Ptolemaic paintings and mosaics and the Alexandrian style bg257f43w

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Preface (page v)
List of Illustrations (page xi)
Abbreviations (page xv)
Introduction (page 1)
I. The Soldiers' Tomb (page 4)
II. The Extant Paintings and Mosaics (page 13)
III. What is the "Alexandrian Style"? (page 83)
Indexes (page 96)

Citation preview

Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics

BLANK PAGE

| VI

MONOGRAPHS ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND FINE ARTS Sponsored by

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics and The Alexandrian Style by BLANCHE R. BROWN

, PUBLISHED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA Through a Subvention Granted by

THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 1957

All rights reserved by THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

Printed in Germany at J.J. Augustin, Gliickstadt

Preface There are many people without whom this book could not have been written. I should like to name them all and thank them all, because I am profoundly grateful to them. Prof. C. Bradford Welles acted as editor of palaeography and contributed an impottant body of palaeographic work. He tead and translated the inscriptions on five stelai and four vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, added several readings from photographs which are fuller than earlier versions, and in several instances made judgments of date on the basis of palaeography which I have been glad to use in working out the chronology of the Alexandrian monuments. I consider him a collaborator and invited him onto the title page but he preferred to remain modestly in the footnotes.

An essential role was played by Mr. Francis Henry Taylor, then Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Museum’s Board of Trustees. They gave me several travel grants, of both time and money, which permitted me to see and study the art wotks treated here, including the material in London, Paris, Rome, Tarquinia, Pompeii, and Sicily as well as in Alexandria, Istanbul, Delos, Athens, and Volo. And, what is quite essential, they have subsidized and sponsoted the publication of this book. A complementary role was played by Prof. Frank E. Brown who, as chairman of the committee on monographs of the American Institute of Archaeology, read and approved my manuscript and then acted as editor in an exceedingly helpful and gracious mannet. I am grateful also to Dr. Lucy Shoe and Dr. Dorothy Burr Thompson, who likewise read the manuscript for the American Institute of Archaeology, not only for saying yes to it, but also for making corrections and suggestions which were very valuable. I owe many thanks to Prof. Karl Lehmann, in whose classes at New York University’s Institute of Fine Arts I learned about classical art and with whom I wrote a master’s thesis on Greek Painted Grave Stelai of which bits and pieces have found their way into the present work. The kernel of this book was a study of the six Alexandrian stelai in the Metropolitan Museum of Art which | prepared as a term paper for a course with Prof. Lehmann, and he was kind enough also to read this manuscript in first draft, offer a number of important suggestions, and to read it again in its final form. Many of my colleagues at the Metropolitan Museum of Art responded to my various requests in the kindest possible way. The manuscript was read by Dr. Gisela Richter, then Curator of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, Miss Christine Alexander, now Curator of the Department of Greek and Roman Att, Dr. Dietrich von Bothmer, Associate Curator of the same department, and Dr. Sterling A. Callisen, Dean of Education, all of whom had helpful comments to make. Dr. von Bothmer was especially generous with his Vv

vi PREFACE time, editing the manuscript in detail, and he remembered my problems well enough afterwards to apprise me of data he thought might be helpful, including several bibliogtaphic items for which there is separate acknowledgment in the footnotes. Miss Alexander has been most co-operative in making objects in the Museum collections available for study and for photography. Mr. Marshall B. Davidson, Editor of Publications, saw to the Museum end of publication

ptoblems. Mr. Thomas McAdams, Senior Photographer, did an exceptionally good job of photographing the incriptions on the Museum’s objects for Prof. Welles’ use. Mr.

, Mutray Pease, Conservator, contributed technical advice in the same connection. Dr. Florence E. Day, then Associate Curator of the Department of Near Eastern Art, provided me with the transliterations of the Arabic spelling for modern Egyptian place-names which are used in the text. Miss Nora E. Scott, Associate Curator of the Department of Egyptian

Art, answered some questions that came up about Pharaonic Egypt. Miss Helen Tolmachoff very expertly translated several articles from Russian for me. The staff of the Museum Library was always co-operative, notably Mr. Walter Hauser, when he was Librarian, Mrs. Flizabeth R. Usher, Acting Librarian, Miss Anna Wozar, Order Librarian, Miss Belle Fieldman, Librarian of the Periodical Room, and the gentlemen who see to the handling of the books, Mr. Francis X. Kelly, chief, and Messers Hugh Caffrey, William Simek, and Richard Sullivan. I am grateful for assorted favors to Mts. Cecily B. Kerr,

Executive Assistant, Mr. Gerhard Wedekind, Assistant Conservator, Miss Kate C. Lefferts, Supervisory Assistant in the Department of Conservation, Mrs. Margaret P. Nolan, Supervisor of Lending Collections, Miss Alice D. Franklin of the Photographic Research Department, Miss Vera Andrus, Supervisor of Photographic Research and Sales, and Miss Gene Politis, Secretary of the Department of Greek and Roman Art. Miss Edith Thomas, Secretary of the Department of Education, typed the manuscript, applying an uncanny skill, acquired over the years, in reading my abbreviations, inserts, and interlineations. And I should like to make warm mention of my immediate colleagues of the Education Department, not only Dr. Callisen and Miss Thomas, but also Mrs. Merrill Armstrong, Miss Angela C. Bowlin, Miss Beatrice Farwell, and Mr. Stuart M. Shaw, for their sympathy and co-operation during the ups and downs of the period of travail. Very nearly everyone associated with the museums and sites involved was kindness itself. Dr. Achille Adriani, in his former status as Director of the Greco-Roman Museum in Alexandria, led all the rest. He provided me with a car and guide to the tombs, permitted me the use of books even outside the museum, and later replied patiently and fully to a long series of written questions. He saw to the making of photographs and sent me, most of them without charge, almost all of the photographs of works in the Alexandria Museum which are reproduced here. He is followed closely by Dr. Victor Girgis, Director of the Alexandria Museum since 1953, who continued to answer my continual questions and otdered the last photographs I needed. I am also grateful to others in other museums for help, hospitality, discussion time given, and in some cases access to storerooms for materials not on public view: to Mr. Gamal Salim, Curator of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo; Dr. Nezih Firatli, Curator, and

PREFACE Vii Mr. Necdet Korkmaz, Librarian, of the Archaeological Museum, Istanbul; Dr. N. M. Vetdelis, Ephor of the Archaeological Museum, Volo; Mrs. Semni Karouzou of the National Archaeological Museum, Athens; Dr. R. A. Higgins, Assistant Keeper, Depart-

ment of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum; Prof. Jean Charbonneaux, Consetvateut-en-chef, Musée du Louvre; Dr. Enrico Paribeni of the Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome; Dr. Olga Elia of the Museo Nazionale, Naples. And I am grateful to the French School for the very pleasant hospitality of their excavation house on Delos. There ate others with whom I have been in correspondence, whose help came by mail. These include Dr. C. J. Makaronas, Ephor of the Archaeological Museum, Thessaloniki;

Dr. J. Miliades, Director of the Acropolis Museum, Athens; Dr. Hanna Koch of the Archdologisches Institut der Universitat, Leipzig; Prof. Hans Diepolder, Director of the

, Antikensammlungen, Munich; Dr. Jessen of the Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Berlin; Dr. Elizabeth Rohde of the Antikenabteilung of the Staatliche Museen, Berlin; Dr. M. Schréder of the Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum, Stuttgart; Prof. Charles Picard of the Sorbonne, Paris; Prof. Pierre Demargne of the Sorbonne, who is also Director of Excavations in Xanthos; Mme. Desroches-Noblecourt, Conservateur, and Paul Barguet, Assistant, of the Egyptian Department, Musée du Louvre; Dr. André Vatagnac, Conservateur of the Musée des Antiquités nationales, Chateau de St. Germainen-Laye; Prof. Georges Daux, Director of the Ecole francaise d’Athénes; Mr. N. Six of

the Six Collection, Amsterdam; Prof. Bernard Ashmole, then Keeper, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum; Dr. Benjamin Merritt of the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton; Prof. George E. Mylonas of Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.; Prof. David M. Robinson of the University of Mississippi; and Mr. Lewis H. Bishop, Village Clerk of Warsaw, New York. I should like to add to this list Mr. S. Hinman

Bird, then with Tiffany & Co., New York, although our communications were by telephone rather than by mail.

The photographs reproduced in this volume were procured through many of the people listed in the three paragraphs above, and in most cases were contributed by them.

I have already cited Messers Adriani and Girgis. Let me add Messers Salim, Firatli, Schréder, Varagnac, Daux, Ashmole, and Robinson, and Mme. Desroches-Noblecoutt. Prof. Demargne not only sent me the photograph of the Queen Vase he found in Xanthos but also, most generously, gave me permission to publish it previous to his own publication. In getting photographs of the stelai from Pagasai-Demetrias I benefited once again from the largesse of Mr. Francis Henry Taylor, who commissioned Miss M. Alison Frantz to go to Volo and photograph some forty of the stelai there. I benefited from generosity on the part of Miss Frantz also, since not only had she previously given me advice about photogtaphic problems but also she performed the task at Volo with initiative and care above and beyond duty requirements. I expect to make a study of all the Volo stelai in

the future; meanwhile, two are reproduced here. ,

Since this is my first book I had much to learn about organization and format, and therefore was fortunate to receive very expert help along those lines. I have already mentioned Prof. Lehmann, Dr, von Bothmer, Dr. Richter, Miss Alexander, Dr. Callisen,

Vill PREFACE Prof. Brown, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Shoe. I should like to add the names of my friends, Mts. Elsbeth Dusenbery and Dr. Bluma Trell, and my husband, Dr. Milton W. Brown. I am grateful to them all. It seemed to me at one time, in fact, that so many people had read my manuscript there was no longer any need to publish it. My husband provided me with the dictum on footnotes which I tried to adopt: that anything worth discussing is worth including in the text; footnotes are for bibliography. Failures will be noticeable. But I accept the principle nonetheless, having been tormented often by opera in which there are two arguments going simultaneously, one in the text and one in the footnotes,

each constantly interrupting the other. ,

I want to thank my husband also for his sympathy with my endeavors and for being the best of travelling companions, both abroad and at home. And finally I should like to thank heaven that the work is finished, so that I can take the midnight oil and, in the

immortal words of Thomas Hood, pout it on a lobster salad. |

Table of Contents

Preface. 6 6. Vv List of Illustrations . 2... 1 ee ee eee SH

Abbreviations . 2 6 6 we eee ee KV

Introduction 2... ee I

I. The Soldiers’ Tomb . . 1... 1. we ee ee 4 II. The Extant Paintings and Mosaics. 2. 1 6. we ee ee BG

1. Loculus Slabs and Stelai 2... 0. ee 13 The Stele-shaped Loculus Slabs of the Soldiers’ Tomb ....... 14 Stelai and Stele-shaped Loculus Slabs from Other Tombs ...... 23

Loculus Slabs Painted with False Doors. . . ... 1... ee ee 33

Chronology 2. 6 6 ee ee ee ee 59

2. Richer Tombs... 1. 1 we ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 52 3. Polychrome Paintings on Hadra Hydriai . 2... 1 ww ee 60

4. Mosaics 26 wc ee eee 67 III. What is the “Alexandrian Style’P 2 ww we eee 8B 1. Relations with Paintings outside Alexandria... 2. 1. eee ee 8B

2. The Literary Evidence . . 2... 2. ee ee ee eee 88

3. Conclusion 2. 6. we ee ee ee GB

Indexes 6 ww ee ee eee 9G 1. Names in the Alexandrian Inscriptions .............4... 96 2. Ethnic Designations in the Alexandrian Inscriptions ........4.4. £97

3. General Index «2. 1 we te ee ee ee 98 ix

BLANK PAGE

List of Illustrations Catalogue Number

Figure 1 (p. 35) Drawing after a painting of Hermes found in a corridor tomb in the Hadra

cemetery. Not extant. From Pagenstecher Nes, fig. 112. 30

1940-1950, fig. 43. 35

Figure 2 (p. 53) Plan of ceiling of Room 2, Anfushi Tomb II. J# situ. From Axnuaire,

Plate I Loculus slab from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. New

York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.2. I

Plate IT 1. Loculus slab from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. New York,

Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.1. 2

2. Relief stele from Alexandria. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 83. _

Plate III 1. Loculus slab of Bitos from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery.

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.5. 3

no. 31235. 8

2. Loculus slab of Ailearatos from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Chateau de St. Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités nationales,

Plate IV 1. Loculus slab from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Chateau de St. Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités nationales, no. 31234. 7

ales, no. 31233. 9

2. Loculus slab of Pyrrhos, probably from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Chateau de St. Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités nation-

nO. 31232. IO

3. Loculus slab, probably from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery.

Chateau de St. Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités nationales,

4. Loculus slab, probably from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery.

Paris, Musée du Louvre, no. MNC 834. ae ©

Plate V Loculus slab of Pelopides from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya ceme-

tery. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.3. 4

Plate VI 1. Loculus slab from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. New

York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.6. 5

2. Loculus slab of Isidoros from the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya ceme-

tery. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.4. 6

Plate VII 1. Funerary stele from the Abukir St. section of the Hadra cemetery. Alex-

andria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 24149. 7 12

z. Funerary stele of Thrasymedes from the Shatbi cemetery. Alexandria,

Greco-Roman Museum, no. 10231. «4 xi

xii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

| Catalogue Number

Museum, no. 10690. 13

Plate VIII 1. Funerary stele from the Shatbi cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-Roman

Roman Museum, no. 100. 19

2, Funerary slab from Alexandria, region unknown. Alexandria, Greco-

Museum, no. 19110. 15

Plate IX 1. Funerary stele from the Shatbi cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-Roman

2. Section of frieze from the Tomb of the Cardinal, Tarquinia. Zn situ. From Brogi Photograph 17854.

Plate X Funerary stele from the Abukir St. section of the Hadra cemetery. Alex-

andria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 22116. 16

Museum, no. 10228. 21

Plate XI Funerary stele from the Shatbi cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-Roman

Museum, no. 104. 17 no. MNC 827 (?). 18

Plate XII 1. Funerary slab of Asia from the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-Roman — 2. Funerary slab from Alexandria, region unknown. Paris, Musée du Louvre,

Plate XIII 1. Loculus slab of Lykinos from the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-

Roman Museum, no. 18824. 20

2. Painting on exterior wall of Storehouse $, on the quai, Delos. Second layer. In situ. (Only fragments remain). From MMonPiot 14 (1908) fig. 24. 3. Painting on exterior wall of Storehouse 5, on the quai, Delos. First layer. In situ.

Plate XIV Funerary stele from the Abukir St. section of the Hadra cemetery. Alex-

andria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 22109. 22

MNC 826. 23 Roman Museum, no. 19439. 24°

Plate XV Funerary slab of Aristodemos from Ramla. Paris, Musée du Louvre, no.

Plate XVI 1. Loculus slab of Helixo from the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, Greco2. Funerary stele of Demetrios from Pagasai-Demetrias, Thessaly. Volo, Archaeological Museum.

In situ. , ,

Museum, no. 10692. 25

Plate XVII Funeraty stele from the Shatbi cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Plate XVIII 1. Section of frieze from the vestibule of the House of Dionysos, Delos.

2. Wall painting in hypogeum, Niausta, Macedonia. Not extant. From Pfuhl MuZ, Xl, fig. 750.

Plate XIX 1. Funerary stele of Nikanor from the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, GrecoRoman Museum. Photograph, from Annuaire, 1940-1950, pl. VITI,1. 26 2. Same as Plate XIX, I. Line drawing, from Annuaire, 1940-1950, p.23,fig.18 26 3. Funerary stele of Lysippos from Pagasai-Demetrias, Thessaly. Volo, Archaeological Museum, no. 49.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiii Catalogue Number

Plate XX 1. Funerary slab of Dionysios from the Gabbari cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-

Roman Museum, no. 20919. 27

2. Loculus slab of Dioskourides from Sidon. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, no. 2524.

Plate XXI 1. Funerary stele of Isodora from the Shatbi cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-

Roman Museum, no. 10229. 28 2. Loculus slab of Kleon from the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, GrecoRoman Museum, no. 20507. 29

seum, No. 19440. 30 Musée, 1925-1931, pl. XI1,42. 31 seum, no. 20524. 32

Plate XXIT Loculus slab from the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Mu-

Plate XXIII sr. Loculus slab (upper part) from the Hadra cemetery. Not extant. From 2. Loculus slab from the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Mu-

Roman Museum, no. 5278. 33

3. Loculus slab of Xenarche from the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-

Plate XXIV 1. Painting on the stone above the lintel of a doorway in the peristyle of

Mustafa Pasha Tomb I. J situ. 34

2. Queen Vase with dedication to Arsinoé Philadelphos, from Canosa, Italy. London, British Museum, no. K 77. 3. Queen Vase with dedication to Berenike, from Xanthos, Lycia. Antalya, Museum. 4. Queen Vase with dedication to Ptolemy IV Philopator, from Alexandria. Stuttgart, Wirttembergisches Landesmuseum, no. 166.

nuaire, 1940-1950, pl. A. 35 nuaire, 1940-1950, pl. B. 35

Plate XXV Paintings from ceiling of Room 2, Anfushi Tomb II. Jn situ. From An-

Plate XXVI Paintings from ceiling of Room 2, Anfushi Tomb II. Jn situ. From Azn-

Plate X XVII 1. Fragments of frieze from Room i, House VI. E, Theater Quarter, Delos. In situ. Prom MonPiot 14 (1908) pl. TX B.

2. Painting on wall at first landing of stairway leading to Anfushi Tomb II.

Ln situ, From Annuaire, 1940-1950, pl. XX XVII, 1. 35

Plate XXVIII Room 2, Anfushi Tomb V. Jn situ. 36 Plate XXITX Loculus in Room 5, Anfushi Tomb V. Jn situ. 36 Plate XXX Painting on back wall of Room 17, Ras at-Tin Tomb III. Not extant. 37

Plate XXXI 1. Same as Plate XXX, detail. 37 2. Painting on exterior wall, near altar, House I.C in the Stadium Quarter,

Delos. In situ.

seum, no. I9IOl, 39

Plate XXXII 1, 2. Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Mu-

;| Catalogue Number seum, no. 15535. 38 seum, no. 10664. 40

xiv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

, 3. Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Mu4. Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Mu-

26252. 42

seum of Art, no. 90.9.67. . AI

Plate XXXITI Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. New York, Metropolitan Mu- | Plate XXXIV Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, no. PlateXXXV 1. Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. Formerly in a private collection,

Leipzig. From Pagenstecher Svegiin 1,3, pl. XVIII. 43

2. Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. Formerly in a private collection,

Leipzig. From Pagenstecher Sveg/in II,3, pl. XVII. , 44

seum of Art, no. 90.9.60. 45

PlateXXXVI —— Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. New York, Metropolitan Mu-

Plate XX XVII 1. Hadrahydria with polychrome painting. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, no. 26255. 46

, 2. Mosaic from ala of peristyle, House of the Trident, Delos. ln situ. 3. Hadra hydria with polychrome painting. Amsterdam, collection of Jan

Six van Hillegom. From AntDenk III, pl. 34. 47

Plate XXXVITI Mosaic from Thmuis. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 21739. 48 Plate XX XTX 1. Mosaic from Northwest Room, Palace V, Pergamon. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Sammlung. From AvP, V,1, pl. XVI. 2. Mosaic from Room 38, House of Consul Attalos, Pergamon. From AM 32 (1907) pl. XVIT,2.

Plate XL Same as Plate XX XVIII, detail. 48 Plate XLI 1. Mosaic from Thmuis. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 21736. 49 2. Mosaic from Altar Room, Palace V, Pergamon. Berlin, Staatliche Museen,

Antiken-Sammlung. From AvP, V,1, pl. XII.

Plate XLII 1. Same as Plate X LI,1, detail. 49 2. Mosaic from peristyle, House of Dionysos, Delos, detail. [” stu. Plate XLIII 1. Sameas Plate XLII, 2, complete emblema. From MonPiot 14 (1908) pl. XIV. 2. Mosaic from Room e, House of the Masks, Delos. Ln situ.

Plate X LIV 1. Mosaic from house in Shatbi. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no.21643. 50 2. Pebble mosaic from building under Yusuf Iss-Addin St. Alexandria, Greco-

| Roman Museum, no. 11125. 51

Plate X LV 1. Pebble mosaic from andron, Villa of Good Fortune, Olynthos. In situ. Photograph: Courtesy of David M. Robinson. 2. Fragment of mosaic from a building in the area of the Royal Palace. Alex-

andria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 25659. | 52

seum, no. 25660. 52

3. Fragment of same floor as Plate XLV, 2. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Mu-

Abbreviations AA: Archaologischer Anzeiger, sapplement to /DAL. AP: Arti figurative, Rivista d’ arte antica e moderna (Rome 1945-1946). AJA: American Journal of Archaeology (The Archaeological Institute of America 1885 ff). AM: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung (Athens 1876 ff). Annuaire: Annuaire du Musée gréco-romain, 1933-1935, 1935-1939, 1940-1950 (Alexandria, GrecoRoman Museum 1936, 1940, 1952). Annuario: Annuario del Museo greco-romano, 1932-1933 (Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 1934).

AntDenk: Antike Denkmaler (Berlin, Deutsches Archdologisches Institut 1891 ff),

ArchEph: Archaiologike Ephemeris (Athens 1837 ff). , Arvanitopullos GS: A. S. Arvanitopullos, Graptai Stelai (Athens 1928). Arvanitopullos Perzgraphe: A. 8. Arvanitopullos, Perigraphe ton en toi Athanaskeioi Mouseioi Grapton Stelon ton Pagason (Athens 1909). AvP V,1: G. Kawerau, T. Wiegand, Die Paldste von Hochburg (“Altertiimer von Pergamon”, V,1; Berlin, Leipzig 1930). BCH: Bulletin de correspondence hellénique (Athens, Paris, Ecole francaise d’Athénes 1877 ff).

Bieber SHIA: M. Bieber, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (New York 1955). Breccia AaA: EH. Breccia, Alexandrea ad Aeg yptum (Bergamo 1914 [French], 1922 [English]).

Breccia Guide: E. Breccia, Guide de la Ville et du Musée d’Alexandrie (Alexandria 1907). , Breccia [scr: E. Breccia, [scrizioni greche e latine (“Catalogue général des Antiquités égyptiennes, Musée d’Alexandrie”; Cairo, Service des Antiquités de ’Egypte 1911). Breccia Sciathi: EK. Breccia, La Necropoli di Sciatbi (“Catalogue général des Antiquités égyptiennes, Musée d’Alexandrie”; Cairo, Service des Antiquités de ’Egypte 1912).

Brunn GGK: H. Brunn, Geschichte der griechischen Kiinstler (1, Brunswick 1853, I, Stuttgart 1859). BSAA: Bulletin de la Société archéologique d’Alexandrie (1927-1953, la Société royale archéologique d’Alexandrie) (Alexandria 1898 ff).

Conze AG: A. C. L. Conze and others, Die attischen Grabreliefs, I-IV in 10 (Berlin 1893-1922). Délos VII: J. Chamonard, Le Quartier du Thédtre, Etude sur I Habitation délienne a l Epoque hellénistique (“Exploration archéologique de Délos”, VIII,1, 2; Paris, Ecole francaise d’Athénes

1922-1924). 7

Délos 1X: M. Bulard, Description des revétements peints a sujets religieux (“Exploration archéologique

de Délos’’, IX; Paris, Ecole frangaise d’Athénes 1926).

Délos XIV: J. Chamonard, Les Mosaiques de la Maison des masques (“Exploration archéologique de Délos”, XIV; Paris, Ecole francaise d’Athénes 1933). XV

Xvi ABBREVIATIONS Fuhrmann Philoxenos: H. Fuhrmann, Philoxenos von Eretria, Archéologische Untersuchungen iber xwet Alexandermosaike (Gottingen 1931).

Hansen Aztalids: E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon (“Cornell Studies in Classical Philology”,

XXIX; Ithaca, New York 1947). Hinks Ca#: R. P. Hinks, Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum (London, British Museum 1933). Hotn Gewandstatuen: R. Horn, Stehende weibliche Gewandstatuen in der hellenistische Plastik (RM Erganzungsheft, II; Munich 1931). JDAI: Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts (Berlin 1886 ff). JEA: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (London, Egypt Exploration Fund 1914 ff).

JOALI: Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen archaologischen Institutes (Vienna 1898 ft). , Kleiner Tanagrafiguren: G. Kleiner, Tanagrafiguren, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Kunst und Geschichte (JDAI Erganzungsheft, XV; Berlin 1942). Launey Armées: M. Launey, Recherches sur les Armées hellénistiques (Paris I, 1949, II, 1950).

| Letter Mar. 14, 1885: Letter from E. E. Farman to Gen. L. P. di Cesnola, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in the archives of the Museum. Letter Mar. 7, 1890: Letter from J. A. Paine, Curator, to Gen. L. P. di Cesnola, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in the archives of the Museum. Letter Oct. 31, 1893: Letter from E. E. Farman to C. T. Cook, president of Tiffany & Co., of which there is a copy in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Letter June 28, 1909: Letter from E. E. Farman to P. H. Reynolds, Registrar of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in the archives of the Museum. MAAR: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome (Betgamo 1917 ff). MMA Handbook Classical: Handbook of the Classical Collection (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 1917, 1927, 1930, Cambridge, Mass. 1953). MMA Handbook Greek: G. M.A. Richter, Handbook of the Greek Collection of the Metropolitan Mu-

seum of Art (Cambridge, Mass., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1953). MMA Handbook no. 4: C.R. Gillett, Catalogue of the Eg yptian Antiquities (“Metropolitan Museum

Handbook”, no. 4; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 1898). MonPiot: Monuments et mémoires (Paris, ’ Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Fondation Rugéne Piot 1894 ff). Musée: Le Musée gréco-romain au cours de I’ année 1922-1923, 1925-1931, 1931-1932 (Alexandria, Bergamo, Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria 1924, 1932, 1933). Neroutsos L’A.A: T. Neroutsos, L’Ancienne Alexandrie (Paris 1888).

Noshy APE: I. Noshy, The Arts in Ptolemaic Egypt, a Study of Greek and Eg yptian Influence in

Ptolemaic Architecture and Sculpture (London 1937). ,

Olynthus 11: D. M. Robinson, Architecture and Sculpture, Houses and Other Buildings (“Excavations

at Olynthus’’, II, “The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology”, 9; Baltimore, London 1930). Olynthus V: D. M. Robinson, Mosaics, Vases and Lamps of Olynthus Found in 1928 and 1931 (“Ex-

| cavations at Olynthus”, V, “The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology”, 18; Baltimore, London 1933).

: ABBREVIATIONS xvii Olynthus VIII: D, M. Robinson, J. W. Graham, The Hellenistic House, a Study of the Houses Found at Olynthus with a Detailed Account of Those Excavated in 1931 and 1934 (“Excavations at

Olynthus”’, VIII, “The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology”, 25; Baltimore, London 1938). Olynthus XII: D. M. Robinson, Domestic and Public Architecture (“Excavations at Olynthus”, XII, “The Johns Hopkins Studies in Archaeology”, 36; Baltimore, London 1946). Overbeck AS: J. Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der Bildenden Kiinste bei den Griechen (Leipzig 1868).

Pagenstecher Nek: R. Pagenstecher, Nekropolis, Untersuchungen uber Gestalt und Entwicklung der alexandrinischen Grabanlagen und ihrer Malereien (Leipzig 1919).

Pagenstecher Sveglin II,3: R. Pagenstecher, Die Gefafe in Stein und Ton, Knockenschnitzereien (“Expedition Ernst von Sieglin, Ausgrabungen in Alexandria’, II: “Die griechischen-agyptischen Sammlung Ernst von Sieglin’’, Part 3; Leipzig 1913). Pernice PPM: E.A. Pernice, Pavimente und figirliche Mosaiken (“Die hellenistische Kunst in Pompeit”, VI; Berlin 1938). Pfuhl MuZ: E. Pfuhl, Maleret und Zeichnung der Griechen, \-1II (Munich 1923). Praktika: Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias (Athens 1871ff.). RA: Revue archéologique (Paris 1844 ff).

Rapport: Rapport sur la marche du service du Musée, 1892-1922 (Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum 1899-1923).

RE: Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, I-XX1I,2 (in 30), series 2, I-VIII (in 10), revised by G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Witte (Stuttgart 1894 ff). Reinach Recueil Milliet: A. Reinach, Recueil Millet: Textes grecs et latins relatifs a ? Histoire de la Peinture ancienne (Paris 1921). RM: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung (Rome 1886-1944, 1953 ff).

Rostovizefl SEHHW: M. Rostovtzefl, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I-III (Oxford 1941). Rumpf Maz: A. Rumpf, Malerei und Zeichnung (“Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft,” VI: “Handbuch der Archdologie’’, Part 6, vol. IV,1; Munich 1953). SB: F. Preisigke, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ag ypten, \-V (Strassburg, Berlin, Leipzig 1915-1950). Schreiber Szeglin I: T. Schreiber, Die Nekropole von Kém-esch-Schukafa, Ausgrabungen und Forschungen (“Expedition Ernst von Sieglin, Ausgrabungen in Alexandria”, I; Leipzig 1908). Swindler dP: M. H. Swindler, Ancient Painting, from the Earliest Times to the Period of Christian Art (New Haven, London 1929). Thieme-Becker: U. Thieme, F. Becker, and others, Al/gemeines Lexikon der Bildenden Kinstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, -XX XVII (Leipzig 1907-1950).

Weege EM: F. Weege, Eiruskische Malerei (Halle 1921). |

BLANK PAGE

Introduction We have fallen into the habit of referring to the “Alexandrian Style” in painting as though we knew what we were saying. No doubt this is because so much has been written

and said about it, and such a large and intricate structure of ideas has been fabricated about it. We speak of certain subjects as belonging to it, such as bucolic scenes, landscape, Nilotic scenes, genre, caricature; certain technical devices, such as impressionism, spacial depth, dramatic effects of artificial light; certain feelings, such as frivolity and morbidity; cettain predilections, such as scholasticism. Many assume that all of these ideas or attitudes

wete created in Alexandria. Some believe that they also remained there indefinitely, unchanged. And a few insist that Alexandria kept sole franchise to them through centuries, so that wherever and whenever they appear they must be explained by direct influence from Alexandria itself. All of this, however, is rather a harmful habit, since it tends to make us forget that in fact we know very little about Alexandrian painting, equally little about other Hellenistic painting, and that our fabrication, though intricate, wavers precariously over a field of ignorance, supported only here and there by an occasional pé/otis implanted on a firm fact. Some of the fabrication has been constructed from interpretations of the very scanty ture, some from generalizations about the Alexandrian psyche, all of which are fair enough, literary references to Alexandrian painting, some from analogies with Alexandrian literature though far from certain. Bits of it have been spun, like the web from the spider, out of one of two wonderfully ingenious scholarly heads. Oddly enough, very little of it is based on reference to the actual pictorial monuments of Ptolemaic Alexandria. Yet there

are such pictorial monuments extant. It is true that they are not the greatest and most renowned monuments of ancient Alexandria. In Alexandria, as everywhere alse, the best paintings are lost, and what is left is seldom of high enough quality to attract attention on its own merit. But whether good or bad the extant works have the advantage of being

1 Brown I

2 INTRODUCTION incontrovertible, not theoretical, and they can extend, even if only to a limited degree, the precious area of fact. Those works, the actual examples of pictorial art of the Ptolemaic petiod which have come to light in and near Alexandria, are listed and examined in this book. That is the justification for adding herewith another item to the long, long bibliography on Alexandria.

