² OK, 112–13.

³ N. Platon and E. Touloupa, ‘Oriental seals from the palace of Cadmus: unique discoveries in Boeotian Thebes’, Illustrated London News, 28 Nov. 1964, 859.

⁴ Kadmeia I, 72–4.

⁵ TT II, 61, 66–7. According to this theory, the ‘central’ sites were well constructed, north—south-oriented, belonged to the wings of a Peloponnesian-type palace and were intended for ‘comfortable living’ (Treasury Room, Soteriou-Dougekou building, Stavri structures). The ‘peripheral’ sites were remote, complementary, carelessly built with varying orientation. ‘Filled with the bustle of life’, they were intended for craftsmanship and storage (HK, Kordatzi phase B, Arsenal).

⁶ OK, 107–8, fig. 20 β.

⁷ OK, 70, 86; Άνασκαϕή 1929, 61.

⁸ Wright, J., ‘Mycenaean palatial terraces’, AM 95 (1980), 60Google Scholar.

⁹ Ibid. 61.

¹⁰ OK, 86.

¹¹ The designations Π1, Π2, Λ1-Λ3 were not given by the excavator. In general, we follow Keramopoullos' and Symeonoglou's room labels, with the following exceptions: Π2 = Π5 in Topography, 223; Λ1 = ‘unlabelled room’ and Π2 in Topography, 218, 222 (there is no reason to infer the existence of two separate spaces there); Λ2 = Π5 in Topography, 223; Λ3 = Π4 in Topography, 223.

¹² Άνασκαϕή 1921, 33; Άνασκαϕή 1922, 30; Topography, 216.

¹³ Ditches were opened in areas B and Г during World War II, which exacerbated their preservation (Symeonoglou, S., ‘Καθαρισμὸς Παλαιοῦ Καδμείου’, A. Delt. 21 B1 (1966), 191Google Scholar).

¹⁴ The asymmetry was noted by Keramopoullos (άτετραγώνιστο μεγαρο Ανασκαφή 1928, 51).

¹⁵ Keramopoullos thought that this ‘complex wall’ blocked the area (Άνασκαϕή 1921, 33), but its foundations are integrated with those of the surrounding walls.

¹⁶ OK, 111; Άνασκαϕή 1922, 31.

¹⁷ Barber, R., ‘The origins of the Mycenaean palace’, in Sanders, J. (ed.), Φιλολάκων: Laconian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (Athens, 1992), 19Google Scholar.

¹⁸ OK, 86; Φιλολάκων, 33.

¹⁹ OK, 87–9; Άνασκαϕή 1927, 145; Άνασκαϕή 1927, 42. When the ‘collapsed’ plaster floor of room N proved to have been in situ, the excavator abandoned the idea that the building was multistoreyed altogether.

²⁰ The direction and number of flights can be reconstructed in different ways. Faraklas, N. (Θηβαïκά, Arch. Eph. 135, Athens, 1998, 187Google Scholar) believes that the staircase would have been situated near the corner of E–Z or where Z meets M. With an average height of 2 m for the ceiling, however, the reconstruction of twenty regular-sized steps (0.30 m wide, 0.18 m high) to cover the full length of E (c. 6 m) suggests a height of only 0.10 m for each step.

²¹ The stirrup-jars of room I, at least, seem to have been sealed and in use at the time of destruction (OK, 75). More than 100 stirrup-jars originate from Δ–E–Z–K and Θ. Circulation was probably limited but not impossible, owing to the adequate width of the corridors (1–1.15 m).

²² OK, 72; Symeonoglou has reasonably cast some doubt on the nature of these almost razed walls (Topography, 216).

²³ Topography, 41; Demakopoulou, K., ‘Palatial and domestic architecture in Mycenaean Thebes’, in Darcque, P. and Treuil, R. (eds), L'Habitat Egéen Préhistorique (BCH suppl. 19; Athens, 1990), 310Google Scholar.

²⁴ OK, 66–7.

