Chapter XI: Conclusion (2)

From the commercial point of view an embargo on Attic pottery between about 670 and 570 B.C. would have been practically pointless. It is only before the earlier date and after the later that Attic pottery was a menace to its rivals. As between these dates all that is known of the history of pottery in the Argolid and Aegina inclines strongly in favour of the earlier period. The most ardent protectionist will admit that protection is useless without something to protect, and from 570 B.C. onwards neither Argos nor Aegina appears to have had any interest in any possible rival to Attic ware. But in the early part of the seventh century Argos and Aegina alike were flooded with both Corinthian[1531] and Proto-Corinthian[1532] pottery, and, as may be gathered from the traditions about the lot of Temenos[1533], it is highly probable that they were much interested in pushing these wares, which are found in large quantities not only in Greece Proper, but also in Italy, Asia Minor, and even further afield[1534]. Corinthian pottery is unquestionably a Corinthian product[1535]. The place of origin of Proto-Corinthian is, as has been already noticed, much disputed. It has been claimed for Aegina itself[1536], and for Argos[1537]. Corinth is a possibility[1538], as also is Chalcis, for which latter the abundant finds at Cumae are interesting but by no means decisive evidence[1539]. Most archaeologists prefer Sicyon[1540].

The balance of expert opinion at present is certainly in favour of the North-east Peloponnesus[1541]. In Chapter VI evidence is cited to show that the whole of this region was probably under Argive domination previous to the establishment of tyrannies at Corinth and Sicyon about the year 660 B.C. But after that the situation changes. Corinth and Sicyon become strong cities, friendly to one another and hostile to Argos[1542]. Corinthian pottery eclipses all its rivals, with Proto-Corinthian as an easy but lagging second. If Argos had wanted protection for her native pottery in the second half of the seventh century, she would have excluded not Attic pottery, but the wares of Corinth, and perhaps Sicyon[1543]. Attic pottery revived and began to dominate the Greek market about 570 B.C., and that is the date to which the embargo is assigned by Hoppin, who published the pottery from the Argive Heraeum. But if that was the date, then, as he himself declares, its motive cart have been “nothing but simple spite, since no increased activity on the part of the Argive potters is the result[1544].” The motive that Hoppin so rightly desiderated can best have been at work when Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian pottery was already on the market, but Corinth and Sicyon were not yet under tyrants.

Thus on _à priori_ grounds the early years of the seventh century form far the most likely period for an Aeginetan or Argive embargo on the pottery of Attica[1545]. The power that destroyed the Dipylon ships[1546] might well have struck a blow at Dipylon pottery, if only to improve its own position in the carrying trade.

It remains to test this general probability by the evidence of the sites more immediately concerned.

In Aegina Attica Black Figure pottery has been found in some abundance[1547]. In fact Attic pottery found a ready entrance from the latter half of the seventh century onwards[1548]. If there is any stage of Attic pottery that is poorly represented on the island, it is the Proto-Attic and Phaleron. Such at any rate is the evidence of the excavations at the temple of Aphaia; and the scarcity of early orientalizing Attic harmonizes with what is known of the Geometric pottery from the site. This latter style, so Thiersch reports[1549], is richly represented, and in two groups, which are plainly imports from the neighbouring regions of Attica and the Argolid. The Attic ware predominates at first, the finds at Eleusis and the Athenian Kerameikos offering the closest analogies. Towards the end of the Geometric style, when it begins to connect up with Proto-Corinthian, the second great group of imports begins, with types that are also found in great numbers in the Argolid, at Tiryns and the Argive Heraeum.

Again, in the Aeginetan temple of Aphrodite, where the pottery found by Stais has been published by Pallat[1550], Geometric sherds, in clay and technique not to be distinguished from Attic, were fairly numerous, but coming down from the eighth century to the seventh, we are told that the Attic pottery of the period, the so-called Proto-Attic, is represented only by a few types, some of which are perhaps only imitations of the genuine Attic.

Similarly, the excavators of the Argive Heraeum report that “in the Argolid we find the Geometric style ceasing almost abruptly, while the Argive style becomes as it were emancipated[1551].” Argive is the Americans’ name for Proto-Corinthian[1552].

The vast majority of the fragments of this period from the Aphrodite temple are Proto-Corinthian or early Corinthian[1553]. Attic pottery reappears among the finds of about the middle of the sixth century, with a few sherds of Kleinmeister kylikes. Pallat indeed[1554] speaks further on of the Proto-Attic (_i.e._ early seventh century Attic) that is richly represented at Aegina, and Loeschcke too speaks of all stages of Attic ware from Dipylon onwards occurring in the island[1555]. Unfortunately, such terms as rare and abundant are still used by archaeologists in the loosest and most misleading way. The only vases Loeschcke quotes are a “Tyrrhenian” amphora, and an Ergotimos cup, _i.e._ two early sixth century vases, both from the Fontana collection, and attributed to Aegina only on the authority of dealers or collectors of the early part of the nineteenth century[1556]. The fact remains that in the properly recorded excavations on the island, it is early in the seventh century that Attic pottery occupies its least prominent position, and that in the museum at Aegina[1557], which includes the Aphaia finds and specimen pieces from the 1904 excavations at the Aphrodite temple, there is plenty of Mycenaean, Geometric, Proto-Corinthian, and Corinthian pottery, some early Black Figure (about 550 B.C.), and a fair number of late Black Figure vases, but no Proto-Attic at all.

For Argos the evidence is limited mainly to the finds from the Heraeum, the temple some miles from the city, that was excavated by the Americans. As mentioned already, the evidence from this site has been used for dating the embargo in the second half of the sixth century[1558]. Unfortunately, the American report is mistaken in the dating of some of its finds. It ascribes to the first half of the sixth century the archaizing Attic potter Nikosthenes, who flourished in the second half[1559]. The only two types of Attic fragments that the report states to have been found in considerable numbers[1560] both belong to the latter part of the century, and not, as the report states, to the first half of it. The finds therefore can hardly be quoted as indicating an exclusion of Attic pottery that started in the middle of the sixth century. They include only a very few fragments of early seventh century Attic[1561].

The indignant Argives and Aeginetans who, at the date that we are trying to determine, had crushed the Athenians in Aegina, did not merely exclude Attic pottery from the temple or temples of their outraged deities. They insisted further on the exclusive use of local pottery. It is highly probable that a whole mass of this local pottery, used for this very purpose, has actually come down to us. In the recent excavations of the Heraeum at Tiryns, the vast majority of the dedicated vases are miniature vessels of local fabric. The number reaches nearly a thousand, forming a series that begins in the seventh century and runs right through the sixth century into the fifth[1562]. Miniature vases similar in style, and presumably of about the same date, were found in like abundance in the Argive Heraeum[1563], where they were dated by the Americans many centuries too early. They form the most characteristic series of vase dedications in the temple. It has been suggested with much plausibility by Frickenhaus in the Tiryns publication[1564], that it was just such a mass of similar votive vases that was seen by Herodotus in the temple of Damia and Auxesia in Aegina. If Frickenhaus is right, the exclusion of Attic pottery from certain temples in Aegina and the Argolid is naturally put back at least into the seventh century. Frickenhaus refuses to believe that the use of these “native pots” was due to the reason given by Herodotus. But does the association of these harmless little local vases with an anti-Attic policy really look like an aetiological invention?

