[Routes followed: (a) Panderma, Mihallitch, Kermasti, Kavakly, Susurlu, Eski Manyas, Yeni Manyas, Alexa, Panderma; (b) Panderma, Erdek, Karabogha, Gunen, Pomak Keui, Hautcha, Panderma; (c) Soma, Balukiser, Mudania, Brusa.]

1. Panderma, in private possession: stele 0·40×0·25 m., top broken, with relief:—

(1.) Worshipper with sheep; altar; (r.) Apollo standing, with kithara in left hand, patera in right. Below (letters 015):

The relief is of a type very commonly found in the district; cf. J.H.S. xxiii. 87 (39), xxiv. 20 (1), xxv. 58 (13).

When Pandaros treacherously shoots at Menelaos (Δ 132 sq.), the arrow lights—

ὅθι ζωστῆρος ὀχῆες
χρύσειοι σύνεχον καὶ διπλόος ἤντετο θώρνξ·
ἐν δ᾿ ἔπεσε ζωστῆρι ἀρηρότι πικρὸς ὀιστός·
διὰ μὲν ἂρ ζωστῆρος ἐλήλατο δαιδαλέοιο,
καὶ διὰ θώρηκος πολυδαιδάλου ἠρήρειστο
μίτρης θ᾿ ἣν ἐφόρει ἔρυμα χροός, ἕρκος ἀκόντων,
ἥ οἱ πλεῖστον ἕρυτο· διαπρὸ δὲ εἴσατο καὶ τῆς.

A little later, Menelaos says of the same wound (Δ 185-187):

οὐκ ἐν καιρίῳ ὀξὺ πάγη βέλος, ἀλλὰ πάροιθεν
εἰρύσατο ζωστήρ τε παναίολος, ἠδ᾿ ὑπένερθεν
ζῶμά τε καὶ μίτρη τὴν χαλκῆες κάμον ἄνδρες

And Machaon, after drawing the arrow out (Δ 215-6),

λῦσε δέ οἱ ζωστῆρα παναίολον, ἠδ᾿ ὑπένερθεν
ζῶμά τε καὶ μίτρην τὴν χαλκῆες κάμον ἄνδρες.

The word ζῶμα occurs again only in ξ 482, a passage which we will postpone for the moment, and in Ψ 683 of the boxer's girdle, which does not require further consideration.

Comparing the second and third of the passages quoted with the first, it seems perfectly clear that the ζῶμα was a part of the θώρηξ, and not an appendage to it. The word, in fact, stands as a passive to the active correlative ζωστήρ, and means the part of the θώρηξ which was fastened down by the girdle. It is quite clear from the oldest vase paintings that the lower part of the θώρηξ was bent outwards into a sort of ridge all round, in order to make a hollow which should be capable of holding the ζωστηρ in its place. This is very well shown in the woodcut, which is taken from Conze's Melische Thongefässe, Leipzig, 1877. The is expressed by the parallel lines at the bottom of the thorax; this is clear from the Kameiros pinax, where the lines are diagonal, and therefore do not indicate anything in the nature of such a πτερύγιον as we shall presently have to discuss.

[The Honorary Secretaries of the Egypt Exploration have handed us for publication the following summary, drawn up by Mr. Petrie, of the results of his year's excavation at Nebireh. It may serve as an acknowledgment by the Committee of the Fund of the aid already received from the Society of Hellenic Studies; and as an invitation to further co-operation in the future.—Ed.]

The season which is now drawing to a close has been one of great interest in the work here, though of an interest which would scarcely be expected, since not Egyptian but Greek antiquities claim our attention.

The contents of the famous ‘Grotta of Isis’ discovered on the Polle-drara estates at Vulci in 1839 have been generally known to archaeologists ever since the publication in 1844 of Micali's Monumenti Inediti, where a selection of them is given on Pll. iv.—viii., pp. 37—71. The quality however of the drawings there given is very far from answering the present requirements of study: and an adequate publication of these important remains has long been badly wanted. In the course of last year Professor Victor Horsley had a series of elaborate drawings made of some of the principal objects in the tomb, as a present to Professor Montelius. As the latter did not intend to publish the drawings in their elaborate form, Professor Horsley most kindly arranged with Mr. Murray that some of the more important should be presented to the Hellenic Society; it is thus owing to him that the Society is enabled to put this valuable series of drawings within the reach of scholars.

Few English scholars have an exact knowledge of the history, the constitution, and the labours of the German Archaeological Institute, although the existing science of classical archaeology may be roughly said to be a creation of that Institute. So when, some months ago, an authoritative paper by Professor Michaelis of Strassburg, a member of the Central Direction, appeared in the Preussische Jahrbücher, supplying exactly such information on these matters as should be current among us, the Editors of this Journal thought that the opportunity thus offered was one of which advantage should be taken. Accordingly permission was obtained from Professor Michaelis and the Editors of the Jahrbücher to publish in these pages a translation of the article. The translation was undertaken by Miss Alice Gardner; and Professor Michaelis has himself made some additions to the text to fit it more completely for an English audience. [ED.]

Scientific institutions, which take their functions seriously, live a silent life. This is a result of the very nature of scientific work, which in most points of its manifold occupations cannot appeal to a wide public. Only in case of especially important discoveries, or of conspicuous performances, and on festal occasions do such institutions step out of their quiet round of work into public light, and demand the sympathy of wider circles.

The strong point of D. Mirhady's work (hereafter ‘M.’) lies in his interpretation of the rhetorical handbooks (technai). I agree in general with Part III, though admitting my lack of specialist knowledge in this field. To a large extent Part III confirms my observations on procedural law published in 1977 (Beweisführung, quoted supra n. 4). I approve of the opinion that, despite the use of written rather than oral testimony, the formulas, by which the evidence was used, did not change (M. after n. 62, see my recent article in: Die athenische Demokratie, ed. W. Eder [Stuttgart 1995], p. 329 f.). M. states an appealing hypothesis, that the introduction of written testimony did not so much change the procedure as provide the cause for a new handbook on rhetoric to be written, which he suggests was the common precursor to Aristotle and Anaximenes.

While the painter Sodoma was lying ill at Florence, in 1529, his pupil, Girolamo Magagni, nefariously removed from his master's studio a number of objects, a list of which is set forth in a document formerly in the Archivio Notarile at Siena, but now lost. The document, which is an acknowledgment of the return of these objects, was printed by Milanesi, and is repeated by Mr. R. H. H. Cust in his exhaustive work on Sodoma. But as it is nevertheless likely to escape the notice of the classical archaeologist, it seems worth while to extract from the list the descriptions of those objects which were certainly, or may possibly have been antiques. It is perhaps incorrect to speak of the objects as a collection; they were rather a few odd pieces picked up as useful models by a painter who owed more of the qualities of his style than is generally recognized to his appreciation of antique sculpture.

Asia Minor, interposed like a bridge between Europe and Asia, has been from time immemorial a battlefield between the Eastern and Western races. Across this bridge the arts, civilisation, and religion of the East had passed into Greece; and back over the same bridge they strove to pass beautified and elevated from Greece into Asia. The progress of the world has had its centre and motive power in the never-ceasing collision of Eastern and Western thought, which was thus produced in Asia Minor. One episode in the long conflict has been chosen by Herodotus as the subject of his prose epic: but the struggle did not stop at the point he thought. It has not yet ended, though it has long ceased to be of central importance in the world's history. For centuries after he wrote Greek influence continued to spread, unhindered, further and further into Asia: but as the Roman empire decayed, the East again became the stronger, and Asia Minor has continued under its undisputed influence almost up to the present day. Now the tide has again turned, and one can trace along the western coast the gradual extinction of the Oriental element. It does not retreat, it is not driven back by war: it simply dies out by a slow yet sure decay. It is the aim of this set of papers to throw some light on one stage in this contest, a stage probably the least known of all, the first attempts of the Greek element to establish itself in the country round the Hermus. Tradition has preserved to us little information about the first Greek settlements. The customary division into Aeolic, Ionic, and Doric colonists is not a sufficient one. Strabo clearly implies that there was a double Aeolic immigration when he says (p. 622) that Cyme founded thirty cities, and that it was not the first Aeolic settlement; in another passage (p. 582) he makes the northern colonists proceed by land through Thrace, the southern direct by sea to Cyme. I hope by an examination of the country and the situations, never as yet determined, of the minor towns, to add a little to the history of this Southern Aeolic immigration, in its first burst of prosperity, through the time when it was almost overwhelmed in the Lydian and Persian empires and was barely maintained by the strength of the Athenian confederacy, till it was finally merged in the stronger tide of Greek influence that set in with the victory of Alexander. More is known of Myrina, and still more of Cyme, than of any of the other towns: but both are omitted here, because it may be expected that considerable light will be thrown on the history of both by the excavations conducted on their sites by the French School of Athens. Till their results are published, it would be a waste of time to write of either city.

The British Museum has long been in possession of a limestone stele from the Cypriot village of Salamniou, some 12 miles north-east of Kouklia (Old Paphos). It has been published—save in one particular—very adequately (B.M. Catalogue of Sculpture no. 430). It is excellently illustrated by the photograph here reproduced (for which I am indebted to the kindness of Professor Ashmole); and I can usefully comment only upon the inscription which fills somewhat chaotically the pediment above the naked archer. The Catalogue is content to reproduce for this inscription a text of Deecke (SGDI 41) over which we need waste no time whatsoever: as Deecke himself very soon saw (Bezz. Beitr. xi 317 f.), he had read it backwards, not in the characteristic direction of the fifth and fourth century Paphian signary, but from right to left.

In JGS xxxii (1990), a volume devoted to the Portland vase, the sections on the discovery of the vase (85-102) and on the interpretation of its frieze (130-6) are jointly contributed by Kenneth Painter and David Whitehouse (hereafter P. and W.), who refer at some length to my own published views on these problems, but only to dismiss them as untenable. The purpose of this note is to show why they have not persuaded me to change my mind on either.