, extensive remains of
the Mycenean age have been brought to light. As it is an island far removed
from the rest of Greece, it was much less likely to have its population mixed
by constant advances of other tribes, such as took place in the history of
northern Greece and northern Italy. In the case of the latter a roving tribe
might at any time descend from Balkan or Alps, but in the case of Crete only
people equipped with ships could enter it.

In the Odyssey (xix. 170 seqgg.) we get a very explicit account of Crete
~and its inhabitants :—

Κρήτη τις γαῖ᾽ ἔστι, μέσῳ ἐνὶ Ροίνοπι πόντῳ,

καλὴ καὶ πίειρα, περίρρυτος" ἐν δ᾽ ἄνθρωποι

πολλοὶ ἀπειρέσιοι καὶ ἐννήκοντα πόληες.

ἄλλη δ᾽ ἄλλων γλῶσσα μεμυγμένη" ἐν μὲν Αχαιοί,

ἐν δ᾽ ᾿ΕΠτεόκρητες μεγαλήτορες, ἐν δὲ Κύδωνες,
Δωριέες τε τριχάϊκες, δῖοί τε Ἰ]Πελασγοί.

τοῖσι! δ᾽ ἐνὶ Κνῶσσος, μεγάλη πόλις, ἔνθα τε Μίνως
ἐννέωρος βασίλευε, Διὸς μεγάλου ὀαριστής,

πατρὸς ἐμεῖο πατὴρ μεγαθύμου Δευκάλιωνος.

In this most important passage the poet gives us a complete ethnology
of Crete. Most scholars will admit that some one of the five races here
enumerated—Achaeans, Eteocretes, Cydones, Dorians, Pelasgi—has produced
the ‘ Mycenean’ remains found in Crete. It is absurd to suppose that either
the Eteocretes or Cydones ever held such a dominant position on the
mainland of Hellas as to have founded Mycenae and Tiryns, or Orchomenos,
or to have occupied Attica and the Acropolis of Athens. The voice of
history could not have been so completely hushed, if such had been the case.
As it is, all the writers of antiquity are dumb. We may therefore reject
both the True-Cretans and Cydoneans. We are therefore left three races,
Achaeans, Dorians and Pelasgi, from whom to select the engravers of the
ancient Cretan gems and the builders of the great structures of Cnossus
and Goulas.

We have had Achaeans and Dorians as two of the three races one of
whose number in Peloponnesus must have been the producer of Mycenean

185. roto. is read by Eustathius and a good to refer back to ἐννήκοντα πόληες four lines
many MSS. : τῇσι is the common reading, but above, especially when five masculine names
the feminine gender was readily suggested to have intervened.
the copyist by μεγάλη πόλις. It is not Homeric

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 80

remains. The third race I have only alluded to as that found surviving in
the Helots of Laconia and the aboriginal inhabitants of Arcadia. Who were
this people ?_ The ancient authors give us abundant notices of a people who
dwelt in Peloponnesus before the Achaean conquest, and those who hold that
in the statements of the ancients there is at least a solid kernel of historical
truth will readily admit that a race of great power once reigned in the chief
cities of Argolis and Laconia before that Achaean conquest.

To those who approach the ancient historians in that peculiar spirit of
scepticism which is ready to declare that certain statements of Thucydides or
Herodotus are false, and at the same time are building theories of the early
history of Greece out of passages in these very authors, I cannot appeal. My
immediate object is to show that in the Peloponnesus there lived a race ante-
cedent to the Achaeans and Dorians, whom the ancients knew under the
name Pelasgi. To venture to write about this race is enough to bring down
on the writer grave suspicions that he is one of those who deal with Druids,
and who see in the Great Pyramid the key to mystic systems of chronology
and astrology.

Accordingly, with a view to showing that a man may believe in the
historical reality of the Pelasgi, and may with safety still be allowed to mix
with his neighbours, let me say that I can quote the opinions of four
historians, whose scepticism or sobermindedness no one has yet called in
question—Niebuhr, Thirlwall, Grote and E. Curtius.

I can best express the feelings with which I approach this subject by
quoting the vigorous words of Niebuhr: '* ‘The name of this people, of whom
the historical inquirers in the age of Augustus could find no trace among any
then subsisting, and about whom so many opinions have been maintained
with such confidence of late, is irksome to the historian, hating as he does
that spurious philology which raises pretensions to knowledge concerning
races so completely buried in silence, and is revolting on account of the
scandalous abuse that has been made of imaginary Pelasgic mysteries and
lore. This disgust has hitherto kept me from speaking of the Pelasgians in
general, especially as by doing so I might only be opening a way for a new
influx of writings on this unfortunate subject. I was desirous of confining
myself to such tribes of this nation as are mentioned among the inhabitants
of Italy; but this would leave the investigation wholly unsatisfactory, and
the one I am now about to commence does not pretend to make out anything
else than Strabo, for instance, if he set what he knew distinctly before his
own mind, might have given as the result.’ .

At this point of the inquiry it is sufficient for my purpose to point out
that Ephorus, quoted by Strabo,’ states that Peloponnesus had been called
Pelasgia in ancient times, a statement supported and confirmed by Aeschylus
not only in the extant play of the Supplices, in several passages (referring
especially to Argolis), but also in the lost play of the Danaides, referred to by

14 History of Rome, i. 26, 27. (Engl. Trans.) πΠελασγίαν φησὶν κληθῆναι.
15 220. καὶ Ἔφορος τὴν Πελοπόννησον δὲ

86 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

Strabo (Joc. cit.). Aeschylus states in his Suppliants and Danaides that their
race (Pelasgian) is sprung from Argos that lies around Mycenae. The still
older testimony of Hesiod, quoted likewise by Strabo in the same passage,
makes the Pelasgians Arcadian in origin.

We therefore have good ancient tradition that, in addition to the
Achaeans and Dorians, a third race, and that the Pelasgi, had once been of
great power in Peloponnesus, especially in Argolis and Arcadia. These three
peoples are identical with those of whom one must have been the creator of
the Mycenean remains of Crete. As scholars admit that it is the same race
who has left those remains everywhere, it must be one of the three races who
made those objects found in Crete who produced them elsewhere. But as the
distinct voice of all Greek history avers that these same peoples, whom we
found in Crete, once occupied positions of primary importance in Pelopon-
nesus, the conclusion is irresistible that it was one of the same three races
who produced the Mycenean remains of Peloponnesus.

If then the conclusion is so strong with reference to the authorship of
the Mycenean remains found in two of the most important regions where
objects of that peculiar civilization are found, then there is a high probability
that the same kind of remains, no matter where they are found, is the pro-
duct of one of these three races. If we can then, by the means of the criteria
afforded us by the Greek writers, ascertain which of these three races produced
the Mycenean objects found in one or more of the areas given above, we may
reasonably conclude that this race is the creator of this great civilization.

We shall now work backwards from the better known to the less known.
Of our three claimants for the prae-historic glories of Argolis and Laconia, the
Dorian comes latest. He is the occupant of both in the classical days of
Greece; behind him stands the Achaean, a remnant of whose race in historical
times still occupies the district of Achaia, and in the evil days of Hellas forms
the Achaean League, the last bright flash that came before the end. Between
Dorian and Achaean then must be the first combat, whilst the Pelasgian
waits in the dark background of Greek history as Ephedros to fight the victor
of the first bout.

The Dorian has never been seriously put forward as a candidate (for
Busolt’s attempt has utterly failed). The weight of evidence is certainly
against him. The general view has been that he it was who swept away
that old civilization so clearly limned for us in Homer. This view seems the
true one. We have aclear picture of the habits of life of the Spartans, who were
the foremost in power of the Dorians in historic times. To attribute the
building of great Cyclopean walls to a people whose boast it was to live in a
town of unwalled villages, and who were so notoriously incompetent in the
conduct of siege operations, would indeed be ridiculous : and we see that the
Dorians of Argolis never occupied in historical times the great fortresses of
Mycenae and Tiryns. It would be no less absurd to ascribe the beautiful
works in gold, silver, bronze, pottery and ivory from the graves of Mycenae
to a rude and barbarous race, by whose constitution the use of the precious
metals was forbidden and who in their manner of life are still a proverb for

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 87

rudeness and simplicity. The Achaeans of the Homeric poems are in the
late Bronze Age and are using iron freely for all the purposes of life, for axes
and for the shoeing of the plough. With the Dorians who conquered the
Achaeans iron is almost the only metal in use. Not even money of bronze
was used in Sparta, but only bars of iron. How can we reasonably suppose
such a people to have built these tombs of Mycenae, where not a scrap of
iron save two or three finger rings has been discovered? If necessary the
geographical argument might be used, but it will be sufficient if I point out
that there is not a jot of evidence that the Dorians ever occupied the Troad
and the Aeolid, regions where Mycenean remains have been found in quantity.
The claims of the Dorian must give way before those of the Achaean, who is
portrayed in the Homeric poems as dwelling surrounded with costly articles
of gold, silver, bronze and ivory. The race who lived in royal splendour
must certainly be preferred as claimants to that under whose domination
Mycenae was only the dwelling-place of the owl and the bat, or at most the
stall of shepherds or the fastness of revolted serfs.

The final struggle now comes between the victorious Achaean and the
Pelasgian Ephedros. Before we enter on this stage of the investigation it
will be advisable to rehearse the conditions of the problem. We want a
race : (1) who can be shown by history and legend to have once at an early
period of Greek history occupied the various localities in which Mycenean
remains have been found ; (2) a race, whose civilization as set forth in the
ancient writers coincides with that unveiled at Mycenae, or at least does not
differ from it ; (3) who used a form of pictographic writing in Crete, Attica
and Peloponnesus similar to that in use on the so-called Hittite seals found
in Asia Minor and to the Cyprian syllabary. In reference to the first condition,
it will be admitted that if we find Mycenean remains in any area which the
unanimous witness of antiquity declares was never occupied by the one race,
but was occupied by the other, the latter race has a superior claim. If we find
this taking place not in one but in two or more, the claim becomes irresistible.
With regard to the second condition, that of civilization, it will be admitted
that if the civilization of the Achaeans as exhibited in Homer is found to
differ materially from that of prae-historic Mycenae, the latter must be
regarded as belonging to the.older race. For what we have already arrived
at in the case of the Dorians forbids us from considering the Mycenean
civilization of a later age than that of the Homeric Achaeans,

Let us now take the various regions in which Mycenean remains have
been found in the order in which we enumerated them above ; discussing as
briefly as possible the historical evidence for the occupation of each by
Achaeans and Pelasgians.

I, PELOpoNNESUS.—Greek traditions with one accord declare that Pelopon-
nesus was inhabited in the earliest times by the Pelasgians. I have already
quoted a statement of Ephorus that Peloponnesus was called Pelasgia.
Ephorus wrote in the 4th century B.c., but he drew his information from
very ancient sources, the old genealogers such as Hesiod. As Strabo gives a

88 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

summary to which I have already referred of the salient features of the
traditions respecting the Pelasgi, and as the statements of the older Greek
writers embodied in it show unmistakably that Peloponnesus was the chief
seat of the Pelasgian race, I shall give it in extenso :—

‘That the Pelasgians were an ancient tribe holding a leading position
over all Hellas, and especially among the Aeolians who occupied Thessaly,
all are agreed. But Ephorus states that he thinks that being originally from
Arcadia they chose a military life, and having persuaded many others to
the same course they shared their name with all, and acquired wide renown
both among the Hellenes and among all the others, wherever they happened
to come. For as a matter of fact they became colonists of Crete, as Homer
states. For example Odysseus says to Penelope—

ἄλλη δ᾽ ἄλλων γλῶσσα μεμιγμένη" ἐν μὲν ᾿Αχαιοί,
ἐν δ᾽ ᾿Ετεόκρητες μεγαλήτορες, ἐν δὲ Κύδωνες,
Δωριέες τε τριχάϊκες, δῖοί τε Πελασγοί,

and Thessaly is called the Pelasgian Argos, the part that lies between the
mouths of the Peneius and Thermopylae as far as the mountain district that
lies along Pindus, on account of the Pelasgians formerly having ruled over
these districts, and the poet himself applies the name Pelasgic to the
Dodonaean Zeus—

Zed ἄνα Awbovaie ]Πελασγικέ.

Many have likewise asserted that the nations of Epirus are Pelasgian,
because the dominion of the Pelasgians extended so far. And as many of
the heroes have been named Pelasgi, later writers have applied that name to
the nations over which they were the chiefs. For as a matter of fact they
spoke of Lesbos as Pelasgia and Homer calls the Pelasgians the neighbours
of the Cilicians in the Troad—

“Ἱππόθοος δ᾽ ἄγε φῦλα Πελασγῶν ἐγχεσιμώρων,
τῶν οἱ Λάρισαν ἐριβώλακα ναιετάασκον.

Hesiod was Ephorus’ source for the doctrine that their origin was from
Arcadia. For he says :—
.«ὕὔ ’ / ϑ » /
υἱέες ἐξεγένοντο Λυκάονος ἀντιθέοιο,
ὅν ποτε τίκτε Ἰ]ελασγός,

but Aeschylus in his Swppliants and his Danaides says their race is from
Argos that les round Mycenae ; and again Euripides says that Peloponnesus
was called Pelasgia, and again in his Archelaus says :—

Δαναὸς ὁ πεντήκοντα θυγατέρων πατὴρ

> \ b] ΄

ἐλθὼν ἐς Ἄργος ὠκισ᾽’ ᾿Ινάχου πόλιν
Πελασγιώτας δ᾽ ὠνομασμένους τὸ πρὶν
Δαναοὺς καλεῖσθαι νόμον ἔθηκ᾽ av’ “Ελλάδα.

Anticleides states that they were the first to settle the regions round Lemnos
and Imbros, and further that some of these along with Tyrrhenus the son of

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 89

Atys set out into Italy, and the writers of the “ἐμ relate that the Pelasgians
were at Athens also, and that owing to their being wanderers, and roaming
about like birds to whatever places they chanced to come, they were called
Pelargi (Storks) by the people of Attica.’

The statements here given from Hesiod, Aeschylus, Euripides and
Kphorus point clearly to an extensive occupation of Peloponnesus, and that
very part too where Mycenean remains are especially common. There
cannot be much doubt that if the Pelasgians ruled the district lying around
Mycenae, it must have been prior to the Achaean occupation of the same
region. For there can be no reasonable doubt that the Dorians found the
Achaeans as the rulers of Argolis and Laconia. The short extract given
from Strabo can be greatly amplified from other Greek sources, and the
legends of the Achaeans themselves in every case presuppose the existence
in Peloponnesus of ancient and powerful cities only recently acquired by the
Achaeans, and also of entire regions still unconquered, occupied as in the
case of Arcadia by the old inhabitants. The accounts of the Tragic poets,
Hesiod, and Ephorus are quite in accord with the knowledge afforded us by
Homer. It is the glories of the sons of the Achaeans that are sung in the
Ihad and Odyssey, and it is from these poems that we reconstruct our picture
of the Achaean civilization. But if we hearken to what these epics tell us
of the Achaeans, we must give equal heed to what they tell us of a prior
age, and people into whose heritage they entered and to whose civilization
they were assimilated.

(1) Argolis. We find traces in Homer that it had but recently come
under anew domination. Mycenae, ‘ wealthy in gold,’ the seat of Agamemnon
‘king of men,’ is not an ancient inheritance of the dynasty of the Pelopidae.
Atreus, the father of Agamemnon and Menelaus, was the first of his race
who reigned there. Thucydides gives us most definite information on
the point :—

‘It is said too by those of the Pecloponnesians who have received the
most certain accounts by tradition from their forefathers, that Pelops first
acquired power by the abundance of riches with which he came from Asia
to men who were needy, and, although a newcomer, gave his name to the
country; and that afterwards still greater power fell to the lot of his
descendants, as Eurystheus was killed in Attica by the Heraclidae, and
Atreus was his mother’s brother, and Eurystheus, when joining in the ex-
pedition, entrusted Mycenae and the government to Atreus on the ground
of their connection (he happened to be flying from his father on account of
the death of Chrysippus); and when Eurystheus did not return again they
say that at the wish of the Myceneans themselves through their fear of the
Heraclidae, and also because he appeared to be powerful and had courted
the commons, Atreus received the kingdom of the Myceneans and all that
Kurystheus ruled over; and that so the descendants of Pelops became
greater than the descendants of Perseus.’ '® In any case the dynasty only

16 Thue. i. 9.

90 ᾿ WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

began with Pelops, the father of Atreus, and thus within two generations
their reign at Mycenae must have begun. There is no contradiction in
Homer of the belief of Aeschylus that another and very ancient people had
held the country round Mycenae. It was one of the three cities held
expressly dear by Hera.”

And it is also one of the towns called ‘rich in gold’ (πολύχρυσος) in Homer,
the other two being Ilios and Orchomenos in Boeotia, called the ‘Minyan.’
The latter cities were both of ancient prosperity, and it is on the whole more
probable that Mycenae is called by a similar name because it was likewise
famous for its long continued wealth and splendour, and not because it had
suddenly sprung up under one or two reigns. The legends fully confirm this,
for the walls of Mycenae are ascribed to the same builders as those who
built those of Tiryns for king Proetus, who was certainly not Achaean, as
we shall see very shortly. Thus Euripides (Jph. Au/. 1500) speaks of them
as the work of the Cyclopes. Pausanias ‘saw at Mycenae’ the subterranean
buildings of the sons of Atreus, where they hid the treasures of their wealth.
‘There is likewise the grave of Atreus, and the graves of all those who after
their return from Ilios along with Agamemnon Aegisthus feasted and then
murdered; Cassandra and her twin sons that she bare Agamemnon, Eury-
medon, his charioteer, and Teledamus.’!® But though Greek tradition linked
with the names of Atreus and Agamemnon the graves of the Acropolis of
Mycenae, and the beehive tombs outside, nevertheless the foundation of the
great walls and the Lion gateway, in spite of all the temptation there was to
connect them likewise with the Atreidae, were ascribed to an older time and
race. Thus Pausanias (Joc. cit.), after mentioning the final overthrow of the
city by the Argives in 458 B.C., says ‘nevertheless there still remain both other
portions of the surrounding wall, and the gate, and on it stand lions. But
they say that these likewise are works of the Cyclopes, who constructed for
Proetus the wall at Tiryns.’

(2) Coming now to Tiryns we can get more definite statements about it
and its foundation and mythical history. Already in Homeric times it is
renowned for its walls, for it is called τευχιόεσσα (Il. 11. 559).

In Homeric times it is but of little importance. No chieftain of any
note comes from it. Once only is it named, and that with a number of the
lesser towns of Argolis, which sent contingents to Troy, In that place
we find already the great walls, which Pausanias said might be compared
to the pyramids of Egypt for their marvellous size. These walls were
ascribed by later tradition to king Proetus, who employed in their con-
struction the Cyclopes from Lycia. So Pausanias has told us in the passage
just quoted,!®

The story of Proetus is no figment of the late Greek writers, any more
than is the tradition of Cyclopean workmen. But whilst the latter is
sanctified by Pindar2® who speaks of the Κυκλώπια πρόθυρα of Tiryns, and

7 J]. iv. 51-2, 19 Cf. Strabo 378.
Perit Gis 99 Fragment 642.

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN? 91

by Euripides in the Hercules Furens,! the name of Proetus meets us in one of
the most famous passages in Homer; as the husband of the wicked
Stheneboea, who, having in vain tempted Bellerophon, falsely accused him to
her husband. Proetus was a righteous man, and shrank from the pollution
of slaying Bellerophon, so he sent him to his father-in-law, the king of
Lycia, having given him those σήματα λυγρά, inscribed in a folded tablet,
around which controversy has so often raged, and to which I shall presently
return.

Proetus was brother of Acrisius, father of Danae. ‘The sons of Abas,
the son of Lynceus, divided the kingdom. Acrisius remained at Argos, but
Proetus got possession of the Heraeum and Midea, and Tiryns, and all the
seaboard of the Argive land, and there are marks of the settlement of
Proetus at Tiryns.’ i

The Lynceus from whom Proetus was descended was that single one of
the sons of Aegyptus who escaped the murderous hands of the daughters
of Danaus through the tender-heartedness of the ‘splendide mendax’ Hy-
permnestra. Proetus therefore is a descendant of Io, and one of that
ancient Pelasgic race who, according to Aeschylus, reigned in Argos, that
Argos that lay around Mycenae. The term Argos has given rise to much
confusion, and at this point a few words on this subject will not be out
of place. In Homer Argos regularly means (1) the whole region which
we commonly term Argolis. This is evident from various passages such as
Il. vi. 158, and in Od. iii. 263 Mycenae is described in the same language ;
Aegisthus at Mycenae is spoken of thus: ὁ δ᾽ εὔκηλος μυχῷ "Ἄργεος ἱπποβό-
toto. (2) Argos is used of a city, either the city called Argos in historical
times or more probably the Heraeum. For Hera names Argos first of the
three cities which are most dear to her.

The Argos so beloved ought to be the place which contains the
sanctuary ; here many Mycenean objects have been found by Prof. Wald-
stein—pottery and engraved stones—whilst at Argos proper of later times
up to the present no Mycenean objects have been found. It is not unlikely
that the Argos of later times was called Larisa originally, for the acropolis
always retained that name (Paus. ii. 24. 1). There was also a shrine at
the historical Argos of Demeter Pelasgis. This connects Argos with the
Pelasgians and the equine Demeter of Phigalia. The confusion between
Mycenae and the district in which it was situated was easy, and after
the downfall of Mycenae and the rise of the new Argos of the Dorian
period, the dramatic writers usualiy spoke of Mycenae as Argos. In a
passage already quoted Pausanias” tells us that Proetus obtained the Heraeum,
Midea and Tiryns as his share. In another passage (ii. 12, 2) he tells us
that Proetus built a temple of Hera; ‘after coming to Sicyon from Titane
and as you pass down to the sea, there is a temple of Hera, and they say
that the founder was Proectus the son of Abas.’ Proetus is thus associated
with the building of Hera-shrines, and also as possessing the Heraeum.

‘l Perc, Fur. 493, 2 Pausanias il, 16, 2.

92 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

Pausanias, embodying the beliefs of the Crecks, believed that the Heracum
belonged to the prae-Achacan time. In that case we may well regard the
early remains found at the Heracum and tlie accompanying Egyptian scarabs
as going back to a period when the Achacans were still living in Phthiotis,
and had not yet set foot in the Peloponnesus.

Proetus and Acrisius were descended from Lynceus, son of Aegyptus,
and Hypermnestra, daughter of Danaus. Tlic story is too well known to need
repetition. Io, daughter of Iasus of Argos, whether she reached Egypt by
a series of overland journeyings, or as Herodotus states (i. 2), there gave
birth to Epaphus, ‘the swarthy’ ὁ Atos πόρτις Boos. Danaus and Aegyptus
were his descendants. They quarrelled. Danaus on his way back to Greece
put into Rhodes, and there set up the idol of Athena at Lindus. He and his
daughters came to Argolis, pursued by the sons of Acgyptus as set forth in
the Suppliants by Aeschylus. They claim protection from the king of Argos,
as being his kindred. This king is named Pelasgus, and Argos is called a
city of the Pelasgians. According to Greck tradition of an early time, these
refugees from Egypt were of the old Pelasgian race.

(3) Nauplia. This was the ancient seaport of Argolis. It stood twelve
stades distant from Tiryns. Here there are tombs of the Mycenean period at
the place known as Palamidi. Its founder was Nauplius, son of Poseidon and
Amymone; he was therefore an autochthon; Palamedes was his son. The
latter was the inventor of writing, according to a Greek tradition up to the
present treated with the same scepticism with which the story of Cadmus
being the introducer of the Phoenician letters into Greece was received until
our own generation, when increased knowledge has shown the statement to
be intrinsically true. When I deal with the question of Mycenean picto-
eraphs, I shall return to him.

Al

According to Pausanias, Danaus planted an Egyptian colony there. In
historic times the city still kept apart from the rest of Argolis, and it was only
at a later period that it became the port of Argos. It continued long to be a
member of that very ancient amphictyony of Calaurcia. We shall find
Nauplius in close relations with the Pelasgian kings of Tegea, engaged in
trading to Mysia and north-western Asia Minor. Once more the Greek
tradition points clearly to a prae-Achaean history for Nauplia.

To sum up the results of an examination of the five places in Argolis
where Mycenean remains have been found, we find that Mycenae has a prae-
Achaean origin assigned to its walls and gate the same as that assigned to
Tiryns. The latter has nothing Achaean associated with it. Proetus is its
founder, and Pausanias connected with him the remains existing in his time.
The Heraeum is linked to Proetus, and so too is Midea; and lastly, Nauplia
is considered non-Achaean, with a population settled there by Danaus. The
remains then found in these five places must, if we allow any weight to
tradition, be assigned to a people who preceded the Achaeans. This people
the Greeks knew as Pelasgians.

(4) Laconia. In the Odyssey we tind Menelaus, the son of Atreus,

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 93

dwelling at Sparta in a house of great splendour, adorned with gold, silver
ivory and amber. The current idea of an Achaean palace is made up from
this palace at Sparta, that of Alcinoos the Phaeacian, and that of Odysseus
at Ithaca. The frieze adorned with blue glass from the palace at Tiryns is
compared to that in the house of Alcinoos. But are we justified in consider-
ing the Spartan or the Phacacian palace Achacan? Menelaus occupies that
at Sparta in virtue of his marriage with Helen, the daughter of Tyndareus.
He was altogether a new comer. There was a very ancient dynasty there of
which Tyndareus was the last king. This dynasty can be shown from the
ancient pedigrees to be not Achaean. That the ancient genealogies may be
used for questions of race was the opinion of Niebuhr. Such pedigrees can
be easily remembered and transmitted, as amongst the chieftain families of
all countries they are held of supreme importance. If Homer is sufficient as
ἐν witness, it was so in early Greece. There are constant recitations of pedi-
grecs in the Poems; and further, that such were part of the lore imparted by

the elders to the younger, is shown by the words of Nestor, who tells how
Tydeus had discoursed to him—

4 ? / > Ψ / / 93
πάντων ᾿Αργείων ἐρέων γενεήν TE τόκον TE.”

We may therefore reasonably take as a fair piece of evidence for race the
pedigree of Tyndareus. He was the son of Oebalus and Gorgophone. Gorgo-
phone was the daughter of Perseus, who was the son of Danae, who was the
daughter of <Acrisius, whose Pelasgian pedigree 1 have already proved.
Oebalus was the son of Cynortas, who was the son of Amyclas, who was the
son of Lacedaemon, who was the son of Zeus. Tyndareus is thus descended
on the father’s side from the autochthonous founders of Lacedaemon and
Amyclae without any suspicion of any strain of the blood of the new
Achaeaus, the sons of Xuthus, the son of Hellen, that king of Thessaly from
whom the Achaeans traced their descent.

We may therefore reasonably conclude that the palace at Sparta occupied
by Menelaus and Helen, where Telemachus visited them, was the ancient
residence of Tyndareus and the old kings of Sparta. That it was more
splendid than the usual residence of an Achaean king is certain from the
words in which the poet describes the wonder and admiration that filled
Telemachus and his comrade Nestor’s son.

If it be said that it was because of the great wealth and rich store of
gifts brought back from his wanderings that the two young princes were lost
in admiration at the embellishments of gold, silver, ivory and amber, our
answer is ready. Such palaces were known elsewhere in Homer’s world,
The palace of Alcinoos is indeed splendid, with its four pillars round the
great hearth in the centre of the Megaron, and its frieze of blue glass (θριγκὸς
κυάνοιο). But the Phaeacians are certainly not Achaeans. They build with
huge stones which have to be dragged (ῥυτοὶ λέθοι), which seems to link
their architecture to the Cyclopean masonry of Mycenae and Tiryns.* But I

ERY Hf Pe ha Wwe τ δεν Vie 961.

94 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

shall have to return to them later on. Now if we take the house of Odysseus
as the type of the Achaean chieftain’s palace, how different it is from that of
Menelaus and Alcinoos. There is no sumptuous adornment of cyanus or
amber or ivory. The most elaborate article in it is the great bedstead formed
out of a tree, and carved by Odysseus himself, which was built into his bed-
chamber. The stage of art is totally different in each, if we contrast the
sumptuous decoration of Spartan and Phaeacian chambers with the wood-
carving of the other.

There is also another curious piece of evidence which indicates that the
Achaeans are but new-comers in Laconia. Menelaus tells Telemachus that
his desire had been to bring Odysseus from Ithaca with all his folk, and to
settle him near himself, after having laid waste for this purpose some neigh-
bouring city—

μίαν πόλιν ἐξαλαπάξας
αἱ περιναιετάουσι, ξανάσσονται δ᾽ ἐμοὶ αὐτῷ (Od. iv. 176).

It cannot be meant that Menelaus would destroy a free Achaean town,
occupied by his own followers; but if there was an older population, lately
half subdued, yielding a sullen homage, and always a source of danger, we can
well understand the desire of Menelaus to bring in Achaean chiefs with their
followers to occupy and garrison the country. The evidence then points in
favour of an older race of great power and civilization in Sparta before the
Achaeans got possession.

We have now seen the positive evidence from Homer and the Greek
traditions as given by Aeschylus and others for the existence of a prae-
Achaean race in Peloponnesus, a race which Aeschylus knew as the Pelasgians.
Let us now see how far this is compatible with the legends which embody the
earliest history of the Achaeans and their first entry into the Peloponnesus.
Achaeus, the Eponymus of the race, was the son of Xuthus, the son of
Hellen, the son of Deucalion, king of Thessaly. Achaeus however in some
stories appears with very different parentage and accompaniments. According
to Dionysius of Halicarnassus,”®° Achaeus Phthius and Pelasgus are sons of
Poseidon and Larisa. They migrate from Peloponnesus into Thessaly and
distributed the Thessalian territory between them, giving their names to the
principal divisions. Their descendants six generations later were driven out
of Thessaly by Deucalion.

This was, says Grote, ‘to provide an Eponymus for the Achaeans in the
southern districts of Thessaly. Pausanias accomplishes the same object by a
different means, representing Achaeus, the son of Xuthus, as having gone
back to Thessaly and occupied the portion of it to which his father was
entitled. Then, by way of explaining how it was that there were Achaeans
at Sparta and not Argos, he tells us that Archander and Architeles, the sons
of Achaeus, came from Thessaly to Peloponnesus and married two daughters
of Danaus.’ They acquired great influence at Argos and Sparta, and gave to
the people the name of Achaeans.

25 Paus. vii 1, 1-8.
* Diony. i. 17. Larisa as mother indicates that they came from Larisa in Argos.

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN? 95

Herodotus also mentions Archander, son of Phthius and grandson of
Achaeus, who married the daughter of Danaus.

Strabo, following Ephorus, says ‘that the Achaean Phthiotae, who with
Pelops made an irruption into Peloponnesus, settled in Laconia, and were so
much distinguished for their valour that Peloponnesus, which for a long
period up to this time had the name of Argos, was called Achaean Argos and
not Peloponnesus, which had been the name, and Laconia also was thus
peculiarly designated. From Laconia the Achaeans were expelled by the
Dorians, and went and settled in what was known as Achaea properly so
called, expelling the Ionians therefrom.’ “ἢ

Here then we have the Greek traditions respecting the coming of the
Achaeans into the Peloponnesus. These stand out distinct in themselves
from any of the statements about the Pelasgians, and therefore embody a
different line of evidence. Does this harmonize or does it contradict the
statements of Hesiod and Aeschylus and Ephorus about the Pelasgian occupa-
tion of the Peloponnesus? It plainly supports it. For Herodotus makes
Archander the Achaean marry a daughter of Danaus, a statement in which
he is supported by Pausanias, although there is a slight variant in the pedi-
gree, Herodotus making Archander son of Phthius and grandson of Achaeus,
whereas Pausanias makes Achaeus and Phthius brothers. Yet the story
assumes in either case that there was an ancient race of great importance of
which Danaus was king, in full possession of Argolis and Sparta. The story
told by Strabo of the coming of the Achaeans under the leadership of Pelops
makes a similar assumption, for if there is any story in Greek legend which
keeps to one positive version, it is that Pelops the Phrygian was a late comer
into Peloponnesus, where he found ancient dynasties in full sway, and that he
gained his kingdom by marrying Hippodamia, the daughter of Oenomaus.
We have seen above how his son Atreus got the throne of Mycenae and sup-
planted the ancient Perseid line, and how his grandson Menelaus, by marrying
Helen, the heiress of Tyndareus, gained possession of Sparta. If the sceptic
point with derision to the wide difference between the story of Herodotus and
Pausanias and that told by Strabo, my answer is that such different stories of
the first coming of the Achaeans are by no means incompatible with historical
truth. Who can tell when the Saxons first entered England? One story of
their coming represents Hengist and Horsa as coming in to aid the British king
Vortigern against the Picts and Scots, and settling in the south of England ;
but on the other hand, it is not at all improbable that the earliest Saxon
settlements were in Northumbria. Who can tell whether the Danes who
settled-in Ireland first got their footing at Dublin or Waterford 2? The fact is
that when the tide of colonizing and conquest begins to flow, different bodies
of invaders make their appearance, almost simultaneously in some cases, at
different points; sometimes small bodies of men seeking new homes paved
the way (such as Archander and Architeles of the Achaean legend), to be
followed later on by far larger bodies of population.

7 viii, 365.

96 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

The incoming of valiant strangers who marry the daughters of the old
kingly houses, is no mere figment of the Greek legend-mongers. History is
full of such. Strongbow the Norman aids Dermot MacMorogh and marries
his daughter Eva; and in more modern days Captain Joln Smith married
the Indian princess Pocahontas, from whom the best families in Virginia are
proud to trace their descent.

Again the story of the Phrygian Pelops leading the Achacans may raise
a sniff of incredulity. But it must not be forgotten that at all times and
especially in barbaric days it is the chieftain’s personality which is the
weightiest factor. If a man of great personal prowess arises, men of other
races are quite ready to follow him. How many of the countless hordes who
followed Genghis Khan were of the same race as their captain? In our own
time we have seen with what readiness the Zulus were willing to follow as their
chief the Englishman, John Dunn.

As the Achaean legends assume the existence of an older race in
Peloponnesus it will not be sufficient for the sceptic to assail my position by
denying the existence of the Pelasgians in Peloponnesus on the ground that
the Hesiodie genealogy is a pure fabrication ; he must also be prepared to cast
away as utterly worthless the Achaean legend, which not only falls in with
the Pelasgic legend, but fits exactly into the statements of the Homeric
poems.

(5) Arcadia. We have now come to the last of the districts of
Peloponnesus which has, up to the present, revealed Mycenean remains in
any form.

If the existence of such remains can be proved for Arcadia, the con-
sequences are of the very highest importance for our quest. Up to the
present I can only point to one Mycenean object, an engraved gem of the
pure Mycenean type found at Phigaleia in the south-west corner of Arcadia.
To reason dogmatically from the finding of one or two objects of this
description which might very well be waifs, would be indeed foolish. On the
other hand to say that Arcadia does not contain Mycenean antiquities because
as yet no large group of them has been discovered, would be still more so.
For at any moment the spade may present us with ample confirmation of the
indications given by the Phigaleian gem. Attica herself has only at a
comparatively recent date given up any of her buried treasures of this descrip-
tion and yet Attic soil has been more ransacked than any part of Greece,
But if I can show that there were monuments in Arcadia, venerated as
ancient in the days when the J/iad was written, and that these monuments
were of the same kind as those found at Mycenae,I shall have proved an
important step; and though up to the present there has been no scientific
investigation of any such remains in Arcadia, if it can be proved that such
Mycenean antiquities exist as native in the district, it will be indeed hard to
maintain that they are of Achaean or Dorian origin, unless we are prepared
to give the lie direct to all Greek history. ‘ Arcadia,’ says E. Curtius, ‘ the
ancients regarded as a pre-eminently Pclasgian country; here, as they

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 97

thought, the autochthonic condition of the primitive inhabitants πα pre-
served itself longest, and had been least disturbed by the intrusion of foreign
elements.’ 8

This assertion may be taken as a sound historical fact, for Thucydides “9
expressly tells us that Arcadia was the one part of Peloponnesus which had
known no change of inhabitants. Pausanias (viii. 4, 1) says Arcadia was
formerly called Pelasgia, and that the Arcadians were Pelasgians. Strabo
gives the same account, and tells us that the Arcadians preserved the Aeolic
dialect.

If Mycenean remains are indigenous in Arcadia, it is certain that they
are not Achaean. Twice are the Arcadians mentioned in the liad. In the
Catalogue a contingent of no less than sixty ships is supplied by the meu
of Arcady :-- 9

ot δ᾽ ἔχον ’Apxadinv ὑπὸ Κυλλήνης ὄρος αἰπύ,
> 7 \ ΄ὔ ἐφ Lat / > /

Αἰπύτιον παρὰ τύμβον, tv’ ἀνέρες ἀγχιμαχηταί,

“Ὁ / , > >» / \ 4 , /
οἱ Φένεόν τ᾽ ἐνέμοντο καὶ ᾿Ορχόμενον πολύμηλον,
“Ῥέπην τε Στρατίην τε καὶ ἠνεμόεσσαν ᾿Ενίσπην,
καὶ Τεγέην εἶχον καὶ Μαντινέην ἐρατεινήν,

s / ᾽ 3 2. / > /

Στύμφηλόν τ᾽ εἶχον καὶ Ilappaciny ἐνέμοντο.

Who was this Aepytus, whose grave was so famous as to be a well-known
landmark when the J/iad was composed, and what was the nature of this
tomb? Answers are ready for each question. I shall take them in reverse
order. Pausanias*! saw this very monument in the second century A.D. ‘The
grave of Aepytus I looked at with special interest, because Homer in his
verses referring to the Arcadians made mention of the tomb of Aepytus : it
is a mound of earth of no great size enclosed by a circular kerbing of
stone.’ *

I have already spoken of the well-known circular stone enclosure on the
Acropolis of Mycenae, which Schliemann took for the Agora; but which
Tsountas has well explained as a ring of stonework to keep the earthen mound
over the graves together. This Arcadian grave seems to confirm Tsountas, as
here we have a grave similarly constructed. If this grave seen by Pausanias
was really the tomb of the Aepyti, we may now be certain that such graves
are non-Achaean in origin, though Achaean conquerors may have buried their
dead in them, just as Romans buried in British barrows and Saxons buried in
Roman cemeteries. Who was this Aepytus, whose grave was probably the
object of periodical sacrifices like that of the hero Leucippus at Daulis? [1
that were so there would be an unbroken tradition of the occupants of the
tomb down to the time of Pausanias.** Aepytus was the son of Elatus, who

28 Curtius i. 173. κρηπῖδι ἐν κύκλῳ περιεχόμενον.

39 Thucyd. i. 2. 33 Sir W. Gell saw a tumulus surrounded by
8 71. 11, 603 seqq. a loose stone wall, which he identified as that
81 viii. 16, 3. of Aepytus, but the locality does not agree with

32 Td. ἔστι μὲν οὖν γῆς χῶμα οὐ μέγα λίθυν that given by Pausanias.
H.S.—VOL XVI. H

88 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

was the son of Arcas, who was the son of Callisto, who was the daughter of
Lycaon, who was the son of Pelasgus, who was the son of Zeus.

If it be objected that as Callisto was turned into a bear, she must there-
fore have been simply a totem, and that consequently Lycaon and Pelasgus
are mere later additions, the answer is that in that case such famous persons
as Pandion, the father of Procne and Philomela, and Nisus the father of
Scylla must be expelled from two of the best known of Greek legends.
The fact is that there are abundant cases of metamorphism into birds and
beasts in early Greece beside cases which may be taken as totems. Did Ciree
make totems of the companions of Odysseus ?

There can be no question as to the genuine Pelasgian origin of the tomb
of Aepytus mentioned by Homer. Aepytus is fourth in descent from Lyeaon.
The sons of Lycaon play a part of primary importance in the mythical
period. For this reason I think it better to quote Niebuhr’s summary of the
evidence relating to them and its value than to give a statement in my
own words :—

‘Pherecydes (Dionysius i. 13) states that Oenotrus was one of the
twenty sons of Lycaon son of Pelasgus, and that the Oenotrians were named
after him, as the Peucetians on the Ionian Gulf were after his brother
Peucetus. They migrated from Arcadia (Dionys. i. 11) seventeen generations
before the Trojan war, with a multitude of Arcadians and other Greeks; who
were pressed for room at home. And this, says Pausanias (Arcad. ¢. 111.}, 18
the earliest colony, whether of Greeks or barbarians, whereof a recollection
has been preserved. Other genealogers have stated the number of the
Lycaonids differently. The names found in Pausanias amount to six and
twenty and some have dropped out of the text. Apollodorus (11. 8, 1)
reckons them at fifty, of which number his list falls short by one. Very few
in the two lists are the same ; Pausanias has no Peucetus, Apollodorus neither
him nor Oenotrus, but the strangest thing is that though their names mark
them all out as founders of races or of cities, still the latter mythologer
makes them all perish in Deucalion’s flood. It is clear that he or the author
he followed must have already mixed up a legend about certain impious sons
of Lycaon, who perhaps were nameless, with the tradition which enumerated
the towns of Arcadia and such as were of kindred origin under the names of
their pretended founders. Legends of this sort will not be looked upon by
any as historical, but in the light of national pedigrees like the Mosaical,
such genealogies are deserving of attention inasmuch as they present views
concerning the affinity of nations which certainly were not inventions of the
genealogers, themselves early writers after the scale of our literature, but
were taken by them from poems of the same class with the Theogony or
from ancient treatises or from prevalent opinions. But if we find them
mentioning the Pelasgian nation, they do at all events belong to an age

% Another version made Arcas son of Zeus on the resemblance between ’Apxds and ἄρκτος,
by Themisto. If the Arcadiansconsidered them- though the words were in origin not related.
selves ‘ Bears,’ descended from Arcas (Bear), it Thus the seal (φώκη) became the blazon of
may well be that this was only a mere late pun = Phocaea, and the apple (μῆλον) that of Melos.

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN } 99

when that name and people had nothing of the mystery which they bore in
the eyes of the later Greeks, for instance of Strabo; and even though the
Arcadians have been transformed into Hellenes, still a very distinct recollec-
tion might be retained of their affinity with the Thesprotians whose land
contained the oracle of Dodona; as well as of that between these Epirotes
and other races which is implied in the common descent of Maenalus, and
the other Arcadians, and of Thesprotus, and Oenotrus from Pelasgus. Nor
does this genealogy stand alone in calling the Oenotrians Pelasgians ; evidence
to the same effect, perfectly unexceptionable and as strictly historical as the
case will admit of, is furnished by the fact that the serfs of the Italian
Greeks, who must undoubtedly have been Oenotrians, were called Pelasgians’
(Steph. Byz. v. Χῖος). This passage of Niebuhr anticipates several points
with which I have to deal later on.

Niebuhr’s estimate of the genealogies seems to me to be just, and we
may without rashness believe that Arcadia and Argolis were the seats of an
ancient race which played a foremost part in the early history of Greece.
The kings of Tegea exercised great influence in Argolis. It is significant, as
Curtius points out, to find. Nauplius the founder of Nauplia, the port of
Argolis being the servitor of the king of Tegea. When we come to deal
with the Minyans we shall find Ancaeus king of Tegea one of the number in
the memorable voyage of the Argo. Even still in Homer the Arcadians
supply a quota of ships in excess of what we might have expected. All
these considerations are of importance in showing that they had long been
given to sea craft, a fact of significance when we come to deal with the
character of the ornamentation on Mycenean pottery. I am fully aware that
certain modern writers discredit the Hesiodic account of the Arcadian origin
of the Pelasgi. If we follow this line of doctrine, we simply declare that all
early tradition is worthless. The Hesiodic genealogy is presumably a work
of at least as early as the 7th century B.c. If it is argued that a genealogy
compiled by one who presumably was a Boeotian is of no value, the answer
is that unless Hesiod embodied some very ancient tradition of the pedigree
of the sons of Pelasgus and Lycaon he certainly would not have made them
so prominent in the ancestry of Hellas. For why should a Boeotian so
glorify the Arcadians? It is certainly a case where the critics must be
prepared to show motive. I feel certain that if the tradition was Arcadian
or Peloponnesian instead of being derived from a Boeotian source, the critics
would have at once cried out that it was a palpable invention of the Areca-
dians for purposes of self-glorification.

But it is useless to attack the Arcadian origin of the story without at
the same time,demolishing that embodied by Aeschylus, which connects
Argolis with Pelasgians. It cannot be said that Aeschylus is slavishly
following the Hesiodic story, for he says nothing about Arcadia. The
modern sceptic will accordingly argue ex silentio and say that the Hesiodic
version is false for Aeschylus knows nothing of it. My reply is that
Aeschylus in his Suppliants and Danaides was not writing a handbook of
historical geography, nor a monograph on the Pelasgians. Argos and its

H 2

100 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

history is the central point of his drama, and he accordingly alludes incident-
ally to its ancient inhabitants, the Pelasgi. There is nothing contradictory
in the statements of Hesiod and Aeschylus; nor yet again are their state-
ments disproved by the fact that there were Pelasgians in Thessaly and at
Dodona in early days, nor by the fact that Herodotus does not say anything
about Pelasgi in the Peloponnesus. Aeschylus, his elder contemporary, did
know of Pelasgians in that region, and lis knowledge of the history of
Greece proper may be taken as at least as good as that of Herodotus the
Asiatic. Again, because Herodotus knew of Pelasgians in his own time who
dwelt on the Hellespont and at Creston, who spoke a language which was
not Greek, this is no argument against the existence of this people at an
earlier date all over Greece. It might as well be argued that because we
find in parts of Great Britain, such as Wales and the Highlands of Scotland,
and parts of Ireland people known as Celts and who speak a language which
is certainly not English, no such people ever extended over all Great Britain
and all Ireland, in the regions where English has been for centuries the only
language. The Pelasgian language may have been as closely allied to Greek
as Lycian and Phrygian, or as old Celtic or Umbrian and Oscan were to
Latin, and yet Herodotus would call it a non-Greek tongue. Herodotus and
Thucydides held that the Pelasgians had merged into the Hellenic body, a
view attested by like occurrences in other countries, such as England, France,
Spain, where the Welsh, Britons, and Basques, who have survived in the
least inviting and most inaccessible parts of the countries, are living witnesses
to the statements of history that they once occupied the whole land.

The cycle of the legends of Heracles and his wanderings—starting from
Peloponnesus northwards slaying Centaurs in Thessaly, passing into Thrace
and up to the Danube’s sources into Northern Italy, on his cattle-lifting
expedition into Spain—shows that the Greeks had a tradition not only of
great early movements caused by the pressing down of fresh tribes from the
north, but also of one still older in which the advance was from south to
north.

As Heracles belongs to the prae-Achaean stock, being great-grandson of
Perseus, the son of Danae, daughter of Acrisius, whose pedigree we already
know, once more we get the tradition of an older stratum of occupants of
the Peloponnesus, who were there before the Achaean conquest and who
were called Pelasgians, substantiated by the legend of Heracles, the most
prominent of Greek myths and which can in no wise be said to be invented
to bolster up a Pelasgic theory started by Hesiod.

Let us now leave Peloponnesus for the present, but before doing so I
must point out that if the objection is raised that no Mycenean remains have
been found at the city of Argos or in the district of Triphylia, where
Pelasgians and Minyans dwelt, and therefore the connection between the
Pelasgians and Mycenean objects breaks down, the argument is equally fatal
to the Achaeans who occupied both these regions.

I might urge with more force that as there have been as yet no
Mycenean objects found in the region called Achaia in historic times

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 101

in Peloponnesus, where the Achaeans maintained themselves after the
Dorian conquest, therefore there can be no doubt of the non-Achaean nature
of the Mycenean civilization. But the argument drawn from negative
evidence is unreliable in such cases especially: for the next turn of a
peasant’s spade may shatter the argument to atoms. Moreover it does not
follow that the same race always remains in the same stage of art, and the
Achaeans after the Dorian conquest may have been, and most likely were,
in a very different condition from those of earlier times.

II. Attica.—We have now come to the most interesting district of all
Hellas. It has revealed on the Acropolis remains of Cyclopean walls of a
Mycenean palace, and at Menidi, Spata, and Thoricus tombs of the Mycenean
period. As regards the history of Attica we are well informed by the writers
of the fifth century B.c. Both Herodotus and Thucydides are clear on the
origin of the Attic race. It is best to let the historians speak for themselves
on this most important point.

First let us hear Herodotus: ‘His (Croesus’) inquiries pointed out to
him two states as pre-eminent above the rest. These were the Lacede-
monians and the Athenians, the former of Doric, the latter of Ionic blood.
Indeed these two nations had held from very early times the most distin-
guished place in Greece, the one being a Pelasgic, the other a Hellenic
people; the one never quitted its original seats, while the other had been
excessively migratory ; for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the
country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus the son of Hellen
they moved to the part at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is
called Histiaeotis ; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they
settled under the name of Macedni in the chain of Pindus. Hence they
once more moved and came to Dryopis; from Dryopis having entered the
Peloponnesus in this way they became known as Dorians. What the
language of the Pelasgi was I cannot say with any certainty. If however
we may form a conjecture from the tongue spoken by the Pelasgi of the
present day,—those, for instance, who live at Creston above the Tyrrhenians
who formerly dwelt in the district named Thessaliotis, and were neighbours
of the people now called Dorians,—or those again who founded Placia and
Scylace upon the Hellespont, who had previously dwelt for some time with
the Athenians,—or those, in short, of any other of the cities which have
dropped the name, but are in fact Pelasgian; if I say we are to form a con-
jecture from any of these, we must pronounce that the Pelasgi spoke ἃ bar-
barous language. If this were really so, and the entire Pelasgic race spoke
the same tongue, the Athenians, who were certainly Pelasgic, must have
changed their language at the same time that they passed into the Hellenic
body ; for it is a certain fact that the people of Creston speak a language
unlike any of their neighbours, and the same is true of the Placians, while
the language spoken by these two peoples is the same; which shows that
they both retained the idioms which they brought with them into the
countries where they are now settled,

102 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

The Hellenic race has never since its first origin changed its spcech.
This at least seems evident tome. It was a branch of the Pelasgic which
separated from the main body, and at first was scanty and of little power, but
it gradually spread and increased to a multitude of nations chiefly by the
voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes of barbarians. The
Pelasgi on the other hand were, I think, a barbaric race which never greatly
multiplied.’ 38

There can be little doubt as regards the Pelasgic origin of the
Athenians. Herodotus had resided at Athens and thus had the means of
knowing the native traditions. As to whether the Pelasgian language
belonged to a different linguistic stock from that of the Greek, it, is im-
possible to determine. Niebuhr and Thirlwall think that Herodotus would
have described as barbarous languages such as Illyrian and Thracian which
are really cognates of Greek: Grote on the other hand maintains that
Herodotus would not employ the term barbarous for any dialect of Greek.
Thucydides is very explicit respecting the autochthonous character of the
Attic population. After referring to the early state of Hellas, and mentioning
the Pelasgians as important, he says: ‘ Attica at any rate having through
the poverty of the soil been for the longest period free from factions was
always inhabited by the same people.’ *

Unless then we are prepared to maintain that both Herodotus and
Thucydides are utterly untrustworthy, we must believe that the population
of Attica had never shifted, and that its historical continuity was unbroken
by either Achaean or Dorian occupation. Their statements get a singular
confirmation from the tomb at Menidi, in the dromos of which was found a
complete series of pottery fragments from Mycenean down to Attic black and
red vases. Once more we find Homer in no wise contradicting, but rather
confirming the views set forth by the later writers. In the great host of
Achaeans that went to Troy the Athenians find little place or mention save in
that one famous passage which tradition says was altered by Solon as a
basis for a claim to Salamis.37 Had Attica been in the hands of the Achaeans
we must have heard much more of the Athenians in the Jliad. Not only
then are we led to conclude that the Mycenean remains found in Attica
are not of Achaean origin, but the evidence constrains us to call them
Pelasgian.

The statements of Herodotus and Thucydides are substantiated by
the legends of the Hellenes and of the Athenians. Hesiod gave the genea-
logy of the sons of Hellen in the form usually known, making Aeolus,
Xuthus, and Dorus the three sons.

Respecting Xuthus our information is confined almost entirely to the

35 Herod. i, 56-58 (Rawlinson’s Trans. ). Iliad.’ Leaf says their leader Menestheus ‘does
agit Fis not afterwards appear as ἃ distinguished
37 Dr. Leaf thinks B 553-556, ejected by general. A 326-348 Agamemnon speaks of him
Zenodotus, ‘an addition to soothe the vanity of in unflattering terms. He is mentioned again
the Athenians, which was doubtless much hurt only M 331, 373 N 196, 690 O 331 where the
by the small part played by their nation in the _fightingis left to the heroes of the second rank,’

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN 4 103

story of Creusa and Ion, an especially Attic legend. Achaeus is represented
as a sou of Xuthus. Euripides deviates very naturally from the Hesiodic
genealogy in respect to the eponymous persons. In the Jun he describes Ion
as the son of Creusa, daughter of Erechtheus, by Apollo, but adopted by
Xuthus. According to him the real sons of Xuthus, an Achaean by race,
the son of Aeolus, the son of Zeus, are Achaeus and Dorus.*% But in his
Melanippe and Aeolus he mentions Hellen as father of Aeolus and son of
Zeus.

This tradition, which is quite unattached to any form of the Pelasgian
story, amply proves that there was an old race in Attica, before even Xuthus
the valiant warrior was invited in to aid the Athenians against their enemies,
and once more we find the Achaean captain marrying the daughter of the
ancient prae-Achaean royal house.*” But, more than this, Athenian tradition
actually described as Pelasgian (or Pelargian) an ancient wall, probably that
of which the remains have been found in modern times.. Thus Herodotus
relates that on the Lacedaemonians under Cleomenes attacking Athens the
tyrants withdrew into the Pelasgic wall, that is, the Acropolis.*°

To have the name Pelasgian associated with their prae-historic remains
is indeed remarkable, and as these remains are identical in character with
those found at Mycenae and Tiryns, in both of which we found that Greek
tradition connected with the Pelasgic race the Cyclopean walls, we thus have
a consensus of tradition in the case of all these places. The Pelasgians who
are mentioned as having come to Attica from Samothrace, and who afterwards
were expelled by the Athenians and went to Lemnos where they settled,”
were most probably, as Niebuhr has well pointed out, a Pelasgic tribe who,
driven from their old home, took refuge with their kinsmen in Attica, just as
the Britons, when pressed hard by the Saxons, settled among their kindred in
Armorica, from whom they had been separated for many centuries, and from
whom they probably differed widely in speech. These Pelasgian new-comers
soon became troublesome, and the Athenians expelled them.*? The old
Pelasgic walls of the Acropolis could easily be connected with them as the
builders, as, according to Herodotus, the Athenians were merging into the
Hellenic body at the time of these Pelasgians coming from Samothrace.
They may be the same tribe as that which in the time of Thucydides under the
name of Tyrrhenian Pelasgi dwelt near Mt. Athos. Such a confusion is natural
and easily paralleled. There can be little doubt that the dark dolichocephalic
people of the south and west of Ireland are of the same stock as the Iberians
of Spain. From their appearance resembling that of the Spaniards, it is
commonly believed in Ireland that they are of Spanish blood, but as the
ordinary person knows nothing of ethnology, but is aware that at the time of
the Spanish Armada Spanish ships and their crews were cast upon the Irish
coast, it is popularly believed that these dark people are descended from
the Spanish sailors, who as a matter of fact were killed immediately on

88 Eur. Jon. 1590. 41 Herod. ii. 50.
89 Cf. ibid. 64. 42 Jb. vi. 136.
40 ν 64,

104 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

landing by the natives, and had no opportunity of perpetuating their race on
Irish soil. This brief examination of the early history of Athens points
clearly to the non-Achaean origin of the remains of Mycenean character
found in Attica. It is not the object of this paper to write an exhaustive
monograph on the Pelasgians, dealing with their origin and racial affinities.
I am at present only concerned with them as the possible authors of certain
objects, and I am no more obliged to discuss the question ethnologically than
to go into all the questions of ethnology concerning the Celtic race in
an essay dealing simply with the remains left by the ancient Britons.
But as the Pelasgians of Lemnos were called Tyrrhenian, I must make a few
remarks on the discovery of the now famous inscriptions found in that island in
1886, which are held by Pauli to be in a dialect of Etruscan, and from which
he and Bugge simultaneously arrived at the conclusion that the Etruscans
were Pelasgians. Granting that the inscriptions are Pelasgic, and not merely
a tombstone set up by some Etruscan settler in Lemnos, a not unlikely
explanation, we are very far from being in a condition to identify directly
these Pelasgians who were settled at Athens and were afterwards expelled, and
then settled at Lemnos, with the ancient Pelasgi of Greece proper. These
are the Pelasgi whom Thucydides, who is one of our chief authorities for the
ancient power of the Pelasgic stock, calls Tyrrheno-Pelasgians, and whom
Herodotus probably means when he speaks of the Pelasgians who occupied
the city of Creston above the Tyrrhenians.* Thucydides evidently marks a
difference by describing them as Z'yrrhenian, and not simply as Pelasgians.*
We shall presently give good ancient evidence for Pelasgians in Etruria and
Latium, as we have already had it for South Italy. There is no difficulty in
supposing that certain Pelasgians long settled in Etruria, living side by side
with Etruscans, may have emigrated from some internal or external cause
and settled in various spots round the Northern Aegean, such as Samothrace
and Creston and Mt. Athos, later on some of them went to Athens and later
to Lemnos. Even if they spoke a language like the Etruscans, it is no
evidence that the ancient Pelasgians spoke such a language. For the
Tyrrhenian Pelasgians would probably have learned the language of their
Etruscan neighbours and conquerors in Etruria, just as the Pelasgi of Greece
proper gradually adopted the Hellenic speech, and as the Irish Celts have
adopted English. But I will go further and grant for the sake of argument
that the Pelasgi of Greece proper and Italy spoke a language akin to the
Etruscans. It in no wise affects my position whether the Etruscans spoke a
non-Aryan or an Aryan tongue. For the Pelasgians could learn the Hellenic
language just as the Aquitani, the kinsmen of the modern Basques, who
speak a non-Aryan tongue, could merge into a body of French-speaking
population. If, as some still think, Etruscan was an Aryan speech, the
merging of Pelasgians into Hellenism is all the more easy. But this supposed
Etruscan connection after all rests on no solid basis, for Kirchhoff (Studien,
pp. 54 sqg. 4th ed.) has demonstrated that the alphabet of the Lemnian

Da: 44 iv. 109.

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 105

inscriptions is Phrygian. If the inscriptions then belonged to the Pelasgians,
it follows that they had a Phrygian connection and were certainly Aryan.
The Greeks considered Phrygians and Thracians to be barbarians; so that
because Herodotus thought the language of Scylace and Placia barbarous,
it does not prove that it was not closely cognate to Greek.

III. and IV. Boxrotia and THESSALY.—We now come to Boeotia and
Thessaly, which can be treated together with greater convenience.

We shall first deal with Orchomenos known to Homer as the Minyan
and as ‘rich in gold,’ in contrast to the Arcadian Orchomenos called ‘rich in
sheep.’

Our object is (1) to identify the Minyans of Orchomenos with the
Minyans of Thessaly, (2) to prove both to be Pélasgians. Orchomenos
derived its name from Orchomenos, son of Minyas, who was the son of
Eteocles, who was the son of Andreus. The latter was said to have been the
first occupant of this part of Boeotia, having come thither from Thessaly.
He was one of the indigenous race of that region, for he was the son of the
river Peneus.

The Minyan genealogy is thus connected with the coast of Thessaly
between Iolcos and Peneus, the very district with which is indissolubly
linked the history of the Minyae who appear as the first navigators from any
part of Greece to the Euxine Sea. E. Curtius says: ‘The race which in
consequence of this life-bringing contact with the nations beyond the sea
first issues forth with a history of its own from the dark background of the
Pelasgian people is that of the Minyi.’ *

The Minyae likewise appear in Peloponnesus. They dwelt in Triphylia,
where they settled after driving out the Epeians, the original possessors, from
a portion of their country. The Eleans in later days occupy another portion
of this country. These Minyae we shall prove to be Pelasgians from Iolcus,
That there was a close connection between the Minyae of Orchomenos and
the Minyae of Iolcus is strengthened by the statements of Strabo that the
Minyae of Iolcus were a colony from Orchomenos. Though this reverses the
other story that the Minyans of Orchomenos came from Thessaly, it main-
tains the relationship between them. We have seen that the Minyae of
TIolcus dwelt in the Pelasgic Argos, and were therefore probably a Pelasgian
tribe. If we can prove them to be such, the proof will likewise hold good
for the Minyae of Orchomenos. I have already mentioned Minyae who
occupied six towns in Triphylia in the Peloponnesus, living beside the older
tribe of the Epeians, and the later settled Eleans. According to Pausanias,‘®
Neleus, the father of Nestor, conquered Pylus, having come with the
Pelasgians from Iolcus! These can be no other than the Minyae of Iolcus,
who probably under the pressure of Achaean advance had to leave their old
homes in Pelasgic Argos. The fact that Nestor’s mother was Chloris, a
Minyan from Orchomenos in Boeotia, helps to confirm the identification of
the Minyae of Orchomenos with those of Iolcus at the same time.

vol. i; 87. 46 Paus. iv. 36, 1.

106 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

We have now proved (1) the connection of the Minyans of Orchomenos
in Boeotia (a) with the inhabitants of the Pelasgic Argos in Thessaly, (>) with
the Minyans of Iolcus on the Pagasaean Gulf, the very district of the ancient
Pelasgic Argos in which stands the tomb of Volo; (2) that these Minyans
of Iolcus are Pelasgians, being so termed by Pausanias when he describes the
settlement, of Neleus at Pylus, where later on we find the Minyae with the
Epeians and Eleans forming the three tribes which gave its name to Triphylia.

The Argo and her voyage are well known to the Homeric poet. She
alone of all ships had escaped from Scylla and Charybdis.“ Evenus,
the son of Jason, whom Hypsipyle bore to him when the Argonauts
touched at Lemnos, is reigning in that island at the time of the siege of
Troy and is a wealthy trader, trafficking with the Phoenicians, with the
Achaeans, whom he supplied with wine, and with the Trojans.

From other sources we hear that the Argonauts went up the Black Sea
to its Eastern end in their search for the Golden Fleece, which Strabo has
well explained as arising from the practice in that region of collecting gold
dust by placing fleeces across the beds of mountain torrents, to catch the
particles of gold brought down by the stream.

The Argonauts mounted even the Caucasus, aud ἜΞΩ the groans of
Prometheus π΄ in his adamantine bondage by the gnawings of the
vulture. That early voyages were made in με τις times to that region
gets a curious piece of confirmation from the fact that the only gem of lapis
lazuli (of known provenance) as yet found in Mycenean graves is that discovered
in the beehive tomb at Volo in Thessaly. If such gems had been found in
Crete, Mycenae, or Vaphio, we could say that they came from Egypt, but the
fact of their absence in Southern Hellas, and the presence of one in Thessaly,
points rather to direct trade with the only region which furnished the
stone. For Persia supplied it all, until in modern times South America and
Siberia have also furnished it.

Pelasgian Argos is mentioned by Homer and Strabo, as we have already
seen ; the latter tells us that it was the territory extending from the mouths
of the river Peneus to Thermopylae (in the Malian Gulf). This region was
also known as Pelasgiotis.® It of course comprised within it the Pagasaean
gulf, and Iolcus, so associated with the sailing of the Argo, and Mount Pelion,
Jason’s home, with timber from which the Argo was built.

On the Peneus lay the city of Larissa, the old Pelasgic capital, which
still retains its name and pre-eminence. In Homer * the Pelasgi had been but
recently driven out from it, among the allies of the Trojans are ‘the tribes of
the Pelasgians who used to dwell in Larissa and those who dwelt in Pelasgic
Argos.’ The Minyae may then be regarded as one of the Pelasgic tribes.
They are certainly not Achaean, for the pedigree of Jason shows no connec-
tion with Hellen and his sons. Down to the time of Perseus the Pelasgians
are still in possession of this region, for he and his mother went there, when
it was still known as Pelasgiotis.

47 Od. xii. 69, 70, 438 Apollod, ii, 4, 4. S971 Ale 2857:

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 107

It is important to notice that Hera is the goddess who takes special care
of Jason and his Argonauts, and according to Callimachus (Cer. 26) Pelas-
gians planted in Dorian territory near Lake Boebis in Thessaly a grove in
honour of Demeter, a fact which links this region with the Pelasgian
Demeter of Argos, and with Phigaleia in Arcadia.

We have seen that Andreus, the founder of the Orchomenos dynasty,
came from the Peneus, so the Pelasgic origin of the Minyans of Orchomenos
might be assumed from that circumstance alone. But there are other points.
The name Minyan itself links them with the Minyans of Ioleus, the name
Orchomenos with the Pelasgians of Orchomenos in Arcadia, who in turn are
closely connected with the Minyae of Thessaly. For Ancaeus, king of Tegea,
is one of the crew of the Argo. Again Orchomenos in Boeotia was a member
of that ancient amphictyony which met for the worship of Poseidon in the
island of Calaureia, of which Nauplia was also a member as well as Athens.
Finally Orchomenos was the seat of a most ancient cultus of the Charites.

Now Herodotus * believed that Hera, Themis, and the Charites were
purely Pelasgian deities. The existence then of an immemorial fane of the
Charites at Orchomenos stamps the Minyans as Pelasgian.

V. TROAD and AEoLIp.—The Dorians had never any settlement in the
north-western corner of Asia Minor: Byzantium on the European side was
their nearest settlement. The Achaeans do not appear to have made any
settlements in the Troad, for the towns in this region such as Scepsis and
Dardania in historical times are ante-Achaean in their coin types. Their
local heroes are Hector and Aeneas, not Achilles or Agamemnon. On the
other hand there are many traces of close connection between this region
and the Pelasgi of Greece proper. Dardanus himself one of the chief
heroes of the Troad according to tradition came from Arcadia. Virgil makes
him come from Samothrace the Pelasgian island. Hence Niebuhr con-
jectured that the Teucrians and Dardanians, Troy and Hector are perhaps
to be regarded as Pelasgian. On the Hellespont two Pelasgian towns were
still extant in the days of Herodotus, Placia and Scylace.*! Cyzicus was
theirs until the Milesians made themselves masters of it ;°* and the Macrians,
a race of their stock, dwelt on the other side of the same island on the coast
facing the Bosphorus.

The legends also indicate constant intercourse between Peloponnesus
and this part of Asia. When Ancaeus the king of Tegea, infuriated with
his daughter Auge because of her liaison with Heracles, gave her to
Nauplius, the latter took her to Mysia and sold her to king Teuthras, and
there she became the mother of Telephus.

According to Pausanias (vii. 4, 6) a body of Arcadians crossed with
Telephus into Asia.

Eurypylus the son of Telephus was an ally of the Trojans, and his
territory in the vicinity of Thebe, Lyrnessus and Pedasus was ravaged by

WEG > | Pl is 57, 82 Schol. ad Apoll. Rh, i. 987. Cf. ib, 948,
Ρ

108 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

the Achaeans.®®> This shows that there was Pelasgic blood in the Troad. On
the other hand Pelops came to Peloponnesus from Phrygia. The Mycenean
remains found at Titane may well be the outcome of the Pelasgic population
which dwelt there and all around.

The island of Lesbos, which has ever been so closely connected with the
Aeolid, was actually called Pelasgic, as we saw above. It was captured by
the Achaeans during the siege of Troy, and seven of the Lesbian women
who fell to the share of Agamemnon formed part of the gifts offered by
him to Achilles.

VI. THErA—This island was colonized by the Minyans of Orchomenos
according to the well-known story told by Herodotus.** It was colonized
later by Dorians, but as we have on other grounds found it impossible to
regard the Dorians as the creators of Mycenean remains, it follows that
the pottery of that kind found in Thera must be ascribed to the older
Minyan settlers. But as we have already shown that the Minyae were
Pelasgians, it follows that the Theraean pottery of the Mycenean type is the
work of Pelasgians.

VII. Cyprus.—That there was a close connection between the main
body of Greek settlers in Cyprus and the Pelasgians of Arcadia is evidenced
most clearly by the fact that the Cypriote and Arcadian dialects are so
closely connected as to be treated together in works on Greek Dialects and
Inscriptions. At Curium the excavations of Mr. H. B. Walters have
revealed Mycenean remains of various kinds. Strabo (683) says that ‘Curium
was founded by Argives.’ This is of great importance for it indicates that
the Mycenean culture entered Cyprus not from the east but from the
mainland of Hellas and from the great ancient seat of the Pelasgi. The
fact that a scarab of Dynasty XX VI. was found with the Mycenean remains
(for the knowledge of which I am indebted to Mr. Walters’ kindness) shows
how in certain places the Mycenean culture continued without a break into
classical times, but it in no wise proves that it began in late times.>4*

VIII. Eaypr.—tI have already mentioned the legend of Danaus and
Aegyptus, descended from JIo’s Zeus-begotten son Epaphus, who was
destined to settle at the mouth of the Nile according to the prophecy of
Prometheus. This prophecy put by Aeschylus in the mouth of Prometheus
no doubt embodies an ancient tradition of emigrants from Argolis settling in
the Delta.

I have already proved the Pelasgian nationality of Io, and her de-

scendants who returned to Argos.

IX. RuoprEs.—The same story of Danaus also connects Rhodes with
very early Pelasgic occupation. For Danaus is said to have settled for a

53 Od. xviii. 518. Cf. Strabo xiii. 1. inscriptions found at Curium prove the dialect
δά iv. 146 seqq. not Doric but common Cypriote Aeolic,
54a These Argives were not Dorians, for

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 109

while in Rhodes on his way from Egypt to Argos, and the very archaic statue
of Athene at Lindus was said to have been set up by him. The three towns
-of Ialysus, Cameirus, and Lindus are mentioned in Homer, where their settle-
ment is ascribed to a son of Heracles who led a number of his mother’s
people (not Dorians) from the river Selleis to Rhodes.

X. Crete.—I have already given the lines of Homer which enumerate
the races that inhabited Crete, amongst whom are the divine Pelasgi.
According to one reading they occupied Cnossus. But the Mycenean remains
there can be much more certainly connected with Pelasgic workmanship.
Daedalus according to Homer made ‘a dancing place for Ariadne at Cnossus’ ;
according to the later legends he built the Labyrinth for her father Minos,
who had got the famous artificer to come from Athens. We have proved
the Athenians to be Pelasgians, and accordingly the patron saint of Greek
plastic art is a Pelasgian. Once more a Mycenean palace is shown to be
ascribed in Greek legend to a Pelasgic builder.

Before leaving the area of Greece proper and the Aegean Sea, it
is right that I should point out the localities which ancient statements
declare to have been once occupied by Pelasgian tribes, but in which no
objects of the Mycenean type have as yet been recognized. Epirus has not
yet yielded any such, nor have Lesbos, Chios, Imbros, Samothrace, Lemnos,
Scyrus, Sciathus. On the other hand Mycenean remains have been found
in Paros, Amorgos, Ios, Therasia, Naxos, Melos, in none of which can I
definitely prove as yet Pelasgic settlements, but their Ionic populations in
several cases, and the fact of contiguous islands having been occupied by
Pelasgians make it probable that in all cases this people had been the early
inhabitants.

XI. Iraty.—I have spoken of the remains of Mycenean character
being found in Etruria, Latium, and in the region occupied by the
Iapyges. That the Pelasgians occupied some part of Etruria and Latium
is assured by the best Roman authorities. Thus Servius (ad Verg. ii. 83)
asserts that the Pelasgi formerly lived in Etruria and Latium. Strabo (219)
tells us that Caere, originally called Agylla, was a Pelasgian town, captured
by Etruscans. The Greek affinity of Caere is proved by the story of the
pollution arising from the massacre of Phoceans (Herod. i. 167).

In the Pelasgic origin of the Oenotrians we have already given the
statement of Pherecydes quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. For the
presence of the Pelasgi in South Italy I have also quoted the evidence of
Stephanus Byzantius, who asserts that the serfs of the Greeks were called
Pelasgi.

The historical evidence is thus complementary of the actual remains of
bronze work in Etruria, Cyclopean buildings in Latium (Signia), and pottery
in Japygia.

At the same time I must point out that there were Achaean colonies
in Southern Italy, and that there are various legends of Achaean heroes

110 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

coming to Italy after the return from Troy, Diomede, Philoctetes, ana
others.

Mycenean pottery has been found in Sicily. The proximity of the
island to Southern Italy and the fact that we hear of the peoples who
occupied the mainland of Italy regularly also occupying the other
side of the Straits makes it probable that the Pelasgi of South
Italy had settlements on the Sicilian side of the channel likewise. It is
remarkable that it is in relation to the voyage of the Argo and her Minyan
crew that we first hear of the Strait and Scylla and Charybdis in that
passage of the Odyssey already quoted. That a knowledge of this region
is ascribed to the Pelasgians of Greece proper in Homeric times is indeed
significant.

Let us now sum up our results. We have found historical or legendary
evidence for Pelasgic occupation of all the chief parts in Greece proper, and
the islands, and Egypt and Italy, where Mycenean objects have been found.
In certain places of great importance, such as Attica and Orchomenos, we
find these remains where the ancient historians declare there were no
Achaean settlements. Arcadia, which was always a pure Pelasgic country,
has already yielded minor Mycenean evidence, and the ancient evidence from
Homer and Pausanias shows us the tomb of ancient kings closely resembling
that found on the Acropolis of Mycenae. At Mycenae itself the accounts
with every temptation to refer everything to the Achaean period declare the
walls and Lion gate to be built by those who built Tiryns for Proetus whilst
the Cyclopean remains of Attica are directly ascribed to the Pelasgians ;
and the Mycenean building at Cnossus in Crete is connected with Daedalus
the Pelasgian from Athens. In Thessaly the beehive tomb of Volo is
situated in the very region known as the land of the Pelasgians. The
evidence for the Troad was against Achaean occupation and in favour of
Pelasgian. Thera, Rhodes, and Egypt have Pelasgian, but no Achaean
traditions. Cyprus had an early settlement from Salamis, led by Teucer, but
the language links the main part of the Greek population with the purely
Pelasgian Arcadia, and Strabo ascribes the founding of Curium, where
Mycenean remains have been found, to settlers from Argos who were
not Dorians but prae-Dorians. There are Achaeans in Crete as well as
Pelasgians, but, as already pointed out, very early buildings at Cnossus
are connected with Daedalus the Athenian.

As far as I can judge, the balance of ancient tradition is largely on the
side of a Pelasgian origin for the Mycenean civilization, and against an
Achaean.

Our second condition is a people who used a pictographie script in the
Peloponnesus, Attica, and Crete, closely connected with the Cypriote syllabary,
and the characters found on the so-called Hittite seals and monuments of
Asia Minor.

Homer in one famous and oft-quoted passage refers to some form of
writing. It is in the story of the Temptation of Bellerophon.

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 111

Stheneboea, wife of king Proetus, having failed to beguile Bellerophon,
falsely accused him (as Potiphar’s wife did Joseph) to her husband.

Proetus shrunk from the pollution of killing him and sent him with a
letter to his father-in-law the king of Lycia.®®

Proetus, as we have already seen, was the Pelasgian king of Tiryns. He
writes a letter in Argolis which can be read in Lycia by his father-in-law.
This king Proetus is a Pelasgian and is dwelling in Argolis at Tiryns before
the Achaean conquest of that country. Homer is thus our witness for the
existence of a kind of writing in Peloponnesus before the Achaean conquest.
That theojpara λυγρά were most probably some form of pictograph, as supposed
by Dr. Leaf and Mr. A. J. Evans, is highly probable. It has been held that

(1) σήματα λυγρά do not refer to any kind of writing, but are identical with
σῆμα of 1. 176, and mean letter of introduction, the plural being used for the
singular under the exigency of the metre. I maintain that the plural
σήματα can only be used = a document, because the document is conceived
as made up of a number of individual symbols, just as the Lat. litterae = an
epistle, because it is composed of many individual /itéerae (letters of the
alphabet). I shall take the case of γρώμμα (in reference to writing, not
painting). γρώμμα = (1) a scratch or letter of the alphabet ; (2) the plural
γράμματα =a document, as being made up of γράμματα (letters of the alphabet,
just as Lat. litterae = epistle); (3) ypaupa used as a collective noun = a
document. Now, when we meet τὰ γράμματα, clearly meaning a single
document, in Herodotus or other prose writers, we do not consider it the
plural of τὸ γράμμα = documents, the plural being used for singular under
the exigency of metre, but as the plural of τὸ γράμμα = letter of the
alphabet.

σῆμα in Homer means (1) any kind of mark; (2) σήματα (plural) =
a document; (3) σῆμα (1. 176) used as a collective noun = a document. Of
what is σήματα (1. 168) the plural? Unquestionably of σῆμα = a single
mark. If σήματα, then, = a document, it does so exactly in the same way
as Ta γράμματα and litterac have that meaning. But this presupposes the
existence of a number of separate symbols; which, in the case of σήματα
Avypa, must be either pictographic or alphabetic.

Exigency of metre can hardly be called into service in the case of
σήματα λυγρά. The poet would not have had any difficulty in finding an
adjective which would have fitted the end of the hexameter and enabled
him to use σῆμα in the singuiar.

To quote δώματα and μέγαρα as cases of the use of plural for singular
is useless. δώματα can be used = a house, on the very same principle on
which γράμματα = a document. A house is an aggregate of chambers, the
original house being but a single chamber. The same principle is seen in
οἰκία, the well-known use of οἶκοι and δόμοι in tragedy, and in Lat. aedes=a
dwelling-house, the singular being always kept for the house of a god
(originally a single room). What we want are examples of other nouns,

55 Jl, vi. 168-70.

112 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

such as Bods, ἵππος, βασιλεύς, the plurals of which can be used to denote a
single individual of the class. Metrically this would have often been
convenient ; but does it ever occur? It cannot be said that in the case of
neuters such a use of plural for singular is permitted, for οἶκοι and aedes
evince the contrary. :

(2) If σήματα of Jl. vi. 168 mean some kind of writing, as has been
neld by the scholars, these σήματα represent either pictographs or alphabetic
symbols. I maintain that the use of σῆμα, whenever it is found in connec-
tion with writing—as in the cases of the oldest inscribed Greek coin, the seal
of Thyrsis, the shields of the heroes in Acschylus, where it always refers to
pictorial representation as contrasted with γράμματα = alphabetic symbols—
makes it probable that the σήματα λυγρά were pictographic rather than
alphabetic.

To argue that γράψας implies that the writing was alphabetic, not
pictographic, involves a familiar fallacy. ρώμμα is unknown to Homer.
The fact that it is employed to denote the Phoenician alphabet shows that
σῆμα was already connected with a different system. The new term
γράμματα was used for the new kind of characters. The legend which
ascribes to Palamedes the son of Nauplius the invention of writing is after
all probably right. For it is now proved that there was in Greece a system
of writing before the introduction of the Phoenician alphabet. Just as
Proetus who wrote a letter to Lycia is a Pelasgian of Argolis, so Palamedes
the inventor of an ancient system of writing is also a Pelasgian from Nauplia
in Argolis. Thus these pictographs have been found in Attica where there
were never Achaeans, and writing is imputed to Proetus at Tiryns before any
Achaeans had come there. These facts taken together are in favour of such
writing being Pelasgian, but as it is found on Mycenean objects therefore the
Mycenean civilization is Pelasgian.

(3) What is the relation between the Mycenean civilization and that
depicted in Homer ? j

That there is a close resemblance between the stage of culture repre-
sented in the Homeric poems and that revealed in the tombs of Mycenae
and the palace of Tiryns, no one can doubt. But nevertheless there are
several points of difference which have troubled those who hold that the
Mycenean civilization is purely Achaean. For instance the different methods
of burial and the use of iron freely in the one and almost unknown in
the other.

BurtaL.—In Homer the dead are always cremated. On the other hand
the people of the Mycenean age buried the body intact, possibly employing
some kind of embalming. It has been sought to minimize this difficulty by
pointing out that the Athenians continued to practice burial and not crema-
tion down to the 6th cent. B.c., as proved by the evidence derived from the
the Dipylon cemetery.*° But,as I have shown repeatedly, the Athenians are

οὐ Schuchhardt, op. cit. p. 296.

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN? 113

not Achaeans, but Pelasgians. The cvidence, therefore, of the Dipylon
cemetery goes to show that the Pelasgians did not practise cremation until
quite late, when they had already merged into the Hellenic body. The infer-
ence from this is that the Myceneans were Pelasgians, and not Achaeans.

Iron.—No iron has been found in the graves on the Acropolis of
Mycenae, and in the lower city no objects of this material except two finger
rings have been found.”

In Homer on the other hand though we hear much of bronze (χαλκός)
nevertheless we meet with the Iron Age fully developed. Chalkos is mentioned
much more frequently than iron, but this is just one of those cases where the
statistical method has misled Homeric scholars. Chalkos is the older word
for the metal of which weapons were made, and it thus lingered in many
phrases ; to smite with the chalkos was equivalent to our phrase ‘ to smite with
the steel.’>8

Chalkeion and chalkeus continued to be the terms employed for blacksmith
and forge through all classical Greek Literature, when beyond all doubt the
chief metal worked by the chalkeus was iron. But a few passages from
Homeric poems will put the matter beyond question. Axes both double and
single were made of iron. Those given as prizes for archery by Achilles are
of this metal.®® It was insuch common use as to be employed for the fittings
of the plough.” For Achilles declares that the winner of the mass of natural
iron (κόλος αὐτοχόωνος) will be well supplied for the wants of his ploughman
and shepherd, nor will they want to go to a town to procure iron. Arrow-
heads (A 123), maces (H 141), and knives (Σ 34) were of iron. Finally
the weapons that hung on the walls of the megaron of Odysseus’ house were
of iron. They are to be removed because, ‘iron of itself doth attract
a man,’ °

If it is said that the Achaean poet writing at a later age introduces the
practice of his own time into the life of the earlier Achaeans, we must
remember that the Greek settlements in Asia and Italy, which are certainly
unknown to the Homeric poet or poets, cannot be brought down much lower
than 1000 B.c. If, on the other hand, we suppose that the Achaeans represent
the van of those peoples who spread in various directions from Central
Europe, bringing with them in every case iron, the question is easily disposed
of. Their success in overmastering the older race may well have been
due to superiority of weapons.

