By the kindness of Philip Nelson, Esq., M.B., I am enabled to publish another head which he has recently acquired, and which is, perhaps, even more interesting than the head of an athlete from the same collection that I published last year. The Athena, which forms the subject of the present paper, was a part of the collection of sculpture made in Italy by Hollis and Brand, mostly from 1748–1753; this particular head is said to have been brought from Rome by Mr. Lloyd, and bought of him by Mr. Thomas Hollis in 1761. Together with the rest of this collection it passed into the hands of John Disney, and is represented upon Plate I. of the Museum Disneianum, published by him in 1843; and this place of honour is certainly merited, for it stands out most conspicuously for its artistic quality among the rest of the Disney marbles. When Disney in 1850 presented the greater part of his collection to the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge, this head of Athena, and also the archaic statuette of Apollo, represented on Plate XXIV. of the Museum Disneianum, remained behind at the Hyde, Ingatestone. There it was left until disposed of by sale in 1885; but it aroused no attention until its acquisition by Dr. Nelson, to whom I am indebted not only for my knowledge of the head, but also for the admirable negatives from which Plate I. has been reproduced.

The following inscriptions were copied during the winter of 1897–8: those from the temple of Der el Bahari in November and December; those from the neighbourhood of El Kab in February, 1898.

Der el Bahari.—The funerary temple of Queen Hatshepsut of the XVIIIth Dynasty, dedicated in honour of Amen Ra, and now known as Der el Bahari, stands on the western side of the Nile valley, under the eastern cliffs of the limestone ridge which separates the valley of the tombs of the kings from the great Theban cemetery which stretches from Goornah to Medinet Habou. The temple is laid out at three levels, having an entrance court on the lowest level, from which there is access by a central incline to a second or middle court, and this leads to a third or upper court, whose western and northern sides are built against the cliffs in which the sanctuary is excavated. All the graffiti given here (Fig. 1) come from the Eastern and Southern walls of this upper court. They are noted in the order they occur, on the Eastern wall from N. to S., on the Southern wall from E. to W.

In the work known as Khitab Al ‘Uyun, or Book of Springs, pp. 24–33, is contained a long narrative of the disastrous siege of Constantinople by the Arabs in 717–8, which, owing to its great length, I was unable to include in my article on the ‘The Arabs in Asia Minor’ in J.H.S. xviii, p. 182 ff. This work dates from the latter half of the 11th century, and in its present state appears to have been written in Spain, but is clearly drawn from early Eastern sources. Unfortunately the author does not, like most Arabic historians, mention his sources; but from a comparison with the narrative of Al Tabari it is clear that his chief, if not his only, authorities were Al Wakidi and Al Madaini, both of whom wrote in the early part of the 9th century and are earlier in date than any extant Arabic chroniclers.

P. 183, 1. 20 flf. The defective portion of Al Tabari extends only from AH 32 to AH 40. The notices given under the years 20, 28, and 32 might therefore have been quoted from Al Tabari. The variations in his text are too slight to be worth recording ; but it should be mentioned that for the notices of 28 and 32 the authority of Al Wakidi is quoted. Instead of the notice given under 25 he has merely, ‘And in this year was the capture of the fortresses, and their commander was Mu'awiya the son of Abu Sufyan.’ The two following notices should be added.

Fragments of pottery are very plentiful upon most of the ancient sites in Galatia, but those who cannot excavate can hardly expect to find anything at all complete. We were very fortunate therefore in obtaining at the village of Sarilar, the ancient Sykeon, an almost perfect pot and a photograph of an ‘Idol.’ Both jug and idol had been found by a peasant in a small mound between the bridge and the village: together with these he discovered a circular macehead of dark green stone and a square piece of copper. In Bey-bazâr we had previously been shown a small saucer-shaped cup, which came from the same village and no doubt from the same excavation: it was hand-made and of the same clay as the pot, (for its shape cf. Dörpfeld, Troja, 1893, Fig. 29).

During the last eighteen years our knowledge of Asia Minor has advanced by leaps and bounds, but all parts of the country have not shared alike in the general progress. Galatia in particular—we are now speaking of the country on this side of the Halys—has received comparatively little attention from archaeological travellers. Humann and Domaszewski's journey in 1882 and some journeys made by Prof. Ramsay in the following year and by Dr. Körte in 1894 (in the vicinity of the Sangarios) constitute the whole contribution that has been made to the exploration of this region since the publication of M. Perrot's Exploration de la Galatie (1862). A good deal has been done in the meantime by geographers to improve the modern map of the northern frontiers, notably by W. von Diest, whose work is always as nearly a picture of the country as can be attained without a regular survey. That he may be able to continue it is the fervent wish of all who are interested in Asia Minor. But there are few points fixed with any certainty on the ancient map, and there are large districts which are either hardly known (like the country near the great Salt Lake) or have never been visited at all.

Among the artists who have signed Attic black-figured vases perhaps the most singular and interesting personality is the potter and painter Amasis. He is interesting both as one of the masters of that delicate decorative work, which gives b.f. vases their artistic value, and through the curious contradictions which can be traced in his style. Only seven vases bearing his signature are known up till now, yet each shows characteristic peculiarities of shape, decoration, or style, which one would seek for in vain among the mass of contemporary Attic pottery.

