^{page 1 note 1} This site is mentioned by , Gjerstad, Studies in Prehistoric Cyprus, pp. 8ffGoogle Scholar . It will be observed that I have used the accusative of the name of the site, i.e. Vounous, which in the nominative is Vounoi, in all cases even where the latter should normally have been used. The reason for this is that I wanted to avoid confusion with other sites in Cyprus, such as Vouni and others. In fact, in local tradition, the site is referred to more frequently as Vounous than Vounoi.

^{page 1 note 2} Preliminary Report was published in Illustrated London News, 31st October 1931, pp. 678 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 3} Illustrated London News, 5th December 1931, pp. 891 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 1} Ill. London News, 10th December 1932, pp. 928 ff.Google Scholar and Proceedings of the International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, London, August 1932, pp. 183 ff.Google Scholar ; also Syria, xiii, 1932, pp. 345 ffGoogle Scholar , and Man, August 1933, p. 134Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 2} Missions en Chypre, 26 ff.

^{page 3 note 3} Antiquity, September 1937, p. 356.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} Erimi, p. 74.

^{page 4 note 2} Ibid., p. 73.

^{page 4 note 3} Ibid., p. 72.

^{page 5 note 1} Tomb 1 was found looted and regular excavation was thought unnecessary. One of the finds, however, appears on pi. xxxiv, b.

^{page 6 note 1} In many cases the description of a vase does not coincide in every detail with the type to which reference is made. This is due to the extreme variety in the shape and the difficulty in obtaining types which represent individual vases in every possible detail.

^{page 8 note 1} This was found empty.

^{page 11 note 1} Tomb 4 was found looted and systematic excavation was thought unnecessary.

^{page 28 note 1} This was broken beyond repair.

^{page 32 note 1} Tomb 14 was found looted and regular excavation was thought unnecessary.

^{page 43 note 1} All the side chambers were found empty.

^{page 45 note 1} See infra, p. 139.

^{page 48 note 1} These were found empty.

^{page 54 note 1} This was found empty.

^{page 57 note 1} This was found empty.

^{page 60 note 1} This was found empty

^{page 60 note 2} These do not appear on the plan.

^{page 66 note 1} The eastern side chamber was found empty.

^{page 66 note 2} Called Tomb 32 A.

^{page 96 note 1} Antiquity, September 1937, p. 356.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 2} Gjerstad, E., Studies, p. 268Google Scholar , and also infra, p. 154.

^{page 96 note 3} This tomb was excavated by the Louvre and the Cyprus Museum.

^{page 100 note 1} The custom of placing animal bones under the bodies is also exemplified in Neolithic times. See Erimi, p. 12.

^{page 101 note 1} In this connexion it is significant to remark that in tomb 22, where the model of the sacred enclosure (pis. VII, VIII) was found, a bowl with birds and cups on the rim (pl. xiv, d) and a large ring vase were also found. It has, moreover, been noticed that ring or composite vases occur quite often in conjunction with vases ornamented with horned animals or birds, or in tombs in which special funeral rites were found.

^{page 102 note 1} , Gjerstad, Studies, p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 2} Op. Cit., 85.

^{page 102 note 3} Chamber Tombs at Mycenae, p. 128.

^{page 103 note 1} Erimi, pl. XXVI, I.

^{page 103 note 2} Ibid., fig. II, c.

^{page 103 note 3} Ibid., pl. XX, I, 2, and elsewhere.

^{page 103 note 4} , Myres, Handbook, p. 11Google Scholar ; fabric I, Gjerstad, A., Studies, pp. 88 sq.Google Scholar ; S. C. E., i, pls. XCIV ff.

^{page 104 note 1} , Gjerstad, op. cit., p. 106.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} Erimi, pl. XXVI, 7, 8.

^{page 105 note 2} Ibid., fig. 8, a.

^{page 105 note 3} Ibid., fig. 7, b, c, d.

