In a second campaign at Sotíra P. Dikaios, working for the Kourion expedition, has carried forward the excavation of the hill-top Neolithic settlement. In several of the houses the original floors were uncovered; they yielded pottery of the same types as were found on the two floors above (combed, red lustrous, and red-on-white). In most of the rectangular houses a line of three post holes was found, one in the centre and the others against the shorter walls, indicating a central roof-beam along the long axis. On the northern edge of the plateau a great mass of stone intersected by rough walls was uncovered; it seems best explained as the result of stacking the stone cleared from the site after the destruction of the settlement at the stage of the second floor, when the site was cleared and the houses rebuilt for the last time. A preliminary report on the 1951 season has appeared.

One of the most curious of the Greek stories about Egypt is that which ascribed the building of the Third Pyramid of Gîzeh to a woman, according to the usual tale, the famous courtesan Rhodopis. We find this story given in various forms by Herodotus, Diodorus, and Strabo. Herodotus would not credit it (ii. 134), but it was evidently generally accepted among the Greeks in Egypt, so much so that the native historian, Manetho, when called upon by the Greek rulers of Egypt to write the history of his country, himself attributed the building of the pyramid to a woman, an Egyptian queen, Nitokris, the heroine of another Herodotean story (ii. 100). This Nitokris Manetho places at the end of the VIth Dynasty. Thus Nitokris and Rhodopis were connected, and Professor Petrie in his ‘History’ (i.p. 105) considers, that the Herodotean Rhodopis is ‘evidently another version of Nitokris, whom Manetho describes as fair and ruddy.’ In reality however it would seem that Manetho's Nitokris was a version of Rhodopis rather than Rhodopis a version of Nitokris.

Alexandria. —At Kom esh Shuqafa the Graeco-Roman Museum under the direction of Alan Rowe carried out in 1941-2 supplementary investigations in the catacombs. These reveal that the catacombs and other tombs were cut out in a great semicircular rock plateau which originally rose to a height of fifty feet above the surrounding area. This had been obscured by the great mass of debris which had accumulated over and around the rock.

There is so much to record from Greece proper and the islands, that it will be necessary to omit Asia Minor from the scope of the present article. It has been a year of surprises, from the episode of the sponge-diver knocking at the door of the Minister of Education to report a shipload of statues lying under the sea, to the rediscovery of Aphaea, the unknown goddess who emerged the other day from the pages of Pausanias and Antoninus Liberalis to receive the honours due to her in the famous temple on Aegina.

In describing the results of excavations it is convenient to begin as I did last year with the prehistoric period and with Crete, where a number of workers, two Italians, two Americans, seven Englishmen, have been exploring early sites. The French School has not excavated there this year, but has organized a geographical expedition under the leadership of M. Ardaillon which is to make a much-needed survey of the island.

The Purpose of this article is to present some of the available evidence for the persistence from late Mycenaean times into the early sixth century of ‘bull's-head’ vase handles, as first exemplified on the Warrior Vase from Mycenae (Athens 1426; plate V). The very similar handles on certain Cypriote vases now dated to around 700 B.C. suggest that a continuous tradition culminated, in this area, in a revival. For convenience I shall speak throughout of bull's-head handles, though in many cases it is open to question whether a bull or calf's head, or the head of a mountain sheep or goat was intended; and the same handles have been differently interpreted at different times. Generally when they appear on Cypriote vases it has been thought that a wild goat is intended, this being the principal wild animal on the island. In fact of course the modelling is often so perfunctory that nothing very convincing zoologically is achieved.

The following notes and inscriptions represent part of the results of a journey made in the spring of 1904, supplemented and revised on a second visit paid to the same district in the following November. One inscription from Korone, a fragment of the ‘Edictum Diocletiani,’ I have already published (J.H.S. 1904, p. 195 foll.). I have attempted to state as briefly as possible the fresh topographical evidence collected on my tour, avoiding as far as possible any mere repetition of the descriptions and discussions of previous writers.

The literature dealing with this part of Greece is not extensive. I give here a list in chronological order of the more important works in which its geography and antiquities are discussed, and append to each the abbreviated title which I shall use for purposes of reference.

The study of the relationships between artistic personalities is considered by some a futile self-indulgence in irrelevant art-history. Beazley's lexicographical work provided a prosopographical, and therefore also chronological, framework for the use of the evidence provided by Attic vase-painting. Additions and further refinements are necessary, as Liddell and Scott Supplements are necessary. But the investigation of relationships between artists, such as the exploration of teacher-pupil connexions, is frequently believed to provide no more than a sterile piece of information of narrow interest. This view is, I think, wrong, for an investigation of this type can also shed light on problems of a wider interest at three levels.

