In this paper I am considering two things; the position of Delos as a ‘holy place,’ and the rules of the practice among Greek cities with regard to the grant of a τόπος or site for a stele. From these it follows automatically that the somewhat fashionable dogma of the ‘neutrality’ of Delos is not only (on our present materials) untrue, but is impossible,—it has no chance whatever of being true. It is strange that it should have gained the acceptance it has without any examination of its foundations ever having been made; however, this is so, and it presents rather a striking instance of the effect of mere repetition. Its importance, of course, consists in this, that, if it were true, then the festivals, etc., at Delos can never have any political meaning and we lose our only sure basis for the chronology of the middle of the third century. If this were necessary, one would naturally accept the consequences; the necessity, however, is in fact the other way. I am not going through what others have written; but I have borne in mind Professor Kolbe's argument for Delian neutrality in his drastic reconstruction of this period, a reconstruction which is ingenious, but is unfortunately based on other unsound hypotheses beside the Delian; and I shall notice in their place the four inscriptions with regard to the grant of a site on which he relied as exceptional, but which are really simple illustrations of well-established practice. I am dealing with that practice at some length, as I hope it may possess some interest of its own apart from the theme of this paper, seeing that the rules have never been formulated; but I was glad to find that Professor Wilhelm, who has done so much to elucidate the machinery of setting up decrees, in the two pages which he has incidentally given to the subject, at once noticed what I take to be the important matter, viz. that a question of interstate courtesy is involved.

In the series of copies from Angora inscriptions by Mr. d'Orbeliani there are none for which we owe him a greater debt than those numbered ‘Orb. 41’ (pp. 33–36 of this volume).

They represent, first (Fig. 19), the dedication on the pedestal made for a statue of Ulpius Aelius Pompeianus, benefactor of ‘The Sacred Hadrianic Stage Guild’; secondly (Fig. 20), the full text, engraved on the same stone, of the resolution by which the Guild authorised the erection of that statue and the granting to Pompeianus of other honours. This latter document, thanks to the thirty-four lines added by the new copy, is now the most complete example that we possess of such a psephisma; except for the last three lines and for a few words and unknown names, it can, as the copyist claims, ‘be fully read.’ The text of the dedication (I.G. Rom. iii. 211) and of most of the preamble to the resolution (I.G. Rom. iii. 209) have been known since 1885, but the closeness of their connexion and the sketch of the monument (Fig. 19) are new and welcome data. In view of its importance, recently emphasised by Ramsay, the resolution seems worth repeating in revised form, with the epigraphic copy. Variations between that and the printed text are marked by the usual round brackets, but only a few of the words restored seem to require explanation.

Mr. W. H. Buckler, with his accustomed skill, restores an inscription of Ancyra well known to me. In one point, important for the history of Anatolia, I hold a different opinion; and it seems worth a footnote to his article. He takes ἐν Νεαπόλει as ἐν νέᾳ πόλει interpreting it of the enlarged Ancyra of the second century. The text seemed to me to read clearly ἐν Νεαπόλει τῶν [Πισιδῶν] It belongs to a great family of South Galatia. Neapolis of Pisidia was at Karagatch, near Antioch, where M. Ulpius Pudens Pompeianus made a dedication to Men or Mannes, the god of the Phrygo-Pisidian frontier lands, when he attained the civitas, and took the nomen of the reigning Emperor. Pompeianus as cognomen he adopted perhaps in memory of Pompeius Collega (to whom he was in some way indebted), governor of Galatia c. A.D. 75; but cognomina are often difficult to explain. His son was Ulpius Aelius Pompeianus, who was permitted by the Emperor Hadrian to add his own nomen, a special honour. This wealthy provincial could afford to do what is recorded in the inscription. The entertainment of the Techneitai was done by Ancyra acting as metropolis of the province Galatia, not as metropolis of the tribe Tektosages. The title μητρόπολις τῆς Γαλατίας cannot be explained as if it referred to the tribal Galatia alone.

The invention of Neapolis as name of a new quarter of the growing Ancyra can in no way be justified, so far as I can judge from the now rather voluminous evidence about Ancyra; on this point space precludes further statement. Mr. Buckler in his note on 1. 36 argues that there is no room for a fuller title of Neapolis, but his restoration is too long.

The identification of the Early Helladic civilisation has been the most notable advance made in Greek prehistory since the war. Our knowledge of this earliest Aegean culture on the Mainland is still very fragmentary. But the Louvre has possessed for nearly fifty years a precious document which can now be assigned its true place and sheds an unexpected light on the epoch. It is a gold ‘sauce-boat’ of the form already so familiar in clay at Korakou and Tiryns. Thanks to the courtesy of M. Etienne Michon, Conservator of the Greek and Roman Antiquities, I am permitted to publish this remarkable object (Fig. 1).

Save for the handle, our vase has been beaten out of a single piece of metal. The walls are exceedingly thin, not more than ·3 mm. thick, but, as with the gold beakers from Troy, measuring more at the rim, the edge being ·9 mm. across. The base is cupped to form a ring foot, a procedure also adopted by Trojan and Sumerian metal-workers. The handle is formed by a strip of gold with rectangular cross section, flattened at either end to receive the rivets which attach it to the vase. Its three outer sides are engraved with a herringbone pattern. The complete vessel weighs 125·2 grammes.

Ancient trade between Mediterranean lands and Atlantic Europe was first and foremost a quest by Mediterranean folk for tin, of which the indigenous supplies were insufficient. In this quest the Greeks had a vital interest, in view of the great development of their bronze industry. What actual part did they take in the Atlantic tin traffic?

