Naukratis:

Greek Diversity
in Egypt
Studies on East Greek Pottery and
Exchange in the Eastern
Mediterranean

Edited by Alexandra Villing and

Udo Schlotzhauer
The British Museum Research Publication Number 162

Publishers
The British Museum
Great Russell Street
London WC1B 3DG

Series Editor
Dr Josephine Turquet

Distributors
The British Museum Press
46 Bloomsbury Street
London WC1B 3QQ

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern
Mediterranean
Edited by Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer
Front cover: Fragment of North Ionian black-figure amphora (?) from
Naukratis. British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1282 (Vase B 102.33)

ISBN-13 978-086159-162-6
ISBN-10 086159-162-3
ISSN 0142 4815
© The Trustees of the British Museum 2006

Note: the British Museum Occasional Papers series is now entitled

British Museum Research Publications.The OP series runs from
1 to 150, and the RP series, keeping the same ISSN and ISBN
preliminary numbers, begins at number 151.

For a complete catalogue of the full range of OPs and RPs see the
series website: www/the britishmuseum.ac.uk/researchpublications
or write to:
Oxbow Books, Park End Place
Oxford OX1 1HN, UK
Tel: (+44) (0) 1865 241249
e mail oxbow@oxbowbooks.com
website www.oxbowbooks.com
or
The David Brown Book Co
PO Box 511, Oakville
CT 06779, USA
Tel: (+1) 860 945 9329;Toll free 1 800 791 9354
e mail david.brown.bk.co@snet.net

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

Contents

Contributors v

Preface vii

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

Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer

I NAUKRATIS: THE SITE, ITS CULTS AND ITS POTTERY

The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations 11

Ursula Höckmann and Astrid Möller

The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta 23

Alan Johnston

‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the 31
Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
Alexandra Villing

Carian Mercenaries at Naukratis? 47

Dyfri Williams and Alexandra Villing

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

The Study of East Greek Pottery 49

John Boardman

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

Udo Schlotzhauer and Alexandra Villing

Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Naukratis and other Related Vessels 69
Hans Mommsen with M.R. Cowell, Ph. Fletcher, D. Hook, U. Schlotzhauer, A. Villing, S. Weber
and D. Williams

Naukratis: Les importations grecques orientales archaiques. 77

Classification et détermination d’origine en laboratoire
Pierre Dupont and Annie Thomas

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

Results and Questions Concerning Dorian Pottery Production
Regina Attula

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

Old Smyrna. Points of Contact with Naukratis
Stavros Paspalas

Chemical Provenance Determination of Pottery: The Example of the 105

Aiolian Pottery Group G
Hans Mommsen and Michael Kerschner
On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery 109
Michael Kerschner

The Chian Pottery from Naukratis 127

Dyfri Williams

Some Observations on Milesian Pottery 133

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

East Greek ‘Situlae‘ from Egypt 145

Sabine Weber with an Appendix: Neutron Activation Analysis Results by H. Mommsen, A. Schwedt,
S. Weber and M.R. Cowell

The Apries Amphora – Another Cartouche 155

Donald Bailey

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

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

Richard Posamentir

Some Ceramic Inscriptions Istrian Sanctuaries: The Naukratis Approach 169

Iulian Bîrzescu

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

Imported Greek Pottery in Archaic Cyrene: The Excavations in the Casa del Propileo 181
Ivan D’Angelo

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

Alessandro Naso

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

Bibliography 209
Contributors

Regina Attula Alexander Fantalkin

Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald Tel Aviv University
Institut für Altertumswissenschaften Department of Archaeology and Ancient
Rudolf-Petershagen-Allee 1 Near Eastern Civilizations
17487 Greifswald Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978
Germany Israel
attula@uni-greifswald.de fantalk@post.tau.ac.il

Donald Bailey Ursula Höckmann

The British Museum Taunusstr. 39
Greek and Roman Department 55118 Mainz
Great Russell Street Germany
London WC1B 3DG u.hoeck@t-online.de
United Kingdom
dmbailey@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk Alan Johnston
Institute of Archaeology
Iulian Bîrzescu University College London
Institute for Archaeology ‘Vasile Pârvan’ of the Romanian 31–34 Gordon Square
Academy London WC1H 0PY
Str. Henri Coanda, nr. 11, sector 1 United Kingdom
010667 Bucharest tcfaawj@ucl.ac.uk
Romania
iulian2@gmail.com Michael Kerschner
Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, ÖAI
John Boardman Franz-Klein-Gasse 1
Ashmolean Museum 1190 Vienna
Beaumont Street Austria
Oxford OX1 2PH Michael.Kerschner@oeai.at
United Kingdom
john.boardman@ashmolean-museum.oxford.ac.uk Astrid Möller
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität
Ivan D'Angelo Seminar für Alte Geschichte
Università di Napoli ‘L'Orientale’ Kollegiengebäude 1
Dipartimento Mondo Classico e Mediterraneo Antico Werthmannplatz
Palazzo Corigliano 79098 Freiburg i. Br.
Piazza S. Domenico Maggiore Germany
80138 Naples Astrid.Moeller@geschichte.uni-freiburg.de
Italy
ivandangelo@tiscali.it Hans Mommsen
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Pierre Dupont and Annie Thomas Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik
CNRS-UMR 5138, Nussallee 14–16
Archéométrie – Archéologie 53115 Bonn
Université Lyon 2 Germany
7, Rue Raulin mommsen@iskp.uni-bonn.de
69365 Lyon CEDEX 7
France
pierre.dupont@mom.fr

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | v

Contributors

Alessandro Naso Udo Schlotzhauer

Università degli Studi del Molise Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, DAI
Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche, Umane e Sociali Eurasien-Abteilung
Via G. de Sanctis, snc Im Dol 2-6, Haus II
86100 Campobasso 14195 Berlin
Italy Germany
alenaso@tiscalinet.it us@eurasien.dainst.de

Stavros Paspalas Alexandra Villing

Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens The British Museum
Zacharitsa 23 Greek and Roman Department
Koukaki Great Russell Street
11741 Athens London WC1B 3DG
Greece United Kingdom
spas2266@mail.usyd.edu.au avilling@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk

Richard Posamentir Sabine Weber

Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, DAI Walkmühlstr. 6
Abteilung Istanbul 65195 Wiesbaden
Gümüssuyu/Ayapasa Camii Germany
Sok. 48 SWeber3@web.de
34437 Istanbul
Turkey Dyfri Williams
posamentir@istanbul.dainst.org The British Museum
Greek and Roman Department
Gerry Schaus Great Russell Street
Wilfrid Laurier University London WC1B 3DG
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies United Kingdom
75 University Avenue West dwilliams@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk
Waterloo, Ontario
N2L 3C5
Canada
gschaus@wlu.ca

vi | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Preface
This volume has its origin in a workshop on Naukratis and East
Greek pottery held at the British Museum in December 2004 as
the 28th British Museum Classical Colloquium, the result of a
collaboration between the British Museum and members of the
Naukratis Project of SFB 295 at the Gutenberg-Universität
Mainz. Made possible by the generosity of the Gerda-Henkel-
Stiftung and the Caryatid Group of the British Museum’s Greek
and Roman Department, to whom we extend our gratitude, the
workshop brought together archaeologists, historians and
scientists with the aim of generating a fruitful discussion and
exchange of ideas and knowledge to further our understanding
of the site of Naukratis in its wider, Eastern Mediterranean
context. As it emerged, the scientific analysis of pottery samples
taken both at the British Museum and elsewhere proved
particular vital for many results presented here. To a large extent
this was made possible by subsidies from the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft, by the personal interest of Professor
Hans Mommsen of the Helmholtz-Institut, Friedrich-Wilhelm-
Universität Bonn and the various other individuals, excavations
and institutions that allowed material in their care to be
analysed, and by the generous help of the staff of the
Department of Conservation, Documentation and Science of the
British Museum, notably Mike Cowell and Duncan Hook.
As editors, we have greatly enjoyed working with such
knowledgeable, reliable and responsive colleagues as have come
together for the present volume. The collaborative spirit that
pervades the volume has its roots in the stimulating discussion
and collaborative ambience of the workshop, which led to
further exchanges well beyond the confines of the actual
gathering. We are grateful to all participants, who made it such
an exceptionally productive experience. The contributions
assembled in this volume reflect this ongoing research and
discourse, which has helped the volume to be, we hope, not just
a gathering of individual papers but more a thematically linked
whole.
Many people have contributed to making the workshop, the
related research and this volume possible. On the Mainz side,
we would like to thank in particular Sabine Weber (Mainz) for
her vital input in the workshop and related research, and Ursula
Höckmann and Detlev Kreikenbom (Mainz), Naukratis project
leaders within SFB 295 – Kreikenbom for his support in
organising the financing of the workshop, and Höckmann for
much help and constant openness to discussions.
On the British Museum side, we would like to thank in
particular Dyfri Williams, Keeper of the Greek and Roman
Department, for making the workshop possible and for his
unfailing support throughout; all colleagues in Greek and
Roman Department and the Educational AV unit for help with
organising the workshop; colleagues in the Department of
Ancient Egypt and Sudan, especially Jeffrey Spencer and Neal
Spencer, as well as in the Middle East Department, for helpful
discussions and access to objects; Lesley Fitton, Susan
Woodford, Mira Hudson, Bárbara Freitas, Sara Cambeta and
Sotiria Papastavrou for help with proof-reading; Kate Morton
for producing two wonderful new maps and several profile
drawings; the British Museum’s Photography and Imaging
Department, especially Dudley Hubbard, for producing new
photographs of objects at short notice; Lindy Crewe for help
with image editing; John Boardman for encouragement and the
donation of his invaluable Naukratis archive to the British
Museum; and last but not least Josephine Turquet for producing
the volume sympathetically and efficiently as ever.
Editorial note
For Greek names a Greek spelling has been retained wherever it
was deemed not too unusual for the eye, which invariably
means there will be considerable inconsistencies (such as
Klazomenai and Aiolis but Cyrene and Laconia).
A joint bibliography can be found at the end of the volume.
Journals have been abbreviated after the guidelines of the
American Journal of Archaeology. Some additional abbreviations
are used, such as NAA for neutron activation analysis. Stylistic
phases in the development of East Greek pottery from various
regions have been abbreviated (e.g. as NiA I = North Ionian
Archaic I; MileA II = Milesian Archaic II) according to the new
system set out in Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
The order in which the contributions are arranged was in
part determined by the practical necessities of printing the
colour sections.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | vii
Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean:
Past, Present and Future
Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer
The Greek trading port of Naukratis in the Egyptian Nile Delta
would have been a bustling harbour town in the Archaic period,
the Shanghai of ancient Egypt, as Thomas Brown once put it.1
Greek ships docked here to sell Greek silver, wine and oil to
Egyptians in exchange for linen, papyrus, grain, natron, and
other goods. Greek traders deposited gifts in the local
sanctuaries and stopped over with the local hetairai, whose
famous beauty must have turned the head of many a sailor, not
just, notoriously, that of the wine trader Charaxos from Lesbos,
Figure 1a The eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea
brother of Sappho (Hdt. 2.135).
The people of Archaic Naukratis, their cults and their trade,
their relations with Egypt and their links with Greece, Cyprus
and Phoenicia, and particularly their pottery – its use, its
production centres in the East Greek world, and its distribution –
are at the heart of the present volume, which arose out of a
conference/workshop held at the British Museum late in 2004.
This focus is reflected in the division of the volume into three
main parts: the site itself and its cults; the pottery of Naukratis
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 1
Villing and Schlotzhauer
Figure 1b East Greece
and its production centres; and the position of Naukratis in the
wider context of trade and exchange in the Archaic
Mediterranean. Revisiting old material, publishing recent
fieldwork in East Greece, North Africa and the Black Sea, and
presenting the latest research and analyses, the contributions
assembled here make clear what advances have been made in all
those areas over the past few decades.
This introductory essay aims to set the scene for the volume.2
It is not a summary of the chapters it contains (abstracts
prefacing each contribution give easy access to the main topics
and results of each article), but rather introduces, connects and
considers some of the key questions relating to the site of
Naukratis and its position in the Eastern Mediterranean web of
contacts during the Archaic period; in doing so it draws on,
expands and links up in different ways the evidence and insights
provided by the various contributions. The more specific and
specialist insights relating to the pottery from Naukratis and its
production centres are summarised and contextualised in
greater detail in an overview essay at the beginning of section II.
Naukratis, 120 years after Petrie
Relations between Greece and Egypt go back a long time. In the
Bronze Age contacts between the Minoan Cretans and Egypt are
