The material published here is the Greek pottery from levels 5 to 9. This falls into two groups: that from levels 5 to 7 and that from levels 8 and 9. Within these groups there was evidently much disturbance, and bits of the same vase are frequently found in several levels. Even between the two main groups such overlaps occur, and there are pieces which, though they do not join fragments in the other group, seem out of context; but in the main the division between levels 7 and 8 seems significant, and I have treated the two groups separately while merely recording differences of level within them. Pl. I, m and n come from level 4 with Attic red-figure pottery, which is plainly an accident. I am only able to publish a small proportion of the pottery, and have tried to combine a general conspectus of the material with the reproduction of most of the outstanding pieces. For some classes—e.g., black Ionian cups and jugs, and to a great extent bird-bowls and the like—I have relied on references to identical material published elsewhere.

οὐ παλαιὸν εὕρημα λύχνος. ‘The lamp is not an ancient invention.’ The words of Athenaeus (15, 700e) have often been quoted. The lamp was familiar to Minoans and Myceneans, but it died out, and does not reappear till the seventh century. In the dark age that intervened, the Greeks, as Athenaeus goes on to say, used the light of the torch and of other pieces of wood: φλογὶ δʾοἱ παλαιοὶ τῆς τε δᾳδὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ξύλων ἐχρῶντο. There is only one mention of a lamp in Homer: in Odyssey 19, 33–4 Athene, unseen, lights Odysseus and Telemachos with a lamp: ‘Pallas Athene went in front with a golden lamp, making a very fine light’:

According to a modern writer, ‘the lamp is significantly of gold, and in the hands of Athena, it is therefore something rare and costly, or to speak historically, something new’: but I confess I cannot see how this follows from the text.

‘It is a tempting suggestion that it was the engravers of such texts—that is, either the sculptors themselves or the engravers employed by them—who were the pioneers of the new style’ (see below, Notes I, II and IV). This passage in Austin's book encourages me to say that every study of the early stoichedon documents of Attica must begin with the dedication of Nearchos signed by Antenor (see Note III). When considered in connexion with all known examples of the period, this inscription assumes a significance which is not apparent when it is studied in connexion with the list which Austin has recorded (p. 7), intentionally incomplete as that list is (see Note IV). The ‘lamentably fragmentary state’ of the greater part of these private dedicatory inscriptions (Austin, p. 64) cannot deter us from a careful examination which leads, as a rule, to the reconstruction of the monuments as well as to reasonable restorations of the inscriptions.

The clear distinction between dedicatory inscription and artist's signature is no peculiarity of the monument signed by Antenor, though the fact that both inscriptions are stoichedon, with the stoichoi independent of one another, shows the fully developed stoichedon style, as does the disregard of the syllabic division (see Note V).

It was suggested to me by Mr. T. J. Dunbabin that the question of Attic B.F. export might be treated by grouping chronologically—as far as possible, for the sake of convenience, in twenty-year periods—the Attic B.F. ware hitherto found at various sites. This method of grouping differs slightly, of course, from that of Payne, and I have not found it possible to adhere strictly to it throughout (e.g., for the middle of the sixth century), but it perhaps serves as well as any other for the purposes of what aims at being an economic rather than a purely archaeological survey.

Throughout the paper only the earliest finds from any one site are listed. Although this method may well seem to give an undue importance to certain sites which were apparently but scant importers of the ware, it would be impossible—within the scope of such a paper—to give exhaustive lists of the finds of every date.

The orthodox date for Solon's archonship, 594/3, was undisputed until the discovery of the Athenaion Politeia; then two passages in this treatise cast doubt upon this date and introduced further problems. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider these two passages and to show that the Ath. Pol. in fact gives the date of Solon's archonship, during which the Seisachtheia was enacted, as 594/3, and gives the date of a second commission, during which the Nomothesia was passed, as 592/1; and I shall then consider how far the narratives of Plutarch and Aristotle imply that Solon held two separate commissions. My paper accordingly falls into two sections: the chronological data, and the Seisachtheia and the Nomothesia.

I have long suspected the 500 elephants of Ipsus, as the number is too remote from anything else known. Omitting these, the largest force of elephants which Greeks ever saw in action was the 200 of Porus; the largest force which any Greek ever commanded was the 120 or there-abouts which Eudamus brought to Eumenes; the largest force which any king is recorded on good authority to have possessed is the 150 of Antiochus III. The number which Alexander (who never used them in battle) collected in India cannot be ascertained; but the uniformly modest numbers which, Eudamus' force apart, figure in the history of the Successors before Ipsus show that he cannot have brought away from India anything approaching 200. The vast figures attributed by various writers to Indian kings and peoples may be neglected, though doubtless Chandragupta, reckoning in the forces of his vassal kings, did control a large number. I have now by accident stumbled on something which certainly will explain the number 500 attributed to Seleucus; it remains to be seen whether the explanation be the correct one. I am not claiming to give an exact proof that it is, but there is a very high degree of probability. I had better indicate the proposed explanation first before coming to the Greek evidence about Seleucus.

When discussing the date of the Adonia at Alexandria I stated, on the authority of Dr. F. Heichelheim, that an unpublished papyrus in the Rylands collection connected Adonis with the late-Ptolemaic month Gorpiaios. P. Petrie 3.142, which Glotz had shown to relate to the Adonia, gives the 7th of an unnamed month as the date, and, assuming the month to be supplied by the Rylands papyrus, I placed the festival on one of the first days of September. After further study of the Rylands papyrus Dr. Heichelheim now thinks that it contains no mention of Adonis, and this combination therefore falls to the ground. A date in the late summer or early autumn is in my opinion sufficiently established by the other evidence, and as my argument is therefore not much affected, I had intended to withhold this correction until publication of the Rylands papyrus enabled me to supply a precise reference to it. In the present circumstances, however, it seems desirable to place it on record now.

The American excavations in the agora at Athens, while solving many problems, have left others unsolved, and have even raised unsuspected difficulties. One of the most important points of dispute is the identification of the Stoa Basileios. H. A. Thompson's theory that the winged building at the north end of the west side was both the Basileios and the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios seems to me to be the most convincing solution, though, as he says, the present state of knowledge does not leave the problem finally settled. Even if one sets aside the complicated topographical, chronological and sculptural evidence, the balance of which probably favours Thompson, certain recent rival claimants to the title Stoa Basileios are open to grave doubts on the ground that they were not stoas in the normal classical sense of the word.

During a fortnight's trial excavation, which I made at Methymna in 1929, certain fragments of sigillata came to light. These obviously required treatment by an expert, and Mr. Pryce most generously undertook to examine and publish them. As a prelude to his paper, I add a short note on the circumstances of their discovery.