²⁵ Άνασκαϕή 1928, 47. The corridor is not depicted in any of the published plans. The 1930 plan shows the Turkish bath too close to the south wall of room Π, diminishing Π1. Also, the orientation of the bath is NE–SW, rather than north-south. Symeonoglou (Topography, cat. fig. 1) includesboth orientations in his plan of the site.

²⁶ Topography, 41, 222; Άνασκαϕή 1928, 47.

²⁷ Άνασκαϕή 1928, 46. The thickness of the terrace fill was uneven, owing to the southward sloping stereo. A fragmentary wall in the north shaft of the medieval building may have belonged to Π2 (cf. Platon, N. and Touloupa, E., ‘Οίκόπεδον Α. και Σ. Τζώρτζη’, A. Delt. 19 B2 (1964), 195, pl. 230Google Scholar α).

²⁸ Cf. Iakovidis, S., Glas I (Athens, 1989), 152Google Scholar.

²⁹ The excavator claimed that hammers were not used (Άνασκαϕή 1928, 49), but he had earlier identified traces of the practice (Άνασκαϕή 1927, 40). For the source of limestone, see Tataris, A., Kounis, G. and Marangoudakis, N., Geological Map Ojt Greece: Thivai Sheet, Scale: 1:50.000 (Athens, 1970Google Scholar).

³⁰ Άνασκαϕή 1921, 34. Cf. Küpper, M., Mykenische Architektur: Material, Bearbeilungslechnik, Konstruktion und Erscheinungbild (Internationale Archàologie, 25; Espelkamp, 1996), 118–19Google Scholar; Hult, G., Bronze Age Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus, Ugarit, and Neighbouring Regions (SIMA 66; Göteborg, 1983Google Scholar). Two courses survive today, but at the time of Wright's, J. doctoral fieldwork a third one existed higher up (‘Mycenaean Masonry Practices and Elements of Construction’, Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1978, fig. 83Google Scholar). The first course is 0.60–0.65 in high, the second 0.40 m high; the third one would have been c. 0.40 m high, to judge from Wright's photograph.

³¹ Άνασκαϕή 1927, 37, 40, 49; Βιομηχανίαι, 30; OK, 76, 85.

³² Άνασκαϕή 1911 146; Άνασκαϕή 1922, 29; Άνασκαϕή 1927, 49.

³³ Άνασκαϕή 1912, 87, fig. 1; N. Kawadias, ‘Λογοδοσία του συμβουλίου’, PAE 1912, 76; Topography, 41.

³⁴ The upper surface protruded 0.105 m; the overall dimensions of the block were 2.10 × 1.90 × 0.75 m.

³⁵ Iakovidis, S., Αί Μυκηναϊκαί Ακροπόλεισ (Athens, 1973), 21–2Google Scholar; Shaw, J., Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques (ASA n.s. 33; Rome, 1973), 119Google Scholar.

³⁶ Άνασκαϕή 1927, 37–9; Βιομηχανίαι, 30.

³⁷ Άνασκαϕή 1929, 63.

³⁸ This surface generally stands at an elevation of c. 201.95 m, but the krepis of the main west axis stands c. 1 m higher.

³⁹ This slot is rectangular and measures 0.17 × 0.22 × 1.50 m (preserved length).

⁴⁰ The second row would have stood about 0.68 m above the euthynteria of the socle. The third row is 0.69 m above the second.

⁴¹ Άνασκαϕή 1927, 36, 40–1, fig. 4.

⁴² In room Π the beams had a spacing of 0.80–0.88 m (Άνασκαϕή 1927, fig. 5). In room N, however, the spacing reached 1.05 m (centre of north wall, Άνασκαϕή 1929, 62, figs. 1–2).

⁴³ The slots measure 0.14–0.20 m in width.

⁴⁴ Άνασκαϕή 1929, 63; cf. Orlandos, A., Τά Γλικά Δομῆσ τῶν Αργαίων Ελλήνων κατά τούς Συγγραφεις τάσ Επιγραφάς καὶ τὰ Μνημεῖα i (Athens, 1958), 60, fig. 33Google Scholar ε.

