The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1" ***

http://dp.rastko.net

Page i

THE
AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY
AND OF THE
HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS

VOLUME VIII

1893

_PRINCETON_: THE BUSINESS MANAGER
_LONDON_: TRÜBNER & CO. _PARIS_: E. LEROUX
_TURIN_, _FLORENCE_ and _ROME_: E. LOESCHER
_LEIPZIG_: KARL W. HIERSEMANN.

Page ii

EDITORS.

_Managing Editor_: Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton
University, Princeton, N.J.

_Literary Editor_: Prof. H.N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, Ohio.

_Editorial Committee on behalf of the Archæological Institute_:
Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of
Yonkers, N.Y.

_Publication Committee for the Papers of the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens_: Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia
College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of Yonkers, N.Y.

_Business Manager_: Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton
University, Princeton, N.J.

All literary contributions should be addressed to the Managing
Editor; all business communications to the Business Manager.

CONTRIBUTORS.

The following are among the contributors to past volumes:

M.E. BABELON, Conservateur an Cabinet des Médailles, National
Library, Paris
Prof. W.N. BATES, of Harvard University, Cambridge.
Mr. SAMUEL BESWICK, Hollidaysburg, Pa.
Mr. CARLETON L. BROWNSON, of Yale University, New Haven.
Prof. CARL D. BUCK, of University of Chicago, Ill.
Dr. A.A. CARUANA, Librarian and Director of Education, Malta
Mr. JOSEPH T. CLARKE, Harrow, England.
Dr. NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, Princeton University.
Mr. HERBERT F. DE COU.
Dr. WILHELM DÖRPFELD, Secretary German Archæological
Institute, Athens.
M. ÉMILE DUVAL, Director of the Musée Fol, Geneva.
Dr. M.L. EARLE, of Barnard College, New York.
Prof. ALFRED EMERSON, of Cornell University.
Mr. ANDREW FOSSUM, of St. Olaf College, Northfield, Mass.
Prof. HAROLD N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton University.
Dr. A. FURTWÄNGLER, Professor of Archæology in the University
of Berlin.
Page iii Mr. ERNEST A. GARDNER, Director of the British School of
Archæology, Athens.
Padre GERMANO DI S. STANISLAO, Passionista, Rome.
Mr. WM. H. GOODYEAR, Curator, Brooklyn Institute.
Prof. W. HELBIG, former Secretary of the German Archæological
Institute, Rome.
Prof. GUSTAV HIRSCHFELD, of Königsberg, Prussia.
Dr. GEO. B. HUSSEY, of University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Dr. ALBERT L. LONG, of Robert College, Constantinople.
Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton University.
Comte de MARSY, Director of the Soc. Franc. d'Archéologie,
_Bulletin Monumental_, _etc._
Prof. ORAZIO MARUCCHI, member of Archæol. Commission of Rome,
_etc._
Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College.
Prof. G. MASPERO, former Director of Antiq., Egypt; Prof. at
Collège de France, Paris.
M. JOACHIM MENANT, of Rouen, France.
Mr. WILLIAM MERCER, of Gainsborough, England.
Prof. ADOLPH MICHAELIS, of the University of Strassburg.
Prof. WALTER MILLER, of Leland Stanford, Jr., University, Palo
Alto, Cal.
Prof. THEODOR MOMMSEN, Berlin.
M. EUGÈNE MÜNTZ, Librarian and Conservateur of the École des
Beaux-Arts, Paris.
A.S. MURRAY, Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British
Museum.
Prof. CHARLES E. NORTON, of Harvard University, Cambridge.
Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Director of the Babylonian Expedition,
New York City.
Mr. JOHN PICKARD, Professor in the University of Missouri,
Columbia, Mo.
Mr. THEO. J. PINCHES, of the British Museum, London.
Prof. WM. C. POLAND, of Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Mr. W.M. RAMSAY, Professor in the University of Aberdeen.
Dr. FRANZ V. REBER, Professor in the University and
Polytechnic of Munich, _etc._
M. SALOMON REINACH, Conservateur of the Musée National de
St. Germain.
Prof. RUFUS B. RICHARDSON, of Dartmouth College, Hanover.
Prof. JOHN C. ROLFE, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dr. TH. SCHREIBER, Prof. of Archæol. in the Univ., and
Director of Museum, Leipzig.
Mr. ROBERT SEWELL, Madras Civil Service, F.R.G.S., M.R.A.S.
Mrs. CORNELIUS STEVENSON, Curator Museum University of Pa.,
Philadelphia.
Prof. FRANK B. TARBELL, of University of Chicago, Ill.
Mr. S.B.P. TROWBRIDGE, of New York.
Dr. CHARLES WALDSTEIN, of Cambridge University, England.
Dr. WM. HAYES WARD, President Am. Oriental Society, and Ed.
_Independent_, N.Y.
Mr. HENRY S. WASHINGTON.
Prof. J.R. WHEELER, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Dr. PAUL WOLTERS, Secretary of the German Archæological
Institute at Athens.
Hon. JOHN WORTHINGTON, U.S. Consul at Malta.
Prof. J.H. WRIGHT, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
The Director and Members of the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens.

Page iv

PROGRAM.

The JOURNAL treats of the various branches of archæology and
art history--Oriental, Classic, Christian and Early
Renaissance. Its original articles are predominantly classic on
account of the fact that it has become the official organ of
the ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA and of the AMERICAN
SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, and the JOURNAL will aim
to further the interests for which the Institute and the School
were founded. In it are published the reports on all the
excavations undertaken in Greece and elsewhere by the Institute
and the School, and the studies carried on independently by the
Directors and members of the School. By decision of the Council
of the Archæological Institute the JOURNAL has been distributed
during 1893 to all members of the Institute, and the same
distribution will be made during 1894.

Beside articles the JOURNAL contains CORRESPONDENCE, BOOK
NOTICES AND REVIEWS AND ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS. It is its aim to
give notices of all important publications recently issued,
sometimes written expressly for the JOURNAL, sometimes
summarized from authorized reviews in other publications.

The department in which the JOURNAL stands quite alone is the
RECORD OF DISCOVERIES AND INVESTIGATIONS. While all periods and
all countries are represented, special attention is given to
Egypt, Greece and Italy. Not merely are the results of actual
excavations chronicled, but everything in the way of novel
views and investigations as expressed in books and periodicals
is noted. In order to secure thoroughness, more than one
hundred periodicals are consulted and utilized. By these
various methods, all important work is concentrated and made
accessible in a convenient but scholarly form, equally suited
to the specialist and to the general reader.

It has been the aim of the editors that the JOURNAL, besides
giving a survey of the whole field of archæology, should be
international in character. Its success in this attempt is
shown by the many noted European writers whose contributions
have appeared in its pages during the past eight years. Such
are: MM. Babelon, de Marsy, Maspero, Menant, Müntz and Reinach
for France: MM. Dörpfeld, Furtwängler, Hirschfeld, Michaelis,
Mommsen, Schreiber and Wolters for Germany; MM. Gardner,
Murray, Pinches and Ramsay for England, _etc._

The JOURNAL is published quarterly and forms, each year, a
volume of between 500 and 600 pages royal 8vo, illustrated with
Page v colored, heliotype, phototype, half-tone and other plates and
numerous figures. The yearly subscription is $5.00 for America;
and for countries of the Postal Union, 27 francs, 21 shillings
or marks, post-paid.

Vol. I, containing 489 pages, 11 plates and 16 figures; Vol.
II, containing 521 pages; 14 plates and 46 figures; Vol. III,
containing 531 pages, 33 plates and 19 figures; Vol. IV,
containing 550 pages, 20 plates and 19 figures; Vol. V,
containing 534 pages, 13 plates and 55 figures; Vol. VI,
containing 612 pages, 23 plates and 23 figures; Vol. VII,
containing 578 pages; 26 plates and 8 figures; Vol. VIII,
containing 631 pages, 18 plates and 26 figures--will be sent
bound for $5.50, unbound for $5.00.

Vol. I has lately been out of print, but will be reprinted
shortly in view of the increasing demand for back volumes; all
who desire to complete their sets should send in their
application.

Page vi

CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII, 1893.

No. 1. JANUARY--MARCH.
PAGE.
I.--_THE TEMPLE OF THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS_,
By HAROLD N. FOWLER, 1

II.--_NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE-SCULPTURES_,
By F.B. TARBELL and W.N. BATES, 18

III.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT RELIEFS FROM
THE ACROPOLIS TO VASE-PAINTING_,
By CARLETON L. BROWNSON, 28
II.--_THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF LYSIKRATES
AT ATHENS_,
By HERBERT F. DE COU, 42
III.--_DIONYSUS_ εν Λίμναις, By JOHN PICKARD, 56

CORRESPONDENCE.
_Hunting della Rabbia Monuments in Italy_, By ALLAN MARQUAND, 83

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
M. COLLIGNON, _Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque_, By A.M. 87
HEINRICH BRUNN, _Griechische Götterideale_, By A.M. 89

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Ethiopia, Algeria and Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan,
Thibet, China, Central Asia, Arabia, Babylonia, Persia, Syria,
Armenia, Caucasus, Asia Minor), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 154

No. 2. APRIL--JUNE.

I.--_SOME UNPUBLISHED MONUMENTS BY LUCA DELLA ROBBIA_,
By ALLAN MARQUAND, 153

II.--_EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY_, By SAMUEL BESWICK, 171

III.--_A SERIES OF CYPRIOTE HEADS IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM_,
By A.C. MERRIAM, 184

IV.--_A TABLET REFERRING TO DUES PAID TO THE TEMPLE OF THE SUN
AT SIPPARA_, By THEO. G. PINCHES, 190

V.--_A SEPULCHRAL INSCRIPTION FROM ATHENS_,
By WM. CAREY POLAND, 191

VI.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_SOME SCULPTURES FROM THE ARGIVE HERAEUM_ (reprinted),
By CH. WALDSTEIN, 199
II.--_EXCAVATIONS AT THE HERAEUM OF ARGOS_,
By CARLETON L. BROWNSON, 206
Page vii

CORRESPONDENCE.
MONTEFALCO IN UMBRIA, By WM. MERCER, 226
LETTERS FROM GREECE, By F.B. TARBELL, 230

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
ORIENTAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 239
CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 246

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Central Africa, Algeria); ASIA (China, Cambodia, Asia
Minor); EUROPE (Greece, Italy, Sicily, France, Spain),
By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 251

No. 3. JULY-SEPTEMBER.

I.--_NOTES OF EASTERN TRAVEL_, By JOHN P. PETERS, 325

II.--_THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SPARTA_, By NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, 335

III.--_THE NEATHERD IN THE ART OF THE MYCENÆAN PERIOD_,
By GEORGE B. HUSSEY, 374

IV.--_FASTIGIUM IN PLINY_, N.H. XXXV, 152, By HAROLD N. FOWLER, 381

V.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEATRE AT SICYON IN 1891_,
By M.L. EARLE, 388
II.--_FURTHER EXCAVATIONS AT THE THEATRE OF SICYON IN 1891_,
By C.L. BROWNSON and C.H. YOUNG, 397

III.--_REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS AT SPARTA IN 1893_,
By CH. WALDSTEIN and Z.M. PATON, 429

VI.--_NOTES ON ROMAN ARTISTS OF THE MIDDLE AGES_. IV. _THE CLOISTER
OF THE LATERAN BASILICA_, By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 437

VII.--_SOME INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE ORIENT_, By A.C. MERRIAM, 448

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 456
CHRISTIAN ARCHÆOLOGY, 461
RENAISSANCE, 465

No. 4. OCTOBER-DECEMBER.

I.--_A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS AT ATHENS_, By WALTER MlLLER, 473

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan, Thibet, China,
Central Asia, Western Asia, Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, Phœnicia,
Palestine); EUROPE (Italy), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 557

Page viii

ALPHABETICAL TABLE.

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, PAPERS OF:
I. The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs from the Akropolis
to vase painting, 28
II. The frieze of the choragic monument of Lysikrates at Athens, 42
III. Dionysus εν Λίμναις. 56
IV. A Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 191
V. Some Sculptures from the Argive Heræum, 199
VI. Excavations at the Heræum of Argos, 205
VII. Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891, 388
VIII. Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397
IX. Report on Excavations at Sparta in 1893, 410
X. Report on Excavations between Schenochori and Koutzopodi,
Argolis, in 1893, 429

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS:
Abyssinia, 586
Africa (Central), 254, 586
Algeria, 113, 255, 588
Arabia, 131, 602
Armenia, 146
Asia (Central), 128
Asia (Western), 604
Asia Minor, 147, 256
Assyria, 609
Babylonia, 181, 606
Cambodia, 256
Caucasus, 146
China, 127, 256, 600
Crete, 270
Egypt, 91, 253, 557
Ethiopia, 111
France, 309
Greece, 257
Hindustan, 118, 589
Italy, 272, 620
Mongolia, 601
Palestine, 614
Persia, 134
Sicily, 293
Syria, 140, 610
Thibet, 127, 598
Tunisia, 114, 588

Page ix

BATES (W.N., and F.B. Tarbell). Notes on the subjects of Greek
Temple Sculptures, 18

BESWICK (Samuel). Egyptian Chronology, 171

BROWNSON (Carleton L.). The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs
from the Akropolis to vase-painting, 28
Excavations at the Heræum of Argos, 205
(and C.H. Young). Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon
in 1891, 397

CROSBY (Nicholas E.). The Topography of Sparta, 335

DE COU (Herbert F.). The frieze of the Choragic monument of
Lysikrates at Athens, 42

EARLE (M.L.). Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891, 388

FOWLER (Harold N.). The temple of the Akropolis burnt by the Persians,
1
Fastigium in Pliny, N.H. XXXV, 152. 381
Reviews and Notices of Books:
History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia, by Perrot and
Chipiez; and History of Art in Persia, by the same, 239
Excursions in Greece to recently explored sites, etc., by
Charles Diehl, 249

FROTHINGHAM (A.L., Jr.). Notes on the Roman Artists of the Middle
Ages, IV. The Cloister of the Lateran Basilica, 437
Archæological News, 91, 251, 559

MARQUAND (Allan). Some unpublished monuments by Luca della Robbia, 153
Correspondence:
Hunting Della Robbia monuments in Italy, 83
Reviews and Notices of Books;
Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque, by Max Collignon, 87
Griechische Götterideale, by Heinrich Brunn, 89

MEADER (C.L. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations at Sparta
in 1893, 410

MERCER (William). Correspondence: Montefalco in Umbria, 226

MERRIAM (A.C.). A series of Cypriote heads in the Metropolitan
Museum, 184
Some inscriptions from the Orient, 448

MILLER (Walter). A History of the Akropolis of Athens, 473

PATON, (J.M. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations between
Schenochori and Koutzopodi, Argolis, in 1893, 429

PETERS (John P.). Notes of Eastern Travel, 325

PICKARD (John). Dionysus εν Λίμναις, 56

POLAND (Wm. Carey). A Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 191

TARBELL (Frank B. and W.N. Bates). Notes on the subjects of
Greek Temple Sculptures, 18
Correspondence:
Letters from Greece, 230

WALDSTEIN (Charles). Some Sculptures from the Argive Heræum
(reprinted), 199

YOUNG (C.H. and C.L. Brownson). Further Excavations at the
Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397

Page x

PLATES.

I.--The Typhon Pediment of the Akropolis, 28-41

II-III.--The frieze of the Choragic Monument of Lysikrates, 42-55

XIII.--Hyponomos and Stage of the Theatre, Sicyon, 388-409

XIV.--Cloister of S. John Lateran, Rome, 437-447

XV.--Plan of the Akropolis at Athens, |
|
XVI.--Sections of the Akropolis Excavations,|
|- 473-556
XVII.--Herakles and the Old Man of the Sea, |
|
XVIII.--Figure of Athena from a pediment, |

Page xi

FIGURES.

Bull on a Babylonian contract tablet, 190

Fac-simile of Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 192

General Sketch-plan of Sparta, 338

Sketch-plan of the Agora, Sparta, 341

" " Street called Apheta, Sparta, 345

" " Skias Street, Sparta, 349

" " Western part of Sparta, 354

" " Road from Booneta to Limnaion, Sparta, 365

" " Akropolis, Sparta, 368

Bull in a fresco at Tiryns, 374

Bull from tomb at Gizeh, Egypt, 376

Bull from Presse d'Avennes, 376

Egyptian vintage scene, Gizeh, 377

Bull on Vaphio Cup, 378

Hyponomos in the theatre at Sicyon, plans and sections, 389

End of conduit, etc., in theatre, Sicyon, 394

Two stone blocks, theatre, Sicyon, 406

Section of wall AA, Sicyon, 308

Plan of circular building, Sparta, 411

Section through wall, Sparta, 415

Enlarged plan of poros blocks, Sparta, 418

Some poros blocks in detail, Sparta, 420

View of walls, Sparta, 426

Plan of Excavations between Schenochori and Kontzopodi, 430

The Pelargikon restored, 489

The serpent (Echidna) in the poros pediment, Akropolis, Athens, 497

Page xii

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Page 1

AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.

Vol. VIII. JANUARY-MARCH, 1893. No. I.

THE TEMPLE ON THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS.

The excavations conducted by the Greek Archæological Society at
Athens from 1883 to 1889 have laid bare the entire surface of
the Acropolis, and shed an unexpected light upon the early
history of Attic art. Many questions which once seemed
unanswerable are now definitively answered, and, on the other
hand, many new questions have been raised. When, in 1886,
Kabbadias and Dörpfeld unearthed the foundations of a great
temple close by the southern side of the Erechtheion, all
questions concerning the exact site, the ground-plan, and the
elevation of the great temple of Athena of the sixth century
B.C. were decided once for all.[1] On these points little or
nothing can be added to what has been done, and Dörpfeld's
results must be accepted as final and certain.

[Footnote 1: DÖRPFELD, Preliminary Report, _Mitth. Ath._, X, p.
275; Plans and restorations, _Antike Denkmäler_, I, pls. 1, 2;
Description and discussion, _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 337.]

The history of the temple presents, however, several questions,
some of which seem still undecided. When was the temple built?
Was it all built at one time? Was it restored after its
destruction by the Persians? Did it continue in use after the
erection of the Parthenon? Was it in existence in the days of
Pausanias? Did Pausanias mention it in his description of the
Acropolis? Conflicting answers to nearly all of these questions
Page 2 have appeared since the discovery of the temple. Only the first
question has received one and the same answer from all. The
material and the technical execution of the peripteros,
entablature, _etc._, of the temple show conclusively that this
part, at least, was erected in the time of Peisistratos.[2] We
may therefore accept so much without further discussion. Of the
walls of the cella and opisthodomos nothing remains, but the
foundations of this part are made of the hard blue limestone of
the Acropolis, while the foundations of the outer part are of
reddish-gray limestone from the Peiraieus. The foundations of
the cella are also less accurately laid than those of the
peripteros. These differences lead Dörpfeld to assume that the
naos itself (the building contained within the peristyle)
existed before the time of Peisistratos, although he does not
deny the possibility that builders of one date may have
employed different materials and methods, as convenience or
economy dictated.[3] Positive proof is not to be hoped for in
the absence of the upper walls of the naos, but probability is
in favor of Dörpfeld's assumption, that the naos is older than
the peristyle, _etc._[4] It is further certain, that this
temple was called in the sixth century Β.C. το 'Εκατόμπεδον
(see below p. 9). So far, we have the most positive possible
evidence--that of the remains of the temple itself and the
inscription giving its name. The evidence regarding the
subsequent history of the temple is not so simple.

[Footnote 2: DÖRPFELD, _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 349.]

[Footnote 3: _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 345.]

[Footnote 4: On the other hand, see PETERSEN, _Mitth. Ath._,
XII, p. 66.]

Dörpfeld (_Mitth. Ath._, XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the
following conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the
departure of the Persians; (2) it was injured by fire B.C. 406;
(3) it was repaired and continued in use; (4) it was seen and
described by Pausanias I. 24.3 in a lost passage. Let us take
up these points in inverse order. The passage of Pausanias
reads in our texts:--Λέλeκται δέ μοι καί πρότρον (17.1), ώς
Άθηναίοις περισσότερόν τι ή τοις άλλοις ές τα θειά εστι
σπουδης· πρώτοι μεν γαρ Άθηνάν έπωνόμασαν Έργάνην, πρωτοι δ'
άκώλους Έρμάς ... όμού δέ σφισιν εν τω ναώ Σπουδαίων δαίμων
εστίν. Dörpfeld marks a lacuna between Έρμάς and όμού, as do
Page 3 those editors who do not supply a recommendation. Dörpfeld,
however, thinks the gap is far greater than has been supposed,
including certainly the mention and probably the full
description of the temple under discussion. His reasons are in
substance about as follows: (1) Pausanias has reached a point
in his periegesis where he would naturally mention this temple,
because he is standing beside it,[5] and (2) the phrase όμου δέ
σφισιν εν τω ναω Σπουδαίων δαίμων eστίν implies that a temple
has just been mentioned. These are, at least, the main
arguments, those deduced from the passage following the
description of the Erechtheion being merely accessory.

Now, if Pausanias followed precisely the route laid down for
him by Dörpfeld (_i.e._, if he described the two rows of
statues between the Propylaia and the eastern front of the
Parthenon, taking first the southern and then the northern
row), he would come to stand where Dörpfeld suggests. If,
however, he followed some other order (_e.g._, that suggested
by Wernicke, _Mitth._, XII, p. 187), he would not be where
Dörpfeld thinks. Pausanias does not say that the statues he
mentions are set up in two rows.[6] It may be that the
Acropolis was so thickly peopled with statues that each side of
the path was bordered with a double or triple row, or that the
statues were not arranged in rows at all, and that Pausanias
merely picks out from his memory (or his Polemon) a few
noticeable figures with only general reference to their
relative positions. Be this as it may, the assumption that
Pausanias, when he mentions the Σπουδαίων (or σπουδαιων?)
δαίμων, is standing, or imagines that he stands, beside the old
temple rests upon very slight foundations.

[Footnote 5: DÖRPFELD'S arguments for the continued existence
of the temple, without which his theory that Pausanias
mentioned it must of course fall to the ground, will be
discussed below. It seemed to me advisable to discuss the
Pausanias question first, because, if he mentioned the temple,
it must have existed, if not to his time, at least to that of
Polemon or of his other (unknown) authority.]

[Footnote 6: The most than can be deduced from the use of πέραν
(c. 24.1) is, that the statues were on both sides of the path.]

Whether Pausanias, in what he says of Ergane, the legless
Hermæ, _etc._, is, as Wernicke (_Mitth._, XII, p. 185) would
have it, merely inserting a bit of misunderstood learning, is
of little moment. I am not one of those who picture to
Page 4 themselves Pausanias going about copying inscriptions, asking
questions, and forming his own judgments, referring only
occasionally to books when he wished to refresh his memory or
look up some matter of history. The labors of Kalkmann,
Wilamowitz, and others have shown conclusively, that a large
part of Pausanias' periegesis is adopted from the works of
previous writers, and adopted in some cases with little care by
a man of no very striking intellectual ability. It is
convenient to speak as if Pausanias visited all the places and
saw all the things he describes, but it is certain that he does
not mention all he must in that case have seen, and perhaps
possible that he describes things he never can have seen.
Whether Pausanias travelled about Greece and then wrote his
description with the aid (largely employed) of previous works,
or wrote it without travelling, makes little difference except
when it is important to know the exact topographical order of
objects mentioned. In any case, however, his accuracy in detail
is hardly to be accepted without question, especially in his
description of the Acropolis, where he has to try his prentice
hand upon a material far too great for him. A useless bit of
lore stupidly applied may not be an impossibility for
Pausanias, but, however low our opinion of his intellect may
be, he is the best we have,[7] and must be treated accordingly.
The passage about Ergane, _etc._, must not be simply cast aside
as misunderstood lore, but neither should it be enriched by
inserting the description of a temple together with the
state-treasury. The passage must be explained without doing
violence to the Ms. tradition. That this is possible has lately
been shown by A.W. Verrall.[8] He says: _'What Pausanias
actually says is this--:_ "The Athenians are specially
distinguished by religious zeal. The name of Ergane was first
given by them, and the name Hermæ; and in the temple along with
them is a Good Fortune of the Zealous"_--words which are quite
as apt for the meaning above explained_ (_i.e._, a note on the
piety of the Athenians) _as those of the author often are in
such cases.'_

[Footnote 7: I think it is F.G. WELCKEK to whom the saying is
attributed: _Pausanias ist ein Schaf, aber ein Schaf mit
goldenem Vliesse._]

[Footnote 8: HARRISON and VERRALL, _Mythology and Monuments of
Athens_, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not
fallen out after Έρμαs, though the assumption of a gap is not
strictly necessary, as Prof. Verrall shows.]

Page 5 Whether we read Σπουδαίων δαίμων or σπουδαίων Δαίμων is, for
our purposes immaterial. In either case, Verrall is right in
calling attention to the connection between ες τα θεΐα σπουδή
and the δαίμων Σπουδαίων (σπουδαίων), a connection which is now
very striking, but which is utterly lost by inserting the
description of a temple. At this point, then, the temple is not
mentioned by Pausanias.

But, if not at this point, perhaps elsewhere, for this also has
been tried. Miss Harrison[9] thinks the temple in question is
mentioned by Pausanias, c. 27.1. He has been describing the
Erechtheion, has just mentioned the old αγάλμα and the lamp of
Kallimachos, which were certainly in the Erechtheion,[10] and
continues: κειται δε εν τω ναω της πολιάδος Έρμης ξύλου, κτέ.,
giving a list of anathemata, followed by the story of the
miraculous growth of the sacred olive after its destruction by
the Persians, and passing to the description of the Pandroseion
with the words, τω ναω δε της 'Αθηνάς Πανδρόσου ναός συνεχής
εστι. Miss Harrison thinks that, since Athena is Polias, the
ναός της πολιάδος and the ναός της 'Αθήνας are one and the
same, an opinion in which I heartily concur.[11] It remains to
be decided whether this temple is the newly discovered old
temple or the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. The passages
cited by Jahn-Michaelis[12] show that the old άγαλμα bore the
special appellation πολιάς, and we know that the old άγαλμα was
in the Erechtheion. That does not, to be sure, prove that the
Erechtheion was also called, in whole or in part ναός της
πολιάδος (or της 'Αθήνας), but it awakens suspicion to read of
an ancient άγαλμα which we know was called Polias, and which
was perhaps the Polias κατ' εξοχήν, and immediately after, with
no introduction or explanation, to read of a temple of Polias
in which that άγαλμα is not. Nothing is known of a statue in
the newly discovered old temple.[13]

[Footnote 9: _Myth. and Mon. of Athens_, p. 608 ff.]

[Footnote 10: _CIA._, I. 322, § 1 with the passage of
Pausanias.]

[Footnote 11: DÖRPFELD (_Mitth._, XII, p. 58 f.) thinks the
ναός της πολιάδος is the eastern cella of the Erechtheion, the
ναός της 'Αθήνας the newly discovered old temple, but is
opposed by Petersen (see below) and Miss Harrison.]

[Footnote 12: _Pausanias, Descr. Arcis Athen._, c. 26.6.35.]

[Footnote 13: For LOLLING'S opposing opinion, see below.]

Page 6 In the Erechtheion there was, then, a very ancient statue
called Polias; in the temple beside the Erechtheion was no
statue about which anything is known, and yet, according to
Miss Harrison, the new found "old temple" is the ναος της
πολιάδος, while the πολιάς in bodily form dwells next door.
That seems to me an untenable position. Again, the dog
mentioned by Philochoros[14] which went into the temple of
Polias, and, passing into the Pandroseion, lay down (δυσα εις
το πανδρόσειον ... κατέκειτο), can hardly have gone into the
temple alongside of the Erechtheion, because there was no means
of passing from the cella of that temple into the opisthodomos,
and in order to reach the Pandroseion the dog would have had to
come out from the temple by the door by which he entered it.
The fact that the dog went into this temple could have nothing
to do with his progress into the Pandroseion, whereas from the
eastern cella of the Erechtheion he could very well pass down
through the lower apartments and reach the Pandroseion. It
seems after all that when Pausanias says ναος της πολιάδος, he
means the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. But the ναος της
Αθηνας is also the Erechtheion, for E. Petersen has already
observed (_Mitth._ XII, p. 63) that, if the temple of Pandrosos
was συνεχης τω ναω της Αθηνας, the temple of Athena must be
identified with the Erechtheion, not with the temple beside it,
for the reason that the temple of Pandrosos, situated west of
the Erechtheion, cannot be συνεχής ("adjoining" in the strict
sense of the word) to the old temple, which stood upon the
higher level to the south. If Pausanias had wished to pass from
the Erechtheion to the temple of Athena standing(?) beside it,
the opening words of c. 26.6 (Ίερα μεν της Αθηνας εστiν η τε
αλλη πόλις κτέ.) would have formed the best possible
transition; but those words introduce the mention of the
ancient _αγαλμα_ which was in the Erechtheion. That Pausanias
then, without any warning, jumps into another temple of Athena,
is something of which even his detractors would hardly accuse
him, and I hope I have shown that he is innocent of that
offence.

[Footnote 14: Frg. 146, JAHN-MICH., _Paus. Discr. Arcis. Ath._,
c. 27.2.8.]

Pausanias, then, does not mention the temple under discussion.

Xenophon (_Hell._ I. 6) says that, in the year 406 Β.C. ό
παλαιος ναος της Άθηνας ενεπρήσθη. Until recently this
page 7 statement was supposed to apply to the Erechtheion, called
"ancient temple" because it took the place of the original
temple of Athena, from which the great temple (the Parthenon)
was to be distinguished. Of course, the new _building_ of the
Erechtheion was not properly entitled to the epithet "ancient,"
but as a _temple_ it could be called ancient, being regarded as
the original temple in renewed form. If, however, the newly
discovered temple was in existence alongside the Erechtheion in
406, the expression παλαιoς ναός applied to the Erechtheion
would be confusing, for the other temple was a much older
_building_ than the Erechtheion. If the temple discovered in
1886 existed in 406 B.C., it would be natural to suppose that
it was referred to by Xenophon as ό παλαιος ναός. But this
passage is not enough to prove that the temple existed in 406
B.C.

Demosthenes (xxiv, 136) speaks of a fire in the opisthodomos.
This is taken by Dörpfeld (_Mitth_., xii, p. 44) as a reference
to the opisthodomos of the temple under discussion, and this
fire is identified with the fire mentioned by Xenophon. But
hitherto the opisthodomos in question has been supposed to be
the rear part of the Parthenon, and there is no direct proof
that Demosthenes and Xenophon refer to the same fire. If the
temple discovered in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it is highly
probable that the passages mentioned refer to it, but the
passages do not prove that it existed.

It remains for us to sift the evidence for the existence of the
temple from the Persian War to 406 B.C. This has been collected
by Dörpfeld[15] and Lolling,[16] who agree in thinking that the
temple continued in existence throughout the fifth and fourth
centuries, however much their views differ in other respects.
But it seems to me that even thus much is not proved. I believe
that, after the departure of the Persians, the Athenians
partially restored the temple as soon as possible, because I do
not see how they could have got along without it, inasmuch as
it was used as the public treasury; but my belief, being
founded upon little or no positive evidence, does not claim the
force of proof.

[Footnote 15: _Mitth._, XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420,
ff.]

[Footnote 16: Έκατόμπεδον in the periodical Άθηνα 1890, p. 628,
ff. The inscription there published appears also in the Δελτίον
Άρχαιολογικόν, 1890, p. 12, and its most important part is
copied, with some corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.]

Page 8 Dörpfeld (XV, p. 424) says that the Persians left the walls of
the temple and the outer portico standing; that this is evident
from the present condition of the architraves, triglyphs and
cornices, which are built into the Acropolis wall. These
architectural members were ... taken from the building while it
still stood, and built into the northern wall of the
citadel. But, if the Athenians had wished to restore the temple
as quickly as possible, they would have left these members
where they were. It seems, at least, rather extravagant to take
them carefully away and then restore the temple without a
peristyle, for the restored building would probably need at
least cornices if not triglyphs or architraves; then why not
repair the old ones? It appears by no means impossible that, as
Lolling (p. 655) suggests, only a part of the temple was
restored.[17] Still more natural is the assumption, that the
Athenians carried off the whole temple while they were about
it. I do not, however, dare to proceed to this assumption,
because I do not know where the Athenians would have kept their
public monies if the entire building had been removed. Perhaps
part of the peristyle was so badly injured by the Persians that
it could not be repaired. At any rate, the Athenians intended
(as Dörpfeld, XII, p. 202, also believes) to remove the whole
building so soon as the great new temple should be completed. I
think they carried out their intention.

[Footnote 17: LOLLING does not say how much of the temple was
restored; but, as he assumes the continuation of a worship
connected with the building, he would seem to imply that at
least part (and in that case, doubtless, the whole) of the
cella was restored, and he also maintains the continued
existence of the opisthodomos and the two small chambers. E.
CURTIUS, _Stadtgeschichte von Athen_, p. 132, believes that
only the western half of the temple was restored. DÖRPFELD, p.
425, suggests the possibility that the entire building, even
the peristyle, was restored, and that the peristyle remained
until the erection of the Erechtheion.]

This brings us to the discussion of the names and uses of the
various parts of the older temple and of the new one (the
Parthenon), the evidence for the continued existence of the
older temple being based upon the occurrence of these names in
inscriptions and elsewhere. As these matters have been fully
discussed by Dörpfeld and Lolling, I shall accept as facts
without further discussion all points which seem to me to have
been definitively settled by them.

Page 9 Lolling, in the article referred to above, publishes an
inscription put together by him from forty-one fragments. It
belongs to the last quarter of the sixth century B.C., and
relates to the pre-Persian temple. Part of the inscription is
too fragmentary to admit of interpretation, but the meaning of
the greater part (republished by Dörpfeld) is clear at least in
a general way. The ταμίαι are to make a list of certain objects
on the Acropolis with certain exceptions. The servants of the
temple, priests, _etc_., are to follow certain rules or be
punished by fines. The ταμίαι are to open in person the doors
of the chambers in the temple. These rules would not concern us
except for the fact that the various parts of the building are
mentioned. The whole building is called το Έκατόμπεδον; parts
of it are the προνήϊον, the νεώς, the οικημα ταμιειον and τα
οίκήματα. There can be no doubt that these are respectively the
eastern porch, the main cella, the large western room and the
two smaller chambers of the pre-Persian temple. But most
important of all is the fact that the whole building was called
in the sixth century B.C. το Έκατόμπεδον. The word οπισθόδομος
does not occur in the inscription, and we cannot tell whether
the western half of the building was called opisthodomos in the
sixth century or not. Very likely it was.

Lolling (p. 637) says: "No one, I think, will doubt that το
Έκατόμπεδον is the νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος often mentioned in the
inscriptions of the ταμίαι and elsewhere." If this is correct,
the eastern cella of the Parthenon cannot be the νεως ό
Έκατόμπεδος. Lolling maintains that the eastern cella of the
Parthenon was the _Parthenon_ proper, that the western room of
the Parthenon was the opisthodomos, and that the νεως ό
Έκατόμπεδος was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official
name Έκατόμπεδον or νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος, Lolling thinks the
pre-Persian temple was also called αρχαιος (παλαιος) νεώς.[18]
Dörpfeld maintains that the western cella of the Parthenon was
the _Parthenon_ proper, the western part of the "old temple"
Page 10 was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the Parthenon
was the _νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος_, leaving the question undecided
whether the "old temple" was still called _το Έκατόμπεδον_ in
the fifth century, but laying great stress upon the difference
in the expressions το Έκατόμπεδον and ό νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος.[19]
Both Lolling and Dörpfeld agree that the _πρόνεως_ of the
inscriptions of the fifth century is the porch of the
Parthenon.[20]

[Footnote 18: LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the αρχαιος νεώς of the
inscriptions of the ταμίαι CIA, II, 753, 758 (_cf_. 650, 672)
is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis, because in the same
inscriptions the ἐπιστάται of Brauronian Artemis are mentioned.
This seems to me insufficient reason for assuming that αρχαιος
νεώς means sometimes one temple and sometimes another.]

[Footnote 19: _Mitth._, xv, p. 427 ff.]

[Footnote 20: LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression _εν τω νεω
τω Έκατόμπεδον_ could not be used of a part of a building of
which _πρόνεως_ and _Παρθενών_ were parts, _i.e._, that a part
of a temple could not be called _νεώς_. Yet in the inscription
published by Lolling the _προνέιον_ and the _νεώς_ are
mentioned in apparent contradistinction to _απαν το
Έκατόμπεδον_. It seems, as Dörpfeld says, only natural that the
_νεώς_ should belong to the same building as the _πρόνεως_.]

Among the objects mentioned in the lists of treasure handed
over by one board of _ταμίαι_ to the next (_Ueberyab-Urkunden_
or "transmission-lists") are parts of a statue of Athena with a
base and a _Νίκη_ and a, shield _εν τω Έκατόμπεδω_. The
material of this statue is gold and ivory. The only gold and
ivory statue of Athena on the Acropolis was, so far as is
known, the so-called _Parthenos_ of Pheidias. Those
inscriptions therefore prove that the Parthenos stood in the
Hekatompedos (or Hekatompedon); that is, that the eastern cella
of the Parthenon was called _Έκατόμπεδος (ον)_ in the fifth
century.[21] Certainly, if there had been a second
chryselephantine statue of Athena on the Acropolis, we should
know of its existence.

[Footnote 21: This was shown by U. KÖHLER. _Mitth_., v, p. 89
ff., and again by DÖRPFELD, xv, 480 ff, who quote the
inscriptions. LOLLING'S distinction between _το αγαλμα_ and _το
χρυσουν αγαλμα_ cannot be maintained. _cf. U. Köhler,
Sitzungsber, d. Berlin. Akad._, 1889, p. 223.]

When the Athenians built the great western room of the
Parthenon, they certainly did not intend it to serve merely as
a store-room for the objects described in the
transmission-lists as _εν τω Παρθενωνι_ or _εκ του Παρθενωνος_,
these being mostly of little value or broken.[22] Now the
treasury of Athens was the opisthodomos, and the western room
of the Parthenon was, from the moment of the completion of the
building, the greatest opisthodomos in Athens. It is natural to
Page 11 regard this (with Lolling) as the opisthodomos where the
treasure was kept. This room was doubtless divided into three
parts by two partitions of some sort, probably of metal,[23]
running from the eastern and western wall to the nearest
columns and connecting the columns. This arrangement agrees
with the provision (_CIA_, I, 32) that the monies of Athena be
cared for έv τω έπι δεξια του όπισθοδόμου, those of the other
gods έv τω eπ' άριοτερά. Until the completion of the Parthenon,
the opisthodomos of the pre-Persian temple might properly be
_the_ opisthodomos κατ' εξοχήν, but so soon as the Parthenon
was finished, the new treasure-house would naturally usurp the
name as well as the functions of its predecessor.

[Footnote 22: A general view of these transmission-lists may be
found at the back of MICHAELIS' _der Parthenon_: See also H.
LEHNER, _Ueber die attischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten
Jahrhunderts_ (which Lolling cites. I have not seen it.)]

[Footnote 23: See plans of the Parthenon, for instance, the one
in the plan of the Acropolis accompanying Dörpfeld's article,
_Mitth._, XII, _Taf. 1_.]

But, if the western room of the Periclean temple was the
opisthodomos, where was the Παρθενών proper? It cannot be
identical with the νεώς ό Έκατόμπεδος nor with the
opisthodomos, for the three appellations occur at the same date
evidently designating three different places. It would be
easier to tell where the Παρθενών proper was, if we knew why it
was called Παρθενών. The name was in all probability not
derived from the Parthenos, but rather the statue was named
from the _Parthenon_ after the latter appellation had been
extended to the whole building, for there is no evidence that
the great statue was called Parthenos from the first. Its
official title was, so far as is known, never Parthenos.[24]
The Parthenon was not so named because it contained the
Parthenos, but why it was so named we do not know. The πρόνεως
is certainly the front porch, the Έκατόμπεδος νεώς is certainly
the cella, 100 feet long, the οπισθόδομος is the rear apartment
(of some building, even if I have not made it seem probable
that it is the rear apartment of the Parthenon). These names
carry their explanation with them. But the name Παρθενών gives
us no information. It was a part of the great Periclean temple,
for the name was in later times applied to the whole building,
and the only part of the building not named is the western
porch. It is, however, incredible that the Athenians should use
Page 12 this porch, so prominently exposed to the eyes of every
sight-seer, as a storehouse for festival apparatus, _etc_. It
is more probable that the Παρθενών proper was within the walls
of the building but separated from the other parts in some way.
The middle division of the western room, separated by columns
and metal partitions from the treasury of Athena on the right
and that of the other gods on the left, was large enough and,
being directly in front of the western door, prominent enough,
to deserve a name of its own. If this room was the Παρθενών
proper, it is evident that a fire in the opisthodomos would
cause the Παρθενών to be emptied of its contents, which would
then naturally be inventoried as εκ του Παρθενώνος, while
another list could properly be headed εκ του οπισθοδομον
referring to the treasure-chambers.[25] The name Parthenon
might then be extended first to the entire western part of the
building and then to the whole edifice. This is not a _proof_
that the Παρθενών was the central part of the western room of
the great temple. A complete proof is impossible. All I claim
is that this hypothesis fulfils all the necessary conditions.