^{page 105 note 4} Ibid., fig. 4.

^{page 105 note 5} Ibid., fig. 10, c.

^{page 106 note 1} The numerals continue those of the large bowls.

^{page 106 note 2} , Gjerstad, Studies, p. 90, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} The type of short, solid stem (type II) appears already in Erimi (fig. 11, G, H), where the upper part of the goblet is missing.

^{page 112 note 1} The numerals are in continuation of the big jugs.

^{page 116 note 1} Schaeffer derives the pyxis shape from wooden prototypes (Missions, p. 34, note 6).

^{page 117 note 1} This vase was presented to the Cyprus Museum by the late Mr. L. Z. Pierides, who asserted that it was found in the Vounous cemetery by villagers.

^{page 118 note 1} This was found broken into many fragments scattered on the floor in the tomb. It seems that the looters who visited the tomb, probably a long time ago, found this object not to their taste, which was for gold (in reality a great number of looted tombs contained important finds), and broke it into many pieces. The complete reconstruction of the enclosure was, however, rendered possible as all the fragments were found in the tomb. Two of the standing figures to the right of the throne were missing (probably the clay disintegrated), but as the feet were in their original place the figures were reconstructed after the other figures of the same group. A few parts of the enclosure wall were also missing as well as a few heads or parts of bodies of various seated or standing figures. The female figure with the infant was broken off its place in the same way as all the others. All evidence, however, showed that its original position was where it has been replaced. The same applies to the climbing figure whose place was clearly marked.

^{page 119 note 1} Studies, pp. 19 ff.

^{page 119 note 2} Ibid., pp. 27 ff.

^{page 119 note 3} This is proved by the Swedish Excavations on the Idalion acropolis (S. C. E., ii, 626) and by the French excavations in the settlement of Engomi ( , Schaeffer, Missions en Chypre, p. 109, fig. 46).Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 4} Excavations at Erimi, pp. 8 ff.

^{page 119 note 5} ‘Preliminary Report on Khirokitia Excavations’, R. D. A. C, 1936, part I, pp. 82 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 1} S. C. E., i, 356 ff.

^{page 120 note 2} Ibid., ii, 642 ff.

^{page 120 note 3} Ibid., ii, p. 626.

^{page 120 note 4} Dussaud, M. Rene (Syria, xiii, 226)Google Scholar thinks that the circular plan of this enclosure is reminiscent of the temenos of the Acropolis at Mycenae, where it is surrounded by a circle of slabs.

^{page 120 note 5} Illustrated London News, 26th December 1936, pp. 1174ff.Google Scholar ; R.D.A. C, 1936, part I, pp. 82 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 121 note 1} S. C. E., ii, 822.

^{page 121 note 2} Syria, xiii, 224. Sir Arthur Evans (Pal. of M., iv, p. 166, note 2) considers the group of the three figures holding snakes as ‘a kind of double table with two ascending snakes’.

^{page 122 note 1} Contenau, G., Manuel d'archéologie orientale, t. 1, pp. 283 ff.Google Scholar ; , Dussaud, Civilisations préhelléniques, p. 384Google Scholar ; Ebert, M., Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, 8. Band, pp. 195 ff. (Mischwesen)Google Scholar ; also Sjogvist, E., ‘Die Kultgeschichte eines cyprischen Temenos’ (Archiv für Relig.-Wissenschaft, XXX, 3, 4, p. 333)Google Scholar.

^{page 122 note 2} B.S.A., vii, 1901, fig. 7 b, c.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 3} S.C.E., ii, 822, pl. CCXXVIII. Also , Sjogvist, op. cit., pp. 333 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 4} S. C.E., op. cit., pl. CCXXVIII, 1, 2, 5. The horns of the example 1, 2 are missing.

