¹ Rostóvtsev gives a full bibliography of each tomb at the end of his notice of it; see also the notes in my Scythians and Greeks, pp. 307–321. I must apologize for making such a reference to my own work, but it is the only accessible account of the matter: it is largely based upon Rostóvtsev's article mentioned below, but now requires not only additions but substantial corrections; working necessarily at second-hand, I was led astray by my authorities, e.g. the chamber opened by MacPherson is the same as that seen by Becker in 1852; the Eros on my p. 317, f. 227, owes his breeches to the draughtsman Gross: the chamber opened in 1908 is shown by a r.-f. pelice to date c. 300 B.C.; on my plan of Kerch, p. 562, f. 344, the Pygmy tomb should be just N. of the ‘Sugar Loaf’; on p. 565, f. 345, Rooms V., VI., VII., are not part of the Roman Baths but of Hellenistic houses.

² Trans. Russ. Arch. Soc. Class. Sect. vi. 1908; re-issued in German, Leipzig, 1910.

³ Save where they have inscriptions tombs are referred to by the year of their discovery or else by the names of the ground-landlords or of the first describers.

⁴ Cf. Rostóvtsev, , ‘A proposito di una tomba dipinta di Canosa,’ Neapolis, i. fase. i.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Neapolis, loc. cit.

⁶ Kulakovskij, J. A., Materials for the Arch. of Russia (published by the Arch. Comm.), xix.Google Scholar

⁷ v. literature cited in Scythians and Greeks, pp. 620–625; also Cumont, Rev. de l'instr. publ. de Belg. (Suppl.) 1897; Musée Belge, 1910, pp. 55 sqq.

⁸ The lettring to Pl. CV. is wrong: 1 is the ceiling of the 1853 tomb and 3 that of the 1909.

⁹ This is certainly an argument against Franko's rejection of this tradition, v. Scythians and Greeks, p. 531.