The purpose of this note is to bring to light a piece of evidence on the ‘Lelantine War’ which has hitherto been neglected, and briefly to review the Thucydidean and some of the other evidence in the light of it.

Several attempts have been made to reconstruct the camp of Attila on the basis of the evidence supplied to us by the narrative of Priscus Panites, who describes in great detail what he saw during his visit to the camp in A.D. 448. Stephani has argued that the camp was of Germanic construction and that it was built by a Gothic war-prisoner from Sirmium. It may be said at once that this latter point is unlikely, for Priscus turns aside to mention that the stone baths of Onegesius were built by this war-prisoner; he would scarcely have specified this one building if in fact the whole camp had been constructed by him. Also, there is no indication in his text that the prisoner was a Goth. J. Strzygowski suggested that the camp was the work of Slavs, a conjecture which has, I think, won no acceptance. Most recently, Ferenc Vamos, in a very full discussion of the camp and its buildings, rejected both these views and suggested that the influence of two cultures can be detected in the camp: the culture of the nomads of central Asia and that of the sedentary Iranians—the Huns were introduced to the work of the latter by the intermediacy of the Alans. But before a decision can be reached on the origins of Hun architecture, we must be clear as to what it is precisely that Priscus tells us about the camp and the buildings in it.

Letters Slight apices. Date about 200 B.C.; not earlier. Line 1: iota adscriptum possibly omitted in Line 21: for see I.B.M. 925 (Branchidae). In line 12 there is a space after indicating a stop, but Mr. Paton cannot find any trace of after

Telmissos is described by Polemo (apud Suidam s.v.) as a town in Caria at a distance of sixty stadia from Halicarnassos [which answers very nearly to the distance between Budrum and the site above Ghiöl (J. L. M.)]. It has been frequently confused with its namesake, an important city in the west of Lycia. But we may take it for granted now that it was the little Carian town that was so famous in ancient times for its augury. Cicero is quite explicit on the point (De Divin. i. 41): Telmessus in Caria est, qua in urbe excellit haruspicum disciplina; and again in ch. 42: Turn Caria tota, praecipueque Telmesses, quos ante dixi, quod agros uberrimos maximeque fertiles incolunt, in quibus multa propter fecunditatem fingi gignique possunt, in ostentis animadvertendis diligentes fuerunt.

It was not my original intention to devote a special study to the Helenos who governed Cyprus for the Ptolemies (as I believe) during the last two decades of the second century B.C. I stated my views about him briefly in 1937, 1940 and again in 1953; and, although these views have not been well received, I was content to let the matter rest at that. However, no sooner had I made this last pronouncement than we found on the site of the Aphrodite temple at Old Paphos two new dedications of Helenos himself (our nos. 1 and 4 below); while in 1954 yet another inscription in his honour came to light at Salamis (no. 6). These compel me not merely to ascribe to Helenos both a text which I have wrongly restored (no. 3) and one, likewise from Old Paphos, by which for many years I have been baffled (no. 2), but in general to modify the opinions which I held about him. It seems proper, therefore, that I should assemble all the evidence that I know, and on my analysis of this venture what I trust may be my final reconstruction of the career of Helenos. Some fresh light will be thrown in the process upon the institutions and the history of Cyprus for the eight years which precede and the twelve which follow the death of Euergetes II in 116 B.C. But I freely admit that much of the new evidence is difficult and ambiguous; and for this present study my chief claim is that it sets out facts which others also may interpret.

It is well-known how, in the spring of 1877, the German explorers at Olympia had the good fortune to dig up the chief parts of a statue which had been seen by Pausanias in the same spot, and had been described by him in the following words:—χρόνῳ δὲ ὕστερον καὶ ἄλλα ἀνέθεσαν ἐς τὸ Ἡραῖον, Ἑρμῆν λίθου, Διόνυσον δὲ φέρει νήπιον, τέχνη δέ ἐστι Πραξιτέλους (Paus. v. 17, 3).

