244
Edited by Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    29

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Edited by Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Studies on East Greek Pottery andExchange in the EasternMediterranean

Page 2: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

The British Museum Research Publication Number 162

Publishers

The British Museum

Great Russell Street

London WC1B 3DG

Series Editor

Dr Josephine Turquet

Distributors

The British Museum Press

46 Bloomsbury Street

London WC1B 3QQ

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern

Mediterranean

Edited by Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer

Front cover: Fragment of North Ionian black-figure amphora (?) from

Naukratis. British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1282 (Vase B 102.33)

ISBN-13 978-086159-162-6

ISBN-10 086159-162-3

ISSN 0142 4815

© The Trustees of the British Museum 2006

Note: the British Museum Occasional Papers series is now entitled

British Museum Research Publications.The OP series runs from

1 to 150, and the RP series, keeping the same ISSN and ISBN

preliminary numbers, begins at number 151.

For a complete catalogue of the full range of OPs and RPs see the

series website: www/the britishmuseum.ac.uk/researchpublications

or write to:

Oxbow Books, Park End Place

Oxford OX1 1HN, UK

Tel: (+44) (0) 1865 241249

e mail [email protected]

website www.oxbowbooks.com

or

The David Brown Book Co

PO Box 511, Oakville

CT 06779, USA

Tel: (+1) 860 945 9329;Toll free 1 800 791 9354

e mail [email protected]

Printed and bound in UK by Latimer Trend & Co. Ltd.

Page 3: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Contributors v

Preface vii

Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future 1

Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer

I NAUKRATIS: THE SITE, ITS CULTS AND ITS POTTERY

The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations 11

Ursula Höckmann and Astrid Möller

The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta 23

Alan Johnston

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the 31

Archaic Eastern Mediterranean

Alexandra Villing

Carian Mercenaries at Naukratis? 47

Dyfri Williams and Alexandra Villing

II EAST GREEK POTTERY AND ITS PRODUCTION CENTRES: ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENCE

The Study of East Greek Pottery 49

John Boardman

East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research 53

Udo Schlotzhauer and Alexandra Villing

Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Naukratis and other Related Vessels 69

Hans Mommsen with M.R. Cowell, Ph. Fletcher, D. Hook, U. Schlotzhauer, A. Villing, S. Weber

and D. Williams

Naukratis: Les importations grecques orientales archaiques. 77

Classification et détermination d’origine en laboratoire

Pierre Dupont and Annie Thomas

Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at Emecik, Knidia. 85

Results and Questions Concerning Dorian Pottery Production

Regina Attula

The Non-Figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at 93

Old Smyrna. Points of Contact with Naukratis

Stavros Paspalas

Chemical Provenance Determination of Pottery: The Example of the 105

Aiolian Pottery Group G

Hans Mommsen and Michael Kerschner

Contents

Page 4: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery 109

Michael Kerschner

The Chian Pottery from Naukratis 127

Dyfri Williams

Some Observations on Milesian Pottery 133

Udo Schlotzhauer with contributions by P. Herrmann (†) and S. Weber

East Greek ‘Situlae‘ from Egypt 145

Sabine Weber with an Appendix: Neutron Activation Analysis Results by H. Mommsen, A. Schwedt,

S. Weber and M.R. Cowell

The Apries Amphora – Another Cartouche 155

Donald Bailey

III EAST GREEK POTTERY AND THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN: CONTACT, EXCHANGE AND

IDENTITY

The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story? 159

Richard Posamentir

Some Ceramic Inscriptions Istrian Sanctuaries: The Naukratis Approach 169

Iulian Bîrzescu

Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrene’s Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter 175

Gerald Schaus

Imported Greek Pottery in Archaic Cyrene: The Excavations in the Casa del Propileo 181

Ivan D’Angelo

Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd century BC 187

Alessandro Naso

Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age 199

Alexander Fantalkin

Bibliography 209

Page 5: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | v

Regina Attula Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald Institut für Altertumswissenschaften Rudolf-Petershagen-Allee 1 17487 Greifswald [email protected]

Donald BaileyThe British MuseumGreek and Roman DepartmentGreat Russell StreetLondon WC1B 3DGUnited [email protected]

Iulian BîrzescuInstitute for Archaeology ‘Vasile Pârvan’ of the RomanianAcademyStr. Henri Coanda, nr. 11, sector 1010667 Bucharest [email protected]

John BoardmanAshmolean MuseumBeaumont StreetOxford OX1 2PHUnited [email protected]

Ivan D'AngeloUniversità di Napoli ‘L'Orientale’Dipartimento Mondo Classico e Mediterraneo AnticoPalazzo CoriglianoPiazza S. Domenico Maggiore80138 [email protected]

Pierre Dupont and Annie ThomasCNRS-UMR 5138,Archéométrie – ArchéologieUniversité Lyon 27, Rue Raulin69365 Lyon CEDEX [email protected]

Alexander FantalkinTel Aviv UniversityDepartment of Archaeology and AncientNear Eastern CivilizationsRamat Aviv, Tel Aviv [email protected]

Ursula HöckmannTaunusstr. 3955118 [email protected]

Alan JohnstonInstitute of ArchaeologyUniversity College London31–34 Gordon SquareLondon WC1H 0PYUnited [email protected]

Michael Kerschner Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, ÖAIFranz-Klein-Gasse 11190 [email protected]

Astrid MöllerAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversitätSeminar für Alte GeschichteKollegiengebäude 1Werthmannplatz79098 Freiburg i. [email protected]

Hans MommsenRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnHelmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und KernphysikNussallee 14–1653115 [email protected]

Contributors

Page 6: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

vi | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Contributors

Alessandro NasoUniversità degli Studi del MoliseDipartimento di Scienze Storiche, Umane e SocialiVia G. de Sanctis, snc86100 [email protected]

Stavros PaspalasAustralian Archaeological Institute at AthensZacharitsa 23Koukaki11741 [email protected]

Richard PosamentirDeutsches Archäologisches Institut, DAIAbteilung IstanbulGümüssuyu/Ayapasa CamiiSok. 4834437 [email protected]

Gerry SchausWilfrid Laurier University Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies75 University Avenue WestWaterloo, OntarioN2L 3C5Canada [email protected]

Udo SchlotzhauerDeutsches Archäologisches Institut, DAIEurasien-AbteilungIm Dol 2-6, Haus II14195 [email protected]

Alexandra VillingThe British MuseumGreek and Roman DepartmentGreat Russell StreetLondon WC1B 3DGUnited [email protected]

Sabine WeberWalkmühlstr. 665195 [email protected]

Dyfri WilliamsThe British MuseumGreek and Roman DepartmentGreat Russell StreetLondon WC1B 3DGUnited [email protected]

Page 7: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | vii

This volume has its origin in a workshop on Naukratis and EastGreek pottery held at the British Museum in December 2004 asthe 28th British Museum Classical Colloquium, the result of acollaboration between the British Museum and members of theNaukratis Project of SFB 295 at the Gutenberg-UniversitätMainz. Made possible by the generosity of the Gerda-Henkel-Stiftung and the Caryatid Group of the British Museum’s Greekand Roman Department, to whom we extend our gratitude, theworkshop brought together archaeologists, historians andscientists with the aim of generating a fruitful discussion andexchange of ideas and knowledge to further our understandingof the site of Naukratis in its wider, Eastern Mediterraneancontext. As it emerged, the scientific analysis of pottery samplestaken both at the British Museum and elsewhere provedparticular vital for many results presented here. To a large extentthis was made possible by subsidies from the DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft, by the personal interest of ProfessorHans Mommsen of the Helmholtz-Institut, Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität Bonn and the various other individuals, excavationsand institutions that allowed material in their care to beanalysed, and by the generous help of the staff of theDepartment of Conservation, Documentation and Science of theBritish Museum, notably Mike Cowell and Duncan Hook.

As editors, we have greatly enjoyed working with suchknowledgeable, reliable and responsive colleagues as have cometogether for the present volume. The collaborative spirit thatpervades the volume has its roots in the stimulating discussionand collaborative ambience of the workshop, which led tofurther exchanges well beyond the confines of the actualgathering. We are grateful to all participants, who made it suchan exceptionally productive experience. The contributionsassembled in this volume reflect this ongoing research anddiscourse, which has helped the volume to be, we hope, not justa gathering of individual papers but more a thematically linkedwhole.

Many people have contributed to making the workshop, therelated research and this volume possible. On the Mainz side,we would like to thank in particular Sabine Weber (Mainz) forher vital input in the workshop and related research, and UrsulaHöckmann and Detlev Kreikenbom (Mainz), Naukratis project

leaders within SFB 295 – Kreikenbom for his support inorganising the financing of the workshop, and Höckmann formuch help and constant openness to discussions.

On the British Museum side, we would like to thank inparticular Dyfri Williams, Keeper of the Greek and RomanDepartment, for making the workshop possible and for hisunfailing support throughout; all colleagues in Greek andRoman Department and the Educational AV unit for help withorganising the workshop; colleagues in the Department ofAncient Egypt and Sudan, especially Jeffrey Spencer and NealSpencer, as well as in the Middle East Department, for helpfuldiscussions and access to objects; Lesley Fitton, SusanWoodford, Mira Hudson, Bárbara Freitas, Sara Cambeta andSotiria Papastavrou for help with proof-reading; Kate Mortonfor producing two wonderful new maps and several profiledrawings; the British Museum’s Photography and ImagingDepartment, especially Dudley Hubbard, for producing newphotographs of objects at short notice; Lindy Crewe for helpwith image editing; John Boardman for encouragement and thedonation of his invaluable Naukratis archive to the BritishMuseum; and last but not least Josephine Turquet for producingthe volume sympathetically and efficiently as ever.

Editorial note

For Greek names a Greek spelling has been retained wherever itwas deemed not too unusual for the eye, which invariablymeans there will be considerable inconsistencies (such asKlazomenai and Aiolis but Cyrene and Laconia).

A joint bibliography can be found at the end of the volume.Journals have been abbreviated after the guidelines of theAmerican Journal of Archaeology. Some additional abbreviationsare used, such as NAA for neutron activation analysis. Stylisticphases in the development of East Greek pottery from variousregions have been abbreviated (e.g. as NiA I = North IonianArchaic I; MileA II = Milesian Archaic II) according to the newsystem set out in Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.

The order in which the contributions are arranged was inpart determined by the practical necessities of printing thecolour sections.

Preface

Page 8: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra
Page 9: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

The Greek trading port of Naukratis in the Egyptian Nile Deltawould have been a bustling harbour town in the Archaic period,the Shanghai of ancient Egypt, as Thomas Brown once put it.1

Greek ships docked here to sell Greek silver, wine and oil toEgyptians in exchange for linen, papyrus, grain, natron, andother goods. Greek traders deposited gifts in the localsanctuaries and stopped over with the local hetairai, whosefamous beauty must have turned the head of many a sailor, notjust, notoriously, that of the wine trader Charaxos from Lesbos,

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 1

brother of Sappho (Hdt. 2.135).The people of Archaic Naukratis, their cults and their trade,

their relations with Egypt and their links with Greece, Cyprusand Phoenicia, and particularly their pottery – its use, itsproduction centres in the East Greek world, and its distribution –are at the heart of the present volume, which arose out of aconference/workshop held at the British Museum late in 2004.This focus is reflected in the division of the volume into threemain parts: the site itself and its cults; the pottery of Naukratis

Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and FutureAlexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer

Figure 1aThe eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea

Page 10: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

2 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing and Schlotzhauer

and its production centres; and the position of Naukratis in thewider context of trade and exchange in the ArchaicMediterranean. Revisiting old material, publishing recentfieldwork in East Greece, North Africa and the Black Sea, andpresenting the latest research and analyses, the contributionsassembled here make clear what advances have been made in allthose areas over the past few decades.

This introductory essay aims to set the scene for the volume.2

It is not a summary of the chapters it contains (abstractsprefacing each contribution give easy access to the main topicsand results of each article), but rather introduces, connects andconsiders some of the key questions relating to the site ofNaukratis and its position in the Eastern Mediterranean web ofcontacts during the Archaic period; in doing so it draws on,expands and links up in different ways the evidence and insightsprovided by the various contributions. The more specific andspecialist insights relating to the pottery from Naukratis and itsproduction centres are summarised and contextualised ingreater detail in an overview essay at the beginning of section II.

Naukratis, 120 years after Petrie

Relations between Greece and Egypt go back a long time. In theBronze Age contacts between the Minoan Cretans and Egypt areamply attested,3 and the Minoans and Myceneans who hadsettled on the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean, at sites suchas Miletos, also attracted the Egyptians’ attention: Ionians arefor the first time depicted among subject states at time ofAmenophis III (1403–1364 bc).4 But after a long break it was onlyin the 7th century bc that significant contacts again developed.

Both East Greek and Carian mercenaries played a significantrole in the Egyptian army of the 26th Dynasty,5 having been firstdispatched presumably following the alliance betweenPsammetichos I and the Lydian king Gyges in 662/1 bc, someeven reaching advanced levels of command within their own‘foreigners’’ branch of the army and navy. Integration intoEgyptian society can be witnessed particularly in the region ofMemphis, where intermarriage and adoption of Egyptian namesand burial customs are recorded.6 In return, East Greeksanctuaries received ‘diplomatic’ gifts from the Egyptianpharaohs, and Egyptian goods and influence began to infiltrateGreece and the wider Mediterranean world.

Naukratis at this time was one of the main intersectionpoints between the Greek and Egyptian worlds(Fig. 1a).According to Herodotus (2.178-9), it had been established at theinstigation of the Pharaoh Amasis by 12 Greek cities, mostlylocated in East Greece (Fig. 1b), to act as a gateway for tradebetween Greece and Egypt:

Amasis favoured the Greeks and granted them a number ofprivileges, of which the chief was the gift of Naukratis as acommercial headquarters for any who wished to settle in thecountry. He also made grants of land upon which Greek traders, whodid not want to live permanently in Egypt, might erect altars andtemples. Of these latter the best known and most used – and also thelargest – is the Hellenion; it was built by the joint efforts of theIonians of Chios, Teos, Phokaia, and Klazomenai, of the Dorians ofRhodes, Knidos, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis, and of the Aiolians ofMytilene. It is to these states that the temple belongs, and it is theywho have the right of appointing the officers in charge of the port.Other cities which claim a share in the Hellenion do so withoutjustification; the Aiginetans, however, did build a temple of Zeus

Figure 1b East Greece Figure 2 Naukratis from the late 7th to 3rd centuries BC

Page 11: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 3

Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future

separately, the Samians one in honour of Hera, and the Milesiansanother in honour of Apollo. In old days Naukratis was the only portin Egypt, and anyone who brought a ship into any of the othermouths of the Nile was bound to state on oath that he did so ofnecessity and then proceed to the Canopic mouth; should contrarywinds prevent him from doing so, he had to carry his freight toNaukratis in barges all round the Delta, which shows the exclusiveprivilege the port enjoyed. (tr. A. de Sélincourt)

Over 120 years ago, in 1884, Sir William Flinders Petriediscovered the remains of ancient Naukratis (Fig. 2) in theWestern Nile Delta on the Canopic branch of the Nile andidentified it correctly as the site mentioned by Herodotus.Petrie’s first excavation campaign in 1884/5 (Figs 3a–d) at onceuncovered rich remains relating to the Greek presence at thesite; the sanctuaries of Apollo, Hera (originally identified as apalaistra), and of the Dioskouroi, along with the Scarab Factoryand the Great Temenos (believed by Petrie to be the Hellenion)were excavated. Even if quite advanced for their time,excavations were by modern standards somewhat chaotic,conducted under difficult circumstances and in a constant raceagainst the sebakhin, locals digging up soil for use as fertiliserson fields (cf. Fig. 4e).7 Work was continued in 1885/6 by ErnestA. Gardner on behalf of Petrie. Gardner further excavated thesanctuaries of Apollo, Hera, and the Dioskouroi, and discoveredthe sanctuary of Aphrodite. Some years later, David Hogarth ofthe British School at Athens, in 1899 and 1903, concentrated onthe Hellenion and the Great Temenos (Figs 4a–d).8 Morerecently, an American expedition led by W.D.E. Coulson und A.Leonard in the 1970s and 80s set out to re-study Naukratis.Unfortunately, although their surveys and excavations shedmuch light on the post-Archaic site, its gradual destruction andthe great lake that now covers the site of early Naukratis made itimpossible to follow truly in the footsteps of Petrie.9

Research on Archaic Naukratis thus has to remain based onthe finds of the old excavations. The four seasons of fieldworkproduced much material evidence for the history of the site,while additional material was collected by travellers. Altogetherthese finds are vital evidence for the history of the Greekdiaspora around the Mediterranean, for relations betweenGreeks and Egyptians, and for contacts and trade in the EasternMediteranean in general.

Yet in spite of the considerable importance of the site and thecontinuing scholarly interest it has attracted, no comprehensivepublication of the surviving material from Naukratis has everbeen attempted, a fact that has severely hampered scholarlystudy of the site. Petrie’s and Gardner’s publications of findswere a model of speed, and the results of Hogarth’s excavationswere also soon put into print.10 But neither were comprehensive,according to Petrie’s famous motto ‘half a loaf is better than nobread’.11 This situation would be less of a problem were it not fora further complicating factor: as the earlier excavation projectwas funded through subscriptions to the Egypt ExplorationFund, the material from the site was distributed amongsubscribers; material from Hogarth’s excavations, too, wasspread among various collections, while further material wascollected by private individuals. As a result, the finds are nowshared between some 40 museums and collections all over theworld – even though the largest part of this, some 50%, is heldby the British Museum.12 An additional handicap is the skewednature of the preserved sample of material and the uncertaintyabout what was discarded already on site, an issue addressed inmore detail by Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the site, and in particularits pottery, has attracted much scholarly attention over the past120 years: one only needs to mention E.R. Price’s study and

Figure 3 Petrie’s excavations at Naukratis; a) Sir Flinders Petrie, c. 1886;b) the mound of Naukratis during Petrie’s excavations; c) finds of Greekarchitectural fragments

Page 12: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

4 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing and Schlotzhauer

Marjory Venit’s work on the Greek pottery from Naukratis, orBernand’s catalogue of the pottery inscriptions in Le deltaégypties d’après les textes grecs. From a wider perspective, severalauthors attempted an evaluation of the history and significanceof Naukratis, such as von Bissing in 1951 and John Boardman inhis seminal work on The Greeks Overseas, indispensable still forthe study of early Greco-Egyptian relations.13 More recently, acrucial analysis of Naukratis and its role as a trading port waspublished in 2000 by Astrid Möller, spawning ongoing fruitfuldiscussions, such as in a colloquium at Lyons dedicated toNaukratis.14 A year after Möller’s study, the proceedings of the1999 Naukratis Colloquium at the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz, appeared, adding further aspects to ourunderstanding of the history and material culture of the Greeks

and Carians in Egypt. The colloquium had been held under theauspices of the Mainz Naukratis Project, led by UrsulaHöckmann, which between 1997 and 2003 made much progressin cataloguing and studying various types of Greek material atNaukratis with a focus on acculturation phenomena. Numeroussubsequent articles and three forthcoming volumes presentfurther results of the project.15 Still ongoing is the work on thedatabase originally set up by the Mainz Naukratis Project andcontinued by the British Museum, which will eventually allowan overview of the material held by different museums andcollections. The present volume, too, is a result of the BritishMuseum’s collaboration with the Mainz group, and a startingpoint for future research into the extraordinary trading port thatwas Naukratis.

Figure 4 Hogarth’s excavations at Naukratis: a) Hogarth on the excavation; b)excavation and village; c) ‘Pavement of Artemis shrine?’; d) ‘Pedestal vase in situ,Edgar holding the pieces’; e) Sebakhin at Naukratis

Page 13: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 5

Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future

Life at Naukratis: Greeks and Egyptians

It has long been recognised that the material evidence fromNaukratis dates back to the latter part of the 7th century bc, thetime of the reign of Psammetichos I. Greek objects (notablypottery) first appear in Egypt around the middle or even the lastthird of the of the 7th century bc,16 and the earliest finds atNaukratis of Greek pottery – Corinthian, Attic, East Greek andCarian (cf. Williams and Villing, this volume) – seem to confirmthis.

It remains difficult, however, to reconcile this materialevidence with the account in Herodotus which appears toascribe the foundation of Naukratis to Amasis. Even if there is nounanimous consensus, it is agreed by most scholars17 thatNaukratis must have been founded during Psammetichos’ reign,presumably under the leadership of the Ionian city of Miletos(and perhaps as one of several trading posts in the Delta), whilea re-organisation under Amasis concentrated Greek trade just onNaukratis and gave specific status to the other Greek citiesinvolved in the venture, an interpretation which seems quitecompatible with the wording of Herotodus’ passage quotedabove.18 They were allowed to establish the Hellenion and weregranted the administration of the site through the prostatai touemporíou, thus, perhaps, marginalising Miletos – a city whichhad been an important supporter of Amasis’ adversary Apries.While the privileging of Naukratis at the expense of othertrading posts can be seen as granting the site a special favour, itwas also a way of keeping tight control of foreign tradersentering the country, an aspect that may have gainedimportance particularly with the nationalist backlash thatfollowed Apries’ reign.19

As has been realised to its full extent only very recently,Naukratis was in fact not necessarily the first and only point ofcontact for ships entering Egypt in the region of Sais. Theharbour town of Hone (Thonis-Herakleion) guarded the mouthof the Canopic branch of the Nile as it entered the ‘sea of theGreeks’, i.e. the Mediterranean, and seems to have been the veryfirst port of call where trade goods were taxed on behalf of theEgyptian state. This was certainly the situation in the Classicalperiod, when the stelai20 erected by pharaoh Nektanebos I inNaukratis and Thonis-Herakleion specify that one tenth of taxeson imports passing through Thonis-Herakleion and on alltransactions and local production of goods at Naukratis (Pi-emrôye) should be given to Neith of Sais. Yet it may have appliedalready to the late 7th century or 6th centuries bc, as finds fromThonis-Herakleion date back to at least the 6th century bc,21

thus raising new questions concerning the status of both sitesand their relationship.

What seems clear, however, is that Naukratis and Thonis-Herakleion must have had a close relationship at least from anEgyptian point of view, and both must have been guardedclosely by Egyptian officials, like any other point of intersectionwith foreign lands. During the Saite period, officials known as‘Overseer of the gate of the Foreign Lands of the Great Green’(i.e. the Mediterranean) would have been in charge of securingthe borders as well as – as suggested by Posener – administratingtrade taxes,22 and it seems likely that the administration of bothsites reported to them, even if under the prostatai tou emporíouNaukratis can be assumed to have had autonomy at least insome regards. Just how strong an Egyptian presence would havebeen at Naukratis in the Archaic period remains uncertain.23 The

early excavators reported that in the southern part of the siteonly Egyptian objects were found, but it seems that these weremostly of Hellenistic date. Similarly, the Great Mound within theGreat Temenos (identified originally by Petrie as a strongholdand storage building identical with the Hellenion) is nowpredominantly considered a ‘high temple’ in a temenos built inthe 4th century bc under Nektanebos I for Amun of Batet,24

although the possibility that it was a much earlier fort for anEgyptian garrison established by Psammetichos I (and restoredby Ptolemy) is still maintained by some.25 Others have suggestedthat Naukratis was originally an Egyptian settlement,26 whosename Pi-emroye (or Pr-mryt, ‘the Harbour/Port House’), used forNaukratis on the stelai erected by Nektanebos I in Naukratis andHeraklion/Thonis27 as well as in several other hieroglyphic anddemotic inscriptions,28 was in fact the town’s original name.Aristagoras of Miletos29 even mentions an Egyptian settlementon the opposite side of the river to Naukratis at the time of itsfoundation, but no archaeological trace of this has been locatedto date.

Nevertheless, we surely must assume at least someadministrative and policing staff as well as interpreters (cf. Hdt.2.154). Archaic Egyptian inscriptions (of unknown provenance),one referring to the renewal of a donation connected with thetemple of Amon-Re Batet (assumed to be in Naukratis) and theother to a man from Naukratis,30 indeed seem to point toresident Egyptians at Naukratis,31 and there may have beenEgyptians involved in the local scarab workshop, too.32

Fragments of 6th-century bc Egyptian pottery (Schlotzhauerand Villing Fig. 41),33 even if rare in the known extant record,may well have belonged to such Egyptian residents. Only furtherstudy of the Egyptian remains from the site may ultimately shedmore light on the question of Egyptians at Naukratis and on thelevel of direct interaction between Greeks and Egyptians atNaukratis itself.34

The presence of Greeks in the Archaic period, by contrast, isamply attested, at least in terms of pottery, if not in architecturalremains (cf. Fig. 3c),35 Of course, the evidence is largelyconfined to Greek sanctuaries, with the temenos of Apollo andthe sanctuary of Aphrodite going back to the earliest period ofthe site, and the Hellenion to the time of Amasis,36 and it thusremains unclear what proportion of Greeks actuallypermanently lived at the site compared to the proportion oftraders who only passed through the port and deposited theirvotives along the way. The excavated cemetery at the site seemsto cover merely the Classical and Hellenistic periods (although adinos stand [?] perhaps of 6th century bc date is also said tohave been found there).37 Similarly, no firm evidence has beenrecorded for Archaic living quarters, apart from Petrie’s recordof some some Archaic finds in the area of the houses, eventhough these must have existed, both on the evidence ofHerodotus talking of Greeks settling down and livingpermanently in Naukratis, and the existence in Archaic times ofpresumably not just seasonal workshops. The latter producedscarabs and faience, perhaps also terracotta figurines, alabastra,floral garlands and some sculpture, as well as, as is more fullydiscussed by Schlotzhauer and Villing in this volume, pottery inan East Greek style, at least from the time of Amasis onwards.

As has been remarked by many scholars before, the profile ofthe Greek pottery finds in Naukratis is well matched to theliterary account of the founding cities of the emporion, with

Page 14: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

6 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing and Schlotzhauer

pottery from Ionia, Aiolis and the East Dorian region much inevidence, a picture reflected also in various contributions in thepresent volume (for a summary see Schlotzhauer and Villing,this volume). The presence of Greek pottery from elsewhere –Attica, Laconia, Corinth – matches the profile at Archaic EastGreek sites and reflects the general pattern of pottery trade inthe Archaic Mediterranean. The study of the potteryinscriptions, too, currently undertaken by Alan Johnston,essentially confirms this picture; once completed, it will providea more complete understanding of the relative chronology andritual life of the various sanctuaries. The study has alreadysignificantly expanded the range of dedicators and the numberof pieces inscribed by each, in ceramic texts totalling well over2500, yet it remains true that only a few visitors to thesanctuaries seem to have come from further afield: somepossibly Lydian and Carian names can now be added to thealready-known single Phoenician graffito (Schlotzhauer andVilling Fig. 24) and the two Cypriot graffiti of Classical date(Höckmann and Möller Fig. 6).38

In general, the cultic life of Archaic Naukratis presents itselfas similar to that in the (East) Greek home cities, from wheremost cults were filiated and most pottery imported. East Greekdecorated plates, for example, are much in evidence andpresumably served as display pieces, similar to votive pinakes,39

even if – as is the case with East Dorian plates with marinemotifs discussed here by R. Attula (Attula Figs 6-11) – not alltypes of such plates are present. A particularly close connectionwith the homeland can be witnessed in the import of speciallymade crockery from the Samian homeland for sacred meals:mugs and cups with dipinti to Hera (Villing and SchlotzhauerFigs 14-17) of exactly the same type as have been found in largenumbers in the Samian Heraion appear in the sanctuary of Heraat Naukratis, a Samian foundation (Hdt 2.178),40 and clayanalysis by Hans Mommsen shows that they were producedwith the same clay as the numerous examples found on Samos.Other instances of commissioning of pottery from back homespecifically for use and/or dedication in a specific sanctuary atNaukratis are also attested. A dipinto on a North Ionian LWGlarge cup, for example, designates it specifically for ‘Aphrodite atNaukratis’; it may have functioned as a mixing bowl incommunal drinking rites.41 Chian chalices, too, carry bespokevotive dipinti: those by Aigyptis and Mikis (or –mikis) have beentaken by Dyfri Williams to have been commissioned(presumably through intermediate traders or travellingacquaintances) by some of the famous hetairai resident atNaukratis,42 while the Chian/Aiginetan pair of tradersAristophantos and Damonidas43 presumably brought theirchalices to Naukratis in person (Johnston Fig. 1). The actualpresence of the dedicant at the sanctuary is also indicated by aninteresting fragment (Johnston Fig. 9) that shows thattransport across the seas might occasionally result in damage: alarge Chian chalice with a painted pre-firing dedication by a…]mides has the mu incised at a point where the slip had peeledaway, suggesting that the dedicator must have repaired thedamage on the spot.

Much of this inscribed as well as most of the uninscribeddecorated pottery consists of drinking vessels and mixing bowlsand – as in most Greek sanctuaries – must have been used incommunal rites in the sanctuaries. Even undecorated coarsebowls, mortaria, presumably used for the preparation of sacred

meals in Apollo’s cult, frequently bear votive inscriptions (cf.Villing, this volume). It is not difficult to imagine that communalritual meals must have been of particular importance in a placelike Naukratis, where Greeks were gathered in a foreignenvironment and where cult was one way of re-enforcing acommunal spirit and identity, and where the gods were,moreover, vital in ensuring the success of voyages and tradeventures. Ritual dining to further social and political cohesion isperhaps most prominently associated with feasting for ApolloKomaios, who was honoured by a symposium in theprytaneion.44 The prytaneion may have been located inside theHellenion (Höckmann and Möller Fig. 2), the commonsanctuary set up by the joint efforts of nine poleis, presumablyfollowing the reorganisation of Naukratis by the pharaoh Amasisaround 570 bc. Here, as Höckmann and Möller conclude in thepresent volume, all three ethnic groups of Hellenes togetherworshipped the Greek gods and organized the administrationfor their emporion – a statement of their Hellenic, East Greekidentity in the face of a foreign, Egyptian environment.

Naukratis and trade in the Archaic Mediterranean

Naukratis was, of course, not the only Greek emporion situatedin a foreign environment, but one trading post among many inthe Archaic Mediterranean, with manifold connections to othersites and with many of its features being paralleled, to someextent, at other sites.

For Cyrene, further west along the Mediterranean coast ofAfrica, Gerry Schaus and Ivan D’Angelo in their contributions tothe present volume note that, as at Naukratis, finds include little7th and much 6th century bc pottery, notably of North Ionianand Chian, as well as South Ionian, provenance. Schaus suggeststhat Chian traders first came to Naukratis and then went on toCyrene, and that Fikellura pottery, too, reached Cyrene on theback of trade to Naukratis, alongside, possibly, faience, scarabsand alabaster alabastra of Naukratite production. All this wouldpresuppose the existence of a coastal trade route connectingNaukratis with Cyrene, in addition to the well-known sea routevia Crete, a possibility also raised by Ivan D’Angelo in his studyof pottery from domestic contexts in Cyrene, whichcomplements the picture of the sanctuary pottery discussed bySchaus. There are, however, also distinctive differences betweenthe pottery profiles of Naukratis and Cyrene. For example, noearly Attic pottery has as yet been found in Cyrene – unlike atNaukratis, which yielded some of the earliest exported Atticmaterial.45 Could this be explained by the involvement of Aiginain the foundation of Naukratis? Conversely, the Theran(D’Angelo Fig. 6), Cycladic and Cretan pottery at Cyrenedemonstrates continuation of contact between colonists andtheir Aegean homeland. No pottery of these islands has beenidentified at Naukratis, yet the phenomenon of an on-going linkwith the mother cities is exactly the same, extending tootherwise little-exported pottery fabrics such as grey wares fromthe Aiolian and Trojan/Lesbian region (Kerschner Fig. 10;Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 11–13).

Also in the North, on the shores of the Black Sea, Milesiancolonies (with a trading-post element) such as Istros (Histria)and Berezan – discussed in the present volume by IulianBîrzescu and Richard Posamentir – mirror the strong East Greekprofile in pottery finds that is found at Naukratis. At Berezan, forexample, from about 630 bc onwards, North Ionian, Chian,

Page 15: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 7

Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future

South Ionian and Aiolian pottery suitable for drinking parties aswell as decorated plates is much in evidence. In the 7th centurybc Milesian, or South Ionian, pottery is predominant, while thepicture changes dramatically in the first half of the 6th centurybc in favour of North Ionian products (Posamentir Figs 3–4) –the same pattern as has recently been established by MichaelKerschner for Western Greek colonies.46 Also at Naukratis thelarge amount of 6th century bc North Ionian pottery isremarkable; unlike at Berezan (Posamentir Fig. 11), however,bird, rosette and other hemispherical bowls seem dwarfed innumbers by South Ionian cups with everted rim(‘Knickrandschalen’; Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 21, 23,27–29) – although we cannot be sure if this might not be due totheir owners being keener to inscribe them, and thus makingthem more attractive for the excavators to keep. Finally, unlikeat Naukratis, where a local pottery workshop has now beenestablished with some certainty (Schlotzhauer and Villing, thisvolume), Posamentir’s research suggests that unusual pieces ofpottery from Berezan more likely stem from workshopsestablished not at Berezan itself but located in another Milesiancolony in the Hellespont area. 47

At Naukratis, as in other Greek sites abroad, a characteristicmixture of pottery produced in the home cities and elsewherecan thus be observed. Who brought it here? The mariners whopeddled those wares, or themselves dedicated them in thesanctuaries, clearly were not always of the same origin as theircargo. The wide distribution of Athenian and Corinthianpottery, for example, must be due in no small measure to theactivities of Aiginetan traders, even though evidence such as theCorinthian dedication on a Corinthian louterion from Chios(Johnston Fig. 8) also points to the involvement of Corinthiansthemselves.48 The distribution of Laconian pottery is presumablydue largely to traders from Aigina and Samos. Similarly, as isargued in this volume by Michael Kerschner, Aiolian potteryproduced in Kyme (and Larisa?) may well have been traded byPhokaians. As regards Cypriot mortaria found at Naukratis, asAlexandra Villing points out in the present volume, they mayhave been traded not merely by Cypriots or Phoenicians but alsoby Greeks. Unfortunately, the scarce evidence for tradeamphorae among the extant pottery from Naukratis prohibits areliable profile of this type of trade to be established; among theinscribed pieces that were kept by the excavators are severalCypriot and Chian as well as some Samian, Klazomenian, otherNorth-Greek, and Corinthian amphorae (e.g. Johnston Figs 14,21); in addition, amphorae of Phoenician type were found (cf. Johnston, this volume, and Villing, this volume).

The trading connections of Naukratis thus extendedeastwards beyond the borders of Greece, towards Cyprus andPhoenicia, and westwards towards Cyrene. As Alessandro Nasodemonstrates in his contribution to the volume, they evenreached as far as Italy, from where several pieces of Etruscanbucchero pottery reached Naukratis. Again, this does notnecessarily suggest the actual presence of Etruscans, but mightbe due to mediation by East Greeks or Aiginetans; a sizablenumber of bucchero sherds has, after all, been found in ArchaicMiletos and other East Greek sites as well as on Aigina.Nevertheless, some degree of contact or trade is attestedbetween Etruria and Southern Italy and Egypt from the mid-8thcentury bc onwards,49 though often probably through Greek andPhoenician/Cypro-Phoenician or Carthaginian merchants.50

Phoenician and Cypro-Phoenician traders were importantplayers in the Archaic Mediterranean in general. As AlexanderFantalkin argues in the present volume, alongside Cypriots andEuboeans they were instrumental in the renewal of contactsbetween Greece and the East in the 10th to 8th centuries bc,encouraged in their ventures by the Assyrian empire, while fromthe 7th century onwards East Greek trade and expansion gainedin importance, supported by Lydian imperial policy. Archaic EastGreece was naturally more a part of the East than the West, butwas also a mediator between the two, while mainland Greeceremained on the margins (a situation, as Fantalkin points out,that paradoxically turned out to be instrumental in its uniquedevelopment towards the ‘Greek miracle’ in the Classicalperiod).

That Phoenician traders played a role in Egypt, too,alongside the Greeks, is suggested by Diodorus (1.68.8), whopoints out that Greeks and Phoenicians were the main tradersadmitted into Egypt since the time of Psammetichos I.Phoenicians are attested notably in the Eastern part of the Deltaand in the region around Memphis.51 Did they also come toNaukratis, as some have suggested?52 A single Phoenicianinscription on a cup of East Dorian (Knidian?) production(Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 24),53 Phoenician-typeamphorae,54 a Phoenician dipinto on a trade amphora,55 andClassical or later amphorae of Phoenician type with Greekdipinti56 hardly provide sufficient evidence to assume thatPhoenician traders regularly frequented the port of Naukratis inthe Archaic period, even if, of course, we need to remember thatwe do not possess the complete archaeological picture of thesite. The situation is thus somewhat similar to the question ofthe presence of Cypriots in Naukratis, where, as is suggested byVilling in this volume, Archaic Cypriot sculpture, terracottafigurines, some pottery and few (Classical) inscriptions hardlysuffice to postulate a thriving Cypriot community, even if, asSchlotzhauer57 once pointed out, occasional visits or even ahandful of residents are not inconceivable.

Archaic Naukratis, in its function as a primarily East Greektrading post in Egypt, was thus one of several vital points ofcontact between the main players of the ancient Mediterraneanand their wide network of connections – a complex web of traderoutes that linked the whole Mediterranean in the Archaicperiod, from East Greece to the Phoenician coast, Cyprus,mainland Greece, the Nile Delta, North Africa, Sardinia, Etruria,and Spain. More specifically, it connected the two greatcivilisations of Greece and Egypt. What impact did this role haveon the Greeks at Naukratis, on the Greeks back home, and onthe Egyptians?

Greece and Egypt: Naukratis as cultural crossroads

As far as can be judged from the limited research done to date, inspite of the influx of numerous Greeks into Saite Egypt, theEgyptian adoption of Greek elements of culture in the Archaicperiod seems to have remained rather limited.58 This isexemplified by the relative lack of interest in painted Greeksymposion pottery, so popular in many other regions of theancient world but only rarely found in Egyptian contexts.59 Onlytransport amphorae were valued not only for their originalcontents but also as convenient containers for re-use (Hdt. 3.5-7– note also the Chian amphora from Tell Defenneh with sealingsof Amasis: Johnston Fig. 18).

Page 16: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

8 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing and Schlotzhauer

In the other direction, the case was different. Life in Egyptcertainly did not fail to make an impression on the Ionian andCarian soldiers in the pay of the pharaoh, and a considerabledegree of acculturation is manifested by the adoption ofEgyptian motifs and their mixing with Greek/Carian traditionson the grave stelai of Saqquara.60 Carians and Ionians mightmarry Egyptian women, adopt Egyptian names, be involved inEgyptian cults61 and adopt Egyptian burial customs. Inhumationin a completely Egyptian style is attested, for example, in the late7th century bc for the son of Alexikles and Zonodote at Tell el-Nebesheh(?); he even adopted an Egyptian name, Wah-ib-Re-em-ahet.62

Returning from Egypt to their home cities (be it permanentlyor for a visit), both mercenaries and traders, as well as possiblycraftsmen, not only brought with them Egyptian goods todedicate in the local sanctuaries63 (most conspicuous is theEgyptian statue dedicated by Pedon at Priene in the late 7thcentury bc)64 but also tales of the grandeur of Egyptian temples,Egyptian painting, Egyptian cult and ideas of the afterlife thatwere to leave a profound influence on those who heard them.For example, as Bilge Hürmüzlü has established recently, theEgyptian idea of the preservation of the body for the afterlifemay well be responsible for the introduction at ArchaicKlazomenai of inhumation in general and of Egyptian-stylesarcophagi in particular, a phenomenon that seems paralleledalso in Archaic Samos.65 Such a change is a fundamentaltransformation of beliefs, not a mere superficial fad, and testifiesto the profundity of Egyptian influence on Eastern Greeks.Equally significantly, Egyptian architecture and technologyproved fundamental for the development of (East) Greekmonumental architecture, such as it is found at Didyma or onSamos,66 and sculpture, such as the monumental lions ofEgyptian type at Didyma67 – part of a shared culture ofmonumentalisation, used not least for political ends.68 Perhapsthe most successful of these developments was of course thekouros and kore motif.69 Beyond the realm of art, we also findEgyptian ideas in cosmology or philosophy.70 Phenomena suchas the popularity of Egyptian amulets – scarabs and faience71 –further demonstrate the appeal exerted by Egyptian ideas ofdivine protection on the wider Mediterranean world, which atthe time amost seems to have been in the grip of some‘Egyptomania’.72

That the deep impression made by Egyptian ideas alsoextended to the medium of Greek pottery is suggested, forexample, by the Laconian Arkesilas cup (Schaus Fig. 1); as is setout by Schaus in the present volume, its depiction of the king ofCyrene overseeing the weighing of goods seems to have beeninfluenced by the Egyptian iconography of the weighing ofhearts (souls) on entry in the afterlife (Schaus Figs 2–3). In EastGreek vase-painting, too, Egyptian motifs appear: we find themon a Fikellura (MileA II) fragment from Naukratis depicting themythical Egyptian king Bousiris;73 on the amphora from Saqqarafeaturing a typically Egyptian way of representing bull’s hornsmentioned by John Boardman in this volume; in the falcon onthe nb basket and the stick-fighters on the situlae from TellDefenneh discussed in this volume by Sabine Weber (WeberFigs 16–17); and, perhaps most obviously, in the band ofcartouches on the Apries amphora from Thebes examined in thisvolume by Donald Bailey (Bailey Figs 1-5). Representations ofblack Africans, such as on the (North-Ionian?) fragment from

Naukratis (book cover), must also ultimately derive fromcontacts with Africa.

With most of these representations having been found inEgypt, it is tempting to suspect that they were locally producedby Greeks in Egypt. Yet as will emerge from the variousdiscussions and analyses in the present volume, on balance andon present evidence it seems more likely that most of thesepieces were produced in various East Greek centres. If so, theywere clearly produced with Egypt in mind, quite possiblycommissioned, even though for what client and what precisepurpose remains unclear: a symposium, a dedication in asanctuary, a prize, a gift?74 What will also emerge, however, isthat there was indeed some local production of East Greek stylepottery in Naukratis (Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 30–40).What is surprisingly at first glance, however, is that there isnothing at all Egyptian about this pottery, beyond the use of thelocal clay. Shapes and decoration are all Ionian, even if ratheridiosyncratic – no cartouches, here, or Egyptian symbols.75 Thiscontrasts sharply with the adoption of Egyptian funerary ideasby Carians and Ionians at Saqqara, and also with the influenceof such ideas in East Greek cities and the adoption of Egyptianiconography in some East Greek pottery, but also, in Naukratisitself, with the mixture of Egyptian and Greek motifs in at leastsome products of the Naukratis scarab workshop. It thus seemsthat the (East) Greek inhabitants of Naukratis admittedEgyptian influence only selectively into their material culture,and, at least in their pottery production, were more intent onexpressing and re-enforcing their Greek identity, similar to theway a certain common (East) Greek administrative and culticidentity was shaped in the Hellenion (Höckmann and Möller,this volume). Rather than uniformly encourage acculturationand exchange, the special position of Naukratis, an (East) Greekenclave closely controlled by Egyptians but not integrated intoEgyptian society, in fact seems to have encouraged a drawingtogether and re-enforcement of a Hellenic identity precisely inopposition to the surrounding Egyptian environment.Frequently paralleled in expatriate communities in the ancientand modern worlds, this should hardly surprise, yet the lack ofenthusiasm for things Egyptian nevertheless strikes one asparadoxical at a place that was the very heart of Greek contactwith Egypt and that radiated out Egyptian influence all acrossthe Greek Mediterranean and beyond.

Illustration creditsFig. 1 drawing Kate Morton; Fig. 2 drawing Marion Cox, after Möller2000, fig. 1; Fig. 3a © Egypt Exploration Society; Figs 3b-c © PetrieMuseum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London, PMAN2698, 2683; Figs 4a-e courtesy of John Boardman.

Notes1 Braun 1982, 38.2 We are grateful to D. Williams, S. Ebbinghaus, S. Woodford, V.

Smallwood and F. Wascheck for comments on the manuscript of thisintroduction, to the contributors to the volume for providinginformation on various questions; to J. Boardman for kindlysupplying photographs from Hogarth’s excavations, and to S. Quirkeand P. Spencer for identifying and supplying images from Petrie’sexcavations.

3 Karetsou 2000.4 Sourouzian and Stadelmann 2005, 82-3, fig. 6.5 Cf. especially the extensive discussions by Haider 1988, 1996, 2001,

and Kaplan 2002; see also Williams and Villing, this volume.6 Cf. Haider 1988, 1996, 2001. For a critical view of Haider’s assessment

of foreigners in the Egyptian army see Pressl 1998.

Page 17: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 9

Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future

7 Cf. for example Petrie 1886b, 13, on the destruction of a columnfragment from the temple of Apollo, or Gardner 1888, 12-5. On Petrieand his work, see Drower 1985.

8 The history of the excavations as been summarized most recently byLeonard 1997, 1-35; cf. also Möller 2000a, 90-2. Only a very briefaccount is therefore given here.

9 Coulson 1988, 1996; Coulson and Leonard 1977/8, 1979, 1981a, 1981b,1982a, 1982b; Coulson et al. 1982; Leonard 1997, 2001.

10 Petrie 1886b; Gardner 1888; Hogarth 1898/9, 1905.11 Petrie 1888, V.12 On the history of excavations and distribution of finds, see Cook

1954, 60-1; Bernand 1970, 634-6; Schlotzhauer 2001, 112-13;Höckmann 2001, V-VI; Kerschner 2001a, 72-4. Research into thewhereabouts of Naukratis material are still ongoing; collections sofar identified are: (in Britain): Bath (Royal Literary and ScientificInstitution); Birmingham; Bolton; Bristol (City Museum and ArtGallery); Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Museum and Museum of ClassicalArchaeology); Dundee (McManus Galleries); Edinburgh; Glasgow(Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove, and Hunterian Museum andArt Gallery); Greenock (McLean Museum and Art Gallery);Liverpool (Liverpool Museum); Harrow School; London (BritishMuseum, UCL and Petrie-Museum); Macclesfield; Manchester(Manchester Museum); Newbury (West Berkshire Museum);Newcastle upon Tyne (Hancock Museum); Nottingham (BrewhouseYard, Museum of Nottingham Life); Oxford (Ashmolean Museum);Reading (Ure Museum); St Helens (The World of Glass); Southport(Atkinson Art Gallery); (elswhere): Dublin (Department ofClassics); Amsterdam (Allard Pierson Museum – from Coll. v.Bissing); Den Haag; Leiden (Rijksmuseum – from Coll. v. Bissing);Brussels (Musées Royaux – from Coll. J. de Mot); Paris (Louvre, fromColl. Seymour de Ricci); Compiègne; Berlin (Antikensammlung);Bonn (Akademisches Kunstmuseum – from Coll. v. Bissing);Heidelberg (Antikenmuseum – from Coll. O. Rubensohn and P.Gardner); Hildesheim; Karlsruhe; Leipzig (from Cambridge,Fitzwilliam); Munich (Antikensammlung – from Coll. v. Bissing);Palermo; Syracuse; Alexandria; Cairo; Athens (BSA; L. Benaki);Moscow; Boston; Brooklyn; Bryn Mawr; Chautauqua; Chicago;Clinton/NY (Hamilton College); New York (Metropolitan Museumof Art – from Coll. E. Price); Philadelphia; San Francisco; Vermont;Toronto; Sydney (Nicholson Museum). We are grateful to U.Höckmann (Mainz Naukratis project) and M. Marée (BritishMuseum, Department of Ancient Egyt and Sudan) for contributingto this listing.

13 Price 1924; Venit 1982, 1988; Bernand 1970; Bissing 1951; Boardman1999.

14 Möller 2000a; several contributions in TOPOI 12/13, 2005.15 Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001. Ursula Höckmann examined the

Kouroi of limestone and alabaster, Gabriele Nick the small scalesculpture, Wolfgang Koenigs the remains of architecture from thesanctuaries at Naukratis, and Sabine Weber und Udo Schlotzhauerthe Archaic Greek pottery from Naukratis and the rest of Egypt. Theresults are published in Nick (forthcoming); Höckmann and Koenigs(forthcoming); Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).

16 The fragment of a sub-geometric oinochoe from Memphis isgenerally acknowledged to be the earliest preserved fragment:Weber 2001, 136, pl. 21.1.

17 Pace James 2003 and 2005. On Mediterranean chronologies, seemost recently Nijboer 2005; Tsetskhladze 2006; as well as Fantalkin,this volume, ns 35, 43, 81.

18 Astrid Möller (2000a, 2001, 2005) in particular has studied the roleNaukratis played as a trading emporion in Egypt and has establishedthe way it functioned as a port of trade at the intersection betweenEgypt and the Mediterranean; her findings do not need be repeatedhere (note, however, that she argues against a prominent role ofMiletos: Möller 2001). On the nature of early Greek trade, see mostrecently Reed 2004. As Reed argues, early voyaging aristocrats –such as Sappho’s brother Charaxos, known to have sailed toNaukratis with a load of Lesbian wine – are unlikely to have engagedin trade as a regular activity but might have used it as a means offinancing ‘sightseeing’ voyages – like the Athenian Solon, said tohave travelled to Egypt ‘both on business and to see the country’(Arist. [Ath. Pol.]). The growth of dedicated trade, by independentand agent traders, from the last third of the 7th century bc onwards,may well be reflected in the developments at Naukratis as attested byHerodotus.

19 Cf. Pébarthe 2005, 172; Bresson 2005; Carrez-Maratray 2005.20 Leonard 1997, 13; J. Yoyotte in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 316-23.

21 Goddio and Clauss 2006, 92-9; J. Yoyotte in Goddio and Clauss 2006,316-23; D. Fabre in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 289-303. Finds suggestthat the town existed from the 26th Dynasty onwards; they includeEast Greek trade amphorae as well as East Greek and Corinthianfine-ware pottery: C. Grataloup in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 332-49.

22 Cf. Pressl 1998, 70-3; Posener 1947; cf. also Austin 1970, 27-8; Carrez-Maratray 2005, 202-3. The post is attested from the time ofPsammetichos II; under Amasis it was filled by Nachthorheb, whosestatue is preserved (Vittmann 2003, 220-1, fig. 111). It wascomplemented by an ‘Overseer of the gate to the Foreign Countriesin the North’, who seems to have been in charge of the Eastern Deltaregion frequented by Phoenicians, and an ‘Overseer of the gates tothe Foreign Lands of the Temeh’, i.e. Libyans. The interpretation ofthe ‘Great Green’ (ouadj our – W3d-wr) as the Mediterranean is stilldominant, in spite of a recent re-interpretation as the Nile Delta(Vandersleyen 1999).

23 The situation is not helped by the fact that, to date, the Egyptianfinds from Naukratis have not been systematically collected andstudied.

24 Cf. Möller 2000a, 108-13. 25 Hogarth 1898/9, 41-3, 45-6, an interpretation considered likely also

by Spencer 1996, 1999, and Smoláriková 2000. Just how problematicthe archaeological evidence for the site is, is indicated by the fact thatin 1903 Hogarth was not able to find the Great Temenos that Petriehad recorded in his excavations: Hogarth 1905, 111-12.

26 Discussed most recently by Möller 2001, 5-11.27 Leonard 1997, 13; J. Yoyotte in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 316-23.28 Yoyotte 1982/3; 1992.29 FGrH 608 F 8.30 Berlin 7780 dating from the reign of Apries (589-70 bc) and St

Petersburg, Hermitage 8499, dating from 554 bc; cf. Yoyotte 1992. An‘Egyptian from Naukratis’ is also mentioned in the later Lindosdecree, cf. Bresson 2005; Möller 2005.

31 As pointed out by Möller 2001.32 Gorton 1996, 92.33 We are grateful to Jeffrey Spencer for his identification of this piece.

For Egyptian pottery at Naukratis, see also Edgar 1905.34 There is no reason to assume that the law forbidding Naukratites

intermarriage with Eyptians, dating from Hadrianic times, goes backto this early phase; intermarriage is certainly attested for Cariansand Greeks elsewhere in Egypt, and Amasis himself is known to havemarried a Greek princess from Cyrene. The very fact that such a lawwas needed later on may, in fact, point to intermarriage as a commonpractice in an earlier period; cf. Braun 1982, 43

35 Cf. Koenigs in Höckmann and Koenigs (forthcoming).36 Cf. Möller 2000a, 94-113; 2001, with Kerschner 2001, 70; cf. also

Höckmann and Möller, this volume.37 Gardner 1888, 21-9; Höckmann 2001b, 217 n. 2. The dinos stand

(sample Nauk 21; Fairbanks 1928, 116 no. 336, pl.37) has parallels invessels from the Archaic cemetery of Klazomenai; we are grateful toBilge Hürmüzlü for this information. An Archaic bowl produced by aGreek potter at Naukratis with a votive inscription to Aphrodite(Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 40) may also, surprisingly, comefrom the cemetery, since it bears a modern graffito ‘CEM’ written bythe excavators.

38 To date no inscription in Carian script has been identified, althoughthere are some Carian sherds (Williams and Villing Figs 1–2) thatpresumably were brought by Carians. Whether the few examples ofEtruscan bucchero (Naso Figs 3–4) were brought by Etruscans isuncertain.

39 Cf. Paspalas, Attula, Höckmann and Möller, all this volume.40 Discussed in detail by Schlotzhauer 2005 and 2006, 294-301, and

Kron 1984, 1988; cf. also Villing, this volume, on pottery for ritualmeals at Naukratis.

41 BM GR 1888.6-1.531: Gardner 1888, 64-5 and pl. 21 (inscr. no. 768);Möller 2000a, 178 no. 4.

42 Cf. Williams 1983a, 185; Williams 1999, 138 and fig. 52 d.43 Cf. Williams 1983a, 184-6; Johnston, this volume.44 For an extensive discussion, see Herda (forthcoming b).45 Venit 1984.46 Kerschner 2000, 487.47 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.48 As also suggested by Schaus, this volume.49 Hölbl 1979, 368-73.50 Cf. also Bellelli and Botto 2002.51 On Phoenicians in Egypt, see Kaplan 2003, 8-9; Vittmann 2003, 44-

83; Docter 1997. A Phoenician community at Naukratis has again

Page 18: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

10 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing and Schlotzhauer

been suggested by James 2003, 256-8 (cf. also Yoyotte 1994), goingback to ideas of Hogarth and Edgar. Phoenicians are thus creditedwith the production of carved Tridacna shells, faience and scarabs atNaukratis. Against this supposition, the scarabs produced atNaukratis from the late 7th century bc onwards until the mid-6thcentury bc and widely exported (cf. Gorton 1996, 91-131; Hölbl 2005)are considered by many experts to have been produced primarily byGreek craftsmen (Hölbl 1979, 141, 207-9), perhaps with Egyptianhelp (Gorton 1996, 92). As regards tridacna shells, the plain tridacnashells from the site (Petrie 1886b, 35, pl. 20.16,16a; Edgar 1898/9, 49)do not need to have been destined for carving, as undecorated shellswere also found deposited in graves in cemetery of Naukratis(Gardner 1888, 29) and are common also in many other sites (Möller2000a, 163-6). The timber and worked wood mentioned in the steleof Nectanebos I as imports to Egypt passing through the port ofHone, of course, may well stem from Phoenicia or Cyprus; but thisonly applies to a later date.

52 Cf. e.g. Braun 1982, 41.53 Schlotzhauer 2006, 301-7, 316 figs 4-6.54 Torpedo-shaped amphora Petrie 1886b, pl. 16.3.55 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G.124, from Hogarth’s excavation in the

Hellenion 1903, presumably the piece mentioned by Hogarth 1905,118, even though he describes the letter as a shin while theAshmolean fragment seems to show a mem.

56 Hogarth 1905, 124 fig. 3.57 Schlotzhauer 2006, 305.58 This is not a topic to which much research has been devoted;

however, one gets the impression that Herodotus is generally right inhis assessment (2.91) that ‘the Egyptians shun the use of Greekcustoms’, even if he himself then goes on to mention an example tothe contrary, namely the Greek-style athletic games at the Egyptiancity of Chemmis.

59 Cf. most recently Weber (forthcoming). We are grateful to the authorfor supplying a copy of her article before publication.

60 Höckmann 2001b; Kammerzell 2001.61 Grallert 2001; Höckmann 2001b; Kammerzell 2001.

62 Grallert 2001.63 Ebbinghaus 2006.64 For Pedon, see e.g. Boardman 1999a, 281 fig. 324; Vittmann 2003,

203-6, fig. 103; Höckmann and Vittmann 2005, 100 fig. 2; cf. alsoKourou 2004 for Egyptian statuettes dedicated in East Greeksanctuaries.

65 Hürmüzlu 2004b. Note also the fact that Aiolian Larisa seemst tohave been home to Egyptian troops retired from service for Cyrus, sothat continued contact with Egyptians existed even in the homeland:Xen. Hell. 3.1.7.

66 See e.g. Bietak 2001.67 Höckmann 2005.68 See. e.g. Tanner 2003.69 See e.g. Kyrieleis 1996, 68-86, 108-27.70 For a detailed discussion, see Haider 2004.71 Gorton 1996; Hölbl 1979; Webb 1978; James 2003, 251-6.72 Scarabs seem to have been produced from the late 7th century bc

onwards until the mid-6th century bc and were distributed acrossthe Aegean and as far as Italy, Spain, Carthage and the Black Searegion; cf. Gorton 1996, 91-131, and most recently Hölbl 2005. On‘Egyptomania’, see Ebbinghaus 2006, 201.

73 Discussed in detail by Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005.74 Dedications especially by Hellenomemphitai and Caromemphitai,

Ionians and Carians at Memphis, into Egyptian sanctuaries arecertainly attested; cf. Braun 1982, 46-7 fig. 4; Höckmann 2001b. EastGreek painted pottery is not normally encountered in Egyptiansanctuaries, but an exception is Saïs: cf. P. Wilson, Saïs Report,March-April, 2003, http://www.dur.ac.uk/penelope.wilson/3g2003a.html (27 June 2006); Weber (forthcoming). Otherinstances of Greek painted pottery in connection with Egyptiantowns and burials are cited by Weber 2006. The possibility of ‘prizevases’, raised by Herodotus’ mention (2.91) of Greek-style gymnasticcontests at Chemmis in the district of Thebes, is discussed mostrecently by Decker 2003.

75 The same conclusion (labelled with the term ‘Beharren’) is alsoreached also by Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 80-1.

Page 19: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 11

Abstract

The Hellenion at Naukratis still poses questions as to itsdevelopment, its function, the gods being venerated there and whatkind of sanctuary the Hellenion might have been. This contributionwishes to make some observations towards solving some of thesequestions.*

In his description of Naukratis, Herodotus places specialemphasis on a sanctuary named the Hellenion. To Herodotus, itwas the largest, the best known and the most visited of allsanctuaries at Naukratis. It was set up by the joint efforts of ninepoleis: the Ionian poleis of Chios, Teos, Phokaia, andKlazomenai, the Dorian poleis of Rhodes, Knidos, Halikarnassos,and Phaselis, and the Aiolian polis of Mytilene (Fig. 1).1

Herodotus alludes to a conflict between those and other poleisthat claimed an unjustified share in the Hellenion and the rightto appoint the prostatai tou emporiou, the chief officials of theemporion.2

In 1899, David G. Hogarth started excavating a temenos inthe north-east of Naukratis which he identified with theHellenion mentioned by Herodotus.3 It proved rather difficult tocome to clear conclusions as a result of the high water table andthe level of destruction discovered during the excavation. Thewhole temenos might have covered an area measuring about 150x 100m, surrounded by a massive mud brick wall, but furtherinterpretation involves a lot of guess-work.

Both the literary and the archaeological evidence aremeagre, causing many hypotheses and arguments to flourish.Indeed, doubts as to whether the Hellenion has been identifiedcorrectly have not ceased.4 The archaeological evidence,architecture and finds alike, poses questions as to the kind ofsanctuary the Hellenion was. Apart from dedications to the‘Gods of the Hellenes’ in their entirety, the dedications todifferent Greek gods at the Hellenion might indicate cultsbranched off from particular cults celebrated in the various EastGreek poleis participating in the Hellenion.

The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations Ursula Höckmann and Astrid Möller

Figure 1The nine ‘foundercities’ of the Hellenion

Page 20: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

12 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Höckmann and Möller

century bc. Chambers 57, 59, 61, 64, and 65 follow the sameorientation, and black- and red-figured sherds were found here.In chamber 64 was discovered the Stesichoros kylix, attributedto Onesimos.10 The stone foundations found under the Ptolemaicchamber 63 belong to this phase. These rested on about 60cm ofolder objects, including Chian sherds. In the Ptolemaic chamber58, too, an older floor was discovered.

Hogarth11 maintained that the structures of the Hellenion‘were restored practically from the foundation in the first half ofthe 5th century’, although he did not mention signs ofdestruction. Instead he quoted Gardiner, who reported traces ofa ‘calamity’ at the Aphrodite shrine that befell Naukratis at thetime of Cambyses’ conquest in 525 bc, and deduced from thelack of early red-figured vases that something similar must havehappened to the Hellenion as well. If the first sandstoneHellenion was destroyed in 525 bc, then, in the 440s or 430s bc,when Herodotus visited Naukratis,12 he must have admired themudbrick building, the second Hellenion, which probably wasset up sometime during the first half of the 5th century bc.13

The Ptolemaic Hellenion was constructed on a sand-bed ofbetween 60cm to 2m thickness. This sand deposit could be seenespecially well in the north-east of the Hellenion. The complexof chambers 24, 25, 26, 27 adjoining the long passageway 28belongs to the Hellenistic period. The pottery finds in theserooms cover the 3rd century bc to Roman times.

Figure 2The Hellenion

1. The Archaeology of the Hellenion (A.M.)

The excavation and the later survey at the site of the Hellenionpoint to three phases of development. Remnants of sandstonestructures at 7, 9, 16 and 17, all located underneath the laterchambers, should be attributed to the oldest phase (Fig. 2).5

Their orientation is parallel to the walls of chambers 3, 4, and 5;chamber 3 is dated to the oldest phase by a North Ionian LWGvessel fragment of the second quarter of the 6th century bc.6 In alarge earthenware basin (18) which is now suggested to havebeen a basin for ritual cleansing7 lay the limestone relief of ahoplite warrior.8 The relief, dated to the end of the 6th centurybc, seems to be of the same material as the ashlars withdedications reported by Hogarth.9 The basin, however, wasdeposited at its later find spot only secondarily and the reliefwas placed in it later, so that it does not permit any secureconnection with the earliest structures of the Hellenion of about570 bc.

The next phase is indicated by chambers 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and20, forming a long row of rooms. The walls were made of mud-bricks. On what remained of the floors, terracotta figurines andred-figure sherds from the late 5th century bc were found. Theorientation of the chambers slightly changed, indicating areconstruction sometime before the end of the 5th century bc.Chambers 12, 13, 14, and 14a should be seen in connection withthese chambers; some finds made in this area point to the 4th

Page 21: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 13

The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations

2. Dedications found at the Hellenion (U.H.)

According to the pottery finds, the Hellenion was in use from the6th century bc down into the Ptolemaic or even the Romanperiod.14 The earliest finds date from the late second quarter ofthe 6th century bc. This may be connected with Herodotus’statement (2.178.1) that the pharaoh Amasis (570–525 bc) gavethe Greeks at Naukratis the right to set up sanctuaries to theirgods. The other sanctuaries display older pottery finds, makingit likely that Herodotus did not distinguish between differentpharaohs, thus crediting only Amasis with benefactions to theGreeks. The Hellenion, however, seems to have been establishedfollowing a possible reorganisation of the emporion by thepharaoh Amasis.

Among the earliest items in the Hellenion there is a fragmentof the handle plate of a Late Corinthian column krater (Fig. 3).15

Its exact find-spot is not known. Hogarth, however, states that‘Corinthian pottery was comparatively scarce, and most of thefragments belonged to large craters, chiefly of the red-clayvariety. Several crater-handles, […], were obtained, withrepresentations of male and female heads, sirens, &c.’16 Weshould add the North Ionian LWG fragment of the early secondquarter of the 6th century bc with dedicatory inscription by aChian to Apollo.17

In 1903, Hogarth found a rare Chian chalice, now in Oxford,to the west of spot 66.18 Eleanor Price states that ‘the violetground with white spots is unique’.19 Anna Lemos suggests a datein the late second quarter of the 6th century bc.20 The twoantithetical riders with their spears seem to be a very rare motifin Chian pottery. They possibly represent the Dioskouroi.21 For aclearer picture of the Hellenion and its dedicators in the Archaicperiod it would be interesting to know the percentages of Southand North Ionian as well as Attic pottery, a wish that can neverbe truly fulfilled, even though we might get a better idea oncethe database of Naukratis pottery is completed.

Besides drinking vessels and kraters of the Archaic period,there are abundant finds from the 5th century bc and later, LateArchaic and Classical Attic pottery, and terracotta protomes andstatuettes mostly connected with the worship of Aphrodite and,in several cases, of Herakles.22 An Attic black-glaze cup of 5th-century date was dedicated to Aphrodite by Teleson of Rhodes.23

Archaic small-size sculptures of limestone or alabaster of Cypriotstyle have not been found in the Hellenion.24 But there are twoclassical limestone statuettes of the 5th and 4th centuries bc.The limestone base of a statuette of Aphrodite dedicated byDeinomachos from Mytilene which was found near spot 3 isapparently lost.25 The base of a Herakles statuette dedicated tohim by Aristion,26 a work of the sculptor Sikon of Cyprus, whichwas found broken in two parts, was discovered between spots 7and 9 (Figs 4–5). The only two Cypro-syllabic inscriptions fromNaukratis, on Attic black-glaze cups of the late 5th or early 4thcentury bc, have been found in the same area as the Heraklesbase (Fig 6).27

Among numerous Hellenistic terracotta statuettes someGraeco-Egyptian ones may be mentioned.28 Their exact find-spotis, however, unknown. As far as I know, no Egyptian bronzestatuettes have been found in the Hellenion.29 Some limestoneand sandstone ashlar blocks with dedications may be supposedto have been excavated by Hogarth in the Hellenion.30 Sincenone was found in situ, their original setting is unknown, nor dowe know their current whereabouts.

3. The dedicatory inscriptions (A.M.)31

In the Hellenion only a few dedicators can be identified byname. Apart from the above-mentioned dedications byDeinomachos of Mytilene and Teleson of Rhodes, there aresome more personal names, but usually without an ethnikon.32

From other sanctuaries at Naukratis we have dedications byChians, Teians, Phokaians, Cnidians, and Mytilenians.33 It seemsthat dedicators from poleis that later participated in theHellenion first dedicated to gods venerated in the othersanctuaries. A clearer picture of the dedicators’ behaviourtowards the different sanctuaries will hopefully be gained fromthe catalogue of inscribed pottery being prepared by AlanJohnston as a part of the Naukratis pottery database.

In the area that we now call the Hellenion, Hogarth foundseveral vase fragments dedicated to the ‘Gods of the Hellenes’.This prompted him to identify the north-eastern temenos withthe Hellenion mentioned by Herodotus.34 To restore thestandard formula for these otherwise unique dedications ishampered by the fact that we only have tiny fragments and not a

Figure 6 Bottom of a bowl or plate(inside and outside and profiledrawing); London BM GR 1900.2-14.17

Figure 3 Fragment of the handle plateof a Late Corinthian column krater,Cambridge, Fitzwilliam MuseumGR.31.1899

Figure 5 Inscription on the limestonebase Figure 4

Figure 4 Limestone base of Classical statuette of Herakles, dedicated by Aristion,signed by Sikon of Cyprus, London BM GR 1900.2-14.22

Page 22: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

14 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Höckmann and Möller

single inscription that gives us the full wording. Neither doesthere seem to be epigraphic material from other sanctuarieswith which to compare these dedications.35

There are three possibilities as to the restoration of thededicatory formula:

(a) toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellh/nwn (Fig. 7)36

(b) toi=j (Ellh/nwn qeoi=si 37

(c) tw=n qew=n tw=n (Ellh/nwn 38

Some inscriptions could theoretically be restored as toi=jqeoi=j toi=j (Ellhni/oij – ‘To the Hellenic Gods’,39 but this is notsubstantiated by the evidence, as not a single fragment amongthe finds known today shows this dative ending. We have,however, the genitive ending –wn.40 Since in all cases the articleis lacking, we cannot tell whether this could possibly be part of

Figure 7 Pottery fragments with dedications to the ‘Gods of the Hellenes’

Page 23: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Hera sanctuary.47 But it is exactly this formulation of thededicatory inscriptions, which distinguishes the Gods of theHellenes from those of the Egyptians, and the discovery of abouttwo dozen such dedicatory inscriptions to the Gods of theHellenes within this temenos, that makes it its identificationwith the Hellenion so likely.48

Unfortunately, we cannot tell who dedicated these vases to‘The Gods of the Hellenes’. All identified inscriptions werewritten on cups or bowls, all drinking vessels, the earliest on anIonian cup that dates from the 6th century, but the majority datefrom the 5th century bc.

4. Deities and cult filiations (U.H.)

As far as can be judged by the dedicatory inscriptions scratchedor painted on pottery found in the sanctuaries of Naukratis,most cults seem to have been transferred from East Greek cities.This is clear for Samos49 and Miletus.50 This topic, however, hasnot yet been thoroughly investigated and my ideas expressed inthe following pages remain only tentative.51

Among the dedicatory inscriptions on pottery from theHellenion only a few deities are mentioned. There are severaldedications to the Dioskuroi52 and the above-mentioned ‘Gods ofthe Hellenes’. Dedications to Apollo53 – in the context of theHellenion never with an epiclesis54 – to Herakles (cf. infra), toArtemis55 and to Poseidon, are rarer.56

There are Late Archaic dedications to Aphrodite, one ofthem on an Ionian Late Archaic vessel foot to Aphrodite py…57

(Figs 8–9), one on the rim of an Attic Late Archaic red-figuredvolute krater (Figs 13–14)58 to Aphrodite Pandemos. The latterwas found near the south wall of the Hellenion at 39.59 Twomore Late Archaic Attic cups dedicated to Aphrodite Pandemoshave been found in the sanctuary of Aphrodite in the south ofNaukratis (Figs 15–18).60 Aphrodite and the Dioskuroi wereprobably worshipped, too, as seafarers’ deities.61 The epiclesisPandemos refers to another aspect of Aphrodite. As AndrewScholtz has demonstrated, this Aphrodite had a ‘broad-basedappeal in connection with economic activity’62 and the famoushetairai of Naukratis.63 I think that the two dedications toAphrodite Pandemos found in her sanctuary in the south wereaddressed to the same deity as the Aphrodite Pandemos in theHellenion. The same can be supposed for the Dioskuroi, who areworshipped in a little temenos in the northwest of Naukratis64 aswell as in the Hellenion.

Figure 10 Attic black-glaze kylixdedicated to Herakles by Artemon;London BM GR 1900.2-14.16

the formula tw=n qew=n tw=n (Ellh/nwn – ‘Of the Gods of theHellenes’, of which we have two fragments.41 The restorationtoi=j qeoi=j toi=j tw=n (Ellh/nwn,42 however, cannot be correct,because (Ellh/nwn being an attributive genitive requires, iffollowing the noun, the repetition of the article. That it isunlikely to be toi=j qeoi=j toi=j tw=n (Ellh/nwn hinges on the factthat (/Ellhnej is an ethnic name which is usually given withoutthe article.43 We need to consider, however, that in dedicatoryformula such as these short graffiti on vases, a formula might beused which might not be grammatically correct. The semanticuse was important. Therefore, the restoration favoured here isthe reading toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellh/nwn – ‘To the Gods those ofthe Hellenes (I mean)’, giving Hellenes as attributive genitive,thus placing special emphasis on the fact that these are theGreek gods and no others. In a Greek sanctuary in Egypt this isparticularly apt.

The formula toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellhni/oij, though notsubstantiated by the epigraphic evidence at Naukratis, is,however, the formula used in Herodotus. When Herodotus(5.49.3) relates the story of Aristagoras, the tyrant of Miletus,coming to Sparta and trying to persuade their king Kleomenes tofight the Persians, he has Aristagoras imploring the Spartan kingto free the Ionians from slavery, especially since they are theirblood-brothers, by ‘the gods of the Hellenes’ (oi( qeoi\ oi((Ellh/nioi). Later in Herodotus (5.92g.1), Sosikles, an envoy fromCorinth, speaks against the Spartan plan to re-install the formertyrant Hippias at Athens. He beseeches the Spartans not to givetyrants to the Greek poleis, calling as witnesses again ‘the gods ofthe Hellenes’ (oi( qeoi\ oi( (Ellh/nioi). Both contexts make it quiteclear that in Herodotus’ usage the gods of the Hellenes wereevoked when different Greek tribes should be acting together.

Hugh Bowden, who argues against the identification of thenorth-eastern temenos with the Hellenion, favours therestoration toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellhni/oij, although he admits thattoi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellh/nwn is far more likely. He considers(Ellh/nioj as a formal cult title which should have been used indedications.44 He knows, however, only one case where(Ellh/nioj is used as a cult title and this is the cult for ZeusHellanios on Aigina.45 Such a cult title at Naukratis could,however, only be connected to the Hellenion, relating to aplurality of gods belonging to all Greeks.

toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellh/nwn – ‘To the Gods those of theHellenes’ Bowden considers as a more general phrase which‘would seem to be a convenient grouping for a dedication at anysanctuary, by any dedicator, not the indicator of a specific cult’.46

With this line of argument he wants to support his disagreementwith the identification of the Hellenion, which he suggests waseither not found or was situated where one usually locates the

Figure 8 Foot of Ionian vessel; LondonBM GR 1900.2-14.5

Figure 9 Profile drawing of LondonBM GR 1900.2-14.5

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 15

The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations

Figure 12 Fragment of Milesian kylixdedicated to Herakles; Oxford G141.58

Figure 11 Profile drawing of LondonBM GR 1900.2-14.16

Page 24: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

16 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Höckmann and Möller

Herakles seems to have been venerated at the Hellenion atNaukratis since the mid-6th century bc; his cult is likely to goback to contacts with East Greece. The Busiris adventure can betaken as having been invented by East Greek mercenaries inEgypt.65 This becomes apparent not only from the Caeretanhydria in Vienna,66 but also from Attic vase-painters whorepresent the gigantomachy with Herakles stepping on the poleof his chariot in imitation of reliefs of Rameses III.67 Suchemphasis being given to the aspect of the victorious hero wouldhave been well understood among mercenaries. The earliestevidence for a cult of Herakles at Naukratis are two kylixfragments68 with dedicatory inscriptions, one of them Attic (Figs10–11),69 the other from a Milesian kylix dated to about the mid-6th century bc (Fig. 12).70

A dedication from the 5th century bc at Naukratis is reportedon a limestone ashlar block.71 The 4th century bc is representedby the limestone base mentioned above (Figs 4–5). It is usuallyreferred to as a Cypriot work of the 6th century bc,72 althoughF.H. Marshall as early as in 1916 dated the inscription to the 4thcentury bc. The remaining parts of the statuette show thatHerakles stood relaxed with his left foot slightly forward of theright, weight-bearing, leg, his club resting on the ground besidehis right foot. The statuette can be imagined as having beensimilar to a bronze statuette of the 4th century bc in the Louvre73

or a Roman statue in the Palazzo Pitti in Florence,74 with theapples of the Hesperides in the left hand, alluding to theapotheosis of the hero. The inscription names a certain Sikon asthe sculptor (Fig. 5).75 The third word being reconstructed asKyprios, ‘from Cyprus’, presents a problem, since no suchstatuette in the Classical Greek posture is known from Cyprus,only a different type.76 Since limestone was used in Egypt, theClassical Sikon base might go back to a Classical Naukratitework by a sculptor from Cyprus. Leaving these considerationsaside, it attests a cult of Herakles at the Hellenion in the 4thcentury bc, perhaps its earlier half.77 This cult is furtherconfirmed by some Hellenistic terracotta statuettes of Heraklesfrom the Hellenion.78 All this points to a cult of Herakles in the

Hellenion from about the middle of the 6th century bc untilHellenistic times. As yet, it is impossible to tell which cityinstituted the cult of Herakles in Archaic times in the Hellenion.Erythrai with its old and famous cult of this hero might be alikely candidate,79 although the polis is not explicitly mentionedby Herodotus. Further investigations will perhaps showcontinuity of cults for the other deities venerated in theHellenion as well, including Aphrodite.80

5. Aphrodite Pandemos at Naukratis (A.M.)

There is one dedication81 to Aphrodite Pandemos from theHellenion showing the following inscription (Figs 13–14): 82

)Afrod]i/thi : Pandh/m[wi on a rim fragment of an Athenian red-figured volute krater of around 500 bc. The text is incised in analmost lapidary manner which seems, however, to have beenapplied after firing. D. Williams noticed a rim fragment at Bonnwith the inscription – ]AMM[ – that belongs to this krater.83

In the Aphrodite temenos in the south of Naukratis, twodedications to Aphrodite Pandemos have been found:

(1) )Afrodi/thi] Pandh/mwion an Attic type C cup of 500–480 bc (Figs 15–16).84 Gardner

observed that the dedication was probably incised after the vasewas broken.

(2) )Afrodi/thi P] andh/m[wion an Attic type C cup of the first half of the 5th century bc

(Figs 17–18).85

As to the interpretation of the presence of AphroditePandemos, two main lines of argument can be distinguished:the political and the erotic.86 Recently, Andrew Scholtz,87 beingunsatisfied with the political interpretation88 in the context ofNaukratis, has argued that at Naukratis, we are not dealing withan Aphrodite ‘of the whole demos’, but with an Aphrodite ‘for allpeople’, a kind of ‘general access’ goddess concerned with tradeand prostitution. His line of argument runs against an early civiccharacter of Naukratis and emphasizes its cosmopolitan traits.89

Although I do sympathize with Andrew Scholtz’s results, Ishould like to follow a different line of argument here, whichmight be called a ‘history of ideas approach’, resulting in aninterpretation related to cultural identity.

Ever since Plato in his Symposion (180D–181C) distinguishedbetween Aphrodite Ourania and Aphrodite Pandemos, therehave been two interpretations concerning the character ofAphrodite Pandemos. Plato distinguished an older goddess, themotherless daughter of Ouranos, called Ourania, from ayounger one, daughter of Zeus and Di0ne, called Pandemos.Pandemos’ Eros is therefore called Eros Pandemos or ‘vulgarlove’; he is responsible for love among the common anduneducated (fau=loi) of human beings.90

Xenophon91 followed Plato in this distinction. He considersthe possibility that there might only be one Aphrodite, becauseZeus has several epithets (e)pwnumi/ai), too. But since each of the

Figure 13 Two rim fragments of Attic red-figured volute-krater; London BM GR 1900.2-14.6 and Bonn,Akademisches Kunstmuseum, inv. no. 697.90

Figure 14 Profile drawings of BM GR 1900.2-14.6 and Bonn,AkademischesKunstmuseum inv. no. 697.90

Figure 18 Profile drawing of LondonBM GR 1888.6-1.212

Figure 17 Fragment of Attic small typeC cup; London BM GR 1888.6-1.212

Figure 15 Fragment of Attic bowl;London BM GR 1888.6-1.211

Figure 16 Profile drawing of LondonBM GR 1888.6-1.211

Page 25: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 17

The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations

‘common to all’. This word is already found in Pindar where it isused in the Olympic context as pa/gkoinoj xw/ra – the commonland of Olympia.100

Scholtz is probably right in reminding us not to reducePandemos to some pan-Hellenic essence.101 Of course, if thededicators at Naukratis knew the Athenian myth of Theseus andgave Pandemos a political, cohesive meaning, they might wellhave played with a pan-Hellenic idea. But if the inscriptions areearly Classical at the latest, this does not seem very likely –unless one were to assume that the special background ofNaukratis itself fostered a particular sense of unity among theHellenes.

The Hellenion, if we follow Herodotus, was a place where allthree ethnic groups of Hellenes worshipped together andorganized some form of administration for the emporion. This isnot too unusual in itself, as any joint venture between Greekstates was normally carried out via a sanctuary. Whether weshould compare this organisation of the Hellenion with anamphictyony, as suggested by Bowden,102 remains to bediscussed.

The Hellenion at Naukratis, then, clearly evokesinterpretations of a pan-Hellenic cult or even of pan-Hellenism.103 The Hellenion was a joint venture of very differentGreek poleis, but what about Pan-Hellenism?

6. Pan-Hellenism (A.M.)

In discussing pan-Hellenic sanctuaries and pan-Hellenism moregenerally, Naukratis seems to provide an attractive case.

In her article ‘The origins of pan-Hellenism’, CatherineMorgan starts from the idea of pan-Hellenic sanctuaries likeOlympia and Delphi to look for the beginnings of pan-Hellenism.104 She points to the confusion the archaeologicalapplication of the term pan-Hellenic causes, as the appearanceof votives from a number of different areas does notautomatically constitute a pan-Hellenic sanctuary. It isnecessary to identify the interests of the dedicators and theirsocial position and relationship to the community thatcontrolled the sanctuary. Her idea of pan-Hellenic sanctuaries ismodelled on the examples of Olympia and Delphi. A pan-Hellenic sanctuary surely involves being a centre of interstatecommunication.

In 2003, Irad Malkin published an article on ‘Pan-Hellenismand the Greeks of Naukratis’105 in which he maintains thearticulation of a pan-Hellenic identity at Naukratis. He holdsNaukratis to reveal the Egyptian view of foreigners as Greeks(i.e. the outside view of ethnic identity), an accommodatedarticulation of Greek identity among Greeks of varying origins(i.e. the inside view), and he assumes also a generalized, self-referential Greek identity in relation to Egyptians (i.e. theidentification of oneself in difference to others). Even if thedetails of the argument are not entirely convincing, this seems tobe the right approach to the question of Hellenic identity,though not an assumed pan-Hellenic one.

At the APA-meeting of 2004, Denise Demetriou gave apaper106 about ‘Negotiating Identity: Group-Definition inNaukratis.’ She takes Naukratis as an example of a polyvalentmode of self-definition. The Hellenion and its name show thatthe Greeks of Naukratis ultimately formed a cohesive Hellenicidentity and collectively opposed themselves to the Egyptians.

There remains, however, the question whether Naukratis, as

two Aphrodites has her own altar and temple and Pandemosreceives less pure sacrifices than Ourania, there should be twogoddesses. Pandemos sends us, Xenophon goes on to reason,bodily love, Ourania on the contrary the love of the soul, thelove of friendship, and the love of good deeds.

Taking up these philosophical reflexions, AphroditePandemos appears closely connected with bodily love, whichmatches very well the presence of the renowned hetairai atNaukratis. The distinction drawn up by Plato, however, is notnecessarily an original distinction, but rather the result of moralreflexion.

The other interpretation of Aphrodite’s epiclesis, thepolitical one, also goes back to antiquity. Theseus is said to havefounded the cult of Aphrodite Pandemos and Peitho at the timeof the Athenian synoikism.92 Athenaios93 relates the story thatSolon introduced brothels to Athens and from the profit wassaid to have founded the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos. Thisstory clearly draws on an understanding of Aphrodite Pandemosas providing erotic entertainment for all people.

The connection between Aphrodite Pandemos and thesynoikism gave way to the political interpretation. The goddessis made responsible for civic unity, sponsoring synoikism, andpolitical structure. But even here, the erotic aspect slips in andmakes her responsible for the procreation of the oikoi united inthe polis.94

Although the cult of Aphrodite Pandemos is mythologicallyconnected with Theseus, the evidence is not early. Her sanctuaryis located on the slopes of the Acropolis, directly below the Niketemple.95 The earliest inscription found there, which does not,however, show the epiclesis, dates to the beginning of the 5thcentury bc; from around 287/6 bc, we have a lex sacra from thesanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos.96

According to Pausanias, the sanctuary at Athens belongedboth to Aphrodite Pandemos and Peitho.97 Peitho is the goddessof persuasion and in particular that of erotic persuasion.Therefore, Peitho appears also as an epiclesis of Aphrodite. Itseems as if Pausanias, being the only one making the cultconnection between Pandemos and Peitho for the Atheniansanctuary, has divorced the epiclesis Peitho from Aphrodite,thus referring to two goddesses. This would indicate thatAphrodite was worshipped under two aspects at Athens, theerotic aspect perhaps being much stronger than that of civicunity.

The political interpretation of Pandemos is closely connectedto Athens and no wonder if one considers the Athenians’ civicideology. The Athenians, however, did not play a big role atNaukratis, as far as we know. There were closer connectionswith the Greeks from North Ionia, where Aphrodite Pandemoshad a temple at Erythrai.98 Since, however, the inscription on theAthenian red-figured krater (Figs 13–14) certainly looks veryspecial, one might be tempted to consider whether it had aspecial status. Would it be possible that it was dedicated to theHellenion at Naukratis during the process of cult filiation?

If one takes the different meanings of the adjectivepa/ndhmoj or the adverb pandhmei=, collected by Scholtz in hisarticle,99 it is obvious that in civic as well as non-civic and extra-civic contexts, the meaning of pa/ndhmoj extends beyond onesingle demos. The prefix pan- takes on an inclusive meaning,integrating Greeks from different poleis. Interestingly enough,Harpocration interprets Aphrodite’s epithet as pa/gkoinoj –

Page 26: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

18 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Höckmann and Möller

Malkin claims, points to an explicit concept of pan-Hellenism?What then is pan-Hellenism? First of all, this term was coined bymodern scholars to describe the various attempts made byintellectuals of the late 5th and early 4th centuries bc to promoteHellenic unity and to prevail over differences between the poleisin attacking the enemy that was Persia. These appeals to greaterHellenic unity were hardly a goal in themselves, but a tool ofpolitical propaganda serving the hegemonial and imperialisticaims of Athens.107 In the 4th century bc, the definition ofGreekness was rather Athenocentric. Xenophon and Isokrates,the champions of Pan-Hellenism, constantly evoked therelationship between Hellenes – under Athenian leadership –and non-Hellenes, or barbarians, i.e. the Persians.

The term Panhellenes, however, appears early in Homer (Il.2.530), which might be an interpolation, but there are alsoreferences in Hesiod (Op. 528) and Archilochos (fr. 102 West). Itwas used as a term for Greeks.108 Pan-Hellenes at this time doesnot necessarily imply an ethnic concept of Hellenes: it probablydesignated all who settled in Hellas.

To sum up: Pan-Hellenism is a modern term for a conceptintroduced around 400 bc and connected to Athens’ renewedimperialistic ambitions. The pan-Hellenic sanctuaries such asOlympia and Delphi provide a different case. It does not matterhere just from which time on we are allowed to call them pan-Hellenic. At Naukratis, the Hellenion can hardly be attributed topan-Hellenic ambitions or a pan-Hellenic status such as Olympiaor Delphi. The temenos was proudly called Hellenion109 andpeople from different backgrounds dedicated to the gods of theHellenes – a sign of something like a cohesive identity in the faceof the surrounding Egyptians.

7. The Hellenion as a place for ritual dining (U.H.)

The vase shapes found at the Hellenion, such as bowls, chalices,skyphoi and kraters, all belong to the category of drinkingvessels and mixing bowls of the Archaic and Classical periods.These vases were typically used during sacrificial meals.110

Perhaps plates and the mortaria studied by Alexandra Villing111

could be added to this collection of ritual ware. Fine paintedpottery, as for instance the Chian chalices, was actually used forsacrificial meals or ritual dining, but it was also dedicated as athing of beauty.112

The architectural remains of the Hellenion include somechambers aligned in a kind of row (Fig. 2). They unfortunatelycan only be discussed with some reservation since Hogarth’splans are not very detailed. As to the chambers, Hogarth heldthat ‘distinct groups of chambers were devoted to distinctdeities’.113 Other scholars interpreted the chambers as smalltreasuries,114 living quarters of priests,115 magazines,116 oradministrative offices.117 There might be a chance that furtherscrutiny of the excavation reports could contribute detailsessential for solving these problems. For the moment, I shouldlike to add a vague suggestion: Could some of these chambers bebanquet-rooms like the rooms in the south-east building II 2 inthe sanctuary of Aphaia at Aigina,118 or the chambers in thesanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth?119

At Naukratis no reliable evidence exists on which such aninterpretation of the Hellenion’s chambers could be firmlybased. Moreover, all ‘chambers’ date from the Classical andespecially from the Hellenistic periods; it is unknown whetherArchaic ones had existed. There are no direct traces of dining

couches. Hogarth describes a number of floors of ‘hammeredmud’,120 to some of which a layer of concrete had been added.121

Such floors are characteristic of banquet rooms.122 Finally,remains of coloured stucco in chambers 19 and 20123 call forattention. All these details relate to rooms of the Classical andespecially of the Hellenistic periods. Hogarth saw similaritiesbetween the chambers in the Hellenion of Classical andHellenistic times and rooms in Egyptian temples of the Fayumand took their arrangement and architectural structure forEgyptian.124 The irregular layout of the small chambers,however, does not show any similarity to Egyptian temples,which also holds true in respect of the late temples at Karanisand Dionysias as cited by Hogarth.125

The assumption of ritual dining taking place at the Hellenionat Naukratis seems to be supported by traces of sacrifices,namely remains of ashes,126 ‘burnt stuff’ in spot 2,127 and wood,for instance in the southern part,128 west of the great red granitedoor-jamb 1, in well 35.129 Furthermore, altars130 can bepostulated, although no finds can confidently be connected withan altar. Hogarth, however, believed that an altar may havestood above a square depression in the ‘basal mud’, filled withsand, in spot 6.131 The depression measured c. 2m x 1.70m. Thestratum, unfortunately, was badly disturbed. The basal mudfavours an Archaic dating of that feature. Moreover, there seemto have been basins for the essential ritual cleansing.132 All thisevidence, taken together, suggests that ritual dining at theHellenion in Archaic and Classical times is more than likely.

8. The Hellenistic Hellenion as a place for public dining and

political administration (A.M.)

During the Ptolemaic period the Hellenion saw majorreconstructions, the pattern of its rooms, however, does notseem to have been changed.133 If ritual dining took place hereduring the Archaic and Classical periods, the same would holdtrue for the Hellenistic period. During Hellenistic times, thecitizens of Greek poleis were provided with banquets by wealthybenefactors.134

It is from the Hellenistic period that we have the firstevidence for a prytaneion at Naukratis. Athenaios (4.149D-150B)reports what he found in Hermeias’ second book on ApolloGryneios: ‘The Naukratitai feast together in the prytaneion onthe birthday of Hestia Prytanitis, the Dionysia, and at the festivalof Apollo Komaios. They all attend in white garments calledprytanikai esthêtes – garments for the Prytaneion. […] Nowomen are allowed in the prytaneion except the aulétria, thefemale flute player.’ Athenaios quotes a lot about restrictions inthe consumption of food and wine, too, but this is of no interesthere.135

The author Hermeias136 is only known from this quotation,and Athenaios, of around 200 ad, is not a valuable terminus antequem for the Hellenistic or even the Classical period. Of course,Athenaios would have picked out any work mentioning customsat Naukratis, his home town.

Hermeias mentioned a cult of Apollo Komaios,137 of whichwe unfortunately do not have a trace among the inscriptions.Fritz Graf138 derives his epiclesis either from kômos – theprocession of revellers in honour of a god, often connected toDionysus, or kômê – the village or district which makes ApolloKomaios the god of the kômê and thus an eminent political deity.Graf admits that we do not hear of Apollo Komaios in the

Page 27: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 19

The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations

Appendix (A.M.)

Vases dedicated to the ‘Gods of the Hellenes’ found in the Hellenion

No. A: Hogarth 1898/9 inv. no. Shape (compare Date BC InscriptionB: Hogarth 1905 Sparkes and Talcott C: Bernand 1970, 2 1970 [S-T] no.)

1 A 71/C 594 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam GR.103.1899 Ath. black-glazed cup —] toi=j (Ell[— 2 A 81/C 604 Oxford G 141.57 Ath. black-glazed cup —]oi=j (Ellh/[—3 A 95/C 618 BM GR 1911.6-6.13+36 Ath. cup (S-T 576-7) early 5th c. —] qe[oi] si to(i)j (E[—4 A 19/C 541 BM GR 1911.6-6.39 Ath. cup type C (S-T 409-10) 500-450 —]ac to[—5 C 350 Petrie 1886, 62 no. 690 pl. 35: found —]i=j qeoi=[—

between the temenos of Apollo and that of the Dioskouroi

6 A 14/C 536 Ionian cup —] qeoi=si [—7 A 15/C 537 BM GR 1911.6-6.22 Ionian cup 550-500 —]eoi=si[—8 A 16/C 538 Ionian cup —] qe[—9 A 17/C 539 Ionian cup —]eoi=s[—10 A 97/C 620 BM GR 1911.6-6.28 Ath. cup-skyphos (S-T 578) c. 480 —]oi=si [—11 A 72/C 595 Oxford G 141.50 Ath. black-glazed cup —]oi=si t[—12 A 18/C 540 Ionian cup —] (El(l)h/[—13 A 79/C 602 BM GR 1911.6-6.40 Ath. cup type C (S-T 398-413) 500-450 — (E]ll[h/nwn14 A 80/C 603 Oxford G 141.56 Ath. black-glazed cup —] (Ell[h/nwn15 A 64/C 587 Ath. black-glazed cup — (Ellh/]nwn Aqh-16 A 73/C 596 Cambridge Fitzwilliam GR.105.1899 Ath. cup — (E]llh/nwn17 B 4/C 647 Oxford G 141.14 — (E]llh/nwn18 A 74/C 597 Cambridge Fitzwilliam GR.338.1899 Ath. black-glazed cup — (Ellh/]nw[n19 A 75/C 598 BM GR 1911.6-6.34 Ath. black-glazed stemless cup (S-T 446) c. 480 — (Ell]h/nw[n20 A 76/C 599 Cambridge Fitzwilliam GR.104.1899 Ath. black-glazed cup — (El]lh/nwn21 B 3/C 646 Oxford G 141.31 Ath. cup — (Ellh/n]wn22 B 1/C 644 Oxford G 141.1 Ath. black-glazed cup toi=j q[e]oi=si [toi=j (Ellh/] I

nwn HN[- I me a)[ne/qhken

23 A 106/C 629 BM GR 1900.2-14.8 Ath. cup Bloesch 1940, pl. 11.2-3 c. 500 — (El]lh/nwn : q[e]oi=si24 A 77/C 600 Oxford G 141.51 Ath. black-glazed cup tw=n q]ew=n tw=n [ 9Ellh/nwn25 A 78/C 601 Cambridge Fitzwilliam Gr.337.1899 Ath. black-glazed cup tw=n q]ew=n [tw=n (Ellh/nwn 26 A 96/C 619 BM GR 1911.6-6.14 Ath. cup-skyphos(S-T 565) c. 520 —ac qeo[i=si —

or 490-8027 B 2/C 645 Oxford G 141.36 —]qe(ke) qeoi=[si —

Note: Only those sherds in the British Museum, London, were inspected for the data in the above table.

context of spatial or political divisions. At Naukratis, however,he is honoured by a symposium in the prytaneion which surelyhas political connotations, even if we believe the prytaneion tobe inside the Hellenion and the symposion a ritual banquet – thefunction of these feasts is the social and political cohesion of thegroup.

All festivities mentioned in Athenaios’ passage are connectedto the prytaneion. Since no prytaneion has been found atNaukratis, however, we are not able to date this civic buildingwith any certainty. From Hellenistic times on, when Naukratishad gained the status of a Greek polis within the Ptolemaickingdom, such a public building would certainly have beenrequired. Herodotus, however, does not mention a prytaneion,which suggests that before the second half of the 5th century bcsuch a building is unlikely. What Naukratis needed as anemporion concerning administration was probably dealt with bythe prostatai of the emporion having their office possibly in the

Hellenion.139 Only in Hellenistic times do we have evidence forcivic institutions such as bouleutai140 or timouchoi.141

9. Summary

A closer scrutiny of the dedicatory inscriptions to the ‘Gods ofthe Hellenes’ found by Hogarth in the north-eastern temenosconfirms its identification as the Hellenion, the place where theGreeks from different poleis venerated different gods such asHerakles and Aphrodite and the Greek gods as a collective. Thededicatory formula seems to particularly emphasize that theGods of the Hellenes were invoked and not the Egyptian gods. Itshows a consciousness of belonging to a common Greek culture,but does not involve ideas of pan-Hellenism. Thus, the Hellenionseems to be the place where a Greek identity could grow142 incontrast to the Egyptian culture, which nevertheless providedinspiration and stimulation to the Greek culture.

Page 28: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

20 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Höckmann and Möller

Illustration creditsFig. 1 after Kerschner 2001, 73 fig. 1; Fig. 2 after Möller 2000a fig. 5; Fig. 3 photo Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; Figs 4, 15, 17 photos theBritish Museum; Fig. 5 after Hogarth 1898/9, 32, photo the BritishMuseum; Figs 6–9, 11, 14, 16, 18 photos the British Museum, drawings O.Höckmann; Fig. 10 photo the British Museum; Fig. 12 photo AshmoleanMuseum, Oxford; Fig. 13 photo the British Museum; Bonn,Akademisches Kunstmuseum inv.no. 697.90, photo U.Höckmann.

Notes* We would both like to thank the organisers for inviting us to this

inspiring meeting of the Naukratis community. D. Williams, A.Villing, and A.W. Johnston helped with invaluable advice inquestions of pottery and inscriptions. E. Böhr, U. Schlotzhauer and S.Weber contributed to the dating of pottery and B.B. Shefton to thesubject of Castulo cups. U.H. wishes to extend her special thanks toO. Höckmann who drew the profiles and to A.M. who helped totranslate her manuscript which was also read by S. Weber. A.M. owesspecial thanks to M. Nafissi and A. Arenz for discussion of thededicatory inscriptions. We like to thank the following institutionsfor providing photographs: Akademisches Kunstmuseum Bonn (W.Geominy), Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge (L. Burn), BritishMuseum (A. Villing), Ashmolean Museum Oxford (M. Vickers).

1 The map was drawn after Kerschner 2001, 73 fig. 1. Herodotus doesnot distinguish between Ialysos, Kameiros, and Lindos, the threeRhodian poleis before the synoikism. Apparently, Rhodes acted asone polis in external matters already before the synoikism of 408/7bc (Diod. 13.75.1; Strab. 14.2.10); cf. Bresson 2000, 37-40; Nielsenand Gabrielsen 2004, 1196-7, for more evidence.

2 Hdt. 2.178; cf. Möller 2000a, 23, 192-6. 3 Hogarth 1898/9.4 Bowden 1996, 24-5. 5 Cf. Möller 2000a, 105-8. 6 Hogarth 1898/9, 31, 55 no. 51; cf. n. 17. 7 Cf. infra ns 129, 132. 8 Hogarth 1898/9, 33, 65-7 pl. 9; for the date see Höckmann and

Koenigs (forthcoming).9 Cf. infra n. 30. 10 Oxford G 138.3+5+11; ARV2 326.93. Onesimos has been dated by

Williams 1993b, 15 to between 505 and 485 bc at the latest. 11 Hogarth 1905, 109.12 Lloyd 1993/4, 61-8. 13 To connect Herodotus and Naukratis in this way cannot be taken as

an invitation to date Naukratis on the basis of Herodotus’ travels orhis chronology. The evidence regarding Herodotus is even shakierthan that for Naukratis.

14 Coulsen, Leonard and Wilkie 1982, 79-80. 15 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum GR.31.1899; Hogarth 1898/9, 62 pl.

8.6; Lorber 1979, 50 no. 60 pl. 14; Amyx 1988, 508 n. 272; Möller2000a, 220 no. 54.

16 Hogarth 1898/9, 62. 17 Fragment of a large vessel found in chamber 3, its whereabouts is

unknown: Hogarth 1898/9, 31, 55 no. 51 pl. 4, who describes theletters of the dedicatory inscription as running ‘along the back anddown the tail of a bull’; Bernand 1970.2, 700 no. 574; Möller 2000a,106 n. 122; 168 no. 2c; 244 no. 21. The dating was suggested by U.Schlotzhauer; cf. supra n. 6 and infra n. 53.

18 Hogarth 1905, 114 pl. 5.1: found ‘in a small patch of undisturbeddeposit, just west of 66, [...] at a height of 10 inches above the basalmud’.

19 Price 1931, 82 pl. 396.28 a.b. 20 Lemos 1991, 118-22 fig. 62, 185, 285 no. 810, pl. 113; cf. also Walter-

Karydi 1973, 69, 140 no. 781 pl. 95.781; Boardman 1967, 169 n. 9. 21 On the Dioskuroi in general cf. Koehne 1998. 22 Gutch 1898/9, 67-97 pl. 10.13; Hogarth 1905, 115, 131-2. 23 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G 141.13; Bernand 1970.2-3, 707 no. 659

pl. 27.1 (first row, left sherd); Möller 2000a, 170. It is perhaps notfrom a Castulo cup, as I first supposed, see Shefton 1996, 178. I thankB.B. Shefton for his kind information.

24 They come to an end by the mid-6th century bc, Jenkins 2001, 165;Nick 2001a, 210-1; Höckmann and Koenigs (forthcoming).

25 Hogarth 1898/9, 38; Bernand 1970.2, 745-6 no. 7 (Classical), foundnear spot 3.

26 Hogarth 1898/9, 32 pl. 14. 9; infra n. 69. 27 London, BM GR 1900.2-14.17: Hogarth 1898/9, 33 (found in the

surface debris beyond spot 54), 56 no. 144, pl. 5; Masson 1971, 33(three syllabic signs); Johnston 1978, no. 17; Masson 1983, 354 no.370: ka-wa-?-[-; Möller 2000a, 162 n. 593, 238 no. 2. The bottomfragment presumably belongs to a shallow (?) bowl or plate; on theinside impressed linked palmettes surround the lost middleornament, on the outside the inscription is incised in the dark band;cf. Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 107-8, 128-47 pl. 36.1052; pp. 22-32 pls53.560, 59.826; cf. bowls from tombs in Marion, Masson 1983, 354 n.3. – Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G 141.29: Hogarth 1905, 117 no. 38:mo-ta-to-? Find-spot not indicated, but presumably found in thesame region as the above- mentioned fragment London, BM GR1900.2-14.17 or the Herakles base; Bernand 1970.2-3, 709 no. 681, pl.27.1 (third row, first sherd left); Masson 1971, 33 no. 370a (foursyllabic signs); Möller 2000a, 162 n. 593, 239 no. 11.

28 Gutch 1898/9, 85-97 pls 12-3. 29 Katja Weitz (Mainz) identified a find of some 70 Egyptian bronze

statuettes. They came to light in a house in the south of Naukratis, cf.Petrie 1886b, 41-2. Most of them seem to be Hellenistic.

30 Bernand 1970.2, 759 no. 26; 764-5 nos 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41; 767-8 nos45, 48.

31 Since it was impossible to inspect the inscriptions on pieces at Oxfordwhich are currently packed into boxes, new observations mightchange the picture. I wish to thank U.H. for checking the pieces in theBM.

32 Edgar 1898/9, 53-7. 33 Möller 2000a, 166-81. 34 Hogarth 1898/9, 44. 35 Bowden 1996, 23, does not know of evidence from other sanctuaries. 36 Cf. Appendix nos 1-22, Fig. 7. 37 Cf. Appendix no. 23, Fig. 7. 38 Cf. Appendix nos 24-25.39 Cf. Appendix nos 1-3 and theoretically nos 4-14, too; cf. Fig. 7. 40 Cf. Appendix nos 15-23, Fig. 7. 41 Cf. Appendix nos 24-5. 42 Cf. Bowden 1996, 23. 43 Schwyzer 1959, 2: 24. 44 LSJ s.v. (Ellh/nioj refers to the Hellenion with temples for the qeoi\

(Ellh/nioi.45 Bowden 1996, 23-4. 46 Bowden 1996, 23. 47 Bowden 1996, 24. 48 Cf. Chaniotis 1997. 49 Schlotzhauer 2006.50 Nick (forthcoming); Ehrhardt, Höckmann and Schlotzhauer

(forthcoming).51 For cult filiations see Nilsson 1967, 712-3; Fleischer 1973, 132-7; Nick

2002, 278 s.v. Filialheiligtum. 52 Archaic dedications to the Dioskuroi from the Hellenion: Hogarth

1898/9, 30; Bernand 1970.2, 697-700 nos 546, 557, 558, 560, 567, 571,580 (lamp), all found in spot 34; cf. Jenkins 2000 passim.

53 Hogarth 1898/9, 30 no. 52 found near spot 34; supra n. 17, found inchamber 3.

54 At Naukratis Apollo Milesios and Apollo Didymeus are attested onfragments from the temenos of Apollo, and Apollo Komaios andApollo Pythios in the context of a so-called prytaneion mentioned byAthenaios 4.149D-E, cf. Nick (forthcoming); Ehrhardt, Höckmannand Schlotzhauer (forthcoming); Herda (forthcoming b).

55 Hogarth 1898/9, 30 nos 65, 85 = Bernand 1970.2-3, 701 no. 588 pl.26.2 (second row, second sherd left); 703 no. 608; Hogarth 1905, 117no. 8 = Bernand 1970.2-3, 707 no. 651 pl. 25.1 (first row, second sherdleft).

56 Hogarth 1898/9, 62; Bernand 1970.2-3, 701 no. 585 pl. 26.1 (thirdrow, first sherd left).

57 London BM GR 1900.2-14.5; Hogarth 1898/9, 55 no. 54; Bernand1970.2, 700 no. 577; high foot of an Archaic Ionian vessel, cf. Villing1999, 191 fig. 1 a-c; cf. infra n. 81.

58 London BM 1900.2-14.6; Hogarth 1898/9, 30, 56 no. 107; Bernand1970.2, 704 no. 630; Scholtz 2002/3, 232; cf. infra chap. 5 with figs 14-5, n. 82.

59 Cf. Hogarth 1898/9, 30 pl. 2. 60 London BM GR 1888.6-1.211 and 1888.6-1.212; cf. infra chap. 5 ns 84-5

with Figs 15–19. 61 Cf. Scholtz 2002/3 passim; Koehne 1998, 43 n. 130, cf. pp. 189-95. 62 Scholtz 2002/3, 240. Cf. infra chap. 5. 63 For dedications by hetairai, cf. Williams 1983a, 185 ns 57-9; Steinhart

2003, 220.

Page 29: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 21

The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations

64 Möller 2000a, 99-101. 65 Gruppe 1918, 987-8; Laurens 1986, 147-152; Schlotzhauer and Weber

2005, 74-8. 66 Hemelrijk 1984, 50-4, 173-4, 178-9 pls 118-23, figs 39, 41. 67 Herakles treads on the beaten foes like a pharaoh, cf. Wolf 1957, 575

fig. 575 (Abu Simbel); Herakles like a Pharaoh in a chariot, Littauer1968, 150-2 pl. 62; cf. Shaw and Nicholson 1995, 51 fig. (Beit el-Wali).

68 Cf. the following notes. The inscription of London BM GR 1911.6-6.15does not relate to Herakles; Hogarth 1898/9, 53 pl. 4 no. 3; Bernand1970.2, 695 no. 525.

69 London BM 1900.2-14.16; cup type C, concave lip, cf. Sparkes andTalcott 1970, 91-2 pl. 19 no. 409 (500–480 bc), no. 410 (480 bc), or no.413 (480–450 bc). The inscription reads: )Arte/mwn (Hrak(l)e[i=];Hogarth 1898/9, 56 pl. 5 no. 84; Lazzarini 1976, no. 390; Bernand1970.2, 702 no. 607. My thanks to Dyfri Williams who suggested adate in the first half of the 5th century bc.

70 Oxford, Ashmolean Mus. G 141 (1899) 58; the inscription reads:(Hrakle/[oj]; Hogarth 1898/9, 54 pl. 4 no. 33; Price 1931, pl. 1.28;Lazzarini 1976, no. 529b; Bernand 1970.2, 698 no. 555; Möller 2000a,258 no. 16. My cordial thanks to Udo Schlotzhauer for hisinformation on the date. For more Archaic fragments of vessels fromGreece with dedicatory inscriptions to Herakles see Lazzarini 1976,nos 458, 461, 818; nos 526 und 442 are of the 5th century bc.

71 London BM GR 1886.4-1.5; Bernand 1970.2, 743 no. 2; the fragment ofa limestone inscription London BM GR 1886.4-1.1364 (Inscription1092) (Marshall 1916, no. 1092 = Bernand 1970.2, 757 no. 23) mayalso come from the Hellenion. It was found during the firstcampaign, Petrie 1886b, 63 no. 7, pl. 31.7.

72 London BM GR 1900.2-14.22; 17 x 10cm; Hogarth 1898/9, 32, pl. 14.9;Prinz 1908, 108. 118; Marshall 1916, 210 no. 1081; Gjerstad 1948, 318;Lippold 1950, 67 n. 15; Lippold 1956; Schmidt 1968, 115; Bernand1970.2, 746-7 no. 9, pl. 34.2; Davis 1979, 13 n. 7; Floren 1987, 414 n. 3;Kyrieleis 1996, 74 (signed by a Cypriot at Naukratis); Donderer 1996,87 n. 2; Vollkommer 2004.

73 Rolley 1984, no. 277. 74 Kansteiner 2000, 46-8; cf. also Palagia 1988, 745-6 for the Albertini

type. 75 Hogarth 1898/9, 32; the inscription reads: Si/kw[n e)p]oi/hse

Ku/p[rio]j I )Aristi/[wn] (Hraklei=; Möller 2000a, 162. The names ofSikon and Aristion are frequently attested (LGPN s.v.). In Naukratiswe should assume a connection with Cypriot mercenaries duringthat time; see infra n.77.

76 Hermary 1989, 299-304; Yon 1992, 156-9; cf. Palagia 1988, 757 no.566; Karageorghis 1998, 165-9 figs 113-5 (Hellenistic or Roman typeHerakles statuettes from Cyprus).

77 The historical background could be provided by the alliance betweenEuagoras I of Salamis (c. 435–374/3 bc) and the Pharaoh Akoris ofthe 29th dynasty (393/2–380 bc), see Gjerstad 1948, 501-7; Masson1983, 356-88; Jansen-Winkeln 1996, 406; Högemann 1998, 201-2. Cf.also the Attic black-glazed cups with Cypro-syllabic inscriptions,supra n. 27; for the presence of Cypriot mercenaries in Abydos andKarnak see Masson l.c.

78 Hogarth 1905, 115, 131-2; cf. the sanctuary of Herakles at the mouth ofthe Canopic branch, Hdt. 2.113 and Strab. 17.1.18; Gruppe 1918, 987lines 47-9; preliminary results of underwater excavations inHeraklion see Herold 2002, 22-44; Goddio and Clauss 2006. TheArchaic sanctuary of Herakles in Miletos: Rehm 1914, 276-7 no. 132.Representations of Herakles in Egypt in Hellenistic and Roman timesare frequent; cf. Cassimatis 1978; Quaegebeur 1987; Palagia 1988;Vorster 1988; Clerc 1994; Felber 2003. For veneration of warlikeHerakles cf. Archilochos fr. 324 West (spurious frgt.) (hymn toHerakles Kallinikos); Greek Iambic Poetry, ed. and translated by D.E.Gerber, Cambridge/MA: Harvard UP (Loeb) 1999, 282-7 no. 324;Farnell 1921, 146-8; Graf 1985, 99, 174 n. 103, 181, 296; Graf 1998, 391;for representations of Herakles’ labours on Attic black-figure andred-figure vases from Naukratis cf. Williams 1986, 63-4 (Nereus);Lamb 1936, pl. 20.5 (Triton); Venit 1989, 99-113 (Hydra); Beazley andPayne 1929, no. 23 (tripod), no. 46 (Nessos); ARV2 429, 20 (tripod);Piekarski 2001b, 34-5 no. B3 (Middle Corinthian, Hydra); Archaicjaspis from Tell Defenneh and Herakles head vase from Naukratis cf.Boardman 1988, no. 4.11.

79 Graf 1985, 296-316; cf. p. 99 (Chios); for Herakles und his cult onThasos in Archaic time, see Bergquist 1973.

80 Cf. Graf 1985, 260-1. 81 The inscription on a rather high foot of a late Archaic Ionian vessel

from the Hellenion (London BM GR 1900.2-14.5; Bernand 1970.2,

700 no. 577 reads 0Afro]di/thi PU[..., and can therefore not be thesame epiclesis; cf. supra n. 57, Figs 8-9.

82 London BM GR 1900.2-14.6; Hogarth 1898/9, 30, 56 no. 107, find spotsupra n. 59; rim fragment of red-figured volute-krater, right-to-leftmeander, in band under rim part of kottabos scene; on upper side ofrim incised dedicatory inscription to Aphrodite Pandemos. Fragmentof the same side of the krater in Bonn, Akademisches KunstmuseumInv. no. 697.90, infra n. 80; first quarter of 5th century bc; cf.Schleiffenbaum 1991, 60-3, V 212; ARV² 228.20 (490 bc); later: V 292,ARV² 287.27 (460 bc, Geras-Painter); Bernand 1970.2, 704 no. 630;Scholtz 2002/3, 232.

83 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum Inv. no. 697.90; Piekarski 2001b,40, no. C 13 pl. 14.1. We thank D. Williams for this information. Thename of the dedicant could be Psammis, Psammatas, Psammetichosor the like, cf. LGPN s.v.; Jeffery 1990 s.v.

84 London BM GR 1888.6-1.211; Gardner 1888, 66 no. 818; Bernand1970.2, 688 no. 467; Scholtz 2002/3, 231; cf. for the type Sparkes andTalcott 1970, 92 no. 420 fig. 4 pl. 20.

85 London BM GR 1888.6-1.212; Gardner 1888, 66 no. 821; Bernand1970.2, 689 no. 470; Scholtz 2002/3, 231; cf. for the type Sparkes andTalcott 1970, 91-2 no. 413 fig. 4 (480–450 bc) or no. 407 pl. 19(500–480 bc).

86 There is also an interpretation of Aphrodite Pandemos as goddess oflight (Usener, Furtwängler), but this does not need to interest ushere.

87 Scholtz 2002/3. 88 Cf. Graf 1985, 260-1; Pirenne-Delforge 1994. 89 Scholtz 2002/3, 236. 90 Burkert 1985, 155, combines the distinction between Ourania, who is

made the Phoenician queen of heaven, and Pandemos, but gives thelatter a political meaning: she literally embraces the entire people asthe common bond and fellow feeling necessary for the existence ofany state.

91 Xen. Symp. 8.9-10. 92 Paus. 1.22.3. 93 Ath. 13.569D quoting Philemon F3 PCG; Nikandros FGrHist 271-2

F9a; cf. Nikandros FGrHist 271-2 F9b and Apollodoros FGrHist 244F113 in Harpocration s.v. Pa/ndhmoj 0Afrodi/th.

94 Kruse 1949, 509; cf. Dillon 1999, 68-70; van Bremen 2003, 325-6, whoemphasizes Pandemos as being responsible for the collective well-being of the civic community.

95 Paus. 1.22.3; IG I3 832 (=IG I2 700) of ?480–470 bc (no epiclesis);Hurwit 1999, 41, 212, 276-7; cf. Jacoby 1944, 72-3 = 1956, 254-6.

96 Sokolowski, LSCG 39; cf. Simon 1970. 97 Paus. 1.22.3. 98 Erythrai: SEG XXXVI (1986) 1039 of around 400 bc, decree about

building of a temple for Aphrodite Pandemos; Inschriftengriechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (Erythrai & Klazomenai II) 201 a 24of 300–260 bc, selling of priesthoods (cf. Parker and Obbink 2000,415-49). Sacrificial calendar from Isthmos on Cos: LSCG 169 A 12 (3rdcentury bc).

99 Scholtz 2002/3, 238.100 Pind. Ol. 6.63. 101 Scholtz 2002/3, 242. 102 Bowden 1996, 33, cf. Tausend 1992. 103 Thus, A. B. Lloyd in his excellent commentary on Herodotus Book II

(vol. 3 [1988], 224) states: ‘We should expect the Hellenium to be apan-Hellenic religious enclosure and that is exactly what theevidence suggests this area was.’

104 Morgan 1993. 105 Malkin 2003b, 91-5. 106 Demetriou 2004, a talk which I only know from the abstract. She has

informed me that this research is part of her PhD thesis. 107 Hall 2002, 205-20. 108 Hall 2002, 131-2.109 The only Panhellenion we know of was founded by the emperor

Hadrian in 131/2 ad. The idea sprang from an idealized picture ofgood old Classical Greece inspired by the Second Sophistic.

110 Kron 1988, 135-48; Kreuzer 1998, 32-41, both with earlier literature;Gebauer 2002, 448-70.

111 Villing, this volume. None are, however, recorded as having beenfound in the Hellenion.

112 Williams 1983a, 186-7; Kreuzer 1998, 32-41; Stissi 2003, 77-9. 113 Hogarth 1905, 112. 114 Leclère 1997 assumes chapels or treasuries of the individual cities

and their deities. He kindly provided his manuscript to members of

Page 30: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

22 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Höckmann and Möller

the Naukratis research project at Mainz. 115 Von Bissing 1951, 79; Kron (1992, 620-2 n. 58) takes similar chambers

at Bitalemi for treasuries or cultic rooms – amphipoleia – i.e.chambers of a priest.

116 Martin 1951, 245-6. 117 Martin 1956, 44-5; for a summary cf. Bernand 1970.2, 858, and

Leclère 1997. 118 Williams 1983a, 186-7 n. 66 with earlier literature. 119 Bookidis and Stroud 1997, 393-412. 120 Hogarth 1898/9, 31: in chamber 3 ‘layer of hammered mud’ under

the ‘level of the fragment of concrete pavement’, south of it p. 33: ‘afloor of hammered earth overlaid with fine plaster, part plaincrimson, part crimson and white stripe, and part blue and whitestripe. Only small fragments of the coloured surface were preserved’in room 20; ‘a similar floor in a similar state, but this time overlaidwith yellow and red stripe plaster’ in room 19, where the hopliterelief was found in the ‘the large vessel […] below the level of theplaster floor’.

121 Hogarth 1898/9, 30: ‘concrete pavement’ near 39 in the south; p. 31‘concrete paving’ near 2; p. 33 are mentioned remains of ‘brilliantblue stucco’, the pavement here consisted of a ‘thin layer of concrete’3.7cm thick, in room 11; ibid. a ‘flooring laid on fragments of coarseplaster’ north of 14 is mentioned, and (p. 34) in spot 30 a ‘thickstratum of concrete laid on chips’, 17.5cm thick, ‘seems to haveextended all over the northernmost part of the site’; Hogarth 1905,115, saw in 58 a ‘patch of pavement of thin concrete’ […] 175cm under‘the well marked floor level of the Ptolemaic restoration’; in room 10‘much fallen wall-plaster of brilliant blue’ on the ‘Ptolemaic floor[…] made of a concrete of lime, pounded brick, and pebble’, c. 2cmthick.

122 Hogarth 1898/9, 33, saw in room 14 ‘remains of a conduit made ofearthen pipes from 4½ to 6 in. (11.25cm to 15cm) in diameter’, overthe terracottas. Cf. Bergquist 1990, 37: ‘common characteristics’ ofdining-rooms ‘are a regular square shape, a specific internal wall-length, and a frequent multiplication of such rooms in paratactic

rows, […] behind a common porch or portico’. The ‘fittings andfurnishings’ are ‘a paved or cemented floor with a raised borderalong the walls and/or couches or supports for couches, an off-centre door, drainage, wall stucco, access to water, etc.’

123 Supra n. 120. 124 Hogarth 1898/9, 38. 125 Cf. Gazda 1983, 35 fig. 61; Schwartz and Wild 1950, pl. 1. I thank my

colleagues from the Egyptological Institute at Mainz for muchhelpful information.

126 Hogarth 1898/9, 30: ‘ashes mixed with late black glazed ware’ near40-2, see plan pl. 2; p. 31: ‘patchy layer of ashes’ near spots 2.

127 Hogarth 1898/9, 31: ‘layer of burnt stuff resting on the mud’ nearwesternmost spot 2.

128 Hogarth 1898/9, pl. 2.129 Hogarth 1898/9, 30-1. 130 As an example of an altar at which sacrifices to several gods are

made, cf. Petrakos 1968, 96-8. 131 Hogarth 1898/9, 32.132 Hogarth 1898/9, 30 pl. 2, near east-west wall, 39; p. 33; cf. Iozzo

1985, 7-61; Bookidis 1993, 52. 133 Cf. Möller 2000a, 107. 134 Schmitt Pantel 1992, 488-90. 135 For further discussion see Villing, this volume.136 Jacoby 1912, 731. Tresp 1914, 159, identified this Hermeias with H. of

Methymna who wrote a Sicilian history in the 4th century bc. Jacobyremains sceptical.

137 FHG 2: 80 = fr. 112 Tresp ap. Ath. 4.149D. 138 Graf 1985, 187-8. On Apollo Komaios see also Herda (forthcoming b).139 Möller 2000a, 195-6; Möller 2005, 189. 140 In the 3rd century bc the names of two out of four phylai with 10

bouleutai each are known; cf. the new edition of the inscription byScholl 1997, 213-28, pl. 18.

141 Ath. 4.149F; cf. Gottlieb 1967, 28-30, who, however, assumed thatwhat Athenaios described goes back to the 6th century bc.

142 Cf. Boardman 1994, 142; Lomas 2004b, 2.

Page 31: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 23

Abstract

My aim of this short paper is to give a resumé of the range ofepigraphic material from Naukratis of the Archaic period, mostlyon East Greek pottery, and to focus briefly on just two aspects: non-Ionians, and amphora ‘texts’. They comprise a few thoughts aheadof a comprehensive re-study of the material as both texts and pots.*

Smaller inscribed vases

The ceramic material from the excavations at both Naukratisand Tell Defenneh was published with exemplary speed aftereach season of excavation. The texts comprise almost entirelyeither dedications, to a range of deities, or, in the broadestsense, ‘trademarks’, while what may well be owners’ marks arerepresented by a rather few short texts or ligatures, increasing innumber in the classical period, though many of the latter arenow seemingly unlocatable. The format of the dedications isvaried, and few patterns seem to emerge; but review of thematerial will yield more specific data in this respect.1

When I first worked through some of the material in theBritish Museum’s ‘fan room’ in the 1960s, I noted very fewcorrigenda to be made in the readings in the relevant pages ofthe publications, save some misleading treatment at the breaks.There were and still are, however, unpublished pieces in theBritish Museum and probably elsewhere; André Bernand’smassive compilation of 1970 is of use in giving clearer listings ofpreviously published material, but it adds little, since very fewcomments are added, and is of minimal use to thearchaeologically minded. Material not then published includesuch things as the 25 ‘trademarks’ on East Greek pots which I putin my ‘Trademarks on Greek Vases’, and one particular piece inUniversity College London (Fig. 1), which I noted in BICS 1982,arguing it to be a dedication of Aristophanes (Aristophantos asDyfri Williams was soon to make him) and Damonidas toAphrodite (cf. Fig. 7); the pair were active also on Aigina, asdemonstrated fully by Williams when publishing the new Chianmaterial from Aigina which so complicates the story of thededication of bespoke Chian kantharoi: found on the island ofChios, but much more frequently at Naukratis and Aigina – andnot at all, we may note, at Gravisca or the Heraion on Samos.2

The range of ethnics used and a few peculiar alphabetic useshave long been known and discussed by John Boardman, AnneJeffery, Rudi Wachter, Mario Torelli and Astrid Möller amongothers.3 On the matter of Aeolic bucchero being marked byMytilenaians I merely add here some undiagnostic scraps in along series of some 500 inscribed sherds catalogued in theregister of the British Museum’s Greek and Roman Departmentby Donald Bailey under BM GR 1965.9-30, where we might notetwo or three alphas with cross-bar ascending right. Nonetheless,the fact that two of these, the first to be looked at in my review,join is either a statistical freak or a sign of substantial surprisesin store.4 Teos, Miletos and Knidos are also well-known cases –(Fig. 2) the last reminding us perhaps of the tombstone of a

The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta Alan Johnston

Figure 2 a) East Greek cup BM GR 1886.4-1.681-2 (N237) b) Stele from Marion.Cyprus MuseumFigure 1 UCL-742. Chian kantharos rim and handle

Page 32: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

24 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Johnston

Figure 11 Large shallow bowl BM GR 1886.4-1.671Figure 9 Chian chalice BM GR 1888.6-1.495 Figure 10 East Greek cup BM GR 1886.4-1.260

Figure 5 ‘Ionic’ gamma: a) BM GR 1886.4-1.813, Milesian?; b) BM GR 1888.6-1.169,Chian; c) N815,Attic?; d) Cairo 26152N876, Milesian?

Figure 6 ‘Mixed’ gamma: a) BM GR 1886.4-1.650, Laconian? b) N762, Chian? c) BSA 22, Samian?

Figure 4 ‘Lunate’ gamma in graffiti on Chian chalices: a) N750, b) BM GR 1888.4-1.420, c) BM GR 1965.9-30.141

Figure 7 Dedications by Aristophantos and Damonidas from the temple ofAphaia on Aigina

Figure 8 a) Graffito on Corinthian louterion rim from Chios; b) Laconian bronzelion from Samos

Figure 3 BM GR 1888-6-1.173 and UCL-736. Chian lid or krater

a

b c

a b

d

c

c

ba

a b

Page 33: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 25

The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta

Knidian girl from Marion on Cyprus, and thereby the role ofCypriots in the trade with Egypt.5 There is little in the use ofscript that assists in placing the origin of the more general‘Ionian’ texts, since the same lettering can be found on pieces ofsurely Chian or surely Samian origin.

I wrote a note on one possibly diagnostic letter, sigma, inBICS 1974, pointing out its diminishing use in the earlier 6thcentury bc throughout Ionia, as well as demonstrating, I hope,the erroneous interpretation, and occasionally reading, placedon a large percentage of the relevant texts, where nu hadbecome confused with sigma either by the original writer or themodern transcriber and interpreter. Astrid Möller, I addimmediately, plausibly suggests that a few of the texts with theletter may be from Aiginetan dedicators.6

I turn to a few notes on individual pieces which I find ofinterest.

First I must add to the note on the unusual gamma that Iincluded in my offering to John Boardman in Periplous; Ipublished one lunate example (Fig. 3) in the bespokeinscription, unusually on a large Chian vase, a lid or krater,7 but Ifailed to add further Chian examples – graffito on chalices (Fig.4): N750 (BM GR 1888.6-1.421) and N752 (BM GR 1888.6-1.420),and a kantharos scrap (BM GR 1965.9-30.141), where it is foundbetween an epsilon and perhaps a upsilon. These to add to theone other oft-cited Ionian occurrence from Samos, Jeffery 1990,341, Samos 7.

The letter gamma is not otherwise widely attested atNaukratis – the ‘normal’ form occurs in Aigyptis’ set of bespokekantharoi8 and a half dozen other texts (Fig. 5):• BM GR 1886.4-1.813 (N309, bowl, Milesian?); • BM GR 1888.6-1.750 (N732, Chian pot);• where? (N815, Attic? This group of graffiti is of various

fabrics, as far as can be ascertained. I assume the name to beMegakles);

• Cairo 26152 (N876; Gardner 1888, pl. 20 – ?Milesian);• Oxford G141.22 (JHS 33, a later piece, perhaps 5th century bc

Attic);• BM GR 1888.6-1.169 (Cook and Woodhead 1952, no. 54,

Chian bespoke dipinto; the letter is incomplete, thoughplausibly forms part of an egrapsen signature);

• perhaps also BM GR 1888.6-1.453 (see below);while a form with rising second stroke (Fig. 6) appears moreintriguingly on three pieces: • BM GR 1886.4-1.650 (N340, an unusual cup, with many

Laconian features, but more likely Knidian); • where? (N762, Chian?); • where? (BSA 22, Samian?).

All three were dedicated by the same Hermagathinos whocut the more lunate letter on BM GR 1888.6-1.420 (N752) (Fig.4b). While no clear picture emerges, and this is not the placefully to demonstrate that this seems a small patch in theprotohistory of the letter, the four Chian examples of ‘non-Ionic’gamma, which represent the ‘hand’ of at least three individuals,should make us pause in pursuing over-relentlessly strictallocations of scripts to poleis.9 Similar thoughts attend, ofcourse, the use of the Doric dialect in the name of Damonidas(Fig. 7), attested in the painted inscriptions on Chian kantharoifrom the Aphaia temple, and plausibly once painted on theNaukratis fragment, UCL-742 above (Fig. 1).10 To underline themore inter-polis aspects of our subject, I might mention, inter

alia, the Corinthian dedication on a Corinthian louterion fromChios (Fig. 8a), a Spartan’s dedication on a bronze from Samos(Fig. 8b), and a Corinthian or Megarian dedication on a Chiansherd from Eleusis, albeit, unlike in the case of our lunateChians, none of these reflect non-epichoric forms used by localdedicators.11

BM GR 1888.6-1.495 (given as 496 in Cook and Woodhead1952, no. 68, with incomplete reading) (Fig. 9) is a lower wallfragment of a fairly large Chian chalice, perhaps one of the‘Grand’ pieces, with a bespoke dedication by a ...]midhj. What isintriguing is that the mu is actually incised at a point where theslip had peeled away; that incision is ancient. This suggests,though does not prove, that the pot had suffered in someprevious history, but that ...mides or his agent was present at ornear the final act of dedication at Naukratis to ‘restore’ the text. Iknow of no good parallel but regard the piece as an importantelement in our study of ritual offerings.

Full re-study of the material in the British Museum willundoubtedly throw up items of interest. There follows here afew prelimary remarks on pieces worthy of further study:

BM GR 1886.4-1.260 (N117, B79) (Fig. 10). ]a?mpuri.[. Thereading in N is slightly defective: there is part of a horizontal tothe left, almost certainly making the first preserved letter analpha, and at the end merely a section of a line at the break, butso situated as to suggest it is from a circular letter. The piece isthe lip of a low-lipped cup with a little mica.

BM GR 1886.4-1.671 (N236, B197, Möller 2000, 174, no. 5b;sample Nauk 73) (Fig. 11). ]ekankley[. The piece is a large flat-rimmed bowl, mostly covered with a thin brown ‘glaze’.Hypothetically it may be of Knidian manufacture.12 It is difficultnot to construe this as an aorist third plural followed by an aoristparticiple, a0ne/q]ekan or, as suggested by Möller, ka/qq]ekankle/y[antej; her Kley[i/aj can perhaps be discounted in view oflack of evidence for any such personal names. A compoundadjective perhaps should not be ruled out; but the deus exmachina of a reference to a klepsydra runs against theshallowness of the bowl (even if the full depth is not preserved) -and it would be a truly remarkable occurrence. The topos oftheft and subsequent action appears in graffiti of theapproximate period, though the plural does cause obviousdifficulties.13 One final possibility is to read a verb with apocope,retaining perhaps the Aeolic nature of Möller’s suggestion,ka/qq]ek’ a0nkley[... : this would allow a singular dedicator,though introduces an unexpected elision, despite the eleganceof the contrast of the two prepositions. While epigraphicprobability points in this direction, the prominence of such astatement of theft in a dedication formula would be striking.

BM GR 1888.6-1.359 (N754, B405). ]yende[ in the first line,].oaneq[ below. Cut on the outside of the foot of this small Chianchalice. The first preserved letter is clearly a psi and there is theminimal trace of a vertical at the start of line 2, perhaps an iota.One wonders whether there was room on the small pedestal fora signature egrapsen as well as a dedication, seemingly includinga patronymic, below.

Figure 12 Chian chalice BM GR1888.6-1.453

Page 34: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

26 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Johnston

BM GR 1888.6-1.453. (N760, B411) (Fig. 12). ]n:o pe.[ | ] aunthj:[. Foot fragment of Chian chalice. Gardner suggestedin line 2 Phaid]runtes, but this is epigraphically highly unlikely.He may well have had in mind Olympian polishers of statuary,since no other common or proper nouns in - aunthj or - runthjseem attested elsewhere, save the daughter of the PersianMasistes, Artaunte (Hdt. 9.108). In the first line the finalpreserved letter has a horizontal at the top – gamma or pi, and inthe second the first can hardly be read as rho; at the end there ispart of a two-dot punctuation, as after the first letter of line 1 –a0ne/qhke]n : o9 Pe.[ | ]aunthj :[. Regrettably there is not enoughof the word commencing Pe- preserved to allow conjecture as towhether it was a patronymic, ethnic or something else; I merelynote the lack of any Greek word in Peg- and the extreme rarity ofnames in Pep- (with short vowel).14 Should one look outside theGreek world but in Greek grammar?

BM GR 1886.4-1.261 (N122) (Fig. 13). t]oi zeni t[ Rim ofnon-micaceous cup. Non-Ionic script, but Ionic dialect, notpreviously noted as such. The script could be Cycladic.

Inscribed amphorae

I mentioned Cyprus above, and the immediate epigraphicassociation that comes to mind is with the graffiti on Cypriotamphora handles from Naukratis, in alphabetic, not syllabicscript (Table 1, 33-41), as indeed is also the case with the Cypriotstyle limestone figurines of more disputed origin.15 I havenothing to add to my 1982 note on the handles, save (Fig. 14)perhaps stressing the possible Knidian origin of the inscriber of40, if we take the simplest alphabetic explanation of the hour-glass sign here as Knidian xi.16

Turning to other inscribed jars, I include in my discussion themore intact pieces from Defenneh and Qurneh; I do not overlookthe as yet not fully published material from Eliezer Oren’sexcavations at Migdol/ ‘Elephantine’, and the finds from Abusir

published by Kvevta Smoláriková, but only two inscriptions arespecifically mentioned.17 A number of handles and otherfragments were retained from the Naukratis excavations, and, tomy knowledge, no uninscribed pieces of plain containers; Icannot as yet allot more than a few to a given provenance, andindeed some may not be from amphorae at all.18

The range of material is scarcely atypical of that foundelsewhere in the Mediterranean. I note merely the small numberof Corinthian A jars, compared with the record in the centralMediterranean, while the Attic SOS too is thinly represented,despite being a vigorous export until c. 575 bc (though beforethe Greek arrival at Defenneh, from where we have just oneexample of the later Athenian ‘à la brosse’ type (1) (Fig. 15),which curiously is, to date, our only assured ‘merchant’s’ markappearing on amphorae from two widely separated sites.19

Regrettably the set of short dipinti on bowls from Defennehpublished by Petrie do not seem to be preserved; it would havebeen interesting to compare them in all respects, includingfabric, with similar dipinto marks on amphorae fromKlazomenai; such an apparent system of short painted marksdoes not appear with regularity in other, probablycontemporary, areas of production.20 A Klazomenian jar in theDepartment of Ancient Egypt and Sudan in the British Museumhas a mark of this genre (4) (Fig. 16), though it seems not to beany of the pieces noted by Petrie; my interest in it is itsextraordinary repair – it became cracked but was not broken,was repaired with very large drill holes used, and survived inthat condition until excavated; very similar is the Milesian piecefrom Migdol, Oren 1984, 20, fig. 23.5.

One large dipinto from Qurneh (59) (Fig. 17) is verydifferent, and recalls published marks from Black Sea sites,while the profile drawing might suggest North Greekproduction.21 The seal on Chian bobbin jars from Defenneh (2)(Fig. 18) has caused ink to flow, but Amasis’ cartouche on such a

Figure 13 Cup BM GR 1886.4-1.261 Figure 14 Cypriot amphora handle BMGR 1888.6-1.389

Figure 16 Klazomenian amphorafrom Tell Defenneh, BM EA 22343

Figure 15Attic ‘à la brosse’ amphora from Tell Defenneh, BM GR 1888.2-8.60

Figure 17Amphora from Qurneh Figure 18 Chian amphora from TellDefenneh, sealed and marked withcartouche of Amasis, BM EA 22356

Page 35: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 27

The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta

piece need not surprise us, since it was a long-lived amphoratype.22 I throw in the observation that there is an as yetunpublished tomb from Rhodes town which had a Chian LateArchaic amphora in it, which I assume was not buried before c.408 bc.

Samian jars seem relatively common;23 this type too has aform of marking unto itself, the pre-firing graffito, which onlyoccurs with any consistency elsewhere at the period on a fewCorinthian A jars, employing a different set of signs, though itmay well be that both encompass numerical notation. TheSamian jar now in the Petrie Museum from Qurneh (60) (Fig.19) was said by Petrie to have a post-firing mark, but on theoriginal it is clearly not so, and a substantial number of parallelscan be cited (Table 2).24 About 40 Samian jars are known to mewith pre-firing graffiti (about half of Samian jars with anymark), while I know of about 50 other such marks on Archaicamphorae; 12 are on Corinthian A, the rest very disparate. TheSamian marks, found on jars spread throughout theMediterranean, are more coherent, and in fact a number areduplicated – X is frequent; epsilon, zeta, as on the Petrie jar –with apologies to scientists – lambda, tau and upsilon arerepeated, and there are two examples of simple impressed smallcircle, one hour-glass and one figure-of-eight. Single examplesare known to me of beta, ‘horizontal xi’, wavy line, triple verticaland triple horizontal. While it is difficult to see an overallpattern here, some sequences of letters may exist – epsilon,digamma, zeta; tau, upsilon. There are three examples ofdigamma, not a letter used in Ionian script, while a relativelyearly, fragmentary jar from Kommos (Fig. 20) has a clear mudigamma; a method of numeration is very clearly indicated, butone that can accommodate 46 and in some way privilege 6, 7

and 30, as well as probably non-numerical signs, is far from easyto discern. Note especially that any straightforwardinterpretation as capacity is ruled out by the fact that a‘fractional’ jar in the British Museum from Naukratis (Fig. 21)has the same zeta as the large Petrie piece. One should addimmediately that zeta iota (= 17), probably also pre-firing, isfound on a lost companion piece to that in the Petrie Museum,Qurneh no. 850 (Fig. 22).25 One may consider the possibility thatthe marks in some way indicate batches in a kiln, though theypresumably do not exist to facilitate the post-firing matching upof pot and lid, as in the later series of Attic pyxides.26

Addendum ex-Africa SOS

My concern above was for amphorae with inscriptions, but itmay be worth adding these few notes on some uninscribedpieces, all of which contribute in some way to the dating ofGreek presence at African sites.

Rather to the west of our area of prime concern is Cyrenaica,but the dating of an SOS amphora to before 650 bc from the areadoes reflect on general Greek interests. A piece found in the seaoff Ptolemais/Apollonia was so dated by Emmanuela Fabbricottiin 1980. The pot does seem rather to belong roughly to themiddle-late period, with a somewhat flat shoulder and roughlypainted decoration. At any rate there is no compelling evidencefor it to be placed earlier than ‘c. 630 bc’.27

Coming east, in the recent publication of finds from theUniversity of Philadelphia’s excavations on Bates’s Island, MarsaMatruh, one pot of Greek origin is taken to be the earliest IronAge import on the site, at c. 700 bc, by Don Bailey (Fig. 23). Assuch it would indeed be a striking fragment, since no other suchimport into Egypt can be dated to before c. 640 bc.28

Figure 22Amphorae from Qurneh

Figure 21 Fractional Samian amphora, BM GR 1886.4-1.1291Figure 19 Samian amphora from Qurneh, Petrie Museum, UCL, 16391

Figure 20 Samian amphora from Kommos, Crete, c. 625-600 BC

Page 36: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

28 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Johnston

However, the piece is most unlikely to be from an Attic SOSamphora, as suggested by Bailey. While its precise typologicalniche cannot be argued in view of the lack of very close parallels,its characteristics belong generically to what may be termedthose of the ‘Laconian’ amphora, and should probably be datedto the period 625–575 bc. Against an attribution to the Attic ‘SOS’amphora type are the profile with angular, jutting lip, thedecoration, with a painted interior to the neck and paint notextending lower than the point of the ridge below the lip, andthe clay, described as “hard red clay with white grits”, not typicalof Attica.29

Similar material comes from Kommos in south central Crete,an emporium site in the 7th century bc. Such amphorae are,however, not fully comparable with the MM sherd; one of theKommos variants has a similar lip, but known examples arereserved inside, while the other is painted inside the neck buthas a ‘fascia’, not a ridge, below the lip.30 This material has beenprovisionally assigned to Laconia on adequate geological andrather broad typological grounds; the range of morepersuasively Laconian jars, largely of the 6th century bc, again

provides no totally similar parallel.31 However, there can be nodoubt that the piece is not Attic of around 700 bc, but of a typecurrent in c. 600 bc, emanating on current evidence from eitherLaconia or a site yet to be identified.

In addition to the piece of ‘à la brosse’ type noted above, asecond Attic amphora from the Delta is worth noting, and Ithank Helen Jacquet for bringing it to my attention (Fig. 24).32 Itis part of an SOS neck from Karnak, from a stratum containing26th–30th Dynasty pottery. The profile here does conform moreclosely to the ‘middle’ series, with a relatively low lip and sharpridge below, as well as having a fairly straight neck, as far as canbe judged. One would certainly be tempted to a date ‘c. 650 bc’for its manufacture, though that of its arrival in Egypt couldhave been some time later.

The question of the contents of the jars is regularly raised,and more recently John Lund has strongly supported a primaryuse for wine,33 stressing the appearance of Dionysos shoulderingan SOS on the François vase as the most important piece ofevidence. True, this scene is not to be underestimated, but onemust also note that the SOS and the Corinthian A jar are the twoearliest types of transport amphora to be made and circulated inlarge quantities, from the later 8th century bc onwards, and thatit is impossible that the Corinthian product could have held winebecause of its porosity. We must hope that a carefully conductedprogramme of organic analysis may some day help resolve thisdebate.

Figure 24. SOS amphora neck fromKarnak, c .650 BC

Figure 23 SOS amphora neck fromMarsa Matruh

Table 1 Inscribed amphorae from Egypt34

From Tell Defenneh1 BM GR 1888.2-8.60 ‘à la brosse’ Johnston 2000b, 236; Fig. 15 I–IET 2 BM EA 22356 Chian Petrie 1888 pl. 36.3; Fig. 18 pentalpha* 3 BM EA 22333 E. Greek? API, retrograde, shoulder 4 BM EA 22343 Klazomenian Fig. 16 glaze squiggle, by handle 5 where? Lesbian Petrie 1888 pl. 33.12b N, probably same as next entry 5 Petrie Museum 19247 Lesbian Petrie 1888 pl. 33.12b? two lines on shoulder 6 where? Lesbian Petrie 1888 pl. 33.12a D7 where? N. Greek? Petrie 1888 pl. 33.1 E, shoulder 8 BM GR 1977.10-11.2 Samian HI, large, shoulder 9 BM GR unregistered Samian? Johnston 1887, 129, fig. 1 ‘anchor’, large, shoulder10-12 where? (3 pieces) Samian? Petrie 1888 pl. 33.10b-d various letters part-preserved13 where? Samian? Petrie 1888 pl. 33.10a ‘arrow’, twice14 where? Samian? Petrie 1888 pl. 34.39 ‘arrow’, shoulder*The neck is closed with plaster stamped with a seal of Amasis; Petrie (1888, 64) mentions more than one Chian jar so sealed.

From Naukratis15 BM GR 1910-2-22.19 Chian N403 large O16 BM GR 1910-2-22.27 Chian N411 I–I? 17 BM GR 1910-2-22.26 Chian N410 part of ligature?, shoulder 18 BM GR 1910-2-22.25 Chian N409 M, shoulder 19 BM GR 1910-2-22.24 Chian N408 alpha-lambda?, shoulder by handle 20 BM GR 1910-2-22.23 Chian N407 ]IIL neck 21 where? Chian N I pl. 16.4 large white ‘arrow’, shoulder22 BM GR 1910.2-22.10 Chian, not amphora? N394 ‘psi’handle23 BM GR 1910.2-22.11 Chian, not amphora? N397 X, handle24 BM GR 1910.2-22.12 Chian, not amphora? N397a lambda-alpha, handle25 BM GR 1910.2-22.13 Chian, not amphora? N397b hour-glass, handle26 BM GR 1910-2-22.28 Chian? N412 mark as Johnston 1979, type 12E, neck27 BM GR 1910-2-22.29 Chian? N413 NILE, shoulder, handle to right 28 BM GR 1910-2-22.21 Chian? N405 X, part preserved, wall 29 BM GR 1910-2-22.22 Chian? N406 ]IIII, shoulder 30 BM GR 1910.2-22.35 Corinthian? N420 lambda-epsilon, neck31 where? Cypriot N385 I–I above H, handle 32 BM GR 1910.2-22.1 Cypriot N384, Johnston 1982, 35-7 ENLH and strokes, handle 33 BM GR 1910.2-22.2 Cypriot N386, Johnston 1982, 35-7 I–IY, handle 34 BM GR 1910.2-22.3 Cypriot N387, Johnston 1982, 35 deeply cut X, handle

Page 37: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 29

The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta

35 BM GR 1910.2-22.4 Cypriot N388, Johnston 1982, 35-7 heta-epsilon, handle36 BM GR 1910.2-22.5 Cypriot N389, Johnston 1982, 35 xi, handle37 BM GR 1910.2-22.6 Cypriot N390, Johnston 1982, 36 XIII, handle38 BM GR 1910.2-22.7 Cypriot N391, Johnston 1982, 36 three lines crossed by diagonal39 BM GR 1910-2-22.20 Cypriot N404 more complex than sampi, pace N, wall40 BM GR 1888.6-1.389 Cypriot N764, Johnston 1982, 36-7 ED and hourglass, handle41 BM GR 1910.2-22.38 Cypriot? N423 LI, trace before, shoulder 42 BM GR 1910.2-22.36 E.Greek N421 LA, shoulder 43 BM GR 1910.2-22.242 E Greek ‘trident’, pre-firing, shoulder 44 BM GR 1910.2-22.9 Klazomenian N393 IIIII: , handle 45 BM GR 1910.2-22.8 N.Greek? N392 ]IXX, handle 46 BM GR 1910.2-22.34 N.Greek? N419 heta-upsilon 47 BM GR 1886.4-1.1261 Samian zeta, pre-firing, shoulder; dark dipinto,L.48 BM GR 1910.2-22.31 amphora? N415 alpha-upsilon?, shoulder 49 BM GR 1910.2-22.30 amphora, Samian N414 ‘psi’, shoulder? 50 BM GR 1910.2-22.14 local N398 S, handle 51 BM GR 1910.2-22.39 ? N424 phi, on top of mushroom lip; 4th century BC

52 where? ? N396 xi, handle 53 BM GR 1910.2-22.37 ? N422 ]N 54 where? ? N395 ‘psi’handle 55 BM GR 1910.2-22.32 ? N416 mark perhaps as Johnston 1979, type 12E 56 BM GR 1910.2-22.33 ? N417 crossed theta, plus, shoulder

From Qurneh57 Qurneh Klazomenian Mys liwiec 1987, no. 840 pre-firing? retrograde nu, edge of foot 58 where? Lesbian? Petrie 1909, pl. 55.852 ‘psi’, neck 59 where? N. Greek? Petrie 1909, pl. 55.855 ; Fig. 17 large red(?) AN, body60 Petrie Museum 16391 Samian Petrie 1909, pl. 54.849 pre-firing zeta; alpha-lambda61 where? Samian Petrie 1909, pl. 54.850 pre-firing? zeta iota, shoulder

Table 2 Pre-firing graffiti on Samian amphorae

Athens Agora P14694 unpublished L shoulder Athens Agora P20809 unpublished L under foot Capua Capua unpublished retrograde digamma by handle Cerveteri Villa Giulia, Banditacchia Cat VII 12 small circle under handle Cerveteri Villa Giulia, Banditacchia Cat VII 11 hourglass by handle Cerveteri Villa Giulia, MA T155 Cat VII 21 L by handle. Complex sign on shoulder Cerveteri Villa Giulia, MA T546 Cat VII 22 ‘segno’.‘lettera’Cerveteri Villa Giulia, Mengarelli Cat VII 1 ‘arrow’by handle Gravisca Tarquinia 73/26656 Johnston 2000c, no. 288 L, shoulder Gravisca Tarquinia 78/9168 Johnston 2000c, no. 293 T, handle Himera Imera RO3 unpublished rectangle?, shoulder Himera Imera RO747 unpublished ‘W’shoulder Kamarina Camarina 3511 unpublished B, shoulder Kamarina Camarina 3558 unpublished T, handleKamarina Camarina T1053, 7395 unpublished +, neck and Z under handle.AN, shoulderKamarina Camarina T1375, 7943 unpublished Y, base of handleKamarina Camarina T1395, 7966 unpublished triple horizontal, neck. + on each handleKamarina Camarina T1402, 7974 unpublished diagonal, base of handleKamarina Camarina T1685, 8515 unpublished retrograde digamma. Large horizontal EKamarina Camarina T1685, 8515 unpublished digamma.TH [ partly over itKamarina Camarina T870, 7194 unpublished + (with two horizontals), shoulder. GraffitoKamarina Camarina T914, 7226 unpublished ‘E’, shoulderKommos Pitsidia I112 Johnston 2005, no. 220; Fig. 20 mu digamma, shoulder. 7th century BC

Marion (T83, 3) Nicosia unpublished o on top of handleMegara Hyblaea Syracuse unpublished III on lip above handleMontalto di Castro Villa Giulia Cat VII 7 X, below handleNaukratis BM GR 1886.4-1.1291 Fig. 21 zeta, shoulder. Dark L, at least, on belly Pithekoussai Lacco Ameno 1674-7 unpublished X, shoulder.A on handle. c. 700–650 BC

Qurneh where? Qurneh pl. LIV, 850; Fig. 22 zeta iota, shoulder. alpha-kappa? Qurneh Petrie Museum 16391 Fig. 19 zeta. alpha-lambda Samos Heraion K3670 unpublished 8 Samos Heraion, Brunnen W2 unpublished wavy horizontal, neck Samos Heraion, Brunnen W2, unpublished V, neck Samos lost? Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22 LSamos lost? Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22 N Samos lost? Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22 sidelong xi Samos lost? Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22 E?, plus? Samos Pythagoreion 16/2/1976 unpublished L L L L to left of handle ? Villa Giulia Cat VII 14 + on shoulder ? Villa Giulia Cat VII 15 + on shoulder

Page 38: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

30 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Johnston

Illustration creditsFig. 1 photograph Stuart Laidlaw, author’s drawing; Fig. 2b after Masson1983, pl. 22.3; Fig. 7 after Williams 1983a, fig. 14; Fig. 8a after Simantoni-Bournia 1992, pl. 5; Fig. 8b photograph E. Feiler, Neg. D-DAI-ATH-1972/269. All rights reserved; Fig. 8c author’s drawing; Fig. 16 detail:photograph Sabine Weber; Fig. 17 after Petrie 1909, pl. 54; Fig. 18 afterPetrie 1888, pl. 36.3; Fig. 19 photographs Petrie Museum, UniversityCollege London; Fig. 20 photograph Kommos Excavation; Fig. 22 afterPetrie 1909, pl. 55; Fig. 23 after Bailey 2002, fig. 12.4; Fig. 24 author’sdrawing. All other photographs: the British Museum.

Notes* I am grateful to Dyfri Williams and Alexandra Villing for the

invitation to participate in the Colloquium and for assistance in re-studying some of the material included here. One may anticipatefurther useful results from the complete re-examination of thematerial.

1 The primary publications of the material are, for Naukratis, Gardner1886 and 1888; Edgar 1898/9 and Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905;and for Tell Defenneh, Petrie 1888. The following abbreviations areused in citing catalogue numbers in these publications:N Gardner 1886 (to N700) and 1888 (from N701)BSA Edgar 1898/9JHS Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905B Bernand 1970

2 Johnston 1979 and 1982; Williams 1983a. It is clear that the numberof unpublished pieces (some simply noted by Bernand) is far greaterthan I believed until very recently. The apparent lack at the SamianHeraion may not be unexpected; Kyrieleis (1986) noted the meagreevidence for connection between the two islands.

3 Boardman 1999a, 130; Jeffery 1990 index (p. 395); Möller 2000a,167-81; Torelli 1982, 316-25; Wachter 2001, 214-19.

4 BM GR 1965.9-30.403 and 404, from a larger closed or semi-closedvase; no reading of the two as a text is yet possible, but theboustrophedon system is used.

5 Masson 1983, no. 164, pl. 22.2-3.6 Möller 2000a, 174-5.7 Johnston 2000a, 164-6; also noted by Wachter 2001, 216.8 Cook and Woodhead 1952, 161.9 Gamma is not so frequently attested in the 7th century bc that we can

always see the manner in which each area of the Greek worlddistinguished its shape from that of the later letters in the alphabetrow, lambda and pi.

10 Damonidas – Williams 1983a, 184 and Johnston 1982, 40-1. It wouldperhaps be a tight fit to get both names, Aristophantos andDamonidas around the lip, but the calculation cannot give a precisefigure for the number of letters lost.

11 Corinthian louterion, Simantoni-Bournia 1992, 19, no. 8, pl. 5;Laconian bronze lion, Jeffery 1990, 446, no. 16a; Chian sherd fromEleusis, Johnston 2000a, 166.

12 Clay analysis of the piece (sample Nauk 73) has, however, so far notconfirmed this hypothesis and shown it to belong to a group calledITAN of unknown provenance; cf. Mommsen et al., this volume.

13 The best preserved example is from Xanthos, Istanbul 1482, Metzger1972, 166-70, 200; add two fragmentary ones from Olbia, Dubois1996, no. 28a-b, with further discussion.

14 A rare example, still unpublished (I owe the reference to OlgaPalagia) is Peperia (genitive?) incised on a silver phiale from a richearly 5th century bc tomb from Vergina, noted without mention ofthe inscription in Andronikos 1988, 2 and Kottaridou 2005, 139.

15 Johnston 1982, 35-7. For the statuettes see Jenkins 2000 and ingeneral Kourou 2002.

16 Johnston 1982, 36, no. 8, giving the abbreviation Erx-. The letter mayalso be used in the graffito on the neck of an Attic SOS amphora fromPorto Cheli, Johnston and Jones 1978, 111, no. 40 and 131-2; the textcould be read as Knidian Thox-, i.e. Theox-.

17 Migdol, Oren 1984, esp. 17-30, noting one ship graffito on a 'torpedo'jar. Abusir, Smoláriková 2001, and 2002, 23-46, with an overview ofmaterial from all Egyptian sites and illustration of a post-firing mu ona Samian jar (second figure on p. 117). Add large lettering of Archaicdate on the neck of a probably East Greek jar from Marsa Matruh,Bailey 2002, no. 12.45.

18 Some pieces in the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan in theBritish Museum are incised with arabic numerals; one I hesitatinglyinclude as a possibly ancient mark (3, above), though '19A' may wellbe the reading. Another (BM EA 23776), with '19', is a neck ofgenerically Milesian type though in thick fabric with minimal mica.

19 Johnston 2000b. 20 Petrie 1888, pl. 32; Klazomenai, Doðer 1986, 465, figs 9 and 10.21 Most accessible in Monachov 1999, 175 and 178-9, with figs 18 and 30,

and 2003, 252-3; see also the caption to Tunkina 2003, 340, fig. 23.The material is largely a generation or more later than the Qurnehvase, which seems to be taken as Samian by Smoláriková 2002, 43, n.276 (with misprinted number).

22 First noted by Petrie 1888, 64. For a summary of recent views seeCook 1989, 165, and for the development of the shape of the typeDupont 1998, 146-8.

23 Unlike Milesian jars, only rarely attested at Abusir and Migdol,Smoláriková 2001, 167 and Oren 1984, 20, fig. 5, and 29, figs 36-8, ascogently suggested by Dupont 1998, 216, n. 200. See also n. 18 above.

24 Petrie 1909, 16 for the generic statement that the jars were marked"after baking". The Petrie Museum amphora is no. 849.

25 Kommos, Johnston 2005, no. 220. Naukratis fractional jar, BM GR1886.4-1.1291 (Table 1, no. 47), also has a washed out dipinto, lambdaor 'arrow' delta, in dark paint, on the belly. It is not simple todisentangle the references in Petrie 1909, pl. 54, bottom right, notleast because the present whereabouts of some material is unknown;the two marks drawn above '848' are presumably those on 849,where the zeta is repeated; the ligature of alpha and kappa mayperhaps have been on 850. I add two further examples of pre-firingzeta: on a neck and shoulder fragment of an East Greek jar fromKommos (Johnston 2005, no. 227) and on the shoulder of, perhaps, asmall, highly micaceous amphora, from Naukratis, BM GR 1886.4-1.92 (N344, B305); the ductus is unusual in my experience, with thinincised lines which have pushed up low, rounded ridges of clay toeither side, as distinct from the gouged grooves of most pre-firingmarks.

26 Johnston 1979, 38. Some 25 additional marked lids or boxes havebeen added in the supplementary volume, which will be published in2006.

27 Fabbricotti 1980. For the general typology see Johnston and Jones1978; a further distinction between ‘late 1’ and ‘late 2’ has been made,properly enough, in the Villa Giulia catalogue (see n. 34 below), butis not relevant for my purpose here.

28 Bailey 2002, 126-7, 12.36, with fig. 12.4.29 Weber 2001, 136 and 142.30 These details are discussed in Johnston and Jones 1978, as cited by

Bailey.31 Johnston and de Domingo 2003, 32 and 37, with further bibliography

on the type.32 I am grateful to her and to Antigoni Marangou-Lerat for allowing me

to include this fragment here.33 Lund 2004, 213.34 I have not included dates in the tables since close dating based solely

on shape is rarely possible in the period, as learned from my work on7th century bc material from Kommos. The ‘readings’ in the finalcolumn should be taken merely as a rough guide; use of a hyphenindicates a ligature between letters. In the publication column ‘Cat.’refers to the unpublished catalogue of the exhibition in the VillaGiulia Museum, 1983. Any graffito listed after a full-stop in the finalcolumn is post-firing. I am indebted to Federica Cordano forknowledge of some of the Kamarina jars.

Page 39: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 31

Abstract

Shallow grinding bowls made of buff clay were dedicated inconsiderable numbers in the Archaic sanctuary of Apollo atNaukratis. They belong to a type of mortarium that waswidespread across Eastern Mediterranean households but that wasalso used in the preparation of foods in sanctuaries. The type isknown from many sites in the Nile Delta and is also particularlycommon in Palestine, Cyprus and Ionia; clay analysis suggests thatCyprus was the main production centre and that the type waswidely traded. Nevertheless, local imitations of Egyptian clay arealso attested. The Cypro-Phoenician type inspired the production ofmortaria on the Greek mainland, notably Corinth, which in turnsoon became a dominant player in the market in mortaria acrossthe Mediterranean; Corinthian mortaria of the Classical period arealso attested at Naukratis.*

When Flinders Petrie excavated the temenos of Apollo atNaukratis in 1885, a group of ‘coarse thick drab bowls’ caught hisattention; one of them he included among the drawings ofpottery in Naukratis I, along with several other fragments ofcoarse bowls. The majority of them carry votive inscriptions toApollo and form a quite coherent group.1 Together with somerelated pieces, these bowls, now in the British Museum, are thefocus of the present study. Even if at first glance they hardlyseem promising material to study (and indeed they haveescaped the attention of most scholars since Petrie), Petrie’sdiligence in recording and preserving them was not wasted. Weshall see that they provide new and unexpected insights not just

into the cult of Apollo at Naukratis but also into the network ofexchange and influence across the ancient Mediterranean.

1. ‘Drab bowls’: mortaria at Naukratis

Twenty-six fragments of shallow, open, undecorated bowls aretoday preserved in the British Museum from among the findsthat Petrie made in his excavation of the sanctuary of Apollo in1884/5. The majority of them (cat. nos 1–20) belong to the samebasic type of bowl and are inscribed with graffiti naming Apollo.They are flat-based, of truncated conical shape (cf. the completeprofiles of cat. nos 1–2, Figs 1-2), with a thickened, more or lessoval rim, slightly wavy/rippled outside and smooth inside, andwere probably made on a slow wheel, perhaps sometimes withthe help of a mould. Most are made of reasonably hard, dense toslightly porous buff clay that fires pink-orange to yellow-beige,with a yellow-beige slip. Many show signs of having beenproduced in some considerable haste. They are obviouslyfunctional and all show clear traces of abrasion inside as well ason the underside of the base or foot. Two (cat. nos 16 and 26;Figs 3–4, the latter of different type and clay and of uncertainorigin) also feature repair-holes.2

Petrie in his Naukratis publication grouped these ‘coarsethick drab bowls’, together with the ‘drab amphorae with loophandles’, in his fabric group P.3 According to his assessment, thebowls are generally early4 and often found in the same levels inthe Apollo temenos as the loop-handled amphorae,5 which musthave been very common indeed in the excavation:

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis andExchange in the Archaic Eastern MediterraneanAlexandra Villing

Figure 1 Mortarium from Naukratis (cat. no. 1), inscribed twpoll[...]i

Figure 2 Mortarium from Naukratis (cat. no. 2; sample Nauk 35: group CYPT); inscribed twpoll[

Page 40: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

32 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing

Figure 3 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 16); repair hole; inscribed ]nun[

Figure 4 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 26); repair hole

Figure 5 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 13); inscribed ]wllon[

Figure 6 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 9; sample Nauk 56: chemicalsingle); inscribed twpol[

Figure 7 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 18); thread marks and incisedE-shaped symbol under foot

Figure 8 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 19; sample Nauk 55: groupEMEA); inscribed nai kr[

Figure 9 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 20); inscribed panfa

Page 41: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 33

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean

The great amphorae of thick greenish-drab ware, with massive loophandles, and often made by hand, being scraped down on theoutside, are apparently not found above the level of the scarabfactory, or 570 bc. They are so common, and at the same time Iwatched so continually for them in digging in order to settle theirage, that this seems probably a real limit; and if so, it is valuable forfixing other dates. The great drab bowls of similar style are evidentlyearly, as the inscriptions on them are very rude, and alwaysretrograde on the inside, while direct on the outside.6

The inscriptions are indeed particularly intriguing. Many areplaced on the inside of the rim (e.g. Figs 1–2 [cat. nos 1 and 2], 5[cat. no. 13], 21 [cat. no. 10]), some on the outside (e.g. Figs 3[cat. no. 16], 6 [cat. no. 9], 22 [cat. no. 12] and some under thefoot (Figs 7 [cat. no. 18] and 8 [cat. no. 19]). All are very largeand irregular, and scratched on after firing. Thirteen fragments(cat. nos 1–13), probably belonging to ten vessels, can berestored as dedications to Apollo on the pattern twpollwnoveimi; the others seem to record only parts of personal names, butnone is preserved or can be restored completely,7 nor can we tellwhether they are male or female.

What are these bowls? They can be identified easily as aparticular type of mortarium (shallow grinding bowl)8 that waswidespread in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Archaic periodin Cypro-Phoenician and Ionian contexts; I will refer to this type

in what follows as the ‘Eastern Mediterranean’ or ‘Cypro-Phoenician’ type.9 Parallels for the general shape are easilyfound at many sites in the 7th and 6th centuries bc (see belowsection 4). The type’s longevity, together with much variationthat is of little chronological relevance, makes precise dating byshape difficult, yet the character of most of the inscriptions(many of which are retrograde) suggests a date before themiddle of the 6th century bc for most pieces; Figure 8 (cat. no.19) with its low ring base and Figure 9 (cat. no. 20) with its disk-shaped base should be somewhat later.10

In addition to this group of inscribed drab bowls, there arealso a number of uninscribed, shallow bowls from Apollo’ssanctuary that can equally be identified as mortaria, but as laterexamples of the shape (cat. nos 21–26). Two of them, with spool-shaped handles, are of uncertain origin (cat. nos 25–26, Fig. 4).11

Others are clearly mainland Greek in type and manufacture, andof 5th–4th century bc date. They comprise three Corinthianmould-made, ‘tile-fabric’ mortaria (cat. nos 21–23, Figs 10–12),two of them with elaborate, impressed designs,12 with added gritin the bottom of the bowl for increased abrasion, and a shallowmortarium of fine, sandy yellow clay (cat. no. 24, Fig. 13), withmassively thickened rounded rim and a groove on the outsidewall, a thickened flat base, spout and spool handles, which may

Figure 10 Corinthian ‘tile fabric’mortarium from Naukratis, withstamped decoration (cat. no. 21)

Figure 11 Corinthian ‘tile fabric’mortarium from Naukratis, withspool-shaped handle and added gritinside (cat. no. 22)

Figure 12 Corinthian ‘tile fabric’mortarium from Naukratis, withstamped rosette underneath base (cat.no. 23)

Figure 13 Heavy basin-like mortariumfrom Naukratis (cat. no. 24)

Page 42: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

34 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing

be of Corinthian (or Aiginetan?) production.13 From around 500 bc, Corinthian mortaria are found in many parts of theMediterranean. Elsewhere in Greece, too, shallow pottery bowlshad been locally produced for use as mortaria since the 7thcentury bc, but only the Corinthian production, it seems, gainedsuch a wide distribution and essentially took over the market inmortaria from the Eastern Mediterranean/Cypro-Phoeniciantype.14

It is only through recent research that we have begun tounderstand more about the extraordinary spread of both thesetypes and their production centres, and this is what I willconcentrate on in the second half of this article. First, however,we should have a closer look at the mortaria from Naukratis andtheir context at the site, and try to explain why they are such apronounced feature from the early 6th through to the 5th–4thcenturies bc.

