Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Rénald Lévesque and the
Online Distributed Proofreaders Europe at
http://dp.rastko.net





Page i

                                  THE
                               AMERICAN
                        JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY
                              AND OF THE
                       HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS


                              VOLUME VIII

                                 1893


                 _PRINCETON_: THE BUSINESS MANAGER
             _LONDON_: TRÜBNER & CO. _PARIS_: E. LEROUX
             _TURIN_, _FLORENCE_ and _ROME_: E. LOESCHER
                   _LEIPZIG_: KARL W. HIERSEMANN.

Page ii

         EDITORS.

         _Managing Editor_: Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton
         University, Princeton, N.J.

         _Literary Editor_: Prof. H.N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve
         University, Cleveland, Ohio.

         _Editorial Committee on behalf of the Archæological Institute_:
         Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of
         Yonkers, N.Y.

         _Publication Committee for the Papers of the American School of
         Classical Studies at Athens_: Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia
         College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of Yonkers, N.Y.

         _Business Manager_: Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton
         University, Princeton, N.J.

         All literary contributions should be addressed to the Managing
         Editor; all business communications to the Business Manager.




         CONTRIBUTORS.

         The following are among the contributors to past volumes:

          M.E. BABELON, Conservateur an Cabinet des Médailles, National
              Library, Paris
          Prof. W.N. BATES, of Harvard University, Cambridge.
          Mr. SAMUEL BESWICK, Hollidaysburg, Pa.
          Mr. CARLETON L. BROWNSON, of Yale University, New Haven.
          Prof. CARL D. BUCK, of University of Chicago, Ill.
          Dr. A.A. CARUANA, Librarian and Director of Education, Malta
          Mr. JOSEPH T. CLARKE, Harrow, England.
          Dr. NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, Princeton University.
          Mr. HERBERT F. DE COU.
          Dr. WILHELM DÖRPFELD, Secretary German Archæological
              Institute, Athens.
          M. ÉMILE DUVAL, Director of the Musée Fol, Geneva.
          Dr. M.L. EARLE, of Barnard College, New York.
          Prof. ALFRED EMERSON, of Cornell University.
          Mr. ANDREW FOSSUM, of St. Olaf College, Northfield, Mass.
          Prof. HAROLD N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve University,
              Cleveland, Ohio.
          Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton University.
          Dr. A. FURTWÄNGLER, Professor of Archæology in the University
              of Berlin.
Page iii  Mr. ERNEST A. GARDNER, Director of the British School of
              Archæology, Athens.
          Padre GERMANO DI S. STANISLAO, Passionista, Rome.
          Mr. WM. H. GOODYEAR, Curator, Brooklyn Institute.
          Prof. W. HELBIG, former Secretary of the German Archæological
              Institute, Rome.
          Prof. GUSTAV HIRSCHFELD, of Königsberg, Prussia.
          Dr. GEO. B. HUSSEY, of University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
          Dr. ALBERT L. LONG, of Robert College, Constantinople.
          Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton University.
          Comte de MARSY, Director of the Soc. Franc. d'Archéologie,
              _Bulletin Monumental_, _etc._
          Prof. ORAZIO MARUCCHI, member of Archæol. Commission of Rome,
              _etc._
          Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College.
          Prof. G. MASPERO, former Director of Antiq., Egypt; Prof. at
              Collège de France, Paris.
          M. JOACHIM MENANT, of Rouen, France.
          Mr. WILLIAM MERCER, of Gainsborough, England.
          Prof. ADOLPH MICHAELIS, of the University of Strassburg.
          Prof. WALTER MILLER, of Leland Stanford, Jr., University, Palo
              Alto, Cal.
          Prof. THEODOR MOMMSEN, Berlin.
          M. EUGÈNE MÜNTZ, Librarian and Conservateur of the École des
              Beaux-Arts, Paris.
          A.S. MURRAY, Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British
              Museum.
          Prof. CHARLES E. NORTON, of Harvard University, Cambridge.
          Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Director of the Babylonian Expedition,
              New York City.
          Mr. JOHN PICKARD, Professor in the University of Missouri,
              Columbia, Mo.
          Mr. THEO. J. PINCHES, of the British Museum, London.
          Prof. WM. C. POLAND, of Brown University, Providence, R.I.
          Mr. W.M. RAMSAY, Professor in the University of Aberdeen.
          Dr. FRANZ V. REBER, Professor in the University and
              Polytechnic of Munich, _etc._
          M. SALOMON REINACH, Conservateur of the Musée National de
              St. Germain.
          Prof. RUFUS B. RICHARDSON, of Dartmouth College, Hanover.
          Prof. JOHN C. ROLFE, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
          Dr. TH. SCHREIBER, Prof. of Archæol. in the Univ., and
              Director of Museum, Leipzig.
          Mr. ROBERT SEWELL, Madras Civil Service, F.R.G.S., M.R.A.S.
          Mrs. CORNELIUS STEVENSON, Curator Museum University of Pa.,
              Philadelphia.
          Prof. FRANK B. TARBELL, of University of Chicago, Ill.
          Mr. S.B.P. TROWBRIDGE, of New York.
          Dr. CHARLES WALDSTEIN, of Cambridge University, England.
          Dr. WM. HAYES WARD, President Am. Oriental Society, and Ed.
              _Independent_, N.Y.
          Mr. HENRY S. WASHINGTON.
          Prof. J.R. WHEELER, University of Vermont, Burlington.
          Dr. PAUL WOLTERS, Secretary of the German Archæological
              Institute at Athens.
          Hon. JOHN WORTHINGTON, U.S. Consul at Malta.
          Prof. J.H. WRIGHT, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
          The Director and Members of the American School of Classical
          Studies at Athens.

Page iv

         PROGRAM.

         The JOURNAL treats of the various branches of archæology and
         art history--Oriental, Classic, Christian and Early
         Renaissance. Its original articles are predominantly classic on
         account of the fact that it has become the official organ of
         the ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA and of the AMERICAN
         SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, and the JOURNAL will aim
         to further the interests for which the Institute and the School
         were founded. In it are published the reports on all the
         excavations undertaken in Greece and elsewhere by the Institute
         and the School, and the studies carried on independently by the
         Directors and members of the School. By decision of the Council
         of the Archæological Institute the JOURNAL has been distributed
         during 1893 to all members of the Institute, and the same
         distribution will be made during 1894.

         Beside articles the JOURNAL contains CORRESPONDENCE, BOOK
         NOTICES AND REVIEWS AND ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS. It is its aim to
         give notices of all important publications recently issued,
         sometimes written expressly for the JOURNAL, sometimes
         summarized from authorized reviews in other publications.

         The department in which the JOURNAL stands quite alone is the
         RECORD OF DISCOVERIES AND INVESTIGATIONS. While all periods and
         all countries are represented, special attention is given to
         Egypt, Greece and Italy. Not merely are the results of actual
         excavations chronicled, but everything in the way of novel
         views and investigations as expressed in books and periodicals
         is noted. In order to secure thoroughness, more than one
         hundred periodicals are consulted and utilized. By these
         various methods, all important work is concentrated and made
         accessible in a convenient but scholarly form, equally suited
         to the specialist and to the general reader.

         It has been the aim of the editors that the JOURNAL, besides
         giving a survey of the whole field of archæology, should be
         international in character. Its success in this attempt is
         shown by the many noted European writers whose contributions
         have appeared in its pages during the past eight years. Such
         are: MM. Babelon, de Marsy, Maspero, Menant, Müntz and Reinach
         for France: MM. Dörpfeld, Furtwängler, Hirschfeld, Michaelis,
         Mommsen, Schreiber and Wolters for Germany; MM. Gardner,
         Murray, Pinches and Ramsay for England, _etc._

         The JOURNAL is published quarterly and forms, each year, a
         volume of between 500 and 600 pages royal 8vo, illustrated with
Page v   colored, heliotype, phototype, half-tone and other plates and
         numerous figures. The yearly subscription is $5.00 for America;
         and for countries of the Postal Union, 27 francs, 21 shillings
         or marks, post-paid.

         Vol. I, containing 489 pages, 11 plates and 16 figures; Vol.
         II, containing 521 pages; 14 plates and 46 figures; Vol. III,
         containing 531 pages, 33 plates and 19 figures; Vol. IV,
         containing 550 pages, 20 plates and 19 figures; Vol. V,
         containing 534 pages, 13 plates and 55 figures; Vol. VI,
         containing 612 pages, 23 plates and 23 figures; Vol. VII,
         containing 578 pages; 26 plates and 8 figures; Vol. VIII,
         containing 631 pages, 18 plates and 26 figures--will be sent
         bound for $5.50, unbound for $5.00.

         Vol. I has lately been out of print, but will be reprinted
         shortly in view of the increasing demand for back volumes; all
         who desire to complete their sets should send in their
         application.

Page vi




CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII, 1893.


No. 1. JANUARY--MARCH.
                                                                 PAGE.
  I.--_THE TEMPLE OF THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS_,
                                          By HAROLD N. FOWLER,       1

 II.--_NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE-SCULPTURES_,
                               By F.B. TARBELL and W.N. BATES,      18

III.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
          I.--_THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT RELIEFS FROM
              THE ACROPOLIS TO VASE-PAINTING_,
                                      By CARLETON L. BROWNSON,      28
         II.--_THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF LYSIKRATES
                AT ATHENS_,
                                           By HERBERT F. DE COU,    42
        III.--_DIONYSUS_ εν Λίμναις,             By JOHN PICKARD,   56

CORRESPONDENCE.
    _Hunting della Rabbia Monuments in Italy_,   By ALLAN MARQUAND, 83

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
    M. COLLIGNON, _Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque_,   By A.M.     87
    HEINRICH BRUNN, _Griechische Götterideale_,         By A.M.     89

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
    AFRICA (Egypt, Ethiopia, Algeria and Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan,
      Thibet, China, Central Asia, Arabia, Babylonia, Persia, Syria,
      Armenia, Caucasus, Asia Minor), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr.,    154


No. 2. APRIL--JUNE.

  I.--_SOME UNPUBLISHED MONUMENTS BY LUCA DELLA ROBBIA_,
                                             By ALLAN MARQUAND,    153

 II.--_EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY_,                 By SAMUEL BESWICK,    171

III.--_A SERIES OF CYPRIOTE HEADS IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM_,
                                              By A.C. MERRIAM,     184

 IV.--_A TABLET REFERRING TO DUES PAID TO THE TEMPLE OF THE SUN
        AT SIPPARA_,                       By THEO. G. PINCHES,    190

  V.--_A SEPULCHRAL INSCRIPTION FROM ATHENS_,
                                          By WM. CAREY POLAND,     191

 VI.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
          I.--_SOME SCULPTURES FROM THE ARGIVE HERAEUM_ (reprinted),
                                              By CH. WALDSTEIN,   199
         II.--_EXCAVATIONS AT THE HERAEUM OF ARGOS_,
                                       By CARLETON L. BROWNSON,   206
Page vii

CORRESPONDENCE.
    MONTEFALCO IN UMBRIA, By WM. MERCER,                          226
    LETTERS FROM GREECE, By F.B. TARBELL,                         230

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
    ORIENTAL ARCHÆOLOGY,                                          239
    CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY,                                         246

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
    AFRICA (Egypt, Central Africa, Algeria); ASIA (China, Cambodia, Asia
        Minor); EUROPE (Greece, Italy, Sicily, France, Spain),
            By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr.,                             251


No. 3. JULY-SEPTEMBER.

I.--_NOTES OF EASTERN TRAVEL_, By JOHN P. PETERS,                 325

II.--_THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SPARTA_, By NICHOLAS E. CROSBY,           335

III.--_THE NEATHERD IN THE ART OF THE MYCENÆAN PERIOD_,
By GEORGE B. HUSSEY,                                              374

IV.--_FASTIGIUM IN PLINY_, N.H. XXXV, 152, By HAROLD N. FOWLER,   381

V.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
    I.--_EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEATRE AT SICYON IN 1891_,
        By M.L. EARLE,                                            388
    II.--_FURTHER EXCAVATIONS AT THE THEATRE OF SICYON IN 1891_,
        By C.L. BROWNSON and C.H. YOUNG,                          397

    III.--_REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS AT SPARTA IN 1893_,
        By CH. WALDSTEIN and Z.M. PATON,                          429

VI.--_NOTES ON ROMAN ARTISTS OF THE MIDDLE AGES_. IV. _THE CLOISTER
OF THE LATERAN BASILICA_, By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr.,               437

VII.--_SOME INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE ORIENT_, By A.C. MERRIAM,       448


REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
    CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY,                                         456
    CHRISTIAN ARCHÆOLOGY,                                         461
    RENAISSANCE,                                                  465


No. 4. OCTOBER-DECEMBER.

I.--_A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS AT ATHENS_, By WALTER MlLLER,     473


ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
    AFRICA (Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan, Thibet, China,
        Central Asia, Western Asia, Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, Phœnicia,
        Palestine); EUROPE (Italy), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr.,     557

Page viii


ALPHABETICAL TABLE.


AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, PAPERS OF:
    I. The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs from the Akropolis
           to vase painting,                                        28
   II. The frieze of the choragic monument of Lysikrates at Athens, 42
  III. Dionysus εν Λίμναις.                                         56
   IV. A Sepulchral inscription from Athens,                       191
    V. Some Sculptures from the Argive Heræum,                     199
   VI. Excavations at the Heræum of Argos,                         205
  VII. Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891,               388
 VIII. Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon in 1891,       397
   IX. Report on Excavations at Sparta in 1893,                    410
    X. Report on Excavations between Schenochori and Koutzopodi,
           Argolis, in 1893,                                       429

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS:
          Abyssinia,                                              586
          Africa (Central),                                  254, 586
          Algeria,                                      113, 255, 588
          Arabia,                                            131, 602
          Armenia,                                                146
          Asia (Central),                                         128
          Asia (Western),                                         604
          Asia Minor,                                        147, 256
          Assyria,                                                609
          Babylonia,                                         181, 606
          Cambodia,                                               256
          Caucasus,                                               146
          China,                                        127, 256, 600
          Crete,                                                  270
          Egypt,                                         91, 253, 557
          Ethiopia,                                               111
          France,                                                 309
          Greece,                                                 257
          Hindustan,                                         118, 589
          Italy,                                             272, 620
          Mongolia,                                               601
          Palestine,                                              614
          Persia,                                                 134
          Sicily,                                                 293
          Syria,                                             140, 610
          Thibet,                                            127, 598
          Tunisia,                                           114, 588

Page ix

BATES (W.N., and F.B. Tarbell). Notes on the subjects of Greek
    Temple Sculptures,                                             18

BESWICK (Samuel). Egyptian Chronology,                            171

BROWNSON (Carleton L.). The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs
     from the Akropolis to vase-painting,                          28
  Excavations at the Heræum of Argos,                             205
  (and C.H. Young). Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon
   in 1891,                                                       397

CROSBY (Nicholas E.). The Topography of Sparta,                   335

DE COU (Herbert F.). The frieze of the Choragic monument of
   Lysikrates at Athens,                                           42

EARLE (M.L.). Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891,       388

FOWLER (Harold N.). The temple of the Akropolis burnt by the Persians,
                                                                    1
  Fastigium in Pliny, N.H. XXXV, 152.                             381
  Reviews and Notices of Books:
    History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia, by Perrot and
      Chipiez; and History of Art in Persia, by the same,         239
    Excursions in Greece to recently explored sites, etc., by
    Charles Diehl,                                                249

FROTHINGHAM (A.L., Jr.). Notes on the Roman Artists of the Middle
   Ages, IV. The Cloister of the Lateran Basilica,                437
   Archæological News,                                   91, 251, 559

MARQUAND (Allan). Some unpublished monuments by Luca della Robbia, 153
  Correspondence:
    Hunting Della Robbia monuments in Italy,                       83
  Reviews and Notices of Books;
    Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque, by Max Collignon,            87
    Griechische Götterideale, by Heinrich Brunn,                   89

MEADER (C.L. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations at Sparta
    in 1893,                                                      410

MERCER (William). Correspondence: Montefalco in Umbria,           226

MERRIAM (A.C.). A series of Cypriote heads in the Metropolitan
    Museum,                                                       184
    Some inscriptions from the Orient,                            448

MILLER (Walter). A History of the Akropolis of Athens,            473

PATON, (J.M. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations between
     Schenochori and Koutzopodi, Argolis, in 1893,                429

PETERS (John P.). Notes of Eastern Travel,                        325

PICKARD (John). Dionysus εν Λίμναις,                               56

POLAND (Wm. Carey). A Sepulchral inscription from Athens,         191

TARBELL (Frank B. and W.N. Bates). Notes on the subjects of
    Greek Temple Sculptures,                                       18
    Correspondence:
        Letters from Greece,                                      230

WALDSTEIN (Charles). Some Sculptures from the Argive Heræum
    (reprinted),                                                  199

YOUNG (C.H. and C.L. Brownson). Further Excavations at the
    Theatre of Sicyon in 1891,                                    397

Page x



PLATES.


I.--The Typhon Pediment of the Akropolis,      28-41

II-III.--The frieze of the Choragic Monument of Lysikrates,     42-55

IV.--Terracotta Medallions of Or San Michele, by Luca della
    Robbia,                                                |
                                                           |
V.--     "         "       "      "    "          "     "  |
                                                           |
VI.--Altar of the Holy Cross, Impruneta,                   |- 153-170
                                                           |
VII.--Altar of the Madonna,       "                        |
                                                           |
VIII.--Crucifixion Relief,        "                        |

IX.--Head of Hera, from the Argive Heræum,        |
                                                  |
X.--Metope,            "      "       "           |
                                                  |-          199-225
XI.--Heads and Sima,   "      "       "           |
                                                  |
XII.--Map of the Excavations at the Argive Heneum,|

XIII.--Hyponomos and Stage of the Theatre, Sicyon,            388-409

XIV.--Cloister of S. John Lateran, Rome,                      437-447

XV.--Plan of the Akropolis at Athens,       |
                                            |
XVI.--Sections of the Akropolis Excavations,|
                                            |-                473-556
XVII.--Herakles and the Old Man of the Sea, |
                                            |
XVIII.--Figure of Athena from a pediment,   |


Page xi

FIGURES.


Bull on a Babylonian contract tablet,                              190

Fac-simile of Sepulchral inscription from Athens,                  192

General Sketch-plan of Sparta,                                     338

Sketch-plan of the Agora, Sparta,                                  341

      "       "    Street called Apheta, Sparta,                   345

      "       "    Skias Street, Sparta,                           349

      "       "    Western part of Sparta,                         354

      "       "    Road from Booneta to Limnaion, Sparta,          365

      "       "    Akropolis, Sparta,                              368

Bull in a fresco at Tiryns,                                        374

Bull from tomb at Gizeh, Egypt,                                    376

Bull from Presse d'Avennes,                                        376

Egyptian vintage scene, Gizeh,                                     377

Bull on Vaphio Cup,                                                378

Hyponomos in the theatre at Sicyon, plans and sections,            389

End of conduit, etc., in theatre, Sicyon,                          394

Two stone blocks, theatre, Sicyon,                                 406

Section of wall AA, Sicyon,                                        308

Plan of circular building, Sparta,                                 411

Section through wall, Sparta,                                      415

Enlarged plan of poros blocks, Sparta,                             418

Some poros blocks in detail, Sparta,                               420

View of walls, Sparta,                                             426

Plan of Excavations between Schenochori and Kontzopodi,            430

The Pelargikon restored,                                           489

The serpent (Echidna) in the poros pediment, Akropolis, Athens,    497

Page xii

COPYRIGHT, 1893, BY A.L. FROTHINGHAM, JR., AND ALLAN MARQUAND.

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.


Page 1




                              AMERICAN
                       JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.


Vol. VIII.              JANUARY-MARCH, 1893.                   No. I.



         THE TEMPLE ON THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS.


         The excavations conducted by the Greek Archæological Society at
         Athens from 1883 to 1889 have laid bare the entire surface of
         the Acropolis, and shed an unexpected light upon the early
         history of Attic art. Many questions which once seemed
         unanswerable are now definitively answered, and, on the other
         hand, many new questions have been raised. When, in 1886,
         Kabbadias and Dörpfeld unearthed the foundations of a great
         temple close by the southern side of the Erechtheion, all
         questions concerning the exact site, the ground-plan, and the
         elevation of the great temple of Athena of the sixth century
         B.C. were decided once for all.[1] On these points little or
         nothing can be added to what has been done, and Dörpfeld's
         results must be accepted as final and certain.

         [Footnote 1: DÖRPFELD, Preliminary Report, _Mitth. Ath._, X, p.
         275; Plans and restorations, _Antike Denkmäler_, I, pls. 1, 2;
         Description and discussion, _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 337.]

         The history of the temple presents, however, several questions,
         some of which seem still undecided. When was the temple built?
         Was it all built at one time? Was it restored after its
         destruction by the Persians? Did it continue in use after the
         erection of the Parthenon? Was it in existence in the days of
         Pausanias? Did Pausanias mention it in his description of the
         Acropolis? Conflicting answers to nearly all of these questions
Page 2   have appeared since the discovery of the temple. Only the first
         question has received one and the same answer from all. The
         material and the technical execution of the peripteros,
         entablature, _etc._, of the temple show conclusively that this
         part, at least, was erected in the time of Peisistratos.[2] We
         may therefore accept so much without further discussion. Of the
         walls of the cella and opisthodomos nothing remains, but the
         foundations of this part are made of the hard blue limestone of
         the Acropolis, while the foundations of the outer part are of
         reddish-gray limestone from the Peiraieus. The foundations of
         the cella are also less accurately laid than those of the
         peripteros. These differences lead Dörpfeld to assume that the
         naos itself (the building contained within the peristyle)
         existed before the time of Peisistratos, although he does not
         deny the possibility that builders of one date may have
         employed different materials and methods, as convenience or
         economy dictated.[3] Positive proof is not to be hoped for in
         the absence of the upper walls of the naos, but probability is
         in favor of Dörpfeld's assumption, that the naos is older than
         the peristyle, _etc._[4] It is further certain, that this
         temple was called in the sixth century Β.C. το 'Εκατόμπεδον
         (see below p. 9). So far, we have the most positive possible
         evidence--that of the remains of the temple itself and the
         inscription giving its name. The evidence regarding the
         subsequent history of the temple is not so simple.

         [Footnote 2: DÖRPFELD, _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 349.]

         [Footnote 3: _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 345.]

         [Footnote 4: On the other hand, see PETERSEN, _Mitth. Ath._,
         XII, p. 66.]

         Dörpfeld (_Mitth. Ath._, XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the
         following conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the
         departure of the Persians; (2) it was injured by fire B.C. 406;
         (3) it was repaired and continued in use; (4) it was seen and
         described by Pausanias I. 24.3 in a lost passage. Let us take
         up these points in inverse order. The passage of Pausanias
         reads in our texts:--Λέλeκται δέ μοι καί πρότρον (17.1), ώς
         Άθηναίοις περισσότερόν τι ή τοις άλλοις ές τα θειά εστι
         σπουδης· πρώτοι μεν γαρ Άθηνάν έπωνόμασαν Έργάνην, πρωτοι δ'
         άκώλους Έρμάς ... όμού δέ σφισιν εν τω ναώ Σπουδαίων δαίμων
         εστίν. Dörpfeld marks a lacuna between Έρμάς and όμού, as do
Page 3   those editors who do not supply a recommendation. Dörpfeld,
         however, thinks the gap is far greater than has been supposed,
         including certainly the mention and probably the full
         description of the temple under discussion. His reasons are in
         substance about as follows: (1) Pausanias has reached a point
         in his periegesis where he would naturally mention this temple,
         because he is standing beside it,[5] and (2) the phrase όμου δέ
         σφισιν εν τω ναω Σπουδαίων δαίμων eστίν implies that a temple
         has just been mentioned. These are, at least, the main
         arguments, those deduced from the passage following the
         description of the Erechtheion being merely accessory.

         Now, if Pausanias followed precisely the route laid down for
         him by Dörpfeld (_i.e._, if he described the two rows of
         statues between the Propylaia and the eastern front of the
         Parthenon, taking first the southern and then the northern
         row), he would come to stand where Dörpfeld suggests. If,
         however, he followed some other order (_e.g._, that suggested
         by Wernicke, _Mitth._, XII, p. 187), he would not be where
         Dörpfeld thinks. Pausanias does not say that the statues he
         mentions are set up in two rows.[6] It may be that the
         Acropolis was so thickly peopled with statues that each side of
         the path was bordered with a double or triple row, or that the
         statues were not arranged in rows at all, and that Pausanias
         merely picks out from his memory (or his Polemon) a few
         noticeable figures with only general reference to their
         relative positions. Be this as it may, the assumption that
         Pausanias, when he mentions the Σπουδαίων (or σπουδαιων?)
         δαίμων, is standing, or imagines that he stands, beside the old
         temple rests upon very slight foundations.

         [Footnote 5: DÖRPFELD'S arguments for the continued existence
         of the temple, without which his theory that Pausanias
         mentioned it must of course fall to the ground, will be
         discussed below. It seemed to me advisable to discuss the
         Pausanias question first, because, if he mentioned the temple,
         it must have existed, if not to his time, at least to that of
         Polemon or of his other (unknown) authority.]

         [Footnote 6: The most than can be deduced from the use of πέραν
         (c. 24.1) is, that the statues were on both sides of the path.]

         Whether Pausanias, in what he says of Ergane, the legless
         Hermæ, _etc._, is, as Wernicke (_Mitth._, XII, p. 185) would
         have it, merely inserting a bit of misunderstood learning, is
         of little moment. I am not one of those who picture to
Page 4   themselves Pausanias going about copying inscriptions, asking
         questions, and forming his own judgments, referring only
         occasionally to books when he wished to refresh his memory or
         look up some matter of history. The labors of Kalkmann,
         Wilamowitz, and others have shown conclusively, that a large
         part of Pausanias' periegesis is adopted from the works of
         previous writers, and adopted in some cases with little care by
         a man of no very striking intellectual ability. It is
         convenient to speak as if Pausanias visited all the places and
         saw all the things he describes, but it is certain that he does
         not mention all he must in that case have seen, and perhaps
         possible that he describes things he never can have seen.
         Whether Pausanias travelled about Greece and then wrote his
         description with the aid (largely employed) of previous works,
         or wrote it without travelling, makes little difference except
         when it is important to know the exact topographical order of
         objects mentioned. In any case, however, his accuracy in detail
         is hardly to be accepted without question, especially in his
         description of the Acropolis, where he has to try his prentice
         hand upon a material far too great for him. A useless bit of
         lore stupidly applied may not be an impossibility for
         Pausanias, but, however low our opinion of his intellect may
         be, he is the best we have,[7] and must be treated accordingly.
         The passage about Ergane, _etc._, must not be simply cast aside
         as misunderstood lore, but neither should it be enriched by
         inserting the description of a temple together with the
         state-treasury. The passage must be explained without doing
         violence to the Ms. tradition. That this is possible has lately
         been shown by A.W. Verrall.[8] He says: _'What Pausanias
         actually says is this--:_ "The Athenians are specially
         distinguished by religious zeal. The name of Ergane was first
         given by them, and the name Hermæ; and in the temple along with
         them is a Good Fortune of the Zealous"_--words which are quite
         as apt for the meaning above explained_ (_i.e._, a note on the
         piety of the Athenians) _as those of the author often are in
         such cases.'_

         [Footnote 7: I think it is F.G. WELCKEK to whom the saying is
         attributed: _Pausanias ist ein Schaf, aber ein Schaf mit
         goldenem Vliesse._]

         [Footnote 8: HARRISON and VERRALL, _Mythology and Monuments of
         Athens_, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not
         fallen out after Έρμαs, though the assumption of a gap is not
         strictly necessary, as Prof. Verrall shows.]

Page 5   Whether we read Σπουδαίων δαίμων or σπουδαίων Δαίμων is, for
         our purposes immaterial. In either case, Verrall is right in
         calling attention to the connection between ες τα θεΐα σπουδή
         and the δαίμων Σπουδαίων (σπουδαίων), a connection which is now
         very striking, but which is utterly lost by inserting the
         description of a temple. At this point, then, the temple is not
         mentioned by Pausanias.

         But, if not at this point, perhaps elsewhere, for this also has
         been tried. Miss Harrison[9] thinks the temple in question is
         mentioned by Pausanias, c. 27.1. He has been describing the
         Erechtheion, has just mentioned the old αγάλμα and the lamp of
         Kallimachos, which were certainly in the Erechtheion,[10] and
         continues: κειται δε εν τω ναω της πολιάδος Έρμης ξύλου, κτέ.,
         giving a list of anathemata, followed by the story of the
         miraculous growth of the sacred olive after its destruction by
         the Persians, and passing to the description of the Pandroseion
         with the words, τω ναω δε της 'Αθηνάς Πανδρόσου ναός συνεχής
         εστι. Miss Harrison thinks that, since Athena is Polias, the
         ναός της πολιάδος and the ναός της 'Αθήνας are one and the
         same, an opinion in which I heartily concur.[11] It remains to
         be decided whether this temple is the newly discovered old
         temple or the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. The passages
         cited by Jahn-Michaelis[12] show that the old άγαλμα bore the
         special appellation πολιάς, and we know that the old άγαλμα was
         in the Erechtheion. That does not, to be sure, prove that the
         Erechtheion was also called, in whole or in part ναός της
         πολιάδος (or της 'Αθήνας), but it awakens suspicion to read of
         an ancient άγαλμα which we know was called Polias, and which
         was perhaps the Polias κατ' εξοχήν, and immediately after, with
         no introduction or explanation, to read of a temple of Polias
         in which that άγαλμα is not. Nothing is known of a statue in
         the newly discovered old temple.[13]

         [Footnote 9: _Myth. and Mon. of Athens_, p. 608 ff.]

         [Footnote 10: _CIA._, I. 322, § 1 with the passage of
         Pausanias.]

         [Footnote 11: DÖRPFELD (_Mitth._, XII, p. 58 f.) thinks the
         ναός της πολιάδος is the eastern cella of the Erechtheion, the
         ναός της 'Αθήνας the newly discovered old temple, but is
         opposed by Petersen (see below) and Miss Harrison.]

         [Footnote 12: _Pausanias, Descr. Arcis Athen._, c. 26.6.35.]

         [Footnote 13: For LOLLING'S opposing opinion, see below.]

Page 6   In the Erechtheion there was, then, a very ancient statue
         called Polias; in the temple beside the Erechtheion was no
         statue about which anything is known, and yet, according to
         Miss Harrison, the new found "old temple" is the ναος της
         πολιάδος, while the πολιάς in bodily form dwells next door.
         That seems to me an untenable position. Again, the dog
         mentioned by Philochoros[14] which went into the temple of
         Polias, and, passing into the Pandroseion, lay down (δυσα εις
         το πανδρόσειον ... κατέκειτο), can hardly have gone into the
         temple alongside of the Erechtheion, because there was no means
         of passing from the cella of that temple into the opisthodomos,
         and in order to reach the Pandroseion the dog would have had to
         come out from the temple by the door by which he entered it.
         The fact that the dog went into this temple could have nothing
         to do with his progress into the Pandroseion, whereas from the
         eastern cella of the Erechtheion he could very well pass down
         through the lower apartments and reach the Pandroseion. It
         seems after all that when Pausanias says ναος της πολιάδος, he
         means the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. But the ναος της
         Αθηνας is also the Erechtheion, for E. Petersen has already
         observed (_Mitth._ XII, p. 63) that, if the temple of Pandrosos
         was συνεχης τω ναω της Αθηνας, the temple of Athena must be
         identified with the Erechtheion, not with the temple beside it,
         for the reason that the temple of Pandrosos, situated west of
         the Erechtheion, cannot be συνεχής ("adjoining" in the strict
         sense of the word) to the old temple, which stood upon the
         higher level to the south. If Pausanias had wished to pass from
         the Erechtheion to the temple of Athena standing(?) beside it,
         the opening words of c. 26.6 (Ίερα μεν της Αθηνας εστiν η τε
         αλλη πόλις κτέ.) would have formed the best possible
         transition; but those words introduce the mention of the
         ancient _αγαλμα_ which was in the Erechtheion. That Pausanias
         then, without any warning, jumps into another temple of Athena,
         is something of which even his detractors would hardly accuse
         him, and I hope I have shown that he is innocent of that
         offence.

         [Footnote 14: Frg. 146, JAHN-MICH., _Paus. Discr. Arcis. Ath._,
         c. 27.2.8.]

         Pausanias, then, does not mention the temple under discussion.

         Xenophon (_Hell._ I. 6) says that, in the year 406 Β.C. ό
         παλαιος ναος της Άθηνας ενεπρήσθη. Until recently this
page 7   statement was supposed to apply to the Erechtheion, called
         "ancient temple" because it took the place of the original
         temple of Athena, from which the great temple (the Parthenon)
         was to be distinguished. Of course, the new _building_ of the
         Erechtheion was not properly entitled to the epithet "ancient,"
         but as a _temple_ it could be called ancient, being regarded as
         the original temple in renewed form. If, however, the newly
         discovered temple was in existence alongside the Erechtheion in
         406, the expression παλαιoς ναός applied to the Erechtheion
         would be confusing, for the other temple was a much older
         _building_ than the Erechtheion. If the temple discovered in
         1886 existed in 406 B.C., it would be natural to suppose that
         it was referred to by Xenophon as ό παλαιος ναός. But this
         passage is not enough to prove that the temple existed in 406
         B.C.

         Demosthenes (xxiv, 136) speaks of a fire in the opisthodomos.
         This is taken by Dörpfeld (_Mitth_., xii, p. 44) as a reference
         to the opisthodomos of the temple under discussion, and this
         fire is identified with the fire mentioned by Xenophon. But
         hitherto the opisthodomos in question has been supposed to be
         the rear part of the Parthenon, and there is no direct proof
         that Demosthenes and Xenophon refer to the same fire. If the
         temple discovered in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it is highly
         probable that the passages mentioned refer to it, but the
         passages do not prove that it existed.

         It remains for us to sift the evidence for the existence of the
         temple from the Persian War to 406 B.C. This has been collected
         by Dörpfeld[15] and Lolling,[16] who agree in thinking that the
         temple continued in existence throughout the fifth and fourth
         centuries, however much their views differ in other respects.
         But it seems to me that even thus much is not proved. I believe
         that, after the departure of the Persians, the Athenians
         partially restored the temple as soon as possible, because I do
         not see how they could have got along without it, inasmuch as
         it was used as the public treasury; but my belief, being
         founded upon little or no positive evidence, does not claim the
         force of proof.

         [Footnote 15: _Mitth._, XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420,
         ff.]

         [Footnote 16: Έκατόμπεδον in the periodical Άθηνα 1890, p. 628,
         ff. The inscription there published appears also in the Δελτίον
         Άρχαιολογικόν, 1890, p. 12, and its most important part is
         copied, with some corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.]

Page 8   Dörpfeld (XV, p. 424) says that the Persians left the walls of
         the temple and the outer portico standing; that this is evident
         from the present condition of the architraves, triglyphs and
         cornices, which are built into the Acropolis wall. These
         architectural members were ... taken from the building while it
         still stood, and built into the northern wall of the
         citadel. But, if the Athenians had wished to restore the temple
         as quickly as possible, they would have left these members
         where they were. It seems, at least, rather extravagant to take
         them carefully away and then restore the temple without a
         peristyle, for the restored building would probably need at
         least cornices if not triglyphs or architraves; then why not
         repair the old ones? It appears by no means impossible that, as
         Lolling (p. 655) suggests, only a part of the temple was
         restored.[17] Still more natural is the assumption, that the
         Athenians carried off the whole temple while they were about
         it. I do not, however, dare to proceed to this assumption,
         because I do not know where the Athenians would have kept their
         public monies if the entire building had been removed. Perhaps
         part of the peristyle was so badly injured by the Persians that
         it could not be repaired. At any rate, the Athenians intended
         (as Dörpfeld, XII, p. 202, also believes) to remove the whole
         building so soon as the great new temple should be completed. I
         think they carried out their intention.

         [Footnote 17: LOLLING does not say how much of the temple was
         restored; but, as he assumes the continuation of a worship
         connected with the building, he would seem to imply that at
         least part (and in that case, doubtless, the whole) of the
         cella was restored, and he also maintains the continued
         existence of the opisthodomos and the two small chambers. E.
         CURTIUS, _Stadtgeschichte von Athen_, p. 132, believes that
         only the western half of the temple was restored. DÖRPFELD, p.
         425, suggests the possibility that the entire building, even
         the peristyle, was restored, and that the peristyle remained
         until the erection of the Erechtheion.]

         This brings us to the discussion of the names and uses of the
         various parts of the older temple and of the new one (the
         Parthenon), the evidence for the continued existence of the
         older temple being based upon the occurrence of these names in
         inscriptions and elsewhere. As these matters have been fully
         discussed by Dörpfeld and Lolling, I shall accept as facts
         without further discussion all points which seem to me to have
         been definitively settled by them.

Page 9   Lolling, in the article referred to above, publishes an
         inscription put together by him from forty-one fragments. It
         belongs to the last quarter of the sixth century B.C., and
         relates to the pre-Persian temple. Part of the inscription is
         too fragmentary to admit of interpretation, but the meaning of
         the greater part (republished by Dörpfeld) is clear at least in
         a general way. The ταμίαι are to make a list of certain objects
         on the Acropolis with certain exceptions. The servants of the
         temple, priests, _etc_., are to follow certain rules or be
         punished by fines. The ταμίαι are to open in person the doors
         of the chambers in the temple. These rules would not concern us
         except for the fact that the various parts of the building are
         mentioned. The whole building is called το Έκατόμπεδον; parts
         of it are the προνήϊον, the νεώς, the οικημα ταμιειον and τα
         οίκήματα. There can be no doubt that these are respectively the
         eastern porch, the main cella, the large western room and the
         two smaller chambers of the pre-Persian temple. But most
         important of all is the fact that the whole building was called
         in the sixth century B.C. το Έκατόμπεδον. The word οπισθόδομος
         does not occur in the inscription, and we cannot tell whether
         the western half of the building was called opisthodomos in the
         sixth century or not. Very likely it was.

         Lolling (p. 637) says: "No one, I think, will doubt that το
         Έκατόμπεδον is the νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος often mentioned in the
         inscriptions of the ταμίαι and elsewhere." If this is correct,
         the eastern cella of the Parthenon cannot be the νεως ό
         Έκατόμπεδος. Lolling maintains that the eastern cella of the
         Parthenon was the _Parthenon_ proper, that the western room of
         the Parthenon was the opisthodomos, and that the νεως ό
         Έκατόμπεδος was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official
         name Έκατόμπεδον or νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος, Lolling thinks the
         pre-Persian temple was also called αρχαιος (παλαιος) νεώς.[18]
         Dörpfeld maintains that the western cella of the Parthenon was
         the _Parthenon_ proper, the western part of the "old temple"
Page 10  was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the Parthenon
         was the _νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος_, leaving the question undecided
         whether the "old temple" was still called _το Έκατόμπεδον_ in
         the fifth century, but laying great stress upon the difference
         in the expressions το Έκατόμπεδον and ό νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος.[19]
         Both Lolling and Dörpfeld agree that the _πρόνεως_ of the
         inscriptions of the fifth century is the porch of the
         Parthenon.[20]

         [Footnote 18: LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the αρχαιος νεώς of the
         inscriptions of the ταμίαι CIA, II, 753, 758 (_cf_. 650, 672)
         is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis, because in the same
         inscriptions the ἐπιστάται of Brauronian Artemis are mentioned.
         This seems to me insufficient reason for assuming that αρχαιος
         νεώς means sometimes one temple and sometimes another.]

         [Footnote 19: _Mitth._, xv, p. 427 ff.]

         [Footnote 20: LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression _εν τω νεω
         τω Έκατόμπεδον_ could not be used of a part of a building of
         which _πρόνεως_ and _Παρθενών_ were parts, _i.e._, that a part
         of a temple could not be called _νεώς_. Yet in the inscription
         published by Lolling the _προνέιον_ and the _νεώς_ are
         mentioned in apparent contradistinction to _απαν το
         Έκατόμπεδον_. It seems, as Dörpfeld says, only natural that the
         _νεώς_ should belong to the same building as the _πρόνεως_.]

         Among the objects mentioned in the lists of treasure handed
         over by one board of _ταμίαι_ to the next (_Ueberyab-Urkunden_
         or "transmission-lists") are parts of a statue of Athena with a
         base and a _Νίκη_ and a, shield _εν τω Έκατόμπεδω_. The
         material of this statue is gold and ivory. The only gold and
         ivory statue of Athena on the Acropolis was, so far as is
         known, the so-called _Parthenos_ of Pheidias. Those
         inscriptions therefore prove that the Parthenos stood in the
         Hekatompedos (or Hekatompedon); that is, that the eastern cella
         of the Parthenon was called _Έκατόμπεδος (ον)_ in the fifth
         century.[21] Certainly, if there had been a second
         chryselephantine statue of Athena on the Acropolis, we should
         know of its existence.

         [Footnote 21: This was shown by U. KÖHLER. _Mitth_., v, p. 89
         ff., and again by DÖRPFELD, xv, 480 ff, who quote the
         inscriptions. LOLLING'S distinction between _το αγαλμα_ and _το
         χρυσουν αγαλμα_ cannot be maintained. _cf. U. Köhler,
         Sitzungsber, d. Berlin. Akad._, 1889, p. 223.]

         When the Athenians built the great western room of the
         Parthenon, they certainly did not intend it to serve merely as
         a store-room for the objects described in the
         transmission-lists as _εν τω Παρθενωνι_ or _εκ του Παρθενωνος_,
         these being mostly of little value or broken.[22] Now the
         treasury of Athens was the opisthodomos, and the western room
         of the Parthenon was, from the moment of the completion of the
         building, the greatest opisthodomos in Athens. It is natural to
Page 11  regard this (with Lolling) as the opisthodomos where the
         treasure was kept. This room was doubtless divided into three
         parts by two partitions of some sort, probably of metal,[23]
         running from the eastern and western wall to the nearest
         columns and connecting the columns. This arrangement agrees
         with the provision (_CIA_, I, 32) that the monies of Athena be
         cared for έv τω έπι δεξια του όπισθοδόμου, those of the other
         gods έv τω eπ' άριοτερά. Until the completion of the Parthenon,
         the opisthodomos of the pre-Persian temple might properly be
         _the_ opisthodomos κατ' εξοχήν, but so soon as the Parthenon
         was finished, the new treasure-house would naturally usurp the
         name as well as the functions of its predecessor.

         [Footnote 22: A general view of these transmission-lists may be
         found at the back of MICHAELIS' _der Parthenon_: See also H.
         LEHNER, _Ueber die attischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten
         Jahrhunderts_ (which Lolling cites. I have not seen it.)]

         [Footnote 23: See plans of the Parthenon, for instance, the one
         in the plan of the Acropolis accompanying Dörpfeld's article,
         _Mitth._, XII, _Taf. 1_.]

