^{page 74 note 2} Although later discoveries must inevitably modify some of Furtwängler's theories, his observation of facts rarely errs. He has already given the above description (Olympia iv 78), but it has to be restated because he has been misunderstood. Miss Lamb (Greek and Roman Bronzes 46) fastens the strap (ii) to the plate (iii) (a construction which occurs in Olympia no. 572, but is rare) instead of to the bowl, as happens in that and almost every other case; and she leaves the connection of the parts uncertain. MissTosti, (Historia 1933, 419)Google Scholar reduces the parts of the handle to two. She also makes two handles spring directly from three legs—an impossible construction. See Mr. P. de Jong's recon struction, Fig. 17 on p. 67 above.

^{page 74 note 3} J.d.I. 1921, 120, 144.

^{page 74 note 4} Il. xxii 443, xviii 344.

^{page 74 note 5} Il. xxi 362, 363. In the fragment of Alkman (Bergk 33) quoted by Schwendemann (I.c. 144) τρίποδος κύτοσ specifically means a tripod-lebes. See below p. 75 note 2, also the aryballos no. 9 on p. 109 below.

Euripides (Cyclops 399) is less definite with λέβητος κύτοσ but it is clear from the context that nothing smaller than a tripod-lebes could be set on three cartloads of fuel, while no other kind of cauldron would be so handy for a giant, who wished first to brain a man and then cook him and a companion. But this reference does not, of course, mean that the tripod-cauldrons defined above were in common use in the fifth century.

Svoronos (B.C.H. 1888, 405 ff.) has shewn that the words and in inscriptions from Gortyn and Knossos indicate a value of one stater, and refer to the surcharging of Cretan staters. As these surcharges consist both of cauldrons by themselves and tripod-cauldrons, the terms here do not seem to be interchangeable.

The Homeric description of a tripod-cauldron is (Il. xxiii 264). is certainly different from in Il. xxiv 233. Pauly-Wissowa Supplt.-Bd. vi s.v. repeats an old error by trying to find a special shape for an i.e. a ‘new’ lebes. See Schwendemann op. cit. 144.

^{page 75 note 1} E.g. on an aryballos in New York, Johansen Les Vases Sicyoniens Pl. 22 no. 2. Amixingbowl is required by the story of Herakles and the Centaurs; it is set on a pillar and orna mented with birds (cf. Poulsen Der Orient und die frühgriechische Kunst 129, Fig. 142 from the Tomba Barberini).

^{page 75 note 2} Throughout this paper the term lebes is confined to wide-open basins, of the shape depicted on the early sixth century Attic sherd published by Graef (Pl. 27) and inscribed This was the shape of the tripod-lebes. Other pots of various shape, set on stands, I call dinoi. Very often they had broad shoulders and an everted rim.

A list of Attic b.f. and r.f. vases on which tripods are represented in cooking scenes is given in Appendix 1 (p. 127 below).

^{page 75 note 3} Heibig, Führer (1913) no. 1154Google Scholar. Medea and Peliades. One daughter has brought in the tripod and is setting it down. The legs of the pot have lion's feet and the struts are not visible. Otherwise it resembles our type, except that the handles appear to be unfixed, instead of being fixed upright.

^{page 75 note 4} W.M.B.H. xii 272 Fig. 30 no. 61. Bought in Athens, but said to be from Thebes (cf. no. 6 below).

^{page 75 note 5} Necrocorinthia no. 552; Pottier A 472, Pl. 16 (cf. p. 109 below).

^{page 75 note 6} B.C.H. xxv 143 ff.; Prof. Beazley informs me that the pictures on the vase shewn in Figs. 1 and 2 are false. That on Fig. 1 was no doubt copied from the Sarajevo sherd before it left Greece. See the list of Geometric monuments p. 105, below No. 11. Fig. 1 is reproduced by Curtius, Die Antike Kunst ii 74Google Scholar, Fig. 7, 1.

^{page 75 note 7} Schwendemann (op. cit. 153) gives a list of tripods depicted in athletic scenes.

^{page 75 note 8} Evans Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos Fig. 38, pp. 36 ff. 119. The tripods found at Déndra (Persson, , The Royal Tombs at Dendra 98, Pl. 30Google Scholar) may be of this type but I have not been able to examine them.

^{page 75 note 9} Evans P. of M. ii 629. Chapouthier (Etudes Crétoises II, Mallia 40), finding that he has illustrated a vessel described as having three horizontal handles, by one which had two and a loop, dismissed the variation as being ‘a common primitive convention.’ The Middle Minoans were hardly primitive, and these handles must have been functional.

This confusion between horizontal and vertical handles has been aggravated by the perversity of Hazzidákis in setting a reconstruction with horizontal handles below his photograph of vertical handles ( 1912, 221). The simpler but erroneous version is reproduced by Lamb op. cit. Fig. 3c, and Evans P. of M. ii Fig. 356.

^{page 76 note 1} One loop-handle is associated with earthenware tripods in a Troy II layer at Thermi (Lamb, , B.S.A. xxx 25 no. 146, 3Google Scholar; cf. Schliemann Ilios no. 442). It reappears in the incense-vases in L.M. III (Wace Chamber Tombs at Mycenae Pl. liv nos. 10, 11). Schliemann says that two-handled cooking-pots, with three legs, were found in Shaft Grave II (Mycenae 158). That this type survived into Hellenic times is proved by the two clay tripods found in the ‘Tomb of Isis’ at Eleusis ( 1898, 108 Fig. 28).

^{page 76 note 2} Boyd Hawes Gournia Pl. 4 no. 72 (L.M.I.).

^{page 76 note 3} Schliemann Mycenae no. 440. Karo, Schachtgräber Pl. 163 no. 579.

^{page 76 note 4} Op. cit. 220.

^{page 76 note 5} Height 0·29 m., diameter cire. 0·41 m., diameter of handle 0·072 m.; leg hexagonal. Stais put it together and published it summarily 1916, 82). Schliemann found it 13 feet down ‘in the Acropolis,’ i.e. probably near the grave circle (Mycenae and Tiryns III ff.); he figures one of the handles as ‘an inexplicable object’ (id. 74 no. 120). Its context is: two double axes, five knives, two spear-heads (unidentifiable), two vases (also unidentifiable), and wheels with tangs. Above and below were found two lead wheels. Most of these objects are rather indeterminate. All may be, and the knives and axes must be, Mycenaean. For wheels without the tangs cf. the shape of the gold-leaf wheels in Shaft-Grave IV, or the representations on the grave stelai.

This tripod is described by Furtwängler op. cit. 78 foot.

^{page 77 note 1} I mention and illustrate these tripods by kind permission of Dr. Kübier (cf. A.A. 1935, 285). They afford confirmation of (a) Stais' reconstruction of the Mycenae tripod, and (b) the reconstruction of the handles of Ithaca nos. 1, 2.

^{page 77 note 2} See sections above, p. 69, Fig. 18a–c.

^{page 78 note 1} Cf. the late handle Olympia no. 639.

^{page 79 note 1} Except no. 582.

^{page 79 note 2} Mr. G. Deeley has convinced me that no stamp was used, and that the patterns are chased. Tool marks can be seen on the handle from Olympia, Athens no. 7483 (here Pl. 18, no. 2) beside the label.

^{page 79 note 3} Furtwängler's classification slurs over the fact that there are sometimes figurines on handles of his Class I.

