This paper is in continuation of one which appeared in Vol. xviii, of the Journal (1898). It deals with the more interesting of the hitherto unpublished black-figured vases acquired by the British Museum during the last twelve years, to which are added two of later date. I hope in a future paper to publish on similar lines some of the red-figured vases and white lekythi acquired subsequently to the issue of the third volume of the Vase Catalogue in 1896.

The artistic character of Polycleitus is attested by ancient writers in remarkably clear and definite language; his position at the head of the Argive School of sculpture during the latter half of the fifth century also seems easy to understand. Friedrich's identification of the Doryphoros, which has met with universal acceptance, supplied the necessary link between the literary evidence and extant sculpture; and with this help the Diadoumenos and the Amazon soon fell into their places. But even here the study of the work of Polycleitus is by no means free from difficulty; the extant copies of the Diadoumenos vary perhaps more than those of any other well-known work, and there are associated with them other statues, whether variations on the same type or different renderings of the same subject, which have added to the confusion. Then there is a whole mass of statues which have been loosely grouped together as ‘Polycleitan,’ some of them perhaps copies of the master's own work, others probably to be attributed to his pupils or his direct influence, others more remotely affected by the traditions of his school; and in some of these the influence of Myron, of Cresilas, or of other sculptors, has to be recognised and assigned its proper value. It is evident therefore that the study of a ‘Polycleitan’ head offers a problem by no means so simple as it appears at first sight. At present we are concerned only with one of the numerous types that fall into this category; but it is difficult if not impossible to consider any such type without some general discussion of the larger class to which it belongs.

This paper contains some further results of my studies of unpublished fragments of Attic Treasure-records in the Epigraphical Museum, and deals with three small fragments from lists of the fifth century B.C., of which the first belongs to the Pronaos-records, and the second and third to those of the Hekatompedon. They are of interest as giving us contributions to a more exact text of this important class of documents, for the first establishes definitely the exact number of silver ϕιάλαι in the Pronaos each year during the period 434/3–431/0, and the third sheds fresh light on the arrangement of the first eight records of the sacred objects in the Hekatompedon. At the end is appended a note containing some further information as to the last of the three inscriptions published recently by myself in this Journal (J.H.S. xxix. pp. 182 foll.). It remains to acknowledge the kindness of Mr. B. Leonardos, Ephor of the Epigraphical Museum, in permitting me to study and publish these fragments, and of Mr. M. N. Tod in reading the proofs of this paper with his usual care.

Genoa played a much less important part than Venice in the history of Greece. Unlike her great rival on the lagoons, she had no Byzantine traditions which attracted her towards the Near East, and it is not, therefore, surprising to find her appearing last of all the Italian Republics in the Levant. But, though she took no part in the Fourth Crusade, her sons, the Zaccaria and the Gattilusj, later on became petty sovereigns in the Aegean; the long administration of Chios by the Genoese society of the Giustiniani is one of the earliest examples of the government of a colonial. dependency by a Chartered Company, and it was Genoa who gave to the principality of Achaia its last ruler in the person of Centurione Zaccaria.

With but two exceptions, no trace now remains of the shrines with which this paper deals, or at least no trace has been revealed by excavation. Practically the sole record of these buildings is to be found on the coins struck in the district during the period of the Roman Empire, and more especially during the third century of our era. The earlier coins, from the beginning of the coinage towards the end of the fifth century B.C., tell us something about the cults, but little of their furniture. But in the Roman age, especially during the time of the family of Severus and Elagabalus, there was a considerable outburst of coinage, which, in its types, reveals certain details interesting to the student of the fringe of Greek and Roman culture.

The evidence thus provided is necessarily disjointed, and concerns only the external, official aspects of the Phoenician religion. The inner truth of these things, it is safe to say, is hidden for ever: even the development from the primitive religion to the weird syncretistic systems of the Roman age is hopelessly obscure. One can only see dimly what was the state of things during the period illustrated by the monuments.

The pedimental heads of the Parthenon are lost. The only one that holds, that of the ‘Theseus,’ magnificent in its pose and mass, is in utter ruin. The fragment of Athena, recently discovered, is no more than part of the helmet with one ear and this not entire (Fig. 1). Of the other fragments we hardly may hope ever to be mathematically certain that they belong to these pediments, as one may be with fragments of the metopes or the frieze, when break fits upon break

The vases to be discussed in this article have as their common element a flat body and the turned-in rim that we now associate with an unspillable inkpot. The question of their name and use has already been the subject of much indecisive discussion, the fullest and ablest statement of the problem being given by E. Pernice, Jahrbuch 1899, pp. 60–72, where he maintains that the vases were all censers. Pernice had before him, however, a comparatively small number of typical vases, those he actually quotes being only 20. The fact that at Rhitsóna we had excavated 112 such vases suggested to us that it was worth while to see what light could be thrown on the problem by statistics dealing with all the vases extant. The new evidence does not definitely solve the problem. It does, however, emphasise and increase the serious objections already raised by Kourouniotes to Pernice's theory; and makes it not improbable that some, at least, of these vases were lamps, a view which has never yet been argued, either for or against. Our object in the present article is not to prove a theory but to state evidence.

The scope of the present article is restricted to a few disconnected points concerning the Great Persian War, and its edges have been carefully left untrimmed. Recent publication on the same subject has been so voluminous as to impose conciseness upon future writers; and the success with which many outstanding problems have latterly been discussed, notably by English scholars, leaves a comparatively narrow field for future research. Yet it may be of interest to revert to particular topics which invite renewed consideration, and to reaffirm certain conclusions which appear to be falling into undeserved disrepute.

The recent enthusiasm of English explorers for the prehistoric antiquities of Greece, if involving some neglect of things ‘merely Hellenic,’ has at least resulted happily in the enrichment of our museums. The Minoan civilisation can at present be studied only in Crete, England, and America; and while the journey to Crete is always necessary for an adequate understanding of the subject, the introductory idea can be better acquired at home, where the material is limited by selection and less bewildering in bulk and variety. Crete and Minoan art are naturally associated with the Ashmolean Museum; and it is perhaps overlooked that the British Museum has at the same time acquired, by gift of excavators and of the Committee of the British School at Athens, a collection of originals and reproductions not indeed comparing with the splendour of Oxford, but valuable in representing most of the important sites, and especially useful to students in possessing an arranged series of sherds of every period.

On p. 275 of vol. i. of Scripta Minoa Mr. Arthur Evans notes with regard to the woman-hieroglyph on the Phaistos Disk (No. 6 of his sign-catalogue; see Fig. 1) that ‘the whole aspect of this figure with its exaggerated breadth of waist contrasts strongly with the Minoan and Mycenaean female types.’ On p. 25 he says ‘still more divergent from all known examples of Minoan dress is that of the woman. It differs not only in its general broad outline …, but in almost every detail.’ This is so, yet this hieroglyph has one close Mycenaean counterpart as a representation of a woman. I refer to the little female figures in gold plate from the Third Shaft-Grave at Mycenae (Schuchhardt, Schliemann, Fig. 182; see Fig. 2), which are practically full-face views of the same squat figure which on the Phaistos Disk is represented in profile. The same curious petticoat is shewn, with its peaked edge, and even much the same unadorned shook of hair. This is perhaps a point worth noticing, as the two representations are very near one another in date, the Disk being ‘Middle Minoan III.’ and the shaft-grave ‘Late Minoan I.’