Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt - British Museum Locally produced Archaic and Classical Greek pottery Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt | 3 To date no pottery has been identified that matches

Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt Alexandra Villing, Marianne Bergeron, Giorgos Bourogiannis, Alan Johnston, François Leclère, Aurélia Masson and Ross Thomas With Daniel von Recklinghausen, Jeffrey Spencer, Valerie Smallwood, Virginia Webb and Susan Woodford

http://www.britishmuseum.org/naukratis

Locally produced

Archaic and

Classical Greek

pottery

Alexandra Villing

Villing, Locally produced Archaic and Classical Greek pottery

Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt | 2

1. From ‘Naukratian’ ware to the

‘Naukratis workshops’: the current

state of research

The local production of pottery (and other terracotta objects) at Naukratis

has long been a problematic topic.1 It is only recently that new fieldwork

and archaeometric analyses have begun to clarify the picture, confirming

pottery production from local clay, in both Greek and Egyptian shapes and

styles, at the site itself or in its immediate vicinity, from the early days of

the site’s history in the early 6th century BC.2

The corpus of locally made Greek style pottery of the Archaic and Classical

periods preserved in museum collections today is small and is unlikely to

be representative of what was encountered by early excavators at the site,

whose focus was on decorated and, especially, inscribed pottery. While

most of the preserved pieces carry inscriptions or other incised marks, a

small number of decorated and undecorated fragments appear to have

been kept as type specimens. Recent excavations in a small area of 6th

century BC deposits have yielded further examples (Thomas and Villing

forthcoming; see also below, Fig. 12) and suggest that local production

was more substantial that might be surmised from the limited extant

evidence. Finds from new fieldwork also add to the known range of shapes

and techniques and confirm the impression that local pottery production

was, to some extent, subject to the effects of cross-fertilisation between

different potting traditions.

The present chapter gives a small glimpse of an originally far more prolific

and complex landscape of local pottery production at Naukratis. Its prime

focus is the 6th century BC, since this is the period for which our evidence

is greatest, but it also covers later periods as far as possible.

1.1 Petrie and ‘Naukratian’ ware

When Naukratis was first rediscovered, the rich finds of decorated Archaic

Greek pottery at the site led excavators to see Naukratis as a prolific

centre of pottery production, notably of Greek style fine wares. This

seemed supported by literary sources, notably by a passage in Athenaios’

Deipnosophistai, in which one of the ‘dining philosophers’ notes that

(9.480) “remarkable kylikes [cups] are also made in Naukratis, the native

city of our dining companion Athenaios. They are shaped like phialai

[shallow bowls], appearing as if not wheel-made but hand-made, have four

handles and a widely extended base (there are, by the way, many potters

in Naukratis, after whom also the gate which is near the potters’ workshops

is called keramike) and are slipped so as to appear to be of silver.’

1 All images in this chapter unless otherwise indicated are © Trustees of the British Museum.

2 Many of the known examples have been gathered and discussed already in Schlotzhauer

and Villing 2006b and more recently in Schlotzhauer 2012, where the reader can find more detailed discussions of some of the pieces and especially of parallels. For Egyptian pottery from Naukratis, see the chapter on Egyptian Late Period pottery.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/late_period_pottery.aspx



To date no pottery has been identified that matches this description. Local

pottery production is nevertheless confirmed by archaeology: potters’

rubbish and kilns are marked on Petrie’s map especially to the east of the

temenos of Hera and in the far east, at the hill of Kom Hadid, marked by

Petrie as a ‘slag heap’ (Fig. 1).3 Pottery wasters still today litter the surface

here (Fig. 2). Excavations by Leonard (2001) in the area yielded large

amounts of pottery, while evidence for kilns and potters’ activity is now

indicated by results of the recent survey (Thomas and Villing 2013, 95–6).

Precisely what kind of pottery (or indeed other terracotta products) might

have been produced in these areas, and in which periods, remains

unclear, but we now know that Petrie’s own hypothesis as to the main

ceramic product of the town must be discounted: Petrie had identified the

large group of richly decorated Chian wares as a local ‘Naukratian’

product. Even though it is now clear that this ware was produced on Chios,

it remains debated whether at least the small number of vessels belonging

to the rather exceptional ‘Grand Style’ (see the chapter on Chian pottery)

were produced at Naukratis, with imported clay.4 Similar hypotheses of

Greek ‘diaspora’ potters working with imported clay have been voiced in

regard also to another unusual group of pottery, the ‘situlae’ found at Tell

Dafana, characterized by an Egyptianizing shape and iconography in

particular.5

3 Petrie 1886a, pl. 41. Petrie 1886a, 22: ‘potters’ rubbish in the north-east of the town at 350

level’. See also Petrie 1886a, 87, where potters’ waste, kilns and burnt earth are mentioned. 4 Jones 1986, 282–8; Boardman 2006. Cf. Möller 2000a, 136–40, Williams 2006, 131 and

most recently Kerschner and Mommsen 2009 for a summary of research. The clay mentioned among imports to Egypt in the 5th century BC tax register on the Elephantine papyrus is now commonly considered to be Samian Earth, see e.g. Briant and Descat 1998, 72. On the question of the import of clay in general, see also Mommsen and Kerschner 2006, 105 with n. 7. 5 See Weber 2006; 2012, 236–40; Villing 2013, 91–3.

Figure 2 Pottery slag observed on the surface of Kom

Hadid during the British Museum’s fieldwork 2012

Figure 1 Petrie’s map of Naukratis first season, 1884–5. After Petrie 1886a, pl. 41

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/chian_pottery.aspx



However, the argument that immigrant (or itinerant) Greek potters

produced Greek style vessels on the spot is problematic, since also other

types of Egyptianizing Greek vessels have been found in Egypt, such as

the ‘Apries amphora’, featuring cartouches of the Pharaoh Apries.6 The

diversity of styles and (clearly East Greek) chemical clay groupings

represented by these small groups of vessels would presuppose not just

imported clay but also the presence of potters and painters from numerous

different regions in Greece – a highly unlikely scenario. Instead, these

vessels are better explained as part of the well-attested practice of special

production and commissions of vessels from workshops within Greece that

deliberately incorporate foreign cultural elements (or elements perceived

by Greeks as such) when destined for non-Greek areas.7

In sum, Naukratis was clearly not a prolific production centre of some of

the Greek world’s most highly decorated and much sought after wares.

However, local potters’ workshops existed, and they did indeed produce

pottery in (a variety of) Greek styles at least since the early 6th century BC.

1.2 Scientific analyses: identifying local wares

Already during Hogarth’s excavations, C.C. Edgar had observed pottery

vessels of Greek shape but ‘ordinary Egyptian clay’ in Late Period contexts

(Edgar 1905, 123‒6). Sixth century BC East-Greek style vessels made

from Egyptian clay were also noted by R.M. Cook at Tell Dafana (Fig. 30)

and Eliezer Oren at Migdol/T.21, both sites in the Eastern Nile Delta.8 It

was Pierre Dupont, however, who in 1983 first confirmed these

observations with the help of scientific analyses.9 His analyses of two

fragments from Naukratis, one an East Greek style plate (Fig. 3),10

the

other an ‘Ionian oinochoe with banded decoration’,11

revealed both vessels

as made from alluvial Nile clay, characterised by comparatively high

proportions of titanium and low levels of potassium (Dupont group G).12

In 2004, analysis of a further 14 pieces of pottery from Naukratis in five

museums confirmed their fabric as Nile silt pottery. This time the analyses

were conducted by the laboratory of Hans Mommsen at the Helmholtz-

Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-

Universität Bonn, on behalf of the Naukratis project of the SFB 295 at

Mainz University and in collaboration with the British Museum.13

The

6 On Egyptian motifs on Greek pottery in Egypt, see the extensive discussion in Weber 2012,

269–89 and Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005; cf. also Villing 2013. On the Apries amphora in particular, see also Bailey 2006. 7 Cf. Villing 2013; Lezzi-Hafter 1997.

8 Tell Dafana: CVA British Museum 8 (1954), 38, pl. (606)1. At Migdol/T.21, Oren (1984, 27)

notes the existence of locally made cooking pots, miniature transport amphorae, Ionian cups (p. 20 fig. 23.2 and p. 29 fig. 42) and banded shallow bowls (p. 19 fig. 22.7). 9 Dupont 1983, 36 n. 38.

10 Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge, NA 48: Dupont and Thomas 2001, fig. 1,

no. Nau 9 (group G) = Mommsen sample Nauk 33. 11

Dupont and Thomas 2006, no. Nau 71. Along with a number of other samples analysed in the same series the location of the fragment remains unknown and it remains unpublished. 12

Dupont and Thomas 2006, 80; the group’s existence was first noted by Dupont 1983, 36 n. 38. 13

Mommsen et al. 2006; Mommsen et al. 2012; Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006b; Schlotzhauer 2012, 62–5. We are greatly indebted to Hans Mommsen for his important contribution to our research over the past ten years; Duncan Hook, Mike Cowell and Michela Spataro for carrying out the sampling of the objects; and the researchers of the Mainz SFB, notably Ursula Höckmann, Udo Schlotzhauer and Sabine Weber, for their collaboration.

Figure 3 Fragment of locally made East Greek style plate, c. 580-

560 BC, with drill hole from sampling (Dupont sample Nau 9,

group G; Mommsen sample Nauk 33, NAA group QanN).

Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge, NA48.

Photograph © The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Photography

by British Museum staff



chemical group thus discerned (QanN) includes Archaic pottery vessels

(and one lamp, QanN associated) of Greek shape and style of decoration

(Figs 8–9), but also Hellenistic kiln supports (Fig. 4), Ptolemaic pottery

(Fig. 5), as well as examples of Egyptian style pottery, such as a plate of

26th dynasty Egyptian shape (Fig. 6; see the chapter on Egyptian Late

Period pottery). One of the pieces earlier analysed by Dupont, the plate in

Cambridge (Fig. 3), was reanalysed and found to be a member of QanN.

The group was identified as of likely Egyptian origin both on archaeological

and on chemical grounds, being not very different to another Egyptian

pattern, QanM, previously identified among pottery from Qantir.14

In addition, a fragment of a mortarium with a clearly different fabric (Fig.

39) and of a shape typical for Cyprus but known to have been reproduced

in East Greece and other regions of the Mediterranean was found to be

associated to a separate chemical group, termed ‘Marl’. As is noted below

(section 3.6), this group comprised inscribed clay tablets of Ramses II

found at Hattuša and therefore could also be assigned an Egyptian

provenance.15

Figure 6 Egyptian plate, Saite period, probably late 7th–6th century BC (Mommsen sample Nauk 79, NAA group QanN).

