Johansen in Vases Sicyoniens and Payne in Necrocorinthia and Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei isolated a number of artistic personalities, but this was, or seemed at that stage, incidental to their main object, the ordering of Protocorinthian and ‘Corinthian’ pottery by phases of chronological development. Payne left further work on painters in manuscript notes, and we and others have done something in the same line, but so far there has been no attempt to see the whole development of the style in terms of artistic personalities influencing one another (which after all it was), as has been done by Beazley for Attic red-figure and blackfigure, and by J. M. Cook for Protoattic. If such a view can be achieved it modifies the necessarily rather schematic (even Procrustean) division into chronological phases, and gives a more organic view of the development. For the ‘Corinthian’ period it is a somewhat dispiriting task, though even there we believe that it would be worth doing, if only to help our understanding of the interrelation of Corinthian and Attic. In this article, however, we are concerned only with Protocorinthian, whose general level is very high, and the principal artists of superlative quality; the isolation of painters here needs no apology.

Earlier work on these lines was impeded by the fact that the miniature side of Protocorinthian has been so much better preserved and published than the parallel and contemporary ‘big style’. The balance has recently been partly righted by Kraiker's publication of material from Aigina; and the other most important body of Protocorinthian pottery—the votive deposit from the Temple of Hera Limenia at Perachora—has already been prepared for publication by Dunbabin. We have made full use of the Perachora material in this article, and the substantiation of some of our conclusions will have to await the appearance of Perachora II. There is a third, unpublished, collection of Protocorinthian ‘big style’ vases in Berlin, from Aigina.

The inscriptions here published or discussed have, some of them, historic interest; which I hope I have not entirely neglected to point out. But this is chiefly a report of my work in the Museum: the reconstruction of stelai, the recognising and distinguishing of hands. In the third section, A Distinctive Attic Hand, my argument for date is cumulative, and weak as cumulative arguments are: I have no single certain proof that any of the group, still less the whole of it, belongs to the 'thirties. I record it as my cumulative impression; but my main concern has been to distinguish the hand, and to try to formulate a method whereby hands can be, securely, distinguished.

Acknowledgments: first and warmest to M. Kourouniotis, Director of the Epigraphic Museum at Athens and of the excavations at Eleusis. His generosity in placing unpublished stones at my disposal, and his constant encouragement, have been delightful to remember. Next, to Hiller von Gaertringen, whose I.G. I has seldom, during this work, been far from my hand: all students of fifth-century Attic inscriptions will know what I owe him. I have had much help from Dow and Oliver of the American school: Dow indeed taught me to distinguish hands. Meritt's constant and exciting letters, while I was working on the Quota Lists, have made that the most useful section of my paper: I had much help also from West's pupil McGregor of Cincinnati University, who was working on the same subject (see below, p. 110).

This article is concerned with the Macedonian vaulted tombs as a specifically Macedonian contribution to the development of Greek architecture. It looks at the theory that the technique was inspired by eastern examples. Mesopotamian and Egyptian vaulting techniques are described, and shown to be different. It therefore follows that the Macedonian technique was not copied from the Near East.

First principles tend to be forgotten in the course of scholarly polemic. At worst the fault lies in the animus and heat engendered. At best it is because the opponents have become absorbed in an elegant game of skill. Meanwhile the problem remains unresolved—whether it is the dating of crucial fifth-century Attic texts or some far less serious point. We must keep our priorities right. What really counts in the ‘three-bar sigma’ controversy, for instance, is the bare text of the epigraphic documents, freed of modern supplement and interpretation. It is vital to start from this often narrow base of certainty. I propose to do just this, with more self-discipline than in the past. For convenience I shall divide my inquiry into six main parts.

The British School excavations in Laconia from 1905 to 1910 unearthed terracotta masks from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, just east of Sparta, right on the Eurotas river. Buried in two pits adjacent to the archaic temple, the masks were made between c.615 and c.450 bce. Description and analysis of the material and technique of the masks reveal their diverse character and the impracticalities of their being worn. The masks’ function is related to the presence of linen or wood originals that the terracotta versions reproduced, though not uniformly. Difficulty in explaining the (original) masks’ use is predicated on vague approximations of the nature of Orthia's origins and cult. The linguistic clusters proposed by the excavators as early as 1906 as descriptors of the masks or their use are scrutinised for possible illumination of the (original) masks’ use; the burial of the masks some centuries before the descriptions of Pollux, Hesychius and Pausanias begs the question of their applicability to the excavated masks. On the basis of theories of masking from Classics as well as from Japanese Noh theatre and neuroscience, the ‘grotesques’ and ‘caricatures’ proposed by the excavators are recast as comic and satiric figures. Like Aristotle's pre-urban drama, the ‘Orthian drama’ does not correspond to a single theatrical genre, but contains risible figures whose facial expressions are naturalistic and often negative (pain, worry). Given Aristotle's firm assertion that the roots of Greek theatre are Dorian, and the uniqueness of the Orthia material, it is proposed that these masks point us towards the origins of theatre.

