In a recent volume of this Annual (XLV 126 ff.) I discussed the alphabetic numeral system as employed in Attica; in the present article I examine the use of letters in Attica and elsewhere to identify different items, often similar in character and appearance, with a view of facilitating reference and simplifying inventories. For such a purpose letters have certain advantages over other symbols which might be devised; they are brief and familiar and they occur in a recognized order. They thus approach nearly to the use of ordinal numbers (contrasting sharply with acrophonic numerals, which are invariably used to represent cardinal numbers), though it cannot be said that they constitute a numeral system, any more than we could claim that we in English use an alphabetic numeral system because, e.g., a, b, c, d are used on p. 4 below to distinguish four items which might equally well have been numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. The letters here under consideration were not, and could not be, made the instruments of arithmetical calculation, and the highest number expressed in this way in any inscription known to me is 106 (Inscr. Délos 1432 Aa ii 21; see below, p. 8).

Various scholars have dealt briefly with the subject, but the accumulation of a mass of new evidence calls for a fresh treatment, especially of the part played by such letters in inventories. No technical name has, I believe, been given to letters so used, and in this article I call them ‘letter-labels’, a title which emphasizes the function they fulfil in the majority of cases where they occur.

The main epigraphic evidence for the water-supply of Aphrodisias in Roman times is to be found in the fragmentary inscriptions published by Doublet and Deschamps in BCH XIV (1890), 611–13, nos. 7–10, and CIG 2782, ll. 40–2. From the former group of texts it has been assumed that two water-systems were installed, one in the time of Vespasian and the other in the time of Domitian; I hope to show that these texts refer to one water-system only, that built in the time of Domitian. From the latter passage it has sometimes been thought that M. Ulpius Carminius Claudianus paid for the laying-on of the waters of the river Timeles to the city in the age of the Antonines. This assumption rested on the false reading ὲλ[ειο]δ[ι]ὰκτο[υ]ς introduced by Boeckh. The word ὲλειοδὶὰκτος is taken to mean a ‘conduit for draining marshes’ (LS9, s.v.). Sherard's copy preserves the true reading ἒλ <α> ια δρακτοῖς πολλὰκις τεθεικὸτα. All that can be proved by the inscription is that Carminius Claudianus made several distributions of oil ὲν τῶ̣ καιρῶ̣ τῆς τοῦ Τε<ι>μὲλου ποταμοῦ εἰσαγωγῆς (l. 41); there is no proof that he paid for the construction of the aqueduct.

The epigraphic evidence for the earlier water-system rests on the reconstruction of the text of which BCH XIV (1890), 611–13, nos. 7 (cf. REG XIX (1906), 223–4, no. 126), 8 and 9 are fragments; no. 10 seems to be part of another copy of this, or a similar, inscription. Of these fragments the only one found by the expedition led by Professor Calder in 1934 was no. 7; the improved readings in this inscription are from a photograph.

While travelling in Turkey in 1951 as Wilson Fellow of the University of Aberdeen, I visited Eskişehir (Dorylaion) and a number of villages in that area. In the interval between Cox and Cameron's exhaustive survey of that district and my own visit, a considerable amount of new material has come to light, as is generally the case in Anatolia. The following inscriptions are of some interest:

1. Eskişehir, Museum Depôt Inv. no. 186. Grey marble bomos with acroteria; slightly damaged, and badly weathered at one point in the inscribed area. Mouldings above and below. In pediment, part of an eagle, probably the eagle of Zeus; see L. Robert, RevPhil XIII (1939), 203 f.

H. (visible) 1·1 m.; W. 0·49 m., (shaft) 0·36 m.; Th. 0·325 m. Letters 0·035 m. to 0·048 m.; average 0·037 m., with heavy apices and ligatures.

Photograph of squeeze, Fig.

The reference to Zeus Euphranor is new.