2. Mortaria and their uses in the Eastern Mediterranean kitchen

The function of mortaria has been the object of considerablediscussion among scholars.15 Eliezer Oren,16 with regard to thewide distribution of Cypro-Phoenician mortaria alongsidetorpedo-shaped and basket-handled amphorae in the EasternMediterranean, concluded that these amphorae ‘were probablythe standard transport containers for grain and oil throughoutthe Mediterranean basin, with the mortarium serving as ameasuring bowl’. This ‘measuring bowl’ idea was shortlyafterwards expounded at great length by Salles, who saw inthese bowls measures for soldier’s grain rations.17 Others haveput forward the idea that mortaria were used primarily orexclusively as bowls in which milk was left to curdle and turninto cheese.18 Both ideas, however, are easily refuted withreference to the very obvious traces of abrasion in the majorityof Archaic and Classical mortaria,19 which are also found inmortaria from Naukratis, most obviously in cat. no. 1 (Fig. 1),where the interior is extremely worn. At Daphnae/TellDefenneh we even find the centre of one bowl (cat. no. D1, Fig.19) worn through. Clearly, many if not all mortaria were subjectto fairly heavy-duty use,20 such as can result only from grindingwith a largish (probably wooden) pestle.21 It is thus with somejustification that we use the Latin term for grinding bowl,‘mortarium’ for these bowls, which formed such an essentialpart of Archaic and Classical Greek and Eastern Mediterraneankitchen equipment.22

What exactly would have been the function of these grindingbowls? With their shallow, round shape and usually thick rimthat facilitated being grasped by a human hand, they certainlyseem predestined for the grinding, mashing and mixing23 ofrelatively soft to medium-hard materials; being made of clay,heavy pounding would have been less appropriate. They alsostrike one as useful for kneading, although we learn that specialkneading trays (kardopoi) were also known in Greece.24

Unfortunately, there is very little evidence for exactly whatfoods were processed in mortaria, and virtually no evidenceoutside mainland Greece and before 500 bc.25 The fewrepresentations that show mortaria being used come fromBoiotia and Corinth, while the literary sources largelyconcentrate on Classical Athens; both have to be used withcaution as far as the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean isconcerned, and will be discussed in greater detail elsewhere.26

Here I will only briefly summarise what can be gleaned fromthem.

Two Corinthian terracotta figurines are particularly relevantin this context, one a monkey playfully using a mortarium andpestle (Fig. 14),27 the other a mule carrying a mortarium on itsback (Fig. 15).28 The mortarium in both cases is clearly of theClassical Corinthian variety, with a long spout and spool-handles; the pestle is of distinctive angled, ‘finger-like’ shape, asit is known from the 5th century bc onwards, in Corinth andelsewhere, made of wood or stone (cf. also Fig. 18).29 Theingredients in the mortarium carried by the mule are anindication of what might have been processed in the mortarium:a small round cheese next to a cheese-grater,30 and a bunch ofgarlic or onions. Already some earlier Boiotian figurines showcheese being grated into a mortarium,31 and it seems also fromliterary sources that in both Greek and Roman cuisine the use ofa mortarium for processing cheese was quite common. Mixedwith crushed herbs and garlic, it would produce the Romanspicy cheese moretum (its manufacture being described in detailin the poem Moretum), or the Greek spicy cheese sauce calledmyttotos/myssotos (Ar., Pax 228-88), which went particularlywell with tunny, as is pointed out by the mid-6th century bcIonian poet Hipponax.32 Other ingredients that might be groundin a mortarium are aromatics and spices (such as cumin,vinegar, silphium, and coriander – cf. Ath. 403-4), nuts and freshgreen herbs, and seasonings of all kinds, for cakes, sauces,dressings and side dishes, as well as perhaps spices for wine.

Figure 14 Corinthian terracotta figurine of a monkey playing with a mortariumand pestle, early 4th century BC (BM GR 1903.5-18.3 [Terracotta 957])

Figure 15 Corinthian terracotta figurine of a mule carrying a mortarium, early4th century BC (BM GR 1873.8-20.576 [Terracotta 969])

Page 43: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 35

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean

For the staples of everyday cooking mortaria should alsohave been useful – this would seem to be borne out by thenumber of grinding bowls found, for example, in domesticcontexts in Archaic Miletos. They certainly seem ideal to assistthe preparation of mashes and soups made from vegetables orpulses,33 but also, perhaps, porridge and gruel. Of course, heavy-duty grinding of flour was usually done with the help of specialstone mills – hand-mills, the saddle quern or the hopper rubber– while hulling (of barley – krithe) would have required a largeholmos in which the grain was pounded with a large pestle(hyperon),34 at least if large amounts needed to be processed –for smaller quantities a mortarium may well have been useful.Perhaps stone mortaria were also sometimes used.35 A claymortarium one could imagine, by contrast, might assist in othertypes of grain processing,36 such as the breaking down of graininto coarse pearl barley, cracked barley (erikis), emmer wheat,coarse meal (alphita), or semolina.37 Barley meal, alphita,certainly was a particularly useful form of cereal. It was the basisfor maza (alphita kneaded with water, milk, oil or wine), whichwas, next to wheat bread, the main grain-based staple of theGreek diet, and for ptisane, barley gruel, a drink or soup with amedicinal function, especially when herbs and spices wereadded.38 It has been suggested that alphita, in the shape of pre-cooked (moistened and sun-dried) groats,39 may have beenground and mixed with additional ingredients, such as pulses ornuts, in mortaria.40 In fact, one could imagine that all kinds ofporridges,41 such as athera,42 a porridge or gruel that could bemade from alphita, emmer groats (olyra, a staple in the NearEast and Egypt in particular, and also the basis for the Romanporridge, puls),43 semolina (durum wheat flour – semidalis), orwheat (gruel – chondros), might have been mixed in amortarium. Literary sources, of course, usually mention justcooking pots in connection with porridge (e.g. Ar., Plut. 673),but there is at least one instance in which a bowl is connectedwith athera: a Hellenistic Cypriot syllabic inscription (pre-firing)on a relatively thick-walled shallow bowl of c. 33cm in diameter,dedicated to the Nymphs, designates this vessel, uniquely, as‘atharophoron’ (‘porringer’) – whether this means it served inthe preparation of athera or was merely a container of atheraremains, of course, uncertain.44 The inscription dates the bowl tothe year 225/4 bc. Even though typologically the bowl is not acharacteristic mortarium, its basic shape and size, as well as itsclay (medium-hard creamy-buff clay with creamy-yellow slip),are closely comparable to Cypriot mortaria.45

Spicy cheese sauces for tunny may, thus, not have been allthere was to Archaic mortaria. It is likely that mortaria weremulti-purpose household implements that were useful in thepreparation of daily foods. But what was it then that also madethem suitable votive offerings for Apollo?

3. Grinding for the gods: mortaria in sanctuaries

The complex of mortaria with votive inscriptions from Naukratisis unique: inscriptions on mortaria are rare,46 and nowhere else,it seems, are they as frequent as in Naukratis. The closestparallel is a single fragment of an Archaic mortarium in theHeraion of Samos (Fig. 16), of the same Cypro-Phoenician type,but with a far more abbreviated inscription: a single ‘H’ (eta) isincised on the outside of the rim.47 The mortarium is thus in alllikelihood a dedication to Hera: ‘HR’ or ‘HRH’ (but also, it seems,very rarely just ‘H’) are well known as abbreviations of Hera’sname on the group of sacred pottery with dipinti that has beenfound in great numbers in the Samian Heraion (as well as onsome examples at Naukratis – cf. Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs14–16),48 and that was presumably used in connection withsacred meals and other rites during the first half of the 6thcentury bc.49 The inscription makes it likely that this Samianmortarium, too, played a role in the cult, such as in thepreparation of sacrificial meals or other sacred foods, ratherthan being a personal dedication of a domestic implement. Thenumerous uninscribed mortaria found in the Samian Heraionfrom at least 630/20 bc onwards50 presumably served similarfunctions. Cult meals may well have required seasonings,sauces, mashes, meal or porridge, but we could also imaginethat the special sacrificial cake made from barley, honey and oil(psaistá, a sweet version of maza) that was offered to Hera onSamos51 might have been prepared in a mortarium. Anotheralternative, finally, is that the mortaria might have served in thepreparation of barley groats for sprinkling on sacrificial animals,but such an idea depends on whether one believes these oulai tohave been hulled or ground, rather than whole and unground.

Further afield, inscribed mortaria appear on Samothrace: inthe Sanctuary of the Great Gods two examples of late 6th or 5thcentury bc date were found in the fill beneath the floor of theHall of Votive Gifts.52 Their incised inscriptions, in the localidiom, on the upper surface of the lip read DEL and DE-, likeinscriptions on other types of pottery at Samothrace, and havebeen interpreted as an abbreviation of ‘sacred possession of thegods’.53 Their precise function remains obscure, but they maywell have fulfilled a role in the preparation of sacred meals orofferings in the sanctuary.

Even more intriguing is the occurrence of inscribed mortariaat the Corinthian Asklepieion in the late 5th century bc. Twotypical Corinthian mortaria – spouted, with spool-shapedhandles and gritted – carry painted votive inscriptions toAsklepios, ‘Aisklap[io]’, on the outside rim; according toRoebuck they were ‘probably used in sacrificial ritual’.54

However, rather than thinking in terms of ritual dining or foodfor the god, one might in this particular case instead consider adifferent function: Aristophanes in his Wealth (710–23) describeshow Asklepios in his sanctuary pounds Tenean garlic, fig juice

Figure 16 Mortarium from the SamianHeraion, inscribed ‘H’ (Samos, Heraioninv. K11146)

Page 44: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

36 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing

and mastix in a stone mortar, mixes it with Sphettian vinegar,and administers the mixture to the sleeping sick by spreading iton their eyelids. Though the effect is less than soothing, thescene may well point to the actual use of mortaria in thepreparation of healing salves, as well as food or drinks (such asgruel) for the sick. That mortaria were indeed used for thepreparation of medication55 is suggested by a passage inAristophanes’ Frogs (123–6), where Dionysos and Heraklesdiscuss various ways of committing suicide: hemlock ground56 ina mortarium (thyeia) is among the options rejected by Dionysos.

Finally, a bowl with a Cypriot inscription to Apollo Hylatesfrom Chytroi on Cyprus should be noted: the bowl seems to be amortarium even if its shape is somewhat unusual, and its votiveinscription clearly makes it a close parallel for the bowls fromNaukratis.57

Less unusual are mortaria without inscriptions. In theArchaic sanctuary of Ephesian Artemis, pottery used insacrificial meals during the last third of the 7th century bc andsubsequently deposited in a bothros included cooking pots andmortaria of Eastern Mediterranean type.58 In the Classical andHellenistic sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth, a range ofhousehold casseroles, stewpots, grinding-stones and mortariapresumably served for the preparation of ritual dinners as wellas votive cakes.59 Many other sanctuaries also feature the oddmortarium as well as other kitchen wares, among them Archaicsanctuaries at Miletos (Aphrodite),60 Assesos in the Milesianchora (probably Athena Assesia),61 Emecik (Apollo; Fig. 17)62

and Vroulia,63 as well as the sanctuaries of Hera Akraia atPerachora64 and of Aphaia on Aigina in the 5th century bc,65 andthe sanctuary of Apollo at Klaros in the 4th century bc.66 AtOlympia a number of mortaria have been found in wells fromthe 6th to the 4th centuries bc.67 Finally, mortaria are alsoknown from Etruscan and South Italian sanctuaries, includingsanctuaries of Apollo.68

Mortaria (and other kitchen pottery) were thus connectedwith a wide range of cults in many regions; in most cases, andespecially when they were found in bothroi, it seems that, ratherthan being personal votive offerings, they were used inconnection with the preparation of sacrificial meals, but perhapsalso of votive foods, healing foods or medication. This alsoseems to be supported by a much-worn 4th century bc marble

pestle from Lindos69 (Fig. 18) that carries a votive inscription toAthena: Ka/naio/j m'a0ne/qhken 0Aqhnai/hj e0pi\ bwmo/n . The weardates from after the inscription was incised,70 suggesting that thepestle was used in the service of the cult, and, given itsassociation with the altar, perhaps of sacred foods or of oulai.

That the preparation of foods could be an important activityin a cult is suggested by the role of aletris, (corn) grinder, thatwas fulfilled by Athenian girls in Athena’s cult (Ar., Lys. 642),and there may have been similar roles in other cults.71

Unfortunately, virtually nothing is known of the cult of Apollo atNaukratis other than that it was a filial cult of Apollo DidymeusMilesios,72 one of the main gods of Ionia with an importantsanctuary at Didyma. We can, however, assume that, as for othergods, food played a role in his festivals, notably the Thargeliaand Pyanopsia. Our best evidence for these festivals comes fromAthens, but they also existed in other Ionian cities, includingMiletos.73 The Pyanopsia featured a procession with an olive orlaurel branch (eiresione) attached to which were fillets, figs,bread, cakes and small pots with honey, oil and wine.74 And atboth the Pyanopsia and the Thargelia, a stew of differentvegetables or grains was offered to the god: at the Thargelia inMay, the first fruits of not yet ripe grains (thargelia) were boiledin a pot and bread was baked from the grain – seemingly bothbarley and wheat; at the Pyanopsia in October a sweetenedporridge (athare) of beans (pyana) and other pulses as well aswheat flour was cooked in a pot (chytra), offered to Apollo, andconsumed in a communal meal.

In addition, food was also prepared for the pharmakoi, thetwo paupers chosen as scape-goats and fed at state cost for sometime before the Thargelia. The Ionian poet Hipponax (frr. 5–10West) describes how the pharmakos is feasted on figs, barleycake (maza) and cheese and is then whipped out of the city withfig branches and sea onions; of these, at least the maza mighthave required a mortarium. Of course, mortaria might also,more generally, have been used in the preparation of sacredcakes,75 common offerings to all Greek gods. The Milesian so-called Molpoi Inscription, a lex sacra, mentions in an insertion ofthe 5th or 4th century bc cakes called ‘elatra plakontina’, ‘flatsacrificial cakes’76 made separately for Apollo Delphinios andHekate.77 Such ‘flat cakes’ were also called ‘plakous’ (after theflat, round seed of the mallow)78 and were served in theprytaneion of Naukratis during the sacrificial meals for ApolloPythios Komaios and Dionysos (Ath. 4.149–50, quotingHermeias [of Methymna? – 4th century bc]).79 A Classicalversion of this cake was close to the Roman ‘placenta’,80 a firmcake shell filled with alternating layers of honey with goat’s milkand dough, both of which, according to Cato (Agr. Orig. 76),required kneading in a mortarium.81 Meals at the prytaneion ofNaukratis (Ath. 4.149f) moreover included ‘a small bowl[lekarion] of barley gruel [ptisane] or of some vegetable in itsseason’, another potential dish for which a mortarium might berequired, alongside various types of bread, pig’s meat, eggs, andcheese; on non-festival days communal meals also seem to havebeen possible at the prytaneion (Ath. 4.150a). Of course, ApolloPythios Komaios, the main civic, polis god of Naukratis,82 wasdistinct from Apollo Didymaios Milesios, the apparent recipientof the mortaria, but communal meals were surely also part of hiscult – as might also be indicated by the 6th century bc limestonefigure of a woman kneading dough that was found in the templeof Apollo.83

Figure 18 Inscribed marble pestlefrom the sanctuary of Athena atLindos, 4th century BC

Figure 17 Mortarium from Emecik(inv. ST99K8c-16,78)

Page 45: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 37

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean

It seems likely, then, that mortaria were used for some kindof food preparation in Apollo’s sanctuary, either for sacrificialmeals and ritual dining or for offerings of food, as in othersanctuaries in East Greece and beyond.84 It remains thus toconsider the origin of these bowls: did they come to Naukratistogether with the many other imports from the main potteryproducing centres of Archaic East Greece?

4. Mortaria in the ancient Mediterranean: types and

distribution

As has been suggested already, most of the mortaria fromNaukratis belong to the common, flat-based variety of theEastern Mediterranean type that was extremely widespreadacross the whole Eastern Mediterranean and beyond.85 Thiswide distribution also included Egypt, and Naukratis is indeednot the only site in the Egyptian Nile Delta where many mortariahave been found. They have been recorded also at Herakleion,86

Tell Defenneh (cat. nos D1, Fig. 19, and D2, Fig. 20),87 Tell el-Balamun,88 Migdol (Site T.21),89 Tell el-Herr,90 Tell Tebilla,91 Tellel-Maskhouta,92 Mendes,93 Tanis,94 Heliopolis,95 as well as atKarnak,96 Gourna,97 San el-Hagar98 and Saft el Henneh.99 At TellTebilla,100 the maritime port of Mendes, for example, a numberof flat-based mortaria were discovered, mostly in mortuarycontexts of the Late Period (664–332 bc), often alongsidetorpedo amphorae. Evidence for abrasion in the base of vesselssuggests prolonged use before deposition. At Tell el-Herr,101 bothflat-based and ring-footed mortaria of the late 6th–early 5thcentury bc appear in connection with Cypro-Levantine basket-handled amphorae. Also at Migdol (Site T.21), large numbers ofSyro-Palestinian/Phoenician torpedo-shaped amphora as wellas basket-handled amphorae were found alongside themortaria,102 in addition to Greek pottery (especially Chiantransport amphorae) and local Egyptian wares.

In general, while Greek imports at these sites are usuallyrare, certainly as far as fine wares are concerned, the potteryfinds display a strong connection with the Levant and Cyprus,suggesting that mortaria reached Egyptian trading orredistribution centres in the Delta alongside other importedgoods from the Cypro-Phoenician realm. This is also supportedby recent research, which has shown that from as early as 700 bconwards mortaria are exceedingly common, especially inCyprus and the Levant.103

In the Levant, early examples come from a shipwreckrecently found in deep waters off the coast of Israel,104 as well asfrom Ashdod,105 Horbat Rosh Zayit in Galilee,106 Mersin,107 andpossibly Tyre;108 the exceptionally early examples reported fromTarsus/Cilicia remain puzzling.109 In the course of the 7thcentury bc, the type becomes more widespread, especially incoastal sites, such as En Gedi, Mez.ad H. ashavyahu, Tell Keisan,Batash, Miqne, and Tel Kabri,110 usually alongside other vesselsof Cypro-Phoenician origin. It continues until at least the 4thcentury bc. The situation is similar in Cyprus. Here, the firstknown occurrence of the type is associated with the first burialin tomb 79 in Salamis/Cellarka (c. 700 bc)111 where several dozenmortaria were found in the dromos. As in the Levant, mortariaare often found together with torpedo and basket-handledamphorae. The type then continues, in tombs at Salamis andelsewhere,112 through Cypro-Classical113 until about 300 bc.114

Variations in the shape of these Cypro-Phoenician mortariacan be observed right from the beginning, but most are only oflimited chronological relevance,115 such as the rim shapes (slimand elongated, triangular, rounded, more or less undercut),116

and the degree of waviness of the outside wall. The only trulysignificant development is the introduction of a variety with aring foot in the 6th century bc,117 which becomes common in the5th and 4th century bc in the Levant, Cyprus118 and Egypt.119

As regards the findspots of Cypro-Phoenician mortaria, inCyprus they were often placed in tombs,120 either unused (i.e.bought especially for deposition in the tomb), or perhaps usedjust once or twice, e.g. during a ritual meal. It has beensuggested that they served as containers for food for thedeceased,121 but one could also imagine them more generally asa symbol of wealth and plentiful food supplies. Sometimes theywere also used as lids for amphorae in children’s burials.122 Thatthey could also serve regular domestic functions is suggested bythe find in Amathus of over 400 fragments of mortaria insettlement contexts, in the area of the harbour and the so-calledpalace.123 In Palestine they are regularly encountered inresidential contexts, and with clear traces of use.124

Cyprus and Palestine, then, are clear centres for the use ofEastern Mediterranean mortaria; however, recent excavationshave also firmly placed Ionia on the map.125 Scattered exampleshad been known for some time from Crete,126 Rhodes,127

Smyrna128 and the Samian Heraion (Fig. 16),129 but recent work

Figure 20 Mortarium from TellDefenneh (cat. no. D2)

Figure 19 Mortarium from TellDefenneh (cat. no. D1)

Page 46: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

38 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing

at sites such as Miletos, Klazomenai, Ephesos, and Knidos/Emecik (Fig. 17) has dramatically altered the picture. At Miletosin particular, a great number of mortaria has been found in the7th and 6th century bc settlement. They show obvious traces ofabrasion and were clearly much used in the Archaic Milesiankitchen, outnumbering even cooking pots.130 What is interesting,however, is that the ring-footed version of the mortarium, whichin Cyprus and the Levant became common from the later 6thcentury bc onwards, seems to find few parallels in EastGreece.131 Furthermore, unlike in Cyprus, mortaria were notplaced in tombs, and their association with Cypriot basket-handled amphorae is far less strong than elsewhere, as the latterare attested only relatively infrequently in Ionia.132

Mediation by Ionia probably explains the appearance ofmortaria in the Milesian colonies on the Black Sea coast, such asBerezan133 and Histria.134 Related types, finally, also appear inNorth Africa (Tocra,135 Carthage136), Punic Sardinia (e.g. Nora,Tharros),137 Southern Italy, Sicily and Etruria,138 as well as Spain(e.g. Malaga, Ampurias).139 Notable is the absence of mortaria ofthe Eastern Mediterranean type on the Greek mainland, withthe exception of two examples at Corinth (late 7th–early 6thcentury bc)140 and one from the Athenian Agora.141 Yet this ‘GreatDivide’142 between the Greek mainland and the EasternMediterranean world is bridged to some extent later on by theeager adoption of the Eastern Mediterranean mortarium shapeon the part of the Corinthians, who at this time maintained closeconnections143 with East Greece: Corinthian mortaria in theirearliest form144 may well owe their existence to inspiration fromimported mortaria, as their shape knows no local predecessorand broadly reflects the Eastern Mediterranean type, even if thefabric is from the beginning distinctly Corinthian.

5. Eastern Mediterranean mortaria: production and trade

This wide distribution of Eastern Mediterranean mortaria –which in some ways mirrors the 2nd millennium bc spread ofstone tripod bowls (mortaria) from Anatolia to the Aegean, aform which also existed in a terracotta version and to which theymay in fact be partial successors145 – has given rise to somediscussion as to the origin of the type. Twenty-five years ago,Ephraim Stern still wrote that:

Since the main distribution of the early bowls [...] is in the Greekcolonies on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean […], it seems thatwe should rather seek its origin in the East-Greek cultural sphere,from which it spread south and east. A Cypriot source for these bowlsis also impossible for they first appear on that island at a later dateand continue for only a short time.146

Stern further assumed that the (later) variety with ring-footmight have been a local Levantine version.147 Already Petrie hadconsidered the ‘thick drab bowls’ an import into Egypt andPalestine, probably from Greece.148 We know today that in Ioniathe type indeed had a significant presence from the early 7thcentury bc onwards. But at least as early, if not earlier, are thefinds from Cyprus and the Levant, where the type was alsoextremely long-lived. Although in the Levant the bowls appearoften in coastal settlements, where also imported Greek fine-wares may be found,149 in Cyprus there is no particularconnection with Greek pottery, and, instead, mortaria are oftenfound with Cypro-Phoenician torpedo and basket-handledamphorae (as, indeed, also in the Levant and Egypt).

In fact, new research suggests that the picture is rather

complex, and involves not just the spread of a type across a largeregion, but also trade across a wide area over a long period oftime. This is indicated especially by clay analysis performed onmortaria in the Levant over the past two decades. Contrary towhat one might have expected, this has shown that virtuallynone of the analysed pieces were produced locally, but almostall must have been imported from one or more centres abroad.One such centre is the coastal region of North Syria, around Rasal-Bassit. Here, a Late Roman workshop supplied mortaria tomuch of the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, especiallyPalestine, Egypt, and Cyprus, but also Athens, Rome, Germaniaand Britannia.150 It has been suggested that a similar trade mightalready have taken place in the Archaic period, as some Archaicmortaria have a similar petrographic profile to the later Romanpieces. This includes one of the earliest mortaria from Palestine,the late 8th-century mortarium from the Elissa wreck offAshkelon.151 However, the petrographic profile of the north-eastern coast of the Mediterranean and that of Cyprus can bequite close. Thus, the extensive petrographic and NAA analysisof 5th century bc ring-footed and flat-based mortaria from Tellel-Hesi152 have suggested a North Syrian or a (Southern) Cypriotor possibly South Anatolian origin, i.e. a region with outcrops oflimestone and ophiolitic rocks. Similarly, mortaria from TellKeisan153 are thought to have been imported from Cyprus, NorthSyria or Eastern Anatolia. Ring-footed mortaria from Tell Anafashow great petrographic similarity to the mortaria of Tell el-Hesi, but feature additional gastropod shell temper and havebeen identified as Phoenician ‘White Ware’.154 Petrographicanalyses have attributed mortaria from Timnah – Tell Batash155

to a region with metamorphic or volcanic rocks, probably theEastern Aegean; three ring-footed mortaria of c. 450–350 bcfrom Apollonia-Arsuf, as well as further mortaria from Yavneh-Yam, Yaoz and Tel Michal, to a (Western) Cypriot or Aegean/East Greek origin;156 flat-based mortaria from Mez.adH. ashavyahu to an ophiolitic region, probably Cyprus;157 and aflat-based mortarium of the second half of the 7th century bcfrom Tel Kabri to a Cypriot coastal centre such as Amathus orEnkomi.158 Furthermore, three ring-footed mortaria from thelate 5th century bc shipwreck off Ma‘agan Mikha’el, south ofDor,159 have emerged as Cypriot.160

Cyprus thus presents itself as a highly likely majorproduction centre for mortaria at least from the 7th century bconwards. Reports of misfired examples of ring-footed, greenishbuff mortaria in the harbour area of Amathus, alongside Salamisone of the island’s main cosmopolitan trading communities,161

further support this assumption. Another possible productioncentre has been proposed at Kition/ Larnaka, for classic ‘PlainWhite’ pottery; Jean-François Salles claims to have recognized –through visual observation – mortaria of this class of potteryamong material in Ashdod, Hazor, Lachisch, Tel Michal andespecially Tell Keisan.162 Certainly connections between Cyprus,the Levant and Phoenicia were strong in the Archaic period,continuing the tradition of a ‘West Asiatic Trading Sphere’,possibly involving not just Phoenician but also Cypriot and EastGreek traders, with Amathus in particular functioning as agateway for trade with the Levant and Egypt.163

Other regions, however, should not be ruled out as furtherproduction centres for mortaria, notably the Eastern Aegean/East Greek region. This is suggested by the recent petrographicanalysis by Daniel Master of flat-based mortaria from

Page 47: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 39

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean

Ashkelon164 – all dating to before 604 bc, the date of thedestruction of Ashkelon – which points to the production of twomortaria in North Syria or Cyprus (Master’s Category 9:‘Ultramafic rocks and micritic sand’),165 and of another in theSouthern Aegean/Ionia (Master’s Category 14: ‘Highlymicaceous samples with yellow fabric’);166 one furthermortarium remained unclear (Category 12: ‘dark brown/blackfabric’).167

On the basis of such findings, Master,168 as well as Bennettand Blakely169 assumed specialised workshops in the NorthEastern Mediterranean, in Cyprus and/or possibly NorthernSyria, which from the 8th and 7th century bc exported mortariato the Levant, the Aegean and North Africa, thus dominating theMediterranean market in clay mortaria.170 One is reminded ofthe spread of basket-handled amphorae (often found inconjunction with mortaria, as we have seen), produced onCyprus since the late 8th century bc but later, at least from the5th century bc onwards, also elsewhere.171 However, only furtheranalysis, in particular of mortaria found in Ionia, can ultimatelyshed more light on the actual range of production centres ofArchaic mortaria.172

6. The mortaria of Naukratis: Cypriots, Phoenicians and Greeks

in Egypt

How does Naukratis fit into this picture? NAA analysisconducted by Hans Mommsen173 suggests a Cypriot origin forfour of the mortaria from Naukratis (Mommsen et al. Fig. 1).One (cat. no. 2, Fig. 2, sample Nauk 35) falls into a group (CYPT)that also contains a Cypro-Mycenaean three-handled jar (FS47)of LH IIIA2 date and that is close in composition to Cypriotpottery from Enkomi and Milia.174 Three (Figs 21 [cat. no. 10], 22[cat. no. 12] and 8 [cat. no. 19], samples Nauk 55, 67 and 68;groups EMEA and EMEa) go together with material fromEmecik on the Knidos peninsula that includes Cypriot terracottafigurines175 and one fragment of Cypro-Archaic I paintedpottery.176

The mortaria from Naukratis thus mirror what has beenestablished for much of the Levant, and what seems likely alsofor other mortaria in Egypt. We have already seen earlier that, as

in Cyprus and the Levant, mortaria in Egypt seem to be stronglyassociated with other types of Phoenician/Cypriot pottery,notably storage jars of torpedo and basket-handle shape.177 Wemay thus assume that mortaria reached the Nile Delta as part ofcargoes of Cypro-Phoenician wares, which might at times haveincluded East Greek pottery,178 and which may well have beencarried by Phoenician traders; they might in part have also beentargeted at the resident Judaean, Phoenician179 and Cypriot180

(mercenary) population in Egypt. Indeed, as Diodorus (1.68.8)points out, Phoenicians and Greeks were the main tradersadmitted into Egypt since the time of Psammetichos I.181 Thatsuch trade may date back to as early as the late 8th century bc issuggested by the Elissa shipwreck off Ashkelon, which inaddition to Phoenician pottery, including torpedo-amphorae,contained not only a mortarium of Eastern Mediterranean type(in all likelihood, though, just for the use of the crew)182 but alsoa piece of Egyptian pottery.183

The picture at Naukratis, at least at first glance, does notseem to fit particularly well the pattern encountered elsewherein Egypt and in the Levant. Greek finds dominate by far,dwarfing the very little Phoenician (Schlotzhauer and VillingFig. 24)184 and not much Cypriot evidence. Cypriot fine warepottery is hardly traceable;185 there are only two Cypro-syllabicinscriptions, both of Classical date (Höckmann and Möller Fig.6), some Cypriot-style statuary (some of it perhaps produced atNaukratis, though this is still disputed),186 Cypriot terracottastatuettes,187 and a handful of Greek-inscribed Cypriot amphorae(e.g. Johnston Fig. 14).188 This all mirrors more the situation inEast Greece and the Aegean in general, where Cypriot fine waresare also virtually absent, but terracotta figurines and limestonesculptures appear as dedications in sanctuaries. However, weneed to remember that Petrie himself had claimed that Cypriotbasket-handled amphorae (his class P) were ‘common’ in hisearly level, and there may have been many more uninscribed orundecorated mortaria, too. The picture at Naukratis, then, mayhave been somewhat closer after all to what we know from othersites in Egypt, though still undoubtedly of a far stronger Greekcharacter than elsewhere. Both the Cypriot amphorae andmortaria, moreover, bear inscriptions in Greek script, which, as

Figure 21 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 10; sample Nauk 67: groupEMEa)

Figure 22 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 12; sample Nauk 68: groupEMEa)

Page 48: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

40 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing

Alan Johnston189 has pointed out, ‘would not have been used byany Cypriot (Greek or Phoenician) in the archaic or earlyclassical period’. Even in the light of the new evidence from themortaria, Möller is thus probably right to conclude that there isvery little evidence for Cypriots at Naukratis, although this doesnot exclude the possibility of some of the trade at least havingbeen undertaken by Cypriots, or even of the odd Cypriot traderor mercenary passing through Naukratis.

Of course, all this goes decidedly against the commonperception that, at least in Archaic and Classical times, coarse,household pottery, was normally not traded, either becausesuch simple pottery could easily be produced locally, or becausedeeply enshrined local food customs would not allow for theimport of cooking and food preparation wares. Yet it seemsincreasingly that such trade did, in fact, take place, especially,though not exclusively, in a colonial or diaspora environment.Later on, imported items from the home region were eventuallysupplemented or replaced by locally produced ones or onesimported from elsewhere. This seems to be exactly whathappens also with the Cypro-Phoenician mortaria in the West:They first appear in Punic settlements, presumably via Cyprus,in the later 7th and early 6th centuries bc, but from the middleof the 6th century bc onwards, they become part of theCarthaginian cultural koine and are often locally produced andno longer recognizable as Cypro-Phoenician.190

The phenomenon of local production (and import fromother sources) can be witnessed in Naukratis, too: a furthermortarium that was analysed by NAA (Fig. 23, cat. no. 17,sample Nauk 18) falls into a chemical group (Marl) clearly ofEgyptian composition and is also visually recognisable as marl.191

Given the number of examples of locally produced paintedGreek-style vessels in a range of shapes that have recentlybecome known from Naukratis,192 as well as the long history ofthe imitation of other wares in Egypt,193 the find of locallyproduced mortaria (to which also cat. no. 1, Fig. 1, may belong)may hardly seem surprising. It is, in fact, not a one-off: bothmortaria and Cypro-Phoenician storage jars are reported fromTell Tebilla,194 Egyptian mortaria may have been found at Tell ElBalamun and Tell Defenneh (Fig. 19, and possibly Fig. 20),195

and there are imitations of Greek trade amphorae from TellDefenneh and T. 21 (Migdol) as well as a cooking pot ‘made ofNile ware after a Greek shape’.196 At T.21 (Migdol) there is also asmaller bowl of mortarium shape, made of ‘levigated Nile clay,tempered with black grits and mica, fired red-brown’ with a‘thick matte creamy slip’ – a description which fits quite wellwith the ‘regular’ Naukratis workshop fabric.197 However, theNaukratis mortarium as well as most of the other mortaria andamphorae are produced of marl, suggesting either that fordifferent kinds of shapes different clays were used or thatdifferent workshops were responsible for at least some of thesevessels.

Yet this local production never seems to have flourished allthat greatly, probably not least because Egyptian marl claymortaria proved no match for sturdy Cypriot vessels. Potters andtheir customers seem to have been quite aware of the propertiesof certain clays to make pots good for certain functions,particularly if it was a matter of heavy-duty daily use; this seemssuggested in particular for cooking pots,198 for which the islandof Aigina, termed ‘chytropolis’, appears to have been famous,199

and which also may have been imported from East Greece intothe Levant.200 For mortaria, too, such considerations may haveplayed a role201 – presumably already with regard to the widelytraded Cypro-Phoenician mortaria, but certainly for Corinthianmortaria from the Late Archaic-Early Classical period onwards.The most common Corinthian types, made from extremely hard-wearing Corinthian ‘tile fabric’ with an additional scattering ofgrit in the lower part of the basin for increased abrasive effect(cf. especially cat. no. 22, Fig. 11),202 were traded to many placesacross the Mediterranean including Athens203 (where they seemto have replaced local production to a large extent), Miletos,204

Histria,205 Cyrene,206 South Italy and Etruria, as well as, as wenow know, Naukratis (cat. nos 21–23, Figs 10–12).207 Also at 4thand 3rd century bc Euhesperides (Cyrenaica),208 Keith Swift hasestablished a very high proportion of imported coarse-wares,209

including Corinthian mortaria and Aeginetan cooking pots: theymay have reached North Africa as part of the same tradeassemblage, alongside Attic black glaze vessels.210 Qualitymattered not just for fine wares, but also for common householdpottery.

7. Conclusion

We have seen that mortaria form a small but significant groupamong the pottery from Apollo’s sanctuary at Naukratis fromthe first half of the 6th to at least the later 5th century bc. Manyof them carry votive dedications to Apollo and are likely to haveplayed a role in the preparation of sacred or communal foods inthe sanctuary. Several of the Classical examples are ofCorinthian manufacture, at the time a prolific exporter of high-quality mortaria across the Mediterranean. That such a tradeexisted already in the Archaic period is, however, indicated bythe earlier mortaria from the sanctuary, which could be shownto belong to an Eastern Mediterranean, or Cypro-Phoenician,type that was widespread in a koine encompassing Ionia,Cyprus, the Syro-Palestinian coast, northern Sinai and the NileDelta,211 and including to some degree the Phoenico-Punicregions of North Africa and the Western Mediterranean and theIonian settlements on the Black Sea coast – a koine that seems tohave extended to culinary habits,212 and in which Cyprus playeda large part in the production of goods, and where even coarse-ware mortaria could be traded long distances. Who the traderswere remains open to discussion. In Naukratis certainly themortaria were used and dedicated by Greeks, similar to the

Figure 23 Mortarium from Naukratis(cat. no. 17, sample Nauk 18: EgyptianMarl)

Page 49: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 41

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean

Cypriot basket-handled amphorae inscribed in Greek characters,concerning which Alan Johnston has concluded that ‘Ionianswere trading amphorae of a possible Cypriot origin withNaukratis; possibly Knidians and Aeginetans were also involved’.Given the evidence discussed above, however, it seems thatPhoenicians, too, as well as perhaps Cypriots, may have beeninvolved,213 and in later periods perhaps mainland Greeks, too.

The mortaria of Naukratis thus bear witness to a trade inmortaria, first, from the beginning of the Archaic period, ofCypro-Phoenician origin, and later, throughout the Classicalperiod, of Corinthian manufacture – a situation that certainlycontradicts the common assumption that coarse wares were nottraded. For later periods the phenomenon of bulk trade inmortaria has of course been known for some time: in Romantimes, North Syrian mortaria – popular quite possibly because oftheir hard and sharp igneous temper214 – were traded, as we haveseen, to much of the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, even asfar north as Germany and Britain.215 Here, mortaria for the firsttime appeared only after the Roman conquest,216 as part of thespread of the Mediterranean cuisine that required new vessels,such as the dolium and the mortarium. Perhaps not quite in thesame way, but also as part of a movement of peoples, culinarycustoms or techniques, the mortarium had arrived in Romecenturies earlier from Greece and the Phoenico-Punic region.217

And some centuries earlier, we now begin to see that it had cometo mainland Greece from the Eastern Mediterranean region, at atime when increased contact through trade and settlements lednot just to the adoption of important cultural features such asthe alphabet, but quite possibly also ‘kick-started’ thedevelopment of the Corinthian mortarium, which some decadeslater was to take over the Mediterranean market in mortariafrom its Cypro-Phoenician predecessors. Defying expectationsraised by their unprepossessing appearance, mortaria thus shedunexpected light on the network of trade and shared culturethat linked the various cultures of the Archaic and ClassicalMediterranean.

Catalogue of mortaria from Naukratis and Tell Defenneh in the

British Museum1. GR 1886.4-1.790 (Fig. 1) Nearly complete bowl, long slim collar rim, flat base. Clay buff to light orange-brown, fairly hard, some vegetable inclusions (marl clay?).Graffito on inside wall below lip: vac twpoll[…]i vac retrograde. V-shapeincised on inside wall opposite inscription. H. of bowl 8.4cm, Diam. 30.7cm.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 77, pl. 32.77; Bernand 1970, 646 no. 38.2. GR 1886.4-1.80 (= Nauk 35; CYPT) (Fig. 2) Large fragment of bowl (2 joining fragments), wavy outside wall, flat base.Beige-yellow clay, core light orange, quite dense and hard. H. 15.8cm (originalH of bowl 8cm), W. 31cm, Diam. 32cm.Graffito on outside wall below lip: ]twpollw[.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 78, pl. 4.2 (presumably) and 32.78; Bernand 1970, 646 no.39, pl. 19.2.3. GR 1886.4-1.71 3 joining fragments from rim of bowl. Light yellow-beige clay, relatively denseand hard. W 25.5cm, H. 8.2cm, Diam. 36cm.Graffito on inside of lip: ]twpollw.[ retrograde.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 68, pl. 32.68; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 29, pl. 19.4. GR 1886.4-1.72 2 joining fragments from rim of bowl. Light yellow-beige clay, relatively dense.W. 11.5cm, H. 6cm, Diam. 29cm.Graffito on inside of lip: ]emi retrograde.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 69, pl. 32.69; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 30, pl. 19.5. GR 1910.2-22.18 Probably joining 1886.4-1.79; possibly the same bowl as 1886.4-1.74.Fragment from rim of bowl. Yellow-green clay, core light orange. H. 6cm, W.

10cm, Diam. 41cm.Graffito inside below lip: ]w[.Petrie 1886b, no. 402, pl. 34.402; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (‘il ne s’agit là quede debris’).6. GR 1886.4-1.73 Three joining fragment from rim of bowl (top lost). Very light, yellow-greenish, friable clay. H. 6cm, W. 10cm.Graffito on inside of rim: ]pol[ retrograde. Left stroke of lambda not quite asin Petrie 1886b.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 70, pl. 32.70; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 31.7. GR 1886.4-1.79 Possibly the same bowl as 1910.2-22.18 and 1886.4-1.74.Fragment from rim of bowl. Clay yellow-beige, core light orange. H. 7.5cm, W.10cm.Graffito on inside of rim: ]oll[ retrograde.Bernand 1970, pl. 19.8. GR 1886.4-1.74Possibly the same bowl as 1910.2-22.18 and 1886.4-1.79.Two joining fragments from rim of bowl, Light yellow clay, fairly dense, corepinkish-red. H. 10cm, W. 13.5cm, Diam. 43.Graffito on inside of lip: vac kri[ retrograde (Bernand reads kai).Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 71, pl. 32.71; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 32, pl. 19.9. GR 1886.4-1.75 (= Nauk 56; single) (Fig. 6)Large fragment from bowl, wavy outside wall, flat base. Yellow clay, light andchalky. H 15cm (H of bowl 8.6cm), W 13.8cm, Diam. 32cm. Graffito on outside wall below rim: twpol[. Last letter has longer verticalthan in the drawing in Petrie 1886b.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 72, pl. 32.72; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 33, pl. 19.10. GR 1886.4-1.77 (= Nauk 67; EMEa) (Fig. 21) Large fragment from bowl, wavy outside wall, flat base. Light yellow clay,relatively dense. H 13.4cm (original H of bowl 9.4cm), W. 10.1cm, Diam. 29cm.Graffito on inside of rim: ]wpoll[ retrograde. Omega cut lower than otherletters.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 74, pl. 32.74; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 35, pl. 19.11. GR 1886.4-1.78Fragment from rim of bowl. Yellow-beige clay, core light orange, fairly denseclay. H 7.5cm, W. 7.2cm, Diam. c. 30cm.Graffito on inside of rim: ]wn[. Messy writing, unclear whether second letter isorthograde or retrograde nu; reading as lambda is unlikely. Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 76, pl. 32.76; Bernand 1970, 646 no. 37.12. GR 1886.4-1.81 (= Nauk 68; EMEa) (Fig. 22)Fragment from rim of bowl. Yellow-beige clay, fairly dense and hard. H.12.3cm, H. 8.4cm, Diam. 31cm.Graffito on outside wall below rim: ]lwnoj[. Bernand incorrectly reads]olwno[.Marked in pencil inside, possibly reads ‘40 ft W out tem Ap’.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 79, pl. 32.70; Bernand 1970, 646 no. 40, pl. 19.13. GR 1888.6-1.390 (Fig. 5)Fragment from rim of bowl. Yellow-greenish clay, quite hard. H. 8cm, W.11.8cm, Diam. 31cm.Graffito on inside wall below rim: ].wllon[ orthograde; first letter difficult,last seems to be nu.Bernand 1970, pl. 19.1 (illustrated but not included in catalogue).14. GR 1886.4-1.76Fragment from rim of bowl, very slim profile. Yellow-beige clay, core lightorange, fairly dense and hard. H. 6cm, W. 6.5cm, Diam. 35cm. Graffito on inside of rim: ]nj e[ retrograde. Three-bar sigma. Last letteruncertain, might also be iota. Bernand reads, less likely, ]isn[. Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 73, pl. 32.73; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 34; Johnston 1974, 97.15. GR 1888.6-1.391Fragment from rim of bowl, rim only barely set off from wall. Yellow-beigeclay, core light orange, relatively dense. H. 8cm, W. 11.5cm, Diam. 38cm.Graffito on inside of rim and bowl, in two lines: ]ari[ | ]e[. Inscription is,unusually for an incised inscription on the inside, clearly orthograde.Bernand 1970, pl. 19.16. GR 1910.2-22.17(= Nauk 52; single) (Fig. 3) Fragment from rim of bowl, slightly thickened rim; repair hole underneathrim. Greenish-yellow clay, quite hard. H. 4.5cm ,W. 11.4cm, Diam. 35cm.Graffito on lip: ]nun[.Petrie 1886b, pl. 34.401; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (‘il ne s’agit là que dedebris’).17. GR 1910.2-22.15 (= Nauk 18; Marl) (Fig. 23) Fragment from rim of bowl, very long and slim collar rim. Clay brown, porous,with vegetable inclusions (Egyptian marl clay). H. 6.5cm, W. 8cm., Diam.33cm.

Page 50: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

42 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing

Graffito on outside of rim: ]nel[.Petrie 1886b, pl. 34.399; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (‘il ne s’agit là que dedebris’).18. GR 1886.4-1.792 (Fig. 7) Fragment of flat base of bowl with distinctive thread marks. Graffitounderneath foot: E-shaped sign. L. 11.5cm, Diam. base c. 20cm.Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 75, pl. 32.75; Bernand 1970, 646 no. 36.19. GR 1910.2-22.16 (= Nauk 55; EMEA) (Fig. 8) Fragment of base of bowl with low broad ring foot. Inside of bowl worn, footslightly worn. Clay light orange, relatively dense and fine, outside surfacebeige. H 10.5cm, W 8.4cm, Diam. foot 21cm.Graffito underneath base: ]nai Kr[.Petrie 1886b, pl. 34.400; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (‘il ne s’agit là que dedebris’).20. GR 1886.4-1.1769 (Fig. 9)Fragment from bottom of bowl, low disk foot. L. 15.2cm, Diam. foot 20cm.Graffito underneath foot: vac panfa vac.Unpublished.21. GR 1888.6-1.762 (Fig. 10) Fragment from rim of bowl with stamped decoration. Corinthian ‘tile fabric’.H. 8.1cm, W. 12cm, Diam. 38cm.Petrie 1886b, pl. 4.5.22. GR 1965.9-30.539 (Fig. 11) Fragment from rim of bowl with spool-shaped handle; added grit inside.Corinthian ‘tile fabric’. H. 8cm, W. 10.6cm, Diam. 27cm.Petrie 1886b, pl. 4.7.23. GR 1965.9-30.540 (Fig. 12)Fragment from base of bowl; part of foot broken off, stamped rosetteunderneath centre of base. Corinthian ‘tile fabric’. L. 15.1cm, W. 10.6cm.Petrie 1886b, pl. 4.6.24. GR 1965.9-30.537 (Fig. 13) Large fragment from heavy basin, heavy rounded rim, groove around outsidewall, spool-shaped handle. Fine, sandy yellow fabric. H. of bowl 6.9cm, W.22.2cm, L. 13.7cm, Diam. 29cm.Unpublished.25. GR 1965.9-30.538Fragment from rim of bowl with ribbed spool shaped handle. L. 7.8cm, W.8.1cm, Diam. c. 26cm.Petrie 1886b, pl. 4.8.26. GR 1965.9-30.966 (Fig. 4)Fragment from rim of bowl, with spool-shaped handle; fine sandy red clay;repair hole. H. 10cm, W. 16.5cm, Diam. 27cm.Unpublished.D1. EA 23685 (1887.1-1.1258) (Fig. 19)Dark yellow-green clay with brown-reddish-grey core, porous with somevegetable matter; inside worn away so much that hole is worn into base;underside of base worn, too. H. of bowl 6cm, Diam. 23.8cm.Unpublished.D2. EA 23703 (1887.1-1.1215) (Fig. 20)Beige clay, relatively dense but with some vegetable matter; inside worn. H. ofbowl 8.8cm, Diam. 27.5cm.Unpublished.

Illustration creditsFig. 16 author; fig. 17 D. Berges; fig. 18 Copenhagen, National Museum.All other photos the British Museum; all drawings K. Morton/A.Villing.

Notes* Many colleagues and friends contributed to this study, and I am

grateful to all of them. I would like thank in particular Volkmar vonGraeve for suggesting to me to study and publish the Archaic bowlsfrom Miletos, and thus kindling my initial interest in ‘drab bowls’;Regina Attula, Ahmet Aydemir, Donald Bailey, Iulian Bîrzescu, BodilBundgaard-Rasmussen, Dmitry Chistov, Elizabeth Greene, AlexFantalkin, Alexander Herda, Bilge Hürmüzlü, Alan Johnston,Michael Kerschner, Gudrun Klebinder-Gauss, Birgit Konnemann,Astrid Lindenlauf, Hans Mommsen, Stavros Paspalas, ElizabethPemberton, Marcella Pisani, Udo Schlotzhauer, Jeffrey Spencer,Keith Swift, Jonathan Tubb, and Dyfri Williams for constructivediscussions, helpful advice and sharing their own knowledge andmaterial; the audiences at lectures at the Australian ArchaeologicalInstitute at Athens in 2005, at the conferences ‘Formes et usages desvases grecs’ in Brussels and ‘Walls of the Ruler’ in Swansea in 2006for their comments and suggestions; and Helen Clark, Jan Jordan,

Guy Sanders, Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier andBirgit Konnemann for making possible the study of mortaria at theAthenian Agora, ancient Corinth, and Samos. Alan Johnstongenerously contributed readings of the votive inscriptions.

1 Petrie 1886bb, pl. 4.2 Repair of mortaria of this type is attested also elsewhere, for example

in domestic contexts at Miletos, suggesting that these bowls werevalued enough to warrant the effort of repair.

3 Petrie 1886bb, 18, 20, pl. 17.17, 20-1. These amphorae are what wenow call (Cypriot) basket-handled amphorae: Johnston 1982, 35-7;Johnston, this volume, Table 1, Johnston Fig 14. See also below, n.171.

4 ‘A bowl of thickish drab (P), with a short vertical brim’, together witha large ‘P’ amphora, is recorded in the stratum above the burnt layer,but below the scarab factory level, in the southern part of Naukratistown (Petrie 1886bb, 21); ‘P thickish drab bowl with short verticalbrim (like that of 320 level)’ in a higher level from the clearing of aroad about 200 feet north of the scarab factory (ibid, 22); ‘P, dish,small spout, and a conical bottom of a vase’ at a higher level fromroad-mending on the east of the town (ibid, 22-3). Basket-handledamphorae of the same type are, in addition to those just mentioned,recorded in Petrie’s ‘deepest strata’ of Naukratis town, at the east ofthe south wall of the temenos of Apollo (ibid, 21), in the burnt layerof the southern part of the town (ibid), and in the scarab factorylayer (ibid p. 22).

5 Petrie 1886bb, 20.6 Petrie 1886bb, 23.7 One might be tempted, of course, to associate the inscription ‘Kri-’ on

cat. no. 8 with the name of Krithis, attested in a graffito at AbuSimbel as the name of one of the mercenaries in the service ofPsammetichos I (cf. Haider 2001, 204, 213 fig. 3). On cat. no. 19 (Fig.8) a similar name might be identified, but the mortarium is clearlymuch later in date. The inscription ‘Panpha’ on cat. no. 20 (Fig. 9)must be an abbreviation; the ‘E’-like shape on cat. no. 18 (Fig. 7) maybe a symbol (trade mark?).

8 This type of bowl is known under a number of different names inscholarly literature, such as ‘Persian bowl’ (based on the assumptionthat they are diagnostic for the Persian period in the Levant – seebelow section 4), ‘cuvettes lourdes’ or ‘plats creux’, ‘open bowls’, aswell as ‘Reibschüsseln’ or ‘Reibschalen’ (‘grinding bowls’) and‘mortaria’; for a discussion of the terminology, see Sapin 1998, 88-90.I have opted here for ‘mortaria’, since the function of these bowls (asdiscussed below) in essence corresponds to that of the Romanmortarium, which was a grinding bowl much used in the Romankitchen, especially for the grinding of spicy sauces and the grindingor mixing of other soft creamy and dough-like substances, oftentogether with spices, and distinct from a pounding bowl for grain:Hilgers 1969, 68-70, 225-7, cf. also 252, and Baatz 1977. On the termmortarium and its use in scholarship, see also Blakely and Bennett1989, 49-50.

9 The term ‘bacino di tipo fenicio-cipriota’ has also been chosen byBellelli and Botto 2002 in their recent comprehensive survey of thetype in the West.

10 Ring bases for mortaria seem to have been introduced in the courseof the 6th century bc; see also below, ns 117 and 131.

11 Spool-shaped handles with dense vertical ribbing occur frequentlyon mortaria of heavy basin-shape like our cat. no. 24 (Fig. 13), fromthe latter part of the 5th century bc onwards, through to theHellenistic period (Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 370 no. 1913, pl. 91), butthey are also found elsewhere and on other types of mortaria: cf. e.g.Olynthus XIII, 414 no. 1030, pl. 250.

12 A close parallel for cat. no. 21 (Fig. 10) comes from Cyrene (Thorn2005, 638, 765 fig. 410); it has tongues on the top as well as theoutside of the rim. Corinthian mould-made mortaria of ‘tile fabric’with stamped tongue-decoration on the rim have been found also inthe Tile Factory in Corinth, probably dating from the first half of the5th century bc: Hesperia 23 (1954), 130 fig. 2b-c; cf. also Sparkes andTalcott 1970, 12, 370 no. 1913, pl. 91. For cat. no. 22 (Fig. 11) compareCorinthian mortaria with beaded spool-shaped handles from themid-5th century onwards: e.g. Corinth 15.3, no. 2158, p. 348; Corinth7.3, no. 622.

13 Ongoing clay analysis of examples of this type of mortarium fromAigina (Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens) as well as Miletosand Naukratis (Department of Conservation, Documentation andScience, British Museum, and Hans Mommsen, Bonn) should help toestablish its origin. The type is widespread in the Mediterraneanfrom the third quarter of the 5th century bc onwards; examples are

Page 51: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 43

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean

known from Athens (Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 370 no. 1913, pl. 91)and from as far north as Torone and as far south as Miletos (seePemberton and Villing [forthcoming]).

14 Corinthian mortaria and their typology will be discussed in detail byPemberton and Villing (forthcoming). A general typology of Greekmortaria had already been drawn up by Matteucci 1986, but is inneed of refinement, updating and correction. It seems that Corinthspecialised in the production and trade of a number of commoditiesmade in its special ‘tile fabric’, notably roof tiles, perirrhanteria andmortaria: Iozzo 1985, 58-9.

15 For recent summaries and discussions with further references, seeBellelli and Botto 2002, 296-300; Berlin 1997b, 123-4; Matteucci1986. A new study with particular reference to Corinthian mortaria isin preparation: Pemberton and Villing (forthcoming).

16 Oren 1984, 17.17 Salles 1985, 1991. Cf. also Defernez 2001, 407-8.18 Hanfmann 1963, 90, refers to customs in modern Cyprus (‘In Cyprus

[…] peasants are said to use such mortars as milk bowls and formaking cheese’) while Tschumi (1931) suspects that thin-walledRoman Terra Sigillata mortaria might have been used for makingmild curdle, citing parallels in latter-day Swiss cheese manufacture;cf. also Amyx and Lawrence 1975, 110. Against: Sparkes and Talcott1970, 222 n. 5; Baatz 1977, 148.

19 Most of the many mortaria at Miletos, for example, show distinctsigns of attrition, as do most of the mortaria in the Levant. In Egypt,attrition is reported for the mortaria from Tell Tebilleh (Mumford2004) but not for those from Tell el-Herr (Defernez 2001, 407).Perhaps the situation in Cyprus (where many mortaria appear‘unused’: Salles and Rey 1993, 238-9, with note 23) is different onaccount of most of the published mortaria having been found intombs, where they might have been placed while relatively new.

20 On traces of attrition from the point of view of use-wear analysis, seeSkibo 1992, 115-7, 132-3.

21 A highly detailed analysis of the traces of use on mortaria from TellKeisan has been undertaken by Sapin 1998.

22 Their Greek names were thyeia or igdys, the pestle associated withthem ‘aletribanos’ or ‘doidyx’; cf. Amyx 1958, Sparkes 1962; Dalby2003, 101; Buchholz 1963, 67.

23 Berlin 1997b, 123-4; Sparkes 1962, 125-6, esp. 125; Moritz 1958, 22 n. 4.24 Sparkes 1962, 126; Amyx 1958, 239-41.25 A passage in the Bible, Proverb 27.22 (‘Crush [‘katash’] a fool in a

mortar [‘maktesh’] with a pestle [‘`eliy’] along with crushed grain[‘riyphah’], yet his folly will not depart from him’) – presumablydating back to the Archaic or at least Classical period – may refer towheat being ground to meal in a mortarium, yet given theuncertainty as to the precise meaning of the crucial words, wecannot be sure whether the pounding of grain in a larger holmos (cf.below, n. 34) might not be referred to instead. Another passage in theBible (Num. 11.8) contrasts the pounding of manna in a mortar(‘maktesh’) with its being ground in a mill.

26 Pemberton and Villing (forthcoming). The appearance of a spout inmany examples from the later 6th century bc onwards, moreover,may well suggest a change in use or a diversification of mortaria fordifferent uses.

27 London, BM GR 1903.5-18.3 (Terracotta 957), Corinthian, early 4thcentury bc. Higgins 1954, 260 no. 957, pl. 135.

28 London, BM GR 1873.8-20.576 (Terracotta 969), Corinthian, early4th century bc. Higgins 1954, 263 no. 969, pl. 136.

29 Cf. Corinth 12 (1952), 192 no. 1430 (3971), pl. 86. On pestles ingeneral, see Sparkes 1962, 125; Amyx 1958, 239; Buchholz 1963, 67.

30 On ancient cheese-graters, see also below, n. 71; Weber, this volume,n. 30.

31 On these Boiotian figurines as well as on the phenomenon of ‘dailylife’ terracotta figurines in general, see most recently Pisani 2003,esp. 6 fig. 5 (figurine of a man grating cheese into amortarium/basin), pp. 13-4 nos 49-65 (catalogue of figurines with amortarium or holmos).

32 Fr. 26 West = Ath. 304b; cf. also Anianos fr. 5 = Ath. 282b. Onmyttotos, see especially Dalby 1996, 107 with note 48.

33 Cf. Bats 1988, 37-8; Dalby 2003, 307 s.v. soup. Cf. also Garnsey 1998,218-20.

34 In the Attic stelai, holmoi of stone and of wood (and possiblypottery?) are listed: Amyx 1958, 236-8, 282-4. For representations, cf.Sparkes 1962, 1965, and most recently Neils 2004. Note thatSchattner (1995, 81-3) suggested that side B of the Apries amphora(Bailey Fig. 1) showed two women working at a holmos, but thisinterpretation remains doubtful.

35 Marble mortaria existed in Greece, East Greece and Cyprus at leastsince Hellenistic times in very similar shapes to the typical Corinthianmortaria, with handles and a (mostly ornamental) spout; cf. mostrecently Korkut 2002, 236-8.

36 Cf. e.g. Artzy and Lyon 2002, 187 (referring to the possibility thatmortaria were used as secondary grinders to achieve a finer grain);Matteucci 1986, 250-2. Cf. Foxhall and Forbes 1982, 77, for practicalexperiments with hulling barley in mortarium (a stone mortariumwith a wooden pestle working best). Note also that Galen (Dealimentorum facultatibus 1.9. 502, 566) suggests rubbing soakedbarley in a mortarium for removing the spelt, while advising againstgrinding it raw in a mortarium; cf. Darmstaedter 1933.

37 For Archaic Miletos, for example, it has been shown that barley wasby far the most important cereal crop, followed by wheat (includingEinkorn, Emmer and spelt) and millet: Stika 1997; cf. also Greaves2002, 24-5. Wheat was, of course, one of the main export staples fromEgypt to Greece, even if such trade is not securely attested before the5th century bc: Möller 2000, 210-11; Austin 1970, 35 with n. 2. Onsemolina, see also Ath. 1.24, citing Antiphanes (4th century bc); cf.Dalby 1996, 91; Sapin 1998, 111-2 n. 53; Salles 1991, 220.

38 Dalby 2003, 45-7; Darmstaedter 1933.39 Dalby 2003, 132; Hill and Bryer 1995; Brumfield 1997, 153-4. 40 As argued by Sapin 1998, 110-17. Cf. also Brumfield 1997, 154-5. 41 Cf. Dalby 2003, 349.42 Perpillou-Tomas 1992; Sapin 1998, 112; Thompson 1995.43 Braun 1995, 34-6.44 Mitford 1980, 100-2, no. 133; Salles 1993, 174. Only rim fragments are

preserved and no traces of either wear or burning are recorded in thepublication of the bowl.

45 It might be tempting to interpret also the inscriptions ‘kri-’ (cat. no. 8)and ‘-nai kr-’ (Fig. 8, cat. no. 19) as somehow related to krithe, barley,but this would be pure speculation.

46 In addition to these mortaria with votive inscriptions, anunpublished mortarium from Shave Zion, supposedly inscribed withpersonal name in Greek, is mentioned by Stern 1982, 98.

47 Samos, Heraion K11146. H. 7.2 dm, W. 9.4cm, Diam. 35cm. Yellow,relatively porous clay with a yellow slip. I am indebted to AlexanderFantalkin for pointing out this fragment to me, and to Professor W.-D.Niemeier / German Archaeological Institute for permission topublish it.

48 See Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume. 49 Kron 1984, 1988.50 Finds from a bothros dated to about 600 bc: Walter and Vierneisel

1959, 28, Beilage 61. Cf. also Isler 1978, 97 no. 146, 159 nos 597-8, pl.50, Beilage 3 and 19; Furtwängler 1980, 204 no. I/35 (Phase I before630/20 bc). Almost all the Archaic mortaria from the Heraion are ofthe flat-based Eastern Mediterranean type.

51 Cf. Kron 1988, 140.52 Samothrace 51.922 and 51.923: Lehmann 1960, 49 nos 12-13, pl. 3.12-

13; Lehmann and Spittle 1964, 209-10 nos A6-A7.53 Lehmann 1960, 14-16. 54 Roebuck 1951, 131, 135 nos 61 (not inscribed), 65, 66, pl. 50.55 Roman sources for the use of mortaria in the preparation of medicine

are collected by Hilgers 1969, 226; cf. also Matteucci 1986, 249.Apollo, too, was of course at times a healing deity; there is noevidence to suggest such a role specifically for Apollo at Naukratis orDidyma/Miletos, although it is attested in Berezan and Olbia (cf.Herda [forthcoming b], chapter 5). In addition, mortaria could beused for preparing paint or mortar (cf. Hilgers 1969, 226), and thereare finds of actual mortaria associating them with workshops.

56 This path to death is described as ‘tetrimmene’, so that it is obviouslythe word ‘tribo’, to grind, that is associated with the mortar, thyeia.

57 V. Karageorghis and O. Masson, BCH 1960, 260 fig. 29. I am gratefulto Ursula Höckmann for pointing out this piece. Note also the rimfragment of a 5th century bc stone bowl from Itanos, presumablyfrom the sanctuary on the acropolis, which seems to carry adedication by a woman: Sitia inv. Ms 10244; BCH 121 (1997), 822 no.C. I am grateful to Didier Viviers and Athena Tsingarida for thisinformation.

58 Kerschner 1997b, 119 no. 10, p. 122 pl. 4.20, pp. 140-3 no. 63, pl. 9.63,pp. 186, 203.

59 Bookidis 1990, 86-94; Pemberton 1989, 67-8. For the types of cakesthat would have been produced in the sanctuary, see Brumfield 1997.

60 Several dozens of 7th–6th century bc mortaria as well as cookingpots.

61 Kalaitzoglou (forthcoming).62 The opportunity is taken here to illustrate a previously unpublished

Page 52: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

44 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing

example of an Archaic mortarium from the recent excavations atEmecik, from the fill at the southern Temenos wall: Eski Datça,Depot inv. ST99K8c-16,78; H. 4.7cm, W. 8cm; coarse light yellow-green clay, Munsell 2.5YR 8/4, yellow slip. Photograph D. Berges. Iam grateful to D. Berges for permission to publish this piece, and toR. Attula for pointing out its existence.

63 One mortarium in a bothros, together with drinking cups, lamps,amphorae and chytrai: Kinch 1914, 99.

64 One 5th century bc (?) mortarium: BSA 64 (1969), 183 fig. 10.Z35.65 I am grateful to D. Williams for this information.66 de la Genière and Jolivet 2003, 127, 134 fig. 44.1-2.67 Gauer 1975, 157-61.68 Matteucci 1986, 274.69 Copenhagen, National Museum inv. 10864; Blinkenberg 1931, 748 no.

3229, pl. 152. I am grateful to B. Bundgaard-Rasmussen for providingphotographs of this piece. D. Williams furthermore draws myattention also to an andesite millstone from the sanctuary of Aphaiaon Aigina that is inscribed ‘A’.

70 This was observed first by Blinkenberg; I am grateful to B.Bundgaard-Rasmussen for confirming Blinkenberg’s observation.

71 Cf. also Homer, Od. 20.105, where the gyne aletris is a female slavecharged with grinding barley and wheat. Note also the term‘aletribanos’ for a pestle (supra, n. 22). There may also have beenother specific female roles associated with the processing of grain:on a Boiotian skyphos one of the women pounding (presumablyhulling) grain is called Kodoma, ‘toaster of grain’ – possibly a cultname? Women were traditionally in charge of grain-processing andbaking (Lewis 2002, 65-71), but on a Campana dinos of c. 530 bc awoman and a nude man are jointly pounding away at a holmos,possibly hulling grain: Boston, 13.205; Fairbanks 1928, 191 no. 546, pl.58.546. We may also note the presence of a cheese-grater in aBoiotian 4th-century temple inventory: SEG XXIV.361 line 18.

72 On Apollo at Naukratis, see Ehrhardt, Höckmann and Schlotzhauer(forthcoming); on the cult of Apollo at Miletos and Didyma and inthe Milesian colonies, see Herda (forthcoming a, b). Cf. alsoBîrzescu, this volume.

73 Simon 1983, 76-8; cf. Deubner 1932, 179-201 (esp. 188-90, 198-9).74 Simon 1983, 77; cf. Nilsson, 1906, 105-15; Deubner 1932, 181-8.75 Cf. Dalby 1996, 111, 165; Dalby 2003, 70.76 Cf. also Kearns 1994, 68; Herda (forthcoming a), 397-8 n. 2820.77 Line 36; cf. Milet 1.3, no. 133; cf. now also Herda (forthcoming a),

10–14, 396–9. A 3rd-century bc poem mentions a rich plakous filledwith cheese among the gifts of a four-year-old boy to Apollo on theoccasion of his first haircut: Anth. Pal. 6.155.

78 Cf. Liddell – Scott s.v. plakous II; Herda (forthcoming a), 397-8 n.2820.

79 Cf. Tresp 1914, 159ff., esp. 160 fr. 112; cf. also Herda (forthcoming a),143–50, esp. 146 with n. 1027, p. 398 n. 2824. I am grateful to A. Herdafor his generous advice on this topic. On Hermeias, the prytaneionand Apollo Komaios, cf. also Höckmann and Möller, this volume, ch.8.

80 Described by the 4th-century bc poet Antiphanes (cited by Ath.449b-c); cf. Brumfield 1997, 157. Kandaulos, an Ionian speciality ofLydian origin, seems to be another version: Dalby 2003, 188; Dalby1996, 111.

81 Cf. also Hill and Bryer 1995, 45-7.82 Cf. Herda (forthcoming b); Höckmann and Möller, this volume, ch.

8.83 British Museum, GR 1886.4-1.1288 (Sculpture B 469); Nick

(forthcoming), 65, 120, cat. no. 43. I am grateful to U. Höckmann andG. Nick for information on this piece.

84 An ongoing ritual significance of mortaria/holmoi at Naukratis(though probably unrelated) is indicated by the foundation depositsof Ptolemy II Philadelphos (282–246 bc) in the four corners of theentrance building to the Great Temenos, which included, amongother ‘ceremonial models’, pairs of sandstone corn-rubbers andlimestone mortars/holmoi: Petrie 1886bb, 29, pl. 26.32,33,34.

85 A distribution map, albeit now severely outdated, has beenpublished by Salles 1991, 234 fig. 3.

86 C. Grataloup in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 335 fig. 406.87 Both mortaria are relatively small, especially cat. no. D1 (Fig. 19), for

which one should consider Egyptian manufacture. I am grateful toJeffrey Spencer for pointing out their existence to me and forallowing me to publish them here. Even though Petrie (1891b, 48)himself stated that ‘thick drab bowls’ were ‘wholly unknown in theGreek town of Defenneh’, the two examples published here showthat the type existed there after all, even if manufactured in the Nile

Delta.88 Spencer 1996, 89, pls 62.48-59; 79.18-19; 81.4-5; 86.15. The mortaria

are described as sometimes made from silt clay but more often afriable, beige to green-grey marl fabric; some might well be Cypro-Phoenician imports, while others may be local imitations.

89 Oren 1984, 17, fig. 21.10, fig. 31.90 Defernez 2001, 402-11, pls 91-2, nos 253-7. I owe this reference to

Sabine Weber.91 Mumford 2004. I owe this reference to Sabine Weber.92 Holladay 1982, 109, pl. 16 (from a well dated to 486 bc).93 Allen 1982, pl. 14 (Stratum IIB-C, attributed to the Late Period) –

Egyptian production?.94 Khonsu, unpublished; mentioned by Defernez 2001, 403.95 Petrie 1915, 17, pl. 10.1-2.96 Mentioned by Defernez 2001, 403.97 Petrie 1909, pl. 54.821 (used as a lid).98 Brissaud 1990, pl. X.142; presumably of Egyptian production.99 Petrie and Duncan 1906, pl. 39F.134.100 Mumford 2004.101 Defernez 2001, 402-11, pls 91-2, nos 253-7.102 Oren 1984, fig. 21.7, figs 27-30 (torpedo amphorae); fig. 21.1,3,5,11,

fig. 28 (basket-handled amphorae).103 On this type of mortarium in the Levant and Cyprus, see most

recently and comprehensively Sapin 1998; Gal and Alexandre 2000,190-2; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 51; Stern 1982, 96-8; Salles1985; Bennett and Blakely 1989, 196-203; Berlin 1997b; Lehmann1996, types 159 and 173; Waldbaum and Magness 1997, 39-40.

104 Ballard et al. 2002, 162, 160 fig. 9.3; Stager 2005, 242. Cf. alsoWaldbaum and Magness 1997, 39-40.

105 Destruction levels of Sargon (712 bc) and Nebuchadnezzar: Dothanand Freedman 1967, 157, figs 40.10-11, 41.11; Dothan 1971, 140-1, 100,104, 110.

106 Gal and Alexandre 2000, 189-92, figs VII.11.19, VII.13. 107 Level IV, 8th century bc: Lehmann 1996, pl. 25.161/1; Barnett

1939/40, 107, pl. 52.1 (cf. also p. 88: Level IV covers the 11th–8thcenturies bc but contains mostly 8th-century pottery).

108 It may seem doubtful whether the relatively thin-walled bowls fromTyre cited by Lehmann (1996, pl. 25. 159/1, 160/1) are reallymortaria.

109 These mortaria, said to be both local and imported, are cited byHanfmann (1963, 71, 90-1, 187 nos 297-300, figs 64, 119) as comingfrom the earliest Iron Age levels and thus dating to as early as 1050bc; this would suggest that flat-based mortaria were produced inTarsus (and imported there from another centre) for some 300 yearsbefore appearing anywhere else. Later mortaria from Tarsus:Hanfmann 1963, 233-4 nos 921-30, 255 nos 1152-3, 274-6 nos 1310-19,1328-31, pls 79, 93, 132, 137, 143.

110 Salles 1980, 1985; Lehmann 2003, fig. 10.11-14.111 Karageorghis 1973, 13, 116, 121, pls 47, 51, 225, 233.112 Karageorghis 1973, 13, 121-2, pls 41, 136, 281.113 Karageorghis 1978, 13 nos 7-9, pls 7, 44. 114 Salamis tombs 6, 16, 20, 23, 33A, 52, 58, 104, 106; Tsambres und

Aphendrika, tomb 23 (5th century bc): RDAC 1937-9, 89-90, fig.42.11; Salles and Rey 1993, 237.

115 Salles 1985, 200-1; Sapin 1998, 91. 116 Note e.g. the rim variations found in one tomb alone, Salamis tomb

3, dated to about 600 bc: Karageorghis 1967, pls 41, 125. 117 Cf. Salles 1985, 203; Stern 1982, 98; Berlin 1997b, 124 with note 279;

Lehmann 1996, pl. 26-7 no. 168; Roll and Tal 1999, 97-8. It remainsdifficult, however, to date precisely the appearance of the first ring-footed mortaria; few examples seem to date to the 6th century bc,and there is no firm evidence to date them early in that century oreven into the 7th century bc. Unpublished ring-footed mortaria werepurportedly (Salles 1985, 203) found in Ashdod Phase 2 (late 8thcentury bc), but one may doubt this with some confidence. Thefragment of a ring foot found in Period V (700–650 bc) in TellTaanach (Raast 1978, fig. 76.5) has been suspected to be from amortarium (Salles 1985, 203) but the identification is unconvincing.With regard to an example from Stratum 5 at Al Mina (Lehmann2005, 78-9, fig. 12.4), usually dated to the late 7th– early 6th centurybc, the reliability of the stratigraphic information has been doubted.At Samaria, ring-footed mortaria (Crowfoot et al. 1957,130-2, fig. 12no. 13) appear in Period VIII which is dated 7th–6th century bc, butthe actual end-point of the period appears somewhat uncertain (cf.Crowfoot et al. 1942, 115). Also at Lachish (cf. Salles 1985, 203) thesituation regarding the ring-footed mortaria in Level II (c. 700–586bc) is problematic; the majority of the material there seems to be 5th

Page 53: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 45

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean

century bc or later: Tuffnell 1953, 279-80, class B.14, pls 80.68,98.568. Otherwise, ring-footed mortaria appear, for example, inStratum II (Persian period) at Hazor (Yadin 1958, pls 79.25, 83.7;Yadin 1961/89, pls 190.7, 257.3,6,7), in level 3 (Persian period) at TellKeisan (Briend and Humbert 1980, 122, 147-8), in Stratum I (PersianPeriod) at Timnah/Tell Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 51),and in Stratum Persian 2 (late 6th–mid-5th century bc) at Apollonia-Arsuf (Roll and Tal 1999, 110-1 fig. 4.11).

118 Salles 1985, 201; Salles 1983, 73-4; Salles and Rey 1993, 239.119 Cf. Defernez 2001, pls 91-2, nos 253-7.120 Cooking pots, which also may have been used at funerary meals and

signified wealth, seem to be rarer: Pilides 2005, 178-9.121 Karageorghis 1973, 13.122 Karageorghis 1973, pl. 7, 9.123 Mentioned by Salles 1993, 237.124 Sapin 1998, 93 with n. 19. For contexts in which mortaria have been

found in Greece and Etruria, see Matteucci 1986, 272-4.125 Other sites in the region have so far revealed no trace of the type, or

at least no finds seem to have been published.126 Flat-based mortarium in the context of a 7th century bc burial at

Arkades: Levi 1927-9, 384 fig. 494, p.493 fig. 592-D, p. 498. Twofurther late 7th century bc examples from Kommos have just beenpublished by Johnston 2005, 359-61 nos 183-4, fig. 24.

127 Kinch 1914, 99, pl. 23.8.128 A late-7th century bc mortarium from Old Smyrna in the museum at

Izmir is reported by Hanfmann 1963, 60 with n. 221.129 Above, ns 47 and 50.130 In the vicinity of Miletos, mortaria have also been found at Assesos

(7th century bc; Kalaitzoglu [forthcoming)); Didyma (6th/5thcentury bc: Schattner in Tuchelt 1996, 171-2 nos 105-14 and 129, 182-7types 47-50 and 63, figs 114-16; Wintermeyer and Bumke 2004, 106no. S 10.24, fig. 898), and Teichioussa (Voigtländer 2004, 321 no. 134,325 no. 164, 326 nos 172-4, pls 167, 171-2).

131 The mortaria from Miletos will be published by the author as part ofa study of bowls from the site. At Miletos, with its unbroken andextremely numerous sequence of mortaria in both settlement andsanctuary until the end of the 6th century bc, and a scattering oflater, Classical finds, the characteristic form of the Cypro-Phoenicianbuff ring-footed mortarium is not attested. We see instead theemergence in the 6th century bc of a mortarium very similar inshape, but made in the usual Milesian brown clay and painted withwhite slip and bands on rim and foot.

132 No more than 20 examples are attested in the Archaic settlement atMiletos: Naso 2005a, 77. One example also comes from the area ofthe Athena temple: Niemeier 1999, 389-92, fig. 20, 407 fig. 29, 412no. 21.

133 Pers. comm. D. Chistov; I am indebted to Dr Chistov for showing mehis material from the recent excavations at Berezan during a visit toLondon in 2005. The mortaria published in Solovyov 1999, 94 fig. 91are of a different, probably Late Archaic or Classical type. Twomortaria from earlier excavations at Berezan, again of differenttypes, have recently been shown through NAA to be imports, fromCyprus and the Troad respectively: Kerschner 2006; I am indebted toM. Kerschner for sharing these results with me pre-publication. Wecan thus no longer assume that at Berezan ‘locally produced potteryfully satisfied the inhabitants’ cooking and food-preparation needs,regardless of their ethnic roots’ (Solovyov 1999, 52).

134 Alexandrescu 1978, 111 no. 721, fig. 27.111; Alexandrescu 2005, 357 no.C156, 394 fig. 47, pl. 68 (wrongly labelled C 157).

135 Boardman and Hayes 1973, 69-70 no. 2317, fig. 2317, pl. 36.2317 (=Bellelli and Botto 2002, 288 fig. 7d [wrongly captioned]). Versions ofthis type of bowl (‘collared bowl’), which are not necessarilymortaria, are common in Cyrene also in later periods: Thorn 2005,643-4 nos 211-2.

136 Vegas 1999, 182-3, Form 50, fig. 89. 137 Bellelli and Botto 2002, 279-85; Bartoloni 1992; Gaudina 1994;

Bartoloni 1996, 86-7 with fig. 1.3; 138 The spread of this type in the West has recently been charted in great

detail by Bellelli and Botto 2002 (updating Matteucci 1986). Theyconsider it, however, together with another bowl of different shape,which somewhat obscures the picture.

139 Bellelli and Botto 2002, 281-5; cf. e.g. Gran-Aymerich 1991, fig. 39. 4-5(6th–early 5th century bc).

140 Corinth C-40-312 (Weinberg 1948, 228 no. D79, pl. 84; cf. also Bellelliand Botto 2002, 302) and C-73-163 (unpublished, from lot 73-57).Both examples will be fully published by Pemberton and Villing(forthcoming). It has sometimes been thought that the buff-clay

mortaria of Eastern Mediterranean type are in fact of Corinthianmanufacture. This must, however, be ruled out, not merely for thesimple reason of the absence of the type at Corinth (bar the twoexamples jus cited), but also in the light of the recent clay analysesfrom the Levant, discussed infra.

141 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 369 no. 1889, pl. 90. Elsewhere inmainland Greece, early pottery mortaria follow completely differenttraditions: cf. Cavanagh et al. 1996, 73-4 with refs.

142 Cf. Fantalkin, this volume.143 In the last quarter of the 7th century bc as much as 75-85% of total

imports to Corinth may be of East Greek or Island origin, and alsosome Syro-Phoenician / Palestinian imports are attested: Bentz,1982, 126-8, 218-41; Siegel 1978, esp. 64-217.

144 Amyx and Lawrence 1975, 91-5; Weinberg 1948, 228 no. D78, pl. 84.145 Buchholz 1963, 1976/7; Botto 2000.146 Stern 1982, 96-8. 147 Stern 1982, 98.148 For a summary of Petrie’s views, see Blakely and Bennett 1989, 50-1.149 Cf. Niemeier and Niemeier 2002, 240-1, figs 5.96-7, and now also

Fantalkin, this volume.150 Hayes 1967; Blakely, Brinkmann and Vitaliano 1992; cf. also

C. Grataloup in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 348 fig. 484.151 Supra, n. 104.152 Bennett and Blakely 1989, 198-200, pocket insert 23; Blakely and

Bennett 1989, 55-7. 153 Sapin 1998, 97-103. 154 Berlin 1997b, 10-12, 123-32, esp. 124 n. 277; Rautmann 1997, 223-4,

sample 10.155 Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 19-20 FG 13, 51 BL 20.156 Goralczany 1999, 186 table 4.10.7-11; and id., 2005. Goralczany’s

results from Yaoz and Tel Michal are as yet unpublished. I amindebted to A. Fantalkin for this information.

157 Fantalkin 2001b, 79-82.158 Analysis by Yuval Goren: Lehmann 2002b, 205 fig. 5.78.14 (Kabri

93/1947/5216-100).159 Artzy and Lyon 2002, 186-7, fig. 3.160 Yellin and Artzy 2004, 225-6, fig. 2.6-8.161 Mentioned by Salles 1993, 237 n. 16.162 Salles 1985, 202.163 Cf. most recently Markoe 2000, 53; cf. also Docter 1997, 28-31.164 Master 2001, 176.165 Master 2001, 110 no. 50.58 L318 (49), 111 no. 50.58 L318 (50), 134-5,

137-8, 154 fig. 2.8.2, 4, p. 176.166 Master 2001, 141-2, 155 fig. 2.9.5. In this category falls also an

amphora with yellowish clay. The clay is said to be very similar to theclay of Category 13 (‘highly micaceous samples with reddish brownfabric’), which are all Greek imports, probably from the region ofMiletos or Samos.

167 Master 2001, 114 no. 50.58 L318 (7).168 Master 2001, 135; cf. also Master 2003.169 Bennett and Blakely 1989.170 See Ballard et al. 2002, 162-3; cf. also Bennett and Blakely 1989, 196-

203; Berlin 1997b, 123-32. Perhaps the mortaria travelled around theMediterranean alongside not just Phoenician and Cypriot oil andwine, but also Phoenician semolina and wheat from Cyprus; note themid-6th century bc Ionian poet Hipponax (fr. 125 Loeb) mentioning‘those who ate the bread of Cypriot and Amathusian wheat’.

171 Salles 1991, 225-31; Humbert 1991; Gunneweg and Perlmann 1991;Niemeier 1999, 389-92; Bennett and Blakely 1989, 212-3.

172 For speculation on East Greek production and trade of mortaria, seee.g. Bellelli and Botto 2002, 305. A more detailed report on theorigins and trade of mortaria is planned for a future study, which willinclude the petrographic clay analysis of mortaria from Naukratis,Miletos, and Al Mina.

173 Mommsen, this volume.174 Mommsen, Beier and Aström 2003, 6-8 no. HST 7, 10 table 2. 175 Kleibl 2006, esp. 154-5.176 Eski Datça, Depot inv. ST00K8c-20,3, sample Emec 122: Attula 2006,

112 cat. no. 202a, pl. 69.3; Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006, 200,204 table 3. One further mortarium (cat no. 9 [Fig. 6], sample Nauk56) remains a chemical single, another (cat. no. 17 [Fig. 23], sampleNauk 18) was identified as Egyptian marl (see below). A furthermortarium in the group EmeA was found at the northern extremitiesof the Greek world, at Berezan (sample Bere 025), showing just howwidely Cypriot mortaria were traded: Kerschner 2006, fig. 22.

177 On Levantine pottery in Iron Age Egypt, see e.g. Maeir 2002. He listsmortaria in his catalogue of Palestinian pottery found in Egypt (pp.

Page 54: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

46 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Villing

238-9), thus disregarding the abundance of analyses indicating theirstatus as imports also to Palestine.

178 The Ma‘agan Mikha’el wreck, for example, carried Cypriot,Phoenician and East Greek pottery; cf. Artzy and Lyon 2002; Yellinand Artzy 2004.

179 Cf. Maeir 2002. For Jews and Phoenicians serving as mercenaries inEgypt, see also Kaplan 2003, 7-9. Cf. also Vittmann 2003, 44-83 onPhoenicians in Egypt, and 84-119 on Aramaic documents from Egypt,and Holladay 2004 on the Judaean diaspora in Egypt. On Syro-Palestinian pottery, see also Gjerstad 1948, 241, 242; Petrie 1888, pl. 3.

180 On Cypriot mercenaries in the service of Egypt in the Archaic period,see Kaplan 2003, 10; cf. also Fantalkin, this volume, n. 75.

181 As argued by Carrez-Maratray 2005, they may at this period havedocked at a number of ports in the Nile Delta.

182 Small numbers of mortaria have been found in a number of shipwrecks. In addition to the Elissa and the above-mentioned Ma‘aganMikha’el wreck one might list the late 6th century bc Pabuç Burnuwreck (Greene 2003; the ship carried Samian, Milesian and otherEast Greek transport amphorae), the third-quarter-5th-century bcTektaþ Burnu wreck (on display in Bodrum Museum; cf. Carlson2002; the ship carried mainly East Greek transport amphorae andappears to have traded along the Ionian coast), the Giglio wreck(Bellelli and Botto 2002, 296, 288 fig. 7e; Bound 1991, 224, fig. 59;Cristofani 1996, 43-5, fig. 14.2), the mid-6th century bc Antibeswreck (Bellelli and Botto 2002, 296-7, fig. 10a; Bouloumié 1982, 34nos 300-301, fig. 9; the Etruscan (?) ship carried mostly Etruscan butalso East Greek pottery presumably destined for Marseille), thewreck Pointe Lequin 1A (Long, Miro and Volpe 1992, 219, 221 fig. 37.1,4), the early-5th-century bc Gela wreck (Panvini 2001, 30 fig. 32, 44-5cat. nos 36274 and 36275, 54-5 cat. nos 38/85 and 36345, pls IV.23-4,XL.65-6), and the Late Classical Porticello wreck (Eiseman andRidgway 1987, 31 no. G10, 32 fig. 3.9-10). Again, in all cases, mortariaseem to have been part of the galley kitchen equipment rather thancargo – raising the (albeit remote) possibility of mortaria found insanctuaries having been dedicated after a successful journey.

183 Ballard et al. 2002; Stager 2005. Stager believes that the destinationof the Phoenician Elissa with its cargo of wine may have been eitherCarthage or Egypt. Egyptian pottery is found occasionally in theLevant through the 7th and 6th centuries bc; in the late 7th centurybc, of course, the Phoenician coast even found itself under Egyptianrule. Cypriot trade amphorae, and occasionally fine wares too, alsoreached the Levant. Cf. Fantalkin 2001b, 97-8; Fantalkin, thisvolume; Markoe 2000, 44-7; Vittmann 2003, 44-83.

184 On Phoenician evidence see Villing and Schlotzhauer, this volume.185 For a summary of Cypriot material at Naukratis, see Möller 2000a,

161-3. Gjerstad (1948, 241) cites two pieces from Naukratis in theCairo Museum: ‘a Black-on-Red III (V) globular miniature hydriawith base-ring, neck widening upwards, swollen rim, horizontalhandles on the belly, a vertical handle from below rim to shoulder,and decorated with encircling lines around shoulder and belly’(Cairo Museum C 3132), and ‘a Black-on-Red II (IV) handle-ridgejuglet with funnel-shaped mouth and flat rim; encircling linesaround lower part of neck; upper part of neck and rim covered withmat, red paint’ (Cairo Museum C 3133). A Cypro-Archaic II smallfeeder-jug with eye decoration in Oxford, Ashmolean Museum1987.62, is also supposedly from Naukratis (gift Peter Fraser; I amgrateful to Helen Whitehouse for information on this piece). Theunpublished imitation of a Cypriot Black-on-Red I (III) juglet in thecollection of UCL that is mentioned by Davis (1979, 16-7, and 1980, 7)is in fact of faience (Gjerstad 1948, 411); its findspot, however, seemsto be uncertain. As regards other types of material, a bronze bowl(Petrie 1886bb, pl. 12) that may be of late 7th / early 6th century bcCypriot production was kindly pointed out to me by U. Höckmann.

186 Cf. Höckmann and Möller, this volume; Schlotzhauer and Villing,this volume.

187 Such as, e.g. BM GR 1888.6-1.100 (Terracotta C586).188 See supra n. 3.189 Johnston 1982, 36.190 Cf. e.g. Peserico 1999; Peserico 2002; Bartoloni 1992; 1996; Gaudina,

1994.

191 Mommsen et al., this volume. I am grateful to Jeffrey Spencer forconfirming the visual identification as marl clay. Marl clays musthave been available on the desert fringes of the Nile Delta, and thusat least in the wider area of Naukratis. On Egyptian Nile and marlfabrics, see Arnold and Bourriau 1993; Bourriau, Smith andNicholson 2000.

192 Mommsen et al., this volume; Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.193 Cf. e.g. Holladay 2004.194 Mumford 2004. Very different, local, carinated mortaria shapes

seem to be found among the materal from Tell El-Herr from thePersian period onwards: Defernez 2001, 288-93, pl. 65.

195 Cf. supra, n. 85196 Cf. Oren 1984, 27; Weber 2001, 142 with n. 115 (not all the pieces listed

by Oren are actually local). One example of an Egyptian imitation ofa Samian trade amphora is British Museum EA 22333; I owe thisinformation to S. Weber. There are no certain Greek cooking pots atTell Defenneh: a kind of chytra (Petrie 1888, 64, pl. 35.43; presentwhereabouts unkown) was identified by Petrie as of likely Greekorigin, but has been described as reminiscent of late Iron Age Judeancooking jugs by Maeir (2002, 239, 236 fig. 1.5); although no certainidentification can be made based on the drawing, the fact that Petriementions the existence of similar double-handled vessels mightindeed point to a Judean rather than a Greek type. For the relatedphenomenon of both imported and locally-produced (marl) ‘Judeanjugs’, presumably manufactured by Judean potters for a Judeandiaspora community, see Holladay 2004.

197 A small fragment of similar shape and similar-looking clay and sliphas recently also been found at Miletos; its clay analysis, however, isinconclusive (Sample Milet 41; Mommsen et al., this volume).

198 Cf. e.g. Tite and Kilikoglou 2002.199 Cf. Hiller 2000, 467, with pp. 497-9 (discussion by P. Alexandrescu, S.

Hiller and P. Dupont). For the modern Siphniot parallel, see Jones1986, 861-4.

202 Waldbaum 2006, 65; Master 2001, 160-71, esp. 167; Master 2003;contra Fantalkin, this volume.

201 Master 2001, 220-1; for the possibility of the development ofspecialised production centres for mortaria see also Bellelli andBotto 2002, 299.

202 On Corinthian clays and the manufacturing of mortaria, cf. Sparkesand Talcott 1970, 222.

203 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 370 nos 1899-1911, fig. 20, pl. 90-1.204 E.g. Voigtländer 1982, 79 fig. 37.230, 144 no. 230, pl. 27.1. Further

Corinthian mortaria have also been found in the recent excavationsin the Archaic settlement at Miletos, to be published by the author.Cf. also Voigtländer 2004, 325 no. 164, pl. 171 (Teichioussa).

205 Alexandrescu 1978, 111-2 no. 729, fig. 27; Alexandrescu 2005, 357 no.C157, 394 fig. 47.

206 Thorn 2005, 638 nos 184-5, figs 377, 410.207 The type of the ‘collar rim’ mortarium is attested, for example, at

Velia: Gassner 2003, 97, fig. 41.208 The mortaria of Euhesperides have been studied by Keith Swift, to

whom I owe this information. For a preliminary report, see Swift2003, 219-20.

209 Swift 2003, 215. Compare also the evidence from Late Archaic– EarlyClassical Velia, where c. one fifth of coarse-ware is imported(mortaria from Calabria and Corinth): Gassner 2003, 220-4. I owethis reference to Michael Kerschner.

210 Swift 2003, 219-20, and pers. comm.211 Oren 1984, 8-9, has stressed the position of Northern Sinai and the

Eastern Delta as a densely populated region of commercial,industrial and military importance that linked Egypt with Canaan.On connections between Egypt and the Levant, see also Maeir 2002.

212 An observation made already by Lehmann 2005, 74.213 The prominent role played by Phoenician traders in the Iron Age is

underlined by Fantalkin, this volume; see also Docter 1997.214 Blakely, Brinkmann and Vitaliano 1992, 208.215 Blakely, Brinkmann and Vitaliano 1992; Hayes 1967.216 Cf. Baatz 1977, 154-5.217 As already suggested by Baatz 1977, 155.

Page 55: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 47

Abstract

Two fragments of pottery from Naukratis in the British Museumare identified here as probable products of Caria. As such, they arethe first examples of pottery from Egypt to be associated withCaria, and they raise the possibility of the presence of Carians andin particular Carian mercenaries at Naukratis.

As research progresses on the wealth of pottery excavated byFlinders Petrie, E.A. Gardner and D.G. Hogarth at Naukratis,there are bound to be surprises. This article publishes twopottery fragments that certainly fit the bill, for they raise theunexpected question of Carians at Naukratis.

The first fragment (Fig. 1) comes from the wall of a krater.1

The clay contains much golden mica, white and black grits, andhas a pinky red core. The exterior is covered with a thin, whitishwash; the interior is covered with a dull black slip. Thedecoration is done with a yellowish brown paint and isorganised in panels. On the right, there is a panel of verticalchevrons, framed by a pair of vertical lines on each side (on theextreme right another line at an angle to the vertical suggests anunidentified part of another motif). On the left a cock with threedrooping tail feathers (rather than a horse) is depicted insilhouette to the left; on the extreme left there is a blob.

The style of this fragment seems to combine Geometric, orrather Subgeometric traits with Orientalising ones. The datemight be somewhere in the second half of the 7th century bc.Neutron Activation Analysis carried out on the fragment byHans Mommsen has linked it with a Wild Goat oinochoe inBochum attributed by Mommsen and Schlotzhauer to a Carianworkshop.2 Furthermore, the fabric of the fragment seems tocompare quite well by eye with the Carian Geometric pieces inthe British Museum, excavated in tombs at Asarlik by W.R. Patonin 1887, but it is to be hoped that more Carian material will beanalysed in due course and the attribution to Caria furthersupported.3

Carian Orientalising pottery in a local Wild Goat style hasbeen recognised and studied by a number of scholars since thediscovery in the early 1970s of a necropolis near the village ofDamlýboðaz near Mylasa, when the bed of the River Sarýçay was

diverted in connection with the construction of a dam.4 TheNaukratis fragment has points of contact with some of thesepieces, including the panel of vertical chevrons, which was alsofrequently used as a horizontal band in the Carian style,5 but wehave not been able to parallel the cock among the publishedmaterial. Further research and the appearance of additionalpublications may shed more light on this fragment and its likelyCarian origin.

The second fragment is from a closed vessel, probably anamphora, made from a coarse, brown clay with white grits (Fig.2).6 The decoration is divided into three zones. There is a finelydrawn set of six concentric black circles. A zone of elaboratebanding takes the form of two reddish-brown bands betweenlines, with a wavy line between them. Finally, there is a panel offeathered, or dotted, multiple strokes.

This fragment has not been analysed by Neutron Activationbut the colour and consistency of the clay and the decorativemotifs and scheme can only be paralleled on fragments of afabric found at Kaunos and Damlýboðaz which has been studiedby Bernhard Schmaltz (Fig. 3).7 Sadly, there are no clues fromthe stratigraphy at Kaunos as to the chronology of this fabric,which is known in the form of fragments of dinoi or kraters,amphorae, cups, plates and dishes. Schmaltz, however, hasposited the idea that it is essentially 7th century bc in date.

Carian Mercenaries at Naukratis?Dyfri Williams and Alexandra Villing

Figure 1 Fragment of a krater, BM GR 1888.6-1.653 Figure 3 Fragment of an amphora from Kaunos, Kaunos PT – Ö – 9/8/98

Figure 2 Fragment of an amphora (?), BM GR 1924.12-1.37

Page 56: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

48 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Williams and Villing

Both the above fragments are the first examples of theirfabrics to be found outside Caria. It seems unlikely, therefore,that we are dealing with normal examples of the export ofpottery for commercial reasons, as must be the case with somuch of the East Greek pottery found at Naukratis. The Carianswere, however, well known as mercenaries in Egypt and theNear East.8

Greek mercenaries were a significant presence in the Orient.Herodotus (2.152–4) and Diodoros (1.66.12–67.2) report thatPsammetichos I (664–610 bc), the last of the Saite pharaohs,employed Carian warriors. He is said to have settled them laterin ‘Stratopeda’ in the eastern Delta, on the Pelusiac branch of theNile. From Polyainos (Strategica 7.3) we also learn that whenPsammetichos overcame Tementhes in a battle at Memphis theCarian Pigres was his advisor and that he had many Carianmercenaries. Indeed, it has been suggested that a grave-stele ofPigres found at Memphis is the same Pigres as mentioned byPolyainos.9 Carian mercenaries are also attested in Lydia,especially under Gyges, who may well have been responsible forsending Carian mercenaries to the aid of Psammetichos. Othersmay also have served in Assyria, Judah and Tyre.10

The archaeological evidence for such mercenaries is, ofcourse, slight and particularly open to question: it is alsoregularly unspecific as to the home city of the mercenary. Thus,a Greek bronze greave and shield found at Carchemish havebeen connected with a Greek (or Carian) mercenary in the payof Necho at the time of the city’s conquest by Nebuchadnezzar Iof Babylon in 605 bc.11 Similarly, a fragmentary silver bowl ofCypro-Phoenician workmanship, found at Amathus on Cyprus,probably shows a city-siege with Greek (or Carian) mercenariesin both armies.12

Two recent studies have looked at the remarkable series ofgrave stelai of Carians from Saqqara, which may be associatedwith the mercenary presence.13 Furthermore a pair of bronzeobjects found at Sais bear Carian and hieroglyphic inscriptions.14

Less formal Carian inscriptions include graffiti on the statue ofRamases II at Abu Simbel, in the tomb of Mentuemhet, thegovernor of Thebes in the time of Psammetichos I, and in thetemple of Seti I at Abydos.15 In addition, attention has recentlybeen drawn to a brief graffito on a small oinochoe with ribsround the neck that is made of local Egyptian clay(Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 36).16 This oinochoe, now inBerlin, has no precise find-spot, only the Nile Delta, but it maywell have come from a tomb at Saqqara. The graffito has beenread by Masson and Yoyotte as naming one Mik(k)ylos, butKammerzell’s transcription system would perhaps producesomething like Pyhra.17 Other possible Carian graffiti werereported by Petrie on transport amphorae found at TelDefenneh, but there is no way to be sure that any of them areCarian rather than Greek.18

The identification of one of Herodotos’ Stratopeda withDaphnae/Tell Defenneh has been questioned by many scholars.Jeffrey Spencer, however, has argued recently and convincinglythat the balance of the evidence points to the tower-like brick

structures at Tell el-Balamun, Naukratis and Daphnae all beingfortified camps.19 They were not elaborate forts, like the site ofMigdol in Sinai, on the edge of the Delta Plain, which perhapsaccommodated a variety of mercenaries, including Greeks,Phoenicians and Jews.20 They were rather, as Spencer writes,‘fortified barracks, capable of serving the dual purposes ofwatchtower and redoubt.’

It is clear that East Greeks were involved in Egypt both byway of trade and as mercenaries. The Carians, however, seem tohave been mercenaries par excellence. The discovery of twofragments of Carian pottery at Naukratis could suggest anumber of scenarios. Perhaps the fragments indicate thepresence of Carian mercenaries who showed their gratitude tothe gods for their safe arrival at the nascent port of Naukratis.They may even have been stationed there by the Egyptians assome sort of trusted police force, tasked with keeping order insuch a bustling environment full of foreigners. Or perhaps someCarian mercenaries retired to Naukratis after service elsewherein Egypt and dedicated their last remaining pots from home in aGreek sanctuary, as they took wives and settled down.

Notes1 British Museum GR 1888.6-1.653 (sample no. Nauk 66): greatest

width 7.3cm; greatest height. 5.0cm; thickness 0.6cm.2 The fragment is Mommsen, Nauk 66, see Mommsen et al. in this

volume. The Bochum oinochoe (inv. S987) is Mommsen, Kari 2. Forthe Bochum oinochoe see further: Cook 1993, 112-3, fig. 7; Cook andDupont 1998, 64 fig. 8.26; Cook 1999, 80, list B no. 8.

3 Paton 1887, 68-71. On early Carian pottery see also Özgünel 1979.Carian pottery is currently the subject of a research project by U.Schlotzhauer, Ý. Fazlýoðlu, and H. Mommsen.

4 Gercke 1981; Hemelrijk 1987, 33-55; Lenz 1997, 29-61; Cook 1998, 63-6; Fazlýoðlu (forthcoming).

5 Vertical chevrons: Gercke 1981, nos 13 and 27; Lenz 1997, no. 3. As ahorizontal motif: Lenz 1997, nos 6 and 7; Gercke 1981, nos 1, 8, 11, 12,27, 35; Hemelrijk 1987, 43, figs 19-21 (Amsterdam APM 10189).

6 British Museum GR 1924.12-1.37: greatest dimension 10.0cm.7 Schmaltz 2003, 37-42. The fragment illustrated in Fig. 3 is no. 16 on p.

40, fig. 5, 7. We are very grateful to Bernhard Schmaltz forpermission to publish it here and for generously sharing his findingsin Kaunos with us.

8 For mercenaries in Egypt see Haider 1988, 153-211; Laronde 1995;Möller 2000a, 33-8; Haider 2001; Kaplan 2003, 1-31; Höckmann andVittmann 2005. For Egypt and the Near East see, for example, Haider1996, 95-115; Niemeier 2001, 16-19; and Alexander Fantalkin in thisvolume.

9 Brussels E2483: Kammerzell 2001, 240-1, and 246 fig. 2-1.10 Niemeier 2001, 19-21.11 Boardman 1999a, 51 and 115; Niemeier 2001, 19-20.12 Boardman 1999a, 50, fig. 19; Niemeier 2001, 21.13 Höckmann 2001b, 217-32; Kammerzell 2001, 233-55. See also

Vittmann 2003, 161-79.14 Vittmann 2003, 160-2, pl. 19 c and fig. 75.15 Kaplan 2003, 6-7.16 Schlotzhauer 2006, 308-11.17 Masson and Yoyotte 1956, 12-3; Cf. the chart, Kammerzell 2001, 245.18 Petrie 1888, 64 with pl. 33. We are grateful to Sabine Weber and Alan

Johnston for their comments on these pieces.19 Spencer 1996, 56-8. On Tell Defenneh see also Sabine Weber in this

volume. For the Naukratis structure, which was clearly renovated inthe Ptolemaic period, see Möller 2000a, 109-13.

20 For Migdol see Oren 1984 and 1993.

Page 57: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

It is singularly appropriate that a conference devoted largely toEast Greek pottery should be held in the British Museum, rathereven than somewhere in the Mediterranean world. The study ofGreek vases, especially of the Archaic period, is becoming moreand more one of excavation and modern techniques in theevaluation of finds, but many of the basic techniques of analysisare those which have been practised and refined in museumenvironments. The pottery resources of this museum, not leastthose from Naukratis, bring us away from the pottery sheds andlaboratories, back into a more scholastic environment. Here, thepots are objects requiring study and understanding individually,per se, as well as in relationship with the whole range of relevantmaterial in other museums and from excavation. My paperbreaks no new ground, but reflects a little on the study of EastGreek pottery, where it has gone and where it is going. It is alecture which should have been given by Robert Cook, who diedin the last year of the last century. To his sharpness, in everysense of the word, Greek pottery studies owe a great deal. Hisscepticism was usually more positive than negative, and wemight do well to be equally and more often critical of our ownideas and sources.

The Aegean Sea has been a great comfort to students of thehistory and archaeology of ancient Greece. It seemed to effectboth a geographical and a cultural divide between the arts of theGreek so-called homeland and of the coast and islands of AsiaMinor, and for a while one might conveniently forget that theheart of ancient Greece was the Aegean Sea itself, even morethan the Balkan mainland. For the historian, the east was anarea where Phrygians, Lydians and Persians dictated events,where merchants and tyrants flourished, where there were veryspecial forms of lyric and epic poetry, and where Herodotus, anEast-Greek-cum-Carian was the authority. It was all just a littleforeign to scholars brought up on Athens and Corinth andSparta and Olympian ideals. For the archaeologist, what was,generically, East Greek, seemed to be readily definable anddistinguishable from the mainland products in almost all areas:it was more broadly Ionian than Dorian, it was Wild Goat notblack-figure. This was a comfortable situation but fraught withdanger, and the overall uniformity of much East Greekproduction in pottery, exemplified by the Wild Goat style,probably led to a more casual attitude in definition of its historywithin the East Greek world itself. It has taken a long time forthe situation to be rectified, and we are still some distance fromthe sort of solution which, in the homeland, enables us to bequite confident in identification of most local wares, theirdevelopment and dating. In fact, this meeting is exceptional inconcentrating on this analysis and its products, since manypottery studies have moved into areas so far removed fromconsideration of the pottery itself as to seem unreal, if not self-indulgent. We may take comfort in our more traditionalapproach and what it may offer of archaeological, art-historical

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 49

and socio-historical importance.Robert Cook’s account of the history of the study of Greek

vases in his Greek Painted Pottery (its first edition – Methuen,London – was as long ago as 1960) is nowhere more excitingthan where he describes the way scholars came to assess andunderstand the pottery of the East Greek world. He reveals acatalogue of disastrously wrong assumptions over more than acentury of study. These were sometimes based on superficialobservation of similarities to mainland Greek wares, whosedating was only slightly better understood, sometimes on almostwilful disregard of historical evidence for date. The way thatmuch was allowed to depend on the accident of discovery isunderstandable, though we are most of us more cautiousnowadays. There was also the handicap that the coastal siteswere not in Greek territory but Turkish, and little had been donethere since the 19th-century expeditions, which were to themajor architectural sites, rather than to Archaic ones whichseemed to promise less substantial returns than things like theMausoleum, Assos and Pergamon Altar sculptures. There wasalso one ideological argument which proved attractive to manyand that seems to have carried much weight, and that was theexpectation that Ionia, which could be deemed to be themainspring of Greek thought, literature and the higher arts,especially if one placed Homer on Chios, must also have beensupreme in pottery decoration, which was demonstrably ofimportance in Athens and Corinth. This was not a position thatwas easy to sustain except by assuming very high dates.

The ideology was Panionism, which seemed almost a cultand was particularly flourishing a hundred years ago. Cook wasvery scornful of its effects on the study of East Greek pottery,forcing impossibly high dates and ignoring influence from themainland, indeed preferring to judge that even in potterymainland Greece learned from East Greek models. Cook wasright to be scathing, but perhaps now we need to revisit thequestion, even à propos of the pottery. Here I would certainlyhave reservations, since in it we can, here and there, detect anecho of greater things in other media in the East Greek world,notably wall painting, which has only become known fromwestern Asia Minor in the last 50 years and may have been alegacy of Anatolia’s past. There is also the strong possibility thatwhat happened to Athenian pottery in the second half of the 6thcentury bc was due in no small degree to influence from theEast Greek world, even if not always from its potters. Jacksonwrote well about such matters nearly 30 years ago, and probablydid not go far enough.1 We may well still wonder where Lydos,the Andokides Painter or Amasis came from, and observe theinfluence of patterns and shapes. Francis Croissant’s work2 onthe finer terracotta heads of Ionia has given good grounds forbelieving in direct Ionian influence on mainland sculptural anddrawing styles, beyond what seemed obvious from the marblesculpture. Indeed, the debt in sculpture, not least in the korai, is

The Study of East Greek PotteryJohn Boardman

Page 58: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

50 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Boardman

clear enough and well acknowledged, as it is in architecture,although the mainland was slow to adopt the florid Ionic andwas in no position to compete with the colossal Ionic temples ofthe east, backed by eastern gold.

We have learned much in the last 50 years. Looking back atthe earlier history from an archaeological viewpoint, we see nowon the Asia Minor coast and islands that there is evidence forsubstantial occupation in the Bronze Age by Minoan non-Greeksand Mycenaean Greeks. The so-called Ionian Migration has tobe viewed very differently now, less perhaps as a migration andmore as something like an East Greek parallel to, as well asreflection of, that regeneration of Greek culture in the early IronAge which occurred also on the mainland, followed by somemovement of peoples.

The main difference is that in the east there was also a localAnatolian population which seemed mainly indifferent to whathappened on its western coast. Can we even be sure that thecultural break with the Bronze Age was as complete as it seemsto have been in mainland Greece? À propos of the Anatolianpeoples, in many ways, and especially in pottery studies, we mayneed to begin to view the relationships of East Greeks withCarians, Lydians or Phrygians, as not unlike those of Greeks withEtruscans and Phoenicians in the west. Should we not look forgive and take – think of the bucchero in the north and Rhodes –and not assume automatically that non-Greeks can only be thelearners in these matters, or that the East Greek world was asisolated culturally and geographically as was mainland Greecein the early Iron Age? In the Geometric and Archaic periods it isclearly a mistake to judge from pottery quality alone. This maytake us far in mainland studies, but gets us nowhere farther east.

East Greek pottery always looked poor stuff, because itlacked the many figure and narrative scenes of Corinth orAthens, but we know now that the strength and originality ofEast Greek narrative art was expressed in higher crafts thanpottery. It was expressed on relief metalwork, such as appears inSamos and is identifiable by style in Olympia, and almost ascertainly in major painting, but we have only come to knowabout the paintings at Gordion and Elmalý in the last 50 years, orfound an East Greek painting on a wooden panel in Egypt. Whenit comes to direct dealings with the foreigner, other thancolonial, East Greeks were on the heels of mainlanders in theeast, at Al Mina from the start of the 7th century bc, and beforethem in Egypt later in the century. Samos shows clearly enoughthat it was as closely in touch with Near Eastern, Black Sea,Syrian and Cypriot arts and techniques as Olympia or Corinth,even Crete. Perhaps there still remains a case for a measure ofPanionism, given the achievements also in sculpture,architecture, literature and thought, as well as the specialrelationship with the east, which the East Greeks seem to havetaken up where the mainlanders left off, with the Black Sea, andwith Egypt. It still will not make our pottery any moreintrinsically important as a source for cultural history, except forthe basic archaeological problems of defining places, people andtrade, while for trade it is the plain carriage wares that may bethe more important, although they are also the pots thattravelled as much on account of their contents as for the folkwho made or used them.

There were other problems introduced by early potterystudies in this area. The analysis of East Greek pottery in termsof Early, Middle and Late follows a pattern set by the study of

prehistory. I am not sure that it has been particularly helpful,and further, closer definition on the same lines, even by Cook,leaves one with, for instance, a type of Middle Wild Goat thatoverlaps Late Wild Goat in different places. The scheme seems toimply that each phase has a certain entity and implies a cycle ofgrowth and decline, while what happens historically may indeedinvolve a genesis, but thereafter simply involves change, fordifferent reasons in different places. Thus, elsewhere in Greekpottery studies, it is easier to define ‘Late’ Corinthian potterythan to distinguish between ‘Early’ and ‘Middle’ Corinthian. Wehave come to understand ‘Late’ Protocorinthian more in terms ofits painters not its style. ‘Late’ Protoattic is virtually the same as‘Early’ black-figure. Dr Schlotzhauer’s paper here shows us, Ithink, that it is time to forget ‘Middle Wild Goat’ subdivisionsand use group designations that can be justified in terms of date,style, geography and analysis. He is proposing a newclassification, with Michael Kerschner;3 the only danger, I think,may be over-complication. The old system tended to distractattention from other questions. How and why can a style be saidto decline? Is it an internal matter to be explained by some sortof psychological study of the painters and potters; how can astyle be described or explained as ‘exhausted’; how and whydoes ‘taste’ change; what part, and why, is played by the market,and is it the home or export market?

We have been spared any general use of an Early, Middle andLate classification for Athenian black-figure, largely thanks tothe analytical work which started over a hundred years ago inpresenting the history of the ware in terms of workshops andindividual potters and painters, their associations with eachother and with their market, at home and abroad. This ishistorically far more useful. Does it need to be applied evenmore rigorously by now to the East Greek world?

British pottery studies of the 1930s were inspired byBeazley’s work on Athenian vases and the application ofMorellian analysis to determine hands, combined withtraditional analysis in terms of shape and general decoration,which had been developed mainly by prehistorians, who hadoften nothing more sophisticated to work from, and fromobservation of stratigraphy and historical dating points wherethere were any. It started with Humfry Payne, from Oxford, andhis book Necrocorinthia (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1931). InAthens, under Payne’s wing, Robert Cook, John Cook andArthur Lane set to the task, with Fikellura, Protoattic, andLakonian black-figure respectively. In fact Robert had beenintended to deal with Lakonian, but something changed hismind, and he was warned off Wild Goat by Payne who wasreserving it for someone else to study. With characteristiccaution, not to say scepticism, Robert was the only one whotended to shrink from assigning artists and stuck to groups,whereas his brother John, Arthur Lane, and Humfry Payne,were happy with the individual. I make no special claim forBritish achievement here with the non-Athenian, since in the1920s Andreas Rumpf had already sorted the so-calledChalcidian black-figure vases into their painters with thegreatest skill. But this was to be the way forward.

This approach has not been much used in the study of EastGreek pottery except for the later manifestations, in Chian,Fikellura and black-figure, and eventually, by Robert Cookhimself, on Klazomenian vases and the sarcophagi, which hecalled ‘these deplorable monuments’ or ‘these ungainly

Page 59: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 51

The Study of East Greek Pottery

creations’, soon after writing a whole book about them. Theseare areas where hand and workshop can be readilydistinguished because the painting is detailed. Surprisingly,though giving full credit to Beazley’s skills in his book, Cooknowhere describes the Morellian process of analysis which iswhat he practised, and which is generally agreed to be as nearscientific as one can hope for in such studies,4 and applicable,with care, even to non-figurative vase painting and anything asrepetitive as Wild Goat.

It could be objected that too much East Greek pottery,mainly the Wild Goat, looks alike, that one wild goat is muchlike any other, while subsidiary decoration is repetitive. But thisis defeatist and all that is called for is closer perception ofdrawing styles and conventions, as well as principles ofcomposition. It is surprising that more of this had not been donelong ago, but encouraging to discover that, hand-in-hand withclay analysis, the role of style in East Greek studies is revivingstrongly. The broad styles distinguished by Wolfgang Schieringlong ago, and by Chrysoula Kardara and others since, do notattempt such detail, and too much still, especially of old finds, isor has to be judged from drawings, not photographs. Kardaracame close to doing what was needed, but not close enough,while so far as I know little serious study has been devoted topotterwork.

Potters/painters generally do not move about much, thoughthere are exceptions to which I shall revert. If you cannot definethe man at least you may define his home. Regionality is ofcourse a major issue, by which I mean the definition of regionalstyles in a manner which can be applied even when they arefound far from home. Two sources for the solution exist –observation of a predominance in local finds, and science. Formany years the main problem was inadequacy of excavation andpublication. It was natural to assume that Rhodes was a majorcentre as long as Italian excavations on Rhodes were so prolificand well published. It was probably only the thought thatMiletos ought to be responsible too, given its historicalimportance in the early period, that created the term Rhodo-Milesian. Excavation has led to better understanding of regionalstyles, but too much remains unpublished and the majorresource for East Greek pottery still lies, I suspect, locked awayin Greek and Turkish museum storerooms. At least we can hopefor more now from the latest work at major sites like Miletos,Ephesos and Klazomenai. We need much more raw material toensure progress. Think of the improvement in studies ofCorinthian pottery once the Corinth cemeteries and Perachorawere published.

Historically, the different fortunes of the main East Greekcities are fairly well defined for the Archaic period, evenalliances and dislikes, for instance, that between the neighboursChios and Samos, which seems well reflected in the way theyignore each other’s pottery and pottery styles, while both havelittle to do with the major centres on the coast opposite. I do,however, detect a possible source of confusion comparable tothat with Early, Middle or Late, in defining styles as North orSouth Ionian. Where is the divide? For Cook, ‘North’ wasKlazomenai and farther north, but not Chios. He also properlydistinguished Aiolis at the north and the Dorian south. Theconvenience is clear, but it may be outweighed by the possibilityof being led to think that there are real differences determinedby being north or south, by being Aeolian or Ionian or Dorian,

rather than simply by being Lesbian or Samian or Chian orMilesian. One cannot, however, discount the usefulness of theterms when it comes to, for instance, indeterminate black-figurestyles of almost anywhere from Klazomenai to Phokaia, forwhich ‘North Ionian’ is a very useful description. Black-figureseems to me a serious problem outside the obvious majorgroups. There are far too many isolated pieces, for instance,from Smyrna and Naukratis, which are not obviously from anyof the major workshops and yet testify to accomplished pottersand painters working somewhere. Perhaps more chemicalanalysis should be devoted to these isolated pieces and not justto major groups.

Science can provide better definition of what clay beds werein use locally, and this has rendered great service in bothdefining local wares and identifying them far from home,despite whatever was done to the clay after it left its bed. But thesame might have been done if the opportunity had been given,and taken, of closer stylistic analysis of local finds, since we arefar from the time when clay analysis will become cheap and asreadily applicable as, for instance, taking our own temperatures.We shall still have to rely on judgement by eye most of the time –another reason for more work on stylistic analysis. And wherethere are possibilities of various different clay sources for asingle centre it becomes absolutely important that what isanalysed is intelligible archaeologically and not merely byprovenance. By which I mean that it must be stylistically andwith certainty attributable to a group or workshop whose othermembers are already known. Observation that there is morethan one clay type attributable to a single city, as Miletos, is veryimportant. In the past, time and money have been spent onanalysis without a proper strategy which can lead to usefulresults that go beyond local record; those days, I think and hope,are past.

The by-products of a proper analysis and attribution of EastGreek pottery centres are important, and they do not apply onlyto the homelands. The nature of their influence on local non-Greek peoples is easier to observe than explain and may nothave depended always on Greek hands – I think of Caria, wherewhat might be called provincial East Greek styles are easilydefined, and Lydia, where we have more to learn aboutelaborate patterned styles, with more of their Anatolian past inthem than appears elsewhere, and the possibility of theirinfluence on Greek centres. Thasos seems to offer evidence forwandering potters/painters from Chios, but still in Greek lands.

Then, identity of wares may reveal identity of those whocarried them for use. This has yet to prove of great importancefor East Greek pottery in the western Mediterranean beyondItaly, but there is hope. The so-called Ionian cup is particularlyelusive without clay analysis, and commonly not Ionian.

Naukratis plays a major role in the study. The pottery foundthere matches quite closely the identity of the states involved, asrecorded by Herodotus; at least, I do not think we are beingover-ingenious in such an observation. Perhaps the absencethere of the Rhodian situlae should tell us something too. Wherethere is a prolific site, what is missing may be as informative aswhat is present. The rather Samian aspect of some of the earliestEast Greek pottery at Al Mina may be historically important –later it is perhaps more Milesian.

Farther afield, it seems to have been characteristic of Greeksthat wherever they settled in some numbers and with the

Page 60: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

52 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Boardman

intention of staying they sought to make their own pottery. Thisis most obvious in the western colonies. The recently fashionableidea that you cannot identify people from their pottery hasfortunately given place to common sense and judgement ofindividual cases. We can see that Greeks in particular were fussyabout pottery for their tables, especially their drinking ware.

In the Black Sea the local production of Milesian wares hasbeen demonstrated by clay analysis, and there may have beenother centres on the coast of the inland sea. In the west there is adistinguished succession of immigrant styles in the colonies, butalso working for non-Greeks, it seems; from the Swallow Painterof wild goats, through the Northampton and Campana groups ofblack-figure, to the great Caeretan series.

Egypt is an interesting playground for East Greek potterystudies. The studios at home were certainly aware of thepossibility of, not an Egyptian market, except for their plainstorage vases which were so much better than the Egyptian, butof a Greek market for fine-wares in Egypt. Yet when Egyptian-inspired motifs appear, cartouches or Greek scenes mirroringEgyptian practices, one wonders whether they were meant onlyfor Greek eyes. And are they not also sometimes an indication ofGreek production in Egypt? Thus, the only Wild Goat vase Iknow on which the bulls are shown with their horns drawnacross the top of their heads and not just pointing forward wasfound at Saqqara, and this is of course the normal Egyptian wayof drawing horns, not Greek.5 Surely this was made in Egypt.And at Saqqara there is evidence for the presence of an EastGreek painter, close kin to those who went on to paint theCaeretan vases in Italy, creating a processional scene with bullson a wooden panel, and drawing horns in the Greek way.6 Cookthought a piece of a Wild Goat vase from Naukratis could be ofNile mud, not decent potter’s clay, and there is more evidence

for such pottery presented in this volume. The question ofwhether potters clay was ever carried for use elsewhere is athorny one, but most acute for East Greeks in Egypt, where thereis no good clay. It is easy to say there is no evidence for it, sincethe evidence is a matter of archaeological judgement, unlesskilns are ever found. The Greeks were well used to carrying rawmaterials around the Mediterranean in the Archaic period –think of the hundreds of tons of Greek island marble – so themovement of clay cannot be ruled out when there are otherarguments in favour. We must not be timid about assessing whata Greek might or might not do.

Greek enterprise overseas has been a constant theme in thehistory of the east Mediterranean lands, nowhere more than atNaukratis, and I end with an anecdote which brings us awayfrom ancient Greek pottery in Egypt and into Greeks in Egypt inthe last century or so. Dick Nicholls and I travelled to Naxos in1949. There we met an elderly Greek who said he had been withGeneral Kitchener at Khartoum in the Sudan, when the Britishwere fighting the forces of the Mahdi at the Battle of Omdurmanin 1898. It was perfectly plausible; he was then a boy, perhapsalready in his early teens, and he said he had helped his father tosell lemonade to the British troops – and, moreover, at a lowerprice than that in the local market. The entrepreneurial skills ofthe Greeks must never be underestimated.

Notes1 Jackson 1976.2 Croissant 1983.3 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.4 Boardman 2001b, ch. 2.5 Boardman 1998b, fig. 305.6 Ibid., fig. 500.

Page 61: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 53

Pottery, most of it from East Greece, is by far the largest categoryof material discovered at Naukratis. Over 7,000 pieces, mostlysmall fragments, are currently held in over 40 collections andmuseums, yet this number must be but a small proportion ofwhat was originally found at the site: we hear of up to 5,000sherds of pottery being excavated per day, so that looking at thecurrent sherd count one realises just how much was not kept.1

The finds, speedily published at least in selection by Petrie,Smith, Gardner, Edgar and Lorimer (from Hogarth’sexcavations)2 fell on fertile ground in the scholarly community,and soon an intensive discourse developed on East Greekpottery, led by scholars such as Boehlau, Prinz and Price.3 Forthe first time, bird bowls and eye bowls were studied anddiscussed, Chian pottery was recognised as a distinct fabric –even if christened ‘Naukratian white-faced fabric’ and attributedto local production – and speculation flourished about Egyptianinfluence on Greek beliefs and iconography.4 Even today thematerial from Naukratis still plays a crucial role in scholarshipon East Greek pottery – though now of course new excavationsin many of the production centres of East Greek pottery in theEast Aegean, and in sites all over Greece, Western Greece, theBlack Sea, the Levant, and North Africa, have completelyrevolutionised our understanding of East Greek potteryproduction and trade.5 In addition, scientific analysis of clay hasgreatly helped in further distinguishing and understanding EastGreek pottery.

The articles in this section present some of the latestdevelopments in these fields, encompassing new interpretationsof old finds and new results from recent fieldwork, art historicaland scientific analyses, and in particular the results of a recentprogramme of clay analyses on the East Greek pottery ofNaukratis (see Table 1, and the detailed report given byMommsen et al. in the present volume). In the followingparagraphs we try to summarize some of the new research, andto highlight some of the insights that have emerged recently butthat are not addressed by other scholars in this volume, inparticular the production and trade of Ionian cups and theidentification of long-suspected but hitherto elusive localpottery production at Naukratis.

Archaeology and science: the study of the pottery from

Naukratis

Over the past few decades clay analysis has become an integralpart of pottery studies, and the pottery from Naukratis, and EastGreek pottery in general, have particularly profited from thisdevelopment.6 In the 1980s, Pierre Dupont’s analysis of potteryfrom Istros (Histria) and comparative material from other sites7

already pointed to the Milesian/South Ionian origin of the clayof much of Middle Wild Goat II and Fikellura pottery and Ioniancups, the North Ionian origin of Late Wild Goat style pottery,and the Chian origin of the clay of Chian pottery (including the

so-called ‘Grand Style’), with a possible branch workshop atErythrai. Dupont also pointed to the existence of a localworkshop of East Greek style pottery at Histria.8 The results ofhis analyses of over 70 samples from Naukratis, covering a greatrange of fabrics, are here fully published for the first time.9

Among other things they include fragments of East Greek stylepottery attributed to a local workshop at Naukratis (nowconfirmed also by Hans Mommsen’s analyses; see below). Atabout the same time as Dupont produced his work, RichardJones, together with John Boardman, analysed over 50 samplesof pottery from Naukratis, including Wild Goat, East Greekblack-figure, Klazomenian, Fikellura and Chian pottery, birdbowls, eye bowls, rosette bowls, Hera cups and locally producedterracotta figurines, as well as situlae from Tell Defenneh.10

Chian pottery once more emerged as Chian and clearly distinctfrom local Naukratis clays, in accordance with Dupont’s results,11

while ‘situlae’,12 again in accordance with Dupont’s results,13 fellinto a ‘Rhodian’ group together with Vroulian cups.14 On asmaller scale, some fragments from Naukratis had also beenanalysed with NAA by Mike Hughes at the British Museum;15 thisincluded a Hera mug (Fig. 15) now also analysed by HansMommsen (sample Nauk 2), four lamps and a Samian amphorafrom Naukratis (Johnston Fig. 21), all of which fell into thesame Samian Group ‘L’.

More recently, pottery from Naukratis and Tell Defenneh hasbeen the subject of an extensive programme of analysis by HansMommsen, initiated by Udo Schlotzhauer of the MainzNaukratis project as part of the database of Mediterraneanpottery established by Hans Mommsen and Michael Kerschnerand now including the British Museum among its manycontributors. A list of analysed British Museum pieces, as well assome pieces in other collections, is given here in Table 1,correlating them with the Mommsen’s sample numbers;elsewhere in the volume, sample numbers are usually given inbrackets after inventory numbers of analysed pieces. The mainresults of this programme of analysis are presented in thisvolume by Hans Mommsen et al., while the method is set out byMommsen and Kerschner, taking a particular group, G, and itssubgroup, g, as a case study. Most importantly, however, theresults have contributed to many of the other articlesthroughout this section, and significantly added to ourunderstanding of the production centres of the pottery fromNaukratis.

One problem which remains, however, in spite of all theincreased efforts in research on the pottery of Naukratis, is thefact that our material basis is but a small portion of the actualpottery profile of the site. Some categories of material seemparticularly badly affected by this; note, for example, Petrie’smention of an ‘abundance of Roman pottery’ in the area of thetemenos of Apollo,16 although there is clearly no abundance ofRoman pottery among the known preserved material. Likewise,

East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research*

Udo Schlotzhauer and Alexandra Villing

Page 62: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Tab

le 1

Lis

t o

f po

tter

y a

nal

yse

d by

NA

A

NA

A

Plac

e o

f pro

duct

ion

Sam

ple

no

.Mu

seu

m n

o.

Fin

dsp

ot

Des

crip

tio

nD

ate

BC

Publ

icat

ion

Fig.

no

.G

rou

pB

Nor

ther

n Io

nia

(Teo

s?)

Nau

k 10

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.1

267f

Nau

krat

isLi

d w

ith

scal

e de

cora

tion

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

Fig.

1B

Nor

ther

n Io

nia

(Teo

s?)

Nau

k 22

Bost

on,M

FA 8

8.85

1N

aukr

atis

Wild

Goa

t sty

le d

inos

(?)

Late

7th

–ear

ly 6

th c

ent.

Fair

bank

s 19

28,1

10 n

o.32

1.8,

pl.3

4.B

Nor

ther

n Io

nia

(Teo

s?)

Nau

k 24

Bost

on,M

FA 8

6.54

4N

aukr

atis

Jug

or a

mph

ora

wit

h bl

ack-

poly

chro

me

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

Fair

bank

s 19

28,1

16 n

o.32

8.2,

pl.3

6.de

cora

tion

BN

orth

ern

Ioni

a (T

eos?

)N

auk

37BM

GR

1924

.12-

1.11

07N

aukr

atis

Pain

ted

plat

e w

ith

patt

erne

d de

cora

tion

1st t

hird

6th

cen

t.Fi

g.2

BN

orth

ern

Ioni

a (T

eos?

)N

auk

54BM

GR

1924

.12-

1.11

24N

aukr

atis

Pain

ted

plat

e w

ith

met

ope

deco

rati

on1s

t thi

rd 6

th c

ent.

Fig.

3B

Nor

ther

n Io

nia

(Teo

s?)

Nau

k 76

BM G

R 18

88.6

-1.5

51

Nau

krat

isN

orth

-Ion

ian

blac

k-fig

ure

plat

eM

id-6

th c

ent.

Fig.

4+

196

5.4-

28.1

BN

orth

ern

Ioni

a (T

eos?

)N

auk

87BM

GR

1924

.12-

1.11

27N

aukr

atis

Larg

e N

orth

-Ion

ian

blac

k-fig

ure

plat

eM

id-6

th c

ent.

Fig.

5(b

elon

gs to

GR

1965

.9-3

0.70

4)B

Nor

ther

n Io

nia

(Teo

s?)

TbEg

y 1

Petr

ie M

useu

m U

C30

035a

-b

Theb

es,E

gypt

Blac

k-fig

ured

am

phor

a w

ith

band

of c

arto

uche

s 2n

d–3r

d qu

arte

r 6th

cen

t.Ba

iley

Figs

1-5

(joi

ning

Bas

el,C

ahn,

HC

117

5)of

Pha

raoh

Apr

ies

B-N

orth

ern

Ioni

a (T

eos?

)N

auk

21Bo

ston

,MFA

88.

815

Nau

krat

isD

inos

sta

nd (?

)1s

t hal

f 6th

cen

t.Fa

irba

nks

1928

,116

no.

336,

pl.3

7.E

Nor

ther

n Io

nia

(Kla

zom

enai

?)N

auk

20Bo

ston

,MFA

P46

31N

aukr

atis

Pain

ted

plat

e w

ith

Wild

Goa

t sty

le

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

deco

rati

onE

Nor

ther

n Io

nia

(Kla

zom

enai

?)N

auk

58BM

GR

1888

.6-1

.544

dN

aukr

atis

Pain

ted

plat

e1s

t hal

f 6th

cen

t.Fi

g.6

EN

orth

ern

Ioni

a (K

lazo

men

ai?)

Def

e 7

BM G

R 18

88.2

-8.1

39b

Tell

Def

enne

hW

ild G

oat s

tyle

jug

or a

mph

ora

1st t

hird

6th

cen

t.Fi

g.7

EN

orth

ern

Ioni

a (K

lazo

men

ai?)

Def

e 9

BM G

R 18

88.2

-8.8

6Te

ll D

efen

neh

Wild

Goa

t sty

le li

dded

am

phor

a1s

t thi

rd 6

th c

ent.

Petr

ie 1

888,

pl.3

1.6;

Cook

195

4,pl

.G.B

.605

.7Fi

g.8

EN

orth

ern

Ioni

a (K

lazo

men

ai?)

Def

e 13

BM

GR

1888

.2-8

.171

Tell

Def

enne

hKl

azom

enia

n bl

ack-

figur

e sl

im a

mph

ora;

c.54

0/30

Cook

195

4,pl

.G.B

.587

.7Fi

g.9

Petr

ie P

aint

erE

Nor

ther

n Io

nia

(Kla

zom

enai

?)D

efe

15BM

GR

1888

.2-8

.117

Te

ll D

efen

neh

Klaz

omen

ian

blac

k-fig

ure

amph

ora;

c.53

0/20

Cook

195

4,pl

.G.B

.587

.16

Fig.

10(V

ase

B.12

8.1)

Url

a G

roup

E-N

orth

ern

Ioni

a (K

lazo

men

ai?)

Nau

k 23

Bost

on,M

FA 8

8.84

0N

aukr

atis

Am

phor

a or

oin

ocho

e w

ith

blac

k-po

lych

rom

e La

st th

ird 7

th–1

st th

ird

Fair

bank

s 19

28,1

16 n

o.32

8.1,

pl.3

6.de

cora

tion

6th

cent

.G

Aio

lis (K

yme/

Laris

a)N

auk

12BM

GR

1888

.6-1

.573

b,c

Nau

krat

isO

inoc

hoe

wit

h bl

ack-

poly

chro

me

Last

third

7th

–1st

third

Ke

rsch

ner

Fig.

9de

cora

tion

6th

cent

.G

Aio

lis (K

yme/

Laris

a)N

auk

13BM

GR

1886

.4-1

.129

4N

aukr

atis

Din

os o

f the

Lon

don

Din

os g

roup

1st t

hird

6th

cen

t.Ke

rsch

ner F

ig.8

gA

iolis

Nau

k 77

BM G

R 18

88.6

-1.6

58N

aukr

atis

Mal

e te

rrac

otta

hea

d,pa

inte

dM

id–3

rd q

uart

er

Gar

dner

188

8,pl

.14.

5

Kers

chne

r Fig

.11

6th

cent

.g

Aio

lisN

auk

64BM

GR

1888

.6-1

.637

Nau

krat

isG

rey

war

e fe

nest

rate

d st

and

6th

cent

.Ke

rsch

ner F

ig.1

0B-

Troy

Troa

dN

auk

62BM

GR

1888

.6-1

.634

N

aukr

atis

Gre

y w

are

dino

s rim

wit

h vo

tive

gra

ffit

o to

1s

t hal

f 6th

cen

t.M

ölle

r 200

0a,1

72-3

no.

1aFi

g.11

Aph

rodi

te b

y a

Myt

ilene

an

B-Tr

oyTr

oad

Nau

k 63

BM G

R 18

88.6

-1.6

13a

Nau

krat

isG

rey

war

e st

and

wit

h vo

tive

gra

ffit

o1s

t hal

f 6th

cen

t.M

ölle

r 200

0a,1

73 n

o.3

Fig.

12‘M

]alo

eisi

o[s’

B-Tr

oyTr

oad

Nau

k 65

BM G

R 19

65.9

-30.

508

Nau

krat

is

Gre

y w

are

vess

el w

ith

inci

sed

wav

y lin

es7t

h-6t

h ce

nt.

Fig.

13(o

r Tel

l Def

enne

h?)

JSa

mos

Nau

k 1

BM G

R 18

88.6

-1.4

01N

aukr

atis

Sam

ian

Her

a m

ug w

ith

dipi

nto

1st t

hird

6th

cen

t.Sc

hlot

zhau

er 2

006,

311-

13 n

o.4.

B,31

8 fig

.12

Fig.

14J

Sam

osN

auk

2BM

GR

1888

.6-1

.403

Nau

krat

isSa

mia

n H

era

mug

wit

h di

pint

o1s

t thi

rd 6

th c

ent.

Schl

otzh

auer

and

Web

er 2

005,

81,1

06 fi

g 10

Fig.

15(b

otto

m ri

ght)

JSa

mos

Nau

k 3

BM G

R 18

88.6

-1.4

05N

aukr

atis

Sam

ian

Her

a m

ug w

ith

dipi

nto

1st t

hird

6th

cen

t.Sc

hlot

zhau

er 2

006,

311-

13 n

o.4.

A,3

18 fi

g.11

Fig.

16J

Sam

osN

auk

72BM

GR

1965

.9-3

0.49

8N

aukr

atis

East

Gre

ek p

aint

ed p

late

2nd

quar

ter 6

th c

ent.

?Fi

g.17

AM

ileto

sN

auk

26Bo

ston

,MFA

88.

972

Nau

krat

isKr

ater

2nd–

3nd

quar

ter

Fair

bank

s 19

28,1

17 n

o.33

0.2,

pl.3

6;Fi

g.18

6th

cent

.Sc

hlot

zhau

er 2

001a

,122

,pl.

17.2

AM

ileto

s N

auk

32C

ambr

idge

,Fit

zwill

iam

N

aukr

atis

Lid

wit

h m

etop

e de

cora

tion

Late

7th

–ear

ly 6

th c

ent.

Mus

eum

GR

22.1

894

AM

ileto

sN

auk

42BM

GR

1886

.4-1

.830

aN

aukr

atis

Krat

er w

ith

voti

ve g

raff

ito

by P

olem

arch

os

Late

7th

–ear

ly 6

th c

ent.

Möl

ler 2

000a

,91,

241,

297,

pl.I

b;Fi

g.19

Wal

ter-

Kary

di 1

973,

59,p

l.77

.645

AM

ileto

sN

auk

7BM

GR

1888

.6-1

.544

F N

aukr

atis

Plat

e w

ith

met

ope

deco

rati

onLa

te 7

th–e

arly

6th

cen

t.Fi

g.20

(= 1

924.

12-1

.111

4)D

Mile

tos

Nau

k 4

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.5

70N

aukr

atis

Ioni

an c

up ty

pe 1

1 w

ith

voti

ve g

raff

ito

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

Fig.

21to

Apo

lloD

Mile

tos

Nau

k 39

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.1

040

Nau

krat

isFi

kellu

ra a

mph

ora

2nd–

3rd

quar

ter 6

th c

ent.

Wal

ter-

Kary

di 1

973,

3,pl

.2.2

6Fi

g.22

Page 63: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

DM

ileto

sD

efe

11

BM G

R 18

88.2

-8.4

6aTe

ll D

efen

neh

Fike

llura

am

phor

a2n

d th

ird 6

th c

ent.

Wal

ter-

Kary

di 1

973,

66,p

l.89

.683

Schl

otzh

auer

Fig

.3D

Dn.

l.N

auk

6BM

GR

1886

.4-1

.102

5N

aukr

atis

Cup

wit

h ev

erte

d rim

(Ion

ian

cup)

;typ

e 10

,2.B

2nd–

3rd

quar

ter 6

th c

ent.

Fig.

23EM

EBKn

idia

n pe

nins

ula

Nau

k 51

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.9

6N

aukr

atis

East

Dor

ian

cup

wit

h Ph

oeni

cian

La

te 7

th–f

irst t

hird

Schl

otzh

auer

200

6,30

1-7

no.2

,316

figs

4-6

Fi

g.24

insc

ripti

on

6th

cent

.(e

pigr

.com

.W.R

öllig

)EM

EbKn

idia

n pe

nins

ula

Knid

1BM

GR

1893

.11-

13.4

Nea

r Dat

cha

East

Dor

ian

plat

e w

ith

repr

esen

tati

on o

f shi

p La

te 7

th–f

irst t

hird

6th

cen

t.A

ttul

a Fi

gs 5

-6(A

ttul

a ca

t.no

.4)

TDn.

l.(E

aste

rn D

oris

?)D

efe

1 BM

GR

1888

.2-8

.65

Tell

Def

enne

hEa

st G

reek

‘sit

ula’

wit

h re

pres

enta

tion

of o

wl

2nd

third

6th

cen

t.Co

ok 1

954,

pl.G

.B.5

99.3

Web

er F

ig.1

8(V

ase

B106

.19)

TDn.

l.(E

aste

rn D

oris

?)D

efe

2 BM

GR

1888

.2-8

.16b

& 1

7Te

ll D

efen

neh

East

Gre

ek ‘s

itul

a’2n

d th

ird 6

th c

ent.

Petr

ie 1

888,

pl.2

6,12

-12a

;W

eber

Fig

.19

(Vas

e B

106.

12-1

3)Co

ok 1

954,

pls

G.B

.598

.3-4

,602

.1-2

TDn.

l.(E

aste

rn D

oris

?)D

efe

3BM

GR

1888

.2-8

.20

Tell

Def

enne

hEa

st G

reek

‘sit

ula’

wit

h re

pres

enta

tion

of b

ull

2nd

third

6th

cen

t.Pe

trie

188

8,pl

.26.

15;C

ook

1954

,pl.

G.B

.603

.2W

eber

Fig

.20

(Vas

e B1

06.1

1)TD

n.l.

(Eas

tern

Dor

is?)

Def

e 4

BM G

R 18

88.2

-8.4

2aTe

ll D

efen

neh

Stam

nos

rela

ted

to E

ast G

reek

‘sit

ulae

’2n

d th

ird 6

th c

ent.

Cook

195

4,pl

.G.B

.605

.5W

eber

Fig

.21

TDn.

l.(E

aste

rn D

oris

?)D

efe

5 BM

GR

1888

.2-8

.44a

Tell

Def

enne

hSt

amno

s re

late

d to

Eas

t Gre

ek ‘s

itul

ae’

2nd

third

6th

cen

t.Co

ok 1

954,

pl.G

.B.6

05.4

Web

er F

ig.2

0TD

n.l.

(Eas

tern

Dor

is?)

Def

e 8

BM G

R 18

88.2

-8.2

5Te

ll D

efen

neh

Am

phor

a w

ith

wit

h re

pres

enta

tion

of

2nd

third

6th

cen

t.Co

ok 1

954,

pl.G

.B.5

98.1

0;60

5.6

Web

er F

ig.2

3m

en b

esid

e tr

ipod

RHc1

n.l.

Nau

k 53

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.1

271

Nau

krat

isW

ild G

oat s

tyle

pla

teLa

te 7

th–e

arly

6th

cen

t.Fi

g.25

ITA

Nn.

l.A

bus

1Bo

nn,A

kade

mis

ches

A

busi

rSm

all c

lose

d ve

ssel

wit

h pa

inte

d ba

nds

Last

qua

rter

7th

cen

t.–

Kuns

tmus

eum

200

2.5

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

ITA

Nn.

l.D

lEgy

1Bo

nn,A

kade

mis

ches

Eg

ypt,

Del

taBl

ack-

figur

e am

phor

a2n

d–3r

d qu

arte

r 6th

cen

t.G

eom

iny

1992

,48-

50 fi

gs 1

0-11

;Mie

lsch

200

3,58

-9Ku

nstm

useu

m 1

524

IT

AN

n.l.

Nau

k 73

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.6

71N

aukr

atis

Und

ecor

ated

pla

te w

ith

graf

fito

6th

cent

.Jo

hnst

on F

ig.1

1IT

AN

n.l.

Nau

k 74

BM G

R 18

88.6

-1.6

08.a

Nau

krat

isU

ndec

orat

ed p

late

6th

cent

.Fi

g.26

KRO

PA

ttic

a (?

)N

auk

43BM

GR

1886

.4-1

.678

N

aukr

atis

Blac

k-gl

azed

din

os w

ith

voti

ve g

raff

ito

2nd

half

6th

cent

.Sc

hlot

zhau

er 2

006,

294-

301

no.1

,315

figs

1-3

by P

hane

s,so

n of

Gla

ukos

KRO

PA

ttic

a (?

)N

auk

57

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.1

324

Nau

krat

isH

ead

kant

haro

s2n

d ha

lf 6t

h ce

nt.

Wal

ter-

Kary

di 1

973,

30,p

l.57

.485

perb

Att

ica?

Nau

k 88

BM G

R 19

65.9

-30.

494

Nau

krat

isH

ydria

or s

tam

nos,

whi

te-o

n-bl

ack

deco

rati

onC

YPT

Cypr

usN

auk

35BM

GR

1886

.4-1

.80

Nau

krat

isM

orta

rium

(Vill

ing

cat.

no.2

)1s

t hal

f 6th

cen

t.V

illin

g Fi

g.2

EMEA

Cypr

usN

auk

55BM

GR

1910

.2-2

2.16

Nau

krat

isM

orta

rium

(Vill

ing

cat.

no.1

9)La

te 6

th c

ent.

Vill

ing

Fig.

8EM

EaCy

prus

Nau

k 67

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.7

7N

aukr

atis

Mor

tariu

m (V

illin

g ca

t.no

.10)

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

Vill

ing

Fig.

21EM

EaCy

prus

Nau

k 68

BM G

R 18

86.4

-1.8

1N

aukr

atis

Mor

tariu

m (V

illin

g ca

t.no

.12)

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

Vill

ing

Fig.

22M

arl-

Egyp

tian

mar

lN

auk

18BM

GR

1910

.2-2

2.15

Nau

krat

isM

orta

rium

wit

h gr

affit

o (V

illin

g ca

t.no.

17)

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

Vill

ing

Fig.

23Q

AN

NEg

ypt (

Nau

krat

is?)

Def

e 10

BM G

R 18

88.2

-8.5

7Te

ll D

efen

neh

Am

phor

a w

ith

East

Gre

ek s

tyle

pat

tern

ed

3rd

quar

ter 6

th c

ent.

Petr

ie 1

888,

pl.3

2.4;

Cook

195

4,pl

.G.B

.606

.3;

Fig.

39de

cora

tion

;Nau

kA II

Web

er (f

orth

com

ing)

QA

NN

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

9BM

GR

1924

.12-

1.43

Nau

krat

isPl

ate

wit

h Ea

st G

reek

sty

le d

ecor

atio

n an

d 2n

d–3r

d qu

arte

r 6th

cen

t.Fi

g.32

(sam

e ve

ssel

as1

924.

12-1

.42)

pier

ced

lug-

hand

leQ

AN

NEg

ypt (

Nau

krat

is?)

Nau

k 14

BM G

R 19

10.2

-22.

232b

Nau

krat

isJu

g w

ith

ribbe

d ne

ck a

nd g

raff

ito

‘dek

a’6t

h ce

nt.

Schl

otzh

auer

200

6,30

8-11

no.

3.B,

317

fig.9

Fig.

35Q

AN

NEg

ypt (

Nau

krat

is?)

Nau

k 15

BM G

R 19

10.2

-22.

233

Nau

krat

isPo

t sta

nd/k

iln fu

rnit

ure

wit

h pr

e-fir

ing

graf

fito

Ptol

emai

c (2

nd c

ent.?

)Fi

g.43

QA

NN

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

16BM

GR

1910

.2-2

2.24

3N

aukr

atis

Pot s

tand

/kiln

furn

itur

e w

ith

pre-

firin

g gr

affit

oPt

olem

aic

(2nd

cen

t.?)

Fig.

44Q

AN

NEg

ypt (

Nau

krat

is?)

Nau

k 17

BM G

R 18

86.1

0-5.

12N

aukr

atis

Clo

sed

vess

el w

ith

pain

ted

flora

l dec

orat

ion

Ptol

emai

cFi

g.42

QA

NN

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

19Be

rlin

,Ägy

ptis

ches

Mus

eum

Eg

ypt

Jug

wit

h rib

bed

neck

and

Car

ian

graf

fito

6th

cent

.Sc

hlot

zhau

er 2

006,

308-

11 n

o.3.

C,3

17 fi

g.10

Fig.

36

und

Papy

russ

amm

lung

720

6Q

AN

NEg

ypt (

Nau

krat

is?)

Nau

k 25

Bost

on,M

FA 8

6.53

3N

aukr

atis

Plat

e w

ith

East

Gre

ek s

tyle

dec

orat

ion

2nd–

3rd

quar

ter 6

th c

ent.

Fig.

31

QA

NN

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

27Bo

ston

,MFA

P 4

864

Nau

krat

isPl

ate

wit

h pi

erce

d lu

g ha

ndle

2nd–

3rd

quar

ter 6

th c

ent.

Fig.

33

QA

NN

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

33C

ambr

idge

,Mus

eum

of

Nau

krat

isPl

ate

wit

h Ea

st G

reek

sty

le d

ecor

atio

n2n

d–3r

d qu

arte

r 6th

cen

t.Fi

g.30

and

C

lass

ical

Arc

haeo

logy

NA

48

Dup

ont &

Tho

mas

Fig.

1,N

au 9

QA

NN

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

79BM

GR

1965

.9-3

0.50

1N

aukr

atis

Shal

low

bur

nish

ed p

late

,Egy

ptia

n,26

th d

ynas

ty6t

h ce

nt.

Fig.

41Q

AN

NEg

ypt (

Nau

krat

is?)

Nau

k 81

BM G

R 19

65.9

-30.

536

Nau

krat

isTr

efoi

l-m

outh

ed o

inoc

hoe

wit

h w

avy-

line

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

Fig.

37de

cora

tion

QA

NN

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

82BM

GR

1965

.9-3

0.73

9N

aukr

atis

Burn

ishe

d sm

all d

inos

wit

h gr

affit

o2n

d–3r

d qu

arte

r 6th

cen

t.Fi

g.34

QA

NN

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

83BM

GR

1886

.4-1

.83

Nau

krat

isA

mph

ora

or h

ydria

wit

h pa

inte

d ba

nds

and

1st h

alf 6

th c

ent.

Fig.

38vo

tive

gra

ffit

o to

Apo

lloQ

AN

N-

Egyp

t (N

aukr

atis

?)N

auk

34C

ambr

idge

,Mus

eum

of

Nau

krat

isLa

mp

6th

cent

.C

lass

ical

Arc

haeo

logy

NA

256

Page 64: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

56 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

of the numerous pieces of basket-handled amphorae reported byPetrie very few are known today (e.g. Johnston Fig 14). 76

In general, one of the main criteria for keeping pottery seems tohave been the presence of inscriptions; even the tiniest scraps ofsherds, if they preserved part of a letter, were kept, be theydecorated or not. Painted pottery was often kept even if therewas no dedication, although one gets the impression that somemust also have been thrown away. Undecorated coarse-warewas by and large only kept if it was a complete pot (Edgar evendevoted a short article to the publication of a group of unpaintedpots found in a well in 1899)18 or if a fragment carried aninscription or a sealing; large numbers of stamped handles oftrade amphorae, for example, are known to have survived.19 Inaddition, a few samples may have been kept as specimens ofparticular types of fabrics, which Petrie in particular had beenvery keen to distinguish.

The surviving pottery from Naukratis is thus but a skewedsample of the actual pottery profile of the site, heavily tiltedtowards inscribed and decorated votive pottery. This alwaysneeds to be kept in mind when drawing any conclusions basedon the surviving evidence. It is particularly irritating to thinkthat most of the kitchen and household pottery that must haveexisted at Naukratis and that might have added importantadditional information to our understanding of the site is lost tous. No cooking pots, for example, have yet been identifiedamong the surviving material.20 However, as the contribution byVilling on the mortaria from Naukratis shows, the study ofcoarse-ware sherds can provide new information on cults at thesite as well as on trade links, in this case with Archaic Cyprusand Classical Corinth. An additional distortion in the perceptionof the pottery from Naukratis has been caused by selectivepublication: some fabrics and styles have been studied andpublished extensively, with nearly every single known sherd

being catalogued, while others have been severely neglected,with only a small selection or nothing at all being included. As aconsequence, even among the preserved material theimportance of some types has erroneously been over- orunderestimated, a problem which will only be solved once theongoing project of gathering and collating all the knownmaterial is completed.

The painted pottery of Naukratis: the current state of research

As has been observed many times before, the painted potteryfound at Naukratis is mostly of East Greek origin, and inparticular stems from poleis said to have been involved in thefoundation of Naukratis. In addition, much material was alsofound that originated in Athens, Corinth, and Laconia. Suchwares were widely traded around the Mediterranean at the timeso that their appearance at Naukratis is hardly surprising.21 Atticpottery in particular is of a varied character and covers the fulltime-span of Athenian pottery trade, including many earlyimports,22 but also much late black-glazed material.23 Followingon from earlier studies,24 it is currently being examined byValerie Smallwood and Susan Woodford. The Corinthianpottery, too, encompasses some early material but is notparticularly numerous; Laconian pieces are fewer and later.These wares, however, are not discussed in the present volume;instead, emphasis is placed on East Greek pottery, where greatadvances have been made recently in our understanding of thevarious production centres (for a map of East Greece, see Villingand Schlotzhauer Fig. 1b).

North Ionia

North Ionian pottery, rich and varied and only slowly becomingbetter understood,25 furnishes a large proportion of the paintedpottery from Naukratis – not surprising, perhaps, given thataccording to Herodotus Klazomenai, Teos and Phokaia wereamong the founding cities of Naukratis. At Klazomenai andSmyrna in particular, new excavations (and the restudy of oldfinds) have revealed much relevant material, providing newinsights into the complex variety of styles produced at thosesites. Other sites, such as Phokaia and Teos, however, remainarchaeologically obscure. It has been raised as a possibility,however, that the hitherto only little known, but seemingly highquality, production of Teos can now be recognised in Dupont’sarchaeometric Group D (Dupont and Thomas Figs 1.1-5,11,14,16; 4.51-52) and particularly Mommsen and Kerschner’sGroup B (Figs 1–5), though this remains to be confirmed byfurther analyses.

Group B, otherwise also known as the ‘Bird BowlWorkshops’, certainly encompasses a wide variety of styles andshapes, from Wild Goat to black-figure, including also somehigh-quality black-figured plates (Figs 4-5) as well as the well-known Apries amphora (Bailey Figs 1-5), decorated with a bandof Egyptian cartouches, and now thanks to Donald Bailey knownto have been found in Egyptian Thebes. Although the group canhardly be said to form a stylistically coherent whole, there aresimilarities among some of the pieces,26 and certainly severalinstances of painters creating a very interesting and unusualiconography. Some of the shapes are also broadly paralleled inmaterial from North Ionian sites, such as at Klazomenai, where,for example, amphorae related in shape to the Apries amphorahave been found.27 Both stylistic and scientific observations,

Schlotzhauer and Villing

Table 1 cont. List of pottery analysed by NAAPairsDefe 16: BM GR 1888.2-8.139g (1) = Pair 1Defe 17: BM GR 1888.2-8.139g (2) = Pair 1Nauk 69: BM GR 1888.6-1.574 (Vase B103.11) = Pair 2Nauk 70: BM GR 1886.4-1.1113 (Vase B 102.13) = Pair 2Nauk 85: BM GR 1965.9-30.972 a = Pair 3Nauk 86: BM GR 1965.9-30.972 d = Pair 3Nauk 8: BM GR 1886.4-1.1263 + 1924.11-1.1113 = Pair 4Emec 31: Emecik excavation, inv. no. ST -1-I 8b-8c,74 = Pair 4Kari 2: Bochum,Antiken- und Kunstsammlung der Ruhr-Universität S 987 = Pair 5Nauk 66: BM GR 1888.6-1.653 (Williams and Villing Fig. 1) = Pair 5

SinglesNauk 5: BM GR 1886.4-1.1031Nauk 11: BM GR 1888.6-1.573aNauk 28: Boston, MFA P.4714Nauk 29: Boston, MFA 88.1091Nauk 30: Bonn,Akademisches Kunstmuseum 697.25Nauk 36: BM GR 1886.4-1.1219Nauk 41: BM GR 1888.6-1.561 + 1924.12.1.1058+1102Nauk 44: BM GR 1888.6-1.640bNauk 47: BM GR 1888.6-1.644cNauk 52: BM GR 1910.2-22.17Nauk 56: BM GR 1886.4-1.75Nauk 59: BM GR 1888.6-1.569; Weber Fig. 25Nauk 78: BM GR 1886.4-1.1311; Weber Figs 14-15Nauk 80: BM GR 1965.9-30.504Nauk 84: BM GR 1886.4-1.82.bDefe 6: BM GR 1888.2-8.139aDefe 12: BM GR 1952.5-5.11Defe 14: BM GR 1888.2-8.77a (Vase B 109)Kami 2: BM GR 1860.4-4.44Kari 1: Bochum,Antiken- und Kunstsammlung der Ruhr-Universität S 985Milet 41: Miletos excavation inv. no. K86.97.6Rhod 20: BM GR 1868.4-5.78; Weber Fig. 24

Page 65: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

then, support a North Ionian origin of this and other pieces inthe group.

Visual observations alongside clay analysis have also helpedto change our assessment of the highly exceptional large figuredplate from Naukratis (sample Nauk 87, Fig. 5). Once attributedto a Chian workshop by Walter-Karydi,28 clay analysis has nowconfirmed a North Ionian (Group B) origin, which might alsohave been suspected purely on stylistic grounds. Another highlyunusual figured plate, though different in style (sample Nauk76, Fig. 4), belongs to this same group, as (on visual evidence)do several other examples of plates and other shapes fromNaukratis.29 One may also consider the sherd with arepresentation of a black African (book cover) in this context;its attribution by Walter-Karydi30 to a Chian workshop seemsdoubtful, and close examination places it near the Apriesamphora.31

As expected, there is also a fair number of bird bowls, fromaround 620/10 bc, and other hemispherical bowls

(‘Kalottenschalen’) at Naukratis: rosette bowls, lotus bowls andeye bowls, banded bowls and maeander bowls are all to befound (even if eclipsed in number by South Ionian cups witheverted rim).32 They have a wide distribution but their origins liepredominantly in North Ionian centres; Group B (possibly Teos)has been detected by clay analysis of pieces from various sites,but also E (possibly Klazomenai), F (presumably Smyrna), G(presumably Kyme; e.g. Kerschner Fig 26) and other groups.33

Klazomenian pottery is present at Naukratis in considerableamounts, and includes examples of the well-knownKlazomenian black-figure. However, this type of pottery has sofar been quite difficult to isolate scientifically: two sherds form achemical pair (samples Nauk 69-7034 = pair 2), another sherdremains a chemical loner (sample Defe 14),35 yet two pieces fromTell Defenneh – one sherd by the Petrie Painter and anotherfrom the Urla Group (samples Defe 13 and 15, Figs 9-10) – fallinto the chemical provenance pattern group E, which hastentatively been associated with Klazomenai, not least since

East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research

Figure 1 Lid, sample Nauk 10, Group B(North Ionia – Teos?)

Figure 2 Painted plate, sample Nauk37, Group B (North Ionia – Teos?)

Figure 6 Painted plate, sample Nauk58, Group E (North Ionia –Klazomenai?)

Figure 8 Wild Goat style liddedamphora, sample Defe 9, Group E(North Ionia – Klazomenai?)

Figure 9 Klazomenian black-figureamphora, Petrie Painter, sample Defe 13, Group E (North Ionia – Klazomenai?)

Figure 10 Klazomenian black-figureamphora, Urla Group, sample Defe 15,Group E (North Ionia – Klazomenai?)

Figure 7Wild Goat style jug oramphora, sample Defe 7, Group E(North Ionia – Klazomenai?)

Figure 3 Painted plate, sample Nauk54, Group B (North Ionia – Teos?)

Figure 4 Black-figure plate, sampleNauk 76, Group B (North Ionia – Teos?)

Figure 5 Fragment (left) from black-figure plate (right), sample Nauk 87,Group B (North Ionia – Teos?)

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 57

Page 66: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

58 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

another fragment of an oinochoe of the Urla Group (fromSmyrna) belonged to this group in an earlier set of analyses.36

Further pieces that fall into Group E show that it encompassed awide range of shapes and decorative schemes, includingamphorae from Tell Defenneh somewhat reminiscent of‘Borysthenes’ amphorae (Figs 7-8).37 The material from TellDefenneh will shortly be presented in detail by S. Weber.38 Therecan be little surprise, therefore, that the decoration of a platefrom Naukratis, Nauk 58 (Fig. 6), closely resembles a platefound at Klazomenai.39 This latter plate, moreover, features asofa rim with a characteristic volute pattern that is also found onanother fragment from Naukratis (Paspalas Fig. 2) as well as,slightly modified, on a plate from Smyrna (Paspalas Figs 1).

The plate is, of course, a common shape across North Ionia,and could be decorated with a variety of motifs. The mostcharacteristic type, perhaps, is that with a meander-rim,apparently produced in several North Ionian centres. One ofthese seems to be Group B (Teos?), but there is also thepossibility of a local production in the Aiolian pottery centre G(presumably Kyme; e.g. Kerschner Fig. 27) and at Smyrna. AsStavros Paspalas in his survey on plates from the old excavationsat Smyrna points out, Smyrna seems to have had its share ofimported Klazomenian, Tean(?) and other North Ionian pottery,as did Naukratis. The pottery production of Smyrna itself is,however, still somewhat difficult to distinguish. A chemicalprovenance group, Group F, might be of local origin.40 Some ofthe other plates from old excavations in Smyrna may also be oflocal production, notably those with simple floral ornaments(Paspalas Figs 4, 18, 22). They are found less widely spreadand, unlike many of the other plates from Smyrna, do not seemto occur at Naukratis. As a phenomenon, the distinct floralpatterns of these Smyrnaean dishes, however, seem to bemirrored in Aiolian ‘drop-style’ pottery (Group G/g) (KerschnerFigs 24–5), one of several instances of interconnections betweenAiolian (G) and Smyrnaen (F) pottery.

Aiolia and Grey wares

Aiolian pottery is one group for which a good chemical profilehas now been established in Group G/g, as Michael Kerscherreports in his contribution in the present volume. Interestingly, avery wide variety of styles of decoration makes up this group(Kerschner Figs 8–11, 13–30), such as Wild Goat, black-figureand black-polychrome styles, including the so-called ‘LondonDinos group’, banded wares, maeander-rim dishes and Greyware pottery, to mention but a few. The phenomenon ofextremely widely ranging production has also been witnessedelsewhere in East Greece, such as at Klazomenai.41 Although the

actual place of production of Group G/g cannot yet bedetermined with certainty, Kerschner argues for Kyme andperhaps, on a smaller scale, Larisa. The wide distribution of thepieces might in part at least be explained by Phokaian trade.

Grey wares were found in considerable numbers inNaukratis, but have to date remained largely unpublished.42

Given that Aiolis is usually assumed to have been a majorproduction centre for this type of pottery,43 it is not surprising tofind that one such fragment (Nauk 64, Kerschner Fig. 10) fallsinto Aiolian subgroup g (presumably Kyme). In addition,analysis has established a second Aiolian group of Grey waresfrom Naukratis, which falls into the chemical Group B-Troy. Thisgroup includes two fragments found in the temenos ofAphrodite which, through their inscriptions, seem connectedwith Mytilene on Lesbos, one of the founding cities of Naukratis.One (Nauk 62, Fig. 11) is the rim of a dinos inscribed on theshoulder with a dedication to Aphrodite by a Mytilenean.44

Traces of red pigment can be discerned on this piece, a featurealso witnessed on an Archaic Grey-ware dinos from Troy.45

Added decoration – in red, white and black – is also found on afew sherds from the Aiolian region, Smyrna, South Ionia,Rhodes, Delos and Crete.46 Bayne47 had speculatively suggestedproduction of painted Grey wares in Naukratis, but both ouranalyses as well as other studies now show that several placesmust have produced such painted wares, and so far there is noevidence for Naukratite production.48 The second fragment inGroup B-Troy (Nauk 63, Fig. 12) belongs to an open-work standpreserving a name (?) seemingly related to a Lesbian cult title ofApollo, Maloeisios;49 its shape, too, can be paralleled on Lesbos.50

Rather than being located on Lesbos, however, Group B-Troy is,in fact, a pattern which is found in pottery from the region ofTroy from the Bronze Age to the Archaic period, includingArchaic Grey wares.51 It is believed to be local to the area52 and,as Mommsen argues in the present volume, may be conntectedwith what Posamentir has christened the ‘Hellespontworkshops’. Indeed, the third analysed fragment from thisgroup (Nauk 65, Fig. 13) with its incised wavy lines findsparallels in pottery from Troy, though also in pieces fromLesbos.53 The question arises, therefore, how the NAA result canbe reconciled with the Mytilenean/Lesbian credentials of atleast two of the analysed pieces. Certainly Grey wares had beenin common use both on Lesbos and in the Troad for centuries,and at least from the end of the 8th century bc at least some ofthe Grey wares in the Troad may have been produced (andinscribed?) by Lesbian colonists.54 Perhaps Lesbos and theLesbian peraia also exploited related clay beds. It remains to beseen how future archaeological studies and chemical analyses

Schlotzhauer and Villing

Figure 11 Grey ware dinos, sample Nauk 62, Group B-Troy (Troad) Figure 12 Grey ware stand, sampleNauk 63, Group B-Troy (Troad)

Figure 13 Grey ware vessel, sampleNauk 65, Group B-Troy (Troad)

Page 67: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 59

will define the role played by Lesbos in the wider Aiolian region,both with regard to decorated and undecorated pottery.

Chios

Far better known is the pottery of the island of Chios, whichforms a particularly large and conspicuous group among thepottery from Naukratis – so much so that it was at first widelybelieved to a be a locally produced fabric. Well researched andpublished, there still remains much to be studied, as can be seenfrom the latest research on the workshops that produced Chianpottery by Dyfri Williams in the present this volume. We find, forinstance, a Laconian artist at work in a Chian workshop, anotherexample of the well-attested phenomenon of the migration ofartists in the Archaic period and surely one of the reasons for thetransfer of stylistic features from one region to another.Remarkable, too, is the existence at Naukratis of phallus-shapeddrinking cups, uniquely appropriate perhaps to the cult of

Aphrodite in a harbour town famous for its attractive hetairai.Even if it seems increasingly unlikely that any Chian pottery wasever produced at Naukratis, more research needs to be devotedto the question of workshops on Chios and perhaps its vicinity.There are indications that Chian workshops were operating onthe neighbouring mainland, perhaps at Erythrai, and it is hopedthat more chemical analyses (planned by the British Museum,H. Mommsen and M. Kerschner) may shed further light on thequestion.55

South Ionia and Caria

As regards South Ionia, pottery from Samos and especiallyMiletos (both founding cities of Naukratis) is well attested atNaukratis. From Samos, in addition to trade amphorae (e.g.Johnston Fig. 21), there are ritual vessels with dipinti (Heracups and mugs) used in the Samian filial cult of Hera atNaukratis (Figs 14–16, 29). That these were imported and notlocally made has been confirmed by analyses and demonstratesthe close cultic link that remained between the Samians atNaukratis and their home island.56 In addition, a decorated platefalls into the same chemical provenance group, J (Nauk 77; Fig.17). Of the hundreds of so-called ‘Ionian cups’, or cups witheverted rim (Knickrandschalen), many have come from Miletos(Nauk 4, Fig. 21), although some may also have been producedelsewhere, as will be discussed in more detail below. Wild Goatstyle and Fikellura pottery, too, is well attested at Naukratis, andmost has been attributed to two Milesian workshops, Group A(the ‘Kalabaktepe workshops’: Nauk 7, 26, 32, 42; Figs 18–20)and Group D (Nauk 39, Fig. 22; cf. also Defe 11, SchlotzhauerFig. 3). That Miletus was indeed the major producer and thedriving force behind the development of the Fikellura style has

East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research

Figure 14 Hera mug, sample Nauk 1,Group J (Samos)

Figure 15 Hera mug, sample Nauk 2,Group J (Samos)

Figure 16 Hera mug, sample Nauk 3,Group J (Samos)

Figure 17 Painted plate, sample Nauk72, Group J (Samos)

Figure 18 Painted krater, sample Nauk26, Group A (Miletos)

Figure 19 Painted krater, sample Nauk 42, Group A (Miletos)

Figure 20 Painted plate, sample Nauk7, Group A (Miletos)

Figure 21 Cup with everted rim (Type11), sample Nauk 4, Group D (Miletos)

Figure 22 Fikellura amphora, sample Nauk 39, Group D (Miletos)

Page 68: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

60 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

now become clear through the finds from recent excavations atMiletos. As Udo Schlotzhauer points out in the present volume,Milesian pottery not only encompasses shapes that combine theFikellura and Wild Goat styles (Schlotzhauer Fig. 1),57 but alsofeatures a previously unparalleled wealth of figured images,such as the ‘Potnia Theron’ painted on the inside of a cup(Schlotzhauer Fig. 2). Fikellura pottery thus presents itselfincreasingly as on a par with the other figured pottery of theArchaic II period in East Greece, notably the rich tradition ofNorth Ionian black-figure painting.