^{page 122 note 5} Ibid, pl. CCXXVII. Here I may mention a stone slab (pl. XLIII, C) which was found in a built tomb near Curium, where it must have been placed above a doorway into an inner chamber in a similar way as is seen in the Tamasos tombs excavated by O. Richter. This slab represents a kind of ‘window’ similar in form to those found in ivory in Nimrud, Arslan Tash, and other sites (see Iraq, ii, 2, p. 184 and pl. XXIII, 3). On the lower part of the outer frame appears in relief a small human figure lifting towards his head, with either hand, the heads of two enormous snakes.

^{page 122 note 6} See also , Nilsson, Minoan-Mycenaean Religion, p. 328.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 7} , Nilsson, op. cit.Google Scholar ; , Contenau, Manuel d'archéologie orientale, i, 283Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 1} Op. cit., pp. 319 ff. See also Ebert, M., op. cit., 12Google Scholar . Band, 438 ff., and Dussaud, R., Civilisations prehelléniques, p. 394Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 2} Op. cit, p. 331, see also Ebert, M., op. cit., 11. Band, p. 266.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 3} , Contenau, Manuel d'archéologie orientale, i, 281.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 4} , Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion, p. 279Google Scholar ; , Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, pp. 119 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 123 note 5} , Dussaud, Syria, xiii, 224Google Scholar ; , Sjogvist, op. cit., p. 332Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 1} , Dussaud, Civilisations préhelléniques, p. 410Google Scholar ; , Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean P. 378Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 2} The theory concerning the fertility character of the ceremony is corroborated by the fact that on almost all the male figures attending the rite, the genitalia are marked. This may be brought into connexion with some of the Minotaur figures, found at Ayia Irini, with marked genitalia.

^{page 124 note 3} The custom of defining with a ridge in relief an enclosure of some sort appears to have been quite frequently used by the Vounous potters. Thus on the double-necked jug on pl. XXI, a-c, on which a group of figures grinding grain appears, the trough or cavity into which the ground grain flows is marked by a ridge in relief.

^{page 124 note 4} In some of our preliminary accounts published on this enclosure we considered the woman holding the infant as symbolizing the Mother-Goddess. This theory is here abandoned, see p. 173.

^{page 125 note 1} Syria, xiii, 225

^{page 125 note 2} S. C. E., ii, pl. CCXIV.

^{page 125 note 3} Illustrated London News, 26th December 1936, pp. 1174ff.Google Scholar ; R.D.A. C, 1936, part I, pp. 82 ffGoogle Scholar . The 1938 excavations at Khirokitia revealed more large circular structures which appear to be intended for burial purposes. The 1939 excavations at the same site have moreover revealed an important circular house which throws considerable light on the interpretation of the Vounous model. See Appendix I.

^{page 125 note 4} Excavations at Erimi, p. 11.

^{page 125 note 5} Ibid., p. 74.

^{page 125 note 6} , Contenau, Manuel d'archéologie orientate, i, 304, 306.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 1} The alternative would be a ram, but no reasonably identifiable rams appear on any of the vases found in the necropolis of Vounous. All the animals besides the bull represented in relief on the Vounous vases have rather long bow-shaped horns with the exception of course of the stags.

^{page 126 note 2} Detached animals' heads occur also on different objects in Minoan Crete. They are interpreted as representing heads of sacrificed animals ( , Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenean Religion, pp. 195 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 3} The lid of this pyxis is detachable, but there is very little doubt that it belongs to the pyxis. This is indicated by the size and the holes on the sides of the lid corresponding to those along the mouth of the pyxis. In the same tomb (tomb 37) one more pyxis (pl. xxxv, b), again with birds on either side of the mouth, was found. Even if the lid belonged to the latter pyxis, the association of the lid bearing the human group and the pyxis with birds is inevitable.

^{page 127 note 1} The bird in Minoan Crete occurs as a manifestation of the god: see , Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenean Religion, pp. 285 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 127 note 2} Ibid., p. 199.

^{page 127 note 3} Man, August 1933, p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 1} In one of my preliminary articles I suggested that the two figures are swinging an infant i n a cradle, a scene quite familiar in open-air life in modern Cyprus.