^{page 79 note 4} Cf. p. 93 below.

^{page 80 note 1} Cf. Ithaca III, pp. 57, 64 above. For reconstructions of leg and handle sections of Ithaca tripods, cf. id. Fig. 19.

^{page 80 note 2} Karo A. M. 1930, 137, Fig. 7.

^{page 80 note 3} Olympia no. 549. Miss Lamb's series begins with these heavy legs (op. cit. 44).

^{page 80 note 4} Inv. nos. 2467, 2852.

^{page 80 note 5} I use this term to denote a three-legged stand surmounted by a ring, the German ‘Stabdreifuss.’ Miss Lamb's designation ‘sub-Mycenaean’ (op. cit. 46) has obvious disadvantages.

^{page 80 note 6} A.M. 1893, 414, Fl. 14. The herring-bone ornament on its legs is like the stroke ornament on the handles at Olympia (here Pl. 18, 1 and 2).

^{page 80 note 7} Cf. the spirals on a severely Geometric bronze sphinx in London (1930. 6–17·2), said to be from Crete; it may have belonged to a tripod-handle.

^{page 80 note 8} Olympia no. 629, Pl. xxviii, and others.

^{page 81 note 1} Olympia nos. 551–8.

^{page 81 note 2} Fig. 3, no. i Olympia no. 572, inven, no. 5449, Pl. xxix; my Pl. 18, no. 2. The Olympia drawing has rather exaggerated the herring-bone decoration and softened the angular contours of the bull. No. 2 (Olympia, uncatalogued, unless it is inven, no. 9952. In that case the spirals attributed to it are an error.) No. 3 Olympia no. 572, inven. no. 5229; (my Pl. 18, no. 1). No. 4 (Delphes no. 213).

^{page 81 note 3} Ithaca nos. 3 and 5, and a leg in London (p. 96 Fig. 10a below).

^{page 81 note 4} Olympia nos. 569–75.

^{page 82 note 1} My Fig. 3, no. 4.

^{page 82 note 2} J.d.I. 1921, p. 126 (for the handles of hammered tripods, see p. 123 below).

^{page 82 note 3} Op. cit. p. 40.

^{page 82 note 4} E.g. Olympia no. 539, Candia Museum, no. 112, from the Idaean cave, here Fig. 5c.

^{page 82 note 5} E.g. Eagles on the Ashmolean handle (my Pl. 20, 1 see pp. 83 f. below): add Olympia, no. 638, which is open-work.

^{page 82 note 6} Schliemann, Mycenae, p. 216; cf. Dendra

^{page 83 note 1} Olympia no. 643. Probably from a wide, shallow lebes. See p. 126 below.

^{page 83 note 2} Olympia no. 789.

^{page 83 note 3} On bulls see also p. 95.

^{page 83 note 4} Olympia Pl. xxx no. 574; my Pl. 18, no. 6. For the long nose, cf. the horse on a painted tripod-handle (Argive Heraeum ii, Pl. lx, 19b; my PL 26, no. 2, and see p. 105 below).

^{page 83 note 5} Inv. no. 4435. See also p. 99 below.

^{page 83 note 6} E.g. Delphes nos. 233 and 234; Ithaca no. 6 (Pl. 15b).

^{page 83 note 7} Ithaca iii nos. 7, 9 (Pls. 12a, 15c); Olympia no. 640; Ashmolean Museum, G. 891 (my Pl. 20, no. 1, Fig. 5b); Athens (my Pl. 19, no. 1); Delphes p. 49, animals, no. 133 (my Pl. 18, no. 4); the marks of the open-work handle are visible underneath.

^{page 83 note 8} See p. 84 below.

^{page 83 note 9} Pfuhl, Fig. 10; amphora, cf. The amphora, RevelstokeI.L.N., March 16th, 1935, p. 442, Fig. 4Google Scholar. See p. 102 below.

^{page 84 note 1} G. 891, dia. ·23 m., w. ·04 m.; said to be from the Idaean Cave. This provenience is confirmed by a duplicate horse found in the Italian excavations (Candia Museum 112, my Pl. 21, 6). Two rather long struts, one broken, strap, parts of the plate, and the end of the horse's tail missing. On tangs at each side, two eagles. These are the only side adjuncts found on a cast tripod-handle. Commonest decoration of Cretan handles, open wedges between two fillets. See also pp. 82, 83, 99, 119.

^{page 84 note 2} Cf. a peacock found at Perachora B.S.A. xxxiii, p. 215, Fig. 2.

^{page 84 note 3} E.g. a horse on a handle from Olympia in Athens (no. 7483). The drawing (Olympia Pl. xxxiii) does not do justice to it, the contours are still Geometric (see my Pl. 19, no. 2); cf. also the drawing of Olympia no. 607 (Pl. xxxiii) with my Pl. 18, no. 3. Other horses of this type are Olympia no. 618 (Pl. xxvi), Athens no. 6241 (Casson, JHS. 1922, p. 209, Fig. 1Google Scholar; better, Zervos L'Art en Grèce no. 53); Athens, nos. 6213, 6240, also from Olympia; no. 850; nos. 6554 and 6551, from the Acropolis (De Ridder Acr. nos. 500, 501); Berlin, from Olympia (Inv. Ol. 9600; Neugebauer no. 45, Pl. 7) Delos Museum, no. A541 (perhaps belongs to the handle B 1327). The last two have primitive features and may belong to cast tripod-legs; see p. 100.

^{page 85 note 1} E.g. on a krater in Athens, Pfuhl, Fig. 84. Contrast the weak-kneed horses on the ‘Departing Warrior’ krater in London, JHS. xix. Pl. 8.

^{page 85 note 2} Delphes no. 131 (my Pl. 18, no. 5), which Neugebauer compares to his no. 45, is more like this Athens horse (see p. 99 below) of unknown provenience: add Delphes no. 133 (my Pl. 18, no.4), which also belongs to an open-work handle.

^{page 85 note 3} No. 641.

^{page 85 note 4} On his reconstruction see below, p. 123.

^{page 85 note 5} De Ridder Bronzes Antiques du Louvre i, Pl. 12, no. 104. De Ridder (Acr.), nos. 50, 51; better Neugebauer Antike Bronzestatuetten, no. 14. MrHampe, (A.M. 1935–1936, 285)Google Scholar wishes to group no. 50 closely with a Gorgon, but it is difficult to detach it from no. 51, of similar size and style. No. 51 must go closely with the Minotaur in the Louvre, which has a tripod-fitting.

^{page 85 note 6} Carapanos Dodone Pl. xiii, 4. Gf. ‘Zeus thundering’ beside the tripod on the lid at Knossos (see p. 107 below).

^{page 85 note 7} A broken statuette with a straight head in the Louvre seems to be by the same hand (cf. De Ridder, Pl. x, no. 83).

^{page 85 note 8} See above, note 1. The full face of the Dodona statuette is perhaps the most terrible of all geometric faces.

^{page 85 note 9} E.g. Delphes Pl. xiii, 3·3' (note that the hair has the patterns of hammered tripods); 4·4' with orientalizing wings (palmettes); last, the fully Daedalic figure, Pl. iii.

^{page 85 note 10} See the list on p. 86 below.