⁴⁵ Cf. S. Iakovidis, ‘Mycenaean roofs: form and construction’, in Darcque and Treuil (n. 23), 158–9.

⁴⁶ Άνασκαϕή 1927, 39; cf. Tournavitou, I., The ‘Ivory Houses’ at Mycenae (BSA suppl. 24; Athens, 1995), 9Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ E. Hallager, ‘Upper floors in LM I houses’, in Darcque and Treuil (n. 23), n. 15 (quoting Friedrich); cf. Orlandos (n. 44), 24–5.

⁴⁸ Melted lead came to light in the black layer on the floors, in the context of gold, bronze, glass, and steatite artefacts (OK, 79, 101; Άνασκαϕή 1911, 144, 146–7; Άνασκαϕή 1929, 63).

⁴⁹ Άνασκαϕή 1927, 42; Άνασκαϕή 1928, 47.

⁵⁰ Άνασκαϕή 1921, 33; Άνασκαϕή 1928, 48–9.

⁵¹ Topography, 44; Faraklas (n. 20), 188.

⁵² OK, 76, 88. These came from the older frescoes deposit of room N.

⁵³ The first two fragments were found in Z–K (OK, 73, 102–5, figs. 7, 19). Others were later found in room I (Άνασκαϕή 1921, 32). Their width ranges from 0.05 m to 0.13 m depending on preservation.

⁵⁴ OK, 76, 89, 91. These are 0.01–0.02 m thick.

⁵⁵ OK, 91; Άνασκαϕή 1911, 144; Άνασκαϕή 1921, 33; Άνασκαϕή 1929, 60–1.

⁵⁶ OK, 88–93. Their thickness ranges between 0.02 m and 0.05 m, but some pieces are thinner.

⁵⁷ Boulotis, C., ‘Στοιχεία για τις μυκηναϊκέσ τοιχογραφίες από την Βοιωτία Η πομπή των γυναικών του Καδμείου’, in Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βοιωτικών Μελετών (1988), IA:αGoogle Scholar (abstract)

⁵⁸ Procession: Reusch, H., ‘Der Frauenfries von Theben’, AA 63–4 (1948), 240–53Google Scholar; ead., Die zeichnerische Rekonstruktion des Frauenfrieses im böothchen Theben (Berlin, 1954)Google Scholar. Bird: OK 93, 2. 6; cf. Spyropoulos, Th., Μυκηναϊκά τοιχογραφήματα ἐκ Θηβῶν, A. Delt. 26 A (1971), 107Google Scholar n. 12. Shield and dado: Reusch, H., ‘Ein Schildfresco aus Theben’, AA 69 (1953), 12, 19Google Scholar; Kadmeia I, 55.

⁵⁹ A. Wace had rightly attributed the fresco to a phase that did not see the final conflagration. For the opposite view, see Boardman, J., On the Knossos Tablets (Oxford, 1963), 75–6Google Scholar, n. 2; Catling, H. and Millett, A., ‘A study of the inscribed stirrupjars from Thebes’, Archaeometry, 8 (1965), 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ OK, 77–8, 88; Άνασκαϕή 1911, 144; Άνασκαϕή 1929, 60.

⁶¹ OK, 69, 76; Άνασκαϕή 1911, 144.

⁶² Άνασκαϕή 1927, 41–2. Too little information is published on the fresco pieces found in Λ, Λ3, 0, Π1, Π2 and trench 1 to correlate them with the rest. Those from room O were in a similar state as the new frescoes in rooms N, Π, whereas the fragment found in Π2 was probably unstratified (OK, 69, 81; Άνασκαϕή 1911, 146; Άνασκαϕή 1928, 47, 50, 52).

⁶³ The floor surface of room Π was described as white κερανι.τις γη perhaps the remains of another lime floor (Άνασκαϕή 1927, 35).

⁶⁴ Such pieces were scattered here and there in room Π (Άνασκαϕή 1927, 39).

⁶⁵ OK, 74. The excavator thought that the grid, whose beams were spaced every 0.35 m and were at least 0.13 m wide, belonged to a nearby wall.

