^{page 1 note 2} Μαρμάριανη. The common spelling Μαρμάργιαννη seems to be due to the influence of names ending in -γιάννη, but the accent shews that this is a false analogy. There is no marble at Marmáriane, but, as suggested by Stählin, Real-Encycl. s.v. Συκύριον, the village may have had some interest in the well-known quarries of Chasámbale near by, for which see Πρ. 1910, pp. 184–5Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 1} Ath. Mitt. 1896, p. 247Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 2} See pp. 9, 10.

^{page 3 note 3} Πρ. 1899, pp. 101–2Google Scholar; Δ—Σ, pp. 121–2; P.T. pp. 53–4, 214.

^{page 5 note 1} Prof. Tsountas informs us that the curvilinear wall marked on the plan on the far side of the torrent-bed belongs to the Bronze Age settlement, and has no connection with the tombs.

^{page 5 note 2} Cf. the tholos tombs at Mycenae, , B.S.A. xxv. pp. 283–402Google Scholar.

^{page 7 note 1} I.e. measured at right angles to the line of the dromos.

^{page 10 note 1} Extract from Dr. Leonardos's report.

^{page 11 note 1} Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1906, pp. 211–224Google Scholar; some supplementary observations by Arvanitopoullos, in Πρ. 1912, pp. 229–232Google Scholar, should be treated with caution.

^{page 11 note 2} (a) Ath. Mitt. 1884, p. 102Google Scholar; 1886, pp. 435 ff.; 1887, pp. 136 ff.

(b) Δ—Σ, pp. 152–6.

^{page 11 note 3} Δ—Σ, p. 115.

^{page 11 note 4} P.T. p. 208.

^{page 11 note 5} B.C.H. 1920, p. 395Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 6} P.T. pp. 40–1. A still more doubtful example at Zerélia, ibid. p. 161.

^{page 11 note 7} See above, pp. 3, 5.

^{page 12 note 1} Πρ. 1914, p. 168Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 2} Ibid. 1910, p. 246.

^{page 12 note 3} (a) Excavated by Tsountas, , Δ—Σ, pp. 115, 121Google Scholar, note 2. Some of the vases from these tombs are now in the National Museum, Athens, but they are in poor condition and present few interesting features.

(b) Excavated by Arvanitopoullos, , Πρ. 1911, pp. 294–300Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 4} Πρ. 1911, pp. 300, 302–3Google Scholar; Ἐϕ. Ἁρχ. 1914. p. 141Google Scholar; Arch. Anz. 1915, pp. 188–9Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 5} Πρ. 1910, p. 221Google Scholar; ibid. p. 226; 1911, pp. 292–4.

^{page 12 note 6} Πρ. 1911, pp. 351–3Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 7} B.S.A. xviii, p. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 8} E.g. Πρ. 1911, pp. 351–3Google Scholar; 1912. pp. 229–232; Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. loc. cit.

^{page 12 note 9} B.S.A. xviii, pp. 1–29Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 10} Δ—Σ, p. 152, note 1.

^{page 12 note 11} P.T. pp. 209–214.

^{page 13 note 1} In these descriptions the colour of the vase, when stated without qualification, indicates the surface-colour of the clay.

^{page 16 note 1} The pothook spiral painted below the handle (see Fig. 20, 1) is an ornament characteristic of the north-Greek matt-painted fabrics of the Bronze Age; a rectilinear version is found at Bouboústi. In the ‘Third Style’ of Lianokládi it is especially frequent. See also below, note 5.

^{page 16 note 2} For the handles cf. B.M. Vases, i, Fig. 46 A 2382Google Scholar.

^{page 16 note 3} The handles are not included in the measurements of this class.

^{page 16 note 4} CVA, Copenhagen ii, Plate 66, No. 5.

^{page 16 note 5} In all but two of these vases, small pendant loops are painted inside the rim at the point where the handles are attached. These loops are degenerate versions of the pothook spiral of the matt-painted pottery of the Bronze Age. The fully-formed spiral is found in the same position on a bowl of this class from Chassán-Tatár, south-west of Larisa (P.T., Fig. 149): Nos. 27–29 at Marmáriane shew an intermediate stage, where the spirals, carelessly drawn and too closely wound, have assumed the form of discs.

^{page 18 note 1} As in No. 10 (see Pl. II). Reduplication is one of the chief principles of ornamentation at Marmáriane; we may compare the upright zigzags on No. 106.