amply attested,3 and the Minoans and Myceneans who had
settled on the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean, at sites such
as Miletos, also attracted the Egyptians’ attention: Ionians are
for the first time depicted among subject states at time of
Amenophis III (1403–1364 bc).4 But after a long break it was only
in the 7th century bc that significant contacts again developed.
2 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 2 Naukratis from the late 7th to 3rd centuries BC
Both East Greek and Carian mercenaries played a significant
role in the Egyptian army of the 26th Dynasty,5 having been first
dispatched presumably following the alliance between
Psammetichos I and the Lydian king Gyges in 662/1 bc, some
even reaching advanced levels of command within their own
‘foreigners’’ branch of the army and navy. Integration into
Egyptian society can be witnessed particularly in the region of
Memphis, where intermarriage and adoption of Egyptian names
and burial customs are recorded.6 In return, East Greek
sanctuaries received ‘diplomatic’ gifts from the Egyptian
pharaohs, and Egyptian goods and influence began to infiltrate
Greece and the wider Mediterranean world.
Naukratis at this time was one of the main intersection
points between the Greek and Egyptian worlds(Fig. 1a).
According to Herodotus (2.178-9), it had been established at the
instigation of the Pharaoh Amasis by 12 Greek cities, mostly
located in East Greece (Fig. 1b), to act as a gateway for trade
between Greece and Egypt:
Amasis favoured the Greeks and granted them a number of
privileges, of which the chief was the gift of Naukratis as a
commercial headquarters for any who wished to settle in the
country. He also made grants of land upon which Greek traders, who
did not want to live permanently in Egypt, might erect altars and
temples. Of these latter the best known and most used – and also the
largest – is the Hellenion; it was built by the joint efforts of the
Ionians of Chios, Teos, Phokaia, and Klazomenai, of the Dorians of
Rhodes, Knidos, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis, and of the Aiolians of
Mytilene. It is to these states that the temple belongs, and it is they
who have the right of appointing the officers in charge of the port.
Other cities which claim a share in the Hellenion do so without
justification; the Aiginetans, however, did build a temple of Zeus
 Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future
Figure 3 Petrie’s excavations at Naukratis; a) Sir Flinders Petrie, c. 1886;
b) the mound of Naukratis during Petrie’s excavations; c) finds of Greek
architectural fragments
separately, the Samians one in honour of Hera, and the Milesians
another in honour of Apollo. In old days Naukratis was the only port
in Egypt, and anyone who brought a ship into any of the other
mouths of the Nile was bound to state on oath that he did so of
necessity and then proceed to the Canopic mouth; should contrary
winds prevent him from doing so, he had to carry his freight to
Naukratis in barges all round the Delta, which shows the exclusive
privilege the port enjoyed. (tr. A. de Sélincourt)
Over 120 years ago, in 1884, Sir William Flinders Petrie
discovered the remains of ancient Naukratis (Fig. 2) in the
Western Nile Delta on the Canopic branch of the Nile and
identified it correctly as the site mentioned by Herodotus.
Petrie’s first excavation campaign in 1884/5 (Figs 3a–d) at once
uncovered rich remains relating to the Greek presence at the
site; the sanctuaries of Apollo, Hera (originally identified as a
palaistra), and of the Dioskouroi, along with the Scarab Factory
and the Great Temenos (believed by Petrie to be the Hellenion)
were excavated. Even if quite advanced for their time,
excavations were by modern standards somewhat chaotic,
conducted under difficult circumstances and in a constant race
against the sebakhin, locals digging up soil for use as fertilisers
on fields (cf. Fig. 4e).7 Work was continued in 1885/6 by Ernest
A. Gardner on behalf of Petrie. Gardner further excavated the
sanctuaries of Apollo, Hera, and the Dioskouroi, and discovered
the sanctuary of Aphrodite. Some years later, David Hogarth of
the British School at Athens, in 1899 and 1903, concentrated on
the Hellenion and the Great Temenos (Figs 4a–d).8 More
recently, an American expedition led by W.D.E. Coulson und A.
Leonard in the 1970s and 80s set out to re-study Naukratis.
Unfortunately, although their surveys and excavations shed
much light on the post-Archaic site, its gradual destruction and
the great lake that now covers the site of early Naukratis made it
impossible to follow truly in the footsteps of Petrie.9
Research on Archaic Naukratis thus has to remain based on
the finds of the old excavations. The four seasons of fieldwork
produced much material evidence for the history of the site,
while additional material was collected by travellers. Altogether
these finds are vital evidence for the history of the Greek
diaspora around the Mediterranean, for relations between
Greeks and Egyptians, and for contacts and trade in the Eastern
Mediteranean in general.
Yet in spite of the considerable importance of the site and the
continuing scholarly interest it has attracted, no comprehensive
publication of the surviving material from Naukratis has ever
been attempted, a fact that has severely hampered scholarly
study of the site. Petrie’s and Gardner’s publications of finds
were a model of speed, and the results of Hogarth’s excavations
were also soon put into print.10 But neither were comprehensive,
according to Petrie’s famous motto ‘half a loaf is better than no
bread’.11 This situation would be less of a problem were it not for
a further complicating factor: as the earlier excavation project
was funded through subscriptions to the Egypt Exploration
Fund, the material from the site was distributed among
subscribers; material from Hogarth’s excavations, too, was
spread among various collections, while further material was
collected by private individuals. As a result, the finds are now
shared between some 40 museums and collections all over the
world – even though the largest part of this, some 50%, is held
by the British Museum.12 An additional handicap is the skewed
nature of the preserved sample of material and the uncertainty
about what was discarded already on site, an issue addressed in
more detail by Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, the site, and in particular
its pottery, has attracted much scholarly attention over the past
120 years: one only needs to mention E.R. Price’s study and
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 3
Villing and Schlotzhauer
Marjory Venit’s work on the Greek pottery from Naukratis, or
Bernand’s catalogue of the pottery inscriptions in Le delta
égypties d’après les textes grecs. From a wider perspective, several
authors attempted an evaluation of the history and significance
of Naukratis, such as von Bissing in 1951 and John Boardman in
his seminal work on The Greeks Overseas, indispensable still for
the study of early Greco-Egyptian relations.13 More recently, a
crucial analysis of Naukratis and its role as a trading port was
published in 2000 by Astrid Möller, spawning ongoing fruitful
discussions, such as in a colloquium at Lyons dedicated to
Naukratis.14 A year after Möller’s study, the proceedings of the
1999 Naukratis Colloquium at the Johannes Gutenberg-
Universität in Mainz, appeared, adding further aspects to our
understanding of the history and material culture of the Greeks
4 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 4 Hogarth’s excavations at Naukratis: a) Hogarth on the excavation; b)
excavation and village; c) ‘Pavement of Artemis shrine?’; d) ‘Pedestal vase in situ,
Edgar holding the pieces’; e) Sebakhin at Naukratis
and Carians in Egypt. The colloquium had been held under the
auspices of the Mainz Naukratis Project, led by Ursula
Höckmann, which between 1997 and 2003 made much progress