^{page 85 note 11} Delphes no. 19, p. 31. His face is not so blurred as the illustration Delphes V, Pl. II, 4 would imply. The photographs of the Delphi statuettes are poor. One would not deduce from op. cit. Pl. I, 8, a beautiful statuette in good condition: but see my Pl. 20, no. 4 (Delphes no. 23). It is the upward turn of the face that makes these statuettes so difficult to photograph (cf. Zervos no. 73, also no. 70).

^{page 85 note 12} See sections (p. 69 above, Fig. 18a–c).

^{page 86 note 1} E.g. Athens, no. 6616 (De Ridder Aer. no. 692; better, Zervos, nos. 69–72); no. 7729; no. 6178 (Olympia no. 244); at Delphi, Delphes no. 23 (Pl. 1, 8; my Pl. 20, no. 2; Zervos no. 73); no. 22 (Pl. ii, 6); no. 19 (Pl. ii, 4; my Pl. 20, no. 3). The tilt of the head recalls the heads on the ‘severe prothesis’ vase (Athens, no. 804; Pfuhl, Fig. 10; Collignon-Couve, no. 200).

^{page 86 note 2} See p. 99 below.

^{page 86 note 3} Cf. the vase Athens no. 898. Collignon-Couve no. 210 say it is a man leading two horses, but probably there are two men. The front man holds his hands low, but away from his sides. The groom's trouser-pocket attitude has a fine air of nonchalance (see Ithaca iii p. 67).

^{page 86 note 4} Museum no. A, I, b 679: dia. ·222 m., w. ·04 m.: about one-third of the lower part missing. This information was kindly supplied by Mr. R. M. Cook. These horses as well as no. 624 on a similar handle at Olympia (the reputed provenience of the Cassel horse) all have legs made separately, not cast in a block.

^{page 86 note 5} It is impossible to fit in two confronted horses, in Delphes, no. 233, though evidently there was something in front of the horse. Restore a groom on the analogy of no. 234.

^{page 87 note 1} Zervos 69–72; cf. the New York centaur group, Kunze loc. cit. beil. xxxviii.

^{page 88 note 1} See Ithaca iii p. 59 for evidence that this tripod has really been used.

^{page 88 note 2} Hephaistos worked for Phaiacia (Od. vii 92), whence tripods are said to have reached Ithaca (Od. xiii 13, 217). He made gold wheels only for the dumb-waiters of the gods, Il. xviii 375. Wheels would be suitable for the wide halls of a palace, but not for a cave. It was Payne who discovered the connection between the wheel and the tripod-leg. See Pl. 11a and p. 65, Fig. 15 above.

^{page 88 note 3} Candia Museum, no. 848: combined h. ·44 m. The leg is unusually ornate for Crete.

^{page 88 note 4} Id. no. 898: dia. ·06 m.; dia. of hub ·007 m. See B.S.A. xi, p. 306, no. 3, p. 307, no. 7. The lion there mentioned does not belong to a tripod-cauldron. It is ·024 cm. wide, and was filled with lead like the figures on sixth-century vases. It must come from a vessel with a sloping rim, as the paw towards which his head is turned is raised. It has a ring on the outside, no doubt to accommodate a swivel-handle. Payne thought it a transitional type between the siren-attachments which were handles, and the later lead-fIIIed animals which were not handles. See Filow, Trebenischte 53, Fig. 52; cf. also Delphes pl. X, 6.

^{page 88 note 5} Bosanquet, loc. cit., note 1. The reference should be Karo, , Archiv für Religionswissenschaft viii Beiheft, p. 63.Google Scholar The reference is wrong also in Karo, , A.M. 1920, p. 131, note 2.Google Scholar See Halbherr, and Orsi, in Museo Italiano II (1888).Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} For the extreme antiquity of these see I.L.N., June gth, 1934 (ritual vessels from Ur).

^{page 89 note 2} Olympia no. 503; Delphes no. 632; Gandia Museum from the Idaean Cave, un numbered. This wheel would suit the Idaean fragments much better than no. 280 (Karo, loc. cit., no. 9), which has six spokes. Karo no. 2 has a four-spoked wheel, and a mixture of types is undesirable. The pyxis figured in Argive Heraeum ii Pl. lx, no. 19b (my Pl. 26, no. 2: see p. 105 below) gives an eight-spoked wheel on the handle like that of Hera's chariot, II. V. 723. The chariots of a ‘prothesis vase’ in New York have eight spokes (A.J.A. 1915 Pl. xxiii). Decorative wheels appear on the early handle Delphes no. 213, instead of stays, and have three fillets on the rim, like the Idaean wheel Candia Museum no. 280, Karo no. 9. It would be interesting to know something of the clusters of wheels with four, six, or eight spokes found near Pherae in Thessaly ( 1907, p. 158). Can these Idaean fragments be regarded as strictly Geometric? The bear, cow and dog have the inside of their ears moulded (see p. 83 above); moreover, the pig, dog and bear are suspiciously naturalistic. See also p. 98 below. The figurines are of two different sizes, and the difference in size corresponds to a difference in style, so they may not all belong to the same object.

^{page 89 note 3} Ithaca III nos. 10, 11 (see above p. 70, Fig. 19, Pls. 10c, 17a and b). Delphi inventory 2467 (my Fig. 8, no. 1; Pl. 19, no. 3).

^{page 89 note 4} Cf. the wings of the runner on the aryballos in Boston, Payne, Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei Pl. xx no. 1. Similar tongue patterns occur earlier on the wide bellied aryballos Johansen Pl. iv nos. 1, 6.

^{page 89 note 5} Cf. the wheel on the top of a clay tripod-leg from Perachora.

^{page 90 note 1} In Cyprus this ornament had a great vogue and started early. See also Kunze, Kretische Bronzereliefs, p. 121.

^{page 90 note 2} Delphes nos. 230, 239, 240, 241, 243. Olympia, an unpublished example.

^{page 90 note 3} E.g. Olympia no. 625 (see the drawing Fig. 5a); Ithaca III no. 3 (section p. 70, Fig. 19).

^{page 90 note 4} E.g. handle in Gassel (above, p. 86, Fig. 6); Ithaca III no. 3 (pp. 59, Pl. 13, 65, Fig. 15 above).

^{page 90 note 5} See the sections, Ithaca III, p. 70, Fig. 19.

^{page 90 note 6} Ithaca III, no. 10 (Pl. 10e); Olympia no. 622; Delphes no. 209.

^{page 91 note 1} Bather JHS. xiii p. 245; Schwendemann, (J.d.I. 1921, p. 125)Google Scholar is sure that these are tripods. Some of them may have been from boxes. Payne gives evidence of the application of bronze plates to boxes at the end of the sixth century. Necrocorinthia p. 226; Bather, loc. cit. Fig. 25. The latter is not straight, and Professor Beazley pointed out to me that pedimental boxes were also made (Athens N.M. no. 1822: Papaspiridi Guide 141; Watzinger Griechische Holzsarkophage passim).

^{page 92 note 1} E.g. Fig. 5e.

^{page 93 note 1} E.g. Fig, 3, no. 5.

^{page 93 note 2} E.g. Fig. 3, no. 4a.

^{page 94 note 1} In fact, it will not accommodate either legs or handles in the orthodox way. Besides interrupting the simple lines of the composition, it will put the great strain of the weight of the tripod on the basin and not on the rim especially thickened for the purpose (Ithaca III, Pl. 69, Fig. 18a–c; also p. 77 above, 123 below).