British Museum, 1965,0930.501. Drawing Kate Morton

Scientific analysis thus confirmed that Greek style pottery was indeed

being produced with Nile clay from the Archaic period onwards. Given the

Greek style of many of the analysed pieces, local production at Naukratis

seemed likely, and in our initial assessment Udo Schlotzhauer and myself

termed the group the ‘Naukratis workshops’, hypothesizing that Egyptian-

style pottery made from the same fabric might be possible evidence for

both Greek and Egyptian potters working together at Naukratis.16

However,

a question mark remained as to how exclusive to Naukratis the chemical

grouping as a whole could actually be, especially since previous

scholarship had noted a relatively uniform character of Nile alluvium

fabrics. This probably resulted from the Nile Delta’s peculiar landscape

and geology, with sediment carried by the river quite evenly deposited

along its valley and delta, making it difficult to distinguish chemically

alluvial fabrics from different Nile Delta sites.17

Further neutron activation analysis (NAA) carried out in 2012 now confirms

that group QanN is indeed not site specific but includes pottery found and

14

Mommsen et al. 2006, 71, 75 table 2. 15

Mommsen et al. 2006, 70; Villing 2006. For further discussion see below, section 3.6. 16

Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006b. 17

Summarized by Bourriau, Nicholson and Rose 2000, 135. Nevertheless, recent NA analyses had succeeded in distinguishing chemical fingerprints for Nile silt pottery from a number of sites: Bourriau et al. 2008.

Figure 4 Kiln support, 2nd century BC (Mommsen sample Nauk

14, NAA group QanN). British Museum, 1910,0222.233

Figure 5 Fragment of Ptolemaic closed vessel, 2nd century BC

(Mommsen sample Nauk 17, NAA group QanN). British Museum,

1886,1005.12





most likely produced at other Nile Delta sites (for example Fig. 7),18

while

petrographic analyses nevertheless suggest significant congruence

between local fabrics and differences with non-local fabrics. The results of

these analyses will be published in detail in two forthcoming publications

(Spataro et al. forthcoming and the forthcoming chapter on NAA analyses

in this catalogue). Together with the evidence from the site itself, and

considering its unique status as a Greek settlement in Egypt, this means

that for the majority of Nile silt pottery from Naukratis its production in the

‘Naukratis workshops’ remains assured, even if membership of the

chemical group QanN can no longer be considered the sole qualifying

criterion.

1.3 The local Greek style pottery of Naukratis

Archaeological and scientific research conducted over the past decade

finally allows us to begin to paint a picture of Greek style pottery production

at Naukratis more confidently. There is evidence that from the early part of

the 6th century BC at the latest, local potters produced painted and

undecorated vessels in a variety of Greek shapes and styles of decoration.

As is set out in more detail below, likely Egyptian elements in some of this

local ‘Greek’ pottery suggest that Greek potters were receptive to a certain

Egyptian ‘influence’. The same workshops probably also manufactured

other products in a fine Nile silt clay, notably Greek-style lamps (see also

the chapter on Lamps), including Archaic multi-nozzled sanctuary lamps

and simpler lamps of the common Greek bridge-nozzled type (Fig. 8).19

One of the latter, with a prefiring dedication to the Dioskouroi (Fig. 9),20

was clearly made specifically for local cultic use and is further evidence for

ceramic workshops operating at Naukratis in the 6th century BC. Egyptian-

style pottery, attested at Naukratis in great quantity from the Saite period

onwards (see the chapter on Egyptian Late Period pottery) may also have

been produced at Naukratis or in its vicinity. Separate workshops were

probably responsible for the production of local Greek-style figurines (see

the chapter on Greek terracotta figures.

After the Archaic period, evidence for locally produced pottery becomes

more scarce, at least until the beginning of the production of locally made

‘black-glazed’ wares, probably in the early Hellenistic / Ptolemaic period

(see below). While to a large extent this picture is surely due to the early

excavators’ predilection for painted and inscribed wares as well as Petrie

and Gardner’s general focus on the Archaic, rather than later, Greek

sanctuary levels, it also suggests a dip in the production of more elaborate

painted wares for dedication and perhaps a refocusing of local workshops

on plainer, utilitarian wares, resulting in lesser visibility in their products in

the selection that has come down to us. Declining demand for votive

pottery and the difficulties of competing with high-quality imports may well

have played a part in this development as well.

The above also allows us to recognize that Petrie himself in his

publications had already singled out products of the ‘Naukratis workshops’

as distinctive, even if he did not assign them to local production. They can

18

A larger base of samples would be necessary to increase our chances for observing refined chemical subdivisions that might betray regional variation. 19

Schlotzhauer 2012, 184 no. Nau 159, pl. 18a–b. 20

See also the chapter on Ceramic inscriptions §7.1.3; Johnston 2008, 116.

Figure 9 Fragment of a lamp dedicated to the Dioskouroi,

c. 550–500 BC. British Museum, 1900,0214.18

Figure 7 Fragmentary Egyptian pottery jar from Saqqara,

tomb 3505 548, c. 550–450 BC (Mommsen sample Saqq 1,

NAA group QanN). British Museum, EA68254

Figure 8, Fragment of a lamp, late 6th–early 5th century BC

(Mommsen sample Nauk 34, NAA group QanN assoc.). Museum

of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge, NA256. Photograph ©

Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge. Photography by

British Museum staff

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/lamps.aspx


http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/greek_terracotta_figures.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/ceramic_inscriptions.aspx



be found especially amongst vessels of the ‘rough’ red-brown fabric, class

B in Petrie’s pottery classification (Petrie 1886a, 17, 19). His sub-class B1

(‘rough red brown, black stripes’, sometimes with retrograde inscriptions) is

specifically noted to include two vessels now in the British Museum,

1886,0401.83 and 84 (Figs 27–8) that are both early products of the Greek

‘Naukratis workshops’, one of which in analyses was found to be a

member of NAA group QanN. Sub-classes described as white-faced are

also likely to include local products. The description of B2 – dishes, red

brown, fine faced, with Indian-red geometrical and lotus – for example

recalls local plates such as British Museum, 1924,1201.42 and 43, also

now a member of QanN (Fig. 34). Two of the sub-classes, B5 (red-brown,

coarse) and B6 (red-brown, very coarse red with a soft thick coat of white –

compare for example Fig. 51), are described by Petrie as comprising some

of the site’s earliest pottery finds, both in the Apollo sanctuary and ‘in

town’, with B6 slightly later than B5.21

Both in all likelihood include Nile silt

pottery of Greek and Egyptian type. Petrie’s grouping, however, cannot be

considered entirely reliable as many of his classes are heterogeneous and

demonstrably combine material today ascribed to different production

places; hence, one of Petrie’s ‘rough red-brown’ classes, B3, includes

(Milesian) Fikellura pottery.22

Similarly, Gardner’s group ‘M’ of ‘rough red

pottery’ (Gardner 1888, 48, 54), described as comprising various shapes

including bowls, cups and plates, as well as sanctuary lamps and other

lamps, probably included much local pottery; one inscribed local bowl (here

Fig. 17) is specifically mentioned (ibid. 64 no. 765).

1.4 Findspots and uses

Much of the locally made Greek style pottery known to us from Naukratis,

certainly of the Archaic period, comes from the Greek sanctuaries. The

sanctuary of Apollo is one of the earliest attested findspots, with finds

including the two amphorae with early retrograde votive graffiti noted

above (Figs 27–8) and two cups (Figs 13–14). Two small bowls (Figs 17–

18) were dedicated to Aphrodite, while the small undecorated dinos (Fig.

20) with the graffito TH[… could have been destined for Aphrodite (most

likely) or Hera. A decorated plate (Figs 11, 32) was found in the sanctuary

of the Dioskouroi. While few findspots are recorded for the later locally

produced black ware imitating Attic black glaze, British Museum,

1886,0401.781 is recorded as having come from the sanctuary of Apollo

and 1910,0222.225.b might bear a dedication to Apollo.

As with the other pottery from Naukratis, this predominance of sanctuary

finds does not mean, of course, that local Greek-style pottery was

produced only for sanctuary use, since the whole assemblage from

Naukratis is heavily biased towards inscribed (and painted) pottery and

other sanctuary material. Nevertheless, it is very possible that a substantial

portion of local pottery, certainly in the early periods, would have been

produced for consumption in the sanctuaries; the heavy sanctuary traffic

that is attested by the masses of imported pottery in these religious

contexts means that good business could be expected from sanctuary

visitors, be they passing or resident. However, plain and kitchen wares are

21

Petrie 1886a, 17. 19. Local wares might also be among his B4 (red-brown, rough plain). 22

The inscribed dedication by Hermagoras in Egyptian Museum, Cairo, CG26152.



also attested in local clay, suggesting that a range of shapes was

produced. That the products of the Naukratis workshops moved around

Egypt is suggested by a Greek-style amphora from Tell Dafana in the

Eastern Nile Delta (Fig. 30), a member of NAA group QanN that in

technique and style is closely associated with the pottery from Naukratis.

The locally produced 6th-century Greek style wares observed by Eliezer

Oren (1984, 27, fig. 23.2, fig. 42) at Migdol/T.21 might also come from

Naukratis, but this cannot be confirmed without first-hand examination.

2. Fabric, finishing and styles of

decoration

The Greek style pottery from Naukratis is distinctly different from imported

Greek wares, even if it shares with the latter many characteristics of style

and shape. It stands out first of all on account of its clay: a micaceous and

relatively fine Nile silt, iron rich with fine quartz sand, fired red-brown to

violet but often retaining a grey core ‘sandwiched’ between outer layers

(Fig. 10). Though very different from clays of the Greek world, the fabric is

similar to fabrics observed elsewhere in the Nile Delta, albeit lacking the

otherwise common organic inclusions.23

Fine ware shapes can be thin-walled and are often covered with a

distinctive thick, white or pinkish slip, intended to replicate the whitish-

beige slips of pottery in the East Greek homeland. Decoration is added in a

fine clay paint fired reddish (Fig. 10) or black-brown (Fig. 11), sometimes

with added red colour (Fig. 11). Notably on simpler banded wares slip and

paint can be thinner and paler (Fig. 21), or vessels can be banded or partly

covered in ‘glaze’ applied directly onto the clay surface (Fig. 13).