in cataloguing and studying various types of Greek material at
Naukratis with a focus on acculturation phenomena. Numerous
subsequent articles and three forthcoming volumes present
further results of the project.15 Still ongoing is the work on the
database originally set up by the Mainz Naukratis Project and
continued by the British Museum, which will eventually allow
an overview of the material held by different museums and
collections. The present volume, too, is a result of the British
Museum’s collaboration with the Mainz group, and a starting
point for future research into the extraordinary trading port that
was Naukratis.
 Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future
Life at Naukratis: Greeks and Egyptians
It has long been recognised that the material evidence from
Naukratis dates back to the latter part of the 7th century bc, the
time of the reign of Psammetichos I. Greek objects (notably
pottery) first appear in Egypt around the middle or even the last
third of the of the 7th century bc,16 and the earliest finds at
Naukratis of Greek pottery – Corinthian, Attic, East Greek and
Carian (cf. Williams and Villing, this volume) – seem to confirm
this.
It remains difficult, however, to reconcile this material
evidence with the account in Herodotus which appears to
ascribe the foundation of Naukratis to Amasis. Even if there is no
unanimous consensus, it is agreed by most scholars17 that
Naukratis must have been founded during Psammetichos’ reign,
presumably under the leadership of the Ionian city of Miletos
(and perhaps as one of several trading posts in the Delta), while
a re-organisation under Amasis concentrated Greek trade just on
Naukratis and gave specific status to the other Greek cities
involved in the venture, an interpretation which seems quite
compatible with the wording of Herotodus’ passage quoted
above.18 They were allowed to establish the Hellenion and were
granted the administration of the site through the prostatai tou
emporíou, thus, perhaps, marginalising Miletos – a city which
had been an important supporter of Amasis’ adversary Apries.
While the privileging of Naukratis at the expense of other
trading posts can be seen as granting the site a special favour, it
was also a way of keeping tight control of foreign traders
entering the country, an aspect that may have gained
importance particularly with the nationalist backlash that
followed Apries’ reign.19
As has been realised to its full extent only very recently,
Naukratis was in fact not necessarily the first and only point of
contact for ships entering Egypt in the region of Sais. The
harbour town of Hone (Thonis-Herakleion) guarded the mouth
of the Canopic branch of the Nile as it entered the ‘sea of the
Greeks’, i.e. the Mediterranean, and seems to have been the very
first port of call where trade goods were taxed on behalf of the
Egyptian state. This was certainly the situation in the Classical
period, when the stelai20 erected by pharaoh Nektanebos I in
Naukratis and Thonis-Herakleion specify that one tenth of taxes
on imports passing through Thonis-Herakleion and on all
transactions and local production of goods at Naukratis (Pi-
emrôye) should be given to Neith of Sais. Yet it may have applied
already to the late 7th century or 6th centuries bc, as finds from
Thonis-Herakleion date back to at least the 6th century bc,21
thus raising new questions concerning the status of both sites
and their relationship.
What seems clear, however, is that Naukratis and Thonis-
Herakleion must have had a close relationship at least from an
Egyptian point of view, and both must have been guarded
closely by Egyptian officials, like any other point of intersection
with foreign lands. During the Saite period, officials known as
‘Overseer of the gate of the Foreign Lands of the Great Green’
(i.e. the Mediterranean) would have been in charge of securing
the borders as well as – as suggested by Posener – administrating
trade taxes,22 and it seems likely that the administration of both
sites reported to them, even if under the prostatai tou emporíou
Naukratis can be assumed to have had autonomy at least in
some regards. Just how strong an Egyptian presence would have
been at Naukratis in the Archaic period remains uncertain.23 The
early excavators reported that in the southern part of the site
only Egyptian objects were found, but it seems that these were
mostly of Hellenistic date. Similarly, the Great Mound within the
Great Temenos (identified originally by Petrie as a stronghold
and storage building identical with the Hellenion) is now
predominantly considered a ‘high temple’ in a temenos built in
the 4th century bc under Nektanebos I for Amun of Batet,24
although the possibility that it was a much earlier fort for an
Egyptian garrison established by Psammetichos I (and restored
by Ptolemy) is still maintained by some.25 Others have suggested
that Naukratis was originally an Egyptian settlement,26 whose
name Pi-emroye (or Pr-mryt, ‘the Harbour/Port House’), used for
Naukratis on the stelai erected by Nektanebos I in Naukratis and
Heraklion/Thonis27 as well as in several other hieroglyphic and
demotic inscriptions,28 was in fact the town’s original name.
Aristagoras of Miletos29 even mentions an Egyptian settlement
on the opposite side of the river to Naukratis at the time of its
foundation, but no archaeological trace of this has been located
to date.
Nevertheless, we surely must assume at least some
administrative and policing staff as well as interpreters (cf. Hdt.
2.154). Archaic Egyptian inscriptions (of unknown provenance),
one referring to the renewal of a donation connected with the
temple of Amon-Re Batet (assumed to be in Naukratis) and the
other to a man from Naukratis,30 indeed seem to point to
resident Egyptians at Naukratis,31 and there may have been
Egyptians involved in the local scarab workshop, too.32
Fragments of 6th-century bc Egyptian pottery (Schlotzhauer
and Villing Fig. 41),33 even if rare in the known extant record,
may well have belonged to such Egyptian residents. Only further
study of the Egyptian remains from the site may ultimately shed
more light on the question of Egyptians at Naukratis and on the
level of direct interaction between Greeks and Egyptians at
Naukratis itself.34
The presence of Greeks in the Archaic period, by contrast, is
amply attested, at least in terms of pottery, if not in architectural
remains (cf. Fig. 3c),35 Of course, the evidence is largely
confined to Greek sanctuaries, with the temenos of Apollo and
the sanctuary of Aphrodite going back to the earliest period of
the site, and the Hellenion to the time of Amasis,36 and it thus
remains unclear what proportion of Greeks actually
permanently lived at the site compared to the proportion of
traders who only passed through the port and deposited their
votives along the way. The excavated cemetery at the site seems
to cover merely the Classical and Hellenistic periods (although a
dinos stand [?] perhaps of 6th century bc date is also said to
have been found there).37 Similarly, no firm evidence has been
recorded for Archaic living quarters, apart from Petrie’s record
of some some Archaic finds in the area of the houses, even
though these must have existed, both on the evidence of
Herodotus talking of Greeks settling down and living
permanently in Naukratis, and the existence in Archaic times of
presumably not just seasonal workshops. The latter produced
scarabs and faience, perhaps also terracotta figurines, alabastra,
floral garlands and some sculpture, as well as, as is more fully
discussed by Schlotzhauer and Villing in this volume, pottery in
an East Greek style, at least from the time of Amasis onwards.
As has been remarked by many scholars before, the profile of
the Greek pottery finds in Naukratis is well matched to the
literary account of the founding cities of the emporion, with
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 5
Villing and Schlotzhauer