^{page 94 note 2} Note that the foot is slightly rounded, like Ithaca no. 9.

^{page 94 note 3} By Schwendemann, Lamb, Tosti.

^{page 94 note 4} See below p. 103 Payne op. cit., no. 1471; F.R. in, Pl. 121; Pfuhl, Fig. 179.

^{page 94 note 5} Olympia no. 857 Pl. 21. The resemblance is not very close. Better, perhaps, Carapanos Dodone Pl. xli. 3; ci. also De Ridder, Aer., no. 62, which has the same engraved decoration as Delphes no. 189; for later examples, cf. the marble table-leg at Delphi (Richter Ancient Furniture fig. 206 a, b). The examples given by Miss Richter shew that such legs were in use in the late archaic and early classical periods.

^{page 94 note 6} Cf. Schachtgräber Pl. lv, p. 279; Murray Cyprus Pl. xii, 462.

^{page 95 note 1} Karo, A.M. lv. 1930Google Scholar, Beilage xxxiii, p. 131. I believe this to be an import from Cyprus. Cf. the tripods figured in Gjerstad Prehistoric Cyprus, p. 238. They are said to come from Kourios with Mycenaean objects (Markides, , B.S.A., xviii, p. 95, Pl. viiiGoogle Scholar), but see Buxton and others in Man, 1932, 1.

^{page 95 note 2} Richter Bronzes 1182–7.

^{page 95 note 3} Surely seventh century, not eighth or ninth, with their schematic nostrils and eyebrows? Cf. those from Sparta, Lamb Pl. xxiii, p. 77 (dated to the end of the seventh century).

^{page 96 note 1} This is not a companion leg to no. 231, as the publication suggests; it has a different decoration.

^{page 96 note 2} Delphes p. 84 no. 382, an attachment of the ‘siren’ type. See Kunze Kretische Bronze-reliefs p. 267.

^{page 96 note 3} Like Olympia no. 554. The front is now corroded; it may have had grooves; perhaps inv. 2766.

^{page 96 note 4} See below, p. 115.

^{page 96 note 5} 1907· 1–19.233.

^{page 96 note 6} Mr. Forsdyke compares the hornless beast on Cretan seals, B.S.A. xxviii p. 288 Fig. 40.

^{page 96 note 7} Olympia no. 563, Pl. xxviii; 634, p. 92. See also Delphes no. 210, Fig. 193a.

^{page 97 note 1} Vulič, Arch. Anz. 1933, p. 467.

^{page 97 note 2} On a handle, Candia Museum 112, from the Idaean cave. The handle has opea wedges (cf. the Ashmolean handle, my Pl. 20, no. 1).

^{page 98 note 1} JHS., XLII, p. 207 ff. The example of ‘bar technique’ given by Mr. Casson (p. 208, foot) is the Dodona statuette (op. cit. Fig. 6, my Pl. 21). The sixth century statuette shewn (Casson Fig. 5) does not retain ‘the shape and outline of the “bar technique.”’

^{page 98 note 2} Zervos 53; see references on p. 84 above.

^{page 98 note 3} These animals are, no doubt, the earliest experiments in working sheet-bronze, but there is no evidence that they are earlier than all cast animals. Some ‘cut-outs’ belong to the seventh century (Lamb, p. 59, 3). Neugebauer Katalog no. 6 is a wellfinished example of a ‘cut-out.’ Tail and nose added, the rest cut out of a sheet of bronze. Cf. Delphes no. 134, p. 47, Olympia no. 222, Pl. xiv. These cut-out horses on stands are probably just a little later than the cast horses on hammered tripods; see p. 116 n. 6 below.

^{page 98 note 4} My Pl. 21; cf. Pl. 20, no. 2.

^{page 98 note 5} Zervos, Fig. 53.

^{page 98 note 6} Best illustrated by Karo, Archiv für Relig. viii, Beiheft p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 7} The time has surely come for further study of this important monument. I give a few corrections and a suggestion. The warriors wear helmets, not caps (see Halbherr, p. 41). The animal in Karo's Fig. 1 (Halbherr, p. 42) is of course being milked, not suckling (see Benton, , B.S.A. xxxii p. 214Google Scholar, note 3). Karo has shewn that the second figure in his Fig. 1 is a woman, not an image, but there is nothing to shew that she is a prisoner (cf. the attitude of the woman on the early orientalizing Cretan vase, B.S.A. xxix Pl. xi no. 11). Might it not be Menelaos and Helen passing Crete on the way to Egypt, or, better still, Ariadne and Theseus starting off for Athens, looking towards the cattle on the high slopes of Ida, while a bird looks down on them from the branches of the trees?

Karo suggested a four-wheeled vehicle, but the corner figure (his Fig. 7) would suit a triangular vessel better. As there are wheeled tripod-cauldrons, why should there not be wheeled tripod-stands? For my suggestion of a vehicle for an object from Velestino, and also for Italian contacts, see p. 120 below. I cannot agree with Mr. Casson that all these figurines have been cast in a flat mould (Technique, p. 47). The group of two warriors where a shield appears in front and legs and necks behind could not be so produced. Moreover, what of the little corner figure sitting on spandrils going off at an angle (Karo no. 7)?

Furtwängler thought that Olympia no. 231 was a throw-out. Was the furnace in the middle of the sanctuary that so many failures appear among the dedications? Neugebauer's suggestion of a sale of cheap failures is not altogether satisfactory (Bronzen no. 132). Olympia no. 231 may be a fragment of a horse from another soldered tripod, with good hindquarters and a wreck where the soldering came away. It might be worth while to examine nos. 227–9 and Neugebauer no. 132 to see whether they may belong to the same monument; cf. the later fragment Olympia no. 1282, which may be part of a candelabrum (see the example in the British Museum from Kourion, Murray, Fig. 89, p. 67 from tomb 73). Neugebauer no. 134 was part of a chariot group, cf. Olympia no. 254a, Pl. xiv.

^{page 99 note 1} See Ithaca, III p. 59.

^{page 99 note 2} For hackles cf. B.M. Bronzes, no. 176, from Rhodes. The legs of the Rhodes horse have been soldered on.

^{page 99 note 3} Loc. cit. Fig. 154.

^{page 100 note 1} It probably belongs to an open-work tripod-handle. In style it is like Delphes no. 131 (my Pl. 18, no. 5), and the horse at Athens (my Pl. 19, no. 1). Like the Ithaca horses it is pulling back.

^{page 100 note 2} About a quarter of the handle remains. Note now the ornamentation stops to receive the tang.

^{page 100 note 3} Contrast the irregular cuttings and tearings in another handle of this type at Olympia. See also the neat rivet-holes in Olympia nos. 579, 580 (Pl. xxx).

^{page 100 note 4} Olympia no. 246, Neugebauer no. 13, in Berlin; Delphes Pl. ii no. 6. Prof. Neugebauer does not consider the attribution of the statue at Olympia to the handle possible, but I should like further information before abandoning hope.

^{page 100 note 5} See list on p. 86 above; also p. 85.

^{page 100 note 6} The horse in Cassel (see above, p. 86 Fig. 6a).

^{page 100 note 7} Delphes Fig. 197¹, p. 63.

^{page 100 note 8} See also the reconstruction p. 66 Fig. 16a.