[Footnote 24: DÖRPFELD, XV, p. 480.]

[Footnote 25: DÖRPFELD, XII, p. 203 f., argues that these
headings show that the treasure was moved after the fire of 406
from the opisthodomos of the old temple into the Παρθενών
proper, which was emptied of its contents to make room. But the
explanation given above seems equally possible. Dörpfeld,
(Mitth., vi, p. 283, ff.) proved conclusively that the Παρθενών
was not the eastern cella of the Parthenon. His proof that it
was the great western room is based primarily upon the
assumption (p. 300) that _Der Name Opisthodom bezeichnet hei
alien Tempeln die dem Pronaos entsprechende Hinterhalle_. But
for that assumption the Παρθενών might just as well be the
western porch. Since the discovery of the pre-Persian temple,
however, Dörpfeld maintains that the opisthodomos κατ εξοχήν
was the entire western portion of that temple, consisting of
three rooms besides the porch (though he does not expressly
include the porch). There is, then, no reason in the nature of
things why the whole western part of the Parthenon should not
be called opisthodomos.]

Let us now compare the nomenclature of the pre-Persian and
Periclean temples. Both were temples of Athena and more
especially of Athena as guardian of the city, Athena Polias; a
_pronaos_ or _proneion_ formed part of each; one temple was
called το Έκατόμεδον, and the main cella of the other was
called ό Έκατομπεδοs νεως[26], and this name was extended to
the whole building. An opisthodomos was a part of each
Page 13 building, and, if I was right in my observations above, the new
one, like the old, was called simply ο οπισθόδομος. As soon as
the great Periclean temple was completed, the temple burnt by
the Persians was quietly removed as had been intended from the
first, the treasure was deposited in the great new
opisthodomos, the old ceremonies which might still cling to the
temple of the sixth century were transferred, along with the
old names, to the splendid new building; the greatest temple on
the Acropolis was now as before the house of the patron goddess
of the land, and contained her treasure and that of her
faithful worshippers, but the two temples did not exist side by
side. There was, then, no reason for differentiating between
the two temples, as, for instance, by calling the one that had
been removed ό αρχαίος veas, because the one that had been
removed was no longer in existence. That the designation
αρχαίος (παλαιός) νεώς is applicable to the Erechtheion has
been accepted for many years and has been explained anew by
Petersen.[27] If the temple burnt by the Persians had continued
to exist alongside of the Parthenon, one might doubt whether it
or the Erechtheion was meant by the expression ό αρχαίος νεώς,
but if one of the two temples was no longer in existence, the
name must belong to the other. It is just possible that in
Hesychios, 'Εκατό μπεδος· νεώς ev τη άκροπόλεί τη Παρθενω
κατασκευασθείς υπό Αθηναίων, μείζων του εμπρησθεντος υπό των
Περσών ποσΐ πεντήκοντα, the expression του έμπρησθεντος υπό των
Περσών (yea or possibly 'Εκατόμπέδου νεώ) was originally chosen
because the expression αρχαίου νεώ (which would otherwise be
very appropriate here) was regularly used to designate the
Erechtheion.[28]

[Footnote 26: Or το Έκατόμπεδον. Even after Dörpfeld's
arguments, I cannot believe that any great difference in the
use of the two expressions can be found.]

[Footnote 27: _Mitth_., XII, p. 63 ff. Comparison of modern
with ancient instances is frequently misleading, but sometimes
furnishes a useful illustration. There is in Boston, Mass., a
church called the _Old South_ church. This became too small and
too inconvenient for its congregation, so a new church was
built in a distant part of the city. The intention then was to
destroy the old building, in which case the new one (though new
and in a different part of the city) would have been called the
Old South church. The old building was, however, preserved, and
the new one now goes by the name of the New Old South church,
though I have also heard it called the Old South in spite of
the continued existence of the old building. So the new
building of the Erechtheion retained the name άρχαιος νεως
which had belonged to its predecessor on the same spot.]

[Footnote 28: LOLLING (p. 638 ff.) discusses the measurements
of the Parthenon and the old Hekatompedon, and finds a slight
inaccuracy in the statement of Hesychios. He thinks, however,
(p. 641) that Hesychios would not compare the two unless they
had both been standing at the same time. Possibly any
inaccuracy may be accounted for by the fact that the older
temple was no longer standing when the comparison was first
made. Possibly, too, the name Hekatompedon was not originally
meant to be taken quite literally, but rather, as Curtitis,
_Stadtgeschichte,_ p. 72, seems to think, as a proud
designation of a grand new building.]

Page 14 At the end of his last article on this subject, Dörpfeld calls
attention to the fact that "not only the lower step
(_Unterstufe_) of the temple, but also a stone of the stylobate
are still in their old position, and several stylobate-stones
are still lying about upon the temple," and says that the whole
stylobate, with the exception of the part cut away by the
Erechtheion, must therefore have existed in Roman times. I do
not see why quite so much is to be assumed. Even granting that
we know the exact level of the surface of the Acropolis in
classical times at every point, we certainly do not know all
the objects--votive offerings and the like--set up in various
places. Some small part of the stylobate of the ruined temple
may have been used as a foundation for some group of statuary
or other offering,[29] or a fragment of the building itself may
have been left as a reminder to future generations of the
devastations of the barbarians. The existence of these stones
is called by Dörpfeld "a fact hitherto insufficiently
considered" (_eine bishеr nicht genügend beаchtete Thatsache_).
I cannot believe that the fact would have remained so long
"insufficiently considered" by Dörpfeld and others if it were
really in itself a sufficient proof that the pre-Persian temple
continued in existence until the end of ancient Athens. If I am
right in thinking that the temple did not exist during the last
centuries of classical antiquity, it must have ceased to exist
when the Parthenon was completed. Dörpfeld is certainly
justified in saying[30] that "he who concedes the continued
Page 15 existence of the temple until the end of the fourth century has
no right to let the temple disappear in silence later" (_darf
den Tempel nicht spater ohne weiteres verschwinden lassen_).

[Footnote 29: Whether the present condition of the stone of the
stylobate still _in situ_ favors this conjecture, is for those
on the spot to decide. It looks in Dörpfeld's plans (_Ant.
Denkm.,_ ı, I, and _Mitth.,_ XI, p. 337) as if it had a hole in
it, such as are found in the pedestals of statues.]

[Footnote 30: _Mitth.,_ xv, 438. This is directed against the
closing paragraph of Lolling's article, where he says: "We
cannot determine exactly when this (the removal of the temple)
happened, but it seems that the temple no longer existed in the
times of Plutarch," _etc._]

In the above discussion I have purposely passed over some
points because I wished to confine myself to what was
necessary. So I have not reviewed in detail the passages
containing the expression άρχαίος (παλαίòς) νεώς, as they have
been sufficiently discussed by others. So, too, I have omitted
all mention of the μέγαρον τò πρòς έσπέραν τετραμμένον,[31] the
παραστάδες,[32] the passages in Homer,[33] Aristophanes,[34]
and some other writers, because these references and allusions,
being more or less uncertain or indefinite, may be (and have
been) explained, according to the wish of the interpreter, as
evidence for or against the continued existence of the temple
burnt by the Persians. Those who agree with me will interpret
the passages in question accordingly.

To recapitulate briefly, I hope that I have shown: (1) that
Pausanias does not mention the temple excavated in 1886, and
(2) that the existence of that temple during the latter part of
the fifth and the fourth centuries is not proved. I believe
that the temple continued to exist in some form until the
completion of the Parthenon, but this belief is founded not so
much upon documentary evidence as upon the consideration that
the Athenians and their goddess must have had a treasure-house
during the time from the Persian invasion to the completion of
the Parthenon; especially after the treasure of the confederacy
of Delos was moved to Athens in 454 B.C. As soon, however, as
the Parthenon was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians
was removed. This was before the fire of 406 B.C. The fire,
therefore, injured, as has been supposed hitherto, the
Erechtheion. The opisthodomos, which was injured by fire at
some time not definitely ascertained (but probably not very far
from the date of the fire in the Erechtheion), was the
opisthodomos of the Parthenon.

[Footnote 31: HEROD, v, 77.]

[Footnote 32: _CIA_, II, 733, 735, 708.]

[Footnote 33: _Od._, VII. 80 f.; _Il._, II. 546 ff. _Mitth._,
XII, pp. 26, 62, 207.]

[Footnote 34: PLUT., 1191 ff. _cf. Mitth._, XII., pp. 69, 206.]

It will, I hope, be observed, that I do not claim to have
_proved_ the non-existence of the earlier temple after the
completion of the Parthenon. All I claim is that its existence
Page 16 is not proved. Now if, as I hope I have shown, the temple is
not mentioned by Pausanias,[35] and there is no reasonable
likelihood of its silent disappearance between 435 B.C. and the
time of Pausanias, the probabilities are in favor of its
disappearance about 435 B.C., when it was supplanted by the
Parthenon. No one, however, would welcome more gladly than I
any further evidence either for or against its continued
existence.

HAROLD N. FOWLER.

_Exeter, New Hampshire_, March, 1892.

[Footnote 35: The fact that Pausanias does not mention this
temple is not a certain proof that he might not have seen it,
for he fails to mention other things that certainly existed in
his day. This temple, however, if it then existed, must have
been in marked contrast to almost every other building in the
Acropolis, and would have had special attractions for a person
of Pausanias' archæological tastes.]

POSTSCRIPT.--This article had already left my hands when I
received the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (XII. 2), containing
an article by Mr. Penrose, _On the Ancient Hecatompedon which
occupied the site of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens_.
Mr. Penrose contends that the old Hekatompedon was a temple of
unusual length in proportion to its width, that it stood on the
site of the Parthenon, and was built 100 years or more before
the Persian invasion. He thinks, too, that the Doric
architectural members built into the Acropolis-wall, which are
referred by Dörpfeld to the archaic temple beside the
Erechtheion, belonged to the building on the site of the
Parthenon. He is led to these assumptions chiefly by masons'
marks on some of the stones of the sub-structure of the
Parthenon. He holds it "as incontrovertible that the marks have
reference to the building on which they are found." The
distances between these marks offer certain numerical relations
which must, Mr. Penrose thinks, correspond to some of the
dimensions of the building to which the marks refer. "If they
had reference to the Parthenon, they would have shown a number
of exact coincidences with the important sub-divisions of the
temple." Of these coincidences Mr. Penrose has found but three,
which he considers fortuitous. As accessory arguments he
adduces the condition of the filling in to the south of the
Page 17 Parthenon, and the absence of old architectural material in the
sub-structure of the Parthenon, _etc_. He seems, however, to
rest his case chiefly upon the masons' marks.

I cannot even attempt to discuss this new theory in detail, but
would mention one or two things which seem to tell against Mr.
Penrose's view. The inscription published by Lolling mentions
an _οίκημα ταμιείον_ and _οίκήματα_ as parts of the
Hekatompedon, and such apartments evidently existed in the
temple beside the Erechtheion. Mr. Penrose assumes that the
temple beside the Erechtheion antedates his Hekatompedon,
without regard to the fact that the use of the stone employed
in the outer foundations of the archaic temple points to a much
later period. The archaic temple was (at least approximately)
100 feet long, which makes it seem almost impossible that a new
temple should be built on the Acropolis and called the
Hundred-foot-temple (Hekatompedon). I cannot avoid attaching
more importance to these considerations than to the arguments
advanced by Mr. Penrose. It may be, however, that answers to
these and other objections will be found.

If Mr. Penrose's theory is correct, it is evident that the old
Hekatompedon must have ceased to exist before the building of
the Parthenon. Whether the archaic temple excavated in 1886
continued to exist or not is, then, another matter. My main
contention (that there is no good reason for assuming the
continued existence through the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
of the archaic temple) is not affected by Mr. Penrose's theory,
and I leave my arguments, such as they are, for the
consideration alike of those who do and who do not agree with
Mr. Penrose. Much of my article will appear irrelevant to the
former class, but, as Mr. Penrose's views may not be at once
generally accepted, it is as well to leave the discussion of
previous theories as it was before the appearance of Mr.
Penrose's article.

Η. Ν. F.

NOTE.--For a discussion of Mr. Penrose's theories and
conclusions, see now (Nov. 1892), Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitth.,_
XVII, pp. 158, ff.

Page 18

NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE
SCULPTURES.

The following compilation is intended to present in compact
form the evidence at present available on this question: How
far did the Greeks choose, for the sculptured decorations of a
temple, subjects connected with the principal divinity or
divinities worshiped in that temple? We have omitted some
examples of sculpture in very exceptional situations, _e.g._,
the sculptured drums of the sixth century and fourth century
temples of Artemis at Ephesos. Acroteria have also been
omitted. But we have attempted to include every Greek temple
known to have had pediment-figures or sculptured metopes or
frieze, and have thus, for the sake of completeness, registered
some examples which are valueless for the main question. The
groups from Delos, attributed on their first discovery to the
pediments of the Apollon-temple, have been proved by
Furtwängler to have been acroteria (_Arch, Zeitung_, 1882, p.
336 ff.) It does not appear that Lebas had any good grounds for
attributing to a temple the relief found by him at Rhamnus
(_Voyage archéologique Monuments figurés_, No. 19,) and now in
Munich. The frieze from Priene representing a gigantomachy was
not a part of the temple there (Wolters, _Jahrbuch des
deutschen arch. Instituts_, I, pp. 56, ff.) The Poseidon and
Amphitrite frieze in Munich (Brunn, _Beschreibung der
Glyptothek_, No. 115) has been, by some, taken for a piece of
temple decoration, but is too doubtful an example to be
catalogued. The statement of Pausanias (II. 11. 8) about the
pediment-sculptures (_τà έν τοίς àετοίς_) of the Asklepieion at
Titane is hopelessly inadequate and perhaps inaccurate.

The order of arrangement in the following table is roughly
chronological, absolute precision being impossible. Ionic
Page 19 temples are designated by a prefixed asterisk, the one
Corinthian by a dagger. The others are Doric, and, in the ease
of these, "Sculptures of the Exterior Frieze" refers, of
course, to sculptured metopes.

It has not been our purpose to discuss at length the
conclusions to be drawn from this evidence. Briefly, the
results may be summarized as follows:

The principal sculpture (_i.e._, sculpture of the principal
pediment, or, in the absence of pediment-sculpture, the frieze
in the most important situation) included the figure of the
temple divinity, generally in central position, in the
following numbers: [A] 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26. If 12,
14 and 32 had no pediment-sculptures, they should be added;
probably also 33 and 34. In 30 the subject of the
pediment-sculpture, if correctly divined by Conze, was, at any
rate, closely related to the temple-divinities.

[Footnote A: In counting the Aigina temple we commit
deliberately a _circulus in probando_.]

The principal sculpture apparently did not include or
especially refer to the temple-divinity in the following: 20,
24, 25. Practice would seem to have become somewhat relaxed
after about 425 B.C. The very singular temple of Assos, (No.
5), though earlier, should perhaps be added.

The temple-divinity was represented in the western pediments of
7, 13 and perhaps of 20, but not of that in 9, 11, 24 (?) or
25.

The subjects of sculptured metopes and friezes were largely or
wholly without obvious relation to the temple-divinity in the
following: 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 1.9, 23, 29, 32.

P.B. TARBELL.
W.N. BATES.

Page 20

PLACE. DIVINITY. DATE. PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.

B.C.
1 Selinous Apollon (?) _ca._ 625
(Temple C)

2 Selinous _ca._ 625

3 Athens _ca._ 600 E.: (?) Zeus fighting Typhon;
(Acropolis) Herakles fighting
serpent.
W. (?): Herakles fighting
Triton; Kerkopes(?)

4 Athens _ca._ 600 E. (?): Herakles fighting
(Acropolis) Hydra.
W. (?): Herakles fighting
Triton.

5 Assos VI cent. (?)

6 Metapontum Apollon VI cent. (?) Subject unknown

7 Aigina Athena _ca._ 530 (?) E. & W.: Combats of
Greeks and Trojans;
Athena in centre.

8 Athens Athena _ca._ 530 (?) E. (?): Gigantomachy,
(Acropolis) including Athena (in
centre?)

9 Delphi Apollon VI cent. after E.: Apollon, Artemis,
548 Leto, Muses.
W.: Dionysos, Thyiads,
Setting Sun, _etc._

10 Selinous VI cent.
(Temple F)

11 Olympia Zeus _ca._ 460 E.: Preparations for
chariot-race of Pelops
and Oinomaos;
Zeus as arbiter in
centre.
W.: Centauromachy;
Apollon (?) in centre.
Page 21
OTHER
SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.

1 E.: in centre, two quadrigae
with unidentified figs., also
Perseus slaying Medusa, Herakles
carrying Kerkopes, _etc._
W.: Subjects unknown.

2 Europa on bull, winged sphinx,
_etc._

5 E. (and W.?): Pair of sphinxes, Exterior architrave: pairs
Centaur, wild hog, man pursuing of sphinxes in centre of E. &
woman, two men in combat, W. fronts (?), Herakles and
_etc._ Triton, Herakles and Centaurs,
symposium, combats
of animals.

7 None.

9 Herakles killing Hydra, Bellerophon
killing Chimaera,
combats of gods and giants,
_etc._

10 E.: Scenes from Gigantomachy.

11 12 metopes over columns and
antæ of pronaos and opisthodomos:
labors of Herakles.
Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

===================================================================
|SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE| OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
---+-----------------------------+---------------------------------
| |
20|E.: Gigantomachy (?) |
|W.: Iliupersis (?) |
| |
*21|Uninterpreted. |
| |
*22| |
| |
| |
*23|Dancing women. |
24| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
25| |
| |
26| |
*27|Mythological scenes. |
*28|Scenes of combat. |
| |
*29|Amazonomachy. |
30| |
| |
*31|Subjects unknown. |
32|Helios in chariot, Athena and|
| Enkelados, other scenes of |
| combat. |
*33|Dionysiac procession. |
*34|Dionysiac scenes, etc. |

Page 26

[Note 1: BENNDORF, _Metopen von Selinunt_, pp. 38-50;
SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di Sicilia_, II, p. 16.]

[Note 2: _Μonumenti Antichi_, I, p. 950 ff.]

[Note 3: BRÜCKNER, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1889, pp. 67
ff.; 1890, pp. 84 ff.]

[Note 4: MEIER, _Ath. Mitth._, 1885, pp. 237 ff., 322 ff.]

[Note 5: CLARAC, _Musée de Sculpture_, II, pp. 1149 ff.;
CLARKE, _Report on Investigations at Assos_, pp. 105-121. This
temple has been usually assigned to the sixth century. Mr.
Clarke brings it down to about the middle of the fifth. His
arguments have not yet been published in full.]

[Note 6: LACAVA, _Topografia e Storia di Metaponto_, p. 81.]

[Note 7: Since the inscription which was at one time supposed
to fix the divinity of this temple has been disposed of by
LOLLING, in _Arch. Zeitung_, XXXI (1874, p. 58), the designation
given above rests solely on the prominence given to Athena in
the pediment-sculptures. As for the date, the building is
assigned by Dörpfeld to the sixth cent. (_Olympia_, _Textband_
II, p. 20). The pediment-sculptures might be later, but are now
confidently carried by STUDNICZKA (_Ath. Mitth._, 1886, pp.
197-8) some decades back in the sixth century.]

[Note 8: STUDNICZKA, _Ath. Mitth._, 1886. pp. 185, ff.; MAYER,
_Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 290-91. According to DÖRPFELD, the
metopes of this temple, or some of them, may have been
sculptured.]

[Note 9: PAUS., X, 19. 4. EURIP., _Ion_, 184 ff. The temple
seems to have been long in building. If AISCH, _contra Cles._,
§ 116, is to be believed, the dedication did not take place
till after 479. According to Pausanias, the pediment-sculptures
were the work of Praxias and Androsthenes. These sculptures
have been generally supposed to have been executed about 424,
but may have been considerably earlier, so far as Pausanias
goes to show. The excavations now in progress will, it is to be
hoped, clear up the whole subject.]

[Note 10: BENNDORF, _op. cit._, pp. 50-52.]

[Note 11: PAUS., V., 10. 6-9. For the date, see DÖRPFELD,
_Olympia_, _Textband_ II, pp. 19 ff. FLASCH, in Baumeister's
_Denkmäler_, pp. 1098-1100.]

[Note 12: BENNDORF, _op. cit._, pp. 53-60. The attribution of
the temple to Hera rests on the dubious ground of a single
votive inscription to Hera found within the cella; _op. cit._,
p. 34.]

[Note 13: PAUS., I. 24. 5; MICHAELIS, _Der Parthenon_, pp.
107-265; ROBERT, _Arch. Zeit_, 1884, pp. 47-58; MAYER,
_Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 366-370.]

[Note 14: FABRICIUS, _Ath. Mitth._, 1884, 338 ff.; for the
date, DÖRPFELD, _ibid._ p. 336.]

[Note 15: The so-called Theseion.]

[Note 16: ROSS, _Temple der Nike Apteros_, pls. 11-12;
FRIEDERICHS, _Bausteine_, (ed. Wolters) Nos. 747-760. On the
date, see WOLTERS, _Bonger Studien Reinhard Kekulé gewidmet_,
pp. 92-101.]

[Note 17: _Eighth Annual Report of the Archæological Institute
of America_, pp. 42 ff.]

[Note 18: DIOD. SIC., XIII. 82. It is disputed whether Diodoros
speaks of pediment-sculptures or metopes; see PETERSEN, _Kunst
des Pheidias_, p. 208, Note 4. Nothing can be made of the
existing fragments; published by SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di
Sicilia_, III, pl. 25.]

[Note 19: COCKERELL. _Temples of Aegina and Bassae_, pp. 49-50,
52.]

[Note 20: PAUS, II. 17. 3. The distribution of subjects given
above is that proposed by Dr. Waldstein, in the light of the
Page 27 discoveries made on the site of the Heraion under his direction
in the spring of 1892. See Thirteenth _Annual Report of the
Archæological Institute of America_, p. 64.]

[Note 21: FRIEDERICHS, Bausteine (ed. Wolters) Nos. 812-820. On
the date see MICHAELIS, Ath. Mitth., 1889, pp. 349 ff.]

[Note 22: _Notiziz degli Scavi_, 1890, pp. 255-57; PETERSEN,
_Bull, dell' Istituto_, 1890, pp. 201-27.]

[Note 23: CONZE, _etc., Arch. Untersuchungen auf Samothrake_,
II, pp. 13-14, 23-25.]

[Note 24: PAUS., VIII. 45. 4-7; TREU, Ath. Mitth., 1881, pp.
393-423; WEIL, in Baumeister's Denkmäler, 1666-69.]

[Note 25: Έφημερίς Άρχαιολογική, 1884, pp. 49-60; 1885, pp.
41-44. For the date see FOUCART, _Bull, de corr. hellén._,
1890, pp. 589-92.]

[Note 26: PAUS., IX. 11. 4. The date given above conforms to
the view of BRUNN, _Sitzungsber. d. Münch. Akademie_, 1880, pp.
435 ff.]

[Note 27: WOOD, _Discoveries at Ephesus_, p. 271.]

[Note 28: _Antiquities of Ionia_, IV. p. 46. Mr. Pullan is
inclined to date the temple after Alexander; Prof. Middleton
somewhat earlier (_Smith's, Dict, of Antiq._, 3d ed.,] II, p.
785).

[Note 29: CLARAC, _Musée de Sculpture_, II, pp. 1193-1233; pls.
117 C-J. Additional pieces of the frieze have recently been
found in the course of excavations conducted by the German
Archæological Institute. The date given above for the building
is that suggested by DÖRPFELD, _Ath. Mitth._, 1891, pp. 264-5.
Most of the sculpture is generally regarded as of much later
date.]

[Note 30: CONZE, _etc._, _Untersuchungen auf Samothrake_, I,
pp. 24-7, 43-4.]

[Note 3: NEWTON, _Discoveries at Halicarnassus_, _etc._, II,
pp. 554-67.]

[Note 32: MAYER, _Giganten und Titanen_, pp. 370-71.]

[Note 33: _Antiquities of Ionia_, IV, pp. 38-9.]

[Note 34: NEWTON, _Discoveries at Halicarnassus_, _etc._, II,
pp. 449-50, 633.]

Page 28

PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT ATHENS.

THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT
RELIEFS FROM THE ACROPOLIS TO
VASE-PAINTING.

[PLATE I.]

From one point of view it is a misfortune in the study of
archæology that, with the progress of excavation, fresh
discoveries are continually being made. If only the evidence of
the facts were all in, the case might be summed up and a final
judgment pronounced on points in dispute. As it is, the ablest
scholar must feel cautious about expressing a decided opinion;
for the whole fabric of his argument may be overturned any day
by the unearthing of a fragment of pottery or a sculptured
head. Years ago, it was easy to demonstrate the absurdity of
any theory of polychrome decoration. The few who dared to
believe that the Greek temple was not in every part as white as
the original marble subjected themselves to the pitying scorn
of their fellows. Only the discoveries of recent years have
brought proof too positive to be gainsaid. The process of
unlearning and throwing over old and cherished notions is
always hard; perhaps it has been especially so in archæology.

The thorough investigation of the soil and rock of the
Acropolis lately finished by the Greek Government has brought
to light so much that is new and strange that definite
explanations and conclusions are still far away. The
pediment-reliefs in poros which now occupy the second and third
rooms of the Acropolis Museum have already been somewhat fully
treated, especially in their architectural bearings. Dr.
Page 29 Brückner of the German Institute has written a full monograph
on the subject,[36] and it has also been fully treated by
Lechat in the _Revue Archeologique_.[37] Shorter papers have
appeared in the _Mittheilungen_ by Studniczka[38] and P.J.
Meier.[39] Dr. Waldstein in a recent peripatetic lecture
suggested a new point of view in the connection between these
reliefs and Greek vase-paintings. It is this suggestion that I
have tried to follow out.

The groups in question are too well known to need a detailed
description here. The first,[40] in a fairly good state of
preservation, represents Herakles in his conflict with the
Hydra, and at the left Iolaos, his charioteer, as a spectator.
Corresponding to this, is the second group,[41] with Herakles
overpowering the Triton; but the whole of this is so damaged
that it is scarcely recognizable. Then there are two larger
pediments in much higher relief, the one[42] repeating the
scene of Herakles and the Triton, the other[43] representing
the three-headed Typhon in conflict, as supposed, with Zeus.
All four of these groups have been reconstructed from a great
number of fragments. Many more pieces which are to be seen in
these two rooms of the Museum surely belonged to the original
works, though their relations and position cannot be
determined. The circumstances of their discovery between the
south supporting-wall of the Parthenon and Kimon's inner
Acropolis wall make it certain that we are dealing with
pre-Persian art. It is quite as certain, in spite of the
fragmentary condition of the remains, that they were pedimental
compositions and the earliest of the kind yet known.

[Footnote 36: _Mitth. deutsch. arch. Inst. Athen._, XIV, p. 67;
XV, p. 84.]

[Footnote 37: _Rev. Arch._, XVII, p. 304; XVIII, pp. 12, 137.]

[Footnote 38: _Mitth. Athen._, XI, p. 61.]

[Footnote 39: X, pp. 237, 322. _Cf. Studniczka_, _Jahrbuch
deutsch. arch. Inst._, I, p. 87; _Purgold_, _Έφημερίς
Άρχαιολογική_, 1884, p. 147, 1885, p. 234.]

[Footnote 40: _Mitth. Athen._, X, cut opposite p. 237;
_Έφημερίς_, 1884, πίναξ 7.]

[Footnote 41: _Mitth. Athen._, XI, _Taf._ II.]

[Footnote 42: _Idem_, XV, _Taf._ II.]

[Footnote 43: _Idem_, XIV, _Taf._ II, III.]

The first question which presents itself in the present
consideration is: Why should these pedimental groups follow
vase paintings? We might say that in vases we have practically
the first products of Greek art; and further we might show
resemblances, more or less material, between these archaic
reliefs and vase pictures. But the proof of any connection
between the two would still be wanting. Here the discoveries
Page 30 made by the Germans at Olympia and confirmed by later
researches in Sicily and Magna Graecia, are of the utmost
importance.[44] In the Byzantine west wall at Olympia were
found great numbers of painted terracotta plates[45] which
examination proved to have covered the cornices of the Geloan
Treasury. They were fastened to the stone by iron nails, the
distance between the nail-holes in terracottas and cornice
blocks corresponding exactly. The fact that the stone, where
covered, was only roughly worked made the connection still more
sure. These plates were used on the cornice of the long side,
and bounded the pediment space above and below. The
corresponding cyma was of the same material and similarly
decorated.

It seems surprising that such a terracotta sheathing should be
applied on a structure of stone. For a wooden building, on the
other hand, it would be altogether natural. It was possible to
protect wooden columns, architraves and triglyphs from the
weather by means of a wide cornice. But the cornice itself
could not but be exposed, and so this means of protection was
devised. Of course no visible proof of all this is at hand in
the shape of wooden temples yet remaining. But Dr. Dörpfeld's
demonstration[46] removes all possible doubt. Pausanias[47]
tells us that in the Heraion at Olympia there was still
preserved in his day an old wooden column. Now from the same
temple no trace of architrave, triglyph or cornice has been
found; a fact that is true of no other building in Olympia and
seems to make it certain that here wood never was replaced by
stone. When temples came to be built of stone, it seems that
this plan of terracotta covering was retained for a time,
partly from habit, partly because of its fine decorative
effect. But it was soon found that marble was capable of
withstanding the wear of weather and that the ornament could be
applied to it directly by painting.

[Footnote 44: I follow closely Dr. Dörpfeld's account and
explanation of these discoveries in _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_,
v, 30 _seq_. See also _Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste_, Berlin,
1881. _Ueber die Verwendung Terracotten_, by Messrs. DÖRPFELD,
GRÄBER, BORRMANN, and SIEBOLD.]

[Footnote 45: Reproduced in _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_, V,
_Taf._ XXXIV. BAUMEISTER, _Denkmäler des klassischen
Altertums_, _Taf._ XLV. RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Histoire de la
Céramique Grecque_, pl. XV.]

[Footnote 46: _Historische und philologische Aufsätze_, _Ernst
Cartius gewidmet_. Berlin, 1884, p. 137 _seq_.]

[Footnote 47: V, 20. 6.]

Page 31 In order to carry the investigation a step further Messrs.
Dörpfeld, Gräber, Borrmann and Siebold undertook a journey to
Gela and the neighboring cities of Sicily and Magna
Graecia.[48] The results of this journey were most
satisfactory. Not only in Gela, but in Syracuse, Selinous,
Akrai, Kroton, Metapontum and Paestum, precisely similar
terracottas were found to have been employed in the same way.
Furthermore just such cyma pieces have been discovered
belonging to other structures in Olympia and amid the
pre-Persian ruins on the Acropolis of Athens. It is not yet
proven that this method of decoration was universal or even
widespread in Greece; but of course the fragile nature of
terracotta and the fact that it was employed only in the oldest
structures, would make discoveries rare.

Another important argument is furnished by the certain use of
terracotta plates as acroteria. Pausanias[49] mentions such
acroteria on the Stoa Basileios on the agora of Athens.
Pliny[50] says that such works existed down to his day, and
speaks of their great antiquity. Fortunately a notable example
has been preserved in the acroterium of the gable of the
Heraion at Olympia,[51] a great disk of clay over seven feet in
diameter. It forms a part, says Dr. Dörpfeld, of the oldest
artistic roof construction that has remained to us from Greek
antiquity. That is, the original material of the acroteria was
the same used in the whole covering of the roof, namely
terracotta. The gargoyles also, which later were always of
stone, were originally of terracotta. Further we find reliefs
in terracotta pierced with nail-holes and evidently intended
for the covering of various wooden objects; sometimes, it is
safe to say, for wooden sarcophagi. Here appears clearly the
connection that these works may have had with the later reliefs
in marble.

To make now a definite application, it is evident that the
connection between vase-paintings and painted terracottas must
from the nature of the case be a very close one. But when these
terracottas are found to reproduce throughout the exact designs
and figures of vase-paintings, the line between the two fades
away. All the most familiar ornaments of vase technic recur
Page 32 again and again, maeanders, palmettes, lotuses, the scale and
lattice-work patterns, the bar-and-tooth ornament, besides
spirals of all descriptions. In exception, also, the parallel
is quite as close. In the great acroterium of the Heraion, for
example, the surface was first covered with a dark varnish-like
coating on which the drawing was incised down to the original
clay. Then the outlines were filled in black, red and white.
Here the bearing becomes clear of an incidental remark of
Pausanias in his description of Olympia. He says (v. 10.): εν
δε Ολυμπια (of the Zeus temple) λεβης επιχρυσος επι 'εκαστω του
οροφου τω περατι επικειται. That is originally aeroteria were
only vases set up at the apex and on the end of the gable.
Naturally enough the later terracottas would keep close to the
old tradition.

[Footnote 48: _Cf. supra, Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste_.]

[Footnote 49: I, 3. 1.]

[Footnote 50: His. Nat., xxxv, 158.]

[Footnote 51: _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_, v, 35 and _Taf_.
XXXIV.]

It is interesting also to find relief-work in terracotta as
well as painting on a plane surface. An example where color and
relief thus unite, which comes from a temple in Caere,[52]
might very well have been copied from a vase design. It
represents a female face in relief, as occurs so often in Greek
pottery, surrounded by an ornament of lotus, maeander and
palmette. Such a raised surface is far from unusual; and we
seem to find here an intermediate stage between painting and
sculpture. The step is indeed a slight one. A terracotta
figurine[53] from Tarentum helps to make the connection
complete. It is moulded fully in the round, but by way of
adornment, in close agreement with the tradition of
vase-painting, the head is wreathed with rosettes and crowned
by a single palmette. So these smaller covering plates just
spoken of, which were devoted to minor uses, recall continually
not only the identical manner of representation but the
identical scenes of vase paintings,--such favorite subjects, to
cite only one example, as the meeting of Agamemnon's children
at his tomb.

[Footnote 52: _Arch. Zeitung_, xxix, 1872, _Taf._ 41; RAYET et
COLLIGNON, _Hist. Céram. Grecque_, fig. 143.]

[Footnote 53: _Arch. Zeitung_, 1882, _Taf._ 13.]

From this point of view, it does not seem impossible that
pedimental groups might have fallen under the influence of vase
technic. The whole architectural adornment of the oldest temple
was of pottery. It covered the cornice of the sides, completely
Page 33 bounded the pedimental space, above and below, and finally
crowned the whole structure in the acroteria. It would surely
be strange if the pedimental group, framed in this way by vase
designs, were in no way influenced by them. The painted
decoration of these terracottas is that of the bounding friezes
in vase-pictures. The vase-painter employs them to frame and
set off the central scene. Might not the same end have been
served by the terracottas on the temple, with reference to the
scene within the typanum? We must remember, also, that at this
early time the sculptor's art was in its infancy while painting
and the ceramic art had reached a considerable development.
Even if all analogy did not lead the other way, an artist would
shrink from trying to fill up a pediment with statues in the
round. The most natural method was also the easiest for him.

On the question of the original character of the pedimental
group, the Heraion at Olympia, probably the oldest Greek
columnar structure known, furnishes important light. Pausanias
says nothing whatever of any pedimental figures. Of course his
silence does not prove that there were none; but with all the
finds of acroteria, terracottas and the like, no trace of any
such sculptures was discovered. The inference seems certain
that the pedimental decoration, if present at all, was either
of wood or of terracotta, or was merely painted on a smooth
surface. The weight of authority inclines to the last view. It
is held that, if artists had become accustomed to carving
pedimental groups in wood, the first examples that we have in
stone would not show so great inability to deal with the
conditions of pedimental composition. If ever the tympanum was
simply painted or filled with a group in terracotta, it is easy
to see why the fashion died and why consequently we can bring
forward no direct proof to-day. It was simply that only figures
in the round can satisfy the requirements of a pedimental
composition. The strong shadows thrown by the cornice, the
distance from the spectator, and the height, must combine to
confuse the lines of a scene painted on a plane surface, or
even of a low relief. So soon as this was discovered and so
soon as the art of sculpture found itself able to supply the
want, a new period in pedimental decoration began.

Literary evidence to support this theory of the origin of
pediment sculpture is not lacking. Pliny says in his Natural
Page 34 History (xxxv. 156.): _Laudat_ (Varro) _et Pasitelen
qui plasticen matrem caelaturæ et statuariæ sculpturaeque dixit
et cum esset in omnibus his summus nihil unquam fecit antequam
finxit_. Also (xxxiv. 35.): _Similitudines exprimendi quae
prima fuerit origo, in ea quam plasticen Graeci vocant dici
convenientius erit, etenim prior quam statuaria fuit_. In both
these cases the meaning of "plasticen" is clearly working, that
is, moulding, in clay. Pliny, again (xxxv. 152.), tells us of
the Corinthian Butades: _Butadis inventum est rubricam addere
aut ex rubra creta fingere, primusque personas tegularum
extremis imbricibus inposuit, quae inter initia prostypa
vocavit, postea idem ectypa fecit. hinc et fastigia templorum
orta_. The phrase _hinc et fastigia templorum orla_, has been
bracketed by some editors because they could not believe the
fact which it stated. _Fastigia_ may from the whole connection
and the Latin mean "pediments." This is quite in accord with
the famous passage in Pindar,[54] attributing to the
Corinthians the invention of pedimental composition. Here then
we have stated approximately the conclusion which seems at
least probable on other grounds, namely, that the tympanum of
the pediment was originally filled with a group in terracotta,
beyond doubt painted and in low relief.

[Footnote 54: _Olymp._, XIII, 21.]

But if we assume that the pedimental group could have
originated in this way, we must be prepared to explain the
course of its development up to the pediments of Aegina and the
Parthenon, in which we find an entirely different principle,
namely, the filling of these tympana with figures in the round.
It is maintained by some scholars, notably by Koepp,[55] that
no connection can be established between high relief and low
relief, much less between statues entirely in the round and low
relief. High relief follows all the principles of sculpture,
while low relief may almost be considered as a branch of the
painter's art. But this view seems opposed to the evidence of
the facts. For there still exists a continuous series of
pedimental groups, first in low relief then in high relief, and
finally standing altogether free from the background, and
becoming sculpture in the round. Examples in low relief are the
Hydra pediment from the Acropolis and the pediment of the
Page 35 Megarian Treasury at Olympia, which, on artistic grounds, can
be set down as the two earliest now in existence. Then follow,
in order of time and development, the Triton and Typhon
pediments, in high relief, from the Acropolis; and after these
the idea of relief is lost, and the pediment becomes merely a
space destined to be adorned with statuary. Can we reasonably
believe that the Hydra and Triton pediments, standing side by
side on the Acropolis, so close to each other in time and in
technic, owe their origin to entirely different motives, merely
for the reason that the figures of one stand further out from
the background than those of the other? Is it not easier to
suppose that the higher reliefs, as they follow the older low
reliefs in time, are developed from them, than to assume that
just at the dividing-line a new principle came into operation?

[Footnote 55: _Jahrbuch deutschen archäol. Instituts_, II,
118.]

It is a commonplace to say that sculpture in relief is only one
branch of painting. Conze[56] publishes a sepulchral monument
which seems to him to mark the first stage of growth. The
surface of the figure and that of the surrounding ground remain
the same; they are separated only by a shallow incised line.
Conze says of it; "The tracing of the outline is no more than,
and is in fact exactly the same as, the tracing employed by the
Greek vase-painter when he outlined his figure with a brush
full of black paint before he filled in with black the ground
about it." The next step naturally is to cut away the surface
outside and beyond the figures; the representation is still a
picture except in the clearer marking of the bounding-line. The
entire further growth and development of the Greek relief is in
the direction of rounding these lines and of detaching the
relief more and more from the back surface. This primitive
picturesque method of treatment is found as well in high relief
as in low. How then can the process of development be different
for the two? I quote from Friedrichs-Wolters[57] on the metopes
of the temple of Apollon at Selinous, which are distinctly in
high relief: "The relief of these works stands very near to the
origin of relief-style. The surface of the figures is kept flat
throughout, although the effort to represent them in their full
Page 36 roundness is not to be mistaken. Only later were relief-figures
rounded on the front and sides after the manner of free
figures. Originally, whether in high or in low relief, they
were flat forms, modelled for the plane surface whose ornament
they were to be." As the sculptured works were brought out
further and further from the background, this background tended
to disappear. It was no longer a distinctly marked surface on
which the figures were projected, but now higher and now lower,
serving only to hold the figures together. When this point was
reached, the entire separation of the figures from one another
and from the background, became easy. That is, the change in
conception is an easy step by which the relief was lost and
free-standing figures substituted. This process of change was
especially rapid in pedimental groups, for the reason stated
above. The pediment field from its architectonic conditions was
never suited to decoration in relief. But we find from the
works before us that such a system was at least attempted, that
painting and an increased projection of relief were employed as
aids. We are bound to seek a logical explanation of the facts
and of their bearing on the later history of art, and it is
safer to assume a process of regular development than a series
of anomalous changes. Koepp (_cf. supra_), for example, assumes
that these two pediments in low relief are simply exceptions to
the general rule, accounting for them by the fact that it was
difficult to work out high reliefs from the poros stone of
which they were made. He seems to forget that the higher
reliefs from the Acropolis are of the same poros. This material
in fact appears to have been chosen by the artist because it
was almost as easy to incise and carve as the wood and clay to
which he had been accustomed. The monuments of later Greek art
give no hint of a distinction to be drawn between high and low
relief. We find on the same stele figures barely attached to
the ground, and others in mere outline. If then there are
reasons for finding the origin of pedimental decoration in a
plane or low-relief composition of terracotta, made more
effective both by a framing of like material and technic, and
by the acroteria at either extremity and above, then the
process of development which leads at length to the pediments
at Aegina and the Parthenon becomes at once easy and natural.
We note first the change from terracotta to a low painted
Page 37 relief in stone, then this relief becomes, from the necessities
of the case, higher and higher until finally it gives place to
free figures.

