This statue, which was in the possession of Dr. Philip Nelson of Liverpool, has recently become the property of the Bavarian ‘Verein der Kunstfreunde’ who allow the charming work to be exhibited on loan in the Munich Glyptothek.

That the original, of which this statue is a copy, was famous and popular in antiquity is amply proved by the large number of extant replicas. The present example brings up to twenty the number of authenticated replicas given in the English edition of Furtwängler's ‘Masterpieces’ (p. 272, note 4) and the list could doubtless easily be increased if the eleven replicas in Rome (Matz-Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Röm, vol. i. pp. 275–278) and the thirtyseven replicas enumerated by M. Salomon Reinach in his Répertoire de la Statuaire (Index, s.v. ‘Narcissus’) could be thoroughly examined and sifted. This is a task which I had proposed to myself in view of this paper, but which I have as yet been unable to carry out.

The combination of boxing and wrestling known as the pankration was a development of the primitive rough and tumble. To get his opponent down and by throttling, pummelling, biting, kicking, to reduce him to submission is the natural instinct of the savage or the child. But this rough and tumble is not suitable for an athletic competition: it is too dangerous and too undisciplined. To the early Greeks, athletics were the recreation of a warrior class, they were not the serious business of life or even a profession, and in an age of real warfare the warrior's life was too valuable to be endangered for sport. Moreover, without some form of law athletic competitions are impossible, and in the growth of law the simpler precedes the more complex Hence it was only natural that particular forms of fighting, such as boxing and wrestling, should be systematized first, and so made suitable for competitions before any attempt was made to reduce to law the more complicated rough and tumble of which they both formed parts. Wrestling and boxing were known to Homer, but not the pankration, and Greek tradition was following the natural order of evolution in assigning the introduction at Olympia of wrestling to the 18th, of boxing to the 23rd, and of the pankration to the 33rd Olympiad.

The site of Poemanenum is a vexed question in Mysian topography, on which no clinching evidence is as yet forthcoming: it is important for its bearing (a) on the Roman road-system, and especially on Aristides' routes, and (b) on the geography of the Byzantine wars. The position of the place may thus be deduced from two sets of data relating respectively to the Roman road-post and to the Byzantine fortress: those who work from road-evidence alone tend to place the site either on the Aesepus at Gunen, or, more vaguely, in the Tarsius valley: those who lay stress on the Byzantine evidence point inevitably to Eski Manyas, a village some few miles south of the lake of the same name.

The claims of Eski Manyas to the Byzantine site appear to me incontestable: to put quite briefly what has often been discussed at length, we have here remains of the strongest Byzantine castle in the district, in a position corresponding to what we know of Poemanenum; and, besides this, an echo of the ancient name is evidently preserved.

During the excavations of Messrs. Hogarth Grenfell and Hunt for the Egypt Exploration Fund in the winter of 1895–6 on the site of Karanis (Kom Ushim) in the Fayum, a considerable number of clay-sealings were found, mainly in the cellars of the Roman houses. These were recently put in my hands for investigation and offer some interesting material.

The sealings have evidently come from various kinds of articles: in many instances the clay is too much broken for any determination of the shape which it had taken to be possible; but among the better preserved pieces are examples from the mouths of bottles, some of which have been squeezed down into the neck like a cork, others placed over a linen covering, sometimes tied down with cord: others are from the flat sides of wooden boxes, often showing the marks of cord: others again from parcels of irregular shape, in some cases seemingly wrapped in papyrus. The common points of all are that they consist of lumps of Nile-mud, and that they have been impressed, while the clay was damp, with signets, which were presumably those of the merchants who forwarded the goods upon which the sealings were placed.

In a preceding article (J.H.S. vol. xxv, pp. 294–319) the attempt was made to fix chronologically the order in which the Olympian ‘treasuries’ were founded, and conclusions were summarily presented in connexion with a general consideration of the origin and function of ‘treasuries’ at Olympia and elsewhere. Now it is necessary to test these conclusions by a detailed examination of the architectural remains found on the terrace at Olympia, and in so doing to pass in review the successively founded Olympian communal houses called treasuries, taking them in the order thus theoretically arrived at, i.e. XII, X, XI, VII, VI, V, IX, IV, II, III, and I.

The Geloans' House, No. XII.—The foundations of this fabric were identified at the eastern verge of the terrace in 1877–78, in which year various parts of its superstructure came to light at the opposite corner of the Altis; but not till 1881–83 was this superstructure—entablature-stones of several kinds and fragments of terracotta (painted and unpainted) belonging to the treasury-chamber, as well as triglyphs, metopes, columns, and capitals belonging to the porch—completely recognised and convincingly distributed between the old treasury-chamber and the later porch.

