^{page 170 note 1} Many points dealt with in this article were discussed in a lecture delivered to the Society of Antiquaries on 1st Nov. 1956. I am indebted to Miss W. Lamb for lending me notes and drawings of her excavation at Phanai, and Prof. N. Kontoleon for permission to publish some pieces in Chios Museum. I refer to the following works by their authors' names alone: Lamb, W., ‘Excavations at Kato Phana in Chios’, in B.S.A. xxxv (1934–1935), 138–64Google Scholar; Weickert, C., Typen der archaischen Architektur (1929)Google Scholar; Shoe, L. T., Profiles of Greek Mouldings (1936)Google Scholar; Dinsmoor, W. B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece (1950)Google Scholar; Kleemann, I., Der Satrapen-Sarkophag aus Sidon (1958).Google Scholar The following abbreviations are used for periodicals: A.A., Archäologischer Anzeiger, in J.d.I.; A. Delt., Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον; A.E., Ἐϕημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική; A. J. A., American Journal of Archaeology; A.M., Athenische Mitteilungen; Ann., Annuario della Scuola Italiana di Atene; B.C.H., Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique; B.S.A., Annual of the British School at Athens; J.d.I., Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts; J.H.S., Journal of Hellenic Studies; M.d.A.L, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts; Ö.Jh., Jahreshefte des Oesterreichischen Arch. Inst.; P.A.E., Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας; R.M., Römische Mitteilungen.

^{page 170 note 2} See J.H.S. lxxv (1955), Suppl. 21 f.; lxxvi (1956), Suppl. 35–38.

^{page 171 note 1} On p. 192 he describes a cache of mouldings he found by the north-east corner of the Basilica Church, including the capital, our no. 29.

^{page 171 note 2} Cf. G. Zolotas, Ἱστορία τῆς Χίον, A. I, 282.

^{page 171 note 3} No relevant site; there is an Early Bronze Age site at Kastri, immediately to the east, and a farmhouse site occupied in the Classical and Late Roman periods beyond A. Ermione to the west.

^{page 171 note 4} Haussollier, B., B.C.H. iii (1879), 325 n. 1Google Scholar, and cf. 323. Another has travelled from Pyrgi to Latomi, some 20 km.; Ἀθηνᾶ XX (1908), 272, 511; Zolotas, , op. cit. 376.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 1} Archives des Missions Scientifiques et Littéraires, (1856), 491 (he mentions columns sold to the English and Psariots), 506. For some earlier travellers' descriptions see Argenti, P. P. and Kyriakides, S. P., Ἡ Χίος παρὰ τοῖς Γεωγράϕοις καὶ Περιηγήταις, pp. 679 (Pococke), 847 (Olivier).Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 2} For this see the plan in Lamb, pl. 27; and cf. Matz, F., A.E. 1953–1954 (2), 99.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} From Johannes, , op. cit., p. 26Google Scholar, fig. 7 left.

^{page 175 note 2} From Hogarth, D. G., Ephesus, Atlas, pl. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} From Antiquities of Ionia, i. ch. v, pl. 5, 1.

^{page 176 note 2} Ibid., pls. 2–5; Shoe, pls. LXV, 8 and LXXI, 23, 27; O. Reuther, Der Heratempel von Samos, Drawings Z 23–31. The preserved bases of the second dipteron are late works copying their archaic prototypes (Buschor, E., A.M. lv (1930), 96–99Google Scholar; Johannes, , op. cit., p. 28Google Scholar; Reuther, , op. cit., p. 65).Google Scholar A base in Berlin with a half-round, not an ovolo, torus may be from the earliest period of the building; see Shoe, pls. LXV, 3 and LXXI, 24; Weickert, C., Antike Architektur, p. 66Google Scholar, fig. 36; Reuther, , op. cit., p. 52Google Scholar, fig.7.

^{page 176 note 3} Petrie, W. M. F., Naukratis, i, pl. 3Google Scholar; see below, p. 203.

^{page 177 note 1} J.H.S. lxxii (1952), pl. 6, 3; late seventh century.

^{page 177 note 2} Compare the examples from Thasos, and Bakalakis' discussion in Ö.Jh. xliii (1958), 18 ff.

^{page 177 note 3} Shoe, pl. XXVI, 2; Weickert, C., Das Lesbische Kymation, pl. 3a.Google Scholar See below, pp. 206 f.

^{page 177 note 4} Koldewey, R., Neandria, p. 29Google Scholar, fig. 59; Schefold, K., Larisa am Hermos, i, pl. 25d (inverted).Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 5} Buschor thought that the capitals of the first dipteron could have been wooden; A.M. lvii (1933), 29 f. Reuther, , op. cit., p. 62Google Scholar, discusses the possibility of flat roofs for the early Ionic temples at Samos and Ephesos, but the tiles of the first dipteron at least seem to suggest a pitched roof.

^{page 177 note 6} Raubitschek, A., Bull. Inst. Bulg. xii (1938), 172 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 7} A.M. XXV (1900), 208–11; R.M. lviii (1943), 3, Fig. 1; Kleemann, pl. 25 a. This splaying cavetto recurs as a wall base moulding at Phanai (below, no. 22), Emporio, and Larisa. Compare too the bases from the Artemision on Delos (Shoe, pl. LXXI, 26) and in the Apollo temple at Bassai.

^{page 178 note 1} The tendency to point the egg can already be noticed on the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi.

^{page 178 note 2} Wiegand, T., Didyma, pl. 215Google Scholar; Lippold, G., Griechische Plastik, pl. 7, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 3} Lethaby, W. R., J.H.S. xxxvii (1917), 7Google Scholar; B.M. Cat. Sculpture, i. 1, 92–94, B 237–42.

^{page 178 note 4} J.d.I. xix (1904), 152, fig. 1; cf. Launey, M., Mon. Piot. XXXV (1936), 47.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 1} Shorter fangs, both upper and lower teeth shown, and more teeth in the corner of the mouth behind the fangs. The chin creases are comparable.

^{page 179 note 2} Larisa am Hermos, i. pls. 41, 8–12; 25 f, h; there seem no good grounds for attributing these mouldings to the earliest palace of the mid-sixth century or earlier. For the cavetto as a base moulding see above, p. 177, n. 7. Compare also the classical altar of the Artemision at Kyrene (Africa Italiana, iv, 225, fig. 43) which both Yavis (Greek Altars, p. 121 ) and Hoffmann (A.J.A. lvii (1953), 195) regard as archaic.