Finally, pottery in a South Ionian style also seems to havebeen produced at a few Milesian colonies in the 6th century bc.Production at Histria had already been suggested by Dupont,but recent archaeometric analyses by Mommsen, Posamentirand Kerschner have now established workshops also in theHellespont region,58 suspected by Posamentir to be identicalwith Dupont’s Ionie du Sud 3, which exported their productspreferentially to the north, towards other Greek colonies such asBerezan (see Posamentir Figs 17–20).

Stylistically related in many ways, but of a highly distinctivenature, is the pottery of the region of Caria, around and to thesouth of Miletos. None of the characteristic examples of Carianpottery as we know them for the region of Mylasa seems to havebeen found at Naukratis. There is, however, one Subgeometricfragment which through NAA has been associated with a typicalCarian vessel (Pair 5), and another fragment which seems tobelong to local Carian pottery production at Kaunos on theCarian/Lycian border; both fragments in all likelihood date tothe earliest period of Naukratis (Williams and Villing Figs 1–2).One is tempted to think of Carian mercenaries passing throughor settling at Naukratis, or perhaps of traders fromHalikarnassos, another founding city of Naukratis.

East Doris

For another founding city, Knidos, new excavations at the Apollosanctuary at Emecik have now established a large body ofArchaic pottery,59 which includes a number of decorated plates.As Regina Attula demonstrates in the present volume, they arenotable particularly for their figured decoration, which includesa ‘Potnia Theron’ (Attula Fig. 4 – compare the Fikellura ‘PotniaTheron’ from Miletos mentioned above, Schlotzhauer Fig. 2) aswell as several representations of ships, an appropriate themefor a sanctuary close to an important marine port. Many of the

plates fall into the chemical provenance Group EmeB, whichmust be attributed to East Dorian, probably local Knidian,workshops. The group also includes a cup found in Naukratis ofa characteristic East Dorian type, paralleled especially onRhodes, and bearing a Phoenician inscription (Fig. 24)60 – afurther instance of the cosmopolitan nature of trade around theMediterranean.

Rhodes itself, of course, also had a stake in the port ofNaukratis. While most East Greek pottery used to be thought ofas Rhodian, this idea has now been dispelled by recentresearch;61 indeed, there is little left that can with any certaintystill be attributed to the island. The Rhodian origin of the‘situlae’, discussed here by Sabine Weber, which are so commonin Tell Defenneh, remains a strong possibility. Analysis hasshown several of them (Weber Figs 18–23) to fall into achemical provenance Group TD, which cannot yet be localizedbut (particurly considering the results of earlier analyses thatplaced them in a Rhodian context) which may well eventuallyfind its home on Rhodes or in its vicinity, as may perhapsanother fragment of a plate, Nauk 53 (Fig. 25; Group RHc1) withan unusual representation of a deer. Finally, one may speculateabout whether the enigmatic Archaic plate from Naukratis withthe ‘kleps-‘ inscription (Johnston Fig. 11) may also stem fromsomewhere in this region. Both in shape and in clay compositionit goes together with a larger fragment (Fig. 26; Group ITAN),and even though the origin of these pieces cannot be localisedyet, one may point to very similar fragments found on theacropolis of Lindos.62

Cups with everted rim (‘Ionian cups’): a much-neglected class

of its own

Cups with everted rim have so far not been systematicallystudied as a group of material at Naukratis,63 as opposed to otherclasses of material such as painted Attic,64 Chian,65 Fikellura(MileA II),66 or certain North Ionian groups of pottery.67 Eventhough over a hundred years have passed, not all the preservedfinds from the four seasons of work in the late 19th and early20th century have been taken into account by modernscholarship. This selective treatment of finds from Naukratis68

has repeatedly led to a distortion in their assessment.69

As has been mentioned above, one of the cups with evertedrim from Naukratis (Fig. 24)70 has recently been shown to haveprobably been produced in a workshop in the region of

Schlotzhauer and Villing

Figure 25Wild Goat style plate,sample Nauk 53, Group RHc1 (notlocated)

Figure 24 East Dorian cup with everted rim, sample Nauk 51, Group EMEB(Knidian peninsula)

Figure 23 Cup with everted rim (Type 10, 2B), sample Nauk 6, Group DD (notlocated)

Figure 26 Undecorated plate/bowl,sample Nauk 74, Group ITAN (notlocated)

Page 69: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 61

composition of Types 10 and 11. Perhaps these will revealfundamentally different clay paste recipes used by differentworkshops, as is hinted at by the very limited NAA resultsobtained so far. Or it might emerge that both types were madefrom similar clay pastes, which might mean that they come fromthe same workshop. If so, the evidence from Naukratis could beinterpreted differently, and a greater role be attributed, forexample, to choices made by traders and customers inNaukratis.

The re-evaluation of the cups with everted rims may finallyhelp us to close a gap that had long been recognised between thehistorical tradition and the archaeological evidence.81 If Samosand especially the large Ionian metropolis Miletos are the mainproduction centres of cups with everted rim, then these,together with MileA II painted pottery, would finally providearchaeological proof of a significant number of Milesian waresin Naukratis.82 The archaeological evidence would thus reflectthe historically attested significance of the two sites which is alsomanifest in the two filial cults of the main deities of Samians andMilesians at Naukratis.

Yet the attribution of this class of pottery is not quite as clear-cut as is suggested in many handbooks. The scientific analysesaimed at the determination of the provenience of cups witheverted rims caution against the wholesale attribution of classesof pottery to only few or even a single centre of production.According to the current state of research the production of cupswith everted rims in Miletos can be considered as certain,83 notleast through the analysis of a cup of Type 11 from Naukratis(sample Nauk 4, Fig. 21) which falls into the Milesian Group D.For the island of Samos, the results of analyses conducted byHans Mommsen on the Hera mugs of Naukratis (confirmingearlier results to the same effect achieved by Mike Hughes) haveshown provenance Group J to be Samian.84 The cup with evertedrim with a Hera-dipinto (Fig. 29) that was a part of the ritualdining pottery in the cult of Samian Hera in Naukratis can thusindirectly be attributed to Samian production,85 as can a cupwith everted rim from Ephesos that has the same Samian claycomposition J.86 But in addition to Samos and Miletos,production in Ephesos – a site still within the wider radius ofSouth Ionia – has also been suspected.87 Furthermore, P. Duponthas raised the possibility of production in Klazomenai88 andAiolis,89 and attributed examples of cups with everted rim fromNaukratis to these sites (Dupont and Thomas Figs 5.60[Klazomenai], 62–3, 100–1 [Aiolis]). And as D. Williams pointsout in the present volume,90 Chian workshops, too, producedtheir own version of these cups, decorating the rim with myrtleor laurel wreaths.91

Further examples of this class that have been analysed byMommsen provide other interesting information. A cup fromNaukratis (Figs 23) that forms a chemical pair together with acup of exactly the same type (though lacking red and whitebands) from Tel Kabri (sample TeKa 3) cannot yet be attributedto a production place with any certainty. Its chemical

East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research

Figure 29 Samian cup with evertedrim with Hera-dipinto, BM GR 1911.6-6.23

Knidos/Emecik (NAA Group EmeB). This piece, indeed, belongsto the East Dorian variant of cups with everted rim, which inNaukratis is a far rarer import than its prolific South Ioniansibling, an observation which fits in well with the known patternof distribution of both these types in the Levant as well as inNorth Africa.71 The South Ionian variant is attested by severalhundred fragments in the store-room of the British Museumalone. Four of these are illustrated here; they are broadlyrepresentative of the variations that are found of the SouthIonian type among the imports to Naukratis (Figs 21, 23, 27–28).

South Ionian cups with everted rim, in their variousvariations, are found in Naukratis from the last quarter of the7th until the end of the 6th century bc. The earliest type of cupwith everted rim to be found at Naukratis is Type 5.72 This typestill belongs to the late 7th century bc and in its latest Variant5.C, to which our cup belongs (Fig. 27), comes to an end alreadyin the first quarter of the 6th century bc. The span of productionof Type 5 thus overlaps with the earliest phase of Greek presenceat Naukratis. Cups with everted rim of Type 5 are, accordingly,rare among finds at the site. Type 9, by contrast, belongsexclusively to the 6th century bc .73 Its production begins around590–80 bc at the earliest. At Naukratis both early variants of thistype, such as a cup of Variant 9.A (Fig. 28) from the secondquarter of the 6th century bc, and late variants from the secondhalf of the 6th century bc are found. Type 9 is of higher qualityand is indeed quite frequent at Naukratis, which is surelyconnected with its dedication in sanctuaries. Cups of this shapecould also be adorned with figured relief-appliqués74 or withpainted figured decoration in MileA II-style (Fikellura).75 Thebest-known examples are of course the Ionian Little-Master-Cups.76 A few of these have also been found in Naukratis andcontinue to be counted among the examples of highest quality intheir class.77

Two further types of South Ionian cups with everted rim thatare found at Naukratis are Type 10 (Fig 23) and 11 (Fig. 21).78 Theemergence of these two types in the last quarter of the 7thcentury bc marks a significant change in the production of thisclass in Miletos.79 While the 7th century bc had beencharacterised by a multitude of different types being producedin relatively small numbers, the 6th century bc was dominatedby mass production of types 10 and 11 and their variants.80 Whatis interesting in this respect is that at Naukratis Type 11 (Fig. 21;Group DD) is only very rarely attested, whereas Type 10 (Fig 23;Group D) is present in numerous variants. This might suggestthat only products of a specialised workshop were exported toNaukratis, and the producers of Type 11 only rarely traded withNaukratis. The current state of research, however, does not yetallow us to either support or contradict this thesis. Furtherchemical analyses to determine the provenance of cups witheverted rim are necessary to gain an overview of the clay

Figure 27 Cup with everted rim (Type5.C), BM GR 1886.4-1.1036

Figure 28 Cup with everted rim (Type9.A), BM GR 1886.4-1.1035

Page 70: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

62 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

provenance Group DD so far consists of only three pieces (thethird is a jug found in Berezan on the northern Black Seacoast),92 with no kiln waster nor any find concentration to hint atany particular location.93 Nor do the three pieces show anychronological spread: all date to the first half to third quarter ofthe 6th century bc. What is clear, however, is that their place ofproduction must have been a trading centre in the EasternAegean which exported its wares during this period toNaukratis, the Levant and the Black Sea. Such a distributioncould plausibly be reconciled with production at Miletos. Yet innone of the places attested by our ancient sources to have beenMilesian spheres of interest have only Milesian wares beenfound. For this reason, other East Aegean regions cannot beexcluded as possible places of origin for Group DD. Still, theshapes of all three pieces are usually connected with SouthIonia, and the decoration of the jug (of phase MileA II) inparticular is closely associated with Miletos. The place ofproduction of DD could thus be Miletos itself – perhaps as a thirdlocal group in addition to A and probably D – or in its immediatevicinity, or even a colony of Miletos, such as the ‘Hellespontworkshops’ proposed by Posamentir.94 This production centre,not yet precisely located in the Troad or on the shores of theHellespont, is known to have created, among other things,pottery similar to that of Milesian workshops.95 At any rate, thefindspots of the two cups fit in with an assumed trade route fromthe Eastern Aegean to Naukratis/North Africa, which has alsobeen suggested by Schaus, D’Angelo, Villing and Schlotzhauer inthe present volume, with Tel Kabri being a stop-over en route,96

an assumption supported also by the fact that the typologicalrange of cups with everted rim from Naukratis is a strikingmatch for 7th and 6th century bc imports in the Levant. But asFantalkin in the present volume argues from a more historicalpoint of view, such direct imports in the Southern Levant seemto cease following the Babylonian disaster. It is thus possible thatthe cup reached Tel Kabri with Greek mercenaries, perhaps viaNaukratis.

From the evidence presented so far it seems likely thatfurther production centres for cups with everted rim will beadded. Indeed, if all the results referred to above are correct, itwould seem that at times all the various East Greek regionsproduced cups with everted rims! Only for the two South Ioniancentres of Samos and Miletos, however, are there alsoarchaeological reasons, in addition to the scientific analyses, toassume a major production of this class of cup. Only here do wefind a broad spectrum of types as well as a continuousdevelopment from the Geometric to the Archaic period. In noother region, neither Aiolis nor North Ionia, nor even East Doris(where a close variant was obviously developed) is acomparably complete line of development attested. Imitations,however, are quite conceivable in other regions, too, not leastsince other imported pottery was imitated frequently.97 Finally, itis also possible that the imitations attributed to Aiolis by Dupontmay in fact have been produced in a Milesian colony, such asPosamentir’s ‘Hellespont workshops’.98

Local pottery production at Archaic Naukratis

One of the most valuable results to have emerged from thearchaeometric work on the pottery from Naukratis is theconfirmation of local pottery production at the site itself or in itsimmediate vicinity.99 Much of this work is based on material in

the British Museum.100

It was P. Dupont who in 1983 was the first to demonstratelocal, Egyptian production of Greek pottery,101 as a parallel forlocal Greek production in the Milesian colony of Istros (Histria)on the Black Sea coast.102 A mere few lines in a footnote refer tohis important analyses of two pieces from Naukratis in theMuseum of Archaeology and Anthropology of the University ofCambridge. One of them he considered to be a Late Wild Goatplate of Aiolian type (Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1, NAU 9), theother an ‘Ionian’ oinochoe with banded decoration (NAU 71).For both pieces he assumed local production with Nile clay:‘présenté des compositions typiques du delta du Nil’.103 Thepresent volume finally contains Dupont’s complete and detailedreport on his investigations on the pottery from Naukratis andincludes, among the 78 analysed pieces, also the two above-mentioned sherds attributed to local production in Egypt(Dupont’s Group G).104

A further 14 products of the Naukratis workshops, located infive museums (Berlin, Bonn, Boston, Cambridge, and the BritishMuseum, London; cf. Table 1), have now been added as a resultof the recent investigations on the part of the British Museum’sDepartment of Greek and Roman Antiquities and the NaukratisProject of SFB 295 at Mainz University together with thelaboratory of Hans Mommsen in Bonn.105 In addition, the sameplate in Cambridge as analysed by Dupont was analysed oncemore by Mommsen and local production in Egypt confirmed(Fig. 30, sample Nauk 33 = Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1, sampleNAU 9). The majority of pieces in the provenance group thusgained (QANN - see the detailed discussion in Mommsen et al,this volume) are Archaic (12 examples, see Table 1). Thisprovides a more complete picture of the range of production ofthe local pottery workshop of early Naukratis.

It is now clear that both painted and undecorated vesselswere produced at Naukratis. To the shapes already recognisedby Dupont – plate and oinochoe with banded decoration (Fig.30, Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1, NAU 9; NAU 71) – we can nowadd with certainty further plates (Figs 31–33), but also dinoi(Fig. 34), small oinochoai with a ribbed neck (Fig. 35), largeoinochoai with trefoil mouth (Fig. 37), amphorae (Figs 38 and39 – from Tell Defenneh106) and lamps. In addition, there aremugs107 and cups with everted rim, which have not (yet) beenanalysed.108 Surely further shapes were produced which havenot been preserved or not yet been discovered among thepreserved material. It is particularly interesting that non-Greekshapes, too, are found as part of provenance Group QANN, suchas a plate identified by J. Spencer as a 26th dynasty Egyptianshape (Fig. 41).

The pottery of the Naukratis workshop has a character of itsown. This is obvious already in the idiosyncrasy of the shapes aswell as in their eclectic decoration. A group of three smalloinochoai with a ribbed neck are a case in point (Figs 35, 36).Although jugs with a trefoil mouth and jugs with a ribbed neckare known among East Aegean pottery, the combination of boththese features is not. Nor can one agree with the assessment of P.Dupont, who detected merely an Aiolian character in the platefragment Fig. 30 (sample NAU 9 = Mommsen Nauk 33). Rather,we find here an angle-filled cross as it is know from Aiolian andNorth Ionian pottery, next to a flower of a form known both inKlazomenai and in Miletos before the middle of the 6th centurybc.

Schlotzhauer and Villing

Page 71: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 63

East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research

Figure 30 Painted plate, sample Nauk33, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Figure 31 Painted plate, sample Nauk25, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Figure 32 Painted plate, sample Nauk 9, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?), withfragment from same vessel

Figure 33 Undecorated plate, sample Nauk27, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Figure 36 Undecorated jug, sample Nauk 19, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Figure 37Wavy-line oinochoe, sample Nauk 81, Group QANN (Egypt –Naukratis?)

Figure 35 Undecorated jug, sample Nauk 14, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Figure 38Amphora or hydria, sample Nauk 83,Group QANN(Egypt – Naukratis?) Figure 39 Painted amphora, sample Defe 10, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Figure 34 Undecorated dinos, sample Nauk 82, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Page 72: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

64 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Such eclecticism is, of course, not without its parallels evenwithin the workshops of East Greece itself, or indeed ArchaicGreece as a whole. Motifs that are characteristic for productioncentres such as Corinth, Laconia, Attica etc. are on occasionadopted also in the production of other centres. In hiscontribution on Chian pottery from Naukratis in the presentvolume, for example, D. Williams points to several instances ofsuch adoptions and influences among Chian pottery of the 6thcentury bc, which testify to the vivid exchange of motifs andideas among the workshops and pottery centres of the Greekmainland and the Greek centres of the East Aegean. Theyinclude the possible migration of a Laconian painter closelyassociated with the Boreads Painter (575–65 bc) to Chios, andthere christened Sirens Painter by Williams (Williams Figs14–21), and the adoption of Laconian elements, such as flyingwinged creatures, into South Ionian pottery. Or does theadoption happen the other way round? Certainly, in this period,as already in the previous Orientialising period, much influencealso moves from East to West, and Eastern traits remaininfluential.109 In the third quarter of the 6th century bcadoptions continue to be attested in Chian workshops, asWilliams points out with reference to atticising kantharoi andchalices.110

Looking at the whole of the output so far attributed to thelocal Naukratis workshops, it must be noted, in addition to theinterestingly broad spectrum of shapes, that there are moredecorated than undecorated pieces. This may be a somewhatskewed picture, as also the locally produced pottery – which hadnot been recognised as such by the excavators, at least notexplicitly in print111 – was subject to the usual criteria forcollection and preservation applied to the all the pottery fromthe site by Petrie, Gardner und Hogarth.112 Consequently, only asmall percentage of the local pottery of Naukratis is likely tohave been preserved, and that the undecorated percentage maywell once have been far higher. As for the decorated pottery, itsstudy shows that the typical decorative schemes current in 6thcentury bc East Greece are present here, too: wavy lines, bands,various types of ornamental decoration, and half or completelyslipped vessel. The decorative designs mostly belong to thephase A II – filling ornaments as they are found in the late WildGoat and early Fikellura styles, and floral ornaments as we knowthem from Miletos. Most of the painted examples, moreover,feature a whitish slip or a distinctive thick, pinkish slip clearlyintended to mimic the whitish-beige slips of pottery in the EastGreek homeland.

A further aspect of the local pottery from Naukratis is theaddition of graffiti. Williams and Villing in their contribution onCarians at Naukratis in the present volume have alreadymentioned the Carian inscription on a locally producedoinochoe in Berlin (Fig. 36) that may have been an offering in atomb. It has two nearly identical siblings from the temenos of

Apollo at Naukratis itself (Fig. 35), one of which through clayanalysis has been shown to be a product of the Naukratisworkshop, too. They carry the Greek inscription ‘DEKA’, whichmay be an abbreviation of deka/th, signifying the dedication of atenth to the god.113 More explicit is the retrograde votive graffitoto Apollo on an amphora or hydria with bandeddecoration:…]wpollwso emi[… (Fig. 38).114 A small bowl (notanalysed but of typical Nile clay and covered with the distinctivepinkish slip of the Naukratis workshop) bears the graffitoAFRO[... (Fig. 40) and may have been a dedication toAphrodite,115 and the small undecorated dinos (Fig. 34) with thegraffiti TH[… was probably a votive offering, too.

There finally remains the question of figured decoration onthe local pottery of Naukratis. Not a single example with figureddecoration was identified among the chemically analysed piecesfrom Naukratis and Tell Defenneh. Nor is there – as far as we areaware to date – any piece from Naukratis in any collection inEurope or America that one might suspect to be local figuredpottery.116 Nevertheless, for a long time there have beendiscussions regarding figured pottery from other find places inEgypt which were suspected to be local products of Greekcharacter.117 Not all speculation in this regard has been provenright. The so-called Apries amphora (Bailey Figs 1–5, GroupB),118 for example, is surely no Egyptian product in spite of thecartouches of the Pharaoh Apries. It now needs to be seenalongside the situlae from Tell Defenneh,119 which equallyfeature Egyptian motifs in their decoration (e.g. Weber Figs16–17) but are also East Greek products.120 The case may bedifferent, however, with the amphora from Saqqara.121 Itsiconographic traits (John Boardman in his contribution to thepresent volume points, for example, to the characteristicallyEgyptian way of representing the bull’s horns) and its stylisticcloseness to the painted pottery from the Naukratis workshoplead one to suspect that it was produced in Egypt, most likely inthe same workshop, although this has to remain purespeculation until the clay of this piece, too, is examined. Thatproducts of the workshop were exported within Egypt is alsosuggested by the amphora from Tell Defenneh (Fig. 39), whichfalls into the same provenance Group QANN. This aspects willbe discussed at length by S. Weber.122

This brings us to the question of the origin and localisationof the provenance Group QANN. So far we have talked of ‘theNaukratis workshop’; what is the justification for this associationwith Naukratis, as opposed to a localisation at, for example, TellDefenneh? When did local pottery begin to be produced and bywhom?

Even beyond their decoration, most of the pieces ofprovenance Group QANN are distinctive already at first glance.Visually, their clay stands out as typically micaceous red-brownNile silt with a grey core, very different from other Greek clays,but resembling locally produced Egyptian pottery. Yet what is

Schlotzhauer and Villing

Figure 41 Egyptian plate, sampleNauk 79, Group QANN (Egypt –Naukratis?)

Figure 40 Bowl with graffito, BM GR1888.6-1.739

Page 73: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 65

obvious, too, is that the Nile silt in the Greek examples isprocessed very differently to regular Egyptian clay (asexemplified, e.g., in the plate Nauk 79, Fig. 41)– its much denser,finer texture clearly points to Greek potters at work who broughtwith them processing techniques different to those used by theirEgyptian counterparts, in addition to East Greek shapes and EastGreek-style decoration. The enterprise thus appears to havebeen an essentially East Greek one, the result of one or morepotters and painters settling down in Egypt to cater to the needsof other Greeks. Egyptian involvement is not certain, at least notafter, perhaps, some guidance in locating the local clay beds.That Egyptian potters may have worked in the same workshop –and produced typical Egyptian plates, according to traditionalEgyptian methods of clay preparation and finishing, such as thatshown in Figure 41 – cannot be excluded, though one mayequally consider the joint use of the same clay beds. The originof the potters and painters, on the other hand, is hard to pindown; as has been observed above, both the shapes and thedecoration display an eclectic mix of styles that covers severalEast Greek regions. Egyptian influence, by contrast, is elusive,unless one counts the distinctively Egyptian way of drawing thehorns on the above-mentioned Saqqara amphora.

That the workshop that produced this pottery was located inNaukratis or its immediate vicinity, rather than elsewhere in theNile Delta, is made likely by several factors. One is thechronological span that is covered by the pottery in productionGroup QANN, between at least the Archaic (second third of the6th century bc) and Ptolemaic (2nd century bc) periods – thedate of an attractive decorated fragment from Naukratis (Fig.42) – since it would seem unlikely that the inhabitants ofNaukratis imported their pottery over a long period of time fromanother, far removed site in Egypt. Another is the fact that localpottery production is securely attested in Naukratis in laterperiods. Writing in the early 3rd century bc, Athenaios (9.480)referred to a flourishing pottery production at Naukratis, with agate in the potters’ quarter being called ‘Keramike’.123 A potters’quarter had in fact also been noted by Petrie, and potters’rubbish and kilns are marked on his map to the east of thetemenos of Hera.124 Little is know about what exactly Petrie’sevidence was, but even though his description of the potters’rubbish may be read to include Archaic material, it is more likelyto be mostly Hellenistic or later.125 Kilns, kiln furniture and localpottery made from Nile clay are certainly attested through theAmerican fieldwork at Naukratis, from at least the 3rd centurybc onwards. The local potters appear to have producedimitations (particularly in a characteristic grey fabric) of Greek

(Attic black-glazed) shapes, as well as some local shapes.126 A fairnumber of such easily identifiable local wares from the earlyseasons of excavations at Naukratis are also preserved in thestore-rooms of the British Museum. Most importantly, however,there are strangely shaped objects with pre-firing inscriptions,which in all likelihood are some kind of pot stands or other kilnfurniture inscribed, one may speculate, with a potter’s name soas to separate different lots in kiln.127 Parallels have been found,for example, in a 2nd century bc pottery workshop at Athribis.128

Two of these objects from Naukratis have now been analysedand fall into the local provenance Group QANN (samples Nauk15 and 16; Figs 43, 44).129 They not only provide direct evidencefor local pottery workshops at Naukratis in the Ptolemaic period,but also – given the extremely high likelihood of their havingbeen made locally – securely anchor the provenance GroupQANN at Naukratis. As regards the likely beginnings of this localNaukratite production, these seem to fall approximately into thesecond third of the 6th century bc. Perhaps we may, in fact,connect them with the re-organisation of Naukratis underAmasis as it is reported by Herodotus, or with the decadesimmediately following that event.

Finally, it should not be forgotten that the fine wares of theArchaic ‘Naukratis workshop’ are just part of a wider picture, asis pointed out by Villing in this volume. Local imitations in marlclay of Archaic Greek (Samian and Lesbian) transport amphoraeare attested at Tell Defenneh and T21.130 Mortaria made frommarl clay at Naukratis and Tell Defenneh (Villing Figs 1, 19, 20,and esp. 23) and many other sites may go back to Greek orCypriot models, and may have been produced by potters of the‘Naukratis workshop’ working with different clay, or perhaps bydifferent workshops at Naukratis or elsewhere, perhaps evenones run by Cypriots, Phoenicians or Egyptians. Other foreignpotters at work in Egypt are certainly attested in the case of the‘Judean juglets’, which appear to have been manufactured byJudean potters for a Judean diaspora community.131 TheNaukratis workshop and related production of Greek potteryshapes in Egypt surely falls into the same category of localpottery produced by immigrants for an immigrant community.Archaic Naukratis thus emerges less and less as place wheretraders merely passed through going about their trade anddepositing offerings in sanctuaries, but as centre of productionin its own right, with a pottery workshop now having joined thealready attested workshops for scarabs and faience, the likelyterracotta and sculpture workshops, and the possible alabasteralabastra and perhaps even flower garland workshops.132

East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research

Figure 44 Hellenistic kiln furniture, sample Nauk 16, Group QANN (Egypt –Naukratis?)

Figure 42 Hellenistic painted vessel,sample Nauk 17, Group QANN (Egypt– Naukratis?)

Figure 43 Hellenistic kiln furniture,sample Nauk 15, Group QANN (Egypt– Naukratis?)

Page 74: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

66 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Illustration creditsFigs 17b, 26b, 37b, 38b, 40a, 41b K. Morton; Figs 23b, 24b, 27, 28, 30, 32b,34b, 35b, 36, 44b U. Schlotzhauer; Figs. 18, 31, 33 ©2004 Museum of FineArts, Boston; all remaining photographs the British Museum.

Notes* We are grateful to Dyfri Williams, Michael Kerschner, Richard

Posamentir and Sabine Weber for helpful comments on this essay.1 See also Gardner 1888, 15; who refers to large numbers of painted

and undecorated fragments coming to light every day: ‘I accordinglyhad to content myself with glancing through the contents of eachbasket, to make sure that it really consisted of painted fragments ofvases, and had no rubbish put in to fill.’ For a provisional list ofcollections with material from Naukratis, see Villing andSchlotzhauer, this volume, n. 12.

2 On the significance of the finds from Naukratis for scholarship of thelate 19th and early 20th century, see e.g. Cook 1997, 296-9, 305.

3 E.g. Boehlau 1898; Prinz 1908; Price 1924, 1928. For a discussion ofscholarship on the pottery of Naukratis, see also in particularKerschner 2001; Schlotzhauer 2001a.

4 See e.g. Stevenson 1890/1.5 Two recent publications in particular summarise the results of this

development: the late R.M. Cook's magisterial survey on East Greekpottery (a joint publication with Pierre Dupont), and Sir JohnBoardman's handbook on Early Greek vase-painting: Cook andDupont 1998; Boardman 1998b.

6 Akurgal et al. 2002; Coldstream and Liddy 1996, 480-1; Dupont 1983,1986, 2000; Hertel et al. 2001; Harbottle et al. 2005; Hughes et al.1988; Jones 1986; Kerschner et al. 1993, 2002; Kerschner andMommsen 2005; Kerschner 2006; Mommsen, Kerschner andPosamentir 2006; Mommsen, Schwedt und Attula 2006; Posamentirand Solovyov 2006; Schlotzhauer 2006; Seifert 1998, 2004; Seifertand Yalçin 1996.

7 Dupont 1983.8 Dupont 1983, 36.9 Dupont 1983, 36 n. 38, where he refers to this series of analyses for

the first time and also mentions two fragments that might have beenproduced locally at Naukratis.

10 Jones 1986, 698-702, 663 pls 8.11-13. Mostly samples in Oxford wereanalysed, but some pieces in the British Museum were also included;see ibid., 701 table 8.18. The three situla fragments in Oxford arewrongly indicated as being from Naukratis; in fact they are from TellDefenneh.

11 Jones 1986, 662-3.12 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Inv. 1925.608 a-c; Beazley et al. 1931,

pl. G.B. 401.25-7; Jones 1986, 669-70. 13 Dupont and Thomas, this volume; cf. Weber, this volume.14 The new results by Mommsen, Weber, Schlotzhauer and the British

Museum, by contrast, show the situlae in a chemical group of theirown, to which none of the analysed Vroulian vessels belong.

15 Hughes et al. 1988, 475; Mommsen et al., this volume. A later batchtaken by Hughes, analysed independently, included 14 black-glazeand black-figure pottery samples from Naukratis in Oxford and theBritish Museum; the results of this analysis have recently beenpublished, establishing that all analysed samples are of Atticproduction: Harbottle, Hughes and Seleem 2005. Unfortunately, thedescriptions of the analysed pieces given in the article (table 1 on p.513) are incomplete or flawed; as regards the ten pieces in the BritishMuseum (all from Naukratis), no. 16 is from a 6th century bc bf dinosstand (Venit 1982, 481 no. B839); no. 17 is from a bf dinos, circle ofSophilos ; no. 18 is from a rf column-krater, ca. 500-490 bc (Venit1982, 486-7 no. C8); no. 20 is from a bf dinos stand, circle of Sophilos(Venit 1982, 480-1 no. B838; cf. Williams 1983b, 15-16 fig. 10); nos 19and 21-25 are all from black-glaze vessels. Of the Ashmolean Museumpieces, two (nos 7 and 9) are catalogued among the Attic material inVenit 1988, 339 no. B407, 435 no. B702, pls 171 and 214.

16 Petrie 1886b, 13.17 Petrie 1886b, 23. See also Villing, this volume, and Johnston 1982, 35-

7, and this volume. 18 Edgar 1905, 123-6.19 Petrie 1886b, 42, reports the find of some 1200 such pieces, which

were all brought back to Britain.20 Villing, this volume, n. 196; cf. also Kerschner 2001, 75-6.21 For a summary of Attic, Laconian and Corinthian pottery at

Naukratis, see esp. Möller 2000a, 119-27.

22 Venit 1984; Schlotzhauer 2006, 294-301, esp. 301 with n. 61.23 For clay analysis of black-glaze pottery from Naukratis, see supra n.

15.24 Notably Beazley and Payne 1929; Venit 1982, 1988.25 For a summary of the current state of knowledge on North Ionian

pottery see especially the recent work by Kerschner and Mommsen:Kerschner 2001, 85-7; Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002, 63-92;Kerschner 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006; see also forKlazomenai: Ersoy 1993, 2000, 2003, 2004; Özer 2004; Hürmüzlü2004a.

26 The simpler plate Nauk 37 is clearly related. Note also the prominentuse of added red and white dots in many of the examples in thisgroup.

27 Özer 2004, 215 n. 15; cf. Bailey, this volume.28 Walter-Karydi 1973, 68-9, cat. no. 732, pl. 99.732.29 Note, e.g., a similar plate which may have been produced in the same

workshop:Walter-Karydi 1973, 68, cat. no. 731, pl. 97.731.30 Walter-Karydi 1973, 70, cat no. 819, pl. 100.819.31 Doubts had already been expressed by Lemos 1991, 179. Further

examination of this topic is envisaged for the future.32 Kerschner 2001, 79.33 Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002, 63-72, 97-105.34 Cook 1954, pls G.B. 587.18 and 590.15.35 Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 586.36 Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002, cat no. 88; cf. also an amphoriskos

with scale pattern: ibid. cat no. 86; N-Ionian bf column krater: ibid.cat no. 87.

37 Cf. Kerschner 2006.38 Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).39 Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 123.996.40 Paspalas, this volume, n. 68; Kerschner, this volume, n. 99; Akurgal

et al. 2002, 93-4.41 Ersoy 2003, and see above.42 Several dozens of sherds are preserved in the British Museum. Cf.

also a Grey ware fragment with a representation of a Sphinx once inthe collection of von Bissing. Prins de Jong 1925, 23, 55 no. V.1.

43 Grey ware pottery was, in fact, produced all along the western coastof Asia Minor (and beyond), as far south as Miletos and Samos,although here the repertoire of shapes and kinds of decorationclearly distinguishes it from the northern production of Grey wares.For a survey, see Bayne 2000.

44 Möller 2000a, 173-4 no. 1; Johnston 1978, no. 1.45 Lamb 1932, 10 fig. 4.10.46 See Bayne 2000, 254. 47 Bayne 2000, 254.48 Red painted floral decoration is found especially on 6th century bc

Grey ware cups, jugs, cups with everted rim and stemmed platesfrom a tomb on Samos (Gercke and Löwe 1996, 68-70 nos 45.41-50),as well as on lids painted in Fikellura style at Miletos (Posamentir2002, 20-21 fig. 5, 26 cat. no. 30). Grey ware cups with everted rims(Knickrandschalen) from Miletos have been shown through clayanalysis to be local products (to be published shortly by U.Schlotzhauer), and analysis has shown that Grey ware from Berezan(Posamentir and Solovyov 2006: sample Bere 136) belongs toMilesian Group A, the Kalabaktepe workshops. For Grey warepottery produced in Ephesos, see Kerschner 1997b, 209-10.

49 Cf. Möller 2000a, 173 no. 3. For a complete example of an open-workstand from Naukratis, see Lamb 1932, pl. 1.3.

50 E.g. Lamb 1932, 8 fig. 3.7, 15. Less close (though not unrelated toother fenestrated stands from Naukratis) are the examples fromLarisa: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 128 fig. 53, pl. 48.19-22.

51 Mommsen et al. 2001; Mountjoy and Mommsen (forthcoming).52 P.A. Mountjoy in Mommsen, Hertel and Mountjoy 2001, 178: ‘This

clay recipe is used at Troy from Troy I-VIII for unpainted wares andfor Mycenaean pottery. The longevity of the group suggests localproduction.’

53 Group B-Troy: Mommsen, Hertel and Mountjoy 2001, 200, 201 fig. 48(Protogeometric-Early Geometric); Group D-Troy: ibid., 178, 179 figs7-8 (Troy VI). For Archaic parallels, see also Lamb 1932, 10 fig. 4.1(from Pyrrha), 3 (from Troy VIII), and Utili 2002, passim.

54 Cf. Spencer 1995, 304. For Lesbian Grey wares, see esp. Bayne 2000and Spencer 1995, 301-3; for a summary of the evidence, see alsoKerschner 2001, 88 with ns 165-6.

55 Bayburtluoðlu 1978; Dupont 1983, 41.56 Cf. also the extensive discussion by Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer

and Weber 2005, 81; 93; Schlotzhauer 2006, 311-13.57 Cf. also Schlotzhauer 1999, 119-22; (forthcoming b).

Schlotzhauer and Villing

Page 75: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 67

58 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006; Kerschner 2006; Dupont 1983, 35-6.59 Attula 2006.60 Schlotzhauer 2006, 301-7, 316 figs 4-6.61 Cf. Schlotzhauer 2001a, 115-16. 62 Blinkenberg 1931, 738-9 nos 3172-4, fig. 74 and pl. 150.3171-3. One of

them carries a graffito underneath the foot. They are dated late byBlinkenberg and compared with Terra Sigillata shapes but theinscription on the Naukratis piece contradicts this. That the type(Petrie’s fabric group D) is indeed early is supported also by at leastone example reported to have come from early levels at Naukratis(Petrie 1886b, 21, 23), even though the ‘stratigraphy’ at Naukratis is,of course, notoriously unreliable.

63 Even though they have sometimes been considered by scholars, onlythe various randomly published pieces have been collected: e.g.Möller 2001a, 142-3.

64 Cf. Beazley and Payne 1929; Beazley et al. 1931; Venit 1984.65 Especially Lemos 1991.66 E.g. Cook 1933/4.67 E.g. the Tübingen group, Petrie group, Enman class or the Urla group

etc.: Cook 1952 and 1998, 95-107.68 On top of the selection already made by the excavators, and thus

further distorting the picture. On the criteria for keeping pottery andon the distribution of finds, see above, and Villing and Schlotzhauer,this volume.

69 Schlotzhauer 2001a, 113-4, 122-4. Examples for misinterpretationthrough the undifferentiated use of published data on the Archaicpottery from Naukratis: Bowden 1991; Sørensen 2001.

70 The cup is presumably that illustrated in Petrie 1886b, pl. 10.10.Petrie (ibid. 19) also points out that further examples of this typewere found during the excavations. There are, indeed, several EastDorian cups with everted rim, even if they do not correspond to theprecise variant represented by Fig. 24; cf. also Schlotzhauer 2006,301 n. 64.

71 The sites of Tell Sukas and Tocra (Taucheira), can be consideredrepresentative through their wealth of finds; cf. Schlotzhauer 2001b,27 table 1, 30-6, 39-43, 297-8. G. Ploug 1973, 27-39, distinguishes tengroups at Tell Sukas on the basis of a selection of 250 cups witheverted rim (overall c. 1500 such cups, mostly fragments, of the 6thcentury bc, were found; cf. ibid, 95-6). On present-day knowledgemost of Ploug’s groups have to be attributed to the South Ionian type;this includes Ploug’s groups 2, 3, 5, and especially the (at Sukas)quantitatively strongest groups 6 and 9. Only group 1 and severalexamples of group 9, which includes mostly South Ionian types, canbe attributed to the East Dorian variant. Groups 4 and 7-8 consistpartly of singular pieces, and group 10 contains merely handles,which taken by themselves should not make up a group of their ownand which, moreover, to date cannot be attributed to any productioncentres. In Tocra J. Hayes distinguished 14 types with severalvariants, and believed the majority of his types to be Rhodian (type Ito XI: Hayes in Boardman and Hayes 1966, 111-5, 120-4) and only fewexamples Samian, i.e. South Ionian (Samian i-iii: ibid. 115-6, 124). Onpresent knowledge, however, only type VI and several singularpieces, which he considered variants of type IX (Hayes in Boardmanand Hayes 1966, 111-6, 120-4) are not South Ionian. Once more, then,the quantitatively strongest groups at Tocra in particular belong toSouth Ionia. Also at sites where so far only little East Greek potteryand few cups with everted rim have emerged East Dorian types aremore rare than South Ionian ones, for example at Mez.adH. ashavyahu, Tel Kabri or Ashkelon (Schlotzhauer 2001b, 298-303).

72 Type 5 is in some respects close to or identical with Type II/2 ofBoldrini 1994, 149-51 cat. nos 249-50, pl. 4.249-50. The examplepresented here belongs to a sub-type, Type 5.C (Schlotzhauer 2000,410-1; 2001b, 86-7, 326-5).The typology of South Ionian cups usedhere is the new typology devised by the author on the basis of thestudy of several thousand cups with everted rim from Miletos, seeSchlotzhauer 2001b; Schlotzhauer in Kerschner 1999, 21-3 with no.71; Schlotzhauer 2000.

73 Schlotzhauer Type 9.A is very similar to Type B1/B2 of Villard andVallet 1955, 23-6 and to Type II/1 (253) of Boldrini 1994, 148-52 cat.no. 253, pl. 5.253. On Type 9.A, see Schlotzhauer 2000, 409-14;2001b, 96-7, 332-3. For the role of Type 9 in the 6th century bc seeSchlotzhauer 2000, 410-1; 2001b, 123.

74 Cf. Petrie 1886b, pl. 13.1; Price 1924, 183 fig. 2; Venit 1988, 131 fig. 175,174 fig. 175-6, pl. 41.175-6; Möller 2000a, 143.

75 See Schlotzhauer 2001b, 392-6; Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b).76 On Ionian Little Master cups see esp. Kunze 1934; but also Cook 1998,

92-4; Schlotzhauer 2001b, 396-402; 2001a, 123-4; (forthcoming b);Shefton 1989;Walter Karydi 1973, 24-9.

77 Cf. Price 1924, 183 fig 3; Kunze 1934, pl. 7.1-2, Beil. 7; Walter-Karydi1973, pl. 49.422, pl. 50.445, pl. 53.448-9; Venit 1988, pl. 42.180; Möller2000a, 142-3.

78 Schlotzhauer Type 10 is more or less comparable to Type B1 of Villardand Vallet 1955, 23-6. The example presented here belongs to a sub-type, Type 10,2.B (Schlotzhauer 2000, 409-14; 2001b, 99, 333-5).

79 Schlotzhauer 2001b, 134-5, 503-5; 2001a, 410-1.80 Schlotzhauer 2001b, 340-1, diagrams 26-7.81 Boardman 1980, 49; Austin 1970, 51 no. 4; Sullivan 1996, 190; Möller

2000b, 747.82 As suggested by Schlotzhauer 2001a. This, of course, says nothing

about the actual physical presence of Milesians at Naukratis. It haslong been recognised that the place of origin of finds must not beequated with that of its carriers or users; see also Villing andSchlotzhauer, this volume.

83 Proven beyond doubt by the kiln waster of a cup with everted rimfrom the area of the kilns at Kalabaktepe in Miletos (Kerschner 2002,37-8, 114 cat no. 97, 175 fig. 63; provenance Group A, ‘Kalabaktepeworkshops’) as well as a further cup, Fig. 21 (Nauk 4), which,however, belongs to provenance Group D, likely to be located atMiletos as well. P. Dupont’s analyses, too, associate the production ofcups with everted rim with Miletos, see Dupont 1983, 34; 1986, 60-1;2000, 451-2, and Dupont, this volume: Dupont Fig. 6 (sample NAU61 = Group B1 = Miletos).

84 Cf. Mommsen et al., this volume. Already the archaeometric analysesof Dupont 1983, 33, 40, had shown Samos to be one of the mainplaces of production of cups with everted rim, especially of the high-quality series with a myrtle wreath on the rim or relief appliqués onthe shoulder-band. In the meantime, however, he himself (Dupont2000, 451, and Dupont, this volume, Group E) questions thisattribution.

85 Schlotzhauer 2006, 311-3, 318 fig. 13. From an archaeological point ofview the production of this special pottery with Hera-dipinti,otherwise known only from the mother sanctuary on Samos, hasnever been in doubt: see ibid. 311-3; Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauerand Weber 2005, 81. For the full range of shapes with Hera-dipinti(including cups with everted rim) in the Heraion of Samos see Kron1984, 1988 (with further references) and Furtwängler and Kienast1989.

86 In the first publication Group J could not yet be located; seeKerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002, 51, 108 cat. no. 68, pl. 5.68.

87 Kerschner (forthcoming).88 Dupont, this volume, Group F, sample NAU 60.89 Dupont, this volume, Group E, samples NAU 62-3, 100-1.90 Williams, this volume, esp. n. 63.91 They are a different phenomenon from the earlier development of

the class of cups with everted rim into the special Chian Chaliceshape as it has been shown, e.g., by Boardman 1967, 103 fig. 60. As isdiscussed below, the 6th century bc saw the exchange and adoptionof forms and motifs between several workshops in severalproduction centres. Such a process must be presumed here.

92 Sample Bere 11, cf. Mommsen et al., this volume; it will be discussedfurther by Kerschner 2006.

93 On Group DD see also Mommsen et al., this volume.94 Posamentir in Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.95 Ibid.96 The assumption of a stopover is also supported by the character of

the remaining East Greek finds from Tel Kabri, which is similar tothat from Naukratis.

97 For the so-called bird bowls, for example, which were produced inthe North Ionian pottery centre B (also termed the ‘bird bowlworkshops’ after this characteristic group of cups) and which onlythere display a long line of development, local imitations are attestedfor Miletos (provenance Group D), Kyme (provenance Group G) andthe North Ionian production centres E (Klazomenai?) and F(Smyrna?) as well as Ephesos (provenance Group H), see Kerschnerin Akurgal et al. 2002 and Kerschner and Mommsen, this volume.

98 Posamentir 2006 and also Dupont 2000, 452, consider theHellespont a possibility in this context, even if they only touch on thisissue tentatively and briefly.

99 In the following we will mainly talk of a workshop in the singular,even if the existence of several workshops – certainly over time buteven at any one time – cannot be excluded. For the Archaic period,however, at least during the first few decades, historical arguments

East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research

Page 76: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

68 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

and the small quantity of known locally produced pottery inNaukratis make it less likely that several workshops were responsiblefor the pottery of Group QANN.

100 The results have been made possible through the generous interestof the staff of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of theBritish Museum, especially its Keeper D. Williams. In addition,further local pottery was discovered and analysed in the Museums ofBonn, Boston and Cambridge (see Table 1), which will be discussedmore fully in the final publication of the Mainz Naukratis Project:Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).

101 Dupont 1983, 36 n. 38. Scholars had of course, for a long time,discussed and supposed the possibility of such local production, butmostly with regard to pottery groups now shown to be Greek / EastGreek, such as Chian pottery. Some, however, correctly pinpointedlocal products, such as the amphora from Tell Defenneh (Fig. 39)considered by Cook 1954, 39, to have been made ‘in the locality of TellDefenneh’, and now shown to be part of the local production GroupQANN.

102 Dupont 1983, 36.103 Dupont 1983, 36 n. 38.104 Dupont, this volume, n. 13, moreover points out that some further

samples share certain features characteristic for Nile Delta pottery.105 The authors and also D. Williams have identified further products of

the Naukratis workshops in several museums, but these have notbeen (or could not be) analysed, including pieces in Heidelberg,Alexandria and in The British Museum. Most of them will bediscussed in Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer and Weber(forthcoming).

106 This amphora will be discussed by S. Weber in length inSchlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).

107 E.g. BM GR 1965.9-30.450.108 One such cup with everted rim likely to be of local Naukratite

production is BM GR 1886.4-1.777. Another cup with everted rimfrom Naukratis (BM GR 1886.4-1.1034) that was suspected by Oren1984 (27 with note 19) to be of local Egyptian production, however, issurely of East Greek manufacture and merely dark grey because itwas burnt. Oren, however, presumably correctly observed a localEgyptian imitation of an Ionian cup at T.21 (Migdol): Oren 1984, 27,fig. 23.2, fig. 24; perhaps this, too was produced at Naukratis?

109 For interconnections between the Archaic pottery of East Greece, theGreek mainland and Western Greece, see also Williams(forthcoming).

110 See Williams, in this volume.111 What they considered as local is the type of pottery now identified as

Chian, calling it ‘Naukratian’: Petrie 1886b, 19; Gardner 1888, 38-53;Edgar 1898/9, 57; see also Williams, this volume. See also n. 14,below.

112 See also Villing and Schlotzhauer, this volume, and in detail soonSchlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).

113 Schlotzhauer 2006, 310-11.114 Perhaps this piece falls into Petrie’s fabric group B1 (‘rough red

brown clay, black stripes (earliest pottery from well, retrogradeinscriptions)’), which, together with fabric groups B 5 (‘rough red-brown clay, coarse’) B6 (‘rough red-brown clay, very coarse red,white face’) and possibly other sub-groups of B, probably refer tolocally produced vessels: Petrie 1886b, 17, 19, 21.

115 BM GR 1888.6-1.739. A modern incised inscription on the piece,‘CEM’, puzzlingly seems to suggest the cemetery of Naukratis as thefindspot, which is hard to reconcile with it bearing what looks like avotive inscription to Aphrodite. A second very similar rim fragment(BM GR 1888.6-1.291) with the graffito ... ]DIT[... does not join, eventhough it is very tempting to see them as belonging to the same bowl.

116 Harbottle, Hughes and Seleem 2005 avowedly set out to establishwhether it could be determined if local Greek pottery workshop atNaukratis produced black-figure pottery, but the material chosen bythem all emerged as Attic – perhaps hardly surprising given therather obviously Attic nature of many of the pieces, includingfragments attributed to well-known Attic vase-painters (see supra, n.15). From the analyses by Dupont and especially Mommsen it is nowclear that the local pottery of Naukratis looks very different fromAttic pottery.

117 Boardman 1980, 133-41; Boardman, 1998b, 144 with 158 figs 305-6,222 with 256 fig. 500; Boardman, this volume.

118 Cf. Boardman 1998b, 144; but now see Bailey, this volume;Mommsen et al., this volume (sample TbEgy 1).

119 See the discussion by Bailey, this volume; Weber in Schlotzhauer andWeber 2005, 86-91 esp. 93; Weber this volume; Weber(forthcoming); Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).The case is similar to that of the fragments of a black-figuredamphora from Karnak in Oxford (Boardman 1998b, 220 with fig.487). Here, too, it seems most likely that a North Ionian workshopproduced the piece to order with the destination Egypt in mind. Theiconography of the carrying of the boat of Amun is an Egyptian motifotherwise unknown in the Greek world, but the foreign elements aremixed with Greek ones and are shaped and interpreted against thebackground of Greek experience, presumably the carrying of aDionysus ship in a Greek procession.

120 The production even of these pieces in Naukratis by East Greekpotters and painters still cannot be excluded, of course, if oneassumes that clay from their home cities was imported intoNaukratis. This is still discussed particularly in connection withChian pottery, yet the lack of evidence (the interpretation of theimported earth in the Elephantine palimpsest as potters’ clay, stillupheld by Stager 2005, 251, is now discounted by many scholars; seealso Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume, n. 7) and the diversity ofstyles and chemical clay groupings among the pieces considered inthis context are potent arguments against this possibility. For adifferent opinion, however, see J. Boardman, this volume.

121 E.g. Boardman 1998b, 158 fig. 305. The amphora from Saqqara willbe discussed in detail by S. Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber(fortcoming).

122 Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).123 ‘Excellent kylikes are also made in Naukratis, the native city of our

boon-companion Athenaios. They are like phialai, made not as onthe lathe but as if fashioned by the finger; moreover they have fourhandles and a broadly extended base (there are, by the way, manypotters in Naukratis; from them also the gate which is near thepotters’ workshops is called Keramike).’

124 Petrie 1886b, pl. XLI.125 Petrie 1886b, 22: ‘In the potters’ rubbish in the north-east of the town

at 350 level were found B5 whorls [red-brown coarse fabric]; D, afine-ribbed dish, smooth-faced; F2 [white-faced with orange linesand figures – i.e. Chiot], and same thicker; G2 [smooth unfaced,brown to red line; black inside with red and white lines (Eye bowls)];L1 [plain buff and black bowls – cf. pl. x.4,5,6].’

126 As Leonard 1997, 25-6, notes, potsherds and vitrified mudbrickfragments found on the hill of Kom Hadid were identified as wasteproducts from a pottery kiln. Berlin 2001, 45-6, identifies much of thepottery from Naukratis as products of the nearby pottery workshopsof Kom Dahab. On the local pottery of Hellenistic Naukratis, seeBerlin 1997a; Berlin 2001. Egyptian production, in Alexandria, ofhigh-quality West Slope and Gnathia pottery, by contrast, remainsdisputed: Alexandropoulou 2002, 196-7.

127 Leonard in Leonard 2001, 191-3 nos 31-2, fig. 3.6; see also Coulsen1996, 79-81, nos 1359, 1427, 1542, 1639, fig. 44, pl. 13. For a fulldiscussion see now Bailey (forthcoming), section ‘Miscellaneousobjects’, cat. nos 3695-8. We are grateful to Donald Bailey for sharingthis information with us pre-publication.

128 Cf. Bailey, ibid.129 Oren 1984, 28, had already (correctly) claimed the existence of

locally made pottery vessels shaped after Greek types among theunpublished material from Daphnae and Naukratis.

130 At least for Tell Defenneh this is certain, as visual observation clearlyidentifies the amphora BM AE 22333, of Samian shape, as local. Forfurther discussion, see Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber(forthcoming).

131 Holladay 2004; we owe this reference to S. Weber.132 For workshops at Naukratis, see Möller 2000a, 148-54, 163-6.

Tridacna shells are unlikely to have been produced at Naukratis (seeVilling and Schlotzhauer, this volume, n. 51), but the manufacture offloral wreaths made of myrtle, marjoram or papyrus (?) is apossibility already from the time of Anakreon (Ath. 671e, 675f-676d;Pollux 6.107). For the ongoing debate on sculpture production in aCypriot style at Naukratis, see most recently Höckmann inHöckmann and Koenigs (forthcoming) and Nick (forthcoming).

Schlotzhauer and Villing

Page 77: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 69

Abstract

Abundances of 30 minor and trace elements of pottery sherds frommainly Naukratis and Tell Defenneh are presented. Thecompositions have been measured with the Neutron ActivationAnalysis (NAA), a procedure applied routinely in Bonn for manyyears. Many different elemental patterns often assigned to knownproduction centres in western Asia Minor could be detected for thesherds excavated at Naukratis. All these imported vessels point tothe importance of this Greek emporion in Egypt. In addition, thedata reveal that pottery was also produced locally, presumably atNaukratis itself or in its vicinity. The archaeological results of thesearchaeometric studies are presented and discussed in separatecontributions in this volume.*

Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) of archaeological pottery hasbeen carried out routinely in Bonn for many years. The aim is todetermine the production centres and places of pottery wares bycomparing elemental compositions with reference material ofknown provenance. The assumption is that each paste preparedby the ancient potters according to a certain recipe using clayfrom one clay bed or mixtures of clays from several deposits hasan unique elemental signature which can be traced to its origin.

Our NAA method is described separately in this volume atlength.1 About 80mg of pottery powder is needed, and it is takenfrom the sherds or vessels to be analysed with a pure sapphiredrill. Our procedure determines up to 30 minor and traceelemental weight concentration values using an in-housepottery standard,2 which is calibrated with the well-knownBerkeley pottery standard . The data evaluation method tosearch for samples of similar composition is given in Mommsenand Kerschner.3

Sample Choice

Seventy-six samples from sherds excavated at Naukratis and 17samples from sherds from Tell Defenneh, dating to the 7th andmainly to the 6th century bc and later, were taken and analysedduring the years 2003–2006. In addition, nine samples of relatedmaterial found at other sites have been included, one fromAbusir (Abus 1), one from Thebes in Egypt (TbEgy 1), one from anon-specified site in the Nile Delta (DlEgy 1), one from Miletos(Milet 41), one from the area of Datça near Knidos (Knid 1), onefrom Kamiros, Rhodes (Kame 2), a further sample from Rhodes(Rhod 20), and two from Caria (Kari 1,2). A description of thesesamples and their current location is provided in Schlotzhauerand Villing Table 1 and an extended discussion of the choice ofsamples and the archaeometric results can be found in severalcontributions in this volume.4

Results

Here, we summarize the results of our NAA measurements. Thisset of 102 samples is unusual in the respect that a very large

number of different concentration patterns appear, 48 in all.Twenty-two of these patterns belong to samples that arechemical loners and called ‘singles’. Each of them has anelemental pattern, which does not match any other of ourpatterns. Therefore, nothing can be concluded about thesesingles. A rate of about 15–20% of singles is often detected inNAA studies. The large number of the remaining patterns is,however, unusual especially for the site Naukratis. The potteryfound there was imported from many different sites. This points,at the one hand, to the importance of this Greek emporion inEgypt having many trade or other contacts with numerousdifferent sites, but, at the other hand, it might also be aconsequence of a well-considered choice of samples for analysisor of a special selection of archaeologically questionable vessels.

In our opinion, in this case, with many different patterns ourin most cases univariate or, at choice (if sample numbers arelarge enough) multivariate statistical data evaluation procedureis especially important.5 Only with this procedure could all thesemany patterns be compared with our total databank, consistingof more than 6,500 samples from Greece and the EasternMediterranean, and similarities in compositions be detected.Such large databanks can be handled since our grouping is ableto filter out all samples that are statistically similar to a pre-givencomposition, without any limitation of the number of samples.The total number of pottery groups consisting of more than twosamples of similar composition now exceeds 200. All thesamples in this study have been checked for matches with oursample and pattern databank. Calculations with such a largenumber of samples using Principal Component Analysis (PCA)or cluster analyses (CA), which generate dendrograms, are notfeasible in practice.

In addition to the already mentioned singles, only threegroups of more than three sherds and five pairs of sherds have acomposition that was new to us. All other remaining 18 patternshave been encountered before; the search for compositionalmatches can thus be considered successful. The reason is thatfor many years M. Kerschner has been collecting specificarchaeological sample types for our analyses in order to build upour databank and to cover the most important workshopsengaged in large scale and overseas trade. However, a definiteproduction site cannot in all cases be assigned to these patterns.An overview of the groups encountered and, if known or madehighly probable according to archaeological reasoning, the siteof the producing workshops assigned to these groups arepresented in Table 1. Table 2 gives the total numbers of groupmembers including the new samples and the calculated averagegrouping values M and their spreads s (root mean squaredeviations) in % of M. Small differences to formerly publishedpatterns are due to the increased number of group members.The measured individual concentration values of the samplesdescribed here can be found at our website homepage.6

Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery fromNaukratis and other Related VesselsHans Mommsen with M.R.Cowell,Ph.Fletcher,D.Hook,U.Schlotzhauer,A.Villing,S.Weber and D.Williams

Page 78: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

70 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Mommsen et al.

In Figures 1 and 2 the results of discriminant analysis (DA)calculations are shown. All the samples of our databank that aremembers of the larger groups in Table 1 have been included inthese calculations (Table 1, group nos 1–14, 19, and 21). Inaddition, one group X assigned to an Ephesian origin7 has beenincorporated, too. The samples described in this study arerepresented by black dots. In Figure 1 only five clusters havebeen defined as input (the names given are the names of thegroups in Table 1): all samples of the Cypriot groups (groupnumbers in Table 1: 1–3), of the Egyptian group QANN (21), of agroup of unknown origin TD (19), of the Attic group KROP (14)and of all the groups assigned to western Asia Minor (4-13, X).The calculations are performed using all the elements given inthe data tables except As, Ba, and Na.8 The clusters are wellseparated. The large cluster of the groups from western AsiaMinor is treated separately in a second DA calculation withhigher resolution. Figure 2 shows the result. The overlappinggroups B–E and EMEB–EMEb are resolved in higher projections(not shown here).

In the following only some archaeometric remarksconcerning the different groups and their assignments toproduction places, if known, will be made in the sequence of thelist of Table 1. A more extended discussion is given in theseparate archaeological contributions in this volume.9

Patterns that can be exactly or very probably geographically

located

The four samples Nauk 35, 55, 67, and 68 (Villing Figs 2, 8, 21and 22) are imports from Cyprus. Patterns CYPT (1) and EMEA(2), EMEa (3) have been discussed by Åström10 and Attula,11

respectively. These three patterns have a general Cypriotcomposition and a provenance of the members of these groupsfrom Cyprus is without any doubt. Since we still do not havemany reference samples from specific different sites of Cyprus,an accurate assignment to places of origin there cannot bemade.

Samples Nauk 51 (Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 24) andKnid 1 (Attula Figs 9–10) belong to the not very different groupsEMEB (4) and EMEb (5), respectively, and are made mostprobably locally in the area of Emecik/Knidos.12

The three Hera mugs Nauk 1, 2, and 3 and sample Nauk 72(Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 14–16) have a composition J(5), which is assigned most probably to a Samian origin.13

Hughes using NAA had already measured the sample Nauk 2.14

According to our repeated grouping of these data this mugbelongs like other sherds from Naukratis to his Samian groupL.15 But this group L has concentration values that do not matchin all elements our Samian group J. Only an extendedinterlaboratory study comparing the single steps and thecorrection procedures16 of the NAA methods applied in both ourlaboratories and checking the different standards used mayexplain these differences. A comparison of NAA data with datataken with other analytical analysis methods, e.g. OpticalEmission Spectroscopy (OES), is even more difficult. Thereforewe did not consult the OES results of sherds from Naukratispublished by Jones.17

Members of several other patterns, which represent well-known pastes used in different larger workshops in western AsiaMinor, are also found in the wares of Naukratis. The pattern A(7) (Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 18–20) is assigned to the

Kalabaktepe workshops, Miletos, and D (8) (Schlotzhauer Fig.3; Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 21–22) can also be assigned toa Milesian origin with high probability.18 Six vessels altogetherare imports from Miletos to Naukratis and one to Tell Defenneh.Pattern B (9) belongs to the ‘bird bowl workshops’. They areassumed to be located somewhere in Northern Ionia, like theworkshops using the paste of pattern E (10), which are also notdefinitely located.19 Seven samples excavated at Naukratis(Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 1–5) and one sample fromThebes in Egypt (TbEgy 1) – a fragment joining the ‘Apries’amphora (Bailey Figs 1–5) – have pattern B.20 One sample (Nauk21 ass.) is associated to the group with pattern B. Samples arereferred to as being ‘associated’ to a pattern, if they have astatistically similar composition in all the elements except forone or two. If such a small deviation is due to a measurementerror, which is always possible for trace elements, or if it is real,but due to a singular contamination by the ancient potter, it canbe added to the group. But it might also represent a quite similarclay paste of different origin. Pattern E (10) is represented in twosamples at Naukratis (+ one associated sample Nauk 28 ass.)and in four samples at Tell Defenneh (Schlotzhauer and VillingFigs 6–10). Patterns G (11) and probably also g (12) can betraced to Kyme/Larisa or their vicinity in the Aiolis (KerschnerFigs 8–11, 13–30).21

The occurrence of pattern B-Troy (13)22 in samples Nauk 62,63, and 65 (Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 11–13) seemed atfirst astonishing. This pattern, and also a second pattern, D-Troy,formed with samples from Troy, can be assigned to the area ofTroy, because clay samples from deposits near Intepe not farfrom Troy analysed recently, have very similar compositions.23

But since pattern D-Troy was already found in a sample ofMilesian type at Troy,24 and since now both patterns occurring inTroy have also been detected in comparable material fromBerezan,25 hitherto unknown workshops in the Troad termed‘Hellespont workshops’ by Posamentir,26 must be considered asthe origin of these wares.

An Attic provenance emerged for samples Nauk 43, 57[group KROP (14)], and 88 [group perb (15)].27 Although themembership of these samples to these chemically not verydifferent groups is statistically not in doubt, we report thisprovenance with a certain reservation, since recentmeasurements of some first few samples from Chios28 also showfor one sample pattern KROP and for a second one pattern perb.A provenance of these samples, an Archaic Chian chalice and asubgeometric Chian skyphos, from Attica contradictsarchaeological knowledge. More samples of vessels locallyproduced on Chios are needed to see if the patterns of Chios arechemically separable from patterns assigned to Attica.

Still not localized, but known patterns

The sample Nauk 18 ass. (Villing Fig. 23) has a composition,which can be assigned to an Egyptian origin [group Marl (16)].It is associated to samples in our databank from Egypt, which,according to petrographical investigations, are made of EgyptianMarl D.29

One sample (Nauk 6; Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 23) isthe third sherd of a previously detected compositional pair. Asample from Tell Kabri (TeKa 3)30 and one from Berezan (Bere11)31 are made of the same clay paste; the geographical positionof the workshop is still unknown. This triple is now named

Page 79: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 71

Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Naukratis and other Related Vessels

statistical probability to have been made from the same paste.Also the spread of the compositions of K for this pair (2.3 ppmand 1.6 ppm, respectively) measurable with an error of ±0.03ppm is large. But since a deviation of these two alkali elementshas been encountered before,39 this pair has been formedtentatively. One of the sherds (Nauk 85) of pair 85+86 is clearlyof the same type as a sherd sampled by Dupont and Thomas(their NAU 55, Dupont and Thomas Fig. 5).40 Both sherds of thispair are difficult to classify archaeologically. Dupont calls NAU55 member of his group C1 that is of unknown provenance likeour pair Nauk 85+86.

This study demonstrates that a large databank of manycontemporaneous samples from western Asia Minor is needed todetermine the provenance of pottery originating from theresuccessfully.

Notes* The authors wish to thank the staff of the research reactor in

Geesthacht for their technical support.1 Mommsen and Kerschner and references therein, this volume.2 Perlman and Asaro 1969.3 Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume.4 Schlotzhauer and Villing, Attula, Bailey, Kerschner, Villing, Weber,

Williams and Villing, all this volume. 5 Beier and Mommsen 1994; Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume.6 www.hiskp.uni-bonn.de/gruppen/mommsen/top.html .7 Badre et al. 2006, appendix by M. Kerschner.8 Mommsen 2004.9 Supra n. 4. 10 Åström in Mommsen, Beier andÅström 2003, 5, 10. Data of group

CYPT (samples HST 7a, 7b) given. 11 Attula, this volume; Attula 2006; Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula

2006.12 Supra n. 11.13 Kerschner and Mommsen (forthcoming); Schlotzhauer 2006, 308-

14.14 BMRL no. 4543-46388-R. Hughes, pers. comm., data unpublished,

available from British Museum, Department of Conservation andScience. We thank M. Hughes for sending these and additional data.

15 Hughes et al. 1988. Group L is formed there with samples nos 43, 44,45, and 46. According to our repeated evaluation of these dataincluding dilution corrections also nos 129 (a Samian amphora, BMGR 1886.4-1.1291; Johnston Fig. 21) and 130 and Nauk 2 belong to L.

16 Mommsen et al. 1987 summarise these corrections necessary for theNAA procedure in Bonn with specific consideration to low energy (X-ray) photons.

17 Jones 1986, 700-1.18 Akurgal et al. 2002; cf. also Schlotzhauer, this volume.19 Kerschner and Mommsen (forthcoming); Kerschner 2006 discusses

the probability that the workshops using paste B are situated at or inthe vicinity of Teos and that pattern E might have its origin at or inthe vicinity of Klazomenai.

20 Cf. Bailey, this volume.21 Kerschner and Mommsen, this volume; Kerschner, this volume.22 Mommsen et al. 2001; Mountjoy and Mommsen (forthcoming).23 Mountjoy and Mommsen (forthcoming).24 Mommsen et al. 2001.25 Mommsen, Kerschner, and Posamentir (2006 forthcoming).26 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006; Kerschner 2006. Groups B- and D-

Troy are called there TROB and TROD, respectively. As long as theworkshop(s) using pastes B-Troy and/or D-Troy are not locatedexactly, we prefer to use the plural ‘workshops’, although both pastescould very well originate from the same workshop or an assemblageof workshops in a pottery production centre.

27 Mommsen 2003; Harbottle, Hughes and Seleem 2005 present anAttic compositional pattern formed with sherds from Naukratismeasured with NAA by the archaeometry group Brookhaven. We didnot make an interlaboratory study with this laboratory, as, like in thecase of the data of the British Museum of Hughes, these data can notbe compared directly with our data.

28 In collaboration with M. Kerschner, unpublished.

group DD (17). The occurrence of a third member to be added tothis pair is a nice example of the stability of our measurements,since the three samples have been measured at different times inthe years 1994, 2003 and 2004.

Also of unknown origin is sample Nauk 53 (Schlotzhauerand Villing Fig. 25). It has the same composition as a rare groupof Late Bronze Age sherds from Rhodes with silver micainclusions. The members of this group RHc1 (18) are, accordingto archaeological theory, assumed to have been imported toRhodes from one of the neighbouring islands, Kalymnos orLeros, where there are also clay deposits with silver micainclusions.32 We have no reference material from these islands.

Not localized, new patterns

A group of six samples from Tell Defenneh (Weber Figs 16–21),three of them situlae, forms a new pattern TD (19). There are nocomparable samples in our databank; archaeologically aprovenance from western Asia Minor is probable.33

The same is true for a group of four samples, two fromNaukratis (Nauk 73 and 74) (Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 26;Johnston Fig. 11), one from an unknown find spot in the NileDelta region (DlEgy 1), and one from Abusir (Abus 1). They forma hitherto unknown pattern called ITAN (20) of unknownprovenance.

A third hitherto unknown pattern is QANN (21). Thirteensamples from Naukratis, one from the Delta and one from TellDefenneh belong to it (Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 30–39,41–44). This pattern is not similar, but also not very different to apattern QANM formed with four sherds from Qantir/Piramesseand assigned most probably to an Egyptian origin.34 This can beascertained comparing the concentration values of both groupsgiven in Table 2. The general similarity of these two patternsQANN and QANM can be seen also in Figure 3, where thedifferences of the concentration values normalised to theaverage spread values save of both groups are plotted as a bardiagram. After a best relative fit with a factor of 1.04 of groupQANM with respect to group QANN, both patterns agree in allvalues inside ± 3save except for the Cr values. This assignment toEgypt, especially to Naukratis or to its vicinity, is strengthenedby the archaeological classification and also by the fact, that thesherds of this group cover a time range of more than a 1000years.35 Therefore, all members of group QANN are attributed tolocal workshops, the ‘Naukratis workshops’.36 Sample Nauk 33was taken from the same sherd as the sample NAU 9 mentionedin the contribution by Dupont and Thomas in this volume(Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1),37 which belongs to Dupont’sgroup G. Dupont also assigns this group to an Egyptian origin,although without presenting any reference group.

Pairs of samples of unknown provenance – preliminary grouping

As given in Table 1 there are five compositional pairs of samples.Although the paired samples agree in nearly all concentrationvalues with small spreads, sometimes one or two elementalvalues measured with small experimental error disagree by anamount that may exceed an acceptable range for larger groups.For example, the Rb values of the samples of pair 4 (Nauk 8 [111ppm] and Emec 31 [88 ppm]) are quite different. Since Rb ismeasured with an experimental error of ±2.4 ppm,38 and since itcan be assumed, that potters homogenised their pastes well, thislarge deviation may point to the fact that both samples have low

Page 80: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

72 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Mommsen et al.

Table 1 List of samples analysed, their assignment to the chemical groups, their provenance, and their individual fit factors

[= dilution factors, in ( )] with respect to the groups (ass. = associated to the group, see text)

1. Group CYPT, 1 sample, Cyprus:Nauk 35 (1.08)

2. Group EMEA, 1 sample, Cyprus:

Nauk 55 (0.96)

3. Group EMEa, 2 samples, Cyprus:

Nauk 67 (1.03), 68 (0.99)

4. Group EMEB, 1 sample, (most probably) Knidian peninsula:

Nauk 51 (1.02)

5. Group EMEb, 1 sample, (most probably) Knidian peninsula:Knid 1(0.98)

6. Group J, 4 samples, (most probably) Samos:Nauk 1 (0.95), 2 (0.92), 3 (0.96), 72 (1.01)

7. Group A, 4 samples, Kalabaktepe workshops, Miletos:Nauk 7 (1.02), 26 (0.98), 32 (1.21), 42 (0.94)

8. Group D, 3 samples, (most probably) Miletos:Nauk 4 (0.97), 39 (0.96),Defe 11 (0.96)

9. Group B, 8 samples (+ 1 ass.), Bird Bowl workshops, Northern Ionia (probably Teos):Nauk 10 (0.99), 21 ass. (1.08), 22 (1.06), 24 (0.99), 37 (0.94), 54 (1.08), 76 (1.03), 87 (0.98),TbEgy 1 (0.95)

10. Group E, 6 samples (+ 1 ass.), Northern Ionia (probably Klazomenai):Nauk 20 (0.94), 23 ass. (1.01), 58 (1.02),Defe 7 (0.96), 9 (0.96), 13 (1.00), 15 (0.97)

11. Group G, 2 samples, Aiolis, Kyme/Larisa:Nauk 12 (1.00), 13 (1.00)

12. Group g, 2 samples, Aiolis, Kyme/Larisa:Nauk 64 (1.02), 77 (0.95)

13. Group B-Troy, 3 samples, Troad (Hellespont workshops):Nauk 62 (1.04), 63 (0.95), 65 (1.09)

14. Group KROP, 2 samples, Attica (questionable, Chios(?), see text):Nauk 43 (1.00), 57 (0.89)

15. Group perb, 1 sample, Attica (questionable, Chios(?), see text):Nauk 88 (1.04)

16. Group Marl, 1 sample, general Egypt:Nauk 18 ass. (0.94)

17. Group DD, 3 samples, unknown:Nauk 6 (0.97),Bere 11 (1.05),TeKa 3 (0.99)

18. Group RHc1, 1 sample, unknown:Nauk 53 (0.85)

19. Group TD, 6 samples, unknown:Defe 1 (0.90), 2 (1.01), 3 (1.07), 4 (1.06), 5 (1.02), 8 (0.93)

20. Group ITAN, 4 samples, unknown:Nauk 73 (0.93), 74 (1.14),Abus 1 (1.32),DlEgy 1 (0.77)

21. Group QANN, 14 samples (+ 1 ass.), unknown, most probably local Egyptian (Naukratis workshops):Nauk 9 (0.99), 14 (1.03), 15 (1.00), 16 (1.06), 17 (1.03), 19 (0.95), 25 (0.98), 27 (0.96), 33 (1.02), 34 ass. (1.18), 79 (1.06), 81

(1.01), 82 (0.94), 83 (1.00),Defe 10 (0.96)

29 Goren, pers. comm. The sample, from a mortarium, is discussed byVilling, this volume.

30 Kempinski 2002, 231, fig. 5.94:2, TeKa 3: Ionian cup reg. no.5414/100.

31 Kerschner 2006. Bere 11 is a sample from a jug of Fikellura style(Louvre group).

32 Marketou et al. (forthcoming).33 Weber, this volume.

34 Mountjoy and Mommsen 2001, 134, 139, group there called Mqan.35 Schlotzhauer and Villing, Table 1, this volume.36 Cf. Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.37 Dupont and Thomas, this volume.38 Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume.39 Mommsen et al. 1996.40 Dupont and Thomas, this volume.

Page 81: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 73

Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Naukratis and other Related Vessels

22. Pair 1, unknown:Defe 16 (1.00), 17 (1.00)

23. Pair 2, unknown:Nauk 69 (1.01), 70 (0.99)

24. Pair 3, unknown:Nauk 85 (1.00), 86 (1.00)

25. Pair 4, unknown:Nauk 8 (1.00),Emec 31 (1.00)

26. Pair 5, unknown:Nauk 66 (1.00),Kari 2 (1.00)

27. Singles, 22 samples, unknown:

Nauk 5, 11, 28, 29, 30, 36, 41, 44, 47, 52, 56, 59, 78, 80, 84

Defe 6, 12, 14,

Kari 1,

Kame 2,

Milet 41,

Rhod 20

Table 2 Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samplesAverage concentrations of elements M measured by NAA in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, and spreads s in percent of M.The individual data of each sample have been corrected for dilution with respect to M (best relative fit factors see Table 1).

CYPT EMEA EMEa EMEB EMEb J4 samples 32 samples 5 samples 30 samples 7 samples 29 samplesM +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)

As - 8.55 19. 9.97 19. 6.56 28. 6.7 23. 28.6 33.Ba 382. 13. 424. 23. 371. 23. 498. 14. 466. 15. 490. 9.4Ca % 11.5 2.8 10.3 18. 12.1 19. 5.59 20. 5.5 15. 5.54 21.Ce 36. 8.2 34.7 3.3 37.7 2.9 69.8 2.8 64.2 2.8 82. 2.4Co 25.3 26. 27.2 4.4 29.9 5.1 39.3 7.6 48.8 7.9 40.4 6.0Cr 246. 7.1 291. 21. 326. 18. 394. 14. 547. 3.0 373. 4.6Cs 2.25 15. 3.32 9.7 2.05 37. 7.79 15. 6.76 11. 13. 16.Eu 1.01 7.4 0.87 4.2 1.00 3.5 1.13 3.4 1.09 2.0 1.52 3.2Fe % 4.9 2.0 5.13 3.5 5.47 8.0 5.09 3.4 5.29 3.4 6.77 3.7Ga 14.1 25. 16.3 11. 20.6 15. 19.5 11. 19. 11. 34.6 46.Hf 2.84 9.5 2.81 8.8 3.13 2.2 4.57 4.5 4.16 4.2 5.57 5.5K % 1.5 9.2 1.48 12. 1.3 15. 2.17 8.2 1.9 4.4 2.91 8.0La 18.6 8.7 16.2 3.5 17.9 4.2 33.8 3.7 31.6 2.7 40. 3.5Lu 0.41 4.4 0.36 5.5 0.39 5.2 0.46 7.5 0.42 6.4 0.58 4.3Na % 1.18 8.1 0.88 14. 1.15 32. 0.62 13. 0.61 14. 0.64 18.Nd 16.1 11. 14.7 11. 17.4 5.7 27.4 8.2 24.8 5.8 33.9 6.7Ni 169. 50. 220. 16. 242. 24. 409. 16. 599. 14. 378. 11.Rb 48. 5.3 53.4 11. 38.4 24. 113. 13. 99.1 7.8 162. 7.6Sb 0.72 23. 0.7 13. 0.87 10. 0.91 16. 0.89 19. 3.24 17.Sc 23. 4.9 21.7 5.1 23.8 2.2 17.9 3.1 17.7 1.6 25.8 3.2Sm 3.31 5.6 3.08 4.2 3.49 2.4 5.02 5.1 4.48 9.7 6.57 6.4Ta 0.52 6.7 0.53 6.2 0.53 9.1 0.98 4.2 0.89 4.0 1.23 5.1Tb 0.59 7.7 0.52 11. 0.53 6.3 0.69 7.3 0.67 9.4 0.93 6.0Th 5.1 8.9 5.49 4.3 5.73 6.7 12.8 2.6 11.7 2.9 15.7 4.7Ti % 0.51 34. 0.53 21. 0.7 9.9 0.47 18. 0.49 16. 0.74 39.U 1.74 13. 1.66 15. 1.97 8.6 2.24 5.6 2.02 4.6 2.9 6.6W 1.68 12. 1.56 16. 1.57 16. 2.26 15. 2.19 6.8 3.87 17.Yb 2.33 4.4 2.08 3.8 2.3 2.5 2.89 3.3 2.69 2.0 3.58 3.8Zn 84.4 5.4 96.7 12. 107. 26. 97.8 15. 97.4 25. 132. 6.8Zr 124. 20. 87.5 38. 83.8 50. 141. 20. 119. 25. 185. 35.

Page 82: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

74 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Mommsen et al.

Table 2 cont. Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samples

A D B E G g42 samples 22 samples 99 samples 29 samples 61 samples 28 samplesM +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)

As 16.8 34. 21.5 24. 2 1.2 69. 2 1.7 94. 44.7 45. 45.2 65.Ba 550. 14. 596. 20. 5 41. 17. 497. 11. 810. 12. 739. 12.Ca % 4.71 25. 7.36 38. 6.25 35. 5.39 16. 4.82 17. 5.53 15.Ce 108. 3.7 98.7 5.7 84.1 6.0 79.2 2.8 121. 2.9 103. 5.0Co 19.9 11. 28.5 10. 19.7 13. 25.6 4.6 27.6 3.8 26.8 6.4Cr 143. 18. 232. 12. 151. 10. 217. 6.8 188. 6.4 211. 11.Cs 11.8 3.1 11.1 10. 19.4 16. 15.1 12. 23.8 12. 27.1 11.Eu 1.45 2.8 1.48 5.5 1.32 4.9 1.32 2.4 1.99 2.5 1.68 5.5Fe % 4.41 4.0 5.13 3.9 4.51 6.7 5.13 4.2 6.04 3.5 5.55 4.3Ga 25.3 20. 24.3 43. 22.1 22. 24.2 10. 29.1 13. 24.5 25.Hf 5.65 11. 4.88 17. 6.29 4.6 5.79 6.0 5.79 9.7 5.4 9.5K % 3.54 5.1 3.05 6.8 2.65 6.1 2.55 5.7 3.12 3.9 2.92 4.9La 50.9 3.0 46.5 6.1 39.8 4.6 37.9 2.2 56.1 2.0 48.1 3.6Lu 0.54 5.3 0.52 5.2 0.48 5.2 0.5 5.7 0.6 3.9 0.53 4.6Na % 1.13 18. 0.95 30. 0.66 22. 0.94 12. 0.96 13. 1.05 33.Nd 41.3 6.7 39.3 7.7 31.4 7.8 30.5 4.6 51. 4.7 42.2 6.7Ni 176. 32. 323. 17. 101. 23. 192. 18. 173. 26. 210. 22.Rb 219. 4.5 184. 13. 148. 7.6 143. 5.2 178. 3.6 172. 6.0Sb 1.58 9.8 2.32 32. 1.04 23. 1.43 22. 4.79 12. 4.67 18.Sc 14.2 3.4 16.9 4.3 20. 4.3 20.8 4.1 21.8 1.8 20. 5.1Sm 8.02 6.5 7.65 7.7 5.95 11. 5.75 4.0 9.93 5.1 8.18 8.1Ta 1.56 3.9 1.37 5.3 1.25 7.1 1.14 5.1 1.18 5.2 1.13 5.9Tb 1.21 5.5 1.11 7.2 0.8 6.5 0.84 6.7 1.29 6.5 1.08 6.3Th 26.1 4.2 22.1 7.3 17.1 4.4 15.4 2.7 21.1 2.6 18.9 5.8Ti % 0.42 19. 0.46 21. 0.54 18. 0.59 22. 0.5 22. 0.5 28.U 4.34 7.6 4.03 9.7 3.38 14. 2.68 6.3 4.0 15. 3.44 9.3W 4.05 21. 3.15 10. 2.74 11. 2.46 14. 2.7 11. 2.69 9.7Yb 4.2 4.2 3.87 5.0 3.27 3.3 3.34 2.4 4.23 2.7 3.69 5.1Zn 85.6 11. 94.9 14. 111. 15. 112. 13. 119. 5.6 107. 9.3 Zr 198. 38. 192. 31. 213. 32. 186. 31. 173. 33. 154. 39.

Table 2 cont. Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samples

B-Troy KROP perb Marl DD Rhc196 samples 89 samples 6 samples 5 samples 3 samples 22 samplesM +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)

As 34.5 78. 31.8 74. 22.8 81. 8.42 42. 20.4 42. 13.6 57.Ba 711. 24. 466. 20. 312 . 18. 672. 21. 648. 5.6 751. 24.Ca % 4.93 37. 6.88 48. 7.67 25. 12.8 18. 7.28 16. 3.68 33.Ce 71. 5.8 67.6 4.4 47.8 2.9 66.5 2.6 121. 4.9 98.9 5.9Co 21.5 8.9 35.5 9.0 35. 6.1 18.6 5.3 40.1 9.2 18.3 14.Cr 173. 13. 500. 18. 469. 7.7 102. 14. 313. 5.2 278. 14.Cs 9.1 12. 13.8 24. 10.2 27. 1.39 19. 10.4 9.3 11.9 9.0Eu 1.24 6.3 1.2 4.5 0.98 3.8 1.32 2.8 1.84 5.3 1.42 5.3Fe % 4.31 4.5 5.27 5.7 5.02 11. 4.41 3.9 6.19 2.7 4.06 7.0Ga 18.7 19. 21.3 30. 24.5 83. 16.5 7.9 26.6 15. 23. 18.Hf 4.95 12. 4.37 11. 3.5 14. 7.16 18. 4.28 4.9 7.29 9.0K % 2.76 15. 2.62 9.1 1.28 16. 0.95 12. 2.8 5.5 2.93 7.5La 34. 6.4 30.9 4.6 21.7 4.0 28.2 2.5 55. 2.7 50.4 7.0Lu 0.39 6.7 0.44 6.7 0.38 5.5 0.39 4.0 0.58 12. 0.4 8.9Na % 0.97 25. 0.64 35. 1.08 30. 0.5 34. 0.96 18. 1.37 31.Nd 27.2 9.7 27.8 8.9 18.4 6.5 25.7 3.2 49.8 4.6 37.3 11.Ni 143. 17. 412. 14. 452. 8.3 97. 48. 474. 3.6 225. 27.Rb 130. 11. 139. 8.2 66.1 12. 34.5 9.9 155. 4.5 163. 4.9Sb 1.96 28. 1.47 39. 0.94 31. 0.97 97. 2.99 10. 1.77 14.Sc 16.9 6.1 22.1 4.2 21.5 8.0 14.6 4.7 21.3 2.5 13.4 7.1Sm 4.99 8.0 5.33 6.4 3.79 7.0 4.95 4.1 9.73 4.1 6.43 10.Ta 0.86 6.6 0.85 6.8 0.74 6.7 1.21 5.9 1.16 5.7 1.45 4.4Tb 0.7 7.7 0.73 6.8 0.59 13. 0.71 6.0 1.24 9.9 0.79 9.4Th 15.9 12. 11. 5.7 8.05 4.6 6.4 4.2 24. 11. 25.8 7.5Ti % 0.45 21. 0.48 21. 0.41 25. 0.61 17. 0.45 19. 0.47 18.U 3.37 12. 2.51 18. 1.61 12. 1.72 9.4 4.21 3.7 4.95 13.W 2.74 14. 2.18 18. 1.49 13. 1.24 13. 2.24 11. 3.47 13.Yb 2.6 6.1 2.8 5.6 2.3 2.7 2.43 3.8 4.32 13. 2.97 7.1Zn 99.4 10. 121. 9.8 103. 18. 80.2 6.9 105. 8.9 81.8 16.Zr 164. 36. 165. 37. 119. 51. 213. 22. 121. 77. 152. 41.

Page 83: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 75

Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Naukratis and other Related Vessels

Table 2 cont. Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samplesTD ITAN QANN QANM

7 samples 4 samples 14 samples 4 samplesM +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)

As 4.37 22. 12.7 12. 2.95 56. 7.30 66.Ba 170. 36. 361. 5.2 547. 13. 666. 15.Ca % 6.97 28. 7.12 44. 3.71 22. 1.82 40.Ce 44.2 2.2 77.7 1.4 69.6 3.2 68.2 1.4Co 51.6 9.5 15.9 6.9 36.0 5.7 32.9 9.1Cr 563. 15. 86.2 2.1 160. 3.8 132. 3.3Cs 4.83 13. 8.46 7.1 1.52 5.6 1.50 8.0 Eu 0.75 5.6 1.23 2.2 1.98 2.4 1.83 2.0 Fe % 4.81 8.6 4.39 2.5 7.39 2.7 6.91 1.6Ga 12.9 18. 24.6 7.9 25.0 11. 21.0 12.Hf 2.68 5.3 4.65 2.6 7.55 8.3 6.28 4.0 K % 1.44 6.9 2.84 6.8 1.18 7.4 1.23 13.La 21.6 3.8 36.9 1.1 30.4 3.0 31.2 2.3Lu 0.29 5.2 0.43 3.3 0.54 5.1 0.51 33.Na % 0.58 16. 0.82 23. 1.37 21. 1.23 11.Nd 13.4 18. 30.1 6.3 31.6 6.5 32.6 8.5Ni 817. 17. 91.6 35. 136. 29. 100. 10.Rb 72.1 13. 151. 3.4 53.7 5.0 51.3 4.6Sb 0.41 18. 1.45 14. 0.34 21. 0.45 46.Sc 14.8 6.3 16.5 2.9 25.0 2.6 23.7 3.6Sm 2.69 5.2 5.56 1.6 6.63 5.2 6.82 3.8Ta 0.64 7.6 1.05 5.1 1.34 4.3 1.36 4.1Tb 0.47 8.9 0.78 9.3 0.96 5.8 0.95 10.Th 7.68 7.4 13.9 2.8 6.40 5.6 6.74 2.6Ti % 0.38 17. 0.47 13. 1.06 6.4 1.00 9.3U 1.55 16. 3.12 13. 1.58 14. 1.66 6.8W 1.45 18. 2.61 14. 1.76 23. 1.29 9.0 Yb 1.79 3.6 2.92 2.0 3.35 3.9 3.04 6.3Zn 88.1 17. 98.3 9.1 111. 6.3 112. 7.6Zr 106. 29. 116. 35. 281. 13. 312. 9.

Table 2 cont. Patterns of the sample pairs of this studypair 1 pair 2 pair 3 pair 4 pair 5

2 samples 2 samples 2 samples 2 samples 2 samplesM +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)

As 21.8 9.7 4.07 12. 4.77 12. 16.0 35. 6.21 14.Ba 804. 6.9 430. 3.7 388. 4.0 474. 9.7 479. 5.3 Ca % 2.56 9. 6.14 3.5 9.68 2.4 7.79 25. 4.65 24.Ce 89.8 2.4 87.6 3.7 81.8 3.2 81.7 2.1 101. 6.0 Co 24.8 4.2 25.4 12. 20.2 30. 34.1 1.6 31.2 3.4Cr 160. 3.1 204. 4.0 125. 4.2 329. 5.4 262. 7.7Cs 13.7 4.5 14.0 6.6 7.50 11. 9.70 1.1 8.82 8.5Eu 1.43 1.8 1.39 2.2 1.26 1.8 1.50 1.8 1.55 7.8Fe % 4.71 1.4 4.47 1.8 4.33 1.8 5.95 5.8 5.37 4.6Ga 17.7 75. 21.3 8.5 23.7 3.8 25.4 13. 23.9 5.8Hf 4.53 7.7 6.64 0.9 4.92 3.6 5.53 3.8 7.18 3.8K % 2.57 6.7 2.16 1.0 2.39 2.0 1.96 26. 2.61 0.7 La 40.0 1.5 40.6 1.7 39.1 1.8 39.9 2.8 47.1 5.6Lu 0.42 4.1 0.52 19. 0.41 24. 0.55 3.1 0.59 2.9Na % 1.74 3.5 0.95 0.5 0.82 3.0 1.06 9.5 1.09 4.7Nd 40.5 9.0 32.3 2.8 31.5 2.9 35.8 6.7 39.3 4.3Ni 166. 26. 91.9 63. 276. 37. 303. 12. 453. 8.4Rb 124. 2.2 123. 2.3 144. 4.2 99.9 16. 153. 6.4Sb 3.61 8.0 1.11 15. 0.76 14. 2.25 12. 1.25 38.Sc 19.7 2.0 18.7 0.5 16.9 0.6 23.4 2.1 19.2 2.4Sm 6.77 0.7 6.03 1.5 5.94 0.8 6.86 7.8 7.24 2.4Ta 0.92 3.6 1.13 3.6 1.11 3.7 1.19 4.9 1.43 3.6Tb 0.83 7.0 0.79 3.3 0.76 3.4 0.84 6.2 0.99 9.6Th 21.8 7.3 14.7 0.4 12.7 0.5 15.0 2.6 19.7 0.9 Ti % 0.42 25. 0.66 11. 0.43 11. 0.60 14. 0.74 53.U 3.65 5.8 2.74 7.4 3.58 2.6 2.59 3.9 2.68 2.8W 4.24 9.8 2.21 6.2 2.31 4.3 3.23 12. 2.50 7.0 Yb 2.80 2.1 3.29 1.6 2.92 4.8 3.51 1.7 4.08 1.2Zn 112. 2.2 90.9 27. 109. 24. 114. 2.3 123. 1.8Zr 140. 20. 141. 21. 73.0 50. 186. 16. 162. 25.

Page 84: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

76 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Mommsen et al.

0

10

20

50 60 70

nauk0001 W 1 (75.59 %)

W 2

(17.

37 %

)

Cyprus

TDAttica

Egypt

Asia Minor

(CYPT,EMEA,EMEa)

(QANN)

(KROP)

(A,B,D,E,G...)

Figure 1 Result of a discriminant analysis (DA) calculation of 600 samplesassuming 5 clusters (see text). Samples included in this study are shown as blackdots. Plotted are the discriminant functions W1 and W2 which cover 93 (76 + 17)% of the between-group variance.The ellipses are the 2s boundaries of thegroups.The Egyptian cluster QANN is well separated from clusters originatingfrom other regions (Cyprus,Attica, western Asia Minor, unknown cluster TD).Thelarge cluster of western Asia Minor is treated in a separate DA, see Figure 2.

Figure 2 Result of a discriminant analysis (DA) calculation of 450 samples of thecluster ‘western Asia Minor’ in Figure 1, assuming now 10 separate clusters asnamed in the Figure (TROB = B-Troy). Plotted are the discriminant functions W1and W2, respectively, which cover 76 % and 11 % of the between-group variance.The ellipses are the 2s boundaries of the groups.All clusters are well separable,overlapping clusters (e. g. B and E) are resolved in other projections.

-20

-10

0

-120 -110 -100 -90

nauk0002 W 1 (76.13 %)

W 2

(10.

84 %

)

A

D

G+g

J

X

B

EEMEB EMEb

TROB

QANN - QANM (factor 1.04)

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

As

Ba Ca Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe Ga Hf K La Lu Na

Nd Ni

Rb Sb Sc Sm Ta Tb Th Ti U W Yb Zn Zr

elements

dist

ance

/ave

. spr

ead

Figure 3 Graphical comparison of chemical compositions of the two groups QANN and QANM given in Table 2. Plotted are the differences of the average concentrationvalues of the two groups normalised to the averaged standard deviation (spread) save.The values of group QANM have been multiplied by the best relative fit factor 1.04with respect to group QANN. Both groups have a generally similar composition except for Cr and can be assigned with high probability to an Egyptian origin (see text).

Page 85: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 77

Abstract

Some 30 years ago a batch of 85 specimens of Archaic East Greekwares from Naukratis, mostly in the collection of the Museum ofClassical Archaeology in Cambridge, were sampled forarchaeometric analysis under the guidance of the late R.M. Cook.The aim of these analyses was not to cover the whole range ofArchaic wares from the site, but to test the validity of the generalclassification of results obtained from Archaic East Greek findsfrom Istros. The batch of samples included the main styles ofpainted pottery: Chian, Late Wild Goat, North-Ionian black-figureand Fikellura, supplemented by some other specimens of AiolianWild Goat, Ionian bowls, Ionian and Vroulian cups, banded ware,grey ware, lamps as well as a single piece of a situla said to comefrom Tell Defenneh. The results of the archaeometric analysis ofthese samples are reported here.

Les céramiques ioniennes de Naukratis monopolisent depuislongtemps l’attention face aux autres catégories importées, enraison du rôle déterminant joué par onze des principales cités deGrèce de l’Est (Milet, Samos, Chios, Clazomènes, Téos, Phocée,Mytilène, Cnide, Halicarnasse, Phasélis, Rhodes), dans lafondation et le développement de ce comptoir commercialhellénique en terre d’Egypte.1

Le propos du présent travail va être d’examiner, à la lumièrede quelques séries d’analyses physico-chimiques effectuées auLaboratoire de Céramologie de Lyon, la provenance de cestrouvailles céramiques de type grec oriental au cours del’époque archaïque, qui a constitué l’âge d’or du site sous lespharaons de la 26e Dynastie.

Les résultats dont nous allons rendre compte ont été obtenusil y a de nombreuses années déjà, dans le cadre d’une vasteenquête sur les centres producteurs de la Grèce de l’Estarchaïque à partir des trouvailles d’un site colonial du Pont-Euxin – en l’occurrence Histria – et d’échantillonnages deréférence collectés sur les principaux sites de fabricationpotentiels de Grèce d’Asie (Phocée, Pergame, Çandarlý, Kymè,Myrina, Smyrne, Clazomènes, Erythrées, Colophon, Milet,Ephèse) et sur quelques sites de consommation (Larisa /Hermos) de Grèce d’Asie et des îles proches (Lesbos, Chios,Samos, Rhodes, Cos).2 A cette époque là, l’intérêt d’analyser unesérie d’échantillons de Naucratis résidait surtout dans unecomparaison avec les approvisionnements d’Histria. Or,l’échantillonnage dont j’ai pu disposer, grâce à la bienveillancedu regretté Robert Cook, alors en charge de la collection duMuseum of Classical Archaeology de Cambridge, était loin d’êtreaussi diversifié que celui dont j’avais pu bénéficier pour Histria.En effet, il consistait essentiellement en représentants desprincipaux styles peints de la Grèce de l’Est: style de Chios (alias‘Naucratite’), style des Chèvres Sauvages, style nord-ionien àfigures noires et style de Fikellura, le reste des échantillons étantassez disparate (coupes ioniennes, céramique grise, lampes...).

Pour cette raison, notre échantillonnage de Naukratis ne pouvaita priori prétendre, en l’absence de céramiques communes etd’amphores-conteneurs, au même degré de représentativité quecelui d’Histria, y compris d’un point de vue chronologique, dufait de l’antériorité du site pontique.

Les analyses ont été effectuées en spectrométrie defluorescence X au laboratoire de céramologie de Lyon (CNRS-UMR 5138, Maison de l’Orient). Les premières séries de mesuresn’ont porté que sur les huit éléments chimiques majeurs (CaO,Fe2O3, TiO2, K2O, SiO2, Al2O3, MgO, MnO), les dernières sur 13éléments supplémentaires. Par suite, l’exploitation informatiséedes résultats n’a pu porter que sur les huit éléments majeurs,communs à toutes les séries. Cette exploitation s’est faite enclassification automatique par la méthode hiérarchiqueascendante dite de l’analyse des grappes (‘cluster analysis’), quicalcule la distance mathématique entre les échantillons: pluscelle-ci est faible entre deux individus, plus leur indice desimilarité est élevé. La partition obtenue se présente sous laforme d’un diagramme arborescent ou dendrogramme, qui n’estjamais rien qu’une sorte d’arbre généalogique à l’envers, dont leséchantillons engagés forment les extrémités: plus l’indice desimilarité entre individus est élevé, plus les ramifications setrouvent placées bas sur le dendrogramme. L’interprétation detels diagrammes, simple dans son principe, s’avère en réalitédélicate: il faut déterminer, d’un bout à l’autre du diagramme, àquel niveau de ramification les groupements géochimiquescorrespondent le mieux à la réalité archéologique; d’autre part,lorsque les dispersions des teneurs sont trop larges pour certainséléments (cas fréquent du calcium), l’ordinateur a tendance àfaire éclater un même groupe géochimique en plusieurs sous-groupes purement artificiels, en réalité complémentaires; il fautêtre particulièrement attentif aussi aux individus présentant desvaleurs extrêmes au sein de chacun des groupements obtenus,car ceux-ci revèlent souvent des mal classés ou des classés ‘fautede mieux’, notamment dans le cas d’individus appartenant à desgroupes mal représentés au sein de l’échantillonnage; engénéral, de tels individus sont en position instable et leurinsertion au sein du dendrogramme peut varier à la moindremodification de l’effectif soumis à la classification automatique;d’où l’importance des recoupements systématiques de tris.Quant aux marginaux, ils sont rejetés du côté droit desprincipaux groupes et, pour les plus déviants, à l’extrême-droitedu dendrogramme, où ils se rattachent très haut au tronc del’arborescence. On obtient de la sorte un premier aperçu de lapartition d’ensemble de l’échantillonnage.

Toutefois, les classifications obtenues par analyse desgrappes sont surtout valables au niveau du groupe. Pour affinerles résultats et parvenir à des attributions individuelles plusfiables, on a recours à l’analyse discriminante quadratique, demaniement plus délicat, laquelle va fournir une probabilitéd’appartenance à chacun des groupes du réseau de références

Naukratis: Les Importations Grecques OrientalesArchaïquesClassification et détermination d’origine en laboratoire

Pierre Dupont et Annie Thomas

Page 86: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

78 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Dupont et Thomas

locales. Quelle que soit la méthode de tri utilisée, les déterminations

d’origine ne peuvent être obtenues qu’indirectement, parconfrontation avec un réseau de références locales sûres, adaptéau problème à traiter. De la qualité et de la densité de ce réseaudépendra en grande partie la fiabilité des attributions. A Lyon,notre banque de données sur la Grèce de l’Est rassembleplusieurs centaines d’échantillons de référence collectés sur lessites mentionnés plus haut. Même si elle comporte encorecertaines lacunes, on peut estimer qu’elle assure déjà unecouverture satisfaisante des principales zones de productionpotentielles.

Après avoir passé en revue les différentes catégories dematériels composant notre échantillonnage de Naukratis, nousen examinerons un dendrogramme de tri, dont le dépouillementva nous livrer les principaux groupes présents sur place. Puis, àpartir de ce canevas, nous rattacherons, dans la mesure dupossible, ces différents groupes à des centres producteurs, à lalumière des confrontations recoupées avec notre réseau deréférences locales pour la Grèce de l’Est. Enfin, nous nouslivrerons à une comparaison sommaire avec la situationobservable en mer Noire sur le site d’Histria.

Notre échantillonnage de Naukratis est composéessentiellement de spécimens des collections du Museum ofClassical Archaeology de Cambridge, augmenté de quelquesautres pièces d’origine diverse. L’effectif total des tessonsanalysés est de soixante-dix-huit échantillons à ce jour. Le styledes Chèvres Sauvages est représenté par une série de quatorze

fragments, pour la plupart du ‘Late Wild Goat’ canonique deR.M. Cook (Fig. 1: NAU 1-10; Fig. 4: NAU 52; Fig. 6: NAU 76),plus un de faciès éolien (Fig. 4: NAU 74) et un autre de facièsdorien (Fig. 4: NAU 53); le style clazoménien à figures noires parquinze pièces (Fig. 1: NAU 11-19; Fig. 4: NAU 51); celui de Chiospar vingt-trois individus, essentiellement des fragments decalices variés (Fig. 2: NAU 20–39), plus un à décor ‘Middle WildGoat II’ (Fig. 4: NAU 54) et deux du ‘Polychrome Style’ deBoardman (Fig. 4: NAU 56–57); celui de Fikellura par unassortiment varié de 11 également (Fig. 3: NAU 40–50); cetéchantillonnage a pu être complété de quelques coupesioniennes des types de Vallet-Villard (deux de B1 et deux de B3)(Fig. 5: NAU 60–63, 100–101) et de Vroulia (deux exemplaires)(Fig. 5: NAU 58–59), d’un fragment de coupe vroulienne du‘style ancien’ de Kinch surcuite (ou, selon la suggestion de D.Williams and A. Villing, d’un skyphos de type, mais pasproduction, corinthien) (Fig. 5: Nauk 55), d’un fragment de bolionien du type à rosettes (Fig. 5: NAU 64) et d’un autre à décor‘Late Wild Goat’ (Fig. 5: NAU 65), d’un tesson d’épauled’œnochoé ionienne fine de type ‘schwarzbunt’ à frise delanguettes incisées sur fond de vernis noir et à rehauts grenat,proche du style de Vroulia (Fig. 6: NAU 66); d’un autre, à pâtesiliceuse et décor de bandes (NAU 71), de deux fragments delampes ioniennes (Fig. 6: NAU 72-73) et de cinq fragments decéramique grise (Fig. 6: NAU 67, 75); enfin, nous avons inclus àl’effectif un tesson de situle du type dit ‘de Daphnae’ donnécomme provenant d’Egypte et appartenant au groupe C deCook3 (Fig. 6: DEF 1).

NAU 2 NAU 3

NAU 4 NAU 5 NAU 6

NAU 1

NAU 8 NAU 9

NAU 7

NAU 10

NAU 11

NAU 12

NAU 13

NAU 14 NAU 15

NAU 16NAU 17 NAU 18 NAU 19

Figure 1 Echantillons NAU 1-19 Figure 2 Echantillons NAU 20-39

NAU 20 NAU 21 NAU 22 NAU 23

NAU 24 NAU 25NAU 26 NAU 27

NAU 28NAU 29

NAU 30

NAU 31

NAU 32

NAU 33

NAU 34NAU 35

NAU 36NAU 37

NAU 38NAU 39

Page 87: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 79

Naukratis: Les importations grecques orientales archaïques

Après élimination de quelques individus marginaux (laplupart du temps par fixation de manganèse, un type depollution assez fréquent en milieu d’enfouissement de typeréducteur humide) (NAU 33, 34, 68, 75), le dendrogramme declassification des données d’analyse de cet ensemble (Fig. 7) atraduit une partition en 11 groupes ou sous-groupes, qui peutêtre interprétée comme suit:

A1 rassemble la plupart des échantillons du style de Chios, ycompris les deux spécimens du ‘Polychrome style’ de Boardman(NAU 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,54, 56, 57), plus un fragment d’œnochoé du style nord-ionien àfigures noires (NAU 19). Il s’agit là d’un groupe particulièrementhomogène, où les fusions entre individus se font très bas. Les

compositions de ce groupe coïncident d’assez près avec celles denotre principal groupe de référence de Chios. L’attribution à cegroupe d’un tesson isolé du style nord-ionien à figures noiresapparaît très incertaine, du fait ses teneurs sensiblement plusélevées en potassium et aluminium, plus proches de celles desproductions d’Ionie du Nord.

B1 regroupe le gros du style de Fikellura (NAU 40, 41, 44, 46,47, 48, 50), plus un fragment de coupe ionienne Villard B1 (NAU61). Les compositions de ce groupe correspondent à celles del’un de nos trois principaux groupes de référence de Milet. Lesfouilles récentes de Kalabaktepe ont bien confirmé les résultatsde laboratoire obtenus à Lyon: le style de Fikellura estomniprésent à Milet et tous les groupes de Cook y sont

Figure 3 Echantillons NAU 40-50

Figure 4 Echantillons NAU 51-54, 56-57, 74 Figure 6 Echantillons NAU 66-67, 72-73, 75-76, DEF 1

*

STYLE DE CHIOS

BOL IONIEN

STYLE "LATE WILD GOAT"STYLE NORD-IONIEN A F.N.STYLE DE FIKELLURA

COUPES IONIENNESCOUPES VROULIENNESSITULES DE DAPHNAE

*A1 B1 C1 A2 D B2 B3 E F C2 G

Figure 7 Dendrogramme de classification automatique

Figure 5 Echantillons NAU 55, 58-65, 100-101

Page 88: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

80 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Dupont et Thomas

représentés. Quant au spécimen de coupe ionienne B1, ilcorrespond à une variante bien attestée sur place, parfois mêmeavec un décor peint dans le style de Fikellura. Milet a égalementproduit et exporté d’autres formes de coupes ioniennes (VillardA2, B2 et B3), mais moins typées.

C1 se réduit à deux échantillons: l’un de pinax du style desChèvres Sauvages attribué à la Doride (NAU 53), l’autre de cettecoupe vroulienne ancienne (ou skyphos?) surcuite (NAU 55).4

Les compositions de ces deux pièces ne cadrent avec aucune denos références locales de la Grèce de l’Est, en particulier decelles du groupe principal de Rhodes. On n’a pas affaire nonplus, semble-t-il, à des productions de la vallée du Nil: le surcuitsusmentionné ne devrait donc pas correspondre à un raté defabrication, mais résulter d’une fusion accidentelle à l’occasiond’un incendie. Il est possible que l’on ait affaire ici à desproductions d’un centre de Doride continentale. Il est difficiled’en dire plus, le groupe d’appartenance de ces deux tessonsétant de toute évidence trop mal représenté dans notreéchantillonnage.

A2 ne comporte également que deux échantillons, tous deuxdu style de Chios (NAU 20, 30). Ceux-ci n’ont été rejetésmanifestement qu’en raison de leur teneur très élevée encalcium par rapport au groupe A1, mais leurs autrescaractéristiques de composition ne s’écartent pas de celles denos références de Chios.

D mêle essentiellement des échantillons du style ‘Late WildGoat’ (NAU 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 52) et du style nord-ionien à figuresnoires (NAU 11, 14, 16, 51), plus un fragment de céramique grise(NAU 69). Il s’agit là d’un groupe homogène, les analyses delaboratoire ayant clairement établi que, sur les marchésd’exportation, les deux styles sont attribuables à des ateliersd’Ionie du Nord. Toutefois, les caractéristiques géochimiques denotre groupe D s’écartent de celles de Clazomènes, même si lesgammes de productions sont très voisines. Elles correspondenten revanche à celles d’un groupe bien attesté parmi lestrouvailles d’Histria et dont l’origine semble devoir êtrerecherchée du côté de Téos d’après certaines analysespréliminaires d’échantillons de ce site.

B2 (NAU 45, 49) et B3 (NAU 42, 43) renferment chacun deuxéchantillons du style de Fikellura. Les compositions de ces deuxpaires distinctes se rattachent à celles de deux autres groupeslocaux de Milet. Il y aurait lieu de renforcer les effectifs de B2 etB3 pour conforter ces attributions.

E est beaucoup plus fourni et composite à la fois, puisqu’on ytrouve côte à côte des échantillons du style ‘Late Wild Goat’canonique de Cook (NAU 65, 66) et de sa variante éolienne(‘Atelier du Deinos de Londres’ de Kardara5 – cf. Kerschner, cevolume) (NAU 74), d’autres du style nord-ionien à figures noires(NAU 12, 13, 17, 18), plusieurs exemplaires de coupes ioniennesB2 et B3 (à ornements d’applique) (NAU 62, 63, 100, 101), ainsiqu’un fragment de lampe (NAU 73). Après confrontation avecnotre réseau de références locales, il est apparu que ce groupeest constitué en réalité de deux entités distinctes, decompositions très voisines: l’une, correspondant manifestementà un centre de fabrication d’Eolide, distinct de Phocée,rassemblant deux spécimens ‘Late Wild Goat’ (NAU 65, 66) etd’autres du style nord-ionien à f.n. (NAU 12, 13, 17, 18); l’autre,attribué traditionnellement à Samos, comme renfermantsurtout des coupes ioniennes fines de grande diffusion (NAU 62,63, 100, 101). S’il s’avérait que ces deux entités forment deux

sous-groupes originaires de la même aire régionale, l’attributiondes coupes ioniennes fines de grande diffusion à Samos s’entrouverait ipso facto remise en question. En effet, celle-ci reposeencore sur des bases bien fragiles, puisque les coupes ioniennesen question ne forment qu’un groupe géochimique secondaire,même au sein des seules trouvailles de l’Héraion. On imagine lesrépercussions d’une réattribution du gros des coupes ioniennesfines à l’Eolide: se trouverait par exemple expliqué laparticulière fréquence de ce type de vase à boire enMéditerranée occidentale, zone de colonisation phocéenne parexcellence.

F combine des échantillons des styles ‘Late Wild Goat’ (NAU6, 7, 76) et nord-ionien à figures noires (NAU 15), ainsi qu’un bolionien du type à rosettes (NAU 64), une coupe ionienne fine dutype B1 ‘Lambrino’ d’Alexandrescu (NAU 60) et un fragment decéramique grise (NAU 70). Les compositions de ce groupe serattachent à celles des ateliers de Clazomènes. La présence decette coupe ionienne fine à vernis noir et filets grenat estbeaucoup moins incongrue qu’il ne paraît: nous avons déja pumettre en évidence une composition de ce type sur une autrecoupe B1 ‘Lambrino’ de Bayraklý à décor ‘Late Wild Goat’.6 Cettepièce est donc à verser aussi au dossier des grands ateliersspécialisés primordiaux de coupes ioniennes.

C2 associe deux coupes vrouliennes (NAU 58, 59) et lesupposé fragment de situle de Daphnae du groupe C de Cook(DEF 1). Ces trois échantillons présentent en commun desteneurs en magnésium très élevées, qu’on ne trouve guère qu’àRhodes. L’attribution de la situle de Daphnae à des ateliersrhodiens plutôt qu’helléno-égyptiens demanderaitnaturellement à être confirmée à l’aide d’échantillonssupplémentaires. Si l’attribution rhodienne de notre échantillonse vérifiait, elle n’exclurait pas pour autant l’éventualitéd’imitations manufacturées en Egypte même.

G est formé d’un fragment de fruit-stand ‘Late Wild Goat’(NAU 9) et d’un autre d’œnochoé ionienne à bandes (NAU 71).Les deux présentent en commun des pâtes sablonneusesrappelant celles des productions de la Vallée du Nil, avec desteneurs anormalement élevées en titane et particulièrementbasses en potassium. Le style du fruit-stand évoque une varianteéolienne du ‘Late Wild Goat’.7

L’échantillonnage dont nous avons disposé n’estcertainement pas représentatif du faciès céramique deNaukratis, les proportions réelles des catégories importéesn’étant pas respectées. Les comparaisons avec la situationobservable à Histria ne peuvent donc avoir qu’une valeurindicative. Néanmoins, il est possible, pour les catégoriesprincipales, de formuler les constatations suivantes.

• Le groupe chiote présente des caractéristiques decomposition identiques à celles de notre principal groupe deréférence de l’île et tout à fait comparables à celles rencontréesaux antipodes du monde colonial, sur les importations chiotesd’Histria par exemple. Les formes exportées correspondentessentiellement à des vases à boire: calices et tasses notamment.Le fait qu’à Naukratis, même le ‘Grand Style’ de Boardmanprésente lui aussi des compositions chiotes et non naukratitesdoit être signalé; si aucun exemplaire de cette variantepolychrome du style de Chios n’est encore attestée à Histria,quelques fragments ont été exhumés à Bérézan.8

• Les productions de l’Ionie du Nord forment, comme àHistria, deux entités séparées, dont l’une correspond à

Page 89: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 81

Naukratis: Les importations grecques orientales archaïques

Clazomènes et l’autre, plus importante encore sur le planquantitatif, à un centre non identifié de la même région,9 situésans doute plutôt du côté de Téos qu’en direction d’Erythrées oude Smyrne, dont les compositions sont différentes. Les officinesnord-ioniennes, dont les exportations outre-mer ont démarréplus tard que celles de l’Ionie du Sud, ont choisi la voie, tracéepar Corinthe, de la fabrication en grande série, qui connaîtra lesuccès commercial que l’on sait: ‘Late Wild Goat’ bâclé, fruit-stands et assiettes à décor simplifié de grecques et motifslotiformes, bols ioniens... .

• Souvent proches des précédentes, les productions del’Eolide, d’allure souvent plus ‘provinciale’, ne semblent pasavoir eu pour siège Phocée. Leur diffusion paraît avoir étébeaucoup plus restreinte que celle des exportations nord-ioniennes, sauf si une connection se confirmait avec les coupesioniennes fines.

• A Naukratis comme à Histria, ce sont les mêmes groupesmilésiens qui sont représentés, l’un d’entre eux se détachantnettement des deux autres sur le plan quantitatif. Du fait d’unefondation plus tardive, Naukratis n’a pas livré de ‘Middle WildGoat II’, mais les groupes Fikellura de Cook sont massivementattestés.

• Les grands centres exportateurs de coupes ioniennesn’étaient peut-être pas tous localisés en Ionie du Sud. Diversindices donnent à penser au contraire qu’une partie des formesfines a pu être fabriquée par des ateliers d’Ionie du Nord /Eolide.

• Par rapport à Histria et au reste de la mer Noire, où ellesfont totalement défaut, les rares productions archaïquesimputables à l’île de Rhodes ou à sa pérée sont bien présentes àNaukratis, sous la forme d’un petit nombre de coupesvrouliennes et, semble-t-il de situles de Daphnae.10

• Il reste enfin à évoquer le cas des productions céramiquescoloniales fabriquées sur le sol égyptien. Elles ne paraissent pasavoir connu un développement très considérable, du moins ence qui concerne celles à décor peint, et les rares spécimens quenous avons pu identifier par les analyses n’ont pas éténécessairement produits à Naukratis même. Toutefois, il existede fortes présomptions pour que ce soit le cas, à en juger d’aprèsle témoignage, bien postérieur certes, d’Athénée (Deipn.9.480).11 Contrairement à une opinion tenace,12 sous-estimantles capacités d’adaptation des artisans potiers installés àdemeure, il n’était point besoin d’importer de l’argile de Grècede l’Est, les vases exhumés sur place ne nécessitant pas decaractéristiques de pâte particulières, à l’exception de la poterieà feu: les spécimens que nous avons pu identifier présentent descompositions qui sont celles de la basse vallée du Nil.13 Parailleurs, alors qu’à Histria les productions locales à décor peintsont dominées par le style de Fikellura milésien, à Naukratis, lesquelques imitations identifiées par les analyses sont àdominante nord-ionienne (‘Late Wild Goat’). Toutefois, il ne fauty voir, semble-t-il, que l’effet du hasard, car la vaissellecommune produite à Histria et, plus généralement, au nord de la

mer Noire présente elle aussi un faciès dominant du type Ioniedu Nord – Eolide.

Telles sont donc, rapidement esquissées, les interprétationsarchéologiques que l’on peut tirer des données d’analysechimique de cet échantillonnage de Naukratis. Mais il est aussiune leçon sous-jacente ou sub-liminale à tirer de la démarchearchéométrique utilisée en ce qui concerne les critères dedifférenciation, dont la fiabilité peut s’avèrer très variable:élevée dans le cas des ressemblances et dissemblances decomposition (pour autant, bien sûr, que le réseau de référenceslocales soit assez complet), mais beaucoup plus aléatoire selonla part tenue par les probabilités a priori, d’ordre archéologiquenotamment. Ceci explique que les attributions d’origine enlaboratoire puissent parfois être remises en causeultérieurement, au fur et à mesure des compléments apportés auréseau de références ou des progrès réalisés dans l’étudetypologique traditionnelle des catégories céramiques entrantdans la composition des échantillonnages. Faute pour lesarchéologues (comme pour certains archéomètres) d’en prendreconscience, les analyses de laboratoire, telles les langues du vieilEsope, peuvent s’avérer capables du meilleur comme du pire.

Notes1 Sur ces matériels, cf. la rétrospective récente de Möller 2000a, 127-47,

et, surtout, l’excellente discussion de fond de Kerschner 2001, 69-94,pls 7-10.

2 Dupont 1983, avec biblio. antérieure.3 Cook 1954, II. D. m, 29-32; notre échantillon porte le même motif de

palmette à incisions et rehauts grenat que les spécimens illustrés pl.10.2-3, mais il pourrait s’agir aussi d’un fragment de stamnos, telcelui reproduit pl. 10.5. Sur les situles de Daphnae et la ‘Dark GroundWare’, cf. aussi Schaus 1995, 25-9, pls 11-12; Weber Figs 10-13, 20-22.

4 C’est aussi le cas pour deux autres échantillons de coupes / skyphoiapparemment similaires du British Museum analysés par lelaboratoire de Bonn (Nauk 85-86), qui ne se rattachent à aucun desgroupes de référence répertoriés de Grèce de l’Est.

5 Kardara 1963, 276 no. 3. Cf. aussi la contribution de M. Kerschnerdans ce même volume.

6 Dupont 2000, 452 fig. 317.7 Le même tesson a fait l’objet d’une analyse de la part du laboratoire

de Bonn (Nauk 33), qui l’attribue à un atelier du Delta du Nil, baptisé‘Naukratis workshop’ (Cf. contribution de H. Mommsen dans cevolume).

8 Korpusova 1987, 45 fig. 18.9 Groupe ‘Ionie du Nord 2’ apud Dupont 1983, 31-3.10 Naturellement, le résultat obtenu sur un unique échantillon du

groupe C de Cook demandera à être validé par l’analyse de piècessupplémentaires et ne saurait être étendu à l’ensemble de cette classedisparate.

11 Sur l’éventualité d’un production céramique sur place, cf.dernièrement: Möller 2000a, 136-45; Piekarski 2001b.

12 Cf. encore, récemment, Kreuzer 1992, 54.13 Sur les ressources argileuses de la vallée du Nil, cf. Hope 1977, 72-4;

Nordström et Bourriau 1993, 157-61; Aston 1996, 2-9. Sur lescompositions des argiles de la vallée du Nil: Hancock, Aufreiter etElsokkary 1986/7, 61-71. A en juger d’après les références de labanque de données du laboratoire de Lyon, le Delta, du fait de ladensité des dépôts anthropogènes, constitue un milieu en moyenneplus réducteur que le reste de la vallée du Nil, avec de fréquentespollutions par les phosphates et le manganèse. C’est un peu le caspour nos échantillons NAU 9 et 71 et manifestement le cas pour NAU34, 67-8 et, surtout, NAU 33.

Page 90: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

82 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Dupont et Thomas

Appendice

Inventaire des echantillons analysésNAU 1 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 7. Deinos. Style ‘LateWild Goat’.NAU 2 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 13. Deinos. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 3 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 26. Œnochoé. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 4 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 30. Deinos. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 5 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 31. Deinos. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 6 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 32. Deinos. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 7 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 34. Œnochoé. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 8 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 47. Fruit stand. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 9 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 48. Fruit stand. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 10 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 50. Fruit stand. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 11 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 24. Œnochoé. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 12 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 60. Deinos. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 13 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 133. Lékanè. Style nord-ionien à f. n. NAU 14 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 134. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 15 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 135. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 16 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 136. Œnochoé. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 17 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 137. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 18 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 138. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 19 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 140. Œnochoé. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 20 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 68. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 21 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 66. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 22 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 70. Phiale. Style de Chios. NAU 23 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 73. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 24 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 74. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 25 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 76. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 26 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 77. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 27 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 78. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 28 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 79. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 29 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 80. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 30 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 82. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 31 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 83. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 32 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 84. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 33 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 86. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 34 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 88. Tasse. Style de Chios.NAU 35 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 89. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 36 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 91. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 37 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 93. Calice. Style de Chios.NAU 38 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 96. Phiale. Style de Chios.NAU 39 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 97. Bol (?). Style de Chios.NAU 40 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, AG 232B. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 41 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 118. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 42 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 119. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 43 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 121. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 44 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 122. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 45 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 126. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 46 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 128. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 47 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 129. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 48 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 130. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 49 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 131. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 50 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 132. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.NAU 51 Louvre, AM 1479. Pinax. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 52 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 51. Segmentteller. Style nord-ionien à f. n.NAU 53 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 45. Pinax. Style des Chèvres Sauvages.NAU 54 Calice. Style de Chios. ‘Middle Wild Goat II’.NAU 55 Coupe vroulienne ‘ancien style’ de Kinch ou skyphos indéterminé (surcuite).NAU 56 Calice. Style de Chios. ‘Polychrome Style’.NAU 57 Calice. Style de Chios. ‘Polychrome Style’.NAU 58 Coupe vroulienne.NAU 59 Coupe vroulienne.NAU 60 Coupe ionienne fine. Forme Villard B1. Type ‘Lambrino’.NAU 61 Coupe ionienne fine. Forme Villard B1. Type milésien.

Page 91: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 83

Naukratis: Les importations grecques orientales archaïques

NAU 62 Coupe ionienne fine. Forme Villard B3 . Décor d’applique (tête de bélier).NAU 63 Coupê ionienne fine. Forme Villard B3. Lèvre: frise de feuilles de laurier.NAU 64 Bol ionien. Type à rosettes de points.NAU 65 Bol ionien. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.NAU 66 Amphorette à v. n. Frise d’épaule: languettes incisées avec rehauts grenat.NAU 67 Céramique grise. Rotella d’anse d’œnochoé.NAU 68 Céramique grise indéterminée.NAU 69 Céramique grise indéterminée.NAU 70 Céramique grise indéterminée.NAU 71 Oenochoé ionienne à bandes. Pâte siliceuse.NAU 72 Lampe type Howland 19A.NAU 73 Lampe ionienne massive a flancs en léger dévers.NAU 74 Deinos. Style des Chèvres Sauvages éolien.NAU 75 Alabastron fusiforme cotelé, à pâte grise et couverte noire. Cf. Samos VI.1, pl. 35 n° 271-5: ‘spezifisch samisch’.NAU 76 Amphorette Style ‘Late Wild Goat’ à frise lotiforme incisée / v. n. / épaule.NAU 100 Coupe ionienne Villard B2 / Hayes VIII.NAU 101 Coupe ionienne Villard B2 / Hayes VIII.DEF 1 Situle du type dit ‘de Daphnae’.

Resultats d’analyse(en %, sauf pour MnO en ppm)

N° CaO Fe2O3 TiO2 K2O SiO2 Al2O3 MgO MnONAU 01 09. 8 06. 40 0. 94 2. 88 58. 4 19. 8 02. 60 0740NAU 02 09. 5 06. 30 0. 91 2. 98 58. 5 19. 4 01. 90 0840NAU 03 09. 9 05. 85 0. 84 2. 83 59. 6 18. 6 02. 30 0880NAU 04 09. 4 06. 35 0. 95 2. 88 58. 8 18. 8 02. 05 1260NAU 05 08. 8 06. 35 0. 91 2. 88 59. 2 19. 3 02. 35 1020NAU 06 08. 8 06. 70 0. 87 3. 36 58. 6 19. 4 03. 10 1620NAU 07 06. 9 07. 70 0. 91 2. 93 58. 0 19. 4 03. 30 1740NAU 08 08. 2 06. 80 0. 91 3. 12 58. 1 20. 0 02. 70 1000NAU 09 04. 7 10. 80 2. 29 1. 30 59. 3 17. 1 03. 80 1920NAU 10 05. 3 06. 30 0. 92 2. 98 62. 4 20. 3 02. 75 0880NAU 11 07. 6 06. 10 0. 93 3. 17 60. 4 20. 1 01. 95 0940NAU 12 09. 0 09. 00 0. 87 3. 07 52. 8 19. 9 05. 40 1480NAU 13 06. 5 08. 05 0. 91 3. 50 55. 7 19. 7 01. 85 1040NAU 14 07. 9 07. 00 0. 96 3. 12 57. 4 21. 8 02. 60 0880NAU 15 06. 3 07. 50 0. 97 3. 07 58. 4 19. 8 03. 10 1480NAU 16 04. 7 07. 45 1. 00 3. 60 58. 2 22. 5 02. 35 1020NAU 17 07. 2 08. 25 0. 95 3. 22 54. 6 21. 3 03. 80 1600NAU 18 07. 6 08. 80 0. 83 3. 41 53. 4 21. 3 04. 60 1200NAU 19 08. 3 07. 85 0. 88 3. 07 56. 4 17. 5 05. 40 1000NAU 20 13. 2 06. 45 0. 72 2. 21 55. 5 13. 8 05. 85 1760NAU 21 10. 8 06. 85 0. 74 2. 11 58. 1 14. 1 06. 00 1260NAU 22 11. 5 07. 50 0. 77 2. 02 55. 9 14. 7 07. 20 1300NAU 23 10. 3 07. 05 0. 75 2. 02 57. 1 14. 7 06. 90 1160NAU 24 07. 7 07. 50 0. 81 2. 02 58. 9 15. 1 06. 60 1180NAU 25 09. 0 07. 45 0. 79 2. 02 58. 3 15. 1 05. 55 1340NAU 26 09. 0 07. 25 0. 78 2. 21 58. 2 15. 6 05. 70 1400NAU 27 11. 7 06. 55 0. 70 2. 06 58. 6 13. 6 05. 45 1100NAU 28 09. 0 07. 60 0. 80 2. 21 54. 9 15. 3 05. 70 1500NAU 29 06. 9 07. 55 0. 88 2. 45 56. 1 16. 9 05. 00 1220NAU 30 13. 0 06. 47 0. 67 2. 10 57. 0 14. 8 05. 65 2090NAU 31 10. 0 07. 00 0. 82 2. 21 57. 5 15. 1 06. 25 1140NAU 32 10. 1 07. 25 0. 84 2. 30 56. 3 16. 2 05. 90 1060NAU 33 16. 1 06. 85 0. 71 2. 06 53. 2 13. 8 05. 45 6360NAU 34 08. 2 06. 25 0. 84 2. 26 60. 3 15. 3 05. 15 2960NAU 35 10. 1 06. 45 0. 74 2. 11 60. 5 13. 8 05. 50 1520NAU 36 07. 6 08. 05 0. 82 2. 11 58. 6 15. 9 06. 20 1280NAU 37 13. 2 07. 25 0. 75 2. 11 55. 0 14. 5 06. 30 1280NAU 38 08. 7 07. 85 0. 85 2. 45 56. 0 17. 1 06. 05 1040NAU 39 12. 4 07. 25 0. 72 2. 06 54. 5 14. 3 07. 35 1200NAU 40 11. 0 07. 80 0. 79 3. 41 51. 8 16. 7 06. 70 1300NAU 41 11. 3 07. 50 0. 76 2. 88 51. 7 16. 4 07. 35 1240

Page 92: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

84 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Dupont et Thomas

NAU 42 04. 1 06. 10 0. 80 4. 51 59. 7 20. 0 03. 00 1140NAU 43 03. 6 06. 10 0. 81 4. 51 60. 1 19. 8 03. 55 0900NAU 44 10. 9 07. 45 0. 78 3. 17 51. 7 17. 3 06. 90 1160NAU 45 08. 1 05. 90 0. 72 3. 65 56. 9 17. 2 04. 40 1200NAU 46 09. 3 08. 05 0. 81 3. 26 51. 5 17. 2 06. 40 1180NAU 47 09. 0 07.35 0. 80 3. 46 53. 3 17. 9 06. 95 1060NAU 48 08. 6 07. 40 0. 79 3. 31 54. 0 17. 3 06. 75 1100NAU 49 07. 1 06. 30 0. 76 3. 89 57. 0 18. 3 04. 65 0820NAU 50 07. 8 06. 80 0. 78 3. 65 55. 9 17. 9 05. 85 1060NAU 51 06. 2 07. 00 0. 94 3. 35 57. 0 21. 6 02. 85 0940NAU 52 08. 9 06. 74 0. 93 2. 96 58. 6 19. 7 02. 20 0850NAU 53 12. 4 06. 63 0. 86 3. 11 53. 8 16. 4 05. 00 1050NAU 54 12. 1 07. 05 0. 76 1. 61 53. 2 13. 6 07. 06 1150NAU 55 12. 9 06. 46 0. 80 2. 83 53. 0 17. 2 03F. 57 0910NAU 56 08. 5 07. 66 0. 82 2. 08 56. 7 14. 7 06. 84 1190NAU 57 09. 3 07. 40 0. 81 2. 30 53. 6 15. 3 07. 22 1130NAU 58 08. 9 08. 52 0. 77 2. 62 44. 3 13. 6 12. 20 0960NAU 59 03. 9 08. 63 0. 84 2. 59 53. 9 15. 0 11. 86 0650NAU 60 07. 6 07. 77 0. 95 3. 48 56. 1 19. 1 03. 47 1530NAU 61 09. 5 06. 83 0. 74 3. 80 53. 1 17. 9 04. 31 1250NAU 62 08. 6 08. 65 1. 00 3. 82 48. 6 21. 3 05. 09 1290NAU 63 05. 5 08. 22 0. 98 3. 85 54. 1 21. 4 03. 57 1110NAU 64 07. 7 07. 92 0. 94 3. 04 56. 2 19. 2 03. 37 1720NAU 65 06. 9 09. 24 0. 89 3. 46 49. 4 21. 1 04. 82 1270NAU 66 07. 1 08. 40 0. 90 3. 49 53. 6 20. 4 04. 20 1180NAU 67 04. 3 06. 72 0. 93 2. 82 63. 6 17. 5 02. 70 1500NAU 68 05. 3 06. 76 0. 89 2. 75 62. 9 15. 5 03. 63 2940NAU 69 07. 6 06. 83 0. 87 2. 83 57. 7 17. 2 03. 02 0860NAU 70 05. 5 07. 30 0. 89 3. 26 57. 3 17. 9 05. 20 1450NAU 71 08. 6 09. 76 1. 83 1. 37 56. 4 15. 5 03. 60 1500NAU 72 13. 5 08. 10 0. 86 3. 22 50. 4 18. 5 03. 79 1904NAU 73 07. 3 08. 85 0. 82 3. 69 53. 8 19. 6 03. 86 1326NAU 74 06. 30 08. 69 0. 87 3. 61 54. 3 20. 4 03. 98 1191NAU 75 14. 18 07. 75 0. 84 3. 35 51. 3 16. 8 03. 87 3391NAU 76 06. 10 07. 22 0. 86 3. 17 60. 3 19. 1 01. 99 1732NAU 100 05. 8 08. 59 0. 96 4. 04 55. 4 21. 0 03. 06 1202NAU 101 05. 5 08. 57 0. 95 4. 24 56. 4 20. 4 02. 91 1499DEF 01 12. 1 08. 13 0. 60 1. 68 50. 3 10. 5 18. 00 1285

N° CaO Fe2O3 TiO2 K2O SiO2 Al2O3 MgO MnO

Page 93: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 85

Abstract

New finds from the recent excavations at the sanctuary of Apollo atEmecik on the Knidian peninsula add much to our understandingof East Dorian pottery. A large group among the finds are paintedplates. Some of them are decorated with marine or mythologicalsubjects and functioned as votive plaques. Others, with floraldecoration, for the first time attest the existence of a local, EastDorian Fikellura production.*

The Turkish-German excavations of 1998–2003 in the extra-urban sanctuary of Apollo Karneios at Emecik village on theKnidian peninsula produced a great amount of Archaic Greekmaterial from the 7th and 6th centuries bc.1 For the first timeclays from the Knidia were analysed by Neutron ActivationAnalysis (NAA), with 137 samples in all from terracotta figurinesand ceramic vessels.2 The main result of the NAA are seven newand hitherto unknown chemical groups, named EMEA, B, C, D,E, F and G (Fig. 1).3 These new results substantially enrich ourlevel of knowledge concerning the spectrum of Archaic Greekfinds from the Knidian peninsula and East Dorian potteryproduction and its relations to Ionian and other workshops.4 As aresult, a new facet of the production of Fikellura pottery beginsto emerge.

Archaic plates from the Knidan peninsula

One of the most important groups of material from theexcavation at Emecik are the plates and stemmed plates(‘fruitstands’) or flat bowls, with a minimum of 40 to 45 pieces inall.5 No complete vessels are preserved. Very similar plates andstemmed plates are known also from the Archaic settlementlayers in Burgaz/Datça to the west of Emecik, the closestKnidian findspot for Archaic East Greek pottery.6

These shallow shapes are about 30cm in diameter and aredistinguished by wide rims, several of them with handles or withspool-shaped lugs. Their undersides can be completely glazed orstreaky; some have ring-bases. Two groups can be distinguished:plates with patterned decoration and plates with figureddecoration, and in both groups several examples are designed assegment plates.7

Figure-decorated plates: mythological and narrative scenes

Two plates from Emecik show single animals between variousfilling ornaments: a bird with filling rosettes on cat. no. 7 andthe bull on no. 8 (Figs 2–3). Their provenance from a singleworkshop is indicated by the use of the same bright reddish-brown added colour, which was only observed on these twofragments.

Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary atEmecik, Knidia Results and Questions Concerning Dorian Pottery Production

Regina Attula

Figure 1 Results of Neutron Activation Analysis with 112 samples

Figure 2 Cat. no. 7 (not sampled)

Page 94: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

86 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Attula

On the fragmentarily preserved flat plate cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4)the figure of a Potnia Theron is depicted. She wears a longbelted garment, which on the lower part is decorated withvertical geometric patterns of zigzags and filled squares. Heruplifted arm is drawn in outline technique, the other is notpreserved. Her head and the upper body as well as the animalsthat are her attributes cannot be reconstructed with certainty;perhaps figures of lions or geese originally completed thecomposition.

Similar East Greek plates with mythological figures includewell-known examples of segment plates, such as the Euphorbosplate (Fig. 5)8 and the Gorgon plate in the British Museum,9 orthe Perseus plate in Berlin,10 all three from Kameiros. ElenaWalter Karydi admired them for belonging ‘to the heyday ofArchaic East Dorian vase-painting’.11 The movement of thesefigured schemes, the frontality of the Gorgon face and the addedcolours12 all add to the monumental effect of these pinax-likepainted plates.13 To this small list of mythological figures onArchaic East Dorian ceramics furthermore may be added thedepictions of Typhon and a Boread on a situla from TellDefenneh in the British Museum (Weber Fig. 8).14 Among theseearly mythological pictures15 the Euphorbos plate (c. 600 bc)

occupies a special position because of the complex depiction of ascene with three fully armed men.16 Two of them are fightingwith their lances and round shields while the corpse of the thirdis lying on the earth between them. All three hoplites areindividualized and recognizable by their name inscriptions.Their names Menelas, Hector and Euphorbos are known fromthe Iliad, although the picture and the epic text are notcongruent (Il. 17.70–89).17 The other mythological figures onEast Greek plates, which are single figures without nameinscriptions, are recognizable from their individual appearance(Gorgo Medusa, Potnia Theron) or from their attributes(Perseus, Potnia Theron).18 Here we find close parallels to therepresentations of Athena Promachos on Chian pottery.19 Allthese depictions of an epic scene or of a mythological figurehave both a decorative and a special narrative content.

Like the three above-mentioned examples from Kameiros,many of the East Greek painted plates come from Rhodiangraves or from neighbouring island sites on Kos or Kalymnos. Ingeneral, the date of the Dorian plates can be given as betweenthe middle/late 7th and the early 6th century bc. The problemof their provenance is still unsolved.20 The archaeometricanalysis of the clay sample from plate cat. no. 6 (sample Emec

Figure 5 Euphorbos plate, BritishMuseum GR 1860.4-4.1

Figure 4 Cat. no. 6 (Emec 71, EMEB)Figure 3 Cat. no. 8 (not sampled)

Page 95: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

71, Fig. 4) shows that they belong to the main chemical groupEMEB, which contains most of the Archaic painted fine ceramicsfrom Emecik.21 In all probability, this group EMEB is to belocalized in an East Dorian pottery workshop, presumably in theKnidia.

Karl Schefold already localized the London Euphorbos plateand the whole ‘Euphorbosstil’ in the Knidian peninsula.22 ElenaWalter-Karydi, on the other hand, supported a Koan orKalymnian origin for this plate and generally described theKnidian plates as of poor quality and much more provincial thanthe painted plates from the Dorian islands.23 It led her to theassumption ‘that Cos played a leading role in this school’.24 Therole of the Koan workshops will become clearer in future studieson the Archaic material, which at present is little known. Theplacing of the Potnia Theron plate, cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4), directlyinto the Euphorbos group is not possible, since unfortunatelythis piece is too fragmentarily preserved. Many formal featuresmatch, but the shape of the rim is unknown and therefore theprofile is incomplete. On our cat. no. 6 there seem to be noincisions such as are found on Hector’s shield-device on theEuphorbos plate, or on the figure of Perseus on the plate inBerlin, nor is there evidence for polychromy as it is found on theEuphorbos plate. Moreover, no filling ornaments are preserved.The best thematic correspondences are perhaps with theLondon Gorgon plate, in so far as both depict a long-garmentedmythological female figure in partial frontality. What emerges,then, from this comparison of formal and technical features isthat the plates with figured decoration are not a uniform group.This would suggest caution in the use of the conventional terms‘Euphorbosstil’ or Euphorbos group, or at least its limitation toiconographic features. In fact, the name seems hardly suitablefor the classification or localization of the figure-decoratedplates, as regards either form, technique or content.

Furthermore, it is significant that many East Dorian plateswith figured decoration are comparable to Cycladic examples,such as the Bellerophon plate from Thasos, which is probably ofNaxian origin.25 The similarities extend to both formal andstylistic features. In order to establish a general model of thevarious Archaic traditions in East Greek plate painting, we stilllack an overview of the figure-decorated plates from East Greekcoastal findspots and from the Aegean islands, with theirevidently Cycladic influences. Archaeometric investigations ofselected samples from Dorian, Ionian and Cycladic plates, with adistinct archaeological question to be answered, would be very

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 87

Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at Emecik, Knidia

worthwhile. Three other plates from Emecik, cat. nos 1–2 (Figs 6–7) and 5

(Fig. 11), show marine and submarine subjects. Best preserved isfragment cat. no. 1 (Fig. 6) with the detailed depiction of arowing ship. It was painted in diluted glaze without incisions.We see the bow with an apotropaic eye and the row of side oars.The armed crew on deck is to be assumed behind the horizontalline of overlapping semicircles, only four of which are preserved,which represent the large hoplite shields. Around this ship adolphin and several filling ornaments are grouped.

Direct parallels for the plate cat. no. 1 (Fig. 6) are the twosegment plates cat. nos 3 (Figs 8–9) and 4 (Figs 9–10) kept inthe British Museum. They are said to have been ‘found in a smalltemenos at Datcha near Cnidus’ and were probably in fact foundin the Apollo sanctuary at Emecik.26 As a result of the NAA wefind the sample from no. 4 (sample Knid 1) in the chemicalgroup EMEb, which is very close to the main local group EMEB.27

Numbers 3 and 4 each show the ship in the lower segment of theplate. Fragment no. 4 depicts the bow side of a ship with thelong row of side oars and with two seamen on deck. Their bigeyes are drawn in outline technique, and in general their headsare depicted with only few lines, which adds specialexpressiveness to these figures. They are similar to the depictionof the helmsman on a warship that is shown on a votive pinaxfrom the Athena sanctuary at Sounion;28 this example stands inthe strong iconographic tradition of ship depictions on AtticGeometric vessels.29 The ship on plate no. 4 (Figs 9–10) isaccompanied by a dolphin. Remarkably, it faces to the right, theopposite direction from the other ship depictions on plates. Thesecond ship plate in the British Museum, cat. no. 3 (Figs 8–9),shows a nearly fully preserved ship facing left. Beside the long

Figure 8 Cat. no. 3

Figure 9 Cat. nos 3 and 4, profilesFigure 6 Cat. no. 1 (Emec 1, EMEB) Figure 7 Cat. no. 2 (Emec 60, EMEB)

Page 96: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

88 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Attula

row of side oars the two steering oars are also preserved, as isthe aphlaston, with its high curved but not yet fan-like, pre-Classical shape.30 Exactly the kind of steering oars as on cat. no. 3and part of the ship’s hull also are depicted on a small platefragment from Emecik, cat. no. 2 (Fig. 7). This fragment,therefore, should be restored to a very similar depiction as onplate no. 3. These four ship plates, cat. nos 1–4, all from theKnidian peninsula – two from the Apollo sanctuary at Emecikand two in the British Museum – represent the most detailedEast Greek depictions of ships on ceramics.31 Presumably theywere all produced in the same pottery workshop, at least nos 1, 2and 4. The smaller plate no. 3 differs from the other three inshape, colour and the quality of the bright reddish-brown glaze,but not in its fabric or in the artistic subject. Maybe thisworkshop designed such ship plates in several sizes andproduced them in different varieties of glaze.

To this small number of East Dorian ship plates may, onstylistic grounds, be added also an example from Cyrene, onwhich only the bow of the ship is preserved.32 Furthermore,there is a plate from Delos with a much more stylized depictionof a ship between a large lotus flower and small rosettes.33

Another plate fragment with a marine subject from Emecikshows an underwater scene (cat. no. 5, Fig. 11). Beneath twodolphins a snake-like or Hydra-like sea-monster with sharptriangular spikes seems to be represented. In Archaic East Greekvase-painting this remarkable subject is without parallels, but itis close to a single depiction on an Early Iron Age plate fromCyprus.34 As a result of the NAA we find the sample from cat. no.5 (Emec 59) in the main group EMEB, together with the two shipplates from Emecik cat. nos 1–2 (Figs 6–7), the ship plate in theBritish Museum cat no. 4 (Figs 9–10), and the Potnia Theronplate cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4).

The similarities between these plates with figureddecoration and painted pinakes (or plaques) have beenmentioned above. Maybe the ship plates from Emecik, and theexamples from Cyrene and Delos mentioned above, which werealso found in sacral contexts, had a similar function asdedications in a sanctuary35 as did the Attic votive pinax fromSounion.36 A strong further argument for this are two small pre-firing drilled holes in the central upper part of many ArchaicEast Greek plates, as can be seen on plate cat. no. 3 (Fig. 8).37

These holes served for hanging or otherwise attaching thesepicture plates. Even if on the Emecik fragments no such holesare preserved, such a representative use of the ship plates seemssuggestive.

Pattern-decorated plates: a further instance of local Fikellura

production?

In the group of plates or stemmed plates with patterneddecoration, cat. nos 9–12 (Figs 12–15) there is no less varietythan among the plates with figured decoration. One of the maintypes here is the plate with concentrically decorated surface. Inaddition to some plates with purely banded decoration there areseveral with concentric decoration around a central floral motif,often a big star rosette. As in the figure-decorated plates, somepattern-decorated ones are also designed as segment plates.Furthermore, added colours are rare and there are no incisions.Many filling ornaments are in common with those on the figure-decorated plates and also on the closed vessel forms (amphorae,jugs). As with the figure-decorated plates cat. nos 1–2 and 5–6,some of the samples from pattern-decorated plates fall into themain chemical group EMEB.38

The fragment cat. no. 10 (Fig. 13) from the centre of astemmed plate deserves our particular attention, since it shows acertain connection between Emecik and Naukratis. This is nowthe third such link to be established via the Naukratis materialkept in the British Museum, in addition to an East Dorian cup(Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 24)39 and Cypriot pottery.40 Thefine and thick white-ground surface of plate no. 10 contrastswith the concentric black-glazed bands framing a row of

Figure 12 Cat. no. 9 (Emec 62, single) Figure 13 Cat. no. 10 (Emec 63, EMEE)

Figure 10 Cat. no. 4 (Knid 1, EMEb)

Figure 11 Cat. no. 5 (Emec 59, EMEB)

Page 97: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 89

Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at Emecik, Knidia

meander hooks. From the frieze of alternating lotus flowers andbuds between the glazed zones only the lower half of a singlebud is preserved, but the reconstruction to a lotus frieze seemsunequivocal. Stylistically very close to our no. 10 is a rim-fragment from a plate or a stemmed plate, cat. no. 11 (Fig. 14),from Naukratis kept in the British Museum.41 Its colour andquality of clay, containing mica, as also the quality of the slip andglaze are closely comparable. Furthermore, the lotus buds showthe same form as those on fragment no. 10. This slim shape ofthe buds without a contour-line and with the glazed dot at thebottom are known to be typical of South Ionian Fikellura lotus-friezes (SiA II, MileA II).42 The band of meander hooks is alsopresent: this motif appears twice on no. 11, below the lotus friezeand also on the rim. In comparing common stylistic featuresfrom both plates no. 10 and no. 11, one would attribute themwithout hesitation to the same South Ionian workshop.

The result of the NAA places cat. no. 10 (Emec 63) in thegroup EMEE, which is a small and very heterogeneous group ofonly five samples, including the plate fragment cat. no. 12 (Fig.15).43 The fragment from Naukratis (Nauk 8) now finds achemical partner in another sample from Emecik (Emec 31),which belongs to an unglazed base sherd, perhaps from anamphora.44 Nauk 8 with Emec 31 form a chemical pair with a stillunknown provenance. Since there is no chemical connectionbetween the Fikellura-style plate no. 10 (Emec 63) and theunspecific base sherd Emec 31, the provenance of both Fikellura-style plates nos 10 (Emec 63) and 11 (Nauk 8) still cannot belocalized. On the present state of knowledge we have to focus ontwo possibilities for an interpretation model: Either the assumedlocal East Dorian (maybe Knidian) production of such Fikellura-style stemmed plates was so close to South Ionian (Milesian)that we should speak here of excellent copies – or maybe, on theother hand, the group EMEE was produced not by an EastDorian, but by a hitherto unknown South Ionian potteryworkshop, which perhaps is to be placed at Miletos or in thesurrounding region (SiA II, MileA II).45

Recently Richard Posamentir described a similarphenomenon when publishing an important plate fragmentfrom Berezan kept in the Hermitage Museum.46 This plate showsa lotus-frieze very similar to those on plates nos 10 (Emec 63)and 11 (Nauk 8), but painted in a bright reddish-brown glaze.From the technical and stylistic features one would identify thispiece as South Ionian or Milesian (MileA II). Surprisingly, thesample of this plate (Bere 125) fits into the chemical group D-Troy, which contains samples from Bronze Age and Iron Ageceramics from Troy and its surrounding region.47 On strongtopographical and historical arguments Posamentir (as well asMommsen et al. this volume) assumes the localization of thisgroup D-Troy in a pottery workshop at Abydos (‘Hellespont

workshops’). Furthermore, Udo Schlotzhauer has nowestablished Fikellura-style production at Naukratis (‘Naukratis-workshop’), which included plates with a lotus frieze, too(samples Nauk 25 and 33 [Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1].48

We should not be surprised by the discovery of further localproduction centres of Fikellura-style pottery outside Miletos, inview of the strong influence exerted by the highly-developedSouth Ionian workshops on their neighbouring territories andon the colonized regions.49 In this connection we shouldconsider also the southern dissemination of South Ionianpottery, following here the supposition of Robert M. Cook andPierre Dupont: ‘Future discoveries are likely to show that it[Fikellura] was popular generally throughout the southern partof the East Greek region’.50

With the finds from Emecik we have, then, for the first time,samples of Archaic South Ionian pottery from the Knidianpeninsula that also include Fikellura.51 Because the sherds fromEmecik were found in a filling layer at the southern temenos-wall, we lack a stratigraphically-based chronology for theArchaic ceramics.52 In addition to the plate fragment cat. no. 10(Emec 63) sherds from Fikellura-style jugs and from bandedplates were found. Among them are three samples (Emec 64, 72,115) belonging to the well-established group A (Kalabaktepeworkshop) and one sample (Emec 116) belonging to group D(probably Miletos).53 From the Archaic settlement layers atBurgaz/Datça five sherds (not sampled) from Fikellura-styleamphorae or from trefoil-mouthed jugs are known (MileA I-II).54

At present the number of Fikellura-style pottery in the Knidia isnot very high, and the amount of Fikellura among the SouthIonian material in general can be given as nearly a third. So atleast the supposition of Robert M. Cook and Pierre Dupontconcerning the Knidia can be confirmed. It seems, then, that theassessment of Ionian influence on the assumed Cnidian potteryproduction depends particularly on the localization of groupEMEE.

Recently, the features and chronologies of South Ionianpottery have been comprehensively reviewed by MichaelKerschner and Udo Schlotzhauer.55 In addition, as far as generalobservations on the different features of South Ionian and EastDorian pottery are concerned, I partly follow Elena Walter-Karydi.56 First, there is her strong point that ‘the East Dorianshave a much greater interest in human figures and mythologicalscenes than the South Ionians’, as we have seen here forexample with the Potnia Theron plate, cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4). Walter-Karydi’s second point, that in the East Dorian regions Wild Goat-decorated vessels are generally less dominant, is a more complexmatter. Her theory of the islands’ supremacy in comparison withthe mainland is to be rejected so long as there is such an evidentlack of comparable ceramic material from coastal findspots and

Figure 14 Cat. no. 11 (Nauk 8) Figure 15 Cat. no. 12 (Emec 58, EMEE)

Page 98: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

90 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Attula

from the Aegean islands. Now several degrees of Ionianinfluence can be distinguished, especially various localvariations in the incorporation of Ionian styles or patterns (as,for example, elements from the Fikellura style) into thetraditions of the Dorian, or Carian, workshops.57 Referring hereto recent historical and epigraphic research,58 this complexquestion can be formulated clearly with regard to one specialaspect: following the epigraphic evidence, there is a linguistic-dialectical borderline between Ionia and Caria (koine Greek andDorian dialect). To what extent does this phenomenoncorrespond with the evidence from the material culture – Ionian(Milesian) influence on the one hand and ‘genuine Dorian art’on the other? Research into this important question seems morefruitful than the construction of differences between the Aegeanislands and the mainland in general.

If we go back to the localization of the group EMEE, we haveto mention once more the Fikellura-style examples fromBerezan and from elsewhere. The situation that is known fromthe more northern East Greek regions, from the Troad(Abydos)59 to the western Black Sea shore (as, for example,Istros),60 could be similar to the Dorian regions (for example theregion of Iasos or the Knidia); at least we cannot exclude such amodel for Caria at present.61 What is significant here is the factthat at the same time the production model in Ionia itself is nowbeing reviewed differently. In fact, the equation of Fikelluraproduction in Ionia with a genuine Milesian workshop (groupsA, D) must be revised in the light of recent investigationsshowing us different chemical compositions for Fikelluraproducts, some of which may belong to non-Milesianworkshops.62 At present, the question of the localization of groupEMEE thus has to be left partially unanswered. But because ofthe high frequency with which new archaeological-archaeometrical results now keep on changing our state ofknowledge of East Greek pottery, I am convinced it will soonalso address this important aspect.

Outlook

The aim of this contribution is to understand Archaic Knidian,and more generally, Archaic East Dorian, art as a componentpart of a general phenomenon. At present, Dorian Archaicsculpture,63 along with Hellenistic and Roman pottery,64 are stillbetter understood than Archaic Dorian pottery. We don’t knowmuch about Archaic Dorian workshops and the actualdissemination of Archaic Dorian pottery.65 We can expect furtherinsights in future from other findspots at Dorian coastal sites(such as Halikarnassos) as well as from the islands.66 Thenumerous coarse and unglazed wares (jars, pithoi, mortaria[Villing Fig. 17]67 and transport containers)68 must be includedin this. The final aim should be a chronological and stylisticmodel of the East Dorian pottery production, in which theKnidia will surely occupy an important position.69

Catalogue Cat. no. 1. (Fig. 6) Attula 2006, 120 cat. 204, pls V.2; 60.1-2. Emec 1, EMEB. Segment plate, fragmentary. Depiction of a ship, beneath a dolphin andtwo filling ornaments. From Emecik. Cat. no. 2. (Fig. 7) Attula 2006, 120-21 cat. 205, fig. 19, pl. 62.2. Emec 60, EMEB. Fragment of a segment plate. Depiction of the back part of a ship, only thesteering oars and a part of the hull are preserved. From Emecik. Cat. no. 3. (Figs 8–9) British Museum GR 1893.11-13.5; Schefold 1942, 129 fig. 1; Basch 1987, 242fig. 511; Attula 2006, 119 pl. 61.4. Not sampled. Segment plate, restored, diameter 17.5 cm. With four spool-shaped lugsand two pre-firing drilled holes. Bottom completely covered in reddish-brown glaze. Depiction of a ship with side oars, steering oars, andaphlaston. In the upper segment an animal and filling ornaments,partially preserved. Without incisions. From ‘a small temenos near Datcha’. Cat. no. 4. (Figs 9–10) British Museum GR 1893.11-13.4; Schefold 1942, 129 fig. 2; Basch 1987, 242fig. 510; Attula 2006, 119, pl. 61.2-3. Knid 1, EMEb. Fragment of a segment plate, diameter 29cm. Depiction of the bow sideof a ship with embolon and akrostolion, on deck two seamen, a dolphin.In the upper segment only the lower legs of an animal are preserved.Without incisions. From ‘a small temenos near Datcha’. Cat. no. 5 (Fig. 11) Attula 2006, cat. 203 fig. 19, pl. 61.1. Emec 59, EMEB. Fragment of a plate. Depiction of an underwater-scene with two dolphinsand perhaps a seamonster.From Emecik.Cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4) Attula 2006, 120-2 cat. 206 fig. 19 pl. 62.1. Emec 71, EMEB. Fragments of a plate. Depiction of a Potnia Theron figure. Withoutincisions. From Emecik.Cat. no. 7 (Fig. 2) Attula 2006, 122 cat. 207, fig. 21, pl. VI.3; 62.3. Not sampled. Fragment of a segment plate. Depiction of a bird, filling ornaments.Added colour. From Emecik.Cat. no. 8. (Fig. 3) Attula 2006, 122 cat. 208, pl. 62.5, 8. Not sampled. Fragments of a segment plate. Depiction of a bull. Added colour. From Emecik.Cat. no. 9 (Fig. 12) Attula 2006, 122 cat. 210, pl. 62.6. Emec 62, single. Fragment of a plate. Ornamental decorated with bands of double-volutesand hooks around a stylized flower and small dot-rosettes. From Emecik. Cat. no. 10 (Fig. 13) Attula 2006, 142 cat. 279, pl. V.3; 73.6. Emec 63, EMEE. Fragment of a Fikellura-style stemmed plate, cf. cat. no. 11. Concentriczones decorated with meander and lotus-frieze between glazed bands. From Emecik. Cat. no. 11 (Fig. 14) British Museum GR 1924.12-1.1113; Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.6. Nauk 8, pair with Emec 31. Fragment of a Fikellura-style stemmed plate, cf. cat. no. 10. Concentriczones decorated with meander, lotus-frieze and hooks between glazedbands. From Naukratis. Cat. no. 12 (Fig. 15) Attula 2006, cat. 221, pl. 64.8. Emec 58, EMEE. Fragment of a plate of remarkable weight and different quality of glaze.Concentric zone decorated with a zigzag-band between glazed bands. From Emecik.

Page 99: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 91

Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at Emecik, Knidia

Illustration creditsFig. 1 after Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006, 202 fig. 36; Fig. 4 R.Attula; Figs 5, 8, 9, 10, 14 the British Museum; drawings by K. Morton;others: Johannes Kramer, after Berges 2006.

Notes* This project under the directorship of N. Tuna (ODTÜ Ankara,

TAÇDAM), D. Berges (University of Hamburg) and the Museum atMarmaris was supported by the Gerda-Henkel-Stiftung, DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft and Deutsches Archäologisches InstitutBerlin. I wish to thank the organizers Alexandra Villing and UdoSchlotzhauer for the invitation to the colloquium.

1 Berges and Tuna 2000; Berges 2002, 2006; Tuna 2004. 2 Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006. The local reference group

were stamped handles from Knidian transport amphorae and debrisfrom the pottery workshop in Reþadiye, near Emecik.

3 In addition to Berges 2006, in this contribution are used somecorrected abbreviations as EMEA, EMEB to EMEG for the formernames of the new chemical groups EME-A, -B- to -G; or the nowobligatory classification term MileA for the former MilA.

4 For the history of research see Kerschner 2001, 88-9; Schlotzhauer2001a, 115-6; Attula 2006, 113-4. For the terracottas from Emecik seeKleibl 2006.

5 Attula 2006, 114-26 cat. nos 203-40. 6 Here, too, only fragments are preserved; see Özer 1998, 30-5 cat. nos

42-8. I thank the author for providing his manuscript. On the ArchaicEast Greek sherds from Cape Tekir, at the tip of the peninsula, seeAttula 2006, 114.

7 Attula 2006, 114-5 n. 279. The formal and stylistic analogies betweenthe various East Greek segment plates and Attic, Corinthian,Cycladic, and Laconian plates are to be examined in a separate study.See also Callipolitis-Feytmans 1974; Todd 1973; Manyas 1984.

8 BM GR 1860.4-4.1; Walter 1968, pl. 129.623; Williams 1999, 43-4 fig.31.

9 BM GR 1860.4-4.2; Walter 1968, pl. 130.626. 10 Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 136.1121. Mandel 2005, 152 n. 123 with

reservations regarding the designation of this figure as Perseus. 11 Walter-Karydi 1998, 292. 12 For polychromy in early East Greek vase painting, see Furtwängler

1980, 188-95 figs 8-11, pls 54-5 (hydria from the Samian Heraion, c. 600 bc); Schaus 1988; Boardman 1998b, 143, 145-6, 221-2; Lemos2000, 384-8.

13 Schefold 1993, 18: ‘Archaisch ist das Aneinanderfügen derBildelemente, hocharchaisch die einfache Größe der Formen undtypisch ostgriechisch, wie die Gestalten in bunte umgebendeOrnamentik verwoben sind’.

14 BM GR 1888.2-8.1. See Weber, this volume. In addition, two platefragments from Emecik may depict a crouching sphinx (or a lion?),but as only the paws are preserved the figure cannot be identifiedwith certainty; see Attula 2006, cat. nos 209, 228, pls 62.5, 65.6.

15 For mythological representations in Greek pottery from Egypt, seeSchlotzhauer and Weber 2005. For Eastern, especially Cypriotinfluence on the early iconography of Herakles, see Iacovou 1988, 19cat. no. 33, figs 77-8; Karageorghis 1997, 221-3.

16 Schefold 1964, 8-9, 64 fig. 75; Walter-Karydi 1998, 292. The partialsimilarity between the three warriors on the Euphorbos plate andthe battle-frieze figures on the Corinthian Chigi olpe (LPC, c. 640 bc)is well-known, see Hurwit 2002.

17 Jeffery 1990, 153-4, 353-4; Ahlberg-Cornell 1992, 65 no. 42. 18 Tempesta 1998, 50-68; Coulié 2002, 121 cat nos 327-8, pl. 85. 19 Lemos 1991, 160 figs 12-13; Villing 1998. See Barclay (forthcoming),

I thank the author for information on her manuscript. For femalewinged figures in Archaic Klazomenian painting see Cook 1981, 121-2.

20 Rumpf 1933, 61 separated the Nisyros group and on Rhodes theVroulia, Kameiros and Euphorbos workshops. In this field, variationsin terminological use are frequent, as Koch 1996, 9 n. 27 subsumedthe Euphorbos plate under ‘Ostionien’.

21 Mommsen, Schwedt, and Attula 2006, 199-200; Attula 2006, 114-6.As a sub-group to EMEB there is the small group EMEb with sixsamples (which differs only in higher Cr, Ni and Co values). Inaddition to the fine pottery also a relief-decorated pithos fragment(Emec 129) belongs to EMEb, see Berges 2002, 139 cat. no. 32.

22 Schefold 1942, 129 figs 1-2; Schefold 1993, 17-8 cat. no. 4. 23 Walter-Karydi 1986, 76; Walter 1968, 89-92. For concluding remarks

see Cook and Dupont 1988, 61 n. 55. 24 Walter-Karydi 1998, 292 n. 5. 25 Thasos 2057, see Boardman 1998b, 131 cat. no. 256. 26 BM GR 1893.11-13.4 and 5; Schefold 1942, 129 figs 1-2. I thank

A. Scollan and A. Villing for information and drawings. See Attula2006, 116-7 pl. 61.2-4. For the identification of this sanctuary with theApollo sanctuary at Emecik, see Berges 2002, 112-7.

27 Supra n. 21. The technical abbreviation Knid (so far there is Knid 1only) refers to the origin of the sample from the Knidian peninsulaoutside Emecik, not the localization of the clay source. For the 137samples from Emecik see Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006.

28 The upper part of his body is more elaborate and he is definitelybearded. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 14935. Proto-Attic, attributed to the Analatos Painter (c. 700 bc); Morrison andWilliams 1968, 73 pl. 8b; Sweeney 1987, 91 fig. 18; Koch 1996, 13-4;Cook 1960, 67.

29 Ahlberg 1971, 25-38. 30 Höckmann 1985, 103, 155; Basch 1987, 242-3 fig. 511. 31 Even Torr 1894, 27, after the announcement of the fragments in the

British Museum in 1893, admired them for their ‘grandeur réelle’,and Basch 1987, 242-3 fig. 511, especially appreciated the depiction onno. 3 as ‘une galère différente de la précédente’.

32 Schaus 1985a, cat. no. 353, pl. 21. 33 Delos Museum B 6013; Basch 1987, 243 fig. 512. 34 From Kouklia-Skales, Cyprus Museum T.58/104 (CGIB, 11th or 10th

century bc); Yon 1970, 311-7; Iacovou 1988, 19 cat. nos 33, 69-70, figs77-8; supra n. 15. Well-preserved shallow plate with two remarkablyelaborate handles and with a narrative scene underneath the base.Underneath several animals two men with bow and arrow and withtwo swords are shown fighting a bicephalic snake monster with adotted body and a forked tail – maybe an early scene of Herakles andthe Lernaean Hydra?

35 For parallels concerning the worship of Athena, see Wagner 2001. 36 Supra n. 28. 37 Walter-Karydi 1973, cat. nos 1102, 1100, 1090; Attula 2006, 116 n. 300. 38 Attula 2006, 119-24 nos 211 (Emec 70), 212 (Emec 26), 215 (Emec 2),

218 (Emec 56), 225 (Emec 121), 227 (Emec 43), 232 (Emec 113). 39 For the East Dorian cup (‘Knickrandschale’) with Phoenician graffito

(BM GR 1888.4-1.96; sample Nauk 51, EMEBe) see Schlotzhauer2006, 301-7, no. 2, 316 figs 4-6. I thank the author for providing hismanuscript before publication. See also Mommsen et al., thisvolume; and Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).

40 On mortaria of Cypriot origin (samples Nauk 55, EMEA; Nauk 67,EMEa; Nauk 68, EMEa), which match most terracotta figurines aswell as a sherd from a Cypriot bichrome jug from Emecik, see Villing,this volume.