^{page 128 note 2} For the early traction-plough see Bishop, C. W. in Antiquity, Sept. 1936, pp. 261 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 3} Έργα καί ἡμέραι, 433.

^{page 128 note 4} , Daremberg and , Saglio, Diet, des ant. grecques et romaines, i, 354, fig. 431.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 5} Ibid., p. 353, fig. 429.

^{page 129 note 1} , Murray, , Smith, and , Walters, Excavations in Cyprus, fig. 25, 1477.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 2} It is interesting to notice the close resemblance of the Vounous plough with the modern Cypriot plough. Although the latter appears to be more elaborate, it is mainly composed of four parts: the beam, the yoke, the handle, and the lower part which carries the share. The beam, which i s composed of two parts, and the handle are stuck into the lower part. The same type of beam occurs on the early Babylonian plough ( , Bishop, op. cit., p. 267Google Scholar ) and on that of the two archaic bronze ploughing groups in the Fitzwilliam Museum which are reported to have come from Cyprus.

^{page 129 note 3} M. Schaeffer considers this object a comb (Missions en Chypre, p. 34). I would like to consider i t as a brush, an instrument which was of outstanding importance and use for the pottery painters. Erimi yielded a great number of pendants copying stone axe-head, pestle, fishing-hook, etc. Erimi, pl. XXIX, 3.

^{page 130 note 1} Erimi, 63 ff.

^{page 130 note 2} It has also been found recently at Kalavasos and in a small quantity at Erimi (pi. xvm, 1-3).

^{page 131 note 1} Erimi, pls. XVIII-XXV.

^{page 131 note 2} Ibid., p. 73.

^{page 132 note 1} , Myres, Handbook, pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar ; , Gjerstad, Studies, pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar ; S. C. E., i, pl. CIII.

^{page 133 note 1} , Myres, Handbook, pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar ; , Gjerstad, Studies, pp. 149 ff.; S. C. E., pl. CVGoogle Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} This kind of spout below the rim is well known in stone bowls from Khirokitia.

^{page 135 note 2} A white painted jug with two necks found at Ayios Iakovos (S. C.E., i, pl. CVI, I) is decorated with horned animals painted in plain interspaces of geometrical ornamentation. This, however, belongs to White Painted II ware, which is, of course, a more advanced type.

^{page 136 note 1} See , Gjerstad, Studies, pp. 148 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} , Myres, Handbook, p. 22 (fabric II)Google Scholar ; , Gjerstad, Studies, p. 134Google Scholar ; S. C. E., i, pl. CIII.

^{page 137 note 1} Myres, J. L., Handbook, no. 2001.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 2} , Xanthoudides, The Vaulted Tombs of Mesará, pl. XXIV, 1187, 1179, 1175Google Scholar . I am greatly indebted to Mr. J. D. S. Pendlebury for valuable information concerning the origin of this dagger.

^{page 137 note 3} Ibid., pl. XLIII, b, no. 1499, now in the Candia Museum. I must express here my thanks to the Curator of this Museum for permission to examine the Mesara daggers.

^{page 137 note 4} Ibid., p. 84.

^{page 138 note 1} Evans, Sir Arthur, Palace of Minos, vol. i, p. 101Google Scholar ; , Pendlebury, Archaeology of Crete, pp. 86, 118Google Scholar.

^{page 138 note 2} Mr. Pendlebury confirms this attribution.

^{page 138 note 3} Mr. Pendlebury is inclined to think so.

^{page 138 note 4} Casson, S., Ancient Cyprus, p. 207.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} Similar ear-rings were found in gold at Lapithos, Vrysi tou Barba, by the Pennsylvania University excavations in 1931. I am indebted to Miss V. Grace for permission to make reference to these ear-rings.

