^{page 1 note 1} Cf. p. 44.

^{page 1 note 2} Dr. Vollgraff very kindly placed his excavation day-book at my disposal.

^{page 1 note 3} Pelikáta becomes by implication the site of the palace. Leake, , Travels in Northern Greece iii 44 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 4} Some LH III sherds from Stavrós, Asprosykiá and Hágios Athanásios are included in the inventory.

^{page 1 note 5} Except for a tiny fragment of a bowl-rim with red glaze, and two pieces of black-glaze ware, all from the surface earth in Area IV, and a piece of a mould from Area II.

^{page 1 note 6} These areas are shewn in Fig. 2. Miss S. Benton was in charge at Polis bay, Mr. C. R. Wason at Hágios Athanásios and partly at Stavrós, Mr. T. G. Skeat at Asprosykiá and also partly at Stavrós. He is also responsible for the plans and sections (Figs. 5, 7, 8, 9, ii). All of these assisted me from time to time at Pelikáta. The excavation of Pelikáta and Polis was made in the summer of 1930 and 1931; of Polis in 1932 as well. Mr. T. Emmett made the general plan (Fig. 2) and the detailed plan of Pelikáta (Pl. 1). The drawings of sherds, etc. were made by Miss A. Richmond.

^{page 3 note 1} Cf. Fig. 3a; an outcrop of rock in the top of which is hewn an oblong tomb; originally, it may be presumed, below the level of the soil, the tomb is now, owing to denudation, about 2 metres above it. Cf. Partsch., Kephallenia u. Ithaka, p. 60.

^{page 3 note 2} Except possibly the piece of wall mentioned below (note 4).

^{page 3 note 3} Seen by Leake: ‘Just beyond, are the foundations of a large Hellenic wall in the vineyards. The situation is called … The ancient walls at Samikú crossed the northern end of a long height, which terminates to the south at Stavró, where are a few houses, just above the head of the harbour called Pólis.’ (Travels in Northern Greece iii 44.)

^{page 3 note 4} Cf. p. 12. These blocks belonged perhaps to a bastion rather than to the wall itself, the line of which seems to have run nearer the summit. The original line at this point is perhaps represented by a stretch of terrace wall between this line of blocks and the summit; if it is the original wall, three courses are preserved in places (Pl. 3c).

^{page 3 note 5} Cf. p. 8.

^{page 6 note 1} Other stones presumably from this building, now incorporated in modern buildings on the summit, are shewn in Fig. 4a, c.

^{page 6 note 2} I wish to thank Professor Koúmares, who very kindly examined the bones, etc.

^{page 7 note 1} I cannot explain the presence of the pieces of skull.

^{page 7 note 2} On bothroi cf. Hutchinson, R. W., J.H.S. LV. i ff.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 1} Including No. 70.

^{page 12 note 1} Cf. 3.

^{page 12 note 2} Cf. p. 3 and note 4.

^{page 14 note 1} Part of a bone tool (no. 161) a bone needle (no. 159) and a spindle-whorl.

^{page 14 note 2} Probably for heating water; such stones are known from primitive settlements elsewhere.

^{page 14 note 3} Miss D. Bate, who kindly examined one of the bones, reports that it is that of a pig.

^{page 15 note 1} Cf. p. 13.

^{page 15 note 2} Cf. Biegen, Zygouries 87 ff. At Pelikáta the glaze-paint has cracked but not flaked.

^{page 15 note 3} Blegen's Class B I; Zygouries 83 ff.

^{page 15 note 4} Cf. Zygouries 87.

^{page 15 note 5} Cf. p. 40.

^{page 15 note 6} Cf. Zygouries 77.

^{page 15 note 7} Cf. Zygouries 78 ff.

^{page 15 note 8} Cf. Zygouries Figs. 108, 117; Cf. also Dörpfeld, Alt-Ithaka. Band II, Beil. 64,8; 65, 4.

^{page 17 note 1} Roman numerals indicate the Areas I–VI; VIa the clay layer (cf. p. 14), VIb the rubble layer, VIc the upper layer. Finds on Pelikáta outside these areas are denoted NA (= not Areas); finds from outlying areas by the names of those areas.

^{page 21 note 1} Identified on the analogy of 46; but it might conceivably belong to a jug like 42.

^{page 22 note 1} Two ‘wish–bone’ handles in heavy ware were found in IV.

