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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The object in Fig. 1 is a circular medallion of sheet gold embossed with Jewish symbols recently presented to the Jewish Museum, Woburn House, Upper Woburn Place. In the centre is the seven-branched candlestick familiar on Jewish monuments of antiquity. With it are associated, as usual, the Shofár or Trumpet of horn, and the luláb or ritual sheaf of palm leaves, etc., used on the Festival of Tabernacles. The representation of the luláb here is somewhat angular, so that it is not easy to recognise. For such medallions cf. Reifenberg, Denkmäler der Jüdischen Antike pl. 56 and for the symbols, Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum.

Above the symbols is inscribed in Greek letters of late date: |ΠΙΝΝωΝΑ. ‘ Ex voto of Jacob the Leader (?) the setter of pearls.’ The word ἀρχηγὁς may perhaps be used in the sense of , the president of the community, but such a use is unfamiliar; indeed the word does not seem to occur in Byzantine Greek. Mr. Tod has kindly suggested that it might be the dedicant's alternative name, like Dorcas—Tabitha, since such a name as “ΑρΧων is possible, πιννωνᾶ will be the genitive of a word πιννωνᾶς, also an unexampled word, but one which appears correctly formed. The strange genitive in -ᾶ follows correctly a usage in Byzantine Greek in names of trades ending in -ᾶς.

While collecting information about the early history of Kythera I recently came across a short communication from Leake in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Vol. IV (new series), 1853. It is in the form of a letter to the Secretary, and entitled ‘ Some remarks on the Island Cerigo, anciently Cythera,’ and reproduces an extract translated by Mr. Hamilton from a Memoir on the island sent to the latter by Mr. Calucci, an inhabitant of Kythera, on Oct. 3rd, 1849. On p. 4 he gives a copy of an inscribed stone found at Palaiopoli (Scandeia) which he describes thus: ‘ A small rectangular piece of hard white stone, one inch (sic) in length and ten lines thick; its lower surface has deep cuttings in it so as to form five half cylinders. On the upper surface, which is highly polished, is the inscription in five lines represented in the annexed drawing (Fig. 2). The measurement given appears impossibly small and must be a mistranslation of the original Greek (or Italian).

The paper is known to Pauly-Wissowa. Weil (AM v, 1880, pp. 293 f.) mentions it and copies the late Greek inscription also illustrated there, but takes no notice of our inscription, and no scholar interested in Minoan or early Asia Minor scripts seems to have any knowledge of it. Some, but not all, of the signs are found in the Minoan linear script, a few also in the Cypriote syllabary.

From Mrs. A. D. Ure's exhaustive review of my Attic Black-figured Lekythoi in the last volume of JHS (57, pp. 263–5), I realise that for the sake of brevity I must often have been less clear than I ought to have been, so that certain passages in my book call for explanation.

‘ The dearth of material for the years following 530 ’ (‘JHS’ 57, P. 264) is only apparent. There is the Phanyllis class (ABL 63–8), which belongs roughly to the period 520–500, although examples occur both before and after; it was placed at the end of its chapter for the sole reason that the stuff is second-rate, and therefore less important, and not because it is later than Other items in this chapter and the foregoing one. On the contrary, it covers a long space of time.

We should turn to ABL 16–8 and 35–7 to see the points from which these groups start. Their terminus ante quem is given on pp. 63–8: in these pages I discuss the groups at the last possible moment—I admit—but they do not deserve a better treatment. The larger, chief types tack on to such lekythoi as Athens 371 and London B 571 (see ABL 63 and 36) in style and decoration, as well as in date. The lesser ones are followers of such small lekythoi as the ‘ fat runner ’ group (offshoot of the Dolphin class): for some examples see ABL 17, below; the groups themselves are discussed on pp. 66–8.