         But, if the western room of the Periclean temple was the
         opisthodomos, where was the Παρθενών proper? It cannot be
         identical with the νεώς ό Έκατόμπεδος nor with the
         opisthodomos, for the three appellations occur at the same date
         evidently designating three different places. It would be
         easier to tell where the Παρθενών proper was, if we knew why it
         was called Παρθενών. The name was in all probability not
         derived from the Parthenos, but rather the statue was named
         from the _Parthenon_ after the latter appellation had been
         extended to the whole building, for there is no evidence that
         the great statue was called Parthenos from the first. Its
         official title was, so far as is known, never Parthenos.[24]
         The Parthenon was not so named because it contained the
         Parthenos, but why it was so named we do not know. The πρόνεως
         is certainly the front porch, the Έκατόμπεδος νεώς is certainly
         the cella, 100 feet long, the οπισθόδομος is the rear apartment
         (of some building, even if I have not made it seem probable
         that it is the rear apartment of the Parthenon). These names
         carry their explanation with them. But the name Παρθενών gives
         us no information. It was a part of the great Periclean temple,
         for the name was in later times applied to the whole building,
         and the only part of the building not named is the western
         porch. It is, however, incredible that the Athenians should use
Page 12  this porch, so prominently exposed to the eyes of every
         sight-seer, as a storehouse for festival apparatus, _etc_. It
         is more probable that the Παρθενών proper was within the walls
         of the building but separated from the other parts in some way.
         The middle division of the western room, separated by columns
         and metal partitions from the treasury of Athena on the right
         and that of the other gods on the left, was large enough and,
         being directly in front of the western door, prominent enough,
         to deserve a name of its own. If this room was the Παρθενών
         proper, it is evident that a fire in the opisthodomos would
         cause the Παρθενών to be emptied of its contents, which would
         then naturally be inventoried as εκ του Παρθενώνος, while
         another list could properly be headed εκ του οπισθοδομον
         referring to the treasure-chambers.[25] The name Parthenon
         might then be extended first to the entire western part of the
         building and then to the whole edifice. This is not a _proof_
         that the Παρθενών was the central part of the western room of
         the great temple. A complete proof is impossible. All I claim
         is that this hypothesis fulfils all the necessary conditions.

         [Footnote 24: DÖRPFELD, XV, p. 480.]

         [Footnote 25: DÖRPFELD, XII, p. 203 f., argues that these
         headings show that the treasure was moved after the fire of 406
         from the opisthodomos of the old temple into the Παρθενών
         proper, which was emptied of its contents to make room. But the
         explanation given above seems equally possible. Dörpfeld,
         (Mitth., vi, p. 283, ff.) proved conclusively that the Παρθενών
         was not the eastern cella of the Parthenon. His proof that it
         was the great western room is based primarily upon the
         assumption (p. 300) that _Der Name Opisthodom bezeichnet hei
         alien Tempeln die dem Pronaos entsprechende Hinterhalle_. But
         for that assumption the Παρθενών might just as well be the
         western porch. Since the discovery of the pre-Persian temple,
         however, Dörpfeld maintains that the opisthodomos κατ εξοχήν
         was the entire western portion of that temple, consisting of
         three rooms besides the porch (though he does not expressly
         include the porch). There is, then, no reason in the nature of
         things why the whole western part of the Parthenon should not
         be called opisthodomos.]

         Let us now compare the nomenclature of the pre-Persian and
         Periclean temples. Both were temples of Athena and more
         especially of Athena as guardian of the city, Athena Polias; a
         _pronaos_ or _proneion_ formed part of each; one temple was
         called το Έκατόμεδον, and the main cella of the other was
         called ό Έκατομπεδοs νεως[26], and this name was extended to
         the whole building. An opisthodomos was a part of each
Page 13  building, and, if I was right in my observations above, the new
         one, like the old, was called simply ο οπισθόδομος. As soon as
         the great Periclean temple was completed, the temple burnt by
         the Persians was quietly removed as had been intended from the
         first, the treasure was deposited in the great new
         opisthodomos, the old ceremonies which might still cling to the
         temple of the sixth century were transferred, along with the
         old names, to the splendid new building; the greatest temple on
         the Acropolis was now as before the house of the patron goddess
         of the land, and contained her treasure and that of her
         faithful worshippers, but the two temples did not exist side by
         side. There was, then, no reason for differentiating between
         the two temples, as, for instance, by calling the one that had
         been removed ό αρχαίος veas, because the one that had been
         removed was no longer in existence. That the designation
         αρχαίος (παλαιός) νεώς is applicable to the Erechtheion has
         been accepted for many years and has been explained anew by
         Petersen.[27] If the temple burnt by the Persians had continued
         to exist alongside of the Parthenon, one might doubt whether it
         or the Erechtheion was meant by the expression ό αρχαίος νεώς,
         but if one of the two temples was no longer in existence, the
         name must belong to the other. It is just possible that in
         Hesychios, 'Εκατό μπεδος· νεώς ev τη άκροπόλεί τη Παρθενω
         κατασκευασθείς υπό Αθηναίων, μείζων του εμπρησθεντος υπό των
         Περσών ποσΐ πεντήκοντα, the expression του έμπρησθεντος υπό των
         Περσών (yea or possibly 'Εκατόμπέδου νεώ) was originally chosen
         because the expression αρχαίου νεώ (which would otherwise be
         very appropriate here) was regularly used to designate the
         Erechtheion.[28]

         [Footnote 26: Or το Έκατόμπεδον. Even after Dörpfeld's
         arguments, I cannot believe that any great difference in the
         use of the two expressions can be found.]

         [Footnote 27: _Mitth_., XII, p. 63 ff. Comparison of modern
         with ancient instances is frequently misleading, but sometimes
         furnishes a useful illustration. There is in Boston, Mass., a
         church called the _Old South_ church. This became too small and
         too inconvenient for its congregation, so a new church was
         built in a distant part of the city. The intention then was to
         destroy the old building, in which case the new one (though new
         and in a different part of the city) would have been called the
         Old South church. The old building was, however, preserved, and
         the new one now goes by the name of the New Old South church,
         though I have also heard it called the Old South in spite of
         the continued existence of the old building. So the new
         building of the Erechtheion retained the name άρχαιος νεως
         which had belonged to its predecessor on the same spot.]

         [Footnote 28: LOLLING (p. 638 ff.) discusses the measurements
         of the Parthenon and the old Hekatompedon, and finds a slight
         inaccuracy in the statement of Hesychios. He thinks, however,
         (p. 641) that Hesychios would not compare the two unless they
         had both been standing at the same time. Possibly any
         inaccuracy may be accounted for by the fact that the older
         temple was no longer standing when the comparison was first
         made. Possibly, too, the name Hekatompedon was not originally
         meant to be taken quite literally, but rather, as Curtitis,
         _Stadtgeschichte,_ p. 72, seems to think, as a proud
         designation of a grand new building.]

Page 14  At the end of his last article on this subject, Dörpfeld calls
         attention to the fact that "not only the lower step
         (_Unterstufe_) of the temple, but also a stone of the stylobate
         are still in their old position, and several stylobate-stones
         are still lying about upon the temple," and says that the whole
         stylobate, with the exception of the part cut away by the
         Erechtheion, must therefore have existed in Roman times. I do
         not see why quite so much is to be assumed. Even granting that
         we know the exact level of the surface of the Acropolis in
         classical times at every point, we certainly do not know all
         the objects--votive offerings and the like--set up in various
         places. Some small part of the stylobate of the ruined temple
         may have been used as a foundation for some group of statuary
         or other offering,[29] or a fragment of the building itself may
         have been left as a reminder to future generations of the
         devastations of the barbarians. The existence of these stones
         is called by Dörpfeld "a fact hitherto insufficiently
         considered" (_eine bishеr nicht genügend beаchtete Thatsache_).
         I cannot believe that the fact would have remained so long
         "insufficiently considered" by Dörpfeld and others if it were
         really in itself a sufficient proof that the pre-Persian temple
         continued in existence until the end of ancient Athens. If I am
         right in thinking that the temple did not exist during the last
         centuries of classical antiquity, it must have ceased to exist
         when the Parthenon was completed. Dörpfeld is certainly
         justified in saying[30] that "he who concedes the continued
Page 15  existence of the temple until the end of the fourth century has
         no right to let the temple disappear in silence later" (_darf
         den Tempel nicht spater ohne weiteres verschwinden lassen_).

         [Footnote 29: Whether the present condition of the stone of the
         stylobate still _in situ_ favors this conjecture, is for those
         on the spot to decide. It looks in Dörpfeld's plans (_Ant.
         Denkm.,_ ı, I, and _Mitth.,_ XI, p. 337) as if it had a hole in
         it, such as are found in the pedestals of statues.]

         [Footnote 30: _Mitth.,_ xv, 438. This is directed against the
         closing paragraph of Lolling's article, where he says: "We
         cannot determine exactly when this (the removal of the temple)
         happened, but it seems that the temple no longer existed in the
         times of Plutarch," _etc._]

         In the above discussion I have purposely passed over some
         points because I wished to confine myself to what was
         necessary. So I have not reviewed in detail the passages
         containing the expression άρχαίος (παλαίòς) νεώς, as they have
         been sufficiently discussed by others. So, too, I have omitted
         all mention of the μέγαρον τò πρòς έσπέραν τετραμμένον,[31] the
         παραστάδες,[32] the passages in Homer,[33] Aristophanes,[34]
         and some other writers, because these references and allusions,
         being more or less uncertain or indefinite, may be (and have
         been) explained, according to the wish of the interpreter, as
         evidence for or against the continued existence of the temple
         burnt by the Persians. Those who agree with me will interpret
         the passages in question accordingly.

         To recapitulate briefly, I hope that I have shown: (1) that
         Pausanias does not mention the temple excavated in 1886, and
         (2) that the existence of that temple during the latter part of
         the fifth and the fourth centuries is not proved. I believe
         that the temple continued to exist in some form until the
         completion of the Parthenon, but this belief is founded not so
         much upon documentary evidence as upon the consideration that
         the Athenians and their goddess must have had a treasure-house
         during the time from the Persian invasion to the completion of
         the Parthenon; especially after the treasure of the confederacy
         of Delos was moved to Athens in 454 B.C. As soon, however, as
         the Parthenon was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians
         was removed. This was before the fire of 406 B.C. The fire,
         therefore, injured, as has been supposed hitherto, the
         Erechtheion. The opisthodomos, which was injured by fire at
         some time not definitely ascertained (but probably not very far
         from the date of the fire in the Erechtheion), was the
         opisthodomos of the Parthenon.

         [Footnote 31: HEROD, v, 77.]

         [Footnote 32: _CIA_, II, 733, 735, 708.]

         [Footnote 33: _Od._, VII. 80 f.; _Il._, II. 546 ff. _Mitth._,
         XII, pp. 26, 62, 207.]

         [Footnote 34: PLUT., 1191 ff. _cf. Mitth._, XII., pp. 69, 206.]

         It will, I hope, be observed, that I do not claim to have
         _proved_ the non-existence of the earlier temple after the
         completion of the Parthenon. All I claim is that its existence
Page 16  is not proved. Now if, as I hope I have shown, the temple is
         not mentioned by Pausanias,[35] and there is no reasonable
         likelihood of its silent disappearance between 435 B.C. and the
         time of Pausanias, the probabilities are in favor of its
         disappearance about 435 B.C., when it was supplanted by the
         Parthenon. No one, however, would welcome more gladly than I
         any further evidence either for or against its continued
         existence.

         HAROLD N. FOWLER.

         _Exeter, New Hampshire_, March, 1892.

         [Footnote 35: The fact that Pausanias does not mention this
         temple is not a certain proof that he might not have seen it,
         for he fails to mention other things that certainly existed in
         his day. This temple, however, if it then existed, must have
         been in marked contrast to almost every other building in the
         Acropolis, and would have had special attractions for a person
         of Pausanias' archæological tastes.]


         POSTSCRIPT.--This article had already left my hands when I
         received the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (XII. 2), containing
         an article by Mr. Penrose, _On the Ancient Hecatompedon which
         occupied the site of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens_.
         Mr. Penrose contends that the old Hekatompedon was a temple of
         unusual length in proportion to its width, that it stood on the
         site of the Parthenon, and was built 100 years or more before
         the Persian invasion. He thinks, too, that the Doric
         architectural members built into the Acropolis-wall, which are
         referred by Dörpfeld to the archaic temple beside the
         Erechtheion, belonged to the building on the site of the
         Parthenon. He is led to these assumptions chiefly by masons'
         marks on some of the stones of the sub-structure of the
         Parthenon. He holds it "as incontrovertible that the marks have
         reference to the building on which they are found." The
         distances between these marks offer certain numerical relations
         which must, Mr. Penrose thinks, correspond to some of the
         dimensions of the building to which the marks refer. "If they
         had reference to the Parthenon, they would have shown a number
         of exact coincidences with the important sub-divisions of the
         temple." Of these coincidences Mr. Penrose has found but three,
         which he considers fortuitous. As accessory arguments he
         adduces the condition of the filling in to the south of the
Page 17  Parthenon, and the absence of old architectural material in the
         sub-structure of the Parthenon, _etc_. He seems, however, to
         rest his case chiefly upon the masons' marks.

         I cannot even attempt to discuss this new theory in detail, but
         would mention one or two things which seem to tell against Mr.
         Penrose's view. The inscription published by Lolling mentions
         an _οίκημα ταμιείον_ and _οίκήματα_ as parts of the
         Hekatompedon, and such apartments evidently existed in the
         temple beside the Erechtheion. Mr. Penrose assumes that the
         temple beside the Erechtheion antedates his Hekatompedon,
         without regard to the fact that the use of the stone employed
         in the outer foundations of the archaic temple points to a much
         later period. The archaic temple was (at least approximately)
         100 feet long, which makes it seem almost impossible that a new
         temple should be built on the Acropolis and called the
         Hundred-foot-temple (Hekatompedon). I cannot avoid attaching
         more importance to these considerations than to the arguments
         advanced by Mr. Penrose. It may be, however, that answers to
         these and other objections will be found.

         If Mr. Penrose's theory is correct, it is evident that the old
         Hekatompedon must have ceased to exist before the building of
         the Parthenon. Whether the archaic temple excavated in 1886
         continued to exist or not is, then, another matter. My main
         contention (that there is no good reason for assuming the
         continued existence through the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
         of the archaic temple) is not affected by Mr. Penrose's theory,
         and I leave my arguments, such as they are, for the
         consideration alike of those who do and who do not agree with
         Mr. Penrose. Much of my article will appear irrelevant to the
         former class, but, as Mr. Penrose's views may not be at once
         generally accepted, it is as well to leave the discussion of
         previous theories as it was before the appearance of Mr.
         Penrose's article.

         Η. Ν. F.


         NOTE.--For a discussion of Mr. Penrose's theories and
         conclusions, see now (Nov. 1892), Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitth.,_
         XVII, pp. 158, ff.

Page 18


         NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE
         SCULPTURES.


         The following compilation is intended to present in compact
         form the evidence at present available on this question: How
         far did the Greeks choose, for the sculptured decorations of a
         temple, subjects connected with the principal divinity or
         divinities worshiped in that temple? We have omitted some
         examples of sculpture in very exceptional situations, _e.g._,
         the sculptured drums of the sixth century and fourth century
         temples of Artemis at Ephesos. Acroteria have also been
         omitted. But we have attempted to include every Greek temple
         known to have had pediment-figures or sculptured metopes or
         frieze, and have thus, for the sake of completeness, registered
         some examples which are valueless for the main question. The
         groups from Delos, attributed on their first discovery to the
         pediments of the Apollon-temple, have been proved by
         Furtwängler to have been acroteria (_Arch, Zeitung_, 1882, p.
         336 ff.) It does not appear that Lebas had any good grounds for
         attributing to a temple the relief found by him at Rhamnus
         (_Voyage archéologique Monuments figurés_, No. 19,) and now in
         Munich. The frieze from Priene representing a gigantomachy was
         not a part of the temple there (Wolters, _Jahrbuch des
         deutschen arch. Instituts_, I, pp. 56, ff.) The Poseidon and
         Amphitrite frieze in Munich (Brunn, _Beschreibung der
         Glyptothek_, No. 115) has been, by some, taken for a piece of
         temple decoration, but is too doubtful an example to be
         catalogued. The statement of Pausanias (II. 11. 8) about the
         pediment-sculptures (_τà έν τοίς àετοίς_) of the Asklepieion at
         Titane is hopelessly inadequate and perhaps inaccurate.

         The order of arrangement in the following table is roughly
         chronological, absolute precision being impossible. Ionic
Page 19  temples are designated by a prefixed asterisk, the one
         Corinthian by a dagger. The others are Doric, and, in the ease
         of these, "Sculptures of the Exterior Frieze" refers, of
         course, to sculptured metopes.

         It has not been our purpose to discuss at length the
         conclusions to be drawn from this evidence. Briefly, the
         results may be summarized as follows:

         The principal sculpture (_i.e._, sculpture of the principal
         pediment, or, in the absence of pediment-sculpture, the frieze
         in the most important situation) included the figure of the
         temple divinity, generally in central position, in the
         following numbers: [A] 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26. If 12,
         14 and 32 had no pediment-sculptures, they should be added;
         probably also 33 and 34. In 30 the subject of the
         pediment-sculpture, if correctly divined by Conze, was, at any
         rate, closely related to the temple-divinities.

         [Footnote A: In counting the Aigina temple we commit
         deliberately a _circulus in probando_.]

         The principal sculpture apparently did not include or
         especially refer to the temple-divinity in the following: 20,
         24, 25. Practice would seem to have become somewhat relaxed
         after about 425 B.C. The very singular temple of Assos, (No.
         5), though earlier, should perhaps be added.

         The temple-divinity was represented in the western pediments of
         7, 13 and perhaps of 20, but not of that in 9, 11, 24 (?) or
         25.

         The subjects of sculptured metopes and friezes were largely or
         wholly without obvious relation to the temple-divinity in the
         following: 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 1.9, 23, 29, 32.

          P.B. TARBELL.
          W.N. BATES.

Page 20


    PLACE.    DIVINITY.   DATE.          PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.

                           B.C.
1  Selinous   Apollon (?) _ca._ 625
  (Temple C)

2  Selinous               _ca._ 625

3  Athens                 _ca._ 600  E.: (?) Zeus fighting Typhon;
  (Acropolis)                             Herakles fighting
                                          serpent.
                                          W. (?): Herakles fighting
                                          Triton;  Kerkopes(?)

4   Athens                _ca._ 600  E. (?): Herakles fighting
  (Acropolis)                             Hydra.
                                          W. (?): Herakles fighting
                                          Triton.

5   Assos                  VI cent. (?)

6 Metapontum  Apollon      VI cent. (?)   Subject unknown

7   Aigina     Athena      _ca._ 530 (?)  E. & W.: Combats of
                                          Greeks and Trojans;
                                          Athena in centre.

8   Athens     Athena      _ca._ 530 (?)  E. (?):   Gigantomachy,
  (Acropolis)                             including Athena (in
                                          centre?)

9   Delphi     Apollon     VI cent. after E.: Apollon, Artemis,
                                548       Leto, Muses.
                                          W.: Dionysos, Thyiads,
                                          Setting Sun, _etc._

10  Selinous               VI cent.
   (Temple F)

11  Olympia    Zeus        _ca._ 460 E.: Preparations for
                                          chariot-race of Pelops
                                          and Oinomaos;
                                          Zeus as arbiter in
                                          centre.
                                          W.: Centauromachy;
                                          Apollon (?) in centre.
Page 21
                                                    OTHER
     SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE          SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.

1   E.: in centre, two quadrigae
        with unidentified figs., also
        Perseus slaying Medusa, Herakles
        carrying Kerkopes, _etc._
     W.: Subjects unknown.

2   Europa on bull, winged sphinx,
        _etc._

3


4


5  E. (and W.?): Pair of sphinxes,        Exterior architrave: pairs
       Centaur, wild hog, man pursuing     of sphinxes in centre of E. &
       woman, two men in combat,           W. fronts (?), Herakles and
       _etc._                          Triton, Herakles and Centaurs,
                                            symposium, combats
                                            of animals.


6

7  None.

8


9  Herakles killing Hydra, Bellerophon
       killing Chimaera,
       combats of gods and giants,
       _etc._

10 E.: Scenes from Gigantomachy.

11                                       12 metopes over columns and
                                       antæ of pronaos and opisthodomos:
                                            labors of Herakles.
Page 22

===================================================================
   | PLACE.    | DIVINITY. |   DATE.   |PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------------
   |           |           |   B.C.    |
   | Selinous  |  Hera (?) |ca. 450 (?)|
 12| (Temple E)|           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
 13|  Athens   |  Athena   |ca. 445-438|E.: Birth of Athena.
   |(Acropolis)|           |           |W.: Contest of Athena
   |           |           |           | and Poseidon for Attika.
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
 14|  Sunjon   |  Athena   |ca. 435 (?)|
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
 15|  Athens   |           |ca. 435 (?)|E. & W.: Lost; subjects
   |           |           |           |unknown.
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
*16|  Athens   |  Athena   |  ca. 432  |None
   |(Acropolis)|   Nike    |           |
   |           |           |           |
 17|  Kroton   |   Hera    |  V cent., |Undescribed.
   |           |           |  2d half  |
 18| Agrigentum|   Zeus    |  V cent., |
   |           |           | before 405|
 19|  Bassae   |  Apollon  |ca. 425 (?)|None.
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
   |           |           |           |

Page 23

===================================================================
   |SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE| OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
---+-----------------------------+---------------------------------
   |                             |
 12|            None.            |Metopes over pronaos: Herakles
   |                             |  and Amazon, Zeus and
   |                             |  Hera, Artemis and Aktaion,
   |                             |  etc.
   |                             |Metopes over opisthodomos:
   |                             |  Athena and Enkelados, _etc._
 13|E.: Gigantomachy; Athena     |Ionic frieze around cella,
   |  over central               |  pronaos and opisthodomos:
   |  intercolumniation.         |  Panathenaic procession.
   |W.: Amazonomachy.            |
   |S.: Centauromachy and seven  |
   |  scenes from Iliupersis.    |
   |N.: Iliupersis and nine      |
   |  scenes from Centauromachy. |
 14|                             |Ionic frieze on four inner sides
   |                             |  of E. vestibule, between
   |                             |  pronaos and outer columns:
   |                             |  Gigantomachy, including
   |                             |  Athena over entrance to
   |                             |  pronaos (?), Centauromachy,
   |                             |  exploits of Theseus.
 15|E.: Labors of Herakles.      |Ionic frieze over pronaos
   |N. & S., at E. end (four     |  and across pteroma: battle
   |  metopes on each side):     |  scene.
   |  exploits of Theseus.       |Ionic frieze over opisthodomos,
   |                             |  Centauromachy.
*16|E.: assemblage of gods,      |
   |  Athena in centre.          |
   |N. W. S.: battle-scenes.     |
 17|                             |
   |                             |
 18|E.: Gigantomachy.            |
   |W.: Iliupersis.              |
 19|None.                        |Metopes over pronaos: Apolline
   |                             |  and Dionysiac scenes.
   |                             |  Interior cella-frieze:
   |                             |  Amazonomachy, Centauromachy
   |                             |  (Apollon and Artemis
   |                             |  represented.)

Page 24

===================================================================
   | PLACE.    | DIVINITY. |   DATE.   |PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------------
   |           |           |   B.C.    |
 20| near Argos|   Hera    | ca. 420.  |E.: Birth of Zeus (?)
   |           |           |           |W.: Battle of Greeks
   |           |           |           | and Trojans. (?)
*21|  Athens   |Erechtheus | 420-408   |None.
   |(Acropolis)|           |           |
*22|   Locri   |           |  V cent., |E.: Lost.
   |Epizephyrii|           |latter part|W.: Subject unknown,
   |           |           |           | including Dioscuri (?)
*23|Samothrace |  Cabiri   | ca. 400   |
 24|   Tegea   |  Athena   | IV cent., |E.: Calydonian boar-hunt
   |           |   Alea    |first half | (no divinity
   |           |           |           | represented.)
   |           |           |           |W.: Contest of Telephos
   |           |           |           | and Achilles.
 25| Epidauros | Asklepios |ca. 375 (?)|E.: Centauromachy.
   |           |           |           |W.: Amazonomachy.
 26|  Thebes   | Herakles  |ca. 370 (?)|Labors of Herakles.
*27|  Ephesos  |  Artemis  |  ca. 330  |
*28|   Troad   |  Apollon  | III cent. |
   |           | Smintheus |           |
*29| Magnesia  |  Artemis  | III cent. |
 30|Samothrace |   Cabiri  | III cent. |N.: Demeter seeking
   |           |           | III cent. | Persephone (?)
*31|  Lagina   |  Hekate   |           |
 32|   Ilium   | Athena (?)|II cent.(?)|
   |   Novum   |           |           |
   |           |           |           |
*33|   Teos    | Dionysos  |Roman times|
*34|  Knidos   |Dionysos(?)|Roman times|

Page 25

===================================================================
   |SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE| OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
---+-----------------------------+---------------------------------
   |                             |
 20|E.: Gigantomachy (?)         |
   |W.: Iliupersis (?)           |
   |                             |
*21|Uninterpreted.               |
   |                             |
*22|                             |
   |                             |
   |                             |
*23|Dancing women.               |
 24|                             |
   |                             |
   |                             |
   |                             |
   |                             |
 25|                             |
   |                             |
 26|                             |
*27|Mythological scenes.         |
*28|Scenes of combat.            |
   |                             |
*29|Amazonomachy.                |
 30|                             |
   |                             |
*31|Subjects unknown.            |
 32|Helios in chariot, Athena and|
   | Enkelados, other scenes of  |
   | combat.                     |
*33|Dionysiac procession.        |
*34|Dionysiac scenes, etc.       |

Page 26

         [Note 1: BENNDORF, _Metopen von Selinunt_, pp. 38-50;
         SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di Sicilia_, II, p. 16.]

         [Note 2: _Μonumenti Antichi_, I, p. 950 ff.]

         [Note 3: BRÜCKNER, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1889, pp. 67
         ff.; 1890, pp. 84 ff.]

         [Note 4: MEIER, _Ath. Mitth._, 1885, pp. 237 ff., 322 ff.]

         [Note 5: CLARAC, _Musée de Sculpture_, II, pp. 1149 ff.;
         CLARKE, _Report on Investigations at Assos_, pp. 105-121. This
         temple has been usually assigned to the sixth century. Mr.
         Clarke brings it down to about the middle of the fifth. His
         arguments have not yet been published in full.]

         [Note 6: LACAVA, _Topografia e Storia di Metaponto_, p. 81.]

         [Note 7: Since the inscription which was at one time supposed
         to fix the divinity of this temple has been disposed of by
         LOLLING, in _Arch. Zeitung_, XXXI (1874, p. 58), the designation
         given above rests solely on the prominence given to Athena in
         the pediment-sculptures. As for the date, the building is
         assigned by Dörpfeld to the sixth cent. (_Olympia_, _Textband_
         II, p. 20). The pediment-sculptures might be later, but are now
         confidently carried by STUDNICZKA (_Ath. Mitth._, 1886, pp.
         197-8) some decades back in the sixth century.]

         [Note 8: STUDNICZKA, _Ath. Mitth._, 1886. pp. 185, ff.; MAYER,
         _Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 290-91. According to DÖRPFELD, the
         metopes of this temple, or some of them, may have been
         sculptured.]

         [Note 9: PAUS., X, 19. 4. EURIP., _Ion_, 184 ff. The temple
         seems to have been long in building. If AISCH, _contra Cles._,
         § 116, is to be believed, the dedication did not take place
         till after 479. According to Pausanias, the pediment-sculptures
         were the work of Praxias and Androsthenes. These sculptures
         have been generally supposed to have been executed about 424,
         but may have been considerably earlier, so far as Pausanias
         goes to show. The excavations now in progress will, it is to be
         hoped, clear up the whole subject.]

         [Note 10: BENNDORF, _op. cit._, pp. 50-52.]

         [Note 11: PAUS., V., 10. 6-9. For the date, see DÖRPFELD,
         _Olympia_, _Textband_ II, pp. 19 ff. FLASCH, in Baumeister's
         _Denkmäler_, pp. 1098-1100.]

         [Note 12: BENNDORF, _op. cit._, pp. 53-60. The attribution of
         the temple to Hera rests on the dubious ground of a single
         votive inscription to Hera found within the cella; _op. cit._,
         p. 34.]

         [Note 13: PAUS., I. 24. 5; MICHAELIS, _Der Parthenon_, pp.
         107-265; ROBERT, _Arch. Zeit_, 1884, pp. 47-58; MAYER,
         _Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 366-370.]

         [Note 14: FABRICIUS, _Ath. Mitth._, 1884, 338 ff.; for the
         date, DÖRPFELD, _ibid._ p. 336.]

         [Note 15: The so-called Theseion.]

         [Note 16: ROSS, _Temple der Nike Apteros_, pls. 11-12;
         FRIEDERICHS, _Bausteine_, (ed. Wolters) Nos. 747-760. On the
         date, see WOLTERS, _Bonger Studien Reinhard Kekulé gewidmet_,
         pp. 92-101.]

         [Note 17: _Eighth Annual Report of the Archæological Institute
         of America_, pp. 42 ff.]

         [Note 18: DIOD. SIC., XIII. 82. It is disputed whether Diodoros
         speaks of pediment-sculptures or metopes; see PETERSEN, _Kunst
         des Pheidias_, p. 208, Note 4. Nothing can be made of the
         existing fragments; published by SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di
         Sicilia_, III, pl. 25.]

         [Note 19: COCKERELL. _Temples of Aegina and Bassae_, pp. 49-50,
         52.]

         [Note 20: PAUS, II. 17. 3. The distribution of subjects given
         above is that proposed by Dr. Waldstein, in the light of the
Page 27  discoveries made on the site of the Heraion under his direction
         in the spring of 1892. See Thirteenth _Annual Report of the
         Archæological Institute of America_, p. 64.]

         [Note 21: FRIEDERICHS, Bausteine (ed. Wolters) Nos. 812-820. On
         the date see MICHAELIS, Ath. Mitth., 1889, pp. 349 ff.]

         [Note 22: _Notiziz degli Scavi_, 1890, pp. 255-57; PETERSEN,
         _Bull, dell' Istituto_, 1890, pp. 201-27.]

         [Note 23: CONZE, _etc., Arch. Untersuchungen auf Samothrake_,
         II, pp. 13-14, 23-25.]

         [Note 24: PAUS., VIII. 45. 4-7; TREU, Ath. Mitth., 1881, pp.
         393-423; WEIL, in Baumeister's Denkmäler, 1666-69.]

         [Note 25: Έφημερίς Άρχαιολογική, 1884, pp. 49-60; 1885, pp.
         41-44. For the date see FOUCART, _Bull, de corr. hellén._,
         1890, pp. 589-92.]

         [Note 26: PAUS., IX. 11. 4. The date given above conforms to
         the view of BRUNN, _Sitzungsber. d. Münch. Akademie_, 1880, pp.
         435 ff.]

         [Note 27: WOOD, _Discoveries at Ephesus_, p. 271.]

         [Note 28: _Antiquities of Ionia_, IV. p. 46. Mr. Pullan is
         inclined to date the temple after Alexander; Prof. Middleton
         somewhat earlier (_Smith's, Dict, of Antiq._, 3d ed.,] II, p.
         785).

         [Note 29: CLARAC, _Musée de Sculpture_, II, pp. 1193-1233; pls.
         117 C-J. Additional pieces of the frieze have recently been
         found in the course of excavations conducted by the German
         Archæological Institute. The date given above for the building
         is that suggested by DÖRPFELD, _Ath. Mitth._, 1891, pp. 264-5.
         Most of the sculpture is generally regarded as of much later
         date.]

         [Note 30: CONZE, _etc._, _Untersuchungen auf Samothrake_, I,
         pp. 24-7, 43-4.]

         [Note 3: NEWTON, _Discoveries at Halicarnassus_, _etc._, II,
         pp. 554-67.]

         [Note 32: MAYER, _Giganten und Titanen_, pp. 370-71.]

         [Note 33: _Antiquities of Ionia_, IV, pp. 38-9.]

         [Note 34: NEWTON, _Discoveries at Halicarnassus_, _etc._, II,
         pp. 449-50, 633.]

Page 28

         PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
         STUDIES AT ATHENS.

         THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT
         RELIEFS FROM THE ACROPOLIS TO
         VASE-PAINTING.

         [PLATE I.]


         From one point of view it is a misfortune in the study of
         archæology that, with the progress of excavation, fresh
         discoveries are continually being made. If only the evidence of
         the facts were all in, the case might be summed up and a final
         judgment pronounced on points in dispute. As it is, the ablest
         scholar must feel cautious about expressing a decided opinion;
         for the whole fabric of his argument may be overturned any day
         by the unearthing of a fragment of pottery or a sculptured
         head. Years ago, it was easy to demonstrate the absurdity of
         any theory of polychrome decoration. The few who dared to
         believe that the Greek temple was not in every part as white as
         the original marble subjected themselves to the pitying scorn
         of their fellows. Only the discoveries of recent years have
         brought proof too positive to be gainsaid. The process of
         unlearning and throwing over old and cherished notions is
         always hard; perhaps it has been especially so in archæology.

         The thorough investigation of the soil and rock of the
         Acropolis lately finished by the Greek Government has brought
         to light so much that is new and strange that definite
         explanations and conclusions are still far away. The
         pediment-reliefs in poros which now occupy the second and third
         rooms of the Acropolis Museum have already been somewhat fully
         treated, especially in their architectural bearings. Dr.
Page 29  Brückner of the German Institute has written a full monograph
         on the subject,[36] and it has also been fully treated by
         Lechat in the _Revue Archeologique_.[37] Shorter papers have
         appeared in the _Mittheilungen_ by Studniczka[38] and P.J.
         Meier.[39] Dr. Waldstein in a recent peripatetic lecture
         suggested a new point of view in the connection between these
         reliefs and Greek vase-paintings. It is this suggestion that I
         have tried to follow out.

         The groups in question are too well known to need a detailed
         description here. The first,[40] in a fairly good state of
         preservation, represents Herakles in his conflict with the
         Hydra, and at the left Iolaos, his charioteer, as a spectator.
         Corresponding to this, is the second group,[41] with Herakles
         overpowering the Triton; but the whole of this is so damaged
         that it is scarcely recognizable. Then there are two larger
         pediments in much higher relief, the one[42] repeating the
         scene of Herakles and the Triton, the other[43] representing
         the three-headed Typhon in conflict, as supposed, with Zeus.
         All four of these groups have been reconstructed from a great
         number of fragments. Many more pieces which are to be seen in
         these two rooms of the Museum surely belonged to the original
         works, though their relations and position cannot be
         determined. The circumstances of their discovery between the
         south supporting-wall of the Parthenon and Kimon's inner
         Acropolis wall make it certain that we are dealing with
         pre-Persian art. It is quite as certain, in spite of the
         fragmentary condition of the remains, that they were pedimental
         compositions and the earliest of the kind yet known.

         [Footnote 36: _Mitth. deutsch. arch. Inst. Athen._, XIV, p. 67;
         XV, p. 84.]

         [Footnote 37: _Rev. Arch._, XVII, p. 304; XVIII, pp. 12, 137.]

         [Footnote 38: _Mitth. Athen._, XI, p. 61.]

         [Footnote 39: X, pp. 237, 322. _Cf. Studniczka_, _Jahrbuch
         deutsch. arch. Inst._, I, p. 87; _Purgold_, _Έφημερίς
         Άρχαιολογική_, 1884, p. 147, 1885, p. 234.]

         [Footnote 40: _Mitth. Athen._, X, cut opposite p. 237;
         _Έφημερίς_, 1884, πίναξ 7.]

         [Footnote 41: _Mitth. Athen._, XI, _Taf._ II.]

         [Footnote 42: _Idem_, XV, _Taf._ II.]

         [Footnote 43: _Idem_, XIV, _Taf._ II, III.]

         The first question which presents itself in the present
         consideration is: Why should these pedimental groups follow
         vase paintings? We might say that in vases we have practically
         the first products of Greek art; and further we might show
         resemblances, more or less material, between these archaic
         reliefs and vase pictures. But the proof of any connection
         between the two would still be wanting. Here the discoveries
Page 30  made by the Germans at Olympia and confirmed by later
         researches in Sicily and Magna Graecia, are of the utmost
         importance.[44] In the Byzantine west wall at Olympia were
         found great numbers of painted terracotta plates[45] which
         examination proved to have covered the cornices of the Geloan
         Treasury. They were fastened to the stone by iron nails, the
         distance between the nail-holes in terracottas and cornice
         blocks corresponding exactly. The fact that the stone, where
         covered, was only roughly worked made the connection still more
         sure. These plates were used on the cornice of the long side,
         and bounded the pediment space above and below. The
         corresponding cyma was of the same material and similarly
         decorated.

         It seems surprising that such a terracotta sheathing should be
         applied on a structure of stone. For a wooden building, on the
         other hand, it would be altogether natural. It was possible to
         protect wooden columns, architraves and triglyphs from the
         weather by means of a wide cornice. But the cornice itself
         could not but be exposed, and so this means of protection was
         devised. Of course no visible proof of all this is at hand in
         the shape of wooden temples yet remaining. But Dr. Dörpfeld's
         demonstration[46] removes all possible doubt. Pausanias[47]
         tells us that in the Heraion at Olympia there was still
         preserved in his day an old wooden column. Now from the same
         temple no trace of architrave, triglyph or cornice has been
         found; a fact that is true of no other building in Olympia and
         seems to make it certain that here wood never was replaced by
         stone. When temples came to be built of stone, it seems that
         this plan of terracotta covering was retained for a time,
         partly from habit, partly because of its fine decorative
         effect. But it was soon found that marble was capable of
         withstanding the wear of weather and that the ornament could be
         applied to it directly by painting.

         [Footnote 44: I follow closely Dr. Dörpfeld's account and
         explanation of these discoveries in _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_,
         v, 30 _seq_. See also _Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste_, Berlin,
         1881. _Ueber die Verwendung Terracotten_, by Messrs. DÖRPFELD,
         GRÄBER, BORRMANN, and SIEBOLD.]

         [Footnote 45: Reproduced in _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_, V,
         _Taf._ XXXIV. BAUMEISTER, _Denkmäler des klassischen
         Altertums_, _Taf._ XLV. RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Histoire de la
         Céramique Grecque_, pl. XV.]

         [Footnote 46: _Historische und philologische Aufsätze_, _Ernst
         Cartius gewidmet_. Berlin, 1884, p. 137 _seq_.]

         [Footnote 47: V, 20. 6.]

Page 31  In order to carry the investigation a step further Messrs.
         Dörpfeld, Gräber, Borrmann and Siebold undertook a journey to
         Gela and the neighboring cities of Sicily and Magna
         Graecia.[48] The results of this journey were most
         satisfactory. Not only in Gela, but in Syracuse, Selinous,
         Akrai, Kroton, Metapontum and Paestum, precisely similar
         terracottas were found to have been employed in the same way.
         Furthermore just such cyma pieces have been discovered
         belonging to other structures in Olympia and amid the
         pre-Persian ruins on the Acropolis of Athens. It is not yet
         proven that this method of decoration was universal or even
         widespread in Greece; but of course the fragile nature of
         terracotta and the fact that it was employed only in the oldest
         structures, would make discoveries rare.

         Another important argument is furnished by the certain use of
         terracotta plates as acroteria. Pausanias[49] mentions such
         acroteria on the Stoa Basileios on the agora of Athens.
         Pliny[50] says that such works existed down to his day, and
         speaks of their great antiquity. Fortunately a notable example
         has been preserved in the acroterium of the gable of the
         Heraion at Olympia,[51] a great disk of clay over seven feet in
         diameter. It forms a part, says Dr. Dörpfeld, of the oldest
         artistic roof construction that has remained to us from Greek
         antiquity. That is, the original material of the acroteria was
         the same used in the whole covering of the roof, namely
         terracotta. The gargoyles also, which later were always of
         stone, were originally of terracotta. Further we find reliefs
         in terracotta pierced with nail-holes and evidently intended
         for the covering of various wooden objects; sometimes, it is
         safe to say, for wooden sarcophagi. Here appears clearly the
         connection that these works may have had with the later reliefs
         in marble.

         To make now a definite application, it is evident that the
         connection between vase-paintings and painted terracottas must
         from the nature of the case be a very close one. But when these
         terracottas are found to reproduce throughout the exact designs
         and figures of vase-paintings, the line between the two fades
         away. All the most familiar ornaments of vase technic recur
Page 32  again and again, maeanders, palmettes, lotuses, the scale and
         lattice-work patterns, the bar-and-tooth ornament, besides
         spirals of all descriptions. In exception, also, the parallel
         is quite as close. In the great acroterium of the Heraion, for
         example, the surface was first covered with a dark varnish-like
         coating on which the drawing was incised down to the original
         clay. Then the outlines were filled in black, red and white.
         Here the bearing becomes clear of an incidental remark of
         Pausanias in his description of Olympia. He says (v. 10.): εν
         δε Ολυμπια (of the Zeus temple) λεβης επιχρυσος επι 'εκαστω του
         οροφου τω περατι επικειται. That is originally aeroteria were
         only vases set up at the apex and on the end of the gable.
         Naturally enough the later terracottas would keep close to the
         old tradition.

         [Footnote 48: _Cf. supra, Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste_.]

         [Footnote 49: I, 3. 1.]

         [Footnote 50: His. Nat., xxxv, 158.]

         [Footnote 51: _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_, v, 35 and _Taf_.
         XXXIV.]

         It is interesting also to find relief-work in terracotta as
         well as painting on a plane surface. An example where color and
         relief thus unite, which comes from a temple in Caere,[52]
         might very well have been copied from a vase design. It
         represents a female face in relief, as occurs so often in Greek
         pottery, surrounded by an ornament of lotus, maeander and
         palmette. Such a raised surface is far from unusual; and we
         seem to find here an intermediate stage between painting and
         sculpture. The step is indeed a slight one. A terracotta
         figurine[53] from Tarentum helps to make the connection
         complete. It is moulded fully in the round, but by way of
         adornment, in close agreement with the tradition of
         vase-painting, the head is wreathed with rosettes and crowned
         by a single palmette. So these smaller covering plates just
         spoken of, which were devoted to minor uses, recall continually
         not only the identical manner of representation but the
         identical scenes of vase paintings,--such favorite subjects, to
         cite only one example, as the meeting of Agamemnon's children
         at his tomb.

         [Footnote 52: _Arch. Zeitung_, xxix, 1872, _Taf._ 41; RAYET et
         COLLIGNON, _Hist. Céram. Grecque_, fig. 143.]

         [Footnote 53: _Arch. Zeitung_, 1882, _Taf._ 13.]

         From this point of view, it does not seem impossible that
         pedimental groups might have fallen under the influence of vase
         technic. The whole architectural adornment of the oldest temple
         was of pottery. It covered the cornice of the sides, completely
Page 33  bounded the pedimental space, above and below, and finally
         crowned the whole structure in the acroteria. It would surely
         be strange if the pedimental group, framed in this way by vase
         designs, were in no way influenced by them. The painted
         decoration of these terracottas is that of the bounding friezes
         in vase-pictures. The vase-painter employs them to frame and
         set off the central scene. Might not the same end have been
         served by the terracottas on the temple, with reference to the
         scene within the typanum? We must remember, also, that at this
         early time the sculptor's art was in its infancy while painting
         and the ceramic art had reached a considerable development.
         Even if all analogy did not lead the other way, an artist would
         shrink from trying to fill up a pediment with statues in the
         round. The most natural method was also the easiest for him.

         On the question of the original character of the pedimental
         group, the Heraion at Olympia, probably the oldest Greek
         columnar structure known, furnishes important light. Pausanias
         says nothing whatever of any pedimental figures. Of course his
         silence does not prove that there were none; but with all the
         finds of acroteria, terracottas and the like, no trace of any
         such sculptures was discovered. The inference seems certain
         that the pedimental decoration, if present at all, was either
         of wood or of terracotta, or was merely painted on a smooth
         surface. The weight of authority inclines to the last view. It
         is held that, if artists had become accustomed to carving
         pedimental groups in wood, the first examples that we have in
         stone would not show so great inability to deal with the
         conditions of pedimental composition. If ever the tympanum was
         simply painted or filled with a group in terracotta, it is easy
         to see why the fashion died and why consequently we can bring
         forward no direct proof to-day. It was simply that only figures
         in the round can satisfy the requirements of a pedimental
         composition. The strong shadows thrown by the cornice, the
         distance from the spectator, and the height, must combine to
         confuse the lines of a scene painted on a plane surface, or
         even of a low relief. So soon as this was discovered and so
         soon as the art of sculpture found itself able to supply the
         want, a new period in pedimental decoration began.

