The following account is compiled from various sources: in part from reports kindly supplied by the directors of various excavations, several of whom have generously sent me photographs as well, in part from Prof. Oikonomos' account of the work of the Greek Archaeological Society; I have been enabled to fill gaps through the great kindness of Prof. Karo, Director of the German School, who allowed me to use the proofs of his forthcoming article in the Archäologischer Anzeiger, which contains much detail which I have not attempted to incorporate here.

ATHENS AND ATTICA

The year has been marked by the completion of at least one highly important undertaking in Athens—the reconstruction of the northern colonnade of the Parthenon, which was finished, under the direction of M. Balanos, in the spring.

Prof. P. Kastriotis has continued his excavations in the Odeion of Pericles, where it has been established that the southern wall is a late restoration (dating from the time of Valerian or Justinian). No trace of the original south wall has been found; this fact and the bad state of preservation of the western wall make a satisfactory reconstruction of the plan impossible.

In the Greek writings of the first millennium of the Christian era we find our earliest evidence of that remarkable body of doctrine known as Alchemy. Arising perhaps in the traditional knowledge of the Egyptian priesthood, it flourished as a living science and creed for seventeen centuries. The earliest alchemical works that have survived are all written in Greek, and the extant Greek alchemical writings run to more than eighty thousand words. The bulk of these documents is evidence of the attraction which the science possessed for the philosophers of the Byzantine age. Alchemy was then no mere by-way of thought, but one of the major departments of knowledge.

The alchemical writings have affinities with other contemporary works. It is, therefore, well to decide on the meaning we shall attach to the word Alchemy before discussing its methods and origin.

Miss Hutton's valuable article on the archaistic reliefs in Oxford contains two errors, which may as well be corrected at once. The first was pointed out to me by Mr. W. H. Buckler. Of the left-hand nymph in the representation of Pan teased, Miss Hutton writes that the artist ‘twisted the upper portion of her body round into a three-quarters frontal position, which he balanced by flinging the right arm back to fill the empty space behind the body. There is therefore no physical contact between the first nymph and Pan.’ As a matter of fact she was grasping the end of Pan's leopard-skin with her right hand, just as in the other reliefs with the same subject, and swinging not her right but her left arm back.

The second slip is in the account of the Rhodian nymph relief. According to Miss Hutton, ‘the whole surface has been so much rubbed down to conceal damage that the right-hand figure, whose heavy peplos had originally a pleated kolpos with swallow-tail points, appears to be clad in a transparent veil over an equally transparent tunic.’

This excerpt out of a recently discovered inscription from Lampsacus introduces us to a naval battle of which no other record exists. Can the date and occasion of the battle be determined? The editor of the inscription, M. G. Daux, concludes that any such attempt must be mere guesswork; but in telling us that the letter-forms of the new text are such as one would expect in a document of c. 300 B.C. he has given us a clue which invites exploration.

At this time Lampsacus was no longer in a position to maintain an independent navy in support of its own war-policy. Hence it may safely be assumed that the Lampsacenes captured in ‘the sea-battle’ were serving under one or other of the Diadochi.

We have been treated to many variants of the thesis that brings some or all the elements of neolithic culture in Greece from a little-known region north of the Balkans. Recently two versions have appeared that surpass their forerunners in profundity and erudition. After intensive study in the principal Greek Museums and visits to Serbia and Hungary, Dr. Frankfort has come to the conclusion that there was a great influx of people from the Danube basin across the Balkans and into Greece about the end of the First (Thessalian) Neolithic Period. This Danubian invasion would have been in a sense a counterpart of one from farther east that brought the obviously intrusive Dimini culture to eastern Thessaly.

The clearest proof of their advent that his Danubians have left consists in certain types of carboniferous pottery. But, of course, carboniferous wares are characteristic of the earliest cultural layers in the whole east Mediterranean region from the Hellespont to Upper Egypt.

The fragment illustrated above was offered for sale in London last summer. It should belong to the new replica of the Sardanapalus from Castel Gandolfo, which was kindly shown me by Commendatore Paribeni in 1926, soon after its discovery. The broken surfaces correspond pretty exactly, if my memory serves me aright; the execution is similar, and does not belie Curtius' date, the end of the first century A.D., though I should prefer to think it some years later.

Less vapid than the replica of the Sala della Biga, and free from retouching and restoration.

A much-dilapidated head of Augustus (recognised as such by Mr. Hinks) has this interest, that it represents the Emperor as unshaven. Another bust of Augustus which shows him with hair on his cheeks and chin is at Verona and is described by Poulsen (Porträtstudien in norditalienischen Provinzmuseen, p. 72), and other examples are known.

This head was found in excavating the church where the large iron seal of the three martyrs, Neon, Nikon and Heliodorus (published in J.H.S., 1928, p. 46), was picked up. The hair is indicated mostly on the cheeks, extending down from the upper head in front of the ears, and again under and on the chin. It has been understood that the unshaven Verona bust represents the Emperor as mourning for the death of Marcellus, 23 B.C. The first impression made on me by the Antioch head was that it represented a man in deep sorrow; and on that impression I based my first erroneous idea that it was the Man of Sorrow: this may be recorded as having some interest in respect of the true identification with the mourning Augustus.