IG I2 80 +; Paton, The Erechtheum (1927), 449–450; Wade-Gery, JHS LI (1931), 82; Ferguson, Treasurers of Athena 176; Dinsmoor, AJA XXXVI (1932), 312; Deubner, Attische Feste 19; SEG X 28; Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis 323.

The editio minor publication of this decree curiously failed to take into account Wilhelm's discussion of its epigraphical problems. The facts were correctly stated by him. Fragment b has its left margin preserved, and since the width of the stone can be determined from fairly certain restorations in fragment a, considerably more sense can be made out of the third part, the πάτρια of the Praxiergidai, than either Ziehen or Hiller attempted.

EM 6629; three fragments of Pentelic marble with back preserved. Fragment a has its top preserved, fragment b its left edge, fragment c its right edge. Original thickness 0·065 m., but the back slopes to each edge. Parts I and II are cut with a horizontal chequer of 0·0106 and a vertical chequer of 0·0104 with chisels measuring 9, 7·5, 6, and 4 mm. Part III is cut with a horizontal chequer of 0·0129 and a vertical chequer of 0·0126 with chisels measuring 11, 9, 7·5, and 4 mm.

Since Wilhelm published, in 1909, his study of this inscription, scholars have unanimously accepted his conclusion that it belongs to the year A.D. 42. The purpose of this article is to examine the arguments both of Wilhelm and of others, notably von Premerstein, who support his conclusion, and to consider the possibility of giving the inscription a different date.

The document in question is a decree of the Arcadian polis Lykosoura honouring Nikasippos, son of Philippos, and his wife Timasistrata, daughter of Onasikrates, for their various benefactions. In particular Nikasippos ‘undertook the priesthood of Despoina during an Olympic year when no one was willing to come forward for appointment and there was no revenue for the mysteries. He paid money into the fiscus from his own private means (ἀπὲ̵ δωκεν ἐκ τοῦ ἰδὶου βὶου τῶι φὶσκωι) The following year, after the harvest had failed, Nikasippos undertook the priesthood with his wife Timasistrata at the wish of the Lykourasioi …’ The decree is dated by this second priesthood of Nikasippos (ἐπὶ ἱερὲος τᾶς Δεσποὶνας τὸ β Νικασὶππου τοῦ φιλὶππου), by the ἐπιμεληταὶ and by the formula ἒτους λ` καὶ β` κατὰ τὸν Σεβαστὸν Wilhelm's arguments for assigning it to A.D. 42 can be classed as: (i) historical; (ii) chronological; (iii) epigraphical and stylistic; (iv) prosopographical. Premerstein adds (v) further historical arguments.

Recent years have seen the publication of two demotic Greek craft-manuals from the Middle Ages; or perhaps we might say from the Renaissance, for in both books the connections with Western European ideas and practices are clear. The first is a Portolano, a mariner's guide in the tradition stretching back at least to Hellenistic times, and brought up to date by successive generations of sea-captains until its form was crystallized in sixteenth-century Venetian editions. The other is a Shipwright's Manual dealing with the rigging of a sailing-ship, with the names and measures of all its sails and cordage.

To these is now added a third, a Gunner's Manual, shorter than the other texts, but in some ways more interesting. For although, as in the others, the material forces it to be repetitive and tabular, it is not so forbiddingly technical; and the beginning and the end have a greater freedom of matter which brings the language very close to the style and cadences of ordinary speech—a rarity in Renaissance Greek.

The manuscript in which it is found is catalogued as number 23 of the collection once formed by Archbishop Laud, and now in the Bodleian Library. The paper is uniform throughout, and the contents are as follows:

(i) foll. 1r–26r, A Shipwright's Manual. I hope to deal on another occasion with its relationship to the texts used by Delatte. The work is very corrupt and presents great difficulties. At the beginning are the words: ‘κύριε κατευόδωνε τὸν δοῦλόν σου Νικόλαον Σκούρα’.