Even if some of the local products are well made and sturdy, Nile silt never

quite reached the fine dense quality that could be achieved with the clays

of the (East) Greek homeland, and the frequently worn surfaces suggest

that local slips and paints were rather fugitive. The difficulties of achieving

anything resembling a Greek-style glossy glaze are exemplified also in the

later production of local ‘black ware’, the surface of which remains matte

and is often worn (Fig. 52). Perhaps it is on account of the difficulties of

achieving smooth and durable surfaces with local raw materials that Greek

potters experimented with different techniques, inspired (as discussed

below) by local practice, to which painted decoration was alien24

and

slipping and burnishing the norm. A number of vessels, from both old and

new excavations (Fig. 12), feature a clay-slipped and pebble-burnished

surface, which in some instances, such as a small dinos in the British

Museum, resembles a red slip (Fig. 20). Utilitarian household vessels can

lack surface treatment (such as mortaria, Figs 40–1).

Several fragments, particularly plates, are decorated not just with bands

and wavy lines, but also with geometric and floral ornaments painted on

23

For Naukratis fabrics observed in the field by the American mission to Naukratis see the description by Leonard 2001, 221–9; their system, however, is not entirely satisfactory. For Egyptian Nile and marl clays in general, see Nordström and Bourriau 1993, 156–82. 24

See Masson 2011b. It is only later in the Ptolemaic period that Greek-style painted decoration is more commonly found on local pottery, e.g. Marchand 2013, 249, fig. 18.

Figure 10 Fragments of plate, c. 590–550 BC (Mommsen sample

Nauk 9, NAA group QanN) British Museum, 1924,1201.42

Figure 12 Fragment of cup, 6th century BC, excavated near

the Hellenion in 2014, exc. no. N14.1.5.3. SCA storeroom at

Kom Firin

Figure 11 Fragment of plate from the sanctuary of the Dioskouroi,

c. 590–550 BC. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 86.533. Photograph

© Museum of Fine Arts, Boston



the pinkish-white slip and drawn from the typical decorative schemes of 6th

century BC East Greece (Figs 10–11). However, as is noted below in

relation to the individual pieces, it is difficult to discern a uniform style that

can be attributed to a single place of origin, since the decoration betrays a

variety and indeed mix of Aeolian, North Ionian and South Ionian stylistic

elements. Figured decoration so far has not been identified.25

In fact, it is

interesting to note what is missing from the decorative repertoire as

presently known: animal friezes, black figure or Fikellura styles, as well as

any red-figure decoration. Even then, and especially in the case of

Naukratis, care needs to be taken not to equate absence of evidence with

evidence for absence and we can expect our understanding of local pottery

production to dramatically increase with results from new fieldwork. The

present state of knowledge appears to point to a peak in the local

production of painted wares in the early part of the 6th century BC.

3. Shapes

Despite their small number, the extant examples of pottery in local Nile silt

from Naukratis comprise a range of Greek vessel shapes featuring a

diverse and eclectic range of finishes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the

preponderance of plates, drinking, pouring and some mixing vessels in the

6th century BC repertoire largely reflects the pattern that can also be

observed generally in the Ionian portion of the overall assemblage (see the

chapter on Material culture).

3.1 Drinking vessels and other small bowls

A common shape among local Naukratis products is the cup with everted

rim, more generally known as ‘Ionian’ cup. From Petrie’s fieldwork comes a

large fragment of this shape, covered on the inside and outside of the rim

with a reddish ‘glaze’ and bearing a votive graffito to Apollo; its likely date

is the second quarter of the 6th century BC (Fig. 13).26

Figure 13 Ionian cup with votive graffito ]λλωνος vac, second quarter 6th century BC. British Museum, 1886,0401.777.

Drawing U. Schlotzhauer

25

An amphora with animal frieze decoration from Saqqara has been discussed as a possible product of Greek craftsmen in Egypt, but there are no secure indications to support such a hypothesis; see Weber 2012, 406–7 no. S5, pl. 59a–f; Boardman 2006. We may note in this context also the results of another set of scientific analyses that had avowedly been conducted so as to determine whether emigrant Greek potters produced black-figure and black-glazed pottery with local clay at Naukratis, but all analysed pieces from Naukratis actually emerged as Attic (perhaps hardly surprising given the rather obviously Attic character of most of the pieces, which included fragments attributed to known Athenian vase-painters): Harbottle, Hughes and Seleem 2005. 26

Schlotzhauer 2012, 175–6 no. Nau 146, pl. 32c–e.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis.aspx



Further fragments of Ionian cups have been found in the recent

excavations of 2014.27

That locally made examples of this shape travelled

beyond Naukratis may be suggested by Oren’s observation of an Ionian

cup made from Nile silt at Migdol/T.21 (Oren 1984, 27, figs 23.2, 42).

Other shapes of drinking cups are more difficult to identify with certainty. A

very worn rim fragment has been identified as possibly coming from a

skyphos;28

it, too, carries a votive graffito to Apollo (Fig. 14).

A wall fragment from a fairly finely textured vessel with a smoothly washed,

slightly beige outer surface and possible traces of a graffito might belong to

a mug (Fig. 15), as might another body sherd of similar fabric and texture

(Fig. 16).29

A fragment of bowl or cup excavated in the sanctuary of Aphrodite

preserves traces of the ‘Naukratis workshops’ characteristic white-pinkish

slip both on the inside and the outside; it also bears a votive graffito to

Aphrodite (Fig. 17). With its shallow bowl and relatively thick, flattened rim

the fragment is somewhat reminiscent of one-handlers, a shape well

attested in Archaic Ionia and beyond.30

A second fragment with a

dedication and of identical shape and type, but from a different vessel,

suggests that Aphrodite received such vessels in some quantity (Fig. 18).

27

Thomas and Villing forthcoming. A cup with everted rim from Naukratis (British Museum, 1886,0401.1034) that was suspected by Oren (1984, 27 with n. 19) to be of local Egyptian production, however, is of East Greek manufacture. 28

Schlotzhauer 2012, Nau 145, pl. 32 a‒b. 29

British Museum,1965,0930.449 had been identified as a locally made mug by Schlotzhauer (2012, 176 no. Nau 147, pl. 32f–g), but the fabric cannot be local and also the shape does not convince as a mug. 30

Compare examples from Samos (Technau 1929, 34. 36 fig. 28.1; Kopcke 1968, 269 no. 51 fig. 19. 51; Walter and Vierneisel 1959, 20 Beil. 44.2) or Klazomenai (Ersöy 1993, 378–80). İren (2008, 620) argues for a special ritual use of one-handlers in East Greece.

Figure 14 Fragment of skyphos or bowl with votive graffito ]Απολλων[ , 6th century BC. British Museum,

1886,0401.506. Drawing U. Schlotzhauer

Figure 15 Fragment of mug (?), 6th century BC.

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, AN1912.41(43).

Photograph © Ashmolean Museum, University of

Oxford. Photography by British Museum staff

Figure 16 Fragment of mug (?), 6th century BC. Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge, NA159. Photograph

© Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge. Photography by British Museum staff

Figure 17 Rim fragment of bowl or cup with votive graffito ]Αφρο[, first half 6th century BC, British Museum 1888,0601.739



Deeper in shape, of small diameter (11cm) and with an even thicker

flattened rim is a further bowl fragment (Fig. 19), covered in a white-pinkish

slip inside and out and with a broad horizontal red stripe on the outside.

Hardly suitable in shape and size for a drinking cup and with decoration on

the outside rather than the inside, it is more likely that the vessel may have

functioned as a (lidded) bowl or pyxis.31

3.2. Mixing vessels

The only extant identifiable mixing vessel of local production from

Naukratis is a small dinos (Fig. 20). 32

The outside of the fine clay surface

preserves traces of a burnished clay slip that has fired a reddish colour but

that is rather more dull than the ‘red slip’ characteristic for contemporary

Egyptian pottery (compare for example the jars from Saqqara and Tell

Dafana, Figs 7, 57). The graffito τη.[ suggests a dedication to a female

deity, Aphrodite or Hera; we may note in this context that of the c. 20 dinoi

with inscriptions the majority of those preserving the name of a deity are

dedications to Aphrodite (see the chapter on Ceramic inscriptions, section

4.8), which would speak in favour of Aphrodite as the recipient.

31

Schlotzhauer (2012, 176–7 no. Nau 148, pl. 32h–i) notes ‘deep bowls’ of unspecified East Greek production from Tocra as possible parallels; less convincing is his suggestion of connections with Laconian and Cypriot pottery shapes and/or decoration. 32

Schlotzhauer notes parallels especially with Milesian dinoi of the second third of the 6th century BC: Schlotzhauer 2012, 174 no. Nau 144, pl. 31g–i.

Figure 20 Small dinos, c. 580–550 BC. British Museum, 1965,0930.739. Drawing U. Schlotzhauer

Figure 19 Rim fragment of a bowl or pyxis, 6th century BC. British Museum, 1965,0930.450. Drawing U.

Schlotzhauer

Figure 18 Rim fragment of bowl or cup with votive graffito ]ΔIT[.,

first half 6th century BC, British Museum 1888,0601.291




3.3 Pouring and storage vessels

The locally made jugs of Naukratis display a particularly wide range of

shapes, styles and sizes. A large fragment of an oinochoe with trefoil

mouth features banded and wavy line decoration in red paint on a thin

white slip; analysis has revealed it as a member of NAA group QanN (Fig.

21).33

The relatively plain piece may have been kept by Petrie (it was found

during his first season at the site in 1884–5) on account of the incised

cross on the highest point of the handle, undoubtedly an ancient feature

paralleled also on other oinochoai. As Schlotzhauer notes, the general

shape and decoration find parallels with Archaic Ionian oinochoai, which

frequently display banded and wavy-line decoration, though some features

are unusual, such as the plastic ring at the junction of the shoulder and

neck which would be more characteristic for an amphora.34

Two small oinochoai with trefoil mouth and ribbed neck are of a type that is

seemingly unique (Fig. 22). Both bear a graffito inscription on the shoulder,

‘Δεκα’. As is argued by Alan Johnston in the chapter on Ceramic

inscriptions, §9.3.3, this is most likely an abbreviation of δεκάτη, hence an

offering of a tithe to a deity, with parallels for such a use of ‘deka’ known

for example from Cyrene. The jugs would thus constitute the only attested

examples at Naukratis of this otherwise common dedicatory formula on

pottery. An alternative interpretation as a measuring jug, though less likely,

cannot be excluded, especially as no precise findspot for the two pieces is

attested and a sanctuary dedication is thus not assured.35

The shape of the

vessels is even more exceptional; as Schlotzhauer notes, ribbed necks

appear to be not otherwise attested on Greek or East Greek trefoil-

mouthed jugs.36

Also remarkable is the fact that one of the jugs, British

Museum, 1886,0401.1380, was considered worthy of repair in antiquity,

preserving repair holes in the neck.