The treatment which follows begins with the Soldiers’ Tomb, for both biographic and logical reasons. Biographically, this investigation began with a study of the six painted slabs from the Soldiers’ Tomb which are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Logically, the Soldiers’ Tomb is a central monument because it is the only monument of the Alexandrian cemeteries with which specific dates can be associated. That, indeed, is why the second section of this book also begins with the tomb, with a list and discussion of the painted slabs that were found there. The Soldiers’ Tomb is treated here at considerable length because I have had the good fortune to find, in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, some hitherto unpublished descriptions of the circumstances of its discovery. They are contained in letters, most of them from Judge E. E. Farman, who was in Egypt in 1884 when the tomb was found, visited it immediately after its discovery, and bought a large part of its contents, of which a number of items later found their way into the collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Anyone who has even so much as dabbled in the literature on the extant Alexandrian paintings knows that the tomb is ubiquitous within that literature. Anyone who has tried to sort out the information offered about it in order to form a clear picture of objects and evidence knows that this cannot be done. Over the years misinformation has so mingled with information, objects found outside the tomb have been so confused with objects found inside, evidence has so often been applied where it misapplied that the obstructions ate impenetrable. The archive letters help to clear up many points, and therefore it seems desirable to retell the story of the Soldiers’ Tomb in some detail. The second section of the book is devoted to presenting the extant Ptolemaic pictorial material and to putting it in order. What is left falls into several categories. There are paintings found in the Hellenistic cemeteries, some on stelai, some on loculus slabs from the common sort of hypogeum, and mote elaborate pictures painted on the walls or ceilings

of the richer underground chamber tombs. There are polychrome paintings on whiteeround vases, which, unlike the usual decoration in glaze, are in the technique of more monumental painting and seem at least to point in the direction of more monumental style. And there are several floor mosaics. In the case of the stelai and loculus slabs, where the objects are numerous and often similar, a sampling is taken. In the case of the vase paintings, those are chosen which are well enough preserved to be reproduced and to offer reasonable evidence of style. In the case of the paintings from richer tombs and the mosaics, everything known to the author is presented. Since the interest here is in pictures, the architectural decoration on walls and ceilings is not discussed, nor the many poly-

, chrome garlands and ribbons on white-ground vases, which seem to lean overmuch in the direction of decoration. The intention is to give as fair and complete a presentation as possible of what is extant of Hellenistic Alexandrian pictorial art.

INTRODUCTION 3 The principal concern is with style. Iconographic problems, for example, are treated very little. Each object is examined and described stylistically. Happily, this is a rewarding procedure even with the many examples which are pathetically poor in quality. A number of distinct styles emerge. Next, having made this accumulation of styles, one must try to determine their chronology. But this, unhappily, is not so readily rewarding, nor are the results as assuted as one would wish. As much external evidence as exists is adduced, but it is exhausted all too soon. Then internal evidence is resorted to, in terms of stylistic comparisons with other Alexandrian objects and with the paintings, mosaics, and sculptures of other Hellenistic centers. In the third section the old, much belabored problem of the nature of the “Alexandrian Style” is taken up again, but now in the light of what has been found on the extant monuments. First the Alexandrian paintings are compared with those known in other centers (not, be it noted, with everything known but with everything that seems relevant). Then the references to Alexandrian painting in ancient literature ate re-examined. The results, in a nutshell, are as follows. None of the attributes of the hypothetical “Alexandrian Style’’, listed in the opening paragraph, appear in the extant works. Other attributes do appear which, hypothetically, ought to be inimical to the basic Alexandrian spirit, for example a robust ““baroque” style, an archaistic style, and a distinct and extreme form of neo-classicism. The styles that occur on the Alexandrian monuments also appear in other parts of the Hellenistic world. Nor does the literary evidence seem to justify the unique association of certain characteristics with Alexandria. In general, the picture that ~ presents itself is of a Hellenistic center in close relationship with other Hellenistic centers, participating as it wished to in styles which were commonly practiced and which changed in historic sequence. We must know mote than we know now about the Hellenistic world before we can describe the particular variations on, or selections from, the going modes which characterize local Alexandrian style and before we can be sure which of the Hellenistic currents may have been generated in Alexandria. When the extant works of other centers are more fully examined, we will be further along. And when it becomes possible to define Alexandrian style, it will no doubt be done in subtler terms than have as yet been used. It should perhaps be mentioned that the present state of considerable ignorance about

Hellenistic art has not only limited the conclusions that could be drawn but also has imposed limits on the entire process of these investigations. Hellenistic art is still one of the darker continents. Large areas of it are uncharted and it is encumbered with thickets and morasses. Even the development of monumental art needs clarification, and the minor atts are largely unexplored. The investigator looking for clues in comparative material is constantly asking himself how far he should go in tracking down tangential material in order to illuminate his own. On the whole I have followed each trail as far as I could

without getting lost in the jungle, remembering that my task was only to cut a path through one thicket. If I have done that, it will do for now.

°2 I. The Soldiers Tomb The Soldiers’ Tomb gained its prominence in the literature on the Alexandrian cemeteries in part because it was one of the first found and described, having been brought to light in 1884, before organized and controlled excavation had begun. It was published first in 1885 and 1887 by A. C. Mertiam and in 1887 and 1888 by T. Neroutsos.! Both these men have been extensively quoted since. Their publications describe the underground chamber itself, with burial loculi (niches) in the walls, the cinerary vases of Hadra type which held the ashes of the dead, and the limestone slabs, shaped like stelai, which closed the loculi. In addition, the same publications discuss other Hadra vases, an incidental coin cache, and the problem of fixing chronology by a number of Hadra cinerary vases (four of them from the Soldiers’ Tomb) which have painted inscriptions giving the day and month of death or burial and the year by the reign of the king, though without naming the king. In the course of time, of republication, quotation, and translation all these data have been scrambled about in some confusion, so that there are accumulated misunderstandings

that need to be cleared up. Fortunately they can be cleared up now with the help of previously unpublished information in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The information appears in letters concerning a number of items which are or have been

in the Museum collections: six stele-shaped loculus slabs from the Soldiers’ Tomb, seventy-two Hadra vases, and a collection of coins. These were part of a large collection of objects which were brought from Egypt by Judge E. E. Farman, who had been stationed there as consul-general for the United States, and placed in the Museum on loan during

the spring of 1885. The vases were bought directly from him in 1890.7 The stelai and 1 Merriam, AJA 1 (1885) 18-33; Lbid. 3 (1887) 261-268; Neroutsos, RA 9 (1887) 291-298; Jd. L’AA, 81-82,

oa In addition to the seventy-two Farman vases, the Museum bought two other Hadra vases, GR 723 and 729, at the Marquand Sale in 1903. These had previously been bought from Mr. Farman by Mr. Marquand. Today 4

I. THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB 5 coins, together with other objects, were bought from Farman by Darius Ogden Mills and presented to the Museum in 1904. _ Farman describes the circumstances of discovering the tomb in this way: “About a mile east of the walls of the present city of Alexandria, Egypt, are extensive mounds of debris,

thirty to forty feet high. They are the accumulations of two thousand years, and filled throughout their depth with pieces of broken pottery. Under this debris, and nearly on a level with the sea, are large numbers of tombs of the earliest Alexandrian period,—about three centuries B.C.... “Early in the year 1884, an old antiquarian, with whom I was well acquainted, came to my rooms and informed me that a tomb had been discovered containing a large number of vases and other objects, “great treasures’, as he enthusiastically exclaimed. It was arranged

that I should visit the tomb with him that night a little after sunset, when there would be no laborets near except the discoverer. “It was in a lonely, desolate spot, amid deep excavations and massive heaps of debris, that we found the fortunate laborer awaiting us near the tomb. In digging at the site, near the bottom of one of these excavations thirty feet or more below the surface, he had struck a wall. Knowing it was a tomb, he quickly concealed the stone, and returned in the night, opened a small passage in the wall, viewed with great astonishment and pleasure the contents, and then closed the aperture and concealed it with earth and debris. It was in this

condition when we arrived, but quickly reopened.... “.... The last faint redness of the departing twilight was disappearing as we were piloted out of these labyrinths of excavations to our waiting carriage, a half mile distant.’ What seems to be an entirely incorrect account of the architecture of the tomb is currently in circulation. The source of this inaccuracy is Neroutsos, who described it as “un hypogée ressemblant tout a fait aux cryptes communément appeleées frésors, 8noaupoi, comme celles d’Orchomeénes et de Mycéne en Gréce. La paroi s’élevait circulairement en votite éllipsoide, et se terminait 4 une espece de /uminare qui, autrefois, communiquait avec le dehors.’”4 forty-three of these seventy-four vases are in the Museum; the test, including the two bought in 1903, have been sold. Twenty-seven were sold at auction in 1928; see C_ypriote and Classical Antiquities, Duplicates of the Cesnola and other Collections. Sold by order of the Trustees of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, Part 1, March 30, 31, Part 2, April 20, 21 (New York, the Anderson Galleries 1928). Of those sold in the first part of the sale, Lot #119

(GR 717, 700) went to Mr. R. D. Brixey, 420 Park Ave., New York; Lots#{269 (GR 724) and#271 (GR 711: has inscription published by Merriam, A/A 1, p. 25, no. 16) went to the Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis, Minn.; Lots ##270 (GR 709) and #283 (GR 710) went to Mr. Robert Garrett, Garrett Building, Baltimore, Md. (GR 709 is now.in Princeton University); Lots##278 (GR 271) and##282 (GR 697) went to Mr. F. W. Collins, 452 Lexington Ave., New York; Lot##279 (GR 673: has inscription published by Merriam, op. cit., p. 26, no. 23) went to B. Arkell; Lot##280 (GR 729) went to Blake, Mote & Godwin; Lot#400 (GR 666) went to P. S. Henry; Lots #272 (GR 680: has inscription published by Metriam, op. cét., p. 26, no. 25),##284 (GR 726),##399 (GR 732, 670, 712, 731),##409 (GR 723), and#410 (GR 718) went to Mr. John Ringling, 636 Fifth Avenue, New York. Those sold in the second part of the sale all went to Mr. John Ringling: Lot#84 (GR 695, 734, 716, 686),7#85 (GR 720), #86 (GR 766: this is described as an “‘Italo-Ionic Oviform covered jat’’, not as a Hadra vase),##286 (GR 678). Four others were sold as follows: one (GR 683) to Mr. F. B. Pratt, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York; three (GR 706,

719, 730) to Arthur Ackerman & Sons, 5o E. 57th St., New York. This information, from the annotated sales catalogue in the Museum’s Department of Greek and Roman Art, was offered to me by Dr. Dietrich von Bothmer, Associate Curator. 3 Letter Oct. 31, 1893. Tiffany & Co., of which Mr. Cook, the recipient of the letter, was president, printed it in a booklet, from which it was copied for the Museum archives. 4 Neroutsos L’4A, 81-82,

6 I. THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB This picturesque description has been universally quoted since then. However, already in 1885 Merriam had stated that the tomb was a rock chamber 12 feet by 14 feet, and therefore presumably rectangular.> This statement can be confirmed by Farman’s correspondence. He says, clearly, “It was simply a room, or vault about eight feet high and as near as I can judge, not having any measurements, fourteen feet square.””®

Neroutsos’ description is so graphic that it is difficult to doubt it. But to this day no second beehive tomb has appeared in Alexandria to duplicate his description. Also, Neroutsos probably never saw the tomb. G. Botti, E. Breccia, and T. Schreiber record that he never did any excavating himself, that during his later years he was an invalid confined to his home, and that his information came from reports that were brought to him, most frequently by Cavaliere P. Pugioli.’ Apparently, therefore, the Soldiers’ Tomb was rec-

Alexandria. ,

tangular and barrel-vaulted, like innumerable others that have been found since in

Incidentally, the date of the discovery of the tomb can also be corrected. Neroutsos said that it was found in 1885.8 But since Farman wrote in a letter dated March 14, 1885 that he had spoken about the stelai to the Director of the Museum during the previous November, and since they were already on display in the Museum in the spring of 1885, they undoubtedly were found as Farman says, “early in the year 1884’.” The tomb is described in more detail. Neroutsos wrote, “‘La paroi circulaire et conoide

était percée, tout autour, d’une centaine de niches placées sur cing rangs parallelement superposés, véritable columbaria, de forme cubique. Quelques-unes étaient ouvertes et vides, d’auttres fermées avec une dalle en forme de simple tablette ou de stéle peinte. “Dans les niches fermées se trouvait une seule urne (k&ATrn) contenant des cendres

humaines et bouchée avec du platre. Le nom du défunt et quelquefois le nom aussi de celui qui avait pris soin de la sépulture étaient écrits, ou sur Purne ou sur Ja stéle qui fermait

la niche.... Les inscriptions étaient en lettres du temps des Ptolémées. Les dates, quand elles étaient marquées, désignaient l’an du régne du souverain. Le jour et le mois de la mort ou des funérailles de la personne dont les cendres se trouvaient déposées dans l’urne étaient notés d’aprés le calendrier macédonien. “Les inscriptions indiquaient des personnes étrangéres d’ordre militaire, des merce-

6 Letter Oct. 31, 1893. |

| > AJA 1 (1885) 18.

’ Botti, Rivista Egiziana 4 (1892) 425 ff; Breccia, BSAA 8 (1905) 47, n. 3; Schreiber Szeg/in I, Text, 3, n. 5. Letter Mar. 7, 1890 teveals that it was from Pugioli that Farman bought sixty-nine of the Hadra vases bought by the Museum. Pugioli also was “the old antiquarian”? who had taken Farman to the tomb: Schreiber Séeglin I, 161. Pugioli was very active in excavating, collecting, and, it appears, selling during the days before supervised archaeology in Alexandria. When the Société archéologique d’Alexandrie was founded in 1892 and the Greco-Roman Museum

begun, he was one of the founding members and a donor to the museum: Rapport, 1892-1898, 36. He became a

great friend of Schreiber, who wrote a short encomium of him, Cavaliere Pugioli, Eine Biographische Skizze (Leipzig 1902), in which he lauded him as the protector of Alexandrian monuments in the period between the death of Neroutsos and the coming of Botti. A. J. Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 44-45, n. 1, says that Pugioli’s notes were

left to Schreiber, who in turn left them to Seymour Ricci. He takes exception to Schreiber’s panegyric, pointing out that Pugioli was inferior as an epigraphist to both Neroutsos and Botti and that he seems to have been partly responsible for the dispersal of many objects during the period when Schreiber claimed he was protecting Alexandrian monuments.

89 Neroutsos 81. | | Letter Mar.L’AA, 14, 1885.

I. THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB 7 naires de la Gréce continentale, des Crétois, des Thraces, des Galates ou Gaulois de Asie Mineure, et aussi des membres de leurs familles.” Finally, he listed the inscriptions found on eleven of these vases, four of them with dates, and on six stelai.!° Farman continues the story in this way, “In the center were standing, some on the top of others, about fifty funereal urns ot vases; and leaning against the walls were a considerable number of painted stelai or tablets. The tablets were from a foot to two and a half feet high, and from ten to sixteen inches broad. “They were of light colored, fine-grained calcareous stone, such as is found in the Mokattam Hills, a little above Cairo.... “Late in the following evening the contents of the tomb were brought to my rooms.

None of the vases had yet been opened. They were tightly sealed by means of small shallow earthen cups, placed in their mouths, and filled with cement so as to cover the tops of the vases. In some cases ornaments were placed on the cement in such a manner as to give the appearance of bunches of leaves and clusters of grapes in blue, reddish and gold

colors. ] was present and saw them all opened. They contained nothing but ashes and small pieces of charred bones, the remains of the imperfect cremation of that period. Each vase probably contained what remained of a single person. “T brought the vases that were not broken and the mote interesting stelai to New York. The latter are now in my collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Central Park,’

The present wherabouts of the vases which were found in the Soldiers’ Tomb is only partially known. Of the eleven inscribed vases listed by Neroutsos, some are in the GrecoRoman Museum, Alexandria, including three of the four dated vases, and the fourth dated vase is in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Farman accounted for the tomb’s vases which he brought to New York in the letter of Oct. 31, 1893: “Two of the vases (from the Soldiers’ Tomb) are those sent you (Mr. C. T. Cook). Mr. Moore, late of your company (Tiffany & Co.), had a number for his library, three are in the Metropolitan Museum, and the balance ate at my home in Warsaw (New York).” Mr. S. Hinman Bird, formerly of the firm of Tiffany & Co., stepson and surviving heir of Mr. Cook, does not now have Mr. Cook’s two vases and believes that they must have been sold to an unrecorded buyer during one of several sales liquidating the estate. Mr. E. C. Moore bequeathed a large collection to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1891 but the Hadta vases were not included. They also were probably sold to an unrecorded buyer since they are not now in the possession of Mr. Louis de B. Moore, formerly president of Tiffany & Co., nephew and surviving heir of Mr. E. C. Moore.® Nothing of the Farman Collection now remains in Warsaw, New York. Warsaw’s Village Clerk provided the address of a daughter of Judge Farman,

who now lives in Chicago, Illinois but she did not reply to an inquiry concerning the vases that were once in his house. 10 RA 9 (1887) 291-298; Neroutsos L’AA, 102-109, nos. 12-28. 11 Letter Oct. 31, 1893. 12 In Alexandria, Neroutsos’ nos. 12, 13, 15: G. Botti, Catalogue des Monuments exposés au Musée gréco-romain a’ Alexandrie (Alexandria 1901) 100, 102, nos. 1778, 1780, 1784. In Cairo, Neroutsos’ no. 14. 13 This information was received from Mr, S. Hinman Bird.

8 I. THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB , It has seemed probable, theoretically, that the three vases in the Metropolitan Museum which are from the Soldiers’ Tomb are nos. 90.9.2, 90.9.34, and 90.9.9, simply because their inscriptions were not published by Merriam. According to the correspondence the three from the Soldiers’ Tomb were to have been added to the collection later, and the

supposition would be that they were added after Merriam’s publication. , This may well be true of two of them, which are hydriai of the same type as all the others found in the tomb. One of these is no. 90.9.9 (formerly GR 713), which is decorated with an Eros and ibex on the front, foliage and rosettes on the back, a conventional motif

on the shoulder, and a vine motif on the neck, and carries the inscription: ’AtoAA@viou (of Apollonios).! The other is no. 90.9.34 (formerly GR 715),16 which is decorated with alter-

nating palmettes and floral ornaments on the body, dolphins and rosettes on the shoulder, and dots in a band on the neck, and carries the inscription: “Avtosis AASwpiyou (Antoeis, son of Didorix).!’ Neither of these, incidentally, corresponds to any of the eleven inscribed vases listed by Neroutsos. As to the third vase, no. 90.9.2 (formerly GR 707),18 however, it seems much less likely that it was associated with the Soldiers’ Tomb. It is not a hydria but a two-handled jar without decoration, unlike all the other vases of the Soldiers’ Tomb, and its inscription reads as follows: AE

OTTO... NHA®. HZOAAQN.. HBIAYMISNOSEAAINHS

IIAABIZINNHZHSIKAHZAQAEK..E... AITE!

The inscription, like the vase-shape, is different from those known to come from the Soldiers’ Tomb. It seems to be metrical, which none of the others are. The letters are care14 Swindler AP, 355, fig. 562.

15 The reading of the inscriptions on this vase and the two following is by Prof. C. Bradford Welles. Commen- |

tary by Prof. Welles on this inscription: On the shoulder, at the base of the neck, centered on the handle below. A graffito 18 cm. long, with rough letters scratched before firing about 12 mm. high. The small omicron is 5 mm. The script may be dated in the second half of the third century B.C. The omega is made in the form of a large semicircle, with possibly a trace of a rise in the middle. 16. B. Stebbins, Tbe Dolphin in the Literature and Art of Greece and Rome (Menasha, Wis. 1929) 113.

17 Commentaty by Prof. Welles on the inscription: On the flat panel above a handle of the hydria, black letters made with ink and a split pen, so that some strokes are double. Length 12 cm., running beyond the field into the palmettes. The initial letter is larger than the rest; otherwise 4-10 mm. high. The script may be dated in the second half of the third century B.C. The names are Celtic, apparently, although I have not found them elsewhere. For the first, compate such names in Caesat’s Bellum Gallicum as Andes and Andecomborius. The second contains the element —rig—, which appears in proper names —rix (Eporeodorix, etc.), but rarely in place-names as -rigos, as my colleague, Professor Ralph L. Ward informs me; it is a cognate of the Latin rex. The first three letters of this name might have to be corrected to alpha, lambda, or delta, to provide a pronounceable group of consonants and vowels. 18 Not previously published. 19 Commentary by Prof. Welles on the inscription: A faded inscription on the shoulder. The four lines of the text occupied originally a space about 27 X 5 cm., and the very regular block letters are evenly 7-8 mm. high. Much of the original text is gone entirely, being represented only by a yellowish tint on the surtace of the jar, and the existing letters are represented only by pale marks on the jar’s surface, as if the original letters had been removed, leaving merely their clean beds behind them. Many of these traces are entirely clear and unambiguous, and it is all the more disappointing that the text yielded no consecutive sense. I would thank Professors Werner Peek and Louis Robert for having allowed me to consult them in the hope of solving the riddle, which will be solved some day. There is no possibility of the text being a forgery. At the end of line 2, it is possible to read 6 "ASevis, and in line 4, the almost certain SwSeka suggests a following Qeol, but that is almost pure speculation. The text is probably metrical, and may be funerary. The inscription may be dated in the third or second century B.C.

I. THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB 9 fully printed in block form while those on the other vases are near-cursive. Although the inscription cannot be deciphered in its entirety, the possible reading of 6 “Adwvis at the end of the second line and SaSexa Qeof in the fourth line suggests that the content also was different from the others and perhaps was not funerary at all. Therefore, although this vase does seem to be one of the final three promised by Farman, there is good reason

to doubt that it came from the Soldiers’ Tomb.

All the cinerary vases found in the Soldiers’ Tomb have been identified as Hadra ware. This is a local ware, named for the Hadra cemetery where it first came to light, but actually discovered in very large numbers throughout Alexandria. According to studies published to date, it developed its characteristic form and decoration at the end of the fourth century B.C. and it continued into the second century B. C.?° It has been noted that four of the Hadra vases from the Soldiers’ Tomb are inscribed

with the date of burial, given by month, day, and the year of the king’s reign, though without naming the king. At other times, in other parts of the Alexandrian cemeteries, twenty-three other Hadra vases have been found which are similarily inscribed with dates, making a total of twenty-seven dated vases. Some of these inscriptions give the date alone, some add the name of the official in charge of the burial, and a few, which carry the name of the official Theodotos, also add a title, agorastas. The four from the Soldiers’ Tomb

presumably contained the ashes of soldiers, the others, according to the information inscribed on them, the ashes of ¢heoroi (members of sacred embassies), architheoroi (chiefs of sacred embassies), and presbeutai (ambassadors). The twenty-seven vases with dates have naturally attracted particular attention, because they offer a device for establishing chronology. For the same reason and more specifically at the moment because four of them offer a clue to the chronology of the Soldiers’ Tomb,

they ate of particular interest here. Since the year is given by the king’s reign without naming the king, however, there is considerable room for doubt about their exact chronology. Innumerable pages have been filled with printed controversy since Merriam opened the subject in 1885 by publishing the eleven dated vases which were among the seventytwo Hadra vases then in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.”4 In the course of the years many scholars have entered the discussion and have ascribed these vases variously to different decades of the third and second centuries B. C. On the basis of the newest evidence it seems to be indicated that they were made during the last years of Ptolemy II Philadelphos 20 The detailed studies of Hadra ware have been made by Pagenstecher and Breccia. They have given the following dates for its appearance: Pagenstecher, AJA 13 (1909) 405: end of the fourth century; Breccia scr, xiv: during the satrapy of Ptolemy I Soter (323-305 B.C.); Pagenstecher Svegl/in II,3, 52: ¢. 300 B.C.; Breccia AaA (1922) 222: third century B.C., or even end of the fourth. T. Rénne, /EA 39 (1953) 85, n. 6, quotes Pagenstecher as retracting in Steglin 11,3, 37, the attempt he made in AJA 13, 387-416, to establish a typological series and states, p. 85, that she doubts the possibility of doing so. However, both Miss R6nne’s remarks and Pagenstechetr’s retraction refer to the “‘dated’’ vases. On the formative stages of Hadra ware and its connection with other wares Pagenstecher modified his position little, according to his statement in Sieg/in 11,3, 52, supra. Pagenstecher and Breccia have given the following dates for the lower limits of the ware: Breccia /scer, xiv: it continued into the second half of the second centuty B.C.; Pagenstecher Sveg/in 11,3, 52: not determinable, some, surely, were still being made in the second century B.C.; Breccia AaA (1922) 222: dates the black-figured ware in the third century, lists the polychrome as a separate type, but offers no date for it. 21 AJA 1 (1885) 18-33. He published twenty-three vase inscriptions from the Metropolitan Museum of Art

collection, of which eleven are dated, }

10 I. THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB (285-247 B. C.) and, the bulk of them, during the reigns of Ptolemy III Euergetes I (247-221 B. C.) and Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 B. C.)” Most recently they were discussed thoroughly by H. Braunert, who assigned twentysix of them to the years from 259 to 212 B. C. and by P. M. Fraser, who published the twenty-seventh example, which he dated in 209 B. C.*8 Braunert centers his argument on two facts. First, one inscription collates the date in both the Macedonian and Egyptian calendars and he accepts the deduction that this correlation would have been impossible before the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 B. C.) or after the twenty-second year of the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204-181 B. C.).?4 Second, he accepts the judgment that palaeographic evidence rules out a date later than the third century B. C.®° Since the vase with the double date is inscribed as having been dedicated in the eighth year of the reign he rejects the reign of Ptolemy V because it would take the vase into the second century and counts off the proper number of years in the reign of Ptolemy IV, to date it in 213 B. C. This vase is one of those on which Theodotos is named as the official in charge of the burial. With it therefore he groups four others on which Theodotos is also named and two which are inscribed Theudotos, taken to be an alternate spelling of the

same name. ,

A date ante quem non is provided by one of the urns in the Theodotos group whose inscription states that it contained the ashes of Sotion, son of Kleon, who had come to Alexandria from Delphi to announce the Soteria. This festival was established in Delphi to celebrate the victory won in 279 B. C. over the invading Galatians, and therefore the inscription has inspired a good deal of discussion about the foundation date of the Soteria. On this matter Braunert accepts the most recent calculation which shows that although it was in 279 B. C. that the Galatians were turned away from Delphi it was not until ¢. 250 B.C.

that the Soteria were instituted.” There are two vases, one of them from the Soldiers’ Tomb, whose inscriptions refer to the twenty-seventh and thirty-sixth years of a king’s reign. Assuming, still, that the palaeography rules out a date later than the third century, Braunert finds that only the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285-247 B. C.) would be long enough to include them. Therefore he dates them in 259 and 250 B. C., the latter being the vase from the Soldiers’ Tomb. For the remaining vases Braunert’s calculations become more circumstantial. Most of these burials were effected through the offices of two men named Philon and Sarapion. Braunert makes the observation that these two men were not in office at the same time, 22 The earliest bibliography is listed in Pagenstecher 4/A 12 (1909) 388, n. 1. Breccia makes a summary of the discussion to date in [scr (1911) ix—xvii. Subsequent bibliography is cited by H. Braunert, DAT 65-67 (1950-1951) 231-263 (1 am grateful to Dr. von Bothmer for calling my attention to this article). There is further important dis-

cussion of the problem by T. Rénne and P. M. Fraser, J/EA 39 (1954) 84-94. |

23 Cited in n. 22, supra. The twenty-seventh example, published for the first time by Fraser, op. cit., is in the

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

. B. P. gorentell, A. 8S. Hunt, The Hibeh Papyri (London 1906) I, Appendix 1; Archiv fir Papyrusforschung 7 Te ries discussed by H. Pomtow, Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 30 (1910) 1087-1096. 26 Kahrstedt, Hermes 72 (1937) 394-

I. THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB 11 that only one official at a time was in charge of burials in Alexandria, and therefore he lists the vases of these two men and of Theodotos in sequence. He determines what this sequence should be by following a development in the form of the inscription. At the beginning he places the two vases already dated in 259 and 250 B.C., whose inscriptions give only the date. Next come the vases which name Philon and Sarapion because these add the official’s name. Latest are the vases of Theodotos because in them the official acquires the title agorastas. Therefore, the vases of Philon and Sarapion fall within the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes I (247-221 B.C.). Philon’s vases, three of which are from the Soldiers’ Tomb, would then go from the fourth to the eighth year and Sarapion’s from the fourteenth to the twenty-first year of the reign of Ptolemy III. After this listing four vases still remain and these Braunert ascribes to the reign of Ptolemy III rather than, as has been done in the past, to that of Ptolemy I, simply because he prefers it, making it clear himself that this is a dubious procedure. In order to confirm this sequence he suggests that a morphological study of the vases should be undertaken. That still remains to be done. But another, very important, contribution has been made by Fraser which confirms at least the outlines of Braunert’s chronology.” He has made a much mote precise and detailed study of the palaeography than had previously been done, compating the available Hadra inscriptions (unfortunately not many of them have been published in photographs) with the now considerable bulk of papyri of the third century. He deduces both that the two inscriptions associated with a long reign are distinct in style and that the others fall within the reigns of the third and fourth Ptolemies. Of the four dated vases from the Soldiers’ Tomb, one is assigned to 250 B.C. and, of the three which were prepared through the good offices of Philon, one is placed in 242 and © two in 239 B.C.

There has been great confusion about the connection of the dated vases with the Soldiers’ Tomb. The most frequent error is that all the vases are assumed to have come from the one tomb. Yet Neroutsos in L’Ancienne Alexandrie differentiated clearly between

the four dated urns, now in the museums of Alexandria and Cairo, which were found in the Soldiers’ Tomb and the other urns he listed, which came from quite other tombs. Single urns have been found from time to time and added to the list long after the Soldiers’ Tomb was found, rifled, and lost again. And the fact that the eleven dated urns in the Metropolitan Museum of Art did not come from the Soldiers’ Tomb is made cleat yet again by the archive correspondence. J.A. Paine, Curator, wrote that the vases which were then in the Museum were obtained by Farman about six yeats previously from Cavaliere P. Pugioli, who had gathered them all within thirty years.?8 In a later letter Farman himself wrote that “The collection was made by an antiquarian enthusiast who spent a fortune in excavations and became poor. He sent the collection to me at New York to have it sold and it was bought by General Cesnola. One or two of the urns were first bought by the late Mr. Marquand and afterwards came to the Museum.... The inscribed cinerary urns were mostly from tombs at the bottom of mounds of debris.... Some of them were found 7 IBA 39 (1953) 84-94. 28 Letter Mar. 7, 1890.