This question raises two others, which will require a brief notice. From what part of the Atlantic seaboard, and by what route, was the tin fetched?

Fortunately we need not reopen the controversy over the Cassiterides or Tin Islands, which in the common Greek belief were the source of Western tin. This belief was in any case a mistaken one, for in Western Europe there are no tin deposits worth mentioning on any archipelago of islands. Moreover, the discrepancies between the notions of various ancient writers as to their situation suggest that the name ‘Cassiterides’ was applied in turn to more than one of the Western tin districts. We may therefore circumnavigate the problem of the Cassiterides by treating them as a floating expression like the ‘Spice Islands’ of early modern times, and refusing to attach the name specifically to any one metalliferous area.

This paper is intended as a contribution towards the study of only certain Ionian pot fabrics found at Naucratis. I have, therefore, merely drawn attention to the presence of the Bucchero from Lesbos, which demands a much fuller treatment than I am able to give it. I have also only briefly referred to the Clazomenian Black-faced and Pale Slip Ware because this must be studied in connexion with the fragments of the same ware from Daphnae. Throughout the paper in using the name ‘Naucratite Fabric’ I am referring only to the White Slip ‘Chalice Style,’ which may or may not have been made at Naucratis.

In the early eighties of last century, when Professor Flinders Petrie and Professor Ernest Gardner published their account of the first excavations at Naucratis, any strictly systematic classification of the pottery found on the site was practically impossible, owing to the lack of material and data for comparison and identification. Since that date and even since the early years of this century, when Dr. Hogarth made the last excavation of the site, there has been a vast increase in archaeological knowledge and much material is now available. It is in the light of some of this material and this knowledge, especially of that gained from recent excavations either partially or wholly published, that I have ventured to attack the problems presented by the numerous and varied fragments of pottery which were found during the course of both excavations at Naucratis. My studies have had to be limited, practically, to the collections of fragments in the British Museum, the Ashmolean and the Fitzwilliam; but I can safely say, especially in reference to the Naucratite ware proper, that not one single piece of evidence of any real importance derived from accounts of other finds, or from photographs of fragments from other collections, has in any degree refuted, but rather on the contrary has established the conclusions which I had already drawn.

It is hardly necessary to attempt a definition of what is meant by ‘the classical type’ in the body or in the face. Ordinary people know what they mean when they speak of a ‘classical face,’ ‘regular features,’ or ‘a perfectly made man or woman’ as regards the nude figure. Even though such people may have but a slight familiarity with Greek or Graeco-Roman statues and busts, or have never even actually perceived, themselves, the distinctive characteristics of the classical type, they have had it conveyed to them indirectly through the work of modern artists and illustrators of books or advertisements, or even in the attenuated and vulgarised renderings on chocolate boxes. No doubt we are now living in revolt and reaction against this type of beauty and normality, as in the past there have been periodic reactions against the dominance of the classic types, whether in ‘realistic’ or ‘romantic’ movements, throughout the historical development of art since the classical age. The fact, however, remains, that the standards of proportion and inter-relation between the parts of the body and between the features of the human head, as embodied in the classic type, still determine the taste of, at least, the Western world.

As three years have elapsed since the appearance of the last report under this heading, from the pen of Mr. A. J. B. Wace, it is only to be expected that a large amount of material should have accumulated in the interval. The present report attempts to mention all the discoveries, of other than trifling importance, made during 1922 and 1923, together with summaries of such excavations carried out in 1924 as were completed, and of which particulars were available, before the end of August in that year. Naturally it has not been possible to dwell fully on all these undertakings and finds, and where a full report has already been published, I have contented myself with only brief mention of, or at times a mere reference to, the contents. Even so, the author is probably not alone in feeling that this report is unpardonably long. To facilitate reference, the order of arrangement employed in the last report has been retained.

American School

In 1922 Dr. C. W. Blegen continued his excavations of the prehistoric mound at Zygouries near Cleonae, and his discovery of a large store of complete or at least unused vessels of L.H. III. date, and of an adjacent potter's oven, is an important contribution to our knowledge of the domestic wares of this period, as well as an indication of local origin. The other remains of houses were less interesting, but further evidence was obtained with regard to the cemeteries, belonging to almost all periods of the occupation of the site. In 1924, two other sites in the same region, but both of the Classical epoch, were partly explored: at Nemea, where the work will, it is hoped, continue for at least one more season, being financed by supporters of the American School in Cincinnati, a promising start has been made.

The last volume of this Journal (1923, p. 149 sq.) contains a reply to my criticism of Dr. Théodore Reinach's article, ‘Poet or Lawgiver.’ Dr. Reinach calls my criticism long, although it is just half as long as his attempt to destroy a corner-stone of Greek iconography. His own reply is by no means brief: thus in his first footnote he spends twenty-seven words in gibing at my two-word correction (on p. 65, not 59) of one of his misquotations. I shall not follow this example, but shall answer no more than what I think indispensable to caution readers less familiar with this branch of archaeology against Dr. Reinach's irrepressible self-confidence.

Dr. Reinach begins his reply with an ineditum: the mention of a private letter of mine, in which I showed myself so ‘confident’ in the strength of my arguments as to propose that Dr. Reinach should make use of them to write himself a recantation of his essay.' He forgets to add that he had explicitly asked for my opinion, inscribing on the copy of his paper forwarded to me ‘si quid novisti rectius istis.’ I felt justified in taking this appeal seriously, having published, in the course of a quarter of a century, a number of researches into very various questions of the same department. That my advice was sound I still believe. But Dr. Reinach chose to reply even to my printed criticism with the same irresponsibility against which I had to defend a dead scholar of undoubted merit.