^{page 101 note 1} Cf. Olympia no. 240, in Athens (which is much more beautiful than the drawing).

^{page 101 note 2} Argive Heraeum II, Bronzes, no. 37; Athens, no. 7739 (this seems to have a bit of handle still attached); no. 7861.

^{page 101 note 3} Cf. the eagle (not a pigeon) Halbherr, p. 59, no. 7; also the monuments quoted by A. B. Cook, Zeus ii, 180 ff. Add also the eagles on the handles of the Axos mitra.

^{page 101 note 4} See p. 82 above.

^{page 101 note 5} Cf. the attachment of the bulls' heads on the Tiryns tripod-stand (Karo A.M. 1930 Pl. xxxiii). Clearly these have been soldered in at the join of the spandrils, see p. 95. Cf. also the animal's heads on the tripods figured by Gjerstad, Prehistoric Cyprus p. 238.

^{page 101 note 6} See the Capodirrionte brazier (Not. dei Scavi. 1928 p. 443 Fig. 14). On bridle bits Montelius, Civ. ii Pl. 364Google Scholar, no. 11. On brooches id. Pl. 196, no. 4. On tripods id. Pl. 291, no. 15.

^{page 101 note 7} A.A. 1935, p. 285, abb. 15.

^{page 102 note 1} Heurtley, B.S.A. 1933 pp. 51 and 52, nos. 88 and 95Google Scholar. I agree with Mr. Heurtley that these fragments probably belong to the same tripod; the clay is similar, and the dimensions correspond, but I accept Miss Lorimer's dating (B.S.A. 1934, errata sheet before p. 1).

^{page 102 note 2} Kraiker, Arch. Anz. 1934, pp. 236 ff., abb. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 3} Op. cit. abb. 28, p. 240, foot.

^{page 102 note 4} Id. abb. 30, p. 243, top.

^{page 102 note 5} Pfuhl Fig. 10.

^{page 102 note 6} Schweitzer, Ath. Mitt. 1918 p. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 7} See Hampe Frühe Griechische Sagenbilder, p. 37. All Mr. Hampe's conclusions cannot be accepted as they stand. See below p. 117.

^{page 102 note 8} Pottier, Pl. 20.

^{page 102 note 9} Athens, no. 804; Pfuhl, Fig. 10.

^{page 103 note 1} Payne no. 1471; F.R. Pl. 122. Note the two sizes of tripods.

^{page 103 note 2} Thiersch, ‘Tyrrheniche’ Amphoren Pl. ii 2 and 4; Graef Pl. xli no. 654b (see below, p. 127).

^{page 103 note 3} See below, p. 114.

^{page 103 note 4} Cf. the earlier and very beautiful Amphora, Revelstoke illustrated in I.L.N. March 16th, 1935, p. 442, Fig. 4Google Scholar. Slim and long-necked shape. The New York vase no. 3 below surely commemorates a victory won by the dead man (cf. an amphora resembling Panathenaic amphorae in London, C.V.A. iii H.e., Pl. 6, 2b). The symbol of victory must mean more than a general interest in racing.

^{page 103 note 5} Richter, in A.J.A. 1915 Pl. xxiii Vase A.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 6} Albertinum ZV. 1820; Arch. Anz. 1902 p. 114 no. 17. I owe my knowledge of this vase and of nos. 8, 14, 17, 18 to Dr. Kunze.

^{page 103 note 7} It is quite usual on Geometric vases to look at an object from two directions, and to see two sides of a rectangle. On the same principle, I believe, the painter is trying to look half-way round the vase. Cf. nos. 3, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19; see also a kantharos treated in the same way, on a kantharos found in Samos, (Ath. Mitt, lviii 1933, beil. xxix)Google Scholar and said to belong to the end of the eighth century.

^{page 103 note 8} Cf. no. 13, p. 105 below.

^{page 103 note 9} Cf. no. 23, p. 106 below and Fig. 13a.

^{page 103 note 10} No. 874, Collignon-Couve, no. 350, Pl. xv; Zervos, Fig. 47.

^{page 103 note 11} Group of Schweitzer, , Ath. Mitt., 1917–1918, Pl. v, 2Google Scholar. Other objects can be put on three legs. Mangers with horses are common, (a) On a kantharos in the Ashmolean Museum (1929, 25) a horse and a bird scatter grain beside a portable wooden manger, stabilized with bars, (b) Athens, no. 193 (Collignon-Couve no. 242, Pl. xiii, there called a tripod), (c) Probably the square objects on four legs, on Argive Geometric vases connected with horses (e.g. Tiryns I, Pl. xv 1), and perhaps those on one leg (ibid. no. 1), under horses on Argive Geometric vases are also mangers. Cf. Beazley in JHS. 54, p. 91, left top. (d) On two oinochoe in London of the same class as no. 8. (e) At Eleusis (Wide, , J.d.I. 1899, p. 194, fig. 57).Google Scholar (f) AtDelos, (Delos xv p. 87, 6).Google Scholar (g) Parian amphora (De Ridder, Vases peints de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Pl. 1, 25). Other threelegged objects are thrones (C.V.A. Denmark III. H Pl. 72, 2) and a stool (at the feet of the divinity on a cup in Athens, , Ath. Mitt. 1893 p. 113Google Scholar).

^{page 104 note 1} Cf. J.d.I. 1887 p. 54 Fig. 17 (Prof. Beazley's reference).

^{page 105 note 1} Inv. 6249.

^{page 105 note 2} For massed tripods, cf. nos. 1, 2, 5. For the significance, see on no. 5 and p. 75.

^{page 105 note 3} See p. 75 above. If the cross-hatching does not represent sticks, has this tripodcauldron turned into a tripod-stand or a portable stove? For boxers and tripods on vases see pp. 75 above, 107–109 below.

^{page 105 note 4} Graef, Pl. 10, no. 298.

^{page 105 note 5} E.g. a Kylix from Vulci by the Codrus Painter, in Berlin (F.R. Pl. 140).

^{page 105 note 6} Argive Heraeum ii, Pl. lx, 19b. For the shape, cf. the Corinthian Geometric pyxis with birds from Aetos, , ILN. January 14, 1933, p. 47, Fig. 3 (top left)Google Scholar. The mark on the tripod-leg is accidental. Photograph by Mr. R. M. Cook.

^{page 106 note 1} Cf. no. 4, p. 103 above. See also p. 83, n. 4.

^{page 106 note 2} Inv. 31·005. Neugebauer Führer p. 7.

^{page 106 note 3} There called a manger, but it certainly represents a metal tripod. Contrast the mangers cited under no. 8 above. Neugebauer omits the fox and mentions a hare which must be on the reverse (see no. 15 below; also no. 16). Cf. a hare-hunt on an oinochoe in Copenhagen, (C.V.A. iii. H. Pl. 73, 4Google Scholar). The amphora in Oxford 1935, 18 has both hare-hunt and fox-hunt.

^{page 106 note 4} Cf. garlands on coins, e.g. B.M. Troas, p. 168, no. 118 (‘440–350 b.c.’). Pausanias V. xii. 5 relates that at one period the fillets for the victors hung on a tripod in the temple of Zeus at Olympia.

^{page 107 note 1} Inv. no. 6202.

^{page 107 note 2} JHS. 1933 p. 295.

^{page 107 note 3} Argive Heraeum ii Pl. lvii 11.