Among the seven nations inhabiting the Peloponnese, Herodotus counts the Achaeans third. They were, he says, natives of the Peloponnese, but no longer living in their own land. Elsewhere he says that the Ionians of Asia Minor were divided into twelve cities because formerly when they lived in the Peloponnese they were divided into twelve parts, which twelve divisions were maintained by the Achaeans who expelled them. This story was certainly believed generally by Ionians and Achaeans alike in the fourth century B.C., and is accepted by Polybius, Strabo, and Pausanias, who add that the Achaean leader was Tisamenos, son of Orestes. Perhaps when the Homeric Catalogue of Ships was composed Achaea was ruled by princes claiming descent from Agamemnon, some of whose followers

The date of Ogyges, named as the last king, is uncertain, but there is no evidence that the land was ruled by kings at the time when the western colonies were founded. The princes named by Pausanias are surely fictitious, but the tradition of a separate dynasty, that of Preugenes and his son Patreus, suggests that Western Achaea, the area not mentioned by Homer, may have formed a separate kingdom.

In this paper I wish to question the views of the early relations between Corinth and Megara which were expressed in Perachora I (1940) and reinforced in JHS 1948, 59 ff. It was there maintained that the Heraeum was founded by Corinth on Corinthian soil c. 850 B.C., and this was put in the following general setting (JHS LXVIII 64). ‘The foundation of the Heraion at Perachora will have been part of the same movement of Argive expansion which dorised Megara and lopped off her southern territories.’ On this hypothesis the Dorian occupation of the Megarid occurred not before the Ionian migration, as all the literary tradition states, but after the Ionian migration; for on archaeological grounds alone the Ionian migration must have commenced during the tenth century at the latest. When Dunbabin wrote in JHS, the results of excavation at Smyrna were not known; these results, inter alia, prompt this paper.

This article is based on some walks in the Northern Megarid. Although my study of the terrain was far from comprehensive, the remains of a road, of towers beside the road, and of ancient settlements seem to justify the conclusion that a main road, perhaps the main road in classical times, from Boeotia to the Peloponnese passed through the Northern Megarid. The area has been little visited by travellers. Recently the forest cover of one part of the area was burnt, and this enabled me to see more than my predecessors had seen.

The long range of Mt. Cithaeron and its continuation eastwards, Mt. Pástra, form the main line dividing Boeotia from Megaris and Attica. The longest and the most difficult route over this barrier runs from Creusis to Aegosthena, keeping close to the coast of the Corinthian Gulf. The second and the next in difficulty departs from Plataea, ascends steeply to a col in the range and then drops less steeply on the Megarian side.

The School's decision to undertake work in the island of Chios was made possible by the generosity of an anonymous donor. The work was placed under my direction, and in the first year (1952) excavations were carried out on a limited scale during three weeks of June on the Kofinà ridge in Chios town, while soundings were made on an Early Bronze Age site at Emporio near Pyrgi on the south coast of the island, where work has since continued.

The site of Kofinà was chosen because Archaic sherds on the surface raised a hope that it might be possible to uncover something of the Archaic city there. As it turned out, the Kofinà area was on the very edge of the ancient city, as of the modern town. The excavations at Kofinà were begun by myself, assisted by Mr. J. K. Anderson, and after the first ten days they were continued and completed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. R. V. Nicholls. The results of the excavations are here published in full by Mr. Anderson.

This article is intended to serve as an introduction to the study of painted votive plaques; not that such a study is by any means novel, but since Otto Benndorf's published work on them the amount of material known has increased, and further consideration of them both as painted objects and as dedications seems desirable. As well as a general survey of their nature, name, and decoration, a more detailed account of eighth- and seventh-century examples is included, and I hope at another time to be able to extend the study to the rich later series, as well as to the Corinthian and funerary plaques which are not discussed here in detail.

An inscribed fragment from Aegina is published below for the first time. Its finding did not suggest the study of plaques, in which I was already engaged, and I attribute and acknowledge its timely appearance to the Ἀγαθὴ Τύχη, who occasionally smiles on the archaeologist.