         Literary evidence to support this theory of the origin of
         pediment sculpture is not lacking. Pliny says in his Natural
Page 34  History (xxxv. 156.): _Laudat_ (Varro) _et Pasitelen
         qui plasticen matrem caelaturæ et statuariæ sculpturaeque dixit
         et cum esset in omnibus his summus nihil unquam fecit antequam
         finxit_. Also (xxxiv. 35.): _Similitudines exprimendi quae
         prima fuerit origo, in ea quam plasticen Graeci vocant dici
         convenientius erit, etenim prior quam statuaria fuit_. In both
         these cases the meaning of "plasticen" is clearly working, that
         is, moulding, in clay. Pliny, again (xxxv. 152.), tells us of
         the Corinthian Butades: _Butadis inventum est rubricam addere
         aut ex rubra creta fingere, primusque personas tegularum
         extremis imbricibus inposuit, quae inter initia prostypa
         vocavit, postea idem ectypa fecit. hinc et fastigia templorum
         orta_. The phrase _hinc et fastigia templorum orla_, has been
         bracketed by some editors because they could not believe the
         fact which it stated. _Fastigia_ may from the whole connection
         and the Latin mean "pediments." This is quite in accord with
         the famous passage in Pindar,[54] attributing to the
         Corinthians the invention of pedimental composition. Here then
         we have stated approximately the conclusion which seems at
         least probable on other grounds, namely, that the tympanum of
         the pediment was originally filled with a group in terracotta,
         beyond doubt painted and in low relief.

         [Footnote 54: _Olymp._, XIII, 21.]

         But if we assume that the pedimental group could have
         originated in this way, we must be prepared to explain the
         course of its development up to the pediments of Aegina and the
         Parthenon, in which we find an entirely different principle,
         namely, the filling of these tympana with figures in the round.
         It is maintained by some scholars, notably by Koepp,[55] that
         no connection can be established between high relief and low
         relief, much less between statues entirely in the round and low
         relief. High relief follows all the principles of sculpture,
         while low relief may almost be considered as a branch of the
         painter's art. But this view seems opposed to the evidence of
         the facts. For there still exists a continuous series of
         pedimental groups, first in low relief then in high relief, and
         finally standing altogether free from the background, and
         becoming sculpture in the round. Examples in low relief are the
         Hydra pediment from the Acropolis and the pediment of the
Page 35  Megarian Treasury at Olympia, which, on artistic grounds, can
         be set down as the two earliest now in existence. Then follow,
         in order of time and development, the Triton and Typhon
         pediments, in high relief, from the Acropolis; and after these
         the idea of relief is lost, and the pediment becomes merely a
         space destined to be adorned with statuary. Can we reasonably
         believe that the Hydra and Triton pediments, standing side by
         side on the Acropolis, so close to each other in time and in
         technic, owe their origin to entirely different motives, merely
         for the reason that the figures of one stand further out from
         the background than those of the other? Is it not easier to
         suppose that the higher reliefs, as they follow the older low
         reliefs in time, are developed from them, than to assume that
         just at the dividing-line a new principle came into operation?

         [Footnote 55: _Jahrbuch deutschen archäol. Instituts_, II,
         118.]

         It is a commonplace to say that sculpture in relief is only one
         branch of painting. Conze[56] publishes a sepulchral monument
         which seems to him to mark the first stage of growth. The
         surface of the figure and that of the surrounding ground remain
         the same; they are separated only by a shallow incised line.
         Conze says of it; "The tracing of the outline is no more than,
         and is in fact exactly the same as, the tracing employed by the
         Greek vase-painter when he outlined his figure with a brush
         full of black paint before he filled in with black the ground
         about it." The next step naturally is to cut away the surface
         outside and beyond the figures; the representation is still a
         picture except in the clearer marking of the bounding-line. The
         entire further growth and development of the Greek relief is in
         the direction of rounding these lines and of detaching the
         relief more and more from the back surface. This primitive
         picturesque method of treatment is found as well in high relief
         as in low. How then can the process of development be different
         for the two? I quote from Friedrichs-Wolters[57] on the metopes
         of the temple of Apollon at Selinous, which are distinctly in
         high relief: "The relief of these works stands very near to the
         origin of relief-style. The surface of the figures is kept flat
         throughout, although the effort to represent them in their full
Page 36  roundness is not to be mistaken. Only later were relief-figures
         rounded on the front and sides after the manner of free
         figures. Originally, whether in high or in low relief, they
         were flat forms, modelled for the plane surface whose ornament
         they were to be." As the sculptured works were brought out
         further and further from the background, this background tended
         to disappear. It was no longer a distinctly marked surface on
         which the figures were projected, but now higher and now lower,
         serving only to hold the figures together. When this point was
         reached, the entire separation of the figures from one another
         and from the background, became easy. That is, the change in
         conception is an easy step by which the relief was lost and
         free-standing figures substituted. This process of change was
         especially rapid in pedimental groups, for the reason stated
         above. The pediment field from its architectonic conditions was
         never suited to decoration in relief. But we find from the
         works before us that such a system was at least attempted, that
         painting and an increased projection of relief were employed as
         aids. We are bound to seek a logical explanation of the facts
         and of their bearing on the later history of art, and it is
         safer to assume a process of regular development than a series
         of anomalous changes. Koepp (_cf. supra_), for example, assumes
         that these two pediments in low relief are simply exceptions to
         the general rule, accounting for them by the fact that it was
         difficult to work out high reliefs from the poros stone of
         which they were made. He seems to forget that the higher
         reliefs from the Acropolis are of the same poros. This material
         in fact appears to have been chosen by the artist because it
         was almost as easy to incise and carve as the wood and clay to
         which he had been accustomed. The monuments of later Greek art
         give no hint of a distinction to be drawn between high and low
         relief. We find on the same stele figures barely attached to
         the ground, and others in mere outline. If then there are
         reasons for finding the origin of pedimental decoration in a
         plane or low-relief composition of terracotta, made more
         effective both by a framing of like material and technic, and
         by the acroteria at either extremity and above, then the
         process of development which leads at length to the pediments
         at Aegina and the Parthenon becomes at once easy and natural.
         We note first the change from terracotta to a low painted
Page 37  relief in stone, then this relief becomes, from the necessities
         of the case, higher and higher until finally it gives place to
         free figures.

         [Footnote 56: _Das Relief bei den Griechen. Sitzungs-Berichte
         der Berliner Akademie_, 1882, 567.]

         [Footnote 57: _Gipsabgüsse antiker Bilderwerke_, Nos. 149-151.]

         If ceramic art really did exert such an influence on
         temple-sculpture, we should be able to trace analogies in other
         lines. The most interesting is found in the design and
         execution of sepulchral monuments. Milchhoefer[58] is of the
         opinion that the tomb was not originally marked by an upright
         slab with sculptured figures. He finds what he thinks the
         oldest representation of sepulchral ornament in a black-figured
         vase of the so-called "prothesis" class.[59] Here are two women
         weeping about a sepulchral mound on which rests an amphora of
         like form to the one that bears the scene. He maintains then
         that such a prothesis vase was the first sepulchral monument,
         that this was later replaced by a vase of the same description
         in marble, of course on account of the fragile nature of
         pottery. For this reason, too, we find no certain proof of the
         fact in the old tombs, though Dr. Wolters[60] thinks that the
         discovery of fragments of vases on undisturbed tombs makes the
         case a very strong one. The use of such vases or urns of marble
         for this purpose became very prevalent. They are nearly always
         without ornament, save for a single small group, in relief or
         sometimes in color, representing the dead and the bereaved
         ones. A very evident connecting-link between these urns and the
         later sepulchral stele appears in monuments which show just
         such urns projected in relief upon a plane surface. The relief
         is sometimes bounded by the outlines of the urn itself,[61]
         sometimes a surrounding background is indicated. In many cases
         this background assumes the form of the ordinary sepulchral
         stele. The Central Museum at Athens is especially rich in
         examples of this kind. On two steles which I have noticed
         there, three urns are represented side by side. A still more
         interesting specimen is a stone so divided that its lower part
         is occupied by an urn in relief, above which is sculptured the
Page 38  usual scene of parting. This scene has its normal place as a
         relief or a drawing in color on the surface of the urn itself;
         here, where the step in advance of choosing the plane stele to
         bear the relief seems already taken, the strength of tradition
         still asserts itself, and a similar group is repeated on the
         rounded face of the urn below. The transition to the more
         common form of sepulchral monument has now become easy; but the
         characteristics which point to its genesis in the funeral vase
         are still prominent.

         [Footnote 58: _Mitth. Athen._, v, 164.]

         [Footnote 59: _Monumenti dell' Inst._, viii, _tav._ v. 1.
         _g.h._: found near Cape Kolias; at present in the Polytechnic
         Museum at Athens.]

         [Footnote 60: _Attische Grabvasen_, a paper read before the
         German Institute in Athens, Dec. 9, 1890.]

         [Footnote 61: Examples are Nos. 2099 and 2100 in the archaic
         room of the Louvre. I remember having seen nothing similar in
         any other European museum.]

         This process of development, so far as can be judged from
         existing types, reaches down to the beginning of the fourth
         century B.C. Steles of a different class are found, dating from
         a period long before this. Instead of a group, they bear only
         the dead man in a way to suggest his position, or vocation
         during life. All show distinctly a clinging to the technic of
         ceramic art. Sculptured steles and others merely painted exist
         side by side. The best known of the latter class is the Lyseas
         stele, in the Central Museum at Athens. Many more of the same
         sort have been discovered, differing from their vase
         predecessors in material and form, but keeping to the old
         principles. The outlines, for example, are first incised, and
         then the picture is finished with color. The Aristion stele may
         be taken as an example of the second order. Relief plays here
         the leading part; but it must still be assisted by painting,
         while the resemblance to vase-figures in position, arrangement
         of clothing, proportion and profile, remains as close as in the
         simply painted stele. An ever present feature, also, is the
         palmette acroterium, treated in conventional ceramic style.
         Loeschke thinks that the origin of red-figured pottery is to be
         found in the dark ground and light coloring of these steles.
         Whether the opinion be correct or not, it points to a very
         close connection between the two forms of art.

         The influence of ceramic decoration spread still further. Large
         numbers of steles and bases for votive offerings have been
         discovered on the Acropolis, which alike repeat over and over
         again conventional vase-patterns, and show the use of incised
         lines and other peculiarities of the technic of pottery.[62]

         [Footnote 62: BORRMANN, _Jahrbuch des Instituts_, III, 274.]

         As to specific resemblances between the pediments of the
         Acropolis and vase-pictures, the subjects of all the groups are
Page 39  such as appear very frequently on vases of all periods. About
         seventy Attic vases are known which deal with the contest of
         Herakles and Triton. One of these is a hydria at present in the
         Berlin Museum, No. 1906.[63] Herakles is represented astride
         the Triton, and he clasps him with both arms as in the
         Acropolis group. The Triton's scaly length, his fins and tail,
         are drawn in quite the same way. It is very noticeable that on
         the vase the contortions of the Triton's body seem much more
         violent; here the sculptor could not well follow the
         vase-painter so closely. It was far easier for him to work out
         the figure in milder curves; but he followed the vase-type as
         closely as possible. On the other hand, if the potter had
         copied the pedimental group the copy could perfectly well have
         been an exact one. The group is very similar also to a scene in
         the Assos frieze, with regard to which I quote from
         Friedrichs-Wolters;[64] "It corresponds to the oldest Greek
         vase-paintings, in which we find beast fights borrowed from
         Oriental art, united with Greek myths and represented after the
         Greek manner." This frieze is ascribed to the sixth century
         B.C., and is not much later than our pediments.

         For the Hydra pediment, there exists a still closer parallel,
         in an archaic Corinthian amphora, published by Gerhard.[65]
         Athena appears here as a spectator, though she has no part in
         the pedimental group; but in every other point, in the drawing
         of the Hydra, of Herakles and Iolaos, the identity is almost
         complete. Athena seems to have been omitted, because the artist
         found it difficult to introduce another figure in the narrow
         space. Evidently the vase must have represented a type known to
         the sculptor and copied by him.

         [Footnote 63: Published by GERHARD, _Auserlesene griechische
         Vasenbilder_, No. 111; RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Hist. Céram.
         Grecque_. fig. 57, p. 125. In the National Museum at Naples,
         No. 3419, is a black-figured amphora which repeats the same
         scene. The drawing and position of the two contestants is just
         as on the Berlin vase, the Triton seeking with one hand to
         break Herakles' hold about his neck, while with the other he
         holds a fish as attribute. Athena stands close by, watching the
         struggle.]

         [Footnote 64: _Gipsabgüsse antiker Bildwerke_, Nos. 8-12.]

         [Footnote 65: _Auserlesene Vasenbilder_, Nos. 95, 96.]

         For the Typhon pediment, no such close analogies are possible,
         at least in the form and arrangement of figures. It would seem
         that this is so simply because no vase-picture of this subject
Page 40  that we know so far answers the conditions of a pedimental
         group that it could be used as a pattern. In matters of detail,
         a hydria in Munich, No. 125,[66] offers the best illustration.
         For example, the vase-painting and the relief show quite the
         same treatment of hair, beard and wings in the figure of
         Typhon.

         Speaking more generally, we find continually in the pediments
         reminiscences of ceramic drawing and treatment. The acroteria,
         painted in black and red on the natural surface of poros stone,
         take the shape of palmettes and lotuses. The cornices above and
         below are of clay or poros, painted in just such designs as
         appear on the Olympian terracottas; and these designs are
         frequently repeated in the sculptures themselves. The feathers
         of Typhon's wings are conventionally represented by a
         scale-pattern; the arc of the scales has been drawn with
         compass; we observe still the hole left in the centre by the
         leg of the compass. The larger pinions at the ends of the wings
         have been outlined, regularly by incised lines, and then filled
         up with color. All this is as like the treatment of
         vase-figures, as it unlike anything else in plastic art. In the
         former the scale-pattern is used conventionally to denote
         almost anything. Fragments of vases found on the Acropolis
         itself picture wings in just this way; or it may be Athena's
         aegis, the fleece of a sheep or the earth's surface that is so
         represented. On the body of the Triton and the Echidna of the
         pediments no attempt is made to indicate movement and
         contortion by the position of the scales; it is everywhere the
         lifeless conventionality of archaic vase-drawing. In sculptured
         representations the scale device is dropped, and with it the
         rigid regularity in the ordering of the pinions. Further, in
         drawing the scales of the Triton, the artist has dropped usual
         patterns and copied exactly a so-called bar-ornament which
         decorates the cornice just over the pediment. Here again he
         chooses one of the most common motives on vases. For the body
         of the Echidna, on the other hand, it is the so-called
         lattice-work pattern which represents the scale covering,--a
         pattern employed in vases for the most varied purposes, and
         found on the earliest Cypriote pottery. Even the roll of the
         snake-bodies of Typhon seems to follow a conventional spiral
         which we find on old Rhodian ware.

         [Footnote 66: _Ibid._, No. 287.]

Page 41  The outlining and coloring of the figures is most interesting.
         The poros stone of the reliefs is so soft that it could easily
         be worked with a knife; so incised lines are constantly used,
         and regular geometrical designs traced. Quite an assortment of
         colors is employed: black, white, red, dark brown, apparent
         green, and in the Typhon group, blue. It is very noticeable
         that these reliefs, unlike the others which in general furnish
         the closest analogies, the metopes of the temple at Selinous
         and the pediment of the Megarian Treasury at Olympia, have the
         ground unpainted. This is distinctly after the manner of the
         oldest Greek pottery and of archaic wall paintings. Herein they
         resemble also another archaic pedimental relief, found near the
         old temple of Dionysos at Athens, and representing just such a
         procession of satyrs and mænads as appears so often on vases.

         To give a local habitation to the class of pottery which most
         nearly influenced the artist of these reliefs, is not easy.
         Perhaps it is a reasonable conjecture to make it Kamiros of
         Rhodes. Kamiros ware shows just such an admixture of oriental
         and geometrical designs as characterizes our pediments. Strange
         monsters of all kinds are represented there; while in the
         reliefs before us a goodly number of such monsters are
         translated to Greek soil.

          CARLETON L. BROWNSON.
          American School of Classical Studies,
          Athens, Nov. 10, 1891.

Page 42


          PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
          STUDIES AT ATHENS.
          THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF
          LYSIKRATES AT ATHENS.[67]

          [PLATE II-III.]


         The small circular Corinthian edifice, called among the common
         people the Lantern of Diogenes,[68] and erected, as we know
         from the inscription[69] on the architrave, to commemorate a
         choragic victory won by Lysikrates, son of Lysitheides, with a
         boy-chorus of the tribe Akamantis, in the archonship of
         Euainetos (B.C. 335/4), has long been one of the most familiar
         of the lesser remains of ancient Athens. The monument was
         originally crowned by the tripod which was the prize of the
         successful chorus, and it doubtless was one of many buildings
         of similar character along the famous "Street of Tripods." [70]
         It is the aim of this paper to show, that the earliest
         publications of the sculptured reliefs on this monument have
         given a faulty representation of them, owing to the
         transposition of two sets of figures; that this mistake has
         been repeated in most subsequent publications down to our day;
         that inferences deduced therefrom have in so far been vitiated;
         and that new instructive facts concerning Greek composition in
         sculpture can be derived from a corrected rendering of the
         original.

         [Footnote 67: It is a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to
         the Director of the School, Dr. Waldstein, who has kindly
         assisted me in the preparation of this paper by personal
         suggestions.]

         [Footnote 68: This does not exclude the tolerably well-attested
         fact, that the name "Lantern of Diogenes" formerly belonged to
         another similar building near by, which had disappeared by
         1676.]

         [Footnote 69: _C._ 1. _G._ 221.]

         [Footnote 70: _Cf._ PAUS., I, 20, 1.]

         Although we are not now concerned either with the subsequent
         fortunes of the monument arid the story of its preservation, or
Page 43  with its architectural features and the various attempts which
         have been made to restore the original design, it may be
         convenient to recall briefly a few of the more important facts
         pertaining to these questions. The Monument of Lysikrates first
         became an object of antiquarian interest in 1669, when it was
         purchased by the Capuchin monks, whose mission had succeeded
         that of the Jesuits in 1658, and it was partially enclosed in
         their _hospitium_.[71] The first attempt to explain its purpose
         and meaning was made by a Prussian soldier, Johann Georg
         Transfeldt, who, after escaping from slavery in the latter part
         of 1674, fled to Athens, where he lived for more than a
         year.[72] Transfeldt deciphered the inscription, but was unable
         to decide whether the building was a "_templum Demosthenis_" or
         a "_Gymnasium a Lysicrate * * * exstructum propter juventutem
         Atheniensem ex tribu Acamantia_." [73] Much more important for
         the interpretation of the monument was the visit of Dr. Jacob
         Spon of Lyons, who arrived at Athens early in the year 1676.
         Spon also read the inscription,[74] and, from a comparison with
         other similar inscriptions, determined the true purpose of
         edifices of this class.[75] Finally the first volume of Stuart
         and Revett's _Antiquities of Athens_, which appeared in 1762,
         confirmed, corrected and extended Spon's results. Careful and
         exhaustive drawings accompanied the description of the
         monument.

         In the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the
         nineteenth century, Athens was visited by many strangers from
         western Europe, and the hospitable convent of the Capuchins and
         the enclosed "Lantern," which at this time was used as a closet
         for books, acquired some notoriety. Late in the year 1821,
         however, during the occupation of Athens by the Turkish troops
         under Omer Vrioni, the convent was accidentally burned, and its
         most precious treasure was liberated, to be sure, but, as may
         still be seen, sadly damaged by the fire, and what was still
         more unfortunate, left unprotected and exposed to the
         destructive mischief of Athenian street-arabs and their less
         innocent elders.

         [Footnote 71: SPON, _Voyage_, II, p. 244; LABORDE, _Athènes_,
         I, p. 75 and note 2.]

         [Footnote 72: MICHAELIS, _Mitth. Athen_., I, p. 103. ]

         [Footnote 73: _Mitth. Athen._, I, p. 114.]

         [Footnote 74: SPON, III, 2, p. 21 f. ]

         [Footnote 75: SPON, II, p. 174.]

         Aside from some slight repairs and the clearing away of
         rubbish, the monument remained in this condition until 1867,
Page 44  when the French Minister at Athens, M. de Gobineau, acting on
         behalf of his government, into whose possession the site of the
         former monastery had fallen, employed the architect Boulanger
         to make such restorations as were necessary to save the
         monument from falling to pieces.[76] At the same time the last
         remains of the old convent were removed, and some measures
         taken to prevent further injury to the ruin. Repairs were again
         being made under the direction of the French School at Athens,
         when I left Greece, in April, 1892.

         For the architectural study of the monument of Lysikrates
         little has been done since Stuart's time. In the year 1845 and
         in 1859, the architect Theoph. Hansen made a new series of
         drawings from the monument, and upon them based a restoration
         which differs somewhat from that of Stuart, especially in the
         decoration of the roof. This work is discussed in the monograph
         of Von Lützow.[77]

         Confining our attention to the sculptures of the frieze, we
         will examine certain inaccuracies of detail which have hitherto
         prevailed in the treatment of this important landmark in the
         history of decorative reliefs of the fourth century. The
         frieze, carved in low relief upon a single block of marble,
         runs continuously around the entire circumference of the
         structure. Its height is only .012 m. (lower, rectangular
         moulding) + .23 m. (between mouldings) + .015 m. (upper,
         rounded moulding).[78] It is to be noticed that the figures
         rest upon the lower moulding, while they are often (in fourteen
         cases) carried to the top of the upper moulding.

         [Footnote 76: VON LÜTZOW, _Zeitschr für bildende Kunst_, III,
         pp. 23, 236 f.]

         [Footnote 77: Pp. 239 ff., 264 ff. For another restoration of
         the roof _cf._ SEMPER, _Der Stil_, vol. II, p. 242.]

         [Footnote 78: My own measurements.]

         The question as to the subject of the relief was a sore puzzle
         to the early travellers. Père Babin finds "_des dieux
         marins_";[79] Transfeldt, "_varias gymnasticorum figuras_,"
         which he thought represented certain games held "_in Aegena
         insula_" in honor of Demosthenes.[80] Vernon (1676), who
         regarded the monument as a temple of Hercules, sees his labors
         depicted in the sculptures of the frieze.[81] Spon, while not
         accepting this view, admitted that some, at least, of the acts
         of Herakles were represented; so that the building, apart from
Page 45  its monumental purpose, might also have been sacred to that
         deity.[82] To Stuart and Revett[83] is due the credit of being
         the first to recognize in these reliefs the story of Dionysos
         and the pirates, which is told first in the Homeric Hymn to
         Dionysos. In the Homeric version, Dionysos, in the guise of a
         fair youth with dark locks and purple mantle, appears by the
         seashore, when he is espied by Tyrrhenian pirates, who seize
         him and hale him on board their ship, hoping to obtain a rich
         ransom. But when they proceed to bind him the fetters fall from
         his limbs, whereupon the pilot, recognizing his divinity,
         vainly endeavors to dissuade his comrades from their purpose.
         Soon the ship flows with wine; then a vine with hanging
         clusters stretches along the sail-top, and the mast is entwined
         with ivy. Too late the marauders perceive their error and try
         to head for the shore; but straightway the god assumes the form
         of a lion and drives them, all save the pious pilot,
         terror-stricken into the sea, where they become dolphins.

         [Footnote 79: WACHSMUTH, _Die Stadt Athen_, I, p. 757.]

         [Footnote 80: _Mitth. Athen._, I, p. 113.]

         [Footnote 81: LABORDE, I, pp. 249 f.]

         [Footnote 82: SPON, II, p. 175.]

         [Footnote 83: I, p. 27.]

         In the principal post-Homeric versions, the Tyrrhenians
         endeavor to kidnap Dionysos under pretext of conveying him to
         Naxos, the circumstances being variously related. Thus in the
         Ναξίακά of Aglaosthenes (_apud_ HYGIN. Poet. Astronom. II. 17),
         the child Dionysos and his companions are to be taken to the
         nymphs, his nurses. According to Ovid,[84] the pirates find the
         god on the shore of Chios, stupid with sleep and wine, and
         bring him on board their vessel. On awaking he desires to be
         conveyed to Naxos, but the pirates turn to the left, whereupon,
         as they give no heed to his remonstrances, they are changed to
         dolphins and leap into the sea. Similarly Servius, _Ad. Verg.
         Aen._, I. 67. In the _Fabulæ_ of Hyginus (CXXXIV), and in
         Pseudo-Apollodorus,[85] Dionysos engages passage with the
         Tyrrhenians. Nonnus, however, returns to the Homeric story,
         which he has modified, extended, and embellished in his own
         peculiar way.[86] These versions, to which may be added that of
         Seneca,[87] all agree in making the scene take place on
         shipboard, and, if we except the "comites" of Aglaosthenes, in
         none of them is the god accompanied by a retinue of satyrs. But
         Philostratus[88] pretends to describe a painting, in which two
Page 46  ships are portrayed, the pirate-craft lying in ambush for the
         other, which bears Dionysos and his rout.

         [Footnote 84: _Met._, III. 605 ff.]

         [Footnote 85: _Bibliotheca_, III. 5. 3.]

         [Footnote 86: _Dionys._, XLV. 119 ff.]

         [Footnote 87: _Œdipus_, VV. 455-473.]

         [Footnote 88: _Imag._, I. 19.]

         In our frieze, however, the myth is represented in an entirely
         different manner. The scene is not laid on shipboard, but near
         the shore of the sea, where, as the action shows, Dionysos and
         his attendant satyrs are enjoying the contents of two large
         craters, when they are attacked by pirates. The satyrs who are
         characterized as such by their tails, and in most cases (9 +
         2:7) by the panther-skin, forthwith take summary vengeance upon
         their assailants, of whom some are bound, others beaten and
         burned, while others take refuge in the sea, only to be changed
         into dolphins by the invisible power of the god.

         These modifications of the traditional form of the story have
         usually[89] been accounted for by the necessities of plastic
         art; and this view has in its favor that the representation in
         sculpture of any of the other versions which are known to us,
         would be attended by great difficulties of composition, and
         would certainly be much less effective. Reisch, however, has
         suggested[90] that this frieze illustrates the dithyrambus
         which won the prize on this occasion, and that the variations
         in the details of the story are due to this. There is no
         evidence for this hypothesis, inasmuch as we have no basis upon
         which to found an analogy, and know nothing whatever of the
         nature of the piece in which the chorus had figured.

         [Footnote 89: _E.g._ OVERBECK, _Plastik³_, II. p. 92;
         Friedrichs-Wolters, _Bausteine_, p. 488.]

         [Footnote 90: _Griech. Weihgeschenke_, p. 102.]

         The general arrangement and technic of this relief, the skill
         with which unity of design is preserved despite the circular
         form, the energy of the action, and the variety of the
         grouping, have often been pointed out. More particularly, the
         harmony and symmetry, which the composition exhibits, have been
         noticed by most of the later writers who have had occasion to
         describe the frieze. It is here, however, that we find the
         divergencies and inaccuracies which have been alluded to above,
         and these are such as to merit a closer examination.

         To begin with the central scene, which is characterized as such
         by the symmetrical grouping of two pairs of satyrs about the
Page 47  god Dionysos and his panther and is externally defined by a
         crater at either side, we observe that, while the two satyrs
         immediately to the right (I¹) and left (I) of Dionysos (0),
         correspond in youth and in their attitude toward him, the satyr
         at the left (I) has a thyrsus and a mantle which the other does
         not possess. These figures have unfortunately suffered much;
         the central group is throughout badly damaged, the upper part
         of the body and the head of Dionysos especially so. Of the tail
         of the panther as drawn in Stuart's work, no trace exists. The
         faces of the two satyrs and the head of the thyrsus are also
         much mutilated. The other two satyrs (II: II¹), whose faces
         are also mutilated, correspond very closely in youth, action,
         and nudity. In these two pairs of figures it is also to be
         noticed that the heads of I and II at the left face the central
         group, while the heads of I¹ and II¹ at the right are
         turned away from the centre, toward the right. By this device
         the sculptor has obviated any awkwardness which might arise
         from the necessity of placing Dionysos in profile.

         Passing now to the scenes outside of the vases, we observe
         that, of the first pair of satyrs, the bearded figure at the
         left (III), leans upon a tree-stump, over which is thrown his
         panther-skin, as he contemplates the contest between his
         fellows and the pirates, while against his right side rests a
         thyrsus. The corresponding satyr on the right (III¹), also
         bearded, but with his head now nearly effaced, wears his mantle
         slung over the left shoulder as he advances to the right,
         offering with his right hand the freshly filled wine-cup to a
         youthful companion (IV¹). The latter, with panther-skin over
         left shoulder and arm, and club (partially effaced) in
         outstretched right hand, is moving rapidly to the right, as if
         to join in the battle; his face (also somewhat mutilated) is
         partly turned to the left, and despite his attitude of refusal
         he forms a sort of group with his neighbor on that side
         (III¹), and has no connection, as has been wrongly
         assumed,[91] with the following group to the right (V¹).
         Corresponding with this youthful satyr, we have on the left
         (IV) a nude bearded satyr (face somewhat damaged,) armed with a
         torch instead of a club, moving swiftly to the left to take
Page 48  part in the contest. He has no group-relation with his neighbor
         on the right (III), although he maybe supposed to have just
         left him. The relation is not sufficiently marked in the case
         of the corresponding figures on the other side (III¹,
         IV¹) to injure the symmetry.

         [Footnote 91: _British Museum Marbles,_ IX, p. 114.]

         These two pairs of satyrs serve to express the transition from
         the untroubled ease of Dionysos and his immediate attendants,
         to the violence and confusion of the struggle. Thus the first
         pair (III: III¹) seem to feel that their active participation
         is unnecessary, and so belong rather to the central scene;
         while the second pair (iv: iv¹), hurrying to the combat, are
         to be reckoned rather with those who are actively engaged. This
         is also emphasized by the symmetrical alternation of young and
         old satyrs, _i.e._:

          old   young   old   young   old   young
          VIa    Vb      IV   IV¹ V¹b VI¹b

         and by their correspondence to VII: VII¹.

         On the left side we have next a group, turned toward the right,
         consisting of a young satyr with flowing panther-skin (Vb), who
         places his left knee on the back of a prostrate pirate (Va)
         whom he is about to strike with a club which he holds in his
         uplifted right hand. The pirate (face now somewhat damaged) is,
         like all of his fellows, youthful and nude. The corresponding
         group on the right, faces the left, and represents a nude
         bearded satyr (V¹,) with left knee on the hip of a fallen
         pirate (V¹a), whose hands he is about to bind behind his
         back. Thus the arrangement of the two groups corresponds, but
         the action is somewhat different.

         I now wish to point out an error which is interesting and
         instructive as illustrating how mistakes creep into standard
         archæological literature to the detriment of a proper
         appreciation of the original monuments; and I may perhaps hope
         not only to correct this error once for all, but also, in so
         doing, to make clearer certain noteworthy artistic qualities of
         this composition.

         If we turn to the reproductions of the Lysikrates frieze in the
         common manuals of Greek sculpture, we find that the group
         (V¹) has exchanged places with the next group to the right
         (VI¹) while the corresponding groups on the left side (V,
         VI) retain their proper position. In order to detect the source
         of this confusion, we have only to examine the drawings of
         Stuart and Revett, from which nearly all the subsequent
Page 49  illustrations are more or less directly derived. In the first
         volume of Stuart and Revett, the groups (V¹ IV¹) occupy
         plates XIII and XIV, and it is evident that the drawings have
         been in some way misplaced. These plates have been reproduced
         on a reduced scale in Meyer's _Gesch. d. bildenden Künste[92]_
         (1825); Müller-Wieseler[93] (1854); Overbeck,[94] _Plastik³_
         (1882); W.C. Perry, _History of Greek Sculpture[95]_ (1882);
         Mrs. L.M. Mitchell, _History of Ancient Sculpture;[96]_
         Baumeister, _Denkmäler[97]_ (1887); Harrison and Verrall,
         _Andent Athens[98]_ (1890), and in all with the same
         misarrangement.

         Nevertheless correct reproductions of the frieze, derived from
         other sources, have not been wholly lacking. There is, for
         example, a drawing of the whole monument by S. Pomardi in
         Dodwell's _Tour through Greece[99]_ (1819), in which the
         correct position of these groups is clearly indicated. In 1842
         appeared volume IX of the _British Museum Marbles_ containing
         engravings of a cast made by direction of Lord Elgin, about
         1800.[100] Inasmuch as this cast or similar copies have always
         been the chief sources for the study of the relief, owing to
         the unsatisfactory preservation of the original, it is the more
         strange that this mistake should have remained so long
         uncorrected,[101] or that Müller-Wieseler should imply[102]
         that their engraving was corrected from the British Museum
         publication, when no trace of such correction is to be found. A
         third drawing in which the true arrangement is shown, is the
         engraving after Hansen's restoration of the whole monument,
         published in Von Lützow's monograph[103] (1868). Although
         Stuart's arrangement violates the symmetry maintained between
         the other groups of the frieze, yet Overbeck[104] especially
         commends the symmetry shown in the composition of these
         portions of the relief.

         [Footnote 92: _Tajel_ 25.]

         [Footnote 96: I _Taf._ 37.]

         [Footnote 94: II, p. 91.]

         [Footnote 95: P. 474.]

         [Footnote 96: P. 487.]

         [Footnote 97: II, p. 841.]

         [Footnote 98: P. 248.]

         [Footnote 99: I, opposite p. 289.]

         [Footnote 100: H. MEYER, _Gesch. der bildenden Künste_, II, p.
         242. note 313.]

         [Footnote 101: Since I first noticed the error from study of
         the original monument, it gives me pleasure to observe that Mr.
         Murray in his _History of Greek Sculpture_, II, p. 333, note,
         has remarked that there is a difference between Stuart's
         drawing and the cast, without, however, being able to determine
         positively which is correct, owing to lack of means of
         verification. He was inclined to agree with the cast.]

         [Footnote 102: I, _Taf._, note 150: _Mit Berücksichtigung der
         Abbildungen nach später genommenen Gypsabgüssen in Ancient
         Marbles in the Brit, Mus._]

         [Footnote 103: Between pp. 240 and 241.]

         [Footnote 104: Plastik³, II, p. 94.]

Page 50  Now let us examine the symmetry as manifested in the corrected
         arrangement. After the figures which we have found to have a
         thoroughly symmetrical disposition, we have on the left side a
         group consisting of a bearded satyr (face damaged), with
         panther-skin (VI a), about to strike with his thyrsus a pirate
         kneeling at the left (VI b), with his hands bound behind his
         back. The face of this figure is also somewhat injured. The
         corresponding group on the right (VI¹ instead of the erroneous
         V¹), represents a youthful satyr with panther-skin thrown over
         his arm (VI¹ a), about to strike with the club which he holds
         in his uplifted right hand, a pirate (VI¹ b), who has been
         thrown on his back, and raises his left arm, partly in
         supplication and partly to ward off the blow. As in the groups
         V: V¹, so in VI: VI¹, persons, action, and arrangement, are
         closely symmetrical, while a graceful variety and harmony is
         effected by so modifying each of these elements as to repeat
         scarcely a detail in the several corresponding figures.

         After these five fighters, we observe on the left a powerful
         bearded satyr (face much injured), with flowing panther-skin,
         facing the right, and wrenching away a branch from a tree
         (VII). The corresponding figure on the right side (VII¹) is a
         nude, bearded satyr, who is breaking down a branch of a tree.
         At first the correspondence does not seem to be maintained, for
         this satyr faces the right, whereas after the analogy of
         figures VII and IV we might expect him to face the left. But a
         closer examination shows that this lack of symmetry is apparent
         only when figures VII: VII¹ are considered individually, and
         apart from the scenes to which they belong. For while IV and
         VII, the outside figures of the main scene on the left,
         appropriately face each other, the figures IV¹ and VII¹,
         which occupy the same position with regard to the chief scene
         on the right, are placed so as to face in opposite directions.
         By this subtle device, for which the relation between the
         figures III¹ and IV¹ furnishes an evident motive, the
         sculptor has contrived to indicate distinctly the limits of
         these scenes, while the symmetry existing between them is
         heightened and emphasized by the avoidance of rigid uniformity.

         The trees serve also to mark the end of the preceding scenes,
         and to contrast the land, upon which they stand, with the sea,
         of which we behold a portion on either side, while a pair of
Page 51  corresponding, semi-human dolphins (VIII: VIII¹) are just
         leaping into the element which is to form their home. These
         dolphins are not quite accurately drawn in Stuart and Revett,
         for what appears as an under jaw is, as Dodwell[105] rightly
         pointed out, a fin, and their mouths are closed; the teeth,
         which are seen in Stuart's drawing and all subsequent
         reproductions of it, do not exist on the monument. The correct
         form of the head may be seen in the British Museum publication.

         [Footnote 105: I, p. 290.]

         After these dolphins, we have on each side another piece of
         land succeeded again by a stretch of sea. On these pieces of
         land are seen on each side two groups of two figures each,
         while a third incipient dolphin (0¹), which does not stand in
         group-relation with any of the other figures, leaps into the
         sea between them. In these groups there is a general
         correspondence, but it does not extend to particular positions
         or to accessories.

         At the left we observe first a bearded satyr with torch and
         flowing panther-skin (IX a), pursuing a pirate, who flees to
         the left (IX b). The space between the satyr and his victim is
         in part occupied by a hole, which was probably cut for a beam
         at the time when the monument was built into the convent. In
         the corresponding places on the right side, we have a bearded
         satyr with panther-skin (IX¹ a), about to strike with the
         forked club which he holds in his uplifted right hand, a seated
         and bound pirate (IX¹ b), whose hair the satyr has clutched
         with his left hand. The heads of both figures are considerably
         damaged, and the lower part of the right leg of the pirate is
         quite effaced. To return to the left side, the tree at the left
         of the fleeing pirate (IX b), does not correspond with any
         thing on the right side. It serves to indicate the shore of the
         sea, while on the other side this is effected by the high rocks
         upon which the pirate (X¹ b) is seated.

         The next group on the left is represented as at the very edge
         of the water, and consists of a nude bearded satyr (X b), who
         is dragging an overthrown pirate (X a) by the foot, with the
         evident intention of hurling him into the sea. The legs and the
         right arm of this pirate have been destroyed by another hole,
         similar to that which is found between figures IX and IX a. On
Page 52  the right side, a bearded satyr, with flowing panther-skin
         (x¹ a) rushes to the right, thrusting a torch into the face
         of a pirate who is seated on a rock (x¹ b), with his hands
         bound behind his back. In his shoulder are fastened the fangs
         of a serpent, which is in keeping here as sacred to Dionysos.
         Perhaps, as Stuart has suggested,[106] he may be a
         metamorphosis of the cord with which the pirate's hands are
         bound; but the sculptor has not made this clear. The figures of
         this group, which were in tolerable preservation at the time
         when Lord Elgin's cast was made, have since been nearly
         effaced, particularly the face, legs and torch of the satyr,
         and the face and legs of the pirate, also the rocks upon which
         he is seated, and the serpent. Between these figures and the
         following dolphin, there is a third hole, similar to those
         mentioned already, and measuring 15x16 centimetres.

         [Footnote 106: I, p. 34. Stuart cites Nonnus, _Dionys._ XLV.
         137. _Cf._ also _Ancient Marbles in the British Mus._ IX. p.
         115.]

         The less rigid correspondence of these groups (x, ix: ix¹,
         x¹), as caused some difficulty. In the text of the _British
         Museum Marbles_[107], all that falls between the pair of
         dolphins (VII: VIII¹), is regarded as belonging to a
         separate composition, grouped about the single dolphin (0¹).
         But such an interpolated composition, besides having no purpose
         in itself, would vitiate the unity of the entire relief. For,
         although the circular form is less favorable to a strongly
         marked symmetry than is the plane, at least in compositions of
         small extent, still the individual figures and groups must bear
         some relation to a common centre, and there can be no division
         of interest, or mere stringing together of disconnected figures
         or groups of figures. Such a stringing together is assumed by
         Mr. Murray, when, in his _History of Greek Sculpture_,[108] he
         speaks of seven figures after the pair of dolphins, which,
         "though without direct responsion among themselves, still
         indicate the continued punishment of the pirates." In the
         pirate seated on the rocks (x b), however, Mr. Murray[109]
         finds what he calls a "sort of echo" of Dionysos, inasmuch as
         he is seated in a commanding position, and is attacked by the
         god's serpent. There is, to be sure, a certain external
         resemblance in the attitudes of the two figures, but direct
Page 53  connection cannot be assumed without separating x¹ a from
         x¹ b, with which, however, it obviously forms a group, and
         entirely disregarding the relations which the groups x, ix:
         ix¹, x¹ bear to one another and to the dolphin 0¹. And
         this Mr. Murray does, when he takes seven figures, among which
         x¹ b is evidently to be considered as central instead of what
         is plainly four groups of two figures each, _plus_ one dolphin.

         [Footnote 107: IX, p. 115.]

         [Footnote 108: II, p. 333.]

         [Footnote 109: II, p. 332.]

         There is, as we have already said, a general correspondence
         between these groups. This is effected, in such a way that the
         group ix resembles x¹ in action and arrangement, rather than
         9¹, which, on the other hand, resembles group x, rather than
         group ix. In other words, the diagonalism which we have noticed
         above in the arrangement of young and old satyrs (vi a, v b,
         iv: iv¹, v¹ b, vi¹ a), is extended here to the groups
         themselves.

         Moreover, the stretches of sea with the paired dolphins (viii:
         viii¹), which are introduced between these groups and those
         which had preceded, are not to be regarded as separating the
         composition into two parts, but as connecting the central scene
         with similar scenes in a different locality. These scenes are
         again joined by another stretch of sea with the single dolphin
         (0¹), which thus forms the centre of the back of the relief,
         opposite Dionysos, and the terminus of the action which
         proceeds from the god toward either side.

         I do not mean to say, however, that these scenes beyond the
         dolphins (viii: viii¹), are to be looked upon as a mere
         repetition of those which have preceded, distinguished only by
         greater license in the symmetry, or that the changes of
         locality have no other purpose than to lend variety to the
         action. On the contrary, if we examine the indications of
         scenery in this relief, we see that those features by which the
         artist has characterized the place of this part of the action
         as the seashore, the trees near the water's edge, the
         alternating stretches of land and sea, the dolphins, the satyr
         pulling the pirate into the water (x), are confined to the
         space beyond the trees. In the scenes on the other side of the
         trees, there is not only no suggestion of the sea, but the
         rocks and the sequence of figures up to Dionysos indicate
         rather that his place of repose is some elevation near the
         seashore. The contrast between the more peaceful and luxurious
         surroundings of the god and the violent contest with the
Page 54  pirates, is thus carried out and enforced by the sculptural
         indications of landscape, as well as by the leading lines of
         the composition. Though I would not imply that the composition
         of this frieze was in any way governed by the laws which rule
         similar compositions in pediments, it is interesting and
         instructive to note that the general principles of distribution
         of subject which have been followed, are somewhat similar to
         those which we can trace in the best-known pediments extant;
         thus, as the god in his more elevated position would occupy the
         centre of the pediment, so the low-lying seashore and the
         scenes which are being enacted upon it correspond to the wings
         at either side.