pottery from Ionia, Aiolis and the East Dorian region much in
evidence, a picture reflected also in various contributions in the
present volume (for a summary see Schlotzhauer and Villing,
this volume). The presence of Greek pottery from elsewhere –
Attica, Laconia, Corinth – matches the profile at Archaic East
Greek sites and reflects the general pattern of pottery trade in
the Archaic Mediterranean. The study of the pottery
inscriptions, too, currently undertaken by Alan Johnston,
essentially confirms this picture; once completed, it will provide
a more complete understanding of the relative chronology and
ritual life of the various sanctuaries. The study has already
significantly expanded the range of dedicators and the number
of pieces inscribed by each, in ceramic texts totalling well over
2500, yet it remains true that only a few visitors to the
sanctuaries seem to have come from further afield: some
possibly Lydian and Carian names can now be added to the
already-known single Phoenician graffito (Schlotzhauer and
Villing Fig. 24) and the two Cypriot graffiti of Classical date
(Höckmann and Möller Fig. 6).38
In general, the cultic life of Archaic Naukratis presents itself
as similar to that in the (East) Greek home cities, from where
most cults were filiated and most pottery imported. East Greek
decorated plates, for example, are much in evidence and
presumably served as display pieces, similar to votive pinakes,39
even if – as is the case with East Dorian plates with marine
motifs discussed here by R. Attula (Attula Figs 6-11) – not all
types of such plates are present. A particularly close connection
with the homeland can be witnessed in the import of specially
made crockery from the Samian homeland for sacred meals:
mugs and cups with dipinti to Hera (Villing and Schlotzhauer
Figs 14-17) of exactly the same type as have been found in large
numbers in the Samian Heraion appear in the sanctuary of Hera
at Naukratis, a Samian foundation (Hdt 2.178),40 and clay
analysis by Hans Mommsen shows that they were produced
with the same clay as the numerous examples found on Samos.
Other instances of commissioning of pottery from back home
specifically for use and/or dedication in a specific sanctuary at
Naukratis are also attested. A dipinto on a North Ionian LWG
large cup, for example, designates it specifically for ‘Aphrodite at
Naukratis’; it may have functioned as a mixing bowl in
communal drinking rites.41 Chian chalices, too, carry bespoke
votive dipinti: those by Aigyptis and Mikis (or –mikis) have been
taken by Dyfri Williams to have been commissioned
(presumably through intermediate traders or travelling
acquaintances) by some of the famous hetairai resident at
Naukratis,42 while the Chian/Aiginetan pair of traders
Aristophantos and Damonidas43 presumably brought their
chalices to Naukratis in person (Johnston Fig. 1). The actual
presence of the dedicant at the sanctuary is also indicated by an
interesting fragment (Johnston Fig. 9) that shows that
transport across the seas might occasionally result in damage: a
large Chian chalice with a painted pre-firing dedication by a
…]mides has the mu incised at a point where the slip had peeled
away, suggesting that the dedicator must have repaired the
damage on the spot.
Much of this inscribed as well as most of the uninscribed
decorated pottery consists of drinking vessels and mixing bowls
and – as in most Greek sanctuaries – must have been used in
communal rites in the sanctuaries. Even undecorated coarse
bowls, mortaria, presumably used for the preparation of sacred
6 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
meals in Apollo’s cult, frequently bear votive inscriptions (cf.
Villing, this volume). It is not difficult to imagine that communal
ritual meals must have been of particular importance in a place
like Naukratis, where Greeks were gathered in a foreign
environment and where cult was one way of re-enforcing a
communal spirit and identity, and where the gods were,
moreover, vital in ensuring the success of voyages and trade
ventures. Ritual dining to further social and political cohesion is
perhaps most prominently associated with feasting for Apollo
Komaios, who was honoured by a symposium in the
prytaneion.44 The prytaneion may have been located inside the
Hellenion (Höckmann and Möller Fig. 2), the common
sanctuary set up by the joint efforts of nine poleis, presumably
following the reorganisation of Naukratis by the pharaoh Amasis
around 570 bc. Here, as Höckmann and Möller conclude in the
present volume, all three ethnic groups of Hellenes together
worshipped the Greek gods and organized the administration
for their emporion – a statement of their Hellenic, East Greek
identity in the face of a foreign, Egyptian environment.
Naukratis and trade in the Archaic Mediterranean
Naukratis was, of course, not the only Greek emporion situated
in a foreign environment, but one trading post among many in
the Archaic Mediterranean, with manifold connections to other
sites and with many of its features being paralleled, to some
extent, at other sites.
For Cyrene, further west along the Mediterranean coast of
Africa, Gerry Schaus and Ivan D’Angelo in their contributions to
the present volume note that, as at Naukratis, finds include little
7th and much 6th century bc pottery, notably of North Ionian
and Chian, as well as South Ionian, provenance. Schaus suggests
that Chian traders first came to Naukratis and then went on to
Cyrene, and that Fikellura pottery, too, reached Cyrene on the
back of trade to Naukratis, alongside, possibly, faience, scarabs
and alabaster alabastra of Naukratite production. All this would
presuppose the existence of a coastal trade route connecting
Naukratis with Cyrene, in addition to the well-known sea route
via Crete, a possibility also raised by Ivan D’Angelo in his study
of pottery from domestic contexts in Cyrene, which
complements the picture of the sanctuary pottery discussed by
Schaus. There are, however, also distinctive differences between
the pottery profiles of Naukratis and Cyrene. For example, no
early Attic pottery has as yet been found in Cyrene – unlike at
Naukratis, which yielded some of the earliest exported Attic
material.45 Could this be explained by the involvement of Aigina
in the foundation of Naukratis? Conversely, the Theran
(D’Angelo Fig. 6), Cycladic and Cretan pottery at Cyrene
demonstrates continuation of contact between colonists and
their Aegean homeland. No pottery of these islands has been
identified at Naukratis, yet the phenomenon of an on-going link
with the mother cities is exactly the same, extending to
otherwise little-exported pottery fabrics such as grey wares from
the Aiolian and Trojan/Lesbian region (Kerschner Fig. 10;
Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 11–13).
Also in the North, on the shores of the Black Sea, Milesian
colonies (with a trading-post element) such as Istros (Histria)
and Berezan – discussed in the present volume by Iulian
Bîrzescu and Richard Posamentir – mirror the strong East Greek
profile in pottery finds that is found at Naukratis. At Berezan, for
example, from about 630 bc onwards, North Ionian, Chian,
 Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future
South Ionian and Aiolian pottery suitable for drinking parties as
well as decorated plates is much in evidence. In the 7th century
bc Milesian, or South Ionian, pottery is predominant, while the
picture changes dramatically in the first half of the 6th century
bc in favour of North Ionian products (Posamentir Figs 3–4) –
the same pattern as has recently been established by Michael
Kerschner for Western Greek colonies.46 Also at Naukratis the
large amount of 6th century bc North Ionian pottery is
remarkable; unlike at Berezan (Posamentir Fig. 11), however,
bird, rosette and other hemispherical bowls seem dwarfed in
numbers by South Ionian cups with everted rim
(‘Knickrandschalen’; Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 21, 23,