12 I. THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB in tombs on the west side of the city, or within its present limits.’*® It is to this collection of vases, he states repeatedly, that he will add three urns from the Soldiers’ Tomb.?° Another frequent error is the dating of almost anything that turns up in the Alexandrian cemeteries by the twenty-seven dated vases. For example, it has sometimes been assumed that all the painted stelai and loculus slabs found in Alexandria must coincide with the period of the vases. There is no reason at all to make this assumption. First, there are only twenty-seven vases with dates among hundreds of Hadta vases. It has already been noted that the entire production of Hadra ware must not be limited by the dated examples, but

period.3! Bn

that it extended from the end of the fourth century B.C. into the second century B.C. What is more, the Hadta vases are not the only kind used as cinerary urns. Other types of vase current in Alexandria were also used for this purpose throughout the Hellenistic The coin find mentioned by Merriam is usually cited together with the dated vases and this also has led to great confusion. Yet Merriam was perfectly clear when he stated that in July, 1883 a cache of coins of the period of Ptolemy I Soter (323-285 B.C.) and the two years of the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285-247 B.C.) before Soter’s death in 283 B.C. were found in a tomb “‘a few rods away” from the Soldiers’ Tomb.” This also can now be corroborated by Farman’s correspondence: “In the month of July previous to the finding of this (the Soldiers’) tomb, a few rods distant from it, and on about the same level, was found a vase containing 208 silver coins all belonging to the reign of the first Ptolemy,—Soter—and the short time that he and Ptolemy Philadelphos reigned together. ... | I had the opportunity of their first examination, and selected and purchased something overt forty of them, all that were not duplicates, and now have them in my collection.’ A few rods are a fair distance, especially in an area like the eastern cemeteries of Alexandtia which were honeycombed with pit graves and hypogea throughout the Hellenistic period,®4 and in which, since 1883, innumerable coins of many of the Ptolemies have been found. Yet scholars at vatious times have dated the Soldiers’ Tomb, Alexandrian stelai, and Hadra vases all by this cache. It has even on occasion made its way via the printed word into the Soldiers’ Tomb itself. Pagenstecher for example compounds confusion by stating that “the Metropolitan Museum of Art vases were found with coins of Philadelphos”’, putting all the dated vases and the cache of coins into the Soldiers’ Tomb and dating the coins incorrectly as well.* In his article Braunert quoted this statement of Pagenstechet’s and struggled unnecessarily in a footnote with the problem of reconciling those coins

with his later dating of the vases.%6 , , a

There is further discussion of the Soldiers’ Tomb in the following section, in relation to the loculus slabs that were found in it (pp. 14-23, Numbers 1-11), and, once again, in

relation to its chronology (pp. 51-52). , , 29 Letter June 28, 1909. 80 See pp. 8-9. |

1 Breccia Sciathi, 25-29; Id. AaA (1922) 221-223; Id., Musée 1931-1932, ch. I. 82 4JA 1 (1885) 18. 33 Letter Oct. 31, 1893. Farman’s collection of coins was installed in the Metropolitan Museum, on loan, in September, 1894. In 1904, 3360 coins were part of the Farman Collection which D. O. Mills bought and presented to the Museum. In May, 1926, 2825 coins of the Farman Collection were transferred, on indefinite loan, to the American

Numismatic Society, New York. *4 Breccia, Musée, 1931-1932, 11; Adriani, Annuaire, 193-1939, 1.

39 AJA 12 (1909) 415. 36 IDAT 65-67 (1950-1951) 240, 0. I, :

JI. The Extant Paintings and Mosaics 1. Loculus Slabs and Stelai. There were extensive cemeteries to the east of Alexandria, outside the city wall, where the non-Egyptian population were buried throughout the Hellenistic period. These cemeteries

occupied what are today the suburbs of the city called Shatbi, Hadra, and Ibrahimiya, and are known by those modern names. The Shatbi area is on the shore and in Ptolemaic times began immediately outside the city wall. Ibrahimiya is also on the shore but some kilometres east of Shatbi. It has been suggested that the cemetery found there was used not by the Alexandrians themselves but by the inhabitants of such ancient suburbs as Eleusis.1 The Hadra cemetery lies inland, was on the southeasterly side of the Ptolemaic city, and stretches far enough east to meet Ibrahimtya. All of these cemeteries were very densely filled with Ptolemaic tombs of many forms and kinds.? There were surface burials in pits, sometimes covered with tumuli, and there 1 Kleiner Danagrafiguren, 34-35.

2 Hellenistic tombs were first found in Alexandria in 1874, in the district of Hadra, when the new railroad from | Cairo was being laid. The first finds were published by Tassos Neroutsos in Bulletin de I’ Institut ég yptien 13 (18741875) 181-186, 222-232 and ’A@1viov 3 (1874) 71-90, 213-245, 441-462. Until June 16, 1892, when the GrecoRoman Museum was inaugurated in Alexandria, excavations were uncontrolled. Neroutsos kept what records he could of chance finds, which he published in a booklet L’Ancienne Alexandrie (Patis 1888). After 1892, systematic excavations were under the supervision or with the knowledge of the successive Directors of the museum: Giuseppe Botti from 1892 to 1907, Evaristo Breccia from 1908 to 1934, Achille Adriani from 1934 to 1953, except for several years during and after World War IT, when Alan Rowe acted as Director, and Victor Girgis from 1953 to date. Reports of excavations were published under the editorship of the current Director, in the Bulletin dela Société archéologique d’ Alexandrie from 1898 to date and in a series of annual reports. The latter were called Rapports sur la marche du Service du Musée for the years 1892 to 1922. Afterwards they were given mote elaborate format and a series of new names. They were published as Le Musée gréco-romain for the years 1922-1923, 1925-1931, and 1931-1932; as the Annuario del Museo greco-romano for 1932-1933; and as the Annuaire for 1933-1935, 1935-1939, and 1940-1950. In 1898-1899 Ernst von Sieglin financed extensive excavations, which continued 1900-1901 under the direction

of Theodor Schreiber. The von Sieglin finds were recorded in a series of monumental publications, issued from 1908 to 1927. The volume on the cemeteries is R. Pagenstecher, Nekropolis (Leipzig 1919), which summarizes all

the finds to date in the Alexandrian cemeteries, not only von Sieglin’s, and remains the fullest single account. There are briefer summaries or lists of stelai and slabs in G. Botti, Plan de la Ville d’ Alexandrie al’ époque ptolémaique (Alex13

14 IJ. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS were surface monuments, most of them in variant shapes of the stele, mounted on a stepped base. Of the stelai, some were carved and some painted with scenes from the traditional Greek stele iconography. Also, there were many hypogea. These ranged from many-roomed architectural complexes, in which the dead were installed on imitation klinai or in kline-shaped sarcophagi, to simple chambers, corridors, or wells whose walls were pierced by rows of small loculi (niches), each containing a body or an urn with the ashes of the dead, and each sealed with a slab of stone, stucco, or cement. In most cases the slab was flat and carried only the name of the dead, sometimes with an added greet-

ing or statement of the relationship of the survivor to the deceased. In many cases a false , door was painted over the opening. Less often the slab was carved to imitate a stele, usually with a pediment and a sunken rectangular panel, on which was painted the kind of scene which was traditional on true stelai. This first chapter on “The Extant Paintings and Mosaics” of Alexandria will present the paintings associated with the simpler tombs, both the surface tombs and the hypogea. First will come the stele-shaped loculus slabs of the Soldiers’ Tomb. Next, a general sampling, together, of free-standing stelai and stele-shaped loculus slabs from many hypogea, combined in this way because both real and imitation stelai form a consistent group, deriving from the same iconography and style, because their chronology overlaps, and because it is sometimes difficult now to distinguish one from the other. Finally, from the many loculus slabs painted with false doors, a selection will be made of those few which have added figured scenes or other pictorial elements. The Stele-Shaped Loculus Slabs of the Soldiers’ Tomb.

The Soldiers’ Tomb has already been discussed at length on pp. 4-12. It was one of the earliest hypogea found in Alexandria, the first one extensively published, and the only one whose contents include objects which can be dated precisely. It is above all for the last reason that it is treated separately and the paintings on its loculus slabs are presented

here together. The Soldiers’ Tomb most probably was a rectangular chamber with a barrel vault. In its walls there were many burial niches in superimposed rows. The ashes of the dead were contained in vases of Hadta ware and the niches were sealed by steleshaped slabs. When the tomb was found about fifty such vases were in it and a considerable

number of slabs, most of them apparently in a poor state of preservation. There are six slabs now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, two in the Louvre (whose andria 1898); [d., Catalogue des Monuments exposés au Musée gréco-romain d’ Alexandrie (Alexandria 1901); E. Breccia, Guide dela Ville et du Musée d’ Alexandrie (Alexandria 1907); Ld., Alexandrea ad Aeg yptum (Alexandria 1914 [French],

1922 [English]); I. Noshy, The Arts in Ptolemaic Egypt (London 1937). They are also mentioned within larger histories, notably by E. Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung (Munich 1923); M. H. Swindler, Ancient Painting (New Haven 1929); M. Rostovtzeff, Tbe Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford 1941); A. Rumpf, Ma/erei

und Leichnung (“Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft’’, VI: “Handbuch der Archdologie’’, Part 6, vol. IV, 1;

Munich 1953). One of the cemeteries is fully published in E. Breccia, Necropoli di Sciatbi (‘Catalogue générale des antiquités égyptiennes, Musée d’Alexandrie; Cairo 1912). Some of the stelai have been treated within the context of discussions on the Galatian and other mercenaries in Egypt, most fully by S. Reinach, RA 13 (1889) 323-324; A. J. Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 37-115; ld., Revue des études antiques 13 (1911) 33-74; M. Launey, Recherches sur les Armées hellénistiques (Paris, I, 1949, I, 1950). Special problems are discussed by R. Pagenstecher, Heidelberger Akademie der Wiss., philos.-hist., Sitzungsberichte, 8, 12 (1917) 3-Go. There is an itemized history of the excavations of the cemeteries by Adriani in Annuaire, 1935-1939, 128-130.

[-]- |

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAT: THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB 15

paintings unfortunately have disappeared), and two in the Chateau of St. Germain-en-Laye which are known to come from that tomb, as well as three others, in St. Germain-en-Laye

and the Louvre, which very likely came from it. , 1. (Plate I).? Only a few letters of the inscription remain on each line: [— ] Qav [-]/[-] now The slab is cut down at the bottom to form a tenon. On the sunken panel the traditional handclasp is painted. A man is seated on a stool with his feet resting on a footstool. He shakes hands with a woman wearing a robe and mantle who stands in front of him. Behind him stands another man wearing a mantle draped so that it exposes his breast and right arm. The background is divided vertically into two areas, gray on the left and violet on the right. The flesh of the men is ochre, that of the woman light yellow. The lips, nose, and ears of the seated man are picked out in red, as well as the upper arm. In the man at the left, the upper edge of the arm also is pink, followed by a violet shadow. The woman’s hair is dark violet, her garments light blue, laid over yellow, her shoes red. The paint has fallen away where the seated man’s hair was and an area of bright blue remains. His garment is light warm yellow with a violet stripe on the shoulder. The man at the left wears a dark violet mantle. Some pink remains on the seat cushion and traces of red on the footstool. There are gray lines visible on the woman’s garment which may be part of the preparatory drawing. On both her garment and the violet one there are indications of fold-shadows in slightly darker shades of the local color. H.: .74m.; W.: .47m. Found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery.5 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no 04. 17. 2 (formerly GR 2274). 2. (Plate II,1).6 No trace of the inscription remains. The painting on the sunken panel represents a woman dying in childbirth. The woman, naked except for a mantle wrapped around her legs, falls backward on a couch. She is supported on the right by a small girl standing behind her who holds her under the left arm and on the left by a woman who holds her right arm. The girl wears a robe and the woman at the left wears a robe and mantle. The background color is gray. In the upper right-hand corner there is a clear blue but fragments of the gray are visible over it. It may be that a window was painted there, since there is no sign of blue underpainting elsewhere in the panel, but there are no outlines precise enough to prove it. The women’s flesh is tan and their hair, where visible, is brown. The garment over the dying woman’s legs is deep red with lavender edges; the piece that falls over the lap is lavender. Her shoes are bright yellow. She falls back on a piece of furniture over which a white cloth edged with lavender has been thrown and on which is a white pillow, folded double. The robe of the girl at the right is brown. The surface is badly abraded where the woman at the left is, but it seems that her garments also were brown. ° Merriam, A/A 3 (1887) 265-266; MMA Handbook no. 4, 58-59; A. J. Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 52; MMA Flandbook Classical (1917) 259, (1927) 192, (1930) 192, (1953) 132-133; Pagenstecher Nek, 43-44, no. 19; MMA Flandbook Greek, 132-133.

* The reading of the inscriptions on the Metropolitan Museum of Art slabs, Numbers 1, 3-6, and the footnote commentary on them, are by Prof. C. Bradford Welles. Note by Prof. Welles on the inscription of Number 1: A black dipinto originally perhaps 28 cm. long, with letters 8-10 mm. high. Nothing remains but the following, with room for 4 more letters at the right before the end of the lines: OAY HPA

* Placement of the tomb in Ibrahimiya follows Breccia AaA (1922) 82 and Adriani, Annuaire, 1935-1939, 6. Neroutsos, RA 9 (1887) 291-298, had said it was found in Hadra. ° Merriam, AJA 3 (1887) 266-267; MMA Handbook Classical, loc. cit.; Pagenstecher Nek, 50, no. 62; Pfuhl AfnZ, $994; MMA Handbook Greek, 132-133.

16 II. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS H.: .736m.; W.: .416m. Found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Att, no. 04.17.1 (formerly GR 2273). 3. (Plate III,1).” The inscription reads: [.]1tos Aootottko Foda&tns ([Blitos, son of Lostoiekos, a Galatian).8

On a sunken panel a soldier is painted standing “at ease”. He wears a large mantle, which is fastened on his right shoulder and hangs straight down, so that it covers his entire body and extends to the bottom of his calves. In his right hand he holds a spear at a slightly oblique angle and, in his left, a tall oval shield which goes from his feet to his chin. The background is pink. The man’s flesh is red-brown and so is his hair. His long chlamys is blue. Very little of the shield’s surface is left; what fragmentary color clings is brown. The spear is brown. Small brown shadows fall to the left from each foot. The gray lines of the preliminary drawing are visible. H.: .381m.; W.: .286m. Found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.5 (formerly GR 2277). 4. (Plate V).° The inscription reads: TleAotri8ns OéooaAfos] (Pelopides, a Thessalian).1°

The painting in the sunken panel represents a man who is apparently trying to bridle an unruly horse. The horse stands on its hind legs, with its forelegs off the ground and its head raised. The man’s left hand is on the horse’s neck and with his right he reaches for its head. The man wears a belted tunic and a conical hat (pilos), but there is no sign of the “stick or sword” which has been described in previous publications as being held in his belt. A boy in a tunic stands by at the right. The background is pink. The horse is bright red with brown in the tail and the shadowed ateas. Its bridle is rendered in darker red with one area of yellow. The flesh of the man and boy is orange shaded with red, and their lips are picked out with red. Their chitons are yellow-white. The color which remains of the man’s hair is red; his pilos is brown. The boy’s hair is violet-black. H.: .394m.; W.: .26m. Found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.3 (formerly GR 2275). 5. (Plate VI,1).U The inscription reads: [.]atoo[s] TaA&tns (-atsos, a Galatian).1® The painting in the sunken panel represents a man with a black mustache who reaches toward

a kantharos held by a boy at the left. The boy holds also a lance, the point of which is visible in the upper corner, and a large oval shield resting on the floor and leaning against his chest. The * Merriam, AJA 3 (1887) 265, no. 3; IMMA Handbook no. 4, 58-59; A. J. Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 55-56, no. 9, fig. 8; MMLA Handbook Classical, loc. cit.; Pagenstecher Nek, 48, no. 32; MMA Handbook Greek, 132-133; SB, 7233; Launey Armées, I, 512, 530, 531, II, 793, 811, 1229. 8 Note on the inscription by Prof. Welles: A faded pink dipinto 22 cm. in length, with letters of the third century B.C., 8-1o mm. high. The first letter appears as beta on the photograph, taken in 1911, but I can make out nothing

positive from the stone. The name Bitos could be compared with the Celtic names Bituitus and Bitoitos, as well as Caesar’s Bituriges. The father’s name may contain the Celtic suffix -cus, but Professor Ward reminds me that this is preceded by a long vowel (-acus or -iacus). ® Merriam, AJA 3 (1887) 265; MAJA Handbook no. 4, 58-59; A. J. Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 56-57, no. 10, fig. 9; MMA Handbook Classical, loc. cit.; Pagenstecher Nek, 54, 69, no. 54; Swindler AP, 344-345, fig. 551; Rostovtzeff SEHHW, I, pl. XXXVII,2; MAMLA Handbook Greek, 132-133; SB, 7234; Launey Armées, I, 513.

10 Note on the inscription by Prof. Welles: A faded red dipinto 19 cm. long, with letters of the third century B.C. 8 mm. high. 11 Merriam, A/A 3 (1887) 263-264, pl. XVII; MMA Handbook no. 4, 58-59; Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 53-54, no. 7, fig.6; MMA Handbook Classical, loc. cit.; Pagenstecher Nek, 51-52, no. 46; MMA Handbook Greek, 132-133; Launey Armées, 1, 512, 513, 530, 531, II, 783, 793, 1230. hi gn. h Note on the inscription by Prof. Welles: A red dipinto 17cm. long, with letters of the third century B.C. 12 mm.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB 17 man wears a mantle fastened on his right shoulder and hanging straight down so that it covers his body. The boy wears a tunic. The background is gray. The boy’s skin is several shades darker than the man’s, and it is shaded in dark brown on the arm holding the kantharos, the right side of his right leg, and all of the left foot behind the shield. The man’s eyes and mustache are black. His hair is no longer visible. His chlamys is bright blue. The boy’s body is almost entirely covered by the shield which is greenblue around the edge with bright red crescents at the top and bottom and a large yellow area in the middle on which are traces of black. Merriam suggested that the black may have represented a Gorgoneion," but, at least now, it is impossible to make anything out. The spearhead is brown. The kantharos is black. H.: .376m.; W.: .28m. Found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.6 (formerly GR 2278). 6. (Plate VI,2).4 The inscription reads: *loiSwpos / Toadatns (Isidoros, a Galatian).%

The painting in the sunken panel represents a man shaking hands with one of two little girls in long robes who stand next to one another on the left. The second girl raises her right hand toward him. Both hold small black objects in their left hands, at waist level. The man wears a chlamys, and probably is nude under it. The painting is far from clear, since its condition is bad, but what is left of the color in the region of the torso is the same as the head, arms, and legs, and there is no outline of a tunic hem. Therefore, he must be nude. If true, this painting reveals that the Galatian habit of at least partial nudity continued in Ptolemaic Egypt. In the upper left are several looped lines which have been explained as a double looped fillet with two hanging ends, and which could well be that. Such fillets are not often seen on the Alexandrian stelai, but there is another clear example from the Shatbi cemetery." The background is gray. The flesh of the man is peach color with a violet shadow line on the under side of the arm. His chlamys is bright blue. Both little girls wear long pink robes with a fold line and an outline at the right in red-violet. The girl at the left has a light blue panel from the waist to the knees on the side of her dress. The other girl has a similar panel but the paint is lost from it. The hair of all three is brown. The looped ribbons in the upper left are red and blue. H.:.419m.; W.:.245m. Found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, no. 04.17.4 (formerly GR 2276). 7. (Plate IV,1).!” The inscription reads: piAsiota yuvi) Zicdveovo[s] "Avo€ipou ToAc&tovu (Philiste, wife of Sisonon, a Galatian, son of Anaximos).!8 In spite of the inscription it is not a woman but a man who is represented in the sunken panel,

a soldier in a chlamys and perhaps a tunic. The painting is not clear enough to be sure about the 13 AJA 3 (1887) 263-264. 14 Merriam, AJA 3 (1887) 264; MMA Handbook no. 4, 58-59; Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 54-55, no. 8, fig. 7; MMA Handbook Classical, loc. cit.; Pagenstecher Nek, 53-54, no. 52; MALA Handbook Greek, 132-133; SB,7232; Launey Armées, I, 512, 528, II, 784, 793, 812, 1230.

1° Note on the inscription by Prof. Welles: Above the field, below the gable. The space available for the red painted inscription was 15.5 cm., and the two legible words occupy somewhat more than half of this space at the right. Lettering of the third century B.C. If it were possible to read *lo18m@pou, we should understand the name of the deceased to have occupied the left part of line 1, but while the sigma is not certain, the traces do not fit mpsé/on.

It may be that the entire original text is preserved.

16 Breccia Sciatbi, no. 21. 1” Bibliography for Numbers 7—10: Neroutsos, RA 9 (1887) 297; Id. L’? AA, 109; A.J. Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 46-50, nos. 1-4; S. Reinach, Catalogue illustré du Musée des Antiquités nationales au Chateau de Saint Germain-enLaye (Paris 1917) I, 37, nos. 31232-31235; Pagenstecher Nek, 45, no. 23, 46, no. 25, 48, nos. 31, 33; SB, 2116, 2117, 7229; Launey Armees, I, 512, 513, 530, 531, II, 793, 797, 811, 1229, 1230. 18 The reading of the inscription is from Launey Armées, I, 512, n. 7. 2 Brown

ee Ks) Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS tunic. In his left hand he holds a large oval shield and, in his right, a lance which rests on the ground and makes an oblique line upward. The surface of the painting is almost entirely gone. What remains visible today is the drawing in sanguine, a reddish color in the background and ground area, brown skin, and white chlamys. One can no longer make out the color of the area where the tunic would be or the shield. H.: .48m.; W.: .235m. Found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Chateau de Saint Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités nationales, no. 31234.

8. (Plate III,z2). The inscription reads: AiAec&oatos AiSocdétios Faddtns (Ailearatos, son of Aidosotis, a Galatian). On the sunken panel of this stele too a soldier is painted. He wears a chlamys, may be nude under it, and has a helmet on his head. In his left hand he holds a large oval shield which covers half of his body and in his lowered right hand a spear. The surface of the painting is almost entirely gone. There is no evidence of paint on the background. The skin is tinted in an orangish color. Since the same color also occurs in the area where a tunic is expected, it is possible that he is nude under his chlamys, but again the painting is not clear enough to tell. One cannot make out the color of chlamys or shield. H.: .43m.; W.: .28m. Found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Chateau de Saint Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités nationales, no. 31235.

9. (Plate IV,2). The inscription reads: Tluppos ToAatns (Pyrrhos, a Galatian).?° The painting in the sunken panel represents a soldier similar to the one in Number 8, Plate ITI,2. He wears a cloak which falls to his feet. In his left hand he holds a large oval shield and in his upraised hand a spear. No surface at all is left on this stele, only faint traces of the drawing in sanguine. H.: .455m.; W.: .23m. Probably found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Chateau de Saint Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités nationales, no. 31233. 10. (Plate IV,3). The inscription is effaced.

The soldier painted on the sunken panel wears a tunic, probably a cuirass, and a chlamys. He holds a lance in his raised right hand. His shield, which seems to be round and reaches almost to his waist, is on the ground to the left, presumably standing on the ground and leaning on the wall behind. There is no evidence of paint on the background. The ground area seems to be gray. The skin is sanguine, the tunic white, the chlamys dark sanguine. The shadows of the cuirass are drawn in sanguine. The shield is drawn in pale yellow. H.: .47m.; W.: .27m. Probably found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the I[brahimiya cemetery. Chateau de Saint Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités nationales, no. 31232. 11. (Plate IV,4).2! The inscription is effaced.

The base into which the slab is set is modern. The soldier painted on the sunken panel wears a tunic and chlamys and holds a spear in his right hand. A round shield rests on the ground at his feet. The color that is left is almost all ochre, with a yellow-ochre background, dark yellow-ochre on the chlamys, and light ochre on the tunic. H.: .435m.; W.: .215m. Probably found 1884 in the Soldiers’ Tomb, the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Paris, Musée du Louvre, no. MNC 834. 19 The reading of the inscription is from Launey Armées, II, 1229.

20 The reading of the inscription is from Launey Armées, II, 1230. 21 Not previously published.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB 19 The first six stelai listed were seen in the Soldiers’ Tomb at the time of its discovery in 1884 by Judge E. E. Farman, then United States consul-general in Egypt, bought by him immediately, brought back to the United States the same year, and placed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art on loan the following spring. In 1904 his collection, including the six loculus slabs, was bought by Darius Ogden Mills and presented to the Museum. In an early publication of the tomb it was stated that the other slabs which were found in it were left there because their condition was so bad.” But apparently this is not entirely true. Numbets 7 to 10 were acquired in 1887 by the Musée des Antiquités nationales in the Chateau of Saint Germain-en-Laye. Two of them, Numbers 7 and 8, have inscriptions which are identical with inscriptions published, in the year in which they were bought, as coming from the Soldiers’ Tomb.?* Since the other two stelai in Saint Germain-en-Laye were acquired with these two and are altogether like them in subject, size, and style, it is probable that they also came from the same soutce. In 1886 the Louvre bought sixteen Alexandrian stelai,™* of which two have inscriptions identifiable as coming from the Soldiers’ Tomb.” The first is the Louvre’s no. MNC 829: "Avacowv MuSoo[tp]atou Onpalios] (Anasson, son of Pythostratos, a Theraean), and the second is no. MNC 837: ‘Ayvés “HpokAeoSwpou Opaig (Hagnas, son of Herakleodoros, a Thracian). Unfortunately however their paintings are not available to us because they were not photographed earlier and they have now faded away. Of the other fourteen stelai included in the 1886 purchase, only three still retain visible traces of their painting and two others can be seen reproduced in an earlier publication. Of the latter two, one is no. MNC 830, a crude painting of a soldier with his squire, and the second, no. MNC 831, represents a woman reclining in a bed in front of which is a round table. The three still visible are reproduced in Plates IV,4; XII,2; XV (Numbers 11, 18, and 23). It is uncertain whether any of these come from the Soldiers’? Tomb. Number 23 definitely does not, since it was found in Ramla in 1875.7” Both nos. MNC 830 and 831 do not correspond with any of the known paintings from the Soldiers’ Tomb, either in style or subject; they are much cruder and more simplified. For Number 18 there is simply no evidence one way or the other. However, the stele illustrated in Plate IV,4 is so like one of those in Saint Germain-en-Laye (Plate IV,3) as to suggest strongly that it, at least, could have come from the same soutce. The paintings on these eleven loculus slabs, studied closely, reveal three distinct styles and a tendency toward a fourth. Such diversity of style is surprising considering that they 22 Merriam, AJA 3 (1887) 261. 23 Neroutsos, RA 9 (1887) 291-298; Jd. LAA, nos. 27, 28. No. 31234 is his no. 27; no. 31235 is his no. 28. 24 Numbers MNC 825-839, 841. Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 43-51, nos. 5, 6; Pagenstecher Nek, 52, no. 47, 60,

0 Neroutsos DAA; no. MNC 829 is his no. 25; no. MNC 837 is his no. 26. 26 A. J. Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 50, no. 5, fig. 4 (no. MNC 830); 51, no. 6, fig. 5 (no. MNC 831). On p. 43, no. 13, he adds a fragment of an entablature with inscription in the Alexandria Museum to the list of items which could be from the same tomb. But Dr. Adriani, until recently Director of the Greco-Roman Museum, wrote in a letter, Dec. 30, 1951, that the Museum has no loculus slabs from the Soldiers’ Tomb. Reinach also includes (no. 14) an inscription known only from Pugioli’s notes. Reinach had a tendency, unjustified, to put everything Galatian into the Soldiers’ Tomb. 27 Neroutsos, RA 9 (1887) 212, no. 51. Q*

20 Il, THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS ate from a single chamber. One would think that a roomful of niches would have been filled rather quickly and decorated rather uniformly for the soldiers of a garrison and their

families. But the evidence of the paintings themselves argues against this. ; The First Style is represented by the handclasp and childbirth stelai (Plates I; II,1). These ate like fourth century stelai of Attica in style. Their composition is lucid and architectonic, with central axis and balancing sides. The side figures provide solid margins in the vertical or neat-vertical lines of their bodies. They close off the edge definitively by turning their backs on it and they emphasize the center by turning to it from each side and focusing on it. The figures are comparatively large in relation to the picture space, filling it, laterally at least, from edge to edge. Also they are solid, rendered, apparently, plastically, and with their bulk reinforced by a clear, continuous outline. As in the Attic stelai postures derive from an esthetic preconception which co-ordinates all the body’s parts into a continuous, curvilinear, rhythmic pattern, most obvious in the girl at the right in the handclasp scene (Plate I) but striking even in the woman dying in childbirth (Plate IT,1). Iconographically also these two paintings derive directly from fourth century Attica. The handclasp of course is a traditional and familiar subject but, more than that, there are neatly exact prototypes in Attica of just this arrangement, with a seated figure in the middle clasping the hand of a standing figure while a third person is in attendance behind.?8

The woman dying in childbirth is a nearly exact repetition of the reliefs on several Athenian marble lekythoi of the fourth century.” Finally, these two stelai are considerably larger than the others, both .75 m. high, while the others approximate .4o m. The tenon at the bottom of the handclasp stele is unusual on a loculus slab and puzzling.®° As representative of the Second and Third Styles let us begin with the paintings of Bitos (Plate III,1) and Pelopides (Plate V), which are very different from the first two. To some extent these have characteristics in common. Both are looser and livelier than the paintings of Style I. Unlike the careful, measured construction of the other paintings the composition here is light, airy, and spirited. The figures become smaller in relation to the picture space;

they do not crowd the frame; they do not impose their bulk in the old way; and thete is open space around them. Within the freer space the figures move more freely, uninhibited by their enclosure in the frame and less controlled in their postures. Also they move in a mote sprightly way. Instead of the stable postures and gradual, continuous rhythms of the eatlier figures, here the lines of movement are emphasized, whether the more pronounced cutves and obliques of the standing soldier or the brusque diagonals of the rearing horse and teaching man. Contributing to the animation are the loose-limbed postures, the slenderness of the proportions, and the swinging outlines of the drawing. In general, as well as in detail, this style emphasizes mobility, liveliness, the momentary stance, or the transitory act. 28 Conze AG, vol. I: pls. LXXXVIII,365, 368, XCI,370, LXXVII,313, 317, LXXXIV,346, LXXXV,345, LXXXVII,348, LXX XVIII, 364, C,435, 425, 424, CII,434; vol. II,1: pls. CKX XIX,712, CXLITI, 750, 751, CXLIV, 749, CXXXII,710, 711, CXXXVIITI,708. 29 Conze AG, I: pls. LXITI,307, LX XIV,308, LX XV, 309; I, Text, 70. 80 See p. 51.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: THE SOLDIERS’ TOMB 21 These characteristics the two paintings have in common. However there are also important differences between them. In the stele of Bitos a taste for the rhythmic posture still lingers. The soldier may swing out more freely, but the curve that flows from the totso into the legs and plays into the counter-curves of head and arm is still co-ordinated. And it is graceful. Very likely his supple grace grows out of tendencies set in motion, in sculpture at least, by Praxiteles but it reaches a new phase in this posture, which takes on a particularly loose-jointed and free-moving air. The tall slender proportions, too, may have developed out of Praxitelean taste, but they too have been exaggerated until they are a new thing, contributing to the lessening of plasticity and the increase of mobility. In the stele of Pelopides the curving, rhythmic co-ordination of movement is gone. Postutes seem to derive not from an esthetic preconception but from the natural and

casual action of human and animal. The elongated, over-thin figure is gone. The people here are more natural-sized or a bit under-sized. The grace is gone; rather, the movement is sprawling, with much angularity and jutting of limbs. Putting all of this together, the composition itself works not through co-ordinated harmonies but through the dynamics of opposing movements. Thete ate iconographic innovations also in these two stelai. Bitos marks a departure from the type of idealized wartior of earlier stelai. This is simply, factually, the mercenary soldier carrying his equipment, a subject which became common not only in Alexandria

but wherever it was appropriate in the Hellenistic world, in the loculus slabs made in Sidon for the garrison of Seleucid mercenaries, occasionally in the stelai of PagasatDemetrias, and on at least two occasions in Cyprus.3! The man bridling a horse introduces a new and unique composition of a particularly animated kind. There are examples on telief stelai of Attica and Smyrna in which a man holds a horse by the bridle, but the liveliest horses among them only lift one foreleg. In a tomb painting in Gnathia a man faces a horse, but he simply holds the bridle; the horse does not rear and the man does not reach up. The closest comparison is with a painted stele of Pagasai-Demetrias

in which a man faces a horse and grasps his neck, but the horse raises only his left front leg and tail.* It is true, of course, that the subject of a man holding a horse by the bridle is a common one in classical art, and there are horses among them which are rearing; for example on the north and west sides of the Parthenon frieze. But this schema, the man running toward a rearing horse and reaching up to its head and neck, does not occur elsewhere. The stele of the mustached man (Plate VI,1), if one makes due allowance for the more static nature of its subject, seems to fall into place in Style III. Certainly the figures are entirely lacking in the co-ordinated harmonies of Bitos (Plate III,1), the slenderness of 31 Seleucid loculus slabs: G. Mendel, Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines, et byzantines (Constantinople, Musée impérial ottoman 1912-1914) I, 260-267; H. Lammens, RA 33,2 (1898) 109-112; T. Macridy, Revue biblique internationale 1 (1904) 401-403, 547-556. Pagasai-Demcetrias stelai: Arvanitopullos Perigraphe, nos. 8, 334. Cypriote stelai: A. S. Murray, A. H. Smith, H. B. Walters, Excavations in Cyprus (London 1900) 93, stele of Nicogenes, and stele found in Tomb 301. 32 Relief stelai of Attica: Conze AG, II: pl. CCIII,1024; II, Text, 255, no. 1159. Relief stele of Smyrna: Metropolitan Museum of Art Photograph Collection, no. 37195. Tomb painting in Gnathia: RM 27 (1912) pl. IV. Painted stele of Pagasai-Demetrias: no. 237 in the Archacological Museum, Volo.