[Footnote 56: _Das Relief bei den Griechen. Sitzungs-Berichte
der Berliner Akademie_, 1882, 567.]

[Footnote 57: _Gipsabgüsse antiker Bilderwerke_, Nos. 149-151.]

If ceramic art really did exert such an influence on
temple-sculpture, we should be able to trace analogies in other
lines. The most interesting is found in the design and
execution of sepulchral monuments. Milchhoefer[58] is of the
opinion that the tomb was not originally marked by an upright
slab with sculptured figures. He finds what he thinks the
oldest representation of sepulchral ornament in a black-figured
vase of the so-called "prothesis" class.[59] Here are two women
weeping about a sepulchral mound on which rests an amphora of
like form to the one that bears the scene. He maintains then
that such a prothesis vase was the first sepulchral monument,
that this was later replaced by a vase of the same description
in marble, of course on account of the fragile nature of
pottery. For this reason, too, we find no certain proof of the
fact in the old tombs, though Dr. Wolters[60] thinks that the
discovery of fragments of vases on undisturbed tombs makes the
case a very strong one. The use of such vases or urns of marble
for this purpose became very prevalent. They are nearly always
without ornament, save for a single small group, in relief or
sometimes in color, representing the dead and the bereaved
ones. A very evident connecting-link between these urns and the
later sepulchral stele appears in monuments which show just
such urns projected in relief upon a plane surface. The relief
is sometimes bounded by the outlines of the urn itself,[61]
sometimes a surrounding background is indicated. In many cases
this background assumes the form of the ordinary sepulchral
stele. The Central Museum at Athens is especially rich in
examples of this kind. On two steles which I have noticed
there, three urns are represented side by side. A still more
interesting specimen is a stone so divided that its lower part
is occupied by an urn in relief, above which is sculptured the
Page 38 usual scene of parting. This scene has its normal place as a
relief or a drawing in color on the surface of the urn itself;
here, where the step in advance of choosing the plane stele to
bear the relief seems already taken, the strength of tradition
still asserts itself, and a similar group is repeated on the
rounded face of the urn below. The transition to the more
common form of sepulchral monument has now become easy; but the
characteristics which point to its genesis in the funeral vase
are still prominent.

[Footnote 58: _Mitth. Athen._, v, 164.]

[Footnote 59: _Monumenti dell' Inst._, viii, _tav._ v. 1.
_g.h._: found near Cape Kolias; at present in the Polytechnic
Museum at Athens.]

[Footnote 60: _Attische Grabvasen_, a paper read before the
German Institute in Athens, Dec. 9, 1890.]

[Footnote 61: Examples are Nos. 2099 and 2100 in the archaic
room of the Louvre. I remember having seen nothing similar in
any other European museum.]

This process of development, so far as can be judged from
existing types, reaches down to the beginning of the fourth
century B.C. Steles of a different class are found, dating from
a period long before this. Instead of a group, they bear only
the dead man in a way to suggest his position, or vocation
during life. All show distinctly a clinging to the technic of
ceramic art. Sculptured steles and others merely painted exist
side by side. The best known of the latter class is the Lyseas
stele, in the Central Museum at Athens. Many more of the same
sort have been discovered, differing from their vase
predecessors in material and form, but keeping to the old
principles. The outlines, for example, are first incised, and
then the picture is finished with color. The Aristion stele may
be taken as an example of the second order. Relief plays here
the leading part; but it must still be assisted by painting,
while the resemblance to vase-figures in position, arrangement
of clothing, proportion and profile, remains as close as in the
simply painted stele. An ever present feature, also, is the
palmette acroterium, treated in conventional ceramic style.
Loeschke thinks that the origin of red-figured pottery is to be
found in the dark ground and light coloring of these steles.
Whether the opinion be correct or not, it points to a very
close connection between the two forms of art.

The influence of ceramic decoration spread still further. Large
numbers of steles and bases for votive offerings have been
discovered on the Acropolis, which alike repeat over and over
again conventional vase-patterns, and show the use of incised
lines and other peculiarities of the technic of pottery.[62]

[Footnote 62: BORRMANN, _Jahrbuch des Instituts_, III, 274.]

As to specific resemblances between the pediments of the
Acropolis and vase-pictures, the subjects of all the groups are
Page 39 such as appear very frequently on vases of all periods. About
seventy Attic vases are known which deal with the contest of
Herakles and Triton. One of these is a hydria at present in the
Berlin Museum, No. 1906.[63] Herakles is represented astride
the Triton, and he clasps him with both arms as in the
Acropolis group. The Triton's scaly length, his fins and tail,
are drawn in quite the same way. It is very noticeable that on
the vase the contortions of the Triton's body seem much more
violent; here the sculptor could not well follow the
vase-painter so closely. It was far easier for him to work out
the figure in milder curves; but he followed the vase-type as
closely as possible. On the other hand, if the potter had
copied the pedimental group the copy could perfectly well have
been an exact one. The group is very similar also to a scene in
the Assos frieze, with regard to which I quote from
Friedrichs-Wolters;[64] "It corresponds to the oldest Greek
vase-paintings, in which we find beast fights borrowed from
Oriental art, united with Greek myths and represented after the
Greek manner." This frieze is ascribed to the sixth century
B.C., and is not much later than our pediments.

For the Hydra pediment, there exists a still closer parallel,
in an archaic Corinthian amphora, published by Gerhard.[65]
Athena appears here as a spectator, though she has no part in
the pedimental group; but in every other point, in the drawing
of the Hydra, of Herakles and Iolaos, the identity is almost
complete. Athena seems to have been omitted, because the artist
found it difficult to introduce another figure in the narrow
space. Evidently the vase must have represented a type known to
the sculptor and copied by him.

[Footnote 63: Published by GERHARD, _Auserlesene griechische
Vasenbilder_, No. 111; RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Hist. Céram.
Grecque_. fig. 57, p. 125. In the National Museum at Naples,
No. 3419, is a black-figured amphora which repeats the same
scene. The drawing and position of the two contestants is just
as on the Berlin vase, the Triton seeking with one hand to
break Herakles' hold about his neck, while with the other he
holds a fish as attribute. Athena stands close by, watching the
struggle.]

[Footnote 64: _Gipsabgüsse antiker Bildwerke_, Nos. 8-12.]

[Footnote 65: _Auserlesene Vasenbilder_, Nos. 95, 96.]

For the Typhon pediment, no such close analogies are possible,
at least in the form and arrangement of figures. It would seem
that this is so simply because no vase-picture of this subject
Page 40 that we know so far answers the conditions of a pedimental
group that it could be used as a pattern. In matters of detail,
a hydria in Munich, No. 125,[66] offers the best illustration.
For example, the vase-painting and the relief show quite the
same treatment of hair, beard and wings in the figure of
Typhon.

Speaking more generally, we find continually in the pediments
reminiscences of ceramic drawing and treatment. The acroteria,
painted in black and red on the natural surface of poros stone,
take the shape of palmettes and lotuses. The cornices above and
below are of clay or poros, painted in just such designs as
appear on the Olympian terracottas; and these designs are
frequently repeated in the sculptures themselves. The feathers
of Typhon's wings are conventionally represented by a
scale-pattern; the arc of the scales has been drawn with
compass; we observe still the hole left in the centre by the
leg of the compass. The larger pinions at the ends of the wings
have been outlined, regularly by incised lines, and then filled
up with color. All this is as like the treatment of
vase-figures, as it unlike anything else in plastic art. In the
former the scale-pattern is used conventionally to denote
almost anything. Fragments of vases found on the Acropolis
itself picture wings in just this way; or it may be Athena's
aegis, the fleece of a sheep or the earth's surface that is so
represented. On the body of the Triton and the Echidna of the
pediments no attempt is made to indicate movement and
contortion by the position of the scales; it is everywhere the
lifeless conventionality of archaic vase-drawing. In sculptured
representations the scale device is dropped, and with it the
rigid regularity in the ordering of the pinions. Further, in
drawing the scales of the Triton, the artist has dropped usual
patterns and copied exactly a so-called bar-ornament which
decorates the cornice just over the pediment. Here again he
chooses one of the most common motives on vases. For the body
of the Echidna, on the other hand, it is the so-called
lattice-work pattern which represents the scale covering,--a
pattern employed in vases for the most varied purposes, and
found on the earliest Cypriote pottery. Even the roll of the
snake-bodies of Typhon seems to follow a conventional spiral
which we find on old Rhodian ware.

[Footnote 66: _Ibid._, No. 287.]

Page 41 The outlining and coloring of the figures is most interesting.
The poros stone of the reliefs is so soft that it could easily
be worked with a knife; so incised lines are constantly used,
and regular geometrical designs traced. Quite an assortment of
colors is employed: black, white, red, dark brown, apparent
green, and in the Typhon group, blue. It is very noticeable
that these reliefs, unlike the others which in general furnish
the closest analogies, the metopes of the temple at Selinous
and the pediment of the Megarian Treasury at Olympia, have the
ground unpainted. This is distinctly after the manner of the
oldest Greek pottery and of archaic wall paintings. Herein they
resemble also another archaic pedimental relief, found near the
old temple of Dionysos at Athens, and representing just such a
procession of satyrs and mænads as appears so often on vases.

To give a local habitation to the class of pottery which most
nearly influenced the artist of these reliefs, is not easy.
Perhaps it is a reasonable conjecture to make it Kamiros of
Rhodes. Kamiros ware shows just such an admixture of oriental
and geometrical designs as characterizes our pediments. Strange
monsters of all kinds are represented there; while in the
reliefs before us a goodly number of such monsters are
translated to Greek soil.

CARLETON L. BROWNSON.
American School of Classical Studies,
Athens, Nov. 10, 1891.

Page 42

PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT ATHENS.
THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF
LYSIKRATES AT ATHENS.[67]

[PLATE II-III.]

The small circular Corinthian edifice, called among the common
people the Lantern of Diogenes,[68] and erected, as we know
from the inscription[69] on the architrave, to commemorate a
choragic victory won by Lysikrates, son of Lysitheides, with a
boy-chorus of the tribe Akamantis, in the archonship of
Euainetos (B.C. 335/4), has long been one of the most familiar
of the lesser remains of ancient Athens. The monument was
originally crowned by the tripod which was the prize of the
successful chorus, and it doubtless was one of many buildings
of similar character along the famous "Street of Tripods." [70]
It is the aim of this paper to show, that the earliest
publications of the sculptured reliefs on this monument have
given a faulty representation of them, owing to the
transposition of two sets of figures; that this mistake has
been repeated in most subsequent publications down to our day;
that inferences deduced therefrom have in so far been vitiated;
and that new instructive facts concerning Greek composition in
sculpture can be derived from a corrected rendering of the
original.

[Footnote 67: It is a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to
the Director of the School, Dr. Waldstein, who has kindly
assisted me in the preparation of this paper by personal
suggestions.]

[Footnote 68: This does not exclude the tolerably well-attested
fact, that the name "Lantern of Diogenes" formerly belonged to
another similar building near by, which had disappeared by
1676.]

[Footnote 69: _C._ 1. _G._ 221.]

[Footnote 70: _Cf._ PAUS., I, 20, 1.]

Although we are not now concerned either with the subsequent
fortunes of the monument arid the story of its preservation, or
Page 43 with its architectural features and the various attempts which
have been made to restore the original design, it may be
convenient to recall briefly a few of the more important facts
pertaining to these questions. The Monument of Lysikrates first
became an object of antiquarian interest in 1669, when it was
purchased by the Capuchin monks, whose mission had succeeded
that of the Jesuits in 1658, and it was partially enclosed in
their _hospitium_.[71] The first attempt to explain its purpose
and meaning was made by a Prussian soldier, Johann Georg
Transfeldt, who, after escaping from slavery in the latter part
of 1674, fled to Athens, where he lived for more than a
year.[72] Transfeldt deciphered the inscription, but was unable
to decide whether the building was a "_templum Demosthenis_" or
a "_Gymnasium a Lysicrate * * * exstructum propter juventutem
Atheniensem ex tribu Acamantia_." [73] Much more important for
the interpretation of the monument was the visit of Dr. Jacob
Spon of Lyons, who arrived at Athens early in the year 1676.
Spon also read the inscription,[74] and, from a comparison with
other similar inscriptions, determined the true purpose of
edifices of this class.[75] Finally the first volume of Stuart
and Revett's _Antiquities of Athens_, which appeared in 1762,
confirmed, corrected and extended Spon's results. Careful and
exhaustive drawings accompanied the description of the
monument.

In the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the
nineteenth century, Athens was visited by many strangers from
western Europe, and the hospitable convent of the Capuchins and
the enclosed "Lantern," which at this time was used as a closet
for books, acquired some notoriety. Late in the year 1821,
however, during the occupation of Athens by the Turkish troops
under Omer Vrioni, the convent was accidentally burned, and its
most precious treasure was liberated, to be sure, but, as may
still be seen, sadly damaged by the fire, and what was still
more unfortunate, left unprotected and exposed to the
destructive mischief of Athenian street-arabs and their less
innocent elders.

[Footnote 71: SPON, _Voyage_, II, p. 244; LABORDE, _Athènes_,
I, p. 75 and note 2.]

[Footnote 72: MICHAELIS, _Mitth. Athen_., I, p. 103. ]

[Footnote 73: _Mitth. Athen._, I, p. 114.]

[Footnote 74: SPON, III, 2, p. 21 f. ]

[Footnote 75: SPON, II, p. 174.]

Aside from some slight repairs and the clearing away of
rubbish, the monument remained in this condition until 1867,
Page 44 when the French Minister at Athens, M. de Gobineau, acting on
behalf of his government, into whose possession the site of the
former monastery had fallen, employed the architect Boulanger
to make such restorations as were necessary to save the
monument from falling to pieces.[76] At the same time the last
remains of the old convent were removed, and some measures
taken to prevent further injury to the ruin. Repairs were again
being made under the direction of the French School at Athens,
when I left Greece, in April, 1892.

For the architectural study of the monument of Lysikrates
little has been done since Stuart's time. In the year 1845 and
in 1859, the architect Theoph. Hansen made a new series of
drawings from the monument, and upon them based a restoration
which differs somewhat from that of Stuart, especially in the
decoration of the roof. This work is discussed in the monograph
of Von Lützow.[77]

Confining our attention to the sculptures of the frieze, we
will examine certain inaccuracies of detail which have hitherto
prevailed in the treatment of this important landmark in the
history of decorative reliefs of the fourth century. The
frieze, carved in low relief upon a single block of marble,
runs continuously around the entire circumference of the
structure. Its height is only .012 m. (lower, rectangular
moulding) + .23 m. (between mouldings) + .015 m. (upper,
rounded moulding).[78] It is to be noticed that the figures
rest upon the lower moulding, while they are often (in fourteen
cases) carried to the top of the upper moulding.

[Footnote 76: VON LÜTZOW, _Zeitschr für bildende Kunst_, III,
pp. 23, 236 f.]

[Footnote 77: Pp. 239 ff., 264 ff. For another restoration of
the roof _cf._ SEMPER, _Der Stil_, vol. II, p. 242.]

[Footnote 78: My own measurements.]

The question as to the subject of the relief was a sore puzzle
to the early travellers. Père Babin finds "_des dieux
marins_";[79] Transfeldt, "_varias gymnasticorum figuras_,"
which he thought represented certain games held "_in Aegena
insula_" in honor of Demosthenes.[80] Vernon (1676), who
regarded the monument as a temple of Hercules, sees his labors
depicted in the sculptures of the frieze.[81] Spon, while not
accepting this view, admitted that some, at least, of the acts
of Herakles were represented; so that the building, apart from
Page 45 its monumental purpose, might also have been sacred to that
deity.[82] To Stuart and Revett[83] is due the credit of being
the first to recognize in these reliefs the story of Dionysos
and the pirates, which is told first in the Homeric Hymn to
Dionysos. In the Homeric version, Dionysos, in the guise of a
fair youth with dark locks and purple mantle, appears by the
seashore, when he is espied by Tyrrhenian pirates, who seize
him and hale him on board their ship, hoping to obtain a rich
ransom. But when they proceed to bind him the fetters fall from
his limbs, whereupon the pilot, recognizing his divinity,
vainly endeavors to dissuade his comrades from their purpose.
Soon the ship flows with wine; then a vine with hanging
clusters stretches along the sail-top, and the mast is entwined
with ivy. Too late the marauders perceive their error and try
to head for the shore; but straightway the god assumes the form
of a lion and drives them, all save the pious pilot,
terror-stricken into the sea, where they become dolphins.

[Footnote 79: WACHSMUTH, _Die Stadt Athen_, I, p. 757.]

[Footnote 80: _Mitth. Athen._, I, p. 113.]

[Footnote 81: LABORDE, I, pp. 249 f.]

[Footnote 82: SPON, II, p. 175.]

[Footnote 83: I, p. 27.]

In the principal post-Homeric versions, the Tyrrhenians
endeavor to kidnap Dionysos under pretext of conveying him to
Naxos, the circumstances being variously related. Thus in the
Ναξίακά of Aglaosthenes (_apud_ HYGIN. Poet. Astronom. II. 17),
the child Dionysos and his companions are to be taken to the
nymphs, his nurses. According to Ovid,[84] the pirates find the
god on the shore of Chios, stupid with sleep and wine, and
bring him on board their vessel. On awaking he desires to be
conveyed to Naxos, but the pirates turn to the left, whereupon,
as they give no heed to his remonstrances, they are changed to
dolphins and leap into the sea. Similarly Servius, _Ad. Verg.
Aen._, I. 67. In the _Fabulæ_ of Hyginus (CXXXIV), and in
Pseudo-Apollodorus,[85] Dionysos engages passage with the
Tyrrhenians. Nonnus, however, returns to the Homeric story,
which he has modified, extended, and embellished in his own
peculiar way.[86] These versions, to which may be added that of
Seneca,[87] all agree in making the scene take place on
shipboard, and, if we except the "comites" of Aglaosthenes, in
none of them is the god accompanied by a retinue of satyrs. But
Philostratus[88] pretends to describe a painting, in which two
Page 46 ships are portrayed, the pirate-craft lying in ambush for the
other, which bears Dionysos and his rout.

[Footnote 84: _Met._, III. 605 ff.]

[Footnote 85: _Bibliotheca_, III. 5. 3.]

[Footnote 86: _Dionys._, XLV. 119 ff.]

[Footnote 87: _Œdipus_, VV. 455-473.]

[Footnote 88: _Imag._, I. 19.]

In our frieze, however, the myth is represented in an entirely
different manner. The scene is not laid on shipboard, but near
the shore of the sea, where, as the action shows, Dionysos and
his attendant satyrs are enjoying the contents of two large
craters, when they are attacked by pirates. The satyrs who are
characterized as such by their tails, and in most cases (9 +
2:7) by the panther-skin, forthwith take summary vengeance upon
their assailants, of whom some are bound, others beaten and
burned, while others take refuge in the sea, only to be changed
into dolphins by the invisible power of the god.

These modifications of the traditional form of the story have
usually[89] been accounted for by the necessities of plastic
art; and this view has in its favor that the representation in
sculpture of any of the other versions which are known to us,
would be attended by great difficulties of composition, and
would certainly be much less effective. Reisch, however, has
suggested[90] that this frieze illustrates the dithyrambus
which won the prize on this occasion, and that the variations
in the details of the story are due to this. There is no
evidence for this hypothesis, inasmuch as we have no basis upon
which to found an analogy, and know nothing whatever of the
nature of the piece in which the chorus had figured.

[Footnote 89: _E.g._ OVERBECK, _Plastik³_, II. p. 92;
Friedrichs-Wolters, _Bausteine_, p. 488.]

[Footnote 90: _Griech. Weihgeschenke_, p. 102.]

The general arrangement and technic of this relief, the skill
with which unity of design is preserved despite the circular
form, the energy of the action, and the variety of the
grouping, have often been pointed out. More particularly, the
harmony and symmetry, which the composition exhibits, have been
noticed by most of the later writers who have had occasion to
describe the frieze. It is here, however, that we find the
divergencies and inaccuracies which have been alluded to above,
and these are such as to merit a closer examination.

To begin with the central scene, which is characterized as such
by the symmetrical grouping of two pairs of satyrs about the
Page 47 god Dionysos and his panther and is externally defined by a
crater at either side, we observe that, while the two satyrs
immediately to the right (I¹) and left (I) of Dionysos (0),
correspond in youth and in their attitude toward him, the satyr
at the left (I) has a thyrsus and a mantle which the other does
not possess. These figures have unfortunately suffered much;
the central group is throughout badly damaged, the upper part
of the body and the head of Dionysos especially so. Of the tail
of the panther as drawn in Stuart's work, no trace exists. The
faces of the two satyrs and the head of the thyrsus are also
much mutilated. The other two satyrs (II: II¹), whose faces
are also mutilated, correspond very closely in youth, action,
and nudity. In these two pairs of figures it is also to be
noticed that the heads of I and II at the left face the central
group, while the heads of I¹ and II¹ at the right are
turned away from the centre, toward the right. By this device
the sculptor has obviated any awkwardness which might arise
from the necessity of placing Dionysos in profile.

Passing now to the scenes outside of the vases, we observe
that, of the first pair of satyrs, the bearded figure at the
left (III), leans upon a tree-stump, over which is thrown his
panther-skin, as he contemplates the contest between his
fellows and the pirates, while against his right side rests a
thyrsus. The corresponding satyr on the right (III¹), also
bearded, but with his head now nearly effaced, wears his mantle
slung over the left shoulder as he advances to the right,
offering with his right hand the freshly filled wine-cup to a
youthful companion (IV¹). The latter, with panther-skin over
left shoulder and arm, and club (partially effaced) in
outstretched right hand, is moving rapidly to the right, as if
to join in the battle; his face (also somewhat mutilated) is
partly turned to the left, and despite his attitude of refusal
he forms a sort of group with his neighbor on that side
(III¹), and has no connection, as has been wrongly
assumed,[91] with the following group to the right (V¹).
Corresponding with this youthful satyr, we have on the left
(IV) a nude bearded satyr (face somewhat damaged,) armed with a
torch instead of a club, moving swiftly to the left to take
Page 48 part in the contest. He has no group-relation with his neighbor
on the right (III), although he maybe supposed to have just
left him. The relation is not sufficiently marked in the case
of the corresponding figures on the other side (III¹,
IV¹) to injure the symmetry.

[Footnote 91: _British Museum Marbles,_ IX, p. 114.]

These two pairs of satyrs serve to express the transition from
the untroubled ease of Dionysos and his immediate attendants,
to the violence and confusion of the struggle. Thus the first
pair (III: III¹) seem to feel that their active participation
is unnecessary, and so belong rather to the central scene;
while the second pair (iv: iv¹), hurrying to the combat, are
to be reckoned rather with those who are actively engaged. This
is also emphasized by the symmetrical alternation of young and
old satyrs, _i.e._:

old young old young old young
VIa Vb IV IV¹ V¹b VI¹b

and by their correspondence to VII: VII¹.

On the left side we have next a group, turned toward the right,
consisting of a young satyr with flowing panther-skin (Vb), who
places his left knee on the back of a prostrate pirate (Va)
whom he is about to strike with a club which he holds in his
uplifted right hand. The pirate (face now somewhat damaged) is,
like all of his fellows, youthful and nude. The corresponding
group on the right, faces the left, and represents a nude
bearded satyr (V¹,) with left knee on the hip of a fallen
pirate (V¹a), whose hands he is about to bind behind his
back. Thus the arrangement of the two groups corresponds, but
the action is somewhat different.

I now wish to point out an error which is interesting and
instructive as illustrating how mistakes creep into standard
archæological literature to the detriment of a proper
appreciation of the original monuments; and I may perhaps hope
not only to correct this error once for all, but also, in so
doing, to make clearer certain noteworthy artistic qualities of
this composition.

If we turn to the reproductions of the Lysikrates frieze in the
common manuals of Greek sculpture, we find that the group
(V¹) has exchanged places with the next group to the right
(VI¹) while the corresponding groups on the left side (V,
VI) retain their proper position. In order to detect the source
of this confusion, we have only to examine the drawings of
Stuart and Revett, from which nearly all the subsequent
Page 49 illustrations are more or less directly derived. In the first
volume of Stuart and Revett, the groups (V¹ IV¹) occupy
plates XIII and XIV, and it is evident that the drawings have
been in some way misplaced. These plates have been reproduced
on a reduced scale in Meyer's _Gesch. d. bildenden Künste[92]_
(1825); Müller-Wieseler[93] (1854); Overbeck,[94] _Plastik³_
(1882); W.C. Perry, _History of Greek Sculpture[95]_ (1882);
Mrs. L.M. Mitchell, _History of Ancient Sculpture;[96]_
Baumeister, _Denkmäler[97]_ (1887); Harrison and Verrall,
_Andent Athens[98]_ (1890), and in all with the same
misarrangement.

Nevertheless correct reproductions of the frieze, derived from
other sources, have not been wholly lacking. There is, for
example, a drawing of the whole monument by S. Pomardi in
Dodwell's _Tour through Greece[99]_ (1819), in which the
correct position of these groups is clearly indicated. In 1842
appeared volume IX of the _British Museum Marbles_ containing
engravings of a cast made by direction of Lord Elgin, about
1800.[100] Inasmuch as this cast or similar copies have always
been the chief sources for the study of the relief, owing to
the unsatisfactory preservation of the original, it is the more
strange that this mistake should have remained so long
uncorrected,[101] or that Müller-Wieseler should imply[102]
that their engraving was corrected from the British Museum
publication, when no trace of such correction is to be found. A
third drawing in which the true arrangement is shown, is the
engraving after Hansen's restoration of the whole monument,
published in Von Lützow's monograph[103] (1868). Although
Stuart's arrangement violates the symmetry maintained between
the other groups of the frieze, yet Overbeck[104] especially
commends the symmetry shown in the composition of these
portions of the relief.

[Footnote 92: _Tajel_ 25.]

[Footnote 96: I _Taf._ 37.]

[Footnote 94: II, p. 91.]

[Footnote 95: P. 474.]

[Footnote 96: P. 487.]

[Footnote 97: II, p. 841.]

[Footnote 98: P. 248.]

[Footnote 99: I, opposite p. 289.]

[Footnote 100: H. MEYER, _Gesch. der bildenden Künste_, II, p.
242. note 313.]

[Footnote 101: Since I first noticed the error from study of
the original monument, it gives me pleasure to observe that Mr.
Murray in his _History of Greek Sculpture_, II, p. 333, note,
has remarked that there is a difference between Stuart's
drawing and the cast, without, however, being able to determine
positively which is correct, owing to lack of means of
verification. He was inclined to agree with the cast.]

[Footnote 102: I, _Taf._, note 150: _Mit Berücksichtigung der
Abbildungen nach später genommenen Gypsabgüssen in Ancient
Marbles in the Brit, Mus._]

[Footnote 103: Between pp. 240 and 241.]

[Footnote 104: Plastik³, II, p. 94.]

Page 50 Now let us examine the symmetry as manifested in the corrected
arrangement. After the figures which we have found to have a
thoroughly symmetrical disposition, we have on the left side a
group consisting of a bearded satyr (face damaged), with
panther-skin (VI a), about to strike with his thyrsus a pirate
kneeling at the left (VI b), with his hands bound behind his
back. The face of this figure is also somewhat injured. The
corresponding group on the right (VI¹ instead of the erroneous
V¹), represents a youthful satyr with panther-skin thrown over
his arm (VI¹ a), about to strike with the club which he holds
in his uplifted right hand, a pirate (VI¹ b), who has been
thrown on his back, and raises his left arm, partly in
supplication and partly to ward off the blow. As in the groups
V: V¹, so in VI: VI¹, persons, action, and arrangement, are
closely symmetrical, while a graceful variety and harmony is
effected by so modifying each of these elements as to repeat
scarcely a detail in the several corresponding figures.

After these five fighters, we observe on the left a powerful
bearded satyr (face much injured), with flowing panther-skin,
facing the right, and wrenching away a branch from a tree
(VII). The corresponding figure on the right side (VII¹) is a
nude, bearded satyr, who is breaking down a branch of a tree.
At first the correspondence does not seem to be maintained, for
this satyr faces the right, whereas after the analogy of
figures VII and IV we might expect him to face the left. But a
closer examination shows that this lack of symmetry is apparent
only when figures VII: VII¹ are considered individually, and
apart from the scenes to which they belong. For while IV and
VII, the outside figures of the main scene on the left,
appropriately face each other, the figures IV¹ and VII¹,
which occupy the same position with regard to the chief scene
on the right, are placed so as to face in opposite directions.
By this subtle device, for which the relation between the
figures III¹ and IV¹ furnishes an evident motive, the
sculptor has contrived to indicate distinctly the limits of
these scenes, while the symmetry existing between them is
heightened and emphasized by the avoidance of rigid uniformity.

The trees serve also to mark the end of the preceding scenes,
and to contrast the land, upon which they stand, with the sea,
of which we behold a portion on either side, while a pair of
Page 51 corresponding, semi-human dolphins (VIII: VIII¹) are just
leaping into the element which is to form their home. These
dolphins are not quite accurately drawn in Stuart and Revett,
for what appears as an under jaw is, as Dodwell[105] rightly
pointed out, a fin, and their mouths are closed; the teeth,
which are seen in Stuart's drawing and all subsequent
reproductions of it, do not exist on the monument. The correct
form of the head may be seen in the British Museum publication.

[Footnote 105: I, p. 290.]

After these dolphins, we have on each side another piece of
land succeeded again by a stretch of sea. On these pieces of
land are seen on each side two groups of two figures each,
while a third incipient dolphin (0¹), which does not stand in
group-relation with any of the other figures, leaps into the
sea between them. In these groups there is a general
correspondence, but it does not extend to particular positions
or to accessories.

At the left we observe first a bearded satyr with torch and
flowing panther-skin (IX a), pursuing a pirate, who flees to
the left (IX b). The space between the satyr and his victim is
in part occupied by a hole, which was probably cut for a beam
at the time when the monument was built into the convent. In
the corresponding places on the right side, we have a bearded
satyr with panther-skin (IX¹ a), about to strike with the
forked club which he holds in his uplifted right hand, a seated
and bound pirate (IX¹ b), whose hair the satyr has clutched
with his left hand. The heads of both figures are considerably
damaged, and the lower part of the right leg of the pirate is
quite effaced. To return to the left side, the tree at the left
of the fleeing pirate (IX b), does not correspond with any
thing on the right side. It serves to indicate the shore of the
sea, while on the other side this is effected by the high rocks
upon which the pirate (X¹ b) is seated.

The next group on the left is represented as at the very edge
of the water, and consists of a nude bearded satyr (X b), who
is dragging an overthrown pirate (X a) by the foot, with the
evident intention of hurling him into the sea. The legs and the
right arm of this pirate have been destroyed by another hole,
similar to that which is found between figures IX and IX a. On
Page 52 the right side, a bearded satyr, with flowing panther-skin
(x¹ a) rushes to the right, thrusting a torch into the face
of a pirate who is seated on a rock (x¹ b), with his hands
bound behind his back. In his shoulder are fastened the fangs
of a serpent, which is in keeping here as sacred to Dionysos.
Perhaps, as Stuart has suggested,[106] he may be a
metamorphosis of the cord with which the pirate's hands are
bound; but the sculptor has not made this clear. The figures of
this group, which were in tolerable preservation at the time
when Lord Elgin's cast was made, have since been nearly
effaced, particularly the face, legs and torch of the satyr,
and the face and legs of the pirate, also the rocks upon which
he is seated, and the serpent. Between these figures and the
following dolphin, there is a third hole, similar to those
mentioned already, and measuring 15x16 centimetres.

[Footnote 106: I, p. 34. Stuart cites Nonnus, _Dionys._ XLV.
137. _Cf._ also _Ancient Marbles in the British Mus._ IX. p.
115.]

The less rigid correspondence of these groups (x, ix: ix¹,
x¹), as caused some difficulty. In the text of the _British
Museum Marbles_[107], all that falls between the pair of
dolphins (VII: VIII¹), is regarded as belonging to a
separate composition, grouped about the single dolphin (0¹).
But such an interpolated composition, besides having no purpose
in itself, would vitiate the unity of the entire relief. For,
although the circular form is less favorable to a strongly
marked symmetry than is the plane, at least in compositions of
small extent, still the individual figures and groups must bear
some relation to a common centre, and there can be no division
of interest, or mere stringing together of disconnected figures
or groups of figures. Such a stringing together is assumed by
Mr. Murray, when, in his _History of Greek Sculpture_,[108] he
speaks of seven figures after the pair of dolphins, which,
"though without direct responsion among themselves, still
indicate the continued punishment of the pirates." In the
pirate seated on the rocks (x b), however, Mr. Murray[109]
finds what he calls a "sort of echo" of Dionysos, inasmuch as
he is seated in a commanding position, and is attacked by the
god's serpent. There is, to be sure, a certain external
resemblance in the attitudes of the two figures, but direct
Page 53 connection cannot be assumed without separating x¹ a from
x¹ b, with which, however, it obviously forms a group, and
entirely disregarding the relations which the groups x, ix:
ix¹, x¹ bear to one another and to the dolphin 0¹. And
this Mr. Murray does, when he takes seven figures, among which
x¹ b is evidently to be considered as central instead of what
is plainly four groups of two figures each, _plus_ one dolphin.

[Footnote 107: IX, p. 115.]

[Footnote 108: II, p. 333.]

[Footnote 109: II, p. 332.]

There is, as we have already said, a general correspondence
between these groups. This is effected, in such a way that the
group ix resembles x¹ in action and arrangement, rather than
9¹, which, on the other hand, resembles group x, rather than
group ix. In other words, the diagonalism which we have noticed
above in the arrangement of young and old satyrs (vi a, v b,
iv: iv¹, v¹ b, vi¹ a), is extended here to the groups
themselves.

Moreover, the stretches of sea with the paired dolphins (viii:
viii¹), which are introduced between these groups and those
which had preceded, are not to be regarded as separating the
composition into two parts, but as connecting the central scene
with similar scenes in a different locality. These scenes are
again joined by another stretch of sea with the single dolphin
(0¹), which thus forms the centre of the back of the relief,
opposite Dionysos, and the terminus of the action which
proceeds from the god toward either side.

I do not mean to say, however, that these scenes beyond the
dolphins (viii: viii¹), are to be looked upon as a mere
repetition of those which have preceded, distinguished only by
greater license in the symmetry, or that the changes of
locality have no other purpose than to lend variety to the
action. On the contrary, if we examine the indications of
scenery in this relief, we see that those features by which the
artist has characterized the place of this part of the action
as the seashore, the trees near the water's edge, the
alternating stretches of land and sea, the dolphins, the satyr
pulling the pirate into the water (x), are confined to the
space beyond the trees. In the scenes on the other side of the
trees, there is not only no suggestion of the sea, but the
rocks and the sequence of figures up to Dionysos indicate
rather that his place of repose is some elevation near the
seashore. The contrast between the more peaceful and luxurious
surroundings of the god and the violent contest with the
Page 54 pirates, is thus carried out and enforced by the sculptural
indications of landscape, as well as by the leading lines of
the composition. Though I would not imply that the composition
of this frieze was in any way governed by the laws which rule
similar compositions in pediments, it is interesting and
instructive to note that the general principles of distribution
of subject which have been followed, are somewhat similar to
those which we can trace in the best-known pediments extant;
thus, as the god in his more elevated position would occupy the
centre of the pediment, so the low-lying seashore and the
scenes which are being enacted upon it correspond to the wings
at either side.

To recapitulate, the concordance of figures in this relief is
then briefly as follows: In the central scene, _i.e._, inside
the vases, and in the first pair of transitional figures (III,
II, I: I¹, II¹, III¹), equality of persons, but not of
accessories (drapery, thyrsi); action symmetrical. In the
immediately adjacent scenes, including the second pair of
transitional figures and the satyrs at the trees (VII, VI, V,
IV: IV¹, V¹, VI¹, VII¹), the persons are diagonally
symmetrical in VIa, Vb, IV: IV¹, V¹b, VI¹a (_i.e._,
old, young, old: young, old, young), equal in VII: VII¹. The
drapery is diagonally symmetrical in Vb, IV: IV¹, V¹b
(_i.e._, panther-skin, nudity: panther-skin, nudity), equal in
VIa: VI¹a, not symmetrical in VII: VII¹, and the weapons
are not symmetrical, except in VII: VII¹ (_i.e._, thyrsus,
club, torch: club, no weapon, club). The action is symmetrical
throughout, although not exactly the same in V: V¹. In the
scenes beyond the dolphins, the persons are equivalent (X, IX:
IX¹, X¹), while the action, drapery and weapons are
harmonious, but not diagonally symmetrical (_i.e._, IXa =
X¹a, but Xb IX¹a). At the left, a tree, at the right, a
pile of rocks and a serpent.--The persons are, accordingly,
symmetrical throughout; the action is so until past the
dolphins (VIII: VIII¹); the drapery only in II: II¹, and
in VI, V, IV: IV¹, V¹, VI¹; and the weapons not at all.

It is thus apparent that the correspondence of the figures in
this frieze is by no means rigid and schematic or devoid of
life, but that, on the contrary, the same principles of
symmetry obtain which have been pointed out by many authorities
as prevalent in Greek art.[110] The whole composition exhibits
Page 55 freedom and elasticity, not so indulged in as to produce
discord, but peculiarly appropriate to the element of mirth and
comedy which characterizes the story, and upon which the
sculptor has laid especial stress.

HERBERT F. DE COU

Berlin, August 19, 1892.

[Footnote 110: Brunn, _Bildwerke des Parthenon_; Flasch, _Zum
Parthenonfries_ pp. 65 ff.; and Waldstein, _Essays on the Art
of Pheidias_, pp. 80f., 114ff., 153ff., 194f., 205, 210.]
Page 56

PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT ATHENS.
DIONYSUS εν Λίμναις.[B]

The dispute over the number of Dionysiac festivals in the Attic
calendar, more particularly with regard to the date of the
so-called Lenaea, is one of long duration.[111] Boeckh
maintained that the Lenaea were a separate festival celebrated
in the month Gamelio. To this opinion August Mommsen in the
_Heortologie_ returns; and maintained as it is by O.
Ribbeck,[112] by Albert Müller,[113] by A.E. Haigh,[114] and by
G. Oehmichen,[115] it may fairly be said to be the accepted
theory to-day. This opinion, however, is by no means
universally received. For example, O. Gilbert[116] has
attempted to prove that the country Dionysia, Lenaea, and
Anthesteria were only parts of the same festival.

[Footnote B: I wish to express my hearty thanks to Prof. U. von
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff of the University of Göttingen, Prof. K.
Schöll of the University of Munich, Prof. A.C. Merriam of
Columbia College, and Dr. Charles Waldstein and Prof. R. Β.
Richardson, Directors of the American School at Athens, for
many valuable criticisms and suggestions.]

[Footnote 111: _Vom Unterschied der Lenäen, Anthesterien und
ländlichen Dionysien, in den Abhdl. der k. Akad. der Wiss. zu
Berlin_, 1816-17.]

[Footnote 112: _Die Anfänge und Entwickelung des Dionysoscultus
in Attika._]

[Footnote 113: _Bühnen-Alterthümer._]

[Footnote 114: _The Attic Theatre._]

[Footnote 115: _Das Bühnenwesen der Griechen und Römer._]

[Footnote 116: _Die Festzeit der Attischen Dionysien._]

But while the date of the so-called Lenaea has been so long
open to question, until recently it has been universally held
that some portion at least of all the festivals at Athens in
honor of the wine-god was held in the precinct by the extant
theatre of Dionysus. With the ruins of this magnificent
structure before the eyes, and no other theatre in sight, the
temptation was certainly a strong one to find in this
neighborhood the Limnae mentioned in the records of the
ancients. When Pervanoglu found a handful of rushes in the
neighborhood of the present military hospital, the matter
Page 57 seemed finally settled. So, on the maps and charts of Athens we
find the word _Limnae_ printed across that region lying to the
south of the theatre, beyond the boulevard and the hospital.
When, therefore, _Mythology and Monuments of Athens_, by
Harrison and Verrall, appeared over a year ago, those familiar
with the topography of Athens as laid down by Curtius and
Kaupert were astonished to find, on the little plan facing page
5, that the Limnae had been removed from their time-honored
position and located between the Coloneus Agoraeus and the
Dipylum. That map incited the preparation of the present
article.

