^{page 169 note *} Travels and Researches in Crete, vol. i. p. 129 seqq.

^{page 169 note †} Spratt also identified it with Oleras (Messeleri).

^{page 169 note ‡} See his Researches in Crete, No. VI., Antiquary, 1893, p. 198.

^{page 169 note §} P. 106 seqq.

^{page 169 note ║} “Archaeological Discoveries in Crete,” Times, August 29, 1894; Cretan Pictographs, & c., 1895, p. 8 [277].

^{page 170 note *} Spratt, Travels and Researches in Crete, vol. i. p. 129, gives what professes to be a general plan of Goulás on a small scale, and with only a few indications of the walls and buildings. He has, however, fallen into a curious error, having apparently put in part of his details with the map turned one way up and part the other way, so that what he calls the “Temple of Britomartis” is placed under the wrong akropolis, and the road to Kritsá shifted from S.W. to N.E., and the plain of Lakonia vice versa !

^{page 170 note †} The lower terraces of the North Akropolis, and the remains in the hollow and about the Port gate, were almost exclusively Mr. Myres' work. For the approach to the North Akropolis, its entrance quarter, of which a separate plan is given in Fig. 2, the “Agora,” and the uppermost terraces of this Akropolis, I am mainly responsible. For the rest of the work, as, for instance, the South Akropolis, the responsibility must be shared. The different sections were put together by Mr. Myres. The separate plans given in the text are my work.

^{page 170 note ‡} Antiquary, 1893, p. 198. Professor Halbherr, however, admits that he saw scarcely any remains at Goulás later than prehistoric times, and adds, “Probably the site was abandoned in favour of lower ground.”

^{page 171 note *} Diod. lib. v. c. 70, 6: ᾿Ανδρωθέντα δ᾿ αὐτόν φασι πρῶτον πόλιν κτίσαι περί τὴν Δίκταν ὄπου καὶ τὴν γένεσιν αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι μυθολοῦσιν ἦς ἐκλειφείσης ἐν τοῖς ὔστερον χρόνοισ διαμένειν ἐτι καὶ τῦν ἔρρατα τῶν θεμελίων

^{page 176 note *} This is seen in the background of the sketch of the hypæthral shrine. Fig. 3, p. 177.

^{page 177 note *} There also lies just outside the west wall of the building a stone with the usual border continued three-quarters of its face, and on its upper surface (3 ft. by ) a mortice hole. (See sketch in Fig. 3.) It seems possible that this was originally to the right of the doorway, and that at this point, besides the jambs of the doorway itself, there were two other upright shafts fixed into the upper surface 01 the low surrounding wall.

^{page 180 note *} See Meiiani, Antichita Cretesi, pp. 118, 119, and Fig. 73, where it is seen on a part of the foundations of the round tower.

^{page 182 note *} From a photograph by Mr. J. L. Myres: cf. ground-plan, Fig. 8.

^{page 184 note *} By a strange error in Dr. Mariani's small general plan of Goulàs, a stream with many tributaries is seen running out from this hollow, the western end of which is removed for the purpose. A geological explanation of the action of this imaginary stream is even appended. All signs of the fortifications beyond, or of the quarter about the Port Gate are omitted. The field for exploration here, however, is so vast that I can only suspect that future travellers will find equal lacunae in my own work.

^{page 185 note *} L. Mariani, Antichità Cretesi, p. 119 seqq., where Dr. Taramelli's supplementary account of Goulàs is given. I cannot, however, agree with the following remark of Dr. Mariani: “Il solo edificio che con qualche probabilità si puo far discendere ai tempi storici è il tempio scoperto dall' Evans, ed examinato dal mio collega, sul' Akropoli sud, benchè la sua costruzione arcaicissima, rilevata dallo stesso Taramein possa rimontale ai preludi della architettura propriamente detta Greca.” I have given reasons below for believing that this building dates from the most flourishing Mycenæan period, perhaps the fourteenth century B.C. Neither can I shaie the opinion of the Italian archæologists that it is a temple.

^{page 186 note *} In a section of these, given by Dr. Taramelli (Mariani, op. cit. p. 124, Fig. 78), the steps are, by some unaccountable error, shown on both sides of the projecting side wall. In his general plan of the building (Fig. 76) they appear correctly.

^{page 186 note †} One of these, which had been overturned, is restored to its position in the sketch (Fig. 10).

^{page 186 note ‡} In Dr. Taramelli's plan (op. cit. p. 123, Fig. 76) the front enclosure is much wider than the other, and with thicker walls. My own measurements make the width practically identical, 20 ft. 5 in. for the external width of the front enclosure, and 20 ft. 6 in. for that of the inner chamber or megaron.

^{page 188 note *} Schliemann, Troja. Plan VII. A.

^{page 188 note †} Dörpfeld, Troja, 1893, Taf. I, II D, II K., &c.

^{page 188 note ‡} E.g. Dörpfeld, Troja, 1893. Taf. II, VI. A.

^{page 189 note *} From a photograph by Mr. J. L. Myres.

^{page 191 note *} Dr. A. Taramelli has given the dimensions of several of these. (Mariani, Antichità Cretesi, pp. 116, 117.)

^{page 192 note *} In Cretan Pictographs, &c. (Quaritch, 1895), p. 120, Fig. 113.

^{page 192 note †} P. 8 [277] seqq.

^{page 192 note ‡} Cretan Pictographs, &c, p. 50 [319] seqq.

^{page 194 note *} See W. R. Paton, Report on Tombs from the Neighbourhood of Halicarnassus. J. H. S. viii. p. 74 seqq. Compare especially Fig. 25, p. 77.