⁶⁶ OK, 69, 71, 79; Άνασκαϕή 1911, 145–7. Carbonized logs were originally seen under the plaster floor of room N, but this was recognized as a mistake in the later report.

⁶⁷ Cf. Hallager (n. 47), 285; Tournavitou (n. 46), 18. These beams were 0.20 m wide and 0.75–0.79 m apart, and the planks were 0.03 m thick (Άνασκαϕή 1927, 39).

⁶⁸ Άνασκαϕή 1927, 39. The slabs measured 0.27 × 0.27 × 0.02 m or 0.32 × 0.32 × 0.03–0.05 m. At Zakro, Palaikastro, and Mallia, thin and rectangular plaques were used as floor tiles for pavements and interior floors. Even in Crete, however, they are rare and their use seems to have been limited within MM II B-LM I B (Shaw (n. 35), 204–5).

⁶⁹ Cf. Topography, 222.

⁷⁰ OK, 90; Keramopoullos, A., ‘Θηβαïκά’, A. Delt. 3 (1917), 76–7Google Scholar, fig. 58; Άνασκαϕή 1927, 39.

⁷¹ The watery slip was mistaken for paint (OK, 70). S. Iakovidis (n. 28), 155, nn. 57–8 has reported similar traces on tiles from Glas.

⁷² OK, 71.

⁷³ Spyropoulos, Th., ‘Νέον Καδμεῖον’, A. Delt. 26 B1. (1971), 207Google Scholar. Roof tiles are commonly unearthed in Theban plots; cf. Demakopoulou (n. 23), fig. 6.

⁷⁴ Moreover, the intact ‘terracotta slabs’ are shorter than the roof tiles known from other Mycenaean sites. The HK slabs are 0.27–0.32 m long, while those from other sites are usually 0.19–0.34 m longer.

⁷⁵ OK, 86.

⁷⁶ Άνασκαϕή 1928, 51; Keramopoullos, A., ‘Lichtschächte in festländischen mykenischcn Palasten’, in Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Bericht über die Hundertjahrfeier (Berlin, 1930), 252–3Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Άνασκαϕή 1911, 143; Keramopoullos 1917 (n. 70), 327–8, n. 2.

⁷⁸ OK, 71–2; Topography, 218.

⁷⁹ Άνασκαϕή 1911, 144; C. Tsountas, ‘Ανασκαφαι Οδός Πινδάρου 1886’, PAE 1886, 67, pl 5. 8

⁸⁰ Three other fragmentary walls were found under the terrace fills of rooms Λ, Π, and K, but nothing suggests that they were contemporary with each other or with the older wall in room N (OK, 65–7, 72, 85–6; Άνασκαϕή 1929, 34).

⁸¹ OK, 80, 105; Άνασκαϕή 1911, 145; Άνασκαϕή 1927, 42.

⁸² Άνασκαϕή 1929, 61.

⁸³ OK, 78–80.

⁸⁴ OK, 105–6; Reusch 1954 (n. 58), 41–7.

⁸⁵ Immerwahr, S., Augean Painting in the Bronze Age (London, 1990), 115–17Google Scholar (KN nos. 22 4, TI no. 4, TH nos. 1, 3, 5, 8). For a low date of the Procession, cf. Dickinson, O.T.P.K., The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation (SIMA 49; Göteborg, 1977), 98Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Cf. VIP, 58 n. 236.

⁸⁷ There is the additional problem that the stone relief cannot be attributed to the structural parts of the building with certainty.

⁸⁸ Bosanquct, R., ‘Some Late Minoan vases found in Greece’, JHS 24 (1904), 324–7Google Scholar, pl. 16 a–b; Evans, A., ‘The palace of Knossos’, BSA 7 (1900–1901), 91Google Scholar, fig. 30.

⁸⁹ Demakopoulou, K., ‘Οδός Πινδάρου 52 (οἰκόπεδο Εύαγγ και Παν Δαγδελένη)’, A. Delt. 34 B1 (1979), 166Google Scholar, pl. 53 β ead. (n. 23), fig. 3. A Mycenaean wall was found in the plot but was not obviously related to the LH strata in which the relief fragment was found. No other pieces were reported.