In the Aphaia temple on Aegina a quantity of local hand-made ware was found in the form of pots, jugs, plates, hydriae, amphorae, etc., large enough for use. Furtwaengler refers to them as χύτραι[1565], another form of the word used by Herodotus of the native pots dedicated to Damia and Auxesia. Similar plain ware for practical use is found on many sites[1566], and is not likely to have attracted the notice of Herodotus, though on the other hand the word that he uses (pots, χυτρίδες) points to plain coarse ware[1567]. If this is the ware he noticed, our dating is not however affected, since the principal shapes find their nearest parallels in Geometric graves.

Appendix C (to p. 169). _Early Athenian Sea Power_

The earliest naval battle known to Thucydides was fought between the Corinthians and the Corcyraeans in 664 B.C.[1568]. The Dipylon ships are built with rams (fig. 45. _a_), which by itself sufficiently shows their warlike character[1569]. Some of them are depicted fighting, or with fallen sailors lying all around (fig. 45. _c_)[1570], a fact which led Kroker[1571] to date them after 664 B.C. If Kroker’s argument was sound, they would have to be dated later still, for it is highly unlikely that Athenian vases would depict for the local market a battle in which Athenians were not concerned[1572]. But even 664 B.C. seems too late a date for the vases. Seventh century Greek pottery everywhere shows Oriental influence. This is the case with typical seventh century Attic, which is known as Proto-Attic and Phaleron ware. Dipylon pottery may have lasted on into this century, but it belongs mainly to the eighth and ninth[1573]. A Geometric cup with a naval fight found at Eleusis[1574] occurred in the lowest stratum of the Geometric graves and is dated by Poulsen fairly early in the style[1575].

There is however no necessary discrepancy with Thucydides. Helbig[1576] points out that all Dipylon fights seem to be duels between single pairs of ships. Most of these Dipylon warships are depicted on huge vases that took the place of tombstones, so that the single ship, or ship-duel, might be explained by the single sea-captain who lay beneath[1577]. But against this explanation must be set the single ships and single ship fights on smaller Dipylon vases and the naval duel on the vase signed by Aristonothos, probably an Argive potter of the first half of the seventh century (fig. 46)[1578]. One late Dipylon fragment (fig. 45. _d_)[1579] shows a ship’s crew fighting warriors on land, and the vessel’s prow, in which Helbig sees the form of a horse’s head, is thought by him to indicate that it came from Caria or Phoenicia, where this kind of prow ornament is known to have been used[1580]. The horse’s head is not very distinct. Its identification is regarded as uncertain by Furtwaengler[1581]. At the best it is not decisive for Helbig’s inference. But he is probably right, when he sees in the Athenian ships of the Dipylon period a naval force intended to protect Attica against pirates[1582], which may never have fought a pitched battle at all[1583].

Some such state of things as Helbig outlined is required to explain the behaviour of the naval forces of the combatants in the early Aeginetan war. The war is described as occurring just after the Aeginetans had built ships and become masters of the sea[1584]. The fleet may have been the outcome of the shipbuilding recorded in the Hesiodic Eoiai, where it is said of the Aeginetans that they “were the first to fashion ships with oars on either side, and first to set up sails, the wings of the ship that crosses the sea[1585].” The thalassocracy must have been local[1586], and may well mean simply that Aegina had outstripped Athens, and become the leading member of the Kalaurian league, though possibly it is to be associated with the early Aeginetan settlement at Naukratis[1587]. The Athenians claimed to have sent only a single ship to Aegina. But this appears to have been the version of the official bulletin, with the incapacity apparently inherent in such documents for describing a serious reverse as such. “The Aeginetans said that the Athenians had come not with one ship but with many[1588].”

That Athens too possessed a fleet is implied when Herodotus says that the Argives crossed to Aegina undetected[1589]. Yet there is no hint of a sea battle. Both sides have their explanation[1590], but neither is very satisfactory. The state of things implied by Herodotus’ narrative of the Aeginetan war is remarkably like that pictured by Helbig for the time of the naval activities of the Dipylon ships.

One further point on this naval question may be noted, though it must not be pressed. Triremes are mentioned in connexion with the crossing of the Athenians to Aegina. This may be a mere anachronism[1591]. But there is nothing to prove that it is so. A state of things which includes fleets of triremes, but no naval actions on a large scale, suits admirably the early part of the seventh century, before the naval battle of 664 B.C. and after the invention of the trireme. The first triremes in Greece are said to have been built at Corinth, some time before 704 B.C., when Ameinokles constructed four for the Samians[1592]. Some of the Dipylon ships appear already to possess two banks of oars (fig. 45_b_)[1593]. Ships with two banks of oars appear on monuments of Sennacherib (700 B.C.)[1594].

Triremes were used by the Pharaoh Necho (610–594 B.C.)[1595]. Both Sennacherib and Necho probably relied largely on Phoenician sailors and shipwrights. “We are told that the Sidonians were the first to construct a trireme[1596].” All these statements fall in excellently with the notice of Thucydides. It is true that in the next chapter he says that Aegina and Athens possessed few triremes a little before the death of Darius (486 B.C.), and uses this fact to argue that Greek naval power only developed on a large scale from about that time. His facts are hardly to be questioned; but in his conclusions he appears to be misled by the fallacy (which he shares with so many moderns) that no development of first class importance could possibly be dated much earlier than his own age[1597].

The troubles that overtook Aegina about the time of her break with Epidaurus probably included a war with Samos[1598], in which the Samians “sent an expedition against Aegina, and did much harm to the Aeginetans, and received much from them[1599].” In such a state of affairs Aegina would be doing her utmost to turn out ships on the up-to-date pattern with which Ameinokles was supplying the enemy.

The Dipylon ships are rightly associated by many modern scholars with the naukraric organization that is found existing at Athens at the end of the dark ages[1600]. The presidents of the naukraroi (or perhaps of the naukraries) are said by Herodotus to have been administering (ἔνεμον) Athens at the time of Cylon’s attempted tyranny, _i.e._ about 632 B.C.[1601]. The statement is challenged by Thucydides, who says that “at that time the nine archons conducted most of the business of the state[1602].” Herodotus however is at the worst only being inaccurate. The naukraroi were very possibly “the authorities in charge of the siege (οἱ ἐπιτετραμμένοι τὴν φυλακήν)” of Thucydides and were probably responsible for the levy _en masse_, recorded by Thucydides himself (ἐβοήθησαν πανδήμει ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν), that led to Cylon’s discomfiture[1603]. Herodotus may have exaggerated the authority of the naukraroi to palliate the guilt of the Alcmaeonid archon who put Cylon’s followers to death[1604].

