Some years ago I ventured on a reconstruction of the Maussolleum, that was based on the principle of not overlooking the sculptured fragments in a monument of which the great renown was due, according to Vitruvius, to the work of the sculptors who were employed in its decoration: quorum artis eminens excellentia coëgit ad septem spectaculorum eius operis pervenire famam. That it was never published is owing to the uncertainty I felt about the measures of the remaining architectural fragments, which I had not the means to control.

The popularity of wrestling among the Greeks is proved by the constant use of metaphors from this sport and by the frequency with which scenes from the wrestling ring appear, not only in athletic literature and art but also in mythological subjects. Despite the changes in the spirit of Greek athletics caused by the growth of professionalism, which affected wrestling and boxing more perhaps than any other sport, the popularity of wrestling whether as a pastime or as a spectacle remained unabated. On early black-figured vases Heracles is constantly represented employing the regular holds and tricks of the palaestra not only against the giant Antaeus, but against monsters such as Achelous or the Triton, or even against the Nemean lion, and centuries later we find Ovid and Lucan describing these scenes in language borrowed in every detail from the same source.

The following notes and inscriptions represent part of the results of a journey made in the spring of 1904, supplemented and revised on a second visit paid to the same district in the following November. One inscription from Korone, a fragment of the ‘Edictum Diocletiani,’ I have already published (J.H.S. 1904, p. 195 foll.). I have attempted to state as briefly as possible the fresh topographical evidence collected on my tour, avoiding as far as possible any mere repetition of the descriptions and discussions of previous writers.

The literature dealing with this part of Greece is not extensive. I give here a list in chronological order of the more important works in which its geography and antiquities are discussed, and append to each the abbreviated title which I shall use for purposes of reference.

1. At Panderma: small base, broken, ̇08 m. across, letters ̇01.

2. Small fragment of cippus, diam. ̇11, letters ̇02.

3. Pediment (0·24 broad) with radiated bust of long-haired god: below (letters ̇015):

I continue the catalogue of the vases recently acquired by the Ashmolean Museum, the first part of which catalogue appeared in this Journal, vol. xxiv. pp. 293–316. As before, the numbers given to the vases are those which they bear in the slip catalogue of the Museum.

527. R.-f. Krater: the handles joining the body to the mouth. H. 14¼ in.

Decoration on neck, leaves (black) with stalks interlaced.

Obverse. Hermes to r. bearded, wearing chlamys and hat (behind neck), with drawn sword rushing on Argos, also bearded, naked, whose arms and legs are covered with eyes, and who kneels to r. Wreaths of both figures in red.

This paper does not pretend to be the result of original research, but to be rather a compilation of the various identifications of bronze or marble portrait heads as kings of the great dynasties of the Hellenistic period, that different archaeologists have proposed from time to time. In the course of my study of the evolution of later Greek art, I proceeded from studying the series of coins of the Hellenistic dynasties to examine the portraits identified by means of the coins. I hoped by that method to obtain surer ground for the succession of styles in the period. But there is so much uncertainty and often complete contradiction as regards the identification of the portraits, that so far a study of the portraits has yielded little. Many of the heads identified as kings are not kings at all. In fact there exists too great a tendency to believe that every fine individual portrait must be that of a king or some other great man. Private portraits must have been even more plentiful than royal portraits, and as works of art would stand an equal chance of preservation.

In the spring of 1903 I was enabled by a grant from the Craven Fund of the University of Oxford to return to the site of Naukratis. Having left certain parts of the Mounds unexplored in 1899 because they were either too high, or too sodden with the infiltration of water, I intended to attack them whenever the sebakh diggers should have removed the unproductive upper layers, and a season of low Nile level had occurred. The results of this campaign, the last, I expect, that will be undertaken at Naukratis, I embody in the following Report, discussing at the same time certain points on which new light can be thrown from other sources.

The controversy as to the arrangement of the oars in ancient warships has been, in one aspect and with the due exceptions, a controversy between the scholars and the sailors, in which, while the sailors cannot well be wrong on their own ground, the same impossibility hardly applies to their opponents. When the practical seaman points out that superposed banks of oars, in the accepted sense, are a frank impossibility, it is hardly a conclusive reply to tell him that his acquaintance with the authorities leaves something to be desired. It follows, that for anyone who, like the present writer, is convinced that the sailors are right, the real interest of the question is this: does the evidence compel me, or even invite me, to believe in a practical impossibility? If it does, the fact obviously has a very real bearing on the question of the degree of credibility to be attached to ancient history generally; and this seems to me to be the true importance of what has become known as the ‘trireme-problem.’ The object of this paper is simply to examine evidence, and to try to ascertain primarily what quinqueremes and triremes were not, with a view to clearing the ground: the period to be considered ends in effect with Actium, which closes an epoch in naval warfare.

Of all types of Heracles in Greek art, that with the apples of the Hesperides is perhaps the most familiar. Yet in the archaic period it scarcely occurs, and even in the fifth century, though the scene is often represented among the Labours, when accessory figures are consequently present, there are few examples of the hero holding the apples in free sculpture. With the fourth century, however, the subject becomes common, for it is to Lysippus and his followers that we owe the type of the Wearied Heracles holding the apples, which has given rise to the popular conception. That this became the stock representation to the ancient world as to the modern we learn from Suidas καὶ γράφουσι δορὰν λέοντος φοροῦντα, καὶ ῥόπαλον φέροντα, καί γε μῆλα κρατοῦντα. The earliest representation of the type, best known from the Heracles Farnese, appears to be on a tetradrachm of Alexander, and there can be little doubt that its origin is due to Lysippus. The replica in the Pitti bears the inscription ΛΥΣΙΠΠΟΥ ΕΡΓΟΝ.

If any confirmation were required of the evidence supplied by tbe first inscription published in the J.H.S. 1904, as to the ancient name of Dorla, it would be found in the Roman accounts of the siege of Isaura by Servilius Isauricus. Frontinus, iii. 7, 1, says that Servilius compelled the city to surrender from thirst, flumine ex quo hostes aquabantur averso. Now there are very few cases in which such an operation is possible. Three conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the city must be dependent for its water almost entirely on a river flowing through it or close to the wall; (2) there must be open ground on the opposite side of the river towards which the water can be diverted; (3) the operation must not be on so great a scale as to be beyond the power of an army such as Servilius had with him, a comparatively small and rather lightly equipped force, able to cross the Taurus from Cilicia, and operate on the northern flanks of the mountains.