⁹⁰ Cf. Immerwahr (n. 85), 13.

⁹¹ VIP n. 231. The kylikes were accompanied by the tags ‘Καδμεῖον 1921, ὐπό τὴν στρῶσιν τοιχογραφημάτων’, ‘1921, ὑπὸ τὴν στρῶσιν τοιχογραφημάτων’ and ‘Καδμεῖον 192[ ] ὑπὸ τὴν στρῶσιν τοιχογραφημάτων’. The 1921 campaign did focus on the fresco deposit under the plaster floor of room N, near its north-west corner. Raison also mentioned (VIP, n. 232) a decorated cup (Appendix 2, B. 1) with two labels: ‘ὑπὸ τὴν στρῶσιν τοιχογραφημάτων’ and ‘ὑπὸ τὰ τοιχογραγήματα’. These, however, do not include any year information.

⁹² Άνασκαϕή 1929, 61; ΛΒιομηχανίαι, 32–3.

⁹³ Catling and Millett (n. 59), 12–6; Kadmeia I, 73 nn. 450, 457; Simpson, R. Hope and Dickinson, O.T.P.K., A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age I: The Mainland and the Islands (SIMA 52; Göteborg, 1979), 244–5Google Scholar. More recently, Catling, H., Cherry, J., Jones, R., and Killen, J., ‘The Linear B inscribed stirrup-jars and West Crete’, BSA 75 (1980), esp. 93–101Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ OK, 100, 106.

⁹⁵ Ελλαδικὴ φραφή, 66.

⁹⁶ Furumark, A., The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm, 1941), 52Google Scholar; id., ‘The settlement at Ialysos and Aegean history c. 1550–1400 BC’, Opuscula Archaeologica, 6 (1950), 264 n. 4.

⁹⁷ The excavator stressed that only the upper layer (επίπαγος) was damaged in the area (OK, 100).

⁹⁸ VIP, 18–19, 33–41 nn. 198–9.

⁹⁹ VIP, 50–9; Platon and Touloupa (n. 3), 860.

¹⁰⁰ Kadmeia I, 73–4.

¹⁰¹ VIP, 59.

¹⁰² Rutter, J., AJA 78 (1974), 88–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snodgrass, A., Gnomon, 47 (1975), 313–16Google Scholar. The fills of rooms B–C in Kordatzi plot were between 3.30–3.70 m deep from street level. The ivory hoard was 0.20–0.40 m above room A and wall III of the earlier phase, i.e. c. 3.32–3.52 m from street level. However, it does not follow that the hoard was stratigraphically connected to room C, as it was found east of the room where no remains of the second building phase were found.

¹⁰³ Topography, 49–50.

¹⁰⁴ The fallacies of the alignment argument have been explained by Catling et al. (n. 93). Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘The Theban stirrup-jars and East Crete: some remarks’, Minos, 13 (1972), 130–6Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Mountjoy, P., Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction (Oxford, 1993), 16–17Google Scholar; Catling et al. (n. 93). Additional support for a LH IIIB destruction date comes from the epigraphically and petrologically very similar transport stirrup-jars from Chania, which also originate from a LH IIIB context (RMDP, 640–1). However, we do not agree that the Midea inscribed stirrup-jar from an LH IIIB2 context can prove that the HK was conflagrated in LH IIIB2.

¹⁰⁶ Some other transport stirrup-jars are more difficult to date precisely, as the examples with the wavy line decoration, which have come to light in Thebes in a LH III B2-C destruction context as well (TT II, photo 81).

¹⁰⁷ Dakouri-Hild, A., ‘The Production and Consumption of Elite Goods in Mycenaean Thebes’ (Ph.D diss., University of Cambridge, in preparationGoogle Scholar).

¹⁰⁸ OK, 111.

¹⁰⁹ Faraklas, N., ‘Θῆβαι ἀνασκαφή οἰκοπέδου Λιακοπούλου-Κύρτση’, AAA 1 (1968), 241–3Google Scholar, fig. 1. The trenches are 0.220.25 m deep, with a maximum preserved length of 5.50 m, and 0.60–0.80 m wide.

