^{page 4 note 1} Fig. 3 is a sketch taken from the north of the Toumba of Várdino (excavated in 1924), and shews the alignment of the mounds along the ridge. The Toumba and Table of Amátovo are in the middle distance, Vardaróftsa on the sky-line to the left. On the right is the Vardár valley with Mt. Olympus in the background.

^{page 4 note 2} Fig 4. A view of the Toumba and High Table taken from the Low Table to the south.

^{page 6 note 1} B.S.A. xxiv. p. 187.

^{page 6 note 2} Part I, pp. 27–32. Figs. 15–17, Planches IV, V.

^{page 6 note 3} Fig. 5 illustrates the relation of the artificial deposit to the natural soil.

^{page 6 note 4} For the use of the plan we are indebted to M. Rey.

^{page 11 note 1} In the illustrations, in order to emphasise this continuity, in addition to examples from the period concerned, specimens from later periods are given. The examples are arranged, as far as possible, in their stratified order. Below each—

Roman numerals = Sectors of Main Trench (cf. section-drawing, Fig. 7).

S. = South Pit.

S.E. = South-East Pit.

E. = East Pit.

Arabic numerals = depth in half-metres.

Arabic numerals in brackets = vertical divisions of the half-metre. Reference to the section-drawing (Fig. 7) will shew the stratified position of every sherd.

^{page 13 note 1} Red-faced wares only become common in the next period; they fall under the A 1 or B 1 categories. Their distribution in Period A is as follows:—

Half-metre 33 (2). Straight rim of a wide bowl.

Half-metre 32 (1). Large coarse fragment.

Half-metre 31. Rim and lug of bowl of Class A Iγ.

Half-metre 30 and 29. Fragments of a vase of fine fabric with a polished red slip.

^{page 14 note 1} Without technical knowledge it is difficult to say by what process this fabric (A1) was produced. The fact that some of the specimens are unevenly fired suggests that an open fire was used, but, on the other hand, the quality of the fabric, the hard surface and firm texture, especially of the grey wares, indicate that the experimental stages of potterymaking had been passed by the time of the first settlement.

^{page 14 note 2} The exact shape of the bowls with rolled edge, illustrated Pl. I. 16, 17, is uncertain. The rim is not horizontal, but has a slight upward curve. They were very common in the lowest half-metre. The type with splaying rim (ibid., 10, 11) is rare.

^{page 14 note 3} Kilindir, Pl. VIII. 2, which also has a grooved handle. There is a grooved handle with circular impression from Chauchitza (not published).

^{page 14 note 4} These handles are made of two separate pieces. Such pieces, broken off along the line of junction, are ibid., 4, 12.

^{page 15 note 1} A type with splaying rim occurs, but is much less common.

^{page 15 note 2} The illustrated example comes from Period C.

^{page 15 note 3} The hollow conical feet, which first appeared in the 33rd half-metre, must belong to these bowls. The edges were trimmed, and they were used as supports or pedestals for other vases. Cf. Kilindir, Pl. XI. 3.

^{page 15 note 4} The ends of both types are sometimes stuck through the walls of the vase (Pl. III.b, 6, 9).

^{page 15 note 5} A few are mottled and one is buff on the inside.

^{page 16 note 1} Cf. Rey, Part II., Fig. 20.

^{page 16 note 2} Originally adopted to give a better grip, this device was used decoratively also, and assisted in the evolution of the Second Incised Style (v. below).

^{page 16 note 3} Cf. Rey, Pl. XIX. 1.

^{page 16 note 4} Cf. Rey, pp. 212–14; but some of the examples of his Style No. 2 seem to belong rather to our First Incised Style, e.g. Rey, Part II., Figs. 20, 29, 31, Pl. XIX. 1–6; also the bowls with stamped circles from Stratum Ia at Kilindir, (Kilindir, Pl. IX. 1)Google Scholar, and the incised lid (Pl. X. 1), though its context is later. Cf. also B.M. Cat. Fig. 27, A 943. We would therefore distinguish an earlier and a later phase of this style.