41 BM GR 1924.12-1.1113. Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.6. I thank U. Schlotzhauerfor information, cf. also Schlotzhauer, this volume.

42 Schlotzhauer (forthcomingb); Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005,46-52, fig. 52 (SiA IIa).

43 Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006, 200. Group EMEE includes ablack-glazed handle from a krater (Emec 114), an unstampedamphora handle (Emec 24) and a fragment from a terracotta bullfigurine (Emec 110); see Kleibl 2006, 178 cat. no. 552.

44 Depot, Inv. ST 01 I8b-10, 96. According to the inventory, this is a‘Boden mit Standring, grob, oxydierend gebrannt’.

45 Attula 2006, 128, 145. 46 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, Berezan B 65-40, sample no. Bere

125. I thank the authors for providing their manuscript beforepublication.

47 Mommsen, Hertel and Mountjoy 2001, 198-201. 48 Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b); Schlotzhauer and Villing, this

volume. 49 Schlotzhauer 1999, 239; Schlotzhauer 2001a, 119-21; Schlotzhauer

(forthcoming b); Attula 2006, 128 n. 319. For Ionian influence onArchaic Carian pottery production, especially in the late 7th and thefirst half of the 6th centuries bc, see Fazlýoðlu (forthcoming).

50 Cook and Dupont 1998, 88. 51 Attula 2006, 136-7. 52 For the situation on the lower terrace of the sanctuary, see Attula

2006, 101-2, pl. 17 figs 10-1. 53 Attula 2006, cat. nos 281, 284, 289. 54 Özer 1998, 41-3 figs 31-3. 55 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005. 56 Walter-Karydi 1998, 293; Attula 2006, 114-18. 57 Supra n. 49. On an assumed local variation of stemmed plates see

Attula 2006, 131 cat. nos 250, 251 (Emec 65, EMEB), 280.

Page 100: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

92 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Attula

58 Bresson (forthcoming); see also Blümel 1993. 59 Supra n. 46. 60 Dupont 1983; Cook and Dupont 1998, 88-9. 61 Attula 2006, 128. 62 Information U. Schlotzhauer; Schlotzhauer, this volume.63 Jenkins and Waywell 1997; Walter-Karydi 1998; Bruns-Özgan 2004,

201-8. 64 Mandel, Hübner and Kögler 2000, 161-94; Attula 2006, 113, 146-48

cat. nos 305-31; Berg Briese 2005; Kögler 2005; Þahin 2003. 65 One also needs to consider the assessment by Walter-Karydi 1982, 9

‘Daß Ostdorisches ... fehlt, ist weniger verwunderlich, dennaußerhalb der Ostdoris scheint diese Keramik sehr wenig verbreitetzu sein’; Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b), 6; Attula 2006, 145 n. 344.

66 I would like to refer to the current research, including archaeometric

investigations, by M. Berg Briese at Halikarnassos and by M.d’Acunto at Rhodes Museum.

67 Mortarium sherd from Emecik, ST 99 K8c-16, 78. 68 Berges 2002, 134-53; Attula 2006, 124 cat. no. 241 pl. 67.2; Attula

(forthcoming). 69 Finally, on terminology, see Schlotzhauer 2001a, 111; Kerschner and

Schlotzhauer 2005, 5. The adoption of this classification system,which was applied successfully to Archaic Ionian pottery, is not onlydesirable but also necessary for Dorian pottery. Since the term OdA(Ostdorisch Archaisch = Archaic East Dorian) is at present the onlyavailable designation, it is not yet truly distinctive. The application ofthis terminology may succeed first with regard to local Fikellurawares.

Page 101: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 93

Abstract

The excavations at Naukratis produced a large quantity of EastGreek pottery of various categories which resulted in renewedefforts in their study and classification. The present paper presentsa body of material – comprised mainly of dishes and fruitstands,but also a number of plates – from the Anglo-Turkish excavations atOld Smyrna that may be compared to some of the East Greek findsfrom Naukratis. In the light of the results of more recentexcavations most of these Old Smyrna pieces and their parallels atNaukratis may be identified as North Ionian, and similar vesselsare now testified to at many sites which attracted the attention ofEast Greeks during the Archaic period. A contrast, though, isapparent between Old Smyrna and Naukratis – at least as far asthe published record is concerned – as regards pieces probably oflate 6th- and 5th-century bc date decorated with loose floralschemes, as they occur at the former site, but are not testified to atthe latter.

The pottery from Old Smyrna discussed in this paper forms asmall part of a body of material from the Anglo-Turkishexcavations collected and documented by J.M. Cook.1 I have notexamined the material, and my knowledge of it is based onCook’s notes, drawings and photographs.2 The wider corpus islargely comprised of simply painted wares which may beclassified as belonging to the broad wave-line and bandedcategories. There are also a number of more ambitious florallydecorated vessels, some of which are discussed here.

Firstly, however, the point should be made that if one wereto examine the published Naukratite material one would havethe impression that plain wares and simply decorated potterywere not found in great numbers at the site. Although a smallnumber of unpainted vessels – all complete or substantially so –were published, the fact remains that Naukratis, as we now haveit, cannot provide us with a full range of the pottery groupspresent at the site during the Archaic period.3

Consequently, the points of contact between the Old Smyrnamaterial included in my wider study and that published fromNaukratis are few. They are primarily restricted to fruitstandsand dishes that are commonly placed in the Late Wild Goattradition and a number of plate fragments. All belong to JohnCook’s ‘Slipped Wares’ except for the fruitstand 11 (Fig. 9) whichhe classified with his ‘Stripped Wares’, though it too in alllikelihood bears at least a simple slip. His general description ofthe ‘Slipped Wares’ is: ‘The slip was normally white (sometimeschalky and fugitive), and the glaze was most commonly red… .The fabric is generally a pinkish buff and contains gold mica.’

In Cook’s papers find contexts of only a small number ofpieces are noted. In this article attention is focused onpresenting the Old Smyrna material and on the links which canbe established between the decorative schemes of its constituentpieces and finds from Naukratis. Categories of plates, fruitstands

and dishes found at Old Smyrna but not at Naukratis are alsoexamined in order to present the full range of these shapes fromthe former site as preserved in Cook’s notes.

Given that the find contexts of most of the Old Smyrnapieces are not known they add little to our knowledge of thechronology of the series. The few pieces for which a datablecontext is recorded were either excavated in the ‘white tuff chipslevel’ dated by Cook to the late 7th century bc (9–10, Figs 7–8;13, Fig. 11),4 or in the Temple Deposit dated c. 600 bc (12, Fig.10).5 Cook and R.V. Nicholls associated both these deposits withthe Alyattan destruction which they dated c. 600 bc, though E.Akurgal would lower the date by a period of at least 20 years.6

Cook’s dating, of course, reflects the conventional chronologywhich is also used by the excavators of most of the otherrelevant sites. These carefully and elaborately decorated vesselsmay be earlier than some of the simpler fruitstands and dishesfrom other sites which are dated well into the 6th century bc.The richly painted fruitstands 9 (Fig. 7) and 10 (Fig. 8) whichare dated c. 600 bc find a simpler parallel, as regards decoration,in a fruitstand identified as North Ionian from a burial excavatedat Pitane. The burial also contained a Middle Corinthianaryballos, datable c. 600–575 bc according to the conventionalchronology. On the basis of the chronology of the Pitane grave(and caution is advised as it only supplies one limited context) 9(Fig. 7) and 10 (Fig. 8), as well as 7 (Fig. 5) and 8 (Fig. 6), whichare decorated in the same manner, could be placed immediatelyon either side of 600 bc if complexity of decorative design andprecision of execution are taken as indicators of an earlier date.7

The possibility, however, must be kept in mind that their ornatedecorative schemes may be due to the fact that they wereintended to be used as display pieces within a religious milieu asthose with a known context were found in the Sanctuary ofAthena.

Plates

The fragment 1 (Fig. 1) preserves the rim of a plate, the concaveupper surface of which is decorated with a running scrolledspiral; each scroll carries one pendent and one ascendant drop.

The form of the rim may be readily compared with those ofother East Greek plates, but it is the decorative spiral which linksit to a group which, although small in number, is well defined.The best preserved example is the plate now in Kassel,8 which isreported as having been found at Klazomenai. Ornatelydecorated with Late Wild Goat motifs in the three zones of itsfloor, it is the scroll pattern on its rim which relates it to the OldSmyrna fragment. Y. Ersoy has studied two other fragments ofsuch plates from the recent excavations at Klazomenai which areclosely related to the Kassel plate, down to the detail of the dotsalong the band of the rim’s lower edge. Furthermore, he reportsfive more fragments from similar plates found during surveywork in the Klazomenai area, and recent analysis of examples of

The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-TurkishExcavations at Old SmyrnaPoints of Contact with Naukratis

Stavros A.Paspalas

Page 102: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

94 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Paspalas

this type from Berezan have confirmed the localization ofproduction at Klazomenai.9 The descriptions of the fabric andsurface treatment of these three plates tally well with those ofCook’s ‘Slipped Wares’.

I know of one piece from Naukratis which is of relevancehere: the rim fragment of a plate published by E. Price.10 Adrawing of its profile, slightly heavier than that of 1 (Fig. 1),appears here as Figure 2. It offers a very close match to theKlazomenian and Kassel examples in all its decorative details.

All these pieces are closely comparable to the Old Smyrnarim, but it will be noted that the latter has a simpler spiralmotif. On the other plates individual double-scrolled spiralsare linked by two parallel horizontal bars. Above and belowthese bars there is a drop, as there is between the scrolls ofeach spiral. This scheme also appears on a ‘bowl’ fragmentfound at Naukratis.11 This motif is a variant of a similar patternin which the position of the scrolled spirals is actually occupiedby concentric circles. At least three such pieces are know fromNaukratis, one from a dish, the others from a lid and a krater.12

It may be noted that 1 bears a decorative scheme simpler thanthat of its parallels. Here there is a running scrolled spiral, notindividual scrolled spirals, consequently there is no need forlinking bars with the result that the frequency of the drops hasbeen reduced.

The rim and outer floor of the Kassel plate are closelyparalleled by fragments excavated at Berezan and Olbia, whilethe scroll pattern also appears on a similar fragment from thelatter site.13 However, from what is preserved the individualscrolled spirals appear not to be linked by bars. Thisobservation also holds for a plate fragment from Histria.14 Ifone was disposed to think in linear developmental terms onecould say that these pieces stand between the Kassel plate andits cognates and the Old Smyrna fragment. Closely relateddecorative motifs are found at Naukratis on a krater handle-plate fragment and on a lid fragment where a zone of scrolledspirals sits above one occupied by lotus palmettes and buds of atype we shall shortly see on Old Smyrna dishes and theirparallels.15

Cook in his notes assigned the Old Smyrna plate fragmentto the 6th century bc, and, indeed, it is to that century that allits parallels have normally been dated, though to wildlyvarying quarters. The most comprehensively presented pieces,those from Klazomenai, were found in contexts dated to thelate 6th century bc,16 while the Olbia fragment is presentedwith sherd material dated to the second quarter.

To date it would appear that open vessels with decorativeschemes related to that of 1 (Fig. l) are, within East Greece,concentrated in North Ionia: Old Smyrna and Klazomenai,though it must be admitted that the numbers on which thisobservation is based are very few indeed. Beyond this region,they are found at Naukratis and in the Black Sea region along,it may be noted, with other North Ionian material.

A small number of other examples of plates are found

among the Old Smyrna material, again with a white slip, thougha grooved rim differentiates them from the piece just examinedbut not from its related piece illustrated in Figure 2 excavated atNaukratis. They normally bear floral decorative motifs or cross-hatching on their rims, though a more substantially preservedexample, 2 (Fig. 3), bears geometrical schemes: triangles, seriesof dots and what may be some form of cruciform motif in itstondo. Its rim can be compared to, but not closely paralleled by,plates found at Buruncuk (‘Larissa-on-the-Hermos’) ascribed bythe excavators to the second half of the 6th century bc.17

The plate fragments included under the numbers 3 and 4(Fig. 4), too, may be generally compared to finds from Burunçukassigned to the second half of the 6th century bc, though Cooksuggests that they may date into the 5th. The zones of cross-hatching are reminiscent of those on the top zones of skyphoifrom that site,18 while the disarticulated palmettes and otherfloral elements find parallels on vessels of the ‘Pflanzen-ornamentik’ category.19 Closer parallels for the decorativeschemes of these plates are not available among the publishedmaterial, but it may be noted that a few fragments from acontext dated by the excavators to the mid-6th century bc at OldSmyrna bear loosely-structured florals (though moreundisciplined that those of 4 (Fig. 4)).20 A krater dated as LateArchaic from the area of Metropolis shares in the same generalrepertoire.21 Loosely-structured and disarticulated floralelements appear not to be a feature restricted to the potteryfound at Buruncuk. They do not have any parallels among theknown material from Naukratis. The fragment 5 (Fig. 4) (and 3(Fig. 4 top right)) bear properly constituted lotus-bud chains.Cook places the two fragments numbered 32 (Fig. 4) with theseplates, and their decorative details are also paralleled bymaterial excavated at Buruncuk.22

The fragments of five different vessels are incorporatedunder 6 (Fig. 4). Cook describes all three rim fragments asderiving from plates with flat rims. Given the lack of any profiledrawings for these pieces it may be that they are similar in formto the dishes discussed below, though shallower. Their simpledecorative schemes can be paralleled elsewhere in North Ioniaand Aiolis.23

Figure 1 Plate no. 1 from Old Smyrna

Figure 3 Plate no. 2 from OldSmyrna

Figure 2 Plate from Naukratis (BM GR 1965.9-30.500)

Page 103: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 95

The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna

Dishes and fruitstands

The dishes and the fruitstands are largely to be datedapproximately to the first half of the 6th century bc on the basisof parallels with finds excavated elsewhere, though the earliestexamples may, as Cook places them, date to the late 7th centurybc. Many of the simpler examples are dated by Cook into the 5thcentury bc. Their exteriors regularly carry series of horizontallines and bands. They may be divided, on the grounds of size,into two basic groups. Most are small, with a rim diameterbetween 11 and 15.5cm; a minority are larger with a rim diameterbetween 21 and 26cm. Most of the parallels from Naukratis fallwithin the latter range. Typically, they carry a slip on theirinterior, while the exterior is not slipped.

The most impressive of the fruitstands or dishes excavated atOld Smyrna is the piece published by E. Akurgal which picturesa Potnia Theron on its interior. It has long been recognized as aNorth Ionian work, and I mention it here as a reference point forthe dishes from the site to which it is related. It may be notedthat its incised lotus bud and flower zones can be profitablycompared to those of a fruitstand from the temenos of Aphroditeat Naukratis.24

Figure 4 Plates nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 15 and 32 from Old Smyrna

Figure 5 Fruitstand no. 7from Old Smyrna

Figure 6 Fruitstand no. 8from Old Smyrna

The first of the Old Smyrna pieces, 7 (Fig. 5), is close to thePotnia dish, but is somewhat simplified. It is a dish with cut-outhandles, a form known previously from the site in Wild Goat.25

Its horizontal rim carries a dotted running dog pattern, whichmay be seen as a simplification of the guilloche on the rim of thePotnia dish. Its main zone is decorated with an alternately-linked lotus flower and bud chain, simpler – as it is not incised –in execution than the chain on the Potnia dish but stillembellished with added red. The inner zone bears a series oftongues. It may be noted that the chain’s buds are rather stout.

Naukratis supplies a number of examples of similar non-figural dishes, though none are as elaborately decorated as 7,which is distinguished by the running dog pattern on its rim,whereas all other examples bear meander hooks. Furthermore,the lotus flowers of 7 consist of four elements, those on itssimpler parallels only of two. It can be noted, however, thatthese simpler parallels from Naukratis have more complicatedradial arrangements on their floors rather than a series oftongues.26 One dish fragment shares the feature of complicatedlotus flowers with 7,27 but they are different in form as theypossess an outlined central element. Furthermore, its buds areslender, as are those of the other parallels from Naukratis. Thelotus chain on a fragment now in Alexandria stands between theone on this piece and 7, the bud is similar to that on the former,whereas the flower consists of solid elements.28 None of theseparallel lotus chains, where the relevant section is preserved, arealternately-linked as is that of 7. Here note may be made of thechain on the interior of a turned-up rim fragment, probablyfrom a fruitstand, illustrated by Akurgal from Old Smyrna.29

Again the lotus flowers have solid elements, but the buds areslender as are those on the cited Naukratite parallels, and thereis a pellet beneath each flower, a feature also seen in the chain of7 as well as on the following piece (8, Fig. 6) from Old Smyrnaand – in a simpler form – on a ‘bowl’ lower body fragment fromNaukratis and dish fragments excavated on Delos and atSyracuse.30 Despite the differences in specifics between 7 and itsNaukratite parallels their shared features show that they belongto the same stylistic tradition. Fragments of a dish simpler than7, though similar to those from Naukratis, has been excavated atSybaris.31

The fruitstand 8 (Fig. 6) is even more ornately decorated,though it lacks the narrow encircling meander hook zone seenon so many simpler examples of the shape. The middle zone isoccupied by a chain in which the flowers have an outlinedcentral element and two rhomboid secondary petals, and soshare features both with 7 and a fragment already looked atfrom Naukratis.32 The outer zone bears a metopal scheme in

Page 104: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

96 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Paspalas

which the ‘triglyphs’ divide concentric circles outlined by solidcircles alternating with dots. This is a slightly more complicatedscheme than that seen on the exterior of the fruitstand fragmentpublished by Akurgal referred to above.33 The inner zone whichsurrounds the now lost tondo carries a series of alternating solidtriangles and diamonds with smaller diamonds occupying thearea between their apices. The overall trizonal arrangement isnot met among the other known finds from Old Smyrna, otherthan the Potnia piece. Most other known East Greek trizonalpieces differ considerably as concerns decorative motifs sincethey are mostly figured, as a fruitstand from Naukratis shows,34

though its intricate lotus chains provide a point of contact withtheir un-incised counterparts on non-figural pieces such as 7–9(Figs 5–7). A close trizonal parallel, however, to 8 (Fig. 6) hasbeen excavated in the vicinity of the Artemision in Thasos onwhich the inner two zones are decorated with floral motifs, andthe outer with a close variant to the scheme found on thecorresponding zone of the Old Smyrna vessel.35

Naukratis does, though, supply at least one example of atwo-zone dish with a metopal outer register in which triglyphsseparate concentric circles encircled either by solid circles, orjust possibly stemmed circles.36 The floor of the vessel wasoccupied by an example of the usual radial motif. Similar disheswith an outer zone on their interior wall that is definitelycomparable to 8 (Fig. 6) are known from the site. These disheshave horizontal rims decorated by meander hooks; their outerzones are metopal in arrangement and compare well with thatof the trizonal piece.37 There are, however, differences. On thethree pieces from Naukratis offered as parallels the painting isnot as carefully executed, and the tongues are somewhat moreelongated. A dish fragment from Tell Sukas is also to be placedwith these pieces as is a fruitstand from Sybaris.38 Thedifferences between these parallels reinforce the specialcharacter of 8 and the extra effort invested in its manufacture.

The stout tongues of 8, which are characterized by a nearlyconsistent width, appear on two other fragmentary fruitstandsamong the Old Smyrna material. On the first of these, 9 (Fig. 7),which was found in the ‘Temenos chips’ layer dated c. 600 bc,they flank a single lotus flower which rests on the groundline ofits register. The flower is composed of several elements, thecentral one of which is outlined – a feature seen, as alreadynoted, in a simpler form, on a fragment from Naukratis.39 Theliberal use of added red, along with white, associates thisfruitstand with 8 (Fig. 6) and the Potnia vessel from OldSmyrna. The second of these fruitstands, 10 (Fig. 8), comes fromthe same find context. It too bears an outer zone of tongues

separated, at least on the fragment preserved, by a solidtriangle-like ‘leaf’ comparable to those in the inner zone of 8(Fig. 6). The small rhomboidal elements in its inner field may becompared to those in the corresponding zone on 11 (Fig. 9), a farsimpler fruit dish from Old Smyrna as well as on a two-zone dishwith monochrome decoration from the Samian Heraion, theouter zone of which carries a series of lotus flowers and budswithout a linking chain.40

A number of other tongue-bearing fragments from Naukratisshould be mentioned. All carry stout tongues but of a slightlymore elongated form than those of 8–11 (Figs 6–9); someoccasionally carry added paint. One is very small and preserveslittle else other than its rilled horizontal rim; a leaf or bud maybe seen between the tongues so the scheme can be interpretedas a simpler version of that seen on 10 (Fig. 8).41 The second issimilar to the simpler vessels we have seen so far in that its tondocarries a radial scheme while the ‘triglyphs’ divide a single motif,in this instance quartered squares (note the scheme of 11, Fig.9).42 The third is from a dish with inturned rim. The upper bandcarries a series of meander hooks, below which tongue‘triglyphs’ alternate with lotus flowers (compare 9, Fig. 7);43

three other fragments carry the same decorative details, butthey have horizontal rims.44 A better idea of what such a dishwould have looked like is offered by the example, also fromNaukratis, now in Boston, where each metope is occupied by alotus flower, and the tondo carries a radial motif.45

The Old Smyrna metopal dishes and their parallels fromNaukratis are characterized by ‘triglyphs’ comprised of stouttongues. They can be contrasted with corresponding vessels onwhich the triglyphs consists of rays. Scientific analyses have nowconfirmed older views that we should generally identify the firstgroup as North Ionian, though with some Aiolianrepresentation, and the second as South Ionian.46 There is, ofcourse, little surprise in finding North Ionian material at OldSmyrna, and it is clear that it also made its way to Naukratis insome numbers, which – again – occasions no surprise givenHerodotus’ (2.178) testimony that Teians, Phokaians andKlazomenians were officially involved in the Hellenion.However, the distribution of such material was not restricted toregions where a North Ionian presence is testified to by thewritten sources.

A good parallel for the metopal decorative scheme, with alotus flower in each metope, can be found on a fruitstand fromPitane found with a Middle Corinthian aryballos,47 and soshould date no earlier than the beginning of the 6th century bcaccording to the conventional chronology. From the same site a

Figure 7 Fruitstand no. 9 from OldSmyrna

Figure 8 Fruitstand no. 10 from OldSmyrna

Figure 9 Dish no. 11 and krateriskos from Old Smyrna

Page 105: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 97

The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna

dish with metopes occupied by concentric circles encircled by aseries of solid circles also came to light.48 Naukratis providesevidence that this scheme common in North Ionia and Aioliswas happily used on contemporary figured wares also assignedto North Ionia, as indeed were groups of tongues withintervening lotus flowers as seen on 9 (Fig. 7).49

Beyond Old Smyrna, its neighbouring sites, Aiolis andNaukratis, the bizonal decorative schemes examined here arefound on pieces, usually identified as North Ionian, both withinturned and horizontal rims, in widely distributed regions.Dishes with lotus chains in the outer zone have been excavatedat Samos, Naxos, Rhodes, Cyrene, Selinous, Megara Hyblaea,Berezan, Olbia and Pantikapaion.50 A fragment of a dish with alotus flower flanked by the tongues of a ‘triglyph’ comes fromGravisca and another from Delos, while a close parallel is nowknown from Amorgos.51 The rims of all these pieces carry ameander hook pattern; an inturned rim fragment from Delosbears a lotus flower between ‘triglyphs’ but lacks the meanderhook zone.52 A piece with more elaborate lotus flowers wasexcavated at Cyrene.53

Similarly, bizonal dishes and fruitstands with concentriccircles in metopes, reminiscent of those seen on the trizonalfruitstand 8 (Fig. 6) can be documented at Delos, Thera, Leukas,Kerkyra, Cyrene and Berezan (where the usual meander hook inthe outer zone is replaced by a series of dots).54 A scrap of a dishwith an inturned rim decorated with a meander hook zonefollowed by one preserving parts of tongues is also known fromEphesos, while an even smaller piece from Phokaia preservesthe same tongue motif but there is only a horizontal band at itsrim, not a meander hook series.55

This quick survey of findspots of pieces related to those fromOld Smyrna and Naukratis concentrates on a number of sites inthe Black Sea region, the Cyclades, and with somewhat lessintensity on the west, though one may also note a lid fromSelinous on which we see both a lotus chain zone and aconcentric-circles-in-metopes zone.56 The impression receivedfrom this survey is that 7–10 (Figs 5–8) are more carefullyproduced products than their parallels cited here.

Two of the Old Smyrna fruitstands stand apart. The first, 12(Fig. 10), was found among the votives from the ‘Cella’ area ofthe Temple of Athena, and the second in the ‘Temenos chips’layer, and so both were dated by the excavators to c. 600 bc. Thefirst carries below the outermost zone of meander hooks a series

of individual suspended meander elements, and then radially-placed petals around a tondo with a solid centre. On the second,13 (Fig. 11), a series of individual meander elements rise fromthe groundline; the tondo is comprised of a number of circlesand a series of stemmed solid circles. The use of meanderelements in this fashion is not commonly met on dishes.57 Theclosest parallel I have been able to muster is from Naukratisthough the meander elements do not supply a perfect match,58

nor do those on a fragment excavated at Selinous.59 A dish with ameander from Tocra is placed slightly earlier than the majorityof such examples at that site, i.e. closer to the beginning of the6th century bc.60

The other major category of dishes and fruitstands from OldSmyrna are those that carry the one-zone decorative scheme inwhich the ornamental motif is restricted to the floor of thevessel, while the interior upper wall is banded. The dishfragment 14 (Fig. 12) from the City Wall NE shows the scheme atits simplest: meander hooks on the rim, bands on the upperinterior wall followed by a series of petals around the tondo.Most of the known fragments from Naukratis which may belongto this class preserve little more than parts of their rim andupper body.61 Two bear sections of their floor decoration, whichconsists of bud and leaf schemes,62 or radial schemes,63 thoughmore complicated than the decoration on 14. Added red andwhite paint in the decorative schemes of these Naukratite findsdistinguish them from 14. Comparable dishes are also knownfrom Old Smyrna, though too little remains of 15 (Fig. 4) todetermine its decorative scheme.64

Many of the comparable fruitstands and dishes which havebeen found elsewhere, as at Perachora, Akragas and Leontini,65

are decorated with a more complicated series of encircling linesand bands than that found on 14, or alternatively, the bands areof different colours, often with a group of white-red-whitehorizontal lines set upon a black band or a sequence of black-red-black bands. The dishes published by F. Utili from acemetery of Assos provide a good range of the variousdecorative schemes that may be met, as do those from Pitane,Delos, Tell Sukas as well as Histria, Pantikapaion, Myrmekeionand Olbia on the Black Sea coast.66 Northern Aegean sites havealso produced examples of this category.67 Such open vessels,characterized by their meander-hook zones, have beenassociated with groups defined by Neutron Activation Analysisthat have been attributed to North Ionian centres.68

The fruitstand 16 (Fig. 13) excavated in the Temenos areacarries two sets of white-red-white horizontal lines in thebanded upper wall of its interior, and its floor ornament is more

Figure 10 Fruitstand no. 12 from OldSmyrna

Figure 12 Dish no. 14 from OldSmyrna

Figure 11 Fruitstand no. 13 from OldSmyrna

Figure 13 Fruitstand no. 16 from OldSmyrna

Page 106: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

98 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Paspalas

complicated than that of 14 (Fig. 12). What is preserved isenough to indicate that groups of petals alternated with atriangular leaf-like element, for which I have not found an exactparallel. Nonetheless, the scheme on a dish fragment fromNaukratis is close,69 and similar floor schemes occur on dishesand fruitstands excavated at Berezan, Apollonia Pontica, Histria,Corinth, Gravisca, Cyrene, Tell Sukas, and on an example inCambridge and a dish fragment in Reading.70 Two plates fromTarsus also have a closely comparable floor scheme, althoughtheir upper interior walls are covered by a single glazed band,71

a feature which distances them from the dishes and fruitstandspresented here.

The dish 17 (Fig. 14), with a cut-out rim, was found in achild’s pithos grave at City Wall East.72 Its floor decoration isessentially geometrical in concept rather than floral and doesnot have any close parallels among the known material fromNaukratis. However, we should see the scheme as within theNorth Ionian decorative tradition despite the fact that it is notfloral as are most of its cognates; the floor decoration of ashallower dish from Klazomenai can act as a link.73 A recentlyexcavated fruitstand from Liman Tepe, Klazomenai, offers aparallel for a floor decorated with radially arranged geometricalmotifs separated by dot rosettes, while on the floor of a ‘dish’from Naukratis a dot rosette is positioned between each of thestylized leaves and petals of the radial composition.74

The profile of 18 (Fig. 15) is characterized by a ratherornately worked rim and a sharp carination point on its exteriorwall. This profile type is closely paralleled by dishes withmeander hook-decorated rims from Assos.75 The dotted angular‘s’ zone on its rim sets the Old Smyrna piece apart from the moremundane pieces with simple meander hooks, though it does linkit to dishes from Klazomenai with ‘s’ zones on their rims.76 Itscut-out rim, and especially the dot rosette in added white on thepreserved handle also distinguish this dish. This use of addedwhite may be paralleled by a similarly discrete motif on a rimfragment from Naukratis that probably comes from a bizonaldish with a metopal zone with lotus flowers in its outer register.77

The interiors of the parallels from Assos to 18 are regularlydecorated with bands and a radial motif on the floor. Theinterior of the Old Smyrna dish, though, is plain and can beparalleled by an example with a comparable profile fromAssos.78 F. Utili dates all the Assos pieces c. 580–60 bc, a periodconsiderably later than Cook’s estimation of the date of 18‘seems 7th century context’ (see Appendix part B infra).

The simple fruitstand 19 (Fig. 16) finds its proper place

among the output of North Ionian dishes and fruitstands. Theprofile of its distinctive vertical rim is closely paralleled by findsat Klazomenai, Assos and Tocra, as well as on the far moreornately decorated fruitstand 9 (Fig. 7).79 The use of a series ofdots to encircle a central decorative element is not unknown,80

and again appears in a more ambitious form on 9 (Fig. 7) and atNaukratis on a ‘plate’, two dishes and a fruitstand; the latter andthe ‘plate’ also have similar floor patterns to that of 19 (Fig. 16).81

The fruitstand 20 (Fig. 17) stands apart. Its floor decorationof radial petals occasions no surprise. What is preserved of itsinterior’s outer zone – a group of drop-petals that consisted of atleast two petals – is unusual (though see too 27, Fig. 22). Bothfruitstands and dishes normally carry fully decorated interiorzones; here there are clearly extensive areas of this zone whichwere left undecorated, and groups of drop-petals alone mayhave appeared at intervals in this field. Furthermore, thetreatment of the exterior of the piece also differentiates it frommost of its cognates as it carries zones that bear, in Cook’swords, a yellow/white slip. These zones contrast with thepainted bands and the ‘natural’ zones. The lack of knownparallels for this piece leaves open the possibility that it is to beseen as an example of a group with a restricted distributionwithin the area of northern Ionia.

The remaining fruitstands and dishes are far more simplydecorated and do not find parallels among the publishedNaukratis material. On the basis of the approximate parallelsoffered by the material excavated at Burunçuk they may bedated to the second half of the 6th century bc or later. Thefruitstand 21 (Fig. 18) is characterized by its loose palmette, afeature which may not possibly be related to the suspendeddrop-petals on the 20 (Fig. 17). Dishes may be decorated, as is 24

Figure 15 Dish no. 18 from OldSmyrna

Figure 16 Fruitstand no. 19 from OldSmyrna

Figure 14 Dish no. 17 from OldSmyrna

Figure 17 Fruitstand no. 20 from OldSmyrna

Figure 18 Fruitstand no. 21 from OldSmyrna

Figure 19 Dish no. 22 from OldSmyrna

Page 107: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

simply consider it a rough cruciform scheme. It would bedifficult to relate this piece directly to most of the other vesselspresented here, and it may well be that its manufacturer stoodbeyond the pottery-producing traditions represented by theother pieces.

The dish 30 (Fig. 24), with one of probably four lug handlespreserved, bears testimony to connections with better-knownstylistic traditions. Cook does not record its find context, sothere are no external grounds from which to determine its date.The generally loose nature of its painting is comparable to thatof a dish excavated at Troy.88 It may be argued that thedecorative motifs of 30 indicate that its painter was not unawareof Late Wild Goat filling ornaments such as dotted concentriccircles and the quartered square – motifs found on a cognatepiece at Naukratis and, of course, elsewhere.89 The decorativescheme – quartered squares separated by groups of tongues – ofthe middle field of the Naukratis parallel can be seen in asimplified form on the Old Smyrna fruitstand 11 (Fig. 9), wherethe squares are solidly painted. This nexus of relationshipsbetween the decorative elements of North Ionian vesselsexcavated at Naukratis and Old Smyrna is further reinforced bythe krateriskos that is pictured next to 11 (Fig. 9) in Cook’sphotograph. The painted scheme on this vessel, the shape ofwhich can be documented also at Klazomenai, Cyrene andTocra,90 is comprised of the stout tongues seen on many NorthIonian dishes and fruitstands, and of meander hooks seen on thesame vessels and on its counterpart from Tocra. Many of thesimpler dishes and fruitstands examined here find their place ina pottery-producing tradition which included a wider range ofshapes, as the Old Smyrna krateriskos indicates.

The small dish 31 (Fig. 25) belongs to a category theexamples of which are characterized by added white stripes, andoccasionally other motifs such as rosettes, on the upper surfaceof their rims. Such dishes have been excavated at Buruncuk,Tocra, Tell Sukas and Cyrene,91 as well as in the Black Sea regionat sites including Pantikapaion and Myrmekeion.92 While thecategory is well represented among the published finds of thefirst three sites, neither the profiles of the Old Smyrna dish norits decorative scheme are exactly paralleled. The added whiteelements on the rim of 31 are more tongue-like than simplestripes, and the interior and exterior surfaces of these dishes

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 99

The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna

Figure 20 Dish no. 23 from OldSmyrna

Figure 21 Dish no. 24 from OldSmyrna

(Fig. 21), with hatched triangles along with drop-petalformations which distantly reflect their floral origins, orprimarily with loosely arranged floral motifs alone, such as 25band 27 (Fig. 22). These are to be compared to the material datedby its excavators to the 6th century bc from Buruncuk.82

Hatched triangles also dominate the decorative scheme of 25a(Fig. 22); approximate parallels are known from Buruncuk.83

Similarly, the painted schemes on the dishes 22 and 23 (Figs19–20) find parallels among material excavated at that site; theformer may bear a hatched triangle on its outer zone.84 It may benoted that their floral decorative elements are, as are those ofthe plate fragments 3–6 (Fig. 4), generally more degeneratethan the most disarticulated palmette flowers and budsencountered in K. Iren’s Aiolische Tierfriesstilkeramik, whichdate within the first half of the 6th century bc.85 It is probablethat they should be seen as later in date than the moreaccomplished Old Smyrna dishes and fruitstands examinedabove, though other examples and parallels from dated contextswould be welcome so that further work on their dating could beundertaken. The interior wall of the small dish 28 (Fig. 22)carries a series of solid circles encircled by dots, a decorativescheme apparently related to the series of more delicate dotrosettes well known among simpler East Greek schemes.86

Even more parochial is the little ‘stemmed dish’ 29 (Fig. 23).It lacks a proper white slip and is covered rather with a ‘thinwash’. While its central decorative element may be reminiscentof earlier East Greek representations of trees,87 it may be best to

Figure 22 Dishes nos 25, 25a, 25b, 26, 27 and 28 from Old Smyrna

Figure 23 Dish no. 29 from OldSmyrna

Figure 24 Dish no. 30 from OldSmyrna

Figure 25 Dish no. 31 from Old Smyrna

Page 108: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

100 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Paspalas

carry more bands than are usually found on their parallels.Despite the fact that the sites at which parallels for this vesselhave been found produced North Ionian material thatcorresponds to finds made both at Naukratis and Old Smyrna,no vessels from Naukratis have been published which may beclosely compared to 31.93

In conclusion

An examination of the plates, dishes and fruitstands from OldSmyrna shows that they belong to categories characteristic ofNorth Ionia, features of which are also met on vessels producedin Aiolis. The earlier Old Smyrna pieces find, by and large,parallels in the corpus of published pottery from Naukratis,though the most elaborate pieces stand apart. What direct linksexist between the relevant pieces from these two sites arefurther strengthened by finds made elsewhere which are relatedto both bodies of material. These sites are located primarily onthe Black Sea coast, and in the Cyclades, the easternMediterranean and Sicily, though a greater concentration offinds is noticeable in the Black Sea area and especially atNaukratis. The distribution of these end of the 7th- and 6th-century bc vessels largely corresponds to the routes of EastGreek mariners and merchants who we know, from the writtenand epigraphical sources, were conspicuous at Naukratis.94 Itmay also be noted that decorative motifs which characterizemany of the Old Smyrna pieces and their parallels are also foundon other North Ionian shapes, and so these open vessels are tiedinto a broader pottery manufacturing milieu.

Equally notable from the above discussion is that therelationship between the Old Smyrna and Naukratis materialdoes not hold for 3–6 (Fig. 4) and 20–30 (Figs 17–24). Vesselsdecorated with loosely-arranged or disarticulated floral motifsare rarely present beyond their areas of manufacture, and arenot found among the known Naukratis finds nor among otherfinds of later Greek pottery made in Egypt.

Of the dishes and fruitstands from Naukratis mentioned inthis paper only a few have a published findspot, and all these arerecorded as having been excavated in a temenos.95 A number ofthe pieces from Old Smyrna, and notably some of the moreornate examples, were found in the Athena Sanctuary.96 Many ofthe parallels from other sites cited here, for example those formTocra and Cyrene, were also found in sanctuaries. This evidenceindicates that dishes and fruitstands could frequently beencountered in East Greek sanctuaries, either as votives or itemsof equipment. Equally, though, material such as that from Assosand 17 (Fig. 14) from Old Smyrna show that these vessels couldbe placed in funerary contexts, while the parallel pieces studiedby Ersoy from Klazomenai appear to come from domesticdeposits, as well may 18 and 20 (Figs 15 and 17).

Appendix

The aim of this Appendix is to provide the reader with the ‘rawmaterial’ of this paper as presented in J.M. Cook’s notes. It isdivided into three parts. Part A is a concordance which gives thenumbers used in this article for the Old Smyrna material andtheir corresponding numbers in Cook’s notes. In Part B I give alist of most of the pieces discussed in this paper. The list isdivided into three sections defined by Cook. The first number inthe left-hand column is the number assigned to the piece inCook’s notes; the following number is the number of the piece inthe text of the present article. In the right-hand column I giveany details Cook included by his drawing of the piece. (Note thatthe added purple mentioned by Cook in his notes for thedrawing of ID [13] is not indicated on his drawing.)

The details which accompany the drawings should be readin conjunction with Part C of the Appendix which is comprisedof Cook’s notes on his categories. Cook’s no. 20 in Part C is notpresented here as it has been published in Cook 1958/9, 33, pl.6.e. I have not been able to find any details or drawings for thepieces II and IJ among Cook’s notes. It is conceivable that thesepieces may be represented among the vessels referred to in Cookand Nicholls 1998, 23–6 (see n. 4 supra).

In order to avoid the risk of introducing any unwarrantedfeatures into Cook’s drawings they have been inked exactly as heprepared them. Consequently, the exterior decoration of 16 isonly shown summarily as is that of 21. Note that, uniquely, 19 isillustrated by an inked drawing found in Cook’s notes.

Part A

ConcordanceNo. Cook’s No. Figure1 10 (drawing) 12 14 33 12 44 12 45 10 photograph 46 15 47 IK 58 IH 69 IE 710 IC 811 No number 912 IB 1013 ID 1114 IN 1215 9 416 IF 1317 IL 1418 IM 1519 IA 1620 IG 1721 2b 1822 16 1923 17 2024 18b 2125 3 2225a-b 5 2226 4 2227 7 2228 6 2229 2a 2330 19 2431 18 2532 13 4

Page 109: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 101

The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna

Part B

Slipped Ware: dishes and plates, 7th centuryNote: Plain text: notes on drawings. Italics: instructions on drawings

IA. 19 drawing No detailsIB. 12 drawing (K318) Temenos H3

Buff micaceous clay. On inside black glazedesign on white slip.Black band on inside rim on natural.Presumably late 7th century.

IC. 10 drawing (K370) Temenos chips.Light buff clay, glaze fired red on interior overwhite slip; colour (possibly originally white).Stripes of red on exterior on natural.Late 7th century. Probably Smyrnaean.

ID. 13 drawing (K383) Temenos chips.Clay pink in biscuit and little mica; gray onsurface and black paint. Interior slipped andfaded paint partly retouched in purple.Black stripes on exterior on natural.Late 7th century.

IE. 9 drawing (K384) Temenos chips.Reddish clay and mica. Exterior, buff darkbrown glaze. Interior and exterior of lipslipped; purple retouches.Dark brown stripes on exterior on natural.Late 7th century.

IF. 16 drawing (K371) Temenos 820-750.Rather porous light buff clay. Very little micaand white slip on inside and faint traces of washoutside (perhaps thinned clay). Purple andwhite stripes.7th century, not latest.

IG. 20 drawing (K367) H XIV G? 1000-770.Brown clay rough and reddish in break,micaceous. Exterior: dark glaze onyellow/white slip. Interior: dark and lightbrown paint on white slip.Light brown paint: the two narrow bands aroundfloor rosette and the inner circles.Should be 7th century.

IH. 8 drawing No details.II. No details, and no illustration included among

drawings or photographs.IJ. No details, and no illustration included among

drawings or photographs.IK. 7 drawing No detailsIL. 17 drawing (K304) City Wall E, pithos grave.

Buff clay with very little mica. Dark brown toblack glaze. Exterior: black on natural.

IM. 18 drawing (K365) H XIA 10.74-9.97.Buff clay, little mica. Brown glaze on thin whiteslip. Dot rosette painted on white on handlespur.Seems 7th century context.

IN. 14 drawing (K319) CW NE.Dark brown paint on white slip.7th century.

Slipped Ware: dishes and plates, 6th and 5th centuries2a. 29 drawing P46. No details.2b. 21 drawing No details.3. 25 photograph No details.4. 26 photograph No details.5. 25 a & b photograph No details.6. 28 photograph No details.7. 27 photograph No details.9. 15 photograph No details.10. 1 drawing No details.10. 5 photograph No details.12. 3 & 4 photograph No details.13. 32 photograph No details.14. 2 drawing P201. H West (North) 1310-1300

Plain outside.15. 6 photograph No details.16. 22 drawing 6th century or later.17. 23 drawing No details.18. 31 drawing Stripes outside and white painted lines

on rim.18b. 24 drawing C pre-wine shop.

Red, rather rough ware, much mica.Surface badly corroded. Exteriorplain. On interior traces of red painteddesign on white slip: double chain oforange pips on rim, traces of hatchedtriangle and tongues in bowl.

19. 30 drawing Reddish clay with light wash;polished, micaceous. Thinned clayswastika on handle. To be restoredwith four lugs.

Striped Ware fruit dish with Striped Ware jar IANo no.11 ‘Found in level distinctly earlier than

the destruction.’

Page 110: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

102 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Paspalas

Part C: John Cook’s Notes97

Dishes and plates

7th century

Stemmed dishes and plates with Orientalising ornament werefound in considerable numbers in late seventh-century levels.They were not systematically studied, and there are no notes ofthe pieces shown in the photographs. Pieces illustrated here arenumbered IA-N. The clay is usually reddish or buff, with micaand the glaze red or dark brown. Applied purple is common,white is only occasionally found (apart of course from the slip),and on IM where a dot rosette seems to have been painted inwhite. On IC there appeared to be an orange paint (unless itwere discoloured white) on some of the tongues in addition topurple and the red glaze. A high proportion of these dishes andplates were found at the Temenos, but two of those recordedcame from habitation areas (IG and IM) and two (IL and IN)from the City Wall east. No. 9 in the following list may also be ofthe late 7th century.

6th and 5th centuries

The ware is normally reddish and contains much gold mica. Theslip is white, generally thin and often rather fugitive. The glazeis normally red, almost always so in the abundant material thatseems to be of relatively late date. Slipped dishes and plates donot, however, seem to have continued into the later part of the5th century. Proveniences are not well recorded, but themajority of the pieces illustrated probably date about thebeginning of the 5th century: no. 3 was from a sixth-centurylevel, nos 2a, 13, 17 and 18 were from contexts earlier than thelate 5th century; no. 9 could be late seventh-century. Some ofthe numbers in the illustrations comprise a plurality offragments of similar vases.

A little stemmed dish in this ware is attested by a number ofexamples (e.g. nos 2a-b and 3). A fragment with a radiatingpetal pattern in the centre of the bowl was found in the mid-sixth-century deposit in the Temple Pylon, and no. 3 is datedsixth-century. No. 2a, of porous buff clay with a thin wash andstreaky glaze, is less carefully executed and probably fifth-century. The spiral pattern shown on no. 4 also occurs in thecentre of the bowl of little stemmed dishes. More commonly,however, to judge by the fragile and comminuted material, thelittle dishes of this ‘fruit dish’ profile had a low ring foot in placeof the high stem. These little dishes are generally less than 18cmin diameter. Common zone patterns are cross-hatched trianglesand wheels, short pendants of drops and palmettes;disintegrated lotus flowers occasionally appear (cf. no. 5, on theleft), and one fragment (no. 5, bottom row next to left) shows astreaky swathe that resembles marbling. Radiating petals,

concentric rings, or the spiral pattern of no. 4 occupy the centreof the bowl.

A small number of fragments come from small dishes ofthick fabric and a diameter of about 13.5cm, with a thicker whiteslip which is generally confined on the underside to a bandbelow the lip (as no. 7, upper); no feet were recovered to matchthem. This well slipped ware might be Chian. It seems to dateabout the early 5th century. On one fragment there seemed to bea deliberate contrast of a darker shade of glaze along with thered.

The commonest form among the little slipped dishes is aplate with out-turned rim. The shape seems to differ from that ofthe late 7th century in that the upper surface of the rim tends tobe more convex. It is often set off by grooves; occasionally thereare grooves on top and bottom of the body of the plate (as no.13). Apart from rare fragments of rims with a lotus chain (no. 10photograph) or spiral pattern (no. 10 drawing) and the big platewith an animal band (BSA 60 [1965] 120 no. 32), these plateswere of modest size (under 24cm in diameter). Lotus chains andmeander were found decorating the rims, and cross-hatchedtriangles the body (one example being from a mid sixth-centurycontext). But the commonest elements in the decoration arecrisscross work and the drops and swags like those on slippedware jars or dinoi from relatively late levels (...).

Numerous plates are of a smaller format and have a flat rim(examples no. 15 and no. 18). Many of them have simple glazerings in the bowl, with at most radiating petals in the tondo, andsets of drops on the rim; occasionally the drops are not done inglaze on the slip but painted in white on a glazed band. Hereagain one fragment showed a deliberate contrast of red and darktones in the glaze.

No. 19 is a freak; it was not available for study in theworkroom. Diam. 11.5cm. Micaceous reddish ware, polished,with a light wash; brick-red glaze. The surviving lug (one offour?) had the swastika on the handle painted in thinned clay. Itis not clear whether this piece is seventh-century or late, norwhether it would be better listed among the striped wares.

No. 20 is exceptional. Only the upper fragments in thephotograph (a) had a good white slip; diam. c. 22.5cm; buff withsome mica. The fragment (b) was found at the Temple in a lateseventh-century context. The vases depicted should be Chian.

The exteriors or undersides of these dishes and plates vary intreatment. Those here illustrated were noted as follows: exteriorplain nos 12, 14, 16, 18B; exterior streakily glazed no. 2; partlyglazed no. 6; with glazed stripes (where noted) no. 20; exteriorslipped no. 3 (with glazed stripes). no.4, no.5 (some with glazedstripes), no. 7 (see above), no. 9, no. 10, no. 15 (some withglazed stripes), no. 17, no. 18 (with glazed bands).

No. 13 had two perforations on the rim for suspension.

Page 111: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 103

The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna

Illustration creditsFig. 2 photo the British Museum, drawing Kate Morton; all otherdrawings and photos R.M. Cook; drawings inked in by Anne Thomas.

Notes1 I thank Professor J. Boardman for suggesting to the late Professor R.

Cook that I be entrusted with the publication of this material. Thecost of the inking of Cook’s pencil drawings was borne by the BritishSchool at Athens.

2 See the Appendix for Cook’s notes on the pieces examined here.3 For this problem see Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume;

Kerschner 2001, 75-6; Petrie 1886b, pl. 4 (mainly impressed waresand mortaria) and pls 16-7 (mainly transport amphorae); Hogarth etal. 1905, 123-6 (C.C. Edgar). See Bernand 1970, pl. 19 for coarse warefragments that carry graffiti.

4 Cook and Nicholls 1998, 18-9, 22.5 Ibid. 24-6. An ‘East Greek standed bowl with central star’ (K316) is

also recorded (ibid.) from this deposit, but it does not appear inCook’s notes and illustrations. Nor do the fruitstands ibid. 23 SF 1377-78 from the ‘Alabastron Deposit’ of c. 600 bc.

6 Akurgal 1983, 72-113 (Cook and Nicholls 1998, 27 for the opposingview). James 2003, 262 would lower the destruction date by 20years. Bowden 1991, 52-3, with particular reference to Naukratis,would generally down date the conventional pottery chronology by40 years.

7 Pitane fruitstand: Ýren 2003, 152-3 and 186 no. 306, pl. 65. Theunpublished thesis by M. Manyas (Oryantalizan Stil Tabaklarý,Ankara University 1984) in which East Greek dishes and fruitstands,and their contexts, are discussed was unavailable to me.

8 CVA Germany 35 Kassel 1 pl. 15.6.9 Ersoy 1993, 176 no.422, 242 no. 423 and pp. 386-7. For the Berezan

pieces, see Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, samples Bere 139 and 142(group E).

10 Price 1924, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1965.9-30.500).11 Venit 1988, pl. 31.120 (Alexandria 16893). See also the second zone of

the floor of a plate excavated at Tocra: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 67no. 819 (=Boardman and Hayes 1973, 17 no. 819, pl. 9). For theincorporation of the basic motif into a more complex double-spiralmotif: Venit 1988, 18 no. 58, pl. 14 (Cairo 26137, possibly fromNaukratis).

12 Price 1924, 196, pl. 7.2 (BM GR 1965.9-30.527); Fairbanks 1928, 108no. 319.8 (Boston MFA 88.1085), pl. 34 (though note themultiplication of the ascendant drops); CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2IID, pl. 4 no. 24 (G119.48). A fruitstand with a similar zone found in atomb at Kameiros (Papatislures Grave 2) has a context date of c.600–575 bc: Jacopi 1932/3-41a, 19 no. 4 fig. 5, pl.3; Gates 1983, 6.Note, too, the dish fragments: CVA Great Britain 12 Reading 1, pl. 22no. 4b (26.ii.34) and CVA Germany 10 Heidelberg 1, pl. 2 no. 19 (I 15)(with added red). For a parallel to the krater handle plate fragment:Ploug 1973, 65 no. 274, pl. 14 (Tell Sukas). For examples of the motifexpanded to a grander scale see: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 47 no.589, pl. 30; Skudnova 1988, 36-7 no. 4; Korpusova 1987, 40 fig. 15.1;Butyagin 2001, 190-1 fig. 8.

13 Berezan: Kaposhina 1956, fig. 2 third row right-most sherd. Olbia:Levi 1972, 45-7 fig. 13.1; Rusiaeva 1999, 77 fig. 1 bottom row, right-most sherd.

14 Alexandrescu 1978, 50-1 no. 133.15 Fairbanks 1928, 107-8 nos 318.2 (Boston MFA 86.557 [30]) and 319.7

(Boston MFA 88.849 [72]), pl. 34. The lotus palmette and buds aresimplified versions of those seen on 7. It may be further noted thatthe double scroll with dots pattern in the upper part of the shoulderof the Apries amphora (Bailey Fig. 1) may also be compared to thescroll patterns discussed here.

16 Ersoy 1993, 386-7. Note the fruitstand from Kameiros (n. 12 supra) onwhich the place of the spirals of 1 is occupied by circles. Its context isdated c. 600–575 bc and this may indicate that this decorativescheme could be earlier than that with spirals.

17 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 153-4 fig. 64 c and d(‘Pflanzenornamentik’ group), though more ornate. For the group oftriangles on its rim ibid. 82 pl. 35.3 (‘Stufe V’).

18 Ibid. 155 no. 3, pl. 53.11-12.19 Ibid. 154, pl. 51.9 and 12.20 Cook 1958/9, 29, pl. 6b; Cook 1985, 26-7 a.21 Meriç 1982, 47 and 108 no. K47, fig. 115.22 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, esp. pl. 51.12.23 For the petal-group rim pattern: Özkan 1999, 54 no. 98 (Pitane). For

the interlocking S rim pattern: ibid. 42 no. 68 (Pitane); Utili 1999, 178no. 211 fig. 12; Boehlau and Schefold 1942, pl. 31.1-2 and pl. 49.20(Buruncuk). Groups of bars: Utili 1999, 178-9 nos 214-5, 217- 8.Groups of petals: ibid. 179 no. 222 fig. 13. For the hatched triangles seenn. 83 and 84 infra. For a plate and fruitstand with more disciplineddecorative schemes similar to that on 6 bottom right from a Pitanegrave with a context date of c. 580–570 bc see Greenewalt 1966, 200 fand g, pl. 13E-F.

24 Potnia Theron: Akurgal 1950, 64, pl. 10b; Walter-Karydi 1973, 146 no.186, pl. 122. Excavated in the ‘white tuff chip stratum’: Cook andNicholls 1998, 22. Naukratis fruitstand: Gardner 1888, 44, pl. 9.2-4(BM GR 1888.6-1.538b-c); Walter-Karydi 1973, 136 no. 185, pl. 120.Note, too, a fruitstand from Selinous: n. 33 infra.

25 Hundt and Peters 1961, 19-20 no. 120, pl. 11.26 Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.1 (BM GR 1886.4-1.1309; for which see Gardner

1888, 44 Type F.a.1); Fairbanks 1928, 114 no. 324.7 (Boston MFA88.973 [125]), pl. 35; Hayes 1992, 205-6 nos N9-N11 (Toronto 910x234.44, Toronto 910x234.2, Toronto 910x234.17; CVA The Netherlands2 Musée Scheurleer 2 IID pl.2.3 (T2911) (fruitstand). See too afragmentary fruitstand from Sybaris: Guzzo et al. 1972, 96 no. 142,fig. 96.

27 Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).28 Venit 1988, pl. 27.100 (Alexandria 17264).29 Akurgal 1983, fig. 92.30 Naukratis: Venit 1988, 27 no. 92, pl. 26 (Alexandria 9475). Delos:

Dugas 1928, 39 no. 62, pl. 13. Syracuse: Orsi 1918, col. 528 fig. 115, topright. And the Potnia Theron dish: n. 24 supra.

31 Guzzo et al. 1972, 95 no. 139, fig. 94. Its rim carries a series of meanderhooks.

32 Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).33 See n. 29 supra, and compare the plate with a winged figure Dehl-von

Kaenel 1995, 352 no. 3454, pl. 61 (Selinous, first third of the 6thcentury bc).

34 Gardner 1888, 44 Type F.a.2, pl. 9.1-4; Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 120.985. See too ibid. pls 120-1. 980-1 (Selinous).

35 Daux 1966, 944-6, fig. 22 ‘coupe rhodienne’.36 Venit 1988, pl. 27.96 (Alexandria 17233). Note the ‘dish’, also from

Naukratis, with this scheme in its outer zone, though its ‘triglyphs’consist of elements that are better termed ‘drop-petals’ (cf. the floormotif of 16, Fig. 13): CVA Great Britain 11 Cambridge 2 pl. 18.29(N.25). Compare the use of drop-petals on the fruitstand Ýren 2003,186 no. 307, pl. 65 (identified as North Ionian: ibid. 152-3).

37 Fairbanks 1928, 112 and 114 nos 323.2 (Boston MFA 89.937 [81]), 323.3(Boston MFA 86.534 [82]) and 324.9 (Boston MFA 86.545 [126]),pl.35.

38 Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, pl. 15.289. Sybaris: Guzzo et al. 1972, 96 no.140, fig. 95.

39 Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).40 11 (Fig. 9) is illustrated in the catalogues: Dedeoðlu 1993, 12 middle

photo ‘Footed Vessel’; Özkan 1999, 54 no. 100 (first half of the 6thcentury bc). Samian Heraion: Isler 1978, 148 no. 511, pl. 69, Beil. 12.

41 CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2 IID pl. 4.20 (G 117.11).42 Ibid. pl. 4.19 (1912.36.6).43 Venit 1988, pl. 27.101 (Alexandria 17240).44 Ibid. pl. 27.100 (Alexandria 17264); CVA Belgium 3 Brussels 3 IID pl. 3

nos 15 (A1776) and 17 (A2042) (the latter with a wavy line, ratherthan meander hooks, on its rim); and possibly the fruitstand Venit1988 pl. 29.113 (Alexandria 9351) and Piekarski 2001a, pl. 12.3 (Bonn697.18).

45 Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.5 (Boston MFA 88.826 [78]), pl. 35.46 Kerschner 2001, 85-7; Akurgal et al. 2002, 38-9, 90-2 (M. Kerschner);

Ersoy 2003, 255. For the commonalities between these vessel formsfrom North Ionia and Aiolis see Utili 1999, 28.

47 See n. 7 supra.48 Ýren 2003, 186 no. 305, pl. 65.49 Walter-Karydi 1973, 147 nos 1020-1 (from the Samian Heraion), pl.

124.50 Samos: Boehlau 1898, pl. 12.2 (fruitstand). Naxos: Bikakis 1985, pl.

5.51a-b. Rhodes: CVA Germany 33, Berlin 4, pl. 162.1 (V.I.2958)(Siana). Cyrene: Schaus 1985a, 64-5 no. 363, pl. 22. Selinous: Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl. 64.3511, pl. 65. 3561 and 3565. Megara Hyblaea:Vallet and Villard 1964, 80, pl. 22.2 and 4. Berezan: Kopeikina 1981,197 fig. 4ã, and see, too, Posamentir Fig. 12 this volume. Olbia:Kaposhina 1956, fig. 8 left; Korpusova 1987, 41 fig. 16.4 (morecomplicated meander hooks). Pantikapaion: Sidorova 1992, 134 fig. 3A. See, too, the fragment CVA Belgium 3 Brussels 3 IID, pl. 3.16(A2413), which is given the provenance ‘Kertsch (?)’. Note, too, the

Page 112: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

104 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Paspalas

fruitstand from Saint-Blaise: Bouloumié 1992, 196 no. 518 figs 50a-band p. 271.

51 Gravisca: Boldrini 1994, 97 no. 160. Delos: Dugas 1928, 40 no. 64, pl.8. Amorgos: Marangou 1993, pl. 119a (Marangou 2002, fig. 121.4). Afragment of a dish with a similar inner zone scheme from Assos hastentatively been identified as Rhodian: Utili 1999, fig. 11.192.

52 Daux 1963, 865 fig. 4 bottom right.53 Schaus 1985a, 64 no. 356, pl. 21. They can be compared with that on

another fragment from Amorgos: Marangou 1996, 294 and 97 fig.11a; Marangou 2002, fig. 121.7.

54 Delos: Robert 1952, 37 fig. 34.3. Thera: Pfuhl 1903, 176 no. G2, Beil.23.2. Lenkas: Fiedler 1999, 413; Fiedler 2003, 367 no. 2106 pl. 162 (no.2105). Kerkyra: Kallipolites 1956, 160, pl. 61g. Cyrene: Schaus 1985a,60-1 nos 331-32, pls 19-20. Berezan: Skudnova 1960, 162 no. 4, fig.11.2, see also now the fragment illustrated at the top right ofPosamentir Fig. 4 in this volume.

55 Ephesos: Kerschner 2001, pl. 12.3. Phokaia: Özyiðit 1994, fig. 37 topright (which may be compared to the fragment Miltner and Miltner1932, 183 fig. 92.22).

56 Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl. 65.3568a.57 For a more elaborate piece, excavated at Kameiros, with a far more

complicated meander: Jacopi 1932/3-41a, 19 Papitsilures Grave 2 no.9 fig. 3, pl. 3 (for the context date see Gates 1983, 6 c. 600–575 bc).Note too the fruitstand Özkan 1999, 53 no. 95. For a series of morecomplicated meander elements on the rim of a fruitstand excavatedat Pitane and Aiolic in character see Greenewalt 1966, 195 h pls 11Aand 12E (p. 198 for its context date of c. 570–565 bc).

58 Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.1 (Boston MFA 86.633 [83]), pl. 35.59 Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl.65.3553.60 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 44 and 50 no. 632, pl. 34.61 Venit 1988, pl. 28.104-6 (Alexandria 17333, Cairo 26147 and

Alexandria 17276); Piekarski 2001a, pl. 12.1 (Bonn 697.18).62 Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.4 (Boston MFA 88.975 [79]), pl. 35. Note,

too, the decoration of ibid. pl. 35.324.6 (Boston 88.821 [124]).63 CVA The Netherlands 2 Musée Scheurleer IID 2 pl. 2.1 (T2912).64 Old Smyrna: Özkan 1999, 55 nos 101-2 (somewhat more complicated

decorative schemes than on 14-15 [Figs 4 and 12]). Note too themeander-hook rim fragments from Urla, in the wider vicinity of OldSmyrna: Meriç 1986, 303 fig. 3 nos 17-8.

65 Perachora: Shefton 1962, 374-5 no. 4056, pl. 156. Akragas: de Waele1971, 96 no. 77, pl. 16. Leontini: Rizza 2000, 100 no. 158 fig. 62.

66 Assos: Utili 1999, 168-9 nos 130-4, fig. 8, nos 137, 139 and 142, fig. 9.See too an example from Troy: Blegen et al. 1958, 269 no. 38.1245 fig.296. Pitane: Özkan 1999, 56 no. 105. Delos: Dugas 1928, 40-1 nos 68-9, pl. 13. Histria: Alexandrescu 1978, 48-9 nos 118, 121-2, pl. 12.Pantikapaion: Sidorova 1962, fig. 6A,1. Myrmekeion: Butyagin 2001,192-3 fig. 10. Olbia: Knipovich 1940, 97 fig. 8. See also now fragmentsfrom Berezan in Posamentir Fig. 4 (bottom left) and Fig. 10 (centrebottom) this volume. Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, 68-9 nos 296-8, 300-2,pl. 15. For monochrome examples like 14 [Fig. 12]: Boardman andHayes 1966, 50 nos 646-50, pl. 36, but with alternating buds andleaves. For a monochrome fruitstand ibid. 50 no. 621, pl. 34. For a rimand upper body fragment from Phokaia: Özyiðit 1994, fig. 37 bottomleft; and another from Gela: Orlandini and Adamesteanu 1962, 398no. 3, fig. 72A. See too Calvet and Yon 1978, 45 fig. 2 for examplesfrom Salamis, Cyprus.

67 Akanthos: Kaltsas 1998, 165 no. E39, pl. 176e. Kavala (Neapolis):Bakalakis 1938, 116-8 fig. 8. Ainos: Baþaran 2002, 78 fig. 8. Note, too,comparable vessels from Chios: Kourouniotes 1915, 79 fig. 15 bottomright; Kourouniotes 1916, 205 fig. 24 top. As well as the examplesidentified as Chian from Emporio: Boardman 1967, 164 no. 795 and165 no. 805, pl. 61 (with inturned rim).

68 Akurgal et al. 2002, 75-6 fig. 77, associated with ‘Gruppe B/C’ (M.Kerschner); Kerschner 2001, 85-7 (Teos suggested as a possiblemanufacture centre). Old Smyrna has been suggested as theproduction centre of ‘Gruppe F,’ another North Ionian category:Akurgal et al. 2002, 83-4 (M. Kerschner). For the suggestion of localproduction at Kyme, just north of Ionia, of vessels with meanderhook zones: Frasca 1993, 55 fig. 9 and p. 64 no. 28.

69 CVA The Netherlands 2 Musée Scheurleer 2 IID pl.2.1 (T2912).70 Berezan: Skudnova 1960, fig. 11.1, see too Posamentir Fig. 2 (bottom

right) in this volume. Apollonia Pontica: Nedev and Panayatova2003, 98, Table II,3. Histria: Alexandrescu 1978, 50 no. 125, pl. 12.Corinth: Williams et al. 1974, 21 no. 23, pl. 4. Gravisca: Dehl-vonKaenel 1995, 361-2, pl. 64. Cyrene: Schaus 1985a, 67 no. 392, pl. 23.Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, 69 no. 304, pl. 15. Cambridge: CVA GreatBritain 6 Cambridge 1 IID pl. 7.6 (131). Reading: CVA Great Britain 12

Reading 1 pl. 21.33b (26.ii.31).71 Hanfmann 1963, pl. 101 nos 1493-4.72 Özkan 1999, 55 no. 103 (first half of the 6th century bc). It is possible

that this burial is to be identified with the one excavated in quadrantF8.xxi (Nicholls 1958/9, 65-6), although its vessels were identified as‘... a feeding bottle, a cup, and a diminutive “fruit-stand”.’ Nichollscompares these ceramic finds to those from what the excavatorsidentified as the Alyattan destruction deposit of the end of the 7thcentury bc. For the Archaic child burials at Old Smyrna see: ibid. 44-6, 48, 93 and 134; Mariaud 2006.

73 Ersoy 2003, pl. 43A.74 Liman Tepe: Erkanal et al. 2002, fig. 1. Naukratis: CVA Great Britain 11

Cambridge 2, pl. 18.29 (N.25).75 Utili 1999, 169-70 nos 137 and esp. 142 and 151, fig. 9.76 Ersoy 2003, 255 pl. 43A-B.77 Price 1924, pl. 7.1 (BM GR 1924.12-1.220).78 Utili 1999, 171 no. 153, fig. 9.79 Klazomenai: Ersoy 1993, 82 no. 572 and p. 392, pl. 63. Assos: Utili

1999, 184 fig. 14 no. 254 (pp. 27-8 identified as an import). Tocra:Boardman and Hayes 1966, 50 no. 627 fig. 24.

80 Schaus 1985a, 65 no. 371 pl. 22 (Cyrene, c. 580–560 bc); Sidorova1962, 116 fig. 6A.3 and 5 (Pantikapaion); Boardman and Hayes 1966,50 no. 633, pl. 34 (Tocra); Ersoy 2003, 255, pl. 43A (Klazomenai). Fora series of dots on the outer zone of a rim: Dugas 1928, 39 no. 62, pl. 13(Delos); Miltner and Miltner 1932, 178 fig. 90.16 (Old Smyrna); Iþik1989, 57 no. 36, pl. 7 (Klazomenai); CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2 IIDpl. 4 no. 19 (1912.36.6) (Naukratis); Bikakis 1985, 55-6 no. 50 (Naxos).

81 CVA Great Britain 11 Cambridge 2, pl. 18 nos 30 (99, N.235) (‘dish’), 36(94-6, N.21) (‘plate’); Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.4 (Boston MFA88.975 [79]) and 114 no. 324.6 (Boston MFA 88.821 [124]), pl. 35.

82 25b and 27: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 82, pl. 35.5 and 9, pl. 51.10. Forthe shape of 26: ibid. pl. 35.9 and 13 (fruitstands). Hatched triangle:ibid. pl. 35.8.

83 Ibid. pl. 35.8 (fruitstand).84 Ibid. 82. 23: ibid. pl. 35.3.85 Ýren 2003, pl. 29.239, pl. 53.290.86 For the scheme see: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, pl. 35.1; Silanteva

1959, 42 fig. 18 top. For East Greek dot rosettes see Paspalas 1999, 91-2.87 Ýren 2003, 112 fig. 54a-b.88 Blegen et al. 1958, 269 Sherd VIII.186 pl. 295 no. 3. See, too, the

stemmed dish Akimova 2005, 34 no. 27. Note, though, the dish Ýren2003, 182 no. 246 (and p. 91), pl. 51 (‘Aiolischer Tierfriesstil IIIb’) theunderside of which is painted in a loose manner, but the scheme ofthe bowl was executed in a more orderly fashion. Clearly, thepossibility exists that the degree of care with which a vessel waspainted does not necessarily determine its position in the widersequence.

89 E.g. CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2 IID pl. 4.19 (1912.36.6). Selinous:Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl. 65.3570. Corinth: Williams et al. 1974, 21 no.23, pl. 4.

90 Tocra: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 49 no. 604, pl. 31. Cyrene: Schaus1985a, 55 no. 296, pl. 17. Klazomenai: Tzannes 2004, 109, 112-3 no. 7fig. 22.2 (with references).

91 Buruncuk: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 82, pl. 35.2 (‘Stufe V’) and 153pl. 50.14 (‘Streifenware’). Tocra: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 44 and52-3 nos 681-713, pl. 37 (mostly from Deposit II c. 600/590–565 bc);Boardman and Hayes 1973, 19 nos 1998-2001, pl. 11, and note, too, thebowl ibid. 20 no. 2008, pl. 11. Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, 69 nos 306-7, pl.15. Cyrene: Schaus 1985a, 68 nos 407-9, pl. 24, c. 580–560 bc.

92 Sidorova 1962, 147 fig. 21.5 (the rim is also decorated with a lotusflower). Myrmekeion: Butyagin 2001, 193-4.

93 Though note the dotted cross in added white on a dish fromNaukratis: n. 77 supra.

94 Hdt. 2.178. Möller 2000a, 167-74.95 Temenos of the Dioskouroi: Fairbanks 1928, 108 no. 319.8 (Boston

MFA 88.1085). Temenos of Hera: ibid. 112 and 114 nos 323.2 (BostonMFA 88.937 [81]), 323.4 (Boston MFA 88.975 [79]) and 324.7 (BostonMFA 86.621 [68]). Temenos of Apollo: ibid. 112 no. 323.1 (Boston MFA86.633 [83]). Temenos of Aphrodite: Gardner 1888, 44 Type F.a.2. Forsurveys of these temene see Möller 2000a, 94-104.

96 Though plainer examples are by no means unknown in East Greeksanctuaries, for example Held 2000, 100 nos K18-K19, fig. 55.

97 I have not found among Cook’s drawings and photographsillustrations of his nos II, IJ and 2, so, by necessity, these pieces havenot been discussed in the main text of this paper. His no.20 also is notconsidered as it has already been published: Cook 1958/9, pl.6e. Notethat (…) indicates a gap in the Ms.

Page 113: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 105

Abstract

The important facts concerning chemical provenancedeterminations of archaeological pottery are summarized,explaining the Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) and thestatistical data evaluation procedure applied in Bonn. As examplesof a successful determination, the chemical pattern for workshopsat Kyme and/or its vicinity, called G, and its subgroup called g, arepresented and discussed.*

One of the most successful activities of the Bonn laboratory forarchaeological science concerns the chemical provenancedetermination of pottery: that is the determination of the placewhere it was produced. Two main complementary methods,which look at different information stored in pottery, are knownto yield useful results: petrography and elemental analysis. Inthe usual petrographic method,1 thin sections of pottery areinspected and give information about the minerals in the claypaste, whether naturally present or added. Alternatively, theclay paste itself can be characterised by an analysis of the minorand trace elemental content.2 The firing procedure does notchange the relevant clay paste composition, except sometimesfor the volatile elements As and Br.3 Also the burial conditions inmost cases leave the sherd composition unchanged, again exceptfor some elements such as Ba, Ca and sometimes the alkalielements (Na, K, Rb and Cs) and P.4 Since clays have generallymuch higher concentrations of trace elements compared to theadmixtures like quartz or calcite, an elemental analysischaracterises mainly the clay and, therefore, the measuredelemental patterns of pottery point to the location of the claybeds exploited – if the assumption is correct that raw clay hasnot itself been traded. Ethnoarchaeological studies of modernMediterranean potters working in a traditional way show thatmost of them are using clay beds in their vicinity within a radiusof only a few kilometres.5 In many cases, the workshops havebeen built close to the clay beds. ‘Data of a worldwide sample ofresource distances have demonstrated that potters travel nomore than 7km to obtain their raw material.’ 6 Only in rare cases,when a raw material with special properties is required, canclays be transported over a longer distance.7

Nowadays, in discussions especially with colleagues in thefield of archaeological science, one can notice that thepredominant doctrine reflects a certain reluctance to acceptresults if only one of these provenance methods is applied.Instead, integrated studies are favoured. The results areconsidered to be trustworthy only if the so-called integratedapproach is applied, using both methods of provenancing: thechemical and the mineralogical.8 There seems to be a generalfeeling that each of the methods by itself is insufficient. But ifonly provenancing is the aim, and not technological questions,our experience is that provenancing by chemical analysis aloneworks very well, provided this method is applied correctly and

used to its full potential. The advantage of chemical analyseswhen compared to petrography is that the measured elementalconcentrations are hard data, which can be evaluated accordingto certain rules. In petrography one depends on the ability of anexpert to recognise and memorize specific features in thinsections.

Neutron Activation Analysis method

The analysis method used in Bonn is Neutron ActivationAnalysis (NAA). This old and well-proven method9 is very wellsuited to measuring elemental concentrations in pottery, since itis multi-elemental, has high sensitivity for trace elements and isable to produce precise results with measurement uncertaintiesof a few percent. Samples of 80mg are taken by a pointedsapphire (corundum) drill, usually at the back of the sherds orfrom the bottom of the whole vessels to be analysed, leaving nomore damage than a shallow extraction hole of 10mm diameterand a depth of about 1mm. Alternatively, as done for most of thesamples from the British Museum, a thinner drill of 3mmdiameter can be chosen to take a sample from the broken edgeof a sherd. The Bonn pottery standard is used, which iscalibrated with the well-known Berkeley standard.10 The wholemeasurement procedure has already been described at lengthelsewhere.11

As an example of the result of a NAA measurement, theconcentration data of sample Kyme 1 are given in Table 1,second column, including the measurement uncertainty foreach elemental value in the third column and expressed also inpercent in the fourth column. As mentioned above, generalagreement prevails that this pattern characterises the clay pastethe ancient potter prepared. This paste composition itselfdepends on the geochemical composition of the clay deposit ordeposits exploited, if several clays have been mixed,12 and,secondly, on the clay refinement techniques the ancient pottersapplied, for example levigating the clays or adding temperingmaterial. Now, in provenancing, the assumption is made that allwares having the same composition will have been made fromthe same, well-homogenized clay paste prepared according to acertain recipe and will belong to a certain production seriesdefined in this way by its characteristic clay paste. Thecontinued or repeated appearance of a pattern across centuriesat some sites suggests that at times local clays of identicalcomposition and ready for use without much processing couldbe in use for long time spans. Furthermore, the elementalpattern of such a production series is likely to be unique in theworld. This assumption, especially the uniqueness, will holdwell, if a) many elemental concentrations – at least 20, and themore, the better – are measured, and b) the measurementprecision, including trace elements, is high. For these reasonsNAA was chosen in Bonn.

Chemical Provenance Determination of Pottery: The Example of the Aiolian Pottery Group GHans Mommsen and Michael Kerschner

Page 114: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

106 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Mommsen and Kerschner

Pattern comparison

To find samples of similar composition the elemental patterns,each consisting of about 30 concentration values, have to becompared. Comparison by hand is cumbersome and computer-aided methods are used for this task. In such work, usually eachsample is visualized as a point in concentration space. This spacehas one dimension for each measured concentration value.Samples of similar composition will fill the same region in thismultidimensional space and form clusters of points at closequarters: the distance between two points in this space,therefore, can be used as a similarity measure. The usualmethods like PCA (Principle Component Analysis) or differentmethods of CA (Cluster Analyses resulting in dendrograms)calculate these distances between all the data points, neglectingmeasuring errors. But since each concentration value has adifferent experimental measuring error (compare Table 1),distances should be calculated taking account of these errors. Togive a simple example, two points in a one-dimensional spacehaving the same distance (difference) may be considered asbeing statistically similar or dissimilar depending on the errors:for example 4 ± 0.1 and 5 ± 0.1 are not similar, but 4 ± 1 and 5 ± 1 are similar! Therefore, as the first improvement, a methodwas developed,13 which takes errors into account by normalisingthe distances to the error (distance 5 – 4 = 1; first case: 1/0.1 =10 = not similar; second case: distance 1/1 = 1 = similar).

In addition, a second effect during the comparison ofpatterns should be considered, since pottery is man-made. Ifpotters diluted the clay by varying amounts, for example, of

sand, all concentration values will be lowered by a constant‘dilution factor’. To correct for dilutions a best relative fit is donewith regard to the centre value of two points or of a point and analready formed group of samples with similar composition. Thismainly reduces the spreads (root mean square deviations) of thesum pattern formed. It often reduces positive correlations due tosuch dilutions. This is demonstrated in Figure 1 for group G of53 samples made in the region of Kyme, where the concentrationvalues of the rare earth elements Eu and Ce are shown beforeand after the dilution correction.

To summarize, it is considered to be important during groupformation to include the measurement errors and dilutioneffects to find ‘sharp’ concentration patterns of groups ofsamples, which were in fact produced with a certain clay pasteat a pottery workshop, and thus avoid overlapping grouppatterns. Also, elements that are often part of the diluent like Caor Na should be handled with care and at first not be consideredduring the search for groups. In publications, as the final result,the patterns formed should be given together with the spreadvalues. Single, very large spread values point to eitherinhomogeneities of the clay paste or a wrong grouping.

Example: reference patterns assigned to the region of Kyme

The Bonn data bank now holds more than 1,100 samples fromthe East Aegean, including 30 pottery samples found at Kyme inAiolis. This sample set was selected by M. Frasca (Catania) andM. Kerschner (Vienna) and is archaeologically discussed in aseparate contribution in this volume.14 The chemical

Kyme 1 Group G Group g1 samples 60 samples 28 samplesfactor 1.19 factor 1.00 factor 1.00

C +/- d % M +/- s % M +/- s % As 53.5 ± 0.24 0.5 44.7 ± 20.3 45. 45.2 ± 29.3 65.Ba 757. ± 40.9 5.4 810. ± 98.6 12. 739. ± 87.4 12.Ca% 7.42 ± 0.38 5.2 4.82 ± 0.83 17. 5.53 ± 0.84 15.Ce 95.5 ± 0.92 1.0 121. ± 3.54 2.9 103. ± 5.17 5.0Co 28.8 ± 0.23 0.8 27.6 ± 1.06 3.8 26.8 ± 1.71 6.4Cr 265. ± 1.97 0.7 188. ± 12.1 6.4 211. ± 23.7 11.Cs 27.6 ± 0.28 1.0 23.8 ± 2.80 12. 27.1 ± 2.98 11.Eu 1.60 ± 0.042 2.6 1.99 ± 0.049 2.5 1.68 ± 0.093 5.5Fe% 5.37 ± 0.029 0.5 6.04 ± 0.21 3.5 5.55 ± 0.24 4.3Ga -- 29.1 ± 3.75 13. 24.5 ± 6.11 25.Hf 5.24 ± 0.11 2.1 5.79 ± 0.56 9.7 5.40 ± 0.51 9.5K% 3.15 ± 0.036 1.1 3.12 ± 0.12 3.9 2.92 ± 0.14 4.9La 46.3 ± 0.13 0.3 56.1 ± 1.11 2.0 48.1 ± 1.75 3.6Lu 0.51 ± 0.024 4.6 0.60 ± 0.023 3.9 0.53 ± 0.024 4.6Na% 0.98 ± 0.006 0.6 0.96 ± 0.12 13. 1.05 ± 0.35 33.Nd 37.0 ± 2.04 5.5 51.0 ± 2.41 4.7 42.2 ± 2.82 6.7Ni 362. ± 70.3 19. 173. ± 45.4 26. 210. ± 45.1 22.Rb 196. ± 4.93 2.5 178. ± 6.48 3.6 172. ± 10.3 6.0Sb 5.52 ± 0.21 3.9 4.79 ± 0.58 12. 4.67 ± 0.83 18.Sc 19.1 ± 0.038 0.2 21.8 ± 0.38 1.8 20.0 ± 1.01 5.1Sm 6.96 ± 0.018 0.3 9.93 ± 0.51 5.1 8.18 ± 0.67 8.1Ta 1.10 ± 0.050 4.6 1.18 ± 0.061 5.2 1.13 ± 0.067 5.9Tb 1.15 ± 0.11 9.4 1.29 ± 0.083 6.5 1.08 ± 0.068 6.3Th 18.5 ± 0.13 0.7 21.1 ± 0.56 2.6 18.9 ± 1.09 5.8Ti% 0.44 ± 0.13 30. 0.50 ± 0.11 22. 0.50 ± 0.14 28.U 3.54 ± 0.19 5.5 4.00 ± 0.59 15. 3.44 ± 0.32 9.3W 2.63 ± 0.24 9.2 2.70 ± 0.29 11. 2.69 ± 0.26 9.7Yb 3.53 ± 0.11 3.2 4.23 ± 0.12 2.7 3.69 ± 0.19 5.1Zn 105. ± 2.65 2.5 119. ± 6.69 5.6 107. ± 9.89 9.3Zr 192. ± 43.9 23. 173. ± 56.9 33. 154. ± 59.8 39.

Table 1 Concentrations of elements measured by NAA in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwisea) sample Kyme 1, concentrations C and measuring errors d, also in % of C, with fit (dilution) factor 1.19 with respect to group g;b) averages M and spreads s, also in % of M, of the groups G and g.For the groups, each individual sample was dilution corrected with respect to the average values M of the group.

Page 115: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 107

Chemical Provenance Determination of Pottery: the Example of the Aiolian Pottery Group G

classification according to the Bonn statistical procedurerevealed that 21 samples from Kyme had a composition not verydifferent from the already known group G, which at that timewas formed of only seven samples, comprising sherds found atEphesos, Klazomenai and Smyrna.15 There are three reasonswhy we now assign the provenance group G with highprobability to production workshops at Kyme itself or in itsvicinity. There are, firstly, the conspicuous prevalence of thispattern within the whole set of samples from this site; secondly,the longevity of this group at the site, ranging from the Archaicto the Roman Imperial period; and thirdly, the great diversity ofceramic classes showing this element pattern, comprisingpainted fine-ware as well as Grey and banded wares and even awater pipe. The prevalence and longevity of group G also at theneighbouring small town of Larisa (12 samples) may indicate acollateral production there exploiting the same clay beds.Exports from these workshops have been excavated also atKlazomenai (1 sample) and Smyrna (11 samples), Phokaia (15samples), at Sardeis (2 samples) and even overseas at Naukratis(4 samples) and at Berezan on the northern Black Sea shore (12samples).16 The now much larger number of members of thisgroup G – altogether 88 samples (+ one repetitionmeasurement) – permits a better definition of the averagegrouping values and their spreads. A small displacement of thegroup in concentration space with respect to the small old groupG now results in a statistical separability of the two samples fromEphesos, a bird kotyle (Ephe 007) and a krater (Ephe 015), bothfrom the Late Geometric period and both previously assigned toG.17 These two samples now form, with eight other sherds fromEphesos, a new provenance group named X.18 X can be localizedwith certainty at Ephesos because it comprises a miniaturevessel (Ephe 029) that was part of the original fill of a LateHellenistic potters’ kiln at this site.19 Exports of the Ephesianprovenance group X have been detected at Larisa in Aiolis (Laris12, only chemically associated to X), Thebes in Boeotia20 and atTell Kazel in Syria.21 This demonstrates the importance of precisemeasurements and exact group forming procedures.

After a closer and more elaborate inspection of the NAA dataof group G the presence of a not very different, but statistically

separable subgroup in G, named ‘g’ and including 28 samples,was detected. The average concentration values M of the twogroups G with the remaining 60 samples and g with 28 samplesand their spreads (1s) are listed in Table 1. As is usuallyencountered, spread values of As, Ca and Na, althoughmeasured with small errors, are quite large and point to aninhomogeneity of these elements in pottery. Other elementswith large spread values (Ga, Ni, Ti, Zr) are measured with largeexperimental errors. In Fig. 2 the normalized differences G – gare plotted as a bar diagram after a best relative fit of subgroup gwith respect to G. Group g has a dilution of about 10% compared

Figure 1 Plot of Eu and Ce concentrations of pottery group G, most probably made in Kyme, before and after the correction of dilutions by a best relative fit of thesingle samples with respect to the average concentrations of the group.The positive correlation coefficient is reduced from 0.95 to 0.60

Figure 2 Graphical comparison of chemical compositions of the two very similargroups G and g given in Table 1. Plotted are the differences of the averageconcentration values G – g normalised by the averaged standard deviations (sG

2 + sg2)1/2. The values of group g are multiplied first by the best relative fit

factor with respect to group G of 1.10 (10% enlarged).

Page 116: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

108 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Mommsen and Kerschner

to G and has higher Cr and lower rare earth elementconcentrations. Except for the Cr value, the concentrations of allother elements vary less than 2s. This close agreement incomposition of G and g might be due to a slightly changed pasterecipe at these workshops. There is also a strong archaeologicalargument in favour of the localization of both provenancegroups G and g at the same site: both comprise an almostidentical range of ceramic wares and classes.22 Furthermore,even a well-defined stylistic group like the ‘London Dinos group’shows both element patterns G and g.23 Such an extremelyhomogeneous group must have been produced by a singleworkshop at a certain site.24

Both groups can be separated very well from all other groupsin our data bank. This is demonstrated in Kerschner Figure 34,which shows the result of a discriminant analysis of the groupsassignable to the different East Aegean production sitesrepresented up to now in our data bank. We hope that theassignment of groups G and g to workshops at Kyme and/or itsvicinity (with a possible branch at neighbouring Larisa), whichis most likely for the archaeological reasons asserted above, canbe proven in the future by additional reference material from thesite.

Notes* The authors wish to thank the staff of the research reactor in

Geesthacht for their technical support.1 E.g. Whitbread 1995.2 Perlman and Asaro 1969; Jones 1986; Mommsen 2001, 2004.3 Cogswell et al. 1996; Schwedt and Mommsen (forthcoming) and

references therein.4 Schwedt et al. 2004 and references therein.5 Hampe and Winter 1962, 4, 26, 49; Hampe and Winter 1965, 4, 27, 33,

38, 44, 51, 62, 87, 103, 127, 131, 133, 137, 139, 143, 147, 149-52, 177;Psaropoulou 1996, 81, 97, 236, 264.

6 Arnold 1985, 38–42; Arnold et al. 1991, 85.7 A famous example are potters of Siphnos who carried with them raw

clay from their island, cf. Dugas 1912b, 103. But, as Dupont 1983, 38,has pointed out, this transport of raw clay is mainly confined to themanufacture of cooking pots for which special properties arerequired. (cf. e.g. Tite and Kilikoglou 2002; for a discussion of the

special properties of mortaria fabrics see Villing, this volume). J.Boardman in Jones 1986, 663 and Boardman 1986, 252-3, 258 n. 14,expressed the hypothesis that potters’ clay from the island of Chiosmight have been exported to Naukratis (for a sceptical view, seeWilliams, this volume). Such a hypothesis, however, cannot bescrutinized by archaeometric methods. Karageorghis 2000/1,abstract, 92 proposed transport of raw clay from the Argolid toCyprus to explain archaeometric chemical results obtained forMycenaean pictorial pottery. On the use of different raw clays inorder to achieve different colours of slip: Psaropoulou 1996, 144. Ontransport of raw clay on economic grounds, which has become easierdue to modern motor vehicles, cf. Hampe and Winter 1965, 57, 117,169, 177.

8 Tite 1999.9 E.g. supra n. 2.10 Perlman and Asaro 1969.11 Mommsen et al. 1991.12 Archaeometric evidence for clay mixing has been provided by

Schwedt et al. 2004. Ethnoarchaeological field studies have shownthat clay mixing is a frequent procedure among traditional potters inthe Mediterranean: Hampe and Winter 1962, 88–9; Hampe andWinter 1965, 44, 106, 137–8, 143, 147, 150, 161, 169; Psaropoulou 1996,26, 97, 147, 178, 236.

13 Mommsen et al. 1988; Beier and Mommsen 1994a, b.14 Kerschner, this volume.15 Akurgal et al. 2002, 84–92, nos 18, 51, 73, 79, 80, 84, figs 40, 48, 50, 55,

pls. 1, 3, 6, 8. 16 Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006; Posamentir and

Solovyov 2006 ; Kerschner 2006. Generally on the pottery finds fromBerezan: Posamentir, this volume.

17 Akurgal et al. 2002, 85–6, 106 no. 57, pl. 4 (Ephe 015); 85, 98 no. 18, pl.1 (Ephe 007).

18 Badre et al. 2006, 17, 19, 36-7.19 S. Ladstätter, in Akurgal et al. 2002, 117-19, 115 no. 102, pl. 8. At that

time, group X was unknown and therefore Ephe 029 was still achemical single.

20 Schwedt et al. 2005.21 Badre et al. 2006.22 Cf. Kerschner, this volume.23 Provenance group G: Smyr 06, 45, Akurgal et al. 2002, 109-10, no. 73,

fig. 40 pl. 6; cf. also Posamentir and Solovyov 2006: Bere 106, 109,110; Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006. Provenance groupg: Smyr 22, Akurgal et al. 2002, 112 no. 84, fig. 55, pl. 8; Bere 178,Kerschner 2006; Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006.

24 On this point, all archaeologists have agreed up to now, cf. for furtherreferences the contribution of Kerschner in this volume.

Page 117: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 109

Abstract

Naukratis is a major finding place of Archaic Aiolian potteryoutside the East Aegean. The exact provenance of the various waresand styles of pottery in Aiolis is still largely unknown andcontroversial. This paper uses an archaeometric approach toattempt to localise the production places and to establish theirrepertoire. Based on NA Analysis of samples mainly from Kyme andLarisa, a chemical provenance group G, including a subgroup g,has been detected, comprising different styles of painted pottery aswell as Grey and banded wares. This provenance group G/grepresents an important and prolific pottery centre that dominatesthe production and even more the export of Archaic Aiolianpottery. It was most likely situated at Kyme. Neighbouring Larisa,however, may possibly have played a role, too.*

The Aiolians and Naukratis

Aiolis is the most northerly of the East Aegean regions (Fig. 1)that had been settled by immigrants from mainland Greece atthe beginning of the Iron Age.1 The newcomers took possessionof the island of Lesbos and of the opposite coast around the gulfof Elaia. Some of them penetrated into the mountains behindthe fertile, but narrow coastal plain. To the south, the Aiolianssoon lost the territory of Phokaia and Smyrna to the Ionians. Tothe north, however, they conquered the coast of the Troad andthe off shore island Tenedos, presumably in the 8th century bc.2

The Aiolians spoke their own dialect. Their arts and crafts havemuch in common with the products of their Ionian neighbours,but at the same time they show peculiarities, as can bedemonstrated in the case of the pottery.

The Aiolians founded only few apoikiai during the greatcolonisation movement of the late 8th to 6th century bc. Yetthey took part in the emporion of Naukratis in Egypt, which wasmainly an enterprise by East Greeks. Herodotus provides someinformation on the organisation of the emporion during thereign of Pharaoh Amasis. He says that Ai0ole/wn de\ h9Mutilhnai/wn mou/nh ‘among the Aiolians only the Mytileneaens’(2.178.2) held a share in the sacred precinct of the Hellenion andalso in the administration of the harbour. This, however, doesnot mean that other Aiolian poleis were not involved in the tradewith Egypt via Naukratis, either directly with their ownmerchants acting or indirectly with their products. With regardto the latter, pottery offers a good possibility to trace the exactprovenance of the exported goods.

The history of research on Aiolian pottery

The British excavations at Naukratis carried out by W.F. Petrieand E. Gardner in 1884–86 and by D.G. Hogarth some 15 yearslater stimulated the beginnings of research on East Greekpottery.3 Naukratis was, together with Rhodes, the first sitewhere Aiolian pottery of the Archaic period was found (Figs2–11). Publishing a selection of East Greek wares from the site in

1924, E.R. Price was the first to recognize a stylistically coherentgroup of Orientalising pottery that was later christened the‘London Dinos group’.4 She argued that ‘they are all, if not thework of one hand, at least the output of one workshop’.5 In thefollowing decades, many of the studies on Aiolian potteryfocused on this single Wild Goat style group, which is superior tothe other Aiolian painted wares in quality of execution and morewidely distributed. E. Homann-Wedeking accepted Price’sgrouping, emphasising the homogenous style of the fillingornaments.6 W. Schiering and N. Sidorova added somefragments to the group, which they supposed to be the work ofone single painter, whom Schiering called ‘Dinosmaler derVlastosgruppe’,7 but Sidorova the “master Londonskogo dinosa’,thus creating the present name of the group.8 Ch. Kardaracompiled a comprehensive list of this group, considering thevessels as products of a workshop on Rhodes, which she calledthe ‘ergasterion dinou’.9 K. Schefold was the first to realize theAiolian origin, comparing the dinos in Basle with theOrientalising pottery from Larisa.10 E. Walter-Karydi followed hislocalisation of this group, which she named after the dinos inBasle, and compared its style with other examples of Aiolianvase-painting.11 L.V. Kopeikina published a number of fragmentsof the ‘London Dinos group’ from Berezan pointing out that thisMilesian colony on the northern Black Sea shore was, togetherwith Naukratis, the main finding place outside the EastAegean.12 Publishing an early example from Pyrrha on Lesbos,W. Schiering assented finally to the Aiolian provenance of thegroup,13 and R.M. Cook, by using the name ‘London Dinosgroup’ in his handbook on East Greek pottery, firmly establishedit as the canonical name for the group.14 Recently, K. Ýrenenlarged the list of pertinent vessels and fragmentsconsiderably, mostly with finds from Phokaia and Pitane, andwent more fully into details of style.15

In addition to stylistic studies dealing exclusively with theWild Goat style, excavations have provided an insight into abroader range of ceramic classes produced by Aiolian potters. InAiolis, however, digging started later and the explored sites haveremained fewer than in other parts of the Aegean, includingadjacent Ionia. At most of the sites, the excavations of earlyGreek levels have been limited to small areas and therefore thestratigraphic evidence was meagre. There are only twoexceptions, where excavations were carried out on a large scale:Larisa and Pitane. The extensive excavations carried out by L.Kjellberg and J. Boehlau 1902 and again 1932/4 at the site ofBuruncuk, conventionally identified with ancient Larisa,16

proved particularly prolific in Archaic pottery (Figs 12–14;16–19; 21–24), yielding a great variety of painted and Greywares. In 1942, K. Schefold published the ceramic finds in acomprehensive analytical monograph, which is still thecornerstone of Aiolian pottery studies.17 The Larisa materialcomprises a much larger range of typological and stylistic groups

On the Provenance of Aiolian PotteryMichael Kerschner

Page 118: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

110 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

than those known before from Naukratis or Rhodes. Evidently, afair number of ceramic classes were never exported outsideAiolis and its vicinity. At Pitane a large necropolis of the Archaicperiod was excavated by E. Akurgal from 1959 to 1965.18 Thegraves contained a considerable number of painted Aiolianvessels that were only recently published by K. Ýren.19 Somegrave contexts with Corinthian imports provided usefulindications for absolute chronology. Ýren devoted a meticulousstudy to the stylistic development not only of the Wild Goat stylebut also of a simpler variety of Aiolian vase-painting christened‘Punktstil’ (‘dot style’) by him (Figs 13–14).20

Less rich in painted vessels, but important for thechronology of Aiolian pottery, is the necropolis of Assos,excavated by R. Stupperich 1989-94.21 A smaller number ofpainted vessels were found in graves at Myrina and Gryneion.22

Until recently, archaeological evidence for the early history of

Kyme was very scanty,23 even though this polis enjoyed,according to Strabo, a reputation as ‘the largest and best of theAiolian cities’.24 From 1988 onwards, M. Frasca succeeded inrevealing a stratigraphic sequence going back to the LateGeometric period in a trench on the southern of the two hills ofthe city.25 On the island of Lesbos, Geometric and Archaicpottery was unearthed at the ancient towns of Mytilene,Methymna, Antissa and Pyrrha.26 None of these sites has so farproved rich in painted vessels. ‘The ceramic repertoire in theisland throughout the Archaic period continues to be dominatedby Aiolic Grey wares.’27

To sum up: great progress has been made in studies on thestylistic development and, to a lesser extent, on the chronologyof Aiolian pottery. The question of the exact provenance of thedifferent categories of Aiolian pottery, however, has remainedunresolved.

Figure 1 Map of Aiolis

Page 119: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 111

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

The unsolved question of the exact provenance

Interpreting quantitative concentrations and distributionpatterns of finds was for a long time the only feasible method toidentify the origin of a certain typological or stylistic group ofpottery.28 Both methods are important, but neither is definitive.Some ceramic classes were produced mainly for export andtherefore may occur in extremely high quantities at other places.An indicative example is bird bowls of the standard fabric: theywere made in the ‘bird bowl workshops’ of provenance group Bon the North Ionian mainland, and thousands of them wereunearthed at Ephesos and Miletos to where they had beenexported.29 The reconstruction of distribution patterns dependsgreatly on the state of research in the region in question. If onlya few sites have been investigated while major historical centresremain unexplored, the risk of error is considerable.30 That is thecase in Aiolis, where only two minor sites have been excavatedextensively – Larisa and Pitane – while we have only scarce andpatchy information on the important poleis of Kyme, Myrina orMytilene during the Geometric and Archaic periods. This wantof appropriate archaeological evidence is the reason whygeneral historical considerations have played a decisive role inthe discussion about the location of Aiolian pottery centres.Vague conclusions drawn from notes by ancient authors on theeconomic and political roles of different cities encouraged theidea that the North Ionian polis of Phokaia could have been theleading centre of Aiolian art.31 R.M. Cook commented criticallyon this view which still prevails: ‘In what place or places thisAeolian pottery was made is not yet known; ... and claims forPhocaea are based mainly on its having been Ionian andtherefore progressive’.32 P. Dupont was the first to raise asubstantial objection to the Phokaian claim, basing himself onscientific analyses of clays and sherds.33 He introduced, at thesame time as J. Boardman,34 archaeometric methods into EastGreek pottery studies.

An archaeometric approach to detect the pottery centres of

Aiolis

Following in their wake, H. Mommsen and I started anarchaeometric programme in 1991. Our aim was to locate thepottery centres of the East Aegean and to investigate theirrepertoire of ceramic classes. In the course of time, a number ofcolleagues joined this project, contributing East Greek potteryfrom all over the Aegean and from colonial sites from Naukratisin the South to Berezan in the North and Sicily in the West.35

Each of the participants is working on one or more productionsites or finding places. At the same time, all are networkedthrough the Bonn data bank, thus ensuring the comparability ofthe chemical analyses and providing a platform for thediscussion of the results and their interpretation. From 1997onwards H. Mommsen and I have focused our research onAiolis, in close co-operation with M. Akurgal (Ýzmir) and M.Frasca (Catania) as well as with the kind support of the curatorsof the university museums at Bonn (W. Geominy) and Göttingen(D. Graepler). Up to now, we have analysed 30 finds from Kymeand 27 from Larisa in Aiolis as well as 119 from the neighbouringNorth Ionian sites of Phokaia and Smyrna.

The chemical provenance group G and its subgroup g

The NAA of pottery finds from the Aiolian sites of Kyme andLarisa shows a striking predominance of the chemical

provenance group G, including its subgroup g (cf. Appendix 1).The differences in the concentrations of the single elementsbetween G and g are only small, as H. Mommsen detected.36 Thisclose agreement in composition points to a common originrather than to two distant production sites. The slight variationsin the element pattern might be due to minor inhomogeneitieswithin the clay bed or / and to different recipes used by thepotters in preparing the paste.

In addition, there are archaeological arguments that suggesta common origin for G and g. Both element patterns cover a longspan of time (cf. Appendix 1): G can be traced at Kyme andLarisa from the Subgeometric to the Hellenistic period; g evenfrom Late Bronze Age until Roman Imperial times. Furthermore,both G and g comprise essentially the same range of wares andeven stylistic groups during the Subgeometric and Archaicperiods (cf. Appendix 1). There are a few more categoriesrepresented in G, a fact which may be explained by thecircumstance that our data bank includes at the moment 59samples of provenance group G, but only 25 of its subgroup g.The parallel occurrence of both element patterns at Kyme andLarisa over a long duration and, even more, their almostidentical repertoire support the interpretation of the chemicaldata as a main provenance group (G) and a subgroup (g), bothoriginating from the same pottery centre, rather than twodistant production places.

Ceramic wares and stylistic groups of provenance group G/g

It is a communis opinio that ‘unlike all other Greeks, the easternAiolians ... did not make any painted Geometric pottery’ duringthe Geometric period, but started with a Subgeometric styleearly in the 7th century bc.37 Before that date, they appear tohave been satisfied with their traditional Grey ware. The fewfinds of Late Geometric vessels in Aiolis were generally regardedas imports.38 Our NAA so far comprises three examples of LateGeometric pottery found at Aiolian sites, none of thembelonging to the provenance group G/g. The element pattern ofa krater found at Kyme (Kyme 08) with crosshatched triangles, ahatched meander and a chequerboard painted on a greyishbrown surface matches no provenance group hitherto knownfrom the East Aegean.39 The same applies to a krater or dinosfrom Larisa in Göttingen (Lari 12, Fig. 12) with vertical zigzagsand a crosshatched lozenge chain framed by multiple lines.40

The third sample, a bird kotyle of standard fabric, shows theelement pattern B of the North Ionian ‘bird bowl workshops’.41

The subsequent development of Aiolian vase painting in theArchaic period shows two very different styles practisedsimultaneously, as Ýren found out from the grave contexts atPitane and Gryneion.42 On the one hand, there is an Aiolianvariant of the East Greek Wild Goat style and on the other handa simpler, schematic style, which Schefold called‘Subgeometric’,43 whereas Ýren created the name ‘dot style’(‘Punktstil’), as a result of the predilection for dots as framinglines and for the filling of ornaments.44 All three analysedexamples of the latter style belong to the provenance group G: adinos from Larisa (Lari 15, Fig. 13)45 with a metope friezecontaining the typical water birds of East Greek Geometrictradition alternating with herringbone pattern and crosshatchedfields, a pyxis from Larisa (Lari 16, Fig. 14),46 and a stand fromPhokaia (Phok 27).47 The artistic quality of the ‘dot style’ lies inits spontaneous and dynamic brushwork as well as its gay and

Page 120: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

112 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

colourful overall effect,48 which compensate for the evidentcarelessness in the finish. Ýren underlines the ‘provincialcharacter’49 of these vases. This is the reason why he assumesthat they were ‘produced in the small Aiolian towns of thehinterland’ in the poorer mountainous part of Aiolis.50 Ourarchaeometric analyses proved, however, that the ‘dot style’ wasat home at the same place as the most elaborate version of theAiolian Wild Goat style, the above-mentioned London Dinosgroup (Figs 2–8, 31).

These dinoi can be grouped by stylistic criteria around thename piece from Kameiros in the British Museum (Fig. 2). Theirdecoration is characterized by competent drawing of the figures,a vivid, bright colouring and a peculiar choice of angular andvoluminous filling ornaments. Trademarks of the London Dinosgroup are the cross with inserted chevrons and the doublyoutlined band of tongues with dotted peaks in between. Thereare different ways to decorate the rim: either with a broad cable,also adorned with dotted peaks, with a lozenge net, with asingle line meander, or with a meander hatched at right anglesand framing broad hooks in purple like on a fragment fromNaukratis (Nauk 13, Fig. 8).51 The extensive use of purple istypical for the London Dinos group. The finest examples shownarrative scenes including human figures, as on the fragmentfrom Phokaia that has been interpreted by E. Akurgal as thejudgment of Paris.52 The homogeneity in style indicates that theLondon Dinos group was made in one single workshop. Thisobservation is confirmed by our NAA. All examples analysed sofar turn out to be members of the provenance group G/g (Smyr06,53 Smyr 22,54 Phok 29,55 Nauk 13 – Fig. 8, Bere 178 – Fig. 1556 –as well as three further examples from Berezan in St. Petersburganalysed by R. Posamentir, Bere 106 – cf. Posamentir Fig. 13).57

Beside the London Dinos group, there are other varieties ofAiolian Wild Goat style, and again the majority belongs to theprovenance group G/g, including the skyphos kraters Lari 1858

(Fig. 16), Lari 1959 (Fig. 17), Lari 2060 (Fig. 18) and the oinochoeLari 21 (Fig. 19),61 all found at Larisa. The animals are stylised,displaying the typical Aiolian tendency towards the abstract.The filling ornaments tend to be even more enlarged andsometimes the figures seem nearly to be swallowed by thetapestry of ornaments; even the belly of a wild goat can be filledwith a meander (Fig. 18). The fragment of a skyphos krater (Fig.17) from Larisa demonstrates how broad the stylistic range offigure drawing is within the provenance group G/g. Anunnaturalistic idea of figures and a clumsy execution, however,are not a matter of the place of production, or at least not alone.

The provenance group G/g also comprises a large number ofAiolian Orientalising vessels that are decorated only withornaments. The motives are borrowed from the repertoire of theWild Goat style, but enlarged and emphasized by putting theminto places normally reserved for figures, like the metopes onthe kotyle from Smyrna (Smyr 46, Fig. 20).62 In the 6th centurybc, vase-painters of the provenance group G/g adopted theblack-figure technique without renouncing the traditionalyellowish slip. The birds on the skyphos-krater Lari 23 (Fig. 21)are executed in pure black-figure technique, admitting evenincised blobs as filling ornaments.63 The shape of the vessel has along tradition at Larisa. The black-figure frieze of ducks on thekrater Lari 22 (Fig. 22) is painted in a bichrome technique, usinga brilliant orange-red shade as the main colour and a dull darkbrown for details in addition to those indicated by incisions.64

The predilection for the vivid contrast of strong colours is typicalfor the painters of the provenance group G/g.

Another method to create a colourful effect was paintingwith white and purple directly over the dark glazed surface ofthe vessels, sometimes also using incision.65 The main groupdecorated in this technique are black-polychrome oinochoaiwith incised tongues on the shoulder and purple and whitebands on the body (Fig. 9).66 These Aiolian oinochoai wereexported to Naukratis (Nauk 12, Fig. 9)67 and Berezan,68 as hasbeen shown by NAA. An exceptional example from Pitanecombines the decorative scheme of these oinochoai with ananimal frieze on the belly that is stylistically related to theLondon Dinos group (cf. Appendix 2).69 A group of oinochoaifrom Vroulia, possibly made locally on Rhodes, is akin to theseAiolian vessels.70 The main difference is the decoration of theneck, which is reserved on the Rhodian pieces, sometimes witha broken cable. The decorative scheme of the black-polychromeoinochoai (Fig. 9) seems to have been inspired by Corinthianexamples of the Late Protocorinthian and Transitional periods.71

Beside this class of oinochoai, there is a broad range of othershapes decorated in similar way by Aiolian vase-painters, likethe dinos Lari 27 (Fig. 23).72 The hastily drawn meander on therim and the dot-rosette on the shoulder are painted in addedwhite colour on a dark reddish brown glaze. The light-on-darktechnique in general is widespread, although not frequent inEast Greek pottery.73 It has a long tradition, reaching back atleast to the early 7th century bc.74 Famous examples are theChian chalices with floral and occasionally even figurativedecoration on the interior (see e.g. Williams Fig. 14)75 and theVroulian class, principally found on the island of Rhodes andpresumably made there.76

A less ambitious style of Aiolian vase-painting in the lateArchaic period is purely ornamental without incision. Since themotives are formed from drop-shaped elements, I propose to callthis variety ‘drop style’. The ornaments are simplified versions ofvegetable pedigree like the single palmettes on a kotyle fromLarisa (Laris 24, Fig. 24)77 and the wreath on another from Kyme(Kyme 14, Fig. 25).78 The potters of provenance group G/g alsoplayed a part in the production of the widespread classes ofrosette bowls (Smyr 32, Fig. 26)79 and dishes with meander onthe rim (Phok 49, Fig. 27).80 There is little surprise thatprovenance group G comprises also the ubiquitous waredecorated with simple bands and wavy lines (e.g. a banded dishof the Archaic period, Kyme 05, Fig. 29).81 Apart from paintedwares, the pottery centre G/g was an important producer ofGrey ware, which is so characteristic for Aiolis, especially in theGeometric and Archaic periods. Our analyses comprise differentkinds of Grey ware: with grey surface or with grey slip, polishedor unpolished (e.g. a carinated bowl from Kyme, Kyme 23, Fig.30,82 and a fenestrated stand from Naukratis, Nauk 64, Fig. 10).83

Apart from ceramic vessels, the pottery centre G/gproduced also architectural terracottas84 and terracottafigurines. The male head (Nauk 77, Fig. 11) found at Naukratisand attributed by NAA to the provenance group G/g is one of thefew known Aiolian terracottas of the Archaic period.85 The shapeof the beard with its rolling outline and the pointed moustacheis typical for the middle and the third quarter of the 6th centurybc.86 A strange feature is, however, the omission of the forehead.The face ends abruptly with the eyebrows, turning at right angleto the flat calvaria, on which strands of hair are painted. This

Page 121: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

has to be regarded as a regional characteristic rather than achronological one. A plastic vase in the shape of a mythologicalcharacter with horse’s ears from Sardis has many features incommon with the Aiolian head (Fig. 11): the broad face, thelarge almond-shaped eyes, the trimmed beard, and the paintingof the details on a yellowish slip.87

Characterisation of the provenance group G/g

Aiolian vase-painting of the Archaic period shows a broadartistic variety. Most scholars, like K. Schefold, H. Walter, E.Walter-Karydi, E. Akurgal, R.M. Cook and K. Ýren, explain thisphenomenon by assuming several production places.88 Theypursue, however, two different ideas. K. Schefold and R.M. Cookgenerally supposed that most of the pottery was made at itsfinding place. They regarded the vessels found at Larisa andPitane as works of local potters and painters.89 This means thatdifferent stylistic groups originate from the same site. Incontrast, K. Ýren, following ideas of H. Walter and E. Walter-Karydi,90 divides the Archaic Aiolian vases according to theirquality of design and execution. Consequently, he tries toattribute the elaborate groups to big and famous cities, thesimpler varieties like the ‘dot style’ (‘Punktstil’) to smaller towns,preferably in the mountainous areas:

Es ist anzunehmen, daß die Punktstilgefäße in den kleinenaiolischen Städten im Hinterland der Aiolis, wie Aigai, Neonteichos,Killa, Temnos, hergestellt wurden, während die aiolischen Städte ander Küste Tierfriesstilgefäße produzierten.91

Within the Aiolian Wild Goat style Ýren proposes a distributionaccording to the quality of vase-painting. On the one hand, heassumes that

die aTs [= aiolischer Tierfriesstil] IIIb-Gefäße und die meisten der inLarisa gefundenen schwarzfigurigen Gefäße auch tatsächlich inLarisa hergestellt worden sind’, on the other hand: ‘Da die Gefäßedes aTs II und IIIa sorgfältigere Stile als aTs IIIb haben, könnte mansich die großen und wichtigen aiolischen Städte wie Kyme undMyrina für sie als Herstellungsort vorstellen.

Furthermore, he considers the most ambitious variant of AiolianWild Goat style, the London Dinos group, as a product of a‘phokäischen Keramikschule’,92 being ‘pseudo-Aiolian’ ratherthan ‘Aiolian’.93 However, K. Ýren cautiously emphasises that theproposed localisations are hypothetical and have yet to beverified by archaeometric analyses.94

Such analyses have now been carried out. They evince adifferent concept of the pottery centres in Aiolis. Our NAA showthat provenance group G/g covers a diversity of stylistic groupsoriginating from only one prolific pottery centre and probablyalso its vicinity. This means that potters and vase-paintersworking in different traditions were living together in the sametown or nearby without absorbing the characteristic style of theothers. Their products seem to have been offered for sale to thesame customers, for vases painted in diverse Aiolian styles werefound together in the same graves in the necropolis of Pitane.95

Social differentiation within the grave goods was evidently notdisplayed by means of the style or technical quality of a vessel.

There was, however, a clear differentiation with respect tothe export. Only a small part of the output of the pottery centreG/g was distributed outside Aiolis. The most widespread class offigured Aiolian vase-painting is the London Dinos group: it isalso the most elaborate (Figs 2–8, 15, 31, Appendix 2). Thesesplendid dinoi must have been highly appreciated by customers

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 113

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

who esteemed a certain accuracy of drawing, but at the sametime preferred a more vivid colouring than that generallyoffered by the Ionian Wild Goat style. Apart from these luxuryvessels, the pottery centre G/g had a stake in the mass-producedrosette bowls (Fig. 26)96 and dishes with meander on the rim(Fig. 27).97 Both were exported widely around theMediterranean and Black Sea. These two classes of pottery wereproduced in several centres, mainly in North Ionia (provenancegroups B and E) and, as far as meander-rim dishes areconcerned, also at Ephesos (X)98 and presumably at Smyrna(F).99 Moreover, there is a class of late, standardised Wild Goatvases with a similar range of production places: the so-called‘Borysthenes amphorae’ (cf. Posamentir Fig. 10).100 Those wereproduced mainly in North Ionia (provenance groups B and E),but also in the Aiolian pottery centre G/g, like a fragment fromBerezan in Halle (Bere 174, Fig. 28).101 The ‘Borysthenesamphorae’ were exported far and wide, to the Black Sea(Berezan, Istros, Pantikapaion), the Levant (Tell Sukas) andKyrenaika (Taucheira/Tocra).102

Such close interconnections between neighbouring potterycentres in North Ionia and Aiolis are best explained by thehypothesis of migrating potters.103 Such potters left, asindividuals or in small groups, their home and settledpermanently or for a certain time in a nearby polis. A number ofpossible reasons may have caused their movement, among themthe search for economic advantages, for further education byother masters, or simply private reasons. Migration within thesame region is a natural phenomenon in all periods. Theimmigrants brought along their own style, which they hadlearned at home, and thus spread it among their newcolleagues. Flourishing in a new cultural environment, thisimplanted style was susceptible to new elements.104

Location of the provenance group G/g

Where was the prolific pottery centre G/g situated thatdominated the production of Archaic Aiolian fine ware? Thedistribution pattern of the finds analysed up until now shows aclear concentration on the mainland coast to the north and tothe south of the Hermos estuary in the border region betweenAiolis and North Ionia (Fig. 1). Nearly all East Aegean samplescome from Kyme, Larisa, Phokaia and Smyrna.105 Thus, it is verylikely that the home of provenance group G/g was in this veryarea. In order to assess the exact location, misfired vessels andundisturbed fills of pottery kilns are the best reference materialto prove a local production. Unfortunately, they are rare in thisregion. Phokaia is the only site where a pottery workshop hasbeen excavated. It dates from the Roman Imperial period(1st/2nd century ad).106 The NAA of 16 wasters from the dump ofthis workshop107 and two other misfired vessels discovered by E.Langlotz (Fig. 32)108 resulted in a number of different elementpatterns (T and Y as well as several chemical singles), which areall distinctly different from provenance group G/g (Fig. 33).109

This is a strong argument against a localisation at Phokaia,110

which had been proposed by E. Walter-Karydi and K. Ýren for theLondon Dinos group and related pottery belonging toprovenance group G/g.111

The discriminant analysis of the 56 samples from Phokaia(Fig. 33) is revealing for the character of the site. The amount ofimports is comparatively high. A number of differentprovenance groups are represented among the Archaic fine

Page 122: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

114 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

Figu

re 3

1Fi

nds

of th

e Lo

ndon

Din

os g

roup

in th

e M

edit

erra

nean

and

the

Blac

k Se

a (c

f.A

ppen

dix

2)

Page 123: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 115

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

wares: Attic (KROP), the North Ionian provenance groups B andE, the Aiolian provenance group G/g as well as, at a smallerscale, Miletos (D) and Z (probably Lydian). It is important tounderline that G/g is only one provenance group among severalothers represented at Phokaia. Among the remaining samples,there is no dominant chemical group which could account for animportant local production of Archaic fine ware. We detectedtwo small chemical groups (T, Y) among the Roman wasters anda number of singles, none of them going with any of the Archaicpieces. The chemical disparity of the wasters that are surelylocal products points to a complicated geology of the regionaround Phokaia with diverse clay beds and probably also claymixtures.

Ö. Özyiðit recently reported the discovery of an Archaicpottery workshop at Phokaia.112 The publication of the ceramicfinds and their contexts, ideally supplemented by archaeometricinvestigations, will show, which classes of pottery were made onsite in the Archaic period.113 The predominance of imports withthe element pattern G/g among the Aiolian Orientalisingpottery finds from Phokaia suggests, however, that a possiblelocal share in it was not plentiful. With regard to the exports, allAiolian pieces analysed so far from colonial sites (cf. Appendix 1)belong to the provenance group G/g that clearly differs in itselement pattern from the local Phokaian wasters. Thus, apossible Phokaian share in the export of ceramic fine wares canhave been only marginal. In any case, the most widespread classof Aiolian figured vase-painting, the London Dinos group(Appendix 2; Fig. 31), shows the element pattern G/g and,therefore, most likely was not made at Phokaia.

At Kyme and Larisa, however, the situation is significantlydifferent. At both sites the provenance group G/g is almosttotally dominant in all wares and over a long span of time. Sinceno kiln wasters have been found at either site up until now, wehave tried to analyse pots of different types and periods – fromSubgeometric painted ware to a Roman water pipe (Appendix1). Among the 30 samples from Kyme, five pieces that couldtypologically be identified as imports proved to be of Euboean,Corinthian and North Ionian origin (Fig. 34).114 Twenty-one outof the remaining 25 samples show one consistent elementpattern – that of provenance group G/g. The remaining foursamples (Kyme 08, 17, 26, 27) are chemical singles, the origin ofwhich cannot yet be determined. This predominance of onesingle element pattern at the same site over a long period of timeis a weighty argument in favour of a localisation of provenancegroup G/g at Kyme itself or in its vicinity.115 Otherwise, we wouldhave to assume that the Kymeans imported all kinds of ceramicwares from elsewhere over several hundred years. At Larisa, theNAA show the same predominance of the provenance group G/gas at Kyme, comprising painted and Grey wares from the LateBronze Age to the Late Archaic period. Larisa is, therefore,another possible candidate for the location of group G.

At the moment we have only historical and geographicalarguments on which to make a decision. Most of them speak infavour of Kyme, which was an important harbour city ofconsiderable size and economic power. Strabo called it ‘the

largest and best of the Aiolian cities’.116 Larisa, on the other hand,was a small town and flourished only for a short period. Sinceboth sites are situated only 12km apart (Fig. 1), it is alsoconceivable that they shared the same clay beds, or that thesame geological layer extends into the territories of both poleis.If this is the case, the pottery of both Kyme and Larisa will showan identical element pattern, unless the potters prepared theraw material according to divergent recipes.

Such a result contradicts the opinions of E. Walter-Karydiand K. Ýren on the place of origin of the London Dinos group,which they assume was Phokaia.117 Only K. Schefold consideredKyme as the most likely home of the workshop.118 The argumentsthat have been brought forward against the localisation of animportant pottery workshop at Kyme have been mainly based onthe alleged insignificance of the city in long distance trade119 andher reluctance to found colonies overseas. Nor was Kymeinvolved in the organisation of Naukratis, as Herodotus (2.178)indicates. In this kind of overseas venture, Phokaia was muchmore active, and that is the reason why some scholars presumedthat Phokaia was also the main centre of arts and crafts inAiolis.120 But is it inescapable to conclude that potters andmerchants lived in the same city? There exist counter-examplesdemonstrating that neighbouring cities can create aneconomically efficient symbiosis, one focusing on theproduction, the other on the sale. There are strong indicationsthat merchants of Aigina traded painted pottery from Athensand Corinth, as J. Boardman pointed out.121 Whereas Aiginetanpotters did not produce painted pottery during the Archaicperiod, the seafarers of the island turned out to be mostadventurous and successful merchants in overseas trade.122 In asimilar way, although to a much lesser extent, Phokaians versedin long-distance trade may have dealt in the ceramic products ofneighbouring Kyme, especially within their sphere of economicinterest in the Western Mediterranean (cf. Fig. 31).

Summary

In the discussion on the provenance of Aiolian pottery,archaeometric analyses have proved to be an appropriate wayout of the aporia caused by the lack of archaeological andliterary evidence. This series of NAA should be seen as abeginning, which has to be extended by further investigations.So far the following results have been obtained: in Aiolis, oneimportant and prolific pottery centre prevailed in theproduction and even more in the export of Archaic paintedwares. Its ceramic products are defined by the chemicalprovenance group G and its subgroup g. The repertoire of thepottery centre G/g is impressive, comprising different styles andtechniques of painted pottery as well as Grey and banded wares.The pottery workshops of provenance group G/g were situatedmost likely at Kyme. Neighbouring Larisa may possibly have hada share in G/g, too. Thus, the place of production of the splendiddinos in the British Museum (Fig. 2), the name-vase of the mostfamous group of Aiolian painted vases, can be consideredrevealed.

Page 124: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

116 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

Appendix 1Differentiation of the chemical provenancegroup G and its subgroup g

According to ceramic wares

Provenance group Gpainted pottery of Aiolian Subgeometric style (Lari 15, associated with G,

Fig. 13)painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the

London Dinos group: Phok 29, 31; Smyr 06, Smyr 45; Nauk 13, Fig. 8;other groups of Wild Goat style: Lari 18, Fig. 16; Lari 20, Fig. 18; Lari21, Fig. 19; Phok 28, 53, 56; with human figures: Lari 19, Fig. 17;ornamental: Kyme 19; Lari 17; Smy 46, Fig. 20)

painted pottery of Aiolian ‘dot style’ (‘Punktstil’) (Lari 16, associated withG, Fig. 14; Phok 27)

painted pottery of Aiolian bichrome style (black-figure technique: Lari22, Fig. 22; ornamental: Smyr 60)

painted pottery of Aiolian black-figure style (Lari 23, Fig. 21)painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Lari 24, Fig. 24; Lari 25,

26; Smyr 59, 62)painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian light-on-dark style (Lari 27, Fig. 23)dishes with meander on the rim: (Phok 49, Fig. 27; Klaz 01)123

rosette bowls (Phok 15 ?; Smyr 32, Fig. 26)black glazed oinochoai with added red and white (Bere 107, 108,

Posamentir Fig. 1 top left; Nauk 12, Fig. 9)124

banded ware of the Archaic period (Kyme 05, Fig. 29; Kyme 18, 28; Phok07, 50, 51; Bere 138, Posamentir Fig. 14)

Grey ware of the Archaic period (with grey surface: Kyme 21, 30 and darkgrey slip: Kyme 22, 23, Fig. 30; indeterminate: Phok 10)

undecorated ware of Hellenistic period (Kyme 03)

Sub-group gRed Wash ware of the Late Bronze Age (Lari 10)painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the

London Dinos group: Smyr 22; Bere 178,125 Fig. 15; other groups ofWild Goat style: ornamental Kyme 12, Phok 54)

painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the‘Borysthenes amphorae’: Bere 174, Fig. 28)126

painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style combiningreservation and Corinthianising black-figure techniques (Bere001)127

painted pottery of the Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Kyme 14, Fig. 25; Smyr47)

black glazed oinochoai with added red and white (Bere 105, PosamentirFig. 1 top right)128

banded ware of the Archaic period (Kyme 02, 06, 16, 20, 25, 29; Phok 21)Grey ware of the Archaic period, with grey surface (Kyme 13; Nauk 64,

Fig. 10).painted pottery of Archaic Lydian marbled ware (Smyr 58)architectural terracottas of the Archaic period (Phok 32)terracotta figurine of the Archaic period (Nauk 77, Fig. 11)trade amphorae of the Hellenistic period (Kyme 01)lamps of the Hellenistic period (Kyme 24)water-pipes of the Roman period (Kyme 15)

According to find spots

Finds from AiolisAt Kyme, both subgroups are represented with a broad range of ceramic

classes.129

Provenance group Gpainted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Kyme 19)banded ware of the Archaic period (Kyme 05, Fig. 29; Kyme 18, 28)Grey ware of the Archaic period (both with grey surface: Kyme 21, 30 and

dark grey slip: Kyme 22, 23)undecorated ware of Hellenistic period (Kyme 03)Subgroup gpainted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Kyme 12)painted pottery of the Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Kyme 14, Fig. 25)banded ware of the Archaic period (Kyme 02, 06, 16, 20, 25, 29)Grey ware of the Archaic period (with grey surface: Kyme 13)trade amphora of the Hellenistic period (Kyme 01)lamp of the Hellenistic period (Kyme 24)water-pipe of the Roman period (Kyme 15)

At Larisa, group G is much better represented than subgroup g.

Provenance group Gpainted pottery of Aiolian Subgeometric style (Lari 15, Fig. 13)painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style: Lari 18,

Fig. 16; Lari 20, Fig. 18; Lari 21, Fig. 19; with human figures: Lari 19,Fig. 17; ornamental: Lari 17)

painted pottery of Aiolian ‘dot style’ (‘Punktstil’) (Lari 16, Fig. 14)painted pottery of Aiolian bichrome style in black-figure technique (Lari

22, Fig. 22)painted pottery of Aiolian black-figure style (Lari 23, Fig. 21)painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Lari 24, Fig. 24; Lari 25,

26)painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian light-on-dark style (Lari 27, Fig. 23)Subgroup gred wash ware of the Late Bronze Age (Lari 10)

Nine further examples, mostly of Grey ware, were analysed by D. Herteland H. Mommsen (Lari 01-09), six of them belonging to provenancegroup G, two to subroup g.

Finds from Phokaia130

Provenance group Gpainted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the

London Dinos group: Phok 29, 31; other groups of Wild Goat style:Phok 28, 53, 56

painted pottery of Aiolian ‘dot style’ (‘Punktstil’) (Phok 27)dish with meander on the rim (Phok 49, Fig. 27)rosette bowl ? (Phok 15)banded ware of the Archaic period (Phok 07, 50, 51)Grey ware of the Archaic period (polished: Phok 10)Subgroup gpainted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (ornamental: Phok 54)banded ware of the Archaic period (Phok 21)architectural terracottas of the Archaic period (Phok 32)

Finds from sites outside AiolisProvenance group Gpainted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the

London Dinos group: Smyr 06, Smyr 45; Nauk 13, Fig. 8; ornamental:Smyr 46 (Fig. 20)).

painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Smyr 59, 62)painted pottery of Aiolian bichrome style (ornamental: Smyr 60)black glazed oinochoe with added red and white (Nauk 12, Fig. 9)dish with meander on the rim (Klaz 01)rosette bowl (Smyr 32, Fig. 26)Six further examples were found at Berezan (Bere 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,

138, Posamentir Figs 1 top left, 13, 14 top).131

Subgroup gpainted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the

London Dinos group: Smyr 22, Bere 178,132 Fig. 15)painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style combining

reservation and Corinthianising black-figure techniques (Bere001)133

painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the‘Borysthenes amphorae’: Bere 174, Fig. 28)134

painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Smyr 47)painted pottery of Archaic Lydian style (marbled ware: Smyr 58)Grey ware of the Archaic period (Nauk 64, Fig. 10)terracotta figurine of the Archaic period (Nauk 77, Fig. 11)One further example found at Sardis (Sard 41) and three from Berezan

(Bere 101, 105 [Posamentir Fig.1 top right], 126).135

Page 125: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 117

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

Appendix 2Dinoi of the London Dinos group andstylistically related vesselsThis list is based on those compiled by Ch. Kardara, E. Walter-Karydi andK. Ýren,136 augmenting their compilations with further, partlyunpublished pieces and discussing questionable attributions.

Amathus1. Dinos and stand, Nicosia, inv. 1966/X-29/1: Karageorghis 1961, 312, fig.65; Dikaios 1961/62, 38, fig. 11; Nicolau 1967, 400, pl. 115.11; Walter-Karydi1970, 3 no. 4; Gjerstad 1977, 34-5 no. 160, pl. 18.1; Thalmann 1977, 74, 77no. 111 (dinos), no. 112 (stand), pl. 17.1-3; Stampolidis et al. 1998, 137 no.93.Stylistically related vessels of different shape1. Amphora: Thalmann 1977, 77, pl. 17.4; Ýren 2002, 198 no. 1.2. Amphora: Thalmann 1977, 77, pl. 17.10; Ýren 2002, 198 no. 2.3. Oinochoe or small amphora: Thalmann 1977, 77 no. 113, pl. 17, 5-8; Ýren2002, 199 no. 7. (Ýren detached these two fragments from the shoulderand belly fragments, which had been attributed to the same vessel byThalmann, and classified them as dinoi without having seen them.Thalmann, however, did not mention glaze on the inside of these twopieces, whereas he stated that the dinos ibid. 77 no. 111 was glazed on theinterior.)AshkelonStylistically related vessels of uncertain shape1. Wall fragments: Stager 1996, 67, 69, fig. 10 (the 2 fragments below atthe right); Ýren 2002, 185-6, 199 no. 8, fig. 10a (Ýren classified the 2fragments as parts of a dinos, but this is uncertain considering thesmallness of the sherds).AssosStylistically related vessels of uncertain shape1. Wall fragment of a closed vessel:Utili 1999, 196, 307 no. 314, fig. 22 (theincline of the piece on the drawing seems too steep, since the tonguessuggest that it belongs to the upper end of the body); Ýren 2002, 199 no. 9.2. Wall fragment of closed vessel: Utili 1999, 199 no. 334, fig. 23 (thefragmentary ornament is not the ‘Rest einer Lotosblüte’, but a row oftongues; Ýren 2002, 199 no. 10.3. Wall fragments of a closed vessel: Utili 1999, 198 no. 333a+b, fig. 23;Ýren 2002, 199 no. 11. Ýren classified the three fragments Assos nos 1-3 as parts of dinoi,although Utili considered them explicitly parts of closed vessels.Berezan1. Rim and wall fragment of a dinos, Odessa, Arkheologicheskii Muzeiinv. 34396, 36924: Kopeikina 1970b, 562, 565, pl. 2.1; Kopeikina 1982, 27,fig. 22; Ýren 2002, 182, 184, 199 no. 15, fig. 14. (These fragments havesubsequently been joined).2. Three wall sherds of a dinos: St. Petersburg, Hermitage inv. Á.68-27:Kopeikina 1970b, 563, 565, pl. 2.2; Kopeikina 1982, 27, fig. 23a (on thisfigure, only two fragments are shown); Ýren 2002, 182, 184, 199 no. 16.3. Two large rim and wall fragments of a dinos: St. Petersburg,Hermitage Inv. Áåð. 75-7: Kopeikina 1981, 196, fig. 4a; Kopeikina 1982, 27,fig. 23 á; Ýren 2002, 199 no. 17; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, fig. 2,sample no. 106, provenance group G.4. Large wall fragment of a dinos, Odessa, Arkheologicheskii Muzei inv.A-34903+39640: Kopeikina 1982, 27 fig. 23 â; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 19.5. Reconstructed dinos, Hermitage Inv. Á. 66-7: Kopeikina 1970b, 563,565, pl. 1.4; Kopeikina 1982, 27, fig. 24; Ýren 2002, 185, 199 no. 14.6. Wall fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. B.91.233:Solovyov 1999, 48-9, fig. 29.2; Solovyov 2001, 126, fig. 6; Ýren 2002, 200no. 22.7. Wall fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. B.82.8:Solovyov 1999, 48-9, fig. 29.1; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 20.8. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. B.88.20:Solovyov 1999, 49-50, fig. 32 (bottom right); Solovyov 2001, 126, fig. 8(bottom right); Ýren 2002, 200 no. 21.9. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, Halle, inv. 480 (Fig. 15), sample no. Bere178 (provenance group g): Kerschner 2006 .10. Wall fragment of a dinos: Kopeikina 1970b, 563, 565, pl. 1.3; Ýren 2002,199 no. 18.11.Wall fragment of a dinos, Kiev, Institut Arkheologii inv. Á.63-1003:Kopeikina 1970b, 563, 565, pl. 1.5; Ýren 2002, 185, 199 no. 13.12. Reconstructed dinos in Odessa, Arkheologicheskii Muzei.13. Wall fragment of a dinos, unpublished, excavation K. Marchenko1999.137

14. Rim fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage: Posamentir and

Solovyov 2006, fig. 3, sample no. 109, provenance group G.15. Wall fragments of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage: Posamentir andSolovyov 2006, fig. 4, sample no. 110, provenance group G.16. Several further fragments of dinoi were announced by Kopeikina1970b, 565: ‘Auf Berezan wurden viele Dinos-Fragmente gefunden, dieman der sogenannten Gruppe des ‘Londoner Dinos’ zuschreiben kann.’;cf. Kopeikina 1982, 27. Yet R. Posamentir (in this volume; Posamentir andSolovyov 2006) has shown that the many fragments stored in theHermitage do not represent that many individual vessels, but belong to atleast 5 dinoi. Stylistically related1. Wall fragment of a dinos, Odessa, Arkheologicheskii Muzei inv. A-36082: Kopeikina 1982, 25, 29, fig. 19b; Kopeikina 1986, 28-9, pl. 1.1a(top); Ýren 2002, 172-4, 199 no. 12.Gravisca1. Rim and wall fragments of a dinos and a stand: Boitani Visentini 1978,216-7 pl. 90.1; Boldrini 1994, 90-3 no. 157; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 23.GryneionStylistically related vessels of uncertain shape1. Lekythos: Ýren 2002, 174-7, 205 no. 86, figs 7-8.Ikaria, Sanctuary of Artemis Tauropolis1. Wall fragment of a dinos: Politis 1939, 132, fig. 9; Kardara 1963, 275;Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 12; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 25.Istros1. Wall fragment of a dinos: Lambrino 1938, 256-7 no. 13, fig. 222; Kardara1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 11; Ploug 1973, 52 n. 337; Alexandrescu1978, 41 no. 53, pl. 5; Dupont 1983, 30, fig. 2; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 24.Kameiros (?)1. Dinos. London, British Museum GR 1848.6-19.1 (Fig. 2): Kinch 1914,192-3, 234, figs 73, 118e; Price 1924, 193-4, fig. 22 (‘Cameiros’); Schiering1957, 14, pl. 9.1; Kardara 1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 2(‘unbekannter Herkunft’); Boardman 1970, 92-4, pl. 44.5; Kopeikina1982, 27, fig. 21; Schiering 1981-3, 202, 205, 207-8, pl. A; Akurgal 1993, pl.114; Ýren 2002, 166, 182, 184-5, 203-4 no. 68, figs 1, 18.Katane1. Rim and wall fragments of a dinos (meander on the rim, meanderhooks and tongues on the shoulder): Catania, Soprintendenza inv. KC6300, unpublished.2. Shoulder fragment (with tongues) of a dinos: Catania,Soprintendenza Inv. KC 6301, unpublished.Both Katane nos 1-2 were excavated by G. Rizza (cf. the preliminaryreport Rizza 1960) and are prepared for publication by A. Pautasso(Catania), whom I thank for the permission to mention these pieces.Both have been analysed in the meantime and yielded the elementpattern G.Larisa on Hermos1. Wall fragment of a dinos, Göttingen, Archäologische Sammlung inv.7/91: Ýren 2002, 177, 200 no. 27, fig. 9b.Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape1. Benoit 1965, 228-9, 294-5, pls 4.2, 37.3; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 29.Stylistically related vessels of different shape1. Fragment of an olpe: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 69, fig. 18; Ýren 2002,177, 206.2. Fragment of an oinochoe: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 69, pl. 21.17;Walter 1968, 77-8 (considered to be a krater); Walter-Karydi 1973, 4(considered to be a krater); Schiering 1981-3, 210 n. 19; Kerschner 1997a,23 n. 94; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 26 (Ýren listed this fragment among the dinoi,although Schefold described it as an oinochoe).3. Fragment of a small oinochoe: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 68, pl. 20.8;Ýren 2002, 200 no. 28 (Ýren classified this fragment as dinos, althoughSchefold published it as a small oinochoe).Málaga1. Rim fragment of a dinos, Málaga Inv. 10073: Gran-Aymerich 1988, 209,fig. 9.1; Olmos 1989, 500, 502, 521, fig. 7; Domínguez and Sánchez 2001,27, fig. 24.1; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 30.Massalia1. Wall fragment of a dinos: Vasseur 1914, 28-9, pls 5.6-7; 6.1; Villard1960, 39; Benoit 1965, 139-40, pl. 6.2; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 14; Ýren2002, 200 no. 31.2. Wall fragment of a dinos: M. Derain in Hesnard et al. 1999, 24 (top left).Stylistically related vessels of different shape1. Rim and wall fragment of a cup with concave walls, excavation Rue dela Cathédrale, inv. 549: Musée d’Histoire de Marseille 1990, 16 (‘calice deChios’); Gantès 1999, 369, 378, fig. 2.3 (‘canthare ou ... tasse à anse’). Megara Hyblaia1. Shoulder fragment (with tongues) and wall fragments (notreproduced), inv. 4/184 – 4/186: Vallet and Villard 1964, 79, pl. 65.3

Page 126: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

118 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

(It seems doubtful if the rim fragments ibid. 79, pl. 65.1-2 belong to thesame vessel, as suggested by the authors).2. Wall fragment (with grazing wild goat), inv. 6/3: Vallet and Villard1964, 85, pl. 72.4.3. Shoulder fragment (with meander hooks and tongues), inv. 6/5,possibly from the same vessel as no. 2: Vallet and Villard 1964, 85, pl. 72.7.Mytilene1. Wall fragment of a dinos, inv. T86/17 L12 P25: Schaus 1992, 359, 361 no.6, pl. 80; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 33.2. Wall fragment of a Dinos (?): Schefold 1933, 154, fig. 11; Kardara 1963,275; Ýren 2002, 182, 184, 200 no. 32.Naukratis1. Rim fragment of a dinos: Boston, Museum of Fine Arts Inv. 86.538 (77):Fairbanks 1928, 102 no. 307.2, pl. 30; Walter-Karydi 1973, 138 no. 696, pl.98 (considered to be Chiot).2. Wall fragment of a dinos, London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1270(Fig. 3): Price 1924, 193, fig. 20; Homann-Wedeking 1938, 16 no. P1;Kardara 1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 1; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 39.3. Large wall fragment of a dinos, London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1288 (Fig. 4): Price 1924, 193, fig. 21; Homann-Wedeking 1938, 16 no. P3;Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 3, pl. 8.2; Ýren 2002, 182, 185, 201 no. 40.4. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Boston, Museumof Fine Arts inv. 86.527 (54): Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.1, pl. 34; Kardara1963, 275; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 5; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 35.5. Wall fragment of a dinos (?), formerly Den Haag, Museum Scheurleer:Prins de Jong 1925, 46; Scheurleer 1931, II D, pl. 2.8; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3no. 6; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 43.6. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Oxford,Ashmolean Museum inv. C 119.110: E.R. Price in Beazley et al. 1931, II D, pl.4.3; Kardara 1963, 275; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 7; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 44.7. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Brussels, Muséedu Cinquantenaire inv. A 1761: Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, II D, pl. 3.14;Kardara 1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 8; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 41.8. Small wall fragment, presumably of a dinos (?), Heidelberg,Universität inv. 39: Schauenburg 1954, 11 no. 26, pl. 2.26; Kardara 1963,276; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 10; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 42.9. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Boston, Museumof Fine Arts inv. 88.949 (55): Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.3, pl. 34; Ýren2002, 201 no. 37.10. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Boston, Museumof Fine Arts inv. 88.949 (55): Fairbanks 1928, 111 no. 321.11, pl. 34; Kardara1963, 275; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 38.11. Wall fragment of a dinos?, London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.470(Fig. 5): Kardara 1963, 276.12. Wall fragment of a dinos (?), Cambridge, Museum of ClassicalArchaeology NA 33: Kardara 1963, 276.13. Wall fragment of a dinos (?), London, British Museum GR 1924.12-1.11(Fig. 6): Kardara 1963, 276.14. Rim fragment of a dinos, London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1294(Fig. 8), sample no. Nauk 13 (provenance group G).Stylistically related vessels of different shape1. Askos. London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.462 (Fig. 7): Gardner1888, 40, pl. 5.1; Price 1924, 193; Schiering 1957, 14, 27, pl. 13.4; Kardara1963, 275 no. 1; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 18, pl. 3.6.2. Wall fragment and handle of a krater (?), Boston, Museum of Fine ArtsInv. 88.949 (55): Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.2, pl. 34; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 37(Ýren classified the fragment as dinos, although it has a horizontalhandle).Pantikapaion1. Wall fragment of a dinos, inv. M45 CM IV/4, no. 2791 (or 4791 accordingto Tsvetaeva): Tsvetaeva 1957, 183-4, 186, fig. 2a.2 (‘delossko-melosskoikeramiki’); Sidorova 1962, 107-8, fig. 1.1 (‘master Londonskogo dinosa’).2. Wall fragment of a dinos, inv. M52 BM XIV/14, No. 369: Sidorova 1962,107-8, fig. 1.2 (‘dinos or krater’).Phokaia1. Wall fragment, presumably of a dinos: Jacobsthal and Neuffer 1933, 14,fig. 6a; Schiering 1957, 14, 116 with n. 96; Walter 1968, 79, 128 no. 628, pl.130 (‘Amphora ?’); Walter-Karydi 1970, 3, 6 no. 13, pl. 4.5 (‘Dinos’); Ýren2002, 202 no. 58; Kerschner 2004, 138.2. Wall fragment of a dinos (with remnants of an animal frieze and anarrative scene with human figures, interpreted as judgment of Paris byAkurgal): Akurgal 1961, 180, fig. 128; Walter-Karydi 1970, 6-7, 12-3, 18, pl.8.3 (erroneously considered as a chalice, as the first published photosuggested a horizontal upper edge); Akurgal 1987, 25, pl. 3b; Akurgal 1993,pl. 103d; idem in Musée d’Histoire de Marseille 1995, 38; Ýren 2002, 186,203 no. 59; Kerschner 2004, 138.3. Wall fragments of a dinos (?) (with a frieze of dancing girls below a

meander and a running spiral): Akurgal 1961, 180, figs 129-30; Langlotz1966, 27, figs 25, 27; Langlotz, 1969, 381; Walter-Karydi 1970, 7, pl. 8.5;Langlotz 1975, 197, pl. 63.3; Akurgal 1993, fig. 103a-c; idem in Muséed’Histoire de Marseille 1995, 38; Kerschner 2004, 138-9. E. Langlotz and E.Walter-Karydi erroneously considered these fragments to be parts of achalice, judging from the first published photos suggesting a horizontalupper edge.4. Wall fragment of a dinos, inv. Foça 1956 H çukuru Güney çýkma 650-550: unpublished; sample no. Phok 28, provenance group G.5. Rim fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 201 no. 45, fig. 13a.6. Rim fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 201 no. 46, fig. 13b.7. Rim fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 202 no. 47, fig. 13c.8. Rim fragments of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 202 no. 48, fig. 13d.9. Shoulder fragments of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi Inv. Foça 1955:Ýren 2002, 202 no. 49, fig. 13e.10. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955:Ýren 2002, 202 no. 50, fig. 13f.11. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955:Ýren 2002, 202 no. 51, fig. 13g.12. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955:Ýren 2002, 202 no. 52, fig. 13h.13. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 202 no. 53, fig. 13i.14. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 202 no. 54, fig. 13j.15. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 202 no. 55, fig. 10b.16. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 202 no. 56, fig. 15a.17. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 202 no. 57, fig. 13k.18. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren2002, 203 no. 60, fig. 13l.Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape1. Wall fragment: Ö. Özyiðit 1993, 5, fig. 13 (2nd row, at the right edge).Stylistically related vessels of different shape2. Shoulder fragment of a closed vessel (with a sphinx), inv. Foça 1955 Oçukuru Kuyu I: unpublished, sample no. Phok 29, provenance group G.3. Handle fragment of a closed vessel, inv. Foça 1956 D çukuru D Odasý290-255: unpublished, sample no. Phok 31, provenance group G.Pitane1. Dinos, Ýzmir, Arkeoloji müzesi inv. 5018: Dedeoðlu 1993, 21; Cook andDupont 1998, 60-1, fig. 8.23; Ýren 2002, 167, 169, 178, 182, 184, 203 no. 62,fig. 3.2. Dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. 5794: Akurgal 1987, 24, pl. 4a, 10d;Akurgal 1993, pl. 112; Ýren 2002, 185, 203 no. 61, fig. 2.Stylistically related vessels of different shape1. Oinochoe: Ýren 2002, 178-9, 204 no. 79, fig. 11.Pyrrha on Lesbos1. Several fragments of a dinos, Göttingen, Archäologisches Institut derUniversität: Schiering 1967, 432-3, fig. 28; Walter 1968, 78, 128 no. 631, pl.131; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4, pl. 4.1-2; Schiering 1981-3; Kerschner 1997a, 15,24, 27 no. G, fig. 13; Ýren 2002, 184, 203 no. 63, figs 4-5.2. Rim fragment of a dinos, Göttingen, Archäologisches Institut derUniversität: Ýren 2002, 203 no. 64, fig. 9a.Saint-Blaise1. Wall fragments of a dinos: Bouloumié 1992, 212, 214 no. 574, fig. 55. 2. Wall fragment of a dinos: Bouloumié 1992, 212, 214 no. 575, fig. 55. Thissmall fragment may belong to the same vessel as no. 1, but this cannot beverified, since the exact finding spot of no. 2 is not known.Stylistically related vessels of different shape1. Wall fragment of an oinochoe: Rolland 1964, 571-2, fig. 43; Bouloumié1992, 224, 227 no. 613, fig. 59. Selinus1. Wall fragment, probably of a dinos: Rallo 1976/7, 730, pl. 164.2.Wall fragment, probably of a dinos: Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 345-6, 359 no.3489, pl. 63; Ýren 2002, 203 no. 66.2. Wall fragment, probably of a dinos: Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 345-6, 359no. 3490 (possibly belonging to the same vessel as no. 3); Ýren 2002, 203 no.67.Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape1. Salinas 1884, 330, pl. 5.41; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 15; Ýren 2002, 203no. 65.

Page 127: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 119

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

Stylistically related vessels of different shape1. Lower part of an oinochoe: Gàbrici 1927, 315, pl. 82, 2; Kardara 1963,274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 17, pl. 5.2; Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 345-6 no.3483a-d, pls 63, 84; Ýren 2002, 181, 205 no. 81. Ýren, making out NorthIonian features in the rendering of the wild goat, assumes that ‘das Gefäßaus einer nordionischen Werkstatt stammen [muss]’. There are,however, also Aiolian characteristics, especially the abstract rectangularshape of the purple spots on the bodies of the animals and the large,dense filling ornaments with a predilection for the hook square and thecross with inserted chevrons. This mixing of elements of different stylessuggests that the painter migrated from one region to the other, thusbeing familiar with both the North Ionian and the Aiolian style. A similarcase was revealed by the NAA series on the group of the ‘Borysthenesamphorae’, cf. above and Kerschner 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov2006. 2. Two rim fragments, presumably from the same dish: Gàbrici 1927, 314nos 2-2a, pl. 81; Kardara 1963, 276 nos 1-2; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 nos 19-20, pl. 3.4, 7; Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 358-9 no. 3488; Gàbrici, who alonesaw the original pieces, thought they were parts of the same dish,whereas Kardara and Walter-Karydi assumed the contrary; Dehl-vonKaenel leaves the question undecided.Smyrna1. Akurgal et al. 2002, 87-8, 109-10 no. 73, fig. 40, pl. 6.Akurgal et al. 2002, 87-8, 112 no. 84, fig. 55, pl. 8.Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape1. Wall fragment, possibly from the upper part of a dinos stand, inv. BYR75 B3 *10.42 Env K 8 20: unpublished, sample no. Smyr 45, provenancegroup G.Unknown provenance 1. Antikenmuseum Basel inv. BS 452: Schefold 1966, 57; Walter-Karydi1970, 3-4, pls 1-2, 3.1, 3.3; Akurgal 1987, 24-5, pl. 4b; Akurgal 1993, pl. 113;Ýren 2002, 166, 204 no. 69; Ýren 2002, 204 no. 69.

The following pieces should be eliminated from the list of Walter-Karydi 1970, 3-4:No. 9: Stevenson 1890/1, 100-2, fig. 36. Neither the filling ornaments northe square pattern on the dividing band are consistent with the LondonDinos group (cf. Ýren 2002, figs 19-21).No. 16: Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.4, pl. 34. The fragment belongs to thelate phase of the North Ionian Wild Goat style (NiA) using the black-figure technique.No. 21 (two fragments of a dish found in the sanctuary of Parthenos inNeapolis / Kavalla): Bakalakis 1937, 61, fig. 3; Bakalakis 1938, 114-5, figs 6,7.1. The fragments show no clear characteristics of Aiolian vase-painting,where the shape is rare. This dish might have been made in the regionwhere it was found, on Thasos or in its peraea.

Illustration creditsFig. 1: I.E. Kowalleck (Vienna) after a sketch by the author; Figs 2-11:British Museum; Figs 13-14, 16-19, 21-24: Göttingen, ArchäologischesInstitut der Universität, photo: S. Eckardt; Figs 15, 30: Robertinum derMartin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, photo: H. Löhr (Halle); Figs20, 27: M. Akurgal (Ýzmir), photo: author; Fig.26: author; Figs 25, 29-30:M. Frasca (Catania); Fig. 31: I. Benda-Weber (ÖAI, Vienna) after a sketchby the author; Fig. 32: author, photo: U. Gericks (Münster); Figs 33-34: H.Mommsen (Bonn).

Notes* First of all I want to thank the organisers of the 28th British Museum

Classical Colloquium, U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin), A. Villing and D.Williams (London) for their kind invitation to participate and forcreating the unparalleled possibility of discussing ceramic questionsholding the original pots in one’s hands. Furthermore I thank H.Mommsen (Bonn) for hundreds of analyses and innumerableexplanations during 15 years of collaboration in our archaeometricproject on the pottery centres of the East Aegean. M. Akurgal (Ýzmir)and M. Frasca (Catania) kindly allowed me to publish samples fromKyme, Phokaia and Smyrna, A. Villing and D. Williams four samplesfrom Naukratis in the British Museum (Nauk 12, 13, 64, 77). Anexhaustive publication of these pieces together with them is inpreparation. W. Geominy (Akademisches Kunstmuseum derUniversität Bonn) and D. Graepler (Archäologisches Institut derUniversität Göttingen) kindly gave me the permission to takesamples of the fragments from Phokaia and Larisa in theircollections, providing me also practical support. I thank M. Akurgal,M. Frasca, D. Graepler, H. Löhr (Halle), A. Villing and D. Williams for

photographs. D. Hertel (Bochum) and A. Pautasso (Catania) kindlygave me information on pieces they are preparing for publication.Concerning the spelling of Greek toponyms, I have tried to retain theGreek version, avoiding Latinisation, as Hall 1997, xv proposed.

1 Huxley 1966, 36-9; Cook 1975, 776-80; Coldstream 1977, 262;Gschnitzer and Schwertheim 1996, 337-9.

2 Cook 1973, 360-3; Cook 1975, 781-2; Gschnitzer and Schwertheim1996, 339; Arslan and Sevinç 2003, 232-5, 248-9.

3 Petrie 1886b; Gardner 1888; Hogarth 1898/9. On the history ofresearch on East Greek pottery: Cook 1997, 295-300; Cook andDupont 1998, 5-7; Akurgal et al. 2002, 28-36.

4 Price 1924, 193-4, figs 20-2.5 Price 1924, 193.6 Homann-Wedeking 1938, 16: ‘Gruppe P’; he added an amphora from

Saqqara (no. P 5), which, however, does not go with this group, asSchiering 1957, 116 n. 95 already observed.

7 Schiering 1957, 14, pl. 9.1.8 Sidorova 1962, 107-8, fig. 1.1-2.9 Kadara 1963, 271-6, figs 258-65.10 Schefold 1966, 57.11 Walter-Karydi 1970.12 Kopeikina 1970b, 562-5, pls 1.3-5; 2.1-2. She thinks that these dinoi

were produced in several workshops of the ‘North Ionian school ofthe Rhodo-Ionian pottery’. On the pottery finds from Berezan cf.Posamentir and Solovyov 2006 and the contribution of R.Posamentir in this volume.

13 Schiering 1981-3; yet he stills argues in favour of ‘migratingworkshops’ (ibid. 209). On the dinos from Pyrrha cf. Ýren 2002, 170-3, 197, 203 no. 63, figs 4-5 (‘Gruppe A oder die Gruppe der Steinböckemit den ausgesparten Hörnern’). On South Ionian models:Kerschner 1997a, 23-5 (‘group of the volute dinoi’).

14 Cook and Dupont 1998, 60-1, fig. 8.23.15 Ýren 2002.16 The identification goes back to Ramsay 1881, 279-83. Yet Cook

1958/9, 20-1 n. 47, voiced doubts: ‘If not Larisa, this site should beCyllene.’ Cf. Cook and Dupont 1998, 5, who refer to the site only as‘Larisa’.

17 Boehlau and Schefold 1942. Schefold used for his publication thenotes of the late J. Boehlau (ibid. IX-X). His detailed analysis wasbased mostly on stylistic criteria for lack of stratigraphy, cf. ibid. 1-2,58-9. The stratigraphic method was applied only in the excavation of1932, cf. Schefold 1933, 141 (‘Dalmans sorgfältige Schichtengrabung,die sich nach seinem Auftrag auf eine Nachuntersuchung von 1902nur teilweise freigelegten Teilen der Akropolis beschränkte...’).

18 Akurgal 1960; Cook and Blackman 1964/5, 35-6, fig. 5; Metzger 1969,107-8, pls 61-2; Akurgal 1987, 24-5 pl. 4.10-1, 18, 103-5; Akurgal 1993,pl. 12.111-2, 115-9. On earlier excavations at the site: Pottier et al. 1887,504-5 figs 57-8.

19 Ýren 2003.20 Ýren 2003, 9-56.21 On the ceramic finds: Utili 1999, 6-95, 145-267, figs 1-28, 30-44

(including a bibliography of articles in preliminary reports).22 Myrina: Rayet 1884; Pottier et al. 1887, 232-3, 499-504, figs 36, 55-6,

pl. 51. Gryneion: Ýren 2002, 174-6, 205 nos 85-6, figs 6-8; Ýren 2003, 4,9-10, 12, 14, 16-8, 24, 50-1, 65, 76, 83, 85, 92, 94, 97-8, 155-6, 164-5, 167,175-9, 182, 184-5, 188, 190-1, nos 12, 15, 46, 93, 123, 125, 129, 131, 139,140, 176, 179, 203-4, 206, 244-6, 288, 296, 322, 333, 354, 369-70, fig.17-8, 24, pl. B, 1, 3, 24, 31, 33-4, 43, 47, 50-1, 59-61, 67-8, 71.

23 On Geometric and Archaic pottery finds from early excavations:Dümmler 1888; Reinach 1889; Cook 1954, 27-8, pl. 14; Akurgal 1956a,11-4; Akurgal 1956b, 23-4; Bouzek 1974, 77, pls 17-8. On the history ofthe excavations at Kyme: Ýdil 1989, 526-8; Frasca 1998, 273-5.

24 Strabo 13.3.6 (translated by H.L. Jones).25 Frasca 1993; Frasca 1998; Frasca 2000. 26 On Geometric and Archaic pottery from Lesbos: Mytilene: Schefold

1933, 151-2, 154, 157, figs 11-2; Schaus 1992. Methymna: Lamb 1932, 4-9, fig. 1-3; Buchholz 1975, 90-105, figs 25-9, pls 16-17. Antissa: Lamb1931/2, 51-60, figs 6-9, pls 20-4. Pyrrha: Schiering 1981-3; Schiering1989; Utili 2002. For an overview on Lesbos during the Geometricand Archaic periods: Spencer 1995.

27 Spencer 1995, 301. Cf. Lamb 1932; Schaus 1992, 356; Bayne 2000, 211-17, 307.

28 E.g. Dugas 1912a, 519: ‘en raison des lieux de trouvaille’; Homann-Wedeking 1940, 28: ‘Es versteht sich, daß für die landschaftlicheBestimmung von Denkmälern der Fundort das erste Argument ist.’;Walter 1968, 9: ‘Um die Gefäße nach Landschaften zu scheiden, darfman nicht ausgehen von ostgriechischen Gefäßen in europäischen

Page 128: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

120 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

Museen,... sondern allein von den Gefäßen und Scherben derGrabungsorte.’; Ýren 2003, 50, 130: ‘Bevor keine Tonanalysen deraiolischen Keramik durchgeführt worden sind und konkreteErgebnisse vorliegen, kann man Vermutungen über die Herkunft desaiolischen Tierfriesstils nur nach den Fundstücken äußern.’

29 Kerschner et al. 1993; Akurgal et al., 63-72; Kerschner (forthcoming).30 See already Cook 1959, 118, 123.31 Schefold 1942, 132: ‘Larisa selbst war gewiß nicht der Hauptort der

Aiolis. In der geschichtlichen Überlieferung ist es Kyme, man darfaber damit rechnen, daß die noch bedeutendere ionische StadtPhokaia zum gleichen Kunstkreis gehörte, vielleicht sogar führend inihm war.’; Walter-Karydi 1970, 10: ‘Fragt man nach den Zentrenäolischer Kunst, so scheint Phokäa ... an der kleinasiatisch-äolischenKüste führend gewesen zu sein.’; Ýren 2002, 165, 194, 197 considersPhokaia as home of the London Dinos group, which he calls ‘pseudo-Aiolian’, see also Ýren 2003, 157.

32 Cook and Dupont 1998, 56-7.33 Dupont 1983, 22-3.34 Boardman 1978a; J. Boardman in Jones 1986.35 Cf. the contributions by R. Attula, R. Posamentir, U. Schlotzhauer, A.

Villing, S. Weber and D. Williams in this volume. Participants of thenetwork on archaeometric provenance studies of East Greek andWestern Anatolian pottery are M. Akurgal (Ýzmir), R. Attula(Greifswald), T. Bakýr (Ýzmir), M. Berg Briese (Odense), J.Boardman (Oxford), N. Cahill (Madison), M. Frasca (Catania), C.H.Greenewalt, Jr. (Berkeley), G. Gürtekin-Demir (Ýzmir), M.-C. Lentini(Giardini Naxos), H. Mommsen (Bonn), W.-D. Niemeier (Athen), A.Pautasso (Catania), R. Posamentir (Istanbul), A. Ramage (Ithaca),M. Rautman (Columbia), U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin), M. Vakhtina (St.Petersburg), A. Villing (London), S. Weber (Mainz) and D. Williams(London).

36 Cf. the contribution by H. Mommsen and the present author in thisvolume.

37 Coldstream 1977, 262. Cf. Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 59, 170;Coldstream 1968, 297-8 (‘it must therefore remain an open questionwhether any Aeolian city ... produced any painted pottery earlierthan the Subgeometric from Buruncuk’); Cook and Dupont 1998, 23;Ýren 2003, 8 (considers the possibility that ‘einige Werkstätten ...vielleicht schon am Ende des 8. Jhs. ihre Tätigkeit aufnahmen’).Only Frasca 2000, 394, fig. 280 thinks that at Kyme ‘nella produzionelocale accanto al bucchero sembra presente sin dagli inizi anche laceramica dipinta.’ He considered the krater Kyme 08 as a localproduct. The element pattern of this sample is still a chemical loner.

38 Dugas 1912a, 508-9; Coldstream 1968, 298; Bouzek 1974, 77;Coldstream 1977, 263-4; Cook 1998, 23: ‘... in Aeolis, there is so far noevidence for the making of Geometric painted pottery...’; Frasca1998, 276, fig. 8 (‘inducono a pensare ad una provenienza smirnea’);Ýren 2003, 8 (‘Die anderen spätgeometrischen Gefäße aus Kyme undMyrina erwecken zweifellos auf den ersten Blick den Eindruck derImportstücke.’).

39 Frasca 2000, 394, fig. 280. He thought that the piece might be localbecause of its greyish fabric. Against: Ýren 2003, 8.

40 Unpublished.41 Inv. 88.IV.26.1, sample no. Kyme 07; Frasca 1993, 60-1, fig. 25; Frasca

1998, 275-6, fig. 7; Frasca 2000, 394-5, fig. 281.42 Ýren 2003, 156-8, table 1.43 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 59-61, pls 13-15.44 Ýren 2003, 9-56.45 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 60, pl. 14.7 (‘subgeometrisch’); Ýren

2003, 7, 163 no. 4 (‘aiolisch-geometrische Keramik’; ‘kannsubgeometrisch sein’).

46 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 60, pl. 14.6 (‘subgeometrisch’); Ýren2003, 16, 18, 24, 167 no. 50 (‘Punktstil II’).

47 Inv. Foça 1955 O çuk. B od. Unpublished.48 Cf. Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 193.49 Ýren 2003, 155.50 Ýren 2003, 131, 157.51 British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1294, unpublished; cf. the dinoi in

Basle: Walter-Karydi 1970, pl. 3.1 and Berezan: Posamentir andSolovyov 2006, fig. 2 left. For a compilation of the rim ornaments seeÝren 2002, 187, fig. 19a-d.

52 Akurgal 1961, 180, fig. 128; Walter-Karydi 1970, 6-7, 12-3, 18, pl. 8.3(erroneously considered as a chalice, as the first published photosuggested a horizontal upper edge); Akurgal 1987, 25, pl. 3b.

53 Akurgal et al. 2002, 109-10 no. 73, fig. 40, pl. 6.54 Akurgal et al. 2002, 112 no. 84, fig. 55, pl. 8.55 Inv. Foça 1955 O çukuru Kuyu I. Unpublished.

56 The small shoulder fragment was found at Berezan by E. v. Stern,who donated it to the Robertinum at Halle (inv. 480), cf. Kerschner2006.

57 Sample nos Bere 106, 109, 110; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.58 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 77, pl. 29.4.59 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 78, pl. 30.10-11.60 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 78, pl. 30.2.61 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 66-7, pl. 19.1.62 Inv. BYR 74 ‘M’ Döküntü. Unpublished. For the decoration cf. the

dinoi Ýren 2003, 80, 175 nos 125-6, fig. 36, pl. 32.63 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 97, pl. 42.1.64 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 97, pl. 42.2.65 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 91-3, pls 39-40 (‘einheimische

dunkelgrundige Keramik’); Ýren 2003, 80-1, 175 no. 128, pl. 32; 178-9no. 203, pl. 59.

66 E.g. Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 91-2, pl. 39.3-4.67 British Museum GR 1888.6-1.573b,c; unpublished.68 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, fig. 3.69 Ýren 2002, 178-9, 204 no. 79, fig. 11.70 Kinch 1914, 190-2, pl. 11.1-3.71 Payne 1931, 19-20, 277; Villard 1966, 49-50, pls 47.1-2, 48.3, 49; Amyx

1988, 39-40.72 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 92, pl. 40.12.73 E.g. Graeve 1973/4, 88, 103-4 nos 90-2, pl. 27; Walter-Karydi 1973, 19-

20, 81, fig. 23, pls 36.277, 36.287, 81.941, 81.943; Kerschner 1997b, 125-7, 186 no. 38, fig. 21, pl. 5.

74 Boardman 1967, 119 nos 199-204, pl. 32; 123, 125 nos 298-301, pl. 37(Emporio); Kerschner 1999, 20-1, 41 no. 32, fig. 10 (Miletos).

75 Lemos 1991, 118-24, pls 59-60, 64, 66-7, 69-73, 75-7, 79, 83-4, 87. Forkantharoi and phialai in light on dark techique see Lemos 1991, 119,121, pl. 90.

76 Kinch 1914, 168-88, figs 58-72, pls 10, 12; Cook and Dupont 1998, 114-5.

77 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 157, pl. 52.6.78 Inv. K 95.VIII.1.R. Unpublished.79 Akurgal et al. 2002, 85, 104 no. 51, pl. 3.80 Unpublished fragment from the excavations of E. Akurgal, inv. 1956

Foça D a odasý.81 Inv. 88.IV.29.5. Unpublished, for a similar piece: Frasca 1993, 65 no.

33, fig. 11a.82 Unpublished, for comparable pieces: Boehlau and Schefold 1942,

103-6, fig. 31, pl. 45 (‘Graue Becken’); Frasca 1993, 63 no. 12, fig. 3b.Further examples of Aiolian Grey ware, found at Larisa, wereanalysed by D. Hertel and H. Mommsen.

83 British Museum GR 1888.6-1.637; unpublished. The irregular shapeof the bars may point to a figured decoration (A. Villing). Smallimpressed circles occur on Grey ware from Larisa: Boehlau andSchefold 1942, 121, 127, pl. 44.8,10-11,19, where fenestrated stands arerepresented, too: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 128, pl. 48, 19-22.

84 Sample no. Phok 32, inv. Foça D 235-245, an unpublished fragmentfrom E. Akurgal’s excavations at Phokaia, decorated with a lotus-palmette-frieze of Late Archaic style.

85 British Museum Inv. GR 1888.6-1.658; Gardner 1888, 58, pl. 14.5. Thepreserved height is 6.4 cm. The body of the figure, the back of thehead and the ears are lost. The details of the head were mouldedwith the fingers in small flat pieces of clay that were added to ahollow core. Cf. the few early terracottas from Larisa: Boehlau andSchefold 1942, 25-32, pl. 4-6.

86 Cf. the faces of the plastic kantharoi and mugs: Himmelmann 1973,28, colour pl. 2; Walter-Karydi 1973, 30, 131 no. 485, pl. 57;Schlotzhauer 1999, 236 no. 19, fig. 24; Schlotzhauer (forthcoming a).Cf. also the bearded heads of the triple-bodied monster from theAthenian Acropolis: Boardman 1978b, 154, fig. 193; Rolley 1994, 194,fig. 6.