Two busts of Augustus have been found at Antioch, one published in A.J.A., 1926, p. 125, and one here. Augustus was the founder of the Colonia, and naturally it was devotedly loyal to him.

These three numbers in the Corpus are parts of one inscription, which evidently contains the expenditure of Athena's Treasurers for some portion of the years 432/1–427/6. 294 is in two pieces, of which fragment a had not apparently been seen since Lolling's time, and I.G. I2. gives it from Lolling's not quite correct copy: Bannier had observed with great acuteness from the published copies that fragments a and b of 294 join.

In his recent article on The Hellenistic Ruler-Cult and the Daemon W. W. Tarn regards the story of Callisthenes' refusal to drink the cup of unmixed wine at a banquet of Alexander's as apocryphal, having its sources, as he says, only in the later literature of gastronomy. His reason for doubting the authenticity of the story is that ‘Chares in both versions (i.e. of the Banquet at Bactra, where the proskynesis was performed by all but Callisthenes) is clear that Callisthenes did drink.’ Assuming for the moment that the story is true, he says of it: ‘The Greeks as a rule disliked unmixed wine; and Callisthenes was thus able to veil his refusal to drink “The King” by saying that if he drank Alexander's health (in unmixed wine) he would be ill.’ He argues that since Chares attests that Callisthenes did drink the King's health on the important occasion at Bactra, that Chares and probably Aristobulus, who are given as sources by Athenaeus, are both wrong in vouching for this remark, and the sole remaining authority Lynceus is only a third-century writer on gastronomy.

By the kind permission of Professor Sieveking and of Mr. A. M. Woodward, who has informed me of the existence of these objects and has sent me the photographs here reproduced and the necessary notes, I am able to publish a few small objects in ivory, bone, and bronze which were acquired in 1911 by the Museum der Kleinkunst in Munich. A summary account of them by Professor Sieveking has already appeared in the Münchner Jahrb. der bildender Kunst, 1912, p. 73. The channel by which they reached Munich is naturally obscure, but there can be no doubt that they were found at the Orthia sanctuary at Sparta, the excavation of which was finished in 1910, the year before the objects were acquired at Munich. Even before this information reached me, I had learned by a curious accident that there had, in fact, been some small pilfering from the Orthia excavation by one of our workmen.

The writer has been recently given the opportunity to study three lead coffins, ornamented in relief, now in the Palestine Museum, Jerusalem. They are as yet unpublished.

No. 1.—Inventory, Dept. of Antiquities (Part M), No. 1080, entry dated January 13, 1928. According to a report made to the Department it was discovered in 1923 during the repair of a road from Acre to Beirut, near the village of Ez-Zîb. It was found in one of a group of fourteen tombs opened up accidentally during the work. The coffin was found in a much-damaged state and conveyed first to the local museum, Acre, and then to its present place.

Description. What remains of the coffin is in six fragments:— (a) A short side, measuring 24 by 35 cm. It is decorated with four columns of the Corinthian order with simplified capitals. The shafts of the columns have parallel spiral flutings for the upper two-thirds of their length (12 cm. fluted, 6 cm. plain).

The peculiar freshness and clarity of surface and detail which distinguishes so much of archaic Greek sculpture in marble seems to be due to the perfection of technical methods no less than to the consummate skill and genius of the artists. At present little investigation has been made as to what those technical methods were. Carl Blümel has laid a sure foundation for future study, but much can be done to amplify his conclusions. The following notes constitute an attempt to ascertain some of the technical facts from a study of the original works of art.

The simple drill.—Some light has recently been shed on the use of the drill in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. and the gradual transition from the simple to the running drill. But it is still a matter of some uncertainty when the drill came into use in the archaic period, first for minor and then for major detail; for it remained for centuries an adjunct only and did not become a major tool until Roman times.

The third Byzantine Congress, held at Athens in October, was attended by some 350 persons, of whom only two were British. While several other Governments were represented and the French, German, Italian and other continental Universities and learned societies sent large delegations—36 delegates came from Jugoslavia alone—only one British learned society, the British Archaeological School of Athens, was represented, and—as was remarked at the Congress—Great Britain was conspicuous by her absence. Yet the Congress was admittedly an important and successful meeting. In all the four sections of history, archaeology, philology and law, medicine and other sciences, notable papers were read by eminent Byzantinologists. In the two sittings of all the four sections united together, Professor Jorga spoke about ‘The great Byzantine families in Roumania and the rebirth of the idea of the Empire among the Roumanians’: Professor Charles Diehl delivered a graceful address on ‘The Legend of the Emperor Theophilos’; Professor Heisenberg, the editor of the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, spoke with great tact about ‘Byzantine studies since the World War, their development and their aims’; Professor Darko of Debreczen commemorated J. B. Bury; the great Greek poet, Palamas, told of ‘The Byzantine heritage in modern Greek poetry’; and Professor Grégoire of Brussels examined the sources of Digenis Akritas. There was a visit to the monastery of Daphni, where, after a brief lecture by MM. Koukoules and Soteriou, an al fresco luncheon was offered to the Congressists by the Mayor of Athens, and excursions were made to Monemvasia and Mistra and to Salonika.