^{page 16 note 5} When parallel lines occur they are incised separately.

^{page 17 note 1} Cf. No. 13. The rim slopes away at one end, and recalls the frying-pans from Korákou (q.v., Fig. 15).

^{page 17 note 2} Cf. Peet, , Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy, Fig. 207 and Plate VI. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} Cf. a similar handle on a black jar from Syra, (Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1899, Pl. IX. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} In contrast to the Third Incised Style.

^{page 18 note 2} Chauchitza, Pl. XXVII. Fig. 3, and our Pl. XII.b, 1.

^{page 18 note 3} Examples occur at Kilindir, Stratum IIa (not published).

^{page 18 note 4} The genesis of this style and its northern affinities are discussed below (p. 55).

^{page 19 note 1} For bilobate handles, cf. Peet, op. cit., Figs. 207, 211, and p. 427.

^{page 19 note 2} The two latter are important, as they foreshadow the wheel-made grey kantharos of the next Period.

^{page 20 note 1} For reserved zigzag in Second Incised Style cf. Kilindir, Pl. XI. Fig. 3.

^{page 20 note 2} Pl. XIII. 19. The paste is bright pink.

^{page 20 note 3} For other examples cf. B.M. Cat., Fig. 24, and Chauchitza, Pl. XXVII. Fig. 3.

^{page 20 note 4} There are two fragments of similar urns with incised meandroid designs on the neck, from Stratum IIb at Kilindir (Kilindir, Pl. XII. Fig. 2, the other not published).

^{page 20 note 5} Pp. 228–33 and Plates XXIV.–XXXIII.

^{page 20 note 6} For a simple pointed handle with a perforation, cf. Pl. X.b, 8.

^{page 20 note 7} There is an early example of this shape from Stratum I at Kilindir (not published).

^{page 20 note 8} For an almost complete example of what seems to be a local variety of these bowls—shallow with rounded profile—cf. Chauchitza, Pl. XXVIII. Fig. 2, where the fabric too is slightly different. We found one fragment of this Chauchitza variety at Vardaróftsa (Pl. XIV.a, 6).

^{page 21 note 1} Cf. also Fig. 9.

^{page 21 note 2} One example has a ribbon handle starting from the rim, and a rounded profile, exactly like the typical Yellow Minyan goblets (cf. Korákou, Fig. 78).

^{page 21 note 3} The persistence of this shape of handle is noteworthy. There are several examples in Period D (ibid., 11, 13, 14). It is a developed form of the pointed handle (ibid., 8).

^{page 21 note 4} Out of about 150 fragments only 12 are imported.

^{page 22 note 1} Cf. B.M. Cat., Fig. 287.

^{page 22 note 2} Pl. XVI.a shews fragments of these bowls from the burnt layer. Fragments from just above it (Fig. 11) supply important evidence for the relation of this, the latest phase of sub-Mycenaean, to the style that immediately succeeds it (cf. p. 30 below).

^{page 23 note 1} Cf. diagram, p. 31.

^{page 23 note 2} The restoration of the neck and rim is conjectured from the curve of the handle, and from a comparison with the small jar just described, which it closely resembles in shape and fabric. It also has a small knob on the shoulder.

^{page 24 note 1} A zigzag band with curled ends between horizontal bands.

^{page 26 note 1} The numbering in the drawing is that used in the article, Antiquaries' Journal, VII. pp. 44–59, “Iron Age Pottery from Macedonia.” As the principal types have been described in that Place, they will be treated only summarily here. For permission to reproduce this drawing, Figs. 3, 11, 12, and Pls. III.a, VIII.a, XII., XVI.b, XVIII.a and b, and XIX.a and b, we are indebted to the courtesy of the Society of Antiquaries.

^{page 27 note 1} On the analogy of Thessalian examples in the Volo museum this decoration was applied to the shoulders of jugs with cut-away necks (Hängeschmück).