87 G.M.A. Hanfmann in Hanfmann 1983, 80, figs 142-3.88 Walter 1968, 77-9 (‘Larisäisch’); Walter-Karydi 1970, 10, 14; Akurgal

1987, 25; Cook and Dupont 1998, 57-61; Ýren 2003, 50, 131, 157. K.Schefold, although dealing intensively with Aiolian pottery, did notcomment explicitly on the question of the production centres. Yet heconsidered most of the ceramic finds from Larisa to be local anddistinguished them from other East Greek wares: Boehlau andSchefold 1942, 58-169. Schefold 1942, 132 seemed to regard theceramic finds from Myrina and Pitane as local. Furthermore heconjectured ‘daß die noch bedeutendere ionische Stadt Phokaia zumgleichen Kunstkreis gehörte, vielleicht sogar führend in ihm war.’

89 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 169 (‘Larisa war reich nur anGeschenken des eigenen Bodens, an Werken einheimischer Hände...

Page 129: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 121

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

Sobald das einheimische Handwerk leistungsfähig war, brauchteman nichts mehr einzuführen – solange man mit der heimischenKunst zufrieden war.’); Schefold 1942, 132; Cook and Dupont 1998, 57(Cook treats the London Dinos group as a third ‘assemblage’ ofAiolian Wild Goat style without proposing a precise localisation).

90 Walter 1968, 78-9 (‘Der larisäische Stil ist ein Stil der Hinterwäldler...Larisa stand im Ausstrahlungsbereich von Phokäa und Kume.’);Walter-Karydi 1970, 10 (‘Fragt man nach den Zentren äolischerKunst, so scheint Phokäa ... an der kleinasiatisch-äolischen Küsteführend gewesen zu sein... Kyme hatte anscheinend einen reinbäuerlichen Charakter.’), 14 (‘Und doch müsste Lesbos, der Stellungvon Samos und Chios entsprechend, die reinste Möglichkeitäolischer Art vertreten.’); cf. also Akurgal 1987, 25 (‘Ferner kommenin den Zentren Pitane, Myrina und Larisa provinzielle, aber reizvolleSchöpfungen einer naiven Volkskunst auf.’).

91 Ýren 2003, 157.92 Ýren 2002, 197.93 Ýren 2002, 165; Ýren 2003, 157.94 Ýren 2002, 197; Ýren 2003, 50, 130 (‘Bevor keine Tonanalysen der

aiolischen Keramik durchgeführt worden sind und konkreteErgebnisse vorliegen, kann man Vermutungen über die Herkunft desaiolischen Tierfriesstils nur nach den Fundstücken äußern.’).

95 Ýren 2003, table 1.96 Akurgal et al. 2002, 76, 85, 104 nos 50-2, pl. 3; Kerschner 2006;

Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.97 Akurgal et al. 2002, 90-1 nos 79, 83, figs 48, 54, pls 6, 8; Kerschner

2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.98 On the provenance group X: M. Kerschner in Badre et al. 2006, 36-7.99 The as yet unpublished sample Smyr 40 belongs to provenance group

F that is presumably located at Smyrna. Cf. also Paspalas, thisvolume, esp. n. 68.

100 On the class: Kerschner 2006. Kardara 1963, 209-10 fig. 180 was thefirst who recognized this group and called it ‘sxolh\ oi0no/xohj0Ocfo/rdhj’. Alexandrescu 1978, 23 n. 23, 37-8, proposed asubdivision into a ‘classe de Lévitsky’ and a ‘classe de Tocra cat. 580’,but both classes differ only slightly in the shape, whereas the style ofpainting is homogenous. Therefore I have proposed to reunify bothclasses in accordance with Ch. Kardara and J. Hayes (in Boardmanand Hayes 1966, 41-2).

101 Kerschner 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006. Furthermore, ourNAA detected a production in a colonial workshop at the Hellespont,the Propontis or the Black Sea (sample no. Bere 007, provenancegroup BERa).

102 E.g. Kopeikina 1968, 44-7, figs 1-3; Kopeikina 1981, 196-7, fig. 4c;Kerschner 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006 (Berezan);Sidorova 1962, 108, fig. 1.4 (Pantikapaion); Lambrino 1938, 244-9,figs 208-14; Alexandrescu 1978, 37-8 nos 2-10, 12, 16, pls 1-2 (Istros);Dugas 1935, 58-60, pls 39-40, 41.12-4 (Delos); Ploug 1973, 50-2, 59-64,pls 9-13 (Tell Sukas); Boardman and Hayes 1966, 41, 46 nos 580-1, pl.28 (Taucheira). For a more comprehensive list see Kerschner 2006.

103 Kerschner et al. 2002, 203-5; Kerschner 2006. See also the discussionof a Wild Goat style oinochoe found at Selinus in Appendix 2. Thevessel exhibits both Aiolian and North Ionian stylistic features.

104 This concept differs fundamentally from the hypothesis of the‘wanderende Werkstätten’ formulated by Schiering 1957, 1, 8-14. Incontrast to me, Schiering postulates a systematic migration of wholeworkshops and the foundation of branches at several places, whichconsistently stick to their stylistic tradition even in a newenvironment and over long distances.

105 In order to assess this evidence it is important to mention that wehave not yet analysed any finds from the Aiolian island of Lesbos.

106 Özyiðit 1991, 137-9, figs 1-2, 7-10; Özyiðit 1992, 102-4, figs 3-16.107 Akurgal et al. 2002, 89, 116; Kerschner and Mommsen

(forthcoming). The samples were taken within the context of anunpublished project of U. Outschar (Istanbul) and R. Sauer(Vienna).

108 Langlotz 1969, 379, 381, figs 4-6. For the shape: Hayes 1972, 333, 337,figs 67-8 (type C). The analyses of this waster by P. Dupont and M.Picon (cf. Mayet and Picon 1986) prompted Hayes 1980, 525 torename the ‘Late Roman C Ware’ ‘Phocaean Red Slip Ware’.

109 In this point, our NAA corroborate the result of Dupont 1983, 22-3.110 It cannot be totally excluded that the Phokaians exploited other clay

beds showing different element patterns during Roman Imperial

times than they did in the Geometric to Archaic periods. There is,however, an argument against this possibility: The provenancegroup G/g comprises also Hellenistic and Roman pottery differingfrom the element patterns of the wasters from Phokaia.

111 Walter-Karydi 1970, 10; Ýren 2002, 165, 194, 197; Ýren 2003, 157, cf.already Schefold 1942, 132.

112 A short preliminary notice: Özyiðit 2004, 443-4.113 The excavator announced finds of ‘Orientalising pottery produced in

the region of North Ionia and the Aiolis’ (Özyiðit 2004, 444).114 Euboian (or Boiotian): Kyme 04, inv. 90.IV.29.99, wall fragment of a

krater with bands and a wavy line in added white, Frasca 1993, 66 no.49, fig. 16; Kyme 10, inv. 89.IV.29.17, late Geometric skyphos withchevrons, Frasca 1993, 67 no. 63, fig. 20b; Frasca 1998, 276-7, fig. 10;Kyme 11, inv. 88.IV.33.2, rim fragment of a krater with concentrictangential circles, Frasca 1993, 67 no. 61, fig. 19b; Frasca 1998, 277-8,fig. 15. Corinthian: Kyme 09, inv. 95.IV.US.2, late Geometric skyphos,unpublished, cf. Frasca 2000, 395-6, fig. 282. North Ionian (‘birdbowl workshops’ of provenance group B): Kyme 07, inv. 88.IV.26.1,bird kotyle, Frasca 1993, 60-1, fig. 25; Frasca 1998, 275-6, fig. 7; Frasca2000, 394-5, fig. 281.

115 Ýren 2003, 131, 157 argues in favour of Kyme or Myrina as productionplace of the Aiolian Wild Goat style pottery of superior quality (‘Dadie Gefäße des aTs [= aiolischer Tierfriesstil] und IIIa sorgfältigereStile als aTs IIIb haben, könnte man sich die großen und wichtigenaiolischen Städte wie Kyme und Myrina für sie als Herstellungsortvorstellen.’). Although he considers the London Dinos group asPhokaian (Ýren 2002, 194, 197), he admits: ‘... dennoch darf man sie[= Kyme] als einen möglichen Kandidaten für die Lokalisation derWerkstatt des Londoner Dinos betrachten.’ (Ýren 2002, 194).

116 Strabo 13.3.6 (translated by H.L. Jones); cf. Cook 1975, 780.117 Walter-Karydi 1970, 6; Ýren 2002, 190-7.118 Schefold 1966, 57, on the dinos in Basle: ‘Unser Dinos gehört aber zu

einer Variante [des ostgriechischen Tierfriesstils], die am häufigstenin Larisa am Hermos gefunden worden ist und in der Hauptstadt derÄolis, in Kyme, ihre Heimat gehabt haben dürfte.’

119 Walter-Karydi 1970, 10; Ýren 2002, 193. This opinion is mainly basedon an anecdote bequeathed by Strabo 13.3.6: ‘Cymê is ridiculed forits stupidity, owing to the repute, as some say, that not until 300 yearsafter the founding of the city did they sell the tolls of the harbour, andthat before this time the people did not reap this revenue. They gotthe reputation, therefore, of being a people who learned late thatthey were living in a city by the sea’ (translation H.L. Jones).However, the phrasing of Strabo reveals that he already had doubtsabout this anecdote.

120 Cf. Ýren 2002, 194 (‘... die Phokäer waren ein Seefahrervolk ... siefuhren vom Kongo bis in die Nordsee’). For critical views on theconcept of a Phokaian thalassocracy see: Niemeyer 1988/90, 269-306; Gassner 2003, 261-75; Kerschner 2004.

121 Boardman 1999a, 125.122 On the commercial activities of Aigina: Johnston 1972; Johnston

1979, 51-2; Hiller 2000 (with further bibliography).123 Akurgal et al. 2002, 111 no. 79, fig. 48, pl. 6.124 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.125 Kerschner 2006.126 Kerschner 2006.127 Kerschner 2006.128 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.129 A detailed publication of the NAA from Kyme is being prepared by M.

Frasca, M. Kerschner and H. Mommsen.130 A detailed publication of the NAA from Phokaia is being prepared by

M. Akurgal, M. Kerschner and H. Mommsen.131 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.132 Kerschner 2006.133 Kerschner 2006.134 Kerschner 2006.135 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.136 Kardara 1963, 271-6, figs 258-65 (‘ergasterion dinou’); Walter-Karydi

1970, 3-4; Ýren 2002, 198-206; cf. M. Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002,87 with n. 549.

137 The piece was kindly shown to me by the excavator at a visit onBerezan with an excursion of the University of Vienna in summer1999.

Page 130: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

122 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

Figure 6Wall fragment of a dinos (?),AiolianWild Goat style, London Dinos group, fromNaukratis. London, British Museum GR1924.12-1.11

Figure 2 Dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, eponymous piece of the London Dinos group, presumably from Kameiros. London, British Museum GR 1848.6-19.1

Figure 3Wall fragment of a dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, London Dinos group,from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1270

Figure 4Wall fragment of a dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, London Dinos group,from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1288

Figure 5Wall fragment of a dinos (?),Aiolian Wild Goat style, London Dinosgroup, from Naukratis. London, BritishMuseum GR 1888.6-1.470

Figure 8 Rim fragment of a dinos, London Dinos group, from Naukratis.London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1294, sample no. Nauk 13.Provenance group G

Page 131: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 123

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

Figure 10 Fragment of fenestrated stand (?),Aiolian Grey ware,from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.637,sample no. Nauk 64. Provenance group g

Figure 11 Head of a painted terracottafigurine, from Naukratis. London, BritishMuseum GR 1888.6-1.658, sample no.Nauk 77. Provenance group g

Figure 12 Wall fragment of a Late Geometric krater ordinos from Larisa. Göttingen, sample no. Lari 12.Chemical single

Figure 9 Shoulder fragment of a black-polychromeoinochoe, from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR1888.6-1.573b,c, sample no. Nauk 12. Provenancegroup G

Figure 7Askos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, stylistically related to the London Dinos group, from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.462

Figure 13 Dinos,Aiolian Subgeometric or ‘dot style’, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 22, sample no. Lari 15.Provenance group G

Page 132: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

124 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

Figure 19 Oinochoe,Aiolian Wild Goat style, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 447, sample no. Lari 21. Provenance group G

Figure 21 Skyphos krater,Aiolian black-figure style, fromLarisa. Göttingen, inv. 358a-b, sample no. Lari 23. Provenancegroup G

Figure 20 Kotyle,Aiolian Orientalizing style, fromSmyrna, inv. BYR 74 ‘M’ Döküntü, sample no. Smyr 46.Provenance group G

Figure 18 Skyphos krater,Aiolian WildGoat style, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv.44a-d, sample no. Lari 20. Provenancegroup G

Figure 22 Krater,Aiolian bichromeware in black-figure technique, fromLarisa. Göttingen, inv. 343, sample no.Lari 22. Provenance group G

Figure 17 Skyphos krater,Aiolian WildGoat style, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv.46, sample no. Lari 19. Provenancegroup G

Figure 15 Shoulder fragment of a dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style of the LondonDinos group, from Berezan. Halle, Robertinum inv. 480, sample no. Bere 178.Provenance group g

Figure 14 Pyxis,Aiolian Subgeometric or ‘dot style’, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv.23a-e, sample no. Lari 16. Provenance group G

Figure 16 Skyphos krater,Aiolian Wild Goat style, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv.38a-c, sample no. Lari 18. Provenance group G

Page 133: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 125

On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

Figure 23 Dinos,Aiolian light-on-dark ware, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 250,sample no. Lari 27. Provenance group G

Figure 26 Rosette bowl from Smyrna, sample no. Smyr 32. Provenance group G

Figure 27 Dish with meander on the rim, from Phokaia (excavations E.Akurgal).Inv. 1956 Foça D a odasý, sample no. Phok 49. Provenance group G

Figure 28 Neckamphora of the ‘Borysthenes group’,Aiolian Wild Goat style, fromBerezan. Halle, Robertinum Inv. 426, sample no. Bere 174. Provenance group g

Figure 24 Kotyle,Aiolian ‘drop style’,from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 294,sample no. Laris 24. Provenance groupG

Figure 25 Kotyle,Aiolian ‘drop style’,from Kyme, inv. K 95.VIII.1.R, sampleno. Kyme 14. Provenance group g

Figure 32 Kiln waster of a fused stackof 6 bowls of Hayes Form 3C fromPhokaia. Bonn (E. Langlotz bequest).Sample no. Phok 05

Figure 30 Carinated bowl,AiolianGrey ware, from Kyme. Izmir, Inv.03.IV.117.7, sample no. Kyme 23.Provenance group G

Figure 29 Dish, banded ware, from Kyme, Inv. 88.IV.29, ssample no. Kyme 05.Provenance group G

Page 134: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

126 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Kerschner

Figure 33 Result of a discriminantanalysis of the grouped samples fromPhokaia, shown as filled-in symbols,and assuming 10 groups.Thenumerous chemically single samplesin the set from Phokaia have also beenincluded and are shown as stars.Thedifferent groups are described in thetext. Plotted are the discriminantfunctions W1 and W2 which cover 73% and 14 %, respectively, of thebetween group variance.The ellipsesdrawn are the 2s boundaries of thegroups.

Figure 34 Result of a discriminantanalysis of all the grouped samples(exclusive of 4 singles) from Kyme andLarisa, shown as filled-in symbols,together with some reference samplesof other patterns and assuming 5groups. Besides the predominant localgroup G and its subgroup g only 6sherds have been identified as importsto Kyme: one from the ‘bird bowlworkshops’ (group B), one from thenorth-eastern Peloponnese (Corinth),and 4 from Boeotia or Euboea(Boe/Eub). Plotted are thediscriminant functions W1 and W2which cover 95 % and 2.8 %,respectively, of the between groupvariance.The ellipses drawn are the 2sboundaries of the groups.

Page 135: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 127

Abstract

This paper briefly examines the range of Chian pottery found atNaukratis, noting in particular some unusual shapes unique to thesite, especially the phallus cup. It also offers a general review of thedevelopment of Chian decorated pottery and the workshops thatproduced it. This review ends with a more detailed examination ofa small group of pieces with Laconian connections, the work of theSirens Painter, who may even have been a migrant from Laconia.Finally, it summarises the debate on the places of manufacture ofChian pottery, arguing against any production at Naukratis.

Chian pottery was first called ‘Naukratian’ by Flinders Petriewhen the first finds of pottery were excavated at Naukratis, asCecil Smith notes in his essay for the 1886 volume of Petrie’spublication.1 By the time of the second volume, in 1888, E.A.Gardner was calling it ‘Naukratite’.2 Kourouniotis, however,excavated a good deal of ‘Naukratite’ pottery – decorated,dedicated and plain – in his excavations on Chios in 1914–15, andsuggested that it was made on that island not at Naukratis.3 Thefabric was more fully studied by Elinor Price in 1924: she stillcalled it ‘Naukratite’, but did comment that its place of originmight have been Naukratis or Chios.4 Price’s classification hasbeen modernised over the years, especially by John Boardmanand Robert Cook, and the fabric is now confidently christenedChian by all. The subject has been most fully studied and revisedby Anna Lemos in her very important monograph of 1991.5 FromLemos we have a sequence of styles – the Wild Goat Style, theAnimal Chalice Style, the Grand Style, the Chalice Style, theSphinx and Lion Style, the Black-figure Grand Style, and theBlack-figure Chalice Style.6 Boardman refers, even morerecently, in his handbook of 1998 to Lemos’ Animal Chalice Styleas ‘Animal Chalices’ and her Chalice Style as ‘Simple AnimalChalices’.7

The Orientalizing Wild Goat Style of Chios is distinct. Thereseems no strong Early Wild Goat phase, what Kerschner andSchlotzhauer would perhaps call Chian Archaic Ib (ChiA Ib):possible examples come from Phana on Chios, from Aigina portand from the Samian Heraion, but none were found atNaukratis.8 A more advanced group that Lemos categorises asMiddle Wild Goat I (presumably still within Chian Archaic Ib –ChiA Ib) includes pieces from Chios, Salamis on Cyprus, AlMina, Aigina and Bulgaria, although she notes a degree ofhesitation over the fabric of the Al Mina fragments.9 With ChianMiddle Wild Goat II (Chian Archaic Ic – ChiA Ic), however, weleave behind the realm of uncertainty and the quantity ofmaterial from Naukratis is of particular and immediateimportance. Lemos has associated a number of Naukratisfragments with the pair of chalices from Vulci in Etruria, now inWürzburg, under the sobriquet the Painter of the WürzburgChalices.10 She charts this painter and his followers over anumber of years: indeed, a chalice fragment already has added

decoration inside and so takes us down to about 610 bc.11 Theother major artist of the time that Lemos isolates is the painter ofthe large bowl dedicated by Sostratos to Aphrodite at Naukratis(Fig. 5).12 Her list of this Painter of the Aphrodite Bowl, and thegroup that she associates with it, seems to follow a similarcourse as that of the Painter of the Würzburg Chalices, althoughbeginning perhaps slightly later. Again, one of the pieces thatshe attributes to the painter himself already has interiordecoration.13

As regards the Middle Wild Goat II pottery from Naukratis,we might perhaps begin with a remarkable shape that is notfound anywhere else: the phallus vessel. Robert Cook listedthree examples in his article of 1949, the two London fragmentsfrom Naukratis in the British Museum and a fragment on theAthenian Acropolis.14 The latter was drawn to his attention bythe late Martin Robertson, but the illustration and description ofit in van Buren’s book on Athenian architectural terracottasreveals that it is a very different thing, and clearly neither Chiannor any sort of vessel attachment or protome. Instead, however,we might now mention, even though not Chian, a fragment fromthe excavation of the cathedral in Marseilles which preservespart of the erect shaft and the testicles below; there are fingersattached to the shaft.15 The piece looks thick-walled and it isdescribed as large; the shaft is undecorated, the glans missing,but the testicles have glazed dots, recalling Ionian plastic vases,with which it is perhaps connected. Indeed, it may have comefrom an object, or rather pouring vessel, like the extraordinaryterracotta seated man with erect penis from Sardis or thesmaller, earlier and cruder version from Samos.16

The better preserved of the two Chian phalloi fromNaukratis has now been augmented by a small fragment withmore of one of the goats (Fig. 1).17 The phallus is carefullymodelled, not pierced, and the female pudenda strangely addedat the beginning of the shaft, perhaps by way of a reminder ofthe intended target. The less well-preserved example is slightlylarger, and damaged just where the female sex was similarlymost probably added.18 Both are finely made and thin-walledand both glazed inside. Lemos has attributed the painting on thebetter preserved piece to the neighbourhood of the Painter of

Figure 1 Phallus fromphallus cup, outside andinside view, BM GR1888.6-1.496a-c, with1924.12-1.178

The Chian Pottery from NaukratisDyfri Williams

Page 136: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

128 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Williams

at cultic celebrations. Another special shape to Naukratis, it would seem, is the

class of the Aphrodite Bowl itself. Here I note a small fragmentthat joins the name-piece, giving the face of the sphinx on theinterior (Fig. 4) – joined to the Aphrodite bowl in aphotomontage (Fig. 5).25 In ceramic terms these large bowlswith their rim mounted vertical handles would seem in someways to be gentrifications of the humble lekane. The AphroditeBowl was perhaps a creation for ritual use, perhaps even aceremonial washing of the fingers at the symposium, as if withcologne or limon. Lemos listed seven examples of the form, allfrom Naukratis.26

Another seemingly unique shape, though surely not a specialproduct, is represented by a fragment that Lemos identified as achalice (Fig. 6).27 It is, in fact, rather from a large, thick-walledclosed vessel, undecorated on the inside, most probably a one-piece amphora, and is decorated with a goose. The painter’shand can be seen on fragments of contemporary chalices and isclosely related to the Painter of the Aphrodite Bowl.28

From Naukratis, of course, also come quite a few fragmentsof large dinoi. Here we should note that such vessels are in factunglazed inside, a fact that can lead to the misidentification offragments as being from oinochoai. The Wild Goat examples,which are the most numerous, had rotelle handles placed on theshoulder, below the rim, like metal cauldrons (Fig. 7).29 Wemight ask ourselves here the question as to why such Chiandinoi, and indeed dinoi in most other East Greek fabrics, wereunslipped inside.

Figure 2 Phallus cup wall (?), outside and inside view, BM GR 1924.12-1.186 Figure 3 Phallus cup wall (?), outside and inside view, BM GR 1924.12-1.203

Figure 4 Fragment joining Aphroditebowl, inside and outside view, BM GR1924.12-1.418

Figure 5 Photomontage of Aphrodite bowl (BM GR 1888.6-1.456) and joining fragment (BM GR 1924.12-1.418)

the Aphrodite Bowl.19 The addition of the small fragment makesit clear that it is from the same time as a fragment that she seesas a fully mature work (the Aphrodite Bowl itself being an earlywork).20

We should perhaps ask ourselves what the rest of theseexceptional objects looked like. We know male genitalia used byAthenian potters for the feet of their cups in the late 6th centurybc and early 5th – the black-figured example in Oxford is thebest preserved, but there is also a ruined fragment of a red-figured one in Herbert Cahn’s collection.21 Corinthian, EastGreek, and Attic potters also produced perfume pots in the formof male genitals, an interesting concept in itself. They are alsoattached to a variety of later vases which were offered, it seems,to children as feeding bottles.

The fact that both Naukratis pieces are glazed insidesuggests that they served as special drinking vessels, but whatform did their upper parts take? Here one might consider twofragments that could have come from the upper part of suchvessels, although the connection cannot as yet be demonstrated.The first was listed by Lemos as coming from a chalice, but theprofile is clearly different from all chalices and indicates thatthere was a much narrower form below the frieze of animalsand, moreover, one that seems to have been set at something ofan angle to the upper cup wall (Fig. 2).22 The second fragmentpreserves slightly less of the form below, but both are clearlyfrom a similar shape (Fig. 3).23 There is a third fragment of theclass in Brussels.24 Such special Chian drinking vessels weresurely dedications in the sanctuary of Aphrodite, perhaps used

Figure 6Amphora fragment, BM GR1888.6-1.475g

Page 137: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 129

The Chian Pottery from Naukratis

With the last decade of the 7th century bc, the beginning ofChian Archaic Id, there came substantial change.30 Indeed, itseems to me that we can now talk about two parallel workshopsin this phase, differentiated as they are by shape production,technique and style. The first uses the black-figure technique toenliven miniature animal friezes that concentrate on lions andsphinxes, but occasionally admit bulls, birds and sirens, as wellas, very rarely, a human figure. We will do best not to confuseterminology too much and I propose to call this workshop theSphinx and Lion Workshop, following Boardman’s naming ofthe ‘Style’.

This workshop does not seem to have decorated chalices,whether large or small, but instead produced a series ofstemmed skyphos-like vases with lids. As with the chalices, itssmaller scions were presumably used as drinking vessels, thelarger, such as the example from Pitane, as kraters.31 On afragment of a large lid from Naukratis, now in Cambridge, wefind a combination of incised filling ornaments and an outlinegoat (Fig. 8).32 This suggests that the piece belongs early in theseries and, indeed, the painting of the goat suggests that at leastone of the painters from the followers of the Painter of theAphrodite Bowl became part of our Sphinx and Lion Workshop.Another Naukratis fragment is, exceptionally, decorated bothinside and outside (Fig. 9). It is not from the bowl but ratherfrom the lid, although most lid fragments are simply slippedinside with white.33 The very large fragment of a bowl, decoratedinside and out and found by Kourouniotis on Chios, presumablycame from the bowl of one of these extravagantly decoratedlidded skyphos-kraters.34 The workshop also produced otherlesser shapes and from Naukratis we have fragments of platesand small dishes – indeed, to a fragment of a plate in Cambridgewe may join a piece in London (photomontage Fig. 10).35 Thereis the occasional surprise too, such as the fragment of a fine ringvase with a centaur depicted on it.36

The second workshop continued the old Wild Goattechnique of the 7th century tradition: mixed outline andsilhouette, usually abjuring incision. This I propose to call theChalice Workshop (simplifying Lemos’ and Boardman’s AnimalChalice Styles), as a result of its preferred shape. It did, however,also produce kantharoi, phialai and plates, but no stemmedskyphoi, large or small.

The shape of the chalice has changed and the metopalarrangement of decoration given way to free-field design. Inaddition, the interior is also now treated as a field for gloriouslycolourful decoration in red and white on the black ground. Theiconography remains in the animal world, at least for a while,with lions, boars, bulls, sphinxes and sirens; but goats and geesehave gone. What is new is a greater sense of monumentality, aconcentration on only a few animals on each vase, painted on alarger scale.

A particularly splendid example from this workshop is alarge, heavy-walled chalice-krater divided between the BritishMuseum, Boston, and University College London.37 On one sidethere was a sphinx and a bull, all in outline, but with muchadded colour – second white for the sphinx’s face (Fig. 11), redon the bull’s hindquarters and a vivid interior floral band. Agroup of fragments with a lion attacking a boar should comefrom the other side of the vessel.38 On a lighter walled piece isfound the beginnings of the introduction of the human figure – awoman in black and red garments.39

A liking for human figures, and for polychromy, seems tohave grown with time. Indeed, some painters began to depictonly human figures, on both small and large chalices: thisperhaps already from soon after 580 bc. With the appearance offigures, the inclusion of filling ornaments is soon abandoned40 –they were a feature of the wider Greek animal frieze style, buthad no real place in a mature 6th century figured style. Some ofthese figured chalices have more polychromy than others. In hiskey Chian article of 1956 Boardman introduced the term ‘GrandStyle’ for these large-scale chalices with polychrome decorationand human figures,41 but this perhaps tends to isolate one part ofthe production of the workshop and so prevents us from seeingthe whole. We also need to note that incision begins to make anappearance on some pieces: for example two fragments withhorses or horsemen, one from Naukratis (Fig. 12), the otherfrom Aigina.42 These are not from large heavy-walled chalices,but a fragment from such a polychrome chalice in Bonn revealsincision too.43

The subjects represented on these figured chalices rangefrom gods and heroes to mortals in ritual processions and komosdances.44 The fragments are often too small to enable us to

Figure 7 Dinos fragment, BM GR 1888.6-1.499g and b, 1924.12-1.21 and1888.6-1.443

Figure 8 Lid fragment, Cambridge,Mus.Arch. and Anth. NA 103

Figure 10 Plate fragment, BM GR1924.12-1.16 and Cambridge, Mus.Arch. and Anth. NA 98

Figure 11 Chalice-krater fragment, BM GR 1888.6-1.465a

Figure 9 Lid fragment, outside and inside view, BM GR 1886.4-1.998

Page 138: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

130 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Williams

understand the full scenes with any confidence. We may alsoisolate particular painters – Lemos notes, in addition to theAphaia Painter, the Naukratis Painter, and this is clearly an areawhere more work could be done.45 The pair of chalices fromPitane46 is particularly important and good publishedillustrations would be of great help: one might note too the lionsinside in added colour – a fragment from Naukratis has the samemotif (Fig. 13).47

Gradually, perhaps from around 570 bc, the simpler chalicesbegan to minimise their decoration further and further until avessel might just have a pair of animals, or even just one, with nofilling ornaments, on one side, and on the other a simple rosetteornament, or even nothing at all.48 Instead of the animal wesometimes find a single figure, as on a chalice from Berezan.49

At some point, perhaps near 560 bc, it would seem that thesetwo workshops merged again, for we suddenly find acontinuation of the general style of the Sphinx and LionWorkshop on a series of chalices decorated with black-figurekomasts, and even the reappearance of very debased fillingornaments. On one remarkable fragment from Berezan, thepainter has used added white instead of incisions for the interiordetails of the komast.50 There are also a couple of fragments inblack-figure komast style that might be from oinochoai or dinoi– the usual problem.51 Connected with this phase is a group ofchalices (and a kantharos) that depict a variety of animals,specifically cocks, hens, geese and dolphins – Lemos calls it thePoultry Group.52 Some are slight works with debased fillingornaments and clearly go with the komast chalices.53 Indeed, ona fragmentary chalice from Berezan we find black-figurekomasts on one side and a cock on the other.54 Others, however,have something grander and more restrained about them andare perhaps earlier, or at least retain more of the tradition of theChalice Workshop.55 Indeed, the group of four chalices found atTocra, two from the Chalice Workshop and two from Lemos’

Poultry Group would seem perhaps to be roughly contemporary,despite the differing techniques.56 Finally, the last gasp ofdecorated Archaic Chian is to be found on a group of unslipped,Atticising kantharoi and chalices that takes us down into thethird quarter of the 6th century bc.57

This leaves us with what Lemos calls the Black-figure GrandStyle.58 She lists fragments of two cups,59 five chalices, and abowl, all from Naukratis, and an indeterminate vessel fromBerezan. The bowl fragment should be omitted – it really finds aplace in the Sphinx and Lion workshop.60 The Berezan fragmentis also best omitted, as the fabric is surely not Chian.61 This leavesus with fragments of two cups, one in Oxford, one in London:both clearly by the same painter (Figs 14–15).62 The shape isdifferent from that of the regular, stemmed Ionian cup, a shapewhich Chian potters also produced, decorating the rim withmyrtle or laurel wreaths, 63 and with their exterior decorationand interior border of pomegranates point strongly towards theLaconian class of cup, as has been noted many times before.64 Arim fragment from a chalice in London is also clearly by thesame hand (Fig. 16).65 Two of the other chalice fragments mustcome from one and the same vessel – indeed, we can add a thirdfragment to this group, which was not listed by Lemos (Figs17–19).66 These fragments may even be from the same vessel asthe rim fragment with the heads. The wall fragment from achalice in Cambridge may be augmented by joining the last ofthe chalice fragments listed by Lemos, and a second Londonfragment that she did not include (photomontage Fig. 20).67

We thus have two cups and two or three chalices in a fineblack-figure technique all by the same, rather accomplishedpainter – let us call him the Sirens Painter after the Cambridgeand London chalice and the Oxford cup. He decorated two cupsthat show decided connections with Lakonian cups, both inshape and decorative scheme, and a couple of chalices that havefigures that recall some of the standing and seated figures on

Figure 14 Cup fragment interior:siren, Oxford G 133.2 and 6

Figure 15 Cup fragment, interior: twoheads, BM GR 1888.6.4-1.1283

Figure 16 Chalice fragment: twoheads, BM GR 1888.6-1.550a

Figure 17 Chalice fragment: seatedfigure, BM GR 1924.12-1.206

Figure 18 Chalice fragment: drapery,BM GR 1924.12-1.204

Figure 19 Chalice fragment: draperyand tail, BM GR 1924.12-1.342

Figure 12 Chalicefragment: horseman,outside and insideview, BM GR 1924.12-1.343

Figure 13 Chalice interior: lion, BM GR1888.6-1.790

Page 139: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 131

The Chian Pottery from Naukratis

Lakonian cups, as well as a wing-footed figure flying over a sirenthat similarly recalls some of the Lakonian cups with wingeddaemons and sirens flying round symposium scenes.68 Theclosest connection seems to be with the work of the so-calledBoreads Painter, usually dated 575–565 bc.69 Our Chian SirensPainter was presumably allied to the Chalice Workshop andinfluenced one or more of the later painters who worked in therecombined workshop. His own contribution to thedevelopment of the earlier scions of Lemos’ Poultry Group isperhaps seen on a fine fragment of a thick-walled chalice with acock raising one leg (Fig. 21).70

How do we explain this phenomenon? Boardman has notedthat no Laconian pottery has yet been found on Chios and hasgone on to conclude from this that the influence cannot haveoccurred there (incidentally using this Laconian connection tobolster the theory of production at Naukratis, where Laconianhas been found). The alternative solution, however, is that aLaconian vase-painter actually moved to Chios. Since we have aLaconian shape with its distinctive decorative scheme andLaconian iconography and style, this is not perhaps such anunlikely scenario. The Sirens Painter’s impact was immediateand discernible, but sadly the quality of his painting was notmaintained by his local pupils.

Finally, we return to the issue that was already mentioned atthe beginning of this paper – where was Chian pottery made?We are beginning to see the strength of the possibility thatmigrant Chians went to the region of Thrace, perhaps to theChian colony at Maroneia, and from there served the markets ofAinos and Thasos, influencing local potters and adopting localshapes.71 In counterpoint to this, there has been a reluctance tothe complete abandonment of the idea of Chian potters workingat Naukratis in Egypt, even following the confirmation byscientific analysis that the pottery was all made with Chian clay.The local clay was poor by Greek standards, but some potters doseem to have tried to work it in the Greek manner and producerough imitations of North and South Ionian wares, as is laid outin this volume by Schlotzhauer and Villing. They did not attemptanything like Chian.

In extremis, then, one has to postulate the import of rawChian clay. How might we hope to detect such a situation? Threeconsiderations come to mind: the adoption of native shapes; theuse of native languages and scripts; and the reflection of nativecustoms and people through the iconography. For native shapes,one thinks of the situlae studied by Sabine Weber, only onefragment of which seems to have been found at Naukratis.72 Clayanalysis points to Rhodes as the source of clay, but should wethink of them as having been made at Naukratis with importedclay? For native scripts, one thinks of Herbert Cahn’sextraordinary amphora with the cartouche of Apries, a new

fragment of which was found by Don Bailey in the PetrieMuseum with the reported provenience of Thebes (Bailey Figs1–5).73 Clay analysis points to Northern Ionia, but was it made atNaukratis with imported clay?74

The idea that iconography might indicate local knowledge ismore complex, because it could be reported and created(however closely or loosely we would never know) at home. Inany case, there is nothing inexplicable or even really vaguelyEgyptian about the iconography of Chian vases found atNaukratis, unlike the pottery produced by other East Greeks,especially some of the material from Tel Defenneh,75 Karnak,76 oreven perhaps the Naukratis fragment showing an Ethiopian withcurly hair and African features (Cover illustration).77 Toconclude, there seems nothing in Chian painting and potting tosuggest that any of the finds from Naukratis (or elsewhere) wereactually made in Egypt.

The existence of so many painted dedications on Chian vasesfrom Naukratis has been commented on often (e.g. JohnstonFig. 9). Such pieces, however, do not point to local productionbut rather to the sophistication of the trading mechanisms ofChian potters that enabled them to take commissions fromcustomers, not only at home on Chios, but also abroad.78 OnAigina they catered for prosperous traders, it would seem (e.g.Johnston Fig. 7); at Naukratis they served not only traders butalso perhaps one of the famous ladies of Aphrodite, Aigyptis.79

Furthermore, Chiot pottery is not the only fabric found atNaukratis with pre-firing dedications, for we should not forgetthe fragments of a large North Ionian rimless bowl with a longpainted dedication in added white inside that names Aphroditein Naukratis.80

In the end, therefore, although we cannot prove absolutelythat Chian potters did not work with their own clay at Naukratis,there no longer seems a single persuasive argument to supportsuch a hypothesis.

Illustration creditsFigs 8, 10(right fragment) Mus. Arch. and Anth. Cambridge; Fig. 14Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Fig. 20 (right fragment) FitzwilliamMuseum, Cambridge; all others the British Museum.

Notes1 Smith 1886, 51-3. 2 Gardner 1888, 38-9.3 Kourouniotis 1915, 64-93; Kourouniotis 1916, 190-215. Kourouniotis’

unfinished excavations were continued by Winifred Lamb for oneseason in 1933: Lamb 1934/5, 138-64.

4 Price 1924, 205. 5 Lemos 1991, with earlier bibliography. See also the following articles:

Lemos 1986, 233-49; Lemos 1999/2000, 11-50; Lemos 2000, 380-1and 384-5. In addition, note Schauss 1996, 30-42.

6 Lemos 1991, 163-75: she does not in fact use the word ‘Style’ here, butsimply calls them Black-figure Chalices.

Figure 21 Chalice: cock, BM GR1888.6-1.549

Figure 20 Chalicefragment: siren and wingeddemon. Photomontage of,left: BM GR 1888.6-1.550b; right: CambridgeGR 97.1894; top: BM GR1924.12-1.352

Page 140: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

132 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Williams

7 Boardman 1998b, 145.8 Two pieces were isolated by R.M. Cook, Cook 1949, 154-5, see Lemos

1991, nos 264, 273; see also Boardman 1967, 149 with n. 5. Lemos addsa chalice from the Samian Heraion, Lemos 1991, no. 247. For the newclassification system see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 1-56.

9 Lemos 1991, 67-70.10 Lemos 1991, 71-3. Lemos 1991, no. 176 (BM GR 1924.12-1.421) is

attributed to the painter himself. Note that the dinos fragment,Lemos 1991, no. 281 (BM GR 1886.4-1.1122), which she places in thelarger group, is not Chian. A second non-Chian dinos is Lemos 1991,no. 280 (BM GR 1886.4-1.1003), to which belongs Brussels inv. A 1769(CVA Brussels pl. 3.10, Belgium 105).

11 Lemos 1991, no. 140 (BM GR 1888.6-1.473a), interior decoration notnoted.

12 Lemos 1991, 73-5. Price 1924, 216-7, had thought of the painter of theWürzburg chalices and the Aphrodite bowl as one and the same.

13 Lemos 1991, no. 211 (BM GR 1886.4-1.1078), interior decoration notnoted.

14 Cook 1949, 158 n. 12, with pl. 41 b. Acropolis fragment: van Buren1926, 16 and 184 no. 7, figs 49-50. See Lemos 1991, 24; the Naukratisfragments listed as nos. 365-7.

15 Hermary et al. 1999, 62, fig. on p. 61.16 Sardis vessel: Greenewalt 1971, 29-46. Samos vessel: Buschor 1951,

32-41, pl. 8.17 Lemos 1991, no. 365 (BM GR 1888.6-1.496a-c). The joining fragment

is BM GR 1924.12-1.178 (Lemos 1991, no. 390).18 Lemos 1991, no. 366 (BM GR 1888.6-1.496d).19 Lemos 1991, 75.20 This is Lemos 1991, no. 253 (BM GR 1888.6-1.460k and 1924.12-1.84).21 For such plastic additions see Boardman 1976, especially 287-8. The

unpublished Cahn fr. is Basel, Cahn HC 476. They are also sometimesshown attached to the side of skyphoi , kantharoi and rhyta, seeBoardman 1976, 289; add that on the rhyton shown on theKleophrades Painter’s psykter, Princeton y1989-69, Guy 1990, 46-7.For a fragment from a skyphos see Getty 86 AE 585.

22 Lemos 1991, no. 480 (BM GR 1924.12-1.186).23 Lemos 1991, no. 391 (BM GR 1924.12-1.203).24 Lemos 1991, no. 1254 (Brussels inv. A 1788: CVA Brussels pl. 3.7,

Belgium 105 – upside-down).25 Aphrodite bowl: Lemos 1991, no. 252 (BM GR 1888.6-1.456). Joining

fragment: BM GR 1924.12-1.418.26 Lemos 1991, 243-4, nos 252-8. There is also a group of fragments from

later, smaller lekanai, all found at Rizari (Lemos 1991, 244-5, nos 269-72), that have mock rivets.

27 Lemos 1991, no. 154 (BM GR 1888.6-1.475g = GR 1924.12-1.119).28 Cf. Lemos 1991, nos 151 (BM GR 1888.6-1.475d), 170 (BM GR 1924.12-

1.115) and 222 (Cambridge N 48 and 49: CVA Cambridge 2, pl. 17, nos18 and 20, GB 496).

29 One group of joining fragments is BM GR 1888.6-1.499g and b,1924.12-1.21 and 1888.6-1.443. A second group is BM GR 1888.6-1.499e, 1924.12-1.20 and 1888.6-1.459, to which also belong 1888.6-1.460 e, f and g.

30 Compare changes elsewhere – e.g. from Wild Goat into Fikellura, seeSchlotzhauer (forthcoming b). For the date note the Chian fragmentfrom the Lion and Sphinx workshop found in the destruction depositat Old Smyrna – Lemos 1991, no. 1457.

31 Lemos 1991, no. 1272 (Istanbul, Arch. Mus.).32 Lemos 1991, no. 1449 (Cambridge, Mus. Arch. and Anth. NA 103).

This may also have been the case on the fragment from a stemmedskyphos bowl, Lemos 1991, no. 1278 (from Chios town). Cf. alsoperhaps, if it is Chian, a fragment in Leiden: Prins de Jong 1925, pl. 1.9(not in Lemos 1991).

33 Lemos 1991, no. 1338 (BM GR 1886.4-1.998).34 Lemos 1991, no. 1419, pls 182-3.35 Plate fragments: Cambridge, Mus. Arch and Anth NA 98 (Lemos

1991, no. 1411) and BM GR 1924.12-1.16 (Lemos 1991, no. 1406).36 Ring vase: Lemos 1991, no. 1440 (BM GR 1888.6-1.763).37 Lemos 1991, no. 552 (BM GR 1888.6-1.465a,b,d,e etc.). Boston

88.830.7 (Lemos 1991, no. 582) joins BM GR 1888.6-1.465a; Univ.Coll. London 751 (Lemos 1991, no. 682) joins BM GR 1888.6-1.465b(Lemos 1991, pl. 70 row 3).

38 Lemos 1991, no. 439 (BM GR 1888.6-1.466d,f,e).39 Lemos 1991, no. 458 (BM GR 1888.6-1.464).40 Note that the Chios plate (Lemos 1991, no. 684) and the Berezan

fragments (Lemos 1991, no. 799) still have filling ornaments andshould be early.

41 Boardman 1956, 55-62.

42 Lemos 1991, no. 516 (BM GR 1924.12-1.343 – subject wronglyidentified by Lemos) and Lemos 1991, no. 796 (Aigina, Kolonna fr.).

43 Bonn 697.7: Lemos 1991, no. 788; Piekarski 2001b, no. A 11, pl. 3.3.44 On the iconography see most recently Tempesta 1998.45 Lemos 1991, 111-2.46 Lemos 1991, nos. 800 (Istanbul inv. no. 8904) and 801. See also

Lemos 2000, 384-5. 47 Red lion inside: BM GR 1888.6-1.790.48 E.g. Lemos 1991, no. 972.49 Lemos 1991, no. 964.50 St. Petersburg, Hermitage, Berezan B 465: Solovyov 2005, 65 no. 95.51 BM GR 1924.12-1.366; 1924.12-1.367; 1888.6-1.548p (=Lemos 1991,

no. 1495).52 Lemos 1991, 173-5. Add the twin reed-handled kantharos from

Berezan: Lemos 1991, no. 1635.53 Lemos 1991, nos 1603, 1597, 1598, and 1614.54 I am very grateful to Dmitry Chistov, of the Hermitage Museum and

the current director of the Berezan excavations, for bringing this newfind to my attention.

55 Lemos 1991, nos 1600 and 1601, 1602, 1611, 1605.56 Tocra chalices: Lemos 1991, nos 927 and 928, and 1600 and 1601.57 Lemos 1991, nos 1617-1619 and 1625-1634.58 Lemos 1991, nos 1458-1460 (cups), 1461-1465 (chalices), 1466 (bowl)

and 1467 (fragment).59 The current whereabouts of the third fragment in her list, Lemos

1991, no. 1459, once in Berlin (Lane 1933/4, 186 fig. 26), is not known:it might well have come from one of the two other cups.

60 Cf. Lemos 1991, nos 1331, 1351, 1302, 1296 and 1279.61 I am very grateful to Yulia Ilyina of the State Hermitage in St

Petersburg for confirming that though the interior is slipped, there isno white slip under the black. She also notes that the pale clay makesone think of Corinthian.

62 Oxford G.133.2 and 6: Lemos 1991, no. 1458. BM GR 1886.4-1.1283:Lemos 1991, no. 1460.

63 The class was noted in Price 1924 (p. 183 with fig. 59 on p. 215 = BMGR 1924.12-1.188; cf. Boardman 1956, 61 with n 9). Add: BM GR1924.12-1.169,170,171,172, and 176; BM GR 1888.6-1.561u (= GR1924.12-1.456 – elaborate meander inside rim); BM GR 1965.9-30.400a; BM GR 1965.9-30.400 (complete profile); BM GR 1910.2-22.57 (foot fragment).

64 Boardman 1956, 60-1; Boardman 1986, 254; Lemos 1991, 154-62.65 BM GR 1888.6-1.550a: Lemos 1991, no. 146366 BM GR 1924.12-1.206 (Lemos 1991, no. 1462), 204 (Lemos 1991, no.

1464), and 342 (not in Lemos 1991). BM GR 1924.12-1.205 shouldprobably come from another chalice by this painter; so, too, perhapsa fragment in Oxford, 1925.608e (Lemos 1991, no. 162), whichpreserves traces of a horseman with a spear.

67 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Mus. GR 97.1894: Lemos 1991, no. 1461. BMGR 1888.6-1.550b (Lemos 1991, no. 1465) joins, as does GR 1924.12-1.352 (not in Lemos 1991).

68 See Pipili 1987, 71-3; also 76 and 41. Winged demons do occur onother East Greek vases, but they are very different – see Schaus 1986,275 ns 71-7. Add the many more Milesian examples excavated inrecent years at Miletos, and the fragment in the collection of WilliamSuddaby – Padgett 2003, 276-7 no. 69 (creature wrongly identified).

69 Stibbe 1972, 88-89 (the Oxford fragment is illustrated on pl. 60.2-3).70 BM GR 1888.6-1.549.71 See Lemos 1991, 209-22; and Lemos 1992, 157-73.72 See Sabine Weber, this volume.73 See Donald Bailey, this volume.74 For the question of clay sources, see Mommsen and Kerschner, this

volume, n.7. 75 The hawk on a nb (Neb) basket (as identified by Petrie) – BM GR

1888.2-8.3: Weber, this volume (Weber Fig. 16); CVA British Museum8, pl. 2.2 (GB 597) and 9.14 (GB 604). See further Schlotzhauer andWeber 2005, 88-91.

76 Opet’s boat (?): Oxford 1924.64 (from Karnak) – CVA Oxford 2, pl. 10,nos 24 a-f, GB 401; Boardman 1958, 4-12; Boardman 1999a, 138 fig. 162.

77 African: BM GR 1886.4-1.1282 (BM Cat Vases B 102.33); Lemos 1991,no. 1657. This seems more North Ionian than Chian.

78 At home on Chios there are even examples of painted dedications oncoarse wares (Lamb 1934/5, 161 and fig. 13 on p. 162) – the island ofHomer enjoyed its literacy!

79 See Williams 1983a, 183-6, for Aigyptis see 185; see also Boardman1986, 254 and 257 fig. 5.

80 BM GR 1888.6-1.531: Gardner 1888, 64-5 and pl. 21 (inscr. no. 768);Möller 2000a, 178 no. 4.

Page 141: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 133

Abstract

Compared with the immense importance attributed to the Archaicpolis of Miletos during the Archaic period, only very littleinformation about this epoch, gathered from archaeologicalexcavations in Miletos itself, has been available until now.Questions regarding the numerous colonies and emporia of thecity, for example, are therefore somewhat difficult to answer. Dueto mass production and the virtually indestructible nature ofpottery, this category of finds in particular has been at the centre ofattention when questions regarding dating, trade and artistry havearisen. The following contribution intends to portray the currentstate of archaeological research on Miletos as concisely as possible,with pottery as its main focus.*

Introduction

Miletos was one of the most important Greek centres in the EastAegean during the Archaic period. In addition to its extensivecolonial activities in the Black Sea area,1 the polis, together withother Greek city states, also operated the port of trade Naukratisat the Canopic mouth of the Nile.2 However, archaeologicalevidence that would confirm the role ascribed to Miletos atNaukratis by literary tradition has so far failed to materialise.This gap in the archaeological record was often overrated in thepast, with Miletos’ role in Naukratis even being questionedaltogether.3 Sir John Boardman, however, had already realisedthat this discrepancy between the literary and archaeologicaltraditions must be attributed foremost to the lack of knowledgeabout pottery from the East Aegean: ‘When we know more, itseems likely that the Milesian share will be recognised at theexpense of the Rhodian.’4 Thus, the state of research on potteryproduction at Miletos is of immediate relevance to research inNaukratis.5

Until only a few years ago, knowledge of Milesian potteryand the pottery of the entire East Aegean was extremely meagre.Yet it is precisely pottery that is at the heart of archaeologicalresearch. In contrast to other categories of finds, their statisticalcomponents are hardly affected by chance preservation orthrough displacement and reuse in other contexts. In addition,pottery is found in large quantities in all locations, as it is a tradegood or commodity, on the one hand, and, on the other,sometimes even an artistic work itself, the canvas for vase-painting and coroplastic ornamentation. Thereby, potterycontributes significantly to our understanding of trade, the artsand crafts and cultural transfer during any particular period.Furthermore, inscriptions are occasionally found on pottery insanctuaries, and they aid in the understanding of the activitiesof individual persons in the past.

In recent years there have been rapid advances in researchon Archaic pottery from the East Aegean.6 Although extensiveexcavations have been carried out for many years in variouslocations – including in Archaic layers – it is a well-known fact

that publications do not keep pace with the finds.7 Theoriesbased on individual archaeological results should, therefore, for the time being, not be generalised, as they are far fromconclusive for many regions and locations. The increase infundamental information about pottery from the East Aegean is,however, not only the result of excavations. Important advances,particularly in the determination of the origin of individualpottery groups and types, have also been made thanks tocooperation with the natural sciences in the form ofarchaeometry.8 Thus, it is now possible to determine a surprisingdiversity in production within a few ceramic productioncentres.9 Scientific studies have their place in manycontributions in this volume10 or are the actual subject of thework.11 A third aspect of the progress in research on the ceramicproduction in the East Aegean lies in the renewal of outdatedterminological systems of classification. The development andestablishment of new systems of classification and terminologyare closely linked to the innovations mentioned earlier, that aredue to the increase in finds and the results from scientificstudies.12 Communicating the new information and achieving anadequate conformity across the results is essentially onlypossible with the consistent dismissal of obsolete systems, whichare based on fundamental misinterpretations. This moreoverprevents the danger of outdated research opinions being carriedon within systems that have merely been modified. At the sametime, however, the possibility of a new terminology has to beapproached with particular care. Only where it seems inevitableand where sufficient arguments for its use exist, should this pathbe chosen. A further danger lies in depriving categories ofmaterial of their history of research, or in establishing parallel,rival strands of research. With all this in mind, devising a newclassification system for the East Aegean, which moreovermakes the region comparable internally as well as with otherGreek landscapes, seemed an inevitable conclusion; this systemhas already been introduced and explained in detail elsewhere,and will be applied also in following (cf. also the overview chartFig. 10).13

Miletos and its hinterland

While previous research had always regarded Samos as theprominent centre of the arts in southern Ionia, the results ofrecent excavations in Miletos show that this site was in no wayinferior to its neighbouring island.14 This can be concluded froma large number of objects, which were discovered in thesettlement, the sanctuaries and the necropoleis of Miletos inrecent years.15 However, very little understanding of Milesianpottery production, particularly of painted pottery, exists as yet,even though the main focus of excavations in the city and itshinterland over the last one and a half decades has been on theArchaic period.16

The following pages are intended to provide an overview of

Some Observations on Milesian PotteryUdo Schlotzhauerwith contributions by P. Herrmann (†) and S.Weber

Page 142: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

134 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schlotzhauer

The pottery of Miletos: state of research on painting style and

types of vessels33

A new classification system has been developed for pottery ofthe East Aegean, which allows the integration of results fromrecent excavations, the natural sciences and an expandedmaterial basis.34 The system distinguishes undecorated as well asdecorated fine and everyday pottery according to larger andsmaller phases of development within the production site orlarger regions. This terminological convention has theadvantage that the spatial and chronological placement ofpottery can be readily determined by means of a standardselection of terms and code structure. The consistent applicationof this model will enable developments in different regions to becorrelated in a generally intelligible way. Thus, developments ina workshop in Aiolis can be easily and intelligibly compared withdevelopments in northern Ionia, southern Ionia or eastern Dorisas well as Caria and Lydia. Until now correlations such as thesewere only achievable by a specialist who was immediately ableto recognize that, for instance, the northern Ionian so-called‘Tübingen group’35 and the Chian ‘Comast group’,36 the groups Sand R, as well as the ‘Altenburg painter’ of the so-called Fikellurastyle37 from Miletos represent parallel developments from thelater second third of the 6th century bc. The geographicallocalisation as well as the stylistic classification and thechronological horizon of the categories of Knipovich group38 andEnmann group,39 too, cannot simply be presumed. The newclassification makes it easy to recognise, by means of the second,chronological component of the code, ‘A II’, that these arestylistically (often also chronologically) parallel developments,whether in northern Ionia (NiA II), on the island of Chios (ChiAII) or in south Ionian Miletos (MileA II).

This system is an open model, which can be adapted toconditions in different regions or parts of regions, in poleis andas far as workshops. The course of development is notnecessarily parallel everywhere, nor are developmentsstructured in the same way. A phase may, for example, be absentin one particular landscape or smaller region, while anotherworkshop elsewhere could, in turn, feature a phase more thanits neighbour. A developmental structure has yet to be drawn upfor many locations and periods, as research on ceramics in theEast Aegean has yet to reach the stage of that on the Archaic andClassical periods of Athens.

In Miletos, the division between the two main phases ofMilesian vase-painting is the change from the Wild Goat(henceforth ‘WG’) style, MileA I of the 7th and beginning of the6th century bc, to the so-called Fikellura style (MileA II), which,according to my opinion, emerged during the first third of the6th century bc. Figural and ornamental friezes, in which largeportions of the figural body (e.g. the heads – except for birds –wings and the belly) were reserved and the ornaments (e.g.buds and blossoms, as well as dividing bands) were outlined,had always been grouped together under the WG style. Bycontrast, the outlining technique became unusual in theFikellura style (MileA II).40 Until now a clear definition of both ofthese two main phases of Milesian painting has not beenestablished in any studies of these styles, which has often led todifferent ascriptions of individual examples. Unlike other Greekregions, Milesian painters retained their reserving techniqueeven during the phase of black-figured vase-painting and did notswitch to the incising technique. Therefore, in the case of

Milesian pottery, as far as it is understood at present, as well asadd some new results from the German excavations in Miletos.

The polis of Miletos

During the past 15 years the most important findspots forArchaic pottery within Miletos have been the well knownsanctuary of Athena in the centre of the ancient city, thesettlement and Artemis temple on the Kalabaktepe, and theAphrodite sanctuary on the Zeytintepe.17 Intensive excavationactivities took place in the settlement at the southern edge of thewalled Archaic city, at the Kalabaktepe, under the direction of V. von Graeve between 1986 and 1995.18 Here it was possible toestablish a stratigraphic sequence for the settlement layers,especially on the southern slope of the Kalabaktepe,19 throughwhich important information regarding the relative andabsolute chronology for the large quantity of associated potterycould be gained. Excavations on a smaller scale by M. Kerschner,who was able to identify the temple of Artemis Chitone on theeastern hill of the Kalabaktepe, yielded further stratigraphicallyrelevant pottery.20 A further focus of recent excavation activityhas been the Zeytintepe, a hill next to the gates of the city in thearea of an ancient settlement called Oikous.21 The sanctuary ofAphrodite of Oikous was discovered here in 1990 and excavatedsubsequently.

Thechora of Miletos22

Three important findspots for Archaic material are to be noted inthe chora of Miletos.23 Firstly, Assesos, presumably a Milesianfrurion at the Eastern edge of Milesia.24 In a rather restricted trialtrench, pottery was found, mainly of Archaic date, whichessentially resembled that found in Miletos. The finds are beingpublished by G. Kalaitzoglou.25 It is tempting to assume that thismay be the sanctuary of Athena at Assesos mentioned byHerodotus (1.19) and other ancient authors.26 However, thetopography of this site has not yet been clarified to an extentthat would permit its definitive identification. The proportion offine ceramics, particularly that of painted vases, is relativelylarge, so that these can hardly be classified as settlement finds.The absence, however, of votive inscriptions in general as well asupon the pottery itself, otherwise a common occurrence inMilesian sanctuaries, argues against these finds being sanctuarypottery. The question must thus remain open for the time being.Another important sanctuary in the chora, connected to the polisof Miletos by a prominent processional road, is the widelyrenowned oracular temple of Apollo at Didyma.27 Despite manyyears of excavation, only very little pottery pre-dating the 5th century bc was found at this location.28 Only in recent yearsfinds from the Archaic period have been accumulating. Thanksto the archaeologists excavating and studying the material inDidyma, the discovery of one specific find from this site can beplaced in a wider context here.29 Further finds, some Archaic,have been made along the processional road mentionedearlier.30 An intensive survey was also carried out in theremaining areas of the chora of Miletos.31 It did not, however,yield any noteworthy information relating to the Archaic choraor pottery from this period.32

Page 143: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 135

Some Observations on Milesian Pottery

Milesian products, it is not always easy to distinguish betweenthe two main phases AI and AII, particularly in cases of smallfragments. For the incising technique is regarded as an indicatorfor the clear division between the earlier and the later stylisticphases. Only recently was an attempt made to establish adefinition that can now be used as a starting point for a betterdifferentiation between the phases of Milesian vase-painting.41

A comprehensive proposal so far exists only for the earlyphase, the Archaic I period (MileA I), of Milesian paintedpottery. It suggests a division into four sub-phases, whichapproximately span the time from the second quarter of the 7thto the first quarter of the 6th century bc, based on thedevelopment of shapes and decorations.42 This kind of internaldivision does not as yet exist for the second period of Milesianvase-painting, MileA II.43 Ceramics from the Geometric44 andClassical periods will also need to be classified accordingly in thefuture.

The early period of Archaic vase-painting in Miletos: MileA I

The state of publications on vase-painting of the phase MileA I,which essentially encompasses the styles known so far as‘Subgeometric’ and ‘Wild Goat’ style,45 is extremely disparate.46

Noticeable in Milesian vase-painting of MileA I is the limitedrange of variation of ornaments and figures. Simplification anda limited figural repertoire occur in those phases in particular, inwhich there is an increase in production and standardisation(phases MileA Ic-d).47 Whereas sphinxes, griffins, boars, bulls,lions, panthers, foxes, hares and dogs were still representedmore frequently in the first two phases MileA Ia/b, in MileAIc/d, almost exclusively ibexes, deer and geese are depicted.Representations of humans, too, are very rare and have onlybeen documented for the late phase MileA Id, several times inform of a head protome48 and once as a horseman on a sherdfrom Daskyleion.49 Other representations of humans(presumably mythical or divine beings), in contrast, can only becited for the earliest phase MileA Ia.50

The newly proposed development is, according to thecurrent state of research, divided further into four phases.

Phase MileA Ia51 (c. 670–650 bc) is characterised as beingthe transition from the Geometric to the Early Archaic period.The distinction between it and the Geometric period is bestmanifested by the presence of several figures in the centralmetope field. Dot-filled volutes appear for the first time; in thefollowing phase they develop into the virtually mandatorycentral motif of the volute blossom, primarily in the shoulder-frieze on jugs. The lowest zone of decoration consists only of arow of vertical strokes or a wreath of rays. Sometimes the figuresstill have filled-in faces as in late Geometric, but usually they arealready reserved. In phase MileA Ia painted pottery shapes arelimited to oinochoai with a round mouth, kraters, amphorae andcups with everted rim.

In phase MileA Ib52 (c. 650–630 bc) the decoration of vesselschanges to include friezes encircling the whole vase. Aside fromthe row of strokes and the wreath of rays, lotus-and-bud chainsemerge and soon become canonical in the zone above the foot.Ornamental volutes are sometimes found on the underside ofdinoi or in the centre of plates and bowls. Filling ornaments andfauna attain their richest diversity during this phase. So far it hasbeen possible to detect phase MileA Ib on the following shapes:kraters, dinoi, lids, cups with everted rim, plates, and trefoil and

round-mouthed oinochoai.MileA Ic53 (c. 630–610 bc) is characterised in particular by

the fact that the hanging and standing triangles and the half-rosettes, which had already emerged in MileA Ib, are now linkedwith animals in the friezes and, thus, slow down its movement.The number of friezes on a vessel’s body also increases in someexamples, so that the body of the Lévy oinochoe,54 for instance,is covered by five animal friezes. There is a decrease in thevariety of figures and filling ornaments, the heights of thefriezes are reduced and friezes become more standardised.Likewise, the lotus-and-bud chain in the zone just above the footis only rarely replaced by a wreath of rays. The repertoire ofpainted shapes in MileA Ic comprises oinochoai with a trefoilmouth, kraters, dinoi, cups with everted rim, lids, plates andbowls.

The final phase MileA Id55 (c. 610–580 bc) leads to asimplification in decoration with elongated animals andornaments of exaggerated size. It is an economisingdevelopment, in which Milesian vase-painters fill out a friezewith only few animals or ornaments, an obvious result of massproduction. This characteristic feature of phase MileA Id is easilynoted. On the other hand, a superior figural painting stylepersists, which continues to feature numerous figures, ofteninteracting, as well as complicated ornamental friezes. Thus farthis it has not been possible yet to clearly differentiate thisfeature in all its aspects from the preceding phase MileA Ic. Thefact that this superior trend continues to exist even in the lastphase of MileA Id, alongside mass goods affected bysimplification, is indicated by vessels that represent thetransition to the late phase MileA II.

Phase MileA Id is also the earliest Milesian phase, theceramic produce of which is found at Naukratis. Amongst theseis the so-called Polemarchos-krater (Schlotzhauer and VillingFig. 19), which scientific analyses have identified as a product ofthe Kalabaktepe workshops.56 Further Milesian finds, includingthose of phase MileA Id, were made in Egypt, but outside ofNaukratis. One example57 is the amphora from Thebes/Gurna.58

The late period of Archaic vase-painting in Miletos: MileA II

Vessels which combine both stylistic stages MileA I and II, so-called bilinguals (cat. no. 1, Fig. 1), display in their MileA IIfriezes features of the first phase of the new period, MileA IIa.59

They should therefore be consistently attributed to MileA IIa,according to the archaeological principle ‘the youngest elementdates the find’, even if elements of the previous stylistic phaseMileA Id sometimes still prevail. Surprisingly, these earlyexamples already feature human representations with anarrative potential alongside conservative MileA I-style animalfriezes with animal-fighting scenes or rows of animals, all on thesame vessel.

The further development has not yet been worked out.However, there is now a much larger basis of material knownfrom excavations at Miletos, that will enable us to go beyond thelimits of the previously recognised groups,60 painters61 andrepertoire of shapes.62 The resulting increased diversity inknown designs in the period MileA II is easily explained by thefact that our previous knowledge was merely based on thepottery that was exported from Miletos.63 Only certain vaseshapes decorated in this style and only certain workshops andpainters, however, appear to be represented in export markets.64

Page 144: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

136 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schlotzhauer

Figure 2 MileA II, cup with everted rim: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 2)

Figure 1 MileA IIa, 'Aphrodite-Cup', cup with everted rim: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 1)

Page 145: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

An amphora from Tell Defenneh

S. Weber (NAA carried out by H. Mommsen and A. Schwedt, Bonn)The amphora (cat. no. 3, Fig. 3) was found at an undesignatedplace in the ‘kasr’ during the excavation at Tell Defenneh, a sitein the eastern Nile delta, which was conducted by William M.Flinders Petrie in 1886.70 The vessel is decorated with a row ofstrokes on the lip and a triple cable on the neck, which issurmounted, on side A, by a simple gear pattern and, on side B,by chevrons. On the shoulder is a small lotus-frieze and a broadfrieze of water birds facing to the right. The belly is painted witha meander-and-square band; below that is a frieze of animals(seven goats and a deer are preserved), followed below by ahook meander and enclosed palmettes; and finally below that anarrow band with a simple gear pattern and a lotus band. Fillingornaments consist of simple four-dot-rosettes in the figuralfriezes and of very hastily painted small lotus flowers betweenthe feet of the animals.

The amphora, together with seven other examples decoratedin the so-called ‘Fikellura style’, was assigned by R.M. Cook tohis group C, named after our amphora ‘group of B.M. B 117’.71

Cook suggested a date not long after 550 bc. It is a veryheterogeneous group related to his group B or ‘Lion group’, butthe rendering of the animals of our amphora is clumsier thanthat on vases of this group. Thus, this amphora standsstylistically somewhat apart from the other vases painted in thisstyle. This led to speculations about the amphora’s place oforigin. The possibility that Fikellura (= MileA II),72 like theOrientalizing animal frieze style, the so-called Wild Goat style(= EA I),73 was produced in different cities in the East Greekarea with Samos or Rhodes as the main centres, was consideredby R.M. Cook74 and also favoured by E. Walter-Karydi.75 For theamphora B 117, however, Walter-Karydi tentatively proposed anEphesian origin.76 As a characteristic feature of Ephesianmanufacture she cited the band of black and white squares,77 adecorative element, however, not painted on the amphora B 117.Walter-Karydi, of course, based her attributions upon stylisticstudies long before clay analyses were carried out. In the last 20years analyses have shown that patterns of the chemicalelements in the clay paste of vases in the Fikellura style conformto Milesian clay beds.78 In consequence, in 1986 G.P. Schausrejected the hypothesis of different production centres forFikellura vases, basing his arguments upon the clay analyses andhis stylistic study of two major Fikellura painters. He concludedthat vases in the Fikellura style must have been made in one cityonly: Miletos.79 Nevertheless, we still have the Ephesian originfor the amphora from Tell Defenneh once suggested by Walter-Karydi. New clay analyses could be the key to solving thisproblem.

In fact, NAA analyses of three MileA II (= Fikellura) sherdsfound in Ephesos, which are close in style to two of the vasesfrom Ephesos listed by Walter-Karydi and assumed by her to beEphesian, have been carried out by M. Kerschner and H.Mommsen.80 The analyses revealed that the vases belong to thechemical provenance groups A and D. Group A is definitely aMilesian pattern and belongs to the so-called Kalabaktepeworkshops; D can be located in all probability in Miletos aswell.81

The NAA analysis of amphora B 117 now carried out by H.Mommsen and A. Schwedt in Bonn, sample number Defe 11, hasproven that the clay paste of our vessel belongs to the chemical

Others vases, particularly those of high quality, seem to haveremained within the most immediate geographicalsurroundings. Vessels in this style have now been discovered inMiletos, and they feature an abundance of representations ofmyths, gods, everyday life and religious festivals, as well asnames. This may be exemplified by a piece that was recentlydiscovered in the sanctuary of Aphrodite at Miletos (cat. no. 2,Fig. 2).65 It is presumably the goddess herself who appears as themistress of nature in the centre of the finely made vessel, a cupwith everted rim. She holds a panther in her left hand.66 Floralmotifs complete the reference to nature. The ‘bent-knee’ runningpose of the goddess is so far unique and distinguishes her fromthe static, frontally orientated and winged mistress of theanimals, who usually also holds an animal in both hands.

Only a few examples of unusual vase forms or unparalleleddecoration from phase MileA II reached the Milesian coloniesand emporia. Mugs with trefoil mouth67 and plastic head-kantharoi or -mugs68 should be recalled here.69 A prime examplefor this phenomenon is a long-known vase from Egypt that hadbeen thought to be unique but that can now be associated with aMilesian workshop. The first indication of its Milesian origin wasprovided by the scientific determination of origin via NAA in2004. This was later confirmed by new finds in Miletos in thesummer of 2005, thus confirming the reliability of the scientificprocedure. This piece will be discussed in some detail in thefollowing paragraphs.

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 137

Some Observations on Milesian Pottery

Figure 3 MileA II, amphora:Tell Defenneh, fort (BM GR 1888.2-8.46a; sample Defe11: group D) (cat. no. 5)

Page 146: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

138 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schlotzhauer

group D.82 With this result we can conclude that at the momentthere is no evidence for the production of vases belonging to theMileA II period ( = Fikellura) in Ephesos. Vases in this style wereproduced in different workshops in Miletos and its chora. Inaddition local imitations can be detected in some of its coloniesand in Naukratis.83

The results attained by S. Weber and H. Mommsen on theamphora from Tell Defenneh have thus led to quite surprisingconclusions that stand in a long line of similar new discoverieshaving been made through scientific clay analyses. Earlierinvestigations by R.E. Jones, M.J. Hughes and P. Dupont, as wellas more recent work by J.N. Coldstream together with D.J. Liddyand by M. Seifert with Ü. Yalçýn had already provided evidencethat the so-called animal frieze and Fikellura styles wereproduced in Miletos, as were cups with everted rim, transportamphorae and other shapes.84 This evidence and a detaileddiscussion have been presented by M. Kerschner.85 Augmentedby new research initiated by M. Kerschner and H. Mommsenusing the NAA method, all this now allows a much clearer anddifferentiated picture of Milesian pottery to be drawn.Investigations continue as colleagues with pottery finds fromdifferent sites join the project of M. Kerschner and H. Mommsen.86 As a result, a multitude of different vessels cannow be added to the Milesian groups A and presumably D,87 a

new overview of archaeometric results on Milesian ceramics istherefore of utmost urgency.

In addition to scientific results, new finds from Miletos alsoprovide added support for the stylistic attribution to a Milesianworkshop of the amphora from Tell Defenneh, which with itspeculiar decoration has stood in isolation thus far. These recentfinds show that the creator (or his workshop) of the amphorafrom Tell Defenneh also decorated other shapes, and thatperhaps he/they also potted them. One cup (cat. no. 4, Fig. 4) isdecorated with young leaping deer, which clearly displays thesame style in painting as the deer and goats on the amphorafrom Tell Defenneh (Fig. 3). The same painter’s hand can berecognised in the clumsy depiction of the animals with theircharacteristically exaggerated spots, as well as in the peculiarityof the composition despite the difference in the type of animals.Although filling ornaments are absent on the cup from thesanctuary of Aphrodite near Miletos, nevertheless the samedecorative scheme can be recognised as on the amphora.Simple, sometimes double dividing lines border the frieze andthe dividing bands, and the painter’s preference for simpleseparating bands with a gear pattern is more than obvious onboth vessels. Furthermore, a third vessel, a bowl (cat. no. 5, Fig. 5), provides the perfect analogy for the depictions of birdson the amphora (Fig. 3), which until now had been unique.Here, too, the similarities are astonishing, in detail as well as ingeneral conception. Although, again, the filling ornaments thatdecorate the amphora are absent, a simple band with a gearpatter divides the bird frieze from the band of flower buds onthe cup from Miletos, just as on the amphora.

Further observations on painted mugs of the phase MileA II

from Miletos

The group of painted mugs and their variety of shapes hasreceived little attention thus far. Yet mugs constitute asubstantial part of the finds from Miletos and quantitatively arehardly less significant than cups with everted rim (Ionian cups)or hemispherical cups (‘bowls’). The abundance of variations inshape and type is likewise notable. Some differ considerably inthe shape of the foot, the rim or the number of handles. Forexample, there are mugs with a disk base,88 with a ring-base thatcan be offset (Figs 8, 9)89 or not,90 and mugs with a simple flatbase91 (Fig. 7). Likewise, the rim can be shaped differently. Somerims are straight and others flaring.92 In another variety the rimis undulating. In view of the similarity to oinochoai with trefoilmouth, these mugs are designated ‘with trefoil mouth’ (Fig. 9).93

Their mouth, however, is much flatter and has more lobes thanthe mouth of trefoil-mouthed oinochoai, which have only threepronounced lobes. Recently, a further significant and almostcomplete example of the type of ‘mug with trefoil mouth’ hasbeen published, from the area of the sanctuary of the Milesianoracular temple of Apollo at Didyma.94 In view of its almostcomplete state of preservation, it is now apparent that this groupof trefoil mugs usually had two handles.95 Other varieties ofmugs possess up to three handles, although the mug with onlyone vertical handle is most common. However, no examples ofsuch mugs have been found thus far in Naukratis. In spite of theunusually large multitude of pottery types from the East Aegeanat this site, only South Ionian mugs with a simple flat base and aflaring rim are known from the site. It can be proven that thesewere produced not just at Miletos but also at Samos, as attested

Figure 5 MileA II, cup: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 5)

Figure 4 MileA II, mug: Miletos;temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 4)

Page 147: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 139

Some Observations on Milesian Pottery

by their dipinto HRH as well as by scientific analyses of their clay(e.g. samples Nauk 1-3, Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 14–16).96

By contrast, it had long been assumed that an example ofanother South Ionian/Milesian group of high quality mugs orkantharoi was represented in Naukratis, namely a Milesian mugor kantharos in the form of a head (sample Nauk 57, groupKROP). The long development of this type can be traced inMiletos through a series of new finds.97 However, it has beenshown that the unusual stylistic features of the fragment, whichuntil now had been attributed to its date, must be interpreteddifferently, for the fragment found in Naukratis is presumablyfrom a painted mould-made head-kantharos with additionalmodelling that was produced in Athens.98

The rich variety of mugs presented here represents only apart of the Milesian production of painted and plasticallydecorated MileA II mugs of the 6th century bc.99 Mugs of thephases MileG and MileA I from the preceding Geometric andearly Archaic periods, especially the painted examples, will bediscussed elsewhere.100 Here, mention will be made, however, ofa further aspect, which is connected with the category of latepainted MileA II cups and which is significant especially inconnection with Naukratis. Decorated cups with votiveinscriptions in the form of dipinti have recently been discoveredat Miletos in unprecedented large numbers.101 Three of thesemugs, from different find contexts, are almost identical in formand on the basis of their similar decoration are presumablyclosely connected in date. Moreover, in three cases (cat. nos 7–9;Figs 7, 8, 9) the name of the dedicator is the same, so that itseems conclusive that the three mugs were ordered by the sameperson from the same workshop within a short span of time.Precisely this aspect is encountered in Naukratis as well. Here,vessels with the name of the dedicator AIGUPTIS, likewisepainted before firing on Chios, arrived at the sanctuary ofAphrodite, most likely have been transported there by a traderacting on a customer’s order.102 A further argument for thetheory or a special order to a workshop in Miletos is the essentialcorrespondence in decoration and form observable in two of thefour mugs presented here (cat. nos 6–9, Figs 6–9). Of specialinterest is the fact that the four vessels had already beendetermined for dedication to specific deities prior to theircompletion. In fact, the mugs were found in differentsanctuaries at Miletos, in the ancient city as well as in thesurrounding area, but only one vessel preserves the name of thedeity (cat. no. 7, Fig. 7).

The fragment of the mug (cat. no. 6, Fig. 6) from theTaxiarchis hill near the oracular sanctuary of Apollo Didymaioshas already been published.103 The excavators assume that thehill is the location of one of the historically documentedsanctuaries of Didyma.104 In view of the find context there is nodoubt that the pottery was meant for the sanctuary. Thededicatory inscription A]NEQHK[E(N) on the mug fragmentillustrated here adds certainty to this assumption. Although inthis case the deity to whom the dedicator offered the mugcannot be determined, nevertheless the fragment of theMilesian mug from Didyma can be added to a series of votivemugs. A better preserved mug (cat. no. 7, Fig. 7) from the site ofthe temple of Athena in Miletos corresponds to the mug inDidyma in form and decoration. On this mug as well there is adipinto in the same place as on the mug from Didyma, betweenthe likewise identical decoration, and this dipinto also attests

Figure 7 MileA II, mug with flat base: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 7)

Figure 8 MileA II, mug with an offset ring-base: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite(cat. no. 8)

Figure 6 MileA II, mug: Didyma, sanctuary on the Taxiarchis hill (cat. no. 6)

Page 148: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

140 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schlotzhauer

that the dedicator already had determined the intended deityprior to ordering it in the workshop. But even more informationcan be gained from the mug from the temple of Athena. Themug was dedicated to Apollo by a man by the name of )/Alsiojor La/sioj, although it was allegedly found ‘near the temple ofAthena’. Unfortunately, not all the documentation of theexcavation of P. Hommel in 1957 at the site is accessible, nor didHommel publish many of the important finds. Therefore, theexact spot of the mug’s discovery cannot be determined with anycertainty. However, the fact that the mug was found near thesanctuary of Athena is clearly to be understood from theexcavation diary.105 Other, still extant finds from the context AT57.O.191 range in date from late Geometric to the Classicalperiods. Dedications to other deities in a sanctuary of oneparticular deity are attested in other places as well. Thus, in theMilesian colony at Olbia a dedication to Athena was found in thesanctuary of Apollo.106 This might suggest that same cultpartnership was present in Miletos’ colony as might be deducedfor Miletos from the discovery of the mug. The veneration of oneor several deities in a sanctuary dedicated to one specific god isnot exceptional. But this is not the only possible solution. It isworth contemplating whether other sanctuaries stood to theeast of the temple of Athena. Indeed, a sanctuary of Demeter hasbeen postulated after the 5th century bc in the area close towhere the mug was found.107 However, its existence is notattested with any certainty either through architecture orinscriptions. In view of the mug’s good preservation and thesherds’ clean breaks, it does not seem likely to have beenbrought from the distant sanctuary of Apollo Delphinios nearthe South Market. Overall, it is thus perhaps most likely that yetanother sanctuary of Apollo is to be located in the unexcavatedarea to the east of the so-called Southeast building108 or in thesoutheast section,109 about whose epithet, however, as little canbe said at present as about the architectural form of thepresumed sanctuary.110

And what about the inscription on the mug? Following theauthor’s rediscovery of the long forgotten mug in the store-rooms of the Miletos excavation, P. Herrmann – shortly beforehis sadly premature death – wrote the following shortcommentary on the inscription:111

Der Textaufbau ist klar, allein der Name des Dedikanten bleibtproblematisch. Nach meinen Notizen führen die Schriftreste amAnfang eher auf LA als auf AL, also

)/A?lsioj m[a)ne&q]hken tw)p?[o/l]lwnioder

)/Alsio/j m[e a)ne&q]hken tw~i?? [ 0Apo/l]lwniFür einen Namen )/Alsioj konnte ich keinen Beleg finden.

Es gibt in Kos und Kalymna einen Monatsnamen )/Alseioj oder)Alsei=oj, der auf a)/Lsoj zurückgeführt wird. a)/Lsoj selbstwiederum wird etymologisch nach einer unter mehrerenAnnahmen mit dem Stamm al- ‘nähren’ verbunden, danachauch eine lexikalische Glosse a)/Lsij ‘Wachstum’, die mit demWort a)ldai/nw ‘zum Wachsen bringen’ kombiniert wird.112 Vonder Bildung her hielte ich diese Namensform also für möglich.

Sollte die Lesung aber doch La/sioj lauten, hätte man einenBeleg für diese Namensform in Tegea,113 dazu wohl auch Lasi/ajauf Münzen von Katane und Achaia. La/sioj wird von F. Bechtel114 von dem Adjektiv La/sioj abgeleitet und als ‘mitbehaarter Brust’ interpretiert.

Ich finde übrigens dasselbe Dilemma bei einem Namen aufChios: eine Inschrift hat einen Namen )/Alswn.115 Auf Münzender Alexanderzeit aus Chios ist dagegen ein La/swn bezeugt.116

Beide Belege dürften aber denselben Namen meinen117 – nur:welche Form ist richtig?

Man sollte im Falle der Tasse von Milet vielleicht schreiben:)/A?lsioj oder L?a?&sioj, eine sichere Entscheidung scheint mirnicht möglich.

Beitrag P. Herrmann †

In the year 2005 a further mug (cat. no. 8, Fig. 8) was discoveredin the sanctuary of Aphrodite of Oikous, which was locatedoutside the walls of Miletos, to the northwest on the hill knowntoday as ‘Zeytintepe’. It differs in form and decoration from thetwo preceding mugs and belongs to the group of mugs withincurving ring-base.118 It nevertheless represents the stylisticgroup MileA II and, hence, was produced during the sameperiod. This is clearly confirmed by the dipinto as well. For, notonly does the form of the letters correspond most closely, but thename )/A?lsioj or L?a?&sioj (Fig. 8) – unknown until now –appears again on this mug. The appearance of such a rare nameon two almost coeval mugs found at the same site would renderit unlikely that two different persons were the dedicators. N. Ehrhardt points out, furthermore, that this person does notuse an ethnikon nor a surname, so that there is no possibility of amix-up in dedicators.119 This new inscription also solves P. Herrmann’s problem of how to reconstruct the inscription: itcan now be considered as certain that the inscriptions on allthree mugs must derive from one and the same person, and thatthis person presumably chose the same form with krasis, that is,)/A?lsioj or L?a?&sioj ma)ne&qhken .

In the year 2005 yet another find appeared, which elucidates

Figure 9 MileA II, mug with trefoil mouth and offset ring-base: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 9)

Page 149: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 141

Some Observations on Milesian Pottery

the final remaining question as to the person behind the threededicated mugs with dipinto inscriptions. This time thefragment of a trefoil-mouthed mug (cat. no. 9, Fig. 9)120 witheye-decoration121 displays a graffito on the inside of the rim.Here, finally, both of the disputed first letters are preserved.Thus, the name is now confirmed at Miletos in three cases:)/Alsioj. With the graffito, in contrast to the dipinto, we have apresumably spontaneous expression of the same person, whoonce more dedicated a mug in the sanctuary of Aphrodite nearMiletos. It cannot be determined whether or not the personcarried out this act before or after offering the other mugs. But itdoes indeed illustrate the variety of forms and decorations thatwere in vogue on mugs alone during this short period, theperiod in which )/Alsioj ordered mugs painted in the style ofMileA II in a Milesian workshop and then dedicated them inMilesian sanctuaries.

Catalogue

AbbreviationsDiam. DiameterL. LengthTh. ThicknessW. WidthNAA Neutron Activation Analysis

1. Aphrodite-cup, cup with everted rim; MileA IIa (Fig. 1)Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near MiletosBalat Depot, Inv. Z 01.15.3– Z 01.70.2 – Z 02.20.3 – Z 02.56.1Ht. as restored 7.7cm; Diam. of rim 17.8cm; Diam. of foot 6.8cm; Th. 0.26–0.34cm.Clay: 7.5 YR 7/4-6 to 2.5 Y 7-6/2; soft consistency; very fine temper, dense,fine black particles, much fine dark mica; surface well smoothed; paint:reddish-black, varying on the outside, in some places ‘lacquer red’, inothers (inside) dark reddish-black; applied colour: red; slip: 2.5 Y 8/1 to 5Y 7/1.Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 01.15 from Q 01.10:Archaic layer, undisturbed, on the virgin soil (‘Feste Erdschicht direkt aufdem Felsen’). Z 01.70 from Q 01.14: also contained worked marblefragments, therefore post-Archaic layer (‘Schutt der persischenZerstörung’). Z 02.20 from Q 01.14: continuation of Z 01.75 (= late Archaicdislodged and recently disturbed?). Z 02.56 from Q 01.14: oldest layer,eroded limestone, above the natural depression in the centre of thetrench, perhaps the northern extension.Published: Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b); Kerschner and Schlotzhauer2005, 50-1 figs 50-1.

Figure 10 Classification system of South Ionian pottery

New Classification

650

b

c

d

a

SiA I

SiA II

630

670

610

580

570

EWG

MWG I

MWG II

E.g. Bilinguals

Fikellura

Hiatus? or

Classification of R. M. Cook 1998

MWG III?

560

New classification of East Greek pottery (demonstrated on the example of South Ionia)

Early Orientalising

SiC

SiG

650

625

600

494494

675

a

590

Page 150: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

142 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schlotzhauer

2. Cup with everted rim; MileA II (Fig. 2)Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near MiletosBalat Depot, Inv. Z 04.14.60 – Z 04.21.19Ht. 4.1cm; Diam. of rim 12.8cm; Diam. of foot 6.2cm; Th. 0.2–0.4cmClay: 5-7.5 YR 6-7/4-6; firm consistency; very fine temper; fine compactmatrix; much fine dark mica; surface: well smoothed; paint: reddish-brown to black, varying, light metallic sheen; applied colour: red; slip: 10YR 8/3.Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 04.14 from Q 04.3:firm, light brown, layer of earth mixed with many pieces of limestone andmarble; much pottery at the southern edge, increasing in numbertowards the adjoining find context Z 04.12, a lamp depot. Building debrisand rubbish from the sanctuary, Late Archaic period, end of the 6thcentury bc. Z 04.21 from Q 04.3: sandy, whitish-grey layer with limestonechips and ash; strong concentrations of ash in several places, some withpieces of charcoal; worked marble blocks; lots of bones and buildingdebris: Building debris and rubbish from the sanctuary, Late Archaicperiod, end of the 6th century bc.Unpublished.3. Amphora from Tell Defenneh; MileA IIa (Fig. 3)From Tell DefennehLondon, British Museum, GR 1888.2-8.46a including GR 1924.12-1.1080(Vase B 117)Ht. as restored 31.5cm; Diam. of rim 15.6–14.7cmClay: light reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/3), contains mica, very pale brownslip (10 YR 8/4), contains mica; paint: reddish brown.Lower part of the belly and the foot are missing; one reed of the triplehandle on each side is missing; on side B most part of the belly is restored.The restoration renders too squat an impression of the shape.Published: Petrie 1888, pl. 27.3 and 3a; Petrie 1891a, 56 fig. 1; Walters1893, 92 no. B 117; Cook 1933/4, 8 (C1), 9, 65, 73, fig. 13.9, pl. 4c; Cook1954, 7 pl. G.B. 574, 1, details of shoulder pl. G.B. 569, 3-4; Walter-Karydi1973, 137 no. 683, pl. 89; Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber(forthcoming).4. Fragment of a mug; MileA II (Fig. 4)Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near MiletosBalat Depot, Inv. Z 04.23.13 – Z 04.71.11L. 7.9cm; W. 9.3cm; Th. 0.3–0.65cmClay: 5-7.5 YR 7/6; firm consistency; fine temper; dense matrix; muchfine dark mica; surface: well smoothed; paint: dull reddish ‘lacquer-like’;slip: 2.5 Y 8/2.Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 04.23 from Q 04.3:large sherds of amphorae and bowl, densely packed: sanctuary rubbish,Late Archaic period, end of the 6th century bc. Z 04.71 from Q 04.1: layerof greyish brown sandy clay, little marble, only few worked pieces: fill ofbuilding debris and sanctuary rubbish, Late Archaic period, end of the6th century bc.Unpublished.5. Fragment of a cup; MileA II (Fig. 5)Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near MiletosBalat Depot, Inv. Z 04.7.51 – Z 04.75.102L. 6.2cm; Diam. of foot 10.1cm; Th. 0.3–0.35cmClay: 5 YR 7/4; firm consistency; very fine temper; fine dense matrix;much fine dark mica; surface: very well smoothed; paint: brownish-black, dull, dense; applied colour: red; slip: 10 YR 8/3.Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 04.51 from Q 04.3:light brown, in places whitish earth: sanctuary rubbish, Late Archaicperiod. Z 04.75 from Q 04.5: loose, medium grey layer of fill with lots ofworn pottery, medium-sized to large pieces of limestone and marble:building debris and sanctuary rubbish, Late Archaic period, end of the6th century bc.Unpublished.6. Fragment of a mug from Didyma with dipinti-dedication (Fig. 6)Sanctuary on the Taxiarchis near the sanctuary of Apollo at DidymaDidyma Depot, Inv. Ke 00-110Published: Bumke and Röver 2002, 98 fig. 18, 99 fig. 21.7. Fragment of a mug with simple flat base;122 MileA II (Fig. 7)Near the sanctuary of Athena at MiletosBalat Depot, Inv. AT 57.O.191.1Ht. as restored 7.3cm; Diam. of foot 6.8cm; Th. 0.4 - 0.6cmClay: 7.5 YR 7/6; firm consistency; very fine temper; with fine inclusions,dense clay mass; much fine and coarse dark glimmer; surface: wellsmoothed; paint: visible strokes, varying reddish-brown to black, lightmetallic sheen.Near the sanctuary of Athena. Find context 191: Archaic layers. Southeast

section, north-eastern part. Upper layers disturbed, lower layers mixed:from the Archaic to late Mycenaean periods.123

Unpublished.8. Fragment of a mug with offset ring-base, type b;124 MileA II (Fig. 8)Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near MiletosBalat Depot, Inv. Z 05.19.18Ht. as restored 7.8cm; W. 7.7cm; Diam. of foot 6.6cm; Th. 0.25–0.6cmClay: 5-7.5 YR 7/6; firm consistency; fine temper; fine dense matrix;much fine and some coarse dark mica; surface: well smoothed; paint:varying black to brown, dull sheen, visible brush strokes.Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 05.19 from Q 05.3:grey earth with much pottery and building debris: rubbish pit, LateArchaic, end of the 6th century bc.Unpublished.9. Fragment of a mug with trefoil mouth125 and offset ring-base, typeb126 MileA II (Fig. 9)Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near MiletosBalat Depot, Inv. Z 05.20.36 – Z 05.88.100 – Z 05.106.46H. 13.2cm; Diam. of rim c. 16.5cm; Diam. of foot 14cm; Th. 0.38–1.02cmClay: 7.5-10 YR 7/6-4; firm consistency; fine temper; fine dense matrix;much fine dark mica; surface: well smoothed; paint: varying black tobrown, dull sheen, visible brush strokes; slip: 10 YR 8/2.Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context: Z 05.20 from Q 05.4:part of the thick, densely packed pottery layer found in most of thisquadrant as well as in the neighbouring quadrants Q 04.3, Q 05.1 and Q05.2. Firmly bonded mixture of largish pieces of limestone and chalkysoil. Pottery and bone finds correspond to Z 05.6. Z 05.88 from Q 05.2:high concentration of pottery, bone and small finds as well as manymarble chips. Dark humus-rich soil, with limestone chips spilling in fromthe east. Part of the pottery deposition of the terrace fill, with diagonallayers of fill. Borders in the W on Q 05.4 and is connected with Z 05.6 andZ 05.20. Z 05.106 from Q 05.2: underneath Z 05.88. Loose humus soilwith a large proportion of ash and thereby intensely grey-ish in colour.Interspersed with small stones, much pottery and marble. Borders on Q05.4 in the W and is connected with Z 05.6 and Z 05.20.Unpublished.

Illustration creditsFig. 1a author, 1b–d H. Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 2a–b author, 2c–e H.Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 3a-b British Museum; Fig. 4a author, 4b H.Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 5a author, 5b H. Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 6a–bexcavation at Didyma; Fig. 7a–c author, 7d H. Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 8a–bauthor, 8c H. Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 9a–b author; Fig. 9c H. Grönwald,Berlin; Fig. 10 U. Schlotzhauer.

Notes* My gratitude is extended to the director of the excavation at Miletos,

Prof. Dr. Volkmar von Graeve (Bochum), who gave me this materialfrom Miletos for research and made it possible for me to report on ithere. I also express my thanks to H. Bumke (Bonn) and to F. Heinrich(Bonn), who researches Archaic pottery from Didyma, forpermission to publish and for providing the illustration of the mug(cat. no. 6, Fig. 6). For taking on the task of translating and checkingmy text I am grateful to E. Schalk (Berlin) as well as A. Villing and D.Williams (London).With regard to terminology, there have been regrettable alterationscompared to the preliminary report (for example, Kerschner inAkurgal et al. 2002, 10). The terminology used here is based upon thepublication by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005 (for example, ‘Mile’instead of ‘Mil’, ‘A Ia’ instead of ‘SubG’, etc.), and this is theterminology which should also be used by future studies.

1 Ehrhardt 1988.2 Hdt. 2.178; Strabo 17.1.18; but see the discussion of the role of Miletos

in Naukratis from the viewpoint of ancient literature; e.g. Möller2001, 1–21; 2005; Bresson 2005.

3 See, e.g., Austin 1970, 51 n. 4; Sullivan 1996, 190; Möller 2000b, 747;for the other position favouring a leading role of Miletos, see Haider1996, 97; Herda (forthcoming b).

4 Boardman 1980, 49.5 See e.g. Schlotzhauer 2001a.6 Important articles on pottery in the East Aegean that have appeared

in recent years: Akurgal et al. 2002; Attula 2006; Ersoy 2003, 2004;Hürmüzlü 2004a; Kerschner et al. 2002; Kerschner 2003, Ýren 2002,2003; Özer 2004.

Page 151: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 143

Some Observations on Milesian Pottery

7 A fact that is rarely brought to speech, but which presents a seriousproblem for many excavations.

8 Akurgal et al. 2002; Coldstream and Liddy 1996, 480-1; Dupont 1983,1986, 2000; Hertel et al. 2001; Hughes et al. 1988; Jones 1986;Kerschner et al. 1993, 2002; Kerschner and Mommsen 2005;Kerschner 2006; Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006;Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov2006; Schlotzhauer 2006; Seifert 1998, 2004; Seifert and Yalçýn1996.

9 One need only compare the surprising results relating to group Gand g, which have been localised in Aiolian Kyme. With the aid ofarchaeometry an especially broad range of production can beproven; see Kerschner and Mommsen in this volume. The scientificresults found archaeological confirmation in the fill of a kiln atKlazomenai, which contained a large number of different fabrics anddecorative styles. See the preliminary report by Y. Ersoy 2003.

10 See the papers in this volume by Attula, Bailey, Schlotzhauer andVilling, Weber, and Williams and Villing.

11 See the papers in this volume by Attula and Mommsen; Dupont andThomas; Kerschner; Kerschner and Mommsen; and Mommsen et al.

12 See, e.g., Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.13 See Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 1-4.14 Thus far there are few summarising monographs on Miletos. The

most recent attempts are Gorman 2001 and Greaves 2002 (forGreaves see the reviews: Osborne 2003; Cobet 2004; Posamentir2006), which includes older literature on Miletos and publicationsuntil 1999. A very comprehensive bibliography on Miletos isforthcoming by Ehrhardt, Lohmann and Weber in Cobet et al.(forthcoming). Important recent works on urban history,excavations and finds (excluding Milesian pottery), are Barrandonand Marcellesi 2005; Brize 2001; Cobet 2000, (forthcoming);Ehrhardt 1998, 2003a, 2003b; Forbeck 2002; Forbeck and Heres1997; Günther 2003; Donder 2002; Graeve et al. 1999, 2001, 2005;Graeve 1997/8, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2005, (forthcoming);Heinz (forthcoming); Held 2000, 2002, 2004; Henke 2005; Herda1998, 2005, (forthcoming a), (forthcoming b); Herrmann et al. 2006;Köster 2004; Krumme (forthcoming); Kunisch (forthcoming);Panteleon 2005; Pfisterer-Haas 1999; Schneider 1999; Selesnow2002; Senff 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, (forthcoming); Starke2000; Stümpel et al. 2005; Weber 2002, 2004; and Zimmermann(forthcoming).

15 See e.g. on aegyptiaca: Hölbl 1999, (forthcoming); bronzes: Brize2001; Donder 2002; terracotta figurines: Graeve 1999,(forthcoming); stone sculpture: Graeve 1983, 1985, 1986a, 1986b,1996, 2005.

16 The most important publications on Milesian pottery, mainly of theArchaic period, are the following: A. finds: Graeve 1971, 1978; Graeveet al. 1986, 1987; Heinz 1990; Hommel 1959/60; Kleine 1979; Kleiner1959/60; Mallwitz and Schiering 1968; Niemeier 1999, 381-414. B. Individual categories and observations: Aydemir 2005; Carl(forthcoming); Käufler 1999; Kerschner 1999, 2002; Kerschner andMommsen 2005; Ketterer 1999; Krumme 2003; Naso 2005a;Posamentir 2002; Schlotzhauer 1999, 2000, 2001a, 2001b,(forthcoming a), (forthcoming b); Seifert 2004; Villing 1999;Voigtländer 1982, 1986.

17 See Held 2000, 2004; Niemeier 1999.18 Brinkmann 1990; Graeve et al. 1986, 1987, 1990b; Seifert 1991; Senff

1997c.19 Graeve 1997/8, 75-80; Graeve and Senff 1990, 1991; Heinrich and

Senff 1992; Senff 1995a, 1997b, 2000.20 See Kerschner 1995, 1999; Kerschner and Senff 1997. For cult, see

Ehrhardt 2003b, 280-9; Herda 1998.21 See e.g. Gans 1991; Graeve 1997/8, 83-7; Graeve et al. 2005; Heinz

and Senff 1995; Senff 1992, 1997a, 2003. For the settlement atOikous, see Herrmann 1995, 285; Ehrhardt 2003b, 270-80; Herda2005, 288-9 with ns 216-18, 291 with n. 230; (forthcoming b, chap. Iwith n. 12, chap. IX with ns 289, 292-6); Lohmann 2002, 232-3.

22 Most recently on the hinterland of Miletos, with extensive literature:Lohmann 2002. See also on Teichioussa: Voigtländer 2004.

23 A general overview is presented by Senff 2006.24 Lohmann 1995, 311-22, 1997a, 2002, 179-81; Senff 1995b; B.F. Weber

1995. O. Rayet and A. Thomas already localised the site in 1877 aswell as U. v. Wilamowitz in 1906 (detailed descriptions by Herrmann1995, 291-2 with ns 152-3).

25 Kalaitzoglou (forthcoming).26 See Lohmann 1995, 1997b; Kalaitzoglou (forthcoming).27 The bibliography on Didyma is very comprehensive. Here only the

most recent are mentioned; through them older works can also beaccessed: Bumke et al. 2000, 2002; Filges 2004; Filges and Tuchelt2002; Tuchelt (forthcoming).

28 See e.g. Naumann and Tuchelt 1963/4, 42-62 pls 8-26; Tuchelt et al.1971, 57-87 pls 3-17, 1973/4, 149-51, Schattner 1989, 1992.

29 This excavation is part of a project being conducted by H. Bumke(Bonn), E. Röver (Berlin) and A. Filges (Frankfurt) at the Taxiarchishill. See preliminary reports by Bumke and Röver 2002; Filges 2004;Filges and Tuchelt 2002. My gratitude to H. Bumke (Bonn) and F.Heinrich (Bonn), who is studying the Archaic pottery, for theopportunity to see the excavation material and illustrations of themug fragment cat. no. 6 (Fig. 6).

30 Tuchelt 1996; Bumke et al. 2000. For a summary on the ProcessionalAvenue, see Herda (fortcoming a), (forthcoming b). For Archaic andlater pottery from the cultic area on the Sacred Road, see Schattnerin Tuchelt 1996.

31 Lohmann 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004,(forthcoming); Berndt 2003.

32 In particular, thus far no Archaic kilns have been found outside of theancient city of Miletos.

33 In the following the new classification system for East Greek potteryaccording to Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005 is used.

34 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.35 A group classified within the Klazomenian black-figured style,

according to R.M. Cook. See Cook 1998, 95-8; Özer 2004, 202-3.36 Likewise a group of black-figured vases, presumably produced

foremost on the island of Chios. See Lemos 1991, 169-75, 189-90;Cook 1998, 75; see also Williams, this volume.

37 In which details were reserved and not incised. For the divergencefrom the technique of black-figured vase-painting, see Cook 1998,78–82, 89; for a different opinion on the dating of MileA II (Fikellura)see Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b).

38 See Cook 1998, 101-3; Özer 2004, 204-5.39 See Cook 1998, 103-5; Özer 2004, 204-5.40 Where they were still used, they experienced a change in meaning,

as for instance in the characterisation of layers of cloth: thedifferentiation between the upper garment and the trousersunderneath or contours of the body visible through the cloth. See thesymposiast: Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 72.555.

41 Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b) attempts to define the distinctionbetween the two main phases, while Kerschner and Schlotzhauer2005 provide definitions for the fine classification of the early phaseSiA I.

42 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.43 Forthcoming are monographs with the following corresponding

sections on: amphorae in the Fikellura style (MileA II): F. Wascheck(Bochum); lids: R. Posamentir (Ýstanbul); trade amphorae: A. Naso(Campobasso); cooking vessels: A. Aydemir (Bochum); oinochoe: S.Käufler (Bochum); bowls: A. Villing (London); and mugs and cupswith everted rim: U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin).

44 Pottery of the Geometric period is being prepared for publication byM. Krumme (Athens).

45 For the older systems of classification and their correlation with thenew division, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 9, 17, 25, 33.

46 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005. Among the recent publications,special mention is made here of the detailed study by Käufler 1999 aswell as the general description by Cook 1998, 29-45.

47 Further essential publications on this topic can be found in the articleon the classification of the phase SiA I by Kerschner undSchlotzhauer 2005, 33-45.

48 See e.g. Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 65.530, 67.530.49 Kerschner 2002, 40, 172 fig. 52.50 See Graeve 1971 and the satyr from excavations at Kalabaktepe (K

1992.696.2), illustrated in Simon 1997, 1114 no.29c, pl. 751.29c .51 For MileA Ia, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 9-16.52 For MileA Ib, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 17-25. Käufler

(1999) demonstrates the early development of the phase MileA Ib byway of some examples, however, still without the new classificationand terminology.

53 For MileA Ic, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 25-33.54 Walter 1968, pls 116-17.592.55 For MileA Id, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 33-45.56 See Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 43 fig. 43. For the results of

the chemical analysis of the krater, see Mommsen et al. this volumeand Schlotzhauer and Villing this volume; for the Kalabaktepeworkshop, see Kerschner 2002, 37-42.

57 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 44 fig. 44.

Page 152: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

144 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schlotzhauer

58 In addition, for the fragment of a plate of the phase MileA Id fromEdfu, see Weber 2001, pl. 23.3.

59 For this phase, see Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b).60 For the traditional classification into groups, see Cook 1933/4.61 See Schaus 1986, with a bibliography of older publications.62 For a list of known shapes in Fikellura (= MileA II), see Cook 1998,

77-8; Schaus 1986, 268-70, 281-2 (on the two painters discussed bySchaus in his paper).

63 Cook 1998, 78, who concludes his discussion of the shapes ofFikellura (MileA II) vases with: ‘Further excavation at Miletus maywell add more.’

64 For the distribution of painted pottery in the style of MileA II, seeCook 1933/4, 85-9; 1998, 88-9; Schaus 1996, 31, 34-6, 40 fig. 3(limited to the East Greek region). G. Schaus discusses in detail twovase painters from two different generations known from exportedvessels (Schaus 1986). See also Schlotzhauer 1999; Posamentir 2002.

65 The best comparison for this image thus far comes from the Heraionon Samos, where it decorates the same kind of vase, a cup witheverted rim, but of a more elaborate type, similar to the well-known‘Little-Master’ cup in the Louvre (Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 46); seeWalter-Karydi 1973, pl. 47.424. Nevertheless, there is one importantdifference: the figure from the Heraion is winged and is notrepresented in the ‘bent-knee’ running position.

66 The theme of the potnia theron in Miletos will be discussed morefully in a planned study of the iconography of MileA II pottery fromMiletos.

67 Schlotzhauer 1999, 235-6.68 Schlotzhauer (forthcoming a).69 See infra with ns 97-98.70 BM GR 1888.2-8.46; Petrie 1888, pl. 27, 3 and 3 a; Petrie 1891a, 56 fig.

1; Walters 1893, 92 no. B 117; Cook 1954, 7 pl. G.B. 574.1, details ofshoulder pl. G.B. 569.3–4; Walter-Karydi 1973, 137 no. 683 pl. 89.

71 Cook 1933/4, 8 (C1), 9, 65, 73 fig. 13.9, pl. 4c.72 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 7, 46.73 Different places of production are one of the grounds for defining the

new classification system of Archaic East Greek pottery suggestedrecently by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 4-5, 7.

74 Cook 1960, 118-26.75 Walter-Karydi 1973, 2-52. Kerschner 2002, 41-4, and Schlotzhauer

(forthcoming b) give good overviews of the history of research onFikellura pottery.

76 Walter-Karydi 1973, 137 nos 677-84 pl. 89. Walter-Karydi (1973, 66)postulated ‘[…] das scheint ephesische Art zu sein […]’, p. 107 n.180. However, she qualified this by adding: ‘Die Technik ist dermilesischen sehr ähnlich; das Gefäß könnte auch milesisch sein.’

77 Walter-Karydi 1973, 137. Her nos 677, 678 and 679 belong to the so-called ‘Ephesian Ware’, a distinctive ware found in Sardis, Ephesosand, marginally, Miletos. Cf. Greenewalt, Jr. 1973, 91-122.Greenewalt, Jr., no. 1 = Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 677, Greenewalt, Jr.,no. 2 = Walter-Karydi no. 678. Analyses show that some of thevessels of the ‘Ephesian ware’ were manufactured in Sardis:Kerschner 2005, 139. For locally produced Archaic vessels in Ephesos(groups H and I), cf. Kerschner 1997, 211; 2002, 189-205. Bands ofsquares are not found exclusively on vases of the ‘Ephesian ware’, butalso on vases of the late animal frieze style (SIA Id) and the Fikellurastyle (MileA II). Cf. Cook 1933/4, 71, 75 fig. 10.7, pl. 16.

78 Dupont 1983, 37-9; 1986, 57-71; Jones 1986, 665-6.79 Schaus 1986, 283-4.80 Kerschner 2001, 82 pl. 8.3; Kerschner 2002, 43-4.81 For group D, cf. Kerschner 2002, 44-7, 137, 143.82 Cf. the paper by H. Mommsen et al. in this volume. The analyses will

be published in detail in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).83 Dupont 1983, 37-9; Cook 1998, 77-90; Kerschner 2002, 204-5;

Mannack 2002, 98; Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 46; cf. also thepapers by Dupont and Thomas and by Attula in this volume. Forlocally produced pottery, imitations of the South Ionian Archaic styleII (SiA II), found in Tell Defenneh cf. Weber (forthcoming) and inNaukratis, see Schlotzhauer and Villing in this volume.

84 Cf. note 8.85 Kerschner 2002, 34-6.86 M. Akurgal (Ýzmir), R. Attula (Greifswald), M. Frasca (Catania),

W.-D. Niemeier (Athens), R. Posamentir (Ýstanbul) and S. Solovyov

(St. Petersburg), U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin), A. Villing (London), S. Weber (Mainz) and D. Williams (London).

87 Cf. Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 18–22.88 Schlotzhauer 1999, 224-5.89 Schlotzhauer 1999, 225-7.90 Schlotzhauer 1999, 227-8.91 Schlotzhauer 1999, 228-32.92 Schlotzhauer 1999, 232-5.93 Schlotzhauer 1999, 235-6.94 Filges 2004, 152 fig. 3 (= Filges and Tuchelt 2002, 8 fig. 5.2 = Bumke

and Röver 2002, 98 fig. 18.2). See also the new fragments of a trefoilmug from Istros: Bîrzescu Figs 10–11.

95 During a visit in 2005 the author was able to view the comparablemug from Olbia, now in the Museum in Kiev (Schlotzhauer 1999, 224fig. 1). Thereby he could discern that the mug originally had twohandles (cf. also the recent publication of the mug, with twohandles, by Reeder 1999, 178 no. 65), whereas in the above-mentioned article (Schlotzhauer 1999) it is pictured with only onehandle; see also Lemos 1991, 179-80, pl. 220.1658, who refers to it as aone-handled mug and tentatively thinks of Chian production; thefirst publication of the piece, Shtitelman 1977, no. 12, had assigned itto Rhodes.

96 For this group of mugs with dipinto, see Schlotzhauer 2006, 311-3.97 Schlotzhauer 1999, 236-8; (forthcoming a).98 See the preliminary discussion of this problem in: Schlotzhauer

(forthcoming a).99 In the contribution by Schlotzhauer (1999) the well-known

decorated MileA II-mug from Istros (Alexandrescu 1978, 52 fig. 153)is unfortunately omitted (as kindly pointed out by P. Alexandrescuduring the Panionion conference in Güzelçamlý 1999 on the occasionof the 100th anniversary of the German excavations at Miletos).

100 The Geometric forerunners will be discussed by M. Krumme(Athens) and the early Archaic examples by the author.

101 The dipinti and graffiti from Miletos have been studied by N.Ehrhardt (Münster). I am grateful to N. Ehrhardt for permission topresent here these inscriptions from Miletos, some of which are asyet unpublished.

102 Chian chalices or kantharoi with dipinti of Aigyptis (first identifiedby D. Williams) in the BM: GR 1924.12-1.755 and 808; GR 1924.12-1.720; GR 1924.12-1.827; see Boardman 1986, 254-6; Williams 1983a,185 with n. 59; Williams 1999, 138 and fig. 52d.

103 Bumke and Röver 2002, 98 fig. 18, 99 fig. 21.104 Bumke and Röver 2002, 86 and n. 5.105 It can be gathered from the excavation reports (Hommel 1959/60,

1967) that in 1957 Hommel excavated in trenches H/J XII/XIII and J XIV, directly below and next to the foundations of the late Athenatemple. Through the explicit note in the diary about find context 191,in which the fragment of the mug was found: ‘191: 25./26.9.57SOAbschnitt, NOTeil...’ (excavation diary 1957, p. 27 [P. Hommel],Miletos Archive, Bochum), the exact location of the mug can bepinpointed.

106 See Ehrhardt 1988, 164 with n. 757.107 See Held 1993, 371-5, esp. 375.108 Held 1993.109 Hommel 1959/60, 31-2.110 Nevertheless, one architectural fragment discovered during

excavations in 1968, conducted to the northeast of the Southeastbuilding, could stem from an altar, which need not necessarilyconnected with the Athena sanctuary. Cf. Schiering 1979, 90-1, 96-7,figs 4a-b.

111 Letter of October 27, 1998.112 See Frisk 1960, 65; Chantraine 1968, 55.113 IG V 2,6 Z.117, mit der Lesung L?asi/w.114 Bechtel 1917, 494.115 SEG XXII 508 A 20.116 Belege: Sarikakis 1989, 24, 286.117 See Haussoullier 1879, 244 n. 2.118 See Schlotzhauer 1999, 225-7.119 Pers. comm.120 See Schlotzhauer 1999, 235-6.121 For eye-decoration see Schlotzhauer (forthcoming a) n. 82. Cf. also

Kunisch 1990, 20-7; Steinhart 1995, 55-6.

Page 153: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 145

Abstract

A distinctive group of East Greek vases with elongated shape andwide open mouth called ‘situlae’ was mainly found in TellDefenneh, Egypt. The shape and some painted Egyptianizingsubjects indicate that the Greek potters and painters focused on aclientele living in Egypt. The place of manufacture of the ‘situlae’ isa question of debate. NA-analyses carried out in cooperation withH. Mommsen and A. Schwedt, Bonn, showed that with the sameclay paste not only ‘situlae’ but also other shapes like stamnoi andan amphora had been made. The place of manufacture, however,could not be precisely located because the samples belong to a newchemical group not as yet represented in the databank of Greekpottery compiled by H. Mommsen and M. Kerschner.*

The evidence

The so-called East Greek ‘situlae’ raise questions of shape,iconography, and place of manufacture. Fundamental to thestudy of East Greek ‘Situlae’ is the chapter in the Corpus Vasorumof the British Museum, fasc. 8 by Robert M. Cook.1

East Greek ‘situlae’ were found in East Greece (Rhodes andSamos) and in Egypt (Tell Defenneh, Memphis and, just recentlynoted, possibly also at Naukratis [Fig. 1]).2 These three sites alsoyielded the greatest quantity of the Greek painted pottery fromthe late 7th to the late 6th century bc found in Egypt (Naukratismore than 7,000 vessels and sherds, Tell Defenneh about 340,Memphis with its necropoleis about 30). In other places in EgyptGreek painted pottery has been found in much smallerquantities.3

The study of East Greek ‘situlae’ began with the excavationof a site in the eastern Delta at the Pelusian branch of the Nile by W.M. Flinders Petrie in 1886, because the first vessels of thisshape were found here.4 Petrie identified the place from the

Arabic name, the location, and the name in the Old Testament,Tahpanhes (Jeremiah 43.5–13), as the cosmopolitan city ofPelusian Daphnai mentioned by Herodotus 2.30. He equatedthis city with the stratopeda, or the camps, where PsammetichosI, the first king of the 26th Dynasty (reigned 664– 610 bc),settled the Ionian and Carian mercenaries who helped him toestablish his reign. It is, however, more plausible that thestratopeda are sites archaeologically not located up to now andthus not identical with Daphnai.5 The high percentage of Greekpottery and the position at the eastern border of the Delta letPetrie conclude that Greek mercenaries were stationed at TellDefenneh and that it was the Greeks living there that used thepottery. But Greek cooking pots, a good indicator of differentculinary practices and therefore indicative of the presence ofdifferent ethnic groups, have not been found.6 The function ofthe main excavated architectural structure with a casematefoundation of about 43.5 m2 is not quite clear.7 It is very probablethat it was an official building, constructed under the reign ofPsammetichos I, as attested by the foundation deposits. Thepurpose of the building is still debated: a secure centre for localadministrative purposes and control,8 a royal palace, a treasury,a temple or a temple storehouse. Annexes with many smallchambers were added successively to the main structure. Inthese adjacent rooms most of the Greek pottery was found, thegreatest quantity of Greek pottery outside of Naukratis, togetherwith Egyptian material of various kinds (pottery, scarabs, goldand silver objects, faience objects, military and non-militarybronze and iron objects like knifes, scale-armour, arrow-headsand weights) mostly without any significant stratigraphy, justlying in the dust of the desert. It is not possible to give thepercentage of the Greek pottery in relation to the Egyptianmaterial because Petrie often just noted that a shape was‘common’ without quoting the number. In two rooms sink-jarswere found, suggesting that they might have served as kitchensand the others as storage rooms. In this connection we may notethat Greek and Phoenician amphorae were reused as watercontainers as attested by Herodotus (3.5-7) for the PersianPeriod: the amphorae were collected at Memphis, refilled withwater and than sent to the arid areas in the Eastern Delta.9

Perhaps this was already the case in the 6th century bc andcould be the reason for the high percentage of container vesselsin Tell Defenneh. The Greek painted pottery found there datesfrom the last decade of the 7th century to about 525 bc – then itends. This could be explained by the Persian conquest of Egypt.Other Greek objects said to be found in Tell Defenneh are anEast Greek gem, two terracotta antefixes, and a bronze bowl(the last three objects not mentioned by Petrie).10 That Greekspossibly still lived there in the first half of the 5th century bc issuggested by the graffito at Abydos of a certain Timarchos, whodescribes himself as being from Daphnai’.11

East Greek ‘Situlae’ from EgyptSabine WeberWith an Appendix:Neutron Activation Analysis Results by H.Mommsen,A.Schwedt,S.Weber and M.R.Cowell

Figure 1 Map of find places of East Greek ‘situlae’

Page 154: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

146 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Weber

Egyptian bronze situlae and the question of the origin of the

shape of the East Greek ‘situlae’

Petrie named the vessels of a distinctive group as ‘situla-formvases’ because the shape reminded him of the Egyptian bronzesitulae (Fig. 2), which were very popular during the LatePeriod.12 These are relatively small bronze vessels that served adifferent purpose from the big Greek storage vessels (the heightof the so-called Typhon ‘situla’ is 54.0cm; the others can berestored to a height between 39.5 and over 40.0cm dependingon the state of preservation and possible reconstruction; theEgyptian bronze situlae in contrast are usually between 6.0 and20.0cm high and rarely taller than 30.0cm). East Greek ‘situlae’cannot easily be carried around but are practical for storage andmixing. The small Egyptian vessels with their characteristicomega-shaped bail handle and bag-like shape, sometimesending in a nipple (perhaps reminiscent of the female breast),were used in Egyptian cult practice (in the ritual of Djeme and infunerary ritual, involving Amenope and Isis) for carrying and forthe subsequent libations of water or milk to the dead, at leastfrom the time of the New Kingdom onwards.13 They bear adistinctive decorative scheme in three registers: in the upperregister below the rim the solar barque, with jackals andbaboons, represents the transit of the sun across the sky. Themiddle register represents the earth and depicts a worshipper infront of gods: an ithyphallic god (Amun-Min or Amenope), Isis,Nephthys, Horus and other deities. The lower register representsthe water, and the bottom of the vase is decorated by a lotusflower. Some Egyptian bronze situlae have also been foundoutside Egypt, in the Near East,14 Italy and Greece: Lefkandi inEuboia,15 Pherai in Thessaly,16 the sanctuary of Malophoros inSelinus/Sicily,17 sanctuaries and necropoleis in Cyprus,18 and theSamian Heraion (Fig. 2).19 Greek artists were therefore able tobecome acquainted with the Egyptian shape in Greece. Butobviously they did not copy the Egyptian bronze situla itself.When copying or adopting a foreign vase into their repertoire,Greek potters always kept the shape either because it was ahandy addition to their repertoire or because they couldincrease their export volume to the place of origin of thisshape.20 They usually transformed the foreign shape merely bypainting it or by using another material.

The term ‘situla’ is Latin.21 In Greek, vessels with the samefunction were called kados, antlion or gaulos.22 The expression‘situla’ is in use for various bucket-shaped metal and clay vesselswith bail handles which were produced all over theMediterranean23 and in Central Europe.24 But in nearly all ofthese cases the type of handle of these vessels is indeed that of amodern little bucket, carrying and pouring being the maincharacteristic features.

In the Eastern Mediterranean a big pyxis shape with aconical body, horizontal banded handles and a wide flat bottomwithout a separate foot is also called a ‘situla’.25 The rendering ofthe lip, with a distinctive ridge underneath, is comparable to our‘situlae’. A Late Geometric example from Smyrna shows a similardecorative scheme as the early ‘situlae’: a broad friezeunderneath the ridge with three fields, the middle one withfigural decoration (water bird to right), the outer onesgeometric patterns. Below this frieze is a banded decoration.26

A krater-like Lydian vessel found in Rhodes was also putforward as a possible prototype for the Greek ‘situlae’.27 But therendering of the handles applied directly at the lip differs fromthe ‘situlae’ and the body is not as elongated as in the ‘situlae’.

Possible ancestors of the shape of the ‘situla’ might beundecorated Greek pithoi like the ones from Rhodes, Samos orNisyros (Fig. 3).28 In Egypt, too, we find a wide range of parallelsin storage vessels with long, bulging bodies but without a foot(Fig. 4).29 For the ‘situlae’ the Greek potters just added a foot andcopied the figural and ornamental decoration from othershapes.

The name ‘situla’ for our special group is thus misleading,but has been well established for over a century. I would like tosuggest putting it in quotation marks to symbolize the ‘so-called’status.

East Greek ‘situlae’

The shape is a tall narrow tube, swelling gradually towards thebase and then curving quickly in to a low foot; the lip is flat andwide, and below it, separated by a narrow ridge, are two verticalhandles. These Greek ‘situlae’ are containers for storage andmixing.30 It is not surprising to find them in an Egyptian context,because the percentage of containers among the Greek finds inEgypt is overwhelming. Being painted, these vessels were amore exclusive version of a container.

Figure 2 Egyptian bronze situla fromSamos,Vathy,Archaeological Museum

Figure 3 Greek pithos from Samos,necropolis

Figure 4 Egyptian jar from Thebes,Medinet Habu, burial 9, 25th dynasty

Page 155: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 147

East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt

East Greek ‘situlae’ were mainly found in Egypt (TellDefenneh, Memphis and Naukratis) but are as well attested inGreece: on Samos and Rhodes from the end of the 7th to the endof the 6th century bc where they were found in settlementcontexts in Vroulia, in the sanctuary of the Samian Hera, and asgrave goods on Rhodes.31 The earliest ‘situlae’ came to light inVroulia, Rhodes (Fig. 5), and in the Heraion of Samos (Fig. 6).The shape continues in Southern Ionia and Eastern Doris forover a century. Whether some fragments mentioned in thiscontext from Miletos,32 Samos,33 Burgas (Datça)34 and Rhodes35

belong to this group of vases is, however, doubtful because oftheir bad state of preservation. They could also belong to othershapes like the ‘pyxis situla’ and are therefore not included herein the map.

R.M. Cook divided the ‘situlae’ into three different,essentially chronological groups as follows. Group A comprises ‘situlae’ with banded decoration and wavylines between the handles (Fig. 5). This is a distinctive group offive examples from Vroulia (they can be dated by theirassociation with North Ionian bird bowls in contexts of the endof the 7th/ beginning of 6th century bc).36 G.R. Schaussuggested that perhaps one fragment with banded decorationfrom Tell Defenneh belongs to this group.37

Group B (Figs 6–9): To this group belong the so-called Typhon‘situla’ (Figs 8–9), the ‘situla’ from Memphis and a fragmentfrom Rhodes with the depiction of a griffin (Fig. 22). Thedecoration between the handles is divided into three fields, themiddle one figurative, the outer ones ornamental. The handlesare composed of three reeds. The lower part of the vessel ispainted with broad black bands interrupted by small reservedstripes. Maybe the ‘situla’ from Samos (Figs 6-7), rendered inthe animal frieze style (Wild Goat Style II/ SiA I c) and therefore

to be dated to the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th centurybc, is an earlier variant of this group.38 The ‘situlae’ from Egyptare all in black figure style with added red and can be dated tothe second quarter of the 6th century bc. The pieces of thisgroup are always made very finely. In proportion to the heightthe wall is very thin. The rendering of the mouth of the Typhon‘situla’ is remarkable. The mouth plate juts out on the outside aswell as on the inside.Group C (Figs 10–13): We can count about 32 ‘situlae’ belongingto this group, most of them badly preserved and restored. Exceptfor two examples from Rhodes,39 the vases of group C were allfound in Tell Defenneh. The three-field-decoration is given up infavour of a broad panel with figural decoration. The lower partof the body is painted with two or more friezes of alternatingincised lotus flowers and palmettes highlighted by added red.This colourful decoration recalls the ‘Vroulian’ ware.40 Thehandles may be three or four reeded. The evolution of the shapeshows a tendency from a more bulky to a more slender, tubularbody.

A common, never neglected feature of all ‘situlae’ of GroupA–C is the small ridge some centimetres beneath the lip (cf. Figs7, 9, 11). On some examples the ridge on the outsidecorresponds to a groove on the inside as well.41 The handles areapplied to the body always at the level of this ridge. Lateexamples from the necropolis of Ialysos still preserve the lidsand it can be assumed that a lid belonged to every single vase of

Figure 5 East Greek ‘situla’ fromVroulia (Group A)

Figure 6 East Greek ‘situla’ fromSamos, Samos, Heraion, Inv. K 1590(Group B)

Figure 7 Profile of East Greek ‘situla’from Samos, Samos, Heraion, Inv. K1590

Figure 8 East Greek ‘situla’ from TellDefenneh, London, British Museum, GR1888.2-8.1 (Vase B104) (group B)

Figure 9 East Greek ‘situla’ from TellDefenneh, London, British Museum, GR1888.2-8.1 (Vase B104)

Figure 10 East Greek ‘situla’ from TellDefenneh, London, British Museum, GR1888.2-8.27 (Vase B 106.2) (Group C)

Figure 11 Profile of East Greek ‘situla’from Tell Defenneh, London, BritishMuseum, GR 1888.2-8.27 (Vase B 106.2)

Page 156: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

148 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Weber

this shape.42 The ‘situla’ from Ialysos (Figs 12–13) can be datedby an Attic late black-figure olpe in the same grave context to thelast decade of the 6th century or around 500 bc. So we can tracethe shape for almost a century.

The new ‘situla’ fragment from Naukratis (Figs 14–15) doesnot fit in one of these groups. Being a more slender vase it comesclose to ‘situlae’ of the younger group C but the decoration isdifferent.

Subjects on East Greek ‘situlae’ from Egypt

Some of the subjects on the ‘situlae’ found in Egypt areremarkable, as already noted by Petrie and other scholars.43

Subjects suitable for both cultures are depictions of lions, rams,bulls, birds and sphinxes.44 But there are also subjects with adistinctive Egyptian flavour.

On a small flat fragment, flaked off from the surface of a‘situla’, a falcon on nb-basket is painted (Fig. 16).45 Thehieroglyphic sign nb (basket) means ‘lord’ or ‘all, everybody’.The falcon is the emblem of the god Horus who was equatedwith Greek Apollo. Perhaps it could be completed as ‘Horus, lordof…’ or ‘the two lords of Upper- and Lower Egypt’, but in thatcase the Seth animal or a second falcon would also have had tobe depicted on the nb-basket. This sign can also be part of thename of the pharaoh. The painter could have known thishieroglyphic sign either from having seen it in Egypt or viasmall-scale Egyptian and/or Egyptianizing objects traded to, ormanufactured in Greece, such as the silver cartouche from acremation burial in Ialysos, Rhodes, with the depiction of a birdon a basket.46 The bird on this ‘situla’ fragment must have beenan integral part of the figural decoration of the ‘situla’, but dueto the bad state of preservation we cannot judge what theoriginal picture looked like. Besides the cartouches on the

amphora in Basle and the Petrie Museum, London (Bailey Figs1–5),47 this depiction is the only known painted hieroglyph on aGreek vase from Egypt.48

Another subject is two men fighting with clubs (Fig. 17).49

The better preserved man is characterised as Egyptian by hisshaved head and circumcision. Herodotus (2.36) tells us that theEgyptians used to be circumcised for hygienic reasons. In thesecond quarter of the 5th century bc, on the Attic red figurepelike by the Pan Painter, Egyptian priests of the Egyptian kingBousiris are also characterised this way.50 This feature wastherefore judged appropriate to indicate an Egyptian. Clubfighting or fencing was a sport depicted in Egyptian art from thetime of the Old Kingdom, and mainly in the New Kingdom(1551–1085 bc).51 The picture of this Egyptian sport is, however,rendered in a Greek manner on the ‘situla’. The sportsman isnaked, a feature not often found on Egyptian representationswhere a loin cloth is usually worn52. The rendering of nuditygave the Greek painter the opportunity to indicate the ethnicityof the sportsman by means of the circumcision. In Egyptrepresentations of athletics in the Late Period are rare and thereare no illustrations of fighting contemporary with our vase;53

thus this picture is an important reference, showing that fightingwas either performed in the 6th century bc or that the Greekpainter had seen ancient Egyptian illustrations of club fighting.

On the ‘situla’ from Memphis,54 found next to the Ptahenclosure where the Apis bull was worshipped, the subject oftwo bulls on one side seems appropriate. The rendering of a manon the other side wearing a dress with broad borders, striding tothe right carrying a long staff in the right hand and holdingsome object in the left looks unfamiliar to a Greek eye.55 Thepainter had obviously difficulty in rendering this figurecorrectly: he erased a part of the right foot and leg and a tip of acloak.56 If we take the representation ‘man with staff’ as a sign orcode,57 then the picture could be understood in a Greek as wellas in an Egyptian context. In both cultures the staff is the sign ofdignity or age.58 This figure may vaguely recall Egyptiandignitaries.59 Even more puzzling is the rendering of arectangular frame with two wavy lines in the upper right corner.It is not a Greek decorative pattern but placed in front of thehead of the dignitary. Could it be an Egyptian sign, ahieroglyphic pattern, to give additional information on theman? If this were the case, the painter was not able to read orwrite Egyptian hieroglyphs but intended to paint a sign thatlooked like a hieroglyph.60 In G. Schaus’s opinion the man couldbe a worshipper of Apis.61 If so, the painter had selected a subjectthat would well suit this location. This phenomenon has alreadybeen noted in connection with Attic pottery for other areas.62

Few other Greek vases of the 6th century bc found in Egypt

Figure 13 East Greek ‘situla’ fromRhodes, Rhodes,ArchaeologicalMuseum, Inv. No. 10641

Figure 14 Fragment of ‘situla’ fromNaukratis, London, British Museum, GR1886.4-1.1311

Figure 15 Fragment of ‘situla’ fromNaukratis, London, British Museum, GR1886.4-1.1311

Figure 12 East Greek ‘situla’ fromRhodes, Rhodes,ArchaeologicalMuseum, Inv. No. 10641 (group C)

Figure 16 Fragment of ‘situla’ fromTell Defenneh, London, BritishMuseum, GR 1888.2-8.3

Figure 17 Fragment of ‘situla’ fromTell Defenneh, London, BritishMuseum, GR 1888.2-8.5 (Vase B106.1)

Page 157: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

show Egyptian influence and were therefore intentionallyproduced for a market with a clientele living in Egypt.63

The representation of the snake-bodied demon on side A ofthe best-preserved ‘situla’ from Tell Defenneh (Fig. 8) could alsohave been painted for the Egyptian market, or at least fits verywell its find spot.64 The mixed creature is usually called Typhon.65

In Greek mythology Typhon was the son of Gaia and Tartaros,battling against the established order with the aim of dethroningZeus.66 He was slain by Zeus and thrown into Tartaros where herevolted by means of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.Typhon is rendered in Greek art as a mixed monster with awinged human body and snake legs, as on the lost Amyklaeanthrone, described by Pausanias 3.18.10. The battle between Zeusand Typhon was a subject on bronze shield-bands from Olympiain the first half of the 6th century bc.67 The depiction of thedemon on the ‘situla’ recalls representations on lateProtocorinthian vases, mainly alabastra from the 7th century bconwards, and on other Greek vases.68 From the 6th century bconwards the name Typhon was also used for the Egyptian godSeth (Hdt. 2.144, 156).69 There are hints that the Greek name wasalso accepted in Egypt.70 The name was written with thehieroglyph of the so-called Seth-animal, a jackal-like animalwith long ears, very probably a mythical animal for it is notpossible to determine its zoological identity.71 The Egyptianrepresentation of Seth was the Seth-animal or a semi-anthropomorphic form with the head of the Seth-animal. Hewas the god of confusion and chaos who disturbs order. He wasboth an enemy and friend of Horus and murderer of Osiris. Sethwas set in opposition to Horus. Horus is lord of Lower Egypt andlord of the home country. Seth is the lord of Upper Egypt andlord of foreign countries and the desert. He was venerated onthe border of the desert and where caravan routes began, e.g. inthe vicinity of Tell Defenneh. The Egyptians accepted him as agod up to the 20th Dynasty; later worship turned intodemonization. His physical strength is characteristic for Seth. Heis able to conquer the great chaos serpent Apophis,72 but hecould also be identified with her. The Greek painter of the ‘situla’chose to depict the Greek version of a demon known in bothcultures. A further indication that the vase might have beenhighly esteemed in an Egyptian context is Petrie’s note of tracesof a Demotic inscription in ink.73 Unfortunately Petrie gave noexact description of it and neither Cook nor I could detect tracesof this inscription.74

Place of manufacture

One important question is where the ‘situlae’ from Tell Defennehmay have been made. The ‘situlae’ of Cook’s group A fromVroulia on Rhodes are supposed to have been produced locally, a claim never refuted.75 As to the place of manufacture of theGroup B ‘situlae’, Rhodes or another place in the Eastern Doriswas favoured.76 Shape and Egyptian subjects on some of thefragments were the reasons why M.W. Flinders Petrie supposedthat the ‘situlae’ were produced locally at Tell Defenneh.77 R.M.Cook also favoured the idea of a production centre in Egypt butonly for his group C ‘situlae’, except for the two late pieces fromRhodes, which he thought to be manufactured near the placewhere they had been found.78 E.R. Price suggested that the‘situlae’ were made for the Daphnae market by Ionian potters,but not on the spot.79 She favoured a Rhodian origin, becausethe earliest example known to her came from Rhodes and the

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 149

East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt

youngest are stylistically close to the ‘Vroulian ware’, which shebelieved to be Rhodian. In E. Walter-Karydi’s opinion the‘situlae’ of Cook’s group C should be Aiolian.80 She compared thefigures on some of the ‘situlae’ in London with the so-calledCaeretan hydriae. G. Schaus noted that the ‘situlae’ are nothomogeneous but made in more than one fabric, and putforward the suggestion that they were produced in Rhodes andEgypt.81 J.Y. Carrez-Maratray followed Cook in assuming anEgyptian origin for the ‘situlae’ of group C,82 a hypothesisthought possible also by A. Möller83 and K. Smoláriková.84 Theyfavoured the idea that Rhodian clay must have been transportedto Tell Defenneh or its vicinity and there made into ‘situlae’ byRhodian potters.85

The clay of Cook’s group C, to which most of the ‘situlae’from Tell Defenneh belong, is not the local Egyptian Nile silt noris it marl; it is dense and usually of light brown colour (mostsherds correspond to Munsell 7.5YR 6/4 and 10YR 6/4 = lightbrown to light yellowish brown). Petrie described it as ‘fine-grained hard pale buff clay’, some examples being harder andbrowner, some paler and soft light grey. He remarked furtherthat a group of stamnoi from Tell Defenneh share exactly thesame clay, colouring and designs, but never have figureddecoration.86 This observation led to the conclusion that the clayfor both the ‘situlae’ and the stamnoi was transported fromsomewhere in Eastern Greece to Egypt and that the vessels weremanufactured at Tell Defenneh or its environs.87 But theprincipal find place of a stylistically homogeneous group ofceramics is a weak indicator for the determination of the place ofmanufacture; this has been obvious ever since the true place ofmanufacture of Chian pottery, formerly called ‘Naukratite’, wasrevealed.88

J. Boardman and R. Jones carried out scientific analyses on‘situla’ fragments in Oxford belonging to Cook’s group C andsuggested a Rhodian origin.89 The ‘situlae’ matched Jones’scluster II, comprising also 8th century bc pottery and mid-5thcentury bc terracotta statuettes found on Rhodes and thought tohave been produced locally. The style of the analysed ‘situla’fragments is close to Vroulian vases, believed to have beenproduced on Rhodes.

The analyses carried out by P. Dupont also led to an assumedRhodian origin. He took a sample of a sherd perhaps belongingto a ‘situla’ with the provenance ‘from Egypt’ (sample no. DEF 1;Dupont and Thomas Fig. 6) that could be associated withsamples of two Vroulian cups (sample nos NAU 58 and 59;Dupont and Thomas Fig. 5) (Dupont’s group C2).90 These twoanalyses point to Rhodes as place of manufacture for some of the‘situlae’ of Cook’s group C.

We had the opportunity to make NA-analyses fromfragments in the British Museum and took samples from threesitulae of Cook’s group C (sample nos Defe 1-3, Figs 18–20),from two fragments belonging to stamnoid vessels (sample nos

Figure 18 Fragment of ‘situla’ fromTell Defenneh, London, BritishMuseum, GR 1888.2-8.65 (VaseB106.19)

Page 158: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

150 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Weber

Defe 4-5, Figs 21–22)91 and from a black-figured amphora(sample no. Defe 8, Fig. 23), all found at Tell Defenneh.92 Ouraim was to check a) a possible assumed Rhodian provenanceand b) whether all the fragments were made with the same claypaste, as suggested by their appearance. As comparanda a‘situla’ fragment from Cook’s group B, found in Rhodes, with thedepiction of a griffin (Fig. 24) and a Vroulian cup fromNaukratis (Fig. 25) were also analysed. The analyses of thepieces from Tell Defenneh (sample nos Defe 1-5, 8) showed thatall belong to one chemical group, named TD. Our analysistherefore proved that the group does not consist only of ‘situlae’but also of stamnoi and an amphora. But it is a hithertounknown group in the data bank of H. Mommsen and M.Kerschner, and not close to any of the known Greek groups.93 Inaddition, the other two pieces did not match any of the groups;they were made from different clay pastes. The analysis of thenew ‘situla’ from Naukratis (sample no. Nauk 78; Figs 14–15) hasshown that this piece, too, is a chemical single that does notcorrespond to the other samples of Group TD.

The Bonn data bank does not yet possess a large corpus ofArchaic vases from Rhodes or other places in the East Dorianregion for comparative purposes. On the other hand, thanks tothe databank we know where the ‘situlae’ could not have comefrom. It seems, however, very unlikely that in Egypt, in additionto the workshop of the vases of group QANN (very probably aworkshop in Naukratis using local Nile silt),94 a second workshopfor Greek vases was established in the third quarter of the 6th century bc using imported clay. A more likely place ofmanufacture would be the East Dorian region, where aworkshop might have specialized in these vessels. Close contactswith Egypt could explain the Egyptianizing subjects on some ofthe ‘situlae’. The incorrect renderings on some of the vases couldbe better understood if the place of origin was outside of Egypt.95

Archaic ceramic material from the Dodecanese is still littleknown.96 Analyses of pottery of the East Dorian region willprovide further information and one day, perhaps, the resultthat the ‘situlae’ from Tell Defenneh were manufactured at aplace in the Eastern Doris will emerge. An amphora handle fromamong the material from Emecik (Old-Knidos) that wasanalysed very recently97 falls into group TD.98

Our analyses have made it obvious that the ‘situlae’ comefrom at least three different as yet unlocated workshops (singlefrom Rhodes, group TD and single from Naukratis). Thestatement of R.M. Cook is therefore still valid: ‘More analyseswould be helpful’.99

Figure 20 Fragment of East Greek ‘situla’ from Tell Defenneh, London, BritishMuseum, GR 1888.2-8.20 (Vase B106.11)

Figure 21 Fragment of stamnos fromTell Defenneh, London, BritishMuseum, GR 1888.2-8.42a

Figure 19 Fragment of ‘situla’ from Tell Defenneh, London, British Museum, GR1888.2-8.16+17

Figure 22 Fragment of stamnos fromTell Defenneh, London,The BritishMuseum, GR Reg. No. 1888.2-8.44a

Figure 23 Fragment of amphora from Tell Defenneh, London, British Museum,GR 1888.2-8.25 (Vase B106.15)

Figure 24 Fragment of ‘situla’from Rhodes, London, BritishMuseum, GR 1868.4-5.78

Figure 25 Fragments of Vroulian cup fromNaukratis, London, British Museum, GR 1888.6-1.569a-c

Page 159: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 151

East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt

Appendix: Neutron Activation Analysis Results

H.Mommsen,A.Schwedt,S.Weber and M.R.Cowell

The samples taken from sherds in the British Museum, Greek and Roman Department, London,100 have been analysed by NeutronActivation (NAA), a method routinely applied in Bonn (run P064, irradiated September 2003).101 The composition data have beengrouped and compared with the Greek databank of more than 5300 samples.102 The program SEARCH was used, which works like afilter sorting out of a large databank all samples with statistically similar concentration values, taking into considerationexperimental errors and also a possible ‘dilution’ of the clay paste by varying amounts of non-plastic parts poor in trace elements.This dilution factor (= best relative fit-factor to the mean concentration values M of the group) is given for each of the groupedsamples (= factor in the tables).

Table 1: Group TD, pattern unknown

Element concentrations C in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, average errors, also in percent of C, average values M and spreads, also in percent of M

Sample factor As Ba Ca % Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe % GaDefe 1 0.903 4.61 217. 5.71 51.0 52.7 524. 5.52 0.91 4.89 12.2Defe 2 1.008 4.04 180. 9.82 47.9 56.5 530. 4.87 0.82 5.40 15.0Defe 3 1.069 4.11 180. 8.37 46.5 60.8 650. 4.76 0.76 5.47 12.8Defe 4 1.063 6.42 115. 8.84 44.3 54.6 674. 4.20 0.77 5.59 14.9Defe 5 1.021 5.00 187. 8.47 48.5 54.4 551. 5.94 0.86 5.19 15.8Defe 8 0.933 3.53 115. 7.46 49.0 63.8 761. 5.15 0.83 5.29 15.4av.meas.error 0.11 39. 0.20 0.51 0.22 2.2 0.081 0.020 0.018 2.4in % 2.4 23. 2.5 1.1 0.4 0.4 1.6 2.4 0.3 17.av.value M 4.6 166. 8.1 48. 57. 615. 5.1 0.82 5.3 14.spread 1.0 42. 1.4 2.3 4.3 96. 0.61 0.057 0.25 2.4in % 22. 26. 17. 4.7 7.5 16. 12. 6.9 4.6 17.

Sample factor Hf K % La Lu Na % Nd Ni Rb Sb ScDefe 1 0.903 3.21 1.66 25.1 0.34 0.63 14.9 829. 86.7 0.44 15.8Defe 2 1.008 2.79 1.43 23.1 0.33 0.69 15.0 773. 65.7 0.35 16.4Defe 3 1.069 2.83 1.55 22.3 0.30 0.69 17.5 1041. 74.3 0.29 16.5Defe 4 1.063 2.77 1.62 21.1 0.30 0.77 9.99 935. 67.6 0.30 16.7Defe 5 1.021 3.02 1.65 23.5 0.32 0.58 11.7 874. 84.6 0.41 16.4Defe 8 0.933 2.72 1.42 24.9 0.29 0.52 15.9 1081. 74.0 0.40 15.4av.meas.error 0.056 0.028 0.091 0.015 0.004 1.9 50. 2.2 0.020 0.021in % 1.9 1.8 0.4 4.8 0.7 14. 5.4 2.9 5.6 0.1av.value M 2.9 1.6 23. 0.31 0.65 14. 919. 75. 0.37 16.spread 0.19 0.11 1.5 0.019 0.087 2.7 121. 8.6 0.060 0.48in % 6.6 7.0 6.6 6.0 13. 19. 13. 11. 17. 2.9

Sample factor Sm Ta Tb Th Ti % U W Yb Zn ZrDefe 1 0.903 3.15 0.80 0.58 8.70 0.43 1.73 1.76 2.08 72.9 107.Defe 2 1.008 3.09 0.66 0.52 8.05 0.43 2.22 1.73 1.96 98.7 60.9Defe 3 1.069 2.79 0.64 0.48 7.76 0.26 1.48 1.80 1.82 99.9 147.Defe 4 1.063 2.59 0.66 0.42 7.28 0.43 1.66 1.75 1.86 115. 91.7Defe 5 1.021 3.00 0.73 0.49 8.16 0.42 1.61 1.33 1.94 84.4 132.Defe 8 0.933 3.01 0.68 0.51 9.59 0.46 1.52 1.09 1.89 90.9 153.av.meas.error 0.017 0.030 0.043 0.060 0.068 0.11 0.17 0.056 2.4 24.in % 0.6 4.3 8.5 0.7 17. 6.2 11. 2.9 2.6 21.av.value M 2.9 0.70 0.50 8.3 0.41 1.7 1.6 1.9 94. 115.spread 0.21 0.060 0.053 0.80 0.068 0.27 0.30 0.089 14. 35.in % 7.2 8.6 11. 9.7 17. 16. 19. 4.6 15. 31.

Page 160: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Table 2: Raw concentration data of sample Rhod 20 (chemical single)Element concentrations C in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, average experimental errors, also in percent of C

Sample factor As Ba Ca % Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe % GaRhod 20 1.000 4.90 186. 8.03 51.5 56.6 995. 6.07 1.00 5.57 16.8av. meas. error 0.11 1.0 46. 10 0.21 3.4 0.63 0.8 0.18 0.4in % 1.6 0.5 0.11 1.2 0.026 1.8 0.020 0.3 2.1 9.2

Sample factor Hf K % La Lu Na % Nd Ni Rb Sb ScRhod 20 1.000 3.36 2.29 25.8 0.32 0.31 16.4 859. 106. 0.45 18.5av. meas. error 0.068 1.3 0.025 1.2 0.11 0.3 0.016 3.3 0.005 0.5in % 2.3 7.5 42. 10.0 2.5 2.2 0.023 1.8 0.025 0.1

Sample factor Sm Ta Tb Th Ti % U W Yb Zn ZrRhod 20 1.000 3.11 1.15 0.51 9.73 0.63 1.85 2.18 1.90 80.6 112av. meas. error 0.020 0.3 0.033 2.9 0.051 6.0 0.071 0.5 0.064 9.3in % 0.11 4.4 0.16 6.3 0.063 2.0 2.5 2.4 27 15

The sample numbers correspond to the following registration numbers in the British Museum, Greek and Roman Department:Defe 1 = fragment of situla, Reg. no. GR 1888.2-8.65 (Vase B106.19) (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 4.3), Fig. 18Defe 2 = fragment of situla, Reg. no.GR 1888.2-8.16 + 17 (Vase B106.12-13) (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 7.1-2), Fig. 19Defe 3 = fragment of situla, Reg. no. GR 1888.2-8.20 (Vase B106.11) (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 8.2), Fig. 20Defe 4 = fragment of stamnos, Reg. no. GR 1888.2-8.42a (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 10.5), Fig. 21Defe 5 = fragment of stamnos, Reg. no.GR 1888.2-8.44a (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 10.4), Fig. 22Defe 8 = fragment of amphora, Reg. no. GR 1888.2-8.25 (Vase B106.15) (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 10.6), Fig. 23Rhod 20 = fragment of situla, Reg. no. GR 1868.4-5.78 (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 4.1), Fig. 24

The samples of the sherds of three ‘situlae’, two stamnoid vessels and fragments from an amphora make a new group (named as TD).To this group a sherd of anamphora handle from Emecik can be added and the data show a close relationship with three other samples also found in Emecik (group EMED).103

The sample of the ‘situla’ sherd found in Rhodes (cf.Table 2) is a chemical loner. It has high Cr and Ni values.104 The sample of the ‘situla’ from Naukratis (Nauk78) is a single as well as the sample of the Vroulian cup (Nauk 59).

152 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Weber

Illustration creditsFigs 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16 the author; Fig. 2 DAI Athens Neg. no. 1983/1014,photo: Hellner; Fig. 3 after Boehlau 1898, 17 fig. 14; Fig. 4 after Hölscher1954, pl. 47 F 3; Fig. 5 after Kinch 1914, pl. 28, 8; Fig. 6 DAI Athens Neg.no.Samos 2305, photo: Wagner; Figs 8, 10, 17–24 the British Museum; Fig. 1222nd Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities, Rhodes; Figs 14,25 photo U. Schlotzhauer; Fig. 15 author after drawing U. Schlotzhauer.

Notes* I should like to express my gratitude to the members of the staff of

the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the BritishMuseum, London, namely A. Villing and D. Williams, who enabledme to study the material and provided me with information andphotographs. I am also glad to have the opportunity to thank the22nd Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities, Rhodes (M. Filimonos), the German Archaeological Institute, Athens (M. Krumme, B. Konnemann), and the University Museum,Philadelphia (A. Blair Brownlee) for the opportunity to studyobjects, for photographs and the permission to reproduce them inthis paper. For help and various suggestions I should like to thank R. Attula (Greifswald), M. Kerschner (Wien), F. Meynersen (Mainz),H. Mommsen (Bonn), R. Posamentir (Istanbul), and U. Schlotzhauer(Berlin). This contribution emerged from the project ‘GriechischeKunst und Kunsthandwerk in Ägypten’ within theSonderforschungsbereich 295 ‘Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte’at the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz, and I owe a greatdebt of gratitude to the heads of this project, U. Höckmann and D. Kreikenbom.

1 Cook 1954, 29-37 pl. G.B.596-605 (with earlier literature); Cook1960, 139-40; Boardman 1998b, 144 figs 303-4; Cook and Dupont1998, 116-8.

2 London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1311. During one of thehandling sessions at the colloquium in London, Dyfri Williamsshowed me an unpublished piece of the lower part of the body of aclosed vessel that in my opinion could come from a ‘situla’. It wouldbe the only known example of this shape from this site; Petrie (1888,62) stated in his list of situla-form vases: Naukratis = none,Defenneh = common). L. 10.3; W. 14.2; Th. of wall 0.35-0.6cm; verypale brown clay (10YR 8/3); two joining fragments, mended. Thelower part is painted in a dull grey on the outside. Greek letters wereincised upside down after firing; the painted surface is flaked away

where the incisions were made. The reading of the preserved lettersis difficult: [?] M O [N?] [.] or [A?] M O [N?] [.].

3 Clairmont 1954/5, 85-141; Venit 1982, passim; Weber 2001, 127-50;Smoláriková 2002, 23-46.

4 Petrie 1888, 62-3 pls 25-6. A good overview of the history of researchon Tell Defenneh is presented by Carrez-Maratray (1999, 274-86). Cf.also Leclère 1997.

5 Carrez-Maratray 1999, 275-9.6 The only non-Egyptian cooking pots are Levantine: cf. Maeir 2002,

235-46. On the importance of cooking pots as indicator of Greekpresence in the Levant cf. Fantalkin 2001b, 84-6,116-26; Wenning2001, 262, 267 fig. 3; Niemeier and Niemeier 2002, 238.

7 Spencer 1999, 297 n. 9.8 Spencer 1999, 299-300.9 Smoláriková 2002, 70.10 East Greek gem: London, British Museum GR 1888.2-1.161 (Gem

321); Walters 1926, no. 321 pl. 6; Zazoff 1983, pl. 22.6. Terracottaantefixes: Cairo, Egyptian Museum; Maspero 1914, 528 nos 5570-1;Empereur 2003, 32 fig. 11b-c. Bronze bowl: Cairo, Egyptian Museum,JE 31665 and 25212; Bissing 1901, 62-3.

11 Jeffery 1998, 355. 358 no. 51 pl. 70: 500–450 bc (?); Carrez-Maratray2000, 165. 170.

12 Petrie 1888, 62: labelled as ‘situla-form vases’ in the table, as ‘situla-type of vase’ in the text. Petrie (1891a, 55 fig. 40) even depicted bothclasses of vessels side by side. The derivation of the ‘situla’ from theEgyptian bronze situla was accepted by Walters 1893, 42 butcontested by Zahn 1898, 51 n. 1, and Walter-Karydi 1973, 100 n. 23. Cf.in general on Egyptian bronze situlae: Bissing 1901, 7-58; Lichtheim1947, 169-79; Green 1987, 66-115; Nicholson 2004, 7-9.

13 Teeter 1994, 259-63; on the use of the Egyptian bronze situla see mostrecently Bommas 2005, 257-72, esp. 264 with further literature.

14 Montet 1928, 254 pl. 153 no. 965; Woolley 1921, 119 pl. 2.1-3; Stager1996, 69-70; Frankel and Ventura 1998, 39-55; Kamlah 1999, 163-90.

15 From the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi in Euboia: Popham et al.1982, 238 fig. 8. p. 239 pl. 33 a and h; Popham and Lemos 1996, pl.132; 143 a (T.42,17 = LPG or SPG I). f (T.70,17 and 20= LPG).

16 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum; H 12cm; Pendlebury 1930, 91-2 pl.3 no. 227.

17 Gàbrici 1927, 357, 359 fig. 154b: undecorated miniature situla, H withhandles about 6.0cm.

18 Matthäus 1985, 226-8.19 Bronze situla, Vathy, Archaeological Museum; AR 1983/4, 59 fig. 114;

Page 161: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 153

Kyrieleis 1991, 129 pl. 29, 2, found together with other votives andritual pottery in a well in the sanctuary of Hera that was given up inthe beginning of the 6th century bc. The shape of the situlacorresponds to types I or III in Lichtheim 1947, 174-5 pl. 4.10, 16, 17.Below the rim are five ornamental bands (two friezes with triangles,one with floral ornaments and three friezes with triangles. Themiddle register is a figural frieze depicting a standing worshipperwearing a long tunic in front of Amun-Min (or Amenope), arectangular altar, Horus or Haroeris with ankh-sign, Isis with wadj-sceptre and ankh-sign, Nephthys with wadj-sceptre and ankh-sign.The space in front of the heads of the gods is left empty, like on theexample in Fribourg, Switzerland (Page Gasser 2001, 139-42) and onsome situlae from the animal necropolis at Saqqara. The nextregister is decorated with a scale pattern, an unusual feature inEgyptian situlae. A parallel for the scales beneath the figural scene isonly found on the example from Lefkandi (Popham and Lemos 1996,pl. 132, T. 42, 17). The rounded bottom of the vessel is decorated withlotus leaves.

20 Cf. e.g. the case of the Nikosthenic amphora. The potter Nikosthenesproduced this Etruscan shape for export to Etruria. Tosto 1999, 95-8;Shapiro 2000, 313-37.

21 Hilgers 1969, 77-9, 282-3.22 Zahlhaas 1971, 7; Hurschmann 2001, 605.23 Greek metal situlae cf. Zahlhaas 1971, 109-12 fig. 1 D (her ‘Form D’

with rounded bottom and without foot in some respects recallsEgyptian situlae); Gauer 1991, 110-23. Etruscan bronze situlae fromSpina cf. Hostetter 2001, 19-34.

24 Kastelic 1964, 18; Kromer 1969, 72-80; Frey 1969, 83-7; Megaw andMegaw 1989, 37-9.

25 Late Geometric pyxis situla from Smyrna, cf. Özkan 1999, 36 no. 65.Orientalizing pyxis situlae with palmette decoration fromKlazomenai, http\: klazomenai.tripod.com/resim04-01.html andHürmüzlü 1995, 61 pl. 22 fig. 82 pl. 23 figs 83-4.

26 Izmir, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10946, Özkan 1999, 36 no. 65.27 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 2894, H 36cm; first half of the

6th century bc, A: two confronted bulls in the handle zone, B: goatand lion; below the wave pattern typical of Lydian art. Theconnection was made by Cook 1954, 32. Good illustrations in Akurgal1961, 151-3 figs 102-3 and Amandry 1962, 54, 68 Beil. 14.2 [side B].Walter-Karydi (1973, 100 n. 23) denied the possibility that the‘situlae’ could depend on a shape like this. A vase close in shape to thekrater in Istanbul is in Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 14222, H15, 5cm; Dm mouth 21cm; only one half of the vessel is preserved. Itwas found in a grave in Nisyros, cf. Jacopi 1932/3-41b, 522-23 figs 50-1, pl. 2. The vessel has two broad handles attached directly to the rim.Figure-decorated ‘metopes’ feature on side A a dog, on side B a bird.Jacopi (1932/3-41b, 522) considered a possible local manufacture ofthe vessel and called the shape ‘specie di corta situla’.

28 Cook 1954, 32. From Kamiros: Jacopi 1931/9, pl. 8.139, 159. FromSamos: Boehlau 1898, 17 fig. 14. From Nisyros: Jacopi 1932/3-41, 513-15 figs 41-3; 519 fig. 48. From Histria: Lambrino 1938, 41-9 figs 96-7.

29 Schäfer 1908, 127. Shapes with a bulging bottom have a longtradition in Egypt and were manufactured in various materials, cf.Hölscher 1954, pl. 47; Radwan 1983, pls 64-6 nos 347-60 (smallvessels, the highest about 30cm high, mainly without handles, fromMiddle Kingdom onwards, many pieces from New Kingdom for wineor beer); French 1988, 82 fig. 1; on Egyptian storage jars cf. Aston1996, 45, 231 fig. 129.10 (from Matmar), 64 ‘group 37’, 301 fig. 199a,datable to the 12th–9th centuries bc; 65 ‘group 42’, 303 fig. 201d;meat jars 66 ‘group 50’ 307 fig. 205f; 76 ‘group 30’ Phase III south8th–7th centuries bc, 323 fig. 221c; 326 fig. 224f.

30 The vases might have been used for preparing kykeon, a mixture ofwine, herbs and cheese: in Ialysos, grave 183 a situla (Rhodes,Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10641) was found together with Atticand local pottery and a bronze cheese grater (Rhodes,Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10642, Jacopi 1929, 192 fig. 186;Jacobsthal 1932, fig. 1; Jacopi 1933, II D m pl. 1.4-5), like the ones fromPyres 13 and 14 at Lefkandi, Toumba cemetery: Popham and Lemos1996, pl. 146c (Pyre 14,18 = SPG IIIa) and d (T.79B,2 = SPG II) andT.79A (three graters, SPG II). One of these cremations may beconnected with a warrior and therefore the grater could have beenused in the funeral feast, cf. Popham et al. 1982, 213-48, esp. 240-1.Graters are not connected so much with female burials but mainlywith male ones. Perhaps they were used during the symposion to mixwine with grated cheese or to prepare the kykeon, a mixture ofPramnian wine, barley groats, grated cheese and honey, cf. Homer,

Od. 10, 243-4; 11, 624. 628ff.; Ar. V. 938; Ar. Lys. 231; Kroll 1919, 1494;Jacobsthal 1932, 1-7, 6; Liddell - Scott: 1837 s.v. turo/knhstij; Bruns1970, 2, 15, 37. Other graters, votive or household utensils, are knownfrom Samos (Gehrig 1964, 9-10 no. 50-4; p. 97-8), Perachora (Payne1940, 182 pl. 81.11 and Olynthus (Robinson 1941, 191), the Enodiasanctuary in Pherai (Kilian 1975, pl. 94.33). Further cheese grater inanimal form: Hoffmann 1964, no. 12.

31 Kinch 1914, 105-6, 125-6; 1929, figs 186-9. 198; Cook 1954, 29-37;Walter 1968, no. 591 pl. 115. Cook and Dupont 1998, 116-18.

32 Ketterer 1999, 217 fig. 9, 221 cat. no. 6: two small joining fragmentsfrom the body of an open vase in Fikellura style (MileA II); sphinxand another figure with wings. No rim or foot fragments arepreserved, therefore it is doubtful whether the fragments belong to avase of ‘situla’ shape.

33 Walter 1968, 57, 116 nos 435-7, pl. 79. Ýren (2003, 141, 184 no. 284)attributed one of these rim fragments mentioned by Walter 1968 (no.437) to Aiolis because of the angular rendering of the loop ornament.

34 Three unpublished rim fragments were found in Burgas (Datça),Özer 1998, 36-9. I owe information about these fragments R. Attula.

35 Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. C/310 A-H, from Ialysos, clay:7.5YR 7/4 (pink), on fragment c/310 H parts of a graffito arepreserved: H L; unpublished black-figured fragments of neck or bodyof a straight closed vase from the stipe votive of the sanctuary ofAthena Polias, mentioned by Vita 1985, 368 (‘[…] frammenti di unasitula tipo Daphne con raffigurazione di guerriero […]’) and by Cookand Dupont 1998, 205 n. 3 and 5. The decorative system does notcorrespond to the ‘situlae’ from Tell Defenneh: two figural friezes areseparated by a hook meander. In the upper frieze warriors aredepicted, in the lower chariots. There are no fragments from rim orbase, so the shape could be another type of vessel, e.g. a slenderhydria or a ‘situla pyxis’.

36 Five examples in Istanbul from Vroulia: Kinch 1914, 105 no. 11 pl. 23.12(from the main sanctuary); 125-6 nos 2-5 pl. 28.8, 9, 11 (from housesof the settlement). Cook 1960, 140 supposed that these vessels maybe local Vroulian.

37 Philadelphia, University Museum, E147.3: Schaus 1995, 25-6 pl. 11.1.Cf. Kinch 1914, pl. 28.11.

38 Samos, Heraion, Inv. K 1590. Our Fig. 6 shows an old state ofpreservation. Today, the ‘situla’ is broken again into fragments (14,two still glued together). Some of the parts, still visible on thephotograph, are missing, for instance the head of the water bird. Thesurface is much worn. The old illustration was chosen because itshows best the original shape of the vase.

39 1. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10641, H 35.5cm; Dm mouth18.2–18.5cm; Dm foot 11.95–12.2cm; reddish yellow clay (Munsell7.5YR 8/6) with many small dark and fewer white grits; A: woman toright, B: stylized tree with birds on the volutes. Below two broadregisters with lotus flowers and palmettes, 1929, 192 fig. 186; 1933, IID m pl. 1.4-5.– 2. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10773, H asrestored 39cm; Dm mouth 18.3cm; pink clay (between Munsell 7.5YR8/4 and 7.5YR 7/4); A: horseman to right, B: warrior to right; twolower registers with carelessly drawn lotus flowers and palmettes,1929, 204-7 fig. 198.

40 Cook and Dupont 1998, 114-5.41 This feature is not only found with situlae but also with other vessels,

cf. Johnston 1993, 351 cat. no. 53 (amphora, Laconian ?), 353 fig. 5.A.42 The local Egyptian ceramic repertoire consists of many lids in various

sizes, see Petrie 1888, pl. 36, but only one Greek lid of East Greek greyware was found (London, British Museum GR 1888.2-8.139,unpublished).

43 Petrie 1888, 62-8; Cook 1937, 227-37; 1954, 31; Boardman 1958, 4-12;2000, 133-53; Schaus 1995, 27; Hoffmann and Steinhart 1998, 49-61;Carrez-Maratray 1999, 283-6; Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 89-91.

44 Sphinx: Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 598.3-4. The winged, crouching femalesphinx is a Greek type, in Egyptian art the sphinx is depicted as areclining male sphinx, symbolizing either the sun god Re-Harmachisor the pharaoh. On the differentiation between Greek and Egyptiansphinxes see Höckmann and Winkler-Horacvek 2005, 90-6.

45 London, British Museum GR 1888.2-8.3; preserved H 6.7cm; pinkclay (Munsell 5YR 7/4) with a wash (Munsell 10YR 7/4); Petrie 1888,62 pl. 26.1; Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 597.2; Weber in Schlotzhauer andWeber 2005, 88, 110 fig. 17.

46 Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10696, 1929, 50-3. Cf. also theEgyptian objects from the stipe votiva di Kamiros: Jacopi 1932/3-41,317 fig. 57 (falcons from faience).

47 Cf. Bailey, this volume.

East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt

Page 162: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

154 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Weber

48 Other hieroglyphs or Egyptian signs are graffiti scratched after firingon two fragments of Greek trade vases from Tell Defenneh: London,British Museum, Department of Ancient Egyptian and Sudan, AES23761 (Petrie could read three signs: k m khu. I can confirm twosigns: Gardiner G 17 [m] and N 27 [khu]); AES 23762 (shuttle ofNeith = Gardiner list R 24/25 25); on fragments of two tradeamphorae, kept in the same department, are painted demotic signs:EA 23775; EA 22343 (Johnston Fig. 16). All vases are unpublished butmentioned by Petrie 1888, 74 without distinguishing Egyptian orGreek fabric. A further Demotic inscription in black ink is on aLevantine amphora from Tell Defenneh; possibly a votiveinscription: London, Petrie Museum, UC19250, cf.www.petrie.ucl.ac.uk under the Museum number.

49 London, British Museum GR 1888.2-8.5 (Vase B106.1); H (restored)16.4cm; Dm lip (restored) 19.3cm; light yellowish brown clay(Munsell 10YR 6/4); Petrie 1888, 62 pl. 26.3; Walters 1893, 88 no.B106.1; Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 598.6; Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber2005, 89, 110-12 figs 20-1. Petrie (1888, 62) notes: ‘[…] the lotusgroup between the two fighters is again not a Greek lotus pattern,but like the lotus flowers on piles of Egyptian offerings. It cannot bedoubted that this was painted with living Egyptians under the artist’seyes.’

50 Athens, National Museum, Inv. 9683; ARV² 554.2.51 Decker 1987, 90-5; Decker and Herb 1994, 564-71; Weber in

Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 89-92. There is only a later writtensource for ritual club fighting in the Saite Period: Hdt. 2.63.

52 On Greek athletic nudity cf. Decker 2003, 51-2. In Egyptian art onlychildren or youths performing sports or playing are rendered naked,cf. Decker and Herb 1994, pls 291, 302, 314-5, 340, 345-6, 348.

53 Decker 2003, 55.54 Philadelphia, University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,

Inv. 29.71.189. Cf. the illustrations in Schaus (1995, pl. 11.2-5) andWeber (2001, pl. 21.3 a-b).

55 The object in the left hand could be a flower or a small stone vessellike the jar for holy oil, cf. on the vessel Arnold 1977, 485-6 no. 41.

56 On Egyptian shawls and dress: Bianchi 1978, 95-102.57 This cipher corresponds to the hieroglyphic signs A 21 (sr or smr =

official or noble) and A 107 (with outstretched right hand). Gardiner1973, 444.

58 Hassan 1976, passim; Steuernagel 1991, 35-48; Fehr 2000, 139.59 Cf. the representation of the mayor of Thebes, Sennefer, 18th Dyn., in

the pillared hall of his tomb, Strouhal 1996, 165 fig. 182.60 A quadrangular sign could stand for a building or a precinct, cf. the

sign-list by Gardiner 1973, 492-8 no. O. The reading of the sign on the‘situla’ as a pseudo-hieroglyph was doubted by Hoffmann andSteinhart 1998, 57. For incorrectly written but legible Egyptian signson Greek vases cf. the cartouches on the amphora in Basle, collectionCahn, HC 1175/London, Petrie Museum (Bailey Figs 1–5), cf. Decker(2003, 49-56 with reference to older literature) and Bailey in thisvolume. Decker (2003, 56) hypothetically put forward, like otherscholars, an Egyptian place of manufacture for this vase. Thishypothesis has now been refuted on the basis of clay analysis, unless,of course, one assumes the import of clay. Cf. the paper by Bailey inthis volume.