¹¹⁰ Platon and Touloupa (n. 3), 859; Topography, 307.

¹¹¹ Demakopoulou, K., ‘Τάφρος ΔΕΗ στή γωνία τῶν ὀδών Βουρδουμπᾶ καὶ Πινδάρου’, A. Delt. 29 B2 (1973–1974), 441–2Google Scholar.

¹¹² OK, 111.

¹¹³ Symeonoglou, S., ‘Οδός Πινδάρου’, A. Delt. 22 B1 (1967), 226Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Demakopoulou, K., ‘Οδός Πινδάρου’, A. Delt. 32 B1 (1977), 98Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Platon, N. and Touloupa, E., ‘Ανασκαφή οἰκοπέδου Ε Αντωνίου’, A. Delt. 19 B2 (1964), 197Google Scholar, fig. 3; ‘Καδμεῖον Οίκόπεδον Εύαγγ. Αντωνίου Πινδάρου καί Αντιγόνησ’, A. Delt. 20 B2 (1965), 233Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Select references: N. Platon and E. Touloupa (n. 27), 194–5, pls. 224–30; ‘Καδμεῖον Οὶκόπεδον Α καί Σ Τζώρτζη Πινδάρου Αντιγόνησ’, A. Delt. 20 B2. (1965), 230–2Google Scholar, fig. 1, pls. 275–7; Spyropoulos (n. 73), 202–6, figs. 5–6; Aravantinos, V., ‘Από την αυγή του ελληνικου' πολιτισμού οι νέες μυκηναϊκές επιγραφές από την ΚΑδμεία Θήβα’, in Die Geschichte der hellenischen Sprache und Schrift (Ohlstadt, 1996), 197–9 nn. 14, 76Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Bedrock was found in the Room of Pithoi c. 195.45 m high, while in room B of the HK it stands 201.70 m high.

¹²³ OK, 113–21; Άνασκαϕή 1922, 29.

¹²⁴ OK, 82–3, fig. 1. The trench was north-south directed, rather than east-west (Topography, cat. fig. 1). Another north-south LH wall came to light 8 m west of the kiln, closer to the HK. It was quite wide, but damaged by later habitation (Άνασκαϕή 1912, 85). Further, Keramopoullos dated parts of a later duct system and a well near the kiln to Mycenaean times. This is rather unlikely given their technical characteristics (Άνασκαϕή 1911, 143; Άνασκαϕή 1912, 85). An east—west, LH built duct was more recently found in front of the market. It crossed a LH, north-south wall (Filippaki, V., Symeonoglou, S. and Faraklas, N., ‘Ανασκαφαί καὶ ἔρευναι Θῆβαι’, A. Delt. 22 B1 (1967), 230Google Scholar).

¹²⁵ Cf. Kilian, K., ‘Ältere Mykenische Residenzen’, Schriften des Deutschen Archäologen, 9 (1987), 121Google Scholar; id., ‘Μυκηναϊκὰ ανάκτορα της Αργολίδασ’, Πελοποννησισκά 14 (1989), 37.

¹²⁶ P. Darcque, ‘Pour l'abandon du terme mégaron’, in Darcque and Treuil (n. 23), 21–31.

¹²⁷ Hiesel, G., Späthelladische Hausarchitektur: Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des griechischen Festlandes in der späten Bronzezeit (Mainz, 1990Google Scholar); Schaar, K., ‘An Interpretation of the Palace Plan at Mycenae’ (Ph.D diss., Cornell University, 1979), 23–5Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ Shear, I., ‘Mycenaean Domestic Architecture’ (Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1968), vol. ii. 459–60Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ OK 86, 89–90; Άνασκαϕή 1928, 51; Βιομηχανίαι, 33.

¹³⁰ Edwards, R., ‘Some traditional links between Crete and Boiotia’, Teiresias, 72.1.1 (1972), 2–5Google Scholar; ead., Kadmos, the Phoenician. A Study in Greek Legends and the Mycenaean Age (Amsterdam, 1979), 87–113Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Topography, 44, 48; Faraklas (n. 109), 242–3; TT II 70.