^{page 27 note 2} The stamped circles often overlapping deserve notice (Pl. XIX.b, 17; Pl. XIV.b, 16), and may be compared with the stamped circles on a pithos fragment from Delphi (Fouilles, V. Fig. 91). For the combination of stamped circles and foliate pattern (Pl. XIX.b, 17), cf. two vases from the cemetery at Eleusis, (Ἀρχ. Ἐφ., 1898, Pl. II. 14, 15).Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 1} Cp. the painted bowl from Kilindir, (Kilindir, Pl. XIV.Google Scholar), with its tangentially-joined circles; and cf. Rey, Pl. XXVI. 7, 9, 12, with our Pl. XIX.a, 8.

^{page 28 note 2} Like the grooved handles of Period A, these are made in two pieces.

^{page 28 note 3} Like the one illustrated Rey, Part II., Fig. 48.

^{page 28 note 4} Red is sometimes used as a subsidiary colour (Pl. XXI.a, 2).

^{page 28 note 5} The distribution of the concentric circle is as follows:—8th half-metre 3 (all in upper half); 7th half-metre 6; 6th half-metre 5; 5th half-metre 6; i.e. it continued in Macedonia almost till the fifth century.

^{page 30 note 1} Cf. S. S., No. 647, for what is perhaps the prototype of this vase. It is worthy of note, as shewing its local character, that it is found in the tumulus of the Macedonians who fell at Chaeronea. See B.M. Cat. p. 209, where Forsdyke suggests that it is related to the bowls with wish-bone handle. For a fuller description cf. A.J., p. 54. There were several in the Chauchitza cemetery, whence comes the example illustrated.

^{page 31 note 1} Cf. Courby, Vases grecs à reliefs, chap. xxi.

^{page 33 note 1} Other fragments of round querns belong to flat slabs of micaceous stone, which is quarried locally. The surface is much scratched and worn, and sometimes blackened by fire. This kind of stone, ground to powder and mixed with water, is still used in soap-making; and perhaps supplied the micaceous paint used for the decoration of that kind of pottery characteristic of Dikilitash and Bulgarian sites, of which some specimens were found at Várdino and Gomonitch.

^{page 33 note 2} All the celts are fragmentary, and the exact shape of some cannot be determined. The rest are not exactly wedge-shaped as the Thessalian Type E, because the sides round the bore-hole are parallel. Two (Fig. 16, 3, 6) are much thinner than the others.

^{page 33 note 3} Cf. Rey, p. 243, Fig, 41, E, F.

^{page 34 note 1} Cf. Korákou, Fig. 129, 1 and 2, Early Helladic.

^{page 34 note 2} No. 11 has a raised centre.

^{page 34 note 3} In No. 22 the perforations do not go right through.

^{page 36 note 1} It will be seen from the table that the cylindrical (Type 1) and the spheroid (Type 3) are typical of Period A, while the conoid (Type 2) is also an early type. Both 1 and 2 occur in Stratum Ia at Kilindir. The bi-conical (Type 4) seems typical of Periods C and D. Type 7 is Hellenic and Hellenistic.

^{page 36 note 2} Of which 3 are in Settlement 20 (4th half-metre).

^{page 38 note 1} Cf. Rey, p. 243, Fig. 41.

^{page 38 note 2} These discs are really fragments of pots, roughly chipped to circular form.

^{page 38 note 3} One has two perforations (ibid., 7).

^{page 38 note 4} One striated (Pl. VI. 11).

^{page 38 note 5} One has a cross scratched upon it (ibid., 5).

^{page 38 note 6} Cf. Rey, Pl. XXXVIII.

^{page 39 note 1} Cf. B.M. Cat. A 246.

^{page 39 note 2} Cf. Rey, Pl. XXXVII. 1.

^{page 39 note 3} Described as such, pending the results of chemical analysis.

^{page 41 note 1} Letters in brackets refer to Section-drawing, Fig. 7.

^{page 41 note 2} To judge by the colour, which is red, these bricks were fired, not sun-baked.

^{page 45 note 1} Information kindly supplied by Dr. Skouphos, of the University of Athens.