^{page 179 note 3} Shoe, p. 55, pl. XXV, 12. On its date see below, p. 207. The moulding is quite common on statue bases from about 500 B.C.; cf. Raubitschek, A., Dedications from the Athenian Acropolis, nos. 149Google Scholar, 150, 184, 296, and a base in Chios Museum with an artist's signature (Hermarchos and —, sons of Midon; otherwise unknown) of the early fifth century.

^{page 180 note 1} Bakalakis has no. 24 still in the third quarter of the sixth century (Ö. jh. xliii (1958), 25).

^{page 182 note 1} Weickert, passim; Möbius, H., A.M. lii (1927), 165 ff.Google Scholar; Schefold, K., Larisa am Hermos, i, 147 f.Google Scholar; Bakalakis, , A.E. 1936, pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar, Ö. Jh. xxxvi (1946), 54 ff.; Martin, R., B.C.H. lxviii–lxix (1944–1945), 360 ff.Google Scholar, 444 f., Ét. d'Arch. Class, i (1955–6), 126–8; Benoit, F., R.A. xliii (1954), 17 ff.Google Scholar; Buschor, E., A.M. lxxii (1957), 14 ff.Google Scholar These give all references to earlier or less critical works.

^{page 182 note 2} Amandry, P., La Colonne des Naxiens et le Portique des Athéniens (Fouilles de Delphes, ii), p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 1} A.E. 1938. pp. 103 f., and cf. Kontis, J. D., Ann. N.S. viii–x (1950), 30Google Scholar (see below, p. 209, n. 8), and Evangelides, D., A.E. 1924, p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 2} A.M. lviii (1933), Beil. 15.

^{page 183 note 3} It recurs in the Athenian Stoa at Delphi, Amandry, , op. cit., p. 98, pl. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 4} At Afrati, , Ann. x–xii (1927–1929), 187Google Scholar, fig. 206, 451, fig. 586; apparently seventh century (see below, pp. 211 f.). It is interesting to note its occurrence at Sinjirli above a cushion base (Siniirli, ii, 198, fig. 90, 1; Naumann, R., Architektur Kleinasiens, pp. 130 f.Google Scholar, figs. 125, 128.)

^{page 183 note 5} The proportions between the total height of the base and the column diameter remain fairly constant and have no real chronological significance, pace Amandry, , op. cit., pp. 95 f.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 6} Discs nos. 35 and 36 are 1–10 and 0–87 in diameter respectively. In the second dipteron at Samos column-base diameters range from 2–29 to 1–87; at Ephesos from 1–725to 1–51 (see Dinsmoor, pp. 130, 339), and inner columns would have smaller bases still.

^{page 184 note 1} A small base for a column supporting a votive basin seems to be of the same period but has the relevant proportions of 1:2½ and 1:3½ see Buschor, E., A.M. lv (1930)Google Scholar, Beil. II, 2.

^{page 184 note 2} The drawing in Naukratis, i, pl. 3 is derived from a ‘good photograph’ (ibid., p. 13) so the proportions may be slightly misleading. The diameter of the fragment in the British Museum (B.M. Cat. Sculpture, i. 1, 172, B 391; Shoe, pl. LXXII, 1) is approximately 0.60, its height 0.11.

^{page 184 note 3} Shoe, pls. LXV, 6 and LXXI, 26. Shallow flutes, and a disc near those of the second dipteron, but with an unusual splaying profile.

^{page 184 note 4} Humann, C. and others, Magnesia am Maeander, p. 49Google Scholar, fig. 33. Dinsmoor (p. 136) dates the archaic temple in the fifth century. The disc proportions bear this out or could suggest an even earlier date. The material was limestone; the shaft flutes were of the developed Ionic type divided by flat fillets, and may be some of the earliest examples of it. All certainly sixth-century Ionic shafts have sharp arrises to their flutes (as Doric) when they are fluted at all, except for some poros fragments attributed to the second dipteron on Samos (Wiegand, T., I. Bericht, p. 16Google Scholar; Reuther, , op. cit., pp. 47 f.Google Scholar, Drawing Z 32).

^{page 184 note 5} Shoe, pls. LXV, 5 and LXXII, II. The shallow flutes and scotiae seem early, and note the double fillets dividing the scotiae on the base disc.

^{page 184 note 6} B.C.H. xxxvii (1913), 17 ff., figs. 3, 4.

^{page 184 note 7} A.M. lviii (1933), 221, fig. 6.

^{page 184 note 8} Cf. Puchstein, O., Das Ionische Capitell, pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 17–19; Durm, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen, p. 311Google Scholar, fig. 290 top; Lawrence, A. W., Greek Architecture, pls. 75Google Scholar, 1020; Niemann, G., Das Nereiden-Monument, pl. 2Google Scholar; Türk. Ark. Dergisi, vii. 1 (1957), pl. 7, 5; Martin, R., B.C.H. lxviii–lxix (1944–1945), 371.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 1} Cf. Dinsmoor, Index C, s.v. Flutes (Ionic); Amandry, , op. cit., pp. 15 f.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} Typen, pp. 127 f.

^{page 186 note 1} A. Delt. ii (1916), 192 and fig. 5. Fustel de Coulanges had noted the quarries already (see above, p. 172, n. 1).

^{page 187 note 1} B.C.H. xxxvii (1913), 9, fig. 1 left; cf. also the Monodendri altar, Milet, i. 4, 451; Hogarth, D. G., Ephesus, Atlas, pl. 10Google Scholar, and Martin, , op. cit., p. 149.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 2} J.H.S. lxxii (1952), 105.

^{page 187 note 3} The crowning moulding and base are of white marble, the rest of the face is of black marble; Fouilles de Delphes, ii (La Terrasse du Temple), 119 ff.

^{page 187 note 4} Shoe, L. T., Hesp., Suppl. viii, 341 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 5} See below, p. 217, n. 4.

