At v. 94–5 Herodotus has often been accused of combining into a single war events separated in fact by half a century. At v. 81–9 and vi. 87–93 his critics take a different turn. He here presents us with three wars between Athens and Aegina, one (v. 82–8) in remote antiquity, another (v. 81 and 89) about 505 B.C., and another (vi. 87–93) between 491 and 490: and it is sometimes asserted that he has here split up a single war and scattered its parts over some twenty years, or even over several centuries.

Since Schliemann's earliest excavations almost seventy years ago the problem of dating the successive layers of remains at Troy has constantly engaged the serious attention of the interested archaeological world. At first it was hardly more than a subject for speculation, since in the early ‘seventies’ little comparative material was available from other sites and the internal evidence was insufficient for safe chronological conclusions. Schliemann himself thought that the ‘burnt layer,’ first called Troy III, and later equated with the final phase of Troy II, represented the ruins of the citadel of Priam; but his discovery in 1890, at a much higher level in a stratum of Troy VI, of considerable numbers of Mycenaean potsherds made a revision of this dating imperative. It was, however, left to Professor Dörpfeld, after Schliemann's death, to ascertain definitely in two further campaigns of excavation, in 1893 and 1894, that the Sixth and the Seventh layers were those of settlements coeval with the Mycenaean Age, and that they could therefore safely be assigned to the second half of the second millenium B.C. Professor Dörpfeld also put forward the view, which met with general acceptance, that Troy VI was the Homeric stronghold besieged and captured by the Achaeans under the leadership of their sovereign Agamemnon.

Properly speaking, these are only a few thoughts arising from this wonderful voyage into history and life I am anxious to put before you. Perhaps more effectively than it would have been in a more ordinary way, we have been faced on this journey by this boat with one great and important fact about the history of the Greeks: the most intimate and closest possible connection of Greek civilisation with the Greek Sea, the Mediterranean in the widest sense of the word. First and last it is the boat, the sailing-boat, that is the very foundation of all the culture in Greece. In these last few days we have seen all the islands rearing themselves from the sea, creating large isolated unities, independent geographical territories. Every one of them, where populated, simply postulates the boat as a means of intercourse. The boat it is that has been linking them together—which created a Greece in ancient times as well as in modern. And one thing more: most of the islands have difficult landing-places. There are no skerries, no small islands or islets which could shelter the coast. From this also follows the necessity of shaping strong, sea-going boats, as the ocean itself creates hard conditions.

At the north-west corner of the island of Naxos is a very small hamlet on the shore, which is called Apollonia. It consists of a score of poverty-stricken houses and a small quay, and is inhabited mainly by fishermen. It is a difficult landing in rough weather, and the small bay on which the hamlet stands affords little shelter.

On a slight rise about 100 feet above the hamlet, but near to it, is a small marble quarry which is ancient. Not far off on the same rise is a small modern marble quarry, no longer in use, but quite recently worked. At the small quayside are jetties specially made for the use of the quarry-workers and for the export of marble from the quarry. The ancient quarry-workers probably used the same small bay for the export of their marble.

Professor Myres has been the chief agent in inducing English archaeologists to appreciate the significance of the Danubian province for Greek prehistory. Since his first paper in Science Progress, 1896–7, he has frequently discussed in a stimulating manner the relations between the two areas. In his latest pronouncement he not only shews how political considerations have affected the interpretation of the relevant facts, but has stated in an unequivocal way the essential conditions for an objective decision between two contrasted views: ‘not only continuity of material on a series of sites, but coherence of styles within a chronological scheme.’ Six years ago both desiderata seemed far from fulfilment. The Danubian province was still separated by the Balkan wall from the Aegean; not even its relative chronology was clear. Subsequent discoveries by Heurtley in Macedonia and by Fewkes in the Morava valley have substantially reduced the gap between the two provinces in one direction. Even on the Middle Danube Banner and Tompa have established a provisionally acceptable cultural sequence. At the same time fresh comparative material has been made available beyond the Aegean which must affect any interpretation of Danubian-Aegean relationships. A re-examination of some of the issues might then appropriately be dedicated to the far-sighted savant who first inspired my own interest in the Danube valley.

The ancient world had three chief types of loom, the horizontal ground loom, the vertical loom with upper and lower beams, and the vertical loom with warp weights. The third is the subject of this study, but for a clear understanding of it the character of the other two looms must be understood, and diagrams of all three types are therefore included.

The horizontal ground loom is the older of the looms of Ancient Egypt. It is known to us already from a painting on a dish of the Predynastic period, but our chief knowledge of it comes from Tomb scenes and models of the twelfth dynasty.

The word ‘tradition’, used to mean either the process of oral transmission or the story so transmitted, may cover two things: the oral relation from man to man of real events with the possible value of such traditions for history, and this amounts to the study of what is called folk-memory, or the transmission of legends dealing with such supernatural happenings as no one is likely to regard as true. This paper deals exclusively with the latter.