61 Schaus 1995, 26-7.62 Brommer 1984, 178-84; Shapiro (2000, 318-37) on the stamnoi and

kantharoi of the Perizoma group designed for the Etruscan market.Special commission for the Persians in Egypt: Kahil 1972, 271-84.Lezzi-Hafter (1997, 353-69) published two Attic red-figured mugswith special shape and subjects for a Thracian clientele.

63 Boardman 1958, 4-12.64 Carrez-Maratray 1999, 284-6.65 Walters 1893, no. B 104; Cook 1954, 32-3 pl. G.B. 596; Walter-Karydi

1973, no. 1060 pls 135-6; Touchefeu-Meynier 1997, 149 s.v. Typhon no.11; Tempesta 1998, 71-2, 147, 172 no. 80, pl. 38.1-2.

66 Schmidt 1916-24, 1426-54; Schefold 1978, 53-4; Schefold 1993, 196-9.

67 Kunze 1950, 82-8.68 Touchefeu-Meynier 1997, 148-9 s.v. Typhon nos 1-10.69 Griffiths 1970, 259; Kranz 1934, 114-15; Kolta 1968, 161-8; Velde 1986,

816-17 s.v. Typhon.70 Erman and Grapow 1982, 262 (tbh).71 Velde 1967, 1-26; Donadoni 1981, 115-23; Velde 1984, 908-11;

Wilkinson 2003, 197-9.72 Hornung and Badawy 1975, 350-2 s.v. Apophis.73 Petrie 1888, 74 § 71; Petrie 1891a, 57-8; Leclère 1997.74 Cook 1954, 32-3. I had the opportunity to study the vase in 2001.75 Cook 1960, 140.76 Cook 1960, 140; Walter-Karydi 1973, 90-1 nos 1061-63, pl. 136.77 Petrie 1888, 62.78 Cook 1954, 32; Cook 1960, 140.79 Price 1928, 9.80 Walter-Karydi 1970, 8 with n. 27 and 31; Walter-Karydi 1973, 100 n.

23.81 Schaus 1995, 25. 82 Carrez-Maratray 1999, 284.83 Möller 2000a, 145.84 Smoláriková 2002, 64.85 The question of clay imports to Naukratis is also addressed by

Williams (this volume), Bailey (this volume), and Schlotzhauer andVilling (this volume).

86 Petrie 1888, 63.87 Cook 1960, 140 put forward as the place of manufacture the

‘stratopeda’, or camps, given to the Ionian and Carian mercenaries byPharaoh Psammetichos I.

88 Lemos 1991, 191-4; Mannack 2002, 93-4.89 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Inv. 1925.608 a-c; Beazley et al. 1931,

pl. G.B. 401.25-7; Jones 1986, 669-70. 90 As discussed by P. Dupont and A. Thomas in this volume; cf. also

Dupont 1983, 29.91 Cf. similar stamnoi from Ialysos: Rhodes, Archaeological Museum,

Inv. 1320: Jacopi 1933, II D m pl. 1.3, Inv. 12062: Jacopi 1934, II D m pl.3.5, Inv. 10487: Jacopi 1934., II D h pl. 8.3.

92 Cf. Mommsen et al., this volume.93 Cf. Mommsen et al. Fig. 1.94 Cf. the papers by Schlotzhauer and Villing and by Mommsen et al. in

this volume.95 As it is the case with the amphora in Basel with the cartouches of

pharaoh Apries, Basel, Cahn HC 1175/London, Petrie Museum UC30035A-B, cf. the paper by Bailey (this volume).

96 Schefold 1942, 128-30; Walter-Karydi 1998, 287-96; Berges and Tuna2000, 198, 212.

97 R. Attula pers. comm.98 To be published by R. Attula.99 Cook and Dupont 1998, 118.100 The samples were taken by Michael R. Cowell, Department of

Conservation, Documentation and Science, British Museum,London.

101 On the method in general cf. Mommsen et al. 1991, 57-64 andMommsen 2005, 40-1.

102 Cf. samples of various East Greek wares in Akurgal et al. 2002 and thepaper by Mommsen et al. in this volume.

103 The samples 17, 23 and 117 from Emecik belong to group EMED.Samples 17 and 117, both body fragments, are published by Attula2006, 130-1 cat. no. 245 fig. 26 pl. 67.8 and 140 cat. no. 287 fig. 30 pl.75.2. Cf. also Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006, 199-204.

104 NAA carried out in Bonn and by other scientists showed that anunusually high level of Cr and Ni is present in Mycenaean and laterpottery made in Rhodes, a feature hitherto not known from otherworkshops of the Eastern Aegean, thus hinting at a Rhodian source,cf. Jones 1986, 669-70; Leonard et al. 1993, 118 with n. 36; Marketouet al. (forthcoming).

Page 163: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

standing on an ionic column, survives behind one of the boxers.On the other side of the pot the heads of two standing womenremain, behind whom are plants, a tree or a bush. Only onehandle is present and the lower body is almost completely gone,together with the base. Around the neck of the vase, interruptedby the upper springs of both handles, is a band of fourcartouches. First published by John Boardman in 19803 severalsubsequent articles have mentioned and discussed it.4 Very fulldescriptions of the vase, defining the subjects of the figuraldecoration and the hieroglyphs, and also discussions of thevessel’s date, are given by Thomas Schattner and NorbertDürring, and by Friedhelm Hoffmann and Matthias Steinhart.5

The Petrie Museum fragment, UC30035a-b, consists of twojoining sherds from a neck-amphora with a thickened squaredrim (diam. 17.0cm: Fig. 2). The fabric is orange with a buff slipoutside and on top of the rim. There is black glaze on the outsideof the rim and in a narrow band on the top of the inner rim.Below this band, inside the mouth, is a thinned black glazemerging with a red glaze; at about 5.5cm below the rim insideare two narrow bands of white ceramic colour, not quite parallelwith the rim. On the outside, below the rim, a cartouche ispainted in black-glaze medium, with hieroglyphs laid over inwhite fired-on ceramic colour (Figs 3–4). Both fragments have

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 155

Abstract

Two joining sherds with a cartouche of the Egyptian PharaohApries were recently noted in the collections of the Petrie Museum ofEgyptian Archaeology in London. They have been shown to fit intoa well-known, but fragmentary East Greek amphora with two ofthe names of Apries, a king of the 26th Egyptian Dynasty, paintedround its neck. The Petrie sherds have ‘Thebes’ written upon themin pencil, thus suggesting the findspot of the vase itself.*

As the present volume emphasises, and the many publications ofthe last decades have shown, the study of East Greek vases is in ahealthy state, but there are still groups that are difficult to place,and the vase under discussion, bearing the names of thePharaoh Apries, falls into one of these (Fig. 1).1 Although thevase itself has not been analysed, a joining sherd in thecollections of the Petrie Museum has recently been traced, anddue to the kindness of the Curator, Stephen Quirke, has beenexamined by Neutron Activation Analysis. It has been found tobelong amongst Mommsen’s Pattern B, of the ‘bird bowlworkshops’ and is probably North Ionian.2

The Apries Amphora, a neck-amphora, assembled fromfragments, has black-figure decoration. On one side confrontedboxers flank a prize dinos on a stand; a bird, probably a raptor,

The Apries Amphora – Another CartoucheDonald M.Bailey

Figure 1The Apries Amphora, Cahn Collection HC 1175, with the joining fragments Petrie Museum UC30035a-b

Page 164: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

156 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bailey

‘Thebes’ written in pencil.The new cartouche was noticed when the writer was

browsing the Petrie Museum website and he was encouraged byJohn Boardman and Alexandra Villing to put this short note intothe present publication. It seemed probable that the fragmentwas either from the Apries Amphora or from one closelyresembling it: Alexandra first pointed out the place where itfitted the Apries Amphora, where part of the cartouche and apart of a r‘ sign matched.

The cartouche band (Fig. 5) encompasses the Throne Nameand the Birth Name of the Saite king Apries, one of each on thefront and on the back of the neck of the vase, between thehandles. The new cartouche is on the side with the major(remaining) scene of the boxing contest and (despiteconsiderable errors on the part of the painter) is the ThroneName of Apries. The painter appears to have inserted titles (witha lavishly loaded brush), not only between cartouches, but also,in one surviving example, between a cartouche and an upperhandle-spring. Thus, reading right to left, we have probably thelower stroke of the nt-r of the Good God title between the handle-spring and the new cartouche with the Throne Name Haaibre;after this is the Son of Re title and the Birth Name Wahibre,followed by a Good God title (signs transposed) in front of thescar of the other handle-spring; on the further side of thishandle-spring scar is another Good God title (again withtransposed signs) in front of the Throne Name; following thelatter name is the Son of Re title in front of a largely lostcartouche, no doubt containing the Birth Name of Apries;between this cartouche and the handle spring it seems verylikely that there was another title. I am grateful to Kate Morton

for adapting Norbert Dürring’s illustration of the layout of thecartouche-band. It can be seen (Figs 3–4) that the new ThroneName is less accurately depicted than that in the cartouchealready on the vase, and in both Throne Names the letter h. isomitted.

One useful aspect of the identification of the new fragmentwith the Apries Amphora is the probability that the vase comesfrom Thebes. One cannot be sure that the pencilled words‘Thebes’ are in Petrie’s hand; however, comparison withdocuments written by him has convinced me that he did indeedwrite on the Petrie Museum’s sherds. Petrie collected andpurchased anything that was offered to him that he felt was ofinterest and that he could afford, and he would be certain toregard a royal cartouche on a vessel as worth acquiring.Boardman and Sabine Weber both have mentioned the presenceof a small number of Greek painted pots in Thebes.6 It is notknown when the fragmentary Apries Amphora was found, butthe new fragment must have been recovered at the same time,presumably before Petrie abandoned Egypt in 1926. TheEgyptian dealer who acquired it may not have received all thesherds, the finder retaining the new fragment for disposalelsewhere: there are several possible scenarios, but it eventuallycame into Petrie’s hands.

Other as yet unanswerable questions include where andwhen the vase was manufactured, and why it had royalcartouches.

Dyfri Williams, in this volume, has discussed the difficulties(with Chian pottery, found sometimes in large quantity outsideChios) of deciding whether pots or potters moved about, withthe attendant possibility that raw clay moved with the potters.

Figure 5 Cartouche band adapted from Norbert Dürring’s version.A: on vase; B: transcribed; C: reconstructed

�������������� �

������� ��������

�������� �������

� ��������

� ��������

� ��������

� ������� �

� ������� �

� ������� �

� ������� �

� ������� �� ���

���� �

Figure 2 Section drawing of the Petrie fragments, Petrie Museum UC30035a-b Figure 3The Petrie fragments, PetrieMuseum UC30035a-b

Figure 4 Cartouche on Petriefragment UC30035a

Page 165: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 157

The Apries Amphora – Another Cartouche

He tends to favour a sophisticated and well-ordered system oftrade, with merchantmen crossing wide areas of the easternMediterranean, carrying safely, on the whole, shiploads ofdesirable finewares, some of which had been specially orderedby individuals in Egypt for votive purposes in particular shrines.He cannot wholly reject the idea that potters from Chios usedChian clay while resident in Naukratis. The small North Ioniangrouping into which the Apries Amphora falls seems even lesslikely to have been made in Egypt.

Many of those discussing the date within the 26th Dynasty ofthe Apries Amphora believe that it was not made before Apries’deposition by Amasis in 570 bc; his death in 567 bc does not addmuch to the period that his name might or might not have beenused officially, although Leahy in 1988 has shown that it wasemployed after Amasis claimed the throne. Indeed there mayhave been parallel rule of the two kings for three years after 570bc.7 Stylistically, dates of about 550-540 and as late as the 530sbc have been suggested for the vase, but I have not the expertiseto know whether they are plausible; some of the comparandabrought forward, of widely differing sources, materials,decoration and dating, however, show signs of desperation.Decker 2003 prefers a date before the death of Apries anddiscusses at length the possibility that the vessel was a prize-vase for the sport shown on it, but cannot arrive at certainty.

A vase from Klazomenai with a black-glaze neck and scalepatterns on the body has a closely similar body shape and rim-form, and also has a moulding at the base of the neck.8 It is froma context of c.520–500 bc. A small number of black-figure sherdsfrom Klazomenai published by Özer are perhaps stylisticallysimilar to the Apries Amphora and may date between 570 and560 bc; the author also mentions amphorae of the same shapefrom a kiln of the middle of the 6th century bc.9

The cartouches, while not wholly accurate, are sufficientlywell rendered for the names of Apries to be read. A speculativepotter in North Ionia might have painted them on a pot forexport to Egypt as an inducement to persuade rich Egyptians topurchase it (and others similar?). He may not have realised (oreven cared) that the king was dead at the hands of his still livingsuccessor when he copied the names from an inscribed object,perhaps a sealing from a commercial import or from an Egyptianobject dedicated at a Greek shrine.10 A band of cartouches waswhat he wanted, not a particular pharaoh. This procedure mayhave been followed whether the vase was painted before or after567 bc. The presence in Thebes of a vase with Apries’ names maynot have been as dangerous as may be thought. The real ruler of

the Thebaid at this time was not Amasis, but the God’s Wife ofAmun, the Divine Adoratrice Ankhnesneferibre, who reigned forover 60 years (586–525 bc).11 Daughter of Psammetichus II, shewas Apries’ half-sister; Budge12 regarded her as his full sister.Had she known of such vessels as the Apries Amphora, she mayhave liked him enough to have tolerated the use of his name wellafter his death. The names of previous pharaohs were legionthroughout Egypt and few were, as Hatshepsut was withTuthmosis III, subjected to damnatio memoriae. There is littleevidence that Apries’ name was erased by Amasis,13 who buriedhim at Sais with full honours. It would seem likely also thatAmasis, possibly legitimised on the throne of Egypt by marriageto the God’s Wife, was more often than not in his northerncapital of Sais, and may never have come across vases such asthis, particularly if they were in a batch that reached Thebes.

Illustration creditsFig. 1 the British Museum; Fig. 2 drawing D.M. Bailey; Fig. 3 photo D.M.Bailey, ed. C.M. Johns; Fig. 4 photo A. Villing; Fig. 5 drawing K. Morton.

Notes* Concerning the names within the cartouches, I am most grateful to

Jeffrey Spencer and Stephen Quirke for discussing them, and toStephen for allowing me to photograph the fragments. AlexandraVilling had much advice to offer about East Greek painted vases. I amvery grateful to David Cahn for making the Apries Amphoraavailable for examination.

1 Vase HC 1175, Kreuzer 1992, 52-4. It was acquired by the late HerbertCahn on the Paris art market and is said to be from Egypt.

2 Mommsen et al., this volume, TbEgy 1.3 Boardman 1980, 138-9.4 Boardman 1987, 147-8, fig. 4; Cook 1989, 167; M. Weber 1995, 163-70;

Gill and Vickers 1996, 7; Cook and Dupont 1998, 107; Decker 2003,49-56.

5 Schattner and Dürring 1995, 65-93; Hoffmann and Steinhart 1998,49-61.

6 Boardman 1958, 4-12; Boardman 1980, 137-8; Weber 2001, 139-40.7 James 1981, 736.8 Ersoy 1993, 539-40, pls 40-41; Ersoy 2004, 58, fig. 17a.9 Özer 2004, 201-2; 215, n. 15. I am grateful to Bilge Hürmüzlü for

pointing out this reference.10 Cf. most recently Ebbinghaus 2006, 189-202.11 A selection of references to Ankhnesneferibre includes Budge 1909,

224, pl. XXX; James 1981, 733; Leahy 1988; Clayton 1994, 197; Elwood1994, 93, 103; Lloyd 1983, 303; Dodson 1995, 194; Mysliwiec 2000,130-31; Dodson 2002, 186: only Budge and Elwood refer to hermarriage to Amasis. Ankhnesneferibre’s splendid sarcophagus, onlyslightly usurped, is in the British Museum (EA 907): Budge 1885.

12 Budge 1885, p. x.13 Leahy 1988, 198.

Page 166: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra
Page 167: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis:Greek Diversity in Egypt | 159

Abstract

Ionian Greeks founded hundreds of colonies in many different placesand along various coastlines, always having to face problems suchas unknown territories, climate or local cultures. Even though thesecities and settlements to the west, north or south of Ionia lie far fromeach other, several similar phenomena can be observed in most ofthese places – which means that similar questions have to beanswered in order to understand the processes taking place at everynew spot where Greeks arrived. Among these colonies there are someplaces which have been investigated archaeologically for a long time,providing us with countless artefacts of Ionian style that are amongthe finest ever found, and giving us the chance to learn more abouttheir Ionian mother cities as well. Berezan and Naukratis are bothsites of major importance in this respect and, by showingremarkable parallels, offer a most welcome opportunity to studyearly Greek colonies in different parts of the world.

On the occasion of a conference held at Mainz in 1999, M.Kerschner1 offered a comprehensive account of the essentialproblems one encounters when studying Archaic Ionian potteryfound in Naukratis. Assessing his contribution one easily reachesthe conclusion that in fact similarities between Naukratis andBerezan are not only limited to the involvement of Ionian peoplein their foundation history – but continue up to the present time.They also relate to the long history of modern excavations atboth sites as well as the structural phenomena which will befocused on in this contribution.2

As is the case with Naukratis, Berezan (most likely oncecalled Borysthenes) has long been of major interest toarchaeologists, and numerous generations have alreadyexplored the site, while simultaneously great damage was doneto the area by non-archaeological interference; in Berezan thiswas mostly due to military action.3 Apart from the usual loss ofarchaeological information caused by early excavation andconservation techniques, which are common at every site of theGreek and Roman world, the island suffered additionally fromsubsequent changes of the sea level, submerging substantialparts of one of the earliest Greek colonies along the northernBlack Sea shore.

Furthermore, the excavated material has been distributedamong different museums, making it difficult to present acomprehensive study and quantification of the pottery to thepublic – again most unfortunately a parallel with the situationregarding Naukratis. Museums in St. Petersburg, Moscow,Odessa, Cherson and Ochakiv hold collections of various sizes –the Halle and Bonn collections (with smaller amounts of potteryfrom excavations of Ernst von Stern, one of the first excavatorsof this site) must also be mentioned. Additionally, frequentchanges in scholarly approach and applied techniques mustnecessarily lead to a high degree of diversity concerning thechoice of which shapes, wares or fragments of pottery are

collected and which are left on the site. This results inunintentional and unpredictable differences between thecollections mentioned above. Thus also the choice of fragmentsalready published most naturally depended on personal opinionor rating, or was sometimes made with the aim of supportingcertain theories about the site. In this contribution moreemphasis is put on those fragments which have never beforebeen published or have even escaped the attention of scholarsworking on this material.

Excavations in Berezan continue up to the present,4 andfortunately a lot has changed since the early days. Still – workingon a limited amount of material, such as the Archaic Ionianpottery5 kept in the State Hermitage in St. Petersburg, someproblems immediately become apparent: the thousands ofsherds found in cemeteries and in the settlement between 1963and 1991 represent fine-ware pottery only; almost no ‘Greek’coarse-ware (except transport amphorae) was found6 orcollected if not showing dipinti or graffiti. The lack of coarse-ware (as well as unpainted fragments of fine-ware) shouldalready be an obvious warning not to expect a strict adherenceto proportions in the collection of certain wares – the so-called‘schwarzbunte’ pottery, mostly represented by jugs which arealready well-known from other Mediterranean sites,7 can serveas an example: about 50 different shoulder parts (Fig. 1) withapplied red and white colour found their way to the Hermitageand other museum collections, while undecorated parts of thesejugs are almost completely missing from the earlier years –which means that they were obviously previously sorted out atthe site. Theoretically the loss of these undecorated parts wouldbe of minor importance since information on the total numberof different vessels of this type might certainly seem of highervalue from a statistic point of view – but during the processing ofall these sherds it increasingly emerged that, surprisingly, a lotof fragments could at least partly be assembled and that a

The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis:A Similar Story?Richard Posamentir

Figure 1 Shoulder parts (inv. nos. B65–36; B73–97; B76–14; B80–29) of four so-called ‘schwarzbunte’ jugs

Page 168: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

160 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Posamentir

Figure 2 Places of origin of ArchaicIonian pottery found on Berezan

Figure 3 Places of origin of ArchaicIonian pottery from the 7th century BC

found on Berezan

Figure 4 Places of origin of ArchaicIonian pottery from the 6th century BC

found on Berezan

Page 169: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 161

The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?

number of additional complete or almost complete vesselswould have been gained if all sherds had been kept – eventhough Berezan is already extremely rich in this regard. Mostimportant, nevertheless, is still the quantity – it means that anamazingly high number of such more or less identical vessels,being representative for a certain time span, existed at Berezanat a certain time.

Still, the remaining material, even if only a selective cross-section of fine-ware pottery from the 7th/6th centuries bc,represents one of the finest complexes of Archaic Ionian potteryever found – this alone would justify the attempt to produce acomprehensive study. Furthermore, the sherds are in amazinglygood condition as regards their surface and their sharp breaks –giving the impression of pots that, once broken, had not beenmoved much subsequently. Even more remarkable is the size ofthe sherds, which is very impressive compared to what can befound in the mother cities of Ionia. It must therefore be adeclared aim of this study not only to present a general survey ofthe whole complex but also to restore as much contextinformation as possible about the ‘where’, ‘how’ and ‘with what’of each single fragment.

Apart from these general considerations a couple of essentialquestions need to be addressed, as is the case regarding othercolonies such as Naukratis.

Where exactly does the imported Archaic Ionian pottery derive

from?

This question might be of major importance concerning theethnic composition of the Greek settlers and the trading habitsof these people, wherever they might have originated. Eventhough many important sites, especially in northern Ionia, andother hitherto unknown sites still await further investigation,our knowledge in this field has been considerably expanded dueto recent and well-established archaeometric results:8 it hasbecome feasible to determine places of manufacture moreprecisely. Understandably, scholars generally tend to look forintensive contacts between mother or founding city and colony –e.g. Miletos in the case of Berezan – yet we have to ask ourselveswithout prejudice whether this concept is always valid. Manypottery exports might well be more dependent on the rules of a

free market in which price, quality and aesthetics are moreimportant than the actual ties to the founding city.9 Additionally,sources of influence might change and strong directionalconnections in the early days of a colony might not exist at alater time. We also have to consider whether traditional viewssuch as the uncritical en gros assignation of countless colonies tothe colonising spirit of the powerful Archaic city of Miletos alonestands firm in the light of archaeological evidence.10

At first sight some facts seem to be not only obvious but alsoalarmingly surprising: North Ionian products by farpredominate the whole complex of Archaic Ionian pottery fromBerezan (Fig. 2)11 – but this result must be critically considered,since proportions change substantially when one looks at thematerial divided according to its date. By focusing on 7thcentury bc pottery it turns out that Milesian or South Ionianpottery is still predominant (Fig. 3) – while things changedramatically in the first half of the 6th century bc in favour ofNorth Ionian products (Fig. 4). The same pattern has recentlybeen established by M. Kerschner for the western colonies, but itmight also hold true for the northern colonies:12 the late 7thcentury bc imported pottery is generally dominated by SouthIonian, mainly Milesian products, while the market in the early6th century bc is dominated by North Ionian products.Superfluous to mention that we are still not able to assignprecisely every single fragment to its point of origin – but wedefinitely should be able to discern tendencies by now. Yet apottery kiln, discovered on the southern slope of the acropolis ofKlazomenai and providing important evidence for the localproduction in Klazomenai should be taken into consideration:the kiln was in use during the 2nd quarter of the 6th century bcand the range of material found inside seems to contradictgeneralizations concerning the definition of fine-ware potteryproduced in the Eastern Greek world.13

Nevertheless, these tendencies lead to another importantconclusion: the undeniable parallel, contemporary existence ofSouth Ionian and North Ionian pottery, which cannot usually bestudied in the Ionian centres where one tends to find just one orthe other type of pottery, but not both at once, is definitely ofmajor importance. Since pottery trade seems to be amazinglyrare between the various important sites in Ionia,14 we are

Figure 5 Detail of North Ionianamphora (inv. no. B408) showingNorth Ionian Wild Goat style incombination with black-figure stylefrom the early 6th century bcfound on Berezan

Page 170: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

162 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Posamentir

heavily dependent on colonies like Naukratis or Berezan in orderto synchronize stylistic development and certain changes ofsubstantial significance – such as the transition from the socalled Wild Goat to the Fikellura style15 in the southern part ofIonia and respectively the transition from the so called WildGoat to the black-figure style16 in the northern part of Ionia.Even though this most fascinating period of changes remainsunclear in many aspects,17 it seems very unlikely that these twotransition processes should be seen as independent and localphenomena. Unfortunately, it is easier in Berezan to follow thechange between North Ionian Wild Goat and black-figure style(Fig. 5), while transitional pieces of the South Ionian productsare rather scarce. Obviously, they are far more prominent in thearea where the style was invented; in Miletos. This circumstanceis definitely also due to the fact that around the time of changeduring the first half of the 6th century bc, North Ionian potteryalready dominated the ceramic spectrum in Berezan. The typicalNorth Ionian table amphorae or meander rim plates, beingproduced not only in one but most likely several places, hadobviously already overrun the market.

Yet the question whether the mutable partition betweenSouth Ionian and North Ionian products reflects a free marketonly or also indicates changes in the origin of probably newlyarrived settlers18 remains open to debate – fine-ware potteryalone cannot provide a solution to a problem which in a similarway concerns the considerable amount of rough and locallyproduced coarse-ware,19 as well as other, non-pottery evidence.

How can the material be dated and what are the consequences

for our understanding of the foundation, development and

progress of a flourishing colony?

The foundation of Berezan has been set, according to writtensources,20 at a very early date and a small amount of apparentlyearly material has been published in order to support this view.21

Recently this opinion has rightly been put to further discussion.22

Now, that important centres of Archaic pottery production suchas Miletos23 for the South Ionian area or Klazomenai24 for theNorth Ionian area have been investigated more intensively, weare able to view earlier assessments on a more solid basis.

At first glance it is remarkable that the surface of the earliersherds is mostly not so well preserved as that of the followingperiod even though the quality of production is usually higher inthe 7th century bc; also the size of the sherds is generallynoticeably smaller. Taking a closer look, it becomes perfectlyclear that the amount of pottery found in Berezan dating fromthe 7th century bc is furthermore significantly smaller than thatdating to the first half of the 6th century bc. This circumstance isnot surprising since most colonies need at least two generationsin order to reach a first period of higher accomplishments; thesettlement might have been much smaller and the number ofinhabitants might have been significantly lower. Nevertheless,the state of preservation and size of sherds seem to indicate thata lot more imported pottery was at hand at the site within the6th century bc and broke after a shorter period of use.25

But an additional reason for this fact is revealed by focusingon the earliest pieces which should – according to the writtensources – go back to the middle of the 7th century bc: thepottery does not attest Greek inhabitation before the last third ofthis century. There are practically no early types of the so-calledbird bowls (Fig. 6; unlike the finds from Taganrok, forexample)26 and there are also no early or even subgeometric

Figure 9 Fragments (inv. nos B172; B451) of South Ionian Wild Goat style potteryfrom the late 7th century BC (SiA Ic/d) found on Berezan

Figure 6 North Ionian bird bowls (inv. nos B69–60; B70–56; B89–28) from thelate 7th century BC found on Berezan

Figure 7 South Ionian cup (Knickrandschale) (inv. no. B69–138) from the late 7thcentury BC found on Berezan

Figure 8 Fragments (inv. nos B254; B69–79; B83–15) of South Ionian Wild Goatstyle vessels from the end of the third quarter of the 7th century BC (SiA Ib/c)found on Berezan; the lower sherd probably of North Ionian origin and slightlylater (?)

Posamentir

Page 171: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 163

The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?

Figure 10 Variety of shapes of ArchaicIonian pottery from the 7th and 6thcenturies BC found on Berezan

Figure 11 Variety of Archaic drinkingcups from the 7th and 6th centuries BC

found on Berezan

types of the so-called Ionian cups, or Knickrandschalen(Fig. 7):27

even though one exceptional piece has been considered byKopeikina28 to be one of the oldest sherds found in Berezan.Early pieces of the Middle Wild Goat style in the Black Sea area,such as the beautiful pieces from Nemirov29 or the well-knownjug from Temir Gora30 find only few and fragmentary parallelsamong the Berezan material (Fig. 8).31 What we do have fromthe 7th century bc consists mostly of so-called Milesian MiddleWild Goat II jugs and plates (or so called stemmed dishes, Fig.9), accompanied by a number of North Ionian bird bowls datingnot earlier than 630 bc.

It has to be emphasised again that an early foundation dateof around 650 bc is not supported by any firm evidence and iseven contradicted by it; pottery does not indicate the presence ofIonian settlers before around 630 bc. In the following decades ofthe 6th century bc, pottery seems to reflect a time ofcomparative steadiness and importance as a trading emporiumfor the northern Black Sea coast, as we will see below.

Does the profile of imported East Greek pottery varieties at

Berezan show the same features as in the cities where these

kinds of pottery were produced?

Even though full statistic analysis from major Ionian sites is stillnot available, such fundamental differences as exist can berecognized.32 A comprehensive overview of the material kept inthe Hermitage of St. Petersburg shows a surprisingly limitedvariety of shapes (Fig. 10) and at the same time an even moresurprising amount of almost identical objects. What isremarkable, for example, is the fairly high number of‘extraordinary’ shapes such as askoi, alabastra, lydia etc. – this iswithout parallel in the mother city of Miletos. The fact that themajority of the vessels was obviously imported from northernIonia (or even brought by North Ionian people?) offers areasonable explanation, since most of these shapes are by farmore common in the area of Klazomenai, for example. Still, onemight wonder for what purpose the considerable number ofaskoi, for example, were dispatched to Berezan.

Page 172: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

164 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Posamentir

More difficult to explain is the circumstance that there is nota single example of the typical Milesian one-handled drinkingcup or mug among the thousands of sherds. Since these thin-walled mugs were more than common in 7th/6th century bcMiletos,33 this might seem rather surprising but should possiblynot be overrated considering the fact that these vessels aremostly undecorated. Besides these unusual features thespectrum of shapes is dominated by table amphorae, jugs,kraters, plates or stemmed dishes, and drinking cups. Taking acloser look at specific shapes (such as drinking cups [Fig. 11])one finds mostly well-known types of the North Ionian area,such as bird-, rosette-, meander-, lotus-, eye-, banded-ware- andanimal-frieze bowls next to the so-called Ionian cups(Knickrandschalen) of South Ionian origin. Only a small portion(approximately 20%) of these vessels is less easy to assign butwill not be discussed on this occasion. Similar classifications ofthe other shapes yield more or less the same results: most of theobjects belong to well-known categories, underline the NorthIonian predominance, and surprise only through their wellpreserved appearance.

Much more interesting in this context is the fact that some ofthe objects exist in numerous and almost identical copies.34

Admittedly, North Ionian meander plates or meander rimkraters, for example, do not in general show a high level ofcreativity and can surely be classified as mass-produced ware,but nevertheless the unexpected and frequent repetition ofcertain products is somewhat remarkable for a rather smallplace like Berezan (Fig. 12). Yet the mere existence of severalidentical vessels holds true for other and more sophisticatedwares as well, such as, for example, the Aiolian Dinoi of the socalled London Dinos group. The number of sherds of thesevessels found on Berezan makes the location one of the mostimportant places of discovery for this group in the ancientworld, next to Naukratis, which alone should be more thaninteresting.35

Taking a closer look at this material, one has to assume thatmost of these sherds can be assigned to a, naturally, smallernumber of vessels; yet according to the rim pieces no less thanfive huge vessels of superior quality can be identified among thematerial kept in St. Petersburg (Fig. 13). Taking into account

that this is most likely only a small percentage of all the vesselsof this type once present in the settlement of Berezan, one istempted to conclude that Berezan served as an importanttrading point for Ionian goods for a larger area during the 7th/6th centuries bc. If so, it would be interesting to find outwhether certain preferences could be discerned concerningshape and, even more, iconography among the material storedat Berezan and waiting to be sent to other places. This taskwould certainly be difficult to accomplish with ornamentallydecorated plates or simple drinking cups – but material such asFikellura or Klazomenian black-figure style pottery could beinvestigated in this regard.

Are there any indications for a local production of Archaic

Ionian pottery on the island of Berezan?

Even though already suggested by certain scholars,36 the idea ofthe production of vessels in, for example, Milesian orKlazomenian style on the island of Berezan itself is still almostentirely rejected by many archaeologists.37 If there wereindications or even proof of such a production, the next questionwould concern the variety of copied material and, even morefascinating, whether the rules of a possibly existing local marketwere taken into consideration.38 Again, this complex of problemsis strongly connected to one of the most interesting questionsconcerning Ionian pottery found in Naukratis.

Pottery found on the island of Berezan consists, as alreadymentioned, not only of imported ceramics but also of handmadeand locally produced coarse-ware – most likely used by the localpopulation39 as well as by the Greek colonists. That ‘Greek’

Figure 12 North Ionian plates (inv. nos B101; B66–27; B67–68; B71–60) from the6th century bc with floral decoration found on Berezan

Figure 13 Fragments of Aiolian dinoi (inv. nos B75–7; B83–8; B88–3; B89–20;B91–16) of the so-called ‘London Dinos group’ from the early 6th century BC

found on Berezan

Figure 14 Two stemmed dishes of banded ware (inv. nos B82–39; B84–32) fromthe 6th century BC found on Berezan

Page 173: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 165

The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?

coarse-ware might have been produced by the colonists at thesite should, in my opinion, be at least considered, but thisquestion will not be addressed in the present investigation dueto the more or less complete absence of such material among theobjects kept in the State Hermitage in St. Petersburg.

Also the possibility of a local production of painted potteryshould be considered, at least theoretically.40 Even though it isnot possible to discern peculiarities among the fine-ware potteryfrom Berezan at first glance, there are, in fact, some sherds thatattract our attention in regard to this question.

These fragments can be divided into three groups: first,copies of more or less well-known types of vessels originatingfrom the southern or northern part of Ionia in style, shape anddecoration. Only the poor quality of surface and slip, combinedwith minor irregularities, cast doubt on their Ionian origin. It isinteresting to note in this context that Archaic lamps withcentral tube (Stocklampen) made of rough local clay, as well asunpublished imitations of Fikellura amphorae made of dark claywith black slip, are found on Berezan. The second group consistsof vessels where – for whatever reason – shape or decoration donot fit into our known picture of Ionian vases. The third groupconsists of vessels which are apparently left unfinished – objectswhich would not normally have been exported one might think.In fact, a number of pieces belonging to these three groups –though faintly resembling Ionian products – must be classed asso peculiar that one feels forced to look for further explanations.A handful of examples should support this statement.

For the first group we could exemplarily refer to twofragments of simple banded stemmed dishes (Fig 14) which findhundreds of parallels in Miletos or other Ionian cities: one (atthe top) does not show any difference in shape, clay and surfaceto those found in Ionia, and recent clay analysis has in factshown it to be Aiolian;41 yet the other (at the bottom) not onlyseems to be thicker and less carefully made, but most unusuallybears a ropy and streaky coating, perfectly visible under softraking light. Also the beige colour of this coating seems

somehow unfamiliar, but one encounters this specific feature onseveral other vessels and fragments among the Berezancollection. Strikingly this kind of coating is used on other piecesin order to cover those parts of a vase which are normally leftwithout such treatment: a so-called Ionian cup(Knickrandschale) of common type should be compared with asimilar vessel, both found on Berezan (Figs 15, 16). While thefirst one bears no features that could attract our attention, theother again appears to be different, mainly because of thethickish beige layer below the rim. Furthermore a small detail isalso different: while normally cups like these are decorated ontheir inside with thin bands of additionally applied red andwhite colour in the sequence white-red-white, this specificexample most surprisingly shows a sequence red-beige-red.Even though these differences are minor, it should be clear thatsuch peculiarities require an explanation – which is even moretrue for the following examples belonging to the second group.

Among the numerous banded-ware plates or stemmeddishes of undoubtedly Ionian character (similar to thosediscussed above), one complete example stands out among therest (Fig. 17): a peculiar mixture of plate and bowl, it has a shapewhich is, up to now, without parallels in the southern as well asthe northern part of Ionia. Again, the thickish beige coating isremarkable, but even more puzzling is the fact that this vesselfinds identical parallels only on Berezan itself – namely in atleast four more pieces. Even though these other vessels arepreserved only in fragments, small differences in execution –one has some kind of spout on the inner side of the rim, forexample (Fig. 18) – make it perfectly obvious that the sherds inquestion belong to four different, if very similar, objects. Thisfact should be a clear warning not to assign strange fragments toone single vessel too easily, even when these fragments might beperfectly comparable to each other.

Figure 15 South Ionian cup (Knickrandschale, inv. no. B66–76) of the first half ofthe 6th century BC found on Berezan

Figure 16 Ionian cup (Knickrandschale, inv. no. B86–7) of the first half of the 6thcentury BC found on Berezan

Figure 18 Fragment (inv. no. B75–114) of a similar vessel to Fig. 17, but withspout on the inner rim from the 6th century bc found on Berezan

Figure 17 Mixture between bowl and plate of banded ware (inv. no. B75–111)from the 6th century bc found on Berezan

Page 174: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

166 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Posamentir

Several sherds of a huge krater (Fig. 19), for example,bearing unfamiliar features and decorations besides the alreadywell-known thickish beige layer, were found in different placeson the island during eight different seasons and might belong toone or even to three or more objects – minor differences in thecolour of the red-brown painted decoration do not offer anykind of solution to this question. At least the shape of the kratercan be reconstructed (Fig. 20); it was a huge and coarsecontainer with carelessly executed ornaments of doubtlesslyIonian character. These last two types of vessels certainly do notfit into the familiar spectrum of North or South Ionian pottery ofthe Archaic period – either they represent examples of localpottery production in the Black Sea area, or they derive from ahitherto unknown production centre which, for whateverreason, developed rather strange features. As I argue elsewhere,evidence from clay analysis (including the pieces illustrated inFigs 17–20) now suggests that the latter is in fact the more likelyoption, and that this production centre might be located in theHellespont area.42

The third group is represented here by a huge body sherd ofa small krater in black-figure or Corinthianising style (Fig. 21)and a small plate with floral decoration on the inside (Fig. 22).Both share a remarkable feature: they seem to have been leftunfinished. The small krater shows a goat moving up towards

the left surrounded by some filling ornaments. Even though theanimal’s body bears the usual application of added red colour,the otherwise obligatory incisions are, surprisingly, missing inthe whole depiction. What makes the situation even moreobscure are the again unusual (but in this case white) thickishcoating of the image field and the generally awkwardimpression of the scene, which cannot be compared to any of thenumerous North Ionian kraters of similar size and iconography.Normally, only deer but not goats carry dots on their belly inNorth or South Ionian depictions – on Aiolian dinoi of theLondon Dinos group, on the other hand, this detail is common.Of this latter group one also feels reminded as far as therectangular application of the red colour on the back of theanimals is concerned, but the difference in quality is stillenormous.43 Again, a fragment like this could be an indication oflocal production – but also an origin in a less well-investigatedgeographic area seems conceivable.

To the same group also belong, finally, two seeminglyunfinished small plates (Fig. 22) – shape and surface arefinished carefully here, but the customary central floral elementon the inside is only laid down in its outline. Again, the fact thatmore than one object displays this phenomenon leaves theobserver quite puzzled – but in this case not only the skillfulexecution, but also the existence of very similar pieces fromother places, including Naukratis,44 seem to make localmanufacture rather unlikely.

In conclusion, it must be emphasized that certain indicationsfor a local production of painted fine-ware pottery of the Ionianstyle definitely seem to be present among the ceramic materialfrom Berezan kept in the State Hermitage of St. Petersburg. Thisdoes not necessarily mean that these vessels were produced on

Figure 21 Fragment of North Ionian(?) krater (inv. no. B67–64) in blackfigure/corinthianising style from the first half of the 6th century BC found onBerezan

Figure 19 Fragments of South Ionian(?) krater (inv. nos B73–6.26.34; B78–14;B79–2) from the early(?) 6th century BC found on Berezan

Figure 20 Profile drawing of South Ionian(?) krater Fig. 19

Figure 22 Small North Ionian(?) plate (inv. no. B86–56) from the second half ofthe 6th century BC (?) with unfinished central floral element; found on Berezan

Page 175: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 167

The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?

Berezan itself; it could also be the case that another productioncentre within the wider Black Sea area has not as yet beenlocated. Again, this fact represents a strong parallel to thesituation at the colony of Naukratis – but in this case a localproduction has already been proven.45

More archaeometric analysis must be undertaken on thematerial from Berezan in order to further verify the observationsdiscussed above. Even if no proof of fine-ware potterymanufacture on Berezan or its surrounding region were to berevealed, one would still be forced to find explanations for somehighly unusual ceramic products. Besides, as we have seen, theoverall profile of the Archaic Ionian pottery found on Berezanalso raises numerous questions that are of far-reachingimportance for other colonies as well, such as Naukratis. It is,indeed, a similar story.

Illustration creditsAll photos S. Solovyov; Fig. 20 drawing R. Docsan; diagrams by theauthor.

Notes1 Kerschner 2001, 72-7.2 I am greatly indebted to S.L. Solovyov, curator of the Berezan

collection in the State Hermitage of St. Petersburg and former headof excavation in Berezan, for offering me the chance to publish largeparts of the Archaic Ionian pottery from Berezan. Nevertheless thiscontribution is a preliminary report on my work, while the wholestudy will be printed within the framework of the Berezanpublication project. For this reason most objects discussed here arepresented in photography only – profile drawings and furtherinformation will be given on this later occasion; special thanks aredue in this context to R. Docsan for producing thousands of profiledrawings. For a detailed presentation of the first archaeometricanalyses of the Berezan material, see also Posamentir and Solovyov2006; Kerschner 2006; Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006.

3 Cf. the comprehensive study of the site by Solovyov 1999, 19-27.4 Russian archaeologists stopped working on the site in 1991 while a

Ukrainian team under the leadership of V. Nazarov continued.Archaeologists from the State Hermitage St. Petersburg started witha special team again in 2003, now headed by D. Chistov.

5 Excluding Fikellura, Chian or Klazomenian pottery, which are thesubject of a study by I.Y. Ilyina, material in St. Petersburg has beendivided among various scholars in order to make possible thepublication of a huge amount within a reasonable time; the firstvolume of this publication project containing, for example, the Chianpottery has already appeared in print; cf. Ilyina 2005, 70-173.

6 Solovyov 1999, 52 – but full drawing documentation of the potteryexcavated in the 1980s is at hand.

7 A complete vessel of this ware has been found on Rhodes: Jacopi1933, 54 fig. 52; similar objects (Walter-Karydi 1973, 19-20 fig. 23 pl.36 no. 277) derive from Samos. Several fragments have beenexcavated in the Aiolian city of Larisa on Hermos: Boehlau andSchefold 1942, pl. 39. Some small jugs from Aiolis (see Ýren 2002, 179fig. 11) display an odd mixture with Aiolian Wild Goat style and thusgive a hint to look for a production centre within this geographicalarea. This supposition has now been confirmed by clay analysis ofsome of the Berezan pieces (samples Bere 105, 107, 108), whichplaces them in the same group as the London Dinos group; seeKerschner this volume; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.

8 Akurgal et al. 2002, 28-116, with full reference to other and earlierattempts towards the identification of production centres in thisgeographical area.

9 Kerschner 2000, 488-90.10 For a critical review of each site once attributed to Miletos, see

Ehrhardt 1983, 49-97; Tsetskhladze (1998, 36) goes one step furtherby considering the occasional participation of other Ionian centres.

11 Pottery decorated in Fikellura style is not included in this statisticalanalysis – but nor is pottery of Chian and Klazomenian origin; thetwo amounts almost neutralize each other. More interesting is theAiolian share of the whole complex, which is surprisingly high, even

though only present in very specific products.12 Kerschner 2000, 487; see also Tsetskhladze 1998, 51.13 Ersoy 2000, 403-5.14 This surprising but important fact has already been underlined by

Ersoy 2000, 406.15 Correctly described as a process of transition by Schlotzhauer (1999,

119-22; forthcoming b). Earlier contributions by Cook (1998, 63-6;1999, 79-93) were focused on similar fragments but of Carian origin.

16 Özer 2004, 200-1; see also Ersoy 1993, 234-349; 2000, 403. Theprogressive parts of these transitional – or even bilingual – fragmentsor vessels show strongly corinthianising features and are still quitedifferent from depictions of the developed Klazomenian black-figurepottery. Compare e.g. the vessels from Syracuse, Samos, Cyprus andRhodes with several fragments from Naukratis and the hugeamphora found on Berezan: Walter-Karydi 1973, pls 108, 109, 112, 115,116, 119, nos 902, 907, 918, 941, 952, 975.

17 A new classification system of Archaic Ionian Pottery has just beenpresented by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 1-56.

18 Tsetskhladze 1998, 51.19 Solovyov 1999, 42-52.20 Euseb., Chron. 95b Helm.21 Kopeikina 1973, 241-3 figs 1-3.22 Boardman 1998a, 201-2; Solovyov 1999, 29.23 Schlotzhauer 2000; 2001; forthcoming b; Käufler 1999, 203-12;

Ketterer 1999, 213-21; Posamentir 2002, 9-26; Villing 1999, 189-202.24 Ersoy 1993, 291-419; 2000, 399-406; 2004, 51-66; Özer 2004, 199-219;

Hürmüzlü 2004a, 82-7.25 Compare Tsetskhladze 1998, 53.26 Kopylov and Larinok 1994, 69.27 Schlotzhauer 2000, 407-16; 2001.28 See n. 22 – it is to my mind still hard to date these fragments

accurately because of the lack of parallels – but certain details suchas the applied red colour are certainly no indications for an early dateof the cup.

29 Vakhtina 1996, 85-92; forthcoming.30 Cook and 1998, 36 fig. 8.5. For a compilation of early Greek pottery in

the Black Sea Area see Tsetskhladze 1998, 10-15.31 The material at hand still proves the exceptional position of the

settlement of Berezan; for outstanding but isolated fragments fromOlbia see cf. Ilyina 2004, 76.

32 The author has been working extensively with Archaic Ionianpottery in Miletos, Ephesos and Samos. Frequent trips to many otherimportant sites such as Klazomenai have enabled him to observe thedifferences as they are set out here.

33 The Milesian examples are not published yet, but the same type isalso very common on Samos: see Eilmann 1933, 57-9.

34 Compare Kopeikina 1982, 10-30.35 Extensively discussed by Kerschner, this volume. See also Kerschner

2001, 87-92; Ýren 2002, 165-207. For the clay analysis of the piecesfrom Berezan, see Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.

36 See Cook and Dupont (1998, 66-7, 90-1) for imitations found inHistria and Olbia. Cook already suggested that the imitations foundin Histria might have been imports from the bigger place Olbia.

37 Shortly before his tragic death, V. Nazarov claimed to have foundwasters of a pottery kiln in a rubbish pit. In fact, one can find amisfired table amphora of North Ionian style in the museum ofOchakiv, inv. no. Ab-021213. For a compilation of pottery kilns foundin the Black Sea Area, see Tsetskhladze 1998, 42-3.

38 This question has already been most carefully raised by Tsetskhladze1998, 13.

39 Solovyov 1999, 42-7, and comprehensively now Senatorov 2005, 174-349.

40 Production of metalwork seems to find proof in several mouldsfound on the island; cf. Treister 1998, 182-8. Additionally it has to besaid that the possible lack of suitable clay on Berezan directly isdefinitely no conclusive argument against local pottery production.

41 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, sample no. Bere 138; Kerschner thisvolume.

42 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.43 Compare, for example, with Solovyov 1999, 61 fig. 45.44 Naukratis: Cambridge, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

NA 5; Tocra: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 50 no. 627 pl. 34.45 Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 92-3; Mommsen et al. this volume;

Schlotzhauer and Villing this volume.

Page 176: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra
Page 177: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 169

Abstract

Some inscriptions on pottery from the ‘Sacred Area’ in Istros arediscussed in the wider context of similar discoveries from Ioniansanctuaries, especially in Naukratis. Although a great number ofdivinities are attested in this part of the city, the majority of thededications do not form homogeneous groups. The Archaicinscriptions are written in the Ionian alphabet, albeit without aclear indication of the dedicators’ origins. In this context a ceramicinscription from the Archaic settlement is also considered whichpreserves the name of a certain Rhomis.

The subject of this paper has presented itself as a result of therecent discoveries of a number of ceramic inscriptions in theIstrian sanctuaries (Figs 1-2). A catalogue of those uneartheduntil 1990 was published recently in a volume dedicated to theexcavations of the ‘sacred area’.1 The small number of graffiti anddipinti discovered until now should be emphasized, about 35,among which 15 date from the Archaic period, less than 1% of theNaukratis total.2 In Istros it is, moreover, often difficult to relatethe votive dedications to temples or other sacred monuments.

The votive inscriptions presented here are arranged mainlyby deity. Among the 12 epigraphically known gods from thesacred area, 7 of them are known from the graffiti. Whatdistinguishes the ceramic inscriptions from Istros is first of allthe lack of compact groups of dedications. Apart from the simplededications to Zeus, there are various other inscriptions that canbe understood only in the broader context of discoveries fromthe Istrian or other Ionian sanctuaries and places.

Zeus and Apollo

The first group relates to the family of Leto.3 Beginning with the

Classical period there are five or six dedications to Zeus. Each ofthem bears the same simple Ionian inscription in the dative, Di/.Only one fragment on a West-Slope kantharos raises somequestions concerning its restoration. All appear on black-glazedvases, four of them from the 5th century bc (Fig. 3), one on aCampanian black-glazed bowl from the second half of the 2ndcentury bc (Figs 4–5).4 The use of the same formula for such along time is remarkable. Probably the Istrian graffiti are to beconnected with the cult of Zeus Soter, widespread in Milesiancolonies.5

Among the recent discoveries is also a well-preserveddedication to Apollo.6 The inscription,7 in the Ionic alphabet, was

Some Ceramic Inscriptions from Istrian Sanctuaries:The Naukratis ApproachIulian Bîrzescu

Figure 1The ‘sacred area’ of Istros

Figure 2 The ‘sacred area’ of Istros (2004)

Figure 3 Dedication to Zeus on anAttic black-glazed cup, third quarter ofthe 5th century BC

Figures 4-5 Dedication to Zeus on aCampanian black-glazed bowl, secondhalf of the 2nd century BC

Page 178: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

170 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bîrzescu

incised on the rim of an Attic eye-cup:)A[po]llwni/dhj m’ a)ne/qhken tw)po/llwni du/o e[?---]‘Apollonides has dedicated me to Apollo, as two …’Both the name of the dedicator and the name of the god

represent the earliest epigraphic evidence of the Apollo cult inIstros. Furthermore, the inscription documents the worship ofthe god in the sacred area. The occurrence of the god withoutepiclesis is rather an exception for this time in the Pontic colonies,but almost the rule in the sanctuaries of Apollo in Didyma andNaukratis. Several hundreds of Archaic sherds from Apollo’ssanctuary of the Milesians in Naukratis bear votive inscriptions toApollo. Among these there are some examples that preserve thesame formula as our graffito. Despite the lack of an epiclesis, thededication from Istros was perhaps made to Milesian Apollo, thegod worshipped in Naukratis and Didyma.

This is not the only inscription from the ‘sacred area’ relatedto Apollo, who probably had his main sanctuary here.8 In the1970s a number of bases were uncovered, bearing inscriptionsdated to the 3rd century bc. These were aligned on a via sacraoriented north-south.9 The inscription carved on the first basewas restored by Pippidi as a dedication of the Boreis tribe,Borew/n (Fig. 6).10 But since there is no place on the stone for theletter ny, the inscription should rather be restored as Bore/w, anIonic genitive dedication for Apollo Boreus. Such an epithet isattested five times in the Archaic and Classical period in Olbia.11

Furthermore, a 5th-century bc Olbian graffito provides evidencefor the existence of an association of worshippers honouringApollo Boreus, boreikoi thiasitai.12 As L. Dubois had alreadynoticed, these were most probably related in some way to Orphicbeliefs.13

The second limestone base, preserved only in fragments, wasrecently published in the above-mentioned volume concerningthe excavations from the ‘sacred area’ (Fig. 7).14 On it the end ofan inscription can be seen, – few (omega with iota subscriptum).At the beginning of this line, due to the limited space, not morethan two or three letters could have been carved. In this case asuitable restoration would be 0Orfe/w. The slab that fits perfectlyinto this base is a marble stele dedication to Apollon Pholeuterios

(Fig. 8), according to Jurij Vinogradov a boundary stone.15 Thislatter stone was also discovered in the ‘sacred area’ and datesfrom the 3rd century bc. Another similar stone, this time with adedication to Phorkys, preserved only in fragments, wasdiscovered in 1949, on the south-eastern part of the acropolis(Fig. 9).16 I would suspect that this slab was aligned in the sameway as the bases discussed above.

The inscriptions on these bases for Orpheus and Boreussuggest that we can presume for Istros a situation similar to thatin Olbia. Without wanting to insist here too much on the Orphicissue, I must, however, stress the relationship between Boreasand Orpheus, as it is portrayed by ancient authors. Homer in theOdyssey (13.109-112) describes the cave of the Nymphs, situated inIthaka near the harbour of Phorkys. It is said that this cave hadtwo entrances, a northern one, through which mortals wouldenter, and a southern one for the immortals. The cave myth,discussed at length by Porphyry, conveys the ancient belief in thetransmigration of the souls, a common belief among the Orphics.As Aristotle (De anima 1.5) relates, the Orphics used to ascribe tothe winds an important role in the metempsychosis process: ‘the

Figure 9 Marble slab with dedication to Phorkys, Hellenistic period

Figure 6 Limestone base withdedication to Boreus, Hellenisticperiod

Figure 8 Limestone base with dedication to Orpheus (?) and marble slab withdedication to Apollo Pholeuterios

Figure 7 Limestone base withdedication to Orpheus (?), Hellenisticperiod

Page 179: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 171

Some Ceramic Inscriptions from Istrian Sanctuaries: The Naukratis Approach

souls enter from the Universe into their body when they arebreathing, brought by the winds’. In this interpretation of themyth of the cave of the Nymphs, Boreas is the wind that bringslife.

Dionysos

At the end of the archaeological campaign of 2004, fragmentsfrom the rim of a Fikellura trefoil mug17 (Fig. 10) came to light inthe eastern part of the so called ‘great hollow’, in an Archaiclayer directly on the base-rock. There is no difficulty in readingthe five letters – onusw – on the inside surface of the rim. Theybelong to a dedication to Dionysos: [--- Di]onu/sw [---](Fig. 11). The archaeological context, the ceramic typology andthe letter-forms date the object into the second half of the 6thcentury bc. The four-stroked sigma and omega are indicative ofthe Ionic alphabet. The V-shaped ypsilon is common in the 6thcentury bc.

Noteworthy is, of course, the deity to whom the dedicationwas offered. Until this find was made, the worship of Dionysos inIstros had been attested only from the Hellenistic periodonwards, through theophoric names, illustration on coins andespecially the reference to the Dionysia in a decree from the 2ndcentury bc.18 In the north-western colonies of the Black Sea, thecult of Dionysos is well-attested from earliest times onwards.19 AtOlbia it is attested indirectly, by the Orphic tablets.20

Hera

The vase, probably an East Greek cup, is only partially preserved,namely the lower part, yet the inscription written on the foot iscomplete (Figs 12–13). It is a votive inscription to Hera in the Ionicdialect, (/Hrhj. The archaeological context gives us as a terminusante quem of 530 bc. The closest comparisons are a dedicationdiscovered between the sanctuaries of Apollo and that of the

Dioskuroi in Naukratis, published for the first time by ErnestGardner,21 and some dedications from Gravisca.22 This Istriangraffito is the first attestation of Hera’s worship in a Milesiancolony of the Archaic period; although in Miletus itself, her culthad been known for some time.23 Hera’s cult could have beenbrought to Istros by the Samians, as in the case of Naukratis,where a great number of ceramic inscriptions has come to light inher sanctuary.24

Aphrodite

A roof-tile from the first half of 6th century bc, carrying a votiveinscription to Aphrodite, has been meticulously published by K.Zimmermann.25 Its inscription, written in boustrophedon, hasbeen discussed many times. The only difficulties in restoring theinscription are some letters from the end of the first and thebeginning of the second line. In his study, Zimmermann repeatsnumerous reconstruction possibilities, using the fewrecognizable letters, EX...L?E... . One of the variants proposed byA.W. Johnston for the name of the dedicator was a rare Ionianname, Echeleon,26 which seems to me very likely. Zimmermannalso admitted the possibility of a name with this patronymic.27

The reconstruction can now be supported by the reading of someletters discernible on the second line, which probably were theend of the patronymic name in the genitive case, – wnoj (Fig.14). It is almost certain that the second line contains no ethnikon.

)Afrodi/thi a)ne/qhken )Exe?l?e/[wn] | [---]wno?j? a)/pargma.

Figures 10–11 Fikellura eye-mug with dedication to Dionysos, second half of the6th century BC

Figure 14 Dedication on a roof-tile to Aphrodite, first half of the 6th century BC

(drawn after Pippidi 1983, 247, cat. 101)

Figures 12–13 North Ionian cup with dedication to Hera, third quarter of the 6thcentury BC

Page 180: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

172 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bîrzescu

Hermes

From the same archaeological context that contained the graffitofor Apollo, and in the same year, 2003, a sherd was discoveredwith a dedication to Hermes (Figs 15–16): [---]hmeq[---|---]hj : (Erm[h=i ---]. Although the inscription is not wellpreserved, there are no difficulties in restoring the name of thedeity. From the name of the worshipper only the two final letterssurvive, -hj, and from the name of the deity the first three. Theseparation between the two names has an accuratepunctuation.28 The relationship between Hermes and Aphroditeis well-known from Olbia, where these two gods wereworshipped together.29

Phorkys

The first graffito unearthed from the ‘sacred area’ is also one ofthe earliest Istrian inscription: [--- a)ne/qhk]e?n tw= Fo/r[kui ---] (Fig. 17). Phorkys does not appear often in the literarysources, but his epithets seem favourable. The old god of the sea,as Homer called him (Odyssey 1.72), had a harbour named afterhim on Ithaka (Odyssey 13.96). In Greek art he is representedextremely rarely.30 Thought to be a pre-Greek deity, Phorkys wasnot treated as a ‘true’ god.31 Istros is the only place for which wecan presume the existence of his cult. To the inscription from the‘sacred area’ another two documents from the Hellenistic periodcan be added: a graffito on a roof-tile and the marble slabdiscussed above (Fig. 9).32

Dedicators

One of the important features of the Naukratian graffiti is theappearance of ethnika on some sherds. These are also to be foundin the Istrian sanctuaries, but only in the Hellenistic period. In the3rd century bc a Thasian who erected the temple of TheosMegas33 and a Smyrnaean (Fig. 18) appear in ceramic inscriptiondiscovered in the ‘great hollow’ four years ago.34

The few names that appear on the sherds from Istros are ofGreek origin. Only four or five names date to the Archaic period,all masculine. As in Naukratis, one might tentatively suppose thatthe colonists brought with them women from differentMediterranean regions.35 The largest part of the visitors at thistime came from Ionia. One of them engraved his name on aMilesian ‘Knickrandschale’:36 (Rw=mij. This cup (Figs 19–21) wasdiscovered in the Archaic settlement, in area Z2.37 The name waspresumed to have an Etruscan-Italic origin.38 But the reading ofthe sculptor’s name in an inscription on the monument ofTheugenes the Potidean from Delphi made Alan Johnstonpresume that the name Rhomis was common in other regions aswell in the Archaic period.39

Although different in quantity, the Archaic graffiti from Istrosshare several characteristic with many inscribed sherds ofNaukratis, such as the related dedication formulae, the shape ofthe letters, the types of the vases – primarily of East Greek origin –and in part the same worshipped gods. Even if at this moment it isstill too early to draw any conclusions regarding the origin of thededicators in Istros, the lack of ethnika could indicate a singleprovenance, namely Miletos.

Figures 15–16 Dedication to Hermes on an Attic band-cup, second half of the6th century BC

Figure 17 Dedication on a North Ionian krater (?) to Phorkys, first half of the 6thcentury BC

Figures 19–21 Graffito with the name of Rhomis on cup with everted rim

Figure 18 Dedication of a Smyrnean on an East Greek krater, 2nd century BC

Page 181: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 173

Some Ceramic Inscriptions from Istrian Sanctuaries: The Naukratis Approach

List of deities from the ‘sacred area’ at Istros

Deities Epiclesis Object Observations Date

Zeus Six graffiti: four on stemless cup, delicate Probably with the Four are dated to the 3rd

class, rim offset inside, and two epiclesis Soter quarter of the 5th c. BC, two

on Hellenistic black glaze pottery from the Hellenistic period

Zeus Polieus Decree Had an altar in the 3rd c. BC

‘sacred area’

Leto Dedication 4th c. BC

Artemis Pythie Dedication Priestess 4th c. BC

Apollo Dedication on an Attic eye-cup 3rd quarter 6th c. BC

Apollo Boreus Limestone base 3rd c. BC

Apollo Pholeuterios Stele 3rd c. BC

Dionysos Fikellura trefoil mug On the inside rim 2nd half 6th c. BC

Orpheus(?) Limestone base The ‘Apollo Pholeuterios’ 3rd c. BC

stele probably fits into

the Orpheus base

Phorkys Graffito on an East Greek krater (?) 1st half 6th c. BC

Hera Graffito on an East Greek high-foot cup 3rd quarter 6th c. BC

Aphrodite Dedication on a ‘Sattelkalypter’ 1st half 6th c. BC

Aphrodite Dedication on a basalt perirrhanterion 2nd half 6th c. BC

Aphrodite Dedication 3rd c. BC

Hermes Dedication on an Attic cup 2nd half 6th c. BC

Theos Megas Dedication on a temple architrave Erected by a Thasian 3rd c. BC

Moirai Dedication on a votive relief 3rd c. BC

Kybele Statue Hellenistic?

Apollo Ietros Dedication on a marble architrave Not discovered in the ‘sacred End of the 5th c. BC

area’but connected with the

propylon (monument C)

the 5th century bc, Dinu/so.20 Rusiaeva 1978, 85-104.21 Gardner 1886, 62, cat. 689; Bernand 1970, 673, cat. 318. Other

dedications to Hera in Naukratis, Gardner 1888, 67, cat. 841-8. 22 Johnston and Pandolfini 2000, 17-9, cat. 4-46.23 Kawerau and Rehm 1914, 162-3, cat. 31a.24 The Samian provenance of Hera mugs from Naukratis is now

confirmed by chemical analyses: Schlotzhauer 2006, 308-14, figs 12-4; Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.

25 SEG XXXIII 582; Zimmermann 2000, 239-51, with literature;Alexandrescu 2005, 69, 418 and 476. The beginning of the name ofthe dedicator is wrongly reconstructed in the last publication: thesecond letter is clearly a chi and not a xi.

26 SEG XXII 514; Fraser and Matthews 1987, 192.27 Zimmermann 2000, 251.28 The same punctuation in Olbia, Dubois 1996, 126, cat. 126,

)Igdampaihj : (Ermh=i.29 Rusiaeva 1992, 87, fig. 24.7.30 LIMC VII.1 (1994), 398. Dipinto on a Corinthian vase in the Museum

of Kavalla, Wachter 2001, 103-4, cat. 106a (Porkos).31 See for example Heubeck and Hoeckstra 1989, 169-70.32 Alexandrescu 2005, 418-20.33 Alexandrescu 2001, 95.34 Alexandrescu 2005, 422.35 See also Oppermann 2004, 7. Until now only Metriche had been

known in Istros, on a jug from the middle of the 6th century bc,Jeffery 1990, 479.

36 For the shape, see Schlotzhauer 2000, 410 (type 9).37 Museum of Histria, Inv. no. V 26031.38 Dubois 1989, 50, cat. 36 (Selinunt) and 120, cat. 114 (Camarina). The

latter appears also at Arena 1992, 56, cat. 123; Fraser and Matthews1997, 386.

39 Johnston 1980, 95-7.

Illustration creditsFig. 1 after Alexandrescu 2005; all other photographs and drawings areby the author.

Notes1 Alexandrescu 2005.2 The figure of over 1,500 ceramic inscriptions at Naukratis mentioned

by Möller 2000a, 166, has been nearly doubled through the recentcataloguing of all the inscribed material in the British Museum byAlan Johnston; the great majority of these inscriptions date to theArchaic period.

3 The only missing member of the family, Artemis Pythie, is nowattested on a marble inscription, a dedication of an ex-priestess ofthe goddess honouring Leto: Avram et al. (forthcoming).

4 Information from Dr. Vasilica Lungu.5 Ehrhardt 1988, 156.6 Another theophoric name, Ietrodoros, appears in Istros in the third

quarter of the 6th century bc, Johnston 1996, 99-101. 7 Zimmermann and Bîrzescu (forthcoming).8 Alexandrescu 2005, 62 and esp. 83-4. 9 Zimmermann 1981, 463. Alexandrescu 2005, pl. 2.2. 10 Pippidi 1983, cat. 97.11 Vinogradov and Rusiaeva, 2001, 134-40. 12 Rusiaeva 1992, 18, fig. 4.1. 13 Dubois 1996, 156.14 Alexandrescu 2005, 126.15 Vinogradov 2000, 139. 16 Pippidi 1983, 250-1.17 For the shape, see Schlotzhauer 1999 234-6 figs 21-3.18 Pippidi 1983, 173, cat. 64.19 Herodotus 4.79, initiation of Skyles in Dionysos’ cult. For the cult in

Olbia, Rusiaeva 1992, 96-9; Berezan, Tolstoýv, 1953, 55-6, graffito from

Page 182: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra
Page 183: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 175

Abstract

It is well known that Cyrene was settled first by Greek islanders,with some later settlers from East Greece and the Mainland. Potteryand other finds from the extramural Sanctuary of Demeter andPersephone at Cyrene, help support historical sources about thesettlers’ origins. Some evidence, however, especially from pottery,suggests links between Cyrene and Naukratis, whose Greekpopulation largely came from East Greece.*

The story in Herodotus (4.152) of Kolaios, the ship captain fromSamos, who, in c. 639 bc, landed on Plataia, an island off thecoast of Libya, is well known.1 His destination was Egypt, but hisship was blown off course, presumably having intended to saildirectly to Egypt from the Aegean. Clearly the direct route southto Africa from the Aegean was not unusual.2 Korobios, theCretan purple fisher or trader who guided the Theran coloniststo the same island of Plataia, surely sailed this way after helearned about it from his own misadventure with contrary winds(Hdt. 4.151), and thereafter it must have been a common routefor Greeks to sail between the Aegean and the coast ofCyrenaica.

Though undoubtedly founded by colonists from the smallisland of Thera, literary evidence supports a mix of settlers atCyrene by about 500 bc. 1) Therans were the original colonists (Hdt. 4.150–58), with aCretan guide to Plataia. Later suggestions that Laconians had ahand somehow in early efforts, including mention of theSpartan three-time Olympic victor, Chionis, in the originalexpedition, cannot be trusted by themselves.3 Samian help at theearliest stage is remembered, but nothing confirms the presenceof Samian settlers till later. 2) Herodotus (4.159) says that the population of Cyrene stayedthe same during the reigns of the first two kings, but we knowfrom archaeology that other settlements were founded along thecoast during this time (Apollonia, Taucheira, ‘Ptolemais,Euhesperides), so there must have been an influx of Greeks.4

Did all come from Thera? This is not likely, given the size of theisland.5 The Lindian Chronicle (17) mentions early settlers atCyrene from Rhodes, for example,6 and it is possible thatLaconians (Isokrates, Philip. 5) took an early interest.7 Commonsense and a little archaeological material also suggest at leastsome settlers from Crete and the Cyclades.8

3) After a major second wave of settlers was encouraged byBattos II, c. 580 bc, causing serious conflicts with the nativeLibyans (Hdt. 4.159), we learn of a mid-6th century bcconstitutional change by an arbitrator from Mantinea(Demonax) which divided the citizens into three tribes:

a) Therans and Perioikoi (the latter are problematic. Theyclearly have some status to be joined with the Therans in thistribe. One suggestion is that they were native Libyans [Hdt.4.159 – ïß ðåñßïéêïé Ëßâõåò] who revolted and won the battle

of Leucon, killing 7,000 [!] Cyreneans, says Herodotus[4.160]. Another possibility is that they were from districtson the island of Thera outside Thera town itself);9

b) Cretans and Peloponnesians (the latter again areproblematic, but for lack of any literary evidence or cleararchaeological evidence for Peloponnesians other thanLacedaemonians, surely the south Peloponnese was bestrepresented, and rather than Spartiates sailing to Libya, itmay be that members of the Perioikoi of Laconia are as likelycandidates as any);10

c) Islanders (Rhodians and Samians have the best claim, butothers from the Cyclades or Cythera seem likely).

Quite separate from Demonax’s division of Cyrene’s citizensare the Samian-led mercenaries who won back the throne forArkesilas III, probably in the third quarter of the 6th century bc,in return for a promise of land (Hdt. 4.162–4). These men mayhave come from Samos and elsewhere, including a wide regionof Asia Minor opposite the island.

Before examining East Greek wares excavated in theDemeter Sanctuary at Cyrene, which provide the best evidencefor influence from Greek commercial activity in the direction ofNaukratis, it is worth considering other fabrics found during theUniversity of Pennsylvania excavations in the 1970s.11 It shouldbe emphasized that almost all the Archaic material is scrappy.Besides 300 published fragments of Athenian12 and 400 ofCorinthian wares,13 there were about 550 pieces of otherimported fine wares published from the Sanctuary, divided intonine fabric categories. Although Cyrene was settled by c. 631 bc,the Demeter Sanctuary contains very little material from the 7thcentury bc. For example, of 5,000 pieces of Corinthian pottery,Kocybala was only able to identify six which could be ascribedwith any confidence to Early Corinthian.14 Three Island gems, anamulet seal, two ivory objects, seven engraved tridacna shellsand some terracotta figurines have also been dated to the 7thcentury bc.15 No Athenian, East Greek, Laconian or other fabricneed be earlier than c. 600 bc. So this has become the acceptedstarting date for the Sanctuary.

Of first interest then is the little bit of Theran, Cycladic andCretan pottery which is so rarely found outside the Aegean.16 It isparticularly clear in demonstrating an on-going link between thecolonists and their south Aegean homeland for severalgenerations after the initial settlement. What is notably absent isany of the so-called ‘Melian’, ‘Siphnian’ and ‘Parian’ potterywhich occurred in the contemporary Demeter Sanctuary atTocra, ancient Taucheira, 125km west of Cyrene.17 Over 50examples of these wares appeared at Tocra. The difference, Isuggested elsewhere, might be due to the arrival at Taucheira ofa group of colonists from other islands in the Cyclades than wentto Cyrene.18 These vases are also not commonly traded, except toThasos, a colony of Paros.19 No pottery of these types has been

Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrene’sExtramural Sanctuary of DemeterGerald Schaus

Page 184: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

176 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schaus

reported from Naukratis.Laconian pottery has more of a story to tell. In the Cyrene

Demeter Sanctuary, 223 vases of this fabric were published froma wide range of shapes, and dating from the early to the late 6thcentury bc.20 No Laconian vase painter is represented insignificant numbers, although the workshops of the HuntPainter, the Naukratis Painter, and the Rider Painter are bestrepresented with 16, 13 and 8 pieces respectively.21 Regarding therange of shapes, there is a remarkable variety, greater thanalmost anywhere else, especially for the black-painted vases.The following table lists the most common types, with acomparable count of the same shapes among Tocra’s 110published Laconian vases.

Counts of Laconian vases by shapeShapes Cyrene (% of 223) Tocra (% of 110)Cups 94 42% 20 18%Kraters 40 18 5 4.5Lakainai 23 10 5 4.5Dishes 12 5.5 3 3Aryballoi 11 5 6 5.5Chalices 4 2 0 0Hydriai 4 2 0 0Oinochoai 3 1.5 7 6.3Flat-based bowls 3 1.5 27 25.022

Jugs and juglets 2 1 11 10

Many rare or unique shapes also occur in the two assemblages,including a beaker, kothon, skyphos, stamnos, lekythos, pyxisand a double vase. The difference in the numbers of each shapebetween the two sites is quite striking and hard to account for,especially because both are Demeter sanctuaries. Only theworkshops of the Naukratis Painter (10 vases) and the RiderPainter (4 vases) are at all well represented at Tocra.23 Despitethe differences, the percentage of Laconian compared to thetotal Archaic pottery from both sites is similar, and they bothhave a full range of shapes and decorative types.

It is interesting to compare these finds with Naukratis, whichMarjorie Venit has done in publishing the Laconian from Egypt.24

About 50 pieces are known, all are from Naukratis whereprovenience is recorded. Of these, there are only two shapesrepresented in numbers, kraters and black-figure cups. Of the 34black-figure cups, about 27 can be attributed to painters, and ofthese, a remarkable 18 are by the Boreads Painter, and wheredatable, belong to the brief period c. 570–565 bc. The possibilitythat they arrived in a single shipment has been considered.25 Theonly other place where the Boreads Painter is represented insuch impressive numbers is at Samos, where so much Laconianhas been found. Venit suggested that there is no reason tobelieve that the Laconian pottery found at Naukratis came byway of Cyrene since the assemblages are so different, but insteadcame via Samos or at least in Samian ships.26

Maria Pipili has disconnected the Naukratis Painter’s namevase, found at Naukratis, from any link with Cyrene, identifyingthe goddess on this vase as Orthia (Artemis) holding twostylized boughs, not a silphium branch, the remarkablemedicinal plant of Cyrenaica.27 Two fragments on Samosprobably have the same subject. Also the only known vase with adipinto by the Naukratis Painter was found at Cyrene, in a scriptwhich could be Cyrenean.28 It has properly been pointed out tome, however, that it may just as likely, if not more likely, be inthe Corinthian script.29 If so, this would reduce the Egypt–Cyrene–Laconia connection to one vase, the name vase of theArkesilas Painter (Fig. 1) who has clearly imitated an Egyptiantheme of Osiris overseeing the weighing of the heart (soul) ofthe dead (Figs 2–3), but has substituted a named figure,generally accepted as King Arkesilas II of Cyrene, who heresupervises the weighing of a bulky white material, likely wool orsilphium, both of which were important exports of the city.30

Unusual features in the Laconian vase painting include thepointed hat worn by Arkesilas II, and the sceptre in his hand.These seem to imitate the figure of Osiris, with tall pointed

Figure 1 Paris, Cab. des Méd. 189.Arkesilas Cup tondo

Page 185: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 177

Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrene’s Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter

crown and sceptre on the Egyptian paintings. The workersaround the scale pans as well as the writing over their heads alsofind similarities in the Osiris scenes, as do the birds, especiallythe flying stork, which recalls the composite, falcon-like wingedeye of Horus in the Egyptian scene.31 The canopy over the groupwith Osiris is paralleled by the sail over the head of Arkesilas.The lizard crawling beside Arkesilas may be a symbol offoreboding or omen of ill-fortune, as Hurwit recentlysuggested.32 The most striking feature which has convincedscholars of the imitation of an Egyptian Osiris scene is the figureof the monkey on top of the balance beam, a common feature inEgyptian scenes of Osiris weighing the heart of the dead (Fig. 3).The monkey represents Astes, the associate of Thoth, andwatches over the correct and just procedure of weighing.

The artist could have seen an Egyptian painting of the godOsiris as his model, without travelling to Egypt himself, but onemust ask what made him depict an historical figure like the kingof Cyrene, especially since historical figures of any kind are sorare as subjects in vase painting?33 Is this a joke, or politicalcartoon at the expense of a king nicknamed, ü ÷áëåðüò (theHarsh) (Plut. Mor. 260E) – in contrast to his father, Battos theFortunate?

Osiris has a very serious task in his weighing duties, but whyshould the king of Cyrene be depicted supervising the weighingand storage of a mass of material, presumably of someimportance? One possibility is that the vase painter is herealluding to the close relationship between Arkesilas II and theEgyptian pharaoh, Amasis.34 According to Herodotus (2.161;

Figure 2The ‘weighing of the heart’ from the Book of the Dead of Hunefer, c. 1275 bc (British Museum EA 9901/3)

Figure 3 Detail from the ‘weighing of the heart’ with a monkey sitting on the scales from the Book of the Dead of Any, c. 1275 bc (British Museum EA 10470/3)

Page 186: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

178 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schaus

4.159) a Cyrenean army badly defeated an Egyptian one sent byPharaoh Apries at Irasa in Cyrenaica (570 bc) just a few yearsbefore Arkesilas became king. This Egyptian army was notapparently supported by Apries’ Greek mercenaries and it wasunused to fighting Greeks. The defeat led to the rebellion of theEgyptians against Apries whose Carian and Ionian mercenariesacquitted themselves well but were not enough to save Apries.35

Thereafter, Herodotus (2.181) says that Amasis concluded atreaty of friendship and alliance with Cyrene by which the twocountries became close friends and allies, and he even married awoman named Ladike, who was either the daughter of theCyrenean king (Battos or Arkesilas, accounts differ, notesHerodotus 2.181) or of a leading citizen of Cyrene, namedKritoboulos. Herodotus admits he does not know whetherAmasis did it as a goodwill gesture or he just wanted to marry aGreek woman, but we now know that Herodotus, in fact,conflated events, that there were as many as three battles tosettle the issue between Amasis and Apries, and that in the third,in 567 bc, Amasis was supported by soldiers from Cyrene indefeating Apries.36 It seems likely that Amasis’ marriage toLadike of Cyrene occurred at this time for political purposes,cementing the alliance that Amasis made with the Greeksbeyond his western border.

It is just before he mentions the pact and the marriage thatHerodotus discusses the favour with which Amasis treated theGreeks in Egypt, granting them various privileges, and inparticular, establishing Naukratis as their commercial center,along with land for temples and altars. It is now recognizedthough that in the climate of anti-Greek feeling leading to theoverthrow of Apries, and with a need to tighten theadministration of foreigners in Egypt, Amasis intended torestrict all Greek commercial activities to a single location and toforce Greeks in the country to be governed by him through theirrepresentatives, the ðñïóôÜôáé of Naukratis.37 The result of theserestrictive measures, however, was that Naukratis enjoyed aperiod of considerable prosperity remembered by Herodotus ahundred years later, coinciding with the prosperity that Amasis’long rule brought the country as a whole (Hdt. 2.177–9).

With an alliance and friendship established between Cyreneand Amasis’ Egypt by 567 bc, and the port of Naukratisdesignated as the sole place for Greeks to do business in Egypt,one would expect that a close relationship between Cyrene andNaukratis was established. Herodotus (2.182) goes on to list thebenefits that Cyrene received from Ladike and Amasis, includingstatues, one of Athena and the other perhaps of Aphrodite, and apainting of Amasis himself. It may be presumptuous to suggestthat these gifts left Egypt on board ships that had docked atNaukratis, but surely there were many other items that madetheir way to Cyrenaica from this port.

As a further sign of the alliance with Amasis, Arkesilas II wasapparently supported during his reign by Egyptian soldiers, asStibbe argued based on Plutarch (Mor. 261C).38 The reign wasshort (c. 566–560 bc), during which Arkesilas fought with hisbrothers, and was assassinated either by Learchos, one of hisbrothers, (Hdt. 4.160) or a friend named Laarchos (Plut. Mor.260E). Arkesilas’ wife, Eryxo, says Herodotus, took revenge bykilling Learchos.

We return then to the vase by the Arkesilas Painter whichseems also to reflect the close ties between Egypt and Cyrene atthis time. It is certainly puzzling that he may have included

Eryxo’s name (here OPYXO retrograde), yet left her out of thescene,39 and this is all the more strange if the vase painter iscopying from a panel painting as some have suggested.

Although speculative, the artist might, for example, bemaking a pointed comment about an unpopular king who wasbeing propped up on his throne by troops from Egypt. In anycase, the painter was apparently aware of events in a distantGreek polis in Africa, and was interested enough to comment onthem through his well-labelled vase. In the end though, the vasefound its last use as grave furniture in an Etruscan tomb.

Before discussing the East Greek fabrics from Cyrene’sextramural Demeter Sanctuary, one should note that certainEgyptian and Egyptianizing objects have been found both atCyrene and Tocra. These include faience and alabaster vases,carnelian beads, seals, bronze figurines, as well as ostrich eggsand decorated tridacna shells.40 Some of these objects, however,might have been produced by Phoenicians, not Egyptians, andso are not necessarily confirmation of the ties with Egypt. On theother hand, one direct link between Cyrene and Naukratis hasbeen argued by Steven Lowenstam in publishing the seals fromCyrene’s Sanctuary of Demeter. 18 of the 44 glyptic objects (or41%) are Egyptianizing, and he believes that they all came fromNaukratis itself where there was a workshop making scarabs ofclosely similar types. The alabaster alabastra from Cyrene andTocra and a faience head scarab from Tocra have also beenlinked to Naukratis.41 In the other direction, the only certainobjects from Cyrene found in Egypt are silver coins found in fairnumbers in hoards.42

We arrive at the East Greek fabrics from the DemeterSanctuary, and it is these which can be explained best byreferring to Naukratis. The great majority of the Late Wild Goatpottery at Cyrene, including floral and banded wares, must havecome from the North Ionian region.43 Add to this the large groupof Chian vessels, and the black-figure vases related toKlazomenian and one can see that the representation of potteryfrom the area is substantial. Yet none of Cyrene’s known settlerscame from North Ionia. At Naukratis, on the other hand,Herodotus (2.178) says that the largest, most famous and mostfrequently attended sanctuary, the Hellenion, was built byGreeks from nine states, of which four are North Ionian: Chios,Teos, Phokaia (once Aiolian) and Klazomenai. There was a largeamount of Late Wild Goat and floral pottery at Naukratis, andthese same types are reflected at Cyrene.44 Of particular note atCyrene are the large hemispherical bowls with Wild Goat animalfriezes, and in general the use of black-figure for the Wild Goatdecoration.45 There is also great variety in the floral dishes,greater even than Tocra. Many of them are likely to come fromNorth Ionia.

Chian pottery in Cyrenaica is surpassed in quantity only onChios itself, at Erythrai opposite the island, Berezan and Olbia inthe Black Sea, Aigina, and, of course, Naukratis, to myknowledge.46 More than half of Lemos’s catalogue of decoratedChian pottery (887 out of 1659 pieces) comes from excavationsat Naukratis where the fullest range of Chian styles and vaseshapes was found. The assemblage at Cyrene is different fromTocra’s, particularly in its greater range of shapes.

Most of the styles of decoration from the first half of the 6thcentury bc are represented at Cyrene, including the AnimalChalice, black-figure, Lion-and-Sphinx, Patterned Chalice, andperhaps even an example of the Grand Style.

Page 187: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 179

Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrene’s Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter

Counts of Chian vases by shapeShape Cyrene TocraChalices 25 56 Lids 11 1Dishes 8 0Phialai 7 1Bowls 3 12-handled pots 3 0Fruitstands 2 0Large closed vases 4 0Plate 1 0

Not only were the Chians among the founders of theHellenion at Naukratis, but the Sanctuary of Aphrodite was alsomuch used by them. It is hard not to recognize the influence ofthe Chian population at Naukratis on the finds of pottery fromCyrene’s extramural Sanctuary of Demeter particularly in thequantity and range of shapes and decoration of the Chian atCyrene. It is especially noteworthy since the Chians were amongthe least likely of the Islanders to have come to Cyrene ascolonists. It seems evident that Chian goods were being broughtto North Africa in the first place because of the interest of theisland in Egypt, but that ships bearing these goods also foundtheir way to Cyrenaica.47 Some Chian transport amphorae havebeen found both at Cyrene and Tocra. Their numbers in bothDemeter Sanctuaries of these cities are not unusual, but they aremore common close to Cyrene’s agora.48 It is possible that Chianstraded for grain, silphium and wool among other things in theregion, leaving behind wine, and perhaps silver, given theircontacts with the North Aegean mining area.

Two fabrics remain, Fikellura and Ionian ‘bucchero’. JohnHayes argued for a South Ionian origin for the latter, in theEphesos – Meander valley area.49 A fair number of these‘bucchero’ vessels were found on Samos. Many more haveoccurred in Magna Graecia and Etruria, and an Etruscan seriesis well known. The finds at Cyrene tell us very little at themoment, but the discovery of 23 examples is worth noting.

As for Fikellura pottery, a product of Miletos for the mostpart, Strabo (801) says that it was a Milesian fleet of 30 shipsthat defeated the local Egyptians and founded Naukratis in thereign of Psammetichos I, while Herodotus (2.178) tells us thatthey established their own sanctuary of Apollo there. MuchFikellura has been found both at Naukratis and Tell Defenneh tosuggest a continuing Milesian presence through the 6th centurybc.50 The 19 pieces of Fikellura from Cyrene (just one wasuncovered at Tocra), mostly amphorae and some cups, may wellbe an echo effect of the pottery being brought to Naukratis.51

There is no reason to think that Milesians came among thecolonists in the second wave of settlement, especially whenthere were so many opportunities for them in their Black Seacolonies; however, there is also no reason to insist that Fikellurawas brought in Milesian merchant ships rather than others aftera stop in Egypt, though this is less efficient. Uhlenbrock hasargued that the occasional Milesian perfume flask found in theDemeter Sanctuary at Cyrene arrived by a complicated route,having been sold and resold as the shipment was disbursedalong the way.52

Nothing has been said about Athenian or Corinthian pottery,perhaps rightly in this context, but Corinthian has a remarkablylong life at Cyrene, well down into the 5th century bc after otherplaces had given up on this fine ware.53 Roebuck commented onthe strength of the link between Corinth and Egypt, with

Corinthian silver coins being found in Egyptian hoards, whilemany Egyptian objects were found at Perachora.54 One wondersif this link has been overlooked too often, especially since bothstone architecture and examples of polychrome wall paintingoccur as early in the Corinthia as anywhere, both owing somedebt to Egypt. It is usually just assumed that Corinthian andAthenian wares were carried regularly in Aiginetan ships,perhaps to Cyrenaica as well as to Naukratis.

To sum up, the origins of Cyrene’s settlers certainly helpexplain several special features of the Archaic imported finewares in the city, but there are enough other features whichcannot be explained this way to look for a second significantinfluence, and this second one seems to be the exchange ofgoods between Cyrenaica and the mainly East Greek settlementat Naukratis.

Illustration creditsFig. 1 photo © Bibliothèque Nationale de France; Figs 2, 3 the BritishMuseum.

Notes* I wish to thank Alexandra Villing for kindly inviting me to participate

in the Naukratis Colloquium, and Udo Schlotzhauer for stimulatingdiscussions and his efforts in assisting with my travel. I especiallywish to thank Ivan D’Angelo for so generously sharing with me theresults of his study of pottery from the Italian excavations at Cyrene.

1 Discussed again recently by Möller (2000a, 54-5 with refs).2 Fulford (1989, 169-72) discusses navigational conditions, noting that

prevailing winds made sailing in a north-south direction easier thanin an east-west direction. Strabo (10.4.5 [475]) says that the tripbetween the western tip of Crete and Cyrene was two days and nightsin length. He notes that the trip from the eastern tip of Crete to Egyptwas four days and nights, ‘though some say three.’

3 For Chionis, see Paus. 3.14.3, but note Jeffery’s (1961, 143 n. 10)suggestion of a later Chionis.

4 Boardman 1966, and 1994, 143. For Archaic pottery as early as thesecond quarter of the 6th century bc from Euhesperides, see Vickersand Gill 1986. Earlier material has now been uncovered, suggestingGreek settlement at Euhesperides at least by c. 600 bc, if not before.See Gill 2004; cf. also Zimi 2003, 212. The recent proposal by James(2005), suggesting the foundations of Taucheira, ‘Ptolemais’,Apollonia and Euhesperides occurred with the influx of new settlersunder Battos II c. 580 bc, is dependent on a lowering of thechronology of Archaic pottery by about 35 years. This is lessappealing than the assumption that Herodotus (4.159) only meansCyrene, not Cyrenaica in general, when he says that the populationat Cyrene stayed the same as the original settlement during thereigns of Battos I and Arkesilas I, and that expansion did occur quiteearly along the coast. Even so, it is hard to take Herodotus at facevalue when he says that the population of Cyrene did not increase atall for its first 56 years. He (4.153, 156) indicates that it only had about100 original settlers (‘two fifty-oared ships’), all men apparently, asthe Foundation Degree seems to confirm. Pottery finds from theCasa del Propileo in the agora area of Cyrene, discussed by D’Angeloin this volume, tend to support the traditional dating of Archaicpottery.

5 Malkin 2003c, 160-3.6 Shaya 2005 for a summary of the Chronicle and discussion of the

context of the inscription, dated 99 bc. 7 For Rhodians, see Schaus 1985a, 102-3; and for Laconians, Schaus

1985a, 98-102; Schaus 1985b; and comments in Malkin 2003c, 160-1,165.

8 For pottery from these areas at Cyrene, see below. For 7th century bcterracotta figurines likely of Cretan origin found in Cyrene’sextramural Demeter Sanctuary, see Uhlenbrock 1985, 297-9. An earlyhouse plan at Euhesperides with offset door is compared to houseson Crete, see Gill 2004, 399-402 fig. 3.

9 Jeffery 1961, 142-4.10 On the Laconian Perioikoi, see Shipley 1992.11 Archaic pottery from the extensive Italian excavations in the agora of

Cyrene still awaits detailed publication. For references, see

Page 188: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

180 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Schaus

D’Angelo’s paper (in this volume) nn. 9-10. D’Angelo is studying earlymaterial from one area of the agora. For a recent paper discussingpottery as an indicator by which to compare Greek activity in Cyprusand in Egypt, see Sørensen 2001.

12 Moore 1987.13 Kocybala 1999.14 Kocybala 1999, 5.15 For the gems and seal, see Lowenstam 1987, 10-4, nos 20, 25-6, 28.

The seal (no. 28) is an heirloom, dated to the first half of the 7thcentury bc. For the ivory objects, Warden 1990, 10-1 no. 26 (ivoryram, perhaps Laconian), and 24 no. 106 (2-faced head -– dated to the7th century in Expedition 34, 1-2 [1992] 54 fig. 8), tridacna shells,Warden 1990, 61-2 nos 467-73. For the terracotta figurines,Uhlenbrock 1985, 297-9; 1992, 18.

16 Schaus 1985a, 5-6 nos 1-11 (Theran), 7-9 nos 12-16 (Cycladic), 10-14nos 17-43 (Cretan).

17 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 73-8 nos 885-920; Boardman and Hayes1973, 34-6 nos 2083-100.

18 Schaus 1980, 24; 1985a, 107.19 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 73 with references.20 Schaus 1985a, 15-48 nos 44-266.21 Schaus 1985a, 121 Appendix II.22 The high number of black painted, flat-based bowls at Tocra

compared to Cyrene can be explained to a certain degree by the poorpreservation of the pottery at Cyrene, making it difficult to identifyLaconian examples of this vase type.

23 Based on Stibbe’s lists, Stibbe 1972, 269-74 (Naukratis P.), 285-7(Rider P.).

24 Venit 1985, 393-4.25 Ibid.26 Ibid., 394 n.28 for references to others who have likewise proposed

Samos. Williams 1993a, 595 suggested that Aigina replaced Samos astransporter of Laconian pottery after c. 550 bc.

27 She follows Droop, Lane and Shefton in this identification, see Pipili1987, 41-2 with refs.

28 Schaus 1979.29 Faustoferri 1985, 341 and pers. comm.30 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 189 from Vulci. Stibbe 1972, 30, 115-7,

279-80 no. 194, pls 61-2 fig. 28. On the Arkesilas cup, Stucchi (1987)attempts to identify the white material as blocks of rock salt, but failsto explain how such a heavy friable material could be stacked inrounded ‘balls’ (skein-like) so high in the open weighing pans, orheld easily in the hand of the far right worker. He omits from hisdiscussion the dipinto, ÓËÉÖÏÌÁ×ÏÓ, for this worker (not hisÏÑÕÎÏ[Ó), most suggestive in identifying the material as silphium.An explanation for the lack of final sigmas in ÏÑÕÎÏ and ÌÁÅÍ (hesuggests that ‘ìÜíåò’ was meant) in otherwise very careful labels isalso not offered. For a recent opinion in favour of silphium beingweighed on the vase, see Luni 2002, 359-62.

31 I am grateful to A.J. Spencer and N. Spencer for information on thecomposite ‘bird’ of the Hunefer papyrus.

32 Hurwit 2006, 129.33 Prof. U. Hoeckman kindly pointed out to me that Greeks may have

been explicitly forbidden from entering Egyptian tombs, or at leastlearning of Egyptian burial customs, where such scenes with Osiriswere commonly found. Prof. U. Verhoeven informs me that ‘the Bookof the Dead from Herakleopolis Magna dated c. 600 bc (P. Colon. Aeg.10207; cf. Verhoeven 1993, 304) mentions that no Greek (‘hau-nebut’) should know the spell (BD spell 148)’ and it should beperformed within a cloth tent with yellow stars as decoration. ‘Dusollst <sie> ausführen im Innern eines Zeltes aus Stoff, der ganz mitSternen von gelber Farbe besetzt ist. 117,13 Es ist ein wahresGeheimnis, nicht sollen <es> die Nordvölker an irgendeinem<Ort> kennen.’ On the other hand, instances of the scene of Osirisweighing hearts (souls) can be found on objects other than papyri,tombs, coffins, shrouds, and mummy wrappings, see Seeber 1976,27-9, including an ostracon found in the tomb of Ramesses VI (CairoCG 25057) as a sketch for a wall painting; a stele from the pyramidcomplex of Pepi II with a short version of the weighing scene; apectoral (London, Univ. Coll. 7726) also from the Ramesside period;and two ushebti boxes of a man from the 21st dynasty with thebalance on one side, adoration in front of Osiris on the other side(Louvre N 4124). Prof. Verhoeven adds, ‘I think there must have beenmodel books for this kind of scene; the balance of Osiris is sowidespread and of common knowledge that a Greek could anyway

get notice of it.’ I am indebted to Profs Hoeckman and Verhoeven forthis information.

34 For a discussion of the reign of Arkesilas II and the involvement ofEgyptians, see Stibbe 1972, 195-201.

35 Supposedly numbering 30,000 (Hdt. 2.163), but doubtfully so (Lloyd1988, 41). On Carian mercenaries in Egypt see also Williams andVilling, this volume.

36 Boardman 1994, 141 n. 10 (with references). Key to this is Edel 1978,14-6 where a cuneiform tablet in the British Museum (ANE 33041) isunderstood to mention military help received by Amasis from‘Putujaman’, identified as Cyrene, against a force sent byNebuchadnezzar in his 37th regnal year (567 bc) to assist Apriesagainst Amasis.

37 Boardman 1994, 141; James 1981, 734-6.38 Stibbe 1972, 198-9.39 See Schaus 1983, 89.40 Besides the Egyptianizing faience objects believed to be made on

Rhodes (Cyrene: Warden 1990, 11-3 nos 29-35 [human and animalfigurines], 53-4 nos 382-6, 388-9 [vessels]; Tocra: Boardman andHayes 1966, 165 nos 86 [horse figurine], 87-91 [aryballoi]), otherEgyptian and Egyptianizing objects include from Cyrene: Warden1990, 4, 7-9 nos 13, 16, pls 4-5 (bronze falcon and frog); 24-5 nos 113-18pl. 18 (carnelian poppy-head pendants); 28 nos 154-60, pl. 21 (heartand face pendants of bronze and terracotta); 53-4 no. 387, pl. 39(faience lentoid jar); 55-6 nos 403-13 fig. 8 pl. 41 (alabasteralabastra), 58 nos 436-8, 444-6 fig. 11, pls 43, 45; 60 no. 464 (ostrichegg cup?); 60-2 nos 465-73, pl. 49 (tridacna shells); Tocra: Boardmanand Hayes 1966, 165 no. 92 (faience head scarab), no. 93 (faiencedisc beads), 166 nos 98-100 (alabaster and carnelian objects).

41 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 166 no. 98 (alabastron); and 165 no. 92(head scarab); see also Warden 1990, 56. At least 40 alabaster vasesare in evidence at Cyrene.

42 Roebuck 1950, 239 and n. 5. Thompson, Mørkholm, and Kraay 1973,hoard nos 1636-7, 1639, 1641-2, 1644-5, 1647, 1652 (a total of 50 silvercoins from Cyrene, of which 35 occurred in the Asyut hoard, no.1644). I owe this reference to Robert Weir.

43 Schaus 1985a, 49-72 passim. For North Ionian Late Wild Goat pottery,see Cook 1998, 51-6.

44 The material has been scattered widely among European and othermuseums. For a fair idea of its appearance, see Fairbanks 1928, pls34-5. A small selection of LWG pieces is listed in Möller 2000a, 243-4Appendix 1.d; for ones in Egyptian museums, Venit 1988, 6 (list ofcatalogued vases with incised Wild Goat ornament). A selection ofthe many Late Wild Goat and other pieces in the British Museumfrom Naukratis were made available for viewing to the Colloquiumparticipants.

45 Hemispherical bowls, Schaus 1985a, nos 299-308; and Late WildGoat black-figure, nos 270 (amphora), 273 (oinochoe), 304-5(hemispherical bowls), 327-30 (fruitstands), 350 (dish), 420-2(plates).

46 Cyrene, Demeter Sanctuary: Schaus 1985a, 77-85 nos 469-537; Tocra:Boardman and Hayes 1966, 57-63 nos 771-817; Boardman and Hayes1973, 24-8 nos 2042-55. For the decorated styles of Chian pottery,Lemos 1991, especially Chapt. 6 ‘Distribution’ pp. 191-208; they arere-assessed in the article by Williams in this volume. For a few otherremarks on its distribution, see Schaus 1996.

47 For the strength of the Chian presence in Naukratis, see Roebuck1950; and Chian trade, Möller 2000a, 79-81, 135.

48 Schaus 1985a, 105 n.133. See D’Angelo Fig. 14, this volume, for Chiantransport amphorae from the Casa del Propileo site near the agora.

49 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 65-6 nos 828-37; Boardman and Hayes1973, 28 nos 2057-8. For examples from Cyrene, mostly of narrowalabastra and ‘perfume pots’ with horizontal grooves, Schaus 1985a,73-6 nos 446-68.

50 Möller 2000a, 88 suggests a Milesian trading connection forEgyptian grain by the end of the 7th century bc, to help the citysurvive annual invasions by the Lydians. Pottery in the ApolloSanctuary at Naukratis goes back to the earliest years of thesettlement. For Fikellura pottery from Naukratis and Tell Defenneh,Cook 1933/4, passim; 1954, 1-13, pls 568-81.

51 Schaus 1985a, 86-9 nos 538-56.52 Uhlenbrock 1992, 19.53 Kocybala 1999, 6.54 Roebuck 1950, 238.

Page 189: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 181

Abstract

Since the volumes on the agora by Stucchi and Bacchielli, very littlehas been published about imported Greek Archaic pottery from theItalian excavations in Cyrene. The finds in the Archaic levels of adomestic complex that were brought to light in the area of the lateHellenistic Casa del Propileo, and that are presented here for thefirst time, are therefore of particular importance and provide newelements for discussion. Together with the results from theextramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, the data from the Casadel Propileo seem to confirm that the overwhelming percentage ofthe imported pottery in Cyrene during the Archaic period camefrom and was produced in the East Greek region. This fact leads usalso to speculate upon a possible trade link between Naukratis andCyrene. Another relevant aspect is the remarkable number ofLaconian kraters from the excavations, which suggests that elitesymposia took place.*

The aim of this paper is to present some preliminary results ofthe research into the pottery of Cyrene – the famous city whichbears witness to the expansion of Greek colonies along the coastof North Africa. The still ongoing excavations in the Casa delPropileo1 started in the years 1966–69, and were reopened in1999–2002, each time under the direction of I. Baldassarre2 ofthe University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’.

The Casa del Propileo is located in the area measuring about200m in width which remains between the acropolis and theagora (Fig. 1). The area is intersected by the Skyrotà, the streetwhich Pindar sings about in the fifth Pythian Ode;3 starting atthe acropolis, the street runs down towards the terrace of thesanctuary of Apollo. The Casa del Propileo, immediately to thewest of the agora (Fig. 2), is a large uniform building complex,measuring 25 x 50m, which can be dated to the middle of the 1stcentury bc (Fig. 3). The entrance from the Skyrotà to the southis preceded by the tetrastyle propylon (Fig. 4) of which todayonly the foundations remain and which has given the wholecomplex its conventional name, Casa del Propileo (‘House of thePropylon’).

Investigation has focused on this monument with the aim ofunderstanding its functions, and above all because of theinterest aroused by the Archaic structures brought to lightunderneath it (Fig. 5). All the trenches have actually revealedthe same stratigraphy: an Early Hellenistic layer that seals thepreceding remains from the Classical and Archaic period. In allthe trenches, the structures from the Hellenistic period showremains of floors in opus signinum that preserve thehomogeneity of the layers underneath.

The excavations carried out in the first peristyle of the househave led to the identification of Archaic structures of aresidential district probably laid with a different orientationwith respect to the later urban grid.

The entire complex is being studied by the Mission of the

University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’. Preliminary conclusionsindicate that the Archaic pottery covers a stretch of time fromthe last quarter of the 7th to the end of the 6th century bc. Themajority of these materials have been recovered in homogeneousstrata, the rest from mixed contexts.

The specific aim of this study is to examine Archaic materialsfrom a domestic context rather than a sacred context, which is asubstantially new approach compared to earlier publications onCyrene4 and the Cyrenaica.5 Analysis of the Archaic material hasled to the identification of local pottery and the clays used tomake these vessels6 as well as to a better knowledge of Archaicpottery imports to Cyrene and the Cyrenaica, adding to thepicture delineated in important publications7 by the AmericanArchaeological Mission of the University of Pennsylvania, andthe still fundamental volumes on Tocra8 (it should beemphasised that both are sacred sites, dedicated to Demeter andKore). Furthermore we have partial data on materials recoveredby the Italian Archaeological Mission at the terrace of thesanctuary of Apollo9 and in the agora,10 and initial reports fromEuhesperides11 by the English Mission.

As already mentioned, this is only a preliminary report andone needs to be aware of the very fragmentary state of thematerial. The pieces are often very small and complete vesselsare rare.

Looking at the classes of imported pottery found at the Casadel Propileo, 3% of the pottery can be traced to Thera and theCycladic area in general. At first sight, this fact seems to addvalue to the observation that Theran pottery is very rarely foundoutside the island itself.12 In any case, important pieces like aTheran amphora (Fig. 6)13 and a Cycladic skyphos with thetypical decoration of concentric circles were recovered. All thesematerials can be dated to between the end of the 7th century bcand the first half of the 6th century bc.

As usual, Corinthian pottery is well represented at 19.2% ofthe total; most finds can be attributed to Middle Corinthian (Fig.7). But there are also examples of Early Corinthian; inpercentage terms there are more of them at the Casa delPropileo than at the extramural sanctuary of Demeter andKore.14 This class provides chronological pegs for an early datingof the Archaic structures in the area of the Casa del Propileo,assigning them to the first phase of the colony.15

Although 8.1% of the pottery is Attic, this presents us with aparticular problem: we have hardly any decorated fragments.This can be explained by the fact that at the Casa del Propileo,we are dealing with an Archaic domestic site. Decorated vesselsseem to have ended up almost exclusively in necropoleis16 andsacred areas.17

Laconian pottery makes up a little less than 5%. Thepresence of this pottery in Cyrene has aroused the interest ofscholars who have tried to single out possible Cyreneansubjects,18 mainly on cups, or to prove that these vessels were

Imported Greek Pottery in Archaic Cyrene: The Excavations in the Casa del PropileoIvan D’Angelo

Page 190: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

D’Angelo

produced in Cyrene itself. Lane, in an article19 written more than70 years ago, has already disproved this latter hypothesis,fittingly describing it as the ‘Cyrenaican heresy’.

Sparta is certainly one of the most important factors in thereconstruction of Cyrene’s mythical and historical past.20 On oneside, from the exegesis of literary sources like Herodotus andPindar, Cyrene seems indebted to and thus strongly linked to theLacedaemonian polis, for example institutionally. Also thelegendary history of Chionis, mentioned21 as second mythicalfounder, is to be taken into consideration, but with appropriatecaution. On the other hand, however, the vases would appear tobe evidence of connections between aristoi rather than ofregular and direct ‘trade’. Significantly, in fact, some 19examples of Laconian kraters have been found at the Casa delPropileo (Fig. 8). The earliest krater (Fig. 9), from thebeginning of the 6th century bc, belongs to the so-called group‘with double-stepped rims’ in Stibbe’s classification,22 and finds aparticularly close match, among others, in an exampleuncovered in the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore.23

On the whole, however, with upwards of 40% of the total,East Greek pottery prevails. This fact accords with sources whichreflect instances of close ties between the polis of the Battiadesand the East Greek area.24 The reform of Demonax25 allows us toplace the presence of settlers from this area around the middleof the 6th century bc. The conspicuous presence of East Greekpottery at the Casa del Propileo, some of which prior to thisevent, cannot be used sic et sempliciter to date the appearance ofsettlers or merchants; it does nevertheless testify to theexistence of strong commercial links in which Naukratis couldhave played an important role.26

At present, in the absence of scientific analyses of the clays,it is not possible to determine exactly in which productioncentres the finds from the Casa del Propileo were made,something which is now possible for the East Greek area thanksto the results of analyses carried out by, among others, R. Jones27

and P. Dupont28 and most recently by M. Kerschner and H.Mommsen.29

There are fragments pertaining to nine bird-bowls, whichcan be dated to between the end of the 7th and the first quarterof the 6th century bc. One of them (Fig. 10)30 can be attributedto Coldstream’s31 Group III (c. 650–615 bc), while the rest are ofGroup IV (after 615 bc). The type with rosettes is less common.

There are four lotus-bowls (Fig. 11), the diffusion of which isfor the most part limited to the East Greek area.32 Significantly,examples are known from Naukratis.33

As in many other sites in the Mediterranean, a trulyoverwhelming percentage of ‘Ionian cups’ (cups with evertedrim/Knickranschalen), a very common class34 of pottery, is foundin the Casa del Propileo (Fig. 12). As is well known, it was widelyexported from the second half of the 7th century bc through the6th century bc. The main types are represented. Adopting thecanonical typological classification, as proposed by Villard andVallet,35 many examples of type A2 (with and without bands onthe rim) and B2 have been found, but also some examples of A1and B1. It is immediately possible to recognize imports from theEast Greek area and also a series of local imitations, identifiableas such from clay and decoration.36

There are also numerous fragments of East Greek dishes(Fig. 13), some of which can be traced back to Cook’s NorthIonian Late Wild Goat style type (NiA I).37

Finally, we should also point to the conspicuous presence ofamphorae of different origin: for the East Greek area aremarkable number of Chian (Fig. 14) and some Samianamphorae have been found, but also examples of the Attic type,‘SOS’ and ‘à la brosse’, as well as Corinthian and Laconianamphorae. Many of these came to light inside what would havebeen a storeroom of an Archaic house.

All the Archaic classes of pottery from the Casa del Propileopresented here have also been found elsewhere in Cyrene andCyrenaica (Tocra), at sites that appear to give an analogouspicture.38 But we can claim without doubt that the excavations atthe Casa del Propileo, together with the analysis of the materialsand structures uncovered, have provided significant newinformation about Archaic Cyrene on issues of its history,topography and relations with other areas of the Greek world. Atthis point, it does not seem superfluous to underline once morethe preliminary stage of the conclusions. The following briefconsiderations should therefore be understood as workinghypotheses:

Whether Cyrene is to be considered an anomalous colonywithin the scope of Greek colonial movements39 because of thesupposed non-homogenous composition of its colonists andbecause of the nature of its relationships with local populationsis open to question. More convincing is the particularity of itsinstitutional, monarchical and hereditary regime.40

Right from its foundation in c. 631–630 bc, Cyrene becamepart of a network of established commercial naval routes whichwere well structured and well used. The hypothesis of A. Johnston, who suggests that goods from the East Greek areawere passing through the ports of east and south Crete, is verycredible.41 Evidence from Building Q at Kommos,42 dating fromthe last 30 years of the 7th century bc, fits well with the episodenarrated by Herodotus43 in which Theran settlers were helped byKorobios, a Cretan from Itanos. Crete’s function as a passagewaycan also be imagined for the route that brought goods from theports of Laconia to Cyrenaica, according to recent theories putforward by M. Gras.44

Furthermore, in line with opinions already expressed, by,among others, Roebuck45 and Schaus,46 it is possible to recognisethe existence in the Archaic period of a second, coastal route,which connected Cyrene and its subcolonies to more easternsites like Naukratis. Evidence recently published by D. Bailey47

on Marsa Matruh, where East Greek pottery is most in evidenceamong Archaic imports, backs this up. It is certainly possible tofind points of contact between Naukratis and Cyrene,48 even asearly as the Archaic period, but the exact nature of the relationbetween these two important Greek centres on the NorthAfrican coast needs to be clarified. They were founded fordifferent reasons and functions: while Naukratis was borninitially as an emporion or port of trade,49 Cyrene is clearly acolony of essentially agricultural character.50 This emerges fromseveral facts, such as the progressive acquisition of new land, theresulting deterioration of relations with local tribes, thefoundation of subcolonies both in the territory and on the coast,the exploitation and trade of a natural resource – the famoussylphion plant.51

It is hoped that as the excavation and study of the structuresand materials associated with them in the Casa del Propileocontinue, more light can be shed on Archaic Cyrene and itsrelations with Naukratis and the Greek world in general.

182 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Page 191: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 183

Imported Greek Pottery in Archaic Cyrene: The Excavations in the Casa del Propileo

Illustration creditsFig. 1 after Stucchi 1967; Fig.2 after Baldassarre 2002; Fig.3 E. Mitchell,elaborated by H.J. Beste and C. Zieschang, Deutsches ArchäologischesInstitut Rom; Figs 4–14 the author.

Notes* First of all I wish to thank Prof. I. Baldassarre (Naples), who oversaw

my research with care and patience. Thanks are due to Prof. N.Bonacasa (Palermo) and all the members of the ItalianArchaeological Mission at Cyrene, the Libyan Authorities in Cyrene(Shahat), the Supervisor of the Antiquities Mr. Abdulgader Mzeini,and to the colleagues and friends with whom I was able to discussvarious aspects of this research: H.J. Beste, M. D’Acunto, I.D’Ambrosio, K. Iara, M. Kerschner, M. Mirold, R. Posamentir, A.Salerno, A. Santucci, G.P. Schaus, C. Zieschang. Finally, my gratitudeto U. Schlotzhauer and A. Villing, who kindly invited me to theColloquium, and to E. Manning, K.S. Powell and E.M. Steinby, forhelping me with the translation of the text into English.

1 The denomination of the complex is, as is mentioned below,conventional; see for instance Stucchi 1967, 95; 1975, 144, 308.

2 For the excavations in the years 1966–69 see Baldassarre 1987, 17-24.A short summary of the results of the most recent excavations isgiven in Baldassarre 2002, 18-20.

3 The building of the Skyrotà street is attributed to the mythical kingand founder of Cyrene, Battos I (vv. 90-3: ‘he laid out a stretch ofground, level, cut straight to be a road of hoof-clatteredcobblestones: Apollo’s martial parades pass there, by the edge of themarket place,’ transl. F.J. Nisetich); on the scholia to these verses ofPindar, see Stucchi 1967, 21 with references.

4 Pernier 1931, 1935; Stucchi 1967, 1984; Bacchielli 1981; Schaus 1985a;Kocybala 1999.

5 For Tocra, see Boardman and Hayes 1966, 1973. For Apollonia, seeGoodchild et al. 1976. For Euhesperides, see Vickers and Gill 1986.James (2005) has recently proposed a lower chronology of Archaicpottery which may not be impossible, but for the pottery from theCasa del Propileo we prefer to follow the traditional chronology; cf.also the doubts expressed by Schaus on James’ proposal: Schaus, thisvolume, n.4.

6 The Archaic local pottery from the Casa del Propileo and the fabricsthat have been identified will be published by D’Angelo(forthcoming).

7 Such as, among others, the volumes of the series most quoted in thepresent paper: Schaus 1985a; Kocybala 1999.

8 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 1973.9 Pernier 1931, 1935.10 Stucchi 1965; Bacchielli 1981; Stucchi and Bacchielli 1983; Santucci

1998; (forthcoming).11 Zimi 2001, 2002, 2003 and Gill 2004 for imported pottery; for coarse

wares and local production, mostly post-Archaic, see most recentlySwift 2003, 2005.

12 As explained well in Schaus 1985a, 5.13 For the decorative details see Dugas 1928, nos 8 and 14, pl. 8A

(belonging to the so-called ‘style insulaire orientalisant’); anothervery close match is illustrated in Dragendorff 1903, 17, fig. 12.

14 Kocybala 1999, 5.15 The story which Herodotus (4.145-67) tells about the foundation of

Cyrene seems to be confirmed by the chronology of the potteryrecovered, thanks to survey activities, at the site identified as Aziris;see, for instance, Boardman 1966, 150-52.

16 See, for instance, Beschi 1969/70; Thorn 2005, who hascommendably reorganized the finds from the Cyrenaic tombsrecovered by A. Rowe. I wish to thank here J.C. Thorn for giving me acopy of his work before publication. On Attic pottery from thenecropoleis of Cyrene see also Maffre 1996, 1998; and finallyElrashedy 2002.

17 Attic pottery from the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore atCyrene is published by Moore 1987 (black-figure and black-glazed)and McPhee 1997 (red-figure).

18 An attempt by Faustoferri 1985, 337-48. See also Schaus 1985b, 395-403, for the evidence for Laconians in Cyrenaica in the Archaicperiod.

19 Lane 1933/4, 182-5.20 See, for instance, the in-depth analysis of: Nafissi 1980/1, 1985;

Calame 1996. Also very interesting is Malkin 2003c.21 Paus. 3.14.3.22 Stibbe 1989, 29-30 (no. C12).23 Schaus 1985a, 27 (nos 100 and 102).24 See the Lindian Chronicle (FGrHist 532, 17): this source is, however, a

late document (early 1st century bc) and links the Therans with agroup of Rhodians, who were led by a certain Pankis. See, forinstance, Applebaum 1979, 12; Uhlenbrock 1992, 18. Schaus (1985a,102-5) made a thorough and cautious analysis of the possibleconnections between the East Greek pottery from the extramuralsanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Cyrene and the origin of Cyrene’scolonists. On this subject see also his article in this volume.

25 Hdt. 4.161.7. See, for instance, Corcella 1993, with previousbibliography.

26 Möller 2000a, 2001. And see also the important observations byUhlenbrock 1985, 297-308; 1992, 16-23; (forthcoming), on the EastGreek influence in the local production of Archaic and Classicalvotive terracottas found at the extramural sanctuary of Demeter andKore at Cyrene.

27 Jones 1986.28 Dupont 1983, 19-43.29 On East Greek pottery see Kerschner 1997b, 1999. On the results of

chemical analysis, see Kerschner et al. 2002, 189-206; Akurgal et al.2002; Mommsen et al., this volume; Mommsen and Kerschner, thisvolume.

30 I wish to thank M. Kerschner for indicating typical details to me,present in the example from the Casa del Propileo, which date backto the third quarter of the 6th century bc.

31 Coldstream 1968, 300.32 Examples of lotus bowls are also known from the Black Sea area,

which is of course closely linked to the East Greek world. For this typein general, Cook and Dupont 1998, 26-8; for items from Histria seeLambrino 1938, 59-61, figs 28-30. See also here in this volume thevery interesting article of R. Posamentir, who sheds new light on theEast Greek pottery from this area.

33 Price 1924, 187, fig. 9.34 See, among others, the very useful work by Boldrini 1994, with

complete previous bibliography. A convincing suggestion to definethese forms is made by Schlotzhauer 2000 (Knickrandschalen), cf.also Schlotzhauer 2001a, 122; 2001b.

35 Villard and Vallet 1955, 7-34.36 The local examples of ‘Ionian Cups’ recovered at the Casa del

Propileo will be published in D’Angelo (forthcoming).37 Cook and Dupont 1998, 51-6.38 For percentage terms and the use of statistics, see Stucchi 1984, 164-

8, and particularly the perspicacious observations of Boardman1994, 144-7.

39 Mitchell 2000 deals with this subject.40 On this aspect exhaustively De Vido 1998.41 Johnston 1993, 376-7.42 For which see Johnston 1993.43 Hdt. 4.151.8. Also Strabo, 10.4.5 (C475), reports details, though he

refers to a later period, about the trip between Crete and Cyrene. Forthe navigational conditions between Crete and Cyrenaica see Fulford1989, 169-72; Purcaro 1976, 285-95, indicates also other routes withmany references.

44 Gras 1997, 52-5; 2000a, 158.45 Roebuck 1950, 242, 247.46 Schaus 1980, 22. But see also Venit 1985, 393.47 Bailey 2002, 118.48 See among others Schaus 1985a, 104, and this volume, and

Boardman 1999a, 123.49 As has been well demonstrated by Möller 2001.50 Chamoux 1953, 115-27, 230-4; Applebaum 1979, 74-82; Baldassarre

1999, 385; Boardman 1999a, 153-9.51 On sylphion (lat. laserpicium) see Chamoux 1953, 246-63 and Gras

1985, 165-72 with previous bibliography and information from theliterary sources; see also most recently Roselli 2001, 11-20. On thebotanical aspects see Manunta 2002; on the iconography see Luni2002. The sylphion may appear also on the famous cup of Arkesilas(Schaus Fig. 1; Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 189, from Vulci): on thisproblem see Stibbe 1972, 115-17, 279, no. 194, pls 61-2, fig. 28; Stucchi1987, 29-34; and Schaus, this volume.

Page 192: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

184 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in the East

D’Angelo

Figure 3 Plan of the Casa del Propileo

Figure 1 Cyrene: the acropolis, the terrace of the sanctuary of Apollo and the agora Figure 2 Cyrene: the Casa del Propileo immediately to the west of the agora

Page 193: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 185

Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrene’s Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 185

Figure 4The Propylon on the Skyrotà street

Figure 5Trench CP01B Figure 6 ‘Theran’ amphora

Figure 7 Middle Corinthian closed vessel Figure 8 Laconian krater

Page 194: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

D’Angelo

186 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in the East

Figure 9 Laconian krater of double-stepped rim type Figure 10 East Greek pottery: bird bowl

Figure 11 East Greek pottery: Lotus bowl Figure 12 East Greek pottery: Ionian cup

Figure 13 East Greek pottery: dish Figure 14 Chian amphora

Page 195: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Abstract

North Africa has revealed some Etruscan and Italic finds dating tothe 7th–6th century BC, and these are particularly concentrated inCarthage. The quantity and the nature of the pottery and bronzesfound here show that the Punic city had direct and intense traderelationships with Etruscan partners such as Caere, that were bothbarbaroi and natural allies against the Greeks, as the literarytradition confirms. Etruscan artefacts have also been found inGreek colonies such as Cyrene and Naukratis, probably broughtalong the complex trade routes connecting the western and easternMediterranean in the Archaic period. The good relationshipsbetween Carthaginians and Etruscans continued for manycenturies, since in Tunisia and Algeria there are isolated finds untilthe 2nd–1st century BC, sometimes inscriptions, revealing thepresence of Etruscan people, who probably escaped from theirhomeland conquered by the Roman armies.

Two finds lists are provided as appendixes to the paper, the firstrelating to Etruscan and Italic artefacts in North Africa, the secondto a type of bronze tool, part of an Etruscan drinking wine set, thathas been found all over the Mediterranean.*

Introduction

Etruscan finds in North Africa is a rather neglected field ofresearch, and an overview of the relationship of Etruria and theItalian peninsula with North Africa that includes an exhaustivefinds list is still lacking. The evidence for Etrusco-Punic relationswas collected in the 1960s by M. Pallottino,1 in the 1970s by J.MacIntosh Turfa,2 in the 1980s by J. P. Morel and J. P. Thullier3

and in the 1990s by Fr. W. von Hase;4 however all these worksare limited to finds from Carthage.5 This paper will extend theresearch to the whole of North Africa and compare the largeamount of data from the Punic city with finds from elsewhere,including Greek colonies such as Cyrene and Naukratis. Twomain phases can be distinguished, the first corresponding to thelate Orientalizing to Archaic periods, and the second to the lateArchaic to the Hellenistic periods. In accordance with the maintheme of this conference, I will concentrate more on the earlierperiod, but as so many important finds belong to the later phase,this cannot be ignored completely.

Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd Century BC

Alessandro Naso

Figure 1Antennae sword

Naukratis: Eastern Greeks in Egypt | 187

The Iron Age

One object that needs to be mentioned here is an antennaesword that the Marquess of Courtance bought in Egypt in theearly 70s of the 19th century and gave as a gift to the king of Italyfor the Royal Armoury Museum of Turin, where it is stillpreserved (Fig. 1). There is no record of the original provenanceof the sword. The type has a wide distribution in Italy as well asin Central Europe in the 9th–8th centuries bc. R.C. de Marinisrecently discussed the various typologies developed by scholarsfor these swords. The sword in Turin belongs to the oldest type,the so-called Tarquinia-Vetulonia type, dating to the 9th centurybc.6 This chronology makes it highly improbable that theprovenance of this Italic sword, a Prunkwaffe, could be NorthAfrica, but of course the question is still open to debate.

Late Orientalizing and Archaic periods

From the second half of the 7th century bc the founding of Greekcolonies, such as Cyrene7 (with its subcolonies at Taucheira,modern-day Tocra,8 and Apollonia9), Euhesperides10 in westernNorth Africa and Naukratis in central-eastern North Africa,brought not only Greek colonists, but also new connections andnew waves of trade.11 At that time, Carthage had not yet begun itsexpansion into the western zone of North Africa, but had alreadyestablished trade relationships with the Etruscans, as the manyfinds indicate, and probably also with the Italic populations inSicily, as reported by ancient authors.12 In its tombs, from both oldand new excavations, more than 60 bucchero vases have beenfound, dating at least from the third quarter of the 7th centuryonwards (Fig. 2). Amongst these early finds, an oinochoe in thinbucchero (or bucchero sottile) is particularly notable; it is of aform quite typical for Caere and its district and dates to just after650 bc (Fig. 2.7). Twenty-eight little amphorae, 12 oinochoai andjugs, found in several graves and probably connected to wineconsumption, are further indications for contacts with southernEtruria in the second half of 7th century bc. In Carthage there arealso bucchero drinking cups: 2 kotylai, 11 kylikes and above all 11kantharoi. The bucchero kantharos, as is widely known, is thereal marker of the Etruscans all over the Mediterranean fromSpain to Turkey and from the South of France to North Africa,

Page 196: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

188 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Naso

Figure 2 Bucchero pottery from Carthage

Page 197: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Eastern Greeks in Egypt | 189

Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd century BC

particularly the shape classified as 3e by T. Rasmussen, used fromthe end of the 7th to the first half of the 6th century bc. It ispossible to add other finds to the distribution map compiled by Fr. W. von Hase, from Megalopolis and Paros in Greece, andDaskyleion, Miletos, Didyma and Datça on the Knidos peninsulain Turkey.13

In this map we can include Tocra and Naukratis, too: atNaukratis at least two kantharoi sherds were found, belongingto the type Rasmussen 3e. The first, once in the von Bissingcollection, has been published by E. Prins de Jong (Fig. 3).14 Thesecond, still unpublished, has been seen in the Museum of FineArts in Boston by U. Schlotzhauer, who kindly told me of itsexistence (Fig. 4).15 The first sherd is relevant, because,according to Prins de Jong, some traces of silvering are stillpreserved on it: this is a very fine coating that may have beenachieved in two different ways. The first method, which is older,quite rare and more expensive, sees the application of a thinlayer of metal (silver or gold) onto the pottery using mercury asadhesive material;16 according to research by K. Burkhardt, thesecond method, cheaper and more frequently used, wasobtained by polishing the surface before firing the pot.17 Becauseboth methods are exclusive to workshops in Caere, we canassume a provenance from that city for the bucchero kantharosfound at Naukratis. The presence in Naukratis of bucchero withsilvering decoration is all more significant, since in the whole ofthe Mediterranean I only know of one other sherd with such adecoration, and that is a sherd from the Heraion in Samos.18

According to B. Bouloumié, some bucchero kantharoi withsilvering decoration were found in the wreck of Cap d’Antibes;but these materials are badly documented, because they arepreserved in private collections.19

The provenance from Caere of bucchero vases found inNaukratis and Samos is not surprising: as we have seen, manybucchero vases found at Carthage probably come from Caere.Using other evidence, I am able to add that some bucchero vasesfrom Miletos were also made in Caere. Because of the director ofthe Miletos excavations, V. von Graeve’s, interest in potteryanalysis, it has been possible to analyse some bucchero samplesfound in the Aphrodite sanctuary on Zeytintepe in Miletos. Theas yet unpublished results of the thin sections and thepetrological analysis carried out in the laboratory of SOBUniversity of Naples by G. Trojsi show values very close to thosefound with similar analyses by K. Burkhardt in his large researchproject on bucchero pottery from southern Etruria.20

It is noteworthy that in the older excavations in Carthagemore than 20 Etrusco-Corinthian vases were found: they areEtruscan imitations of the Corinthian pottery and were verypopular in Vulci and Tarquinia, but less so in Caere, the Etruscancity that imported the largest quantity of Corinthian pottery and

that therefore had less interest in the imitations (Fig. 5).21 TheEtrusco-Corinthian vases found in Carthage were classified by J.Szilágyi as imports from Vulci and Tarquinia, all dating to thefirst half of the 6th century bc. These classifications haverecently been confirmed by some new Etrusco-Corinthianfragments that were found in the two German excavations nearthe Decumanus Maximus of Roman Carthage, led respectivelyby Fr. Rakob and H.G. Niemeyer;22 the number of imports fromTarquinia, particularly for the vases of the ‘Pittore senza Graffiti’has thus increased. In Carthage, Etruscan transport amphorashave yet to be found, but it would not be surprising if they wereto be identified.23 Again these results are compatible with theEtruscan finds from Miletos, where some bucchero sherds maybelong to vases from Tarquinia and perhaps Vulci: Miletos is thefind spot of the only Etruscan transport amphora identified upto now in all of the eastern Mediterranean.24

How can we interpret the bucchero and Etrusco-Corinthianvases found in Carthage? I think they may be something morethan simply objects of trade or exotic pieces for deposition asgrave goods, especially if we connect these pots, whose numbersincrease from the third quarter of the 7th century to 550 bc, withlater events. We know, thanks to many historians, that therelationships between Carthage and the cities of southernEtruria were particularly good and intensive. The role of theEtruscans was not a secondary one in the middle of the 6thcentury bc, when the expansionist policy of Carthage, whichwas destined to become almost an empire in the following years,began with the famous expedition led by Malcus in Sicily andSardinia.25

This is stated by Herodotus himself, who expressly mentionsthe alliance between Carthage and Caere against the Greeks ofPhokaia in the battle of the Sardinian Sea in about 540 bc.26

Aristotle in his Politiká cites a deliberate, official alliancebetween Etruscans and the Punic empire: his references seem toindicate the existence of written documents (graphaí)concerning trade and military agreements.27 The existence ofsuch treaties between Carthage and Caere can be supported byother historical traditions, such as the information from Polybiosabout the first treaty between Rome and Carthage, dated toabout 509 bc.28 Scholars currently accept the existence of thisfirst treaty, and only a few are convinced that this is aninvention, a retrojection in the past of the treaty between Romeand Carthage dating to 348 bc. Some years ago C. Ampolostressed the authenticity of this early treaty and dated it to theend of the 6th century bc.29 At that time the relations betweenCaere and Carthage were fruitful and included a militaryalliance: it is widely accepted that only after the battle of theSardinian Sea, in the second half of the 6th century bc, theCarthaginian obtained control of Sardinia, while the Etruscans

Figure 3 Etruscan buccherokantharos from Naukratis

Figure 4 Etruscan buccherokantharos from Naukratis

Page 198: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

190 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

began their domination of Corsica.An important find (Fig. 6) shows the existence of close

personal relationships between Etruscans and Carthaginians,and probably also reflects the custom of both people visiting oneanother in their respective cities. In a tomb of the Santa Monicanecropolis in Carthage, one of the few Archaic Etruscaninscriptions outside Etruria has been found. Inscribed on thereverse of an ivory tessera in the shape of a quadruped is: mipuinel karqazie elsf[—-]na, meaning ‘I belong to Puinel theCarthaginian … ’. The little tablet, dating to the last quarter ofthe 6th century bc, is a tessera hospitalis. It is almost an identitycard, destined to match another similar piece belonging to anEtruscan. Only few other ivory tesserae hospitales are known; it isnot by accident that one in the shape of a panther was foundoutside Etruria, in Rome.30 In the last quarter of the 6th centurybc, then, after the battle of the Sardinian Sea, we can clearly seedirect and personal contacts between southern Etruscans andCarthaginians, both barbaroi and therefore natural allies againstthe Greeks.31 From this perspective it is also possible to acceptthe proposal of D. Berges, who also included Etruscan peopleamong the possible clients visiting the state archive inCarthage.32

The end of the 6th century bc at Caere is the age of ThefarieVelianas, the king responsible for the construction of the so-called temple B in the sanctuary of Pyrgi, the main harbour ofthe city. Thefarie Velianas is expressly named in the three goldtablets from Pyrgi, two in the Etruscan language and one inPunic. According to many scholars, the honour of putting aPunic inscription in one of the main sanctuaries near Caere isclosely connected to the alliance quoted by Herodotus.33

Therefore we may conclude that the presence of rich ArchaicEtruscan finds in the western part of North Africa was due notonly to trade, but in some cases also to direct relations withEtruria, particularly with Caere.

In the Greek colonies of North Africa, on the contrary, wecan ascribe the Etruscan finds to indirect contacts through trade.This may be the case with the bucchero kantharoi in Tocra andNaukratis and the bucchero oinochoe from Naukratis (Appendix1, no. 22), published by A. Johnston (Fig. 7). I wish to stress that,in my opinion, the other bucchero sherds from Naukratispublished as Etruscan are not Etruscan, both because of theirshape and their clay; I have to add that P. Perkins found furtherbucchero sherds from Naukratis in the British Museumstorerooms, which I have never seen (see Appendix 1, no. 23

Figure 6 Etruscan tesserae hospitales from Carthage and Rome

Figure 5 Etrusco-Corinthian pottery from Carthage: round aryballos of the Poggio Buco group; cup of the Macchie Bianche group;Vulcian aryballos

Naso

1 32

Page 199: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

� ����

Naukratis: Eastern Greeks in Egypt | 191

Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd century BC

with note 57). The bucchero sherds from Karnak in Egypt andTipasa in Algeria shall be mentioned only briefly: thanks to thekind information provided by P. Touillard we know that inKarnak only one sherd has been found, of a small amphoradated to 600 bc.34 In general we can consider the bucchero vasesfound in Greek sanctuaries as gifts from Greek merchantsreturning home, as can be seen from the Greek inscriptions onbucchero vases dating to the first half of the 6th century bcfound in Perachora, Ialysos (on Rhodes) and in Sicily (inSelinous and now in Leontinoi): we know of one Néarchos inPerachora and probably one Leukios in Leontinoi (Fig. 8).35

What is quite surprising in North Africa is the absence ofbucchero at Cyrene.36 This may, of course, be due to the scarcityof pottery published from the site, at least until this conference.What has been found in Cyrene, however, is a bronze fragmentbelonging to an infundibulum, a very elaborate Etruscan funnelthat was part of a wine set.37 It is in the form of a little bronzefrog with a cross hole, and a cut-away to fit a tang, that hingedthe frog to a bronze handle (Fig. 9). The frog held a strainer,originally attached with rivets. Both frog and strainer could beraised backwards and the funnel be used alone. The infundibulausually have one handle in the form of a lyre; they end in aduck’s head with a long bill, or more rarely in a ram’s head. It isquite common for the hinge to have the shape of a T, or, if it isfigured, of a couchant lion, or a frog or more rarely a sphinx.They are a typical Etruscan invention and were, of course, usedto pour wine, for instance from a krater into an oinochoe or froman oinochoe into a kantharos. In the second half of the 6thcentury bc they were very popular all over the Mediterranean.From this perspective we can consider infundibula in the secondhalf of the 6th century bc the counterpart in bronze of thebucchero kantharoi in the first half of the same century: a realEtruscan marker, one of the appreciated turrhnoi/ xalkoicelebrated in ancient Greek literature.38 Since the study of M.Zuffa in 1960 that listed 28 tools, many new finds have surfaced:I am now able to list more than 80 infundibula, belonging to atleast four main types: 1. lyre-handled (the most numerous, withsub-types); II. San Martino in Gattara; III. Palmette-handled; IV.special forms, including tools that are not Etruscan.

Although many have appeared on the art market withoutany provenance (Fig. 10), the find spots, when known, aresignificant (Fig. 11). In Italy they are quite widespread: the mainsource is in southern Etruria, but some tools have also beenfound in Campania, Umbria, ancient Picenum (corresponding tothe modern-day southern Marche and northern Abruzzo) and inthe Veneto. Outside Italy I know of three in Spain, one inCyrene, three (or more) in Olympia (one with a Greekinscription), one in Argos, one in Ialysos on Rhodes. Anotherfunnel was found in Switzerland, in the Arbedo hoard.39 Twobronze fragments representing a duck’s head from Carthage andfrom Didyma may belong to infundibula or to ladles, which havealso been found in Greece.40 This wide distribution, includingnot only many Italic regions, but also the Mediterranean basinand central Europe, where Hallstatt imitations are also known,and the provenance of many pieces from illegal excavations ofthe 19th and 20th centuries, seem reason enough to localize theworkshop in southern Etruria. Against current opinion, whichpresumes only one workshop in Volsinii, the different forms (orsub-types) of the lyre-handled tools are enough to postulate theexistence in southern Etruria of more than one workshop. One

Figure 7 Etruscan bucchero oinochoe from Naukratis (BM GR 1888.6–1.643a)

Figure 8 Etruscan bucchero kantharoi from Greek sanctuaries: top left, Perachora;top right, Ialysos; bottom, Leontinoi

Figure 9 Frog belonging to a bronze infundibulum from Cyrene

Page 200: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

192 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

of these may be located in Vulci,41 where the most famousEtruscan bronze workshops flourished, which were responsibleboth for masterpieces, such as the rod tripods found on theAthenian Acropolis and in a Celtic grave in Bad Dürkheim nearSpeyer in Germany, and everyday tools, such as the countlessSchnabelkannen, found above all in the territories north to theAlps, but not yet in Greece, that were destined for long-distancetrade, too.42

From the Late Archaic to the Hellenistic periods

Finally, a few words on the later period, concerning Etruscan-Punic relations only. Herodotus (6.17) reports that in the early5th century bc Dionysios of Phokaia fought against Etruscansand Carthaginians, who, according to the same historian, alsoshared a common fate in the battles lost against the Greeks ofSyracuse (the Carthaginians in Sicily at Himera in 480 bc, theEtruscans in the sea of Cumae in Campania in 474 bc). FromDiodorus of Sicily (10.11.1) we learn that at the end of the 4thcentury bc Etruscan mercenaries fought for Agathokles ofSyracuse against the Carthaginian army. The few, but relevant,archaeological finds may confirm the relationships that arebehind these contacts.

In a chamber tomb in Tunisia near Ksour es Saaf, not farfrom Mahdia, an impressive triple-disc cuirass of gilded bronzewas found, perfectly preserved, in 1909. Similar cuirasses,datable to the end of the 4th century bc, are common insouthern Italy among Samnites, Lucanians and other Italicpopulations. Initially a bronze belt was thought to be associatedwith the tomb group, too, but a recent restoration has excludedthe presence of this belt, a typical south Italian product.43 Sonow the interpretation of the cuirass without the belt is lessclear: is it war booty? Or is it the panoply of an Italic soldier, or

better of an officer of Agathokles? Both are possibilities.In Carthage, in the so-called Salammbô tophet, a 50cm high

marble cippus was found. Such cippi are typical markers formale tombs in Caere from the 4th century bc onwards. It wouldseem very probable that this cippus was the gravestone of anEtruscan who died in Carthage, perhaps in the early 3rd centurybc.44 In Carthage and in Cyrene there are also some red-figuredEtruscan plates of the Genucilia class, dating to the end of the4th–early 3rd century bc.45

During the 4th and 3rd centuries bc, when the Romanarmies were conquering Etruria city by city, some northEtruscans probably fled their land and tried to find a newhomeland in Africa. This could explain how the longest Etruscaninscription, the so called Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis, now inZagreb, written on a mummy linen cloth and dated byradiocarbon to 390–25 bc, came to be found in Egypt.46 There isno record of the circumstamces of the transport of the Etruscanbook to Egypt: it has been presumed to have happened quitelate, perhaps after the bellum Perusinum (41–40 bc), because itscharacteristics suggest that the book was written in the Perugiaarea.47

Finally, eight Etruscan inscriptions on three boundarystones, found in Tunisia in the hinterland of Carthage, record thesame person, the Etruscan Marce Unata Zutas. They probablyrelate to the escape from Clusium in 82 bc of the Roman consulCn. Papirius Carbo and his Etruscan friends, quoted byAppianus, because Unata is a typical name of Clusium and itsdistrict.48

We can conclude that the presence of Etruscans in NorthAfrica was a persistent phenomenon, a feature of the histoire delongue durée of the region.

Naso

Figure 10a & b Etruscan bronze infundibula of the lyrehandled type, nos 26 and 34

Page 201: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

■▲

■■

■■

■■

■★

● ■■

■■

■■

▼▼

Can

cho

Roa

no

Xàb

ia

Car

thag

e

Cyr

ene

M

.Bub

boni

a

Sala

Con

silin

a

Cal

es

Cum

a

Num

ana

Cam

pova

lano

Cer

egna

no

Mar

zabo

tto

San

Mar

tino

in G

atta

raPo

pulo

nia Vo

lsin

ii

Nov

i Paz

ar

Treb

enis

hte

Did

yma

Lin

dos

Oly

mpi

a

Arb

edo

Pan

tikap

aion

Nol

a

Gel

a

Arg

os

●■

▲▼

? ★

I

I

I

III

IV

Figu

re 1

1D

istr

ibut

ion

ofin

fund

ibul

a in

the

Med

iter

rane

an

Page 202: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

194 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

21. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, unpublished(Inv. no. 88.959). Fig. 4Sherd of kantharos with three horizontalgrooves beneath the rim and knotching on thesharp carination.Johnston 1982, 38, pl. 4, published fivebucchero sherds (four are preserved in theBritish Museum, one in University College,London).

22. Johnston 1982, sherd no. 1 (Inv. no. BM GR1888.6-1.643a) is an oinochoe rim formed bythree joining sherds. H 6.8cm. It may belong toan oinochoe Rasmussen 3a (Rasmussen 1979,161), which is documented at the end of 7th–6thcentury bc (Rasmussen 1979, 78-9, pls 7-8) orRasmussen 7a, very common in the first half ofthe 6th century bc (Rasmussen 1979, 84-5, pl.16).56 Fig. 7

23. Johnston 1982, sherd no. 2 (UCL-357) wasnever reproduced nor photographed. I havenever seen it, in spite of the kind efforts of Dr. A.Johnston.57

24. Two sherds of skyphoi of the Gnathia class2nd century bc. Prins de Jong 1925, 70, nos 1-2.

Karnak25. Karnak, storeroom, Inv. no. A 960.One sherd belonging to a small amphora (kindinformation of P. Rouillard). Rouillard 1985; Hase 1989, 327-8 note 2.

Tell Defenneh (?)26. Cairo, National Museum, Inv. no. 27963.Bronze handle with two plastic horse heads onthe top, belonging probably to an Etruscanpodanipter. Edgar 1904, 81, no. 27963, pl. 10.58

(?)27. Zagreb, National Museum, Inv. no. 1(bought in Egypt).Liber linteus. Roncalli 1980b; Roncalli 1985;Mirnik 1986. For the chronology: Srdocv et al.1990.

(?) 59

28. Turin, National Museum, Inv. no. A’ 43(bought in Egypt). Fig. 1Antennae sword. Angelucci 1876, 25; BiancoPeroni 1970, 113 no. 305, pl. 45; Venturoli 2002,36-7, no. A’ 43.

29. From Alexandria (presumably bought inAlexandria). Cairo, National Museum, Inv. no.27902. Etruscan mirror with Dioscuri and two shields.Edgar 1904, 68, no. 27902, pl. 18.60

Algeria

Gouraya1. Small bronze disc (diam. 7.7cm) with inciseddecoration and an inscription, dated to the 3rdcentury bc. Found in a Punic grave nearGouraya, approximately 130km west of Algiers.Liébert 1996. About the inscription: Briquel2004, with previous bibliography.50

Tipasa2. Bucchero pottery is mentioned, but is stillunpublished. Hase 1989, 327-8 note 2.

Tunisia

Carthage3. Bucchero pottery: 28 small amphorae, 12oinochoai, two kotylai, 11 cups, 11 kantharoi.Fig. 2Hase 1989, 383-92; for the unpublished sherdsfrom the excavations led by H.G. Niemeyer:ibid., 330-2, note 15; Docter 1993, 229-30 nos 23-4: bucchero and impasto (?)

4. Etrusco-Corinthian pottery. Fig. 5MacIntosh Turfa 1982; Hase 1989, 377-8; Docter1993, 229-30 nos 25-6 (Etrusco-Corinthiansherds); Trias 1999, nos 26-7 (two non-joiningEtrusco-Corinthian sherds probably belongingto the same plate of the ‘Pittore SenzaGraffito’); Szilágyi 1998: 375 no. 61 (cup of the‘Pittore delle Code Annodate’), 414 no. 15(Vulcian aryballos), 444 no. 19 (plate with footof the ‘Pittore senza Graffito’) 448 nos 132-3(plates with foot of the ‘Pittore senza Graffito’),526 no. 34 (cup of the ‘Macchie Bianche’Group), 532 no. 22 (cup of the Poggio BucoGroup), 533 no. 42 (round aryballos of thePoggio Buco Group) 601 no. 72 (alabastron ofthe ‘Galli Affrontati’ Cycle, Michigan group,standardized), 684 no. 98 (unattributedsherd), 694 (general considerations).

5. Bronze handle ending in a duck’s head,belonging to a ladle or infundibulum.Mackensen 1999, 540-1, no. 35, figure 1.1, pl.44.1.

6. Etruscan bronze statuette. Hase 1989, 378.

7. Seven bronze Schnabelkannen, probablyVulcian. Hase 1989, 378.

8. Ivory tessera hospitalis with Etruscaninscription. Fig. 6Petersen 1903, 23; Martelli 1985a, 237 fig. 91;Martelli 1985b; Hase 1989, 374.

9. Etruscan marble cippus, probably Caeretan.Pallottino 1966, 12, pl. I.2 (= Pallottino 1979,393, pl. 8.1); Hase 1996.

10. Etruscan red-figured plates of the Genuciliaclass (at least six examples) von Hase 1996, 188with previous literature; Morel 1990, 85-6, fig.22 (3 further sherds of Genucilia plates);Poulsen 2002, 90.

Uadi Milian11. Three cippi with Etruscan inscriptions.Heurgon 1969a, 1969b; Carruba 1976; Colonna1980b, 1-5; Sordi 1995, 115-20.

Utica12. Bucchero cup. Morel 1981, 484-5, note 100 with previousbibliography.

Ksour es Saaf13. South Italian triple-disc cuirass. Tunis,National Museum.Colonna 1981, 177-8, pl. 8; Tagliamonte 1994,153-4; Carthage 1995, 147-9; Ben Younès 1997,2001; Tagliamonte 2004, 161 note 103.

Libya

Cyrene14. Bronze ladle handle from the secondArtemision in Cyrene, which is dated (p. 226) to450–400 bc. Pernier 1931, 214, fig. 40.51

15. Infundibulum handle. Warden 1990, 8-9, no.17, pl. 5. Fig. 9

16. Bronze ladle handle with inciseddecoration. Warden 1990, 55, no. 402, pl. 40.

17. Etruscan red-figured plate. Bacchielli 1976;Colonna 1981, 183 note 107; Bacchielli 1986, 375note 15.

18. Two cups of the Gnathia class. Kenrick 1987,3-4, nos 20-1.52

Leptis Magna53

Tocra19. Sherd belonging to the handle of a buccherokantharos. Boardman and Hayes 1973, 58 no.2246, pl. 31 from Deposit II, dated (p. 3) to590–565 bc, a votive deposit of the sanctuary ofDemeter and Kore.

Egypt

Naukratis54

20. Once in the Fr. W. v. Bissing collection,whereabouts unknown.55 Fig. 3Rim of a bucchero kantharos with remains ofone handle. Silvering and arches on theshoulder. Dimensions: 55mm (height), 60mm(width). Prins de Jong 1925, 55-6 no. V.2, pl. 3(top right).

Appendix 1Etruscan and Italic Artefacts from North Africa

49Naso

Page 203: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 195

Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd Century BC

Todi (Perugia)11. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di VillaGiulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 24594. Zuffa 1960, 185 no. 8, pl. 25.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

12. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di VillaGiulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 24595. Zuffa 1960, 193 no. 22, pl. 33.b-c.Duck’s head; hinge not preserved.

Vetulonia (?) (Grosseto)13. Collection Stefani. Zuffa 1960, 185 no. 9, pl. XXVI.a.Only the hinge in the form of a couchant lionremains.

Ceregnano near Adria (Rovigo)14. Whereabouts unknown (perhaps to beidentified with no. 43 in Manchester?).Zerbinati 1994, 148-9, fig. 1; Schindler 1998, 276(Typ I). Ram’s head and hinge in the form of a couchantlion.

Marzabotto (Bologna)15. Marzabotto, Museo P. Aria, Inv. no. B 9.Zuffa 1960, 197 no. 27, pl. 35.d; Muffatti 1968,155, no. 32, pl. 21.b 3; Schindler 1998, 275 (TypI).Only the funnel remains.

Casalfiumanese (Bologna)16. Bologna. Museo Civico. Zuffa 1960, 193-4 no. 23, pl. 34.Ram’s head (hinge not preserved).

Belmonte Piceno (Ascoli Piceno)17. Ancona, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,Inv. nos 12563 (funnel), 12581 (handle).Zuffa 1960, 187-9 no. 15, pl. 30.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.

18. Once Ancona, Museo Archeologico(destroyed during the Second World War). Zuffa 1960, 194-5 no. 24, pl. 35.a-c.Lyre handled-type with a peculiar funnel(pastiche?).

Tolentino, grave near Porta del Ponte

(Macerata)19. Tolentino, Museo Civico, Inv. no. 1854/1.Zuffa 1960, 186 no. 12, pl. 28; Massi Secondari1982, 38-9, note 1, fig. 2.The hinge is in the form of a couchant lion.

Numana (Ancona)20. Ancona, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,Inv. no. 50769.Landolfi 1997, 237, no. s.2. Double lyre handled, duck’s head and hinge inthe form of a couchant lion.

Campovalano, grave 2 (Teramo)21. Chieti, Museo Nazionale, Inv. no. 5146. Zanco 1974, 51-2, no. 18; Schindler 1998, 275(Typ I); Grassi 2003, 502, note 70.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a T.

22. Poggio Sommavilla (Rome)Whereabouts unknown. Funnel Bellelli 2006, 94.

Cuma (Naples)23. Naples, Museo Nazionale, Inv. no. 86069. Zuffa 1960, 186, no. 11, pl. 27; Albore Livadie1985, 137 note 49; Grassi 2003, 502, note 70.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

Castellammare di Stabia (?)24. Albore Livadie 1985, 137 note 49; Grassi2003, 502, note 70.

Sala Consilina (Salerno)25. Paris, Petit Palais, Inv. no. 235. Zuffa 1960, 195-6, no. 25, pls 36-37.Double lyre handled with ram’s head and hingein the form of a sphinx.

Provenance and whereabouts unknown 26. Zuffa 1960, 180 no. 2, pl. 22.2; Terrosi Zanco1974, 163; Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I) DAIRome, Inst. Neg. 29.441, 29.442, 29.443. Fig. 6Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a T.

Provenance unknown27. Florence, Museo Nazionale, Antiquarium,Inv. no. 1537. Zuffa 1960, 183-4 no. 6, pl. 24.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

28. Florence, Museo Nazionale, Antiquarium,Inv. no. 1538. Zuffa 1960, 189-90 no. 17, pl. 32.a-b.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.

29. Florence, Museo Nazionale, Antiquarium.Only the hinge in the form of a couchant lionremains.(May be no. 13?)

30. Milan, Museo Civico Archeologico, Inv. no.1055. Zuffa 1960, 185 no. 10, pl. 26.b-c.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

31. Raccolta Benedetto Guglielmi. Città delVaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, Inv. no.34864. Magi 1941, 230-1, no. 117 pl. 68; Zuffa 1960, 187no. 14, pl. XXIX.c.Only the hinge in the form of a couchant lionremains.

32. Turin, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Inv.no. 933. Zuffa 1960, 189 no. 16, pl. 31.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.

33. Perugia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,Inv. no. 600.Saioni 2003, 56.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.

34. London, British Museum, Inv. no. GR1937.10-21.1 (Bronze 2469). Fig. 10bWalters 1899, 322, note 2469.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of aquadruped.

I LYRE-HANDLED TYPE

Populonia (Livorno)1. Grave ‘dei Flabelli di Bronzo’. Florence,Museo Archeologico, Inv. no. 89332.Zuffa 1960, 178-9, no. 1, pl. 21; Schindler 1998,276 (Typ I).Duck’s head and hinge in the form of T.Grave ‘dei Colatoi’. Florence, MuseoArcheologico, Inv. no. 92589-92590.

2. De Agostino 1961, 86, no. 4, fig. 24.1; TerrosiZanco 1974, 163; Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I).Duck’s head and hinge in the form of aquadruped.

3. De Agostino 1961, 86, no. 5, fig. 24.2; TerrosiZanco 1974, 163; Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I).Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

Bisenzio (Viterbo)4. Grave 74 (540–520 bc). Rome, MuseoNazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Inv. no.57165/3.Colonna 1980a, 45 note 9, figs 3-4; Schindler1998, 275 (Typ I).Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.

Volsinii or Todi5. Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,Antiquarium.Zuffa 1960, 186-7 no. 13, pl. 29.a-b.Handle with the hinge in the form of a couchantlion.

Castelgiorgio (Terni)6. Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,Inv. no. 82.892. Zuffa 1960, 190-1 no. 18, pl. 32.c-d.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of aquadruped.

Volsinii (Terni)7. Crocefisso del Tufo, grave 17.Bizzarri 1962, 89-90, 333, 34061 fig. 30;Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I).Bottom of the funnel.

Falerii Veteres, grave 34 (LIII) (Viterbo)8. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di VillaGiulia, Inv. no. 371.Cozza and Pasqui 1887, 175d;62 Cozza andPasqui 1981, 170 no. 8 (grave 48).63

Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

Castro, grave della Biga (530–520 bc)

female deposition (Viterbo)9. Moretti Sgubini and De Lucia Brolli 2003,382, fig. 37.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

Castel San Mariano, grave del Carro

(Perugia)10. Perugia, National Museum, Inv. no. 1433.Zuffa 1960, 192-3 no. 21, fig. 7: Höckmann 1982,159; Schindler 1998, 275 (Typ I).Broken handle.

Appendix 2Etruscan Bronze Infundibula

Page 204: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

196 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Naso

Populonia59. Collection Gasparri. Populonia, MuseoArcheologico, Inv. no. 1237.Romualdi 2001, S 2.

Provenance unknown60. Geneva, Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, Inv. no.MF. 1170.Treister 1990, 166; Schindler 1998, 276 (TypIIIa).66

61. Gela (Caltanissetta), Archaic wreckGela, Museo Archeologico, Inv. no. 38303Panvini 2001, 31,62.

Monte Bubbonìa (Mazzarino, CL), grave

13/1971 (550–500 bc)62. Caltanissetta, Museo Archeologico, Inv. no.34981.Panvini 2003, 194.

Close to San Martino in Gattara type

Monte Bubbonìa (Mazzarino, CL), grave

10/195563. Gela, Archaeological Museum, Inv. no.9302.Pancucci and Naro 1992, 126 no. 397 pl. 31.3.The tomb group is dated to the early 5thcentury bc by an Attic olpe by the Painter ofBerlin 2268 (ARV2, 156 no. 63).

III PALMETTE-HANDLED TYPE

Nola (?)64. Brussels, Musée Royale, Inv. no. R 1127.Meester de Ravestein 1884, 329-30, no. 1127. Frog on the lid (pastiche?).

Provenance unknown65. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. no.VI-932. Zuffa 1960, 197-8 no. 28, fig. 8, pl. XL.

Spain

Cancho Roano (Estremadura)66. Badajoz, Museo Arqueológico Provincial.Celestino Pérez 1991, 78, fig. 12b; CelestinoPérez and de Zulueta 2003, 56-8, 92, n. 233.Hinge in form of a lion.

IV OTHER TYPES

Bisenzio67. Olmo Bello, grave 80 (excavationsBenedetti 1927-31). Rome, Museo NazionaleEtrusco di Villa Giulia.Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ III).

68. Bazzano (L’Aquila), grave 1566 (excavationV. d’Ercole).Celano, Museo di PreistoriaUnpublished; kind information of J. Weidig(Mainz-Marburg)

Trevignano Romano, grave Annesi-

Piacentini.69. Trevignano Romano, Museo Civico. Moretti 1967, 65 no. 47, pl. (bottom right);Colonna 1980, 45 note 8; Schindler 1998, 276(Typ III); Bellelli 2006, 41-54.

35. Leipzig, Antikenmuseum der Universität,Inv. no. MB 4-M 53a. Bought in Vienna in 1917from L. Pollak.Zuffa 1960, 184-5 no. 7, pl. 23.c-d; Paul 1988.Rest of the handle with the hinge in the form ofa couchant lion.

36. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. no.VI, 2962.Zuffa 1960, 182-3 no. 4, pl. 23.a.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a T.

37. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. no.VI, 4637. Zuffa 1960, 183 no. 5, pl. 23.b.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a T.

38. New York, Metropolitan Museum, Inv. no.34.11.8.Zuffa 1960, 196-7 no. 26, pls 38-39.Ram’s head and hinge in the form of twocouchant lions

39. Newcastle upon Tyne, Shefton Museum ofthe University, Inv. no. 139.Shefton 1970, 55-6, figs 5-6. Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

40. Newcastle upon Tyne, Shefton Museum ofthe University, Inv. no. 667.Unpublished.

41. Collection H. Cahn, Basel.Das Tier in der Antike 1974, 52 no. 311, pl. 52.Only the hinge in the form of a sphinx remains.

42. Whereabouts unknown.Kunstwerke der Antike. Auktion 51. Münzen undMedaillen AG, Basel 1975, 102 no. 228; Treister1990, 165; Schindler 1998, 276.Duck’s head and hinge in the form of twocouchant lions. Two further lions are on the lid(pastiche?).

43. Manchester Museum, Inv. no. 29973.Perhaps to be identified with no. 14 fromCeregnano.MacIntosh Turfa 1982, 175 no. 33, pl. 14.d;Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I).Ram’s head and hinge in the form of a couchantlion.

44. Private collection (CH). Reusser 1986, 27, no. 6.2. Duck’s head and hinge in the form of acouchant lion.

45. From the Gorga collection. Rome, MuseoNazionale Romano.Lodovici 1999, 49, fig. 12.Duck’s head without any hinge (the funnel is astrainer, too).

46. Stuttgart, WürttembergischesLandesmuseum (Inv. no. 3. 190)Hinge in the form of a couchant lion.

47. Formerly in the collection E. Berman (nowMuseo Archeologico, Civita Castellana?)De Lucia Brolli 2004, fig. 2 (top left).Handle, probably complete.

Greece

Argos, Heraion 48. Fletcher De Cou 1905, 203-4, no. 31, pl.LXXVI.Only the hinge in the form of a frog remains.

Olympia, sanctuary of Zeus (Olympia,

Museum)64

49. Inv. no. Br 12844. Zuffa 1960, 180-2 no. 3, pl. 22.b-c.Duck’s head without any rest of a hinge.

50. Inv. No. B 286. Zuffa 1960, 191 no. 19, pl. 33.a.Partly preserved, without any rest of a hinge.

51. Inv. No. B 4574. Siewert 1991, 82 no. 7, pl. 9.2/3.Handle partly preserved, with a duck’s head,without any rest of a hinge.

Lindos (Rhodes), sanctuary of Athena 52. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, Inv. no.3495 m, 3503 m. Zuffa 1960, 191-2 no. 20, fig. 6.Duck’s head without any rest of hinge

Libya

Cyrene, sanctuary of Demeter and

Persephone 53. Warden 1990, 8-9, no. 17, pl. 5. Only the hinge in the form of a frog remains.

Spain

Cancho Roano (Estremadura)54. Badajoz, Museo Arqueológico Provincial.Celestino Pérez 1991, 78, fig. 12a; Pallottino1992, 179, 260, no. 304; Schindler 1998, 275(Typ I); Celestino Pérez and de Zulueta 2003,56-8, 92, n. 213.Ram’s head without any rest of a hinge.

From the sea near Jávea (Alicante)55. Museu Arqueològic i Etnogràfic ‘SolerBlasco’, Xàbia.65

Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez (forthcoming).Duck’s head without any rest of the hinge.

Switzerland

Arbedo, hoard 56. Schindler 1998, 80-2, 275, 321 no. 153 [154],397 pl. 7. A funnel and a duck’s head, belonging notnecessarily to the same tool.

II SAN MARTINO IN GATTARA TYPE

San Martino in Gattara, male grave 15

(530–520 bc) 57. Ravenna, Museo Nazionale.Bermond Montanari 1975, 74, fig. 4; Colonna1980a, 45-6; Bermond Montanari 1982, 172-4,no. 20, pl. 93; Treister 1990; Schindler 1998, 276(Typ IIIa).

Pantikapaion 58. Moscow, Pushkin State Museum of FineArts, Inv. no. GMII. M 410.Treister 1988; Treister 1990; Treister 1991, 73-4;Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ IIIa); Treister 1999, 81-5; Naso 2000, 180-1, pl. IV.2; Naso 2001, 179, fig.8.

Page 205: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 197

Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd Century BC

74. Museo di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (?)Terrosi Zanco 1974, 162-3 (included in theexhibition ‘Gli Etruschi in Campania’, Teano1963); Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I); Grassi 2003,502, note 70.

Provenance unknown75. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di VillaGiulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 24689. Zuffa 1960, 203-4 no. 30, pl. XLIV.

Provenance unknown76. Warsaw, National Museum, Inv. no. 147078.Dobrowolski 1966, 377-8, figs 1, 3.

The following infundibula are not

Etruscan:67

Rhodes, sanctuary of Apollo Erethimios77. Rhodes, Museum. Zuffa 1960, 207 no. 33, fig. 10.

Trebenishte, grave VII78. Sofia, Archaeological Museum. Zuffa 1960, 204-7 no. 32, pl. 46.

Novi Pazar79. Beograd, National Museum.Mano-Zissi and Popovic 1969, 80-1, pl.. 8, 39;Mano-Zissi and Popovic 1971, 195, pl. 56-60;Popovic 1975, 89, fig. 18; Treister 1990, 166;Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ III).

Olympia, sanctuary of Zeus (Olympia,

Museum)80. Inv. no. Br 14030Furtwängler 1890, 147, no. 924-924a.

81. Inv. no. Br 12866Furtwängler 1890, 147, unnumbered, between924-5).

Provenance unknown70. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di VillaGiulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 51370. Zuffa 1960, 204 no. 31, pl. XLV; Schindler 1998,276 (Typ III).

Trestina71. Florence, Museo Archeologico, Inv. no.77813.Tarchi 1936, pl. C (bottom, middle); Colonna1980, 45 note 9; Romualdi 1991, 629; Schindler1998, 276 (Typ I); Naso (forthcoming).

Cales, grave 8972. Passaro and Ciaccia 2000, 21; Grassi 2003,502, note 70.

Santa Maria Capua Vetere73. Berlin, SMPK, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 6332and Copenhagen, Kunstmuseet, Inv. no. 3284.Brown 1960, 111-112; Zuffa 1960, 198-203 no. 29,pls 41-43; Bellelli 2006, 41-54.

Illustration creditsFig. 1 after Bianco Peroni 1970, 113 no. 305, pl. 45; Fig. 2 after Hase 1989,fig. 29; Fig. 3 after Prins de Jong 1925 ; Fig. 4 photo MFA, Boston; Fig. 5after Hase 1989, pl. 28.II; Fig. 6 after Pugliese Carratelli 1986, figs 55–6;Fig. 7 Drawing Kate Morton; Fig. 8 after Hase 1997 and Rizza 2003; Fig. 9after Warden 1990; Fig. 10a DAI Rome, Inst. Neg. 29.442; Fig. 10b theBritish Museum; Fig. 11 the author.

Notes* I wish to thank the organizers, particularly U. Schlotzhauer and

A. Villing, for the kind invitation to the Naukratis conference. Thanksare due to the directors of excavations who permitted me to examineunpublished material from many sites, namely Prof. V. von Graeve(Miletos), Prof. A. Furtwängler and Dr. H. Bumke (Didyma), and Dr.H. Kienast (Samos). I have discussed various aspects of this researchwith many friends and colleagues, receiving useful information: I would like to mention in particular Rosa Maria Albanese Procelli,Regina Attula, Vincenzo Bellelli, Gebhard Bieg, Massimo Botto,Brenda Breed, Dominique Briquel, Alan Johnston, Pierre Rouillard,Brian Shefton, Stephane Verger and J. Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez.Finally, Phil Perkins improved my English and made some helpfulcomments on an earlier draft of the paper.

1 Pallottino 1963.2 MacIntosh Turfa 1977 (369-70 for a finds list).3 Morel 1981; Thuillier 1985.4 Hase 1989, 1993.5 See for instance the in-depth, documented analysis of Gras 1985 and

the synthesis of Gras 1997, 48-55, where Naukratis and Cyrene arequoted in relation with the Greek expansion.

6 See Appendix 1, no. 28. For the type: de Marinis 1999, 542-7.7 On the founding of Cyrene: Parisi Presicce 2003.8 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 1973.9 Humphrey 1976.10 Vickers and Gill 1986; Gill 2004.11 Excavations have shown that tumuli were used in North Africa for a

long time (Camps 1961, 65-91). It would be interesting to collect thefew scientifically explored grave mounds and compare them withthe monuments of Greece and Etruria. The list of the tumuli inCyrenaica includes Rowe 1956, 6-7, fig. 1 (five stone tumulicontaining wooden chamber tombs, dating to the 6th century bc;Stucchi 1964, 127-31 (tumulus near Messa); Stucchi 1975, 12-13;Bacchielli 1985, 10-12, fig. 1.4 (tumulus in the agora in Cyrene,probably erected in honour of Battos, the mythical founder ofCyrene).

12 The role of Phoenicians and Carthaginians is analyzed by manyauthors in Pisano 1999. The literary tradition is collected andcommented on by Hans 1983.

13 The bucchero vases from Carthage, studied by Hase (1989, 1993), arelisted infra (Appendix 1, no. 3). The distribution maps are Hase 1992,

fig. 1 (general map of bucchero finds) and 27 (kantharoi 3e). Furtherfinds of kantharoi: Megalopolis: Tripoli, Archaeological Museum,unpublished. Paros: Buschor 1929, fig. 8. Daskyleion: Izmir,Archaeological Museum, unpublished; Miletos: Pfisterer-Haas 1999,265, 267; Naso 2001, 175-6, fig. 4. Datça: Berges and Tuna 2000, 198-201, fig. 15b; Berges and Tuna 2001, 162, fig. 13 (three kantharoi areactually identified). Didyma: sherd belonging to the handle of agiant kantharos, unpublished (from Taxiarchis, Inv. no. Ke 01-264).

14 See Appendix 1, no. 20.15 See Appendix 1, no. 21. For the identification of the sherd thanks are

due to Brenda Breed (MFA, Boston).16 Hirschland Ramage 1970, 17 note 45 for the leaf-silver: Naso 2005a,

for the leaf-gold.17 Burkhardt 1991, 114-15.18 Unpublished (Inv. no. So 91-208), but already mentioned in Naso

2001, 175.19 Boulomié 1982, 14-16, pl. 2.20 A selection of the bucchero vases from Miletos and the results of the

clay analysis will be published by G. Trojsi and myself in AA.21 They are listed infra (Appendix 1, no. 4).22 They are listed infra (Appendix 1, no. 4).23 Cristofani 1985. The so-called ZitA amphores, which R. Docter

considered to be also of Central Italic origins (Docter 1998), are nowdefinitively attributed solely to Sardinian production (Oggiano2000, 241-2).

24 Naso 2001, 180, fig. 9.25 Concerning Malcus, depicted in the literacy tradition as a general

from Carthage, an interesting opinion has recently been expressedby M. Gras, who identifies him with the leader of the Carthaginianfleet, who fought with the Etruscan ships against the Greeks in theSardinian Sea battle (Gras 2000b, 38-9). This hypothesis, althoughvery stimulating, is far from certain. Therefore, I still prefer to followBondì 2000, 63-5, Fantar 2000, 77-8 and Krings 2000: according tothem, the more probable enemies of Malcus were the Phoeniciancities in Sardinia or, less convincingly, the Sardinian people.

26 Hdt. 1.166.1-2. On this battle see now Bernardini et al. 2000(comprising many articles devoted to the various people involved inthe battle); Bernardini 2001.

27 Arist. Pol., 3.5.10-11. MacIntosh Turfa 1977 (the chronology that putsthe early treaty between Carthage and Rome in 580 bc is nowcompletely obsolete).