^{page 188 note 1} Other capitals in Chios with similar decoration are B.S.A. XXXV (1934–5), pl. 30 e (Phanai) and fragments from Emporio. Cf. also Drerup, H., M.d.A.I. v (1952), 13.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 2} Tod, M. N., Greek Historical Inscriptions, no. 1Google Scholar; Jeffery, L. H., B.S.A. li (1956), 157–67.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 3} The Samian series is the best known; on this see below, pp. 201 f. There are comparable examples from: the Troad (Jacobsthal, P., Ornamente griechischer Vasen, pl. 137a)Google Scholar; Sardis (Sardis, ii. 1, 78 f., figs. 92–94); Old Smyrna; and cf. Erythrai, (Ö.Jh. XV (1912)Google Scholar, Beibl. 64–66, figs. 50–51; xvi (1913), 57–60, figs. 20–21; Watzinger, C. in Genethliakon W. Schmid, p. 144Google Scholar, fig. 2) and the stele from Dorylaion (A.M. xx (1895), pl. 1; Lippold, G., Griechische Plastik, pl. 18Google Scholar, 1). Also East Greek work in the north, at Perinthos (a Samian colony; Watzinger, , op. cit., p. 149Google Scholar, fig. 7); Giase-Ada (? Stryma, ; A.J.A. lxi (1957), pl. 86Google Scholar, 17); Thasos, (A.J.A. liii (1949), pl. 46c).Google Scholar For the fifth-century stelai see Akurgal, E., Zwei Grabstelen vorklassischer Zeit aus Sinope (Berlin Winckelmann-programm cxi), pp. 14 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} P.A.E. 1952, pp. 524–6, figs. 6–7.

^{page 189 note 2} Ann. x–xii (1927–9), 450, fig. 585.

^{page 190 note 1} For the church see A. Delt. ii (1916), παραρτ. 34 f.

^{page 191 note 1} For some architectonic parallels see Andren, A., Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italie Temples, pls. 41–42Google Scholar, 139, 150; and for the buds compare those on the necking of the Naukratis column, Dinsmoor, p. 126, fig. 47.

^{page 191 note 2} Cook, R. M., B.S.A. xliv (1949), 160.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 3} As J.d.I. iii (1888), 274, fig. 13; Puchstein, O., Das ionische Capitell, pp. 10Google Scholar, fig. 7, 12, fig. 9.

^{page 191 note 4} As at Locri (Dinsmoor, p. 137, fig. 49); Syracuse, , Notizie, 1943, p. 82Google Scholar, fig. 39.

^{page 191 note 5} Cf. Jacobsthal, P., Greek Pins, p. 68Google Scholar on the pine cone in Greek art. He denies its occurrence with floral devices. For the Corinthian adaptation of the Assyrian lotus and cone motif see Payne, H., Necrocorinthia, pp. 146 f.Google Scholar, fig. 54.

^{page 191 note 6} Cf. Jacobsthal, P., Ornamente griechischer Vasen, p. 166Google Scholar, n. 315.

^{page 191 note 7} Cf. the decoration of some Clazomenian sarcophagi, e.g. Acta Archaeologica, xiii (1942), 33 ff., figs, 19, 23, 33.

^{page 192 note 1} Cf. de la Coste Messelière, P., Au Musée de Delphes, pp. 269 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 2} Cf. Jacobsthal, , op. cit., p. 93Google Scholar, pl. 133.

^{page 192 note 3} A.M. lviii (1933), 43–46; cf. lii (1927), 21, and Weickert, C., Antike Architektur, pp. 59–61.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 4} A.M. lviii (1933), Beil. 17, 1.

^{page 193 note 1} The painted decoration on some Athenian capitals is in some ways comparable; e.g. J.d.I. iii (1888), 274 ff., figs. 12, 14, 24, and Puchstein, , op. cit., p. 6Google Scholar, fig. 2. Cf. also, much later, the treatment of echinus eggs on a capital at Sardis, , A.J.A. xvi (1912), 471Google Scholar, fig. 6; Sardis, ii. 1, pl. B and Atlas, pl. 8.

^{page 193 note 2} As also, apparently, on a moulding from Myus (near Miletos) in Berlin (Dinsmoor, p. 140). Cf. later the anta capital from Samothrake: Conze, A., Arch. Untersuchungen auf Samothrake, pls. 29–30.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 3} e.g. Achilles' corslet on the Achilles Painter's vase: Buschor, E., Griechische Vasen, p. 201, fig. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 1} White marble paws from Delos approach ours in size but could not have served anything larger than a throne or exedra; E.A. Délos, xviii, 3, pl. 5, 52, height 0.18.

^{page 194 note 2} J.H.S. xxxvii (1917), 1 f.

^{page 194 note 3} e.g. Frankfort, H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, pls. 89, 114.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 4} Ö. Jh. xv (1912), Beibl. 66–68, figs. 52–53. It is 0.32 high.

^{page 194 note 5} On lions in sculpture see H. Schröder, text to Brunn–Bruckmann, pls. 641–5.

^{page 195 note 1} The drawing is taken from Pococke, R., A Description of the East, ii, 2, pl. 37.Google Scholar For travellers' descriptions see P. P. Argenti and S. P. Kyriakides, Ἡ Χίος παρὰ τοῖς Γεωγράϕοις καὶ Περιηγήταις, pp. 163, 179, 202, 215, 272, 299, 308, 509, 787, 897, 1192, 1784.

^{page 196 note 1} In A.M. liii (1928), 109 ff. They publish a copy of Choiseul-Gouffier's sketch of the site (ibid., Beil. 31, 1) and chide him for his inaccuracy. But, as he admits (cf. Argenti, and Kyriakides, , op. cit., pp. 787 f.)Google Scholar, the sketch was from memory as he had that day forgotten his pencil.

^{page 196 note 2} Cf. Drerup, H., M.d.A.I. v (1952), 26 f.Google Scholar, and, for a rather different architectural use of the motif, Andren, A., op. cit., pl. 14, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} Notably Rhoikos and Theodoros, and perhaps Smilis and Bathykles.

^{page 199 note 1} Amandry, P., La Colonne des Naxiens (Fouilles de Delphes, ii), pp. 26–31.Google Scholar The argued dates for the sphinx and the column correspond because the dating for the sculpture and architecture of this period is based on the same ‘fixed’ point: Ephesos. The correspondence in itself does not mean therefore that the absolute dates proposed are trustworthy, but implies that the monument's place in the apparent development of architecture and sculpture is reasonably certain.

^{page 199 note 2} Ibid., pl. 16.

