No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2013
When we began excavation at Phylákopi in 1896 we did so with the great advantage of knowing from what was visible on the surface that nothing would be found on the site that was later than Mycenaean. This fact simplified vastly the problem of excavation as compared with that offered by sites like Mycenae and Troy. The evidence we were in search of was presented from the surface downwards without any later admixture. Thus we had our attention directed exclusively to prior questions in which the problem ot the Mycenaean civilization would present a final stage.
page 18 note 1 The huge disproportion between the rich finds of 1898 and the comparatively poor ones of 1896–7 is easily understood when we remember that the well-preserved houses of the east half of the site (F—M) are only matched by the exterior of the strong wall at the west end.
page 20 note 1 Patroni, , Mon. dei Lincei, viii. p. 419.Google Scholar
page 20 note 2 Orsi, , Bulletino di paletrologia italiana, 1890, p. 177Google Scholar; Notizie degli Scavi, 1898, p. 35.
page 21 note 1 Ibid. tav. vi.
page 22 note 1 v. supra, p. 2.
page 22 note 2 Since this was written Tsountas has published the results of an excavation made in this neighbourhood, s. 'Εφ.'Αρχ 1898, pp. 168 ff.
page 26 note 1 Cf. glass-paste ornaments from Spata. Bull. Corr. Hellen. ii. Pl. 16. I, 2.
page 31 note 1 Cp. p. 18, supra.
page 35 note 1 For some account of the obsidian quarries of Melos, see Annual, III., p. 77.