^{page 19 note 1} A similar miniature jug with cut-away neck, made in a similar fabric, comes from the great Iron Age tholos at Volo, excavated by Arvanitopoullos in 1914; another, found with L.H. III vases at Babá near Pharsalos, is in the Halmyrós Museum. The shape is, of course, a common Mycenaean one, but in point of size the nearest parallels are Korákou, Figs. 66 and 79 (both L.H. II).

^{page 20 note 1} The preference for a black glaze marks the transition to the Iron Age. The tendency has been observed even in the ‘Granary Class’ at Mycenae, (B.S.A. xxv, pp. 29–41)Google Scholar. It is often combined with very hard firing, which gives rise to the metallic sheen frequent in Early Iron Age pottery (ibid. pp. 31–33; Ἀρχ. Δελτ. 1917, p. 31Google Scholar; Artemis Orthia, p. 56).

^{page 20 note 2} In all vases of this class, except where otherwise stated, the flattened surface of the lip, and the foot, are glazed.

^{page 20 note 3} Cf. Fig. 18, middle of third row.

^{page 20 note 4} Measurements of the concentric circles shew that the two vases were painted with the same multiple brush. Similar instances will be noted as they occur.

^{page 21 note 1} This type of handle is found on vases, probably of rather later date, from the Iron Age tholos at Volo. It also occurs in Macedonia, (B.S.A. xxiv, p. 20Google Scholar, Figs. 13–14, from Chauchítza, and xxvii, Pl. XVIIIa, 4 from Vardaróftsa).

^{page 22 note 1} This very ancient form of ornament, which also appears on the next vase and on No. 140, is frequent throughout the Aegean area during the greater part of the Bronze Age. Though little used by the Mycenaean potters, it is found again in Sub-Mycenaean, and returns to popularity in the Protogeometric and Early Geometric periods; later examples (e.g. Tiryns, i, p. 147Google Scholar, Fig. 13) are rare. Cf. Schweitzer, , Untersuchungen z. Chronol. d. geom. Stile, p. 18 and note 87Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 2} The potter has attempted to combine the form of the trefoil-lipped jug and the conical foot proper to the Stemmed Kraters (Class 20), with a not very happy result. The experiment does not appear to have been made elsewhere.

^{page 22 note 3} The inclusion of the vase in this class is based on the type of shoulder-decoration and the form of handle.

^{page 23 note 1} Cf. another Protogeometric example of this shape, Tiryns, i, Pl. xvi, 10Google Scholar; also the spouted jug from Camirus, , Jahrb. i, p. 136Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 2} A jug from Tenos, described by Graindor, in Musée Belge, 1907, p. 42Google Scholar, No. 1 seems to be very similar.

^{page 24 note 1} The shape of these two miniature vases is derived from the common Mycenaean round-mouthed jug, a type which also survived in the Protogeometric fabrics of the South.

^{page 24 note 2} Amphorae of all three types are found in other Protogeometric fabrics. Nos. 74–5 call for little comment: the handles, in accordance with Iron Age practice, join the neck just below the rim. The large vases 76–80 are the only examples of coarse ware from Marmáriane, but the type can be very closely paralleled in Macedonia (Vardaróftsa, Fig. 14, No. 7). The coarse clay and large expanse of unpainted surface doubtless had a practical purpose, for the resulting porosity would help to keep the contents cool in hot weather. The last type is one which appears in numerous Early Iron Age fabrics, in a great variety of forms, ranging from a squat neckless jar such as B.S.A. xviii, p. 5Google Scholar, Fig. 3, No. 5, to the tall trumpet-necked amphora of the Early Attic Geometric style. Between these two extremes the Marmáriane vases occupy an intermediate position.

^{page 26 note 1} Of Mycenaean origin, this shape enjoyed great popularity throughout the Early Iron Age. In the Protogeometric period, both in Thessaly and in south Greece, it is often placed on a high conical foot, which, unlike that of No. 89, is usually hollow.

^{page 26 note 2} For the history of this kind of handle cf. p. 46 and note 2.

^{page 26 note 3} This is even more clearly shewn by a glaze-painted bowl of this type from Theotókou, P.T. Fig. 145 g.

^{page 27 note 1} Fairbanks, , Catalogue of Greek and Etruscan Vases, Pl. xix, No. 257. (Tomb VI.)Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} CVA Copenhagen ii, Pl. 66, No. 4.