^{page 199 note 3} Cf. the votive capitals on Delos in Durm, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen, p. 302Google Scholar, fig. 279, 3–4; Perrot–Chipiez, vii, pl. 53.

^{page 199 note 4} Amandry, , op. cit., p. 21Google Scholar, pl. 17, 5–7. And note the recently discovered examples in the island, P.A.E. 1954, p. 337, figs. 10–11 (Τὸ Ἔργον.. 1954, fig. 595 B.C.H. lxxix (1955), 292, fig. 18).

^{page 199 note 5} Drerup holds that the Naxians invented the Ionic capital (see Darsow, W. in Festschrift A. Rumpf, p. 58)Google Scholar, but if this were true I think we should expect the earliest East Greek capitals to reflect the Naxian volute type, which they decidedly do not.

^{page 200 note 1} A.M. lv (1930), 50 f. For his latest views on the chronology of the Samian buildings see A.M. lxxii (1957), 1 ff.; on p. 4 he admits the possibility of an earlier date for the first dipteron.

^{page 200 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 75, 124.

^{page 200 note 3} I. Bericht, p. 23.

^{page 200 note 4} A.M. lv (1930), 95 f. In general on the date of the destruction of the first dipteron see Reuther, O., Der Heratempel von Santos (1957), pp. 63 f.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 5} J.H.S. lxxiv (1954), 41.

^{page 200 note 6} Herodotos (i, 169) implies that the islanders submitted to the Persians without a fight. If the Persians did interfere conceptions of an uninterrupted Samian tyranny might need revision (White, M., J.H.S. lxxiv (1954), 36 ff.).Google Scholar Herodotos' silence about any Persian attack in the 540s cannot be lightly ignored, but does not damn the theory that there was one.

^{page 200 note 7} On this see Buschor, , A.M. lv (1930), 96Google Scholar; Reuther, , op. cit., pp. 51Google Scholar, 63–65.

^{page 200 note 8} For references to a possible original base see p. 172, n.2.

^{page 200 note 9} Reuther, , op. cit., pp. 52 f.Google Scholar, drawings Z 45–47, and cf. p. 14, fig. 5, 5; A.M. lxxii (1957), 16 f.

^{page 201 note 1} Reuther, , op. cit., drawings Z 39–44, pls. 21–24.Google Scholar Weicker's suggestion that the columns never carried volutes, and thus gave rise to Vitruvius' description of the temple as Doric, is surely right (cf. Reuther, pp. 62 f.).

^{page 201 note 2} Shoe, pl. B, 1; A.M. lxxii (1957), Beil. 10, 2; 14, 1; 108; pl. 15 left.

^{page 201 note 3} A.M. lii (1927), pl. 27 top; A.M. lxxii (1957), Beil. 109, pl. 15 right.

^{page 201 note 4} Schleif, H., A.M. lviii (1933), 174 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 5} This may be simply guess-work on the part of Herodotos or the Delphians, as there was no inscription on the dedication, a krater (Hdt. i, 51). Cf. Real-Encyclopädie s.v. Theodoros; Hoffmann, H., A.J.A. lvii (1953), 193–5.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 6} The famous ring, Hdt. iii, 41.

^{page 201 note 7} I. Bericht, pp. 22 f.

^{page 201 note 8} Weickert, pp. 115 f.

^{page 202 note 1} As Schefold, K., Larisa am Hermos, i, 148.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 2} Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen (1898), pp. 30–32.

^{page 202 note 3} R. M. Cook discusses the material in B.S.A. xxxiv (1933–4), 88 f. He points out one isolated find of a late vase. Grave 48 need not, I think, be later than the others.

^{page 202 note 4} A.M. lviii (1933), 31–34, Group IV, Beil. 11–13, 1. Like the alternate red and black palmette leaves in vase painting.

^{page 202 note 5} Ibid., pp. 34–36, Group V, Beil. 13, 2–14. One such stele was in fact found in this cemetery, but not clearly re-used as the earlier had been (Böhlau, , op. cit., pl. 1, 1).Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 1} Schede, M. (II. Bericht, p. 8)Google Scholar mentioned Lakonian, Fikellura, and faience scraps in the destruction level of the earlier building but in no publication of the pottery from Samos have the sherds from this level been distinguished. Ohly's comment on figurines in the Altar fill (A.M. lxv (1940), 66, 67 n. 1) suggests an early date. See also A.M. lv (1930), 50 f.; A.A. 1933, p. 252; 1937, p. 204; A.M. lxxii (1957), 49 f.

^{page 203 note 2} The architectural fragments have been discussed by Dinsmoor (pp. 125 f.), Pryce, F. N. (B.M. Cat. Sculpture, i. 1, 171 ff.)Google Scholar, Weickert, (op. cit., pp. 86 ff.)Google Scholar, and von Bissing (Bull. Alex. xxxix (1951), 67 ff.).

^{page 203 note 3} Naukratis, i, 13, pl. 3. So we are even at liberty to speculate whether it was not from an Aeolic capital.

^{page 203 note 4} B.M. Cat. Sculpture, i. 1, 172, B 391; see p. 184, n. 2.

^{page 203 note 5} Reuther, O., op. cit., p. 52Google Scholar, fig. 7; A.M. lxxii (1957), Beil. 11, 2.

^{page 203 note 6} Naukratis, ii, 59, 65, no. 778; Hoffmann, , op. cit., pp. 193 f.Google Scholar, pl. 59, fig. 14.

^{page 203 note 7} Ibid., pp. 189 ff. The date of the altar of Aphrodite at Naukratis is so doubtful, however, that one might as easily suspect that it derives from the Samian Great Altar.

^{page 203 note 8} Loc. cit. (cf. B.C.H. xxxvii (1913), 13 n.; Weickert, , op. cit., p. 129).Google Scholar For the stratigraphy Dinsmoor follows Gjerstad (Liverpool Annals, xxi (1934), 67 ff.), whose brave attempt to resurrect the stratigraphy of Naukratis produces so many anomalies in pottery-dating that none of it can be trusted. See Cook, R. M. in J.H.S. lvii (1937), 227 ff.Google Scholar; Gjerstad's answer to one point, in Swedish Cyprus Expedition, iv. 2, 321, n. 8, is rather weakened by his misquoting the number and therefore the date of the Rhitsona tomb with a Chian chalice in it.