We read and are taught from our childhood legends of the gods and heroes of Greek and Roman mythology, to say nothing of the legends of our own northland. These legends are set down in books, but it is reasonable to ask what relation these written stories bear to what in earlier ages was actually told and more or less believed by people in different parts of the country concerned and at different periods. How far was a legend always told in the form in which we happen to find it recorded? We are, I believe, too prone to look upon a legend as having been always a fixed and so to say canonical story, although we have in fact no lack of hints that legends admit of the widest variations.

This unique amphora (Plates 7 and 8) was recently presented to the Cyprus Museum by Wing-Commander O'Brien Hubbard of Kyrenia, who saved it from the hands of illicit diggers and dealers. It is with special pleasure that I am now publishing it in the volume of the Annual of the British School at Athens which appears in honour of Professor J. L. Myres, the founder of Cypriot Archaeology, to whom the Cyprus Museum in particular owes a debt of deep gratitude.

Parmi les civilisations préhistoriques du sud-est de l'Europe, que les fouilles et les recherches effectuées depuis la guerre nous ont fait le mieux connaître, on peut ranger aussi la civilisation du type Gumelniţa. La station qui a donné son nom à cette civilisation a été identifiée dès 1921, et fouillée par nous-même en 1925; c'est une des nombreuses stations de ce genre de la vallée inférieure du Danube roumain. A vrai dire, la civilisation identifiée dans ces stations était déjà connue auparavant, sous le nom de civilisation énéolithique des tells bulgares. Cependant, comme les fouilles méthodiques pratiquées en Roumanie ont démontré que ces tells comprennent des restes appartenant à deux et parfois même à plusieurs civilisations préhistoriques différentes, le besoin s'est fait sentir de donner à chacune des civilisations identifiées un nom différent. Aussi le nom de la station de Gumelniţa a-t-il servi pour désigner la civilisation à laquelle appartenaient toutes les stations similaires, tandis que la civilisation plus ancienne, qu'on retrouve généralement au-dessous des premières couches du type Gumelniţa—mais qui n'avait pas été exactement située, au point de vue stratigraphique, dans les fouilles bulgares—a pris le nom de civilisation Boian A, d'après la station où elle a pu être relevée isolée, et bien définie comme telle.

The passage in Herodotos which above all others is written as if to provide a test on their own ground of the historical application of archaeological discoveries is v, 88, 2: ᾿Αττικὸν δὲ μήτε τι ἄλλο προσφέρειν πρὸς τοἱπόν μήτε κέραμον, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ χυτρίδων ἐπιχωριέων νόμον τὸ λοιπὸν αὐτόθι εῖναι πίνειν The archaeological results of the victory of Argives and Aiginetans over Athenians are given thus:—

(1) The change of dress in Athens from Doric to Ionic.

(2) the νόμος made by the Argives and Aiginetans, that their pins should be increased to half as large again;

(3) that these pins should be dedicated in the sanctuary of Damia and Auxesia;

(4) that no Attic pot should be brought into the sanctuary.

Il y a bien près d'un siècle que l'attention des archéologues fut attirée par des coupes de bronze ou d'argent, parfois doré, découvertes d'abord à Nimroud puis à Chypre. Dès 1855 Fr. Lenormant émit l'avis que les coupes de Nimroud étaient d'origine phénicienne.

En 1876, une tombe au voisinage de Palestrina fournit un véritable trésor: objets en or, argent, electrum, argent doré, ivoire, bronze et fer, parmi lesquels deux coupes l'une anépigraphe en argent doré, l'autre en argent avec inscription phénicienne. Le tout fut attribué à l'art phénicien par Helbig. Fr. Lenormant fut également d'avis que la plupart des objets portaient la marque de l'industrie phénicienne et plus spécialement carthaginoise. La coupe de Palestrina en argent doré fut brillamment expliquée par Clermont-Ganneau, du moins quant à la frise principale: prince sortant en char de sa ville fortifiée pour aller chasser le cerf dans la montagne, sacrifice aux dieux, attaque par le génie de la montagne figuré en singe, rentrée dans la ville fortifiée.

Professor Myres has helped his students and fellow-workers to see the bearing of one subject upon another, and to suggest social factors of archaeological sequences and links between archaeological data and distributions of human types. His is not a mind that is compartmented, it ranges vividly and rapidly over wide fields, and suggestive thoughts spring forth in quick succession, often to be accepted, always to stimulate further work. It therefore seems appropriate to offer here, as a tribute to him, a review of some aspects of the problems of the distribution of rough stone monuments, a subject which, sometimes half unconsciously, he has on occasion illuminated with flashes of intuition and acute criticisms that have helped to lift thought on the subject out of certain ruts into which it had been inclined to sink.

