The evidence considered under D makes it, I think, impossible that the accepted theory can be true as regards the larger polyereis of the first three centuries B.C., which clearly were galleys a scaloccio of some sort. If what is put forward under A be true, the reason why the accepted theory was invented and has been so largely believed disappears. Nevertheless, there is still room for evidence that will support the accepted theory as to triremes generally, the quadriremes and quinqueremes of the fourth century, and the biremes of the first; and the theory may be true, even if the words thranite, zugite, and thalamite do refer to another arrangement.

For a trireme, said Cartault, the evidence is overwhelming. Unfortunately he omitted to mention what it was, and with the best will in the world I have been unable to discover it. Assmann (1610) relied solely on the monuments. Luebeck however gives Schol, on Aelian's Tactica, Schol. on Frogs 1074) (see under A), Arr. Anab. 6, 5, 2 (see under B), Pollux 1, 87 (see under A), and Frogs 1074. Let me add Livy 33, 30, Aesch. Agam. 1617, Luc. Phars. 3, 529 seq.

When the mummy-portraits from Rubayyat and Hawara were first brought to Europe, amid the general interest which they aroused there was a wide diversity of opinion as to their age. Georg Ebers, who had an enthusiastic admiration for them, tried hard to prove that the series began in the second century B.C. and that the best specimens belonged to the Ptolemaic period. Th. Schreiber may be mentioned as another distinguished authority who took the same view. On the other hand many archaeologists maintained that the portraits were all Roman work, dating for the most part from the second century A.D. Mr. Petrie in particular brought forward definite evidence to show that they range from about 130 A.D. to about 250 A.D., and he also divided them into successive groups. There is still much uncertainty on the subject, as I have had occasion to notice of late. To those who are in doubt about it the following brief paper, which is based on a study of the Cairo collection, may be of some little help. I regret that I do not know much of the material in Europe at first hand.

In the Hellenic Journal for 1903, while publishing some heads of Apollo, I took occasion to express my doubts as to the expediency of hereafter taking the Apoxyomenos as the norm of the works of Lysippus. These views, however, were not expressed in any detail, and occurring at the end of a paper devoted to other matters, have not attracted much attention from archaeologists. The subject is of great importance, since if my contention be justified, much of the history of Greek sculpture in the fourth century will have to be reconsidered. Being still convinced of the justice of the view which I took two years ago, I feel bound to bring it forward in more detail and with a fuller statement of reasons.

Our knowledge of many of the sculptors of the fourth century, Praxiteles, Scopas, Bryaxis, Timotheus, and others, has been enormously enlarged during the last thirty years through our discovery of works proved by documentary evidence to have been either actually executed by them, or at least made under their direction. But in the case of Lysippus no such discovery was made until the very important identification of the Agias at Delphi as a copy of a statue by this master.

During a journey in the spring of last year along the east coast of the Messenian Gulf I took an impression of a fragment of a Latin inscription built into the north wall of the Church of Hagios Taxiarches in the village of Oetylus.

The fragment is of white marble and is broken on every side. It measures ̇47 m. in height and ̇21 m. in width. The letters measure ̇013 m.

The attitude adopted by the Greek wrestler before taking hold, as described by Heliodorus, and frequently represented in art, was very similar to that in use at the present day. Taking a firm stand with his feet somewhat apart and knees slightly bent, rounding (γυρώσας) his back and shoulders, his neck advanced but pressed down into his shoulder blades, and his waist drawn in (σφηκώσας), he tried to avoid giving any opening (λαβή) himself, while his outstretched hands were ready to seize any opportunity offered by his opponent.

Various methods of attack are enumerated by Plutarch. Symp. ii. 4. μόνους δὲ τοὺς παλαιστὰς ὁρῶμεν ἀλλήλους ἀγκαλιζομένους καὶ περιλαμβάνοντας καὶ τὰ ολεῖστα τῶν ἀγωνισμάτων ἐμβολαὶ παρεμβολαίσυστάσεις παραθέσεις συνάγουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀναμίγνυνται ἀλλήλοις These terms, arranged in contrasted pairs, denote the various positions and movements of wrestlers before they take hold.

Proceeding along the terrace of the treasuries, Pausanias devotes the nineteenth chapter of his second book on Elis to passing in review the whole row of them, naming each according to the Hellenic community by which it was built and dedicated. First he notes the Sicyonians' treasury, then the ‘Carthaginians'’ (Syracusans'). At this point begins a confusion in his text which culminates in the startling declaration that the third and fourth treasuries are a dedication of the Epidamnians, a notable fact which he immediately denies by speaking of one and only one Epidamnians' treasury. After this he remarks that the Sybarites also built a treasury next to that of the Byzantines. This is disconcerting as he mentions the Byzantines' treasury nowhere else either before or afterwards. Next to the Sybarites' treasury, he then says, was that of the Libyans of Cyrene, in which he saw statues of Roman emperors.

Perhaps the most salient feature of the recent development of knowledge in regard to prehistoric Greece is the peculiar connexion which has been shewn (chiefly by the discoveries of Dr. Arthur Evans) to have existed between the oldest Greek culture and the ancient civilization of Egypt. As far back as the time of the Hyksos and the XIIth Dynasty the connexion is certain. We now know that during the XVIIIth Dynasty (seventeenth to fifteenth century B.C.) Egypt maintained regular relations with the Cretan Mycenaeans of the great period of Knossos and Phaistos: the ‘Late Minoan’ period of Evans. This much the incontrovertible evidence of the Egyptian tomb-paintings at Thebes has told us, to say nothing of the numerous pieces of minor evidence from both Greece and Egypt. The corroborative evidence of the alabastron-lid of the Hyksos king Khian, and the figure of the Egyptian Abnub (who certainly lived during the Hyksos period), which have been found at Knossos, take us two centuries or more further back; and the remarkable parallels between the Cretan seal seal designs and the Egyptian scarab-designs of the Xlllth Dynasty, which Dr. Evans was the first to point out, shew us that the connexion was older than the days of the Hyksos.

In my contribution on the ‘Sematography of Greek Papyri’ (J.H.S. xxii, 1902) I included the Ptolemaic symbol Τ or = 900 among those of whose origin no satisfactory explanation could be offered (p. 138); although on p. 145 I identified the symbol with the later minuscule symbol ‘sampi’ or = 900, and pointed out the improbability of any association of the latter with either Pi or San-Sigma, whether in forms or arithmetical values. For the rest, as I said, ‘we must wait until we are in possession of ante-Ptolemaic documents, or of some facts yet to be supplied by epigraphy.’

This paper is the report of a more thorough survey of the field of Greek and general archaeology on all the questions and problems involved in the explanation of the sign. These are in the best sense trivial, lying at the crossing of the ways of nob a few important theories, to which the foremost scholars have recently devoted much investigation—the composition and history of the Greek alphabet, particularly as regards its application for numeration, the enigmatical Tsade, the mutual relations of the ancient alphabets, the antiquity of S. Semitic (Arabian), Minaean, and Sabaean inscriptions, and the place of the Phoenician alphabet in the history of primitive Hellas.