While investigating the reasons for and against so
revolutionary a change, the writer has become convinced that
here, Dr. Dörpfeld, the author of the new view, has built upon
a sure foundation. How much in this paper is due to the direct
teaching of Dr. Dörpfeld in the course of his invaluable
lectures _An Ort und Stelle_ on the topography of Athens, I
need not say to those who have listened to his talks. How much
besides he has given to me of both information and suggestion I
would gladly acknowledge in detail; but as this may not always
be possible, I will say now that the views presented here after
several months of study, in the main correspond with those held
by Dr. Dörpfeld. The facts and authorities here cited, and the
reasoning deduced from these, are, however, nearly all results
of independent investigation. So I shall content myself in
general with presenting the reasons which have led me to my own
conclusions; for it would require a volume to set forth all the
arguments of those who hold opposing views.

The passage Thucydides, II. 15, is the authority deemed most
weighty for the placing of the Limnae to the south of the
Acropolis. The question of the location of this section of
Athens is so intimately connected with the whole topography of
the ancient city, that it cannot be treated by itself. I quote
therefore the entire passage:

το δέ προ τουτου η ακρόπολις ή νυν ούσα πόλις ην, καΐ το υπ'
αυτήν προς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμενον. τεκμηριον δε · τα γaρ
ιeρa εv αυτη τη άκροπόλει και άλλων θεών εστί, καΐ τα εζω προς
τοuτο το μέρος της πολεως μάλλον ΐδρυται, το τε του Διός του
Όλυμπίου, καϊ το Πύθιον, καϊ το της Γης, καΐ το εν Αίμναις
Διονύσου, ω τα αρχαιότερα Διονύσια τη δωδέκατη ποιείται eν μηνΐ
Άνθεστηριώνι · ώσπερ καΐ οι απ' 'Αθηναίων Ιωveς ετι καΐ νυν
Page 58 νομιζουσιν. ΐδρυται δε καΐ αλλά ιερα ταύτη αρχαια. και τη κρήνη
τη νnν μeν των τυράννων ουτω σκευασάυτων Έννεακρούνω καλουμένη,
το δε πάλαι φανερων των πηγων ούσων Καλλιρρόη ωνομασμένη,
εκείνη τε εγγυς ουση τα πλείστου αξια εχρωντο, και νυν ετι απο
του αρχαίου προ τε γαμικων και ες αλλα των ιερων νομίζεται τω
uδατι χρησθαι.

Two assumptions are made from this text by those who place the
Limnae by the extant theatre. The first is that υπ' αυτήν
includes the whole of the extensive section to the south of the
Acropolis extending to the Ilissus, and reaching to the east
far enough to include the existing Olympieum, with the Pythium
and Callirrhoe, which lay near. The second assumption is that
these are the particular localities mentioned under the
τεκμήριον δε. Let us see if this is not stretching υπ' αυτήν a
little. I will summarize, so far as may be necessary for our
present purpose, the views of Dr. Dörpfeld on the land lying
υπο την ακρόπολιν, or the Pelasgicum.

That the Pelasgicum was of considerable size is known from the
fact that it was one of the sacred precincts occupied when the
people came crowding in from the country at the beginning of
the Peloponnesian War,[117] and from the inscription[118] which
forbade that stone should be quarried in or carried from the
precinct, or that earth should be removed therefrom. That the
Pelasgicum with its nine gates was on the south, west, and
southwest slopes, the formation of the Acropolis rock proves,
since it is only here that the Acropolis can be ascended
easily. That it should include all that position of the
hillside between the spring in the Aesculapieum on the south
and the Clepsydra on the northwest, was necessary; for in the
space thus included lay the springs which formed the source of
the water-supply for the fortifications. That the citadel was
divided into two parts, the Acropolis proper, and the
Pelasgicum, we know.[119] One of the two questions in each of
the two passages from Aristophanes refers to the Acropolis, and
the other to the Pelasgicum, and the two are mentioned as parts
of the citadel. That the Pelasgicum actually did extend from
the Aesculapieum to the Clepsydra we know from Lucian.[120]

[Footnote 117: THUCYDEDES, II. 17.]

[Footnote 118: DITTENBERGER, _S. I. G._ 13, 55 ff.]

[Footnote 119: THUCYDEDES, II. 17; ARISTOPHANES, _Birds_, 829
ff.; _Lysistrata_, 480 ff.]

[Footnote 120: _Piscator_, 42.]

Page 59 The people are represented as coming up to the Acropolis in
crowds, filling the road. The way becoming blocked by numbers,
in their eagerness they begin to climb up by ladders, first
from he Pelasgicum itself, through which the road passes. As
this space became filled, they placed their ladders a little
further from the road, in the Aesculapieum to the right and by
the Areopagus to the left. Still others come, and they must
move still further out to find room, to the grave of Talos
beyond the Aesculapieum and to the Anaceum beyond the
Areopagus. In another passage of Lucian,[121] Hermes declares
that Pan dwells just above the Pelasgicum; so it reached at
least as far as Pan's grotto.

[Footnote 121: _Bis Accus_, 9.]

The fortifications of Mycenæ and Tiryns prove that it was not
uncommon in ancient Greek cities to divide the Acropolis, the
most ancient city, into an upper and a lower citadel.

Finally, that the strip of hillside in question was in fact the
Pelasgicum, we are assured by the existing foundations of the
ancient walls. A Pelasgic wall extends as a boundary-wall below
the Aesculapieum, then onward at about the same level until
interrupted by the Odeum of Herodes Atticus. At this point
there are plain indications that before the construction of
this building, this old wall extended across the space now
occupied by the auditorium. Higher up the hill behind the
Odeum, and both within and without the Beulé gate, we find
traces of still other walls which separated the terraces of the
Pelasgicum and probably contained the nine gates which
characterized it. Here then we have the ancient city of
Cecrops, the city before Theseus, consisting of the Acropolis
and the part close beneath, particularly to the south, the
Pelasgicum. We shall find for other reasons also that there is
no need to stretch the meaning of the words υπ αυτην προς νότον
to make them cover territory something like half a mile to the
eastward, and to include the later Olympieum within the limits
of our early city.

Wachsmuth has well said,[122] although this is not invariably
true,[123] that υπο την ακρόπολιν and υπο τη ακροπόλει are used
Page 60 with reference to objects lying halfway up the slope of the
Acropolis. On the next page he adds, however, that Thucydides
could not have meant to describe as the ancient city simply the
ground enclosed within the Pelasgic fortifications, or he would
have mentioned these in the τεκμήρια. Thucydides, in the
passage quoted, wished to show that the city of Cecrops was
very small in comparison with the later city of Theseus; that
the Acropolis was inhabited; and that the habitations did not
extend beyond the narrow limits of the fortifications. He
distinctly says that before the time of Theseus, the Acropolis
was the city. He proceeds to give the reasons for his view: The
presence of the ancient temples on the Acropolis itself, the
fact that the ancient precincts outside the Acropolis were προς
τουτο το μέρος της πολεως, and the neighborhood of the fountain
Enneacrounus. We know, that the Acropolis was still officially
called πολις in Thucydides' day; and πόλις so used would have
no meaning if the Acropolis itself was not the ancient city.
Προς τουτο το μέρος, in the passage quoted, refers to the city
of Cecrops, the Acropolis and Pelasgicum taken together; and
της πολεως refers to the entire later city as it existed in the
time of Thucydides. It is, however, in the four temples outside
the Acropolis included under the τεκμήριον δε that we are
particularly interested. The Pythium of the passage cannot be
that Pythium close by the present Olympieum, which was founded
by Pisistratus. Pausanias (I. 28, 4,) says: "On the descent
[from the Acropolis], not in the lower part of the city but
just below the Propylæa, is a spring of water, and close by a
shrine of Apollo in a cave. It is believed that here Apollo met
Creusa." Probably it was because this cave was the earliest
abode of Apollo in Athens that Euripides placed here the scene
of the meeting of Apollo and Creusa.

[Footnote 122: _Berichte der philol.-histor. Classe der Königl.
Sächs. Gesell. der Wiss._, 1887, p. 383.]

[Footnote 123: _Am. Jour. of Archæology_, III. 38, ff.]

According to Dr. Dörpfeld it was opposite this Pythium that the
Panathenaic ship came to rest.[124] In _Ion_, 285, Euripides
makes it clear that, from the wall near the Pythium, the
watchers looked toward Harma for that lightning which was the
signal for the sending of the offering to Delphi. This passage
would have no meaning if referred to lightning to be seen by
Page 61 looking toward Harma from any position near the existing
Olympieum; for the rocks referred to by Euripides are to the
northwest, and so could not be visible from the later Pythium.
To be sure, in later times the official title of the Apollo of
the cave seems to have been ύπ' aκραίω or εν aκραις, but this
was only after such a distinction became necessary from the
increased number of Apollo precincts in the city. The
inscriptions referring to the cave in this manner are without
exception of Roman date.[125] From Strabo we learn[126] that
the watch looked "toward Harma" from an altar to Zeus Astrapæus
on the wall between the Pythium and the Olympieum. This wall
has always been a source of trouble to those who place the
Pythium in question near the present Olympieum. But this
difficulty vanishes if we accept the authority of Euripides,
for the altar of Zeus Astrapæus becomes located on the
northwest wall of the Acropolis; and from this lofty position
above the Pythium, with an unobstructed view of the whole
northern horizon, it is most natural to expect to see these
flashes from Harma.

[Footnote 124: PHILOSTRAT. _Vit. Sophist._ II p. 236.]

[Footnote 125: HARRISON and Verrall, _Mythology and Monuments_,
p. 541.]

[Footnote 126: STRABO, p. 404.]

The Olympieum mentioned by Strabo and Thucydides cannot
therefore be the famous structure begun by Pisistratus and
dedicated by Hadrian: we must look for another on the northwest
side of the Acropolis. Here, it must be admitted we could wish
for fuller evidence. Pausanias (I. 18. 8) informs us that "they
say Deucalion built the old sanctuary of Zeus Olympius."
Unfortunately he does not say where it was located.

Mr. Penrose in an interesting paper read before the British
School at Athens in the spring of 1891, setting forth the
results of his latest investigations at the Olympieum, said
that in the course of his investigations there appeared
foundations which he could ascribe to no other building than
this most ancient temple. But Dr. Dörpfeld, after a careful
examination of these remains, declares that they could by no
possibility belong to the sanctuary of the legendary
Deucalion.[127]

[Footnote 127: It has been held that Pausanias mentions the
tomb of Deucalion, which was near the existing Olympieum, as a
proof that Deucalion's temple was also here. Pausanias however
merely says in this passage that this tomb was pointed out in
his day only as a proof that Deucalion sojourned at Athens.]

Page 62 The abandonment of work on the great temple of the Olympian
Zeus from the time of the Pisistratids to that of Antiochus
Epiphanes, would have left the Athenians without a temple of
Zeus for 400 years, unless there existed elsewhere a foundation
in his honor. It is on its face improbable that the citizens
would have allowed so long a time to pass unless they already
possessed some shrine to which they attached the worship and
festivals of the chief of the gods.

The spade has taught us that the literary record of old
sanctuaries is far from being complete. The new cutting for the
Piræus railroad has brought to light inscriptions referring to
a hitherto unknown precinct in the Ceramicus.

Mommsen declares[128] that the Olympia were celebrated at the
Olympieum which was begun by Pisistratus; and he adds that the
festival was probably established by him. Of the more ancient
celebration in honor of Zeus, the Diasia, he can only say
surely that it was held outside the city. Certainly we should
expect the older festival to have its seat at the older
sanctuary.

The εξω της πολεως[129], which is Mommsen's authority in the
passage referred to above, has apparently the same meaning as
the τα εξω (της πολεως) already quoted from Thucydides; _i.e._,
outside of the ancient city--the Acropolis and Pelasgicum. The
list of dual sanctuaries, the earlier by the entrance to the
Acropolis, the later to the southeast, is quite a long one. We
find two precincts of Apollo, of Zeus, of Ge, and, as we shall
see later, of Dionysus.

Of Ge Olympia we learn[130] that she had a precinct within the
enclosure of the later Olympieum. Pausanias by his mention of
the cleft in the earth through which the waters of the flood
disappeared and of the yearly offerings of the honey-cake in
connection with this, shows the high antiquity of certain rites
here celebrated. It is indeed most probable that these
ceremonies formed a part of the Chytri; for what seems the more
ancient portion of this festival pertains also to the worship
of those who perished in Deucalion's flood. The worship of Ge
_Kourotrophos_ goes back to times immemorial. Pausanias
Page 63 mentions[131] as the last shrines which he sees before entering
the upper city, those of Ge _Kourotrophos_ and Demeter Chloe,
which must therefore have been situated on the southwest slope
of the Acropolis. Here again near the entrance to the Pelasgic
fortification, is where we should expect _a priori_ to find the
oldest religious foundations "outside the Polis."

[Footnote 128: Heortologie, p. 413.]

[Footnote 129: THUCYDIDES 126.]

[Footnote 130: ΡAUS. I. 18. 7.]

[Footnote 131: ΡAUS. I. 22. 33. SUIDAS, κουροτρόφος.]

The location of the fourth _hieron_ of Thucydides can best be
determined by means of the festivals, more particularly the
dramatic festivals of Dionysus. That the dramatic
representations at the Greater Dionysia, the more splendid of
the festivals, were held on the site of the existing theatre of
Dionysus, perhaps from the beginning, at least from a very
early period, all are agreed. Here was the precinct containing
two temples of Dionysus, in the older of which was the
xoanon[132] brought from Eleutherae by Pegasus. That in early
times, at least, all dramatic contests were not held here we
have strong assurance. Pausanias[133] the lexicographer,
mentions the wooden seats in the agora from which the people
viewed the dramatic contests before the theatre έn Διονύσου was
constructed--plainly the existing theatre. Hesychius confirms
this testimony.[134]

[Footnote 132: ΡAUS I. 2, 5 and I. 20, 3.]

[Footnote 133: ΡAUS., _Lexikoq._ ϊκρια· τα, εν τη αγορα, αφ' ων
έθεωντο τους Διονυσιακούς ayôvas πρίν η κατασκευασθηναι το έν
Διονύσου θέατρον. Cf. EUSTATH. _Comment. Hom._ 1472.]

[Footnote 134: HESYCH, άπ' αίγείρων.]

Bekker's _Anecdota_ include mention, also,[135] of the wooden
seats of this temporary theatre. Pollux adds[136] his testimony
that the wooden seats were in the agora. Photius gives the
further important information that the orchestra first received
its name in the agora.[137] There can be no doubt that in very
early times, there were dramatic representations in the agora
in honor of Dionysus; and there must therefore have been a
shrine or a precinct of the god in or close to the agora. The
possibility of presentation of dramas at Athens, especially in
these early times, unconnected with the worship of Dionysus and
with some shrine sacred to him, cannot be entertained for a
Page 64 moment. It is commonly accepted that dramas were represented
during two festivals in Athens,--at the contest at the Lenaeum
and at the City Dionysia. The plays of the latter festival were
undoubtedly given in the extant theatre; but of the former
contest we have an entirely different record. Harpocration
say[138] merely that the Limnae were a locality in Athens where
Dionysus was honored. A reference in Bekker's _Anecdota_
is[139] more explicit. Here the Lenaeum is described as a place
sacred to (ιερον) Dionysus where the contests were established
before the building of the theatre. In the Etymologicum
Magnum[140] the Lenaeum is said to be an enclosure (περίαυλος)
in which is a sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus. Photius
declares[141] that the Lenaeum is a large peribolus in which
were held the so-called contests at the Lenaeum before the
theatre was built, and that in this peribolus there was the
sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus. The scholiast to Aristophanes'
_Frogs_ says[142] that the Limnae were a locality sacred to
Dionysus, and that a temple and another building (οϊκος) of the
god stood therein. Hesychius mentions[143] the Limnae as a
locality where the Lenaea were held, and says that the Lenaeum
was a large peribolus within the city, in which was the
sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus, and that the Athenians held
contests in this peribolos before they built the theatre.
Pollux speaks[144] of the two theatres, καϊ Διoνυσίακòν θέατρον
καϊ ληναϊκóν. Stephanus of Byzantium quotes[145] from
Apollodorus that the "Lenaion Agon" is a contest in the fields
by the wine-press. Plato implies[146] the existence of a second
theatre by stating that Pherecrates exhibited dramas at the
Lenaeum. If the Lenaea and the City Dionysia were held in the
same locality, it is peculiar that in all the passages
concerning the Lenaeum and the Limnae we find no mention of the
Greater Dionysia. But our list of authorities goes still
Page 65 further. Aristophanes speaks[147] of the contest κατ' αγρούς.
The scholiast declares that he refers to the Lenaea, that the
Lenaeum was a place sacred (ιερόν) to Dionysus, eν αγρούς and
that the word Λήναιον came from the fact that here first stood
the ληνος or wine-press. He adds[148] that the contests in
honor of Dionysus took place twice in the year, first in the
city in the spring, and the second time εν αγροϊς at the
Lenaeum in the winter. The precinct by the present theatre, as
we know, was sacred to Dionysus Eleuthereus. In this temenus no
mention has been found of Dionysus Λίμναιος or Λήναιος.

[Footnote 135: BEKKER, _Anecdota_ p. 354; _ibid._, p. 419.]

[Footnote 136: POLLUX, VII. 125.]

[Footnote 137: PHOTIUS, p. 106; _Ibid._, p. 351.]

[Footnote 138: HARP. ed. Dind. p. 114. 1. 14.]

[Footnote 139: BEKKER, Anecdota, p. 278, 1. 8.]

[Footnote 140: Et. Mag. Έπ Λίληναίω.]

[Footnote 141: PHOTIUS, p. 101.]

[Footnote 142: Schol. _Frogs_, 216.]

[Footnote 143: HESYCH., Λίμναί. Ibid, επί Ληναίυ αγων.]

[Footnote 144: POLLUX, iv. 121.]

[Footnote 145: STEPH. BYZ., Λήναιος.]

[Footnote 146: PLATO, _Protag._, 327 w.]

[Footnote 147: _Achar._, 202, and schol.]

[Footnote 148: _Schol. Aristoph. Achar._, 504.]

Demosthenes tells us[149] that the Athenians, having inscribed
a certain law (concerning the festivals of Dionysus) on a stone
stele, set this up in the sanctuary of Dionysus εν Λίμναις,
beside the altar. "This stele was set up," he continues, in
the most ancient and most sacred precinct[150] of Dionysus, so
that but few should see what had been written; for the precinct
is opened only once every year, on the 12th of the month
Anthesterio.

[Footnote 149: _Near._ 76.]

[Footnote 150: I have translated ιερω by precinct. This is
liable to the objection that ιερον may also mean temple; and
ανοίγεται "is opened" of the passage may naturally be applied
to the opening of a temple. But "hieron" often refers to a
sacred precinct, and there is nothing to prevent the verb in
question from being used of a "hieron" in this sense. If we
consult the passages in which this particular precinct is
mentioned we find, in those quoted from Photius and the
_Etymologicum Magnum_, that the Lenaeum contains a hieron of
the Lenaean Dionysus. This might be either temple or precinct.
In the citation from Bekker's _Anecdota_ the Lenaeum is the
hieron at which were held the theatrical contests. This implies
that the hieron was a precinct of some size. The Scholiast to
_Achar._ 202 makes the Lenaeum the hieron of the Lenaean
Dionysus. Here "hieron" is certainly a precinct. Hesych. (επi
Ληναίω αγών) renders this still more distinct by saying that
the Lenaeum contained the hieron of the Lenaean Dionysus, in
which the theatrical contests were held. But Demosthenes in the
_Neaera_ declares that the decree was engraved on a stone
stele. It was the custom to set up such inscriptions in the
open air. This stele was also beside the altar. There were
indeed often altars in the Greek temple, but the chief altar
(βωμος of the passage) was in the open air. Furthermore, if the
decree had been placed in the small temple, the designation
"alongside the altar" would have been superfluous. But in the
larger precinct such a particular location was necessary. Nor
can it be urged, in view of the secret rites in connection with
the marriage of the King Archon's wife to Dionysus on the 12th
of Anthesterio, that hieron must mean temple; since the new
Aristotle manuscript tells us that this ceremony took place in
the Bucoleum.]

The stele being then visible to the public on but one day of
the year it follows that the entire precinct of Dionysus εν
Page 66 Λίμναις must have been closed during the remainder of the year.
This could not be unless we grant that, in the time of
Demosthenes at least, the Lenaea and the Megala Dionysia were
held in different precincts, and that the Lenaea and
Anthesteria were one and the same festival.

Pausanias tells us[151] that the xoanon brought from Eleutherae
was in one of the two temples in the theatre-precinct, while
the other contained the chryselephantine statue of Alcamenes.
We know, both from the method of construction and from literary
notices, that these two temples were in existence in the time
of Demosthenes. Pausanias says[152] that on fixed days every
year, the statue of the god was borne to a little temple of
Dionysus near the Academy. Pausanias' use of the plural in
τεταγμέναις ημέραις is excellent authority that the temple of
the xoanon was opened at least on more than one day of every
year.

From all these considerations it seems to be impossible that
the precinct of the older temple by the extant theatre and the
sanctuary εν Λίμναις could be the same. The suggestion that the
gold and ivory statue of Alcamenes could have been the one
borne in procession at the time of the Greater Dionysia is, of
course, untenable from the delicate construction of such
figures. The massive base on which it stood shows, too, that
its size was considerable. The image borne in procession was
clearly the xoanon which was brought by Pegasus from
Eleutherae.

Wilamowitz calls attention[153] to another fact. In classic
times the contests of the Lenaea are Διονύσια τα επι Ληναίω,
and the victories are νικαι Ληναϊκαί; the Megala Dionysia are
always τα εν αστει, and the victories here νικαι αστικαί. These
words certainly imply a distinction of place. How early these
expressions may have been used, we learn from the account of
Thespis. Suidas[154] is authority that Thespis first exhibited
a play in 536 B.C.; and the Parian Marble records[155] that he
was the first to exhibit a drama and to receive the tragic
prize εν αστει.

[Footnote 151: I. 20. 3.]

[Footnote 152: I. 29. 2.]

[Footnote 153: _Die Bühne des Aeschylos_.]

[Footnote 154: _v. Thespis_.]

[Footnote 155: _C.I.G._, II. 2374.]

Page 67 But it has also been contended that Limnae and Lemaeum do not
refer to the same locality. It is clear from what has been
said, however, that the Lenaea and the Greater Dionysia must
have been held in different localities. So if Limnae and the
Lenaeum do not refer at least to the same region, there must
have been three separate sanctuaries of Dionysus; for no one
will claim that the Greater Dionysia can have been held in the
Limnae if the Lenaea were not celebrated there. But as we have
seen, Hesychius (εν Λίμναι) declares that the Lenaea were held
εν Λίμναις. The scholiast to Aristophanes says[156] that the
Chytri were a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus; so the Chytri as
well as the Lenaea must have been celebrated in the Lenaeum.
Athenæus in the story of Orestes and Pandion speaks[157] of the
temenus εν Λίμναις in connection with the Choes. In Suidas
(χόες), however, we learn that either Limnaeus or Lenaeus could
be used in referring to the same Dionysus. Such positive
testimony for the identity of the Lenaeum and the sanctuary in
the Limnae, cannot be rejected.

[Footnote 156: _Acharnians_ 960.]

[Footnote 157: X, 437 d.]

We have still more convincing testimony that in the great
period of the drama the two annual contests at which dramas
were brought out were held in different places, in the record
of the time when the wooden theatre was finally
given up, and ό επι Ληναίω αγών became a thing of the past. The
change comes exactly when we should look for it, when the
existing theatre had been splendidly rebuilt by Lycurgus. The
passage is in Plutarch, where he says[158] that this orator
also introduced a law that the contest of the comedians at the
Chytri should take place in the theatre, and that the victor
should be reckoned eις άστυ, as had not been done before. He
further implies that the contest at the Chytri had fallen into
disuse, for he adds that Lycurgus thus restored an agon that
had been omitted. This last authority, however, concerns a
contest at the Chytri, the Anthesteria, and is only one of many
passages which tend to show that ό επι Ληναίω αγών was held at
this festival. The most weighty testimony for making the Lenaea
an independent festival, even in historic times, is given by
Page 68 Proclus in a scholium to Hesiod.[159] He quotes from Plutarch
the statement that there was no month Lenaeo among the
Boeotians. He adds that this month was the Attic Gamelio in
which the Lenaea were held. Hesychius makes the same citation
from Plutarch[160] as to a non-existence of a Boeotian month
Lenaeo, and continues: "But some say that this month is the
(Boeotian) Hermaio, and this is true, for the Athenians [held]
in this month (εν αυτω) the festival of the Lenaea." The great
similarity of the two passages renders it very probable that
both were drawn from the same sources. The omission of Gamelio
by Hesychius, by referring the εν αυτω back to Lenaeo, makes
him authority that the Lenaea were held in that month. This, in
turn implies that Proclus may have inserted Gamelio in order to
bring the statement into relation with the Attic months of his
own day. In the authorities referring to this month is a
suggestion of several facts and a curious struggle to account
for them. Proclus cites Plutarch to the effect that there was
no month Lenaeo among the Boeotians, but, being probably misled
by the very passage in Hesiod for which he has quoted Plutarch,
he adds[161] that they had such a month. He goes on to state
that the month is so called from the Lenaea, or from the
Ambrosia. Moschopulus,[162] Tzetzes,[163] and the Etymologicum
Magnum[164] repeat this last statement. An inscription[165]
referring to a crowning of Bacchus on the 18th of Gamelio may
refer to the same festival. Tzetzes alone is responsible for
the statement that the _Pithoigia_ came in this month. Through
Proclus and Hesychius we are assured of the belief that there
was once an Attic month Lenaeo. Proclus, Hesychius and
Moschopulus tell us that the Lenaea were at some period held in
this month; while Proclus, Moschopulus, Tzetzes, and the
inscription assure us that there was another festival of
Dionysus in this month; and the first three of these
authorities name this festival Ambrosia. A tradition running
Page 69 with such persistency through so many authors affords a strong
presumption that there once existed an Attic month Lenaeo, and
that the Lenaea were celebrated in that month.

[Footnote 158: [Plut.] _Vit._ 10 _Or._: LYCURG. _Orat._ VII. 1.
10 p. 841. 1549: _Ptoclus_ to Hesiod, Op. 504.]

[Footnote 160: HESYCHIUS, Ληναιων μην.]

[Footnote 161: PROCLUS, To Hesiod Op. 504.]

[Footnote 162: MOSCHPUL., κατα τον μηνα τον Ληναιωνα.]

[Footnote 163: TZETZES, μηνα δε Ληναιών.]

[Footnote 164: Et. Mag., Ληναιωνα.]

[Footnote 165: _C.I.G._, I. 523. Ι'αμηλιωνος κιττωσεις Διονωσον
θί.]

Thucydides tells us[166] that the Ionian Athenians carried the
festival Anthesteria with them from Athens, and that they
continued until his day to celebrate it. The Anthesteria are
thus older than the Ionic migration, which took place under the
sons of Codrus.[167] The story of Pandion and Orestes from
Apollodorus places the establishment of the Choes in the time
of this mythical Athenian king. The first and third months of
the Ionic year[168] are the same as those of the Attic. There
can hardly be a doubt, then, that their second month, Lenaeo,
was also carried with the emigrants from the parent city, where
at that time it obtained.

[Footnote 166: II. 15.]

[Footnote 167: BOECKII _Vom Unterschied der Lena._, _Anthest.
und Dion._ s. 52.]

[Footnote 168: The entire argument on the question of the month
is open to the objection that too much weight is given to such
men as Tzetzes and all the tribe of minor scholiasts, whose
opportunities for accurate knowledge were, in many respects,
vastly inferior to those of scholars of our own day. It is easy
indeed to say that their testimony is worth nothing. But where
shall we stop? It is urged that the connection of the Lenaea
with an Attic month Lenaeo arose from an attempt on the part of
the commentators to explain names as they found them. It is
said that this conflict of the authorities proves that there
never was an Attic Lenaeo. This may be true; and the man who
will prove it to be so, and furthermore will give us the
accurate history of the Attic and the Ionic calendars, will do
a great service to Greek scholarship. But he must have at hand
better sources than we possess to-day. Though the later Greek
commentators on the classics have made many amusing and stupid
blunders, though we need not hesitate to disregard their
teaching when it comes into conflict with better authority, or
with plain reason, still they have told us that which is true.
They often furnish us with all that we know of older and better
authors, whose works were their authority. Therefore, unless I
have found testimony against them, I have followed their
teaching. Both here and elsewhere I give their words for what
they are worth; not that I rank Proclus with Thucydides, or the
Et. Mag. with Aristophanes,--but from the conviction that so
remarkable a concurrence of testimony in so many different
writers has not yet been successfully explained away, and could
not indeed exist unless their testimony were founded on a basis
of fact.]

This gives a time, however remote it may be, when the Athenians
still had the month Lenaeo, yet we hear of no festival Lenaea
among the Ionian cities. It would thus seem that this had lost
its force as an independent festival before the migration.

Gamelio is said to have received its name from the Gamelia, the
festival of Zeus and Hera. It is hard to believe that while the
Page 70 much more brilliant Lenaea remained in the month, the name
should have passed to the always somewhat unimportant Gamelia.
What reason could be found for this naming, unless that the
Lenaea had first been transferred to the Anthesteria, as all
the testimony tends to prove? This supposition gives an easy
explanation of the repeated reference to Lenaeo as an Attic
month, of the change of the name to Gamelio, and even Tzetzes'
association of the Pithoigia with the Lenaea,--an association
which arises necessarily, if the Lenaea once formed part of the
Anthesteria. The impossibility of transferring in its entirety
a festival which has become rooted in the customs of a people,
is also seen. That remnant of the Lenaea in Lenaeo, the
Ambrosia, survived till quite late in Attic history. It is not
difficult, then, to understand why the other references to the
Lenaea as a separate festival do not agree as to the month.

A triad of contests is given by Demosthenes[169] where he
quotes the law of Evegoras with reference to the Dionysiac
festivals: the one in Piræus with its comedies and tragedies, η
επι Ληναίω πομπή with its tragedies and comedies, and the City
Dionysia with the chorus of boys, procession, comedies and
tragedies. Here are three different contests in three different
places; and the Anthesteria and Lenaea are included under η επι
Ληναίω πομπή. The purpose of the law was to preserve absolute
security and freedom to both person and property on the days of
the festivals named. Not even an overdue debt could be
collected. In so sweeping a law the Anthesteria could hardly
fail to be included; for at no Attic festival was there more
absolute liberty and equality. In Suidas[170] we learn that the
revellers at the Chytri, going about on carts, jested and made
sport of the passers by, and that later they did the same at
the Lenaea. Thus he gives another proof of the connection
between the two festivals, and shows that ο επι Ληναίω αγων
became a part of the older Anthesteria after the invention of
comedy, and that even then the old custom was kept up. In
Athenæus we find[17l] the Samian Lynceus sojourning in Athens
and commiserated as passing his time listening to the lectures
Page 71 of Theophrastus and seeing the Lenaea and Chytri, in contrast
to the lavish Macedonian feasts of his correspondent. The
latter in the same connection says[172] that certain men,
probably players, who had filled a part in Athens at the
Chytri, came in to amuse the guests. The marriage which he is
attending then took place after the Chytri. It is not likely,
therefore, that in "the Lenaea and Chytri" he is referring to
two festivals separated by a month of time. He speaks, rather,
of two acts of the same celebration.

[Footnote 169: _Mid._ 10.]

[Footnote 170: SUIDAS, εκ των αμαξων σώωμματα.]

[Footnote 171: ATHENÆUS, IV. p. 130.]

[Footnote 172: Ibid. III. 129.]

The frogs in Aristophanes claim the temenus Λίμναις and speak
of their song at the Chytri. The scholiast cites[173]
Philochorus, saying that the contests referred to were the
χύτρινοι.

A suspected passage in Diogenes Laertius declares (III 56) that
it was the custom to contend with tetralogies at four
festivals, the Dionysia, Lenaea, Panathenaea, and Chytri. If
the passage is worth anything, it adds new testimony that there
were dramatic representations at the Anthesteria. The Menander
of Alciphron, also, would hardly exclaim[174] over ποίους
χύτρους, unless the contest were one in which he, as dramatist,
could have a part.

No other of the extant dramas has been so much discussed in
connection with the question as the _Acharnians_. Those who
hold that the Lenaea and Anthesteria were entirely separate,
have affirmed that the play opens on the Pnyx in Athens, that
the scene changes to the country-house of Dicaeopolis in
Cholleidae, at the season of the country Dionysia in the month
Posideo. Later the time of the Lenaea in the month Gamelio is
represented. Finally the locality is again Athens at the
Anthesteria in Anthesterio. In fact, we are told, the poet has,
in the _Acharnians_, shown his true greatness by overleaping
all restraints of time and place and giving his fancy free
rein. But this is making the _Acharnians_ an isolated example
among the Greek plays which have come down to us. Changes of
scene are foreign to the nature of the Greek drama, as is
acknowledged by A. Miller.[175]

[Footnote 173: _Schol._ ARIST. _Frogs._ 218.]

[Footnote 174: _Alciphron Ep._ II. 3. 11.]

[Footnote 175: _Bühnenalt_., 161.]

That the beginning of the play is on the Pnyx, there is no
question. In v. 202, Dicaeopolis declares: "I will go in and
Page 72 celebrate the Country Dionysia." This is held to be a statement
of the actual time of year represented in this portion of the
play, and also to indicate the change of place from Athens to
the country. That the country festivals to the wine-god in the
different demes were held on different dates, we learn from the
fact that companies of actors went out from Athens to make the
tour of these provincial festivals.[176] We know, too, that
these rural celebrations were under charge of the
demarchs.[177] In the passage from the _Acharnians_ just cited,
there is no statement that this is the season when the demes
were accustomed to hold their annual Bacchic celebrations.
Rather, in his joy in his newly concluded peace, the hero
declares that he will _now_ hold this festival in honor of the
god of the vine. No surprise is felt at this exceptional date,
particularly as, by his statement below,[178] he has been
prevented for six years from holding the festival at its proper
season. This last passage, however, is the strongest authority
for a change of place in the action. Certainly, if the reading
is correct, in the light of all the remainder of the comedy we
should naturally translate: "in the sixth year, having come
into my deme, I salute you gladly." But we do no violence to
the construction if we say that ελθών ες τον δημον means "going
(_forth_) to my deme." Unquestionably up to the end of the
first choral ode at v. 236, the action has gone on in Athens.
But here, we are told, comes the change of place. In v. 202
Dicaeopolis has declared that he is "going in." What does he
enter but his house in the city? At v. 236 the chorus also is
in Athens. In v. 237, the voice of Dicaeopolis is heard from
within--his _country_ house, it is said; and in v. 238 the
chorus is as suddenly before this same house! Such rapid
changes might easily take place on a modern stage, but are of a
character to excite remark in an ancient theatre. If there was
a change here, the second scene must have represented
Cholleidae with the three houses of Dicaeopolis, Lamachus, and
Euripides; and the three must be in the same deme; for the
Bacchic procession of Dicaeopolis appears at v. 241, and is
broken up by the chorus at v. 280. As soon as Dicaeopolis, by
Page 73 his by-play, has obtained permission to plead his cause, he
turns (v. 394) to the house of Euripides to borrow the wardrobe
of one of the tragic heroes. Then, when his defense has divided
the chorus, the first half call upon the gorgon-helmeted
Lamachus (v. 566) to bear them aid, and that warrior appears
from his house.

[Footnote 176: HAIGH, _Attic Theatre_, p. 47.]

[Footnote 177: ΟEHMICHEN, _Bühnenwesen_, s. 195.]

[Footnote 178: _Achar._, 266 f.]

Now the common enemy has prevented the celebration of the
Country Dionysia for six years. How is it possible, under such
circumstances, to conceive of Euripides as composing tragedies
in the country? How could the general Lamachus be living out of
the city in such a time of danger? Certainly the play itself
gives us authority that this scene also is in Athens. At v. 241
Dicaeopolis would go forth with his procession to hold the
rural Dionysia in his deme. Prevented from doing so, he is from
this on busy with the duties and pleasures of the Choes. His
altercation with the chorus and with Lamachus ended, he (v. 623
f.) announces that he will open a market for all Boeotians,
Megarians, and Peloponnesians. He sets up (v. 719) the bounds
of his markets, and appoints three "himantes" as agoranomi.
These officials are suggestive of those busy at the
Anthesteria.[179] The first customer, from Megara comes in
with: "Hail, agora in _Athens_" (v. 729), and brings for sale
pigs suitable for sacrifice at the Mysteries (v. 747 and 764).
The Lesser Mysteries came in Anthesterio first after the
Anthesteria.

[Footnote 179: MOMMSEN, _Heortologie v. Anthesteria._]

There is no change of place in the course of the action. The
scene, the Pnyx with the houses of Dicaeopolis, Lamachus, and
Euripides near by, remains the same. There is no indication of
a jump in time from Posideo to Gamelio, and again from Gamelio
to Anthesterio.

Amid all the preparations for the Anthesteria made in the play,
two statements cannot fail to attract attention. In v. 504 f.
the poet informs us that this is not the Greater Dionysia, when
strangers, tribute-bearers, and allies were present. It is the
contest at the Lenaeum. In v. 1150 f. the chorus frees its mind
concerning the miserly fashion in which Antimachus treated them
at a previous celebration of the Lenaea. Shall we say that the
poet, in order to speak of things present before the eyes of
Page 74 the Athenians, steps, in these two passages, entirely outside
the action of the play? By no means. The poet is dealing with a
vital issue. He is fighting against the ruinous war. The power
of his genius is shown by the masterly manner in which he uses
the moment which was present to his hearers. The victor at the
Choes sat among the spectators; the very walls of the theatre
had hardly ceased to resound with the din of the carousers.
Here, or elsewhere, there is mention of but one επι Ληναίω
αγων, that is the Lenaea, or the dramatic contest at the
Anthesteria.

In fixing the date of the "Dionysia at the Lenaeum," we have
the authority of some interesting inscriptions which have been
collected in Dittenberger S.I.G. II. 374. They are the record
of moneys obtained from the sale of the hides of the victims
sacrificed at various festivals of the Attic year. A portion of
each of four separate lists has been preserved. In the first
and fourth of these, as they stand in Dittenberger, three
Dionysiac festivals are mentioned: that at Piraeus, the
Dionysia εν αστει, and the Dionysia επι Ληναίω. The third list
ends with the Dionysia in Piræus. The remaining incription
mentions two Dionysiac festivals, the one at the Lenaeum, and
that εν αστει. The part of the record which should cover the
Dionysia at Piræus is wanting. The calendar order of all the
festivals mentioned is strictly followed.

Köhler in _C.I.A._, led by the other inscriptions found with
these four, says that the lists do not contain mention of all
the festivals at which public sacrifices of cattle were made in
that portion of the year covered by the inscriptions, but that
these are to be considered only as records of the hide-money
which was to be devoted to particular uses. As a matter of
fact, however, nearly all the public festivals of importance,
as well as some of less note, are included in these lists; and
it would be difficult to demonstrate that they do not contain a
complete record of the public hide-money for the portion of the
year in which these festivals fall.

In these inscriptions the peculiarity with reference to the
Dionysia is the same which we find in all other accounts which
seem to give a complete record of these festivals. Only three
are mentioned as held under public authority. Did the omission
Page 75 of the Lenaea and Anthesteria occur only in this case, we
might, following Köhler, admit that the hide-money from this
particular festival was not devoted to this special purpose,
and that for this reason the name did not appear in these
records. But since in no case are there more than three
mentioned; and since the third name is one which covers all
celebrations in honor of Dionysus at the Lenaeum, this
assumption cannot be granted. The important point, and one that
cannot be too strongly emphasized, is that neither in these nor
in any other inscription or official record is there any
mention of the Lenaea or Anthesteria as such. The official
language appears always to have been, as here: Διονύσια επι
Ληναίω, or: η επι Ληναίω πομπή, or, where the dramatic contest
alone was intended: ό επι Ληναίω αγών. Once only in the 5th
century[180] do we find Λήναια used; and here it is synonymous
with ό επι Ληναίω αγών. Wilamowitz has well said that Λήναια as
a name of a separate festival is an invention of the
grammarians. Aristophanes, in the passage from the
_Acharnians_, shows that this name may have been used commonly
for the dramatic contest at the Lenaeum, and we know from
Thucydides that Anthesteria was also used of the entire
festival. It is impossible that in a record like the hide-money
inscriptions, the official title Διονύσια επι Ληναίω should be
employed to cover two festivals separated by an interval of a
month.

[Footnote 180: _Acharnians_, 1155.]