Firstly, the understanding of the groupings of artists by workshops, and of the relationships between workshops, is relevant to the study of Athenian social and economic history, since vase-manufacture was one of Athens' most important craft-industries. The study of the ‘Origins’ of an artist, with which I will be concerned here, can sometimes—especially if these origins are complex—throw some light on the early phases of the career-struct ure of Attic vase-painters. Thus it could also provide an example, of however limited validity, of the early structure of a classical Athenian craft-apprenticeship.

It is with some diffidence that I publish the following paper. It is indeed the result of considerable study of the literature of the subject, and of the best of a week's work on the spot last autumn. But unfortunately I never expected, when I went to Pylos, that I should have so much to say about it, and I took with me neither leave to excavate, nor appliances for measurements and photography. I feel therefore that my views can scarcely in the nature of things carry with them the same weight as those which Mr. Grundy has based on the detailed survey which he conducted under the auspices of the University of Oxford a week or two before my visit. I am afraid our conclusions on certain points may prove to differ. My documentary evidence is at present non-existent, and my measurements are one and all rough and approximate. I can only ask Mr. Grundy and the reader to remember that I spent more than forty hours exploring the ground, and that, as survey work was unhappily out of the question, I had thus ample time to form an opinion on the topography of what is after all a very limited area.

The purpose of this article is to present an account of the manner in which the changing styles of Greek Hellenism are reflected in later Etruscan reliefs. I have selected among the Etruscan urns and sarcophagi those reliefs which show in their style the closest reflection of Greek models; they are usually reliefs of superior quality, and can serve as fixed points around which to group other Etruscan reliefs. This method has one important advantage: it overcomes the difficulty created by the regional isolationism of later Etruscan schools. As is well known, Etruscan sculptors were apt to repeat the same composition in a great number of reliefs. An enterprising artist would create a new composition, usually by refashioning a Greek model. His colleagues in the same workshop, or at least in the same city, would copy him; and the process of re-copying might go on for several generations, resulting in ever cruder reproductions of the same design. Thus Greek compositions, long abandoned in their native land, could survive in Tuscany for a considerable length of time. And, in the case of later terracotta urns, re-copying even assumed a purely mechanical character. The original relief ‘A’ would be used to take a mould ‘B’; from this, in turn, new imprints would be taken; they, in turn, would serve as forms for new moulds.

The Periplus Maris Erythraei, written probably in the latter half of the first century ad, is a guide for merchants trading with eastern Africa, Arabia, and India. The anonymous author lists the various ports along the routes, indicating for each the facilities to be found and the objects of trade to be bought or sold there.

A few of the ports are well known and can be identified with certainty. Many which are also mentioned in other writers, such as Strabo or Ptolemy, can be identified with varying degrees of certainty. The most difficult are those that occur only in the Periplus. One such is Tabai, on the African trade route.

The objects shown in Figs. 1 and 2 were all found in a ‘Phoenician’ rock-tomb in a field to the south of Rabato, Malta. ‘The tomb with vaulted ceiling was cut in the side of a hill. It contained cinerary urns with burnt bones, but no signs of bodies interred. Under a clay cup (Fig. lb), a gold medallion was found, on which the winged orb displayed over the half-moon, flanked by two serpents, is gracefully figured in a kind of filigree work. The medallion has a diameter of 25 mm. and weighs 6·3 grms. A similar medallion was found at Carthage (Douïmes) in 1895 and described by Delattre. With this medallion’ (i.e. with the Maltese) ‘a pair of silver bangles and fragments of two rings were found. Fragments of a small Greek vase were also discovered with the débris.’ (Fig. 2.)

Despite increasingly sophisticated theoretical debate, scholars concerned with ancient historiography effectively still divide into two camps: historians, who want to use the texts as sources and assess them by criteria of accuracy, reliability, completeness of record and presence or absence of prejudice according to their presumed relationship to the facts which they purport to represent; and literary scholars, who want to interpret the texts as texts, with their own internal logic.

The following inscriptions were either copied or excavated by the members of the British School during the spring of 1896, some during our preliminary visit in January, but the greater part during March—May, when we were living at Trypete. The majority of the inscriptions of the island are the product of the promiscuous amateur digging which has been going on probably almost continuously for nearly a century: they are consequently usually in the hands of peasants, who in most cases can only give one vague traditions regarding their original provenance. The personal interest of their present owners in them is naturally very small: it awakens to a languid existence when from time to time a foreign visitor makes them the subject of notebooks and (occasionally) of drachmas: but for the most part no sort of care is taken for their preservation, and if an inscription is to be employed as a paving-stone, it is usually the inscription side which meets the foot and the weather. Of course this state of things is not confined to Melos: I only mention it because there is at last serious talk of collecting the inscriptions and perhaps some of the other more important antiquities of Melos into a local museum: whether as the result of our urgent representations or of those of the German visitors of last year, or as the result of years of suggestions, it matters very little. It is greatly to be hoped that the good intentions of the demarch of Castri may soon be carried out.