It is some years now since I had occasion to enter on the question of the value of the List of Thalassocracies, attributed to Diodorus and to Castor, in connexion with an enquiry, not yet completed, into the history of Cyprus in early Hellenic times; and it seemed to me then, first, that it would be of considerable importance, elsewhere than in Cyprus, if this list should turn out to have historical value; and second, that the evidence for its credibility was considerably stronger than was currently supposed. But it was not until the appearance of Dr. Hugo Winckler's paper on the Euphrates-lands and the Mediterranean in the popular German series entitled Der Alte Orient, that it seemed worth while to say anything about this formally; and I only do so now because with all the respect due to so distinguished an Orientalist, it does not seem to me that Dr. Winckler's interpretation satisfies all the conditions of the problem.

It is a commonplace that the age of the early tyrants was an age of extraordinary commercial development. The invention of coinage, the most important invention in the history of commerce, dates from that age. In what personal relationship did the tyrants stand to this commercial development? They are often assumed to have been merely one of its passive products. Is it not possible that the founder of the tyranny was the man who turned to greatest advantage for political purposes the unique commercial conditions of the age in which he lived? Thucydides connects the rise of tyrannies with money making. Does not the saying χρήματ᾿ ἀνήρ which dates from this time, suggest that the tyrants were the leading members of this new class of nouveaux riches, and that they owed their political supremacy to their previous commercial predominance? The indications are of course exceedingly slight.

This paper gives the results of a journey of exploration undertaken in April, 1905, in the Magnesian peninsula by Mr. A. W. Van Buren of the American School at Rome and myself. The observations are in many cases incomplete, but every effort has been made to make them as perfect as time and means allowed. I would like to point out to archaeologists who are too often content only with a tour to Larissa, Tempe, the Metéora, and Phersala, that Thessaly is in many respects a terra incognita. That it amply repays exploration and excavation is shewn by the results obtained by Dr. Tsountas and Dr. Stais at Dhimini, Sesklo, and Marmariani. It is to be hoped that in future archaeologists will visit Thessaly more frequently and not be content with mere sight-seeing. I myself hope to return this year to study the Ossa district ; and it is possible that the British School at Athens will, if circumstances permit, excavate the temple site at Kato Georgi.

The scanty remains of the pediments of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea were for many years the basis of all constructive criticism of the style of Scopas; their attribution to him has met with such universal acceptance that I need not here discuss it; in view especially of their extraordinary vigour arid originality it seems to me indisputable. The news that the excavation on the site of the temple was to be continued by M. Mendel, of the French School at Athens, was therefore received with the greatest interest, and his publication of his results fully justifies these anticipations. I wish to acknowledge the courtesy with which M. Holleaux, the Director of the French School at Athens, has allowed me to reproduce the illustrations from the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique; for the use I have made of them in the case of the Atalanta I must accept the responsibility. It is not, however, possible, from the publication alone, to appreciate all the evidence that has to be taken into account. I had an opportunity, in April 1904, of studying carefully the statues in the local museum at Tegea, in company with Mr. D. L. Richmond, of King's College, Cambridge.

In my paper on ‘the Two Labyrinths’ (J.H.S. xxv. p. 320) I have throughout spoken of the Pyramid of Hawara, in front of which the Egyptian Labyrinth was erected, as the pyramid of Amenemhat III (Lamaris or Moeris and have described it as his tomb. Now the southern brick pyramid of Dashur, excavated by MM. de Morgan and Legrain some years ago, also belonged to Amenemhat III, and is claimed by its excavators as the tomb of the king, the old identification, adopted by Lepsius and Petrie, of the Hawara pyramid as his tomb, being considered to be erroneous. As this fact was not mentioned in my former paper I add a short postscript on the subject.

1. Found in the ground of Michael Palatianos at Martezana; now in a lime-store at Peragialós (the local name for the port or Skala): on the left side of a piece of marble which served as the lintel of a tomb, carved with a simple cornice. 1·27 × 0·31 × 0·17: letters 0·015 regular and carefully cut, equal in size except that and project beyond the lines.

sic for

Beneath the lintel, placed so as to be read under the doorway by those issuing out, i.e. in the reverse of the epitaph, in large letters 0·025.

With reference to the controversy as to whether the rock-cut figure known as the Buyuk Tash (or Surat Tash) on Mount Sipylus is to be identified with the statue of the Mother of the Gods, or the weeping stone Niobe which are mentioned by Pausanias, I think the following might be worth recording.

Mons. M. G. Weber in his Le Sipylus et Les Monuments (1880, p. 117) has remarked that the statement of Pausanias (viii. 2.), that it was asserted that the Niobe wept in Summer, furnishes an argument against the identification of the Niobe with the Tash Souret, since in summer there is no water on that part of the mountain, and even in winter the figure ‘ne reçoit que les eaux immédiates de la pluie. Il faut décidément chercher Niobe dans l'intérieur du massif qui cache certainement encore plus ďun monument préhistorique.’