^{page 107 note 4} J.d.i. 1916 p. 297 (see p. no). Professor Weickert most kindly tells me that two supports are clearly visible, but that what Dr. Levi thought was a ring is a hole in the bronze. In Montelius, , La Grece Préclassique I, Pl. 22, 4Google Scholar, this brooch is wrongly drawn. Hampe (Frühe Griechische Sagenbilder p. 25, no. 103) dates it ‘late Geometric,’ i.e. before 700 b.c.

^{page 107 note 5} Annuario x–xii p. 473. The Arkádes example cannot be dated exactly, but it is probably not earlier than this brooch. See p. 117 below.

^{page 107 note 6} Payne, B.S.A. xxix Pl. xiv pp. 245, 283.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 7} See p. 123 below.

^{page 107 note 8} Kourouniotis, Ἐφnμ 1903 p. 30 Fig. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} Prof. Beazley has called my attention to a geometric krater in the Cabinet de MédaIIIes with tripods, and Mr. R. M. Cook to a krater from Eleusis in Heidelberg with a very tall tripod between horses. See also below, pp. 128 ff·, Appendix 2, clay tripods in Laconia.

^{page 108 note 2} No. 1 is archaic in feeling even if it belongs to the eighth century, so I classify it here.

^{page 108 note 3} Found at Aetos. Information and tracing kindly supplied by Mr. Martin Robert son. For boxing scenes see the references given on p. 105.

^{page 108 note 4} Dated by Payne to the early seventh century, Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei p. 21 Pl. 9, 3.

^{page 108 note 5} Ath. Mitt. 1920 p. 142. None of the extant strips of hammered tripods of the Olympia type taper to this extent. The tapering is confined to the top near the bowl. Some of the later strips in Athens do taper, but their reconstruction is uncertain. See pp. 120 ff., below.

^{page 108 note 6} Mon. Ant. xxv p. 551 Pl. xiv; Johansen, Les Vases Sicyoniens, p. 98, no. 54, Pl. xxxiv, 1.

^{page 108 note 7} Prof. Carta, who has most kindly examined this vase for me, agrees with this statement.

^{page 108 note 8} 7143. Johansen, p. 99, no. 56, Pl. xxxv, 2. Horse race.

^{page 109 note 1} These observations are based on a photograph kindly sent me by Miss Wynn Thomas, who called my attention to this plaque (Petersen, R.M. xii p. 112.Google Scholar The griffins are not well represented in the drawing, and the things on the rim are not rings, but knobs).

^{page 109 note 2} Payne Necrocorinthia Pl. 45, 3. Late Protocorinthian. For references to boxingscenes see p. 105 above.

^{page 109 note 3} Unpublished; mentioned Poulsen, Ath. Mitt. 1906 pp. 383 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 4} Cf. the figurines on tripod-legs catalogued on pp. 95 f. above; also the beautiful dragons' heads on the helmet from Axos, (B.C.H. 1936, p. 272, Fig. 37).Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 5} Louvre, no. 205. The reference and the description are taken from Payne's notes.

^{page 109 note 6} Payne, Necrocorinthia no. 457 Pl. 20, 2.

^{page 109 note 7} Id. no. 552; Pottier, A 472, Pl. 16. (C.V.A. Louvre III c a, Pl. 19, nos. 28, 29, 31, 32.) The men are neither praying nor mending the fire. Mr. Payne pointed out this vase to me.

^{page 110 note 1} Above, p. 103.

^{page 110 note 2} I.e. not denoting any structural difference.

^{page 110 note 3} Above, p. 107.

^{page 110 note 4} Above, p. 109.

^{page 110 note 5} See note 3.

^{page 110 note 6} Above, p. 107.

^{page 110 note 7} Below, p. 112, note 3.

^{page 110 note 8} Above, p. 105.

^{page 110 note 9} Above, p. 109.

^{page 110 note 10} Below, p. 123.

^{page 110 note 11} Above, p. 108, Fig. 14.

^{page 111 note 1} Ithaca III Fig. 10a. One in Olympia (perhaps no. 558); one from Palaikastro, Candia Museum no. 1336.

^{page 111 note 2} Cf. the holes on the lion's foot Olympia no. 859; also Richter, Met. Mus. Bronzes no. 1190.

^{page 111 note 3} Below, p. 113.

^{page 111 note 4} Candia Museum, no. 1721.

^{page 111 note 5} Delphes iv pt. 2, p. 157, Pls. xvi, xvii. The bowl was small and deep, but the shape is quite sufficiently indicated, and Mm. Picard and de la Coste-Messelière appear to have overlooked some of the details not clear (e.g. the fingers on Herakles' left shoulder, Pls. xvi, xvii) or obliterated (id. Fig. 57) on photographs.

^{page 112 note 1} Bather, , JHS. xiii Fig. 30 p. 264.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 2} Annuario I p. 70 Fig. 39.

^{page 112 note 3} Cf. Furtwängler's cauldron Olympia no. 582a. Examples are given by Schwendemann (op. cit., p. 127), the best of which is FR. Pl. 133. Add Necrocorinthia, Pl. 20, 2. See also Appendix I (p. 127 below) on tripods on the fire. For a full-fledged classical tripod see the tripod carried off by Herakles on the plastic vase in Sarajevo, (W.M.B.H. xii p. 286 no. 102)Google Scholar mentioned by Beazley, (JHS. xlix p. 56Google Scholar, and dated about 470 b.c.). Four handles, under and upper-decks, lions' feet. See also B.M. Coins of Aeolis Pl. xxxviii 24 (Mytilene).

^{page 112 note 4} Unless the plastic lid from Knossos (no. 22, p. 107 above) is included.

^{page 112 note 5} This is the shape of a lebes found in the Kerameikos with pottery of the ‘severe frieze’ style. It had legs but no handles, and a leaden lid was nailed over it. This information was kindly given by DrKübier, . See Arch. Anz. 1934 p. 243.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 6} See Pl. 10 and p. 80 above.

^{page 112 note 7} This dating is confirmed by the Protogeometric tripod in the Kerameikos, above, pp. 77, 101 f.

^{page 113 note 1} Already adumbrated by Miss Lamb, p. 46. My frequent references to this book shew how much I am indebted to it. Reference is made above to possible influence of these tripod-stands on spiral decoration (p. 80); herring-bone ornament on early tripodhandles (p. 80); zigzags (p. 95); bulls'heads (p. 125). See also pp. 124 ff., below. New evidence of connection between Cypriot and Cretan metal-work is afforded by a wrought tripod-stand found in a Protogeometric grave at Knossos by Blakeway. The technique and form are Cypriot: the pattern is that of the cast tripod leg Ithaca no. 9 Pl. 17e.

^{page 113 note 2} Information kindly given by Mr. Payne. He thought that the character of the glaze on the vase placed it late in the deposit.

^{page 113 note 3} Arch. Anz. 1933, p. 254, Ab. 12. Information kindly given by Dr. Karo.

^{page 114 note 1} See p. 103 above, Geometric monuments nos. 1, 5, 9, 10. Hesiod ( 654) would seem to refer to such a funeral, but can mean the citizens of Chalkis, if, as seems probable, Amphidamas is some local mythical hero, perhaps that Amphidamas whose son was killed at Opous (il. xxiii 87). The then are the local festival (in no wise connected with the Lelantine War; Burn JHS. 1929 p. 33). certainly indicates a tripod-lebes (see p. 74 above).

