^{page 83 note 1} For previous discussion see P. N. Ure, Origin of Tyranny pp. 164 ff., 314 ff. My historical conclusions, it will be seen, are similar to his, though I differ from his inter pretation of archaeological results (the body of evidence has been considerably increased since he wrote). My obligation to A. A. Blakeway's views, shortly to be published, is great.

^{page 83 note 2} Hoppin, J. C., in Argive Heraeum ii 174 ff.Google Scholar; Classical Review 1898, 86–7.

^{page 83 note 3} Perachora i 145.

^{page 83 note 4} BSA xxxv, 191; new photographs, pl. 52.

^{page 83 note 5} Seventh century import; p. 135 fig. 66. See also Asine p. 321 fig. 219, 4 (Rhodian Geometric).

^{page 84 note 1} Most of these will surely be Corinthian, though some might be of Attic or Argive manufacture; only an examination of the clay of all of them could determine the point.

^{page 84 note 2} For this practice cf. MA xxxii, 122 ff.

^{page 84 note 3} op. cit. pp. 314 ff.

^{page 84 note 4} Aegina pp. 436, 458.

^{page 84 note 5} CVA Berlin i.

^{page 84 note 6} Cook, , BSA xxxv, 193–4Google Scholar; Gebauer, K.CVA Berlin i, 7.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} As it is taken by Athenaios (502c), Hoppin, and, apparently, How and Wells, among others.

^{page 85 note 2} How and Wells ad loc.; cf. also Macan ad loc.

^{page 85 note 3} IG iv 1588, BPhW 1901, 1597.

^{page 85 note 4} So also Hirschfeld, in RE i 965Google Scholar; Johanna Schmidt in id xvii 2082; Cockerell, The Temples of Jupiter Panhellenius at Aegina etc. suggests Palaiochora.

^{page 85 note 5} cf. Perachora i. 55.

^{page 85 note 6} See, however, Tiryns i 102 (miniature kantharoi and cups).

^{page 85 note 7} Payne, Archaic Marble Sculpture p. 17.

^{page 86 note 1} A. de Ridder, Bronzes de l'Acropole, 83; Blinkenberg, , Fibules Grecques et Orientales 19, 149.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 2} Two good examples in Toronto, , JHS 1931 166 figs. 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 3} Cf. Studniczka, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Altgriechischen. Tracht pp. 98 ff.

^{page 86 note 4} For iron dress-pins in a sixth-century grave at Aigina see Welter, G.AA 1938 496.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 5} Aegina pl. 114, 49–52.

^{page 86 note 6} Perachora i 190, pl. 86, 29.

^{page 86 note 7} AH ii 234–5; Perachora i 174.

^{page 86 note 8} AH ii 300 ff.; Payne Perachora i 72; examples from Aigina ibid. n. 4.

^{page 86 note 9} FR pl. 1–2.

^{page 86 note 10} AH ii 301 no. 2287.

^{page 86 note 11} Perachora i 175.

^{page 87 note 1} Ure, op. cit. pp. 170–1, thinks it reasonable that pins should have a standard size. I can only say that in the thousands preserved no standard is discernible.

^{page 87 note 2} Cf. Payne, , Perachora i 70, 172 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 3} id. p. 72.

^{page 87 note 4} BCH 1921 378–9 figs. 40–1.

^{page 87 note 5} See references in Perachora i 258 ff. 187 ff. These iron spits have no relation to the bronze objects just discussed, which are conventionally, probably wrongly, called by the same name.

^{page 87 note 6} Cf. Svoronos, , Journal International d'Archéologie Numismatique 1906 pp. 153 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 7} Perachora i 189–90; for hook-money see also Laum, Das Eisengeld der Spartaner.

^{page 87 note 8} Seltman's estimate of the ratio of iron to silver (Athens, its History and Coinage, pp. 116 ff.) is not concerned with the possibility that Pheidon changed the standard.

^{page 88 note 1} Cf., Ure op. cit. p. 171. The ratio is c 93–67 (cf. Head, HN² p. 367).

^{page 88 note 2} Ar. Ath Pol, 10; Androtion ap. Plut. Solon, 15.

^{page 88 note 3} Pfuhl, , MUZ i, 72Google Scholar; Payne NC 1; Kunze, Kretische Bronzereliefs p. 262.

^{page 88 note 4} Cook, J. M., BSA xxxv, 204Google Scholar; the jug in Copenhagen, said to have been found in Cadiz, must remain doubtful.

^{page 88 note 5} I shall present elsewhere a detailed account of these relations.

^{page 88 note 6} J. M. Cook, op. cit. p. 203 wishes to bring down the date of some Early Protocorinthian vases. I hope soon to discuss at length the chronology of Protocorinthian in relation to the dates of the foundation of the western colonies. In the meantime, I see no reason to question the accepted dates for colonies or Protocorinthian, nor to doubt that innovations of style and subject were introduced appreciably earlier at Corinth than at Athens.

^{page 89 note 1} Attica's isolation is also to be seen in her failure to adopt the Dedalic style in sculpture and terracottas, the common style of the most progressive regions of Greece; cf. Jenkins, Dedalica pp. 22 ff.

^{page 89 note 2} Strabo p. 378; Aelian, VH i 19.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 3} Aiginetan imitation of Protoattic is suggested by Gebauer, , in CVA Berlin i 5.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 4} All the extant works of some Protoattic workshops have been found in Aigina, others about contemporary (e.g., the Mesogeia painter) are not represented there. But this may be due to the accident of discoveries.

^{page 89 note 5} Cf. Ure, op. cit. pp. 321 ff.

^{page 90 note 1} Herod. v. 71.

^{page 90 note 2} Herodotos' use of in v, 85 may well be an anachronism, as Macan suggests, and does not imply that Athens had a fleet of triremes at the time of the Aiginetan War.

^{page 90 note 3} Herodotus iv–vi vol. i 227. The inquiry of the Delphic oracle is probably also an anachronism.

^{page 90 note 4} Herod, viii 46; Paus, ii 29, 5. Pind. Ol. viii 39; Pyth. viii 29 say that Aigina was conquered by Argives, without naming Epidauros.

^{page 90 note 5} Strabo p. 374.

^{page 90 note 6} Epidauros, Thuk. v 53; Aigina, Herod, vi 92.

^{page 91 note 1} Ure, op. cit. pp. 154 ff.; Wade-Gery, , CAH iii 761–2Google Scholar; see also the forthcoming publication of Blakeway's lectures. The solid arguments for this date are not affected by cutting away the confirmation which Ure finds in the date of the Aiginetan war.

^{page 91 note 2} Macan, , Herodotus iv–vi vol. ii 106.Google Scholar