28 Polyb. 3.22.4-13. 29 Ampolo 1987, 80-4; Scardigli 1991, 47-87.30 See Appendix 1, no. 8. The identification as tesserae hospitales is due

to Messineo 1983. The animal of the tablet from Carthage is usuallyconsidered to be a wild boar; the inscription is ET, Af 3.1. For thetablet from Rome see Torelli 2000, 554, no. 38 (with previousbibliography; more has been written since); the inscription is ET, La2.3. For further tesserae hospitales from Murlo see Maggiani(forthcoming).

Page 206: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

198 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Naso

31 Krings 1998, 2.32 Berges 1997, 52.33 The literature on Caere in this period is quoted in Colonna 2000,

which concerns the relevant finds from Pyrgi. Further data about thenew excavations in the urban area of Caere are presented inCristofani 2003.

34 It has been found in the excavation of the treasury of Thoutmosis I,carried out by the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO)under the direction of H. Jacquet-Gordon: Rouillard 1985, 24. AKlazomenian amphora from Karnak has been published byBoardman 1958.

35 The inscribed kantharoi from Perachora and Ialisos are discussed byHase 1997, 317-18, fig. 24. The bucchero vases with Greek inscriptionsfrom Sicily (Selinous and Girgenti) are gathered in Gras 1985, 498;the new finds from Leontinoi are illustrated by Rizza 2003, 546-8,figs 7-8, pl. 6.

36 Only Ionian bucchero is known from the site (Schaus 1985a, 73-6 nos446-68).

37 Warden 1990, 8-9, no. 17, pl. 5.38 The ancient literacy tradition on the Etruscan artefacts is collected

and discussed by Mansuelli 1984.39 The ‘classic’ work on infundibula is Zuffa 1960, added to by Colonna

1980, 45-6, who proposed to localize the workshop in Volsinii; M.Schindler has furnished a list (Schindler 1998, 275-6) and adistribution map (Schindler 1998, 81, fig. 20) that are not alwayscongruous; further bibliography is listed in Naso (forthcoming).Camporeale 2003, 164 quotes the infundibula among the products ofcraftsmen of Volsinii. I give here a comprehensive list (Appendix 2). Ihope to devote a proper study to these objects soon, to support myhypothesis.

40 Carthage: Mackensen 1999, 540-1, no. 35, fig. 1.1, pl. 44.1. Didyma:Bumke and Röver 2002, 97-9, fig. 20. About Etruscan ladles: Donati1998, 163-6; Jurgeit 1999, 439-47, nos 740-56; Naso 2003a, 105-6, no.159-61. Recently two Etruscan ladles from Macedonia and Nemeahave been published (Blackman 2001/2, 21 fig. 38).

41 The localization in Vulci of the infundibula workshop has alreadybeen hypothesized (Martelli 1988, 23-5; Paul 1988). Even if only oneinfundibulum was presumably found in that centre (Appendix 2, no.30) and one in Castro, a minor centre of the Vulcian territory(Appendix 2, no. 9), one can presume the provenance from Vulci ofmany tools of unknown provenance (Appendix 2, nos 27-47),because the necropoleis around this city have been often disturbedby illegal excavations.

42 On the Vulcian bronzes the old article of Neugebauer 1943 is stilluseful, although the most comprehensive and recent study is nowRiis 1998; M. Martelli provides a comprehensive study of the Vulcianstone workshops in the 6th century bc (Martelli 1988, 2001, 2004,forthcoming). For the bronze Schnabelkannen see now Vorlauf 1997.

43 See Appendix 1, no. 13. A similar cuirass is preserved in Naples,Archaeological National Museum, Inv. no. 5735: Acquaro and Ferrari2004, 114-15, no. 154. The Italic bronze belts have been collected byRomito 1995.

44 See Appendix 1, no. 9. On these cippi see Blumhofer 1993 and myreview (Naso 1994).

45 See Appendix 1, no. 10. For the distribution of Genucilia plates incentral Italy: Naso 1996, 175, note 265; Poulsen 2002. Dr. L. Vuono(Rome/Mannheim) is publishing her thesis including new dataabout the Genucilia plates from the Palatine Hill.

46 See Appendix 1, no. 27. Concerning Etruscan linen books: Roncalli1980a.

47 Colonna 1988, 16, note 8.48 See Appendix 1. no. 11. The inscriptions are ET, Af 3.2.49 The following bibliography has been accessible to me: AfrIt (1, 1927-

8, 1941); LibAnt (1, 1964-16, 1979, n.s. 1, 1995- 4, 1998); LibSt (1, 1970-33, 2002); Monografie di archeologia libica (1-19); QAL (1,1950-17,2002); Karthago I-III. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago,edited by F. Rakob, 1991-1997. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

50 For the Italic bronze discs: Tomedi 2000, reviewed by Naso 2003b.51 These objects, as parts of Etruscan wine sets, are concentrated in

Etruria, but they are occasionally also found in southern Italy(Jurgeit 1999, 462, nos 778-9).

52 These vases are not a certain import from Italy, since a productionsimilar to Gnathia has been suggested for Alexandria (Piekarski2001a, 107-8; Alexandropoulou 2002, 196-7).

53 In my opinion the kotyle from the necropolis of Leptis Magnapublished as Etrusco-Corinthian (De Miro and Fiorentini 1977, 31, fig.38) is not Etruscan, as J.P. Morel correctly hypothesized (Morel 1981,484-5, note 100).

54 The presence of Etruscan bucchero in Naukratis is stressed by manyauthors (Boardman 1958, 12 note 47; Morel 1981, 468 note 15;Boardman 1999a, 124; Möller 2000a, 144; Kerschner 2001, 75).

55 The collection v. Bissing was divided among the museums ofAmsterdam, Berlin, Bonn, Den Haag and Munich (Kerschner 2001,72). The sherds in the museums of Berlin and Munich were destroyedduring the Second World War; in Bonn there is no Etruscan bucchero(Piekarski 2001a).

56 Johnston 1982, nos 3-5, Inv. no. BM GR 1888.6-1.643b-d (d refers totwo sherds), are four sherds not all joining, but belonging to thesame vase, with a form similar to an Attic black-figure olpe. Similarforms are not represented among the Etruscan bucchero repertoire;the clay, quite fine, with mica and a slim slip, is also untypical forEtruscan bucchero.

57 Dr. Phil Perkins kindly informed me that in the British Museum’sstorerooms also the following bucchero sherds from Naukratis arepreserved: 22 sherds of an oinochoe Rasmussen 3a or 3d (GR 1924.12-1.76 b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,v,w); one sherd incised with apalmette (GR 1924.12-1.75); two unidentified sherds (GR 1924.12-1.77and 78); one oinochoe, nearly complete but restored, of typeRasmussen 3a, the provenance of which is, however, not certain (GR1977.10-11.89); one unidentified sherd possibly of bucchero (GR1888.6-1.633). This material will be published by Perkins(forthcoming).

58 For this type of vase, probably from Volsinii (Colonna 1985, 45, note2): Höckmann 1982, 100, nos 57, 66-7, pl. 55.1-5 (without horseheads), dated to 550–500 bc. A further Etruscan podanipter with lionfeet has been found in a grave group in Vaste dating to 430 bc(Semeraro 1990, 89-90 no. 102; Tarditi 1996, 39 no. 53).

59 In the Cairo Museum also fakes of Etrusco-Italic antiquities arepreserved, such as a bronze Herakles (Edgar 1904, 71, no. 27918, pl.I), belonging to a group of similar statuettes (Franzoni 1966, 50-1, fig.11; Naso 2003a, 280, no. 531, pl. 106). One should also mention afemale head-oinochoe from el Kantara (Bissing 1903, 146 fig. 3f;Edgar 1904, 29, no. 27743, pl. VII) close to (but not Etruscan: the eyeshave been made of glasspaste!) a group of Etruscan female head-vases of the Hellenistic period (Menzel 1959; Haynes 1959; Naso2003a, 77-9, nos 119-21).

60 This subject is very popular (Naso 2003a, 122, note 172).61 No. 332 had usually also been attributed to an infundibulum, but it

probaly belonged to a torch-holder (like Hostetter 2001, 142-3, no.353-5, pl. 63-4, from Spina).

62 ‘Manico fuso di bronzo appartenente a un simpulum. Nella partepiana, sopra ad un ornamento traforato, incastra in una cernieragirante un piccolo leone a tutto rilievo, le cui zampe anteriori eranoinchiodate nella lamina che serviva da coperchio’.

63 ‘Manico elegante di colum. Si può distinguere in due porzioni, l’unavicina all’alto del vaso, è in forma di …, che parte, sulla lineamediana della quale un leoncino si accovaccia, l’altra semplice,ricurvandosi in basso, termina in una testa d’oca. Lungh. mm 220’.This is probably the same tool that A. Furtwängler saw in the VillaGiulia Museum (Furtwängler 1890, 196, ad no. 1267, 1267a: grave 38)and that could not be found by H. Sauer (1937, 296), F. Magi (1941,230) and M. Zuffa (1960, 181 note 37).

64 Furtwängler 1890, 147, no. 924a, is a small fragment of a handle,perhaps belonging to a non-Etruscan infundibulum. Brown’s (1960,111, note 2) careful attribution of Furtwängler 1890, 152 no. 966, pl.57, to an infundibulum is very probably wrong, because the plombrests under the paws and the hinge under the hindlegs are neverdocumented among infundibula.

65 Xàbia is the Catalan name of Jávea. Thanks to Vincenzo Bellelli Ihave heard from Dr. J. Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez (Valencia) of theexistence of this infundibulum, which will be published in a Germanperiodical.

66 Contrary to the brief published description (Fol 1874, 252, note 1169from Vulci), another bronze sherd preserved in Geneva (Musée d’Artet d’Histoire, Inv. no. MF. 1169) does not belong to an infundibulum.

67 B.B. Shefton classified as ‘Hallstatt imitation’ the tool from NoviPazar (Shefton 1970, 55-6).

Page 207: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 199

Abstract

Although Greek contacts with the Southern Levant during the IronAge have been studied at length, the matter remains controversialin many aspects. The present study provides an overview of East-West contacts during the first half of the 1st millennium bc,suggesting to divide it into five major periods of contact. Theseperiods, involving a different chronological setting, arecharacterized by different ‘total contexts’, heavily shaped by geo-political dynamics. It is suggested that every period of contacts (ortheir absence) requires a different explanation.

Introduction

For scholars interested in Greek contacts with the SouthernLevant during the Iron Age two developments in the late 7thcentury bc are truly remarkable: the establishment of Naukratisin Egypt and the massive appearance of East Greek pottery onthe eastern shores of the Mediterranean. It is not surprisingtherefore that these themes were chosen, inter alia, for the 28thBritish Museum Classical Colloquium.1 However, any attempt atdiscerning and decoding patterns in the dispersion of East Greekpottery in the Levant, as well as explaining the Naukratisphenomenon, requires an understanding of East–West contactsduring the first half of the 1st millennium bc. Such an overviewis undertaken here.

However, since I could not hope in the present format to dojustice to the whole range of issues that preoccupy scholarsdealing with Greeks in the East, I offer instead an extremelybrief synopsis of Greeks in the East during the Iron Age, withspecial emphasis on a few thorny issues.

Since I shall concentrate on a number of broadhistorical/archaeological issues, it is perhaps prudent toacknowledge that every generation writes its own history andthat every scholar has a view of the past coloured by his/hereducation, experience and environment. I have no pretensionstherefore that my interpretations of East–West contacts will betaken as the only possible scenario. On the other hand, I hopethat among the pool of potential explanations for the changingnature of East-West contacts, the model I offer best accounts forthe available evidence.2

From an epistemological point of view, I am on the side ofmany who argue that among the three main poles – realism,positivism and idealism3 – it is usually realism that offers themost useful point of departure for any archaeologicalreconstruction, especially when this realism is combined with ahealthy dose of scepticism and a pinch of imagination.4 Andalthough I can accept, at least to a certain extent, that in toomany cases ‘there are no facts, only interpretations’, archaeologydoes often supply facts. Some facts, such as the presence orabsence of Greek pottery on the eastern shores of theMediterranean, matter a great deal. The question remains: whatwe are going to do with these facts? But before I embark on the

‘pots and people’ question, I would like to emphasize thesignificance of the historical/chronological context – thebackbone of any historical interpretation.

The accumulation of data, an essential beginning, shouldlead to contextualization involving the understanding thatdifferent chronological settings may represent different geo-political dynamics. Ian Morris rightly observes that one of themajor shortcomings of the post-modern trend of emphasisingconnectivity and mobility is its timelessness.5 He points out thatmany of what he calls first wave studies ‘showing links betweenGreek and Near Eastern cultures, often threw together evidencescattered across centuries, disregarding traditionalchronologies’.6 The recent contribution of Horden and Purcelltakes this approach even further,7 arguing ‘againstinterpretations that emphasize radical change and violentdiscontinuity in the Mediterranean past’.8 What is offeredinstead is a vision of a permanently integrated Mediterranean,wherein change is constant and ubiquitous, but generally localin its effects. Such a reconstruction, with its emphasis onmicroregions, leaves little room for pivotal turning points inMediterranean history, since the assumed connectivity stretchesacross extremes of time, by-passing geo-political boundaries andempires, together with symbolically expressed ideologies ofeconomic exchange and political domination.9

With mobility as the norm and a permanent feature ofhuman activity around the Mediterranean shores, we are forcedto ask questions differently. Or, as Emma Blake recently put it,‘rather than ask, why did people move, one may ask, why didpeople stay put in some cases?’10 Heavily affected by currentglobalization,11 Horden and Purcell’s vision of theMediterranean is already considered by some, and not withoutreason, as ‘one of those manifest watersheds in the study ofantiquity’, which will take a generation of historians to digest.12

Indeed, taking into consideration a number of earlier studies infavour of a permanently connected Mediterranean, one istempted to suppose that we are witnessing a paradigm shift.13

What is missing in the portrait of a permanently connectedMediterranean, however, is the notion of historical/chronological context. In this regard, Bakhtin’s concept of thetotal context of an utterance provides an applicable insight. Thetotal context relates to the ways in which voices circulate in bothspoken and written dialogues and, according to Bakhtin, isunrepeatable.14 Even if one repeats the words employed in thesame order, the total context would be always different, if for noother reason than because the words have already been utteredonce.15

And when Horden and Purcell insert the distribution of LateBronze Age ox-hide ingots into the model of a permanentlyconnected Mediterranean, for instance, comparing itsimplistically with the whole spectrum of later metallurgicaldistributive systems,16 the ‘total unrepeatable context’ of

Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age Alexander Fantalkin

Page 208: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

200 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Fantalkin

particular periods is lost. The problem is not one of comparingsome chronologically distant metallurgical distributive systems.After all, the merits of the comparative approach areundeniable.17 Likewise, analogies are appropriate tools andsalient features of any historical/archaeological investigation.The problem is a deliberate unwillingness to recognize that thedistribution of Late Bronze Age ox-hide ingots should beunderstood on its own terms and against the background of LateBronze Age geo-political dynamics,18 which are a world apartfrom the distributive systems of the Greeks and Romans, letalone those of medieval Genoa. Or, as Mario Liverani observes,‘the “Bronze Age”, invented as a classificatory device for toolsand weapons, can still be used as a large historical label,encompassing similarly structured socioeconomic systems andquite sharply opposed to the (differently labelled) preceding andsucceeding periods’; (emphasis added – A.F.).19

Although it might be relevant, I am not concerned here withthe long-running debate involving polarising tendencies ‘to seethe past as Same (a primitive version of our present, whichteleologically evolves into it) or as Other (as a remote, alien,fundamentally different world)’.20 My main concerns are sociallyembedded cultural contexts21 and their chronological settings.Therefore, with regard to metallurgical distributive systems, theonly reliable conclusion that may be deduced from the analogiesscattered across the centuries is, in my view, anacknowledgment that different distributive systems have existedin the Mediterranean at different times. However, in order tounderstand the forces driving these and other exchangeactivities, they must be viewed in their proper chronological/historical contexts. It is not helpful to gather all the cases ofconnectedness and mobility under the same rubric of apermanently interconnected Mediterranean withoutdistinguishing between different historical periods.

Indeed, the presence or absence of Greeks in the EasternMediterranean during the Iron Age suggests that there is nosingle model that would explain these contacts (or theirabsence) through different time periods. Quite the opposite:judging from the facts on the ground (and there are some),every subsequent historical period requires a differentexplanation, a different narrative.

Greek contact with the eastern Mediterranean during the Iron

Age: stressing the context

The area under discussion runs from the coast east of Ciliciadown to the Sinai Peninsula. The contacts in question may bedivided roughly into five major periods, each involving adifferent chronological setting. These settings are characterizedby different ‘total contexts’ heavily shaped by geo-politicaldynamics.

First period: a renewal of contact

The first period is characterized by the presence of mainlyEuboean pottery (but also Attic and Atticizing) found innorthern Syria, Phoenicia and northern Israel in the late 10th,the 9th and the better part of the 8th centuries bc.22 Theassumed Phoenician superiority in virtually everything leaves,according to many modern scholars, no room for independentEuboean ventures at such an early date, especially to the East.When even pure Cypriot ventures are labelled Cypro-Phoenician,23 it is quite obvious that Euboeans could not

compete with the advanced Phoenicians, let alone establish atrading post at Al Mina toward the end of the 9th century bc.The dominant view among Aegean specialists, although withnotable exceptions, is that the Phoenicians brought Euboeanpottery with them to the East.24

However, the trend during the last decades of pinpointingthe beginning of Phoenician expansion to as early as the11th/10th centuries bc,25 if not earlier, is based almost entirely ona handful of presumably historical sources: to a lesser extent onthe so-called ‘Report of Wenamun’26 and to a larger extent on thebiblical accounts regarding the cooperation between KingsSolomon and Hiram I.27 These sources can no longer be treatedas reliable.28 Furthermore, the low Iron Age chronology,advanced in Israel nearly a decade ago,29 has enormousimplications for the Aegean world.

First, it leaves no room for Phoenician colonial expansionbefore the late 9th–early 8th centuries bc.30 The presence ofimported Phoenician vases in the assemblages at PalaepaphosSkales31 should not imply the beginning of Phoeniciancolonisation of Cyprus before their establishment in Kition at thelate 9th century bc.32 Indeed, judging from availablearchaeological evidence, the initial Phoenician expansionoverseas, accompanied by settlements abroad, took place only inthe second half of the 9th century bc; and I refer to the well-known Phoenician establishment at Kition,33 but also to evidencefrom new radiocarbon dating from Carthage34 and SouthernSpain.35

In my view, this expansion may be explained as a result ofpressure from Hazael, the king of Aram Damascus.36 A plethoraof archaeological data accumulated in Israel, such as Hazael’sinscriptions37 and possible destruction layers, mostly in northernIsrael,38 but also to the south in biblical Gath,39 suggests thatHazael’s kingdom was one of the most serious players in theSouthern Levant during the second half of the 9th century bc.40

I believe that Susan Frankenstein’s theory,41 that thePhoenician specialization in trade, accompanied by theirsettlements abroad, should not be seen entirely as free-tradeactivity, but rather in the context of their functioning ascommercial agents for the Neo-Assyrian Empire, is basicallycorrect. However, judging from the archaeological dataregarding the beginning of Phoenician expansion overseas, thisdelicate arrangement, which eventually transformed thePhoenicians into pan-Mediterranean traders, started in the daysof Hazael, with Phoenicians serving the trade ambitions of AramDamascus.42

Second, and even more important, the low Syro-Palestinianchronology provides, finally, an anchor for Aegean Proto-Geometric and Geometric chronologies.43

A minimalist approach to the beginning of Phoenician affairsin the Mediterranean44 leads, in conjunction with a lowchronology,45 to an emphasis on the principal role played by theEuboeans in the renewal of contact between East and West,46

culminating in the establishment of Al Mina sometime around800 bc.47 This, of course, occurred on behalf of local rulers.48 Thesame pattern will be observed almost 200 years later, with theestablishment of Naukratis in Egypt. In this regard, Boardman’snotion that we should consider a trading port at Al Mina as amodest precursor of Naukratis is rather attractive.49 The Greekpresence in the Eastern Mediterranean at this early periodseems always to be restricted and controlled by local

Page 209: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 201

Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age

authorities.50 Therefore, I strongly disagree with the idea thataccepting a prominent Euboean role in Early Iron Age journeysto the East makes one Helleno-centrist.51 The Euboeans wereconducting these journeys because they were interested in re-establishing lost contacts with the East.52 It would give to theruler of Lefkandi, for example, an enormous advantagecompared to other contemporary Greek rulers.53 For the Greekside it meant a great deal. For the East, it does not seem to meanmuch at all. But for the Greeks it meant the beginning of theOrientalizing movement, with a minor Phoenician contribution,but mainly, through the Syrians, as was already suggested longago and on many occasions by John Boardman. To this, oneshould add the adoption of the Greek alphabet, sometimearound the middle of the 8th century bc.54 All in all, althoughthe renewal of contact may be attested during the 10th/9thcenturies bc, it certainly intensified during the better part of the8th century bc at least until the beginning of the Neo-Assyriandomination over the Southern Levant.

Second period: the Neo-Assyrian domination

Greek contacts with the East were halted by Assyrian expansion;here we arrive at a second period, the period of Assyriandomination. The recent understanding of the processes thattook place in the Southern Levant near the end of the 8th andduring the main part of the 7th centuries bc showsunprecedented involvement of the Assyrian administration inlocal affairs. This involvement may be seen in a variety of fields,such as the annexation of many Levantine kingdomsaccompanied by the transformation of some of them intoAssyrian provinces; population exchanges; re-arrangement ofthe borders and intensive construction activity. The latter isparticularly visible in the coastal area, which is dotted withAssyrian emporia and fortresses.55 One of the most importantAssyrian goals was the supervision of Phoenician tradingactivity. In this regard, as I have already stated, SusanFrankenstein’s theory viewing the Phoenicians as commercialagents for the Neo-Assyrian Empire seems to be basicallycorrect.56 Concerning the Eastern Mediterranean, it is quite clearthat every aspect of Phoenician commerce was closely overseenand taxed by Assyrian officials. What we are witnessing here is adelicate balancing act. On the one hand, the Phoeniciansenjoyed the stability produced by the pax Assyriaca and theexclusive access to the network of trade-routes and trade-centresacross the Eastern Mediterranean. On the other hand, theircommerce was strictly regulated and taxed.57 The Phoeniciansinvolved in commercial and colonial activities in the WesternMediterranean, far from their Assyrian masters, doubtlessenjoyed a higher degree of flexibility than their counterparts inthe Eastern Mediterranean. From the point of view of thepresent colloquium, however, the most important conclusion isthat, with regard to the southern Levant, this new world-orderleft most of the mainland Greeks quite effectively out of thegame.

The single limited point of contact that was left was again AlMina, which became a port of trade toward the end of the 8thand during the 7th centuries bc. But after c. 700 bc, Euboeanimports to the Southern Levant almost disappear. Starting fromAl Mina’s Level 6, it is mainly East Greek pottery that shows upduring the period of Assyrian domination, not Euboean. Besidesit is not yet entirely clear who was responsible for carrying this

pottery to Al Mina. Did it arrive directly from Eastern Greece orwas the Cypriot connection involved? What appears to be quiteclear, however, is that mainland Greece seems to be withoutdirect connections with the East, starting from the period of theNeo-Assyrian domination. In fact, excluding Al Mina, while evenat this site there is a clear structural break between Levels 7 and6, Greek pottery (except for a few insignificant cases) is almostnon-existent in the Neo-Assyrian contexts.58 This contrasts witha much broader distribution prior to the Neo-Assyriandomination and, especially, immediately after its collapse.

Lanfranchi’s recent speculations regarding Greek contactwith the Neo-Assyrian Empire,59 which are based,archaeologically, almost exclusively on Haider’s earlier study,60

will find no echo in the archaeological realities of the SouthernLevant. Dependent as they are on mistaken representations andunderstandings of the archaeological data involved,61

Lanfranchi’s historical implications, according to whichAssyrians favoured Greeks over Phoenicians in commercial andsettlement activities in the southern Levant,62 can confidently berejected. Similar confusion regarding the Greek pottery in theSouthern Levant appears in Rollinger’s recent attempt to draw apicture of Greek contacts with the East during Neo-Assyrianperiod.63 Likewise, his suggestion that we consider theindividuals mentioned in the Near-Eastern texts as Iaman +suffixes other than aya as possible Greeks acting in the midst ofthe Neo-Assyrian Empire, seems to reside on rather shakyground.

Both archaeological and historical data suggest that duringthe Neo-Assyrian regime the Greeks occupied a marginal spacein the Mesopotamian understanding of the universe. Bearing inmind the Neo-Assyrian imperial ideology, with its pretensions ofruling a universal domain,64 such a role for Greeks isunderstandable. Located in the ‘midst of the sea’,65 where theNeo-Assyrian regime was not able to insert them physically intothe ‘correct relationship’ with the imperial new-world order,Greeks were reduced to the status of ‘disparate, remote peopleliving on the edge of the world’66 in the Neo-Assyrian mappamundi.

The Phoenicians apparently were chosen to serve ascommercial agents for the Neo-Assyrian empire not becausethey were natural-born traders,67 although their expertiseshould not be underestimated, but because the Neo-Assyrianregime was able to control their trade, which was not withoutbenefits for both sides. Given this state of affairs, I tend to agreewith Helm’s suggestion that, for the Greek side, ‘the imperialobligations imposed on permanent residents in Assyrianprovinces made life in the Levant unattractive’.68 Indeed, asHelm pointed out more than 25 years ago:

Even in the few nominally independent port cities such as Arvad,Tyre, Ashkelon and Gaza it is likely that Greek traders would haveencountered Assyrian administrators, commercial regulations andeconomic institutions. It was doubtless these contacts, and thecontacts with other representatives of Assyrian provincialgovernment, which gave visiting Greeks the not inaccurateimpression that the entire east Mediterranean coast comprised’Assuri&h.69

The unprecedented involvement of the Neo-Assyrianadministration in the local affairs of the Southern Levant (seeabove), attested both historically and archaeologically, iscertainly in accord with Helm’s suggestions. In this regard,Amélie Kuhrt’s rather sceptical look at the evidence for direct

Page 210: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

202 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Fantalkin

contact between Greece and the Mesopotamian empires isparticularly revealing.70 Although, as in the earlier periods, theGreeks definitely continued to meet Easterners, this time thesewere mostly Phoenician competitors. And these are indeed theHomeric Phoenicians.71

The nature of direct contact between the Greeks and theNear East during the second period in my provisional schemesuggests therefore the beginning of a ‘Great Divide’ rather thanBurkert’s Orientalizing revolution.72

It should be explicitly stated, however, that the concept of aGreat Divide does not imply an immediate break in contacts. It isbetter described as a gradual process, starting with Tiglath-pileser III’s annexation of the kingdom of Unqi/Patina in738/737 bc. If Zadok’s identification of Al Mina as A∆tâ inTiglath-pileser’s inscription on the Iran stele is correct,73 thismight indicate that right after the annexation of Unqi, anAssyrian emporium was installed at Al Mina,74 in order toregulate and incorporate the existing Greek enclave into thesphere of the Neo-Assyrian realm. Already at that time, a letterfrom Calah (Nimrud)(ND 2370), sent most probably to Tiglath-pileser III by Qurdi-Aššur-lamur, points to a possible Ionian raidon the Phoenician coast.75 To this one may add a reference to thetown of Yauna, mentioned in a Neo-Assyrian letter (ND 2737)published a few years ago by Saggs.76 The letter contains nofirmly dateable details. However, the themes discussed and thearenas of operation seem to be echoed in the letters of Qurdi-Aššur-lamur, who was probably the governor of S.imirra in thetime of Tiglath-pileser III.77 In this regard, Na’aman’s suggestionthat we identify the town of Yauna with Ras el-Bassit,78 would, ifaccepted, point to a possible Greek presence at this site at thattime. Hereafter, however, the handful of Neo-Assyrian sourcesthat mention Ionians, mostly in hostile contexts,79 whencombined with an almost total lack of Greek pottery in the Neo-Assyrian assemblages (see above), leave little doubt about anintensification of the Great Divide.

Third period: stressing the significance of the late 7th-century BC

contact, during a brief period of Egyptian domination

The next period, although chronologically brief, is the mostimportant for the purposes of the present colloquium. I refer tosome 20–25 years of Egyptian rule in the Southern Levant,following the Assyrian withdrawal. When the Assyrians pulledout from the Levant sometime in the twenties of the 7th centurybc,80 the Egyptians took over their territories and ruled until theBabylonian invasion. This period, the third in my provisionalschema of the Greek presence in the Levant, lasted until theBabylonian destructions at the end of the 7th and in the early6th centuries bc.

The sudden and massive appearance of East Greek potteryon the coastal plain of Israel toward the end of the 7th centurybc81 and its subsequent disappearance after only a few years fitthe time-span during which the area fell under Egyptian rule.82

Following Nadav Na’aman’s insightful observations, I haveelsewhere discussed at length the East Greek potteryassemblages found in places such as Ashkelon, and thefortresses of Mez.ad H. ashavyahu and Kabri, arguing that theserepresent Greek mercenaries in the employ of the Egyptians.83 Inthis reconstruction, the placement of these garrisons along thecoast together with the employment of Kittim along thesouthern fringe of the kingdom of Judah, conformed to two

Egyptian goals: first, to protect the coastal plain – the main routeto the North; and second, to protect the Arabian trade networks,which the Egyptians inherited from the Assyrians.84 The modestfinds of East Greek pottery in the vicinity of major militarybases85 probably reflect Greek mercenary activities in these areasrather than pottery trade.

Many scholars, however, have claimed that the abundanceof East Greek pottery should be taken as evidence of East Greektrade.86 In these reconstructions even the coarse East Greekcooking pots are considered a tradable commodity to the East.87

In my view, most of these reconstructions are untenable. Theattested distribution and the nature of East Greek finds in theregion of Palestine are insufficient to prove either the existenceof a developed pottery trade88 or the existence of a directionalexchange of other goods that may be less visible in thearchaeological record.89

An additional point that argues in favour of East Greekmercenary garrisons rather than trading emporia is therestriction of East Greek trade to Naukratis in Egypt.90 It must beremembered that the establishment of Naukratis toward the endof the 7th century bc overlaps with the appearance of East Greekpottery on the Israeli coast. There is hardly any doubt that theentire coastal plain up to Phoenicia should be consideredEgyptian domain.91 In these circumstances it is reasonable toassume that Egyptians would not have allowed the uncontrolledestablishment of East Greek emporia on the Southern Levantinecoast, just as they did not allow it in Egypt itself. While Phoeniciaproper and the areas to the north might have enjoyed East Greektrade during the Egyptian interlude,92 the evidence collected sofar from the southern part of the Eastern Mediterranean pointsmainly to East Greek mercenary activity.93

The sudden appearance of Greek mercenaries in the Eastand their employment by the different Near Eastern Powerscontinues to be a subject of debate.94 In my opinion, bothhistorical and archaeological evidence suggests that thepresence of Greek mercenaries in the region should beexplained as an organized movement orchestrated by a centralEgyptian authority. These Greeks were not individualmercenary adventurers but were formally garrisoned.95 I cannotaccept the ideas expressed by several scholars that East Greekassemblages point to individual adventurers or small groups ofGreek mercenaries96 pursuing Homeric honour and glory.97 Idealt with this issue in detail a few years ago,98 and I intend toexpand the discussion elsewhere. Likewise, today I am evenmore convinced that attempts to attribute the employment ofGreek mercenaries to Egyptian vassals, be it the kingdom ofJudah or the kingdom of Tyre, should be abandoned.

Most recently, however, Wenning99 defended his date for theestablishment of Mez.ad H. ashavyahu between 600 and 598 bc,under the reign of King Jehoiakim.100 This is in contrast toNa’aman’s suggestion that the fortress of Mez.ad H. ashavyahuwas abandoned in 604 bc, the year in which Nebuchadnezzar IIlaunched a campaign to the Philistine Coast and destroyedAshkelon.101 In my opinion, however, Na’aman’s scenarioremains the most plausible option. Moreover, I hope I was ableto demonstrate that since the abandonment pattern attested atMez.ad H. ashavyahu points to a ‘planned abandonment withoutanticipated return’,102 it fits nicely with the assumption that thisEgyptian fortress was intentionally abandoned in face of theapproaching Babylonian army.103

Page 211: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 203

Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age

The historical improbability of Wenning’s scenario, on theother hand, which attributes the employment of Greekmercenaries to Jehoiakim, who was an Egyptian vassal, hasalready been demonstrated104 and there is no need to revisit ithere. Likewise, from a strictly archaeological point of view,Wenning’s entire case rests on the presence of a single potterysherd he attributes to the North Ionian Late Wild Goat style.Even if we assume that the sherd has been identified correctly,Wenning’s belief that it cannot be earlier than 600 bc isuntenable. The East Greek pottery chronology for this period,with its approximate dates, rests on synchronisms withPalestinian destruction levels and on synchronisms withCorinthian and Attic pottery.105 It is simply impossible to assumesuch precision (+/– 4 years, which is the difference betweenWenning and myself!) in dating this North Ionian East Greeksherd. In terms of absolute chronology, both the East Greekpottery and the local pottery from Mez.ad H. ashavyahu may beplaced either in the late 7th or in the early 6th centuries bc.106

Therefore one must consider the broader historical situation. In support of his thesis, Wenning cites Niemeier’s response

to my treatment of the finds from Mez.ad H.ashavyahu.Niemeier’s critique, however, is confused. First he concurs withWenning that ‘Mez.ad H. ashavyahu was erected by KingJehoiakim during the brief period of possible Judahiteautonomy after 600 bc and was abandoned whenNebuchadnezzar II attacked Judah in 598/97 bc’.107 On the nextpage, however, he contradicts himself, claiming that the potteryassemblage at Mez.ad H. ashavyahu may be interpreted ‘asevidence that Greek mercenaries were in the service of Egypt atthe site, since the Egyptian army was the only army in whichlarge units of Greeks served’.108

The main issue in Niemeier’s reply, however, is to reject mysuggestion to attribute the presence of the Greek garrison at TelKabri to the Egyptian administration, since, according toNiemeier, these Greek mercenaries were in the pay of Tyre.Niemeier’s conclusions are based on two assumptions: first, thatafter Assyrian withdrawal Tel Kabri belonged to Tyre; andsecond that the small proportion of Greek pottery found at thesite points to individual soldiers of fortune pursuing Homericvalues. Even if the first assumption is true, it would simply implythat the kingdom of Tyre, like the kingdom of Judah, wasrequired to provide supplies to Egypt’s East Greek mercenaries.Likewise, Niemeier’s second assumption is hardly defensible.The proportions may be misleading, since only a small portionof the Late Iron Age fortress at Tell Kabri was excavated.109

Besides, it is not necessary to deduce that a small proportion ofGreek pottery should represent individual adventurers on behalfof Tyre rather than a small contingent stationed by theEgyptians.

All in all, it appears from the archaeological record thatdependent local powers were obliged to provide supplies toGreek mercenary units, and to cooperate with these Egyptianrepresentatives in every possible way.110 The rationale behind theestablishing of the fortresses at Mez.ad H. ashavyahu and TellKabri is logistical. These and, most probably additional hithertoundetected fortresses, served as focal points for collectingsupplies for Egyptian troops on their way to the Lebanese coastand northern Syria and, no less important, on their way back toEgypt.111 More important, places like Mez.ad H. ashavyahu, whereEast Greek mercenaries co-existed with Judahites, definitely

offered points of direct contact, and provided channels ofcultural exchange through which certain Greek ideas penetratedinto Judahite texts and vice versa.112 But the employment of EastGreek mercenaries was an Egyptian prerogative, not Judahite orTyrian. And this is where we find the Lydian connection.

The crucial role played by the Lydians with regard to thethousands of Ionian and Carian mercenaries hired byPsammetichos I emerges from the Rassam Cylinder, in whichGyges, King of Lydia, is accused by Ashurbanipal of having senthis army to the aid of Psammetichos I.113 It appears that the firstMermnad ruler might have imprudently challenged theAssyrians during the reign of one of the most powerful Assyriankings. In my view, Lydian imperial policy triggered a suddenexplosion of East Greek activity in different directions.

Space constraints prevent me from addressing this issue atproper length but I intend to do so elsewhere. I think, however,that there are good reasons to suspect that, contrary to scholarlyconsensus, which connects the dispersion of Ionians abroadwith an aggressive Lydian and later Persian policy toward theIonian cities,114 it is cooperation rather than confrontation thatwe are witnessing here. In the East, via Egyptian connections,Lydian imperial ambitions opened the way to Greek mercenarypenetration, followed by the establishment of Naukratis. In theNorth, it opened the way to the Ionian colonization of the BlackSea, which, I believe, is better explained in the context of risingLydian imperialism. The role that East Greeks played on behalfof Lydian domination is much the same as that played by thePhoenicians on behalf of the Assyrians.

The negative view suggested by Herodotus’ remarksregarding Ionian enslavement, first by the Lydians and later bythe Persians (Hdt.1.6; 1.169), is somewhat misleading, since,archaeologically, these are the most prosperous periods in EastGreece, at least until the Ionian revolt. This is quite contrary tothe situation observed during the period of Atheniandomination.115 Besides, there is little doubt that Herodotus’biased account on this issue, addressed mainly to a mid-/late5th-century-bc Athenian audience,116 reflects the realities andperceptions of the time of his writing, rather than genuine statesof affairs in earlier periods.

Summarizing the third period in my provisional schema, Iwish to emphasize that from the second half of the 7th centurybc, East Greece, via Lydian mediation, rediscovered Egypt andthen, during a brief period of Egyptian expansion toward theend of that century, the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean. But itis East Greece that was involved in both mercenary and tradeactivity in the Eastern Mediterranean. For mainland Greece theGreat Divide was still there. Even in the later period, during thereign of Amasis, when we hear of an Aiginetan presence inNaukratis, the Aiginetans, being the sole representatives of abroadly taken mainland Greece, ‘did set up separately a temenosof Zeus on their own initiative’.117

What can we learn from the fact that the Aiginetans wereexcluded from the Hellenion, which was established by Ionians,Dorians and Aeolians in a very unusual act of early Greekness? Is it possible that the common denominator behind the mixtureof the poleis that participated in the establishment of theHellenion has more to do with the fact that all of them werelocated in East Greece? Whereas for the Samians and Milesians,who also kept their temene separately, a good case can be madethat their presence in Naukratis goes back to the late 7th century

Page 212: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

204 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Fantalkin

bc, it would be hard to postulate the same for the Aiginetans.Perhaps what we are witnessing here is not an all-embracingpan-Hellenism118 but rather the crystallization of an East Greekidentity, dictated by geography?

Fourth period: the Neo-Babylonian Empire

The Neo-Babylonian period is characterized by a total lack ofGreek material in the southern part of the EasternMediterranean.119 During the major part of the 6th century bc,the period of greatest prosperity at Naukratis, this part of theLevant, except for a few inland areas, is in ruins, chiefly servingas a buffer zone with Egypt.120 In the northern part of theEastern Mediterranean, there is a settlement gap at the site of AlMina. However, a good quantity of 6th century East Greekpottery found at Tell Sukas suggests that it may have served as apoint of contact. This notion, however, should be accepted onlywith hesitation, since it is possible that the majority of EastGreek material can be dated to the last two decades of the 7thcentury bc/very early 6th century bc, implying that the mainphase of the Greek presence at Tell Sukas may have startedduring the period of Egyptian political domination, slihgtlyoverlapping with the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian rule.After a certain gap in the settlement’s history during the betterpart of the Neo-Babylonian period, the next phase of the Greekpresence at Tell Sukas may be pushed into the last third of the6th century bc,121 implying that it should be viewed mainly as theresult of Persian rule and not necessarily Neo-Babylonian. Thisissue, however, deserves additional study.122

Fifth period: the beginning of Persian domination

The fifth and final period in my short overview begins with theend of Babylonian and the beginning of Persian rule during thelast third of the 6th century bc. A significant difference (thatfinds expression in the pottery repertoire) must be notedbetween East Greek assemblages from the end of the 7th centurybc and the renewal of East Greek imports observed toward theend of the 6th and during the 5th centuries bc, which may pointto commercial activity. This time, unlike in the earlier period,there is an abundance of amphorae made in Chios and Samos(but other localities are also represented) as well as bandedbowls. The distribution is considerably wider than during thethird period.123 During the 5th century bc, East Greek pottery isgradually replaced by Attic imports. Properly appreciating thenuances of the Persian period, however, would require aseparate study well beyond the scope of the present endeavour.

Greeks and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age:

some final observations

Nowadays, no scholar would even imagine reconstructing thehistory of Greece without considering oriental influences. And,to my mind, the only way to understand the genesis of Greekcivilization is by putting it into a broad geo-political context: it isthe western periphery of the East. However, I also think thatmaking everything that has emerged on Greek soil ‘a gift fromthe East’ simply misses the point. If, as many modern scholarswant us to believe, the impact of Eastern civilizations andinfluences was so total and tremendous, how and why did theancient Greeks manage to produce the idea of the polis, acommunity of equal, local-born men, which stands in totalopposition to everything which the East symbolizes?124

Obviously, something has gone wrong. In my view, it is striking to realize that after the lively traffic

and renewal of contact during the late 10th, the 9th and,especially, the better part of the 8th centuries bc,125 mainlandGreece, on the whole, seems to be without direct connectionswith the Eastern Mediterranean from the end of the 8th–early7th centuries bc until perhaps the Persian period. TheOrientalizing period in Greek history turns out to be the periodof the Greeks’ exclusion from the Near Eastern milieu, the mainsource of cultural borrowing in the preceding centuries.

But what does it mean? Does it imply viewing one of themost important developments in Greek history, the late 8thcentury bc ‘structural revolution’,126 as essentially untouched byexternal influences? I think it requires quite the opposite. Just asthe quest for the origins of European identity in the Minoan andMycenaean civilizations appears to be the fruit of Eurocentricimagination,127 the lengthy disengagement between mainlandGreece and the Near East, triggered by the Neo-Assyrianexpansion, need not imply that the rise of Greek polis cultureoccurred in total isolation from Near Eastern influences. In anycase, we are better off de-familiarizing ourselves with the pastthat we study,128 throwing away an endless search for theimaginary, pristine origins of the different civilizationsconnecting remote antiquity to the present.129 Concerning the‘East–West’ question, we are best off treating the history of bothsides as one.130

Although in many cases it is hard to pinpoint all possiblechannels of transmission, it is clear that even after what I havecalled the Great Divide, Eastern influences continued topenetrate into Greece through numerous channels: through theinteraction with the Phoenicians (gradually changing fromfriendly to hostile),131 through Ionian craftsmen,132 etc. But thegeneral path of development witnessed in many parts of theGreece from the end of the 8th century bc and later yieldedsomething quite different from that found among the NearEastern cultures,133 including the Phoenicians.134 As a matter offact, the difference is tremendous.135 Ian Morris captures itbrilliantly, comparing the main messages behind Hesiod andprophetic literature: ‘whereas Hesiod’s instructions call for thebasilees to share power with the geitones, the prophets want thekings of Judah and Israel to reform the priesthood’.136

In the same vein, Susan and Andrew Sherratt have observedthat by the 7th century bc ‘many forms of east Mediterraneangoods seem to have been bypassing the Aegean, althoughturning up in some numbers further west; and it seems likelythat some degree of ‘import restriction and substitution’ (alongwith other forms of cultural resistance) was taking place. At thesame time, by the later part of the 8th century, evidence of agrowing panhellenic consciousness in Greece itself, definedspecifically in relation to a Phoenician ‘other’, combined withthe rush to found overtly political colonies in the west, marks theinitial conception of the two distinct ideological, cultural andpolitico-economic spheres which were to dominate Greekrelations with the east for millennia to come.’137

Although it might be tempting to resurrect an unpopularnotion of binarism, the simplistic concept of ‘West against theEast’ offers little more than a dead end. Likewise, at least in ourcase, postcolonialism, and its constant obsession with hybridity,creolization and resistance, does not necessarily provide a betterperspective. It might be more helpful in the case of the Western

Page 213: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 205

Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age

Mediterranean, although even there it too often serves modernpolitical agendas rather than unbiased historical interpretations.

Our case is Janus-faced: on the one hand, at least until thebeginning of the Persian Empire, the great powers of the NearEast show little interest in Greek affairs; on the other hand, evenin the periods of Greek exclusion from the Near Eastern milieu,the challenges posed by the older civilizations, and a variety ofGreek responses to these challenges, continue to be among thecentral factors in shaping Greek identities. In many ways theseinfluences were turned inward, negotiated among the Greeksthemselves as they attempted to make sense of the East. In thisregard, the concept of ‘negotiated peripherality’, developed byNick Kardulias138 and adopted by Ian Morris for Iron AgeGreece,139 is especially helpful. Morris argues for a nuanced andchronologically sensitive approach that takes into considerationa plethora of Greek responses to Near Eastern challenges. In hisreconstruction the ‘totality of context’ is prominent, sincechronologically different geo-political configurations yieldeddistinct Greek responses.140 Morris also convincingly shows thatthese responses, triggered by the renewal of contact with theEast, varied significantly among different Greek communities:some struggled to preserve the model of isolation, while othersembraced the East. The basic premises of Morris’ approach arereasonable. Nevertheless, in view of the low chronology inIsrael, they need to be modified in a way that emphasisesEuboean agency in the initial establishment of contact, ratherthan Phoenician (see above). And Morris also fails to recognize,like so many others, the significance for Greeks of the GreatDivide.

The Mediterranean was indeed, as Morris suggests, ‘asmaller place in 700 than it had been in 800’.141 However, despitethe assumed ‘collapse of distance’ (due to the technical advancesin shipbuilding), the Great Divide resulted in the gradualexclusion of mainland Greece from the Near Eastern koine andpaved the way for a re-negotiation of Greek peripherality.

I cannot discuss here all the possible consequences of thegeo-political disengagement between mainland Greece and theNear East after the Neo-Assyrian expansion. As a tellingexample, however, one may consider the widespreadappearance of domestic ‘Hero and tomb cults’ in late 8th centurybc mainland Greece. Indeed, even if the initial occurrences of‘tomb cults’ may be projected into the Proto-geometric period,142

it doubtless remains a salient feature of the Late Geometricperiod.143 One is tempted to ask therefore, what are the reasonsfor such a sudden obsession with ancestors and local heroes?How does it happen that only toward the end of the 8th centurybc, Greeks everywhere begin to rediscover and admire theirlocal past, attaching themselves to mythical ancestors andheroes? Many of the wide variety of explanations alreadyoffered have merit,144 but the concept of a Great Divide, assuggested here, may provide an additional, explanatorybackground for the sudden emergence of an active quest forlocal roots. Once again, it is a diversity of inwardly focusedGreek responses – this time to the exclusion from the NearEastern koine – that we are witnessing. It is worth mentioningthat unlike what will emerge as a poleis zone, with its Easterninfluences and abundant orientalia, the ethne, which were nevertruly involved in dialogue with the East, showed no interest inhero and tomb cults in the periods discussed.145

In my opinion, it is plausible to suggest that establishing ties

with a remote heroic past rather than with the East should beviewed as one of the main outcomes of the Great Divide.Furthermore, it is not at all improbable that the rise of whatMorris calls the ‘middling ideology’ in Archaic Greece,146

culminating eventually in Athenian democracy, should be seenand explained against the background of this Great Divide.147 Toa certain extent, this might be a real ‘Near Eastern gift’contributing in the most important way to the rise of the Greekpolis and its institutions. If things had turned out differently and,as in previous periods, the elites of mainland Greece hadmaintained their links with the East, the ‘middling ideology’would not necessarily have won. However, given that theAssyrians seem not to have had any interest in establishingdirect control over remote Greece, a Great Divide was verynearly inevitable.148

I want to conclude by pointing out that from the end of the8th century bc until the Persian period the ‘mainland Greeks’are barely if at all attested in the Near East. East Greece, themain mediator between East and West, is another story. But tomy mind, at least during the Archaic period, it should beconsidered more a part of the East than a part of the West. EastGreeks fully experienced this dual status. Physically they lived inthe East, and were part of the Eastern milieu. But, in partbecause of proximity they had constant contact with theirmother country and this and only this prevented East Greeksfrom losing their ethnic and cultural identity altogether. Thiswas otherwise a very real possibility: we need only recall thecomplete assimilation of the Philistines, who, in a much earlierperiod, penetrated too deeply into the Levant.

Notes1 I am grateful to Udo Schlotzhauer and Alexandra Villing for their

kind invitation to attend the 28th British Museum ClassicalColloquium ‘The Naukratis Phenomenon: Greek Diversity in Egypt’.Likewise, I wish to express my gratitude to numerous scholars whohave offered valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper,including John Boardman, Margalit Finkelberg, Israel Finkelstein,Baruch Halpern, Peter James, Amélie Kuhrt, Irad Malkin, JamesMuhly, Benjamin Sass, Oren Tal, Alexandra Villing, Ran Zadok andespecially Ephraim Lytle. Obviously, the responsibility for the viewsexpressed henceforth rests with me alone.

2 In Lipton’s (2004) famous treatment of the ‘Inference to the BestExplanation’, this kind of explanation may be considered as the‘likeliest’ and the ‘loveliest’.

3 Trigger 1998.4 Joffee 2003, 82.5 Morris 2003, 42.6 See, e.g., Bernal 1987, 1991, 2001; S. Morris 1992; Burkert 1992, 2004;

Faraone 1992; West 1999.7 Horden and Purcell 2000; see also Purcell 2003; Horden 2005;

Horden and Purcell 2005.8 Horden and Purcell 2000, 5.9 Cf. Algazi 2005, 230.10 Blake 2004, 240.11 Morris 2003; Morris and Manning 2005, 20-1.12 Shaw 2001, 453.13 See, e.g., Shaw 2001; Morris 2003; Malkin 2003a, 2004; and see

papers in Blake and Knapp 2005.14 Bakhtin 1981, 275-85; 1986, 75, 105.15 Morson and Emerson 1990, 125-7; Joyce 2002, 29-34.16 Horden and Purcell 2000, 347-8.17 Kocka 2003.18 Cf. Kolb 2004, 579-86.19 Liverani 2005a, 48.20 Moreland 2000, 2, emphasis in original.21 Cf. Boggs 2004.22 A number of studies offer useful summaries regarding the earliest

Iron Age finds of Greek pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: e.g.,

Page 214: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

206 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Fantalkin

Boardman 1990a, 1999a; Waldbaum 1994; Haider 1996; Sørensen1997; Crielaard 1999; Coldstream 1998a, 2000; Luke 2003. For themost recent finds from Tel Rehov, see Coldstream and Mazar 2003;Mazar 2004.

23 For the demolition of a long-standing scholarly consensus that thedispersion of Cypriot Black-on-Red pottery in the Aegean should beconnected with a Phoenician monopoly of commercial networks, seeSchreiber 2003, passim, esp. 312.

24 See Helm 1980, 95; Graham 1986; S. Morris 1992, 127, 141; Perreault1993; Papadopoulos 1997; Sherratt and Sherratt 1998, 335; Markoe2000, 174; Sherratt 2003, 229-30; and contra Boardman 2002a,2002b; Lemos 2001, 2003; Luke 2003.

25 See Negbi 1992; Aubet 2000; Niemeyer 2000, 2004.26 For ‘Report of Wenamun’ as a piece of literature rather than

historical account, see Helck 1986; Baines 1999; Schipper 2005; forthe date of composition, see Sass 2002, with further references.

27 For the numerous supporters of Phoenician domination in theMediterranean already at the beginning of the Iron Age it mayperhaps come as some surprise to discover that the biblical testimonyregarding the cooperation between Kings Solomon and Hiram I doesnot reflect the realities of the 10th century bc, a fact that has beenrecognized for some time. The literature on the subject is enormous;see e.g. Knauf 1991; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, 2006, withfurther references.

28 Needless to say that the same holds true regarding the Classicalliterary tradition, which suggests that the foundation of Cadiz, Uticaand Lixus took place at the turn of the 12th/11th centuries bc.

29 After Finkelstein 1995a, 1996, 1999. Whether or not to acceptFinkelstein’s low chronology is still a subject of ongoing discussion,mainly among Syro-Palestinian archaeologists. The literature isextensive and I do not intend to summarize the history of thequestion here. But judging from the most recent publications, the so-called conventional Palestinian chronology, with a huge UnitedMonarchy of Kings David and Solomon as well as early Phoenicianexpansion in the days of Hiram I is, at least to my mind, doomed.

30 Fantalkin (forthcoming a). That is not to deny the existence of somemeagre pre-colonial contacts with places like Cyprus, and see Gilboa2005.

31 Bikai 1983.32 Iacovou 2005. In any event, in terms of absolute chronology, the

beginning of Bikai’s Kouklia horizon (1987, 68-9) should certainly bedown-dated (Gilboa and Sharon 2001, 2003).

33 Guzzo Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977, 7; Yon 1997.34 Docter et al. 2005; Nijboer 2005, with further references.35 Aubet 2001, 372-81; Torres Ortiz 1998, 2005. The recent suggestion by

Nijboer and Van der Plicht (2006), that the beginning of Phoeniciansettlement activity abroad may be pinpointed to the first half of the9th century bc, if not before, is barely defensible, as it is based on afew 14C dates obtained from a secondary mixed deposit at Huelva(south-west Spain).

36 For detailed accounts of Hazael’s realm, see Na’aman 1995a; Dion1997, 191-204; Yamada 2000, 310-20; Hafthorsson 2006.

37 See Biran and Naveh 1993, 1995; Na’aman 2000; Irvine 2005. 38 See Na’aman 2000; Coldstream and Mazar 2003; Finkelstein 2004.39 Maeir 2004.40 Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006, 30-2.41 Frankenstein 1979.42 Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006, 31.43 Fantalkin 2001a; Coldstream 2003. The most recent suggestion that

the Proto-Geometric period should start c. 1100 bc, if not earlier(Newton et al. 2005a, 2005b), is impossible to sustain. Such a drasticupward chronological revision for the Proto-Geometric period,based on the data from Assiros, is unacceptable as it stands againstall other data collected in the southern Levant. Besides, the Proto-Geometric amphora in question is not necessarily correctly identifiedand may belong typologically to Submycenaean or even LateHelladic IIIC (cf. Muhly 2003, 28). Likewise, the old wood affect maybe responsible for the high dendrochronological dates from Assiros(Finkelstein and Piasetzky [forthcoming]).

44 Following Muhly’s original suggestion from 1985 (unlike Muhly1999).

45 See Gilboa and Sharon 2001, 2003; Boaretto et al. 2005; Finkelsteinand Piasetzky 2003a, 2003b, (forthcoming); Sass 2005.

46 Cf. Coldstream 1998a. Although I tend to agree with Boardman(1999c, 42) that ‘the question of “who was first?”… seems quitemeaningless, indeed almost childish’, it has never disappeared from

view and remains the subject of continuous controversy.47 As anything connected to this site (cf. Boardman 1999b, 2002a,

2002b), the foundation date of Al Mina is a matter of controversy. Inmy view, the earliest possible dates suggested by Kearsley (1995) andDescœudres (2002, 50-1) are certainly too low and should be rejected(Fantalkin 2001a, 121; [forthcoming a]).

48 In the case of Al Mina, this should be the kingdom of Unqi/Patina, atleast until its incorporation into the Neo-Assyrian system in 738 bc(Harrison 2001; Luke 2003, 21, 36).

49 Boardman 2002a, 328.50 Möller 2000a, 203-8; Fantalkin 2001b, 137-46. A few authors have

expressed the view that Strabo’s account (17.1.18) of the Milesianarrival at Naukratis, accompanied by the foundation of the Milesianfort, should be taken literally (Braun 1982, 37-8; Kaplan 2002, 238,n.27; Petropoulos 2003, 50). This view , however, is hardlydefensible.

51 As may be deduced, inter alia, from Papadopoulos 1997; Morris andPapadopoulos 1998; Markoe 2000, 174; Sherrat 2003, 229-30;Niemeyer 2004.

52 Luke 2003, 59, with further references.53 For a useful model, although from a later period, see Spencer 2000;

he argues that the polis of Archaic Mytilene differed considerablyfrom its counterparts on the isle of Lesbos, due to Mytilene’sdeliberate ‘investment’ in international activities rather than in moretraditional avenues for the expression of power (such as large-scaleconstructions). In the case of Lefkandi, however, an unquestionabledesire for interactions abroad was accompanied by unprecedented(for Greece) large-scale construction.

54 Sass 2005, 133-54. Nowadays, however, especially in light of therecent upward revision of the Gordion dates (De Vries et al. 2003,2005; Voigt 2005; but see contra Muscarella 2003; Keenan 2004; andSass 2005, 147, n. 239, who questions Muscarella’s conclusions), eventhe adoption of the Greek alphabet directly from the Phoenicians isnot necessarily obvious. There are good reasons to suspect that theGreeks might have adopted the alphabet via Phrygian agency (Sass2005, 146-52, with extensive bibliography).

55 See Na’aman 1995b, 2001; Gitin 1997; Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz2001, all with further references.

56 Frankenstein 1979.57 Cf. Na’aman 1994; Kuhrt 2002a, 22-3; Edelman 2006, 219-23.58 Jane Waldbaum (1994, 59) summarizes the issue as follows: ‘A

curious gap in the roster of early Greek pottery in Palestine is thecomplete lack of Protocorinthian pottery of the late 8th throughmost of the 7th centuries, a lack that is nearly matched in Cyprus andTel Sukas, but not in Al Mina. Since Protocorinthian is the Greektrade ware for most of the 7th century bc, it is odd that so littleinterest was shown in it – and its contents of perfumed oil – in muchof the Levant.’

59 Lanfranchi 2000.60 Haider 1996. 61 Thus, for instance, one discovers, amazingly, that in the 8th century

bc at Tell Sukas Greek pottery ‘progressively overwhelms and finallyreplaces other foreign (especially Phoenician) items; in the 7thcentury its numbers increase to the point that a Greek settlementmay be almost safely envisaged’ (Lanfranchi 2000, 10). And so it goeson (ibid., 9-11). Judging from the excavation reports of Tell Sukas,however, one learns that only some 15 possible Greek sherds wereunearthed in the contexts of the late 8th century bc and only a few ofthem may be dated to the early 7th century bc (although to my mindthe latter statement remains uncertain). On the other hand, duringthe main part of the 7th century bc, i.e. the period of Assyriandomination, the Greek imports from Tell Sukas are virtually absent(Ploug 1973, 92-3). The amount of Greek pottery at Tell Sukasincrease impressively only toward the end of the 7th/early 6thcenturies bc, but this development has nothing to do with the Neo-Assyrian policies, since it occurred after the collapse of the Neo-Assyrian regime.

62 Thus, according to Lanfranchi 2000, 32: ‘… Assyria opposed theGreeks only on very limited occasions, and was ready to enhance andencourage their trade, presence and settling after its domination haddefinitely consolidated. But more, this happened, as attested byarchaeological data, at the expense of other concurrent traders, likeCypriotes or Phoenicians: and this should show, instead, thatAssyrians favoured Greeks over others in commercial and settlingactivities.’ (emphasis added – A.F.)

63 Rollinger 2001, 249-50, passim.

Page 215: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 207

Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age

64 Liverani 2005b, 232.65 For detailed treatment of the Neo-Assyrian written sources,

mentioning, inter alia, the location of Ionia in the ‘midst of the sea’,see Brinkman 1989; Kuhrt 2002a; Rollinger 2001.

66 Kuhrt 2002b, 27.67 As may be deduced from Coldstream 1998b, 257.68 Helm 1980, 113.69 Helm 1980, 112-13.70 Kuhrt 2002a.71 Cf. Muhly 1970, 1985; Winter 1995; Sherratt 2005, 35-6. 72 Burkert 1992, 2004, 1-15.73 Zadok 1996; accepted by Parpola and Porter 2001, 5 and Na’aman

2004. 74 Na’aman 2001, 261. For the text, describing the city of A∆tâ as an

‘emporium (b1t kari) on the seashore, a royal store-house’, seeTadmor 1994, 104-5, line 13.

75 Parker 2000; Kuhrt 2002a, 18; Na’aman 2004, 70, all with furtherreferences.

76 Saggs 2001, 166-7, pl. 33.77 I owe this observation to Nadav Na’aman.78 Na’aman 2004; corroborated, perhaps, by a minor presence of Greek

pottery there, although slight compared to Al Mina. 79 Brinkman 1989; Kuhrt 2002a; Rollinger 2001. 80 Na’aman 1991a, 33-41; 1991b; Fantalkin 2001b, 134-5; 2004, 254-5. Or,

perhaps, slightly earlier, and see Vanderhooft 1999, 64-8, withfurther references.

81 The reliability of the Archaic Greek chronology has been questionedon several occasions (e.g., Francis and Vickers 1985; Bowden 1991).Recent and thorough contributions by James (2003; 2005) suggestlowering the Archaic Greek chronology of late 7th to early 6thcentury bc by roughly three to four decades. However, as for theearlier periods, the evidence supplied by the Levantine side appearsto be crucial. In fact, the destruction of Ashkelon by NebuchadnezzarII in the month of Kislev 604 bc, as reported in the BabylonianChronicle (Wiseman 1961, 68-9, 85; Stager 1996, 61*, n. 1) and theEast Greek pottery assemblage exposed in Ashkelon’s destructionlayer (Waldbaum and Magness 1997; Waldbaum 2002a), leaves noroom for any significant lowering of the Archaic Greek chronology.

82 The appearance of East Greek pottery in Levantine assemblagestoward the end of the 7th century bc has been summarized in anumber of detailed studies: see e.g. Waldbaum 1994, 1997, 2002a;Waldbaum and Magness 1997; Fantalkin 2001b; Niemeier 2001;Niemeier and Niemeier 2002; Wenning 2001, 2004.

83 Na’aman 1991a; Fantalkin 2001b, with further references. Likewise,references to units of Kittim in the Arad documents provideadditional evidence for the activity of these mercenaries in theservice of Egypt (Na’aman 1991a, 47-8; for Kittim in the later sources,see Eshel 2001). The Qrsy, mentioned in Inscription 18 from Arad,may relate to Carian mercenaries (cf. Zadok 2005, 80). It is possiblethat these units were also active during a brief period when Egyptreturned to the region (601/600–599/598 bc) as a result ofNebuchadnezzar’s unsuccessful campaign against Egypt in 601/600bc.

84 Na’aman 1991a; Finkelstein 1995b, 148, 152-3; Fantalkin 2001b.85 See e.g., Magness 2001; Fischer 2005a, 181, fig. 10; Fantalkin

(forthcoming b). 86 See e.g., Weinberg 1969, 90; Kelm and Mazar 1989; Waldbaum 1994,

60-1; Master 2003; Faust and Weiss 2005, 75.87 Master 2001, 167-8, 171; Waldbaum 2002b.88 In too many cases, scholars automatically assume that the presence

of imported pottery is evidence of pottery trade. But any validexplanation that deals with distribution of the imported potterymust take into consideration a wide spectrum of circumstances thatmay distinguish various regions during different periods (cf.Snodgrass 1980, 126-8; Gill 1994).

89 Fantalkin 2001b, 137-41.90 Hdt. 2.179; and see Möller 2000a, 204-8.91 Already in 616 bc, Psammetichos I and his army came to the aid of

Assyrian king Sin-shar-ishkun and fought alongside the Assyrians inthe far north, in the vicinity of Qablinu/Gablini (Wiseman 1961, 11-13, 44, 54-5; Spalinger 1978, 49-50; Zadok 1985, 135). In 612 bc,Psammetichos I’s rule certainly extended at least as far as theLebanese coast, as attested by various written sources in which thetribute brought by the kings of Phoenicia to Egypt is mentioned(Spalinger 1977, 228-9; 1978, 55, n. 27; Na’aman 1991a, 51-2).

92 In this regard, Ionian involvement in a slave and metal trade with

Tyre, as reported in Ezekiel 27:13, deserves to be mentioned.93 Saying all this, however, I do not wish to reject completely the

possibility of certain East Greek trade with the coast of Palestine,especially with places like Ashkelon. On the other hand, we shouldconsider the possibility that whatever East Greek trade existed, ifany, would have been directed mainly toward the East Greekmercenaries who were stationed in the region. In this case, thoseEast Greek mercenaries were able to receive some familiar goods(including pottery), otherwise inaccessible in the local environment.

94 Bettalli 1995; de la Genière 1999; Kearsley 1999; Trundle 1999, 2004;Niemeier 2001; Wenning 2001; Fantalkin 2001b; Kaplan 2002, 2003;Raaflaub 2004a.

95 Fantalkin 2001b, 141-6.96 Helm 1980, 137.97 Bettalli 1995; Niemeier 2001, 2002. 98 Fantalkin 2001b, 141-6.99 Wenning 2004, 31-2, n. 13.100 Wenning 1989.101 Na’aman 1991a, 47. 102 Cf. Stevenson 1982, 255-61. 103 Fantalkin 2001b, 10-49, 144.104 Fantalkin 2001b, 143-4.105 Waldbaum and Magness 1997; Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.106 Fantalkin 2001b, 128.107 Niemeier 2002, 329.108 Niemeier 2002, 330.109 Lehmann 2002a, 77-87.110 As may be deduced from both Mez.ad H. ashavyahu and the Arad

ostraca; and see Na’aman 1991a, 46-8, in more details.111 The location of Mez.ad H. ashavyahu in the vicinity of the natural

anchorage of Yavneh-Yam (cf. Galili and Sharvit 2005), supportsNa’aman’s (1991a, 51) suggestion that Necho II and his army mayhave sailed as far as the Lebanese coast and launched campaignsfrom there. In this regard the increasing importance of the navalforces under the Saïte Dynasty should definitely be emphasized (cf.Lloyd 1972).

112 Finkelstein 2002.113 Luckenbill 1927, 297-8; cf. Jer. 46:9; Hdt. 2.152.114 See e.g., Kocybala 1978, 132; Koshelenko and Kuznetsov 1992;

Tsetskhladze 1994, 2002; Gorman 2001, 67; Greaves 2002, 107-8. Itshould be noted that earlier scholarship tends to be moresympathetic to ‘Barbarian Asia’ when describing the relationsbetween the coastal Ionian cities and the Lydian and Persianempires, cf., e.g., Radet 1893; Hogarth 1909, 78; 1929; Lenschau 1913;Dunham 1915, 70-6; and more recently, Balcer 1991; Georges 1994,2000; Buxton 2002; Burkert 2004.

115 Is it a coincidence that Ionia’s cultural renewal, which is sometimescalled ‘the Ionian Renaissance’, started in the 4th century bc, mainlyafter the ‘King’s peace’ in 387 bc? Cf. Isager 1994; Pedersen 2004;Lawall 2006.

116 Hall 2002, 182, n. 44; Moles 2002.117 Hdt. 2.178.118 As may be deduced from Hall 1997, 49-50 and Malkin 2003b.119 Weinberg 1969.120 Cf. Vanderhooft 1999; Lipschits 2005.121 For instance, Frank Wascheck kindly informs me that most of the

Fikellura pottery fragments unearthed at Tell Sukas should be datedto the last third of the 6th century bc.

122 It is quite clear, for instance, that the so-called Greek temple of TellSukas is not Greek at all and is perfectly at home in a Near Easternmilieu (cf. Bonatz 1993; Mazzoni 2002).

123 Cf. Wenning 1981, 2004; Elayi 1988; Tal 1999, 107-9; Ambar-Armon2005.

124 It goes without saying that certain traditions of collective decisionmaking, mostly on the communal level, were already widespread inthe ancient Near East. Still, such phenomena, which are sometimescharacterized as ‘democracy’s ancient ancestors’ (Fleming 2004),remain a world apart from what was achieved on the Aegean side.

125 Cf. Coldstream 1983, 1995, 1998a, 2000; Lemos 2001. 126 Snodgrass 1980, 15-84; Morris 2005.127 Papadopoulos 2005.128 Hamilakis 2002, 18-19; Osborne 2004, 7-22.129 Turner 2001.130 Morris and Manning 2005.131 Cf. Boardman 2001a; Winter 1995.132 I think Muhly’s skepticism about the notion of so-called traveling

Page 216: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

208 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Fantalkin

Oriental craftsmen working as long-term residents on Aegean soil iswell-founded (Muhly 2005).

133 Snodgrass 1980.134 Raaflaub 2004b.135 See e.g. Thornton 2000; Boardman 2005.136 Morris 2000, 168.137 Sherratt and Sherratt 1998, 335; and see also Sherratt 2005, 36.138 Kardulias 1999. 139 Morris 1999.140 See also Morris 2000, passim; Whitley 2001, 102-23.141 Morris 2000, 257.142 Mazarakis Ainian 1999.143 See e.g. Coldstream 1976; Antonaccio 1995; Mazarakis Ainian 1999.144 The literature is vast, but to cite a few: Coldstream 1976; Morris 1988;

Whitley 1988, 1994, 1995, 2002; Antonaccio 1994, 1995; MazarakisAinian 1999; Finkelberg 2004, 2005.

145 Antonaccio 1995, 254. Except for a few insignificant cases, seeMorgan 2003, 187-95.

146 Morris 2000, 155-91.147 Cf. Sahlins 2005, who convincingly demonstrates that the

intensification of any one opposition is likely to engage andaggravate all the other antagonisms. That is to say the small-scaleinitial disputes may easily be magnified into large-scale strugglesbetween nations and kingdoms, making macrohistories out ofmicrohistories and vice versa.

148 For a general framework of counterfactual approach, see Tetlock andBelkin 1996; Ferguson 1997.

Page 217: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 209

Anderson, J.K. 1949. ‘Excavations on the Kofinà Ridge, Chios.’ BSA 49:123-72.

Andronikos, M. 1988. ‘Bergi/na 1988. Anaskafh/ sto nekrotafei/o.’AEMQ 2: 1-2.

Angelucci, A. 1876. ‘Spada e scure d’arme, di bronzo, dell’Armeria Realein Torino.’ BPI 2: 25-8.

Antonaccio, C.M. 1994. ‘Contesting the Past: Hero Cult, Tomb Cult andEpic in Early Greece.’ AJA 98: 389-410.

Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and HeroCult in Early Greece. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Applebaum, S. 1979. Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene. Leiden: Brill.Arena, R. 1992. Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia 2:

Iscrizioni di Sicilia, Gela e Agrigento. Milan: Edizioni Universitarie diLettere Economia Diritto.

Arnold, D.E. 1977. ‘Gefäße, Gefäßformen (Gf.), Gefäßdekor.’ In LÄ 2,edited by W. Helck, 483-501. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Arnold, D.E., H. Neff, and R.L. Bishop. 1991. ‘Compositional Analysis and‘Sources’ of Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach.’ AmericanAnthropologist 93: 70-90.

Arnold, D.E., and J. Bourriau, eds. 1993. An Introduction to AncientEgyptian Pottery. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Arslan, N., and N. Sevinç. 2003. ‘Die eisenzeitlichen Gräber von Tenedos.’IstMitt 53: 223-49.

Artzy, M., and J. Lyon. 2002. ‘The Ceramics.’ In The Ma’agan Mikhael Ship1, edited by E. Linder and Y. Kahanov, 183-202. Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society and University of Haifa.

Aston, D. 1996. Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and ThirdIntermediate Period (Twelfth–Seventh Centuries bc). Studien zurArchäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 13. Heidelberg:Heidelberger Orientverlag.

Attula, R. 2006. ‘Keramik.’ In Berges 2006: 101-53.Attula, R. Forthcoming. ‘Transportamphoren und Reliefpithoi aus

Emecik auf der knidischen Halbinsel.’ In Transport Ceramics: AnArticle of Mass Production as Key to the History of Economics and Tradein the Ancient World. Proceedings of the DEGUWA-Symposium ‘InPoseidons Reich XI’ Frankfurt am Main 17.-19. February 2006.Skyllis.

Aubet, M.E. 2000. ‘Aspects of Tyrian Trade and Colonization in theEastern Mediterranean.’ Münstersche Beiträge zur antikenHandelsgeschichte 19: 70-120.

Aubet, M.E. 2001. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies andTrade. 2nd edn. Translated by M. Turton. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Austin, M.M. 1970. Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age. Proceedings of theCambridge Philological Society, Suppl. 2. Cambridge: CambridgePhilological Society.

Avram, A., I. Bîrzescu, and K. Zimmermann. Forthcoming. ‘Dieapollinische Trias.’ In Apollon zwischen Milet–Zypern–Naukratis:Kolloquium in Mainz, March 2004, edited by R. Bol and U.Höckmann.

Aydemir, A. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet: XX. Kochgeschirr und Küchengeräteaus dem archaischen Milet.’ AA 2005,2: 85-101.

Baatz, D. 1977. ‘Reibschale und Romanisierung.’ Rei Cretaria RomanaeFautorum Acta 17/8: 147-58.

Bacchielli, L. 1976. ‘Un piattello di Genucilia: I rapporti di Cirene conl’Italia nella seconda metà del IV sec. a. C.’ In Cirene e la Grecia, editedby P. Romanelli and S. Stucchi, 99-108. QAL 8. Rome: «L’ERMA» diBretschneider.

Bacchielli, L. 1981. L’Agorà di Cirene, 2,1: L’area settentrionale del lato ovestdella Platea Inferiore. Monografie di archeologia libica 15. Rome:«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Bacchielli, L. 1985. ‘Modelli politici e modelli architettonici a Cirenedurante il regime democratico.’ In Cyrenaica in Antiquity, edited by

Bibliography

Acquaro, E., and D. Ferrari. 2004. I Fenici. L’Oriente in Occidente. Milan:Biblioteca di via Senato Edizioni.

Ahlberg, G. 1971. Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art.Stockholm: Åström.

Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1992. Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art.Representation and Interpretation. Stockholm: Åström.

Akimova, L. 2005. Arkheologiia voývny. Vozbrashchenie iz nebytiia.Moscow: IPTS Khudozhnik i Kniga.

Akurgal, E. 1950. ‘Bayraklý: Erster vorläufiger Bericht über dieAusgrabungen in Alt-Smyrna.’ Universitesi Dilve Tarih-CoðrafyaFakültesi Dergisi 8.1: 52-97.

Akurgal, E. 1956a. ‘Les fouilles de Phocée et les sondages de Kymé.’Anadolu 1: 3-14.

Akurgal, E. 1956b. ‘Les fouilles de Phocée et les sondages de Kymé.’TürkArkDerg 6.1: 19-24.

Akurgal, E. 1960. ‘Çandarlý (Pitane) Kazýsý.’ TürkArkDerg 10.1: 5-6.Akurgal, E. 1961. Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander. Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter & Co.Akurgal, E. 1983. Alt-Smyrna I. Wohnschichten und Athenatempel. Türk

Tarih Kurumu Yayýnlarý V. Dizi, Sa. 40. Ankara: Türk Tarih KurumuBasýmevi.

Akurgal, E. 1987. Griechische und römische Kunst in der Türkei. Munich:Hirmer.

Akurgal, E. 1993. Eski Çaðda Ege ve Ýzmir. Izmir: Net Turistik YayýnlarSanayi A.S.

Akurgal, M., M. Kerschner, H. Mommsen, and W.-D. Niemeier. 2002.Töpferzentren der Ostägäis: Archäometrische und archäologischeUntersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischenKeramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (mit einem Beitrag von S.Ladstätter). 3. Ergänzungsheft ÖJh. Vienna: ÖsterreichischesArchäologisches Institut.

Albore Livadie, C. 1985. ‘La situazione in Campania.’ In Il commercioetrusco arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di studi, edited by M. Cristofani, 127-54. QArchEtr 9. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

Alexandrescu, P. 1978. Histria 4. La céramique d’époque archaïque etclassique (VIIe-IVe s.). Bucharest: Editura Academiei RepubliciiSocialiste România.

Alexandrescu, P. 2001. ‘Le temple de Théos Megas d’Istros redressé.’Dacia N.S. 43-45: 79-96.

Alexandrescu, P. 2005. Histria 7. La zone sacrée d’époque grecque (fouilles1915-1989). Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

Alexandropoulou, A. 2002. Gnathia- und Westabhangkeramik: Einevergleichende Betrachtung. Münster: Scriptiorium.

Algazi, G. 2005. ‘Diversity Rules: Peregrine Horden and NicholasPurcell’s The Corrupting Sea.’ Mediterranean Historical Review 20:227-45.

Allen, S.J. 1982. ‘The Pottery.’ In Cities of the Delta II. Mendes: PreliminaryReport on the 1979 and 1980 Seasons, edited by K. Wilson, 13-27.American Research Center in Egypt, Reports 5. Malibu: UndenaPublications.

Amandry, P. 1962. ‘Plaques d’or de Delphes’. AM 77: 35-71.Ambar-Armon, E. 2005. ‘The Greek World and the Coastal Plain of Eretz

Israel Prior to the Macedonian Conquest.’ Cathedra 116: 5-30.(Hebrew; English abstract on p. 177)

Ampolo, C. 1987. ‘Roma arcaica tra Latini ed Etruschi: aspetti politici eistituzionali.’ In Etruria e Lazio arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di studio,edited by M. Cristofani, 75-87. QArchEtr 15. Rome: ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche.

Amyx, D.A. 1958. ‘The Attic Stelai, Part 3: Vases and Other Containers.’Hesperia 27: 163-310.

Amyx, D.A. 1988. Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period. Berkeley,Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Amyx, D.A., and P. Lawrence. 1975. Corinth 7,2. Archaic CorinthianPottery and the Anaploga Well. Princeton: American School ofClassical Studies at Athens.

Page 218: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

210 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 1-14. BAR International Series236. Oxford: BAR.

Bacchielli, L. 1986. ‘I piattelli Genucilia.’ In Italian Iron Age Artefacts in theBritish Museum: Papers of the 6th British Museum ClassicalColloquium, edited by J. Swaddling, 375-80. London: BritishMuseum Press.

Badre, L., M.-C. Boileau, R. Jung, and H. Mommsen, with an appendix byM. Kerschner. 2006. ‘The Provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-typePottery Found at Tell Kazel (Syria).’ Egypt and the Levant 15: 13-47.

Bailey, D.M. 2002. ‘Pottery of the Greek and Roman Periods.’ In MarsaMatruh: The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology andAnthropology’s Excavations on Bates’s Island, Marsa Matruh, Egypt,1985-1989. II. The Objects, edited by D. White, 117-52. PrehistoricMonographs 2. Philadelphia: The Institute for Aegean PrehistoryAcademic Press.

Bailey, D.M. Forthcoming. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the BritishMuseum 4: Ptolemaic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt. London:British Museum Press.

Baines, J. 1999. ‘On Wenamun as a Literary Text.’ In Literatur und Politikim pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten: Vorträge der Tagungzum Gedenken an Georges Posener, 5.-10. September 1996 in Leipzig,edited by J. Assmann and E. Blumenthal, 209-33. Bibliothèqued’Etude 127. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologieorientale du Caire.

Bakalakis, G. 1937.‘ ’Anaskafh\ 0en Kabala| kai Kalami/tsa|.’ Prakt: 59-67.

Bakalakis, G. 1938. ‘ ’Ek tou= 9ierou= th=j Parqe/nou 0en Neapo/lei Kaba/la|.’Archaiologike Ephemeris: 106-54.

Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Diologic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by M.Holquist. Translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essyas. Translated andedited by C. Emerson. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Balcer, J.M. 1991. ‘The East Greeks under Persian Rule: A Reassessment.’In Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a NewEmpire. Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid HistoryWorkshop, edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, 57-65.Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Baldassarre, I. 1987. ‘Tracce dell’abitato prebattiaco ad ovest dell’agorà diCirene.’ QAL 12: 17-24.

Baldassarre, I. 1999. ‘Cirene.’ In La città greca antica. Istituzioni, società eforme urbane, edited by E. Greco, 385-94. Rome: Donzelli.

Baldassarre, I. 2002. ‘Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. MissioneArcheologica a Cirene. La cosiddetta Casa del Propileo.’ In Il dialogointerculturale nel Mediterraneo: la collaborazione italo-libica in campoarcheologico, edit. by Ministero degli affari esteri, 18-20. Rome:Grafica Cristal.

Ballard, R.D., L.E. Stager, D. Master, D. Yoerger, D. Mindell, L.L.Whitcomb, H. Singh, and D. Piechota. 2002. ‘Iron Age Shipwrecks inDeep Water off Ashkelon, Israel.’ AJA 106: 151-68.

Barclay, A. Forthcoming. Mastery of Animals in Near Eastern and AegeanImagery: Its Distribution and Reception in Early Iron Age Greece.Toronto: University Press.

Barnett, R.D. 1939/40. ‘The Greek Pottery.’ In Garstang 1939/40: 98-130.Barrandon, J.-N., and M.-Ch. Marcellesi. 2005. ‘Le monnayage de bronze

aux types de Milet du IVe au IIe siècle avant J.-C.: L’apport desanalyses métalliques.’ AA 2005,2: 227-42.

Bartoloni, P. 1992. ‘Nora-I: Nota su due frammenti di bacino di tipofenicio-cipriota.’ Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archaeologica per leProvincie di Cagliari e Oristano 9: 99-103.

Bartoloni, P. 1996. ‘Appunti sulla ceramica fenicia tra Oriente e Occidentedall VIII al V sec. A. C.’ Transeuphratène 12: 85-95.

Bartoloni, P., and S. Moscati. 1995. ‘La ceramica e la storia.’ RSF 23: 37-45.Baþaran, S. 2002. ‘Enez (Ainos) 2001 Yýlý Kazý ve Onarým Çalýþmalarý.’

Anadolu Araþtýrmalarý 16: 59-86.Basch, L. 1987. Le musée antique imaginaire de la marine antique. Athens:

Institut hellénique pour la préservation de la tradition nautique.Bayburtluoðlu, C. 1978. ‘Les céramiques chiotes d’Anatolie.’ In Centre

Jean Bérard 1978: 27-30.Bayne, N. 2000. The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia in the Middle and

Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age and their Relation to the EarlyGreek Settlements. Asia Minor Studien 37. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Beazley, J.D., and H.G.G. Payne. 1929. ‘Attic Black-Figured Fragmentsfrom Naucratis.’ JHS 49: 253-72.

Beazley, J.D., H.G.G. Payne, and E.R. Price. 1931. CVA Oxford, AshmoleanMuseum 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bechtel, F. 1917. Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur

Kaiserzeit. Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer.Beck, H., P.C. Bol, and M. Bückling, eds. 2005. Ägypten Griechenland

Rom: Abwehr und Berührung. Katalog zur Ausstellung im StädelschenKunstinstitut Frankfurt, 26.11.2005-26.02.2006. Tübingen: E.Wasmuth Verlag.

Beier, T., and H. Mommsen. 1994a. ‘A Method for ClassifyingMultidimensional Data with Respect to Uncertainties ofMeasurement and its Application to Archaeometry.’Naturwissenschaften 91: 546-8.

Beier, T., and H. Mommsen. 1994b. ‘Modified Mahalanobis Filters forGrouping Pottery by Chemical Composition.’ Archaeometry 36: 287-306.

Bellelli, V. 2006. La tomba ‘principesca’ dei Quattordici Ponti nel contesto diCapua arcaica. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Bellelli, V., and M. Botto. 2002. ‘I bacini di tipo fenicio-cipriota:considerazioni sulla diffusione di una forma ceramica nell’Italiamedio-tirrenica nel periodo compreso fra il VII e il VI secolo A.C.’ InEtruria e Sardegna centro-settentrionale tra l’età del bronzo finale el’arcaismo: atti del 21. Convegno di studi etruschi ed italici, Sassari,Alghero, Oristano, Torralbo, 13-17 ottobre 1998, edited by O. Paoloettiwith L. Tamagno Perna, 277-307. Pisa, Rome: Istituti editoriali epoligrafici internazionali.

Belloli, A.P.A, ed. 1987. Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World:Colloquium sponsored by the Getty Center for the History of Art and theHumanities and symposium sponsored by the J. Paul Getty Museum,Malibu 1986. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum.

Ben Younès, H. 1997. ‘Découverte de deux nouveaux éléments dans lemobilier de la tombe à la cuirasse de Ksour es Saaf au Sahel Tunisien.’Reppal 10: 35-9.

Ben Younès, H. 2001. ‘La cuirasse de Ksour es Saaf au Sahel Tunisien:Probléme de chronologie.’ Pallas 56: 67-70.

Bennett Jr., W.J., and J.A. Blakely. 1989. Tell El-Hesi: The Persian Period(Stratum V). Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Benoit, F. 1965. Recherches sur l’hellénisation du Midi de la Gaule. Aix-en-Provence: Orphys.

Bentz, J.L. 1982. ‘Pottery at Ancient Corinth from mid-sixth to mid-fifthCentury bc.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.

Berg-Briese, M. 2005. ‘Halikarnassian Wine-Production? The Evidencefrom two Households.’ In Berg-Briese and Vaag 2005: 184-201.

Berg-Briese, M., and L.E.Vaag, eds. 2005. Trade Relations in the EasternMediterranean from the late Hellenistic Period to late Antiquity: theCeramic Evidence; Acts from a Ph.D.-Seminar for Young Scholars,Sandbjerg Manorhouse, 12-15 February 1998. Halicarnassian Studies3. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.

Berges, D. 1997. ‘II. Die Tonsiegel aus dem karthagischen Tempelarchiv.’In Karthago 2. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago, edited by D.Berges, W. Ehrhardt, A. Laidlauer and F. Rakob, 10-244. Mainz:Philipp von Zabern.

Berges, D. 2002. ‘Archaische Funde aus Alt-Knidos.’ IstMitt 52: 99-164.Berges, D., ed. 2006. Knidos: Beiträge zur Geschichte der archaischen

Stadt. Mit Beiträgen von J. Nollé, R. Attula, K. Kleibl, A. Slawisch, E.Calligas, T. Fockenberg, H. Mommsen und A. Schwedt. Mainz: Philippvon Zabern.

Berges, D., and N. Tuna. 2000. ‘Das Apollonheiligtum von Emeçik:Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1998 und 1999 (mit einem Beitragvon R. Attula).’ IstMitt 50: 171-214.

Berges, D., and N. Tuna. 2001. ‘Kult-, Wettkampf- und politischeVersammlungsstätte: Das Triopion-Bundesheiligtum der dorischenPentapolis.’ AntW 32.2: 155-66.

Bergquist, B. 1973. Herakles on Thasos: The Archaeological, Literary andEpigraphic Evidence for his Sanctuary, Status and Cult Reconsidered.Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Boreas. Uppsala Studies in AncientMediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 5. Uppsala: Almqvist& Wiksell, Stockholm.

Bergquist, B. 1990. ‘Sympotic Space: A Functional Aspect of Greek DinigRooms.’ In Sympotika: A Symposium on the Symposion, edited by O.Murray, 37-65. Oxford: University Press.

Berlin, A. 1997a. ‘The Pottery from the North and Northwest Areas.’ InLeonard 1997: 136-285.

Berlin, A. 1997b. ‘The Plain Wares.’ In Tel Anafa 2,1. The Hellenistic andRoman Pottery, edited by S.C. Herbert, 123-32. Ann Arbor: KelseyMuseum of Ancient and Medieval Archaeology.

Berlin, A. 2001. ‘Naukratis/Kom Hadid: A Ceramic Typology forHellenistic Lower Egypt.’ In Leonard 2001: 26-163.

Bermond Montanari, G. 1975. ‘Il problema dei Celti in Romagna inrelazione agli scavi di San Martino in Gattara.’ Alba Regia 14: 65-77.

Bermond Montanari, G. 1982. ‘San Martino in Gattara: Necropoli.’ In La

Page 219: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 211

Bibliography

Romagna tra VI e IV sec. a.C.: La necropoli di Montericco e laprotostoria romagnola. Catalogo della mostra, edited by P. v. ElesMasi, 171-9. Imola: Bologna University Press.

Bernal, M. 1987. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of ClassicalCivilization. Volume I: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985.New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Bernal, M. 1991. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of ClassicalCivilization. Volume II: Archaeological and Documentary Evidence.New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Bernal, M. 2001. Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to HisCritics. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bernand, A. 1970. Le Delta Egyptien d’après les textes Grecs 1: Les confinslibyques. Mémoires Publiés par les Membres de l’Institut Françaisd’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 91. Cairo: L’Institut Françaisd’Archéologie Orientale du Caire.

Bernardini, P. 2001. ‘La battaglia del Mare Sardo: una rilettura.’ RStFen39.2: 135-58.

Bernardini, P., P.G. Spanu, and M. Zucca, eds. 2000. Mache: La battagliadel Mare Sardonio. Studi e ricerche. Cagliari, Oristano: La MemoriaStorica-Mythos.

Berndt, M. 2003. Funde aus dem Survey auf der Halbinsel von Milet (1992-1999): Kaiserzeitliche und frühbyzantinische Keramik. InternationaleArchäologie 79. Rahden, Westf.: Leidorf.

Beschi, L. 1969/70 [1972]. ‘Divinità funerarie cirenaiche.’ ASAtene, 47-8,n.s. 31/2: 133-342.

Bettalli, M. 1995. I mercenari nel mondo Greco 1: Dalle origene alla fine delV. secolo a.C. Studi e testi di storia antica 5. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

Bianchi, R.S. 1978. ‘The Striding Draped Male Figure of Ptolemaic Egypt.’In Das ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin, edited by H. Maehler and V.M.Strocka, 95-102. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Bianco Peroni, V. 1970. Le spade nell’Italia continentale. PrähistorischeBronzefunde 4.1. Munich: Beck Verlag.

Biering, R., V. Brinkmann, U. Schlotzhauer, and B.F. Weber, eds.Forthcoming. Maiandros: Festschrift für Volkmar von Graeve.Munich: Verlag Biering & Brinkmann.

Bietak, M., ed. 2001. Archaische griechische Tempel und Altägypten.Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Bikai, P.M. 1983. ‘The Imports from the East.’ In Palaepaphos-Skales. AnIron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, edited by V. Karageorghis, 396-405.Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.

Bikai, P.M. 1987. The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: A.G. LeventisFoundation.

Bikakis, M. 1985. ‘Archaic and Classical Imported Pottery in the Museumsof Paros and Naxos.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.

Biran, A., and J. Naveh. 1993. ‘An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan.’IEJ 43: 81-98.

Biran, A., and J. Naveh. 1995. ‘The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment.’IEJ 45: 1-18.

Bisang, W., T. Bierschenk, D. Kreikenbom, and U. Verhoeven, eds. 2005:Prozesse des Wandels in historischen SpannungsfeldernNordostafrikas/Westasiens. Akten zum 2. Symposium des SFB 295,Mainz, 15.10.-17.10.2001. Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte 2.Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.

Bissing, F.W. von. 1901. Metallgefäße: Catalogue général des antiquitéségyptiennes du Musée du Caire II, nos. 3426-3587. Vienna: AdolfHolzhausen.

Bissing, F.W. von. 1903. ‘Die griechisch-römischen Altertümer imMuseum zu Kairo.’ AA: 145-51.

Bissing, F.W. von. 1951. ‘Naukratis.’ BSRAA 39: 33-82.Bizzarri, M. 1962. ‘La necropoli di Crocefisso del Tufo in Orvieto 1.’ StEtr

30: 1-154.Blackman, D. 2001/2 [2002]. ‘Archaeology in Greece 2001-2002.’ AR 48:

1-114.Blake, E. 2004. ‘Space, Spatiality, and Archaeology.’ In A Companion to

Social Archaeology, edited by L. Meskell and R.W. Preucel, 230-54.Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Blake, E., and A.B. Knapp, eds. 2005. The Archaeology of MediterraneanPrehistory. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology 6. Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Blakely, J.A., and W.J. Bennett Jr. 1989. ‘Levantine Mortaria of thePersian Period.’ In Analysis and Publication of Ceramics: TheComputer Data-Base in Archaeology, edited by J.A. Blakely and W.J.Bennett Jr., 45-65. BAR Series 551. Oxford: BAR.

Blakely, J.A., R. Brinkmann, and C.J. Vitaliano. 1992. ‘Roman Mortariaand Basins from a Sequence at Caesarea: Fabrics and Sources.’ InCaesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower. Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and

Byzantine Caesarea, edited by R.L. Vann, 194-213. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan.

Blegen, C.W., C.G. Boulter, J.L. Caskey, and M. Rawson. 1958. Troy vol. 4:Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII. Cincinnati: Princeton University Press.

Blinkenberg, C. 1931. Lindos 1. Fouilles de l’acropole 1902-1914: les petitsobjets. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Bloesch, H. 1940. Formen attischer Schalen. Bern, Bümpliz: Benteli A.-G.Blümel, W. 1993. ‘Dialekte und Dialektmischungen im südwestlichen

Kleinasien’. In Dialectologica graeca: Actas del II ColoquioInternational de Dialectologica griega, Madrid junio de 1991, edited byE. Crespo, 29-35. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

Blumhofer, M. 1993. Etruskische Cippi: Untersuchungen am Beispiel vonCerveteri. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau.

Boardman, J. 1954: ‘Painted Votive Plaques and an Early Inscription fromAegina’. BSA 49: 183-201.

Boardman, J. 1956. ‘Chian and Naucratite.’ BSA 51: 55-62.Boardman, J. 1958. ‘A Greek Vase from Egypt.’ JHS 78: 4-12.Boardman, J. 1966. ‘Evidence for the Dating of Greek Settlements in

Cyrenaica.’ BSA 61: 149-56.Boardman, J. 1967. Greek Emporio: Excavations in Chios 1952-1955. BSA

Suppl. 6. London: Thames and Hudson.Boardman, J. 1970. ‘A Protocorinthian Dinos and Stand.’ AntK 13: 92-4.Boardman, J. 1976. ‘A Curious Eye Cup.’ AA: 281-90.Boardman, J. 1978a. ‘The Problems of Analyses of Clays and Some

General Observations on Possible Results.’ In Centre Jean Bérard1978: 287-9.

Boardman, J. 1978b. Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period. London:Thames and Hudson.

Boardman, J. 1980. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade.3rd edn. London: Thames and Hudson.

Boardman, J. 1986. ‘Archaic Chian Pottery at Naucratis.’ In Boardmanand Vaphopoulou-Richardson 1986: 251-8.

Boardman, J. 1987. ‘Amasis: The Implications of his Name.’ In Belloli1987: 141-52.

Boardman, J. 1988. ‘Herakles.’ LIMC 4,1, edited by L. Kahil, 728-838.Zürich und Munich: Artemis-Verlag.

Boardman, J. 1990a. ‘Al Mina and History.’ OJA 9: 169-90.Boardman, J. 1990b. Review of Greek Painted Pottery from Naukratis in

Egyptian Museums, by M.S. Venit. Gnomon 62: 473-4.Boardman, J. 1994. ‘Settlement for Trade and Land in North Africa:

Problems of Identity.’ In The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation:Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman, edited by G.R.Tschetskhladze and F. De Angelis, 137-49. Oxford: Oxford UniversityCommittee for Archaeology.

Boardman, J. 1998a. ‘Olbia and Berezan: The Early Pottery.’ In The GreekColonisation of the Black Sea Area, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 201-4.Historia Einzelschriften 121. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Boardman, J. 1998b. Early Greek Vase Painting. London: Thames andHudson.

Boardman, J. 1999a. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade.4th edn. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Boardman, J. 1999b. ‘The Excavated History of Al Mina.’ In AncientGreeks: West and East, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 135-62.Mnemosyne Supplementum 196. Leiden: Brill.

Boardman, J. 1999c. ‘Greek Colonization: The Eastern Contribution.’ InCentre Jean Bérard 1999: 39-50.

Boardman, J. 2000. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade.4th edn. 1999, repr. 2000. London: Thames and Hudson.

Boardman, J. 2001a. ‘Aspects of Colonization.’ BASOR 322: 33-42.Boardman, J. 2001b. The History of Greek Vases. London: Thames and

Hudson.Boardman, J. 2002a. ‘Al Mina: The Study of a Site.’ Ancient West & East 1:

315-31.Boardman, J. 2002b. ‘Greeks and Syria: Pots and People.’ In Tsetskhladze

and Snodgrass 2002: 1-16.Boardman, J. 2005. ‘Greece: The Rise without Fall.’ Common Knowledge

11: 306-10.Boardman, J., and J. Hayes 1966. Excavations at Tocra 1963-1965: The

Archaic Deposits 1. BSA Suppl. 4. London: Thames and Hudson.Boardman, J., and J. Hayes 1973. Excavations at Tocra 1962-1965. The

Archaic Deposits 2 and Later Deposits. BSA Suppl. 10. London: Thamesand Hudson.

Boardman, J., and C.E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson, eds. 1986. Chios: AConference at the Homereion in Chios 1984. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Boaretto, E., A.J.T. Jull, A. Gilboa, and I. Sharon. 2005. ‘Dating the IronAge I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results.’Radiocarbon 47: 39-55.

Page 220: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

212 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Boehlau, J. 1898. Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen. Leipzig: B.G.Teubner.

Boehlau, J., and K. Schefold. 1942. Larisa am Hermos 3: Die Ergebnisse derAusgrabungen 1902-1934. Die Kleinfunde. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter &Co.

Boggs, J.P. 2004. ‘The Culture Concept as Theory, in Context.’ CurrentAnthropology 45: 187-209.

Boitani Visentini, F. 1978. ‘Le ceramiche decorate di importazione greco-orientale di Gravisca.’ In Centre Jean Bérard 1978: 216-22.

Bol, R., and D. Kreikenbom, eds. 2004. Sepulkral- und Votivdenkmäleröstlicher Mittelmeergebiete (7. Jh. v. Chr.–1. Jh. n. Chr.). Möhnesee:Bibliopolis.

Boldrini, S. 1994. Gravisca: Scavi nel Santuario Greco 4. Le CeramicheIoniche. Bari: Edipuglia.

Bommas, M. 2005. ‘Situlae and the Offering of Water in the DivineFunerary Cult: A New Approach to the Ritual of Djeme.’ In L’acquanell’antico Egitto. Vita, rigenerazione, incantesimo, medicamento:Proceedings of the First International Conference for YoungEgyptologists, Italy, Chianciano Therme, October 15-18, 2003, edited byA. Amenta, M.M. Luiselli and M. Novella Sordi, 257-72. Rome:«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Bonatz, D. 1993. ‘Some Considerations on the Material Culture of CoastalSyria in the Iron Age.’ Egitto e Vicino Oriente 16: 123-57.

Bondì, S.F. 2000. ‘Fenici e Punici nel Mediterraneo occidentale tra il 600e il 500 a.C.’ In Mache: La battaglia del Mare Sardonio. Studi e ricerche,edited by P. Bernardini, P.G. Spanu and M. Zucca, 57-71. Cagliari,Oristano: La Memoria Storica-Mythos.

Bookidis, N. 1990. ‘Ritual Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore atCorinth: Some Questions.’ In Sympotica: A Symposium on theSymposion, edited by O. Murray, 86-94. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bookidis, N. 1993. ‘Ritual Dining at Corinth.’ In Greek Sanctuaries: NewApproaches, edited by N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, 45-61. London, NewYork: Routledge.

Bookidis, N., and R.S. Stroud. 1997. Corinth 18,3. The Sanctuary ofDemeter and Kore. Topography and Architecture. Princeton, NewJersey: The American School of Classical Studies.

Botto, M. 2000. ‘Tripodi siriani e tripodi fenici dal Latium Vetus edall’Etruria meridionale.’ In La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: Dati,problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso InternazionaleSulcitano, Sant’Antioco 1997, 63-98. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delleRicerche.

Bouloumié, B. 1982. L’épave etrusque d’Antibes et le commerce enMéditerranée occidentale au VIe siècle av. J.-C. Kleine Schriften ausdem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar Marburg 10. Marburg:Vorgeschichtliches Seminar.

Bouloumié, B. 1992. Saint-Blaise (Fouilles H. Rolland): L’habitatprotohistorique. Les céramiques grecques. Aix-en-Provence:Publications de l’Université de Provence.

Bound, M. 1991. ‘The Pre-classical Wreck at Campese Bay, Island ofGiglio: First Season Report.’ In Studi e materiali: scienza dell’antichitàin Toscana 6. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Bourriau, J.D., L.M.V. Smith, and P.T. Nicholson. 2000. New KingdomPottery Fabrics: Nike Clay and Mixed Nile/Marl Clay Fabrics fromMemphis and Amarna. Egypt Exploration Socity OccasionalPublications 14. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Bouzek, J., ed. 1974. Kyme 1: Anatolian Collection of Charles University.Praha: Universita Karlova.

Bowden, H. 1991. ‘The Chronology of Greek Painted Pottery: SomeObservations.’ Hephaistois 10: 49-59.

Bowden, H. 1996. ‘The Greek Settlement and Sanctuaries at Naukratis:Herodotus and Archaeology.’ In More Studies in the Ancient GreekPolis, edited by M.H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub, 17-37. HistoriaEinzelschriften 108. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Braun, E. 2005. ‘Identifying Ethnicity from Prehistoric Pottery in AncientEgypt and the Southern Levant.’ In Clarke 2005: 140-54.

Braun, T.F.R.G. 1982. ‘The Greeks in Egypt.’ In CAH 3,3: 32-56.Braun, T.F.R.G. 1995. ‘Barley Cakes and Emmer Bread.’ In Wilkins et al.

1995: 25-37.Bresson, A. 2000. La cité marchande. Bordeaux: Ausonius Publications.Bresson, A. 2005. ‘Naucratis: De l’Emporion à la cité.’ Topoi 12/3: 133-55.Bresson, A. Forthcoming. ‘Karien und die dorische Kolonisation.’ In

Rumscheid (forthcoming).Briend, J., and J.P. Humbert, eds. 1980. Tell Keisan (1971-1976): Une cité

phénicienne en Galilée. Orbis Biblicus et Orientales, SeriesArchaeologica 1. Freiburg/Schweiz, Göttingen, Paris: Gabalda.

Brinkman, J.A. 1989. ‘The Akkadian Words for ‘Ionia’ and ‘Ionian’.’ InDaidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, edited by R.F.

Sutton, 53-71. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers.Brinkmann, V. 1990. ‘Der Westbau.’ In Graeve et al. 1990: 51-5.Briquel, D. 2004. ‘L’inscription étrusque de Gouraya (Algérie).’ Annales

du Musée National des Antiquités (Algiers) 14: 22-60.Brissaud, P. 1990. ‘Répertoire préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à San el-

Hagar (1er partie).’ Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 1: 77-80.Brize, Ph. 2001. ‘Funde aus Milet: X. Treibverzierte Bronzebleche.’ AA:

559-73.Brock, R., and S. Hodkinson, eds. 2000. Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of

Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Brommer, F. 1984. ‘Themenwahl aus örtlichen Gründen.’ In Ancient Greekand Related Pottery: Proceedings of the International Vase Symposiumin Amsterdam, 12.-15. April 1984, edited by H.A.G. Brijder, 178-84.Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Series.

Brown, W.Ll. 1960. The Etruscan Lion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Brumfield, A. 1997. ‘Cakes in the Liknon: Votives from the Sanctuary of

Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth.’ Hesperia 66: 147-72.Bruns, G. 1970. Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten. ArchHom 2, Q. Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Bruns-Özgan, C. 2004.’Ein neues archaisches Kopffragment aus Knidos.’

In Anadolu’da Doðdu. Festschrift für Fahri Iþýk, edited by T. Korkut,201-8. Istanbul: Ege Yayýnlarý.

Buchholz, H.-G. 1963. ‘Steinerne Dreifusschalen des ägäischenKulturkreises und ihre Beziehungen zum Osten.’ JdI 78: 1-77.

Buchholz, H.-G. 1975. Methymna: Archäologische Beiträge zurTopographie und Geschichte von Nordlesbos. Mainz: Philipp vonZabern.

Buchholz, H.-G. 1976/7. ‘Mörsersymbolik.’ Acta Praehistorica etArchaeologica 7/8: 249-70.

Budge, E.A.W. 1885. The Sarcophagus of Anchnesraneferab, Queen ofAhmes II, King of Egypt. London: Whiting.

Budge, E.A.W. 1909. British Museum: A Guide to the Egyptian Galleries(Sculpture). London: British Museum.

Bumke, H., and E. Röver. 2002. ‘Ein wiederentdecktes Heiligtum auf dem‘Taxiarchis’ in Didyma.’ In Bumke et al. 2002: 84-104.

Bumke, H., A. Filges, E. Röver, and H. Stümpel. 2002. ‘ Didyma: Berichtüber die Arbeiten 2000.’ AA: 79-118.

Bumke, H., A. Herda, E. Röver, and T.G. Schattner. 2000. ‘Bericht überdie Ausgrabungen 1994 an der Heiligen Strasse von Milet nachDidyma.’ AA: 57-97.

Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Burkert, W. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence onGreek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.

Burkert, W. 2004. Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of GreekCulture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Burkhardt, K. 1991. ‘Petrographische und geochemische Untersuchungenan etruskischer Bucchero-Keramik von den Fundorten Chiusi,Orvieto, Vulci, Tarquinia, Allumiere, Tolfa, Cerveteri, Ceri, Veio undRom.’ Münchner geologische Hefte 5. Munich: Institut für allgemeineund angewandte Geologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMünchen.

Buschor, E. 1929. ‘Kykladisches’. AM 54: 142-63.Buschor, E. 1951. ‘Spendekanne aus Samos.’ BSA 46: 32-41.Butyagin, A.M. 2001. ‘Painted Pottery from the Early Levels of

Myrmekeion (1992 Field Season).’ In Northern Pontic Antiquities inthe State Hermitage Museum, edited by J. Boardman, S.L. Solovyovand G.R. Tsetskhladze, 179-98. Leiden: Brill.

Buxton, A.H. 2002. ‘Lydian Royal Dedications in Greek Sanctuaries.’Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.

Calame, C. 1996. Mythe et histoire dans l’Antiquité grecque. La créationsymbolique d’une colonie. Lausanne: Payot.

Callipolitis-Feytmans, D. 1974. Les plats attiques à figures noires. Travauxet mémoires des anciens membres étrangers de l’Ecole et de diverssavants 19. Paris: Boccard.

Calvet, Y., and M. Yon. 1978. ‘Salamine de Chypre et le commerce ionien.’In Centre Jean Bérard 1978: 43-51.

Camporeale, G. 2003. ‘L’artigianato artistico’. In Storia di Orvieto I.Antichità, edited by G.M. Della Fina, 147-215. Perugia: Quattroemme.

Camps, G. 1961. Monuments et rites funéraires protohistoriques. Paris: Artset Métiers Graphiques.

Carl, T. Forthcoming. ‘Neues vom milesischen Löwen: Ein Fikellura-Aryballos aus dem Aphrodite-Heiligtum auf dem Zeytintepe.’ InBiering et al. (forthcoming).

Carlson, D.N. 2002. ‘The 2001 Excavation Season at Tektaþ Burnu,

Page 221: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 213

Bibliography

Turkey.’ INA Quarterly 29.2: 12-4.Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 1999. Péluse et l’angle oriental du delta Egyptien aux

époques grecque, romaine et byzantine. Cairo: Institut Françaisd’Archéologie Orientale.

Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2000. ‘Le ‘monopole de Naucratis’ et la ‘bataille dePéluse’: rupture ou continuité de la présence grecque en Egypte desSaites aux Perses.’ Transeuphratène 19: 159-72.

Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2005. ‘Réflexions sur l’accès des grecs au littoralégyptien aux époques saïte et perse.’ Topoi 12/13: 193-205.

Carruba, O. 1976. ‘Nuova lettura dell’iscrizione etrusca dei cippi diTunisia.’ Athenaeum 54: 163-73.

Carthage. 1995. Carthage. L’histoire, sa trace et son écho. Paris: SociétéFrançaise de Promotion Artistique.

Cassimatis, H. 1978. ‘Herakles et Lysippe.’ BIFAO 78: 541-64.Cavanagh, W., J. Crouwel, R.W. Catling, and G. Shipley. 1996. The

Laconia Survey: Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape.London: British School at Athens.

Celestino Pérez, S. 1991. ‘Nuevos jarros tartésicos de bronce en el surpeninsular.’ MM 32: 52-85.

Celestino Pérez, S., and P. de Zulueta. 2003. ‘Los bronces de CanchoRoano.’ In Cancho Roano 9: Los materiales arqueólogicos 2, edited byS. Celestino Pérez, 11-123. Mérida: Instituto de Arqueología deMérida.

Centre Jean Bérard. 1978. Les céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leurdiffusion en occident: Colloques internationaux du Centre National dela Recherche Scientifique N. 569, Centre Jean Bérard. Institut Françaisde Naples 6-9 juillet 1976. Paris and Naples: Editions du CNRS.

Centre Jean Bérard. 1999. La colonisation Grecque en Méditerranéeoccidentale: Actes de la rencontre scientifique en hommage à GeorgesVallet (Rome-Naples, 15-18 novembre 1995), edited by Centre JeanBérard, l’Ecole française de Rome, l’Istituto Universitario orientale etl’Universita degli studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’. Collection de l’Ecolefrançaise de Rome 251. Rome: Ecole française de Rome.

Chamoux, F. 1953. Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades. Bibliothèquedes Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 177. Paris: Boccard.

Chaniotis, A. 1997. Review of Bowden 1996. In BMCR 97.7.16:http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1997/97.07.16.html (16 July 1997).

Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque I.Paris: Klincksieck.

Clairmont, C. 1954/5. ‘Greek Pottery from the Near East.’ Berytus 11: 85-141.

Clarke, J., ed. 2005. Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission andTransformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Oxford:Oxbow Books.

Clayton, P.A. 1994. Chronicles of the Pharaohs. London: BCA/ Thamesand Hudson.

Clerc, G. 1994. ‘Herakles et les dieux du cercle isiaque.’ In Hommages àJean Leclant III, edited by C. Berger, 97-137. Bibliothèque d’étude 106,3. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.

Cobet, J. 2000. ‘Miletos [2]: I. Geschichte.’ In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited byH. Cancik, and H. Schneider: 170. 173-5. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B.Metzler.

Cobet, J. 2004. Review of Miletos: A History, by A.M. Greaves. Gnomon76: 136-9.

Cobet, J. Forthcoming. ‘Hätten wir doch einen Thukydides für Milet.’ InBiering et al. (forthcoming).

Cobet, J., V. v. Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier, and K. Zimmermann, eds.Forthcoming. Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Akten desSymposions Panionion (Güzelçamlý) 26. September bis 1. Oktober 1999.Milesische Forschungen 5. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. 1977. ‘Gyges and Ashurbanipal: A Study inLiterary Transmission.’ Orientalia 46: 65-85.

Cogswell, J.W., H. Neff, and M.D. Glascock. 1996. ‘The Effect of FiringTemperature on the Elemental Characterization of Pottery.’ JAS 23:283-7.

Coldstream, J.N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey of Ten LocalStyles and their Chronology. London: Methuen & Co.

Coldstream, J.N. 1976. ‘Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer.’ JHS 96: 8-17.Coldstream, J.N. 1977. Geometric Greece. London: Methuen & Co.Coldstream, J.N. 1983. ‘Gift Exchange in the Eighth Century bc.’ In The

Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century bc: Tradition and Innovation.Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the SwedishInstitute in Athens, 1.-5. June, 1981, edited by R. Hägg, 201-7. Skrifterutgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4, 30. Stockholm: Paul ÅströmsFörlag.

Coldstream, J.N. 1993. ‘Early Greek Visitors to Egypt and the Levant.’Journal of Ancient Chronology Forum 6: 6-18.

Coldstream, J.N. 1995. ‘The Rich Lady of the Areiopagos and herContemporaries.’ Hesperia 64: 391-403.

Coldstream, J.N. 1998a. ‘The First Exchanges between Euboeans andPhoenicians: Who Took the Initiative?’ In Mediterranean Peoples inTransition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Century bce. Papers of the FirstInternational Symposium Held by the Philip and Muriel Berman Centerfor Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1995. In Honor of Professor T.Dothan, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, 353-60. Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society.

Coldstream, J.N. 1998b. ‘Crete and Dodecanese: Alternative EasternApproaches to the Greek World during the Geometric Period.’ InEastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th-6th Cent. bc,edited by V. Karageorghis and N.C. Stampolidis, 255-62. Athens:University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation.

Coldstream, J.N. 2000. ‘Exchanges between Phoenicians and EarlyGreeks.’ National Museum News 11: 15-32.

Coldstream, J.N. 2003. ‘Some Aegean Reactions to the ChronologicalDebate in the Southern Levant.’ Tel Aviv 30: 247-58.

Coldstream, J.N., and H.W. Catling. 1996. Knossos North Cemetery: EarlyGreek Tombs. BSA Suppl. 28. London: The British School at Athens.

Coldstream, J.N., and D.J. Liddy. 1996. In Coldstream and Catling 1996:465-514.

Coldstream, J.N., and A. Mazar. 2003. ‘Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov andIron Age Chronology.’ IEJ 53: 29-48.

Colonna, G. 1970. Bronzi votivi umbro-sabellici a figura umana. I. Periodo‘arcaico’. Florence: Sansoni.

Colonna, G. 1980a. ‘Problemi dell’archeologia e della storia di Orvietoetrusca.’ In Orvieto Etrusca: Relazioni e interventi nel convegno del1975, 43-53. Annali della Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 1.Rome: Quasar.

Colonna, G. 1980b [1983]. ‘Virgilio, Cortona e la leggenda etrusca diDardano.’ ArchCl 32: 1-15.

Colonna, G. 1981. ‘La Sicilia e il Tirreno nel V e IV secolo.’ Kokalos 25/6,1:157-83.

Colonna, G. 1985. ‘La Romagna fra Etruschi, Umbri e Pelasgi.’ In LaRomagna tra VI e IV sec. a.C. nel quadro della protostoria dell’Italiacentrale: Atti del Convegno, Bologna 23-24 ottobre 1982, edited by G.Bermond Montanari, 45-65. Bologna: University Press.

Colonna, G. 1988. ‘Il lessico istituzionale etrusco e la formazione dellacittà (specialmente in Emilia Romagna).’ In La formazione della cittàpreromana in Emilia Romagna: Atti del convegno di studi, Bologna –Marzabotto 7-8 dicembre 1985, edited by Istituto per la storia diBologna, 15-36. Convegni e colloqui N.S. 8. Bologna: Università diBologna.

Colonna, G. 2000 [2002]. ‘Il santuario di Pyrgi dalle origini mitistoricheagli altorilievi frontonali dei Sette e di Leucotea.’ Scienzedell’Antichità 10: 251-335.

Cook, J.M. 1958/9. ‘Old Smyrna, 1948-1951.’ BSA 53/4: 1-34.Cook, J.M. 1973. The Troad. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Cook, J.M. 1975. ‘Greek Settlement in the Eastern Aegean and Asia

Minor.’ In CAH II 2,2 3rd edn. History of the Middle East and theAegean Region c. 1380-1000 bc, edited by I.E.S. Edwards, C.J. Gadd,N.G.L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, 773-804. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Cook, J.M. 1985. ‘On the Date of Alyattes’ Sack of Smyrna.’ BSA 80: 25-8.Cook, J.M., and D.J. Blackman 1964/5. ‘Greek Archaeology in Western

Asia Minor.’ AR 11: 32-62.Cook, J.M., and R.V. Nicholls. 1998. Old Smyrna Excavations: The Temple

of Athena. BSA Suppl. 30. London: The British School at Athens.Cook, R.M. 1933/4. ‘Fikellura Pottery.’ BSA 34: 1-98.Cook, R.M. 1937. ‘Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt.’ JHS 57: 227-37.Cook, R.M. 1949. ‘The Distribution of Chiot Pottery.’ BSA 44: 154-61.Cook, R.M. 1952. ‘A List of Clazomenian Pottery.’ BSA 47: 123-52.Cook, R.M. 1954. CVA London, British Museum 8. Oxford: University

Press.Cook, R.M. 1959. ‘Die Bedeutung der bemalten Keramik für den

griechischen Handel.’ JdI 74: 114-23.Cook, R.M. 1960. Greek Painted Pottery. London: Butler and Tanner.Cook, R.M. 1981. Clazomenian Sarcophagi. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Cook, R.M. 1989. ‘The Francis-Vickers Chronology.’ JHS 109: 164-70.Cook, R.M. 1993. ‘A Carian Wild Goat Workshop.’ OJA 12,1: 109-15.Cook, R.M. 1997. Greek Painted Pottery. 3rd edn. London, New York:

Routledge.Cook, R.M. 1998. In Cook and Dupont 1998: 1-141.Cook, R.M. 1999. ‘A List of Carian Orientalising Pottery.’ OJA 18,1: 79-93.Cook, R.M., and P. Dupont. 1998. East Greek Pottery. London, New York:

Routledge.

Page 222: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

214 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Cook, R.M., and A.G. Woodhead. 1952. ‘Painted Inscriptions on ChiotPottery.’ BSA 47: 159-70.

Corcella, A. 1993. Erodoto: Le Storie, volume IV. Libro IV. La Scizia e la Libia(Introduzione e commento). Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori/FondazioneLorenzo Valla.

Coulié, A., 2002. La céramique thasienne à figures noires. EtudesThasiennes 19. Paris: Boccard.

Coulson, W.D.E. 1988. ‘The Naukratis Survey.’ In The Archaeology of theNile Delta: Problems and Priorities. Proceedings of the Seminar Held inCairo, 19–22 October 1986 on the Occasion of the 15. Anniversary of theNetherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo,edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 259-63. Amsterdam: NetherlandsFoundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt.

Coulson, W.D.E. 1996. Ancient Naukratis 2: The Survey at Naukratis andEnvirons 1, edited by W.D.E. Coulson. Oxbow Monograph 60. Exeter:The Short Run Press.

Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1977/8. ‘The Naukratis Projekt: 1978.’ARCE Newsletter 103: 13-26.

Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1979. ‘A Preliminary Survey of theNaukratis Region in the Western Nile Delta.’ JFA 6: 151-68.

Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1981a. Cities of the Delta 1: Naukratis.ARCE Reports 4. Malibu: Undena Publications.

Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1981b. ‘Excavations in the SouthMound of Naukratis: 1981.’ Muse 15: 39-45.

Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1982a. ‘The Naukratis Projekt: 1982.’Muse 16: 44-6.

Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1982b. ‘Investigations at Naukratisand Environs: 1980 and 1981.’ AJA 86: 361-80.

Coulson, W.D.E., A. Leonard Jr., and N. Wilkie. 1982. ‘Three Seasons ofExcavations and Survey at Naukratis and Environs’. In JARCE 19: 73-109.

Cozza, A., and A. Pasqui. 1887. ‘Civita Castellana (antica Faleria). Scavinella necropoli falisca in contrada La Penna.’ NSc: 170-6.

Cozza, A., and A. Pasqui. 1981. Carta archeologica d’Italia (1881-1897):Materiali per l’agro falisco. Florence: Olschki.

Crielaard, J.P. 1999. ‘Early Iron Age Greek Pottery in Cyprus and NorthSyria: A Consumption-Oriented Approach.’ In The Complex Past ofPottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean andGreek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries bc). Proceedings of theARCHON International Conference, Held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November1996, edited by J.P. Crielaard, V. Stissi and G.J. van Wijngaarden, 261-90. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

Cristofani, M., ed. 1985. Il commercio etrusco arcaico: Atti dell’incontro distudi. QArchEtr 9. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

Cristofani, M. 1996. Etruschi e altre genti nell’Italia preromana: mobilità inetà arcaica. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Cristofani, M., ed. 2003. Caere 4. Vigna Parrocchiale: Scavi 1983-1989. Ilsantuario, la «residenza» e l’edificio ellittico. Rome: ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche.

Croissant, F. 1983. Les protomés féminines archaïques. Paris: EcoleFrançaise d’Athènes.

Crowfoot, J.W., K.M. Kenyon, and E.L. Sukenik. 1942. Samaria-Sebaste 1:The Buildings at Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Crowfoot J.W. et al. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste 3: The Objects from Samaria.London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

D’Angelo, I. Forthcoming. ‘Le produzioni ceramiche locali di età arcaicadagli scavi alla ‘Casa del Propileo’ a Cirene.’ In SOMA 2005:Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Chieti, 24.-26. February 2005.

Dalby, A. 1996. Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece.London, New York: Routledge.

Dalby, A. 2003. Food in the Ancient World From A to Z. London: Routledge.Darmstaedter, E. 1933. ‘Ptisana: ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der antiken

Diaetetik.’ Archeion 15: 181-201.Das Tier in der Antike. 1974. Das Tier in der Antike: 400 Werke ägyptischer,

griechischer, etruskischer und römischer Kultur aus privatem undöffentlichem Besitz. Zürich: Archäologisches Institut der UniversitätZürich.

Daux, G. 1963. ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques enGrèce en 1962.’ BCH 87: 689-879.

Daux, G. 1966. ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques enGrèce en 1965.’ BCH 90: 715-1019.

Davis, W.M. 1979. ‘Ancient Naukratis and the Cypriotes in Egypt.’Göttinger Miszellen 35: 13-23.

Davis, W.M. 1980. ‘The Cypriotes at Naukratis.’ Göttinger Miszellen 41: 7-19.

De Agostino, A. 1961. ‘Populonia (Livorno): Scoperte archeologiche nella

necropoli, negli anni 1957-1960.’ NSc 15: 64-102.de la Genière, J. 1999. ‘De la céramique pour les mercenaires.’ In Centre

Jean Bérard 1999: 121-30.de la Genière, J., and V. Jolivet. 2003. Cahiers de Claros 2: L’aire des

sacrifices. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.De Lucia Brolli, M.A. 2004. ‘La collezione: aspetti e problemi.’ In Scavo

nello scavo: Gli Etruschi non visti. Ricerche e ‘riscoperte’ nei depositi deimusei archeologici dell’Etruria Meridionale. Catalogo della mostra,edited by A.M. Sgubini Moretti, 205-11. Viterbo: Union PrintingEdizioni.

de Marinis, R.C. 1999. ‘Il confine occidentale del mondo proto-veneto/paleoveneto dal Bronzo finale alle invasioni galliche del 388a.C.’ In Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum Angulus’: Atti del XXConvegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, edited by O. Paoletti, 511-64.Pisa, Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali.

De Miro, E., and G. Fiorentini. 1977. ‘Leptis Magna: La necropoli greco-punica sotto il teatro.’ QAL 9: 5-76.

De Vido, S. 1998. ‘Regalità e aristocrazia a Cirene.’ AccScTor 132: 3-44.De Vries, K., P.I. Kuniholm, G.K. Sams, and M.M. Voigt. 2003. New Dates

for Iron Age Gordion. Antiquity Project Gallery.http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/devries/devries.html (June 2003).

De Vries, K., G.K. Sams, and M.M. Voigt. 2005. ‘Gordion Re-Dating.’ InAnatolian Iron Ages 5: Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron AgesColloquium held at Van, 6.-10. August 2001, edited by A. Çilingiroðluand G. Darbyshire, 45-6. The British Institute of Archaeology atAnkara Monographs 31. London: British Institute of Archaeology atAnkara.

de Waele, J.A. 1971. Acragas Graeca: Die historische Topographie desgriechischen Akragas auf Sizilien I. Historischer Teil. ‘s-Gravenhagen:Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk.

Decker, W. 1987. Sport und Spiel im Alten Ägypten. Munich: Beck Verlag.Decker, W. 2003. ‘Kampfsport und Kartuschen. Zu einer ionischen

Amphora mit dem Namen des Apries.’ In Es werde niedergelegt alsSchriftstück. Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65. Geburtstag,edited by N. Kloth, K. Martin and E. Pardy, 49-56. Hamburg: Buske.

Decker, W., and M. Herb. 1994. Bildatlas zum Sport im alten Ägypten:Corpus der bildlichen Quellen zu Leibesübungen, Spiel, Jagd, Tanz undverwandten Themen. Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill.

Dedeoðlu, J. 1993. Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi. Istanbul: A Turizm Yayýnlarý.Defernez, C. 2001. La céramique d’époque perse à Tell el-Herr: Etude

chrono-typologique. CRIPEL Suppl. 5. Lille: Université Charles-de-Gaulle – Lille III.

Dehl-von Kaenel, Ch. 1995. Die archaische Keramik aus dem Malophoros-Heiligtum in Selinunt: Die korinthischen, lakonischen, ostgriechischen,etruskischen und megarischen Importe sowie die ‘argivisch-monochrome’ und lokale Keramik aus den alten Grabungen. Berlin:Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz.

Demetriou, D. 2004. Negotiating Identity: Group-Definition in Naukratis.http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/04mtg/abstracts/Demetriou.html (20 Februar 2004).

Descœudres, J.-P. 2002. ‘Al Mina Across the Great Divide.’ MeditArch 15:49-72.

Deubner, L. 1932. Attische Feste. Berlin: Keller.Dikaios, P. 1961/2. ‘Archaeology in Cyprus, 1959-61.’ AR 8: 32-46.Dillon, M.P.J. 1999. ‘Post-nuptial Sacrifices on Kos (Segre, ED 178) and

Ancient Greek Marriage.’ ZPE 124: 63-80.Dion, P.-E. 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du fer: Histoire politique et structures

sociales. Paris: Gabalda.Doðer, E. 1986. ‘Premières remarques sur les amphores de Clazomènes.’

In Recherches sur les amphores grecques: Actes du Colloqueinternational organisé par le Centre national de la recherchescientifique, l’Université de Rennes II et l’Ecole française d’Athènes,Athènes 10–12 septembre 1984, edited by J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan,461-71. BCH suppl. 13. Athens: Ecole française d’Athènes.

Dobrowolski, W. 1966. ‘Les modifications de la manière de présenterTriton dans l’art étrusque de l’archaïsme tardif.’ In Mélanges offerts àKazimierz Michalowski, edited by M.-L. Bernhard, 375-80.Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Docter, R.F. 1993. In Niemeyer and Docter 1993: 201-44.Docter, R.F. 1997. ‘Archaische Amphoren aus Karthago und Toscanos.

Fundspektrum und Formentwicklung. Ein Beitrag zur phönizischenWirtschaftsgeschichte.’ Ph.D. diss. Amsterdam.

Docter, R.F. 1998. ‘Die sogennanten ZitA-Amphoren: nuraghisch undzentralitalisch (19.7.1997).’ In Archäologische Studien inKontaktzonen der antiken Welt, edited by R. Rolle and K. Schmidt,359-74. Joachim Justus Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 87.Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Page 223: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 215

Bibliography

Docter, R.F., H.G. Niemeyer, A.J. Nijboer, and J. van der Plicht. 2005.‘Radiocarbon Dates of Animal Bones in the Earliest Levels ofCarthage.’ In Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto.Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro in Italia: Atti dell’incontrodi studi, Roma, 30–31 ottobre 2003, edited by G. Bartoloni and F.Delpino, 557-577. Mediterranea 1. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligraficiInternazionali.

Dodson, A. 1995. Monarchs of the Nile. London: Rubicon Press.Dodson, A. 2002. ‘The Problem of Amenirdis II and the Heirs to the Office

of God’s Wife of Amun During the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty.’ JEA 88:179-86.

Domínguez, A.J., and C. Sánchez. 2001. Greek Pottery from the IberianPeninsula: Archaic and Classical Periods. Leiden, Boston, Cologne:Brill.

Donadoni, S. 1981. ‘Per la morfologia del dio Seth.’ MDIK 37: 115-22.Donati, L. 1998. ‘Sul simposio etrusco: Osservazioni in margine al

restauro di un rilievo chusino.’ In In memoria di Enrico Paribeni,edited by G. Capecchi, 153-68. Archaeologica 125. Rome: «L’ERMA»di Bretschneider.

Donder, H. 2002. ‘Funde aus Milet: XI. Die Metallfunde.’ AA: 1-8.Donderer, M. 1996. ‘Bildhauersignaturen griechischer Rundplastik.’ ÖJh

65: 87-104.Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons of

Excavations, 1963, 1965 – Soundings in 1967. Atiqot 9-10. Jerusalem:IAA.

Dothan, M., and D.N. Freedman. 1967. Ashdod I: The First Season ofExcavations, 1967. Atiqot 7. Jerusalem: IAA.

Dragendorff, H. 1903. Theraeische Graeber 2. Berlin: Georg Reimer.Driesch, A.von den, S. Fünfschilling, B. Hedinger, G. Jöhrens, M.

Mackensen, K. Mansel, S. Martin-Kilcher, G. Nobis, J. Nollé, F.Rakob, T. Redissi, G. Schneider, S. von Schnurbein, G. Trias, F.Vattioni (†), and M. Vegas, eds. 1999. Karthago 3. Die deutschenAusgrabungen in Karthago. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Drower, M.S. 1985. Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology. London: VicorGollancz LTD.

Dubois, L. 1989. Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Sicile. Contribution al’étude du vocabulaire grec colonial. CEFR 119. Paris, Rome: Ecolefrançaise de Rome.

Dubois, L. 1996. Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont. Hautesétudes du monde gréco-romain 22. Genève: Librairie Droz.

Dugas, C. 1912a. ‘Les vases ‘rhodiens-géométriques’.’ BCH 36: 495-522.Dugas, C. 1912b. ‘Vase ‘Cyrénéens’ du Musée de Tarente’. RA 20: 88-105.Dugas, C. 1928. Délos 10. Les vases de l’Heraion. Paris: Boccard.Dugas, C. 1935. Délos 17. Les vases orientalisants du style non mélien: Les

vases de Délos 3. Paris: Boccard.Dümmler, F. 1888. ‘Vasenscherben aus Kyme in Aeolis.’ RM 3: 159-80.Dunham, A.G. 1915. The History of Miletus down to the Anabasis of

Alexander. London: London University Press.Dupont, P. 1983. ‘Classification et détermination de provenance des

céramiques orientales archaïques d’Istros: Rapport préliminaire.’Dacia N.S. 27: 19-43.

Dupont, P. 1986. ‘Naturwissenschaftliche Bestimmung der archaischenKeramik Milets.’ In Müller-Wiener 1986: 57-71.

Dupont, P. 1998. ‘Archaic Greek Trade Amphorae.’ In Cook and Dupont1998: 142-91.

Dupont, P. 2000. ‘Trafics méditerranéens archaïques: quelques aspects.’In Krinzinger 2000: 445-60.

Ebbinghaus, S. 2006. ‘Begegnungen mit Ägypten und Vorderasien imarchaischen Heraheiligtum von Samos.’ In Naso 2006: 187-229.

Edel, E. 1978. ‘Amasis und Nebukadrezar II.’ Göttinger Miszellen 29: 13-20.Edelman, D. 2006. ‘Tyrian Trade in Yehud under Artaxerxes I: Real or

Fictional? Independent or Crown Endorsed?’ In Judah and theJudeans in the Persian Period, edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming,207-46. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Edgar, C.C. 1898/9. ‘The Inscribed and Painted Pottery.’ In Hogarth1898/9: 47-57.

Edgar, C.C. 1904. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée duCaire: Greek bronzes. Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’Institut françaisd’Archéologie Orientale.

Edgar, C.C. 1905. ‘Naukratis 1903, G. – Minor Antiquities.’ JHS 25: 123-31.Ehrhardt, N. 1983. Milet und seine Kolonien: Vergleichende Untersuchungen

der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen. EuropäischeHochschulschriften Reihe 3. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Verlag.

Ehrhardt, N. 1988. Milet und seine Kolonien: VergleichendeUntersuchungen der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen, 2ndedn. Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe 3. Frankfurt a.M.: PeterLang Verlag.

Ehrhardt, N. 1998. ‘Didyma und Milet in archaischer Zeit.’ Chiron 28: 11-20.

Ehrhardt, N. 2003a. ‘Milet nach den Perserkriegen: Ein Neubeginn?’ InStadt und Stadtentwicklung in Kleinasien, edited by E. Schwertheimand E. Winter, 1-19. Asia Minor Studien 50. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Ehrhardt, N. 2003b. ‘Poliskulte bei Theokrit und Kallimachos: dasBeispiel Milet.’ Hermes 131: 269-89.

Ehrhardt, N., U. Höckmann, and U. Schlotzhauer. Forthcoming.‘Weihungen an Apollon Didymeus und Apollon Milesios inNaukratis.’ In Kulturkontakte: Apollon in Myus, Milet/Didyma,Naukratis und auf Zypern: Akten der Table Ronde Mainz, 11.-12. März2004, edited by R. Bol and U. Höckmann.

Ehrhardt, N., H. Lohmann, and B.F. Weber. Forthcoming. ‘Milet-Bibliographie.’ In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).

Eilmann, R. 1933. ‘Frühe Griechische Keramik im Samischen Heraion.’AM 58: 47-145.

Eiseman, C.J., and B.S. Ridgway. 1987. The Porticello Shipwreck: AMediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415–385bc. College Station: TexasA&M University Press.

Elayi, J. 1988. Pénétration grecque en Phénicie sous l’Empire perse. Travauxet memoires études anciennes 2. Nancy: Presses universitaires deNancy.

Elrashedy, F.M. 2002. Imports of Post-Archaic Greek Pottery intoCyrenaica: From the End of the Archaic to the Beginning of theHellenistic Period. BAR International Series 102. Oxford:Archeopress.

Elwood, P.G. 1994. Later Dynasties of Egypt. Chicago: Ares Publishers.Empereur, J.-Y. 2003. ‘Les Grecs en Egypte.’ In The Greeks Beyond the

Aegean: from Marseilles to Bactria. Papers Presented at anInternational Symposium Held at the Onassis Cultural Center, NewYork 12th October 2002, edited by V. Karageorghis, 23-34. Nicosia:Onassis Publ. Benefit Foundation.

Erkanal, H., M. Artzy and O. Kouka. 2002. ‘2001 Yýlý Liman Tepe Kazýlarý.’Kazý Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 24,1, edited by K. Olþen, H. Dönmez, F.Bayram, A. Özme, N. Güder, Ç. Morçöl and Ý. Gençtürk-Kýlýç, 423-36.Ankara: Kültür Bakanlýðý Dösimm Basýmevi.

Erman, A. and H. Grapow. 1982. Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, Vol.5. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Ersoy, Y. 1993. ‘Clazomenae: The Archaic Settlement.’ Ph.D. diss., BrynMawr College.

Ersoy, Y. 2000. ‘East Greek Pottery Groups of the 7th and 6th Centuries bcfrom Clazomenae.’ In Krinzinger 2000: 399-406.

Ersoy, Y. 2003. ‘Pottery Production and Mechanism of Workshops inArchaic Clazomenae.’ In Schmaltz and Söldner 2003: 254-57.

Ersoy, Y. 2004. ‘Klazomenai: 900–500 bc. History and SettlementEvidence.’ In Ersoy et al. 2004: 43-76.

Ersoy, Y., A. Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, and M.-C. Tzannes, eds. 2004.Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony: Proceedings ofthe International Symposium Abdera 20-21 October 2001.Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.

Eshel, H. 2001. ‘The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim.’ InHistorical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalSymposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrollsand Associated Literature, 27-31 January 1999, edited by D. Goodblatt,A. Pinnick and D.R. Schwartz, 29-44. Studies on the Texts of theDesert of Judah 37. Leiden: Brill.

Fabbricotti, E. 1980. ‘Tolemaide: una testimonianza arcaica.’ QAL 11: 5-9.Fairbanks, A. 1928. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: Catalogue of Greek and

Etruscan Vases I. Early Vases, Preceding Athenian Black-Figured Ware.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Fantalkin, A. 2001a. ‘Low Chronology and Greek Protogeometric andGeometric Pottery in the Southern Levant.’ Levant 33: 117-25.

Fantalkin, A. 2001b. 'Mez.ad H. ashavyahu: Its Material Culture andHistorical Background.' Tel Aviv 28: 3-165.

Fantalkin, A. 2004. ‘The Final Destruction of Beth-Shemesh and the PaxAssyriaca in the Judahite Shephelah: An Alternative View.’ Tel Aviv31: 245-61.

Fantalkin, A. Forthcoming a. ‘The Al Mina Debate Again: Real Euboeansand Phantom Phoenicians.’ Ancient West and East.

Fantalkin, A. Forthcoming b. ‘An Iron Age Ceramic Assemblage fromYavneh-Yam Excavations: Some Preliminary Observations.’ InYavneh-Yam Reports 1, edited by M. Fischer. Tel Aviv UniversityInstitute of Archaeology Monograph Series. Tel Aviv: Emery andClaire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

Fantalkin, A., and I. Finkelstein. 2006. ‘The Sheshong I Campaign and the8th-Century-bce Earthquake: More on the Archaeology and History

Page 224: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

216 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

of the South in the Iron I-IIA.’ Tel Aviv 33: 18-42.Fantar, M.H. 2000. ‘Carthage au temps de la bataille de la Mer

Sardonienne.’ In Mache: La battaglia del Mare Sardonio. Studi ericerche, edited by P. Bernardini, P.G. Spanu and M. Zucca, 73-84.Cagliari, Oristano: La Memoria Storica-Mythos.

Faraone, C.A. 1992. Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues inAncient Greek Myth and Ritual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Farnell, L.R. 1921. Greek Hero Cults. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Faust, A., and E. Weiss. 2005. ‘Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean

World: Reconstructing the Economic System of the Seventh Centurybce.’ BASOR 338: 71-92.

Faustoferri, A. 1985. ‘Soggetti cirenaici della ceramica laconica.’ InCyrenaica in Antiquity: Papers Presented at the Colloquium on Societyand Economy in Cyrenaica, Cambridge March-April 1983, edited by G.Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 337-48. BAR International Series236. Oxford: BAR.

Fazlýoðlu, Ý. Forthcoming. ‘Damlýboðaz Finds: Inland Carian ArchicPottery and Related Regions.’ In Rumscheid (forthcoming).

Fehr, B. 2000. ‘Bildformeln und Bildtypen in der archaisch-griechischenKunst als Ausdruck von sozialen Normen und Werten.’ Hephaistos 18:103-54.

Felber, H. 2003. ‘Von Söhnen, Vätern, Müttern’. In Kindgötter im Ägyptender griechisch-römischen Zeit, edited by D. Budde, S. Sandri and U.Verhoeven, 113-46. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 128. Leuven,Paris, Dudley, MA: Peeters.

Ferguson, N. 1997. ‘Introduction.’ In Virtual History: Alternatives andCounterfactuals, edited by N. Ferguson, 1-90. London: Picador.

Fiedler, M. 1999. ‘Leukas: Wohn- und Alltagskultur in einernordwestgriechischen Stadt.’ In Geschichte des Wohnens 1: 5000 v.Chr.–500 n. Chr. Vorgeschichte, Frühgeschichte, Antike, edited by W.Hoepfner, 412-26. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.

Fiedler, M. 2003. ‘Antike Häuser in Leukas: Wohnhausarchitektur undFundmaterial aus einer nordwestgriechischen Stadt des 6. bis 1. Jh.v. Chr.’ Ph.D. diss., Freie Universität Berlin.

Filges, A. 2004. ‘Die Arbeiten des Jahres 2002 in Didyma.’ In KazýSonuçlarý Toplantýsý 25,1, 26-31 Mayýs 2003 Ankara, edited by H.Dönmez, A. Özme and K. Olþen, 147-54. Ankara: Kültür ve TurizmBakanlýðý Millî Kütüphane Basýmevi.

Filges, A., and K. Tuchelt. 2002. ‘Didyma 2000.’ In Kazý SonuçlarýToplantýsý 28,2, edited by F. Bayram, H. Dönmez, N. Güder, A. Özme,K. Olþen and N. Toy, 1-15. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlýðý DösimneBasýmevi.

Finkelberg, M. 2004. ‘The End of the Heroic Age in Homer, Hesiod, andthe Cycle.’ Ordia Prima 3: 11-24.

Finkelberg, M. 2005. ‘Greece in the Eighth Century bce and the‘Renaissance’ Phenomenon.’ In Genesis and Regeneration: Essays onConceptions of Origins, edited by S. Shaked, 62-76. Jerusalem: TheIsrael Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Finkelstein, I. 1995a. ‘The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines inCanaan.’ Tel Aviv 22: 213-39.

Finkelstein, I. 1995b. Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History ofthe Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages.Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press.

Finkelstein, I. 1996. ‘The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: AnAlternative View.’ Levant 28: 177-87.

Finkelstein, I. 1999. ‘State Formation in Israel and Judah.’ Near EasternArchaeology 62: 35-52.

Finkelstein, I. 2002. ‘The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-MonarchicPerspective.’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27: 131-67.

Finkelstein, I. 2004. ‘Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology.’ Levant 36: 181-8.

Finkelstein, I., and E. Piasetzky. 2003a. ‘Wrong and Right; High and Low:14C Dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology.’ Tel Aviv 30: 283-95.

Finkelstein, I., and E. Piasetzky. 2003b. ‘Recent Radiocarbon Results andKing Solomon.’ Antiquity 77: 771-9.

Finkelstein, I., and E. Piasetzky. Forthcoming. ‘14C and the Iron AgeChronology Debate: Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan, Megiddo and …Assiros.’ Tel Aviv 33.2.

Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed:Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its SacredTexts. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman. 2006. David and Solomon: In Searchof the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Traditions. NewYork: Free Press.

Finkelstein, I., and L. Singer-Avitz. 2001. ‘Ashdod Revisited.’ Tel Aviv 28:

231-59.Fischer, M. 2005a. ‘The Archaeology and History of Yavneh-Yam.’ In

Fischer 2005b: 173-208. (Hebrew; English abstract)Fischer, M., ed. 2005b. Yavneh, Yavneh-Yam and their Neighborhood:

Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Judean Coastal Plain. TelAviv: Eretz, Tel Aviv University.

Fleischer, R. 1973. Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen ausAnatolien und Syrien. Leiden: Brill.

Fleming, D.E. 2004. Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and EarlyCollective Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fletcher De Cou, H. 1905. ‘The Bronzes of the Argive Heraeum.’ In TheArgive Heraeum 2, edited by C. Waldstein, 191-331. Boston, New York:Houghton, Mifflin and Company.

Flinders Petrie, W.M. s. Petrie.Floren, J. 1987. Die geometrische und archaische Plastik: Die griechische

Plastik 1. Handbuch der Archäologie. Munich: Beck Verlag.Fol, W. 1874. Catalogue descriptif du Musée Fol, 1. Genève: Georg.Forbeck, E., and H. Heres 1997. Das Löwengrab von Milet. BWPr 136.

Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Forbeck, E. 2002. ‘Gräber des hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Milet.’

In Patris und Imperium: Kulturelle und politische Identität in denStädten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit.Kolloquium Köln, November 1998, edited by Ch. Berns, H. v. Hesberg,L. Vandeput and M. Waelkens, 97-105. BABesch Suppl. 8. Leuven,Paris: Peeters.

Fourrier, S. 2001. ‘Naucratis, Chypre et la Grèce de l’Est: le commerce dessculptures ‘chypro-ioniennes’.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001:39-51.

Foxhall, L., and H.A. Forbes. 1982. ‘Sitometreia: The Role of Grain as aStaple Food in Classical Antiquity.’ Chiron 12: 41-90.

Francis, E.D., and M.E. Vickers. 1985. ‘Greek Geometric Pottery at Hamaand its Implications for Near Eastern Chronology.’ Levant 17: 131-8.

Frankel, R., and R. Ventura. 1998. ‘The Mizpe Yamim Bronzes.’ BASOR311: 39-55.

Frankenstein, S. 1979. ‘The Phoenicians in the Far West: A Function ofNeo-Assyrian Imperialism.’ In Power and Propaganda: A Symposiumon Ancient Empires, edited by M.T. Larsen, 263-94. CopenhagenStudies in Assyriology 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Franzoni, L. 1966. ‘Bronzetti pseudoantichi di officine venete.’ Attidell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 124 [1965/6]: 39-59.

Frasca, M. 1993. ‘Osservazioni preliminari sulla ceramica protoarcaica edarcaica di Kyme.’ CronCatania 32: 51-70.

Frasca, M. 1998. ‘Ceramiche greche d’importazione a Kyme eolicanell’VIII secolo a.C.’ In Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica inCalcidia e in Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli 13-16 novembre 1996, edited by M. Bats and B. d’Agostino, 273-9.Collection Centre Jean Bérard 16. AION Quaderno 12. Napoli: CentreJean Bérard, Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Frasca, M. 2000. ‘Ceramiche Tardo Geometriche a Kyme Eolica.’ InKrinzinger 2000: 393-8.

Fraser, P.M., and E. Matthews, eds. 1987. A Lexicon of Greek PersonalNames 1: The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Fraser, P.M., and E. Matthews, eds. 1997. A Lexicon of Greek PersonalNames 3 A: The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Grecia.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

French, P. 1988. ‘Late Dynastic Pottery from the Berlin/HannoverExcavations at Saqqara, 1986.’ MDIK 44: 79-89.

French, P. 2004. ‘Distinctive Pottery from the Second Half of the 6thCentury bc.’ Cahiers de la Céramique Egyptienne 7: 91-6.

Frey, H.-O. 1969. Die Entstehung der Situlenkunst: Studien zur figürlichverzierten Toreutik von Este. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg:Winter.

Fulford, M.G. 1989. ‘To East and West: the Mediterranean Trade ofCyrenaica and Tripolitania in Antiquity.’ LibSt 20: 169-91.

Furtwängler, A. 1890. Olympia 4. Die Bronzen und die übrigeren kleinerenFunde aus Olympia. Berlin: Asher.

Furtwängler, A.E. 1980. ‘Heraion von Samos: Grabungen im Südtemenos1977, I. Schicht- und Baubefunde, Keramik.’ AM 95: 149-224.

Furtwängler, A.E. and H.J. Kienast. 1989. Samos 3. Der Nordbau imHeraion von Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Gàbrici, E. 1927. ‘Il santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte.’ MonAnt 32: 1-419.

Gal, Z., and Y. Alexandre. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age StorageFort and Village. Israel Antiquities Authority, Reports 8. Jerusalem:IAA.

Page 225: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 217

Bibliography

Galili, E., and J. Sharvit. 2005. ‘Underwater Archaeological Remains atYavneh-Yam.’ In Fischer 2005b: 303-14. (Hebrew; English abstract onp. xx-xxi)

Gans, U. 1991. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Zeytintepe.’ In Graeve et al. 1991:137-40.

Gantès, L.-F. 1999. ‘La physionomie de la vaiselle tournée importée àMarseille au VIe siècle av. J.-C.’ In Céramique et peinture grecque:Modes d’emploi. Actes du colloque international Ecole du Louvre 26-27-28 avril 1995, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarague, P.Rouillard and A. Rouveret, 365-81. Paris: La Documentationfrançaise.

Gardiner, A.H. 1973. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to theStudy of Hieroglyphs. 3rd edn. London: Oxford University Press.

Gardner, E.A. 1886. ‘The Inscriptions.’ In Petrie 1886b: 54-63.Gardner, E.A. 1888. Naukratis 2. Sixth Memoir of the EEF. London:

Trübner & Co.Garnsey, P. 1998. Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gassner, V. 2003. Materielle Kultur und kulturelle Identität in Elea in

spätarchaisch-frühklassischer Zeit: Untersuchungen zur Gefäß- undBaukeramik aus der Unterstadt (Grabungen 1987-1994). Velia-Studien2. Archäologische Forschungen 8. Vienna: ÖsterreichischeAkademie der Wissenschaften.

Garstang, J. 1939/40. ‘Exploration in Cilicia: The Neilson Expedition,Forth Interim Report. Part 1 and 2: Excavation at Mersin 1938-1939.’AnnLiv 26: 89-170.

Gates, C. 1983. From Cremation to Inhumation: Burial Practices at Ialysosand Kameiros during the Mid-Archaic Period, c.625-525 bc. Institute ofArchaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Occasional Paper11. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, LosAngeles.

Gaudina, E. 1994. ‘Bacini punici non decorati da Tharros: Appunti peruna tipologia.’ RSF 22: 243-7.

Gauer, W. 1975. Die Tongefäße aus den Brunnen unterm Stadion-Nordwallund im Südost Gebiet. OlForsch 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Gauer, W. 1991. Die Bronzen von Olympia mit Ausnahme der geometrischenDreifüße und der Kessel des orientalisierenden Stils 1: Kessel und Beckenmit Untersätzen, Teller, Kratere, Hydrien, Eimer, Situlen und Cisten,Schöpfhumpen und verschiedenes Gerät. Olympische Forschungen 20.Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Gazda, E.K. 1983. Karanis: An Egyptian Town in Roman Times. Discoveriesof the University of Michigan Expedition to Egypt (1924-1935), edited byE.K. Gazda. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, TheUniversity of Michigan.

Gebauer, J. 2002. Pompe und Thysia. Attische Tieropferdarstellungen aufschwarz- und rotfigurigen Vasen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Gehrig, U.L. 1964. ‘Die geometrischen Bronzen aus dem Heraion vonSamos.’ Ph.D. diss., Universität Hamburg.

Geominy, W. 1992. ‘Katalog.’ In Archäologische Forschungen imAkademischen Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn: Die griechisch-ägyptischen Beziehungen, edited by N. Himmelmann. Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.

Georges, P. 1994. Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience: From ArchaicPeriod to the Age of Xenophon. Baltimore, London: The John HopkinsUniversity Press.

Georges, P. 2000. ‘Persian Ionia under Darius: The Revolt Reconsidered.’Historia 49: 1-39.

Gercke, P. 1981. Funde aus der Antike: Samlung Paul Dierichs, Kassel.Kassel: Verlag Paul Dierichs.

Gercke, P., and W. Löwe, eds. 1996. Samos – die Kasseler Grabung 1894.Kassel: Staatliche Museen.

Gilboa, A. 2005. ‘Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the SouthernPhoenician Coast – A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Šikila(SKL) Material Culture.’ BASOR 337: 1-32.

Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon. 2001. ‘Early Iron Age Radiometric Dates fromTell Dor: Preliminary Implications for Phoenicia and Beyond.’Radiocarbon 43: 1343-51.

Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon. 2003. ‘An Archaeological Contribution to theEarly Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies forPhoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece.’BASOR 322: 1-75.

Gill, D.W.J. 1986. ‘Two Herodotean Dedications from Naukratis.’ JHS106: 184-7.

Gill, D.W.J. 1994. ‘Positivism, Pots and Long-Distance Trade.’ In ClassicalGreece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, edited by I.Morris, 99-107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gill, D.W.J. 2004. ‘Cyrenaica and its Contacts with the Greek World.’ In

Lomas 2004a: 391-409.Gill, D.W.J., and M. Vickers. 1996. ‘Bocchoris the Wise and absolute

Chronology.’ RM 103: 1-9.Gitin, S. 1997. ‘The Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Western Periphery: The

Levant, with a Focus on Philistine Ekron.’ In Assyria 1995: Proceedingsof the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text CorpusProject, edited by S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting, 77-103. Helsinki:University of Helsinki.

Gjerstad, E. 1934. ‘Studies in Archaic Greek Chronology I. Naucratis.’ AAL21: 67-84.

Gjerstad, E. 1948. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4.2. Lund: TheSwedish Cyprus Expedition.

Gjerstad, E. 1959. ‘Naukratis Again.’ AArch 30: 147-65.Gjerstad, E., ed. 1977. Greek Geometric and Archaic Pottery Found in

Cyprus. SkrAth 4, 16. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.Goddio, F., and M. Clauss, eds. 2006. Egypt’s Sunken Treasures. Munich:

Prestel.Goodchild, R.G., J.G. Pedley, and D. White. 1976. Apollonia, the Port of

Cyrene: Excavations by the University of Michigan 1965-1967. LibAntSuppl. 4. Tripoli: The Department of Antiquities.

Gorman, V.B. 2001. Miletos: The Ornament of Ionia. A History of the City to400 bce. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gorton, A. 1996. Egyptian and Egyptianizing Scarabs: A Typology ofSteatite, Faience and Paste Scarabs from Punic and OtherMediterranean Sites. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,Monographs 44. Oxford: Oxford University Committee forArchaeology.

Gorzalczany, A. 1999. ‘Petrographic Analysis of Persian Period Pottery – APreliminary Report.’ In Roll and Tal 1999: 185-9.

Gorzalczany, A. 2005. ‘Petrographic Analysis of Persian Period Potteryfrom Yavneh-Yam – Preliminary Report.’ In Fischer 2005b: 209-16.(Hebrew; English abstract on p. XVII)

Gottlieb, G. 1967. Timuchen: Ein Beitrag zum griechischen Staatsrecht.SBHeid 3. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Graeve, v. V. 1971. ‘Eine Sagendarstellung der frühen milesischenVasenmalerei.’ IstMitt 21: 109-19.

Graeve, V. v. 1973/4. ‘Milet: Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt ander hellenistischen Stadtmauer 1963.’ IstMitt 23/4: 63-115.

Graeve, v. V. 1978. ‘Zur milesischen Keramik im 8. und 7. Jh. v. Chr.’ InCentre Jean Bérard 1978: 34-39.

Graeve, v. V. 1983. ‘Archaische Plastik in Milet. Ein Beitrag zur Frage derWerkstätten und der Chronologie.’ MüJb 34: 7-24.

Graeve, v. V. 1985. ‘Archaische Skulpturen.’ In Müller-Wiener et al. 1985:116-22.

Graeve, v. V. 1986a. ‘Über verschiedene Richtungen der milesischenSkulptur in archaischer Zeit: Bemerkungen zur formalen Gestaltungund zur Lokalisierung.’ In Müller-Wiener 1986, 81-94.

Graeve, v. V. 1986b. ‘Neue archaische Skulpturenfunde aus Milet.’ InArchaische und klassische griechische Plastik, 1: Akten desinternationalen Kolloqiums vom 22.-25. April 1985 in Athen, edited byH. Kyrieleis, 21-30. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Graeve, v. V. 1996. ‘Der Kuros aus Tekirdað.’ IstMitt 46: 103-9.Graeve, v. V. 1997/8. ‘Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen im

archaischen Milet.’ Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 14: 73-88.Graeve, v. V. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: V. Ein neuer Figurentypus der

archaischen milesischen Koroplastik.’ AA: 241-61.Graeve, v. V. 2000a. ‘Die Belagerung Milets durch Alexander den

Großen.’ In Civilisation greque et cultures antiques périphériques:hommage a Petre Alexandrescu a son 70e anniversaire, edited by A.Avram and M. Babes, 113-29. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica.

Graeve, v. V. 2000b. ‘Miletos [2]. II: Topographie und Archäologie.’ In DerNeue Pauly 8, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, 176-80.Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.

Graeve, v. V. 2001. ‘Milet: Grabungsgeschichte.’ In Der Neue Pauly 15,1,edited by M. Landfester, 420-31. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.

Graeve, v. V. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet: XVII. Fragmente von Bauskulpturaus dem archaischen Aphrodite-Heiligtum.’ AA 2005,2: 41-8.

Graeve, v. V. 2006. ‘Milet.’ In Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschungen imwestlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes. InternationalesSymposium 6./7.August 2004 Bergama, edited by W. Radt, 241-62.BYZAS 3. Istanbul: Ege Yayýnlarý.

Graeve, v. V. Forthcoming. ‘Zur Kunstgeschichte früher milesischerTerrakotten.’ In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).

Graeve, v. V., and R. Senff. 1990. ‘Die Grabung am Südhang desKalabaktepe.’ In Graeve et al. 1990: 44-50.

Graeve, v. V., and R. Senff. 1991. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Kalabaktepe.’ In

Page 226: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

218 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Graeve et al. 1991b: 127-33.Graeve, v. V. et al. 1986. ‘Grabung auf dem Kalbaktepe.’ In Müller-Wiener

et al. 1986: 37-51.Graeve, v. V. et al. 1987. ‘Grabung auf dem Kalbaktepe.’ In Müller-Wiener

et al. 1987: 6-33.Graeve, v. V. et al. 1990a. ‘Milet 1989.’ IstMitt 40: 37-78.Graeve, v. V. et al. 1990b. ‘Der Schnitt auf dem Gipfelplateau des

Kalabaktepe 1988.’ In Graeve et al. 1990a: 39-42.Graeve, v. V. et al. 1991. ‘Milet 1990.’ Ist Mitt 41: 125-86.Graeve, v. V. et al. 1995. ‘Milet 1992-1993.’ AA: 195-333.Graeve, v. V. et al. 1997. ‘Milet 1994-1995.’ AA: 109-284.Graeve, v. V. et al. 1999. ‘Milet 1996-1997.’ AA: 1-124.Graeve, v. V. et al. 2001. ‘Milet 1998-1999.’ AA: 409-50.Graeve, v. V. et al. 2005. ‘Milet 2000-2002.’ AA 2005,1: 167-82.Graf, F. 1985. Nordionische Kulte. Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 21.

Rome: Schweizerisches Institut.Graf, F. 1998. ‘Herakles.’ In Der Neue Pauly 5, edited by M. Landfester, 387-

92. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.Graham, A.J. 1986. ‘The Historical Interpretation of Al Mina.’ Dialogues

d’histoire ancienne 12: 51-65.Grallert, S. 2001. ‘Akkulturation im ägyptischen Sepulkralwesen – Der

Fall eines Griechen in Ägypten zur Zeit der 26. Dynastie.’ InHöckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 183-95.

Grammenos, D.V., and E.K. Petropoulos. 2003. Ancient Greek Colonies inthe Black Sea. Publications of the Archaeological Institute ofNorthern Greece 4. Thessaloniki: Greek Ministry of Culture.

Gran-Aymerich, J.M. 1988. ‘Cerámicas griegas y etruscas de Málaga.Excavaciones de 1980 a 1986.’ ArchEspArq 61: 201-21.

Gran-Aymerich, J. M. 1991. Malaga phénicienne et punique: Recherchesfranco-espagnoles 1981-1988. Paris: Editions Recherche sur lesCivilisations.

Gras, M. 1985. Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques. Rome: Ecole Française.Gras, M. 1997. Il Mediterraneo nell’età arcaica. Paestum: Fondazione

Paestum.Gras, M. 2000a. ‘Commercio e scambi tra oriente e occidente.’ Atti

Taranto 39: 125-64.Gras, M. 2000b. ‘La battaglia del Mare Sardonio.’ In Bernardini et al.

2000: 37-46. Cagliari, Oristano: La Memoria Storica-Mythos.Grassi, B. 2003. ‘Il vasellame e l’instrumentum in bronzo della necropoli

di Campovalano nel quadro delle produzioni dell’Italia preromana.’In I Piceni e l’Italia medio-adriatica: Atti del XXII convegno di studietruschi ed italici, Ascoli Piceno, Teramo, Ancona. 9-13 aprile 2000, 491-518. Pisa-Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali.

Greaves, A.M. 2002. Miletos: A History. London, New York: Routledge.Green, C.I. 1987. The Temple Furniture from the Sacred Animal Necropolis

at North Saqqâra 1964-1976. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Greene, E. 2003. ‘Endless Summer: The 2002 Excavation Season at Pabuç

Burnu, Turkey.’ INA Quarterly 30.1: 3-11.Greenewalt Jr., C.H. 1966. ‘Lydian Pottery of the Sixth Century bc. The

Lydion and Marbled Ware.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.Greenewalt Jr., C.H. 1971. ‘An Exhibitionist from Sardis.’ In Studies

Presented to George M.A. Hanfmann, edited by D.G. Mitten, J.G.Pedley and J.A. Scott, 29-46. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Gregory Warden, P. 1990. ‘The Small Finds.’ In The Extramural Sanctuaryof Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 4, edited byD. White, 1-86. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University ofPennsylvania.

Griffiths, J.G. 1970. Plutarch’s de Iside et Osiride. Cardiff: University ofWales Press.

Gruppe, O. 1918. ‘Herakles.’ In RE Suppl. 3, edited by W. Kroll, 910-1121.Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.

Gschnitzer, F., and E. Schwertheim. 1996. ‘Aioleis.’ In Der Neue Pauly 1,edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, 336-41. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B.Metzler.

Gunneweg, J., and I. Perlmann. 1991. ‘The Origin of ‘Loop-Handle Jars’from Tell Keisan.’ RBibl 98: 591-9.

Günther, W. 2003. ‘‘Unsterbliche Kränze’: Zur Selbstdarstellungmilesischer Propheten in didymeischen Inschriftendenkmälern.’Chiron 33: 447-57.

Gutch, C. 1898/9. ‘The Terracottas.’ BSA 5: 67-97.Guy, J.R. 1990. ‘Acquisitions of the Art Museum 1989: Mediterranean

Antiquities.’ Record of The Art Museum Princeton University 49,1: 44-53.

Guzzo Amadasi, M.G., and V. Karageorghis. 1977. Fouilles de Kition 3:Inscriptions phéniciennes. Nicosia: Cyprus Department of Antiquities.

Guzzo, P.G., M.N. Pagliardi, U. Spigo, and L. Rota. 1972. ‘Sibari III:Rapporto preliminare della campagna di scavo. Stombi, Casa Bianca,

Parco del Cavallo, San Mauro (1971): Descrizione dei materiali.’ NSc16 suppl.: 48-146.

Hafthorsson, S. 2006. A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources forthe History of Aram-Damascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Centurybc. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 54. Stockholm:Almqvist and Wiksell International.

Haider, P.W. 1988. Griechenland – Nordafrika. Ihre Beziehungen zwischen1500 und 600 v. Chr. Damstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Haider, P.W. 1996. ‘Griechen im Vorderen Orient und in Ägypten bis c.590 v. Chr.’ In Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität: Die Bedeutungder früharchaischen Zeit, edited by Ch. Ulf, 59-115. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Haider, P.W. 2001. ‘Epigraphische Quellen zur Integration von Griechenin die ägyptische Gesellschaft der Saïtenzeit.’ In Höckmann andKreikenbom 2001: 197-209.

Haider, P.W. 2004. ‘Kontakte zwischen Griechen und Ägyptern und ihreAuswirkungen auf die archaisch-griechische Welt.’ In GriechischeArchaik: Interne Entwicklungen – Externe Implulse, edited by R.Rollinger and C. Ulf, 447-91. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Hall, J.M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hall, J.M. 2002. Hellenicity: between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Hamilakis, Y. 2002. ‘What Future for the ‘Minoan’ Past? Re-thinkingMinoan Archaeology.’ In Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking ‘Minoan’Archaeology, edited by Y. Hamilakis, 2-28. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Hampe, R., and A. Winter. 1962. Bei Töpfern und Töpferinnen in Kreta,Messenien und Zypern. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-GermanischenZentralmuseums Mainz.

Hampe, R., and A. Winter. 1965. Bei Töpfern und Zieglern in Süditalien,Sizilien und Griechenland. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz.

Hancock, R.G., S. Aufreiter, and I. Elsokkary. 1986/7. ‘Nile Alluvium:Soils and Ceramics.’ Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 8: 61-71.

Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1963. ‘The Iron Age Pottery of Tarsus.’ In Excavationsat Gözlü Kale, Tarsus 3: The Iron Age, edited by H. Goldman, 18-322.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1983. Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Resultsof the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958-1975. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Hans, L.-M. 1983. Karthago und Sizilien: Die Entstehung und Gestaltungder Epikratie auf dem Hintergrund der Beziehungen der Karthager zuden Griechen und den nicht griechischen Völkern Siziliens (VI.-III.Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Hildesheim, New York: G. Olms Verlag.

Harbottle, G., M.J. Hughes, and S. Seleem. 2005. ‘The Origin of Black-Figure Greek Ceramics Found in Naukratis (Nile delta).’Archaeometry 47: 511-8.

Harrison, T.P. 2001. ‘Tell Ta’yinat and the Kingdom of Unqi.’ In The Worldof the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour ofPaul-Eugène Dion, edited by P.M.M. Daviau, J.W. Wevers and M.Weigl, 115-32. Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement Series 325. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1989 [1992]. ‘Der etruskische Bucchero aus Karthago:Ein Beitrag zu den frühen Handelsbeziehungen im westlichenMittelmeergebiet (7.-6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.).’ JRGZM 36: 327-410.

Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1993. ‘Il bucchero etrusco a Cartagine.’ In Produzioneartigianale ed esportazione nel mondo antico: Il bucchero etrusco. Attidel colloquio internazionale, Milano 10–11 maggio 1990, edited by M.Bonghi Jovino, 187-94. Milan: Edizioni ET.

Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1996. ‘Ein etruskischer Säulencippus aus Karthago.’ InFremde Zeiten: Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt zum sechzigstenGeburtstag, edited. F. Blakolmer, K.R. Krierer, F. Krinzinger, A.Landskron-Dinstl, H.D. Szemethy and K. Zhuber-Okrog, 187-96.Vienna: Phoibos Verlag.

Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1997. ‘Présences étrusques et italiques dans lessanctuaires grecs (VIII-VII siècle av. J.-C.).’ In Les Etrusques, les plusreligieux des hommes: Etat de la recherche sur la religion étrusque. Actesdu colloque, edited by F. Gaultier and D. Briquel, 293-323. Paris: LaDocumentation française.

Hassan, A. 1976. Stöcke und Stäbe im Pharaonischen Ägypten bis zum Endedes Neuen Reiches. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag.

Haussoullier, B. 1879. ‘Inscriptions de Chio (I).’ BCH 3: 230-55.Hayes, J. W. 1967. ‘North Syrian Mortaria.’ Hesperia 36: 387-47.Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London: The British School at

Rome.Hayes, J.W. 1980. A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery. London: The

British School at Rome.

Page 227: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 219

Bibliography

Hayes, J.W. 1992. Greek and Greek-Style Painted and Plain Pottery in theRoyal Ontario Museum, Excluding Black-Figure and Red-Figure Vases.Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.

Haynes, S. 1959. ‘Etruskische Bronzekopfgefässe aus hellenistischer Zeit.’JRGZM 6: 115-27.

Heinrich, H., and R. Senff. 1992. ‘Die Grabung am Kalabaktepe.’ InGraeve et al. 1992: 100-4.

Heinz, M. 1990. ‘Katalog ausgewählter Funde.’ In Graeve et al. 1990: 56-61.

Heinz, M. Forthcoming. ‘Eine Amuletthülse vom Zeytintepe.’ In Bieringet al. (forthcoming).

Heinz, M., and R. Senff. 1995. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Zeytintepe.’ InGraeve et al. 1995: 220-4.