Because of its dating on the borderline of archaic and classical, and its excellent state of preservation, the Treasury of the Athenians at Delphi has for long been a monument of great interest to scholars working in many fields of ancient art and architecture. It is my belief that it offers valuable and surprising evidence in the perplexing problem of how the ancients roofed their buildings; and to set forth the grounds for that belief is the aim of this paper.

The roof over the pronaos was substantially different from the roof over the cella. Among other things, the pronaos had a stone instead of a wooden ceiling, which was, moreover, at a higher level. We are here concerned with the roof over the cella, for which alone there seems to be reliable evidence (mostly on the inside face of the west pediment). The French publication, otherwise extremely full, says little more than that the rather slender ridge beam and purlins were supported by props from the five massive crossbeams spanning the building, and that these carried a ceiling of boards fixed to their underside (FdD II 48). An examination of the stonework seems to suggest different conclusions.

The material from the Khaniale Tekke tombs was excavated by me in 1940, but most of it had not been photographed, and some vases had been left still unrepaired when the Germans invaded Crete, and they were inaccessible to me when I returned to Crete in 1945.

The presence of ‘Geometric’ tombs on this site was first reported to me by the foreman at Knossos, the late Emmanuel Akoumianos, whose eagle eye for ancient remains was noted by Sir Arthur Evans. Immediate excavation was necessary, since the owner, Dr. Hatzakis, who has generously foregone his claims for compensation, was proposing to erect a house there.

The first trial trench which I opened on 20th January 1940 disclosed a chamber tomb with a square chamber and a long, narrow dromos cut in the native kouskouras, that white, cretaceous marl which is so prominent a feature of the landscape in Central Crete.

The British excavations at Mycenae in 1953 were continued with a research grant from the American Philosophical Society assisted by contributions from the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, the British Academy, Bollingen Foundation, and the British School at Athens, under whose aegis the excavations were conducted. The Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton has provided an ideal base for preparing the material for publication.

The excavations began on July 8th, and work ceased on August 24th. On August 25th the bulk of the finds was moved to the Nauplia Museum and stored in the room reserved for the finds from Mycenae. The finds from 1952 are already in this room. We improved its facilities this year by the erection of some wooden shelving. The days from August 26th to August 30th were spent at Nauplia in studying and arranging the finds and in photography. The carved ivories, the tablet and seal impressions have been taken to Athens, but the stone vases were taken to the Nauplia Museum with the pottery.

In 1950 and 1952, in view of recent discussions about the date of the Grave Circle, we decided to make some fresh soundings in its supporting wall to see if any fresh evidence could be obtained. In the first year the work was confined to soundings in the battered supporting wall on the south side opposite the north-east corner of the House of the Warrior Vase, and was undertaken by Mr. Kenneth Rowe. In 1952 further soundings were made in the battered supporting wall, the wall at its base on the west was further examined, and a sectional cut was made across the double ring of standing slabs on the north-east side about midway between the entrance and the then surviving cover slabs. The work was then directed by Dr. F. H. Stubbings.

At the time of Schliemann's excavations the western part of the double ring of vertical poros slabs of the Grave Circle, which rests on the battered supporting wall, was in a very ruinous condition. This can be seen clearly in Schliemann's illustration and in the photographs published later. After the close of Schliemann's and Stamatakes' excavations the supporting wall was restored both on the west and on the south, and the western half of the double ring of standing slabs was reconstructed. When Keramopoullos excavated the fallen rock in the centre of the circle the Greek Archaeological Service undertook some further work of conservation.

Schliemann on his plan of the acropolis of Mycenae marks a terrace wall on the north-west corner of the ‘summit’. Steffen on his plan of the acropolis marks the same wall as one of his ‘kyklopische Stutz- u. Abschnittsmauern’. Dr. Leicester Holland included the wall in his plan of the palace made during our excavations there in 1920–23. Then we thought that this wall was a terrace wall which supported the end of the inclined roadway which climbed the Citadel from the Ramp to the north-west Propylon (9) of the Palace with its paved forecourt (7).

