^{page 181 note 1} For kind permission to make use of the materials from Knossos and Phaestos my warm thanks are due respectively to Dr. Arthur Evans and to Professor Federico Halbherr. Prof. Halbherr has courteously allowed me to reproduce his plan of the Palace of Phaestos and Plate II. (Fig. 1.)

^{page 185 note 1} Mon. Ant. Linc, xiv., Tav. xxvii. 5, our Pl. 1. 2, 5; [by the courtesy and kindness of Professor Federico Halbherr I am allowed to reproduce it here.] Reference should also be made to the Plan of the Palace of Knossos given in B.S.A. viii. Plate I.

^{page 187 note 1} See Mon. Ant. xii., Tav. ii. 66, Tav. iv.; xiv., Tav. xxvii. 66, Tav. xxx., and our Pls. V. 2, 66, and Vf.

^{page 187 note 2} For this landing in its relation to the stair, see especially Pl. VI. and Mon. Ant. xiv. Tav. xxx. already referred to. Also for a very good view, Noack, Homerische Paläste, Pl. I. 1.

^{page 188 note 1} For this light-well see Mon. Ant. xiv. 415, Fig. 42, and Rendiconti dei Lincei, xii. ligs. 3.4.

^{page 189 note 1} The foot of this stair was illumined through the doorway communicating with it from the Central Court.

^{page 189 note 2} See B.S.A. viii. Fig. 3.

^{page 189 note 3} See Mon. Ant. xii. 31. Dr. Pernier here remarks on the resemblance to the West Façade at Knossos; ‘soltanto,’ he says, ‘i blocchi, come il plinto, sono di calcare e non di gesso.’ As limestone terraced construction was visible further north at Phaestos, the same material was chosen for the façade, probably for purely aesthetic reasons. At Knossos on the other hand the West façade had no limestone terracing at all in view of it.

^{page 190 note 1} See B.S. A. viii, 110–117, Fig. 69, and our Fig. 2.

^{page 190 note 2} ‘Der hintere breitere Teil war in seinem Aufbau vermutlich höher als der vordere, so dass über den Säulen zwischen den beiden Dächern Fenster angelegt werden konnten, durch die reichlich Licht und Luft in den Saal gelangten’ (Doerpfeld, ibid. 277).

^{page 193 note 1} See B.S. A. vi. 12.

^{page 194 note 1} See Fig. 2, and B.S.A. viii. 56, Fig. 29.

^{page 194 note 2} Mon. Ant. xiv. 414.

^{page 195 note 1} See Mon. Ant. xiv. Tav. xxviii., where this declination is at once apparent in the section.

^{page 196 note 1} Where a light-well is really annexed to a system of living-apartments, as in the case of the Hall of the Double Axes at Knossos, the depth of these and their duplication comes out in strong contrast with a portico-arrangement like that at Phaestos. (Fig. 3.)

^{page 196 note 2} Homerische Paläste, 12–13.

^{page 201 note 1} In these systematic connections must be included any verified incorporation of earlier elements into the organism of later constructions. When so included the fact ought to be made clear on a coloured plan by means of a special combination of colours. In that case they ought not to be indicated either as if they were entirely stratified, unconnected, and early, or as if they were absolutely of one construction with the later system into which they have been incorporated. In this respect Doerpfield's bare contrasts of red and black are quite misleading.

^{page 201 note 2} See Mon. Ant. xiv., Tav. xxix. 2, Tav. xxxi. 2.

^{page 202 note 1} For this corridor see ibid. xii. 39, Fig. 11; xiv. 337, Fig. 11.

^{page 202 note 2} See Mon. Ant. xiv. 338, Fig. 11, where, if we subtract the late stair going down at C, the stratified relation of the earlier to the later constructions is quite apparent.

^{page 203 note 1} See ibid. 379, Fig. 27, ‘Corte Superiore con Portici.’

^{page 204 note 1} See Mon. Ant. xiv., Tav. xxvii., explanation of numbers 38, 51, 76.

^{page 206 note 1} See B.S.A. vi. ii, Fig. 2.

^{page 206 note 2} B.S.A. vii. 23, 23, Fig. 8, x. 29, 32, Fig. io, 33.

^{page 207 note 1} Had Noack, with Doerpfeld, not overlooked this light-well, it is hardly probable that at the end of his book (89–91) he would have so readily subscribed to Doerpfeld's supposed later discovery of the ‘Achaean’ character of this ‘megaron.’ In that case, however, he would surely have concluded that so far from being an ‘Achaean’ type of megaron this was no megaron at all!

^{page 208 note 1} See Mon. Ant. xii, Tav. v.

^{page 210 note 1} This light-well may or may not be early, but it is a comparatively elaborate scheme. It has the two-column system on either side and threw light east as well as west.

^{page 210 note 2} B.S.A. viii. Pl. I. This light-well or court had a covered peristyle at least on the north side. This is in analogy with the peristyle 74 at Phaestos, and with a peristyled court discovered in 1905 in a villa to the west of the palace at Knossos which belongs to the later period.