This article explores in detail the mysterious lacuna in the record of Knossos during the sixth century BC, between the abandonment of the collective tombs of the Early Iron Age and the revival of the city's fortunes in Classial times. The archaeological evidence, indicating a deep recession, is marshalled in three chronological sections: (i) the full stop in the seventh century, (ii) the Archaic gap, and (iii) recovery in the fifth century. Parallel developments at Amnisos are also discussed. In the light of any relevant clues from the written record, we evaluate the likelihood of various possible causes of the sixth-century recession at Knossos, whether natural or human.

This memorandum, written before 1910 by the late Professor R. C. Bosanquet, seems to have been intended as a historical introduction to the definitive report of the British School's excavations at Praisos and Palaikastro. Some sections have been revised by the Curator of Knossos, Mr. R. W. Hutchinson.

Following the successful identification of at least two different family groups in Grave Circle B using facial reconstruction (BSA 90 [1995], 107–36), a pilot project was carried out at Manchester to identify, analyse and match 22 DNA samples from burials in the Grave Circle. The first step was to determine whether ancient DNA has survived, as proved to be the case; the next was to use this information to sex the individual by polymerase chain reactions (PCRs). In some cases the results provided information which the excavators had not been able to achieve because of the poor state of the skeletal remains; in one there was an apparent disagreement between the DNA result and the conclusion reached on archaeological and anatomical grounds. The overall results suggest that these methods have considerable potential for kinship studies in Aegean Bronze Age populations.

Professor Hopf left unfinished at his death a projected work which would have filled a marked gap in our knowledge of the Latin dynasties of the Archipelago—the history of Lesbos and its dependencies under the Gattelusi of Genoa. The possessions of the Gattelusi in their fullest extent included Lesbos, the Thracian islands of Thasos, Lemnos, Samothrace, and Imbros, and the mainland towns of Phocaea (Foggia Vecchia) in Ionia and Aenos in Thrace. The Frankish monuments of the islands had already been adequately chronicled by Professor Conze, but the mainland dependencies remained, from this point of view, unexplored. In the course therefore, of cursory visits to Aenos and Phocaea in 1908, I took notes and photographs of the few surviving monuments, supplementing these researches by visits to Mytilene and Lemnos.

To date, the pottery production of Rhodes, Kos and other ‘East Dorian’ islands and coastal areas remains little understood. This article presents and discusses new neutron activation analysis (NAA) of eighth–sixth-century bc vessels found on Rhodes and in related areas, placing them in the wider context of past and present archaeometric research. The results highlight the role of Kos as a leading regional centre of painted pottery production and export in the seventh–sixth centuries bc, notably of ‘East Dorian’ plates. This includes the famous ‘Euphorbos plate’, which can now be attributed to Koan production. Contemporary Archaic pottery workshops on Rhodes, in contrast, had a less ambitious, if diverse, output, ranging from vessels in a Sub-Geometric tradition, imitation Corinthian wares and modest local versions of Koan- and Ionian-style plates to finely potted and richly decorated ‘Vroulian’ cups and black-figured situlae. It was imported mainland and East Greek wares, however, that dominated the island's consumption of Archaic painted wares. This represents a departure from the preceding Geometric period, which was characterised by a local pottery production of considerable scale and quality, although receptivity to external influences remained a consistent feature throughout later periods. As patterns of demand were changing, the island's craft production appears to have concentrated on a different range of goods in which high-quality figured finewares played a lesser role.

In the rather uninteresting landscape of the Thracian plains artificial mounds are almost everywhere a conspicuous feature. These mounds have long attracted the attention of archaeologists, but, on the Turkish side of the frontier at least, few have been scientifically explored. In Eastern Rumelia, where considerably more has been done, excavation has shewn that a large proportion of the mounds are places of burial, others representing, like the Thessalian magoules, prehistoric settlements, and others again sites of ancient watch-towers or even of Turkish camps.

The neighbourhood of Kirk Kilisse, some thirty-five miles east of Adrianople, boasts its full share of these monuments. About half an hour south of the town is a group of three tumuli in a line running W.S.W. and E.N.E. All are said to have been excavated by the Russians during the campaigns of 1828 and 1878. The southernmost tomb of the group remains open, shewing the arrangement of the tomb-chamber and its approach.

The material from the Khaniale Tekke tombs was excavated by me in 1940, but most of it had not been photographed, and some vases had been left still unrepaired when the Germans invaded Crete, and they were inaccessible to me when I returned to Crete in 1945.

The presence of ‘Geometric’ tombs on this site was first reported to me by the foreman at Knossos, the late Emmanuel Akoumianos, whose eagle eye for ancient remains was noted by Sir Arthur Evans. Immediate excavation was necessary, since the owner, Dr. Hatzakis, who has generously foregone his claims for compensation, was proposing to erect a house there.

The first trial trench which I opened on 20th January 1940 disclosed a chamber tomb with a square chamber and a long, narrow dromos cut in the native kouskouras, that white, cretaceous marl which is so prominent a feature of the landscape in Central Crete.

