^{page 37 note 1} The chief bibliographical references are listed at the end of the article.

^{page 38 note 1} There are two possible exceptions. J. N. Coldstream notes that ‘one vessel in the LM IB Marine Style (German Institute Negative Thera 495, right) has a reliable Theran provenance’, and queries whether the imported bowl illustrated in Marinatos, Thera I, figs. 70, 71, may not be LM IB. But Hood (104 n. 10) says the style of decoration is found in LM IA vases at Knossos. LM IB pottery was not known from Knossos before 1961, and it is obviously possible that a belated discovery of it may yet be made at Akrotiri where so much of the site is still unexcavated.

^{page 38 note 2} See his remarks in The New York Review of Books, 22 05 and 4 12 1969.

^{page 38 note 3} In CR xx (1970), 225.

^{page 38 note 4} Galanopoulos-Bacon, 33–9, and Mavor, 29 and 115.

^{page 39 note 1} ‘Volcanophysical Investigations on the Energetics of the Minoan Eruption of Volcano Santorin’, Bulletin Volcanologique xxxii, 2 (1968), 439 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} Thera III, 65.

^{page 39 note 3} Thera III, 67, and Page, 10. Caution is needed in interpreting some of the earlier reports, e.g. Bosanquet on Palaikastro, where LM II is sometimes applied to what would now be called LM IB.

^{page 39 note 4} Page, 11–12.

^{page 39 note 5} Page, 37.

^{page 39 note 6} Thera III, 7–8 and 64–5. Cf. Doumas, C. in Kadmos ix (1970), 96–8.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} Page, 37–8.

^{page 40 note 2} Thera III, 68.

^{page 40 note 3} Hood, 103–4.

^{page 40 note 4} Hood, 105.

^{page 40 note 5} Page, 12.

^{page 41 note 1} Page, 15.

^{page 41 note 2} Luce, 63–74.

^{page 41 note 3} Page, 35–44.

^{page 41 note 4} For which see Mavor, 111–17.

^{page 41 note 5} The figures are taken from the Plan in Gournia, Vasiliki, and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete by Hawes, H. B. and others (Philadelphia, 1908).Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Seager, R. B., Excavations in the Island of Pseira, Crete (Philadelphia, 1910), 15 and 23.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} Page, 41.

^{page 42 note 3} Page, 41.

^{page 42 note 4} Luce, 87.

^{page 43 note 1} Greek Geological Society iv (1959–1961), 210–18.

^{page 43 note 2} For the Cyprus deposit see Pomerance, L., The Final Collapse of Santorini (Thera), Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 26 (Göteborg, 1970), 24Google Scholar. His basic thesis is that ‘the tsunamis from Santorini created a cataclysm for the populations and primitive economies of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean shores about 1200 b.c.’. I doubt if this dating will attract much support. It requires us to posit a gap of about 300 years between the beginning and the end of the eruption.

^{page 43 note 3} Page, 37.

^{page 43 note 4} Luce, 92–3; Page, 39.

^{page 43 note 5} Hood, 106.

^{page 44 note 1} See above, p. 39 n. 1.

^{page 44 note 2} Luce, 90.

^{page 44 note 3} The most relevant reports will be found in the National Geographic Magazine xxiii (1912) and xxiv (1913). Further reports on the aftermath of the eruption appeared in 1917, 1918, 1919, and 1921, and the data were published in book form by R. F. Griggs in 1922 (see Bibliography). Subsequent research indicates that the actual focus of the explosive eruption may have been at the near-by Novarupta volcano, but to avoid confusion I have throughout referred to Mt. Katmai as the focus.

^{page 44 note 4} Griggs, 1. The details in my account are taken from his first three chapters.

^{page 45 note 1} Griggs, 45–6. His fifth chapter on ‘The recovery of vegetation at Kodiak’ contains much interesting material.

^{page 45 note 2} Luce, 92.