The fragments collected on Plate VI. were found in 1888 in the excavations on the Acropolis—near to the south wall beyond the stratum of poros débris. (). I am not able to offer a complete restoration of the design, nor to explain with certainty all details, but the extant fragments are of such great artistic and archaeological importance that it seems desirable to publish them at once, without waiting either for such explanation or for a detailed examination of the mythography involved.

I owe to the courtesy of M. Kabbadias permission to make the publication. The drawing is by M. Gilliéron, kindly supervised by Dr. Wolters, after I left Athens. To him is therefore due the present restored position of the fragments.

The vase was obviously a cylix, the designs of both interior and exterior being painted on a white ground. The necklet and bracelet of the female figure, the head-bands of both, and other portions in slight relief and now coloured red, once bore gilding. The subject and main outline of the—most important—interior design are happily clear. Orpheus (ΟΡΦΕϒ) to the right sinks on one knee to the ground; his left hand no doubt supported him.

The immediate publication of the results of an extensive excavation is sometimes very difficult, often impossible. In the present instance the nature and quantity of our discoveries was not such as to preclude this possibility, and therefore we felt that we should best consult the interests of the archaeological public in making all that we can accessible in the number of the Journal of Hellenic Studies appearing after the conclusion of our season's work. The Report published by the Cyprus Exploration Fund has served to indicate the manner and attainments of our excavations; but it seemed desirable to publish at once all the material which has been gained for the advance of historical, archaeological, and artistic knowledge. For this purpose we have divided that material amongst ourselves; and while each of us is individually responsible for the section he has undertaken, we trust that we have so divided the field that our accounts may be found to mutually explain and supplement one another. We have attempted no more than to add such comments to the facts as were necessary for their due comprehension. If we had wished to finally systematize the whole of our results, or to deduce from them more remote inferences as to the history or institutions of Cyprus, we could not have published them so soon. This larger task may afterwards be completed either by others or by ourselves. At present our desire is to place on record the material available for its accomplishment.

The movement in favour of organised research in Cyprus which, originating in the latter part of the summer of 1887, led before the end of the year to the formation of a Fund directed by a Committee comprising all those who are most prominent in supporting the study of Classical Archaeology in this country, has been set forth already in circulars and reports, and needs only a brief allusion here in order to explain the causes and conditions of our subsequent work at Old Paphos and other sites in the winter and spring of this year. In the early mouths of 1887, Dr. F. H. H. Guillemard, the well-known traveller and ornithologist, spent a considerable time in Cyprus, and in the less known parts of the island saw and heard so much of continual discoveries, legitimate and illegitimate, that, on his return to England, he lost no time in pressing the desirability of sending an expedition on many who were interested in matters archaeological, with the result that the University of Cambridge took into consideration the question of making a grant from the Worts Travelling Bachelor's Fund for that purpose. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies was also sounded, and many circumstances conspired to induce their favourable consideration for such a proposal. Besides the valuable information communicated by Dr. Guillemard, it was known that the High Commissioner of Cyprus had resolved for sufficient reasons, which need not be detailed here, to discountenance in future all private exploration in the island, but at the same time had declared his willingness to help any work organised and conducted by a recognised scientific body: it resulted therefore that, unless such bodies undertook the task, no one would attempt to solve the many problems connected with the island for some years to come.

In this section of the Report it will be my object to present as complete a statement as I can of what is known and what has been written on the subject of Paphos; and this should include a short specification of the chief points on which the late excavations either have thrown, or may be expected to throw, more light. On large and general questions, such as the origin and history of the Aphrodite worship in general, or even its history in the whole of Cyprus, I cannot enter here.

It is inevitable that the chapter must consist largely of quotations. The source of these is not far to seek. Meursius' ‘Cyprus’ in Creta, Cyprus, et Rhodos (Amsterdam, 1675, in 4to) contains a wonderfully comprehensive survey of the ancient literature of the subject. An essay by Frederick Münter, Bishop of Seeland, carries this survey a stage further, and makes some further additions to it. This essay is entitled, Der Tempel der Himmlischen Göttin zu Paphos (Copenhagen, 1824, 4to). It forms a supplement to his former tract, Religion der Karthager. It is illustrated with four plates, and supplemented by an architectural essay on the plan of the temple, from the pen of Gustav Friedrich Hetsch. These two books have assisted me to most of my quotations. I have added a few others from later books, and from my own reading.

The history of the temple, as far as it can be ascertained from literary records from the study of ancient coins and from any similar sources, is elsewhere fully discussed; it remains to examine the actual ruins of the fabric, in order to extract from them what internal evidence there may be as to the date of the various portions from the style of workmanship and the methods of construction therein employed.

It will be easier to follow this examination in connection with the plan if we systematically pursue it from the south-west corner northwards. There are two great divisions into which the work may be separated—pre-Roman and Roman. In the first of these there are certainly three subdivisions, and the Roman work shows two main divisions denoting two great periods of restorative work; but the work of all these five distinct periods is so interwoven that it is not possible to separate and make them clear on a small scale plan. The two main divisions are indicated by differences in shading on the plan opposite, and the position of the more minute subdivisions will be referred to in order as they occur.