27–29) – although we cannot be sure if this might not be due to
their owners being keener to inscribe them, and thus making
them more attractive for the excavators to keep. Finally, unlike
at Naukratis, where a local pottery workshop has now been
established with some certainty (Schlotzhauer and Villing, this
volume), Posamentir’s research suggests that unusual pieces of
pottery from Berezan more likely stem from workshops
established not at Berezan itself but located in another Milesian
colony in the Hellespont area. 47
At Naukratis, as in other Greek sites abroad, a characteristic
mixture of pottery produced in the home cities and elsewhere
can thus be observed. Who brought it here? The mariners who
peddled those wares, or themselves dedicated them in the
sanctuaries, clearly were not always of the same origin as their
cargo. The wide distribution of Athenian and Corinthian
pottery, for example, must be due in no small measure to the
activities of Aiginetan traders, even though evidence such as the
Corinthian dedication on a Corinthian louterion from Chios
(Johnston Fig. 8) also points to the involvement of Corinthians
themselves.48 The distribution of Laconian pottery is presumably
due largely to traders from Aigina and Samos. Similarly, as is
argued in this volume by Michael Kerschner, Aiolian pottery
produced in Kyme (and Larisa?) may well have been traded by
Phokaians. As regards Cypriot mortaria found at Naukratis, as
Alexandra Villing points out in the present volume, they may
have been traded not merely by Cypriots or Phoenicians but also
by Greeks. Unfortunately, the scarce evidence for trade
amphorae among the extant pottery from Naukratis prohibits a
reliable profile of this type of trade to be established; among the
inscribed pieces that were kept by the excavators are several
Cypriot and Chian as well as some Samian, Klazomenian, other
North-Greek, and Corinthian amphorae (e.g. Johnston Figs 14,
21); in addition, amphorae of Phoenician type were found
(cf. Johnston, this volume, and Villing, this volume).
The trading connections of Naukratis thus extended
eastwards beyond the borders of Greece, towards Cyprus and
Phoenicia, and westwards towards Cyrene. As Alessandro Naso
demonstrates in his contribution to the volume, they even
reached as far as Italy, from where several pieces of Etruscan
bucchero pottery reached Naukratis. Again, this does not
necessarily suggest the actual presence of Etruscans, but might
be due to mediation by East Greeks or Aiginetans; a sizable
number of bucchero sherds has, after all, been found in Archaic
Miletos and other East Greek sites as well as on Aigina.
Nevertheless, some degree of contact or trade is attested
between Etruria and Southern Italy and Egypt from the mid-8th
century bc onwards,49 though often probably through Greek and
Phoenician/Cypro-Phoenician or Carthaginian merchants.50
Phoenician and Cypro-Phoenician traders were important
players in the Archaic Mediterranean in general. As Alexander
Fantalkin argues in the present volume, alongside Cypriots and
Euboeans they were instrumental in the renewal of contacts
between Greece and the East in the 10th to 8th centuries bc,
encouraged in their ventures by the Assyrian empire, while from
the 7th century onwards East Greek trade and expansion gained
in importance, supported by Lydian imperial policy. Archaic East
Greece was naturally more a part of the East than the West, but
was also a mediator between the two, while mainland Greece
remained on the margins (a situation, as Fantalkin points out,
that paradoxically turned out to be instrumental in its unique
development towards the ‘Greek miracle’ in the Classical
period).
That Phoenician traders played a role in Egypt, too,
alongside the Greeks, is suggested by Diodorus (1.68.8), who
points out that Greeks and Phoenicians were the main traders
admitted into Egypt since the time of Psammetichos I.
Phoenicians are attested notably in the Eastern part of the Delta
and in the region around Memphis.51 Did they also come to
Naukratis, as some have suggested?52 A single Phoenician
inscription on a cup of East Dorian (Knidian?) production
(Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 24),53 Phoenician-type
amphorae,54 a Phoenician dipinto on a trade amphora,55 and
Classical or later amphorae of Phoenician type with Greek
dipinti56 hardly provide sufficient evidence to assume that
Phoenician traders regularly frequented the port of Naukratis in
the Archaic period, even if, of course, we need to remember that
we do not possess the complete archaeological picture of the
site. The situation is thus somewhat similar to the question of
the presence of Cypriots in Naukratis, where, as is suggested by
Villing in this volume, Archaic Cypriot sculpture, terracotta
figurines, some pottery and few (Classical) inscriptions hardly
suffice to postulate a thriving Cypriot community, even if, as
Schlotzhauer57 once pointed out, occasional visits or even a
handful of residents are not inconceivable.
Archaic Naukratis, in its function as a primarily East Greek
trading post in Egypt, was thus one of several vital points of
contact between the main players of the ancient Mediterranean
and their wide network of connections – a complex web of trade
routes that linked the whole Mediterranean in the Archaic
period, from East Greece to the Phoenician coast, Cyprus,
mainland Greece, the Nile Delta, North Africa, Sardinia, Etruria,
and Spain. More specifically, it connected the two great
civilisations of Greece and Egypt. What impact did this role have
on the Greeks at Naukratis, on the Greeks back home, and on
the Egyptians?
Greece and Egypt: Naukratis as cultural crossroads
As far as can be judged from the limited research done to date, in
spite of the influx of numerous Greeks into Saite Egypt, the
Egyptian adoption of Greek elements of culture in the Archaic
period seems to have remained rather limited.58 This is
exemplified by the relative lack of interest in painted Greek
symposion pottery, so popular in many other regions of the
ancient world but only rarely found in Egyptian contexts.59 Only
transport amphorae were valued not only for their original
contents but also as convenient containers for re-use (Hdt. 3.5-7
– note also the Chian amphora from Tell Defenneh with sealings
of Amasis: Johnston Fig. 18).
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 7
Villing and Schlotzhauer
In the other direction, the case was different. Life in Egypt
certainly did not fail to make an impression on the Ionian and
Carian soldiers in the pay of the pharaoh, and a considerable
degree of acculturation is manifested by the adoption of
Egyptian motifs and their mixing with Greek/Carian traditions
on the grave stelai of Saqquara.60 Carians and Ionians might
marry Egyptian women, adopt Egyptian names, be involved in
Egyptian cults61 and adopt Egyptian burial customs. Inhumation
in a completely Egyptian style is attested, for example, in the late
7th century bc for the son of Alexikles and Zonodote at Tell el-
Nebesheh(?); he even adopted an Egyptian name, Wah-ib-Re-
em-ahet.62
Returning from Egypt to their home cities (be it permanently
or for a visit), both mercenaries and traders, as well as possibly
craftsmen, not only brought with them Egyptian goods to
dedicate in the local sanctuaries63 (most conspicuous is the
Egyptian statue dedicated by Pedon at Priene in the late 7th
century bc)64 but also tales of the grandeur of Egyptian temples,
Egyptian painting, Egyptian cult and ideas of the afterlife that
were to leave a profound influence on those who heard them.
For example, as Bilge Hürmüzlü has established recently, the
Egyptian idea of the preservation of the body for the afterlife
may well be responsible for the introduction at Archaic
Klazomenai of inhumation in general and of Egyptian-style
sarcophagi in particular, a phenomenon that seems paralleled