^{page 204 note 1} Bissing, Von (op. cit., p. 73)Google Scholar suggests that Darius' first visit to Egypt in 493 B.C. might be about the time of the construction of the second temple. The inscribed block which has been associated with this building (B.M. Cat. Sculpture, i. 1, B 427, p. 175, fig. 214) has letters which can hardly antedate the fifth century.

^{page 204 note 2} Hogarth, D. G., J.H.S. xxv (1905), 109.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 3} On this dating see Kaletsch, H., Historia, vii (1958), 39–47.Google Scholar The date 541 B.C., for the fall of Kroisos, has its champions.

^{page 204 note 4} Hogarth, D. G., Ephesus, pp. 5–7Google Scholar; Pryce, F. N., B.M. Cat. Sculpture, i. 1, 35 f.Google Scholar; Picard, C., Éphèse et Claros, pp. 29 f.Google Scholar; Dinsmoor, p. 224. The building was spared by Xerxes (Strabo, p. 634).

^{page 204 note 5} Lippold, G., Griechische Plastik, p. 60Google Scholar; cf. Rumpf, A., La Critica d'Arte, xiv (1938), 45.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 6} P. 6. Wood found a large abacus fragment (BM 73. 5–5. 111) which, from the style of the eggs, seems unlikely to belong to the fourth-century temple; yet the volute pattern at the abacus corner has acanthus elaboration which can hardly be earlier than the middle of the fifth century (cf. Jacobsthal, P., Die Melischen Reliefs, p. 13Google Scholar; Kleemann, p. 72).

^{page 205 note 1} Absent on the Naxian columns and on later capitals from Samos and Didyma.

^{page 205 note 2} Hogarth, , op. cit., p. 270Google Scholar, fig. 81.

^{page 205 note 3} Cf. too the corner palmette over the echinus on the same capital (Dinsmoor, pl. 30 below).

^{page 205 note 4} For a variant see Lethaby, W. R., J.H.S. xxxvii (1917), 10Google Scholar, fig. 9; Pryce, , op. cit., p. 44Google Scholar, B 65.

^{page 205 note 5} Contrast Dinsmoor, pl. 30 top and bottom.

^{page 206 note 1} Jacobsthal, P., Greek Pins, p. 67Google Scholar, fig. 283; cf. Möbius, H., A.M. lii (1927), 167 f.Google Scholar, Beil. 19, 1. On the Attic capitals see Möbius, , op. cit., pp. 165 ff.Google Scholar; Züchner, , A.A. 1936, pp. 327 ff.Google Scholar; Drerup, H., A.A. 1937, pp. 234 ff.Google Scholar; Bakalakis, G., Ö. Jh. xxxvi (1946), 57 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} Möbius, , op. cit., pp. 167 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 27 below.

^{page 206 note 3} An analogous moulding for the cushion side appears on a capital from Halikarnassos (Plommer, W. in B.S.A. xlix (1955), 169–71Google Scholar, pl. 12 a-b). The tongue-like leaves restored on its echinus are strange; it is not clear whether there is evidence for their continuation right up to the cushion as they appear in the restored drawing. A plain member above shorter eggs would look happier and could be paralleled in the islands and Athens. If the tongues are correct the closest parallels appear in the west, on capitals at Gela (Durm, J., op. cit., p. 302Google Scholar, fig. 279, 7; Walters, H. B., B.M. Cat. Terracottas, p. 164Google Scholar, fig. 40; Monumenti Antichi, xvii (1906), 737, fig. 558; and a sandstone capital recently excavated, A.A. 1954, pp. 647 f., fig. 102 and 657; Griffo, P., Atti Acc. Agrigento, 1953/1954, pl. 8, 2Google Scholar; A.J.A. lviii (1954), pl. 89, 23—alleged to be the ‘first of this order in Sicily’). The un-carved back to the capital is not unusual in this period. It appears on two Samian capitals (see above, p. 201, nn. 2, 3) and one Chian (above, no.52, pl. XXVIII b). The reason for it was no doubt economy; the volutes may have been painted. Eggs beneath volute cushions are sometimes not carved, as on the Propylaia at Athens.

^{page 206 note 4} B.C.H. lxviii/lxix (1944–5), 341 ff.

^{page 206 note 5} A.A. 1938, pp. 605 f., 601 f., fig. 16.

^{page 206 note 6} Raubitschek, A., Bull. Inst. Bulg. xii (1938), 132–81.Google Scholar If Raubitschek is right in suggesting that his dedication no. 1 (Dedications from the Athenian Acropolis, pp. 5 f.) might belong with the poros capital figured by Wiegand, in Poros-Architektur, p. 173Google Scholar, fig. 172 this will be the earliest Ionic capital in Athens (before 5 50 B.C.). However, its large eye, concave channels, and simple binding to the cushion sides indicate a far later date. It has nothing in common with the Naxian capitals which have concave channels and are early.

^{page 207 note 1} For the moulding see Weickert, C., Das lesbische Kymation, pl. 3aGoogle Scholar; Shoe, pl. xxvi, 2. For the dating, Raubitschek, , op. cit., pp. 449 f.Google Scholar; Guarducci, M., Ann., N.S. iii–v (1941–1943), 118–24Google Scholar; Suppl. Epigr. Graecum, x, 318; xii, 56. The earlier date seems generally now preferred.

^{page 207 note 2} See especially de la Messelière, Coste, Au Musée de Delphes, pp. 258 f.Google Scholar and fig. 12. A definitive publication of the building is being prepared.

^{page 207 note 3} Fouilles de Delphes, ii, 1, 119 ff.; Replat, J., B.C.H. xliv (1920), 328 ff.Google Scholar; Pomtow, , Real-Encyclopädie, Suppl. v, 69–72; Shoe, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 4} In Cyrène sous la Monarchie des Battiades, pp. 291 f., pl. 7, 23. Detailed photographs are published by Cassels, J. in B.S. Rome xxiii (1955), pl. 11a–b.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 5} Chamoux, , op. cit., pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar, remarks on the prosperity of Kyrene under Battos IV (after 515–510 B.C.) and good relations with the Persians.

^{page 208 note 1} The reconstructed drawing in Milet, 1, 8, 66, fig. 37 implies five scotiae in the cushion, an unlikely deviation from the usual four which does not seem to be justified by the remains.