But was the Anthesteria a state festival, at which public
sacrifices of cattle were made? The story of its institution by
Pandion shows that it was public from the beginning.
Aristophanes informs us[181] that it maintained this character;
for the Basileus awarded the prize at the Choes. The question
of sacrifice requires fuller treatment.

Suidas[182] and a scholiast[183] to Aristophanes quote from
Theopompus the story of the establishment of the Chytri. On the
very day on which they were saved, the survivors of the flood
introduced the celebration of this day of the Anthesteria by
cooking a potful of all sorts of vegetables, and sacrificing it
Page 76 to the Chthonian Hermes and those who had perished in the
waters. The scholiast adds that sacrifice was offered to no one
of the Olympian gods on this day.

[Footnote 181: _Acharnians_, 1225.]

[Footnote 182: SUIDAS, χύτροι]

[Footnote 183: Schol. ARISTOPH., _Frogs_. 218.]

In Suidas we find a hint of the other ceremonies on the Chytri.
According to him, there were sacrifices to Dionysus as well as
to Hermes. This suggests that the Chytri was but one day of the
Anthesteria, and, though the worship of the departed may have
been the older portion of the celebration, it was later
overshadowed by the festivities in honor of the wine-god. As
the text of his argument in his oration against Midias,
Demosthenes cites four oracular utterances, two from Dodona,
the others probably from Delphi. In the first the god calls
upon the children of Erechtheus, as many as inhabit the city of
Pandion, to be mindful of Bacchus, all together throughout the
wide streets to return fit thanks to the Bromian, and crowned
with wreaths, to cause the odor of sacrifice to rise from the
altars. In this oracle, Athens is the city of Pandion, because
it was reported that under his rule the worship of Dionysus was
introduced into the city. This and the other commands from
Dodona and Delphi concerning Dionysus refer to the introduction
of the worship of the god; for in every one the statement is
absolute; there is no reference to a previous worship and a
backsliding on the part of the people, κνισάν βωμοΐσι of the
first oracle can refer only to a sacrifice of animals. Stronger
still is the statement in the fourth oracle (from Dodona) where
the command is given to fulfil sacred rites (ίερα τελεΐν) to
Dionysus, and to sacrifice to Apollo and to Zeus. (Άπόλλωνι
Άποτροπαίω βοūν θυσαι ... Δú Κτησίω βοūν λευκόν.) The command
"to mix bowls of wine and to establish choral dances," in the
second and fourth oracles, serves as an explanatory comment on
"return fit thanks to the Bromian" in the first. "Let free men
and slaves wear wreaths and enjoy leisure for one day," must
refer to the Pithoigia. In this feast the slaves had a part,
and enjoyed a holiday. Hence the saying[184] "Forth, slaves, it
is no longer the Anthesteria." In obedience to the oracles
then, public sacrifices could not have been lacking at the
Anthesteria. Therefore, this festival must have been officially
known as the Dionysia έπί Ληναίω.

[Footnote 184: θύραζε Kαρες ούκέτ 'Ανθεστήρια.]

Page 77 The dramatic contests at the Lenaeum, like those at the Greater
Dionysia, were undoubtedly preceded by sacrifices. The αγων επι
Ληναίω could hardly be separated from the Dionysia επι Ληναίω.
Therefore the hide-money inscriptions are also authority that
Lenaea and Anthesteria are but two references to the same
festival.

Thucydides, as we have seen,[185] knew of but two Dionysia in
Athens itself; those εν αστει and the Anthesteria. Of these,
using the comparative degree, he states that the latter were
the άρχαιότερα. In his time the dramatic contests εν Λίμναις
were in their glory, yet he mentions but one celebration in
this locality. So here also we must conclude that Anthesteria
was the name of the whole festival which Harpocration tells us
was called πιθοίγια, χοές and χύτροι; that there was, in the
flourishing period of the drama, no separate festival Lenaea,
but that the αγών at the Chytri came to be so called to
distinguish it from that at the City Dionysia.

[Footnote 185: II. 15.]

It is interesting in connection with Thucydides' statement that
the Ionian Athenians in his day still held the Anthesteria, to
examine the record of this festival in the Ionic cities of Asia
Minor. To be sure we have very little information concerning
the details of this celebration among them; but we do find two
statements of importance. _C.I.G._ 3655 mentions certain honors
proclaimed at the Anthesteria in the theatre in Cyzicus.
Comparison with similar observances at Athens indicates that
theatrical representations were to follow. _C.I.G._ 3044,
τώγωνος Άνθεστηριοισίν, refers to Teos. From the constant use
of αγών referring to theatrical performances in connection with
the festivals of Dionysus the word can hardly mean anything
else here. So these two inscriptions, referring to two
colonies, add their testimony that dramas were presented also
at the Anthesteria in Athens.

Finally, Aristotle's _Politeia_ falls into line with the
hide-money records. In § 56, the statement is made that the
Archon Eponymos had the Megala Dionysia in charge. In the
following section, the Archon Basileus is said to have control,
not of the Lemaea or of the Anthesteria--for neither is
mentioned by name,--but of the Dionysia επι Ληναίω. The
Basileus and the Epimeletae together directed the procession;
Page 78 but the basileus alone controlled the [dramatic] contest. Here
again, it is inconceivable that either Anthesteria or Lenaea
should be omitted; so both must be included under Dionysia επι
Ληναίω.

We thus find our position supported by inscriptions of
undoubted authority, and by a list of names ranging in time
from before Aristophanes to the 9th century A.D., and in weight
from Thucydides and Aristotle to the Scholiasts.

If the Limnae were not by the existing theatre of Dionysus,
where were they? Not on the south side of the Acropolis, as a
careful examination of the ground proves. In our study of the
theatre-precinct, we found that the earth here in antiquity was
at a much higher level than at present, while immediately
outside the wall of this precinct to the south, the ground was
considerably lower than it is now. The present height of the
theatre-precinct is 91.4 m. above the sea level; of the Odeum,
97.7 metres; of the Olympieum, 80.8 m.; of the ground within
the enclosure of the Military Hospital due south from the
theatre, 75 m.; of Callirrhoe in the Ilissus opposite the
Olympieum, 59 m.; of the Ilissus bed opposite the theatre, 50
m. From the present level of the theatre to the bed of the
stream there is a fall of more than 41 m.; the fall is about
equally rapid along the entire extent of the slope to the south
of the Acropolis, while the soil is full of small stones.
Surely, it would take more than the oft-cited handful of rushes
to establish a swamp on such a hillside. We have, however,
excellent geological authority that from the lay of the land
and the nature of the soil, there never could have been a swamp
there. The Neleum inscription[186] can be held to prove nothing
further than that, as Mr. Wheeler suggests, the drain from the
existing theatre ran through this precinct. We must therefore
seek the Limnae elsewhere.

[Footnote 186: _Am. Journal of Archæology_, III. 38-48.]

We know that from time immemorial the potters plied their trade
in the Ceramicus, because here they found the clay suitable for
their use. The so-called Theseum is 68.6 m. above the
sea-level; the present level at the Piræus railroad station,
54.9 m.; at the Dipylum (and here we are on the ancient level),
only 47.9 m. Out beyond the gate comes a long slope, extending
Page 79 till the Cephissus is reached, at an elevation of 21 m. So the
Dipylum is over 43 m. below the present level of the
theatre-precinct; and it is the lowest portion of the ancient
city. Here, therefore, in the northwest part of the city, is
where we should expect from the lay of the land and the nature
of the soil to find the marshes. Out in the open plain beyond
this quarter of the city to-day, after every heavy rain, the
water collects and renders the ground swampy. With the Dipylum
as a starting-point, there is no difficulty in supposing that,
in very ancient times, the Limnae extended to Colonus Agoraeus,
to the east into the hollow which became a portion of the agora
in the Ceramicus, and to the west into the depression between
Colonus Agoraeus and the Hill of the Nymphs. The exact extent
and character of the low ground in these two directions can
only be determined by excavating the ancient level, which, as
it appears to me, has not been reached by the deep new railroad
cutting running across this section north of the so-called
Theseum.

The excavations of Dr. Dörpfeld between Colonus Agoraeus and
the Areopagus, have shown that the ruins and the ancient street
at this point have been buried to a great depth by the débris
washed down from the Pnyx. Unfortunately, these diggings have
not been extensive enough to restore the topography of the west
and southwest slopes of Colonus Agoraeus.

We have abundant notices, besides those already given, of a
precinct or precincts of Dionysus in this section. Hesychius
speaks[187] of a house in Melite where the tragic actors
rehearsed. Photius repeats[188] the statement almost word for
word. Philostratus mentions[189] a council-house of the artists
near the gate of the Ceramicus. Pausanias (I. 2. 5), just after
entering the city, sees within one of the stoas the house of
Poulytion which was dedicated to Dionysus Melpomenus. He speaks
next of a precinct with various αγαλματα, and among them the
face of the demon of unmixed wine, Cratus. Beyond this precinct
was a building with images of clay, representing, among other
scenes, Pegasus, who brought the worship of Dionysus to Athens.
Page 80 This building also was plainly devoted to the cult of the
wine-god. In fact, the most venerable traditions in Athens,
with reference to Dionysus, centre here. All the various
representations here are connected with the oldest legends.
Pausanias (I. 3. 1.) says that the Ceramicus had its very name
from Ceramus, a son of Dionysus and Ariadne.

[Footnote 187: HESYCH. Μελιτέων οίκος.]

[Footnote 188: PHOTIUS. Μελιτέων οίκος.]

[Footnote 189: PHILOST. _Vit. Soph._ p. 251.]

We have already seen that an orchestra was first established in
the agora. Timæus adds[190] that this was a conspicuous place
where were the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton, which we
know to have stood in the agora.

The scholiast to the _De Corona_ of Demosthenes[191] says that
the "hieron" of Calamites, an eponymous hero, was close to the
Lenaeum. Hesychius words this statement differently, saying
that [the statue of] the hero himself was near the Lenaeum. We
know that the statues of eponymous heroes were set up in the
agora. Here again the new Aristotle manuscript comes to our
support, telling us (_Pol_. c. 3) that the nine archons did not
occupy the same building, but that the Basileus had the
Bucoleum, near the Prytaneum, and that the meeting and marriage
of the Basileus' wife with Dionysus still took place there in
his time. That the Bucoleum must be on the agora, and that the
marriage took place in Limnaean-Lenaean territory, have long
been accepted. The location of the Limnae to the northwest at
the Acropolis must thus be considered as settled.

Dr. Dörpfeld maintains that the ancient orchestra and the later
Agrippeum theatre near by, mentioned by Philostratus,[192] lay
in the depression between the Pnyx and the Hill of the Nymphs,
but considerably above the foot of the declivity.

[Footnote 190: TIM. _Lex. Plat._]

[Footnote 191: DEMOS, de Corona, 129, scholium.]

[Footnote 192: PHILOSTRATUS, _Vit. Soph._, p. 247.]

From the passage of the _Neaera_ quoted above we know that the
old orchestra could not have been in the sacred precinct of
Dionysus Limnaeus, for this was opened but once in every year,
on the 12th of Anthesterio,[193] while the Chytri and therefore
ό επι Ληναίω αγών were held on the following day. This involves
too that the Pithoigia as well as the "contests at the Lenaeum"
Page 81 could not have been celebrated in the sanctuary εν Λίμναις,
though portions of each of these divisions of the Anthesteria
were held in the Lenaeum, which contained the Limnaea _hieron_.

[Footnote 193: See also THUCYDIDES above.]

The Lenaeum must lie εν Λίμναις, and therefore on the low
ground. A passage in Isæus (8. 35) is authority that the
sanctuary of Dionysus εν Λίμναις was εν αστει; _i.e._, within
the Themistoclean walls. So we have it located within narrow
limits, somewhere in the space bounded on the east by the
eastern limit of the agora in Ceramicus, south by the
Areopagus, west by the Pnyx and the Hill of the Nymphs, and
north by the Dipylum.

From the neighborhood of the Dionysiac foundations and
allusions mentioned by Pausanias immediately upon entering the
city, we may be justified in locating this ancient cult of
Dionysus εν Λίμναις still more exactly, and placing it
somewhere on or at the foot of the southwestern slope of
Colonus Agoraeus. More precise evidence of its site we may
obtain from future excavation: though as this region lay
outside the Byzantine city-walls, the ruins may have been more
or less completely swept away.

In view of its position outside of the gate of the ancient
Pelasgic city, by the wine-press, we understand why the contest
in the Lenaeum was called a contest κατ' αγρούς. Because
enclosed later within the walls of Themistocles, the Limnae
were also referred to as εν αστει. Situated as they were in the
territory of the agora, we see why, although the Archon
Eponymus directed the City Dionysia, the Archon Basileus
presided[194] over the Anthesteria, and therefore over "the
contest at the Lenaeum"; and the agoranomi, the superintendents
of the market-place, whose duties were confined to the agora,
επετέλεσαν τους χύτρους.[195]

[Footnote 194: POLLUX VIII. 89, 90. (ARISTOT. Άθες Πολιτεία.)]

[Footnote 195: MOMMSEN, _Heortologie_, p. 352 note.]

In closing, it may not be without interest to review the
picture presented of the most ancient Athens. Behind the
nine-gated Pelasgic fortifications lay the city, with its
temples, its palace, "the goodly house of Erechtheus," and its
dwellings for the people, remains of which can even now be seen
within the Pelasgicum. Immediately without the gate stood the
Pythium, the Olympieum, the temple of Ge _Kourotrophos_, and
Page 82 other foundations. Directly before the entrance, some two
hundred paces from the city-walls, was the spring Enneacrounus,
whose water was most esteemed by the citizens. Not far from
this was the wine-press. Here the people built the first altar,
the first temple, the first orchestra, and instituted the first
festival in honor of the wine-god, long before the new
Dionysian cult was brought in from Eleutherae; and here for
centuries were raised every year about the orchestra tiers of
wooden seats in preparation for the annual dramatic contests.

JOHN PICKARD,
American School of Classical Studies,
Athens, 1891.

Page 83

CORRESPONDENCE.

HUNTING DELLA ROBBIA MONUMENTS IN ITALY.

_To the Managing Editor of the American Journal of Archæology:_

_Dear Sir_: Having made a special study of the altarpiece by
Andrea Delia Robbia in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, my
desire was aroused to examine all the glazed terracotta
sculptures of the Delia Robbia school, which form such an
important part of Italian Renaissance sculpture. So I sailed
for Italy on the 6th of last May, taking with me a good camera
and a sufficient number of celluloid films, knowing beforehand
that there were many of these monuments which had never been
photographed and were consequently imperfectly known. An
investigation of this character, which takes one over the
mountains and into the valleys, from one end of Italy to the
other, may well be described as a hunting expedition; and,
though requiring severe labor and constant sacrifices, has in
it a considerable element of sport. Although Dr. Bode, of
Berlin in various writings has shown a more discriminating
knowledge of this subject than other writers, nevertheless the
work of Cavallucci and Molinier, _Les Della Robbia_, was more
useful to me as a guide and starter. They had catalogued as
many as 350 of these monuments in Italy, and briefly described
them. But their attributions were uncertain. Prof. Cavallucci
told me in Florence that unless he had a document in hand
indicating the authorship of a monument he felt great
hesitation in making attributions. And I could see, the more I
studied his work, that he considered it more important to
discover documents than to observe monuments. Here then was a
great opportunity to see a large series of monuments, to
compare them and allow them to tell their own story in regard
to their origin. Having with the aid of geographical
dictionaries and government maps located these 350 monuments, I
made up my mind to see as many of them as possible. This was no
easy task, as they were widely distributed and, as I
progressed, the number of uncatalogued monuments constantly
increased. I can give here but a bare outline of my trip.
Starting at Genoa, I went to Massa and Pisa and Lucca; from
Lucca following the valley of the Serchio as far north as
Page 84 Castelnuovo. Here I found a fine series of unphotographed
monuments, and began to learn that works of the same author and
period are very likely to be found in neighboring towns,
especially when lying along a valley. Similarly, starting from
Pracchia above Pistoia I studied another series of
unphotographed monuments at Gavinana, Lizano and Cutigliano.
These monuments may prove to be of importance in solving the
problem of the authorship of the celebrated Pistoian frieze.

At Prato the monuments of this class have been photographed,
and are well known. Florence and its immediate surroundings
contain the most important works of Luca and of Giovanni Delia
Robbia, but is very poor in examples of Andrea Delia Robbia.
Hence the Florentines have a very inadequate notion of Andrea's
work, which must be studied at Arezzo, La Verna, Prato, Siena
and Viterbo. At Florence I was fortunate enough to find an
unpublished document ascribing one of the medallions at Or San
Michele to Luca Delia Robbia. Two of these medallions by the
elder Luca had never been photographed before, but have now
been taken by Alinari. So far as I know, the monuments at
Impruneta, ten miles from Florence, are unknown to students of
this subject. Three of them have been photographed by Brogi,
who gives no attributions. They are not mentioned by Cavallucci
nor by Dr. Bode; yet they are amongst the very finest works by
Luca Delia Robbia. In the private collection of the Marquis
Frescobaldi I recognized a fine Luca Delia Robbia, and in that
of the Marquis Antinori an excellent example of Giovanni's
work. Less important discoveries made in this region are too
numerous to mention. At Empoli, not many miles from Florence,
are several uncatalogued monuments and a fine example of a tile
pavement, which I identified as Delia Robbia work. I then
visited Poggibonsi and Volterra and Siena, and satisfied myself
that the beautiful coronation of the Virgin at the Osservanza
outside Siena is a chef-d'oeuvre of Andrea Delia Robbia. From
Asciano I visited Monte San Savino, Lucignano and Foiano and
took photographs of some fine, unrecognized works of Andrea
Delia Robbia. Another starting point was Montepulciano for a
long drive to Radicofani, a weird Etruscan site, whose churches
contained half a dozen unphotographed Delia Robbias, then to S.
Fiora, whose monuments have a greater reputation than they
deserve, to S. Antimo, a fine Cistercian ruin, and Montalcino.
At Perugia I photographed the monuments of Benedetto Buglione,
thus laying the basis for a study of his works, a number of
which may now be identified. In the case of his pupil, Santi
Buglione, I was less successful, as the chapel at Croce
dell'Alpe, which contained two authenticated altarpieces of his
Page 85 seems to have disappeared, not only from sight, but from the
memory of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. So the
reconstruction of his style involves a wider stretch of the
scientific imagination. At Acquapendente I found a unique
glazed terracotta altar signed by Jacopo Benevento, at Bolsena
took the first photograph of several monuments, and at Viterbo
had photographs made of the important lunettes by Andrea Delia
Robbia. At Rome I penetrated the mysteries of the Vatican and
discovered there a signed monument by Fra Lucas, son of Andrea
Delia Robbia, and found in the Industrial Museum several
monuments, which I identified as by the same author. Hitherto
Fra Lucas has been known only as the maker of tile pavements.
At Montecassiano there is a large monument concerning which a
document has been published in many Italian journals, ascribing
the authorship to Fra Mattia Delia Robbia. This has been
published from a drawing, and my photograph is the first taken
from the original monument. On the basis of a very imperfect
acquaintance with his style, other monuments are being freely
attributed to Fra Mattia. In the Marche there is a series of
terracotta altarpieces attributed to Pietro Paolo Agabiti, a
local painter of the XVI century. These attributions are purely
hypothetical, and the hypothesis that Fra Mattia might have
been their author is now being tested by local archaeologists.
I travelled over a large portion of this province, seeing some
important monuments, but without making discoveries of
importance. Umbria in general proved even less fruitful, the
terracotta monuments being of poor quality and showing little
or no Delia Robbia influence.

A very interesting region comprises Città di Castello, Borgo
San Sepolcro, Arezzo and the Casentino. Here Andrea Delia
Robbia left his impress strongly marked, especially in the very
beautiful altarpieces at La Verna. As we approach Florence we
find more by Giovanni and his school, especially noteworthy
being the monuments at Galatrona and San Giovanni.

When obliged to return home there remained very few known Delia
Robbia monuments in Italy which I had not visited; almost
everywhere I found more than had been already catalogued, and
my collection of photographs of these monuments is undoubtedly
the most complete in existence. Already considerable knowledge
has been gained of the differences of style, which
characterized the various members of the school, as I hope to
show in a series of articles for the _American Journal of
Archæology_. In order to complete this work I shall still have
to hunt further in the museums and private collections of
Spain, Portugal, France, England, Germany and Austria. There
are a few Delia Robbia monuments in this country, of which one
Page 86 is in Princeton, one in New York, one in Newport, R.I., and
several in Boston.

Beside the direct pleasures of the chase and the bagging of
game, there are many incidental pleasures in such a hunting
expedition.

One learns of the whereabouts of other monuments, acquires a
knowledge of the country, of the language, of the people and of
all the local surroundings that help explain to us the
significance of the past.

Yours sincerely,

ALLAN MARQUAND.
Guernsey Hall, Princeton, N.J., Dec, 27, 1892.

Page 87

REVIEWS ΑND NOTICES OF BOOKS.

ΜAXIME COLLIGNON. _Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque._ Tome I.
Firmin-Didot et Cie. Paris, 1892.

This is the first volume of what is likely to prove for some
time to come the best general history of Greek sculpture. The
personal inspection of monuments made during his connection
with the French school at Athens, and his training as a
lecturer at the Faculté des Lettres at Paris, have given M.
Collignon an admirable training for the production of this
book. We see in it also a hearty appreciation of more
specialized work. This is essentially a history from the
archæaeological standpoint, the monuments of Greek sculpture,
rather than written documents, being assumed as fundamental
material. In this respect he represents a more advanced stage
of archæological science than Overbeck. Again we feel in
reading the volume the constant assumption that the history of
Greek sculpture is a continuous evolution. Even when the
development is checked, as by the Dorian invasion, the element
of continuity is emphasized. The Dorians construct new forms
out of the elements which they find already established in
Greece. Thus the connecting links evincing the continuous flow,
are not lost sight of when he comes to treat of the different
schools. This regard for the general conditions of development
tempers his judgment and prevents him from formulating or
approving of irrelevant and improbable hypotheses. This is an
admirable temper for one who writes a general history. We do
not find here remote analogies and startling theories. There is
an even flow to the narrative which indicates to us that the
knowledge of Greek sculpture is now more connected, and that
many gaps have been filled in the list during a few years. Yet
M. Collignon is not a literary trimmer, steering a middle
course between opposing theories. He merely seeks for near and
probable causes, and is not carried away by resemblances which
have little historical value. His method is fundamentally the
historical method, the four books which compose the first
volume treating of the Primitive Periods, Early Archaic, and
Advanced Archaic Periods, and The Great Masters of the V
century. It is unnecessary to give here the general analysis of
the book, as it does not differ essentially from other similar
Page 88 histories, but we may notice the systematic method with which
he treats his material. At the opening of each new period he
briefly notes the general historical conditions, then having
classed the monuments by schools he considers the
characteristics of a few representative examples, and finally
endeavors to summarize the style of the school or period. In
doing this he is handling considerable new material which has
not yet found its way into general histories. Even to
specialists, this general treatment of a subject with which
they may be familiar in detail, is valuable. The book is a
summary and index to a large number of monographs scattered in
French, German, Greek and English periodicals, and we find it
much more convenient to have these references at the foot of
each page rather than gathered together at the end of the
volume as in Mrs. Mitchell's excellent history. Of course it is
no easy matter to distinguish sharply the characteristics of
different schools in a country as small as Greece, where there
was so much interaction, and the formulas, which are laid down
now, may require correction in a few years. Still the attempt
is well made, and is helpful in consolidating our knowledge.

In a work of whose method we cordially approve, the defects, if
there be any, are likely to be in the way of omission of
material or under-valuation of that which is taken into
consideration. In the direction of omission we find that
practically no use whatever has been made of Cyprus as a school
of archaic Greek art, yet there is considerable material for
this in European museums as well as in the Metropolitan museum
in New York. In unduly estimating the value of the material in
hand, we find here and there more influence attributed to the
Phoenicians, than we should be inclined to allow. For example
(p. 43,) the ceiling at Orchomenos, is explained as Phoenician
because of the rosettes, and the same design upon Egyptian
ceilings at Thebes is explained as Phoenician also. Evidently
M. Collignon has not yet learned the grammar of the Egyptian
lotus. We commend him to Prof. Goodyear. He is also in error in
ascribing the first use of the term "lax-archaic" to Brunn's
article in the _Muth. Ath._ vii. p. 117, for it held an
important place in Semper's classification of Doric monuments
made three years earlier. But these are minor matters. The book
is abundantly illustrated, having twelve excellent plates in
lithograph and photogravure, and two hundred and seventy-eight
in the tone process and photoengraving. We regret that the tone
process had not been more extensively used, as the drawings do
not and cannot give a sufficiently full impression of the
objects. However, is it quite proper that the maker of a tone
process plate should sign it as is done here _Petit sculpsit_?

A.M.

Page 89

HEINRICH-BRUNN. _Griechische Götterideale in ihren Formen
erlüutert._ 8vo. pp. VIII, 110. München, Verlagsanstalt für
Kunst und Wissenschaft. 1892.

This is not a systematic treatise, but a series of nine papers,
all of which, except the last, have been already published. But
we are grateful to Dr. Brunn and to his publishers for having
collected these articles, which were scattered in various
periodicals and written at wide intervals of time. In their
present form they are instructive as revealing to us Dr.
Brunn's general habits of mind in approaching his subject, as
well as more useful and better adapted to a wide circle of
readers. The first of these articles on the Farnese Hera
appeared in the _Bullettino dell' Instituto_, in 1846, and is
described as the "first attempt at the analytical consideration
of the ideal of a Greek God," while the entire series may be
taken as evidence that "the intellectual understanding of ideal
artistic productions can be reached only on the basis of a
thorough analysis of form." For his analysis of sculptural
form, and his keen intuitions, Dr. Brunn has long been held in
high esteem, and it is interesting to learn what we can of his
methods. In considering the Hera head he first examined the
original, afterwards a cast of it for many hours, then compared
these impressions with observations made upon a human scull. In
doing this he brings the work of art to nature, so as to
substantiate or correct his impressions. We see him following
the same method in the articles upon the Medusa and upon
Asklepios. But this reference to nature is for the most part
casual and incidental. It is not to nature but to literature
that he resorts for help. He is not content to trust himself
entirely to the method enunciated in the preface. He does not
rest satisfied with the ideals as he reads them in the
sculptured faces. He rather assumes that these ideals were
fixed before they were expressed in marble. He looks at the
heads of Hera and Zeus through "ox-eyed" and "dark-browed"
glasses. He accepts the Divine ideal from the pages of Homer,
rather than from the marble form, whenever it is possible. His
mind is still imbued with doctrines concerning the "eternity of
ideas" and "inward necessity," which he must have reached in
some other way than by the analysis of external forms.

But while we may regard the method as not consistently applied,
we have no fault to find with the method and no sentiment but
that of admiration for the fine powers of observation displayed
in these articles. There seems to be nothing in the form of the
eye that escapes his attention. The slightest variations in the
form of the lids, in the positions of the eyeball, he notices
Page 90 and assumes that they were made the vehicles of expression.
Similarly the forehead, the mouth, the chin, the hair are most
attentively studied as vehicles of expression. Surely few, even
trained archæologists, can read these pages without having
their powers of observation quickened. By far the greater
portion of workers in the field of Greek sculpture are
concerned at the present time with the morphology of art for
the sake of its history. The analysis of forms is utilized to
ascertain an historical series, to discover schools, to
establish dates. Here we find scarcely a mention of schools or
artists, no reference to history and not a date. The analysis
of form leads to the interpretation of monuments and the
establishment of ideals. It is the physiology, not the history
of art. The publishers, who are gaining a world-wide reputation
for their photo process reproductions, have added to this book
a series of fine phototype plates.

A.M.

Page 91

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.

SUMMARY OF RECENT DISCOVERIES AND INVESTIGATIONS.

AFRICA.

EGYPT.

TEXTS OF THE PYRAMIDS.--_Biblia_ for November, 1892, contains
an article by Dr. Brugsch on "The Texts of the Pyramids." It
mentions the opening of one of the smaller pyramids of the
Sakkarah group in 1880 by Mariette Pasha and the discovery of a
number of hieroglyphic inscriptions beautifully chiseled into
the walls of the inner aisles and chamber, which gave the name
of the maker of the pyramid as Pepi, and fixed its date at the
VI Dynasty or about 3,000 B.C. Prof. Brugsch then gives an
account of his own work at the request of Mariette upon a
second pyramid opened by Mariette's men at Sakkarah, where the
walls of the chamber were covered with hieroglyphic
inscriptions. A granite coffin, also, was found adorned with
hieroglyphics repeating in different places the name of the
King. The inscriptions on the walls had been destroyed in a
number of places by treasure hunters.

Maspero, Mariette's successor, opened a number of pyramids of
the same group and found a great quantity of inscriptions. As a
result, new texts were discovered in a number of pyramids of
which three belonged to the royal houses of the V and VI
Dynasties. Maspero then published a copy of all these
inscriptions together with their translation as far as this was
possible.

These discoveries establish the important point in the study of
the language, that its "iconographic phrase" dates from the
most ancient times and goes back even to Menes the first king.
The grammar, vocabulary and the construction of words and
sentences betray the awkward stiffness of a language in its
first literary beginnings, but it is shown in all its youthful
strength and pregnance.

A reciprocal comparison of all the texts found establishes the
fact that they belong to a collection of texts known as "the
Book." This "book" contained all the formulas and conjurations
Page 92 used after death, is a guide for the deceased in the unknown
future, and a book of charms, in which guise the Egyptian faith
made its appearance in the most ancient period of culture,
although containing nothing of the philosophy or history of the
ancient Egyptians, it gives us much interesting information
relating to mythology, geography, astronomy, botany and
zoology.

For the ancient Egyptians believed that their earthly
districts, cities and temples had heavenly counterparts of the
same name; in fact, the whole geography of this world was
duplicated in the world to come. The celestial inhabitants
consist of the immortal company of the "shining" with the solar
god at their head. Each constellation is designated as the
abode of the soul of one god benificent or maleficent. In his
wanderings the soul of man came in contact with these abodes of
the evil gods and the book which covered the walls of his
mortuary chamber provided charms which made him proof against
harm.

The texts of the pyramids promise to the departed the enjoyment
of a new life which he continues to live in the earth, in the
body, in heaven, in the spirit. The soul had power to reunite
itself to the body at will. We find in the texts mention of
Egyptian political institutions at the remotest period, the
existence of a high type of civilization. Agriculture was
highly developed. All the domestic animals, with the exception
of the horse and camel, are introduced, the arts of cooking, of
dressing and of personal adornment, all find mention.

The texts of the pyramids then, though they fail to give us any
information with regard to the life or history of the kings
whose chambers they adorned have still much significance for
the universal history of civilization.

THE MARRIAGE OF AMENOPHIS IV.--The Amarna tablets show that
Amenophis married other Babylonian princesses besides Thi his
first wife who bore the title of "Royal mother, Royal wife, and
Queen of Egypt." A large tablet on exhibition at the British
Museum with two others in the museum at Berlin and one at Gizeh
gives a very entertaining correspondence between Amenophis and
Kallima-Sin, king of Chaldea and brother of one of Amenophis'
wives and father of two others. The tablet in the British
Museum is relative to the alliance with Lukhaite the youngest
daughter of the Chaldean king.

Kallima-Sin is reluctant to give his daughter to the Pharaoh
and advances various reasons for his indisposition while
Amenophis smoothly explains away the various impediments.

Matters take a new turn in the Berlin letter where we find the
Babylonian requesting a wife of the Egyptian monarch, the
request is curtly refused, whereupon Kallima-Sin replies,
Page 93 "Inasmuch as thou hast not sent me a wife, I will do in like
manner unto thee and hinder any lady from going from Babylon to
Egypt." Another letter however shows that Kallima-Sin finally
consented on condition of large emolument to send Lukhaite to
Egypt, and this very mercenary and diplomatic alliance was
finally made.--_Biblia_, V, pp. 108, 109.

THE DATE OF THE FOURTH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY.--Mr. Petrie's
statement in _Medum_ as to the passage-angle of Senefru's
pyramid completes a chain of astronomical evidence proving the
commencement of the IV Dynasty to have been very approximately
3700 B.C.

The entrance passage of the Medum pyramid has a polar distance
(allowing for the azimuth error of the passage) of about 45,
and, if intended for observation of a circumpolar star, fixes
the date of the structure within not very wide limits. Between
4900 and 2900 B.C. no naked eye star was within this distance
of the pole, except the sixth magnitude star 126 Piazzi (XIII)
which was so situate about 3820 to 3620 B.C., its minimum
distance being about 36'. Allowing an uncertainty of a few
minutes of arc, a date fifty years on either side of these
extremes would satisfy the requirements of the case.

The passage-angle of the Great Pyramid is 3° 30' below the pole
(3° 34' in the built portion, the latest). The Second Pyramid
passage has also an angle of about 3° 31' polar distance
(Smyth's measures--Perring and Vyse, whose angle measures are
not accurate, give 4° 5'). Finally the northern "trial-passage"
east of the Great Pyramid has the polar distance 3° 22' + or -
8'. Now at the date 3650 B.C. the star 217 Piazzi (somewhat
brighter than that last named) was at a distance of 3° 29' from
the pole, increasing to 3° 34' by 3630 B.C.

East of the Great Pyramid there are certain straight trenches
(one at the Ν.Ε. corner) running respectively 13° 6', 24° 22',
and 75° 58' east of North and west of South. At about the date
named these trenches pointed very nearly to Canopus at setting
and to Arcturus and Altair at rising, the average error of
azimuth being less than a degree.

But even these differences of half a degree or so are accounted
for. Refraction at the horizon amounts to about 35' of arc; if
we assume that the Egyptian (?) astronomers took it roundly at
30', and that they intended to observe the stars on the true
and not the apparent horizon, we find the azimuths would have
been (3645 B.C.):--

Canopus 13° 3' (W. of S.), Trench 13° 6'
Arcturus 24° 23' (E. of N.), " 24° 22'
Altair 76° 0' ( " ), " 75° 58'

These figures speak for themselves. The dates 3645 B.C. for the
trenches and external works, and 3630 B.C. for the completion
Page 94 of the entrance passage, with an interval of fifteen years,
accord with the probabilities of the case. It should be
remembered that they are deduced quite independently.

The net result is that the three reigns of Senefru, Khuffu, and
Kaffra may be definitely assigned to the century 3700-3600
B.C.--G.F. HARDY, in _Academy_, Oct. 29.

THE PETRIE PAPYRI.--A paper was read by Prof. Mahaffy at the
Oriental Congress upon "The Gain to Egyptology from the Petrie
Papyri."--The first part of the papyri placed in his hands by
Mr. Flinders Petrie consisted of classical documents which had
already been printed by the Royal Irish Academy in the
Cunningham Memoirs. Of these a large volume had appeared, which
was exciting vehement controversy in Germany. But in addition
to these there was a great mass of private papers which had not
yet been printed, but which had been deciphered partly by Prof.
Sayce and partly by himself. These papers were in two
languages-Greek and demotic, or the popular language of the
Egyptians. These were in part hieroglyphs done into cursive. Of
these demotic fragments a large quantity had been sent to the
British Museum. The Greek papyri still remain in his own hands.
Strange to say, only one of these texts is bilingual. These
interesting documents might be divided into--(1) legal
agreements, of which some were contracts, others receipts,
others again taxing agreements; (2) correspondence, partly of a
public and partly of a private character. In the former were
official reports, petitions, complaints. The private
correspondence was especially interesting in showing the
condition of society at that date. A large number of
Macedonians and Greeks were settled in the Fayum under the
second Ptolemy, about 270 B.C. In addition there was a large
number of prisoners from Asia, who must have been brought into
Egypt after the great campaign of the third Ptolemy, about 246
B.C. This mixed body were the recipients of large grants of
land in the Fayum. It was interesting to find that many of
these grants were as large as 100 acres, and the occupiers are
thus called εκατοντάρονροι. The farms were divided into three
classes of land. First, there was what was called the Royal
land, probably fruitful land was meant; the second class was
called αβροχος, or land still in need of irrigation; and the
third αφορος, or land which would bear nothing. This latter was
also called αλμυρίς, or the salt marsh, which was still common
in Egypt. These recipients or allottees of land were called by
a name familiar to all readers of Greek history--κληρουχοί.
Prof. Mahaffy had found no native landowner mentioned in the
papyri. But in many cases the natives had an interest in the
Page 95 crops on something like a _metayer_ system. Among the crops
grown were the vine, olives, wheat, barley, rye. There was
evidence in the legal papers that alienation of these farms was
not allowed. Among the contracts are many between Greeks and
natives. The principal officers of the Nome were the Strategos,
the Oeconomos, and the επιμελητης, or overseer. The
commissioner of works had charge of drainage and irrigation
works. It was amusing to find that two currencies were
prevalent at that period, silver and copper. This discovery
disposed of the current theory that the copper currency only
came in under the late Ptolemies. The phrases for the rate of
exchange had long been known--χαλκος ου αλλαγή, but he had now
got hold of a later term, ισόνομος which might be translated
'at par.' These documents were also valuable, as being
transcriptions from Egyptian into Greek, with respect to our
knowledge of the Egyptian language. As the Egyptians did not
write down their vowels, the vocalisation of the language was
hardly yet known. But results of much importance were
gained--first, of a palaeographical, and, secondly, of a
linguistic character. We now know exactly how they wrote in the
third century B.C., and we have also learnt what was the Greek
used by the respectable classes of that epoch. The Greek was
far purer and better than that of the Septuagint would lead us
to expect. There was still a large number of papers to be
deciphered, and a large addition to our knowledge might be
expected.--_Academy_, Sept. 24.

A GREEK PAPYRUS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.--At the Orientalist
Congress in London a most interesting document was submitted by
the Rev. Professor Hechler. It is a papyrus manuscript
discovered a few months ago in Egypt, and is supposed by some
authorities to be the oldest copy extant of portions of the Old
Testament books of Zachariah and Malachi. These pages of
papyrus when intact were about ten inches high and seven inches
wide, each containing 28 lines of writing, both sides of the
sheet being used. The complete line contains from fourteen to
seventeen letters. The sheets are bound together in the form of
a book in a primitive though careful manner with a cord and
strips of old parchment. The Greek is written without intervals
between the words. The papyrus is in fair preservation, and is
believed to date from the third or fourth century. It thus
ranks in age with the oldest Greek manuscripts of the
Septuagint version of the Old Testament in London, Rome and St.
Petersburg. The differences in this papyrus tend to the
conclusion that it was copied from some excellent original of
the Septuagint, which was first translated about the year 280
B.C. The first summary examination has shown that it has
several new readings which surpass some of the other Septuagint
Page 96 texts in clearness of expression and simplicity of grammar. It
would also appear that it was copied from another Septuagint
Bible and was not written, as was frequently the case, from
dictation. A second scribe has occasionally corrected some
mistakes of orthography made by the original copyist. These are
still to be distinguished by the different color of the ink.

Professor Hechler said it was sincerely to be hoped that this
papyrus of the Bible, probably the oldest now known to exist,
would soon be published in fac-simile.

THE DATE OF THE AEGEAN POTTERY.--Quite a discussion has been
carried on between Mr. Flinders Petrie and Mr. Cecil Torr on
the subject of the period of the Aegean pottery in Egypt which
Mr. Torr regards as having been assigned to too early a date by
Mr. Petrie. The recent discovery of such fragments in the ruins
of the palace of Khuenaten at Tell-el-Amarna, which existed for
little over half a century in the xiv century B.C., would
appear to prove beyond doubt the correctness of Mr. Petrie's
position.--See _Classical Review_ for March; Academy, May 14
and 21, etc.

A PROFESSORSHIP OF EGYPTOLOGY.--Miss A.B. Edwards has left
almost the whole of her property to found a professorship of
Egyptology, under certain conditions, at University College,
London, The value of the chair will amount to about $2,000 a
year. Mr. W.M. Flinders Petrie has been appointed to this
chair, and no better selection could have been made.

EXCAVATIONS BY DR. BRUGSCH, COUNT D'HULST AND M. NAVILLE.--Dr.
H. Brugsch has been excavating during the past spring in the
Fayoum. At Hawara he has discovered a considerable number of
painted portraits. At Illahun he opened a tomb of the eleventh
dynasty, which had not been entered since the mummy was
originally deposited in it. Unfortunately the roof fell in
before it could be properly cleared out. At Shenhour he came
across the remains of a small temple. Since leaving the Fayoum
he has been working on the site of Sais.

Count d'Hulst has been excavating at Behbet, near Mansourah, on
behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund. The ruined temple there
is Ptolemaic, but the cartouche of Ramses II has been found in
the course of the excavations.

Mr. Naville has returned to Europe. His excavations at Jmei
el-Amdîd, the supposed site of Mendes, have been unfruitful,
and he has fared no better at Tel el-Baghliyeh.--_Athenaeum_
May 16.

