The following account of the excavations conducted by Mr. E. A. Gardner, Mr. Tubbs, and myself in the spring of this year on behalf of the Cyprus Exploration Fund does not pretend to exhaust all the results of the enterprise. Many questions are raised which are not answered, and more problems are suggested than are solved. The reason is partly to be sought in the necessity, in view of coming engagements, of rapidly completing the account for publication. Time is lacking for prolonged search for parallels and collation of authorities, and the tardy arrival of the antiquities in this country, together with their need of much cleaning and mending, has robbed us of many opportunities for leisurely study of them. So far we may hope that the deficiencies will be speedily made good by supplementary elucidations from more experienced archaeologists, or by our own exertions in the future. But far more is the incompleteness due to the nature of the subject. Sufficient evidence to support general conclusions is scarcely available, and the sceptical distrust engendered by experience on the site has only grown with further reflection and investigation. Here we can only look to the progress of general and especially Cypriote archaeology. We are each of us solely responsible for the sections we have respectively undertaken, but hope that no irreconcilable views are expressed.

It is commonly supposed that the treatment of children in the finest period of Greek sculpture is a subject that can be very lightly dismissed. Children, it is said, are not represented in Greek art before Hellenistic times—not represented, that is to say, with any truth to nature or reproduction of the characteristics of childhood. Of course it is never denied that young children appear in statues or reliefs of the fifth or fourth centuries; but when they so appear, they are said to be treated carelessly, conventionally, with no regard to their proper forms or proportions, but just as men on a smaller scale. This assertion is on the whole a correct one. Of careless treatment the infant Dionysus carried by the Hermes of Praxiteles is an example; the child is regarded merely as an accessory, and the execution is in marked contrast to the extreme finish and delicacy of work which we see in the Hermes himself. Even where there is no such contrast in the execution, a conventional treatment may often be seen, as in the case of children on grave-monuments and elsewhere. Nor are one or two children in sculptural groups belonging in origin to the fourth century to be regarded as exceptions (for instance, the infant Plutus carried by the Eirene of Cephisodotus); for these only survive in later copies, and in them the child is modified to suit the requirements of a later period, when children had been studied with as much care as had been spent upon the mature figure by the sculptor of the original group.

Mr. W. R. Paton, who is very well acquainted with the Gulf of Cos, has been good enough to send me some impressions and copies which he recently made of inscriptions at Keramo, the site of the ancient Ceramus. So few are the documents hitherto published from this town, that I readily consented to edit these copies for the Journal, the more so because I had been led to study the history of Caria somewhat minutely in connexion with another town of this region, Iasos. It happens also that one of the very few instances where Ceramus is named, even in inscriptions, is in a decree of Ephesus, discovered by Mr. Wood and now in the British Museum, which I have recently prepared for the press. We shall have occasion to refer to it presently.

Before proceeding to examine the inscriptions, I am glad to transcribe an account of the neighbourhood of Ceramus which I begged Mr. Paton to draw up, knowing well how interesting such particulars are to less-travelled students of Greek antiquities.

There are several unfinished statues now in the National Museum at Athens which seem not to have attracted as yet the attention they deserve. Whatever be the reason which has led the ancient sculptor to leave them unfinished, they are full of instruction to the modern student. In them we almost seem to see the artist at his work, and to be admitted to his studio. Even if they were given up because of a flaw or a mistake, that very mistake may teach us more as to the methods of the artist than many a completed statue. Fortunately, also, these unfinished statues in Athens illustrate various periods, from the archaic to one which is certainly later than the finest; and thus we are able to see what changes, if any, took place in the technique of sculpture during this interval, and, above all, we are not forced to generalize as to Greek sculpture from isolated examples of only one place or period.

Our first example (Fig. 1) is a statue about ⅔ of life size, which was seen by Ross (Inselreise, I. p. 41) lying just below the quarries at Naxos, where he saw also the well-known colossal unfinished statue. There can therefore be little doubt as to the place where it was made; it was evidently never finished, perhaps because the sculptor saw his proportions would not come right, and so remained where it was, until it was transported to the National Museum at Athens. It happens most fortunately that this statue is—or was going to be—a typical example of the first period of Greek sculpture.

