have seen on the London and Sidamara examples and it exists

also on the sarcophagus from Selefkieh. Bari example, particularly the one to the

Brussa1 and we have already become acquainted with the Thalia of the London fragment.2

The sub-Sidamara group thus formed of four examples has fallen together without much effort, but this is not the only group that is derived from Asiatic sources. My friend Mr. Morey will shortly have something to say about the ramifications of this influence in a monograph he is preparing on the whole Asiatic group so that here we will consider only one of the offshoots. This is represented by two sarcophagi, one found in the cemetery of Concordia, the other preserved in the Villa Ludovisi. These two examples mark the fusion of the types as represented by the front and back of the Sidamara sarcophagus; the gable and arch

come from the front, while the developed foliate design is seen in full growth only on the back of the Sidamara sarcophagus and on all examples of the sub-Sidamara group.

It has generally been considered that the group of Lydian sarcophagi was produced earlier than the Sidamara, because, to it belong the only two of the Asiatic sarcophagi, i.e. the sarcophagus from Sardis and the one from Melfi, which have hitherto been securely dated in the second century. Whether this relative chronology holds good for their allied groups cannot be stated definitely,

1 Mendel, B.C.H. 1909, p. 330, fig. 41.

2 British Museum, Strzygowski, op. cit. p. 51, fig. 19.

3 Garrucci, Vol. V, pl. 362, 1.

4 Garrucci, Vol. V, pl. 362, 2.

but we have one monument in each group to which we can assign an approximate date. Robert' has shown that the heads of the figures which recline on the Torlonia sarcophagus are not the original ones, and that the head of the woman as shown on a drawing before the substitution was made has the characteristic headdress of the first years of the third century. This, although it does not establish a terminus a quo, gives us an indication of the probable period during which the sub-Lydian group was produced, namely the first part of the third century. The second sarcophagus to which we may assign an approximate date belongs to the other group. The Ludovisi sarcophagus represents one

of the phases of the sub-Sidamara group and both because of the extreme colorism of the style, and because of the lack of unity in the architectonic decoration undoubtedly represents a later development. The face of the sarcophagus bears an inscription containing the word DEPOSSIO which De Rossi has shown was used during the middle of the third century and was displaced, in Rome at least, in the early fourth century by DEPOSITVS. For the four members of the sub-Sidamara group we have no certain date, but included as they are between the Torlonia sarcophagus and the one in the Villa Ludovisi we may assume that they were produced in the second or third -quarter of the third century.

1 Robert, op. cit. III, p. 145.

2 De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea, II, p. 308.

These four sarcophagi of the sub-Sidamara group are only an indication of the ramifications of Asia Minor workmanship. Weigand has materially enlarged the "Lydian" group; I hope the present paper will show that the Sidamara group need no longer be confined to the examples displaying the gable and arch facade, and that further inquiry and observation of the essentials of technique and style will enable later students to increase the list of the sub-Sidamara type as well. It is important to note that in tracing the subsequent influence of this Asia Minor sarcophagus style, the gable and arch system is no longer the criterion, since we can see that the Asiatic sarcophagi afforded also a prototype for the arcaded sarcophagi so popular in the fourth century.

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.

W. FREDERICK STOHLMAN.

of Classical Studies

at Athens

ATTIC BUILDING ACCOUNTS

V. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

A. THE PARTHENON1

In some recent discussions of the chronology of the Parthenon, and of the works of Phidias, my arrangement of the building accounts of the Parthenon has been followed; it seems advisable, therefore, to take this opportunity to publish some readjustments which have been necessitated by later discoveries.

Dr. Bannier and Dr. Fimmen, revising the Attic quota lists of the Delian Confederacy,3 have changed some of the evidence by which I reconstructed the first column of the reverse of the stele. Formerly the only position available for fragment G, on which the demotic of the secretary to the Hellenotamiae is 'Pauvóotos or Hayvóolos, was year IX; now, however, years X and XI are also open, the secretaries with the demotics 'Axapveus and Kepaμeus having been removed to years XIII and XIV. Year XI must still be eliminated, being completed by fragments P+0+C; but year X is preferable to year IX, because the expenses on fragment B, which must be associated with G, are exactly like those of years XI to XIV, dealing only with sculpture; in my former arrangement these accounts for sculpture were interrupted by fragment K. As for fragments K and L, hereby displaced, the former must be assigned to year VIII, while the latter, as formerly, immediately precedes G and, therefore, appears in year IX. Separating G from H, we are now able to read the latter in a more natural manner, with typ[auμáтeve] and

1 A few additions to the accounts of the Propylaea are reserved for the publication of the monograph dealing with that structure.

2 E.g. Frickenhaus, Jb. Arch. I. 1913, pp. 351-352; Collignon, Parthenon, 1914, pp. 48-50; Heberdey, Alt-Attische Porosskulptur, p. 236.

3 Ath. Mitt. 1913, pp. 228-238. For a general study of the quota lists taking into account the new discoveries, see Wing, Ann. Report Am. Hist. Assn. 1916, I, pp. 287–297.

A.J.A. 1913, pp. 68-69.

American Journal of Archaeology, Second Series. Journal of the
Archaeological Institute of America, Vol. XXV (1921), No. 3.

233