^{page 56 note 2} Mus. Cap. Cat., Stanze terr. a sin., i, I.

^{page 56 note 3} Helbig, Füher (3rd Ed.), 766.

^{page 56 note 4} Ἐφημϵρὶς Ἀρχαιολογική—referred to below as Ephemeris—1914, 70 seq. figs. 1–9.

^{page 56 note 5} Beschreibung der Bildwerke der christl. Epochen (Berlin, 1909) iii, 1Google Scholar, no. 21.

^{page 56 note 6} The corresponding silver objects, known under the names of lanx or 'discus, have been collected by A. Odobescu (Le Trésor de Petrossa, 173, 483, 500–502), who measured one as large as 1·10 m. in diameter.

^{page 56 note 7} For a reference to the Chicago fragment I am indebted to Mr. A. W. Laurence, and for a photograph to Miss Doris K. Wilson. It wrs first published in the Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago, xvii (1923), 38Google Scholar, and afterwards treated by M. Michon in the Bull. Soc. Antiq. de France, 1923.

^{page 57 note 1} Roeder, G. und Ippel, A., Die Denkmäler des Pelizaeus-Museums zu Hildesheim (Berlin, 1921) 160Google Scholar, nos. 1811, 1812, 1813.

^{page 57 note 2} I am indebted to Professor Roeder, of Hildesheim, and Professor Schroeder, of Berlin, for their kind permission to publish fragments i–vi; and also to M. Lunsingh-Scheurleer for the photograph of fragment vii and for his kind permisiion to publish it.

^{page 57 note 3} Bocconi, Settimo, Musei Capitolini (Rome 1914), 41Google Scholar, no. 11.

^{page 57 note 4} Catalogue … of the Museo Capitolino, l.c.

^{page 58 note 1} Beschreiburg der Bildwerke d. chr. Ep. iii, i, nos. 22, 23; plate III.

^{page 58 note 2} The resemblance of style and subject between the Berlin fragment no. 23 and the Hildesheim fragment no. 1811 is obvious. The ass on the Berlin fragment is treated in exactly the same way as that on the right side of the Hildesheim fragment, particularly in the peculiar shape of the mouth and the treatment of the eye and the hoof, where the drilling has been done in the same manner. The elongated astragalus moulding is the same in both cases, and the measurements, for which I am indebted to Prof. Roeder (Hildesheim) and Dr. Volbach (Berlin), correspond. The height of the sculptured frieze on the Hildesheim fragment varies between 0·096 m. and 0·098 m., that of the frieze on the Berlin fragment is 0·097 m. excluding the edges. As both fragments were found in Egypt, we may assume that, even though they do not fit together, they belonged to the same bowl. The scene represents the hunting of asses. Two men, accompanied by a dog, are seen approaching from the left and carrying on their shoulders an ass, with its legs tied to a pole—the end of the scene, the beginning of which shows a herd of asses galloping away. For the large female head see below, p. 62 f.

^{page 59 note 1} Probably also on the Stuttgart fragment (Ephemeris, 1914, p. 77, fig. 14); the kneeling woman, offering water to a panther, seems to point in this direction.

^{page 60 note 1} Drexel, F., ‘Alexandrinische Silbergefässe der Kaiserzeit,’ Banner Jahrbücher cxviii (1909), p. 192Google Scholarsqq. and 218: ibid. p. 196 sqq. and 227 seq. Of the very common hunting scenes, frequently connected with grave-imagery, I need only mention one instance which provides a parallel to the carrying of dead game on a pole, see Espérandieu, Receuil, ii, 1704Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 2} Drexel, l.c. p. 179 sq.

^{page 60 note 3} Catal. of the Bronzes, no. 884, fig. 25; Catal. of Silver Plate, no. 76, pl. xii.

^{page 60 note 4} Garrucci, , Storia vi, 461.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 5} l.c. p. 180.

^{page 60 note 6} Compare Déchelette, Les vases céramiques ornés de la Gaule romaine ii, p. 93Google Scholar, no. 561 and 1063, the latter of which depicts a nude fisherman.

^{page 60 note 7} Kaiser Friedrich Museum; cf. Beschr. der Bildwerke d. chr. Epochen, iii, 1, no. 22, pl. iii.

^{page 60 note 8} Stephani, Comptes-Rendus, 1878, p. 147 seq. pl. vii, I.

^{page 60 note 9} Stephani ascribes this dish to the second or third century.

^{page 60 note 10} l.c. ii, p. 42.

^{page 60 note 11} l.c. ii, p. 41.

^{page 60 note 12} Cf. Déchelette, l.c. i, pl. XII, 2 and ii, p. 42 sqq.

^{page 60 note 13} l.c. ii, p. 88.

^{page 60 note 14} l.c. ii, p. 94.

^{page 61 note 1} l.c. ii, p. 61.

^{page 61 note 2} There are, however, actual analogies on pottery: e.g. the satyr attacked by a lion on Berlin 1658 resembles Déchelette no. 390 (l.c. ii, p. 66) and the other satyr armed with a spear is paralleled by Déchelette nos. 627 (l.c. ii, p. 103) and 627a, although he has become a bestiarius and his subligaculum may be plainly seen. Déchelette no. 629 (l.c. ii, p. 04) may be useful for the reconstrction of the lost part of the original group.

^{page 61 note 3} Catalogue of the Silver Plate in the Brit. Mus. no. 190.

^{page 61 note 4} See below, p. 63.

^{page 61 note 5} I do not see why the Catalogue of the Capitoline Museum speaks of a ‘female centaur.’ Attention should be drawn to the close resemblance between the Chiron and the Sagittarius of the Zodiac as it is usually represented. Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Zodiacus (F. Cumont).

^{page 61 note 6} l.c. no. 189.

