In the first part of this report I dealt with the broad results of the excavations on the Greek harbour site; this, the second part, is intended to give the detail upon which those results were based. Again, it is archaeological only in the narrowest sense of the word; the pottery which forms the bulk of our historical material will be described hereafter by others, and is mentioned here only so far as it may throw light upon the use and character of the rooms; most of the other objects found figure only in the catalogue, and the description is of the buildings alone. Even so it is partial. To have given a detailed account of all the hundreds of rooms excavated and noted would have been at once wearisome and otiose. Much of the material recorded in the field notes was intended merely to establish relative dates and levels and is utilised in the plans so that its repetition in the text would have been useless. I have accordingly selected what appeared to me to be of interest as illustrating the condition in which the remains were found or witnessing to their original character, as summarised in the first part of the report, and have suppressed whatever was redundant. To the description of the buildings of each period is added a catalogue of the principal miscellaneous objects found in that level; but, at the risk of inconsistency, I have put together in a separate list certain classes of objects, seals, amulets, etc., which seemed to gain interest by such grouping; and the weights, which require special treatment, have been omitted altogether.

Ancient authorities agree in placing the division of the people into tribes, phratries and gene among the most primitive institutions of Athens. The question presents itself, Were all the citizens enrolled in all of these organisations, or were some sections of the people excluded from any or all of them? On the answer given to this question depends to some extent the view to be taken of the origin of this triple classification.

The prevailing opinion is that, whereas tribes and phratries embraced the whole citizen-body, the gene were the exclusive organisation of the nobles. M. Cary adduces a fragment of early Attic law to prove that the phratries contained others besides gennetai (I shall deal later with this text) and asserts, in the face of the explicit testimony of Aristotle and the lexicographers, that the genos was not a subdivision of the phratry. I can find absolutely no support in the texts for this view. Most modern authorities are so completely convinced of the aristocratic nature of the genos that they do not even try to prove it. Francotte says simply: ‘D'abord, les genê sont des institutions aristocratiques. Je ne crois pas qu'il soit nécessaire d'insister.’

The Fifteenth Idyll of Theocritus has probably been more admired, and has certainly received more attention from scholars, than any other Alexandrian poem; and for obvious reasons. ‘It is a page,’ said Matthew Arnold, ‘torn fresh out of the book of human life. What freedom! what animation! what gaiety! what naturalness!’ The picture of contemporary manners which it presents has a charm far beyond the compass of T.'s nearest rival in this genre, Herodas, and, if some reservations be made on the score of language, it is convincingly lifelike. Nevertheless, in spite of the attention it has received, it has not, I think, been viewed as clearly as it may be either in details or as a whole. Of the five sections of which this paper is composed, the first four are an attempt to bring the picture into rather sharper focus; the fifth is a briefer note upon a point of detail.

We would gladly give the mediocre textiles preserved in South Russian graves, if Fate had spared a masterpiece of Greek tapestry which we know only from description. It leads a shadowy existence in handbooks, and one can hardly say that recent papers mark any advance towards its precise interpretation.

(i) Aristotle, de miris auscult. 96, 838a.

.

The excavations at al Mina, Sueidia, were undertaken as part of a programme of research covering a wide field in time and space. The object with which we set out was the tracing of connexions, if such existed, between the early civilisations of the Aegean, in particular that of Minoan Crete, and the more ancient cultural centres of hither Asia. Oriental influences working upon the art of Knossos have sometimes been suspected, but little evidence has been adduced to prove them; in some of the later periods of history, as for example in the ‘Orientalising’ phase of Rhodian pottery or in the Corinthian fabrics, the influence has always been obvious but the point of contact has remained obscure; intercourse may have been indirect, through the principalities of Asia Minor and the Ionian coastal towns, as has generally been assumed, or there may have been a more direct channel perpetuating perhaps an older tradition. I was myself strongly prejudiced in favour of direct contact, but only excavation could prove or disprove the theory; and the first step was to select a site which could give definite evidence.