^{page 210 note 3} Ibid. Pl. 1. K. 9.

^{page 211 note 1} B.S.A. viii. 56, Fig. 29.

^{page 211 note 2} Ibid. vii. 60, 61, Fig. 18, 62.

^{page 211 note 3} Ibid. x. 29, 32, Fig. 10, 33.

^{page 211 note 4} Mon. Ant. xii., Tav. vii. 1.

^{page 211 note 5} Ibid. xiv. 405, 406, Fig. 37, 407–12.

^{page 212 note 1} Doerpfeld's own words leave no doubt on this point. ‘Der jüngere, höher gelegene Palastist in Knossos nur in geringen Resten erhalten und daher nicht mehr gut zu erkennen.’ His theory, it wili be noted, with its stereotyped conception of stratification, ignores the later palace at the lower level of the old one.

^{page 212 note 2} B.S.A. ix. 99–112, Figs. 68, 69.

^{page 212 note 3} Mon. Ant. xii. 31–3; xiv. 347, Fig. 13; 354, Fig. 16; 355, 356; Ath. Mitth. xxx. 266.

^{page 213 note 1} B.S.A. vii. 21–7, Fig. 8.

^{page 213 note 2} For the pithoi of the later palace at Knossos see B.S.A. vi. 22, Fig. 4, 23, Fig. 5.

For the polychrome pithoi of the earlier palace at Phaestos see Mon. Ant. xiv., Tav. xxxiv. Tav. xxviii ib. shows these pithoi in position on their earlier floor underlying that of the light-well of the State-entrance. For the pithoi of the later palace at Phaestos see Mon. Ant. xii. 53–4, Fig. 15.

^{page 214 note 1} For this and a similar graffito inscription at Phaestos see ib. 54, 97–8, Figs. 31, 32. For the Knossos tablets referred to see B.S.A. vi. 29, 57–8, Room of the Chariot Tablets, 34, Corridor of the House Tablets, and a further deposit from the Room of the Column Bases.

^{page 214 note 2} Ibid. vii. 43, where with good reasons it is suggested that this deposit was also from the upper storey.

^{page 216 note 1} The possibility of such façade windows need no longer surprise us after the discovery at Knossos of the faience tablets with similar windows. It is extremely interesting to note that the windows on these tablets are always upper-floor windows: so are those postulated for the West Façade of the Palace. See B.S.A. viii. 14–22, Figs. 8–10.

^{page 217 note 1} For an account of this important discovery and a description of the wall-painting, see B.S.A. x. 39–45.

^{page 217 note 2} Karo, Georg, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, viii. 513Google Scholar, strangely assigns all this upper storey to the period of remodelling of the palace, in spite of the conclusive evidence brought forward by Evans from the cists of the Thirteenth Magazine, showing clearly that the remains of wall-painting found in these belonged to the period preceding that at which the cists were closed, and so to the decorations of the original upper hall. See B.S.A. x. 39–45, and Pl. II.

^{page 217 note 3} In the cists of Magazine 9 were found fragments of wall-painting, including part of a spotted bull, which could only have belonged to the original hall above: see ibid. 44–5.

^{page 217 note 4} See Pl. VII., also B.S.A. viii. Pl. I. Magazines 7 and 9.

^{page 218 note 1} These data are very clear in the case of the better preserved north pier, as shown in Pl. VII.

^{page 218 note 2} One such magazine appears at B on the Plan with a splendid pithos in the corner, similar in style to the Middle Minoan III pithoi of the East Magazine at Knossos. See B.S.A. x. 12, Fig. 3.

^{page 219 note 1} See again B.S.A. vii. 21–7, Fig. 8.

^{page 220 note 1} See Fig. 4 and Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, 56–7, Figs. 49, 50. 267–71, note I. The latter part of this note has now to be corrected in view of recent evidence as to the incorporation of earlier elements into the later constructions at Knossos.

^{page 220 note 2} That is to say, that the people of Mycenae were Achaeans, which we believe to be wrong.

^{page 220 note 3} Ath. Mitt. ib. 271. The truth is that all the evidence as to Achaean settlement in the Aegean is of too late a character to assist Doerpfeld's theory as to the supposed Achaean builders of the Later Palaces in Crete; but that is no valid reason for rejecting the conflicting mainland evidence which exists, in favour of other supposed confirmatory evidence which does not exist at all. The probable bearing of the rejected evidence I happened to touch upon on another occasion in reference to the mainland type of the palace at Phylakopi, and there I also made allusion to the late Mycenaean (though not necessarily Achaean) remains above the Palace at Hagia Triada, rejected by Doerpfeld, as a probable Cretan case in point. See Excavations at Phylakopi, 271 and note 1.

^{page 222 note 1} We must thus be on our guard against accepting assumptions such as underlie Karo's suggestion that we should now in reference to different phases of the Minoan Civilization begin to talk conventionally not only of what is ‘achäisch,’ but of what is still earlier and ‘altachäisch’! See Kultstätten, Altkretische in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, vii. 117.Google Scholar