^{page 114 note 2} See no. 3, p. 103 above. Geometric monuments 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 14–18, 20, 21, 23.

^{page 114 note 3} The earliest mythical scene mentioned here is the lid from Knossos no. 19, see p. 107 above. The identification of myths requires care. Prof. Schweitzer (Herakles, p. 93, abb. 25) identifies Poseidon by double-axes. Is he sure they are not butterflies? Alternatively which is Poseidon in the prothesis scene on the sherds, Pottier, Pl. 20, A. 519, A. 541.

^{page 114 note 4} The fact that none have survived does not prove that none existed in Attica.

^{page 114 note 5} Hellanikos and Androtion. Harp., ed. Dindorf p. 234, 15; for Eratosthenes see Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen p. 91.

^{page 114 note 6} The history of Cretan tripods is probably different.

^{page 114 note 7} See Ithaca III pp. 53 ff.

^{page 115 note 1} Il. xi 699 ff.

^{page 115 note 2} A hog could not be seethed in a small lebes, il. xxi 362, 363; probably il. xxiii 264 denote s a large size.

^{page 115 note 3} F.H.G. III 602 ff. 604 top.

^{page 115 note 4} Above, p. 76 Fig. 1.

^{page 115 note 5} P. 95. The birds dangle between the legs.

^{page 115 note 6} P. 96 above, nos. 6–8.

^{page 115 note 7} My Pl. 22, no. 2.

^{page 115 note 8} Olympia no. 641 (my Pl. 24, no. 4).

^{page 116 note 1} Pp. 196, 197, best illustrated, Lamb, B.S.A. xxviii Pl. xi no. 12. No doubt Lycurgus thinking about his laws.

^{page 116 note 2} Unpublished; Miss Lamb kindly called my attention to this statuette. Other bronze, Geometric statuettes with this attitude are: Buschor, Plastik der Griechen, p. 8; Louvre (De Ridder, Pl. 10 no. 84); Athens, from Velestino, probably the top of a pin; a seal in Tegea, (B.C.H. 1921, p. 355 no. 52)Google Scholar, a maze beneath. A statuette on a seal from Messina in Oxford (F. Matz Frühkretische Siegel p. 62, ab. 22) has this attitude; arms and head are missing, and the stumps are worked over; the style is different. Matz is wrong in stating (op. cit. p. 62) that bronze seals with standing animals as handles are only found in Hittite circles. See Argiue Heraeum ii Pl. lxxii–lxxiv; ch. lxiii, 13 with Tegea, op. cit. p. 353 no. 46.

^{page 116 note 3} ‘In the lowest layers … few specimens …, the bulk of them in those layers which were marked by proto-Corinthian pottery’ (op. cit. p. 197).

^{page 116 note 4} 1905·10·24·5 from Phigalia. Beazley and Ashmole Greek Sculpture and Painting Fig. 4.

^{page 116 note 5} Aktorione-Molione? R. Hampe Frühe Griechische Sagenbilder Pl. 34, pp. 48 and 87.

^{page 116 note 6} Since writing this I have been able to examine the horses from Orthia. They are hammered out of sheet bronze, like Delphes no. 134 (see above, p. 98, note 3). Stratigraphic evidence from a grave in Taranto: a bronze horse of this type was found with a late ‘aryballe pansu,’ to be dated about 700 b.c.

^{page 116 note 7} Olympia pp. 28–34 nos. 90–196. Many are undateable primitives; nos. 128–30, 150–79 are recognizable Geometric types; 180–96 are archaic.

^{page 116 note 8} The figurine found at Vrókastro (E. H. Hall, p. 121) is too uncertain in style and in context to be so regarded at present.

^{page 117 note 1} Dr. Kunze (Kretische Bronzereliefs p. 247) dated the shields from before the beginning to after the end of the eighth century, but he seems to date them later now; see his review of Hampe, op. cit., Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 1937, p. 291.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} Above, p. 89.

^{page 117 note 3} See p. 84 above.

^{page 117 note 4} Op. cit. p. 38.

^{page 117 note 5} Above, pp. 84 ff.

^{page 117 note 6} Paribeni, Notizie dei Scavi 1928, pp. 436 fr., Pl. viiiGoogle Scholar. Dr. Kunze kindly called my attention to this important publication.

^{page 117 note 7} P. 120 below.

^{page 117 note 8} The krater has not yet been published, but Prof. Paribeni most kindly sent me a photograph.

^{page 117 note 9} Levi Annuario x–xii Fig. 57. This reconstruction is rather too imaginative.

^{page 117 note 10} Op. cit. Pl. viii F. 1, F. 2. See below, p. 118.

^{page 118 note 1} Hesperia 1933 p. 621. Professor Beazley kindly drew my attention to this tripod. The Sunium tripods are not an exact parallel, for they have retained their handles.

^{page 118 note 2} Arch. Anz. 1933 p. 467.

^{page 118 note 3} I think they are, but see Schweitzer, , Ath. Mitt. 1918 p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 4} In spite of successes in the fifth century, there is little evidence of Rhodian interest in athletics in the eighth.

^{page 118 note 5} See the list of references given by Schwendemann, J.d.I. 1921 p. 155Google Scholar. Amyklai, Phigalia, the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios and Athens appear to have yielded only hammered tripods. De Ridder, Cat. des Bronzes de la Societé Archéologique d'Athenes No. 2, describes a cast tripod-leg from Amyklai, which may be a leg actually in the National Museum, but he refers to Bather's illustration of a chased fragment, J.H.S. 1893, Fig. 2, 3. No. 3 he says was cast and found by Tsoúndas at Amyklai, but the reference given is 1892, p. 17 where Tsoúndas describes a chased tripod-leg. I have not seen the material from the Ptoon, but Payne told me there were no tripod-cauldrons among it. One iron leg from Dodona was published as a handle (Carapanos, Dodone I p. 108, 2Google Scholar). There are three legs in Athens from Dodona, but their type is quite uncertain.

^{page 118 note 6} I have examined the material in Delos by kind permission of the Director of the French School.

^{page 118 note 7} Both are handles. Levi, Annuario x–xii Pl. viiiGoogle Scholar, F1, F2.

^{page 118 note 8} Information from Mr. R. M. Cook. An open-work handle surmounted by a horse in the museum, from the Acropolis; see below, p. 129, Fig. 17d

^{page 118 note 9} B.C.H. 1931, p. 378. Dr. Marinátos kindly called my attention to this tripod.

^{page 118 note 10} Blinkenberg Lindos nos. 742, 743, Pl. 31.

^{page 119 note 1} See the Ashmolean handle (my Pl. 20, no. 1, p. 84 above).

^{page 119 note 2} Idaean Gave, Gandia, no. 112, my Fig. 5c. The section is like that of the Ashmolean handle on Fig. 5b.

^{page 119 note 3} Note the imitation of this type with sheet-metal p. 71 above; see also p. 124 below.

^{page 119 note 4} Found at Olympia; Delphi (besides the examples in F. de D. V, Prof. Beazley called my attention to a tripod-leg in vol. ii pt. 3, p. 104, Fig. 116); Athens; Ithaca; Dodona (Carapanos Pl. xlix and Louvre, Bronzes ii Pl. 92); Haliartos, (B.S.A. 1932 Pl. 37, 5)Google Scholar; Amyklai, (Ath. Mitt. 1927 p. 36 Beil. vii)Google Scholar; never in Crete. In Delos there are fragments of perhaps three such tripods, including a very fine handle.