Page 97
EXCAVATIONS BY LIEUT. LYONS AT WADY HALFAH, ABUSIR,
MATUGAH.--Lieut. H.G. Lyons has been continuing exploration at
_Wady Halfah_. He has cleared out the sand from one of the
temples, and found there eleven slabs with figures of a king
making offerings to the god Horus of Behen or Wady Halfah in a
chamber in front of the Hall of Columns. The names in the
cartouches have been erased, and it is, therefore, impossible
to identify the king. A second temple, with sandstone pillars
and mud brick walls, is inscribed in many places with the name
of Thothmes IV. This building had been flooded and filled to a
depth of 2 ft. with fine sand. The third temple of Wady Halfah
was completely surrounded by a line of fortifications, the
flanks of which rest on the river, but of these works only the
foundation remains. The discovery of them is, however,
decidedly important, for in them we must see beyond doubt the
great frontier fortress which marked the limit of the rule of
Egypt on the south.

About five miles beyond the rock of _Abusir_, Lieut. Lyons has
excavated the large space, about two hundred yards square,
which is mentioned in Burckhard's 'Travels in Nubia,' and upon
which stand the ruined walls of what has been variously
described as a Roman fort or a monastery. He has come to the
conclusion that the building is undoubtedly Egyptian, and has
traced the site of the ancient stone temple inside it.

He reports that he has discovered old Egyptian fortresses at
Halfa and at Matuga, twelve miles south, the latter containing
a cartouche of Usertesen III: and has opened three rocktombs at
Halfa.--_Academy_, July 16 and Aug. 6.

NOTES BY PROF. SAYCE.--Besides Tel el-Amarna, I have visited
El-Hibeh and the little temple of Shishak, which was uncovered
there last year. It is, unfortunately, in a most ruinous
condition. One of the natives took me to a recently-found
necropolis at a place under the cliffs called Ed-Dibân, some
two miles distant, which is plainly of the Roman age, and its
occupants belonged to the poorer classes.

In the White Monastery near Sohâg, I found a stone with the
cartouche of Darius, which had formed part of the ancient
temple of Crocodilopolis.

I picked up some fine flint spear-heads near the line of Roman
forts on the north side of the Gebel Sheikh Embârak, where I
discovered an enormous manufactory of flint weapons and tools
three years ago.

Lastly, I may add that at the back of the Monastery of Mari
Girgis, about three miles south of Ekhmim, I found that another
cemetery of the early Coptic period has been discovered, and
Page 98 that it is providing the dealers with fresh supplies of ancient
embroideries.--A.H. SAYCE, in _Academy_, Feb. 27.

PRESERVATION OF MOHAMMEDAN MONUMENTS.--The Soc. for the
Protection of Ancient Buildings has protested, through Sir
Evelyn Baring, against the so-called restoration of the mosque
El-Mouyayyed and the mosque of Barkouk. It is proposed to
rebuild the domed minaret of Barkouk's mosque and the
suppressed bell-tower of the Sultan's mosque, which is to be
replaced by a bulbous roof.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 31.

ABU-SIMBEL.--The Council of Ministers has granted £1,000 for
the preservation of Abu-Simbel, which is in danger of partial
destruction. The rock above the four colossi on the façade,
which is of sandstone with layers of clay, had become fissured,
threatening an immediate fall. A party of sappers from the army
of occupation have been sent to the temple, who, after binding
with chains the falling rock, will break it up. Further
examination will be made to ascertain whether additional work
is required for the protection of this temple.--_Academy_,
March 5.

ASSOUAN.--DAM.--A huge dam is to be thrown across the Nile at
Assouan: its height will raise the water to the level of the
floors of the ruins at Philae, enhancing rather than detracting
from their picturesque grandeur. It is said that the structure
of the dam will harmonize with the ancient architecture of
Philae. The material already cut and lying in the quarries of
Assouan will be almost sufficient to complete the
dam.--_Biblia_, V. p. 109.

TOMBS.--Some new tombs have been opened, one by the Crown
Princess of Sweden and Norway, the other by Mr. James. One of
them belonged to the reign of Nofer-Ka-Ra; and, in an
inscription found in it, Prof. Schiaparelli has read the name
of the land of Pun, which accordingly, was already known to the
Egyptians in the age of the dynasty.--PROF. SAYCE in _Academy_.

CAIRO (NEAR). DESTRUCTION OF AN ANCIENT CHRISTIAN CHURCH.--Rev.
Greville J. Chester writes (_Acad._ March 19). Permit me to
draw public attention to an almost incredible act of vandalism
which was perpetrated during the last year in Egypt, close to
the capital. The finest Roman ruin in Egypt was the fortress of
Babylon, south of Cairo, known also as Mus'r el Ateekeh and
Dayr esh Shemma. One of the most interesting sights in that
Dayr was the Jewish synagogue, anciently the Christian Church
of St. Michael, but desecrated by being handed over in the
Page 99 middle ages by an Arab Sultan to the Jews, and thenceforward to
the present time used by them as a place of worship. The
building was of much architectural interest. The old Christian
nave and aisles were preserved intact; but the Jews had
destroyed the apse which must have existed, and had replaced it
by a square Eastern sanctuary, and over the niche, within which
were preserved the Holy Books of the Law, had adorned the wall
with numerous Hebrew texts executed in gesso, forming an
interesting example of Jewish taste and work in the middle
ages. Some of the ancient Christian screenwork of wood was
preserved, but was turned upside down, probably because
gazelles and other animals formed part of the design. Behind
this building, in a sort of court, the very finest portion of
the original wall of the Roman fortress was visible, and, what
is more important, the inner and most perfect circuit of one of
the Roman bastion-towers, which outside looked out on the
desert.

All this is now a thing of the past. The Jews have razed the
ancient church and synagogue to the ground, and in its place
have erected a hideous square abomination, supported internally
on iron pillars. Of the fine Roman wall which bounded the
property, and with it the bastion-tower, with its courses of
brick at regular intervals, and its deeply-splayed windows, not
a vestige now remains.

CAIRO.--GIZEH MUSEUM.--M. de Morgan has been appointed director
of the Museum in place of M. Grébaut. This will meet with
general approval. He is young and energetic, and the work he
has done in the Caucasus and in Persia has placed him in the
front rank of archaeologists and explorers. Moreover, he is an
engineer, and therefore possesses a practical knowledge which,
in view of the conservation of the ancient monuments of Egypt,
is a matter of prime importance. He has asked the Board of
Public Works for £50,000 in order to secure the building
against fire; it is built of very inflammable material. During
the past summer the museum has been entirely rearranged by him.
Of the rooms in the palace, only some thirty-eight contained
antiquities last winter; now, however, about eighty-five are
used as exhibition rooms, and, for the first time, it is
possible to see of what the Egyptian collection really
consists. On the ground floor the positions of several of the
large monuments have been changed, and the chronological
arrangement is better than it was before. In one large room are
exhibited for the first time eleven fine _mastaba_ stelæ of the
Ancient Empire, (VI. Dyn.) which were brought from Sakkarah
during the past summer; they are remarkable for the brightness
of the colours, the vigour of the figures, and the beauty of
the hieroglyphics. On the same floor are two splendid colossal
statues of the god Ptah which have been excavated at Memphis
the hieroglyphics. On the same floor are two splendid colossal
statues of the god Ptah which have been excavated at Memphis
Page 100 during last summer, and many other large objects from the same
site. In a series of rooms, approached from the room in which
the Dêr el-Bahari mummies are exhibited, are arranged the
coffins and mummies of the priests of Amen which were brought
down from Thebes two years ago. The coffins are of great
interest, for they are ornamented with mythological scenes and
figures of gods which seem to be peculiar to the period
immediately following the rule of the priest-kings at Thebes,
_i.e._, from about B.C. 1000 to 800.

A new and important feature in the arrangement of the rooms on
the upper floor is the section devoted to the exhibition of
papyri. Here in flat glazed cases are shown at full length fine
copies of the 'Book of the Dead,' hieratic papyri, including
the unique copy of the 'Maxims of Ani.' and many other papyri
which have been hitherto inaccessible to the ordinary visitor.
To certain classes of objects, such as scarabs, blue glazed
_faïence_, linen sheets, mummy bandages and garments,
terracotta vases and vessels, alabaster jars, &c., special
rooms are devoted. The antiquities which, although found in
Egypt, are certainly not of Egyptian manufacture, _e.g._, Greek
and Phœnician glass, Greek statues, tablets inscribed in
cuneiform from Tel el-Amarna, &c., are arranged in groups in
rooms set apart for them; and the monuments of the Egyptian
Christians or Copts are also classified and arranged in a
separate room.--_Athenæum_, May 14 and Nov. 19.

THE FRENCH SCHOOL AT CAIRO.--M. Maspero analyzed before the
_Acad. des Inscr._ (Oct. 28), the recent work and immediate
prospects of the French School at Cairo. The _Memoirs_ recently
issued show the field that it covers at present. First comes a
fascicule of Greek texts, the mathematical papyrus of Akmim,
explained and commented by M. Baillet; a long fragment of the
Greek text of the Book of Enoch, remains of the apocryphal
Gospel and Apocalypse of St. Peter, reproduced by M. Bouriant.
All these works are of extreme importance for primitive church
history. Arab archæology is represented by memoirs of M.
Casonova on an Arab globe, on sixteen Arab steles, and
especially by M. Burgoin's great work on Arab art in Egypt.
Father Scheil makes an incursion into Assyriology by his
publication of some of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, and in this
connection M. Maspero states that the intention of the school
is to extend their researches to Syria and Mesopotamia and to
include the entire East both ancient and modern. In the
Egyptian domain, besides the Theban fragments of the Old
Testament and the remains of the Acts of the Council of
Ephesos, the notable event is the appearance of the first
fasciculus of the work on _Edfu_ by M. de Rochemonteix. In it a
Page 101 complete temple will be placed before students. The entire
Egyptian religion will be illustrated, in all its
rituals,--ritual of foundation, of sacrifice, of the feast of
Osiris. M. Benedite has commenced in the same way the
publication of the Temples of Philae.--_Revue Critique_, 1892,
No. 45.

The investigations enumerated above are far from being all.
They represent merely the official governmental side of the
work. The learned societies have done a great deal; such as the
Ecole des lettres of Algiers, the management of historical
monuments (Tebessa), and the French School of Rome.

EL-KARGEH.--PLASTER BUSTS.--At a meeting of the _Académie des
Inscriptions_, M. Héron de Villefosse exhibited four painted
plaster busts from El-Kargeh, in the Great Oasis, which have
recently been sent to the Louvre by M. Bouriant, director of
the French School at Cairo. They have been taken from the lids
of sarcophagi; but the peculiarity about them is that the heads
were not in the same plane with the body, but as it were erect.
The features have been modelled with extraordinary
verisimilitude; the eyes are of some glassy material, in black
and white; the hair was modelled independently, and afterwards
fitted to the plaster head; the painting is in simple
colours--various shades of red for the skin, and black or brown
for the hair. M. Héron de Villefosse maintained that they were
certainly portraits. The physiognomy of one is Jewish; another
recalls a bronze head from Cyrene in the British Museum, which
Fr. Lenormant considered to be of Berber type; the third might
be Syrian, and the fourth Roman. The date is probably about the
time of Septimius Severus. M. Maspero declared that he had
never seen anything of the kind in any museum.--_Academy_, July
9.

These busts have been placed on exhibition at the Louvre, in
the _Salle des fresques_.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 28.

According to a writer in the _Temps_, two are Greeks, one
Syrian and one a Jew. The Greeks are blond with straight hair;
the others have dark brown curly hair. All are bearded. The
drapery is white.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 30.

The department of Greek and Roman antiquities at the Louvre has
also received from M. Bouriant two funerary inscriptions found
in the necropolis dating from the second century A.D. One is
Latin, tha other Greek.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 32.

CHATBI (NEAR).--NECROPOLIS.--M. Botti has discovered between
Chatbi and Ibrahimieh a Roman necropolis of the first or second
century A.D.. at a depth of fourteen metres. It is excavated in
soft calcareous stone and its chambers and corridors are
Page 102 reached by a rock-cut staircase.

The bodies are both laid on the floor and placed in jars. They
were intact.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 30.

EL-QAB.--Mr. Taylor has been excavating here for the Egypt
exploration fund, in continuation of the previous year's work.
Prof. Sayce reports, after Mr. Taylor's departure (_Acad._,
March 12), that more of the foundations of the old temple which
stood within the temple were then visible than the preceding
year. The fragmentary remains show that among its builders were
Usertesen (xii dyn.), Sebekhotep II (xiii dyn.), Amenophis I
and Thothmes III (xviii dyn.) and Nektanebo I (xxx dyn.) In one
of the tombs Nofer-Ka-Ra is alluded to as (apparently) the
original founder of the sanctuary.

GEBELEN.--TEMPLE OF HOR-M-HIB.--Prof. Sayce writes. "On the
voyage from Luxor to Assuan I stopped at Gebelon, and found
that the Bedouin squatters there had unearthed some fragments
of sculptured and inscribed stones on the summit of the
fortress built by the priest-king Ra-men-kheper and queen
Isis-m-kheb to defend this portion of the Nile. On examination
they turned out to belong to a small temple which must once
have stood on the spot. The original temple, I found, had been
constructed of limestone by Hor-m-hib, the last king of the
xviii dynasty, and brilliantly ornamented with sculpture and
painting. Additions had been made to the temple, apparently by
Seti I.; since besides the stones belonging to Hor-m-hib, there
were other fragments of the same limestone as that of which the
temple of Seti at Abydos is built, and covered with bas-reliefs
and hieroglyphs in precisely the same delicate style of art.
Eventually a building of sandstone had been added to the
original temple on the west side by Ptolemy VII Philometor. It
may be noted that Ra-men-kheper used bricks burnt in the kiln
as well as sun-dried bricks in the construction of the
fortress, as he also did in the construction of the fortress at
El-Hibeh.--_Academy_, March 12."

HAT-NUB.-THE EARLY QUARRY.-This interesting quarry has been
recently discovered by Mr. Griffith. Mr. Petrie writes: Allow
me to note that in this quarry, described by Mr. Griffith
(_Academy_, Jan. 23), and situated ten miles southeast of El
Tell in this plain, the main quarry does not contain any name
later than the vi Dynasty. The tablet in the thirtieth year
being of Pepi II (Nefer-ka-ra), and mentioning the _sed_
festival in that year, this might refer to the Sothiac festival
of 120 years falling in that year, and so be important as a
datum. There are seven painted inscriptions of Pepi II,
containing about fifty lines in all. There are also a great
number of incised graffiti.--_Academy_, Feb. 20.
Page 103

HAWARA.--MUMMY PORTRAITS.--Among the most important discoveries
of the year is that by Dr. Brugsch, of three mummy portraits in
the desert of Hawara. These were found, uncoffined, and buried
at a very slight depth below the surface.

The first is that of a woman: the portrait is brilliantly
executed in tempera, on canvas, and is the most ancient of
paintings on canvas known, for its date cannot be fixed later
than the first century B.C.

The next portrait was on the mummy of a man but instead of a
painting on canvas is a relief in stucco, gilded. The features
are carefully reproduced, as are the beard and whiskers.

The third mummy was provided with a beautifully executed
portrait on wood which is one of the best examples of ancient
painting, though not so rare as the other, for ancient
portraits painted on wood have long been known.--_Biblia_,
V.P.

HELIOPOLIS.--M. Philippe, the Cairo dealer in antiquities, is,
with permission from the Gizeh Museum, carrying on excavations
at Heliopolis, which have brought to light some tombs of the
Saïtic period.--_Academy_, Nov. 12.

KOM-EL-AHMAR.--"At Kom el-Ahmar, opposite El-Qab, I visited two
recently-discovered tombs, which contain the cartouches of
Pepi, and are in a fairly perfect condition. The walls are
covered with delicate paintings in the style of those of
Beni-Hassan, and explanatory inscriptions are attached to them.
The early date of the paintings and inscriptions makes them
particularly interesting. The tombs are still half buried in
the sand, and only the upper part of the internal decoration is
visible."--PROF. SAYCE, in _Academy_, April 2.

MEIR.--The authorities of the Gizeh Museum have, on the
suggestion of Johnson Pasha, caused excavations to be made at
Meïr, near Deirut, in Upper Egypt, which have already resulted
in the discovery of some tombs of the XI dynasty. It is
intended to continue these excavations.--_Academy_, Nov. 12.

MEMPHIS.--DISCOVERIES BY M. DE MORGAN.--At a meeting of the
_Acad. des Inscr._ Prof. Maspero communicated the result of the
excavations on the site of Memphis by M. de Morgan. He has
discovered among the ruins of the temple of Ptah a number of
monuments of importance. First, a large boat of granite,
similar to that in the museum at Turin, on which the figures
are destroyed; next, several fragmentary colossi of Rameses II,
and in particular two gigantic upright figures, dedicated by
this king, of Ptah, the god of Memphis, enshrouded in
mummy-wrappings and holding a sceptre in both hands; lastly,
some isolated figures, arranged in a court or a chamber. The
Page 104 importance of this discovery, said Prof. Maspero, will be
realised when we bear in mind that we possess no divine image
of large size, and that the very existence of statues of gods
in Egyptian temples has sometimes been denied.--_Academy_,
Sept. 17.

SEHEL.--THE TENTH DYNASTY.--Prof. Sayce reports that he has
been finding evidences of the little-known X dynasty in the
immediate neighborhood of the First Cataract. "Mr. Griffith and
Prof. Maspero have shown that certain of the tombs at Siût
belonged to the period when this dynasty ruled in Egypt. I have
now discovered inscriptions which show that its rule was
recognized on the frontiers of Nubia.

"An examination of the position occupied by the numerous
inscriptions on the granite rocks of the island of Sehêl have
made it clear to me that we must recognize two periods in the
history of the sanctuary for which the island was famous.
During the second period the temple stood on the eastern slope
of an eminence where I found remains of it two years ago. As I
also found fragments of it bearing the name of Thothmes III on
the one hand, and of Ptolemy Philopator on the other, it must
have existed from the age of the XVII dynasty down to Ptolemaic
times. Throughout this period the inscriptions left by pious
pilgrims to the shrine all face the site of the temple. So also
do a certain number of inscriptions which belong to the age of
the XII and XIII dynasties. But the majority of the
inscriptions which belong to the latter age, like the
inscriptions which are proved by the occurrence of the names of
Antef and Mentuhotep to be of the time of the _xi_ dynasty,
face a different way. They look southward.

"This winter I have come across a large number of inscriptions
on the mainland side of the channel which look northward, that
is, towards the island. A few of these inscriptions are of the
time of the XII dynasty, but the greater number belong to the
XI dynasty, and one is dated in the forty-first year of
Ra-neb-kher. It would seem, therefore, that at the epoch when
they were inscribed on the rocks the sanctuary of Sehêl stood
either in the middle of the southern channel of the river or
upon its edge.

"On the island side of the channel there are a good many
inscriptions which are shown by the weathering of the
hieroglyphs to be older than the age of the XI dynasty. Indeed,
the inscription of an Antef is cut over one of them. They all
present the same curious forms of hieroglyphic characters, and
contain for the most part titles and formulæ not met with in
the later texts. Moreover, they are not dedicated like the
Page 105 later texts to the divine trinity of the Cataract, Khnum,
Anuke, and Sati, but to a deity whose name is expressed by a
character resembling an Akhem seated on a basket. Mr. Wilbour
and I first noticed it last year.

"One of the early inscriptions contains a cartouche which reads
Ra-nefer-hepu, the last element being represented by the
picture of a rudder. Now Mr. Newberry and his companions at
Beni-Hassan have discovered that one of the groups of tombs
which exist there is of older date than the time of the XII
dynasty. In this group of tombs occurs the name of a lady who
was called Nefer-hepu. She must have been born in the reign of
Ra-nefer-hepu, and will consequently belong, not to the age of
the XI dynasty, but to that of one of the dynasties which
preceded it.

"That this dynasty was the X is made pretty clear by the
inscriptions on the mainland side of the channel I have
described. Here I have found inscriptions of the early sort
mingled with those of the XI dynasty in such a way as to show
that they cannot have been widely separated in age. Moreover,
in one of them, the name of Khatî is associated with that of
Ra-mer-ab; and Khatî is not only a name which characterises the
XI dynasty, but it was also the name of the owner of one of the
tombs at Siût, which Mr. Griffith has proved to belong to the
time of the X dynasty. We were already acquainted with the name
of Ra-mer-ab from a scarab; and two years ago Mr. Bouriant
obtained a bronze vase which gave the double name of Ra-mer-ab
Kherti. Kherti is a king of the X dynasty. By the side of the
inscription which contains the name of Ra-mer-ab, I found
others with the names of Ra-mer-ankh and Ameni. That Ameni was
a king of the X dynasty has already been suspected.

"The inscriptions I have copied this winter, therefore, have
not only given us the names of some kings of the X dynasty, one
of them previously unknown; they have also shown that the power
of the dynasty was acknowledged as far south as the Cataract.
Moreover, they indicate that the government must have passed
from the X to the XI dynasty in a peaceful and regular manner."

SHAT-ER-RIGALEH.--Prof. Sayce writes: I have visited the
famous "Shat er-Rigâleh," the valley a little north of Silsilis
and the village of El-Hammâni, in which so many monuments of
the XI dynasty have been discovered by Messrs. Harris,
Eisenlohr, and Flinders Petrie. To these I have been able to
add another cartouche, that of Ra-nofer-neb, a king who is
supposed to belong to the XIV dynasty. His name and titles have
been carved on the rock at the northern corner of the entrance
into the valley by a certain Ama, a memorial of whom was found
by Mr. Petrie in the Wadi itself (_A Season in Egypt_, pl. XV.
No. 438). Mr. Spicer, whose dahabiyeh accompanied mine,
Page 106 photographed the inscriptions in which Mentuhotep-Ra-neb-kher
of the XI dynasty is mentioned, as well as the one which
enumerates the names of three kings of the XVIII dynasty,
Amenophis I, Thothmes I, and Thothmes II. One of the
inscriptions of Mentuhotep is dated in the thirty-ninth year of
the king's reign. The epithet _mâ-kheru_ "deceased" is attached
only to the cartouche of Amenophis I, not to those of the other
two kings, proving that they reigned
contemporaneously.--_Academy_, March 12.

TEL EL-AMARNA.--EXCAVATIONS BY MR. PETRIE.--Mr. Petrie
communicates the following report to the _Academy_: "During the
last four months I have been excavating at this place, the
capital of Khuenaten. Past times have done their best to leave
nothing for the present--not even a record. The Egyptians
carried away the buildings in whole blocks down to the lowest
foundations, completely smashed the sculptures, and left
nothing in the houses; and the Museum authorities, and a
notorious Arab dealer, have cleared away without any record
what had escaped the other plunderers of this century. I have
now endeavoured to recover what little remained of the art and
history of this peculiar site, by careful searching in the
town. From the tombs I am debarred, although the authorities
are doing nothing whatever there themselves, and the tomb of
Khuenaten remains uncleared, with pieces of the sarcophagus and
vessels thrown indiscriminately in the rubbish outside."

The region of main interest is the palace; and the only way to
recover the plan was by baring the ground, and tracing the
bedding of the stones which are gone. For this I have cleared
all the site of the buildings, and in course of the work
several rooms with portions of painted fresco pavements have
been found. One room which was nearly entire, about 51 by 16
feet, and two others more injured, have now been entirely
exposed to view, and protected by a substantial house, well
lighted, and accessible to visitors, erected by the Public
Works Department. With the exception of a pavement reported to
exist at Thebes, these are the only examples of a branch of art
which must have been familiar in the palaces of Egypt. The
subjects of these floors are tanks with fish, birds, and lotus;
groups of calves, plants, birds, and insects; and a border of
bouquets and dishes. But the main value of these lies in the
new style of art displayed; the action of the animals, and the
naturalistic grace of the plants, are unlike any other Egyptian
work, and are unparalleled even in classical frescoes. Not
until modern times can such studies from nature be found. Yet
this was done by Egyptian artists; for where the lotus occurs,
Page 107 the old conventional grouping has constrained the design, and
the painter could not overstep his education, though handling
all the other plants with perfect individuality. That
Babylonian influence was not active, is seen by the utter
absence of any geometrical ornament; neither rosettes or stars,
frets or circles, nor any other such elements are seen, and
perhaps no such large piece of work exists so clear of all but
natural forms. Some small fragments of sculptured columns show
that this flowing naturalism was as freely carried out in
relief as in colour.

Of the architecture there remain only small pieces flaked off
the columns. By comparing these the style can be entirely
recovered; and we see that both the small columns in the
palace, and those five feet thick in the river frontage, were
in imitation of bundles of reeds, bound with inscribed bands,
with leafage on base and on capital, and groups of ducks hung
up around the neck. A roof over a well in the palace was
supported by columns of a highly geometrical pattern, with
spirals and chevrons. In the palace front were also severer
columns inscribed with scenes, and with capitals imitating
gigantic jewellery. The surface was encrusted with brilliant
glazes, and the ridges of stone between the pieces were gilt,
so that it resembled jewels set in gold. An easy imitation of
this was by painting the hollows and ridges, and the crossing
lines of the setting soon look like a net over the capital. We
are at once reminded of the "net work" on the capitals of
Solomon, and see in these columns their prototype.

This taste for inlaying was carried to great lengths on the
flat walls. The patterns were incrusted with coloured glazes,
and birds and fishes were painted on whole pieces and let into
the blocks; hieroglyphs were elaborately carved in hard stones
and fixed in the hollowed forms, black granite, obsidian, and
quartzite in white limestone, and alabaster in red granite. The
many fragments of steles which have come from here already, and
which I have found, appear to show a custom of placing one
stele--with the usual adoration of the sun by the king and
queen--in each of the great halls of the palace and temple.
These steles are in hard limestone, alabaster, red granite, and
black granite. I have found more steles on the rocks on both
sides of the Nile, and have seen in all eight on the eastern
and three on the western cliffs.

The history of this site, and of the religious revolutions, is
somewhat clearer than before. Khuenaten came to the throne as a
minor; for in his sixth year he had only one child, and in his
eighth year only two, as we learn from the steles, suggesting
that he was not married till his fifth year apparently. On his
marriage he changed his name from Amenhotep IV (which occurs on
Page 108 a papyrus from Gurob in his fifth) to Khuenaten (which we find
here in the sixth). A scarab which I got last year in Cairo
shows Amenhotep (with Amen erased subsequently) adoring the
cartouches of the Aten, settling his identity with Khuenaten.
In a quarry here is the name of his mother, Queen Thii, without
any king; so she was probably regent during his minority, and
started this capital here herself.

The character of the man, and the real objects of his
revolution in religion and art, are greatly cleared by our now
being able to see him as in the flesh. By an inexplicable
chance, there was lying on the ground, among some stones, a
plaster cast taken from his face immediately after his death
for the use of the sculptors of his funeral furniture; with it
were the spoilt rough blocks of granite _ushabtis_ for his
tomb. The cast is in almost perfect condition, and we can now
really study his face, which is full of character. There is no
trace of passion in it, but a philosophical calm with great
obstinacy and impracticability. He was no vigorous fanatic, but
rather a high bred theorist and reformer: not a Cromwell but a
Mill. An interesting historical study awaits us here from his
physiognomy and his reforms. No such cast remains of any other
personage in ancient history.

According to one view, he was followed successively by four
kings, Ra saa ka khepru, Tut ankhamen, Ai, and Horemheb, in
peaceable succession. But of late it has been thought that the
last three were rival kings at Thebes; and that they upheld
Amen in rivalry to Khuenaten and his successor, who were cut
very short in their reigns. Nothing here supports the latter
view. A great number of moulds for making pottery rings are
found here in factories; and those of Tut ankhamen are as
common and as varied as of Khuenaten, showing that he was an
important ruler here for a considerable time. Of Ai rings are
occasionally found here, as also of Horemheb, who has left a
block of sculpture with his cartouche in the temple of Aten. So
it is certain that he actually upheld the worship of Aten early
in his reign, and added to the buildings here, far from being a
destructive rival overthrowing this place from Thebes.
Afterwards he re-established Amen (as I got a scarab of his in
Cairo, "establishing the temple of Amen"), and he removed the
blocks of stone wholesale from here to build with at Thebes.
Later than Horemheb there is not a trace here; Seti and Ramessu
are absolutely unknown in this site, showing that it was
stripped of stone and deserted before the XIX dynasty. Hence,
about two generations, from 1400 to 1340 B.C., are the extreme
limits of date for everything found here. The masonry was
re-used at Thebes, Memphis, and other places where the name of
Khuenaten has been found.
Page 109
The manufactures of this place were not extensive--glass and
glazes were the main industries; and the objects so common at
Gurob (metal tools, spindles, thread, weights, and marks on the
pottery) are all rare here. The furnace and the details of
making the coloured blue and green frits, have been found.
Pottery moulds for making the pendants of fruits, leaves,
animals, &c., are abundant in the factories; and a great
variety of patterned "Phoenician" glass vases are found, but
only in fragments.

The cuneiform tablets discovered here were all in store rooms
outside the palace; they were placed by the house of the
Babylonian scribe, which was localised by our finding the waste
pieces of his spoilt tablets in rubbish holes. A large quantity
of fragments are found of the Aegean pottery, like that of the
early period at Mykenae and Ialysos. This is completely in
accord with what I found at Gurob, but with more variety in
form. The Phoenician pottery which I found at Lachish is also
found here, so we now have a firm dating for all these styles.
The connexion between the naturalistic work of these frescoes
and the fresco of Tiryns and the gold cups of Vaphio is
obvious; and it seems possible that Greece may have started
Khuenaten in his new views of style, which he carried out so
fully by his native artists. The similarity of the geometrical
pattern columns to the sculptures of the Mykenae period is
striking; hitherto such Egyptian decoration was only known in
colour, and not in relief. We have yet a great deal to learn as
to the influences between Greece and Egypt, but this place has
helped to open our eyes.--W.M. FLINDERS PETRIE in _Academy_,
April 9.

CUNEIFORM TABLETS.--Prof. Sayce while in Egypt spent several
days at Tel el-Amarna with Mr. Petrie, and examined the
fragments of cuneiform tablets which he has discovered there.
Among them are portions of letters from the governors of
Musikhuna, in Palestine, and Gebal, in Phœnicia. The most
interesting were some lexical fragments. One or two of these
formed part of a sort of comparative dictionary of three (or
perhaps five) different languages, one of them of course being
Babylonian, in which the words of the other languages are
explained at length. The work seems to have been compiled by
"order of the King of Egypt." Another work was a dictionary of
Sumerian and Babylonian, in which the pronunciation of the
Sumerian is given as well as their ideographic representation.
Thus the Babylonian _risápu_ and _di_ _kate_ are stated to be
the equivalents not only of the ideographic _gaz-gaz_, but also
of the phonetically written _ga-az-ga-az_. This confirms the
Page 110 views of Professors Sayce and Oppert, expressed long ago, as to
the comparatively late date at which _Accado-Sumerian_ ceased
to be a spoken language.--_Academy_, May 14.

TOMB OF KHUENATEN OR AMENOPHIS IV.--Prof. Sayce writes to the
_Academy_ of Feb. 27. I have been spending a few days at Tel
el-Amarna. Mr. Flinders Petrie is excavating the ruins of the
old city of Khuenaten, while M. Alexandre, on behalf of the
Gizeh Museum, has spent the summer and autumn among the tombs
of Tel el-Amarna, and his labours have been rewarded by some
important discoveries. At the entrance to one of the tombs, for
instance, he has found stelae of the usual tombstone shape let
into the wall like the dedication tablets of Greek and Roman
times. The removal of the sand from the foot of the great stela
of Khuenaten, first discovered by Prisse d'Avennes, has brought
to light a most interesting text. This describes the distance
of the stelae erected by the Pharaoh one from the other, and
thus defines the limits of the territory belonging to the city
which he built.

But M. Alexandre's crowning discovery--a discovery which is one
of the most important made in Egypt in recent years--did not
take place until December 30. It was nothing less than the
discovery of the tomb of Khuenaten himself. The tomb is well
concealed, and is at a great distance from the river and the
ruins of the old city. Midway between the northern and the
southern tombs of Tel el-Amarna, in the amphitheatre of cliffs
to the east of the ancient town, are two ravines, more than
three miles from the mouth of one of them, towards the head of
a small valley is the tomb. It resembles the famous "Tombs of
the Kings" at Thebes, being in the form of a subterranean
passage cut in the rock, and sloping downwards at an acute
angle to a distance of more than 100 metres. In front of the
entrance is a double flight to steps also cut out of the rock,
with a slide for the mummy between them. After entering the
passage of the tomb, which is broad and lofty, we pass on the
right another long passage, probably intended for the queen,
but never finished. Soon afterwards we come to a chamber, also
on the right, which serves as an antechamber to another within.
The walls of both chambers have been covered with stucco, and
embellished with hieroglyphs and sculptures. Among the latter
are figures of prisoners from Ethiopia and Syria, of the solar
disk, and of female mourners who weep and throw dust on their
heads. From the inscriptions we learn that the two chambers
were the burial-place of Khuenaten's daughter Aten-mert, who
must consequently have died before him. It further follows that
Ra-si-aa-ka, Aten-mert's husband, who received the titles of
royalty in consequence of his marriage, must have been coregent
with Khuenaten.
Page 111
Khuenaten himself was buried in a large square-columned hall at
the extreme end of the tomb. Fragments of his granite
sarcophagus have been found there by M. Alexandre, as well as
pieces of the exquisitely fine mummy cloth in which his body
was wrapped. At the entrance to the tomb M. Alexandre also
picked up broken _ushebtis_, upon which the cartouches of
Khuenaten are inscribed. Before the Pharaoh had been properly
entombed it would seem that his enemies broke into his last
resting-place, destroyed his sarcophagus, tore the wrappings of
his mummy to shreds, and effaced the name and image of his god
wherever it was engraved upon the wall. The only finished
portions of the tomb are the chambers in which his daughter was
buried. Elsewhere the tomb is in the same condition as the
majority of the tombs of his adherents. The walls have never
been covered with stucco, much less painted or sculptured, and
even the columns of the magnificent hall in which his
sarcophagus was placed remains rough-hewn. It is clear that the
king died suddenly, and that he was buried in haste on the
morning of a revolution. His followers may have made a stand
against their enemies for a few months, but it is difficult to
believe from the state in which the tomb has been found that
they can have done so for a longer time. Very shortly after
Khuen-Aten's death his city must have been destoyed, never to
be inhabited again.

Mr. Petrie in a letter to the _Academy_ says: "It has long been
known that the Arabs had obtained access to the tomb of the
remarkable founder of Tel el-Amarna; the heart scarab of
Khuenaten was sold two or three years ago at Luxor, and the
jewellery of Neferti-iti, his queen, a year or two before
that."

The entrance is like that of the tomb of Seti I at Thebes; but
the sloping passage is about half the length of
that.--_Academy_, Feb. 6.

COLLECTION IN LONDON.--The collections of sculpture, painting,
faience, &c., which Mr. Flinders Petrie brought back from his
excavations last winter at Tel el-Amarna have been placed on
view at 4 Oxford-mansion, Oxford-circus, W. Their special
interest is that they reveal an hitherto unknown form of art,
remarkable both for its originality and for its spirited
rendering of natural objects. The resemblance to some of the
finest objects of Mycenaean work is very striking. The
exhibition remained open until October 15.--_Academy_, Sept.
24.

ETHIOPIA.

NORTHERN ETBAI.--EXPEDITION TO THE NORTHERN ETBAI.--A recent
scientific expedition to northern Etbai or northern Aethiopia,
Page 112 by the order of the Khedive, is the subject of a very
interesting paper by Ernest A. Floyer, in the _Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society_ for October.

The chief investigation of the expedition was devoted to the
remains of certain large mining stations which proved to be
doubly interesting, as giving evidence of two distinct periods
of the mining industry.

Mines have been opened over almost the entire surface, and the
remains of numerous towns mark the dwelling places of the
miners.

Not only in the mines is found evidence of two methods, one
very ancient and another less ancient; but in the settlements
above were discovered remains of Ptolemaic construction,
together with the stone huts of a race probably aboriginal, and
preceding or contemporaneous with but not unknown to the
ancient Egyptians.

The Ptolemaic miner seem to have employed the ancient methods
to a great extent, so that it would seem that there could never
have been any complete cessation of mining for a very long
period.

The miners of Rameses' time, too, used methods of great
antiquity. In the Wadi Abba stands a rock temple with
hieroglyphic inscriptions stating that Sethos, father of
Rameses the Great, had discovered gold mines in this region.
Golenischeff believes this temple to have been erected by the
Ptolemies. At the mines of Sighait is an hieroglyphic
inscription recording the visit of a royal scribe and a mine
inspector. This is faintly inscribed on the face of a steep
rock. At the emerald mines of Sikait may be seen a number of
Greek dedications over rock-cut temples. Near the Wadi Khashat,
where topazes are found, there stands a square enclosure, the
platform of a temple, and numerous ruined structures of
apparent Greek origin. It would appear from these remains that
the Ptolemies examined all of the ancient mines and reopened a
certain number--here they erected their temples, houses and
barracks for slaves, here they constructed high roads for their
carts and oxen, with caravan service, and post houses built at
intervals.

Beside these Ptolemaic ruins are found some traces of the
prehistoric miners, and in a few cases as at the mines of the
Um Roos these exist alone. The most important traces are the
stone huts built of large stones in two lines, and of uniform
irregularity. In connection with these huts there is not a
single mark or inscription of any kind which might lead to a
solution of the problem with regard to their origin.

Their implements, quantities of which are found at Um Roos were
as crude as their abodes, in fact the use of some of them
cannot be determined. The mines, though extensive, are little
more than burrows, and in a few cases it is not known for what
Page 113 mineral they were excavated. The writer, after dismissing the
Æthiopians, the Kushites and the ancient Egyptians, as the
probable pre-Ptolemaic miners, suggests that the Etbai was
peopled by a negroid tribe of natural miners, the possible
ancestors of the copper miners in the mountains north of
Kordofan.

Near the Wadi Sikait, not far from the temples with Greek
inscriptions already referred to, is a fine building of
apparently later date, and supposed by the writer to have been
a church from its construction, for the mines were worked
steadily during the third and fourth centuries of the Christian
era. The structure has no roof over the main portion, but what
was apparently an apse still retains its roof of long slabs of
schist. The body is filled with fallen slabs. The walls show a
side window and several niches, which features suggested a
Christian church.

ALGERIA AND TUNISIA.

M. René de la Blanchère in making, to the _Acad. des
Inscriptions_, his report on the excavations and discoveries in
Tunisia and Algeria during 1891, calls attention to the new
organization of the archæological administration of this
region. Up to the present time Tunisia and Algeria had separate
organizations, but the following arrangement has now gone into
effect: M. de la Blanchère is delegate of Public Instruction
and Fine Arts, in Algeria and Tunisia, and the mission under
him is at present composed of Μ. Μ. Doublet, inspector of
antiquities in the Regency; Pradère, conservator of the Museum
of Bardo; Wood, attaché at the same museum; Gauckler,
historical student, and Marye: it is quite distinct from the
local administrations. Although it supplies the greater number
of the agents of the Bey's service of antiquities, which it
created, it has no connection with its administration any more
than with that of similar organizations in Algeria, such as
that of historical monuments. Its object is: (1) to keep the
Committee of Historic works (of Algeria and Tunisia) informed
of all that happens in Africa in the domain of archæology, to
transmit to it any documents and to make researches regarding
necessary work; (2) to carry on three important publications,
two of which have already been partly published; the
_Collections du Musée Alaoui, the Musées et collections
archéologiques de l'Algérie_, and the _Catalogue général des
musées de l'Afrique française_; (3) to hold itself at the
disposal of the French ministry and the local authorities for
any work deemed necessary, excavations, organization of
museums, enterprises of learned societies, explorations, etc.
The head of the mission, being a delegate of the ministry, has
Page 114 the right to oversee the Tunisian service of antiquities, and
has also for both Algeria and Tunisia the permanent inspection
of libraries and museums.

By means of this central organization, all the desiderata for
African archæology are obtained, and the best methods are put
in practice for excavations, the organization of museums, and
the publication of antiquities.

TUNISIA.

M. de la Blanchère reports that in 1891 the most urgent need in
Tunisia was the classification of monuments that should be
preserved. The operation is being carried on under the
direction of M. Doublet; enquiry was opened in regard to about
150 monuments, nearly all of great importance, of which 27 are
already classified. No excavations were undertaken by the
service of antiquities, its funds being all employed on
finishing the Bardo museum. It has, however, overseen or
authorized the following enterprises, the most important of
which will be found described in their alphabetical order:
Sfaks; Sousse; Henchir Maatria; Dougga; Teboursouk; Henchir
Tinah; Maktar.

CARTHAGE.--M. do Vogüé has communicated to the _Acad. des Ins._
(March 18) a report on the continuation of Father Delattre's
excavations at Carthage, which go on giving interesting results
which will be fully described in a publication by the explorer
himself. At another point a funerary inscription was found of
an iron caster. This is the first time the profession is
mentioned in Carthaginian texts, which had hitherto mentioned
only gold and bronze casters. Of course there was no casting of
iron at that time, but only working of the metal.--_Revue
arch._ 1892, II, p. 254.

