The title calls for a word of explanation. I use ‘mid-sixth-century black-figure’ as a convenient term for the vases made not only in 550 B.C., but in the decade or so before and the two decades after the middle of the century: the work of Lydos, Exekias, the Amasis painter, and their contemporaries. I shall not say much about the cups of the period, for I have already dealt with the chief sort, the ‘little-master cups,’ elsewhere (JHS. 52, pp. 167–204). The shapes we shall be mainly concerned with are the amphora, the neck-amphora, and the hydria; which, with the cup, are the dominant shapes in this and the succeeding phase of black-figure. My order will be not strictly chronological, but not quite arbitrary either.

There are in existence three more or less representative collections of Argive terracottas. The most complete and important is that from the Argive Heraeum; a good supplementary collection comes from the Heraeum at Tiryns; thirdly, some hundred, mostly fragmentary, but, where the heads are undamaged, highly important Argive figurines have been discovered at the Heraeum of Perachora in the northern Corinthia. A fourth group—from Hagios Sostis or Tegea—is patently within the Argive sphere of influence, but, as we shall see, succumbs very early to Corinthian influence also, and must be regarded as hybrid. Other small groups have been found at a number of sites in or near the Argolid, of which the most considerable was discovered at Argos itself.

The excavations at Antissa took place between May 29 and July 3. The most important area was that of the apsidal buildings, AC, but further exploration was carried out in the tombs south and south-east of the Acropolis, and tests were made on the promontory and the coast east of the promontory.

The working party consisted of myself, Miss Six and Mr. J. K. Brock for the duration of the dig, together with Mr. R. Cook for the last fortnight. Mr. Brock was in charge of the excavation of AC, and many of his notes and conclusions are incorporated in this report. Mr. Paraskevaïdes, Ephor of Antiquities, was present for four of the five weeks, and gave us invaluable help in archaeological and business matters. We would like to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to Professor Oikonomos for the many facilities provided for us at the National Museum.

The following article embodies the results of researches made by the writer at the supposed site of the Sanctuary of Poseidon at the Isthmus and of the Isthmian games. Two short campaigns of excavation upon a very small scale were made in 1932 and 1933, in the course of which many areas were tested. Mr. H. Megaw has rendered invaluable assistance by making a revised and accurate plan of Justinian's fort (the so-called temenos) and a new plan of the district which includes all the areas in which trials were made; the section dealing with the fortifications (pp. 69–79) is also his work. The writer's thanks are also due to Mr. E. J. A. Kenny, who assisted in the preparation of the western section of the large plan; fig. 9 is based on a large-scale plan also by him. A short notice of the operations undertaken in 1932 appeared in J.H.S. 52, 244, but at least one suggestion made in it has now to be abandoned in the light of the fresh evidence secured in 1933.

Millet has established that the Greek church-builders were in a large measure independent of their contemporaries in the imperial capital. The independent Greek School whose limits he sought to trace reached the peak of its achievement in the two centuries prior to the Latin occupation, and most of the Byzantine churches in Central Greece and the Peloponnesus belong to this period. Millet's approach to these Middle-Byzantine churches was retrospective, his starting-point being Mistra, capital of the restored imperial province. He was interested in the Greek tradition less for its own sake than for its contribution to the later architecture of the last Byzantine ‘Renaissance.’ While he has endeavoured to resolve the problems which the origins of certain of its characteristic features present, and to gauge its legacy to Arta and Mistra, he has treated more summarily the development within the limits of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Since the excavations of Carapanos at Dodona in 1878, Epirus has remained terra incognita to the archaeologist. In regard to prehistoric archaeology the reason is to be found in the Epirote terrain; the plains are usually small, and the humid climate encourages grass, with the result that settlements, unlike those of Thessaly or Macedonia, are too small to raise a tumulus and any deposit is covered with turf. The following sites include the re-excavation of Dodona by Mr. Evangelides and some scattered settlements found by myself during my visits to Epirus.

The excavations which I undertook at Haliartos in 1926 were intended mainly as a test of the possibilities of the site. The principal result was the discovery on the summit of the Acropolis of a previously unknown sanctuary. For various reasons it was not possible at that time thoroughly to explore the remains of the sanctuary, but in 1931 I received a grant from the Research Committee of the University of Birmingham to enable me to do this. The excavation was carried out in April 1931. The Greek Government was represented by Mr. Karouzos, Ephor of Antiquities for the district. In the work of supervision I was assisted by my wife. Mr. Richards of the Lake Copais Company's surveying staff kindly made the plan of the site. I have since paid another visit to Boeotia to complete my study of the results.

My first literary pilgrimage to the Ionian islands took place six years ago. I still find them an attractive field for research, and the present paper records observations made among them during two very pleasant summers. In this connection I would recall the fact that both Professor Chadwick and Professor Childe have indicated the importance of a study of North-West Greece for the better understanding of the coming of the Greeks.

I am sorry to be compelled to say again in print what I said first nearly twenty years ago, and said again in 1926, and repeated in company with others in 1930. In 1926 I was stirred to testify by certain criticisms of Mr. Wace's Mycenae report, which criticisms appeared to me to scout the evidence of the facts ascertained in the excavation. I am stirred to it now by a paper by Miss M. Hartley on ‘Early Greek Vases from Crete.’

With most of that paper I am not indeed concerned, since unfortunately I am not well acquainted with Greek vases from Crete, except on paper; but what does concern me is Miss Hartley's publication at the end of her paper of several fragments of a Laconian krater found in 1929 at Eleutherna (as it would appear, in an unstratified deposit), and the date, about the middle of the sixth century B.C., that she assigns to it for reasons chiefly derived from the development of parallel forms in Chalcidian and Corinthian pottery.

I am grateful to the Editors of the Annual and to Professor Droop for allowing me an early opportunity of replying to Professor Droop's criticisms of my attempt to date the Laconian krater from Eleutherna (B.S.A. xxxi, pp. 111 ff.).

I dated the fragments of this krater, on consideration of the history of the shape, to the middle of the sixth century; Professor Droop complains that I did not use evidence obtained by the excavators of the shrine of Artemis Orthia at Sparta and set out in the official publication. Now he admits that the shape was not found at Orthia (and he might have added that it has not been found elsewhere in a stratified deposit); there is not, therefore, any question here, as Professor Droop seems to think, of conflict between ‘the evidence of facts derived from the excavation of a well-stratified site’ and arguments drawn from considerations of style.