Acknowledgments are due to Professor Oikonomos and members of the Greek Archaeological Service, the Directors of the French and American Schools, the German Archaeological Institute, and of associated excavations, my colleagues of the British School and the Director of Antiquities in Cyprus, for the reports, photographs and drawings which they have generously contributed. This summary, as usual, does not exactly cover a period of twelve months. It contains all the proceedings of 1937 not already reported and a large proportion of those of 1938.

Professor G. E. Rizzo, in his Saggi Preliminari su L'Arte della Moneta nella Sicilia Greca—a book beautifully produced, and ennobled by Bar Pennisi's wonderful photographs—has done me the honour of quoting several passages from a lecture delivered before the British Academy in 1934, and published in volume XX of its Proceedings under the title Late Archaic and Early Classical Greek Sculpture in Sicily and South Italy.

Since his quotations embody some variants from what I wrote, he will perhaps allow me to correct the more ingenious, leaving aside those where only his English is at fault and any reader interested in accurate scholarship can compare my original text with his rendering of it. But after disposing of this personal matter, and ignoring the frequent abuse which serves to add bulk and save reasoning, I shall quickly pass to a consideration of certain features of his archaeological method; not doubting the prolonged, profound and silent studies here proclaimed, but attempting to judge them rather by their results than by their advertisement.

Athenaeus quotes from Satyrus a passage in which is described the remarkable facility shown by Alcibiades in adapting his way of life to his environment (FHG III, 160 = Athen. XII, 534b): I. The Archaeological Report, λέγεται, φησίν, ὅτι ἐν Ἰωνίᾳ μὲν ὢν ‹Ἰώνων› ἐφαίνετο τρυφερώτερος, ἐν Θήβαις δὲ σωμασκῶν καὶ γυμναξόμενος τῶν Θηβαίων αὐτῶν μᾶλλον Βοιώτιος, ἐν Θετταλίᾳ δὲ ἱπποτροφῶν καὶ ἡνιοχῶν τῶν Ἀλευαδῶν ἱππικώτερος, ἐν Σπάρτῃ δὲ καρτερίαν καὶ ἀφέλειαν ἐπιτηδεύων ἐνίκα τοὺς Λάκωνας, ὑπερῆρεν δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν Θρᾳκῶν ἀκρατοποσίαν. This chameleonlike quality of Alcibiades is also stressed by other writers, who, however, in cataloguing the localities in which he displayed his adaptability, differ somewhat from one another and from Satyrus. Plutarch (Alcib. 23, 5) mentions Sparta, Ionia, Thrace, the court of Tissaphernes; in another passage (Mor. 52e) Athens, Sparta, Thrace, the court of Tissaphernes; Nepos (Alcib. 11, 2) gives Athens, Thebes, Sparta, Thrace, the Persian Empire; Aelian (V.H. IV, 15) gives Sparta, Boeotia, Thessaly, the court of Pharnabazus. Now Athenaeus, in the passage where he quotes the above fragment of Satyrus, is evidently following a collection of anecdotes about Alcibiades (XII, 534–5, where he cites several other authors), and very probably Plutarch, Nepos, and Aelian derive their material from similar compilations, which were extensively used by writers of the Roman period; but, since florilegia on Alcibiades must have been numerous, it is not to be assumed that all are copying from the same florilegium.

Pl. V, 1 and 2 shows a plastic vase in the British Museum, in the form of an antelope's head, cut off flat at the base of the neck and with the orifice in the right ear. The clay is light reddish-brown with a very smooth surface, the glaze brownish-black. The horns, ears, eyelids, pupils, muzzle and outlines of jaws are black, the face is covered with fine black dots, the neck and throat and the burr of the horns with short black strokes; there are white dots on the muzzle, red in the interior of ears and nostrils, and an incised line round the pupils. Under the base is a black rosette with a white dot on each petal (Pl. V, 2). Horns and ears are broken off, but are preserved complete on a replica in Berlin (Fig. 1, a and Pl. V, 3). Mlle. Maximova pointed out the connexion of the two vases, though she wrongly stated that the London vase had no orifice. She mentioned two others with the orifice in the ear—a bull's head in Berlin and a ram's head in Florence, both also cut off flat at the neck. The bull's head has no other resemblance to the antelopes', but the ram's appears from the description to be of similar style. The main peculiarity of the painting of the antelopes' heads—the covering of some areas with fine dots and others with short dashes—recurs on a number of other vases.