TERRACOTTA MOULDS.--M. Héron de Villefosse communicated to the
_Acad. des Inscr._ (Nov. 11,) the photographs of seventy-two
moulds for intaglios, in terracotta, selected from a collection
of over three hundred which were found in the lower part of
Carthage, between the hill of St. Louis and the sea. They were
all executed in antiquity. There are coin, types, a head of
Herakles, similar to that of some silver coins attributed to
Jugurtha, the fronting head of Silenus of the coins of Kyzikos,
the galley of the coins of Sidon, etc., all of the purest Greek
style. There are also some female heads, recalling Greek
Sicilian coins; standing figures; an Athena, a Pan, a Hermes
fastening his heel-pieces, a Marsyas, an amazon, a nude woman
fastening her sandal, recalling coins of Larissa in Thessaly;
some of groups, a man overthrown by a lion, a lion devouring a
horse, a man standing and killing a kneeling woman, an episode
Page 115 of the contest of Achilles and Penthesilea; finally some purely
Egyptian types, such as scarabs with royal cartouches. This
collection of moulds was probably made by a manufacturer with
the purpose of reproducing them.--_Rev. Critique_, 1892, No.
47.

CHEMTOU-SIMITHU.--Excavations have been carried on at this site
by M. Toutain: they were continued, thanks to a subvention from
the _Acad. des Inscriptions_. In a letter to the Academy dated
June 16, M. Geffroy gives an account of what had been
discovered up to date. Nearly the whole of the ancient theatre
was discovered in a few weeks. In the space occupied by the
orchestra was a mosaic, with all the shades of Numidian marble,
nine metres in diameter. These are interesting peculiarities in
the construction and arrangement of the theatre. It is neither
adossed to a hill nor completely isolated: the lower part of
the hemicycle of steps which was completely buried, is well
preserved. M. Toutain had commenced researches in two necropoli
of the city hoping to find tombs and epitaphs of the freedmen
and slaves employed in the neighbouring quarries. He had begun
the excavation of a large building, perhaps a basilica or a
curia, which appears to be about 40 metres long.

In a letter to the _Académie_, dated October 16, M. Toutain
gives information of further discoveries, principally in the
theatre and forum. A square was discovered 20 met. wide by 25
met. long, paved with large slabs of granite of greenish blue
schist. It is situated in the midst of the ruins of several
important monuments, notably a temple and a basilica, and is
certainly the forum of Simithu. It is bounded on the south by a
monumental exædra whose substructions of cut stone are still in
place, and whose architectural decoration can be reconstructed
by means of the bases, fragments, columns, capitals, and pieces
of cornice which have come to light. Toward the north the forum
is bounded by two structures separated by a narrow paved
street.

A mile-stone found is important, as containing the name of
Emperor Galerius, and dating from the short period when, after
the abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus, Hercules,
Constantius Chlorus, and Galerius were Augusti (May 1, 305, to
July 25, 306). It has also a topographic interest as belonging
to the cross-road from _Thuburbo majus_ to Tunis or Carthage,
passing by Onellana and Uthina. M. Toutain has traced a system
of bars, basins and cisterns, to supply with rain water a small
Roman city, whose ruins are now called Bab-Khaled. It would
appear as if the public buildings of the city were inhabited
and made over at the Byzantine period.--_Revue critique_ 1892,
No. 44; _Revue arch._, 1892, II, pp. 260, 266-7; _Chron. des
arts_ 1892, No. 34.
Page 116

CHERCHELL.--M. Victor Waille has communicated to the _Acad. des
Insc._ the first results of excavations on the field of
manœuvres at Cherchell. Captain Hétet and lieutenant Perrin
conducted them. Three mosaic pavements were copied: there was
found a dedicatory inscription to the governor C. Octavius
Pudens Cæsius Honoratus, and some bronzes, among which were the
base of a candelabrum and the handle of a chiseled vase,
decorated with a helmeted bust of Roma, of the Byzantine
period. The excavations are especially fruitful in small
objects, pottery, bronzes, coins, etc.--_Chron. des arts_,
1892, No. 31; _Ami des mon._ 1892, p. 250.

DOUGGA.--The excavations carried on by MM. Denis and Carton,
resulted in the clearing of the temple of Saturn; the discovery
of the dedicatory inscription showing it to have been erected
for the safety of Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus; the
finding of a large number of native steles; and the clearing of
the theatre.

HADRUMETUM.--A small lead tablet covered on both sides with
inscriptions, has been found in the Roman necropolis. It is a
_tabella devotionis_, to be compared with others found at
Hadrumetum, at Carthage and in Gaul. On one side is a series of
magic names, accompanied by the figure of a genius with a
rooster's head, standing in a boat and holding a torch, on the
other side is an adjuration addressed to a certain _deus
pelagicus ærius_: infernal maledictions are called down on the
horses and drivers of the green and white factions of the
circus. There was a god or genius named Taraxippos, "the scarer
of horses," as M. Heuzey remarks.--_Rev. arch._ 1892, II, p.
267.

MAKTAR.--M. Border exhumed from the mines of the basilica, next
to the amphitheatre, four fragments of an imperial dedicatory
inscription, and a most interesting altar bearing a dedication
in eighteen lines on the occasion of the sacrifice of a bull
and a ram for the safety of an Emperor, whose name is hammered
out; M. Doublet conjectures him to have been
Elagabalus.--_A.d.M._ 1892, p. 109.

SOUSSE.-In the neo-punic necropolis, on which the camp is
situated, two entire vases and 28 fragments of vases were
found, decorated with painted inscriptions. In the Roman
necropolis, along the Kairwan road, several interesting
discoveries were made, among them a hypogeum containing several
frescoes in fair preservation, containing curious figures and
inscriptions, and also some inscriptions on marble or
stucco.--_A.d.M._ 1892, p. 109.

TEBOURSOUK.--MM. Denis and Carton have excavated the megalithic
necropolis of Teboursouk, whose tombs are stone circles, with
one or more small dolmens in the centre.--_A.d.M._ 1892, p.
109.
Page 117

TUNIS.--Hans von Behrs has contributed to the _Vossische
Zeitung_ a report on the museum of the Bardo near Tunis. A
summary of it is given in the _Berlin Philologische
Wochenschrift_, November 19.

ALGERIA.

M. de la Blanchère reports that in Algeria M. Gauckler
investigated in 1891 the provinces of Algiers and Constantine,
and spent some time at Cherchell whose antiquities he studied
and partly published alone or in collaboration with M. de
Waille. He planned at the same time an excavation. M. Marye was
charged with the plan for organizing, for the first time, a
collection of mussulman art, of native industrial art, and of
Turkish and Arabic monuments.

The work regarded as most pressing by M. de la Blanchère in
1891 was the publication of African museums. The first series
of the _collections du musée Alaoui_ was almost completed: the
_musées d'Oran_ and _de Constantine_ were in the press,
following the _musée d'Alger_ published in the preceding year.
The general catalogue will be drawn up as each establishment is
definitively organized. The first place belongs to the Bardo
museum whose catalogue had already been partly compiled by M.
de la Blanchère. The museum of Oran, under its conservator,
Demaeght, has been finally organized, and occupies a fine
building given by the city. It has been enriched by several
additions, notably the famous inscription of king Masuna. The
museum of Constantine has received among other things, the
results of an interesting excavation made at Collo, especially
some curious vases with female silhouettes. The museum of the
Bardo can, however, never be rivalled by any of the museums of
Algeria. The immense palace is already nearly full, although
the museum in 1891 was but four years old. The large hall is
full, with its nine large cases; there are about 500 square
metres of mosaics, 50 statues of large fragments, about 1200
inscriptions, and a multitude of small objects.

TIPASA.--The local curate, M. l'Abbé Saint-Gérand, has made
some important excavations in an early Christian church. He
found that the altar was placed at the end opposite the apse on
a kind of platform or _béma_ attached to the wall. Several
inscriptions were found set into the mosaic pavement. One is
the epitaph of Alexander, a bishop of Tipasa, another the
dedication of the construction by him. To this bishop is
attributed the merit of grouping about the altar the tombs of
certain "righteous ancients," _justi priores_, by whom are
undoubtedly meant his predecessors in the Episcopacy.--_Chron.
des arts_, 1892, No. 14.
Page 118
Professor Gsell assisted in the excavations above described and
further details in a communication to the _Académie des
Inscriptions_. The building mentioned was a funerary chapel
built to the east of Tipasa by Bishop Alexander to contain the
tombs of his predecessors. Near by a Christian sarcophagus was
found with reliefs of Christ giving the law, Moses striking the
rock and other subjects.

In the same locality is the basilica of Saint Salsa erected
over her tomb. Built in the fourth century, it was decorated in
the middle of the fifth by Potentius, probably a bishop; and
enlarged in the second half of the sixth. It was still an
object of veneration in the seventh century.--_Chron. des
arts_, 1892, No. 28.

ASIA.

HINDUSTAN.

MUHAMMADAN COINS.--Mr. S. Lane-Poole has completed his
"Catalogue of the Coins of the Mogul Emperors of Hindustan in
the British Museum," dating from 1525, the invasion of Buber,
to the establishment of British currency in 1835.

It describes over 1400 coins, chiefly gold and silver, of this
splendid coinage. "In his introduction Mr. Lane-Poole deals
with various historical, geographical, and other problems
suggested by the coinage, and with difficulties of
classification presented by the early imitative issues of the
East India company and the French compagnie des Indes." This
volume, the fourteenth, completes the cataloguing of all the
Muhammadan coins in the museum.--_Journal Royal Asiatic
Society_ 1892, p. 425.

INDIAN NUMISMATICS.--Mr. Rodgers, Honorary Numismatist to the
government of India, has finished his "Catalogue of the Coins
with Persian or Arabic inscriptions in the Lahore museum," and
practically finished his "Catalogue of the Coins in the
Calcutta museum." His own immense collection has now been
purchased by the Punjab government, and he has nearly completed
his catalogue of that.

These catalogues will be of very great importance alike for the
numismatic and for the modern history of India.--_Journ. Royal
Asiatic Society_, 1892, p. 425.

NEW VARIETY OF MAURYA INSCRIPTIONS.--Prof. Buhler has made a
very careful study of impressions of nine votive inscriptions
from the relic-caskets discovered by Mr. Rea in the ruined
stupa of Bhattiprolu in the Kistna District (Madras). He has
made out their contents, and has arrived at the conclusion that
they are written in a new variety of the Southern Maurya or Làt
Page 119 alphabet. Twenty-three letters of these inscriptions agree
exactly with those ordinarily used in the edicts of Asoka which
have long been held to belong to the first attempts of the
Hindus in the art of writing. Four letters are entirely
unusual, while the lingual l is introduced, which does not
occur in Asoka's inscriptions. Further peculiarities are
presented in the notation of the medial and final vowels. The
appearance of the letters would indicate that the Bhattiprolu
inscriptions probably belong to a period only a few decades
later than that of Asoka's edicts. By a comparison of these
incriptions with Asoka's edicts, and with the inscriptions of
Nâuâgleât, Hathegumplia, Bharhut and Triana, it becomes evident
that they hold an intermediate position between the two sets,
but are much more nearly related to those of the third century
B.C. than those of the second. If this be true, the date of the
Bhattiprolu inscription cannot be placed later than 200 B.C.,
and the inscriptions themselves prove that several distinct
varieties of the Southern Maurya alphabet existed during the
third century, B.C.

This fact would remove one of the strongest arguments in favor
of the theory that writing was introduced into India during the
rule of the Maurya dynasty--_i.e._, the absence of local sorts
of letters in which the edicts of Asoka were written in places
widely separated, for this may be explained by a desire to
imitate as closely as possible the character of the original
edict.

If then the Bhattiprolu inscriptions show a system of
characters radically different from those of Asoka's edicts and
at the same time in all probability coeval with them a strong
point is gained for the side of those who are of the opinion
that the introduction of writing into India took place
centuries before the accession of the Maurya Dynasty. It is a
curious fact that of all the anomalous letters in the
Bhattiprolu alphabet not one bears any trace to the later
alphabets of India, all the characters of which are derived
from those of Southern Maurya. The language of these
inscriptions is a Prakrit dialect and is closely connected with
the literary Pali.--_Journ. Royal Asiatic Society_, 1892, p.
602.

THE INDIAN HELL.--In a number of the _Journal Asiatique_
(Sept., Oct., '92), M. Léon Feer publishes an article entitled
"_L'Enfer Indien_," in which he confines himself to the
Buddhist hells, leaving the Brahmanic hells for another study.
He avails himself of all previously printed matter and adds new
material. His object is to group together and classify all the
ideas on infernal punishments, on the crimes for which they are
inflicted and their duration. There are separate chapters on:
Page 120 (1) the name and number of hells; (2) the eight large hot
hells; (3) the attribution of the hells to distinct crimes; (4)
the small hells. There are many questions in connection with
them which he leaves unsolved. Then come the cold hells: (1)
the Chinese hells; (2) Southern hells; (3) the number and names
of the cold hells (of both north and south); (4) the duration
of one's dwelling in the various hells; (5) on the
non-existence of the cold hells; (6) on the period of time
spent in all the hells, etc. The main conclusions are, that:
All Buddhists recognize eight burning hells, with ascending
intensity, surrounded by secondary hells of numbers varying
from four to sixteen. Beside those there are eight cold hells,
but only in the North, their names being considered in the
South as expressing merely the different periods of sojourn in
the eighth hell. The number of hells is at least 12, at most
32.

ARCHÆOLOGICAL SURVEY.--The second volume of the new series of
the Archaæological Survey of India is devoted to a catalogue of
the antiquities and inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces
and Oudh, compiled by Dr. A. Fuhrer. No part of India, not even
the Panjab, is so crowded with historic spots, associated not
only with the life and teaching of Buddha, and with the Hindu
theogony, but also with the Muhammadan conquest. Most of the
ground has already been worked over by Sir A. Cunningham and
his assistants; but there are square miles of ruined mounds
still almost untouched. We continually hear of finds of ancient
coins made by peasants during the rainy season; but the author
is careful to point out that what is now wanted is systematic
exploration, like that of Mr. Petrie in Egypt. The present
volume is based rather upon printed documents than upon
original research, though it shows everywhere the traces of
personal knowledge. Its object is to carry out the orders of
the Government, by placing on record a catalogue of the
existing monuments, classified according to their archæological
importance, their state of repair, and their custody. It is
arranged in the order of administrative divisions and
districts; but copious indices enable the student to bring
together any particular line of investigation.--_Academy_,
September.

A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT.--Dr. M. Aurel Stein, principal of the
Oriental College at Lahore, has now ready for publication the
first volume of his critical edition of the Rajatarangini, or
Chronicles of the Kings of Kashmir, upon which he has been
engaged for some years. This work, which was written by the
poet Kalhana in the middle of the twelfth century, is of
special interest as being almost the sole example of historical
literature in Sanskrit. Hitherto it has only been known

Page 121 (Missing in the source document.)

Page 122 (Missing in the source document.)

Page 123
Near the stûpa is the site of the ancient village and fort;
long ridges of earth, in form of a square, mark the position of
the walls; within these, various articles have been turned up,
large bricks, broken sepulchral urns and grain jars, together
with beads of various material and Buddhist lead coins, both
round and square; they bear the lion and the dugoba, emblems of
the Andhra dynasty. The inscriptions of some are preserved.

II. GHANTASALA.--At Ghantasala is a mound 112 feet in diameter
and 23 feet in height; the excavations here disclosed the
remains of a stûpa from which the complete plan was determined.
In the centre is a solid cube of brick work 10 feet square,
enclosed in a chamber 19 feet square with walls over 3 feet in
thickness; outside this is a circular wall 3 ft. 6 inches
thick, 55 feet 10 inches in diameter, this is enclosed in
another circular brick wall 18 feet 3 inches thick, with a
diameter of 111 feet; this was the main outer wall of the
structure, the exterior surface bore a _chunam_ facing. About
the base is a raised procession path 5 feet 7 in. broad, and 4
feet 6 in. high, a projection is found at each of the cardinal
points. The inmost squares are connected by walls 2 feet 4 in.
thick, running parallel to these sides from the centre and
corners, the cells formed by the intersections of these walls
are packed with mud.

The fact that the main walls, _i.e._, those of the squares and
circles, are thicker than the others may indicate that they
were carried up to form stories, or they may have been simply
to strengthen the dome, if the exterior wall was carried up in
that form. Further excavations in the mound discovered a marble
slab carved with the Supada, a piece of a carved top rail panel
and a number of carved slabs.

When the brick work was excavated a well 6 inches square filled
with earth was found under 3 feet of solid brick work. Among
the debris, at the top, were found pieces of a broken _chatti_,
and a number of small articles, beads and a coin, which it had
probably contained. Just below these was a _chatti_ of red
earthenware, 4-1/2 in. in diameter, with a semi-circular lid,
filled with black earth. Within this was a glazed _chatti_
2-1/4 in. in diameter, and 1-3/4 in. in height. It contained
numerous leads, bits of bone, small pearls, bits of gold leaf
and small pieces of mineral.

A number of marble sculptures have been removed from the stûpa
of Ghantasala, and are now in the village. Among them are
several pieces carved with lotus flowers, and other ornaments
and inscriptions, square and circular moulded vases, a circular
base carved with horses, elephants and other animals, an
umbrella, a panel with rail and figures, and two carved slabs.
Page 124 Other remains found in and near Ghantasala are an "ancient
brass _dipa_, with a Telugu inscription and a small brass image
of Siva" now in the temple, a "small _chakra_ and a _trisula_,
each with pillar base." Brick walls and brick debris are found
all about the neighborhood, but so demolished as to make it
impossible to determine what the buildings were.

III. BHATTIPROLU.--On the report in the stûpa of Bhattiprolu, a
former letter is referred to in which an account is given of
certain inscribed caskets, and other relics found in the centre
of the dome some time before. The reports continue with the
account of further excavations by means of trenches. Those
about the exterior discovered an unbroken procession path at
the small east quadrant, the face of the dome too at this point
is intact to a height of over 5 ft. In the trenches at the
north side there was found two pieces of a marble umbrella,
having a curve of a radius of 1 foot 6 in., a small piece of a
pilaster base from a slab, a pilaster capital with horses and
riders, and the half of what had been a large slab carved with
the lower portion of a draped figure.

At some distance from the basement, or procession path, the
remains of six marble bases of the rail were found standing in
position--they are 1 ft. 11., by 12 in., by 1 ft. 10 in., in
height, spaced by a distance of 1 ft. 7 in. in each, they are
sunk 1 ft. 6 in. below the brick floor, and rest on a broad
marble slab.

A large number of ancient sites and mounds were examined in the
neighborhood of Repalle. At _Anantaiarum, Buddhâní, Chandavôlu_
and _Puapuâ_. Considerable surface has been excavated for
various purposes; the earth, a kind of black mud, is found to
be thickly mixed with broken pottery and bones of animals;
occasionally a pillar or other building stone is turned up. At
Môrakûru, copper, lead and rarely gold and silver coins are
found mixed with the broken pottery.

At _Krudarnudi, Maudura, Mûlpûrn_ and _Periarli_, mounds were
examined, the earth was found to consist of black mud mixed
with pottery and ashes. The mounds differ only in extent, and
portions of several have been removed.

BHATTIPROLU.--A BUDDHIST STUPA.--Mr. Rea during last season
examined the remains of a stûpa at Bhattiprolu in the Kistna
district, the marble casing of which had been used by the Canal
engineers; and in it he has made discoveries of very
considerable interest.

He found the stûpa had been a solid brick building 132 feet in
diameter, surrounded by a procession path about eight feet
wide. It must thus have been of very nearly the dimensions of
the Amarāvati stûpa. Fragments or chips only of the outer
Page 125 casing of marble were found in the area he excavated. When the
dome and portions of the drum had been previously demolished
for the materials, inside the dome there was found "a casket
made of six small slabs of stone dove-tailed into one another,
measuring about 2-1/2 feet by 1-1/2 by 1 foot; inside this was
a clay _chatti_ containing a neat soap-stone casket, which
enclosed a crystal phial. In this latter was a pearl, a few
little bits of gold leaf, and some ashes." Mr. Rea considered
that there might still be another deposit of relics; and having
discovered the centre of the original brickwork, he found there
a shaft or well 9-1/2 inches in diameter filled with earth,
which went down about 15 feet. Following this he found at one
side near the bottom a stone box about 11 inches by 8 and 5
inches deep, with an inscription round the upper lip. Inside
was a small globular blackstone relic casket, two small
hemipsherical metal cups a little over an inch in diameter,
with a gold bead on the apex of one, and the bead (fallen out)
of the other; another small bead, two double pearls, also four
gold lotus flowers 1.2 inch in diameter, two _trisulas_ in thin
plates 1.2 by 1 inch, seven triangular bits of gold, a single
and a double gold bead--the weight of these gold articles being
about 148 grains. There was also a hexagonal crystal 2.56
inches long by 0.88 inch in diameter, pierced along the axis,
and with an inscription lightly traced on the sides. The stone
relic casket measures 4-1/2 inches each way, the lid fitting on
with a groove, and it contained a cylindric crystal phial 2-1/2
inches in diameter and 1-1/4 inches high, moulded on the sides
and flat on top and bottom; the lid fitted in the same way as
that of the casket. Inside was a flattish piece of
bone--possibly of the skull--and under the phial were nine
small lotus flowers in gold leaf; six gold beads and eight
small ones; four small lotus flowers of thin copper; nineteen
small pierced pearls; one bluish crystal bead; and twenty-four
small coins in a light coloured metal, possibly brass, smooth
on one side and with lotus flowers, _trisulas_, feet, &c., on
the obverse. These had been arranged on the bottom and attached
in the form of a _svastika_.

Two and a half feet below this was a second deposit on the
opposite or north side of the shaft. The central area of the
cover, in this case, has an inscription in nineteen lines with
two lines round it--the letters being filled in with white. In
the lower stone was a receptacle 6-1/4 inches deep, by 7-1/2 in
diameter, having a raised rim 1-1/2 inches broad, bearing
another inscription of two lines on the upper surface--the
letters also filled in with lime. The cavity was nearly filled
with earth, and contained a phial 1-5/8 inches in diameter and
2-3/4 inches high, with a lid moulded like a _dagoba_. The
Page 126 phial and lid were lying separate, and there was no sign of a
relic. Mixed with the earth were 164 lotus leaves and buds, two
circular flowers, a trisula and a three-armed figure like a
_svastika_, all in gold leaf, two gold stems for lotus flowers,
six gold beads, and a small gold ring--weighing, collectively,
about 310 grains; also two pearls, a garnet, six coral beads, a
bluish, flat, oval bead, a white crystal bead, two greenish,
flat, six-sided crystal drops, a number of bits of corroded
copper leaf in the shape of lotus flowers, a minute umbrella,
and some folded pieces about 2 inches by 1-3/8, showing traces
of letters or symbols pricked upon them with a metal point, but
too corroded to permit of unfolding or decipherment.

Next, at a slightly lower level on the east side of the shaft,
he came upon a third black stone cover, with an inscription of
eight lines cut on the under surface in a sunk, circular area
in the centre. The lower stone again bears an inscription round
the rim of the cavity in one line--the letters being whitened.
The receptacle was 5-3/4 inches deep, 7-1/2 wide at the top,
and 5 at the bottom. It was also nearly filled with earth, and
contained a crystal phial similar to that in the second, the
lid lying apart; but close to it was the relic casket, perhaps
of chrysolite, less than half an inch each way by
three-eighths, in which is drilled a circular hole 0.28 inch in
diameter, closed by a small, white crystal stopper with
hexagonal top. The neck is covered with gold leaf, and a sheet
of the same was fixed outside to the bottom. This unique casket
contains three small pieces of bone. With it were found a
bluish bead 5/8 inch long, a smaller one, and one of yellow
crystal, a small hexagonal crystal drop, slightly yellowish in
colour, a flat one of white crystal, a bone bead, six pearls,
thirty-two seed pearls--all pierced, thirty lotus flowers, a
quatrefoil, and a small figure of gold leaf.

The alphabet of the inscriptions presents features of peculiar
interest, which I leave to be discussed by Prof. Bühler.--Jas.
Burgess in _Acad._ May 21.

Ν.Β.--Further details are given under the headings "_New
variety of Maurya inscriptions_", and also under "_Buddhist
Stupas in the Kistna district._"

GAUΗATI.--ASSAM.--Mr. Joseph Chunder Dutt has reprinted from
the _Indian Nation_ (Calcutta) an account of an archægeological
visit to Gauhati, the ancient capital of Assam. The temples,
&c., he describes mostly date only from the eighteenth century,
as is shown by the inscriptions which he is careful to quote.
There are, however, many ruins of older buildings and fragments
of sculpture, which would perhaps repay more detailed
examination. The destruction of some of these is due to the
misdirected activity of British engineers.--_Academy_, Feb. 6.
Page 127

PANJAB.--REMAINS OF ANCIENT BUDDHIST TEMPLES.--The _Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society_ for October, 1892, contains a note
in "Ancient remains of Temples on the Bannu Frontier," an
unfrequented part of the Panjab. The ruins of two temples stand
on a hillock rising from the Indus. The tradition with regard
to them is that the Paridwas retired here to spend twelve years
of exile after being defeated by the Kerwá. A short distance
from these ruins is the site of a third temple now completely
demolished. This temple was completely demolished. This temple
was built of bricks of light pressed (?) clay about 12x9x3
inches in size. On breaking some of the bricks they were found
to bear distinctly the impression of tree leaves, and brought
under the influence of a petrifying spring which exists not far
from the spot.

The remains are undoubtedly of great antiquity, and appears to
have been Buddhist temples of the tall, conical kind. Their
Buddhistic origin is made certain by the eight-leafed lotus
ornaments which characterize the carvings.

THIBET.

Mr. Rockhill, who made himself so well-known by his first
expedition to Thibet, is at present engaged in a second
journey, in the hope of this time reaching the capital Lhassa.

The Duke of Orleans and his companion have already published
the results of their journey undertaken shortly after Mr.
Rockhill's first.

CHINA.

THE GAME OF WEI-CHI.--At a meeting in Shanghai of the Chinese
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, M. Volpicelli read a paper
on "The Game of Wei-Chi," the greatest game of the Chinese,
especially with the literary class and ranked by them superior
to chess. Like chess, this game is of a general military and
mathematical character, but is on a much more extensive scale,
the board containing 361 places and employing nearly 200 men on
a side. All of the men, however, have the same value and
powers.

The object is to command as many places on the board as
possible--this may be done by enclosing empty spaces or by
surrounding the enemy's men. Very close calculation is always
essential in order that a loss in one region may be met by
gains in another, thus employing skillful strategy when the
contestants are evenly matched. The game has come down from
great antiquity, being first mentioned in Chinese writings
Page 128 about B.C. 625. It was in all probability introduced by the
Babylonian astronomers who were at that time the instructors of
all the East.--_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1892, p.
421.

CENTRAL ASIA.

EXPEDITION OF M. DUTREUIL DE RHINS.--The _Académie des
Inscriptions_ sent M. Dutreuil de Rhins some time since on an
archæological expedition to Further Asia. Beside the income of
the Gamier fund previously accorded to him for the purpose, it
has accorded him a grant of 30,000 francs. The last news from
him was a report.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 22.

THE ORKHON INSCRIPTIONS.--We quote from the _Times_ the
following report of two papers read before the Oriental
Congress, in the section of China and the Far East:

"A paper was contributed by Mr. E. Delmar Morgan on 'The
Results of the Russian Archæological Researches in the Basin of
the Orkhon in Mongolia.' Mr. Morgan drew attention to a
splendid atlas of plates presented to the Congress by Dr.
Radlof, of St. Petersburg, containing photographs and
facsimiles of inscriptions copied by the members of the
archæological expedition sent by the Imperial Academy of
Sciences to investigate the ruins on the Orkhon. These ruins
comprise (1) the remains of an ancient Uighur town west of the
Orkhon, (2) the ruins of a Mongol palace to the east of that
river, and a large granite monument shattered into pieces.
Excavations were also made of the burial places of the Khans of
the Tukiu or Turks inhabiting this part of Asia previously to
the Uighurs, who drove them out. The earliest inscription dates
from 732 A.D.., and refers to a brother of the Khan of the
Tukiu mentioned in Chinese history. Additional interest
attaches to these inscriptions owing to the fact that some of
the characters are identical with those discovered on the
Yenissei. The expedition to which the paper referred visited
the monastery of Erdenitsu, and found there a number of stones
with inscriptions in Mongol, Tibetan, and Persian, brought from
the ruins of a town not far off. These ruins have been
identified with Karakoram, the capital city of the first Khans
of the dynasty of Jenghiz Khan.

"Prof. Donner wished to present to the Congress a publication
by the Société Finno-Ougrienne at Helsingfors, containing
inscriptions from the valley of the Orkhon, brought home by the
Finnish Expedition in 1890. There are three large monuments,
the first erected 732 A.D.., by the order of the Chinese
Emperor in honour of Kiuèh-Jeghin, younger brother of the Khan
Page 129 of the Tukiu (Turks). On the west side it has an inscription in
Chinese, speaking of the relations between the Tukiu and
Chinese. The Tartar historian, Ye-lu-chi, of the thirteenth
century, saw it and gave some phrases from the front of it. On
all the other sides is a long inscription of 70 lines in runic
characters, which cannot be a mere translation of the Chinese
because it numbers about 1400 words, while the Chinese
inscription contains only about 800. The other monument has
also a Chinese inscription on one side, but greatly effaced. On
the other sides are runic inscriptions in 77 lines at least.
This monument was erected, by order of the Chinese Emperor, in
honour of Mekilikn (Moguilen), Khan of the Tukiu, who died 733
A.D.. About two-thirds of its runic inscription nearly line for
line contains the same as the first monument, a circumstance of
importance for the true reading of the text. The third
monument, which has been the largest one, was destroyed by
lightning and shattered into about fifty fragments. It is
trilingual--viz., Chinese, Uighur, and runic or Yenissei
characters. On comparing the texts they are found to contain
many identical words and forms, proving that the languages were
nearly identical. M. Devéria thinks that this is the memorial
stone which the Uighur Khan, 784 A.D.., placed at the gateway
of his palace to record the benefits the Uighurs had done to
the Chinese Empire. Concerning the characters of these
inscriptions they show small modifications. The tomb
inscriptions at Yenissei seem to be the more original; some
characters have been altered in the Tukiu alphabet and also in
the third monument, representing in that way the three several
nations--the Tukiu, the Uighurs, who followed them, and the
Hakas, or Khirgiz, at Yenissei. A comparison of the characters
themselves with the alphabets in Asia Minor shows that about
three-fourths of them are identical with the characters of the
Ionian, Phrygian, and Syrian [?]. The other part has
resemblances with the graphic systems of India and Central
Asia. We can now expect that the deciphering of these
interesting inscriptions will soon give us reliable specimens
of the oldest Turk dialects."--_Academy_, Sept. 17.

SIMFEROPOL.--At Simferopol Prof. Messelowski has made the most
interesting discovery of a Scythian warrior's grave, dating
probably from about the second or third century. The skeleton
lay on its back facing the east, on the head was a cap with
gold ornaments, and little gold plates were also fixed to
portions of the dress. Near the head stood two amphoræ and a
leathern quiver containing copper-headed arrows. At the feet
were the bones of an ox, an iron knife, four amphoraæ and some
lances--these were in a very rusty condition. The quiver had a
Page 130 fine gold-chased ornament upon it representing a flying eagle
gripping in its talons a small animal. It is admirably worked.
The skeleton itself fell to pieces immediately.--_Biblia_,
Oct., 1892.

SEMITIC EPIGRAPHY AND ANTIQUITIES.--M. Clermont-Ganneau has
published in the _Journal Asiatique_ for 1892, No. 1, a series
of the discoveries and investigations made in Semitic epigraphy
and antiquities during the year 1891. It is the address by
which he opened his course at the Collège de France. He
commences with Phœnicia and notices besides such discoveries as
are reported in the Journal, such books as Goblet d'Aviella's
_La migration des symboles_, which is a comparative study of
Oriental art symbols, and Ph. Berger's _Histoire de l'écriture
dans l'antiquité_, which treats especially of the development
of the Phœnician alphabet. As an original supplement he
describes some antiquities recently sent to him, which had been
found in the necropolis of Sidon, _e.g._, a terracotta head of
Egyptian style; a smaller head of Cypriote style; a statuette
of Bes; two gold ear-rings; bottom of a Greek vase with a
Phœnician inscription; piece of a diorite scarcophagus cover of
Egyptian origin, probably that of a king of Sidon. Another
complete anthropoid sarcophagus from the same site at Sidon has
been sent to Constantinople. Still another sarcophagus of this
type has been found in Spain, at Cadiz, the ancient Gades. Its
importance is incalculable, as it proves for the first time the
passing of the Phœnicians to Spain. Mr. Clermont-Ganneau then
takes up Aramean antiquities and inscriptions, especially those
of Palmyra. Among them are a number secured by the writer
himself; they are three fine monumental funerary inscriptions
and six funerary busts of men and women, two of which are
finely executed and remarkably well preserved; all are
inscribed and several are dated. He notices the publication of
the valuable _Journal d'un voyage en Arabie_ (1883-1884) by
Charles Huber, in which the five note-books of the traveller
are reproduced. It will be remembered that he was treacherously
murdered during his journey. Dr. Euting in his _Sinaïtische
Inschriften_ publishes 67 inscriptions copied by him in the
Sinaitic peninsula. His readings are very careful and accurate.
Three of the texts are dated and are important in view of the
controversy as to the age of all these inscriptions.

Palestine and Hebrew antiquities are very fully treated. M.
Clement-Ganneau reads the famous Lachish inscription ךסהל = _ad
libandum_; he calls attention to hematite weight with an early
inscription found at Sebaste; mentions the vandalism
perpetrated in cutting away the famous Pool of Siloam
inscription, _etc._ He notes the importance of the discovery by
MM. Lees and Hanauer in the subterranean structures at
Page 131 Jerusalem called "Solomon's Stables," of the spring of an
immense ancient arch, analogous to Robinson's arch. It
introduces quite a new element in the complicated problem of
the Jewish Temple. Mr. Wrightson, an English engineer,
concludes that the two arches or bridges formed part of a
continuous system of parallel arches which occupied, between
the two east and west walls, the sub-structure of the entire
southern part of the esplanade of the temple. Mr. Schick's
investigations are carefully noticed. Finally praise is given
to the new publication of the Abbé Vigouroux, _Dictionnaire de
la Bible_.

ARABIA.

A HISTORY OF YEMEN.--The British Museum acquired in 1886 the
MS. of Omârah's 'History of Yemen,' a work of which it was long
feared that no copy was at the present day in existence.
Omârah's 'History' extends over a period of about three hundred
and fifty years. It commences with the foundation of the city
and principality of Zabid in the ninth century, and extends
down to the eve of the conquest by the Ayyûbites in the
twelfth. Mr. Henry C. Kay, a member of the Council of the Royal
Asiatic Society, has prepared the MS. for publication, together
with an English translation, notes and indices. The volume also
contains, besides other similar matter, an account and
genealogical list of the Imāms of Yemen, down to the thirteenth
century, derived from the Zeydite MSS. recently added to the
British Museum library.--_Athenæum_.

COINS OF THE BENU RASOOL DYNASTY OF SULTANS.--Out of the
fourteen sovereigns who composed the Benu Rasool dynasty, we
are in possession of the coins of only eight, and these the
first eight; their inscriptions are in Arabic, and it is by no
means easy to decipher all of them. The mints of these are:
Aden, Zebîd, El-Mahdjâm, Thabat, Sana and Taiz, and each is
characterized by a particular figure, a fish for Aden, a bird
for Zebîd, a lion for El-Mahdjâm, and other symbols. There are
also noticed several coins struck by rebels under the Benu
Rasool dynasty.--_Revue Numismatique_, III s. tom. 10, III
trim. 1892, p. 350.

BABYLONIA.

A BAS-RELIEF OF NARAM-SIN.--At a meeting of the _Acad. des
Inscriptions_ M. Maspero exhibited a photograph of a Chaldean
bas-relief from Constantinople. It was erected by, and bears
the name of King Naram-sin, who reigned over Babylonia about
3800 B.C. Though much mutilated, what remains shows workmanship
of a refined kind. It represents a human figure standing,
Page 132 clothed (as on the most ancient cylinders) with a robe that
passes under one arm and over the shoulder, and wearing a
conical head-piece flanked with horns. The general appearance
strikingly recalls Egyptian monuments of the same date. The
relief is extremely low, the lines clear, but not stiff. There
is no muscular exaggeration as is often the case in the
cylinders. Naram-sin, like his father, Sargon I, has left the
reputation (perhaps legendary) of a great conqueror; a campaign
against Magan is attributed to him. M. Maspero was disposed to
explain the style of the bas-relief by the Egyptian influence.
It differs widely from the sculptures of Telloh, which are less
refined and artistically advanced. But these, though of later
date, come from a provincial town, not from a capital. M.
Menant mentioned that the collection of M. de Clerq contains a
cylinder, also of remarkable workmanahip, with an inscription
with characters of the same style as those on the bas-relief in
question; but it bears the name of Sargani, king of Agyadi, who
is several generations earlier than Sargon I. Both of these are
examples of an art which was never surpassed in
Chaldea.--_Academy_, Oct. 15; _Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 33.

TELLOH.--BABYLONIAN SCULPTURE--The later excavations of M. de
Sarzec at Telloh, in so far as they concern sculpture, are
treated by M. Heuzey in some communications to the _Acad. des
Inscriptions_. M. de Sarzec has reconstructed from some
fragments a series of reliefs relating to King Ur-Nina, the
ancestor of King E-anna-du, who is commemorated in the _stele
of the vultures_. The sculptures of Ur-Nina are of rude and
primitive workmanship and belong to the earliest period of
Babylonian sculpture. The king is represented more than once,
either carrying on his head the sacred basket, or seated and
raising in his hand the drinking-horn. Around him are ranged
his children and servants, all with their names inscribed upon
the drapery. Among them is A-kur-gal, who is to succeed his
father, replacing another prince, his older brother. The
reunion of these fragments has given us an historic and
archæological document of the highest antiquity.--_Revue
Critique_, 1892, No. 44.

At a meeting of the _Acad. des Inscr._ M. Heuzey read a paper
upon the "Stèle des Vautours." M. de Sarzec has been able to
find and piece together several additional fragments, from
which it appears that the name of the person who set up the
pillar was E-anna-du, king of Sirpula, son of A-kur-gal, and
grandson of King of Ur-Nina. He is represented in front of his
warriors, beating down his enemies, sometimes on foot,
sometimes in a chariot, of which only a trace remains. The
Page 133 details of the armor resemble in some respects that of the
Assyrians of a much later date. From what can be read of the
inscription, it seems that the conquered enemies belonged to
the country of Is-ban-ki. There is also mention of a city of
Ur, allied with Sirpula. The pillar was sculptured on both
faces. On the reverse is a royal or divine figure, of large
size, holding in one hand the heraldic design of Sirpula (an
eagle with the head of a lion), while the other brandishes a
war-club over a crowd of prisoners, who are tumbling one over
another in a sort of net or cage. In illustration of this
scene, M. Heuzey quoted the passage from Habakkuk (i. 15),
describing the vengeance of the Chaldeans: "They catch them in
their net and gather them in their drag."--_Academy_, Sept. 3.

THE BABYLONIAN STANDARD WEIGHT.--Prof. Sayce writes: "Mr.
Greville Chester has become the possessor of a very remarkable
relic of antiquity, discovered in Babylonia, probably on the
site of Babylon. It is a large weight of hard green stone,
highly polished, and of a cone-like form. The picture of an
altar has been engraved upon it, and down one side runs a
cuneiform inscription of ten lines. They read as follows:

"One maneh standard weight, the property of Merodach-sar-ilani,
a duplicate of the weight which Nebuchadrezzar, king of
Babylon, the son of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, made in
exact accordance with the weight prescribed by the deified
Dungi, a former king."

The historical importance of the inscription is obvious at the
first glance. Dungi was the son and successor of Ur-Bagas, and
his date may be roughly assigned to about 3000 B.C. It would
appear that he had fixed the standard of weight in Babylonia;
and the actual weight made by him in accordance with this
standard seems to have been preserved down to the time of
Nebuchadrezzar, who caused a duplicate of it to be made. The
duplicate again became the standard by which all other weights
in the country had to be tested.

The fact that Dungi is called "the deified" is not surprising.
We know of other early kings of Chaldaea who were similarly
raised to the rank of gods. One of them prefixes the title of
"divine" to his own bricks; another, Naram-Sin, the son of
Sargon, of Accad, is called "a god" on the seal of an
individual who describes himself as his "worshipper. It is
possible that in this cult of certain Babylonian kings we have
an evidence of early intercourse with Egypt."--_Academy_, Dec.
19.

CATALOGUE OF BRITISH MUSEUM TABLETS.--Stored in the British
Museum are some 50,000 inscribed pieces of terracotta or
clay-tablets, forming the libraries of Assyria and Babylonia.
Page 134 The great impetus given to cuneiform studies has made it
necessary that the tablets should be catalogued, and the
trustees have now issued a descriptive catalogue of some 8,000
inscribed tablets. The inscriptions in question come from the
Kuyuryik Mound, at Nineveh. The tablets embrace every class of
literature, historical documents, hymns, prayers and
educational works, such as syllabaries or spelling-books, and
dictionaries. The catalogues, of which the second is just
issued, are prepared by Dr. Bezold.--_Biblia_, Sept., 1892.

ASHNUNNAK.--M. Pognon, French Consul at Bagdad, has announced
to the _Acad. des Inscriptions_ that he has discovered the
exact location of the region called anciently the land of
Ashnunnak. He declares that he is not yet ready to announce his
discovery more exactly, but publishes several bricks with the
names and titles of several princes of Ashnunnak hitherto
unknown. These are Ibalpil, Amil and Nulaku.

PERSIA.

M. de MORGAN'S RESEARCHES IN PERSIA AND LURISTAN.--In a
communication to the _Acad. des Inscr._ M. de Morgan gives a
report upon his mission in Persia and Luristan, of which the
following are a few extracts. "In the valley of the Lar, I made
a study of the subterranean habitations excavated in the rock
and made a plan of the very ancient castle, Molla-Kölo, which
once defended the pass of Vahné. Finally, in the ravine called
_Ab-é-pardöma_, I discovered in the alluvion some stone
instruments presenting very ancient paleolithic characters. At
Amol, I studied the ruins of the ancient city and gathered some
interesting collections containing quite a number of pieces of
pottery and some bronzes of the xiv century."..... "Near
Asterabad there is a mound called _Khaighruch-tépè_. I
attempted to make some excavations of this point; unfortunately
my work here was arrested by order of the Persian government
just when, after twenty days of working with sixty laborers, I
had reached a depth of 11½ meters. In this excavation I found
some human bones, some pottery, some whorls and some thin
objects composed of bronze much decomposed; all in the midst of
ashes and cooking-debris. At the bottom was a skeleton
stretched upon a very regular bed of pebbles, and I am of the
opinion that _Khaighruch-tépè_ was primitively raised as a tomb
and afterwards served for the construction of a village, the
successive ruins of which coming to increase the importance of
the mound. At a depth of 11½ meters I found more cinders and
debris, indicating that I had not yet come to the level of the
earliest works.".... "The _tépès_ are near together in the
Page 135 eastern part of the Mazanderan and in the Turkoman steppe; but
in the Lenkoran, the Ghilan and the western Mazanderan they are
entirely wanting. It is concluded from this observation that
the people who built here were not aborigines of the north of
Persia, but that their migration moreover has left traces on
the right and on the left of the Caspian. The Scythians of
Herodotus present a very satisfactory solution for the problem
of the Caspian _tépès_".... "From an archaeological point of
view the Lenkoran was absolutely virgin soil and the finding of
the first tomb was not an easy task. Finally, after long and
minute research in the forests, I discovered the necropolis of
Kravelady, composed of dolmens almost completely despoiled, but
in sufficiently good condition to permit me to organize the
natives in research for burial places of the same sort. I at
first encountered much repugnance on the part of the
inhabitants to excavate the tombs; finally, with some money and
very long explanations, I brought them to terms and, thanks to
my tomb-hunters, I found and excavated the necropoli of Horil,
Beri, Djon, Tülü, Mistaïl, Hiveri, _etc._ These tombs present,
according to their age, very different characteristics; the
most ancient and at the same time the largest, contain rude
arms of bronze. Those of the period following show the bronze
well worked, iron, gold and silver being employed as jewels.
Although we saw iron in very small quantities in the tombs of
the second period, it is not until the third that it appears as
the material of arms; at the same time, the jewels take the
forms of animals, which change, as I have shown in the case of
Russian Armenia in my preceding mission, indicates the
appearance of a strange tribe possessed of special arts. During
the last epoch all the arms are of iron. The pottery found in
the tombs is glazed.

"As to the form of the monuments, it is very variable at
different ages; there are some covered passages or chambers
completely closed, some dolmens with openings like those of
India. At the very time when my excavations were attaining
their greatest importance I was compelled to discontinue them
by order of the Russian administration and was obliged to leave
the country, having only made a beginning in archaeology. An
_ukase_ of the Czar reserves the excavations in all his great
empire for the Archæological Society of St. Petersburg. But
this interdict did not arrive until after I had excavated about
two hundred and twenty tombs, so that we now possess more than
fifteen hundred objects, vases, arms, trinkets of gold, bronze,
silver, _etc._

"At Moukri, thanks to the kindness of a Kurd chief, I was
enabled to excavate a tomb which, although it held no objects
Page 136 of value, still contained some interesting relics. I have not
yet been able to assign a date to any of them." .... "During my
stay at Moukri I set up a map on the scale of 1/250000, and
marked upon it all the ruins, mounds and ancient tombs....

"Although blockaded by snow at Hamadan I was able to visit the
ancient Ecbatana and there acquired a small collection of Greek
jewels and Chaldean cylinders. I found no trace whatever of the
ancient palace; they told me that the last debris had been
reduced to lime and that houses had been built over the rest.
On the other hand, the trilingual inscription of the Elvend,
the _Ghendj-nûméh_, is still admirably preserved, but the cold
prevented me from taking a squeeze. After having visited and
photographed the ruins of Dinâver, Kinghârer, Bisoutoun and
several remains encountered on the route, I visited
Tagh-é-Bostan, near Kirmanshahan; I took numerous photographs
and squeezes of the more interesting fragments, like the
pahlavi inscriptions of the smallest monument. At Zohab, I took
the inscriptions of Ler-é-poul and of Hourin-cheïkh-khan, made
plans of the ruins of Ler-é-poul, those of the Sassanian palace
of Kasr-é-Chirîon and of Haoueh-Ruri; drew up a map on a scale
of 1/250000 of the gates of the Zagros, and of the country
around." ..... "Having arrived at Houleilan,..... I found the
remains of a large number of towns and castles of the Sassanian
epoch, besides some very ancient _tépès_. At Chirvan, near the
fort of the Poncht-é-Kouh, are the ruins of a Sassanian town. I
made a plan of it. Near it is a great _tell_ of unburnt
brick...... In the valleys, situated near the plain, in the
passes are some _tells_, and it is near one of them that I had
the good fortune to find more than eight hundred objects carved
in flint. Beyond these _tells_ which guard the frontier of the
Semite border, the Poncht-é-Kouh does not contain a single
ruin. In antiquity, as to-day, it was inhabited by nomads. On
leaving the Poncht-é-Kouh, I entered the valley of the Kukha,
where I encountered numerous ruins. I then advanced into
Louristan, continually finding _tells_, of which the principal
ones are those of Zakha and of Khorremâbâd. ..... Finally
arriving at Susiana, we again found civilization, but also a
country well known and that does not form a part of my
mission."--_Journal Asiatique_, No. 2, 1892, pp. 189-200.

COINS OF THE SATRAPS.--1. Money had been invented and was in
circulation in the Greek cities of Asia Minor almost two
hundred years, when Darius I introduced the daric. The Greek
coins in circulation along the coast had not penetrated far
from the Mediterranean, even the new Persian coinage was used
chiefly in the commerce with the Greeks on the frontier, and
Page 137 for the payment of Greek mercenaries, enrolled in the armies of
the Great King. The interior of the empire, during the whole
period of the Achæmenidæ, continued to employ wedges of
precious metals in exchange. The coinage of the Persian empire
divides into four clearly defined groups, according to the
direct authority of its issue. (1) The coinage of the Great
King; (2) The coinage of the tributary Greek towns; (3) The
coinage of the tributary dynasties; (4) The coinage
occasionally struck for the satraps, chiefs of the Persian
army. It is the last category that is described in the paper
here summarized. The towns then, and the tributary dynasties,
and, under some circumstances, the satraps enjoyed the right to
coin money but only in electrum, silver and bronze; the great
King reserved the exclusive right to issue coins in gold; and
this principle became universally acknowledged, so that gold
effectually became the unique standard of the Persian empire.
The few departures from this rule are not worthy of
consideration. The towns of Asia Minor paying tribute to the
great King continued to issue money, just as they had during
their independence, retaining their own types, and betraying in
no way their subjection. The tributary kings placed under the
surveillance of satraps were allowed various degrees of liberty
in issuing coinage, according to their countries and to their
varying relations to the persian monarch; the dynasties of
Caria, of Cyprus, of Gebal and of Tyre, like the tributary
cities mentioned above, continued their old coinage, while
those of Sidon and of Cilicia placed upon their coins, the
figure of the Achæmenidean prince.

Besides the coinage already mentioned there exists a number of
coins bearing the names of satraps, and the questions are
raised, under what circumstances were these issued, and with
what extraordinary powers was a satrap invested, who was
permitted to issue money in his own name? The theory is
advanced, that the satraps of the Persian empire never held the
right to coin money in their capacity as satraps. All the
instances we have of satrapal coins were issued by satraps
invested with the command of armies. Fr. Lenormant says: "All
the pieces known, which bear the names of high functionaries of
Persia, mentioned in history, particularly those of Cilicia,
should be ranged in the class of military coins; that is, coins
issued by generals placed at the head of armies, on a campaign,
and not as satraps exercising their regular powers." The only
satrapies in which money was coined, before Alexander, are the
following. The sixth satrapy, which comprised Egypt and
Cyrenaica. The fifth satrapy or that of Syria, comprising
Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Phœnicia, Palestine and the island
of Cyprus. The fourth satrapy or that of Cilicia, which
Page 138 acquired in the V century the states north of the Taurus. The
first satrapy or that of Ionia, comprising Pamphilia, Lycia,
Caria, Pisidia, Ionia and Eolis. The twelfth satrapy, known as
the satrapy of Sardis, or of Lydia. The thirteenth satrapy,
known also as the satrapy of Phrygia, which comprised, besides
the coast of the Hellespont, all the central region of Asia
Minor between the Taurus and the Black Sea. This huge province
was divided in the fifth century into the satrapies of Greater
Phrygia, Lesser Phrygia, and Cappadocia.

2. The coinage in circulation in Egypt, during the Achæmenidean
supremacy was all of foreign origin, the staters of the Kings
of Tyre and Sidon and the tetradrachmas of Athens. The commerce
with Greece, and especially the incessant wars in which Greek
mercenaries were largely employed, tended to make Athenian
silver popular in the eastern countries. For the pay of these
mercenaries, the Persians and Egyptians had recourse to silver
money, and especially to those types with which the Greeks were
acquainted. Thus the prevalence of Athenian coins in the Orient
is accounted for by these circumstances. The generals of the
Persian and Egyptian armies made use of the Athenian coins
which had long been in circulation in the country. They merely
imprinted upon the coin of Attic origin a counter-mark to
officially authorize the circulation, and when the original
Athenian coins in the country were insufficient to pay the
troops, they struck off others as nearly like them as
possible--these, however, are easily recognized by the defects
of workmanship and altered inscriptions. One sort has in place
of the Greek lettering an Aramean inscription. On a certain
number of these we find the name Mazaios, the famous satrap of
Cilicia, who undertook to subdue the insurgent king of Sidon.

The imitation of Athenian coins and the coins of Alexander was
continued in Arabia down to the first century of our era. The
Athenian coins were not the only ones copied in Egypt,
Palestine, and Arabia. The coinage of the kings of Sidon were
frequently imitated by the Aramean chiefs, of whom Bagoas was
one. Then, too, the kings of Sidon had supreme command of the
imperial fleet and had the paying of the naval army. Later,
Mazaios, placed at the head of the Persian army, for a time
imitated the Sidonian coins, substituting his name for that of
the Sidonian dynasty. Bagoas, in turn, did likewise.

3. In Phœnicia and northern Syria, which formed the greater
part of the fifth satrapy, a great quantity of coins were
struck off by the tributary dynasties. The kings of Tyre,
Sidon, Gebal, and Aradus had their own coinage, but there seems
to have been no satrapal coinage struck off in Phœnicia. In
Page 139 northern Syria, when Mazaios added this satrapy to his own, he
levied and assembled troops from that entire region; this
accounts for the numerous issues of coins in northern Syria at
that time.

4. The dynasties of Cilicia coined money under the same
conditions as did the cities of Phœnicia, Caria and Lydia. The
chief mint of Cilicia was at Tarsus, but money was also coined
at Soli and at Mallus. About the end of the fifth century a
coinage was issued from these mints which is ascribed to
uncertain satraps. The distinguishing mark of these coins,
according to Mr. Waddington, is the use of the neuter adjective
in ικον, but this theory is not conclusive. Besides these
anonymous coins there were others coined in Cilicia bearing the
names of satraps, who were the envoys of the great king to
raise armies and equip fleets. The satrap Tiribazus employed
the mints at Issus, at Soli and Mallus; the satrap Pharnabazus
established his mints in various cities in Cilicia,
particularly at Nagidus; Datamus also issued coinage in
Cilicia. M. Six holds that Mazaios coined money, not only in
Cilicia, but also in Syria and Mesopotamia, and preserved the
right to a coinage under Alexander, but always in a military
capacity.

5. After the conquest of Alexander, his generals issued coinage
under his name in their satrapal authority. These were the
coins of Alexander, bearing on one side the particular symbol
of the generals who had issued them; there were the eagle of
Ptolemy, the demi-lion of Lysimachus or the horned horse of
Seleucus. Those of the generals who became kings, in 306,
issued coins in their own name, preserving on them the personal
emblems which they had employed in their satrapal authority.
The generals who did not become kings never issued a coinage in
their own names.

6. On the island of Cyprus are found numerous coins which
present all the distinctive signs of satrapal money; they are
believed to have been struck by Evagoras II, the successor of
Nicocles I; but the question arises, Were these satrapal pieces
of Evagoras coined on the island? It has been held that they
were issued from a mint on the continent, in Caria, because the
army of Evagoras was recruited in Asia Minor, and because their
weights are Rhodian, but the form of the letters is Phœnician,
as upon all Cypriote corns; while, on the other hand, in Asia
Minor the Semitic money is inscribed with Aramean characters.
Moreover, all symbols and types which figure on these coins are
essentially Cypriote.--E. BABELON in _Revue Numismatique_,
1892, p. 277.

SASSANIAN COINS.--The Museum of the Hermitage has just come
into possession of the collection of coins of General Komarof,
Page 140 once governor of Russian Turkistan. It consists of more than
two thousand pieces, of which sixty are of gold. The most
remarkable coins of this rich collection are: Four Sassanian
pieces in gold, unpublished, (one of Hormuzd II and three of
Sapor II), a dinar of Nasr I, a dinar of Kharmezi of Tamerlan,
a dinar of Abdallah-ben-Khazim, and about fifty unpublished
Sassanian silver coins.--_Revue Numismatique_, 1892, p. 348.

PERSEPOLIS.--CASTS OF SCULPTURES.--The English archæologist Mr.
Cecil Smith has lately returned from an expedition to Persia.
He had with him two Italian makers of casts, and by their means
has obtained a valuable series of casts of the sculptures of
Persepolis from moulds of a fibrous Spanish paper. Among the
casts are those of a long frieze (perron) which decorated the
stairway of the main hall or "apadâna," erected by Xerxes; it
represents a procession of figures presenting to the king the
reports of his governors and the offerings of his subjects.
Another cast is that of the famous monolith of Cyrus.--_Chron.
des Arts_, 1892, No. 31. We understand that the collection of
casts of the Metropolitan Museum is to receive a copy of all
these casts.

SYRIA.

EDESSA.--HISTORICAL SKETCH.--M. Rubens Duval, the eminent
Syriac scholar, has been publishing in the _Journal Asiatique_
a history of the city of Edessa under the title: "_Histoire
religieuse et litteraire d'Edesse jusqu' à la première
Croisade_", (_Jour. As._ t. 18, No. 1 to t. 19, No. 1). This
monograph has been crowned by the French Academy. It includes a
considerable amount of information concerning the monuments of
the city, especially those belonging to the early Christian
period, and some idea can be gained of them by the following
abridged note. As Edessa was one of the principal cities of the
Christian East, the information is of interest. Edessa was from
its position a fortress of the first rank and reputed
impregnable. The citadel rose on a peak on the southwest angle
of the rampart. At the west end there still remain two columns
with Corinthian capitals, one of which bears an inscription
with the name of Queen Shalmat, daughter of Ma'nu, probably the
wife of King Abgar Ukhama. Within the citadel, on the great
square called Beith-Tebhara, King Abgar VII built, after the
inundation of 202, a winter palace, safe from the river floods,
and the nobles followed his example. In the city itself were
the porticoes or forum near the river, the Antiphoros or
town-hall, restored by Justinian. In 497, the governor of the
city, Alexander, built a covered gallery near the Grotto Gate
Page 141 and Public Baths, near the public storehouse; both the summer
and winter baths were surrounded by a double colonnade. To the
south, near the Great Gate, were other baths, and near them the
theatre. Within the Beth Shemesh Gate was a hospital and
outside it a refuge for old men. North of the city, near the
wall, was the hippodrome, built by Abgarus IX on his return
from Rome. The city had six gates which still exist under
different names.

Edessa is one of the few cities that are known to have had a
Christian church as early as the second century. This church
was destroyed by the inundation of 201, was then rebuilt, being
the only church in the city, suffered from the inundation of
303 and was rebuilt from its foundations in 313 by Cona, bishop
of Edessa, and his successor Sa'd. It was called the Ancient
Church, "the cathedral," also sometimes the Church of St.
Thomas, because in 394 it received the relics of the apostle
Thomas. The Frankish pilgrim woman who visited it at the close
of the fourth century, or later, speaks of its size, beauty and
the novelty of its arrangement. Duval believes her words to
relate to Justinian's building, believing in a later date than
is usually assigned to the above document. In 525 the church
was overthrown by an inundation and then rebuilt by Justinian
in such splendor as to be regarded as one of the wonders of the
world. It was overthrown by earthquakes in 679 and 718.

The other churches were as follows:

370. The Baptistery is built.
379. Church of S. Daniel or S. Domitius, built by Bishop
Vologese.
409. Church of S. Barlaha, built by Bishop Diogenes.
412. Church of S. Stephen, formerly a Jewish synagogue,
built by Bishop Rabbula.
435. The New Church, called later the Church of the Holy
Apostles, built by Bishop Hibhas.
" Church of S. John the Baptist and S. Addasus, built by
Bishop Nonnus (died 471), successor of Hibhas.
" Church of S. Mar Cona.
489. Church of the Virgin Mother of God, built on the site
of the School of the Persians after its destruction in
489.
c.505. Martyrium of the Virgin, built by Bishop Peter early in
VI century.

Outside the walls were the following churches:

Towards the N. Chapel of SS. Cosmas and Damian, built by Nonnus
(middle ν century).

E. Church of SS. Sergius and Simeon, which was burned in 503 by
the Persian King Kawad.
Page 142
W. Church of Confessors, built in 346 by Bishop Abraham,
and burned by Kawad in 503.
Church of the Monks, near the citadel.

The cliffs to the west had been from early times excavated for
burial purposes. In the midst of the tombs rose the mausoleums
of the family of the Abgars, especially that of Abshelama, son
of Abgarus. They were also honeycombed with anchorites' cells.
This mountain received the name of the Holy Mountain and was
covered with monasteries, among which were the following:
Eastern Monks; S. Thomas; S. David; S. John; S. Barbara; S.
Cyriacus; Phesilta; Mary _Deipara_; of the Towers; of Severus;
of Sanin; of Kuba; of S. James. Arab writers mention over 300
monasteries around Edessa. Two aqueducts, starting from the
villages of Tell-Zema and Maudad to the north, brought
spring-water to the city; they were restored in 505 by Governor
Eulogius.

Bishop Rabbulas (412-435) built a hospital for women from the
stones of four pagan temples which were destroyed. He destroyed
the church of the sect of Bardesanes and the church of the
Arians, erecting other structures with their materials. After
the Persian wars (505) Eulogius, governor of Edessa, rebuilt
many of the damaged public monuments. He repaired the outer
ramparts and the two aqueducts; rebuilt the public baths, the
prætorium, and other structures. The bishop, Peter, restored
the cathedral and built the Martyrium of the Virgin, and also
covered with bronze one of the cathedral doors. Justinian
restored and rebuilt many buildings after the inundation of
524-25. Even under the early period of Muhammadan rule the
Christian structures were cared for. Under the Khalif
Abd-el-Malik (685-705) the Edessene Christian Athanasius, who
enjoyed great political influence, rebuilt the Church of the
Virgin, which was on the site of the School of the Persians;
rebuilt also the Baptistery in which he placed the portrait of
Christ sent to Abgarus and placed in it fountains like those of
the Ancient Church, decorating it also with gold, silver and
bronze revetments. He also built two large basilicas at Fostat
in Egypt. There is an interesting account of an artistic
treasure of great value discovered in a house belonging to a
noble family of the Goumêaus in 797 and belonging to the Roman
and Byzantine period; it is supposed to have been hidden in
609. The churches were often destroyed and rebuilt according to
the tolerance or intolerance of the Muhammadan governors. At
one period of persecution, c. 825, a mosque was built in the
_tetrapylum_ in front of the Ancient Church. It is not
important to trace the vicissitudes of the building of Edessa
any further.
Page 143

COINS OF THE KINGS OF EDESSA.--Marquis de Vogué sends to M.E.
Babelon a description of a bronze coin brought from Syria,
found either in the province of Alep or of Damas. It bears the
name of Abgarus, the name of several of the kings of Edessa.
The type is that of the small bronze pieces attributed to
Mannou VIII; the character and inscriptions are the same. It
must then be attributed to a king Abgarus whose reign
approaches as nearly as possible that of Mannou VIII. Mr.
Rubens Duval, in his history of Edessa, mentions two kings of
this name, Abgarus VIII, whose reign cut into that of Mannou
VIII, and Abgarus IX, who succeeded him. It is to one of these
two princes that this coin must be assigned. It is possible
that this monument may shed some light upon a portion of
Oriental chronology, hitherto very dark. Two other coins are
described from M. Vogué's collection, one of which, it seems,
should be attributed to the same king Abgarus as the preceding;
the other bears a name which M. Duval assigns to Abgarus XI,
who reigned for two years during a short restoration of the
government of Edessa.--_Revue Numismatique_, 1892, p. 209.

SINJIRLI.--SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS.--The German Oriental Committee
discovered, as is well known, an ancient city buried under a
number of mounds at a place called Sinjirli in the Amanus
Mountains. Here were found a number of statues bearing cuniform
inscriptions, Hittite inscriptions and two long Aramean
inscriptions of the VIII or IX century B.C.

M. Helévy, the well-known French Orientalist, was sent by the
Paris Institute to the Museum of Berlin, where these statues
are placed, to report upon the inscriptions. M. Helévy finds
that the two kings were rulers of Yadi and that their reigns
were a century apart. The first statue is that of Panémon,
founder of his dynasty--a 40 line inscription relates the
events of his reign, the protection of the Jews, _etc._ The
second is a king who was a vassal of Tiglath-Pilezer, king of
Assyria. The inscription describes wars of his father, his own
relations with Assyria, his defeats and victories. It gives an
account of his own reign and terminates by invoking the
protection of the gods.

M. Helévy says that these inscriptions are not in the Aramean
language, as was first supposed, but a Phœnician dialect very
analogous to Hebrew, which was spoken by the people whom the
Assyrians named Hatte, that is to say, Hittites or Hetheim. He
adds that the current opinion as to their not being of Semitic
race is quite erroneous and that the hieroglyphics discovered
in various parts of Asia Minor are of Anatolian and not of
Assyrian origin, the few texts of this kind found at Hamath and
Page 144 Aleppo being due to Anatolian conquerors, whose domination,
however, was very temporary in character.--_Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society_, 1892, Oct., p. 887.

NAMES OF CITIES AT MEDINET HABU.--Prof. Sayce writes: The list
of places conquered by Rameses III in Palestine and Syria,
which I copied on the pylon of Medinet Habu, turns out to be
even more interesting than I had supposed, as a whole row of
them belongs to the territory of Judah. Thus we have the "land
of Salem," which, like the Salam of Rameses II, is shown by the
Tell-el-Amarna tablets to be Jerusalem, _arez hadast_, or "New
Lands," the Hadashah of Joshua (XV. 37), Shimshana or Samson,
"the city of the Sun" (Josh. XV. 10), Carmel of Judah, Migdol
(Josh. XV. 37), Apaka or Aphekah (Josh. XV. 53), "the Springs
of Khibur" or Hebron, Shabuduna, located near Gath, by Thothmes
III, and Beth-Anath, the Beth-Anoth of Joshua (XV. 59). The
discovery of these names in the records of an Egyptian king,
who reigned about 1200 B.C., raises a question of some interest
for students of the Old Testament.--_Academy_, April 2.

JAFFA.--The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund have
received through Mr. Bliss a squeeze of a long inscription
stated to have been recently discovered at a place not far from
Jaffa, which appears to contain about 250 letters in the
Phœnician character.--_Academy_, March 5.

JERUSALEM.--A BYZANTINE BRACELET.--Mr. Maxwell Somerville of
Philadelphia has added to his collection a large bronze
bracelet found near Jerusalem and bearing a Greek inscription.
It was communicated to the _Acad. des Inscr._ by M. le Blant.
At one end of the inscription is a lion _courant_, at the other
a serpent _rampant_. On the left end is soldered a small round
plaque on which is engraved a subject identical with that found
on some of the amulets published by M. Schlumberger in the
_Rev. des Études Grecques_ (see under _Byzantine Amulets_ in
Greek news of this number). A mounted warrior--whom Mr.
Schlumberger identifies as Solomon--pierces with his lance a
prostrate female figure who apparently represents the devil, a
"Fra Diavalo."--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No. 23.

RETHPANA-DEAD SEA.--Prof. Sayce has discovered at Medinet Habû
the Egyptian name of the Dead Sea. Between the names of Salem
and Yerdano and the Jordan comes "the lake of Rethpana." As the
Dead Sea is the only "lake" in that part of the world, the
identification of the name is certain. Rethpana could
correspond with a Canaanite Reshpôn, a derivative from Reshpu,
the sun-god, who revealed himself in flames of
fire.--_Academy_, May 14.
Page 145

TEL-EL-HESY--LACHISH.--CUNEIFORM TABLET.--We quote from a
letter written to the Times by Mr. James Glaisher, chairman of
the executive committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund:--

The excavations commenced two years ago by Dr. Flinders Petrie
at a mound in Palestine named Tell-el-Hesy have been continued
during the last six months by Mr. F.J. Bliss, of Beirût. The
Tell has been identified by Major Conder and Dr. Flinders
Petrie with the ancient city of Lachish, an identification
which is now amply confirmed.

Mr. Bliss has found among the _débris_ a cuneiform tablet,
together with certain Babylonian cylinders and imitations or
forgeries of those manufactured in Egypt. A translation of the
tablet has been made by Prof. Sayce; it is as follows:--

'To the Governor. [I] O, my father, prostrate myself at thy
feet. Verily thou knowest that Baya (?) and Zimrida have
received thy orders (?) and Dan-Hadad says to Zimrida, "O, my
father, the city of Yarami sends to me, it has given me 3
_masar_ and 3 ... and 3 falchions." Let the country of the King
know that I stay, and it has acted against me, but till my
death I remain. As for thy commands (?) which I have received,
I cease hostilities, and have despatched Bel(?)-banilu, and
Rabi-ilu-yi has sent his brother to this country to [strengthen
me (?)].'

The letter was written about the year 1400 B.C. It is in the
same handwriting as those in the Tell-el-Amarna collection,
which were sent to Egypt from the south of Palestine about the
same time.

Now, here is a very remarkable coincidence. In the
Tell-el-Amarna collection we learn that one Zimrida was
governor of Lachish, where he was murdered by some of his own
people, and the very first cuneiform tablet discovered at
Tell-el-Hesy is a letter written to this Zimrida.

The city Yarami may be the Jarmuth of the Old Testament.

'Even more interesting,' writes Prof. Sayce, 'are the
Babylonian cylinders and their imitations. They testify to the
long and deep influence and authority of Babylon in Western
Asia, and throw light on the prehistoric art of Phœnicia and
Cyprus. The cylinders of native Babylonian manufacture belong
to the period B.C. 2000-1500; the rest are copies made in the
West. One of these is of Egyptian porcelain, and must have been
manufactured in Egypt, in spite of its close imitation of a
Babylonian original. Others are identical with the cylinders
found in the prehistoric tombs of Cyprus and Syria, and so fix
the date of the latter. On one of them are two centaurs
arranged heraldically, the human faces being shaped like those
Page 146 of birds. European archæologists will be interested in learning
that among the minor objects are two amber beads.--_Academy_,
July 9.

The _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund for
April contains a detailed report of Mr. F.J. Bliss's
excavations at Tell-el-Hesy, the site of Lachish, during last
winter, illustrated with several plans and woodcuts. The most
interesting objects found were a number of bronze weapons, and
fragments of pottery with markings, both from the lowest or
Amorite town. Mr. W.M. Flinders Petrie adds a note on the
weights discovered, almost all of which belong to the Phœnician
and Aeginetan systems.

ARMENIA.

SEALS OF KING LEO II AND LEO V.--At a meeting of the _Acad. des
Inscr._ M. Schlumberger communicated three magnificent bulls or
gold seals of Leo II, king of Lesser Armenia. These gold bulls,
appended to letters from this king to Pope Innocent III,
written early in the XIII century, are preserved in the Vatican
archives, and are probably the only examples of the king in
existence. Leo II, in royal costume, is on one side; the lion
of Armenia on the other. Another royal Armenian seal is
preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale. It is that of Leo V,
the last king of the dynasty, who died, an exile, in
Paris.--_Chron. des Arts_, 1892, No, 6.

CAUCASUS.

THE IRON AGE.--M. Ernest Ghautre has given a statement of his
ideas on the iron age in the Caucasus and elsewhere in a
pamphlet entitled, _Origine et Ancienneté du premier age du fer
au Caucase_, Lyon, 1892. He says: "Necropoli of unequalled
richness have been discovered in the Great Caucasus and on
several points of Transcaucasia. These necropoli, in which
inhumation appears to have been almost exclusively used, should
be divided into two large groups. The most ancient corresponds
to the Hallstatt period; the later to the Scythian period in
the East and the Gallic period in the West. The Hallstatt type
or that of the first iron age is met with especially in the
most ancient tombs of the necropolis of Kobau, in Ossethia;
those of the second iron age are to be found essentially in the
necropolis of Kambylte in Digouria and certain localities of
Armenia. The first iron age was introduced into the region of
the Caucasus between the XX and XV century B.C. by a
dolichocephalic population of Mongolo-Semitic or Semito-Kushite
and not of Iranian origin. It was transformed toward the VII
century by the invasion of a brachycephalic Scythian people of
Ural-Altaic origin."
Page 147

ANI.--The Russians are excavating at Ani, in Turkish Armenia,
the ancient capital. They have found some ecclesiastical and
other antiquities.--_Athenæum_, Sept. 3.

ASIA MINOR.

PRIVATE GREEK COINAGE BY REFUGEES.--The Persian kings accorded
to certain illustrious Greeks who had sought refuge in Asia
Minor on Persian territory the right to coin money. To this
they joined the privileges inherent in the title of hereditary
despot which was granted to them. The principal coinages are
those of Themistokles at Magnesia, of Georgion at Gambrium, and
of Euripthenes at Pergamon. M. Babelon read a memoir on the
subject before the _Soc. des Antiquaires_, giving genealogical
details regarding those families of exiles.--_Chron. des Arts_,
1892, No. 16.

COMPARISON OF HITTITE AND MYCENÆAN SCULPTURES.--M. Heuzey has
read before the _Acad. des Inscr._ (Oct. 14) a comparative
study on an engraved gold ring found at Mycenæ and a relief in
the Louvre which belongs to the series of Hittite reliefs and
was found at Kharpout, in the Upper Euphrates region on the
frontier of Armenia and Cappadocia. The relief is surmounted by
two lines of ideographic inscription. The subject on both is a
stag-hunt; the stag is hunted in a chariot, as was always done
before the horse was used for riding, that is before the VIII
century B.C. The relief is a rustic variant of the Assyrian
style; certain details prove it to belong to the IX century.
The stag is of the variety called _hamour_ by the Arabs,
characterized by horns palm-shaped at their extremities. On the
ring the attitudes are far more lively and bold, but the
identity of the subject is none the less striking.--_Revue
Critique_, 1892, No. 43.

HITTITE INSCRIPTION.--M. Menant has communicated to the _Acad.
des Inscr._ (Aug. 7, 1891,) a new Hittite inscription, noted
during the preceding summer, in the pass of Bulgar-Maden, in
Asia Minor. It is in perfect preservation and of unusual
length, and is therefore of great value for the study of the
Hittite language. M. Menant sees at the beginning the genealogy
and titles of a prince, some other of whose inscriptions have
already been found; then an invocation to the patron divinities
of his kingdom; then the main body of the inscription, which
will doubtless be the most difficult to decipher; and at the
close a re-enumeration of the divinities already
invoked.--_Revue Critique_, 1891, No. 35-6.

THE DECIPHERMENT OF THE HITTITE INSCRIPTIONS.--Prof. Sayce
writes: "I have, I believe, at last succeeded in breaking
Page 148 through the blank wall of the Hittite decipherment. Twelve
years ago, with the help of the bilingual text of Tarkondêmos,
I advanced a little way, but want of material prevented me from
going further. At length, however, the want has been supplied,
and new materials have come to hand, chiefly through the
discoveries of Messrs. Ramsay, Hogarth, and Headlam in Asia
Minor. The conclusions to be derived from the latter are stated
in an article of mine which has just been published in the last
number of the _Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la Philogie et à
l'Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes_. Since that article
was written, I have once more gone through the Hittite texts in
the light of our newly-acquired facts, and have, I believe,
succeeded in making out the larger part of them."

As in the languages of Van, of Mitanni, and of Arzana, the
Hittite noun possessed a nominative in _-s_, an accusative in
_-n_, and an oblique case which terminated in a vowel, while
the adjective followed the substantive, the same suffixes being
attached to it as to the substantive with which it agreed. The
character which I first conjectured to have the value of _se_,
and afterwards of _me_, really has the value of _ne_.

The inscriptions of Hamath, like the first and third
inscriptions of Jerablûs, are records of buildings, the second
inscription of Jerablûs is little more than a list of royal or
rather high-priestly titles, in which the king "of Eri and
Khata" is called "the beloved of the god (Sutekh), the mighty,
who is under the protection of the god Sarus, the regent of the
earth, and the divine Nine; to whom the god (Sutekh) has given
the people of Hittites... the powerful (prince), the prophet of
the Nine great gods, beloved of the Nine and of ..., son of the
god. The first inscription of Jerablûs states that "the high
priest and his god have erected "images" to Sarus- * -erwes and
his son. Who the latter were is not mentioned, nor is the name
of the son given. Those who have read what I have written
formerly on the Hittite inscriptions will notice that I was
wrong in supposing that Sarus- * -erwes and his father were the
father and grandfather of the Carchemish king to whom the
monument belongs.-_Academy_, May 21, 1892.

One of the most curious facts that result from my decipherment
of the texts--supposing it to be correct--is the close
similarity that exists between the titles assumed by the
Hittite princes and those of the Egyptian Pharaohs of the XVIII
and XIX dynasties. The fact has an important bearing on which
the monuments of Hamath and Carchemish must be assigned. The
similarity extends beyond the titles, the Hittite system of
writing presenting in many respects a startling parallelism to
that of the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Thus, "word" or "order" is
Page 149 denoted by a head, a phonetic character, and the ideograph of
"speaking," the whole being a fairly exact counterpart of the
Egyptian _tep-ro_, an "oral communication." It would seem as if
the inventer of the Hittite hieroglyphs had seen those of
Egypt, just as Doalu, the inventor of the Sei syllabary, is
known to have seen European writing. This likeness between the
graphic systems of the Hittites and Egyptians has been a
surprise to me, since I had hitherto believed that, as the
Hittite hieroglyphs are so purely native in origin, the graphic
system to which they belong must also be purely
native.--_Academy_, May 21.

ARAMΕΑΝ COINS OF CAPPADOCIA.--M. Six, enumerating all the coins
bearing the names of Datames, mentions only those of the
ordinary type of Sinope, with a Greek inscription. M. Babelon
finds coins of Datames in Cilicia as well, and reads this name
in the Aramean inscriptions which M. Six interprets _Tarcamos_.
The name of Datames is historic, but the reading of M. Six has
not come down to us. The coins in question bear a striking
likeness to those of Pharnabazus, their types being identical.
We know that Datames succeeded Pharnabazus in the command of
the Persian armies, their coins then must have been struck
under the same circumstances and in the same mints, that is, in
the ports of Cilicia where preparations were made for the
expedition against Egypt. Later, Datames was charged with
subduing the rebellious Sinope, here we have an explanation of
the coins of Sinopean type bearing the name of Datames. Why may
not this man be the same whom Diodorus designates satrap of
Cappadocia?

2. There are two similar drachmas, one in possession of the
Cabinet des Medailles, the other in the Waddington collection;
they are Cappadocian coins of the type of Sinope, like those of
Datames. The Aramean inscription on the back of these coins has
been given a variety of interpretations which appear to be
equally possible. M. Babelon, after careful study, fixes upon
_Abrocomou_, the only reading in which we can recognize an
historic personage. Abrocomas was one of the principal
lieutenants of Artaxerxes II and was a colleague of Pharnabazus
in the Egyptian campaign. If we accept this reading of the
drachma's inscription we must infer that Abrocomas became
satrap of Cappadocia, he was in all probability successor to
Datames, his coins plainly of later date; their weight and
their style show that they belong to the older coinage of
Sinope and they are no less certainly anterior to those of
Arianthes, which they somewhat resemble.

3. Arianthes must have been the immediate successor of
Abrocomas, the identity of style, of types and of material in
these coins point to this conclusion. M. Six places two
governors of Cappadocia between Datames and Arianthes, whose
Page 150 names he finds on certain coins. M. Babelon shows that the
drachma which bears one of these names, is a manifest imitation
of the drachmas of Datames; he also points out that the
inscription itself is plainly an alteration of the Aramean name
of Datames. The other name he proves to be a deformation of
_Abrocomas_ and states his belief that neither of these
supposed governors of Cappadocia ever existed and cites other
instances of the imitation of coins and the alteration of
inscriptions.--_Revue Numismatique_, III S. tom. 10. II trim.,
1892, p. 168.

HITTITE LETTER OF DUSRATTA.--Among the 300 letters from
Tell-el-Amarna is one written to Amenophis III by Dusratta,
king of Mitani, the region immediately east of the Euphrates.
The letter which was written on both sides of a clay tablet in
cuneiform characters begins with an introduction of seven lines
in Assyrian, but the remaining 605 lines are in the native
language of Dusratta.

The content refers to an embassy sent from Egypt to ask for the
hand of his daughter and to recognition of his conquests in
Phœnicia. The most important parts are those relating to his
religion and to the affairs of state. We find that the religion
of the Hittites, Armenians and Akkadians was probably the same
as well as their language, which was more nearly akin to pure
Turkish than to any other branch of Mongol speech. Dusratta was
a Minyan and his power seems to have been the chief in Armenia
at this time.

From the letter we find that Dusratta was to receive a large
portion of Phoenicia and Northern Syria, which he was to rule
as a tributary of Amenophis III.

The latter part of the letter refers to the marriage of
Yadukhepa, daughter of Dusratta, to the heir of Egypt, with
assurances of increased renewal of friendship between the
kingdoms.

The letter is especially important because we may obtain from
it, in connection with the letter of Laskondam, also written in
Hittite, many of the forms of the Hittite language, its grammar
and vocabulary of 400 words.

By these it is shown to be clearly a Mongol language, closely
related with the Akkadian, though somewhat later.--_Biblia_,
Sept., 1892.

ANGORA.--At a meeting of the _Acad. des Inscr_. M.J. Menant
exhibited the rubbing of a Hittite bas-relief found at Angora,
which is now at Constantinople. It shows two personages, with
an inscription in Hittite characters by the side of each. One
of them is the god Sandu, to whom a king (with a name not yet
deciphered) is making an offering.
Page 151

APAMΕΙΑ.--CHRISTIAN CHURCH.--Mr. G. Weber has published a study
of the early Christian church of Apameia (_Une église antique à
Dinair_) which he considers to be the earliest of which any
remains exist in Asia; he regards it as having been built under
Constantine,--_Revue Arch._, 1892, 1, p. 131.

KARIA.--TEMPLE NEAR STRATONIKEIA--A large temple of Hecate was
found last year in Caria, near the ancient Stratonikeia (Eski
Hissar). Hamdi Bey, the director of the museum at
Constantinople, has been carrying on excavations. He has
secured about 160 ft. of the sculptured frieze complete, and
has repaired the road to the coast ready for its shipment. A
member of the _École Française_ has been invited by him to
assist him, and the results will be published by the
School.--_Athenæum_, Oct. 1.

SEBASTOPOLIS.--M. Leon, the French vice-consul at Siwas, has
communicated to the _Acad. des Inscr._ the discovery of a
series of Greek inscriptions copied by him, which have enabled
him to fix with certainty the site of the ancient city of
Sebastopolis. They also furnish important information regarding
its constitution.--_Athenæum_, Feb. 27.

A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1" ***

Home