^{page 29 note 2} A common L.H. III shape, the stem being identical with some Mycenaean kylixstems. Another Protogeometric example (unpublished) comes from Orchomenos.

^{page 29 note 3} A bowl of similar shape, but in a grey bucchero fabric, was found in the Protogeometric graves on Tenos, (Annuario, 1925–1926, p. 224Google Scholar, Fig. 26).

^{page 29 note 4} This dish is of some interest, as the shape is that of the κανοῦν or food-basket familiar in the Homeric poems. In later times, it is true, its ritual overshadowed its secular use; but it is probably merely as a food-vessel, or a representation of one, that it appears here and in other tombs of the Early Iron Age. Cf. Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, , Real-Encycl. Supplt.-Bd. 4Google Scholars.v. κανοῦν. Deubner's, study (Jahrb. xl, pp. 210 ff.Google Scholar) includes a list of clay examples, to which should be added :—

Argive Heraeum. L.H. III. Two Miniature vases. Unpublished and mentioned by kind permission of Dr. Blegen.

Rhodes. L.H. III. (1) Annuario, 1923–1924, p. 143, Tomb xxi. No. 37Google Scholar (two handles only).

(2) Clara Rhodos, iii, p. 90, Fig. 80Google Scholar.

Athens. Protogeometric. CVA Cambridge, Pl. 1, No. 13.

Thebes. L.H. III. Ἀρχ. Δελτ. 1917, Fig. 94.

^{page 30 note 1} The bucchero fabric of this vase and of No. 91 is found occasionally in Thessaly. Though it appears to have no connection with East-Greek bucchero, it may well be similarly derived from Minyan prototypes (see J.H.S. lii, p. 1Google Scholar). In any case, it is closely allied to the grey monochrome pottery of Macedonia (Vardaróftsa, p. 28). Many one-handled cups in this grey fabric were found in the Iron Age tholos near Volo, recalling similar cups from Thera (Thera, ii, p. 230Google Scholar; Ath. Mitt. 1903, pp. 212–3Google Scholar), and wheel-made jugs with cut-away necks come from the same tomb and from the Hálos pyres. A similar fabric is found in Skyros (Ἀρχ. Δελτ. 1918, Παράρτημα I, pp. 34 ff.Google Scholar, Fig. 10, Nos. 1–4). In all these cases it should be noted that it is the grey clay which is the distinguishing mark of the fabric, and not the black paint, which is in fact often absent. The form is of Mycenaean origin.

^{page 31 note 1} The great size and elaborate decoration of the Marmáriane kraters shew that they do not stand at the beginning of a series, but represent a developed type. The mere task of throwing successfully such huge vases is an exacting one, and implies a long previous tradition. But the immediate predecessors of the type cannot yet be identified with any certainty. It is simplest to regard the first group as derived from the large pedestalled bowls (B.M. Cat. Vol. I, Pt. 1, A. 874–5Google Scholar); the second group as gigantic stemmed skyphoi (our Class 15). Other examples of the shape in Thessaly do not add much to our knowledge; a large number were found in the Iron Age tholos at Volo; some of these have strongly ribbed stems, proving that the ribbed stems from the pyres, Hálos (B.S.A. xviii, p. 23Google Scholar: Pyres II, VIII–X, XII–XIV), which the excavators were unable to assign to any definite vase-shape, belonged in reality to large kraters of this type. This ribbing may indicate the same survival of Minyan influence which we have traced in the raking handles of Classes 5 and 6 here.

^{page 31 note 2} The spur-handle is found occasionally in L.H. III pottery, especially on deep kylikes. where it serves the purpose of a thumb-grip. See Mykenische Vasen, Pl. xi. 70 (Ialysos), Annuario, 1923–1924, Tomb liii. 3Google Scholar (Ialysos), CVA Copenhagen ii, Pl. 50, 2 (Rhodes), Fouilles de Delphes, II, Fasc. 5, Fig. 41, 19 (Pronaia sanctuary). It is also found on a stemmed bowl from Vrókastro, (Vrokastro, Pl. xxv, 2)Google Scholar, which may be classed as Protogeometric; a footless krater, of unknown provenience, in Athens (Collignon-Couve, , Cat. des Vases peints, No. 148Google Scholar), belongs to the same period. It occurs on a Geometric bowl from the Kynosarges published in B.S.A. xii, p. 85Google Scholar, (j) Fig. 6. For the antecedents of this handle cf. p. 47, and notes 1–3.