^{page 22 note 2} Cf. Zygouries Fig. 88, 1–3; Fig. 89; Pl. XII 2; Kunze, Orchomenos III Pls. iv, 1; xx, 4. For dots between bars cf. Orchomenos Pl. ix 3.

^{page 22 note 3} Cf. Zygouries Pl. xi 8, 9.

^{page 22 note 4} Cf. Zygouries Pl. xiii 1, where the bars are oblique as well as horizontal.

^{page 22 note 5} Cf. Goldman Eutresis Fig. 115, 2.

^{page 22 note 6} Cf. Zygouries Pl. iv 12.

^{page 22 note 7} Cf. Orchomenos Fig. 40. Lugs of this form, but perforated, and ‘growing from the rims’ of bowls are characteristic in the two earliest occupation levels at Kritsaná in Chalcidice. Their place of origin seems to be N.W. Anatolia. Closely related is Eutresis Pl. II, and Fig. 96.

^{page 23 note 1} A plain dish at Eutresis has a similar form, cf. Eutresis Fig 141; cf. also the dish from Mochlos with rather similar ornament (Seager Mochlos, Fig. 13).

^{page 23 note 2} Cf. Orchomenos Pl. iv 1. I do not know other examples of bars on the edge of rims in EH vases, except Zygouries Fig. 88, 5; but the small diamonds on the lip of the Zygouriés tankard (Zygouries Pl. xiii 1) may be compared, and in any case the edge of the rim was a favourite place for EH ornament (cf. Eutresis Figs. 155, 5; 156, 6–8).

^{page 24 note 1} For incision on rims cf. Zygouries Pis. iv 12, vi 8.

^{page 24 note 2} There are many parallels for this practice; cf. especially B.S.A. xxvii, Pl. Ill (b) 6.

^{page 24 note 3} The purpose of these scorings is not obvious.

^{page 24 note 4} I must admit I can make nothing of these fragments (80, 81). They seem to be EH, and though they were found in unstratified fill, there was nothing but EH with them. Nor were they found on the surface, 80 being ·5 and 81 ·9 m. below it. I don't believe they are modern forgeries, and there is nothing left but to suppose that the scratchings were made at the time to which the sherds belong.

^{page 26 note 1} Cf. the technique of Orchomenos 66, p. 74 = Pl. 34, 3 : ‘Unreiner, aber nicht sehr dicker Ton, … glasiger polierter Überzug mit schwarzen Brandflecken.’ This appears to agree exactly with the Pelikáta group, only the colour is rather different. Cf. also Blegen's AI class (Zygouries, 76).

^{page 26 note 2} Nauplia Museum.

^{page 26 note 3} Nauplia Museum.

^{page 26 note 4} Cf. Orchomenos Pl. 16.

^{page 26 note 5} Aegina Museum.

^{page 26 note 6} Strictly not grey-ware of this class, as it is unslipped and unpolished.

^{page 30 note 1} These are the details:—

Area IV. In earth above stones 32.

In stones, to 1·5 m. none.

In stones, 1·5–3 m. 36.

Area VI. In earth fill above stones (Vic) 20.

In rubble layer (VIb) 1.

Outside Areas I–VI 1.

^{page 31 note 1} Cf. Eutresis Fig. 199. Another sherd (not inventoried) shews similar lines on a reddish buff surface.

^{page 31 note 2} Except the few from Stavrós, Asprosykiá and Hágios Athanásios (cf. p. 15).

^{page 31 note 3} Not including 120, 121 which are doubtful; there are also two loop–handles (128, 129) which perhaps belong to krateriskoi.

^{page 33 note 1} Perhaps from a krateriskos.

^{page 34 note 1} 30 blades come from the pithos–burial (Area I).

^{page 34 note 2} 30 blades in all, of which 8 are from Area I.

^{page 35 note 1} 7 in all, of which one is from Area I.

^{page 35 note 2} Cf. Zygouries 196, Fig. 186; also Alt Ithaka Band II, Beil. 61, (b) 6.

^{page 35 note 3} Cf. Zygouries Pl. x 1, 2.

^{page 35 note 4} Cf. Zygouries Pl. xxi 1–3; and Blegen's remark ibid. 185, 186. The body of a small dog ibid. 186 no. 3 is not illustrated.

^{page 35 note 5} Cf. Eutresis Pl. vii.