Attica in the days of Cylon was divided into forty-eight of these naukraries, each of which had to provide a ship[1605]. The business of the naukraroi was however largely financial[1606], so much so that later writers, who may have known them best from references to them in the laws of Solon, seem to have regarded them as exchequer officials[1607], the more so as Cleisthenes replaced the naukraric organization by demes[1608], which had no naval associations.

Even the etymological connexion of naukrary with ναῦς (navis, ship) has been called in question. Doubt is first cast on it by Pollux, who wrote his _Onomasticon_ in the second century A.D.[1609]. Modern writers have proposed alternative derivations. Grote derives it from ναίω (I dwell), and explains the naukraroi as the principal householders[1610], a reflex of the suffrage basis of the nineteenth century. Others[1611] connect it with an obscure word ναύω, said by Hesychius and Photius to mean “I beseech,” and connected by Photius with ναός (temple). ναός and ναύω they connect with a dubious gloss of Pollux[1612], which explains ναύκληρος (ship’s captain) by the rare word ἑστιοπάμων (householder, lit. hearthholder), and which they emend by reading ναύκραρος for ναύκληρος. As further Hesychius defines ναύκληρος (_sic_) as the president of a community (συνοικία) they connect the origin of the naukraries with the unification (συνοικισμός) of Attica by Theseus, symbolized by a common hearth[1613].

These philological doubts have been met by G. Meyer[1614], who argues that even assuming that ναός means “hearth,” compounds would require not ναυ- but ναο- or ναυο-. Phonetic analogies all point to a derivation from ναῦς (ship)[1615]. -κραρος is to be connected with κραίνω (make, complete) or perhaps with κραίνω meaning “I rule[1616].”

Pollux’s uncertainty about the derivation simply reflects the uncertainty about the history of the naukraries that was prevalent in his days. No naval activities of the naukraroi are recorded by any ancient writer[1617]. But this proves nothing. Naukraries probably had a long history at Athens, like ship-money in England, and in the course of time lost their dominatingly naval character.

Gilbert indeed[1618] doubted the existence of naukraries before the time of Solon, who is suggested as a possible founder by a Scholiast of Aristophanes[1619]. He suspects the evidence of the pro-Alcmaeonid Herodotus, and notes that he describes the attempt of Cylon and its suppression by the naukraroi as having happened “before the time” not of Solon but “of Peisistratus.” He argues also against the possibility of a pre-Solonian Attic fleet of forty-eight ships, since Solon, when he attacked Salamis, sailed against the island with nothing but a large number of fishing-boats and one thirty-oared vessel[1620]. He quotes Photius, who s.v. ναυκραρία says, “Solon having thus called them, as Aristotle states.” His views are not tenable. Even if Herodotus is trying to whitewash the Alcmaeonidae, it by no means follows that he is very far from the truth in his account of the naukraries. If he mentions Peisistratus and not Solon, it is simply because Cylon aimed at becoming not a lawgiver but a tyrant. A weak Athenian fleet in Solon’s time is no proof that the Athenian fleet had never been stronger. When Photius says “thus called” (ὀνομάσαντος), he may quite as well mean “used this name for” as “gave this name to”: if he intended it for the latter, all that follows is that he misunderstood Aristotle, as did also the Scholiast to Aristophanes, _Clouds_, 37.

De Sanctis has gone even further than Gilbert, and brings down the establishment of the naukraries, along with the attempt of Cylon, to the time of Peisistratus[1621]. He argues mainly from the naval developments under the tyrant, which, as seen already, are no evidence whatever against a much earlier date.

There is no reason to doubt the existence of the naukraries in 632 B.C. The question to be settled is how much further they go back, and what was the naval need that they were organized to meet.

A date not much before Cylon is argued for by Schoemann[1622], who can find no earlier occasion for their institution than the seventh century struggle with Megara, by Duncker[1623], who similarly explains them as instituted out of rivalry to the seventh century navies of Athens’ neighbours, by Philippi[1624] who dates them 683 B.C. (institution of annual archons), and by Busolt[1625], on account of their connexion with the financial classification and organization of the seventh century. As regards Schoemann and Duncker it has been shown above in Chapter VI how very unlikely it is that Athens started an elaborate naval organization in the seventh century. Busolt’s connexion of the naukraries with seventh century financial organization shows only that they then existed: it does not follow that they were then created. Whether or no Glotz is right in tracing them back to Homeric times[1626], the balance of probabilities indicates that they go back to the period of the Dipylon pottery[1627], and were organized for protection or reprisals against the raiders that then infested the Attic coasts, much as in England the Danegeld was instituted to deal with the pirates of a corresponding period in our own history. There may be something in the view that equates the naukraric organization with the council of Theseus[1628], if by Theseus is meant the head of the Athenian state who established some sort of order on the waters and coasts of the Saronic Gulf after the overthrow of the Cretan civilization[1629]. To quote the words of two particularly sober writers[1630]:

After the breakdown of the Minoan thalassocracy Athens certainly
took her part in policing the Saronic Gulf.... Her men of war are
frequently depicted on Dipylon vases of the ninth and eighth
centuries. In later times need of this protecting squadron may have
grown less, when the navies of Megara, Aegina, Chalcis, and Eretria
cleared the Aegean of corsairs. We may suppose that the naukraroi of
the seventh century seldom saw active naval service[1631].

The writers just quoted, following Helbig, imagine the ancient naukraries pursuing their naval activities as members of the Kalaurian league, and the latter, which lasted on as a religious body through classical times, as gradually taking a back place with the development of the other naval states they mention. Their picture however leaves out of account the chief fact known about the history of the league. Its original members were Hermione, Epidaurus, Aegina, Athens, Prasiae, Nauplia, and the Minyan Orchomenos. Then at the end of the list Strabo adds, “Nauplia used to be represented by Argos, and Prasiae by Sparta[1632].” Strabo is here referring to a later period. It looks as though Argos and Sparta were intruders into the league, who sought membership to secure influence or a recognized position in the Saronic Gulf, just as in later times Philip of Macedon, for political reasons, set such store on recognition by the Delphic Amphictyony[1633]. Is it unreasonable to suppose that the two intruders secured their places in the league each at the time of his aspirations to Peloponnesian hegemony, Sparta in the sixth century, and Argos under Pheidon? All the known circumstances bear out this supposition, at least for Argos which alone at present concerns us. It fits alike the naval power of Athens in the dark ages, the eclipse of that power in the seventh century, and the expansion of Argos just at this period. Nauplia is said by Pausanias[1634] to have fallen to Argos only at the end of the seventh century. But Asine, which lies further from Argos, is said to have been conquered by her a hundred years earlier[1635]. Beloch argues with some reason that the nearer city must have been conquered first. But there is no need to follow him in his passion for lowering dates, and bring down the time of the conquest of Asine. There is more reason for putting back the date of the fall of Nauplia, and thus bringing it into the period of Argive expansion under Pheidon[1636].