22 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS his proportions, even the lightness of touch of the drawing lines. They do, however, have a certain amount of sprightliness in their spread-legged postures, in the drawing of the limbs, in the sharp focus of the man’s black eyes, and the composition must have been further animated, when the forms were clearer, by the decided diagonal outline of the shield. The proportions of these two figures are the stumpier proportions of the Pelopides stele (Plate V). Their postures have the same casual, natural quality. The drawing runs similarly to stiff, straight-line simplification of outlines. In later pages, livelier representations will be adduced even of standing figures in the Third Style. This is a relatively static

example, but it is not yet too static to be included with the others. The four slabs in Saint Germain-en-Laye are closely related to the slab of Bitos. They are obviously related in subject since all of them, like Bitos, represent armed soldiers standing alone and three of them are Galatians. But also they are related stylistically. In fact the slabs of Ailearatos (Plate III,z) and Pyrrhos (Plate IV,z) are close enough to have been painted the same day by the same hand. The painting on the uninscribed stele (Plate IV,3), while it still follows the controlled S-curve in posture, leans to the more angular and brusque movements which have become dominant in the painting of the man bridling a horse. There is not enough left of the painting of Number 7 (Plate IV,1) to draw any deductions mote than an uncertain guess that is seems closer to the uninscribed slab than to the others. The painting of the Louvre slab (Plate IV,4) is like that of the

, him. |

uninscribed slab also, both in style and in specific details of composition, including the small chlamys on the shoulder, the upraised right hand, and the round shield on the floor beside

With the stele of Isidoros (Plate VI,2) the composition has become so static, the proportions so unnatural, the painting so abbreviated that one does seem to be taking leave of Style III. One can recognize derivations from the Third Style in it, for example the small scale of the figures in relation to the picture area, their short stature, and the casualness of their postures. But the short stature has passed the bounds of what is natural. The figure "at the right must be a full grown man since he is dressed like the Galatian soldiers in previous slabs, but his stature is that of a sub-adolescent boy. The posture also has drifted away from the natural effect to the stereotype. The painter is unembarrassed by the nearly exact repetition in the two little girls, and all three figures line up repetitively in a simpleminded way, to make a limited number of large, clear gestures. The spontaneity and liveliness of Style III are gone. The figures are content to stand quietly, one next to the other, so that the composition is strung on their juxtaposed verticals, with interlacing horizontals suggested by shoulders, belts, hems, or aligned heads, and with a protruding arm ot leg making a jutting continuation of the horizontal or an abrupt oblique. There is a distinct drop in technical skill even from the not over-distinguished level of the Third Style. The movements are quite awkward, the figures tend to drift into profile whenever it is convenient, and they are painted in a summary fashion, a wash of color and a shadow line or two being sufficient to delineate a form. This abbreviated representation of form goes with the more schematic concept already indicated above. In the first three styles one feels still in touch with the predominant Greek

1, LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: OTHER TOMBS 23 spirit of the time which was exploring the richness and variety of human activities and the

wotld’s forms. Here one seems to be losing touch with that spirit and to be dropping into a different state of mind and a different intention, in which it is enough to record proscribed ritual acts in a limited number of symbolic gestures. Stelai and Stele-Shaped Loculus Slabs from Other Tombs

The stelai and the loculus slabs shaped like stelai were almost always made of limestone

with the painted scene applied directly on the stone surface. They were topped with a triangular pediment or, much less often, with an arc-shaped pediment or simply a hotizontal moulding. Usually a rectangular panel was cut out to provide a field for the painting; sometimes the painting went on the flat surface of the stele. The painting is in tempera or

perhaps gouache. The ancient cemeteries of Alexandria have for the most part disappeared again, as the modern city has covered the areas of Shatbi, Hadra, and Ibrahimiya. But many of the painted stelai and stele-shaped loculus slabs have been preserved. By far the largest number, 121 in all, are now in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria. The six in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the four in Saint Germain-en-Laye were previously listed in relation

to the Soldiers’ Tomb. The Louvre has twenty-two. Sixteen of them, discussed on p. 19, wete bought in 1886, of which at least three seem to have come from the Soldiers’ Tomb, and six were bought in 1890.54 Two are in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. A few were given to Dresden as a gift by E. von Sieglin.?6 One was previously located in the Golenischeff Collection, Moscow.®” Those presented below are intended as a fair sampling. 12. (Plate VII,1).38 The top is broken away. What remains is the bottom of a handclasp scene, painted on a sunken panel. At the left is a man seated on a stool, wrapped in a mantle from the waist down, his upper torso bare. He shakes hands with a standing woman who wears a robe and mantle. The lines one sees are the preliminary sketch. That they originally were invisible is proven in this particular case by the fact that they are completely covered with washes of color where the upper surface of paint remains, in the areas of the man’s upper torso and the stool on which he sits.3® The same is true also of the next two slabs.

The background is reddish brown. There are vestiges of yellow and violet in the area of the clothes.

H.: .31m.; W.: .313m. Found 1933 in the Abukir Street section of the Hadra cemetery. Found in surface accumulation; evidently a free-standing stele. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 24149. 3° Breccia Sciatbi, 9. 34 Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 43-44, n. 2. The six bought in 1890 are nos. MNC 1279-1284. Of these only MNC 1284 retains its painting. % Bissing, 4A (1go1) 201, nos. 12-13; C. C. Edgar, Greek Sculpture (“Catalogue générale des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire’’, XIII; Cairo 1903) 35, pl. XVIII, nos. 27529, 27530. 86 Pagenstecher Nek, 32-33; Id., Malerei und Plastik (“Expedition Ernst von Sieglin’’, Il: “Die griechischenagyptischen Sammlung Ernst von Sieglin’’, Part 1A; Leipzig 1923) 3-5, pls. II-IV.

3” Pagenstecher Nek, 32, no. 1. 33 Annuaire, 1935-1939, 68-69, 78, fig. 37. 39 Pagenstecher Nek&, 70, claims that the underdrawing was visible in the stele paintings; Breccia, BSAA 18 (1921) 76-77, says no; Adriani, Annuaire, 1933-1935, 111, confirms Breccia. Pagenstecher did not see the originals; he states, on p. 33, that he never visited Alexandria but did his work on the basis of photographs.

24, Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS 13. (Plate VIII,1).4° There is no sign of an inscription. There is no sunken panel; the picture is painted directly on the shaft. It represents a bearded man seated on a tock, caressing the head of a small child who is at his knee, while a second, nude child crawls toward him holding out its right hand. The man wears a robe and a mantle which goes overt his left shoulder and wraps his left arm. The child at his knee has placed its hand on the

man’s left hand. ,

There are traces of red in the background. The skin is brown-red. The man’s garments are white with outlines and folds drawn in black. The standing boy is dressed in bright red. H.: .51m.; W.: .29m. Found 1904 in the Shatbi cemetery. Found in surface accumulation in context with bases of surface monuments; evidently a free-standing stele. Alexandria, GrecoRoman Museum, no. 10690. 14. (Plate VII,z).41 The inscription reads: Opaouundns [.JeAuou (Thrasymedes, son of .elmos).” In the painting on the sunken panel a kneeling girl in a long robe reaches up with both hands toward something small, maybe winged, which a boy holds out to her. The boy wears a tunic and an overgarment which must be a chlamys, but worn so that it covers most of the front of his body and leaves his left arm bare. He carries something in his lowered left hand also, something larger than the object in his right hand. At the bottom there is a second, smaller panel on which are painted two large water birds facing each other. There is no sign of a background color, but the whole field of the larger panel is scattered with heavy off-white brush strokes of uncertain significance. The boy wears a white tunic and yellow chlamys, the girl a black chiton, with a red-dotted white band around the waist. His hair is black, hers is blonde and tied in a red coif. Against the blackish background of the bottom area, the birds are painted in yellow with red beaks.

H.: .58m.; W.: .35m. Found 1906 in the Shatbi cemetery. Evidently a free-standing stele. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 10231. 15. (Plate [X,1).%% There is no sign of an inscription.

The painting in the sunken panel represents a soldier with a small, pointed beard who shakes hands with a boy at the left while a second boy stands watching at the right. In his left hand the soldier holds a thin pole topped by a small banner. He wears a cuirass with fringed leather skirting over a short tunic, a sword at his belt, and a chlamys folded over his left shoulder. The boy with whom he shakes hands is dressed in a tunic and mantle, the second boy only in a tunic. On the ground behind the man and the second boy there is a small round shield in three-quarter view decorated with lines radiating from the center. There is no trace of color in the background. The flesh is painted bright red. The man’s hair is brown. His chlamys is brown and his tunic is white. His cuirass also is white with yellow-brown around the waist and on the shoulder pieces. The boys are both so badly defaced that colors cannot

be discerned. |

H.: .69m.; W.: .46m. Found 1910 in the Shatbi cemetery. Evidently a free-standing stele. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 19110.

16. (Plate X). The top is broken away.

, There is no sunken panel. The painting, which is directly on the shaft, represents a soldier mounted on a rearing horse, who turns his head back toward a boy approaching him from the left 40 Breccia, BSAA 8 (1905) 80, fig. 30; Id. Sciathi, 15, no. 14, pl. XXIX,33; Pagenstecher Nek, 43, no. 18. 41 Breccia [scr, 130-131, no. 239; Ld. Sciatbi, 15-16, no. 15, pl. XXVIII; Pagenstecher Ne’, 56, no. 61. 42 The reading of the inscription is from Breccia Jscr, no. 239. He dates the inscription in the third century B.C. 43 Breccia Sciatbi, 12, no. 10, pls. XXV,30, XXVI,30a; Pagenstecher Nek, 53; 69, no. 51, fig. 49; Swindler AP

344-345, fig. 552; Rumpf MuZ, 153-154, pl. 51,6. 44 Breccia, BSAA 25 (1930) 106, 116, pl. XII.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: OTHER TOMBS 29 and takes a helmet from him. The boy, who wears a tunic, is seen in three-quarter view from the back. The horseman wears a tunic, cuirass, and chlamys and carries a lance in his left hand. He seems also to wear a bowl-shaped head covering. The background is pink. The horse is red, and so is the flesh of man and boy, in all cases shaded in other tones of the same color. The boy’s tunic is yellowish. The horseman’s tunic is dull yellow, the chlamys brown-red, the cuirass blue. The helmet is brown. H.: .35m.; W.: .25m. Found 1925-1926 in the Hadra cemetery. Found in surface accumulation; evidently a free-standing stele. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 22116. 17. (Plate XII,1). The inscription reads: ’Aoia “lotpx (Asia, an Istrian).46 What remains on the sunken panel is the preliminary drawing. It represents a young woman seated on a stool. The position of her right hand is not clear but it seems to be in her lap, while her left hand rests on the seat behind her. She wears a high-girded robe and a mantle laid over her legs. The drawing of the figure is in black lines. The rest of the color has disappeared. H.: .50m.; W.: .34m. Found 1900 in the Hadra cemetery. Circumstances of discovery unknown. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 104. 18. (Plate XII,2).4 There is no sign of an inscription. The base into which the slab is set is modern. Painted on the sunken panel is a woman in profile, seated on a klismos, shaking hands with a small boy who comes toward her. The woman wears a robe and a mantle pulled over her head. The boy wears a robe and mantle. The background is whitish, the ground area ochre, the drawing lines visible are black. The flesh of the woman and child is pinkish, the hair of the former is black, of the latter ochre. The child wears a pink tunic. The woman wears a pale lemon yellow robe and a white veil. She sits on an ochre chair with pale pink cushions. H.: .39m.; W.: .282m. Found before 1886, when it entered the museum’s collections. Provenance unknown. Paris, Musée du Louvre, no. MNC 827 (?). 19. (Plate VITI,2).4° There is no sign of an inscription.

On the sunken panel a woman is painted, seated on a cushioned stool, leaning forward and holding her hand out to a naked baby who kneels on the floor in front of her and reaches out toward her with its left hand. The woman wears a robe and a mantle wrapped around her legs. The background is a yellowish color and the outlines are black. The only colors which still remain are light brown on the skin and crimson on the stool. H.: .45m.; W.: .26m. Gift of Mr. Veritas. Provenance unknown. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 100.

20. (Plate XIII,1). The inscription reads: Aukivos AuKwvos OecoaAds (Lykinos, son of Lykon, a Thessalian).5°

On the sunken panel a man is painted gesturing with his right hand toward a boy at the left who holds a large round shield seen in profile, which is decorated with lines radiating from the center. The man wears a tunic and chlamys, the boy only a tunic. 49 G. Botti, Catalogue des Monuments exposés au Musée gréco-romain da’ Alexandrie (Alexandtia 1901) 574, no. 416;

Breccia ser, no. 234; Pagenstecher Nek, 35-36, no. 5, fig. 21. 46 The reading of the inscription is from Breccia scr, no. 234. He dates the inscription in the third century B.C.

47 Not previously published. 48 Pagenstecher Vek, 37, fig. 22, no. 7. 49 BSAA 9 (1907) 45, no. 2, fig. 12; Breccia Iser, 132, no. 242; Arvanitopullos Perigraphe, 27, no. 9; Pagenstecher

Nek, 51, no. 45, fig. 37; SB, 447; Launey Armées, I, 217, 223, II, 783, 794, 1141. °° The reading of the inscription is from Launey Armées, II, 1141. Breccia Jscr, no. 242, dates the inscription in

the third century B.C. } | | )

26 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS The background is light yellow. The flesh of man and boy is painted red. The clothes are violet with traces of yellow. The shield is dark red with light brown radiating lines and blue border. H.: .72m.; W.: .34m. Found 1906 in the Ibrahimiya cemetery. Found in place as a loculus closing in a small rectangular chamber tomb. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 18824. 21. (Plate XI).>! The inscription reads: [—]§evos [Maxe]5aov (...xenos, a Macedonian).®?

There is no indented panel. On the shaft a mounted soldier is painted. His horse rears and a boy runs after him, holding the horse’s tail and looking out toward the spectator, his head in full view. The soldier wears a cuirass with kilt of leather thongs and a chlamys, and is armed with a lance in his right hand and a sword at his belt. The boy wears a tunic. The background is a reddish color. The horse is chestnut, with a darker tone of the same color

for modelling. The reins and horse blanket are deep violet, the bridle is black. The flesh of man , and boy is red-brown with gradations, for example brighter red on the rider’s cheekbones. His chlamys is yellow-green and under his cuirass, which is yellowish with black lines, his tunic is a

greenish color. The boy’s tunic is yellowish.

H.: .40m.; W.: .37m. Found 1904 in the Shatbi cemetery. Found in surface accumulation in context with bases of surface monuments; evidently a free-standing stele. Alexandria, GrecoRoman Museum, no. 10228.

22. (Plate XIV). The inscription reads: [-]os Asovtioxe [?H]treipetns (.....0s, son of Leontiskos, an Epeiretan).*4

The slab is cut down at the bottom to form a tenon. In the sunken panel a soldier is painted in three-quarter view, stepping toward the left but turning his head toward the right and preparing te throw a spear, which he holds in his upraised right hand, in the direction in which he is looking. Ho wears a tunic, cuitass, and chlamys. Green is faintly discernible in the background, and dark green on the ground. The man’s skin brown. His tunic is blue with traces of brown in the lower patt, his cuirass is blue, and his chlamys is red. _

is H.: .65m.; W.: .45m. Found 1925-1926 in the Hadra cemetery. Found in surface accumulation; , this plus tenon indicate it was a free-standing stele. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 22109.

23. (Plate XV).5> The inscription, which postdates the painting, reads: “"Apnotodupo KaAAnotw (Aristodemos, son of Kallistos).5¢ 51 BSAA 8 (1905) 78, fig. 28; Breccia Iscr, 129-130, no. 237; 1d. Sciatbi, 10 ff, no. 9, pls. XXII, XXIII; Pagenstechet Nek, 54, 69, no. 53; Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 57-58, no. 11, fig. 10; Rostovtzeff SEHHW, I, pl. XTX,1; SB, 4992; Launey Armées, I, 312, 513, II, 781, 793, 1186. Rostovtzeff dates it in the late fourth century B.C., but does not say why.

52 The reading of the inscription is from Launey Armées, II, 1186. It was read [-]€evos [[Jadatns by A. J.

Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) no. 11 and SB, 4992. Breccia [scr, no. 237, reads the inscription as given above, and dates it in the late fourth or early third century B.C. 58 BSAA 25 (1930) 100-101, 115-116, pl. XIII. 54 The reading of the inscription is by Prof. C. Bradford Welles. Breccia, BSAA 25 (1930) 116, read the inscription

as: ..... . CAEONTICKG)......... HC. Commentary by Prof. Welles: If the apparent reading Aeovticke is

cofrect we should have a genitive in -o as in Number 23 (See n. 56, zufra) but there is no indication of a late date. 55 Neroutsos, RA 9 (1887) 212, no. 51; Reinach, MonPiot 18 (1910) 43. 56 Neroutsos, RA 9 (1887) no. 51 published this inscription as: APIETOAHMOZ KAAAIZOENOUZ. Commentary by Prof. C. Bradford Welles: The clear cut letters on the stone, >Apnotodupo KaAAnotw, can hardly go back to the eatly Ptolemaic period, if they are ancient at all. It will be remembered that all the other inscriptions of this type are dipinti, not incised. The use of e¢a for iota and upsilon for eta, as well as the omission of a final sigwa, are well known in the third and second centuries B.C., although I should not expect to find all of them in a well written text. Omega in place of omicron upsilon, on the other hand, is usually attested only in a dialectic setting, Doric or Acolic. It does occut in the unquestionably early Number 22, but no writer of an old Greck dialect would spell so badly otherwise.

In the same way, the lettering shows a mixture of styles. The widely branching sigma belongs only to cursively

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: OTHER TOMBS 27 In the painting on the sunken panel a nude man stands in near profile with his left leg crossed over his right, holding a spear in his right hand and leaning on a large shield which rests on the ground. The spear makes an oblique line over his right shoulder, and the shield inclines toward him. The background is red-ochre, the ground area ochre. The man’s flesh is a pinkish ochre, his hair the same color as the background. The shield on which he leans is ochre. H.: .416m.; W.: .27m. Found 1875 in Ramla, which is some kilometres east of Alexandria, beyond Ibrahimiya, Sidi Gabir, and Mustafa Pasha. Circumstances of discovery unknown. Paris, Musée du Louvre, no. MNC 826. 24. (Plate XVI,1).5" The inscription is now illegible but it was read on discovery as: “HAiEw Xpnotn

yaipe (Worthy Helixo, farewell). Within the sunken panel, at the rear of a painted architectural space, against a sky-blue back-

ground, a woman is represented, seated on a high stool, her feet on a footstool, shaking hands , with a man standing in front of her. Of the man only the right hand and legs are left, the rest having been broken away. There is an object to the right of him which may be another stool. A girl stands

behind the woman, on the stool on which the woman is seated, and turns her head away for a moment from the task of arranging the woman’s mantle on her head. The spacial representation has been discussed and described often. According to the latest description®® there is not only a coffered ceiling but also a polygonal-patterned pavement in perspective, and a column on each side which goes from the top of the floor to the bottom of the ceiling. In the vertical areas on each side, between the column and the frame, where it was thought formerly that another pair of columns rise the full height of the panel, half walls are now seen, beginning like the column at the top of the floor and stopping about three-quarters of the way up to the ceiling. Such space representation, with half walls jutting in from the sides, is comparable to that of the Dioskourides mosaic of the Comic Scene, the Hediste stele from Pagasai-Demetrias, and the two Pompeiian panels of Medea and of Paris and Helen, with the difference that the others represent interior space while this is a portico with the blue sky behind it. As noted above, the background is sky-blue. The floor is brown, the columns light brown, the side walls dark red, and there are traces of azure on the ceiling. The legs of the man ate brown. The women’s flesh is pink, their hair is brown. Helixo is dressed in a yellow robe and brown himation, the girl in a yellow robe. H.: .95m.; W.: .7om. Found 1912 in the Hizbat al-Makhluf area of the Hadra cemetery. Found in place as a loculus closing in the same hypogeum as Number 29. Made of cement coated with plaster, unlike other loculus slabs of stele shape, but like those painted with false doors or inscriptions. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 19439. 25. (Plate XVII).6° The top is broken off. written texts of the third century B.C., but the pear-shaped omega is Roman. I believe that the rather banal inscription

was added long after the original preparation of the stele, possibly replacing a faded dipinto on the same *? Breccia, Rapport, 1912, 27, no. 54, pl. XVIII,1; Breccia Scéatbi, 9, n. 1; Pagenstecher, Heidelberger Akademie der Wiss., philos.-hist., Sitzungsberichte 8, 12 (1917) 3-19; Id. Nek, 42, 74-82, no. 16, fig. 53; Pfuhl MuZ, III, 616, 625, 901, fig. 747; G. E. Rizzo, La Pittura ellenistico-romana (Milan 1929) 31; BSAA 32 (1938) 112-130, pls. XIII, XIV; H. G. Beyen, Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil (The Hague 1938) fig. 84; Rumpf MzZ, 153, pl. 51,7. °8 The reading of the inscription is from Breccia, Rapport, 1912, 27. °° Adriani, BSAA 32 (1938) 112-130; pl. XIV is a reconstruction of the space rendering. °° Pagenstecher Nek, 34, no. 3, fig. 20; BSAA 18 (1921) 74; BSAA 32 (1938) 115-118, figs. 1, 2. Adriani, BSAA 32, Joc. cit., states that it was a free-standing limestone stele, and dates it from the end of the fourth to the first half of the third century B.C., on the basis of its provenance from the oldest cemetery and his impression of its style. He calls the object in her hand a mirror.

28 II, THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS On what remains one sees the lower part of a scene representing a woman seated on a stool with her hands on her lap, holding an indistinct object which is either a fan or a mirror. At the left is a girl, half hidden by a vertical band which may represent a pillar or a wall-end, who holds a fan and turns her head to look directly out of the picture. The woman wears a robe and mantle, the girl only a robe. The background is light brown. The flesh is pink shaded with darker pink. The woman’s robe is yellow shaded with ochre, her mantle is dark ochre with a lavender border. The girl’s chiton is light yellow. The stool is yellow, the cushion bright blue.

H.: .5om.; W.: .48m. Found at an unknown date in the Shatbi cemetery. Evidently a freestanding stele. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 10692.

26. (Plate XIX,1, 2).6! The inscription reads: Nikavwop Maxe...10. (Nikanor, a Macedonian). The painting represents a man mounted on a horse, riding toward the right, while his squire walks behind holding the horse’s tail. Man, squire, and horse are all in profile. The man wears a conical helmet, tunic, and chlamys. The boy wears a tunic and perhaps carries, falling behind his shoulders, a quiver and a hat. The flesh of both men is yellow-brown. The tunic of the boy is yellow, the chlamys of the horseman seems to be violet. All other colors have disappeared. For the rest one sees only the brown of the preparatory drawing. H.: .44m.; W.: .44m. Found 1940 in the Hadra cemetery, in the area of the cemetery of al-Manara. Evidently a free-standing stele. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum.

27. (Plate XX,1). The inscription reads: Atovwo1os Biduvos yoipe (Dionysios, a Bithynian, farewell).6

Two figures are painted on the sunken panel. The larger one, at the left, carries a spear and wears a tunic with a lighter vertical stripe down the middle, ankle-height shoes, and what may be a wteath on his head. The smaller figure at the right wears a pilos on his head, holds an oval shield on his left arm, and carries two spears in his right hand. The background is blue. The outlines are brown. The skin of both men is brown. The man at the left wears dark brown tunic and shoes. The man at the right wears a white tunic, blue helmet, and carries a yellowish shield. H.: .55m.; W.: .32m. Found at an unknown date in the Gabbari cemetery. Circumstances of discovery unknown. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 20919. 28. (Plate XXI,1).© The inscription, which is below the sunken panel, reads: "lood@pa Kupnvaia (Isodora, a Cyrenean).% Painted on the sunken panel is a woman sitting on a stool, holding an infant, half sitting on her

lap, who stretches out its hand toward her. There is room at the right for another figure, but no trace of paint was found there. The woman wears a robe and a mantle pulled over her head. 61 Adriani, Annuaire, 1940-19)0, 25-27, fig. 18, pl. VIII,1. Plate XIX,1 and 2 are reproduced from Annuaire, 1940-190, pl. VIII,1 and fig. 18. The circumstances of discovery are not specified, but Adriani, p. 25, says that all loculus slabs in this region wete painted with false doors, and mentions this as one of the stelai “‘fréquemment rencontrés ... au courts de la fouille.”’ 62 The transcription is from Adriani, op. cit.; the translation is by Prof. C. Bradford Welles. 6 BSAA 15 (1914) 59, no. § is a stele no. 20919, designated as coming from Gabbari, but the painting is desctibed as representing a horseman. Rostovtzeff SEHHYW, I, pl. XXXVII,1; SB, 6241; Launey Armeées, I, 435, I, 1211. 64 The reading of the inscription is from Launey Armées, II, 1211.

Nek, 36-37, no. 6. ,

6 BSAA 8 (1905) 80, fig. 29; Breccia Iscr, 131, no. 240; Ld. Sciatbi, 14, no. 13, pls. XXX, XXXI; Pagenstecher 66 The reading of the inscription is from Breccia Iscr, no. 240. He dates the inscription in the third century B.C,

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELATI: OTHER TOMBS 29 There is no trace of color on the background. The woman’s skin is rosy. She has black hair and wears a yellow robe and brown mantle. The child has black hair also, and wears a yellow garment and blue shoes. The stool is dark red. The cushion and footstool are yellow.

H.: .58m; W.: .21m. Found 1904 in the Shatbi cemetery. Found in surface accumulation in context with bases of surface monuments; evidently a free-standing stele. Alexandria, Greco-

: Roman Museum, no. 10229.

29. (Plate XXI,2).67 The inscription is on the sunken panel, not, as is usual, on the entablature: KAéoov [-Jex (Xleon [-]ea).®

The painting on the panel represents a handclasp scene. A standing woman in profile shakes hands

with a man who is seated in three-quarter view on a chair and holds a staff obliquely across his knees. The woman weats a robe and a mantle which is drawn over her head. Background and ground area are yellowish. The flesh of the woman is dark yellow, her hair reddish. She weats a brown chiton and a reddish himation. The man’s robe is light brown, his himation reddish. The chair he sits on is light brown. H.: .gom.; W.: .54m. Found 1912 in the Hizbat al-Makhluf area of the Hadra cemetery. Found in place as a loculus closing in the same hypogeum as Number 24. Alexandria, GrecoRoman Museum, no. 20507.

The paintings on the stelai and loculus slabs from all the other graves and hypogea of Alexandria, surprisingly enough, reveal very much the same styles that were found in the one tomb discussed before, the Soldiers’ Tomb. What is added, by these numerous examples from many tombs, ate intermediate stages of the styles described before, some that seem earlier than the handclasp and childbirth scenes (Plates I; I1,1), and some that represent in full development the Fourth Style toward which the painting of Isidoros (Plates VI,2) was tending. The other examples of Style I are as similar to the fourth century stelai of Attica as ate the two from the Soldiers’ Tomb. The handclasp scene from the Abukir Street area (Plate VII,1), in fact, is even mote closely knit in composition than the same subject from the Soldiers’ Tomb. The figures ate heavier, more plastic, and more firmly and densely ensconced in their space. That the subject is frequent in Attica has already been established. This particular composition, with a figure in three-quarter view standing close to and somewhat behind a seated figure, itself is so frequent and familiar in Attica that specific comparisons are unnecessary. The painting of the man with two children (Plate VIII,1) also repeats a subject familiar in fourth century Attica or, to be exact, a combination of two subjects.® Even the motif of a rock on which a person sits has fourth century Attic counterparts.”° And the picture

is painted in a manner which is equally familiar in the same quarter, with the lines of 8? Rapport, 1912, 27, no. 55, pl. XVIII,2; Pagenstecher Nek, 42-43, no. 17, fig. 28. 68 The reading of the inscription is from Breccia, Rapport, 1912, 27. 69 In the Attic prototypes it is a woman with a child at her knee: see Conze AG, I, 60, 61, pls. XXVI, XXVIT.