^{page 208 note 2} von Gerkan, A., Milet, i, 4.Google Scholar On its date see Hoffmann, H., A.J.A. lvii (1953), 189 f.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 3} H. Knackfuss in Wiegand, T., Didyma, i, 124, pl. 212.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 4} Ibid., pp. 130 f., pls. 224–6, F 622–5.

^{page 208 note 5} Ibid., pp. 147 f., pls. 210–11 cf. p. 148, pl. 213, F 723 a.

^{page 208 note 6} Weickert's suggestion that one capital might be from a Samian votive offering there is attractive (Antike Architektur, p. 64, fig. 35).

^{page 208 note 7} Didyma, i, 142 f., pls. 206, 208; Weickert, , op. cit., pp. 55–58Google Scholar, figs. 30–31; Dinsmoor, p. 133, n. 3; Shoe, p. 20.

^{page 208 note 8} Didyma, i, 143 f., pls. 207, 209; Weickert, , op. cit., pp. 51–55Google Scholar, figs. 27–29; Dinsmoor, p. 133, pl. 31; Shoe, p. 20.

^{page 208 note 9} Noack, F., Die Baukunst des Altertums, pl. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 10} Shoe, X, 6, pl. c, 6; cf. A.M. xxxvii (1912), pl. 15; lxxii (1957), 22 f., Beil. 25, 1, 3. Kleemann, p. 180, n. 255, discusses this, and the Didyma capitals. Buschor, , A.M. lxxii (1957), 8Google Scholar, 18, has all the Didyma capitals sixth-century, admitting post-Persian replacement (p. 22).

^{page 209 note 1} The floral, Dinsmoor, p. 140. The akroterion, Weickert, , op. cit., pp. 59 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 34. The base, Shoe, pl. LXXI, 25; the bevelled edge should surely be at the bottom, not the top; cf. Samos.

^{page 209 note 2} J. Böhlau, K. Schefold, and others, Larisa am Hermos, i.

^{page 209 note 3} Ibid., pls. 20–21.

^{page 209 note 4} Ibid., p. 125, fig. 21, pl. 22 e–f.

^{page 209 note 5} Ibid., p. 123 f., pls. 23, 24 a.

^{page 209 note 6} Ibid., pl. 22 d.

^{page 209 note 7} Hasluck, F. W., B.S.A. viii (1901–1902), 195 f.Google Scholar, pl. 6; Mendel, G., Sculpture de Constantinople, ii, 43 f.Google Scholar, no. 285 (fig.).

^{page 209 note 8} Kontis is mistaken in thinking that the volute is a triple roll (Ann., N.S. viii–x (1950), 30).

^{page 209 note 9} Akurgal, E., Anatolia, i (1956), pl. 3.Google Scholar For an earlier type of capital from the site see Martin, R., Ét. d'Arch. Class, i (1955–1956), 121, 125.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 10} Bakalakis, G., A.E. 1936, pp. 8 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 10–27.

^{page 210 note 1} Möbius, H., A.M. lii (1927), 170Google Scholar; Bakalakis, , op. cit., p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} There seems some confusion over this capital. Schefold quotes it as the earliest capital with convex channels known and says it is from Miletos, (Larisa am Hermos, i, 147 f.Google Scholar; cf. Martin, R., B.C.H. lviii–lxix (1944–1945), 362 f.Google Scholar, n. 7). Mr. J. M. Cook has kindly supplied me with a photograph of the piece and tells me that it is from the ‘Baths of Diana’ near Smyrna.

^{page 210 note 3} Op. cit., pp. 19–23. He thought early in that quarter, but the patterns on metalwork which are comparable go well into the fifth century; see Jacobsthal, P. and Langsdorff, A., Bronzeschnabelkannen, pls. 29–32passim.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 4} Bakalakis, , op. cit., p. 17Google Scholar n. 1, figs. 25–26.

^{page 210 note 5} E.A. Délos, xii, 210, fig. 264; Bakalakis, G., Ö. Jh. xxxvi (1946), 55 f.Google Scholar, figs. 1–2; Vallois, R., L'Architecture hellénique, i, 130Google Scholar; Dinsmoor, p. 133.

^{page 210 note 6} Cf. Martin, R., B.C.H. lxviii–lxix (1944–1945), 444 f.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 7} The moulding in Oxford attributed to Paros by Dinsmoor (p. 133, n. 1) is not from the Arundel Collection, but from Smyrna and the gift of Mr. Hyde Clarke to the University in 1866. The provenance is probably trustworthy, as other Hyde Clarke marbles, mainly inscriptions, ‘from Smyrna’ are certainly Smyrnaean, and those ‘from Ephesos’ Ephesian. It cannot be far in date from the capital, Smyrna 712, see n. 2.

^{page 210 note 8} Cf. L. T. Shoe, Western Greek Mouldings; Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks, pp. 280–4.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 9} Cf. Dinsmoor, pl. 30 (the tips of the palmette are restored but there were clearly long darts between the leaves).

^{page 211 note 1} Benoit, , op. cit., p. 37, fig. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} Dinsmoor, p. 94; Krauss, F., M.d.A.I. i (1948), 11 ff.Google Scholar; Shoe, , op. cit., pp. 116, 158Google Scholar; Fasti, vii (1952), 126 f.; Benoit, , op. cit., pp. 21Google Scholar, 28, 34 f., figs. 13–14; Sestieri, P. C., Il nuovo Museo di Paestum (Itinerari dei Musei no. 89), p. 30 (fig.).Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 3} For the base see Krauss, , op. cit., p. 18 fig. 4.Google Scholar Torus to disc proportions of 1: 3, and disc height to diameter of 1: 5 are unusual.

^{page 211 note 4} Krauss, F., Paestum, pl. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 5} Dinsmoor, pp. 136–8, fig. 49; Säflund, G., Opusc. Arch. ii (1941), 87Google Scholar, proposes a slightly earlier date. Shoe in Western Greek Mouldings dates members to the third quarter of the fifth century.