^{page 140 note 1} , Evans, Scripta Minoa, pp. 68 ff.Google Scholar ; Palace of Minos, iv, 758. A complete study of this script and a full list of the signs may be found in Casson, S., Ancient Cyprus, pp. 72 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 140 note 2} Scripta Minoa, p. 72; Palace of Minos, iv, 763.

^{page 140 note 3} Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., xxvii, 254, and pl. XI. On the evidence of this cylinder, Prof. Sayce considered that ‘the existence of the Cypriot syllabary is thus taken to an Age contemporaneous with that of the Kretan linear characters’.

^{page 140 note 4} Les Civilisations préhelléniques, p. 429.

^{page 140 note 5} Op. cit., p. 87.

^{page 140 note 6} Richter, O., Kypros, Bible and Homer, pl. CLXXII, tomb 15, and pl. CLXXIII, tomb 23.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 7} This important tomb was cleared by the Museum Assistant, Mr. George Anastasiou, who furnished the information brought forward here.

^{page 140 note 8} This may be compared with the sign no. 3 on the Vounous vase: see table, p. 144.

^{page 140 note 9} This is a small jug, with cut-away neck and flat base. No. 1933:1-251

^{page 142 note 1} Palace of Minos, iv, 761.

^{page 142 note 2} A.J.A., xlii, no. 2, 272.

^{page 142 note 3} Ancient Cyprus, pp. 89 ff.

^{page 142 note 4} S. C. E., iii, 604.

^{page 142 note 5} For a discussion of the problem see , Casson, op. cit., p. 95Google Scholar ; see also , Persson, S. C. E., pp. 601 ff.Google Scholar , and Daniel, F. J., A.J. A., xlii, 2, pp. 273 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 142 note 6} Now in the Ashmolean Museum. See Dussaud, R., op. cit., 437Google Scholar , and , Casson, op. cit., p. 95Google Scholar.

^{page 142 note 7} It may be mentioned here that on the handles of a good number of Red Polished vases discovered i n the early part of the Vounous necropolis by Mr. Stewart appear isolated incised signs.

^{page 143 note 1} , Casson, op. cit, pp. 80 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} These signs were incised in the wet clay.

^{page 143 note 3} , Evans, Palace of Minos, iv, fig. 744.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} , Evans, Palace of Minos, i, fig. 476.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 2} Ibid., iv, fig. 666 (a), B 12.

^{page 144 note 3} , Casson, op. cit, p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 4} The second sign occurs on the base of the Arpera bowl, pis. xxxvi, b and LIV, 4.

^{page 144 note 5} This sign also occurs on a Red Polished jug recently found on a site near Karmi, in the Kyrenia district, now in the Cyprus Museum.

^{page 146 note 1} Owing to the fact that tomb 41 contained five burials, it is possible that this White Painted bowl, as well as some other types, may belong to the later burials.

^{page 147 note 1} This, however, should be considered a coincidence as bronze implements have already been reported in the Early Cypriot I period ( , Gjerstad, Studies, p. 267Google Scholar ), and a copper tool has been found in the Chalcolithic layers at Erimi (Erimi, p. 50).

^{page 149 note 1} See note 2, p. 174.

^{page 155 note 1} Handbook, pp. II ff.

^{page 155 note 2} Studies, pp. 88 ff.

^{page 155 note 3} Excavations at Erimi ( R.D.A.C., 1936Google Scholar , part I).

^{page 155 note 4} See our Preliminary Report on Khirokitia Excavations in the same issue of R.D.A.C, pp. 82 ff.

^{page 155 note 6} Handbook, p. 11.

^{page 156 note 1} Studies, p. 94.

^{page 156 note 2} Ibid., pp. 112-13.

^{page 156 note 3} Ibid., pp. 90 ff.

^{page 156 note 4} Ibid., p. 267.

^{page 156 note 5} S. C. E., pls. XIV ff.

^{page 157 note 1} , Gjerstad, Studies, p. 122.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 2} This is proved by the discoveries made in 1937 by Mr. J. R. Stewart in an earlier part of the Vounous necropolis.