Bilingual Greek–Semitic inscriptions have been found at numerous places in the Mediterranean—not only on Cyprus, but also on Malta, on Cos, in Athens, Miletus, and elsewhere—and, though not as numerous as Greek–Latin bilingual texts, are nevertheless of considerable interest both in themselves and also as evidence for the coexistence, in individual cases, of the two cultures. Rhodes, from which the three pieces here republished come, had a large foreign population in the Hellenistic period, but bilingual texts are not common there. It is, however, noteworthy that what is probably the earliest bilingual Greek–Latin inscription, of the third century B.C., comes from Lindos (Inscr. Lind. 92).

I. Plaque of dark grey marble, complete on all sides, H. 0·130, W. 0·243, Th. 0·065, letters (Gk.), 0·018, (Phoen.), 0·010–0·015. Rough-picked on all sides for affixing into stele or similar object, but front part of all sides smooth (Plate 12a).

Found, casually, 1968, in area of eastern necropolis near the church of Panagia Phaneromene. Now in Rhodes Museum, Inv. no. ΠΒΕ 1233.

Greek:

Phoenician:

The present survey, based upon work carried out in the Cyclades in 1952 and 1953 and in museums in Greece and elsewhere, is intended to offer a more comprehensive view of Cycladic archaeology than has hitherto appeared. An attempt has been made to gather together both published and unpublished material from sites which flourished during this period; interpretations of the former have been revised in the light of recent knowledge of contemporary cultures in Greece and Crete. Unpublished pottery in museums has been studied, new sites recorded, and fresh evidence collected from the sites themselves.

The Transitional LH III B2/C early pottery from Thorikos mine No. 3 is of particular importance for the definition of this as yet little-known phase. It is also of interest for its context. The assemblage is unusual; its nature implies a specific function rather than the debris of normal settlement. It is suggested that it may have resulted from mining activity.

There are in existence three more or less representative collections of Argive terracottas. The most complete and important is that from the Argive Heraeum; a good supplementary collection comes from the Heraeum at Tiryns; thirdly, some hundred, mostly fragmentary, but, where the heads are undamaged, highly important Argive figurines have been discovered at the Heraeum of Perachora in the northern Corinthia. A fourth group—from Hagios Sostis or Tegea—is patently within the Argive sphere of influence, but, as we shall see, succumbs very early to Corinthian influence also, and must be regarded as hybrid. Other small groups have been found at a number of sites in or near the Argolid, of which the most considerable was discovered at Argos itself.

During the campaigns at Old Smyrna in 1948–51 several Clazomenian sarcophagi came to light. The directors of the excavations, Professors E. Akurgal and J. M. Cook, kindly asked me to publish them, but by some mischance the completed notes and drawings did not reach me and I was not importunate. Drawings of decoration and shape and most of the measurements came from Miss E. A. B. Petty (now Mrs. G. U. S. Corbett), details of discovery and photographs from Professor J. M. Cook. Mr. J. S. Cole most obligingly checked many points for me in Izmir. I have myself examined only nos. 2, 3, 5, and 11.

In a rescue operation of 1965 on the Monte di Vico acropolis of Pithekoussai, Dr G. Buchner excavated a vast deposit of unstratified pottery and other finds, ranging in date from the Middle Bronze Age to early Roman times. At his invitation, the Euboean imports of the 8th cent. BC are presented here. Though fragmentary, they are of considerable importance not only in dating the foundation of the Greek colony, but also in providing the prototypes for the much more numerous colonial imitations in the same deposit, and in the recently published portion of the cemetery.

The large numbers and variety of forms of this object type that have gradually accumulated in the last half century permit now of an overall review, drawing in part on earlier and more individual accounts. Following the Catalogue, five broad typological classes are discussed, analysed in detail, and manufacture and method of employment deduced, as far as possible. Geographical and chronological distribution is looked at. The Pre-Palatial period sees only the use of ‘mats’ – turned manually merely as the potter desired in building up his pot by hand; centrifugal force is harnessed at the perioid of the creation of the First Palaces – the freely-revolving wheel appears. Rapidly, before the construction of the Neo-Palatial buildings, a wheelhead incorporating a fly-wheel effect was devised, probably set low on the ground, pivoting in a fixed basal socket.

The L.H. IIIA 2 period according to Furumark's chronology covers the fourteenth century, a crucial phase in Mycenaean history and, whatever absolute dates are eventually assigned to the period, the pottery belonging to it marks the vast expansion of Mycenaean trade throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. It is therefore extremely important to determine what pottery must and what pottery may belong to L.H. IIIA 2. The definition of L.H. IIIA 1 pottery adopted in a previous article enables us to deal with the beginning of the period. The division between L.H. IIIA 2 late and L.H. IIIB 1 can be placed, in terms of the pottery from settlement sites, at one of two points. The earlier would be the introduction of the vertical (as compared with horizontal or diagonal) Whorl-Shells. This was suggested by Mackeprang. The later point, and the one adopted in this discussion, is the introduction of the Deep Bowl (FS 284) and in unpainted ware the Conical Kylix (FS 274). This later terminus seems preferable as a more radical and easily recognizable development.