Make this not unlikely modification in the picture just quoted from Mitchell and Caspari, and the early war between Athens and Aegina finds a satisfactory historical setting. Before the war Athens, Epidaurus, and Aegina are the leading states in the Saronic Gulf. As a result of it Athens is crippled at sea, and her place, and even more than her place, is taken by Argos. The evidence is admittedly scanty, but as far as it goes it points to the first Aeginetan war as marking the downfall of the naval power that Athens had enjoyed during the dark ages, or, as the legend puts it, after the fall of Minos, when the Kalaurian league and the navy of the naukraries were potent realities. The power that brings about this downfall is that of the Argive tyrant Pheidon.

Appendix D (to p. 170). _Early Athenian Dress_

Thucydides[1637] quotes Athenian dress in the introductory chapters of his first book to illustrate his thesis that civilization and comfort are extremely modern things. He divides Athenian history from this standpoint into three periods, the first that when men went about armed, the second that of luxurious Ionic fashions, and the third that in which they reverted to simple or rational dress (μετρία ἐσθής). It is difficult to date the beginning of Thucydides’ second period later than the first half of the seventh century. At the time indeed when Thucydides wrote his remarks it was not very long since elderly men of the wealthy class in Athens had given up the Ionic dress. It has sometimes been maintained that the dress was always confined to old men, and that Thucydides implies that Ionic at Athens had been recently in full fashion. But the tone of the passage suggests rather the old gentleman who clings to the fashions of an earlier age. Already in the seventies of the fifth century B.C. the woman who typifies Greece in Xerxes’ dream is dressed by Aeschylus in Doric robes[1638] and the monuments confirm the view which regards the Persian Wars as marking the change.

But that does not end Thucydides’ evidence. He speaks of fashions in Sparta as well as in Athens. The return to simple dress was started by the Spartans (μετρίᾳ δ’ αὖ ἐσθῆτι πρῶτοι Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐχρήσαντο). This statement has two implications[1639]. The Spartans must have reverted to Doric costume before the Persian Wars, and previous to this reversion they must, like the Athenians, have worn some sort of Ionic costume. The importance of these allusions to Sparta seems scarcely to have been realized, no doubt because the controversy took shape before the excavations of the British School at Sparta had challenged many of the received views on the history of archaic Sparta. The very large finds of ivory and lead figurines of the seventh and sixth centuries[1640] show that artistically at least the Spartans of that period were by no means the austere devotees of simplicity that they became in the classical age. Spartan simplicity in fact probably dates in large measure from the days of Chilon, the reformer of the middle of the sixth century[1641]. It is not improbable that the simple dress at Sparta came in with the simple life at just about this period. It is already implied for Spartan young women by the epithet φαινομηρίδες (showing the thigh) of the poet Ibycus, a contemporary of Chilon. There is nothing in Thucydides to discountenance the assumption of an interval of about fifty years between the beginning of simple dress at Sparta, and its adoption at Athens[1642]. The tyranny at Athens roughly covers this period, and standing as it did for material luxury, sufficiently accounts for the interval. Athenian luxury, at least in the matter of dress, is said by Thucydides to have started earlier than Spartan, and Spartan, if it went out in the middle of the sixth century, must plainly have come in considerably before that date.

The Ionic costume is said by Herodotus to be strictly speaking not Ionian but Carian[1643]. Eastern influence began to pass over from the Greek cities of Asia Minor and pervade the more progressive parts of Greece Proper early in the seventh century[1644]: so that once again this seems to be the most probable period for the assumption of Ionic dress at Athens.

The same date is arrived at by working forward from Thucydides’ first period, the age when men habitually went about armed. Thucydides is notoriously sceptical about the existence of the culture so familiar to us now under the names of Mycenaean and Minoan and it does not come into his three periods of Greek dress. The first of these is plainly the dark age that followed the downfall of Crete and Mycenae, the age of the Geometric pottery which about the year 700 B.C. began to make way for orientalizing styles. This is the period _par excellence_ of dress-pins and fibulae as shown by archaeological finds[1645], and the end of it, _i.e._ the beginning of the seventh century, would be the natural time for regulations curtailing or prohibiting their use.

Much has been made of the fact that Thucydides deals exclusively with male attire and Herodotus with female, and scholars who maintain that the Aeginetan disaster occurred towards the middle of the sixth century argue that in early Athens men would take the lead even in matters of dress[1646] and that the early date implied by Thucydides for the male Ionic costume in Attica need not hold for the female as well. If the distinct dates were established beyond dispute the difference of sex might serve as an explanation. We have seen however that there is nothing in the words of Herodotus to justify a sixth century date for the adoption of Ionic costume by Athenian women.

Appendix E (to p. 249). _The Dating of the latest Vases from the Forum
Cemetery_

Among the Forum vases that look late are some skyphoi like the “Later Ionic” of Sieveking and Hackl’s Munich Catalogue, _e.g._ _Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17, pp. 407 f., figs. 36, 42, 55, 57 (the last two from the same grave as fig. 53, see _ibid._ fig. 52). These skyphoi are closely related to a series of small, flat, handleless bowls similarly decorated, _Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17, p. 388, figs. 14, 15 (grave G), p. 409, fig. 39 (grave I), p. 425, fig. 56 (grave K): for the stylistic connexion cp. _Notiz._ 1903, p. 425, fig. 56 (handleless bowl) with _ibid._ fig. 57 (skyphos). The context in which they were found at Rome points to a date not later than fairly early in the sixth century: _Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17, was found acting as a lid (see _ibid._ fig. 16) to the skyphos _ibid._ fig. 17 of the later Ionic style; _Notiz._ 1903, p. 388, figs. 14, 15, were found in a single skeleton grave (_ibid._ p. 385 and fig. 11) along with the Proto-Corinthian lekythos, p. 388, fig. 17, that is probably of the seventh century, and other vases that are probably of the sixth: fig. 39 is from a single skeleton grave that contained also the “later Ionic” skyphoi, figs. 36, 42 (_ibid._ p. 400 and figs. 28, 31); fig. 56 is from a single skeleton grave and had a similar context (_ibid._ p. 418 and fig. 52). All these handleless cups (figs. 14, 15, 39, 56) are pierced near the brim with pairs of small holes. This is a practice known in Greek pottery of the Geometric and Proto-Corinthian period (_J.H.S._ XXX. p. 241, n. 42: add _Notiz._ 1895, p. 238, found in the same grave with two sixth century black figure vases. Two vases apparently somewhat similar in shape, style, and decoration to this flat, handleless series, but without the bored holes, were found at Rhitsona in graves of the end of the sixth century, _Arch. Eph._ 1912, p. 115, fig. 15) but not to black and red figure Attic pottery: it occurs on the probably seventh century cup from grave M, _Notiz._ 1905, pp. 151, 155, figs. 9, 12.