¹³² Spyropoulos, Th., ‘Excavations in Boiotia during 1970’, Teiresias, 71.1.1. (1971), 5–6Google Scholar; Keramopoullos 1917, (n. 70), 92, 186.

¹³³ A life-size Procession fresco has been found 200 m to the north, in a house that is architecturally unrelated to the HK (Aravantinos, V., ‘Οδός και Ευρυδίκης οικόπεδο)’, A. Delt. 37 B1 (1982), 165Google Scholar). The Procession was, according to the excavator, similar to that from the HK and came from a LH III A2 or LH III B building complex.

¹³⁴ Arsenal (select references): Platon, N. and Touloupa, E., ‘αφών Στάικου 25 Ανασκαφή οἰκοπέδου Δημ. Παυλογιαννοπούλου Καδμεῖον Οἰκόπεδον03B5;λοπίδου’, A. Delt. 19 B2 (1964), 197Google Scholar n. 5, pl. 231; id., ‘Δημ. Παυλογιαννοπούλου Π Οἰκόπεδον’, A. Delt. 20 B2 (1965), 233–5, pls. 277 γ, 280 ?α; Spyropoulos, Th., ‘Δημ. Παυλογιαννοπούλου ὀδός Πελοπίδου Οδός Πελοπίδου’, A. Delt. 26 B1 (1971), 209Google Scholar; Demakopoulou, K., ‘Οδόσ 28’, A. Delt. 29 B2 (1973–1974: 1974), 441Google Scholar, pl. 291 α–δ; Aravantinos, V, ‘Πελοπίδου αρχείο πινακίδων Γραμμικής Β 28 (Οδός Πελοπίδου)’, A. Delt. 48 B1 (1993), 170–1Google Scholar; id., ‘αρχείο πινακίδων Γραμμικής Β’, A. Delt. 49 B1 (1994), 274–6, figs. 4–5, pl. 86 γ. The Loukou plot (select references): Sampson, A., ‘Οδόσ Πελοπίδου οικόπεδο Μ. Λούκου’, A. Delt. 35 B1 (1980), 217–20Google Scholar, pls. 97 α–β, 98 α–δ; id., ‘La destruction d'un atelier palatial Mycénien à Thèbes’, BCH 109 (1985), 21–9.

¹³⁵ E. Andrikou, ‘The pottery from the destruction layer of the Linear B archive in Pelopidou street, Thebes’, appendix in Aravantinos, V., ‘Mycenaean texts and contexts at Thebes: the discovery of the new Linear B archives of the Kadmeia’, in Deger-Jalkotzy, S., Hiller, S., and Panagl, O. (eds), Floreant Studia Mycenaea, i (Vienna, 1999), 45–102Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ A deep bowl with spiral decoration from the destruction fill of Lianga phase B (Piteros, C., ‘Οδοσ Οιδίποδος οικόπεδο Δ. Λιάγκα’, A. Delt. 38 B1 (1983), 133Google Scholar, pl. 64 β) is paralleled by a LH III B2-C example from the Soteriou-Dougekou building (TT II, photo 61).

¹³⁷ The stratigraphic evidence from the Christodoulou—Lianga complex, which was destroyed in both LH III Bi and LH III B2-C, suggests that the later destruction (LH III B2-C) attested in some plots is not to be confounded with an earlier one (LH III B1) attested in others (Cf. Aravantinos, V., ‘Nuovi elementi sulle catastrophi nella Tebe micenea: osservazioni preliminari’, in Musti, D. (ed.), Le ongini deigreci: Don e mondo egeo (Bari, 1985), 349–53Google Scholar).