At Syracuse, in the area between Neapolis and south Achradina, where Landolina found the famous Venus in 1804 and where Prof. Orsi later investigated some Greek tombs (NSc 1925, pp. 176–208; 296–321), the digging of trenches, 4 m. deep, for the foundations of a new hospital brought to light an archaic Greek cemetery. The tombs are for the most part excavated in the rock, and are covered with thick slabs in several pieces. In one of the trenches five large sarcophagi were discovered; they were each cut from a single block of stone, and their covers are in one piece. Two have been brought to the Museum, while three remain buried under the foundations. Their contents were unimportant. The pottery found, mostly fragmentary, is Corinthian, Rhodian and archaic Attic of the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. The most interesting of the vases, now undergoing restoration, and not yet exposed in the Museum, is an amphora showing a warrior killing a monster with a human head.

The Archaeological Society of Athens was founded on 6th January, 1837 (O.S.); but the celebration of its Centenary was postponed till 23rd October, 1938, so as not to clash with that of the Centenary of the University, which was celebrated last year. Delegates from many countries were present, including four British representatives: Mr. Gerard M. Young, director of the British Archaeological School, who represented that institution, the University of Cambridge and the Society of Antiquaries; Dr. William Miller, who represented the British Academy; Mr. R. D. Barnett, who represented the British Museum and the Hellenic Society; and Dr. Routh, who represented the University of London. The programme began with a meeting in the Parthenon, where the King and the Prime Minister spoke, and M. Oikonomos, general secretary of the Society, gave an interesting summary of its history. It is characteristic of the Greeks that barely three years after Athens became the capital, they thought of such intellectual things as University education and archaeology, including, first of all, the preservation of their ancient monuments, to which attention had been paid even during the War of Independence by the National Assemblies of Troizen and Argos, and for which a museum was founded at Aegina by Capo d'Tstria, and in the Theseion by the Royal Government in !835, while in 1837 Ludwig Ross was appointed the first professor of Archaeology at the University. M. Oikonomos recalled another characteristic fact, that a Macedonian, established in Vienna, Baron Belios, was at the head of the 67 founders of the Society, the first organisation of which was drawn up by Alexander Rhangabes.

The controversy about Zeus in the Prometheus Vinctus started by the late Dr. L. R. Farnell (JHS liii, 40 ff.) is not settled. Answers are wanted to three sharp-sighted questions asked by Dr. R. H. Maiden (ibid. liv, 201). The first is whether any one has considered the relation of the Prometheus Vinctus to the Semitic (Babylonian) myth of the fall of man. Later Dr. Maiden writes: ‘In Genesis the myth is used as the vehicle of a mediation on the origin and nature of sin. … But what was the original form [of the myth] before it had undergone the moralising process? … It is not impossible that … the moral character of God was not beyond criticism … the idea of a deity hostile to mankind presented no difficulty to the Semitic mind.’ Thirdly, he questions the assumption made, in his answer to Dr. Farnell, by Mr. H. D. F. Kitto (ibid. liv, 14 ff.), that the High God must be all-powerful and immortal.

Lately M. Dmitri Merezhkovsky has compared the myth of Prometheus with Babylonian myths (The Secret of the West, translated by J. Cournos, London, 1933, 57 ff., citing Bab. Tab. B.M. VI. 5, Beros. Babyl. ap. Damascen. de prim. princ. 125, Cuneiform Texts, I. c). Similar comparisons had been made before, for example by the late Professor A. H. Sayce in 1884 (The Ancient Empires of the East, 157. Cf. my forthcoming remarks in TAPA, lxvii; and now E. O. Forrer, Mélanges Cumont, 686 ff.) In the Babylonian myths a god must be slain to create man.

