No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
In 1928 Sir Arthur Evans generously presented an archaic bronze mirror to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. My thanks are due to the Keeper, Mr. E. T. Leeds, for his kindness in inviting me to publish this interesting accession and supplying me with the photographs reproduced in Plate II and Fig. 1.
The mirror is in the form of a disk, 15 cm. in diameter: its thickness at the edge is 7 to 8 mm., at the centre about 5 mm. It weighs 675.5 grammes. The face, slightly concave, was of plain, burnished metal surrounded by a narrow ornamented band round the edge: it is now badly pitted and covered over the greater part of its surface by a green patina (Fig. 1).
1 I owe some of the references in this article to Rouse, W. H. D., Greek Votive Offerings, Cambridge, 1902Google Scholar.
2 Maiuri, A., Annuario, iv/v. 463Google Scholar, No. 3, 1. 24 = S.E.G. iv. 187. The first editor read καθόπνρον, but the necessary correction was made by Wilhelm, A., Glotta, xiv. 78Google Scholar. The form of the word may be due to the influence of καβοράω.
3 Orsi, P., Notizie, 1920, 327Google Scholar ff. On p. 329 ‘35 a. C’ is a misprint for ‘35 d. C.’
4 The editor is in doubt whether in the Παῑδϵς we are to see Demeter and Core or, as he thinks more likely, the Nymphs. ‘The mysterious Anna’ he regards as ‘certainly of Oriental origin,’ possibly Aphrodite but more probably Ἄρτϵμις Πϵρσική or Ἀναῖτις, (Notizie, 1899, 469Google Scholar; 1920, 329). But (a) the restoration καὶ τᾶς Ἀνάσ[σασ], in Notizie, 1899, 456Google Scholar, is to my mind far from certain, and, (b) though the language of the inscription is Greek, the names which occur in it are all Latin. Is it possible that we have here an outlying cult of the Roman goddess Anna Perenna? Cf. Pauly-Wissowa and Roscher, s.v.
5 Cf. 1517. 189 f., where 
may well be part of the same phrase. Mirrors do not appear in the fifth-century treasure-lists, unless we are to restore 
in i2. 292a 3.
6 Wrongly attributed to Delos by Rouse, op. cit. 253.
7 Cf. Meisterhans-Schwyzer, , Grammatik d. att. Inschr. 80Google Scholar f.; Riemann, O., Rev. Phil. ix. 61Google Scholar.
8 Olympia, iv. 181 (Furtwängler, A.)Google Scholar.
9 Carapanos, C., Dodone et ses ruines, xxv. 1Google Scholar. Cf. S.G.D.I. 1369.
10 de Ridder, A., Catalogue des Bronzes trouvés sur l' Acropole, 81Google Scholar f.
11 Waldstein, C., The Argive Heraeum, ii. 264Google Scholar ff. (H. F. De Cou).
12 Glotz, G., Ancient Greece at Work, 133Google Scholar.
13 Pernice, E., Jahrbuch, xxxv. 83Google Scholar ff.
14 Oldfather, W. A.ap. Pauly-Wissowa, xiii. 1309, 1363.Google Scholar
15 Orsi, P., Notizie, 1912Google Scholar Suppl. 6 f., 1913 Suppl. 15 ff., 51 ff., 1917, 164; Petersen, E., Röm. Mitt. xii. 118Google Scholar ff.; de Ridder, A., Rev,Ét. Gr. xxxi. 267Google Scholar ff.; Pernice, E., Jahrbuch, xxxv. 95Google Scholar f.; Oldfather, W. A.ap. Pauly-Wissowa, xiii. 1363Google Scholar.
16 E.g. those illustrated in Notizie, 1912 Suppl. 7, 1913 Suppl. 15, 18, 49; Rev. Ét. Gr. xxxi. 269; Röm. Mitt. xii. 119.
17 Wrongly given as 
in the Index of I.G. ii.
18 Gruppe, O., Griech. Mythologie, 1181Google Scholar; Röscher, ii. 1286 ff. Cf. Keil, B., Hermes, xliii. 536Google Scholar.
19 See the list of ‘Kultstätten’ in Roscher, ii. 1288 ff.
20 I.G. xiv. 631. The goddess is here called 
(cf. Hesych. 
). I omit the enigmatic I.G. xiv. 450 (Catana) and J.H.S. vii. 23 (Taras), which may be a dedication to Persephone.
21 Evans, A. J., J.H.S. vii. 23Google Scholar ff.
22 Rouse, op. cit. Index.
23 Pauly-Wissowa, xiii. 1356 f., Roscher, ii. 1308.