^{page 158 note 1} Erimi, fig. II,g, h.

^{page 158 note 2} Handbook, p. 22

^{page 158 note 3} Studies, p. 267

^{page 158 note 4} Erimi, pp. 72 ff.

^{page 160 note 1} With this bowl, another (pl. XII, a) now in the Cyprus Museum (no. A1310) should be compared.

^{page 160 note 2} Curator's Report, p. 7.

^{page 161 note 1} Erimi, pl. XXVI, 19.

^{page 161 note 2} It is to be observed that Gjerstad overlooked the Arpera deep bowl on our pl. LV, 2, the small bowl (pl. LIV, 4), and the two vessels on XXXVII, b.

^{page 162 note 1} Antiquity, xi (1937), p. 356.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} , Schaeffer, Missions en Chypre, pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 3} But the stump base on these examples is less enhanced.

^{page 162 note 4} , Casson (Ancient Cyprus, pp. 26ff.)Google Scholar puts forward the theory that the marked difference between the Neolithic or Chalcolithic pottery and that of the Early Bronze Age, as this is known from the tombs, is due to a non-occupation period between the ancient Neolithic and the preliminary Bronze Age. To my mind this theory has against it the fact that the shapes of the pottery found at Vounous, site A, have definite affinity with those of Neolithic times, a fact which proves the continuity of the cultural tradition and which justifies my theory of a transitional period with closer resemblances to the neolithic culture. This tradition is reflected as late as our period I, during which the Bronze Age culture abandons the neolithic tradition and becomes entirety individual with standard characteristics.

^{page 163 note 1} Studies, pp. 268 ff.

^{page 163 note 2} Op. cit, p. 270.

^{page 163 note 3} Studies, p. 267.

^{page 163 note 4} Erimi, p. 69.

^{page 164 note 1} Palestine Exploration Quarterly, July 1939, p. 162 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 2} The date of M.M. I is furnished by the haematite cylinder of Babylonian origin found at Platanos, which may be dated c. 2100 B.C. ( , Pendlebury, op. cit., p. 121).Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 3} See , Casson, Ancient Cyprus, p 207.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 1} Excavations at Erimi.

^{page 165 note 2} For a résumé of the discussion see , Gjerstad, Studies, pp. 294 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 3} , Myres, J. R. A. I., xxxiii, pp. 367 ff.Google Scholar ; see also , Gjerstad, Studies, p. 301Google Scholar.

^{page 165 note 4} Professor , Myres (J.R.A.I., xxvii, 171)Google Scholar suggested a Cypriot origin for some part of the Early Bronze culture of Europe, and adduced as an argument the distribution over Asia Minor and Southeastern Europe of a group of pottery fabrics with characteristic Red Polished technique.

^{page 166 note 1} J. R.A.I., xxxiii, pp. 367 ff.

^{page 166 note 2} Handbook of the Cesnola Collection, pp. xxviii ff.

^{page 166 note 3} Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, pp. 298 ff.

^{page 166 note 4} B.S.A., xvi, pp. 99 ff.

^{page 166 note 5} , Hall, Civilization of Greece in the Bronze Age, p. 33, note 2.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 1} Excavations at Erimi, pp. 26 ff.

^{page 167 note 2} Antiquity, xii (1938), p. 500Google Scholar . Similar ware already occurs in the Khirokitia period and is represented in the Erimi culture.

^{page 168 note 1} Bittel, K., Prähistorische Forschungen in Kleinasien, pl. III ffGoogle Scholar . See also , Schaeffer, Missions en Chypre, p. 38Google Scholar , where the comparison of a vase with face modelled on the neck with the ‘face urns’ of Troy II, is emphasized. The resemblance of the forms and decorative elements of the Red Polished ware with those of Yortan and Hissarlik is also confirmed by Myres in a recent article published in Iraq, vi, i, p. 75.