Other late-looking vases are the two figured _Notiz._ 1905, p. 150, fig. 7. Pais, _Ricerche_, I. (1915), p. 382, quoting Helbig dates them later than the sixth century. But Piganiol, _Journ. des Sav._ 1915, p. 552, n. 4, supported by Dugas, argues for the possibility of an earlier date on the ground that, though the shape might belong to the end of the fifth century, the decoration, for which cp. Louvre C 44, figured by Pottier, _Album_, I. pl. 23, points to the seventh. This argument will hardly do as it stands. The vase cannot be older than its shape, which rather recalls the fifth and fourth century festooned cups from Gnathia. But though it so much recalls that period, it does not seem to find an exact parallel in it, and the divergence may be more significant than the similarity. No other vases were found in the same grave with these two, so there is no context to suggest an earlier date: but if I am not mistaken, fifth and fourth century Gnathia ware is similarly recalled with a similar slight difference by another Forum vase, _Notiz._ 1903, p. 408, fig. 37, found in a grave with nine others (including figs. 36, 38, 39, 42, quoted above) which all point to a sixth century date. It must not be assumed that features common to early Greek and Italic wares always began earlier in Greece: a whole series of Etruscan bucchero vases has broad ribbon-shaped vertical handles that in Greek ware are distinctive of the late sixth century potter Nikosthenes: yet one of these bucchero vases comes from the early (seventh century) Regulini Galassi tomb at Caere, see _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 126, fig. 18, p. 207. For Forum examples see _Notiz._ 1903, pp. 408, 422, figs. 38, 53.

Appendix F (to p. 249). _Evidence for Intramural Burials in Rome_

Servius declares that the people of Rome and other cities originally buried all their dead within the city and actually within the house[1647]. The latter statement appears to be an inference from the worship of the lares, “people used all to be buried in their own houses, whence has arisen the practice of worshipping the lares within the house,” but may be none the less true for that reason[1648]. Intramural burials are prohibited in the Twelve Tables, “hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito neve urito[1649],” a prohibition which implies a practice still to some extent prevalent at the time[1650]. In the consulship of Duilius the prohibition was re-enacted[1651], showing that even then the practice was not altogether obsolete. Quite a number of exceptions were allowed by law. Vestal virgins (both good and bad) and imperatores were as such exempted[1652]. To come to concrete instances, the grandfather of King Tullus Hostilius is said to have been buried “at the best spot in the Forum[1653].” Tullus is a dubious figure in Roman history, and still more so is his grandfather. There is some uncertainty too about the case of the novem combusti, contemporaries of Spurius Cassius in the early years of the republic[1654]. They may have been not cremated but burnt alive[1655]. But there are plenty of later instances. Cicero implies that the exceptions were well known when after quoting the prohibition in his _de Legibus_ he makes another character in it at once exclaim: “But what of the famous men who have been buried in the city since?,” and immediately proceeds to quote the families of Valerius Publicola and Postumius Tubertus, and the individual case of C. Fabricius, buried in the Forum itself in 275 B.C. The exceptions in favour of the Valerii and the Postumii apparently go back to the beginning of the republic, when the consuls P. Valerius Publicola and P. Postumius Q. f. Tubertus were buried within the walls[1656]. To the same period went back the concession to the Claudii of a burial-place under the Capitol[1657]. The intramural (?) tomb of the Cincii, and that of “quidam Argiuorum illustres uiri” said to have been buried within the city, rest on more doubtful evidence[1658]. That of the seven military tribunes buried near the Circus in 267 B.C. may have been still without the city.

The archaeological evidence for intramural burials at Rome has been discussed by Graffunder. At least two cases are well attested for the early republican period[1659].

INDEX

_A.J.A._ see _American Journal of Archaeology_

Aahmes, see Amasis, Pharaoh of Egypt

Abdul Hamid, 270

Abel (E.), _Scholia Vetera in Pindari Nemea et Isthmia_, cited 258 n. 2

Abertawe (Swansea), 106 n. 3

_Abhandlungen d. bayerisch. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Muenchen_,
cited 199 n. 11, 200 n. 1

_Abhandlungen d. hist. phil. Gesellschaft Breslau_, see Haase

_Abhandlungen d. preussisch. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin_,
cited 39 n. 1;
see also Diels, Erman, Lepsius, Milchhoefer, Schweinfurth, Wiegand

_Abhandlungen d. saechsischen Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften_, see
Overbeck

Abraham, 96

Abrahams (E. B.), _Greek Dress_, cited 166 n. 1

Abu Symbel, 123, 212

Abydos, 92

_Academy_, see Dennis

Acarnania, 52

Acharnae, 310

Achilles, 48, 298

Acragas, see Agrigentum

Acropolis of Agrigentum, 274;
of Athens, 17, 40 n. 6, 53, 63, 252, 253, 315 n. 5;
of Lampsacus, 281

Actaeon, favourite of Archias, 181

Adrastus, 179 n. 2, 261, 262, 264 n. 5

Adrianople, 200 n. 1

Aeacus, 176 n. 3

Aegean Sea, 33, 112, 130, 135, 286, 305, 330

Aegeis, 41 n. 3

Aegina, Aeginetans, 34, 57 n. 5, 64 n. 3, 68, 109, 116, 117, 154–157,
160–162, 164–171, 173–178, 212 n. 8, 285, 294, 314–320, 324–326,
330, 331, 333

Aeginetan weight system, 24 n. 1, 133, 156, 161, 164, 171–173, 175,
263, 294

Aegon, 158 n. 6

Aeinautai, 269

Aelian, _Historia Animalium_, cited 95 n. 1;
_Varia Historia_, cited 10 n. 6, 17, 126 n. 4, 136 n. 3, 137 n. 1,
145 n. 3, 150 n. 6, 155 n. 2, 193 n. 1, 272 n. 1, 273 n. 1, 275 n.
1, 302 n. 6, 307 n. 4

Aeneas, 237 n. 1, 249

Aenus, 200 n. 1

Aeolic (pre-Dorian) stock, 193, 304;
see also pre-Dorian

Aeolis, Aeolians, 69 n. 5, 246

_aes formatum_, 219

_aes graue_, 219, 232

_aes rude_, 219, 220

_aes signatum_, 219, 220

Aeschines, _contra Timarchum_, cited 12 n. 7, 13, 312 n. 1;
Schol. _contra Timarchum_, cited 310

Aeschines, Socratic philosopher, 30

Aeschines, tyrant of Sicyon, 66, 263 n. 5.