^{page 211 note 6} Monumenti Antichi, i (1890), pl. 2 bis; Dunbabin, , op. cit., p. 297.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 7} On survival see Möbius, , op. cit., p. 169Google Scholar; Benoit, , op. cit., p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 8} Levi, D., Ann. x–xii (1927–1929), 187Google Scholar, fig. 206, 451, fig. 586; Karo, G., A.J.A. xlv (1941), 93Google Scholar; Martin, R., Ét. d'Arch. Class, i (1955–1956), p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 9} Levi, , op. cit., pp. 184–6Google Scholar and fig. 205 (which cannot be earlier than 650 B.C.). The incised ‘abacus’ from another tomb (Ibid., pp. 179, fig. 198 c, 451, fig. 586) which was associated with the capital by Levi recalls bases and slabs from Kourtes and Prinias in Crete (Halbherr, F., A.J.A. v (1901), 290Google Scholar, fig. 17, 400, fig. n).

^{page 211 note 10} Cf. Dinsmoor, pl. 13 (Treasury of Atreus); B.S.A. xlix (1954), 241, pl. 40 c (Mycenae, ivory columns).

^{page 212 note 1} Dinsmoor, pp. 59 f., 140 (he calls the type Aeolic); Martin, op. cit.

^{page 212 note 2} Pernier, L., Ann. i (1914), 18 ff.Google Scholar; on the date of the sculpture see Karo, G. in Greek Personality in Archaic Sculpture, pp. 97 f.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} Typen, pp. 58 f.; for the volute see Pernier, , op. cit., pp. 63 f.Google Scholar, fig. 28; he answers Weickert, in A.J.A. xxxviii (1934), 176.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 4} Marinatos, S., Kretika Chronika, 1953, pp. 258 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 2 (perhaps the capital mentioned in A.A. 1933, 295; 1934, 246).

^{page 212 note 5} Cf. Demargne, P., La Crète dédalique, pp. 155–7.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 6} There are good brief discussions in Dinsmoor, pp. 58 ff.; Lawrence, A. W., Greek Architecture, pp. 130 ff.Google Scholar See also Drerup, H., M.d.A.I. v (1952), 7 ff.Google Scholar; Krischen, F. in Antike und Abendland, ii, 77 ff.Google Scholar; Andrae, W., Die ionische Säule, and in Kleinasien und Byzanz, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Martin, R., Etudes d'Arch. Class., i (1955–1956), 128–31.Google Scholar A fragment of an Aeolic capital has now been found in Thasos, , B.C.H. lxxx (1956), 421.Google Scholar Phrygia may yet prove the source of inspiration for some Greek architectural motifs although what has been so far found is too late to be relevant; cf. Körte, G., Gordion, pp. 110 f.Google Scholar, figs. 87–89; Haspels, C. H. E., Phrygie, iii, no, pl. 45eGoogle Scholar; Young, R. S., A.J.A. lx (1956), pl. 85Google Scholar, fig. 18. Still less is known of Lydia but the use of swallow-tail clamps in the Tomb of Alyattes and the so-called Tomb of Tantalos (Miltner, F., Ö. Jh. xxvii (1932)Google Scholar, Beibl. 153) is interesting, as are the mouldings on the latter monument (if they are not imaginary; see Texier, C., Asie Mineure, ii, pl. 130Google Scholar; Miltner, , op. cit., p. 151).Google Scholar The decoration of the Phrygian basis, Anatolia, iii (1958), pl. 1, is more probably Greek-inspired.

^{page 213 note 1} Cf. Frankfort, H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, p. 210Google Scholar: ‘In the seventh century B.C. Greece was no longer avid for foreign goods; the oriental themes which had been borrowed in an earlier age had now been transformed into truly Greek designs.’

^{page 213 note 2} Thus, palm-leaves between volutes on an ivory fly-whisk from Nimrud may, in a way, anticipate the Corinthian capitals of some 300 years later (Barnett, R. D., Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories, p. 110)Google Scholar, but there can be no causal relationship between what was an isolated motif in North Syria in the eighth century, and an architectural member whose origins within the development of Greek decorative design are clear. If bell capitals with volutes and acanthus were attested in the Near East in the early fifth century it would be a different matter.

^{page 213 note 3} An apt illustration of the sort of problem involved is given by Barnett's comparison between the two-bodied, one-headed lion on a vase from Afrati in Crete and a rather similar creature on a gold plaque from the Ziwiye treasure (in The Aegean and the Near East, p. 232, pl. 21, 2–3; cf. also Frankfort, H., Cylinder Seals, p. 312).Google Scholar The Cretan monster is on a black-figured vase. Black-figure was learnt in Crete from Protocorinthian vases about the middle of the seventh century (Payne, H., Necrocorinthia, p. 51).Google Scholar A date for the vase earlier than the second half of the seventh century is not admissible on stylistic grounds. With the technique the Cretans copied also the repertoire of animals and monsters; so the artist of the vase in question may simply be reproducing what, on vases or other objects, was already familiar to him in Greek art. No immediate borrowing from the east need necessarily be deduced. What is to be sought is the immediate source for these monsters when they first appear in archaic Greek art of the seventh century. Various sources are possible, but I doubt whether the Assyro-Scythian art of the Ziwiye treasure (which on Barnett's own dating might be later than the Cretan vase; Iraq, xviii (1956), 116) need be one of them, despite the few Luristan-like objects found in Greece. But are we obliged to look to the east at all? ‘Not through eastern windows only ….’ The monster was already at home in Greece in the Late Bronze Age (e.g. Palace of Minos, iv, 585 f., figs. 575–7), and in view of the many certain revivals of Mycenaean forms and motifs in archaic Greece the possibility that this is to be added to them cannot be entirely ruled out. Finally we must dispel the suspicion that any artist who habitually draws heraldically opposed animals may be moved to economize in their heads of his own accord (cf. Deonna, W., Rev. Arch, xxxi (1930), 28 ff.).Google Scholar

This is a minor point picked out of an article full of important and significant speculation, but only from a detailed appraisal of the way in which oriental motifs were adopted by the Greeks can a true understanding of the Greek debt to the east be gained; and such an appraisal must go far beyond comparison of isolated motifs.

^{page 214 note 1} Dinsmoor, op. cit., and Lawrence, op. cit.

^{page 214 note 2} Barnett, (Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories, p. 99)Google Scholar suggests that the Near Eastern ‘recessed niches’ afford a prototype for Greek door-mouldings and the Ionic architrave with triple fasciae. Both, when they appear in stone, reflect building techniques in other materials: the former, timber and brick; the latter, overlapping planks.