Figure 22 Two trefoil-mouth oinochoai inscribed ‘ΔEKA’, 6th century BC (?). British Museum, 1886,0401.1380 (left) and

1910,0222.232.b (right). Drawing U. Schlotzhauer

33

A fragment of an oinochoe with banded decoration had already been analysed and identified as of local production by Dupont and Thomas (2006, no. NAU 71), but the analysed piece is not identifiable. 34

Schlotzhauer 2012, 173 no. Nau 142, pl. 31c–d. 35

See the detailed discussion in Schlotzhauer 2006a; contrary to Schlotzhauer’s assertion, however, there is no secure evidence to associate the two pieces with the Apollo sanctuary. For dedications at Cyrene, see Maffre 2007, 181–2, no. 51. 36

See the detailed discussion in Schlotzhauer 2012.

Figure 21 Banded oinochoe, first half 6th century BC. British

Museum, 1965,0930.536





A third example of the same type of oinochoe, with a Carian inscription,

was found in Egypt but has no precise provenance. As has been argued by

Herda and Sauter, it is possible that it, too, is from Naukratis; alternatively,

it might come from another Egyptian site such as Memphis / Saqqara,

where a local Carian population is well attested.37

We may note here also a fragment from a locally made and seemingly

undecorated, though carefully smoothed oinochoe that only preserves

parts of the trefoil-mouthed rim (Fig. 23).

A third type of locally made oinochoe appears to be represented by a

shoulder fragment with incised tongues (Fig. 24). As has been suggested

by Schlotzhauer, this is probably a version of the well-known North Ionian

(and Aeolian and Hellespontine) type of the ‘black-polychrome’ oinochoai,

even if, unusually, no traces of any added paint are preserved here.38

Instead, the surface has been covered by a pebble-burnished slip. This

treatment is also found on some other vessels of the ‘Naukratis workshops’

and is discussed in more detail below.

In addition, recent fieldwork at the site in 2014 (Thomas and Villing

forthcoming) has revealed local versions of the small banded round

mouthed jugs, a shape well attested in Archaic Ionia, notably at Miletos,

which is also found as an import at Naukratis.39

A number of further fragments could come from oinochoai or amphorae.

They include a piece of a vessel shoulder with the graffito ]λη and yellow

slip on the exterior and traces of a red substance (possibly iron oxide,

miltos?) on the vessel’s interior (Fig. 25). A second, undecorated, shoulder

fragment preserves a votive graffito to Apollo (Fig. 26). The body sherd

British Museum, 1965,0930.460, also comes from a closed vessel.

37

Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin, Inv. 7206; see most recently Schlotzhauer 2012, 168–71, no. Nau 139, pl. 30c–e. While Herda and Sauer 2009, 96 with n. 272, consider Naukratis the most likely findspot, a provenance for example from Saqqara (Williams and Villing 2006) remains equally possible, not least given the scarce evidence for Carians at Naukratis and the distribution of Greek style Nile silt pottery as far as the Eastern Nile Delta. If from Naukratis, the jug would preserve the only extant Carian inscription from the site, as the Carian inscription published by Sayce 1893, 153, pl. 5, appears to be lost: see the chapter on Ceramic inscriptions, section 6, fig. 7. 38

Schlotzhauer 2012, 182 no. Nau 155, pl. 34h. 39

E.g. 1886,0401.88; see Schlotzhauer 2012, 90–1 no. Nau 32, pl. 8c.

Figure 24 Fragment of an oinochoe (?), second quarter 6th

century BC. Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge,

NA143. Photograph © Museum of Classical Archaeology,

Cambridge. Photography by British Museum staff

Figure 26 Shoulder fragment of oinochoe or amnphora, 6th century BC, with graffito ]Α vac π ολλ[, from the sanctuary of

Apollo. British Museum, 1886,0401.514 Figure 25 Shoulder fragment of an amphora or oinochoe, 6th

century BC. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, AN1912.41(50).

Photograph © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

Photography by British Museum staff

Figure 23 Rim fragment of trefoil-mouth oinochoe, 6th century

BC. British Museum, 1965,0930.545




Two shoulder fragments with early votive graffiti most likely belong to

amphorae, or possibly hydriai (Figs 27–8). They are highly similar in style

and fabric and must come from the same production batch (that they are

from the same vessel cannot be entirely excluded, though the inscriptions

they preserve would be hard to reconcile). Both preserve retrograde

dedications to Apollo and must date from the earlier part of the 6th century

BC.40

The vessels are not slipped, but feature black bands painted directly

on the surface: horizontal bands frame the top and bottom of the shoulder

with a painted broad zig-zag pattern in between. Both were found by Petrie

in a well in the sanctuary of Apollo and feature among the pieces of

‘earliest pottery from well with retrograde inscriptions’ which he subsumes

in his fabric group B1 (Petrie 1886a, 17, pl. 33.3 and 4).

A further small fragment (Fig. 29) might possibly come from the rim of a

locally made amphora;41

it is slipped red on the outside with a smaller band

on the top of the rim inside. Both shape and scheme of decoration are

reminiscent for example of Clazomenian slim amphorae (Ersöy 1993, pl.

278, no. 526).

That painted Greek-style amphorae were indeed produced in Egypt is

confirmed by the find of an amphora made from Nile silt (NAA group

QanN) at Tell Dafana (Fig. 30).42

Covered with a thick white-pinkish slip

and decoration in reddish paint, the amphora is closely related to some of

the finds from Naukratis. Already Cook (1954, 38, pl. [GB606]1.3) had

suspected production in Egypt for this vessel, but located the production

centre at Tell Dafana. Yet given the fundamentally Egyptian character of

the latter site (Leclère and Spencer 2014) and the amphora’s similarity to

finds from Naukratis, a production at Naukratis, however, seems more

likely. As with many of the decorated wares here, shape and patterning are

eclectic, the latter comprising a band of hour-glasses, a guilloche and a

scale pattern – unparalleled in their precise shape and combination, but

reminiscent of different aspects of Ionian and Aeolian pottery.

40

Schlotzhauer 2012, 173–4 no. Nau 143 pl. 31e‒f. 41

Piekarski 2001b, 58 no. E2; Piekarski identifies it as a rim fragment of a one-handled cup. 42

Weber 2012, 373 no. TD 290; pl. 52c–d; Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006b, 63, fig. 39.

Figure 27 Shoulder fragment from amphora (or hydria?), votive graffito ]ωπολλωσο εμι[

retrograde, early 6th century BC, from a well in the sanctuary of Apollo. British Museum,

1886,0401.83

Figure 30 Amphora from Tell Dafana, first half of 6th century BC

(Mommsen sample Defe 10, NAA group QanN). British

Museum, 1888,0208.57

Figure 28 Shoulder fragment from amphora (or hydria?), votive graffito ]λλωσο εμ[

retrograde, early 6th century BC, from a well in the sanctuary of Apollo. British Museum,

1886,0401.84

Figure 29 Rim fragment of amphora (?), 6th century BC (?).

Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Bonn, 697.63. Photograph ©

Akademisches Kunstmuseum - Antikensammlung der Universität

Bonn. Photographer Alexandra Villing, British Museum



3.4 Plates

Several examples of plates of local Naukratite production are preserved in

the surviving assemblage, representing different types and styles of

decoration.

The sole example of a plate with a flat horizontal rim (Fig. 31) also features

an unusual decoration. On the rim a maeander pattern is incised into the

thick, burnished clay coloured slip that covers the whole plate, yet

seemingly without any added paint – a technique reminiscent of that used

for the likely oinochoe fragment noted above (Fig. 24). Similar to the latter,

the principal parallels for shape and decorative scheme are found in the

regions of North Ionia and Aeolis, which were prolific producers of

maeander rim plates that were widely distributed and that also reached

Naukratis.43

As pebble burnishing is only rarely used in Greek pottery

production, Schlotzhauer highlights the plate as an example of the mixing

of Greek and Egyptian elements in the ‘Naukratis workshops’, a topic that

is addressed in more detail below.44

More common in the repertoire are rim-less, probably stemmed, plates, a

shape of dish that is common especially in South Ionia. Two sherds from

plates of similar shape and decoration were undoubtedly produced in the

same workshop, if they do not actually come from the same vessel (Figs

32–3).45

They feature a zone of lotus flowers and geometric filling

ornaments, reminiscent of both Aeolian (the angle cross) and Milesian

(flower and square plate) decorative schemes. Both fragments were

analysed and fall into NAA group QanN.

A plate of closely related shape and style is represented by two rim

fragments, non-joining but clearly from the same vessel, again a member

of NAA group QanN (Fig. 34).46

Both fragments are covered in a thick

white-pinkish slip onto which decoration is painted, irregularly, in a clay slip

that has fired red. As on the two previous fragments, on the inside of the

vessel below a band near the rim a floral ornament (apparently a

suspended flower with an angular calyx, drawn in outline) and a large

meander hook is painted next to a geometric ornament; again, the

ornaments are East Greek in style but difficult to parallel precisely.

43

Schlotzhauer 2012, 42–3; on the production of meander-rim plates see Kerschner 2006b, 144–5. 44

Schlotzhauer 2012, 182, Nau 156. 45

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 86.533: Schlotzhauer 2012, 177–8 no. Nau 149, pl. 33a–b; Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge, NA48: Schlotzhauer 2012, 178–9, no. Nauk 150, pl. 33c–e; Dupont and Thomas 2006, 78 no. NAU 9, Fig. 1. 46

Schlotzhauer 2012, 180–1, no. Nau 152, pl. 34a–c.

Figure 32 Fragment of plate, from the sanctuary of the Dioskouroi,

c. 590–560 BC. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 86.533. Photograph

© Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Figure 33 Fragment of a plate, Museum of Classical

Archaeology, Cambridge, NA48, c. 590–560 BC. Photograph ©

Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge. Photography

by British Museum staff

Figure 34 Two fragments of one plate, c. 590–550 BC (Mommsen sample Nauk 9, NAA group QanN). British

Museum, 1924,1201.42 and 43. Drawing U. Schlotzhauer

Figure 31 Fragment of plate, 6th century BC. Museum of Classical

Archaeology, Cambridge, NA142. Photograph © Museum of Classical

Archaeology, Cambridge. Photography by British Museum staff



Both fragments moreover feature small, vertically pierced spool handles

attached to the outside of the rim, a feature that is also found on a further

plate of the same basic shape that is, however, entirely undecorated (Fig.