The discovery two years ago of the small terra-cotta here figured, found in a grave in the outer Kerameikos of Athens, seems to me of some interest, especially because of its bearing upon one of the figures from the central slab of the frieze of the Parthenon. This possible relation to the scene there depicted appears to me so manifest that it requires but a few words of comment. The figure is here given in its actual dimensions (Fig., p. 144) and is a terra-cotta which, judging from its style, probably belongs to the first half of the fifth century B.C. There are traces of archaic conventionality, and yet, in the head as well as in the folding of the drapery, there is a freedom which points towards the greater art of the fifth century. It is very likely that the subject represented is the same as in one of the figures carrying what was supposed to be a chair (though it has been doubted) in the slab containing the priestess of Athene with her two female attendants. This terra-cotta is thus of some value in fixing the action of one of these attendants. The object carried on her head may be a small table, but it certainly seems more probable that it is a chair with a cushion.

Miss Jane Harrison in a recent note in the Classical Review quotes from my essay on the Art of Pheidias a passage referring to the discussion as to the interpretation of the scene depicted on the central slab of the Eastern frieze, in which I adduce ‘a vase-painting of Exekias as evidence that the scenes depicted on this slab are not typical of any sacred religious function, but belong to the sphere of every-day life.’ Though in the passage referred to by her I must have laid myself open to misunderstanding, her interpretation of my meaning, as I shall be able to show, does certainly not convey the drift of the essay in question. But I do not regret this misunderstanding, inasmuch as it has enabled Miss Harrison to point out a connection that may exist between Harpocration's explanation of the word τραπεζοφόρος and the possible interpretation of one of these female attendants on the priestess in the Parthenon frieze. Miss Harrison thus proposes to call the two attendants Τραπεζώ and Κοσμώ. For, according to Istros (and his authority is confirmed by a third century inscription in which there is undoubted mention of ἱέρεια and τράπεζα) there were functionaries in the sacred ritual to whom these names were given.

When working last Spring in the Central Museum at Athens, my attention was arrested by a sculptured tablet having apparent reference to the Greek boat-races of which I have already treated in two papers in this Journal. This relief admits unfortunately of but partial explanation, but nevertheless, as it stands almost alone in its kind, I propose to publish it without waiting for more light on the subject.

The size of the whole stele is forty-one by twenty-six inches. All the middle part of it is blank: probably an inscription had been painted there which has now entirely disappeared. Had it survived, it would have explained the reliefs sculptured above and below it: as things are, we must explain these reliefs as best we can with the help of analogies. It is evident that they refer to a victory won in the boat-races at Athens; perhaps in one of those races of Ephebi at the festivals of Diisoteria, Aianteia, or Munychia which are spoken of in the Ephebic inscriptions.

The following pages contain the meagre results of a hasty journey from the borders of Galatia to the Cilician coast, undertaken in July, 1887, by Mr. H. A. Brown and myself, after parting at Bey-keui with Prof. W. M. Ramsay, who wished to return direct to Smyrna. Our object was to reach Cilicia Tracheia by way of Phrygia Paroreus, and the Melas valley, pursuing in the former district a new route and especially selecting the unmapped and undescribed hill-path from Ilghin to Konia. From Konia we were to have turned westward to Beysheher, and thence struck over Taurus. But only the first part of this programme was carried out at all, owing to the indisposition of my companion, which became so serious by the time that we reached Konia that all idea of further exploration had to be abandoned, and we made direct for the sea. In another respect also the journey was not entirely satisfactory. I now know better than I knew then that an archæologist, who would discover much in Anatolia, must travel with a certain train of pack-animals and attendants: the Englishman who, proud of his power of endurance, discards all superfluities and travels with what he can carry on his own horse excites no admiration but much contempt in the minds of the villagers. “This is a poor man,” say they, and he is shown only just as much of what he wishes to see as will silence his importunity. We had made the initial mistake of travelling too “light,” taking neither tents nor beds, nor cooking utensils, nor indeed anything but the contents of our own saddle-bags, and depending entirely on the favour of the villagers both for lodging and food; and in consequence, while we suffered a good deal of unnecessary hardship, we saw less than might have been discovered by explorers more magnificently equipped.