^{page 35 note 6} From Schisté, several in Chaeroneia Museum; cf. Wace and Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly Fig. 140f; I believe one has been found at Corinth, but I have not the reference. For an example from Malta, cf. Murray, Excavations in Malta Part II, Pl. xvii, 11.

^{page 35 note 7} Cf. Heurtley Prehistoric Macedonia Part II, Fig. 67 f-j.

^{page 35 note 8} Cf. Zygouries Fig. 181, 1.

^{page 35 note 9} Cf. Zygouries pl. xx 13, 15.

^{page 35 note 10} Cf. Seager Mochlos Figs. 8, 9, especially II, 1 and 7.

^{page 35 note 11} Cf. Zygouries pl.x, 1.

^{page 37 note 1} Small scraps were found in Area IV and one in Area VI.

^{page 37 note 2} The right edge is broken.

^{page 39 note 1} I.e. below the house–floors. Cf. Zygouries 101.

^{page 39 note 2} Assuming a rough chronological equation between the phases at the three sites.

^{page 39 note 3} A further point of correspondence with the Peloponnese, is that, whereas ‘sauceboats’ disappear in the latest phase in Central Greece, at Pelikáta several fragments were found outside the clay layer in Area VI (i.e., with remains of the later occupation) and at Zygouriés they were ‘abundant’ in the latest phase.

^{page 41 note 1} Cf. Zygouries 100, 101.

^{page 41 note 2} Cf. Myres, Who Were the Greeks? 395–399.

^{page 41 note 3} Characteristic of the ‘Minyan’ at Thérmos; and at Olympia, where the same origin can be inferred; also for the spirals (cf. A.M. xxxvi 168 Figs. 5–7).

^{page 41 note 4} On the painted ware of Lianokládi III, a stratum which lay immediately above that containing EH (cf. P.T. Fig. 126c). Cf. note 1.

^{page 41 note 5} For EH ‘wish-bone’ handles cf. Orchomenos Pl. 30, 4a, b; for MH ‘wish-bone’ handles, P.T. Fig. 134 (Lianokládi III); for tankards with handles starting from the rim, P.T. Fig. 126c, d (Lianokládi III).

^{page 41 note 6} Cf. P.T. Fig. 140f (from Schisté); there are several from the same site in the Chaeroneia Museum. Perforated axes from Central Greece are also to be seen in the Chaeroneia Museum.

^{page 41 note 7} Cf. Heurtley, Prehistoric Macedonia, now in the press. It is worth noting that askoi, tankards, and bowls with pronouncedly incurving rims are common at Orchomenós in the middle phase, but scarcely occur at Eutresis or in the Peloponnese before the latest phase. But these are all typical of the Early Bronze Age in Macedonia, occurring in the lowest levels; cups with high throats (‘mit hohem Hals’) also are common to EH I–II strata at Orchomenós and the lowest Early Bronze Age levels in Macedonia, but do not occur in the Peloponnese (Orchomenos, p. 55). Does the incidence of the forms indicate the direction from which the EH culture entered Greece?

^{page 42 note 1} E.g. 113, 115.

^{page 42 note 2} Cf. B.M. Vases I, Fig. 147 (A 700); 119 is the best example here.

^{page 42 note 3} E.g. 117, 118.

^{page 42 note 4} As in the krateriskoi 122, 124; and cf. B.S.A. xxxiii 38 Fig. 83 (from Aetós).

^{page 42 note 5} Cf. B.S.A. xxxiii 44 Fig. 17 (from Aetós).

^{page 42 note 6} Cf. B.M. Vases I, Fig. 205 (A 861).

^{page 42 note 7} Cf. B.S.A. xxxiii 38 Fig. 8.

^{page 42 note 8} Cf. B.S.A. xxv Pl. viii, c, d (from Mycenae).

^{page 42 note 9} Cf. B.S.A. xxxiii 63, 64.

^{page 43 note 1} To judge from the pottery groups at Lakkéthra or Diakáta.

^{page 43 note 2} Cf. pp. 335–373.

^{page 44 note 1} And this description implies an acropolis, which can have been only at Pelikáta. Pòlis represents the later expansion of the settlement towards the harbour.

^{page 44 note 2} Vathý is unlikely; it is too low–lying and shut in; from the neighbouring heights only the approach from the mainland could be commanded; the harbour is a cul–de–sac, not a port of call like the Pelikáta or Aetós harbours.

^{page 44 note 3} cf. B.S.A. xxxiii 64; but also B.S.A. xxxiv (corrigenda to preceding).