35).47

As Schlotzhauer48

notes, pierced spools are not an uncommon

feature on East Greek plates; their presence on ‘rimless’ plates such as

here is, however, unusual.

One further plate fragment from Naukratis has been considered possibly

local by Schlotzhauer, a plate on a low ring foot covered in a white slip with

floral and geometric ornaments painted in red slip (Fig. 36).49

The coarse

sandy fabric with a grey core is reminiscent, though not identical, to Nile

clays, while the decorative scheme recalls Aeolian patterns. NA analysis of

the piece was unable to associate it with any of the known chemical

patterns; in fact, its chemical composition seems to differ significantly from

both Nile clays and the Aeolian group G/g.50

The question of the plate’s

place of production has to remain open.

3.5 Lekythoi

Two small squat jars, at least one of them clearly imitating a Greek

lekythos (oil flask) are listed in Toronto with a provenance of Naukratis

(Fig. 37). They are made from a cream coloured clay very different from

the fabrics otherwise attested at Naukratis and more similar to pottery

produced in the eastern Delta. Here, at Tell Dafana (Penn Museum,

Philadelphia, E105) and Migdol / Tell el Herr, Egyptian versions of lekythoi

are attested from the late 5th century BC onwards (Defernez 2002, 241),

though the shape, again in a cream marl clay, is also found at 5th–4th

century BC Saqqara (French 1992, 91–2 fig. 30). Locally made lekythoi of

more ovoid shape are also known from Alexandria (Breccia 1912, pl.

59.134 and 138). Small Athenian lekythoi are attested as imports at a

range of sites across Egypt in the 5th and 4th centuries BC and may have

arrived filled with foreign perfume.51

They have also been found at

Naukratis itself, especially in tomb contexts, with local imitations known in

calcite (see the chapter on Stone vessels, p. 6 fig. 8). The rarity of the type

at Naukratis may cast doubt on the reliability of the provenance information

of the Toronto pieces, but there is not sufficient cause to discount it.

47

Schlotzhauer 2012, 179–80, no. Nau 151, pl. 33f–h. 48

Ibid. 180. 49

Schlotzhauer 2012, 185 no. Nau160, pl. 35e–f. 50

Mommsen sample Nauk 30; cf. the raw data at http://mommsen.hiskp.uni-bonn.de/data/naukpap-www.pdf. 51

For example at Migdol, Thebes and Karnak. The evidence is summarized, with references, in Villing 2013, 90 n. 103, 93 n. 120, 96 with n. 134. The import and local imitation of foreign perfume vessels is, of course, already attested in Egypt in earlier periods.

Figure 35 Fragment of plate, 6th century BC. Museum of Fine

Arts, Boston, 86.934. Photograph © Museum of Fine Arts,

Boston

Figure 36 Fragment of plate, c. 590–560 BC. Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Bonn, 697.25. Photograph © Akademisches

Kunstmuseum - Antikensammlung der Universität Bonn. Photographer Alexandra Villing, British Museum

Figure 37 Squat lekythoi, 4th century BC. Royal Ontario

Museum, Toronto, 910.143.3 and 910.143.1. Photograph

courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum, photo credit Brian Boyle

© ROM

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/stone_vessels.aspx

http://mommsen.hiskp.uni-bonn.de/data/naukpap-www.pdf

http://mommsen.hiskp.uni-bonn.de/data/naukpap-www.pdf



3.6 Mortaria

Mortaria – large, shallow, thick-walled bowls used primarily for grinding

foodstuffs – are a special category among the Egyptian-made vessels of

Naukratis. Furthermore, the question of their place of production must be

considered separately from that of other shapes discussed in this chapter.

Firstly, this is because many of them are actually versions of Cypriot rather

than Greek shape, even if both imports and local copies of Cypriot mortaria

were in fact common, especially in 7th century BC South Ionia. Moreover,

their fabrics differ significantly from the fairly uniform Nile silt fabrics

observed in most other local vessels. Finally, while local versions of Greek

vessels are to a large extent a phenomenon limited to Naukratis, certainly

before the later 5th century BC, imitations of Cypriot-type mortaria have

been found at many Saite and Persian Period sites across the Nile Delta52

– a remarkable phenomenon in itself, which may suggest the local

adoption of foreign culinary habits (cf. Villing 2006). Falling between

categories, they are therefore also discussed in the chapter on Egyptian

Late Period pottery, and have also been discussed in more detail in an

earlier publication (Villing 2006).

Cypriot mortaria were imported into Egypt (as into East Greece and many

other regions of the Eastern Mediterranean) since the 7th century BC, and

soon began to be produced also locally (Villing 2006; Spataro and Villing

2009). A typical complete example of such a local Egyptian version was,

for example, found by Petrie at Tell Dafana in the eastern Nile Delta, its

centre worn through from use (Fig. 38).

At Naukratis, flat-based Cypriot-style mortaria were found in large numbers

especially in the early layers of the sanctuary of Apollo, where Petrie

(1886a, 21–3, pl. 4.2) notes the existence of numerous such ‘coarse thick

drab’ bowls, often in the same contexts as (Cypriot) basket-handled

amphorae (see also the chapter on Transport amphorae). Only examples

with inscriptions, however, appear to have been kept. Many of the (Greek)

votive inscriptions to Apollo are probably dedications by Ionians, for whom

the shape would have been known as a staple of their batterie de cuisine

back home, both as Cypriot imports and local imitations (see also the

chapter on Ceramic inscriptions). Gardner (1888, 27) moreover notes that

‘two large rough plates of yellow ware, of the same description as those

found last year in the lower strata of the trench in the temenos of Apollo’

were also found in the cemetery (possibly used as a lid for an urn?), and

we may note that also elsewhere in the Late Period Delta burial contexts

are common findspots for mortaria (Villing 2006, 37).

While the majority of the preserved mortaria from Naukratis are actual

imports from Cyprus, at least one has been securely identified as a copy in

Egyptian clay (Fig. 39).53

The fragment features a long and slim collar rim;

its fabric is fired brown, porous, with vegetal inclusions clearly visible as

they leave burnt-out voids on the vessel surface. In its chemical

52

As well as, though rarely, Upper Egypt: Masson forthcoming d. 53

Villing 2006, 40 fig. 23, 42, no. 17; Petrie 1886a, pl. 34.399; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317.

Figure 38 Flat-based mortarium from Tell Dafana, 6th

century BC, worn through from use. British Museum, EA

23685

Figure 39 Rim fragment of Egyptian-made mortarium

with graffito on outside of rim: ]νελ[., (early?) 6th

century BC (Mommsen sample Nauk 18: NAA group

Marl). British Museum, 1910,0222.15



http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/publications/research_publications_series/2013/naukratis_greek_diversity.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/greek_transport_amphorae.aspx




composition it is an associated member of NAA group ‘Marl’,54

a group that

also contains inscribed clay tablets sent by pharaoh Ramses II to the Hittite

capital Hattuša. The fabric of the latter has been described as marly

alluvial Nile sediment of Egyptian fabric type ‘Marl D’,55

a type common in

the Delta and Fayoum region in the 18th–19th dynasty, with the region of

Memphis/Qantir a strong contender as a key production centre.56

A further,

near complete mortarium with a votive dedication to Apollo may be of

Egyptian fabric, too (Fig. 40; cf. Villing 2006, 31 fig. 1, 41 no. 1), as is

perhaps a small base fragment (Museum of Classical Archaeology,

Cambridge, NA741). Both local and imported flat-based mortaria are also

very evident among the material from the most recent fieldwork at

Naukratis (Thomas and Villing forthcoming).

However, it was not only Cypriot-style mortaria that were produced in

Egypt, but also other mortaria types. An example is a large fragment of a

bowl-shaped mortarium with a ribbed spool handle, repaired in antiquity

(Fig. 41).57

Even though its fine sandy reddish clay is quite different in

appearance to the Egyptian imitations of Cypriot mortaria, it was found to

be another associated member of NAA group ‘Marl’ and thus a likely

Egyptian product. Its shape, however, is more Greek: mortaria of concave

bowl shape with a peaked and/or projecting rim and attached spool-shaped

handles are widespread in the Greek world, especially in the (later) 5th and

4th century BC. The development of their shape can be observed most

clearly at Corinth, a major production centre for mortaria in the Classical

period, whose products were widely exported including also to Naukratis,

from where at least one example of a Corinthian mortarium with spool-

shaped handle is preserved.58

The differences in chemical composition between Egyptian-made mortaria,

both Cypriot and Greek style, and other (Greek and Egyptian) vessels at

Naukratis is remarkable and requires an explanation. A variety of

possibilities can be imagined: different clays may have been used

specifically for different shapes to best match their functionality; workshops

using different clay beds may have been responsible for producing these

vessels; or mortaria were brought to Naukratis from a different part of

Egypt, perhaps the area of Memphis or Qantir. The fact that recent (still

unpublished) NA analyses have associated one further find from Naukratis

to the same chemical group, a large terracotta statuette of a male figure

(British Museum, 1886,0401.1463; Mommsen sample Nauk 123: Marl

assoc.) may favour the last of the three options, though perhaps all three

options may have played a part. Further research is needed to better

understand this particular NAA group as well as the patterns of production

and possible trade of these household vessels in Egypt.

54

Mommsen et al. 2006, sample Nauk 18. Elevated Ca percentages distinguish the piece from typical Nile silt and seem to associate it more with typical Egyptian marls (cf. Bourrriau et al. 2006, 264). On the problems of identifying marl fabrics, see e.g. Bourriau et al. 2006. 55

Goren et al. 2011, 686–8, 691 with table 1. 56

The fact that in previous NAA analyses Marl D ceramics appear to form tight chemical groups together with the evidence from the pharaonic letters appears to strengthen this hypothesis. See Nordström and Bourriau 1993, 181; Bourriau et al. 2006, 275. 57

Villing 2006, 32–3, fig. 4, 42 no. 26; see the forthcoming chapter on NA analysis (sample Nauk 105, NAA group Marl ass.). 58

British Museum, 1965,0930.539; cf. Villing and Pemberton 2010; Villing 2006.