Any attempt to present to our imagination the temple of Aphrodite as it once stood, and to realise the various changes which the building underwent at various periods, must be preceded by a short enquiry. Before entering upon what seems to be entirely new ground, one must ask who, if any, are those that have already explored it, and how far their investigations may help to guide a later venture. Fortunately in the present case no long or detailed criticism will be necessary; all previous reconstructions of the temple have been based upon evidence so slender or erroneous that a mere indication of that evidence will suffice to show how little attention need be paid to the theories based upon it.

All the earlier reconstructions and plans, given by Münter and Gerhard, and reproduced in the various handbooks, from Müller to Perrot and Chipiez, are admittedly derived from the description and plan given by von Hammer; the description in Engel's Kypros comes from the same source. Now since all the essential features of the plan we have recovered were completely concealed and buried in several feet of earth, it is obvious that von Hammer's plan must be just as conjectural as those that are based upon it; for he does not himself claim to have made any excavations or to have recorded more than was visible to all who passed by. His plan may be based upon what seemed to be probable inferences; but excavations have proved that those inferences were erroneous.

As a supplement to the description and discussion of the Temple itself, a few words must be added as to the movable antiquities found upon its site. This is a section that we might have hoped to prove rich in treasures and full of interest. But all such hopes were destined to be disappointed, from what reason it is not now easy to discover. At Tochni, at Cyprus, is a well, into which tradition says St. Helena cast all the devils in the island; does this mean that the statues of ‘heathen gods’ were thrown in it? Perhaps at Paphos too, some zealous iconoclast may have similarly striven to abolish all the sacred objects of ancient worship—or perhaps mere considerations of gain or utility may have led to a most complete destruction. So we might easily account for the disappearance of all bronze statues: stories of the discovery of such linger about the neighbourhood. But it is harder to account for the vanishing of all the marble statues that probably were once here. We can hardly suppose that the absence of suitable marble in the island can have led to the exclusive use of bronze except for small works: offerings were brought to Paphos from all quarters of the ancient world. And if any marble statues ever existed, we should expect to find portions of them built into houses and walls, even if they were mostly reduced to lime. Why should inscriptions have been so much more fortunate? The preponderant use of bronze, shown by the bases, may serve in part as an explanation, but it seems necessary also to assume some general destruction of statues such as would probably have taken place if the worship were forcibly suppressed. The sacred cone itself has totally disappeared.

The following inscriptions were found this season in the Temple of the Paphian Aphrodite; in the village of Kuklia; and on an ancient site north of the village of Amargetti. They are here published with scarcely any explanatory notes, and with no attempt at chronological order, this imperfect publication having been rendered necessary by the general wish that they should appear in this volume of the Journal.

Tombs of all periods were opened during the past season, a few archaic ones at Leontari Vouno, which have been described by Mr. James in his account of that site, and others at Kuklia of all subsequent ages, down to the very latest. They are usually cut in the rock or earth of a gentle slope, in many cases, as in the Xylino valley at Kuklia, tier above tier: but they are also found in level ground, approached by a sloping passage now filled with earth. The whole plateau to the east of Kuklia above the is honey-combed with earth-tombs of this kind, consisting mainly of one or two vaulted chambers, leading one out of the other, without niches for the bodies, and entered by a vaulted opening closed by a slab. Such are probably tombs of the poor: the richer Cypriotes were for the most part laid in rock-tombs, such as abound in the plain north of New Paphos, and were found by us at Old Paphos on the slopes between the Temple of Aphrodite and the sea. From their greater durability and accessibility the latter were often used two or three times over, being sometimes sanctified at last for Christian burial by innumerable crosses, cut over the niches, as is the case at Cape Drepano: thus they are usually less profitable to the explorer of to-day than the earth-chambers, which were left undisturbed in the possession of their original tenants, and were not so easily detected by the τυμβωρύχος of the early centuries of our era. Of the work of the latter we found ample evidence at Kuklia: tomb after tomb was opened on the eastern slopes, in which broken glass and pottery were lying in a huge heap either in the middle or near the door, what the thieves did not want having apparently been wantonly destroyed: the lids of the sarcophagi were either hewn in pieces or wrenched aside, and even, in some cases, in order probably to evade notice, carefully replaced in statu quo. The door was by no means the favourite place of ingress, for we often dug down to find the slab quite undisturbed, while the tomb was in the state described above, and search would reveal the presence of a hole or passage cut through the solid rock from above or at the side.

Panofka has remarked that till 1833 only three works of art were known representing Theseus in the act of hurling Skiron into the sea, and that one of the three was known to us only through the description by Pausanias.

The active wielding of spade and shovel during the last half century has done much for the elucidation of many an ancient myth; yet, with a few exceptions (as the Euphronios cup from Caere), the monuments have told us little of Skiron.

For this dearth two causes have been suggested: the absence of a universal religious importance in the case of such local legend; and, secondly, the unsuitability of the theme for display of artistic power. The death of Skiron, unlike that of the Minotaur, is the close of a drama simple and isolated in plot and action, whereas the fate of the Cretan monster is closely bound up with the fortunes of a heroine, and leads on to her union with an Olympian god. The myths that gathered round the house of Minos were a fruitful field for the artist as well as for the poet.

