^{page 175 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 119 ff.

^{page 176 note 1} In this respect the cavea-plan, op. cit. Pl. X., is therefore erroneous.

^{page 176 note 2} As is there pointed out, the second portion of this inscription was found built into the fortification-wall along the line of the west Parodos, above Staircase I. This need not be taken as evidence that the two building-operations were simultaneous. I suggest below, p. 207 f., that the rebuilding of the drain may date from ca. A.D. 300, and the fortification-wall from ca. 395.

^{page 177 note 1} B.S.A. xxvi. p. 250 ff.

^{page 177 note 2} This core was conspicuously tough, and a few marble fragments, including a piece of a good Ionic volute, were found built into it. We did not try to reach the bottom of the foundations at this point.

^{page 177 note 3} Cf. B.S.A. xii. p. 424 f., and Pl. VIII. 3.

^{page 178 note 1} Excavations in 1927 have shewn that there cannot have been an external staircase here.

^{page 179 note 1} Cf. B.S.A. xiii. pp. 191 ff.

^{page 181 note 1} See below, p. 211 ff.

^{page 181 note 2} S.M.C. 87, 88, 530.

^{page 182 note 1} Cf. B.S.A. xxvi. p. 149, The difference in the levels of the paving is there given wrongly as ·49 m.

^{page 182 note 2} That on the south, as we shall see (p. 190), rests on an earlier foundation.

^{page 183 note 1} The lifting-bosses on the face of the steps resemble those on Staircase I, and elsewhere on the stairs in the cavea.

^{page 183 note 2} Apparently a variant of B.M.Cat., Byz. Coins, Manual I. No. 68.

^{page 184 note 1} ·25 m., as against ca. ·49 m.

^{page 184 note 2} See below, p. 225 ff., Nos. F 1–4.

^{page 185 note 1} B.S.A. xxvi. p. 134.

^{page 185 note 2} This is visible on the extreme right, on Pl. XXX.

^{page 186 note 1} Pls. XXVII and XXIX shew the general view of the stage from the west, at the end of the work in 1926.

^{page 187 note 1} These are denoted by the letters RP on the plan, Pl. XXVII.

^{page 187 note 2} It has been kindly suggested to me by Dr. E. Fiechter that the original purpose of these stone sockets may well have been to hold timber uprights for the support of the wooden stage. The rubbish-pits would thus be later enlargements of the original postholes below these sockets. This seems highly probable. A block with a square hole in it found at the west end of the central pier may have belonged to the same system.

^{page 190 note 1} Denoted C—C on the new plan, Pl. XXVII.

^{page 190 note 2} In addition to the interruptions caused by the three piers, a stretch ca. 3 m. long has been uprooted just west of the central pier.

^{page 190 note 3} Similarly, we have not discovered a return of the north wall at this end, and later disturbances leave it doubtful if, as would be expected, it projected west of the Byzantine wall.

^{page 192 note 1} Professor Dörpfeld, who paid a visit to the site in 1927, before this report was finished, tells me that he believes they represent the ‘Scaena Ductilis’ (cf. Servius ap. Vergil, Georg. iii. 24; Dörpfeld-Reisch, , Griech. Theater, p. 138Google Scholar; D.-S. s.v. Machina, p. 1468), and that in the early Imperial period there was no raised stage in the Sparta theatre. With all deference to an interpretation offered by so great an authority, I am still disposed to believe that these are merely rain-water channelings. With his other conclusion, as will be seen below, I fully agree, though I cannot suggest an exact date for the first raised stage. There may well have been a temporary wooden stage in use until the Hyposcenium was built.

^{page 192 note 2} Can the threshold-like sinking have been meant to hold a πίναξ, in the intercolumniation of a colonnade? The width of the wall (·45 m.) is consistent only with a very smallscaled structure, in any case.

^{page 193 note 1} The remains of marble veneering above the level of the ledge (op. cit. p. 145) are now perfectly intelligible, for they represent the background behind the colonnade.

^{page 196 note 1} The two massive poros blocks giving access to this doorway from the back are well seen on the left in Fig. 5; the vertical joint to the left is typical of the appearance of the blocked openings, and Fig. 6 shews another good example.

^{page 196 note 2} P. 145 f.

