Scrutiny of Herodotus’ ethnographic accounts of northern Syria and the region he calls ‘Palestinian Syria’ reveals oddities and inconsistencies. Here it is argued that such problems may be resolved if a fundamental fact is recognized: the enormous early literary prestige of the Phoenicians has obscured the historical roles of these other peoples in the Histories. The character and extent of this process, specifically as it bears on Syria-Palestine during Iron Age II, is analysed here. It is hoped that a new appreciation of the Syrians as an ethnicity may be gained as a result. It is suggested as well that for important historical problems researchers should ascertain whether Herodotus is not actually talking about Syrians when he discusses Phoenicians.

In 426/425 BC the Athenians purified the island of Delos: they removed all the graves, and for the future forbade either dying or giving birth there; those involved were to be removed to Rheneia. They also instituted the penteteric Delia after the purification. Whatever the Athenians' initial motivation, the interdiction on burial seems to have been taken seriously, for there were few if any licit burials on the island for the rest of antiquity. It must have been very difficult for the people of Delos to conform to this law, as it affected both the burial of the dead, and the performance of the regular, customary, rites of tendance of family tombs. This paper suggests how they may have found a way to adapt normal Greek practice to fit the circumstances peculiar to Delos.

The writers who discuss in detail the history of Macedonia during the years of ‘The Kings,’ Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV (323–317 B.C.), state or assume that Roxane, the widow of Alexander the Great, fled to Queen Olympias in Epirus with her little son, after the death of Antipater, or else that she was sent or taken there by Polyperchon at the time when Queen Eurydice was putting Cassander in Polyperchon's place as her husband's prime minister. The stay of the mother and son in Epirus and their return with Olympias when she entered Macedonia to fight at Evia with Eurydice and Philip Arrhidaeus for the kingdom are mentioned by such authorities as Grote, Niese, Beloch, Kaerst, Staehelin (Berve, also, refers to Kaerst and Staehelin for this part of Roxane's history), Klotzsch, and Tarn.

House-Pits or ‘bothroi’ have been uncovered on various sites of the Early Bronze Age in Greece, notably at Korakou, Gonia, and Zygouries in the Korinthia, at Asine in the Argolis, and at Eutresis and Orchomenos in Boiotia. They vary considerably in size and shape and the explanations of their purposes advanced by archaeologists are scarcely more uniform. They have been interpreted as common or as sacrificial rubbish pits, as hearths or slow ovens or as ‘silos’ (that is, cupboards for the storage of grain or other food).

The theory that such bothroi were underground ovens has recently been championed by Dr. Mylonas, who found one in a neolithic deposit at Olynthos in Macedonia, and who gives an illuminating account of the construction of such an oven at the present day in the neighbouring village of Myriophyto, inhabited by refugees from Asia Minor. The modern oven, or ‘ταντοῦρι,’ was prepared in the following manner.

When the great tunnel under the Quirinal was being constructed many fragments of statues and inscriptions came to light, most of which are at present stored in the Magazzino Archeologico. Among the finest is the statue of a boy (Pl. I. a) in the Fourth Room, found during the excavations of 1899–1900, and published in the Bullettino Comunale for 1901, Pl. X., where it is described as probably a Pasitelean imitation of the early Peloponnesian School of the fifth century B.C., unlike any known type, but suggestive on the one hand, from the myrtle wreath on the support, of an Eros or Thanatos, on the other, from its grave and serious aspect, of a camillus. M. Reinach in a note in vol. iii. of his Recueil des Statues Antiques p. 177) also regards it as archaistic; Dr. Amelung as a copy of a bronze original produced somewhat later than the Hestia Giustiniani.

The three inscriptions included in this paper belong to the well-known class of records containing the lists of sacred objects dedicated in the Parthenon during the fifth and fourth centuries. None of them sheds any new light on the difficult problems connected with the exact history of the various changes of the régime under which these records were drawn up. The best authority on these points after 400 is Lehner's treatise Über die athenischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten Jahrhunderts. To this work constant references are made in this paper in connexion with the second and third inscriptions contained in it, which give us several new items of interest and enable us to fill conclusively some of the many lacunae in these lists. The first fragment belongs to the period previous to the year 405/4, when a change was made in the organization of the treasurers who drew up these lists, which does not concern us here.

Of all the interpretations of the Ludovisi throne it is generally agreed that none is entirely convincing. For that reason any new suggestions that I have to bring forward here should only be interpreted as an attempt to indicate a fresh line of investigation that may perhaps lead to a more complete understanding of this most difficult of archaeological problems.

At the outset we are faced with the almost universally accepted view that the subject of the Ludovisi throne is the Birth of Aphrodite, with representatives of the cult or devotees shown on the side panels. Once this is admitted the explanation of the details of scene becomes a matter of purest academical or technical dispute. Similarly, the important corollary follows that the Boston counterpart, whatever we may think of its date or style, represents but other aspects, clearly more complicated, of the Aphrodite cult.

In the following Bibliography, which continues that of J.H.S. xli. 50 ff., I attempt to deal with the publications of 1921 and 1922, though a few books and articles are noticed which, though they appeared in previous years, only came under my notice in the period in question. It must be borne in mind that periodicals sometimes fall into arrears, and thus the actual year of publication may be later than the nominal year as indicated in the title. I have seriously modified the geographical order hitherto followed in my Bibliographies so as to bring it into strict accord, so far as the inscriptions of Europe are concerned, with that of the Inscriptiones Graecae; for those of Asia and Africa I follow the order adopted in the C.I.G.

The mass of the relevant material has rendered necessary the utmost compression, and, while I have aimed at introducing some reference to every contribution to Greek epigraphical studies, I have found it impossible to summarise or to indicate the value of each. No mention is normally made of reviews, but I have occasionally added references to them for special reasons, e. g. because of the value of their positive contribution to the study, or because they afford a ready means of surveying the contents of the books to which they relate.

The Arguments In favour of the Babylonian origin of the zodiacal signs are even stronger than is stated by Dr. Fotheringham. He says: ‘In our zodiac the place of the Ear of Corn is taken by the Virgin holding the ear of corn. As the Babylonians connected this ear of corn with the goddess Ishtar, the process from the ear to the virgin holding the ear is not very great.’ But (kakkab) Eŝŝim (a word which means ‘ear of corn’ according to Landsberger, Der kultische Kalender der Babylonier und Assyrer, 9–10) is actually represented on a Babylonian tablet as a virgin holding the ear (see Thureau-Dangin in Revue d'Assyriologie, xvi. p. 135). There was not therefore any change in the conception.

An unsolved problem has a peculiar fascination in archaeology as elsewhere. It compels our interest, and we come back to it again and again to try and find a solution. The Ludovisi and Boston Reliefs have presented us with many such puzzles and have consequently been the subject of much discussion. The two most important publications of these monuments—Studniczka's in the Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 1911, pp. 50–192, and Caskey's in the American Journal of Archaeology, 1918, pp. 101 ff.—have dealt at length with the numerous points involved and many of these have now been satisfactorily solved. The identification of the subjects represented on the reliefs, however, especially of those in Boston, is still only tentative. As Mr. Caskey says, ‘none of the numerous attempts to interpret the reliefs has met with unqualified acceptance.’ To the many explanations which have been advanced I am going to add still another, which to me at least seems the simplest, the most natural, and for that reason the most probable.