Aeschines of Semachidai, 39 n. 1

Aeschylus, _Agamemnon_, cited 57 n. 5;
_Persae_, cited 47, 69 n. 4, 332;
Schol. _Persae_, cited 40 n. 9;
Schol. _Prometheus Bound_, cited 134 n. 2

Aesop, 56 n. 3

aesymnetes, αἰσυμνήτης, 8, 272, 301

Aethelred, 238

Aetolia, 196 n. 5, 263 n. 5

Africa, 3, 54, 87

Africanus, cited 93 n. 1, 98–100, 143 n. 2, 159

Agamemnon, 10

Agamemnon, king of Cyme, 147

Agariste, 157, 259 n. 1, 262

Agatharchides of Cnidus, 90 n. 3, 203 n. 4

Agathocles, 208–211, 276–278, 303 n. 2

Agesilaus, 20, 57, 291

ἀγορανόμοι, 12

ἀγοράζω, 80

agrarian laws, 230, 289

agriculture, 16, 24, 34, 264, 307–311;
see also farmers

agricultural labourers, 24, 37, 38

Agrigentum, Acragas, 10 n. 1, 14, 274–278 _passim_, 296

agroikoi, 48;
see also farmers

Ahala, see Servilius Ahala

Aiakes, father of Polycrates, 81, 292

Aiakes, nephew of Polycrates, 75

αἰχμοφόρος, 143

Aipeia, 169 n. 1

Aithalia, 203 n. 4

ἀκήρατος, 68

Akkad, 197

akron, ἄκρον, ἄκρα, ἄκρη, 40, 41, 44, 291

ἀκτή, 312

Ala Shehr, 130 n. 7

alabastron, 119

Aladdin, 127, 148

Albertus (J.), ed. Hesychius, cited 40

Alcibiades, 17

Alciphron, cited 155 n. 1

Alcmaeon, 64, 65

Alcmaeonidae, Alcmaeonids, 14, 64–67, 231, 250, 292, 326, 328

Aldus, 311

Alexander Aetolus, cited 180 n. 2

Alexander Aphrodisiensis, _Problems_, cited 199 n. 9

Alexander the Great, 54 n. 1, 282 n. 4, 284, 288

Alexandria, 160 n. 7

Alexis, cited 21, 74

Alfred the Great, 91 n. 4, 237–239

Alopeke (modern Ampelokipi), 39 n. 1

Alyattes, 59 n. 6, 128, 137–139, 143 n. 1, 145 n. 3, 152 n. 2, 187 n.
8, 273

Amasis, Aahmes, Pharaoh of Egypt, 68, 71, 83, 84, 87, 96 n. 4, 101–105,
107 n. 4, 109, 112, 114, 115 n. 2, 116 n. 3, 117 n. 4, 121–124, 126,
293

Amasis, potter, 245

Ambracia, 189, 213 n. 4, 263 n. 5

Ameinokles, 184, 325, 326

Amelung (W.), _apud_ Pauly-Wissowa, cited 166 n. 1

Amen Rud, see Ammeris

America, see United States of America

_American Journal of Archaeology_, cited 38 n. 2, 81 n. 3

_American Journal of Philology_, see Smith (K. F.)

American School of Classical Studies, Athens, 163, 187 n. 2, 319

Ammeris, Amen Rud, Rud Amen, Nut Amen, 88 n. 1, 99

Ammianus Marcellinus, cited 208 n. 4

Ammonius, _Vita Aristotelis_, cited 282 n. 3

Amon, god of Thebes, 97

Ampelokipi, see Alopeke

Amphictyons, Amphictyony, 65, 259 n. 2, 330

Amphikrates, king of Samos, 69 n. 5, 177, 178

ἀμφιφορῆες, 201

Amphipolis, 36 n. 1

Amphitrope (modern Metropisi), 39

amphorae, 113, 201, 205, 243 n. 1, 246, 253, 320

Anacreon, 84

Anaktorion, 189

Anaphlystus, 39, 41

Anatolia, 72

Anaxilas of Rhegium, 74, 75

Ancus Martius, 216, 217 n. 1

Andocides, cited 47 n. 7

Andreas, father of Orthagoras, 257, 263

Andros, 313 n. 1

Angel of the Lord, 92

Anglo-Saxons, 89 n. 1, 238

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 237

Ἀγκὼν γλυκύς, 76, 77 n. 3

_Annali dell’ Instituto_, see Bachofen

Anno, see Hanno

_Annual of the British School at Athens_, cited 317 n. 7;
see also Burrows, Edgar, Hogarth, Petrie, Ure

antefix, terra cotta, 250–252

_Anthologia Lyrica_, cited 14;
see also Bergk

_Anthologia Palatina_, cited 201

_Antike Denkmäler_, cited 242 n. 3

Antiochis, 39, 41 n. 3

Antiochus I, 147 n. 1, 285

Antiochus of Syracuse, 274 n. 1

Antiphilus (_Anth. Pal._), cited 201

S. Antonia, church of, 252

Anysis, 88 n. 1

Apamea, 147 n. 1, 208

Aphaia, temple of, 318–320

Aphrodite, 107 n. 4, 118, 119, 191 n. 3, 305, 318, 319

Apis stelai, 99 n. 1

ἀπόγονος, 157

Apollo, 65, 70, 107 n. 4, 110, 116, 117, 123, 138 n. 9, 144, 263 n. 5,
305

Apollodorus, cited 180

Apollonius Rhodius, _Argonautica_, 195 n. 2;
_Foundation of Naukratis_, cited 117;
Schol. _Argonautica_, cited 44 n. 4, 146 n. 7, 180, 181

Appi Forum, 233

Appian, _Bellum Civile_, cited 39 n. 4, 50 n. 1;
_Bellum Mithridaticum_, cited 189 n. 8;
_Bellum Syriacum_, cited 285 n. 1

Appian Way, see Via Appia

Appius Claudius Caecus, 211, 232, 233, 295

Appius Claudius the decemvir, 231

Apries, Haa ab ra, Hophra, 88 n. 1, 105, 122, 123

Apuleius, _Florida_, cited 69 n. 4

aqueducts, 62 n. 6, 76, 232, 267

Arabia, Arabians, Arabs, 100 n. 8, 116, 261 n. 2

_Arabian Nights_, 145

Aracoeli, church of, 252

Aratus, 257 n. 1

arbitrators, 11

Arcadia, 211, 212

Arcesilaus II of Cyrene, 74 n. 3

Arcesilaus III of Cyrene, 74, 82 n. 1

_Archäologische-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Oesterreich_, cited 319
n. 2

_Archäologische Zeitung_, see Furtwaengler, Preller

_Archäologischer Anzeiger_, cited 110 n. 4, n. 7, 115 n. 1;
see also Assmann, Fabricius

_Archaiologike Ephemeris_, cited 15 n. 4, 169 n. 5;
see also Doerpfeld, Skias

“archers,” Persian coins, 57, 291

Archias of Corinth, 180–182

Archias of Sparta, 84

Archilochus, cited 36 n. 3, 55 n. 4, 129 n. 6, 134, 143 n. 3, 145 n. 4,
152

archons, 326, 329

Ardaillon (E.), _Les Mines de Laurium_, cited 40 n. 9, 46, 48 n. 3;
_apud_ Saglio, _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_, cited 44 n. 5