The type of the second child occurs in representations of men or boys who stand and play with infants, like the painted stele of Kollion, Jbéd., Il, pl. CCVI, or a relief stele, I],2, pl. CCIX. In Thespiai, Boeotia there are prototypes also, in which a seated woman plays with a baby who is on the floor in front of her: G. Rodenwaldt, /DAI (1913) pls. 29, 30. There is a similar painted stele in Pagasai-Demetrias: Arvanitopullos GS, 159-160, pl. VIII. 70 The painted stele of Tokkes: A. Milchhéfer, AM (1880) 185-188, pl. VI; a relief stele: J. N. Svoronos, Das athener Nationalmuseum, Athens, 1908, I, pl. LITI, 1388.

30 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS drapery helping to soften transitions from one part of the seated figure to another. The manner and details of the drawing of drapery here are very like those of the Abukir Street handclasp scene (Plate VIT,1), not only in the quality of line but also in specific contours. For instance, the seated man’s hemline echoes the bottom of the mantle of the standing

woman in the handclasp scene, even to the degree of curve in the sides and the little cutled loop of the caught-up fold. The stele of Thrasymedes (Plate VIJ,2) also falls within Style I. The painting on the panel is an almost exact duplicate of representations on Attic stelai, painted as well as

relief.“

It must be made clear that the similarity involved is not only one of subject. Style I stelai ate comparable to Attic examples on the basis of subject combined with style. In

, fact the subjects just cited continued to be used in Alexandria throughout all four styles but with very noticeable changes which can be cited at this point to help clarify the nature of the First Style. In the stele of Isidoros (Plate VI,2), for example, the handclasp scene has changed to a tow of tepetitive standing figures. The mother and child occur in two other

stelai (Plates VIII,2; XIJ,2). But unlike the Shatbi man with children (Plate VITI,1) the softening transitions are gone in both these paintings, the rendering is coatsened, and the

diagonals of movement dominate, so that they fall into Style III rather than I. The standing child reaching down also recurs, though he is more likely to reach toward a pet than toward an infant. Though none of those is illustrated here, there are enough standing boys and reaching infants extant to show how different they could be. Style II is well represented among the loculus slab and stele paintings. One of the finest examples is the painting of the slender man (Plate [X,1), one of the best known of Alexandrian stelai. It is a better preserved and mote attractive example than the stele of Bitos (Plate III,1). The exaggeratedly tall and thin proportions, the loose and graceful stance, the free movement in space, the fluency and mobility of the style, all are plain here. And also it is possible to see, as one cannot in the more damaged stele of the Soldiers’ Tomb, that this effect is intensified by diminishing to a minimum the size of the joints and making the fleshy parts bulge out from them. For example the outline dips in to the ankle and knee and swells out over calf and thigh, and the neck becomes long and thin, making a curve that culminates in the droop of the head. To Style I] also belongs the stele of the Hadra horseman (Plate X). It is most noticeably in the horse that one finds the very slender proportions (in legs and neck), the emphasis on joints and the curving contours of this second stylistic phase. But one finds them in the two human figures also and all three move in co-ordinated and very lively rhythms. They ate perhaps a little more substantially proportioned than the slender man above (Plate [X,r) and may be closer to the First Style. That the horse is different from Style I1I examples can be illustrated, at this point, by a comparison with the rearing animal on the stele of Pelopides (Plate V). 71 Painted: stele of Lysimachos and Polykrite: Conze AG, II, pl. CCII (dated 480-430 B.C.), on which the child is almost identical. The standing figure is closer to the stele of Kollion: Jb7d., H, pl. CCVI (second half of fifth century B.C.). Relief: Zb7d., II,2, pls. CCIX,1048, CCVI,1043.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: OTHER TOMBS 31 Representing the ladies in this style is the painting of Asia (Plate XI1,1). She is quite a charming girl, with the requisite sinuous line of pose, an easy and elegant grace, and slender proportions, complete with long neck and drooping head.

Style III also can be illustrated by several well-known pieces. There is, for example, the stele of Lykinos (Plate XITI,1). Compare this with the stele of the slender man (Plate TX,1) of Style IJ to see what happens, in a very similar subject, when the grace goes but the liveliness remains, when the continuous curvilinear transitions are replaced by abrupt disparate movements, and the easy elegance by an awkward sprightliness. Also there is the stele of the Macedonian horseman (Plate XI), in which the new sprightliness is even more apparent because the figures go into vigorous action. This painting can be most profitably compared with the Hadra horseman (Plate X) of Style II and the Pelopides stele of Style III (Plate V). The outline of the horse and the manner of painting it ate obviously different from the former and similar to the latter. But perhaps the difference from the Hadta horseman is even more clear when the two men are compared, and the similarity with the Pelopides painting is clearer when the spread-eagle vigor of the running boy is compared with the man who reaches up to the horse. Also active is the scene on the stele of the soldier throwing his lance (Plate XIV). The backward thrust of the figure makes a large unified diagonal, echoed by the spear and varied in both the out-thrust left arm and the up-thrust right arm. The position of the legs is like that of the nearly obliterated Galatian soldier of Saint Germain-en-Laye (Plate IV,1) or of Lykinos (Plate XIII,1), but separated and thrust out by the more vigorous action, as in the man bridling a horse (Plate V). In fact it is also like the last-named painting in the dynamic, concentrated, diagonal movement of the composition. The nude man in the Louvre stele (Plate XV) is also similar to the man bridling a horse, even though it represents a figure in repose. Not only does it have the diagonal thrust of the body and the echoing smaller movements of the bent leg but it also has the counterdiagonal of the oblique shield and the line of the spear. In these three examples (Plates V,

XIV, XV), in fact, one is given a hint that the lively motifs of Style III, the physical movement and compositional dynamics, could also be put to work on a more monumental scale and could achieve a more dramatic effect. It seems to be in Style III that the loculus slab of Helixo (Plate XVI,1), probably the best known of the Alexandrian stelai, also belongs. Compare the legs that remain of the man at the right with those of Lykinos (Plate XIIJ,1) or of the boy who stands by in the stele of Pelopides (Plate V); also the summary contrasting lines of Helixo with the two paintings of a seated woman with child (Plates VITI,2; XI11,2); and the sudden turn of

the girl’s head with that of the running boy in the stele of the Macedonian horseman (Plate XI). And compare with the others the effect of a composition made of the contrasting movement of straight and diagonal lines.On the whole, the figures here tend to fall into slightly straighter lines than the ones with which they are compared and may be slightly closer to the phase that follows. Within the painted architecture the figures have the same small scale as those in other Style II] stelai have within their margins and they move just as freely in space. The blue sky behind the portico supplies the atmosphere that is implied in the others.

32 II. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS There is a simpler but still interesting representation of space in the stele of the woman whose young attendant is half hidden by a wall or pillar (Plate XVII). Even though the main figure is relatively large within the space this painting seems to belong to Style III, because of the decided diagonals with which that figure moves and because of the posture of the girl at the left, with its now familiar abrupt turn of the head, as in the paintings of the Macedonian horseman (Plate XI) and of Helixo (Plate XVI,1). In general it is livelier and perhaps earlier than the stele of Helixo, closer in spirit to the Macedonian horseman. Like the painting of Isidoros (Plate VI,2), that of Nikanor (Plate XIX,1, 2) is taking leave

of Style III. Since it repeats the subject of one of the liveliest Third Style paintings, the one of the Macedonian horseman (Plate XJ), it is particularly easy to see what occurs. The hotse has settled its four hooves stolidly on the ground (the line of the body proves),

and the boy has settled down to a quiet walk. Instead of a composition of crossing diagonals, it is constructed of static verticals and horizontals. The drawing becomes summarty, the gait awkward. Liveliness is gone and lifelikeness is going. With Dionysios the Bithynian (Plate XX,1) the full Fourth Style is reached. Lifelikeness

also is gone. The abstract outline has reinstated itself. The drawing is shorthand and stereotyped. There are areas of color but scarcely a pretence of modelling. The two figures stand repetitively one next to the other, with no noticeable interrelationship. The effect is of formula-making of the most naive and simple sort.

Finally, there are two slabs, each of which is painted in a style that fits none of the foregoing categories.

One is inscribed with the name of Isodora, a Cyrenean (Plate XXI,1). It reflects, in small, a quite grand, severe conception. The seated woman, swathed in draperies, holding

her child, makes a massive and rigid form, tightly enclosed as to outline and strictly adhering to a vertical and horizontal compositional system. Her proportions are preternaturally tall, and she has almost a cult-image kind of austerity. The other is the slab of Kleon (Plate XXI,2), whose style is archaizing. The outline of the standing woman has the exaggerated curve familiar in archaic works, from the head to the shoulders, waist, and buttocks. The folds of drapery are translated into clear, continuous lines which make a two-dimensional pattern, in this case a very simple one, and the paint seems to have been applied in flat areas of color. The seated man is represented in threequarter view, which need surprise no one, since it is not a true archaic painting, but he is

consistent with the woman in that he is outlined with the same clarity and precision. Perhaps even the straight bridge of the woman’s nose is an attempt to recapture the more

heroic profile of earlier days. |

It would be interesting to know what the surface treatment was in all of these paintings, since that is a fundamental aspect of style. But unfortunately the surface is so badly worn on most of them that one cannot be sure. There are only a few that give us clues. It has been

mentioned that the loculus slab of Kleon (Plate XXJI,2) seems to have been painted in flat color areas. In the not very numerous instances where the top layer of paint remains, what one sees is a rather mat, opaque sutface, with highly simplified tonal modelling in

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: FALSE DOORS 33 which the shading is a darker tone of the local color, sometimes merging, sometimes just adjacent brush strokes, with the darkest tone at the outer edge.” One would like to think that pictures of the Second and Third Styles were painted in a mote coloristic technique, a technique in which form is described by loosely applied brush strokes in several colors. That is the surface treatment which is suggested by the volatility of the style and, as is proven by Numbers 30 and 41 (Plates XXII, XXXII], which will soon be introduced, such a technique was used in Alexandria. But none of the loculus slabs or stelai actually shows this treatment. There are examples in which sketchy brown ot black outlines are visible, sometimes standing alone, sometimes associated with a local color. However, it seems very unlikely that they could be seen originally. Wherever any substantial amount of surface paint remains, these lines are hidden. Occasionally the outline seems to lie over the local color, but in those cases too the covering coat of paint seems to be lost, leaving only the color-stained surface.“* However even if there were occasionally such dark accents, this would not constitute a true coloristic technique. The stele of the slender man (Plate IX,1), which is one of the most volatile in style, retains some of its surface, and there one can see very clearly that it is modelled tonally in several shades of the local color with the outline sharp and continuous and even with some traces of careful hatching in the shadowed area at the outline. In some of the paintings transitional to the Fourth Style and in the Fourth Style itself, this tonal technique becomes abbreviated to the point where only a single shading line of a darker tone is used, put on hastily and

not merged with the adjacent color. This makes a rather cursive effect but still not a coloristic one. In previous printed discussions of these paintings one is sometimes told that the technique was loose or sketchy or coloristic. Only recently Rumpf described them as follows: “Die Figuren sind flott und keck hingesetzt, ohne dass die Konturen umrissen sind oder die

Schatten in sorgfaltiger Modellierung die Uberginge ausgleichen. Es ist eine ktihne skizzenartige Manier”.’4 However, the stelai themselves, it seems to the present author, flatly contradict such a description. They made the same impression on Breccia, Director of the Alexandria Museum from 1908 to 1934, who was in an unusually good position

to study them closely. He wrote of them: “The designs are often fine and carefully executed and are never in the style of those daubs done with broad strokes of the brush of which one sees so many on the almost contemporary wall paintings of Delos’. Loculus Slabs Painted with False Doors

The loculus slabs which were presented above were cut out of stone in the shape of stelai and painted directly on the stone with a scene related to the traditional iconography of the Greek grave stele. In the same cemeteries, sometimes even in the same tombs, there ® For example: nos. 10231 (Plate VII,2), 19110 (Plate TX,1), 10228 (Plate XI), 10692 (Plate XVII), 22107, and 22117 in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria. ® Tt is obvious that this is true in nos. 10690 (Plate VIII,1), 24149 (Plate VII,1), 100 (Plate VIII,z), 24147, and 24480 in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria. See p. 23 and 23, n. 39.

4 Rumpf Afw#Z, 153-154. ® Breccia Sciathi, 8; Aa.A (1922) 132. The quotation is from the latter. 3 Brown

34 II. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS were other loculus slabs, and these much more numerous than the stele-shaped variety, which were left flat, covered with a layer of plaster, and painted with a representation of a door.”® Sometimes they were made of stone but usually of stucco or cement. It is assumed that such false doors were made from the beginning of the Alexandrian cemeteries. There is one painted even on an open-air monument, on one side of a rectangular block on a stepped base, found during 1933 in the Hadra cemetery, in the Abukir Street section which is thought to begin as early as the Shatbi cemetery, that is, in the late fourth century B.C.” They appear from the beginning in the hypogea. In the large klinetomb of Shatbi, in Room g, there are burial-cells, each sealed with a large slab set into a moulded doorframe.® All painting had vanished from the slabs themselves when the tomb was found, but Breccia wrote that he had no doubt that there had been painting, delineating either false doors or figured scenes.” That they were false doors rather than figured scenes seems the mote likely by analogy with Room e, added later, in which the burial-cells are arranged on the same scheme, with rows of moulded doorframes on the two lateral walls.8° There the painting remains on the slabs within, in full, detailed polychrome, representing a series of some of the handsomest of all Alexandrian painted doors. The original tomb, including Room g, is dated by Breccia in the late fourth or early third century B.C., a date

which is accepted by most scholars. Room e Breccia dates later, perhaps in the second

century, preferably in the third.*!

The source of the motif has been discussed by Pagenstecher.5? He mentions the possibility that it may have derived from Pharaonic Egypt, but rejects the idea, finding it difficult to believe that the settlers would have absorbed such influence so soon. He prefers to believe that they brought the idea in with them from either Macedonia or Asia Minor, where there ate tombs which contain such false doors. They exist, indeed, in many parts of the Mediterranean world as well as in Egypt. The earliest doors in Alexandria are entirely Hellenistic architecturally. Only later is there a penetration of Egyptian forms, and it seems likely that it was then that Egyptian religious ideas also entered. Whatever the soutce, loculus slabs were painted with false doors in large numbers in all Alexandrian cemeteries throughout the Hellenistic period. Only a small number of the false doors have been preserved, however. Since most wete made of a composition rather than of stone, they have tended to crumble on being removed. If they were to be preserved, they would have had to be handled with unusual care, and in most cases the incentive to preserve them was lacking, since the paintings were poorly made. In the largest number of them the door was abbreviated simply to several basic lines and flat color areas. 76 Reports of such finds can be found passim in the BSAA, the Rapports, Musées, Annuario, Annuaires. Also in Schreiber Steglin I, 165, 175, 202, 204, figs. 3, 29; Breccia scr, 135-140, nos. 252, 255, 257, 260, 263, 265, 267; Ld.

| Aaah JOKE L, xlix—li, 22, no. 32, pls. III, VIII, XIII, XIV, XVI,16, XVITI,20; Pagenstecher Nek, 85-93, a“ Adriani, Annuaire, 1935-1939, 69-70, fig. 34. *® Breccia Sciatbi, pls. III, VIII, XVITI,20.

9 Ibid., xii. 80 Ibid., pls. XIII, XIV, XVI,16.

82 Pagenstecher Vek, 85-86. |

81 Room g: Lbid., xxxiv, xlvi, xlviii. Adriani dates it later; for his position see zfra, pp. §5, 57. Roome: Jbid., xlv.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAT: FALSE DOORS 35 In almost all cases only the door itself is represented, a double door, presumably made of wood, set ina heavy frame. Sometimes the door panels are painted as though they were made of solid wood. Sometimes the top panel is latticed. Sometimes one of the wings is represented in perspective, as though open. Occasionally the doors are painted elaborately, with full architectural detail, modelling, and perspective.*’ There are only a few examples in which objects or figures are added to the architectural rendering. Those are the examples which are listed herewith.*4

_ Figure 7 ) 30. (Plate XXII, Figure 1). A two-winged door is painted, with beams and nailheads indicated, and a hanging ring handle in the middle of each side, the one on the left side attached to a round mount,

the one on the right side to a rectangular one which seems to be the lock. On the upper section of each door there is a female head with long curly hair, which is generally taken to be a Medusa head. On the wall to the left of this portal there was a painting in outline of Hermes, resting one foot on a rock and carrying the caduceus. It can be seen faintly on the left in Plate XXII, a photo83 A number of the most elaborate doors are discussed by Adriani, BSAA 32 (1938) 120-130. 84 Breccia Scéatbi, p. 1, says that there was a false door with painted human figures on one of the loculus slabs of Tomb B in the Shatbi cemetery, but it was very faded when discovered and soon faded still more until only vague traces of paint could be seen. The painting represented a man reclining on a kline and speaking to a boy. On p. xlix, Breccia states that Tomb B was later than Tomb A’s Room e, which, on p. xlv he had dated in the second or pethaps better the third century B.C. On p.1, he dates Tomb B as more or less advanced in the third century B.C. 85 Rapport, 1912, 23, no. 44, pls. XIV, XV; Pagenstecher Nek, 91, 186, figs. 61, 112; Pfuhl MwZ, § 994. Breccia, Rapport, 1912, 23, dates the tomb in the second century B.C. on the basis of the decoration of the loculi, the palaeo-

graphy, and the style of the terracotta figurines and funeral urns found in the tomb. , 3*

36 II. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS graph taken in the tomb itself; more clearly in Figure 1, a copy made soon after the discovery. Pagenstecher suggested that this was Hermes Psychopompos and the soul he was leading was once represented on the other side of the loculus. But Breccia replied that he saw no trace of such a figure when the plaster on the other side of the loculus was intact.% Above the door is a tabella ansata on and under which is an inscription of Roman date.® A garland is painted above the tabella, and another below it. On each side of it isa woman in full frontal position.

They are mourners, since their hair is loosed, their robes fall from one shoulder, and the one on the right clutches her hair with her left hand. But they also seem to carry the additional connotation

of the Nike figure, since they each hold a wreath in their raised right hands. They are painted in outline with flat washes that are put on rather carelessly, not always coinciding with the outline. In style they ate not like the Medusa heads on the door below nor, indeed, like any of the other Ptolemaic paintings assembled here. They are much mote like paintings of the Roman imperial period of the popular level. They are reminiscent, for example, of the Orantes of the Roman catacombs.88 They are not precisely like any of them in technique but they are strongly related in their direct frontality, the large, open manner of their gestures, and the obviously symbolic motivation of both posture and gestute. Since they are also associated with a Roman inscription, there is every reason to assume that they are of Roman date. The outlines of the door ate dark brown, the doorframe and lower panels are lighter brown, the border all around and the upper panels are yellowish. The nailheads and handles are blue. The two heads are painted in several tones of gray. The figures above are done in gray outline, with a flat gray wash, one lighter, one darker, over the garment. H.: .85m.; W.: .53m. Found 1912 in the Hizbat al-Makhluf area of the Hadra cemetery. Found in place as a loculus closing in a corridor tomb. The section of wall with door and over-door composition is in Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, no. 19440. The surrounding area, including the Hermes figure, crumbled shortly after discovery. 31. (Plate XXIII,1).8° This false door is divided vertically into three sections. The lower panels ate painted to imitate wood. In the middle of each side door there is a ring-shaped handle, and in the middle of the central door are two crescent-shaped knobs. The upper section of the door is illustrated in Plate X XIII,1. In the center three figures are represented. A small girl raises her face and hands to a standing woman on the left, both of whose hands are outstretched, while a woman on the right, seated on a carved stool with her feet on a footstool, gestures toward the girl. In each side panel is an object which is probably an incense vessel. Breccia calls them bowls for flowets or fruit, but they resemble, for example, the incense vessels painted on the walls of the cubiculum of the Boscoreale Villa.°° The doors up to the figured scene are yellow-orange. No further color description is available. Dimensions unknown. Found 1928-1929 in the Hizbat al-Makhluf area of the Hadra cemetery.

Found in place as a loculus closing in a rectangular well tomb. Not extant. | : 86 Figure 1 is reproduced from Pagenstecher Ne&, fig. 112. Pagenstecher: Ne&, p. 186. Breccia: BSAA 18 (1921) 78-79. 8? Note on the inscription by Prof. C. Bradford Welles: Between the mourning ladies there are extensive traces

of a black dipinto in perhaps twenty lines, which occupies the tabella ansata and a kind of shadow extension of it below. The writing is a good semi-cursive of the first or second century of the Roman period, but faded and smudged. Extensive portions of it can be read with time, from the original wall and from the excellent photographs furnished by the Alexandria Museum. I read only enough to see that it is metrical, and that it is of a funerary character, as we should expect. At the beginning of line 1 it seems possible to recognize the words Zepfivos Trap

onyati (we might better expect Zeptjvou), and at the beginning of line 2, KAaUoaVTes THV.... } 88 J. Wilpert, Roma sotterranea; Le Pitture delle Catacombe Romane (Rome 1903) Plates, pl. 43 7.4. |

89 Breccia, Musée, 1925-1931, 24-25, pl. XI,42; Adriani Annuaire, 1935-1939, 120. Reproduced from Musée,

1925-1931, pl. X42.

9° Breccia: Musée, 192s-19 31, 24-25. Boscoreale Villa: P. W. Lehmann, Roman Wall Paintings from Boscoreale, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Cambridge, Mass. 1953) 202, pls. XVIII, XIX.

1, LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: FALSE DOORS 37 32. (Plate XXITI,2).% The left section of this false door is broken away. The picture in the upper part apparently represents a handclasp scene. There was a seated figure at the left of whom the legs and one hand remain. That hand clasps the hand of a standing woman in robe and mantle. On the right is a smaller woman in a long flowing robe who carries a harp. The figures seem to be set in an architectural frame, with what may very well be a column on the right. One would then assume a balancing column on the left. The lower part is divided vertically to represent a twowinged door, and a latch string with two hanging ends is visible in the middle of the right hand panel.

The lower part of the doors is light brown. In the figured scene the background is white and the architectural frame is blue. Skin is painted light brown. Both the seated woman and the one who stands next to her wear dark red chiton and blue himation. The woman at the right wears a light yellow chiton and her harp is light brown. H.: .78m.; W.: .38m. Found 1912 in the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum, No. 20524.

33. (Plate XXIII,3).°% The inscription above the painted door reads: Zevapy1 yoipe (Xenarche, farewell).%

Against the lower section of this two-winged door, two figures are painted, a woman seated at the left and a smaller female standing at the right. Door and figures are outlined in red-brown. The doorframe is red-brown; the lower panels of the doot are pale yellow, becoming green in the lower parts. The top panels are divided into four sections, white and yellow, by two crossed lines, one red-brown and the other blue. Against the yellow and green of the lower sections, the figures are painted. The seated woman wears a white mantle and a white robe with a large blue zone in the lower part and a band of red-brown at the hem. The standing figure wears a yellowish robe. The flesh is yellow. H.: .7om.; W.: .65m. Found at an unknown date in the Hadra cemetery. Alexandria, GrecoRoman Museum, no. 5278.

Of the motifs represented on the first false door (Plate XXII, Figure 1) only the Hermes is comparable to any of the paintings which have been discussed before. He puts one in mind of the naturalism of Style III and of the relatively stiff, summary nature of the drawing which frequently occurs in it. He can be compared, for example, with Pelopides (Plate V), even though the latter is physically active, or with the nude soldier (Plate XV), both as to

the angular and casual nature of the movement and the character of the drawing. The Hermes figure suggests a shade of difference from both, in that his posture seems less decisive and vigorous. His movement is less concentrated. Perhaps it is the more subtle change of direction which occurs from the leg to the torso that gives this impression. It is not quite as abrupt as the change from the decided vertical of the nude soldiet’s supporting leg to the sharp angle of his body. The two Medusa heads ate telated to an Alexandrian painting which will be discussed

subsequently, on pp. 61, 64, 67, a polychrome painting on a Hadra vase which tepre-

91 Not previously published. |

2 G. Botti, Rivista Egiziana 6 (1894) 242; Id., Catalogue des Monuments exposés au Musée gréco-romain d’Alexandrie (Alexandria 1901) 154, no. 2645; Breccia Iscr, 139-140, no. 265; Pagenstecher Nek, 90-91, fig. 59.

century B.C. }

°3 The reading of the inscription is from Breccia Iser, no. 265. He dates the inscription in the second or first

* Breccia, in Iscr, no. 265, calls the standing figure female. Pagenstecher, in Nek, 90-91 calls it male. Since it is clothed in a long robe it would presumably be female.

38 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS sents a shield decorated with a similar head (Number 41, Plate XX XIII). The technique used in the painting of the two heads on the door is similarly sketchy. In fact their hair is even sketchier than that on the head of the Hadra vase painting, but in a way that does not increase the evanescent effect, which characterizes the vase painting, of an object seen in a moment of illumination; rather it tends to be somewhat abstracted from reality, with the different-toned strands separating into continuous curling lines. In the position of the heads also, and even in the glance of the eyes, the feeling of transience is lessened, since

they ate more level and quiet than the head on the vase. |

The ladies above the same door have already been identified as Roman in date. Such bold frontality does not occur among any of the known Hellenistic paintings of Alexandria, ot elsewhere. Nor does this handling, with the outlines heavily drawn and the color laid on in a single wash which coincides only loosely with the outline.

All three of the other pictures incorporated in false doors (Plate XXIIL1, 2, 3) show every sign of being examples of the full, feeble, Fourth Style. They are as static, as repetitious, as ctude as the stele of Dionysios (Plate XX,1), or more so. The drawing is as poor, and it depends as heavily on outline. There is as little ambition toward modelling threedimensional form. Postures are as stereotyped. Figures stand as statically one next to the

other. In all of them also, the relative size of figures raises questions. There is an ambiguity which did not occur before. In the stele of Dionysios, the smaller figure with shield does not have the proportions of a boy. Is he perhaps a soldier in the presence of a divine personage wearing a crown? In Plate XXIII,1, the seated woman would tower head and shoulders above the other if she stood up. In Plate XXIII,2, is the harpist a child? Or is she a woman who has been arbitrarily given smaller stature? Here too, the seated figure seems appreciably larger even than the woman clothed in full chiton and himation. In Plate XXIII,3, the standing figure is relatively so much smaller than the seated woman that she could be assumed to be a child. Yet her proportions are that of an adult, with small head and slender body. It would seem that in the Fourth Style one can no longer count on a consistent reference to physical fact.

There is another loculus slab in the Greco-Museum, Alexandria®® which has been listed together with the Ptolemaic slabs.% Its composition, however, is entirely unlike the others. The painting of a standing woman or girl, in a large rectangle, is flanked by four panels in a vertical row on each side, each panel containing the Egyptianizing representation

of a god. The gods are in silhouette. The woman is loosely painted, her flesh in cream color with ochre shadows, her clothes in red and blue. It seems to belong in the Roman petiod rather than the Hellenistic. The woman is very different in style from the women of the previous stele paintings. None of them have her heavy, bulky dignity. Of the Hellenistic examples, she is closest to the paintings of the Fourth Style because of the static nature of her posture, the stocky proportions, and the linear cursiveness of the % Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria, no. 3185. Breccia Guide, 102, no. 56; Pagenstecher Ne&, 45, no. 21, fig. 29; B. Schweitzer, JDAT (1931) 230 ff, fig. 19; Breccia AaA (1922) 170. % By Pagenstecher Nek, 45; in another context, 92-93, he says that it is later than the others, but does not specify how much later.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: CHRONOLOGY 39 shading. But she is much more like the similarly heavy, stocky, ponderous figures which occur in many monuments of the Roman imperial period. The compositional type, with standing central figure and lateral small panels of Egyptian gods, occurs nowhere else in Ptolemaic Egypt, but is found on mummy shrouds of the Roman period.*’ The fact that this loculus slab was found in Gabbari tends to reinforce this dating, since the Gabbari cemetery, on the west side of the city, was used much more extensively in the Roman than in the Ptolemaic period. Chronology

Since the 1870’s, when the first tombs of the eastern cemeteries, from which the foregoing paintings come, were rediscovered, some study has been applied to the problem of their chronology. Not very much of it has dealt with individual paintings or even with individual tombs, but some broad outlines have been established and at least a few precise data. Whatever is helpful will be reiterated here, and then further steps will be taken to establish the periodization of the four styles which have been described in the preceding sections of this chapter. First, the total period covered by these styles can be delimited. Having started with the Soldiers’ Tomb, in which three and a half of the four styles were found within a single chamber, one might easily be led to believe that they were all contemporary or nearcontempotary variations which occurred within a short period. But apparently this is misleading, since all other evidence contradicts such a conclusion. It has been seen, in the second and third sections of this chapter, that all other paintings on the stelai and loculus slabs of the eastern cemeteries are done in the same three and a half styles, plus the fully developed Fourth Style. And it has long been known, on the evidence of palaeography and such small finds as vases, lamps, figurines, and coins, that those cemeteries were in use throughout the Hellenistic period. It was there that Greeks and foreigners buried their dead during the reigns of the Ptolemies, while native Egyptians used cemeteries to the west of the city.% In the Roman period also there were some burials in the eastern area, but by then the western cemeteries were the usual burial area for both Egyptians and nonEgyptians. It is very likely for this reason that Strabo, when he visited the city ¢. 25-13 B.C., wrote only of the western cemeteries.°® This general chronology is clear enough. The tombs of the eastern cemeteries can be expected to date anytime from the foundation of the city to the end of Ptolemaic rule. Unfortunately the chronology of particular parts of the cemeteries is considerably less clear. The Shatbi district, which lies on the shore directly outside the city walls, it 1s generally agreed, was in use from the time the city was founded. Breccia has made this statement in his volume-large study of the area, and has added that it was intensively used %” Cf. the shroud of Dion in the Egyptian Museum, Berlin; Pagenstecher Vek, fig. 62; Schweitzer, DAT (1931) 230, n. 3; Rumpf AfvZ, 188, pl. 66,6. Pagenstecher, op. cit., 92, makes this comparison himself, but he remains vague on the date. % H. Thiersch, Zwei antike Grabanlagen bei Alexandria (Berlin 1904) 6; Breccia AaA (1922) 82. 9 17. 1. 795.