^{page 33 note 1} By suggesting parallels to various objects, Dr. G. Karo and Prof. V. Gordon Childe gave us much valuable assistance: for the beads Mr. H. Beck very kindly placed his special knowledge at our disposal.

^{page 33 note 2} This kind of ornament, whatever its purpose, has a long history in the Aegean. Fairly close analogies to 1 and 2, but later, are Blinkenberg, , Lindos, Fouilles de l'Acropole, IGoogle Scholar, Pl. 12, 271–274, and Clara Rhodos, III, Fig. 121. Analogies to 3 and 4, and roughly contemporary, are Marshall, , B.M. Cat. Jewellery, Nos. 1214–5Google Scholar from Tomb B at Assarlik. Cf. also Ath. Mitt. 1910, p. 30Google Scholar, Figs. 25, 26, 28 (Salamis). The latter, being in a sub-Mycenaean context, are a little earlier than ours.

^{page 35 note 1} For similar bronze rings found in tombs cf. Ath. Mitt. loc. cit. Figs. 18, 21 (sub-Mycenaean): P.T. p. 213 (Protogeometric): also Blinkenberg, op. cit. p. 119.

^{page 35 note 2} For similar armlets cf. B.S.A. xxiv. p. 14Google Scholar, Fig. 10, from Chauchítza, which, however, are later, and Childe, , Danube in Prehistory, Figs. 173, 177Google Scholar. As being a Lausitz ornament, it is easy to understand how this type of armlet entered Macedonia and Thessaly.

^{page 35 note 3} The origin of the tremolierstich ornament is doubtful. Both a northern and southern origin have been claimed for it. The fact that it is commonly found on Late Macedonian Bronze Age matt-painted pottery is, however, perhaps significant of the direction from which it entered Greece. Cf. Rey, , B.C.H. xli–xliiiGoogle Scholar, Pls. XXVIII, 7, XXXI, 2, XXXII, 1, 3, 5. It looks as if, not being an ornament which lends itself naturally to the brush, it had been taken over from metallurgy by the Macedonian potters and, if so, the existence at any earlier date than the Marmáriane armlets, of Macedonian bronzes bearing this decoration may be inferred. In any case, the context at Marmáriane shews that here are the earliest examples of this motive in Greece. For later examples, inter alia, cf. Olympia IV, Tafel XVIII, 297, 298, Tafel XXIII, 380. For the method by which the design was executed, viz. by rocking, and at the same time pressing forward, a small gouge, so that it ‘walks’ over the metal surface, cf. A.J.A. xv. (1911), p. 10Google Scholar; Reallexicon der Vorgeschichte, II, p. 178Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 4} Blinkenberg's Type II, Fibules à arc symetrique. Cf. Blinkenberg, , Fibules grecs et orientales, pp. 60–72Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 5} For bronze fibulae repaired with iron pins cf. ibid. pp. 117, 125; Πρ. 1911, p. 298Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 6} For iron fibulae cf. Blinkenberg, op.cit. pp. 34, 35 and p. 302. An iron fibula was inferred at Theotókou, (P.T. p. 213)Google Scholar. For spectacle-fibulae of iron we can find no parallels except from Tomb 3 at Sesklo, where some broken examples appear to have been found (misinterpreted by Arvanitopoullos as breast-ornaments: Πρ. 1911, p. 298Google Scholar).

^{page 36 note 1} Spectacle-fibulae with bosses have, as far as we know, not been found elsewhere in the Aegean, but they are common in Central Europe, where they may be quite late. Cf. Åberg, , Bronzezeitliche u. früheisenzeitliche Chronologie, II, Fig. 180Google Scholar, and for a more elaborate example, ibid. Fig. 218. Discs with omphalos (Childe, op. cit. Pl. XIV, A 4), the wires on Hungarian gold discs (ibid. p. 330), the wire helices (ibid. Pl. XIV, A 1) and the spiked tutulus discs (ibid. A 2), as well as the warts on the Lausitz pottery, may be compared, and these, in their earlier phases, are all prior to Marmáriane. The principle of the bossed disc, whether shield or ornament, is certainly Central European, and, in the Aegean, exotic.

^{page 36 note 2} Cf. P. T. p. 213.