Helck, W. 1986. ‘Wenamun.’ LÄ 6, edited by W. Helck, 1215-7. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.

Held, W. 1993. ‘Milet – Heiligtum und Wohnhaus.’ IstMitt 43: 371-80.Held, W. 2000. Das Heiligtum der Athena in Milet. Milesische

Forschungen 2. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Held, W. 2002. ‘Funde aus Milet: XIV. Ein Reiterrelief aus Milet und die

Kabiren von Assessos.’ AA: 41-6.Held, W. 2004. ‘Zur Datierung des Klassischen Athenatempels in Milet.’

AA 2004,1: 123-7.Helm, P. 1980. ‘‘Greeks’ in the Neo-Assyrian Levant and ‘Assyria’ in Early

Greek Writers.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.Hemelrijk, E.A. 1987. ‘A Group of Provincial East Greek Vases from South-

Western Asia Minor.’ BABesch 62: 33-55.Hemelrijk, J.M. 1984. Caeretan Hydriae. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Henke, J.-M. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet: XVIII. Kyprische Koroplastik.’ AA

2005,2: 49-71.Herda, A. 1998. ‘Der Kult des Gründerheroen Neileos und die Artemis

Kithone in Milet.’ ÖJh 67: 1-48.Herda, A. 2005. ‘Apollon Delphinios, das Prytaneion und die Agora von

Milet: Neue Forschungen.’ AA 2005,1: 243-94.Herda, A. Forthcoming a. Der Apollon-Delphinios-Kult in Milet und die

Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma: Ein neuer Kommentar der sog.Molpoi-Satzung (Milet I 3 Nr.133). Milesische Forschungen 4. Mainz:Philipp von Zabern.

Herda, A. Forthcoming b. ‘Apollon Delphinios – Apollon Didymeus: ZweiGesichter eines milesischen Gottes und ihr Bezug zur KolonisationMilets in archaischer Zeit.’ In Kulturkontakte: Apollon in Myus,Milet/Didyma, Naukratis und auf Zypern: Akten der Table RondeMainz, 11.-12. März 2004, edited by R. Bol and U. Höckmann.

Hermary, A. 1989. Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre: Sculptures. Paris:Edition de la Réunion des musées nationaux.

Hermary, A. 2001. ‘Naucratis et la sculpture égyptisante à Chypre.’ InHöckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 27-38.

Hermary, A., A. Hesnard, and H. Treziny. 1999. Marseille Grecque 600-49av. J.-C.: La cité phocéenne. Paris: Editions Errance.

Herold, A. 2002. ‘Die Auferstehung der Götter’. In Geo: Das neue Bild derErde. January 2002: 22-44.

Herrmann, P. 1995. ‘Inschriften.’ In Graeve et al. 1995: 282-92.Herrmann, P., W. Günther, and N. Ehrhardt. 2006. Milet 6.3. Inschriften

von Milet: Inschriften n. 1020-1580. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Hertel, D., H. Mommsen, and P.A. Mountjoy. 2001. ‘Neutron Activation

Analysis of the Pottery from Troy in the Berlin SchliemannCollection.’ AA: 169-211.

Hesnard, A., M. Moliner, F. Conche, and M. Bouiron, eds. 1999. Marseille:10 ans d’archéologie, 2600 ans d’histoire. Musées de Marseille. Aix-en-Provence: Editions Edisud.

Heubeck, A., and A. Hoeckstra. 1989. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey,Volume II, Books IX-XVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Heurgon, J. 1969a. ‘Inscription étrusques de Tunisie.’ CRAI: 526-51.Heurgon, J. 1969b. ‘Les Dardaniens en Afrique.’ REL 47: 284-93.Higgins, R.A. 1954. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek

and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London: British Museum.Hilgers, W. 1969. Lateinische Gefäßnamen: Bezeichnungen, Funktion und

Form römischer Gefäße nach antiken Schriftquellen. 31. Beiheft BJb.Düsseldorf: Rheinland-Verlag.

Hill, S., and A. Bryer. 1995. ‘Byzantine Porridge: Tracta, Trahanás andTarhana.’ In Wilkins et al. 1995: 44-54.

Hiller, S. 2000. ‘Die Handelsbeziehungen Äginas mit Italien.’ InKrinzinger 2000: 461-9.

Himmelmann, N. 1973. Das Akademische Kunstmuseum der UniversitätBonn. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Hirschland Ramage, N. 1970. ‘Studies in Early Etruscan Bucchero.’ BSR38: 1-61.

Höckmann, O. 1985. Antike Seefahrt. Beck’s archäologische Bibliothek.

Munich: Beck Verlag.Höckmann, U. 1982. Die Bronzen aus dem Fürstengrab von Castel San

Mariano: Antikensammlung München. Katalog der Bronzen 1.Munich: Beck Verlag.

Höckmann, U. 2001a. ‘Zusammenfassung.’ In Höckmann andKreikenbom 2001: v-xii.

Höckmann, U. 2001b. ‘‘Bilinguen’: Zu Ikonographie und Stil der karisch-ägyptischen Grabstelen des 6. Jhs.v.Chr.’ In Höckmann andKreikenbom 2001: 217-32.

Höckmann, U. 2004a. ‘Ägyptisierende Motive an den zyprisch-griechischen Kourosstatuetten aus Naukratis.’ In Staedel JahrbuchN.F. 19: 71-84.

Höckmann, U. 2004b. ‘Rezeption und Umbildung einiger ägyptischerMotive an den zyprisch-griechischen Kourosstatuetten ausNaukratis.’ In Kultur, Sprache, Kontakt, edited by W. Bisang, T.Bierschenk, D. Kreikenbom and U. Verhoeven, 231-50. Kulturelle undsprachliche Kontakte 1. Würzburg: Ergon.

Höckmann, U. 2004c. ‘Werke zyprischer Bildhauer im griechischenNaukratis: Eine Kourosstatuette in Oxford.’ In Bol and Kreikenbom2004: 61-72.

Höckmann, U. 2005. ‘Archaische Löwenstatuen aus Südionien inägyptischer Haltung.’ In Beck, Bol and Bückling 2005: 83-9.

Höckmann, U., and W. Koenigs. Forthcoming. Zyprisch-griechischeKleinplastik aus Kalkstein und Alabaster / Archaische griechischeBauteile. Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis 2. Worms:Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft.

Höckmann, U., and D. Kreikenbom, eds. 2001. Naukratis: DieBeziehungen zu Ostgriechenland, Ägypten und Zypern in archaischerZeit. Akten der Table Ronde in Mainz, 25.-27. November 1999.Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.

Höckmann, U., and Vittmann, G. 2005. ‘Griechische und karischeSöldner in Ägypten in archaischer Zeit (7.-6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.):Archäologische Zeugnisse.’ In Beck et al. 2005: 97-103.

Höckmann, U., and L. Winkler-Horacvek. 2005. ‘Sphinx im frühenGriechenland und thebanische Sphinx.’ In Beck et al. 2005: 90-6.

Hoffmann, F., and M. Steinhart. 1998. ‘Apries und die ostgriechischeVasenmalerei.’ ÖJh 67: 49-61.

Hoffmann, H., ed. 1964. Norbert Schimmel Collection. Mainz: Philipp vonZabern.

Hogarth, D.G. 1898/9. ‘Excavations at Naukratis.’ BSA 5: 26-97.Hogarth, D.G. 1905. ‘Naukratis 1903.’ In Hogarth et al. 1905: 105-18, 122-3.Hogarth, D.G. 1909. Ionia and the East: Six Lectures. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.Hogarth, D.G. 1929. ‘Lydia and Ionia.’ CAH III: 501-26.Hogarth, D.G., H.L. Lorimer, and C.C. Edgar. 1905. ‘Naukratis 1903.’ JHS

25: 105-36.Högemann, P. 1998. ‘Euagoras I.’ In Der Neue Pauly 4, edited by H. Cancik

and H. Schneider, 201-2. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.Hölbl, G. 1979. Beziehungen der ägyptischen Kultur zu Altitalien. Leiden:

Brill. Hölbl, G. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: VIII. Die Aegyptiaca vom

Aphroditetempel auf dem Zeytintepe.’ AA: 345-71.Hölbl, G. 2005. ‘Ägyptisches Kulturgut in der griechischen Welt im frühen

ersten Jahrtausend vor Christus (10.-6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.).’ In Becket. al. 2005: 114-32.

Hölbl, G. Forthcoming. ‘Ionien und Ägypten in archaischer Zeit.’ In Cobetet al. (forthcoming).

Holladay Jr., J.S. 1982. Cities of the Delta 3. Tell El-Maskhuta. Malibu:Undena Publications.

Holladay Jr., J.S. 2004. ‘Judaeans (and Phoenicians) in Egypt in the LateSeventh to Sixth Centuries bc.’ In Egypt, Israel, and the AncientMediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donals B. Redford, edited byG.N. Knoppers and A. Hirsch, 405-37. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Hölscher., U. 1954. Excavations at Medinet Habu V. Post RamessidRemains. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Homann-Wedeking, E. 1938. Archaische Vasenornamentik in Attika,Lakonien und Ostgriechenland. Athen: Deutsches ArchäologischesInstitut.

Homann-Wedeking, E. 1940. ‘Zur Beurteilung ostgriechischerVasenstile.’ AM 65: 28-35.

Hommel, P. 1959/60. ‘Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957:II. Der Abschnitt östlich des Athenatempels.’ Ist Mitt 9/10: 31-62.

Hommel, P. 1967. ‘Archaischer Jünglingskopf aus Milet.’ IstMitt 17: 115-27.Hope, C. 1977. ‘Jar Sealings and Amphorae of the 18th Dynasty: A

Technological Study. Excavations at Malkata and the Birket Habu1971-1974. ‘ Egyptology Today 5.2: 72-4.

Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study in

Page 228: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

220 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Mediterranean History. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Horden, P. 2005. ‘Mediterranean Excuses: Historical Writing on the

Mediterranean since Braudel.’ History and Anthropology 16: 25-30.Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2005. ‘Four Years of ‘Corruption’: A Response

to Critics.’ In Rethinking the Mediterranean, edited by W.V. Harris,348-75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hornung, E., and A. Badawy. 1975. ‘Apophis.’ In LÄ 1, edited by W. Helck,350-2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hostetter, E. 2001. Bronzes from Spina 2. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Hughes, M.J., M.N. Leese, and R.J. Smith. 1988. ‘The Analysis of Pottery

Lamps Mainly from Western Anatolia, Including Ephesus, byNeutron Activation Analysis.’ In D.M. Bailey, A Catalogue of theLamps in The British Museum 3: Roman Provincial Lamps, 461-85.London: British Museum Publications.

Humbert, J.B. 1991. ‘Essay de classification des amphores dites ‘à anses depanier’.’ RBibl 98: 574-90.

Humphrey, J.H., ed. 1976. Apollonia, the Port of Cyrene: Excavations by theUniversity of Michigan 1965-1967. LibAnt Suppl. 4. Tripoli: TheDepartment of Antiquities.

Hundt, A., and K. Peters. 1961. Greifswalder Antiken. Berlin: Walter deGruyter & Co.

Hürmüzlü, B. 1995. ‘Klazomenai’de m. ö. 7. ve 6. yüzyýl bezemeli vazoformlarý.’ Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Izmir Ege University.

Hürmüzlü, B. 2004a. ‘Burial Grounds at Klazomenai: Geometric throughHellenistic Periods.’ In Ersoy et al. 2004: 77-95.

Hürmüzlü, B. 2004b. ‘A New Type of Clazomenian Sarcophagus: TheAlteration of the Burial Customs in Clazomenae.’ In Bol andKreikenbom 2004: 195-8.

Hurschmann, R. 2001. ‘Situla II. Griechisch-römisch’. In Der Neue Pauly:Enzyklopädie der Antike 11, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider,605. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.

Hurwit, J.M. 1999. The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, andArchaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Hurwit, J.M. 2002. ‘Reading the Chigi Vase.’ Hesperia 71: 1-22.Hurwit, J.M. 2006. ‘Lizards, Lions, and the Uncanny.’ Hesperia 75: 121-36.Huxley, G.L. 1966. The Early Ionians. Shannon: Irish University Press.Iacovou, M. 1988. The Pictorial Pottery of 11th Century bc Cyprus. Studies

in Mediterranean Archaeology 79. Stockholm: P. Åströms Förlag.Iacovou, M. 2005. ‘Cyprus at the Dawn of the First Millennium bc:

Cultural Homogenisation Versus the Tyranny of EthnicIdentifications.’ In Clarke 2005: 125-34.

Ýdil, V. 1989. ‘Neue Ausgrabungen im aeolischen Kyme.’ Belleten 53: 525-43.

Ilyina, Y.I. 2004. ‘The Early Ceramics from Olbia.’ In The Phenomenon ofBosporan Kingdom: Problems of Chronology and Dating, Proceedingsof the International Conference, St. Petersburg October 2004, edited byM. Ju. Vachtina, 75-83. St. Petersburg: The State Hermitage MuseumEditors House. (in Russian)

Ilyina, Y.I. 2005. ‘Chian Pottery from the Excavations on Berezan Island.’In Borysthenes – Berezan: The Hermitage Archaeological Collection 1,edited by S.L. Solovyov, 70-173. St. Petersburg: The State HermitagePublishing House. (in Russian)

Iozzo, M. 1985. ‘Bacini corinzi su alto piede.’ ASAtene 63: 7-61.Ýren, K. 2002. ‘Die Werkstatt des Londoner Dinos: Eine phokäische

Werkstatt?’ IstMitt 52: 165-207.Ýren, K. 2003. Aiolische orientalisierende Keramik. Istanbul: Ege Yayýnlarý.Irvine, S.A. 2005. ‘The Last Battle of Hadadezer.’ JBL 124: 341-7.Isager, J., ed. 1994. Hecatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance.

Halicarnassian Studies I. Odense: Odense University Press.Ýþik, E. 1989. Elektronstatere aus Klazomenai: Der Schatzfund von 1989.

Saarbrücker Studien zur Archäologie und Alten Geschichte 5.Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

Isler, H.-P. 1978. Samos 4. Das archaische Nordtor und seine Umgebung imHeraion von Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Jackson, D.A. 1976. East Greek Influence on Attic Vases. Suppl. Papers 13.London: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies.

Jacobsthal, P. 1932. ‘Lenaina epi Turoknhstidoj.’ AM 57: 1-7.Jacobsthal, P., and E. Neuffer. 1933. ‘Gallia Graeca: Recherches sur

l’hellénisation de la Provence.’ Préhistoire 2: 1-64.Jacoby, F. 1912. ‘Hermeias 6.’ In RE 8, edited by W. Kroll, 731. Stuttgart:

J.B. Metzler.Jacoby, F. 1956. Reprinted. ‘GENESIA: A Forgotten Festival of the Dead.’

In Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, edited by F.Jacoby, 243-59. Leiden: Brill. Original edition, CQ 38, 1944: 65-75.

Jacopi, G. 1929. ‘Scavi nella necropoli di Jalisso 1924-1928.’ ClRh 3: 1-284.Jacopi, G. 1931/9. ‘Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro I, scavi nelle

necropoli Camiresi 1929-1930.’ ClRh 4: 7-376.Jacopi, G. 1932/3-41a. ‘Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro II.’ ClRh 6/7:

1-439.Jacopi, G. 1932/3-41b. ‘Scavi e ricerche di Nisiro.’ ClRh 6/7: 469-552.Jacopi, G. 1932/3-41c. ‘Sepolcreto di Papatislures.’ ClRh 6/7: 17-103.Jacopi, G. 1933. CVA Rodi, Museo Archeologico dello spedale dei Cavalieri 1.

Milan: Sestetti e Tumminelli.Jacopi, G. 1934. CVA Rodi, Museo Archeologico dello spedale dei Cavalieri 2.

Milan: Sestetti e Tumminelli.James, P. 2003. ‘Naukratis Revisited.’ Hyperboreus: Studia Classica 9: 235-

64.James, P. 2005. ‘Archaic Greek Colonies in Libya: Historical vs.

Archaeological Chronologies?’ LibSt 36: 1-20.James, T.G.H. 1981. ‘Egypt: The Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth

Dynasties.’ In CAH 3.2, edited by J. Boardman, 677-747. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1996. ‘Akoris (2).’ In Der Neue Pauly 1, edited by H.Cancik and H. Schneider, 406. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.

Jeffery, L.H. 1961. ‘The Pact of the First Settlers at Cyrene.’ Historia 10:139-47.

Jeffery, L.H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Originof the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the FifthCenturies bc. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. Rev. ed.with a Suppl. by A.W. Johnston. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jeffery, L.H. 1998. Reprinted. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Studyof the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighthto the Fifth Centuries bc. Oxford Monographs on ClassicalArchaeology. Rev. ed. with a Suppl. by A.W. Johnston. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Jenkins, I. 2000. ‘Cypriot Limestone Statuettes from Cnidus.’ InTsetskhladze et. al. 2000: 153-62.

Jenkins, I. 2001. ‘Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: The Case for CypriotOrigin.’ In AJA 105: 163-79.

Jenkins, I., and G.B. Waywell, eds. 1997. Sculptors and Sculpture of Cariaand the Dodecanese. London: British Museum Press.

Joffee, A.H. 2003. ‘Identity/Crisis.’ Archaeological Dialogues 10: 77-95.Johnston, A.W. 1972. ‘The Rehabilitation of Sostratos.’ PP 27: 416-23.Johnston, A.W. 1974. ‘Naukratis: More Light, no SÓN.’ BICS 21: 96-8.Johnston, A.W. 1978. Pottery from Naukratis: An Exhibition on the

Occasion of the 11th International Congress of Classical Archaeology.London: University College.

Johnston, A.W. 1979. Trademarks on Greek Vases. Warminster: Aris andPhilipps.

Johnston, A.W. 1980. ‘Rhomis.’ ZPE 38: 95-7.Johnston, A.W. 1982. ‘Fragmenta Britannica II: Sherds from Naukratis, 4.

Etruscan Bucchero.’ BICS 29: 38.Johnston, A.W. 1987. ‘Amasis and the Vase Trade.’ In Belloli 1987: 129-40.Johnston, A.W. 1993. ‘Pottery from Archaic Building Q at Kommos.’

Hesperia 62: 339-82.Johnston, A.W. 1996. ‘An Epigraphic Curiosity from Histria.’ Il Mar Nero

2/3: 99-101.Johnston, A.W. 2000a. ‘Chios 1 Athens 3 (Ionian cup).’ In Tsetskhladze et.

al. 2000: 163-70.Johnston, A.W. 2000b. ‘PET food for thought.’ ZPE 133: 236.Johnston, A.W. 2000c. ‘Greek and Latin Insciptions.’ In Johnston and

Pandolfini 2000, 11-66.Johnston, A.W. 2005. ‘Kommos: Further Iron Age Pottery.’ Hesperia 74:

309-93.Johnston, A.W., and C. de Domingo. 2003. ‘A Petrographical and

Chemical Study of East Greek and other Archaic TransportAmphorae.’ Eulimenh 3: 27-60

Johnston, A.W., and R.E. Jones. 1978. ‘The ‘SOS’ Amphora.’ BSA 73: 103-41.

Johnston, A.W., and M. Pandolfini, eds. 2000. Gravisca 15. Le iscrizioni.Bari: Edipuglia.

Jones, R.E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies.BSA Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1. Athens: British School atAthens.

Joyce, R.A. 2002. The Languages of Archaeology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Jurgeit, F. 1999. Die etruskischen und italischen Bronzen sowie

Gegenstände aus Eisen, Blei und Leder im Badischen LandesmuseumKarlsruhe. Pisa, Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali.

Kahil, L. 1972. ‘Un nouveau vase plastique du potier Sotadès au Musée duLouvre.’ RA, 271-82.

Kalaitzoglou, G. Forthcoming. Assesos: Ein geschlossener Befundsüdionischer Keramik aus dem Heiligtum der Athena Assesia.Milesische Forschungen 6. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Page 229: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 221

Bibliography

Kallipolites, B.G. 1956 [1961]. ‘’Anaskafh\ e)n Palaiopo&lei th\jKerku&raj.’ Prakt 112: 158-63.

Kaltsas, N.E. 1998. /Akanqoj. H Anaskafh/ sto nekrotafi/o kata/ to1979. Upourgei/o Politismou/, Dhmosieu/mata tou Arxaiologikou/Delti/ou ar. 65. Athens: Tamei/o Arxaiologikw&n Po/rwn kaiApallotriw&sewn.

Kamlah, J. 1999. ‘Zwei nordpalästinische ‘Heiligtümer’ der persischenZeit und ihre epigraphischen Funde.’ ZDPV 115: 163-90.

Kammerzell, F. 2001. ‘Die Geschichte der karischen Minderheit inÄgypten.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 233-55.

Kansteiner, S. 2000. Herakles: Die Darstellungen in der Großplastik derAntike. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau.

Kaplan, P. 2002. ‘The Social Status of the Mercenary in Archaic Greece.’In Oikistes: Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power inAncient World Offered in Honor of A.J. Graham, edited by V.B.Gorman and E.W. Robinson, 229-43. Mnemosyne Supplementum234. Leiden: Brill.

Kaplan, P. 2003. ‘Cross-Cultural Contacts among MercenaryCommunities in Saite and Persian Egypt.’ Mediterranean HistoricalReview 18: 1-31.

Kaposhina, S.I. 1956. ‘Iz istorii grecheskoýv. Kolonizatsii NizhnegoPobuzhia.’ In Ol’viia i Nizhnee Pobuzhe v Antichnuiu Epokhu (MIA 50),edited by V.F. Gaýývdukevich, 211-54. Moscow, Leningrad: AkademiiaNauk SSSR.

Karageorghis, V. 1961. ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertesarchéologiques à Chypre en 1960.’ BCH 85: 256-315.

Karageorghis, V. 1967. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I. Nicosia:Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Karageorghis, V. 1973. Excavations in the Nekropolis of Salamis III. Nicosia:Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Karageorghis, V. 1978. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis IV. Nicosia:Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Karageorghis, V. 1997. ‘Greek Gods and Heroes in Cyprus: a Preview ofthe Problem. ‘ In Greek Offerings: Essays on Greek Art in Honour ofJohn Boardman, edited by O. Palagia, 221-9. Oxbow Monograph 89.Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Karageorghis, V. 1998. Greek Gods and Heroes in Ancient Cyprus. Athens:Commercial Bank of Greece.

Karageorghis, V. 2000/1, ‘The Mycenaean Pottery of the Pictorial Style.’OpAth 25/6: 91-3.

Kardara, Ch. 1963. Rodiakh\ 0Aggeiografi/a. Athens: Biblioqh/kh th=j )en)Aqh/naij )Arxaiologikh=j (Etairei/aj.

Kardulias, P.N. 1999. Preface to World-Systems Theory in Practice:Leadership, Production and Exchange, edited by P.N. Kardulias, xvii-xxi. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Karetsou, A., ed. 2000. Krh/th-Ai/guptoj.Politismikoi/ desmoi/ triw/nxilietiw/n. Kata/logoj; Arxaiologiko/ Mousei/o Heraklei/ou, 21Noembri\ou 1999 - 21 Septembri\ou 2000. Herakleion: Upourgei\oPolitismou\.

Kastelic, J. 1964. Situlenkunst: Meisterschöpfungen PrähistorischerBronzearbeit. Vienna, Munich: Schrollverlag.

Käufler, S. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: II. Die Frühstufe des Middle Wild GoatI-Stils.’ AA: 203-12.

Kawerau, G., and A. Rehm. 1914. Milet 1.3. Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin:Georg Reimer.

Kearns, E. 1994. ‘Cakes in Greek Sacrifice Regulations.’ In Ancient GreekCult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence, edited by R. Hägg, 65-70.Stockholm: Åström.

Kearsley, R. 1995. 'The Greek Geometric Wares from Al Mina Levels 10-8and Associated Pottery.' MeditArch 8: 7-81.

Kearsley, R. 1999. ‘Greeks Overseas in the 8th Century bc: Euboeans, AlMina and Assyrian Imperialism.’ In Ancient Greeks: West and East,edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 109-34. Mnemosyne Supplementum196. Leiden: Brill.

Keenan, D.J. 2004. ‘Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age Gordion areConfounded.’ Ancient West & East 3: 100-3.

Kees, H. 1935. ‘Naukratis.’ In RE 16,2, edited by W. Kroll, 1954-66.Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.

Kelm, L.G., and Mazar, A. 1989. ‘Excavating in Samson Country.’ BiblicalArchaeology Review 15.1: 16-27.

Kempinski, A. 2002. Tel Kabri: The 1986-1993 Excavation Seasons. Tel AvivUniversity, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology,Monograph Series 20. Tel Aviv: Emery and Clair Yass Publications inArchaeology.

Kenrick, P.M. 1987. ‘Hellenistic and Roman Fine Wares.’ In TheExtramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya.Final Reports 3, edited by D. White, 1-18. Philadelphia: The University

Museum, University of Pennsylvania.Kerschner, M. 1995. ‘Die Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe.’ In Graeve et al.

1995: 214-20.Kerschner, M. 1997a. ‘Ein Kessel des frühen Tierfriesstiles aus den

Grabungen unter der Tetragonos-Agora in Ephesos.’ ÖJh 66: 9-27.Kerschner, M. 1997b. ‘Ein stratifizierter Opferkomplex des 7. Jhs. v. Chr.

aus dem Artemision von Ephesos.’ ÖJhBeibl. 66: 82-226.Kerschner, M., and R. Senff. 1997. ‘Die Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe.’ AA:

120-2.Kerschner, M. 1999. ‘Das Artemisheiligtum auf der Ostterrasse des

Kalabaktepe in Milet: Stratigraphie und Keramikfunde derSondagen des Jahres 1995. Mit einem Beitrag von U. Schlotzhauer.’AA: 7-51.

Kerschner, M. 2000. ‘Die bemalte ostgriechische Keramik auf Sizilien.’ InKrinzinger 2000: 487-91.

Kerschner, M. 2001. ‘Perspektiven der Keramikforschung in Naukratis 75Jahre nach Elinor Price.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 69-94.

Kerschner, M. 2002. ‘Die lokalisierten chemischen Gruppen A, D und Hund ihr Aussagewert für die Keramikproduktion von Milet undEphesos.’ In Akurgal et al. 2002: 37-47.

Kerschner, M. 2003. ‘Stratifizierte Fundkomplexe der geometrischen undsubgeometrischen Epoche aus Ephesos.’ In Rückert and Kolb 2003:43-59.

Kerschner, M. 2004. ‘Phokäische Thalassokratie oder Phantom-Phokäer?Die frühgriechischen Keramikfunde im Süden der iberischenHalbinsel aus der ägäischen Perspektive.’ In Lomas 2004a: 115-48.

Kerschner, M. 2005. ‘Die Ionier und ihr Verhältnis zu den Phrygern undLydern: Beobachtungen zur archäologischen Evidenz.’ In NeueForschungen zu Ionien, edited by E. Schwertheim and E. Winter, 113-46. Asia Minor Studien 54. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Kerschner, M. 2006. ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaischerostgriechischer Keramik: Die Funde aus Berezan im AkademischenKunstmuseum der Universität Bonn und im Robertinum derUniversität Halle-Wittenberg.’ IstMitt 56 (forthcoming).

Kerschner, M. Forthcoming. ‘Das Keramikbild von Ephesos im 7. und 6.Jh. v. Chr.’ In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).

Kerschner, M., and H. Mommsen. 2005. ‘Transportamphorenmilesischen Typs in Ephesos: Archäometrische und archäologischeUntersuchungen zum Handel im archaischen Ionien.’ In Synergia:Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, G.Ladstätter and S. Ladstätter, 107-18. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag.

Kerschner, M., and H. Mommsen. Forthcoming. ‘Neue archäologischeund archäometrische Forschungen zu den Töpferzentren derOstägäis.’ In Les productions céramiques du Pont-Euxin à l’époquegrecque: Actes du colloque international Bucarest, 18-23 septembre2004, edited by P. Dupont and V. Lungu. Bucharest: Il Mar Nero.

Kerschner, M., and U. Schlotzhauer. 2005. ‘A New Classification Systemfor East Greek Pottery.’ Ancient West & East 4.1: 1-56.

Kerschner, M., and U. Schlotzhauer. Forthcoming. ‘Vorschlag zu einemneuen Klassifikationssystem ostgreichischer Keramik.’ In Cobet et al.(forthcoming).

Kerschner, M., H. Mommsen, T. Beier, D. Heimermann, and A. Hein.1993. ‘Neutron Activation Analyses of Bird Bowls and RelatedArchaic Ceramic Finds from Miletus.’ Archaeometry 35.2: 197-210.

Kerschner, M., H. Mommsen, C. Rogl, and A. Schwedt. 2002. ‘DieKeramikproduktion von Ephesos in griechischer Zeit: Zum Stand derarchäometrischen Forschungen.’ ÖJh 71: 189-206.

Ketterer. K. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: III. Ein Fikellurakessel aus demAphroditeheiligtum.’ AA: 213-21.

Kilian, K. 1975. Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zurarchaischen Zeit. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 14.2. Munich: BeckVerlag.

Kinch, K.F. 1914. Vroulia. Berlin: Georg Reimer Libraire.Kleibl, K. 2006. ‘Terrakottavotive.’ In Berges 2006: 153-82.Kleine, J. 1979. ‘Milet: Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt an der

hellenistischen Stadtmauer, 1968-1973.’ IstMitt 29: 109-59.Kleiner, G. 1959/60. ‘Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957:

VI. Die Grabung im Norden des Athena-Tempels.’ IstMitt 9/10: 109-59.

Knauf, E.A. 1991. ‘King Solomon’s Copper Supply.’ In Phoenicia and theBible, edited by E. Lipinski, 167-86. Studia Phoenicia 11. Leuven:Peeters.

Knipovich, T.N. 1940. ‘Nekropol’ v Severo-Vostochnoýv chasti Ol’viývskogoGorodishcha (po raskopkam 1937 g.).’ SovArch 6: 92-106.

Koch, N.J. 1996. De picturae initiis: Die Anfänge der griechischen Malereiim 7. Jh. v. Chr. Munich: Biering and Brinkmann.

Kocka, J. 2003. ‘Comparison and Beyond.’ History and Theory 42: 39-44.

Page 230: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

222 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Kocybala, A.K. 1978. ‘Greek Colonization of the North Shore of the BlackSea in the Archaic Period.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.

Kocybala, A.K. 1999. ‘The Corinthian Pottery.’ In The ExtramuralSanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 7,edited by D. White. Philadelphia: The University Museum,University of Pennsylvania.

Koehne, E. 1998. Die Dioskuren in der griechischen Kunst von der Archaikbis zum Ende des 5. Jhs. v. Chr. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.

Kögler, P. 2005. ‘Import, Export, Imitation: Trade and the EconomicPower of Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial Knidos According to theFine Pottery.’ In Berg Briese and Vaag 2005: 50-62.

Kolb, F. 2004. ‘Troy VI: A Trading Center and Commercial City?’ AJA 108:577-613.

Kolta, S.K. 1968. ‘Die Gleichsetzung ägyptischer und griechischer Götterbei Herodot.’ Ph.D. diss., Tübingen University.

Kopeikina, L.V. 1968. ‘Gruppa rodosskikh amfor s ostrova Berezan’.’Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennogo ordena Lenina Ermitazha 29: 44-7.

Kopeikina, L.V. 1970a. ‘Osobennosti razvitiia rodossko-ionývskoýv keramikiv pervoýv polovine VI v. do n. e. i voprocy lokalizatsii nekotorykh eegrupp.’ VDI 111: 93-106.

Kopeikina, L.V. 1970b. ‘Rodossko-ioniývskaia keramikaorientaliziruiushchei gruppy iz raskopok na ostrove Berezan’.’Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock 19.1: 559-66.

Kopeikina, L.V. 1973. ‘The Earliest Example of Greek Painted Pottery fromBerezan Island.’ SovArch 1: 240-244. (in Russian with engl.summary).

Kopeikina, L.V. 1981. ‘Osobennosti razvitiia poseleniia na o. Berezan’ varkhaicheskiýv period.’ SovArch 25.1: 192-208.

Kopeikina, L.V. 1982. ‘ Rodossko-ioniývskaia keramika VII v. do n. e. s o.Berezan’ i ee znachenie dlia izucheniia rannego etapasushchestvovaniia poseleniia.’ In Khudozhestvennye izdeliiaantichnykh masterov, edited by S.P. Boriskovskaya, 6-35. Leningrad:Iskusstvo Leningradskoe otdelenie.

Kopeikina, L.V. 1986. ‘ Raspisnaia keramika arkhaicheskogo vremeni izantichnykh poseleniýv nizhnego pobuzh’ia i podneprov’ia kakistochnik dlia izucheniia torgovykh i kul’turnykh sviazeýv.’Arkheologicheskiývsbornik 27: 27-47.

Kopylov, V.P., and Larinok, P.A. 1994. The Settlement of Berezan: Materialsand Investiagtions of the Archaeological Expedition of Taganrog.Rostov on the Don: Gefest.

Korkut, T. 2002. ‘Steinerne Mörserschalen aus Patara.’ AA: 233-45.Korpusova, V.N. 1987. ‘Vostochnogrecheskiia raspisnaia keramika.’ In

Kul’tura naseleniia Olvii i ee okrugi v Arkhaicheskoe Vremia, edited byS.D. Krishchinhiýv, 35-53. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.

Koshelenko, G.A., and V.D. Kuznetsov. 1992. ‘The Greek Colonization ofthe Bosporus (in Connection with Certain General Problems ofColonization).’ In Essays on the Archaeology and History of theBosporus, edited by G.A. Koshelenko, 6-28. Moscow: Nauka. (inRussian)

Köster, R. 2004. Milet 7.1. Die Bauornamentik von Milet 1: DieBauornamentik der frühen und mittleren Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Walter deGruyter & Co.

Kottaridou, A. 2005. ‘The Lady of Aigiai.’ In Alexander the Great: Treasuresfrom an Epic Era of Hellenism, edited by D. Pandermalis, 139-47. NewYork: Onassis Foundation.

Kourou, N. ed. 2002. Limestone Statuettes of Cypriote Type found in theAegean. Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation.

Kourou, N. 2004. ‘Inscribed Imports, Visitors and Pilgrims in the ArchaicSanctuaries of Camiros.’ In XARIS XAIRE: Mele/tej sth mnh/mh thjXa/rhj Ka/ntzia. Athens: Arxaiologiko/ Institou/to Aigaikw&nSpoudw&n.

Kourouniotes, K. 1915. ‘ 0Anaskafai\ kai\ e2reunai e0n Xi\w|.’ ArchDelt 1: 64-93.

Kourouniotes, K. 1916. ‘ 0Anaskafai\ kai\ e2reunai e0n Xi\w| 2.’ ArchDelt 2:190-215.

Kranz, W. 1934. ‘Vorsokratisches I.’ Hermes 69: 114-5.Kreuzer, B. 1992. Frühe Zeichner 1500-500 vor Chr., ägyptische, griechische

und etruskische Vasenfragmente der Sammlung H.A. Cahn, Basel:Katalog der Ausstellung Freiburg 4.12.1992 bis 4.4.1993, edited by V.M.Strocka. Freiburg: Waldkircher Verlagsgessellschaft.

Kreuzer, B. 1998. Samos 22. Die attisch schwarzfigurige Keramik aus demHeraion von Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Krings, V. 1998. Carthage et les Grecs (c. 580-480 av. J. C.). Cologne,Leiden, New York: Brill.

Krings, V. 2000. ‘Quelques considerations sur l’«empire de Carthage». Àpropos de Malchus.’ In Actas del IV. Congreso Internacional deEstudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Cádiz, 2.-6. Octubre 1995, edited by M.E.

Aubet, 167-72. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.Krinzinger, F., ed. 2000. Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer:

Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr. Akten desSymposions Wien, 24.-27. März 1999. Denkschrift Wien 288, AF 4.Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Kroll, W. 1919. ‘Käse.’ In RE 10,2, edited by W. Kroll, 1489-96. Stuttgart:J.B. Metzler.

Kromer, K., ed. 1962. Situlenkunst zwischen Po und Donau: VerzierteBronzearbeiten aus dem ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. Katalog zurAusstellung. Vienna: Prähistorische Abteilung des NaturhistorischenMuseums.

Kron, U. 1984. ‘Archaisches Kultgeschirr aus dem Heraion von Samos: Zueiner speziellen Gattung von archaischem Trink- und Tafelgeschirrmit Dipinti.’ In Ancient Greek and Related Pottery: Proceedings of theInternational Vase Symposium in Amsterdam 12-15 April 1984, editedby H.A.G. Brijder, 292-7. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.

Kron, U. 1988. ‘Kultmahle im Heraion von Samos archaischer Zeit:Versuch einer Rekonstruktion.’ In Early Greek Cult Practice:Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the SwedishInstitute at Athens, 26-29 June, 1986, edited by R. Hägg, N. Marinatosand G.C. Nordquist, 135-48. SKrAth 4o, 38. Stockholm: Paul Åströms.

Kron, U. 1992. ‘Frauenfeste in Demeterheiligtümern: DasThesmophorion von Bitalemi.’ AA: 611-50.

Krumme, M. 2003. ‘Geometrische Keramik aus Milet.’ In Schmalz andSöldner 2003: 244-5.

Krumme, M. Forthcoming. ‘Trapezomata: Bleimodell eines Tisches ausMilet.’ In Biering et al. (forthcoming).

Kruse, B. 1949. ‘Pandemos.’ In RE 18, edited by K. Ziegler, 507-10.Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.

Kucvan, D. 1995. ‘Zur Ernährung und dem Gebrauch von Pflanzen imHeraion von Samos im 7. Jahrhunder v. Chr.’ JdI 110: 1-64.

Kucvan, D. 2000. ‘Rapport synthétique sur les recherchesarchéobotaniques dans le sanctuaire d’Héra de l’île de Samos.’ InPaysage e alimentation dans le monde grec, edited by J.-M. Luce, 99-108. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.

Kuhrt, A. 2002a. ‘Greek Contacts with the Levant and Mesopotamia inthe First Half of the First Millennium bc: A View from the East.’ InTsetskhladze and Snodgrass 2002: 17-40.

Kuhrt, A. 2002b. ‘Greeks’ and ‘Greece’ in Mesopotamian and PersianPerspectives: A Lecture Delivered at New College, Oxford, on 7th May,2001. J.L. Myres Memorial Lectures 21. Oxford: Leopard’s HeadPress.

Kunisch, N. 1990. ‘Die Augen der Augenschalen.’ AntK 35: 20-27.Kunisch, N. Forthcoming. ‘Anstelle eines Hafenlöwen... .’ In Biering et al.

(forthcoming).Kunze, E. 1934. ‘Ionische Kleinmeister.’ AM 59: 81-122.Kunze, E. 1950. Archaische Schildbänder: Ein Beitrag zur frühgriechischen

Bildgeschichte. OlForsch 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Kuznetsov, V.D. 1991. ‘Kepoi: Ionian Pottery.’ SovArch 4: 36-52. (in

Russian with Engl. summary)Kuznetsov, V.D. 2001. ‘Archaeological Investigations in the Taman

Peninsula.’ In North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries andStudies, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 319-44. Colloquium Pontica 6.Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill.

Kyrieleis, H. 1986. ‘Chios and Samos in the Archaic Period.’ In Boardmanand Vaphopoulou-Richardson 1986: 187-204.

Kyrieleis, H. 1991. ‘The Relations between Samos and the EasternMediterranean.’ In The Civilizations of the Aegean and their Diffusionin Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean 2000-600 bc: Proceedings ofan International Symposium 18-24 September 1989, edited by V.Karageorghis, 128-31. Larnaca: Pierides Foundation.

Kyrieleis, H. 1996. Samos 10. Der große Kuros von Samos. Bonn: Dr. RudolfHabelt.

Lamb, W. 1931/2. ‘Antissa.’ BSA 32: 41-67.Lamb, W. 1932. ‘Grey Wares from Lesbos.’ JHS 52: 1-12.Lamb, W. 1934/5. ‘Excavations at Kato Phana in Chios.’ BSA 35: 138-64.Lamb, W. 1936. CVA Cambridge, Fitzwilliam 2. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Lambrino, M.F. 1938. Les vases archaïques d’Histria. Bucharest: Fundatia

Regele Carol I.Landolfi, M. 1997. ‘Sirolo, necropoli picena «I Pini». Tomba monumentale

a circolo con due carri (520-500 a.C.).’ In Carri da guerra e principietruschi: Catalogo della mostra, edited by A. Emiliozzi, 229-41. Rome:«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Lane, E.A. 1933/4. ‘Laconian Vase Painting.’ BSA 34: 99-189.Lanfranchi, G.B. 2000. ‘The Ideological and Political Impact of the

Assyrian Imperial Expansion on the Greek World in the 8th and 7th

Page 231: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 223

Bibliography

Centuries bc.’ In The Heirs of Assyria, edited by S. Aro and R.M.Whiting, 7-34. Melammu Symposia I. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian TextCorpus Project.

Langlotz, E. 1966. Die kulturelle und künstlerische Hellenisierung derKüsten des Mittelmeeres durch die Stadt Phokaia. Cologne, Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.

Langlotz, E. 1969. ‘Beobachtungen in Phokaia.’ AA 1969: 377-85.Langlotz, E. 1975. Studien zur nordostgriechischen Kunst. Mainz: Philipp

von Zabern.Laronde, A. 1995. ‘Mercenaires grecs en Egypte à l’époque Saïte et à

l’époque Perse.’ In Entre Egypte et Grèce: Actes du colloque du 6-9octobre 1994, edited by Jean Leclant, 26-36. Cahiers de la VillaKérylos 5. Paris: Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.

Laurens, A.F. 1986. ‘Bousiris.’ In LIMC 3, edited by L. Kahil, 147-52. Zurich,Munich: Artemis Verlag.

Lawall, M.L. 2006. ‘Ionian Renaissance? Late Fifth- and Fourth-Centurybc. Amphora Types in the Eastern Aegean.’ Paper Read at the 2006Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 6-8January, Montreal, Quebec.

Lazzarini, M.L. 1976. ‘Le formule delle dediche votive nella Greciaarcaica.’ MemLinc: 47-354.

Leahy, A. 1988. ‘The Earliest Dated Monument of Amasis and the End ofthe Reign of Apries.’ JEA 74: 183-99.

Leclère, F. 1997. ‘Les villes de Basse Egypte au Ier millénaire av. J.C.Analyse archéologique et historique de la topographie urbaine.’Ph.D. diss., University of Lyon.

Lehmann, G. 1996. Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien undLibanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen c. 720 bis 300 v.Chr. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Lehmann, G. 2002a. ‘Area E.’ In Kempinski 2002: 73-90.Lehmann, G. 2002b. ‘Pottery: Late Bronze Age, Iron Age.’ In Kempinski

2002: 176-222.Lehmann, G. 2005. ‘Al Mina and the East: A Report on Research in

Progress.’ In The Greeks in the East, edited by A. Villing, 61-92.London: the Trustees of the British Museum.

Lehmann, K. 1960. Samothrace 2.2.The Inscriptions on Ceramics andMinor Objects. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Lehmann, K., and D. Spittle. 1964. Samothrace 4.2.The Altar Court.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Lemos, A.A. 1986. ‘Archaic Chian Pottery.’ In Boardman andVaphopoulou-Richardson 1986: 233-49.

Lemos, A.A. 1991. Archaic Pottery of Chios: The Decorated Styles. OxfordUniversity Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 30. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Lemos, A.A. 1992. ‘Un atelier archaique Chiote en Macédoine orientale.’In Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux époques géométrique,archaique et classique, edited by F. Blondé and J.Y. Perreault, 157-73.Paris: Boccard.

Lemos, A.A. 1999/2000. ‘O Trwiko/j Ku/kloj sthn Proklasikh/eikonografi/a thj anatolikh/j Ella/daj.’ Archaiognosia 10: 11-50.

Lemos, A.A. 2000. ‘Aspects of East Greek Pottery and Vase Painting.’ InKrinzinger 2000: 377-91.

Lemos, I. 2001. ‘The Lefkandi Connection: Networking in the Aegean andthe Eastern Mediterranean.’ In Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500 –450 bc, edited by L. Bonfante and V. Karageorghis, 215-26. Nicosia:The Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.

Lemos, I. 2003. ‘Craftsmen, Traders and some Wives in Early Iron AgeGreece.’ In Sea Routes… Interconnections in the Mediterranean16th–6th c. bc: Proceedings of the International Symposium held inRethymnon, Crete in September 29th- October 2nd 2002, edited by N.C.Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis, 187-93. Athens: A.G. LeventisFoundation.

Lenschau, T. 1913. ‘Zur Geschichte Ioniens.’ Klio 13: 175-83.Lenz, D. 1997. ‘Karische Keramik im Martin von Wagner-Musem.’ ÖJh 66:

29-61.Leonard Jr., A., ed. 1997. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations of a Greek

Emporium in Egypt 1. The Excavations at Kom Ge’if. AASOR 54. NewHaven: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Leonard Jr., A., ed. 2001. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations of a GreekEmporium in Egypt 2. The Excavations at Kom Hadid. AASOR 55. NewHaven: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Leonard Jr., A., M. Hughes, A. Middleton, and L. Schofield, 1993. ‘TheMaking of Aegean Stirrup Jars: Technique, Tradition, and Trade.’BSA 88: 105-23.

Levi, D. 1927-9. ‘Arkades VII – le tombe sul colle ‘sto Selì’.’ ASAtene 10-2:381-7.

Levi, E.I. 1972. ‘Arkhaicheskaia Keramika iz Raskopok Olviývskoýv Agory1968-1969 gg.’ Kratkie Soobshchenia 130: 45-52.

Lewis, S. 2002. The Athenian Woman: An Iconographic Handbook.London: Routledge.

Lezzi-Hafter, A. 1997. ‘Offerings Made to Measure: Two SpecialCommissions by the Eretria Painter for Apollonia Pontica.’ InAthenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings, edited byJ.H. Oakley, W.D.E. Coulson and O. Palagia, 353-69. Oxford: OxbowBooks.

Lichtheim, M. 1947. ‘Oriental Museum Notes: Situla No. 11395 and someRemarks on Egyptian Situlae.’ JNES 6: 169-79.

Liébert, Y. 1996. ‘Une inscription étrusque d’Algérie.’ REL 74: 38-46.Lippold, G. 1950. Die Plastik. Handbuch der Archäologie 3. Munich: Beck

Verlag.Lippold, G. 1956. ‘Sikon 2.’ In RE Suppl. 8, edited by K. Ziegler, 718.

Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller.Lipschits, O. 2005. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian

Rule. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd edn. London, New

York: Routledge.Littauer, M.A. 1968. ‘A 19th and 20th Dynasty Heroic Motif on Attic Black-

Figured Vases?’ AJA 72: 150-2.Liverani, M. 2005a. ‘The Near East: The Bronze Age.’ In The Ancient

Economy: Evidence and Models, edited by I. Morris and J.G. Manning,47-57. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Liverani, M. 2005b. ‘Imperialism.’ In Archaeologies of the Middle East:Critical Perspectives, edited by S. Pollock and R. Bernbeck, 223-43.Malden: Blackwell.

Lloyd, A.B. 1972. ‘Triremes and the Saïte Navy.’ JEA 58: 268-79.Lloyd, A.B. 1983. ‘The Late Period, 664-323 bc.’ In B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp,

D. O'Connor and A.B. Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, a Social History, 279-348.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lloyd, A.B. 1988. ‘‘Herodotus’ Account of Pharaonic History.’ Historia 37:22-53.

Lloyd, A.B. 1993/4. Herodotus Book II. Introduction, Commentary 1-182. 3Vol. EPRO 43. 2nd edn. Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill.

Lodovici, F. 1999. ‘Il vasellame: l’instrumentum domesticum.’ In MuseoNazionale Romano: La collezione Gorga, edited by M. Barbera, 45-50.Milan: Electa.

Lohmann, H. 1995. ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet: Vorbericht über dieKampagnen der Jahre 1990, 1992 und 1993.’ In Graeve et al. 1995:285-311.

Lohmann, H. 1996. ‘Zur Siedlungsarchäologie der griechischen Polis.’Geographische Rundschau 10: 562-7.

Lohmann, H. 1997a. ‘Assesos.’ In Der Neue Pauly 2, edited by H. Cancikand H. Schneider, 111. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.

Lohmann, H. 1997b. ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet: Vorbericht über dieKampagnen der Jahre 1994 und 1995.’ AA: 293-328.

Lohmann, H. 1999a. ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet: Vorbericht über dieKampagnen der Jahre 1996 und 1997.’ AA: 439-73.

Lohmann, H. 1999b. ‘Survey auf der Halbinsel von Milet.’ In AraþtýrmaSonuçlarý Toplantýsý 16,2, edited by K. Olþen, H. Çakmak, F. Bayram,F. Kaymaz, N. Tarlan, A. Özme, K. Ataþ and H. Dönmez, 497-511.Ankara: Kültür Bakanlýðý Milli Kütüphane Basýmevi.

Lohmann, H. 2000. ‘Milesia.’ In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited by H. Cancik andH. Schneider, 166-7. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.

Lohmann, H. 2001. ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet 1999:Abschlußbericht.’ In Araþtýrma Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 18,2, edited by K.Ataþ, F. Bayram, H. Dönmez, N. Güder, K. Olþen and N. Toy: 11-22.Ankara: Kültür Bakanlýðý Millî Kütüphane Basýmevi.

Lohmann, H. 2002 [2006]. ‘Zur historischen Topographie des südlichenIonien.’ Orbis Terrarum 8: 163-272.

Lohmann, H. 2004. ‘Milet und die Milesia: Eine antike Großstadt und ihrUmland im Wandel der Zeiten.’ In Chora und Polis, edited by F. Kolb,325-60. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 54. Munich: R.Oldenbourg.

Lohmann, H. Forthcoming. ‘Die Chora Milets in archaischer Zeit.’ InCobet et al. (forthcoming).

Lomas, K., ed. 2004a. Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papersin Honour of Brian Shefton. Leiden: Brill.

Lomas, K. 2004b. ‘Introduction’. In Lomas 2004a: 1-14.Long, L., J. Miro, and G. Volpe. 1992. ‘Les épaves archaïques de la pointe

Lequin (Porquerolles, Hyères, Var).’ In Marseille grecque et la Gaule,edited by M. Bats, G. Bertucchi, G. Conges and H. Treziny, 199-234.Lattes: A. D. A. M; Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, Servicedes Publications.

Lorber, F. 1979. Inschriften auf korinthischen Vasen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

Page 232: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

224 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Lowenstam, S. 1987. ‘Scarabs, Inscribed Gems, and Engraved FingerRings.’ In The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone atCyrene, Libya: Final Reports 3.1, edited by D. White. Philadelphia: TheUniversity Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Luckenbill, D.D. 1927. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia II:Historical Records of Assyria (from Sargon to the End). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Luke, J. 2003. Ports of Trade, Al Mina and Geometric Greek Pottery in theLevant. BAR International Series 1100. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Lund, J. 2004. ‘Oil on the Waters? Reflections on the Contents ofHellenistic Transport Amphorae.’ In Transport Amphorae and Tradein the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by J. Eiring and J. Lund, 211-6.Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5. Aarhus : AarhusUniversity Press.

Luni, M. 2002. ‘Iconografia del silfio e realtà botanica.’ QAL 16: 351-62.MacIntosh Turfa, J. 1977.’Evidence for Etruscan-Punic Relations.’ AJA 81:

368-74.MacIntosh Turfa, J. 1982. ‘The Etruscan and Italic Collection in the

Manchester Museum.’ BSR 50: 166-93.Mackensen, M. 1999. ‘X. Metallkleinfunde.’ In Driesch et al. 1999: 530-44.Madau, M. 1991. ‘Tharros XVII: Lo scavo dei quadrati F-G 17 ed F-G 18.’

RSF 19: 165-79.Maeir, A.M. 2002. ‘The Relations between Egypt and the Southern

Levant during the Late Iron Age: the Material Evidence from Egypt.’Egypt and the Levant 12: 235-46.

Maeir, A.M. 2004. ‘The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2:An Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Sâfì/Gath.’ VetusTestamentum 54: 319-34.

Maffre, J.J. 1996. ‘Quatre pélikai attiques à figures rouges conservées aCyrène.’ In Scritti di antichità in memoria di Sandro Stucchi, 1: LaCirenaica. La Grecia e l’Oriente mediterraneo, edited by L. Bacchielliand M. Bonanno Aravantinos, 193-210. Rome: «L’ERMA» diBretschneider.

Maffre, J.J. 1998. ‘Pièces de céramique grecque conservées à Cyrène.’ InLa Cirenaica in età antica: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi,Macerata 18-20 maggio 1995, edited by E. Catani and S.M. Marengo,351-61. Macerata-Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.

Maggiani, A. Forthcoming. ‘Forme del commercio arcaico: le tesseraehospitales.’ In Gli Etruschi e il Mediterraneo: Commerci e politica.Annali della Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 13. Rome:Quasar.

Magi, F. 1941. La Raccolta Benedetto Guglielmi nel Museo GregorianoEtrusco 2: Bronzi e oggetti vari, edited by J. D. Beazley and F. Magi.Monumenti vaticani di archeologia e d’arte 5. Città del Vaticano:Tipografia del Senato.

Magness, J. 2001. ‘The Greek Pottery.’ In Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:142-5.

Maguire, L.C. 1995. ‘Tell el-Dab’a: The Cypriot Connection.’ In Egypt, theAegean and the Levant: interconnections in the second millennium bc,edited by W.V. Davies and L. Schofield, 54-65. London: BritishMuseum Press.

Malkin, I. 2003a. ‘Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity.’Mediterranean Historical Review 18.2: 56-74.

Malkin, I. 2003b. ‘Pan-Hellenism and the Greeks of Naukratis’. In Lanaissance de la ville dans l’antiquité, edited by M. Reddé, 91-95. Paris:Boccard.

Malkin, I. 2003c. ‘‘Tradition’ in Herodotus: The Foundation of Cyrene.’ InHerodotus and His World: Essays from a Conference in Memory ofGeorge Forrest, edited by P. Derow and R. Parker, 153-70. Oxford:University Press.

Malkin, I. 2004. ‘Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient Greek Colonization.’Modern Language Quarterly 65: 341-64.

Mallwitz, A., and W. Schiering. 1968. ‘Der alte Athena-Tempel von Milet:Vorwort von G. Kleiner.’ IstMitt 18: 87-160.

Mandel, U., Hübner, G., and Kögler, P. 2000. ‘HellenistischeReliefkeramik und Lagynoskeramik aus Knidos.’ In E’ Episthmonikh\Suna/nthsh gia\ th\n Ellhnistikh\ Keramikh/: Chania 1996, edited byS. Drougou, 161-94. Athens: TAPA.

Mandel, U. 2005. ‘Ägyptische Schemata in ostgriechischer Aneignung:Figürliche Salbgefäße und Terrakotten archaischer Zeit’. In Beck etal. 2005: 138-53.

Mannack, T. 2002. Griechische Vasenmalerei: Eine Einführung.Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Mano-Zisi, D., and L.B. Popovic. 1969a [1971].’Der Fund von Novi Pazar(Serbien).’ BerRGK 50,: 191-208.

Mano-Zisi, D., and L.B. Popovic. 1969b. Novi Pazar. The Illyrian-GreekFind. Beograd: Narodni Muzej.

Mansuelli, G.A. 1984. ‘Tyrrhenoi philotechnoi: Opinioni degli antichisull’arte etrusca.’ In Studi di antichità in onore di Guglielmo Maetzke,edited by M.G. Marzi Costagli, 355-65. Archaeologica 49. Rome:«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Manunta, A. 2002. ‘Cachrys ferulacea (L.) Calestani è il ‘silfio cirenaico’?Identificazione botanica su basi teoriche e rappresentazioni sumonete.’ QAL 16: 345-50.

Manyas, M. 1984. ‘Oryantalizan Dönem Stil Tabaklarý, Metoplu Tabaklar.’Ph.D. diss., University of Ankara.

Marangou, L. 1993 [1996]. ‘ 0Anaskafh\ Minw&aj Amorgou=.’ Prakt 148:188-208.

Marangou, L. 1996 [1998]. ‘ 0Ergasi/ev stere/wshj, sunth/rhshv kaimele/thv anaskafh=v Minw&av 00Amorgou=.’ Prakt 151: 277-301.

Marangou, L. 2002. ‘ AMORGOS I – H MINWA.’ Athens : 9H e0n 0Aqh/naij0Arxaiologikh\ 9Htairei/a.

Mariaud, O. 2006. ‘Rituel funéraire et transformations spatiales en Ioniearchaïque: le cas des tombes d’enfant à Smyrne.’ REA 108:173-202.

Marketou, T., E. Karantzali, H. Mommsen, N. Zacharias, V. Kilikoglou,and A. Schwedt. Forthcoming. ‘Pottery Wares from the PrehistoricSettlement at Ialysos (Trianda) in Rhodes.’ BSA.

Markoe, G.E. 2000. Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California Press.Marshall, F.H. 1916. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the

British Museum 4,2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Martelli, M. 1985a. ‘Gli avori etruschi tardo arcaici: botteghe e aree di

diffusione.’ In Il commercio etrusco arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di studi,edited by M. Cristofani, 207-48. QArchEtr 9. Rome: ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche.

Martelli, M. 1985b. ‘8.9.1. Tessera hospitalis.’ In Civiltà degli Etruschi:Catalogo della mostra. Museo archeologico, Firenze, 16 Maggio–20Ottobre 1985, edited by M. Cristofani, 229-33. Milan: Electa.

Martelli, M. 1988. ‘La cultura artistica di Vulci arcaica.’ In Un artistaetrusco e il suo mondo: Il Pittore di Micali. Catalogo della mostra,edited by M.A. Rizzo, 22-8. Rome: De Luca.

Martelli, M. 2001. ‘Sculture vulcenti arcaiche: paralipomena – III.’ InZona archeologica: Festschrift für Hans-Peter Isler zum 60. Geburtstag,edited by S. Buzzi, D. Käch, E. Kistler, E. Mango, M. Palaczyk and O.Stefani, 289-94. Antiquitas 3. Abhandlungen zur Vor- undFrühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischenArchäologie und zur Geschichte des Altertums 42. Bonn: Dr. RudolfHabelt.

Martelli, M. 2004. ‘Sculture vulcenti arcaiche: paralipomena – II. IlMaestro del Louvre.’ In Studi in onore di Gustavo Traversari, edited byM. Fano Santi, 623-30. Archaeologica 141. Rome: «L’ERMA» diBretschneider.

Martelli, M. Forthcoming. ‘Sculture vulcenti arcaiche: paralipomena – I. IMaestri di Civitavecchia e di Amburgo-New York.’ In Miscellanea distudi in memoria di Mauro Cristofani: Prospettiva.

Martin, R. 1951. Recherches sur l’agora grecque. Paris: Boccard.Martin, R. 1956. L’urbanisme dans la Grèce antique. Paris: Picard & Cie.Maspero, G. 1914. Guide du visiteur de Musée du Caire. 3rd edn. Cairo:

Institut francais d’archéologie orientale.Massi Secondari, A. 1982. ‘La tomba di Porta del Ponte di Tolentino.’Atti e

memorie della Deputazione di Storia Patria delle Marche 85: 37-49.Masson, O. 1971. ‘Les Chypriotes en Egypte.’ Bulletin de la Société

Française d’Egyptologie 60: 28-46.Masson, O. 1983. Les Inscriptions Chypriotes Syllabiques: Recueil critique et

commenté. Réimpression augmentée. Etudes chypriotes 1. Paris:Boccard.

Masson, O., and J. Yoyotte. 1956. Objets Pharaoniques à inscriptionCarienne. Bibliothèque d’étude 15. Paris: Institut françaisd’archéologie orientale du Caire.

Master, D.M. 2001. ‘The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century bce:A Petrographic Study.’ PhD diss., Harvard University.

Master, D.M. 2003. ‘Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing Act in theSeventh Century bce.’ BASOR 330: 47-64.

Matteucci, P. 1986. ‘L’uso dei mortai di terracotta nell’alimentazioneantica.’ Studi classici e orientali 36: 239-77.

Matthäus, H. 1985. Metallgefäße und Gefäßuntersätze der Bronzezeit, dergeometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern mit einem Anhangder bronzezeitlichen Schwertfunde auf Cypern. Munich: Beck Verlag.

Mayence, F., and V. Verhoogen. 1949. CVA Bruxelles, Musées Royaux d’Artet d’Histoire (Cinquantenaire) 3. Bruxelles: Musées Royaux d’Art etd’Histoire.

Mayet, F., and M. Picon. 1986. ‘Une sigilée phocéene tardive (Late Roman‘C’ Ware) et sa diffusion en occident.’ Figlina 7: 129-42.

Mazar, A. 2004. ‘Greek and Levantine Iron Age Chronology: A Rejoinder.’IEJ 54: 24-36.

Page 233: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 225

Bibliography

Mazar, A., and N. Panitz-Cohen. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) 2. The Findsfrom the First Millennium bce. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute ofArchaeology.

Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1999. ‘Reflections on Hero Cults in Early Iron AgeGreece.’ In Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the FifthInternational Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult Organized by theDepartment of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, GöteborgUniversity, 21–23 April 1995, edited by R. Hägg, 9-36. Stockholm: PaulÅströms Förlag.

Mazzoni, S. 2002. ‘Temples in the City and the Countryside: New Trendsin Iron Age Syria.’ DM 13: 89-99.

McPhee, I. 1997. ‘Attic Pottery.’ In The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeterand Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 6.2, edited by D. White.Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Meester de Ravestein, E. 1884. Musée de Ravestein: Notice. Bruxelles:Société Générale d’Imprimerie.

Megaw, R. and V. Megaw. 1989. Celtic Art: From its Beginnings to the Bookof Kells. London: Thames and Hudson.

Menzel, H. 1959. ‘Zwei etruskische Kopfgefässe im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum.’ JRGZM 6: 110-4.

Meriç, R. 1982. Metropolis in Ionien: Ergebnisse einer Survey-Untersuchungin den Jahren 1972-1975. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 142.Königstein/Ts.: Verlag Anton Hain.

Meriç, R. 1986. ‘1985 Yýlý Ýzmir ve Manisa Ýlleri Yüzey Araþtýrmasý.’Araþtýrma Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 4, edited by T.C. Kültür ve TurizmBakanlýðý Eski Esler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü, 301-10. Ankara.

Messineo, G. 1983. ‘Tesserae hospitales.’ Xenia 5: 3-4.Metzger, H. 1969. Anatolien 2: Vom Beginn des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. bis

zum Ende der römischen Epoche. Archaeologica Mundi. Genf: NagelVerlag.

Metzger, H. 1972. Fouilles de Xanthos 4. Paris: Klincksieck.Mielsch, H. 2003. Das Akademische Kunstmuseum: Antikensammlung der

Universität Bonn. Petersberg: Imhof.Miltner, F. and H. Miltner. 1932. ‘Bericht über eine Voruntersuchung in

Alt-Smyrna.’ ÖJhBeibl 37: 127-90.Mirnik, I. 1986. ‘Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis.’ Vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u

Zagrebu 19: 41-71.Mitchell, B.M. 2000. ‘Cyrene: Typical or Atypical?’ In Brock and

Hodkinson 2005: 82-102.Mitford, T.B. 1980. The Nymphaeum of Kafizin: The Inscribed Pottery.

Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Moles, J. 2002. ‘Herodotus and Athens.’ In Brill’s Companion to

Herodotus, edited by E.J. Bakker, I.J.F. de Jong and H. van Wees, 33-52. Leiden: Brill.

Möller, A. 2000a. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Möller, A. 2000b. ‘Naukratis.’ In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited by H. Cancikand H. Schneider, 747-9. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.

Möller, A. 2001. ‘Naukratis – griechisches emporion und ägyptischer ‘portof trade’.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 1-25.

Möller, A. 2005. ‘Naukratis as Port-of-Trade Revisited.’ Topoi 12/3: 183-92.Mommsen, H. 2001. ‘Provenance Determination of Pottery by Trace

Element Analysis: Problems, Solutions and Applications.’ Journal ofRadioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 24: 657-62.

Mommsen, H. 2003. ‘Attic pottery Production, Imports, and Exportsduring the Mycenaean Period by Neutron Activation Analysis.’Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 3: 13-30.

Mommsen, H. 2004. ‘Short Note: Provenancing of Pottery – The Need forthe Integrated Approach?’ Archaeometry 46: 267-71.

Mommsen, H. 2005. ‘Schaufeln, Scherben, Spektrometer: PhysikalischeMethoden in der archäologischen Forschung.’ Physik Journal 4: 37-43.

Mommsen, H., Th. Beier, and P. Åström. 2003. ‘Neutron ActivationAnalysis Results of Six Mycenaean Sherds from Hala Sultan Tekke,Cyprus.’ Archaeology and Natural Science 2: 5-10.

Mommsen, H., D. Hertel and P. A. Mountjoy. 2001. ‘Neutron ActivationAnalysis of the Pottery from Troy in the Berlin SchliemannCollection.’ AA: 169-211.

Mommsen, H., M. Kerschner and R. Posamentir. 2006. ‘ProvenanceDetermination of 111 Pottery Samples from Berezan by NeutronActivation Analysis.’ IstMitt 56 (forthcoming).

Mommsen, H., A. Kreuser, and J. Weber. 1988. ‘A Method for GroupingPottery by Chemical Composition.’ Archaeometry 30: 47-57.

Mommsen, H., A. Schwedt and R. Attula. 2006. ‘ChemischeKlassifizierung von 137 Keramikproben aus den Grabungen vonEmecik und des Töpfereistandortes Resadiye durchNeutronenaktivierungsanalyse.’ In Berges 2006: 202-6.

Mommsen, H., A. Kreuser, E. Lewandowski, and J. Weber. 1991.‘Provenancing of Pottery: Status Report and Grouping.’ In NeutronActivation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis inArchaeology, edited by M. Hughes, M. Cowell und D. Hook, 57-65.BMOP 82. London: British Museum Press.

Mommsen, H., A. Kreuser, J. Weber, and H. Büsch. 1987. ‘NeutronActivation Analysis of Ceramics in the X-ray Energy Region.’ NuclearInstruments and Methods in Physics Research A257: 451-61.

Mommsen, H., Th. Beier, A. Hein, Ch. Podzuweit, E. Pusch, and A.Eggebrecht. 1996. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of MycenaeanSherds from the Town of Ramesses II near Qantir and Greek-Egyptian Trade Relations.’ In Archaeometry 94:Proceedings of the 29thInternational Symposium of Archaeometry, Ankara 9-14 May 1994,edited by Þ. Demirci, A.M. Özer and G.D. Summers, 169-78. Ankara:Tübitak.

Monachov, S. 1999. ‘Quelques séries d’amphores grecques des VIIe-VIe s.av. n.è. au nord de la mer noire.’ In Production et commerce desamphores anciennes en mer noire, edited by Y. Garlan, 163-94. Aix-en-Provence: University of Provence.

Monachov, S. 2003. ‘Amphorae from Unidentified Centres in the NorthAegean.’ In The Cauldron of Ariantas, edited by P.G. Bilde, J.M. Hrjteand V.F. Stolba, 247-59. Aarhus: University Press.

Montet, P. 1928. Byblos et Egypte: Quatres campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil,1921-24. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 11. Paris:Geuthner.

Mook, M.S., and W.D.E. Coulson. 1995. ‘East Greek and ImportedPottery.’ In Excavations at Dor, Final Report Volume 1 B. Areas A and C:The Finds (Qedem Reports 2), edited by E. Stern, 93-125. Jerusalem:Institute of Archaeology.

Moore, M.B. 1987. ‘Attic Black Figure and Black Glazed Pottery.’ In TheExtramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya:Final Reports 3.2, edited by D. White. Philadelphia: The UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania.

Morel, J.-P. 1981. ‘Le commerce étrusque en France, en Espagne et enAfrique.’ In L’Etruria mineraria: Atti del XII Convegno di Studi Etruschie Italici. Firenze, Populonia, Piombino 16-20 giugno 1979, edited by A.Neppi Modona, 463-508. Florence: Olschki.

Morel, J.-P. 1990. ‘Nouvelles données sur le commerce de Carthagepunique entre le VIIe et le IIe siècle avant J.C.’ In Carthage et sonterritoire dans l’antiquité: IV colloque international réuni dans le cadredu 113e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Strasbourg, 5-9 avril1988, 67-100. Paris: Editions du CTHS.

Morel, J.-P. 2001. ‘Céramiques ioniennes et commerce Phocéen enoccident: avancées et problèmes.’ In Ceràmiques jònies d’èpocaarcaica, centres de producció i comercialització al MediterraniOccidental: actes de la taula rodona celebrada a Empúries, els dies 26 al28 de maig de 1999, 11-25. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.

Moreland 2000. ‘Concepts in the Early Medieval Economy.’ In The LongEighth Century, edited by I.L. Hansen and C. Wickham, 1-34. Leiden:Brill.

Moretti Sgubini, A.M., and M.A. De Lucia Brolli. 2003. ‘Castro: un centrodell’entroterra vulcente.’ In Tra Orvieto e Vulci: Atti del X ConvegnoInternazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Etruria. Orvieto10th 2003, edited by G.M. Della Fina, 363-405. Annali dellaFondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 10. Rome: Quasar.

Moretti, M. 1967. ‘Tomba di Trevignano’. In Arte e civiltà degli Etruschi:Catalogo della mostra. Torino, giugno–luglio 1967, edited by L.Manino, 45-67. Turin: S.A.N.

Morgan, C. 1993. ‘The Origins of Pan-Hellenism.’ In Greek Sanctuaries:New Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos, 18-44. London: Routledge.

Morgan, C. 2003. Early Greek States beyond the Polis. London, New York:Routledge.

Moritz, L.A. 1958. Grain-mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Morris, I. 1988. ‘Tomb Cult and the ‘Greek Renaissance’: The Past in thePresent in the 8th Century bc.’ Antiquity 62: 750-61.

Morris, I. 1999. ‘Negotiated Peripherality in Iron Age Greece: Acceptingand Resisting the East.’ In World-Systems Theory in Practice:Leadership, Production and Exchange, edited by P.N. Kardulias, 63-84.Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in IronAge Greece. Malden: Blackwell.

Morris, I. 2003. ‘Mediterraneanization.’ Mediterranean Historical Review18: 30-55.

Morris, I. 2005, 1. December. The Eighth-Century Revolution.http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/morris/120507.pdf. (13December 2005).

Page 234: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

226 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Morris, I., and J.G. Manning. 2005. Introduction to The Ancient Economy:Evidence and Models, edited by I. Morris and J.G. Manning, 1-44.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Morris, S., and J.K. Papadopoulos. 1998. ‘Phoenicians and the CorinthianPottery Industry.’ In Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen derantiken Welt, edited by R. Rolle and K. Schmidt, 251-63. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Morris, S.P. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Morrison, J.S., and R.T. Williams. 1968. Greek Oared Ships 900–322 bc.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morson, G.S., and C. Emerson. 1990. Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of aProsaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Mountjoy, P., and H. Mommsen. 2001. ‘Mycenaean Pottery from Qantir-Piramesse, Egypt.’ BSA 96: 123-56.

Mountjoy, P., and H. Mommsen. Forthcoming. ‘Neutron ActivationAnalysis of Mycenaean Pottery from Troy (1988- 2003 excavations).’In Studia Troica.

Muffatti, G. 1968. ‘L’instrumentum in bronzo.’ StEtr 36: 119-56.Muhly, J.D. 1970. ‘Homer and the Phoenicians: The Relations between

Greece and the Near East in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages.’Berytus 19: 19-64.

Muhly, J.D. 1985. ‘Phoenicia and the Phoenicians.’ In Biblical ArchaeologyToday: Proceedings of the International Congress of BiblicalArchaeology. Jerusalem, April 1984, edited by J. Amitai, 177-91.Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Muhly, J.D. 1999. ‘The Phoenicians in the Aegean.’ In Meletemata: Studiesin Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he Enters his65th Year, edited by P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineurand W.-D. Niemeier, 517-26. Aegaeum 20. Liège: Université de Liège.

Muhly, J.D. 2003. ‘Greece and Anatolia in the Early Iron Age: TheArchaeological Evidence and the Literary Tradition.’ In Symbiosis,Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and TheirNeighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina.Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium W.F. Albright Institute ofArchaeological Research and the American Schools of OrientalResearch Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000, edited by W.G. Dever and S.Gitin, 23-35. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Muhly, J.D. 2005. ‘Traveling Craftsmen: Love ‘em or Leave ‘em.’ InEmporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean.Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, Italian School ofArchaeology, Athens, 14-18 April 2004, edited by R. Laffineur and E.Greco, 685-90. Aegaeum 25. Liège: Université de Liège.

Muhs, B. 1994. ‘The Great Temenos of Naucratis.’ JARCE 31: 99-113.Müller-Wiener, W., ed. 1986. Milet 1899-1980: Ergebnisse, Probleme und

Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung, Kolloquium Frankfurt a. M. 1980.IstMitt Beiheft 31. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth Verlag.

Müller-Wiener, W. et al. 1985. ‘Milet 1983-1984.’ IstMitt 35: 13-138.Müller-Wiener, W. et al. 1986. ‘Milet 1985.’ IstMitt 36: 5-57.Müller-Wiener, W. et al. 1987. ‘Milet 1986.’ IstMitt 37: 5-79.Mumford, G.D. 2004, 5 January. ‘East Delta – Tell Tebilla 10 – Imported

Pottery.’ In SEPE: Survey and Excavation Projects in Egypt.http://www.deltasinai.cm/delta-10.htm.

Muscarella, O.W. 2003. ‘The Date of the Destruction of the EarlyPhrygian Period at Gordion.’ Ancient West & East 2: 225-52.

Musée d’Histoire de Marseille. 1990. Marseille: itinéraire d’une mémoire.Cinq années d’archéologie municipale. Marseille: Musée d’Histoire deMarseille.

Musée d’Histoire de Marseille. 1995. Phocée et la fondation de Marseille.Marseille: Musée d’Histoire de Marseille.

Mysliwiec, K. 1987. Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Grabung im TempelSethos I in Gurna. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 57. Mainz:Philipp von Zabern.

Mysliwiec, K. 2000. The Twilight of Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press.

Na’aman, N. 1991a. ‘The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah.’ Tel Aviv 18: 1-69.

Na’aman, N. 1991b. ‘Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire(631-619 bc).’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 81: 243-67.

Na’aman, N. 1994. ‘Esarhaddon’s Treaty with Ba‘al and AssyrianProvinces along the Phoenician Coast.’Rivista di studi Fenici 22: 3-8.

Na’aman, N. 1995a. ‘Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob.’UgaritF 27: 381-94.

Na’aman, N. 1995b. ‘Province System and Settlement Pattern in SouthernSyria and Palestine in the Neo-Assyrian Period.’ In Neo-AssyrianGeography, edited by M. Liverani, 103-15. Quaderni di Geographiastorica 5. Rome: Università di Roma.

Na’aman, N. 2000. ‘Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from TelDan.’ IEJ 50: 92-104.

Na’aman, N. 2001. ‘An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rah.el?’ Tel Aviv 28:260-80.

Na’aman, N. 2004. ‘Re’si-suri and Yauna in a Neo-Assyrian Letter (ND2737).’ Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 3: 69-70.

Nafissi, M. 1980/1. ‘A proposito degli Aigheidai: grandi ghéne e emporianei rapporti Sparta-Cirene.’ AnnPerugia 18: 183-209.

Nafissi, M. 1985. ‘Battiadi e Aigeidai: per la storia dei rapporti tra Cirene eSparta in età arcaica.’ In Cyrenaica in Antiquity: Papers Presented atthe Colloquium on Society and Economy in Cyrenaica, CambridgeMarch-April 1983, edited by G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 375-88. BAR International Series 236. Oxford: BAR.

Naso, A. 1994. Review of Etruskische Cippi. Untersuchungen am Beispielvon Cerveteri, by M. Blumhofer. StEtr 59: 487-92.

Naso, A. 1996. Architetture dipinte: Decorazioni parietali non figurate nelletombe a camera dell’Etruria Meridionale (VII-V sec. a.C.). Rome:«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Naso, A. 2000. ‘Materiali etruschi e italici nell’Oriente mediterraneo.’ InMagna Grecia e Oriente mediterraneo prima dell’età ellenistica: Atti delTrentanovesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1 -5ottobre 1999, 165-85. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologiadella Magna Grecia.

Naso, A. 2001. ‘La penisola italica e l’Anatolia (XII-V sec. a.C.).’ In DerKosmos der Artemis von Ephesos, edited by U. Muss, 169-83.Sonderschriften Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut in Wien37. Vienna: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut.

Naso, A. 2003a. I bronzi etruschi e italici del Römisch-GermanischesZentralmuseum. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Naso, A. 2003b. Review of Italische Panzerplatten und Panzerscheiben, byG. Tomedi. Germania 81,2: 621-7.

Naso, A. 2005a. ‘Funde aus Milet: XIX. Anfore commerciali archaiche aMileto. Rapporto preliminare.’ AA 2005,2: 73-84.

Naso, A. 2005b. ‘Il tumulo del Sorbo a Caere.’ In Dinamiche di sviluppodelle città nell’Etruria meridionale: Veio, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci: Attidel XXIII. Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Roma, Veio,Cerveteri/Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Tuscania, Vulci, Viterbo 1-6 ottobre 2001,edited by O. Paoletti, 193-203. Pisa, Rome: Istituti Editoriali ePoligrafici Internazionali.

Naso, A., ed. 2006. Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari Greci: Atti delconvegno internazionale, Udine 20 al 22 novembre 2003, edited by A.Naso. Studi Udinesi sul Mondo Antico 2. Grassina, Firenze: LeMoninier Università.

Naso, A. Forthcoming. ‘Anathemata etruschi nel Mediterraneoorientale’. In Gli Etruschi e il Mediterraneo: Commerci e politica.Annali della Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 13. Rome:Quasar.

Naumann, R., and K. Tuchelt. 1963/4. ‘Die Ausgrabungen im Südwestendes Tempels von Didyma 1962.’ IstMitt 13/4: 15-62.

Nedev, D., and K. Panayatova. 2003. ‘Apollonia Pontica (End of the 7th-1st Centuries bc).’ In Grammenos and Petropoulos: 95-155.

Negbi, O. 1992. ‘Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands:A Reappraisal.’ AJA 96: 599-615.

Neils, J. 2004. ‘Kitchen or Cult? Women with Mortars and Pestles.’ InGreek Art in View: Essays in Honour of Brian Sparkes, edited by S. Keayand S. Moser, 54-62. Oxford: Oxbow.

Neugebauer, K.A. 1943. ‘Archaische Vulcenter Bronzen.’ JdI 58: 206-78.Newton, M.W., P.I. Kuniholm, and K.A. Wardle. 2005a. Dendrochronology

and Radiocarbon Determinations from Assiros and the Beginning of theGreek Iron Age. http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/AETHCaptured.pdf

Newton, M.W., P.I. Kuniholm, and K.A. Wardle. 2005b. ‘ADendrochronological 14C Wiggle-match for the Early Iron Age ofNorth Greece.’ In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology,Text and Science, edited by T.E. Levy and T. Higham, 104-13. London:Equinox.

Nicholls, R.V. 1958/9. ‘Old Smyrna: The Iron Age Fortifications andAssociated Remains on the City Perimeter.’ BSA 53/4: 35-137.

Nicholson, P. 2004. ‘Conserving Bronzes from North Saqqara.’ EgyptianArchaeology 25: 7-9.

Nick, G. 2001a. ‘Apollon als Löwenbändiger im östlichenMittelmeergebiet.’ IstMitt 51: 191-216.

Nick, G. 2001b. ‘Typologie der Plastik des zyprischen und des ‘Mischstils’aus Naukratis.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 55-67.

Nick, G. 2002. Die Athena Parthenos: Studien zum griechischen Kultbildund seiner Rezeption. AM-BH 19. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Nick, G. Forthcoming. Zypro-ionische Kleinplastik aus Kalkstein und

Page 235: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 227

Bibliography

Alabaster. Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis 1. Möhnesee:Bibliopolis.

Nicolau, K. 1967. ‘Archaeological News from Cyprus, 1966.’ AJA 71: 399-406.

Nielsen, T.H., and V. Gabrielsen. 2004. ‘Rhodos’. In An Inventory ofArchaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by theCopenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation,edited by H.M. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen, 1196-210. Oxford, NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Niemeier, B., and W.-D. Niemeier. 2002. ‘Archaic Greek and EtruscanPottery.’ In Kempinski 2002: 223-42.

Niemeier, W.-D. 1999. ‘Die Zierde Ioniens: Ein archaischer Brunnen, derjüngere Athenatempel und Milet vor der Perserzerstörung.’ AA: 373-413.

Niemeier, W.-D. 2001. ‘Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual andArchaeological Evidence.’ BASOR 32: 11-32.

Niemeier, W.-D. 2002. ‘Greek Mercenaries at Tel Kabri and Other Sites inthe Levant.’ Tel Aviv 29: 328-31.

Niemeyer, H.G. 1988-90. ‘Die Griechen und die iberische Halbinsel: Zurhistorischen Deutung der archäologischen Zeugnisse.’ HBA 15-7:269-306.

Niemeyer, H.G. 2000. ‘The Early Phoenician City-States on theMediterranean: Archaeological Elements for their Description.’ In AComparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures: An InvestigationConducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, edited by M.H. Hansen,89-115. Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 21. Copenhagen: C.A. ReitzelsForlag.

Niemeyer, H.G. 2004. ‘Phoenician or Greek: Is There a Reasonable WayOut of the Al Mina Debate?’ Ancient West & East 3: 38-50.

Niemeyer, H.G., and R.F. Docter. 1993. ‘Die Grabung unter demDecumanus Maximus von Karthago: Vorbericht über dieKampagnen 1986-1991.’ RM 100: 201-44.

Nijboer, A.J. 2005. ‘The Iron Age in the Mediterranean: A ChronologicalMess or ‘Trade before the Flag’, Part II.’ Ancient West & East 4: 254-77.

Nijboer, A.J., and J. van der Pflicht. 2006. ‘An Interpretation of theRadiocarbon Determinations of the Oldest Indigenous-PhoenicianStratum thus far, Excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (south-westSpain).’ BABesch 81: 31-6

Nilsson, M.P. 1906. Griechische Feste. Leipzig: Teubner.Nilsson, M.P. 1967. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Handbuch der

Altertumswissenschaft 5.2, Vol. 1. Munich: Beck Verlag.Nordström, H.-A., and J. Bourriau. 1993. ‘Ceramic Technology: Clays and

Fabrics.’ In An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, fasc. 2., editedby D. Arnold and J. Bourriau, 147-86. Deutsches ArchäologischesInstitut, Abteilung Kairo Sonderschrift 17. Mainz: Philipp vonZabern.

Oggiano, I. 2000. ‘La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero – SS).’ InLa ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: Dati, problematiche, confronti, editedby P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, 235-58. Rome: ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche.

Olmos, R. 1989. ‘Los griegos en Tartessos: una nueva contrastación entrelas fuentes arqueológicas y las literarias. ‘ In Tartessos: Arqueologíaprotohistórica del Bajo Guadalquivir, edited by M.E. Aubet Semmler,495-521. Sabadell: Editorial AUSA.

Oppermann, M. 2004. Die westpontischen Poleis und ihr indigenes Umfeldin vorrömischer Zeit. Zentrum für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichtedes Schwarzmeerraumes 2. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran.

Oren, E.D. 1984. ‘Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern NileDelta.’ BASOR 256: 7-44.

Oren, E.D. 1993. ‘Northern Sinai’. In The New Encyclopedia ofArchaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4, edited by E. Stern. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Orlandini, P., and D. Adamesteanu. 1962. ‘Gela. L’acropoli di Gela.’ NSc16: 340-408.

Orsi, P. 1918. ‘Gli scavi intorno a l’Athenaion di Siracusa negli anni 1912-1917.’ MonAnt 25: 353-762.

Osborne, R. 2003. Review of Miletos: A History, by A.M. Greaves. CR 53:139-41.

Osborne, R. 2004. Greek History. London, New York: Routledge.Özer, B. 1998. ‘Datça Burgaz kazýlarýnda ele geçen arkaik dönem bezemeli

seramikleri.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Izmir.Özer, B. 2004. ‘Clazomenian and Related Black-Figured Pottery from

Klazomenai: Preliminary Observations.’ In Ersoy et al. 2004: 199-219.Özgünel, C. 1979. Carian Geometric Pottery 1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu

Basýmevi.Özkan, T. 1999. Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi: Seramik Kataloðu. Izmir: T.C.

Kültür Bakanlýðý Anýtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü.

Özyiðit, Ö. 1991. ‘1989 yýlý Phokaia kazý çalýþmalarý.’ In Kazý SonuçlarýToplantýsý 12,1, edited by T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlýðý Eski Eslerve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü, 127-53. Ankara: Ankara ÜnversitesiBasýmevi.

Özyiðit, Ö. 1992. ‘1990 yýlý Phokaia kazý çalýþmalarý.’ In Kazý SonuçlarýToplantýsý 13,2, edited by T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlýðý Eski Eslerve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü, 99-122. Ankara: Ankara ÜnversitesiBasýmevi.

Özyiðit, Ö. 1993: ‘1991 yýlý Phokaia kazý çalýþmalarý.‘ In Kazý SonuçlarýToplantýsý 14,2, edtied by T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlýðý Eski Eslerve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü, 1-22. Ankara: Ankara ÜnversitesiBasýmevi.

Özyiðit, Ö. 1994. ‘The City Walls of Phokaia.’ REA 96: 77-109.Özyiðit, Ö. 2004. ‘2002 yýlý Phokaia kazý çalýþmalarý.’ In Kazý Sonuçlarý

Toplantýsý 25,1, edited by K. Olþen, H. Dönmez and A. Özme, 441-53.Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlýðý Dösim Basýmevi.

Padgett, J.M. 2003. The Centaur’s Smile. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Page Gasser, M. 2001. Götter bewohnten Ägypten: Bronzefiguren derSammlungen ‘Bibel+Orient’ der Universität Freiburg Schweiz.Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht.

Palagia, O. 1988. ‘Herakles: C. Classical and Hellenistic Greek, andRoman. Commentary.’ In LIMC 4,1, edited by L. Kahil, 738-96. Zürichand Munich: Artemis Verlag.

Pallottino, M. 1963. ‘Les relations entre les Etrusques et Carthage du VIIeau IIe siècle avant J.C. Nouvelles données et essai de périodisation.’CahTun 11: 23-8 (= Pallottino, M. 1979. Saggi di antichità 1, 371-6.Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider).

Pallottino, M. 1966. ‘II.’ In Rapporti tra Greci, Fenici, Etruschi ed altrepopolazioni italiche alla luce delle nuove scoperte, edited by S. Moscatiand M. Pallottino, 11-6. Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura,quaderno 87. Rome: Accademia dei Lincei (= Pallottino, M. 1979.Saggi di antichità 1, 391-7. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider).

Pallottino, M. ed. 1992. Gli Etruschi e l’Europa: Catalogo della mostra.Milan: Fabbri.

Pancucci, D., and M.C. Naro. 1992. Monte Bubbonìa: Campagne di scavo1905, 1906, 1955. Sikelika 4. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Panteleon, I.A. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet: XVI. Zum Schicksal der am Ortverbliebenen Funde der Wiegandschen Grabung nach 1914.’ AA2005,2: 27-39.

Panvini, R. 1997. ‘La nave greca di Gela.’ In Omaggio a Gela, edited by D.Adamesteanu, 127-37. Milan: Portoria Editrice.

Panvini, R. 2001. The Archaic Greek Ship at Gela and PreliminaryExploration of a second Greek Shipwreck. Palermo: Salvatore SciasciaEditore.

Panvini, R. ed. 2003. Caltanissetta: Il Museo Archeologico. Catalogo.Palermo: Regione Siciliana.

Papadopoulos, J.K. 1997. ‘Phantom Euboians.’ JMA 10: 191-219.Papadopoulos, J.K. 2005. ‘Inventing the Minoans: Archaeology,

Modernity and the Quest for European Identity.’ JMA 18: 87-149.Parisi Presicce, C. 2003. ‘La città dei re di Cirene.’ LibSt 34: 9-24.Parker, B.J. 2000. ‘The Earliest Known Reference to the Ionians.’ The

Ancient History Bulletin 14: 69-77.Parker, R., and D. Obbink. 2000. ‘Aus der Arbeit der »Insciptiones

Graecae« VI: Sales of Priesthood on Cos 1.’ Chiron 30: 415-49.Parpola, S., and M. Porter. 2001. The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the

Neo-Assyrian Period. Casco Bay: The Casco Bay AssyriologicalInstitute.

Paspalas, S.A. 1999. ‘A Lydian Oinochoe Identified.’ MeditArch 12: 89-93.Passaro, C., and G. Ciaccia. 2000. ‘Cales: la necropoli dall’Orientalizzante

recente all’età ellenistica.’ In Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti: In occasionedella Mostra ‘Italia dei Sanniti’, Roma, Museo Nazionale Romano,Terme di Diocleziano, 14 gennaio–19 marzo 2000, edited by R.Cappelli, 20-5. Milan: Electa.

Paton, W.R. 1887. ‘Excavations in Caria.’ JHS 8: 64-82.Paul, E. 1988. ‘B 7.35. Infundibulum.’ In Die Welt der Etrusker:

Archäologische Denkmäler aus Museen der sozialistischen Länder,Staatlische Museen zu Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR, Altes Museum vom4. Oktober bis 30. Dezember 1988, edited by J. Brosig, 191. Berlin:Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft.

Payne, H.G.G. 1931. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in theArchaic Period. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Payne, H.G.G. 1940. Perachora: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia andLimenia 1. Architecture, Bronzes, Terracottas. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Pébarthe, C. 2005. ‘Lindos, l'Hellénion et Naucratis.’ Topoi 12/13: 157-81.

Page 236: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

228 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Mediterranean. Studia Punica 12. Rome: II Università di Roma.Pittau, M. 1996. ‘Gli Etruschi e Cartagine: i documenti epigrafici.’ In

L’Africa romana: Atti dell’XI Convegno di studio, Cartagine 15-18dicembre 1994, edited by M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara,1657-74. Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di storia dell’Universitàdegli studi di Sassari 28. Ozieri: Editrice Il Torchietto.

Ploug, G. 1973. Sukas II: The Aegean, Corinthian and Eastern Greek Potteryand Terracottas. Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition toPhoenicia 2. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab,Historisk-Filosofiske Skrifte 6.2. København: Munksgaard.

Politis, L.N. 1939. ‘ 0Anaskafai\ )en )Ikari/a|.’ Prakt: 124-38.Popham, M.R., and I.S. Lemos. 1996. Lefkandi III: The Toumba Cemetery.

The Excavations of 1981, 1984, 1986 and 1992-4. BSA suppl. 29.London: Thames and Hudson.

Popham, M.R., E. Touloupa, and L.H. Sackett. 1982. ‘Further Excavationof the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi, 1981.’ BSA 77: 213-48.

Popovic, L.B. 1975. Archaic Greek Culture in the Middle Balkans. Beograd:Narodni Muzej.

Posamentir, R. 2002. ‘Funde aus Milet: XII. Beobachtungen zuarchaischen Deckeln. Tierfries und ‘Graue Ware’.’ AA: 9-26.

Posamentir, R. 2006, January. Review of Miletos: A History, by A.M.Greaves. AJA 101.1 (2006). http://www.ajaonline.org/pdfs/book_reviews/110.1/AJA1101_Posamentir.pdf (15 February 2006).

Posamentir, R., and S. Solovyov. 2006. ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmungarchaischer ostgriechischer Keramik: Die Funde aus Berezan in derEremitage von St. Petersburg.’ IstMitt 56 (forthcoming).

Posener, G. 1947. ‘Les douanes de la Méditerranée dans l'Egypte saïte.’RPhil 21: 117-31.

Pottier, E., S. Reinach, and A. Veyries. 1887. La nécropole de Myrina. Paris:E. Thorin.

Poulsen, B. 2002. ‘Genucilia-Small Plate with a large Range.’ In Pots forthe Living, Pots for the Dead, edited by A. Rathje, M. Nielsen and B.Bundgaard Rasmussen, 83-100. Acta Hyperborea 9. Copenhagen:Museum Tusculanum Press University of Copenhagen.

Pressl, D.A. 1998. Beamten und Soldaten. Die Verwaltung in der 26.Dynastie in Ägypten (664-525 v. Chr). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.

Price, E.R. 1924. ‘Pottery of Naukratis.’ JHS 44: 180-222.Price, E.R. 1928. ‘East Greek Pottery: Orientalizing Style (Seventh and

Sixth Centuries bc).’ In Classification des céramiques antiques 13,edited by C. Dugas. Macon: Union académie internationale.

Price, E.R. 1931. s. In Beazley et al. 1931.Prins de Jong, E.F. 1925. ‘Scherben aus Naukratis aus der Sammlung des

Universitäts-Professors Dr. Fr. W. Freiherr von Bissing.’ Ph.D. diss.,Utrecht University.

Prinz, H. 1908. Funde aus Naukratis: Beiträge zur Archäologie undWirtschaftsgeschichte des 7. und 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Klio-BH 7.Leipzig: Dieterich.

Psaropoulou, B. 1996. Last Potters of the East Aegean. Nauplion:Peloponnesian Folklore Foundation.

Pugliese Carratelli, G., ed. 1986. Rasennua: Storia e civiltà degli Etruschi.Milan: Scheiwiller.

Purcaro, V. 1976. ‘Le rotte antiche tra la Grecia e la Cirenaica e gli itinerarimarittimi e terrestri lungo le coste della Grande Sirte.’ QAL 8: 285-352.

Purcell, N. 2003. ‘The Boundless Sea of Unlikeness? On Defining theMediterranean.’ Mediterranean Historical Review 18: 9-29.

Quaegebeur, J. 1987. ‘Une statue égyptienne représentant Héraclès-Melquart?’ In Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the firstmillennium bc: Proceedings of the conference held in Leuven from the14th to the 16th of November 1985, edited by E. Lipinski, 157-166.Studia Phoenicia 5. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 22. Leuven:Peeters.

Raaflaub, K.A. 2004a. ‘Archaic Greek Aristocrats as Carriers of CulturalInteraction.’ In Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World:Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Proceedings of theFifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian IntellectualHeritage Project, held in Innsbruck October 3rd-8th 2002, edited by R.Rollinger and Ch. Ulf, 197-217. Melammu Symposia 5. Oriens etOccidens 6. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Raaflaub, K.A. 2004b. ‘Zwischen Ost und West: Phönizische Einflüsse aufdie griechische Polisbildung?’ In Griechische Archaik: InterneEntwicklungen – Externe Impulse, edited by R. Rollinger and Ch. Ulf,291-310. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Raast, W.E. 1978. Taanach I. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge,Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Radet, G. 1893. La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des Mermnades (687-546). Paris: Thorin and Fils.

Pedersen, P. 2004. ‘Pergamon and the Ionian Renaissance.’ IstMitt 54:409-34.

Pemberton, E.G. 1989. Corinth 18.1. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore:The Greek Pottery. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies atAthens.

Pemberton, E.G., and A.Villing. Forthcoming. ‘Corinthian Mortaria,Form and Function.’ Hesperia.

Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1930. Aigyptiaca: A Catalogue of Egyptian Objects in theAegean Area. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perkins, P. Forthcoming. Etruscan Bucchero in the Collections of the BritishMuseum. British Museum Research Publication no. 165. London: theTrustees of the British Museum.

Perlman, I., and F. Asaro 1969. ‘Pottery Analysis by Neutron Activation.’Archaeometry 11: 21-52.

Pernier, L. 1931 [1932]. ‘L’Artemision di Cirene.’ AfrIt 4: 173-228.Pernier, L. 1935. Il tempio e l’altare di Apollo a Cirene. Bergamo: Istituto

italiano d’arti grafiche.Perpillou-Thomas, F. 1992. ‘Une bouillie de céréales: l’Athèra.’ Aegyptus

72: 103-10.Perreault, J.Y. 1993. ‘Les emporia grecs du Levant: mythe ou réalité?’ In

L’emporion, edited by A. Bresson and P. Rouillard, 59-81. Publicationsdu Centre Pierre Paris 26. Paris: Publications du Centre Pierre.

Peserico, A. 1999. ‘Pottery Production and Circulation in the Phoenicianand Punic Mediterranean. A Study on Open Forms.’ In Phoeniciansand Carthaginians in the Western Mediterranean, edited by G. Pisano,125-35. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma ‘Tor Vergata’.

Peserico, A. 2002. Die offenen Formen der Red Slip Ware aus Karthago:Untersuchungen zur phönizischen Keramik im westlichen Mittelmeer.Hamburger Werkstattreihe zur Archäologie 5. Münster: Lit.

Petersen, E. 1903. ‘Aus dem französischen Afrika.’ AA: 13-29.Petrakos, B.C. 1968. 9O Wrwpo/j kai/ to/ (iero/n tou= Amfiara/ou.

Biblioqh/kh th=j )en )Aqh/naij )Arxaiologikh=j (Etairei/aj 63.Athens: )Arxaiologikh 9Etairei/a.

Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1885. ‘The Discovery of Naukratis.’ JHS 6: 202-6.Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1886a. ‘The Finding of Naukratis.’ Archaeological

Journal 43: 45-51.Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1886b [2nd edn. 1888]. Naukratis 1: 1884-5. Third

Memoir of The EEF. London: Trübner & Co.Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1888. Tanis 2: Nebesheh (Am) and Defenneh

(Tahpanhes). London: Trübner & Co.Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1891a [2nd edn 1893]. Ten Years’ Digging in Egypt,

1881-1891. London: The Religious Tract Society.Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1891b. Tell el-Hesy (Lachish). London: A.P. Watt.Petrie, W.M. Flinders, and J.G. Duncan. 1906. Hyksos and Israelite Cities.

London: School of Archaeology in Egypt/ Bernard Quaritch.Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1909. Qurneh. London: School of Archaeology in

Egypt, University College and Bernard Quaritch.Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1915. Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa. London:

School of Archaeology in Egypt/Bernard Quaritch.Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1923. Seventy Years in Archaeology. Rep. 1969 New

York: Greenwood Press.Petropoulos, E.K. 2003. ‘Problems in the History and Archaeology of the

Greek Colonization of the Black Sea.’ In Grammenos andPetropoulos 2003: 17-94.

Pfisterer-Haas, S. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: VI. Die Importkeramik.’ AA:263-71.

Pfuhl, E. 1903. ‘Der archaische Friedhof am Stadtberge von Thera.’ AM28: 1-290.

Piekarski, D. 2001a. ‘Die Keramik aus Naukratis im AkademischenKunstmuseum Bonn.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 95-110.

Piekarski, D. 2001b. Die Keramik aus Naukratis im AkademischenKunstmuseum Bonn. Bonner Sammlung von Aegyptiaca, 4.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Pilides, D. 2005. ‘Storage Jars and Cooking Pots: Implications and SocialSignificance.’ In Cyprus: Religion and Society from the Late Bronze Ageto the End of the Archaic Period, edited by V. Karageorghis, H.Matthäus and S. Rogge, 171-82. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.

Pipili, M. 1987. Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century bc. Oxford:Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Pippidi, D.M. 1983. Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae 1:Inscriptiones Histriae et viciniae. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1994. L’Aphrodite grecque. Kernos suppl. 4. Athens,Liège: Centre International d’Etude de la Religion Grecque Antique.

Pisani, M. 2003. ‘Vita quotidiana nel mondo greco tra il VI e il V secoloa.C. Un contributo per la classificazione delle rappresentazionifittili.’ Bolletino d’Arte 123: 3-24.

Pisano, G., ed. 1999. Phoenicians and Carthaginians in the Western

Page 237: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 229

Bibliography

Roselli, A. 2001. ‘Breve storia del silfio.’ AION n.s. 8: 11-20.Rouillard, P. 1985. ‘Note préliminaire sur la céramique grecque, étrusque

et campanienne de la fouille du Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier, Mission del’I.F.A.O., Karnak Nord’. Bulletin de liaison du Groupe Internationald’Etude de la Céramique Egyptienne 10: 22-4.

Rowe, A. 1956. The Round, Rectangular, Stepped and Rock-Cut Tombs atCyrene: Cyrenaican Expeditions of the University of Manchester 1952.Manchester: University Press.

Rückert, B., and F. Kolb, eds. 2003. Probleme der Keramikchronologie dessüdlichen und westlichen Kleinasiens in geometrischer und archaischerZeit. Antiquitas 3. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Rumpf, A.A. 1933. ‘Zu den klazomenischen Denkmälern.’ JdI 48: 55-83.Rumscheid, F., ed. Forthcoming. Die Karer und die Anderen: Akten des

Internationalen Kolloquiums in Berlin, 23.-25. November 2005.Rupp, D.W. 2005. ‘Transmission and Assimilation in Context: An

Economic Model for the Selection and Use of Greek and PhoenicianCeramic Imports in 8th Century bc Cypriot Society.’ In Clarke 2005:48-58.

Rusiaeva, A.S. 1978. ‘Orfizm i kul’t Dionisa v Ol’vii. ‘ VDI 143.1: 87-104.Rusiaeva, A.S. 1992. Religiia i kul’ty antichnoýv Ol’vii. Kiev: Naukova

Dumka.Rusiaeva, A.S. 1999. ‘Les temene d’Olbia à la lumière de son histoire au

VIe s. av.n.è.’ In Religions du Pont-Euxin: Actes du VIIIe Symposium deVani (Colchide)- 1997, edited by A. Fraysse and E. Geny, 75-84.Besançon: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comptoises.

Saggs, H.W.F. 2001. The Nimrud Letters, 1952. Cuneiform Texts fromNimrud 5. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Þahin, M. 2003. Hellenistische Kohlenbecken mit figürlich verziertenAttaschen aus Knidos. Knidos-Studien 1. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.

Sahlins, M. 2005. ‘Structural Work: How Microhistories becomeMacrohistories and vice versa.’ Anthropological Theory 5: 5-30.

Saioni, M., ed. 2003. Appunti d’artista: L’inventario dei Musei Civici diPerugia compilato da Walter Briziarelli. Perugia: Fabbri.

Salinas, A. 1884. ‘Memoria del prof. A. Salinas, intorno agli oggettirinvenuti negli scavi eseguiti a Selinunte nel 1883, e ora depositati nelMuseo di Palermo.’ NSc: 325-36.

Salles, J.F. 1980. ‘Le niveau 4.’ In Tell Keisan (1971-1976): Une citéphénicienne en Galilée, edited by J. Briend and J.P. Humbert, 131-56.Orbis Biblicus et Orientales, Series Archaeologica 1.Freiburg/Schweiz, Göttingen, Paris: Gabalda.

Salles, J.F. 1983. Kition-Bamboula 2. Les égouts de la ville classique. Maisonde l’Orient méditerranéen. Mémoires, 27. Paris: Editions Recherchesur les Civilisations.

Salles, J.F. 1985. ‘Cuvettes et ‘mortiers’ du Levant au 1er millenaire avantJ.C.’ In De l’Indus aux Balkans: Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes,edited by J.L. Huot, M. Yon and Y. Calvet, 199-212. Paris: EditionsRecherche sur les Civilisations.

Salles, J.F. 1991. ‘Du blé, de l’huile et du vin… (Notes sur les échangescommerciaux en Méditerranée orientale vers le milieu du 1ermillénaire av. J.-C.).’ In Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt:Old Cultures in a New Empire, edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg andA. Kuhrt, 207-35. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het NabijeOosten.

Salles, J.F. 1993. Kition-Bamboula 4: Les niveaux hellénistique. Paris:Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Salles, J.F., and C. Rey. 1993. ‘Le basin 417.’ In Salles 1993: 227-59.Saltz, D.L. 1978. ‘Greek Geometric Pottery in the East: The Chronological

Implications.’ Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.Santucci, A. 1998. ‘Il Santuario dell’Anax nell’Agorà di Cirene.’ In La

Cirenaica in età antica: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi,Macerata 18-20 maggio 1995, edited by E. Catani and S.M. Marengo,523-35. Macerata-Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.

Santucci, A. Forthcoming. ‘Un deposito votivo nell’Agorà di Cirene.’ InCirene e la Cirenaica nell’Antichità: Convegno Internazionale di Studi,Roma-Frascati 18-21 dicembre 1996.

Sapin, J. 1998. ‘Mortaria: Un lot inedit de Tell Keisan. Essaid’interpretation fonctionnelle.’ Transeuphratène 16: 87-120.

Sarikakis, T.C. 1989. Xiakh/ Proswpografi&a. Athens: s.n.Sass, B. 2002. ‘Wenamun and His Levant – 1075 bc or 925 bc?’ Ägypten

und Levante 12: 247-55.Sass, B. 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic

Alphabet c. 1150–850 bce. The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek andPhrygian Alphabets. Occasional Publication of the Institute ofArchaeology of Tel Aviv University 4. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire YassPublications in Archaeology.

Sauer, H. 1937. ‘Ein etruskisches Infundibulum in Kopenhagen.’ AA: 285-308.

Radwan, A. 1983. Die Kupfer- und Bronzegefäße Ägyptens (Von denAnfängen bis zum Beginn der Spätzeit). Prähistorische Bronzefunde,Abt. 2.2. Munich: Beck Verlag.

Rallo, A. 1976/7. ‘Scavi e ricerche nella città antica di Selinunte. ‘ Kokalos22/3: 720-33.

Ramsay, W.M. 1881. ‘Contributions to the History of Southern Aeolis II:Myrina, Larissa, Neonteichos, Temnos, and Aegae. ‘ JHS 2: 271-308.

Rasmussen, T. 1979. Bucchero Pottery from Southern Etruria. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Rautmann, A.E. ‘Ceramic Petrography Report.’ In Tel Anafa 2.1. TheHellenistic and Roman Pottery, edited by S.C. Herbert, 212-35.Journal of Roman archaeology, Suppl. 10,2,1. Ann Arbor: KelseyMuseum of Ancient and Medieval Archaeology.

Rayet, O. 1884. ‘Vase antique trouvé dans la nécropole de Myrina. ‘ BCH 8:509-14.

Reed, C.M. 2004. Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reeder, E., ed. 1999. Scythian Gold: Treasures from Ancient Ukraine. NewYork: Harry N. Abrams.

Rehm, A. 1914. ‘Die Inschriften’. In Milet 1.3. Das Delphinion in Milet,edited by G. Kawerau and A. Rehm. Berlin: Mann.

Reinach, S. 1889. ‘Statues archaiques de Cybèle découvertes à Cymé(Eolide).’ BCH 13: 543-60.

Reusser, C. 1986. Testimonianze d’arte etrusca in collezioni private ticinesi.Lugano: Banca della Svizzera Italiana.

Riis, P.J. 1970. Su-ka-s 1: The North-Eastern Sanctuary and the First Settlingof Greeks in Syria and Palestine. Publications of the CarlsbergExpedition to Phoenicia 1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Riis, P.J. 1998. Vulcientia vetustiora: A Study of Archaic Vulcian Bronzes.Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-filosofiskeSkrifter 19. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Rix, H., ed. 1991. ET Etruskische Texte 1-2. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Rizza, G. 1960. ‘Stipe votiva di un santuario di Demetra a Catania. ‘BdA

45: 247-62.Rizza, G. 2003. ‘Scoperta di un santuario dei Dioscuri a Lentini.’ RendLinc

(s. 9) 14,4: 537-68.Rizza, S. 2000. Studi sulle fortificazioni greche di Leontini. Studi e

Materiali di Archeologia Greca 7. Catania: Consiglio Nazionale delleRicerche/Centro di Studio sull’ Archeologia Greca.

Robert, F. 1952. Délos 20. Trois sanctuaires sur le rivage occidental:Dioscurion, Asclepiéion, sanctuaire anonyme (Leucothion?). Paris:Boccard.

Robinson, D.M. 1941. Olynthus 10. Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Roebuck, C. 1950. ‘The Grain Trade Between Greece and Egypt.’ CP 45:236-47.

Roebuck, C. 1951. Corinth 14. The Asklepieion and Lerna. Princeton:American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Roll, I., and O. Tal, eds. 1999. Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of theExcavations 1: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods (with Appendices onthe Chalcolithic and Iron Age II Remains). Tel Aviv University, Instituteof Archaeology Monograph Series 16. Tel Aviv: Emery and ClaireYass Publications in Archaeology.

Rolland, H. 1964. ‘Saint-Blaise.’ Gallia 22: 569-72.Rolley, C. 1984. Die griechischen Bronzen. Munich: Hirmer.Rolley, C. 1994. La sculpture grecque: 1 Des origines au milieu du Ve siècle.

Paris: Picard éditeur.Rollinger, R. 2001. ‘The Ancient Greeks and the Impact of the Ancient

Near East: Textual Evidence and Historical Perspective.’ InMythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches toIntercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposiumof the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project held inParis, October 4-7, 1999, edited by R.M. Whiting, 233-64. MelammuSymposia 2. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Romito, M. 1995. I cinturoni sannitici. Materiae 4. Napoli: Electa.Romualdi, A. 1989/90 [1991]. ‘Luoghi di culto e depositi votivi

nell’Etruria settentrionale in epoca arcaica: considerazioni sullatipologia e sul significato delle offerte votive.’ Scienze dell’Antichità.Storia, Archeologia, Antropologia 3/4: 619-50.

Romualdi, A. ed. 2001. Le rotte nel Mare Tirreno: Populonia e l’emporio diAleria in Corsica. Catalogo della mostra. Suvereto: Isografiche.

Roncalli, F. 1980a. ‘Carbasinis voluminibus implicati libri: Osservazionisul liber linteus di Zagabria.’ JdI 95: 227-64.

Roncalli, F. 1980b. ‘Osservazioni sui libri lintei etruschi.’RendPontAcc51/2: 3-21.

Roncalli, F. 1985. ‘Il Liber Linteus di Zagabria.’ In Scrivere Etrusco:Catalogo della mostra, 17-64, 88. Milan: Electa.

Page 238: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

230 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Scardigli, B. 1991. I trattati romano-cartaginesi. Pisa: Scuola NormaleSuperiore.

Schäfer, H. 1908. Priestergräber und andere Grabfunde vom Ende des AltenReiches bis zur griechischen Zeit vom Totentempel des Ne-User-Rê.Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Schattner, T.G. 1996. ‘Die Fundkeramik.’ In Tuchelt 1996: 163-216.Schattner, T.G. 1992. ‘Frühe Keramik I: Allgemeine Probleme

Leitformen.’ In Didyma Wegweiser: Ausgrabungen des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts 26. Berlin: Deutsches ArchäologischesInstitut.

Schattner, T.G. 2003. ‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Bearbeitunggeometrisch-archaischer Fundkeramik am Beispiel Didymas.’ InRückert and Kolb 2003: 61-7.

Schattner, T.G., and N. Dürring. 1995. ‘Zur Apries Amphora.’ JdI 110: 65-93.

Schauenburg, K. 1954. CVA Heidelberg, Universität 1. Munich: BeckVerlag.

Schaus, G.P. 1979. ‘A Foreign Vase Painter in Sparta.’ AJA 83: 102-6.Schaus, G.P. 1980. ‘Greek Trade along the North African Coast in the

Sixth Century bc.’ Scripta Mediterranea 1: 21-7.Schaus, G.P. 1983. ‘Two Notes on Lakonian Vases.’ AJA 87: 85-9.Schaus, G.P. 1985a. ‘The East Greek, Island and Laconian Pottery.’ In The

Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya:Final Reports 2, edited by D. White. Philadelphia: The UniversityMuseum, University of Pennsylvania.

Schaus, G.P. 1985b. ‘The Evidence for Laconians in Cyrenaica in theArchaic Period.’ In Cyrenaica in Antiquity: Papers presented at theColloquium on Society and Economy in Cyrenaica, CambridgeMarch–April 1983, edited by G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 395-403. BAR International Series 236. Oxford: BAR.

Schaus, G.P. 1986. ‘Two Fikellura Vase Painters.’ BSA 81: 251-95.Schaus, G.P. 1988. ‘The Beginning of Greek Polychrome Painting.’ JHS

108: 107-17.Schaus, G.P. 1992. ‘Archaic Imported Fine Wares from the Acropolis,

Mytilene.’ Hesperia 61: 355-74.Schaus, G.P. 1995. CVA Philadelphia Pennsylvania, The University Museum

2. Philadelphia: University Museum.Schaus, G.P. 1996: ‘The Distribution of Chian and Fikellura Pottery in

East Greece.’ Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 15:30-42.

Schefold, K. 1933. ‘Arbeiten in Larisa 1932 und Frühjahr 1933.’ AA: 141-58.Schefold, K. 1942. ‘Knidische Vasen und Verwandtes.’ JdI 57: 124-42.Schefold, K. 1964. Frühgriechische Sagenbilder. Munich: Hirmer.Schefold, K. 1966. Führer durch das Antikenmuseum Basel. Basel:

Antikenmuseum Basel.Schefold, K. 1978. Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der

spätarchaischen Kunst. Munich: Hirmer.Schefold, K. 1993. Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der früh- und

hocharchaischen Kunst. Munich: Hirmer.Scheurleer, C.W. Lunsingh. 1931. CVA La Hague, Musée Scheurleer 2. Paris:

Champion.Schiering, W. 1957. Werkstätten orientalisierender Keramik auf Rhodos.

Berlin: Gebrüder Mann.Schiering, W. 1967. ‘Zweihundert Jahre Göttinger Archäologische

Sammlungen: 4. Tongefäße. Varia.’ AA: 431-4.Schiering, W. 1979. ‘Milet: Eine Erweiterung der Grabung östlich des

Athenatempels.’ IstMitt 29: 77-108.Schiering, W. 1981-3 [1989]. ‘Ein Tierfrieskessel aus Pyrrha auf Lesbos.’

Anadolu 22: 201-10.Schiering, W. 1989. ‘Pyrrha auf Lesbos: Nachlese einer Grabung.’ AA:

339-77.Schindler, M.P. 1998. Der Depotfund von Arbedo TI und die

Bronzedepotfunde des Alpenraums vom 6. bis zum Beginn des 4. Jh. v.Chr. Antiqua 30. Basel: Verlag Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur-und Frühgeschichte.

Schipper, B.U. 2005. Die Erzählung des Wenamun: Ein Literaturwerk imSpannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion. Orbis Biblicus etOrientalis 209. Fribourg: Academic Press.

Schleiffenbaum, H.E. 1991. Der griechische Volutenkrater. Frankfurt,Bern, New York, Paris: Peter Lang Verlag.

Schlotzhauer, U. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: IV. Beobachtungen zuTrinkgefäßen des Fikellurastils.’ AA: 223-39.

Schlotzhauer, U. 2000. ‘Die südionischen Knickrandschalen: Formenund Entwicklung der sog. Ionischen Schalen in archaischer Zeit.’ InKrinzinger 2000: 407-16.

Schlotzhauer, U. 2001a. ‘Ausgewählte ostgriechische Keramik ausNaukratis im Blickwinkel neuer Forschungen.’ In Höckmann and

Kreikenbom 2001: 111-26.Schlotzhauer, U. 2001b. ‘Die südionischen Knickrandschalen: Eine

chronologische Untersuchung zu den sog. Ionischen Schalen inMilet.’ Ph.D. diss., Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Schlotzhauer, U. 2006. ‘Griechen in der Fremde: Wer weihte in dieFilialheiligtümer der Samier und Milesier in Naukratis?’ In Naso2006: 292-320.

Schlotzhauer, U. Forthcoming a. ‘Ostgriechische koroplastisch gestalteteGesichts- und Kopfgefäße aus milesischen Werkstätten.’ In Biering etal. (forthcoming).

Schlotzhauer, U. Forthcoming b. ‘Zum Verhältnis zwischen sog. Tierfries-und Fikellurastil (SiA I und II) in Milet. ‘ In Cobet et al.(forthcoming).

Schlotzhauer, U., and S. Weber. 2005. ‘Griechenland – Ägypten:Verschiedene Aspekte griechischer Keramik aus Ägypten des 6. Jhs.v. Chr.’ In Prozesse des Wandels in historischen SpannungsfeldernNordostafrikas/Westasiens: Akten zum 2. Symposium des SFB 295Mainz, edited by W. Bisang, T. Bierschenk and U. Verhoeven, 69-114.Kulturelle und Sprachliche Kontakte 2. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.

Schlotzhauer, U., and S. Weber. Forthcoming. Griechische Keramik des 7.und 6. Jahrhunderts aus Naukratis und anderen Orten in Ägypten.Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis 3. Worms: WernerscheVerlagsgesellschaft.

Schmaltz, B. 2003. ‘Frühe lokale Ware in Kaunos.’ In Rückert and Kolb2003: 37-42.

Schmaltz, B., and M. Söldner, eds. 2003. Griechische Keramik imkulturellen Kontext: Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions inKiel vom 24.-28.9.2001 veranstaltet durch das Archäologische Institutder Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Münster: Scriptorium.

Schmidt, G. 1968. Samos 7. Kyprische Bildwerke aus dem Heraion vonSamos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Schmidt, J. 1916-24. ‘Typhon.’ In Roscher 5, 1426-54. Leipzig: Teubner.Schmitt Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet: Histoire des repas publics dans

les cités grecques. Rome: Ecole française de Rome.Schneider, C. 1999. Die Musengruppe von Milet. Milesische Forschungen

1. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Scholl, R. 1997. ‘Phylen und Buleuten in Naukratis: Ein neues Fragment

zur Inschrift SB VIII 9747’. In Tyche 12: 213-28.Scholtz, A. 2002/3. ‘Aphrodite Pandemos at Naukratis.’ In GRBS 43: 231-

42.Schreiber, N. 2003. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. Culture

and History of the Ancient Near East 13. Leiden: Brill.Schröder, B. 1914. Griechische Bronzeeimer im Berliner Antiquarium.

BWPr. 74. Berlin: Reimer.Schwartz, J., and H. Wild. 1950. Qasr-Qarun/Dionysias 1948. Fouilles

franco-suisses, rapports 1. Kairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut françaisd’archéologie orientale.

Schwedt, A., V. Aravantinos, A. Harami, V. Kilikoglou, M. Kylafi, H.Mommsen, and N. Zacharias. 2005. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis ofHellenistic Pottery from Boeotia, Greece.’ JAS 33: 1065-74.

Schwedt, A., and H. Mommsen. Forthcoming. ‘On the Influence ofDrying and Firing of Clays on the Formation of Trace ElementConcentration Profiles within Pottery.’ Archaeometry.

Schwedt, A., H. Mommsen, and N. Zacharias. 2004. ‘Post-depositionalElemental Alterations in Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis ofSurface Samples.’ Archaeometry 46: 85-101.

Schwyzer, E. 1959. Griechische Grammatik. 2nd edn. Handbuch derAltertumswissenschaft 2.1,2. Munich: Beck Verlag.

Seeber, C. 1976. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Totengerichts im AltenÄgypten. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 35. Munich, Berlin:Deutscher Kunstverlag.

Seifert, M. 1991. ‘Ein Töpferofen vor der Stadtmauer.’ In Graeve et al.1991: 134-6.

Seifert, M. 1998. ‘Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen an einer Gruppe vonFikellura-Amphoren.’ In Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen derantiken Welt: Festschrift für Hans Georg Niemeyer, edited by R. Rolle,K. Schmidt and R.F. Docter, 131-41. Veröffentlichungen der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg 87. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Seifert, M. 2004. Herkunftsbestimmung archaischer Keramik am Beispielvon Amphoren aus Milet. BAR International Series 1233. Oxford: Johnand Erica Hedges.

Seifert, M., and Ü. Yalçýn. 1996. ‘Bemerkungen zum Export und Importarchaischer Amphoren aus Milet: InterdisziplinäreUntersuchungen.’ In Arkeometri Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 11, edited by I.Eroðlu, N. Ülgen, H. Eren, F. Bayram, N. Tarlan, N. Tutlýcan, A.H.Ergürer and Y. Morkaya, 117-38. Ankara: T.C. Kültüt Bakanlýðý Milli

Page 239: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 231

Bibliography

Kütüphane Basýmevi.Selesnow, W. 2002. ‘Funde aus Milet: XIII. Marmor und andere

Steinlampen.’ AA: 27-40.Semeraro, G. 1990. ‘Metalli.’ In Archeologia dei Messapi: Catalogo della

mostra, edited by F. D’Andria, 89-90. Bari: Edipuglia.Senatorov, S.N. 2005. ‘Local Pottery from the Colony on Berezan Island.’

In Borysthenes – Berezan: The Hermitage Archaeological Collection 1,edited by S.L. Solovyov, 174-349. St. Petersburg: The HermitagePublishing House. (in Russian)

Senff, R. 1992. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Zeytintepe.’ In Graeve et al. 1992:105-8.

Senff, R. 1995a. ‘Die Grabung am Kalabaktepe.’ In Graeve et al. 1995: 208-13.

Senff, R. 1995b. ‘Sondierungen am Südhang des Mengerevtepe(‘Assesos’).’ In Graeve et al. 1995: 224-8.

Senff, R. 1997a. ‘Arbeiten am Zeytintepe im Jahre 1994.’ In Graeve et al.1997: 114-7.

Senff, R. 1997b. ‘Das Wohnviertel am Südhang des Kalabaktepe.’ InGraeve et al. 1997: 118-20.

Senff, R. 1997c. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Gipfelplateau des Kalabaktepe1995.’ In Graeve et al. 1997: 122-4.

Senff, R. 2000. ‘Die archaische Wohnbebauung am Kalabaktepe in Milet.’In Krinzinger 2000: 29-37.

Senff, R. 2002. ‘Milet: Die archaische Stadt im Zentrum eines Handels-und Kulturnetzes.’ In Stadtnetze: Veröffentlichungen derInterdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe Stadtkulturforschung 3, Symposium22.-24.06.1995 Paris, edited by M. Jansen and J. Hook, 87-119.Wissenschaftliche Schriften an der Fakultät für Architektur derRWTH Aachen 7. Aachen: Verein der Freunde des Reiff.

Senff, R. 2003. ‘Das Aphroditeheiligtum von Milet.’ In Neue Forschungenzur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens, edited by G. Heedemann and E.Winter, 11-25. Asia Minor Studien 49. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Senff, R. 2004. ‘Ein gebissener Held? Zur Statuette einesLöwenbezwingers aus Milet.’ In Bildergeschichte: Festschrift für KlausStähler, edited by J. Gebauer, E. Grabow, F. Jünger and D. Metzler,443-50. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.

Senff, R. 2006. ‘Form and Function of Sanctuaries in Archaic Miletus.’REA 108 (forthcoming).

Senff, R. Forthcoming. ‘Die Löwen der Aphrodite.’ In Biering et al.(forthcoming).

Sevillia Cueva, C. 1993/4. ‘Naucratis: una ciudad griga en el antiguoEgipto.’ In Homenaje a José M. Blázquez 1, edited by J. Mangas and J.Alvar. ARYS 2. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.

Shapiro, H.A. 2000. ‘Modest Athletes and Liberated Women: Etruscanson Attic Black-Figure Vases.’ In Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and theConstruction of the Other in Greek Art, edited by B. Cohen, 313-37.Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill.

Shaw, B.D. 2001. ‘Challenging Braudel: A New Vision of theMediterranean.’ JRA 14: 419-53.

Shaw, I., and P. Nicholson. 1995. ‘Beit el-Wali.’ In The British MuseumDictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.

Shaya, J. 2005. ‘The Greek Temple as Museum.’ AJA 109: 423-42.Shefton, B.B. 1962. ‘Chapter X. Other Non-Corinthian Vases.’ In

Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia 2, edited byT.J. Dunbabin, 368-88. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Shefton, B.B. 1970. ‘The Greek Museum, University of Newcastle uponTyne.’ AR 16: 52-62.

Shefton, B.B. 1989. ‘East Greek Influences in Sixth-Century Attic VasePainting and Some Laconian Trails.’ In Greek Vases in the J. Paul GettyMuseum 4: 41-72. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum.

Shefton, B.B. 1996. ‘Castulo Cups in the Aegean, the Black Sea Area andthe Near East with the Respective Hinterland.’ In Sur les traces desArgonautes: Proceedings of the sixth International Symposium on theAncient History of the Black Sea Littoral, Vani, Georgia 1990, edited byA. Fraysse, E. Geny and T. Khartchilava, 163-85. Besançon, Paris:Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté.

Sherratt, E.S. 2003. ‘Visible Writing: Questions of Script and Identity inEarly Iron Age Greece and Cyprus.’ OJA 22: 225-42.

Sherratt, E.S. 2005. ‘‘Ethnicities’, ‘Ethnonyms’ and Archaeological Labels.Whose Ideologies and Whose Identities?’ In Clarke 2005: 25-38.

Sherratt, E.S., and A. Sherratt. 1998. ‘Small Worlds: Interaction andIdentity in the Ancient Mediterranean.’ In The Aegean and the Orientin the Second Millennium, edited by E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline,329-43. Aegaeum 18. Liège: Université de Liège.

Shipley, G. 1992. ‘Perioikos: The Discovery of Classical Lakonia.’ InFILOLAKWN : Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling, editedby J.M. Sanders, 211-26. London: The Managing Committee, British

School at Athens.Shtitelman, F.M. 1977. Antique Art. Works of World Art in the Museums of

Ukraine. Kiev: Midteztvo.Sidorova, N.A. 1962. ‘Arkhaicheskaia keramika iz Pantikapeia.’ In

Pantikapaeýv, edited by I.B. Zeest and I.D. Marchenko, 94-148. MIA103. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

Sidorova, N.A. 1987. ‘Arkhaicheskaia keramika iz raskopok Germonassi.’In Kul’tura i iskusstvo Bospora, edited by H.A. Sidorova and L.M.Smirnova, 110-25. Soobshchenia Gosudarstvennogo muzeiaizobrazhitelnykh iskusstv imeni A.S. Pushkina 8. Moscow: Sovetskiýv

Khudozhnik.Sidorova, N.A. 1992. ‘Keramika Arkhaicheskogo perioda iz raskopok

Pantikapeia 1965-1985 gg. (Krome Atticheskoýv Chernofigurnoýv).’ InArkheologiia i Iskusstvo Bospora, edited by D.I. Molok, 131-72.Soobshchenia Gosudarstvennogo Muzeia Izobrazhitelnykh IskucctvImena A.S. Pushkina 10. Moscow: Sovetskiýv Khudozhnik.

Siegel, L.J. 1978. ‘Corinthian Trade in the Ninth through Sixth Centuriesbc.’ Ph.D. diss., Yale University.

Siewert, P. 1991. ‘Staatliche Weihungen von Kesseln und anderenBronzegeräten in Olympia.’ AM 106: 81-4.

Silanteva, L.F. 1959. ‘Nekropol’ Nimfeia.’ In Nekropol’ Bosporskikhgorodov, edited by V.F. Gaývdukevicha, 5-107. MIA 69. Moscow,Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

Simantoni-Bournia, E. 1992. La ceramique à reliefs au musée de Chios.Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens.

Simon, E. 1970. ‘Aphrodite Pandemos auf Attischen Münzen.’ SNR 40: 5-19.

Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary.Madison, London: University of Wisconsin Press.

Simon, E. 1997. ‘Silenoi.’ In LIMC 8, edited by L. Kahil, 1108-33. Zurich,Düsseldorf: Artemis Verlag.

Skibo, J. 1992. Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. New York:Plenum Press.

Skudnova, V.M. 1960. ‘Rodosskaia Keramika c o. Berezan’.’ SovArch 2:153-67.

Skudnova, V.M. 1988. Arkhaicheskiýv Nekropol’ Ol’vii. Leningrad:Iskusstvo.

Smith, C.H., 1886. ‘VI. The Painted Pottery.’ In Petrie 1886b: 46-53.Smoláriková, K. 2000. ‘The Great Temenos at Naukratis Once Again.’

Archiv orientální 68: 571-8.Smoláriková, K. 2001. ‘Archaic East Greek Amphorae in the Tomb of the

Egyptian Dignitary Iufaa.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 163-73.

Smoláriková, K. 2002. Abusir 7. Greek Imports in Egypt: Graeco-EgyptianRelations during the First Millenium bc. Prague: Czech Institute ofEgyptology.

Snodgrass, A.M. 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment. Berkeley,Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Sokolowski, F. 1969. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris: E. de Boccard.Solovyov, S.L. 1999. Ancient Berezan: The Architecture, History and

Culture of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea. ColloquiaPontica 4. Leiden: Brill.

Solovyov, S.L. 2001. ‘The Archaeological Excavation of the BerezanSettlement (1987-1991).’ In North Pontic Archaeology: RecentDiscoveries and Studies, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 117-41. ColloquiaPontica 6. Leiden: Brill.

Solovyov, S.L. 2005. Borysthenes-Berezan: 120th Anniversary ofArchaeological Investigation of the Ancient Settlement on BerezanIsland. St. Petersburg: The Hermitage Publishing House. (inRussian)

Sordi, M. 1995. Prospettive di storia etrusca. Como: Edizioni New Press.Sørensen, L.W. 1997. ‘Traveling Pottery Connections Between Cyprus,

the Levant, and the Greek World in the Iron Age.’ In Res Maritimae:Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to LateAntiquity. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium ‘Citieson the Sea’ Nicosia, Cyprus, 18-22 October 1994, edited by S. Swiny,R.L. Hohlfelder and H.W. Swiny, 285-99. Cyprus AmericanArchaeological Research Institute Monograph Series 1. Atlanta:Scholars Press.

Sørensen, L.W. 2001. ‘Archaic Greek Painted Pottery from Cyprus,Naukratis and Tell Defenneh.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001:151-61.

Sourouzian, H., and R. Stadelmann. 2005. ‘Die ältesten Erwähnungenvon Ioniern und Danaern.’ AntW 2005.6: 79-83.

Spalinger, A. 1977. ‘Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey (c. 620 bc-550 bc).’Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 5: 221-44.

Spalinger, A. 1978. ‘Psammetichus, King of Egypt: II.’ JARCE 15:49-57.

Page 240: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

232 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Sparkes, B. 1962. ‘The Greek Kitchen.’ JHS 82: 121-37.Sparkes, B. 1965. ‘The Greek Kitchen: Addenda.’ JHS 85: 162-3.Sparkes, B.A., and L. Talcott. 1970. Agora 12. Black and Plain Pottery.

Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.Spencer, A.J. 1996. Excavations at Tell El-Balamun 1991-1994. London:

British Museum Press.Spencer, A.J. 1999. ‘Casemate Foundations Once Again.’ In Studies on

Ancient Egypt in Honour of H. S. Smith, edited by A. Leahy and J. Tait,295-300. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Spencer, N. 1995. ‘Early Lesbos between East and West: A ‘Grey Area’ ofAegean Archaeology.’ BSA 90: 269-306.

Spencer, N. 2000. ‘Exchange and Statis in Archaic Mytilene.’ In Brock andHodkinson 2000: 68-81.

Srdocv, D., N. Horvatincvic, I. Mirnik, and A. Rendic-Miocvevic. 1990.‘Radiocarbon Dating of the Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis, an EtruscanLinen Book.’ In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium14C and Archaeology, Groningen 1987, edited by W.G. Mook and H.T.Waterbolk, 429-38. PACT 29. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe.

Stager, L.E. 1996. ‘Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev604 bce.’ ErIsr 25: 61-74.

Stager, L.E. 2005. ‘Phoenician Shipwrecks and the Ship Tyre (Ezekiel 27).’In Terra Marique: Studies in Art History and Marine Archaeology inHonor of Anna Marguerite McCann on the Receipt of the Gold Medal ofthe Archaeological Institute of America, edited by J. Pollini, 238-54.Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Stampolidis, N.C., A. Karetsou, and A. Kanta, eds. 1998. EasternMediterranean: Cyprus – Dodecanese – Crete 16th-6th cent. bc:Proceedings of the International Symposium Rethymnon 13-16 May1997. Athens: The University of Crete and The A.G. LeventisFoundation.

Starke, F. 2000. ‘Miletos [2]: I. Geschichte.’ In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited byH. Cancik and H. Schneider, 170-5. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.

Steinhart, M. 1995. Das Motiv des Auges in der griechischen Bildkunst.Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Steinhart, M. 2003. ‘Literate and Wealthy Women in Archaic Greece:Some Thoughts on the ‘Telesstas’ Hydria.’ In Poetry, Theory, Praxis:Essays in Honour of William J. Slater, edited by E. Csapo and M.C.Miller, 204-231. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Stern, E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the PersianPeriod. Warminster: Aris & Philips.

Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 2: The Assyrian,Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–332 bce. New York: AnchorBible Reference Library.

Steuernagel, D. 1991. ‘Der gute Staatsbürger: Zur Interpretation desKouros.’ Hephaistos 10: 35-48.

Stevenson, C. 1890/1 [1892]. ‘On Certain Symbols Used in the Decorationof Some Potsherds from Daphnae and Naukratis.’ Proceedings of theNumismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, 72-121.

Stevenson, M.G. 1982. ‘Toward an Understanding of Site AbandonmentBehavior: Evidence from Historic Mining Camps in the SouthwestYukon.’ JAnthArch 1: 237-65.

Stibbe, C.M. 1972. Lakonische Vasenmaler des sechsten Jahrhunderts v.Chr. Amsterdam, London: North-Holland Publishing.

Stibbe, C.M. 1989. Laconian Mixing Bowls: A History of the kraterlakonikos from the Seventh to the Fifth Century bc. Laconian Black-glazed Pottery, 1. Allard Pierson series Scripta Minora 2. Amsterdam:Allard Pierson Museum.

Stika, H.P. 1997. ‘Pflanzenreste aus dem archaischen Milet: Vorberichtzur Kampagne 1992.’ In Graeve et al. 1997: 157-63.

Stissi, V. 2003. ‘From Catalogue to Cultural Context: Bringing Life toGreek Sanctuary Pottery.’ In Schmaltz and Söldner 2003: 77-79.

Strouhal, E. 1996. Life of the Ancient Egyptians. Liverpool: UniversityPress.

Stucchi, S. 1964. ‘La tomba a tumulo presso Messa in Cirenaica.’ LibAnt 1:127-31.

Stucchi, S. 1965. L’Agorà di Cirene 1: I lati nord ed est della platea inferiore.Monografie di archeologia libica 7. Rome: «L’ERMA» diBretschneider.

Stucchi, S. 1967. Cirene 1957-1966: Un decennio di attività della MissioneArcheologica Italiana a Cirene. Tripoli: Quaderni dell’istituto italianodi cultura di Tripoli.

Stucchi, S. 1975. Architettura cirenaica. Monografie di archeologia libica9. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Stucchi, S. 1984. ‘I vasi greci arcaici e la Cirenaica: importazioni,imitazioni ed influenze.’ RendLinc 39: 161-71.

Stucchi, S. 1987. ‘La ceramica laconica e la coppa de Arkesilas.’ In Da BattoAristotele a Ibn El-’As: Introduzione alla mostra. Roma, Museo della

civiltà romana, 3 novembre–15 dicembre 1987, 29-34. Rome: «L’ERMA»di Bretschneider.

Stucchi, S., and L. Bacchielli. 1983. L’Agorà di Cirene 2,4. Il lato sud dellaplatea inferiore e il lato nord della terrazza superiore. Monografie diarcheologia libica 17. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Stümpel, H., S. Wölz, P. Musmann, and W. Rabbel. 2005.‘Geophysikalische Prospektion in Milet: Arbeiten in den Kampagnen2000-2002.’ AA 2005,1: 223-39.

Sullivan, R.D. 1996. ‘Psammetichus I and the Foundation of Naukratis.’ InCoulson 1996: 177-95.

Sweeney, J., ed. 1987. The Human Figure in Early Greek Art: Catalogue ofthe Exhibition National Gallery of Art, Washington 31 January–12 June1988. Athens, Washington: Greek Ministry of Culture, Washington,National Gallery of Art.

Swift, K. 2003. ‘Coarse Pottery.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides(Benghazi): Preliminary Report on the Spring 2003 Season.’ LibyanStudies 34: 214-21.

Swift, K. 2005. ‘Coarse Pottery.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides 2005:Preliminary Report on the Spring 2005 Season.’ Libyan Studies 36:161-5.

Szilágyi, J.G. 1998. Ceramica Etrusco-Corinzia Figurata 2, 590/580–550a.C. Monumenti etruschi 8. Florence: Olschki.

Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III, King of Assyria.Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Tagliamonte, G. 1994. I figli di Marte: Mobilità, mercenari e mercenariatoitalici in Magna Grecia e Sicilia. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Tagliamonte, G. 2004. ‘Il mercenariato italico nel mondo italiota del IVsec. a.C.’ In Alessandro il Molosso e i ‘condottieri’ in Magna Grecia: Attidel XLIII convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto-Cosenza 26-30settembre 2003, 135-64. Napoli: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologiadella Magna Grecia.

Tal, O. 1999. ‘The Persian Period.’ In Roll and Tal 1999: 83-222.Tanner, J. 2003. ‘Finding the Egyptian in Early Greek Art.’ In Ancient

Perspectives on Egypt, edited by R. Matthews and C. Roemer, 115-43.London: Institute of Archaeology, UCL Press.

Tarchi, U. 1936. L’arte etrusco-romana nell’Umbria e nella Sabina. Milan:Fratelli Treves.

Tarditi, C. 1996. Vasi di bronzo in area Apula: produzioni greche ed italichedi età arcaica e classica. Lecce: Congedo Editore.

Tausend, K. 1992. Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formenzwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland.Historia Einzelschriften 73. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Technau, W. 1929. ‘Griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion.’ AM 54:6-64.

Teeter, E. 1994. ‘Bronze Votive Offering Tables.’ In For his Ka – EssaysOffered in Memory of Klaus Baer, edited by D.P. Silverman, 255-65.SAOC 55. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

Tempesta, A. 1998. Le raffigurazioni mitologiche sulla ceramica greco-orientale arcaica. RdA Suppl. 19. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Terrosi Zanco, O. 1974. ‘Possibili antiche vie commerciali tra l’Etruria e lazona teramana.’ In Aspetti e problemi dell’Etruria interna: Atti dell’VIIIConvegno Nazionale di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Orvieto 27-30 giugno1972, 161-84. Convegno nazionale di studi etruschi e italici 8.Florence: Olschki.

Tetlock, P., and A. Belkin. 1996. ‘Counterfactual Thought Experiments inWorld Politics.’ In Counterfactual Thought Experiments in WorldPolitics, edited by P. Tetlock and A. Belkin, 1-38. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Thalmann, J.P. 1977. ‘Céramique trouvée à Amathonte.’ In Gjerstad 1977:65-86.

Thompson, D.J. 1995. ‘Food for Ptolemaic Temple Workers.’ In Wilkins etal. 1995: 316-25.

Thompson, M., O. Mørkholm, and C.M. Kraay, eds. 1973. An Inventory ofGreek Coin Hoards. New York: The American Numismatic Society.

Thorn, J.C. 2005. The Necropolis of Cyrene: Two Hundred Years ofExploration. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider

Thornton, B. 2000. Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created WesternCivilization. San Francisco: Encounter Books.

Thuillier, J.-P. 1985. ‘Nouvelles découvertes de bucchero à Carthage.’ In Ilcommercio etrusco arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di studi, 5-7 dicembre1983, edited by M. Cristofani: 155-63. QArchEtr 9. Rome: ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche.

Tite, M.S. 1999. ‘Pottery Production, Distribution and Consumption – theContribution of the Physical Sciences.’ Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 6: 181-233.

Tite, M.S., and V. Kilikoglou. 2002. ‘Do We Understand Cooking Pots andis there an Ideal Cooking Pot?’ In Modern Trends in Scientific Studies

Page 241: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 233

Bibliography

on Ancient Ceramics: Papers presented at the 5th European Meeting onAncient Ceramics, Athens 1999, edited by V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein and Y.Maniatis, 1-8. BAR International Series 1011. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Todd, R.W. 1979. ‘Tondo Compositions of Pre-classical Plates: WithSpecial Consideration of the 7th and 6th Centuries bc.’ Ph.D. Diss.,University of Colorado.

Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1974. Samos 14. Das Kastro Tigani. Bonn: Dr. RudolfHabelt.

Tolstoýv, I.I. 1953. Grecheskie graffiti drevnikh gorodov severnogoPrichernomor’ia. Moscow, St Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

Tomedi, G. 2000. Italische Panzerplatten und Panzerscheiben.Prähistorische Bronzefunde 3.3. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Torelli, M. 1982. ‘Per la definizione del commercio greco-orientale: il casodi Gravisca.’ PP 37: 305-25.

Torelli. M., ed. 2000. The Etruscans. Milan: Bompiani.Torr, C.M. 1894. ‘Navires sur les vases du Dipylon.’ RA 25: 14-27.Torres Ortiz, M. 1998. ‘La cronología absoluta europea y el inicio de la

colonización fenicia en occidente: Implicaciones cronológicas enChipre y el Próximo Oriente.’ Complutum 9: 49-60.

Torres Ortiz, M. 2005. ‘Tartesios, Fenicios y Griegos en el Sudoeste de laPenínsula Ibérica: algunas reflexiones sobre los recientes hallazgosde Huelva.’ Complutum 16: 292-304.

Tosto, V. 1999. The Black-figured Pottery signedNIKOSQENESEPOIESEN. Allard Pierson Series 11. Amsterdam:Allard Pierson Series.

Touchefeu-Meynier, O. 1997. ‘Typhon.’ In LIMC 8, edited by L. Kahil, 147-51. Zurich, Düsseldorf: Artemis Verlag.

Treister, M.J. 1988. ‘I 7. Fragment eines Weinsiebes.’ In Die Welt derEtrusker: Archäologische Denkmäler aus Museen der sozialistischenLänder, Staatlische Museen zu Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR, AltesMuseum vom 4. Oktober bis 30. Dezember 1988, edited by J. Brosig,390. Berlin: Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft.

Treister, M.J. 1990. ‘The Earliest Etruscan Object in the North Pontic Areafrom the Collection of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts.’ In DieWelt der Etrusker: Internationales Kolloquium 24.-26. Oktober 1988 inBerlin, edited by H. Heres and M. Kunze, 165-9. Berlin: AkademieVerlag.

Treister, M.J. 1991. ‘Etruscan Objects in the North Pontic Area and theWays of their Penetration.’ StEtr 57: 71-9.

Treister, M.J. 1998. ‘Ionia and the North Pontic Area: ArchaicMetalworking.’ In The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area, editedby G. Tsetskhladze, 179-99. Historia Einzelschriften 121. Stuttgart:Franz Steiner Verlag.

Treister, M.J. 1999. ‘Ephesos and the Northern Pontic Area in the Archaicand Classical Period.’ In 100 Jahre österreischische Forschungen inEphesos: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, edited by H. Friesinger andF. Krinzinger, 81-5. AF 1. Denkschriften Österreichische Akademieder Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 260. Vienna:Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Tresp, A. 1914. Die Fragmente der griechischen Kultschriftsteller.Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 15.1. Gießen:Töpelmann.

Trias, G. 1999. ‘Etrusco-corinthian Ware.’ In Driesch et al.1999: 264-6.Trigger, B.G. 1998. ‘Archaeology and Epistemology: Dialoguing across

the Darwinian Chasm.’ AJA 102: 1-34.Trundle, M. 1999. ‘Identity and Community among Greek Mercenaries in

the Classical World: 700–322 bce.’ The Ancient History Bulletin 13: 28-38.

Trundle, M. 2004. Greek Mercenaries: From the Late Archaic Period toAlexander. London, New York: Routledge.

Tschumi, O. 1931. ‘Bemerkungen zu den sogenannten Reibschalen.’Germania 15: 179-80.

Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1994. ‘Greek Penetration of the Black Sea.’ In TheArchaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir JohnBoardman, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis, 111-35.Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 40.Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.

Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1998. ‘Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area:Stages, Models, and Native Population.’ In The Greek Colonisation ofthe Black Sea Area, edited by G. Tsetskhladze, 9-68. HistoriaEinzelschriften 121. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2002. ‘Ionians Abroad.’ In Tsetskhladze andSnodgrass 2002: 81-96.

Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2006. ‘Introduction. Revisiting Ancient GreekColonisation.’ In Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies andOther Settlements Overseas, volume 1, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze,xxiii-lxxxiii. Leiden: Brill.

Tsetskhladze, G.R., and A.M. Snodgrass, eds. 2002. Greek Settlements inthe Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. BAR InternationalSeries 1062. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Tsteskhladze, G.R., A.J.N.W. Prag, and A.M. Snodgrass, eds. 2000.Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to SirJohn Boardman. London: Thames and Hudson.

Tsvetaeva, G.A. 1957. ‘K voprosu o torgovykh sviazach Pantikapeia.’ InPantikapei, edited by I.B. Seest, 182-201. Materialy i issledovaniia poarkheologii SSSR 56. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.

Tuchelt, K., ed. 1996. Didyma 3,1. Ein Kultbezirk an der Heiligen Strasse vonMilet nach Didyma. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Tuchelt, K. Forthcoming. ‘Überlegungen zum archaischen Didyma.’ InCobet et al. (forthcoming).

Tuchelt, K. et al. 1971. ‘Didyma: Bericht über die Arbeiten 1969/70.’ IstMitt21: 45-108.

Tuchelt, K. et al. 1973/4. ‘Didyma: Bericht über die Arbeiten 1972/3.’IstMitt 23/4: 139-68.

Tuchelt, K. et al. 1989. ‘Didyma: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1985 und1986 an der Heiligen Strasse von Milet nach Didyma.’ AA: 143-217.

Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish 3: The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press.Tuna, N. 2004. ‘Datça/Emecik/Sarý Liman Mevkii Arkaik Tapýnak 2002

Yýlý Çalýsmalarý.’ In Kazý Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý. 25,2, edited by K.Olsen, H. Dönmez and A. Özme, 41-8. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve TurizmBakanlýðý Dösinm Basýevi.

Tunkina, I. 2003. ‘The Formation of a Russian Science of ClassicalAntiquities in Southern Russia in the 18th and early 19th Century.’ InThe Cauldron of Ariantas: Studies Presented to A. N. Šcv eglov on theOccasion of his 70th Birthday, edited by P.G. Bilde, J.M. Højte and V.F.Stolba, 303-64. Black Sea Studies 1. Aarhus: University Press.

Turner, B.S. 2001. ‘On the Concept of Axial Space: Orientalism and theOriginary.’ Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 62-74.

Tzannes, M.-C. 2004. ‘The Excavations of G. Oikonomos at the ArchaicCemetery of Monastirakia in Klazomenai, 1921-22.’ In Ersoy et al.2004: 97-120.

Uhlenbrock, J.P. 1985. ‘Terracotta Figurines from the Demeter Sanctuaryat Cyrene: Models for Trade.’ In Cyrenaica in Antiquity: PapersPresented at the Colloquium on Society and Economy in Cyrenaica,Cambridge March–April 1983, edited by G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J.Reynolds, 297-304. BAR International Series 236. Oxford: BAR.

Uhlenbrock, J.P. 1992. ‘Gifts to the Goddesses: Cyrene’s Sanctuary ofDemeter and Persephone. History, Trade and the Terracottas.’Expedition 34.1/2: 16-23.

Uhlenbrock, J.P. Forthcoming. ‘Influssi stranieri nella coroplasticacirenaica.’ In Cirene e la Cirenaica nell’Antichità: ConvegnoInternazionale di Studi, Roma-Frascati 18-21 dicembre 1996.

Utili, F. 1999. Die archaische Nekropole von Assos. Asia Minor Studien 31.Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Utili, F. 2002. ‘Graue Keramik aus Pyrrha auf Lesbos im ArchäologischenInstitut Göttingen.’ AA: 135-59.

Vakhtina, M.Y. 1996. ‘Greek Painted Pottery from the Excavation ofNemirov City-Site.’ Arkheologia 4: 85-92.

Vakhtina, M.Y. Forthcoming. ‘Archaic East Greek Pottery from NemirovoCity-Site’ In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).

Vallet, G., and F. Villard. 1964. Mégara Hyblaea 2: La céramique archaïque.Ecole Française de Rome. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire,Supplément 1. Paris: Boccard.

Van Bremen, R. 2003: ‘Family Structures’. In A Companion to theHellenistic World, edited by A. Erskine, 313-30. Malden: Blackwell.

van Buren, E.D 1926. Greek Fictile Revetments in the Archaic Period.London: John Murray.

Vanderhooft, D.S. 1999. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in theLatter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs 59. Atlanta:Scholars Press.

Vandersleyen, C. 1999. Ouadj our (w3d wr). Un autre aspect de la vallée duNil. Connaissance de l'Egypte ancienne, 7. Brussels: Editions Safran.

Vasseur, G. 1914. L’origine de Marseille. Annales du Musée d’HistoireNaturelle de Marseille 13. Marseille: Moullot.

Vegas, M. 1999. ‘Phöniko-punische Keramik aus Karthago.’ In Driesch etal. 1999: 93-219.

Velde, H. te, 1967. Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in EgyptianMythology and Religion. Leiden: Brill.

Velde, H. te. 1984. ‘Seth.’ In LÄ 5, edited by W. Helck, 908-11. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.

Venit, M.S. 1982. ‘Painted Pottery from the Greek Mainland found inEgypt, 640-450 bc.’ Ph.D. diss., New York University.

Venit, M.S. 1984. ‘Early Attic Black Figure Vases in Egypt.’ JARCE 21: 141-154.

Page 242: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

234 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography

Venit, M.S. 1985. ‘Laconian Black Figure in Egypt.’ AJA 89: 391-8.Venit, M.S. 1988. Greek Painted Pottery from Naukratis in Egyptian

Museums. American Research Center in Egypt Catalog 7. WinonaLake: Eisenbrauns.

Venit, M.S. 1989. ‘Herakles and the Hydra in Athens in the First Half ofthe Sixth Century bc.’ Hesperia 58: 99-113.

Venturoli, P. ed. 2002. ‘Arma virumque cano’: Le armi preistoriche eclassiche dell’Armeria Reale di Torino. Armeria reale. Quaderni direstauro 2. Turin: Umberto Allemandi.

Verhoeven, U., ed. 1993. Das saitische Totenbuch der Iahtesnacht.Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 41. Bonn: Dr. RudolfHabelt.

Vickers, M., and D.W.J. Gill. 1986. ‘Archaic Greek Pottery fromEuesperides, Cyrenaica.’ LibSt 17: 97-108.

Villard, F., and G. Vallet. 1955. ‘Megara Hyblaea V. Lampes du VII siècle etchronologie des coupes ioniennes.’ MEFRA 67: 7-34.

Villard, F. 1960. La céramique grecque de Marseille (VIe-IVe siècle): Essaid’histoire économique. Paris: Boccard.

Villard, F. 1966. CVA Paris, Musée du Louvre 13. Paris: Champion.Villing, A. 1998. ‘Athena as Ergane and Promachos: the Iconography of

Athena in Archaic East Greece.’ In Archaic Greece: New Approachesand new Evidence, edited by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, 147-68.Leiden: Brill.

Villing, A. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: I. Zwei archaische Schüsselformen.’AA: 189-202.

Vinogradov, J.G. 2000. ‘Heilkundige Eleaten in denSchwarzmeergründungen.’ In Bürgersinn und staatliche Macht inAntike und Gegenwart. Festschrift für Wolfgang Schuller zum 65.Geburtstag, edited by M. Dreher. Konstanz: Universitäts-VerlagKonstanz.

Vinogradov, J.G., and A.S. Rusiaeva. 2001. ‘Graffiti iz sviatilishchaApollona na zapadnom temenose Ol’vii.’ In Anacharsis. Pamiati JuriaGermanovicha Vinogradova, edited by M.I. Zolotarev, 134-142.Sevastopol’: Natsional’nyýv zapovednik ‘Chersones Tavricheskiýv’.

Vita, A. di. 1985. ‘Atti della scuola.’ ASAtene 63, N.S. 47: 337-76.Vittmann, G. 2003. Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen

Jahrtausend. Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 97. Mainz: Philippvon Zabern.

Vivés-Ferrándiz Sánchez, J. Forthcoming. ‘Un infundibulum etruscohallado en aguas de Xàbia (Alicante).’

Voigt, M.M., 2005. ‘Old Problems and New Solutions: Recent Excavationsat Gordion.’ In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: RecentWork at Gordion, edited by L. Kealhofer, 22-35. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology andAnthropology.

Voigtländer, W. 1982. ‘Funde aus der Insula westlich des Bouleuterion inMilet.’ IstMitt 32: 30-173.

Voigtländer, W. 1986. ‘Zur archaischen Keramik in Milet.’ In Müller-Wiener 1986: 17-34.

Voigtländer, W. 2004. Teichiussa: Näherung und Wirklichkeit. Rhaden inWestfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Vollkommer, R. 2004. ‘Sikon.’ Künstlerlexikon der Antike 2, edited by R.Vollkommer, 385. Munich-Leipzig: K.G. Saur.

Vorlauf, D. 1997. Die etruskischen Bronzeschnabelkannen: EineUntersuchung anhand der technologisch-typologischen Methode.Espelkamp: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Vorster, C. 1988. ‘Die Herme des fellbekleideten Herakles: Typenwandelund Typenwanderung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit.’ InKölnJb 21: 7-34.

Wachter, R. 2001. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Wagner, C. 2001. ‘The Worship of Athena on the Athenian Acropolis:Dedications of Plaques and Plates.’ In Athena in the Classical World,edited by S. Deacy and A. Villing, 95-104. Leiden: Brill.

Waldbaum, J.C. 1994. ‘Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, c.1000-600 bc: The Eastern Perspective.’ BASOR 293: 53-66.

Waldbaum, J.C. 1997. ‘Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East?Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence.’ BASOR 305:1-17.

Waldbaum, J.C. 2002a. ‘Seventh Century bc. Greek Pottery fromAshkelon, Israel: An Entrepôt in the Southern Levant.’ In Pont-Euxinet Commerce: la Genèse de la ‘Route de la Soie’. Actes du IXe Symposiumde Vani (Colchide) – 1999, edited by M. Faudot, A. Fraysse and E.Geny, 57-75. Besançon: Presses universitaires franc-comtoises.

Waldbaum, J.C. 2002b. ‘Trade Items or Soldiers’ Gear? Cooking Potsfrom Ashkelon, Israel.’ In Autour de la mer Noire: Hommage à OtarLordkipanidzé, edited by D. Kacharava, M. Faudot and E. Geny, 133-

40. Besançon: Presses universitaires franc-comtoises.Waldbaum, J.C., and J. Magness. 1997. ‘The Chronology of Early Greek

Pottery: New Evidence from Seventh-Century bc. Destruction Levelsin Israel.’ AJA 101: 23-40.

Walter, H. 1968. Samos 5. Frühe samische Gefäße: Chronologie undLandschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Walter, H., and K. Vierneisel. 1959. ‘Die Funde der Kampagnen 1958/59im Heraion von Samos.’ AM 74: 35-42.

Walter-Karydi, E. 1970. ‘Äolische Kunst.’ In Studien zur griechischenVasenmalerei, 3-18. AntK Beiheft 7. Bern: Francke Verlag.

Walter-Karydi, E. 1973. Samos 6,1. Samische Gefäße des 6. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.

Walter-Karydi, E. 1982. ‘Ostgriechische Keramik.’ In Alt-Ägina 2.1, editedby H. Walter, 9-18. Munich: Philipp von Zabern.

Walter-Karydi, E. 1986. ‘Zur archaischen Keramik Ostioniens.’ In Müller-Wiener 1986: 73-80.

Walter-Karydi, E. 1998. ‘Nothing to do with Crete: Towards Defining theCharacter of East Dorian Art.’ In Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus –Crete 16th–6th Centuries bc. Proceedings of the InternationalSymposion in Rethymnon – Crete, May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghisand N.C. Stampolidis, 287-96. Athens: University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation.

Walters, H.B. 1893. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the BritishMuseum 2: Black-Figured Vases. London: Trustees of the BritishMuseum.

Walters, H.B. 1899. Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Etruscan and Romanin the Department of Antiquities, British Museum. London: WilliamClownes and Sons.

Walters. H.B. 1926. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos: Greek,Etruscan, Roman in the British Museum. London: Trustees of theBritish Museum.

Warden, G. 1990. ‘The Small Finds.’ In The Extramural Sanctuary ofDemeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 4.1, edited byD. White. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University ofPennsylvania.

Webb, V. 1978. Archaic Greek Faience: Miniature Scent Bottles and relatedObjects from East Greece, 650–500 bc. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Weber, B.F. 1995. ‘Ein spätarchaischer Tempel auf dem Mengerevtepe beiMilet.’ In Graeve et al. 1995: 228-38.

Weber, B.F. 2002. ‘Die Bauteile des Athenatempels in Milet.’ AA: 415-38.Weber, B.F. 2004. Milet 1.10. Die römischen Heroa von Milet. Berlin: Walter

de Gruyter & Co.Weber, M. 1995. ‘Zu einer datierten ionischen Halshenkelamphora aus

Ägypten.’ AA: 163-70.Weber, S. 2001. ‘Archaisch ostgriechische Keramik aus Ägypten

außerhalb von Naukratis.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001, 127-50.

Weber, S. Forthcoming. ‘Greek Painted Pottery in Egypt: Evidence forContacts in the 7th and 6th Centuries bc.’ In Foreign Relations andDiplomacy in the Ancient World: Egypt. Greece. Near East. Proceedingsof the International Conference in Rhodes, 3rd-5th Dec. 2004, edited byP. Kousoulis and K. Magliaveras. Leiden: Brill.

Weinberg, S.S. 1948. ‘A Cross-Section of Corinthian Antiquities(Excavations of 1940).’ Hesperia 17: 197-241.

Weinberg, S.S. 1969. ‘Post-Exilic Palestine: An Archaeological Report.’The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings 4: 78-97.

Wenning, R. 1981. ‘Griechische Importe in Palästina aus der Zeit vorAlexander d.Gr. – Vorbericht über ein Forschungsprojekt.’ Boreas 4:29-46.

Wenning, R. 1989. ‘Mesad Hashavyahu: Ein Stützpunkt des Jojakim?’ InVom Sinai zum Horeb: Stationen alttestamentlicherGlaubensgeschichte, edited by F.-L. Hossfeld, 169-96. Würzburg:Echter.

Wenning, R. 2001. ‘Griechische Söldner in Palästina.’ In Höckmann andKreikenbom 2001: 257-68.

Wenning, R. 2004. ‘Griechischer Einfluss auf Palästina invorhellenistischer Zeit?’ In Die Griechen und das antike Israel:Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Religions- und Kulturgeschichte desHeiligen Landes, edited by S. Alkier and M. Witte, 29-60. OrbisBiblicus et Orientalis 201. Fribourg: Academic Press.

West, M.L. 1999. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in GreekPoetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whitbread, I.K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae – A Petrological andArchaeological Study. The British School at Athens, Fitch LaboratoryOccasional Paper 4. Athens: British School at Athens.

Whitley, J. 1988. ‘Early States and Hero Cults: A Re-Appraisal.’ JHS 58:173-82.

Page 243: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra

Yellin, J., and M. Artzy. 2004. ‘Ceramic Provenance: NAA.’ In The Ma’aganMikhael Ship 2, edited by Y. Kahanov and E. Linder, 221-8. Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society and University of Haifa.

Yon, M. 1970. ‘Sur une représentation figurée chypriote.’ BCH 94: 311-7.Yon, M. 1992. ‘Héraclès à Chypre.’ In D’une rive à l’autre de la

Méditerranée: Bilan et Perspectives. Actes de la Table Ronde de Rome1989, edited by C. Bonnet and C. Jourdain-Annequin, 145-63.Brussels, Rome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome.

Yon, M. 1997. ‘Kition in the Tenth to Fourth Centuries bc.’ BASOR 308: 9-17.

Yoyotte, J. 1982/3. ‘L’Amon de Naukratis.’ RdE 34: 129-36.Yoyotte, J. 1991/2 (1992). ‘Naukratis, ville égyptienne.’ Annuaire du

Collège de France: 634-44.Yoyotte, J. 1994. ‘Les contacts entre Egyptiens et Grecs (VIIe-IIe siècle

avant J. C.): Naucratis, ville égyptienne (1992-1993, 1993-1994).’Annuaire du Collège de France 1993/4, no. 94: 679-83.

Zadok, R. 1985. Geographical Names according to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients7. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert Verlag.

Zadok, R. 1996. ‘Geographical and Onomastic Remarks on H. Tadmor,‘The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria’.’ Nouvellesassyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 1: 11-13.

Zadok, R. 2005. ‘On Anatolians, Greeks and Egyptians in ‘Chaldean’ andAchaemenid Babylonia.’ Tel Aviv 32: 76-106.

Zahlhaas, G. 1971. ‘Großgriechische und römische Metalleimer.’ Ph.D.diss., Universität München.

Zahn, R. 1898. ‘Vasenscherben aus Klazomenai.’ AM 23: 38-79.Zanco, O. 1974. Bronzi arcaici da Campovalano. Rome: Soprintendenza

alle Antichità degli Abruzzi/Centenari.Zazoff. P. 1983. Die antiken Gemmen. Munich: Beck Verlag.Zerbinati, E. 1994. ‘Breve nota su alcuni bronzi preromani scoperti nel

Settecento a Pezzoli-Mezzana di Ceregnano (RO).’ In Studi diarcheologia della X Regio in ricordo di Michele Tombolani, edited byB.M. Scarfì, 147-55. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.

Zimi, E. 2001. ‘Finewares.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides (Benghazi ):Preliminary Report on the Spring 2001 Season’. LibSt 32: 166-70.

Zimi, E. 2002. ‘Finewares.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides (Benghazi ):Preliminary Report on the Spring 2002 Season’. LibSt 33: 103-8.

Zimi, E. 2003. ‘Finewares.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides (Benghazi ):Preliminary Report on the Spring 2003 Season’. LibSt 34: 212-13.

Zimmermann, K. 1981. ‘Ausgrabungen in der Tempelzone von Histria.’Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 22: 453-67.

Zimmermann, K. 2000. ‘ 0Afrodi&thi a)ne/qhken ... . Zu einem Dachziegelmit Votivinschrift.’ In Civilisation grecque et cultures antiquespériphériques: Hommage à Petre Alexandrescu à son 70e anniversaire,edited by A. Avram and M. Babes, 239-51. Bucharest: EdituraEnciclopedica.

Zimmerman, K. Forthcoming. ‘Altfunde vom Kalabaktepe: Zuwiederentdeckten Dachterrakotten aus Milet.’ In Biering et al.(forthcoming).

Zimmermann, K., and I. Bîrzescu. Forthcoming. ‘Eine Schale mitVotivinschrift aus Histria.’ AA.

Zuffa, M. 1960. ‘Infundibula.’ StEtr 28: 165-208.

Whitley, J. 1994. ‘The Monuments that Stood before Marathon: TombCult and Hero Cult in Archaic Attica.’ AJA 98: 213-30.

Whitley, J. 1995. ‘Tomb Cult and Hero Cult: The Uses of the Past inArchaic Greece.’ In Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology:Bridging the ‘Great Divide’, edited by N. Spencer, 43-63. London, NewYork: Routledge.

Whitley, J. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Whitley, J. 2002. ‘Too Many Ancestors.’ Antiquity 76: 119-26.Wilkins, J., D. Harvey, and M. Dobson, eds. 1995. Food in Antiquity.

Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Wilkinson, R.H. 2003. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt.

London: Thames and Hudson.Williams II, C.K., J. MacIntosh, and J.E. Fischer. 1974. ‘Excavations at

Corinth, 1973.’ Hesperia 43: 1-45.Williams, D. 1983a. ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel: V. The Pottery from Chios.’

AA: 155-86.Williams, D. 1983b. ‘Sophilos in the British Museum.’ In Greek Vases in The

J. Paul Getty Museum 1, 9-34. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum. Williams, D. 1986. ‘In the Manner of the Gorgon Painter: The Deianeira

Painter and Others’. In Enthousiasmos: Essays on Greek and RelatedPottery Presented to J. M. Hemelrijk, edited by H.A.G. Brijder, A.A.Drukker and C.W. Neeft, 61-8. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.

Williams, D. 1993a. ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel: XVII. The Laconian Pottery.’AA: 571-98.

Williams, D. 1993b. CVA London, British Museum 9. London: BritishMuseum Press.

Williams, D. 1999. Greek Vases. 2nd edn. London: British Museum Press.Williams, D. Forthcoming. ‘From East and West: the Inspiration of

Athenian Potters.’ In Images of Drinking. Athenian Vase Painting in the6th century bc. Essays in Honour of Herman A.G. Brijder, edited by E.Moormann and V. Stissi.

Winter, I.J. 1995. ‘Homer’s Phoenicians: History, Ethnology or LiteraryTrope? (A Perspective on Early Orientalism).’ In The Ages of Homer: ATribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, edited by J.B. Carter and S.P.Morris, 247-72. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Wintermeyer, U., and H. Bumke 2004. Didyma 3,2. Die hellenistische undfrühkaiserzeitliche Gebrauchskeramik auf Grundlage derstratifizierten Fundkeramik aus dem Bereich der Heiligen Strasse.Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Wiseman, D.J. 1961. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 bc) in theBritish Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.

Wolf, W. 1957. Die Kunst Ägyptens: Gestalt und Geschichte. Stuttgart:Kohlhammer.

Woolley, C.L. 1921. Carchemish Report on the Excavations at Jerablus onBehalf of the British Museum 2: The Town Defences, edited by C.L.Woolley. London: British Museum.

Yadin, Y. 1958. Hazor 1: Excavations 1955. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Yadin, Y. 1961/89. Hazor 3/4: Excavations 1957-1958. Jerusalem: Magnes

Press.Yamada, S. 2000. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical

Study of Shalmaneser III (859–824 bc) Relating to His Campaigns tothe West. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 235

Page 244: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt - WordPress.com · Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean Edited by Alexandra