Ardea, 234, 235, 296

Ardys, 135, 136, 143, 152, 273, 293

Argeadae, 183

Argolis, the Argolid, 164, 177, 179, 315–318, 320, 333 n. 4

Argonauts, 148 n. 3, 265

Argos, Argive, 24 n. 1, 33, 69 n. 5, 79 n. 2, 82, 149, 152 n. 2, chap.
VI _passim_, 184, 185, 259, 261, 264 n. 5, 292, 294, 314, 316–319,
323, 325, 330, 331, 337

Argive pottery, 318;
see also Proto-Corinthian

Aricia, 238, 249, 279

Aridaios, 281

Axion, 191 n. 2

Aristagoras, historian, 90 n. 1, 96 n. 4

Aristagoras, tyrant, 59 n. 1, 62 n. 4

Aristarchus of Ephesus, 272

Aristides, Publius Aelius, cited 184 n. 2

Aristippus, 30

Aristodemus of Cumae, 14, 247, 278

Aristodemus, ancestor of Spartan kings, 180

Aristogeiton, 253, 302

Aristokypros, 158

Aristonothos, 323

Aristophanes, _Acharnians_, cited 17, 59 n. 1, 265 n. 3;
_Birds_, cited 58, 61;
_Clouds_, cited 40, 51 n. 2, 207 n. 6;
_Frogs_, cited 17, 187 n. 1;
_Lysistrata_, cited 63;
_Peace_, cited 265 n. 3;
_Plutus_, cited 13 n. 1, 20;
_Thesmophoriazusae_, cited 17, 207, 302 n. 6;
_Wasps_, cited 51 n. 2, 201 n. 8;
Schol. _Birds_, cited 54, 58 n. 1;
Schol. _Clouds_, cited 327 n. 2, 328;
Schol. _Knights_, cited 51 n. 2, 61;
Schol. _Lysistrata_, cited 313;
Schol. _Peace_, cited, 199 n. 3, n. 9, 200;
Schol. _Thesmophoriazusae_, cited 207 n. 5;
Schol. _Wasps_, cited 201 n. 8, 313

Aristotle, 6, 22, 32, 192, 195, 200 n. 2, 212, 258, 267, 280–282, 284,
286, 288, 290, 296, 297, 300, 301, 328

Aristotle, _Constitution of the Athenians_, 19 n. 1;
cited 13 n. 6, 16 n. 6, n. 9, 29 n. 1, 31, 35 n. 1, n. 4, 36, 37,
46–48, 49 n. 3, 51 n. 2, 55 n. 1, 59 n. 5, 60, 61, 64, 65, 166 n.
6, 171 n. 2, 302, 307, 308, 326 n. 8, n. 9, 327 n. 1, n. 2;
_Constitution of the Sicyonians_, 258;
_Historia Animalium_, cited 199, 211, 309;
_Meteorologica_, cited 87 n. 9;
_Mirabiles Auscultationes_, cited 138, 147, 148;
_Ode to Virtue_, 283;
_Oeconomica_, cited 63, 189, 283 n. 6;
_Politics_, cited 1, 2, 10–12, 14, 18–20, 22 n. 1, 24 n. 3, 25, 27,
28, 31, 35 n. 3, n. 5, 67, 76 n. 4, 77, 154, 182, 189 n. 1, 190 n.
2, 191 n. 2, 194, 196 n. 6, 198, 213, 257 n. 1, 258, 264, 265, 268
n. 3, 270, 274–276, 282–284, 303, 307;
_Rhetoric_, cited 18, 134 n. 4, 264 n. 6, 265, 275

Arnobius, _adversus Gentes_, cited 238 n. 3

Arrian, _Periplous_, cited 265 n. 6

Artemidorus of Ephesus, 90 n. 3

Artemis, 128, 130 n. 6, 245, 246 n. 1

_artifices_, 235

artizans, 15–21, 49, 92, 95, 103, 139, 217, 218, 222–225, 230, 233,
269, 292, 295, 305;
see also manual labour

aryballi, 112

_as_, 149

Ashdown, 238

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 112 n. 8

Asia, 57, 58, 135, 191 n. 3, 221, 284, 286, 291

Asia Minor, 20, 91, 132, 142, 144, 155, 187, 205, 246 n. 8, 285, 300,
316, 333

Asine, 331

Asser, _Life of Alfred_, 237

Assmann, _Archäologischer Anzeiger_, cited 321 n. 5;
_Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, cited 324 n. 3, 326 n. 3, 327
n. 5

Assos, 280–282

Assurbanipal, 88, 91, 99 n. 3

Assyria, 86, 88, 89 n. 1, n. 3, 91, 92, 97–99, 101, 102, 121 n. 4, 129,
144, 214, 292

Asylum, Asyla, 39 n. 4, 50

Atarneus, 280–284

ἀτελές, 135

Athelney, 238

Athena, 14, 16, 51–55, 60, 61, 63, 214 n. 4, 276, 291

Athena Ergane, 16 n. 7

Athenaeus, cited 21 n. 4, 22 n. 3, 23 n. 1, 45, 50 n. 2, 51 n. 2, 55 n.
1, 70 n. 5, 73 n. 5, n. 6, 74, 76–80, 100, 101 n. 5, 103 n. 6, 104
n. 4, 117 n. 3, 118 n. 5, 126 n. 4, 139 n. 3, 144 n. 3, 167 n. 1, n.
4, n. 5, 187 n. 1, 191 n. 3, 208 n. 1, n. 4, 211 n. 6, 259 n. 1, 268
n. 3, 269 n. 6, 270 n. 1, 271 n. 6, 275 n. 1, 281 n. 3, n. 5, 283 n.
4, n. 5, 284 n. 4, 309 n. 3, 336 n. 1

Athenagoras, 272

_Athenische Mitteilungen_, see _Mitteilungen des deutschen
archäologischen Instituts in Athen_

Athens, Athenians, 7, 12, 13–17, 19, 21, 25, 28, 30, 31, chap. II
_passim_, 69, 72 n. 2, 76 n. 5, 78, 80 n. 5, 83, 86, 92 n. 2, 137,
147, 149, 151 n. 2, 162 n. 3, 163, 165, 166, 168–176, 178 n. 1, 181,
183 n. 6, 196 n. 5, 215, 229 n. 1, 231, 239 n. 4, 245, 250–253, 258
n. 4, 260, 261, 264–266, 268, 274, 280, 287, 291, 292, 294, 302–305,
309–311, 321–334

Athribis, 214 n. 3

Atotes the miner, 48

Attalids, 284–286, 289

Attalus, (?) father of Philetairos, 284 n. 4

Attalus I, 285, 288

Attalus III, 288, 289

_Atti d. Reale Accademia d. Torino_, see De Gubernatis

Attica, Attic, 16, 21 n. 1, chap. II _passim_, 74, 79, 166, 168–170,
174, 251, 291, 307–313, 315, 327, 329, 334

