December 12, 1907] 



NA TURE 



131 



rightly insists upon its importance, elaborating- it at 

 length in this article. On the otlier hand, we must 

 not forget that such a south-to-north migration, from 

 a warmer to a colder climate, is an unusual proceed- 

 ing in the history of mankind. 



Returning to the excavations at Sparta, we see from 

 the articles dealing with them how important this 

 phase of the school's work is proving to be. The 

 identification of the site and discovery of the remains 

 of the temple of Artemis Orthia, where the well- 

 known Spartan flagellation of the boys took place 

 in honour of the goddess, is a great feather in the 

 caps of Prof. Bosanquet, Mr. Dawkins, and their 

 assistants. The discovery of a regular stratum of 

 early votive offerings, chiefly archaic bronzes of the 

 Olympia type, but in some ways more interesting than 

 those, is an important event, as it adds considerably 

 to our knowledge of archaic Greek art, especially in 

 that peculiarly inartistic and philistine place, Sparta; 

 and the many inscriptions of Roman date throw light, 

 not only on the flagellation ceremony, but generally 

 on the course of life in Roman Sparta. In publishing 

 these inscriptions, Mr. H. J. W. Tillyard insists in 

 every case on adding a Latin translation, which is 

 perfectly unnecessary, and savours of scholastic 

 pedantry. If we are to have translations, let them 

 be in English if the commentary is English. 



We are unable to devote more space to the discus- 

 sion of the Spartan discoveries, owing to the claims 

 to notice of much other interesting matter in this 

 volume of the " Annual." Also, it is perhaps best to 

 postpone further comment until next year, when the 

 work will have been further advanced. 



Of these other articles, all are of interest and many 

 of importance, with the exception of a note on " Boats 

 on the Euphrates and Tigris," which seems hardlv 

 appropriate to the " Annual of the British School at 

 .Athens," and contains no new information; we have 

 known all about kelcks. shahtiirs and ki'ifas, and have 

 compared them with Herodotus, i., 194, since the days 

 of Rawlinson and Layard. 



Of the other articles, perhaps Mr. Droop's and Mr. 

 Dickins's are the most " geistreich. " Mr. Droop on 

 Cretan geometric pottery is illuminating, and Mr. 

 Dickins's article on " Damophon of Messene " is an 

 example of good archaeological criticism, on which 

 the author may be congratulated. The travel articles 

 by Messrs. Dawkins, W'ace, Hasluck and others are 

 interesting, as usual, and we welcome a contribution by 

 a native Cretan archaeologist. Dr. Xanthoudides, who 

 speaks our language, and, apparently, writes it as 

 well. Finally, Mr. Traquair contributes to our know- 

 ledge of the deeply interesting period of the Prankish 

 domination in the Morea, with an article on the 

 mediaeval fortresses of Laconia, which will interest 

 heralds as well as archseologists. H. R. H.\ll. 



THE FUTURE WATER SUPPLY OF 

 LONDON. 



T N an interesting paper on " London's First Con- 

 J- duit System," just published in the Transactions 

 of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 

 Dr. A. Morley Davies gives an account of the lines 

 of pipes which were laid in the thirteenth and suc- 

 ceeding centuries to carry water to London from 

 springs in the gravel at Paddington, Marylebone, and 

 other rural districts. .■\t a later date, to meet the 

 growing wants of London, the great engineering 

 effort of the New- River was undertaken, and later 

 still deep wells were driven into the chalk, and the 

 Thames was tapped above Teddington Weir by several 

 private companies. The unification of the London 



NO. 1989, VOL. yy] 



waterworks under one comprehensive and repre- 

 sentative Board which bought out the old companies 

 is so recent that it is almost surprising to find how 

 soon the organisation of the Board has been perfected 

 and its men-ibers set free to consider the tremendous 

 problem of the future water supply of London. 



A good many years ago much was heard of the 

 necessity for obtaining a totally new supply of water 

 for London from a pure and distant source which 

 should be beyond the suspicion of impurity and 

 capable of supplying the highest parts of the metro- 

 politan area by gravitation. The sentimental argu- 

 ment that the water companies pumping from the 

 Thames and Lee had to purify a raw material which 

 has sometimes been described as " diluted sewage " 

 is one which cannot tail to appeal to the imagination 

 of every water-drinker, despite the reassuring result 

 of the supreme test — the death-rate of London. But 

 the restrictive activity of the Thames Conservancy 

 and the discovery of the remarkable action on raw 

 water of storage and thorough filtration have robbed 

 the argument of its old force, while the exhaustive 

 bacteriological examination of the raw and filtered 

 water by Dr. Houston and his staff in the Metro- 

 politan Water Board's laboratory has satisfied even 

 those who heartily dislike lowland rivers as a source 

 of water supply that the safeguards in the case of 

 London are adequate to ensure purity. 



The sufficiency of the supply is another matter, 

 and on this point the Water Board, after prolonged 

 discussion at two meetings, came to a decision as 

 to their future policy on December 6. The Works 

 and Stores Committee prepared a careful report re- 

 viewing the situation which, after amendment, was 

 adopted. The whole subject of London water supply 

 had been gone into by two Royal Commissions in 

 recent years, one under Lord Balfour of Burleigh in 

 1892, the other under Lord Llandaff in 1897, and 

 the .committee's report does not repeat the details 

 elicited by those inquiries. It is noted, however, that 

 the average daily supply to London in 1881 was 

 143,821,000 gallons, or 33-20 gallons per head for 

 a population of 4,331,600, while in 1906-7 the average 

 daily supply was 225,000,000 gallons, or 32*84 gallons 

 per head for a population of 6,851,000. Of the 

 present daily supply of 225,000,000 gallons, 57 per 

 cent, comes from the Thames, and the remainder 

 in nearly equal proportions from the Lee and from 

 wells or springs, the actual figures being : — 



T906-7 Ma.\imum 



From the Thames ... 128,842,695 ... 300,000,000 



,, ,, Lee 44,150,290 ... 52,500,000 



,, wells in Lee Valley, Kent, &c. 51,355,797 ... 67,500,000 



,, Hanworth gravel beds ... 564,008 ... — 

 ,, Hampstead and Highgate 



ponds 87,893 ... — 



Total . 



420,000,000 



225,000,1 



The maximum column gives the figures which the 

 Balfour Commission held to be the greatest average 

 daily yield of the whole district. 



The total amount of water which the Board can 

 abstract from the Thames in existing conditions is 

 228,500,000 gallons per day, and even this amount 

 cannot be obtained until additional storage reservoirs 

 have been constructed. The maximum supply to be 

 relied upon from sources other than the Thames is 

 estimated by the chief engineer to the Water Board 

 at 120,000,000 gallons per day, the total available 

 being thus 348,500,000 gallons per day. 



It is estimated that by 1941 the population to be 

 supplied by the Board will be 12,000,000, and in 

 I960 16,286,000, and, assuming a consumption of 

 thirty-five gallons per head, this means 420,000,000 