The fact that only two rings of iron have been found at Mycenae shows
that iron was still very scarce, and probably used for finger rings because of
its magical properties. Magnetic iron early attracted the notice of the
Greeks, and the fact that the mere beating of a piece of iron rendered it
magnetic always made this metal an object of superstition. The line of the

57 Schuchhardt, op. cit. 226. 60 Jb, xxiii. 826.
58 οὗ Schol. Ven. B in Ji. xix. 283, p. 525. 61 Od. xvi. 291.
59 71. xxiii. 850.

H.S.—NOL. XVI. I

| 114 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

Odyssey just quoted, wherein iron is said to attract a man of itself, probably
refers to this very property :—

αὐτὸς yap ἐφέλκεται ἄνδρα σίδηρος.

Of course we hear much in Homer of bronze armour (χάλκεια τεύχεα),
but bronze continues to to be used for defensive armour long after iron has
replaced it for cutting weapons. Though the modern fireman uses a steel axe,
he wears a brass helmet, and the French dragoon a brass cuirass. The Philis-
tines of the Old Testament are in the same stage as the Homeric Achaeans.
Goliath wears a helmet, and breastplate of brass, but carries a spear of iron.

FrsuLaE.—In Homer the garments are regularly fastened on with
brooches (περόναι). The Acropolis graves of Mycenae on the other hand
furnish no brooches. This is a marked contrast, and it cannot be got over
by the fact that three fibulae have been found in the later graves of the
lower city. I have before called attention to the fact that the beehive tomb
near the Heraeum shows evidence of having been used for burial down to
classical times. It is thus perfectly natural to find such sporadic appear-
ances of brooches in graves of the Mycenean period, they may have been of
even the same period as the Mycenean remains buried along with the women
of another race, who continued wearing their national brooch. The absence of
brooches marks an earlier stage in dress, when the garments were probably
‘tied on. Thus in the older pile dwellings of Switzerland and in the bronze
age of Ireland brooches with pins are unknown.

Signet Gems.—Pliny ® remarked on the complete absence of any
mention of signets in Homer. This is a very remarkable fact, for there are
many passages where we should naturally expect to find mention of signets
such as the fastening and unfastening of doors of the treasure chambers; and
in the passage relating the sending of the letter Proetus scratched the
characters on a tablet, but we are not told that he sealed it, though some
have hastily assumed that this must have been the case. The men of the
Mycenean tombs used engraved gems very freely, either as amulets or signets
or as both combined. We hear of jewellery ‘and all kinds of ornaments in
Homer, but of no kind of stone or other substance used for setting, except
amber, a substance too brittle for engraving on, but which can be bored for
beads with the greatest ease by primitive men, such as the lake dwellers of
Switzerland and the Po valley, and the Angles and Saxons, who could not
work hard stones. The Mycenean people could use green jasper, cornelian,
serpentine, sardonyx, lapis lazuli for their engraved gems. If the Homeric
poet knew of such it is strange that he does not mention them anywhere.
If he was a late writer putting the habits of his own age into an earlier
time, the only way of getting over the difficulty about iron, we should find
him doubtless alluding to such a use of engraved stones or signets, for it is

8 Schuchhardt, 122, 351. SS HUN. xxii,

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 115

certain that the: practice of using seals was one that grew more and more as
we get to classical times, and that at no time in the Hellenic period did it
tend to fall into desuetude. [ is certainly interesting to find the art of gem
engraving especially flourishing in regions where the Pelasgic race was
dominant. Theodorus and Mnesarchus of Samos are the two names of
engravers which reach us from the sixth century B.c. Cyprus has supplied
many gems of fine Greek art of the best period, and the engravers of Magna
Graecia were the most eminent in Hellas. A series of Etruscan scarabs
engraved in Greek style is well known. Are these the work of the same
race which had its settlements in Etruria from a remote period ?

Any one who takes a sober view of the matter will find it hard to
reconcile the existence of the large and important series of gems, whether
they were used as amulets suspended to necklaces, as some of those found at
Vaphio, or used as signets, with the complete absence of any allusion to such
objects in the Homeric poems.

SHIELDS.—The shields portrayed on Mycenean works of art are of one
type, and that a type not found in classical Greece. It is bipartite, consisting
of two circular discs touching one another, something like a figure 8. Dr.
Reichel has sought to identify this with the shield of the Homeric poems.
The Aspis of the poems is regularly described as πάντοσ᾽ ἐΐση, ‘equal in
every direction,’ κυκλοτερής, εὔκυκλος, ‘circular, ὀμφαλόεσσα, ‘having a
boss.’ Reichel thinks that κυκλοτερής means the Mycenean shield formed
of two circles placed side by side. Even supposing that κυκλοτερής could
have this meaning, which in any case is rather forced, how can πάντοσ᾽ ἐΐση
and εὔκυκλος mean any other than a circular shield? Moreover, a simile
referring to the shield of Achilles loses its appropriateness unless the shield
was round :—

nr ἣν, , / 4 ἘΝ /
τοῦ δὲ σέλας γένετ᾽ ἤυτε μήνης.

In the other passage, where μήνη is used similarly in a comparison,
regard is had to the shape as well as the colour of the objects compared. It
is a mark on ἃ horse’s forehead :—

mis Ψ 4 4
λευκὸν ofp’ ἐτέτυκτο περίτροχον HUTE μήνη.

It is, therefore, more likely that the poet had a circular shield in his mind
rather than one of the peculiar Mycenean shape. Homer does not tell us the
shape of the shield of Ajax, the son of Telamon; he only says it is like a
tower, which may refer simply to its strength. It was the work of Tychius
of Arne in Boeotia. Chalcus, the son of Athamas of Orchomenos, was the
inventor of a shield, and Tychius kept up the tradition for such a manu-
facture. Now the traditional shield of Ajax placed on the coins of Salamis
at a late period is a Boeotian shield, so familiar on Boeotian coins, and which
Mr. A. J. Evans thinks is derived from the Mycenean type. If this be so, it is

6&4 Homerische Waffen, p. 19. 66 77, iv. 142.
12

116 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

remarkable to find such a connection existing between the shield invented by
the Minyans of Orchomenos and the Mycenean, Of course, to make the
argument really cogent, we ought to be able to show what was the shape of
the shield invented by Chaleus. The people of Salamis may very well have
made the shicld of Ajax as seen on the coins of Boeotia, because of Homer's
statement that it was made by a Boeotian.

On the other hand, the Locrians represent the shield of Ajax on their
coins as the usual round Greek shicld. If we could rely upon this as
a true tradition, it would show that the Achaean shield was round. But I
do not think that any one who was not carried away by a desire to fit on the
Homeric descriptions exactly to every detail of the objects found at Mycenae
would have even thought of regarding the Homeric shield as other than
circular. If I am right in maintaining the views of the older scholars, there
is then an important difference in the shield of the Homeric Achaeans and the
Mycenean. It is just one of those differences in arms which we find existing
among people not far different from each other in other respects. Though
we have no statement in Homer respecting the shields used by the Pelasgians,
we are told the nature of their offensive weapons. The epithet ἐγχεσίμωρος
(whatever may be the etymology of its last part) means fighting with
spears, as contrasted with ἐόμωρος, ‘fighting with arrows. The same epithet
(ἐγχεσίμωρος) is applied to the Arcadians by Nestor, when he recounts one
of the great exploits of his early days, probably when the conquest of Pylus
was still hardly complete.

It would be a difficulty to the Pelasgian origin of the Mycenean art if
we found a serious discrepancy between the arms of the warriors seen on
Mycenean pottery and those ascribed to the Pelasgians in Homer. But this
difficulty does not exist. On the contrary the Mycenean warriors seen
marching in procession on the well-known fragments from the Acropolis of
Mycenae (Schliemann, J/ycenae, p. 133) are armed with long spears.

GREAVES.—The Achaeans of Homer wear greaves of bronze. They are
called χαλκοκνήμιδες as well as ἐυκνήμιδες. No greaves have been found
αὖ Mycenae.

THORAX.—The Achaeans of Homer wear the breastplate (θώρη ξ), but
no breastplate has been found in Mycenean graves. Reichel has to regard
the lines which make the Achaeans wear greaves and breastplate as later
interpolations. Where he thinks θώρη ἕ is found in older stratum, he takes it
to mean armour collectively not shield—an assumption that cannot -be
justified by the arguments. Reichel cuts out as later additions the lines which
contain the epithet χαλκοκνήμιδες and maintains that the Achaeans merely
wore woollen gaiters to protect their shins from the knocks of the shield.
If the Homeric warrior had neither bronze breastplate nor bronze greaves, it
it is hard to understand how his armour rattled when he fell—

ὃ / δὲ / , / \ Y , ᾽ ᾽ ᾽ a
οὕὔπησεν ὃδὲ πεσών, ἀράβησε δὲ τεύχε ἐπ᾿ αὐτῳ.

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN ? 117

Hair.—The fashion of wearing the hair is one of the chief distinctions
between races and tribes in modern times, and it was just as important in
early Greece. The Achaeans of the Homeric poems prided themselves on
their long hair, calling themselves κάρη κομόωντες, as distinguished from
other peoples such as the Abantes of Euboea, who had their hair only long
behind (ὄπιθεν κομόωντες), and from the Thracians who wore their hair ina
high tuft on the top of the head (ἀκμόκομοι). “1 The wearing of the hair in such
tufts was regarded by the Achaeans with contempt. Thus Diomede when
wounded by Paris alludes contemptuously to his coil of hair like a horn—

τοξότα, λωβητὴρ κέρᾳ ἄγλαε παρθενοπῖπα.

Virgil (xii. 100) alludes to this as a Phrygian custom. There is certainly no
reference to any such fashion on the part of any Achaean hero in Homer.
Furthermore, when the opportunity for such reference occurs, we find the
hair represented as streaming from down the head entirely unrestrained, as in
the case of Odysseus. :

The Mycenean warriors on the vase-fragments already quoted wear their
hair in a kind of chignon or roll, and on another vessel, ornamented with
men’s heads, three curls hang down behind. This is not the practice of the
Achaeans, and to call such figures Achaean is erroneous. Such a fashion of
wearing the hair was known in one part of Greece in the historical period.
Thucydides tells that down nearly to his own time the nobles at Athens
continued on account of their effeminacy to wear linen tunics and to wear
their hair long and tied up in a knot (κρωβύλος) fastened with a clasp of
golden grasshoppers.® This krobulos seems to be the same as the knot of the
Mycenean warrior. If the Athenians were originally Achaeans, when did
they begin the effeminate practice which they abandon in the fifth century ?
On the other hand if they are Pelasgians, as stated by Herodotus and
Thucydides, the fashion of wearing the hair in a bunch had survived among the
Athenian Pelasgi when it had already perished in the parts of Greece which
had come under Achaean and Dorian influence. This fashion being non-
Achaean and Pelasgian, we are led to conclude that the warriors on the
Mycenean vase are not Achaeans, but Pelasgians.

PorrEry.—Homer gives us a picture of the potter at work in one of the
scenes on the shield. If the Achaeans were the makers of the fine lustrous
Mycenean ware with its decorations of marine plants and animals, and its
rows of marching warriors, we might expect some reference to this art of
painting on pottery, just as we have to the staining of ivory. But even in
the latter case, the art of painting is ascribed to the Carians, and is not
spoken of as an Achaean art.

Finally it is remarkable that only 11 out of 122 illustrations given by

δ᾽ 27, χ1 536. 68 Od. vi. 336.
67 Tb. iv. 534. Cf. ὑψιχαίτης, used by Pindar ® Thue, 1. 6;
(P. iv. 306) of the sons of Boreas.

118 WHAT PEOPLE PRODUCED

Helbig in his Homerische Epos are taken from Mycenean objects. If the
Homeric culture is that of the Mycenean age, we ought to find a much
greater proportion.

A survey will give us the following results :—

(1) That there was in Greece an ancient people of great importance
called Pelasgi.

(2) That a class of remains are spread over a wide area, not only in
Hellas proper, but in Asia Minor, Egypt, Rhodes, Thera, Crete, Italy, and
Sicily. In all those regions we have been able to show Greek tradition for
the occupation of the spot by Pelasgians. In Attica, Arcadia, Orchomenos,
Thera and Egypt we either had distinct statements by the historians that
there never was any Achaean occupation (as in Attica and Arcadia) or
complete silence as to any such.

(3) In the region of Argolis, especially connected with the Achaeans, we
had distinct evidence that the great cities of Mycenae and Tiryns, with its
port of Nauplia, were occupied by the race called Pelasgians, and that the
Achaeans had only occupied them at a short period before the time
represented in Homer.

(4) That there is complete evidence from the ancients to show that the
walls and gateway of Mycenae and the buildings of Tiryns, were built by the
Pelasgians.

(5) That from Homer it is probable that the Palace of Menelaus at
Sparta (one of the three cities so dear to the Pelasgian Hera) was the
residence of the older kings of the Pelasgic race.

(6) That the sumptuous palace of Alcinoos, the city of the Phaeacians
built with ‘dragged stones,’ and the highest skill in ships are ascribed by
Homer to a non-Achaean people, who had been driven from their ancient
home, which was probably in Italy, because they had been harassed by the
Cyclopes.

(7) That the prae-historic walls at Athens were called Pelasgic by the
Athenians.

(8) That the prae-historic building at Cnossus in Crete is connected with
Daedalus, the Athenian, and therefore Pelasgian, craftsman.

(9) That the art of writing when mentioned by Homer is connected
with Proetus, the Pelasgic king of Tiryns.

(10) That this writing could be understood in Lycia at a time when as
yet there was not a single Greek colony on the seaboard of Asia Minor.

(11) That symbols have been: found on gems from Crete, Pelopounesus,
and on vessels from Peloponnesus and Attica resembling those found in Asia
Minor and called Hittite.

THE OBJECTS CALLED MYCENEAN? 119

(12) That the legends show contact between the mainland of Greece and
the east in three quarters: (1) Egypt (lo and Danaus), (2) Lycia (Cyclopes
and Bellerophon), (3) north-west end of Asia Minor (Argonauts, Telephus
and Pelops), the Egyptian being the oldest, the north-west Asiatic the latest
in order. The legends show no contact between Peloponnesus and Phoe-
nicia, such as we find in Homer in the Achaean age.

(13) That there are serious discrepancies between the civilization of the
Homeric poems and that of the Mycenean age.

If we then adopt the view that the Pelasgic race was the creator of the
Mycenean art, and that it yielded before the superior valour and probably
weapons of a race not far removed in kinship from themselves, but who were
inferior in numbers and civilization to the conquered, we shall be simply
carrying out the view held by Thucydides. The conquerors were proud of
their connection with the older race; into those families they had married,
just as Ataulphus, the Visigoth, married the sister of Honorius, and spake of
the divine Pelasgians, just as the Franks and Visigoths were proud to call
themselves Romans and Caesars.

If this view is correct, we ought to find in the Aeolic dialects of Arcadia
and Cyprus the closest approximation to the language spoken by this ancient
race.

This view has the advantage of getting complete harmony between the
archaeological remains, the Homeric poems and the traditions of the Greek
historians ; even the latest portions of Homer know nothing of Greek colonies on
the coast of Asia Minor, Italy, or Africa, the use of coined ‘money, signets,
the Phoenician alphabet, or the free buying and selling of land. No restora-
tion of an antique vase can be satisfactory which calls for the rejection or
breaking in smaller pieces of refractory fragments. We have seen the straits
to which the maintainers of the Achaean theory have been reduced, having
to deny the existence of the Pelasgians in Peloponnesus, and at the same
time to mutilate the Homeric poems, and even then to ignore the vital
difference between the Bronze and Iron ages. On the other hand, those
who maintain that the Dorians (notorious in classical times for their
want of art) are the authors of the Mycenean remains must not only
deny the Dorian invasion, a fact attested by Pindar, Thucydides, Ephorus, and
the consensus of Greek tradition, but they must also sweep away all his-
torical value from the Homeric poems, which, though they know of Dorians
elsewhere, do not mention them as being in Peloponnesus, but, on the con-
trary, tell us that the Achaeans are in possession of Argolis and Laconia.
But if the Homeric poems represent an age and culture which never existed

except in poetic fancy, then all discussion is at an end.
WILLIAM RIDGEWAY.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY DURING THE
LAST EIGHT YEARS.*

EIGHT years ago, I had the honour of speaking at the Philologists’
Convention at Ziirich on the methods aims and materials of archaeological
research in Italy.1. A summary of work, both prospective and retrospective
was then not inappropriate, for we stood at a point of transition. With the
altered constitution of the Archiiologisches Institut, the death of Henzen and
the retirement of Helbig one epoch had come to an end, and we had reason
to suppose that the new period would present many features of difference.

Until the unification of Italy there could be no question of a thorough
scientific and consistent investigation of the country. Even the Istituto di
Corrispondenza archeologia, the only scientific body whose activity was not
confined within the bounds of a single state, found itself so hampered by want of
means and the hindrances arising from the bad condition of communications,
that allit could do was to contribute a meagre report of discoveries made in the
limited area including Rome itself, Southern Etruria, where excavations were
undertaken by the Papal government and private persons, and Pompeii,
where under the Naples government work was slowly proceeding. In other
districts excavation either fell entirely into neglect or took the form of secret
and irresponsible plunder. As to the remains still above ground, they were
published and edited (with the exception of those in Rome and Sicily)
unsystematically and in the most heterogeneous form. What we now call
the Statistic of monuments was then unknown.

As a natural consequence of this state of affairs, the principal task
of the Archiologisches Institut, after the preparation of those incomplete
but, in many of their details, admirable reports to which I have referred, was
the publication and discussion of single works of art attainable in public or
private collections or in the market. Such were the conditions under which
archaeology existed in Italy till well on in the seventies.

them in an accessible form. Permission to re-
print the article from the Newe Heidelberger Jahr-
biicher, in which it appeared, was kindly and

* A lecture delivered at the Philologists’
Convention, Cologne, Sept. 27, 1895. [It has
been customary to insert in this Jowrnal every

year a brief account of recent archaeological dis-
covery in Greece. Professor von Duhn’s paper
here printed gives a similar but still slighter
summary of recent discovery in Italy. It
appeared to the Editors of this Jowrnal that it
would be useful to English scholars to be able
to read the paper in English, and to keep it by

readily granted by the author and the Direction
of the Jahrbiicher. The translation is by Miss
K. Raleigh, and has heen revised by the author.
—Epp.]

1 Verhandl. der Philologenvers. in Ziirich
1887, 191-209 = Nuova Antologia 1887 (iii,
xii), 451-478.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 121

The unification of the country and the development of the railway
system inaugurated an important era for our science. The appearance of new
geographical and physical surveys suggested the idea that the soil would tell
its own history. For the first time since the Roman period Italy was one
state, and those Italians whose inclinations led them to historical study were
eager to gain more insight into their country’s past. and ready to express
their sentiment of common nationality by common effort directed to common
aims. During the seventies work began at many different points and was
attended with greater or less success, Rome being made the principal centre.
The first publication whose promoters, fully realizing the importance of such
a step, undertook to make it an organ of archaeological research all over the
country was the Bullettino di paletnologia italiana. This admirably con-
ducted periodical founded by Chierici and Strobel in Parma, and by Pigorini
in Rome, appeared for the first time in 1875. It was and still is limited to
the primitive period of the country, a department of research untouched
before 1875, but now, thanks to systematically arranged museums, becoming
every day clearer before our eyes. On the other hand the reports of the
Notizie degli Scavi published by the Accademia dei Lincei have since 1876
embraced the whole field of classical antiquity. The numbers, at first meagre,
soon became fuller and more elaborate, and about the middle of the eighties
volumes began to appear containing comprehensive treatises on special fields
of discovery, more especially necropoleis, and illustrated by numerous and
excellent plates. A certain want of proportion, however, was felt between
these treatises and the scanty official reports sent out simultaneously. In 1885
the last number of the Monwmenti inediti appeared and in 1887 the Annali
for the year 1885 were published for the last time by the German Institute.
The transference of the Monumenti to Berlin, the fusion of the Annali and
Archiologische Zeitung into the Jahrbuch des archdologischen Instituts, also
removed to Berlin, left a blank in Italy which was severely felt. As there
were difficulties in the way of giving a homogeneous form to the Notizie, the
Accademia dei Lincei resolved to create a new organ, whose function should
be the scientific publication of art monuments and the comprebensive treat-
ment of separate discoveries or whole groups of excavations. Thus the
Monumenti anticht was founded, and appeared in small folio form,
accompanied from time to time by a large atlas. Since the actual
beginning in 1891, five volumes have been published, each filled with
valuable matter. Vol vi will soon come out, and vii and viii are in active
preparation.

The Academy is fortunate in having at command the services of Helbig,
a specialist unusually skilled in editorial work. Thus the high degree of
perfection, both in contents and form, to which the Monumenti have been
brought not only does honour to Italy but is to a certain extent due to the
earlier and multifarious activity of the German Institute.

The Monumenti being thus fairly established, the Notizie degli Scavi
were in 1889 reduced for the time being to their original scale, plates and
detailed reports being discontinued. The Monwmenti antichi alone, however,

122 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

failed to overtake the work of producing classifying and discussing even the
more important part of the abundant material which flowed in from year to
year, while the small and easily portable numbers of the Notizie soon proved
to be infinitely better adapted for the spread of information about current
events of archaeological interest and for the presentation of uniform and
regular reports obtained through the local inspectors of excavations than the
volumes of the Monumenti which, owing to their size and costliness, could
never have a wide circulation. Accordingly it was found possible, under the
able editorial supervision of Barnabei (who has held the post since 1876) to
reinvest the Notizie with an independent scientific value greater than that
of the early numbers and increasing from year to year, and to facilitate
reference by the very desirable addition of extra zinc plates.

Thus the Notizie degli Scavi, the Monumenti antichi pubdl. dell’ Accad.
dei Lincei and the Bullettino di paletnologia ttaliana have become-the most
important of those periodicals which bring before the public the results of
archaeological research in Italy. In the second rank are numerous local
periodicals and pamphlets, such as the Rémische Mittheilungen and other pub-
lications of the German Institute, the Mélanges d Archéologie and separate
publications of the French School in Rome, and to these we hope to add
contributions from the American Institute to be opened this autumn. In
Italy the state was and is the pioneer in archaeological investigation. Here
and there, more by chance than system, the work is shared by communities,
private persons or, more rarely, by provinces.

It is remarkable how quickly centralization by the state has in our
department of science superseded that provincial spirit which still makes
itself so distinctly felt in political and administrative affairs. No doubt can
be entertained as to the convenience and advantage of the new system. The
amount that has been done by a judicious distribution of small means is
simply astonishing. Persons duly qualified and eligible for official appoint-
ment are not to be found in great numbers, and yet any one who has had
the good fortune to be present at works of excavation or investigation or
even who is in the habit of reading the reports carefully must realize that
almost everywhere the right man is in the right place. It is, I believe, due
mainly to the wise restraint of the government that affairs show this novel
and increasingly fortunate aspect. Instead of making spasmodic and arbi-
trary attempts, here a little and there a little, the government, while
reserving intact certain great leading principles of action, forms its decisions
on the advice, valuable because founded on real knowledge of the matter, of
archaeologists and inspectors of excavations throughout the country. These
men know their ground accurately and therefore can give a reliable opinion
as to the possibility of any projected piece of work.

When the system of state control was first put into shape it was
thought necessary to appoint an archaeological specialist as General Director
of Antiquities. On the retirement of Fiorelli the office remained in abey-
ance for some years, during which time departmental arrangements of
decentralizing tendency continued in force. A new scheme is now being

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 123

formed and promises.well. It was felt that impartial judgment and willing
subordination are difficult to ensure when proposals made by specialists of
equal scientific standing are submitted to another specialist for final decision.
A state official was therefore appointed to the newly reconstituted post of
General Director. Both departments—divisioni—one for museums, galleries
and excavations, the other for monuments, are in charge of this official, and
it is his duty to define the province of each as occasion arises and to prevent
friction. The departments, consisting of specialists, are further strengthened
for the present by the museum directors. It was intended that the staff
should be increased for purposes of consultation from the Giunta per la storia
e lVarcheologia, an assemblage of representatives from the most important
academies of the country, but this newly created society has as yet shown
little sign of life. This effective central control, established in the manner
described, forms an integral part of the Ministry of Instruction. The
external organization is placed in the hands of local inspectors all over the
country, whose offices are mostly honorary. These inspectors have to keep
watch over the interests of archaeology in the widest sense of the word.
Their reports on all new discoveries and results of excavation go direct to
Rome for publication in the Wotizie. Reports on the preservation of archi-
tectural monuments are sent to the ‘ Uffici regionali per i monumenti,’ and
the directors of the government museums in various districts receive in-
formation referring to works of art or objects of interest in public or private
collections. These museum directors have at the same time the oversight of
excavations in their own districts so long as no exceptional discovery makes
it necessary to send for a specialist. It stands to reason that the personal
supervision exercised by the directors during the work of excavation ensures
scientific and rational system in the arrangement of museums.

Such is in brief the organization of practical archaeology in Italy.
The scheme, though not uniformly developed in all parts, is on the whole
in good working order, and while furthering the centralization so necessary
to unanimity of aim and uniformity of method in the collection and arrange-
ment of material, does not fail to give due weight to the characteristics of
different districts and due scope for the exercise of individual talent.

Some of my hearers may think I have described in too great detail the
organization of archaeology in Italy. Yet I venture to say that: the details
have their own importance if we would gain a clear idea not only of the
nature and distribution of the work, but of an admirable system of arrange-
ment which might well serve as a model to other countries.

And now let us turn to the work itself. Our knowledge of the country
is still in many respects incomplete and inexact. This is not surprising
when we remember the political disunion of the earlier epoch, the difficulty
. of communication and prevailing insecurity, the scarcity of qualified workers,
and the too frequent narrowness of their views and aims.

The German Institute may claim the merit of having shown by a brilliant
example, the Corpus inscriptionwm latinarum, chiefly due to the labours of
Mommsen, what is meant by a systematic scrutiny of a whole country and

124 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

how, at least in one field of investivation, a consistent image is thereby
evolved. On criticism the Corpus had a particularly good educative effect.
The necessity of going first to the existing facts—in this instance the in-
scribed stones themselves, and of consulting less authentic sources, such as
ancient copies or local records, only in case the original stones are missing
or incomplete, and then with the greatest caution—this necessity is now
universally admitted, but before the appearance of the Corpus inscriptionwm
regnt Neapolitani it was by no means taken for granted. One practical outcome
of the recognition of this principle has been the resolve of the Italian govern-
ment to prepare an archaeological map of the whole country, an undertaking
neither so difficult nor so impracticable as it might appear.” Our Institute
has just finished a map of Attica, undoubtedly the most important region of
the Greek world, having successfully accomplished the preliminary task of
projecting the map, as there was none in existence which could be used for
the purpose. In fact the map is an important achievement in itself even
without the archaeological features. Now for Italy there is the admirable
general ordnance map nearly complete, to be used as a basis, so that nothing
is left to do but enlarge the scale and insert the existing antiquities. This
is of course a work of time and trouble, but well worth doing, for it will
provide a groundwork for genuine knowledge of the country both in ancient
and modern times. The two essential aims of such a map—to determine
the locality of ancient settlements and to fix the course of the roads—are
closely bound up together, for the direction and meeting-points of the roads
lead to the discovery of settlements, and these in their turn help to indicate
the lines of communication. In this kind of research the spade must test
the correctness of hypctheses, provide foothold for fresh departures, define
the extent of early settlements and approximately fix the amount of their
population. Valuable material towards the solution of this difficult problem,
so important for a correct appreciation of antiquity, may be obtained by
examining the necropoleis contiguous to the settlements, and such an
examination will at the same time produce different and higher results, for
an accurate knowledge of graves, their contents and ritual, is absolutely
indispensable if we would gain a clear scientific idea of the history, artistic
development, culture, trade relations and ethnological position of any
primitive group of dwellings.

The distinguished men who have the work in hand will endeavour to
satisfy all these requirements in each portion of the archaeological map.
The task of preparing proof-sheets lies chiefly in the hands of Count Cozza,
Pasqui and Gamurrini, and is quietly proceeding under the guidance of
Barnabei. Proofs from South Etruria and the Faliscan country are ready but
not yet published. That the preliminary studies for this portion of the map
have been conscientiously pursued and have opened up issues more numerous
and important than could have been anticipated in a region so near Rome
is evident from the collections in the Museo dell’ agro Romano (Villa Papa

* U. v. W.-M., Litt. Centralblatt 1895, 134.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 125

Giulio), so well arranged by Barnabci and consisting for the most part of
objects found in the localities worked up for the map. The fourth volume
of the Monumenti antichi, with its portfolio of admirable illustrations, bearing
the title Antichita del Territorio Falisco, is another standing proof of the same
thing. The volume illustrates the early period of that small but remarkable
country whose Italic nationality, supported and fostered by those neighbour-
ing tribes in Latium and Sabina which had either kept or regained their
freedom, flourished intact even under Etruscan dominion at a time when
among the remaining indigenous population of Etruria that same Italic
nationality had been lost or impaired as a consequence of the foreign
invasion.

It has for some time been accepted as a general law that in the
mountainous parts of Central and Southern Italy orderly settlements of
the true Italic race following upon the stratum of scattered primitive popu-
lation begin in the mountains and may be traced downwards to the valleys.
An elevated site offered security against man and beast and immunity from
the dangers of fever or flood peculiar to the lowlands, which in those early
times were probably well watered. The counterbalancing inconvenience and
loss of time could hardly be accounted drawbacks at a period when trade
and traffic were still so undeveloped. Hence the lonely heights of Southern
Italy are in many places still girt by ancient rings of stone,? which must
have been abandoned as soon as civilization began to grow in the seaboard
districts. The hill-fortresses of Central Italy, especially in Etruria and
Umbria, held their own longer, some of the modern cities being direct
descendants of the early settlements. This tenacity of site may in some
instances have been an outcome of political conditions, but it was more
frequently a natural consequence of the fact that the valleys were irre-
claimable. What could be less enviable than the sites of the towns of the
Volsci between the Sacco valley and the Pontine Marshes? When any
portion of land was reclaimed, migration to the valley, or at least to a lower
spur of the mountain, naturally took place. Many a town in Etruria reveals
its original site only by the presence of an ancient burial-ground on the hill
above the later settlement, and the curious circumstance that the oldest
graves are frequently the highest and the more recent ones lower down can
in some places only be explained by the assumption of an older colony
situated on the very summit of the hill.

Nowhere has a more complete historical picture been obtained than in
the Faliscan region so carefully investigated and explained by Barnabei and
his colleagues. Most of the country is embraced in the river-system of the
Treia and its tributaries, which, making their way through long deep pre-

3 O. Richter, in Baumeister’s Denkmdler d. quities with the advisability, or rather the
class. Alterth. 1694 ff. The chronology and necessity, of extensive Necropolis excavations,
history of these old fortresses in Central, and but his efforts produced little result: v. his
especially-in Southern Italy is for the most part admirable letter on this subject to Pigorini ;
obscure. ‘I'wenty years ago Gamurrini tried to Bull. di paletnol. ital. xxi (1895), 86-88.
impress those who exercised control of anti-

126 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

cipitous gorges, bear down to the Tiber the water from the volcanic summits
of the Silva Ciminia and from the craters and crater lakes lying more to the
south. The oldest settlements—at the same time the smallest—are here all
found above the head of the valley, for the most part on isolated peaks
towering over the ancient crater edge which now forms a watershed between
the lakes and the river-system. It is possible that these unrecorded colonies
of a pre-Etruscan Italic shepherd tribe remained for a long time undis-
turbed. Enlargements and offshoot settlements may be traced, distinguish-
able from the older nuclei by their newer form and the better construction
of their fortress rings. The cremation graves corresponding to these dwel-
lings cover a period of many generations and show an advance in the manu-
facture ornamentation and colouring of the clay vessels they contain (most
of them have the so-called ‘ Villanova’ form), while the sepulchral vases
which gradually begin to appear testify to the introduction of new forms.
Nothing in these hill-dwellings on Monte Sant’ Angelo, Monte Lucchetti,
Rocca Romana, and Monte Calvi warrants us in supposing that they con-
tinued down to more recent times; not a single important object can be
traced to Greece or Phoenicia. By the eighth century B.c. at latest regular
colonization on these spots must have ceased. Among later remains are
some scattered settlements in the form of open courtyards with sepulture
tombs containing objects of seventh or sixth century date. A few traces of
Roman civilization suffice to show that even in agricultural times the
population made attempts to regain foothold on the hills.

What became of the dwellers on these heights after the eighth cen-
tury B.c.? To answer this question we must make our way to two cities
lying farther down the valley. The first, Narce, is only just discovered ;
Falerii, the second, the modern Civita Castellana, is situated above the
Tiber valley and was capital of the district till the Roman conquest early in
the third century B.c. About the time when their southern neighbours were
beginning to come down from the heights of Alba and Sabina and to take
up their abode on the famous hills of the Tiber, the Falisci of the Treia
valley may have gradually broken with their old conditions of life and ex-
changed their mountain fastnesses one by one for dwellings on the lower ranges.
Political conditions perhaps helped to bring about this change of habitat.
On a previous occasion I tried to show that about the eighth century B.C.
Etruscans began to push southwards.t It was then that the Italic races

4 Bonner Studien 28, 35= Bull. di Paletnol.
ital. xvi (1890), 118, 129. This paper was an
attempt to obtain in the history of funeral

customs a new criterion for the appreciation of

conditions of life in Italy in early historic

times, and it succeeded at least in setting the
question afloat and encouraging a more exact
and keener observation of the facts of dis-
covery. While some agreed with the views

expressed, others expressed doubt, the following

writers giving their reasons for dissent with a

completeness for which science must be grate-
ful :—Reisch, Berl. philol. Wochenschr. 1891,
1574-77, St. Gsell, Fouzlles de Vulei (1891),
passim, and Lattes, ‘di due nuove iscriz. pre-
romane trov. pr. Pesaro’ (Rendic. dei Lincet
1894. Appendice seconda p. 93 ff.). In oppo-
sition to Gsell I tried to prove the correctness
of my view from the same example (Vulci) :
Atti e mem. d. R. Deput. di stor. patr. p. le
prov. di Romagna 1892, 210-223, and Gsell
replied in Mel. darchéol. et d’hist. xii (1892),

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 127
were forced to find some means of checking the foreign invasion. Latium

could be defended only on the line of the Tiber; hence the foundation of
Rome. The hill-fortresses on the crater ridges of the Ciminian mountains,
although they had the advantage of an elevated site, were neither central
to the district threatened nor themselves secure against attack. The rude
heaped ramparts of stone could offer but a temporary obstacle to the pro-
gress of invaders, while the water-ditch, which first made the terreus murus
of the Italic plain settlements capable of defence, was here evidently im-
practicable. Under these conditions it became necessary to found settle-
ments by preference either on those high triangular mountain spurs, each of
which is cut off from the adjacent country by the steep gorges of two con-
verging torrents, or on precipitous heights isolated in every direction. This
kind of natural formation occurs frequently, as is well known, in the lower
ranges of Western Central Italy, and nowhere more frequently than in the
country of the Falisci. Our knowledge of the early history and gradual
growth of Rome is but scanty, for besides literary tradition the only
materials at our command are some wretched and in great part unintelli-
gible structural remains and a few graves of which an imperfect record has
been kept. This is not so in Narce, and from the analogy of Narce many
important conclusions about Rome may be drawn. In the eighth century B.C.,
when the first real ramparts of imperfectly squared stones were springing
up round many a town of Latium and Etruria, the principal hill of Narce
was walled round in three successive zones, while the huts within the town
were erected in the oldest simplest form such as we see exemplified in the
hut-urns or the casa Romuli® The pottery is still of the primitive sort,
made by hand out of greyish-black clay. Towards the end of the century
the town had to be enlarged. The nearest hill to the south, Monte li Santi,
was enclosed by a wall, the masonry of which shows a decided advance, and
connected with the previous settlement by means of a bridve.

By the time this newer wall was built pottery with a brilliant red slip,
such as is usually found in graves along with Phoenician and Greek articles
of commerce of the eighth and seventh centuries B.c., had come into use.
Later on, three more hills and other jutting spurs of rock were drawn into
the same enclosure. The settlement as first founded was purely Italic, a

place of refuge to be defended against the Etrusci. This is clear from the

425-31. Cf. Neue Heidelb. Jahrb. iv (1894),
165,5. The question can be seriously discussed
only in and for Italy, for only in Italy has
systematic excavation of tombs been carried far
enough. As to Greece and its colonies in Asia
Minor, we can draw but few analogies until we
know many more archaic burying-grounds in
those countries, hence E. Meyer, Gesch. d.
Altert. ii 508, would have done better to leave
them out of the question. Besides, it was
precisely the change of ritual in Greece which
gave me the starting-point for my investigations.

® For these old Italian dwelling-huts, their
form and construction τ, Lanciani, Athenaeum
1889, 424 (on remains of huts made of straw
and basket-work, supported on a wooden sub-
structure and made secure on the outside by
stones) ; Barnabei, Nof. ὦ. sc. 1893, 198-210.
The most recent treatise on the subject of Italian
hut-urns is by A. ‘Taramelli: Rendic. dell’
Accad, dei Lincet 1893, 423—450, who has
made a careful classification of much valuable
material.

128 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

fact that the oldest graves are crematory and arranged according to Italic
custom just like those early ones belonging to the higher settlements on the
mountain ridge, that is to say, each burial-ground represents a town in
miniature, enclosed by a wall and divided by Cardo and Decumanus. On
the outside of some of the tombs the roof-construction of the huts is
imitated. — :

The objects found in these tombs, especially the vessels for ashes, show at
first all the purely Italic characteristics of the earlier period, although in
form, workmanship and ornamentation they are somewhat in advance of
those found on Monte Sant’ Angelo, ἕο. Greek and oriental imports appear
later and consist of metal or clay vessels and small articles of jewellery.
About the end of the eighth century or a little later, Narce fell into the
hands of the Etruscans, and from this time onwards we find, in addition to
the cremation graves which at first continue frequent, graves of sepulture
a fossa and later a camera just as they existed in Rome under Etruscan
rule.

Rome shook off the alien yoke at the end of the sixth century B.C. and, as
a consequence, foreign funeral customs ceased to be the rule, but the country
of the Falisci remained in subjection to the Etrusci, a historical fact faithfully
reflected in the graves. Down to the end of the fifth century Greek imported
vases can be traced. At the beginning of the fourth century there is a sudden
stop and everything comes to an end. The destruction of Veii by Camillus
in 396 B.c. must have been followed by the downfall of Narce. Before this
Falerii, which was much more favourably situated, had outstripped Narce,
and it survived a century later. The history of the two towns and their
burial-places runs a similar course, but the remains found at Falerii are
richer, both in quality and quantity, than those of Narce, as the Museum in
the Villa Papa Giulio adequately shows.

I cannot close this short account of the Faliscan country without calling
your attention to the praiseworthy manner in which the arrangement and
publication of the finds have kept pace with the thorough investigation of
the soil. Every excavation carefully and scientifically conducted throws light
on a variety of subjects. Thus to the strict balancing of evidence afforded
by excavations, aided by Barnabei’s keen observing faculty and wide know-
ledge of ceramic art, we owe the first real history of the older indigenous
pottery of central Italy.

The early history of that younger group of tribes, which occupied the
district between the river Arno and the Volscian Mountains and had reached
the stage of. burning their dead, has been systematically investigated for the
Faliscan region, and fresh discoveries from other parts are constantly adding
to our knowledge. The patient researches of men like Chierici, Pigorini,
Brizio and others have afforded us many a marvellous glimpse of the
childhood of the Roman race.

The first ‘pre-Italic indigenous dwellers in the Po country kept well
away from the river-systems and from the Po in particular on account of the
treacherous and shifting character of the soil. The older Italic group, tribes

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 129
who still practised sepulture, feeling the same dislike to the inhospitable
district, travelled southwards along the Adriatic, meaning to colonize the East
and South of the peninsula. It was only the more recent group of the Italic
race, those who practised cremation, who halted there. These younger tribes
probably brought with them the custom of building on piles, began to regulate
the current of the smaller rivers and brooks and even, relying on their piles
and waste sluices, penetrated into the main Po valley. Although, as Tara-
melli points out,® no dam was built along the Po till almost Roman times,
yet the first step towards making use of the alluvial region for agricultural
purposes was taken when pile-dwellings were erected and sluices set to work.
From their starting-point not far from Pavia’ the pile-settlements, the
‘terremare’ of the cremating Italic tribes, extend eastward as far as the
Euganean hills north of the Po, southwards to the Panaro and on to the
lower mountain slopes. Decrease or cessation of danger from flood, perhaps
also a growing feeling of political security, were the causes which moved the
pile-dwellers in parts of the Po region, throughout the whole of Romagna
and as far south as San Marino, where the Apennines push into the sea and
mark an ancient race boundary, to give up their original mode of building
and form settlements of huts on terra firma. It was at this stage of develop-
ment that they colonized in addition the country stretching southward from
the Apennines to the Volscian Mountains. Our knowledge of pile-dwellings
has been materially widened during the last five years by the industrious and
discriminating researches of Pigorini and his pupil Scotti, and for the first
time a plan of a pile-settlement has been obtained.’ First a rectangular
space was marked out with the help of two straight lines (the Cardo and
Decumanus) intersecting at right angles, their direction being probably
determined by some simple astronomical observations. On the very line
of the Cardo there were found, at Castellazzo, two rectangular depressions
and a square hollow between them. These hollows, 1,50m deep, were

6 T. Taramelli, ‘La valle del Po nell’ epoca
quaternaria’ (Atti del primo congresso geogr.
ital. Genova 1892), 40, in agreement with what
was ascertained by A. Stella the engineer, as
Taramelli informs me. Lombardini inclined to
attribute the first embankments to the
Etruscans (Notiz. natur. e civili della Lom-
bardia cap. 1). At that time (1844), as is well
known, the importance of the Etruscans was
much exaggerated, and it is only of late that
they have been more accurately appreciated.

7 Till quite lately it was supposed that the
western boundary of the Italic pile-dwellers was
formed either by the Oglio or the Adda, but
within recent date pile-dwellings have been
found on the Lambro, that is, a long way within
the boundary of Lombardy. Not. d. sc. 1891,
44, 303. 1892, 437-440. Bull. stor. Pavese ii
(1894): A. Taramelli, di alcwni oggetti preis-
torici esistenti a Chignolo.

H.S.—VOL. XVI.

8 Published in its latest form by Pigorini,
Not. d. sc. 1895, 10 = Bull. di paletnol. ital.
xxi (1895) Τὰν. ἡ. Pigorini’s most recent
reports (Not. aa. O. 9-17; Bull. 78-80). I
published a summary of the results gained up
to the year 1894 in the Neue Heidelb. Jahrb.
iv (1894), 143-156, Montelius followed, Civil.
primit. en Italie i, 142-146. Near Rovere di
Caorso, not far from Piacenza, L. Scotti suc-
ceeded in determining the ground-plan of
another such settlement, quite similar to the
above, and by its publication Wot. d. sc. 1894,
374 (= Montelius Joc, cit. 148) interesting
evidence is afforded of the correctness of
Pigorini’s discovery. Another report by Scotti
is about to appear, and one still more import-
ant, by Pigorini (on the traces of streets found
in the interior), will come out in the Notizie for
1896.

130 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

covered with wood and contained nothing but a few ‘Signa’: fragments of
primitive pottery and shells. In the smaller settlement of Rovere di Caorso,
near Piacenza, there were only three such trenches. These regular hollows,
always placed in the line of the Cardo and enclosed by the Arx, may have
been surveyors’ marks ® like those of 1000 years later in the border ‘ Castella.’
The rectangle, once marked out and orientated as a whole, could be altered
to suit local conditions. If for instance it lay on a bank gently sloping to the
river, it was easy to divert a neighbouring brook from its course and make
it fill up one of the trenches wei surrounded the settlement and debouched
on the opposite side; to obtain a better tall for the water, the original rect-
angle might be changed into a trapezium. The earth dug out of the trench
or got by levelling the interior was thrown up into a high broad rampart, the
inner side of which was cut perpendicular and held together by a strong
wooden palisade. The only entrance was on one of the narrow sides, exactly
on the line which we should like to call the Deewmanus. A broad substantial
bridge made of massive beams was laid over the ditch or moat, here doubled
in width, apparently in order to lighten the task of defence by making the
approach to the bridge more difficult. Inside the enclosure was a network
of streets formed of heaped earth resting directly on the surface of the
ground and laid out according to a regular plan. The two principal streets
coincided with the Cardo and Decumanus and met at night angles in the
centre. The smaller streets were banked up in the same way and ran
parallel, some of them to the Cardo, others to the Decumanus. In each rect-
angular space between these lines of streets a solid stack of piles was set up.
These piles supported a floor, which again formed the basis for dwelling-huts
of round or elliptical form distributed on some definite plan. Between the
Decumanus and one side of the rampart a rectangular space, halved by the
Cardo, was left unbuilt. This space was closed in by a substantial hurdle
fence made of piles and basketwork, and surrounded by a ditch. The
interior, raised to a high level, showed no trace of dwelling-huts, but contained
some of those hollows which I have mentioned as having possibly been
intended for surveying purposes. A wooden bridge on the line of the Cardo
connected this citadel (Arx) with the central point of the settlement.

The burial-grounds belonging to these settlements lie outside of but quite
close to them, partly sheltered by the wall, and reproduce on a small scale the
characteristics of the habitations of the living,!® a phenomenon which we had
occasion to observe in the country of the Falisci." A walland a moat surround
the necropolis. A bridge, on the line of the decumanus, leads to the interior.
Inside are small stacks of piles and on these are laid in close-packed rows and
layers the plain lidless urns with drinking cups which contain only burnt
human remains or, exceptionally and in smaller quantity, traces of objects con-
sumed with the corpse. Everything points to a bald and simple ritual. The
body was burned in its clothes eRe et used in common for this ἜΡΌΣΡΟΣΣ has

9 Thus Pigorini Not. 1895, 16-17. Bull. iv (1894), 152 ἴο]σ.
1895, 79. Mon. dei Lineei iv (1894), 72. 85-86. 159,
10 For more details vy. Newe TWeidelb. Jahrb.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 131

been discovered) and after the removal of all heterogeneous remains the ashes
of the dead were preserved. No distinguishing mark either on or over the
urn made personal identification possible. The whole necropolis bears the
stamp of statutory arrangement, uniform procedure and subordination of the
individual to the community, a true foreshadowing of the Roman state.

Each of these settlements could accommodate a certain number of inhabit-
ants and no more. When the population became too large a colony formed
of the younger members was sent out, probably in the form of the ‘ ver sacrum,
to found a similar settlement elsewhere. In this way the land between Alps
and Apennines became covered with countless Italic colonies, some of them
forerunners of later towns, and the soil was gradually brought under
cultivation.

Recent investigations have shown that this peaceful course of events

was rudely interrupted and the pile-dwellers forced further afield. An alien
race, the Veneti, possibly of Illyrian origin, broke in from the north-east
through the ever open door and took possession of the district between
Adige and Alps, which still forms part of Venetian territory. The remark-
able artistic productions of this race, important also in their bearing on the
Alpine regions, may be best studied in the Museum at Este, and frou year
to year fresh light is thrown on them by the praiseworthy efforts of Prosdo-
cimi, Ghirardini® and others. The Italic race gave way before the Veneti,
but whether the occupation of Etruria and Latium by the Itali was a con-
sequence of the foreign invasion or had previously begun is uncertain. Ata
later period followed the incursion and settlement of another equally alien
people, the Etrusci. It is not yet clear, in spite of the manifold efforts
made by competent investigators (especially Castelfranco), what was the
ethnological place of a western group of pile-builders whom Pigorini
‘rightly. classifies apart from the eastern division.’ This group of tribes
established themselves over most of Lombardy and parts of Piedmont,
especially within the Lombardic lake and river systems. Their necropoleis,
at least in the lake settlements, appear to have taken the form of separate
pile structures. These pile-builders lived apart from the lines of Medi-
terranean civilization and remained much longer undisturbed than their
Eastern neighbours of the same Italic race. As their nearest analogy is to
be found in the pile-builders of Switzerland they may perhaps be of Keltic
or Ligurian origin.

12 Especially Ghirardini’s admirable treatise most recent summary of the literature on the
on the sanctuary found in in the Fondo Baratela subject of this distinction v. Bull. di paletnol.
with its numerous votive gifts (Wot. αἰ. sc. 1888, ital. xx (1894), 12, The most important
3-42; 71-127; 147-173; 204-214; 313-385 centre of the western group is Golasecca (with
with 13 plates), and the first instalment (the Castelletto Ticinese, which lies opposite).
only one so far) of his work in collaboration on ‘These were probably the necropoleis belonging
the bronze situlae of Este (Mon. dei Lincei ii to a considerable colony in the Ticino. For
(1893), 161-252), should be here noted: v. also the literature of the subject νυ. Montelius,
Montelius, Civilis. primit. i, Sér. B 273-314 — Civilis. primitive en Italic i, 236-37.
and pl. 50-61. 14 Castelfranco, Bull. di paletn. tial. xx

13 Rendic. dei Lincei 1888, 301-303. For the (1894), 81-90,

K 2

132 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

The word ‘ Ligurian’ brings us to a new field of research so interesting
and full of material, that I at first intended to report to you Ligurian dis-
coveries of the most recent period only. Ligurian cave-dwellings, open
settlements and, more especially, cave-tombs have been studied uninter-
ruptedly and with increasing success by Morelli, Issel, Amerano, Colini and
others,!® the result being that: many a time-honoured prejudice and false
synchronism has had to be abandoned. It remains true, however, that down
to the Roman period the dwellers in the western half of the Ligurian
Apennine retained the strange half-savage characteristics described by
Poseidonios. The people of the eastern half, whose settlements reached as
far as the Arno valley,!® were more rapidly civilized, for we know that at a
very early period 17 they adopted from the contiguous tribes on the north,
east and south the custom of cremation, a custom not prevalent among the
western Ligures until Roman times.

The Ligures are a pre-Italic race who maintained with peculiar tenacity
their foothold in the country afterwards called Liguria. Geographical con-
ditions made it easy for them to do so, but we need not therefore conclude
that this undesirable region was the one they chose for themselves on their
arrivak in the peninsula. Traces of their presence, either earlier than
or contemporary with those later arrivals the Italic tribes, may reasonably
be looked for elsewhere. We happen to know that Ligures had settled in
the South of France, and that it was not till the fifth century B.c. that they
submitted to the Kelts and were gradually amalgamated with them. In the
case of Italy, literary evidence is not forthcoming, but the spade has proved
a trustworthy witness. In the plain of the Po, on the Adriatic coast and
in southern central Italy groups of graves and hut-dwellings, mostly be-
longing to the stone age or to the so-called aenolithic period, have come to
light. These have in common with the Ligures of West Liguria certain
peculiarities, such as the position of the corpse, which is laid on one side
with the limbs slightly drawn up, and the custom of placing in the tomb a
rich outfit of stone and copper daggers, strings of shells, shell ornaments for
clothes and other characteristic gifts. Chierici’s last task was to excavate
a very interesting group of such graves!® at Remedello, not far from

© In 1892 Issel published in his work Za north bank of the Arno opposite Pontedera, east

Liguria vol. ii a joint treatise (which hardly
fulfilled the expectations formed) on the subject
of pre-Roman Liguria. See also his essay on the
caverna Pollera, in the Atti d. Societa ligur. di
sc. natur. ὁ geogr. v. (Genoa 1894). Plenty of
new material is to be found in the last volumes
of the Bull. di pal. wt. ; especially xix (1893),
327 ff. (Colini). The existence of dwelling-
places outside the caves, formerly doubted, has
now been proved beyond question; v. e.g.
Castelfranco, Bull. di pal. xviii (1892), 148;
Issel, Bull. di pal. xix (1893), 87-91.

16 The most easterly Ligurian graves hitherto
discovered on the Lago di Bientina, on the

of Monte Serra, are described by Ghirardini,
Rendic. dei Lincei 1894, 185-188.

17 The earliest cremation graves of Liguria of
the later Certosa period were found in 1884 near
Savignone, north of Genoa and east of Monte de’
Giovi: Ghirardini, Rendic. dei Lincei 1894,
205-218.

18 Bull. di pal. x (1884), 133-141 Pl. VI.
xi (i885), 138-146. xii (1886), 134-140.
Comm. del? Aten. di Brescia 1886, 81 (Cast
silver pin from a grave of this kind). Pigorini,
Rendic. dei Lincei 1887 (III, i), 296. Monte-
lius, La civilisation primit. en Italie i, pl. 36.
37, 191 ff. Similar graves near Fontanella di

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 133

Brescia, and since then dwelling-huts corresponding to them have been
found," .

It is a remarkable fact that during the last few years excavations
conducted by Brizio at Novilara near Pesaro have produced large groups of
these graves, while similar graves have been found in other parts of Picenum
between Foglia and Chienti, ¢.g. at Numana, the predecessor of Ancona, at
Ancona itself, at Monteroberto, Osimo, Tolentino and elsewhere. Here and
there traces of the hut-dwellings belonging to the graves have been found.
Besides minor notices there is an accurate and detailed report of these
discoveries by Brizio published in vol. v of the Monwmenti antichi and fully
illustrated. Many of the graves have been removed entire and placed in the
Museums of Pesaro, Ancona and Rome.

One very interesting conclusion we may draw from these graves in
Picenum is that the original pre-Italic modes of living and burial customs
survived till the 5th or even the 4th century B.c. At Serrapetrona for
instance there were found in one and the same stratum of graves stone
instruments, shell ornaments and iron weapons,2? a phenomenon which is
difficult to explain except by the somewhat isolated position of this mountain
district. A remarkable and instructive example of the undisturbed continu-
ance of Mykenean art principles in these regions is supplied by some tomb
stelai decorated on one side with spiral patterns and on the other with sea-
fights and other subjects incised.24 This fact in the history of art and
culture ~ is further substantiated by numerous art-forms from Bologna, the
Venetic country, the Alps and the Caucasus.” Two of these stelai”* have on
one side ornament and on the other inscriptions, among these a very long one
written in an alphabet analogous to that of Corcyra and previously known
from discoveries on the East coast. The inscriptions might have supplied a
key to the better understanding of the Picenum group but unfortunately
they are still undeciphered. What we know of them is purely negative.
They do not represent any Italic language, nor should they (as Lattes has

Casal romano: Bull. di pal. xvi (1890), 50. (1893), 17-30. 92-102.

xviii (1892), 55. xix (1893), 17-30. 92-102
Pl. IV. Rivalta (near Mantua): Bull. di pal.
ii (1876), 126; south of the Po near Caleno:
Bull. i (1875), 104 ef. xix, 27 ; Collecchio (near
Parma): Bull. ii (1876), 77 cf. Bull. xii, 82,
4. 139. Cumarola: Bull. x (1884), 141 ff.
Πὰν. VII cf. Bull. xviii, 218. Santilario d’
Enza: Bull. v (1879), 133. 195. Gorzano:
Bull. x (1884), 130. xii (1886), 158. More
recent, but belonging to the same family:
Povegliano. (For the literature v. Montelius,
Civilis. primit. i, 200 and pl. 37.) For the
position of the skeleton, specially typical in
Lengyel, but occurring also in numerous graves
of central and west central Europe v. Brizio’s
remarks and syntheses in Mon. dei Lincet v
(1895), 105-111.

19 γ΄, Castelfranco’s essays, Bull. di pal. xix

39 Bull. di pal. ital. (1888), 44-46.

21 Thus the earliest known objects of this
class, brought to light by Undset, Zeitsch. fir
Ethnol. 1883 Taf V and p. 209-219 = Mon. dei
Lincei v (1895), 91-98 (Fig. 2 and 3). Similarly
171-172, Fig. 25.

= Cf. Schumacher, Praenest. Ciste im Museum
zu Karlsruhe 47.

*3 £.g. the ornamentation on the edge Οἱ
the bronze plates published by Virchow ‘ Ueber
die culturgeschichtliche Stellung des Kaukasus’
(Abh. der kgl. prewss. Akad. der Wéissensch.
phys. Kl. 1895) Taf. I-LV is Mykenean.

*4 Mon. dei Lincei v (1895), 177-178. 179-
182. For the stele with the principal inscrip-
tion v. Lattes: ‘di due nuove iscrizioni pre-
romane trov. pr. Pesaro’ (Rendic. dell’ Acc. dei
Lincei 1894) Tav. I. II.

134 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

vainly tried to prove) be considered Etruscan; indeed, as Brizio truly
remarked,” the nature of the accompanying grave ritual is enough to
destroy any such theory. Philologists would do well to examine the avail-
able data in relation to the little that is known of the Ligurian language.

If we now turn Southwards we must be deeply impressed by the variety
and excellence of the work being done in Sicily.

Paolo Orsi’s energy and skill applied to this too long neglected part of
the kingdom have been rewarded by the most surprising results. Since 1889
report after report speaks for Orsi’s tireless activity in the task of excavation
of the South-eastern portion of the island, so that here more than almost
anywhere else we can form a complete and living image of ancient times.
Orsi has shown what can be won from the soil when a scientist, trained in
severe methods of study and familiar with the varied issues of modern
research, brings his faculties to bear on the task. Italy has every reason to
be proud of Orsi and of the Museum at Syracuse, formed by him into a
working institution which might well serve as a model. All this is the more
gratifying because the old kingdom of Naples left much to be desired from
an archaeological point of view.

Orsi’s investigations during the last seven years have included nearly
every period, from the pure stone age with its pre-Siculic indigenous popula-
tion, to the time of the Christian catacombs, but his two most. brilliant
contributions to science unquestionably are—first, the investigation of the
peculiar civilization of the Siculi,2° which existed parallel to Troy, Mykene,
the revived geometric style, and the earliest Greek colonization :—second,
the examination of the first two and a half centuries of Greek culture,
especially in Syracuse” and Megara Hyblaea.*® It would take too long to
describe the tholos-like tomb caves dug in the rock, where the dead were
buried successively, at first in a crouching position, then lying, with a provision
of food beside them. The tombs give a clear idea of the life lived by the
Siculi, and show how the influence of civilizations coming from the east
brought about a gradual change in ritual and artistic types. Additional
information may be gathered from the choice of sites for dwellings and the
natural defences made use of. Orsi has been able to follow down to the
fifth century B.C. traces of this strange Siculian civilization, often on the very
spots where well-known Greek cities afterwards stood. The little we know
from literary sources has all been corroborated by the monuments,”? except

sifying it in periods. Orsi himself has sum-
marized his Siculan labours from 1889-1893 in
‘Quattro anni di esplorazioni Sicule.

*% Mon. dei Lincei ν, 178. Iam assured by
F. Buecheler and H. Osthoff that the language
of the inscriptions is neither ‘Italic’ nor his

Etruscan.

*6 Most of the reports on this subject are to
be found in the Bull. di paletnol. ital., some in
the Mc. dei Lincet ii (1893) and the Arch.
stor. δύο απο; shorter separate communica-
tions in the Not. d. scavi. Tropea, Riv. di stor.
antica i (1895), p. 96. give a useful summary
of Orsi’s work among the Siculan remains, clas-

Parma 1894.

*7 Not. d. se. 1891, 404-416. 1893, 122-129.
445-486. 1895, 109-192.

*8 Mon. det Lincet i (1892), 689-950 and 9
plates (Cavallari and Orsi). Not. d. sc. 1892,
124-132, 172-183, 210-214. 243-252. 278-288
(Caruso, under Orsi).

*® E.g. Thukyd. vi 4, makes the Megareans

a

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 135

that the east coast Phoenician settlements mentioned by Thucydides cannot
be exactly identified.*°

To find remains analogous to those of which J have just spoken we must
go not only to Italy (¢.g. Lucania) but to Sardinia, Southern Spain and North
Africa. Quite lately Orsi has investigated under government commission the
lonely island of Pantellaria,*! the ancient Kossura, between Sicily and Africa,
and has obtained good results. The remarkable stone buildings of the Sese
on Pantellaria had early attracted the notice of students interested in the
Nurhaghe of Sardinia, the Talajots of the Balearic Islands and the Dolmens
of Algeria. The well-known glosses *? notwithstanding, it seems that the
Siculi, though receptive to outside influences, were not of Italic race. They
may have moved slowly down the peninsula before the approaching Itali and
finally passed over to the Island—in ancient literature are to be found
reminiscences of early settlements of Siculi on the mainland.** They were
probably connected with the population of Sardinia and North Africa,
possibly with the so-called Ligures.

In the eighth century B.c. the Greeks gained a definite foothold on the
Island. From the town of Megara alone, destroyed in 482 B.c., Cavallari
and Orsi obtained ample evidence for the history of trade relations with
the East. City and necropolis were exhaustively treated in the fine work by
Orsi and Cavallari, published four years ago (Note 28). More recent
excavation in the necropolis of Megara brought to the Museum at Syracuse
valuable matter for study and proved by the evidence of vases that the city
really came to an end in 482, for hardly a trace of red-figure work was found.
Our knowledge of terra-cottas and vases has been materially increased by

settle on the spot where their city afterwards
stood Ὕβλωνος βασιλέως Σικελοῦ προδόντος τὴν
χώραν καὶ καθηγησαμένους Hence the place was
under the command of the native chief although
not itself a settlement of the Siculi, for the
Siculi and the Greeks, as Orsi has so aptly
observed (Mon. ZL. i, 692), never colonize the
same site: on the other hand the Siculi, who
chose to live ἐπὶ ὀχυροτάτων λόφων (Diod. v, 6),
could make good use of the foreign traders who
were accustomed to the sea and lived on the
coast. Pais maintained (Storia della Sicilia ὁ
Magna Grecia i, 180-82, 592; Studi storici i,
394) that a colony of Siculi existed on the site
of the city of Megara, but in answer to him
Orsi succeeded in proving (Bull. di pal. ital.
xxi (1895) 50) that there was a pre-Siculic
settlement on the site, with stone and clay
objects characteristic of the stone age and
similar to those found in the settlement at
Stentinello, Bull. di pal. xvi (1890) Tav. VI-
VIII, 177-200), but not a single object of
Sieulic make, while on the other hand Hybla,
the modern Melilli (cf. king ‘Hyblon’), which
commanded Megara, has proved to be a very
important Siculic centre (Bull. di pal. it. xvii

(1891) Tav. IV-VI, 53-76. xviii (1892) 31,
34), and contains according to Orsi (Bull. xvii, 55)
so far as is known not one archaic Greek tomb.
Cf. also Rizzo, Riv. di stor. ant. i, 8, 77-78.

30 Only those who have the courage to main-
tain with Helbig (Acad. d. inscr. et belles
lettres 1895 Sitting of May 31; Comptes-rendus
de I’ Acad. 1896) that the Mykenean civilization
is Phoenician could (up to the present time)
agree with Thukydides, for Orsi’s second Siculic
period is certainly ‘ Mykenean.’ Cf. Newe
Heidelb. Jahrb. i (1891), 162. The Mykenean
objects from the Ionian islands in the museum
at Neuchatel there cited (p. 164) have in
the meantime found a parallel in the tombs
of Kephallenia, discovered and described by
Wolters, Bulle and Noack: Ath. Mitth. xix
(1894), 486-490. Strangely enough, these
writers seem not to be aware of the existence of
the objects in Neuchatel.

31 Not. d. sc. 1895, 240 (provisional notice).

82 Last discussed by Studniezka, Berl.
philol. Wochenschr. 1894, 1296. Freeman,
Hist. Sicil. vol. i, pp. 20, 101, 472 ete.

33 Holm, Gesch. Sicil. i, 8360 has summarized
the evidence.

136 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

these researches, and chronological data gathered from the finds have supplied
a key to the history of the city and its trade relations. The same is true of
Syracuse, where the most ancient and important Greek necropolis, hitherto
scarcely touched, has been lately worked out and published with the most
exemplary accuracy (Note 27). I cannot here do more than indicate Orsi’s
manifold discoveries in Syracusan topography and history down to the latest
times. Unfortunately Kamarina, Gela, Akragas and Heraklea have not been
treated in the same scientific way, and this is much to be regretted on account
of the plunder to which these remains are exposed. On the other hand
Selinus, a daughter city of Megara, has year after year been an object of
attention. Excavations under government conducted by Patricolo and
Salinas have laid bare the heart of the city, consisting of an astonishingly
regular network of streets and a system of fortifications equal in interest to
those built by Dionysios in Syracuse. The newer and remarkable fortifica-
tions of Hermokrates, with their bastion-like outworks, covered passages and
dungeons, have also been brought fully to the light of day. Besides the
temples already known remains of new ones have been unearthed ;* four
new metope slabs ** attest the existence of temples, now destroyed, which
must have been built at some time between the oldest temple on the Acropolis
and those of fifth century date on the east terrace, so that our knowledge of
the larger sculpture of Selinus has become wonderfully complete. Graves
have been removed in great numbers from the two necropoleis of the town,
and their contents brought to Palermo. Among these contents are vases
numerous terra-cottas, most of them found near a sanctuary in front of the
west necropolis dedicated to the underworld divinities, and a very remarkable
bronze statuette 3? now unfortunately lost sight of. It is to be regretted that
the work of reporting cannot keep pace with the results of such successful
activity." Again—the mighty Carthaginian fortifications in the neighbour-
ing city of Lilybaion, as well as the more modest renovations added by the

34 γ΄ Orsi, Bull. di pal. ital. xxi (1895), 85.
Excavation at Kamarina, commenced by Orsi in
February, 1896, gave a nearly negative result :
the necropolis had been thoroughly plundered
during the last thirty years.

35 Admirable new drawings, both of the old
temple remains and of those more recently
found, have been made by Koldewey and Puch-
stein, and are probably to appear in 1896 ina
work by these authors which will include all
the measurable temples and numerous other
Greek buildings of Magna Graecia and Sicily.
I have included in the index to Durm’s Baw-
kunst der Gricchen, p. 383, the literature on
Selinus up to 1892.

36 Mon. dei Lincet i, 2 (1891), to p. 248. i, 4
(1892) Tav. I-III to p. 958-962. Fragments of
others are still unpublished.

37 Arndt, Hinzelverkauf 569-572 cf. Furt-
wiingler, Meisteru. 77 uote. The figure, which

I saw in 1893 in the Museum of Castelvetrano,
was found, as I was assured by eye-witnesses,
ina ‘camera’ tomb of the north necropolis of
Galera Bagliazzo ; the place of the tomb itself
was shownme. Κ΄. Arndt #. V. p. 53. Incon-
nexion with this discovery of a separate
ancient Greek work of art may be mentioned a
highly remarkable early archaic relief, repre-
senting a Bacchic dance and two Sphinxes.
Pais rediscovered this lately in Caltagirone and
published it along with some interesting re-
marks on the towns behind Gela: Rendic. dei
Lincei 16 Giugno 1896,

88 Not. d. sc. 1894, 202-220 is the last report
embracing the eventful years 1887-1892. The
report is somewhat too scanty. Many import-
ant points, such as the excavations in necro-
poleis, are left almost untouched, and others,
particularly the fortifications of Hermokrates,
are passed over lightly.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 137

Romans,* have been by order of the government subjected to a thorough
scrutiny and partially laid bare. It was on the same occasion that a splendid
series of coloured tomb-stones of the Punic necropolis was discovered. They
too, like so many other treasures, are waiting in the Museum of Palermo for
publication.

In the Greek districts of the Italian mainland little has been done
within the last eight years. The most important results may here be noted.
At Locri two Ionic temples of different date were discovered on the same
site by Orsi and Petersen, who were happy in obtaining Dorpfeld’s collabor-
ation for the reconstruction. These, the earliest Ionic temples of the Greek
period on the mainland of Italy, are rich in interesting peculiarities.
Considerable portions of figures, representing two youthful riders (possibly
the Dioskouroi) in the act of dismounting, came to light and may be assigned
to the pediment or pedimental cornice. There were also terra-cottas and
vases of local Greek manufacture.”

Kroton is a very promising site, and accordingly in December 1886
excavations were begun at Lakinion in its immediate vicinity; they were
stopped while still incomplete.*t Sybaris is not yet identified, for the recent
tomb erections of the third century and an interesting Italic necropolis at
some distance, near Torre Mordillo,4? have proved to be false tracks. The
arsenal building-works in Tarentum were the occasion of new discoveries
from the necropolis ; a very important inscription on bronze, probably a lex
municipalis of pre-Imperial date, was found and secured for the Museum at
Naples, and interesting separate finds occur from time to time in the modern
town. The most splendid ancient object hitherto found at Tarentum, a silver
plate with gilding and relief ornament of the finest Hellenistic art, has been
happily bought for the Provincial Museum at Bari by M. Mayer, who in 1895
was appointed Director of that Museum. We may hope that his presence at
Bari will supply valuable help to Jatta, and we hope to hear of real scientific
work being done in this much neglected region. Velia, on the west coast,
hitherto almost unknown and inaccessible, has been examined and mapped

out by W. Schleung.**

39 Part of these (portus and turres) are
shown by a recently found inscription to have
been founded or at least renewed by 8. Pom-
peius. ot. d. sc. 1894, 388-391.

40 Not. d. sc. 1890, 248-262. Ant. Denkm.
des arch. Inst. i (1890), Taf. 51.52. Rom.
Mitth. v (1890), Taf. VIII p. 166-227. A
fresh publication by Koldewey and Puchstein is
about to appear.

41 Reports: Eighth Annual Report of the
American Institute of Archacology (1887), 42-46
and American Journ. of Arch. iii (1887), 181-
182. A visitor to the spot receives an im-
pression of excavations systematically begun
and then—by a’somewhat hard application of
the legge Pacca—suddenly broken off. Koldewey

and Puchstein’s survey will reproduce as much
as is possible of the form and outline of the
temple, removed by Bishop Lucifero in the
sixteenth century. It is much to be regretted
that these excavations were not continued by
Italian enterprise, the more because eight pieces
of pediment sculpture in white marble, of fifth
century date, some of them very fine, are
known to have been found. Most of these, as
well as the numerous architectonic ornaments,
bronzes and terra-cottas found in the excava-
tions, have been unfortunately lost sight of. ἡ

* Pigorini and Pasqui, Not. d. se. 1888, 239-
268. 462-480. 575-592. 648-671.

43 Archiol. Jahrb. iv (1889), 164-195 with
map.

138 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

Discoveries in Campania, except at Pompeii and Naples, have not been
made under government control and are so scanty that we can only suppose
that the most promising necropoleis are nearly exhausted. Only the
necropolis at Kyme,so important in its bearing on Italic civilization, has
been further excavated by E. Stevens and the results incorporated in his
collection. The absence of adequate reports is a great drawback. Hardly
another spot in Italy so well deserves a cartographical and archaeological
treatise on the lines of Cavallari and Holm’s Topografia archeologia di Sira-
cusa or Cavallari and Orsi’s Megara or Brizio’s Marzabotto.

In Naples the sanitary engineering works have furnished valuable
material for the topography and history of the city, and a few tombs have
been found, among them one of special interest dating from early Imperial
times and richly decorated with plastic work. In Pompeii private houses
have been laid bare and interesting separate discoveries made from time to
time and exactly reported by Mau in the Rémische Mitthcilungen, but with
the exception of the substructures of the so-called Greek temple,*® exca-
vated by the Baden expedition of 1889, no new public building has been
brought to light. The discovery of a handsome villa near Boscoreale 46 is
however interesting, the more so because on the thirteenth of April last
year it was found to contain sets of about forty gold and silver vessels with
rich and peculiar ornamentation, a kind of echo of Alexandrian magnificence.
By the liberality of Rothschild these objects have found their way into the
Louvre.”

Rome is still inexhaustible and would demand a whole chapter to itself.*®
Since 1887 three new Museums of antiquities have been instituted. The
department of Roman topography threatened to become unmanageable, but
now that there is a lull in building operations it will be brought into order
by means of Lanciani’s map of the city, shortly to appear.*? We may hope
for a complete investigation of the Palatine since the Villa Mills, covering
the House of Augustus and the Temple of Apollo, has become state property ;
the so-called Stadium of Domitian, which was in connexion with these

ΠΑ résumé of the history of Campania
in accordance with the more recent archaeologi-
cal discoveries, which I read at the Philological
Convention at Treves in 1879 (Verhand. p. 141-
157), deals with the more important parts of the
subject, and appeared recently in Italian in Tro-
pea’s Rivista di storia antica i, 3, 31-59. I have
tried to make this new edition serviceable and
to bring it as near as may be to the present
standpoint of science by means of alterations
and enlargement of the text, and by the
addition of copious notes and literary references.

4 VY. Duhn and Jacobi, Der griechische
Tempel in Pompeii. Heidelb. 1890, cf. Manu,
Rim. Mitth. vi (1891), 258-266.

4 Mau, Rém. Mitth. ix (1894), 349-358.
Not. d. sc. 1895, 207-214.
7

ἡ Provisional report on and publication ΟἹ

some of the principal pieces: Gaz. d. Beaux
Arts 1895 (xiv, 3), 89-104 (H. de Villefosse).
An adequate publication of this magnificent
find will shortly come out in the Monuments ct
Mémoires of the Fondation Pict.

48 A reference to the many interesting
numbers of the Bull. communale and to the
admirable and detailed reports by Hiilsen in
the Lom. Mittheilungen may here suffice.
The most recent is carried down to the year
1892: R. M. viii (1893), 259-325.

49 Lanciani, Forma urb. Romac. Published
consilio et auctor. R. Acad. Lyncacorum ; scale
1: 1,000 Milan. Hoepli. Between 1893 and
the present date two numbers have appeared.
Cf. Hiilsen, Zthein. Mus. xlix (1894), 380-
381.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 139

palace buildings, has been uncovered in the form given to it by Septimius
Severus and published, with a reconstruction, by Mariani and Cozza; °° light
has been thrown on some important questions of detail in the topography of
the Palatine and Forum, and, lately, of the Quirinal, more especially by the
works of Gatti, Lanciani and Hiilsen.

The correct dating of the Pantheon and exact determination of its form
have led to new and surprising conclusions ; Petersen has the merit of having
successfully worked up buildings like the Ara Pacis and the Arch of Con-
stantine—the Arch of Trajan in Beneventum may be mentioned in this
connexion—which are important specially on account of their carved
ornamentation ;*! the Column of Marcus Aurelius has been lately investi-
gated and published afresh, with the most happy results;*’ the great
inscription on the ludi saeculares being itself important enough to demand a
separate acknowledgment. Time fails us to give particulars of all the
separate discoveries which have corrected and completed our image of the
ancient city, but mention must be made of Hadrian’s villa, so long a dark
spot in archaeology, now admirably investigated, drawn and described by
Winnefeld.™ In collaboration with Count Cozza Winnefeld has also worked
up Alatri, the ancient town of the Hernici.® In 1885 Lake Nemi furnished
to Lord Savile valuable reminiscences of the sanctuary of Diana Nemo-
rensis ** and within recent days its depths have yielded up a brilliant relic of
early Imperial times, namely parts of a gala ship which must have belonged to
one of the emperors.» Terracina, long isolated and neglected, now made more
accessible by means of the railway, has furnished a surprise, for the lower
buildings on the steep height above the town, formerly supposed to be of
East Gothic origin, and even fancifully called the royal seat of Theodoric,
proved to be terraces supporting a temple whose site afforded a wide prospect
of sea and land. It is not certain to whom the temple was dedicated.”°

The increased facility of communication in the interior of central Italy,
which in its turn has widened the sphere of local study, the solid groundwork
formed by the ever-growing Corpus Inscriptionum, the greater importance

given to ancient history in the University Scheme of Education—all help to

50 Mon. det Lincei v (1895), 17-84 with 4
plates, cf. also F. Marx, <Archdol. Jahrb. x
(1895), 129-143.

δι Rém. Mitth. ix (1894), 171-228 ; x (1895),
138-145 (ara Pacis). iv (1889), 314-339 (Arch
of Constantine). vii (1892), 239-264 (Arch of
Trajan in Beneventum).

52 Archdol. Anz. 1895, 91; 1896, 2-18. The
whole column will shortly be published by
Bruckmann from excellent photographs by
Anderson, with letterpress by Calderini, Doma-
szewski, Mommsen and Petersen.

53 Barnabei and Marchetti, Mon. dei Lincei
i, 3 (1891), 601-616. Mommsen loc. cit. 617-
672 and Ephem. cpigr. viii, 225-309. Die
Nation 1891 Dec. 12 = 114-122 of the reprint
Berl. 1894.

54 Winnefeld, Die Villa des Hadrian bei
Tivoli. Berl. 1895 (Erginzungsheft III of
Archiol. Jahrb.).

55 Rom Mitth. iv (1889), 126-152 with 2
plates. vi (1891), 344-355.

55a Now in the Art Museum at Nottingham :
Wallis, Jllustrated Catalogue of Class. Antigq.
from the Site of the Temple of Diana, Nemi,
Italy, discov. by Lord Nottingham
1898. 20 plates. V. Not, d. se. 1895, 424-435.

55b Barniabei, delle scoperte di antichita nel
lago di Nemi. Relazione a 8. E. il Ministro della
pubbl. istruz. Roma 1895. 38 p. (Reprinted
in the Notizie d. sc. 1895, 361-396.

36 Not. d. scavi 1894, 96-111.
x (1895), 86-90.

Savile.

Rom, Mitth.

140 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

further the labours of those who are entrusted with local departments of
research, and the results attained, though small (for but few public school-
masters undertake such work), are good and encouraging. Persichetti’s
Viaggio archeologico sulla via Salaria (Rome 1893) and Gabrielle Grasso’s
Studi di storia antica e di topografia storica (Aviano 1893) are bright spots in
a surrounding darkness, for, thanks to the Bourbon regime, men like Ninoin
Solmona, G. and A. Jatta and Michele Lacava are exceptional in the
southern half of the peninsula.

As I have said, cremation graves of the pre-Ktruscan Italic population
have come to light all over Etruria; Veii, Bisentium and other places on
Lake Bolsena, Vulci, Volterra,®” Florence ** (within the modern city) are a few
examples among many. The Etruscan period can now, thanks to Milani’s
excellent system of arrangement, be profitably studied in the Etruscan
Central Museum in Florence. Material for study pours in, especially from
Vetulonia,®® but Corneto, Vulci, made accessible by means of Gsell’s fine
publication on Torlonia’s excavations of four years ago (Note 4), and the
inland districts, all take a conspicuous place in the record of finds, as do also
the regions immediately to the east, influenced by Etruscan culture, ¢.g. Todi.

The riddle of the Etruscan language still waits solution, but the
connexion between old Etruscan and old Ionian art is every day becoming
clearer, in fact an anti-Phoenician reaction has set in and even seems likely
to be pushed to excess. In Bologna too, and the surrounding district, new
discoveries have added distinctness to our conception of the Etruscan
period,” as is proved by the rooms recently opened in the Museo civico.

It is matter for special congratulation that the prison fortress in the
Reno valley, Marzabotto, rightly called an Etruscan Pompeii, has by the
joint activity of the government and Count Aria, been thoroughly surveyed,
at least as far as the remains are uncovered and not washed away by the
river Reno.® —_Brizio’s work gives evidence of his marvellous diligence and

7 Ghirardini Rendic. dei Lincei 1895, 176-
181. (Topographically very important. )

583 Not. d. sc. 1892, 458. Bull. di pal. it.
xix (1893), 55. 114. 345-346.

°9 Tsidoro Falchi, Vetulonia ela sua necropoli
antichissima. Florence 1891. Small folio
with 19 plates. A very useful summary of
what has hitherto been accomplished, chiefly
owing to Falchi. More recently: Not. d. sc.
1893, 496-514. 1894, 335-360. 1895, 22-27 and
272-317. The appearance of a second, more
‘genuine’ Vetulonia has been the occasion of a
five years’ literary polemic. For this contro-
versy v. Petersen’s digest: Rém. Mitth. x
(1895), 79, 1. The latest controversial utter-
ance (on Colonna’s side) Isid. Falchi, Za
tradizione di Vetulonia e gli avanzi di Vetu-
lonia, 6 di Vitulonio, appeared in Florence in
September 1895.

“0 V. particularly Petersen’s essay on the

bronzes of Perugia: ém. Mitth. ix (1894),
253-319, the newer treatises on the so-called
‘Caere’ vases and analogous kinds, the Aphro-
dite statue from Orvieto, newly published for
Brunn by Korte, Archdol. Stud. (1893) Taf. I
and in addition my remarks in Berl. phil.
Wochenschr. 1893, 1552 and those of Furt-
wiingler doc. cit. 1894, 80, and Meisterw. 633.

61 Chronology: v. Duhn, Aéti ὁ mem. d. Lt.
Dep. di stor. p. le prov. di Rom. iii, viii
(1890), 1-18. Brizio, Mon. dei ince i (1890),
250. Ghirardini, Addi ὁ mem. loc. cit x (1892),
227-265.

62 Montclius, Civilis. primit. cu Italie i,
459-494 pl. 100-106. Latest review and useful
summary of literature.

63 Brizio, Mon. det Lincet i (1890), 249-422
and 10 plates, cf. also Montelius, Civilis.
primit. cn Italie i, 495-520 pl. 107-110.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY. 141

penetration. The history of Marzabotto, probably the Misanum of the
ancients, is sufficiently well known. It only begins in the middle of the
sixth century B.c. (remains of the temporary huts used while the town was
building have been found) and ends rather early in Keltic times, thus
covering a period of not more than two and a half centuries. It is interest-
ing to come upon a city laid out by rule, with symmetrical alternation of
principal and smaller streets, an admirable system of drainage-pipes and
water-supply, houses with ‘Roman’ ground-plan and other features corre-
sponding exactly to what has been brought to light in the old Italic pile-
settlements of the Po valley, in Selinus and Solus, and in the fifth century
remains of the Piraeus, Thurii and other places. Marzabotto reproduces the
form of those old Italic dwellings which supplied to the Etruscans a model of
a regular ground-plan, but the form is improved in accordance with the
higher stage of culture and stone technique resulting from Greek influence.
Two hundred years later the Rome burnt by the Gauls looked very different
from this. Rome could not cease to grow when a fixed space had been filled,
and even in pre-Etruscan times had begun to spread irregularly beyond the
central ‘Roma quadrata’ doubtless originally laid down on a geometrical
plan.