^{page 36 note 3} The purpose of these pins is obscure. Iron stick-pins have been found in Protogeometric graves at Theotókou, (P. T. p. 213)Google Scholar, Tiryns (Tiryns, i, pp. 128 f.Google Scholar, Tombs 1, 2, 7, 10 ( ?)) and Athens (Ill. Lond. News, 25 June, 1932, pp. 1060 ffGoogle Scholar., Fig. 13).

^{page 36 note 4} Cf. Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1898, p. 110Google Scholar, where they are described as hair-rings.

^{page 36 note 5} For iron swords of similar type cf. A.J.A. v. p. 137Google Scholar, Fig. 4 (Kavoúsi), which is roughly contemporary with ours, and B.S.A. xviii, p. 27Google Scholar, Fig. 15, 2 (Pyre XIV at Hálos), which is somewhat later.

^{page 38 note 1} Mr. H. Beck, to whom we shewed an illustration, says: ‘This is difficult to place. Similarly shaped objects in steatite are found in the Eastern Mediterranean, but are not usually engraved. They are often of Mycenaean date.’

The design should be carefully distinguished from the cross with angle-fillings which has so long a history and so wide a distribution throughout the Near East. Parallels for the design on our gem are not common:

1. Steatite prism, Thebes, L.H. III. Ἀρχ Δελτ. 1917Google Scholar, Fig. 127, 23.

2. Green steatite. Psychro cave. Late Minoan. Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1907, Pl. VIII, 118Google Scholar.

3. Scratched on the side of a beaked jug from the Iron Age tholos at Volo.

Gems have been found in other Thessalian tombs of the Iron Age, notably at Dranísta, described by the excavator as ‘particularly rich’ in gems. The Volo tholos produced a single steatite seal, with meander decoration (Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ. 1914, p. 141Google Scholar); and three gemstones were found in Tomb 5 at Sesklo. For Mycenaean gems from Thessaly, cf. P.T. index, s.v.

^{page 38 note 2} Cf. Fouilles de Delphes, v, p. 8Google Scholar, Fig. 24.

^{page 38 note 3} Of this bead Mr. Beck writes: ‘Beads of a similar type are not very uncommon. I have one on a string from Cumae not accurately dated, but of which most of the beads appear to be about sixth century B.C. I have undated specimens from Syria and Italy and a specimen from Britainny, which, although not identical, is of the same type and is supposed to date at least as early as the Hallstatt Period.’

^{page 39 note 1} Of this bead Mr. Beck writes: ‘Without seeing the bead it is difficult to say much about it, as several totally different types of clay bead are found. Beads of this shape of a reddish clay are found round the Eastern Mediterranean. A number are found in Iron Age and Etruscan tombs in Italy. If the clay is black, it is probably similar to some of the Bucchero nero beads found in the Etruscan or similar tombs, some of which date to the ninth century B.C.’

^{page 41 note 1} The scheme of classification formulated by Prof. Tsountas was only intended to cover the Neolithic and Bronze Ages; its extension by Wace and Thompson to include the Early Iron Age (P.T. pp. 18, 20–21) is not entirely satisfactory, and we have been unable to adopt it in the present report. The following table will serve to shew the relationship between the earlier systems and our own :—

^{page 41 note 2} Vardaróftsa, pp. 25 ff.

^{page 41 note 3} E.g. Bouboústi, Pátele, and sherds from Ochrid collected by Miss Benton, 1931.

^{page 41 note 4} P.T. p. 215.

^{page 41 note 5} Bouboústi, pp. 179 ff.

^{page 43 note 1} Sherds collected at Palaiográtsiano, 1930.

^{page 43 note 2} In his recent excavations in Thessaly M. Béquignon has found some remarkable examples e.g. B.C.H. 1932, p. 108, Fig. 16Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 3} See Dunǎreanu-Vulpe, , Considérations sur certaines formes caractérisant l'âge du bronze de l'Europe sud-orientale, pp. 29–39Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 4} Vardaróftsa, Pl. xi (a): Antiquaries' Journal, vi. Pl. xv, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 43 note 5} Δ—Σ, Figs. 57, 59 (Dimini); Fig. 51 (Sesklo).

^{page 43 note 6} See Dunǎreanu-Vulpe, loc. cit.

^{page 43 note 7} Vardaróftsa, Pl. xi (a), 1, 8, 11 (plain): an example from Lembet (painted) is in the collection of the British School at Athens.