^{page 47 note 1} For our purposes, Central Macedonia means the Vardár, Galliko and Vassilika valleys (cf. Map, Fig. 2). The other two excavated sites in Macedonia are both outside the area (viz. Dikilitash and Boubousta).

^{page 47 note 2} Cf. especially Rey, Pls. I., II., III. 5, IV. 4, V. 2, VI. 6, 7, VII. 2, and Part II, Figs. 4, 5.

^{page 47 note 3} Cf. especially ibid., Figs. 29, 31, and Pl. XVI. 7, Pl. XVII. 4, Pl. XVIII. 2, 5, Pl. XIX. 1–6, and Pl. XXI. 2.

^{page 47 note 4} Ibid., Pl. XI. and Part II., Fig. 34, 1 and 2.

^{page 47 note 5} Ibid., Pl. XXIV.–XXXIII.

^{page 47 note 6} Ibid., Pls. XLVII., XLVIII., and Fig. 46.

^{page 47 note 7} Ibid., Pls. L., LI. (Pl. XLIX. = D4).

^{page 47 note 8} Ibid., Gona, pp. 149, 229; Sedes, p. 158.

^{page 47 note 9} Ibid., p. 96.

^{page 47 note 10} Pls. XXII. and XXIII., Part II., Fig. 35 (crusted ware).

^{page 48 note 1} To mention only the bowls with incurved rim, Kilindir, Pl. IX., Fig. 1, the askos, Pl. VIII., Fig. 2, grooved handles, scalloped lugs (not published), and spindle-whorls of our Type 1.

^{page 48 note 2} Ibid., Pl. X., Figs, 1, 2, and Pl. XL, Fig. 2.

^{page 48 note 3} Ibid., Pl. XII. Figs. 1, 2; Pl. XIII. Fig. 2.

^{page 48 note 4} Ibid., Pl. XIV. Figs. 1, 2; Pl. XV. Figs. 2, 3; Pl. XVI. Figs. 1, 2.

^{page 48 note 5} Archaeologia, Pl. XXVII. Fig. 3.

^{page 48 note 6} ibid., Fig. 1.

^{page 49 note 1} Várdino, p. 32.

^{page 49 note 2} Frankfort, pp. 31, 32.

^{page 49 note 3} Várdino, p. 20.

^{page 51 note 1} On the precise chronology cf. Frankfort, p. 119 sqq.

^{page 51 note 2} For a full discussion of the relations of Anatolia to the Aegean cf. Frankfort, op. cit.

^{page 51 note 3} Cf. B.M. Cat. (Fig. 12), from Yortan. (These examples are much smaller than ours.)

^{page 51 note 4} Cf. Rey, Pt. II., Fig. 20, and B.M. Cat. Figs. 4, 5.

^{page 51 note 5} Cf. Rey, Pt. II., Figs. 17, 18, 19, and B.M. Cat. Pl. I. A 5, A 10, A 24, etc., and B.S.A. xviii., Pl. V. 3, 4, Pl. VI. 4, 6, Pl. VII. 6, 9, 11. In the case of the Pisidian example with its perforation at the base of the handle, cf. the circular impressions at the base of the askoi handles (A 1β) in Macedonia.

^{page 51 note 6} Ath. Mitt., 1899, Pl. II. 3, 4, 5 (Boz-eyuk).

^{page 51 note 7} For vertical zigzags cf. Rey, Pl. XIII. 2, 5, 7, with similar motive (painted) from Yortan. B.M. Cat. Fig. 6, Pl. I. A. 28.

For large chevrons composed of bands of parallel lines cf. Rey, Pt. II., Fig. 20 (incised) with B.M. Cat., Pl. I. A 15, A 18 (painted), from Yortan, and B.S.A. xviii. Pls. V, VI, VII (grooved) from Senirdje and Bounarbashi.

For ‘the Anatolian device of making a ribbon by enclosing rows of small motives, e.g. lozenges, by two parallel lines’ (Frankfort, p. 59, n. 1), cf. Rey, Pt. II., Fig. 29, and B.M. Cat. Fig. 18, Pl. II. A 50, A 53.