Attic pottery, 34, 113, 115, 167, 168, 170, 202, 203, 245, 25 n. 1,
253, 254, 314–320, 321, 335;
see also Proto-Attic, Black Figure, Red Figure

Atys, 140

Aubert (H.) and Wimmer (F.), ed. Aristotle _Historia Animalium_, cited
211 n. 3

Augustus, 37

Aulon, 312

Aurelius Victor, _de Viris Illustribus_, cited 215–217, 221, 223 n. 1,
n. 5, 224 n. 5, 229 n. 4, 238 n. 3, 245

Australia, 164

Auxesia, 167, 170, 175, 320

Avignon, 3

_B.C.H._ see _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_

_B.S.A._ see _Annual of the British School at Athens_

Babelon (E.), in _Corolla Numismatica_, cited 56 n. 2, 60 n. 2;
_Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique_, cited 51 n. 3,
52, 53, 56 n. 2, 64;
_Les Origines de la Monnaie_, cited 129 n. 1, 130 n. 2, 131 n. 2, 137
n. 2, 141, 142, 148 n. 6, 149, 150, 152 n. 2, 161 n. 1, 162 n. 3,
220 n. 4;
_Revue Numismatique_, cited 69 n. 5, 75 n. 1, 128 n. 1, 130 n. 2, 131
n. 2, 132, 133, 143 n. 1

Babylon, 123, 214, 311

Babylonian weight standard, 132

Bacchiads, 26 n. 2, 180–183, 187 n. 9, 190, 192–194, 196 n. 3, 197, 272

Bacchis, 193 n. 3

Bacchylides, cited 129 n. 7, 138 n. 9, 144 n. 4, 169

Bachofen, _Tanaquil_, cited 236 n. 2;
_Annali dell’ Instituto_, cited 253 n. 4

Baedeker, _Greece_, cited 39 n. 6

Baetis (modern Guadalquivir), 177 n. 6

Bakenranf, see Bocchoris

Balylon, 311

Βάναυσον, τὸ, 20

Bank of England, 26

bankers, 2, 3, 137 n. 2, 141–143, 152, 280–283, 286, 296

Barnabei and Cozza, _Notizie degli Scavi_, cited 244 n. 1, 246 n. 7

Barth (H.), _Corinthiorum Commercii et Mercaturae Historiae particula_,
cited 187 n. 1, 192 n. 5, 261 n. 2

Basilidae, 271, 272

Baton of Sinope, cited 271, 272

Battus of Cyrene, 123

Bauer, _Sitzungsberichte d. Akademie d. Wissenschaften in Wien_, cited
197 n. 6, n. 8, 209

bazaar, 4, 77, 286, 292

Becker (W. A.), _Charicles_, cited 336 n. 1

beehives, 199–201

beehive tombs, 224 n. 5

Bekker (I.), _Lexicon Seguerianum_ (in _Anecdota Graeca_), cited 39, 41
n. 3, 57, 310 n. 4, 326 n. 9, 327 n. 9

Beloch (J.), 177 n. 3, 265 n. 1, 331;
_Griechische Geschichte_^2, cited 33 n. 1, 51, 52, 63, 67 n. 1, 158,
161 n. 3, 192 n. 1, 210, 259 n. 5, 269 n. 1, 300 n. 1, n. 2, 325
n. 9;
_Rheinisches Museum f. Philologie_, cited 21 n. 1, 34 n. 2, 51 n. 4,
315 n. 3;
_Zeitschrift f. Socialwissenschaft_, cited 22 n. 7

_benignitas_, 227

Bent (J. T.), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 44 n. 5, 243 n. 1

Bentivoglio, Santo, 2

Bentley (Richard), 274

Bérard (V.), _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, cited 48 n. 2

Berezan, 110, 114

Bergk (T.), _Anthologia Lyrica_, cited 48 n. 4, 180 n. 2

von Bergmann, _Numismatische Zeitschrift_, cited 148 n. 6

Berkshire Downs, 238

Berlin Museum, 204, 253 n. 4

_Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, see Assmann, Buechsenschuetz,
Furtwaengler

Bermion, Mount, 146 n. 7

Bernardini tomb, 93 n. 3

von Bernhardi (F. A. J.), _Germany and the Next War_, cited 5, 6

Bertha, sister of Charlemagne, 193 n. 7

Besa, 39

Bevan (E. R.), _House of Seleucus_, cited 285 n. 2

Binder (J. J.), _Laurion_, cited 44 n. 5

Birch (S.), _History of Ancient Pottery_, cited 187 n. 1

von Bissing (W.), 93

Black Figure pottery, 107 n. 4, 110, 113, 115, 202, 203, 253, 254, 315,
317, 319, 326 n. 3, 335

Black Glaze pottery, 107 n. 4, 108

Black Sea, 112, 114, 265 n. 2, 266, 297

_blandimenta_, 227

Bloch, _La République Romaine_, cited 226 n. 6, 233 n. 6

Bluemner (H.), _apud_ Hermann, _Lehrbuch d. griechischen Antiquitäten_,
cited 201 n. 4;
_Gewerbliche Tätigkeit_, cited 187 n. 7, 266;
_Technologie u. Terminologie der Gewerbe u. Künste_, cited 203 n. 2,
n. 4;
_Wochenschrift f. klassische Philologie_, cited 199 n. 1;
see also Hitzig and Bluemner

Bocchoris, Bakenranf, 88 n. 1, 93–98, 100, 103, 292, 293

Bode (W.), 253 n. 4

Boeckh (A.), _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, cited 80 n. 4;
_Kleine Schriften_, cited 280 n. 1, 282 n. 2, n. 4, 283 n. 3;
_Public Economy of Athens_, cited 23 n. 1, 44 n. 2, 56 n. 4, 308 n.
2, 310 n. 4, 328 n. 2, 330 n. 3

Boehlau (J.), _Aus ionischen u. italischen Nekropolen_, cited 110 n. 9,
111 n. 1, n. 2, 112, 252;
_Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts_, cited 315 n. 4

Boeotia, 24, 106, 108, 114, 196 n. 5, 198 n. 5, 248

Boeotian Kylix style of pottery, 110

Bolbitine mouth of the Nile, 90, 91

_Bollettino di Filologia Classica_, see Costanzi

Bologna, 2

_bona_, 227

Bonacossi, _La Chine et les Chinois_, cited 133, 141 n. 3

Boni (G.), _Journal of Roman Studies_, cited 224 n. 5, 253;
_Notizie degli Scavi_, cited 248

Bonnet (A.), see Salvioli

Borrell (H. P.), _Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 131 n. 1

Bosporus, 76

_Boston Museum of Fine Arts Report_, cited 60 n. 1

Boswell, _Life of Johnson_, cited 281

“boundary estates,” 310

Bourlos, 91

Boyle (Charles), 274

Brahami, 39 n. 1

Branchidae, 81, 123