No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Archaeology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Archaeology
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1900
References
page 79 note 1 Misprinted by Cichorius on p. 33: see pp. 97, 101. Judeich accents Μανωλήδος, taking it as for iS Μανωλήδος.
page 79 note 2 I took it as meaning ‘woman of Motala or Motala,’ used as a personal name (like Lydia, &c). For a good example of an ethnic turned into a proper name see Μαγ⋯δ[ος] or Μαγδ[ɛ⋯ς] in a Termessian inscription B.C.H. 1899, p. 174, no. 21.
page 81 note 1 Wrongly referred to as No, 80 on p. 32. NO. CXX, VOI,. XIV.
page 81 note 2 The inscription belongs to Laoonia, and an awkward arrangement in the Corpus has led hasty readers to connect it with the wrong number and so class it to Hierapolis.
page 82 note 1 It evidently reached Mm after his commentary was in great part written, but in time to be taken notice of in several cases, and sometimes at considerable length (p. 75).
page 83 note 1 No. 292 follows 291 immediately, on the same stone and the same side of it.
page 83 note 1 Specimens are given on p. 315; but I had prepared many more, which would have taken up too much space.
page 83 note 2 See Sterrett, Epigr. Journey, No. 53, 05, 34, 37.
page 83 note 3 On this epithet see an earlier paragraph.
page 83 note 4 The copy has P, an obvious mistake for B.
page 83 note 5 There is a fault in Dr. Judeich's report of the epigraphic text of this name: he omits N. After the name the copyist inserts E by another mistake : the copy is full of mistakes, and some passages are hopeless. Dr. Judeich takes E as wrongly copied for B, and therefore forces BTOR into line 1, where there is no space for it.
page 84 note 1 Judeich reads Πνλνᾰ, while he was under the herrschende Meinung that δς must refer to the following name (which in that case must be in the genitive here): I read an accusative like Wadd. 656 (quoted in next paragraph).
page 84 note 2 Παιτιαν⋯ν 656, Παιτιαν⋯ν 649 : one or other is an error : 11 aud IT are easily confused.
page 92 note 1 Athenaeum, 2 Dec. 1890; cf. Berl. Phil. Woch. 9 Dec.
page 92 note 2 ibid. 16 Dec.
page 92 note 3 Alhen. Mitheil. xxiv. (1899) p. 357, ff
page 92 note 4 Daily News, 10 Jan. 1900.