         To recapitulate, the concordance of figures in this relief is
         then briefly as follows: In the central scene, _i.e._, inside
         the vases, and in the first pair of transitional figures (III,
         II, I: I¹, II¹, III¹), equality of persons, but not of
         accessories (drapery, thyrsi); action symmetrical. In the
         immediately adjacent scenes, including the second pair of
         transitional figures and the satyrs at the trees (VII, VI, V,
         IV: IV¹, V¹, VI¹, VII¹), the persons are diagonally
         symmetrical in VIa, Vb, IV: IV¹, V¹b, VI¹a (_i.e._,
         old, young, old: young, old, young), equal in VII: VII¹. The
         drapery is diagonally symmetrical in Vb, IV: IV¹, V¹b
         (_i.e._, panther-skin, nudity: panther-skin, nudity), equal in
         VIa: VI¹a, not symmetrical in VII: VII¹, and the weapons
         are not symmetrical, except in VII: VII¹ (_i.e._, thyrsus,
         club, torch: club, no weapon, club). The action is symmetrical
         throughout, although not exactly the same in V: V¹. In the
         scenes beyond the dolphins, the persons are equivalent (X, IX:
         IX¹, X¹), while the action, drapery and weapons are
         harmonious, but not diagonally symmetrical (_i.e._, IXa =
         X¹a, but Xb IX¹a). At the left, a tree, at the right, a
         pile of rocks and a serpent.--The persons are, accordingly,
         symmetrical throughout; the action is so until past the
         dolphins (VIII: VIII¹); the drapery only in II: II¹, and
         in VI, V, IV: IV¹, V¹, VI¹; and the weapons not at all.

         It is thus apparent that the correspondence of the figures in
         this frieze is by no means rigid and schematic or devoid of
         life, but that, on the contrary, the same principles of
         symmetry obtain which have been pointed out by many authorities
         as prevalent in Greek art.[110] The whole composition exhibits
Page 55  freedom and elasticity, not so indulged in as to produce
         discord, but peculiarly appropriate to the element of mirth and
         comedy which characterizes the story, and upon which the
         sculptor has laid especial stress.

         HERBERT F. DE COU

         Berlin, August 19, 1892.

         [Footnote 110: Brunn, _Bildwerke des Parthenon_; Flasch, _Zum
         Parthenonfries_ pp. 65 ff.; and Waldstein, _Essays on the Art
         of Pheidias_, pp. 80f., 114ff., 153ff., 194f., 205, 210.]
Page 56



         PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
         STUDIES AT ATHENS.
         DIONYSUS εν Λίμναις.[B]


         The dispute over the number of Dionysiac festivals in the Attic
         calendar, more particularly with regard to the date of the
         so-called Lenaea, is one of long duration.[111] Boeckh
         maintained that the Lenaea were a separate festival celebrated
         in the month Gamelio. To this opinion August Mommsen in the
         _Heortologie_ returns; and maintained as it is by O.
         Ribbeck,[112] by Albert Müller,[113] by A.E. Haigh,[114] and by
         G. Oehmichen,[115] it may fairly be said to be the accepted
         theory to-day. This opinion, however, is by no means
         universally received. For example, O. Gilbert[116] has
         attempted to prove that the country Dionysia, Lenaea, and
         Anthesteria were only parts of the same festival.

         [Footnote B: I wish to express my hearty thanks to Prof. U. von
         Wilamowitz-Möllendorff of the University of Göttingen, Prof. K.
         Schöll of the University of Munich, Prof. A.C. Merriam of
         Columbia College, and Dr. Charles Waldstein and Prof. R. Β.
         Richardson, Directors of the American School at Athens, for
         many valuable criticisms and suggestions.]

         [Footnote 111: _Vom Unterschied der Lenäen, Anthesterien und
         ländlichen Dionysien, in den Abhdl. der k. Akad. der Wiss. zu
         Berlin_, 1816-17.]

         [Footnote 112: _Die Anfänge und Entwickelung des Dionysoscultus
         in Attika._]

         [Footnote 113: _Bühnen-Alterthümer._]

         [Footnote 114: _The Attic Theatre._]

         [Footnote 115: _Das Bühnenwesen der Griechen und Römer._]

         [Footnote 116: _Die Festzeit der Attischen Dionysien._]

         But while the date of the so-called Lenaea has been so long
         open to question, until recently it has been universally held
         that some portion at least of all the festivals at Athens in
         honor of the wine-god was held in the precinct by the extant
         theatre of Dionysus. With the ruins of this magnificent
         structure before the eyes, and no other theatre in sight, the
         temptation was certainly a strong one to find in this
         neighborhood the Limnae mentioned in the records of the
         ancients. When Pervanoglu found a handful of rushes in the
         neighborhood of the present military hospital, the matter
Page 57  seemed finally settled. So, on the maps and charts of Athens we
         find the word _Limnae_ printed across that region lying to the
         south of the theatre, beyond the boulevard and the hospital.
         When, therefore, _Mythology and Monuments of Athens_, by
         Harrison and Verrall, appeared over a year ago, those familiar
         with the topography of Athens as laid down by Curtius and
         Kaupert were astonished to find, on the little plan facing page
         5, that the Limnae had been removed from their time-honored
         position and located between the Coloneus Agoraeus and the
         Dipylum. That map incited the preparation of the present
         article.

         While investigating the reasons for and against so
         revolutionary a change, the writer has become convinced that
         here, Dr. Dörpfeld, the author of the new view, has built upon
         a sure foundation. How much in this paper is due to the direct
         teaching of Dr. Dörpfeld in the course of his invaluable
         lectures _An Ort und Stelle_ on the topography of Athens, I
         need not say to those who have listened to his talks. How much
         besides he has given to me of both information and suggestion I
         would gladly acknowledge in detail; but as this may not always
         be possible, I will say now that the views presented here after
         several months of study, in the main correspond with those held
         by Dr. Dörpfeld. The facts and authorities here cited, and the
         reasoning deduced from these, are, however, nearly all results
         of independent investigation. So I shall content myself in
         general with presenting the reasons which have led me to my own
         conclusions; for it would require a volume to set forth all the
         arguments of those who hold opposing views.

         The passage Thucydides, II. 15, is the authority deemed most
         weighty for the placing of the Limnae to the south of the
         Acropolis. The question of the location of this section of
         Athens is so intimately connected with the whole topography of
         the ancient city, that it cannot be treated by itself. I quote
         therefore the entire passage:

         το δέ προ τουτου η ακρόπολις ή νυν ούσα πόλις ην, καΐ το υπ'
         αυτήν προς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμενον. τεκμηριον δε · τα γaρ
         ιeρa εv αυτη τη άκροπόλει και άλλων θεών εστί, καΐ τα εζω προς
         τοuτο το μέρος της πολεως μάλλον ΐδρυται, το τε του Διός του
         Όλυμπίου, καϊ το Πύθιον, καϊ το της Γης, καΐ το εν Αίμναις
         Διονύσου, ω τα αρχαιότερα Διονύσια τη δωδέκατη ποιείται eν μηνΐ
         Άνθεστηριώνι · ώσπερ καΐ οι απ' 'Αθηναίων Ιωveς ετι καΐ νυν
Page 58  νομιζουσιν. ΐδρυται δε καΐ αλλά ιερα ταύτη αρχαια. και τη κρήνη
         τη νnν μeν των τυράννων ουτω σκευασάυτων Έννεακρούνω καλουμένη,
         το δε πάλαι φανερων των πηγων ούσων Καλλιρρόη ωνομασμένη,
         εκείνη τε εγγυς ουση τα πλείστου αξια εχρωντο, και νυν ετι απο
         του αρχαίου προ τε γαμικων και ες αλλα των ιερων νομίζεται τω
         uδατι χρησθαι.

         Two assumptions are made from this text by those who place the
         Limnae by the extant theatre. The first is that υπ' αυτήν
         includes the whole of the extensive section to the south of the
         Acropolis extending to the Ilissus, and reaching to the east
         far enough to include the existing Olympieum, with the Pythium
         and Callirrhoe, which lay near. The second assumption is that
         these are the particular localities mentioned under the
         τεκμήριον δε. Let us see if this is not stretching υπ' αυτήν a
         little. I will summarize, so far as may be necessary for our
         present purpose, the views of Dr. Dörpfeld on the land lying
         υπο την ακρόπολιν, or the Pelasgicum.

         That the Pelasgicum was of considerable size is known from the
         fact that it was one of the sacred precincts occupied when the
         people came crowding in from the country at the beginning of
         the Peloponnesian War,[117] and from the inscription[118] which
         forbade that stone should be quarried in or carried from the
         precinct, or that earth should be removed therefrom. That the
         Pelasgicum with its nine gates was on the south, west, and
         southwest slopes, the formation of the Acropolis rock proves,
         since it is only here that the Acropolis can be ascended
         easily. That it should include all that position of the
         hillside between the spring in the Aesculapieum on the south
         and the Clepsydra on the northwest, was necessary; for in the
         space thus included lay the springs which formed the source of
         the water-supply for the fortifications. That the citadel was
         divided into two parts, the Acropolis proper, and the
         Pelasgicum, we know.[119] One of the two questions in each of
         the two passages from Aristophanes refers to the Acropolis, and
         the other to the Pelasgicum, and the two are mentioned as parts
         of the citadel. That the Pelasgicum actually did extend from
         the Aesculapieum to the Clepsydra we know from Lucian.[120]

         [Footnote 117: THUCYDEDES, II. 17.]

         [Footnote 118: DITTENBERGER, _S. I. G._ 13, 55 ff.]

         [Footnote 119: THUCYDEDES, II. 17; ARISTOPHANES, _Birds_, 829
         ff.; _Lysistrata_, 480 ff.]

         [Footnote 120: _Piscator_, 42.]

Page 59  The people are represented as coming up to the Acropolis in
         crowds, filling the road. The way becoming blocked by numbers,
         in their eagerness they begin to climb up by ladders, first
         from he Pelasgicum itself, through which the road passes. As
         this space became filled, they placed their ladders a little
         further from the road, in the Aesculapieum to the right and by
         the Areopagus to the left. Still others come, and they must
         move still further out to find room, to the grave of Talos
         beyond the Aesculapieum and to the Anaceum beyond the
         Areopagus. In another passage of Lucian,[121] Hermes declares
         that Pan dwells just above the Pelasgicum; so it reached at
         least as far as Pan's grotto.

         [Footnote 121: _Bis Accus_, 9.]

         The fortifications of Mycenæ and Tiryns prove that it was not
         uncommon in ancient Greek cities to divide the Acropolis, the
         most ancient city, into an upper and a lower citadel.

         Finally, that the strip of hillside in question was in fact the
         Pelasgicum, we are assured by the existing foundations of the
         ancient walls. A Pelasgic wall extends as a boundary-wall below
         the Aesculapieum, then onward at about the same level until
         interrupted by the Odeum of Herodes Atticus. At this point
         there are plain indications that before the construction of
         this building, this old wall extended across the space now
         occupied by the auditorium. Higher up the hill behind the
         Odeum, and both within and without the Beulé gate, we find
         traces of still other walls which separated the terraces of the
         Pelasgicum and probably contained the nine gates which
         characterized it. Here then we have the ancient city of
         Cecrops, the city before Theseus, consisting of the Acropolis
         and the part close beneath, particularly to the south, the
         Pelasgicum. We shall find for other reasons also that there is
         no need to stretch the meaning of the words υπ αυτην προς νότον
         to make them cover territory something like half a mile to the
         eastward, and to include the later Olympieum within the limits
         of our early city.

         Wachsmuth has well said,[122] although this is not invariably
         true,[123] that υπο την ακρόπολιν and υπο τη ακροπόλει are used
Page 60  with reference to objects lying halfway up the slope of the
         Acropolis. On the next page he adds, however, that Thucydides
         could not have meant to describe as the ancient city simply the
         ground enclosed within the Pelasgic fortifications, or he would
         have mentioned these in the τεκμήρια. Thucydides, in the
         passage quoted, wished to show that the city of Cecrops was
         very small in comparison with the later city of Theseus; that
         the Acropolis was inhabited; and that the habitations did not
         extend beyond the narrow limits of the fortifications. He
         distinctly says that before the time of Theseus, the Acropolis
         was the city. He proceeds to give the reasons for his view: The
         presence of the ancient temples on the Acropolis itself, the
         fact that the ancient precincts outside the Acropolis were προς
         τουτο το μέρος της πολεως, and the neighborhood of the fountain
         Enneacrounus. We know, that the Acropolis was still officially
         called πολις in Thucydides' day; and πόλις so used would have
         no meaning if the Acropolis itself was not the ancient city.
         Προς τουτο το μέρος, in the passage quoted, refers to the city
         of Cecrops, the Acropolis and Pelasgicum taken together; and
         της πολεως refers to the entire later city as it existed in the
         time of Thucydides. It is, however, in the four temples outside
         the Acropolis included under the τεκμήριον δε that we are
         particularly interested. The Pythium of the passage cannot be
         that Pythium close by the present Olympieum, which was founded
         by Pisistratus. Pausanias (I. 28, 4,) says: "On the descent
         [from the Acropolis], not in the lower part of the city but
         just below the Propylæa, is a spring of water, and close by a
         shrine of Apollo in a cave. It is believed that here Apollo met
         Creusa." Probably it was because this cave was the earliest
         abode of Apollo in Athens that Euripides placed here the scene
         of the meeting of Apollo and Creusa.

         [Footnote 122: _Berichte der philol.-histor. Classe der Königl.
         Sächs. Gesell. der Wiss._, 1887, p. 383.]

         [Footnote 123: _Am. Jour. of Archæology_, III. 38, ff.]

         According to Dr. Dörpfeld it was opposite this Pythium that the
         Panathenaic ship came to rest.[124] In _Ion_, 285, Euripides
         makes it clear that, from the wall near the Pythium, the
         watchers looked toward Harma for that lightning which was the
         signal for the sending of the offering to Delphi. This passage
         would have no meaning if referred to lightning to be seen by
Page 61  looking toward Harma from any position near the existing
         Olympieum; for the rocks referred to by Euripides are to the
         northwest, and so could not be visible from the later Pythium.
         To be sure, in later times the official title of the Apollo of
         the cave seems to have been ύπ' aκραίω or εν aκραις, but this
         was only after such a distinction became necessary from the
         increased number of Apollo precincts in the city. The
         inscriptions referring to the cave in this manner are without
         exception of Roman date.[125] From Strabo we learn[126] that
         the watch looked "toward Harma" from an altar to Zeus Astrapæus
         on the wall between the Pythium and the Olympieum. This wall
         has always been a source of trouble to those who place the
         Pythium in question near the present Olympieum. But this
         difficulty vanishes if we accept the authority of Euripides,
         for the altar of Zeus Astrapæus becomes located on the
         northwest wall of the Acropolis; and from this lofty position
         above the Pythium, with an unobstructed view of the whole
         northern horizon, it is most natural to expect to see these
         flashes from Harma.

         [Footnote 124: PHILOSTRAT. _Vit. Sophist._ II p. 236.]

         [Footnote 125: HARRISON and Verrall, _Mythology and Monuments_,
         p. 541.]

         [Footnote 126: STRABO, p. 404.]

         The Olympieum mentioned by Strabo and Thucydides cannot
         therefore be the famous structure begun by Pisistratus and
         dedicated by Hadrian: we must look for another on the northwest
         side of the Acropolis. Here, it must be admitted we could wish
         for fuller evidence. Pausanias (I. 18. 8) informs us that "they
         say Deucalion built the old sanctuary of Zeus Olympius."
         Unfortunately he does not say where it was located.

         Mr. Penrose in an interesting paper read before the British
         School at Athens in the spring of 1891, setting forth the
         results of his latest investigations at the Olympieum, said
         that in the course of his investigations there appeared
         foundations which he could ascribe to no other building than
         this most ancient temple. But Dr. Dörpfeld, after a careful
         examination of these remains, declares that they could by no
         possibility belong to the sanctuary of the legendary
         Deucalion.[127]

         [Footnote 127: It has been held that Pausanias mentions the
         tomb of Deucalion, which was near the existing Olympieum, as a
         proof that Deucalion's temple was also here. Pausanias however
         merely says in this passage that this tomb was pointed out in
         his day only as a proof that Deucalion sojourned at Athens.]

Page 62  The abandonment of work on the great temple of the Olympian
         Zeus from the time of the Pisistratids to that of Antiochus
         Epiphanes, would have left the Athenians without a temple of
         Zeus for 400 years, unless there existed elsewhere a foundation
         in his honor. It is on its face improbable that the citizens
         would have allowed so long a time to pass unless they already
         possessed some shrine to which they attached the worship and
         festivals of the chief of the gods.

         The spade has taught us that the literary record of old
         sanctuaries is far from being complete. The new cutting for the
         Piræus railroad has brought to light inscriptions referring to
         a hitherto unknown precinct in the Ceramicus.

         Mommsen declares[128] that the Olympia were celebrated at the
         Olympieum which was begun by Pisistratus; and he adds that the
         festival was probably established by him. Of the more ancient
         celebration in honor of Zeus, the Diasia, he can only say
         surely that it was held outside the city. Certainly we should
         expect the older festival to have its seat at the older
         sanctuary.

         The εξω της πολεως[129], which is Mommsen's authority in the
         passage referred to above, has apparently the same meaning as
         the τα εξω (της πολεως) already quoted from Thucydides; _i.e._,
         outside of the ancient city--the Acropolis and Pelasgicum. The
         list of dual sanctuaries, the earlier by the entrance to the
         Acropolis, the later to the southeast, is quite a long one. We
         find two precincts of Apollo, of Zeus, of Ge, and, as we shall
         see later, of Dionysus.

         Of Ge Olympia we learn[130] that she had a precinct within the
         enclosure of the later Olympieum. Pausanias by his mention of
         the cleft in the earth through which the waters of the flood
         disappeared and of the yearly offerings of the honey-cake in
         connection with this, shows the high antiquity of certain rites
         here celebrated. It is indeed most probable that these
         ceremonies formed a part of the Chytri; for what seems the more
         ancient portion of this festival pertains also to the worship
         of those who perished in Deucalion's flood. The worship of Ge
         _Kourotrophos_ goes back to times immemorial. Pausanias
Page 63  mentions[131] as the last shrines which he sees before entering
         the upper city, those of Ge _Kourotrophos_ and Demeter Chloe,
         which must therefore have been situated on the southwest slope
         of the Acropolis. Here again near the entrance to the Pelasgic
         fortification, is where we should expect _a priori_ to find the
         oldest religious foundations "outside the Polis."

         [Footnote 128: Heortologie, p. 413.]

         [Footnote 129: THUCYDIDES 126.]

         [Footnote 130: ΡAUS. I. 18. 7.]

         [Footnote 131: ΡAUS. I. 22. 33. SUIDAS, κουροτρόφος.]

         The location of the fourth _hieron_ of Thucydides can best be
         determined by means of the festivals, more particularly the
         dramatic festivals of Dionysus. That the dramatic
         representations at the Greater Dionysia, the more splendid of
         the festivals, were held on the site of the existing theatre of
         Dionysus, perhaps from the beginning, at least from a very
         early period, all are agreed. Here was the precinct containing
         two temples of Dionysus, in the older of which was the
         xoanon[132] brought from Eleutherae by Pegasus. That in early
         times, at least, all dramatic contests were not held here we
         have strong assurance. Pausanias[133] the lexicographer,
         mentions the wooden seats in the agora from which the people
         viewed the dramatic contests before the theatre έn Διονύσου was
         constructed--plainly the existing theatre. Hesychius confirms
         this testimony.[134]

         [Footnote 132: ΡAUS I. 2, 5 and I. 20, 3.]

         [Footnote 133: ΡAUS., _Lexikoq._ ϊκρια· τα, εν τη αγορα, αφ' ων
         έθεωντο τους Διονυσιακούς ayôvas πρίν η κατασκευασθηναι το έν
         Διονύσου θέατρον. Cf. EUSTATH. _Comment. Hom._ 1472.]

         [Footnote 134: HESYCH, άπ' αίγείρων.]

         Bekker's _Anecdota_ include mention, also,[135] of the wooden
         seats of this temporary theatre. Pollux adds[136] his testimony
         that the wooden seats were in the agora. Photius gives the
         further important information that the orchestra first received
         its name in the agora.[137] There can be no doubt that in very
         early times, there were dramatic representations in the agora
         in honor of Dionysus; and there must therefore have been a
         shrine or a precinct of the god in or close to the agora. The
         possibility of presentation of dramas at Athens, especially in
         these early times, unconnected with the worship of Dionysus and
         with some shrine sacred to him, cannot be entertained for a
Page 64  moment. It is commonly accepted that dramas were represented
         during two festivals in Athens,--at the contest at the Lenaeum
         and at the City Dionysia. The plays of the latter festival were
         undoubtedly given in the extant theatre; but of the former
         contest we have an entirely different record. Harpocration
         say[138] merely that the Limnae were a locality in Athens where
         Dionysus was honored. A reference in Bekker's _Anecdota_
         is[139] more explicit. Here the Lenaeum is described as a place
         sacred to (ιερον) Dionysus where the contests were established
         before the building of the theatre. In the Etymologicum
         Magnum[140] the Lenaeum is said to be an enclosure (περίαυλος)
         in which is a sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus. Photius
         declares[141] that the Lenaeum is a large peribolus in which
         were held the so-called contests at the Lenaeum before the
         theatre was built, and that in this peribolus there was the
         sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus. The scholiast to Aristophanes'
         _Frogs_ says[142] that the Limnae were a locality sacred to
         Dionysus, and that a temple and another building (οϊκος) of the
         god stood therein. Hesychius mentions[143] the Limnae as a
         locality where the Lenaea were held, and says that the Lenaeum
         was a large peribolus within the city, in which was the
         sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus, and that the Athenians held
         contests in this peribolos before they built the theatre.
         Pollux speaks[144] of the two theatres, καϊ Διoνυσίακòν θέατρον
         καϊ ληναϊκóν. Stephanus of Byzantium quotes[145] from
         Apollodorus that the "Lenaion Agon" is a contest in the fields
         by the wine-press. Plato implies[146] the existence of a second
         theatre by stating that Pherecrates exhibited dramas at the
         Lenaeum. If the Lenaea and the City Dionysia were held in the
         same locality, it is peculiar that in all the passages
         concerning the Lenaeum and the Limnae we find no mention of the
         Greater Dionysia. But our list of authorities goes still
Page 65  further. Aristophanes speaks[147] of the contest κατ' αγρούς.
         The scholiast declares that he refers to the Lenaea, that the
         Lenaeum was a place sacred (ιερόν) to Dionysus, eν αγρούς and
         that the word Λήναιον came from the fact that here first stood
         the ληνος or wine-press. He adds[148] that the contests in
         honor of Dionysus took place twice in the year, first in the
         city in the spring, and the second time εν αγροϊς at the
         Lenaeum in the winter. The precinct by the present theatre, as
         we know, was sacred to Dionysus Eleuthereus. In this temenus no
         mention has been found of Dionysus Λίμναιος or Λήναιος.

         [Footnote 135: BEKKER, _Anecdota_ p. 354; _ibid._, p. 419.]

         [Footnote 136: POLLUX, VII. 125.]

         [Footnote 137: PHOTIUS, p. 106; _Ibid._, p. 351.]

         [Footnote 138: HARP. ed. Dind. p. 114. 1. 14.]

         [Footnote 139: BEKKER, Anecdota, p. 278, 1. 8.]

         [Footnote 140: Et. Mag. Έπ Λίληναίω.]

         [Footnote 141: PHOTIUS, p. 101.]

         [Footnote 142: Schol. _Frogs_, 216.]

         [Footnote 143: HESYCH., Λίμναί. Ibid, επί Ληναίυ αγων.]

         [Footnote 144: POLLUX, iv. 121.]

         [Footnote 145: STEPH. BYZ., Λήναιος.]

         [Footnote 146: PLATO, _Protag._, 327 w.]

         [Footnote 147: _Achar._, 202, and schol.]

         [Footnote 148: _Schol. Aristoph. Achar._, 504.]

         Demosthenes tells us[149] that the Athenians, having inscribed
         a certain law (concerning the festivals of Dionysus) on a stone
         stele, set this up in the sanctuary of Dionysus εν Λίμναις,
         beside the altar. "This stele was set up," he continues, in
         the most ancient and most sacred precinct[150] of Dionysus, so
         that but few should see what had been written; for the precinct
         is opened only once every year, on the 12th of the month
         Anthesterio.

         [Footnote 149: _Near._ 76.]

         [Footnote 150: I have translated ιερω by precinct. This is
         liable to the objection that ιερον may also mean temple; and
         ανοίγεται "is opened" of the passage may naturally be applied
         to the opening of a temple. But "hieron" often refers to a
         sacred precinct, and there is nothing to prevent the verb in
         question from being used of a "hieron" in this sense. If we
         consult the passages in which this particular precinct is
         mentioned we find, in those quoted from Photius and the
         _Etymologicum Magnum_, that the Lenaeum contains a hieron of
         the Lenaean Dionysus. This might be either temple or precinct.
         In the citation from Bekker's _Anecdota_ the Lenaeum is the
         hieron at which were held the theatrical contests. This implies
         that the hieron was a precinct of some size. The Scholiast to
         _Achar._ 202 makes the Lenaeum the hieron of the Lenaean
         Dionysus. Here "hieron" is certainly a precinct. Hesych. (επi
         Ληναίω αγών) renders this still more distinct by saying that
         the Lenaeum contained the hieron of the Lenaean Dionysus, in
         which the theatrical contests were held. But Demosthenes in the
         _Neaera_ declares that the decree was engraved on a stone
         stele. It was the custom to set up such inscriptions in the
         open air. This stele was also beside the altar. There were
         indeed often altars in the Greek temple, but the chief altar
         (βωμος of the passage) was in the open air. Furthermore, if the
         decree had been placed in the small temple, the designation
         "alongside the altar" would have been superfluous. But in the
         larger precinct such a particular location was necessary. Nor
         can it be urged, in view of the secret rites in connection with
         the marriage of the King Archon's wife to Dionysus on the 12th
         of Anthesterio, that hieron must mean temple; since the new
         Aristotle manuscript tells us that this ceremony took place in
         the Bucoleum.]

         The stele being then visible to the public on but one day of
         the year it follows that the entire precinct of Dionysus εν
Page 66  Λίμναις must have been closed during the remainder of the year.
         This could not be unless we grant that, in the time of
         Demosthenes at least, the Lenaea and the Megala Dionysia were
         held in different precincts, and that the Lenaea and
         Anthesteria were one and the same festival.

         Pausanias tells us[151] that the xoanon brought from Eleutherae
         was in one of the two temples in the theatre-precinct, while
         the other contained the chryselephantine statue of Alcamenes.
         We know, both from the method of construction and from literary
         notices, that these two temples were in existence in the time
         of Demosthenes. Pausanias says[152] that on fixed days every
         year, the statue of the god was borne to a little temple of
         Dionysus near the Academy. Pausanias' use of the plural in
         τεταγμέναις ημέραις is excellent authority that the temple of
         the xoanon was opened at least on more than one day of every
         year.

         From all these considerations it seems to be impossible that
         the precinct of the older temple by the extant theatre and the
         sanctuary εν Λίμναις could be the same. The suggestion that the
         gold and ivory statue of Alcamenes could have been the one
         borne in procession at the time of the Greater Dionysia is, of
         course, untenable from the delicate construction of such
         figures. The massive base on which it stood shows, too, that
         its size was considerable. The image borne in procession was
         clearly the xoanon which was brought by Pegasus from
         Eleutherae.

         Wilamowitz calls attention[153] to another fact. In classic
         times the contests of the Lenaea are Διονύσια τα επι Ληναίω,
         and the victories are νικαι Ληναϊκαί; the Megala Dionysia are
         always τα εν αστει, and the victories here νικαι αστικαί. These
         words certainly imply a distinction of place. How early these
         expressions may have been used, we learn from the account of
         Thespis. Suidas[154] is authority that Thespis first exhibited
         a play in 536 B.C.; and the Parian Marble records[155] that he
         was the first to exhibit a drama and to receive the tragic
         prize εν αστει.

         [Footnote 151: I. 20. 3.]

         [Footnote 152: I. 29. 2.]

         [Footnote 153: _Die Bühne des Aeschylos_.]

         [Footnote 154: _v. Thespis_.]

         [Footnote 155: _C.I.G._, II. 2374.]

Page 67  But it has also been contended that Limnae and Lemaeum do not
         refer to the same locality. It is clear from what has been
         said, however, that the Lenaea and the Greater Dionysia must
         have been held in different localities. So if Limnae and the
         Lenaeum do not refer at least to the same region, there must
         have been three separate sanctuaries of Dionysus; for no one
         will claim that the Greater Dionysia can have been held in the
         Limnae if the Lenaea were not celebrated there. But as we have
         seen, Hesychius (εν Λίμναι) declares that the Lenaea were held
         εν Λίμναις. The scholiast to Aristophanes says[156] that the
         Chytri were a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus; so the Chytri as
         well as the Lenaea must have been celebrated in the Lenaeum.
         Athenæus in the story of Orestes and Pandion speaks[157] of the
         temenus εν Λίμναις in connection with the Choes. In Suidas
         (χόες), however, we learn that either Limnaeus or Lenaeus could
         be used in referring to the same Dionysus. Such positive
         testimony for the identity of the Lenaeum and the sanctuary in
         the Limnae, cannot be rejected.

         [Footnote 156: _Acharnians_ 960.]

         [Footnote 157: X, 437 d.]

         We have still more convincing testimony that in the great
         period of the drama the two annual contests at which dramas
         were brought out were held in different places, in the record
         of the time when the wooden theatre was finally
         given up, and ό επι Ληναίω αγών became a thing of the past. The
         change comes exactly when we should look for it, when the
         existing theatre had been splendidly rebuilt by Lycurgus. The
         passage is in Plutarch, where he says[158] that this orator
         also introduced a law that the contest of the comedians at the
         Chytri should take place in the theatre, and that the victor
         should be reckoned eις άστυ, as had not been done before. He
         further implies that the contest at the Chytri had fallen into
         disuse, for he adds that Lycurgus thus restored an agon that
         had been omitted. This last authority, however, concerns a
         contest at the Chytri, the Anthesteria, and is only one of many
         passages which tend to show that ό επι Ληναίω αγών was held at
         this festival. The most weighty testimony for making the Lenaea
         an independent festival, even in historic times, is given by
Page 68  Proclus in a scholium to Hesiod.[159] He quotes from Plutarch
         the statement that there was no month Lenaeo among the
         Boeotians. He adds that this month was the Attic Gamelio in
         which the Lenaea were held. Hesychius makes the same citation
         from Plutarch[160] as to a non-existence of a Boeotian month
         Lenaeo, and continues: "But some say that this month is the
         (Boeotian) Hermaio, and this is true, for the Athenians [held]
         in this month (εν αυτω) the festival of the Lenaea." The great
         similarity of the two passages renders it very probable that
         both were drawn from the same sources. The omission of Gamelio
         by Hesychius, by referring the εν αυτω back to Lenaeo, makes
         him authority that the Lenaea were held in that month. This, in
         turn implies that Proclus may have inserted Gamelio in order to
         bring the statement into relation with the Attic months of his
         own day. In the authorities referring to this month is a
         suggestion of several facts and a curious struggle to account
         for them. Proclus cites Plutarch to the effect that there was
         no month Lenaeo among the Boeotians, but, being probably misled
         by the very passage in Hesiod for which he has quoted Plutarch,
         he adds[161] that they had such a month. He goes on to state
         that the month is so called from the Lenaea, or from the
         Ambrosia. Moschopulus,[162] Tzetzes,[163] and the Etymologicum
         Magnum[164] repeat this last statement. An inscription[165]
         referring to a crowning of Bacchus on the 18th of Gamelio may
         refer to the same festival. Tzetzes alone is responsible for
         the statement that the _Pithoigia_ came in this month. Through
         Proclus and Hesychius we are assured of the belief that there
         was once an Attic month Lenaeo. Proclus, Hesychius and
         Moschopulus tell us that the Lenaea were at some period held in
         this month; while Proclus, Moschopulus, Tzetzes, and the
         inscription assure us that there was another festival of
         Dionysus in this month; and the first three of these
         authorities name this festival Ambrosia. A tradition running
Page 69  with such persistency through so many authors affords a strong
         presumption that there once existed an Attic month Lenaeo, and
         that the Lenaea were celebrated in that month.

         [Footnote 158: [Plut.] _Vit._ 10 _Or._: LYCURG. _Orat._ VII. 1.
         10 p. 841. 1549: _Ptoclus_ to Hesiod, Op. 504.]

         [Footnote 160: HESYCHIUS, Ληναιων μην.]

         [Footnote 161: PROCLUS, To Hesiod Op. 504.]

         [Footnote 162: MOSCHPUL., κατα τον μηνα τον Ληναιωνα.]

         [Footnote 163: TZETZES, μηνα δε Ληναιών.]

         [Footnote 164: Et. Mag., Ληναιωνα.]

         [Footnote 165: _C.I.G._, I. 523. Ι'αμηλιωνος κιττωσεις Διονωσον
         θί.]

         Thucydides tells us[166] that the Ionian Athenians carried the
         festival Anthesteria with them from Athens, and that they
         continued until his day to celebrate it. The Anthesteria are
         thus older than the Ionic migration, which took place under the
         sons of Codrus.[167] The story of Pandion and Orestes from
         Apollodorus places the establishment of the Choes in the time
         of this mythical Athenian king. The first and third months of
         the Ionic year[168] are the same as those of the Attic. There
         can hardly be a doubt, then, that their second month, Lenaeo,
         was also carried with the emigrants from the parent city, where
         at that time it obtained.

         [Footnote 166: II. 15.]

         [Footnote 167: BOECKII _Vom Unterschied der Lena._, _Anthest.
         und Dion._ s. 52.]

         [Footnote 168: The entire argument on the question of the month
         is open to the objection that too much weight is given to such
         men as Tzetzes and all the tribe of minor scholiasts, whose
         opportunities for accurate knowledge were, in many respects,
         vastly inferior to those of scholars of our own day. It is easy
         indeed to say that their testimony is worth nothing. But where
         shall we stop? It is urged that the connection of the Lenaea
         with an Attic month Lenaeo arose from an attempt on the part of
         the commentators to explain names as they found them. It is
         said that this conflict of the authorities proves that there
         never was an Attic Lenaeo. This may be true; and the man who
         will prove it to be so, and furthermore will give us the
         accurate history of the Attic and the Ionic calendars, will do
         a great service to Greek scholarship. But he must have at hand
         better sources than we possess to-day. Though the later Greek
         commentators on the classics have made many amusing and stupid
         blunders, though we need not hesitate to disregard their
         teaching when it comes into conflict with better authority, or
         with plain reason, still they have told us that which is true.
         They often furnish us with all that we know of older and better
         authors, whose works were their authority. Therefore, unless I
         have found testimony against them, I have followed their
         teaching. Both here and elsewhere I give their words for what
         they are worth; not that I rank Proclus with Thucydides, or the
         Et. Mag. with Aristophanes,--but from the conviction that so
         remarkable a concurrence of testimony in so many different
         writers has not yet been successfully explained away, and could
         not indeed exist unless their testimony were founded on a basis
         of fact.]

         This gives a time, however remote it may be, when the Athenians
         still had the month Lenaeo, yet we hear of no festival Lenaea
         among the Ionian cities. It would thus seem that this had lost
         its force as an independent festival before the migration.

         Gamelio is said to have received its name from the Gamelia, the
         festival of Zeus and Hera. It is hard to believe that while the
Page 70  much more brilliant Lenaea remained in the month, the name
         should have passed to the always somewhat unimportant Gamelia.
         What reason could be found for this naming, unless that the
         Lenaea had first been transferred to the Anthesteria, as all
         the testimony tends to prove? This supposition gives an easy
         explanation of the repeated reference to Lenaeo as an Attic
         month, of the change of the name to Gamelio, and even Tzetzes'
         association of the Pithoigia with the Lenaea,--an association
         which arises necessarily, if the Lenaea once formed part of the
         Anthesteria. The impossibility of transferring in its entirety
         a festival which has become rooted in the customs of a people,
         is also seen. That remnant of the Lenaea in Lenaeo, the
         Ambrosia, survived till quite late in Attic history. It is not
         difficult, then, to understand why the other references to the
         Lenaea as a separate festival do not agree as to the month.

         A triad of contests is given by Demosthenes[169] where he
         quotes the law of Evegoras with reference to the Dionysiac
         festivals: the one in Piræus with its comedies and tragedies, η
         επι Ληναίω πομπή with its tragedies and comedies, and the City
         Dionysia with the chorus of boys, procession, comedies and
         tragedies. Here are three different contests in three different
         places; and the Anthesteria and Lenaea are included under η επι
         Ληναίω πομπή. The purpose of the law was to preserve absolute
         security and freedom to both person and property on the days of
         the festivals named. Not even an overdue debt could be
         collected. In so sweeping a law the Anthesteria could hardly
         fail to be included; for at no Attic festival was there more
         absolute liberty and equality. In Suidas[170] we learn that the
         revellers at the Chytri, going about on carts, jested and made
         sport of the passers by, and that later they did the same at
         the Lenaea. Thus he gives another proof of the connection
         between the two festivals, and shows that ο επι Ληναίω αγων
         became a part of the older Anthesteria after the invention of
         comedy, and that even then the old custom was kept up. In
         Athenæus we find[17l] the Samian Lynceus sojourning in Athens
         and commiserated as passing his time listening to the lectures
Page 71  of Theophrastus and seeing the Lenaea and Chytri, in contrast
         to the lavish Macedonian feasts of his correspondent. The
         latter in the same connection says[172] that certain men,
         probably players, who had filled a part in Athens at the
         Chytri, came in to amuse the guests. The marriage which he is
         attending then took place after the Chytri. It is not likely,
         therefore, that in "the Lenaea and Chytri" he is referring to
         two festivals separated by a month of time. He speaks, rather,
         of two acts of the same celebration.

         [Footnote 169: _Mid._ 10.]

         [Footnote 170: SUIDAS, εκ των αμαξων σώωμματα.]

         [Footnote 171: ATHENÆUS, IV. p. 130.]

         [Footnote 172: Ibid. III. 129.]

         The frogs in Aristophanes claim the temenus Λίμναις and speak
         of their song at the Chytri. The scholiast cites[173]
         Philochorus, saying that the contests referred to were the
         χύτρινοι.

         A suspected passage in Diogenes Laertius declares (III 56) that
         it was the custom to contend with tetralogies at four
         festivals, the Dionysia, Lenaea, Panathenaea, and Chytri. If
         the passage is worth anything, it adds new testimony that there
         were dramatic representations at the Anthesteria. The Menander
         of Alciphron, also, would hardly exclaim[174] over ποίους
         χύτρους, unless the contest were one in which he, as dramatist,
         could have a part.

         No other of the extant dramas has been so much discussed in
         connection with the question as the _Acharnians_. Those who
         hold that the Lenaea and Anthesteria were entirely separate,
         have affirmed that the play opens on the Pnyx in Athens, that
         the scene changes to the country-house of Dicaeopolis in
         Cholleidae, at the season of the country Dionysia in the month
         Posideo. Later the time of the Lenaea in the month Gamelio is
         represented. Finally the locality is again Athens at the
         Anthesteria in Anthesterio. In fact, we are told, the poet has,
         in the _Acharnians_, shown his true greatness by overleaping
         all restraints of time and place and giving his fancy free
         rein. But this is making the _Acharnians_ an isolated example
         among the Greek plays which have come down to us. Changes of
         scene are foreign to the nature of the Greek drama, as is
         acknowledged by A. Miller.[175]

         [Footnote 173: _Schol._ ARIST. _Frogs._ 218.]

         [Footnote 174: _Alciphron Ep._ II. 3. 11.]

         [Footnote 175: _Bühnenalt_., 161.]

         That the beginning of the play is on the Pnyx, there is no
         question. In v. 202, Dicaeopolis declares: "I will go in and
Page 72  celebrate the Country Dionysia." This is held to be a statement
         of the actual time of year represented in this portion of the
         play, and also to indicate the change of place from Athens to
         the country. That the country festivals to the wine-god in the
         different demes were held on different dates, we learn from the
         fact that companies of actors went out from Athens to make the
         tour of these provincial festivals.[176] We know, too, that
         these rural celebrations were under charge of the
         demarchs.[177] In the passage from the _Acharnians_ just cited,
         there is no statement that this is the season when the demes
         were accustomed to hold their annual Bacchic celebrations.
         Rather, in his joy in his newly concluded peace, the hero
         declares that he will _now_ hold this festival in honor of the
         god of the vine. No surprise is felt at this exceptional date,
         particularly as, by his statement below,[178] he has been
         prevented for six years from holding the festival at its proper
         season. This last passage, however, is the strongest authority
         for a change of place in the action. Certainly, if the reading
         is correct, in the light of all the remainder of the comedy we
         should naturally translate: "in the sixth year, having come
         into my deme, I salute you gladly." But we do no violence to
         the construction if we say that ελθών ες τον δημον means "going
         (_forth_) to my deme." Unquestionably up to the end of the
         first choral ode at v. 236, the action has gone on in Athens.
         But here, we are told, comes the change of place. In v. 202
         Dicaeopolis has declared that he is "going in." What does he
         enter but his house in the city? At v. 236 the chorus also is
         in Athens. In v. 237, the voice of Dicaeopolis is heard from
         within--his _country_ house, it is said; and in v. 238 the
         chorus is as suddenly before this same house! Such rapid
         changes might easily take place on a modern stage, but are of a
         character to excite remark in an ancient theatre. If there was
         a change here, the second scene must have represented
         Cholleidae with the three houses of Dicaeopolis, Lamachus, and
         Euripides; and the three must be in the same deme; for the
         Bacchic procession of Dicaeopolis appears at v. 241, and is
         broken up by the chorus at v. 280. As soon as Dicaeopolis, by
Page 73  his by-play, has obtained permission to plead his cause, he
         turns (v. 394) to the house of Euripides to borrow the wardrobe
         of one of the tragic heroes. Then, when his defense has divided
         the chorus, the first half call upon the gorgon-helmeted
         Lamachus (v. 566) to bear them aid, and that warrior appears
         from his house.

         [Footnote 176: HAIGH, _Attic Theatre_, p. 47.]

         [Footnote 177: ΟEHMICHEN, _Bühnenwesen_, s. 195.]

         [Footnote 178: _Achar._, 266 f.]

         Now the common enemy has prevented the celebration of the
         Country Dionysia for six years. How is it possible, under such
         circumstances, to conceive of Euripides as composing tragedies
         in the country? How could the general Lamachus be living out of
         the city in such a time of danger? Certainly the play itself
         gives us authority that this scene also is in Athens. At v. 241
         Dicaeopolis would go forth with his procession to hold the
         rural Dionysia in his deme. Prevented from doing so, he is from
         this on busy with the duties and pleasures of the Choes. His
         altercation with the chorus and with Lamachus ended, he (v. 623
         f.) announces that he will open a market for all Boeotians,
         Megarians, and Peloponnesians. He sets up (v. 719) the bounds
         of his markets, and appoints three "himantes" as agoranomi.
         These officials are suggestive of those busy at the
         Anthesteria.[179] The first customer, from Megara comes in
         with: "Hail, agora in _Athens_" (v. 729), and brings for sale
         pigs suitable for sacrifice at the Mysteries (v. 747 and 764).
         The Lesser Mysteries came in Anthesterio first after the
         Anthesteria.

         [Footnote 179: MOMMSEN, _Heortologie v. Anthesteria._]

         There is no change of place in the course of the action. The
         scene, the Pnyx with the houses of Dicaeopolis, Lamachus, and
         Euripides near by, remains the same. There is no indication of
         a jump in time from Posideo to Gamelio, and again from Gamelio
         to Anthesterio.

         Amid all the preparations for the Anthesteria made in the play,
         two statements cannot fail to attract attention. In v. 504 f.
         the poet informs us that this is not the Greater Dionysia, when
         strangers, tribute-bearers, and allies were present. It is the
         contest at the Lenaeum. In v. 1150 f. the chorus frees its mind
         concerning the miserly fashion in which Antimachus treated them
         at a previous celebration of the Lenaea. Shall we say that the
         poet, in order to speak of things present before the eyes of
Page 74  the Athenians, steps, in these two passages, entirely outside
         the action of the play? By no means. The poet is dealing with a
         vital issue. He is fighting against the ruinous war. The power
         of his genius is shown by the masterly manner in which he uses
         the moment which was present to his hearers. The victor at the
         Choes sat among the spectators; the very walls of the theatre
         had hardly ceased to resound with the din of the carousers.
         Here, or elsewhere, there is mention of but one επι Ληναίω
         αγων, that is the Lenaea, or the dramatic contest at the
         Anthesteria.