40 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS well into the third century B.C.1°° He dates the many pit graves marked by surface monuments to this period, as well as the original rooms of a large kline tomb. The later rooms of the kline tomb he puts later in the third century or in the second century B.C. A smaller chamber tomb with two rows of loculi painted with false doors he dates later than any of the above but still (séc) in the third century B.C. Contemporary with the last he places a corridor with loculi painted with false doors. And, in addition, he notes but does not date sevetal wells with loculi. Perhaps he was thinking of the last-mentioned when he wrote

that only isolated groups in Shatbi were made in the late Ptolemaic period. There are isolated groups also of the Roman period, in the form of poor ditch graves and long galleries, but already in the course of the first century B.C. the city was spreading beyond its walls and houses were being built in the Shatbi area. Both the Hadta and Ibrahimiya districts had open-air monuments like Shatbi’s.1° But, although there was an occasional sarcophagus, there was nothing comparable to the great kline tombs which were found in Shatbi (as well as in other parts of Alexandria and its suburbs). The hypogea in those two districts were all relatively poor.4 They took the form of chambers or corridors or wells, rectangular or round in section, and the burials were in small loculi, almost always in superimposed rows, as many as five high, in the walls. In 1911 Breccia wrote that the earliest monuments of Hadta went back to the end of the fourth century B.C., in 1922 that Hadra began with the third century, which may or may not represent a change of opinion.1°8 More recently Adtiani has modified this date of inception by obsetving that at least the Abukir Street section of Hadra began as early as Shatbi.14 Once under way the Hadta district was apparently in continuous use under the Ptolemies. Breccia says that it was used as a cemetery during the third, second, and first centuries B.C., that there was domestic building over the Ptolemaic tombs, and that there was also a

group of burials of the third century A.D.1°

Of Ibrahimiya Breccia said in 1911 that it began at the end of the fourth century B.C., in 1922 that it already was under way at the accession of Ptolemy I] (285 B.C.).1 Again, as with Hadta, these may be two ways of saying at least approximately the same thing. Concerning

the later history of Ibrahimiya there is no summary statement. Monuments found there in 1907 were dated from the first half of the third to the middle of the second century B.C.1% In 1908 underground corridors and chambers were found, which were dated in the late 100 This statement by Breccia and the mote precise ones following ate quoted from BSAA 8 (1905) 55-71; Rapport, 1907; BSAA 10 (1908) 226-227; Sctatbi, x-xi, xlv—xlvi, xlix, liv; BSAA 16 (1918) 79-90; AaA (1922) 88. 101 Qn Hadra surface monuments: Rapport, 1912; BSAA 15 (1914) 56-58; 16 (1918) 79-90; 25 (1930) 106, 107, r113 Musée, 1925-1931, 233 1931-1932, 6; Annuario, 1935-1939, 65-78; Annuaire, 1940-1950, 6-11. On Ibtahimiya sutface monuments: BSAA 9 (1907) 35-36; Rapport, 1907. 102 On Hadra hypogea: Bulletin de Il’ Institut égyptien (1874) 181; Egyptian Exploration Fund Report (1894-1895) 30; Botti, Plan de la Ville d’ Alexandrie al’ époque ptolémaique (Alexandria 1898); BSAA 8 (1905) 46-54; Rapport, 1912; BSAA 16 (1918) 79-903; 25 (1930) 99-132; Musée, 1925-1931, 24-25 ; 1931-1932, 9-20; Annuario, 1932-1933, 28-38; Annuaire, 1935-1939, 65-78; 1940-1950, 1-27. On Ibrahimiya hypogea: BSAA 9 (1907) 35-86; 10 (1908) 229-2303; 16 (1918) 79-80.

103 ro11: Sctathi, 2; 1922: AaA, 82, 88. | 104 Annuario, 1935-1939, 77+

10 Breccia MAaA (1922) 88; BSAA (1930) 117-132.

106 yor: Sctatbi, 2; 1922: AaA, 82, 88. 10° BSAA 9 (1907) 65-67; Rapport, 1907.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: CHRONOLOGY 4] Ptolemaic and Roman periods.!° In 1918 underground chambers were reported which were dated simply “Ptolemaic’.1 It is thought that in Roman times Ibrahimiya continued to be used for burials more than either Shatbi or Hadra because it is further from the city and, it seems, its hills were not thickly populated at that time but held only occasional villas and houses.1!° The date of the first use of the Shatbi cemetery has recently been questioned by Kleiner,

who argues that Shatbi’s monuments do not begin until c. 300 B.C. Since this would involve a three decade adjustment in chronology, it is pertinent here. Kleiner, however, is not convincing. He begins by contending that, because there would not have been many old people among the colonists of a new city and even the “Macedonian colony” could not have absorbed many veterans yet, there would not be numerous burials until ¢. 300 B.C., an observations which, considering that the city was founded in 332/331 B.C., is patently absurd. On the contrary, in fact, since people are given to dying inexorably, and of course much younger then than now, if Shatbi had not been found, a late fourth century cemetery would have had to be postulated. The facts which Kleiner adduces also are questionable, as a sampling can prove. For

example, he states that Hadra vases are among the most numerous and characteristic ceramics from Shatbi, says that these are dated (according to Beloch) 250-212 B.C., and therefore the cemetery must be dated not earlier than the third century B.C. However these dates (with or without the mote recent correction) pertain only to the twenty-seven “dated” Hadra vases. There are innumerable undated Hadta vases whose chronology need not be limited by the twenty-seven with dates. It has been demonstrated that Hadra wate evolved from a local black-figured ceramic, produced since the foundation of the city, which in turn had developed out of previous black-figured wares. The characteristic Hadra type, it was pointed out on p. 9, appeared by the end of the fourth century B.C. In addition, vases of several other wares were also found in Shatbi, including some in “Gnathia” style and some with green or blue enamel glaze.1” Not only the vases but also the lamps found in the cemetery include fourth century forms, as Dr. Thompson recently pointed out. She wrote, “It should be noted that many of the lamps and vases from Chatby are so similar to those from Olynthos that it is highly probable that many of the graves still date in the fourth century” 1° Also, Kleiner sidesteps the existence of Alexandrian relief stelai, seven of which have been published, which have been dated in the first generation after the founding of the city because of their close relationship to Attic fourth century stelai.“4 He cites one of the seven indirectly, in a footnote dealing with another matter, and he explains it away

by saying that it could have belonged to an inhabitant of Rhakotis, the village that

108 BSAA 10 (1908) 229-230. | 109 Musée, 1931-1932, 20-21. 110 [bid.

111 Kleiner Tanagrafiguren, 30-33.

112 Breccia Sciatbi, 25-29; catalogue: 29-76, 80-99. 113 Flesperia 21 (1952) 120, n. 16.

114, Pfuhl, AM 26 (1901) nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 21, 24, 29.

42 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS existed on the site before the founding of Alexandria Since Rhakotis was a small village, since there were six other relief stelai, since all of them were found specifically in the eastern, Hellenistic cemeteries, and since Alexandria was established on the east of Rhakotis so that its eastern boundary would not have coincided with that of the village, this is not a suggestion to be taken seriously. At the end of his argument Kleiner says that he has an ally who shares his opinion in Achille Adriani, former Director of the Alexandria Museum. But he gives no reference at all at that point. Perhaps he was referring to an earlier footnote, presented in connection with another subject, in which Adriani is quoted as saying that Shatbi should be dated later than it has been hitherto.1® If that is taken to be Adriani’s confirmation of his own position, Kleiner is wrong again. The statement he paraphrases is the one referred to on p. 55, in which Adriani suggests changing the date only of the large Shatbi kline tomb, not of the entire cemetery. Within the broad period from the foundation of the city to the end of Ptolemaic rule, a cettain sequence has been established, although in very general terms, in the types of monuments used in the cemeteries. Pit graves were made from the beginning, sometimes surmounted by tumuli and by stelai on stepped bases. How long this type of burial was in use is not certain, but the statements made to date point to its continuation through the thitd century B.C..1” Of the hypogea, the large kline tomb of Shatbi has the earliest date associated specifically with it. Breccia put it in the late fourth century or early third centuty B.C.8 Simpler hypogea were in use by the third century B.C., and both elaborate and simple ones continued to be made to the end of the Hellenistic period and on into the

Roman." From the beginning the loculi of the simpler hypogea were closed alternatively either with stele-shaped slabs or with painted false doors. It seems however that later, very likely after the third century B.C., the stele shape grew less frequent and the painted door tended to take over. Hypogea which are recorded as containing late objects often are described as decorated with false doors,!#° and Breccia’s volume on Alexandrian inscriptions, though incomplete, can be taken as indicative.! The inscriptions on steleshaped slabs are dated preponderantly in the third century B.C., with one placed in the late fourth or early third and several in the third or second century. The inscriptions on false doors ate distributed fairly regularly from the third through the second and first centuries. So far we have dealt with large areas and broad time periods. Only rarely is a date suggested for any one of the simpler tombs, and then too it is in broad chronological terms. One such is the tomb containing the false door with Medusa heads (Number 30, 115 Op. cit., 276, n. *4. 116 Op. cit., 277, 0. *7.

11” Rapport, 1907; BSAA 7 (1914) 56-58; 8 (1915) 57-96; 25 (1930) 131-132. 118 See p. 40.

119 For the more elaborate tombs, see p. 52, n. 154. Simpler hypogea are described, passim, throughout the literature listed in p.13, n. 2; for Shatbi, see pp. 39-40 and p. 40, n. 100; for Hadra and Ibrahimiya, p. 40 and n. ro2. 120 Pfuhl MuZ, § 988. For example: BSAA 8 (1905) §4; 10 (1908) 227. 121 Breccia Iscr. The inscriptions on stele-shaped slabs are nos. 229-247. Of these, no. 237 is dated in the late

fourth a rl third century; nos. 229-232 in the third or second century. The inscriptions on false doors are within

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: CHRONOLOGY 43 Plate XXII), which Breccia judged was made in the second century B.C., on the basis of the decoration of the loculi, the palaeography, and the styles of the terracotta figurines and funerary urns which were found in the tomb.! A mote precise chronological study has been made only in connection with the Soldiers’ Tomb.!23 This was done by means of four vases belonging to the group of twenty-seven so-called “dated”? Hadra vases which have been assigned to the period from 259 to 209 B.C.2*4 Of the four vases from the Soldiers’ Tomb one is dated in 250 B.C., one in 242 B.C.,,

and two in 239 B.C. The specific provenance of all the other “dated” Hadra vases, incidentally, is unknown. There is historical evidence also which throws some light on the date of the Soldiers’ Tomb and of other tombs in which Galatians were buried. The Galatians appeared in the

eastern Mediterranean only in 279 B.C., when they attacked Delphi.” They entered Egypt, according to historic record, ¢. 277-274 B.C., when Ptolemy II Philadelphos hired 4000 of them as mercenaries through “‘Antigonos his friend’’.1*6 It is true that these 4ooo revolted ¢. 274 B.C. and wete all destroyed on an island in the Nile, where very likely they were unceremoniously buried, and the next literary reference is to levees of Galatians in 217 B.C. for the Battle of Raphia.!?’ But these were already katoikoi (settlers) and epigonoz (descendants), so that they must have been at least one generation, and possibly more, removed from military colonists. One of the Galatians who was buried in the Soldiers’ Tomb (See Number 6) must have been an epigonos at least one generation removed from the first immigrant, since his name, Isidoros, indicates that he was born in Egypt. The Galatians, therefore, could not have come to Egypt before 277 B.C. but they might have done so in any of the ensuing years of the century. It has been deduced that it was only for about a century after their appearance in the Greek world that Galatians were used extensively as mercenaries. The independent Galatian kingdom of Tylis in Thrace was destroyed in 212 B.C., and even the Asian Galatians were seriously weakened and reduced in numbers in the early second century by the conquests of Cn. Manlius Volso and the Attalids. Since it seems that the early influx of Gauls into Egypt was from Thrace, the destruction of Tylis provides a possible terminus ante quem. There ate occasional records of Galatians in Egypt thereafter, but they are rare, and the Galatians associated with Cleopatra must have come from Gaul itself. The period of ¢. 277-212 B.C., then, seems the most likely time when there may have been a considerable number of Galatians in the garrison of Alexandria.

Judgments about the dates of individual stelai or loculus slabs, aside from several unexplained guesses made presumably on stylistic grounds, have so far been based primarily

on palaeogtaphy. Breccia catalogued a number of the painted stelai and loculus slabs in 122 Rapport, 1912, 23. See p. 35 n. 85. 123 See pp. 9-11.

124 For bibliography on the “‘dated”’ vases, see p. 9, n. 21; p. 10, n. 22. 125 There is a recent detailed discussion of all evidence about the Galatians in Egypt in Launey Armeées, I, 496-499,

5 ; 5 ; °, 524-531, 534. Earlier bibliography is cited by him. The facts adduced in this paragraph are quoted from #26 Callimachos, H. De/. 186-189; Scholiast on the preceding; Pausanias, 1.18, 127 Polybius 5.65.

44, Il, THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS his volume of Alexandrian inscriptions. He suggested that Number 21 (Plate XI) was made in the late fourth or third century B.C. He put Numbers 14, 17, 20, and 28 (Plates VIL2; XI1,1; XIIL,1; XX11) in the third century B.C. He ascribed Number 33 (Plate

XXITI,3) to the second or first century B.C. ,

Even before Breccia’s publication of inscriptions, as early as 1901, E. Pfuhl had published an extensive study of the relief stelai which had been found in the Alexandrian cemeteries.129

He catalogued them and suggested a date within a century or half century for most of them, whenever possible on palaeographical grounds. Occasionally, when the inscription was missing, he made a stylistic judgment, which he simply stated, seldom stopping either to explain or justify it. In this way he dated the relief stelai from the first generation of the city through the third, second, and first centuries B.C., and on into the Roman period. _ These relief stelai are like the painted stelai in shape, and further comparison reveals that they are also very much the same in iconography and in style, or styles. The juxtaposition of the painted examples with these highly comparable reliefs, then, can be the first new point of departure in evolving the relative chronology of the paintings. Pfuhl,

as noted above, did not make stylistic descriptions or definitions. But a fresh scrutiny now reveals that the four styles of the paintings exist in the relief compositions too. For example, the Abukir Street handclasp scene (Plate VII,1) is very much like Pfuhl’s no. 1 and the woman dying in childbirth from the Soldiers’ Tomb (Plate II,1) is like his no. 6. And, of those which he illustrates, his nos. 9 and 23 are like the Second Style paintings, his nos. 7 (Plate II,2), 10, and 13 are like the Third Style paintings, and his nos. 15, 17, 18, and 31 ate in the Fourth Style. In general, his dating indicates that the relief stelai which correspond with Style I were done in the first generation after the foundation of the city, those which correspond with Styles II and ITI were done in the third century B.C., those which correspond with Style IV, in the second and first centuries B.C. Of the last there is one, his no. 15, which he apparently felt might have been made a little before, since he dates it “not earlier than the second half of the third century”. Another relief stele, which was found after the publication

of Pfuhl’s article, can be added to the Fourth Style group. It was published by Wace as belonging with Pfuhl’s “later group” and dated with them “after the third century B.C.’’8°

In order to go further than this and to check the validity of this chronology, it is necessary to make comparisons with other works of art also, both within and outside Alexandria. The connection of Style I compositions, both painted and sculptured, with Attic fourth century funerary monuments seems obvious. Pfuhl, in his article, made specific comparisons for the relief stelai, and in the earlier discussions of the painted examples, pp. 20,

29-30, some specific comparisons were made for the paintings. A number of examples wete cited which repeat the schema and style of the handclasp scene of the Soldiers’ Tomb (Plate I). A particularly clear stylistic comparison may be added here, between the woman

: is his no. 265. 228 Breccia [ser. Number 21 is his no. 237. Numbers 14, 17, 20, and 28 are his nos. 239, 234, 242, 240. Number 33 129 4M 26 (1901) 258-304.

0 BSAA 36 (1943-1944) 26-32.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAT: CHRONOLOGY 45 standing at the right and a woman in the same position in an Attic relief stele, who, even though she is in full view rather than three-quarter, is strikingly similar in the tall, slender propottions, the S-curve of the posture, the degree of swing of the hips, and the silhouette.134 That stele is dated 330-320 B.C. Many Attic relief stelai can also be cited which are like the handclasp scene of the Abukir Street section (Plate VII,1).? The seated figure in all of them is female rather than male, as in this painting as well as the one above from the Soldiers’ Tomb, but the stylistic similarities are nonetheless telling. Particularly close is the stele of Lysistrate, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in which, although the seated figure is a woman, the style is altogether the same.18* Forms, posture, and drapery follow substantially the same lines, and the composition is similarly dense with plastic forms. It is dated in the middle of the fourth century B.C. The stele of the man with two children (Plate VITI,1) has already been described as combining the motifs of two Attic funerary subjects,4 and it does so down to details of posture and drawing. In addition, there are also two Attic funerary statues of mourning girls, dated in the second half of the fourth century, which are like the seated man of Plate VIII,1 in posture, rhythm of movement, and drapery treatment.1*° Comparisons have already been made for the stele of Thrasymedes (Plate

VIT,2),"6 and it has been noted that the Soldiers’ Tomb woman dying in childbirth (Plate IL,1) is a nearly exact repetition of the reliefs on several Athenian marble lekythoi of the fourth century.1%"

It is hoped that it has been made sufficiently clear that these comparisons obtain not only for subject matter but equally for style. Perhaps this point can be emphasized by adducing an Alexandrian relief stele which repeats the childbirth scene of Plate II,1, but in a manner which has left the classical architectonics of Style I behind and taken on the free-moving dynamics of Style II]. The relief stele is illustrated in Plate II,2. In it the two small figures move in closer to the central lady than is true in the painted scene, leaving wider spaces at the sides and top. The line defining the posture of the dying woman is no longer continuous but breaks into sharply defined separate movements of legs, thighs, and upper torso, culminating in the sudden turn of the head. The left figure has taken on a diagonal movement and even emerges diagonally out of the space. In the Soldiers’ Tomb painting the side figures act as marginal verticals enclosing the composition, and even the curving diagonal of the central figure is counter-balanced by the fact that the line of her head and left arm merges into the vertical of the girl at the right and is echoed by the descending line of the mantle on her lap, and the line of her knees merges into the vertical of the left figure, while the curves of her right arm and torso make gradual transitions from one vettical to the other. The relief, on the other hand, is dominated by the angular 81 Horn Gewandstatuen, pl. 6,1: relief stele in Athens, National Museum. 182 Conze AG, I, pls. XLII-LXI, passim. Stylistically the closest in Conze, I is pl. LIV, no. 183. 133 No. 06.287. G. M. A. Richter, Catalogue of Greek Sculptures (Cambridge, Mass., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1954) 58-59, no. 86, pl. LXIX,b. Said to have been found in Salamis. 134 See p. 29, nn. 69, 70. 135 Berlin, Altes Museum. Bieber SHA, figs. 204, 205. 136 See p. 30, n. 71. 187 See p. 20, n. 29.

46 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS movement of the central woman, thrusting against the counter-movement of the figure at the left, and overshadowing the remaining verticals of the leg of the bed and the child at the right. Though the subject is the same the style has changed. It is relevent to note, finally, that all of the paintings in the First Style came from the — cemetery of Shatbi and the Abukir Street section of the Hadra cemetery which, Adriani

has stated, is contemporary with Shatbi.8® The fourth century date is therefore allowable | for them from that point of view also. Since the Attic stelai went on until 317-307 B.C., when the use of funerary reliefs and paintings was banned by the sumptuary decrees of Demetrios of Phaleron, some at least of the Alexandrian examples must have been contemporary with the Attic production. The Fourth Style, according to the comparison with similar Alexandrian relief stelai dated by Pfuhl, occurred relatively late in the Hellenistic period, in the second and first centuries B.C. Further chronological evidence in Alexandria is sparse, but what there is reinforces this indication. The false door of Xenarche (Plate XXIII,3), which carries one of the Fourth Style paintings, has been dated in the second or first century B.C. by Breccia on the basis of its inscription.’®° And indeed the very fact that most of our painted examples occur on false doors rather than stelai itself is an indication of later date, since the false door continued through the Hellenistic period, apparently largely displacing the stele

form as a loculus closing. :

The Fourth Style, as described, loses connection with the stylistic development of the high art of the Hellenistic period and the multifariousness and lifelikeness of its forms. It is a drop into the stratum of popular art, which has laws of its own, being on the whole symbolic in purpose, conventional in means, and crude in technique. It must, then, be assumed that by the second century B.C. the stratum of the Alexandrian population which was buried in loculi had dropped to a level where it was separated from upper class culture and was developing a simple language of its own. It is exactly such a drop into the popular stratum, with its characteristic freezing of motifs and crudeness of rendering, which also appears in the painted loculus slaps of Sidon, made for soldiers of the Seleucid garrison some time after 195 B.C., of which one is illustrated in Plate XX,2.140 Having plotted in the beginning and the end, this leaves the third century for the Second and Third Styles and possibly also for the transition to the Fourth. The previous comparisons with Pfuhl’s relief stelai have already brought us to this conclusion. But the question must still be answered whether these styles occurred in sequence or simultaneously. The internal logic of development suggests a sequence. It is so strongly suggested, in fact, that the earlier presentation of each style in turn, on pp. 20-23, seemed inevitably to be couched in terms of derivation from the style before. The co-ordinated posture of Style

I remains in Style IJ, but with proportions slenderer, posture loosened, and mobility keynoting the composition. In Style III the slender proportions, loose posture, and mobility 138 Annuaire, 193f-1939, 70. 1389 Breccia scr, no. 265. 140 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum. T. Macridy, Revue biblique (1904) 547; G. Mendel, Catalogue des sculptures

grecques, romaines, et byzantines (Constantinople, Musée impérial ottoman 1912-1914) I, 259-261, nos. 102-108.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAT: CHRONOLOGY 47 remain, but the co-ordinated rhythms go, replaced by more natural postures and more dynamic compositional structure. In Style IV the casual posture remains but the dynamics go.

Comparison with other works of art, both in and outside Alexandria, also suggests that these styles occurred in sequence as always, of course, with due allowance for considerable historic overlapping. Style II, as has already been said, derives from formal ideas connected with the name of

Praxiteles. It is with him particularly that one associates the shift from monumental to graceful style, from massive to elegant proportions, from imposing to suave movement. In Alexandria’s Style II, however, the graceful style is carried well beyond Praxiteles’ own limits to new degrees of lightness, mobility, and prettiness, so that it is to be associated rather with the post-Praxitelean school. This was particularly strong in sculpture in the two generations after Praxiteles’ death, in the late fourth and early third centuries, and then continued with diminishing strength later in the third century. The S-curve of posture which is characteristic of Style I] is a part of the style associated with the name of Praxiteles. Actually, of course, Praxiteles’ contribution was simply a more fluent and continuous line of motion, a refinement on the co-ordinated posture introduced in the mid-fifth century, as in Polykleitos’ Doryphoros, in which the weight rests on one leg, the oblique line of the hips is compensated for by a counter-oblique of the shoulders,

and the whole movement is balanced and closed by turning the head in the direction of the supporting leg. In point of fact, Praxiteles seems to have been one of those who, in the fourth century, began to break up this integrated movement, since a number of his figures turn their heads toward the relaxed leg, causing the first break in the balanced continuum. But in those of his sculptures in which the continuum is kept, Praxiteles did, certainly, give it a more fluent curvilinear effect. By the late fourth century, by and large, the break-up of the old co-ordinated posture was well under way and by the early Hellenistic period it had already proceeded so far that the S-curve is only infrequently seen, except within the area of the post-Praxitelean stream. The S-curve of the Alexandrian Style IT, like its other elements, goes well beyond Praxiteles in respect to the degree of weight displacement and hip-swing. In this too it is closer to post-Praxitelean works. And in some cases, for example, the slender man (Plate [X,1), Bitos (Plate III,1), and the soldiers who are like him (Plates III,2; IV,2), the S-curve has been amalgamated with a side-wise straddle which derives from Lysippos, the placing of the relaxed leg out to the side rather than in front or in back and close to the center of gravity. Indications, then, are that the Second Style is to be associated with early Hellenistic trends. The balanced posture, as described, with head turned toward the supporting leg, occurs in Alexandrian art in another series of objects, the Queen Vases, those faience oinochoai which carry relief representations of a woman holding a cornucopia and a patera, as well as dedicatory inscriptions to either Arsinoé Philadelphos, who reigned 277-270 B.C. (Plate XXIV,2), Berenike Euergetes, who reigned 246-221 B.C. (Plate XXIV,3), or Ptolemy IV Philopator, who reigned 221-205 B.C. (Plate XXIV,4).44! It may be that the i141 There is a list of these vases, to date, in Breccia scr, i1i ff. He lists twenty-one, many preserved only in a frag-

ment. Others have been found: Pagenstecher Sveglin, 11,3, figs. 129, 130; Rostovtzeff SEHHW, I, pl. XXXVI;

48 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS formula for these figures was set by a statue of Arsinoé II holding a cornucopia, which, Athenaeus tells us, was erected before her death in 270 B.C. by Ptolemy II.1 Perhaps the posture persisted in this ware as a repetition of the original formula. It may be, on the other hand, that these figures serve to indicate that such a balanced posture could occur in Alexandria down to the end of the third century B.C., although it becomes quite flat-footed and static by the period of Ptolemy IV, as can be seen in Plate XXIV,4. But in any case none of these figures have the smooth continuous line of the S-curve. They are more fragmented in their rhythm and they are mote plastically substantial, so that they are not directly helpful in dating the Second Style. The particular degree and kind of delicacy of scale, slenderness of proportion, and liveliness of manner that are characteristic of Alexandria’s Style II find closer parallels in terracotta figurines than in either the monumental sculptures or the Queen Vase figures. Innumerable small terracottas, produced in Tanagra and elsewhere, including Alexandria, from the latter fourth century on, were made with the same prettiness and sprightliness. And yet the terracottas even less than the Queen Vases duplicate the figures of Style II.

The seated figure of Asia (Plate XIJ,1) is an exception. There is a figurine in the Berlin , Museum, dated no mote precisely than “in the great Tanagra period”, which duplicates quite exactly the details of posture, the proportions, and the grace of our Istrian lady. There is also a male figurine in Berlin which has some similarities with the slender man (Plate IX,1).44 Of course comparisons are made a little difficult because the terracottas run to female figures while the Alexandrian paintings run to males. But what is much mote important, the terracottas on the whole eschew the S-curve, and therefore the rhythms and patterns of movement are seldom the same as in the Alexandrian paintings. The spirit of the Alexandrian Style II, then, is like that of the terracotta figurines, but the format is like that of the monumental sculpture of the post-Praxitelean school. In seeking comparisons for the Third Alexandrian Style, one finds that the monumental sculpture which it calls to mind is very different. Indeed, the terms which came to mind to describe those Alexandrian paintings, in which figures move through the dynamics of C. Picard, RA 35 (1950) 135-146; d., Comptes rendus del’ Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres (1951) 346; D. Hill,

RA 43 (1954) 44-50. The type is discussed by Breccia Jscr, iiiff; F. Courby, Les Vases grecs a reliefs (Paris 1922). Only five examples preserve both the figure and the inscription. One is inscribed Arsinoé Philadelphos (Plate XXIV, 2). It is in the British Museum, K 77, found in Canosa: H. B. Walters, Catalogue of Roman Pottery (London, British Museum 1908) 12, pl. V (where it is erroneously labeled K 76). Two are inscribed Berenike Euergetes. One, in the Museum of Antalya, was found 1951 in Xanthos (Plate XXIV,3): Comptes rendus del’ Academie des inscriptions et belles lettres (1951) 346. I am indebted to its discoverer, Prof. P. Demargne, for the photograph here reproduced and for his permission to reproduce it. The other is in Paris, Cabinet des Médailles, B 10037, found in Bengazi, Cyrenaica: R. Mowat, Revue numismatique 5 (1901) 27-34. Two ate inscribed Ptolemy IV Philopator. One is in the Stuttgart Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum (formerly the Museum fiir Vaterlandische Altertiimer), no. 166, found in Alexandria (Plate XXIV,4): Pagenstecher Sveg/in 11,3, 118 ff, pls. XXXI, XXXII. The head of this figure was missing and has been restored, apparently reproducing that of the Arsinoé figure, Plate XXIV,2. The other is in the British Museum, K 76, provenance unknown: H. B. Walters, op. cit., 11, pl. V (whete it is erroneously labeled K 77). In addition there is a fragment, found in Alexandria, which contains a figure and a bit of inscription, [-] poo [-]:

Breccia Iscr, no. 29; and a complete vase, found in Curium, Cyprus, inscribed to Ptolemy IV but without a figure: Sales Catalogue, Collection Hoffman, Catalogue des Objéts d’ art (Paris 1888) 82, no. 338, pl. XX. An exhaus-

tive study of the Queen Vases is now being undertaken by Dorothy Burr Thompson. I am grateful to Dr. Thompson for pointing out the typographical errors in the British Museum catalogue which are noted above. 142 Athenaeus 11.497b.

143 J. Schneider-Lengyel, Griechische Terrakotten (Munich 1936) 73, pl. 30. 144 Thjd., pl. 73.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAT: CHRONOLOGY 49 the opposing directions of their parts and compositions are formed by large contending

diagonals, have often been used previously to describe the sculpture of the “First Pergamene School” of the second half of the third century B.C., notably the Gauls of the first Attalid dedication, made either after the crucial battle of 241 B.C. or after the completion of the Galatian Wars in 228 B.C. The Dying Gaul of the Capitoline Museum can illustrate the postural system in a single figure, the Gaul and his Wife of the Terme Museum, the compositional effect in a group of two figures. These, of course, are grand, dramatic

sculptural works, immeasurably superior in quality to the small funerary paintings of Alexandria. And yet the connection can be felt, particularly in those few examples already mentioned, the painting of Pelopides (Plate V), the Epeiretan soldier (Plate XIV), and the nude soldier (Plate XV), in which the scale and composition point to a more monumental conception. The Pelopides painting is composed on two clashing yet balancing diagonals, resulting in a pyramidal scheme akin to such sculptural examples as the group of Menelaos Carrying the Dead Body of Patroclus, dated most recently in the mid-third century B.C. by Miss Bieber,46 as well as the Gaul and Wife, aforementioned. The nude soldier suggests the larger scale and dynamic approach in general. Most strikingly similar is the painting of the Epeiretan soldier, in which the figure lunging in one direction, the

head turned in another, the body thrust forward in a single large diagonal, varied yet continued by the upbent arm, and the reinforcing oblique of the weapon, all are remarkably like the stormy figure of the man in the group of the Gaul and His Wife. Most of the Alexandrian Third Style paintings, however, although they show fundamentally the same postures and compositional lines, do not at all suggest the grandeur and drama of the “Pergamene” style. Figures, while equally lively, have not the same scale; they are slight in proportion and relatively small in their space. And compositions, while equally

dynamic, have not the same heroic mood; there is a feeling of less consequential things happening. Instead of a large drama they express a small sprightliness. The difference is in scale and mood. In monumental sculpture there nothing comparable to this scale and mood. There is much that is comparable in terracotta figurines, but, as with the Second Alexandrian Style, there are no comparisons among the terracottas which are close enough to help in chronology. The most compelling extra-Alexandrian comparison, one that obtains both for the dynamics of forms and composition and for the small scale and sprightly mood, is with a group of works in the painting technique itself, the many examples found in Delos, both on the popular altars and on the mote stylish friezes that decorated interior walls. A few of them are illustrated here, two layers from the exterior wall of Storehouse & on the port (Plate XITI,2,3), and parts of the friezes of House VILE (Plate XX VII,1) and the House of Dionysos (Plate XVIII,1), both of the Theater Quarter.1” 145 Bieber SHA, 109, figs. 426-427; 80, 108, figs. 281-283. 146 Tbid., 78-79, 81, figs. 272-277.