In other parts of the Po country, leaving out of account the early period
of which I have spoken, the history of Keltic and Roman times has been
opened up in various directions. For instance the Keltic tomb stratum in the
Bologna district ®* has been successfully demonstrated, a valuable series of
architectural and sculptural remains has been found in Verona® and an
important necropolis in Piedmont, besides the Gallic and Gallo-Roman
necropolis of Ornavasso,®* which last formed the subject of a treatise by the
late Bianchetti. In close analogy to the barbaric, probably Longobardic,
necropolis of Testona “7 in Piedmont, we have a magnificent find from Castel
Trosino near Ascoli in Picenum®™" and others similar in Rome. One of Rossi’s
last works dealt with a discovery of this kind. Nor must we forget the
four years’ campaign on the snowy heights of the great St. Bernard pass,
where excavations were carried on with success by Ferrero with the partial aid
of Castelfranco. Structural remains, coins and other objects of interest have
enlightened us on the history and direction of the trade roads from north to
south and on commercial relations in Roman and pre-Roman times. The
evidence afforded by this and other Alpine passes clearly justifies us in
rejecting the theory of Etruscan barter with the north.®

64 Brizio, Atti e mem. d. R. Deput. di stor.
patr. per le prov. di Romagna iii, v (1887),
457-532. Montelius, Civilis. primit. i, 521-
682 pl. 111-113.

86 Milani, Le recenti scop. di antich, in
Verona (Ver. 1891) = Rim. AMitth. vi (1891),
285-331. Ghirardini, Nuova Antol. 1891,
677-688. Orsi, Not. d. sc. 1891, 5-17.

6 Bianchetti, 7 sepolereti di Ornavasso (one
Keltic, the other Roman). Turin 1895, with

26 plates ( = Atti d. Soc. di antich. e belle arti
di Torino vi).

67 Atti d. Soc. di antich. ὁ belle arti di Torino
iv (1883), 17-52 Tav. I-IV.

87a Not. d. sc. 1895, 35-39.

68 Bull. comm. xxii (1894), 158-163.

69 Not. d. sc. 1890, 294-305 (Ferrero). 1891,
75-81 (Castelfranco). 1892, 63-77. 1893, 33-47.
440-450 (Ferrero). τ. Duhn and Ferrero, ‘Le
monete galliche del medagliere dell’ Ospizio del

142 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ITALY.

One word must be said of Sardinia. For many years Tamponi has been
hard at work on the Roman Olbia, and of late attention has been attracted
thither by the discovery of a remarkable cemetery analogous to that of the
oficiales praetorit near Carthage.’? More to the south government excavations
in the Punic necropoleis of Nora and Sulci, both of them rich in silver and
gold, have increasingly elucidated the subject of the older period characterized
by Greek import. Meanwhile the splendid remains at Tharros are falling a
gradual prey to private enterprise or private greed.” Cagliari has lately
made some chance finds the means of enriching our knowledge of Roman
and early Christian times. As to the actual period of the Sardi, research
seems to be at a stand. We can only hope that Filippo Nissardi, probably
the most experienced connoisseur in Sardinian antiquities, may soon find
time and means to make public his rich collections and varied knowledge.

I have subjected your patience to a considerable strain. I can only
allege in excuse the pleasure it has given me to indicate, however slightly,
the happy completion of some schemes and commencement of others which
were still in nubibus when I spoke to you at Ziirich eight years ago, I have
tried to show how a determined effort, the aim kept well in view, has won
and developed a more or less complete conception of earlier civilization in
Italy and has filled in accurate details of settlements and cities. In this way
the first steps have been taken towards a really scientific historical geography
of Italy. The Italians, true to good old tradition and led by their own
generosity and sound judgment, have opened a field to workers from Germany
and other countries, but most of the work has been done, and will continue
to be done, by themselves. Twenty or thirty years ago Italy was indebted
to Germany in many departments of science. A change has been brought
about by the new birth of Italian nationality, and Germany, once the pupil,
again the schoolmaster of Italy, is now more truly ranked among her
warmest friends.

F. von ΗΝ.

Gran San Bernardo’: Memorie della R. Accad.

epigrafica Olbicnse of his own. (Sassari 1895.)
d. scienze di Torino xli (1891), 331-388, 2

Plates. v. Duhn, ‘Die Benutzung der Alpen-
pisse im Alterthum: NMewe Heidelb. Jahrb. ii
(1892), 55-92.

70 Kach volume of the Notizie contains full
reports by Tamponi. Report on the new
cemetery Wot. d. sc. 1895, 47-66. Material is
so abundant that he has already edited a Silloye

71 To avoid any misunderstanding I must
here clearly state that Dr. Pischedda of Oris-
tano is only doing service to science by saving
what he can for his private collection so gener-
ously opened. With regard to Tharros, the blame
lies on the indifference and negligence of those
whose duty it was to supply necessary super-
vision and scientific control,

POMPEIAN PAINTINGS. 143

POMPEIAN PAINTINGS AND THEIR RELATION TO HELLENIC
MASTERPIECES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO RECENT
DISCOVERIES.

From August, 1894, till the middle of last year, the explorers of Pompei
were employed in excavating the house of A. Vettius, a house distinguished
among its fellows by its sumptuous marble fittings and lavish decoration, ani
still more so by the splendid series of brilliant frescoes with which its walls
are still adorned.

According to the official plan, the position of the house should be defined
thus :—Regio VI., insula 12.

It lies opposite the Cusa del Lalrinto, close to the north-east of the
Casa del Fauno, to the south of the third tower of the North Wall, counting
from the Gate of Herculaneum eastwards. It possesses no tablinwm, but a
very fine peristyle, the Corinthian columns of which have not (as is usually
the case) flutings filled for one-third of their height with stucco painted red
or yellow. There is much marble, statuettes, fountains, &c., with the pipes
for their supply, and the authorities have wisely resolved to leave everything
in situ, taking special precautions for the preservation of the paintings.

In May last, when the excavations were still in progress, a report on this
Pompeian house was laid before the Berlin Archaeological Society, by Herr
Herrlich, to which I am indebted for some information as to the decoration.
He considers this to belong in part to the Third Style, comparing the wall-
decorations of the peristyle and other portions to those depicted in Mau’s
Geschichte der Dekorativen Wandmaleret (Tafeln x., xv., xvi., and xviii.).

According to Mr. FitzGerald Marriott,’ on the other hand, ‘All the walls
in this house are decorated in varieties that range themselves near the
middle of the IV. style.” This does not, of course, imply that the house
itself was necessarily a late building, but that, like most other Pompeian
structures, it was repaired and redecorated after the earthquake of A.D. 63.

A few of the pictures seem to have been removed in antiquity. Several,
however, remain, and are especially interesting. For, following in Helbig’s
footsteps, even if at a humble distance, we may perhaps be able to arrive at
an idea as to their genesis and to trace with some measure of success their
descent from masterpieces of Hellenistic or even earlier times.

The following is a list of the principal pictures on the walls of the house,

+ hkacls about Pompei, p- 61.

144 POMPEIAN PAINTINGS AND THETR

identified as that of Aulus Vettius by the discovery of two seals and a ring?
engraved with his name :—

Achilles in Seyros.

Herakles and Auge.

Urania.

Leander swimming to Hero.
Theseus deserting Ariadne.

Cy parissos.

Contest between Pan and Eros.
The infant Herakles strangling serpents.
The death of Pentheus.

Dirke and the Bull.

Daedalus and Pasiphac.

Txion on the wheel.

Dionysos discovering Ariadne.
Perseus and Andromeda.

A seated beardless Zeus.*

Of the above fifteen subjects, three at least—the Dirke, the Herakles,
and the Pentheus, all to be found in the splendid chamber on the south of
the peristyle—are derived from the mythical history of Thebes. Whatever
grounds there may have been for the dull, boorish character assigned to the

3ocotians by their quick-witted neighbours of Athens, no city but Thebes
could boast itself the birthplace of two Olympian gods ;* and Thebes supplied
the great dramatists with some of then most famous themes. Thus, while
Pentheus is the leading character in the Bacchaec, Alkmene and Dirke were
also both celebrated by Euripides in other dramas; and we may perhaps
fairly assume that it is to the influence of that poet that we owe this
remarkable group of works of art, a veritable trilogy ‘ presenting Thebes.’

On the left wall of the occws, which lies to the left of the peristyliwm, is
depicted the familiar scene of the mfant Herakles strangling the serpents
(Fig.1). Almost in the centre of the foreground the hero kneels with right knee
on the ground ; not ona couch as ina red-figured vase of the severe fine style,”

2 Details as to these will be givenin my paper paper in the Numismatic Chronicle, 1896,
on the House of A. Vettius, to be published by — Part 1.

the Society of Antiquaries. 4 Θήβας λέγεις μοι τὰς πύλας ἑπταστόμους
3 For details as to these and other paintings ov δὴ μόνον τίκτουσιν ai θνηταὶ θεούς.

in the House of Vettius, see the above men- Soph. Fragm. 778.

tioned paper. For an account of the unique 9. Caztle archéologique, 1875, pl. 14.

representation of the process of coining, see my

RELATION TO HELLENIC MASTERPIECES. 145

and on a hydria from Capua.* Ho is in build very far from a mere infant ;
he is a child older even than the ten months assigned to him by Theocritus,7
In each hand he clutches one of the serpents, who are not yet so utterly
hors de combat as represented by Philostratus.*
The right half of the picture is occupied mainly by the somewhat un-
wieldy form of a seated Zeus, identified by the attendant eagle, and possibly

ΕἸ: 1.

by the columns of an Ionic temple, seen in the background. Behind the
throne is the startled Alkmene, with hand outstretched in amazement and
dismay.

8 Monumenti xi. 42, 2. incident immediately after the birth of
7 δεκάμηνον ἐόντα, Idyl. xxiv. 1. Pindar, Herakles.
Nem. i. 35, 36, and 49, seems to place the 8 See below, page 146,

H.S.—VOL, XVI. L

146 POMPEIAN PAINTINGS AND THEIR

On the extreme left is a male figure, too slight and youthful for Am-
phitryon ; probably he is a mere attendant.

Herakles strangling the serpents, the prelude to his famous ‘ Labours,’
was a favourite subject with artists of every kind.

In 1868 Heydemann was able to enumerate seventeen extant repre-
sentations of the story in marble or bronze, besides frescoes, vase-paintings,
gems, and coins.®

From the die-engravers of Thebes,!° where the myth was at home, it soon
passed eastwards to form the alliance type of Samos," Ephesos,!* Rhodes, and
Cnidus; and at the same time westwards to Croton, when the cities of
Magna Graccia formed a federation to defend themselves against Dionysius
of Syracuse. It appears too on the coins of Zacynthus and Lampsacus.*

Potvin tells us how the subject was treated in terra-cotta, and we may
be sure it was not neglected by the sculptors of the sensational school. At
ell events Pausanias " speaks of a statue on the Athenian acropolis.”

Herakles and the serpents are thus described in the Jmagines of the
om ger Philostratus :—'

Zou sport, Herakles, you sport and laugh already at this struggle, and
this too when still in your cradle ; and seizing the serpents sent by Hera one
in each hand, you take no heed for your mother, who stands by frightened out -
of her wits. But the serpents hang exhausted, letting their coils fall to the
ground, and bending to the child’s hands their heads, showing something of
their teeth ; and these are sharp and venomous, and their crests by reason of
death droop different ways, and their eyes do not see ; and their scales no longer
bloom with gold and purple, nor glitter with the changing movement, but are
palish yellow, and livid in the blood-red part. If you look at Alkmene,
she seems indeed to be recovering from her first dismay, but she mistrusts what
she now sees, and her terror has not allowed her to remain on her couch,
though her child was so recently born. For you see how she has leapt from
her bed without sandals, and with nothing on but a tunic, with her hair
dishevelled, and how she stretches out her hands, and cries aloud, and the
handmaids that were with her when the child was born are talking away each
to her neighbour in great fear. But here are armed men and one ready with
sword drawn; these are the leaders of the Thebans bringing help to Amphi-
tryon. And he, as soon as he was told of the matter, drew his sword and
rushed on the scene to ward off the danger; and I do not know whether he is

9 Archdologische Zeitung, 1868, p. 33, note 7.

10 Early in the fourth century, according to
Head, Coins of the Ancicnts, p. 45. Gardner
places the type even before 431 B.c., as well as
after, Types of Greck Coins, iii. 48.

11 On the obverse is SYN. Gardner, op. cit.
xvi. 6.

12 Jb. xvi. 7. :

13 Head, op. cit. p. 39; Gardner, op. cit.
v. 10.

14 Gardner, op. cit. viii. 1, and xvi. 8.

1 Tart grec, p. 85.

161. 24, 2.

17 Among the numerous works of art on
which this subject occurs may be mentioned
the fanciful capital of a pilaster at Pompeii
itself ; the cover of a mirror from Corinth (see
Mylonas, Mitth. Ath. 1878, p. 266, Taf. x.), in
which the position of the serpents is unusual ;
and an askos in the British Museum (Fourth
Vase Room, Table-case E, no. G 50).

18 vi. Ἡρακλῆς ἐν Σπαργάνοις.

RELATION TO HELLENIC MASTERPTECES. 147

struck with dismay or is delighted ; for his hand is still ready, but the thought
that lies in the eyes puts a curb on his hand, as he has nothing to ward off,
and he sees the state of affairs requires the provision of an oracle. On this
side too is Teiresias close at hand, foretelling I fancy the child’s future great-
ness, and he is painted as if inspired, and as breathing forth the breath of
prophecy.

A personification of the night too, on which all this took place, is inserted
in the painting; she is lighting herself up with a torch in order that the
child’s victorious struggle may not be without witness.’

The same myth occurs, though somewhat rarely, on vase-paintings ; it
is found, in relief, on a South Italian red-figured vase at Berlin2® On the
vase of severe fine style mentioned above, Herakles is seen strangling two
serpents on a couch, from which Alkmene (on the right) is hurriedly lifting
Iphikles. Behind her is a bearded man. On the left is Athena with spear,
but no helmet or shield. A maiden stands on the extreme left.

There is a slight difference in the rendering of the scene on the Capuan
red-figured hydria of early fine style, published in the Monuwmenti, xi. 42.
Here Iphikles is left on the couch, on which Herakles is strangling the snakes.
Behind him is Athena, armed with spear and helmet. From the left comes
Amphitryon to the rescue, with sword drawn.

The red-figured crater in the British Museum *! is crowded with figures
arranged in a totally different way. Herakles and Iphikles are on the ground,
the serpents are not in the same position as before; Zeus and Alkmene are
seen on the left.

Comparing the vase of severe style with the Capuan hydria and the
group ona Cyzicene coin,” Prof. Furtwiingler® suggests as a common original
the painting by Zeuxis described by Pliny.*4

Most important is Pliny’s statement ” that the strangling of the serpents
was deemed by Zeuxis worthy of his pencil. ‘Magnificus est et Juppiter
ejus in throno adstantibus diis et Hercules infans dracones strangulans
Alemena matre coram pavente et Amphitryone.’

The Juppiter of Zeuxis ‘in throno adstantibus diis’ may be illustrated
by a picture at Pompeii, described by Heydemann in the Archdologische Zeitung
for 1868.76 In this instance Athena is present, and other deities appear in a
separate picture, placed on the wall above the representation of the infant
hero and his mortal kin.

In Helbig’s Wandgemdlde der vom Vesuv verschiitteten Stédte there is a
description of a picture from Herculaneum (No, 1123) of the infant Herakles
kneeling and strangling a serpent with each hand. Behind him is the

19 Miss J. Harrison, Mythology and Monu- ἠ01Π. 14.
ments of Ancient Athens, p. 411. °3 In Roscher’s Lexikon, col. 2222.

50 Furtwingler, Beschreibung, 3866. 24 Nat. Hist. xxxv. 63.

21 In Fourth Vase Room, wall-case 66, no. F. % Loc. cit. Ὁ
479 ; Catalogue of Vases, iv. Pl. XIII. See 76 P. 33, Taf. 4. See also Sogliano, Le
Α. 5. Murray, in Classical Review, 1888, p. 327. Pilture murali campane, no. 493,

*2 Numismatic Chronicle, 1887, p. 83, Plate

L 2

148 POMPEIAN PAINTINGS AND THEIR

terrified Alkmene. On the right sits Amphitryon, bending forward with an
expression of terror, in the act of drawing his sword.27_ Opposite him, on the
left, stands a bearded man, probably a Paidagogos or, possibly, Teiresias, who
holds in his arms the infant Iphikles, and looks down at Herakles with alarm.

In our newly-discovered painting Zeus has taken the place of Amphi-
tryon, and Iphikles does not appear on the scene; but on the whole we
may consider the picture as one more variation of the same archetype, and
that archetype may have been a work of Zeuxis.

Fie 2.

On the right-hand wall of the same oecus stands another member of the
Theban series (Fig. 2). Like the Pentheus it far surpasses the Herakles in
dramatic grouping. The formidable figure of the bull, rearing wildly over

ag fallen Dirke, forms an impressive centre to a striking composition. The

* Cf. Pindar, Nem. i. 52, ἐν χερὶ δ᾽ ᾿Αμφιτρύων κολεοῦ γυμνὺν τινάσσων φάσγανον.

RELATION TO HELLENIC MASTERPIECES. 149

moment chosen is much the same as in the case of the ‘Toro Farnese, im-
mediately before the bull is started on his wild career. The attitude of the
principal personage, on the other hand, is very different.

In the Farnese group*® she clasps Amphion’s leg, and rises in front of the
rearing monster, who is kept in check on each side by one of the twin brothers.
In our picture Zethos holds her fast while she is bound to the raging beast,
who rises over her head and threatens to crush her with his hoofs; she
stretches both hands away from the other figures. In fact, the pose is more
like that on the medallion of Severus, where Dirke lies beneath the bull, one
brother being in front of him, the other behind.

For a monumental illustration of the myth of Dirke one looks naturally,
in the first instance, to this great plastic work of Apollonios and Tauriskos,
the renowned ‘ Farnese Bull, which exercised undoubtedly a great influence
on the treatment of the myth in a later age, and may perhaps afford a clue
to the relations of our newly discovered fresco.29

Let us now, however, turn to the painters.

Before the discovery of our fresco several wall-paintings were known
depicting the fate of Dirke.%° One at Pompeii and another at Herculaneum!
like the one before us, represent the moment immediately before the bull
was let loose.

This is one of the two main classes into which these representations of
the legend may be subdivided. A later and less frequent phase, when the
bull drags Dirke dead or dying—‘ Ducitur in multis mortem habitura
locis '"—** was represented in two Pompeian frescoes™ and also on a red-figured
Apulian Krater, now in the Berlin Antiquarium.*® Of these Dilthey,
writing in 1878, says: ‘There are only three monuments known, which
belong to this class.’

On the right of this vase-picture is a cave, in which the kneeling Lycus
is seized by the shoulders by Amphion and Zethos. Close by stands
Antiope.

On the left, outside the cave, the bull tramples on the lifeless form of
Dirke. In the centre Hermes looks down on the scene and stays the up-
lifted sword that threatens Lycus. The broken branch attached to Dirke’s
hair illustrates the fragment of Euripides—

> /, 4
εἰ δέ που τύχοι
c n ‘\
πέριξ ἑλίξας εἷλκε... ὁμοῦ λαβὼν
γυναῖκα πέτραν δρῦν μεταλλάσσων ἀεί.35

38. It must be remembered that this is much
restored, and not altogether correctly. See

(p- 44, note 8, c.), says Helbig is wrong in
marking 1152 as no longer existing.

Friederichs- Wolters, Bausteine, 1402.

29 Cf. the Naples Cameo. See A.Z. 1853,
p. 90, Taf. lvi. See also Sogliano, 71 supplizio
di Dirce, Atti del? Accademia di Archacologia
Napoli, 1895, vol. xvii.

80 Baumeister, Denkmdler, p. 457.

31 Helbig, Wandgemdlde, 1151 and 1152.
In the Archdologische Zeitung of 1878, Dilthey

82 See Dilthey, loc. cit. p. 45.

33 Propertius iv. 15, 40.

34 See Taf. 7 of A. Ztg. 1878.

36 Baumeister, Denkméler, Abb. 502; Arch.
4tg. 1878, Taf. 7; cf. Furtwiingler, Beschrei-
bung, 3296.

36 Quoted by Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum
Fragmenta, 221, from Longinus, De Subl. 40, 4.

150 POMPEIAN PAINTINGS AND THEIR

The appearance of Hermes asa Deus ex machina is quite Kuripidean.
If the cave which is found in some of these pictures is intended to represent
the spot mentioned by Pausanias,*” where the twins Amphion and Zethos
were exposed, we have here also a suggestion of scenic origin. There is in
fact little room for doubt that in this, as in many other cases, a drama by
Euripides was the basis on which the pictorial rendering of the myth was
founded. The artist then who succeeded in establishing the type in a
pictorial form so excellent as to be copied over and over again must be
sought in an age when the influence of Euripides still prevailed, as in the
earlier decades of the fourth century, when the elder Aristeides was the
leading painter of the Theban School.

The myth of Dirke is of a local Boeotian stamp, and suggests a Theban
artist. One specially Theban artist, Aristcides, is known to us through the
pages of Pliny.*8 The awful punishment of Dirke was a theme well suited
to his powers; for he seems to have painted scenes of terror, of slaughter,
and of death ;39 and if we are to make a guess as to the creator of the type of
Dirke we had better hazard the name of Aristeides ‘ the Theban.’

the vase-painter and his more important brethren of the panel and the
fresco undoubtedly availed themselves of their artistic license to vary the
scheme of the legend, especially by introducing more characters on the scene
than was permitted by the strict laws of Attic tragedy.” But with regard
to Dirke, the Antiope of Euripides lay at the base of their most ambitious
efforts. Fragments of this play have come down to us ;*! it was imitated in
Latin by Ennius, or more probably Pacuvius ;*” and Hyginus® gives the plot,
the dénouement of which forms the subject of our picture.

The relicfs on the columns of the temple at Cyzicus raised in honour of
Apollonis by her dutiful sons, Kumenes and Attalus,“ are no longer extant.
We have, however, a later representation of the story on a medallion of
Septimius Severus, struck at Akrasos. Through the kindness of Mr. Barclay
Head I have had the opportunity of examining this medallion, and I find that
the subject is not treated in the same way as in the work of Apollonios and
Tauriskos. Dirke lies on the ground, Just raising herself on one arm, com-
pletely under the bull, to high she is fasteriet Of the two brothers,
Amphion and Zethos, one holds the bull by the nostrils, the other is behind.
No other person is present.‘

Besides this there are mentioned by Eckhel as bearing representations
of Dirke’s fate a contorniate and a large brass of Caracalla struck at Thya-

37 1 38, 9. 41 See Nauck, TZvragicorum Graccorwm

38 Nat. Hist. xxxv. 98-100 (where, however, ragmenta, ed. sec., pp. 410-426.
Pliny confuses two persons of the same name ; 42 See Vogel, Scenen euripideischer Tragé-

Aristeides ‘the Theban’ was really father of dicen, p. 59, ‘Statt Ennius ist Pacuvius zu
Nicomachos, and grandfather of a younger lesen,’ Cf. Ribbeck, Trag. Lat. Rel. p. 279;
Aristeides ; see Oemichen, Plinianische Studien, and Rém. Trag. 281.

Ρ. 234). 43 Fab. 8. It is to be noted that in Hyginus,
39 See Woltmann and Woermann, Histon of ‘Dircen ad taurum crinibus religatain necant.’
Painting (Eng. edn.), p. 54. 4 Anthol. iii. 7.

40. See Robert, Bild und Lied, p, 36. 45 See Archdol. Zig. 1853, Taf. lviii.

RELATION TO HELLENIC MASTERPIECES, 151

teira,’® and Mionnet * speaks of a coin of Alexander Severus showing the twin
brothers, one of whom seizes Dirke by the hair. This also belongs to
Thyateira, which was supposed to have an hereditary connection with Amphion
through his marriage with Niobe,** though according to some her husband
was another Amphion, son of Iasos, king of Orchomenos.

Eye... 3.

These coins of Thyateira may probably be indebted for their type to
some local monument.
The vase-painting and the frescoes provide us with two distinct repre-
sentations of two different moments of the same action—one before, the other
16. Doct. Num. Vet. iii. p. 122. no. 990. a
47 Descr. des Médailles antiques, iv. p. 172, 48 Apollodoros iii, 5, 6.

152 POMPEIAN PAINTINGS AND THEIR

after the dragging of Dirke by the bull. Both were probably inspired by a
rhesis of Euripides; both may well have formed parts of a pictorial cycle by
the same artist, in some shrine near the fountain that bore Dirke’s name.

If the artist was Aristeides we can account for their appearance in Italy,
for we know that some of his pictures were brought over to adorn the Roman
temples. At Rome they would be seen by the Roman dilettanti, many of
whom had villas on the Campanian coast. Some of these doubtless were
admirers of Euripides and may naturally have chosen to decorate their
dwellings with subjects derived from that poet’s works.”

The subject represented on the central wall of the oecus is the death of
Pentheus, who is the chief figure (Fig. 3). He kneels on his left knee, the right
leg being stretched forwards and outwards. His chlamys floating behind him
leaves body and limbs bare, except just round the neck. His body is seen
to the front, his head turned slightly upwards and to the right as he casts
an imploring glance on the assailant, probably his mother Agavé, who has
seized him by the hair with her left hand, and has raised her right, grasping
her thyrsus as a javelin; she plants her right foot on his outstretched thigh,
just as Athena tramples on Enkelados. With his right arm Pentheus vainly
tries to check her onset. His left arm, bent upwards to his head, is seized
by another maenad of more girlish type. The flowing drapery of both these
maenads, especially of the first-named, is excellently rendered, the limbs and
curves of the body being suggested beneath.

The drawing is not altogether free from fault,®° but the composition and
the expression of living action are worthy of the highest praise. The
colouring, we are told,®! is delicate and harmonious. In the foreground lies
a spear, as if fallen from the second maenad’s hand. Above the principal
group thus symmetrically arranged appear the upper portions of three female
figures. Those in the angles brandish torches and darts, which, though their
heads are not visible, are probably intended for ¢hyrsi. The central figure of
the three raises with both hands above her head a large stone, ready to dash
it on the head of Pentheus placed beneath. It is the supreme moment when
Agavé and the sharers of her frenzy have swooped down on their luckless
quarry :

λαβοῦσα δ᾽ ὠλέναις ἀριστερὰν χέρα,
πλευραῖσιν ἀντιβᾶσα τοῦ δυσδαίμονος,
ἀπεσπάραξεν mov.”

In October last Mr. Marriott, the author of Facts about Pompei, showed
me photographs of five of the chief pictures in the House of Vettius. Finding
these photographs were not to be had in London, I sent to Naples for them.

49 We learn from Sogliano, J supplizio di 0 Κα. Agave’s right foot is much larger than
Dirce, p. 9, that, besides Dirke’s gold armlets her left; and the right arm of the other maenad
and bangle, the colours blue, red, and purpleap- _ seizing Pentheus is shapeless.
pear on the drapery. It is, of course, impossible 51 See Marriott, Zag. Ill. Mag. Jan. 1896,
to decide how far these are due to the copyist, _p. 455.
and how far to Aristeides, who, according to 52 Kurip. Bacchae 1125-27.

Pliny (xxxv. 98), was ‘durior paulo in coloribus.

RELATION TO HELLENIC MASTERPIECES. 153

In the meantime (on December 5th) the President of the Society of Anti-
quaries exhibited one, the Pentheus, and drew attention to its very modern
look.

So modern is it in tone that one might fancy Pentheus a saint and martyr;
and, on the other hand, if it were possible to account for their aggressive hostility,
we might take his pursuers to be angels. For the voluptuous display of the
nude, so characteristic of Hellenistic art, and still more so of the art of
Pompeii, is here markedly absent, as far as the female figures are concerned.
Pentheus indeed is naked, save for a fluttering chlamys, but his five assailants
are almost fully draped. The original then, of which this Pompeian fresco is
a remote descendant, should be sought apparently not, as in most cases, in the
Hellenistic period, but in a comparatively early age, yet in an age when the
principles of composition and draughtsmanship were already fully grasped.
Such an original may have been the one mentioned by Pausanias ** as forming
part of a series of pictures decorating a temple of Dionysos near the theatre
at Athens. There were two temples of Dionysos close together, as there
were two celebrated images of the god: one the Eleuthereus, probably the
ancient wooden cultus-image; the other the statue by Alkamenes, of gold
and ivory. The pendant to the Pentheus was a representation of the similar
penalty inflicted on Lycurgus, who like Pentheus ventured to outrage the
powerful deity. With these were other Dionysiac subjects, the Return of
Hephaistos to Olympos, the Desertion of Ariadne by Theseus, and her falling
into the hands of Dionysos; two scenes recurring in the House of Vettius,
and often elsewhere in Pompeii.» We cannot tell in which temple these were
to be found. Miss Harrison thinks they were ‘in the later and larger of
the two,’ which probably sheltered the splendid chryselephantine work of
Alkamenes ; we must not forget, however, the extreme veneration always felt
by the Greeks for the rude xoana of primeval sanctity, which may well have
led to a rich adornment of the older shrine.

Unfortunately Pausanias gives us no hint as to the treatment of the
myth of Pentheus in this painting. Nor, strangely enough, have we any
other guide to help us as to its pictorial rendering, unless indeed we can rely
upon the elder Philostratus. This dubious authority, in his Jmagines,°® professes
to describe a picture as follows: ‘The subject of this painting, my son, is
what happened on Kithairon, the dancing Bacchanals, rocks full of wine,
nectar from the grape-clusters, and earth making her clods fat with milk.
See too, there is creeping ivy, and upreared snakes, and the leafage of the
thyrsus, methinks, dripping honey. Here too you have the pine-tree lying on
the ground, a great work wrought by women inspired by Dionysos; it has

Bern 2083. that such scenes as the Pentheus in that temple
54 Since writing the above, I have lighted on _ could not be earlier than the time of Zeuxis and
Helbig’s opinion (Untersuchungen, p. 256) that Parrhasios.
the original of these pictures of Ariadne was 55 Mythology and Monuments of Ancient
the painting in the temple of Dionysos, men- Ad¢hens, p. 256.
tioned by Pausanias. Helbig adds (p. 257) sai ΤῊ;

154 POMPEIAN PAINTINGS AND THEIR

fallen and shaken off Pentheus among the Bacchanals, in whose eyes he seems
a lion. But they—his mother and her sisters—are tearing their prey in
pieces, some wrenching off his arms, and she dragging her son by his hair.
And Dionysos himself looking down on them stands with a face full of wrath,
goading on the frenzied women. Nor do they see what it is they are doing,
and when Pentheus implores their pity they cry out that it is a lion that
they hear roaring.’ :

Here, as Jahn has remarked,*” we have two distinct scenes. If, however,
it is not really the description of an actual picture (or pictures), at any rate
it tells us plainly enough what a Greek of Imperial times thought a suitable
pictorial treatment of the Death of Pentheus.

It must be remembered that Flavius Philostratus lived in the first half
of the third century of our era, and may possibly have seen the same painting
that Pausanias had described not so very many years before. Beyond this I
know little of pictures representing the fate of Pentheus. Till the other day
no such picture had been brought to light, either at Herculaneum or at
Pompeii. This is not a little strange, if we consider the popularity of the
myth in the literature of Hellas in both poetry and prose. It cannot, indeed,
boast the literary antiquity of the companion legend of Lykourgos, which is
found in the Iliad, though in an episode perhaps rather late. With the
earlier dramatists, on the other hand, it was a favourite theme; Suidas
mentions a Pentheus among the plays of Thespis, and fragments remain of a
trilogy by Aeschylos in which Pentheus was a central figure. Of later
tragedians Iophon, the younger Xenokles, Herakleides, and Lykophron are
said to have treated of the same story. It was Euripides, however, as far as
we know, that gave to this subject the prominence that it certainly attained
and kept throughout classic times. It was the Bacchae of Euripides that
supplied the hymn of triumph ® with which the head of Crassus was brought
among the revelling Parthians.”

In the version thus established by the authority of Euripides, Pentheus,
refusing to acknowledge the divinity of his kinsman Dionysos, is led to play
the spy on his mother Agavé and her maenad sisters, who, inspired with
frenzy by the outraged god, rend in pieces the impious intruder, in the belief
that he is a wild beast. His own mother tears off his shoulder.™

Theocritus (270 B.c.), who generally treads in the footsteps of the older
poets,® slightly varies the words of Euripides by making Agavé seize her son’s
head, while Ino, aided by Autonoe, plants her feet on his belly and tears off
his shoulder.* So, too, Ovid ® makes Autonoe and Ino rend off their nephew's
arms, while his mother, Agavé, after hurling her thyrsus, tears his head from
his body, taking him for a wild boar.

57 Pentheus wnd die Mainaden, p. 8. 6l Plutarch, Crassus, 33.

58 yi. 130-140. 62 Bacchae, v. 1127.

59 Vogel, Scenen euripidcischer Tragidien, 63 See Fritsche, Arguwmentum of Idyl, xxvi.
p. 112. Cf. Ribbeck, Die Rémische Tragédie, 64 xxvi, 20-24,
pp. 280, 281. 85 Metamorphoses, iii. 712-728.

6 Κ΄, v. 1170 seq.

RELATION TO HELLENIC MASTERPIECES. 155
By the time of Nero the boar has become a calf :—

‘Et raptum vitulo caput ablatura superbo
Bassaris ’— δ

but the rending in pieces remains.
Apollodorus ® (140 B.c.) gives the tale with less of circumstance :—

Tey bets. yesarie ier ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς ᾿Αγαυῆς κατὰ μανίαν ἐμελείσθη.

Pausanias,® writing in the middle of the second century of our era, also
relates that Pentheus was torn piecemeal, adding a story as to the tree he
had climbed being cut up to make images of Dionysos.

‘His fate is similarly alluded to by Lucian in his Piscator (2), Adversus
Indoctum (19), De Morte Peregrini (2), and Saturnalia (8).

In the time of Athenaeus, A.D. 190, the old warlike Pyrrhic dance, with
spear and shield, lingered among the Spartans alone, Elsewhere it had
assumed the character of a Bacchic ballet. The words of Athenaeus® are
worth quoting :—‘ The dancers are provided with thyrsi instead of spears... .
They represent in their dancing the adventures of Dionysos and the Indians,
and also the story of Pentheus.’

Here we have a definite statement that spears were not used by those
who represented the assailants of Pentheus. Yet the spear in the foreground
of our picture would appear to belong, not to Pentheus, who was unarmed,
but to the Bacchante on his left.

So, too, on marble reliefs, as that in the Giustiniani Palace, represented
in the Denkmaler of C.O. Miiller (1.437) and Baumeister (p. 1205, fig. 1397),
the death of Pentheus is brought about by tearing him literally limb from
limb.

On a vase given by Miiller,”” Pentheus is threatened with a sword by a
woman, presumably Agave, who has seized his arm. On the Munich vase
(No. 807) 71 a sword and a torch are, for the sake of variety, added to the
thyisi used in attacking Pentheus, but there is no spear.”

The introduction of the spear then would appear to be a modification
of the original scheme as we may suppose it to have stood in the shrine of
Dionysos to the south of the Athenian Acropolis.”

If Pausanias has given us no clue to this original composition of the
Pentheus group, he aids us as little as to its date. Could we assume that
the picture was in the later of the two temples of Dionysos, and that it was

86 Persius i. 100; part of four lines supposed 72 Single figures of Pentheus and Agave are
to be quoted from Nero, to be found on gems (see A. H. Smith’s Catal.

87 iii, 5, 2, 2. of Gems in the Brit. Mus., nos. 1081 and 1082),

68 ij. 2, 7. but these do not help us as to the grouping.

69 xiv. 631. 73 Prof. Percy Gardner has called my atten-

7 Denkmédler, ii. 436. See Jahn, Pentheus, tion to a maenad holding a spear, not thyrsus,
ΠΝ ἀν; on a late monument, Stephani, Ausruhende

71 See O. Jahn, Pentheus, Taf. ii. a; and Hercules, pl. 1. See also Sandys, Bacchae,
Baumeister, Denkmdler, Abb. 1396. μὰν δ

156 POMPEIAN PAINTINGS AND THEIR

for this temple that Alkamenes made his statue, we might fix as a terminus
post quem the latter portion of the fifth century. In the absence of any such
certainty it is of course possible that the work belonged to the time of the
great mural decorations executed by Polygnotos and his immediate disciples ;
in which case it would have been a more or less statuesque arrangement of
comparatively isolated figures, very different from our Pompeian group.

Considering, however, the new interest in the Theban legend that must
have been aroused by the production of the Bacchae, we may well prefer to
assign the painting to a later artist, whether it stood in the older or in the
newer shrine. Euripides died in 406 B.c., and the play was produced at
Athens after his death, at a time when the art of Zeuxis must have been at
its zenith. Like his predecessor Apollodoros and his rival Parrhasios,’* Zeuxis
stood no doubt under the tragedian’s influence. A connecting link between
the two great geniuses is known to have existed. They both enjoyed the
friendship and patronage of Archelaos of Macedonia,” Euripides, once a
painter himself, would be drawn to his fellow-artist, while the wild luxury of
Bacchic frenzy would form an appropriate subject for a leader of the Asiatic
school. It would be quite natural, therefore, that Zeuxis, if commissioned
to adorn the temple of Dionysos with his paintings, should choose as the
subject of one of them the eminently pictorial death of Pentheus, as described
by Euripides. Nothing, it is to be observed, is said as to these being wall-
paintings, though they may well have been so.

In the temple of Aphrodite, according to the scholiast on Aristophanes,”
there was an Eros crowned with roses, from the pencil of Zeuxis. If this sanctu-
ary, as seems probable, was that of ‘Aphrodite in the gardens,’ there stood
beside this picture a famous statue of the goddess by the hand of Alkamenes.”®
May we not then reasonably suppose that Zeuxis was also associated with
that sculptor in adorning the temple of Dionysos ?

The descent of our Pompeian picture from that archetype at Athens is
of course entirely conjectural.’? In any case it is both an interesting work of
art and a valuable illustration of ideas, once no doubt viewed with consider-
able repugnance by the more old-fashioned among the Greeks.

Yet although Dionysos may flee for a while before the wrath of such
conservative potentates as Lycurgus, nevertheless in the end the divine power
prevails, ‘ Not long-lived is he who fights with immortals, says Dione, ‘nor

do children at his knees call him father when returned from war and fearful
strife.’ 89

74 See Robert, Bild und Lied, p. 35.
75 Aelian (V. H. xiv. 17), quotes Socrates as
saying that Archelaos commissioned Zeuxis to

(vv. $91-2), which play was acted in 426.
7 On ν. 992 of the Acharnians. The
scholiast’s words ἐν τῷ ναῷ...ἔγραψε, suggest

decorate his palace, and paid him a fee of
£1,400.

76 Zeuxis was probably an Asiatic Greck.
Klein has shown that he cannot have been a
native of the Lucanian Heraclea, as that was
not founded till 432 3B.c., while Aristophanes
mentions a picture of his in the Acharnians

that the wall itself was painted, not that a
picture was brought from the studio to be fixed
upon it.

78 See Pausanias i. 19, 2.

79 Cf. Helbig, Untersuchungen, pp. 256, 257.
See ante, p. 153, note 54.

8° Homer, Jliad v. 407-409.

RELATION TO HELLENIC MASTERPIECES. 157

As with Lycurgus so with others who opposed Dionysos—

Quales his poenas qualis quantusque minetur,
Cadmeae matris praeda cruenta docet.*?

With reference to the reciprocal relations of these paintings it has been
observed that they have in common a Theban foundation. Two of them
have the same mountain, Kithairon, for a background, and the Bacchie
thyrsus appears in each. In these two also it is the central figure who meets
with a frightful retribution for outrage committed against those dear to Zeus ;
while in the third, though the offspring of Zeus is again triumphant, we
cannot assign to the sufferers so important a 7éle.

Sogliano indeed in his recent monograph on the Dirke * suggests a moral
parallel in the three pictures, finding in each the idea of vengeance mani-
fested in punishment. Yet it seems hardly appropriate to apply such terms
as vengeance and punishment to Herakles killing a couple of snakes, even
though they have tried to kill him; for no vengeance reaches Hera who sent
them. Perhaps the general idea of death would be nearer the mark, con-
nected with the fruitlessness of warring against the will of Zeus. But is not
the parallelism rather one of outward appearance? Are not the pictures
arranged so as to correspond in size and position, and also (approximately) in
the number and grouping of figures? This has been found to be the case
elsewhere in Pompeii, as has been remarked by Trendelenburg.** Such
symmetry is, in fact, an essential principle of Classic Art.

TALFOouURD ELy.

81 Tibullus iii. 6, 23, 24. Jezug zwischen Gegenstiicken,’ 7b. p. 79. See
% 71 supplizio di Dirce, p. 8, note 1. too the remarks on extemal similarity with a

83 See his ‘Gegenstiicke in der Wandmalerei,’ _view to selection of pendants in Woltmann and
Archdol, Zeitung 1876, p. 2; also‘ Der innere Woermann, op. cit. p. 138.

158 THE MEGALITHIC TEMPLE AT BUTO.

THE MEGALITHIC TEMPLE AT BUTO.
Hrroporus II. 155.

‘In this city of Buto there is a sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis.
The particular temple of Leto, which was described as the place of the
oracle, is itself, I found, large and has a stair ten fathoms in height. But in
what was visible to me, the most astonishing thing was this: there is in
the enclosure there a temple of Leto, wrought from a single stone in respect
of height as well as of length, and each wall equal to these [stones]. Hach
of these [stones] is of forty cubits. And for the covering in of the roof
there is another stone imposed, having a supertecture (?) of four cubits’.
ἱρὸν δέ ἐστι ἐν τῇ Βουτοῖ ταύτῃ ᾿Απόλλωνος καὶ ᾿Αρτέμιδος: καὶ 6 ye νηὸς
τῆς Λητοῦς, ἐν τῷ δὴ τὸ χρηστήριον ἔνι, αὐτός τε τυγχάνει ἐὼν μέγας καὶ τὰ
προπύλαια ἔχει ἐς ὕψος δέκα ὀργυιέων: τὸ δέ μοι τῶν φανερῶν θῶυμα
μέγιστον παρεχόμενον φράσω" ἔστι ἐν τῷ τεμένεϊ τούτῳ Λητοῦς νηὸς ἐξ ἑνὸς
λίθου πεποιημένος ἔς τε ὕψος καὶ ἐς μῆκος" καὶ τοῖχος ἕκαστος τούτοισι
ἴσος: τεσσεράκοντα πήχεων τούτων ἕκαστόν ἐστι τὸ δὲ καταστέγασμα τῆς
ὀροφῆς ἄλλος ἐπικέεται λίθος ἔχων τὴν παρωροφίδα τετράπηχυν.

This passage has an interest greater than its mere subject, and seems to
demand a more exact attention than has commonly been bestowed upon it.
We may not indeed feel much concern about the details of a building in the
Delta not apparently of the first importance. But it is a question of some
magnitude for the student of antiquity, whether Herodotus was or was not
a reckless liar; and we cannot limit more narrowly than this the issue pre-
sented by the above description together with the current expositions of it.
That the text is genuine there is no reason to doubt; and the attempts to
get rid of the problem by conjectural emendations are as unsatisfying as
they are arbitrary. The interpretations of it offer us a choice. Herodotus,
it is held, here asserts that he saw at Buto a cubic monument of stone measur-
ing about seventy feet, of which the material was either (1) a single block, or
(2) four enormous slabs, with a second (or fifth) stone for the roof.

To prove that he did not see any such monument, nor any which by
honest mistake he could suppose to be such, we need not appeal either to
the general conditions of mechanical art, nor to the evidence of existing
remains as to the limit of Egyptian achievements in this kind. Herodotus,
if he meant what has been supposed, may be sufficiently exposed and refuted
αὖ of his own mouth. In the 175th chapter of this same book he expressly

THE MEGALITHIC TEMPLE AT BUTO. 159

states that, in the size of the stones employed, all builders, so far as he was
aware, had been surpassed by the gigantic buildings and decorations, at Sais
and elsewhere, attributed to King Amasis: and he describes with minute
accuracy the particular specimen which most impressed him. This was an
oblong block of stone, measuring in its greatest dimension about thirty-five
feet, and hollowed out, so as to make a chamber, with walls something less
than two feet thick. It was brought down the river from Elephantiné, an
operation which extended into the third year and occupied 2,000 men. It
was to have been placed in the sanctuary of ‘Athené’ at Sais, but that
design was not completed; for when it had been tugged as far as the
entrance, there were signs of discontent and rebellion, which, as Herodotus
puts it with quaint humour, raised in the king’s mind a ‘religious scruple’ ;
and the block remained outside. Whatever be the value of the anecdote,
the description of the chamber, as Herodotus saw it in situ, is no doubt
correct. Existing monuments show that the Egyptian gangs could have
accomplished as much as this, or perhaps a little more; though the narrator
justly reckons it a prodigious example of profuse and patient labour. But if
he had seen at Buto such a structure as he has been supposed to represent,
his astonishment at Sais would be itself astonishing and absurd. Taking
even the less miraculous view which gives the building five stones, the slab
which formed the roof must on any estimate have weighed many times as
much as the chamber of King Amasis. Yet the builders (it would seem)
not merely brought this slab down to the neighbourhood of the coast, but
coolly lifted it seventy feet or more into the air, and put it on their structure
like a lid. Even to erect the monolithic walls, allowing for the thickness
which they would need to be stable, was a feat compared with which the
performance of Amasis was child’s play. The whole thing grossly exceeds
the limits of possibility, as defined by the author himself. Nor can he be
excused on the ground of inadvertence. The account of the sanctuary at
Buto is manifestly shaped with the intention of assuring the reader that the
describer was cautious and observant; he discriminates with a precision,
which, if not genuine, must be deliberately fraudulent, between what was and
what was not within the view permitted to him. If then, for the pleasure
of raising a momentary wonder, he could in this fashion put forward a
circumstantial falsehood, it is really useless to estimate his authority. If
Herodotus said this, his assertions, as such, are absolutely worthless,—a
somewhat uncomfortable conclusion.

It is therefore satisfactory, so far at least, to see, as upon closer con-
sideration we must, that whatever the words of the author may mean, they
will not bear either of the meanings which have been put upon them. As
to the first supposition (if indeed it is worth notice), to imagine the temple
as carved out of one block, though it might seem to satisfy the words νηὸς
ἐξ ἑνὸς λέθου πεποιημένος, leaves all the rest of the description, the ‘ stones’
of forty cubits and the ‘other stone superimposed,’ unexplained and _ sense-
less, Nor is the alternative any more admissible. If the meaning were
that each wall of the temple was a single block or slab, it would have been

160 THE MEGALITHIC TEMPLE AT BUTO.

quite easy and simple to say so. But in that case the temple was in no sense
‘made from one stone’, nor could it be said with sense that ‘ each wall was
equal to these stones’,’ when in fact the stones actually were the walls.

Since then Herodotus happily has not made either of the statements
suggested, it remains to discover, if possible, what he did mean. Now one
thing may be remarked. Though both the interpretations propounded
assume that, in ἐξ ἑνὸς λίθου πεποιημένος Es τε ὕψος καὶ ἐς μῆκος ‘ wrought
from a single stone in respect of height as well as in respect of length’, the
preposition ἐξ (from) denotes the material of which the temple was made, and
although this assumption is consistent with common usage, it is hard to see
how it can possibly be right in this place. For if ‘made from a single stone’
refers to material, what is the relevance of the addition ‘in respect of height
as well as in respect of length’? Material has no concern with dimensions ;
whatever is in this sense ‘made from one stone’, is necessarily so made in
respect of all its dimensions. And the objection is increased by the particular
dimensions specified. If it were said that ‘the temple is made from one
stone in length and Ureadth’, this might perhaps pass for a singularly clumsy
way of expressing the fact that its walls, both the longitudinal and the
latitudinal (so to speak), were monolithic. But to specify length and height,
and these alone, seems on this supposition not useless merely or awkward, but
simply unintelligible. Surely therefore we must suppose that, since ἐξ ἑνὸς
λέθου πεποιημένος cannot here bear its ordinary sense consistently with the
context or with a sane meaning, the writer must have used it in some
exceptional sense, the other, from its manifest impossibility, never even
occurring to his mind. And another sense is easily found. The preposition
ἐξ, used with reference to an operation such as building, may point to the
material, but also may not. It may refer to the starting-point from which we
commence, as for instance in the phrase ἐξ ἐδάφους, from the foundation
upwards. And if we give this meaning to ἐξ, we can see at once the purport
of the added words of dimension. A building would be ‘wrought’ or
‘constructed from a single stone in respect of length’, if, counting the courses
of masonry horizontally or lengthwise, the first and lowest course was a
monolith. And it would be so constructed ‘in respect of height’, if the end
of the wall, the first course counting vertically, was a monolithic pier. The
temple is described by Herodotus as so constructed in respect of both these
dimensions or directions, that is to say, its walls stood upon monolithic sills,
and were also terminated by monolithic piers. From these sills and piers,
that is to say, starting from them as a given framework, the temple was
‘made’ or ‘ built’ in the usual way, and of blocks comparatively small. And
this will explain, what upon any other supposition seems to me incomprehen-
sible, what the author means by saying that ‘each wall of the temple is equal

1 It is surely obvious that τούτων and _ toavoid this, e.g. by the rendering ‘each wall is
τούτοισι refer to the same things, that both equal in these respects’, viz. height and length,
therefore signify the stones, and thattoos τούτοισι are desperate in grammar. Neither do they
cannot mean anything but ‘equal to these touch the main difficulty, that the meaning thus
stones.” The attempts which have been made violently extracted is itself absurd,

THE MEGALITHIC TEMPLE AT BUTO. 161

to these stones’. The monoliths determined the dimensions of the walls, which
were equal in height to the height of the piers, and in length to the length
of the sills. What struck his eye was in the first place the stately and solid
effect given to the building by this framework, and still more the size and
mass of the monoliths, which he reckoned to be nearly 70 feet long or high
respectively. Nor were even these the most remarkable. So far as appears,
he could not enter the building, nor view it otherwise than from in front
and at a distance. But even so he was convinced that the architrave,
‘imposed for the covering in of the roof’, was also a monolith, ‘having a
projection (?) of four cubits’. From this way of speaking, since the author
thus supposes himself to have indicated the length of the architrave, we
may infer, what otherwise would not be quite clear, that the building was
square, the front, as well as the sides, measuring forty cubits. If then we
suppose the ‘ projection of four cubits’ to include, as it may, the projection on
both sides, the length of the architrave will be forty-four cubits; if the
‘projection’ is that on one side only, forty-eight; at the utmost therefore
something near eighty feet. In the sills, the piers, and the architrave alike, he
gives one dimension only, the long one, leaving the other dimensions, as
would be the inclination of an observer not writing technically, to be
estimated roughly by the natural and necessary proportions, Something we
may perhaps allow for exaggeration on the part of his informant, or deception
of his eye; but there is no reason to think that his report is not perfectly
honest and true to the appearances. Even a monolithic beam measuring
eighty feet (by six feet by six feet, let us suppose) would be no miracle
among the buildings of Egypt. But it was enough to inspire awe in a
beholder accustomed only to the composite pillars and entablatures of Hellas ;
and we may well believe that, when Herodotus came to Buto, he had never
before seen or fancied anything like it.

In considering the dimensions of the beam, it has been so far assumed
that the doubtful word παρωροφίς (supertecture) signifies, as it naturally
might, the ‘ projection’ of the roof beyond the main building, in short the
eaves. This is disputed, some taking it, partly on the authority of a not very
lucid explanation in Pollux, to mean the depth of the entablature or of some
part of it.2 The point is of little or no importance, and my reason for notic-
ing the former explanation is only that, upon the whole passage, it seems
natural to think that the author means the ‘four cubits’ of the παρωροφίς
to determine the measurement of the beam, by reference to that of the other
stones already given: if so, the παρωροφίς must be its projection. If the
παρωροφίς be its depth, its length or greatest dimension is not given; for we
could by no means assume that it was exactly equal to the breadth of the
front.

It will be noticed that Herodotus speaks of this beam as ‘set upon (the
building) for the covering in of the roof’, τὸ δὲ καταστέγασμα τῆς ὀροφῆς

2 τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ ὀρόφου καὶ τοῦ στέγους Pollux, cited by Blakesley, who however himself recom-
mends the other interpretation.
H.S.— VOL. XVI. M

162 THE MEGALITHIC TEMPLE AT BUTO.

ἄλλος ἐπικέεται λίθος. These words by no means imply, or even, when pos-
sibility is considered, suggest, that the one stone made the roof. But they do,
I think, contain a suggestion, which probably occurred to Herodotus as not
unlikely, that the roof was supported on a series of such beams, or even
composed of such. His whole description of Buto and its sanctuary implies
that he had there no advantages as a visitor, and could by no means satisfy
his curiosity. The phrase ‘ what was visible of this sanctuary ’, twice repeated
within a few sentences, savours strongly of disappointment. At the oracle
itself he seems to have seen nothing except the objects in an outer enclosure,
as they appeared to a person looking in, with the stair of the main temple
for a background. Of that which here chiefly caught his eye, the chapel
which we ae been discussing, he has noted exactly so much as he could
thus ascertain, that is to say, the apparent size of its principal stones.
And in speaking of these, he has confined himself precisely to those which
were actually visible, mentioning therefore the monoliths as running the /ength
of the building and also the height. Whether there were also latitudinal
monoliths he does not expressly say, and could not be sure, for the front had
probably a door, and the back was out of sight. The whole account, thus
considered, so far from impeaching his veracity, shows a strong desire for
facts, which indeed appears to have been no less characteristic of him than
his love of things extraordinary, though for want of sufficient knowledge his
judgment was of course often at fault.

In criticizing the sense which he seems to have put on the expression
νηὸς ἐξ ἑνὸς λίθου πεποιημένος ἔς TE ὕψος καὶ ἐς μῆκος, we must carefully
notice, what an English translation necessarily conceals, the protection against
misunderstanding which is given by the order of the words. In the English
‘made from a single stone’, the words ‘made from’ raise in themselves the
notion of material, which therefore seems to determine the sense of what
follows. But in the Greek νηὸς ἐξ ἑνὸς λέθου, on the contrary, the notion of
material is from the first excluded as inconceivable, a thing so extravagant
that, if it had been meant, it must have been represented by an expression
incapable of any other sense, for example, by νηὸς μουνόλιθος, as in chapter
175, where it is meant, it is represented by οἴκημα μουνόλιθον. As the words
stand here, it is natural to take ἐξ ἑνὸς λίθου without hesitation in the only
sense which makes them credible; and this sense determines that of the
sequel. The reason why Herodotus allowed himself an expression which,
when recast in English, becomes misleading, is simply that the other never
occurred to his mind as imaginable. The case may be easily illustrated in
our own language. ‘All the Popes ever since the first century, each in the
dignity of his tiara and pontifical vestments, run round the interior of the
church of St. Paul without the Walls’. Here is a sentence which, though
it could not mislead any but a very ignorant reader, suggests a grotesque
idea, and would certainly be rejected by a good writer. But arrange it thus,
‘Round the interior of the church of St. Paul without the Walls run all the
Popes ever since the first century, each in the dignity of his tiara and
pontifical vestments’, and we have what, if not unexceptionably elegant, is

THE MEGALITHIC TEMPLE AT BUTO. 163

perfectly clear and inoffensive. It is still, as much as ever, grammatically
possible to refer the statement to living Popes, and to suppose them literally
‘running’ round the church. But a reader, to whom this notion occurred,
might well be told by the author that he was expected to know something
besides grammar: and the like reply might have been made by Herodotus to
a Greek reader who accused him of suggesting, when he wrote νηὸς ἐξ ἑνὸς
λίθου πεποιημένος ἔς τε ὕψος Kai ἐς μῆκος, that the building described was
made of one single block.

It is proper to add that my attention was directed to this passage, and to
the need of some better explanation, by Mr. Somers Clarke, now and for some
time past engaged, as an architect, in researches among the monuments of
Egypt. I have submitted to Mr. Clarke the question, whether it is likely that
the temple at Buto was really such as Herodotus, according to my version,
describes. He replies in the negative: such a method of building would not
be in accordance with the highly conservative practice of the country. He
thinks that Herodotus was deceived by appearances, probably by stucco (gesso)
and painting. This opinion I readily accept, and indeed have not the know-
ledge which would entitle me to dispute it, even if I were so disposed. It is
plain, from the passage itself, that Herodotus had not the power to examine
the building closely, or to correct the impression of his eye; and his inform-
ants, if he had any, may well have been ignorant, careless, or misunderstood.
But there remains the separate question, certainly not less important from a
general point of view than that respecting the structure itself: what Hero-
dotus really says about it, what is the opinion into which he was (ex hypothes?)
misled by appearances. By no gesso, painting, or other disguise could he
have been honestly and permanently deceived into the assertions which have
hitherto been attributed to him. He had, and he shows us that he had, direct
testimony (to say nothing of his common-sense) that they were grossly false.
But his actual assertion is of another quality. It is, we will suppose, mistaken,
but it is not absurd. It is not inconsistent either with the facts of nature, or
with any positive knowledge which he can be shown or is likely to have pos-
sessed. There is no reason therefore to suppose that he did not honestly
believe it, or that he omitted any obvious or accessible means of verification.
It is to be added to the list of the numerous and for the most part inevitable
errors of his zealous but undisciplined curiosity; it does not tend to show
what the current interpretations would prove at a stroke, that he cared not in
the least whether he spoke truly or falsely, and that his assertions, all and
sundry, must for historical purposes be not weighed but simply ignored.

A. W. VERRALL.

~

M =

164 ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI

Ric. 1

ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI.
[PLates IV.—VII.]

THE white Iekythoi represented on Plates [V.-VII. and Figs. 1 and 2 are
members of a series, twelve or more in number, all bearing a marked family like-
ness in style, subject, and inscription. They are of interest to the historian
as presenting pictures of Athenian domestic life in the years of peace which
followed the Persian War: to the student of sculpture as anticipating in a
curious way many of the types and motives of later grave-reliefs: and to the
student of vase-technique as bridging the interval between the white-ground
kylikes of the ‘severe’ school and the ‘Lécythes blancs attiques ἃ repré-
sentations funéraires’ on which M. Pottier has written. Here is the list.
For the sake of clearness I have placed the inscriptions of the white-ground
lekythoi on the left-hand side of the page, those of the red-figured on the
night.

J.H.S. VOL. XVI. (1896) PL. IV,

AWEKY THOS FROM ATHENS,

= ee -
Ps won te
ΓΝ a Ἢ Φ
y 4a: ae
a Ὁ" > ~~...
. "2.5
ΨΥ

.᾿» Cd
Pe i
Ψ -

ἂν. ἢ
: ᾿
ΩΣ

~ inven’ Ve

-

a :
ww eer

[1 ὙἹ ἣν Φ -
= 4
“0 ὸ
5 4
+
“ΜῈ <
he
4 =
΄ a” ‘= —
Cur clay 2
ς

τ Ὁ
τ δι οι
“A

mecorplicnn 20 (Ὁ win
s) εὐ an |
ΘΗ MOR? ΓΕ -᾿

te hw sa |

7

J.H.S. Vol. XVI. (1896) PI. V.

FROM ERETRIA

CER Yaar

J.H.S.VOL, XVI1.(1896) PL:VI

area |
Ὰ
yee
Ps

oo “
i

ay

*

ὝΝΙ
ἐξ,

δ ᾿
ff 1 p ro] ΓΝ - =
3 ae ee i+ ca
" ‘ Ly » “pak
Ave it « - ΦῚ ¥ q —_- “ νῷ . ᾿ oy ;
h ἜΧΩΝ Ἐ ; ;
By ing ty, 4 My et a

ex 7
Sy
tick
᾿ Ὁ, 4 ὦ».
orks
Si
ie =
a,
I
!
a
7
=" =
o- (

oa

᾿ς w

——
i
> ows
Φ
vy
a
λ
»- Seg Pre
ὡ
Ὁ

Ἵ 4 Ὁ
= é ᾷ 5 a λ
an Ὁ » 4 us μὰ λον oe , {τὴ
ὃ. ΣῈ é ‘ae | ον U .
fo. ior ΛΑ Ἢ Ἰ { ὶ As a ed ΜΝ ὙΠ a> Ὁ" ,
: ᾿ 1 ᾿ ι »: a
τ» of Ἂν, . tz? A Ὧν - os ι Ἢ
τ Be ἱ “ee ΗΕ
υ i ‘ ne τ
i - in ει Γὰ y
. 4 ᾿ : "
ΕΝ; hho “ee ᾿ ν» ᾿ +
7.54 Σ hy 3 ᾿ ‘4 Υ A
ὶ aoe ᾿ Ε ἃ , Fe.
eet ~
nae ‘ a Ss ‘= ‘y Α ΒΝ ᾿ } fe
εἰ 2 ᾿ δι on adi Γ᾿ τιν
A } A, a ἢ ᾽ ἷ ᾿
Net! r : int
Ι ἴ ῃ a
Ἔν. ᾿ 7 a bed
«ὦ

J.h.g. VOL. XV!. 4896) PL. VII.

LEKYTHOS AT BERLIN.

ὴ ; ἮΝ 2 wea VR ὧν ANA

&

ee ee ee ey

VIIRAG. TA SONWTYNAL

ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI. 165

Let AAV. N From Attica: much broken. Plate IV. Now at
kAAOS Bonn. Seated lady putting on necklace, and stand-
AEATPO ing figure (maid?). Height originally about “40 m.

2. From Eretria. -TAAVKON Ht.'‘31.
Athens, 1645. Seated lady opening KAAOS
casket, and standing maid. AEAF PO

3. From ? CAAVKAN Ht. 185.
Oxford, 320. Catalogue, p. 32, KAA 2
fig. 35. Nurse holding child. AEAT PO

4. AldlAOs From Eretria. Plate V. Ht. “90.
KAAOS$ O Athens, 1922. Lady holding toilet-vase and
MEAANO?P mad holding casket, both standiug.

5. AldlAos’ From Eretria. Plate V. Ht. .40.
kKAAOS Athens, 1963. Two ladies, standing, one holding

MEAANOPO basket of grave-offerings, the other alabastron and
tovlet-vase : between them «a stork,

6. ΔΙφιλος From Eretria. Plate V. Ht. 90:
KAAOS Athens, 1923. Seated lady holding toilet-vase,
MEAANOPo another standing and holding tray-basket.

7. “AIDINOS From Eretria. Ht. 517.
kKAAOS O Messrs. Rollin and Feuardent. ὁ
MHAANOlm _ Seated lady and standing maid with casket.

8. APOMIPMos From Halimus (Pikrodafni). Plate VII. Ht.-368.
kAAOS Berlin, 2443. Nurse bringing child to seated
APOMOKAEIAO ἰαάγ.

9. APOMIIPMOs From Athens. Ht. “86.
KAAO§ | Van Branteghem Sale Catalogue, 174. Two
APOMOKAEI|AO ladies standing, one holding basket.

10. AI+A8s From Athens. Plate VI. Ht. “86.
kKAAOS British Museum, D 50. Seated lady, and standing
SAM[IO]¥ maid with basket of offerings.

On all these white-ground lekythoi (1 and 4—9) the flesh is represented
by white added on the yellowish-white ground. This is not the case with the
two which follow.

11. AAKIM . AHé From Gela. Ht. :35.
kAAOS Oxford, 266. Catalogue, Pl. 20. Zwo ladies

AIS+FYAIAO with lyres, one seated, one standing.

166 ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI.

From Suessula, Campania. Ht. °35.
Spinclli Collection, Acerra, 26m. Alitth. 1887,
Taf. xii. 5. Seated lady and standing maid.

12. Az=lomel////
KAAOS
AAKIMA+4////

It will be most convenient to discuss them under the heads of
I. —Inscriptions.
I1.—Subjects.
IIJ.—Distribution.
IV.—Technique.

I—The Inscriptions. The common characteristic of the series is the
addition of the father’s name to the usual ‘love-inscription.’ An apparent
exception is the Lichas vase (No. 10, Plate VI. and Fig. 1), on which the
third word has usually been read Yap(co)s, ‘the Samian.’ This is possible ; at
any rate Lichas is not an Attic name. It seems better, however, to read
Σαμ(ίο)υ, son of Samios, for several reasons :—

(a) The last letter is ἡ and may fairly be completed 7.1 It is true that
the hastily written ¢ on these vases often acquires a somewhat ‘lunate’
form; but, so far as I know, it is always a blurred zig-zag rather than a plain
curve, as may be seen here in the two preceding words.

(8) In all the other three-line inscriptions of this kind the third word

gives the father’s name.

(y) That a Lichas should be son of a Samios is peculiarly probable,
since, wlule neither is Attic, both are known as Spartan names.”

It is not easy to account for this fashion of adding the father’s name,
which is the characteristic badge of our series. As the population of Athens
increased the use of the patronymic to distinguish persons of the same name
would become more necessary. But there may be a further reason. In the
case of Glaukon the allusion to his illustrious father would be an additional

compliment. In like manner the name of Samios had honourable associa-
tions. Herodotos tells how at the siege of Samos in 525 a Spartan named

1 The form Y occurs on the kantharos of
Epigenes (Annali 1850, Tav. H, I) and on the
Alkimedes lekythos, our No. 10. For earlier
instances of OV instead of © to represent
the non-diphthongal ov, see Kretschmer, Vasen-
inschriften, p. 108.

* See for Lichas, Herod. i. 67, Xen. 7761]. iii.
2,21. For Samios Herod. iii. 55, Xen. Hell. iii.
1. Lichas occurs in other Dorian states ; Samios
seems peculiar to Sparta.

’ The only other instance seems to be a

Nolan amphora, E, 330 in the British Museum
(Mon. d. Inst. i. 9, 3), which has

ANAKIMAXS1E
KAASLE
EMIXAPOS

As Wernicke suggests, this Epichares may be
identical with one whose name appears on a
kylix contemporary with the early work of
Euphronios. See also his speculations as to the
relationship of this Alkimachos and the father
of Axiopeithes (No. 11 in the list above).

ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOL. L67

Archias charged with a single comrade through the gate and fell overpowered
by numbers inside the town, where the enemy gave them honourable burial.
In memory of his heroic end and of the chivalrous conduct of the Samians
a son of Archias reccived the name of Samios, Herodotos heard the story
from a younger Archias, son of Samios, with whom he conversed at Sparta.

As Sainios, even at Sparta, was an unusual name, it seems possible that
our Lichas belonged to this family; he may have been son of the first Samios
and brother of the second Archias. A Samios who commanded the Spartan
fleet in 401 would belong to the next generation. We get the following
stemma :—

Arehias, killed at Samos in 525. Herod. iii, 55.

Samios, born about 525.

2 | ;
Archias of Pitane, Lichas, a παῖς καλὺς
known to Ierodotos. at Athens about 465.

1 venture to date the Lichas vases ‘about 465, because the presence and
popularity of a young Spartan in Athens would accord admirably with the
well-known λακωνισμὸς of Kimon,! whose power was at its height between
470 and 404. We can hardly imagine such a case after the ignominious
return of Kimon’s expedition to the aid of Sparta against the Helots—xai
διαφορὰ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς στρατείας πρῶτον Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ ᾿Αθηναίοις
φανερὰ ἐγένετο, says Thucydides (1. 102)—still less after Kimon’s ostracism,
which followed about 402,

This dating harmonizes with the Glaukon-Leagros chronology, which is
based on No, 1 of our series, the beautiful fragment reproduced on Plate ΤΥ 3
Leagros was a favourite of the vasc-painters about 500 and died in 467. His
son Glaukon, who commanded the flect about 432, is generally supposed to
have enjoyed a similar popularity soon after the second Persian war. Now
the Lichas Ickythos, No. 10, is certainly later in style than the Glaukon
fragment, No. 1; but the severe style of «a Nolan amphora at Oxford which
bears the name of Lichas and the comparative freedom of the two red-
figured Glaukon Ickythoi, our Nos. 2 and 3, warn us that in a period of rapid
transition many different styles are in use together. We shall probably be
safe in regarding the carlier Lichas vases® as contemporary with the later
Glaukon group.

4 Tangible proofs of it are the facts that he and a vase of unknown form. Add the following
was proxenos of Sparta and called one of his — white Ickythoi. All agree in the use of added

sons Λακεδαιμόνιος. Cf. VPlutarch’s Cimon, white with our No. 10.

passtin. (Ὁ) ΚΑΛΟΞ Oxford. μδεαίοά lady
5. After an admirable water-colour by Dr. AIFAZ holding wreath. Behind

Winter. For permission to reproduce it here I k her a column, at her feet

am indebted to the great kindness of Professor aw duck. Red-tigured

Locsehcke. The fraginent is well known by shoulder. Ht. 25.

description (Arch. Jahrb. ii. p. 162 Studniczka, (Ὁ) AIFA Athens 1913. Found at

Arch, Anz. 1890, p. 11 Loeschcke, and the Athens.

collections of Klein and Wernicke). ΚΑΛΟΣ Woman offers fruit to
6 Klein gives only our No. 10, besides the youth. Letween them a

Nolan amphora from Gela, already referred to, doy. Ht. “51.

168 ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOIL.

A confirmation of this view is to be found in the love-inscriptions. The
Ionic lettering and neat στοιχηδὸν writing which characterize the Lichas
vases only became common about halfway through the period of Glaukon’s
popularity. The straggling, ill-spelled inscriptions on earlier vases show that
it was not until after the Persian wars that education reached the
Kerameikos. There are exceptions, from Epiktetos onwards. Pistoxenos,
on the Schwerin kotyle which shows Herakles at school, is at pains
to exhibit his own schooling in a careful two-line signature.’ About
the same time Duris in another school-scene uses the Attic alphabet
with \, for the ‘love-inscription, but the Ionic with Ω for the fragment
of Epic poetry on the roll in the master’s hand.* We find the converse
on a well-known amphora painted some years later. Then the inscrip-
tion on the base of a tripod preserves the Attic L, still customary in
public records, while the ‘love-name’ [AAVKMN is in Ionic, now the
ordinary hand-writing of the artist." On the white kylix at Berlin to which
Euphronios put his name as master-potter, A\WAVKON kKAVOS$ stands in
the old straggling fashion; but on the Acropolis kylix representing the
death of Orpheus, in all likelihood the work of the same anonymous painter,

AV AVKON

the fragmentary ON seems to represent an original , A\ OS written

exactly as on the London kylix with the design of Aphrodite riding the
swan. We can follow the same fashion and—if Dr. Hartwig is right—the
same hand, on two exceptionally large red-figured kylikes at Munich, which bear
the inscription ὁ παῖς καλὸς repeated many times as if for mere decorative effect.
At this point the signatures of the great kylix-painters come to an end; but
on larger vases we find Hermonax and Polygnotos signing in two lines
στουχηδὸν, though still in Attic letters. The writing of Epigenes, Sotades,
Xenotimos and Agathon shows the gradual advance of the regular Ionic
HOMAIS
καλος
inscriptions of Alkimachos, Kuaion, Hippon, Hygiainon, Nikon, Polyeuctos,
Sophanes, prove how fixed the rule became in the following years. The
explanation is that about 475 the concurrent use of two alphabets made

method. A host of vases inscribed with and the two-line love-

(c) Same inscription. Ata dealer’s. Found

near Peiraeus.

Of these Lichas vases (a) is about contem-
porary with the Glaukon lekythos (Jahrb. ii. p.

Seated lady, to whom maid brings casket.
Much burned. Ht. °33.

(dz) Same inscription. Boston 448. Found
at Eretria.

Two women talking ; one holds alabastron and
toilet vase. Ht. “50, It appears from a photo-

graph which Mr. Edward Robinson has been so
kind as to send me that this is the vase published
by le Vicomte de Caix de Saint-Aymour in Mem.
des Ant. de France, 6me. série iii. p. 65, Fig. 2.
Another vase there described seems to be No.
149 of the Boston Catalogue.

163) and uses black relief-lines. (c) closely
resembles our No. 10. (d) is freer in style and
has the later shoulder-ornament—see Fig. 5
below.

7 Annali 1871, F.

8 Berlin, No. 2285.
Arch. Zeit. 1873, Taf. 1.

9 British Museum, E 298.
nios,* p. 103.

Mon. d. Inst. ix. 54.

Klein, Huphro-

KAAO£g

10 Cf. Gerhard, 4. V. 189. TAP

ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI. 169

systematic teaching necessary ;'! hence the neat στοιχηδὸν writing became
general. Then, as in modern Germany, the neat use of the foreign hand-
writing became a mark of superior education, and the Attic alphabet
gradually dropped out of use.

Γ and A were adopted before H and ἢ. The curious misuse of } for £

on our No. 7 shows how insecure was the painter’s knowledge of the new
characters. It is an ambitious mistake parallel to the frequent misuse of Q on

vases of the same period (AAKIMA+N&, KAENIAZ kKAANZ, AINNY$.5
and other instances collected by Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften, p. 107).

II.—The Sulyects. It is curious to trace the process by which the
decoration of the lekythos came to refer almost exclusively to the cult of the
dead. The majority of our series, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11 and 12, show scenes of
domestic life and nothing more. The mirror and metal jugs which hang on the
wall mark the scene as laid indoors ; later they became conventional, and some-
times appear high in air in a tomb-scene. The figures and their attitudes
hardly vary: a slight change in the accessories gives the graceful scene a fresh
meaning : we see the Athenian lady trying on a new necklace, opening her jewel-
box, welcoming her child, playing on the lyre, or conversing with her maid.
The toilet-vase, so common in later grave-scenes, might be held in No. 4 to
denote preparations for the bath. But in 5, 6, 9 and 10 the trays containing
wreaths and sashes are offerings made ready for a visit to the tomb. There
need not be any allusion as yet to the ultimate destination of the lekythos on
which this scene was so appropriate; it was a natural variation of the common
indoor-scene. In Athens, as in some Eastern countries to-day, the visits to
the dead and the decoration of the grave were not only among the duties but
in all likelihood among the chief interests and pleasures of women who other-
wise seldom went abroad. At Athens and at Eretria the novelty seems to
have been popular, and painters hit on other and more outspoken methods
of dedicating the lekythos to its work. The earliest lekythos with a tomb-
scene 15 and the earliest with Charon,!’ though different in style, are shown
by their peculiar shoulder-ornament, a triple palmette and two flowers on white
ground (transitional between the usual red-figured shoulder and the triple
palmette with volutes which appears on most of our three-line series, and is
further developed on the later white lekythoi), to be nearly contemporary. We
find the same transitional ornament on three white lekythoi at Berlin: the
first * represents a warrior parting from his wife and child—probably Hector
and Andromache ; the second,!° a lady and her maid starting to the grave, a
tray on the maid’s head containing lekythoi and other offerings ; the third," in
somewhat later style, a woman and a youth before a low tomb on which are
placed a lyre, a casket, and a number of vases. Chronology and style alike

11 See the remarks of Kretschmer, Vasen- Gr. τι. Sic. Vasenb. Taf. 27.

inschriften, p. 104 ff. 4 Cat. 2444.
15. Ath. Mitt. xv. Taf. 1. 16 Inv. 3171. Anzeiger 1891, p. 118, No. 15.
#8 Stackelberg, Graber, Taf. 47. Benndorf, 16 Jb, 3262. Anzeiger 1893, p. 93, No. 55.

170 ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI.

forbid us to draw a hard and fast line, as was formerly done, between the
lekythoi with sepulchral and the lekythoi with domestic subjects. There are
several instances of lekythoi evidently painted in pairs, of which one repre-
sents an indoor-scene, the other mourners at a grave. In this way the old
types of mistress and maid, husband and wife, came to be associated with the
idea of death, and even perpetuated in the marble grave-reliefs of the next
generation.

Ill.— Distribution. M. Pottier’s contention that funeral lekythoi in the
strict sense are rarely found outside Attica (and, we must now add, Eretria) still
holds good as a general rule.’ But the fact that the vases of our series have
been found not only in Attica and Eretria, but in Sicily and Italy, shows that
at the time when white lekythoi with domestic scenes were gradually acquiring
a funeral significance, they were still articles of export. The frequency of lekythoi
in the graves of Eretria and Gela has led various writers to suppose the exist-
ence of local fabrics. This hypothesis involves great difficulties, not the least
of which is the occurrence of Attic love-names at both places. Thus of the
Lichas vases enumerated above, two were found near Athens, one at Gela,
one at Eretria. We can hardly imagine Gela supplying vases to Athens and
Eretria, or Eretria to Gela and Athens. Moreover there are many points of
contact between the early Jekythoi and certain Nolan amphorae, which it is
generally admitted were made in Athens for the Campanian market. This
relationship is well illustrated by two white lekythoi found at Gela. The
first bears the name of Akestorides,!* and represents two women with musical
instruments; the second that of Timokrates,!® and represents a mother
(Aithra ?) greeting her son. On both white is used for the flesh-parts, as on
our three-line series, but the ‘love-inscription’ is written in a peculiar way
characteristic of certain ‘ Nolan’ amphorae, the καλὸς horizontally above, the
name vertically between the figures.2° Moreover, in spite of their very
advanced drawing, they retain the red-figured shoulder with triple palmettes
and double flower which characterizes Nos. 1-3 of our series. Evidently we
have here a somewhat different class of white Iekythoi, made in a ‘red-
figured’ workshop for export to Gela, where lekythoi were especially popular,
as is seen from the fact that two red-figured lekythoi of Attic style have been
found there bearing the name of Charmides, which elsewhere occurs only on
Nolan amphorae.

A curious testimony to this export trade is furnished by fig. 2, the
fragment of a fine lekythos which pretty certainly belonged to our three-line
series. It was found by Schliemann in the tumulus in the Troad called
Hanai Tepeh, and is now in the Vélkerkunde Museum at Berlin. We have
the head and shoulders of a woman holding a white toilet-vase like those

17 Dr. Furtwiingler tells me that the Museum _and Plate 43.

at Palermo contains a lekythos from Gela, No. 19 Ashmolean Catalogue, Plate 20.
157, red outlines on white ground, representing 39. Compare e.g. the somewhat earlier Glaukon
a mourner beside a grave-stele. amphora, de Luynes, Vases Plate XXV., or that

18 Van Branteghem Sale Catalogue, No. 171, at Vienna with the name of Timonides.

ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI. 171

held by the women on the Diphilos lekythoi. In the upper left-hand
corner close to the break there remains the final ¢ of a long proper
name, then after a space sufficient for καλὸς on the missing part, we find
lower down the upper tips of two letters, possibly the final A and © of
APOMOKAEIAO.

IV. Zechnique—We have scen that the inscriptions and the subjects of
our vases exhibit such uniformity as to justify the belief that the greater
part of the series proceed from a single workshop. Upon examining their
technique we find the same fixity of tradition along with a constant progress
in method and design.

The first on our list, the Glaukon fragment (Plate IV.), is the immediate
successor of the great white kylikes; like them it is a show-piece produced
in ar. f. workshop, and combines the externals of ar. f. vase with a fresco-
like painting on prepared ground. In this case the yellow slip is so thin as
to take from the clay below it a reddish tone, against which the face, arms,
and feet of the seated lady stand out in brilliant white. The chair is purple,
the Ionic chiton clear red, and the himation brown with touches of thinned-
out glaze-paint for the folds. On her head she wears a close-fitting white
embroidered cap; the locks that fall over the forehead are drawn in thinned
glaze, the knot that escapes behind in black. The artist has lavished
remarkable care upon the delicate lines of the face; in the eye, not yet in
true profile, with its long lashes and drooping upper lid, it seems as if he had

172 ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI.

sought to portray the languor of a fashionable lady. There is the same
suggestion in the drawing of the slender fingers, which hold a necklace, taken
no doubt from a casket held by the maid whose left foot alone remains at the
edge of the fragment; at sight of it her lips part in a smile of pleasure. The
face, beautiful as it is in drawing, is sormewhat weak, and the unusual
attempt at expression leaves a sense of something like caricature; but it is
interesting that the attempt should have been made.

The use of white enamel-like paint to heighten the flesh of women and
other details in the picture, has been discussed at length by Weisshaeupl,
who published an instance of it, an Eretrian lekythos with a tomb-scene, in
Athen. Mitth. xv. (1890). This excellent paper has one fault; it leaves an
impression that the technique is rare, whereas it is very common on lekythoi
of the period 475-445. The eighteen instances which he enumerates as
known to him, some of them very insignificant—his nineteenth, the crater in
the Museo Gregoriano, is not properly an instance of this technique—might
easily be increased to fifty.

With our Glaukon fragment it will be enough to compare a few lekythoi,
which in shoulder-ornament and drawing stand, like it, in close relation to
τ, f. work. Such are :—

British Museum, D. 20, from Gela. Woman seated on diphros holding
Pink chiton, black mantle with pink fold-lines. Ht. “95. Inscr.
KALE. Transitional eye, earlier than on the Glaukon fragment.

Oxford, from Eretria. Woman carrying casket. Colours like the
preceding. Ht.°37. Inser. HEFAIs. Upper eyelid and inner contour of
lips given.

Athens, 1929, from Eretria. Woman preparing tray of grave-offerings.
Described by Weisshaeupl, J. c. Ht. *32.

Athens, 1987, from Eretria. Two women standing with grave-offerings.
Black chiton, red mantle. Toilet-vase, basket, and other accessories in black
silhouette. Ht. 92.

The heavy black filling which appears on all these as on Nos. 4—9 of our
series is simply a modified survival of the black-figure or silhouette style,
which continued in occasional use far into the fifth century.) The painters

hoop.

21 A good instance is the b. f. lekythos,
Athens, 1129, Lamia tortured by Sileni, pub-
lished by M. Mayer, Ath. Mitth. ix. 1891. Its
peculiar shape and ornament (vine-pattern on
neck, very rare) link it with two outline
lekythoi which must be nearly contemporary :
Athens, 1983, Amazons, and 1982, an early
tomb-scene with white flesh and details in black.
In the case of the well-known Diitrephes vase,
I cannot agree with Furtwingler, who says
(Masterpieces, p. 124, Fig. 48): ‘The lekythos
to judge from its shape is almost contemporary
with the red-figured vases of the fine period,
and cannot therefore be much earlier than about

450 b.c.’ This lekythos is one of a well-defined
group, however, identical in shape and orna-
ment, and marking various stages of transition
from b. f. to outline technique. They usually
have black neck, bars and 1+3+1 palmettes
on red shoulder, white body, and very peculiar
meander-band as in J. H.S. xiii., Plates II. and
III., where (1) and (2) are published :—
(1) Athens, 1132. Odysseus
and Kirke.
(2) Athens, 1133. Herakles
and Atlas.
(3) Athens, 1809. Eros flying among tendri/s.
From Aigina. Dumont, Céramiques xi.

From Eretria.

ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOL 173

of the white kylikes belonged to a school which had emancipated itself from
b. f. traditions in the sixth century; they imitated the effect of larger
paintings, on which black silhouette was now, we may be sure, disused ;
hence we find no black-filling on the Glaukon fragment, which is, as I have
said, akin in style to these kylikes. On the other hand, the painter of Nos.
4-9 clung to the old habit of enlivening his design with boldly-distributed
patches of black and white, using the very materials which he necessarily had
by him, the black glaze with which he coated the foot and neck, the fine
white slip which he applied to the body and shoulder. To these he added
purple, like all his predecessors in the Kerameikos, employing it for such
details as a head-band or the folds of a black mantle,” and vermilion, with
which he picked out the alternate petals of the shoulder palmettes and filled
in the Doric peplos of the maid on No. 5. He obtained other tints by
thinning his original pigments, various shades of yellow for his outlines from
the black glaze, and a pinkish brown, used to express the polished wood of
the chairs, from the purple. I emphasize these facts because they show that
the lekythos is still a product of the potter’s shop and not of a painter's
studio; if potter and painter were not one and the same, they were at least
fellow-craftsmen working side by side. This goes far to explain the great
perfection of form and accessory ornament which distinguishes our series and

These three are b.f. with purple touches. Athens, 1792. Woman playing lyre, and black

(4) Vienna, Hof-Mus. 195. Duel over fallen dog. From Attica. Ht. 22, Ath. Mitth.
warrior, women r. and 1. χυε ΕΠ Χ ὅς

Free b.f. : no purple. Louvre. Artemis (1) and black bull.

(5) Cab. des Méd. Wounded ‘ Diitrephes,’ Eretria. Ht. “27.

From

b.f. with helmet and shicid left in outline;
incised lines even finer than those on the Eros
(3), which however is freer in drawing.

(6) Athens, 1827. Nike flying r. over altar.
From Eretria. Outline drawing, with black ac-
cessories. ‘Severe’ eye. The tendril below her
recalls those round the Eros (3).

(7) Louvre. Bust of woman to r. playing
lyre. Columns behind. Collignon, Céramique
Grecque, Pl. X. ‘Severe’ eye.

Of these, (1) and (3) have a projecting black
rim on the foot ; (2) and (5) have a foot with
concave profile ; the foot of (4), (6), (7), is a
plain disc.

We may find a lower limit for dating this
series in the Glaukon lekythos (Jahrb. ii. p.
163), which has some affinity in shape and
decoration, but is far less severe in drawing.
To the same period as the ‘ Diitrephes’ vase I
would assign the white outline lekythoi with
severe drawing in black relief-lines. The
subject is usually ἃ woman preceded by an
animal in black silhouette, e.g. :—

Oxford, 265. Nike and black doe. From
Eretria. Ht. 29. Ashmolean Catalogue, P1. 25.

British Museum, D 23. Priestess and black
snake, From Gela. Ht. ‘27.

Compare also :—

Athens, 1964. Ephebus putting on greave.
From Eretria. Ht. “80. Described, δελτίον,
1889, p. 76, 5. This figure is contemporary
in drawing with the designs aseribed by
Hartwig to Amasis; note especially the eye
and the beaded edge of the hair on the forehead.
It is evident that Furtwiingler puts the period
of transition too late when he says (Masterpieces,
p. 124, note 5): ‘Just at this time,’ ze. about
450 B.c., ‘purely outline designs first make
their appearance on Iekythoi.” In spite of the
weight of his authority I would place the
Diitrephes lekythos, with the others which I
have enumerated, considerably before 460.

2 We also find white fold-lines, as on Brit.
Mus. D 47 (Catalogue, vol. iii. Plate XXV.). I
used to believe that this vase, found at Gela,
must, owing to its technical and stylistic
peculiarities, be a Geloan imitation. But I
lately saw a lekythos from Southern Attica
which exhibited most of these peculiarities,
including the white fold-lines. Same style and
period. It is the earliest instance known to me
of a tomb-scene—a man and woman before a
slender four-step stele, which is painted white,

174 ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI.

the succeeding series of carly polychrome lekythoi from the later classes—a
perfection which endured just so long as the design continued to be executed
with the old glaze-paint. The gradual encroachment of other pigments
marks the increasing division of work between the potter, who drew
palmettes and meander in glaze-paint, and the painter who now sketched his
outlines in dull black or red, and filled them in with a wash of palette-colour.
In time this division becomes complete separation; the potter leaves even
the accessory ornament to the painter, he is a mere journeyman furnishing
material to the studio. From this time the lekythoi lose all distinction of
form ; the body becomes convex and unnaturally slim, the shoulder and the
neck are clongated, as though it were wished to increase the apparent size of
the whole without enlarging the surface to be covered by the picture.
Palmettes and meander become hasty, ragged, and conventional, and their
lines no longer show that subtle relation to the surface that they adorn which
characterizes ornament on the best Greek work, pottery as well as archi-
tecture ; so unimportant had they become that on the later Iekythoi they are
at times left unfinished, as on one of the ‘ pathetic’ type with red outlines at
Vienna (Benndorf, Gr. wad Sic. Vasenb., Plate XX XIV.), or omitted altogether
(Furtwingler, Lerlin Vase Catalogue, 2680—2682). Even at this stage there
remains an indication of their former presence in the girdling lines which
framed the meander above and below. These, being made by holding the -
brush against the vase as it turned on the wheel, were necessarily made by
the potter (they are well seen on Plate VI., where the circles close just
above the head of the standing woman) ; and the potter with the conservatism
of his class continued to prepare this frame for the meander, always in glaze-
paint, after the painter had ceased to use it. On some of the latest lekythoi
the design mounts from the body to the shoulder, and is cut horizontally by
these now meaningless lines.

The vases of our series belong to the period of glaze-outlines, in which
the lekythoi are still an organic whole in shape, ornament, and design. The
shape (Fig. 1 and Plate V.) hardly varies. The height generally approximates
to one of three standard sizes, 30, °35, and “40. Of these, 35 was the
favourite size for elaborate pieces.

The closing up of the neck (discussed by Weisshaecupl, loc. cit.: Brit. Mus.
Vase Cat. iii. D. 48) appears only as a caprice. In the case of No. 5, the
air-hole in the lower part of the body is well seen on Plate V. I have also
seen vases in which the hole occurred on the shoulder, between neck and
handle.

Of the meander-band we have several varieties. On Plate VI. may be
seen an early instance of an invention which relieved its monotony. Instead
of couplets running to the right divided by cross-squares as on Plate VIL, we
have couplets running alternately to right and to left, and the cross-square is
alternately attached to the upper and lower line.

The shoulder-palmettes appear in three principal forms (Figs. 3-5).
Form A differs only from the r. f. scheme (Nos. 1-3 of our series, figured
Klein, Lieblingsinschriften, p. 81) in that a double volute takes the place of the

ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOTI. 175

flower at either side of the middle palmette. It appears on 4, 5, 7, and 8 of
our series, and by exception on three lekythoi of the fine glaze-outline period,
all from Eretria, and now at Athens :—

1818. Warrior, with eye as device on shield, parting from seated lady.
Bonner Studien, Plate XT.

1945. Parting-scene—awoman pours wine Jor youth.

1943. Tivo women preparing to visit the tor.

The two latter were evidently made as a pair. This shoulder-ornament
is also retained on some of the r. f. funeral lekythoi found at Eretria, eg. on
the fine pair 445 and 446 in the Boston Museum.

Form B (Fig. 4) is an unsuccessful variation; it appears on our No. 6
and on a white funeral lekythos from Eretria, Athens, 1960. It is interesting
as showing that at this time the painter had the power of improvising, and it

Fic. 3. Form A.

suggests by what stages of experiment the more satisfactory design (Form C,
Fig. 5), was brought about.

Of Form C, I cannot give an instance among the twelve vases of our
series. On No. 11, where we should expect to find it, the shoulder-pattern is
obliterated ; about No. 12 I have no information. We find it for the first
time on the Boston Lichas-vase and on the fine lekythos with Demeter and
Kore (Athens, 1754, Dumont X XX VIT_), which are among the latest instances
of the use of white for women’s flesh. Broadly speaking, Form A disappeared
at the same time as this white-flesh technique and was replaced by Form C.
The transition is well illustrated by two vases bearing the love-name of
Hygiainon. The first, which is in the Louvre (from Eretria, ht. 31), has
practically the same design as Plate VI., with the difference that the direction
of the figures is reversed and the lady sits on a chair instead of a diphros.
The chair is brown, the lady’s mantle black with purple fold-lines. The maid

176 ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI.

wears a red Doric peplos, with folds drawn in dull black, and a red sakkos
crossed by a band now blank (once blue 2); the contents of the basket which
she holds are woollen fillets, like those seen on Plate VI., tied in wreath-
shape ; just such fillets are seen hung on the lowest step of a tomb on funeral
lekythoi of the glaze-outline series. The flesh is still painted white and the
shoulder-pattern is still Form A. The better known Hygiainon lekythos in
the British Museum (D. 48, from Athens, ht. °37) offers a complete
contrast ; the patches of white and of black silhouette have disappeared and
the drawing has gained in decision and purity. At the same time Form C
has taken the place of Form A on the shoulder.

It is not hard to account for the change. The quality of the white
engobe had gradually been improved, until it came from the kiln pure
white instead of yellow. Possibly this improvement was hastened by the
increasing use of delicate palette colours to take the place of the heavy black

Fic. 4. Form B.

and purple fillings. On a white slip the addition of white pigment was
useless, and no doubt potters and painters dispensed with it the more
willingly because it was brittle and difficult to work with, having a tendency
to scale off when applied in narrow strips or to an irregular contour. This
necessitated the blunt and clumsy outlines of face and hands and feet, seen
on Plate VI. and Fig. 2. Moreover, when the white paint had been applied
it was necessary to send the vase a second time to the kiln before the inner
drawing could be added. The potter’s art once freed from these conventional
trammels, it was an easy step to the pure and graceful outlines of No. 11,
At the same time Form C of the shoulder-palmettes was adopted and was
retained as a formula almost without modification throughout the later
developments of the lekythos.

My debt of gratitude to Professor Loeschcke and Dr. Winter I have already
mentioned, Mr. Cecil Smith has helped me with many suggestions, I have to

ON A GROUP OF EARLY ATTIC LEKYTHOI. 177

thank Mr. Ernest Gardner for the negative of Plate V., Mr. F. Anderson for
the drawing of Plate VIT., and Mr. ©. R. R. Clark of the British School for the
diagrams of palmettes.

R. C. BoSANQUET.
Athens.

Fic. 5. Form C.

moo VOL. XVI.

178 INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE.

(PROVINCES OF KHANIA, KISSAMO, SELINO.)

THE inscriptions which follow were copied during a short tour in the
west of Crete during July and August, 1893. So far as I know they are
unpublished, but I trust I shall be pardoned if I have missed any previous
notice of any of them. I saw and verified all those published in 2.C.7f. xiii.
68 ff. and that in the Syllogos at Retimo, 7d. 47. The type used below is
selected so as to represent each individual letter as nearly as possible, without
regard to the conventional printers’ alphabets. The result is an apparent
mixture of incongruous forms, which is however largely due to the very
irregular lettering actually in use in the remoter parts of Crete in the later

Greek periods.

1. On a block of fine-grained blue marble, the base of a stele: 31 cm.
high, 40 broad, and 46 long: the back and left side broken: original length
at least 70 cm., for the socket for the stele is 22 cm. distant from the perfect
(right) side face, and is continued to the left beyond the break. The
inscription consists of four elegiac couplets; the first lme is cut close to the
upper edge of the stone, and is consequently much effaced. The letters
average 10 mm. in height and breadth, and are of the third or late fourth

century.
In the outer court of the fortress at Khanid: formerly built in, but left
loose after recent repairs.

-LIfavyE= A MHPAMIZXOYNOMATIEIZON
HTAMIMNETAIAOANATON |

i ]QONAPETAAANAPOXXYNOMAIMOY

yevEAXEKKPITONAOANATON

4 JEAEZAIETIQOONON////ETEKNQZAZ

Y|TEIZQZEFTONONIX2O220N
X2Z01XPONONONKATEAEITIE:
i}<ETHACZANEXONTAPETAX

Copied from the stone: 29,7, 93. Corrected by squeeze of M. Kalaidakis,
who has published the inscription in the Stamboul paper ‘ Κωνσταντινού-
moms” 24 July (O.8.) 1893, No. 164: emending to Πείσανδρον in the first
line, against the metre. Line 1.—The mutilated word is apparently ἔγραψε.
Line 6.—The first letter is TT.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE. 179

2. On a slab of coarse white marble, about 3 cm. thick: mutilated,
except at the bottom, which is roughly cut off, and a small space on the left
edge where, behind line 3, the back of the stone is rounded off. Letters
about 2 cm. high, deeply and cleanly cut. From Kissamo Kastélli. In the
possession of M. Kalaidakis, Khanid. Copied from the stone: 23, 7, 99.

TEAOCFHCIAO
THITTATPIAICYAABAAAETA:? 2... - προ
IKATHITIATPIAIKICAAAWIKAc. .... τῶ
ΝΓΟΝΕΩΝΑΠΟΔΟΝΤΕς ΚΑΙ...... .. Aud

5 doAAEIWIKAIAIIKPHTAFENE!
rolCAAAOICITATPIOICGEOICAY!
mpoHPHAAEGAOAAOIWCTIPOIKA ty τῶν Kicapiav.. .

TTATPIAITIOIHCAIKAIETIITEAOCAyer . . .. .. δέκ
atov ἡΚΛΙΝΕΤΕΝΕΤΟΤΗΓΠΕΡΙΤΟΥΤΟΤΟ ψήφισμα.

10 aréAELANETIEIEEWCOYCHCFENECOA . ..

Υπογεγραλάλλενων
᾿ΕκψηφίσκλΑ ΤΟΟΠΟΛΎΡΗΝΙΩΝ

Line 1 end.—o, but, if the bar exists at all, it is quite filled up with
red rust.

Line 4.—A distinct space of about half a letter before καὶ.

Line 5.—Note the diairesis.

Line 7.—The first letter of this line is very short.

3. Gonid.—In the courtyard of the monastery of Gonid is a large stele
of ragstone, 1 metre high x *56 broad x ‘13 thick, with a symbolical relief at
the head: on the left a nude youth with a spear, attended by a goat and
with a tree in the background, extends his hand to a draped maiden who
advances from the right in front of a ship’s prow. In the tympanum of the
pediment above are traces of AO....- - oO... and above two greyhounds
pursuing a hare. The inscription is quite defaced, and only the course of the
lines is visible: the letters must have been about 12 mm. high. I got a
_very fair squeeze, both of inscription and relief, and had some hours’ work at

it, but could make nothing out: unfortunately it was dropped by my servant
on the road soon after, and I have therefore been unable to submit it to a
more competent authority. The female figure is certainly the representative
of Histiaea, as a comparison of the very common drachmae will show, one
of which was obtained from a monk of Gonid from the immediate neighbour-
hood. The male figure is probably Kydon, the eponymous hero of Kydonia,
who appears armed with a bow on the larger silver coins of the town: the
goat is not his special emblem, but is a generic Cretan symbol: unless
perhaps the youth is Zeus Kretagenes, but this is unlikely. But if the
inscription was a treaty ‘between Histiaea and Kydonia. I do not under-
N 2

180 INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE.

stand the ΑΘ[ηναίων] in the tympanum : for which restoration compare the
OHBAION heading in the treaty between Thebes and Polyrenion, found at
the latter place (Palaidkastro Kissimu), now in a doctor's shop in Kissamo
Kastélli, and published by M. Doublet in B.C_H. xiii. 1889, p. 68, with a
number of other inscriptions from this part of the island. The slab is said
to have came from Kantziliéres, where there is a temenos on the cliff south
of the river gorge close to the sea, still full of remains, and constantly used
as a quarry by the villagers of Gonid, Afrata, and the neighbourhood.
There were however no inscriptions visible on the site this summer, except
‘H.M.S. VOLAGE’ in large letters on the rock, which my guide insisted were
“Ἑλληνικὰ γράμματα, καὶ παραπολὺ ἀρχαῖα! The site is commonly
identified with Diktynnaion, a temple site of some note, round which a little
town seems to have sprung up. But the buildings in the gorge estuary
below are all mediaeval, and contain no older stones.

4. Gonid.—In the west wall of a new house on the beach. Said to
come from Kantzilicres. Roughly cut and somewhat defaced : large letters.
Same ragstone as No. 3, but much coarser. From my copy, corrected from
a bad squeeze.

AIKTYNvaAITYPn€

CAZ=EKINOZEYXAN
IIINAPOITON
OYPAIFENHOe

|

Line 1.—Space for 2-3 letters before Δικτυ[ναί Ja.

Line 2.—First letter perhaps.T : compare Τάσσκω and Τασκαιννάδας in
inscriptions from Polyrenion. (Nos. 14, 15 ¢ below.)

Line 3.—’Avépoctov.

5. Kissamo Kastéllin the possession of Mavovnd Καμπουλάκης: found
in his garden, which is the site of the Theatre of Kissamos. Right edge and
bottom broken. From my copy.

TENOAAE τὸ ἐνθάδε

Κιτεκὴλ κεῖται (sic) Kar
ΜΕΝΗΠΛΥ al a
EATONM ἑαυτὸν (Ὁ)
6ACAG ... θήσας

INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE. 181

6-13. At Palaidkastro Kissimu, the site of Polyrenion, a large church
was being built in the summer of 1893, on a space of the acropolis, just above
Epano Palaidkastro, the materials being obtained from the substructures and
ruins of a Graeco-Roman building a few yards distant.

6. Palaiskastro (Polyrenion).—Block of grey limestone built into west
wall of church above the ‘upper’ village: discovered on same site, 1893.
Letters about 65 mm. high: strokes thin: tips very small. One Cn. Cornelius
Cn. F. Scipio Hispanus (or Hispallus) was practor 8.6. 139, and is mentioned
CLL. i. 38; he had a son, but no other descendants are known.

-FNAIONKOPNHAION

FNAIOYIONZSKITIIQNA

ΙΣΠΑΝΟΝΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΑΝ
ATIOAIS

7. Palaidhastvo (Polyrenion).—Block of grey limestone, laid upside-down
as west door-sill of the same church: discovered on same site, 1893. From
my copy: 29, 7, 98.

TIOAYPHNIQNANEQHKEN
AK?! T////ATIOAIZAPMOR! SN
av|?OKPATOPAKAIZAPAQEOYYION
ZEBAZTON

The words on either side of ATTOAIE= have been added in smaller and
rougher letters, and are nearly obliterated.

8. Palaiskastro (Polyrenion).—Block of grey limestone built face inwards
into the same church near the south-east corner; probably quite concealed
by now: letters very roughly cut. From my copy: 29, 7, 93.

CAI
AMO8////////

9. Palaiskastro (Polyrenion).—Another block of grey limestone built face
inwards close to the preceding: letters very roughly cut. From my copy
29,4; 93.

EAAH
OPA
ΜΙ ΣῪ
APA/ DITOSEY:

[Three or four more lines, quite illegible. ]

182 INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE.

10. Palaidkastro (Polyrenion).—An architrave of grey limestone, about to
be built into the same church: discovered on same site, 1893. From my
copy: 29, 7, 93.

[traces of very coarse letters, quite illegible.]

heen YPAP/ENHEANI////////
8 | TIOTITOSNIKIA//,/
S ΠΟ APXINOETTA////

11. Palaiskastro (Polyrenion).—Block of grey limestone built into north
wall of same church, upside-down, and partly below ground. Letters about
90 mm. high, with large apices. From my copy: 27, 7, 93.

Two or three lines of small letters, quite illegible : then along the lower

edge of the block :—
ZHZO

12. Palaidkastro (Polyrenion).—Lower half of a stele of white marble,
cut to fit into a socketed base: in possession of ᾿Αρτέμιος Καμπουράκης :}
inscription on the plinth. From my copy: 30, 7, 98. For ’Opvas cf. No.
15a, 1. 4.

ΑΡΙΣΤΑΓΟΡΑΣ OPYA

13. Palaidkastro (Polyrenion).—Lower half of a similar stele, in possession
of Artemios Kambourakis. Letters about 20 mm. high: at bottom of stele.
From my copy: 30, 7, 93.

Bc &OOOZYMEPBAAAONTOS
So/ZQNYTIEPBAAAONTOS
[||| “NOZYTIEPBAAAOvtos

[Traces of a fourth line, for which there is exactly room on the stele :
quite illegible. ]

The same Artemios has three other antiques, without inscriptions :—

(a) A fragment of frieze-relief about 30 cm. high, representing two fully
draped female figures in attitude of choric movement. The foremost figure
grips the wrist of the hinder.

(Ὁ) Half of a shallow basin of marble, purple-red with white veins,
intended to stand upon a narrow pedestal. It is about 45 cm. in diameter,
and has a small square horizontal handle of palmette design, and a lion’s
head projecting from the rim at right angles to it.

1 So I took down the name at the time: but — tinguishable, and the name is probably the same
A and p in most parts of Crete are almost indis- as that given under No. 5.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE. 183

(ὦ A small engaged composite capital of ragstone (‘ poros’ stone), about
15 x 13 cm.

All these objects appear to have been found in the immediate neigh-
bourhood.

14-15. In the ravine which runs westward along the south side of the
site of Polyrenion, on the south side of the stream bed, and about a mile from
the village of Ano Palaidkastro is the foundation of a small square building, of
late square-work, which has been lately cleared of débris by the natives to the
depth of more than a metre. There are traces of a cross wall near the west
end, but no further architectural remains except those mentioned below
[14-15]. Two or three polygonal blocks of grey limestone occur round the
spot, but none in situ.

14. On the face of a long block of grey limestone. with mouldings above
and below, perhaps an architectural fragment, but more probably part of a
large base. Letters firmly cut, but much weathered: about 20 mm. high:
left end mutilated. From my copy: 29, 7, 93.

EOS QO TAZSEKOTTEMATOPATIMEMENEY=E |
HMM OR APF ENIAAZEYMHAQKAPAIOQE
/ATTOALZANEOHKEN

[two or three blank lines below]

15. On the same site; a round base of grey limestone with slightly
convex top; axially perforated throughout, with six small sockets round the
upper opening, two of which are undercut, as if to support a candelabrum,
fountain jet, or similar superstructure of bronze.

(a) On the vertical curved surface of the drum: letters about 18 mm.
high. From my copy: 29, 7, 98.

ETTIAAMIOPFONATIOAIS

ETIEZTEKEYAZAN
ETMEQKPATEOZETPATOKYAEOS
BOYAATOPAZOPOYAANAPOITOZAPIETIQNOS
ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣΣΩΣΩΑΝΔΡΟΚΛΗΣΣΩΣΩ

184 INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE.
(Ὁ) Scratched on the inner moulding of the convex top :—

ETTIAHMIOPF ANONAZANAPOETIAPMENONTOE
OIQNIKAHEAEKYAA
OPYAETIION

(c) Scratched on the outer moulding, and beginning immediately

below (0).

TAEKAI NNAAAEENEO | ETMAIFYAQIAPITEYONTOE
OAAHEMENEAAMQ KAAAIKPITOZETIOIHEE

The artist’s name Καλλέκριτος is new.

The only other piece of detail on this site was a gable tile of palmette
form, about 20 em. high and 16 broad, of coarse clay covered with a nearly
white slip, the impressed lines of the pattern being filled with a dark brown
slip which is much decayed.

16. Prédromos.—Fragment of stele of ragstone in possession of Γεώργιος
Μινωτάκης. Brought from the necropolis at Trialonia. From my copy:
31, 7, 93.

17. Trialénia.—Stele of ragstone laid as door-sill in one of the last
buildings along the path towards the Hellenic site: large rough letters, much
worn. From my copy: 31, 7, 93.

ρρένανο:
ΝΗΦΕΩ

18. Papddiand.—Stele of white marble kept loose in the house of
Νικόλαος Δρακάκης, east of the Palaedkastro [Hyrtakos], and near the road
to Rhodovdni. From the necropolis of Hyrtakos. Inscription near the lower
end. From my copy: 4, 8, 93.

TIPATOMENHE =HNIN
EYPYZTPATN ANAPNXn

INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE. 185

19. Papddianéd.—From the same necropolis and in the same house. Left
bottom corner of a panelled stele of white marble, intended to stand upon a
base.. The inscription is complete. From my copy: 4, 8, 93.

EPQTI
ZIMWNOZ
ΣΙΜΩΝΙ
ΕΞΑΚΏΝΟΣ

Δ ae Pee to |

20. Papdédiand.—From the same necropolis and in the same house.
Bottom half of stele of local stone, mutilated below. From my copy:
4, 8, 93.

MEAANO=
EYPYZTAT.
ETT Leta Oz
ΜΕΛΑΝ
ΝΙΚΙΑΣ
ΜΕΛΑΝ

21. Rhodovéni.—A stele of white marble in possession of the brothers
Haji-grigorikis: loose. Apparently from the necropolis of Elyros. From
my copy: 5, 8, 93.

CYNDOPOCKAIEYTYXI
ANOCOIGEOAWPOY
TOAEMNHMATEYEZAN
EAYTOICKAIEFFONOIC

> EAYTUWN 9

22. Rhodoviéni.—A block of yellow ragstone, upside-down, in the south-
east corner of the house of Markos Bourdakis, about seven feet from the
ground: much weathered: letters of two distinct sizes: right edge and left
lower corner mutilated: apparently part of a mural inscription from Elyros,
the site of which is some five minutes’ walk east of Rhodovani village.
From my copy, compared with a squeeze: 5, 8,93. = C.L.G@. 2561d.

186 INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE.

L. 4.--- Ἄριστο, and 1]. 5, 6, are in distinctly larger letters.

ΑΓ AQAITYXAIETI
KOE M OP Bias
ΤΩΑΓΗΣΗΘΩΕΔΟΞΕΤΟΙΣΚΟοσ
ΜΟΙΣΚΑΙΤΑΙΠΟΛΕΙΑΡΙΣΤΕ
ΦΩΝΟΝΑΣΑΝΔΡου
ΛΑΠΠΑΙ αντρόξενος

23. Lhodovani.— Stele of limestone, laid as top step of outside staircase
of the house of the brothers Haji-grigorakis. From the necropolis of
Elyros. From my copy: 5, 8, 93.

EYPPON
QNOMAPXoo

24. Rhodovint.—A block of yellow travertinous ragstone set up on end
as right door jamb of the house of Γρηγόριος Ἰ]αππα-γρηγοράκης : right end
buried several inches in the ground: two large, sockets cut in the face:
letters well cut, but much worn in parts. Evidently from -Elyros. From my
copy, compared with a squeeze: 5, 8, 93.

tae ee | hee ere eee νυ ΒΝ ee

Pia MENDES τος τ το oe

AE TANKAIAYTONKAIEIT
“Tre TTOA

ea

25. Suia—A well-cut block of grey marble; left edge mutilated : part
of a mural inscription: letters very boldly cut, and about 75 mm. high.
From my copy: 5, 8, 93. Unfortunately the ethnic in 1. 3 is indecisive.
= C.I.G. 25820.

/PPANIONIOx
SNA PaO

ΓΙΦΝΗΠΟΛΙ:

INSCRIPTIONS FROM CRETE L&7

26. Agios Kijrios.— A small rude white marble stele, displaced from a
erave on the west hill side: letters very slightly and carelessly cut. From
my copy: 6, 8, 93.

This was the only inscribed stone which appeared during an hour and a
half’s search in this interesting and compact little town and necropolis: but
the Pappas of the village in the hills above says that he has often known
others turned up and taken away, with Nos. 31, 32, and 2.CLL. xiii. p. 71-2,
for building material.

ΦΙΤΤΙΣ
EPEDYAN

91. Agia Lowmeli.—A similar block, somewhat narrower above than
below. From the left edge extends an arm grasping a double-axe, sunk in
low relief below the face of the stone: below are the letters, rude and
defaced. From my copy: 6, 8, 93.

AISIYKO®
CWCwW

32. Agia Roumelt.—A similar block, but smaller than the above: very
rudely cut. From my copy: 6, 8, 93.

CiiePOAOT
OCBOYAYAA
ς

XAIPC

33. Heraklio (Kandia).—A small fragment of a slab of white marble
about 20 mm. thick, inscribed on both faces with late Roman characters,
Picked up by M. Minos Kalokairinds and myself on the site of Knossos, in a
field, west of the high road, in which are masses of Roman concrete, and
many fragments of marble pavements and wall-decorations. Now in the
Museum of the Syllogos of Heraklio. From my copy.

A, B.

ALABENS
MODVMD = SEX

AMNECR =
—QVATTVOR

JoHN L. MyRes.

188 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

[PuatEe IX.]

THE sites and inscriptions which follow were noted during a series of
short journeys made in 1893 and 1894 with the help of grants from the
Hellenic and Royal Geographical Societies. The geographical and descriptive
results are published in Journ. Roy. Geog. Soc. viii. (shortly to appear), and a
short account of the geology in Journal Oxf. Junior Scientific Club, τ. 89
(Jan. 1896): ef. Proc. Brit. Ass. 1893 (Nottingham), p. 746. An account of
Telmessos, Karyanda and Taramptos has already append in the Hellenic
Journal, xiv. 373 ff

These researches are confined to the area included hotness Latmos
(Besh-parmak) and the Latmian Gulf (Denizli Liman) on the north, the
Marsyas valley (China Chai) on the east, the Gulf of Keramos on the south,
and the sea on the west. Though sites already identified were in nearly all
cases visited, they are not discussed here, unless there is fresh evidence to
bring forward.

The sites may be grouped for convenience under the following heads of
our geographical paper (Journ. Roy. Geog. Soc. l.c.) :—

A, Keramos, Pisi, Mughla, and the Marsyas valley (China Chai).

B. The Gulf of Keramos, and the sites between Keramos, Mylasa and
Halikarnassos.

C. The peninsula of Myndos.

D, “atmos and Grion, included between Miletos, Amyzon and Mylasa.

I.—From Keramos to Marsyas Valley: Kartal Déré, Mughla, China Chai.

The long valley which reaches the sea at Keramos is called the Kartal
Déré (vulture valley). Only the lower part of it is indicated in the Admiralty
charts and in Kiepert; and in the latter the whole topography of its upper
part is mistaken. A few miles north of Keramos the ravine turns in a nearly
eastward direction, but is impassable and uninhabitable until it has turned
the south-east flank of the Marishal Dagh. The sides of the great gorge are
so abrupt that no path descends it, and communication between Keramos and

* An account of the early Karian tombs of panied by a map, the completion of which has
this neighbourhood will appear in the next been delayed.
number of this Jowrnal, and will be accom-

JeH.S. VOL. XVI. (1896) PL.

vie >
Hay “SBS

Pi en)

FIG. I. BORGHAZ : EARLY WALL FIG. 2. ATTAU-LU-SU

FIG. 3. ALEZEITIN: HOUSES IN THE TOWN FIG. 4. ALEZEITIN: LOOKING TOWARDS THEANGELA

FIG. 5. ALEZEITIN. TOWER ON N. WALL FIG. 6. ALEZEITIN: N. WALL

EARLY MASONRY IN CARIA

‘

ung §

7% “τ ahh
Yr ser ΜΙ ΒΕΣΟΌΝ
: Αι

ι

‘o>

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 189

the neighbourhood of Mughla is maintained either along the northern slopes
of the Kiran Dagh, or by a path over the Marishal Dagh from Chivelik to
Yonaluk, and thence by Pirnari to Keramos.

A Greek deacon of Yasghirlar, the Christian village below Penjik, states
that he has found traces at the head of the Kai Déré of the ancient road from
Stratonikeia to Keramos, and that this road went by Panimara up the valley
of Kanevas, and hence by the head of the Kai Déré across the Marishal
Dagh to Pirnari and Keramos: this remains to be verified.

The alternative road inland from Keramos, which runs on the south side
of the Kartal Déré, seems to be fairly well marked by a series of small sites
between the Kiran Dagh and the upper part of the valley.

(1) At Sarij (‘cistern’) is a large city site, 2,200 feet above the sea,
defended on the north by the lofty precipice of the Kartal Déré (whose bed
lies here at 1150 feet), and on the other sides by a long line of wall, which is
mainly of Hellenistic (probably Rhodian) work, but in part also of earlier
date: it is the only walled town of this period in the Kiran Dagh. The site
of the theatre seems clear on the south slope, but there are no traces of stone
seats or stage buildings. The only coins in the modern village were small
Rhodian bronze, and the greater part of the fortifications doubtless dates from
the Rhodian occupation of the mainland. Outside the wall to the south, on
a flat piece of ground, is an enclosure about 40 yards square, entered by a
gateway on the side which faces the town: it may have served some religious
or sepulcral purpose, but the ground within it is thickly covered with frag-
ments of tiles and other pottery, and its position suggests that the site was
not chosen simply for purposes of defence.

(2) Again, on the road from Sarij to Deniz Ovasi, at the point where the
path to Bagh-yaka diverges, there is a well, and beside it a plane-tree of
enormous size, now a mere trunk about 50 feet in circumference. The
quantity of pottery lying about here indicates that the site was formerly in-
habited, and probably that the well or the tree, or both, were held sacred in
antiquity. There do not however appear to be any remains of buildings.

(3) At Bagh-yaka « small tower on the hill over the village protects the
route from Stratonikeia towards the Kiran Dagh.

(4) At Kiuchek Pelen, above the direct road from the Kiran Dagh to
Pisi, is a very small fortress of Hellenic masonry, quadrangular with a tower
at each corner. It is the only one in this neighbourhood which is built on
this plan. On the slopes of the hill on which the fortress stands are some
simple rock tombs. A natural marvel is pointed out close by, a spring from
which there is a strong escape of an odourless gas, probably carbonic acid.
The water is said by the natives to be instantly fatal to all animals that
drink it, except jackals.

(5) At Yerkessen there is a tower on the hill above the very considerable
village. This small military post commanded the easiest road between the
Kiran Dagh and the plateau of Mughla, and also the road from the Kiran
Dagh to the hitherto unidentified city above Yenijé. The only inscription
at Yerkessen is a fragmentary dedication by or for a Rhodian στρατηγὸς

190 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

ἐπὶ τῶ πέραν (No. 15); so the fort is doubtless a link in the Rhodian system
of defence.

The plains of Pisi and Mughla, and other smaller ones east of Kartal
Déré basin, are completely encircled by mountains, like the upland plains of
Arkadia and Crete ; while numberless springs come out under the Kiran Dagh
along the coast between Keramos and Giova (Jova).

At Mughla there is a Hellenic fortress on the flat-topped hill above
the town. Its wall is fairly well preserved on the eastern side ; the other
sides are precipitous, and perhaps were never artificially protected.

There are two small sites in the plain of Pisi: one called Pisi-asir, on a
spur a little south-west of the town; the other on the north-east edge of the
basin, about half way between Mughla and Kafejd (v. Benndorf, Anz. εἰ. Vist.
Classe εἰ. Univ. z. Wien. xviii., 1892).

|

j

4

0 Merc! -arl zo 30 40
F

IG. 1.—YERKESSEN: PLAN OF THE Fort.

The Kartal Déré basin is bounded northwards by that of the China
Chai, the southernmost headwater of the Marsyas, which reaches the
Maeander opposite Tralles. Like the Kartal Déré, it has a more or less open
upper basin, converging upon a long, narrow and unprofitable main valley,
running nearly due north to its junction with the Mesevli Chai, which comes
in from the east at Inje Kemer. It contains little of interest, except the
great sanctuary of Pandmara in the southernmost of its tributaries from the
west ; and it has further been fully explored and described by MM. Hula
and Szanto. W-.R.P. spent several days in the triangle between the China
Chai and the Mesevli Chai, but found nothing except the small sites men-
tioned below.

There is a small fort between Kafeja and Kara Koyun, commanding the
route from the plain of Pisi into the China Chai, and from thence northward
there are three small sites on the hills east of the main valley.

KARIAN SITES AND TNSCRIPTIONS. 191

(1) Near Boz-armud, above the mill where the last stream is crossed in
coming from Akyedik and Mughla, there are traces in a torrent bed of a
‘building of large blocks of marble, probably the local kind above mentioned.
The site is thickly covered with soil, except where the torrent has excavated
it. It looks not unlike a temple.

(2) Above Elekji there is a line of wall with several towers, running
along the crest of a spur of the hills on the north side of the Elekji Déré.

(3) At Almajik there is a peculiar Hellenic tomb to be described later.

At Inje Kemer (‘thin bridge’) the late bridge, which formerly carried
an aqueduct and now carries the road across the China Chai, has been
recently visited by MM. Hula and Szanto. It is worth noting that the road
to Meskier, which it now carries, is rarely used, and can never have been a
great thoroughfare, as it is exceedingly difficult for beasts; though it follows
the only possible track. The ancient road from Alabanda to Alinda (?) and
Kyon doubtless corresponds to the modern one marked by Kiepert, on the
right (north) bank of the Mesevli Chai. The bridge itself was not meant for
a road, but carried an aqueduct, as the channel-stones lying near it indicate.
There are tombs on desolate ridges a little higher up the China Chai, on the
right bank, but no trace of a settlement.

Il.—From Keramos to Budrum.

The natural line of communication between Keramos and Mylasa is vid
the Déré Keui valley, Ishek Déré, and Karaja Hissar (Pedasa): the old road
seems to have skirted the former over the spurs of the Marishal Dagh, and
was defended by three forts: (1) on the ridge between the Kartal Déré and
Pirnari, south of the latter; (2) a pre-Hellenic fortress at Ishek Déré imme-
diately above the modern road, defended on the north by a precipice, and on
the other sides by a double line of wall; (3) a similar and probably coéval
fortress on a high peak north-east of it, overlooking Yeni Keui and Karaja
Hissar, and the unexplored valley between this site and the Kartal Dagh.
There may have been a road running up this valley and joining the road
above mentioned from Keramos over the Marishal Dagh to Stratonikeia,
which ascends not far from Yonaluk.

Some two miles below the confluence of the Kai Déré with the Akchai,
on the left (south) bank, and bounded on the west by a small valley north-
wards through the Kurun Chiflik from the Kara Dagh, lies the important
site of Karaji Hissar, first visited by MM. Doublet and Deschamps and
rightly identified by them with Prpasa. It is a Hellenic fortified town
containing a theatre and other public buildings: the inscription published by
MM. Doublet and Deschamps is from a building dedicated to Titus, which
contains traces of another inscription. A little excavation would be easy
and profitable. No coins have been found here as yet.

192 KARTIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

PEDASA.

Judeich formerly placed Pedasa at Etrim (M/iéth. xii. 331), but Etrim is
wanted for Theangela (Class. Rev. iii. 333). It is mghtly placed by MM.
Doublet and Deschamps at Karaja Hissar, on the evidence of the inscription
in B.C.\H. xiv. (1890), p. 627. But if this was the only town of the name
in Karia, it is very difficult to explain several allusions to it in classical
literature.

A. To take the first passages which suit Karaja Hissar: Herodotos v.
119—121 describes the campaign of Daurises against the Karian rebels
after the sack of Sardis. The Karians gave battle on the low ground south-
west of the junction of the Marsyas and Maeander. They were beaten, and
retired south [on Mylasa], but rallied and gave battle again at Labranda, to
defend their national sanctuary, and dispute the pass (vid Alinda?) from the
Marsyas basin to that of Mylasa. Here they were beaten again; and a
third battle apparently lost them Mylasa, in spite of Greek reinforcements
from Miletos. Driven to desperation, however, and πυθόμενοι ὡς oTpa-
τεύεσθαι ὁρμέαται ot Ilépoa: ἐπὶ tas πόλις σφέων, ἐλόχησαν τὴν ἐν
IInddo@ odov—they lay in wait on the road in [the territory of] Pedasos
and utterly defeated the Persians in a night engagement. Here ‘ the road
in Pedasos’ can hardly be other than the pass southwards from Mylasa vid
᾿ Menteshé Boghaz to Karaja Hissar, whence roads diverge to Keramos, and to
Theangela and Halikarnassos. This is not the direct road to Halikarnassos,
but is the obvious route for an army bent on reducing the whole neighbour-
hood in detail ; and Karaja Hissar is the first stage on it after Mylasa.

(2) After the sack of Miletos (Hdt. vi. 20) the Persians retained, in
their own hands, τὰ περὶ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὸ πεδίον, τὰ δὲ ὑπεράκρεα
ἔδοσαν Καρσὶ Ἰ]Πηδασεῦσι ἐκτῆσθαι. Whether τὰ ὑπεράκρια means the
uplands of Mts. Grion and Latmos, or the spurs immediately south of Mile-
tos; or® whether τὸ πεδίον includes Mylasa, and ta ὑπεράκρια the southern
boundary of it, which the Persians had, as we have seen, already suffered
enough over, there is no difficulty in referrmg Καρσὶ Πηδασεῦσιε to the
people round the Karaja Hissar site; though the phrase is less applicable
to the inhabitants of a town than to the whole population of a district ;
whereof more further on.

(3) Similarly the Pedasa of Livy xxxiii. 30 suits Karaji Hissar. The
terms of peace imposed by Rome upon Philip included the withdrawal of
Macedonian garrisons from Euromos, Pedasa, Bargylia and Iasos: 1.6. the
evacuation of the approaches to Mylasa and Stratonikeia from the sea-ports
of the Latmic, Iassic, and Keramic gulfs. Karaja Hissar, as we have seen
above (p. 191), commands the only road from Keramos, and one of the
alternative roads from Halikarnassos to Mylasa: Bargylia commands the
other.

2. Of these alternatives, W.R.P. prefers the first, J.L.M. the second.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 193

(4) Finally, Strabo knows of a Pedason in the territory of Stratonikeia
in his time: Πήδασον δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ viv Στρατονικέων πολίχνιόν ἐστιν,
611 ( = 13, 1, 59).

B. (1) But in the last passage, Strabo devotes a far larger space to
another Pedasa, desolate in his time, but formerly of some importance. He
says that the Leleges, whom Homer knows of in the Troad (//. K 429), were
driven out thence by Achilles, so that the Pedasos there was destroyed.
Ἔν δὲ τῇ μεσογαίᾳ τῶν ᾿Αλικαρνασέων τὰ Πήδασα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὀνομασθέντα
ἦν πόλις, καὶ νῦν ἡ χώρα Πηδασὶς λέγεται. φασὶ δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ὀκτὼ
πόλεις ὠκίσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Λελέγων πρότερον εὐανδρησάντων, ὥστε καὶ τῆς
Καρίας κατασχεῖν τῆς μεχρὶ Μύνδου καὶ Βαργυλίων, καὶ τῆς Πισιδίας
ἀποτεμέσθαι πολλήν. ὕστερον δὲ... ... ἠφανίσθη τὸ γένος, τῶν δ᾽ ὀκτὼ
πόλεων τὰς ἕξ. Μαύσωλος εἰς μίαν τὴν ᾿Αλικαρνασὸν συνήγαγεν, ὡς
Καλλισθένης ἱστορεῖ: Σνάγγελα δὲ καὶ Μύνδον διεφύλαξε. τοῖς δὲ ΠΠηδα-
σεῦσι τούτοις φησὶν Ἡρόδοτος ὅτε μέλλοι τι ἀνεπιτήδειον ἔσεσθαι καὶ τοῖς
περιοίκοις, τὴν ἱέρειαν τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς πώγωνα ἴσχειν. τρὶς δὲ συμβῆναι τοῦτο
αὐτοῖς. Then follows the passage (A. 4) above. The passage is worth
quoting thus fully, because it establishes: (1) that there existed still the
name Pedasa in Strabo’s time elsewhere than at Karaja Hissar, (2) that it
was the name of a district, which at its greatest extension reached Bargylia,
i.e. the outlet of the Kar Ova basin, and which included Syangela (Theangela)
at the head of the Kar Ova, as well as all the peninsula of Myndos; (3) that
six of its eight towns ceased to exist independently after the time of
Mausolos; (4) that in the Lelegian Πηδασὶς χώρα was a town named τὰ
Πήδασα, up-country from Halikarnassos; (5) that this was the town with
the cult of Athene (Hat. i. 175).

(2) Pliny, V.H. v. 29, gives the names of the six towns incorporated by
Mausolos, perhaps on the same authority, Kallisthenes, whom Strabo quotes
so meagrely; they are Theangela, Sibde, Medmasa, Euranion, Pedasos,
Telmissos. Theangela, however, is specified by Strabo as having been left
unincorporated by Mausolos, and must be omitted from consideration here.
Telmissos is identified with the group of early Karian sites on the Kara
Dagh (v. below, and our paper in J.H.S. xiv. (1894) pp. 373 ff). Medmasa
is certainly between Karyanda and Myndos, and near the north coast of the
peninsula ; probably Borghaz (p. 210 below). Sibde and Euranion remain
unknown, and do not appear even in the Athenian tribute-lists. One of
them perhaps represents Alizetin (p. 199). Note the absence from Pliny’s list
of Termera and Karyanda. The Pedasos of Pliny must be τὰ Πήδασα of
Strabo, and must be looked for inland of Halikarnassos and not very far off.

The magnificent walled Karian town of Ghiuk Chalar (p. 202), with its
extensive necropolis of tumuli and chambered tombs, exactly occupies the
situation required ; ard its identification with this other Pedasa is confirmed
(a) by the occurrence of the place-name Bités (Adm. Charts, ‘ Petasa’) in the
lowland south-west of the Ghiuk Chalar hills, (Ὁ) by the discovery of the
site of an Athene temple in the valley running down to Bités from the
west end of the citadel of Ghiuk Chalar; with an inscription which we

H.S.—VOL, XVI. ο

194 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

publish below (No. 4). This goes to confirm the probability that Herodotos
refers to this Pedasa in the passages quoted by Strabo above (Hat. i. 175,
vill. 104).

(3) Herodotos (1. 175) further says that, when attacked by Harpagos, the
inhabitants. of this Pedasa were the only Karians who held out, ὄρος τειχί-
σαντες τῷ οὔνομά ἐστι Λίδη. Now the name Lida has been given by
recent geographers, without any adequate authority whatever, to the whole
range of the Kiran Dagh (Adm. Chart 1604) and to the mass of the
Marishal Dagh and its northward extension: eg. MM. Doublet and
Deschamps (2.C_.H. xv. 175 n.*) describe Pandmara’‘as lying on a spur of
Mt. Lida ‘le Kerfin Dagh des Tures’; a double confusion, because the name
Kiran Dagh (Kerenda, Adm. Chart 1604) is properly applied only to the
coast range between Keramos and Idyma, whereas Pandmara, as above
mentioned, is on an eastward spur of the Penjik Dagh.

On the other hand, the name Lida occurs along with a number of other
local names (of which only Salmakis and Termera are identifiable) in the
great Halikarnassian inscription dealing with the sale of properties (B.C.H.
iv. (1880), p. 295 ff). It is therefore probable that Mt. Lida too is close to
Halikarnassos. It may represent the hills close round Ghiuk Chalar, where
there is a difficult pass from the north side of the isthmus; more probably
it is the bold range of hills lining the north coast east of the isthmus
which command both the coast road to Halikarnassos from Bargylia and
Mylasa, and the longer but quite usual and modern main road from Mylasa
vid Kindya and through the Kar Ova, and which are still crowned by the
remains of an otherwise inexplicable line of wall, for more than a mile along
the brow, with a number of tumuli behind it on the south side, and
the remains of either tumuli or forts on its eastward spurs looking over
Bargylia.

Looking back now at the passage about the later ambush on the ‘road
in Pedasos’ (Hdt. v. 121), it seems not impossible that this also is to be
referred to the ‘ Pedasa’ of Ghiuk Chalar, not to that of Karaji Hissar: but
the silence of Herodotos as to the identity of the successive plans of
defence ought to be allowed some weight against this view: ἐπὶ tas πόλις
σφέων, however, in that passage, might very well be a reference to the eight
towns of Strabo’s Πηδασίς.

And further, it may have been in consequence of their repeated stub-
bornness that the Karians of the ἸΠηδασίς were eventually propitiated with
a share of the conquered territory of Miletos. In that case, the only
literary allusions which remain to the Pedasos of Karaja Hissar are that in
_ Livy about the Macedonian garrison, and that in Strabo to the πολέχνιον in

the territory of Stratonikeia.

The reduplication of the name hardly needs excuse. Besides the
Pedasos on the Satnioeis, in the Troad (Strabo xii. 1, 7, 50, 59, fe we know

* The same is said of the neighbourhood of Karaji Hissar B.C.H. xiv. p. 627 (Doublet and
Deschamps). Cf. B.C.H. iv. 139 (Haussoullier).

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 195

of another near Kyzikos (Agathokles, F.H.G. iv. p. 289, 4) and another,
again a ‘ Lelegian’ town, in Messenia (Strabo viii. 4, 1—3): it is a compound
place-name, of a kind not uncommon in the Aegean area: the same root
perhaps reappears in the Pisidian Pednelissos.

MoNASTIR DAGH.

Below Karaji Hissar the main valley turns more northward to skirt the
prominent Monastir Dagh (1700 feet: Kiepert’s Kara Dagh), and descends
again westwards through a narrow gorge turning several mills. Any road
from Pedasa to Theangela must have gone south of the Monastir Dagh, and
past Kirsalar.

The summit of the Monastir Dagh is occupied by a fortress of some
extent, the outer wall of which has been purposely destroyed.

Its masonry must have been very similar to that of the wall of the Kara
Dagh fortress. Within the wall are house ruins in a condition which barely
allows the lines of their walls to be traced. Outside the fortress αὖ no great
distance on the northern continuation of the ridge are other similar house
ruins. A precipice of some 200 feet in height fringes the hill on the east
and forms so efficient a defence that the fortress wall is not contieued along
its crest. The face of this precipice is broken by a few steep couloir: znd on
ascending one of these, about half way between the fortified summi‘ and
the other ruins, we find ourselves in a little hollow which is a sacred place
(dedé) for the inhabitants of the villages of Alaji and Kushyaka. Here αὐ
a certain season, just after the first autumn rains, they come and sacrifice a
lamb or a kid. It chanced that W.R.P. visited the place on the morrow of
such a sacrifice, and found, hanging on the branches of one of the venerable
trees which grow in this hollow, the liver and certain other portions of the
victim, left for the spirits of the place to consume. ‘The sanctity of the place
to-day is further attested by the existence in it of tombs of two holy men.
There is no doubt that it is an old Carian ἱερόν which has preserved its
sanctity ever since. At the head of the couloir by which it is approached
is an old terrace wall; below this, among the fallen stones, are quantities of
pieces of pottery; cut in the rock to the right of the ascent is a receptacle
which must have been meant to contain water for ritual purposes; and just
beside the tombs of the Turkish saints are two marbles, one set upon the
other.‘

KINDYA.

There is an unfortified settlement, probably pre-Hellenic, with several
large buildings on a hill immediately above Aghachli Oyuk. The hills be-

4 The smaller is a fragment of a Greek
moulding, with egg and tongue pattern; the
other struck me at first sight as being Byzan-
tine, but afterwards as being a piece of old
Carian work. My drawings of the marbles
were lost, owing to a mishap, and I cannot
verify my judgment about them without

revisiting the site. It is improbable that they
were brought to this not easily accessible place
as votive offerings, although we know how
much the magic power of sculptured stones is
esteemed by superstitious people in these
countries. —W.R. P.

οΩ 2

196 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

tween the Yemikler Déré and the Kar Ova are crowned by a notable fortress
(Kalé) above Cholmekji Keui, and by numerous tumuli, all of which must be
taken in connexion with the town-site on the spur above Uch-bunar, which
is now decisively identified with Kinpya. The celebrated temple of Artemis
is represented on a site immediately opposite, across the Yemikler Déré.

Kindya must be placed at Sirtmesh Kalé,a Karian fortress of consider-
able extent and in a very commanding position. The outer line of defence
follows on the west the line of a precipitous escarpment, and here any small
artificial additions to the natural defence have disappeared. On the other
sides runs a wall never of massive proportions and similar in its masonry to the
inner wall, a characteristic specimen of Karian masonry. No series of tumuli
appears to exist in its immediate neighbourhood, as we should expect in the
case of a Karian place of the importance of Kindya, and P. was formerly
inclined to place this town at Cholmekji Kalé, in the neighbourhood of
which there are tumuli; but on the other hand Cholmekji Kalé (described
below), which has a large series of tumuli and is the only alternative site for
Kindya, is a purely Hellenic fortress and of smaller extent than Sirtmesh
Kalé : nor are there any traces near it of a site for the temple of Artemis
Kindyas which we must suppose to have been close to the ancient city. On
a slight eminence north of Sirtmesh Kalé and separated from it by the
stream which descends from Yemikler are many marbles indicating that an
important building, almost certainly a temple, stood on this isolated site.
Two inscriptions have been found here; one that is published by Messrs.
Cousin and Diehl (Bull. xiii. 37), the other one recently published in the
Bulletin (xviii. p. 199), of which we can give a more perfect copy (No. 8). It
is very improbable that these stones have been brought over even from the
nearest site, Bargylia (which lies on the other side of the gulf): and one of
them is a dedication to Artemis Kindyas.

Kindya therefore may be placed with certainty at Sirtmesh Kalé ; and
even if it proves that the tumuli are confined to the ridges near Cholachyi
Kalé, which have been examined more closely than those near Sirtmesh
Kalé, it can still be maintained that the whole of this small range was in
the territory of Kindya, and that for some reason its large tombs were built
at some distance from the town. The tumuli on the ridge east of Cholmekji
Kalé are, indeed, as their masonry shows, of a date perhaps contemporary
with the walls of that fortress, and it is possible that, when they were
_ made, Sirtmesh Kalé had for some strategical reason been abandoned
and the residence of the old princely families transferred to Cholmekji
Kale.

Messrs. Cousin and Diehl have already suggested that the site where
they found their inscription is that of the temple of Artemis Kindyas, and
had they visited the old Karian fortress in the immediate neighbourhood,
their conjecture would have become a certainty. Their suggestion should
have been adopted by Kiepert, whe visited Sirtmesh Kalé. We do not know
if this is the site which Texier in his small book on Asia Minor (p. 638)
mentions and conjectures was the site of the temple of Artemis. He

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 197

describes it, looking from Bargylia, as being ‘dans la plaine située de l'autre
cdté des collines,’ which is unfortunately so vague as to be useless.

Cholmekji Kalé is an extensive Hellenic fortress on the top of a high
hill. It has a double line of fortification, except on the north-west, all of
the ordinary type of later Hellenic masonry with drafts at the corners.
The exact course of the oval line of wall is much obscured by bushes, and
of three towers only the foundations remain: within the northward gateway
foundations are distinctly visible. The space east of the inner line of fortifi-
cations is quite flat, and contains two underground covered passages. Their
extent cannot be determined without excavation, and their purpose is not
obvious. The strategical importance of this fortress depends on its command
of the easiest road from the Taliani plain to the Kar Ova. On the ridge
to the north-east are some remarkable tumuli

The Kiran Dagh (Kerenda, Adm. Ch. 1604), which lines the north shore
of the Keramic Gulf from Keramos to Giova, has far fewer valleys leading to
the sea than Kiepert’s map indicates; in particular the large valley, running
north-west, would cut across the Kartal Déré, if it existed as far as it is
marked. The seaward slopes are very abrupt, and leave room for no coast-
land or even for a good road from Keramos to Idyma, which is mghtly
placed at Giova: a single watch-tower at Akbuk, a little east of Keramos,
marks a gap in the Kiran Dagh and may indicate the ancient port of the
nameless site at Sarij, the ‘Rhodian’ masonry of which is very similar.
West of Keramos, the coast-range (Kara Dagh—Fezlikan—Kaplan Dagh) is
much less precipitous and continuous, but has not yet been thoroughly
explored. Some distance west of Keramos is a watch-tower of beautiful
polygonal masonry and a little west again of this is a site near the sea with
brick-work buildings of Roman or Byzantine times. Near this was found
a dedication to Ἥρα ᾿Ακταία, whose temple is to be looked for here (see
Hicks, Ceramus and its Inscriptions, J.H.S. xi. 1890).

BARGASA.

Bargasa is placed by Kiepert at Vasilika (Fezlikan Yailasi). It occurs
as Ildpyaca in the Athenian tribute-lists, and struck numerous coins.
Strabo’s words (656) εἶτα μετὰ Κνίδον, Képapos καὶ Bapyaca, πολέχνια ὑπὲρ
θαλάττης (J.H.S. 1.6. p. 109) would lead us to look for it on or near the northern
coast of the Keramic Gulf. There are no ruins at Fezlikan Yailasi of a city
of note in Roman times: only a tower perched on a precipitous hill.
Alizetin, though west of Keramos, will not do, as this site was deserted in
the fourth century. If Bargasa is anywhere in the region which Strabo
indicates, the only site which will suit it is the ancient town between Yenijé
and Ula (νυ. map).° This is a Hellenic city of some size and importance.
It contains a small theatre and outside its walls are some very remarkable
and beautiful tombs. In the plain on the west, just beneath the city, are the
remains of one or more large marble buildings, but no inscriptions have

5 An account of the tumuli, and the map, follow in the next Journal.

198 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

been found. At the same time the order of the names in Strabo indicates
that Bargasa lay west of Keramos. There is a reason however for believing
that Bargasa is north of Amyzon and Alabanda, where Ptolemy’s map puts
it. Diligent search in the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Keramos has
revealed not one single coin of Bargasa. Yet they are by no means un-
common. W. R. P. has six or seven all brought from Aidin and bought in
Smyrna. It is noteworthy that coins of Keramos, which one not unfrequently
meets with at local centres of traffic, such as Mylasa and Mughla, are far
rarer in the Smyrna market than those of Bargasa. Bargasa will therefore
probably be found in the unexplored country between Amyzon and Aidin.
Ptolemy’s view is further supported by the fact that Bargasa occurs next to
Neapolis in a list of Lydian and Karian cities which combined to honour the
memory of a citizen of Antioch (Buresch, Ath. Mitth. xix. p. 102). Although
the order of the cities here is of course not strictly geographical, yet, as the
editor points out, they in some measure fall into geographical groups.
Another reason for not placing it at Yenijé is that there is a river-god on
some of its coins, and this implies the existence of a perennial stream, such
as does not exist either at Yenijé or at Vasiliki.

In coasting along, we found terraces, house foundations, etc., of unhewn
masonry on a precipitous hill (1300 feet) overhanging the small bay known
as Hellenika,® but nothing further to justify the name: several large tumuli,
however, on the skyline some miles northward, probably in the neighbour-
hood of Theangela; and a fine tomb, to be described later, on the island Orak
(Adm. Ch. 1604).

The hilly country between the west border of the Kar Ova and Budrum
is of a very porous variety of the limestone, and remarkable for its absolute
lack of water. The whole supply is now derived from cisterns, which being
whitewashed form conspicuous landmarks, especially along the roads. At
present there is not a single village in this district, but the numerous,
apparently pre-Hellenic, remains show that it was well populated at a remote
period. The southern part of it as far as the coast is a large chiflik, now
the property of a Greek of Budrum, M. Mangli, drained by a fan-shaped
basin from Kizil Agach to Alizetin (¢.v. below).

In this waterless section between the Kar Ova and Budrum, the line of
the old road follows very closely that of the modern track, keeping close
under the conspicuous range of hills which hnes the northern coast, and
crossing in detail the stream-beds which converge upon the southward valley
in which M. Mangli’s farm lies close to the sea. The route is further
indicated by a series of Karian and Hellenic chambered tombs, the latter of
some architectural pretensions, which lie on either side of it at intervals,
beginning about an hour after the ascent from the Kar Ova, and continuing to
a-point nearly opposite to the hamlet of Kizil Agach, on the watershed
betweeu the north-west tributaries of M. Mangli’s stream, and the south-east
valley head of that which flows northwards to the north side of the Budrum

® Marked in ‘ Alikashli Bay,’ Adm. Ch. 1604.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 199

isthmus, reaching the sea at Durvanda, and determining the course of the
north-coast road from Halikarnassos to Bargylia. Most of these tombs are
very much shattered, but the plan and even the elevation of several can be
determined with some accuracy ; they do not however present any noteworthy
features. Belonging to one of them is a square base of roughly dressed lime-
stone, with a vine wreath in relief, and the inscription

APMOAION TOY APMOAIOY

The top of the base is circular, and has a round hole in the middle to
support a bronze object. Height 23 cm., breadth of front 53 cm., front to
back 54 cm.

Close to the north side of the road nearly opposite to Kizil Agach is a
totally ruined building with large unfluted columns, very much overgrown
with bushes : it has the look of a small temple or heroén, but is very prob-
ably only an elaborate Hellenic tomb,

Ascending the western valley head of the northward stream, the road
crosses an easy pass where there seem to be traces visible of the earlier
track, and descends by a series of new zigzags into the deep river-bed which
runs down upon the north-west quarter of Halikarnassos, and so into the bay
through the Greek quarter of Budrum.

ALIZETIN.

In the headwaters of the easternmost tributary of M. Mangli’s stream,
which runs through a wooded gorge into the main valley about half an hour
from the sea, is a large and remarkably well preserved Karian site known as
Alizetin, on a conspicuous spur of the southern hills, nearly 1,000 ft. high,
and close above, and south of, the cistern and mandra which lie in the middle
of the basin. The circuit wall (Pl. IX. 4) is of large blocks of a local lime-
stone very dark in colour, and containing many black flints, nodules of which
are also scattered everywhere in the soil. One of the best preserved towers,
on the north side, is represented in Pl. IX. 5. The space within is crowded
with buildings of the common limestone slabs without cement, which are
often preserved above the level of the first floor, though naturally all the
woodwork has perished (Pl. IX. 3, 4): the most perfect house-walls are quite
twenty feet in height, and provided with window-openings. The streets
between them are narrow and irregular. Several buildings on the south-east
slope of the site are supported on terrace walls of enormous blocks of the
compact black limestone, and show also, above, signs of repeated rebuilding
in more or less regularly squared and isodomous masonry. ‘Two in particular
deserve a detailed description. (1) An oblong substructure, of very large
rudely polygonal blocks, contains two chambers, like those of the Karian
tombs, with false-vaulted roofs, entered by low doors in the side facing down
the hill. (2) On a superstructure was a portico facing up the hill, with closed
ends. Ona stylobate of two steps, two piers between antae supported the
roughly dressed architrave: these piers consisted each of a single block, or

200 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS

rather slab, rectangular in section, and tapering upwards on the broad faces :
they terminated above in large simply voluted capitals, one of which is
completely preserved (Fig. 2); to judge from a socket in the top step in
which one of them apparently stood, they were set with the narrow face
outwards; and consequently with the volutes facing not to the front, but
sideways. On the architrave rested roof-beams of stone, reaching from front
to back of the building; dressed to the form of a very low gable, so as to
support the rafters and roof-slabs directly. The floor is paved with large
rectangular slabs, and the lower part of the walls is adorned with a course of
similar slabs set vertically as parastades. The dimensions of the building
are: length 24 ft. 9 in., front to back 10 ft. 2 in.

Fic. 2.—ALIzETIN: CAPITAL.

We hoped to be able to return to Alizetin after our first visit, and
unfortunately deferred the execution of a regular plan of the town, which is
by far the most adequate known specimen of Karian architecture. The site
is so exposed, however, that excavation would probably yield very little. The
settlement appears to have come to an abrupt end at a comparatively early
date ; and it may very well have been one of the eight Lelegian towns whose
populations were transferred by Mausolos to Halikarnassos. Out of Pliny’s
list? Sibde and Euranion remain unidentified, and Alizetin may be one of
these. The tombs along the road, above mentioned, may represent the
corresponding necropolis, but some of them are certainly later than the
fourth century. No tombs have been found in the immediate neighbourhood
of the site, but there is a small sanctuary with early terra-cottas.

There is another extensive city site on the high peak south-east of
Halikarnassos, which on the other side overlooks the Kizil Agach valley.
The city wall can be clearly traced, but is not in good preservation. Detailed
exploration of this important but hitherto unnoticed town is reserved for
next year. On the way down from this site to Hagios Georgios, the eastern
suburb of Budrum, are the remains of a large tumulus, probably of our
‘compound’ type. On the back of the ridge which runs from the city peak
the cape opposite the east end of Arkonnesos, are numerous ‘ Lelegian’
house-ruins: and a small fort, not yet described, above the farmhouses of the
Mangli Chiflik.

7 Pliny, N.H. v. 29

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 201

II.—The Peninsula of Myndos.

Of HALIKARNASSOS we have nothing to add to existing accounts, except
Inscriptions 5 and 6, and a note of the probable course of the principal roads
thence into the peninsula of Myndos.

1, There are traces of an old track in the deep ravine which leads
directly north from the north angle of the old town, and straight towards
Ghiuk Chalar ; and it is probable that an extension of this led along the line
of a difficult modern track, down a side valley into the northward ravine
which reaches the sea at Durvanda; where it joined the road from Karyanda
to Bargylia, and, further on, the main north-coast road from Halikarnassos to
the latter town.

2, From the west gate of Halikarnassos the old road to Myndos follows
very closely the line of the modern one. The extension of the Ghiuk Chalar
tumuli south-east towards Chirkdn perhaps indicates that it received in the
plain of Bités a branch from the west gate of Ghiuk Chalar. The road to
Telmessos diverged near the last-named junction, and followed a wide ravine
through the Kara Dagh, descending upon the Apollo temple below Telmessos,
where there are traces of a well-worn track, and from thence into the Ghiol
valley to Karyanda. Further on again, from Episcop},a cross road led up the
Episcopi valley and down upon Sandama. This road also is very deeply
worn in several places near the top of the pass. There was probably a branch
of it over a pass further east, past the fort at Tremil, to the small towns
round the bay: here again the present track is evidently of great age.

The main road to Myndos can again be traced further on, over the
watershed at Kiureji, where there is a small fort, and along the north side of
the Akcherenda valley. It takes an obvious line and is closely followed by
the modern track most of the way.

3. The course of the direct road from Halikarnassos to Termera (Assarlik)
is not clear. If there was one, it probably diverged southwards from
Episcopi, and ran between the south range and the sea. The road from
Myndos to Termera, and to the little port below it on the south coast, was
probably of early and considerable importance ; it can probably be traced near
Kadi Kalessi, and its line across the ridge close to the west end of Assarlik
is one of the best examples in the neighbourhood, the hollow way being from
ten to fifteen feet deep. An instance ofits use in the fifth century is probably
atforded by the tribute-list for 425 B.c., where the dpyuvpoAdyos records
Μύνδιοι παρὰ Téppepa shortly after Termera, Kindya, and Karyanda.

4. From Myndos northward a coast road passes a succession of small
forts and settlements, including that at Tremil above mentioned, and
eventually reaches Karyanda (Farélia) and so joins the Halikarnassos-
Bargylia road at Durvanda.

On the western summit of the island of Arkonnesos is a remarkable
temenos, which has been described by Dr. Dorpfeld in Mitth. Ath. xiv.
(p. 466 ff. Pl. ΧΙ, XIII).

202 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

There is a similar isolated house on the promontory of Urun® on the
mainland : it consists of a rectangular outer court containing traces of rough
chambers, and enclosing a well-built citadel of dressed polygonal masonry,

Fic. 3.—UruN: PLAN oF A FORTIFIED HOUSE. ἢ

also subdivided into rooms, and with a door threshold on the west side. It
appears to be of early Hellenic work, but the few fragments of pottery on
the site do not afford any positive confirmation.

At Ghiuk Chalar, the identification of which with PEDASA has been
already discussed (p. 193), nearly the whole of the fortifications of the name-
less town are preserved, and foundations of houses within; but the site has
been much denuded, and is now overgrown with trees. Outside the town, in

pe

Fic. 4.—Guiuk CHALAR FROM THE W.

a valley which runs westward into the plain of Bites, is the substructure of a
large building of rough native masonry. This was probably the temple of
Athene to which Inscription No. 4 belongs. The necropolis is extensive, and
contains many fine chambered tumuli, which will be described below.

On the first slopes of the hills round Ghiuk Chalar, in approaching Chirkan
village from the west (but north of the Myndos road, which we had lost), we
stumbled at night upon terraces and walls, thickly overgrown. But we could
not make anything of them, and were unable to revisit the spot.

8 *Ouroun,’ the E horn of ‘Petasa Bay, Adm. Ch. 1604.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 203

At Episcopi are the ruins of a large Byzantine church. Recent search
for building stones has unearthed an inscribed column,* certainly brought from
Halikarnassos where similar ones exist. The name and position of the village
would lead us to think that it is the ἱερόν mentioned in the Notitiae
Episcopatuum between Myndos and Halikarnassos,

At Kiureji the tower already mentioned is of Hellenic masonry: it
commands the highest pass on the road, and marks the frontier between the
territories of Myndos and Halikarnassos. On the pass itself is a simple
rock tomb.

TERMERA (ASSARLIK).

Chifut Kalé certainly commands the natural port of Assarlik, and, as
has been said above (p. 201 ),a well-worn road passes Assarlik in that direction.
Lelegian towns however are not found on peninsulas, nor, what is more
important, on heights which, like Chifut Kalé, are equally abrupt on all sides,
They usually occupy lofty positions where on one or more sides a precipice
saved the necessity of building a wall, but where access on the other sides
is comparatively easy. The mediaeval builders, on the other hand, selected
peaks which were by nature almost inaccessible, and built fortresses thereon,

Fic, 5.—Guiuk CHALAR: E. GATE, FROM WITHIN.

the walls of which are continuous even along the brink of precipices. The
Hellenic principle, here as elsewhere, was a wise mean.

The very extensive necropolis, also, has Assarlik for its centre, and not
Chifut Kalé. The topography is discussed in detail in AHS. viii. p. 64 ff.
(W.R.P.), where a description of the necropolis is given, and a drawing of a
part of the fortress wall. The chambered tumuli described by Newton
(Halicarnassus, ete. pp. 5838 ff.) are in a valley on the north-west of the
fortress, and a little to the west of the road from Termera to Myndos. There
are chambered rock-tombs in the north face of the acropolis, and in a friable
cliff of volcanic tuff, also facing north about half a mile from the town, a
little west of the great pinnacles of the range. In a mandra (sheep-fold)
here, there are rock cuttings and foundations in the same tuff, which may be
an oilpress.

On the south side of Assarlik, near the ridge which joins the acropolis
to the ridge where the tombs begin, and just outside the well-preserved
postern-gate, there is a large slope of town-rubbish, with much _ pottery.
Most of it is coarse native ware; but in the upper layers we found scraps of

ἡ Inscription No. 2 below.

204 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

black-glazed and other Hellenic wares which indicate that the site was not
deserted in the fourth and third centuries.

On the summit of the hill, which is levelled and supported by a terrace
wall of polygonal masonry fitted to the rock, there is a series of large
subterranean chambers of rubble masonry which seem to have been covered
by barrel vaults of the same rough work. These are probably mediaeval,
and indeed it would be remarkable if so commanding a position had not been
occupied at least as an outpost by the lords of Chifut Kalé. We saw,
however, no characteristically mediaeval pottery.

The only other settlement on the south range is the hill F,}° on the south-
east slope of which are a number of very rough house or tomb platforms, but
the site is quite denuded. The peninsula of Kephalukha (probably the
ancient Astypalaea 11) seems to be quite unoccupied. Probably the whole of
the south range and its lowlands belonged to Termera, with the Akcherenda
river as frontier in the direction of Myndos.

Mynpos itself has been described elsewhere, and a drawing of the
Cyclopean wall on the peninsula (which, as at Knidos, seems to have
been the original town) is given in 07.7.5. viii. p. 64 ff. (W.R.P.) It has no
‘Lelegian’ necropolis, and seems to have been, unlike Halikarnassos, a
thoroughly Hellenic foundation. The only early monument is the ‘ Cyclopean ’
wall, which is unique in this part of Karia.!?_ Its continuous importance as
a silver working centre is asserted alike by classical and mediaeval tradition
and by its Turkish name of Giumushli. The beach round the bay south
of the harbour is strewn with masses of slag from the silver-furnaces, one
of which is well exposed in the hollow way to Kadi Kale, soon after leaving
the shore. All that remains is a circular pit some four feet in diameter,
the sides of which appear to have been lined with clay, and are thoroughly
baked into brick. The great silver-mine is to be seen on the range behind
the town; the shaft is very irregular, and of great size, and is filled with water
to within thirty feet of the surface. There are still veins of silver-lead in
this neighbourhood.

On the southernmost and most detached peak above Kadi Kalé is a
very small rectangular tower of quite unwrought stones, which would barely
deserve notice, but that we found here fragments of quite primitive hand-
made pottery, provided with string-holes pierced in the brim, instead of with
handles, the paste of which is mere brown mud from the marsh round
Kara-toprak, and very slightly fired. So far as we know, this is the only
record of Karian culture which is earlier than the sub-Mykenaean tombs of
Assarlik (J.H7.S, viil. p. 64 ff.).

How far north of the town the coast belonged to Myndos, we cannot say
with certainty. The next considerable towns are Telmessos and Karyanda

#0 y, map: the hill has no local name. Zephyrion is the promontory between Kadi
“Strabo 658. ἐν δὲ τῇ παραλίᾳ τοῦ ἠπείρον Καὶό and Giumushli, v. below p. 34.
κατὰ τὴν Μυνδίαν ᾿Αστυπάλαιά ἐστιν ἄκρα καὶ 12 ΤΌ very closely resembles the wall οἵ Arke-

Ζεφύριον: εἶτ᾽ εὐθὺς ἡ Muvdds, λιμένα ἔχουσα. sine in Karpathos.—W.R.P.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 205

(at Kara Dagh and Ghidl respectively, v. below, and J./S. xiv. 373 ff).
But there are several small unidentified sites along the intervening coast,
and as, for the fifth century at all events, we have a series of unidentified
names for this same neighbourhood, it is worth while to attempt to bring
them together.

The names are contained in the tribute-lists of the Athenian League,
which, though their arrangement is generally most irregular, occasionally
give short sections in geographical order; as though the logbook of one or
other ἀργυρολόγος vais had been transcribed at once on its arrival in Athens,
and without filling in omissions from other sources. Sometimes, as in the
case quoted above (p. 201), the route of a collector can be traced when he
leaves the ship and goes up country. The lists which interest us here are
as follows :—

450 446 445 445 442 440 436
Ol. 82. 3. Ol. 83. 3. Ol. 83. 4. Ol. 84. 2. Ol. 84.3. Ol. 85. 1. Ol. 86. 1.
"laos "Iaojs ? "laons [in reversed ᾿Αλικαρνασσός
order}

Πριανῆς Λάτμιοι
Κινδυῆς Ἰασεῖς
Βαργυλιῆς '

Ληψυανδῆς Ληψυανδῆς
Καρυανδῆς Kapvavdijs Καρυανδῆς Καρυανδῆς
Πασανδῆς Πασαν]δῆς
Μαδνασῆς Μαδνασῆς Μαδνασῆς Μαδνασῆς Μάδνασα
Πελεᾶται Πελεᾶται Πελεᾶται Πελεᾶται Πέλεια

Μύν]δ[ιοι

Καλ]δ[νιοι

Τερ]μερ[ῆς Τέρμερα

“Αλικαρνασσός
Παρπασιῶται

Βαργύλια

Putting the lists of 450 and 443 together we have a continuous itinerary
from Bargylia (when the Kindyan tribute is brought down to the sea) to
Termera. Between Karyanda and Myndos three small towns are mentioned,
Pasanda, Madnasa, and Pelea. We know from other sources that Madnasa
or Medmasa (Plin. H.N. v. 29) is in the near neighbourhood of Halikar-
nassos. The only Pasanda the site of which is established is the ‘scala’ or
harbour-town of Kaunos in Lykia (see Stadiasmos M. M. in Geogr. Gr. Min. i.
p. 495). This Pasanda is certainly that mentioned in the tribute-list of
Ol. 86. 1 (436 B.C.) Καύνιοι---Τηλάνδριοι---Πασανδῆς---Καρβασυανδῆς παρὰ
Καῦνον. In the earlier lists however there is sufficient evidence to make it
probable that there were two Pasanda’s. In the list of Ol. 84. 4 the Καύνιοι
Πασανδῆς are entered as paying a half talent, the usual sum paid by Kaunos.
In the list of 82. 3, besides the Pasanda next to Karyanda in the extract cited
above, there is found in a previous column another Pasanda standing among
more southerly surroundings. We may assume from this that where Kaunos
is cited apart from Pasanda in the earlier lists, the latter is the northern
town in the peninsula of Halikarnassos,

206 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

The corresponding sites north and east of Myndos, towards Bargylia,
are as follows :—

AZAJIK (‘open-month’) is a very small fort or fortified farm occupying
a little plateau between Mandrais and Gerési (Garah of Adm. Chart, 1546).
The inner chamber within it (Fig. 6) is roofed in native fashion with a
‘false arch, and is entered by the passage which descends to it from the
east side of the platform. Outside the fortress, and a little to the right of
the entrance, the circle of an oilpress is cut in the rock.

Borcuaz, the fortress near the village of Gerési, was a place of more
importance (Fig. 7). The beautiful tomb on the summit north of it is
described J.H.S. viii. p. 78, and the chambered tumulus on the western
slope below the fortress itself is discussed below with the rest of its class.
The fortress was evidently originally Karian, but has received important
Hellenic additions, perhaps from the family who built the great tomb. The
summit of the hill is level, and is crowned by a keep or watch-tower; but
as the whole of the eastern side and part of the western are defended by
steep rocks, there was no necessity for a continuous wall. The outer wall
cannot be traced to N.E. beyond the point marked. The Hellenic masonry is
easily distinguished from the earlier work, and is differently shaded in the
plan. Owing to the dense undergrowth it is impossible to make sure of the
course of the primitive wall (PI. IX. 1) which appears here, and to establish its
relations with the fortress above. On the southern side the fortress was
approached along the ridge by a gentle slope. Its gate was naturally on this
side, and near it apparently stood a building of the Doric order, as the
people of Gerési had found a block of a frieze with a triglyph, in digging
for stones, A little excavation would probably yield interesting results,

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS, 207

On the high ridge east of the peak Q (v. map) are several tumuli like those
of Ghiuk Chalar, which may belong to the Gerési site, but are nearly an hour
distant ; a well-worn road however crosses the lowest point of the ridge
to descend the Dere Keui valley. A ruined ‘ Lelegian’ building on the peak
itself seems to have been rectangular and might have been either a watch-
tower or a tomb.

South of the village of TrEMiL there is a small fortress cut out of the
boss of rock at the top of an isolated and fairly steep hill, so as to leave a
sunk platform, very fairly levelled, and partially surrounded by a natural
parapet on the east and west. In the centre of the north side a tower of rock

— ~__ TERRACE: WALL re, NS

σ΄

ye .
age
p.) Perrerccs
Ἀ}}} ᾿ \a \
BORGHAZ. “4, 1.
le la Stes .΄ ye ἢ ᾿ i
_ eee H
fe Ps i) | } }
eS ee) 1.
ΕΣ oe — wee, PS RP
SE ag ae — ee » ] ΠΝ
=. Fae ; J F
0... ate tte eS aS

Fie. 7.—BoRGHAZ.

has been left, some 15 feet high, on which there are remains of walls. On
its east face is a rectangular projection, also cut out of the rock, but only
8 feet high, which is hollowed into a small bank. At the south end of the
rock-parapet of the west face there may have been a gateway with southward
exit obliquely under the wall. The southern face of the hill is crowned by a
rectangular building, of which only a few courses remain, of rather better
masonry. In the middle of its outward wall is a projecting platform 2 feet to
3 feet above the uneven ground, with four hollows like washing-troughs,
averaging about 1’.6” + 1.10’ in length and breadth. In the platform behind
is a cistern cut in the rock, 17 feet long, 13 feet wide, and about 8 feet deep,
partly choked with stones. West of this the platform is divided by the
foundations of a wall into two courts, of which the southern is about 2 feet
lower than the northern. The northern court is defended by walls of poly-

208 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

gonal masonry, and there are traces of an outer wall at the north-west corner.
Below the village there are a few rock-cut tombs.

Mr. Kallispéri of Kalymnos, who accompanied us throughout our journey,
suggests that Tremi] preserves the name of Termile. Stephanos says (s.v. mei
pepa): Téppepa πόλις Kapias.... Τερμίλην δ᾽ ἑξῆς παραθήσομαι ἑτέραν
ἔχουσαν γραφὴν, τὴν αὐτὴν οὖσαν, ὡς οἶμαι. Evidently this is only his own
conjecture, and it may well be that he has heard the two names, and, learning
that they are both in the peninsula of Myndos, has wrongly referred both of
them to the better known site.

----“----
StS Se =e

SK
/
/
yy

/ j yy) ey, oa
Neh 7 ΞΟ κα ΟΝ
ne Ν ὕ Ν ὮΝ
‘ NES γ Bis Us ἮΝ " ᾿ ) :

5 Ἢ τ Ἂν - “Ὁ: ͵ J }

) ἜΝ ΞΕ Ἐ eee 2

: eee
\ Nees ae ον, eee i OF Fon. st aon
ἽΞ SK aie τρῆ οθ. ον ABOVE
= eB te π- Ὁ
= TREMIL. |

Fic. 8.—TREMIiL,

There are several more tombs, one with an altar also cut in the rock,
described by Newton (Halicarnassus, &c., ii. 592 ff. Pl. LXXVII.), about half
an hour off, near the west end of the ridge which fronts the bay between
Sandama and Farélia peninsula, and others with facades in the eastward
cliffs of the former, not far from the isthmus. One of them has several coats
of faded fresco painting in the tympanum of the fagade. We are clearly
on a well established site, which went on into Hellenistic times; but there
are no clear traces of buildings, only potsherds on both sides of the isthmus of
Sandama, and a mediaeval, and at all events late Greek, pottery in the
marshy ground at the root of Farélia promontory.

On Farélia promontory itself.there are traces of another small settle-
ment, round the house of a shepherd named Arslan, with elaborate rock-cut
tombs, one of which Arslan himself occupies, while another serves as his

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 209

stable. The outer chambers of both of these have fallen in, and are only pre-
served in ground plan. There is at least one remarkable tumulus on this
promontory.

As the direct road from Episcopi to Pelén approaches the latter, it is
overhung on the west by the lofty precipice of the Turkmen Dagh
(= ‘Pyramid Hill’ of Adm. Ch. 1546—1604). The northernmost summit of
this hill is occupied by a small Lelegian settlement defended on the east by
the precipice and along the very steep western slope of the hill by a line of
wall very like that of Assarlik. No tumuli have been observed here, but the
slopes and ridges beneath the wall are so thickly wooded that it is impossible
to say that there are none. The name of the neighbouring village is Pelén,

Dn

CY ΤΏ

yaar WI
ee re VY

᾿ Yor 7 ΓΞ
ty fa. y ;

SX

Wg

ELEVATION. A—B.

lj —

2

σα
ri Gee
» τ! ay, 77 ROOF FALLEN IN ZY
Uf
7 ; Ἧ AS FAR ASab
A % Peectete store eet - <

τ τ" a os oe ΜΞ
+1-6 7; “ye
OPEN COURTYARD APPROXIMATE RELATIVE POSITIONS.