^{page 43 note 8} Δ—Σ, Fig. 37 (Sesklo); P.T. p. 215 (Domokós).

^{page 43 note 9} Bouboústi, Fig. 19, Fig. 30, 6, 8, 11.

^{page 43 note 10} Cf. especially the neck pattern on Nos. 10 and 11 with Bouboústi, Fig. 25, 2.

^{page 43 note 11} Ath. Mitt. 1889, p. 266Google Scholar and Pl. xi. 8. A photograph of this vase will be found in P. Apostolides, Αἱ Παγασαί.

^{page 44 note 1} Δ—Σ, Fig. 66.

^{page 44 note 2} Ibid. Fig. 193.

^{page 44 note 3} Vardaróftsa, Pl. iii (b), 1–4, 7; Δ—Σ, Fig. 188.

^{page 44 note 4} For a similar cup cp. Δ—Σ, Fig. 49 (from Tomb 43 at Sesklo).

^{page 44 note 5} Vardaróftsa, Pl. iv, 12: B.S.A. xxx, p. 125Google Scholar, Fig. 10, 1 (from Saratsé).

^{page 44 note 6} Δ—Σ, Figs. 162, 163 and 209 (one-handled).

^{page 44 note 7} Palaiográtsiano, 1930.

^{page 44 note 8} Bouboústi, p. 181, Fig. 28.

^{page 44 note 9} Chalcidice, p. 143, Figs. 22, 23.

^{page 44 note 10} Payne, , B.S.A. xxix, p. 269Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 1} Vardaróftsa, Pl. xviii (b). B.S.A. xxvi, p. 15Google Scholar, Fig. 6, b, c (Chauchítza); xviii, p. 11 (Hálos, pyre II).

^{page 46 note 2} B.S.A. xxvi, p. 10Google Scholar, Fig. 3, g, i, j (Chauchítza): a vase of identical form with ours (but incised) from Pátele (Constantinople Museum). Similar examples in the Museums of Volo (from the Kapaklí tomb), Chaeronea (from Orchomenos), and Athens, (p. 51, note 6). Liverpool Annals, xii, Pl. xiii. 28Google Scholar (Várdino); Vardaróftsa, Pl. x (b), 9–14, and earlier forms, 5, 6; for Thessalian examples see Δ—Σ, Figs. 215–217.

^{page 46 note 3} Mylonas, , Excavations at Olynthus. IGoogle Scholar, The Neolithic Settlement, Fig. 56, c, d, e.

^{page 46 note 4} Sérvia (excavated 1930) and Armenochóri (excavated 1931).

^{page 46 note 5} Δ—Σ, Figs. 44, 47; and for the Iron Age, B.S.A. xviii, p. 13Google Scholar, Fig. 8 (Hálos).

^{page 46 note 6} Schmidt, Schliemanns Sammlung, No. 1908 (pre-mycenaean).

^{page 46 note 7} Contrast, Ath. Mitt. 1889, Pl. xi, 1Google Scholar.

^{page 46 note 8} Vardaróftsa, Fig. 12, a–d, f.

^{page 47 note 1} Mon. Ant. xiv, p. 613Google Scholar, Fig. 110 (Phaistos); Πρ. 1928, p. 113Google Scholar, Fig. 2 (Chalandrítsa) and p. 117, Fig. 8 (Prostovítsa); Annuario, 1923–1924, p. 177 (Rhodes)Google Scholar. A form of ropehandle had, of course, a long ancestry in the Aegean; e.g. B.M. Vases, i, Fig. 10 (from Yortan); B.S.A. xxv, Pl. xii, j (Mycenae)Google Scholar; one each from the Early Bronze Age strata at Sérvia (W. Macedonia) and Kritsaná (Chalcidice) and several from the Early Helladic site at Pelikáta in North Ithaca (excavated 1930).

^{page 47 note 2} See p. 31 note 2.

^{page 47 note 3} Vardaróftsa, Pl. iii (b), 2.

^{page 47 note 4} Chalcidice, Fig. 40, 8.

^{page 47 note 5} Schmidt, Schliemanns Sammlung, No. 1908.

^{page 47 note 6} Bouboústi, Fig. 27, 9 (latticed); Fig. 28, 5 (latticed), 6.