No artist has surpassed Amasis in easy mastery and accuracy of drawing, or in the painstaking, delicate treatment of detail; yet his figures are often rigid and affected, his choice of subjects monotonous and limited. The technique and style of his vases, the alphabet and dialect of their inscriptions prove that he worked in Athens; yet both his numerous peculiarities of style and his name seem to denote a foreign origin.

It is but natural that so peculiar and interesting an artist should have excited curiosity to trace his origin and influence, and the wish to enrich the scanty stock of his work which we possess, by unsigned vases that may be attributed to him.

The British Museum in 1898 acquired a small bronze figure of Athena, which is figured on Plate VII. from three points of view. Mr. Murray has described it in his report as a bronze statuette of Athena, looking downwards at the serpent which she holds in her right hand. This type of Athena, as he points out, is very rare.

This figure is included in the new Catalogue of Bronzes under the number 1055 (p. 189), where it is described in much the same words as above. In discussing it now at greater length I have the kind sanction of Mr. Murray for making use of certain suggestions which he has made as a result of further investigation of the type.

The provenience of the bronze is unfortunately unknown, but we may conjecture that it comes from Southern Italy, probably from the neighbourhood of Rome or Naples. The goddess stands in a somewhat peculiar attitude, the left leg being so much bent that the whole body appears to be thrown backwards. The left foot is drawn very far back, while the right leg is quite straight.

Among the white lekythoi, upwards of a hundred in number, which have passed into the National Museum at Athens from excavations at Eretria, there is one which especially claims attention on account of its unusual size and exceptionally well preserved design. It is reproduced on Plate II. after a water-colour drawing made in the summer of 1896 by M. Chesnay, architect, of Paris, who was then working in Greece under the direction of the French School. I am much indebted to Dr. Cavvadias for permission to publish what is justly regarded as one of the chief treasures of the Greek national collection, and to Dr. Staïs for facilities in studying it.

It was found in 1889, ἐν κτήμασι Νοστράκη on an estate which yielded a large proportion of the wonderful harvest obtained during the authorised excavations of 1888–92.

It may seem bold to re-open the question (or questions) of the campaign of Marathon so soon after the publication of the monumental chapters of Busolt, of Hauvette, of Macan. But the labours of these scholars at once invite and facilitate farther discussion. They focus many scattered arguments, contribute new suggestions, put the humbler student abreast of recent researches, and show him where his own conclusions differ from accepted views. How much I owe to them will be obvious without particular references.

The theory here put forward, although independently reached, is not altogether new—perhaps no theory of Marathon could be—but I was not aware, until it was written, how closely certain of its main features had been anticipated by Busolt in a work published twenty years ago (Die Lakedaimonier pp. 355–369). That eminent historian has, however, since then twice changed his views, so that it may be useful to recall his readers to what I still consider to be his best solution of the problem. Perhaps the discussions of the interval have reinforced it in some respects. On one important point I find myself in agreement with Professor J. B. Bury's article on the Battle of Marathon in the Classical Review, March 1896, and even where we disagree, we must often have asked much the same questions.

Among the vases of the Dipylon class the most striking examples are those on which we see represented funeral ceremonies—a hearse or a bier with bands of mourners. And in fact the whole of the subjects on these vases seem to refer directly or indirectly to deceased persons. The chariots may illustrate some feature of the obsequies or may indicate the status of the deceased, while as to the ships, which are not infrequent, they also may represent status or occupation. So it is argued, and at all events the picture on these vases appears always to be of the nature of genre, not of legend.

In publishing a new lebes of the Dipylon kind (Pl. VIII.), recently acquired by the Museum, I may note that its provenance (near Thebes in Boeotia), makes against the view of Helbig and others that the ships on those vases are meant to show that the deceased persons on whose tombs the vases were placed belonged to the order of Attic ναύκραροι. We may assume that the purpose of the vase-painter in those primitive times was to produce to the best of his ability an impressive picture of a funeral ceremony as he saw it on occasions of special grandeur and to sell his vase to any buyer, whatever his status or occupation.

But where in funeral ceremonies do the ships come in? I suppose at the games held in honour of the deceased, such as those of the Aeneid (V. 114–235) which began with a race of ships.

The vase here published is a red-figure lekythos, found at Eretria and recently acquired by the British Museum. It has the ordinary honeysuckle pattern as decoration on the shoulder. Between two rows of maeander on the body of the vase is the picture, which occupies only one side.

The subject is a young woman hurrying out of a door, which she leaves open behind her. There is no indication on the vase of what, or of whom she is in pursuit, but the outstretched hands would seem to imply that the desired object is not far distant. In front of her, and almost as if issuing from her lips, is the name Ἀλκμέων, and below this the word καλός.

The material of the following paper falls conveniently under two headings, but the arguments respecting each are intimately connected, and cannot fairly be appreciated apart. It may be well, therefore, at the outset, to summarise briefly the conclusions at which I have arrived.

1. The Erinyes at Delphi and elsewhere are primarily local ancestral ghosts. The conception of Homer, and in part of the tragedians, of the Erinyes as abstract, detached ministers of divine vengeance is comparatively late, and belongs rather to literature than to popular faith.

2. The ghosts of important persons are conceived of as locally influential after death, and, being potent for good or evil, present a sort of neutral fond. In this neutral aspect they are Κῆρες, Μοῖραι, Τύχαι.

3. This neutral fond of Κῆρες, Μοῖραι, Τύχαι etc., is probably from the first conceived of in its dual aspect. The ghosts are pleased or angry, white or black, Eumenides or Erinyes—probably from the first the malignant aspect is somewhat uppermost.