         In fixing the date of the "Dionysia at the Lenaeum," we have
         the authority of some interesting inscriptions which have been
         collected in Dittenberger S.I.G. II. 374. They are the record
         of moneys obtained from the sale of the hides of the victims
         sacrificed at various festivals of the Attic year. A portion of
         each of four separate lists has been preserved. In the first
         and fourth of these, as they stand in Dittenberger, three
         Dionysiac festivals are mentioned: that at Piraeus, the
         Dionysia εν αστει, and the Dionysia επι Ληναίω. The third list
         ends with the Dionysia in Piræus. The remaining incription
         mentions two Dionysiac festivals, the one at the Lenaeum, and
         that εν αστει. The part of the record which should cover the
         Dionysia at Piræus is wanting. The calendar order of all the
         festivals mentioned is strictly followed.

         Köhler in _C.I.A._, led by the other inscriptions found with
         these four, says that the lists do not contain mention of all
         the festivals at which public sacrifices of cattle were made in
         that portion of the year covered by the inscriptions, but that
         these are to be considered only as records of the hide-money
         which was to be devoted to particular uses. As a matter of
         fact, however, nearly all the public festivals of importance,
         as well as some of less note, are included in these lists; and
         it would be difficult to demonstrate that they do not contain a
         complete record of the public hide-money for the portion of the
         year in which these festivals fall.

         In these inscriptions the peculiarity with reference to the
         Dionysia is the same which we find in all other accounts which
         seem to give a complete record of these festivals. Only three
         are mentioned as held under public authority. Did the omission
Page 75  of the Lenaea and Anthesteria occur only in this case, we
         might, following Köhler, admit that the hide-money from this
         particular festival was not devoted to this special purpose,
         and that for this reason the name did not appear in these
         records. But since in no case are there more than three
         mentioned; and since the third name is one which covers all
         celebrations in honor of Dionysus at the Lenaeum, this
         assumption cannot be granted. The important point, and one that
         cannot be too strongly emphasized, is that neither in these nor
         in any other inscription or official record is there any
         mention of the Lenaea or Anthesteria as such. The official
         language appears always to have been, as here: Διονύσια επι
         Ληναίω, or: η επι Ληναίω πομπή, or, where the dramatic contest
         alone was intended: ό επι Ληναίω αγών. Once only in the 5th
         century[180] do we find Λήναια used; and here it is synonymous
         with ό επι Ληναίω αγών. Wilamowitz has well said that Λήναια as
         a name of a separate festival is an invention of the
         grammarians. Aristophanes, in the passage from the
         _Acharnians_, shows that this name may have been used commonly
         for the dramatic contest at the Lenaeum, and we know from
         Thucydides that Anthesteria was also used of the entire
         festival. It is impossible that in a record like the hide-money
         inscriptions, the official title Διονύσια επι Ληναίω should be
         employed to cover two festivals separated by an interval of a
         month.

         [Footnote 180: _Acharnians_, 1155.]

         But was the Anthesteria a state festival, at which public
         sacrifices of cattle were made? The story of its institution by
         Pandion shows that it was public from the beginning.
         Aristophanes informs us[181] that it maintained this character;
         for the Basileus awarded the prize at the Choes. The question
         of sacrifice requires fuller treatment.

         Suidas[182] and a scholiast[183] to Aristophanes quote from
         Theopompus the story of the establishment of the Chytri. On the
         very day on which they were saved, the survivors of the flood
         introduced the celebration of this day of the Anthesteria by
         cooking a potful of all sorts of vegetables, and sacrificing it
Page 76  to the Chthonian Hermes and those who had perished in the
         waters. The scholiast adds that sacrifice was offered to no one
         of the Olympian gods on this day.

         [Footnote 181: _Acharnians_, 1225.]

         [Footnote 182: SUIDAS, χύτροι]

         [Footnote 183: Schol. ARISTOPH., _Frogs_. 218.]

         In Suidas we find a hint of the other ceremonies on the Chytri.
         According to him, there were sacrifices to Dionysus as well as
         to Hermes. This suggests that the Chytri was but one day of the
         Anthesteria, and, though the worship of the departed may have
         been the older portion of the celebration, it was later
         overshadowed by the festivities in honor of the wine-god. As
         the text of his argument in his oration against Midias,
         Demosthenes cites four oracular utterances, two from Dodona,
         the others probably from Delphi. In the first the god calls
         upon the children of Erechtheus, as many as inhabit the city of
         Pandion, to be mindful of Bacchus, all together throughout the
         wide streets to return fit thanks to the Bromian, and crowned
         with wreaths, to cause the odor of sacrifice to rise from the
         altars. In this oracle, Athens is the city of Pandion, because
         it was reported that under his rule the worship of Dionysus was
         introduced into the city. This and the other commands from
         Dodona and Delphi concerning Dionysus refer to the introduction
         of the worship of the god; for in every one the statement is
         absolute; there is no reference to a previous worship and a
         backsliding on the part of the people, κνισάν βωμοΐσι of the
         first oracle can refer only to a sacrifice of animals. Stronger
         still is the statement in the fourth oracle (from Dodona) where
         the command is given to fulfil sacred rites (ίερα τελεΐν) to
         Dionysus, and to sacrifice to Apollo and to Zeus. (Άπόλλωνι
         Άποτροπαίω βοūν θυσαι ... Δú Κτησίω βοūν λευκόν.) The command
         "to mix bowls of wine and to establish choral dances," in the
         second and fourth oracles, serves as an explanatory comment on
         "return fit thanks to the Bromian" in the first. "Let free men
         and slaves wear wreaths and enjoy leisure for one day," must
         refer to the Pithoigia. In this feast the slaves had a part,
         and enjoyed a holiday. Hence the saying[184] "Forth, slaves, it
         is no longer the Anthesteria." In obedience to the oracles
         then, public sacrifices could not have been lacking at the
         Anthesteria. Therefore, this festival must have been officially
         known as the Dionysia έπί Ληναίω.

         [Footnote 184: θύραζε Kαρες ούκέτ 'Ανθεστήρια.]

Page 77  The dramatic contests at the Lenaeum, like those at the Greater
         Dionysia, were undoubtedly preceded by sacrifices. The αγων επι
         Ληναίω could hardly be separated from the Dionysia επι Ληναίω.
         Therefore the hide-money inscriptions are also authority that
         Lenaea and Anthesteria are but two references to the same
         festival.

         Thucydides, as we have seen,[185] knew of but two Dionysia in
         Athens itself; those εν αστει and the Anthesteria. Of these,
         using the comparative degree, he states that the latter were
         the άρχαιότερα. In his time the dramatic contests εν Λίμναις
         were in their glory, yet he mentions but one celebration in
         this locality. So here also we must conclude that Anthesteria
         was the name of the whole festival which Harpocration tells us
         was called πιθοίγια, χοές and χύτροι; that there was, in the
         flourishing period of the drama, no separate festival Lenaea,
         but that the αγών at the Chytri came to be so called to
         distinguish it from that at the City Dionysia.

         [Footnote 185: II. 15.]

         It is interesting in connection with Thucydides' statement that
         the Ionian Athenians in his day still held the Anthesteria, to
         examine the record of this festival in the Ionic cities of Asia
         Minor. To be sure we have very little information concerning
         the details of this celebration among them; but we do find two
         statements of importance. _C.I.G._ 3655 mentions certain honors
         proclaimed at the Anthesteria in the theatre in Cyzicus.
         Comparison with similar observances at Athens indicates that
         theatrical representations were to follow. _C.I.G._ 3044,
         τώγωνος Άνθεστηριοισίν, refers to Teos. From the constant use
         of αγών referring to theatrical performances in connection with
         the festivals of Dionysus the word can hardly mean anything
         else here. So these two inscriptions, referring to two
         colonies, add their testimony that dramas were presented also
         at the Anthesteria in Athens.

         Finally, Aristotle's _Politeia_ falls into line with the
         hide-money records. In § 56, the statement is made that the
         Archon Eponymos had the Megala Dionysia in charge. In the
         following section, the Archon Basileus is said to have control,
         not of the Lemaea or of the Anthesteria--for neither is
         mentioned by name,--but of the Dionysia επι Ληναίω. The
         Basileus and the Epimeletae together directed the procession;
Page 78  but the basileus alone controlled the [dramatic] contest. Here
         again, it is inconceivable that either Anthesteria or Lenaea
         should be omitted; so both must be included under Dionysia επι
         Ληναίω.

         We thus find our position supported by inscriptions of
         undoubted authority, and by a list of names ranging in time
         from before Aristophanes to the 9th century A.D., and in weight
         from Thucydides and Aristotle to the Scholiasts.

         If the Limnae were not by the existing theatre of Dionysus,
         where were they? Not on the south side of the Acropolis, as a
         careful examination of the ground proves. In our study of the
         theatre-precinct, we found that the earth here in antiquity was
         at a much higher level than at present, while immediately
         outside the wall of this precinct to the south, the ground was
         considerably lower than it is now. The present height of the
         theatre-precinct is 91.4 m. above the sea level; of the Odeum,
         97.7 metres; of the Olympieum, 80.8 m.; of the ground within
         the enclosure of the Military Hospital due south from the
         theatre, 75 m.; of Callirrhoe in the Ilissus opposite the
         Olympieum, 59 m.; of the Ilissus bed opposite the theatre, 50
         m. From the present level of the theatre to the bed of the
         stream there is a fall of more than 41 m.; the fall is about
         equally rapid along the entire extent of the slope to the south
         of the Acropolis, while the soil is full of small stones.
         Surely, it would take more than the oft-cited handful of rushes
         to establish a swamp on such a hillside. We have, however,
         excellent geological authority that from the lay of the land
         and the nature of the soil, there never could have been a swamp
         there. The Neleum inscription[186] can be held to prove nothing
         further than that, as Mr. Wheeler suggests, the drain from the
         existing theatre ran through this precinct. We must therefore
         seek the Limnae elsewhere.

         [Footnote 186: _Am. Journal of Archæology_, III. 38-48.]

         We know that from time immemorial the potters plied their trade
         in the Ceramicus, because here they found the clay suitable for
         their use. The so-called Theseum is 68.6 m. above the
         sea-level; the present level at the Piræus railroad station,
         54.9 m.; at the Dipylum (and here we are on the ancient level),
         only 47.9 m. Out beyond the gate comes a long slope, extending
Page 79  till the Cephissus is reached, at an elevation of 21 m. So the
         Dipylum is over 43 m. below the present level of the
         theatre-precinct; and it is the lowest portion of the ancient
         city. Here, therefore, in the northwest part of the city, is
         where we should expect from the lay of the land and the nature
         of the soil to find the marshes. Out in the open plain beyond
         this quarter of the city to-day, after every heavy rain, the
         water collects and renders the ground swampy. With the Dipylum
         as a starting-point, there is no difficulty in supposing that,
         in very ancient times, the Limnae extended to Colonus Agoraeus,
         to the east into the hollow which became a portion of the agora
         in the Ceramicus, and to the west into the depression between
         Colonus Agoraeus and the Hill of the Nymphs. The exact extent
         and character of the low ground in these two directions can
         only be determined by excavating the ancient level, which, as
         it appears to me, has not been reached by the deep new railroad
         cutting running across this section north of the so-called
         Theseum.

         The excavations of Dr. Dörpfeld between Colonus Agoraeus and
         the Areopagus, have shown that the ruins and the ancient street
         at this point have been buried to a great depth by the débris
         washed down from the Pnyx. Unfortunately, these diggings have
         not been extensive enough to restore the topography of the west
         and southwest slopes of Colonus Agoraeus.

         We have abundant notices, besides those already given, of a
         precinct or precincts of Dionysus in this section. Hesychius
         speaks[187] of a house in Melite where the tragic actors
         rehearsed. Photius repeats[188] the statement almost word for
         word. Philostratus mentions[189] a council-house of the artists
         near the gate of the Ceramicus. Pausanias (I. 2. 5), just after
         entering the city, sees within one of the stoas the house of
         Poulytion which was dedicated to Dionysus Melpomenus. He speaks
         next of a precinct with various αγαλματα, and among them the
         face of the demon of unmixed wine, Cratus. Beyond this precinct
         was a building with images of clay, representing, among other
         scenes, Pegasus, who brought the worship of Dionysus to Athens.
Page 80  This building also was plainly devoted to the cult of the
         wine-god. In fact, the most venerable traditions in Athens,
         with reference to Dionysus, centre here. All the various
         representations here are connected with the oldest legends.
         Pausanias (I. 3. 1.) says that the Ceramicus had its very name
         from Ceramus, a son of Dionysus and Ariadne.

         [Footnote 187: HESYCH. Μελιτέων οίκος.]

         [Footnote 188: PHOTIUS. Μελιτέων οίκος.]

         [Footnote 189: PHILOST. _Vit. Soph._ p. 251.]

         We have already seen that an orchestra was first established in
         the agora. Timæus adds[190] that this was a conspicuous place
         where were the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton, which we
         know to have stood in the agora.

         The scholiast to the _De Corona_ of Demosthenes[191] says that
         the "hieron" of Calamites, an eponymous hero, was close to the
         Lenaeum. Hesychius words this statement differently, saying
         that [the statue of] the hero himself was near the Lenaeum. We
         know that the statues of eponymous heroes were set up in the
         agora. Here again the new Aristotle manuscript comes to our
         support, telling us (_Pol_. c. 3) that the nine archons did not
         occupy the same building, but that the Basileus had the
         Bucoleum, near the Prytaneum, and that the meeting and marriage
         of the Basileus' wife with Dionysus still took place there in
         his time. That the Bucoleum must be on the agora, and that the
         marriage took place in Limnaean-Lenaean territory, have long
         been accepted. The location of the Limnae to the northwest at
         the Acropolis must thus be considered as settled.

         Dr. Dörpfeld maintains that the ancient orchestra and the later
         Agrippeum theatre near by, mentioned by Philostratus,[192] lay
         in the depression between the Pnyx and the Hill of the Nymphs,
         but considerably above the foot of the declivity.

         [Footnote 190: TIM. _Lex. Plat._]

         [Footnote 191: DEMOS, de Corona, 129, scholium.]

         [Footnote 192: PHILOSTRATUS, _Vit. Soph._, p. 247.]

         From the passage of the _Neaera_ quoted above we know that the
         old orchestra could not have been in the sacred precinct of
         Dionysus Limnaeus, for this was opened but once in every year,
         on the 12th of Anthesterio,[193] while the Chytri and therefore
         ό επι Ληναίω αγών were held on the following day. This involves
         too that the Pithoigia as well as the "contests at the Lenaeum"
Page 81  could not have been celebrated in the sanctuary εν Λίμναις,
         though portions of each of these divisions of the Anthesteria
         were held in the Lenaeum, which contained the Limnaea _hieron_.

         [Footnote 193: See also THUCYDIDES above.]

         The Lenaeum must lie εν Λίμναις, and therefore on the low
         ground. A passage in Isæus (8. 35) is authority that the
         sanctuary of Dionysus εν Λίμναις was εν αστει; _i.e._, within
         the Themistoclean walls. So we have it located within narrow
         limits, somewhere in the space bounded on the east by the
         eastern limit of the agora in Ceramicus, south by the
         Areopagus, west by the Pnyx and the Hill of the Nymphs, and
         north by the Dipylum.

         From the neighborhood of the Dionysiac foundations and
         allusions mentioned by Pausanias immediately upon entering the
         city, we may be justified in locating this ancient cult of
         Dionysus εν Λίμναις still more exactly, and placing it
         somewhere on or at the foot of the southwestern slope of
         Colonus Agoraeus. More precise evidence of its site we may
         obtain from future excavation: though as this region lay
         outside the Byzantine city-walls, the ruins may have been more
         or less completely swept away.

         In view of its position outside of the gate of the ancient
         Pelasgic city, by the wine-press, we understand why the contest
         in the Lenaeum was called a contest κατ' αγρούς. Because
         enclosed later within the walls of Themistocles, the Limnae
         were also referred to as εν αστει. Situated as they were in the
         territory of the agora, we see why, although the Archon
         Eponymus directed the City Dionysia, the Archon Basileus
         presided[194] over the Anthesteria, and therefore over "the
         contest at the Lenaeum"; and the agoranomi, the superintendents
         of the market-place, whose duties were confined to the agora,
         επετέλεσαν τους χύτρους.[195]

         [Footnote 194: POLLUX VIII. 89, 90. (ARISTOT. Άθες Πολιτεία.)]

         [Footnote 195: MOMMSEN, _Heortologie_, p. 352 note.]

         In closing, it may not be without interest to review the
         picture presented of the most ancient Athens. Behind the
         nine-gated Pelasgic fortifications lay the city, with its
         temples, its palace, "the goodly house of Erechtheus," and its
         dwellings for the people, remains of which can even now be seen
         within the Pelasgicum. Immediately without the gate stood the
         Pythium, the Olympieum, the temple of Ge _Kourotrophos_, and
Page 82  other foundations. Directly before the entrance, some two
         hundred paces from the city-walls, was the spring Enneacrounus,
         whose water was most esteemed by the citizens. Not far from
         this was the wine-press. Here the people built the first altar,
         the first temple, the first orchestra, and instituted the first
         festival in honor of the wine-god, long before the new
         Dionysian cult was brought in from Eleutherae; and here for
         centuries were raised every year about the orchestra tiers of
         wooden seats in preparation for the annual dramatic contests.

         JOHN PICKARD,
         American School of Classical Studies,
         Athens, 1891.

Page 83


         CORRESPONDENCE.


         HUNTING DELLA ROBBIA MONUMENTS IN ITALY.

         _To the Managing Editor of the American Journal of Archæology:_

         _Dear Sir_: Having made a special study of the altarpiece by
         Andrea Delia Robbia in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, my
         desire was aroused to examine all the glazed terracotta
         sculptures of the Delia Robbia school, which form such an
         important part of Italian Renaissance sculpture. So I sailed
         for Italy on the 6th of last May, taking with me a good camera
         and a sufficient number of celluloid films, knowing beforehand
         that there were many of these monuments which had never been
         photographed and were consequently imperfectly known. An
         investigation of this character, which takes one over the
         mountains and into the valleys, from one end of Italy to the
         other, may well be described as a hunting expedition; and,
         though requiring severe labor and constant sacrifices, has in
         it a considerable element of sport. Although Dr. Bode, of
         Berlin in various writings has shown a more discriminating
         knowledge of this subject than other writers, nevertheless the
         work of Cavallucci and Molinier, _Les Della Robbia_, was more
         useful to me as a guide and starter. They had catalogued as
         many as 350 of these monuments in Italy, and briefly described
         them. But their attributions were uncertain. Prof. Cavallucci
         told me in Florence that unless he had a document in hand
         indicating the authorship of a monument he felt great
         hesitation in making attributions. And I could see, the more I
         studied his work, that he considered it more important to
         discover documents than to observe monuments. Here then was a
         great opportunity to see a large series of monuments, to
         compare them and allow them to tell their own story in regard
         to their origin. Having with the aid of geographical
         dictionaries and government maps located these 350 monuments, I
         made up my mind to see as many of them as possible. This was no
         easy task, as they were widely distributed and, as I
         progressed, the number of uncatalogued monuments constantly
         increased. I can give here but a bare outline of my trip.
         Starting at Genoa, I went to Massa and Pisa and Lucca; from
         Lucca following the valley of the Serchio as far north as
Page 84  Castelnuovo. Here I found a fine series of unphotographed
         monuments, and began to learn that works of the same author and
         period are very likely to be found in neighboring towns,
         especially when lying along a valley. Similarly, starting from
         Pracchia above Pistoia I studied another series of
         unphotographed monuments at Gavinana, Lizano and Cutigliano.
         These monuments may prove to be of importance in solving the
         problem of the authorship of the celebrated Pistoian frieze.

         At Prato the monuments of this class have been photographed,
         and are well known. Florence and its immediate surroundings
         contain the most important works of Luca and of Giovanni Delia
         Robbia, but is very poor in examples of Andrea Delia Robbia.
         Hence the Florentines have a very inadequate notion of Andrea's
         work, which must be studied at Arezzo, La Verna, Prato, Siena
         and Viterbo. At Florence I was fortunate enough to find an
         unpublished document ascribing one of the medallions at Or San
         Michele to Luca Delia Robbia. Two of these medallions by the
         elder Luca had never been photographed before, but have now
         been taken by Alinari. So far as I know, the monuments at
         Impruneta, ten miles from Florence, are unknown to students of
         this subject. Three of them have been photographed by Brogi,
         who gives no attributions. They are not mentioned by Cavallucci
         nor by Dr. Bode; yet they are amongst the very finest works by
         Luca Delia Robbia. In the private collection of the Marquis
         Frescobaldi I recognized a fine Luca Delia Robbia, and in that
         of the Marquis Antinori an excellent example of Giovanni's
         work. Less important discoveries made in this region are too
         numerous to mention. At Empoli, not many miles from Florence,
         are several uncatalogued monuments and a fine example of a tile
         pavement, which I identified as Delia Robbia work. I then
         visited Poggibonsi and Volterra and Siena, and satisfied myself
         that the beautiful coronation of the Virgin at the Osservanza
         outside Siena is a chef-d'oeuvre of Andrea Delia Robbia. From
         Asciano I visited Monte San Savino, Lucignano and Foiano and
         took photographs of some fine, unrecognized works of Andrea
         Delia Robbia. Another starting point was Montepulciano for a
         long drive to Radicofani, a weird Etruscan site, whose churches
         contained half a dozen unphotographed Delia Robbias, then to S.
         Fiora, whose monuments have a greater reputation than they
         deserve, to S. Antimo, a fine Cistercian ruin, and Montalcino.
         At Perugia I photographed the monuments of Benedetto Buglione,
         thus laying the basis for a study of his works, a number of
         which may now be identified. In the case of his pupil, Santi
         Buglione, I was less successful, as the chapel at Croce
         dell'Alpe, which contained two authenticated altarpieces of his
Page 85  seems to have disappeared, not only from sight, but from the
         memory of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. So the
         reconstruction of his style involves a wider stretch of the
         scientific imagination. At Acquapendente I found a unique
         glazed terracotta altar signed by Jacopo Benevento, at Bolsena
         took the first photograph of several monuments, and at Viterbo
         had photographs made of the important lunettes by Andrea Delia
         Robbia. At Rome I penetrated the mysteries of the Vatican and
         discovered there a signed monument by Fra Lucas, son of Andrea
         Delia Robbia, and found in the Industrial Museum several
         monuments, which I identified as by the same author. Hitherto
         Fra Lucas has been known only as the maker of tile pavements.
         At Montecassiano there is a large monument concerning which a
         document has been published in many Italian journals, ascribing
         the authorship to Fra Mattia Delia Robbia. This has been
         published from a drawing, and my photograph is the first taken
         from the original monument. On the basis of a very imperfect
         acquaintance with his style, other monuments are being freely
         attributed to Fra Mattia. In the Marche there is a series of
         terracotta altarpieces attributed to Pietro Paolo Agabiti, a
         local painter of the XVI century. These attributions are purely
         hypothetical, and the hypothesis that Fra Mattia might have
         been their author is now being tested by local archaeologists.
         I travelled over a large portion of this province, seeing some
         important monuments, but without making discoveries of
         importance. Umbria in general proved even less fruitful, the
         terracotta monuments being of poor quality and showing little
         or no Delia Robbia influence.

         A very interesting region comprises Città di Castello, Borgo
         San Sepolcro, Arezzo and the Casentino. Here Andrea Delia
         Robbia left his impress strongly marked, especially in the very
         beautiful altarpieces at La Verna. As we approach Florence we
         find more by Giovanni and his school, especially noteworthy
         being the monuments at Galatrona and San Giovanni.

         When obliged to return home there remained very few known Delia
         Robbia monuments in Italy which I had not visited; almost
         everywhere I found more than had been already catalogued, and
         my collection of photographs of these monuments is undoubtedly
         the most complete in existence. Already considerable knowledge
         has been gained of the differences of style, which
         characterized the various members of the school, as I hope to
         show in a series of articles for the _American Journal of
         Archæology_. In order to complete this work I shall still have
         to hunt further in the museums and private collections of
         Spain, Portugal, France, England, Germany and Austria. There
         are a few Delia Robbia monuments in this country, of which one
Page 86  is in Princeton, one in New York, one in Newport, R.I., and
         several in Boston.

         Beside the direct pleasures of the chase and the bagging of
         game, there are many incidental pleasures in such a hunting
         expedition.

         One learns of the whereabouts of other monuments, acquires a
         knowledge of the country, of the language, of the people and of
         all the local surroundings that help explain to us the
         significance of the past.

         Yours sincerely,

         ALLAN MARQUAND.
         Guernsey Hall, Princeton, N.J., Dec, 27, 1892.

Page 87


         REVIEWS ΑND NOTICES OF BOOKS.


         ΜAXIME COLLIGNON. _Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque._ Tome I.
         Firmin-Didot et Cie. Paris, 1892.


         This is the first volume of what is likely to prove for some
         time to come the best general history of Greek sculpture. The
         personal inspection of monuments made during his connection
         with the French school at Athens, and his training as a
         lecturer at the Faculté des Lettres at Paris, have given M.
         Collignon an admirable training for the production of this
         book. We see in it also a hearty appreciation of more
         specialized work. This is essentially a history from the
         archæaeological standpoint, the monuments of Greek sculpture,
         rather than written documents, being assumed as fundamental
         material. In this respect he represents a more advanced stage
         of archæological science than Overbeck. Again we feel in
         reading the volume the constant assumption that the history of
         Greek sculpture is a continuous evolution. Even when the
         development is checked, as by the Dorian invasion, the element
         of continuity is emphasized. The Dorians construct new forms
         out of the elements which they find already established in
         Greece. Thus the connecting links evincing the continuous flow,
         are not lost sight of when he comes to treat of the different
         schools. This regard for the general conditions of development
         tempers his judgment and prevents him from formulating or
         approving of irrelevant and improbable hypotheses. This is an
         admirable temper for one who writes a general history. We do
         not find here remote analogies and startling theories. There is
         an even flow to the narrative which indicates to us that the
         knowledge of Greek sculpture is now more connected, and that
         many gaps have been filled in the list during a few years. Yet
         M. Collignon is not a literary trimmer, steering a middle
         course between opposing theories. He merely seeks for near and
         probable causes, and is not carried away by resemblances which
         have little historical value. His method is fundamentally the
         historical method, the four books which compose the first
         volume treating of the Primitive Periods, Early Archaic, and
         Advanced Archaic Periods, and The Great Masters of the V
         century. It is unnecessary to give here the general analysis of
         the book, as it does not differ essentially from other similar
Page 88  histories, but we may notice the systematic method with which
         he treats his material. At the opening of each new period he
         briefly notes the general historical conditions, then having
         classed the monuments by schools he considers the
         characteristics of a few representative examples, and finally
         endeavors to summarize the style of the school or period. In
         doing this he is handling considerable new material which has
         not yet found its way into general histories. Even to
         specialists, this general treatment of a subject with which
         they may be familiar in detail, is valuable. The book is a
         summary and index to a large number of monographs scattered in
         French, German, Greek and English periodicals, and we find it
         much more convenient to have these references at the foot of
         each page rather than gathered together at the end of the
         volume as in Mrs. Mitchell's excellent history. Of course it is
         no easy matter to distinguish sharply the characteristics of
         different schools in a country as small as Greece, where there
         was so much interaction, and the formulas, which are laid down
         now, may require correction in a few years. Still the attempt
         is well made, and is helpful in consolidating our knowledge.

         In a work of whose method we cordially approve, the defects, if
         there be any, are likely to be in the way of omission of
         material or under-valuation of that which is taken into
         consideration. In the direction of omission we find that
         practically no use whatever has been made of Cyprus as a school
         of archaic Greek art, yet there is considerable material for
         this in European museums as well as in the Metropolitan museum
         in New York. In unduly estimating the value of the material in
         hand, we find here and there more influence attributed to the
         Phoenicians, than we should be inclined to allow. For example
         (p. 43,) the ceiling at Orchomenos, is explained as Phoenician
         because of the rosettes, and the same design upon Egyptian
         ceilings at Thebes is explained as Phoenician also. Evidently
         M. Collignon has not yet learned the grammar of the Egyptian
         lotus. We commend him to Prof. Goodyear. He is also in error in
         ascribing the first use of the term "lax-archaic" to Brunn's
         article in the _Muth. Ath._ vii. p. 117, for it held an
         important place in Semper's classification of Doric monuments
         made three years earlier. But these are minor matters. The book
         is abundantly illustrated, having twelve excellent plates in
         lithograph and photogravure, and two hundred and seventy-eight
         in the tone process and photoengraving. We regret that the tone
         process had not been more extensively used, as the drawings do
         not and cannot give a sufficiently full impression of the
         objects. However, is it quite proper that the maker of a tone
         process plate should sign it as is done here _Petit sculpsit_?

         A.M.

Page 89

         HEINRICH-BRUNN. _Griechische Götterideale in ihren Formen
         erlüutert._ 8vo. pp. VIII, 110. München, Verlagsanstalt für
         Kunst und Wissenschaft. 1892.

         This is not a systematic treatise, but a series of nine papers,
         all of which, except the last, have been already published. But
         we are grateful to Dr. Brunn and to his publishers for having
         collected these articles, which were scattered in various
         periodicals and written at wide intervals of time. In their
         present form they are instructive as revealing to us Dr.
         Brunn's general habits of mind in approaching his subject, as
         well as more useful and better adapted to a wide circle of
         readers. The first of these articles on the Farnese Hera
         appeared in the _Bullettino dell' Instituto_, in 1846, and is
         described as the "first attempt at the analytical consideration
         of the ideal of a Greek God," while the entire series may be
         taken as evidence that "the intellectual understanding of ideal
         artistic productions can be reached only on the basis of a
         thorough analysis of form." For his analysis of sculptural
         form, and his keen intuitions, Dr. Brunn has long been held in
         high esteem, and it is interesting to learn what we can of his
         methods. In considering the Hera head he first examined the
         original, afterwards a cast of it for many hours, then compared
         these impressions with observations made upon a human scull. In
         doing this he brings the work of art to nature, so as to
         substantiate or correct his impressions. We see him following
         the same method in the articles upon the Medusa and upon
         Asklepios. But this reference to nature is for the most part
         casual and incidental. It is not to nature but to literature
         that he resorts for help. He is not content to trust himself
         entirely to the method enunciated in the preface. He does not
         rest satisfied with the ideals as he reads them in the
         sculptured faces. He rather assumes that these ideals were
         fixed before they were expressed in marble. He looks at the
         heads of Hera and Zeus through "ox-eyed" and "dark-browed"
         glasses. He accepts the Divine ideal from the pages of Homer,
         rather than from the marble form, whenever it is possible. His
         mind is still imbued with doctrines concerning the "eternity of
         ideas" and "inward necessity," which he must have reached in
         some other way than by the analysis of external forms.

         But while we may regard the method as not consistently applied,
         we have no fault to find with the method and no sentiment but
         that of admiration for the fine powers of observation displayed
         in these articles. There seems to be nothing in the form of the
         eye that escapes his attention. The slightest variations in the
         form of the lids, in the positions of the eyeball, he notices
Page 90  and assumes that they were made the vehicles of expression.
         Similarly the forehead, the mouth, the chin, the hair are most
         attentively studied as vehicles of expression. Surely few, even
         trained archæologists, can read these pages without having
         their powers of observation quickened. By far the greater
         portion of workers in the field of Greek sculpture are
         concerned at the present time with the morphology of art for
         the sake of its history. The analysis of forms is utilized to
         ascertain an historical series, to discover schools, to
         establish dates. Here we find scarcely a mention of schools or
         artists, no reference to history and not a date. The analysis
         of form leads to the interpretation of monuments and the
         establishment of ideals. It is the physiology, not the history
         of art. The publishers, who are gaining a world-wide reputation
         for their photo process reproductions, have added to this book
         a series of fine phototype plates.

         A.M.

Page 91




         ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.

         SUMMARY OF RECENT DISCOVERIES AND INVESTIGATIONS.


                         PAGE  |            PAGE  |          PAGE
          ALGERIA,        113  |  BABYLONIA, 131  |  PERSIA,  134
          ARABIA,         131  |  CAUCASUS,  146  |  SYRIA,   140
          ARMENIA,        146  |  CHINA,     127  |  THIBET,  127
          ASIA (CENTRAL), 128  |  ETHIOPIA,  111  |  TUNISIA, 114
          ASIA MINOR,     147  |  HINDUSTAN, 118  |



         AFRICA.


         EGYPT.

         TEXTS OF THE PYRAMIDS.--_Biblia_ for November, 1892, contains
         an article by Dr. Brugsch on "The Texts of the Pyramids." It
         mentions the opening of one of the smaller pyramids of the
         Sakkarah group in 1880 by Mariette Pasha and the discovery of a
         number of hieroglyphic inscriptions beautifully chiseled into
         the walls of the inner aisles and chamber, which gave the name
         of the maker of the pyramid as Pepi, and fixed its date at the
         VI Dynasty or about 3,000 B.C. Prof. Brugsch then gives an
         account of his own work at the request of Mariette upon a
         second pyramid opened by Mariette's men at Sakkarah, where the
         walls of the chamber were covered with hieroglyphic
         inscriptions. A granite coffin, also, was found adorned with
         hieroglyphics repeating in different places the name of the
         King. The inscriptions on the walls had been destroyed in a
         number of places by treasure hunters.

         Maspero, Mariette's successor, opened a number of pyramids of
         the same group and found a great quantity of inscriptions. As a
         result, new texts were discovered in a number of pyramids of
         which three belonged to the royal houses of the V and VI
         Dynasties. Maspero then published a copy of all these
         inscriptions together with their translation as far as this was
         possible.

         These discoveries establish the important point in the study of
         the language, that its "iconographic phrase" dates from the
         most ancient times and goes back even to Menes the first king.
         The grammar, vocabulary and the construction of words and
         sentences betray the awkward stiffness of a language in its
         first literary beginnings, but it is shown in all its youthful
         strength and pregnance.

         A reciprocal comparison of all the texts found establishes the
         fact that they belong to a collection of texts known as "the
         Book." This "book" contained all the formulas and conjurations
Page 92  used after death, is a guide for the deceased in the unknown
         future, and a book of charms, in which guise the Egyptian faith
         made its appearance in the most ancient period of culture,
         although containing nothing of the philosophy or history of the
         ancient Egyptians, it gives us much interesting information
         relating to mythology, geography, astronomy, botany and
         zoology.

         For the ancient Egyptians believed that their earthly
         districts, cities and temples had heavenly counterparts of the
         same name; in fact, the whole geography of this world was
         duplicated in the world to come. The celestial inhabitants
         consist of the immortal company of the "shining" with the solar
         god at their head. Each constellation is designated as the
         abode of the soul of one god benificent or maleficent. In his
         wanderings the soul of man came in contact with these abodes of
         the evil gods and the book which covered the walls of his
         mortuary chamber provided charms which made him proof against
         harm.

         The texts of the pyramids promise to the departed the enjoyment
         of a new life which he continues to live in the earth, in the
         body, in heaven, in the spirit. The soul had power to reunite
         itself to the body at will. We find in the texts mention of
         Egyptian political institutions at the remotest period, the
         existence of a high type of civilization. Agriculture was
         highly developed. All the domestic animals, with the exception
         of the horse and camel, are introduced, the arts of cooking, of
         dressing and of personal adornment, all find mention.

         The texts of the pyramids then, though they fail to give us any
         information with regard to the life or history of the kings
         whose chambers they adorned have still much significance for
         the universal history of civilization.


         THE MARRIAGE OF AMENOPHIS IV.--The Amarna tablets show that
         Amenophis married other Babylonian princesses besides Thi his
         first wife who bore the title of "Royal mother, Royal wife, and
         Queen of Egypt." A large tablet on exhibition at the British
         Museum with two others in the museum at Berlin and one at Gizeh
         gives a very entertaining correspondence between Amenophis and
         Kallima-Sin, king of Chaldea and brother of one of Amenophis'
         wives and father of two others. The tablet in the British
         Museum is relative to the alliance with Lukhaite the youngest
         daughter of the Chaldean king.

         Kallima-Sin is reluctant to give his daughter to the Pharaoh
         and advances various reasons for his indisposition while
         Amenophis smoothly explains away the various impediments.

         Matters take a new turn in the Berlin letter where we find the
         Babylonian requesting a wife of the Egyptian monarch, the
         request is curtly refused, whereupon Kallima-Sin replies,
Page 93  "Inasmuch as thou hast not sent me a wife, I will do in like
         manner unto thee and hinder any lady from going from Babylon to
         Egypt." Another letter however shows that Kallima-Sin finally
         consented on condition of large emolument to send Lukhaite to
         Egypt, and this very mercenary and diplomatic alliance was
         finally made.--_Biblia_, V, pp. 108, 109.


         THE DATE OF THE FOURTH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY.--Mr. Petrie's
         statement in _Medum_ as to the passage-angle of Senefru's
         pyramid completes a chain of astronomical evidence proving the
         commencement of the IV Dynasty to have been very approximately
         3700 B.C.

         The entrance passage of the Medum pyramid has a polar distance
         (allowing for the azimuth error of the passage) of about 45,
         and, if intended for observation of a circumpolar star, fixes
         the date of the structure within not very wide limits. Between
         4900 and 2900 B.C. no naked eye star was within this distance
         of the pole, except the sixth magnitude star 126 Piazzi (XIII)
         which was so situate about 3820 to 3620 B.C., its minimum
         distance being about 36'. Allowing an uncertainty of a few
         minutes of arc, a date fifty years on either side of these
         extremes would satisfy the requirements of the case.

         The passage-angle of the Great Pyramid is 3° 30' below the pole
         (3° 34' in the built portion, the latest). The Second Pyramid
         passage has also an angle of about 3° 31' polar distance
         (Smyth's measures--Perring and Vyse, whose angle measures are
         not accurate, give 4° 5'). Finally the northern "trial-passage"
         east of the Great Pyramid has the polar distance 3° 22' + or -
         8'. Now at the date 3650 B.C. the star 217 Piazzi (somewhat
         brighter than that last named) was at a distance of 3° 29' from
         the pole, increasing to 3° 34' by 3630 B.C.

         East of the Great Pyramid there are certain straight trenches
         (one at the Ν.Ε. corner) running respectively 13° 6', 24° 22',
         and 75° 58' east of North and west of South. At about the date
         named these trenches pointed very nearly to Canopus at setting
         and to Arcturus and Altair at rising, the average error of
         azimuth being less than a degree.

         But even these differences of half a degree or so are accounted
         for. Refraction at the horizon amounts to about 35' of arc; if
         we assume that the Egyptian (?) astronomers took it roundly at
         30', and that they intended to observe the stars on the true
         and not the apparent horizon, we find the azimuths would have
         been (3645 B.C.):--

          Canopus  13°  3' (W. of S.), Trench 13°  6'
          Arcturus 24° 23' (E. of N.),    "   24° 22'
          Altair   76°  0' (   "    ),    "   75° 58'

         These figures speak for themselves. The dates 3645 B.C. for the
         trenches and external works, and 3630 B.C. for the completion
Page 94  of the entrance passage, with an interval of fifteen years,
         accord with the probabilities of the case. It should be
         remembered that they are deduced quite independently.

         The net result is that the three reigns of Senefru, Khuffu, and
         Kaffra may be definitely assigned to the century 3700-3600
         B.C.--G.F. HARDY, in _Academy_, Oct. 29.


         THE PETRIE PAPYRI.--A paper was read by Prof. Mahaffy at the
         Oriental Congress upon "The Gain to Egyptology from the Petrie
         Papyri."--The first part of the papyri placed in his hands by
         Mr. Flinders Petrie consisted of classical documents which had
         already been printed by the Royal Irish Academy in the
         Cunningham Memoirs. Of these a large volume had appeared, which
         was exciting vehement controversy in Germany. But in addition
         to these there was a great mass of private papers which had not
         yet been printed, but which had been deciphered partly by Prof.
         Sayce and partly by himself. These papers were in two
         languages-Greek and demotic, or the popular language of the
         Egyptians. These were in part hieroglyphs done into cursive. Of
         these demotic fragments a large quantity had been sent to the
         British Museum. The Greek papyri still remain in his own hands.
         Strange to say, only one of these texts is bilingual. These
         interesting documents might be divided into--(1) legal
         agreements, of which some were contracts, others receipts,
         others again taxing agreements; (2) correspondence, partly of a
         public and partly of a private character. In the former were
         official reports, petitions, complaints. The private
         correspondence was especially interesting in showing the
         condition of society at that date. A large number of
         Macedonians and Greeks were settled in the Fayum under the
         second Ptolemy, about 270 B.C. In addition there was a large
         number of prisoners from Asia, who must have been brought into
         Egypt after the great campaign of the third Ptolemy, about 246
         B.C. This mixed body were the recipients of large grants of
         land in the Fayum. It was interesting to find that many of
         these grants were as large as 100 acres, and the occupiers are
         thus called εκατοντάρονροι. The farms were divided into three
         classes of land. First, there was what was called the Royal
         land, probably fruitful land was meant; the second class was
         called αβροχος, or land still in need of irrigation; and the
         third αφορος, or land which would bear nothing. This latter was
         also called αλμυρίς, or the salt marsh, which was still common
         in Egypt. These recipients or allottees of land were called by
         a name familiar to all readers of Greek history--κληρουχοί.
         Prof. Mahaffy had found no native landowner mentioned in the
         papyri. But in many cases the natives had an interest in the
Page 95  crops on something like a _metayer_ system. Among the crops
         grown were the vine, olives, wheat, barley, rye. There was
         evidence in the legal papers that alienation of these farms was
         not allowed. Among the contracts are many between Greeks and
         natives. The principal officers of the Nome were the Strategos,
         the Oeconomos, and the επιμελητης, or overseer. The
         commissioner of works had charge of drainage and irrigation
         works. It was amusing to find that two currencies were
         prevalent at that period, silver and copper. This discovery
         disposed of the current theory that the copper currency only
         came in under the late Ptolemies. The phrases for the rate of
         exchange had long been known--χαλκος ου αλλαγή, but he had now
         got hold of a later term, ισόνομος which might be translated
         'at par.' These documents were also valuable, as being
         transcriptions from Egyptian into Greek, with respect to our
         knowledge of the Egyptian language. As the Egyptians did not
         write down their vowels, the vocalisation of the language was
         hardly yet known. But results of much importance were
         gained--first, of a palaeographical, and, secondly, of a
         linguistic character. We now know exactly how they wrote in the
         third century B.C., and we have also learnt what was the Greek
         used by the respectable classes of that epoch. The Greek was
         far purer and better than that of the Septuagint would lead us
         to expect. There was still a large number of papers to be
         deciphered, and a large addition to our knowledge might be
         expected.--_Academy_, Sept. 24.


         A GREEK PAPYRUS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.--At the Orientalist
         Congress in London a most interesting document was submitted by
         the Rev. Professor Hechler. It is a papyrus manuscript
         discovered a few months ago in Egypt, and is supposed by some
         authorities to be the oldest copy extant of portions of the Old
         Testament books of Zachariah and Malachi. These pages of
         papyrus when intact were about ten inches high and seven inches
         wide, each containing 28 lines of writing, both sides of the
         sheet being used. The complete line contains from fourteen to
         seventeen letters. The sheets are bound together in the form of
         a book in a primitive though careful manner with a cord and
         strips of old parchment. The Greek is written without intervals
         between the words. The papyrus is in fair preservation, and is
         believed to date from the third or fourth century. It thus
         ranks in age with the oldest Greek manuscripts of the
         Septuagint version of the Old Testament in London, Rome and St.
         Petersburg. The differences in this papyrus tend to the
         conclusion that it was copied from some excellent original of
         the Septuagint, which was first translated about the year 280
         B.C. The first summary examination has shown that it has
         several new readings which surpass some of the other Septuagint
Page 96  texts in clearness of expression and simplicity of grammar. It
         would also appear that it was copied from another Septuagint
         Bible and was not written, as was frequently the case, from
         dictation. A second scribe has occasionally corrected some
         mistakes of orthography made by the original copyist. These are
         still to be distinguished by the different color of the ink.