ROOF FALLEN IN AS 7, rere LEVEL OF HOUSE ABOUT TEN
FARAS a.b. 7 FT BELOW THAT OF STABLE

Fic. 9.—AnsLAn’s Housk (ΤῸ LEFT) AND STABLE (TO RIGHT).

and although Pelén is a well-known Turkish word, we may venture to conjec-
ture that it is an adaptation of the ancient Peléa.

No inscriptions have appeared either at Tremil, or round the bay, or on
either of the promontories. So we have nothing but the indirect evidence
quoted above by which to attempt to identify this group of sites.

It is however first necessary to fix the other terminal point of our lists,
namely, KARYANDA. Newton placed it long ago at Ghiol,!* Kiepert more

15. Halicarnassus, &c., ii. p. 597 ff.
ἘΠ — Vou. XVI, P

210 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

recently at Tarandos. Both sites supply Strabo’s νῆσος καὶ πόλις Kal λιμήν ;
but Tarandos was never a considerable town, and moreover is wanted for the
Taramptos of Brit. Mus. Inscr. (Halikarnassos) DceccxcvI. line 18. Ghidl, on
the other hand, has a fine Karian fortified town, with Hellenic additions, on
the tuff escarpment above Farélia village, and a considerable necropolis,
Karian, Hellenic and Graeco-Roman, extending thence to the bay. We saw
also at a house near Farélia Bay a small Corinthian capital found in the
neighbourhood, and were fortunate enough to acquire a fourth century bronze
coin of autonomous Karyanda found on the western shore of Ghidl Bay. We
have discussed these verifications of Newton’s conjecture in detail in J.H.S.
xiv. 373 ff. .

In the same paper we described a most important group of sites on the
Kara Dagh: two towns, a temple site, and a fine chambered tumulus; and
identified them as the Karian Telmessos on the evidence of a third century
inscription found on the temple site, and now built into a house in the village
of Pelén. Kiepert had placed this Telmessos at Ghiol.

Karyanda then being at Ghiol and Myndos at Giumushli, the sites on the
Kara Dagh, the Turkmen Dagh and at Tremil being appropriated to Telmes-
sos, Peléa and Termile respectively, and Azajik being merely a fortified farm,
we are left with two sites, Sandama and Borghaz, to assign to the two
remaining names,

So far as early remains go, Borghaz is far the more important. Madnasa
in the tribute-lists paid two talents, while Pasanda and Peléa paid but half a
talent each. This puts Madnasa at Borghaz and Pasanda at Sandama.

But the order of the names in the list puts Pasanda west of Madnasa:
that is, either Pasanda must go to Azajik, which is very unlikely, or Madnasa
must go to Sandama, and Pasanda to Borghaz.

Consequently, until more positive evidence is forthcoming, we are in a
philological dilemma. Does the word Sandama come by metathesis (quasi
a | madnaS) from Madnasa, or by syncope (quasi yavéda) from Pasanda?
And may ‘ Pasha’-liman in Sandama peninsula be a corruption of the latter

name ? (W.R.P.)

IV.— Sites in Latmos and Grion.

CHALKETOR.

Strabo (xiv. 1, 8) says that the eastern termination of Grion is in the
neighbourhood of Euromos and Chalketor. The site of Chalketor is dis-
covered by inscriptions 28-32 at the village of Kara-Koyun (‘black-well’) at
no great distance from Euromos. Just above the village rises a steep hill
with a round summit. At some little distance below the summit the hill is
encircled by a wall which has been, at some time, purposely destroyed. In
its present condition it very much resembles the wall of the Telmessos
fortress near Halikarnassos (J.H.S. xiv. 373 ff.) and its masonry must have
been of the native ‘Lelegian’ type. Scarcely any traces of buildings exist

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 211

within the wall: only some scattered stones just below the actual sumiit of
the hill. This hill is separated by a small valley from another at the foot of
whose northern slope lies the village of Kiosk, This other hill is also
fortified by a wall, the masonry of which is of the type of the upper wall of
Borghaz (Plate IX. 1.) and runs for some distance along the west and
north faces of the hill. Here it has not been purposely razed, but on the
other sides it seems to cease. No traces of buildings appeared within it.
These two hill fortresses represent the old Karian Chalketor. The ruins of
the Hellenic city are situated on alow spur between the villages of Kiosk
and Kara-Koyun. It was never enclosed by a wall. There is no theatre,
but there are numerous remains of public and sacred buildings, and one or
two large sarcophagi. The houses in the village of Kara-Koyun are almost
entirely built of the materials of the old town.

In the time of the Athenian empire Chalketor paid a little less
tribute than Euromos (or Hyromos, to give it its proper Karian name). We
do not know how long it remained independent. Some coins with a spear-
head, for Zeus Stratios, as their type (cf. Baghajik temple) have been attri-
buted to it; but none were found in the village. The inscriptions show that
it was a place of some political note in the fourth century and that Apollo
was its chief god (Inscr. No. 28).

NARASA.

The name is an old Karian one whieh has survived unaltered. In its
neighbourhood we should look for the sanctuary of Zeus Narasos, who is
mentioned along with other Karian Zénes in an inscription of Panimara
(Bull. Hell. xii. p. 86 ff.). Stephanos also has Νάρκασος (Ndpacos 1) δῆμος
καὶ πόλις Καρίας. For Zeus Narasos cf. 0.7, 2720. 5.

The picturesque and well-watered village lies at the head of a thickly-
wooded glen which joins the Derejé Deré,

EUREN and BAGHAJIK.

are two fortresses both situated in remote valleys of Latmos and bearing
a great likeness to each other. In each case an eminence has been
selected which is in itself extremely difficult of access. The smooth and
steep blocks of gneiss with deep chasms between them, of which. these two
hills are formed, require only the addition of little bits of wall here and
there to complete the ring of fortification. The fort at Euren (Turkish for
‘hut’) is now very difficult of access. At some points steps are cut up the
rock, at others, chasms are bridged over. The best preserved bit of wall
is part of the inner line of fortification, and defends the actual. summit.
The lower and outer wall appears from the few fragments that remain to
have been of more regular construction. Nearly all the space inside the
wall is bare rock, and here and there on the tops of more or less flat rocks

P 2

212 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

round holes seemingly for the insertion of wooden posts are cut at irregular
intervals. In one small space east of the summit, where the rock is covered
with soil, one sees erect, or prone several door-ways composed of three
monoliths. It is not very easy to see what purpose they served as there are
no traces of walls in connexion with them and the position of one of them is
too near an abrupt rock to allow us to suppose that it was the door of a
house. This fortress gives one the idea of having been the stronghold of an
old Karian brigand.

BAGHAJIK.

The situation of the fortress resembles that of Euren. Here also
the natural defence of the gneiss blocks requires only occasional supplements
of wall. Steps have been cut in some places to render access possible. The

ai afl i ὯΔ

FACE OF [oem arr BAGHAJIK

SECTION OF | CG)
Pa Fe) τ

ἀβουνῦὺ Ριαν TUMPLE CF ZEUS STRATIOS”

SPEAR (yr

FAS
j CROSS SECTION
! LONGITUDINAL SECTION House - PORCH
an
᾿
| ΠΤ
‘Dace hee εὐ ΟΣ Mere PEAR SHIELD

Fie. 10.—BAGHAJIK.

walls are of good Hellenic work: and on the summit is a flat space of some
extent with considerable traces of buildings. One large building had two
round columns as parts of its support; another well-preserved house with three
rooms is of rough masonry with a roughly architectural doorway. Running
up where we show it in the rough plan above (Fig. 10, made from memory)
is a covered under-ground passage, the course of which runs up as shown in the
plan, traceable for about fifteen yards. As the cross-section shows, the
passage is cut in the rock and the covering stones are supported in the centre
by other blocks resting on a series of pillars.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 213

The chief claim to distinction of this fortress is a building below it to
the north-east, which seems to be an old Karian temple of Zeus Stratios
(Fig. 10). It stands on the present road which starts from the hamlet of
Baghajik, crosses the high ridge, and runs down in a north-easternly direction
from the summit of Mount Latmos, towards the village of Chesmé. The
facade faces the fortress. The two stones, still erect, which form the antae, are
carved in relief with a shield and a spear. Between them stood two columns,
now prone ; of the northern wall only the foundations remain; of the others
only the first course of large stones. Possibly the wall marked A in the plan,
the course of which is visible only for a yard or so, may be in a direct line
with the southernmost of the two columns. Measurements do not make it
so, but the supposition of a slight irregularity is quite justifiable. The plan
gives the measure of somé fallen stones, still visible but partially buried, so
that their height cannot be measured. A slight excavation would supply full
materials to an architect for the restoration of the building, but the place is
so remote that neither men nor tools could be obtained without attracting
attention.

ATTAU-LU-SU.

A small Hellenistic fortress. The summit of this high hill very
much resembles the Euren and Baghajik fortresses, the geological formation
being the same. A specimen of the masonry is given in PI. IX. 2.

Two lumps of rock A and B are separated by a small level space

᾿ hy νος }
( ( (ly / AAR \ “SSE 1:2) yy

τονε eal
Δ NER i frac ld oe == ee — tg Uf ly

x
\ — ΞΕ Z
ΝΟΥ SNS σ΄͵

about 150 yards long, the Attau-lu-su which gives its name to the moun-
tain. Lump B, the higher of the two, is quite unscaleable, lump A can only
be approached by a rude stair. On it is built’a tower which has been
purposely destroyed. The level space between the lumps is, where necessary,

14 Turkish : ‘plateau of the horse.’—W.R. P.

214 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

protected by a wall. The gate of the fortress is ou the ‘southern side and
from here a comparatively gentle slope descends to the Karpuzli-Ova.
This fortress, like all the other small Hellenistic fortresses, had a purely
strategical value: it commanded the road from Alabanda to Mylasa.

KURUN DERE.

There is a small Hellenistic fortress above the village on a high
spur of Grion ; in position and size, it strongly resembles Attau-lu-su. Its
wall has been purposely levelled. The site had been chosen for four reasons :
(1) because it is defended by a brief precipice on the southern side, (2) because
in a hollow just outside its walls there is a well (doubtless very ancient) of
excellent water, (3) because it commanded the road from Miletos and
Herakleia to Mylasa, and (4) because it could communicate by beacon-fires
with Attau-lu-su. The depression in the high Latmos range across which
the road from Mandelia to Chikur passes just falls in the line between the
two fortresses.

CARIAN INSCRIPTIONS.

1. Myndos.—-A tombstone from the necropolis outside the eastern gate,
height 0°50, length 0°90.

CTICONIXNOSITAPOAEITAKAIEICIAEKAN
OONEPEICAL- YNINOYKAIAHQHLYLTATION
MEAAQPON: MNHMEION!////////TEYKTONOTOIL
|AIOILYTIOMOX OOIL- ENA////PoAEITOCETEYZE
FONOLTIINYTOYMENEAAOY - EYQ/'ONEWNS
EIAWLTOBIOYTEAOLCOLLAAIANTILMOXOHLH.
MOIPHTTANTELOMEIAOMEOA-TIANTWN
FAPBIOTOYKOINONTEA: OCLEILMAKPOoLS
AINNONAEIKoIMA////OAITOILYT0¢
-FHNMEAA@POIL

5 a ” ὃ cal A ” ὃ θὸ , ‘

Στ(ῆ)σον ἴχνος παροδεῖτα Kat εἴσιδε καν θὸν ἐρείσας
ὕπνου καὶ λήθης ὑστάτιον μέλαθρον,

μνημεῖον ν[ εὐτευκτον, ὃ τοῖς | ἰδίοις ὑπὸ μόχθοις

᾿Επαφρόδειτος ἔτευξε γόνος πινυτοῦ Μενελάου,

Φ / ’ \ Ν "4 / .“ ͵

εὖ φρονέων, | εἰδὼς τὸ βίου τέλος, ὅσσα λίαν τις
μοχθήση | μοίρη πάντες ὀφειλόμεθα.

πάντων | γὰρ βιότου κοινὸν τέλος εἷς μακρὸς | αἰὼν
ὃν δεῖ κοιμᾶ[ σἼθαι τοῖς ὑπὸ | γῆν μελάθροις.

KARTAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 215

2. Lpiscopi.—tn the ruins of the church, on the flutings of a column :
diameter of column, 2 feet 10 inches; diameter of each fluting, 3} inches.

rege 4 δ᾽ 964%, BP το Lo δι δὰ
ΝΕ ΝΜ ee an X AAAI
DY γε εῖ P p P
Y PPM r OaAX μήν
FE HO tude Yel EQ
ΜΝ ΤΕ i] O Π ΛΝ
0.0-.P- ΠΆΝΩ ἢ ΠΝ | oda
Ν 2p | M Τ Ι
ΠΝ wy N
= 0 τ
ae § - "
clare © i SP T
ΠΥ ob Bel s O
ΤΎΧΗ ΎΣΕΎΣ
Δ τ 7 A
i
(2) Εὐρήμονος τοῦ A.... (3) Μύρωνος [rob] A.... (4)
Δημητρί[ου] τοῦ... . ., and in the same fluting “Epw .... (5) Κρέτωνος
[OJev .... (13) Δράκοντος τοῦ Aw... (14) ᾿Αρχίππίου]. (16)
Mera ....

Sunilar lists of names on columns are not unfrequent at Halikarnassos.

3. Episcop\.—In a house near the church.

+EKACTOL~WNEYo
NOYNTWNEAYTWNKA
TECKEYALANTOOH
KEONTIOAYXP.ONOYTTAN
PITTOYKEETIADPOAITC
APINOY+AY///I////

Ἑ Ἕκαστος (ζ)ῶν εὖ φ(ρ) ο] ϊνούντων ἑαυτῶν xaltecxevacay τὸ θηϊκξον,
Πολυχρον[]ου, Παν. .ρίστου κὲ ᾿᾿ὐπαφροδίτο[υ] κὲ Μακα]ρίνου + (ἔτους) PY...

The century 6400 ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου extends from 892 to 991 A.D.
The word θηκαῖον for a tomb is common in Koan inscriptions of pagan times.

4. Ghiuk-Chalar.—Limestone block, height 22 in., width 35 in., front to
back 22 in. Letters of the fifth century: about 4 inch high: much weathered.
Copied from the stone, and verified from a squeeze.

216 KARIAN SITES AND JNSCRIPTIONS.

////////HNAIHLAEKATHN
iBIAAI////1A//MAXOYMAASE1= AQHNAIHIAEKATHN
MEAA rPai/INEYEAQHNAIHIA

[/INTOHMIZYTOYANAQHMATOS

EPOIHEENMAKEAQN
AIONYEIOYHPAKAEQTHE
ὁ δεῖνα ᾿Αθ]ηναίῃ δεκάτην

᾿Η]βιάδ[ης Τη]λ[εἸμάχου Μ[αλμε]ε[ὑ]ς ᾿Αθηναίῃ δεκάτην
ὁ δεῖνα} Μελ[άνθου] ρ Ἰνεὺς ᾿Αθηναίῃ δ[εκά-

τὴ]ν τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ ἀναθήματος

ὅ ἐποίησεν Μακεδὼν
Διονυσίου Ἡρακλεώτης.

Evidently the lower part of the base of an offering dedicated by
subscription to Athene. The occurrence of an Athene-cult at Ghiuk Chalar
confirms the otherwise probable identification of the site with the Pedasa of
Hdt. i. 175 (p. 192 ff. above). The names and ethnics (or tribal names) are too
much worn to be restored with certainty: read perhaps K for B in ]. 2.
The artist’s signature is new.

The stone lies close to the path which crosses the hollow west of the
fortress; a little way up the northern slope. In the hollow is the founda-
tion of a large terrace or basement of rough native limestone masonry.

Melantes occurs as a Chian name in Ditt. Syll. 350.

Melanthos at Iasos, id. 77. B.C.H. v. (1881), p. 493.

5. Halikarnassos—Found, close to the sea, in the garden of the tele-
graphist. On a marble base, chipped on both sides of the inscription:
letters of fourth century B.C.

— ELEVATION

SCALE 200
Fic. 12,—Inscriprion No 5.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 217

A®DPOAITHI
®AEINOS
ITHNOANDPOY

TTOITOAEKYMPIKAAOLFKAAHIEIZENAT AA
“ZTINEZEPFONXEPSINAPTAPEAMENOe
-PEIPOTENIMMEFANEMPOPONEIZAAAEBHEA
ΕΟΣΙΩΝΟΣΙΟΣΔΩΜΑΣΥΝΕΣΧΕΝΑΝΗΡ

᾿Αφροδίτῃ | Φάεινος | Ζηνοδόρου
Πρέσβυ]ς σοὶ τόδε, Κύπρι, καλὸγ καλῆι εἷσεν ἄγαλμα
ἴδρι]σιν ἐξ ἔργων χερσὶν ἀπαρξάμενος,
οὕνεκ᾽ Ἰέπεί ποτέ vip μέγαν ἔμπορον εἰς ἅλα ἔβησαϊς
ἐ]ξ ὁσίων ὅσιος δῶμα συνέσχεν ἀνήρ.

Epigram 1. 2 ἔδρι]σιν : the fragmentary letter is doubtful, but the way
the stone is broken suggests y or | rather than £, 1. 4 the first letter is
certainly = ; the break runs down the vertical stroke.

The supplements in lines 1 and 3 are suggestions of Professor von
Wilamowitz-Mollendorff. He also suggests πλήρε]σιν in line 2, which would
give an excellent sense, but the letter before = was certainly not E,

6. Halikarnassos—On a marble block with cornice above. 1°80 m.
long, broken on the left. Letters large, with apices.

ΕἸ

ΡΟΣΠΑΝΤΑΙΝΕΤΗΔΙΟΤΙΜΟΥΤΟΥΑΡΕΩΣ
MHTPIKAIKOPHKAITQIAHMQI

There is no neuter accusative ending in pos which would express the
object dedicated except θέρος. This might be admitted if the dedication
were made to Demeter and Kore only, but as it is also made to the Demos
the object must have been of public utility. We must therefore suppose
that more than the An of Δήμητρι is to be supplied in line 2 and must
restore the whole as follows :—

To.... τοῦ ? κρατῆ]ρος Ἰ]ανταινέτη Διοτίμου τοῦ “Apews

ἱερατεύσασα Δή]μητρι καὶ Κόρη καὶ τῶι δήμωι

7. Tepejé—[Copied a good many years ago; no description of the
stone.— W.R.P.]
DIAICTA

TOYHMWII
KOY IICKO

Φιλίστα | τοῦ ἡμῶᾳν)...... | κοὐ[ἐπ͵)]ισκόϊπου

218 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

8. Kindya.—Formerly in a small church near the site of the temple
(see above, p. 196). [The stone has now been removed and I was unable to
see it—W. R. P.] The reading is from an impression. The stone is a wall-
block, apparently perfect though chipped. Length ‘86 m., height ‘24 τη.

A, on the left.

ΛΠ τ τΕ
2E////C NKA \EIETTITO
|IONETTISTEDANHQDOPOYEY
MENQNA
5 MENQNENEKEINQITQIY////////ATI
TMOTIZSAZONSANO////AZSTOYEPION
“OAEENTQI T aQitorai
FPATTTAIKAITOETTIZSEDANHQDOPOY
AETAMIAITEAEZATQSANTOAATTA
10 \YATQZANAEKAITOYETEDANHDOPOYTO
~THEEKAI ΣΙΑΣΤΤΑΤΡΟΘΕΝ

B. on the right.

NH a1 OY
POSEIAQNIOSMENANAIL — EIPENE
PEPISTANTONKINAYNQNTHNTEPOAINHMONKAI
EPI@ANEIANTHNTEPATPIONAYTONOM
5 PAPETENHOHKATASTASINAIAAEKAIN
PPOTEPONTEPOAAAKAIKAAAEYHOIE
PPOENOHSENAEKAIPEPITHSPOMPHE
AEIZOAIENTETOISEPIFINOMENOISKAI
ANAQHMATQNKAITOQNAAAQNTQNA
10 SEMNOTATONEINAIAIEIAHOQETOAIA
PEPISTANTOSTEKINAYNOYKAITHNHM

OA

These are parts of two long inscriptions engraved on the wall of a
building of which this is one of the stones. The beginnings of the lines of
A and the ends of the lines of & were on adjacent blocks. The lines appear
to have been long, but there is no clue to their exact lengths.

A,

TO ae oe TO * yeaoHerlets ἐπὶ i eS: Kv
oe μένων

τῶν ΠΡ μομὲ ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ ψ[ηφίσμ]ατι
ἀ]ποτισάσθωσαν, δ ως τοῦ ἐπίον-

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 219

’ lal , ΄ Ἀ / ‘ , »" ’
ὅ τος ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀναγράφηται τὸ ψήφισμα] τόδε ἐν τῷ [σ]τ[αδήῳ τόπῳ
“Ὁ > : 4, ‘ /
τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ ὅπου ἀναγέ]γραπται καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ σ(τ)εφανηφόρου
τοῦ δεῖνος οἷ δὲ ταμίαι τελεσάτωσαν τὸ δαπα-

, J , ᾽ le) » ΄ 4 \ -" ’ ‘
νώμενον ἀργύριον εἰς τοῦτο’ ἐπι]γραψάτωσαν δὲ καὶ τοῦ στεφανηφύρου τὸ
ὄνομα καὶ τοῦ ἐπιστατοῦντος] τῆς ἐκλ(η)σίας πατρόθεν.

B.
Ἐπὶ στεφα]νηήφόρου . . i ov Aire Wik
Ποσειδώνιος Μενάνδρου] εἷπεν᾽ ἐπειδὴ ὁ ὁ δεῖνα ee. Kal ἀπροόπτων
περιστάντων κινδύνων τήν τε πόλιν ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν [χώραν διὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ
[εὐκαιροτάτην
ἐπιφάνειαν τήν τε πάτριον αὐτονομ[ίαν διέσωσε καὶ εἰς τὴν τῆς πολιτείας
[τῷ δήμῳ
5 παρεγενήθη κατάστασιν" διὰ δὲ καὶ νόμων θέσεως.
πρότερόν τε πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ ἐψηφίσατο. ΤΥ ee Oe eee
προενόησεν δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς πομπῆς [ .. . . ὡς κάλλιστα ἐπιτε-
λεῖσθαι: ἔν τε τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις Κα ροῖς .., Ἐν", +. | Top
ἀναθημάτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἁϊπάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ sidered
10 σεμνότατον εἶναι διειληφὼς τὸ δια[σῴξειν.
περιστάντος τε κινδύνου καὶ τὴν ἡμ[ετέραν πόλιν

A 3.—There is not room on the stone for our restoration ψηφίσματι,
but as the document is somewhat carelessly written (witness the omission of
the + in στεφανηφόρου, line 6) it is perhaps allowable to suppose that
ψίσματι stood on the stone.

B line 3.—7repiotay has been ‘added in the margin. This renders it
probable that the adjective qualifying κινδύνων ended in των. We suppose
that the lapidary’s eye having skipped from one των to another, he after-
wards added των in the right margin and περίσταν in the left.

Line 5.—The reading of the latter part of this line is a little doubtful,
as there is a crack in the stone which has destroyed portions of the letters.

The person honoured in this decree must have been a very distinguished
man. There is talk in line 4 of his ἐπιφάνεια, a word strictly applicable
only to the intervention of a god in human affairs; but line 6 shows that
he was a statesman and not a king.

9. Near Ula.—Over the door of a tomb.
NIKQNOZAPOAAQNIAOY —

10. Yemikler—On the upper surface of a large boulder.

Pere ke Oo 4. ΕἸ ΕΣ ΤΥ TP ΝΗ Π a A ad
Cae Κι COL, Dp

We can make nothing of this, which is probably in Karian script. Note
the aleph-like symbol on the right of the top line.

220 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

11. Konak Dere—On a rock in an uninhabited glen above the village.

Within a circle.

12. Pisye—Small rectangular altar with simple moulding above: height
‘26, width ‘20. Beneath-the inscription is a large rosette in relief. Letters
with apices.
AIOAOTOSAIOAS
lEPATEY=A////I1//0 |
ABPA {ον

(rosette)
Διόδοτος Διοδώ[ρου | ἱερατεύσαϊς ἥρωι)
᾿Αβραικ(ω) Σ ὁ ΘΟ

13. Pisye—Cut to form a Turkish tombstone. Letters with apices.

AIOKAEOYe ~KYAPIETO
ΟΣ ANAOZKO IEPADADAAPIE
NON TOAAOYOYITATHPAPIETO
MATOS AAIZHKAINIKOAAIZKO

Διοκλέους [vids] Ku(pecva) ᾿Αριστό(λ)αος Ko(Acopyevs). Ἱέρηα Φλ(αούια)
Pr(aoviov) ᾿Αριστολάου θυγάτηρ, ᾿Αριστολαίς, ἡ καὶ Νικολαὶς Κο(λιοργίς).

The letters on the left are part of another inscription.

This stone has doubtless been brought from Pandmara. Cf. Bull. Corr.
Hell. xii. p. 253, Nos. 32—35 and 49, where we have dedications by other
members of the same family. Not improbably this ‘Aristolais quae et
Nicolais’ is the same as the Nicolais, daughter of Fl. Aristolaus, who is
mentioned there (No. 32).

14. Pisye.—Small basis. Above the inscription is a crescent.

APIZSTUNKA
TAXPH-MONA
NATIOHSIYY!
=ZTW (XA
PICTHPION

᾿Αρίστων Kalra χρη[σ]μὸν alvatiOnow ‘Tyilorw [εὐ] χαριστήριον.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 221

15. Yerkessen.—Small fragment complete on the right.

EP ᾿ ὙὙπ]ὲρ
-~QZT=ETPA | ....-€|@> oTpa-

TOATTEPAN : -τηγήσαντος ἐπὶ) τῶ πέραν

ΕΟΙΣ ... θ]εοῖς

L. 3. τῶ for τοῦ: for similar formulae cf. Ditt. Syll. 137. 4: 300. 17:

16. Akhar Keut (near Stratonikeia).— Built into the street wall of a house.
Above the inscription is a rude full-face portrait of the head and shoulders of

the defunct.
| (bust) ' |

᾿ΓΛΑΦΥΡΑΚΑΙΧΡῪ '
᾿ CIMMOCZOTIKHTH
ΙΔΙΑΘΡΕΠΤΗΜΝΙᾺ
ΕΝΕΚΕΝ

ΜΙΑΤΩΤΙΤΙΤΠΦΟΡΠ
᾿ς ΤΕΚΝΩΝΙΠΙΛΙΧΙΑΙΕΝ b
| KOCCMW

(a) Γλαφύρα καὶ Xpvjovrmos Ζωτικῆ τῆ | ἰδία θρεπτῆ pvia® | ἕνεκεν.

The graffito which follows is written outside the hollow propared for the
inscription. It is so irregularly written that it is in some cases impossible to
be sure what letters the writer intended to inscribe. The ends of lines 5 and
6 (ΤΠΦΟΡΠ and X1AIEN) are however quite distinct. The strokes between
τεκνων and X are very crowded, and the reading given below is not certain.

(Ὁ) ‘H|(8)ia (Ζ)ωτιτὶ ti... . 1.6. ἡδεῖα Ζωτικὴ: τὶ τὸ φορτί(ον) ?

, ? ‘ > Ld La » / > ΄
τέκνων || ἐλέχ(ι)αι ἐν κόσσμω. τέκνων εἰλήχεαι ἐν κόσμῳ ;

Thus interpreted, the graffito expresses ὑΠ6΄ desolation of the survivors.

17. Teichioussa * (Kara-Koyun).—On three sides of a rectangular block
of marble, “00 m. long, “47 m. broad: the height cannot be measured. The
upper surface is left rough, except a broad draft round the edges: the black
dot in the drawing indicates a hole.

16 Identified by Waddington and Kiepert. all brought from Yeronda (Branchidae) to build
The visible ruins are all Byzantine, and the churches, ete.
ancient marbles found here seem to have been

bo
bo
bo

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

ee, 7 ; Wy Uy 77

Cc
A,

FENHCNEWTEPOC } a { -γένης νεώτερος
\INNIQNOZSAHMOYAPLA evan. πα τς λιννιῶνος, δήμου ᾿Αργα-
KAECYETOYANTITTATPOY | |.-.----- κλέους Tov ᾿Αντιπάτρου,
ἈΡΙΞΟΥΤΟΥΒΗΒΙ ΛΕ OR Ὡς αρίσου τοῦ Βηβιλέω,

5 CAITAAQNPPHTPAZT | |..--------- χαιτάδων φρήτρας,
KHHOYFATHPAYTOYMH θη. xn ἡ θυγατὴρ αὐτοῦ μη-
ΕΟΥ̓ΣΤΟΥΦΙΛΙΔΟΥΤΟῪΥ Φ “τσ έους, τοῦ Φιλίδου, τοῦ
HPATOYTOYNIKOSTPATOY | |.. Nix]|npatov τοῦ Νικοστράτου,
ΤΕΟΥ ἈΘΗΝΗΣΙΔΈΡ ΡΥ xis τέου, ᾿Αθήνησι δὲ ἀρχ-
10 EATTOTHZEEKATOSTHE | |... ἔτους δ]ὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑκατοστῆς
\YMITIAAOSKAOI ΝΕΝΙ Wi tees ᾿ΟἸ]λυμπιάδος Kal’ ἣν ἐνί-
ΚΥΡΆ ΘΟ ΞΕΤΥΓΜΗΝΔΕΈΣ ς ο΄ κ Κερ]κυραῖος, πυγμὴν δὲ
2 FIPOQHTHE a 1. τος προφήτης
MOT OEQNOEQNOL a τνν δὰ Θέων Θεώνος
U5 - ANHPEYCEBHC | ee Σίμου ἀνὴρ εὐσεβὴ»
ἀνὴρ εὐσεβὴς]
ZKAIDIAOCTTOI καὶ φιλόδοξοϊ]ς, καὶ φιλοποι-
-nTns ..-|
Moy ΤΑΣ hair 1 Νικοδήμου
ΥΤΕΝΙΥ ΘΙ να] ειννα alt feet αἸὐτενιαυτοί
OYTTPOMHTOY . τ]οῦ προφήτου
20 SEYME } 6 μὰ Sala et ἸῸΝ το]ῦ Evpe-
=
B.
ΟΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣΛ ὁ προφήτης Μ[άρκος ᾿Αντω- ?
NIOZAEYKIO * -yos Λευκίου υἱὸς Ove-
AEINAPOYDO -reiva “Poddo[s εὐεργετὴς

KAINPQTOSAL καὶ πρῶτος ἀγ[ωνοθέτης τοῦ

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 223
5 ΑΙΩΝΟΣΠΕΜΓ αἰῶνος πέμπίτου..
ΚΛΗΡΩΘΕΙΣΜΟ κληρωθεὶς μόνος. ...
NAPATENOMENC mapayevopmevo|s.....
TONKAHPONAYT τὸν κλῆρον αὐτ[οετὴς ....

(΄. Very little remains. “19. m. from the top blank; then :---

(CEBH ἀνὴρ εἸὐσεβὴς καὶ φιλό-
ΚΑΙ' -δοξος] καὶ [φιλοποι-
Ι ΤῊΣ

In A five hands are to be distinguished as shown in the transcript: viz.
(«) the late hand of line 1; (6) Il. 2-12; (ὁ) 1]. 13-15; (ὦ) ll. 16-19; (e) 1. 20.

The letters ὌΝ on the left, opposite I]. 13-14, belong to (d).

We must therefore isolate lines 13—15, προφήτης Θέων Bewvos ἀνὴρ
εὐσεβής and consider line 16 as belonging to another earlier inscription of

which the’ at ac. mpopytn|s [ὁ Seiva...juov, is the beginning. It

’
probably continued (line 16): ἀνὴρ εὐσεβὴς καὶ φιλόδοξο]ς καὶ φιλοποι[η
τής]. ΦΙΛΟΤΤΟΙ is certain, and there were no more letters in this line:
φιλοποιός is improbable. In lines 17—19 we have another inscription in the
same or a similar hand. It contains the word αἸὐτενιαυτοί, corresponding to
the αὐτοετής of other stones from the same site (see /.L.M. iv. p. 94). It is a
great pity that the chief inscription (lines 2—12), with its elaborate dating,
is so imperfect. In line 9 the dates of the local magistrates finish, and then
we have the Athenian archon and the Olympiad. Lines 9—12 must be thus
restored —
᾿Αθήνησι δὲ ἄρ-

πόντος... -..-. ἔτους δ]ὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑκατοστῆς

ἑβδομηκοστῆς πρώτης (vel τρίτης) ᾿Ο]λυμπιάδος καθ᾽ (ἣ)ν ἐνί-

κα στάδιον ἸΠαρμενίσκος Κερ]κυραῖος πυγμὴν δὲ

δεῖνα... Ὁ 2. τρίτου 1]

The name of the victor in the boxing contest is given because Parme-
niskos won the stadion twice.

B. The hand is similar to hand ¢ of A. About 10 letters are missing in
line 1. Lines 1 and 2 are to be restored—o προφήτης (M)[apxos . . . .] vos
Λευκίο [v vios....]. The inscription finishes with line 8. We do not
attempt its restoration, but its context seems to throw some light on the
significance of αὐτοετής.

Hirschfeld’s explanation of this obscure word is that the prophet ‘ entered
upon his office in the same year as his predecessor, who may have died in
ottice.’ Now all these inscriptions are laudatory. Every incident mentioned,
every quality, is a term of praise. One of the prophets (Lebas-Wadd. 239) is

224 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

an Epicurean philosopher and a descendant of Ajax, and tells us nothing more
about himself. Others (I daresay our Epicurean was a stingy man) tell us
of the money they have spent for public purposes and of their other public
services. Most of them tell us simply, in a phrase which became stereotyped,
that they were pious and fond of fame (ἀνὴρ εὐσεβὴς καὶ φιλόδοξος). One
of them (A 13—15) cuts out φιλόδοξος and merely lays claim to piety.
Another (B.M. 923 δ) says nothing about himself at all; another (aid. 921 })
says ‘he filled certain offices and did all he could moderately well, which, as
Hirschfeld remarks, ‘shows a modesty not at all frequent in Greek inserip-
tions.’ On the whole we trace a personal clement in these inscriptions, a
prevailing desire to swagger, and a revolt against it gencrating restraint and
modesty of utterance. Even the elaborate dating of A is, taken together with
the rest, an expression of the desire of that prophet to shine as a man of
universal views and a man of minute accuracy. It is neither to a prophet’s
credit, nor to his discredit, that he should enter on his office in the same
year as his deceased predecessor, and we may be sure that αὐτοετής conveys
some notion of praise or blame—presumably of praise. The plural αὐτενιαυτοί
in A 18 is indeed (whatever be the context) fatal to Hirschfeld’s suggestion.
It rather looks, from the context of PB, as if αὐτοετής meant ‘entering on
his office in the same year in which he was elected, and we may, probably,
accept it in this sense, and defer conjecture about what merit lay in this, until
the discovery of more stones enables us to have a clearer notion of the con-
ditions of election of the prophets.

17. Tcichioussa (Kara-Koyun).—On the lower face of a Byzantine capital,
45 x 28 cm.: the letters have large apices.

(a) «ἘΠ Leto
ο ΤΩΝΔΙΟΝΥΣ
ΟΥΚΑΙΑΜΦΙΘΕΜΙΟΣΤΟ

(b) ITOYAH,
ὙΤΡΙΣΙ ATPIAZEYE
(c) MPOPHTHE
o . . ἸΟΣ[ΘΊΑΡΓΗΛΙ ον
κατὰ pv |ZINAEAIOA| «pov
QNETED| ανηφοροῦντος
10 OANIC

|

There are three hands: (a) lines 1-3; (Ὁ) lines 4-5; (c) lines 5-10.
(0) should seemingly be restored: προφήτης ὁ δεῖνα... Ἰίτον, δήμ[ου ....
ἀνὴρ φιλόπ]ατρις, [π]ατρίας εὐσεβοῦς. P. read πατρίας on the stone, but
does not feel sure of the TTA on the impression. (c) the name of the prophet
does not seem to be Διόδωρος, as. the letter before the second Q must be
1, and not P: perhaps Aclo[vic]ios. We find a Διόδωρος Θαργηλίέου in
2), M. Inser, No. 924 a,

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 225

18, Teichioussa (Kara-Koyun).—Irregularly written and difficult to read,
as the stone is worn. The leticrs have slight apices,

a.

loY
oO ZHPAKAEIAOY
1|AQPOZAMYNTOY
9 ΝΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΥ
Με]ΝΙΠΠΟΥῪ
N]IKIoyY
HE AHMHTPIOY
ITOZANTIPATPOY
10 ZAPTEMQNOS
ΟΣΕΡΜΟΓΕΈΝΟΥ
NIKOMAXOY
Ξ NONIKOY
ΗΣΠΕΙΣΙΟΥ
15 HPAKAEI oY
"Atro |AAQNIOY

b,
ΛΗΝ
IAZQNN MAXoY
ANTIMAXOENIKOMAX| ov
AIZIFENHEPEPEKAE| ovs
OYAIAAHEMENIPE| ov
XAIPEAZAYZIOY
MENEKPATHSANTIPAT| pou

' EPMOPENHSA[ oA JAQNI| ov

SIMOSAPOAAQNIOY
ΠΥΡΡΟΣΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ
KPATINOZSAPTEMIAQPOY
MENOITAZKOTYOS
APOAAQNIOS....
AIONYSIOSEPIK
ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΌΣΜΕΙ
ANEAAD. 4%

In ὃ. 2, if we are to restore Ν[ικοϊμάχου, IKO was written in a very

small space.

The reading in ὁ. 4 is uncertain, but ᾿Α(ρ)συγένης is more

probable than ᾿Αρχιεγένης : probably a slip, as is evident by comparing the
duplicate inscription from Amyzon, No. 35 below (9.2.).
Letters Y = A M (sloping a little), o Q Tt (o and Q both very small).

19. Teichioussa (Kara-Koyun).—On a column, height “93, diam. 49,

letters of fourth century B.C.

MHTPO®ANTOS
APOAAQNIACY
TONKIONAAPTEMIAI
AZTIAAIAEKATHN

Μητρόφαντος | ᾿Απολλωνέδου | τὸν κίονα ᾿Αρτέμιδι | ᾿Αστιάδι δεκάτην.

20. Dere Koyun.—Ruined church οἵ H. Georgios, on large block of blue
marble ; 59 x 59 x ‘71m. The inscription is near the top.

AIOIZ=
AIZXYAI OY

... aBis
Αἰσχυλίν]ου

21. Dere Koyun.—On another similar block, *54 x “ὅ4, height unknown ;
at ‘15 from the top and not quite in the centre.

TQABIA

AQHNAICYT

is VOL. XVF.

“Ζωβία
᾿Αθηναίου

226

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

22. Dere Koyun.—On another broken block ; letters less carefully eut.

ANAIOS
_XYAOY
FEMICIA.
INALOY

ANAIOC
NAIOY

᾿Αθ]ήναιος
Αἰσ]χύλου
᾿Αρ]τεμισία
᾿Αθηναίου

᾿Αθ]ήναιος
᾿Αθη]ναίου

These three inscriptions, of different dates, evidently belong to the tombs
of members of one family, whose country residence must have been here.

23. Bafii—In a street.

certainly not ταμίω.

The letters’ are so irregularly cut, and the
condition of the stone so bad, that it is most difficult to read.
decipher the name of the body to whom the fine is to be paid.
Lines 5-6 are, to say the least, badly expressed, but no

1 cannot
It is

other restoration suggests itself to me.—(W.R.P.)

HPWONAYPHAI
NNoYAIONYCHC
KNWNAYTOY
IWNAYTOYKE
AXA WNPOKEIN
ATCICNPOILEITA
ETILTO HCH
AWCITW .IN . OIA
IRE VY Cio vA
ΜΙ

Τοῦτο τὸ] ἡρῶον Αὐρηλι-
ye
ov .. ἥππου Διονύσης
Kat τέ]κνων αὐτοῦ
Ἁ 3 , > lal A
Kal €yyov|@v αὐτοῦ κὲ
5 εἴ τινι] ἄλλῳ πρόκειν-
3 Ἁ «ς -“
ται ἐπὶ ῥ]ητοῖς πρό(κ)ειτα[ι
ἐὰν δ]έ τις το[λμ]ήση [θεῖ-
ναι ἄλλον] δώσι τῶ.....
... χρύσιου A.
μι

24, Bafi—Published, Bull. Corr. Hell. xiv. p. 629, by Messrs. Doublet

and Deschamps.

TOYTOTOHP@ONKATESKE
ACANA¥PHAILOLTATIANOL |
KAIA¥PHAIOCL&CIMOLCTO |
AOIQUAA¥TOICKAITEKNOIL |

μὲ

¥
C

A¥T@NKAIEFFONOICA¥ T&N
ELAETICTOPMHCIE=[=OOEN
OINAITOYTENOYASCIT®2

TAMI2 ¥AQD

|

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 227

Ῥοῦτο τὸ ἡρῶον κατεσκεύ-
Ὁ 29 1 ‘

ασαν Αὐρήλιος Tatiavos
κἀὶ Αὐρήλιος Ζωσίμος τοῦ
Aowwva (sic) αὑτοῖς καὶ τέκνοις
αὑτῶν καὶ ἐγγόνοις αὑτῶν.

» ’ ΄ Μ
εἰ δέ τις τορμήσι ἔξοθεν
θῖναι τοῦ γένου δώσι τῶ

΄ ΄ /

Tapio δηνάρια ad.

Republished here from a more complete copy (W.R.P.) than that of the
first editors. Note the pronunciation of τολμήσει as τορμήσει. This
orthography is repeated in No. 10. The change of the liquids in this word
is familiar from the dialects of Calymnos, the neighbouring islands, and some
parts of Crete.

25. On the road between Mersenet-Yaila and Bafi—An altar with pluth
and cornice, 61 em. high, 35 cm. diam. (cornice), 27 em. (inscr.).

35 cm.

Ν TOYTOTOHPS va Τοῦτο τὸ ἡρῶ-
᾿ΟΝΑΥΡΗΛΕΙΟΎΕΙ ov Αὐρηλείου Εἰ-
PHNAIOYTOYEI ρηναίου τοῦ Ki-
ΡΗΝΑΙΟΥΚΑΙΤΕ ρηναίου καὶ τέ-

KNS2NAYTOYEK κνων αὐτοῦ ἐκ
ΓΗΝΑΙΟΥΚΕΘΕ γηναίου κὲ Θε-
OASPOYTICAN Ε οδώρου. Tis ἂν
TOPMHCHEZO = τορμήση ἔξο-
ΘΕΝΤΟΥΓΕΝΟῪΥ θεν τοῦ γένου
SINAIAQLCIT® θῖναι, δώσι τῶ
TAMIQXD ταμίω δηνάρια >.

Ζ 27 ἐπι. Se

Chiefly interesting for its bad grammar and spelling.

to
Lo
io 0)

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

26. Mersenct- Yatla.—F ragment of an epitaph, complete on the left.

| TOHPWu!
| XOYKAITHC
| SIACENUE
ι KAIT

To ἡρῶον ....|xou καὶ τῆς [γυναικὸς avtod .. . Ἰξίας ἐν [ὦ] κ[ηδευθή-
σονται αὐτοὶ] καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν...

27. Mersenet- Yaila—Stele surmounted by three triangular projections,
height 67, width 47 cm.

A€EIONYCI

OCHPWCXPH
CTEXAIPE
MICHPWC
XPHCTH
XAIPE

Δειονύσιος ἥρως χρηστέ χαῖρε. Mis ἥρως χρηστή (sic) χαῖρε.

Mis is of course for Μῦς, and must be a man’s name. χρηστή is an
error of frequent occurrence.

28. Chalketor (Kara-Koyun).—Near the ruins of the temple. Marble
wall block, perfect beneath. Lines 1—4 chipped on the right.

CikiHS! | ig |
TLK ἘΚΓΟΝΟΙΣΑΥΤΩΝΟΠΩΣΔΕΟΔΗΜΟΣΕῪ
ΤΟΣΩΓΚΑΙΤΙΜΩΝΤΟΥΣΑΓΑΘΟΥΣΓΝΩΡΙΙ
ΤΑΔΕΔΟΓΜΕΝΑΕΙΣΤΟΝΑΠΑΝΤΑΔΙΑΜΕΝΗΧ
ΔΕΔΟΧΘΑΙΧΑΛΚΗΤΟΡΕΥΣΙΝΑΝαΑγραύαιτοὺ
TOAEENTOIIEPQITOYAPOAAQNOSENTHIF /
ZT TAAIEINAIAEAYTOIZSKAITOIZEKFONOIE
TANKAITQNAAAQNMETOYSIANQPFKAIOIN IP
X AAKHTOPE ¥Y EMETEXOYEIFKAIOTANO ΟΣ

ὧι

γῆς] (ἔγ)κ[τ]ησίιν sla . « αὐτοῖς
τίε κ)αὶ ἐκγόνοις αὐτῶν. "Ones δὲ ὁ ὁ δῆμος εὐϊχάρισ-
τος wy καὶ τιμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς γνωρίζίηται καὶ
τὰ δεδογμένα εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα διαμένη χρόνον

5 δεδόχθαι Χαλκητορεῦσιν ἀναγράψαι τὸ ψήφισμα

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 229

, A JF nr lal ‘ fal
τόδε ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος ἐν TH π[αρ](α)-
στάδι' εἶναι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις [αὐ-

rn \ - Μ ͵ Φ ‘4 ‘ 4
τῶν καὶ TOV ἀλλων μετουσίαν wy Kai οἷ[Χο]ιπ|οὶ
Χαλκητορεῖς μετέχουσιγ, καὶ ὅταν ὁ [δῆμος

, -“
[ἄγῃ χορικοὺς ἀγῶνας κ.τ.λ.

There is no line below line 9, so that the decree must have continued on
another stone placed to the right of this one.

29.—On the left return of the same stone; larger letters of a somewhat
earlier date. Complete on the right.

ad p eee Ney
SPEPPAMENTHIBOY|[Ay
ro |PILEITHIPOAEITON
'INAZYMTTOAEITEY
τῷ |NAYTQNHMINMETE| xy
a |IPOZSAEHTAITINOZO
é|EAEZEINTONETPATII| you
Todt | AEPANTAZOMONO[odvtas
1 ]O \INKAITOYENO[ povs
EAYTONAIAQYAA[oo...
ev |NOIANKAIQIAIAN/
ENTHNT

So much is lost that no restoration can be attempted.

30. Chalketor (Kara-Koyun).—In the village.

AIA ΩΝ tAlhi
AP, YPION, APEXETQSANTATEIEPEI
\ITAAOIPFAPANTATANOMITOMENAENE
ZTHIEOPTHIE AIPEOENTQNAENQI
ὃ «pe JQNKAITAPEPATHIIEPEIAIAPTOAONT
\AOIPAAIAIPEITQEANTQIAHMQIAI
OYNTEZEAYTOIZS TAS TEKEQAAASKAI
NAOZOIAEANAETIPAECNAQDAIPQEINDAI
—APEPPAMMENAEZEAELXOENTESAPOTI
ETQZANTAANHAQMENAENTHIEOPTHI

ἀργύριον (π)αρεχέτωσαν τά τε ἱερεῖα

κα]ὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα τὰ νομιζόμενα ἐν ἑ-

κά]στῃ ἑορτῇ ἐΐ ξ]αιρεθέντων δὲ τῶ[ν (πῶ[ν in copy)
5 κρέ]ων καὶ τὰ γέρα τῇ ἱερείᾳ ἀποδόντ[ ες

230 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

\ » Ν ὃ , -“ ὃ , os
τὰ] λοιπὰ διαιρείτωσαν τῷ δήμῳ αἱ
r « -“ / \ \ \
ρ]οῦντες ἑαυτοῖς Tas Te κεφαλὰς καὶ [τὰ
, -“ \
ἐνδόσθια. ἐὰν δέ τε πλέον ἀφαιρῶσιν Tralpa
τ]ὰ γεγραμμένα ἐξελεγχθέντες ἀποτι-
/ Ae. / > a e¢ a
ν]έτωσαν Ta ἀνηλωμένα ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ.

31. Chalketor (Kara-Koyun).—In a house in the village.

AYTHHCTIBACECTIN

ONYMONMEPONEICNOPE

MAPKOYAYPHAIOYAAE ZANZ

NOAAQNIACYKAIMAPKOYAY
5 ANAPOYAICTOYAMOAA

NEKMETAX OPHCEQC

—PMATOYAHMHTPI

E fel S07 Ed ΑΝ |!

πὴ fn, Ml 2p" ppl ng La

Αὕτη ἡ στιβὰς ἐστὶν [ἐκ τῶν εὐ-
ωὠνύμων μερῶν εἰσπορε[ VOMEVOLS
Μάρκου Αὐρηλίου ᾿Αλεξάνδ[ρου τοῦ ’A-
πολλωνίδου καὶ Μάρκου Αὐ[ρηλίου ᾿Λλεξ-
5 ἀνδρου δὶς τοῦ ᾿Απολλ[ςωνίδου
ἐν ἐκ μεταχωρήσεως
“Ε]ρμᾶ τοῦ Δημητρίου
"Emi στεφαν[ηφόρου
Θε͵]ογενέδο[υν
μεταχωρήσεως is presumably for συγχωρήσεως.
The word στιβάς for the tomb is peculiar to Mylasa and the neigh-
bourhood.

32. Chalketor (Kara-Koyun).—In the same place as No. 13 and 14:
broken on all sides.

ΓΝ EP Te
EYOEPAZAOYA ... ἐλευθέρας SovaAlas ...
AIAYTOI////ATEAHYP .. . κ]αὶ αὐτοὶ [τ]ὰ τέλη ὕπ᾽.

ΙΔΟΝΑΙΔΕΑΥΤΟΙΣΤ .. . διδόναι δὲ αὐτοῖς τ...

ἢ ΞΤΑΟΜΟΥΣΚΑΙΝΟΙ 5... σταθμοὺς καὶ νόμους.
—~MPAZHIEPIME/ ... ἐμ πάσῃ ἐπιμελ[είᾳ . .
AAIQNXPONQNE!/ .. . ἐκ π]αλαιῶν χρόνων Er .

V/A TOTE MAME? vv νον αν (ΡΝ το PN. .

This inscription is of some interest but we can scarcely guess at the
context. .

—

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 231

33. Mylasa.—Built into the steps of a Turkish house. Three lines at
the top are concealed.

TINENTQINAQIEPOYETAQHEETAITOZYNTEAEZOENALAAMA
KATAZKEYAZAIAEKAITPATTEIANAIOINHNTTOIHZEAIAEKAIOYPQMA
KAITPYDAKTONTQITTPOAOMQITOYNAOYKAIBQMONEAEZOAIAEKAI
ANAPASTONEYFFENQNAYOMENOITINESITOIHEONTAITHNEF AO
TINTOYTEAFAAMATOSKAITHE PATTEIHEAYOAEOITINEZEFAQS

SINTHNBASINIA! ἢ TONTPYDAKTONTOYT™POAO
MOYK\.. Ol VAEC. AT TEIAAN
Bo Ai A ΩΝ
KATATA ΥΩ NII
οΟ
Ba-|

9 a A 39) » , \ \ ”
ow ἐν τῷ ναῷ ἐφ᾽ οὗ σταθήσεται TO συντελεσθὲν ἄγαλμα:
/ δὲ \ / / fol \ \ /
κατασκευάσαι δὲ καὶ τράπεζαν λιθίνην: ποιῆσαι δὲ καὶ θύρωμα:
καὶ τρύφακτον τῷ προδόμῳ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ βωμόν: ἑλέσθαι δὲ καὶ
ρ ῷ προδόμῳ ναοῦ καὶ βωμόν" ἑλέσθαι δὲ καὶ
, A a A \ “,
ἄνδρας τῶν συγγενῶν δύο μὲν οἵτινες ποιήσονται τὴν ἔγδο-
fa ’ / \ lol / ’ὔ Ν vA > ’
5 σιν τοῦ τε ἀγάλματος καὶ τῆς τραπέζης δύο δὲ οἵτινες ἐγδώσ[ου-

\ / \ Ν / \ Ν ΄ὔ “
σιν τὴν βάσιν [καὶ τὸ θύρωμα ... . καὶ] τὸν τρύφακτον τοῦ προδο-
πον ΚΠ πο ποι 2 γα τπλλ σαι ἐπ πη ειλιαν-
τω apa

34. Amyzon.—The fragment of a royal letter published by Messrs. Hula
and Szanto (Bericht (Wien 1894) p. 2) should stand thus :

Βασιλεὺς ᾿Αντίοχος στρατηγοῖς
ἱππάρχαις, πεζῶν ἡγεμόσι στρα-
στρα; -τιώταις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις
χ]αέρ[ε]ιν. To ἱερὸν τοῦ ᾿Απόλλω-
νος καὶ τῆς ᾿Αρτ]έμιδος τὸ ἐν cetera desunt.

35. Amyzon, on the acropolis, block of marble broken above and on the
right. The large face bears the end of a decree, on the left return is
inscribed a list of names. The latter I did not notice and it is due to the
kindness of Prof. Szanto, who discovered and copied this stone a few months
before I myself visited Amyzon, that I am enabled to give here his copy
verified by his impression of the list of names. I also owe to him the
correct reading BAAATPOY in line 19. I had misread the name. The
writing of the inscription is of the third century B.c.—(W.R.P.)

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

bo
oo
bo

é MMMM TONETTIAIAO
© -10YNE////TETONAHMONYT7/ PXEIN
Ὁ AETAAAZEY MTTEPITTETTOIHKENTTPOEOAOY ™.
TTAPXOWEANE YNAIATETHPHKENOY OENIET™ :
TTEPIETTANTTAPATOTTPOEHKONTHEAY TOYT'PO |
_ ATTOAEIZEIEZTTOIOY MENOETAEMETIETAZINAOYIKAI
᾿ς ΦΑΙΝΗΤΑΙΤΙΜΩΝΤΟΥΞΑΓΑΘΟΥΞΤΩΝΑΝΔΡΩΝΔΕΔ
ETTHNHEOAIAIONY ZIONAPETHEENEKENKAIE YNOIAE
EX QNAIATEAEIEIETONAHMONKAITOYZEQOEOYE
10 | €AIAEAYTOPFKAIOAAAOYETEDANQITHNA
////TIOIHEAEOAITOYETEDANOYENTHIEYNTE/
OYEIAITHIAPTEMIAIEINAIAEAYTOFKAIEY EPC
[/// TTEMTMEEOAIAEAYTQIKAIFEPAZATIOTO
| ereiar////\OOTIKAITOIZAAAOIZEYEPFET
15 | //TTAPXEIN////YTQIKAIETTONOIETOAEYHOIE
MAMI [///PAETAKOETOVIEPOYTTYAQN
//c/:/E10//////TOTTHATPOZAYTOYANATEFPAT™
MMII THE ANAPPAQDHETONENESTQTAT
AEP OKAHNBAAATPOY

ι

ΠΡ ae TOD ΜΟΥ WIE PV CUNO): wee a. cn sees
οὖς μεγάλας συμπεριπεποίηκεν προσόδουΪς καὶ THY
ὑπάρχουσαν συνδιατετήρηκεν οὐθενὶ ἐπί τρέπων
ὅ περισπᾶν παρὰ το προσῆκον, τῆς αὑτοῦ προ[θυμίας
ἀποδείξεις ποιούμενος τὰς μεγίστας " ἵνα ody καὶ [ὁ δῆμος
φαίνηται τιμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν, δεδ[όχθαι
ἐπηνῆσθαι Διονύσιον ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας ἣν παρ-
έχων διατελεῖ εἰς τὸν δῆμον καὶ τοὺς θεούς, [στεφανῶ-
10 σαι δὲ αὐτὸγ καὶ θαλλοῦ στεφάνωι, τὴν δὲ ἀναγόρευ-
σιν] ποιήσασθαι τοῦ στεφάνου ἐν τῆι συντελ[ζουμένηι
θυσίαι τῆι ᾿ἈΑρτέμιδι - εἶναι δὲ αὐτὸγ καὶ εὐεργέτην τοῦ δή-
polu, πέμπεσθαι δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ γέρας ἀπὸ τῶϊν . . . . . .-
θυσιῶγ [κ]αθότι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εὐεργέταις γέγραπται
15 ὑἸἹπάρχειν---αὐτῶι καὶ ἐγγόνοις - Τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα τόδε γρά-
ψαι τῆς πα]ραστάδος τοῦ ἱεροῦ πυλῶνος ὅπου καὶ τὸ
. εἴοῖν τὸ] τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀναγέγραπ[|ται" ἐπιμελ-
εἶσθαι δε] τῆς ἀναγραφῆς τὸν ἐνεστῶτα τ[αμίαν τῆς ᾽Δρ-
τέμιδος] ᾿Ἱεροκλῆν Baraypov.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 233

Line 9.—The θεοὶ are Artemis and Apollo, to whose cultus at Amyzon

No. 34 testifies.

Line 15.—avT@ καὶ ἐγγόνοις is added as an afterthought,
Line 19.—The restoration τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος is not by any means certain,
as the temple belonged to Artemis and Apollo.

P.—On the left return,

ATL,
MAMTA
Mi OUT HT
LH
5 MMM OMNI!
MU /ITITOY
IIILTIINKAOY
IZSAHMHTPIOY
ITOZANTITATPOY
10 ΣΑΡΤΕΜΩΝΟΣ
////EP MOTENO////
MII[[OMAXOS
OS=NONI////oY
HEMI!
ts AEI////oY
QN////

ATLL
ITIL MAXOY
MU TAMIA
ΛΙΧΙΓΕΝΗΣΦΕΙΕΙΚΛΕ
ΟΥ̓ΛΙΑΔΗΣΜΕΈΕΝΙΓΤΓΤΟ
ΧΑΙΡΕΑΣΛΥΣΙΟΥ
MENEK THEANTITTATPO
EPMorENHS////¢////X1
TIMOSATH///AA///10Y
TTYPPOSAIONYSI0
IDPATIN////////TEMIL
MU MINTAE®OTIO[N
ΛΛΥΠ LAUT
AIONYSIOSZL10///////////
Alo IZ1Io=ME/////H///////
ATTEAAI!

In col. 2, line 11 Mr. Szanto reads |ATPC; in line 16 APEAAI®.
The readings I give seem to me to correspond better with what I see on the
impression, but are by no means certain.

[This inscription is obviously a duplicate of No. 18 from Teichioussa.
The combined transcription is as follows :—

VARs) je 8 ve « δ᾽ "ο΄ 6 wes Δ © Se

ΠΣ ib) @ € ὡς ὁ. te ὦ we @) δ᾿ ν. 4

eee ss. s os Ἡρακλείδου
᾿Αρτε͵μέδωρος ᾿Αμύντου
5... . να ᾿Απολλωνίου
.... « Με͵νέστατου
Mee es N|exdov
Sanat Sa ns Δημητρίου
πὰρ Ae τος ᾿Αντιπάτρου
ἢ»: ἀρ 00 ς ᾿Αρτέμωνος
pte os ‘Eppoyévou
am ee Νικόμαχος [18 ov]
HS.—VOL, XVI.

ἈΉΡ, 35. γον.
Ἰάσων Ν[ικο]μάχου
᾿Αντίμαχος Νικομάχου
CApy)eyévns Φε(ρ)εκλέζους [35 Deve-]
Οὐλιάδης Μενέπποίυ
Χαιρέας Λυσίου
Μενεκ[ράτης ᾿Αντιπάτρο[υ
“Ἑρμογένης ᾿Α[πολ]λωνίο[υ [35 corrupt]
Σῖμος ᾿Απολλωνίου
Πυρρὸς Διονυσίου
Κρατῖνος ᾿Αρτεμιδώρου
Μενοίτας Κότυος [18 : 35 Φότιος]
R

234 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

Heit: 98. os (Ξ)ενονίκου ᾿Απολλώνιος [18: 35 "AAV... . 4]
Ae ns Πεισίου Διονύσιος ᾿Επικ [18: 35 Διο]

js a Peewee Ἡρακλεί[ djou Διονύσιος Mex [δέου ?
pach eat ᾿Απο[λλωνέου AATENAGLS 290) το εθρε:

In B. 1. 8, No. 18 has ᾿Αἰπολ͵]λωνίου: No. 35 has..o.. xu .. which
may mean anything except ᾿Απολλωνίου. The reading of No. 18 however is
invalidated by the fact that ᾿Απολλωνέίου occurs in both inscriptions in the
next line; consequently the reading of No. 18 in 1. 8 may be mis-copied, and
No. 385 alone preserves traces of the true patronymic. It might be
further suggested, that, as it occurs in connexion with a formal psephisma,
and ‘on the wall of the gate of the temple itself,’ No. 35 has prior authority,
and may be the original. But in Β. 1. 12 Μενοίτας Κότυος of No. 18 is more
probable than Me]Ac[ostas] Φότιος of No. 35, where AI is misread for N,
and the ethnic has been mis-heard in dictation. In B. |. 18, 14 the variations
cannot be explained by merely clerical errors.— J.L.M.]

36. Inscriptions of the British Museum, No. 896 [edited by Dr. α.
Hirschfeld. 1893].

The stone has recently been cleaned effectually by Mr. Murray’s orders
and the inscription can be restored with perfect certainty. Owing to its
interest, which perhaps may make it worthy of a place in the additional
volume dealing with documents of Private Law that MM. Dareste and
Haussoullier promise as a supplement to their Inscriptions Juridiques, it
is worth while to give it here, with the new readings and supplements in type
underlined.

᾿Απο[στ]είλαντος ἸΠο[σ]ειδωνέου yp|noalpévjov
lady Fe) , ΟΝ > “ \ lal by > lal
τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι, τί ἂν αὐτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ
γινομένοις καὶ οὖσιν, ἔκ τε τῶν ἀρσένων καὶ τῶν θ-
ηλείων, εἴη λώιον καὶ ἄμεινον ποιοῦσιν καὶ πράσ-
e \
5 σουσιν, ἔχρησεν ὁ θεὸς, ἔσεσθαι λώιον καὶ ἄμει-
lal ¢ la
νον αὐτοῖς ἱλασκομένοις Kal τιμῶσιν, καθάπερ
e tal
καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι, Δία Ilatpdov καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνα Τελε-
lal / \ / \ n /
μεσσοῦ μεδέοντα καὶ Μοίρας καὶ Θεῶν Μητέρα"
lal ¢.
τιμᾶν δὲ καὶ ἱλάσκεσθαι καὶ ᾿Αγαθὸν Aaipova ἸΠοσει-
10 δωνέου καὶ Γοργίδος, τοῖς δὲ ταῦτα διαφυλάσσουσιν
\ a Yi
Kal ποιοῦσιν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι.
᾽ a lal
Ποσειδώνιος ᾿Ιατροκλέως ὑπέθηκεν τοῖς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ
a 7 lal
Kal τοῖς ἐκ τούτων γινομένοις, EX TE τῶν ἀρσένων
ἈΝ Ὁ“ / \ r ΄ 3 > La)
καὶ τῶν θηλείων, καὶ τοῖς λαμβάνουσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν

15 et]s θυσίαν οἷς ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησεν ἀγρὸν τὸν ἐν ᾿Αστυ-

πα]λαίᾳ τὸν ὁμορροῦντα "AvOer καὶ Δαμαγήτῳ,

κ]αὶ τὴν αὐλὴν καὶ τὸν κῆπον καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸ μνημεῖον
κ]αὶ τοῦ ἐν Ταράμπτῳ ἐνηροσίου τὸ ἥμισυ " καρπευ-
élTm δὲ καὶ ἱερατευέτω τῶν ἐκγόνων τῶν ἐκ ἸΠοσει-

20 dwvlov ὁ πρεσβύτατος ὧν ἀεὶ κατ᾽ ἀνδρογένειαν,

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 235

> \ ᾽ » Ν lal / > /

ἀποδιδοὺς κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν χρυσοῦς τέσσαρας ἀτελέ-
as ΙΓ ἔδοξεν | ἸΠοσειδωνίῳ καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις τοῖς
> ͵ \ A > , ᾽ le ε a
ἐκ ἸΠοσειδωνίου καὶ τοῖς εἰληφόσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν αἱρεῖ-
σθαι ἐπιμηνίους ἐξ ἑαυτῶν τρεῖς κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν,

25 οἵτινες ἀπολαμβάνοντες τῆς ὑποθήκης mlapla [τοῦ ἱ-
epéws ἑκάστου ἐνιαυτοῦ μηνὸς ᾿Εἰλευθερίου [χ)]ρυσ οῦς
τέσσ[α]ρας συντελέσουσιν τὰς θυσίας - ἂν d[é] μὴ ἀπο-

, EN \ ῃ ΄ 4 πὰ / Ἢ \ Ἢ
δίδῳ, ἢ μὴ θέλῃ καρπεύειν, εἶναι τὰ ὑποκείμενα κ[οι]νὰ, καὶ τοὺς
ἐπι[μ]ηνίους ἐγδιδόναι, τὸ δὲ τέμενος εἶναι [κοι]νὸν [κ]αὶ

30 τ[οὺς ἐ]πιμηνίους ἐγμισθοῦν, καὶ τὸ μίσθωμα καὶ τὸ ἐνη-

Ν ¢ -“
ρό]σιον κομιζόμενοι μηνὸς “Ερμαιῶνος ἐπιμελεί-
—_—_—_—_——_—__— -
τωσαν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας τῷ ἱερεῖ, τὰ νομιζόμεϊνα
4 r ‘ ,
παρέχοντες εἰς τὰς θυσίας πάντα, τῇ μὲν πἰρ]ώτῃ
/, ΄ > a Ν \ \ = /
θύειν Τύχη ᾿Αγαθῇ πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς Ioce[idw]yiov

35 κ]ριὸν καὶ Δαίμονι ᾿Αγαθῷ ἸΠ]οσειδωνίου καὶ [Τ᾽ ο]ργέδος
κριὸν, τῇ δὲ δευτέρᾳ Avi ]Πατρώῳ κριὸν καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνι
Τελεμεσσοῦ μεδέοντι κρ[ιὸν] καὶ Μοίραις κριὸν
καὶ Θεῶν Μητρὶ αἶγα: ὁ δὲ ἱε[ρε]ὺς λαμβανέτω ἑκάστου
e / \ \ / 4
ἱερείου κωλὴν Kal τεταρτηϊ με]ρίδα σπλάγχνων,

40 καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἰσόμοιρος ἔστω] - τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ κρέα οἱ
> / > ΄ e \ al “ \
ἐπιμήνιοι, ἀφελόντες ἱκανὰ τοῖς δειπνοῦσιν καὶ
γυναιξὶν, μερίδας ποιησάντωσαν ἴσας καὶ ἀποδόντω-

e lal ~ > ,
σαν ἑκάστῳ μερίδα τῶν τε παρόντων καὶ τῶν ἀπόντων,

τὰς δὲ κεφαλὰς καὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοὶ ἐχόντων, τὰ δὲ
45 κῳδια πωλούντων ἐν τῷ θιάσῳ καὶ τῇ δευτέρᾳ

λόγον ἀπο(δ)όντωσαν πρὸ τοῦ δήμου ἀνα-

γράψαντες εἰς ὃ ἕκαστον ἀνήλωται, καὶ τὸ

περιγινόμενον ἀναλίσκειν εἰς ἀναθήματα.

᾿Αναγράψαι δὲ καὶ τὸν χρησμὸν καὶ τὴν ὑποθήκην
50 κ[αὶ] τὸ δόγμα ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνη καὶ στῆσαι ἐν τῷ

τεμέν[ει}: τοῖς δὲ ταῦτα διαφυλάσσουσιν καὶ ποιοῦ-

σιν ἄμεινον γένοιτο ὑπὸ θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον.

In lines 15-16 Dr. Hirschfeld reads ’A[y | pee Τ]λαίᾳ: in 22
Tloo<e>erdwviw: in 1]. 27-8 ἂν d[é] - μὴ [ἐδων μὴ θέλῃ: 1. 29 εἶναι...ε + ov
[καὶ]: ll. 30-1 μίσθωμα καρπευΐσ | ουἾφι - of νομιζομεναι μηνὸς : |. 33 παρέ-
χον(τε)ς : 1. 33 τῇ wey π[ρώτῃ 1]: 1. 84 ᾿Αγαθῇ Δα[ίμονος της] μητρὸς
Ποσε[ ιδωνίου]: 1. 55 ᾿Αγαθ| ᾧ ΤΠοσ]Ἰε[εἸδωνίου ..... ρι...: 1. 38 (ΑΛ) αμβ]ανέτω
[ἐκ τοῦ]: 1. 39 τετάρτηϊν pelpida: 1. 41 δειπνοῦσι [ταῖς μεν]: 1. 42-3 ἀπο-
[νειμάτω] | σαν: |. 43 ἀνάθημα (singular).

In line 7-8, ᾿Απόλλωνα Τελεμεσσοῦ pedéovta, for the temple and
oracle of Telmessos see J.H.S. xiv. 373 ff. |

In line 22 ἔδοξεν is marked off by a stop on each side of it.

236 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS,

The text presents no other difficulties, but as regards the general sense
of the document a few words may be said.

Poseidonios (lines 12-22) executes a deed charging certain properties of
his with a yearly sum of four staters to be paid by his eldest descendant in
the male line (who is to have the usufruct of these properties, and be
the priest of the society) to his descendants, both male and female, and to
the husbands of the latter.

By virtue of this deed Poseidonios himself and his descendants become
a society or ‘ thiasos’ capable of making a decree (lines 22 ff.) which requires
no ratification by the demos, but is a binding legal document and even
imposes on the demos (line 46) the duty of auditing the accounts of the
officers of the society. The terms of the decree are as follows. ᾿Εἰπιμήνιοι
(the usual name of the officers of such thiasi and meaning ‘ the offerers of
monthly sacrifices’) are elected and they are to receive from the priest each
year in the month Eleutherios the four staters due by the deed of Poseido-
nios, and with this sum they are to perform the sacrifices, by which we must
understand that they are to buy and furnish to the priest all the necessary
articles for the sacrifice—for the actual performer of the sacrifice was of
course the priest himself (lines 22-27).

In the following lines (27-33) it is enacted that if the priest does not
pay the four staters, or, if he refuses the usufruct of the property that bears
this charge, the property is to fall to the thiasos, and its officers are to lease
it. So far all is clear. If the priest finds that the annual revenue of the
property is under four staters, he is relieved from the charge and transfers
the property to the ἐπιμήνεοι who make the best they can of it. Then (line
29) comes a difficulty τὸ δὲ τέμενος εἶναι κοινὸν κιτιλ. There has been no
mention of a temenos. The solution, I think, is easy, although I may be
wrong. The space on the stone between κομιζόμενοι and μηνὸς ᾿Ἑρμαιῶνος
implies that μηνὸς “Eppaidvos goes not with κομιζόμενοι, but with émipe-
λείτωσαν. Then all that follows after μηνὸς ᾿Ἑρμαιῶνος consists of the rules
to be observed by the ἐπιμήνιοι in spending. the four staters, which if they
fail to obtain from the priest and fail to obtain by themselves leasing the
charged properties, they are, as an extreme measure, to obtain by leasing the
τέμενος itself. The rent comes in, in any case, in the month Eleutherios ;
the sacrifices are performed in Hermaion, which succeeded Eleutherios.
The same provision is found in the testaments of Epikteta and Diomedon.

W. R. PATon.
J. L. MyYREs.

A word may be added as to the ᾿Αστυπαλαία in line 15, We already
know it from Strabo 658 as a headland between ;Halikarnassos and Ter-
mera. Kiepert (Berl. Sitzwngsberichte, 1893) has, to my mind, satisfactorily
demonstrated that this name (a corruption, as it seems, of a Phoenician
word) was given to sites now called Κέφαλος or Κέφάλα or Κεφαλοῦχα; high
headlands connected with the mainland by low isthmi. We have therefore
placed Astypalaea in our map at Kephalukha.—(W.R.P.)

= a

kK

z

ο

[4

we ΜΝ Si? - &

ἡ ᾿ a on β 5 "

prom THE GEOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL 1897.

ΓΞ

ew Wi
Be

___Tongitude Beat 26° fram Greenwich

Publishad by the Reyal Geographioal Society, 1897

THE PENINSI

THE PENINSULA of MYNDOS, from Surveys by Messrs. Myres and Paton,

ue

Soalo 1:100,000 (1°57 m. = 1 inch.)
ἐλπίς are
1 0 Τ ἘΣ

Ancient Sites in Red.

oSlopeen λον,
*ASKETEHING STATION (J.LM.& WILD.)
=-Roan,

ἼΧ ‘ld (Q6BL)IAX’S Ἢ Ὁ

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.—Parr II.
[Pirates X., ΧΙ]

V.—The north side of Mt. Latmos ; with notes on the sites of ALINDA,
KosKINIA, and HYLLARIMA.

A sHoRT journey round the north side of Mt. Latmos, undertaken in the
autumn of 1896, has enabled W.R.P. to complete his investigation of the
ancient sites of this neighbourhood. The purely geographical results are
appended to our paper in Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc. ix. (January, 1897), and
are incorporated in the map which, by the courtesy of the Royal Geographical
Society, we are able to append to this account of the archaeological results.
The latter are arranged in geographical order along the actual route.

At Sirgin Kishla on the Deniz Liman (Latmic Gulf) the fortified site or
‘kastron’ turns out to be a late mediaeval settlement.

At Yevreli Keui, in the Kisir Chai valley,on the edge of a steep torrent-
bed, is a double terrace-wall of massive masonry, with an abundant spring
close below it. In the village, in the possession of the hoja, are the follow-
ing inscriptions :-—

3712—On a block of marble, rounded at the top: “72 m. wide, ‘60 m.
high :—

KAIAYPZ2=IMOZPOIBOYME
POYETPITOYEIZIONOZAEZIAZ
XEIPOZEIZOKAITAQHEONTAI
TIANTEZAYTOYQIEKTOYTE
NOYEKATAZYNXS2PHEIN

qn

Ras aN καὶ Αὐρ. Zwatpos Φοίβου pé-
-pous τρίτου εἰσίοντος δεξίας
χειρὸς, εἰς ὃ καὶ ταφήσονται
πάντες αὐτοῦ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ γέ-
-νους κατὰ συγχώρησιν.

Or

1 These inscriptions are numbered to follow those in our former paper.
H.S.—VOL. XVI. 5

238 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

38.—On the upper surface of a large block of white marble: 1:10 τη.
long: no traces of any other letters.

HPA npa
EE €€

Near Yevreli Keui and Akhlat, tombs of Latmian forms (Type VI) are
frequent and conspicuous.

An ancient paved road can be traced from the neighbourhood of Old
Chavdar up to that of Arabarli Kalé, which it passes, and then (according to
local information) divides into two branches, one of which goes towards
HERAKLEIA, the other to Baghajik,! where a similar fragment of road can be
traced passing the temple of ‘ Zeus Stratios, and thence towards Mylasa. On
the north side below Chavdar the road must descend into the Maeander
valley ; but it has not been traced except in the difficult highland section.
The pavement is about six feet (2 m.) wide, and is composed of large smooth
blocks of the native gneiss; it is carried over very broken country, scored by
many steep ravines with fantastic ridges of rock between ; and it is supported
in parts by terrace-walls, and crosses streams by bridges of well-squared
masonry. The road might well be of the same date as the Baghajik temple,
1.6. of the fourth or third century B.c.

The ‘Kastron’ at Arabarli Kalé, though it lies on this road, is not a
Hellenic site, but apparently a fortified mediaeval monastery, the position of
which has very probably been determined by the existence of the carlier
means of communication.

At Teké Kalé is a conspicuous and admirably preserved fortress of
Hellenic work, of which a plan is given in fig. 13. It stands on the highest
point of the hills between the upper basin of the Karpuzli Chai and the
valley of the China Chai (MARsyAS), and commands a wide view both north
and south, being visible both from AMYZON and from Attau-lu-su. Together
with Attau-lu-su and Kurun Deré, it forms a complete chain of signal
stations between Tralles, or any other point on Mt. Messogis, and Mylasa and
the whole of western Karia. The top tower of the fortress (fig. 14) is a
characteristic example of Karian military architecture; while the line of
chambers round the outer wall suggests comparisons with the casemates of the
walls of Carthage.

That Teké Kalé was something more than a mere signal-station is in-
dicated by the presence of numerous ordinary Latmian tombs of our Type VI,
together with one of unusual form, which is described in detail on p. 259
fig. 37-38.

The fine city site at Demirji Deresf, first visited by Pococke, and Chandler
(I. p. 235), has been rightly identified with ALinDA. Kiepert formerly placed
ALINDA at Kapraklar near Mesevli, and gave Demirji Deresf to ΚΟΒΚΙΝΙΑ,

1 J.H.S. xvi. p. 212. Attau-lu-su is visible, J. 7.8. xvi. p. 213-4.

* The only point on Mt. Grion from which

SVJ : ἈΊΥΝ gua

ax. υν, νὰ . - O =
a
ys

Mi ee τος δι τ ᾳααῇ =\

a
Ὶ \ | \ yy
fo .»-"ος 2 \
γ᾽ ΖΞ ΒΞ eS τῷ
ἡ) : ] a \ “

ee en -
oe
ee OTE, ES —3 ΗΝ
SSE
yo
NW

ae
Wea
(om

ES Or We
TT ΞΘ ΝΖ ΞΕ ἘΞ WA
ἢ — “ - Ω ~ δὰ wv >
EIB NN
ee ee AE RES ὃ

τὰν ee —=——— oie S es
SSS Sa aS ee

ee ee a Qe =f
a ae sa ES ——

240 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

=~

but has adopted the alternative view in his last map—ormae Orbis Antiqua,
1894. From the examination of a Greck private collection at Aidin of coins
of this neighbourhood, W. R. P. contirms Kiepert’s observation as to the occur-
rence of coins of ALINDA at Demirji Deresi. The extreme strength of this
site, which lies on a very steep hill, with terrace-walls and natural rock faces
even within the fortifications, also corresponds with <Arrian’s description
(Anab. i. 23): χωρίον τῆς Καρίας ἐν τοῖς ὀχυρώτατον. Droysen’s conjecture !
that Alinda at one time bore the name Alexandreia ad Latmum mentioned
by Stephanos, avoids the necessity of supposing that a new Macedonian colony
was founded in this neighbourhood. Queen Ada of Alinda expressed great
devotion to Alexander, and may very well have given her town a complimen-
tary title from his name. That the place was well Hellenized is indicated

Fic. 14.—TrEnré Katé: Norru View or THE Tower C.

both by the existing remains, and by Stephanos’ account of the Praxitelean
Aphrodite there. Perrot-Chipiez v. fig. 224 gives after Trémaux, a ground-
plan of part of the fortifications which present close resemblances with that
of KinpyA (Cholmekji Kale).

The great stoa published in tig. 15, 16, is the best preserved of the
numerous public buildings. Like the much smaller and earlier stoa with
proto-Ionic columns which we found at Alizetin,? its open side faces up the
hill, and the deep basement on the downward side has window openings, and
may have been used as a storehouse. The stoa was of two stories, and tlic
corbels for the floor-beams can still be seen in the back wall, and above the
large capitals of the colonnade.

1 Gesch. d. Hellcnismus, ii. p. 596. 2 J.H.S. xvi. p. 200.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 241

The almost total absence of marble fragments, on a site of such magnifi-
cence, is noteworthy, but is probably to be explained by the greater demand

Fig. 15.—AQLINDA: EXTERIOR oF LARGE STOA,

γ᾽
id

att ἜΣ f
ONT bigs

4 2 L
HAY SLAP 4 F

Fic. 16.—ALINDA: INTERIOR VIEW OF LARGE STOA.

for lime in this gneiss country. The only inscribed stones seen were a base
of gneiss with the words

bo
---
lo

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

No. 39. AIOCCS2THPOC Διὸς Σωτῆρος

in late characters; and another base, also of gneiss, with a bipennis in low
relief. An inscription is said to exist, plastered over, in the mosque, but as
the Hoja and the key were away in the lowland summer quarters of the village,
it was impossible to copy it.

KOSKINIA is now placed by Kiepert on the left bank of the main stream
of the China Chai, and about nine miles (13-14 km.) above ALABANDA. He
formerly placed it, as was mentioned above, at Demirji Deresf, on the autho-
rity of Strabo’s statement (v. 587) that the road from KOSKINIA to ALABANDA
crosses the stream, which it follows, many times, whereas the modern road
from Demirji Deresi only needs to cross the Karpuzli Chai twice. On the
other hand, this account does not suit the main valley of the China Chai
much better. A considerable and tortuous stream, however, which is dry in
summer and therefore wswally passable, comes down from the Hazan Boghaz
(not Hassan Boghaz as in Kiepert’s great map) and joins the China Chai
about an hour’s ride below (north of) ALABANDA. KOSKINIA should therefore
be looked for in or near Hazan Boghaz; for, like ORTHOSIA (which survives in
Ortas'), it was a dependency of Nysa,? and probably lay not far from the
main valley of the Maeander.

HYLLARIMA, which Kiepert (1894) places in the valley of the Harpasos,
might well be claimed for the site at Kapraklar near Mesevli, in the basin of
the eastern tributary which joins the China Chai at Inje Kemer. This was
Kiepert’s site for ALINDA in his large map, but it is by no means ἐν τοῖς ὀχυ-
pwtatov. Stephanos describes Hyllarima as ὑπὲρ Στρατονικείας" 1.6. up
country from Eski-Hissar viewed from the Gulf of Keramos. Stronger evidence
is given by an inscription from Mesevli, part of which is published by Wad-
dington,* part by MM. Doublet and Deschamps.® The nearest ancient site
to Mesevli is that at Kapraklar; so the inscription probably came thence. In
it Antoninus Pius is deified as Zeus Hyllos, who is evidently the chief god of
the place. Now Steph. Byz. sv. ‘TAdsvara identifies with the Herakleid
Hyllos a deity who was worshipped in Karia at ‘Hyllouala’ (which he
explains as Ὕλλου-αλα -- ἵππος Ὕλλου δ. This Karian Hyllos may very
well have been the chief deity of Hyllarima too,

KARIAN TOMBS,

The following notes represent materials collected during the journeys in
1893-4, the topographical and epigraphic results of which have already
appeared in this volume. The delay in their publication is mainly due to
the vain expectation that it might be possible this season to excavate some

1 Kubitschek. Silzwngsb. Acad. Wien. J.H.S. xvi. 191.

(phil-hist. class.) 16 Noy. 1893, p. 103. 4 No. 1583.
2 Strabo, p. 650. 5 B.C.H, xviii. 41, ef. 340,
3 Journ. Roy. Geog. Soc. ix. Jan. 1897 p. 54,

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 243

of the principal chambered tumuli near Ghiuk Chalar: but the attitude of
the Turkish authorities has made this project impracticable for the present :
and the revival by Dr. Montelius' of the theory that the Tyrrhenian, if not
the Mykenaean civilisation, originates in a migration seawards from Asia
Minor makes it desirable to publish at the first opportunity such evidence as
we have been able to collect as to the earliest civilisation of Karia.