14? Plate XIII,2 is the second layer, Plate XIII,3 the first of ritual paintings on the exterior wall to the right of a door leading into Room XVIII of Storehouse 8, situated on a quai south of the main port: BCH 30 (1906) 644664; MonPiot 14 (1908) fig. 24, pls. TV, IV A; Dé/os TX, Ensemble no. 9, pl. IV. Plate XIII,2 is reproduced from MonPiot 14 (1908) fig. 24, a watercolor made at the time of its discovery; only fragments of the painting are now extant. A. Jardé, BCH 40 (1916) 5—73, states that the section of the port which includes this building began to devel-

| op in the early second century B.C. Plate XXVII,1: Fragments of a frieze which was divided into rectangles with 4 Brown

20 Il. THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS Occasionally in Delos there is a reminder of the grace of Alexandrian Style I], as in the second layer of the painting of Storehouse 6 (Plate XIII,2), but a second glance reveals that the co-ordinated curvilinear movement is absent. This is clear when the man under the wreath is compated to the slender man on the painted stele (Plate [X,1), or the centaur to the horse of the Hadra horseman (Plate X). These Delian paintings have the loosejointed, naturalistic postures of the Style ITI paintings, the movement in terms of diversity, and the composition made up fundamentally of opposing obliques. There are also differences from the Alexandrian paintings, equally clear and equally important to define. Although the postures in the Delian paintings are just as lively as the Alexandrian, they are less dynamic. Although the compositions are still based on diagonal movements, they are looser and mote diffuse. The proportions are still lean but they have grown extravagantly tall and thin. And the technique in the Delian paintings is sketchier and broader. These are the differences which could conceivably characterize a new phase of the same style. The Delian paintings, on the whole, are dated by the French excavators after the third century B.C., during the period of Italian domination on the island.™8 If it is correct to consider that the Delian paintings represent a later phase of Style II, then the Alexandrian style must have lasted until the end of the third century B.C., in order to be chronologically contiguous to the Delian. The evidence that the Delian equivalent of Style III continued, with permutations, after the third century B.C. is useful in another way also, since it confirms the possibility of placing the paintings on and near the Hadra false door (Plate XXID in the second century, as suggested by the excavator.“ They have already been described as less dynamic variants of Style III. This later phase of the style, then, existed in Alexandria as well as in Delos. To summarize, the comparisons with other works of art bear out Pfuhl’s chronology of the relief stelai and refine it a little within the third century. What is indicated is that in Alexandria Style I, which is closely related to Attic fourth century funeral monuments, occutted in the first generation of the city. Style IL, which has analogies with postPraxitilean sculpture, could have been strong from the turn of the century, when the post-

Praxitelean school was still strong and could have dwindled afterwards, as the postPraxitelean school elsewhere did. Style III, which has analogies with the “First Pergamene School” of sculpture, could have been under way by the middle of the third century, as the sculptural style was, and could have continued with changes after the third century,

as the comparable paintings of Delos did. Style IV was a popular art form which, by definition, must have co-existed with other, more stylish forms, including, as we have just alternating black and red backgrounds, from a second storey room of Insula VI, House E of the Theater Quarter: MonPiot 14 (1908) 146, pl. IX B; Déos VIII,1, 53-54. Plate XXVII,1 is reproduced from MonPiot 14 (1908) pl. IX B. No detailed information is given concerning the condition or date of this house. Therefore its chronology can be delimited only by that of the district. Chamonard, Dé/os VIII,1, 69 ff, says that the Theater Quarter began to develop after the theater was completed in the late third century B.C. and was pillaged and burned in 88 B.C. Plate XVIII, 1: Fragments of a frieze from the vestibule of the House of Dionysos, in the Theater Quarter, VI.I: BCH 30 (1906) 483-562; MonPiot 14 (1908) pl. TX, IX A, a, b; Délos VIII,2, 377, fig. 233. The House of Dionysos is dated ¢. 150 B.C., or a little later. 148 The chronological evidence points in this direction not only for the items mentioned here (See n. 147, supra)

but also for the bulk of the other paintings and mosaics, most of which in fact come from the two quarters mentioned above, the Theater Quarter and the later section of the port. 149 See pp. 35-36 and p. 35, n. 85.

1. LOCULUS SLABS AND STELAI: CRONOLOGY ol seen, the later phase of Style HI. It was used in the poor burials of Alexandria as well as, for example, Sidon, after the third century B.C. This schema has some analogies with the chronology of Alexandrian sculpture which has been developed by A. W. Lawrence. He describes first an eclectic period during the satrapy of Ptolemy I (323-305 B.C.), then a period of intensity of expression during the kingship of Ptolemy I and the reign of Ptolemy II (305-247 B.C.), next a naturalistic period beginning with the latter part of the reign of Ptolemy II and continuing during the reigns of Ptolemies III and IV (247-204 B.C.), and afterwards what he chooses to call decline.

The two unusual paintings, the one of Isodora (Plate XX1J,1) and the archaizing group (Plate XXJ,2) still remain to be accounted for. What evidence there is about them points toward the third century. There is an Alexandrian relief stele which is comparable to the painting of Isodora, with figures falling into rigid postures in the same way and with drapety in similarly regular linear folds. The relief is dated palaeographically by Breccia in the third century B.C., by Pfuhl in the second half of the third century. The archaizing painting was found in the same hypogeum as the painting of Helixo (Number 24, Plate XV1,1). If Helixo, being relatively late within the Third Style, was made in the later third century B.C., then it seems likely that the archaizing painting also was made within striking distance of that date. It is well known that the archaizing style began in Greece not very long after the archaic style ended. The Alkamenes herm which stood in the Athenian Propylaion provides an example from the second half of the fifth century, and the style continued widely thereafter. There is also a bit more evidence of the existence of such a style in Alexandria. Coins of the satrapy of Ptolemy I Soter (323-305 B.C.) carry the representation of an archaizing figure of Athena on the obverse.”

Necessarily, the question of the Soldiers’ Tomb comes up again since it is difficult to understand why the paintings of its loculus slabs should encompass such a wide range of time. A possible answer suggests itself. The two slabs of Style I (Plates I; II,1), it has been noted on p. 20, ate decidedly larger than the others. Also there is a projection at the bottom of the handsclasp stele which has no business at all on a loculus slab, but which is exactly like the tenon by which true stelai are set into their bases. It seems very likely, therefore, that originally they were free-standing stelai over two earlier pit graves, and the tenon at the bottom of the handclasp stele was once inserted into one of those stepped bases that have been found on the surface level of the Alexandrian cemeteries. Such a re-use of surface

monuments within loculus tombs occurs elsewhere in the Alexandrian necropoleis. Recorded instances refer to their re-use, either whole or broken, as construction material.3 In the Soldiers’ Tomb it is not clear how the two slabs involved were used, since Farman writes, as quoted on p. 7, that the tablets he saw in the tomb were simply leaning against the walls. In any case it is established that the earlier open air stelai are known to have 150 JF'A 11 (1925) 179-190, pls. XVITI-XXIV: 1d., Later Greek Sculpture (New York 1927). 151 Breccia Iscr, 151, no. 289, pl. XL,95; Pfuhl, AM (1901) no. 11. 152 R, S. Poole, A Catalogue of Greek Coins: The Ptolemies (London, British Museum 1883) pl. I,2, 3, 5, 6, 8. 183 BSAA 25 (1930) 105, 107, 112-113, 130.

o

a2 Il, THE EXTANT PAINTINGS AND MOSAICS found their way into later hypogea. If it is true in this instance, what remains to be accounted for are paintings of the Second and Third Style and one which tends toward the foutth. These could be fitted without undue strain within, let us say, a half century, from the middle to the latter part of the third century, including the years provided by the “dated” vases: 250, 242, and 239 B.C.

: 2. Richer Tombs

Richer hypogea also have been found in Alexandria, one large complex in the Shatbi cemetery, the others elsewhere in the city or suburbs.%4 They ate more spacious in plan than the other hypogea, more ambitious architecturally, and contain relatively fewer burials. In most cases the principal burials are either on imitation klinai or in kline-shaped sarcophagi. The walls of these tombs are usually decorated in relief and painting, in variations of the structural schemes which were fashionable then in many parts of the Hellenistic world. Occasionally a pictute appears within these architectural decorations, and it is those pictures or, more accurately, those which can be seen clearly enough to make a discussion of them possible, which are presented here. The one most skillfully done is in Tomb I of the Mustafa Pasha cemetery which is situated several kilometres east of Alexandria beyond the areas of Ibrahimiya and Sidi Gabir. There are a few also in the hypogea which have been discovered on the Pharos, both on the east side near Anfushi Bay andon

the west side within the area of the palace called Ras at-Tin. , ,

34. Mustafa Pasha Tomb I. ,

A picture (Plate XXIV,1) is painted on the horizontal stone above the lintel of the doorway which leads from the peristyle court to a burial chamber. Three nearly identical armed horsemen gallop to the right, turning their heads to the left and holding a patera in their extended right hands. Between them are two standing women, veiled and crowned, who also hold pateras. Between the woman on the left and the central horseman there is an altar. The painting was done on a layer of stucco applied to the stone. What is visible now is largely the preliminary sketch, including the drawing of the figures and a broad band which sets off each one. The drawing strokes are blackish brown and the outlining bands are lighter brown. The background today is a whitish color, but there are vestiges of paint which indicate it was originally all blue. The horse on the right is red-brown tending toward violet. The flesh of the rider is lighter red-brown. His cuirass perhaps was yellow originally. His long sleeved tunic is red-violet and his _ chlamys yellow. The himation of the woman on the right seems to have been light red. On her chiton there is a square area of yellow on the lower front, but the rest is now devoid of color. In the middle group the horse is red shaded with a darker tone. The same is true of the skin of the rider. He wears a yellow cuirass. His long sleeved tunic seems to have been pink. The altar is red. A pink tone remains on the skin of the woman on the left. Her himation perhaps was blue. In the

154 For a summary of the major tombs and their paintings, see Pagenstecher Nek, 97-199 and, more recent, Noshy AAPE, 19-40. These do not include the Mustafa Pasha tombs: Annuaire, 1933-1935, nor all of the Pharos tombs: Annuaire, 1940-1950. Earlier bibliography is listed in these works. 155 Adriani, Annuaire, 1933-1935, 37, 109-112, fig. 2, pls. IV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII; Rostovtzef SEHHW, I, 408, pl. XLIX,1; R. B. Bandinelli, Critica d’arte 6 (1941) pl. X,21; Rumpf MuZ, 152. Remains of other paintings were found in the same tomb, but none can be seen clearly enough to make discussion of them possible: Annuaire, 1933-193, 21-23, fig. 8 shows two niches in the west wall of Tomb I, Room 2 in each of which Adriani was able to discern a composition of three standing figures; 27-28, fig. 12, pl. X,2 record the traces of a tholos painted in Tomb I, Room 3, east wall.

| 2. RICHER TOMBS 53

yellow.

eroup at the left both the horse and the flesh of the rider ate painted in two tones of red. The rider wears a blue cuirass, yellowish long-sleeved tunic, and yellow petasos. All the pateras are a gold H.: .Gom.; W.: 1.67m. Found 1933-1934 in Mustafa Pasha. Jn situ.

35. Anfushi Tomb IT.%6

There are three pictures in this tomb which are Egyptian in iconography and style. They are painted on the two contiguous walls at the first landing of the staircase which leads to the tomb

\ N ‘f : fee ef IN N # N N ap sAdobors F : faba : LSS aN NS

Of ] ‘ fe SEB

oe etre, **™ -. ae MS 8 7” Ii)«iSen < . x rl -4 2BY 32: ~ q5.mr . ‘.. : ae i}.a : ‘Oe a 7:se P. | ;gi),~:AP ( Bee soo = 3 4% * ms 3 « ee , 4, .*bs :a fie? :His } 2 ' 4;be r“ae “. 4‘. aie n- «&7a*.b”, "¢ 4tess , .-I

.;Bae ARS ie tg ¥ 4 , aS as x inn : ss af . ,. (au: ° “ »~ “ . ~~ oo > 3 = od . ' 2 ae ra . 3 cS Ct ‘ » 4 oy ‘‘#} aee ae a~ , . ty.~a ,a4:;f,a ;:

Fi . : se ya) 7pe < .Pre :4) i:""OF =:— , 4: ~’;. Ae 7is. ’ 2 ; : _ niet oe nthe RR te au...) '.x .fro ae _s °aAie;’ aed .a ."-\OP a“> 4 a -o ~ Ss 5ea va. © =) » : -i ~ é ae‘ The :7 Cee ; ~~

a‘,* :*. ‘> _y< 7-~3= oo, . ’b2% “i¥;.} ~°:. ee ~~ ae oy ate : 2 ee oe " , -4 : ‘ . vie” 7'“*‘oO Pi 7 Ye ; ~ oo . ..* AY =ae 7 2 sien J % , | a ne . %, ‘ =““ \‘Va ; Tey: a MIAZ a tS “ ko cas : : \ - om, le : : “i (de ; ¢ Ps i AX 4 d “| , _ba+i mY < Re, 2 : 4 pe RZ jwz ; «P.. -. “a v 4Pa. < ?. © x “ae ‘ a Fa. , ! ge 7 *, Q | i J ak? +> , -— " r ~~ : ’ ae te Wh. et : ket oe tae ee Se. Le ar 7 > \ * ai 5 : ~ a:-“foo 7-3 ¥, * . -» “gu < Py age. § ey: < “2 7 ¥ ~ oy. ye ae ; x. ~ :R. a“a => . , ;.s‘, oo w we Fu ees = a > . oy ee ee & ~ « , ‘ — iS ae es “See * ee ae 3 £eR te’ - “a t . >a a:oe * theanette Cae “Sey - a. yi } os... ee4 m27*ee

"*:-’-=44”

n : ee se, fi. er

he «- :Se Ee ood ms J fk 7 ~~ee y “~ - , re ; } oe. ee ‘ae> aeee i his

if igtay le “3 . , ae o = . a So 4 . rent idey, —“~ 2s - . .7* 3aaeee Go r | a»,>want aeJe aetm. x; =tited ona._ons weae

*. ~ es — a oat |Ttty ieoot oie * dig = RL. NG os) LP ; "~ . ww ri es we . . . y q . le ae “~~ ® j ™eS Pr!he es =ogee ie * . Sing ae o>’ amK na . Fk oe “iRos _ ’ _ +, aa .*. 10p . ° 5» ee » SS

°he. ¥a'-aM ss ge ‘a:

Hin: r we " a as ae -%, X. ae = 4 of i. ‘“ in : a. . - “aA — M >

in dy , fem ee.aTy ?ee’ a Bh 4SeBR heatea *| eeeerraoe ar ’ Se afasa4 ~tJaMel err .é.-9@ *RL 4RS Vane . 7ae": ‘e ot :aoS, . ¥Ra 62_.’~Pe ee ‘Nates . ainsi >ve? ae a 8te:- ep no SIO ORs GUN Oy : rk oa Pare re . mara. As ie RA Se oe . A Sel xt as Cy ine .oe is "5, Ss) ; espace one caee 2 MMB ~ty “ . 4EE A?Se Be eee Fo? Yee tt i~See Yer TRE i*,7“t~aoe Oynee DL “ee ts, _—- J}| ea cSt! il SEOs ao a OTS ESO Soa TREE SEL. A gh A RP age 2 Ui i ay Yr. “Ss — ‘*~ . .a—e~-2-| *.ia a Se $yPe Ow i.amf rah awa eegn? -_ 7 La .ee ¥a0_eek -agPRN? . ’aees:. .ome Me 2tetae Pete aloe ee Sh LS,54x—— 4 «test ey1k te ae*& we, na Sak) dk,yen

~. tyPp J : “a.~..-bs”-*Ra a s sy a 4Se?fs e fe’! 4 ee ar , oe ro i *ee’ P ’; aS - ; —_ “ . hae.,og

{ Pe - Ee o4 -« a an>, ae mt a) nok te “S “Sey « Mami ee . 7 —_ ~ FSS e wed ag ry =>.~ “shay. . a Ms (oe sth ° c& (e x Piz ee oe = PS ch Cae we 1 yee. + -tehetes =’ ~ +P OOS -

'Wwe *< fi ?a! — **,—— i=~nig terr. :er ,.ae ,ae~~ ea o- es =. yee , nFES, ”3~aie % 5::hal . er G ™ rrr I~ >7 :7 “. : ?" . ai:vey . aaie~~ ' F ~ fs se) " we m ad « all atid cate. att & —* inh=* -a =€; ve

ee a , I] PLate

_ em ~ a... :a 4: .2. Cae Ry ee LA a? . is ee . ‘ ; ee A > i

- a ° geben it i. ne — a ee 4 e. BP ‘ . :=jos ea“yet 2 “ . ; ‘. 7: vA * ed ; 4 ‘ : ad at ; ® ' : Ps, ~ 2 SY osbe om\ er : ségh 5 4,Tae bed,Vek ee farts Reog fa ‘. » y | Md pone oe ; . ‘ oe ? . ee Sas aes . f4 Yi A Sia e : . : : a si? , oe Dy n *, ” eS 4 Ne % J ne de . . ~ ‘ : : » et? ie , a a %_es 4r 4 fy }¥:; *im A, 3:»3 ae 4 : , * by mal . > iat

. ‘ak Y ‘ we J — ee hia shee ae ae Ses ¥ , ¢: re i) Ee PL ing ¢¥ ~: ’ + . ‘ ~~ 4 * ” ’ * es | 1 Fo: : oe .* hy ae ry ae Ae et oe i é>} re? a bi “= b 4 ; ¥ F > 4 ea ‘4 i has Pse ; S Tt ae “/ ¢ » Ae er > 4 te pe PE : «* as : ue 9 + x a ° : . 5 * % > . SA at” ES ul 8 st eg “5 Y ¥ 3 Pa ,’Ry % & : ey < a " a ry tae ee x? ’ hy | oe ae Ss as | Bisviyt .; "bl — 4 ; ‘. } /. 4 « r '. ” Nootad

eT 4k as 3Wee er.© Dan a:Ss . A; ~~ a+. % ;+ 7 ~ » oY heh i. . Vicy ; 7 Ss. * : da “es ~~ ‘ ¢ | > . 3 oa” te 2 . ‘an oan . *F. a a: Cy; pe D 3) .> 4. .Say 'y \eee taei's: % . ee nid fe > © Wee. gu e ae a Vi Pee

e's a: oe.) eh . aees. Y 2;; b> oor4/:Seer , . 3sO ‘ fe ae : . a Bi ~~ ee ee Pen. SS Se y:' ,r ~~ * 48i< y -‘:7.;ahom: es(~4, en oak, a ay >A 7SAS. ma oe > . Se wena te a te Ree :aa yaoa WAS fat See é£ - ,A ‘f 3s “in‘a‘42 ; ; » 4 . J 4 ry Sw ' Pd « =” , ay ke 4 .ane }=ee-ie tt. 0|fhg Oa ae Eid , SRR + "4 Py tees -_ ae aeRs | he Dette: er) x ' +aed : ‘ a -,* Se'-) IC EID na . : ‘ie & oe Po NR “i-% :he7?) .rm !e ad,7oa .;;-4 :> on +,# ,, ‘ ™ . . i oe Yi ‘te : rs ‘ _ ; he , ee we \ , * . ; ‘ * : ‘ * ty. ee :;;+-ua ta me ae SA : 4 . on ko } te ree f m 2% ’ ' Ya } . ; “e Pa he at % a a . ; >°+ Ey-— ": pitty *» 2 % %;2» *‘. "4 , q 5. al b> " Ly " bs bs z a5 . ~ 4% «a % ~pha eyne — P¥ J mrA oAe - -2 a.ato . : i \4ey\ee ae ; :™,; .‘— AS bs va %éyh ;_-TSS eee Sake

eeAR cere Oe” & ay hy yhoe | 4 Ona >» a ett. - . Je’ yes ‘;eee : maeWh tS 5 ».NS Si» Se Lit ae ELE Lyoh ve ay es ** « a ::was) Sis RR, RES NAS” Sling |Saved SN r4vt oe 4 ‘ rR : Yad Be a | >> 2 Sioa : \ ) et Ra -)_ ;t:Pd a ” Se % fr ri ‘Peete. «8 SoZ SEA. VOT: * ‘ 47 eh i ‘ ba) % : ae, .. + *¥ « \ i . es ki 40 sa - : Ps ‘eal ‘94-oo

-a,a1we . a~ x . > > * 4 Ne ‘ ' a | of a j et 5) ae, . ie, YYwees y ‘ “te as!oe - 5. ae | : Peeves) ekIe; oe -) & C

°“.37 Noa’ a 4 s—. , molt “ : .~— py t 4 St 4,a‘s“wit &J a ~ ‘7 Jos) Y Ve ( ; : >" * 3 ‘aah h : Ay bys ‘ . ; ‘ vw s Je . : .. “ & 3 ¢ oS ' i:a A pwey fg. r : oe : a " “ a. it i} 4 oun 4ee"i.%.* oo ce pets | *.,"e,’:oO -) aoth .= re ~~ oo** — :-iFs z>7a, oeFre aay~ ai, . ¥; :fSee ~~‘ kd - pee" . va we a: “ae i> Seal Fe). Q -atee 20 ao Oe bees

‘eyaLm +‘ — © .; :\ 4’ }’

->. -»«2>& *y2 2"ae lls rm . ny . e +‘ P .on ety a. * eR \ Ma , 2 =»eG >of Be AY tee: ..:ic, oo _. «°te : i C34 we? a a! ‘ “ % é , \ pee | ~~ :

a an~tieg ite > en an Ae ox whe 4 : 5ns } wits & a notated, rat

J

~ ..7_..*a_* “4 : ”“ a e -~

Pirate II]

y as —> gee ne a ae tof il os ’ . ‘. “en a Md ; ters , a’_ tS

MY : ‘ R "a a *

: ‘ ’7ve] s Mee « " - :hanes oa if s‘*y=‘e. Swhee mee” oP _iaa :1,' : ¥wd

fis Rist a:ty+72 alae roe ;‘xPry, ) *.4aw € ». =MLA , %AY ; -Ts - ‘es .I’a .Chee , : ety . ‘Sh tare :-— “yer: : 4. ' ’‘>aK :Site? .See. 4: ras ve Fy ae AS rote ( 4 ne pl. " , ? —y aes : 4, osé ayA44.Poker ee es7.—# * -tee ar«Oe . .ace ._-:oe’ Z . a.ee “a °+ Md -_. _—. :7. a Aes ‘ OF Near ey / : ;rth a alti “ K Pes ; ae os # med : - Cg '¢ Ls : Wa vy \e ¥, —=\ tea eh s afte, ~* : a _ y Pa : Pra Hi a * ae . —- > “te, *¥ ,~* _

aby » i yo FY . ’ ey 8 + Ww ae ; ra

Ya = és UPgh hagOW aa, Ae it ul Se*SET . aa tek oeeta ae' ee Se 4a44Bee. aei ‘-' ,rh=£ Co eh OSES CR eeyn Pom an. fee, S { aw eee ; 5 ; .Diu” MeeMe ‘‘we oyeS ee, a 2) Vee ae a : thei ee . Pe he _ oe aCaS , Re |=2 Pity ie ae en 4 ae ae ae 8 3 ae St vee a at A Soa és ae 4 gy ee esgh maaan to EOP a ‘= PME ayaa geEAS i ieS85of

DS MRAM ahr “ms .See : pee >a~~ >Prete é _ .Re .a - Re *he ata -TR . *e " . * ,. 2je! at .rn~ 7aT > Jwm ih -re,bod

. 4a ey =? ." nes or Bie Se a . ~ Se - x " . > ate ’a . = , 4a ™ * - ea eta §Mid aS: Fy oF “S. 2:anés“~.: + fee. ay RL, ™.E yiby .eB *Pos sre, .4 ee a> ‘f Vv, tes Awe ~*~ . *ys *«oy wt fs Dok WEE See 77a- iSii’. gS th il*fis. eg 4tve> “le 2_ih4pees cw ss i. Bai . ee

4stwei 7‘st.) »+ ; : au -™ . wr . >i “SS‘ - “ ‘FPOA ‘ . : r ™*’ PEI, ei ; ATO oy i eels : Ma : ; niche t ‘ ; e a giité ? € oy AY 4 Sag! — 4 ft 22) : a ; Sy : se p . - by

- : 5 t ty > : . . . y sun? '.w* Me

"; \a; ye Pm) , ’fy» “a :”OUNG ese Bey . Meat *BY 5 2 ie orpae¥°. *ls’we ; *. *, aySts ‘] r‘ ny 4 { -ay avy Our asRA Bg% en4 coe ’ yer Me“.™ SS > he 2 4 ST , pe ‘. tes ‘s 5% oN oe we ~ : ae “ my a , > eo * a " . ik 6 Wee er Sa a enn mer oY gro ee eee ne 2% *™ t : ER i ; ss : ae) . i. teas PS VS Pir %. eo St re Oe vt Foes Set 4 ) ‘72° 7 ~~ ae tr, >) aD w s ; — at — ac vid.’ oa aad $ ve al ar fe: Se ° he Gated 3 LN) ye ee + sual ty Ae tLe Aa one Be aS ee cas Pays‘ *s f° .ee

DR a Ae te es 7 Sy ee wee ge te! ER $ a3

+a ‘ " »* x « “ . : 7 . Byes) ye a] - % oe ‘ y. - % = .- a “54 oN * q boas : 2 ~ 7 bart "y * ‘ , a : : ; Ry * y . eae iCa SQ. ae- “¢ee @ Soe Bp age Bae Ne, Se gl NS a.aanaana ara . ey on me Nik SPE ee Oe ee Sy, 1| ip? I EOL ; ’» ,,.1. ._\4\e ) 4ow ,TaN > . Sy ow a iy é nit 13 Qe, th 4 be +s ‘ ve 'Ss 7 hy, » . ~ a, X ' CS : e he 9 A ¥ AS . : ee ~~ Wie ~ . ns 3. Se ee Bm. bay S Re te PIS “eo *~S un d iy pei * ee | >.Pod : Guanes’ * at‘y,ae 4 vise Y ’ afe peee ck? Y ee be . oN )>iae™ &SORE 7aad Sr oe ¥FPN rey . ~ay ;|ti= ,}‘*y:eat eal as Ae we ye Ae 2 . .¢& ‘ ahtox) ee %4% ‘iem ee aai-a. Z#“ti, oa ,! Fae He ny Y= & =: ARE ee FR 4 at Sa rey eee Tah, SAS | aes Re oy T° a SARS se RS Tea : bes SSE ae ee 4 «ie a Rare is , Seghee ‘ *s ? ue ee. * , ae U SeYeteSay ‘\ aio, >FObd; °e aea.ba4 © “\.~~ Siei Fey 4 ; ry, ‘ai ,mm s R. ayy ’.a% 2 aS. +4C=

¥4WEA *: Aa ED voBTR te]OoSSBa DAR a Sie) teieae :SS ey .: Ray > Be RIS Rema -OPPUN Rog, vei Sd as .xsay hyRX re ye Fee CNR ORLA sy a 7 ; ¥ a ‘ oy S| OS ee Mek if ’ on ee ate SW ‘ A Pie >» ome,a; | My . >, s p PR~hth’! 2 t . REN :™ t3° a ~: nf Ss*Yee 7 ,>.te: Rs Veet ‘ tone hae ‘ - ; 5a Oe ery a“¥a2‘ taea\,; Ryahic ee SER a. . ae pat

eA AA. \ ~‘ { wy % . . -et*:ne Yd.nm ROie‘ ee Se Bee « ws :one

< “Wy ca n Ze ~ ~s ag Se SS CORE ee mk yay Sak Vee * Oc’

ad ct DART . wt

Prater IV

: + =n a

w~ VW re '~~ ' a.“18x5% Be of“sVa, > -e“rs ,. =Ply, . | a Pry a : a ~* a . vo, .. ov) ‘ She a’ = * . Ss DPS LG CLAS A ait lng Care .’ (‘ig. “7 “ . i. 47 de 2 4 RY \ PS oes . : f eer RE ocr 5 cs : Pn a ,*.' & , es SW | Sg2ee 3et;? ‘: €yeé.Pay -ss~~ ;7 7?eee Pn fady we.At ee : aeolor ? ? ssSy 4 3hae oeie , ae Af cast eoreae te PPR ee PS YM a Cee Se.s Sak Peas } e ws Et pee a Se Saery) Pagea.hey ey Yoaea TR ee 4 «4 oSOMES, . »- : 4 ‘a $ . +fsf ~ i , iF ¥ Kate * ; >ge * 4 : ae ;

SS ae ae Ge Sse i ge Bs gh F+ ia: Sa Ce ees ee 6

¢ ‘‘ 3yal . j arehte) te ent : ek ‘4 a=fac%iy. toh 3 ers: / * By a 7 ee a bm ofS ae. : K4) ,ee, m 4»»ae 7 +ak. ¥ -ee” s “F : LAR ee ; .:. ézi. . ; ; ‘ ; . ‘ te, oe i. ares a» ~ " F &° a oy ee ; s 4) } : ws Saito adr. ie: WE ete aa. 3. ; ’ “ arn ; } oe ai ‘-+aei“. oe a - ; Y wt “ beot ; ¥.riae se bated 4 ete | ‘4 ..*ee 7vbJpita Lod -*pe per ene Lew MD 3 hea*Sd segs. i: a>oe 4*Novas) | ‘Be tlRXe? ay ?begs, - a ot7Aves » et oh ~— rk. “ ai .>is . 35 ae Saree, F A 1. Loculus from thewk Sol or Eanes 2 RRofoeP oat wee theslab Soldiers Tomb. Cat. 2..No. Loculus 7 | lal slab ; Sol , a »f | yrrhos, probably trom the

Pp , yf ; .ia ;™ Me tein OY kk / . Raat -_ ee | Soldiers’ Tomb. Cat. No. 9.