^{page 47 note 7} The characteristic ornament of Late Bronze Age painted pottery (C 2) in Central Macedonia, e.g. Vardaróftsa, Pl. xiv (a), 9; and very common at Bouboústi (Bouboústi, Fig. 19).

^{page 47 note 8} Nos. 10 and 28 here; Antiquaries' Journal, vi, Pl. xv, Fig. 2 (Kilindir)Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 9} Cf. Ath. Mitt. 1889, Pl. xi, 8Google Scholar. For Mycenaean examples cf. B.M. Vases, i, A 708, 722, 727, 957Google Scholar. Cf. also Bouboústi, Fig. 26, 9.

^{page 50 note 1} Cf. Gjerstad, , Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, pp. 220 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 50 note 2} Cf. Vardaróftsa, p. 61.

^{page 51 note 1} Cf. Vardaróftsa, p. 31, in diagram, D 4 and D 5.

^{page 51 note 2} In the Volo museum: not yet published.

^{page 51 note 3} Cf. B.S.A. xviii, p. 15Google Scholar, Fig. 9, 1; p. 17, Fig. 11.

^{page 51 note 4} E.g. B.S.A. xii, p. 83Google Scholar, Fig. 6 (Kynosarges). For the ‘spur’ cf. p. 47, notes 2–5.

^{page 51 note 5} E.g. ibid. p. 84, Fig. 5; the progressive development from our shape is well illustrated at Theotókou, Tomb A, where both types occur together, P.T. Fig. 145, e. g. There are numerous Geometric examples. Cf. also B.S.A. xxiv, p. 22Google Scholar, Fig. 16 (from Chauchítza).

^{page 51 note 6} Cf. Athens, National Museum, No. 12574: also Ath. Mitt. xliii, Pl. 1, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 7} Numerous Geometric examples, e.g. B.S.A. xii, p. 88Google Scholar, Fig. 9 (Kynosarges).

^{page 51 note 8} Cf. Blinkenberg, , Fibules greques et orientales, p. 58 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf., however, Persson, , Royal Tombs of Dendra, p. 102Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 1} Cf. Blinkenberg, , Fibules greques et orientales, p. 254Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 2} Cf. Olympia, iv, Pl. xviii, 297–301Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 3} Cf. p. 35, note 3.

^{page 52 note 4} Cf. p. 50.

^{page 52 note 5} Illustrated London News, Feb. 20, 1932.

^{page 53 note 1} There are, of course, others.

^{page 53 note 2} Pfuhl, , Malerei u. Zeichnung der Griechen, Band I, p. 59Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 1} Cf. Myres, , Who were the Greeks ? p. 458Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 2} Cf. ibid., loc. cit. and p. 536.

^{page 54 note 3} Cf. Antiq. Journal, vii, p. 52Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 4} Cf. Man, 1928, pp. 191–193Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 5} Cf. ibid. Fig. 2.

^{page 54 note 6} Cf. Liv. Ann. XII. Pl. 19, 12.

^{page 54 note 7} Constantinople Museum, not published. It may be as late as the 8th century.

^{page 54 note 8} Cf. B.S.A. xxviii, p. 197Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 9} Cf. Vardaróftsa, p. 39; B.S.A. xxviii, pp. 197 ffGoogle Scholar: xxix, p. 181, note 2. Gold objects have been found in an Early Bronze Age stratum at Sarátse (ibid. xxx, p. 143, Fig. 31), and in a Middle Bronze Age stratum at Kilindir (Ant. Journal, vi, p. 64Google Scholar).

^{page 54 note 10} Cf. Δ—Σ, p. 354.

^{page 55 note 1} If, however, Greek folk-memory is really ‘less trustworthy here,’ and if the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnese is really archaeologically reflected, as many hold, in the change from Protogeometric to Geometric, then it would be legitimate to regard the Marmáriane tombs as those of Dorians when they sojourned in North Thessaly. The transmission of certain forms from Thessalian Protogeometric into Southern Geometric, which we have noted, would thus fall into place, and the view, still tenaciously held, that the spectaclefibulae are in some way connected with the coming of the Dorians would receive confirmation.

In any case, the rather puzzling resemblances between the designs on vases from Vrókastro chamber-tombs and town, and the Thessalo-Macedonian local painted ware (cf. Bouboústi, p. 193), must, if any connection really exists, be due to a much earlier infiltration, i.e. before the rise of the Thessalian Protogeometric style.