A bas-relief of Pentelic marble found about twelve years ago in Argolis portrays with much beauty the family of the God of Medicine awaiting, in the presence of their father, the approach of male and female suppliants. In the two youths who form part of the group immediately behind Asklepios, it is easy to recognise his sons Machaon and Podaleirios; while the three maidens near them must be his daughters Hygieia, laso and Panakeia. One other female figure, who wears a veil and Stephane, and is of more stately aspect, would seem to be Epione, the wife of Asklepios. Aegle and Akeso, who are also sometimes named as daughters of the god, are here omitted. Epione, in spite of her intimate relations with Asklepios, appears to have been chiefly honoured locally—at Epidaurus, and it is her eldest daughter Hygieia who is really the most important member of the Aesculapian family. The almost constant association of Hygieia with her father brought her into the fullest prominence as a medical divinity, though at the same time it, to a great extent, prevented her from attaining to an independent exercise of power. Most modern writers on Greek mythology and religion have generally suffered her to be absorbed in the greater and more interesting personality of her associate, and have often had but little to tell of Hygieia, except that she was represented ‘as a virgin dressed in a long robe, feeding a serpent from a cup.’

In May and June 1952, as a member of the Anglo-Turkish expedition working at Sultantepe, between Harran and Urfa, I excavated a bath building in the Roman settlement at the foot of the mound. The main hall of the bath was paved with a fine mosaic, decorated with geometric patterns, some of which had affinities with motifs current at Antioch on the Orontes during the first half of the fifth century A.D. At the northern end of the pavement, incorporated in the mosaic, was a five-line hexameter inscription in a tabula ansata (Fig. 1). The inscription was almost undamaged, except for a diagonal break at the left-hand end (which resulted in the loss of about four letters in ll. 1/2, and of about three or two in ll. 3/5), and a small hole which obliterates three letters not far from the beginning of l. 1.

The collection of Greek inscriptions in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, has been much increased during the last four decades. It will therefore be useful to give a complete list, and, where it seems to be advisable, a full description of these sixty-four texts in stone, bronze and wood, twenty-four of which are unpublished, as far as I am able to ascertain, or have been published without full transcription.

It is well known that a large proportion of the Greek epitaphs of Lycia contain a clause by which any person making any burial unauthorised by the founder of the tomb becomes liable to pay a named sum to some corporation, whether public (as the δῆμος, the πόλις, or the imperial treasury) or religious (as the temple of some god), or a powerful association (as the γερουσία).

This liability was not (as might be supposed) a fine imposed by the state in punishment of a criminal offence. Illegal burial was indeed (at least under the Roman government) a crime at law, and was punishable by a fine; but this fine is expressly distinguished from the sum due to the πόλις and the δῆμος. The penalty in question does not, in fact, represent a fine at all, but damages to be recovered by a civil action. This explains the wide variation in the sums specified, and the otherwise unaccountable fact that the amount is fixed by the builder of the tomb. It stands for the value which he placed on the possession of the tomb, modified, probably, by his estimate of the damages which the court was likely to grant.

The inscriptions here published were in the main copied by me during excursions made in the years 1912–1914. A few are reproduced from squeezes furnished by residents of Thyateira (Ak-hissar) and Smyrna who travelled much in the surrounding country. Of the texts from Philadelpheia (Ala-shehir) four (Nos. 1–4) came to light in 1913–1914 among the materials of the picturesque old Kursum-khane, the upper stories of which were being pulled down. These monuments, with five others (Nos. 5–9), were preserved at the official residence of the Metropolitan of Philadelpheia, by whose kindness I was enabled to take copies and squeezes.

Unless otherwise stated, these inscriptions are presumed to be unpublished, but owing to the present difficulty of obtaining foreign scientific journals, this point is in some doubt.

An Athenian inscription, engraved with letters suggestive of the first sixty years of the first century B.C. and published by D. J. Geagan, Hesperia xl (1971) 101-8 with photograph, contains a decree proposed to the demos by Demeas son of Demeas to strengthen a revision of the city's constitution. On its publication it struck me that the revision was democratic and that Geagan's date 84/3 B.C., reached via the uncertainties of the secretary cycle, could not stand. Since repercussions from what was occurring at Rome to Sulla's arrangements might well have been felt in Athens, a different date,equally compatible with the assumed secretary cycle, 70/69 B.C., came to mind, but in the meanwhile the assumed secretary cycle itself has disappeared.

Modern studies have emphasized the contradictory nature of the ancient traditions concerning the aftermath of the Battle of Sepeia (494 BC), in which the Argive army was destroyed by the Spartans. This article tackles the most significant point of agreement in these traditions: the theme of Argive ‘oligandry’, the demographic crisis caused by the battle. An analysis conducted on the basis of Ansley J. Coale and Paul Demeny’s Model Life Tables shows that the real impact of the demographic crisis was felt in the age structure of Argos’ population rather than in the sheer size of its citizen body. Consequently, this article argues that the political ramifications of the battle originated not from the demographic crisis alleged by the tradition, but from the state of powerlessness and regional isolation into which Argos was plunged by the defeat of 494. This argument, which supports a reappraisal of Plutarch’s (De mul. vir. 4) version of Argos’ response to Sepeia, also helps explain why Argos embraced a markedly aggressive foreign policy towards the towns of the plain in the following decades.