The bulk of the statue is in exquisite preservation. The greater part however of the right arm of Hermes is missing. Since the whole motive of the subject depends upon the action of the arm, speculation has been busy as to the most probable restoration of this limb.

With a view to the solution of this problem, Benndorf has collected together a series of types of the Hermes and Dionysos group. His list is not exhaustive, and he seems to have passed over certain instances of importance.

My principal object in this paper is to attempt to show that a certain group of types contains the clue to the restoration of the missing arm, although they do not represent the arm in its true position; and on the other hand to show that certain types which have the arm in its true position, are untrustworthy guides as to the restoration of the attribute attached to it.

Les thèmes de folklore ont la vie dure. Chacun connaît les miracles d'Epidaure (v.gr. R. Herzog, Die Wunderbarheilungen von Epidauros, Leipzig, 1931). Or quelques uns de ces types de miracles se retrouvent dans la Vie, écrite quelque dix siècles plus tard, de Syméon Stylite le Jeune (521–592), éditée par Paul Van den Ven (Subsidia Hagiographica des Bollandistes, n° 32, 2 vol. Bruxelles, 1962 et 1970).

Ch. 41 (A). En tête de la première suite de miracles, accomplis par Syméon alors qu'il est encore sur sa colonne de 40 pieds dans le ‘monastère du bas’ (entre 533 et 541, Syméon ayant de 12 à 20 ans), vient une première liste du Trois anges, qui s'étaient mis à inscrire les noms des malades guéris par Syméon (40.16 ss.), lui annoncent qu' ils vont cesser de le faire: 41.7 ss. (parce que désormais toutes choses s'accompliront, grâce à toi, par la vertu de ta parole et de ta puissance)

Olbia, I. ed. S. A. ZHEBELËV, 4to, 304 pp., L. Plans and Plates, 108 figs., French résumés throughout, Acad. of Sc. of Ukrainian SSR., Kiev, 1940.

In the Compte rendu of the Russian Imperial Archaeological Commission for 1877, which has just made its appearance, Dr. Stephani, one of the most learned and experienced of archaeologists, has boldly attacked the antiquity of the graves discovered by Dr. Schliemann at Mycenae. The circumstances of that discovery will be fresh in the memory of our readers. As soon as English archaeologists had an opportunity of examining the various objects discovered by Dr. Schliemann in the graves, they at once gave their verdict, all but unanimously, that what was found belonged to the pre-historic times of Greece. And in this country it is now commonly assumed that the antiquities of Mycenae must form the subject of the first chapter of any account of Greek artistic production. But the reputation of Dr. Stephani is deservedly so great that his entry into the controversy compels us to a reconsideration of the whole problem, and a careful examination of the new light which he has to offer.

This task I have undertaken, not without reluctance. And whatever may be my inferiority to M. Stephani in the matter of learning and experience, I have over him the great advantage that whereas he judges of the Mycenaean treasures from engravings and photographs, I have seen them not once, but many times, have examined them with utmost care, and have for years been seeking in all quarters for anything to throw light on their date and origin.

Among all the tantalising questions relating to Lycian pillar tombs, the one that has never been touched is that concerning the top openings which are usually called doors. Yet an enquiry into their meaning may, I think, prove a crucial test. These apertures measure in width 0.20 m. (Isinda Tomb), 0.30 m. (Lion Tomb), 0.41 m. (Harpy Tomb), and 0.45 m. (Trysa Tomb). They give access to a sort of cavity the floor-level of which, however, is a good deal below the bottom of the opening, and from within they must have looked rather like windows. All these openings are high (4-6 m.) above the ground and were filled with stone slabs. No coffin could have passed through them, for their size is exceedingly small. Yet they are called doors. What was their real purpose? Were they for offerings, or for cremation urns, or for sacrifices? Is this tower-like tomb to be compared with Persian cremation towers, or with primitive granaries, or is it a survival of some legendary burial in trees?