The surface of the Karian coastland has for the most part been so
closely denuded since classical times, that early sites such as Assarlik, Ghiuk
Chalar, and Alizetin seem hardly worth excavating ; and consequently such
evidence as can be gleaned from the tombs is of the greater proportionate
importance. But the tombs are also unfortunately in most cases either
collapsed and in need of elaborate and systematic excavation, or else com-
pletely rifled or denuded like the town sites. The only excavation which has
taken place hitherto was that at Termera by W. R. P. some years ago,
the results of which are exhibited in the British Museum (numbered as
A 570 ff.) and described in J.H.S. viii. p. 67 ff; and the only other
casual finds are those published in detail by Dr. Winter in Mitth. Ath. xii.
p. 225 ff.

J. Cist GRAVES. (Ostothecae, Tombe a pozzo).

The simplest form of tomb which has been discovered is a small cist of
four stone slabs set on edge, and covered by a cap-stone which is usually flat
or slightly concave on one side, and convex on the other, so that it closely
resembles a flat loaf or bun. The whole consiruction suggests nothing so
much as a miniature cromlech. The cist itself is seldom as much as a metre
in length or breadth, and consequently cannot have contained an unburnt
corpse, even in a contracted posture. And the one cist which we were able
to open in 1893, (on the ridge south of Assarlik, the acropolis of
Termera) contained like those opened in 1887? clear traces of burnt bones
and ashes. Unfortunately it contained nothing else, except a rude clay
spindlewhorl, much blackened, which indicated a woman’s grave, and, by its
form, a sub-Mykenaean date.

This cist grave stood in an irregular enclosure of unwrought stones, and
from the general appearance of the whole area, had been intended to be
covered by a small tumulus. This, however, had been almost wholly
denuded, and the capstone was found as usual projecting above the ground
level,

As was stated in /.H.S. viii. p. 73, these cist graves, or ostothecae, are
frequently found in groups within a single enclosure, which is usually rect-
angular but has often been added to irregularly as more space was required.
There was no clear evidence, in many of these enclosures, that anything of
the nature of a tumulus was intended; but it should be observed that, from

1 British Association Report (Liverpool) 1896, tute xxvi.

Sect H, p. 931, Journ, Anthropological Insti. 2 J.H.S. viii. p. 67 ff.

244 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

whatever cause, the level of the ground was frequently higher within the
enclosure than outside; and that where the ground was naturally uneven, an
attempt had been made to level the enclosure, with a low supporting wall on

. &.B.Y.6.€
“\ QSTOTHEKAE
=
REMAINS OF "
TOMB &
a
oe EF
Fic. 17.—Assariik: Cisr Graves IN ENcLosurF (= J.H.S. viii. fig. 16).

“4. Ὃ ΓΥ

Fic. 18.---ΑΞΞΑΒΙΙΚ : Cist GRAVES IN Enclosure: S.W. NECROPOLIs.

the down-hill side. The annexed specimens (Figs. 17, 18) will sufficiently
illustrate this type of tomb.

II. Funu-Lenctu Cist Graves. (Tombe a fossa).

In the same enclosures with groups of ostothecae, full-length graves are
occasionally found, lined like the small cists with slabs of stone, and covered
by long slabs laid transversely. These slabs, like the capstones of the cists,
are frequently convex on the upper side.

We found no clear traces of burning in these long graves, and their form
itself suggests that the body was buried in them without being burned.
The only indication to the contrary is afforded by the presence of a large
pithos in one of them,! which may have contained ashes formerly, though it
actually contained none. As these graves occur side by side with the

1 J.H.S. viii. p. 74.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 245

ostothecae in the same enclosure, we may probably assume that they belong
to a period when burning and burial coexisted. This again corresponds with
the indications of sub-Mykenaean date derived from the finds recorded in
J.H.S. viii. p. 69-74. With types I. and II. of the ‘ Lelegian’ peninsula of
Myndos, should be compared the ‘Rock-cut Graves’ of type VI. which
appear to replace them in the gneiss country round Mount Latmos (p. 256

below).
III. CHAMBERED TUMULI (Tombe a camera).

On the edge of the same necropolis of Assarlik, there are several
examples of a third type of tomb, closely connected with the preceding.
Here the full-length grave is enlarged to the dimensions of a small room.
The consequent difficulty of roofing is met by the simple device of bracket-
ting out the last few courses of the wall, and laying the roof slabs across the
narrower opening which is thus left. But this involves an increase in the
height of the chamber; and as at Assarlik the crystalline rock cannot be
easily excavated, the chamber, though still slightly sunk, rises above the
surface ; and consequently has to be covered by piling stones upon it.2 We
may infer, from the fact that mere stones, and not earth, were used for this
purpose, that the range of hills on which these tombs stand had then, as
now, only a thin covering of soil, and was subject to severe denudation.

In constructing these rubb'e tumuli, the rectangular form of the original
enclosure could not be maintained ; but an attempt seems to have been made
to preserve an oblong,—actually an oval—form: and a low θρυγκὸς or
bounding wall prevents the loose stones from spreading round the foot of the
mound,

Subsequent interments, which could no longer be made in the mass
of the tumulus, were provided for by leaving a doorway in the wall of the
chamber ; and traces occur of a dromos, always however found filled with the

was the first to call attention to the analogy
between the types of Karian and Italian tombs.
The analogy is striking, and the sequence in
both cases probably due, as Dr. Montelius sug-
gests in the case of Etruria, to Mykenaean in-
fluences,

* M.s Perrot (Hist. de V Art. V. fig. 215) in
reproducing fig. 3 of W. R. P.’s Paper in J. H.S.
viii. has drawn the chamber as though it were
raised above the ground level.

3. Numerous mounds of a different type are
found all over the peninsula of Miletos, and are
most numerous on the shore opposite the small
island called ‘Ada’: but these are merely
enormous heaps of loose stones— some round,
some oblong,—of as much as 11 m. diameter
and 5-6 m. height, withont any trace of a
sepulchral chamber, 'They usually stand on the

them ἀρμακάδες, say that they are made for the
shepherds to watch their flocks; for all the
country is covered by a thick undergrowth of
schinos and other shrubs. They are probably
analogous to the very similar chamberless tumuli
which abound in Attica between Hymettos and
the sea, south of the Ilissos. These, so far as
they have been tested, (by J. L. M. 1894, νυ.
J.H.S. xv. p. 204-5, Reinach. Rev. Arch. xxvii.
237, Chron. d@’Or.), appear to be not tumuli,
but waste heaps gradually accumulated from the
surrounding ploughlands; and probably the
Milesian mounds simply bear testimony to the
diligent husbandry of classical times, which has
left traces in the farm buildings and oil-mills
which we shall describe hereafter. At all
events these stoneheaps may be safely ignored
in the present connection,

246 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS,

Similar tumuli are common in this part of Karia, and are particularly
frequent round Ghiuk Chalar.

Two very fine examples in a ravine near the old road west of Assarlik,
described by Newton (Halicarnassus, etc., pp. 583 ff.) mark a further develop-
ment. The outer plinth is furnished with a cornice of flat stones, and witha
doorway at the outer end of the dromos. This avoids the necessity for the
disturbance of the rubble every time the chamber has to be opened. The
superior finish of the masonry agrees with these innovations, in indicating a
somewhat later date for these specimens: they might very well belong to the
seventh, or even to the sixth century B.c. It is worth noting that these

3,60

1,60

4,45
475

Fic. 20.—SECcTION.

examples are escorted by numerous ostothecae, with capstones of enormous
size.

The finest known example of this class of tombs is that on the northern
or seaward summit of the three detached hills near Geresi village, of which
the middle peak is crowned by the Karian fortress described above (p. 206-7)
under the name of Borghaz, while the southern and least conspicuous has a
compound tumulus of Type IV. below. This tomb has been already published
(J.H.S. viii. p. 79-80 W. R. P.); but it will be convenient to repeat the plan
there given (figs. 19-21) and to summarize the principal points of the
description:

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS, 247

The tumulus is bounded by a low circular θριγκὸς, and the δρόμος also
is lined with masonry. The chamber is rectangular, with the door in the
middle of the southern long side: it is of finely wrought masonry, and has a
roof constructed on the ‘false arch’ principle, but dressed to a semi-circular

42 te
Fig. 21.—ScCALE τυῖσσ-

section internally. The long stone beams which form the uppermost course

of the roof protrude slightly, after centuries of denudation, at the apex of
the tumulus.

Fic. 22,—CHAMBERED TUMULUS: GHIUK CHALAR.

A somewhat different type, from the north necropolis of Ghiuk Chalar
is represented in Figure 22. Here the θριγκὸς is of unusual height, and
leans inward to resist the thrust of the loose rubble core. The door is high
enough to be entered without difficulty, and the chamber is lofty in propor-
tion. The original tumulus is still represented by the pile of rubble above
the cornice, but is dwarfed by the increased height of the masonry below.

248 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

IV. TUMULI wiITH SECONDARY CHAMBERS.

We now come to a comparatively rare, and highly specialised class ot
tombs, which however we believe to be simply a variety of the chambered
tumuli above described. The outer wall is circular, and upright, as in the
former cases; but the chamber is, or rather was, dome-shaped, circular in
plan, and constructed on the “ false-arch ’ principle, like a Mykenaean ‘ bee-
hive’ tomb. This chamber is set excentrically within the outer wall, so that
at one point the wall is comparatively thin, but of solid masonry throughout.
On the opposite side, several small chambers, opening radially out of the
dome, are contained in the thickness of the wall, which is packed as usual
with rubble between the inner and the outer masonry. The dome is entered
by a doorway, which is not in the thinnest part of the wall, but at one side.

The great size of these monuments might suggest the doubt whether
they were ever really roofed ; but the evident inward lean of the wall of the
circular chamber cannot be explained otherwise. The deficiency of débris
round the monuments at the present time is no argument on the other side,
for in any case there is not enough dcbris, at Geresi and at Ghiuk Chalar, to
reconstruct even the existing chambers and wall, And though the excentricity
of the ground plan might seem to endanger the stability of the dome, the
very fact that the ‘ false-arch’ construction is employed, minimises, as in the
Mykenaean ‘ beehives,’ the thrust of the superincumbent rubble.

ΞΡ : ph be Be
τὴιἥν SGote
(Rg ΠΝ i i - ἡ ee * :
4. τ τ νΗ Le: Se
gs Olek: we
"42 ͵ ' Ἄ

- ||| ee
Mes ts P

om

ἢ
ἥ
Fess SW ae δὰ
Ne τά ς A Win Teh La im

ςς

Mn , ;
at. a Cs ν᾽ "Unity ee
te ty he PBT PRESS

Fic. 23.—CoMPpounD TUMULUS: GERESI.

The following examples are known to us :—

(a) On the southernmost of the three detached hills already mentioned
between Geresi village and the sea. The tomb is built on the slope of the
hill so that the back wall is buried and the thinner part of the wall which
faced outwards has almost disappeared. There remain, however, two whole
chambers in the side of the hill, and the back of a third, and the segment of
the curved inner wall into which they open, Their doors are of very rude

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 249

masonry, almost unwrought, and the wall itself is very roughly built; but its

inward slant is clearly visible. The small passage in the side of the right

hand chamber is blocked, and does not seem to lead anywhere (fig. 23, 24).
(+) On the ridge marked W in the map, about half a mile cast of the two

towns which we identify with Telmessos (J.H.S. xiv. p. 373). This tomb

WB MASONRY INSITU «=A DERRIS = ROCK

Fic, 24.—GERESI: CHAMBERED TUMULUs.

contains three chambers, which are of well-built masonry of unwrought slabs
of limestone, and are preserved to the height of four or five feet. The door
is at one side, facing south. A noteworthy feature of this tomb is a long
trench roofed with large slabs of stone, perhaps a long grave of type II. which
lies across the circular chamber in the line of the door (fig. 25).

Fic. 25.—CircLe on Kara DAcu (TELMEssSOs).

(c) In the necropolis on the Kaplan Dagh (see map, Pl. X.) is a fine
specimen which closely resembles (6). Unfortunately we are unable to give
an adequate plan.

(2) In the necropolis of Ghiuk Chalar, on the opposite slope of the ravine
which bounds the town-site on the north, is a chambered tomb in a very

250 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

ruinous state, which is certainly of this type, though it is impossibie to
determine the number of chambers with accuracy.

(6) In the necropolis of Ghiuk Chalar, on the same hillside as (4) but
higher and farther off, is the most elaborate and best preserved specimen
which we have found. This tomb, which the Greeks of Budrum call τὰ
omitaxta— the little houses ”—stands on nearly level ground, and has a
vertical outer wall some three metres in height, with a distinct cornice, above
which the wall is almost wholly destroyed. The few blocks which remain
indicate that it still ran up vertically some way beyond the cornice. The
door is on the west side, whereas the axis of the ground plan is north and
south: it has a slight cornice above the lintel, and leads into the radial
chamber B and thence into the central chamber by another passage which is
slightly to the left of the outer doorway. The inner like the outer wall is of
careful masonry of thick slabs of the local limestone ; it has a very distinct
inward curvature, such as would produce a dome seven or eight metres high.

- ΕΝ
Ca eT NS δα λ΄"
~ an

rh
ae ὦ

Fic. 26.—Compounb TUMULUS: GHIUK CHALAR: FROM W,

Above the inner door-lintel is a small niche; there is another level with the
lintels between the doors of C and D; and another lower down to the right of
the door of A. The chamber D has also a niche in its back wall, nearly opposite
to the entrance and a little to the right. The radial chambers are eight in
number: those marked B, C, D, F, and G, have longitudinal gable roofs of
‘false arch’ construction, and I a roof of the-same type modified to a
- pyramidal form. That marked A had a floor of two layers of slabs; one of
these had been raised, revealing a similarly vaulted chamber below. In the
thickest part of the wall (1.6. on the north side) a narrow stone staircase has
been built in the thickness of the radial wall: on reaching the outer wall of
the building it turns to the left and continues to rise in the solid masonry
over the slanting roof of the chamber below, till it reaches the level of the
cornice of the outer wall. Here it enters one of a series of chambers built
over those of the ground floor, and apparently entered from one another in
suite; though the walls are so much destroyed that this is not quite clear.
The radial walls themselves were however quite clear between BC, CD, DE,

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

and EF: F alone of the ground floor chambers had partly collapsed.

251
The

accompanying figures (26-28) give a view from the W.; a ground plan; and

Fic. 28.—Guiuk CHALAR: SECTION From N.

TO Ss.

Fic. 27.—GuHIuK CHALAR: PLAN.

a vertical section from north to south, with a conjectural reconstruction

of this remarkable monument.!

lieves that the general ‘correspondence of design
between the compound tumuli (Type IV.) and
the simple chambered tumuli (Type 111.)
warrants the supposition that the large circular
chambers of the former were actually completed
in stone like the Mykenaean ‘ bechives’ ; ac-
cordingly he proposes the restoration given in
the figure; arguing (1) that such a construction,
though unsound with a true vault, is archi-
tecturally stable even on this grand scale (8-10 m.
diameter) with a ‘false. arch,’ in which each
course of masonry forms a horizontal compres-
sion-member, which vertical pressure cannot
distort, even if unequally applied on different
sides of the cupola; (2) that the pronounced
inward lean of the walls of circular chamber
admits of no other interpretation.

1 Here interpretations differ. J. L. M. be-

W. R. P. on the other hand does not believe
that the circular chambers of Type IV. were
ever roofed with stone, though they may have
had a wooden roof. He argues (1) that the
collapse of a stone roof would have filled the
chambers, which are found in all cases nearly
empty, with so large a mass of débris, that its
removal would be inconceivable without human
agency, and that the latter is most improbable
on sites so remote, especially as the more ac-
cessible tumuli at Ghiuk Chalar show no signs
of disturbance by stone-hunters; (2) that in
any case the largest of these chambered circles,
(next to be describad) can never have been thus
roofed, as its diameter is more than 50 metres ;
(3) that the inward slant of the walls may be
explained as a ritual survival from the period
when only single-chambered tumuli were in use.

252 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

(f) Not far west of (6), on the same hillside and among scattered trees
which are a conspicuous landmark from the south, is a very much larger
circular enclosure with radial chambers round a part of the circumference.
It seems clearly to belong to the same class of monument, though in this
case it is inconceivable that it can have been roofed over, as its diameter
exceeds 50 metres. The walls which are throughout of comparatively
small and wholly undressed stones, are nowhere preserved to a height of
much more than a metre; the thickness of the ring wall, exclusive of the
solid packing on either side of the row of chambers, averages 1°50—2.0 m.
The amount of débris is as usual small, far too small in fact to complete even
the walls which remain, to any height proportionate to their thickness, and
the ground plan can be made out with some certainty.

Fic. 29.—Guiuk CHALAR: LARGE CincLE: PLAN.

An entrance is clearly marked at a point a few degrees east of south :
its inner angles are not well defined, and it enters, like the doorway of (6)
through the thickened part of the wall, and apparently at one extremity of
the series of chambers: but it lies square with the walls of the central
building, and there can be little doubt that it was the original doorway.
The chambers indicated in the plan are all clearly recognisable: their radial
walls are 4—5 m. in length. The solid packing where the inner and outer
walls converge diminishes more suddenly than would be the case, if the
inner wall were a true circle: not improbably the builder began by setting off
the inner and the outer circles so as to touch, and laid his walls respectively
outside the inner, and inside the outer circle. In any case however, the
centre of the inner circle fell within the central building, and (if the

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 253

minimum diameter be taken) within the inner enclosure, as is shown by the
dotted line and letter m in the plan: & is the centre of the outer circle.

The central building is of the same rough masonry: it consists of two
enclosures, irregularly placed one within the other. The inner contains a
large core of rubble, domeshaped and of roughly circular plan. Nothing has
been found within the area or in the chambers, to indicate the purpose which
this monument served: but it may probably be regarded either as a
chambered necropolis, or as the τέμενος of some cult based upon the worship
of the departed ancestors.

Two degenerate and probably later examples of chambered tumuli have
been recently examined (1896, W. R. P.), which seem to indicate the influence
of the sepulchral conventions which are represented by the ‘ built tombs’ of
Type V. and the ‘ rock-cut tombs’ of Type VI.

Fic. 30.—Comrounp Tumut: (g) Guiuk Caan: (1) FARELIA.

(g) One of these stands in the northernmost part of the necropolis of Ghiuk
Chalar, on a summit bearing 321° magnetic north from the great circle just
described, and about half-a-mile from it. Near the tomb stands a rectangular
two-chambered dwelling-house in the same style. The masonry, and the
shape of the chambers, resemble those of the other circles, but the form of
the tumulus is an irregular oval, or rectangle with rounded corners, the long
axis of which lies nearly north and south. Across the top is a low wall
which is not indicated in the plan (fig. 30, g). In the south end are the
remains of two entrances side by side, very much damaged, but apparently
communicating with two parallel series of two chambers each. The inner
chamber in each case was inaccessible, and its dimensions are only approxi-
mately given in the plan. The general plan of this tomb may be compared
with that on Orak Island, described below (p. 255, Type V.).

(h) The other stands on the promontory of FaréJia, not far from ‘ Arslan’s
house,’! and is likewise of irregular oval form, with the long axis lying north
and south. It contains two chambers, the larger of which (B) is oblong in
form, and is entered by a low doorway in the east side. In the same wall
are two niches, one low down, and of small dimensions, the other lofty
and narrow: the latter may have served to receive the doorstone of A when
rolled back from the entrance. The inner chamber (A) is smaller, and

1 See below, p. 263, and p. 208 above.
HS.—VOL. XVI. T

254 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

nearly square. It has collapsed, and the place of the entrance is entirely
blocked by the débris. Both chambers had, and A retains, a low domeshaped
roof, which resembles that of a common type of late rock-cut tomb.

The interior has recently been cleared and fairly well examined ; and
has yielded a bronze coin of Halikarnassos (cf. Mionnet, Suppl. vi. p. 494,
Nos. 295-7) and lamps and pottery of the first or second century B.c.; but
nothing to suggest an earlier date. It is difficult, however, to believe,—at
all events until the tomb has been properly cleared,—that the objects in
question represent the original furniture of the tomb, and not a subsequent
interment. The tomb itself however has all the appearance of a later and
degraded imitation of a traditional but imperfectly comprehended model.

Most of these chambered tumuli, and of the rock-cut graves and
sarcophagi described below (Type VI.) occupy prominent positions on peaks
and ridges, but chiefly on the summits of passes. Summit-burial has been
practised in many countries and ages, and it would lead us too far afield to
discuss its meaning here. But it should be noted that among the modern
natives of this part of Karia the practice is still prevalent. Two tombs of
Mussulman saints— built tombs’ with a dome or barrel roof—called locally
Mezer, Téké or Dédé, are conspicuous objects on peaks near Myndos ; and in
Mt. Latmos the summits of the two high passes above Euren and Sakar-Kaya
are occupied by old Turkish cemeteries. Near Chavdar in Mt. Latmos there
is an isolated ‘ Teké’ which is even surrounded by a rude circle of stones.

The area of distribution of these chambered tumuli seems to be limited
and well defined. The three largest series are in the neighbourhood of
Halikarnassos ; namely those round Assarlik, round Ghiuk Chalar, and on the
Kaplan Dagh. Isolated examples occur at Borghaz,! at Gerési?; several on
the ridge west of the peak @; on the Kara Dagh near the site of Telmessos?;
on the peninsula of Farélia; and near Durvandd. There are a few more in
the country between Budrum and the Kar Ova.! East of Theangela, the only
tumuli known to us are a group near Cholmekji Kali (KinpyA) which are of
much more advanced masonry, and too substantial to be surveyed without
previous excavation ; and some small examples, without θρυγκὸς and mostly
unopened, near Pirnari Yaili above Keramos. None were to be found on the
hills round Mughla, Eski Hissar, (STRATONIKEIA), or Mylasa; but further
north, above Miletos, on the point marked ‘220 τὴ. on Kiepert’s map,
W. R. P. found what seemed to be the lowest course of the bounding wall of
a circular tumulus of the same type, 9 τη. in diameter, and associated with
much broken pottery.

1 The chambered tumulus III. (a), p. 246. closures, described by Dr. Winter as 3 hrs.
? The compound tumulus IV. (a), p. 248. (Stunden) S.E. of Budrum and 2 km. from the
* The compound tumulus IV. (4), p. 249. Gulf of Kos (Mitth. Ath. xii. 225 = Perrot-

* We have missed, or failed to identify, the Chipiez v. fig. 219.) It ought to be in the
site at ‘Guseladji,’ with megalithic circular en- neighbourhood of Alizetin.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 255

V. Burtt Tomss, WirH CHAMBERS LIKE THOSE OF THE TUMULLI.

On the island Orak (Adm. Ch. 1604) between Budrum and Keramos we
found a large and well preserved, but apparently uncompleted tomb, of which
plan and section are given in Fig. 31.

The tomb stands a short distance from the sea, on the west side of the
anchorage facing the mainland. The ground falls decidedly northeastward,
and the tomb, which stands foursquare to the cardinal points of the compass,
is supported in this quarter on a high plinth of roughly squared masonry,

᾿ς :
SS
SS

Z UY
Wig hii
7; YY) γ
Z MY, Tf Wy Y
7; QV uu

-
/
Ἢ
Vi ,:
“ζ΄ ζΖ' Uy), “,22 Yi
Yay Yj
΄ 27) YW 4
7 Yj By
Whi iy Up
| 3 yh jy)
" Γῇ YY)
~ te Uy
J πῖον 8x12 5YZG4 OYGYYXY YU
τ YY YY jf YA
a 77 YY 7 7 "2 7 ΐ 7 A 23 ΓΞ 8
iG YY, Yi Yy hi WHY YM yyy
| 7» Uy, 3. 7 Yi | 1/4 y , “Ὁ
773 ty , Yi “yi YY iii “223 V4, }|
ΕἸ “Wb ᾽: Yj Se 0° YL
ω Ly Lid j ἘΞ ἰὰ
E —23-10— ι — 32:0 ---
: | Founoations ἐ τ
} a A
s—- δι ~
SS
ὃ Ξ — 26°10— 4
68
B
+

Wi 5011. WITHIN CIRCUIT WALL.
SSOGVw SOIL ON N.SIDE, WITHOUT.

Fic. 31.—CHAMBERED ΤῸΜΒ ON ORAK ISLAND.

with the drafts down the angles of the building, which are characteristic, in
these parts, of Hellenic work. The tomb itself is of rubble like the more
elaborate chambered tumuli, and is encased in solid masonry like that of the
plinth, on the north and east sides. A small opening, leading nowhere, is
marked near the north end of the east wall. The masonry of the west side
has been almost wholly destroyed, but the return at the northwest corner is
clear. A similar external angle, and return of the wall can be detected in the
east wall (a little below the letter B in the plan), and close beyond this point

the plinth stops abruptly. The obvious inference from this is that the tomb,
T 2

256 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

as originally planned, was oblong in form, and that it was subsequently
extended southwards ; the return of the plinth being destroyed to get a good
junction with the lower part of the old wall. The later part of the east wall
is of different and inferior masonry. The south wall, of which only the lower
courses remain, bonds with it at the angle, but is not laid out square with the
rest of the building ; nor does it agree with the fragmentary walls of the
southwest angle. The latter are square with the original west wall, and quite
clear of the site of the original southwest angle, which has entirely disap-
peared : they are of rough masonry with large cornerstones.

So far all is clear; but there is nothing to explain the fact that the two
internal passages seem to pass the line of the original south wall without
break, and that one of them has a doorway with stone jambs just beyond it.
The masonry of the passages is covered, however, for the most part with thick
stucco, so that we may have missed the signs of junction. The whole of the
southern part, left blank in the drawing, is razed to the ground level of the
passages, if indeed it has ever been filled with rubble at all. No signs were
visible in the passage of chambers in the eastern half of the monument
corresponding with those in the western, nor did the rubble sound hollow
when struck from above. The opening into the southwestern chamber has
been forcibly made through the rubble, endangering the false-arch roof at
this end. At the time of our visit the proper door was blocked, and the
chamber, like the other passages, was used as a goat stable, to our no small
discomfort.

The present proportions and the substantial plinth of the monument
strongly suggest that it must have been originally of much greater height :
in that case it must have contained two, if not more, storeys of passages and
chambers ; and obscure traces of walls on its present surface seem to confirm
this view. It is also not improbable that it may have been finished above, in
native fashion, with a low pyramid of rubble: and if the passages are part of
the original design (which there is no reason to doubt) they must have opened
upon some sort of fagade on the south side.

The only suggestion which we have to make as to the reconstruction of
the south wall, is that its object may have been to provide the older two-
storied building with a more pretentious architectural facade like the portico
of Philo at Eleusis, the rough foundations of which would be completely
concealed when it was finished.

VI. Rock-cut Graves, developing into SARCOPHAGI.

This type, so far as we know, is peculiar to the gneiss area of Mt.
Latmos and its neighbourhood, and its more elaborate form has probably been
suggested by the idea of utilising as monuments the conspicuous natural
boulders which characterise this formation.

* Journ. Roy. Geog. Soc. ix. (January 1897), pp. 45-49, and the figures there.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 257

The simplest tombs of this region are full length graves analogous to those
of the ‘ Lelegian’ neighbourhood (‘Type II.), covered by one or more large
blocks of stone. None have as yet been opened under supervision, though
many are undisturbed, ¢.g. at Baghajik and Teké Kalé; so that their date
remains doubtful. Their general form, however, and their position at the
head of the series, suggest that they correspond in age and meaning with
the ‘ Lelegian’ tombe a fossa which they resemble.

These simple graves are common at Alinda, and occur on other Latmian
sites such as HERAKLEIA, Baghajik, Teké Kalé, Chikur.

The large majority of the rock-cut graves have only a single cap-stone,
which, together with the grave itself, passes through a series of modifications
which can be classified, but unfortunately not dated except jin the latest
instances,

(1) The cap-stone is a simple slab, rectangular and often nearly flat: e.g
an example from HERAKLEIA on the Latmic Gulf.

Fic. 32.—SarRcopHAGUS: KHALKETOR.

(2) The cap-stone is gable-shaped, and variously ornamented : 6.9. one
from the Menteshe valley, near Chikur and the fortified oil press which will
be described hereafter.

(3) The cap-stone is still gable-shaped, but the block of gneiss, in which
the long, narrow, and shallow grave is cut, is itself fashioned into the shape
of a tall box or sarcophagus, intended to be seen above ground, and in some
cases to be approached on one of the longer sides by two or more steps, e.g.
fig. 33, from ALINDA (Demirji Deresf). Many examples of this type are
known. Both at ALINDA and at ALABANDA are numerous plain sarcophagi ;
many of those in the latter necropolis bear the names of slaves inscribed in
late characters!; but it is difficult to believe that these slaves were the original
occupants. Similar tombs are found in the valley of the China Chai
(Marsyas) south of Inje Kemer, standing, as usual, upon isolated ridges, and
far from any ancient site. One specimen, without its cover, stands in the
necropolis of Karyanda, in the hollow between the W. side of Ghiél Bay and
the rock-cut chamber-tombs at Rum-buki.

Later and more elaborate sarcophagi clearly lead to the Hellenistic and

1 E.g. Lebas-Waddington, Nos. 552] ff.: W. R. P. has copied many besides those published
there.

258 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

Graeco-Roman sarcophagus with gable-cover. #.g. near Merikler village in
Mt. Latmos, lower down the Menteshe valley than the Chikir tomb (v. above)
is one with three lozenges cut on the sides. The more elaborate specimen
from Khalketor (fig. 32) appears to be of late date: the ornamentation is
not peculiar to Karia.

A collateral development of these rock-cut graves presents other points
of analogy with the ‘ Lelegian’ series: substitution of a number of slabs for
a single cap-stone recalls the advance, suggested above, from the cist-graves
of Type I. to full-length graves of Type II; and further, the piles of built

X.Y.

Y 7,
Wi
7 t 72 J dope, 3, en LONG. SECTIQNATB +: HH

Fic. 36-37.—Bur1tt Toms: ΤΈΚΕ Katt:

Fic. 34.—Tome From ALINDA: LONGITUDINAL SECTION. FPLAN, AND SECTION.

Fic. 35.—Texké KALE: PYRAMIDAL Toms.

stones which in some cases replace a single cover or cap-stone may be
regarded as the Latmian gneiss-built equivalents of the earliest ‘ Lelegian’
tumuli (Type III.). These pyramidal structures are especially characteristic
of the neighbourhood of Kisir Keui on the north side of Mt. Latmos. The
following examples are typical :—

(4) In the necropolis οἱ ALINDA is a large grave, or small chamber,
without door, cut in the rock, and roofed by two massive blocks of stone.

Two low steps give access to the tomb at the end where the ground slopes
away: fig. 34.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 2E

(5) At Teké Kalé a similar grave is covered with a low pyramid of large
squared blocks forming steps to the top: fig. 35.

(6) On the ridge west of Teké Kalé in Mt. Latmos is a chambered tomb,
partly built, partly cut in the rock, and entered by a door in the south side,

Fic. 38.—Buitt Tomb: ΤΈΚΕ Katt. From a photograph by W. 1... P.

The roof of the chamber is formed by long stones three of which have been
removed. Above the door, three steps lead up to the summit of the monu-
ment, but these steps are not continued along the sides, and at the back the
top of the tomb is level with the rock. This tomb is probably to be regarded

“4
109%;

CUES] ὃς :
ΧΩ)

Fic. 39.—Buitt ΤΟΜΒ: ALINDA. From a photograph by W. R. P.

as an adaptation of the Latmian type to the custom of burial in the
chambered rock tombs of Type VII. See sketch (fig. 38) and plans
(fig. 36-37); and compare a tomb at Iasos (Perrot-Chipiez v. fig. 213.)

260 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

One exceptional tomb at ALINDA is probably to be regarded as an
exaggerated sarcophagus, inasmuch as it has no door, and was intended to be
entered by an opening in the roof. It is in the shape of a small herdon, but
without facade or door, built of fine squared masonry, with an effective cornice
moulding. The entrance on the right side has been made by tomb-robbers :
fig. 39.

VII. Rocx-cut CHAMBER-TOMBS.

A wholly distinct type of burial-usage is represented throughout this
part of Karia by the frequent clamber-tombs cut in the rock. Their forms
do not present any noteworthy variations from the types which are recognised
in other parts of Asia Minor, and notably in Paphlagonia and Lykia. In
Karia there is nothing to show that rock-cut tombs go back to any remote
period, and the majority are later than the fifth century.

Fic. 40.—Rock Toms: YENIJE.

The simplest, and apparently earliest type, consists of a single chamber,
with a boldly cut facade of proto-Ionic or nondescript later Ionic style.

(a2) Our best example is a tomb near the nameless city between Ula and
Yenijé, discovered by W.R. P. The inscription NO under the cyma, in letters
of the fourth century, probably dates the whole tomb sufficiently well. A
photograph and a full description. of this tomb were sent some years ago to
M. Perrot: they are however not included in his history of Karian art, and
he writes that he does not know where they are now.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 261

(8) The tomb figured at the end of Hirschfeld’s Felsengrdber, and
recently reviewed by the Austrian expedition, is in the same neighbourhood.
But it is not so fine as the tomb near Ula.

(y) Another tomb near Yenijé (fig. 40) has a shallow rectangular facade,
with four chambers opening directly on to it. In the centre of the facade
above them is a round Karian shield in low relief, like that on the anta of
the temple at Baghajik (J.H.S. xvi. p. 212, fig. 10). The break in the tym-
panum has been occasioned by the destruction of a large cist or small chamber,
the axis of which lies at right angles to that of the four chambers below: it
appears to have been entirely covered, and to have had no door; but in this
position it can hardly have been intended for a rock-cut grave such as those
which have been described (Type VI.)

(δ) Two similar tombs occur together in the eastern sea-cliff of Sandama
peninsula. The upper one, which is reproduced, from a photograph, in fig. 41,

εἶς "
4 =

ee ad
΄

Fic. 41.—Rock-cur ΤῸΜΒ ΜΊΤΗ PAINTED FAgADE: SANDAMA.

had a portico 8’ 6” high, 8’ 8” wide, and 2’ 8” deep. The doorway was very
low: 2’ 3” high and 2’ 2" wide. The architrave had been supported by two
debased Doric columns, of which only the capitals and bases remain ; it is not
improbable that a good deal of the architectural detail had been originally
executed in plaster, and that the stone projections were only the core; the
proportions, too, suggest Ionic rather than Doric columns.

The chamber within was of the usual form, with a gable roof from front
to back, and two graves sunk in the floor on either side of a central passage
of the same width as the entrance. The dimensions were, length 9’ 0",
breadth 7’ 2”, height 4’ 3” in the gable, 3’ 2” at the side wall; the graves were
of length 6’ 8”, breadth 2’ 1”, depth 2’ 0”.

The back wall of the facade bore at the top under shelter of the portico
the remains of two layers of polychrome fresco painting. The outer coat was

262 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

quite defaced by damp and mould, but on flaking this away we seemed to
make out that the inner layer represented a farewell scene like those of the
Attic grave-reliefs, outlined in brown, and executed in several colours. It
was impossible in so inaccessible a position to make tracings or drawings, but
so far as memory serves, the treatment resembled that of the fresco-painted
stelae discovered at Amathus in Cyprus in 1894.1 The monument therefore
probably dates from not earlier than the end of the fourth or the beginning of
the third century B.c.

(ε) The lower tomb at Sandama had a similar facade but no columns;
the architrave was ornamented with rows of mutules, and the antae
had a simple and debased moulded cornice thus (fig. 42) :—

(¢) A simple tomb of the same type occurs on a farm-site on
the north slope of the south range (map, Pl. XI.), about a mile west of
Assarlik. Here, as we shall have occasion to note again below, the
tomb stands in close relation to the dwelling-house and farm, which
was also in part rock-cut in the same bed of soft volcanic tuff.

(n) A tomb on the north face of the citadel of Assarlik differs from the
preceding only in having a second chamber behind the first.

The later and more elaborate tombs with many secondary chambers
are found more frequently. Two examples near Farelia village are repro-
duced in fig. 43: that on the left shows that the secondary chambers were

Ετα. 42.

β

“

G 7h a oY VY WA εἰ,
ΖΖ ‘UY ALLEN IN:
X REMAINS OF ORIGINAL FRONT WALL, ; Tema ra ’;
2
Bh,

BROKEN THROUGH BELOW. ἝἜ ‘ BLOCKED NOW

Fic, 43.—Rock-cut Tomns: S, oF FARELIA VILLAGE.

added as they were required. Compare the group of tombs on Farelia pro-
montory (J.H.S. xvi. p. 209, fig. 9 = fig. 44), which, like (ζ) above, is cut close
to the foundations of a farm. In the inner part of the right-hand (‘stable’)
tomb, a bucraniwm is carved high on the anta between two of the cells.

At Almajik is a subterranean chamber-tomb (fig. 45) which consists
of a small rectangular chamber, 3°45 m. long, 1°40 τη. broad, and 2.65 m. high
internally, with a doorway in the middle of one of the long sides. It is lined
with fine squared masonry, 0°60 m. to 0°45 in thickness; and the roof, which
is composed of four slabs 0°45 τὴ, thick, is supported by three transverse

1 British Museum ; Turner Bequest: unpublished: at present in the First Vase Room.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 263

beams of stone 0°40 τὰ, wide and 0°50 τὰ, deep, At each end of the tomb is a
transverse bench of stone, 0°70 m. wide, 0°25 τὰ, thick, and 0°80 πὶ. from the
ground level.

/ i, UY, Whi ae A wy
“2222 7 7 4 4 YY
ELEVATION A—B. WI Mu
: Lp Hy ζ..... “27, tit 7
“-: | σ» Bs oY 225,

»9ξΞιὶ Ye

Hove , ROOF FALLEN IN Y
τ

Ye AS FAR ASab.
J " 7...

3 ΕΣ), 7 2 ὕ

OPEN CourTvARD: 7 APPROXIMATE RELATIVE POSITIONS,

ROOF FALLEN IN AS FLOOR-LEVEL OF HOUSE ABOUT TEN
FARAS a.b. £7 Ft BELOW THAT OF STABLE.

Fig. 44 (= Fic. 9).—Rock-cur Tombs, usrp As Hovsk AND STABLE: FARELIA,

The doorway in the side is a feature which connects this tomb with the
chambered tumuli, but the benches suggest analogies with the rgck-cut tombs.

LAL

5Ξ AA
@W VERTICAL SECTION'AT A.B WA, ° in PLAN
4

: | a ee Ἢ

Fic. 45.—Rock-cut ToMB, LINED WITH MASONRY: ALMAJIK: PLAN AND SECTION,

There is no trace of any encircling wall, or former accumulation of rubble.
The monument may have served as a herdon or chapel, as well as a burial-
place.

264 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

At Kyon, in the necropolis, is a somewhat similar tomb with two
chambers, and rests on which to place the bodies. This seems also to be
imitated from a wooden structure: of which similar reminiscences occur in
subterranean chamber-tombs in Cyprus at Ag. Jannis tis Malluntas, at Tamas-
sos, and in Old Larnaka.!

ADDENDUM.

The following conclusions seem to be warranted, in the present state of
the evidence, as to the early civilisation of this part of the Karian coast ;
though of course the first opportunity of excavation may bring unexpected
evidence and put the whole problem in a very different light.

I. Pre-Mykenaean Καγία.

Diligent search throughout the peninsula of Myndos produced only two
fragments of pottery which can be described as pre-Mykenaean in character.
They were both found at a small fort of quite uncertain date on the hill A
above Kadi Kalé, and are of the local mud of the Akcherenda river. One
formed part of the rim of a large handmade bowl, with holes pierced in the
edge to hold a suspending cord: the other is a massive handle of a vessel like
the large globular bottles of the earliest ‘ redware’ of the Cypriote Bronze
Age, and was attached to the body of the vessel in the same peculiar manner,
being thrust through a hole in the side of the vessel, and made smooth with
wet clay at the junction outside. With the exception of these fragments, and
of the Assarlik tomb group which is discussed below, all the pottery on the
sites which we have examined is of the same general character, and nothing
can be dated earlier than the sixth or perhaps the seventh century.

The cist-graves of Assarlik, however, bear a strong resemblance to those
of the Cycladic civilisation in Amorgos, Syra, and elsewhere; the only
difference being in the massive capstones of the Karian cists, which may well
be a local modification due largely to the difference of the materials. For
the massive capstones, like the rock-cut sarcophagi described above (pp. 256 ff.),
are so far as we know confined to an area of metamorphic rocks. If this
comparison is valid, there would be reason to infer a community at all events
of funeral custom—and this means much—between the representatives of
tlie earliest civilisation in the Cyclades, and the early inhabitants of this part
of Karia.

Il. Karia under Mykenacan Influence.

If we remember that all the islands within sight of the Karian coast,
from Samos to Rhodes, have, we believe without exception, furnished traces, in
many cases abundant, of Mykenaean occupation, it is certainly remarkable

1 Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter, Cyprus Ohnefalsch-Richter, Jowrn. R. Inst. Brit.
Museum Catalogue (Oxford, 1897), pp. 2, 6. Architects, Third Ser. Vol. iii. p. 109-118,

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 265

that no evidence has been discovered hitherto of any Mykenaean settlement
on this part of the mainland. And it must be presumed that there existed
some definite opposition, probably racial, to the entrance of so contagious a
civilisation. Only in the chambered tumuli of Assarlik*! do we find any
indication of Mykenaean influence, and here the pottery, the fibulae, and the
goldwork alike point not to the best period of Mykenaean civilisation, but to
the sub-Mykenaean and quasi-geometrical decadence which ‘is illustrated by
finds such as those from Paphos,” Lapathos, and other early Graeco-Phoenician
sites in Cyprus; from Crete; and from the Aegean Salamis. The occurrence
of isolated examples of genuine Mykenaean fabric at Mylasa® or at the
Lykian Telmessos* proves very little in the absence of evidence as to the
local fabrics found with them: the necropolis of 7changli near the Panionion
is in the same category as that of Assarlik®; and that of Jdrias (STRATONI-
KEIA) ® is even more definitely post-Mykenaean and geometrical.

The evidence of the pottery is confirmed by the obvious comparison of
the chambered tumuli of Karia with the ‘ Beehive’ tombs of the Mykenaean
world. For the tumuli with convergent chamber walls, and radial secondary
chambers might well be compared in construction and in dimensions, with the
Mykenaean ‘ Treasuries’ of Atreus and Minyas. But in Karia these chambers
are always above ground, even the hill-side example at Geresi constituting no
real exception; and, as has been described, they are usually found associated
with, and seem to develop out of, simple chambered tumuli. But the Assarlik
tomb groups show that this simpler form is itself of sub-Mykenaean date, and
we have seen that hitherto at all events, purely Mykenaean tombs are
unknown in Karia. The probability is, therefore, that any Mykenaean
analogies which are recognised, must be regarded as adaptations of a late
stage of Mykenaean civilisation to the needs of the inferior, but now at last
receptive, civilisation of the mainland.’

The theory, therefore, formerly proposed by Drs. Koehler and Diimmler,
that Mykenaean civilisation originates in Karia, and represents the Karian
thalassocracy of Hellenic tradition, would seem to interpret such a series as
that at Assarlik in exactly the wrong direction. Karia was, in fact, so far
from spreading the Mykenaean civilisation among the islands, in Crete, or in
Greece, that it only felt its influence towards the close of the period, and,
like Cyprus, retained and adapted it when it was already becoming extinct in
the Aegean. Thus Dr. Winter may well be right in attributing the
necropolis of Tchangli to the first Greek colonists of Ionia.

1 J.H.S. viii. 67 ff.

2 Kuklia: from Cyprus Expl. Fund excava-
tions: J.H.S. ix. p.14. Cyprus Museum Cata-
logue, p. 174, ef. specimens in Brit. Mus. C 112.
Ashm. Mus. Cyp. 501-2.

3 Smyrna Museum: publ. by Dr. Winter,
Mitth, Ath. xii. p. 230.

4 Brit. Mus. A 288-290, cf. Winter, 1.6.
p. 230.

5 Winter, 1.6. p. 226-7. Perrot-Chipiez v.
fig. 226, 227, 229, 280.

6 Winter, lc. p. 226. Verrot-Chipiez v.
fig. 231-3. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI.
excy.

7 We shall see below p. 270, how an analo-
gous adaptation of Hellenic canons converted the
same type of chambered tumulus into the
Mausoleum.

266 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

Further, a very similar series may be traced elsewhere ; for the closely
analogous! chambered tumuli of the Hermos valley and the neighbourhood
of Old Smyrna, which are similarly grouped in great necropoleis, and develop
into even greater magnificence, are likewise associated with a class of
pottery—unfortunately now rare and fragmentary,—which can only be
explained as a late imitation of, and survival from, decadent Mykenaean
forms ; while the chambered tumuli themselves admit, though less clearly, of
a similar affiliation. The unique find of Lydian jewellery? also shows
Mykenaean survivals, though it belongs to a period when Orientalising
motives are beginning to be appreciated.

It is also worth while to emphasize, what has been already hinted in our
nomenclature of the types of tombs, that the series of burial-forms in Karia
presents close analogies with that of Central Italy. The cist graves seem to
represent tombe a pozzo,> the full-length graves tombe a fossa, and the simple
chambered tumuli the tombe a camera which in Italy also are probably rightly
attributed by Dr. Montelius to the far-reaching influence of Mykenaean
civilisation ; a conclusion which is amply borne out by the characteristic
features of their contents.

Like the Lydian tumuli, which are apparently confined to the coast
round Old Smyrna, and to the lower half of the valley of the Hermos, the
Karian tumuli are not found far inland. They are wholly confined within
a line drawn from Miletos to Keramos; they become more frequent, charac-
teristic and magnificent as they approach the peninsula of Myndos ; and
further, so far as we know, it is only at Assarlik that they are associated with the
cist graves, with the larger types of which they seem on one side to be closely
related. All this looks as if these tumuli had originated in the peninsula,
and had spread, perhaps with their builders, from this centre eastwards.
And we have seen already that the evidence suggests that the domed
chamber was derived, along with the sub-Mykenaean art of Assarlik, from the
Mykenaean art of the Aegean ; while the cist graves find their closest parallel
in the pre-Mykenaean cists of the Cyclades.

Til. The Karian Thalassocracy.

One of the strongest arguments against the ‘Karian Theory’ has
always been that whereas there is no distinct Hellenic tradition of a great
expansive movement originating in Karia, there are abundant legends which
represent the Karian and Lykian coast as the refuge of decadent and
retreating peoples whom ‘ Minos,’ the figurehead of the Mykenaean thalasso-

1 The principal feature of difference is that p. 129, Pl. V. (Dumont) = Perrot-Chipiez v
the Lydian tumuli usually have one or more ἢρ. 203-8. Lydian Pottery, Perrot-Chipiez v.
stelae on the summit, which are never present fig. 194-201.
on Karian tumuli. * This comparison has already been made by

* Louvre, Salle des Origines: B.C.H. 1879, Dr. Winter, Mitth. Ath. xii. p. 227.

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 267

cracy, gradually expelled from Crete and the Cyclades. Of these retreating
peoples, the Leleges are represented throughout as typical; and we shall
see that the one part of the Karian coast—in fact the one known region at
all—which remained typically Lelegian in historic times was the peninsula of
Myndos with the adjacent mainland. It is not improbable that ‘ Karian’ in
the legends may be used rather as a descriptive geographical term than as an
ethnic ; and therefore that Karian in many of these legends really means
Lelegian, especially in view of the evidence that the element of the mixed
population of Karia which was politically predominant in historic times
arrived, as in Lydia, comparatively late, and probably in the sub-Mykenaean
period; preceding only by a little the irruption of Phrygian and Thracian
tribes from beyond the Hellespont, which was still in progress in the VIIIth
and VIIth centuries. It is to this race, and to this period, that the ‘ Karian
Thalassocracy’ of Greek tradition is to be referred. The ‘ Karian Thalasso-
eracy’ is never called Lelegian ; it succeeds the Mykenaean, and unites with
early Ionian—that is Lydian coastland—enterprise in the Levant in the
VIlIth century ; and it disappears in the later VIth century; though in the
Persian Wars, especially in the Jonian revolt, and in the Delian League,
Karia and especially that part with which we are concerned, played a part
more considerable than Greek historians were willing to allow; but it leaves
characteristic relics, in the proverbial import of the word Kap, and in the
hoplite armour of crested helmet, round parrying-shield, borne on the arm by
κανόνες, and quilted or metallic breastplate, which Hellas borrowed from
Karia to replace the Mykenaean body-shield, and helmet of dogskin or
boar-tusks.

At this point, comment may be permitted on the record by Thucydides of
the discovery of ‘Karian’ tombs in Delos. The importance of this passage
has been much exaggerated, for Thucydides has placed himself in an archaeo-
logical dilemma. Either (a) he means to compare the arms found in Delos
with the arms of pre-Minoan, (that is pre-Mykenaean) Karia; in which case
it is a fair question; ‘How did Thucydides know what the arms of that
remote period were like ?’; or (8) to compare them with the ‘ Karian’ armour
of the VIth and Vth century ; in which case, what is proved, about either Delos
or Karia, for any other period? The discovery of cist graves in the peninsula
of Myndos makes it just possible that Thucydides may have anticipated our
comparison of these with the Cycladic cists; but Cycladic weapons are incon-
spicuous, and none have been found as yet at Assarlik ; and we are strongly
inclined to believe that Thucydides was describing VIIth-VIth century
tombs containing ‘ Karian’ hoplite armour of the type noted by Herodotus.

IV. Lelegian Remains.

To the period of the ‘ Karian Thalassocracy’ we refer the numerous fort
resses and walled towns of rude masonry, and the great necropoleis which we
have already described. But it is a further question whether they may

268 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

accurately be described as Karian. For it is most noteworthy that the area
over which these, and, in particular, the chambered tumuli, occur, coincides
very closely with that of the historic Lelegia; and that this observation seems
to have been made already in antiquity, and possibly even before the final
extinction of the Leleges.

Strabo! gives a full and circumstantial account, evidently from a well-
informed local authority, of the historical Leleges of the Karian coast-land.
He says that they are to be clearly distinguished from the true Karians, and
that after a Homeric defeat by Achilles they had left an earlier settlement in
Aeolis—namely the Pedasa, on the Satnioeis? river—, had migrated to Karia,
and had occupied the neighbourhood of what is now called Halikarnassos. This
country was still called Pedasis, and inland of Halikarnassos was the deserted
Lelegian town of Pedasa. We have collected evidence already to show that
this Pedasa is not the town at Karaja Hissar, which is expressly mentioned by
Strabo, in the same passage, as a distinct town in the neighbourhood of
Stratonikeia; and that the only site which suits the Halikarnassian Pedasa is
Ghiuk Chalar, only a few miles immediately inland of Budrum.2 Strabo adds
that here the Leleges became very numerous in early times, founded eight
towns in Pedasis, and spread over Karia ‘as far as Myndos and Bargylia’ ;
and that they also held part of Pisidia. This can only mean that they
occupied the whole of the peninsula of Myndos, and spread eastward as far as
the Kar-Ova; for Strabo goes on to say that when Mausdlos incorporated six
of the eight towns in his new foundation of Halikarnassos he preserved
Myndos and Syangela (Theangela) : Theangela therefore was one of the eight
towns of the Pedasis; and the Pedasis was still a recognised division of Karia
in the fourth century B.c. The immediate mention of the Stratonikeian
Pedason shows that Strabo regarded the town at Karaja Hissar also as at all
events presumably Lelegian; and he concludes with the statement that ‘all
over Karia, and in [ the territory of | Miletos there are shown Lelegian tombs,
forts, and traces of settlements’ (xu. p. 611). The last statement he repeats
almost verbally, in the parallel passage (vil. p. 321).

Strabo’s evidence then, amounts to this, (1) that certain monuments, all
over Karia, were ascribed to Lelegian builders; (2) that the Leleges were
believed to have formerly extended over a large part of the Karian coast; (3)
that they originally invaded, and still occupied the peninsula of Myndos and
the mainland immediately adjacent to the eastward; (4) that they were of
distinct race from the Karians, and were already settled there when the
Karians entered Karia. These four points may be reviewed somewhat in
detail. :

(1) The monuments which Strabo regards as typically Lelegian, doubt-
less from their apparent likeness to the remains which were characteristic of
Lelegia itself, are ‘tombs, forts, and traces of settlements.’ Now these three
classes of remains are actually characteristic of the early civilisation which we

1 xiii, p. 611. Cf. vii. p. 321.; 3 J.H.S, xvi, p. 192-4.
2 vii, p. 821,

KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS. 269

have attempted to explore and describe. Nearly all the summits and ridges
in the peninsula of Myndos are occupied by conspicuous tombs, fortified
enclosures, or foundations of houses, grouped or isolated. All the remains
which we have seen are marked upon the map of the peninsula (Pl. XI); and
it will be seen that though they are rare on the hills immediately round
Myndos, they become more frequent eastwards; but that beyond the isthmus
they become rarer again, and that the easternmost examples are the τάφοι of
Pirnari Yaila near Keramos! and on the road thence to the PEDASON of
Karaja Hissar; the ἐρύματα of Ishek Diré and Khalketor; and the ἔχνη
κατοικιῶν on the Monastir Dagh and the hill above Agachli Oyuk (Pl. X.).

(2) From the passages in question, it is clear that the Leleges played in
Karian archaeology the part of the ‘Druids’ or ‘ancient Britons’ among
ourselves, and were made responsible for any unexplained monument ;
whether of a type which was found in the habitat of the historical Leleges,
or not. We should hardly be justified therefore in pressing Strabo’s words
with regard to any particular monument in the Milesian territory, or in any
other part of Karia, unless it conformed to a type characteristic of Lelegia
itself. But it is worth noting, that in the Milesian territory, which Strabo
expressly mentions in both passages, one chambered tumulus has been
already found, and a large number of stoneheaps (ἀρμακάδες), which are
outwardly indistinguishable from the smaller tumuli of Ghiuk Chalar and
its neighbourhood. And in confirmation of Strabo’s statement we may quote
the epithet AeXeynis, applied to Miletos by Stephanos, and probably known
to him from a lost epic source; and Plutarch’s story of the outcast Leleges at
Tralles.2 In fact, the local antiquary, whom Strabo follows, was probably
not far wrong: for early tradition, and ancient and modern research, agree in
asserting an early extension of the Lelegian race beyond their boundaries in
historic times.

(3) Strabo’s statement that the real home of the Leleges was the
Pedasis near Halikarnassos, and the surrounding country, is supported by
other passages, which we have already discussed in connection with the site
of Pedasa.2 It needs only to be added, that this was the only part of Karia
which resisted the invasions of Harpagos* and Daurises,> and pursued a
distinct and coherent policy of its own; and that whereas the Karians needed
strong Milesian encouragement even to risk a second battle, the inhabitants
of ‘ Pedasa’ carried on guerilla warfare long after, and with apparent success ;
which indicates that the frontier-line, from Bargylia approximately to
Keramos, was still of something more than merely political or military
value at the time of the Ionic Revolt.

(4) All this tends to confirm Strabo’s ethnological distinction between

1 J.H.S. xvi. p. 191. v. 119-121, vi. 20. Livy xxxiii. 30. Pliny,
2 Plut. 2, Gr. 46. Stephan. s. vv. Nivdén N.H. v. 29.

and Μεγαλήπολις knows also of Leleges at 4 Hdt. i. 129.

Aphrodisias in central Karia. 5 Hdt. v. 119-121.

3 J.H.S. xvi. p. 192-4: namely Hdt. i. 129,
H.S.—VOL. XVI. U

270 KARIAN SITES AND INSCRIPTIONS.

the Karians and the Leleges. Two other facts only need be added under
this head.

One is, that Philip of Theangela? in the third century, himself a native
of Lelegia, speaks of the Lelegians of his time as serfs of the Karians. This
serfdom may of course only date from the ξυνοικισμὸς of Mausilos ; but
more probably comes down from the original entry of the Karians into the
country. Plutarch’s account of Lelegian outcasts at Tralles? confirms the
view that they represent a conquered remnant. The other is, that to the
worship of Zeus Karios at Mylasa, the central principality of historic Karia,
Lydians and Mysians were admitted, according to Herodotus,? as being
brothers to the Karians: but, Herodotus adds, ὅσοι δὲ ἐόντες ἄλλου
ἔθνεος ὁμόγλωσσοι τοῖσι Καρσὶ ἐγένον το, τούτοισι δὲ οὐ μέτα : which
can hardly refer to any race but the Leleges, regarded as occupying in Karia
an analogous position to that of the Pelasgi (and other ‘ Leleges’) in Hellas.
Plutarch’s aetiological account of Zeus Karios and his axe-emblem, is of
value here to confirm the presumption of kinship between the Lydians and
the true Karians. We conclude therefore, that the tumuli and associated
sites and monuments represent the civilisation of the Leleges; that the
correspondence between its earlier stages, and the Cycladic and Mykenaean
civilisations respectively, confirms the tradition that they were originally
spread over parts of the Aegean, and were driven in upon the Karian coast
by the ‘ Minoan’ thalassocracy ; and that their further reduction within the
narrow limits of the historical Lelegia was due to the coastward aggression
of the Lydo-Karian stock, which when it reached the sea, fraternised with
the earlier Hellenic settlers and established the Karian thalassocracy of the
Villth and Viith centuries.

V. The Mausoleum and the ‘Chambered Tumuli,’

One further point in regard to Mausodlos refers more immediately to the
chambered tumuli from which we started. In‘all the reconstructions of the
Mausoleum which have been attempted, the following have been fixed
points :—

(1) That the building consisted of a lofty chamber,

(2) That this chamber stood on or in a high plinth with projecting
cornice,

(3) That it was surrounded by a portico with another projecting cornice,

(4) That above the cornice was a pyramidal roof,

(5) That the chamber within the pyramid was roofed with a ‘ false
arch,’

(6) That the staircase, if there was one, went up in the thickness of the
wall.

1 Quoted by Athenaeus, 271b. ds 5b A
2 2, Gr. 46. *'Cf, Hdt. 1°57:

KARIAN SITES AND TNSCRIPTIONS. 271

But it has not been pointed out, that, stripped of its purely Hellenic
peristyle, and of the rectangular form which this feature, and the felt
analogies of temple architecture demanded, the Mausoleum, thus reduced to
its elements, is nothing but a glorified example of the indigenous ‘ chambered
tumulus.’

Allowing for the difference of scale and of ground-plan, for the effect
of Hellenic canons of proportion, and in particular for the substitution of
a pyramid of isodomous masonry for a mere heap of loose rubble, it will
be seen that every characteristic feature of the Mausoleum finds its exact
homologue in one or other of our ‘chambered tumuli.’

And nothing is more natural, than that the founder of a new, and
mainly Lelegian, state should go to Lelegian ritual and architecture for the
model of the chief monument of the dynasty; especially if, as is quite
possible, this mode of burial was already traditional in his own family; which
came from Kindya, (Cholmekji Kalé), where chambered tumuli are already
known to exist.

W. R. PaToN.
J. L. Myres.

Erratum.—In our previous paper, the inscription No. 18 (07.7.5. xvi.
225), which is wrongly described there as copied at Teichioussa (Kara-Koyun),
is really W. R. P.’s copy of the inscription No. 358 from Amyzon (p. 233),
which latter, as is stated there, represents Mr. Szanto’s copy. J. L. M.’s note
(pp. 233-4) on the discrepancies between No. 18 and No. 35 was written in
the belief that the transcript labelled Teichioussa represented a different
stone.

u 2

272 A SCARAB FROM CYPRUS.

A SCARAB FROM CYPRUS.

Mr. HoGarrH in his Devia Cypria, page 9, describes a scarab found near
Chrysochou, as follows :—

‘It is beautifully engraved with a group of Heracles, armed with bow,
quiver and skin, wrestling with a lion, while behind him stands a draped
female figure, without any distinguishing attributes. Over the group are cut
the following characters :

| SIKY Buy

Δ... Διξειθέμεξος, genitive of the name Δεβεέθεμις, which occurs in the
twenty-first line of the bronze tablet of Dali (Sammlung der gricch. dialekt-
Inschr. i. p. 28). 1 was unable to take an impression of the scarab, or to
examine it satisfactorily; but I should judge the lettering to be of the
fourth century B.c.’

This scarab is now in my possession, and I can, therefore, study it more
attentively than Mr. Hogarth did when this precious monument was in the
hands of its former owner.

As can be seen from the drawing annexed the figures on the scarab do
not allude to the struggle of Heracles with the Nemean Lion, but to the
struggle of Theseus with the Cretan Minotaur. The latter can be at once

recognized from his monstrous features, from his having the body of a man
and the head of a bull, just as Pasiphaé’s son is represented in Greek archaic
art. I need hardly add that on no monument is seen a woman in the
struggle of Heracles with the Nemean lion; on the contrary the presence
of a woman, Ariadne, in the struggle of Theseus with the Minotaur, is a
most natural fact of which the monuments of the Theseus myth furnish more
than one example.

A SCARAB FROM CYPRUS. 273

Mr. Hogarth’s oversight is due, I think, to the peculiar way in which the
Athenian hero is represented on this scarab. If Theseus kills the Minotaur
with the sword, as tradition says, he bears on his back the bow and quiver
as Heracles does : and he has, moreover, a beard, like Heracles.

Thus we have before us a scene of the Theseus legend in which he is
represented in the same way as we are accustomed to see Heracles: what
can we infer from this? The Cypriote inscription does not suffice by itself
to solve the question ; for a Greek artist could very easily execute this work
in his own manner, and engrave afterwards in Cypriote characters the name
of the owner.

To whose hand are we then to attribute this intaglio? To the hand of
_a Cypriote? Perhaps the artist was a Phoenician settled in Cyprus. Take,
for instance, Theseus’ head, and the way in which the hair and head-band
are treated: this head is altogether the same as those on truly Phoenician
monuments: the bearded head is thus represented in a mode which the
Phoenicians took from Egypt.

If again we examine Ariadne we may also come to the conclusion that
we have to do with a Cypriote or Phoenician artist. One might think that
the engraver had in view the type of a woman or a goddess withdrawing her
veil, a type so often reproduced on Greek archaic monuments. But the artist
did not well understand the movement of the hand, nor could he reproduce
this movement in the same way as a Greek artist; nor does Ariadne’s hand
seem to withdraw the veil, but to hold a short staff, the top of which touches
the upper part of her head.

One may, therefore, observe a double influence in the cutting of this
intaglio: the imitation of objects familiar to Greek archaism, and the habits
of Phoenician style on a work on which the artist seems to copy a repre-
sentation borrowed from Hellenic art.

But the interest of this precious monument does not lie in its repre-
sentation only.

As to the inscription I may say that AvFed@eyss is a name well known in
Cypriote epigraphy, not only from the Dali Bronze Tablet, but also from an
inscription on a silver vessel found amongst the treasures of Kurium, and
published by Mr. Hall. This latter inscription runs as follows :—

ti-ve-t-te-mi-to- se
e-mt-to-pa-si-le-vo-se-to...
Διξειθέμιδος ἐμὶ τῶ Βασιλῆος τῶ. ..
It is, therefore, most likely that this scarab is ἃ royal seal, and belonged
to the same king, Διβείθεμις, who dedicated the vessel in question to the

Temple at Kurium.
G. D. PIERIDES.

[Note—It is only fair to Mr. Hogarth to say that when he saw the
scarab it was attached to its owner’s watch-chain, and he was not allowed

274 A SCARAB FROM CYPRUS.

even to hold it in his hand. Mr. Hogarth believes that the correction has
been already made by Dr. Ohnefalsch-Richter, but owing to absence from
England is unable to give us the exact reference.

For similar types of Theseus and the Minotaur see Furtwiingler, A.Z.
1884, p. 108 (PI. viii. 2: gold-relief from Corinth) and C. H. Smith, J. HLS.
xiv. 210 {Polledrara hydria).—EbD. |

PL. ΧΙ];

H. S., VOL. XVI. (1896),

J

OXFORD.

COLLEGE,

TRIPOD AT ALL SOULS’

A» QOSAT

AJA

IL—A STONE TRIPOD AT OXFORD. 275

J—A STONE TRIPOD AT OXFORD.
[PLATE XIT.]

THE tripod represented in Pl. XIT. and in Fig. 1 is 264 inches (m. 0° 66)
in height ; the diameter is at the bottom 214 inches (m. 0°54) and at the top

Fig. 1.—Tripop AT OxForp.

14 inches (m. 0°36). The material is limestone of a kind common in most
parts of Greece, especially the Peloponnesus,

276 I.—A STONE TRIPOD AT OXFORD.

The tripod was presented to All Souls’ College in 1771 by Anthony Lefroy.
The stand bears an inscription recording the gift, which contains a curious
phrase in which the tripod is spoken of as ‘aram tripodem olim matri deum
in templo S. Corinthi consecratum.’ I know not what the 8 before Corinthi
may stand for. But the important thing is that the monument comes from
Corinth. This is again asserted in the lettering of a print of it published by
Gori in the Numismata Lefroyana, and repeated in a Magazine called The
Topographer (November, 1789, p. 514), where Gori writes ‘'Trovato a Corinto.’
It may be doubted whether Lefroy had any solid reason for supposing that the
tripod came from a temple of the Mother of the Gods. Such a temple did
exist at Corinth on the slope of the Acropolis Hill, as we learn from
Pausanias.!_ But, so far as I know, no remains of that temple have been
observed in modern times. It can scarcely be regarded as likely that Lefroy
had any reason to suppose that the tripod came from the actual site of that
temple: it is far more probable that the figures of women standing on lions
were to him a sufficient proof that the monument came from the temple of
the Mother of the Gods which is mentioned by Pausanias.

Professor Michaelis, when at Oxford, saw this tripod, and has described it
at p. 592 of his admirable work Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, That he
did not fully appreciate its interest and importance may be explained in part
by the extreme haste with which he was compelled to catalogue the Oxford
marbles, and in part by the want of parallels, which have only since come to
light.

I must describe the tripod in some detail. On a round pedestal with
three feet recline three lions, on each of which stands a female figure clad in
a long chiton girt at the waist, and wearing on the head a kind of stephane,
and over that a round crown or polos. Each grasps in one hand the tail of
the lion whereon she stands, with the other apparently raises her dress. On
the heads of the three women rests a basis, supported also by a central column,
in the form of an hour glass, with torus in the midst. The basis has in the
midst of its upper surface a hole, circular, but with an enlargement at one
side, a hole 1} inches deep, and 64 inches in diameter. It seems evident that
into this hole fitted the stem of a large circular basin. This basin was in
fact turned round in the hole until part of the upper surface of the support
was worn smooth: it was then fixed in its place by lead poured through the
enlargement just mentioned. The heat of the lead has broken the stone at
that point (see Fig. 1).

In the opinion of Gori our tripod was unique. Of late years however,
fragments of two or three bases of somewhat similar character have been
found.

First there is the basis of blue Laconian marble from Olympia, re-
constructed with great skill and talent by Dr. Treu* on the evidence of
a well known small female figure and a fragment of a lion. We reproduce

————— Oe

Pin as g; 2 Olympia, iii. p. 26.

I.—A STONE TRIPOD AT OXFORD. 277

his figure (Fig. 2). Its likeness in all essential features to our monument is
remarkable. Only in one or two points does the new material which we have
to submit suggest emendations on Dr. Treu’s reconstruction, First it seems
probable that the lowest support did not rest upon the ground all round,
but was worked into tripod form (see our Fig. 1)... Secondly Dr. Treu seems
not to be justified in accepting Prof, Furtwiingler’s suggestion that the objects

Fic. 2.—Trirop AT OLYMPIA,

in the ladies’ hands.are merely parts of their dress. The left hand of each
figure does appear to grasp the dress, but the right hand holds in each ease
the tail of the lion on which the figure stands.?

Dr. Treu cites other female figures of closely similar character, which

1 In a private letter Dr. Treu informs me
that he has now no doubt that the basis of the
Olympian tripod was not continuous. He
writes, *Insbesondre scheint es mir sicher, dass
der untere Ring sich, wie bei Ihrem Exemplar,
auf drei Fiisse stiitzte. Selbst die Hohe der
Fiisse ist durch die Linie gegeben, welche
aussen in der Mitte des Ringes entlang liauft,

und die nun erst ihre Erklirung findet.’

* Earlier, they had been called snakes,
whence the figure passed as one of the En-
menides. The objects in the right hands end
in a tuft: those in the- left hands do not.
Dr. Treu says that he did for a moment
think of the lion’s tail, 1.6. p. 28. note.

278 1.—A STONE TRIPOD AT OXFORD.

have come to light in the excavations at Olympia and in the Ptoion in
Boeotia.! In all probability these belonged to similar vessels.

We may also compare some basins now preserved in the Central Museum
at Athens, made of Naxian marble”: these appear to have had as supports
six female figures standing back to back in a circle: but here the lions are
absent. ;

All these monuments, basins resting on a stand adorned with human
figures, were no doubt connected with the service of the gods, perhaps as
περιρραντήρια or vessels to hold the water for purification. Dr. Treu thinks
the specimen from Olympia to have stood in the line of the Treasuries. The
Athenian specimens were inscribed with inscriptions probably dedicating
them to Athena. Larger vessels of a similar character are mentioned in
ancient literature. Herodotus 3 tells of a great bronze crater dedicated by
Colaeus and the Samians to Hera, which rested on kneeling figures of
bronze. And Pausanias* speaks of three tripods dedicated at Amyclae, of
which the first two were supported by bronze figures of Aphrodite and
Artemis by Gitiadas, and the third by a figure of Cora by Callon of Aegina.
A tripod of not dissimilar character, but of freer style and later date, has
been found at Delphi. M. Homolle thus describes it.° ‘Trois figures de
femmes, qui dansent en se tenant la main autour d’une colonne en forme de
tige de plante: elles portent la robe courte et flottante, le polus évasé en
calice et orné de feuilles pointues qu’on voit sur la téte des danseuses de
Gioelbaschi. Il semble que ce fit la base d’un tripied.’ M. Homolle does
not assign a date to this work, but it would seem to be late.

Conjectures in such matters are risky. But it naturally occurs to one
that this disposition of three figures as supports of a tripod may lie near the
origin of many things in Greek art; for example of the threefold represen-
tation of Hecate, which is said to have been an invention of Alcamenes;
perhaps of the Graces and other groups.

In the inferior material of terra-cotta we can find several tripod-basins
which may be compared with our example. Perhaps the most striking of
these is among the Etruscan vases of the Louvre. It is thus described by
M. Pottier ® ‘coupe ἃ pied, supportée par quatre femmes formant caryatides ;
style du VI¢ siécle” M. Pottier suggests that this vase may be Rhodian by
origin. In any case many imitations of the type in Etruscan bucchero nero
_are known; one is figured in Richter’s Kypros.’ The supporting figures are
quite flat and pressed in a mould. Among Cyprian remains we find small
stone basins supported by an animal, or a winged female figure.®

It was quite natural for Gori and Lefroy to suppose that the tripod of

1 Figured in Collignon, Hist. Sculp. Gr. i. 168, no. 396a, Mr. J. L. Myres, to whom I

123. owe this reference, informs me that the figures
2 Athen. Mittheil. xvii. p. 41, pl. 7. are draped, and hold their hands to their breasts
+ iv. 152. ᾿ in the conventional pose.
ATS; 7 Pl. exxxiv. 1: one winged figure and two
> Bull. de Corresp. hell. 1894, p. 180. plain supports.

8 Pottier, Vases Antiques de terre cwile, p. 8 Eg. Richter, pl. exxxiv. 2.

I.—A STONE TRIPOD AT OXFORD. 279

Oxford belonged to the service of the Mother of the Gods, Cybele. The
female figure standing on a lion, and holding his tail, must be derived from
an Asiatic prototype which figured a goddess of the Cybele class. On
Egyptian monuments the Syrian goddess Qadesh, a form of Anaitis, is
represented as standing on a lion, passant... And on the cylinders of
Babylon, and the wall sculptures of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia it is not
unusual to find deities standing on various beasts and fabulous monsters.”
But this scheme is not adopted in Greece, and the lion is rather held in the
hand of the deity, or walking beside him, than serving as a support to his
feet. So the winged Artemis or πότνια θηρῶν of Greece retains traces of
oriental origin in the animals she masters ; but she does not stand on them.
On the other hand animals as architectural supports to pillars are known
even in the Christian architecture of the Levant.

There was a Metroon at Olympia near the spot where Dr. Treu’s tripod
was found. And there was a Metroon at Corinth, from which our tripod may
have come. But I am disposed to think that serious mythologic meaning
has passed from these figures standing on lions, and that they have become
merely architectonic in character. There are three such figures together,
and they are used for the not very dignified purpose of supporting a basin,
so that no real notions of cultus can have attached to them. Thus it seems
quite likely that our tripod may have belonged to the service of any of the
gods, not of Cybele only.

The comparison of the Oxford tripod with that from Olympia is most
instructive. The form, the use, the character, even the scale of the two
vessels is the same. Evidently they are specimens of a kind of monument
common in antiquity, though now rare, and of a fixed definite type. Only in
style and in period do the vessels differ. And in order to determine the date
of the Oxford tripod we must examine it somewhat closely.

The work is certainly not finished or careful: some parts, such as the
paws of the lions, are merely blocked out in the stone. And the whole surface
has greatly suffered from exposure to weather. The style is late archaic
or archaizing. The characteristics of archaic art are preserved, but in the
treatment some freedom is visible. The hair of the women falls in a long
mane over their backs, and in four long curls on their shoulders, The ear
is high, almost on a level with the eye. The drapery falls stiffly, but not as
in the Olympia figure in a solid mass: two long perpendicular folds run from
the waist-band to the feet, and horizontal folds are visible over the breast, as
well as below the waist. The arms are not detached from the sides. The
hair of the lions is rendered in detached irregular locks. The pillar in the
midst is in a form which can be traced downwards from the Mycenaean age,
and occurs in early tripods of bucchero nero of Etruria.® It is decidedly
early in type.

1 Perrot et Chipiez, i. p. 713. deity standing on a horned lion.

2 Ibid, ii. pp. 643, 647 ete. Cf. the well- 3 Martha, L’art Etrusque, p, 475.
known coins of Tarsus, of which the type is a

280 11.-- THE MANTINEAN BASIS

Our tripod then seems to be a variety dating from the earlier part of
the fifth century o a fixed archaic type. One detail of style especially well
suits the period I have named. Horizontal folds of the chiton from breast to
breast are not infrequent in sculpture of the middle of the fifth century;
for example they occur in the Hestia Giustiniani, the bronze girls from
Herculaneum, and several early Attic grave reliefs, such as those of Mynno
and Tito. On the other hand they do not seem to occur in the frieze of the
Parthenon and in later grave-reliefs. These folds are notable in one of the
figures of our monument. The arrangement of the hair is not unlike that
which we find in the Corae of the Erechtheium, but earlier in type.

It seems clear, then, that the style and type of our tripod belongs to a
time not later than the middle of the fifth century. It appears to be an
original of that age. If however it isa Roman copy, it is a faithful copy of
an earlier type. In the forms of the back, the folds of the chiton, and, in
other respects, our female figures present a complete contrast to the super-
ficiality of ordinary Roman work.

The tripod-basis of All Souls thus appears a much more interesting and
important work than has been hitherto supposed. It seems to be an original
of the early fifth century B.c. And it is the only extant well-preserved
example of a kind of utensil, probably quite common in ancient Greece, and
of a fixed pattern, which was used for sacred purposes in the various shrines
of Greece; most likely, as I have already observed, for holding the holy
water used for the purification of those who came into the presence of
the gods,

Il—THE MANTINEAN BASIS.

As Overbeck in the fourth edition of his Geschichte der Plastik has
recanted his doubts as to the period and authenticity of the sculptures of the
Basis of Mantineia, it is fair to regard them as undoubted works of about B.c.
370, and as coming at all events from the workshop of the master whose
statues stood above them. Thus the discovery of this basis must be regarded
as a very fortunate addition to our sources of knowledge, both of the art of
Praxiteles, and of the types of the Muses in the fourth century. Fig. 3 gives
these slabs in what I hold to be the true arrangement.

I must begin with a brief consideration of the description of the basis by
Pausanias, the only ancient writer who mentions it: τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Λητοῦς
ἐστὶν ἱερὸν καὶ τῶν παίδων: ἸΤραξιτέλης δὲ τὰ ἀγάλματα εἰργάσατο τρίτῃ
μετὰ ᾿Αλκαμένην ὕστερον yeved’ τούτων πεποιημένα ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τῷ βάθρῳ
Μοῦσα καὶ Μαρσύας αὐλῶν. As the phrase, ‘A Muse and Marsyas playing
the flutes,’ is a very inadequate description of the reliefs as they stand, the
suggestion has been made, and is generally accepted, that the true reading
should be Μοῦσαι. This reading, however, has no documentary authority,
and such a correction of the text of Pausanias seems to be unnecessary. If

* Mynno, Atfische Grabrelicfs pl. xvii. ; Tito, ibid. pl. xviii. ef. pl. xxv. ete.

IIl.—THE MANTINEAN BASIS. 281

we suppose that Pausanias (or his authority, for it comes to much the same
thing), was describing the basis from autopsy, it seems quite likely that he
was speaking only of the group in it which was most noteworthy, the group
of Apollo the slave and Marsyas. The figure of Marsyas is unmistakable to
any one ata glance. But a hasty visitor of the Roman age might very easily
take the figure of the seated Apollo for a Muse. A seated Apollo, fully
draped and holding the lyre, was a rarity in ancient sculpture, though not on
vases or coins. Seated Muses holding the lyre would be far from familiar to

Fic. 3.—BAsIs oF MANTINEIA.

an ancient connoisseur. Thus the reading Μοῦσα seems defensible ; Pausanias
took the girl of the Olympian Pediment for a groom, why should he not
have taken the seated Apollo at Mantineia for a Muse? The point is
perhaps one of no great importance: but if Μοῦσα be the right reading it
renders us almost certain that the group of Apollo and Marsyas stood in the
midst of the relief as in our engraving; and I shall endeavour to prove the
great probability of this disposition.

The base supported a group of three figures, Leto and her two children.
The restoration of this group by Waldstein, which Overbeck has now

Fic. 4.—Corn oF MEGARA.

adopted! is singularly unsatisfactory, I may say impossible. It is more
suitable to a so-called Asia Minor terra-cotta than to the age of Praxiteles.
The central figure of the group would be not Leto, as Waldstein makes it,
but Apollo, and the three deities would almost certainly be detached. We
have not, unfortunately, upon coins, any copy of the Praxitelean group at
Mantineia: but we possess on a coin of Severus struck at Megara a copy of a
probable replica made for that city by the same Master,? which I annex
(Fig. 4). On the left is Leto clad in a long chiton, holding a sceptre in the

1 Waldstein, Am. Jowrn. Arch. vii. pl. 1. Overbeck, Plastik, ed. 4, ii. p. 61.
2 Paus. i. 44. 2 cf. Numism. Comment, on Pausanias, Pl. A. x. p. 7.

282 IT.—THE MANTINEAN BASIS.

right hand. In the midst stands Apollo in citharoedic dress, holding
plectrum and lyre. On the right stands Artemis, clad in long chiton, and
apparently with her right hand drawing an arrow from the quiver which
hangs at her back. The testimony of this coin is most important, and must
be considered in some detail. Of recent writers, none has, so far as I am
aware, denied that it gives us a representation of the Praxitelean group.
But some archaeologists, such as Klein and Overbeck,! are disposed to regard
that group as a work of the Praxitcles who is by some supposed to have been
a contemporary of Pheidias. Furtwiingler? attributes it alternatively to the
elder Praxiteles, or to the younger at the very commencement of his career.
Now the existence of the elder Praxiteles is a matter of the gravest doubt.
And an examination of the figures on the coin seems to show that all the
three types of the deities are such as may fairly be attributed to the
well-known sculptor of the name, if we make due allowance for the minute-
ness of the figures and the carelessness with which they are executed.

The type of Apollo as standing Citharoedus clearly belongs to the fourth
century. Stephani, followed by Overbeck* regards the citharoedic dress
consisting of a long chiton with girdle, and a mantle falling over the back, as
first given to Apollo in the fourth century. It is the dress of the Apollo of
Bryaxis at Antioch? and of certain statues regarded as of the school of
Scopas. The type of Leto in long chiton with diplois, resting on her sceptre,
may be well compared with the Eirene of Cephissodotus, the likeness of which
to works of Praxiteles is acknowledged. The type of Artemis in huntress
guise, but wearing a long chiton, is commonly regarded as_ especially
Praxitelean.2 Numerous statues of this type exist in the Museums, none
apparently earlier than the fourth century. Among extant figures of the
class, one of the nearest to the type of our coin is the Munich Artemis
(Furtwingler, Masterpieces, p. 324) regarded by Furtwingler as Praxitelean.
We may compare also the Praxitelean type of Leto at Argos.®

All the three types of the coin may thus be classed as Praxitelean. This
result of our slight inquiry must be considered as very satisfactory, and tends
to justify us in setting a considerable value on numismatic evidence, which
is apt to be undervalued by those who are not familiar with coins. The
bronze coins issued at Greek cities in the time of the Antonines are really of
inestimable value for such purposes as the present.

It seems more than probable that at Mantineia a closely similar grouping
and like schemes of the deities were adopted. A mere paratactic arrange-
ment of the three scarcely suits our modern notions of art; but it is easy to
show from many instances that it was quite usual in Greece at this period
And it is the kind of arrangement which prevails in the basis before us.

The next point to consider is the probable arrangement of the slabs in
the basis. Here it is at once clear that they could not have been placed on

1 Klein in Arch, Epigraph. Mittheil. iv. 16: 4 Ibid. Miinztafel v. 39.
Overbeck in Griech. Plastik (4 ed.) i. p. 500. 5 So Schreiber in Roscher’s Lexikon, p. 606.
2 Meisterwerke, p. 538. § Numism. Comm. on Pausanias, Pl. K.

