^{page 423 note 1} See ‘The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos’, Archaeologia, 1905, 1–172. [Separately: B. Quaritch.]

^{page 424 note 1} B.S.A. xi. 220, 221, Fig. 4.

^{page 424 note 2} Ibid. 220, and note 3. Mem. r. 1st. Lomb.vol. xxi. Fasc. v. 238–40.

^{page 425 note 1} See now DrEvans, Arthur, Scripta Minoa, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1908, 48–9.Google Scholar Dr. Evans has kindly allowed me to peruse the paged proofs of this work.

^{page 426 note 1} τ, 170 ff.

^{page 426 note 2} Probably this is partly the reason why Prof. Ridgeway, in 1895 (J.H.S. xvi. 84–5)Google Scholar formed the opinion that the Eteocretans must not be held responsible for the Minoan Civilization. In The Early Age of Greece, 87–8, 202–3, the same authority, writing in 1901, gives the Eteocretans a part of their due while still keeping the prime of the Minoan Culture in reserve for the Pelasgians. These are thus, however, made to appear on the scene much too early to square with the archaeological facts.

^{page 426 note 3} See ‘Dorer und Achäer’ von Richard Meister, Abhandhtngen der Philologisch-Historischen Klasse der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissensckaften, Band xxiv. No. iii. 64. See now also Burrows, The Discoveries in Crete, 205.

^{page 426 note 4} It may interest Prof. Ridgeway to know that these researches find linguistic support for the tradition preserved in Strabo 10. 4. 6 and Diodorus 5. 64. 1; 80. 1, to the effect that the original Cydonians of West Crete, in contrast with the immigrating Greeks of a later time, were autoch thonic in Crete. They were, therefore, on this view not Arcadian settlers of Pelasgian race, as Prof. Ridgeway (op. cit. 202) would have them, but natives of the land like the Eteocretans of the east end of the island.

^{page 427 note 1} Tsountas (loc. cit. 11) considers, without deciding either way, the possibility that the great similarity between the procession of warriors on the vase and that on the stele may have been due to their having been both copied from an older painting. After the publication of this stele and the vases found along with it, it is a disappointment to find Walters, , History of Ancient Pottery, i. 298 Google Scholar, still believing, as regards the Warrior Vase, in Pottier's supposed ‘good grounds for showing that it also is to be reckoned as Proto-Attic.’ The good grounds lie more with Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, 313–15, who, working from the ethnological side, has yet managed to hit the mark as regards the general context to which the vase ought to be assigned.

^{page 428 note 1} Dr. Evans's comparative study of the finds from the Zafer Papoura cemetery at Knossos, already referred to, has brought out results that are all in the direction of this general conclusion.

^{page 429 note 1} See Scripta Minoa, 54–5.

^{page 430 note 1} See ᾿Εφημερὶς ᾿Αρχαιολογική 1904 21–50.

^{page 430 note 2} As Dr. Xanthoudides says: ἡ μεγαλυτέρα σημασία τοῦ τάψου τούτου ἔγκειται εἰς τοῦτο, ὅτι παρετηρήθησαν ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ δύο συστήματα της ταϕῆς δηλ. καὶ ἡ καῦσις καὶ δ ἐνταφιασμός. καὶ τἀ κτερίσματα δὲ τὰ εὑρεθέντα ἐν τῷ τάφῳ ἀνήκουσιν εἰς δίο πλησιαζούσας μὲν χρονολογικῶς καὶ διασταυρουμένας ἐν μέρει ἀλλὰ διακεκριμένας ἐποχάς, ἤτοι τήν τελευταίαν μνκηναϊκὴν καὶ τὴν γεωμετρικήν.

^{page 430 note 3} See Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. Fig. 6, Plate III. 1.

^{page 431 note 1} Ibid. 29–31, Fig. 7; 47–9, Fig. 11. For the iron, 38, 49.

^{page 431 note 2} The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, 93–103, Figs. 104a, 104b; and for the pottery, Figs. 105, 106.

^{page 431 note 3} Ibid. Figs. 105 A, 106 J.

^{page 432 note 1} ‘Zum aeltesten Kunsthandwerk,’ Ath. Mitt. xiii. 288–94.

^{page 432 note 2} B.S.A. vi. Fig. 31.

^{page 432 note 3} Ibid. p. 84, Fig. 26.

^{page 433 note 1} See Mon. Ant. Linc. xiv. Tav. XXXVII. I.

^{page 433 note 2} For this pottery see B.S.A. viii. 289, Fig. 2; 303, Fig. 19, with cogent appreciations by Mr. R. C. Bosanquet in the relative text. Further, ix. 317–20, Figs. 17–19.

^{page 434 note 1} B.S.A. ix. 320.

^{page 434 note 2} Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1904, Fig. 6, No. 4, and Pl. III. 1. This vase has a pale powdery wash instead of the hand-polished buff clay slip of Minoan and Mycenaean ceramics. The cremation krater with checker panel, already referred to, from the Geometric cemeteries at Knossos, (B.S.A. vi. 84 Google Scholar, Fig. 26), exhibits a still later, now Geometric, phase in development.

^{page 434 note 3} Mon. Ant. xiv. 557–65, Figs. 42–7.

