About the middle of the last century, the Greek sculptures built into the walls of the fortress were published in Dalton’s “Views in Greece and Egypt, 1751-81,” and were subsequently described by Choiseul- Gouffier, Moritt, Prokesch von Osten, W. J. Hamilton, as, also, in the second volume of “Ionian Antiquities.” Nothing, however, was done towards a more complete examination of them, till, in 1845, Sir Stratford Canning (now Lord Stratford de Redcliffe), then H.M. Ambassador at Constantinople, was able to extract them from these walls, and to present them to the British Museum in February, 1846. The chief subject of these sculptures is the contest between the Greeks and the Amazons, and their artistic style may be compared with that of the slabs on the Choragic monument of Lysicrates at Athens, of the date of B.C. 334. The pieces thus recovered were evidently but subordinate portions of a much larger design. From this time nothing further was done till Mr. Newton was sent by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in the early part of 1856, on a cruise to the south of the Archipelago; on which occasion he landed at Budrum, and partially examined the site, but without detecting any visible evidence of the Mausoleum.[38] In October of the same year, however, Mr. Newton took up his abode at Budrum with a few sappers under the command of Lieut. Smith, R.E. Mr. Newton commenced his excavations on the same spot he had previously slightly examined, and, for some time, met with little except abundant mosaics, the remains of a splendid villa, some of them inscribed with the names of the persons represented,—such as Meleager and Atalanta, Dido and Æneas. A little further on, Mr. Newton found in the rubble several drums of columns, with late and shallow Doric flutings, and, at one corner of the building, a well, in which was a small head in white marble, a bronze lamp, and some other objects: many, too, of the rooms still retained their skirting of white marble. But still no Mausoleum appeared. Footnote 38: Admiral Spratt, R.N., a veteran surveyor, proposed his site for the Mausoleum, because, 1. he thought it coincided with the description of Vitruvius; 2. on the eastern side there are still portions of an Hellenic wall; 3. on the N. side were several fragments of columns of large diameter; and, 4. it might be inferred that the Mausoleum stood on a mound. He did not, however, follow the example of Prof. Ross, in writing a paper against Mr. Newton’s early account of the Mausoleum in the “Classical Museum,” with a sneer at the possibility of any student, who had not himself surveyed the place, forming a conception of the real position of the great building. It is satisfactory to know that Prof. Ross’s personal survey proved to be even less satisfactory than that of Capt. Spratt.