Figure 41 Egyptian-made Greek style mortarium, late 5th–4th

century BC (Mommsen sample Nauk 105, NAA group Marl

assoc.) British Museum, 1965,0930.966

Figure 40 Mortarium, first half 6th century BC. British

Museum 1886,0401.790



3.7 Cooking stands and pots

Apart from (inscribed) mortaria and relief-decorated braziers (see the

chapter on Portable stoves and braziers), kitchen pottery is only very rarely

preserved among the finds from Naukratis, undoubtedly a result of the

early excavators’ selection practices.59

Among the rare examples is a rim fragment of a wheel-made cooking

stand (Fig. 42), made from a typical micaceous Nile silt, which preserves

one hand-modelled pot-rest attached to a ledge rim projecting into the

inside of the vessel below the vessel’s rim; it is on these protrusions that

the cooking pot would once have rested. The surface of the fragment is

darkened from use. Portable pot stands were widely used in ancient

Greece, with examples of a similar shape known from 5th century BC

contexts in the Athenian Agora, though versions of the shape continued

through to the Hellenistic period.60

Petrie (1886a, 42) considered this

fragment an early example within the development of stoves at Naukratis,

and even though it is difficult to date the piece with certainty a Classical

date seems likely.

No easier to assign a date is a small cooking pot preserved in Glasgow, of

Nile silt fabric blackened by use (Fig. 43). It has the doubtful privilege of

being the only cooking pot seemingly preserved from the early fieldwork at

the site, while its good preservation suggests it was found in a well. The

general shape including the restricted mouth might point to a (late)

Classical or Early Hellenistic date,61

with small cooking pots of related

shapes attested also in early 3rd century BC Alexandria.62

59

A unique fragment of a 6th-century BC grill of Ionian type is preserved in Boston (Museum of Fine Arts, 88.893), but this most likely is an Ionian import rather than a local product; for parallels, see Aydemir 2005, 92–4, fig. 12, p. 98 no. 5. A number of Greek cooking pots – mostly imports – have now been found in the still unpublished recent fieldwork at Naukratis. 60

Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 232–3, 377 nos 2017–19, pl. 97; no. 2018 is the closest parallel for the fragment from Naukratis. For Archaic East Greek pot stands, see Aydemir 2005, 94–7. 61

Rotroff 2006, 168; cf. also Sparkes and Talcott 1970, pl. 93 no.1930 (first half of the 4th century BC). There is a faint possibility of the piece being identical with one of the cooking pots drawn by Petrie as found in Well 96 (Petrie 1886a, pl. 17 no. 4), in the far northwestern part of the Petrie’s excavation area, in which case a somewhat later date might also be possible. 62

Harlaut 2002, 266, 278 fig. 2c.

Figure 42 Fragment of cooking stand, 5th–4th century BC.

British Museum, 1886,0401.1775

Figure 43 Cooking pot, 4th century BC(?). Kelvingrove Art Gallery & Museum, Glasgow, 1892.21.e

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/portable_stoves.aspx



3.8 Transport amphorae

The local production of amphorae of Greek (and other foreign) shapes is

well attested for Late Period Egypt from the 6th century BC onwards. Early

examples include a small version of a fractional Samian amphora from Tell

Dafana (below Fig. 55) made of a local, organically tempered fabric, quite

possibly by an Egyptian rather than a Greek potter,63

as well as Lesbian

and Samian amphorae Migdol/T.21. From the 5th–4th century BC local

versions of Greek (including Rhodian, Chian, Mendean and Thasian) as

well as Cypriot basket-handled and Phoenician torpedo amphorae became

more common (see Villing 2013, 81–3; Defernez and Marchand 2006). In

view of this situation it is likely that locally made transport amphorae were

present at Naukratis, too, even if the slim corpus of pre-Hellenistic

transport amphorae from Naukratis provides little firm evidence in this

regard (see the chapter on Transport amphorae).64

A small number of

coarse Nile clay body fragments, most of them with Archaic Greek graffiti,

could belong to Late Period transport amphorae, but whether these might

have been of Greek type is impossible to say.65

Of greater interest and intrigue is a unique fragment of a transport

amphora handle of amygdaloid section, stamped with a plumed cartouche

perhaps of Amasis (Fig. 44). It appears to come from a local version of a

Greek-style amphora as it is made from a finely levigated Nile clay fabric

that would be unusual for an Egyptian amphora but is more consistent with

Greek-style pottery. Its dating presents a problem, however: while the

stamp suggests a 6th century BC date, the shape of the handle would be

more at home in the Classical period or later (see the chapter on Stamped

amphorae, section 2.1, fig. 17).66

Stamped amphora handles of Egyptian

manufacture are also known from later periods at Naukratis (ibid.).

3.9 Miniature vessels

Miniature vessels, notably versions of (foreign) transport amphorae, are

attested also at various Late Period Egyptian sites and are probably mostly

the products of local workshops. While in Egypt jars appear to be the most

commonly miniaturized shape and some finds at least come from domestic

contexts, miniatures in Greece are predominantly a sanctuary

phenomenon, symbolic of larger vessels but also perhaps containers in

their own right. 67

At Naukratis, miniature vessels include both miniature

torpedo amphorae (Figs 45–6: see also the chapter on Egyptian Late

Period pottery)68

and vessels of Greek shape. Examples of the latter are a

63

British Museum, EA22333; Villing 2013, 82, fig. 7. 64

That the assumption is warranted is further confirmed by finds from the most recent fieldwork at the site, see Thomas and Villing forthcoming. 65

E.g. the small fragment of typical Egyptian red-slipped Nile fabric now in Cambridge (Museum of Classical Archaeology, NA 160) that is included in Schlotzhauer’s catalogue of pottery from Naukratis as a possible example of an Egyptian amphora: Schlotzhauer 2012, 193 no. 176, pl. 38c–d. Cf. also British Museum 1910,0222.21 and 1965,0930.461. 66

In addition one may note a hieroglyphic stamp on a transport amphora that is known only from a drawing in Petrie's Journal of 1884–5 (p. 72). It features a cryptographic writing of the name Amun-Ra which suggests that the production of amphorae was attached to the local sanctuary. See the chapter on Stamped amphorae, section 2.2.10. 67

On miniature vessels in Egypt see e.g. Jacquet-Gordon 2011. The phenomenon is also widespread in Greek sanctuaries; see most recently Barfoed 2015. 68

British Museum, 1965,0930.981, is a further possible example. Defernez (2002, 241) notes miniature torpedo amphorae at Migdol/Tell el Herr from the later 5th century BC and Masson (2011a, 284–5, 307 fig. 100) an example at Karnak in a late 26th–early 27th dynasty context.

Figure 44 Amphora handle stamped with a cartouche

of Amasis (?), 6th–4th century BC. British Museum,

1888,0601.738

Figure 45 Model torpedo amphora, 6th–4th century

BC. Castle Museum, Newcastle, NCM 1888-21.

Photograph © Great North Museum, Newcastle upon

Tyne

Figure 46 Model torpedo amphora, 6th–4th century

BC. British Museum, 1965,0930.548

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/greek_transport_amphorae.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/stamped_amphorae.aspx







miniature flask or bottle with two Greek letters incised on the shoulder (Fig.

47), as well as a small, well-finished miniature of a possibly Classica Greek

amphora (Fig. 48), perhaps from the cemetery, where Gardner notes the

finds of amphoriskoi (cf. Gardner 1888, 28). Also of interest is a minute

bowl (Fig. 49), perhaps a miniature Archaic Corinthian kotyle.69

3.10 Other shapes and 4th-century BC production

The potters’ workshops at Naukratis undoubtedly produced a far greater

diversity of shapes than are attested by the limited sample that survives

from the early fieldwork at the site. Moreover, the small size of many of the

preserved fragments sometimes makes it difficult to discern the shape they

belong to. One such case is the small Nile silt fragment with a plastic

volute (Fig. 50) that is somewhat reminiscent of the spirals of Archaic

Rhodian pithoi (cf. e.g. Kinch 1914, pl. 22), although unlike on pithoi the

spiral is modelled and not impressed; the fragment might equally come

from a plastic vessel or even a terracotta figure. A further pithos fragment

from Naukratis (Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Brussels, A.1816)

featuring an elaborate guilloche applied with a roulette stamp is most likely

a 6th-century BC Cycladic import.

By and large the Greek-style pottery from Naukratis appears distinct in

shape and decoration (and to some extent technology, see below section

4) from Egyptian Late Period pottery. A possible example for overlap is a

large thick-walled pottery fragment from the Apollo sanctuary, perhaps a

platter (or lid) (Fig. 51). It is a particularly intriguing piece as it features the

typical thick pinkish-white slip often found on Greek-style vessels of the

‘Naukratis workshops’, yet in its shape and its coarse Nile clay fabric with

organic inclusions is typical for Egyptian Late Period pottery. It is also a

rare example of an Egyptian shape bearing (it seems) a Greek inscription

As is clear when looking at the material presented so far, much of the

preserved local Greek-style pottery at Naukratis belongs to the 6th century

BC. For the Classical period evidence is slim, becoming more plentiful only

in the 4th and early 3rd century BC. It is to this period that the majority of

the local ‘black ware’ pottery that imitates Greek black-glaze pottery must

be dated, along with most if not all of the Greek style pottery found by

Petrie and Hogarth, even if for some pieces an earlier date cannot be

excluded. While these will be treated in detail in the forthcoming chapter on

Ptolemaic pottery, a number of observations are worth making here.

69

The shape is paralleled in a miniature vessel from Rhodes, see Blinkenberg 1931, 630 no. 2605, pl. 125; cf. also Barfoed 2015, 11 figs 9–11, and the chapter on Corinthian pottery.

Figure 47 Miniature flask with a graffito of alpha

and lambda, 6th–3rd century BC. British Museum,

1910,0222.65.a

Figure 48 Amphoriskos, 5th-4th century BC. British

Museum, EA20835

Figure 49 Miniaure kotyle (?), 6th century BC. British

Museum, 1886,1005.14

Figure 50 Fragment from relief-decorated pithos or terracotta

figure, 6th–5th century BC. Museum of Classical

Archaeology, Cambridge, NA265. Photograph © Museum of

Classical Archaeology, Cambridge. Photography by British

Museum staff

Figure 51 Fragment of large platter (?) from the Apollo sanctuary,

probably 6th century BC. British Museum, 1886,0401.95

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/corinthian_pottery.aspx



The ‘black ware’ (or ‘terra nigra’) pottery from Naukratis is made from a

Nile silt fabric fired buff, covered with a thin black slip that is often worn

(Fig. 52); while the buff (rather than red) colour of the clay suggests a

reducing kiln atmosphere, the fabric itself is not actually grey or black as is

found in some of the (later) ‘black wares’.70

Black wares have a wide

distribution in Ptolemaic Egypt (see the recent survey by Gill 2012) with a

number of production centres, and it is likely that Naukratis was one of

them, even if the extant examples attest to a rather moderate quality that

did not match the finer wares produced for example at Memphis or Buto.