^{page 51 note 8} Ath. Mitt. 1899, Pl. III. 17.

^{page 51 note 9} Ibid., p. 28. For the Anatolian origin of this practice cf. Frankfort, p. 86, n. 1.

^{page 52 note 1} S.S. 24, Type B. Cf. also ibid., 15, with our Pl. I, 1.

^{page 52 note 2} Ibid., 209.

^{page 52 note 3} Ibid., 97–99.

^{page 52 note 4} Childe, p. 54.

^{page 52 note 5} S.S. 447–449, 998–1001, 1002, 1679–1686, 1796–1801, 2200.

^{page 52 note 6} Rey, Pt. II., Fig. 28.

^{page 52 note 7} Cf. especially Rey, Pt. II., Fig. 29 (with its crossed spirals), and S.S. 2361: Rey, Pl. XXI. 2, and S.S. 2470; S.S. 2406, and our Pl. IX.a, 3, 4.

^{page 52 note 8} Cf. Rey, Pl IV. 1, 2, 3, and S.S. 552, 1996–1999. In all these cases it is not a question of identity, either of shape, size or fabric, but of a similar underlying mentality.

^{page 52 note 9} Demangel, Le Tumulus dit de Protésilas, Fig. 43.

^{page 52 note 10} Ibid., Fig. 47, 1.

^{page 52 note 11} Ibid., Fig. 52, 3.

^{page 52 note 12} Ibid., Fig. 45 (which may belong to first settlement).

^{page 52 note 13} Ibid., Fig. 41, 14.

^{page 52 note 14} Ibid., Fig. 46.

^{page 52 note 15} Ibid., No. 89, and Fig. 74, 2, 3.

^{page 52 note 16} Ibid., Fig. 60, 6.

^{page 52 note 17} Ibid., Figs. 68, 69, 72.

^{page 52 note 18} P.T. Fig. 86, c, d: p. 144 (Γ 3δ).

^{page 52 note 19} Urfirnis, ibid., p. 145; p. 178, and Figs. 122, 123.

^{page 52 note 20} Fimmen, , Die Kretische Myken. Kultur, Abb. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 21} Ibid., Abb. 127, 128 (2).

^{page 52 note 22} Ibid., Abb. 127.

^{page 53 note 1} Rey, Part II., Fig. 29.

^{page 53 note 2} Cf. Papavasileiou, , Περὶ τῶν ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ ἀρχαίων τάφων, Pl. H′, 1, 4, 5Google Scholar; with our Pl. IV. 5–7. The cylindrical, trumpet-shaped necks on globular bodies are typically Anatolian. Cf. B.M. Cat. Pl. II., top row, examples from Yortan.

^{page 53 note 3} Ibid., Pl. Z′, 6, H′, 6.

^{page 53 note 4} Askoid pots in this fabric, Korákou, p. 4.

^{page 53 note 5} Ibid., p. 4.

^{page 53 note 6} Ibid., p. 7 (4).

^{page 53 note 7} Ibid., p. 7 (3).

^{page 53 note 8} Not yet published: information kindly supplied by Dr. Blegen.

^{page 53 note 9} Ibid., p. 7 (2).

^{page 53 note 10} Rey, Pl. IV. 1, 2, 3.

^{page 53 note 11} There are no precise parallels from Anatolia, but cf. Boz-eyuk, Pl. III. 11, for a similar shape.

^{page 53 note 12} Phylakopi, Pl. IV. 6, 8.

^{page 53 note 13} Ἀρχ Ἐφ., 1899, Pl. IX. 2.

^{page 53 note 14} Phylakopi, Pl. IV. 6. Ἀρχ Ἐφ., 1899, Pl. IX. 2 (incised).

^{page 53 note 15} Ibid., 5, 7, 11.

^{page 53 note 16} Ibid., 1, 8.

^{page 54 note 1} E.g., the cups of Trojan shape and the later phase of First Incised Style.