% Kunstivythol. Apollon, p. 182. 36-38.

IIl.—THE MANTINEAN BASIS. 283

three sides of it. Three figures of deities, placed side by side, if of ordinary
heroic size, would require a base at least 12 feet in length. The three slabs
together make up 13} feet. It is almost certain then that the slabs of the
relief stood side by side on the front of the base.

An assumption has been made by those who have hitherto dealt with
these reliefs that there was a fourth slab, on which were figured three more
Muses, which slab has utterly perished. This assumption seems to me quite
gratuitous and even objectionable. It has been supposed that the Muses re-
presented must be nine in number. This supposition however lacks all
ground. It is true that to Homer and to Hesiod the Muses are nine, and
that they appear as nine on the Francois vase of the early sixth century.
But the number nine is anything but invariable in the art of early Greece.
The number three, the sacred number of the Horae, the Charites and the
Nymphs, so far sways the representations of the Muses that they usually
appear as in number some multiple of three, that is, three six or nine; but
even this rule is by no means absolute.

Antipater of Sidon! tells us of a triad of Muses, the work of the three
archaic artists, Aristocles, Ageladas and Canachus. Muses appeared in the
east pediment of the Delphic temple, works of Praxias; but as to their
number we are not informed: but Bie? gives reasons for supposing that they
were only two or three. Pausanias* speaks in his ninth book of the groups of
Muses in the sanctuary at Helicon: there was one group of nine figures by
Cephissodotus, and three groups of three figures each by Cephissodotus
Strongylion and Olympiosthenes respectively.

When we turn from sculpture to vases, we find far greater irregularity.
It is unnecessary here to set forth the evidence, as it has been collected by
Bie, and it will be sufficient to cite his summing-up. ‘If we consider the
details of these various vase-pictures, the most obvious point is their complete
liberty, as regards the numbers, names and attributes of the Muses. We find
every number up to nine, only that number, which we should especially
expect, is missing. Here we have the best of proofs how imperfectly fixed in
this age was the idea of the Muses as a group, and how little we can expect
that under such circumstances particular names of Muses would be closely
connected with particular attributes.’

In the Hellenistic and Roman ages, when every Muse had her own
department of rausic or literature, and had acquired a distinct type, it was
quite natural that in reliefs and other works of art none of them should be
excluded: any choice would clearly be invidious. The relief of Archelaus at
the British Museum, commonly called the Apotheosis of Homer, is a typical
example of the treatment of the Muses in Hellenistic art. But in the age of
Praxiteles, when, as we know from other sources and from the reliefs before
us, the types of the various Muses were not distinguished, and provinces had
not been assigned to them, there is no clear reason why nine should be repre-
sented, rather than six or three.

* Die Musen, p. 22. * ix. 30, 1.

1 Anthol. Palat. xvi. 220.

284 Il.—THE MANTINEAN BASIS.

Thus there seems no sufficient reason for assuming the total loss
of a slab of our relief. And an examination of the three slabs which we
possess will furnish at least a probability that the group as we have it is
complete.

The group of Apollo the Phrygian and Marsyas is complete in itself.
The Phrygian is the central figure on either side of which Apollo and Marsyas
balance each other. It seems more than probable that this group of three
figures was also the central group of the whole design, flanked on each side
by three figures of Muses. If we arrange these two sets of three as in our
cut, figure balances figure and attitude attitude. The seated Muse is the
only slight deviation from a regular series: the two outer Muses shut in the
scene most satisfactorily. The total length of the three slabs thus arranged
side by side, as measured on the casts, is 13 feet 7 inches, which gives
4} feet as the length of the basis of each of the three statues. On such a
basis three figures eight or nine feet high would very appropriately stand
side by side. The figure of Apollo would surmount the group representing
his own contest with Marsyas, while beneath Leto and Artemis respectively
would stand a group, or rather a series, of three Muses. No doubt to a
modern eye such a regular arrangement would scarcely be agreeable. But
that the Greeks at their best periods did not feel the same objection which
occurs to us to a paratactic arrangement may be proved by many instances,
such as the East Pediment of Olympia. In fact I am only supposing in the
whole monument of Praxiteles the same principle of arrangement which
certainly dominates the base.

That the arrangement which I suggest allows us to keep the MS.
reading of Pausanias, and does not compel us to suppose that a slab of
the relief is lost appears to me to tell strongly in its favour.

Percy GARDNER.

4 e061) uve JOV 2.02

aro

ἂ ͵ ; = 4 Ρ
Haw suo

is

A KYLIX WITH A NEW KAAO® NAME. 285

A KYLIX WITH A NEW ΚΑΛΟΣ NAME.
[PLaTe XIII]

THE vase figured on Plate XIII. is an Athenian cup in the possession of
a member of the Hellenic Society, Mr. C. W. Mitchell, who acquired it in
Athens. It is of the heavy, somewhat squat form, with thick handles and
in-set lip, such as Brygos, for example, specially affected, and measures
-194 m. in diameter, ‘096 m. in height. The design, occupying the centre of
the interior only, is in the red colour of the clay, enclosed within a thin line,
against the brilliant black glaze: unfortunately the parts of the surface which
were not protected by the glaze have slightly suffered from the effects of acid
or ignorant cleaning, so that the sketch-marks and the finer inner-markings
have almost entirely disappeared : these latter were probably not extensively
employed, but faint traces still remain at the lower part of the abdomen, and
on the cheek, where the whiskers (ἴουλος, cf. Xen. Symp. iv. 23) are indicated
by brushmarks in thinned black. The outline of the hair against the black
background is indicated by a wavy engraved line;! and where it shows
against the neck and face, by a row of minute dots fringing the sharply
defined edge of the black paint. The wreath of vine, the ties of the flute
and mouthpiece case, and inscription ( Ακέστωρ καλός), are in purple.

Judging from its general style and technique, this vase must be assigned
to the period of the cycle of cup-painters who are grouped around Epiktetos,
that is to say, somewhere on the turn of the sixth century B.c. It belongs
to the stage when the archaisms characteristic of the earlier painters in the
red-figure style are making way for a closer study of real life, possibly under
the growing influence of Euphronios. Signs of this archaism are apparent
in the engraved outline of the hair, the stiff setting of the head, the long
slender form of the feet and left hand, and the somewhat formal arrangement
of the ends of drapery; while the head is in exact profile, the shoulders are
not, it is true, turned completely square to the spectator, as in the archaic
manner, but the artist has not yet attained the correct rendering of them in
the profile view. The form of eye has clearly not yet felt the influence of

1 Within the lower curves of this line the practice may have arisen of indicating the
black paint has run thick, forming thus a row outline, or even the entire surface of the hair
of circles which have the appearance, owing to (especially for figures of Heracles, cf. e.g. B. M.
the accumulation of colour, of being in relief: | Vase Cat. vol. iti. E. 104) by rained black dots.
one sees how from an accident like this the

ies. —VvObL. XVI. X

286 A KYLIX WITH A NEW KAAO® NAME.

the improvements of Euphronios: the pupil is an exact dise within the
eyelids, and could certainly not be adapted to the Kimonian feats of looking
upwards or downwards. But on the other hand it is easy to discern a marked
advance on the general manner of the Epiktetic painters. There is a certain
‘go’ about the figure, a strength, and yet a gracefulness of line, which
bespeak a hand that is within measurable distance of perfect freedom. The
head has the nearly semicircular cranium, the short upper lip, and the short
full chin; the nose is nearly straight, with the end forming almost a right
angle ; the mouth has the lips slightly parted (a striking mnovation as com-
pared with the older style) and the corner gently curved; the upper eyelid
has the wavy form almost approximating to an 8. All these characteristics
combine to present a type which is nearest to that of Euphronios!; but no
one I think would venture to assign our kylix to his hand. To whom then
should it be attributed ?

Hartwig has pointed out (Meistersch. p. 172 foll.) that the cup in
Baltimore signed by Phintias enables us to group together under that artist's
uame a series of cups with the inscription Χαιρίας καλός, which the Baltimore
cup bears beside the artist's signature. The type of figure in that cup has
almost precisely the same characteristics as have been noted on our vase: it
has moreover the peculiar treatment of the breasts, which in both cases are
drawn almost as if they were those of a woman. It is true that the Baltimore
cup has the drapery drawn as transparent ; but, as Hartwig himself remarks,
this was probably only a passing fancy of Phintias, and foreign to his usual
practice. On that cup the artist has drawn a young ephebos, possibly
Chairias himself, chaffering in the Cerameicus with the vase-seller ; the gilded
youth of Athens probably gave the potter’s quarter plenty of material for
gossip, and such a subject, rendered additionally attractive by the inscription
of the actual celebrity's name, was quite in Phintias’ taste: so much so that
on another cup in Berlin, probably assignable to him (Furtwiingler, Sema.
Saburoff, P|. 1111. 2) he shows us Chairias again, this time as the gay young
reveller coming back from a banquet. Except that he has a kylix in his
extended left palm instead of a cotylé, the subject is practically identical with
that of our cup: the figure swings along to the right, with rhythmic step as if
to the music of the flutes, his disordered dress, his vine wreath, and his cup
showing clearly whence he comes. This vase, in technique and shape (it has
the same moulded lip and ring around the stem), as well as in subject and
style, offers the closest parallel to the one before us, and I have little hesita-
tion in assigning this also to the hand of Phintias.?

On the analogy of the Chairias vases, we may perhaps consider the figure
of the reveller here as representing Akestor himself. Who was this Akestor ?

! The method of drawing the drapery as falling 2 Hartwig, loc. cit., mainly on account of the
in a series of heavy swelling folds over the motive of the figure, puts this vase to the
shoulders is one that Euphronios particularly ‘ Anfangspunkt’ of the activity of Phintias :
affected : the most beautiful example is of course — but I venture to doubt whether this view can be
that which oceurs in the figure of Amphitrite accepted in face of a comparison with the cup
on his 'Thes2us cup in Paris. here described.

A KYLIX WITH A NEW KAAO® NAME. 287

The person who bore this name, best known to Athenian history, was the son
of Epilykos, the father of Agenor, to whose stock Miltiades belonged.’ It
happens that the name of Epilykos occurs on the Bourguignon Sostratos
psykter (Klein, Lieblingsn. p. 65) and if we may allow an average of twenty
years between the ages when father and son were respectively before the
public as Kalos (i.e. in the ephebos stage) this would fairly represent the
comparative difference of date which for reasons of style we should a piiort
assign to the Sostratos psykter and the kylix here published. But such
identifications are notoriously uncertain.
CrxciL SMITH.

1 Pherekydes in Marcell. vif. Thuc. 2.

288 THE GAME OF POLIS AND PLATO'S REP. 422 E.

THE GAME OF POLIS AND PLATO’S REP. 422 E.

᾿Αλλὰ τί μήν; ἔφη. Μειζόνως, ἦν 8 ἐγώ, χρὴ προσαγορεύειν Tas
ἄλλας: ἑκάστη γὰρ αὐτῶν πόλεις εἰσὶ πάμπολλαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πόλις, τὸ τῶν
παιζόντων.

This well known passage has given rise to some discussion in recent
years, the words τὸ τῶν παιζόντων being the centre of the fray.

The Scholiast says πόλεις παίζειν εἶδος ἐστὶ πεττευτικῆς παιδιᾶς
μέτηκται δὲ καὶ εἰς παροιμίαν.

Most modern commentators have followed the Scholiast. But Mr, J. A.
Stewart in the Classical Review (Vol. vii. 359) follows the President of
Magdalen College, Oxford, in stating that the Scholiast was led astray by the
proverb πόλεις παίζειν, and that there is really no reference at all to the
game ot Polis, and compares with it the passage from the Meno, 77 A.
παῦσαι πολλὰ ποιῶν ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ὅπερ φασὶ τοὺς συντρίβοντάς TL ἑκάστοτε
ἱ σκώπτοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐάσας ὅλην καὶ ὑγιᾶ εἰπὲ τί ἐστιν ἀρετή.

But to make the joke depend on the word πάμπολλαι is to make
Plato very unlike Plato, and a very similar passage also from the Jfeno
72 ΑἹ by the absence of any such expression as τὸ τῶν παιζόντων, or οἱ
σκώπτοντες, makes it clear that Plato would not think that there was
any joke in πώμπολλαι. It is again the question of One and Many
referring to virtue. The words are καὶ ἄλλαι πάμπολλαι ἀρεταὶ εἰσί,

It would thus appear that the expression τὸ τῶν παιζόντων implies
cither some word play in the previous sentence πόλεις πάμπολλα:, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ
πόλις, or else that it means an expression used by players of a game. In
the former case the play can only be on the word πόλιες, in the latter case
the game can only be the game of πόλις : in any case there must be a
reference to the game, for in the first case if there is a double entente in
πόλις, it must be on its two-fold use as ‘city’ and as a game called ‘city.’

That such a play on the word wedus was a good old joke at Athens in
Plato’s time can be proved amply by the fragment of Cratinus quoted by
Julius Pollux in a passage which I will now give: ἡ δὲ διὰ πολλῶν ψήφων
παιδιὰ πλινθίον ἐστί, χώρας ἐν γραμμαῖς ἔχον Staxeyévas: καὶ τὸ μὲν
πλινθίον καλεῖται πόλις, τῶν δὲ ψήφων ἑκάστη κύων: διῃρημένων δὲ εἰς δύο
τῶν ψήφων κατὰ τὰς ypdas, ἡ τέχνη τῆς παιδιᾶς ἐστὶ περιλήψει δύο ψήφων
ὁμοχρύόων τὴν ἑτερόχρων ἀνελεῖν: ὅθεν καὶ Κρατίνῳ πέπαικται, ΠΠανδιονίδα
πόλεως βασιλεῦ τῆς ἐριβώλακος, οἶσθ᾽ ἣν λέγομεν, καὶ κύνα καὶ πόλιν, ἣν
παίζουσιν (ix. 98, Bekker).

THK GAME OF POLIS AND PLATO'S RAP, 422 EK ISY

This passage is most important. From it we learn the mature of thi
vane of Polis, and the still more Ini portianl fact that the * men’ employed "

this game were in the’ shape of dogs (κύνες). There are in the British

Museum besides the draught-board and draughtsmen in the shape of men’s

EY PT AB Wg Bi) | oe = - 4 —--J INCHES

Fig. 1.—Ecyrprran DravuGurt-boanrp.

heads found in the tomb of Queen Hatesu and another Egyptian board
(fiz. 1) asct of men in the form of dogs’ heads (figs. 2, 3,4). They wer
procured in Cairo some years ago, and belong to the latest Egyptian period
and would be thus contemporary with classsical Greek times. as Tam told by

Fic. 4.

Dr. Budge, who thinks they represent jackals, imitating the. jackal-headed
god Anubis; whether they are jackals or dogs makes no difference in our
case for the Greeks called Anubis κύων, as we know from Plato, Gorgias, 482,
μὰ τὸν κύνα, τὸν Αἰγυπτίων θεόν. ΐ

By the kindness of my friend Dr. A. S. Murray I am also able to give

290 THE GAME OF POLIS AND PLATO’S REP. 422 E.

(fig. 5) the top of the magnificent carved ivory draught-board which is
among the many splendid objects obtained by the British Museum in the
recent excavations at Enkomi in Cyprus. The ivory was discovered in a very
critical condition but was saved from ruin by the patience and resource of
Mr. P. Christian.

Now let us return to the Republic. In the pages immediately preceding
our passage Plato has been dealing with the citizens of his ideal state: and
from 416 onwards has been comparing them, as every one knows, to κύνες.
He has, in his own mind, been playing the game of πόλιες ; he has called his
citizens by the name of the pieces in the game, and finally ends up with the
customary word play of πάμπολλαι πόλεις ἀλλ᾽ OV πόλις.

Ὁ [ΤΡ ΟΝ
ἽΝ ΤΠ] ΓΓΕ
ΒΔ. | Ρ»»55 525

INCHES

ιν

Fic. 5.—Ivory DRAUGHT-BOARD FROM ENKOMI.

I do not attempt any discussion here of the method of playing the game
of Polis, as that is irrelevant to the direct object of this note, but I may point
out that the board was probably divided into squares, like that of Queen
Hatesu, and our modern draughtboard. The object of each player was
evidently to get his men into a solid arrangement, so that none of his pieces
should be isolated and liable to be captured by being cut off between two of
the enemy’s pieces (περιλήψει δύο ψήφων ὁμοχρόων τὴν ἑτερόχρων ἀνελεῖν).
It was possibly a common joke between players to talk of the small squares
of the checkboard as πόλεις, if an opponent had a number of his pieces
isolated on squares away from his real πόλιες, meaning that he had plenty of
little cities which were defenceless, but not the real solid array of men, which
was technically the true ‘ city.’ ἢ

WILLIAM RIDGEWAY.

1 Dr. Sandys is probably right in thinking 4 ἄπολις to the &(ut ἐν πεττοῖς is alpding to the
that Aristotle (Pol. I. 2, 10) when he compares game of πόλις.

JHS.VOL XVI (1896 )PLXIV

4 ὧν
Me \ AN

E\ Ups fii wns
Y roe Se |

τηνι:

The District of
ABAE ano HYAMPOLIS.

OE ἀπ᾽. θυ τΥθθ ει, ΌρΟ, τὐροο Ἡποῦσε

FS Weller, lizh

erry Sh

at |
5
i

~ ἜΣᾷ
ΐ
ὐ

ΓΣ

χει ἐ{Ὶ ἽΝ .

bi ry)
| Z2IJOUNAYH: ew FAR ἮΝ
Ι eis } γᾷ

᾿ ᾿ = υφοῖ αὶ γ 4 ἀδα ys c'est vers te ἐδ of Sie eee

> ae ν

+o Υ em a “se - Cees! ~~ " »μξ Ὗ mS “4 4 8 Πῶς; ot ἵμλ | Ἀ, nutber

Ne sericea emcees aia lhe ci at nein 9 — ; “ Ν 7 all — -
he). ae i 9 i

(oe ΜΝ] jet nl oy Uys ee! sold. οὔδει ΕΝ

γον

4 - Al 7
σι ΝΣ
' ~ loom | ναὶ ~~ éSueqeres t ibe id fr «αὐρχ be inn
͵ i ᾿ Ἂν
νὼ bs go ai rth. *

i Leen

Ψ

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAK AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS. 291

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS.
[PLATE XIV.]

THE excavations, the results of which are described in the following
paper, were conducted in the spring of 1894 by the British School at Athens.
The work was under the charge of Mr. A. G. Bather and myself; Mr Ernest
Gardner, then director of the School, was also present during a portion of it.
I have thought it better to give first a history of the two towns, as known
from literature and the evidence of inscriptions, and then to describe the sites,
and the discoveries which are the result of our work. The unpublished
inscriptions which we dug up or copied on or near the sites are collected in
an appendix, and we give (Pl. XIV.) a sketch map of the district. A plan
of the gate and a plan of the τέμενος at Abae also accompany the paper.
These plans and map are the work of Mr. F. W. Green, who is an expert in
such matters, and undertook to do the work for me from general directions
which I gave him about the sites. I had originally made rough plans
myself, which were incomplete and unsatisfactory in many ways, owing to
the bad weather which prevailed during our stay at Abae and greatly
curtailed the working-time at our disposal on the spot. These plans of
mine were lost while I was travelling in Asia Minor, and Mr. Green, who
was with me in Asia Minor and was returning home via Greece, kindly
volunteered for the task.

ABAE.

Abae,! like many other cities of Greece, is said by Pausanias to have had
an eponymous founder, namely Abas, son of Lynceus and Hypermnestra.
An oracle of Apollo must have been established there in very early times,
and seems to have been in equal repute with those of Apollo at Delphi and
at Branchidae, that of Zeus Ammon in Libya, and those of Amphiaraus at
Oropus and Trophonius at Lebadea, for to each of these envoys were sent by
Croesus.?_ It was rich in treasures according to Herodotus,’ and adorned with
many offerings. Among the latter was the offering of μεγάλοι ἀνδριάντες
made by the Phocians after their victory over the Thessalians, one half of

1 Paus, x. 35. 7 νι, 88.
2 Herodot. 1, 46.

292 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS ΙΝ PHOCIS

which was given to Apollo of Delphi, the other to Apollo of Abae.! The
importance of the oracle is vouched for in a passage of Sophocles * where the
chorus speak of the oracle of Abae side by side with that of Delphi and that
of Olympia.

In the invasion of Xerxes, Abae shared the fate of many cities of Phocis ;
it was taken by the Persians and the ἱερόν was burnt. Put the oracle did
not lose its sanctity ; we know that after the battle of Salamis when Mys was
sent by Mardonius to consult the oracles, Abac was one among the number.’

The temple does not seem to have been rebuilt, but to have remained in
much the same condition as when left by the Persians. As in the case of the
temple of Haliartus and the temple of Demeter at Phalerum, it was thought
better that this temple should remain as it was, to be a lasting memorial of
Persian impiety.

In the fourth century some value must have still been attached to the
answers of the oracle, for we are told by Pausanias that Abae was one of the
many oracles consulted by the Thebans before the battle of Leuctra.? In the
Sacred War the cepdv was again burnt. The accounts of how this happened
vary. According to Pausanias,® it was due to the deliberate action of the
Thebans, according to Diodorus® to an accident. Even after the second
burning very little if anything was done to restore the temple, so that in
Pausanias’ time it was the weakest of all buildings which have suffered from
fire.’

The Abaeans are said to have taken no part themselves in the Sacred
War, or in the impiety perpetrated at Delphi, and at the end of the war, to
which Philip put an end by destroying all the cities of Phocis, Abae alone
was spared.®

During the subjection of Greece to Macedonian rule one fact has come
down to us with regard to Abae. In an inscription found at Aulopddi? a
village near the ancient site, we learn that, on an application made to a king
Philip, most probably Philip V, by the people of Abae (τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ’ABalov),
the freedom from tribute (ἀτέλεια), which they had at some previous time
enjoyed but now apparently had lost, was granted again to them. The reason
for this exemption would naturally be the sacredness of their city and
shrine.

Similar consideration seems to have been shown to the Abaeans by the
Romans; we are told that in contrast to the action of the Persians, the
Romans granted autonomy to the Abaeans, and the last fact that we learn
with regard to the place is that the Emperor Hadrian built a small temple
beside the old one. That he possibly also did something towards restoring
the old temple, I hope to indicate below.

Of the constitution of the temple and oracle unfortunately nothing is

1 Herodot. viii. 27 6 xvi. 58.

2 0. 6. 900. 7 Paus: xX. ὃ; 2-

% Herodot. viii. 133. 8 Bulletin Corr. Hell. vi. 171.
4 Paus. iv. 32, 5. ® Paus. x. 35.

» Pans. Xs).

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAK AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS. 2938

known, but in an inscription found at Myx or Sveiei! quite close to. the
temple site, sacred lands of Apollo and Artemis are mentioned, some of which
nay possibly have belonged to the tenple of Abae,

HYAMPOLIS.

Of the history of Hyampolis, as distinet from the other towns of Phocis,
very little is known. Its situation in an important pass made it at all times
liable to attack and several engagements took place in the neighbourhood of
the town.

According to Pausanias? and Strabo,? Hyampolis was founded by the
Hyantes after they were expelled from Bocotia by the Cadmeans, the Hyantes
being as Pliny? tells us the old name for the Bocotians, and the town. is
mentioned in the catalogue of Homer? Before the Persian wars a famous
conflict took place in the pass of Hyampolis between the Phocians and
Thessalians, in which the Phocians resorted to the device of burying and
covering up large jars for the entanglement of the Thessalian cavalry. The
town was among those taken by the Persians under Xerxes on their march
through Phocis and was burned by them.

In the fourth century the town suffered some losses at the hand of Jason
of Pherae on his return through Phocis after the battle of Leuctra. The
προαστεῖον was taken, the country devastated and many of the inhabitants
killed. In B.c. 347 a battle between the Bocotians and Phocians took place
near the town.’ At the end of the Sacred War the town was taken and the
walls razed to the ground by Philip, and probably the inhabitants, like the rest
of the Phocians, reduced to living in villages.7? That the town afterwards
recovered from this harsh treatment is thought probable by Pausanias, who
found a council-chamber and market-place of ancient construction there.

In Roman times the town was again taken by L. Quinctius Flamininus ὃ
and subsequently the Emperor Hadrian built a stoa here which bore his name.
Whether he visited this town and Abae in person or not is uncertain.”

The chief divinity worshipped at Hyampolis was Artemis, and the feast of
Elaphebolia celebrated here in her honour is mentioned twice by Plutarch.'®
It is said by him to have commemorated the resolution taken by the Phocian
women to destroy themselves and their children rather than fall into the
hands of the Thessalians, with whom a battle was at that time impending.
He also says that it was the chief feast of the place. This feast is mentioned

Bulletin Corr. Hell. xviii. p. 53 1 no. 9. 57,n. That other emperors conferred benefits

1

TES 50,8: on the town after Hadrian’s time may be in-
3 ix, 424, ferred from two of our inscriptions (nos. 2, and 4),
+ Nat. Hist, iv. 26. in which the erection of statues in honour of
5 Thad. ii. 521, two emperors, one of them Septimius Severus,
® Diod. xvi. 56. is probably recorded.

7 Paus. loc. cit. 10 Plutarch de Virt. Muli. 244 E. Quaest-
8 Livy xxxii. 18 Symp. iv. 1, 660 E.

9

Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian. Diirr. p.

294 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS.

in an inscription which we copied on the site (No. 5). Another feast con-
nected with Hyampolis is probably mentioned in another inscription! to which
reference has already been made, and was called the Boubastia, or according
to Mr. Bather’s copy of the same Bourastia. Sacred lands belonging to
Artemis are mentioned in this same inscription and certain beasts, according
to Pausanias,? were the property of the goddess.

The worship of Serapis, Isis and Anubis seems also to have flourished in
later times at Hyampolis. Three inscriptions* have been found in the
neighbourhood, testifying to this. In one of these it is recorded that
Krinolaus, son of Xenopeithes,* built a stoa, a propylon and houses in honour
of these divinities, The worship of the Emperors was also practised, for in
one of the inscriptions, above mentioned, the Emperor Trajan is invoked at
the same time as Serapis and Isis, and games called the μεγάλα καισαρῆα
occur in one of our inscriptions (No. 5).

Site of Abac.

The remains of Abaec, which were first identified by Colonel Leake,°
exist in two places. Those of the town are on a peaked hill which rises to a
height of about 500 feet, on the edge of a small and marshy but fertile plain,
at a distance of about one and a half miles in a westerly direction from the
modern village of Hxarcho. Those of the temple of Apollo are on a low spur
which runs out from the hills northwards into the plain. The plain, in extent
about two miles long by three-quarters of a mile broad, is drained by one of
the tributaries of the Cephissus, and communicates on the west with the
valley in which Hyampolis is situated, commanding the pass from the country
of the Opuntian and Epicnemidian Locrians into Phocis and Boeotia.

We will first deal with the remains of the town. The hill of Abae lies
to the left, as Pausanias says of the road from Orchomenus to Opus. This
road most probably answers to the modern path from Seripow (Orchomenus)
to Atalante, which passes close to Hvrarcho, and turning westward down the
valley skirts the hills, leaving Abae a little to the left.6 On the east side the
hill is very abrupt and completely inaccessible, on the north side very steep,
while on the south and west sides the slopes are easy. It is on these, the
south and west sides, that the walls of the acropolis are mainly built. The
defences consist of an outer and inner wall, which are never much more than
100 yards apart and converge so as to meet on the north, and so as nearly to
do so on the south-east side. Where they meet on the north side two lines
of prolongation can be traced, (1) a line of wall continued along a rocky spur

1 Bull. Corr. Hell. xviii. p. 53, ff. no. 9.

2 Paus. loc. cit.

3 Bull. Corr. Hell. loc. cit.
and B.C.H. v. p. 360.

Nos. 1 and 2.

4 The name of this same Krinolaus, son of

Xenopeithes, may probably be restored in another
inscription, Waddington and Le Bas, Greek and

Latin Inscriptions, ii. 818, said to have been
copied at Hyampolis. -os Ξενοπείθεος is all
that is left of the name, but there is room
for four, if not five letters, judging from the
length of the preceding lines.

5 Leake, North Greece, ii. p. 163 ff.

8 Leake. op, cit. ii. Ὁ. 167.

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS. 295

into the plain, (2) ἃ line of wall running round the top until the steep point
is reached where it ceases. Where the walls converge on the south-east side
the side of the hill is sheer and perpendicular for 20 or 30 feet, but below
this a prolongation of the wall can be traced down to the level of the plain
where it is lost in the arable ground. This wall curves considerably towards
the other line of prolongation on the north side along the rocky spurs, and in
all probability these two walls were produced so as to meet and form another
enclosure on the eastern slopes of the hill. This is indicated by the dotted

line on the plan.

Inside this conjectural line of wall on the east slope of the hill there are
numerous ruins of ancient buildings, and here it seems probable that the
town. lay. Of the agora and theatre mentioned by Pausanias, we could find
no distinct traces. If we are right in supposing this conjectural wall outside
the town to have existed, the inhabitants had two lines of defence, this wall
and the walls of the acropolis, which with the help of the natural features of
the hill form a citadel independent of the outer line.

The walls are far better preserved on the top of the hill than below.
They are polygonal in construction, and no distinct difference of date can be
traced in them, though the lower and outer wall is furnished with flanking
projections which are absent in the upper. The blocks, which are of limestone
from the hill, are in each wall large and fairly carefully fitted, any intervals

296 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCiS

between the joints being filled up with small stones. The walls are faced
with large stones both inside and outside, the core being formed of rbble and
smaller stones. The height preserved varies from 3 to 10 feet, and the width
is between 6 and 74 feet. The date of the walls from the style of construc-
tion would seem to be the fifth century or earlier, though it is possible that
some part of them, especially the lower town walls, were built later m the
same style.

Moulding ala
1
rz

ἠ"ηγωῃμθ

In the outer wall of the acropolis there is a gate which from its good
' state of preservation deserves some notice. It was observed and described by
Colonel Leake. The gate is at the south end of the lower acropolis wall.
The stone lintel is still in position and is supported on each side by jambs,
the upper courses of which slope towards one another above a simple
moulding.! The gate is placed in a recess from the line of the wall, with a
tower on the enemies’ right or unshielded side. A view of the gate from the

outside is given in Fig. 1, a ground plan, and section of the moulding
in Fig. 2.

1 Fig. 2.

-
p ,
é Ἢ
΄ ; !
: / [Ε] ;
ξ ; '
ἢ : :
ἕ :
ἢ : ;
᾿ ᾿ :
᾿ 4 ᾿
ἢ : ΐ
: :
:
§ ‘ ᾿
ὃ : 4
4
i ἢ
5 : a
ἢ :
Ἢ :
4 - i
J
4 ῃ ΣΝ τῆν τ τς ταῖν RM τ τι παν τσὶ πα τοτ.
. MGMT TO ET Wn gg ΠΝ
ὃ Ν᾿ ᾿ — ΣΣΣΣ' = See
ἢ Ἶ
. Ἢ
Ἢ ‘
. Ν
Ν
Ἷ
Ν

3.—PLAN oF TEMPLE-SITE,

Fic.

298 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIN.

The other ruins outside these walls were identified by Colonel Leake
with the temple of Apollo, from a passage in Diodorus,! in which it appears
that the shrine was not in the town but near it. On the strength of this
identification, and in the hopes that some of the ancient offerings mentioned
by Herodotus might have served as foundations for later buildings, and so
have been preserved, as was the case on the acropolis at Athens, we set. to
work to thoroughly clear the site. This was accomplished after a fortnight’s
work much interrupted by bad weather.

The result of this work was the discovery of a small tewevos the plan of
which is shown in Fig. 3. That the site excavated was sacred to some
divinity is shown by the discovery, during the excavations, of several tiles
inscribed |EPA probably belonging to the stoa to be described below, that
this divinity may have been Apollo is shewn by the inscription (No 1) in
which the letters -aBorw: (perhaps = ἑκ]αβόλῳ) occur.

Within the τέμενος the foundations of three buildings were laid bare,
two of which from their form and orientation are most probably temples,
the third evidently a stoa. It will be best, before discussing the age of
these remains and the purposes which they served, to. describe them
briefly.

The polygonal wall (hatched ΝᾺ in the plan) forming the enclosure of
the τέμενος runs round the upper slopes of a low hill and seems to have been
roughly oval in shape. It is broken by two gates, one on the west, the other
on the southeast side, and at each of these the wall is made to return. A
third gate seems to have been constructed in later times, a short distance to
the south of the gate on the west side, probably contemporaneously with the
construction of the stoa which blocked up the old gate on this side.
Judging from its primitive construction, it would seem evident that this wall
formed the original enclosure of the old temple.

Of the three buildings within the enclosure, two appear to be temples.
The largest of these is an oblong building only three sides of which have
been preserved, the west wall (the existence of which formerly there is no
reason to doubt) having been completely obliterated. The orientation of the
two long sides is by the prismatic compass 2841" 2,

Two courses of the foundations remain, the blocks of the upper course
measuring uniformly 3 ft. 7 in. by 1 ft. 5 in. Above these in the north wall
one block of the course of orthostatae remains in situ, measuring 3 ft. by 4ft.
lin. The material of each course is a light coloured poros stone weathering
almost white. The plan would seem to be that of a temple in antis, though
no trace is preserved of columns at the east end.

The second and smaller temple is an oblong three sided building, of
which the orientation is 2914°. The only remains are one course of founda-
tions composed of four blocks on the west side, and two on the north and
south sides respectively. The material is the same poros as that used in the

1 Loc. cit. is a square block of poros in situ (shown on
* Beside this building at the north-east comer plan) perhaps the foundation of a basis,

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN) PHOCIS, 299

construction of the other temple. The plan seems to be that of a three-sided
cella open to the east.

The third building, evideutly a stoa, has long oblong foundations ruuning
north and south. The east and west walls are orientated 280}°. The
material is the same as that used in the other two buildings. The west wall
is fairly well preserved rising in places to a height of four courses from the
ground. It is constructed with long blocks running in even courses, and is
supported at intervals of about 20 feet by buttresses to prevent it from

slipping down the hill. At the south-west and north-west corners this wall
returns up the hill, the courses diminishing in number as the ground rises.
On the east side of the building the rock is cut back to receive the
foundation of the east wall. Two courses are continued for a short distance
round the south-east and north-east corners, where they cease, the
remainder of the foundation on this side consisting of one course only.
Within these lines a row of blocks is preserved at fairly regular intervals
running parallel to the line of foundation on the east side. These are
evidently foundations for columns to support the roof of the building. From

300 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS.

these remains we can re-construct the general plan of the building. It seems to
have been a stoa open to the east, the roof of which was supported by a double
row of columns, one of which rested on the row of blocks mentioned
above, the other on the line of foundation on the east side.

’ Very few architectural remains, besides these foundations and walls,
were discovered on the site. A few fragments of columns of the same stone
as the foundations were found near the stoa, shewing that these were of stone
and not of wood, and the points of a gabled roof of stone were found at each
corner of the building. Besides these numerous terra-cotta antefixes were
found mostly inside or near the stoa. The antefixes were of two kinds.
The one is of simple design and very similar in form to the antefixes of the
Parthenon, the other! is very complicated in design and seems to be a
development of the patterns on the antefixes of the Erechtheum (v. Inwood
Erechthewm Pl. XXVIII.) Both sorts were found indiscriminately all over the
site, but the greater part were in or about the stoa. Possibly they may both
belong to that building. The antefix given in Fig. 4 shows very sharp
and delicate execution and on grounds of style might well be placed in the
4th century B.C.

A lion’s head in terra-cotta of fine style, destined to serve as a water-
spout, was also found inside the stoa, and is shown in Fig. 5. It bears
traces of having been richly painted in red, yellow, black and purple. Asa
work of art this lion’s head is distinctly superior to the lions’ heads used as
architectural ornaments in the Mausoleum (v. Newton, Discoveries, PI.
XXX.), to which it bears in some ways considerable resemblance, and I should
again be inclined on grounds of style to date it as early as the fourth
century B.C.

With reference to the identification of these buildings we must have re-
course to the statements of Pausanias.2 He makes no mention of any stoa,
but only speaks of two buildings, both temples, side by side; the larger of the
two, he says, is the original temple, the smaller the work of Hadrian. In the
larger of the two buildings which we found there is nothing incompatible
with an early date, the work is simple and rough and the building is on a
small scale, as we should expect to find in a temple dating from pre-Persian
times. So that we may conclude that this building is the old temple of
Apollo.

The only other indication with regard to it is given by an inscription
which we dug up at the east end of the building (No. 1). From the position
in which we found it this inscription may very well have formed part of the
architrave of the temple. In this inscription we have record of restoration
most probably carried out by an Emperor. Whether this was Hadrian or not
it is impossible to say with any certainty, but as we know that he built a
small temple on the spot it is quite possible that he also did something
towards the restoring of the old temple, even though this did not attract the
attention of Pausanias. The smaller of the two temples in position and size

1 Shown in Fig. 4. 2 x Sh.

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS. 301

corresponds to the temple described by Pausanias and attributed by him to
Hadrian. Its extreme minuteness may be explained from the smallness of
the scale of the whole site. Another temple of any size would have dwarfed
the older building.

The third building, the stoa, from the evidence of the antefixes and lion’s
head would seem to belong to the fourth century B.C. It may possibly have
been put up after the burning of the ἑερόν by the Boeotians in the Sacred
War. Perhaps in Pausanias’ time it had already fallen into disrepair, and in
consequence was not noticed by him.

Fie, 5.

In addition to the buildings described above not many antiquities were
found on the site. The most important are a series of bronze bowls. These
consist of (1) fragments of ‘phialae’ with delicate repoussé ornament, ap-
parently Greek developments from Phoenician work, (2) fragments of thin
bronze ornamental plates of the same type with elaborate floral decoration, (3)
fragments of the ‘flechtband’ from the rims of decorative shields, (4) a few
remains of Roman bronze work. All these are in pitiable condition and in-
capable of perfect restoration, They were found for the most part close to

H.S.—VOL. XVI. Y

302. EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCTS.

the old temenos wall, and it seems probable that the three earlier classes date
from a period before the Persian destruction, the types of patera and ‘ flecht-
band’ belonging to the earlier layers both on the Acropolis at Athens and at
Olympia.

In some ways they are the most interesting of the discoveries which we
made at Abae, inasmuch as they probably date back to pre-Persian times,
and are the only definite relics of the old prosperity of the oracle which we
found.

A few terra-cottas, mostly heads, both male and female, and one ithyphal-
lie figure also came to light. Sculpture is represented on the site only by a
few fragments of statues, such as arms, legs and feet, which, as far as can be
judged on grounds of style, are of the Graeco-Roman period. Besides the in-
scription (No. 1) and the inscribed tile mentioned above, only four inscriptions
were found, three of which are potsherds and one a brick, and all unfortun-
ately of no importance.

The only remaining discovery of any importance was that of sixty-one
silver coins which were all lying together close to the foundations of the west
wall of stoa. It may be worth while to place on record what coins these were

The following is the list :—

Sicyon . 26 OPUS 8s ata: ἘΣ aoe
Chalcis 8 Elis 2
Thebes 7 Aegina . 2
Alexander 4 ATE OS Ohi ae ilies 1
Phocis 3 Aetolian League . 1
Arcadia 3 Philip 1

The coins range in date from the sixth century to which one coin of
Aegina must belong down to the time of Alexander and the Aetolian League.
One interesting fact which must have struck all travellers in Greece is
brought out, that is, the extraordinary predominance in number of the coins

of Sicyon.

Graves.

Another class of remains at Abae is formed by the graves which exist in
great numbers along the slopes of the hill westwards from the temple-site as
shown in Pl. XIV., and for years have been a hunting-ground to the peasants
in search of antiquities. A few of these we excavated and found full of
objects of little archaeological value. A great quantity of rude black-figured
pottery ornamented with palmettes exists in the tombs and terra-cotta figures
of men and animals are frequently found. It may be of interest to give a list
of the objects found by us in one of these tombs. The objects are remarkable
both in respect of quantity and variety. They consist of 11 pigeons, 9 cocks,
1 horse, 1 pig, 1 sphinx, 2 double sitting figures, 2 upright female figures,
1 sitting female figure in terra-cotta, 1 bronze strigil, 1 iron strigil; and in

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAK AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS. 3038

earthenware, 15 fairly complete cups of undefined shape, two vewochour, two
lecythi, 1 plate, and numerous fragments of other broken vessels.

The objects would seem from their style to belong to the fourth century
B.C., or a little later.

Site of Hyampolis.

With regard to the site of Hyampolis first identified by Colonel Leake !
there can be no doubt. According to Pausanias it lay beyond Abae on the
road from Orchomenus to Opus. Just about a mile from Abae, in the direc-
tion which this road must have followed, a low hill, about 100 feet in height,
rises from the valley, which is still called //ydmboli by the peasants of the
district. On this hill considerable remains of a circuit of walls still exist
which doubtless formed the defences of the acropolis of Hyampolis.’

These walls, which are about three-quarters of a mile in extent, are built in
regular courses of squared stones, and from the style of construction seem to
date from the fifth or fourth century B.c. They are best preserved at the
north and north-east corners, where they still rise to a height of 15 feet or
more above the level of the ground. Hence it seems probable that if the
walls were levelled when the town was taken by Philip, they were afterwards
rebuilt. There is a gate in the walls near the north corner and three square
towers at different points, one of them close to the gates. Inside these walls
the ground is fairly level and numerous remains of a Byzantine or mediaeval
village are visible. Nearly in the centre of the enclosure there are remains
of a large cistern with coping of large squared blocks bound together with
rm clamps. This is probably the well alluded to by Pausanias as being the
one well used by the Hyampolitans for all purposes.

Across the top of the hill within the walls we dug several trenches with-
out coming on any distinct traces of any Greek building, the only definite
discovery being that of a square foundation for a basis οἱ an honorary statue
or statues, near which we found portions of an inscription (No. 2) bearing on
the same.

Numerous fragments of mouldings all apparently destined to support
similar statues also came to light. Some of these bear inscriptions, the only
one of any importance being the signature of a member of the well-known
family of artists bearing the names of Eubulides and Eucheir.* From the
characters of the inscriptions and the nature of their contents it may be
inferred that these mouldings were the ordinary form of decoration for bases
at Hyampolis both in Greek and Graeco-Roman times.

Outside the walls on the south side we also sank trenches and came
upon a building, most probably a stoa of Graeco-Roman date, which may
possibly be the stoa mentioned by Pausanias as having been built by Hadrian.

1 North. Greece, ii. p. 167 ff.
2 Within these walls we found two inscriptions in which the letters YAM _ occur (nos. 2 and 6).

3 No. 3.
a

304 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS.

As, however, this building seemed to be of considerable extent and hidden by
some depth of earth, we did not completely clear it, thmking that it would be
not worth time or money to do so. In the neighbourhood of this building
there are some faint remains on the side of the hill which may possibly be
part of the theatre, said by Pausanias to have been not far from the gates,
but it is extremely doubtful whether they would repay the trouble of

excavation.
My.

At Myx or Smizxi, near a large spring om the road from Atalante to
Levadea, and a short distance from Hyampolis and Abae, there are considerable
remains of antiquity in and about aruined church. Several inscriptions! have Ὁ
been copied here and published. Whether these inscriptions have been
brought here, to be used as tombstones and in the construction of the church, or
belong to the spot cannot be definitely decided. We devoted a few hours to
excavation on the site and laid bare some foundations of walls of late Greek
or Roman date, inside an outer περίβολος wall, without being able to find out
definitely on what plan they are laid out.

It is possible that this may be the site of the temple of Artemis of
Hyampolis. Pausanias does not say that this temple was within the walls,
and as in the case of the neighbouring temple of Abae it may very well have
been placed at some little distance without. Moreover, two inscriptions”
found at Myx make mention of Artemis.

It cannot be said that the history of Abae or Hyampolis, as already
known from literary sources, has been largely supplemented by the results of
the excavations undertaken on these sites: It is satisfactory to have re-
covered the plan of the old τέμενος and temple of Apollo at Abae, but unfor-
tunately the products of Greek archaic art which must have been offered in
profusion at this shrine at the time of its early prosperity have vanished. It
was hoped that as at Athens, so at Abae, works of art damaged by the
Persians might have been used afterwards in levelling up the ground, or as
foundations for later buildings, and so have been preserved. But if we except
the bronze bowls no specimens of archaic art were given up by the soil, and
there is but little hope that any still exist in the neighbourhood of the
temple. The only other discovery of any importance is that of a new signa-
ture of a member of the family of artists who bore the names of Eubulides
and Eucheir.

II. Inscriptions.
No. 1.—Three fragments of Pentelic marble, belonging probably to the

same inscription found on the temple site at Abae. Nos. (1) and (2) were
turned up at the north-east corner of the larger temple (v. p. 298), No. (3) at

1 B.C.H. v. 449.- B.C.H. xviii. p. 53
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9.

2 B.C.H. v. p. 449, xviii. p. 53f. No. 9.

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PIOCIS. 305

the west end. The fragments may possibly be portions of the architrave of
the temple. Nos. (1) and (2) show finished corners above the letters, and
possibly preserve the first line of the inscription. Fragment (1) is so small
that it is impossible to assert positively that it belongs to (2), and the same
may be said of (3).

τς
ΑΝ:
(9)

(1) (2)

The inscription presents considerable difficulties. It is apparently a
restoration of an offering to a deity whose identity is indicated within narrow
limits by the letters \RBOAQI. These letters admit of two restorations, either
ἐλαφ]αβόλῳ or ἑκ]αβόλῳ, the former being an epithet of Artemis, the latter
of Artemis and Apollo. Though the former has local sanction, the latter is
the commoner of the two titles, and, if the proximity of Abae to the spot
where it was found is considered, perhaps the more probable, as it admits of
the restoration of the dedication as belonging to Apollo. In line two of
Fragment (2) we have remains of a letter either P or B, but B cannot be the
end of a word (unless it is a numeral To Β. which would be out of place before
the verb), and we must decide in favour of p. This letter suggests either καῖ-
σα]ρ or owt? |p for the word preceding ἀποκατέσταί. If Fragment (1) belongs
to the inscription, Π must be the first letter of a word, as there is a consider-
able blank space in front of it.

Three restorations seem possible :

Fragments (1) and (2),
(a) ἡ] π[όλις ᾿Απόχλωνι ᾿Εἰκ]αβόλῳ

πη» 7 Καξίσαρ (Αδρίανος) Σωτὴ]ρ ἀποκατέστασε
a, a Say Kal ἁμετέρου y[évous εὐεργέτας

b) Πυθίῳ ᾿Απόλλωνι “Ex]aBoro κ.τ.λ.
ο) Π[αρθένῳ ᾿Αρτάμιτι ᾿λαφ]αβόλῳ κ.τ.λ.
Without Fragment (1),
᾿Απόλλωνι ᾿κ]αβόλῳ «.7.X.
or ᾿Αρτάμιτι ᾿λαφ]αβόλῳ.

306 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS.
No. 2.—Fragments of a basis excavated within the walls of Hyampolis.

The material is Hymettian marble. Traces of two foot-marks above TIOHEA.

Ιο 20 cenlim

Ό ῳ

77.

Vik ΔΘ
πα BleBaorolmes DAs: API PIO Sy]
-μος “Ὑαμ[πολιτῶν..........
(ὁ δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνα kat).....Jup[...%.......] vs ᾿Αθ[ηναῖοι ἐϊπόησα[ν

We have on the lower part of the stone the signature of probably two
artists, but too little is left of the inscription to admit of their identification ;
|P is perhaps part of the name of the one and y< the end of the name of the
other. The letters A@ seem to point to their being Athenians. The
character of the letters and the form ἐπόησαν (y. Loewy, Jnschr. Griech.
Bildh. p. xiv.) would seem to admit of the date of the inscription being as
early as the second or third century B.c. The upper inscription, judging from
the forms of the letters € and AA, may be said to belong to late Imperial
times, and to record the erection of a statue of an emperor on the old basis.
For such additions we may compare the basis of Leochares and Sthennis
(Loewy, op. cit. No. 82), on which the statues of several emperors were
placed.

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS. 307

No. 3.—On a block of Hymettian marble, evidently part of a basis, of
which the corner is preserved to the left, built into a well-head on the acropo-
lis of Hyampolis.

/

YY pe Lah) U/C /AIEY IK PY
ΖΗ, Yn f fONi
YMA

EN A YW/AN

ne Aner ener [ἡ πόλις τῶν Ὕαμ-
-πολιτῶ]ν ἀρε(τ)ᾶ[ς ἕν[εκεν καὶ εὐν-
-olas| (τ)ᾶς ἐν αὑτὰν.

Εὐβουλίδης Εὔχειρος ᾿Αθηναῖος ἐποίησεν.

The upper part of the inscription is much defaced and weather-worn,
and the only letters that are certain are ev av ay, so that in the restoration I
have not adhered very faithfully to the letters. For this formula, and the use of
ἐν for εἰς in this district, compare Collitz (Sammlung Gricch. Dialekt. Inschrift.),
i. 504 (from Orchomenos), and Le Bas (Gr. and Lat. Inscript.) ii. 818. In the
latter, which was found at Hyampolis, the formula is ἀρετᾶς [ἕνεκεν] καὶ
εὐνοίας τᾶς ἐν αὐτοὺς. The name of the person in whose honour the statue
was put up may perhaps be (I)acova.

The sculptor mentioned below is doubtless one of the family of artists
bearing alternately the names of Eubulides and Eucheir (Paus. i. 2, 4, viii, 14,
10; Pliny xxxiv. 88; Loewy, Jnschrift. Griech. Bildh. Nos, 1383-135, 222-229,
542-544). From these inscriptions and the literary sources Loewy has made
out a genealogical tree of the family (op. cit. p. 166):

(1) Eucheir
l
(2) Eubulides............ Inser, 542—543. Cire. 190 B.C.

(ye MUCHO... coc 2-65. Inscr, 223—227, 544. Cire. 170 B.C
|
(4) Eubulides. ες Inser, 2283—229, Cire. 150 B.C. (worked at first with his father,

later alone). Jnse7. 228, 228a, 229,

308 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS ΙΝ PHOCIS

The only member of the family who writes his name Εὐβουλίδης Evyerpos
and whom we know to have been an artist, is No. (4), and the forms of the letters
do not seem early enough for us to identify the Eubulides of 183-135 with
the artist of our inscription; so that it seems probable he is the same as No.
(4), who lived about 150 B.c., and worked for a time with his father. It is
possible also that he is the same as No. (2), but this member of the family
has not yet been proved to be an artist, though Muilchhofer has lately attn-
buted a statue in the Louvre to him (Overbeck, Griech. Plastik. 1894,
ii. 438).

If he is the same as No. (4), he is the artist who worked and dedicated
the large group in the Ceramicus (Paus. i, 2, 4; Loewy, No. 228), The basis
of the work and portions of the statues have been found; Milchhofer calls his
work dull and spiritless as compared with that of his grandfather. The sub-
jects of the other two works which he executed alone (Loewy, 228a, 229) are
not known.

No. 4.—On a block of white marble lying outside the walls of Hyampolis
on the south side. Broken on all sides.

Professor Ramsay suggests :

[Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα A. Σεπτίμιον Σεβῆρον EvoeBi
Περτίνακα Σεβαστὸν ᾿Δραβικὸν ᾿Αδιαβηνικὸν ἸΠαρθικὸν
μ]έγιστ[οἹ]ν [καὶ Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα Μ. Αὐρήλιον ’Avto-
-νεῖνον] Σεβῆρον ε[ὑσεβῆ εὐτυχῆ Σεβαστὸν

Βριτα]ννικὸ[ν μέγιστον.

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS. 309

No. 5.—On a block of Hymettian marble in a ruined church within the
walls of Hyampolis. Moulding below similar to Nos. 4 and 5. Marks above
for fixing of feet of statue.

FKTQ NIAIQN ANEOHKENKAITHTNOAEIATRNOOE
THZAEAYTOY TRNMESFAAQN KALE APHQN KAITAN MESA
NQNEAAPHBOAIQNTE KAIAAPPISUN ΔΙ LOYEATQNAL
IMONOS KAI ΠΡΩ͂ΤΟΣ EIZHTHEATOKAIETEAE SEN EK TSN IAI +

[ὁ δεῖνα] ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀνέθηκεν καὶ TH πόλει ἀγωνοθε-
τήσας αὐτοῦ τῶν μεγάλων καισαρήων καὶ τῶν μεγά-
-λων ᾿ΒΕ(λ)αφηβολίων τε καὶ Λαφρίων δίσ(σ)γους ἄγωνας
μόνος καὶ πρῶτος εἰσηγήσατο καὶ ἐτέλεσεν ἐκ τῶν ἰδί[ων].

Line 2. αὐτοῦ is best taken with πόλει, though the order is strange,
meaning ‘his own city.’

Line 3. The Elaphebolia and Laphria are joined together by re and the
common article, as if they together made up one feast. But this is not neces-
sarily so; they may be merely contrasted with the Καισαρῆα.

The feast of Elaphebolia is mentioned twice by Plutarch in connection
with Hyampolis. It commemorated according to him an incident in Phocian
history (p. 293), was annual, and the chief feast of the Hyampolitans.

The feast of the Laphria is otherwise unknown, but Laphria was
a title of Artemis in Aetolia, whence it was conveyed to Achaea and
Messenia,! and the month Λαφρίαιος in Actolia and Laphria in Phocis and
Doris was the same as the Attic month of Elaphebolion.?, From these uses
of the words it is not difficult to trace the connection of the feast with
Artemis, the chief divinity of Hyampolis, and the Elaphebolia with which it
is here joined.

No. 6 a.—On a small fragment of marble found within the walls of

Hyampolis.

[EPON TSX
YAM
ΡΓΥΡΙΟΥ
MAPTY
NCAT
1 Paus. τὰ 31, 7, vii. 13, 318%: Sicnll> κἀν Sani and Foucart, Znser. ἃ Deletes, 54,
459; Preller, Gricchische Mythologic, 1894, vol. 63, 112.
i, p. 301.

310 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS

τ]ο ἱερὸν τῶ
᾿Απόλλωνος 2 τὸ ἐΐν ‘Tap
πόλει... .] ἀργυρίου
MEATS AE μαρτυ-

This inscription seems to have reference to a sacred treasury at Hyam-
polis, or perhaps to a contract for repairs to a sacred building.
ὃ and c.—Two other fragments zbidem:

No. 7.—Stele of rough limestone in the house of Janis Aggelopoulos at
Exarcho. It is said to have come from a tomb at Abae.

E V@VDRONO

~~

Εὐθύφρονος.

The crossed θ and three-stroke sigma show that the inscription is early,
_probably dating from the first half of the fifth century. The forms of the
letters do not differ from those of other early inscriptions of Phocis,

EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCITS. 311

No. 8.-- Appliqné’ on two fragments of a large earthenware vessel dug
up on temple site at Abae.

On cach fragment the letters seem to be part of the name, probably that
of the potter.

No. 9.—Seratched on a potsherd dug up on temple-site at Abae.

UBOY) oy
Aeon

Written in cursive. The forms ἃ and would point to the second or first
century as the date.
= Lee οβούλου

τῆς πόλα[ζως

No. 10.—Sharply incised on fragment of a brick dug up on temple-site

at Abac.
hl UA bw vk
χ W&
044 vg
Roy

312 EXCAVATIONS AT ABAE AND HYAMPOLIS IN PHOCIS

ες Pee

This inscription, the upper portion of which is evidently part of an
abecedarium, is written in cursive of the third or fourth century A.D. In the
lsat two lines the letters do not seem to be in regular order, and may

possibly represent a word or words.
V. W. YORKE.

EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES 313

EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES FROM EASTERN MACEDONIA AND
THRACE.

THESE notes are a result of a short tour in the autumn of 1896 through
the coastlands north of the Aegean from Xerxes’ canal to the Hebrus.
Professor W. C. F. Anderson of Firth College, Sheffield, accompanied me.
and gave much valuable help. Of the inscriptions which we copied the
following seem to be either unknown, or imperfectiy published or described,
If I have overlooked a previous publication of any of them, I may plead the
difficulty of finding out what has or has not been edited.

1. Hierissos (Acanthus): in a wall near the Byzantine gate on the
acropolis. Fragment of coarse marble block, 1 foot 11 inches high, 10 inches
broad. Letters about 34 inches. Published by Cousinéry, Voyage dans la
Macédoine, ὃ. 11., p. 151; by Boeckh, C.L.G. 2007k; and, the epigraphic text
only, by Le Bas, No, 1414.

I believe that the right half of the stone has been cut away. If so, it
is better to read ὅρος δήμου ᾿Ακανθ(ίων) with Cousinéry than ὅρος Δήμητρος
᾿Ακανθίας with Boeckh. The stone may have marked the boundary of

public land.

2. Lympiada: in a wall on the beach. Rough block of granite, 3 feet
3 inches long, 1 foot 7 inches high. Letters ὅς to 3 inches, irregular and

much weathered.

314 EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES
M EAT Ei eee?
HNON ®N:

Μελέτων καλὸς
᾿Ηδ(ώ)νης ?

The first line is certain, the second altogether doubtful. The strange
symbols seem to be merely ornamental. 1 do not remember to have met the
καλὸς formula before on stone.

3. Yeni keni (Amphipolis): in the platform round the tree in front ot

the coffee-shop. Fragment of panelled marble block 1 foot high, 8 inches
broad, broken above, below, and on the left. Letters 14 inch.

d O
MIL
NOR
Vi

(es)

Apparently a soldier’s tombstone

4. Yeni keui: in the coping of the south wall of the church, close under
the eaves. Only the ends of the lines show. Marble slab. Letters about
1 inch, finely inscribed.

KAIA
Pale Pu
Yo Εἰ

Probably a tombstone. y]vv7) seems obvious in line 3.

5. Yeni keui: published (1) by K. Asterios D. Gousios of Laccobekia
in his little work ἡ κατὰ τὸ Πάγγαιον χώρα, p. 11, (2) by M. Paul Perdrizet,

FROM EASTERN MACEDONIA AND THRACE. 315
Voyage dans la Maccdoine premiére, No. 4, in Δ. Corr. Hell, XVII
p 423.
"Aprepidmpos ᾿Αντιγένου ᾿Αντιγένης ᾿Αρτεμιδώρου ἥρωες χαίρετε.

Μ. Perdrizet’s copy is correct. Κὶ, Gousios read ’Avtuyévous.

6, 7,8. Yeni keui: published (1) by K. Gousios op. cit. pp. 11, 12
(2) more correctly by M. Perdrizet in Bull. Corr. Hell. XIX. pp. 109, 110,
from copies made in 1891 by M. Louis Couve. M. Perdrizet did not find the
stones.

6. In the east wall of the church, to the left of the apse. Narrow
marble block about two feet long, inscribed lengthwise. Letters about 1 inch,

>?
prettily cut.
Διότιμος Ἐενοφῶντοϊς

Μ. Perdrizet assigns this inscription to the Hellenistic period, to me it
seemed to be of the fourth century B.c.

7. Ibid., to the right-of the apse. Marble block 1 foot 11 inches high,
11? inches broad, with a defaced carving of some object above the inscription,
and a winged caduceus in a panel below it. Letters ? inch. M. Couve’s
copy is correct.

M. Καικέλιος | Σώτας ὁ χαλκεὺς | ἀπὸ τῆς τέχνης | θεοῖς μεγάλοις | τοῖς ἐν
Σαμοθράκηι.

8. In the south wall οἱ the church, at the east angle. Blue marble
block. Letters 1 inch.

΄ / e Ἂς \ “ 4 ia a , A
Acovidns Τειμοκλέϊους ἑαυτὸ κὲ τῇ γυ)νέκει Tateweia ζῶϊσιν.
E is sometimes round, sometimes square. K. Gousios read γυναίκει.

9. Provista: in the wall of the church. Marble block, 1 foot 8 inches
long, 8} inches high. Letters ? inch, prettily cut.

EKATAILHK2PABO
ZA TAPLOIY NA

. ‘Exatain Κωράβο,
Σαγγαρίο γυνή.

Probably the earliest inscription of Amphipolis hitherto known.

10. Provista: published incorrectly by K. Gousios op. cit. p. 18, and
correctly by M. Perdrizet, from a copy by M. Couve, Bull. Corr, Hell. XIX.

316 EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES

p. 111. Phe lines are of uneven lengths at the ends, but beein evenly under
one another.

‘Ayal τύχη. | Adtoxpdtope Καίσαρι | A. Σεπτιμίῳ Leovrjpw | [ὑὐσεβεῖ
Heprivaxe | Σεβαστῷ ᾿Αραβικῷ | ᾿Λδιαβηνικῷ ΤΠαρθικῷ | Μεγίστῳ καὶ
Μ. ΔΛὐρηλίῳ |᾿᾿Αντωνείνῳ Σεβαστῷ | .....---- Σεπτιμίω | .... Καίσαρι
ἡ ᾿ΛμφιποἸλειτῶν πόλις.

The erasure in the tenth line is certainly Γέτᾳ. Μ. Perdrizct proposes
KdceBet καὶ II. to fill the erasure in the ninth line, but the space will not
contain so many letters. M. Couve’s copy, as published, Prof. Anderson’s
copy, and my own copy all agree in placing the initial C of Σεπτιμίῳ verti-
cally below the final ὦ of ᾿Αντωνείνῳ, which leaves room for about cight
letters. Morcover, it is improbable that any of Caracalla’s titles would be
erased. It is difticult to suggest a plausible filling, and Geta’s inscriptions
are too rare to give much help. Either καὶ Ποπλέῳ or καὶ MH. Λ. υἱῷ might
stand. The former might be justified by Geta’s change of pracnomen, but
the latter seems the more probable and fills the space better. M. Perdrizet’s
exact date, 201, depends on his restoration.

11. Provista: in the churchyard. Marble column, 1 foot 2 inches in
diameter, broken above and below. Letters 2 inches. The ends of the lines
are obliterated.

SNe el eS, Imp. [Caes.]
MAW RE ba M. Aurclifus
ANTONINY Aitonnufs
PLAGS FE br LX ANA ι ει ἐεξνκύνοντ
PARTIC Vo MX PY ®’Parthicus Maxi{ mus,
BRITTANICYV __ Brittanicu{s Ma-
XIMVSGERM -ximus, Germa{nicus
RAST AVSEOM E Maximus, Pont[ifex

MXIMVS TRIB Maximus, trib.[pot.

Am Ϊ NAP ΠΕ XX, Imp.[I]IIL, cfos. INIT
PROCOSRES ___ procos, resfti

ΙΓ Ll ταῖν. ΜΡ, VIL?

FROM EASTERN MACEDONIA AND THRACE. 317

Incorreetly published (1) by K. Gousios vp. cit. p. 13, (2) by M. Perdrizet,
from a copy by M. Couve, Bull. Corr, Hell. XTX. p. 111.

A milestone from the Via Egnatia. The number of the miles may Ix
VIL. or VIIT. or VITIT., reckoned without doubt from Amphipolis. The date
indicated falls within the last months of Caracalla’s reign. There are also
vestiges of an obliterated Constantinian inscription on the other side of the
stone. ;

12. Basilaki: at the door of the coffee-shop. Fragment of marble
block, 2 feet 7 inches long, 1 foot 4 inches broad, broken at both ends.

Letters 54 and 4! inches.
-LISTAN
VSORNANA

Cal ]listam
ornatjus ornam|[entis

13. Philippi: in the substructure of the arch just north of the
‘Direkler” Fragment of marble block, 6 feet long, about 10 inches broad
broken to left. Letters from 3 inches.

H.S —VOL. XVI, Z

318 EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES

14. Rakcha: at the washing fountain. Marble sarcophagus lid, broken
at both ends. Letters about 2} inches, inscribed on the edge of the slab.

RCAALIVMQVIPOSVERITO

in ea ajrea alium qui posuerit [quam qui supra scripti sunt dabit reipub-
licae, ete.

15. Gumuljina: in front of a mosque in the bazar. Square marble base,
2 feet 5 inches high, 1 foot 6 inches broad. Letters about 1 inch, almost
effaced.

AP OFe Fen
Mm PAE WN FAIS

᾿Αρθέων
τ[ῷ] Ξενι(λ)εώ. (0)

10. Maronia: in the yard of a house. Fragment of marble block with

a moulding above, 1 foot 14 inch long, 8} inches high, broken below. Letters
over } inch, much wore.

NO We Sag
Hl Ay es. ee ge OD A

NAIOZANHPATA... ANAIATEAE
KAIKOINHITEPITHNTOAINKA I

No [ elare|v, ἐπειδὴ
Ἥρα κλειἾτος [ὁ δεῖνος] ᾿Α[θη-
-ναῖος ἀνὴρ ἀγα[θὸς] ὧν διατελεῖ
καὶ κοινῆ! περὶ τὴν πόλιν καὶ

The preface to an honorary decree.

17. Maronia: in the pavement of the same yard. Fragment of blue
marble block, broken to right.

ZNEINAION:
rYNHAENOYMHN
TOYMHTPOAOTOY
UMMM OKHMOZTOENAINA

FROM EASTERN MACEDONTA AND THRACE. 319
᾿Ἡ]δεῖα Διονυσίου
γυνὴ δὲ Νουμην[ lov
τοῦ Μητροδότου
.... Ἰς. ὁ δῆμος ὁ ἐν Alva.
‘O δῆμος ὁ ἐν Αἴνῳ would be the Maronites resident in Aenus.

18. Maronia: in the same yard. Marble block, broken at both sides and
below. Letters 1 inch.

απ δε, ¥
Tid Py KoA DVO}
ALAATOCK*

᾿Αττάλου
᾿Ε]πιδαῆ καὶ
Σερ]ουέλιος

19.—Maronia: in a wall near the top of the village. Coarse marble
block, broken above. Letters about 1 inch, irregular.

+ Bat
OA. Η ALO. 0 2

APTEMOANAI
ENOYHPOQA

᾿Αρτέμων(α) Ad{oy-

-ένου ἥρωα.

The appellation ἥρως seems to be the commonest of sepulchral formulae
αὖ Maroneia. Compare the following inscription, and five other examples

published by M. Salomon Reinach in Bull. Corr. Hell. v. and viii.
Zz 2

320 EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES

20.—Maronia: in the yard of a house. Fragment of marble block,
broken to right and below. Letters 1 inch.

' 3 As (Gadd J
ΠΟΥ ΔΉ
Et PaaS

oie.) ame

21.—Maronia: under a stair. Fragment of marble block, broken above
and to right. Letters 1 inch, neatly inscribed.

| CANAYD

Πάλαψ' [Πάλαπος ?

22.—Maronia: built into the stair of the school. Rough marble block
with smoothed panel. Letters about 2 inches, irregular.

CWCIPIAOCAION

Σωσίφιλος Διονυσίου

23.—Maronia: in the yard in front of the school. Square marble cippus,
3 feet 3 inches high, 1 foot 8 inches broad. Letters 1} inch, irregularly
inscribed. Published by M. Salomon Reinach, ‘ Antiquités de Maronée et d’
Abdére,’ No 3, in Bull. Corr, Hell. v. p. 30: see also viii. p. 50..

FROM EASTERN MACEDONIA AND THRACE. 321

Μ. Reinach gives the first line as OPdE!I-KAICIAN//////. Both Prof.
Anderson and I read it as

—_—

OPDEIKAICIAYE

24.—Maronia: built into the wall of the school, to the right of the door.
Block of coarse marble, 5 feet 8 inches long, 10 inches high. Letters 1} inch.
Published by M. Salomon Reinach, ‘ Antiquités de Maronée et d’Abdére,’ No
7, in Bull. Corr. Hell. v. p. 91 : see also viii. p. 50.

Αἰνετὸν ἐν βιότῳ ζήσασα χρόνον Τυλλία Πρόκλα πάλαι στρατιώτου
θυγάτηρ, στρατευομένου τε ἀδελφοῦ, κατεσκεύασα ἐμαυτῇ τὸ χαμοσό-
’ὔ > a 4 , \ “na A / “ 4 κ᾿
-ριον πάραυτα, is ὃ βούλομαι μέχρι μὲν ζῶ ὃν ἂν θέλω θεῖναι, μετὰ δὲ
τὸν θάνατον μου ὃς ἄν τις τολμήσῃ τινὰ θεῖναι δώσει τῷ ταμείῳ (δηνάρια)
πεντακόσια
\ lol , ’ ,
Kal τῇ πόλει (δηνάρια) πεντακόσια.

In line 3 the letters TAPAYTAICO, which M. Reinach forbore to inter-
pret, may be resolved into πάραυτα is (-Ξ εἰς) 6. In line 4 M. Reinach
misread MOYOC as MONOC.,

25.—Maronia: in the west wall of the church on the old site. Marble
altar with gable and acroteria, 1 foot 9 inches high, 11} inches broad. Letters
1}and 1 inch. Published by M. Salomon Reinach, ‘ Antiquités de Maronée et
d’Abdeére,” No. 17, in Bull. Corr. Hell. v. p. 93, and again more completely in
Bull. Corr, Hell: viii. p. 51.

In line 4 of his second edition either M. Reinach or his printer has in-
advertently inserted an iota, making Διονύσου into Διονυσίου. In this point
his earlier version is correct. The ᾿Αγαθῇ τύχῃ is inscribed on the moulding
above the panel.

26.—Maronia: ‘Dans le mur de la maison de Vrionis, ἃ coté dun
triglyphe surmonté d’un bout de corniche.’ Published by M. Salomon Reinach

Bull. Corr, Hell. viii. p. 51. Marble block, 1 foot 82 inches high, 2 feet
9 inches long. Letters 14 inch.

THMOY CANXAPIN
bHOPENI
TIMWN6EMIN
TONKPATWN

6 YNEINOW

EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES.

w
bo
υξ

. . « τὴ Μουσῶν χάριν
σο]φῇ φρενί
τιμῶν θέμεν
... .|Tov κρατῶν
ev |Ovver vow.

M. Reinach means to imply that the inseription is on the same stone as
the triglyph to the right of it. There is part of another triglyph to
the left of it, also on the same stone. In fact the inscription occupies the
metope between two triglyphs. M. Reinach does not expressly remark that
the inscription gives the ends of five iambie lines, two metrical feet, more or
less, of each. We may infer that the part lost occupied the two metopes to
the left of this one, and that the inscription was written up over a portico or
the entrance to some building, possibly a large tomb.

J. Artuur R. Munro.

A GREEK GOLDSMITH’S MOULD 323

A GREEK GOLDSMITH’S MOULD IN THE ASHMOLEAN
MUSEUM.

THE monument represented in the dimensions of the original by the
‘ 17 at Ning raga an ΤΡ . τ J . ; ὟΣ . -
annexed figure (Fig. 1) was acquired by Mr. Arthur Evans in ΟοτΥά, in 1895,

Dro, 1

and is now in the Ashmolean Museum. It is a piece of bronze, irregularly
oblong in shape, measuring 4% in. in length by 1 to 14 in. in breadth, and ὃ
to οἷς in. in thickness. Each of the four long surfaces is decorated with a
serics of incised patterns separated by bands of ornament. There can be no
doubt as to the destination of the object, which was evidently intended to
serve as a mould for the manufacture of plaques, diadems, &c., in repouss¢.
A series of gold plaques (Figs. 2-5) have been executed from the mould by
Mr. Ready, and are exhibited beside the original in the Ashmolean Museum.
At the same time it may well have been used for work in other metals, such
as the thin sheets of bronze used for the well-known ‘ Argo-Corinthian ’
plaques which furnish the nearest analogies to the subjects of our monument.

The interest. of the mould lies partly in its technical aspect, as giving us
an insight into the methods of early industrial art, and partly in the
affinities of subject which enable us to link it with the various schools of
early Greek production.

Technically speaking, the most remarkable feature of the mould is the
close analogy which it presents to the products of the early gem-engraver
and die-sinker. The instruments employed by artists of this class are

324 A GREEK GOLDSMITH’S MOULD

the bow and drill, the wheel, and the simple graving-tool, the last-named
being adapted for work on the softer materials, such as steatite, which were
so largely used in early αὐτὸ. Most noteworthy is the extensive use of the
drill, which is not only employed in blocking out the figures, the traces of its
action being subsequently removed as in later gem-engraving, but also serves
by means of its circular depressions to accentuate the contours and articula-
tions of the figure, as well as to furnish simple and effective forms of
ornament. For examples of this sort of work, reference may be made to the
following early gems :—

(a) For the use of large drill-holes in the articulation of limbs, &e.—
Middleton, Engraved Gems, p. 110, Fig. 24, Brit. Mus. Cat. Pl. A, 106,
Ed. “Apy. 1888, Pl. X. passim, esp. 5 (note the use of the tubular drill).

(0) For the use of small drill-holes to characterise a surface—Middleton,
Engraved Gems, Pl. I. 2 (eagle and serpent, ep. 4.Z. 1883, Pl. XVI. 23—a
later example—and the early coins of Chalcis); Brit. Mus. Cat. Pl. A, 82.

(c) For the free use of the wheel—numerous examples in A.Z, 1883,
Pl. XVI. and Ath. Mitth. 1886, Pl. VI.; the network so common on
island-gems seems to be thus produced, and wings are regularly treated in
this way.

If we now compare with these gems the subjects of our mould, we cannot
fail to notice precisely the same technical peculiarities.

(1) The larger drill-holes serve to accentuate such features as the knees
of the horses and other animals, and the heels, eyes, and breasts of the
human figure, while in some cases they appear to remain as indications of
the general structure—as in the case of the hind-quarters of the horses and
ox—which the artist has not thought fit to obliterate in working over the
surface.

(2) Frequent use is made of rows of smaller drill-holes, e.g. in bringing
into relief the under surfaces of the hares and fish-god, and in giving
character to hair, manes, tail, and outspread wings, as well as to the feet of
the tripod.

(3) The ‘rosette of points, well known in other classes of work, such

as ‘ Proto-Corinthian’ pottery, is a frequent and prominent element in the
decoration. The origin is here clearly to be seen in the combination for
ornamental purposes of the large and small drill-holes.
. (4) The features of early gem-engravings which owe their origin to
the use of the wheel, such as the fondness of the artist for representing
birds with outspread wings, may be illustrated in several instances from our
mould.

While the mould thus enables us to trace the art of the metal-worker
in early Greece to its technical origin in the procedure of the gem-engraver,
it also helps us to detect remoter traces of the same influence in forms of

1 Middleton would trace the use of the millan lekythos (protocorinthian) as thus pro-
diamond-point on the earliest gems and even duced; but this seems doubtful.
proposes to regard the incised lines of the Mac-

IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. 325

wrt uot directly affected by it in their technical processes. For example,
the use of the ‘rosette of points’ in early vase-painting and the bordering
of draperies with rows of small white points, as well as the representation of
hair by raised dots of black glaze in r.f. painting, are seen to be derived from
the same source.!

The conclusion to which the foregoing observations point is that the
close interconnection between the various arts and crafts in early Greece
which reveals itself so markedly in their common stock of types extends
also to their technical methods. And we may justly see in this latter fact
one of the causes to which fixity of type is due. For beside the strength
of tradition in the schools of early handicraft and the poverty of invention
which belongs to the artistic infancy of the Greek stocks, we must recognise
as a factor in the fixing of types the circumstance that the dominant arts in
the matter of technique were those distinguished by their use of mechanical
reproduction from the matrix.?

We may now pass on to consider the place which our mould claims in
early art by virtue of its subjects. In seeking for analogies we turn
naturally to the products of the minor arts, which group themselves under
the following heads :—

(1) Metal-work. It is here that we expect to find the closest parallels
to the subjects of the mould, since the products of similar matrices have come
down to us in no inconsiderable number. They may be classed according to
their material as follows :—

(a) Gold. Plaques and diadems from Athens (A.Z. 1884, Pl. [X.), Corinth
(id. Pl. VIII), Rhodes (Salzmann, Nécropole de Camiros, 1.), Eleusis
(Ἐφ. ᾽Δρχ. 1885, Pl. IX.)

(0) Silver. Fragmentary relief from Olympia (iv. Pl. XX XTX. No. 710),
plaques from Cyprus (Jahrb. 1887, Pl. VIIT.).

(ὁ) Bronze. In this material we have (a) the series of plaques usually
known as the ‘ Argo-Corinthian’ bronze-reliefs, treated especially by Mr.
A. G. Bather in this Journal, vol. xiii. p. 249 ff. and by M. De Ridder in
Bull. Corr. Hell. 1895, p. 218 ff, and his catalogues of the Bronzes of
the Acropolis and of the Polytechnion; (8) the small group of
mirror handles discussed by Furtwiingler in Historisch-philologische Aufsdtze
Ernst Curtius gewidmet, pp. 181-193 and De Ridder in the latter of the two
catalogues above named, p. 30: (vy) the class of diadems, found especially in
Boeotia and published ’Ed. ’Apx. 1892, Pl. XXII. and Arch. Anzeiger, 1891,
p. 124 f. See De Ridder in the catalogue last quoted, p. 67.

(2) Gem-engraving. In this branch we must pay special attention to the
so-called ‘ Inselsteine,’ a class which, as is well known, bridges the transitions

1 It is instructive to compare the surface of | to the same phenomenon in Boeotian work.
the fish-god on the island-gem Brit. Mus. Cat. 2 The mould also explains the phenomenon
Pl. A, 82 with the similar figures on the Castle noticed by De Ridder, Bull. Corr. Hell. 1895,
Ashby vase (A.V. 318), with their dotted bodies. γ. 220, ‘les bordures sont estampées ἃ l'aide de
On the rows of dots in Tyrrhenian vases see matrices dont la grandeur ne dépasse pas un
Hauser, Jahrb. 1893 p. 102 n. 21, who points champ.’

326 A GREEK GOLDSMITH’S MOULD

which lead from Mycenaean art down to that of historical Greece. The
latest discovered of these gems, published in Ath. Mitth. 1896, Pl. V.
(Pollak), will furnish analogies to the mould. ‘Archaic’ gems are also
available for comparison.

(3) Pottery (a) stamped, (Ὁ) painted. The former class, which from the
similarity of its technique has the closest affinity with our monument, is only
represented by a few examples from Greece proper, so that our conception of
it is mainly derived through the medium of the Etruscan ‘buccheri, which
imitate its types. The Greek examples are treated by Pottier in Bull. Corr.
Hell. 1888, pp. 491-509, and Monuments Gees, 11. 14-16, Pl. VIII, and
recent additions to their number are published in Ath, Mitth. 1896, Pl. V.
(Pollak) VI. (Diimmler).

Among the various styles of painted pottery the ‘ Proto-Corinthian ἡ is
that which is most valuable for our purpose. For the most recent and
valuable discussion of this class see Orsi in Notizie degli Scavi, 1895,
pp. 109 ff.

It will be found that in its ornament and subjects our mould presents
such close analogies to all these groups that all are clearly secn to be the
products of the same artistic impulse in various stages.

A, ORNAMENT.—The ornaments of the mould may be grouped as
follows :—

(1) Decorative bands.

(a) The ‘guilloche’ or plait. This is almost the commonest motive
thus applied on early bronze-reliefs—Olympia, iv. Pl. XXXIX. 699-702,
Ath. Mitth. 1895, xiv. 1-4 (Acropolis), De Ridder, Bronzes εἶ Athénes, 797
(1311) (Eleutherae), Bull. Corr. Hell. 1892, Pl. X. (Ptoion), Carapanos,
Dodone, xvi. 2, 3.

(6) The primitive maeander, not continuous, but in short sections
perpendicular to the line of the band. It should be noted that the form
here adopted stands midway between the simpler variety of the ‘ Phaleron’
vase, Jahrb. 1887, p. 46, Fig. 5, and the more elaborate Bocotian pattern
Jahrb. 1888, p. 341, Fig. 23 (cp. also the ‘Phaleron’ vase Jahrb. 1887,
p. 57, Fig. 23).

(ὁ) The row of points. Also extremely common on early bronze-
work. See De Ridder, Bull. Corr. Hell. 1895, p. 219, and ep. Op. cit. 1892,
Pl. XI. XIV. XV. (Ptoion), Arch. Anzeige, 1894, p.117, Figs. 7-9 (Akrokorinth),
id. 1891, p. 125, No. 12 ὃ, c (Thebes), and many other examples.

(4) Bands divided by vertical lines into squares containing points.
A reduced torm of the common type, Olympia. iv. Pl. XXXIX. 703, 704,
Bull. Corr. Hell. 1892, Pl. X., Arch. Anzeigcer, 1894, p. 118, Fig. 12, &c.,
&ec. (the squares left empty, Olympia, Joc. cit. 699, Carapanos Dodonce,
xvi. 3, &c.)

(2) Miscellaneous ornaments.

(a) The rosette. This appears in two forms, (a) the elaborate rosettes
which occupy the space on the extreme left of Fig. 4, for which the best
parallels may be found in the Boeotian diadems, Arch. Anzciger, 1891,

IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. 327

p. 125, No. 12 4,d, f,’Ed. ’Apy. 1892, X. XII.; (8) the ‘rosette of points,’
a feature of ‘ Proto-Corinthian’ pottery ¢.g., 4.2. 1888, Pl. X. 1, 2, (ep.
Ρ. 162, Arch. Anzeiger, 1888, p. 247, Notizie degli Scavi, 1895, p. 156.
Fig. 43), but also found on Dipylon (A.Z., 1885, Pl. VIII. 2), Boeotian
(Jahrb. 1888, pp. 335, Fig. 7, 341, Fig. 24), and early Attic (A.Z, 1882,
Pl. IX. X., Antike Denkmiiler, i. 57, Griechische und Sicilische Vasenbilder, liv.)
ware. It is noteworthy that we also find it not only on early metal-work
(Olympia, iv. Pl. XX XVIII.) but also on gems (Ath. Mitth. 1896, Pl. V. 11,
Brit. Mus. Cat., Pl. B, 118, the central point worked with the tubular drill).

(6) Simple plant-forms—confined to the foliated branch and its com-
binations. This motive is again widely spread in early art. A few examples
may be noted: (a) bronze-reliefs—Bull. Corr. Hell. 1892, Pl. XIV. (Ptoion),
id. 1895, p. 218, Fig. 23, 24, Arch. Anzeiger, 1894, p. 117, No. 7, id. 1881,
p. 124; (@) island-gems—Ath. Mitth. 1896, Pl. V. 2, zd. 1886, Pl. VI. 7 a,
A.Z., 1883, Pl. XVI. 2,3, Brit. Mus. Cat. Pl. B 113; (vy) painting—Corinthian
vase, Rayet et Collignon, Histoire de la Céramique Grecque, Fig. 33, sarco-
phagus from Clazomenae, Rev. Arch. 1896, p. 121; (δ) stamped pottery, Ath.
Mitth. 1896, p. 230, Fig. 1, Pl. VI. (branches in hands of centaurs, practi-
cally an ornamental application of this motive), Etruscan ‘bucchero, Micali,
Mon. Ined. Pl. XXXIV. 2. This example serves to connect the various
branches of art in which we may trace the style to which our mould belongs.
The same lesson may be drawn from the consideration of the subjects repre-
sented.