also in Archaic Samos.65 Such a change is a fundamental
transformation of beliefs, not a mere superficial fad, and testifies
to the profundity of Egyptian influence on Eastern Greeks.
Equally significantly, Egyptian architecture and technology
proved fundamental for the development of (East) Greek
monumental architecture, such as it is found at Didyma or on
Samos,66 and sculpture, such as the monumental lions of
Egyptian type at Didyma67 – part of a shared culture of
monumentalisation, used not least for political ends.68 Perhaps
the most successful of these developments was of course the
kouros and kore motif.69 Beyond the realm of art, we also find
Egyptian ideas in cosmology or philosophy.70 Phenomena such
as the popularity of Egyptian amulets – scarabs and faience71 –
further demonstrate the appeal exerted by Egyptian ideas of
divine protection on the wider Mediterranean world, which at
the time amost seems to have been in the grip of some
‘Egyptomania’.72
That the deep impression made by Egyptian ideas also
extended to the medium of Greek pottery is suggested, for
example, by the Laconian Arkesilas cup (Schaus Fig. 1); as is set
out by Schaus in the present volume, its depiction of the king of
Cyrene overseeing the weighing of goods seems to have been
influenced by the Egyptian iconography of the weighing of
hearts (souls) on entry in the afterlife (Schaus Figs 2–3). In East
Greek vase-painting, too, Egyptian motifs appear: we find them
on a Fikellura (MileA II) fragment from Naukratis depicting the
mythical Egyptian king Bousiris;73 on the amphora from Saqqara
featuring a typically Egyptian way of representing bull’s horns
mentioned by John Boardman in this volume; in the falcon on
the nb basket and the stick-fighters on the situlae from Tell
Defenneh discussed in this volume by Sabine Weber (Weber
Figs 16–17); and, perhaps most obviously, in the band of
cartouches on the Apries amphora from Thebes examined in this
volume by Donald Bailey (Bailey Figs 1-5). Representations of
black Africans, such as on the (North-Ionian?) fragment from
8 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Naukratis (book cover), must also ultimately derive from
contacts with Africa.
With most of these representations having been found in
Egypt, it is tempting to suspect that they were locally produced
by Greeks in Egypt. Yet as will emerge from the various
discussions and analyses in the present volume, on balance and
on present evidence it seems more likely that most of these
pieces were produced in various East Greek centres. If so, they
were clearly produced with Egypt in mind, quite possibly
commissioned, even though for what client and what precise
purpose remains unclear: a symposium, a dedication in a
sanctuary, a prize, a gift?74 What will also emerge, however, is
that there was indeed some local production of East Greek style
pottery in Naukratis (Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 30–40).
What is surprisingly at first glance, however, is that there is
nothing at all Egyptian about this pottery, beyond the use of the
local clay. Shapes and decoration are all Ionian, even if rather
idiosyncratic – no cartouches, here, or Egyptian symbols.75 This
contrasts sharply with the adoption of Egyptian funerary ideas
by Carians and Ionians at Saqqara, and also with the influence
of such ideas in East Greek cities and the adoption of Egyptian
iconography in some East Greek pottery, but also, in Naukratis
itself, with the mixture of Egyptian and Greek motifs in at least
some products of the Naukratis scarab workshop. It thus seems
that the (East) Greek inhabitants of Naukratis admitted
Egyptian influence only selectively into their material culture,
and, at least in their pottery production, were more intent on
expressing and re-enforcing their Greek identity, similar to the
way a certain common (East) Greek administrative and cultic
identity was shaped in the Hellenion (Höckmann and Möller,
this volume). Rather than uniformly encourage acculturation
and exchange, the special position of Naukratis, an (East) Greek
enclave closely controlled by Egyptians but not integrated into
Egyptian society, in fact seems to have encouraged a drawing
together and re-enforcement of a Hellenic identity precisely in
opposition to the surrounding Egyptian environment.
Frequently paralleled in expatriate communities in the ancient
and modern worlds, this should hardly surprise, yet the lack of
enthusiasm for things Egyptian nevertheless strikes one as
paradoxical at a place that was the very heart of Greek contact
with Egypt and that radiated out Egyptian influence all across
the Greek Mediterranean and beyond.
Illustration credits
Fig. 1 drawing Kate Morton; Fig. 2 drawing Marion Cox, after Möller
2000, fig. 1; Fig. 3a © Egypt Exploration Society; Figs 3b-c © Petrie
Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London, PMAN
2698, 2683; Figs 4a-e courtesy of John Boardman.
Notes
1 Braun 1982, 38.
2 We are grateful to D. Williams, S. Ebbinghaus, S. Woodford, V.
Smallwood and F. Wascheck for comments on the manuscript of this
introduction, to the contributors to the volume for providing
information on various questions; to J. Boardman for kindly
supplying photographs from Hogarth’s excavations, and to S. Quirke
and P. Spencer for identifying and supplying images from Petrie’s
excavations.
3 Karetsou 2000.
4 Sourouzian and Stadelmann 2005, 82-3, fig. 6.
5 Cf. especially the extensive discussions by Haider 1988, 1996, 2001,
and Kaplan 2002; see also Williams and Villing, this volume.
6 Cf. Haider 1988, 1996, 2001. For a critical view of Haider’s assessment
of foreigners in the Egyptian army see Pressl 1998.
 Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future
7 Cf. for example Petrie 1886b, 13, on the destruction of a column
fragment from the temple of Apollo, or Gardner 1888, 12-5. On Petrie
and his work, see Drower 1985.
8 The history of the excavations as been summarized most recently by
Leonard 1997, 1-35; cf. also Möller 2000a, 90-2. Only a very brief
account is therefore given here.
9 Coulson 1988, 1996; Coulson and Leonard 1977/8, 1979, 1981a, 1981b,
1982a, 1982b; Coulson et al. 1982; Leonard 1997, 2001.
10 Petrie 1886b; Gardner 1888; Hogarth 1898/9, 1905.
11 Petrie 1888, V.
12 On the history of excavations and distribution of finds, see Cook
1954, 60-1; Bernand 1970, 634-6; Schlotzhauer 2001, 112-13;
Höckmann 2001, V-VI; Kerschner 2001a, 72-4. Research into the
whereabouts of Naukratis material are still ongoing; collections so
far identified are: (in Britain): Bath (Royal Literary and Scientific
Institution); Birmingham; Bolton; Bristol (City Museum and Art
Gallery); Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Museum and Museum of Classical
Archaeology); Dundee (McManus Galleries); Edinburgh; Glasgow
(Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove, and Hunterian Museum and
Art Gallery); Greenock (McLean Museum and Art Gallery);
Liverpool (Liverpool Museum); Harrow School; London (British
Museum, UCL and Petrie-Museum); Macclesfield; Manchester
(Manchester Museum); Newbury (West Berkshire Museum);
Newcastle upon Tyne (Hancock Museum); Nottingham (Brewhouse
Yard, Museum of Nottingham Life); Oxford (Ashmolean Museum);
Reading (Ure Museum); St Helens (The World of Glass); Southport
(Atkinson Art Gallery); (elswhere): Dublin (Department of
Classics); Amsterdam (Allard Pierson Museum – from Coll. v.
Bissing); Den Haag; Leiden (Rijksmuseum – from Coll. v. Bissing);
Brussels (Musées Royaux – from Coll. J. de Mot); Paris (Louvre, from
Coll. Seymour de Ricci); Compiègne; Berlin (Antikensammlung);
Bonn (Akademisches Kunstmuseum – from Coll. v. Bissing);
Heidelberg (Antikenmuseum – from Coll. O. Rubensohn and P.
Gardner); Hildesheim; Karlsruhe; Leipzig (from Cambridge,
Fitzwilliam); Munich (Antikensammlung – from Coll. v. Bissing);
Palermo; Syracuse; Alexandria; Cairo; Athens (BSA; L. Benaki);
Moscow; Boston; Brooklyn; Bryn Mawr; Chautauqua; Chicago;