-P ¥ Ot” eagle 8! Te Te : OE 5 Sts et

| ey, se A ‘ t .. ot “= ing * ‘ a" ‘ a ws a 4 / -3 * ad See

.. ; *ri ee“ \&; ;4,74

ve om sega i ;yee ARs. -2ets :a .IttOe wef. , a)ic iNgee { Ly ..IASee tT; ¥lasY,:Se fe P Wig) ~, Sie Aw } Voy ote 2 ; mee & pte st ue . be 4 . , 4,7 i 7 ’ 3 Le | : m i . ale” ‘A ; mm, sy 4 » r’

tw2? Fie ar’esiSe ,Pc) Be ‘ol $Pal 7 7”anm =oem i a. x. eae vie Pe AY! i|x‘= rn Sages ae ees hoes ae : EUS, leuos fSor (ee oyjei>,ae ¢#3 Pi, sae ,: oak - yae 47 ameue 4=aby gh ty Ties, ar,a“xaon 7 :: ct 4aVas -A . >phy 4 7 Py ® ESFP %, wa -A ° os af OP A. x>if Pet A * ae ,pees hoes Os ae a bas © 1G we Y ié ee 5-98» )OA Fr. i} Mens i» 9 _ oe = : ys ee7saids) Kae Yee y,FS. ge -§ a4 3 ; °ieea3 fant ;SF of e: sy iJ £he : oe sh) See" ryie tore ot oe sagtBE fm)

; 4 4" ? ie Se : ‘ t ee rm, ey ww Bs NS are ‘3 Bee an - Ky re ; » 7 23 © ye “a ‘J rah = '4% i BE%ay ‘ 4. :et - : .’ Some 1 : i C a! J A Lod - e 44 :eh . @A”*3 aRe aie; * gr , : te . ‘ : a mk i ii : aA A. . ‘ . ; Lm b7; :, /et r / )’ .4: - >eB o>a “ xae * a4ne- ai7g 4 a ¢¥ : ; yor ” Rape Bax} } gig dSiHO, ’% ,ae+.ae TY REedPAE CO Pv aes \ysMises Re “oF ae~A PR mA , ae a_,eeaml

. ae Uva nn ~ ' < ee ey ; *\i > eee: 5; £ ee as. se eg OS - Gre ot. . : Pog . er 4 * ¥ ¢ bh vd ~~ ~~ " f:BA aa : -od~- ;: -- a4< se ‘- 7,a

ae = a4 5. a rw ba ; oe ;163 weee . aay»;io ‘4 . Pee : oe’ “a ce ee ok37S oS 9 ee Wie Pe) ee 4"5=.wppdias -,:"fic -ee 7 F ere “ever ae eae

a* a pe % Mie “OR ) ah, “= = a

er,. a" re ¢ rat oe Za—“ —(Fee! so ci) ae a lalla s°- -' ’tie .™ rate ee BFE a Caaeaags a“ he ~ po ae es ae : Mo “M4S

eoP ¥$izle-d. oo

< *. gee ror Se ee . . 5_ apr Rede gO ge, al IkeS Spiga ea * Se Me A ee. es. Peete =? Gage . aIeSee ota ree eer I are a 3 ety 2 +S , ; ey hg. Po. ~. “; +’ ea ~ a ey: eo ” eee ek _ ws ae : a i. . :..:VW. ‘ ss *:Se een wi - ether , eee a. 7Rh ia - Pie ec 2° pals S ot pe, ~~ 7 ao ’i+ aS er a a ~aea tesa %. oT. odx, gtd ae ee wat)

:ey in :--s 45 -:. “htYe} wert : . = ECib— a « ~~ > Se ; ; +> et .+4Ps ee‘ane? Be ne aes ‘em : Mien, ee nl, e A : : . Z Yn > . -> + es e- FF tl: ; sfc 5 ae, 2 i? ~ "+

ss CCaa . “ Ok, eee. — ae CasSS a ee

re ~ ek poe Oe “a aa OE ye gus 2 ew ee ; =< Fee ‘ — 2; » “3 on . a ? x * “Ting . , bo ere 5: ag “ia: : a= i > ia Se ee F v oi! = Bee ane EF td, er Pe ae -$. Seg ade 2‘«-ee >Sots a*th» .Po *uae : >. ~_-ee "Sie ; _ee wie igi a: hg en aes

P>Lows => “si +*>epee Pen “-°a;~"“.>> .2 -~~ —_ ~. an ne — . " . .wr _a » eel ~ r. oa . , a= ° ‘ = — as . . a fox, by-d —_s ” : . ~ >» : ° «Swe # ~ ot. a i a —_. . LO’ eR ae eee Saree ele i lig at ne 53 em ae ees op Re gs rmBOT gia ae gtLo STbap. = Face “esalee te PPPOE eter es”«a Soity IEeine < OnSateen A fk ee

Ln ; . a > by “_“ata = boas a 4 " “5)a So rape ols : SOM a Pessmt See eeawe

A ei oss. oS :So ee asi TO ane Pg eeaeet.te aeSe

—— +~? ™® awon > aaes # .B_ =a RTT -. __ et. . —— Noe ek eS peesaxein eae

a oe 7 . ~~ - ot eet > —- : . Ny - > _— . e _ oF Fa my oN hae * ——— 5 ~ Je r: en fein ) ¢ MO 1c Pe iy Bee — eee gery —eeReo 22 i=eS hee 3‘.jam ; :hea iAg a. «s esES ae —2¥, Chit mA: lS Sena? ae5-Gly ? ” art ko eS Gee a ND S45 | eo re Rey D> . ~ > = t” ye.

be Sean eek Fars ; > Cat ‘ . oe 4 w a a pd +") a oe nee i= ae on ~ oe . a. . = ¥ ~lie. 7 .\ LL STWY ¢ Af “ 7.PL or cs _a 1» yw oe# = os ’ =,ee. ’ a, Ans’ ~ow gert™ &— >;tiwon. s-ho .~: > “« .“A7&% :| a“ey —~. Na aun ¥ es ‘ = ba 2a ut *s -* Ay om z ae " « t.er q-. re J ye eae t ae * 9 4.9 , iS, ee . = . 7 ~ pha i + > . \ ~ Vins ‘oe e — od . < F pis 4. ‘ ae : aS Ak Neel“ ££ ah . i * at wis”

a, >aoe ad ste, @. 2¥aes ;.a_.. _. -*

-, Shee =A . RSPan) " . F: & . fst . . , Sty, . ; x 4 " ~4 > " 4 ae =

fy “oe >>ey) ;Bes ‘ ee >et, ae a a : mer * | m * “7, -Py . ‘.APS 7. ;Be. 2. eT ») > ‘ , ot . . r. . “ : 7 ia Rey. we “h

ee 2 wy + of aa Pane F*. +f . ‘ Fieas ; 4e34 wh — _ - 2Pe a— = “>. ww ro wy — Fig . Fd2 . .~‘ Py

Go Fi2SeeaSe Pee eea;>eigilt > is . *-

. is +e 7 - oe 2 as ES -

:P; ’:‘a'tn a>aa ae «* a) bh .&Sou" i ce +.a>.;._::5; ”>NM +o »49—>¢?A, »! -oa :~ > vt :‘ssMal i >4> ft ?4 ‘.. t «8, 3; , “4 os » : |» ~ ¢. > Py : J a a > a; * ‘f yieieoat y _° 7a.>“Bi ..% ;RN oe 5) Ss PA 8 ; AX . ay Pe > ; + a te OO z 4, 4”. = ria \. +! : ‘

- »— *» ’~~we . pg 4 +> p< 4;et =’ ::|y»>» -— ’ a:_ -™ _m a5 % GE” ge E. ae ee ati 2 ae” aun : ee — . ‘< a . f ~ p |7¢ad3)? Sy. Me ares ae ty es 2%, *pe “ vadES a ar > 2 4 . "V . °a. — o a. ) — 9 87. ~~ Tey -1S’i fm . ane i Cae-.: - : . : — cS 7 Se 5 id . ':A ‘ee2“4 a -Mee " > °kd aN ,

- =we» r;fer 7. \ =A oA + i>i ’- ¢bd Fe ts . . Py: . ~ J : ¢ —= “~ edZ. ~we f.a “> ‘ eS oY ate Se & oa, .* > ms , LR. 13 SRL oe ot ee a . 7 y : ~ wad < : — a 7 i¥k-.’a¥afe .‘Soe ‘ |‘cee. EFn — = _ ee * «nS : . : = ee an 4 * > fae 7 ies :.‘~gat” | ane mas of -URS wt 7, Voge" (Pint, ae >6.a,™ . ae ms ae *. “y Finely r . we. i. eS ; = eh. ee 4 \ See Pye ,. a f.ra. =, § a —_* fe ee ae. “ gw ~S a, ta E s. Ld — 2 >>, *t > ‘ |/ ’.‘Te ‘ —_ eR o- ay ’ Bis oy,Awore oe 4;/ "e ~ a oo erly > Sab Ye wes ‘ii Pad > ~~ or on YORE = Pits o ,wate ; be ‘ * 5 ; av? ¥ ’ , oe . p eh x -_ ; AY a?) ; : Seo. a | : aes. X. 5 7 + bf my: oe ; aha y+ o> ba YD 4 : ; > a * . . pe ¥ 4 AS ‘ i . A « o" Fy 4 wo Bae oe eae } ‘ gc eg ie ae >?rwar : oka 7‘ aa-Sat 3. "“tems :a.2.we Sent *“4aehe, ; E” ,:mes;yar FePty -«08 Sade gay. >.2 .Ny git ig ; \ aePA wee. Z 0 os = : ral > x . A oes ¥ “< a aks * rp, Patess Py ees and ee ;

Stee $i_ A +e ae.2’‘a= a| So wet =‘ ty PRG... od ata *@§. 5aa) .‘ay im, © q % eo jee .' !~éXy «| aBaie. .“-*~tae »s>». ; ": 3 . ’ iF zz ; 5S j aee=aye nyt? 7Px 2° Le & 2 * i a 4 ‘3 = "Ol 4 e . A . Ne! f ty By ae a ¢ ~ i a : Pz “* vs " oy ¢ “ eas 7 . A 2s ;: 7. K Y

ae eS: "eS A ts:Se —we 7A — ‘*Ly =gespa: ‘Gis fare oe ¥' ae °A)aeea ye ; , =ra4‘imy +Sk ieee ety Lee ae, Re al re N, r, ciS, ’ ; A eee Cat Ve 7 ~« ie he a beg! ’ _ a ‘ ? . pS Yak ? ood Ss 7 5 ‘ ste es inde 4 Ai * ‘ ie ¢ * . 34 M N y . bs , : ae -Sh oe tam Fess, “ Ppt Te, ff Rar) oes eh we 14 oi “ uSay Y’. m : }‘s\ >,(Pot Rh oat Pe Bers 3 MAR; i . Te) yd O tee ¢a: - oon) * uy ~ SR a ee . .a .i®See eS . Se i sy . ; a - — a mn wnsele nt. s a Se . . : a £ , .

ox Te ‘S$.> ~A® ee ee ae 4 ’ 4 Ege isa eee : ° . ad opens amarante? tal Th ke: : ; LJ ,‘ arlax:-_"es ; < Pes P . % 7 y. ey hs . ots . < i Fy . F‘nd : . Ss " . : 'bed “ of 4 L ah : , . .4 - payi’f ee wee Ba re Soe 5 aS oP di ie Si aeaetoate we,omy ays 2pee ti ‘ear. SF ‘Pie — fyr. “a Dar yp oa eee. ; 2“tet < yo A “i pie Sel inw eae” ae. ‘ie ;;:% ik) me ae ~ aahew ~ ” de Vag , ae , . J aa , f; a ai::éhy » a abe > ae > ey . ‘ ° BS *.

: 4 J hy . ‘ : $ } ‘ “~ Me 4 ¥ "hy. 7 4 , fi n ’ \y as aca Sy * ‘ ‘ ab . 4. z re ~ial ae ee 3 ad ® ? Ke . bes a ‘ ioe oy -¥ Pe wo ‘ ee a, G / ‘, y* aed § i ° a *' ‘ 7 \ an “2 § 5. an £ . * > ee: ey, a ee oo eee mie Reg, ee | RO, — ny Sa ee ir a a he ey. | Be ; — . ~ i. we, ‘ , Bic : ; $ asta ae Oy y = ~~ MJ .- .>»éeG, . ot aer

ae 3 ~*~ Qe. ’ . te xy Te +4 »° tS Be i/ ;ZRN Bais ee a‘YY Ou. oe -:aFe, Dg E B be 2 a ae ol ae Ps, Del iL ‘d ‘@ ba os 4 * 4 “ 4 ei " ; x pide 4 ; © ’.2|~ _a"aBk “.| ‘ay “ ’ *)> ad wy . * o Me .4 ry ae , . me . + « : Wom =? “ey a ’ > , ee Bese a “YA Rh > . ov x 2 ons ~\ 4 Q > ~ , ae oe — sade . ¢ 3 4< As :7 ./,,>Ds i“ ;€&, ec f: % Ss 4b3‘en»“Bfee ~. wal > .;5Som

es hv ™! < i, La -o ar : 1 es 7, mA , i iin, . . ‘3 on’ Ager oe ee ey aguas. MEDEA .: sey. , 3 ¢~ me ? ev wat Teal yaa - . ew *aa. Sees | »aF: gan ee : >» pr Oenee” i al_

‘ane > "Re . a heir "1 aaeee . y ee oe Sse ae -:~*,Af ¢. “peer > ee, —2 wy ,. YY ~* . t Det§ _‘-ty; egies A =Ss «s fa ”o4pees —_ tt ._le~=3”can _,- &

ae. eee¥ a+Flas “a >nfae 7’— x“, Fans ; \i ¥2. na Fstage - - a: .as 4 ganglia n. sll ~of + 4 Anke: Ss ' sn ‘ -5 .. d5 ue , ~> t: ‘i. oe - ie 8 We * a Pp > eg e » we fr. 4 a om ” a; = - , » afl

PLATE VII 7

;aS ae. EP gSRR Oe. \> aSWey ’ -_ae . * 8:oo =“ .,2./;oe,i/oF rein die. IR Na Og lle wo eo yePit Oe WP neS|ald eee . Agate ‘Lev ses t=ON terry , ouee, 2 Oeieeeoe Ce oe Ueea ihe Ee +7sali a. - bid ay SE ys oes Pi Ce Page mae. Tae WEN ty Ps se em, alee A tee, Rn Ee ey ea. af *\ ee 4 a

pe NBR ea ee: Ae Mme r : beBO ae iw,#LAeOe

-~ ; ,*5 } Mal? * * he far i a c ey. Bs ier aGANS ORS :Y fe HY ieee Bb tea i“% :*57 = .aerae Ptz°gta 4Sa4‘sae rr>hat teB id Peatc! JJSO ,SRO *24 é . —Py Peih a-ERee;. °~~s6at5h;Koi~f>- ree: “22 ‘ Vas A) Be Po SE nf ae . 3) E & 5 ae t. tyler 4, ou eae” ly eae ot OT et Soe one Sys Mee Sra at. te BEE) BA A OO PR) oO Dn ae” 3h, A 2 aodaeSe SEP D; pee “po eee pene ef ea?) ome, 7@

Gel vee ise incor red tae RPS: ot Sag: eh Ne St Safe hate oe of eed ad, eet, .

oF “we. of, JX ‘nd , ¥ = a 4 , we & u ‘s . 7 : if 7 $ ce , * Th s . - "> im

. Ar. Pe, Fee es a»‘ oy :.eS ..ri ame Pe ,% ayMA vet a> ." M o) . ,-rf ahTag \.‘a Nn . ~-s' “ed ee PD

~~ - _~ a bie © ~ . » é Vw pas ae ¢ Pee aA oa eee: ina’ a he 7 de \, . Pas * Ur » : ‘ >, : ‘ hy jean .bwt fd- .in! he; ry, ; . rsF 4S.a As . : *ee——— a avalde : J .rd* -# f y2=

ihfi*Sedin br % 4B; s3% +Za ‘@ ye 2. al—) °re. =rs Togs ns ~ee CAS in ov Bes c¢.. ye :a-‘«a:3\Y °iS. -¢;“i »ab VW (Se >» an -Be aea-.: rhs SA -ae > ._ ee] -Ae -Dae” ,ed a ms z.ee -FF +WS ~* ty , i ih i Be i be an 2»cee Ope 0hes pee - in ‘sw ee Se 4 en *7 SsBD . oan, or ee uty y - . a RD Me f &> L34 Aonent Pe se3eeteh Ku “ :+> ome , ye b < “fh : Se 2 AeA ah, > eae 4hans Fee a- S6 La) ie: em: S ae te See ee he ee 4. “Si” I e Ge ae Ute Bee. i. pale ie a ee ARR + Gen ou q = 4 “Ora. +. he ys she ws * Ng * 4 i De ~~ . 145 : rs A y ow Pa , « . F —_) ie ©? . . Ps | ~ s ce 4 , % s ' a x .% . ; age Fr ots ; «ff vs Vion ies rs OAS, . “x Kgs PsdER as ry cee ; ares! oy as - é,oP oe niBP ye “Shae “ye oY. ; - w”2 BS. aIoneWe ep,fs ee

, 7 : a. : ‘ " ; me + ‘ ' % pa - 2 ; - . a ed A , vd ma a oy” = 4 ey x

£ ++ . . : ped ‘ Ae, a cd Ps1! 5) Pay aerg i“ Ag J . AS tile >. Cee: :aeee* :4Fd ak ’ - en et a, . ; q ° — i = TY te es |e +e i a ‘ 7 5 i ha 2 ~~ 7 a? *s \ity ; ‘. ae " § ee ‘2 + % “ Sie “J s , ~ : 2" ‘Nd 4 ¥) 4 ,Y ._; N ,3pac aoa AS AO EIR ¥. TE ont Efe VOR. Wah =. —e PO ee i8 mm ae i, ke Ste +e AS 2 to (re * ae Da tig , a .. . ty. iy ate’ ~ “ a P )ye Aa aie , She Co are hie : ¥ Peet \ Se oat vast a,py . a2 a o“ iw ‘Sher . nie - tu “ IRs. ae AES al,ay iebsaye aoe i didn bree) Sad er. Z.~ Sab NasSG aayom, 2% ; LF rmhet ed. meal. a 4 wy ’ pt ey Pe ea ea “a 7 . S Yee - s% z .% {

a * ive, °° Doth Beh , amen) eee } ty

— --tas 1 ee hee BRR 5: OS oa A Reese ae Ogio ee, SR C f° . , yy ee” Sot. os . * : ¥ i + Bla ‘Fae ‘ "a F *. r. 4 ‘4. é~ - 2:: ¥. oa

a 7 ~ ie so : ih.” >vee! *Lad Py ve y/ oy ; ateS roa ‘3ORS ee ohed ¢ + “St ~ f A « n’-Aer Ps -io) -4", “% ee. aycata; 4ea{; -re 9 tore, ht Sy :54s ;4ati fs be j>. be iat = -\.}Stina : rns 4aResrhbw) . ‘ ~ >. * aay ig 7. ry : \ it Fi — LP Ct ED!) it ae . i|) & rw : eS4 >? \ht. u , Sj “ Ctif? Ms the? iPa sf} mB eyid3 om Mes | e : *srh.AT Nee e i Fee ij : - f prt, ~ i ga y 4 5 | Gale ge t> vlee. , Seah Sis a7 xe, ; :>ie be. -. r) « o 7 i: ob x » Fr. oy ‘ iy or s 9 : +s : ; a ¢ Py 5 Lad F ag “ oS . e H \ Oo ; ; arty, | ; ,% ws ee Ghee. ¢ ar: : iv 3 ‘4 ay on he £ ee Ae a NS fy yh.. 7~ 7ae rues lane j 6a : * ey hley “at e4 Sth “Te _# | uaa RM VTC A ee hie ee ~; . »™ a a wy “~ Py is : 7 . ‘ i eae See A | A ahr ti ’ rns “= rrr Ai aw eA Rrra TAD eae Toh. *- 4San owt 4- re Ka ; Ma :-Ae. % tag ~“% flTANT bee go) atO neRY msa.)4;| pe i LO Om ee i|*. > 7; ye. *=an. i}? y t w! ee f cf i he ‘4 wy : as a " ‘ = ‘xTLS ;?heace 7tangy ~che 4 : fe , ;7Fd ttythe : ;a+ ni \ Re A. ne} 3:2Sa key Spey | x Sy , a a We =ic

7'Hy ~ ‘ .' a . + a } ; , *) Dea. > : * } “AN — ‘ebs ay > 7 i “ « «a ‘She a BA AS Ve hs ee ; , bag, em > e& Aah ~ an 7 : my er * . d A - “a 4s ‘is » : . ' : ar! ~ . . 4 i. . Yay , ay : ee et Ba a \ eyes Tes Y=

x! Mr heBatis ) . > VA t- ~>/Lo tto Bda< Y ,Re -iosre < "-4.-Per :tPau i2 -a vohet

: er . Ay &. ed at as fe BA. 3 Fs » the

‘, ie =’,Yak’ Bee 5aS nee ie ’Sr :-a.~= :Ay Sao aAa “1aSe iy] a“f aw, 3 z E: : by ? ah _-: ; : ¢ " Gy oh ww he. . AeA . ‘ A Sat ; “hy . ee 4 >Zc. > ~} wr m tA * « a ; t.. .JRe Y f: he:*. Ss ?ertiei-; :oeSa >_> 4 :. “ Ree ibf ats. eStee he ae eM aay , ’VE nswe ete Cad ae ne +Bas i IP .oS .vas a> Nees f wk >.on cu ~Y ws ue aot ¢ a RAEN. TA WES ¥ eoy rs~_>se — ihe - ag AQ haAS fahe| a2" aPLN, . . \‘“ty -diay: ‘< 7ey 4a"‘7 DP 2*-a\aoles he Se Re. ee TS gh,i? Se FF ¥ A) ; Woe Ty afiee -te* ter.het 7; bid “+, ¥% :ee ; ns Sa Eee

- -F‘iid hd a4 ee w , f va) wet q «+ é ° ay ‘ .. Fs 4 oo - ale £ ls - “4 ee 4 re

ind ‘ias »2G eh. »> gi? ,Bi Fs NP &y f a*77F , p° y 44}ary. om *Fp. in eae SD ames: Sass fess EBs = ¢. By ‘. -™ oo * 4e. ‘ F > Gee as . 47oe . ts ry y7-gp. ) ie. = * ‘e, +4 et, oT 9 ‘Ets 4, > = -. si ‘ a oy ary * 4, 1 ss . it ”* oF gh Fog ~ a -oe & 7ee & 0: Fs -afteA, 3@ 5%2eyen>,o. §3ha we Fgh

“* _ “ ~, _ 4 . _ P 7 te “ . ’ ve | : w . P — é.i4 i+ z ; ° MS \ ; > e Ps .7 ace pet “. Beat E 3 .,“ oa ? oerOe ’ ;.ba

EP. 3 ;. ~,et . aise ¢Pikee 7Q ee ‘ ->aL) a=. ~~ - /te=“. Per ,eeoeene * rah*% Bad7a A>Pet | teas re 1 ate a.-ht ptr me ratty!" | toes .hee Pirate IX

|é |: tAes é . Ce a a 4 * ys ’ ‘oh ¥.,* : a" . “~:age ;¥ tes -447;ve :- nae yps6” Re RS teRea, 2¥. ."

’a=< , -;*a fe9 s4SPT m a. ‘;ay ae " 3: re ~pie roe&eTrin .+om or ieCae mS - e 2;Ee j, x. :.._we) rs ’ a) at $ ;$2Ae SPT : ay’ -Sere r > * a.4H ‘ ms ' Se a Ld pee Tame, Shy Be AL, te

- “ ° ae ; Pi an eee, pave a

*—) r-i4~< 4 2— . »DY b ty -ave * . of' » : Ps, Saas : °eya;= Sab tp 2+*we gee Met ;j: 2— :™ : - -.4ad .7Me. 2ers ., .YY = i a Wass ~ me A, eee 7 ; Se = ® ~N : ' “ .< SyPe :Oe - stRta “Ser ky = feget , a Spee ¥ab < oP meee (ee0 *+ a ~ te Soe : os a eae ta pint OF: ee ae . Ar ; — Te roe en i ; , i Be a ee Cc

it ‘ ¢ > 4 « ay = ; > oe > 4% -

:‘ * de si 2 eS aa et . eee ee = be . . . 4 ‘ ; ‘ 7 > Es ~~ a . woh i ' ? ez % ; v 4 ’ . P fat Sg . a ~ > ’ ; ‘ x of : oy . ‘ & = :5 a * * ~ a Pa & a Oe . | Ngee! is eh ae eee t . , “ S ’ 7 “eg * * _ ss < ‘w ~ 7 cs. ¥£3 + Fs Se. : . | mr Ta é $, >3) , ‘ ~ ‘ ‘4. Be

. ~ oe oi: ES iP -4:eee ao & ~ eae 4 : é”ae }yez4 ‘ :‘ 1S ReCdos ° ~;| “4 - ' ;°oof Pe -Bae 4% - -a* ¢ "7nN > Seo Sst *r~*~ RET ‘ | Pa... v ae a s *, y She . ~ wt . & bots ; as rs . - ~&

os. ‘SS aor +S oe ke “f Aa owieglee eee -osoe av ¢ “CS , 3) Rape OSS ©¢ ates o . Ong 2CO ; band a BOS: oe m. z a iemy - a oe sans See ~~»er4aa, a 2 eS ant

OM eee ee AEE 2” el gee csBae, >4trho ae -~ FEE ~ OH oe oy * .¢%.atoeSe pe AnThde - a. ~ 3 -a?aePs4S+.Sn

a tA ee ete ge on Fe a : oo Se eh fA See ee a

JES 2 eee Spe ee tr oe S » * Pop on . a. Se des ee St PRN rays ae eee yo meee See aie tig Sage Se a ee eae. ee noe wat ty St ee ite ore: Cee ep ae. eens ae Sa eee " 2 4 % ¥" Pa a eee < "~ whe ead “te “ ST, . ie 7 : a ae ‘ « .. ee ~ + Fh ~*~. ‘ ae >i P) .(ie < € rei y ~~ . >) Ps) : 5" wT? * * a > aad r — + vy a eae th Mt et ee ~~ “te ey Se + ee oy ~ s Bt [~~ 8 -eene pe at KioF eee. es te ©,. hs vt ahsPrily OT, > PF ;wey 4 '*: —— ayBe ot... Shee a win me ats Rag on — = : np ee ? ’ ae ~~ . ; 4: ats 24. or Cem XA &/ a hee, on SS 1% |" < St Pea es a < Boe oo > = ge Bed ae te ae aa ; in ¢ t _ ae Vee - —. meh :~ ~ *“-, >oD : \Agey we dey A i. ha Sat Pe « ee .” rope eee > Pee faia.“The .~~ 7 _o --_ ye, : ae ee «. -Se >crwa - ae,Pn om < :=“se —. 7 . Py ae a? % , sy A-J * al oo " ' ~4 a/ , . “ry io 7 P Begin ae a * * ; ~ ‘od re. » c} _— AG a oS hs eA * cae 2. n ¥ _ ee»

oS Seed res ; . > _ Te” Cot Se PS, Sew pith 8 ee Sti % ee ek S 4 oe. ~ > ai 7 A? > —_ a * r ae PH

~ , : - =.0 : ' ‘ ; ‘ fom e., ont te ~.a-.ae2 oy ae la >f ayes aeoe F) Se Pe + aa re ay a Pgs) — t,o a age ~ es aeoe eeaeee tek Rs Bn ee ee Saw Tiers | Po Se ee TAS ae i oe :ps ye ae as‘” hy ' ;|. => : -A 1a. S22 See ree ~ ‘okt . . ~ , . = .ee * $ 3 4x Tair hy rg . a e i. ,. “q < * ae “ . z= < be ; > ~ . y . ~

A ; ss “e, -, 4 oy, yy * a> ot (* ‘.: ae + 7 ats : ° . t “ tr af P , 4 . Be . . ae _A ~ ° % ; ~ “4 oY — ~ te - ¥eJ ae :ere ~“ *- P 'on? —im “ ” z. °ay. ™ a, eee “ SSi-bn Doel? = F -. .”+sYet a,oe : a, *)2g 4a&Pés) -7): _4.8 Pe “»al “7 aoMig xioo awa, ‘y %oe *in A, . 8-~< :0* we > at ee nage Oo ite an Ses. STars | -3*. he>|ie. 4aa*wh Se4 ’Le ‘3 3 BS 4“trbap) SE gis :-ioe ~® eb _, “;aaSeyr.4 ek 75 % = ~:’ : >¢. Fee | ye 7 3%ke &, ‘?. .roe. %ty Gey

- @s ~y art ee - £ wy * ~ >) a . = - 4 1oe. Tee woh. j tj. >” Ly 7>"- 1; a» “x fa 7° Jo 7 .uF » +7~. -»sa * ,- J“fy. ¥ees ? a ». -. A y~ ~~ 7 < < : . ie cS. “~* .»t ;;+ jh=yen, ta 43ge, . :-° |>F | ee ;TPs ms zssyrs sed cre be: ee ae — =.i .Phy B. cat ae 14 -_ . s . e 2 gf . tA : ie 4: ae on oe he iy ~~ : iy = ~ OC Sh . BA f t x Noaal , 4 a “x 2dl, ea ix ~ . .s Nad » ' Ly

.:4r°Xn. .a4Pind ~ ™ «Be .»>foe. .Se :hf. ‘‘ xom 1ea;’Mell a:-rs hw |x5 +oO +> ty.+,-ial a. :-_— fe> > ae . * : y ga" > . 4 ~Pvwea >pig eae «‘ae - a.:-es, Sa ‘ME va" “es a*'S ' Dy : ‘ > | x . ah, ° y Fore, a Ze Fa. 4os ras : ™~ %= ; -asRe a Bghé 4. we ae 7 Vay a aee +.==" *Oe Oe Peay ty«2OS ee FD eS Soe SS: MA ~~ +Ors a es! ~.2s” ir.ah. ssts ; oD eeNe Shack aAS PjeS _. 7.Se 5 at “yr 4we) i WR Was os Were col eet A Shy eee a4 Fh. os ay Ecas ce —-... aa MS 4 oe oe ~ Top tines +» oes Aes a ow . oe a: ok ee.|a“4_% oVA spate. tfqa-ya “TS >.™ ‘.*® ee > 7 .he s% Pa, ry*op ¥n fr ;ag OOF ” : aA Py — ‘Steeo - —ad: % *. “4 ve : $5 ,we; Ome2a = ~ “ - yo - " r 7"ARE » Mos

SS Sa a RRR LS a es —— See ~ ee oe oe Se:

? ye - - - é we yl - ; o™, . -

we ee de ae ee .

vv va, veiw ~™ - at=ee oe ,ee >- :e“SS - ;. wr. M,Bs a. :Sank ~ eo7éad ; . SS} Oey i7& tog + ,x ay: «=— ‘> OY ™-BY Aan ; :Pe :, Min Gs ’ : Oe o i. LS eas ae fii sa i. os ae Pt ‘ _— ; .> 4, » 4 ia = *

“~~ i . x ¥ o ry 7 a « . re : r y = Fo : : ace eSa all ae Se ° e ‘ a ee . 2S oaALICS ¥ q— erie ae gee, pi: oe Bir ee ~% , ., 7. 1 a: . * _— rg . ae fete, A. ye —_ eee . . A OR - .a*~ghas a‘ ry 4 , .wCe ae -bro >“.ypl. ~~ / ~~ Pa yj