of such monuments down to the first century B. C., with the exception of a few metrical epigrams, make no mention of dedications, and that in these exceptions the word ἀνέθηκε was added for metrical reasons,[371] while during the same centuries regular votive offerings (ἀναθῆματα) invariably have the word ἀνέθηκε.[372] One inscription, that from the base of the statue of Euthymos of Lokroi, is both metrical and in prose;[373] but it seems to have been changed later in two places, the second line originally ending in a pentameter, and the third line, with ἀνέθηκε, being added afterwards.[374] Also the prose inscription[375] referred by Roehl to the statue of the wrestler Milo is rejected by Dittenberger. The oldest prose inscription which makes a votive offering out of a victor statue at Olympia is that of Thaliarchos, who won his second victory in boxing some time between 40 and 30 B. C.[376] Then follow certain prose inscriptions of imperial times.[377] Dittenberger concludes that for four hundred years there is no case of such a dedication.[378] From the evidence of the inscriptions from statue bases, therefore, it is clear that the distinction made by Pausanias between honor and victor statues did not hold good in his day, since the words ἀνάθημα and ἀνέθηκε were then used on victor monuments at Olympia, as the inscriptions of the imperial age just cited show, but that it did hold good for centuries before the Roman period. Pausanias must have based his statement, therefore, not on observation, but on the words of some earlier writer.[379] Furtwaengler’s reasoning has been followed pretty generally by archæologists.[380] While some, however, leave the question in doubt,[381] others are opposed to the idea that these statues were not votive. Thus R. Schoell believes that the victor monuments were as truly ἀναθήματα as the olive crowns.[382] Reisch, who has discussed the question at length,[383] believes, in opposition to the earlier view of Furtwaengler, that everything within the Altis must always _ipso facto_ have been regarded as dedications to the god. This would explain the frequent omission of the name of the god, which would be superfluous, the victor being content with inscribing his own name and the contest in which he was victorious. Even the name of the contest does not always appear.[384] Reisch explains the omission of the formula ἀνέθηκε in earlier inscriptions on the ground of epigrammatic brevity.[385]