¹³⁸ There is a dispute as regards the destruction date of the LH building found in Koropouli plot. The first excavator dates the destruction to LH III B2 (Spyropoulos, Th., ‘Τοπογραφικά τοῦ Καδμείου ἀνακτόρου’, AAA 3 (1970), 272Google Scholar; id., Αμφεῖον Ερευνα καὶ Μελέτη τοῦ Μνημείου τοῦ Αμφείου Θηβῶν (Sparta, 1981), 18–9), whereas the second favours a destruction at the end of LH III B1 (Demakopoulou, K., ‘Οδός Πινδάρου 29’, A. Delt. 29 B2 (1973–1974), 430–33Google Scholar, pls. 283–5; ead., ‘Μυκηναϊκόν ἀνακτορικόν ἐργαστήριον εἰς Θήβασ’, AAA 8 (1974), 162–73Google Scholar, figs. 1–14). Demakopoulou reported that a LH III B2 deposit clearly overlay the destruction fill of the building and that no deep bowls FS 284B were found in the latter.

¹³⁹ OK, 83–4; Άνασκαϕή 1911, 143, 148–9. The kiln measurements: diameter = 2.30 m (1.50 m internal); total length = 2.80 m; surviving height = 0.70 m; height of firebox = 0.60 m; width of socles = 0.30–0.40 m; width of firebox opening = 0.45 m; parapets = 0.25 × 0.60 m; interior bench = 0.40 × 1.25 m; width of perforated plaque = 0.17 m; diameter of perforations = 0.07 m.

¹⁴⁰ For the term, see Evely, D., ‘Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques’ (D.Phil diss., University of Oxford, 1979), i. 435Google Scholar. The parallels: Frödin, O. and Persson, A., Asine. Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922–1930 (Stockholm, 1938), 67Google Scholar; Sjöberg, B., ‘Two possible Late Helladic kilns at Asine: a research note’, in Gillis, C., Risberg, G., and Sjöberg, B. (eds), Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the Craftsman (SIMA pocketbook 143; Jonsered, 1997), 89–99Google Scholar: I thank Professor B. Wells for drawing this paper to my attention; Åkerstrom, Å., ‘A Mycenaean potter's factory at Berbati near Mycenae’, in Atti e Memorie del i⁰ Congresso di Micenologia (Incunabula Graeca 25; Rome, 1968), i. 46–53Google Scholar; Blegen, C. and Lang, M., ‘The palace of Nestor excavations of 1959’, AJA 64 (1960), 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Touchais, G., ‘Chronique des fouilles en 1981’, BCH 106 (1982), figs. 119–21Google Scholar. The Theban kiln is bigger than the Milesian ‘type 1’ kilns though, see Niemeier, W.-D., ‘The Mycenaean potter's quarter at Miletus’, in Laffmeur, R. and Betancourt, P. (eds), Τέχνη. Craftsmen, Crqftswomcn and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 16; Liège, 1997), 347–51Google Scholar.

¹⁴¹ The ash layer extended 4 m west of the kiln, but a possible continuation was later found in trench 6 some 25 m to the north-west: Άνασκαϕή 1912, 86; Άνασκαϕή 1922, 29. On the provenance of the stirrup-jars (select references): Cf. Catling, H. and Jones, R., ‘A re-investigation of the provenance of the inscribed stirrup-jars found at Thebes’, Archaeometry, 19 (1977), 137–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Catling et al. (n. 93), esp. 51–83; P. Day and H. Haskell, ‘Transport stirrup-jars from Thebes as evidence of trade in Late Bronze Age Greece’, in Gillis et al. (n. 140), 87–107; H. Mommsen, E. Andrikou, V. Avavantinos and J. Maran, ‘Neutron activation analysis results of pottery from Boeotia, including ten linear B inscribed stirrup-jars from Thebes; in Proceedings of International Symposium on Archaeometry, Budapest, 1998 (in press); I thank Professor Maran for allowing me to preview this paper.

¹⁴² Catling and Millett (n. 59), 11; OK, 83.

¹⁴³ This appendix is a study sample representing relatively diagnostic sherds from the old excavations. The preservation of the sherds' surfaces varies and is generally not good. This may account for the occasional absence of bands on and below rims, and of paint on the interiors of certain open vessels. The # mark signifies a charred surface. The intact and restored vessels from the site are currently being studied by the author.