         Professor Hechler said it was sincerely to be hoped that this
         papyrus of the Bible, probably the oldest now known to exist,
         would soon be published in fac-simile.


         THE DATE OF THE AEGEAN POTTERY.--Quite a discussion has been
         carried on between Mr. Flinders Petrie and Mr. Cecil Torr on
         the subject of the period of the Aegean pottery in Egypt which
         Mr. Torr regards as having been assigned to too early a date by
         Mr. Petrie. The recent discovery of such fragments in the ruins
         of the palace of Khuenaten at Tell-el-Amarna, which existed for
         little over half a century in the xiv century B.C., would
         appear to prove beyond doubt the correctness of Mr. Petrie's
         position.--See _Classical Review_ for March; Academy, May 14
         and 21, etc.


         A PROFESSORSHIP OF EGYPTOLOGY.--Miss A.B. Edwards has left
         almost the whole of her property to found a professorship of
         Egyptology, under certain conditions, at University College,
         London, The value of the chair will amount to about $2,000 a
         year. Mr. W.M. Flinders Petrie has been appointed to this
         chair, and no better selection could have been made.


         EXCAVATIONS BY DR. BRUGSCH, COUNT D'HULST AND M. NAVILLE.--Dr.
         H. Brugsch has been excavating during the past spring in the
         Fayoum. At Hawara he has discovered a considerable number of
         painted portraits. At Illahun he opened a tomb of the eleventh
         dynasty, which had not been entered since the mummy was
         originally deposited in it. Unfortunately the roof fell in
         before it could be properly cleared out. At Shenhour he came
         across the remains of a small temple. Since leaving the Fayoum
         he has been working on the site of Sais.

         Count d'Hulst has been excavating at Behbet, near Mansourah, on
         behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund. The ruined temple there
         is Ptolemaic, but the cartouche of Ramses II has been found in
         the course of the excavations.

         Mr. Naville has returned to Europe. His excavations at Jmei
         el-Amdîd, the supposed site of Mendes, have been unfruitful,
         and he has fared no better at Tel el-Baghliyeh.--_Athenaeum_
         May 16.

Page 97
         EXCAVATIONS BY LIEUT. LYONS AT WADY HALFAH, ABUSIR,
         MATUGAH.--Lieut. H.G. Lyons has been continuing exploration at
         _Wady Halfah_. He has cleared out the sand from one of the
         temples, and found there eleven slabs with figures of a king
         making offerings to the god Horus of Behen or Wady Halfah in a
         chamber in front of the Hall of Columns. The names in the
         cartouches have been erased, and it is, therefore, impossible
         to identify the king. A second temple, with sandstone pillars
         and mud brick walls, is inscribed in many places with the name
         of Thothmes IV. This building had been flooded and filled to a
         depth of 2 ft. with fine sand. The third temple of Wady Halfah
         was completely surrounded by a line of fortifications, the
         flanks of which rest on the river, but of these works only the
         foundation remains. The discovery of them is, however,
         decidedly important, for in them we must see beyond doubt the
         great frontier fortress which marked the limit of the rule of
         Egypt on the south.

         About five miles beyond the rock of _Abusir_, Lieut. Lyons has
         excavated the large space, about two hundred yards square,
         which is mentioned in Burckhard's 'Travels in Nubia,' and upon
         which stand the ruined walls of what has been variously
         described as a Roman fort or a monastery. He has come to the
         conclusion that the building is undoubtedly Egyptian, and has
         traced the site of the ancient stone temple inside it.

         He reports that he has discovered old Egyptian fortresses at
         Halfa and at Matuga, twelve miles south, the latter containing
         a cartouche of Usertesen III: and has opened three rocktombs at
         Halfa.--_Academy_, July 16 and Aug. 6.


         NOTES BY PROF. SAYCE.--Besides Tel el-Amarna, I have visited
         El-Hibeh and the little temple of Shishak, which was uncovered
         there last year. It is, unfortunately, in a most ruinous
         condition. One of the natives took me to a recently-found
         necropolis at a place under the cliffs called Ed-Dibân, some
         two miles distant, which is plainly of the Roman age, and its
         occupants belonged to the poorer classes.

         In the White Monastery near Sohâg, I found a stone with the
         cartouche of Darius, which had formed part of the ancient
         temple of Crocodilopolis.

         I picked up some fine flint spear-heads near the line of Roman
         forts on the north side of the Gebel Sheikh Embârak, where I
         discovered an enormous manufactory of flint weapons and tools
         three years ago.

         Lastly, I may add that at the back of the Monastery of Mari
         Girgis, about three miles south of Ekhmim, I found that another
         cemetery of the early Coptic period has been discovered, and
Page 98  that it is providing the dealers with fresh supplies of ancient
         embroideries.--A.H. SAYCE, in _Academy_, Feb. 27.


         PRESERVATION OF MOHAMMEDAN MONUMENTS.--The Soc. for the
         Protection of Ancient Buildings has protested, through Sir
         Evelyn Baring, against the so-called restoration of the mosque
         El-Mouyayyed and the mosque of Barkouk. It is proposed to
         rebuild the domed minaret of Barkouk's mosque and the
         suppressed bell-tower of the Sultan's mosque, which is to be
         replaced by a bulbous roof.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 31.


         ABU-SIMBEL.--The Council of Ministers has granted £1,000 for
         the preservation of Abu-Simbel, which is in danger of partial
         destruction. The rock above the four colossi on the façade,
         which is of sandstone with layers of clay, had become fissured,
         threatening an immediate fall. A party of sappers from the army
         of occupation have been sent to the temple, who, after binding
         with chains the falling rock, will break it up. Further
         examination will be made to ascertain whether additional work
         is required for the protection of this temple.--_Academy_,
         March 5.


         ASSOUAN.--DAM.--A huge dam is to be thrown across the Nile at
         Assouan: its height will raise the water to the level of the
         floors of the ruins at Philae, enhancing rather than detracting
         from their picturesque grandeur. It is said that the structure
         of the dam will harmonize with the ancient architecture of
         Philae. The material already cut and lying in the quarries of
         Assouan will be almost sufficient to complete the
         dam.--_Biblia_, V. p. 109.


         TOMBS.--Some new tombs have been opened, one by the Crown
         Princess of Sweden and Norway, the other by Mr. James. One of
         them belonged to the reign of Nofer-Ka-Ra; and, in an
         inscription found in it, Prof. Schiaparelli has read the name
         of the land of Pun, which accordingly, was already known to the
         Egyptians in the age of the dynasty.--PROF. SAYCE in _Academy_.


         CAIRO (NEAR). DESTRUCTION OF AN ANCIENT CHRISTIAN CHURCH.--Rev.
         Greville J. Chester writes (_Acad._ March 19). Permit me to
         draw public attention to an almost incredible act of vandalism
         which was perpetrated during the last year in Egypt, close to
         the capital. The finest Roman ruin in Egypt was the fortress of
         Babylon, south of Cairo, known also as Mus'r el Ateekeh and
         Dayr esh Shemma. One of the most interesting sights in that
         Dayr was the Jewish synagogue, anciently the Christian Church
         of St. Michael, but desecrated by being handed over in the
Page 99  middle ages by an Arab Sultan to the Jews, and thenceforward to
         the present time used by them as a place of worship. The
         building was of much architectural interest. The old Christian
         nave and aisles were preserved intact; but the Jews had
         destroyed the apse which must have existed, and had replaced it
         by a square Eastern sanctuary, and over the niche, within which
         were preserved the Holy Books of the Law, had adorned the wall
         with numerous Hebrew texts executed in gesso, forming an
         interesting example of Jewish taste and work in the middle
         ages. Some of the ancient Christian screenwork of wood was
         preserved, but was turned upside down, probably because
         gazelles and other animals formed part of the design. Behind
         this building, in a sort of court, the very finest portion of
         the original wall of the Roman fortress was visible, and, what
         is more important, the inner and most perfect circuit of one of
         the Roman bastion-towers, which outside looked out on the
         desert.

         All this is now a thing of the past. The Jews have razed the
         ancient church and synagogue to the ground, and in its place
         have erected a hideous square abomination, supported internally
         on iron pillars. Of the fine Roman wall which bounded the
         property, and with it the bastion-tower, with its courses of
         brick at regular intervals, and its deeply-splayed windows, not
         a vestige now remains.


         CAIRO.--GIZEH MUSEUM.--M. de Morgan has been appointed director
         of the Museum in place of M. Grébaut. This will meet with
         general approval. He is young and energetic, and the work he
         has done in the Caucasus and in Persia has placed him in the
         front rank of archaeologists and explorers. Moreover, he is an
         engineer, and therefore possesses a practical knowledge which,
         in view of the conservation of the ancient monuments of Egypt,
         is a matter of prime importance. He has asked the Board of
         Public Works for £50,000 in order to secure the building
         against fire; it is built of very inflammable material. During
         the past summer the museum has been entirely rearranged by him.
         Of the rooms in the palace, only some thirty-eight contained
         antiquities last winter; now, however, about eighty-five are
         used as exhibition rooms, and, for the first time, it is
         possible to see of what the Egyptian collection really
         consists. On the ground floor the positions of several of the
         large monuments have been changed, and the chronological
         arrangement is better than it was before. In one large room are
         exhibited for the first time eleven fine _mastaba_ stelæ of the
         Ancient Empire, (VI. Dyn.) which were brought from Sakkarah
         during the past summer; they are remarkable for the brightness
         of the colours, the vigour of the figures, and the beauty of
         the hieroglyphics. On the same floor are two splendid colossal
         statues of the god Ptah which have been excavated at Memphis
         the hieroglyphics. On the same floor are two splendid colossal
         statues of the god Ptah which have been excavated at Memphis
Page 100 during last summer, and many other large objects from the same
         site. In a series of rooms, approached from the room in which
         the Dêr el-Bahari mummies are exhibited, are arranged the
         coffins and mummies of the priests of Amen which were brought
         down from Thebes two years ago. The coffins are of great
         interest, for they are ornamented with mythological scenes and
         figures of gods which seem to be peculiar to the period
         immediately following the rule of the priest-kings at Thebes,
         _i.e._, from about B.C. 1000 to 800.

         A new and important feature in the arrangement of the rooms on
         the upper floor is the section devoted to the exhibition of
         papyri. Here in flat glazed cases are shown at full length fine
         copies of the 'Book of the Dead,' hieratic papyri, including
         the unique copy of the 'Maxims of Ani.' and many other papyri
         which have been hitherto inaccessible to the ordinary visitor.
         To certain classes of objects, such as scarabs, blue glazed
         _faïence_, linen sheets, mummy bandages and garments,
         terracotta vases and vessels, alabaster jars, &c., special
         rooms are devoted. The antiquities which, although found in
         Egypt, are certainly not of Egyptian manufacture, _e.g._, Greek
         and Phœnician glass, Greek statues, tablets inscribed in
         cuneiform from Tel el-Amarna, &c., are arranged in groups in
         rooms set apart for them; and the monuments of the Egyptian
         Christians or Copts are also classified and arranged in a
         separate room.--_Athenæum_, May 14 and Nov. 19.


         THE FRENCH SCHOOL AT CAIRO.--M. Maspero analyzed before the
         _Acad. des Inscr._ (Oct. 28), the recent work and immediate
         prospects of the French School at Cairo. The _Memoirs_ recently
         issued show the field that it covers at present. First comes a
         fascicule of Greek texts, the mathematical papyrus of Akmim,
         explained and commented by M. Baillet; a long fragment of the
         Greek text of the Book of Enoch, remains of the apocryphal
         Gospel and Apocalypse of St. Peter, reproduced by M. Bouriant.
         All these works are of extreme importance for primitive church
         history. Arab archæology is represented by memoirs of M.
         Casonova on an Arab globe, on sixteen Arab steles, and
         especially by M. Burgoin's great work on Arab art in Egypt.
         Father Scheil makes an incursion into Assyriology by his
         publication of some of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, and in this
         connection M. Maspero states that the intention of the school
         is to extend their researches to Syria and Mesopotamia and to
         include the entire East both ancient and modern. In the
         Egyptian domain, besides the Theban fragments of the Old
         Testament and the remains of the Acts of the Council of
         Ephesos, the notable event is the appearance of the first
         fasciculus of the work on _Edfu_ by M. de Rochemonteix. In it a
Page 101 complete temple will be placed before students. The entire
         Egyptian religion will be illustrated, in all its
         rituals,--ritual of foundation, of sacrifice, of the feast of
         Osiris. M. Benedite has commenced in the same way the
         publication of the Temples of Philae.--_Revue Critique_, 1892,
         No. 45.

         The investigations enumerated above are far from being all.
         They represent merely the official governmental side of the
         work. The learned societies have done a great deal; such as the
         Ecole des lettres of Algiers, the management of historical
         monuments (Tebessa), and the French School of Rome.


         EL-KARGEH.--PLASTER BUSTS.--At a meeting of the _Académie des
         Inscriptions_, M. Héron de Villefosse exhibited four painted
         plaster busts from El-Kargeh, in the Great Oasis, which have
         recently been sent to the Louvre by M. Bouriant, director of
         the French School at Cairo. They have been taken from the lids
         of sarcophagi; but the peculiarity about them is that the heads
         were not in the same plane with the body, but as it were erect.
         The features have been modelled with extraordinary
         verisimilitude; the eyes are of some glassy material, in black
         and white; the hair was modelled independently, and afterwards
         fitted to the plaster head; the painting is in simple
         colours--various shades of red for the skin, and black or brown
         for the hair. M. Héron de Villefosse maintained that they were
         certainly portraits. The physiognomy of one is Jewish; another
         recalls a bronze head from Cyrene in the British Museum, which
         Fr. Lenormant considered to be of Berber type; the third might
         be Syrian, and the fourth Roman. The date is probably about the
         time of Septimius Severus. M. Maspero declared that he had
         never seen anything of the kind in any museum.--_Academy_, July
         9.

         These busts have been placed on exhibition at the Louvre, in
         the _Salle des fresques_.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 28.

         According to a writer in the _Temps_, two are Greeks, one
         Syrian and one a Jew. The Greeks are blond with straight hair;
         the others have dark brown curly hair. All are bearded. The
         drapery is white.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 30.

         The department of Greek and Roman antiquities at the Louvre has
         also received from M. Bouriant two funerary inscriptions found
         in the necropolis dating from the second century A.D. One is
         Latin, tha other Greek.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 32.


         CHATBI (NEAR).--NECROPOLIS.--M. Botti has discovered between
         Chatbi and Ibrahimieh a Roman necropolis of the first or second
         century A.D.. at a depth of fourteen metres. It is excavated in
         soft calcareous stone and its chambers and corridors are
Page 102 reached by a rock-cut staircase.

         The bodies are both laid on the floor and placed in jars. They
         were intact.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 30.


         EL-QAB.--Mr. Taylor has been excavating here for the Egypt
         exploration fund, in continuation of the previous year's work.
         Prof. Sayce reports, after Mr. Taylor's departure (_Acad._,
         March 12), that more of the foundations of the old temple which
         stood within the temple were then visible than the preceding
         year. The fragmentary remains show that among its builders were
         Usertesen (xii dyn.), Sebekhotep II (xiii dyn.), Amenophis I
         and Thothmes III (xviii dyn.) and Nektanebo I (xxx dyn.) In one
         of the tombs Nofer-Ka-Ra is alluded to as (apparently) the
         original founder of the sanctuary.


         GEBELEN.--TEMPLE OF HOR-M-HIB.--Prof. Sayce writes. "On the
         voyage from Luxor to Assuan I stopped at Gebelon, and found
         that the Bedouin squatters there had unearthed some fragments
         of sculptured and inscribed stones on the summit of the
         fortress built by the priest-king Ra-men-kheper and queen
         Isis-m-kheb to defend this portion of the Nile. On examination
         they turned out to belong to a small temple which must once
         have stood on the spot. The original temple, I found, had been
         constructed of limestone by Hor-m-hib, the last king of the
         xviii dynasty, and brilliantly ornamented with sculpture and
         painting. Additions had been made to the temple, apparently by
         Seti I.; since besides the stones belonging to Hor-m-hib, there
         were other fragments of the same limestone as that of which the
         temple of Seti at Abydos is built, and covered with bas-reliefs
         and hieroglyphs in precisely the same delicate style of art.
         Eventually a building of sandstone had been added to the
         original temple on the west side by Ptolemy VII Philometor. It
         may be noted that Ra-men-kheper used bricks burnt in the kiln
         as well as sun-dried bricks in the construction of the
         fortress, as he also did in the construction of the fortress at
         El-Hibeh.--_Academy_, March 12."


         HAT-NUB.-THE EARLY QUARRY.-This interesting quarry has been
         recently discovered by Mr. Griffith. Mr. Petrie writes: Allow
         me to note that in this quarry, described by Mr. Griffith
         (_Academy_, Jan. 23), and situated ten miles southeast of El
         Tell in this plain, the main quarry does not contain any name
         later than the vi Dynasty. The tablet in the thirtieth year
         being of Pepi II (Nefer-ka-ra), and mentioning the _sed_
         festival in that year, this might refer to the Sothiac festival
         of 120 years falling in that year, and so be important as a
         datum. There are seven painted inscriptions of Pepi II,
         containing about fifty lines in all. There are also a great
         number of incised graffiti.--_Academy_, Feb. 20.
Page 103

         HAWARA.--MUMMY PORTRAITS.--Among the most important discoveries
         of the year is that by Dr. Brugsch, of three mummy portraits in
         the desert of Hawara. These were found, uncoffined, and buried
         at a very slight depth below the surface.

         The first is that of a woman: the portrait is brilliantly
         executed in tempera, on canvas, and is the most ancient of
         paintings on canvas known, for its date cannot be fixed later
         than the first century B.C.

         The next portrait was on the mummy of a man but instead of a
         painting on canvas is a relief in stucco, gilded. The features
         are carefully reproduced, as are the beard and whiskers.

         The third mummy was provided with a beautifully executed
         portrait on wood which is one of the best examples of ancient
         painting, though not so rare as the other, for ancient
         portraits painted on wood have long been known.--_Biblia_,
         V.P.


         HELIOPOLIS.--M. Philippe, the Cairo dealer in antiquities, is,
         with permission from the Gizeh Museum, carrying on excavations
         at Heliopolis, which have brought to light some tombs of the
         Saïtic period.--_Academy_, Nov. 12.


         KOM-EL-AHMAR.--"At Kom el-Ahmar, opposite El-Qab, I visited two
         recently-discovered tombs, which contain the cartouches of
         Pepi, and are in a fairly perfect condition. The walls are
         covered with delicate paintings in the style of those of
         Beni-Hassan, and explanatory inscriptions are attached to them.
         The early date of the paintings and inscriptions makes them
         particularly interesting. The tombs are still half buried in
         the sand, and only the upper part of the internal decoration is
         visible."--PROF. SAYCE, in _Academy_, April 2.


         MEIR.--The authorities of the Gizeh Museum have, on the
         suggestion of Johnson Pasha, caused excavations to be made at
         Meïr, near Deirut, in Upper Egypt, which have already resulted
         in the discovery of some tombs of the XI dynasty. It is
         intended to continue these excavations.--_Academy_, Nov. 12.

         MEMPHIS.--DISCOVERIES BY M. DE MORGAN.--At a meeting of the
         _Acad. des Inscr._ Prof. Maspero communicated the result of the
         excavations on the site of Memphis by M. de Morgan. He has
         discovered among the ruins of the temple of Ptah a number of
         monuments of importance. First, a large boat of granite,
         similar to that in the museum at Turin, on which the figures
         are destroyed; next, several fragmentary colossi of Rameses II,
         and in particular two gigantic upright figures, dedicated by
         this king, of Ptah, the god of Memphis, enshrouded in
         mummy-wrappings and holding a sceptre in both hands; lastly,
         some isolated figures, arranged in a court or a chamber. The
Page 104 importance of this discovery, said Prof. Maspero, will be
         realised when we bear in mind that we possess no divine image
         of large size, and that the very existence of statues of gods
         in Egyptian temples has sometimes been denied.--_Academy_,
         Sept. 17.


         SEHEL.--THE TENTH DYNASTY.--Prof. Sayce reports that he has
         been finding evidences of the little-known X dynasty in the
         immediate neighborhood of the First Cataract. "Mr. Griffith and
         Prof. Maspero have shown that certain of the tombs at Siût
         belonged to the period when this dynasty ruled in Egypt. I have
         now discovered inscriptions which show that its rule was
         recognized on the frontiers of Nubia.

         "An examination of the position occupied by the numerous
         inscriptions on the granite rocks of the island of Sehêl have
         made it clear to me that we must recognize two periods in the
         history of the sanctuary for which the island was famous.
         During the second period the temple stood on the eastern slope
         of an eminence where I found remains of it two years ago. As I
         also found fragments of it bearing the name of Thothmes III on
         the one hand, and of Ptolemy Philopator on the other, it must
         have existed from the age of the XVII dynasty down to Ptolemaic
         times. Throughout this period the inscriptions left by pious
         pilgrims to the shrine all face the site of the temple. So also
         do a certain number of inscriptions which belong to the age of
         the XII and XIII dynasties. But the majority of the
         inscriptions which belong to the latter age, like the
         inscriptions which are proved by the occurrence of the names of
         Antef and Mentuhotep to be of the time of the _xi_ dynasty,
         face a different way. They look southward.

         "This winter I have come across a large number of inscriptions
         on the mainland side of the channel which look northward, that
         is, towards the island. A few of these inscriptions are of the
         time of the XII dynasty, but the greater number belong to the
         XI dynasty, and one is dated in the forty-first year of
         Ra-neb-kher. It would seem, therefore, that at the epoch when
         they were inscribed on the rocks the sanctuary of Sehêl stood
         either in the middle of the southern channel of the river or
         upon its edge.

         "On the island side of the channel there are a good many
         inscriptions which are shown by the weathering of the
         hieroglyphs to be older than the age of the XI dynasty. Indeed,
         the inscription of an Antef is cut over one of them. They all
         present the same curious forms of hieroglyphic characters, and
         contain for the most part titles and formulæ not met with in
         the later texts. Moreover, they are not dedicated like the
Page 105 later texts to the divine trinity of the Cataract, Khnum,
         Anuke, and Sati, but to a deity whose name is expressed by a
         character resembling an Akhem seated on a basket. Mr. Wilbour
         and I first noticed it last year.

         "One of the early inscriptions contains a cartouche which reads
         Ra-nefer-hepu, the last element being represented by the
         picture of a rudder. Now Mr. Newberry and his companions at
         Beni-Hassan have discovered that one of the groups of tombs
         which exist there is of older date than the time of the XII
         dynasty. In this group of tombs occurs the name of a lady who
         was called Nefer-hepu. She must have been born in the reign of
         Ra-nefer-hepu, and will consequently belong, not to the age of
         the XI dynasty, but to that of one of the dynasties which
         preceded it.

         "That this dynasty was the X is made pretty clear by the
         inscriptions on the mainland side of the channel I have
         described. Here I have found inscriptions of the early sort
         mingled with those of the XI dynasty in such a way as to show
         that they cannot have been widely separated in age. Moreover,
         in one of them, the name of Khatî is associated with that of
         Ra-mer-ab; and Khatî is not only a name which characterises the
         XI dynasty, but it was also the name of the owner of one of the
         tombs at Siût, which Mr. Griffith has proved to belong to the
         time of the X dynasty. We were already acquainted with the name
         of Ra-mer-ab from a scarab; and two years ago Mr. Bouriant
         obtained a bronze vase which gave the double name of Ra-mer-ab
         Kherti. Kherti is a king of the X dynasty. By the side of the
         inscription which contains the name of Ra-mer-ab, I found
         others with the names of Ra-mer-ankh and Ameni. That Ameni was
         a king of the X dynasty has already been suspected.

         "The inscriptions I have copied this winter, therefore, have
         not only given us the names of some kings of the X dynasty, one
         of them previously unknown; they have also shown that the power
         of the dynasty was acknowledged as far south as the Cataract.
         Moreover, they indicate that the government must have passed
         from the X to the XI dynasty in a peaceful and regular manner."


         SHAT-ER-RIGALEH.--Prof. Sayce writes: I have visited the
         famous "Shat er-Rigâleh," the valley a little north of Silsilis
         and the village of El-Hammâni, in which so many monuments of
         the XI dynasty have been discovered by Messrs. Harris,
         Eisenlohr, and Flinders Petrie. To these I have been able to
         add another cartouche, that of Ra-nofer-neb, a king who is
         supposed to belong to the XIV dynasty. His name and titles have
         been carved on the rock at the northern corner of the entrance
         into the valley by a certain Ama, a memorial of whom was found
         by Mr. Petrie in the Wadi itself (_A Season in Egypt_, pl. XV.
         No. 438). Mr. Spicer, whose dahabiyeh accompanied mine,
Page 106 photographed the inscriptions in which Mentuhotep-Ra-neb-kher
         of the XI dynasty is mentioned, as well as the one which
         enumerates the names of three kings of the XVIII dynasty,
         Amenophis I, Thothmes I, and Thothmes II. One of the
         inscriptions of Mentuhotep is dated in the thirty-ninth year of
         the king's reign. The epithet _mâ-kheru_ "deceased" is attached
         only to the cartouche of Amenophis I, not to those of the other
         two kings, proving that they reigned
         contemporaneously.--_Academy_, March 12.


         TEL EL-AMARNA.--EXCAVATIONS BY MR. PETRIE.--Mr. Petrie
         communicates the following report to the _Academy_: "During the
         last four months I have been excavating at this place, the
         capital of Khuenaten. Past times have done their best to leave
         nothing for the present--not even a record. The Egyptians
         carried away the buildings in whole blocks down to the lowest
         foundations, completely smashed the sculptures, and left
         nothing in the houses; and the Museum authorities, and a
         notorious Arab dealer, have cleared away without any record
         what had escaped the other plunderers of this century. I have
         now endeavoured to recover what little remained of the art and
         history of this peculiar site, by careful searching in the
         town. From the tombs I am debarred, although the authorities
         are doing nothing whatever there themselves, and the tomb of
         Khuenaten remains uncleared, with pieces of the sarcophagus and
         vessels thrown indiscriminately in the rubbish outside."

         The region of main interest is the palace; and the only way to
         recover the plan was by baring the ground, and tracing the
         bedding of the stones which are gone. For this I have cleared
         all the site of the buildings, and in course of the work
         several rooms with portions of painted fresco pavements have
         been found. One room which was nearly entire, about 51 by 16
         feet, and two others more injured, have now been entirely
         exposed to view, and protected by a substantial house, well
         lighted, and accessible to visitors, erected by the Public
         Works Department. With the exception of a pavement reported to
         exist at Thebes, these are the only examples of a branch of art
         which must have been familiar in the palaces of Egypt. The
         subjects of these floors are tanks with fish, birds, and lotus;
         groups of calves, plants, birds, and insects; and a border of
         bouquets and dishes. But the main value of these lies in the
         new style of art displayed; the action of the animals, and the
         naturalistic grace of the plants, are unlike any other Egyptian
         work, and are unparalleled even in classical frescoes. Not
         until modern times can such studies from nature be found. Yet
         this was done by Egyptian artists; for where the lotus occurs,
Page 107 the old conventional grouping has constrained the design, and
         the painter could not overstep his education, though handling
         all the other plants with perfect individuality. That
         Babylonian influence was not active, is seen by the utter
         absence of any geometrical ornament; neither rosettes or stars,
         frets or circles, nor any other such elements are seen, and
         perhaps no such large piece of work exists so clear of all but
         natural forms. Some small fragments of sculptured columns show
         that this flowing naturalism was as freely carried out in
         relief as in colour.

         Of the architecture there remain only small pieces flaked off
         the columns. By comparing these the style can be entirely
         recovered; and we see that both the small columns in the
         palace, and those five feet thick in the river frontage, were
         in imitation of bundles of reeds, bound with inscribed bands,
         with leafage on base and on capital, and groups of ducks hung
         up around the neck. A roof over a well in the palace was
         supported by columns of a highly geometrical pattern, with
         spirals and chevrons. In the palace front were also severer
         columns inscribed with scenes, and with capitals imitating
         gigantic jewellery. The surface was encrusted with brilliant
         glazes, and the ridges of stone between the pieces were gilt,
         so that it resembled jewels set in gold. An easy imitation of
         this was by painting the hollows and ridges, and the crossing
         lines of the setting soon look like a net over the capital. We
         are at once reminded of the "net work" on the capitals of
         Solomon, and see in these columns their prototype.

         This taste for inlaying was carried to great lengths on the
         flat walls. The patterns were incrusted with coloured glazes,
         and birds and fishes were painted on whole pieces and let into
         the blocks; hieroglyphs were elaborately carved in hard stones
         and fixed in the hollowed forms, black granite, obsidian, and
         quartzite in white limestone, and alabaster in red granite. The
         many fragments of steles which have come from here already, and
         which I have found, appear to show a custom of placing one
         stele--with the usual adoration of the sun by the king and
         queen--in each of the great halls of the palace and temple.
         These steles are in hard limestone, alabaster, red granite, and
         black granite. I have found more steles on the rocks on both
         sides of the Nile, and have seen in all eight on the eastern
         and three on the western cliffs.

         The history of this site, and of the religious revolutions, is
         somewhat clearer than before. Khuenaten came to the throne as a
         minor; for in his sixth year he had only one child, and in his
         eighth year only two, as we learn from the steles, suggesting
         that he was not married till his fifth year apparently. On his
         marriage he changed his name from Amenhotep IV (which occurs on
Page 108 a papyrus from Gurob in his fifth) to Khuenaten (which we find
         here in the sixth). A scarab which I got last year in Cairo
         shows Amenhotep (with Amen erased subsequently) adoring the
         cartouches of the Aten, settling his identity with Khuenaten.
         In a quarry here is the name of his mother, Queen Thii, without
         any king; so she was probably regent during his minority, and
         started this capital here herself.

         The character of the man, and the real objects of his
         revolution in religion and art, are greatly cleared by our now
         being able to see him as in the flesh. By an inexplicable
         chance, there was lying on the ground, among some stones, a
         plaster cast taken from his face immediately after his death
         for the use of the sculptors of his funeral furniture; with it
         were the spoilt rough blocks of granite _ushabtis_ for his
         tomb. The cast is in almost perfect condition, and we can now
         really study his face, which is full of character. There is no
         trace of passion in it, but a philosophical calm with great
         obstinacy and impracticability. He was no vigorous fanatic, but
         rather a high bred theorist and reformer: not a Cromwell but a
         Mill. An interesting historical study awaits us here from his
         physiognomy and his reforms. No such cast remains of any other
         personage in ancient history.

         According to one view, he was followed successively by four
         kings, Ra saa ka khepru, Tut ankhamen, Ai, and Horemheb, in
         peaceable succession. But of late it has been thought that the
         last three were rival kings at Thebes; and that they upheld
         Amen in rivalry to Khuenaten and his successor, who were cut
         very short in their reigns. Nothing here supports the latter
         view. A great number of moulds for making pottery rings are
         found here in factories; and those of Tut ankhamen are as
         common and as varied as of Khuenaten, showing that he was an
         important ruler here for a considerable time. Of Ai rings are
         occasionally found here, as also of Horemheb, who has left a
         block of sculpture with his cartouche in the temple of Aten. So
         it is certain that he actually upheld the worship of Aten early
         in his reign, and added to the buildings here, far from being a
         destructive rival overthrowing this place from Thebes.
         Afterwards he re-established Amen (as I got a scarab of his in
         Cairo, "establishing the temple of Amen"), and he removed the
         blocks of stone wholesale from here to build with at Thebes.
         Later than Horemheb there is not a trace here; Seti and Ramessu
         are absolutely unknown in this site, showing that it was
         stripped of stone and deserted before the XIX dynasty. Hence,
         about two generations, from 1400 to 1340 B.C., are the extreme
         limits of date for everything found here. The masonry was
         re-used at Thebes, Memphis, and other places where the name of
         Khuenaten has been found.
Page 109
         The manufactures of this place were not extensive--glass and
         glazes were the main industries; and the objects so common at
         Gurob (metal tools, spindles, thread, weights, and marks on the
         pottery) are all rare here. The furnace and the details of
         making the coloured blue and green frits, have been found.
         Pottery moulds for making the pendants of fruits, leaves,
         animals, &c., are abundant in the factories; and a great
         variety of patterned "Phoenician" glass vases are found, but
         only in fragments.

         The cuneiform tablets discovered here were all in store rooms
         outside the palace; they were placed by the house of the
         Babylonian scribe, which was localised by our finding the waste
         pieces of his spoilt tablets in rubbish holes. A large quantity
         of fragments are found of the Aegean pottery, like that of the
         early period at Mykenae and Ialysos. This is completely in
         accord with what I found at Gurob, but with more variety in
         form. The Phoenician pottery which I found at Lachish is also
         found here, so we now have a firm dating for all these styles.
         The connexion between the naturalistic work of these frescoes
         and the fresco of Tiryns and the gold cups of Vaphio is
         obvious; and it seems possible that Greece may have started
         Khuenaten in his new views of style, which he carried out so
         fully by his native artists. The similarity of the geometrical
         pattern columns to the sculptures of the Mykenae period is
         striking; hitherto such Egyptian decoration was only known in
         colour, and not in relief. We have yet a great deal to learn as
         to the influences between Greece and Egypt, but this place has
         helped to open our eyes.--W.M. FLINDERS PETRIE in _Academy_,
         April 9.


         CUNEIFORM TABLETS.--Prof. Sayce while in Egypt spent several
         days at Tel el-Amarna with Mr. Petrie, and examined the
         fragments of cuneiform tablets which he has discovered there.
         Among them are portions of letters from the governors of
         Musikhuna, in Palestine, and Gebal, in Phœnicia. The most
         interesting were some lexical fragments. One or two of these
         formed part of a sort of comparative dictionary of three (or
         perhaps five) different languages, one of them of course being
         Babylonian, in which the words of the other languages are
         explained at length. The work seems to have been compiled by
         "order of the King of Egypt." Another work was a dictionary of
         Sumerian and Babylonian, in which the pronunciation of the
         Sumerian is given as well as their ideographic representation.
         Thus the Babylonian _risápu_ and _di_ _kate_ are stated to be
         the equivalents not only of the ideographic _gaz-gaz_, but also
         of the phonetically written _ga-az-ga-az_. This confirms the
Page 110 views of Professors Sayce and Oppert, expressed long ago, as to
         the comparatively late date at which _Accado-Sumerian_ ceased
         to be a spoken language.--_Academy_, May 14.


         TOMB OF KHUENATEN OR AMENOPHIS IV.--Prof. Sayce writes to the
         _Academy_ of Feb. 27. I have been spending a few days at Tel
         el-Amarna. Mr. Flinders Petrie is excavating the ruins of the
         old city of Khuenaten, while M. Alexandre, on behalf of the
         Gizeh Museum, has spent the summer and autumn among the tombs
         of Tel el-Amarna, and his labours have been rewarded by some
         important discoveries. At the entrance to one of the tombs, for
         instance, he has found stelae of the usual tombstone shape let
         into the wall like the dedication tablets of Greek and Roman
         times. The removal of the sand from the foot of the great stela
         of Khuenaten, first discovered by Prisse d'Avennes, has brought
         to light a most interesting text. This describes the distance
         of the stelae erected by the Pharaoh one from the other, and
         thus defines the limits of the territory belonging to the city
         which he built.

         But M. Alexandre's crowning discovery--a discovery which is one
         of the most important made in Egypt in recent years--did not
         take place until December 30. It was nothing less than the
         discovery of the tomb of Khuenaten himself. The tomb is well
         concealed, and is at a great distance from the river and the
         ruins of the old city. Midway between the northern and the
         southern tombs of Tel el-Amarna, in the amphitheatre of cliffs
         to the east of the ancient town, are two ravines, more than
         three miles from the mouth of one of them, towards the head of
         a small valley is the tomb. It resembles the famous "Tombs of
         the Kings" at Thebes, being in the form of a subterranean
         passage cut in the rock, and sloping downwards at an acute
         angle to a distance of more than 100 metres. In front of the
         entrance is a double flight to steps also cut out of the rock,
         with a slide for the mummy between them. After entering the
         passage of the tomb, which is broad and lofty, we pass on the
         right another long passage, probably intended for the queen,
         but never finished. Soon afterwards we come to a chamber, also
         on the right, which serves as an antechamber to another within.
         The walls of both chambers have been covered with stucco, and
         embellished with hieroglyphs and sculptures. Among the latter
         are figures of prisoners from Ethiopia and Syria, of the solar
         disk, and of female mourners who weep and throw dust on their
         heads. From the inscriptions we learn that the two chambers
         were the burial-place of Khuenaten's daughter Aten-mert, who
         must consequently have died before him. It further follows that
         Ra-si-aa-ka, Aten-mert's husband, who received the titles of
         royalty in consequence of his marriage, must have been coregent
         with Khuenaten.
Page 111
         Khuenaten himself was buried in a large square-columned hall at
         the extreme end of the tomb. Fragments of his granite
         sarcophagus have been found there by M. Alexandre, as well as
         pieces of the exquisitely fine mummy cloth in which his body
         was wrapped. At the entrance to the tomb M. Alexandre also
         picked up broken _ushebtis_, upon which the cartouches of
         Khuenaten are inscribed. Before the Pharaoh had been properly
         entombed it would seem that his enemies broke into his last
         resting-place, destroyed his sarcophagus, tore the wrappings of
         his mummy to shreds, and effaced the name and image of his god
         wherever it was engraved upon the wall. The only finished
         portions of the tomb are the chambers in which his daughter was
         buried. Elsewhere the tomb is in the same condition as the
         majority of the tombs of his adherents. The walls have never
         been covered with stucco, much less painted or sculptured, and
         even the columns of the magnificent hall in which his
         sarcophagus was placed remains rough-hewn. It is clear that the
         king died suddenly, and that he was buried in haste on the
         morning of a revolution. His followers may have made a stand
         against their enemies for a few months, but it is difficult to
         believe from the state in which the tomb has been found that
         they can have done so for a longer time. Very shortly after
         Khuen-Aten's death his city must have been destoyed, never to
         be inhabited again.

         Mr. Petrie in a letter to the _Academy_ says: "It has long been
         known that the Arabs had obtained access to the tomb of the
         remarkable founder of Tel el-Amarna; the heart scarab of
         Khuenaten was sold two or three years ago at Luxor, and the
         jewellery of Neferti-iti, his queen, a year or two before
         that."

         The entrance is like that of the tomb of Seti I at Thebes; but
         the sloping passage is about half the length of
         that.--_Academy_, Feb. 6.


         COLLECTION IN LONDON.--The collections of sculpture, painting,
         faience, &c., which Mr. Flinders Petrie brought back from his
         excavations last winter at Tel el-Amarna have been placed on
         view at 4 Oxford-mansion, Oxford-circus, W. Their special
         interest is that they reveal an hitherto unknown form of art,
         remarkable both for its originality and for its spirited
         rendering of natural objects. The resemblance to some of the
         finest objects of Mycenaean work is very striking. The
         exhibition remained open until October 15.--_Academy_, Sept.
         24.


         ETHIOPIA.

         NORTHERN ETBAI.--EXPEDITION TO THE NORTHERN ETBAI.--A recent
         scientific expedition to northern Etbai or northern Aethiopia,
Page 112 by the order of the Khedive, is the subject of a very
         interesting paper by Ernest A. Floyer, in the _Journal of the
         Royal Asiatic Society_ for October.

         The chief investigation of the expedition was devoted to the
         remains of certain large mining stations which proved to be
         doubly interesting, as giving evidence of two distinct periods
         of the mining industry.

         Mines have been opened over almost the entire surface, and the
         remains of numerous towns mark the dwelling places of the
         miners.

         Not only in the mines is found evidence of two methods, one
         very ancient and another less ancient; but in the settlements
         above were discovered remains of Ptolemaic construction,
         together with the stone huts of a race probably aboriginal, and
         preceding or contemporaneous with but not unknown to the
         ancient Egyptians.

         The Ptolemaic miner seem to have employed the ancient methods
         to a great extent, so that it would seem that there could never
         have been any complete cessation of mining for a very long
         period.

         The miners of Rameses' time, too, used methods of great
         antiquity. In the Wadi Abba stands a rock temple with
         hieroglyphic inscriptions stating that Sethos, father of
         Rameses the Great, had discovered gold mines in this region.
         Golenischeff believes this temple to have been erected by the
         Ptolemies. At the mines of Sighait is an hieroglyphic
         inscription recording the visit of a royal scribe and a mine
         inspector. This is faintly inscribed on the face of a steep
         rock. At the emerald mines of Sikait may be seen a number of
         Greek dedications over rock-cut temples. Near the Wadi Khashat,
         where topazes are found, there stands a square enclosure, the
         platform of a temple, and numerous ruined structures of
         apparent Greek origin. It would appear from these remains that
         the Ptolemies examined all of the ancient mines and reopened a
         certain number--here they erected their temples, houses and
         barracks for slaves, here they constructed high roads for their
         carts and oxen, with caravan service, and post houses built at
         intervals.

         Beside these Ptolemaic ruins are found some traces of the
         prehistoric miners, and in a few cases as at the mines of the
         Um Roos these exist alone. The most important traces are the
         stone huts built of large stones in two lines, and of uniform
         irregularity. In connection with these huts there is not a
         single mark or inscription of any kind which might lead to a
         solution of the problem with regard to their origin.

         Their implements, quantities of which are found at Um Roos were
         as crude as their abodes, in fact the use of some of them
         cannot be determined. The mines, though extensive, are little
         more than burrows, and in a few cases it is not known for what
Page 113 mineral they were excavated. The writer, after dismissing the
         Æthiopians, the Kushites and the ancient Egyptians, as the
         probable pre-Ptolemaic miners, suggests that the Etbai was
         peopled by a negroid tribe of natural miners, the possible
         ancestors of the copper miners in the mountains north of
         Kordofan.

         Near the Wadi Sikait, not far from the temples with Greek
         inscriptions already referred to, is a fine building of
         apparently later date, and supposed by the writer to have been
         a church from its construction, for the mines were worked
         steadily during the third and fourth centuries of the Christian
         era. The structure has no roof over the main portion, but what
         was apparently an apse still retains its roof of long slabs of
         schist. The body is filled with fallen slabs. The walls show a
         side window and several niches, which features suggested a
         Christian church.


         ALGERIA AND TUNISIA.

         M. René de la Blanchère in making, to the _Acad. des
         Inscriptions_, his report on the excavations and discoveries in
         Tunisia and Algeria during 1891, calls attention to the new
         organization of the archæological administration of this
         region. Up to the present time Tunisia and Algeria had separate
         organizations, but the following arrangement has now gone into
         effect: M. de la Blanchère is delegate of Public Instruction
         and Fine Arts, in Algeria and Tunisia, and the mission under
         him is at present composed of Μ. Μ. Doublet, inspector of
         antiquities in the Regency; Pradère, conservator of the Museum
         of Bardo; Wood, attaché at the same museum; Gauckler,
         historical student, and Marye: it is quite distinct from the
         local administrations. Although it supplies the greater number
         of the agents of the Bey's service of antiquities, which it
         created, it has no connection with its administration any more
         than with that of similar organizations in Algeria, such as
         that of historical monuments. Its object is: (1) to keep the
         Committee of Historic works (of Algeria and Tunisia) informed
         of all that happens in Africa in the domain of archæology, to
         transmit to it any documents and to make researches regarding
         necessary work; (2) to carry on three important publications,
         two of which have already been partly published; the
         _Collections du Musée Alaoui, the Musées et collections
         archéologiques de l'Algérie_, and the _Catalogue général des
         musées de l'Afrique française_; (3) to hold itself at the
         disposal of the French ministry and the local authorities for
         any work deemed necessary, excavations, organization of
         museums, enterprises of learned societies, explorations, etc.
         The head of the mission, being a delegate of the ministry, has
Page 114 the right to oversee the Tunisian service of antiquities, and
         has also for both Algeria and Tunisia the permanent inspection
         of libraries and museums.