B. SuBsEcTs.—-Considering these as a whole, we cannot fail to notice that
they are of the simplest possible description. Setting aside the compositions
formed by animals, there is only one case in which more than a single human
figure occurs, and here the composition is almost purely decorative. The types
appear reduced to their simplest form—the mere letters of that artistic
alphabet into which we have to read the meaning derived from their later and
better known combinations. It will be convenient to group them according
to the form of the field which they occupy.

(1) The square field. The importance of this in early art is well-known.
Within its limits we can trace the evolution of the best known types from
decorative symbols to expressive groups. In the gold plaques of Cyprus,
Rhodes, and Corinth, in the Argo-Corinthian reliefs and the mirror-handles
which go closely with these we see the school in which the types were
created. Even in the dimensions of the field we find but little variation, from
4.to 54 centimetres being the usual length of the side. They were borrowed
by artists working in different materials, ὁ... the sculptors of Etruscan tomb-
doors (on which see Milani in Notizie degli Scavi, 1892. pp. 472 ff.) and the
painters of the sarcophagi of Clazomenae, where the longer sides of the
lid lent themselves to this principle of division of the type found on the
matrix. The bridled horse calls for no special comment,’ but the central group
of Fig. 2 deserves careful attention,

1 For a parallel see the Boeotian casket (geometrical) from Thebes (Jahrb. 1888 p. 357).

328 A GREEK GOLDSMTTH’S MOULD

We see two wude male tigures, whose proportions recall those of Pelopou
nesian work in bronze and other materials (see 77S. xi. p. 249) syme-
metrically grouped about a tripod; cach has one foot advanced and firmly
planted on the sole, the other withdrawn and resting on tiptoe. Similarly
each has one arm bent and resting on the small of the back above the hip,
the other extended and bent at the elbow in readiness to deliver a blow, the
fists almost mecting above the centre of the tripod. It has been suggested
that we have here a primitive form Οἱ the ‘contest for the tripod’ between
Apollo and Herakles, commonly represented in b.f. and earlier r.f. vase-painting.
It is no doubt the case that the familiar scheme in which Apollo seeks to

recover the tripod already carried off by Herakles does not represent the
earliest efforts of Geeek artists to deal with this subject. On a bf. vase at
Naples (Collezione Santangelo 120) a prior stage of the conflict is depicted.
Apollo and Herakles approach the tripod from opposite quarters, and each

lays hands upon it simultaneously. But here, apart from the fact that neither
figure is characterised by attributes, it seems clear that the attitudes are
those of boxers about to engage, while the tripod indicates the prize of the
contest. The tripod as ἄθλον is employed not only by the artist of the
Corinthian Amphiaraos vase (JZ.d./. X. 4) but also on one of the finest of the
‘Proto-Corinthian’ class, at present unpublished, in the Museum at Taranto,
Cp. the chest of Kypselos, Paus. v. 17, 11. We must not however rest
content with thus explaining the scene before us, but point out that it is after
all but a variant, with a specialised meaning, of the symmetrical pair of figures
about a central object which occurs in many forms, more or less meaningless,
in early industrial art. Instances might be multiplied from Etruscan buccheri,
(cp. Micali, Storia, Pl. XX. passin), but the most instructive parallels are the
Argo-Corinthian bronze-relief from Ptoion, Bull. Corr. Hell. 1892 Pl. XI. and
the fragment of a stamped jar from Rhodes, Ath. Mitth. 1896 p. 230. In the
light of these examples we may say that the whole truth does not le in the
simple rejection of the theory which sees the contest of Apollo and Herakles
for the tripod here represented. Our scene is a true precursor of the earliest
scheme applied to that subject ; it represents the first stage in the specialisa-

IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. 329

tion of a general and meaningless decorative scheme—a contest for a tripod
which was afterwards to be yet further individualised and filled with a
mythological content.

(2) Smaller squares and oblong fields. With the exception of two
‘heraldic’ groups—the lion and ox, the cock and hen (?)—these are filled by
single figures, in all but two cases those of animals. These latter exceptions
must be specially considered :—

(a) Lhe suicide of Ajax (Fig. 3, right). This belongs to the limited
repertory of scenes drawn from the tale of Troy which is employed by the
artists of the early bronze-reliefs and mirrors. Curiously enough, all but one!
are taken from a brief cycle of events following the death of Hector. The ran-
soming of the corpse forms the subject of the well-known mirror-handle at Berlin
(Furtwiingler, op. cit. Pl. IV.), the bronze-relief from Olympia (iv. Pl. XX XIX.
No, 699), and a bronze-relief from the Acropolis (Ath. Mitth. 1895 Pl. XIV. 1
De Ridder, Catalogue, No. 349); the ὅπλων κρίσις is in all probability
indicated in the adjoining field of the last-named relief; while the last act—
the suicide—besides being represented on the uppermost extant field of the

HIG. ὦ,

same monument, which thus enjoys the distinction of presenting the cycle in
its entirety, also appears on a relief identical in style and origin, Ath. Mitth.
1895, Pl. XIV. 4, De Ridder, Catalogue, No. 350, and on our mould. Here
however, it is reduced to its very simplest form, the prostrate figure being un-
attended by the two (in one case three) additional figures of the later bronze-
reliefs. Parallels for the extreme reduction may however be found in the
fragmentary Corinthian aryballos, Arch. Anzeige, i891, p. 116, 5, where the
name A|FA$ is scratched on the figure, and the tomb-door from Corneto,
Notizie degli Scavi 1881 p. 377, ep. Schneider, Prolegomena zw einer neuen
Galerie, &c., p. 35. It is noteworthy that the figure occurs (without any clear
connection with the other figures of the scene) on the ‘ Proto-Corinthian’
lekythos, Arch. Anzciger, 1895, p. 33 f. Fig 5. The introduction of the sword,
by making the act of suicide unmistakable, clearly imports a mythical meaning
ito the scene, for we can scarcely believe that suicide in the abstract would
be represented by carly artists: but the ‘reduced’ type points back to the

' Ajax Oileus and Cassandra (Olympia, 705).

330 A GREEK GOLDSMITH’S MOULD

gource in such conventional figures of the slain as the Eurytion of the
Geryoneia (A.V 105, 106, Chalcidian. )

(Ὁ) The Old Man of the Sea.—(Fig. 3, next the above.) Beside the epic
mythology, the subsidiary pantheon of popular belief, with its fantastic
creations, furnished a number of types to early artists, here assisted by the
products of Oriental manufacture, which readily lent themselves with little, if
any, modification to the expression of Greek conceptions. Amongst these
the type of the fishtailed deity worshipped under various titles in the Kast
did duty for the creations of popular fancy to which a variety of names—
Proteus, Triton, &e.—were assigned in different places. As the ἅλιος γέρων
par excellence he was worshipped on the Bosphorus, and local legend ascribed
to him the office of guide to the Argonauts (Dionysius Byz. p. 20, Wescher,
referred to by Furtwingler, Goldfund von Vettersfelde, p. 25); and the same
name is applied to him by the inscription on the bronze-reliet from Olympia
(iv. Pl. XXXIX. No. 699). While, however, the single figure occurs on such
early products as the island-gem, Ath. Mitth. 1886, PI. VI. 10, the specimen of

‘red ware’ Micali, Mon. Incd 34, 3, and the gold fish of Vettersfelde, and
survives as a coin-type at Cyzicus (B. Mus. Cat, Mysia, Pl. IV. 8), it was at a
very early period drawn into the circle of ‘closed types, the wrestling-bovt of
Herakles with the ἅλιος γέρων being almost if not quite the first instance or
the specialised wrestling scheme. It occurs on the island-gem, δ Mus. 82, and
on the Olympian bronze-relief above referred to. The type was borrowed by
monumental sculpture in the case of the frieze of Assos and the poros
pediment from the Acropolis.

The other subjects belonging to this group may receive a more summary
treatment. We find represented a series of animal figures—griffin, boar,
stag, lion, ox, swan, owl, cock, hen, and dolphin—which are all part of the
stock-in-trade of the Corinthian vase-painter, and have within recent years
appeared also on the products of the kindred art of metal-work. The
excavations at the sanctuary of Apollo Ptous have brought to light a series
of reliefs which correspond closely to the subjects of the mould, published
Bull, Corr. Hell. 1892, Pl. XIV. XV, Homolle justly pointed out that the

IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. 331

style of these reliefs is not homogeneous: the bands represented on Pl. XIV.
are of much coarser workmanship, and show comparative poverty of invention.
He is disposed to attribute them to an earlier period than the more finished
products of Pl. XV., where the vertical divisions mark the final adoption of
the ‘metope’ style to which the heraldic groups of the earlier class form a
transition, and (as appears from the topmost band) the human figure was
introduced to vary the succession of fabulous and animal subjects; but a
comparison of our mould would seem to show that the difference lies in the
skill with which the respective artists handle their technique rather than in
the date of the monuments. For example, the employment of small drill-
holes to characterise a surface is employed both for the sphinxes of Pl. XV.
and the bird-griffins of Pl. XIV., but in the former case with a much more
certain hand; and while the artist of the matrix approaches the careful and
precise workmanship of the former, he presents the most striking analogies
to the birds of the lower band on Pl. XIV. (especially in his owl, swans, and
the group of cock and hen), and to the use of the foliated branch as the
centre of a symmetrical group (twice on Pl. XIV.).

It will be clear from the foregoing comparison that the animal subjects
confirm the position assigned to the mould on other grounds: a few notes
may be appended on some individual types :—

(a) The griffin appears seated : De Ridder (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1895, p. 221)
sees in this feature a distinctive mark of Corinthian as distinguished from
Ionian art; but apart from the fact (noticed by him) that the griffin appears:
‘passant’ on the Olympia bronze (iv. Pl. XX XVIIL.), this observation seems
contradicted by the circumstance that the nearest analogy to our type is to
be seen in the early coins of Teos (Brit. Mus. Cat. Ionia, Pl. XXX.).

(6) The grazing stag is described by Diimmler (Jahrb. 1887, p. 18) as
rare in Greek art and foreign to Corinthian vase-painting. The incorrectness
of the latter remark has been pointed out by Wilisch, Die altkorinthische
Thonindustrie, p. 42 n. 153; but it may be worth while to add that it belongs
to the Proto-Corinthian (Notizie degli Scavi, 1895, p. 137, Fig. 14), Boeotian
(ἘΦ. ’Apy. 1892, Pl. VIII.), Dipylon (Ath. Mitth. 1892, Pl. X.), and early
Attic (Ath. Mitth. 1895, Pl. IIL.) styles.

(c) The owl, a relatively rare bird in early art, may be paralleled from the
silver relief, Olympia, iv. Pl. XX XIX. No. 710, (which Furtwingler dates too
low) and the early Attic vase, Antike Denkméiler, i. 57.

(d) The dolphin is a commoner figure in metal-work and gem-engraving
than in the other arts. Instances are the gold-find of Vettersfelde and the
gems, Ath. Miith. 1886, Pl. VI. 5. Cp. the early Attic vase mentioned
under (c).

(3) The frieze. Of this we have but asingle example ; it is, however,
an extremely important one—the representation of a dog pursuing hares in
wooded country, indicated by a free use of the ‘foliated branch.’ It is
unnecessary here to repeat Léschcke’s demonstration that the type, repre-
sented by the Hesiodic ᾿Ασπές and the Etruscan ‘ buccheri,’ is the product of
early metal-work ; what is more important is to note (a) that it found its

332 A GREEK GOLDSMITH’S MOULD

way into pottery as early as the Dipylon period (4.Z., 1885, Pl. VIII. 1) and
was especially affected by the ‘Proto-Corinthian’ potters (J-H.S. 1890,
Pl. IL., Jahrb. 1888, p. 247, Notizie degli Scavi, 1895, p. 157, Fig. 44, id.
1893, p. 471, A.Z. 1883, Pl. X. 2); (6) that since Loschcke’s article was
written two very similar examples in metal have appeared—the diadem
from Thebes, Arch. Anzciger, 1891, p. 124, and our mould. The former is
executed in the style of the coarser bronze-reliefs of the Ptoion above
referred to; it presents an analogy to our example in the use of the
foliated branch, although—as might be expected from the inferior workman-
ship—in a most unintelligent application, and a still more important one in
the fact that the scene is curtailed and robbed of much of its picturesque-
ness by the absence of an important part, namely the net with the crouching
hunter concealed behind it, so carefully rendered in the microscopic scence
of the Macmillan lekythos.

Our review of the ornaments and subjects of the mould has revealed
affinities which leave no doubt as to the place to be assigned to it in early
Greek art. It remains to endeavour, if possible, to date the object approxi-

*Fic. 5.

mately and to determine the place of its manufacture. We have seen that
in the class of ornaments to which it belongs it occupies (relatively speaking)
an early place. The human figure is but rarely employed ; the types selected
belong to the earliest phase of Greek art under Oriental influence, or even,
as in the case of the hare hunt, point to the close of the ‘Dipylon’ period ;
and they appear in their simplest forms, decorative capacity being clearly of
more importance to the artist than fulness of meaning. Moreover, not only
are our analiogies drawn mainly from the earliest bronze-reliefs, such as lie
nearest to the period of stamped ‘red ware’ and similar products, but the
monuments which come next to these in their affinity to our mould are the
island-gems and ‘ Proto-Corinthian’ vases. Of the former it may be said that
the later members of the class, which present the features of likeness with the
mould, belong in all likelihood to the seventh century B.C., giving place to
the ‘archaic’ gems in the sixth century ; while the latter class, first appearing
in the eighth century, certainly produced its finest examples in the seventh
Much light has been thrown upon ‘ Proto-Corinthian’ ware as it appears in
the West by the researches of Orsi in the ‘ Necropoli del Fusco’ at Syracuse

IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. 358

his results ave published in the Notizie degli Sevvi, 1805, pp. LEB th The
periods which he distinguishes in the history of the fabric are—purely
geometric (725-700 Bc.); with animal forms (700-650 bc.) ; with animal
forms, developed (650-580 B.c.) The latter date he regards as that of the
introduction of the specifically ‘Corinthian’ ware; it is probably, however,
too low. It seems necessary here to reopen the question as to the origin of
this class of ware. Our point of departure must be the fact that the earliest
deposits in the graves of Syracuse and Cumae—the first a colony of Corinth,
the second of Chalcis—are identical in character. The typical vase is the
small, almost globular lekythos with geometrical decoration on the shoulder
(rarely animals), and parallel lines covering the belly of the vase. Instances
are, Notizie degli Scavi, 1893, pp. 451, 473, id. 1895, p. 138, Fig. 15, 16, p. 151,
Fig. 37, p. 179, Fig. 71, p. 190, Fig. 91 (all from Syracuse. Orsi states
that two examples from Megara are the only others found in Sicily). I have
in my possession two precisely similar lekythi discovered at Cumae in May,
1892. Having in view the part played by Corinth and Chalcis in early
colonial enterprise, and the similarity between Corinthian and Chaleidian
vase-painting at a later period, we need not be surprised to find the potters
of both cities employing a common style in the last quarter of the eighth
century B.c. That some at least of the ‘ Proto-Corinthian’ pottery is of
Corinthian manufacture is rendered certain by the fact that a lekythos in
the museum at Syracuse, marked as coming from Megara Hyblaea, bears as
its decoration the meaningless combination of letters, among which the
Corinthian symbol for beta occurs. A feature, however, which seems rather
to point to Chalcis as the earliest home of the style is the decoration of the
belly of the vase with concentric stripes. This is found not only in the
globular lekythi above referred to, but in vases of other forms (flat-bottomed
oenochoe with long neck, Notizie degli Scavi, 1895, p. 1382, Fig. 10, scyphi,
vasi a colonnette, &e., id. 1893, pp. 457, 474, 477, and others). Now this
feature seems to be especially characteristic of what may be called ‘ Proto-
Boeotian’ pottery ; see the examples from Thebes, Juirb. 1888, pp. 248, 340
Figs. 19, 20, 352, Fig. 30, 353, Fig. 32.1. When we find that Boeotia isa
fruitful source both of the more finished Proto-Corinthian vases and the
products of early metal-work, the close vicinity of Chalcis makes it seem
probable that that city played an important part’ in the artistic activity to
which these objects owe their existence.”

Setting aside the finds of Sicily and Magna Graecia, we find that of the
most perfect specimens of Proto-Corinthian lekythi with advanced composi-
tions, two (the Macmillan lekythos, which is the finest example known, and
that figured Jahrb, 1888, p. 247) were found at Thebes, while the third

1 The ‘ proto-boeotian’ vase Arch. Anzeiger, shown by Mr. Cecil Smith in J.H.S. 1890, p.
1895, p. 33, fig. 2 is also very instructive in its 179, with the aid of an example obviously in-
resemblance to ‘ proto-corinthian’ work. See debted to Phoenician models. But the form
Furtwangler’s remarks. and decoration of the vases leave no doubt of

? That the proto-corinthian vases owe their the affinity of this style with the goldsmith’s art.
inspiration to Oriental metal-work has been

H.S.—VOL. XVI. AA

334 A GREEK GOLDSMITH’S MOULD.

whose provenience is given came from Corinth, according to the dealer’s
assertion (4.Z. 1883, Pl. XI.). The origin of Arch. Anzetger, 1895, p. 33 f.
Nos. 14,15 is uncertain. In the case of the metal-work which seems to
continue the same traditions of workmanship we find that, excluding Athens
and Olympia, Bocotia is distinguished by the number of its finds—viz., at
Orchomenos, Eleutherae, andthe Ptoion—to which may be added the
Theban diadems more than once referred to above; as a set-off we can point
to the bands from Corinth (Arch. Anzeiger, 1894, Ὁ. 124 1.) and the mirror-
handle from the same source. In the sixth century, however, apart from
the testimony of inscriptions in the Argive alphabet, the evidence for a
Peloponnesian manufacture of these reliefs seems sufficient. But it seems
difficult to resist the conviction that in the industrial art of the seventh
century Chalcis—the ‘city of bronze ’—played an important part, especially
in training a school of craftsmen distinguished by the minuteness and
accuracy of their technical skill. It is hard to account for the transition
from the extraordinary finish of the finest Proto-Corinthian lekythi to the
coarseness of the Corinthian aryballi, &c., which succeed them towards the
end of the century, if both are supposed to be products of the same fabric,
although the commoner examples of the class may without difficulty be
attributed to Corinth.

Again, we have to provide a satisfactory account of the permeation of
the workshops of Continental Greece by Ionic types and conceptions: and it
appears most reasonable to believe that the Ionians of Chalcis were in this
case the intermediaries. Chalcidian influence would extend first to Boeotia,
and thence, in two divergent streams, to Attica and Corinth; and that this
was actually the case is an impression which gathers strength on repeated
consideration of the monuments assignable to the several districts named.
Our mould was found in Corcyra; and it was precisely here that Corinthian
and Chalcidian influence mingled in a common stream tending westward.
The legends as to the colonisation of the island speak of an early settlement
from Eretria, the neighbour and foe of Chalcis; the settlers were expelled by
Corinth, no doubt—if the tradition be worth anything—with the approval of
the Chalcidians. Distinct traces of Ionic influence are few; the griffin and
the Old Man of the Sea have been seen to remind us of analogies of Asia
Minor; but the monument is certainly anterior to the expansion of
‘mythographic’ art which was to result, about the close of the seventh
century, in such compositions as those of the chest of Kypselos. We shall,
therefore, not be far wrong ἴῃ attributing the matrix tq the middle of the
seventh century, if not earlier, and regarding it as the product of the
school whose centres were Corinth and Chalcis, and whose function it was
to elaborate and apply to fresh fields the technical methods properly belonging
to the ‘ gem-engraver,’ but dominating at the period referred to the industrial
centres of Greece proper.

H. Stuart JONES

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 335

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.
I. GENERAL.

THE past year has not been productive of any momentous discovery,
excepting only the bronze statue at Delphi, which will be described more
fully in its own place; but a great amount of useful work has been done in
various directions, and, indeed, the great variety of what has been achieved
may be regarded as the characteristic feature of the year.

In Athens, the excavations in the neighbourhood of the Pnyx and the
Areopagus have reached their third season. In the later months of 1894 the
entire shrine which Dorpfeld identifies as that of Dionysos ἐν Λέμναις was
laid bare. with its temple, altar, and wine-press. The archaic structure seems
to have been in existence down to late Greek times, when its site was covered
by a building which is identified by an inscription as the assembly house of
the Iobacchi. From the different methods of construction which can be
traced in the walls, it would seem that this building must have stood
for a long period; the base of the altar, belonging to the earlier stage,
is fairly well preserved; it consisted of a table supported on four slender
columns, replaced later by four larger supports; at one side on the step are
sinkings for two stele; Dérpfeld points out that according to Demosthenes (?)
(Neaera, 76) the oath which the Gerairai had to swear at the sacred marriage
of the Basilinna in the Anthesteria was inscribed on a stelé set up ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ
τοῦ Διονύσου παρὰ tov βῶμον ἐν Λέμναις, an expression which suits the
proposed identification. The inscription of the Iobacchi (published by Wide
in Ath. Mitth. xix, p. 260) mentions, 1. 123, a conjunction of Dionysos and
Koré, which points to the shrine of Dionysos ἐν Aduvais; and Dorpfeld
remarks that the name [obacchi itselt corresponds with the name of the
festival (Iobakcheia) mentioned in the oath of the Gerairai on the stelé;
the natural inference is that this local cult was a survival of the archaic
national one.

Whether the building which has been found is the actual shrine of
Dionysos in the marshes or not, it is certain that we have here the remains of
a comparatively large and very ancient sacred precinct ; its early date is fixed,
not only by the character of the masonry, but also by the fact that a large
quantity of fragments of pottery with geometric decoration have been found

AA 2

336 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

in connection with it. It enclosed not only the temple but also the altar
already mentioned (probably of the same date), and a wine-press of the fourth
century, B.C., which covered the remains of one of much earlier date ; this last
recalls the passage in the Schol. to Ar. Ach. 201, which explains the name
Lenaion διὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ ληνὸν τεθῆναι.

In Ath. Mitth. 1895, p. 183 foll., Dorpfeld examines the passages in
ancient literature, which show that before the building of the Lycurgus
theatre Dionysiac representations had been held elsewhere; and concludes
that all these passages point to one locality, and that the Lenaion. There is,
however, a distinction to be drawn between the term Lenaion and _ that
of Dionysion ἐν Aduvais; the old precinct is never called, by those writers
who had seen it, τὸ Λήναιον, but either τὸ ἐν Λέμναις Διονύσιον or τὸ ἱερὸν
τοῦ Δ. τὸ ἐν A., or something similar. On the other hand, in contemporary
notices of those agones which refer to the older country Dionysia, the place
named is Λήναιον, never τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν A.; ὁ ἐπὶ A. ἀγών is the usual name of
the older skenic agon. Dorpfeld thinks (did. p. 205) that we must dis-
tinguish between the two terms. The Lenaion is the place of Anvod (wine-
presses), and the general wine-press place lay in the neighbourhood of the
precinct, on or beside which the choruses from the earliest times danced and
sang at the festival of the god. The later writers (who no longer knew the old
precinct), explained the Lenaion wrongly as the hieron of Lenaios, and identi-
fied it with the temenos ἐν Λέμναις.

The passage in Thucyd. ii., 15, which has been much discussed in this
connection, is now explained as showing that the earliest town lay on the
upper Acropolis, and on its south and west slope. In the old interpretation
of the passage the Lenaion, as well as the other shrines mentioned by
Thucydides, was placed in the precinct of Dionysos at the theatre, in
the south-west of the acropolis; but it is now generally accepted that the
theatre precinct belonged to Dionysos Eleuthereus, and this interpretation
falls to the ground.

The general scheme of excavations in this neighbourhood included the
further exploration of the great water-system with which it is proposed to
identify the Enneakrounos. As in former seasons, the existence of the
modern roadway has again proved an obstacle, and it cannot yet be said that
any decisive evidence has been obtained. The rock conduits have been
further cleaned, and some of their deviations followed; and several great
reservoirs have been found in the rock connected with each other, and form-
ing a system of waterworks, probably of the pre-Peisistratid age, by which
the water of the three hills was collected above the old fountain; when
Peisistratos made his great rock watercourse, these cave reservoirs became
superfluous, and dropped out of use. The most important evidence for the
identification of the site is in the fact that the end of the aqueduct is now
traceable, with the Greek and Roman water-basin, and also in the discovery
of the commencement of two outlet channels, in the spot behind which the
well-chamber is preserved which was used in ancient Greek, and even down
to Roman times.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 337

Near the supposed Enneakrounos, lying in the upper strata, were found
upwards of forty marble. statuettes of Aphrodite which presumably had
fallen from the west slope of the Acropolis; it is here that we must probably
suppose to have existed the shrine of Aphrodite Pandemos, which Pausanias
mentions on his way from the Dionysiac theatre to the Acropolis. It was
hitherto believed to have lain at the south-west corner, near the Nike
Temple, in consequence of some inscriptions found there some years back,
built into a mediaeval fortification. The Pelargikon, however, must have
occupied most of the space on the south-west; and if we may assign to the
Aphrodite shrine a site before the Enneakrounos—probably the centre of
the earliest market—we can better appreciate the statement of Apollodorus
(Harpokr., s.v. Πάνδημος), that this shrine lay περὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀγοράν.
It was hoped that one or more of the different temples which must have
existed in this neighbourhood might be discovered ; thus Pausanias mentions
a temple of Demeter and Kore, and one of Triptolemos, as over the Ennea-
krounos. Unfortunately, excavation on the Pnyx only proved that the depth
of earth there is so slight as to have preserved little or nothing; a series
of rock cuttings and cisterns were the sole results. It was also hoped that
an old Greek building east of the Dionysion ἐν Λέμναις might prove to be
the Prytaneion (Ath. Mitth., 1894, p. 508); this has now been cleared, and
only negative evidence has resulted, though the purpose of the building
cannot be explained. The operations on the west slope of the Areopagus
have been continued, disclosing more houses with stairways cut in the rock,
but nothing of special interest, unless we may except the house of a terra-
cotta statuette maker, in which a large number of moulds belonging to his
trade were found.

Perhaps the most important result of the German excavations of the
year has been the discovery of what is claimed to be the Stoa Basileios. For
various reasons it has been supposed that this building lay to the east and
south-east of the so-called Theseion, or under the houses on the west side of
the modern ‘Od0s Ποσειδῶνος. In the spring of 1896, two of these houses
were bought by the German Institute, and destroyed. Beneath their founda-
tions portions of two public buildings came to light, each consisting of a hall
with portico facing eastward. The northernmost building cannot be later
than the beginning of the fifth century B.C., and this it is proposed to identify
as the Stoa Basiliké. The other building is of later date, but is built on the re-
mains of an earlier structure, which seems to have been a simple portico. It is
very desirable that the question should be solved; unfortunately, the purchase
and destruction of houses in a populous quarter of Athens is a costly affair,
but it is pleasant to know that a third house is already doomed for the
coming season.

In the Ath. Mitth., 1895, p. 507, Dorpfeld gave reasons for supposing
that the deme of Alopeke (between which deme and the town lay the gymna-
sium of Kynosarges) lay, not where Curtius and others have placed it, but

1 Dorpfeld in Ath. Mitth., 1895, p. 511.

9938. ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

across the Tlissos, in the south of the town towards Phaleron, approximately
where the church known as H. Marina stands. Two personal friends having
placed in my hands a sum of money for the purposes of excavation, I
was enabled, in the spring of 1596, to open ground in the spot which seemed
the most likely site for this gymnasium. The excavation is still proceeding,
and it is sufficient here to say that we have found the foundation walls of a
large public building which appears to date from the sixth century 3.c., and
to be, in plan, suitable for a gymnasium. It lay in the midst of a necropolis
of tombs, dating from the seventh century B.c. downwards, and, subsequently
to the third century B.c., was used partly as the site of a Roman bath, partly
as a graveyard. Adjoining it are the remains of a larger building which
seems to have been a gymnasium of the time, perhaps, of Hadrian.

With a view to the Olympic festival of 1896, the Stadium has been
restored, for the most part in marble, at the cost of M. Averof, a Greek
gentleman of Alexandria. The work preparatory to this undertaking re-
sulted in some small discoveries, the most important of which is that the long
sides, hitherto supposed to be straight, have a slight bend outwards in the
centre; the practical utility of this, as enabling each spectator to obtain
a wider view of the course, was clearly shown during the games on such days
as the stadium was crowded with spectators. In the course of the excavations,
sufficient details were found to admit of the accurate restoration of every
architectural feature of the ancient structure; and two of the double herms
found here have been set up im situ,

Turning now from actual excavation, we find that a good deal of im-
portant work has been done in connection with the antiquities already
existing in Athens, chiefly in connection with the Acropolis. The lengthy
task of publishing the.vase fragments is not yet completed, and the fragments
are not yet exhibited ; but, on the other hand most interesting pieces of work
have been effected with the architectural remains. One of these is the study
which H. Schrader has completed of the composition of the archaic marble
pediment sculptures representing a Gigantomachia; the other is the discovery
of T. Wiegand, that sufficient architectural remains are preserved, not only to
confirm the existence of an earlier shrine in the place of the Peisistratid
Athena temple, but even to give us an approximate idea of its dimensions and
ornament. His article has not yet been published, but he has most kindly
given me the following summary of its results:—‘The temple, of limestone,
was a double temple in antis, 100 feet long and 40 feet wide, with six
metopes in front and eighteen metopes at each long side. Its pediments
were decorated with the two well-known poros groups of Zeus fighting with
the triple-bodied Typhon, and Herakles wrestling with Triton. Several of
the architrave beams of this temple were discovered in the Kimonian south
wall of the Acropolis, built in above the theatre of Dionysos. The height
of these beams is 1:50 m., that of the triglyphs 1.40 m. A special peculiarity
of the horizontal geisa lies in the fact that their mutules are of different size,
varying between six and four guttae in front. The metopes and sima con-
sisted of marble, and were gaily painted ; the ornamentation and colouring of

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 339

the springing pediment-geisa is particularly interesting; these are decorated
on the underside partly with gigantic lotos flowers, partly with eagles and
great water birds, which are so arranged as if they wished to fly out into the
free air. In its general forms, as, for instance, the wide-bulging echinus
of the capital, the temple recalls the temples of Magna Graecia, and
thus its attribution to the time of Solon may be suggested as perhaps the
most probable date.

‘Besides the remains of this pre-Peisistratid Athena temple, there is
further evidence to determine the existence of no less than five smaller
pre-Persian buildings in poros stone, of which some are specially interesting
on account of their polychrome decorations, and one on account of its
plan. Thus one, for instance, had an apse similar to the Bouleuterion at
Olympia.

‘Of all these buildings I have, in co-operation with my colleague the
architect Herr Wilberg, put together and built up fragments, so that when
this work is completed the Acropolis will possess a small museum of archi-
tecture of the pre-Persian buildings, which I hope the Ephor-general will
also make accessible to the general public.’

One of the few remaining problems connected with the Parthenon
was happily solved last winter by the energy of Mr. E. Andrews, a student
of the American School. It has long been known that the marks on the
east architrave of the temple are the traces of nails which served to attach
the letters of an inscription; but as to the date and purport of the inscrip-
tion itself nothing had hitherto been known. Mr. Andrews, at considerable
personal risk, succeeded in getting paper squeezes of these marks, and after
some study arrived at a nearly complete decipherment of the inscription,
which runs thus :—

Ἢ ἐξ ᾿Αρείου πάγου βουλὴ καὶ ἡ βουλὴ τῶν Χιλίων καὶ ὁ δῆμος ὁ
᾿Αθηναίων αὐτοκράτορα μέγιστον Νέρωνα Καίσαρα Κλαύδιον Σεβαστὸν
Γερμανικὸν Θεοῦ υἱὸν, στρατηγοῦντος ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπλίτας τὸ ὄγδοον τοῦ καὶ
ἐπιμελητοῦ καὶ νομοθέτου Tr. Κλαυδίου Νουΐου τοῦ Φιλίνου ἐπὶ ἱερείας...
τῆς... θυγατρός.

The reference to the eighth term of the generalship of Novius fixes
the date at A.D. 61, and the whole inscription probably commemorates the
erection of a statue of Nero, perhaps in front of the Parthenon. In this
connection it should be recorded that the committee appointed to examine
the condition of the structure finished their report in the spring of 1896,
and the work of repair was commenced during the summer ; it is hoped that
the present work may place the Parthenon as far as possible beyond danger
from catastrophes similar to that of 1895.

A small excavation begun at Peiraeus under the direction of Mr. I.
Dragatsis has resulted in the identification of the Serapeion mentioned by
Isaeus, Alciphron, and the lexicons. A cave on the east side of the Munychia
hill was cleared out, and proved to be an extensive structure decorated with
mosaics, and serving for a bath; this corresponds well with the description

340 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

in the ancient writers of the place as τόπος τοῦ Πειραιῶς... in which was
a bath... ἐν ᾧ of κακοῦργοι ἐκρύπτοντο. It is possible that further

researches in this district would be productive of good results. A small
excavation made last year at Cape Kolias by Th. Wiegand brought to light
interesting remains of a Greek villa, and furnished a welcome addition
to our scanty knowledge of this feature of ancient Greek life.

The excavations at Eleusis in 1895, continued under the direction of
Mr. Skias, resulted in no special addition to our knowledge of the topography,
but were productive of some interesting paintings on terra-cotta; among
others may be noted a large pinax with two rows of figures, and an amphora,
both of the fourth century B.c.; each of these has a scene appropriate to the
locality and an inscription recording its dedication, proving that here, as at
Naukratis, Epidauros, and elsewhere, a local fabric of vase-painting was
devoted to the supply of offerings specially intended for the cult of the place.
Some interesting tombs of the Geometric period were also found, character-
ised by their unusual size and the wealth of their contents; one such tomb,
in which a woman was interred in a seated position, contained no less than
sixty-eight vases, besides ornaments in gold, silver, bronze, iron and amber,
as well as a series of objects in Egyptian porcelain.

In the spring of 1896 the American School commenced operations on
the site of old Corinth. The difficulties of this task may be appreciated
from the fact that, in some parts, at least, as the excavation proved, not less
than four metres of soil cover the remains of the Roman city, and most of
the site is occupied by the modern village, of which the proprietors have to
be bought out. Under these circumstances, Professor Richardson is to be
congratulated on the good beginning which has been made. The description
of Pausanias is so full that the identification of a single public building
must prove a valuable clue; and this clue is afforded by the discovery of the
theatre, of which the lines of ascending steps, deeply worn by footsteps, have
been found in three distinct places. The upper part of the cavea must have
been near the site of a temple, as in this portion a large number of terra-
cotta statuettes have been discovered ; some of these appear to represent a
type of Aphrodite; but at present, it seems impossible to decide which of
the shrines, mentioned by Pausanias as existing near the theatre, it is likely
to prove. East of the existing temple, the excavation was carried down to a
_great depth; at the lowest level the remains of a building were found
which the excavators explain as a Greek stoa or passage, which may possibly
throw light on the position of the Agora. It will thus be seen that the
undertaking has already reached an interesting stage, but the completion of
the work must necessarily be a very slow and laborious task.

At Mycenae the Greek Archaeological Society has continued its
excavations under the direction of M. Tsundas, both within and without the
Acropolis. The principal result from the interior excavation is a fragment
of a very archaic metope in poros, in good preservation, with a female head.
Outside the Acropolis were found a large series of rock tombs, with rich
remains of various kinds. Most important of all is the discovery of a large

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 341

cupola tomb, resembling the so-called Treasury of Atreus, which appears to
be quite undisturbed ; if 55, we may expect a great deal of fresh information
as to the method of burial in this class of tombs, as all such graves hitherto
found (with the exception of the one at Menidi) prove to have been
plundered in antiquity or otherwise destroyed. A notable addition to our
knowledge of Mycenaean art has been made in the publication by M. Tsundas
(ἘΦ. ’Apy. 1896, pll. 1-2) of a painted steld, found in the excavations of
1893-5, but only recently cleaned. This stelé served to close the mouth of
a small shell-shaped tomb, which led from a larger tomb chamber. Judging
from the objects enclosed within the smaller tomb, it must belong to the
later Mycenaean period ; the stelé, however, had originally been sculptured
with a decoration in relief of the primitive Mycenaean epoch. This decora-
tion was at a later period covered with a coat of stucco, on which was painted
a design, which has its nearest parallel in the ‘Warrior vase’ of Mycenae
(Léschcke and Furtw., Myk. Thong., xi. 56); it affords timely evidence for
the early dating of that vase which has recently (Pottier, in Rev. Arch.
1896, p. 23 and others) been questioned.

The Mycenaean question has received a further accession of material
from a comparatively new quarter; the excavations conducted in Cyprus by
Messrs. Williamson and Christian on behalf of the British Museum reached
their third season in the spring of 1896, under the direction of Mr. A. 8.
Murray and were continued till September by Mr. A. H. Smith. In
March a Mycenaean necropolis was found at Encomi, near the ancient
Salamis, with a series of undisturbed tombs, which yielded a number of
vases and objects in gold, ivory, and porcelain. Among the ivories is an
object which seems to be the support of a mirror, carved with two subjects
in relief, representing the combat of a man with a Gryphon of the Mycenaean
type, and a lion attacking a bull, the style of which recalls the ivories
discovered by Layard at Nineveh. A curious cup in white and blue porcelain,
supported by a female head, recalls in form the rhyton of the sixth century,
and reminds us once more that most of the known forms of classical Greek
pottery have their prototype in the Mycenaean civilisation. Similarly, in a
series of gold pins from the same site, we have what may be the prototype
of the fibula. These pins are either pierced transversely about midway or
have aring bound with wire at the corresponding place, which must have
served for a fastening to keep the pin in position. One of the gold finger-
rings has a dedication in Egyptian hieroglyphics to the goddess Mut, and is
consequently assigned by Egyptologists to about 700 B.c. But even
assuming this date to be correct, it would be rash to argue, on these grounds,
for a later date for the Mycenaean civilisation of the Greek mainland. We
know, for instance, how little the Geometric period of the mainland is
represented in Cyprus; and it may well be that the Mycenaean tradition
lingered in this island long after it had practically disappeared from the rest
of Greece. If a final solution is ever to be obtained of the Mycenaean
question, the most promising field scems to be in Crete ; that, at least, has
been once more shown by the interesting and suggestive researches of

342 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

Mr. Arthur Evans, set forth in this Journal and in his work on Cretan
Pictographs. His most recent journeys in the island show that exploration
here, when once political affairs admit of it, should have important results.

The southern islands of the Aegaean have been receiving a large
share of attention; besides Crete and Cyprus, Melos and Thera have been
the subject of organised undertakings. The campaign of the British School
is more fully described below. It is sufficient here to state that the topo-
graphy of the classical town has been carefully studied, with some interesting
results ; that a fine mosaic has been discovered ; and that the remains of
Phylakopi, on the north-east side of the island, have been partly investi-
gated. In this last site are the remains of a Mycenaean settlement,
represented by a complex of heavy fortifications, a large necropolis, and a
large quantity of Mycenaean pottery. Below the Mycenaean stratum are
the remains of a more primitive race corresponding with those of the lower
strata at Hissarlik, and characterised by rude pottery and implements in
obsidian. These researches, it is hoped, will be continued in the coming
spring.

At Thera, Dr. Hiller von Girtringen has had a highly successful season ;
his excavations were mainly directed to the site named Mesa-Bouno, which
was formerly thought to represent the ancient Oia, but is now known to
cover the site of the town of Thera. Of the ancient town so large a portion
has been cleared that it may now be said to be visible almost in its entirety,
and of several important public buildings the plans have been recovered and
identified ; among these are the Stoa Basiliké, beside the Agora; a Palaestra
of simple form, intended for the use of the garrison of Ptolemy Euergetes;
the garrison building itself; the archaic temple of Apollo Karneios, of which
the cella is partly constructed in the rock, with two adjoining chambers in
the rock; shrines of Apollo Pythios, of the Egyptian deities, and of Demeter
and Kore. Besides these important topographical results, the excavation
has been rich in actual remains; in the Stoa was found a series of six
marble heads of good workmanship, including a good replica of the Dory-
phoros; and a large collection of tombs, mostly of the archaic period, has
yielded an important series of vases and terracottas. In the epigraphical
material which he is collecting for the forthcoming volume of the island
inscriptions, Dr. Hiller von Girtringen has been no less successful. The
number of Theraean inscriptions now known amounts to no less than 650, of
which a large proportion are archaic, and afford us a clear survey of the
interesting Theraean alphabet in its successive stages.

The interesting additions thus afforded at Thera to our hitherto scanty
knowledge of Hellenistic antiquity are likely to be supplemented on the one
hand by the excavations at Philae, conducted on behalf of the Egyptian
Government by Captain Lyons (see Phil. Woch., 1896, pp. 115, 207); and on
the other at Priene, where Drs. Wiegand and Schrader have been excavating
on behalf of the German Institute. Since the work on the temple conducted
by Mr. Pullan on behalf of the Dilettanti Society, Priene has been very little
noticed by archaeologists. Now the site of another fine Ionic temple has been

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 343

found, probably to be identified as that of Ζεὺς Αἴθριος, as well as the remains
of the Agora, with numerous votive bases, porticoes &c., the theatre, and
a large number of interesting private houses.

At Ephesus, again, an English undertaking has been further continued,
in this case by the Austrians; but their results, though said to be highly pro-
ductive, have not yet been published. The same may be said of Samos, where
Dr. Boehlau opened a large series of tombs, the contents of which are 1
understand likely to throw considerable light on the problems connected with
the history of Greek vase painting in the sixth century.

The systematic exploration of Phrygia, which has been proceeding for
two years under the direction of Herr Korte, is now terminated. One of the
most recent discoveries resulted from the opening up of a mound near Bos-
eyuk,! which proved to be an early Phrygian entombment ; it contained, beside
objects in stone, bone, and metal, numerous remains of pottery which both in
form and technique bear the closest resemblance to those of Hissarlik. Herr
Korte claims to have found similar tumuli in the most: different parts of
Phrygia, and one such is said to exist near Salonica; if so, it would appear
that the primitive civilisation represented in the lower strata at Hissarlik and
in the Greek islands, must have had far wider range than was hitherto
thought to be the case.

The excavations at Delphi have as usual been productive of a large
store of bronzes and inscriptions of more or less interest, among which may
be noted especially a bronze cow of archaic style 40 cm. in length, of admir-
able workmanship, found near the great altar of the Chians, and an interesting
inscription relating to a bankrupt and the administration of his affairs.
Another concerns the régime prescribed for runners: they were not allowed
new wine, and if any transgressed the rule he was compelled to pour libations
of that wine to the god, and to pay a fine, half of which went to the god and
half to the informer. The event of the year is of course the discovery of the
life-size bronze statue. It represents a young man attired as charioteer in a
long chiton, holding in his hand the reins of the horses, of which some frag-
ments are also preserved. The figure is executed in a style which can only
have preceded the best period of Greek sculpture by a short period, and cor-
responds perhaps most nearly to the sculptures of the pediments of Aegina.
The discoverer, M. Homolle, was at first inclined to associate the chariot
group, to which this figure obviously belonged, with an inscribed base, and to
identify it, by analogy with one at Olympia (Paus. vi. 12), with a portrait
group of Hieron ; until the statue has been published, however, speculation
on this subject would be useless and out of place. The chief work of the
past season has been the clearing of the Stadium, which is admirably preserved,
and contains among other things the scats set apart for the representatives of
the different Greek States.

At Olbia, on the Black Sea, the Russian Government has during the

1 Phil. Woch. 1896, p. 382.

344 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

past summer undertaken some excavations. By the kindness of Dr. Phar-
makovsky, to whose direction they were intrusted, I am enabled to give
here a short account of them, pending their ultimate publication in a Russian
journal.

“In June and July of this year I was charged by the Imperial Archaeological Com-
mission to carry out excavations on the island of Berezan and the site of Olbia, with the
following results :—

The island of Berezan lies in Liman, at the point where the Dnieper and Bug emerge
into the Black Sea, not far from Otschakoff. Here Prendel and Widhalm had already (in
1886) identified remains of Greek civilisation ; and their excavations left no doubt that the
island could not be Λεύκη, as some authorities had previously believed. We may now
follow Latyscheff (Gesch. der Stadt Olbia) in his view that the modern Berezan represents
the Βορυσθενίς of the ancients. My excavations on Berezan were only provisional, with
the object of deciding to what period these remains are to be assigned, and on what point
it would be desirable to excavate on a larger scale. I found that the entire north side of

UPPER TOWN OF OLBIA

DooP

) SITES WHERE (INSCRIPTIONS WERE FOUNC
LOWER TOWN

SUBURB OF OLO TOWN

EXCAVATIONS (896

FOUNDATIONS

τυμυι!

τοππο

ΟἸΒΙΑ (from Trans. of Odessa Arch. Noc. viii. 8).

the island is occupied with the remains of a large ancient necropolis. The tombs which I
discovered date, according to their contents (pottery and brenzes), from the Roman period,
but the cemetery was already in existence at a much earlier time. The shores of Berezan
are very steep and are perpetually falling away into the sea, leaving the ancient tombs
showing. Here I found numerous fragments of vases of various fabrics. It is important
to note that in Berezan we have fragments of old Rhodian, Corinthian, and the so-called
Fikellura ware, the most frequent being Corinthian. I also found some very interesting
fragments in the Naukratis style, which are identical in character with those in the British
Museum.

“In Otschakoff I examined some private collections of antiquities ; in one of these,

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895.6. 345

belonging to the priest Levitzky, there are various antiquities from Berezan, consisting of
beautiful Fikellura vases and very fine Corinthian fragments, as well as fragments of
Naukratis ware and the usual Attic styles, with black and red figures (of these last, how-
ever, the provenience is not certain). It is clear that the Berezan necropolis covers a large
period of time. The Archawological Commission intends shortly to explore this island
more fully. [For a plan of Berezan, see Arbeiten der VI. Archiiol. Versumml., zu Odessa,
1886.]

“At Olbia I found a necropolis dating from the fourth century B.c. to the second

century A.D. The town of Olbia, of which a sketch plan is here given, lies on the shore of

jugliman. A, B, C are the upper town, D the lower; a part of the lower town lies sub-
merged, as the shore is falling away. EE are outlying parts of Olbia, where great quantities
of potsherds of later fabrics are lying, as in Athens at the Areopagus, or on the Phyx. On
the plan I have indicated the results so far obtained from excavation on this site ; these
were carried out in 1873 by Zalielin and Baron von Tiesenhausen : the tombs were found
hy Graf von Uvaroff, von Suratschan. and von Tastreboff.

“The topography of Olbia is, as yet, very little ascertained. [See the works of Graf
von Uvaroff, Recherches Archéologiques dans la Russie Méridionale, with atlas ; and esp.
Latyscheff’s Gesch. der Stadt Olbia, which gives all the literature of the subject. The best
plan of Olbia is that by Kiéppen, published in the Denkschr. von d, Kaiserl. Gesellschaft der
Gesch. und Alterthiimer zu Odessa.| My excavations have contributed one result to our
knowledge of it, viz., that the town did not extend to F, for I dug at this point and found
no trace of foundations. Here lay the necropolis of Olbia, which extended further to the
west, to the point G, where the village of Parutino now lies. It is not older than the
fourth century B.c. At the point F I found forty-eight tombs, all pit graves, but of
varying depth and form. The deepest extend twenty-two feet (English) below the surface,
and are all chamber tombs, sometimes of remarkable size. The dead were either laid
simply on the floor, or on the specially constructed benches; the head was usually (though
not always) to the east. These chamber tombs always contained several corpses ; only in
one case was I able to prove incineration ; here, the ashes were deposited in an urn of this
form laid on a bench, around it stood various vases (also on the bench.) But in
the ΟὟ same tomb was another corpse, which was not burned, but inhumed. The

bodies were very frequently borne into the tomb on biers, and so laid in the ground or
benches ; these biers were of wood and leather, of this form and had four
leaden handles (a, a, a, a) of very elegant form. The wood and ὦ @ the handles
were gilt, and very often decorated. On the ground were placed @ @ several vases
and various other utensils. Of their general appearance I have given a de-

tailed account in my Report to the Archaeological Commission, with plans and sections.
All without exception were very rich, and were, therefore, already plundered in antiquity.
I found only a few remains of gold and silver objects, which the plunderers had lost in the
process, or had overlooked ; but the fine vases were left behind. These vases are of various
forms; beautiful large amphore (in form approaching the Apulian), with decoration in gilding
and colour, wonderfully beautiful pelike, with rich gilt ornament and brilliant glaze [for
the technique of these cf. Berlin Cat., 2845-6], one of which had paintings in red figures,
fine kylikes (plain black, but of brilliant technique), one of which is inscribed Διονύσου,
and a jug with the inscription Ὑγιείας ; a similar vase in Berlin has the inscription ᾿Αθηνᾶς
[ἢ Berlin Cat., 1764, 1769, 1771, 1775, 1776, 1801 (all of which have Φιλίας) ; and 2872
(Yyeias). Cf. Jahn, Munich Cat. Einl. p. cxi.] There are further fine lamps, alabastra, &c.
From their style and technique the vases found by me should belong to the fourth—
second centuries B.c. There are also vases of Jate Greek and Roman times, similar to those
vases from Olbia, described by Liéschcke in Arch. Anz. 1891, p. 18 αὶ

“The chamber graves of Olbia, however, belong to a different period : the coins found
with the vases will, perhaps, give fuller data, which will also be of importance to the
chronology of vases. The sketch subjoined represents two sections and a plan of a
chamber grave in Olbia.

346 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

1, Entrance ; 2, Benches ; 3, Grave; 4, Niche (where the lamp was usually placed).
Entrance usually 30°—25°.

“The chamber tombs are all

22 dug out of the earth.
Besides the chamber tombs I also a

found numerous tombs
in depth.

also tombs with this
these are not deep

giving this section going to 15 feet

‘Lastly, there are at Olbia E or
section, usually of later date;
(not more than 7 feet).

“The objects found in the two last
work, silver work, beads, astragali, bronzes Yj, (amongst others, a late Egyptian
bronze statuette, used as an amulet), coins, 77 Yj ἄς, The tombs usually have a
wooden flooring, and have invariably been ~ plundered.

“In F to G lies also the later necropolis of Olbia (not earlier than the fourth century
B.c.). The earlier necropolis must lie in H, from which site the earliest Olbian tomb-
inscription comes (Latyscheff, Znserr., 120), and where the Kurgan lies, which was
explored by Count Uvaroff [for the contents, see the Atlas to the Recherches.]

“The tombs explored by me are only a small proportion of the very extensive
necropolis ; the excavations here will be prosecuted by the Archeological Commission in
the coming year.

“All the objects which I found are now in the office of the Arch. Commission in St.
Petersburg, from which place they will go to the Hermitage ; the duplicates and unimpor-
tant things pass into the Russian provincial museums.

“The sites A, B, C, E, and H unfortunately cannot as yet be explored, as they belong
to a lady who permits no excavation. They must, however, conceal many treasures from
science, for they include numerous large Kurganen (similar to Kul-Oba, &c., at Kertch),
which are, as yet, wholly undisturbed. The excavations, moreover, in the town itself were
not satisfactory ; here, too, there is much still to be found. How important the finds there
will be, is shown amongst other things by the inscribed base found in Olbia of a statue by
Praxiteles : Πραξιτέλης ἐποίησεν (Latyscheff, Inserr. 145).

“London, October 12th, 1896. Β, PHARMAKOVSKY.”

WNW or E
Y
Uy ;

classes of tombs are vases, gold

In the field of Byzantine antiquities, the most important gain has
been the completion of the French mission to Mistra, which occupied the
summer of 1894 and 1895. According to the report of M. Millet (Bull. de
Corr. Hell. 1895, p. 268), the entire site has been thoroughly studied, and a
plan drawn up; the eight churches have been examined and the details
prepared for publication; the principal paintings have been copied by
M. Eustache, and the architectural details drawn by M. Brailowski, on behalf
of the Academy of St. Petersburg. M. Millet was further enabled to make
some excavations which have thrown interesting light on the Byzantine
methods of sepulture; and finally a museum has been formed consisting of
fragments of architecture and inscriptions.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 347

Among the losses which archaeology has suffered during the past year,
the great names of Ernst Curtius and Johannes Overbeck stand prominent.
The one name is associated more pre-cminently with practical work, whereot
his bust at Olympia is witness; the other, with the theoretical side of
archaeology, as represented by his monumental work on Greek sculpture.
With these are two others; Humann, the discoverer and initiator, whose
fame Pergamon has made European; and Diimmler, one of the most
brilliant of the younger school, whose researches into early Greek antiquity
combined in ἃ remarkable degree the qualities of daring and laborious
thoroughness.

II. MELos.

The operations at Melos of the British School, between March 20th and
the end of May, were mainly tentative in character; the island contains
evidently a large number of ancient sites, but unfortunately, in most of them,

ΟΝ mak § | Ἢ
AA : doe
4
im oe ee
δ]
εἰ τὶ Ξ
\ caf Calogeros.. a
3 ss Ne:
ἐπ ΟΝ ὡς
,™ Se 57
Jv ἐς ες ὦ
πὶ ς ei re yh Mey Ὁ οἰ.
“4 Se Tramythia WPigka ας worasalo ~*~ οἵα απὸ ἃ
z oN Ὁ ity μι ov ὶ aX
~ry2'3 τὴ pe (an a "ἢ “πρὶ
πος 8 7 "ἢ runad er Pe ee τῶν v v1
fa EP BION τοῖος ἐν
ὙΦ τ Ὁ 6’ ἊΝ a PGF
᾽ ι = b
ΠΡῸΣ
΄ὶ < Ὕ

Fic. 1.—Tur IstAND oF MELOS, WITH PART OF KIMOLOs.

a great deal of unsystematic and unrecorded digging has been for a long time
carried on. It seemed, therefore, desirable to ascertain, first, whether it would
be necessary to continue for more than one season; and, secondly, what sites
would best repay investigation. Our first researches were directed to the
shore of the little bay of Klima, which lies at the foot of the hill on which
the theatre and many other traces of the old town are still distinguishable.
The fact that part of this ground (the property of the Government) was said
to have yielded the celebrated statue of Poseidon, now in the National
Museum, as well as other statues (one of which is still lying dm siéw), and was

348 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895 6.

otherwise said to be unexeavated, seemed to warrant our choice; the more so
as the Government had made this exenavation a condition of their permission.
Here, then, on March 20th, we been (site A, fig. 2); at the same time I
received permission to break ground at another promising site (site B) in the
opposite side of the delta, where the gardener, in sinking a well-shaft, had
come upon traces of a marble pavement with two bases resting upon it.

On both these sites our hopes were doomed to disappointment; in site A
we soon came upon a series of walls of two periods, one below the other, at a
depth of from half a metre to a metre below the level of the soil; but
these were evidently of quite late, careless construction ; and though we con--
tinued for some days trying to follow them in various directions, not a

mig. ne

κε, SF of
ssf

‘SITE of GREEK TOWN. MELOS

’ AFTER LEYCESTER™

trace was forthcoming of anything which could be considered as even Roman,
much less Hellenic, in character, except a few fragments of very late pave-
ment in green marble and a large marble statue base, which may have be-
longed to the series of statues already referred to, and had probably, like them,
found its way here accidentally. The marks in the upper surface showed that
it had supported a life-size (probably male) figure; the moulding in the upper
and lower part, which occupied only three sides, showed that it must have
stood against a wall. Unfortunately the surface had suffered so much damage
that it was impossible to determine what inscription (if any) it had borne.
The surface of the ground is here very little above the sea-level; and
wherever we dug we invariably found brackish water at a depth of about one

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 349

metre and a half. At two points we came upon traces of a pavement of
coarse large slabs of schistous stone, which was laid slightly above the present
water-level. Immediately below these slabs was a thick layer of some bitu-
minous composition smelling strongly of tar, and below this again a quantity
of fragments of stone and marble. Evidently these fragrnents had been
thrown in to make some kind of a foundation in the wet loose soil, and
an attempt had been made to render the pavement itself damp-proof. This
fact is important, as will presently be seen, inasmuch as it shows that the
water-level on this site was approximately the same in antiquity as it is
to-day. At one point I had a deeper hole made and got a pump to work ;
but the only result was to show that nothing but sand and marine formation
has ever existed here.

At site B there is a much greater depth of soil, as the ground rises con-
siderably in this direction. Here, at first, things looked more promising, as
we soon ascertained that the two square bases with mouldings rested, evi-
dently undisturbed, on the marble pavement to which they had belonged; but
when four similar bases had been discovered in the same line, and it was seen
that not one of them was even reasonably square, while the distances between
every two varied, there was no difficulty in deciding that the building must
have been an exceedingly late colonnade or stoa. After its destruction, the
fragments of it were used in the construction of some walls which resembled
those of site A, and which ran alongside the column bases. In one of these
walls were built the greater part of a Corinthian column and a piece of
marble entablature which had evidently formed part of the stoa. On excavat-
ing below the marble pavement we found, first a layer of what seemed to be
river deposit, sand, and then (at about the same level as in site A) brackish
water. The space which should have been occupied by the (displaced) fifth
base was occupied by a wall of irregular blocks of stone, faced with stucco,
resting upon the stylobate, but running obliquely across it from north-west
to south-east. Between it and the fourth base was found part of an
inscribed Melian gravestone of the sixth century, which seems to have
been built into the wall. At a subsequent period, when both this wall
and the stoa had been destroyed, the ground seems to have been filled in with
rubbish up to the level of the tops of the column bases, and on this was
erected an exceedingly late construction of which we found two walls running
parallel with and enclosing the line of the columns; these were formed
of irregular blocks of stone and fragments of the colonnade, loosely bound
together with mud.

In order to make sure that no part of the delta had contained buildings
of interest, we tried yet a third site (C). This was a large open field to the
north of site B, and extending to the point where the steep incline towards
the old town commences; this ground had not been excavated within the
memory of any one in the island. We started with two trenches, one from
the north-west corner, the other from the middle of the west side, both
leading towards the centre. In the second of these the soil proved to be
sandy in character, and filled with rounded boulders such as would indicate
the existence of a disused river-bed. It seems probable that at an early date

H.S,—VOL. XVI. BB

350 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

the river which follows the ravine between Melos and Klimatobouni must
have issued here; and as no objects of any kind were discovered in this
trench, it was abandoned. Jn the other trench we found, at a depth of about
one metre and a half, part of a wall of good construction in regular courses
running east and west. Eventually this proved to be part of the wall of
a house, with a doorway and a well, apparently of the better class of Byzan-
tine construction. In this last excavation were some few fragments of pottery
belonging to the late classical period, but not sufficient to warrant the sup-
position that the site had been actually occupied in classical times. With
this exception there was nothing in the entire delta, as far as we could
ascertain, which could be assigned to any period previous to late Roman
or Byzantine. On the other hand, everything pointed to the fact that the
whole area had in classical! times been covered by the sea.

The reasonable conclusion scems to be that in the hollow now occupied
by Klima we have what was in classical times the truce harbour of Melos, It
is obvious to any one who looks at the plan that such a harbour, receiving the
detritus from the two hills and what the river between them brought down,
would speedily silt up if left to itself.

Now it happens that there are in the sea at this point considerable
traces of massive masonry, principally at the two extremities of the base of
the delta. The masonry at the west end extends furthest into the sea,
running in an oblique south-east direction, forming a protection to the
harbour against the prevailing set of the currents from the west. These
traces have given rise to the story, freely circulated by the fishermen, that the
sea has here encroached on the land, and that a part of the town of Melos is
here submerged. If this were true, it would be a remarkable contradiction to
the geologists who assert that at the Pliocene period the sea-level was
at least two hundred metres above the present level. In reality the
facts at this point at least show that the sea-level has changed very little
within the last two thousand years, and, if anything, has even receded. With
two absolutely calm days, a boat, and a sponge-fisher’s telescope (7.c.,a bucket
with a glass bottom), I was enabled to make a close examination of these
κτίρια in the sea. They consist throughout of massive foundations of unfaced
concrete mixed with rough boulders, which are carried up to what is approxi-
mately the present sea-level. Above the sea-level the construction consists of
heavy squared blocks of red or brown trachyte, with an inner core of rubble.
Inside the western mole, already described, is a large rectangular building in
the sea, which seems to have communicated with the shore by means of a
pier; and a similar construction seems to have existed at the east end.
These constructions may have served primarily as docks or quays, but would
equally have formed a strong basis of defence against attack from the sea.
At the west point the cliff comes sheer down into the sea; but in order
to secure communication with the small bay to the west, a very narrow
passage was anciently tunnelled in the rock, sufficient to admit a single
person without stooping. A large piece of this rock with the tunnel through
it has fallen, and hes on its side in the sea. If these observations are correct,
we must consider the classical harbour of Melos as possessing little or no fore-

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895. 6. 351

shore. The hill on which the town stood must have descended practically
sheer into the sea at all points on this side; so that even if an cnemy
had succeeded in forcing the harbour defences, he would be confronted by an
almost perpendicular path which a handful of resolute men could hold
against all comers. This may account for the almost total absence of traces
of the town wall of defence on this side (see the plan), and also for the fact
that in spite of the superiority of the naval force of the Athenians, their
attack was delivered from the land side.

The character of the masonry corresponds with that of the retaining
walls of the theatre of Melos, and also with that of the temple existing
between the two hills; none of these buildings can be of much earlier date
than the Ptolemaic period. It may be that by the third or second century
B.C. the original harbour within the delta had so far shallowed as to become
impracticable ; and that the moles were erected in order to replace it with an
artificial harbour more to scaward. These moles further contributed to the
silting-up of Klima, so that by late Roman times the ground, though swampy,
was firm enough to build upon. If it is a fact that the Poseidon and other
statues were found here, various explanations may casily be suggested ; they
may have rolled down from the steep slope above, or may have been brought
here to form part of the harbour decorations.

So far then, our excavations, though not productive of actual antiquities,
may claim to have had a result which is of considerable topographical interest.
After writing the above, I was glad to see that our deductions had been to a
certain extent anticipated by Ehrenburg who, in 1859, made an exhaustive
geological survey of the island. Discussing the question of the encroachment
of the sea at Klima (Die Inselgruppe von Milos, p. 46), he remarks that such
an encroachment remains merely a probability, ‘because we do not know
whether the κτέρια do not belong to an ancicnt harbour site, and therefore
may have been always in the sea.’

From Klima our excavations proceeded gradually up the hill towards the
theatre. On the lower slope, our hopes of finding Greek remains were again
baffled; the traces of buildings and antiquities which we discovered were
chiefly of late Roman and Byzantine character. There, in the field of
Emmanuel Vichos (site D), trenches run along the field and into the hillside
revealed a regular street of Byzantine buildings, well preserved ; at one point
a door was found leading into a cave, in which was a cistern containing Greek
fragments; beside the door of this cave was a Doric capital with an
inscription recording the erection of a sundial by an archon. In more than
one place the ground was excavated down to the bed-rock, reaching a depth
of twelve feet, but the result was invariably the same, viz., Byzantine remains
with insignificant Greek litter and rifled caves. Above this field the rock
had been levelled probably in ancient times, with a gutter at the edge sug-
gesting a roadway; from this point a tunnel was run into the bank along the
rock face, and revealed first, a Hellenistic shaft grave, with broken pottery,
and subsequently a large cave, across which a wall of late construction had
been erected, consisting chiefly of late architectural marble fragments. From
this terrace a flight of steps, apparently Byzantine, led to the terrace above,

352 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

and was found to be well-preserved. The only object of any interest beside
the inscription above mentioned, was a small marble relief with a bull’s head
of late conventional style, with traces of colour.

The result of this excavation seemed to show that this portion of the
slope had not been inhabited in classical times; it had probably been occupied
by Greek and Roman cave tombs, of which so many still exist below Trypete,
and from which that village derives its name (Τρυπητή). It would seem,
indeed, as if this portion of the island had been a centre of the Byzantine
settlements, for our next excavation at the top of the hill (site E, known
locally as. the ‘Three Churches’) gave the remains of an interesting early
Byzantine church or churches with a curious cruciform baptistery, very well
preserved. On removing the foundations of this church we came upon a
series of late Greek statues which had been broken up and used as supports
for the church walls—in all, parts of eight statues were thus discovered ; unfor-
tunately none of them has as yet been provided with a head; it is possible
that an adjoiing field, of which the owner has not as yet come to terms with
us may later give us some of the missing portions. Close by this field are
the remains of a section of the town walls (site F), in splendid polygonal
masonry of, perhaps, the fifth century B.c. or earlier; a small excavation
enabled us to determine the site of the city gate at this point, and reveals a
system of construction which should be of great interest, not only as regards
the topography of the ancient town, but also the history of Hellenic
fortification.

About half way between the Town Gate (site F) and the village of
Trypete is a field, at one corner of which is the church of Hagia Phanero-
mene: close to the south-west corner is the spot in which the archaic statue
of ‘Apollo,’ now in the National Museum (Bull. de Corr, Hell., 1892, Pl. xvi.)
was found. As the proprietor assured us that the site had not been excav-
ated, we started a trench across this field; at a depth of two metres we found
a great quantity of pottery fragments, with an occasional good Greek frag-
ment; also part of what seems to have been an archaic Doric capital in
yellowish poros stone; fragments of architecture in this material are to be
seen built into terrace walls here and there, and below the theatre is a
retaining wall, built with courses of it combined with courses of red trachyte;
it may be that this material was characteristic of the earlier Melian architec-
ture. Ata slightly lower depth we found traces of what had apparently been
tombs of the Dipylon period; these had consisted of hollows in the bed rock,
covered with heavy tiles, with bones and traces of burning ; but unfortunately
everything proved to be broken, and the site had evidently been already dug;
the faithless proprietor afterwards confessed that our suspicions were correct.
The whole of the ground from this point to the Town Gate is rich in frag-
ments of pottery of the Dipylon period. It is probable that, in accordance
with ancient usage, the road from the town, which took this direction, was
lined with tombs, and that the earliest occupied the part nearest the gate.
At present, we have found no trace of any Mycenzan settlement existing in
this part of the island. Probably the Dorian colonists, coming from the
Peloponnesos, and bringing with them their native style of ornament, would

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 353

have found the harbour an inducement in determining their selection of this
part of the island; the earlier peoples, spreading downwards from island to
island, naturally chose that north-east part which was nearest to Kimolos, and
where, as we shall see, there are extensive traces of prehistoric and Mycenwan
settlements, but very little of post-Mycenwan remains. This suggestion is
further strengthened by the fact that on the adjoining portion of Kimolos there
is ἃ site marked Nychia (see the map, fig. 1), which is the name given to the
obsidian implements characteristic of prehistoric settlements in these islands.
On the north-east part of the island, though there is plenty of white flint,
there is no obsidian indigenous to the soil; the nearest point at which
obsidian occurs is Komia; but in the neighbourhood of Klimatobouni there
is an ancient quarry of the obsidian which is found throughout the region
between Skinopi and Adamanta: this quarry is called ᾿ς τὰ Νύχια. The
north-east point of the island is very much exposed to the weather, and the
coast here is most unsuitable for shipping; it seems unlikely, except for the
reason given above, that it would naturally have commended itself to the
early settlers as a site for their principal town.!

The houses of Trypete are built upon a terrace which is absolutely
honeycombed with ancient tombs; the caves and ancient sinkings have been
usually adapted to the requirements of modern life; but occasionally, even
now, so the villagers assert, fresh tombs are discovered. One such was
reported to exist in a cellar recently constructed in the house of Manousi;
this we opened, but found, unfortunately, that others had been before us. It
consisted of a rectangular sinking in the rock, large enough to hold a body
at full length, and still contained a large series of fragments of pottery of
the Dipylon style, with a fine lentoid gem in black steatite, which we hope
to publish, with other Melian gems, in the Journal of Hellenic Studws. It
is of late Mycenzan style, but very finely worked, and represents a bull
(similar to those on the Vaphio cups), overthrown, with legs and head in the
air, beside a fig (2) tree. In all probability this tomb had been rifled at an
early date, as a hole broken through it led into a lower but later tomb cham-
ber with beds round the wall, which had been also ransacked. A third tomb
had previously been opened in the same cellar, and was said to have contained
a large vase with elaborate decorations of chariots, &c., in the Geometric style,
which is in private hands in Melos. This tomb was also a rectangular sinking
in the rock, about two metres long by one metre in width and depth; the
long side on the north was interrupted nearly in the centre by a nearly
circular sinking about thirty centimetres in diameter, and about half a metre
deep, which may have been intended to contain the objects deposited with the
dead person.

On the further slope of the promontory on which the presumed Acropolis
stands is a district called Tramythia, which seems to have formed the true
centre of the ancient Hellenic town. On one of the middle slopes of this

1 Mr. Mackenzie has obtained evidence of the season, to obtain the materials for a more com-
existence of at least two other prehistoric sites plete archeological survey of Melos.
in the island. We hope, during the coming

354 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

district we found some highly interesting and important remains, which seem
to have belonged to a building apparently of the early Greco-Roman period,
devoted to one of those religious societies which were so popular from that
period of antiquity downwards. A large marble altar which we found gives
us what was probably the name of the deity to whose worship the society was
devoted, as it is inscribed with a dedication to Dionysos Tricterikos. A mar-
ble statue (illustrating the transition stage between the full-length portrait
and the bust) gives us similarly the name of the hicrophant C. Marius
Trophimus; and, lastly, we found what seems to have been the hall where
possibly the mysteries were celebrated. The entire floor of this large chamber
is covered with a mosaic pavement which for beauty and originality of design
is certainly one of the finest specimens of this art which have come down to
us. The tesseree are mostly large and fairly wide apart; but the more
delicate details are laid in glass, while the black colour is varied by the
insertion here and there of gleaming ‘patches of obsidian.

What the exact character of the hall was we have not yet been able to
determine. We hope to be able to clear more of the ground around it.
Unfortunately, the road down to the shore passes over one end of it, and this
portion of the building and mosaic have been hopelessly destroyed. We hope
to publish it fully in a forthcoming number of the Journal, but meanwhile a
brief description may here be useful. The pavement is 5°4 metres wide, and
is partly preserved for a length of about 19 metres, but it probably continued
for a length of at least 3°3 metres further. Around the whole run two wide
polychrome borders; the outer is made up of a kind of Catherine wheel orna-
ment with a centre of two intertwined links; the inner consists of kanthari
between groups of acanthus leaves; inside this, again, is a narrower border of
cable pattern, which also divides the mosaic into (probably) five panels; the
centre panel is ΟΣ metres long, and consists of an elaborate series of geometric
designs, chiefly variations of the twined link, but very ingeniously conceived.
Next to this is a square panel, enclosing a circular space, in which are a great
variety of fish, and, apparently, a boatman, whose head only is preserved ;
beside him is the inscription MONONMHYAX#?, The meaning of this is not
quite clear: if the μὴ is to be taken in its classical usage, it would appear to
signify, ‘Give us anything but water,’ a Bacchanalian sentiment which would
at least be appropriate to the surroundings. It seems, however, more likely
that the artist is here following the example of those who extol the beauty of
their own work: he wishes us to understand that the fish in his pictorial
aquarium are so life-like that if water only were thrown in they would swim.
An admirable illustration of this sentiment (for which I am indebted to
Dr. Sandys) is given in the epigram of Martial I., xxxv. De piscibus
sculptis :-—

** Artis Phidiacae toreuma clarum,
Pisces adspicis : adde aqua, natabunt.”’

At each corner of this panel is a tragic mask.
The topmost panel of all is, most fortunately, at once the most important

and the best preserved ; it is 3°2 metres long, and, except from the roots of an
olive, has received very little injury. From each corner a vine grows, spread-

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6. 355

ing its leaves, with tendrils and grapes, all over the design; amongst the
branches a wild goat is couched, and various birds move about, picking at the
fruit. The whole is executed with considerable spirit and vivacity, and the
effect is enhanced by the beauty of the colouring. It is curious to find so
early an example of a design which became, fifteen centuries later, the
favourite subject of the carpet-weavers of Persia, The beautiful carpet of
Ardebil, in the South Kensington Museum, and the famous Poldi-Pezzoli
carpet, at Milan, are two instances in which the same principle has been
applied to the decoration of a floor. In the centre of the upper portion of
this panel (which must have formed the upper portion of the hall) is a smal!
rectangular marble shaft, still in sitw, perhaps an altar. For the present, this
mosaic has been carefully re-covered with layers of reeds and earth, in order
to preserve it. It is hoped that arrangements may be made for its eventual
transport to Athens.

Two other small excavations in this part of the island deserve a passing
notice. The first was in a field in Tramythia, slightly below the ‘smaller
acropolis’ (site H): here was found a portion of a Roman bath, with two
layers of flooring, the upper of white, the lower of red stucco; the calidarium
was fairly complete, the hypocaust consisting of the usual rows of cylindrical
and rectangular terra-cotta pipes set on end, with apertures above and below
and in the narrow sides; on these rested a layer of thick flat tiles, over which
was a layer of coarse rubble and cement: the fact that this building ran
under the roadway made it impossible to clear it completely. The other
excavation (site I) was in a broad terrace which runs nearly the entire length
above the fine retaining wall of polygonal trachyte to the east of the theatre.
The inner wall of this terrace we found to be composed of huge blocks
of trachyte arranged in the form of steps, leading down from the terrace
above. The risers formed by these blocks seem too large for a staircase, and
it may be that they were intended for seats: in that case Mr. Bosanquet’s
suggestion seems a likely one, that this site represents the Stadion of Melos.
The immediate neighbourhood of the site where the famous Aphrodite was
found and which Furtwiingler proposed (Meisterwerke, p. 616) to identify
with the Gymnasium, would be an additional argument in favour of this, as
is also the fact that our trenches on this site produced no evidence of any
building; only a Roman aqueduct and a late Roman tomb were found; the
latter, which contained a gold ring with a fine cameo (Nike driving a biga),
and leaves of a gold wreath, will be published later. Certain difficulties in
connection with the crop of wheat on this terrace necessarily delayed our
operations here; but we hope to resume them, if possible, during the coming
season.

On the east side of Trypete we made one or two experimental exca-
vations in search of tombs. In one of these we were successful in dis-
covering a group of twelve tombs, all apparently belonging to the early
part of the sixth century, B.c., some of which were still unopened. These
tombs consisted, like the Geometric tombs already described, of a
rectangular sinking in the soft rock, with an average length of about
2°20 metres by 1°12 metre, filled in with soil. At a depth of about

356 ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE, 1895-6.

1} metre is usually a layer of calcined wood (apparently olive, as the
berries were frequently discovered); this continues for about ‘10 metre
to ‘15 metre down to the floor of the grave, and in this charred mass the
bones and other objects are usually found. In one such tomb we found, in
the upper soil, fragments of pottery and two silver rings; below, the usual
layer of charcoal, but against the south-west angle, on the south (long side),
a series of the fine electrum ornaments, such as in the British and Berlin
Museums are already known as coming from Melos (cf. Arch. Zeit. xlii. p. 110),
together with a silver fibula, a piece of Oriental porcelain, and two appar-
ently proto-Corinthian vases in fragments. An interesting peculiarity of
this tomb is the fact that some of the gold jewellery found in it seems to
have been attached to the wall of the grave. It seems probable that the
body lay with the head to the west ; beside it, on the right, a small space in
the rock had been carefully smoothed, and bronze nails driven in, on which
the earrings and pendants were hung. A fuller description of these tombs
will be given in a subsequent paper. A fact of some importance for the
history of pottery is that in one tomb of this group we discovered a few
fragments of a large ‘Melian’ vase, together with a terra-cotta bull, and
pieces of other ware of the sixth century. So far as I know, this is the
first instance in which the actual circumstances have been known of the
discovery of ‘ Melian’ vases.

During my absence in Athens Mr. Bosanquet had made a tour of imspec-
tion of the island, in the course of which he had visited a site on the north-
east coast, which Ross names ’s τὸν κώπρον, and which is mentioned by
Diimmler in Athen. Mitth. 1886, p. 170. Here it was reported that very
ancient tombs had been discovered ; hard by, Mr. Bosanquet found a gable-
shaped mound overhanging the sea, with traces of Cyclopean and other very
archaic walls. On May 7th we began an excavation on this mound, and
although our time only permitted of twelve days’ excavation we have already
found enough to show that this mound covered the remains of a prehistoric
fortress or palace of the utmost importance. The walls have now been un-
covered on the sea side to their lowest depth, and are in some cases preserved
to a height of several metres, giving a complicated plan which in some
respects recalls the plan of Tiryns; in the soil throughout vast quantities of
Mycenaean pottery of all stages have been found; below these are traces of
prehistoric pottery and a perfect layer of implements in obsidian and flint.
It would seem, indeed, as if this site must have been a factory for obsidian
implements, as there seemed to be traces of flint cores and other indications
of their manufacture. As this part of the island closely adjoms Kimolos,
and therefore the long chain of the Northern Cyclades, it may be that the
obsidian implements found elsewhere among prehistoric remains in the
islands owe their origin to Phylakopi.

We were obliged to break off for the season on May 19th, but left the
ground in such a condition that the work can easily be taken up again at
such a time as we are able to resume operations in Melos.

CrKCIL SMITH.

‘agther πον fegincwtly ἀνμκυν αν
ω 15 ates down ὦ πὰ fier of tite
δωνὸν iia"! faut ἴῃ eee entally
ὧν ἄγ ee ‘igpevalle of τοΐ ροῦν
ἡμῶν @ ΜῊ att ait κραὶηρὲ the χα μέ ῖν ἃ the ect) (horny
aa a Bhs τιν ch Cr δα Wey ἐν τὰ ἢ: Thera ἀπά
he oe ων a? nas ἡ xe eating ἐξσιεις Meine ἐς Area. Sait ih Ye
pits @ 0h «lee: Rout: Goultene' of Oriental, papoeteny, "αἰ να By
am’ ~ oayies wan® ἴῃ ων, Αὐτόν ati

ite μενον, τ Cee dey Ut eluate thi ged jewellery ΕΑΔ ΚΙ i

tale Wore GS he il of the graye” TY en μι δν
tay ὖ. ely Gur the ace | feeble Upc ἘΝ yah! und
the 4k ὧν» 4 “ie eet brent, tt Be δ τ γα th, ony
he Firs 4 a τὰ “ese rng Αἱ filet Serisytion of te
S)U ie give ae A. fut. ot aera Rd | Ὁ
nintary δέ ΤΟΙ Υ τς ἢ ς “νὴ Ὁ ὦ τ we ΟΝ

ἔα αν ὰ ἔν = goes ae, Τρ ἐν oft: ® brnnccatee Ε
Shae a ry ΓΝ; ons "td ou whi) «. my WE 1 re 2

int τα “Vy SNE See ‘rat cred ilantet DIG torn

ev ot © Matha” ae

eo oe il aj nt ΔΌΣ ¥ rc Veiga ft ὮΝ “Asie {ὙΗ͂Ρ of.
are ιν» ΤΉΝ ἢ Che cain Y. εὐ i iio τ} 6 oie oO} dhe

a wieh | ahs ea? Ps «τὰν. ser ces, Am writes is

seus periL Ν “1? tt, TaD sy J Lit) ΩΣ ct hie Ss
unit ὧν ter le had hook Riesevired ἢ Veet Dy, Mr. Bung artes
neat Riad «Ὁτὶ ‘hearin ile ne, Wi Uren (ys aul Ἑ : ae
ie οἷν. ist) Mis vo ἴχνκν io “éxta Acar ἀπ: HE
ΧΗ ΟὟ ian no On ¥ pretest bartrcive Tac: ΕΜ εἰ ὟΥ haves
σού: qa wty oe Cae Laem Os (<cvtrgd the (δ ors
λα le ge) Ger OT ie Lot Dee ἀπῆκε: “Tie walle is nowy

ἀν 1 1 ΡΝ. ν thelr iseurt ik (el, WES ote 1 ome aes

δῷ ἃ ἡνωλι ἥ,, ae αὐ, ΟΥ̓ ὦ ails altar! pikes ὑοῦ
jpegs τόφλι ἐδὺ ιν ἢ Towns ὅπ ber οὗ ν᾿ ΣΌΣ

Ups ᾿ s TOT ues at ib ae Εν teen 70 Σὰ}. ΟΥ̓ ΓΝ bc a FE

pr Laur wey aie 7 toat‘lager cl sujoluteenia ἢ ΚΠ

itu The TOY, Pe )
ἐν νος, SO Bone daha Ae Βὼ We #f dent cates Αἰ qtleer’s

> thet vik AU ἀκ ea ᾿ὁν Ar τ tient ty wtjolae
«ἰοῦ chreecucre me Mee bate Of She vert onl Cyoladcs, ᾿ς mA) lee
οὐ ἂν τὸν το ὑόν εις ajocty prhisianie’ Τὰ
δ νῷ ἐνῷ alge ἑῷ =.

Vi νῶν δ ρὲ ἣν Tere « lie eto “On αν 20th, nbs
gridiied de ped eGuide tl. wink: owt camly bo tiles ap

pers ‘Yine ay Ὧὧἱ rinouh' edo hole 4, ore Ce Ἧι Mebe ;
> ἐπ}

Ψ (es bi be “vo ten & feathery) ire

“sha -
° ὃ

Φ =
ΠΧ ἋΣ

Ι WAMU NULL

Q nn

MUSEUM LIBRARY JAN 22 19

ee

ee 8 Rm 9m

eat = wrecctnon te oe on care se rere
coos
τε)

Sot:
ee heres

a
“2
=

eles
co ΔῊΝ

τς ποτ
ΟΡ:
Εν

a Se ΣΙ ΣΞΣΣΞΕΣΞΞ. ᾿ : Seer Bee LITA ee ΞΕ

ap iene << τῇ 5 τ : ~ ν΄ ᾿ ν᾿ 222 : ΄ 4 yer eA 2 Crean, Ovary

ste
“ὩΣ

“=
mee
ἐπ Rat
vy me 2 ‘ ἌΠΟ. ss
mc neain> ip Poop 4, 4.5 τ

en Ae ih Poem cp mem ν: Aa.
ee se eee en ow, γι -

te

τ
ἢ
ay os :
τῇ +
RS