In the No-man's land between Aegean and Euphrates we find in the second millennium B.C. a monster unknown in earlier times. Without antecedents it succeeded in penetrating the homeland of monsters, Mesopotamia, where it became so thoroughly acclimatised as to outnumber within a few centuries all but the most vigorous native breeds. It also played an important part in the religious imagery of Minoan Crete and in the decorative art of Mycene, whilst occasionally penetrating Egypt and Anatolia. Its appearance suggests an aptitude to insinuate itself: the leonine body ends, not in the blunt head of the great cat, but in a tapering bird's head; and the threat of the formidable beak is masked by a graceful crest.

During the joint excavations carried on from 1929 to 1934 by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the American School of Prehistoric Research in the caves of the Wady el-Mughara in Mount Carmel, many burials were found in the Natufian (Mesolithic) deposit of the big cave known as the Mugharet el-Wad. In addition to scattered human fragments, there were forty-four skeletons in varying stages of preservation, of which thirteen were found inside the cave, and the rest in the terracedeposit in front of the cave-mouth. Of these burials thirty-four belong to the Lower Natufian stage, three to the Upper Natufian, and the rest, although undoubtedly Natufian, cannot, owing to the condition of the deposit, be assigned with certainty to one stage or the other.

In an article entitled ‘A contribution to the Topography of northwestern Greece’ Professor J. L. Myres and Canon C. M. Church published the papers of General Sir R. Church and the sketch-maps of his aide-decamp, Colonel Jochmus, which related to the 1828–9 campaigns in the Greco-Turkish War. In elucidating these campaigns they were able to define the salient features of an area, in which no topographer had travelled since Colonel Leake in 1809; and they laid the basis for a further study of Demosthenes' campaigns in Amphilochia in 426 B.C. During my travels in Amphilochia I was much indebted to the work of Professor Myres and Canon Church; it is therefore an honour and a pleasure to publish my results in a volume dedicated to Professor Myres.

One of Professor Myres's outstanding activities within the present decade has been in the re-founding of the old tradition of International Congresses in prehistoric archaeology and in anthropology. Prehistorians of many lands have cause to be grateful for the facilities thus afforded them for getting to know one another better, and for the interchange of facts and ideas, and never more so than when the subject has been one to which Professor Myres himself has contributed. Those subjects are notoriously many, but from the International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences held at Oslo in 1936—the second of the new series—I recall with especial vividness his contribution, following those of Professors Childe and Menghin, to the discussion on the paper read by Mr. R. W. Hutchinson on Aegean Battle-axes. And it is a great pleasure to be able to turn to my notes—such as they were—of what he said that morning, as a startingpoint for my brief tribute in this volume to the inspiration of his manysided genius.

En ma qualité de membre de la Société d'Histoire Turque, j'ai assumé la direction des fouilles exécutées depuis 1935 à Alaca-Höyük, au nom et par ordre de ladite Société. Quiconque désire suivre la marche générale de ces travaux, pourra puiser tous renseignements utiles dans nos rapports détaillés y afférents. Les rapports concernant les travaux effectués en 1935 et 1936 ont déjà paru. Celui destiné à faire connaître les résultats importants de l'année 1937, 1938 et 1939 est en préparation.

Unstratified finds from prehistoric sites are not without value, provided that something is known of their place of origin. Lacking a pedigree, they still have, as it were, a passport; and any of them that belongs to a civilisation inadequately represented in this country deserves a welcome. I have, therefore, taken this opportunity of introducing a group of early West Anatolian vases which has for many years been in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge; the moment is appropriate, for, had they been published sooner, when their home was more unfamiliar to us than it is now, they would have been less informing; while to delay their presentation might involve their eclipse by rivals with fuller credentials.

―ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς χερσὶν οῖον περιδεξίως με φονεύοι παντὶ σθένει ὡς occurs in Attic tragedy in these three passages, and apparently nowhere else in Classical literature.

On the passage in the Ajax, the earliest of the three, the Scholiast comments:―ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς χερσὶν οῖον περιδεξίως με φονεύοι παντὶ σθένει ὡςΔίδυμος ἤ ὁ στρατός με φονεύοι φονεύοι λαβὼν τὰ δίπαλτα δόρατα, ὡς Πῖός φησιν information which Suidas repeats in a slightly abbreviated form without reference to authorities. That is, there were two lines of interpretation, one literal, ‘with a spear in each hand’, as is plainly shewn by the reference to Φ 162–3 implied by περιδεξίως (περιδέξιος there can only be the equivalent of the metrically impossible ἀμφιδέξιος, a meaning recognised in AP xii. 247, an epigram with a Homeric flavouring) and one figurative ‘with might and main’ (διπλῇ χειρὶ καὶ πάσῃ δυνἁμει as Schol. Tricl. puts it). The meaning attached by Pius to δίπαλτος escapes us, since he may equally well have meant ‘spears brandished in each hand’ and ‘spears brandished mightily’, (i.e. ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς χερσίν without the defining περιδεξίως) but his comment implies that the weapon was assumed to be the spear. This is what the verb πάλλειν would in the first instance suggest to a Greek, since where weapons are concerned Homer uses it exclusively of brandishing a spear or stone.