^{page 119 note 5} Préhistoire 1 Figs. 13, 17.

^{page 119 note 6} Miss Roes prefers a less simple explanation. It is to be regretted that she has omitted the significance of birds and animals on tripods from her Greek Geometric Art. Prof. Jacobsthaal has called my attention to the views of Dr. Elferink in Lekythos, but in spite of all provocation I resist the temptation to discuss the juxtaposition of dolphins, tripods and eggs.

^{page 120 note 1} Murray Excavations in Cyprus p. 15. I sometimes wonder if this is not just a chariot, cf. Neugebauer, no. 16.

^{page 120 note 2} Charbonneaux op. cit. Fig. 16 no 4, in Oxford.

^{page 120 note 3} P. 95, n. 1 above.

^{page 120 note 4} P. 89, n. 1 above. The London bronze may also have come from Velestino, and perhaps they should be reconstructed as an eight-wheeled rectangular cart, the body of which consists of wheels instead of spirals (cf. the Pnyx tripod). One set of six wheels which seems unbroken is drawn by a horse's head and has tangs behind.

^{page 120 note 5} See p. 124 below. The feet of supports at Delphi (Delphes nos. 255, 255 bis) are very like the feet of the Larnaka stand.

^{page 120 note 6} Not. d. Scavi p. 442 Fig. 13.

^{page 120 note 7} Above, p. 98.

^{page 120 note 8} See above p. 91 foot.

^{page 122 note 1} Olympia Pl. xxxivc.

^{page 122 note 2} Below, p. 126.

^{page 122 note 3} Olympia no. 590 seems to be an end, and so does a strip in Athens from Dodona. In any case a violently sloping leg, rectangular in section, would be difficult to manage.

^{page 122 note 4} J.d.I. 1921. p. 125, top.

^{page 123 note 1} Paus. v. 12. 5, would describe this kind of tripod.

^{page 123 note 2} See no. 590. According to Furtwängler, the middle nails are due to later re-using. a practice which is well established (see the inscribed strips, Olympia nos. 586, 591. Olympia V, Inschriften, no. 3, 4, 5, 8, 15. Of these no. 4, Olympia IV, no. 586, seems to be the earliest, as the letter forms are more primitive than those of the boustrophedon inscriptions op. cit. v nos. 1 and 2. Seventh century?

^{page 123 note 3} No. 616.

^{page 123 note 4} Above p. 86.

^{page 123 note 5} Olympia p. 88.

^{page 124 note 1} See no. 607 and Pl. xxxiiia. The two side holes at the foot are not through the overlap of the handle, and their only possible function is to join the handle to the rim

^{page 124 note 2} Cf. the strap of the handle in Candia (my Fig. 6b).

^{page 124 note 3} Greek and Roman Bronzes p. 33.

^{page 124 note 4} Id. Pl. xii, 6.

^{page 124 note 5} Schachtgräber Pl. xxi.

^{page 124 note 6} Id. Pl. xx no. 38.

^{page 124 note 7} Lamb, Pl. xiia.

^{page 124 note 8} Above p. 95. See the tripods figured Petersen, , R.M. xii p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 1} Above p. 101.

^{page 125 note 2} E.g. the bull's head in New York, above, see p. 95.

^{page 125 note 3} For a new tripod-stand found at Knossos, see p. 113 above.

^{page 125 note 4} Above, see p. 80. Mr. Kahane has identified four of the vases said to have been found with this tripod: Athens, nos. 169, 201, 202, 186; see Wide, , J.d.I. 1899 p. 196 Fig. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 5} Above pp. 89, 98.

^{page 125 note 6} See p. 117 above.

^{page 125 note 7} The gap described by DrKaro, Ath. Mitt. 1920 p. 133Google Scholar has been filled. The clay models shew that the tripod-stand was at home in Greece as a vase-form in early Geometric times. Arch. Anz- 1934 p. 239 abb. 27.

^{page 125 note 8} Karo, Ath. Mitt. 1920 p. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 9} Clay models, however, in graves have already been naturalized. Arch. Anz. 1934 p. 239 ab. 27.

^{page 125 note 10} There is one at Delphi (Delphes no. 248 and nos. 252–4 may be fragments of others). The date is uncertain.

^{page 125 note 11} Tombs of Knossos Pl. lxxxixi. Miss Lamb (p. 32, note s 4–6) follows Miss Richter (Met. Mus. Bronzes, 222) in ascribing certain rims and handles to bowls for these stands, and not to amphorae (surely hydriae is wrong) but no reconstruction is given. It is note worthy that the fragments are decorated with representations of deep vases and not of bowls.

^{page 126 note 1} E.g. Athens (probably) no. 10646; Olympia no. 911. One was said to have been found at Pólis (see Ithaca iii Fig. 22, and p. 72). Cf. a clay vase (Arch. Ariz. 1933 p. 274) from the Kerameikos and the bulls' heads on laver-handles in Mouliana, grave A ( 1904 p. 30); date, Protogeometric.

^{page 126 note 2} Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome III, no. 73, Pl. 51.

^{page 126 note 3} In the sixth century at any rate their successors with horizontal handles stood on tripodiskoi. Filow, Trebenischte p. 76.

^{page 126 note 4} Kunze Bronzereliefs p. 270 nos. 48 and 49, from Vetulonia. The wings of no. 13 (Olympia no. 783) are bent over to lean against such a rim. See the Olympia cauldron, no. 582a, mentioned p. 74, above.

^{page 126 note 5} E.g. Kunze no. 30, Delphes Pl. 13, 4 (not 3). Cf. the shape of the bowl on the Berlin aryballos (see p. 108, above).

^{page 126 note 6} Besides little or no knob and cat's ears, deep-bowl griffins appear to have heavy jowls, short tongues and thick necks with curls on them. In fact, they are like dragons, while later griffins are more like snakes. The following appear to be deep-bowl griffins: (1) from Samos; (2) from Perachora, I.L.N., May 2 1931; (3, 4) Olympia nos. 793 and 792; (5) Berlin; (6) Delphes, Pl. x no. 5. I have to thank Professor Beazley for allowing me to study his collection of photographs.

^{page 126 note 7} Samos and Perachora may provide the necessary evidence for dating the beginning of the griffin series. I do not agree with Dr. Kunze (op. cit. p. 279) that all the finds of the Bernardini and Barberini tombs can be placed in the eighth century. The daedalic protome with layer hair from the former (Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome iii Pl. 45) and a panther on a situla from the latter (op. cit. v Pl. 19) are more likely to belong to the second half of the seventh century. See also id. iii Pl. 38, 11, griffins with hare's ears; Pl. 66, dragons with long ears.

^{page 126 note 8} Note the position of the creatures on the orientalizing vases from Arkades, Annuario x–xii pp. 315, 324Google Scholar; L.A.A.A. xii Pl. iv; cf. other griffins Delphes, Pl. x.

^{page 126 note 9} Olympia p. 115.

^{page 128 note 1} The Museum label states that it is a Geometric lion. It is therefore probably, though not certainly, found in the Geometric layer.