The recently published vol. iii. of the late Jean Maspero's Catalogue of Greek Byzantine Papyri at Cairo contains a text (No. 67316, Plate VIII.) which is of considerable importance for the study of that palaeographical crux, the Greek papyrus protocol. It may be well to recall that the protocol was the official mark placed at the top of each roll of papyrus, the manufacture of which was a Government monopoly. When the practice was first instituted we do not know, but no protocols earlier than the Byzantine period have been discovered. Justinian's Nov. xliv. c. 2 forbids notaries to use any papyrus except such as has προκείμενον τὸ καλούμενον πρωτόκολλον, φέροντὴν τοῦ κατὰ καιρὸν ἐνδοξοτάτου κόμητος τῶν θείων ἡμῶν λαργιτιόνωνπροσηγορίαν, καὶ τὸν χρόνον, καθ᾿ο῀ν ὁ χἁρτης γέγονε, καὶ ὁπόσα ἑπὶ τῶντοιούτων προγράφεται

The progress of archaeological work in Greece will be most conveniently noted under three heads.

1. New arrangements made for the building of museums and the general arrangement and exhibition of antiquities already known.

2. Excavations on the Acropolis and other discoveries at Athens itself.

3. Excavations carried on in the remainder of Greece and Asia Minor by the Greek government, the Archaeological Society, and the Archaeological Institutes of Germany, France, America. The work of the British School in Cyprus will be matter for separate publication, and need not be noted here.

The arrangement of antiquities is put first to avoid subsequent repetition. It is to be understood throughout that unless the contrary is expressly stated all antiquities found in the Acropolis have gone to the Acropolis Museum, all those found elsewhere in Greece to the Central Museum.

On the Acropolis the second museum is nearly complete. It is intended to contain vases, terra-cottas, and minor antiquities generally, and all such as are likely to be of interest to the ‘professional’ archaeologist, architect, and artist only. To this museum the general public will not be admitted. The Greek government acting through the general-director, Mr. Kabbadias, is most liberal in allowing all possible facilities for study to foreign archaeologists, and it is good news that there will now be space and seclusion in which it will be possible for them to avail themselves of such liberality. The disposition of the more notable antiquities in the first museum is nearly complete. It is unnecessary to describe in detail a collection well known and perhaps, in the department of archaic art, the finest in the world, but it may be noted that at last the beautiful slabs of the Parthenon frieze and those of the Nike balustrade are set up to full advantage. A catalogue of the museum is promised, but not as yet published.

The following observations were made during a general study of Greek horsemanship, but, being somewhat controversial and turning upon points of textual criticism and the interpretation of technical terms, they may perhaps be of interest to scholars rather than to the public.

(1) iv 2.

‘It is not only to save the corn from being stolen that a safe stall is good, but because it becomes obvious whenever the horse is [not] carrying out his corn.’

This sentence evidently describes some clear symptom of disease, for Xenophon continues: ‘Should you observe this happening, you may know that the body, being overcharged with blood, requires attention, or is overtired and needs rest, or that barley-sickness (κριθίασις) or some other sickness is making its onset. Just as with men, so with horses, all diseases are easier to cure at the onset than when they have established themselves and been treated mistakenly.’

The nature of ‘barley-sickness’ (colic) is excellently explained in Delebecque's commentary, but that of the warning symptom is doubtful, and depends on the precise meaning to be given to ἐκκομίζῃ. The manuscripts insert a negative particle before it; this is deleted by modern editors on the evidence of Pollux i 209:

‘There is a disease of horses, barley-sickness and congestion of the blood through surfeit. And when they “carry out” their corn, then one must remove it and feed grass only, or some other light diet.’

At Knossos Mackenzie seems again to have performed the duties that we would now designate as those of the site supervisor. But the exact nature of his responsibilities, the limits of his authority and the personal relationship between him and Evans are something of an enigma. The problem has important scientific implications in view of the controversy that has developed since 1962 about the dependability of some aspects of Evan's publications. The conundrum, in short, concerns the exact roles that the two men played in the gradual evolution of theories from the moment of discovery of crucial evidence until the final arguments and conclusions appeared in definitive publications.