The little vase of which a coloured illustration is given on Plates I. and II. has already been laid before the Society with a brief notice in the last number of the Journal, p. 253: before that publication appeared, it had already been the subject of articles in the Classical Review and the Times, so that most people are already aware of the melancholy interest which attaches itself to it. It was presented to the British Museum by Mr. Malcolm Macmillan in the spring of 1889, shortly before he started on the expedition which had so mysterious a termination. It was felt that the surpassing charm of this little Greek masterpiece was well worthy of any pains that could be bestowed on its reproduction; and it is to the generosity of Mr. Macmillan's family that the Society owes the excellent facsimile which accompanies this paper.

In spite of its diminutive proportions—it is only .068 mètre in height— this little lekythos will certainly henceforth rank among the mirabilia of our national collection. Its claims to distinction are based, not only upon its intrinsic merit as a chef d'oeuvre of art, but also on the fact that, belonging to a highly interesting class of Greek painted pottery, it is beyond all doubt the most beautiful and important specimen of that class which has yet come down to us.

The chief object of this paper is to record and classify the various monuments which on the ground of subject-matter or style may claim to be connected with Pergamene work. It may be well also to notice by way of introduction what we can gather from ancient testimony.

Of most of the existing works that I shall mention I have had personal knowledge, and where I have had to rely merely on published representations of them, I can only bring them forward for the purpose of suggesting to those who have direct acquaintance with them to consider them from this point of view. The theory which I wish to work out—a theory already suggested by others—is that certain fields of Greco-Roman and late Roman art have received a deep and abiding impress from Pergamon. That this should be a priori probable does not need elaborate proof; Rome was the heir of the Pergamene kingdom, and had always friendly intimacy with it, and we hear of many Pergamene works being transferred to Rome by Nero (Dio Chrys. 644 R.): between certain Roman and certain Pergamene myths there was a close analogy, which coloured the artistic representation of them: the struggle of the Pergamene kingdom with the Gauls, or—to speak perhaps more correctly—with Antiochus Hierax supported by Gallic mercenaries, was the most recent counterpart to the struggle of Rome with the barbarians: it was the Pergamene school—as Professor Brunn was the first to demonstrate—who idealized and fixed for artistic representation the type of the northern barbarian and really created historic sculpture, and I think that it can be shown that their rendering of this type became conventionalized and remained traditional throughout many centuries.

After the remarkable harvest of the last few seasons, some lull in the activity of explorers and the startling succession of new discoveries was to be expected. So far as the number and variety of results is concerned, it must be acknowledged that this season cannot compare with its predecessors; but a year which has yielded two so splendid acquisitions as the gold cups of Baphion, and the statues by Damophon from Lycosura cannot be said to yield to any in interest. Such discoveries as these are enough to show that we have as yet no reason to believe that the treasures buried in Greek soil are approaching exhaustion; the complete clearing of one site, such as the Acropolis of Athens, only frees energy that can as easily find an outlet elsewhere.

As was to be expected from last year's report, there is but little new to record from the Acropolis. The loose blocks, drums of columns, &c., have been reduced to an order that goes far to destroy the picturesque appearance of the mass of ruins. It is difficult to say what advantage can be gained by arranging everything in straight rows, but protests have proved useless. The tower of the minaret and the later casing of the west door of the Parthenon still remain difficulties having arisen to prevent their projected removal. Few discoveries have resulted from this arrangement of the various blocks lying about. Some inscriptions will be found duly recorded by Dr. Lolling in the Deltion; and the lower portion of the well known colossal owl has been discovered and pieced on: the bird is now almost complete. Along the north side of the Parthenon, and at a short distance from it, has been found a row of five holes cut in the solid rock. Their position seems to show that they are later than the construction of the Parthenon; and if so it is hard to see any cause for their being made until mediæval times: similar holes elsewhere, e.g. at Paphos, were certainly not ancient, and were probably cut in comparatively recent times to serve as receptacles for grain or water.