^{page 168 note 2} , Myres, J. R. A. I., xxxiii, p. 377Google Scholar and Iraq, vi, 1, p. 75. On the occurrence of copper weapons of Cypriot type in Asia Minor and Syria see also , Schaeffer, Missions, pp. 47 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 168 note 3} , Casson, Ancient Cyprus, p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 4} , Bittel, op. cit, pls. III, IV, VI, VIII, XI, XII, etc.; alsoGoogle ScholarLamb, W., Excavation at KusuraGoogle Scholar (Archaeologia, lxxxvi, pl. VII) ; of the same author, Excavation at Thermi, pls. VIII-XVII; and , Ormerod, B. S. A., xviii, 83 ff. and pl. v ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 169 note 1} Here we may mention the extraordinary likeness between the horned animal in relief on a fragment of Red Polished vase from Alaca HSyuk (R. O. Arik, Fouilles d'Alaca Hqyuk, pl. CLXIII, 1036) and some of the animals represented in relief on the vases found in the Vounous necropolis. Similar likeness may be observed between the stags in relief on the Vounous vases and the bronze statuette of the stag from Alaca (pis. ccn-ccv). The impressed circles on the body of the stag on the Vounous examples (pi. xxn, b) reminds one of the circles inlaid with silver on the Alaca statuette. It must be mentioned, however, that both relief and incised ornamentation occur in neolithic times in Cyprus on stone vases found at Khirokitia.

^{page 169 note 2} For a résumé of the problem of copper mining in Cyprus see Casson, , Ancient Cyprus, p. £122 ff.Google Scholar This author discusses Davies's, O. theory (B. S.A., XXX, 74 ff.Google Scholar ) that the copper mines of Cyprus were hardly worked in prehistoric times and that Mycenaean prospectors opened them up. Casson is of the opinion that Cyprus was a field for copper mining before the Mycenaean colonization of Cyprus. , Schaeffer (Missions, pp. 94 ff.)Google Scholar thinks also that the working of mines in Cyprus started in prehistoric times.

^{page 169 note 3} Excavations at Erimi, p. 68.

^{page 169 note 4} About the naval activity in the Eastern Mediterranean see R. Dussaud, Les De'couvertes de Ras-Shamra (Ugarit) et I'Ancien Testament, p. 63; and Myres, Who were the Greeks?, pp. 217, 277.

^{page 169 note 5} A. A. A., xxiv, 1937, p. 52Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 6} Excavations at Erimi, p. 41.

^{page 170 note 1} Excavations at Erimi, pp. 72 ff.

^{page 170 note 2} Studies, pp. 150 ff.

^{page 170 note 3} Ibid., ii, 80 ff

^{page 170 note 4} This is pear-shaped and has a narrow neck and two lugs on the shoulder, and is well known in Palestine ( , Macalister, Gezer, iii, pl. CXLII, 3–8)Google Scholar . For Cypriot examples see , Myres, Handbook, pp. 30, 271Google Scholar , and Gjerstad, p. 169 (Bottle type 1).

^{page 171 note 1} Classification des céramiques antiques, classif. 16, p. 15.

^{page 171 note 2} Excavations at Erimi, pp. 26 ff.

^{page 171 note 3} For Myres's most recent theory about the White Painted ware see Iraq, vi, 1, p. 82.

^{page 171 note 4} Excavations at Erimi, pl. XXII, 54 (only one cross) and pl. XXIII, 41.

^{page 171 note 5} See also , Gjerstad, Studies, p. 151Google Scholar . Here the juglet no T. 48 = 58 which is entirely Red Polished type but with painted ornamentation may be mentioned.

^{page 173 note 1} Infant sacrifices were also indicated in the High Place at Gezer: , Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer, II, pp. 381 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 173 note 2} For a preliminary report on this discovery see Illustrated London News, 27 Jan. 1940, pp. 128–9Google Scholar. A detailed discussion will appear in the final Report on the Khirokitia excavations.