Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (6.1890-1897 (1897))

288 SOME INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE ARGIVE HERAEUM.

local stone, which might then not inaptly be called a reXafimv.
It must be conceded that CIG. 2053b, where the -reka^mv itself
is of marble, affords difficulty. But it may be that even with the
origin of the word reXa^mv as here proposed, the two words come
to be used in some quarters interchangeably.

It will be seen by the cut, p. 42, that something was inserted
into our massive block. There are dowel-holes on the right and
left at the top of the rectangular depression to which probably
two others at the bottom, now broken off, corresponded. The
one at the left measures .07 m. X-02 m., the one at the right
.06 m. X-02m.; both about .03 m. deep. These.probably served
to receive metallic dowels, inasmuch as they are provided with
little channels for pouring in the lead when the inserted object
was in situ, the channel on the left running obliquely to the upper
corner of the depression, and that at the right running hori-
zontally to the edge of the depression. Besides the dowel-holes
there is an equally deep irregularly round hole about .12 m. X
.07 m., which may also have served to hold some strengthening
dowel. That the insertion was original, and not connected with
some subsequent use of the block, is proved by the fact that the
lines of the inscription are shaped with regard to it, coming in
around it to the right and to the left. The object inserted cannot
have been a statue, nor a stele to which this block served as a
horizontal base, for in that case this inscription would have been
hidden from view, except to one standing so as to read it side-
ways or bottom upwards. Probably we have the TeXa/jLwv into
which was inserted a stele either of marble or bronze with an
inscription of greater length and importance than the one which
we have here. This served merely as a bill-head to the real
contents of the inscription. It should be noted that at Argos
marble was not at hand, and that most of the inscriptions found
there, including all here given except E"o. XVII, were cut in the
local limestone which was a most unsatisfactory material. The
veins of the stone and the cracks which come with age reduce
one who will now read them to absolute despair.15 In this case
even at a very early date a good piece of marble may have been
imported for an important inscription.

15 No. XVI is a good example of this difficulty of reading, although the surface
is not badly broken.