^{page 435 note 1} For this pottery see Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1896, Pl. 11. 6, 7, 8. The type of vase 8, however, is un-Mycenaean in origin. It recurs as far afield as Enkomi and Curium in Cyprus in a context which is no longer Mycenaean. See Excavations in Cyprus, 34, Fig. 66, 1222, 1246; 72, Fig. 124, 31. This vase is referred to again on page 79, Tomb 31, ‘two-handled lekythos (sub-Mycenaean).’ The type-affinity with the Cypriote ‘Pilgerflasche’ is very apparent.

^{page 436 note 1} See Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1888, 119–180, Pl. IX. 1, 2. The true sequence in the phenomenon of the first appearance of such fibulae is probably brought out by the fact of the occurrence of one of these two examples (No. 1) in the dromos of one of the tombs. Ibid. 148, Tomb 29. There is a curious indirect parallel to this phenomenon in the occurrence in one of the niches of the Isopata Tomb at Knossos of a stirrup-vase of the same post-Minoan character as those from Tomb A at Moulianà. See The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, 141, Fig. 122, and compare with Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1904, 27, Fig. 6, 2 and 3. Tomb A at Moulianà was the one which contained the cremation krater, the fibulae with arched bows and the fragments of an iron sword and knife.

^{page 436 note 2} Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, 388. For the Salamis fibulae see page 164.

^{page 436 note 3} For the Moulianá fibulae see Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. loc. cit. 30 Fig. 7.

^{page 437 note 1} B.S.A. ix. 319, Fig. 18.

^{page 437 note 2} For specimens see Excavations in Cyprus, 37, Fig. 65, 1088; 40, Fig. 69, 876; 48, Fig. 74, 1147, 1149. The fibulae of the fiddle-bow type found at Enkomi in Cyprus seem to be a little later than those from the tombs of the lower town of Mycenae. See Evans, A. J., ‘Mycenaean Cyprus as illustrated in the British Museum Excavations,’ Journal of the Anthropological Institute, vol. xxx. 204 Google Scholar, and Fig. 3.

^{page 438 note 1} The Fishermen Vase of Phylakopi is a rare exception which, however, probably owes its uniqueness to the fact that it is not really a vase at all, but a lamp-stand which possibly imitated a prototype in some more precious material. See Excavations at Phylakopi, 123.

^{page 439 note 1} Many of the Cypriote vases are, it is true, of the same type and of similar decoration to the latest vases from the Late Minoan III. cemetery at Knossos, but that is only what was to have been expected at the transitional stage.

^{page 439 note 2} See J.H.S. xxi. iii, note 3, 112, Fig. 6. Compare Journal of the Anthropological Institute, vol. xxx. 201–2. See also Scripta Minoa, 64, 67–71.

^{page 439 note 3} A.J.A. 1901, 132–136, Pls. I., II.

^{page 439 note 4} Ibid. 135.

^{page 439 note 5} Ibid. 136, Fig. 2. Compare The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossas, note b.

^{page 439 note 6} Ibid. 137, Fig. 4. ‘The iron sword (Fig. 4) is of an early pattern following close after the Mycenaean’ (p. 136).

^{page 439 note 7} See A.J.A. 1901, 270–281, Figs. 5, 6, 7.

^{page 440 note 1} Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1904, 27, Fig. 6, 2, 3.

^{page 440 note 2} Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1896, Pl. II. Fig. 8; compare also from Tomb B43, Fig. 10, and the stirrup-vase from the south niche of the dromos of the Royal Tomb of Isopata at Knossos, Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, 141, Fig. 122.

^{page 440 note 3} This is true although, as Halbherr points out, the checker pattern on this vase has still a reminiscence of ‘the floral decorations on a portion of the Mycenaean urn of Milatos’ published by Orsi, , Mon. Ant. i. 209 Google Scholar, Pl. II. Figs. I and 2.

^{page 440 note 4} Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, 134, note b.

^{page 441 note 1} Compare Scripta Minoa, 54–5.

^{page 441 note 2} Compare for the presence of the stirrup-vase at Courtes, MrDroop, J. P., ‘Geometric Pottery from Crete,’ in B.S.A. xii. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 442 note 1} For the survival of Mycenaeo-Minoan decorative motives into the Geometric period see Wide, Sam, ‘Nachleben Mykenischer Ornamente,’ Ath. Mitt. xxii. 233–58.Google Scholar Nothing but a new informing spirit, acting in a medium not itself in direct touch with the old forms of the Minoan repertory, could have imposed so strong a stamp of altered individuality on the many instances cited by Wide in this important paper.

^{page 443 note 1} Compare the equally ‘Geometric’ but probably still later krater of this type from Patéla near Malevisi, published by Orsi, , A.J.A. 1897, 252 Google Scholar, Fig. 1. The same vase, Mon. Ant. vi. Tav. 12, 60 (Mariani, p. 343), and Wide, , Ath. Mitt. xxii. 244 Google Scholar, Fig. 14, 14a.

^{page 443 note 2} See ibid. 143–150, especially Pls. III., IV., for the most important vase of this tomb-group.

^{page 444 note 1} B.S.A. vi. 84, Fig. 26, left-hand side behind. The vases illustrated in Fig. 26, and those shown in Fig. 25, are from two different tombs, but as the same ceramic types recur in both, the pottery as a whole forms a single series.

^{page 444 note 2} ‘Who were the Dorians?’ in Anthropological Essays presented to Edward Burnett Tylor, 306.

^{page 444 note 3} ‘Die Kretischen Paläste,’ Ath. Mitt. 1907, 602.

^{page 445 note 1} Ibid. 597, 602.