From the early fieldwork, small bowls, plates and dishes are the most

common forms, sometimes decorated with impressed decoration, including

palmettes and ‘rouletting’, on the inside, betraying the ware as a local

version of Greek black glaze wares. In reference to finds of the same ware

from later American excavations, Berlin (2001, 27), however, points out

that the repertoire contains shapes not only with a Greek ancestry, but

ones with an Egyptian heritage as well. While for none of the extant

examples a date earlier than the Ptolemaic period can be argued with

confidence, the possibility cannot be excluded entirely.

Most of Hogarth’s finds of local pottery are known only from published

black and white images, making it difficult to judge both fabric and date.

The contents of a well (Fig. 53), excavated in 1903, include a number of

undecorated Greek shapes made from Egyptian clay. Edgar (1905, 125)

believed them to be 5th century BC in date. However, the black-glazed

guttus (no. 5) found with them, and possibly imported, dates to the late 4th

century BC71

and a 4th century BC date is also the most likely one for the

remainder of the vessels. The two trefoil mouthed oinochoai (of chous

shape), nos 4 and 6, are unlikely to be much later than the 4th century BC,

with the shape soon falling out of favour in the Hellenistic period; they find

parallels in oinochoai from the Athenian Agora dated from the early to late

4th century BC.72

No. 7 is probably an echinus bowl with a ‘polished red

surface’, a common shape in the Ptolemaic period but attested already

earlier for example at Tell el-Herr, where the shape has been observed in

local fabric from the early 4th century onwards (Defernez 2011, 458–9).

70

Harlaut (2002, 273) notes the same phenomenon in 3rd century BC Alexandrian ‘black ware’, considering it a local potters’ attempt to replicate the Greek black glaze technique. 71

For a similar example found in Alexandria, see e.g. Breccia 1912, pl. 50.89. 72

Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 245 nos 122 and 127, pls 6.122 and 7.127; cf. also Rotroff 1997, 125–6 and Rotroff 2006, 70.

Figure 52 Fragment of Egyptian black ware plate with stamped

decoration and incised cross underfoot, 3rd century BC (?). British

Museum, 1910,0222.231

Figure 53 Pottery from a well excavated by Hogarth in 1903. After Edgar 1905, 124 fig. 4



Further Greek style pottery was found in 1899 in a well (Fig. 54) lined with

large tiles immediately to the west of what was the south-western part of

the Hellenion, in the direction of the sanctuary of the Dioskouroi (Hogarth’s

point 36, though not entered on his plan).

Figure 54 Pottery from a well excavated by Hogarth in 1899. After Edgar 1905, 124 fig. 34

The assemblage was dated by Edgar, based on von Bissing, to between

the late 6th and late 4th century BC. In fact it appears rather mixed, with

likely Saite or early Persian pottery (no. 10) beside 4th century BC and

possibly Hellenistic Greek forms: two jugs (nos 4 and 13) could

conceivably be 4th century BC. One juglet or cooking pot (9) of unusual

shape, its thin walls almost appearing like metal, could be pre- or early

Ptolemaic. The shape of the askos (14) is hard to make out precisely but

might be Classical. That the assemblage is indeed likely to be mixed is

supported also by Hogarth’s description of the well: ‘several coarse jugs

and amphorae (one with ΣΦΩ painted on its side) lay at the bottom,

together with a boar's skull, early local sherds, fragments of two Isis terra-

cottas (v. infra. p. 85 and pl. XII. No. 127), part of a heavy iron collar, and

some stone weights’ (Hogarth 1898–9, 34). One of the two ‘Isis terra-

cottas’ (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, GR.9.1899) is certainly

Ptolemaic, dating between the late 4th and early 3rd century BC, the other

might be somewhat later (see the chapter on Ptolemaic and Roman

figures, p. 19 figs 52–3).

4. The potters of Naukratis – problems

and prospects

The finds discussed above, despite their small number and fragmentary

state, illustrate the diversity of local Greek-style pottery production, both in

shape and style, from an early period in the site’s history. They also

highlight some of the problems with defining the output of the Naukratis

potters’ workshops. How confident can we be in distinguishing Greek style,

shape and technology from Egyptian production? Who made these wares,

and to what extent did Greek-style production adopt Egyptian features?

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/ptolemaic_and_roman_figures.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_naukratis/ptolemaic_and_roman_figures.aspx



More data than is presently available would be needed to address these

questions and to better understand the development of local pottery

production; that such data is not necessarily beyond reach is suggested by

the most recent fieldwork, where even a small excavation area yielded a

rich variety of local vessels of the Archaic-Classical/Late Period, both

Greek and Egyptian. Together with the material from early fieldwork, it

helps us to gain a first glimpse of how local pottery production inserts itself

into the processes of cross-cultural interaction that shaped the site’s

history.

4.1 Fabric, potting and firing

As has been argued in the sections above, research over the past decade

has finally made it possible to identify securely at Naukratis pottery vessels

made from (local) Nile clay that are in shape and decoration Greek, or

more precisely, East Greek, and to date the beginnings for this production

to the early 6th century BC. Interestingly, no clear, single Greek ‘model’ or

tradition can be discerned for this production: rather, the vessels display an

eclectic mix of features drawn primarily from the East Greek regions of

Aeolis, North and South Ionia, combining them in a novel way and

including aspects that seem to be genuine innovations.73

Nor is Egyptian

‘influence’ especially evident in either shape or painted decoration.

However, the picture becomes more complex once materials and

production techniques are also considered. For some of the local Greek-

style vessels at least, the quality of the potting is indistinguishable from that

of pottery made in (East) Greece and steeped in a Greek tradition. An

example is the banded oinochoe (Fig. 21), the workmanship of which is

difficult to reconcile with Egyptian imitation of a Greek shape but suggests

the work of a potter well versed in routinely fashioning vessels of this

shape. At the other end of the scale one might cite the Samian-type

amphora from Tell Dafana (Fig. 55, shown here next to a Samian amphora

from Naukratis, Fig. 56), which is but an approximation of the original not

just in fabric (coarse and rich in organic material) but also in shape.

In contrast, the Greek-style pottery from Naukratis is mostly characterized

by finely levigated clays as they are common in Greek fine ware pottery

production. Of course, fine Nile silt is not unknown also in traditional

Egyptian pottery. Udo Schlotzhauer (Schlotzhauer 2012, 67, 168) has

noted that the fabric of the Greek-style pottery of Naukratis in type,

composition and firing resembles certain Egyptian fabrics, notably Nile B1

and B2 and Marl C Compact at Old Kingdom Saqqara, as classified in the

(macroscopically based) ‘Vienna System’ of Egyptian pottery fabric

taxonomy.74

He also remarks upon the fact that Greek style pottery made

in Egypt more frequently has a ‘sandwich’ structure featuring a grey core

than pottery made in Greece. Given that a grey core is frequently found in

Egyptian Nile silt pottery, including Late Period Egyptian wares from

Naukratis itself, he takes this to suggest that Greek potters at Naukratis

may have adopted firing techniques from their Egyptian counterparts.

73

Schlotzhauer 2012, 62–6; Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006, 62–5. 74

Nordström and Bourriau 1993, pl. 1d–e (Nile B1), 2a (B2), 6e (MarlC Compact).

Figure 55 Egyptian imitation of a fractional Samian amphora from

Tell Dafana, 6th century BC. British Museum, EA 22333

Figure 56 Samian amphora from Naukratis, c. 600 BC. British

Museum, 1886,0401.1291



These observations highlight some important points; however, their

interpretation is not necessarily as straightforward. First, grey cores – a

result of a short, intense period or firing (or firing at lower temperatures) –

are well known as a feature of Egyptian pottery, but are not entirely absent

from (East) Greek pottery of the ‘homeland’. Moreover, their greater

frequency at Naukratis does not necessarily indicate a active adoption of

Egyptian firing techniques, but may well be determined by the nature of the

raw material and environment, the result of the lesser suitability of Nile silts

for firing at high temperatures75

perhaps coupled with suitable fuel being in

relatively short supply. Far-reaching conclusions of cross-cultural

technology transfer should thus be voiced cautiously.

Second, there are obvious problems in comparing fabric technology

between sites and across millennia, not least since the Vienna System by

its own proponents is considered not applicable to the post-New Kingdom

Period (Nordström and Bourriau 1993, 168). Even if some Egyptian Late

Period pottery fabrics can indeed be fine and well worked (examples are

the jars from Saqqara and Tell Dafana, Figs 7 and 57), observations in the

field and in recent excavations (Thomas and Villing forthcoming) suggest

that it is coarser and frequently organically tempered fabrics such as those

exemplified by the Saite plate (Fig. 6) that are the norm at Naukratis. In

contrast, the vessels of Greek shape made from Nile silt are consistently

dense and fine and lack vegetal temper (mortaria being a different case),

and in some cases at least fired more evenly and at higher temperatures

than their Egyptian counterparts.76

At the same time, Egyptian shapes

found at Naukratis appear to retain their traditional recipes, while both fine

and organically tempered fabrics are attested in the local terracotta

industry.

The manufacture of Greek style vessels at Naukratis from the 6th century

BC onwards thus prefigures developments that are otherwise seen only

much later, where across Egypt from the 3rd century BC onwards

traditional fabrics with vegetal temper co-exist with vessels made with new,

Greek-influence fabric recipes (Harlaut 2002, 274).

4.2 Surface treatment

Whereas technology transfer is difficult to ascertain in fabric preparation

and firing technology, there are indications for the adoption of Egyptian

practices in the decoration of some of the Greek vessels. This concerns in

particular pebble-burnishing and a reddish fired burnished slip.

A burnished surface, executed with a small smooth tool such as a pebble,

had been noted already by Schlotzhauer (2012, 64) on two fragments of

pottery that he attributed to local production: a fragment from the shoulder

of an oinochoe with incised tongues (Fig. 21) and a plate with an incised

meander pattern on the rim (Figs 58 and 31), both covered in brown slip of

fine clay that was then burnished. Burnishing can also be observed on the

small dinos (Fig. 20), but here (where preserved) it has partly fired reddish,

75

See e.g. Harlaut 2002, 274; Ballet and Vichy 1992, 110. 76

This is clear from visual observation but also supported by recent petrographic analysis: Spataro et al. forthcoming.

Figure 57 Red-slipped jar from Tell Dafana, 6th century BC.