^{page 197 note 1} Cf. Judeich, , Topographie von Athen (Iwan von Müller, Hdbch., iii. 2, 2), pp. 334 ff.Google Scholar and Fig. 12.

^{page 197 note 2} B.S.A. xxvi. p. 146.

^{page 198 note 1} Perhaps the plinths too are re-used material, for on the central pier everything above the poros course is re-used marble, of a most miscellaneous nature.

^{page 198 note 2} To be published later. There is, I think, no doubt that it represents Apollo, not Dionysos; and it seems to be a variant of the A. Lykeios type.

^{page 200 note 1} Coarse clay jars used for the latter purpose have been found at more than one point in the vicinity of the theatre at Sparta. A good example found at Corinth near the Lechaion road is shown in A.J.A. 1927, p. 75, Fig. 3.

^{page 200 note 2} The cheek-piece of the second warrior seems to be adorned with an animal's head in relief (perhaps a ram's?).

^{page 200 note 3} S.M.C. pp. 223 and 235 (Fig. 82).

^{page 201 note 1} B.S.A. xii. p. 292 and Pl. IX. In the drawing the horses are shewn (restored) as of the compact fifth-century type; they should be much more archaic and attenuated.

^{page 201 note 2} Cf. S.M.C. p. 223, Fig. 78; and refs. ibid.

^{page 201 note 3} Van Buren, E. Douglas, Greek Fictile Revetments, pp. 18, 60 f., etc.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 4} The theatre at Aizanoi (cf. Fiechter, , Baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des Antiken Theaters, Pl. 88aGoogle Scholar, after Texier and Le Bas) offers a good parallel for a division of the area behind the stage into three rooms, subdivided later, it seems, into five.

^{page 202 note 1} B.S.A. xii. pp. 396 ff.

^{page 203 note 1} B.S.A. xii. p. 412 and Fig. 2; cf. S.M.C. 442a, b.

^{page 203 note 2} B.S.A. xxvi. p. 152.

^{page 203 note 3} Op.cit. 148 f.

^{page 205 note 1} Rubbish-pits behind Hyposcenium covered over at this date.

^{page 205 note 2} For the dates given, cf. Liebenam, W., Fasti Consulares Imp. Rom., p. 118 f.Google Scholar, following Mommsen, , Jurist. Schriften, ii. pp. 300 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} The καί shews that it cannot have been in honour of Honorius alone. If he was coupled with Arcadius, the latest possible date would be 408.

^{page 206 note 2} One half of this inscription [. . ἀ]πὸ Διοσκούρων etc., was published by Tillyard, (B.S.A. xii. p. 461Google Scholar, No. 13(a)), who coupled it with a much-worn piece (b) to which it cannot belong. This is accepted by the editor of the Corpus, who gives a more correct reading of (a), but his conjunction of the two cannot stand. The lettering of the two portions differs both in style and spacing.

^{page 206 note 3} Cf. I.G. v. 1, 559.

^{page 207 note 1} B.S.A. xxvi. p. 225 f., No. 20.

^{page 207 note 2} B.S.A. xxvi. pp. 154 and 205 f., Nos. 3 and 4.

^{page 208 note 1} Zosimos, iv. 18 (cf. v. 6), tells us that Athens was the only city of Greece to escape this disaster.

^{page 208 note 2} See Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Heruli, especially col. 1154.

^{page 208 note 3} This inference makes more intelligible the presence of the rubbish-pits behind the Hyposcenium (cf. p. 187 f. above).

^{page 208 note 4} Zosimos, v. 6; and in general, Hertzberg, , Geschichte Griechenlands, iii. p. 396 f.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 5} This was the conclusion reached by Traquair, , B.S.A. xii. p. 428 f.Google Scholar; who, however, dates this portion of the wall just after the invasion of the Goths. I would rather see in it a work of defence thrown together when the invasion was impending. Additions made in the Byzantine period, as regards the walls in the region of the theatre, must, I think, be dated later than the eighth century, to which he would attribute the latest work, in view of our lack of Byzantine coins of an earlier date than Basil I. (867–86).

^{page 209 note 1} Pending the final cleaning and identifying as far as possible of all the coins from the site, this conclusion is not absolutely certain, but hitherto no recognisable piece later than the reign of Honorius has come to light.