In his interesting and important article on this head, Professor Wace assumes that the left ear was always exposed, and says: ‘ There seems to be no actual right ear. It was apparently meant to be imagined as hidden in the mass of curls.’ Such asymmetry is most surprising in a work of this period. As Professor Wace's article is likely to remain the principal reference for the head, it is important to observe that this theory cannot be taken as an established fact. I have examined the head after reading Professor Wace's article, but still believe with Furtwängler that the right ear exists under the curls, and that the left was originally similarly covered. First, though the left ear is unnecessarily complete for a hidden feature, it is strangely crude if meant to be seen. Second, the back view (Pl. IX, I) shows even more clearly than the front (Pl. VIII, I) that a group of curls on the left, corresponding exactly to Professor Wace's piece B on the right, would easily cover the ear; or to put it the other way, that there is plenty of room under the curls on the right for an ear as complete as the left. Third, Professor Wace writes: ‘ A lump of metal can be seen from the front under the short curls on the right, but this can hardly be the lobe of an ear, for it is set lower down than the left ear.’

‘The story, which ends with the poisoning and suffocation of Demetrius, has reached us in a form which suggests, as do also certain other features of the later life of Philip and of the reign of Perseus, that some author or authors wrote tragedies or historical novels dealing with the ruin of the Macedonian royal house.’ Such is the startling, if cautiously phrased conclusion of a recent historian, discussing the last years of Philip V in a standard work; it is a conclusion which deserves careful consideration, for if it can be substantiated, it will be necessary to revise seriously our usual estimate of Polybius' merits as a historian. And since no discussion of the problem can be fruitful until Polybius' own attitude towards tragedy and its relations to history has been considered, it is from this aspect that Benecke's suggestion must be approached.

The appearance of a further instalment of these ‘Studies’ has been regrettably delayed, owing to several reasons. The present article is planned on different lines from its predecessor (JHS li (1931), 139–63), for, instead of offering a comprehensive study of one reconstructed stele, it attempts to review the post-Euclidean Hekatompedon-lists down to 390/89 as a group, and to establish their chronological sequence, in the light of fresh discoveries. It is proposed, also, to deal in subsequent articles with the corresponding lists for the Parthenon and the Opisthodomos in this period, and to continue the study of the later lists both of the Treasures of Athena and of those of the ‘Other Gods’ into the second half of the fourth century.

The opportunity of working continuously in the Epigraphical Museum for several weeks during the summer of 1931 enabled me to recognise that in many instances two or more fragments of these Traditiones which had been published separately could be assigned to one stele, and also to identify a few still unpublished pieces belonging to this series.

(JHS lviii, pp. 41 ff.). Fragments of two vases in the form of dead hares were found at Lindos (Blinkenberg, nos. 1934–5, pl. 85). These are certainly not Corinthian; Blinkenberg describes the fabric of 1934 as ‘ terre rouge fine ’ and that of 1935 as ‘ terre d'un chamois rougeâtre,’ and compares the Copenhagen vase, my no. 12. If these fragments belong to the group, the theory of an Italian origin cannot stand. On the other hand, I pointed out that the dead hare in Berlin (no. 13) has a vase-mouth differing in form and decoration from those of the rest of the group, and also lacks the distinctive colouring of the ears. It is therefore possible to detach it from the group, and suppose that vases of this type were made in two centres besides Corinth. The Lindos fragments lack ears and vase-mouth, and so cannot be definitely placed. If they go with the Berlin vase, the Italian origin of the rest of the group can still be supported. The Lindos head, however, looks in illustration more like those of the vases in Copenhagen and the Vatican (no. 11) than of that in Berlin, while the latter was found at Vulci, and so formed part of the balance of evidence for an Italian origin. The question remains open, but the probability is that the Lindos fragments belong, and so that the group was not made in Italy.