         By means of this central organization, all the desiderata for
         African archæology are obtained, and the best methods are put
         in practice for excavations, the organization of museums, and
         the publication of antiquities.


         TUNISIA.

         M. de la Blanchère reports that in 1891 the most urgent need in
         Tunisia was the classification of monuments that should be
         preserved. The operation is being carried on under the
         direction of M. Doublet; enquiry was opened in regard to about
         150 monuments, nearly all of great importance, of which 27 are
         already classified. No excavations were undertaken by the
         service of antiquities, its funds being all employed on
         finishing the Bardo museum. It has, however, overseen or
         authorized the following enterprises, the most important of
         which will be found described in their alphabetical order:
         Sfaks; Sousse; Henchir Maatria; Dougga; Teboursouk; Henchir
         Tinah; Maktar.


         CARTHAGE.--M. do Vogüé has communicated to the _Acad. des Ins._
         (March 18) a report on the continuation of Father Delattre's
         excavations at Carthage, which go on giving interesting results
         which will be fully described in a publication by the explorer
         himself. At another point a funerary inscription was found of
         an iron caster. This is the first time the profession is
         mentioned in Carthaginian texts, which had hitherto mentioned
         only gold and bronze casters. Of course there was no casting of
         iron at that time, but only working of the metal.--_Revue
         arch._ 1892, II, p. 254.


         TERRACOTTA MOULDS.--M. Héron de Villefosse communicated to the
         _Acad. des Inscr._ (Nov. 11,) the photographs of seventy-two
         moulds for intaglios, in terracotta, selected from a collection
         of over three hundred which were found in the lower part of
         Carthage, between the hill of St. Louis and the sea. They were
         all executed in antiquity. There are coin, types, a head of
         Herakles, similar to that of some silver coins attributed to
         Jugurtha, the fronting head of Silenus of the coins of Kyzikos,
         the galley of the coins of Sidon, etc., all of the purest Greek
         style. There are also some female heads, recalling Greek
         Sicilian coins; standing figures; an Athena, a Pan, a Hermes
         fastening his heel-pieces, a Marsyas, an amazon, a nude woman
         fastening her sandal, recalling coins of Larissa in Thessaly;
         some of groups, a man overthrown by a lion, a lion devouring a
         horse, a man standing and killing a kneeling woman, an episode
Page 115 of the contest of Achilles and Penthesilea; finally some purely
         Egyptian types, such as scarabs with royal cartouches. This
         collection of moulds was probably made by a manufacturer with
         the purpose of reproducing them.--_Rev. Critique_, 1892, No.
         47.


         CHEMTOU-SIMITHU.--Excavations have been carried on at this site
         by M. Toutain: they were continued, thanks to a subvention from
         the _Acad. des Inscriptions_. In a letter to the Academy dated
         June 16, M. Geffroy gives an account of what had been
         discovered up to date. Nearly the whole of the ancient theatre
         was discovered in a few weeks. In the space occupied by the
         orchestra was a mosaic, with all the shades of Numidian marble,
         nine metres in diameter. These are interesting peculiarities in
         the construction and arrangement of the theatre. It is neither
         adossed to a hill nor completely isolated: the lower part of
         the hemicycle of steps which was completely buried, is well
         preserved. M. Toutain had commenced researches in two necropoli
         of the city hoping to find tombs and epitaphs of the freedmen
         and slaves employed in the neighbouring quarries. He had begun
         the excavation of a large building, perhaps a basilica or a
         curia, which appears to be about 40 metres long.

         In a letter to the _Académie_, dated October 16, M. Toutain
         gives information of further discoveries, principally in the
         theatre and forum. A square was discovered 20 met. wide by 25
         met. long, paved with large slabs of granite of greenish blue
         schist. It is situated in the midst of the ruins of several
         important monuments, notably a temple and a basilica, and is
         certainly the forum of Simithu. It is bounded on the south by a
         monumental exædra whose substructions of cut stone are still in
         place, and whose architectural decoration can be reconstructed
         by means of the bases, fragments, columns, capitals, and pieces
         of cornice which have come to light. Toward the north the forum
         is bounded by two structures separated by a narrow paved
         street.

         A mile-stone found is important, as containing the name of
         Emperor Galerius, and dating from the short period when, after
         the abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus, Hercules,
         Constantius Chlorus, and Galerius were Augusti (May 1, 305, to
         July 25, 306). It has also a topographic interest as belonging
         to the cross-road from _Thuburbo majus_ to Tunis or Carthage,
         passing by Onellana and Uthina. M. Toutain has traced a system
         of bars, basins and cisterns, to supply with rain water a small
         Roman city, whose ruins are now called Bab-Khaled. It would
         appear as if the public buildings of the city were inhabited
         and made over at the Byzantine period.--_Revue critique_ 1892,
         No. 44; _Revue arch._, 1892, II, pp. 260, 266-7; _Chron. des
         arts_ 1892, No. 34.
Page 116

         CHERCHELL.--M. Victor Waille has communicated to the _Acad. des
         Insc._ the first results of excavations on the field of
         manœuvres at Cherchell. Captain Hétet and lieutenant Perrin
         conducted them. Three mosaic pavements were copied: there was
         found a dedicatory inscription to the governor C. Octavius
         Pudens Cæsius Honoratus, and some bronzes, among which were the
         base of a candelabrum and the handle of a chiseled vase,
         decorated with a helmeted bust of Roma, of the Byzantine
         period. The excavations are especially fruitful in small
         objects, pottery, bronzes, coins, etc.--_Chron. des arts_,
         1892, No. 31; _Ami des mon._ 1892, p. 250.


         DOUGGA.--The excavations carried on by MM. Denis and Carton,
         resulted in the clearing of the temple of Saturn; the discovery
         of the dedicatory inscription showing it to have been erected
         for the safety of Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus; the
         finding of a large number of native steles; and the clearing of
         the theatre.


         HADRUMETUM.--A small lead tablet covered on both sides with
         inscriptions, has been found in the Roman necropolis. It is a
         _tabella devotionis_, to be compared with others found at
         Hadrumetum, at Carthage and in Gaul. On one side is a series of
         magic names, accompanied by the figure of a genius with a
         rooster's head, standing in a boat and holding a torch, on the
         other side is an adjuration addressed to a certain _deus
         pelagicus ærius_: infernal maledictions are called down on the
         horses and drivers of the green and white factions of the
         circus. There was a god or genius named Taraxippos, "the scarer
         of horses," as M. Heuzey remarks.--_Rev. arch._ 1892, II, p.
         267.


         MAKTAR.--M. Border exhumed from the mines of the basilica, next
         to the amphitheatre, four fragments of an imperial dedicatory
         inscription, and a most interesting altar bearing a dedication
         in eighteen lines on the occasion of the sacrifice of a bull
         and a ram for the safety of an Emperor, whose name is hammered
         out; M. Doublet conjectures him to have been
         Elagabalus.--_A.d.M._ 1892, p. 109.


         SOUSSE.-In the neo-punic necropolis, on which the camp is
         situated, two entire vases and 28 fragments of vases were
         found, decorated with painted inscriptions. In the Roman
         necropolis, along the Kairwan road, several interesting
         discoveries were made, among them a hypogeum containing several
         frescoes in fair preservation, containing curious figures and
         inscriptions, and also some inscriptions on marble or
         stucco.--_A.d.M._ 1892, p. 109.


         TEBOURSOUK.--MM. Denis and Carton have excavated the megalithic
         necropolis of Teboursouk, whose tombs are stone circles, with
         one or more small dolmens in the centre.--_A.d.M._ 1892, p.
         109.
Page 117

         TUNIS.--Hans von Behrs has contributed to the _Vossische
         Zeitung_ a report on the museum of the Bardo near Tunis. A
         summary of it is given in the _Berlin Philologische
         Wochenschrift_, November 19.


         ALGERIA.

         M. de la Blanchère reports that in Algeria M. Gauckler
         investigated in 1891 the provinces of Algiers and Constantine,
         and spent some time at Cherchell whose antiquities he studied
         and partly published alone or in collaboration with M. de
         Waille. He planned at the same time an excavation. M. Marye was
         charged with the plan for organizing, for the first time, a
         collection of mussulman art, of native industrial art, and of
         Turkish and Arabic monuments.

         The work regarded as most pressing by M. de la Blanchère in
         1891 was the publication of African museums. The first series
         of the _collections du musée Alaoui_ was almost completed: the
         _musées d'Oran_ and _de Constantine_ were in the press,
         following the _musée d'Alger_ published in the preceding year.
         The general catalogue will be drawn up as each establishment is
         definitively organized. The first place belongs to the Bardo
         museum whose catalogue had already been partly compiled by M.
         de la Blanchère. The museum of Oran, under its conservator,
         Demaeght, has been finally organized, and occupies a fine
         building given by the city. It has been enriched by several
         additions, notably the famous inscription of king Masuna. The
         museum of Constantine has received among other things, the
         results of an interesting excavation made at Collo, especially
         some curious vases with female silhouettes. The museum of the
         Bardo can, however, never be rivalled by any of the museums of
         Algeria. The immense palace is already nearly full, although
         the museum in 1891 was but four years old. The large hall is
         full, with its nine large cases; there are about 500 square
         metres of mosaics, 50 statues of large fragments, about 1200
         inscriptions, and a multitude of small objects.


         TIPASA.--The local curate, M. l'Abbé Saint-Gérand, has made
         some important excavations in an early Christian church. He
         found that the altar was placed at the end opposite the apse on
         a kind of platform or _béma_ attached to the wall. Several
         inscriptions were found set into the mosaic pavement. One is
         the epitaph of Alexander, a bishop of Tipasa, another the
         dedication of the construction by him. To this bishop is
         attributed the merit of grouping about the altar the tombs of
         certain "righteous ancients," _justi priores_, by whom are
         undoubtedly meant his predecessors in the Episcopacy.--_Chron.
         des arts_, 1892, No. 14.
Page 118
         Professor Gsell assisted in the excavations above described and
         further details in a communication to the _Académie des
         Inscriptions_. The building mentioned was a funerary chapel
         built to the east of Tipasa by Bishop Alexander to contain the
         tombs of his predecessors. Near by a Christian sarcophagus was
         found with reliefs of Christ giving the law, Moses striking the
         rock and other subjects.

         In the same locality is the basilica of Saint Salsa erected
         over her tomb. Built in the fourth century, it was decorated in
         the middle of the fifth by Potentius, probably a bishop; and
         enlarged in the second half of the sixth. It was still an
         object of veneration in the seventh century.--_Chron. des
         arts_, 1892, No. 28.



         ASIA.


         HINDUSTAN.

         MUHAMMADAN COINS.--Mr. S. Lane-Poole has completed his
         "Catalogue of the Coins of the Mogul Emperors of Hindustan in
         the British Museum," dating from 1525, the invasion of Buber,
         to the establishment of British currency in 1835.

         It describes over 1400 coins, chiefly gold and silver, of this
         splendid coinage. "In his introduction Mr. Lane-Poole deals
         with various historical, geographical, and other problems
         suggested by the coinage, and with difficulties of
         classification presented by the early imitative issues of the
         East India company and the French compagnie des Indes." This
         volume, the fourteenth, completes the cataloguing of all the
         Muhammadan coins in the museum.--_Journal Royal Asiatic
         Society_ 1892, p. 425.


         INDIAN NUMISMATICS.--Mr. Rodgers, Honorary Numismatist to the
         government of India, has finished his "Catalogue of the Coins
         with Persian or Arabic inscriptions in the Lahore museum," and
         practically finished his "Catalogue of the Coins in the
         Calcutta museum." His own immense collection has now been
         purchased by the Punjab government, and he has nearly completed
         his catalogue of that.

         These catalogues will be of very great importance alike for the
         numismatic and for the modern history of India.--_Journ. Royal
         Asiatic Society_, 1892, p. 425.


         NEW VARIETY OF MAURYA INSCRIPTIONS.--Prof. Buhler has made a
         very careful study of impressions of nine votive inscriptions
         from the relic-caskets discovered by Mr. Rea in the ruined
         stupa of Bhattiprolu in the Kistna District (Madras). He has
         made out their contents, and has arrived at the conclusion that
         they are written in a new variety of the Southern Maurya or Làt
Page 119 alphabet. Twenty-three letters of these inscriptions agree
         exactly with those ordinarily used in the edicts of Asoka which
         have long been held to belong to the first attempts of the
         Hindus in the art of writing. Four letters are entirely
         unusual, while the lingual l is introduced, which does not
         occur in Asoka's inscriptions. Further peculiarities are
         presented in the notation of the medial and final vowels. The
         appearance of the letters would indicate that the Bhattiprolu
         inscriptions probably belong to a period only a few decades
         later than that of Asoka's edicts. By a comparison of these
         incriptions with Asoka's edicts, and with the inscriptions of
         Nâuâgleât, Hathegumplia, Bharhut and Triana, it becomes evident
         that they hold an intermediate position between the two sets,
         but are much more nearly related to those of the third century
         B.C. than those of the second. If this be true, the date of the
         Bhattiprolu inscription cannot be placed later than 200 B.C.,
         and the inscriptions themselves prove that several distinct
         varieties of the Southern Maurya alphabet existed during the
         third century, B.C.

         This fact would remove one of the strongest arguments in favor
         of the theory that writing was introduced into India during the
         rule of the Maurya dynasty--_i.e._, the absence of local sorts
         of letters in which the edicts of Asoka were written in places
         widely separated, for this may be explained by a desire to
         imitate as closely as possible the character of the original
         edict.

         If then the Bhattiprolu inscriptions show a system of
         characters radically different from those of Asoka's edicts and
         at the same time in all probability coeval with them a strong
         point is gained for the side of those who are of the opinion
         that the introduction of writing into India took place
         centuries before the accession of the Maurya Dynasty. It is a
         curious fact that of all the anomalous letters in the
         Bhattiprolu alphabet not one bears any trace to the later
         alphabets of India, all the characters of which are derived
         from those of Southern Maurya. The language of these
         inscriptions is a Prakrit dialect and is closely connected with
         the literary Pali.--_Journ. Royal Asiatic Society_, 1892, p.
         602.


         THE INDIAN HELL.--In a number of the _Journal Asiatique_
         (Sept., Oct., '92), M. Léon Feer publishes an article entitled
         "_L'Enfer Indien_," in which he confines himself to the
         Buddhist hells, leaving the Brahmanic hells for another study.
         He avails himself of all previously printed matter and adds new
         material. His object is to group together and classify all the
         ideas on infernal punishments, on the crimes for which they are
         inflicted and their duration. There are separate chapters on:
Page 120 (1) the name and number of hells; (2) the eight large hot
         hells; (3) the attribution of the hells to distinct crimes; (4)
         the small hells. There are many questions in connection with
         them which he leaves unsolved. Then come the cold hells: (1)
         the Chinese hells; (2) Southern hells; (3) the number and names
         of the cold hells (of both north and south); (4) the duration
         of one's dwelling in the various hells; (5) on the
         non-existence of the cold hells; (6) on the period of time
         spent in all the hells, etc. The main conclusions are, that:
         All Buddhists recognize eight burning hells, with ascending
         intensity, surrounded by secondary hells of numbers varying
         from four to sixteen. Beside those there are eight cold hells,
         but only in the North, their names being considered in the
         South as expressing merely the different periods of sojourn in
         the eighth hell. The number of hells is at least 12, at most
         32.


         ARCHÆOLOGICAL SURVEY.--The second volume of the new series of
         the Archaæological Survey of India is devoted to a catalogue of
         the antiquities and inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces
         and Oudh, compiled by Dr. A. Fuhrer. No part of India, not even
         the Panjab, is so crowded with historic spots, associated not
         only with the life and teaching of Buddha, and with the Hindu
         theogony, but also with the Muhammadan conquest. Most of the
         ground has already been worked over by Sir A. Cunningham and
         his assistants; but there are square miles of ruined mounds
         still almost untouched. We continually hear of finds of ancient
         coins made by peasants during the rainy season; but the author
         is careful to point out that what is now wanted is systematic
         exploration, like that of Mr. Petrie in Egypt. The present
         volume is based rather upon printed documents than upon
         original research, though it shows everywhere the traces of
         personal knowledge. Its object is to carry out the orders of
         the Government, by placing on record a catalogue of the
         existing monuments, classified according to their archæological
         importance, their state of repair, and their custody. It is
         arranged in the order of administrative divisions and
         districts; but copious indices enable the student to bring
         together any particular line of investigation.--_Academy_,
         September.


         A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT.--Dr. M. Aurel Stein, principal of the
         Oriental College at Lahore, has now ready for publication the
         first volume of his critical edition of the Rajatarangini, or
         Chronicles of the Kings of Kashmir, upon which he has been
         engaged for some years. This work, which was written by the
         poet Kalhana in the middle of the twelfth century, is of
         special interest as being almost the sole example of historical
         literature in Sanskrit. Hitherto it has only been known

Page 121 (Missing in the source document.)

Page 122 (Missing in the source document.)

Page 123
         Near the stûpa is the site of the ancient village and fort;
         long ridges of earth, in form of a square, mark the position of
         the walls; within these, various articles have been turned up,
         large bricks, broken sepulchral urns and grain jars, together
         with beads of various material and Buddhist lead coins, both
         round and square; they bear the lion and the dugoba, emblems of
         the Andhra dynasty. The inscriptions of some are preserved.


         II. GHANTASALA.--At Ghantasala is a mound 112 feet in diameter
         and 23 feet in height; the excavations here disclosed the
         remains of a stûpa from which the complete plan was determined.
         In the centre is a solid cube of brick work 10 feet square,
         enclosed in a chamber 19 feet square with walls over 3 feet in
         thickness; outside this is a circular wall 3 ft. 6 inches
         thick, 55 feet 10 inches in diameter, this is enclosed in
         another circular brick wall 18 feet 3 inches thick, with a
         diameter of 111 feet; this was the main outer wall of the
         structure, the exterior surface bore a _chunam_ facing. About
         the base is a raised procession path 5 feet 7 in. broad, and 4
         feet 6 in. high, a projection is found at each of the cardinal
         points. The inmost squares are connected by walls 2 feet 4 in.
         thick, running parallel to these sides from the centre and
         corners, the cells formed by the intersections of these walls
         are packed with mud.

         The fact that the main walls, _i.e._, those of the squares and
         circles, are thicker than the others may indicate that they
         were carried up to form stories, or they may have been simply
         to strengthen the dome, if the exterior wall was carried up in
         that form. Further excavations in the mound discovered a marble
         slab carved with the Supada, a piece of a carved top rail panel
         and a number of carved slabs.

         When the brick work was excavated a well 6 inches square filled
         with earth was found under 3 feet of solid brick work. Among
         the debris, at the top, were found pieces of a broken _chatti_,
         and a number of small articles, beads and a coin, which it had
         probably contained. Just below these was a _chatti_ of red
         earthenware, 4-1/2 in. in diameter, with a semi-circular lid,
         filled with black earth. Within this was a glazed _chatti_
         2-1/4 in. in diameter, and 1-3/4 in. in height. It contained
         numerous leads, bits of bone, small pearls, bits of gold leaf
         and small pieces of mineral.

         A number of marble sculptures have been removed from the stûpa
         of Ghantasala, and are now in the village. Among them are
         several pieces carved with lotus flowers, and other ornaments
         and inscriptions, square and circular moulded vases, a circular
         base carved with horses, elephants and other animals, an
         umbrella, a panel with rail and figures, and two carved slabs.
Page 124 Other remains found in and near Ghantasala are an "ancient
         brass _dipa_, with a Telugu inscription and a small brass image
         of Siva" now in the temple, a "small _chakra_ and a _trisula_,
         each with pillar base." Brick walls and brick debris are found
         all about the neighborhood, but so demolished as to make it
         impossible to determine what the buildings were.


         III. BHATTIPROLU.--On the report in the stûpa of Bhattiprolu, a
         former letter is referred to in which an account is given of
         certain inscribed caskets, and other relics found in the centre
         of the dome some time before. The reports continue with the
         account of further excavations by means of trenches. Those
         about the exterior discovered an unbroken procession path at
         the small east quadrant, the face of the dome too at this point
         is intact to a height of over 5 ft. In the trenches at the
         north side there was found two pieces of a marble umbrella,
         having a curve of a radius of 1 foot 6 in., a small piece of a
         pilaster base from a slab, a pilaster capital with horses and
         riders, and the half of what had been a large slab carved with
         the lower portion of a draped figure.

         At some distance from the basement, or procession path, the
         remains of six marble bases of the rail were found standing in
         position--they are 1 ft. 11., by 12 in., by 1 ft. 10 in., in
         height, spaced by a distance of 1 ft. 7 in. in each, they are
         sunk 1 ft. 6 in. below the brick floor, and rest on a broad
         marble slab.

         A large number of ancient sites and mounds were examined in the
         neighborhood of Repalle. At _Anantaiarum, Buddhâní, Chandavôlu_
         and _Puapuâ_. Considerable surface has been excavated for
         various purposes; the earth, a kind of black mud, is found to
         be thickly mixed with broken pottery and bones of animals;
         occasionally a pillar or other building stone is turned up. At
         Môrakûru, copper, lead and rarely gold and silver coins are
         found mixed with the broken pottery.

         At _Krudarnudi, Maudura, Mûlpûrn_ and _Periarli_, mounds were
         examined, the earth was found to consist of black mud mixed
         with pottery and ashes. The mounds differ only in extent, and
         portions of several have been removed.


         BHATTIPROLU.--A BUDDHIST STUPA.--Mr. Rea during last season
         examined the remains of a stûpa at Bhattiprolu in the Kistna
         district, the marble casing of which had been used by the Canal
         engineers; and in it he has made discoveries of very
         considerable interest.

         He found the stûpa had been a solid brick building 132 feet in
         diameter, surrounded by a procession path about eight feet
         wide. It must thus have been of very nearly the dimensions of
         the Amarāvati stûpa. Fragments or chips only of the outer
Page 125 casing of marble were found in the area he excavated. When the
         dome and portions of the drum had been previously demolished
         for the materials, inside the dome there was found "a casket
         made of six small slabs of stone dove-tailed into one another,
         measuring about 2-1/2 feet by 1-1/2 by 1 foot; inside this was
         a clay _chatti_ containing a neat soap-stone casket, which
         enclosed a crystal phial. In this latter was a pearl, a few
         little bits of gold leaf, and some ashes." Mr. Rea considered
         that there might still be another deposit of relics; and having
         discovered the centre of the original brickwork, he found there
         a shaft or well 9-1/2 inches in diameter filled with earth,
         which went down about 15 feet. Following this he found at one
         side near the bottom a stone box about 11 inches by 8 and 5
         inches deep, with an inscription round the upper lip. Inside
         was a small globular blackstone relic casket, two small
         hemipsherical metal cups a little over an inch in diameter,
         with a gold bead on the apex of one, and the bead (fallen out)
         of the other; another small bead, two double pearls, also four
         gold lotus flowers 1.2 inch in diameter, two _trisulas_ in thin
         plates 1.2 by 1 inch, seven triangular bits of gold, a single
         and a double gold bead--the weight of these gold articles being
         about 148 grains. There was also a hexagonal crystal 2.56
         inches long by 0.88 inch in diameter, pierced along the axis,
         and with an inscription lightly traced on the sides. The stone
         relic casket measures 4-1/2 inches each way, the lid fitting on
         with a groove, and it contained a cylindric crystal phial 2-1/2
         inches in diameter and 1-1/4 inches high, moulded on the sides
         and flat on top and bottom; the lid fitted in the same way as
         that of the casket. Inside was a flattish piece of
         bone--possibly of the skull--and under the phial were nine
         small lotus flowers in gold leaf; six gold beads and eight
         small ones; four small lotus flowers of thin copper; nineteen
         small pierced pearls; one bluish crystal bead; and twenty-four
         small coins in a light coloured metal, possibly brass, smooth
         on one side and with lotus flowers, _trisulas_, feet, &c., on
         the obverse. These had been arranged on the bottom and attached
         in the form of a _svastika_.

         Two and a half feet below this was a second deposit on the
         opposite or north side of the shaft. The central area of the
         cover, in this case, has an inscription in nineteen lines with
         two lines round it--the letters being filled in with white. In
         the lower stone was a receptacle 6-1/4 inches deep, by 7-1/2 in
         diameter, having a raised rim 1-1/2 inches broad, bearing
         another inscription of two lines on the upper surface--the
         letters also filled in with lime. The cavity was nearly filled
         with earth, and contained a phial 1-5/8 inches in diameter and
         2-3/4 inches high, with a lid moulded like a _dagoba_. The
Page 126 phial and lid were lying separate, and there was no sign of a
         relic. Mixed with the earth were 164 lotus leaves and buds, two
         circular flowers, a trisula and a three-armed figure like a
         _svastika_, all in gold leaf, two gold stems for lotus flowers,
         six gold beads, and a small gold ring--weighing, collectively,
         about 310 grains; also two pearls, a garnet, six coral beads, a
         bluish, flat, oval bead, a white crystal bead, two greenish,
         flat, six-sided crystal drops, a number of bits of corroded
         copper leaf in the shape of lotus flowers, a minute umbrella,
         and some folded pieces about 2 inches by 1-3/8, showing traces
         of letters or symbols pricked upon them with a metal point, but
         too corroded to permit of unfolding or decipherment.

         Next, at a slightly lower level on the east side of the shaft,
         he came upon a third black stone cover, with an inscription of
         eight lines cut on the under surface in a sunk, circular area
         in the centre. The lower stone again bears an inscription round
         the rim of the cavity in one line--the letters being whitened.
         The receptacle was 5-3/4 inches deep, 7-1/2 wide at the top,
         and 5 at the bottom. It was also nearly filled with earth, and
         contained a crystal phial similar to that in the second, the
         lid lying apart; but close to it was the relic casket, perhaps
         of chrysolite, less than half an inch each way by
         three-eighths, in which is drilled a circular hole 0.28 inch in
         diameter, closed by a small, white crystal stopper with
         hexagonal top. The neck is covered with gold leaf, and a sheet
         of the same was fixed outside to the bottom. This unique casket
         contains three small pieces of bone. With it were found a
         bluish bead 5/8 inch long, a smaller one, and one of yellow
         crystal, a small hexagonal crystal drop, slightly yellowish in
         colour, a flat one of white crystal, a bone bead, six pearls,
         thirty-two seed pearls--all pierced, thirty lotus flowers, a
         quatrefoil, and a small figure of gold leaf.

         The alphabet of the inscriptions presents features of peculiar
         interest, which I leave to be discussed by Prof. Bühler.--Jas.
         Burgess in _Acad._ May 21.

         Ν.Β.--Further details are given under the headings "_New
         variety of Maurya inscriptions_", and also under "_Buddhist
         Stupas in the Kistna district._"


         GAUΗATI.--ASSAM.--Mr. Joseph Chunder Dutt has reprinted from
         the _Indian Nation_ (Calcutta) an account of an archægeological
         visit to Gauhati, the ancient capital of Assam. The temples,
         &c., he describes mostly date only from the eighteenth century,
         as is shown by the inscriptions which he is careful to quote.
         There are, however, many ruins of older buildings and fragments
         of sculpture, which would perhaps repay more detailed
         examination. The destruction of some of these is due to the
         misdirected activity of British engineers.--_Academy_, Feb. 6.
Page 127

         PANJAB.--REMAINS OF ANCIENT BUDDHIST TEMPLES.--The _Journal of
         the Royal Asiatic Society_ for October, 1892, contains a note
         in "Ancient remains of Temples on the Bannu Frontier," an
         unfrequented part of the Panjab. The ruins of two temples stand
         on a hillock rising from the Indus. The tradition with regard
         to them is that the Paridwas retired here to spend twelve years
         of exile after being defeated by the Kerwá. A short distance
         from these ruins is the site of a third temple now completely
         demolished. This temple was completely demolished. This temple
         was built of bricks of light pressed (?) clay about 12x9x3
         inches in size. On breaking some of the bricks they were found
         to bear distinctly the impression of tree leaves, and brought
         under the influence of a petrifying spring which exists not far
         from the spot.

         The remains are undoubtedly of great antiquity, and appears to
         have been Buddhist temples of the tall, conical kind. Their
         Buddhistic origin is made certain by the eight-leafed lotus
         ornaments which characterize the carvings.


         THIBET.

         Mr. Rockhill, who made himself so well-known by his first
         expedition to Thibet, is at present engaged in a second
         journey, in the hope of this time reaching the capital Lhassa.

         The Duke of Orleans and his companion have already published
         the results of their journey undertaken shortly after Mr.
         Rockhill's first.


         CHINA.

         THE GAME OF WEI-CHI.--At a meeting in Shanghai of the Chinese
         Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, M. Volpicelli read a paper
         on "The Game of Wei-Chi," the greatest game of the Chinese,
         especially with the literary class and ranked by them superior
         to chess. Like chess, this game is of a general military and
         mathematical character, but is on a much more extensive scale,
         the board containing 361 places and employing nearly 200 men on
         a side. All of the men, however, have the same value and
         powers.

         The object is to command as many places on the board as
         possible--this may be done by enclosing empty spaces or by
         surrounding the enemy's men. Very close calculation is always
         essential in order that a loss in one region may be met by
         gains in another, thus employing skillful strategy when the
         contestants are evenly matched. The game has come down from
         great antiquity, being first mentioned in Chinese writings
Page 128 about B.C. 625. It was in all probability introduced by the
         Babylonian astronomers who were at that time the instructors of
         all the East.--_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1892, p.
         421.


         CENTRAL ASIA.


         EXPEDITION OF M. DUTREUIL DE RHINS.--The _Académie des
         Inscriptions_ sent M. Dutreuil de Rhins some time since on an
         archæological expedition to Further Asia. Beside the income of
         the Gamier fund previously accorded to him for the purpose, it
         has accorded him a grant of 30,000 francs. The last news from
         him was a report.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 22.


         THE ORKHON INSCRIPTIONS.--We quote from the _Times_ the
         following report of two papers read before the Oriental
         Congress, in the section of China and the Far East:

         "A paper was contributed by Mr. E. Delmar Morgan on 'The
         Results of the Russian Archæological Researches in the Basin of
         the Orkhon in Mongolia.' Mr. Morgan drew attention to a
         splendid atlas of plates presented to the Congress by Dr.
         Radlof, of St. Petersburg, containing photographs and
         facsimiles of inscriptions copied by the members of the
         archæological expedition sent by the Imperial Academy of
         Sciences to investigate the ruins on the Orkhon. These ruins
         comprise (1) the remains of an ancient Uighur town west of the
         Orkhon, (2) the ruins of a Mongol palace to the east of that
         river, and a large granite monument shattered into pieces.
         Excavations were also made of the burial places of the Khans of
         the Tukiu or Turks inhabiting this part of Asia previously to
         the Uighurs, who drove them out. The earliest inscription dates
         from 732 A.D.., and refers to a brother of the Khan of the
         Tukiu mentioned in Chinese history. Additional interest
         attaches to these inscriptions owing to the fact that some of
         the characters are identical with those discovered on the
         Yenissei. The expedition to which the paper referred visited
         the monastery of Erdenitsu, and found there a number of stones
         with inscriptions in Mongol, Tibetan, and Persian, brought from
         the ruins of a town not far off. These ruins have been
         identified with Karakoram, the capital city of the first Khans
         of the dynasty of Jenghiz Khan.

         "Prof. Donner wished to present to the Congress a publication
         by the Société Finno-Ougrienne at Helsingfors, containing
         inscriptions from the valley of the Orkhon, brought home by the
         Finnish Expedition in 1890. There are three large monuments,
         the first erected 732 A.D.., by the order of the Chinese
         Emperor in honour of Kiuèh-Jeghin, younger brother of the Khan
Page 129 of the Tukiu (Turks). On the west side it has an inscription in
         Chinese, speaking of the relations between the Tukiu and
         Chinese. The Tartar historian, Ye-lu-chi, of the thirteenth
         century, saw it and gave some phrases from the front of it. On
         all the other sides is a long inscription of 70 lines in runic
         characters, which cannot be a mere translation of the Chinese
         because it numbers about 1400 words, while the Chinese
         inscription contains only about 800. The other monument has
         also a Chinese inscription on one side, but greatly effaced. On
         the other sides are runic inscriptions in 77 lines at least.
         This monument was erected, by order of the Chinese Emperor, in
         honour of Mekilikn (Moguilen), Khan of the Tukiu, who died 733
         A.D.. About two-thirds of its runic inscription nearly line for
         line contains the same as the first monument, a circumstance of
         importance for the true reading of the text. The third
         monument, which has been the largest one, was destroyed by
         lightning and shattered into about fifty fragments. It is
         trilingual--viz., Chinese, Uighur, and runic or Yenissei
         characters. On comparing the texts they are found to contain
         many identical words and forms, proving that the languages were
         nearly identical. M. Devéria thinks that this is the memorial
         stone which the Uighur Khan, 784 A.D.., placed at the gateway
         of his palace to record the benefits the Uighurs had done to
         the Chinese Empire. Concerning the characters of these
         inscriptions they show small modifications. The tomb
         inscriptions at Yenissei seem to be the more original; some
         characters have been altered in the Tukiu alphabet and also in
         the third monument, representing in that way the three several
         nations--the Tukiu, the Uighurs, who followed them, and the
         Hakas, or Khirgiz, at Yenissei. A comparison of the characters
         themselves with the alphabets in Asia Minor shows that about
         three-fourths of them are identical with the characters of the
         Ionian, Phrygian, and Syrian [?]. The other part has
         resemblances with the graphic systems of India and Central
         Asia. We can now expect that the deciphering of these
         interesting inscriptions will soon give us reliable specimens
         of the oldest Turk dialects."--_Academy_, Sept. 17.


         SIMFEROPOL.--At Simferopol Prof. Messelowski has made the most
         interesting discovery of a Scythian warrior's grave, dating
         probably from about the second or third century. The skeleton
         lay on its back facing the east, on the head was a cap with
         gold ornaments, and little gold plates were also fixed to
         portions of the dress. Near the head stood two amphoræ and a
         leathern quiver containing copper-headed arrows. At the feet
         were the bones of an ox, an iron knife, four amphoraæ and some
         lances--these were in a very rusty condition. The quiver had a
Page 130 fine gold-chased ornament upon it representing a flying eagle
         gripping in its talons a small animal. It is admirably worked.
         The skeleton itself fell to pieces immediately.--_Biblia_,
         Oct., 1892.


         SEMITIC EPIGRAPHY AND ANTIQUITIES.--M. Clermont-Ganneau has
         published in the _Journal Asiatique_ for 1892, No. 1, a series
         of the discoveries and investigations made in Semitic epigraphy
         and antiquities during the year 1891. It is the address by
         which he opened his course at the Collège de France. He
         commences with Phœnicia and notices besides such discoveries as
         are reported in the Journal, such books as Goblet d'Aviella's
         _La migration des symboles_, which is a comparative study of
         Oriental art symbols, and Ph. Berger's _Histoire de l'écriture
         dans l'antiquité_, which treats especially of the development
         of the Phœnician alphabet. As an original supplement he
         describes some antiquities recently sent to him, which had been
         found in the necropolis of Sidon, _e.g._, a terracotta head of
         Egyptian style; a smaller head of Cypriote style; a statuette
         of Bes; two gold ear-rings; bottom of a Greek vase with a
         Phœnician inscription; piece of a diorite scarcophagus cover of
         Egyptian origin, probably that of a king of Sidon. Another
         complete anthropoid sarcophagus from the same site at Sidon has
         been sent to Constantinople. Still another sarcophagus of this
         type has been found in Spain, at Cadiz, the ancient Gades. Its
         importance is incalculable, as it proves for the first time the
         passing of the Phœnicians to Spain. Mr. Clermont-Ganneau then
         takes up Aramean antiquities and inscriptions, especially those
         of Palmyra. Among them are a number secured by the writer
         himself; they are three fine monumental funerary inscriptions
         and six funerary busts of men and women, two of which are
         finely executed and remarkably well preserved; all are
         inscribed and several are dated. He notices the publication of
         the valuable _Journal d'un voyage en Arabie_ (1883-1884) by
         Charles Huber, in which the five note-books of the traveller
         are reproduced. It will be remembered that he was treacherously
         murdered during his journey. Dr. Euting in his _Sinaïtische
         Inschriften_ publishes 67 inscriptions copied by him in the
         Sinaitic peninsula. His readings are very careful and accurate.
         Three of the texts are dated and are important in view of the
         controversy as to the age of all these inscriptions.

         Palestine and Hebrew antiquities are very fully treated. M.
         Clement-Ganneau reads the famous Lachish inscription ךסהל = _ad
         libandum_; he calls attention to hematite weight with an early
         inscription found at Sebaste; mentions the vandalism
         perpetrated in cutting away the famous Pool of Siloam
         inscription, _etc._ He notes the importance of the discovery by
         MM. Lees and Hanauer in the subterranean structures at
Page 131 Jerusalem called "Solomon's Stables," of the spring of an
         immense ancient arch, analogous to Robinson's arch. It
         introduces quite a new element in the complicated problem of
         the Jewish Temple. Mr. Wrightson, an English engineer,
         concludes that the two arches or bridges formed part of a
         continuous system of parallel arches which occupied, between
         the two east and west walls, the sub-structure of the entire
         southern part of the esplanade of the temple. Mr. Schick's
         investigations are carefully noticed. Finally praise is given
         to the new publication of the Abbé Vigouroux, _Dictionnaire de
         la Bible_.


         ARABIA.

         A HISTORY OF YEMEN.--The British Museum acquired in 1886 the
         MS. of Omârah's 'History of Yemen,' a work of which it was long
         feared that no copy was at the present day in existence.
         Omârah's 'History' extends over a period of about three hundred
         and fifty years. It commences with the foundation of the city
         and principality of Zabid in the ninth century, and extends
         down to the eve of the conquest by the Ayyûbites in the
         twelfth. Mr. Henry C. Kay, a member of the Council of the Royal
         Asiatic Society, has prepared the MS. for publication, together
         with an English translation, notes and indices. The volume also
         contains, besides other similar matter, an account and
         genealogical list of the Imāms of Yemen, down to the thirteenth
         century, derived from the Zeydite MSS. recently added to the
         British Museum library.--_Athenæum_.

         COINS OF THE BENU RASOOL DYNASTY OF SULTANS.--Out of the
         fourteen sovereigns who composed the Benu Rasool dynasty, we
         are in possession of the coins of only eight, and these the
         first eight; their inscriptions are in Arabic, and it is by no
         means easy to decipher all of them. The mints of these are:
         Aden, Zebîd, El-Mahdjâm, Thabat, Sana and Taiz, and each is
         characterized by a particular figure, a fish for Aden, a bird
         for Zebîd, a lion for El-Mahdjâm, and other symbols. There are
         also noticed several coins struck by rebels under the Benu
         Rasool dynasty.--_Revue Numismatique_, III s. tom. 10, III
         trim. 1892, p. 350.


         BABYLONIA.

         A BAS-RELIEF OF NARAM-SIN.--At a meeting of the _Acad. des
         Inscriptions_ M. Maspero exhibited a photograph of a Chaldean
         bas-relief from Constantinople. It was erected by, and bears
         the name of King Naram-sin, who reigned over Babylonia about
         3800 B.C. Though much mutilated, what remains shows workmanship
         of a refined kind. It represents a human figure standing,
Page 132 clothed (as on the most ancient cylinders) with a robe that
         passes under one arm and over the shoulder, and wearing a
         conical head-piece flanked with horns. The general appearance
         strikingly recalls Egyptian monuments of the same date. The
         relief is extremely low, the lines clear, but not stiff. There
         is no muscular exaggeration as is often the case in the
         cylinders. Naram-sin, like his father, Sargon I, has left the
         reputation (perhaps legendary) of a great conqueror; a campaign
         against Magan is attributed to him. M. Maspero was disposed to
         explain the style of the bas-relief by the Egyptian influence.
         It differs widely from the sculptures of Telloh, which are less
         refined and artistically advanced. But these, though of later
         date, come from a provincial town, not from a capital. M.
         Menant mentioned that the collection of M. de Clerq contains a
         cylinder, also of remarkable workmanahip, with an inscription
         with characters of the same style as those on the bas-relief in
         question; but it bears the name of Sargani, king of Agyadi, who
         is several generations earlier than Sargon I. Both of these are
         examples of an art which was never surpassed in
         Chaldea.--_Academy_, Oct. 15; _Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 33.


         TELLOH.--BABYLONIAN SCULPTURE--The later excavations of M. de
         Sarzec at Telloh, in so far as they concern sculpture, are
         treated by M. Heuzey in some communications to the _Acad. des
         Inscriptions_. M. de Sarzec has reconstructed from some
         fragments a series of reliefs relating to King Ur-Nina, the
         ancestor of King E-anna-du, who is commemorated in the _stele
         of the vultures_. The sculptures of Ur-Nina are of rude and
         primitive workmanship and belong to the earliest period of
         Babylonian sculpture. The king is represented more than once,
         either carrying on his head the sacred basket, or seated and
         raising in his hand the drinking-horn. Around him are ranged
         his children and servants, all with their names inscribed upon
         the drapery. Among them is A-kur-gal, who is to succeed his
         father, replacing another prince, his older brother. The
         reunion of these fragments has given us an historic and
         archæological document of the highest antiquity.--_Revue
         Critique_, 1892, No. 44.

         At a meeting of the _Acad. des Inscr._ M. Heuzey read a paper
         upon the "Stèle des Vautours." M. de Sarzec has been able to
         find and piece together several additional fragments, from
         which it appears that the name of the person who set up the
         pillar was E-anna-du, king of Sirpula, son of A-kur-gal, and
         grandson of King of Ur-Nina. He is represented in front of his
         warriors, beating down his enemies, sometimes on foot,
         sometimes in a chariot, of which only a trace remains. The
Page 133 details of the armor resemble in some respects that of the
         Assyrians of a much later date. From what can be read of the
         inscription, it seems that the conquered enemies belonged to
         the country of Is-ban-ki. There is also mention of a city of
         Ur, allied with Sirpula. The pillar was sculptured on both
         faces. On the reverse is a royal or divine figure, of large
         size, holding in one hand the heraldic design of Sirpula (an
         eagle with the head of a lion), while the other brandishes a
         war-club over a crowd of prisoners, who are tumbling one over
         another in a sort of net or cage. In illustration of this
         scene, M. Heuzey quoted the passage from Habakkuk (i. 15),
         describing the vengeance of the Chaldeans: "They catch them in
         their net and gather them in their drag."--_Academy_, Sept. 3.


         THE BABYLONIAN STANDARD WEIGHT.--Prof. Sayce writes: "Mr.
         Greville Chester has become the possessor of a very remarkable
         relic of antiquity, discovered in Babylonia, probably on the
         site of Babylon. It is a large weight of hard green stone,
         highly polished, and of a cone-like form. The picture of an
         altar has been engraved upon it, and down one side runs a
         cuneiform inscription of ten lines. They read as follows:

         "One maneh standard weight, the property of Merodach-sar-ilani,
         a duplicate of the weight which Nebuchadrezzar, king of
         Babylon, the son of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, made in
         exact accordance with the weight prescribed by the deified
         Dungi, a former king."

         The historical importance of the inscription is obvious at the
         first glance. Dungi was the son and successor of Ur-Bagas, and
         his date may be roughly assigned to about 3000 B.C. It would
         appear that he had fixed the standard of weight in Babylonia;
         and the actual weight made by him in accordance with this
         standard seems to have been preserved down to the time of
         Nebuchadrezzar, who caused a duplicate of it to be made. The
         duplicate again became the standard by which all other weights
         in the country had to be tested.