Again, the adventures of Theseus with the Amazons were shared with the national hero of Hellas. They brought upon the scene a host of combatants whose graceful forms lent themselves to the display of artistic skill, while their foreign dress and equipments admitted of the greatest variety of treatment. The myth of the Centaurs presents a struggle in which savage power combines with heroic types of beauty to produce a vivid and brilliant picture.

In many respects Delphi and its varied cults possess an interest which is not to be rivalled by that of any other Hellenic site. The lofty precipices, the dark deeply-cleft ravines, the mysterious caves, and the bubbling springs of pure water, combine to give the place a romantic charm and a fearfulness of aspect which no description can adequately depict.

Again Delphi stands alone in the catholic multiplicity of the different cults which were there combined.

In primitive times it was the awfulness of Nature which impressed itself on the imaginations of the inhabitants.

In an early stage of development the mind of man tends to gloomy forms of religion: his ignorance and comparative helplessness tend to fill his brain with spiritual terrors and forebodings. Thus at Delphi the primitive worship was that of the gloomy Earth and her children, the chasm-rending Poseidon, and the Chthonian Dionysus, who, like Osiris, was the victim of the evil powers of Nature. It was not till later times that the bright Phoebus Apollo came to Delphi to slay the earth-born Python, just as the rising sun dissipates the shadows in the depths of the Delphian ravines, or as in the Indian legend the god Indra kills with his bright arrows the great serpent Ahi—symbol of the black thunder-cloud.

In the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique for 1881 (vol. v. pp. 216 foll.) MM. Am. Hauvette-Besnault and Marcel Dubois published a number of inscriptions from Cos, among which are two fragments of a curious sacrificial calendar. These fragments they describe as existing in the house of M. Dim. Platanistis. One of the marbles is broken at the top and the left side, and is apparently inscribed on one surface only. Fifteen lines of the inscription can be fairly well deciphered. I will call this document HBD 1. The other marble was inscribed on both sides; but only the endings of some nineteen lines on the one side, and the beginnings of as many lines on the other, now remain: I shall call this document HBD 2a, b.

Mr. W. R. Paton, who has repeatedly visited Cos, has not only sent me corrections of some of the readings in HBD 1, but he has also had the good fortune to discover two other large portions of the same interesting calendar. Of these he has very kindly sent me copies, with a view to the publication of the inscription in this Journal. I propose to cite Mr. Paton's fragments as P1 and P2.

The marble P1 is on the floor in front of the altar of a very old church, and has been much worn by the feet of worshippers; so that in some places all trace of letters has disappeared

Since my paper on Iasos and its history appeared in this Journal in 1887, some fresh epigraphical materials from Iasos have come to light in an unexpected manner.

In the Bulletin de Corr. Hell. of 1887 (xi. p. 212 foll.) M. Kontoleon has edited a number of inscriptions, of which Nos. 2—11 are from Iasos. All of the ten are honorary dedications or ex votos of the Antonine period, presenting few features of interest. These marbles had been extracted from the ruins of Iasos by a Turkish captain commissioned by the Ottoman government; he had shipped them on board by March 1887, and conveyed them to Constantinople. They were seen there by Mr. Cecil Smith in August 1887, in the courtyard of the Seraglio Museum; he learned that they had newly arrived, and were said to have come from Iasos. The testimony of Mr. Paton settles the question of their provenance; M. Foucart, in ignorance of the facts, had suggested that they might have come from Passala, the port of Mylasa.

Mr. Theodore Bent has just sent me a letter received from Dr. Albert L. Long, of Robert College, Constantinople, dated October 16, 1888. He speaks of the arrival of other inscribed marbles from Iasos, and encloses a MS. copy of them: ‘I think you saw some of the stones which were brought last winter for the work of constructing the Bebek quay. Within the last month another lot has been brought, and among them the two blocks from which the enclosed inscriptions are taken.’ There is no doubt that these marbles also are from Iasos: they have not, so far as I am aware, been published before. They are now printed from Dr. Long's MS.

From Herodotus to John Cinnamus, almost every chronicler who has had occasion to mention Celaenae-Apamea, has paused in his narrative to remark the natural features of the place, and make a passing reference to its famous legend; it is the best described site in Phrygia, and among the most remarkable whether by reason of legend, history, or natural position. Here were localised the myths of Lityerses, and of Marsyas: here, according to the Sibyl, and probably to yet earlier tradition, the Ark of Noah first touched ground, and the coins of three emperors and a little ruined church on the summit of the Acropolis still commemorate this strange belief: the most important half-way station in western Asia Minor, it was the halting place of Xerxes, of the younger Cyrus, of Alexander the Great, of the Consul Manlius, of Cicero as pro-consul, of Manuel Comnenus, and many others, among whom in all probability was St. Paul. It was the capital of Phrygia, the chosen seat of the Great King, and the gate through which the traffic between the coast and Caesarea used to pass, and still passes; and when the Ottoman Railway Company complete their projected line, it may be once again second only to Smyrna as an emporium of trade.