In 1939 in excavating the rock shelf to the east of the Guardroom (3, 4) and below the terrace wall which supports the temple foundations on the north, we found a much ruined wall (Fig. 7, Z) on the very edge of the rock shelf, which here drops abruptly to the north. This wall was associated with a Middle Helladic deposit. Above this lay a somewhat disturbed Late Helladic stratum where the splendid ivory group of two women and a boy was discovered. The wall is a packed construction of largish stones about 1·25 m. thick, and the deposit behind it rests in a hollow in the rock and was at most 1·25 m. deep.

Almost midway between the Postern Gate and the north-west angle of the Cyclopean Walls there is against the inside of the wall a chamber with a roof in the form of an inverted V, called by Steffen on his plan ‘Galerie’. Schliemann does not refer to it, and the ‘gallery’ he mentions is the drain through the wall east of the secret cistern. Tsountas and Manatt say: ‘What had long been taken for a gallery in the north wall proves to be nothing but a little chamber measuring less than 7 by 12 feet.’

In this connection it must be remembered that at Mycenae there is usually a narrow passage between the inside of the Cyclopean wall and the buildings within. The chamber mentioned has therefore probably been formed by covering this passage with an inverted V roof resting on one side against the Cyclopean Wall and on the other against the rock which rises rather steeply southwards at this point within the walls. This was probably done at a comparatively late stage in the history of the prehistoric citadel as indicated by Mr. Kenneth Rowe below.

This is a true cist burial, in that the skeleton, of an infant, was placed in a stone casket. The casket is a single block of poros, roughly hollowed out until the requisite depth was reached. Its dimensions are 0·60 m. × 0·50 m., but the block is not a perfect rectangle by any means. The depth is c. 0·30 m. Underneath the block a group of seven roughly circular shallow holes and two shallow rectangular depressions are to be seen; the only explanation I can suggest for these is that it was perhaps originally intended to hollow out the block from this side. Over the casket two blocks of sandstone were placed; both have a shallow depression underneath. At the west end of the casket and closely adjoining it lay a triangular block of poros about 0·48 m. wide and 0·35 m. high (only partially visible on Plate 43). This, from the similarity of material and workmanship, seems to have had some connection with the burial. Could it have been a small unsculptured stele? The unsculptured stelai from Schliemann's Grave Circle are triangular at the top.

The burial lies partially over a wall which may have been intended as a boundary for the Prehistoric Cemetery area, thus showing that the height of the wall mentioned can have been no higher at this point at the time of this burial, and suggesting that, if in fact this is an enclosure wall, it was not felt desirable to bury the dead outside the enclosure, either in the case of this burial or in that of the Geometric cist and pithos burials, and arguing some continuity in the cult of the dead. The wall itself, so far as has yet been ascertained, cannot be later than the L.H. IIIA period, and is probably considerably earlier.

The Cyclopean Terrace Building lies to the north-west of the Lion Gate on the northern end of the Panagia Ridge and faces almost due west across the valley of the Kephissos and modern main road from Corinth to Argos. It lies just below the 200 m. contour line, and one terrace below the houses excavated in 1950–51 by Dr. Papadimitriou and Mr. Petsas to the east at the same end of the ridge. The area contains a complex of buildings, both successive and contemporary, and in view of the discovery of structures both to the south-west and, by the Greek Archaeological Service, to the north-east it is likely that this whole slope was covered by a portion of the outer town of Mycenae. This report will deal only with the structure to which the name Cyclopean Terrace Building was originally given, the so-called ‘North Megaron’, supported by the heavy main terrace wall.

The excavation of this structure was begun in 1923. The main terrace wall was cleared and two L.H. IIIC burials discovered in the top of the fill in the south room. In 1950 it was decided to attempt to clear this building entirely in an endeavour to find out its date and purpose. The clearing was not, however, substantially completed until the close of the 1953 excavation season, and this report presents the available evidence for the date as determined by the pottery found beneath the building; the purpose is still a matter for study, though various tentative conclusions can be put forward.