         The fact that Dungi is called "the deified" is not surprising.
         We know of other early kings of Chaldaea who were similarly
         raised to the rank of gods. One of them prefixes the title of
         "divine" to his own bricks; another, Naram-Sin, the son of
         Sargon, of Accad, is called "a god" on the seal of an
         individual who describes himself as his "worshipper. It is
         possible that in this cult of certain Babylonian kings we have
         an evidence of early intercourse with Egypt."--_Academy_, Dec.
         19.


         CATALOGUE OF BRITISH MUSEUM TABLETS.--Stored in the British
         Museum are some 50,000 inscribed pieces of terracotta or
         clay-tablets, forming the libraries of Assyria and Babylonia.
Page 134 The great impetus given to cuneiform studies has made it
         necessary that the tablets should be catalogued, and the
         trustees have now issued a descriptive catalogue of some 8,000
         inscribed tablets. The inscriptions in question come from the
         Kuyuryik Mound, at Nineveh. The tablets embrace every class of
         literature, historical documents, hymns, prayers and
         educational works, such as syllabaries or spelling-books, and
         dictionaries. The catalogues, of which the second is just
         issued, are prepared by Dr. Bezold.--_Biblia_, Sept., 1892.


         ASHNUNNAK.--M. Pognon, French Consul at Bagdad, has announced
         to the _Acad. des Inscriptions_ that he has discovered the
         exact location of the region called anciently the land of
         Ashnunnak. He declares that he is not yet ready to announce his
         discovery more exactly, but publishes several bricks with the
         names and titles of several princes of Ashnunnak hitherto
         unknown. These are Ibalpil, Amil and Nulaku.


         PERSIA.

         M. de MORGAN'S RESEARCHES IN PERSIA AND LURISTAN.--In a
         communication to the _Acad. des Inscr._ M. de Morgan gives a
         report upon his mission in Persia and Luristan, of which the
         following are a few extracts. "In the valley of the Lar, I made
         a study of the subterranean habitations excavated in the rock
         and made a plan of the very ancient castle, Molla-Kölo, which
         once defended the pass of Vahné. Finally, in the ravine called
         _Ab-é-pardöma_, I discovered in the alluvion some stone
         instruments presenting very ancient paleolithic characters. At
         Amol, I studied the ruins of the ancient city and gathered some
         interesting collections containing quite a number of pieces of
         pottery and some bronzes of the xiv century."..... "Near
         Asterabad there is a mound called _Khaighruch-tépè_. I
         attempted to make some excavations of this point; unfortunately
         my work here was arrested by order of the Persian government
         just when, after twenty days of working with sixty laborers, I
         had reached a depth of 11½ meters. In this excavation I found
         some human bones, some pottery, some whorls and some thin
         objects composed of bronze much decomposed; all in the midst of
         ashes and cooking-debris. At the bottom was a skeleton
         stretched upon a very regular bed of pebbles, and I am of the
         opinion that _Khaighruch-tépè_ was primitively raised as a tomb
         and afterwards served for the construction of a village, the
         successive ruins of which coming to increase the importance of
         the mound. At a depth of 11½ meters I found more cinders and
         debris, indicating that I had not yet come to the level of the
         earliest works.".... "The _tépès_ are near together in the
Page 135 eastern part of the Mazanderan and in the Turkoman steppe; but
         in the Lenkoran, the Ghilan and the western Mazanderan they are
         entirely wanting. It is concluded from this observation that
         the people who built here were not aborigines of the north of
         Persia, but that their migration moreover has left traces on
         the right and on the left of the Caspian. The Scythians of
         Herodotus present a very satisfactory solution for the problem
         of the Caspian _tépès_".... "From an archaeological point of
         view the Lenkoran was absolutely virgin soil and the finding of
         the first tomb was not an easy task. Finally, after long and
         minute research in the forests, I discovered the necropolis of
         Kravelady, composed of dolmens almost completely despoiled, but
         in sufficiently good condition to permit me to organize the
         natives in research for burial places of the same sort. I at
         first encountered much repugnance on the part of the
         inhabitants to excavate the tombs; finally, with some money and
         very long explanations, I brought them to terms and, thanks to
         my tomb-hunters, I found and excavated the necropoli of Horil,
         Beri, Djon, Tülü, Mistaïl, Hiveri, _etc._ These tombs present,
         according to their age, very different characteristics; the
         most ancient and at the same time the largest, contain rude
         arms of bronze. Those of the period following show the bronze
         well worked, iron, gold and silver being employed as jewels.
         Although we saw iron in very small quantities in the tombs of
         the second period, it is not until the third that it appears as
         the material of arms; at the same time, the jewels take the
         forms of animals, which change, as I have shown in the case of
         Russian Armenia in my preceding mission, indicates the
         appearance of a strange tribe possessed of special arts. During
         the last epoch all the arms are of iron. The pottery found in
         the tombs is glazed.

         "As to the form of the monuments, it is very variable at
         different ages; there are some covered passages or chambers
         completely closed, some dolmens with openings like those of
         India. At the very time when my excavations were attaining
         their greatest importance I was compelled to discontinue them
         by order of the Russian administration and was obliged to leave
         the country, having only made a beginning in archaeology. An
         _ukase_ of the Czar reserves the excavations in all his great
         empire for the Archæological Society of St. Petersburg. But
         this interdict did not arrive until after I had excavated about
         two hundred and twenty tombs, so that we now possess more than
         fifteen hundred objects, vases, arms, trinkets of gold, bronze,
         silver, _etc._

         "At Moukri, thanks to the kindness of a Kurd chief, I was
         enabled to excavate a tomb which, although it held no objects
Page 136 of value, still contained some interesting relics. I have not
         yet been able to assign a date to any of them." .... "During my
         stay at Moukri I set up a map on the scale of 1/250000, and
         marked upon it all the ruins, mounds and ancient tombs....

         "Although blockaded by snow at Hamadan I was able to visit the
         ancient Ecbatana and there acquired a small collection of Greek
         jewels and Chaldean cylinders. I found no trace whatever of the
         ancient palace; they told me that the last debris had been
         reduced to lime and that houses had been built over the rest.
         On the other hand, the trilingual inscription of the Elvend,
         the _Ghendj-nûméh_, is still admirably preserved, but the cold
         prevented me from taking a squeeze. After having visited and
         photographed the ruins of Dinâver, Kinghârer, Bisoutoun and
         several remains encountered on the route, I visited
         Tagh-é-Bostan, near Kirmanshahan; I took numerous photographs
         and squeezes of the more interesting fragments, like the
         pahlavi inscriptions of the smallest monument. At Zohab, I took
         the inscriptions of Ler-é-poul and of Hourin-cheïkh-khan, made
         plans of the ruins of Ler-é-poul, those of the Sassanian palace
         of Kasr-é-Chirîon and of Haoueh-Ruri; drew up a map on a scale
         of 1/250000 of the gates of the Zagros, and of the country
         around." ..... "Having arrived at Houleilan,..... I found the
         remains of a large number of towns and castles of the Sassanian
         epoch, besides some very ancient _tépès_. At Chirvan, near the
         fort of the Poncht-é-Kouh, are the ruins of a Sassanian town. I
         made a plan of it. Near it is a great _tell_ of unburnt
         brick...... In the valleys, situated near the plain, in the
         passes are some _tells_, and it is near one of them that I had
         the good fortune to find more than eight hundred objects carved
         in flint. Beyond these _tells_ which guard the frontier of the
         Semite border, the Poncht-é-Kouh does not contain a single
         ruin. In antiquity, as to-day, it was inhabited by nomads. On
         leaving the Poncht-é-Kouh, I entered the valley of the Kukha,
         where I encountered numerous ruins. I then advanced into
         Louristan, continually finding _tells_, of which the principal
         ones are those of Zakha and of Khorremâbâd. ..... Finally
         arriving at Susiana, we again found civilization, but also a
         country well known and that does not form a part of my
         mission."--_Journal Asiatique_, No. 2, 1892, pp. 189-200.


         COINS OF THE SATRAPS.--1. Money had been invented and was in
         circulation in the Greek cities of Asia Minor almost two
         hundred years, when Darius I introduced the daric. The Greek
         coins in circulation along the coast had not penetrated far
         from the Mediterranean, even the new Persian coinage was used
         chiefly in the commerce with the Greeks on the frontier, and
Page 137 for the payment of Greek mercenaries, enrolled in the armies of
         the Great King. The interior of the empire, during the whole
         period of the Achæmenidæ, continued to employ wedges of
         precious metals in exchange. The coinage of the Persian empire
         divides into four clearly defined groups, according to the
         direct authority of its issue. (1) The coinage of the Great
         King; (2) The coinage of the tributary Greek towns; (3) The
         coinage of the tributary dynasties; (4) The coinage
         occasionally struck for the satraps, chiefs of the Persian
         army. It is the last category that is described in the paper
         here summarized. The towns then, and the tributary dynasties,
         and, under some circumstances, the satraps enjoyed the right to
         coin money but only in electrum, silver and bronze; the great
         King reserved the exclusive right to issue coins in gold; and
         this principle became universally acknowledged, so that gold
         effectually became the unique standard of the Persian empire.
         The few departures from this rule are not worthy of
         consideration. The towns of Asia Minor paying tribute to the
         great King continued to issue money, just as they had during
         their independence, retaining their own types, and betraying in
         no way their subjection. The tributary kings placed under the
         surveillance of satraps were allowed various degrees of liberty
         in issuing coinage, according to their countries and to their
         varying relations to the persian monarch; the dynasties of
         Caria, of Cyprus, of Gebal and of Tyre, like the tributary
         cities mentioned above, continued their old coinage, while
         those of Sidon and of Cilicia placed upon their coins, the
         figure of the Achæmenidean prince.

         Besides the coinage already mentioned there exists a number of
         coins bearing the names of satraps, and the questions are
         raised, under what circumstances were these issued, and with
         what extraordinary powers was a satrap invested, who was
         permitted to issue money in his own name? The theory is
         advanced, that the satraps of the Persian empire never held the
         right to coin money in their capacity as satraps. All the
         instances we have of satrapal coins were issued by satraps
         invested with the command of armies. Fr. Lenormant says: "All
         the pieces known, which bear the names of high functionaries of
         Persia, mentioned in history, particularly those of Cilicia,
         should be ranged in the class of military coins; that is, coins
         issued by generals placed at the head of armies, on a campaign,
         and not as satraps exercising their regular powers." The only
         satrapies in which money was coined, before Alexander, are the
         following. The sixth satrapy, which comprised Egypt and
         Cyrenaica. The fifth satrapy or that of Syria, comprising
         Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Phœnicia, Palestine and the island
         of Cyprus. The fourth satrapy or that of Cilicia, which
Page 138 acquired in the V century the states north of the Taurus. The
         first satrapy or that of Ionia, comprising Pamphilia, Lycia,
         Caria, Pisidia, Ionia and Eolis. The twelfth satrapy, known as
         the satrapy of Sardis, or of Lydia. The thirteenth satrapy,
         known also as the satrapy of Phrygia, which comprised, besides
         the coast of the Hellespont, all the central region of Asia
         Minor between the Taurus and the Black Sea. This huge province
         was divided in the fifth century into the satrapies of Greater
         Phrygia, Lesser Phrygia, and Cappadocia.

         2. The coinage in circulation in Egypt, during the Achæmenidean
         supremacy was all of foreign origin, the staters of the Kings
         of Tyre and Sidon and the tetradrachmas of Athens. The commerce
         with Greece, and especially the incessant wars in which Greek
         mercenaries were largely employed, tended to make Athenian
         silver popular in the eastern countries. For the pay of these
         mercenaries, the Persians and Egyptians had recourse to silver
         money, and especially to those types with which the Greeks were
         acquainted. Thus the prevalence of Athenian coins in the Orient
         is accounted for by these circumstances. The generals of the
         Persian and Egyptian armies made use of the Athenian coins
         which had long been in circulation in the country. They merely
         imprinted upon the coin of Attic origin a counter-mark to
         officially authorize the circulation, and when the original
         Athenian coins in the country were insufficient to pay the
         troops, they struck off others as nearly like them as
         possible--these, however, are easily recognized by the defects
         of workmanship and altered inscriptions. One sort has in place
         of the Greek lettering an Aramean inscription. On a certain
         number of these we find the name Mazaios, the famous satrap of
         Cilicia, who undertook to subdue the insurgent king of Sidon.

         The imitation of Athenian coins and the coins of Alexander was
         continued in Arabia down to the first century of our era. The
         Athenian coins were not the only ones copied in Egypt,
         Palestine, and Arabia. The coinage of the kings of Sidon were
         frequently imitated by the Aramean chiefs, of whom Bagoas was
         one. Then, too, the kings of Sidon had supreme command of the
         imperial fleet and had the paying of the naval army. Later,
         Mazaios, placed at the head of the Persian army, for a time
         imitated the Sidonian coins, substituting his name for that of
         the Sidonian dynasty. Bagoas, in turn, did likewise.

         3. In Phœnicia and northern Syria, which formed the greater
         part of the fifth satrapy, a great quantity of coins were
         struck off by the tributary dynasties. The kings of Tyre,
         Sidon, Gebal, and Aradus had their own coinage, but there seems
         to have been no satrapal coinage struck off in Phœnicia. In
Page 139 northern Syria, when Mazaios added this satrapy to his own, he
         levied and assembled troops from that entire region; this
         accounts for the numerous issues of coins in northern Syria at
         that time.

         4. The dynasties of Cilicia coined money under the same
         conditions as did the cities of Phœnicia, Caria and Lydia. The
         chief mint of Cilicia was at Tarsus, but money was also coined
         at Soli and at Mallus. About the end of the fifth century a
         coinage was issued from these mints which is ascribed to
         uncertain satraps. The distinguishing mark of these coins,
         according to Mr. Waddington, is the use of the neuter adjective
         in ικον, but this theory is not conclusive. Besides these
         anonymous coins there were others coined in Cilicia bearing the
         names of satraps, who were the envoys of the great king to
         raise armies and equip fleets. The satrap Tiribazus employed
         the mints at Issus, at Soli and Mallus; the satrap Pharnabazus
         established his mints in various cities in Cilicia,
         particularly at Nagidus; Datamus also issued coinage in
         Cilicia. M. Six holds that Mazaios coined money, not only in
         Cilicia, but also in Syria and Mesopotamia, and preserved the
         right to a coinage under Alexander, but always in a military
         capacity.

         5. After the conquest of Alexander, his generals issued coinage
         under his name in their satrapal authority. These were the
         coins of Alexander, bearing on one side the particular symbol
         of the generals who had issued them; there were the eagle of
         Ptolemy, the demi-lion of Lysimachus or the horned horse of
         Seleucus. Those of the generals who became kings, in 306,
         issued coins in their own name, preserving on them the personal
         emblems which they had employed in their satrapal authority.
         The generals who did not become kings never issued a coinage in
         their own names.

         6. On the island of Cyprus are found numerous coins which
         present all the distinctive signs of satrapal money; they are
         believed to have been struck by Evagoras II, the successor of
         Nicocles I; but the question arises, Were these satrapal pieces
         of Evagoras coined on the island? It has been held that they
         were issued from a mint on the continent, in Caria, because the
         army of Evagoras was recruited in Asia Minor, and because their
         weights are Rhodian, but the form of the letters is Phœnician,
         as upon all Cypriote corns; while, on the other hand, in Asia
         Minor the Semitic money is inscribed with Aramean characters.
         Moreover, all symbols and types which figure on these coins are
         essentially Cypriote.--E. BABELON in _Revue Numismatique_,
         1892, p. 277.


         SASSANIAN COINS.--The Museum of the Hermitage has just come
         into possession of the collection of coins of General Komarof,
Page 140 once governor of Russian Turkistan. It consists of more than
         two thousand pieces, of which sixty are of gold. The most
         remarkable coins of this rich collection are: Four Sassanian
         pieces in gold, unpublished, (one of Hormuzd II and three of
         Sapor II), a dinar of Nasr I, a dinar of Kharmezi of Tamerlan,
         a dinar of Abdallah-ben-Khazim, and about fifty unpublished
         Sassanian silver coins.--_Revue Numismatique_, 1892, p. 348.


         PERSEPOLIS.--CASTS OF SCULPTURES.--The English archæologist Mr.
         Cecil Smith has lately returned from an expedition to Persia.
         He had with him two Italian makers of casts, and by their means
         has obtained a valuable series of casts of the sculptures of
         Persepolis from moulds of a fibrous Spanish paper. Among the
         casts are those of a long frieze (perron) which decorated the
         stairway of the main hall or "apadâna," erected by Xerxes; it
         represents a procession of figures presenting to the king the
         reports of his governors and the offerings of his subjects.
         Another cast is that of the famous monolith of Cyrus.--_Chron.
         des Arts_, 1892, No. 31. We understand that the collection of
         casts of the Metropolitan Museum is to receive a copy of all
         these casts.


         SYRIA.

         EDESSA.--HISTORICAL SKETCH.--M. Rubens Duval, the eminent
         Syriac scholar, has been publishing in the _Journal Asiatique_
         a history of the city of Edessa under the title: "_Histoire
         religieuse et litteraire d'Edesse jusqu' à la première
         Croisade_", (_Jour. As._ t. 18, No. 1 to t. 19, No. 1). This
         monograph has been crowned by the French Academy. It includes a
         considerable amount of information concerning the monuments of
         the city, especially those belonging to the early Christian
         period, and some idea can be gained of them by the following
         abridged note. As Edessa was one of the principal cities of the
         Christian East, the information is of interest. Edessa was from
         its position a fortress of the first rank and reputed
         impregnable. The citadel rose on a peak on the southwest angle
         of the rampart. At the west end there still remain two columns
         with Corinthian capitals, one of which bears an inscription
         with the name of Queen Shalmat, daughter of Ma'nu, probably the
         wife of King Abgar Ukhama. Within the citadel, on the great
         square called Beith-Tebhara, King Abgar VII built, after the
         inundation of 202, a winter palace, safe from the river floods,
         and the nobles followed his example. In the city itself were
         the porticoes or forum near the river, the Antiphoros or
         town-hall, restored by Justinian. In 497, the governor of the
         city, Alexander, built a covered gallery near the Grotto Gate
Page 141 and Public Baths, near the public storehouse; both the summer
         and winter baths were surrounded by a double colonnade. To the
         south, near the Great Gate, were other baths, and near them the
         theatre. Within the Beth Shemesh Gate was a hospital and
         outside it a refuge for old men. North of the city, near the
         wall, was the hippodrome, built by Abgarus IX on his return
         from Rome. The city had six gates which still exist under
         different names.

         Edessa is one of the few cities that are known to have had a
         Christian church as early as the second century. This church
         was destroyed by the inundation of 201, was then rebuilt, being
         the only church in the city, suffered from the inundation of
         303 and was rebuilt from its foundations in 313 by Cona, bishop
         of Edessa, and his successor Sa'd. It was called the Ancient
         Church, "the cathedral," also sometimes the Church of St.
         Thomas, because in 394 it received the relics of the apostle
         Thomas. The Frankish pilgrim woman who visited it at the close
         of the fourth century, or later, speaks of its size, beauty and
         the novelty of its arrangement. Duval believes her words to
         relate to Justinian's building, believing in a later date than
         is usually assigned to the above document. In 525 the church
         was overthrown by an inundation and then rebuilt by Justinian
         in such splendor as to be regarded as one of the wonders of the
         world. It was overthrown by earthquakes in 679 and 718.

         The other churches were as follows:

            370. The Baptistery is built.
            379. Church of S. Daniel or S. Domitius, built by Bishop
                 Vologese.
            409. Church of S. Barlaha, built by Bishop Diogenes.
            412. Church of S. Stephen, formerly a Jewish synagogue,
                 built by Bishop Rabbula.
            435. The New Church, called later the Church of the Holy
                 Apostles, built by Bishop Hibhas.
             "   Church of S. John the Baptist and S. Addasus, built by
                 Bishop Nonnus (died 471), successor of Hibhas.
             "   Church of S. Mar Cona.
            489. Church of the Virgin Mother of God, built on the site
                 of the School of the Persians after its destruction in
                 489.
          c.505. Martyrium of the Virgin, built by Bishop Peter early in
                 VI century.

         Outside the walls were the following churches:

         Towards the N. Chapel of SS. Cosmas and Damian, built by Nonnus
                 (middle ν century).

         E. Church of SS. Sergius and Simeon, which was burned in 503 by
                 the Persian King Kawad.
Page 142
         W. Church of Confessors, built in 346 by Bishop Abraham,
                 and burned by Kawad in 503.
            Church of the Monks, near the citadel.

         The cliffs to the west had been from early times excavated for
         burial purposes. In the midst of the tombs rose the mausoleums
         of the family of the Abgars, especially that of Abshelama, son
         of Abgarus. They were also honeycombed with anchorites' cells.
         This mountain received the name of the Holy Mountain and was
         covered with monasteries, among which were the following:
         Eastern Monks; S. Thomas; S. David; S. John; S. Barbara; S.
         Cyriacus; Phesilta; Mary _Deipara_; of the Towers; of Severus;
         of Sanin; of Kuba; of S. James. Arab writers mention over 300
         monasteries around Edessa. Two aqueducts, starting from the
         villages of Tell-Zema and Maudad to the north, brought
         spring-water to the city; they were restored in 505 by Governor
         Eulogius.

         Bishop Rabbulas (412-435) built a hospital for women from the
         stones of four pagan temples which were destroyed. He destroyed
         the church of the sect of Bardesanes and the church of the
         Arians, erecting other structures with their materials. After
         the Persian wars (505) Eulogius, governor of Edessa, rebuilt
         many of the damaged public monuments. He repaired the outer
         ramparts and the two aqueducts; rebuilt the public baths, the
         prætorium, and other structures. The bishop, Peter, restored
         the cathedral and built the Martyrium of the Virgin, and also
         covered with bronze one of the cathedral doors. Justinian
         restored and rebuilt many buildings after the inundation of
         524-25. Even under the early period of Muhammadan rule the
         Christian structures were cared for. Under the Khalif
         Abd-el-Malik (685-705) the Edessene Christian Athanasius, who
         enjoyed great political influence, rebuilt the Church of the
         Virgin, which was on the site of the School of the Persians;
         rebuilt also the Baptistery in which he placed the portrait of
         Christ sent to Abgarus and placed in it fountains like those of
         the Ancient Church, decorating it also with gold, silver and
         bronze revetments. He also built two large basilicas at Fostat
         in Egypt. There is an interesting account of an artistic
         treasure of great value discovered in a house belonging to a
         noble family of the Goumêaus in 797 and belonging to the Roman
         and Byzantine period; it is supposed to have been hidden in
         609. The churches were often destroyed and rebuilt according to
         the tolerance or intolerance of the Muhammadan governors. At
         one period of persecution, c. 825, a mosque was built in the
         _tetrapylum_ in front of the Ancient Church. It is not
         important to trace the vicissitudes of the building of Edessa
         any further.
Page 143

         COINS OF THE KINGS OF EDESSA.--Marquis de Vogué sends to M.E.
         Babelon a description of a bronze coin brought from Syria,
         found either in the province of Alep or of Damas. It bears the
         name of Abgarus, the name of several of the kings of Edessa.
         The type is that of the small bronze pieces attributed to
         Mannou VIII; the character and inscriptions are the same. It
         must then be attributed to a king Abgarus whose reign
         approaches as nearly as possible that of Mannou VIII. Mr.
         Rubens Duval, in his history of Edessa, mentions two kings of
         this name, Abgarus VIII, whose reign cut into that of Mannou
         VIII, and Abgarus IX, who succeeded him. It is to one of these
         two princes that this coin must be assigned. It is possible
         that this monument may shed some light upon a portion of
         Oriental chronology, hitherto very dark. Two other coins are
         described from M. Vogué's collection, one of which, it seems,
         should be attributed to the same king Abgarus as the preceding;
         the other bears a name which M. Duval assigns to Abgarus XI,
         who reigned for two years during a short restoration of the
         government of Edessa.--_Revue Numismatique_, 1892, p. 209.


         SINJIRLI.--SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS.--The German Oriental Committee
         discovered, as is well known, an ancient city buried under a
         number of mounds at a place called Sinjirli in the Amanus
         Mountains. Here were found a number of statues bearing cuniform
         inscriptions, Hittite inscriptions and two long Aramean
         inscriptions of the VIII or IX century B.C.

         M. Helévy, the well-known French Orientalist, was sent by the
         Paris Institute to the Museum of Berlin, where these statues
         are placed, to report upon the inscriptions. M. Helévy finds
         that the two kings were rulers of Yadi and that their reigns
         were a century apart. The first statue is that of Panémon,
         founder of his dynasty--a 40 line inscription relates the
         events of his reign, the protection of the Jews, _etc._ The
         second is a king who was a vassal of Tiglath-Pilezer, king of
         Assyria. The inscription describes wars of his father, his own
         relations with Assyria, his defeats and victories. It gives an
         account of his own reign and terminates by invoking the
         protection of the gods.

         M. Helévy says that these inscriptions are not in the Aramean
         language, as was first supposed, but a Phœnician dialect very
         analogous to Hebrew, which was spoken by the people whom the
         Assyrians named Hatte, that is to say, Hittites or Hetheim. He
         adds that the current opinion as to their not being of Semitic
         race is quite erroneous and that the hieroglyphics discovered
         in various parts of Asia Minor are of Anatolian and not of
         Assyrian origin, the few texts of this kind found at Hamath and
Page 144 Aleppo being due to Anatolian conquerors, whose domination,
         however, was very temporary in character.--_Journal of the
         Royal Asiatic Society_, 1892, Oct., p. 887.


         NAMES OF CITIES AT MEDINET HABU.--Prof. Sayce writes: The list
         of places conquered by Rameses III in Palestine and Syria,
         which I copied on the pylon of Medinet Habu, turns out to be
         even more interesting than I had supposed, as a whole row of
         them belongs to the territory of Judah. Thus we have the "land
         of Salem," which, like the Salam of Rameses II, is shown by the
         Tell-el-Amarna tablets to be Jerusalem, _arez hadast_, or "New
         Lands," the Hadashah of Joshua (XV. 37), Shimshana or Samson,
         "the city of the Sun" (Josh. XV. 10), Carmel of Judah, Migdol
         (Josh. XV. 37), Apaka or Aphekah (Josh. XV. 53), "the Springs
         of Khibur" or Hebron, Shabuduna, located near Gath, by Thothmes
         III, and Beth-Anath, the Beth-Anoth of Joshua (XV. 59). The
         discovery of these names in the records of an Egyptian king,
         who reigned about 1200 B.C., raises a question of some interest
         for students of the Old Testament.--_Academy_, April 2.


         JAFFA.--The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund have
         received through Mr. Bliss a squeeze of a long inscription
         stated to have been recently discovered at a place not far from
         Jaffa, which appears to contain about 250 letters in the
         Phœnician character.--_Academy_, March 5.


         JERUSALEM.--A BYZANTINE BRACELET.--Mr. Maxwell Somerville of
         Philadelphia has added to his collection a large bronze
         bracelet found near Jerusalem and bearing a Greek inscription.
         It was communicated to the _Acad. des Inscr._ by M. le Blant.
         At one end of the inscription is a lion _courant_, at the other
         a serpent _rampant_. On the left end is soldered a small round
         plaque on which is engraved a subject identical with that found
         on some of the amulets published by M. Schlumberger in the
         _Rev. des Études Grecques_ (see under _Byzantine Amulets_ in
         Greek news of this number). A mounted warrior--whom Mr.
         Schlumberger identifies as Solomon--pierces with his lance a
         prostrate female figure who apparently represents the devil, a
         "Fra Diavalo."--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 23.


         RETHPANA-DEAD SEA.--Prof. Sayce has discovered at Medinet Habû
         the Egyptian name of the Dead Sea. Between the names of Salem
         and Yerdano and the Jordan comes "the lake of Rethpana." As the
         Dead Sea is the only "lake" in that part of the world, the
         identification of the name is certain. Rethpana could
         correspond with a Canaanite Reshpôn, a derivative from Reshpu,
         the sun-god, who revealed himself in flames of
         fire.--_Academy_, May 14.
Page 145

         TEL-EL-HESY--LACHISH.--CUNEIFORM TABLET.--We quote from a
         letter written to the Times by Mr. James Glaisher, chairman of
         the executive committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund:--

         The excavations commenced two years ago by Dr. Flinders Petrie
         at a mound in Palestine named Tell-el-Hesy have been continued
         during the last six months by Mr. F.J. Bliss, of Beirût. The
         Tell has been identified by Major Conder and Dr. Flinders
         Petrie with the ancient city of Lachish, an identification
         which is now amply confirmed.

         Mr. Bliss has found among the _débris_ a cuneiform tablet,
         together with certain Babylonian cylinders and imitations or
         forgeries of those manufactured in Egypt. A translation of the
         tablet has been made by Prof. Sayce; it is as follows:--

         'To the Governor. [I] O, my father, prostrate myself at thy
         feet. Verily thou knowest that Baya (?) and Zimrida have
         received thy orders (?) and Dan-Hadad says to Zimrida, "O, my
         father, the city of Yarami sends to me, it has given me 3
         _masar_ and 3 ... and 3 falchions." Let the country of the King
         know that I stay, and it has acted against me, but till my
         death I remain. As for thy commands (?) which I have received,
         I cease hostilities, and have despatched Bel(?)-banilu, and
         Rabi-ilu-yi has sent his brother to this country to [strengthen
         me (?)].'

         The letter was written about the year 1400 B.C. It is in the
         same handwriting as those in the Tell-el-Amarna collection,
         which were sent to Egypt from the south of Palestine about the
         same time.

         Now, here is a very remarkable coincidence. In the
         Tell-el-Amarna collection we learn that one Zimrida was
         governor of Lachish, where he was murdered by some of his own
         people, and the very first cuneiform tablet discovered at
         Tell-el-Hesy is a letter written to this Zimrida.

         The city Yarami may be the Jarmuth of the Old Testament.

         'Even more interesting,' writes Prof. Sayce, 'are the
         Babylonian cylinders and their imitations. They testify to the
         long and deep influence and authority of Babylon in Western
         Asia, and throw light on the prehistoric art of Phœnicia and
         Cyprus. The cylinders of native Babylonian manufacture belong
         to the period B.C. 2000-1500; the rest are copies made in the
         West. One of these is of Egyptian porcelain, and must have been
         manufactured in Egypt, in spite of its close imitation of a
         Babylonian original. Others are identical with the cylinders
         found in the prehistoric tombs of Cyprus and Syria, and so fix
         the date of the latter. On one of them are two centaurs
         arranged heraldically, the human faces being shaped like those
Page 146 of birds. European archæologists will be interested in learning
         that among the minor objects are two amber beads.--_Academy_,
         July 9.

         The _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund for
         April contains a detailed report of Mr. F.J. Bliss's
         excavations at Tell-el-Hesy, the site of Lachish, during last
         winter, illustrated with several plans and woodcuts. The most
         interesting objects found were a number of bronze weapons, and
         fragments of pottery with markings, both from the lowest or
         Amorite town. Mr. W.M. Flinders Petrie adds a note on the
         weights discovered, almost all of which belong to the Phœnician
         and Aeginetan systems.


         ARMENIA.

         SEALS OF KING LEO II AND LEO V.--At a meeting of the _Acad. des
         Inscr._ M. Schlumberger communicated three magnificent bulls or
         gold seals of Leo II, king of Lesser Armenia. These gold bulls,
         appended to letters from this king to Pope Innocent III,
         written early in the XIII century, are preserved in the Vatican
         archives, and are probably the only examples of the king in
         existence. Leo II, in royal costume, is on one side; the lion
         of Armenia on the other. Another royal Armenian seal is
         preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale. It is that of Leo V,
         the last king of the dynasty, who died, an exile, in
         Paris.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No, 6.


         CAUCASUS.

         THE IRON AGE.--M. Ernest Ghautre has given a statement of his
         ideas on the iron age in the Caucasus and elsewhere in a
         pamphlet entitled, _Origine et Ancienneté du premier age du fer
         au Caucase_, Lyon, 1892. He says: "Necropoli of unequalled
         richness have been discovered in the Great Caucasus and on
         several points of Transcaucasia. These necropoli, in which
         inhumation appears to have been almost exclusively used, should
         be divided into two large groups. The most ancient corresponds
         to the Hallstatt period; the later to the Scythian period in
         the East and the Gallic period in the West. The Hallstatt type
         or that of the first iron age is met with especially in the
         most ancient tombs of the necropolis of Kobau, in Ossethia;
         those of the second iron age are to be found essentially in the
         necropolis of Kambylte in Digouria and certain localities of
         Armenia. The first iron age was introduced into the region of
         the Caucasus between the XX and XV century B.C. by a
         dolichocephalic population of Mongolo-Semitic or Semito-Kushite
         and not of Iranian origin. It was transformed toward the VII
         century by the invasion of a brachycephalic Scythian people of
         Ural-Altaic origin."
Page 147

         ANI.--The Russians are excavating at Ani, in Turkish Armenia,
         the ancient capital. They have found some ecclesiastical and
         other antiquities.--_Athenæum_, Sept. 3.


         ASIA MINOR.

         PRIVATE GREEK COINAGE BY REFUGEES.--The Persian kings accorded
         to certain illustrious Greeks who had sought refuge in Asia
         Minor on Persian territory the right to coin money. To this
         they joined the privileges inherent in the title of hereditary
         despot which was granted to them. The principal coinages are
         those of Themistokles at Magnesia, of Georgion at Gambrium, and
         of Euripthenes at Pergamon. M. Babelon read a memoir on the
         subject before the _Soc. des Antiquaires_, giving genealogical
         details regarding those families of exiles.--_Chron. des Arts_,
         1892, No. 16.


         COMPARISON OF HITTITE AND MYCENÆAN SCULPTURES.--M. Heuzey has
         read before the _Acad. des Inscr._ (Oct. 14) a comparative
         study on an engraved gold ring found at Mycenæ and a relief in
         the Louvre which belongs to the series of Hittite reliefs and
         was found at Kharpout, in the Upper Euphrates region on the
         frontier of Armenia and Cappadocia. The relief is surmounted by
         two lines of ideographic inscription. The subject on both is a
         stag-hunt; the stag is hunted in a chariot, as was always done
         before the horse was used for riding, that is before the VIII
         century B.C. The relief is a rustic variant of the Assyrian
         style; certain details prove it to belong to the IX century.
         The stag is of the variety called _hamour_ by the Arabs,
         characterized by horns palm-shaped at their extremities. On the
         ring the attitudes are far more lively and bold, but the
         identity of the subject is none the less striking.--_Revue
         Critique_, 1892, No. 43.


         HITTITE INSCRIPTION.--M. Menant has communicated to the _Acad.
         des Inscr._ (Aug. 7, 1891,) a new Hittite inscription, noted
         during the preceding summer, in the pass of Bulgar-Maden, in
         Asia Minor. It is in perfect preservation and of unusual
         length, and is therefore of great value for the study of the
         Hittite language. M. Menant sees at the beginning the genealogy
         and titles of a prince, some other of whose inscriptions have
         already been found; then an invocation to the patron divinities
         of his kingdom; then the main body of the inscription, which
         will doubtless be the most difficult to decipher; and at the
         close a re-enumeration of the divinities already
         invoked.--_Revue Critique_, 1891, No. 35-6.


         THE DECIPHERMENT OF THE HITTITE INSCRIPTIONS.--Prof. Sayce
         writes: "I have, I believe, at last succeeded in breaking
Page 148 through the blank wall of the Hittite decipherment. Twelve
         years ago, with the help of the bilingual text of Tarkondêmos,
         I advanced a little way, but want of material prevented me from
         going further. At length, however, the want has been supplied,
         and new materials have come to hand, chiefly through the
         discoveries of Messrs. Ramsay, Hogarth, and Headlam in Asia
         Minor. The conclusions to be derived from the latter are stated
         in an article of mine which has just been published in the last
         number of the _Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la Philogie et à
         l'Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes_. Since that article
         was written, I have once more gone through the Hittite texts in
         the light of our newly-acquired facts, and have, I believe,
         succeeded in making out the larger part of them."

         As in the languages of Van, of Mitanni, and of Arzana, the
         Hittite noun possessed a nominative in _-s_, an accusative in
         _-n_, and an oblique case which terminated in a vowel, while
         the adjective followed the substantive, the same suffixes being
         attached to it as to the substantive with which it agreed. The
         character which I first conjectured to have the value of _se_,
         and afterwards of _me_, really has the value of _ne_.

         The inscriptions of Hamath, like the first and third
         inscriptions of Jerablûs, are records of buildings, the second
         inscription of Jerablûs is little more than a list of royal or
         rather high-priestly titles, in which the king "of Eri and
         Khata" is called "the beloved of the god (Sutekh), the mighty,
         who is under the protection of the god Sarus, the regent of the
         earth, and the divine Nine; to whom the god (Sutekh) has given
         the people of Hittites... the powerful (prince), the prophet of
         the Nine great gods, beloved of the Nine and of ..., son of the
         god. The first inscription of Jerablûs states that "the high
         priest and his god have erected "images" to Sarus- * -erwes and
         his son. Who the latter were is not mentioned, nor is the name
         of the son given. Those who have read what I have written
         formerly on the Hittite inscriptions will notice that I was
         wrong in supposing that Sarus- * -erwes and his father were the
         father and grandfather of the Carchemish king to whom the
         monument belongs.-_Academy_, May 21, 1892.

         One of the most curious facts that result from my decipherment
         of the texts--supposing it to be correct--is the close
         similarity that exists between the titles assumed by the
         Hittite princes and those of the Egyptian Pharaohs of the XVIII
         and XIX dynasties. The fact has an important bearing on which
         the monuments of Hamath and Carchemish must be assigned. The
         similarity extends beyond the titles, the Hittite system of
         writing presenting in many respects a startling parallelism to
         that of the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Thus, "word" or "order" is
Page 149 denoted by a head, a phonetic character, and the ideograph of
         "speaking," the whole being a fairly exact counterpart of the
         Egyptian _tep-ro_, an "oral communication." It would seem as if
         the inventer of the Hittite hieroglyphs had seen those of
         Egypt, just as Doalu, the inventor of the Sei syllabary, is
         known to have seen European writing. This likeness between the
         graphic systems of the Hittites and Egyptians has been a
         surprise to me, since I had hitherto believed that, as the
         Hittite hieroglyphs are so purely native in origin, the graphic
         system to which they belong must also be purely
         native.--_Academy_, May 21.


         ARAMΕΑΝ COINS OF CAPPADOCIA.--M. Six, enumerating all the coins
         bearing the names of Datames, mentions only those of the
         ordinary type of Sinope, with a Greek inscription. M. Babelon
         finds coins of Datames in Cilicia as well, and reads this name
         in the Aramean inscriptions which M. Six interprets _Tarcamos_.
         The name of Datames is historic, but the reading of M. Six has
         not come down to us. The coins in question bear a striking
         likeness to those of Pharnabazus, their types being identical.
         We know that Datames succeeded Pharnabazus in the command of
         the Persian armies, their coins then must have been struck
         under the same circumstances and in the same mints, that is, in
         the ports of Cilicia where preparations were made for the
         expedition against Egypt. Later, Datames was charged with
         subduing the rebellious Sinope, here we have an explanation of
         the coins of Sinopean type bearing the name of Datames. Why may
         not this man be the same whom Diodorus designates satrap of
         Cappadocia?

         2. There are two similar drachmas, one in possession of the
         Cabinet des Medailles, the other in the Waddington collection;
         they are Cappadocian coins of the type of Sinope, like those of
         Datames. The Aramean inscription on the back of these coins has
         been given a variety of interpretations which appear to be
         equally possible. M. Babelon, after careful study, fixes upon
         _Abrocomou_, the only reading in which we can recognize an
         historic personage. Abrocomas was one of the principal
         lieutenants of Artaxerxes II and was a colleague of Pharnabazus
         in the Egyptian campaign. If we accept this reading of the
         drachma's inscription we must infer that Abrocomas became
         satrap of Cappadocia, he was in all probability successor to
         Datames, his coins plainly of later date; their weight and
         their style show that they belong to the older coinage of
         Sinope and they are no less certainly anterior to those of
         Arianthes, which they somewhat resemble.

         3. Arianthes must have been the immediate successor of
         Abrocomas, the identity of style, of types and of material in
         these coins point to this conclusion. M. Six places two
         governors of Cappadocia between Datames and Arianthes, whose
Page 150 names he finds on certain coins. M. Babelon shows that the
         drachma which bears one of these names, is a manifest imitation
         of the drachmas of Datames; he also points out that the
         inscription itself is plainly an alteration of the Aramean name
         of Datames. The other name he proves to be a deformation of
         _Abrocomas_ and states his belief that neither of these
         supposed governors of Cappadocia ever existed and cites other
         instances of the imitation of coins and the alteration of
         inscriptions.--_Revue Numismatique_, III S. tom. 10. II trim.,
         1892, p. 168.


         HITTITE LETTER OF DUSRATTA.--Among the 300 letters from
         Tell-el-Amarna is one written to Amenophis III by Dusratta,
         king of Mitani, the region immediately east of the Euphrates.
         The letter which was written on both sides of a clay tablet in
         cuneiform characters begins with an introduction of seven lines
         in Assyrian, but the remaining 605 lines are in the native
         language of Dusratta.

         The content refers to an embassy sent from Egypt to ask for the
         hand of his daughter and to recognition of his conquests in
         Phœnicia. The most important parts are those relating to his
         religion and to the affairs of state. We find that the religion
         of the Hittites, Armenians and Akkadians was probably the same
         as well as their language, which was more nearly akin to pure
         Turkish than to any other branch of Mongol speech. Dusratta was
         a Minyan and his power seems to have been the chief in Armenia
         at this time.

         From the letter we find that Dusratta was to receive a large
         portion of Phoenicia and Northern Syria, which he was to rule
         as a tributary of Amenophis III.

         The latter part of the letter refers to the marriage of
         Yadukhepa, daughter of Dusratta, to the heir of Egypt, with
         assurances of increased renewal of friendship between the
         kingdoms.

         The letter is especially important because we may obtain from
         it, in connection with the letter of Laskondam, also written in
         Hittite, many of the forms of the Hittite language, its grammar
         and vocabulary of 400 words.

         By these it is shown to be clearly a Mongol language, closely
         related with the Akkadian, though somewhat later.--_Biblia_,
         Sept., 1892.


         ANGORA.--At a meeting of the _Acad. des Inscr_. M.J. Menant
         exhibited the rubbing of a Hittite bas-relief found at Angora,
         which is now at Constantinople. It shows two personages, with
         an inscription in Hittite characters by the side of each. One
         of them is the god Sandu, to whom a king (with a name not yet
         deciphered) is making an offering.
Page 151

         APAMΕΙΑ.--CHRISTIAN CHURCH.--Mr. G. Weber has published a study
         of the early Christian church of Apameia (_Une église antique à
         Dinair_) which he considers to be the earliest of which any
         remains exist in Asia; he regards it as having been built under
         Constantine,--_Revue Arch._, 1892, 1, p. 131.


         KARIA.--TEMPLE NEAR STRATONIKEIA--A large temple of Hecate was
         found last year in Caria, near the ancient Stratonikeia (Eski
         Hissar). Hamdi Bey, the director of the museum at
         Constantinople, has been carrying on excavations. He has
         secured about 160 ft. of the sculptured frieze complete, and
         has repaired the road to the coast ready for its shipment. A
         member of the _École Française_ has been invited by him to
         assist him, and the results will be published by the
         School.--_Athenæum_, Oct. 1.


         SEBASTOPOLIS.--M. Leon, the French vice-consul at Siwas, has
         communicated to the _Acad. des Inscr._ the discovery of a
         series of Greek inscriptions copied by him, which have enabled
         him to fix with certainty the site of the ancient city of
         Sebastopolis. They also furnish important information regarding
         its constitution.--_Athenæum_, Feb. 27.


         A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr.