^{page 10 note 1} ‘E.G.’, often mentioned in this article, was the Paris dealer Edouard Geladakis. Perhaps I may be allowed to correct an error in ARV: I took ‘E.’ of Collection M.E. to be the same man: but I now remember Mr. Plaoutine telling me that ‘E.’ was E[vangelos Triantaphyllos] and not E[douard Geladakis].

It is hardly by chance that Geladakis owned so many vases of our group or near it: they may all have come from a single tomb, or adjacent tombs.

^{page 11 note 1} AJA 1943, 457.

^{page 11 note 2} AJA 453–4; on the date, Süsserott Gr. Plastik des 4. Jahrhunderts vor Christus, 69–72 and 205–6.

^{page 11 note 3} On the reading and date, Süsserott op. cit. 74.

^{page 11 note 4} AJA 1943, 454.

^{page 12 note 1} In 17 and 18 the device, obscure in the photographs, is a small white quatrefoil: Dr. Caskey has kindly sent me drawings by Miss Chapman.

^{page 13 note 1} Bologna 45 (Pellegrini VF 19), cited by Miss Haspels (ABL 168), does not belong to this group.

^{page 13 note 2} On these see CV Oxford 31 on pl. 40, 10 and Miss Talcott in Hesp. 4, 490 and 517–18. Michigan 4667 (CV pl. 20, 1) is a special fourth-century model.

^{page 14 note 1} On B, a naked youth seated to r.

^{page 14 note 2} On almond vases see Pottier and Reinach Myrina 229, Mercklin, in Anz. 1928, 330–2Google Scholar, Robinson and Harcum Gk. Vases at Toronto 263, Robinson, C.V. Robinson i, 56 on pl. 47, 1Google Scholar, Mercklin, in Anz. 1935, 143–4.Google Scholar Add to the plain standard almonds: Oxford 1938. 314, from Al Mina (one side is covered with impressed palmettes, the other is pitted as usual); Copenhagen inv. 1225 (CV pl. 175, 3); Cambridge 35. 9; Koenigsberg 96; Amsterdam, Six, 21; London market (Ready; mentioned in Vente Ready 49 no. 325). I have not seen Berlin 4138. The New York almond is figured in Cesnola Coll. ii pl. 149, 1101. Yale 173 (Baur 114) has a squat-lekythos mouth of cavetto type instead of the normal amphoriskos-mouth; so has the one-handled almond Oxford 340 (CV pl. 40, 16). In the only other one-handled almond known to me, Bowdoin 23. 21, the mouth is of the same amphoriskos type as in the plain standard almonds, but of different make; the body, which is reserved (or white?), has vertical striations in the middle, with impressed patterns above and below. The almond Louvre MNC 638 (A. Courby Vases grecs à reliefs 487 fig. 103) is attributed by Courby to ‘an Asiatic workshop influenced by those of Pergamon’: it is fourth-century and doubtless Attic.

^{page 14 note 3} Scales form part of the decoration in an almond which is not connected with our group, Athens 2323 (N. 1261: Anz. 1928, 331, fig. 52). This would seem to be by a painter of askoi, cf. for example Cambridge 4. 1890 (CV pl. 39, 2). According to Mercklin, the almond Munich inv. 2256 goes with Athens 2323. It is worth enquiring whether some of the small perfume-vases with the body in the shape of a cockle-shell may not have come from our fabric. In one of them, Hamburg 1900. 506 (Anz. 1928, 334 fig. 55), the mouth, by its shape, and because the lower half of it is reserved, recalls the miniature Panathenaics: but there is nothing else to go on, and it would be unwise to press the claim. In other cockle-shells the mouth is of regular pointed-amphoriskos type and there is nothing to connect the vases with our group: so in Würzburg 652 (Langlotz pl. 205), in its fellows from the Paris market (Geladakis: Coll. E.G. pl. 6, 149) and in the Petit Palais (CV pl. 47, 409), and in Louvre inv. Myr. 596 (Pottier and Reinach 229 fig. 33), presumably also, from Mercklin's description (Anz. 1928, 337) in Mayence O. 12383. Toronto 608 (Robinson and Harcum pl. 95) is decorated with scales, but the scales are not of the same kind as in our scale-vases. The form of these vases and others of various designs and periods (Mercklin in Anz. I928, 334–7; Robinson and Harcum Gk. Vases at Toronto 263; Mercklin in Anz. 1935, 144) may have been suggested to the potter by the use of real shells, especially cockle-shells, to hold pomades: at Carthage Father Delattre found a real pectén shell fitted with a bronze ring and hinge to form a box (Carthage. Nécr. Punique de la Colline de Saint-Louis 32, 6); at Taranto, Drago found another fitted with three rings for the same purpose (NSc. 1936, 186–7) see also Pottier and Reinach Fouilles de Myrina 245–6, and Jacobsthal Mel. Reliefs 116: I do not know whether traces of the contents have ever been noted, and pomade is only one possibility—dry cosmetics and tiny trinkets are others. A fourth-century shell-vase of silver, provided with a hinge and a handle, from Himera or Catana, is in Berlin (inv. 30038: Stephanos Wiegand 14).

A special group of Attic shells is formed by (1) Oxford 338, (2) Leningrad, , from Kerch, (Otchët 1902, 56 fig. 102Google Scholar, whence Pl. 5, 19 a–b), (3) Salonica inv. 376 (R. 392) from Olynthos (Robinson, Olynthus 7 pl. 52)Google Scholar, (4) Amsterdam inv. 1883, from Egypt (CV III N and K pl. 2, Pays-Bas 40, 7, (5) Paris market (Geladakis), from Greece (Coll. E.G. pl. 6, 161): the front is not shell-shaped, but bears a bearded head in low relief—in nos. 1 and 2 of Boreas; in the rest, of Dionysos. Two handles. Nos. 2 and 3 have a squat-lekythos mouth, no. 5 an amphoriskos-mouth, if it belongs. Nos. 3 and 4 were put together by Robinson, (Olynthus 7, 100–1)Google Scholar; no. 1 also, for when he writes ‘Oxford CV pl. 47, 15’ he means Oxford 338 which is unpublished.

^{page 16 note 1} Cairo 26207 (Edgar pl. 12) which she also adds, does not seem to belong to our group: an alabastron in Taranto, from Ceglie del Campo, might be connected with the Cairo: it has a wide-meshed net, with a long white drop in the middle of each diamond; above, an ordinary egg-and-dot.

All these net alabastra are to be kept apart from the fifth-century alabastra, also decorated with net-work, which have been put together by Miss Haspels and assigned to the Emporion painter (ABL 167–8 and 263–4). Add to her list vases in Bari, Ferrara (T. 65), and Leningrad, (Otchët 1905, 65 fig. 85Google Scholar). See also p. 18, note 1.

^{page 16 note 2} There are not very many Attic alabastra of clay in the second half of the fifth century or the fourth: the need was supplied by alabastra of alabaster and glass. It occurs to me that a class of small alabastra the decoration of which is a black wreath with white berries might possibly be connected with our group. The white is set directly on the clay, and three of the vases (nos. 3–5) have white dividing lines.

1. Cambridge 182, from Athens. CV pl. 29, 12.

2. Berne 2441.

3. Once Carlsruhe, Vogell, 169. Sg. Vogell pl. 3, 25.

4. Ferrara, T. 1047, from Spina.

5. Ferrara, T. 1047, from Spina.

Boehlau compared the Vogell vase with a small squat lekythos in the Vogell collection, 155. The decoration consists of ‘a big laurel-wreath with white berries’.

I have not seen this, and it is not reproduced, but there is another squat lekythos that goes with the alabastra: it bears a black wreath, without berries; the black of neck and handle was obtained by dipping; the mouth, which would have helped to date it, is missing:—

London 1914. 7–9. 2.

^{page 18 note 1} A squat Iekythos in Corinth is decorated with network, but does not belong to our group. It has the pronounced shoulder not uncommon in squat lekythoi of the second and third quarters of the fifth century, and the style of the net reminds one of the Emporion painter and his net alabastra (see p. 16, note I ).

^{page 18 note 2} On this type of cup-skyphos see CV Oxford pp. 30, 42, and 119 on pl. 48, 3, 6, and 44 and pl. 65, 21; Hesp. 4 p. 502, 12, and 14, and p. 504 fig. 22 (Talcott). There are a few rf. examples: Bologna PU. 349 (Heydemann Mittheilungen aus den Antikensammlungen in Ober- u. Mittelitalien pl. 1, 1) is late fifth-century; Salonica inv. 319 (R. 273: Robinson, Olynthus 5 pl. 123Google Scholar) is fourth-century, probably the second quarter; the rest are decorated glaux-wise with owl and olive-branches. The type needs a name, and might be called Boisai after Bologna and Salonica.

^{page 19 note 1} On skyphoi of this exaggerated shape see Thompson, Homer in Hesp. 3, 319Google Scholar, A 26. One in Delphi, (FD 5, 164 fig. 687)Google Scholar comes from a tomb which Perdrizet seems to date in the fifth century (ibid. p. 12) or the beginning of the fourth (ibid. 167) but which is evidently well on in the fourth.

^{page 19 note 2} Four other rf. vases were found in the cemetery, all fourth century, and none of them early fourth century (Jacobsthal, in JRS 29, 100–1).Google Scholar Jacobsthal dated the Theseus krater (A, JRAI pl. 67, 4) about 320–310, which seems to me too late. I cannot separate it, either in shape or in style of drawing, from the symposium krater found in the same tomb (ibid. pl. 67, 1–2). The reverse of the Theseus krater is not reproduced: but the reverse of the replica in the Louvre (CV e pl. 8–9) is very like that of the Filottrano symposion krater.

The Filottrano Group, as it may be called, consists of the following bell-kraters, which may all be by one hand:—

1. Ancona, from Filottrano. A. Dall'Osso 249, 1; A, JRAI 67 pl. 17, 4. A, Theseus and the Bull. B, youths.

2. Salonica, fr., from Mekyberna, . AJA 1935, 231.Google Scholar A, Theseus and the Bull.

3. Louvre G 526, from Campania? Millin 1 pl. 43; CV e pl. 6, 8–9. A, Theseus and the Bull. B, youths. Much restored.

4. Baltimore, Prof. Robinson, D. M.. CV iii pl. 17Google Scholar, 2. A, symposion. B, youths.

5. Ancona, from Filottrano. A, Dall'Osso 250; JRAI 67 pl. 17, 1–2. A, symposion. B, youths.

6. Würzburg 635. A, Sg. Vogell pl. 3, 20; Langlotz pl. 213. A, Grypomachy. B, youths.

Robinson rightly compared no. 4 with the somewhat earlier bell-krater Louvre G 523 (CV e pl. 5, 9–10): this is no 10 in my list of vases by the Black-Thyrsus painter (ARV 879). He also compared the bell-krater Salonica R 137 (Robinson, Olynthus 5 pl. 82)Google Scholar, which which we may place the fragment of a replica, Salonica R 134 (ibid. pl. 81): these are among the latest vases found at Olynthos. The vases of the Filottrano Group cannot be much later than they, which would point to a date between 350 and 340 for the two kraters from Filottrano. Jacobsthal tells me that he does not hold to his. late-fourth century date.

Other rf. vases found at Filottrano are the Campanian, bell-krater JRAI 67 pl. 17, 3Google Scholar, and the oinochoe, of some Italian fabric, ibid. pl. 30, 1: neither can be earlier than the two Attic kraters. Jacobsthal adds two unpublished Attic vases a lekanis and a pelike, both fourth century (JRS 29, 101).

^{page 20 note 1} Breccia (Sciatbi 48) speaks of Cairo 26204 (Edgar pl. 12) as coming from Alexandria, but all Edgar says is that it was bought there.

^{page 20 note 2} For example in the Oedipus vase London E 696 (ARV 838 no. 48).

^{page 20 note 3} In Bonn 345 and 1705 (CV pl. 26, 1 and pl. 26, 2) the mouth is very nearly a simple cavetto: Greifenhagen's date, c. 400, seems too early.

^{page 21 note 1} There are three other squat lekythoi in which the network is confined to the back: the front is painted white and decorated with a frontal head, apparently female, in low relief; in no. 2 pink and green details are added. The neck of the vase is white. The rosettes and palmettes that set off from body and neck are common in plastic vases of the fourth century.

1. Würzburg 650, from Eretria. Langlotz pl. 205.

2. Louvre MNB 1331.

3. Leningrad, from the government of Kiev. Otchët 1904, 105, fig. 195, whence PL. 5, 20.

The three are replicas. Langlotz thought the Würzburg vase might be Boeotian: the Louvre replica seemed Attic to me, and it must take the Würzburg with it. The provenience of the third vase speaks for Athens against Boeotia.

There is no special reason for assigning these vases to our group.