^{page 61 note 7} Cf. Déchelette l.c. ii, p. 198.

^{page 61 note 8} Cf. Brüning, , ‘Ueber die bildlichen Vorlagen. der Ilischen Tafeln,’ Arch. Jahrbuch, 1894 (ix), P. 154Google Scholar sq.

^{page 61 note 9} l.c. ii, p. 212, fig. 76.

^{page 62 note 1} Ephemeris 1914, p. 76 seq. Others, known previously, are given by M. Michon, l.c. nos. 6, 7, 10, 12, 26, 29.

^{page 62 note 2} l.c. p. 208 sqq.

^{page 62 note 3} e.g. on a patera in the Brit. Mus.; Cat. of Silver plate, no. 137, pl. xx–xxi.

^{page 62 note 4} e.g. a patera in the Museum of Vienna (cf. Rev. Arch. 1903, i, p. 31) and a recently discovered bowl from the treasure of Traprain in the Nat. Mus. at Edinburgh. The mask with a modius on the too of the head and a caduceus in the back-ground probably indicates an Alexandrian version of Mercury-Serapis. The bowl is of Alexandrian origin (cf. Curle, , Treasure of Traprain, Glasgow, 1923, p. 41Google Scholar sqq., fig. 20, pl. xx).

^{page 62 note 5} e g. a patera in the museum of Belgrade (cf. Rev. Arch. 1903, i, p. 26) and a bowl in the Brit. Mus. (cf. Cat. of Early Chr. Antiquities, no. 357).

^{page 62 note 6} cf. Ephemeris, 1914, p. 77.

^{page 62 note 7} cf. especially Ephemeris, 1914, p. 261.

^{page 62 note 8} cf. Reinach, Rep. d. Rel. ii, p. 233.

^{page 63 note 1} Curle, Treasure of Traprain, p. 45, pl. xxiii.

^{page 63 note 2} Röm. Mitt. 1906, xxi, p. 370Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 3} ibid. p. 83.

^{page 63 note 4} Catal. of Silver Plate, no. 190, fig. 50.

^{page 63 note 5} Curle l.c. p. 108.

^{page 63 note 6} Cf. Knorr, R., Töpfer und Fabriken verzierter Terra Sigillata des I. Jhrdts. Stuttgart, 1919, p. 87, pl. 93a.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 7} Haverfield, , Roman Britain in 1914. (Brit. Academy Supplemental Papers, iii), pp. 19, 20.Google Scholar I have to thank Miss M. V. Taylor for kindly calling my attention to this example.

^{page 63 note 8} Cf. e.g. Winnefeld, H., ‘Hellenistiche Silberreliefs’ 68, Winckelmannsprogramm, Berlin, 1908Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 9} Ephemeris, 1914, p. 76, fig. 13.

^{page 63 note 10} Furtwängler, Antike Gemmen, taf. xl, 48.

^{page 64 note 1} Cf. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke, p. 527, i; also on architectural friezes; cf. photograph, Moscioni, Roma, no. 777.

^{page 64 note 2} Ephemeris, 1914, l.c. fig. 2.

^{page 64 note 3} Déchelette, l.c. i, p. 229 seq., fig. 136, 137.

^{page 64 note 4} ibid. p. 231, fig. 140.

^{page 64 note 5} Drexel, l.c. pl. xi, 2.

^{page 64 note 6} Rev. Arch., l.c.

^{page 64 note 7} Cf. Déchelette, l.c. p. 231, fig. 140; and the head of Apollo on the patera at Vienna.

^{page 64 note 8} e.g. in the Niederbieber dish the upper head on the right.

^{page 64 note 9} Ephemeris, 1914, p. 71, fig. 2.

^{page 64 note 10} ibid. P. 82. sqq.

^{page 64 note 11} Even allowing that the arrangement of the hair does not exactly correspond with that employed in the fourth century, yet there does seem to be a certain similarity, and it is possible that this contemporary fashion did assist the change.

^{page 65 note 1} Ephemeris, l.c. fig. 13–14. The fragments belong to one bowl, as Dr. Goessler informs me. Measurements: band of relief, with edges and astragalus: 0·127 m.; without: 0·10m.

^{page 65 note 2} Ephemeris, l.c. fig. 12. Three fragments of one bowl, as I am informed by Prof. Watzinger. Measurements: band of relief, with edges and astragalus: 0·13 m.; without, 0·095 m.

^{page 66 note 1} Cf. Rubensohn, O., Hellenistisches Silbergerät in antiken Gipsabgüssen; Berlin, 1911Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 1} Cf. e.g. the Capitoline tensa in the Palazzod. Conserv., Röm. Mitt. xxi (1906), pl. xviiGoogle Scholar, xviii.

^{page 67 note 2} Catalogue, Koptische Kunst, no. 9039, pl. xxvi.

^{page 67 note 3} Certain late reliefs in Rome, as e.g. the relief with chariot-races let into the pedestal of the Juno in the Rotonda of the Vatican Museum (Alinari 26957), might be compared but, as nothing is known about their origin, they may just as well be of Eastern as of Roman origin, and a comparison would be of no use for the dating or provenience of the Capitoline rim.

^{page 67 note 4} Cf. Wulff, O., Altchristl. u. byzanttn. Kunst, i, p. 143Google Scholar; Dalton, Byzant. Art and Arch., p. 51.

^{page 68 note 1} Wulf, , Beschr. d. Bildwerke d. christl. Epochen, iii, I, no. 21Google Scholar; Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin; Xyngopoulos, Ephemeris, 1914, p. 76, note 2; Archäol Anzeiger, 1913, p. 254, fig. 4; M. Michon, l.c.

^{page 68 note 2} Ephemeris, 1914, p. 76, note 2.