British Museum, EA22301

Figure 58 Fragment of plate, 6th century BC. Museum of Classical

Archaeology, Cambridge, NA142. Photograph © Museum of Classical

Archaeology, Cambridge. Photography by British Museum staff



giving the impression of a red slip as is common on Late Period Egyptian

pottery (e.g. Fig. 57).77

Finds from the most recent fieldwork at Naukratis (Thomas and Villing

forthcoming) further confirm the common practice of burnishing otherwise

undecorated vessels of Greek shape, as in this example of a 6th-century

BC cup on a low foot (Fig. 59, and above Fig. 12). Such finishing

technology is uncommon in Archaic Greece, but a well-attested feature of

Saite and Persian period pottery including on shapes found at Naukratis

(Fig. 60 and cf. above, Fig. 6).78

Could it therefore represent an adoption

of Egyptian technology on the part of Greek potters?

The answer to this question again is not entirely straightforward. First, the

fact that Greek style burnishing differs to some degree from Egyptian style

burnishing, suggest adaptation rather than mere adoption: while Egyptian

style burnishing most characteristically involves regular striations, the

Greek-style pottery is usually burnished all over. Second, the practice of

burnishing in striations as well as the application of red slip are not unique

to Egypt, but common, for example, also in contemporary Levantine

pottery (cf. e.g. Stager, Master and Schloen 2011). It can be observed,

moreover, on certain types of vessels (influenced by Levantine or

Anatolian models) that are sometimes attributed also to Greek

manufacture, such as the 7th-century bottles with bent neck which are

common on Rhodes79

or some types of so-called ‘Samian lekythoi’,

examples of which have also been found at Naukratis (British Museum,

1888,0601.728). Finally, as has been suggested by Catherine Defernez

(2001, 456–7), the technology of Egyptian pottery in turn, notably from the

the Persian Period, may have been influenced by imported Greek pottery,

with Egyptian potters employing regular and careful polishing in a bid to

match the high-quality lustrous surfaces of Greek wares. Indeed, as has

been noted above, one possible reason for the application of the technique

to Greek-style pottery may be a practical one, i.e. the difficulty of finding

raw materials (and/or firing conditions) suitable to create a smooth,

impermeable surface matching the slipped or black glazed surfaces of

(East) Greek pottery.

Greek potters in search of a solution to their problems may thus have

taken inspiration from local pottery, which in itself may have been influence

by imported wares. They appear to have been aware of local pottery

technology, though it remains debatable whether this provides sufficient

support for Schlotzhauer’s hypothesis of a possible collaboration of Greek

and Egyptian potters at Naukratis. The converse phenomenon of a ‘double’

Bes jug, perhaps inspired by Ionian double (and triple) vessels, however,

might lend some additional credence to the idea (Schlotzhauer 2012, 192–

3 no. Nau 17, pl. 39b‒c, cf. also the chapter on Egyptian Late Period

pottery, fig. 11)

77

For the use of red slip and pebble burnishing in Egyptian Late Period pottery, see the chapter on Egyptian Late Period pottery; cf. also Aston and Aston 2010, 4–5; Defernez 2002, 241–3. 78

Ibid. 79

E.g. Rhodes (Musée du Louvre, A 336), associated through chemical clay analyses with possible Rhodian production: Coulié and Filimonos-Tsopotou 2014, 116–17, 305 no. 174.

Figure 59 Fragment of cup, 6th century BC, excavated near the

Hellenion in 2014, exc. no. N14.1.5.3. SCA storeroom at Kom

Firin

Figure 60 Alabastron, 6th–5th century BC. Warrington Museum &

Art Gallery, 1888.57.153 Photograph © Courtesy of Warrington

Museum & Art Gallery. Photographer François Leclère, British

Museum






5. Greek-style pottery: the Egyptian

context

New research, both archaeological and scientific, over the past few

decades has transformed our picture of the local pottery production of

Naukratis and has finally begun to provide a solid footing for analysing its

development in the light of Naukratis’ role as a mixed trading community.

While only a few decorated and inscribed examples of local Greek-style

pottery have survived, output was originally significantly more substantial,

notably with regard to undecorated table and household wares.

Even if it remains difficult to grasp the chemical fingerprint of local

Naukratite pottery (and indeed more difficult than previously hoped for, with

NAA group QanN comprising not just Naukratis but also other Nile Delta

sites), Naukratis remains the most probable production centre for Greek-

style pottery found in Egypt, as the main findspot of such pottery and the

only well-attested Greek settlement in the Nile Delta where archaeological

finds confirm local craft production of various kinds relatively soon after its

foundation.

Local Naukratite production of Greek-style pottery is attested from early in

the 6th century BC, almost certainly earlier than the date of 580/70 BC

suggested by Schlotzhauer (2012, 64). The enterprise appears to have

been an essentially East Greek one, the result of one or more potters and

painters working in Egypt, permanently or seasonally, so as to cater it

seems primarily to the needs of other Greeks, resident or passing. The

range of shapes appears to be considerable, though focused on the East

Greek shapes generally most common in the sanctuaries: plates, cups,

jugs and mixing bowls. Until we have a firmer grasp of the extent to which

this reflects the ancient spectrum and especially of the local production and

consumption of Greek household pottery, it is dangerous to draw wider

conclusions, but the evidence so far further supports the picture of groups

of Greeks living (semi-)permanently at Naukratis from this early period

onwards.

The precise origin of the potters and painters is surprisingly hard to pin

down. As has been set out above (and has been observed already by

Schlotzhauer), both the shapes and the decoration display an eclectic mix

of styles characteristic of several different East Greek regions. In the

Archaic period, the 6th century BC, the Greek potters at Naukratis

produced a range of shapes decorated and undecorated, some of them

perhaps specifically for dedication at the site’s Greek sanctuaries. While

some of the potting at least is fairly accomplished, the decoration is often

simple and the painting sometimes rather inept, suggesting perhaps the

work of a potter otherwise not accustomed to painting, another sign of the

likely small-scale nature of production. That Egyptian potters may have

worked in the same, or neighbouring, workshop is possible, though

evidence remains elusive. The use of pebble-burnishing – unusual for

Greek pottery but common in Egypt – suggests at least awareness on the

part of Greek potters of Egyptian techniques and some degree of advice



from local Egyptian potters regarding local clay beds and fuel supplies is

indeed likely.

For the post-Archaic period evidence is slim, probably to be explained by a

concentration of local workshops on undecorated wares, which were

mostly not collected by early excavators, rather than any (temporary)

cessation of production. That local workshops’ output was prolific certainly

by the Ptolemaic period is hinted at by finds from early excavations and

confirmed by finds from the more recent American fieldwork at Naukratis;

the extant evidence for this period will be discussed in more detail in the

forthcoming chapter on Hellenistic and Ptolemaic pottery.

Greek-style pottery at Naukratis is thus largely an instance of local pottery

production by immigrants for an immigrant community, a phenomenon also

observed at other sites and in other periods. Within Egypt, it has been

suggested for the roughly contemporary ‘Judean juglets’, argued to have

been manufactured by Judean potters for a Judean diaspora community,

as well as for the production of Levantine shapes in earlier periods at Tell

el Dab`a, in which settlers of foreign origins may have been involved.80

Similarly, the well-attested phenomenon of local Egyptian versions of

Persian drinking bowls (e.g. Marchand 2011, 612–13, 626–7 figs 9–10)

may at first have been targeted at Achaemenid households in Egypt, but

may otherwise reflect the phenomenon, attested also elsewhere in the

Aechaemenid world, of a more widespread local adoption of (elite) drinking

custom (Miller 2011; Dusinberre 2013, 136–9). That Late Period Egypt was

indeed receptive to certain foreign elements is attested most clearly by the

case of Cypriot-style mortaria, the local production of which goes back at

least to the 6th century BC and which are attested at numerous sites

especially in Lower Egypt. Likely to have been produced in a number of

centres, finds at Naukratis suggest that local production here, too, is a

possibility, though the clay of the mortaria from Naukratis is certainly

different from that of the regular locally made fine and household wares. As

has been noted above, their widespread presence indicates their

usefulness in contemporary Egyptian practice and could be indicative of

the local adoption of new culinary habits, as part of a process of Egypt

becoming increasingly integrated into the world of the Eastern

Mediterranean. To a more limited extent, the same phenomenon is also

visible in the local imitations of certain Greek shapes that are attested at

several sites: locally made Greek-style transport amphorae from the 6th

century BC and small perfume vessels (lekythoi) from the 5th century BC

onwards. Here it seems the shapes’ status as containers for popular

imported semi-luxuries was presumably the reason for the desire to

replicate them.

Following Alexander’s conquest of Egypt and the Greek administration of

Egypt, from the end of the 4th through to the 3rd centuries BC, Greek

techniques and shapes are adopted more widely across Egypt, including

also the emergence of Greek-influenced painted pottery. At first this co-

existed with old Pharaonic tradition, and later merged into a new ceramic

tradition in which Greek features are reinterpreted in a new and distinctly

local manner (Harlaut 2002; Marchand 2013). Encompassing profound

80

‘Judean juglets’: Holladay 2004, Maeir 2002; Tell el Dab`a: Maguire 1995, Bader 2011.



changes across the repertoire of shapes, including culinary vessels, the

development also appears to have resulted in major changes in local social

and culinary practice (Marchand 2002, 254–5).

What role did Naukratis play in such developments and how was its

production of Greek-style (painted) pottery received in contemporary

Egyptian society and culture? The present state of evidence does not allow

us much room for firm conclusions, although it seems that the phenomena

described are wider and quite independent of the local Naukratite

production of pottery. The Naukratite workshops may have exported some

wares (for example to Tell Dafana), but at present we have no reason to

think that their output was large, travelled far or influenced local Egyptian

practice, which seems to have drawn inspiration – in shape and technique

– more likely directly from the Greek pottery imports that were now widely

available (and that had, of course, often arrived via Naukratis). In much the

same way, the early Greek potters of Naukratis adapted to local conditions

without necessarily adopting ‘Egyptian’ features in an explicit act of

‘acculturation’.

Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the impact that established

contact and local craft production at Naukratis had on long-term

developments. It was at Naukratis that Greek potters for the first time were

confronted with Egyptian pottery and its traditions and began to work

themselves with local raw materials and adapt their own traditions to local

conditions. It was here that a mixed Greek-Egyptian population over the

centuries developed something of a shared culture, a phenomenon better

attested at present in the production and consumption of figurines, but

undoubtedly traceable also in the local coarse ware pottery if it had been

preserved by earlier excavators. It is these foundations of experience and

exchange that later craftsmen and populations could draw on when cross-

cultural contact expanded in Ptolemaic Egypt.

Documents

Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt - British Museum Locally produced Archaic and Classical Greek pottery Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt | 3 To date no pottery has been identified that matches