^{page 45 note 1} B.S.A. xii. p. 305. To the references there cited should be added a Plate of the theatre in Museum Worsleyanum, which claims independent origin, but adds nothing material to Le Roy's.

^{page 50 note 1} Owing to its height, this piece of masonry was marked on the 1906 Plan (B.S.A. xii. Pl. VIII.) as of a later (Byzantine) period, as was also Ray XVI. on account of its irregularity, and the end of Ray XV. Complete excavation has shewn that this is impossible. Another piece of wall shewn on the 1906 Plan as Byzantine is a face of masonry at the outer edge of the foundation, just where this is broken off beyond Pier XII. Its level, entirely below the upper surface of the foundation, shews that it has no connexion with the system of piers and rays, but that it is a piece of some substructure that supported the part of the theatre towards the river. The possible connexion of the city wall with this part of the building is mentioned below.

^{page 52 note 1} B.S.A. xii. p. 309, and Expéd. de la Morée, ‘Architecture,’ ii. Pl. 46.

^{page 53 note 1} This latter is the arrangement in the theatre at Bosrâ (Durm, Baukunst der Etrusker und Römer, Fig. 737).

^{page 55 note 1} As to the date of the two parts, at the time of writing (April, 1908) an inscription of the Aurelian period has been found in the masonry of the southern part near the temple. This prevents us from assigning this part of the building to an earlier date than the beginning of the third century, the date given by Professor Bosanquet last year. The chronological diagram in Fig. 9 was drawn up before this inscription was found, and it was then thought likely that this part of the building was as old as the end of the second century.

^{page 55 note 2} B.S.A. xii. Pl. VIII.

^{page 55 note 3} B.S.A. xii. p. 317.

^{page 56 note 1} No. 2482 published in B.S.A. xii. p. 376. For Nos. 2561, 2 see below, p. 188.

^{page 57 note 1} For facsimiles see Fig. 6 on p. 38 above. They were published without facsimiles in B.S.A. xii. p. 348.

^{page 59 note 1} Niese, , Geschichte d. griech. und maked. Staaten, iii. p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} B.S.A. xii. pp. 318 sqq.

^{page 68 note 1} The southern end of this altar was found in 1906, in cutting the trial trench A. The contrast between the lower courses of flat stones and the bigger stones above gave the idea that the former were a foundation, and that the structure dated from the period of the Orientalising deposit. This is now seen to be wrong. The connexion with the pavement, and all the circumstances brought out by the complete excavation, make it clear that the altar was built in the Geometric period.

^{page 73 note 1} Herodotus, iv. 33.

^{page 74 note 1} Ridgeway, , ‘Who were the Dorians?’ in Anthropol. Essays Presented to E. B. Tylor, pp. 295 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} Waldstein, , Argive Heraeum, ii. p. 353 Google Scholar, Nos. 32–35, Pl. CXL.

^{page 85 note 1} They are shewn on Pl. 32 of the Ephesus publication.

^{page 86 note 1} B.S.A. xii. p. 320, Fig. 2.

^{page 86 note 2} Waldstein, , Argive Heraeum, ii. p. 353 Google Scholar, No. 87. Not figured.

^{page 86 note 3} Ephesus, Pl. 26, Ia, b.

^{page 88 note 1} Waldstein, , Argive Heraeum, ii. p. 349 Google Scholar, Nos. 39–41, Pl. CXXXVIII.

^{page 88 note 2} Koerte, , Ath. Mitt. 1895, pp. 300–2Google Scholar, Figs. 20, 21.

^{page 88 note 3} As a further sign of Egyptian influence in the Spartan figures, it may be suggested that the long oblong face and peculiar ears of the animal in Fig. 22 f mark it as a hippopotamus, thus bringing this example very close to the Kalaurian seal, about whose Egyptian origin Koerte has no doubt. That it is here shewn devouring a calf, like a beast of prey, is due to Greek ignorance of the habits of the strange beast.

^{page 88 note 4} These are described by Newberry, Scarabs, p. 85.

^{page 91 note 1} Waldstein, , Argize Heraeum, ii. p. 353 Google Scholar, Nos. 27–29, Pl. CXL.

^{page 91 note 2} Waldstein, , Argive Heraeum, ii. p. 351 Google Scholar, Nos. 1–5, Pl. CXXXIX. The suggestion that they are covers for vases does not commend itself to me.

^{page 93 note 1} B.S.A. xii. p. 328, Fig. 5b.

^{page 95 note 1} Sitzb. Kgl. Bayer, Ak. 1906, p. 469.

^{page 95 note 2} Op. cit. p. 472.

^{page 97 note 1} Richards, , J.H.S. xii. p. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 1} Figured on Pl. 34 of the Ephesus publication; especially No. 43. Nos. 40–42 do not sh these details so well.

^{page 100 note 1} Ephesus, Pl. 37, 1.

^{page 100 note 2} B.S.A. xii. Pl. IX.

^{page 100 note 3} B.S.A. xii. p. 328, Fig. 5 a.

^{page 102 note 1} For the significance of this attitude see White, J. F., J.H.S. xviii. p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 2} Walters, History of Ancient Pottery, Pl. XVI. For ships on fibulae see B.M. Cat. of Bronzes, Fig. 85, and ᾿Εφ. ᾿Αρχ. 1892, Pl. 11. References for vases are given below, and are also collected in Ath. Mitt. xvii. p. 285.

^{page 103 note 1} Murray's, arguments in J.H.S. xix. p. 198 Google Scholar, that the Dipylon ship, which he publishes there, is a bireme are not convincing. Much stronger on the other side is Pernice, , Jahrbuch, xv. p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 2} Ath. Mitt. xvii. p. 298, Figs. 5, 6, and p. 303, Fig. 9.

^{page 103 note 3} Mon. Grecs, ii. p. 51, Fig. 3; Arch. Zeit. 1885, Taf. 8; ᾿Εφ. ᾿Αρχ. 1898, Pl. 5, 1.

^{page 103 note 4} Rayet et Collignon, Céramique Grecque, p. 29, Fig. 20, and Mon. Grecs, ii. Pl. 4.

^{page 104 note 1} ᾿Εφ. ᾿Αρχ. 1898, Pl. 5, 1; Dar. and Sagl. Fig. 5264. This construction, with the deck and its supports, appears in a clay model of a ship in the museum of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. I judge by the drawing in Dar. and Sagl., Fig. 5269.

^{page 104 note 2} Figured in Torr, Ancient Ships, Pl. IV. 17, 18, 19. For the decks see Torr, p. 49, whe quotes Thucydides, i. 49: πολλοὺς μὲν ὑπλίτας ἔχοντες ἀμφότεροι ἐπὶ τω̑ν καταστρωμάτων

^{page 104 note 3} Published by Murray, A. S., J.H.S. xix. p. 198 Google Scholar, Pl. VIII.

^{page 104 note 4} B.S.A. xii. p. 323, Fig. 3b.

^{page 105 note 1} Vide infra, § 6.

^{page 105 note 2} Ath. Mitt. xx. pp. 1 sqq.

^{page 105 note 3} B.C.H. 1894, pp. 129

^{page 105 note 4} Walters, Ancient Pottery, p. 289, Fig. 86.

^{page 105 note 5} Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, ii. Pl. XXIX. a.

^{page 105 note 6} B.S.A. xii. p. 338.

^{page 105 note 7} J.H.S. 1885, Pl. LIX.; J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena, p. 193.