^{page 214 note 3} Naumann, R., Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung, ii (1953), 130–2Google Scholar; Architektur Klein asiens, pp. 138 ff.

^{page 214 note 4} Arch. Kl., p. 143, fig. 162. There is a drawing of the Khorsabad relief in Botta, P. E., Monuments de Ninève, ii, pl. 114Google Scholar; a photograph in Loud, G., Khorsabad, i, 72Google Scholar, fig. 83. A photograph of the Nineveh relief in Frankfort, , The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, pl. 106 (top)Google Scholar, and cf. Perrot–Chipiez, ii, 142 f., figs. 41–42. A different form on the Sippara tablet, Frankfort, , op. cit., pl. 121Google Scholar (early ninth century B.C.).

^{page 214 note 5} On this basic structural difference see von der Osten, H. H. in Die Welt der Perser, p. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 1} In Egypt something like regular architectural ‘orders’ were more familiar. Greek monumental sculpture in the seventh century was no doubt inspired by contact with Egypt (certainly not with the east), and it may be that the same source supplied the inspiration for Orders' in Greek monumental architecture, although not for all the motifs employed, which, in Ionic, were derived from an existing Greek orientalizing repertoire.

^{page 215 note 2} Herzfeld, E., Iran in the Ancient East, p. 207Google Scholar, fig. 137 (a drawing, apparently inaccurate); Archaeological History of Iran, pp. 32, 37, pl. 5 (a photograph); Ghirshman, R., Iran (Penguin Books), p. 124Google Scholar, fig. 50 (a poor drawing); Osten, von der, op. cit., p. 75Google Scholar, pl. 38 (a good photograph); van den Berghe, L., Archéologie de l'Iran ancien, pl. 86bGoogle Scholar (a good photograph). Cf. Frankfort, , op. cit., p. 265Google Scholar, n. 64; Barnett, R. D., Iraq, xix (1957), 75.Google Scholar The large, close-set volutes remind one of Greek fifth-century capitals with their volutes inside the lines of the column shafts.

^{page 215 note 3} e.g. Naumann, R., Architektur Kleinasiens, p. 143Google Scholar, fig. 158. For the most recently found example (from Ramath Raḥel in Judah), and references to Palestinian examples see Aharoni, Y., Israel Expl. Journ. vi (1956), 141 f.Google Scholar, pl. 27 b. Some antecedents are discussed by Engberg, R. M. in May, H. G., Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult, pp. 39–42Google Scholar (and see pls. 10, 11, 13). New examples from Hazor are carved on both sides and stood on rectangular pillars, Israel Expl. Journ. ix (1959), 79, pl. 9A, B.

^{page 215 note 4} e.g. Evans, A. J., The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos, p. 64Google Scholar, fig. 69; Demargne, P., La Crète dédalique, pl. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} Cf. Barnett, R. D., Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories, pp. 107–10Google Scholar; Frankfort, , op. cit., pl. 170bGoogle Scholar; Naumann, , op. cit., pp. 143 f.Google Scholar, fig. 159.

^{page 216 note 1} T. J. Dunbabin in The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours (J.H.S. Suppl. Paper no. 8), especially chapters 3–5, gives some well-chosen examples of these processes of borrowing and adaptation.

^{page 216 note 2} As in sculpture, with the naturalistic rendering of drapery folds. This appears early in the sixth century in Greece where it is a logical step forward in the Greek artist's growing command of realism. Nothing in the rather stereotyped Near Eastern sculpture of the seventh century hints at the possibility of such an advance; there the representation of human beings changes little, though there is fine relief sculpture of animals. Cf. K. Erdmann, Forschungen und Fortschritte, xxxvi (1950), 150–2; Frankfort, op. cit., pp. 225 ff.; Barnett, Iraq, xix (1957), 75, has doubts.

^{page 216 note 3} Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, i (1929–30), pl. 2; E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis, i, 14, fig. 8 b.

^{page 217 note 1} Cf. Erdmann, op. cit.

^{page 217 note 2} See p. 183, n. 4; Sinjirli.

^{page 217 note 3} Schmidt, , op. cit., p. 22Google Scholar; Frankfort, , op. cit., p. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 4} See p. 187; for Urartu see Herzfeld, E., Archaeological History of Iran, p. 17Google Scholar; Barnett, R. D., Iraq, xix (1957), 74.Google Scholar Contrasting relief slabs at Tell Halaf and Carchemish, cf. Naumann, , op. cit., p. 82.Google Scholar Polychrome rubble at Gordion: A.J.A. lx (1956), 260.

^{page 217 note 5} Herzfeld, E., Iranische Felsreliefs, pp. 166 ff.Google Scholar; Krischen, F., Weltwunder der Baukunst in Babylonien und Ionien, pp. 67–71Google Scholar, figs. 29–30, pl. 21; von der Osten, H. H., Die Welt der Perser, pl. 40 (good photograph).Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 6} The colonnade itself was constructed in the thirteenth century A.D. with columns removed from other sites; see Herzfeld, E., Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, i (1929–1930), 8.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 7} Herzfeld, E., Iranische Felsreliefs, p. 171Google Scholar, fig. 82.

^{page 217 note 8} It may be anticipated in Minoan Crete; cf. Evans, A. J., Palace of Minos, iv, 73Google Scholar, fig. 46 (another fragment in Oxford: 1938. 416).

^{page 217 note 9} Richter, G. M. A., A.J.A. 1 (1946), 25Google Scholar; Schmidt, , op. cit., p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 10} Compare the bases of the Athenian Stoa at Delphi, Amandry, , op. cit., p. 96, pl. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 11} Frankfort, , op. cit., p. 224Google Scholar and note 70.

^{page 218 note 1} Drerup, H., M.d.A.I. v (1952), 13 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} Cf. Erdmann, , op. cit., p. 152 f.Google Scholar, speaking of the relief sculpture: ‘Wie das auch in folgenden Jahrhunderten so häufig der Fall ist, entlehnt der Orient nur die Form, nicht das Wesen.’

^{page 218 note 3} Lamb, pls. 27, 29.

^{page 218 note 4} Cf. Gersbach, A., Geschichte des Treppenbaus (1917)Google Scholar, passim. When I prompted Mr. Barnett's remark on this architectural feature (Iraq, xix (1957), 77, n. 1) we had both overlooked its long earlier history; the Karangun stairway, there cited, is not so nearly relevant.