^{page 54 note 2} Cf. Childe, p. 61.

^{page 55 note 1} Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Louvre, Fasc. 4, 1 Fb, 18.

^{page 55 note 2} Only two of these have been published: Ἀρχ Ἐφ., 1899, Pl. IX. 3, 15. The others have horizontal pinched-out ribbon handles.

^{page 55 note 3} Cf. Frankfort, p. 59, note 1, for their Anatolian character.

^{page 55 note 4} Kilindir, Pl. X., Fig. 2.

^{page 55 note 5} A fragment from Kilindir Stratum IIa seems to be a transitional piece. Crossed meanders in the single-line technique are combined with a ribbon, made with the toothed instrument.

^{page 55 note 6} The zigzag band, however, running horizontally across the body (Pl. XII.a, 1, and Chauchitza, Pl. XXVII. 3) is an Anatolian feature (cf. B.M. Cat. Pl. II. A 52 and A 53), which already appears in the First Incised Style in Macedonia (Rey, pl. XVII. 4). The bands or ribbons, composed of parallel lines (usually painted), are also at home in Anatolia, cf. p. 51, n. 7, above.

^{page 55 note 7} Cf., however, the jars from Yortan, B.M. Cat. Pl. II. A 58, A 60. Take away the trumpet-shaped neck, which in any case looks like an afterthought, and what remains is practically one of our bowls.

^{page 56 note 1} Early Cycladic iii. Cf. Childe, p. 44, and Koràkou, p. 121.

^{page 56 note 2} Kilindir, p. 65.

^{page 56 note 3} Cf. p. 18.

^{page 56 note 4} Cf. p. 55, n. 5, above.

^{page 56 note 5} Cf. Randall-Maclver, , Villanovans and Early Etruscans, p. 258.Google Scholar The Macedonian examples would at any rate seem to have a better claim than the Pannonian (cf. Childe, p. 269).

^{page 57 note 1} Chauchitza, p. 83, and Frankfort, p. 51, n. 2.

^{page 57 note 2} There is an early example (monochrome) with broad plate from Kilindir, Stratum I (not published).

^{page 57 note 3} Kilindir, Stratum II.a (not published), where it has a ‘wish-bone’ handle and incised decoration along the rim.

^{page 57 note 4} Cf. Fig. 40.

^{page 57 note 5} Kilindir, Pl. XV. Fig. 2.

^{page 58 note 1} The Lianokladi Geometric probably derives directly from the Second Incised Style (B 3) rather than from the Painted (C 2), to which it is parallel. A suggested genealogy of the Second Incised Style is set out in the following diagram.

^{page 58 note 2} Ἀρχ. Δελτ., 1916, p. 185, Fig. 8.

^{page 58 note 3} Cf. especially Ἀρχ. Δελτ., 1915, p. 264, Fig. 30, with P.T. Fig. 125.

^{page 58 note 4} Frankfort, p. 171.

^{page 59 note 1} On a calculation from the number of sherds found in the very limited area excavated at both Várdino and Vardaróftsa, the number of sherds in the unexcavated parts must run into many thousands. At Troy, less than 200 sherds are recorded covering a much longer period—and half of them are imported.

^{page 59 note 2} Except from Vardaróftsa and Várdino, the information about Periods D and E is rather scanty.

^{page 59 note 3} A.J.

^{page 61 note 1} Kilindir, Pl. XIV.; also an example from Chauchitza (Fig. 40, 2, 5).

^{page 61 note 2} Cf. p. 28, note 5.

^{page 61 note 3} The groups of representative vases (Figs. 14 and 41) serve to illustrate (1) the persistence of types, (2) the individual character of Central Macedonian pottery during the first four periods.

^{page 63 note 1} Courby, , Vases grecs à reliefs, p. 397.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 2} Cf. B.M. Cat. Introduction, xiv.

^{page 63 note 3} Koyákou, p. 121.

^{page 64 note 1} Only the more salient parallels are selected.

^{page 65 note 1} Casson, , Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, p. 189.Google Scholar