out in the middle of the sixth century, must plainly have come in considerably before that date. The Ionic costume is said by Herodotus to be strictly speaking not Ionian but Carian[1643]. Eastern influence began to pass over from the Greek cities of Asia Minor and pervade the more progressive parts of Greece Proper early in the seventh century[1644]: so that once again this seems to be the most probable period for the assumption of Ionic dress at Athens. The same date is arrived at by working forward from Thucydides’ first period, the age when men habitually went about armed. Thucydides is notoriously sceptical about the existence of the culture so familiar to us now under the names of Mycenaean and Minoan and it does not come into his three periods of Greek dress. The first of these is plainly the dark age that followed the downfall of Crete and Mycenae, the age of the Geometric pottery which about the year 700 B.C. began to make way for orientalizing styles. This is the period _par excellence_ of dress-pins and fibulae as shown by archaeological finds[1645], and the end of it, _i.e._ the beginning of the seventh century, would be the natural time for regulations curtailing or prohibiting their use. Much has been made of the fact that Thucydides deals exclusively with male attire and Herodotus with female, and scholars who maintain that the Aeginetan disaster occurred towards the middle of the sixth century argue that in early Athens men would take the lead even in matters of dress[1646] and that the early date implied by Thucydides for the male Ionic costume in Attica need not hold for the female as well. If the distinct dates were established beyond dispute the difference of sex might serve as an explanation. We have seen however that there is nothing in the words of Herodotus to justify a sixth century date for the adoption of Ionic costume by Athenian women. Appendix E (to p. 249). _The Dating of the latest Vases from the Forum Cemetery_