Clinton/NY (Hamilton College); New York (Metropolitan Museum
of Art – from Coll. E. Price); Philadelphia; San Francisco; Vermont;
Toronto; Sydney (Nicholson Museum). We are grateful to U.
Höckmann (Mainz Naukratis project) and M. Marée (British
Museum, Department of Ancient Egyt and Sudan) for contributing
to this listing.
13 Price 1924; Venit 1982, 1988; Bernand 1970; Bissing 1951; Boardman
1999.
14 Möller 2000a; several contributions in TOPOI 12/13, 2005.
15 Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001. Ursula Höckmann examined the
Kouroi of limestone and alabaster, Gabriele Nick the small scale
sculpture, Wolfgang Koenigs the remains of architecture from the
sanctuaries at Naukratis, and Sabine Weber und Udo Schlotzhauer
the Archaic Greek pottery from Naukratis and the rest of Egypt. The
results are published in Nick (forthcoming); Höckmann and Koenigs
(forthcoming); Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
16 The fragment of a sub-geometric oinochoe from Memphis is
generally acknowledged to be the earliest preserved fragment:
Weber 2001, 136, pl. 21.1.
17 Pace James 2003 and 2005. On Mediterranean chronologies, see
most recently Nijboer 2005; Tsetskhladze 2006; as well as Fantalkin,
this volume, ns 35, 43, 81.
18 Astrid Möller (2000a, 2001, 2005) in particular has studied the role
Naukratis played as a trading emporion in Egypt and has established
the way it functioned as a port of trade at the intersection between
Egypt and the Mediterranean; her findings do not need be repeated
here (note, however, that she argues against a prominent role of
Miletos: Möller 2001). On the nature of early Greek trade, see most
recently Reed 2004. As Reed argues, early voyaging aristocrats –
such as Sappho’s brother Charaxos, known to have sailed to
Naukratis with a load of Lesbian wine – are unlikely to have engaged
in trade as a regular activity but might have used it as a means of
financing ‘sightseeing’ voyages – like the Athenian Solon, said to
have travelled to Egypt ‘both on business and to see the country’
(Arist. [Ath. Pol.]). The growth of dedicated trade, by independent
and agent traders, from the last third of the 7th century bc onwards,
may well be reflected in the developments at Naukratis as attested by
Herodotus.
19 Cf. Pébarthe 2005, 172; Bresson 2005; Carrez-Maratray 2005.
20 Leonard 1997, 13; J. Yoyotte in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 316-23.
21 Goddio and Clauss 2006, 92-9; J. Yoyotte in Goddio and Clauss 2006,
316-23; D. Fabre in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 289-303. Finds suggest
that the town existed from the 26th Dynasty onwards; they include
East Greek trade amphorae as well as East Greek and Corinthian
fine-ware pottery: C. Grataloup in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 332-49.
22 Cf. Pressl 1998, 70-3; Posener 1947; cf. also Austin 1970, 27-8; Carrez-
Maratray 2005, 202-3. The post is attested from the time of
Psammetichos II; under Amasis it was filled by Nachthorheb, whose
statue is preserved (Vittmann 2003, 220-1, fig. 111). It was
complemented by an ‘Overseer of the gate to the Foreign Countries
in the North’, who seems to have been in charge of the Eastern Delta
region frequented by Phoenicians, and an ‘Overseer of the gates to
the Foreign Lands of the Temeh’, i.e. Libyans. The interpretation of
the ‘Great Green’ (ouadj our – W3d-wr) as the Mediterranean is still
dominant, in spite of a recent re-interpretation as the Nile Delta
(Vandersleyen 1999).
23 The situation is not helped by the fact that, to date, the Egyptian
finds from Naukratis have not been systematically collected and
studied.
24 Cf. Möller 2000a, 108-13.
25 Hogarth 1898/9, 41-3, 45-6, an interpretation considered likely also
by Spencer 1996, 1999, and Smoláriková 2000. Just how problematic
the archaeological evidence for the site is, is indicated by the fact that
in 1903 Hogarth was not able to find the Great Temenos that Petrie
had recorded in his excavations: Hogarth 1905, 111-12.
26 Discussed most recently by Möller 2001, 5-11.
27 Leonard 1997, 13; J. Yoyotte in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 316-23.
28 Yoyotte 1982/3; 1992.
29 FGrH 608 F 8.
30 Berlin 7780 dating from the reign of Apries (589-70 bc) and St
Petersburg, Hermitage 8499, dating from 554 bc; cf. Yoyotte 1992. An
‘Egyptian from Naukratis’ is also mentioned in the later Lindos
decree, cf. Bresson 2005; Möller 2005.
31 As pointed out by Möller 2001.
32 Gorton 1996, 92.
33 We are grateful to Jeffrey Spencer for his identification of this piece.
For Egyptian pottery at Naukratis, see also Edgar 1905.
34 There is no reason to assume that the law forbidding Naukratites
intermarriage with Eyptians, dating from Hadrianic times, goes back
to this early phase; intermarriage is certainly attested for Carians
and Greeks elsewhere in Egypt, and Amasis himself is known to have
married a Greek princess from Cyrene. The very fact that such a law
was needed later on may, in fact, point to intermarriage as a common
practice in an earlier period; cf. Braun 1982, 43
35 Cf. Koenigs in Höckmann and Koenigs (forthcoming).
36 Cf. Möller 2000a, 94-113; 2001, with Kerschner 2001, 70; cf. also
Höckmann and Möller, this volume.
37 Gardner 1888, 21-9; Höckmann 2001b, 217 n. 2. The dinos stand
(sample Nauk 21; Fairbanks 1928, 116 no. 336, pl.37) has parallels in
vessels from the Archaic cemetery of Klazomenai; we are grateful to
Bilge Hürmüzlü for this information. An Archaic bowl produced by a
Greek potter at Naukratis with a votive inscription to Aphrodite
(Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 40) may also, surprisingly, come
from the cemetery, since it bears a modern graffito ‘CEM’ written by
the excavators.
38 To date no inscription in Carian script has been identified, although
there are some Carian sherds (Williams and Villing Figs 1–2) that
presumably were brought by Carians. Whether the few examples of
Etruscan bucchero (Naso Figs 3–4) were brought by Etruscans is
uncertain.
39 Cf. Paspalas, Attula, Höckmann and Möller, all this volume.
40 Discussed in detail by Schlotzhauer 2005 and 2006, 294-301, and
Kron 1984, 1988; cf. also Villing, this volume, on pottery for ritual
meals at Naukratis.
41 BM GR 1888.6-1.531: Gardner 1888, 64-5 and pl. 21 (inscr. no. 768);
Möller 2000a, 178 no. 4.
42 Cf. Williams 1983a, 185; Williams 1999, 138 and fig. 52 d.
43 Cf. Williams 1983a, 184-6; Johnston, this volume.
44 For an extensive discussion, see Herda (forthcoming b).
45 Venit 1984.
46 Kerschner 2000, 487.
47 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
48 As also suggested by Schaus, this volume.
49 Hölbl 1979, 368-73.
50 Cf. also Bellelli and Botto 2002.
51 On Phoenicians in Egypt, see Kaplan 2003, 8-9; Vittmann 2003, 44-
83; Docter 1997. A Phoenician community at Naukratis has again
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 9
Villing and Schlotzhauer
been suggested by James 2003, 256-8 (cf. also Yoyotte 1994), going
back to ideas of Hogarth and Edgar. Phoenicians are thus credited
with the production of carved Tridacna shells, faience and scarabs at
Naukratis. Against this supposition, the scarabs produced at
Naukratis from the late 7th century bc onwards until the mid-6th
century bc and widely exported (cf. Gorton 1996, 91-131; Hölbl 2005)
are considered by many experts to have been produced primarily by
Greek craftsmen (Hölbl 1979, 141, 207-9), perhaps with Egyptian
help (Gorton 1996, 92). As regards tridacna shells, the plain tridacna
shells from the site (Petrie 1886b, 35, pl. 20.16,16a; Edgar 1898/9, 49)
do not need to have been destined for carving, as undecorated shells
were also found deposited in graves in cemetery of Naukratis
(Gardner 1888, 29) and are common also in many other sites (Möller
2000a, 163-6). The timber and worked wood mentioned in the stele
of Nectanebos I as imports to Egypt passing through the port of
Hone, of course, may well stem from Phoenicia or Cyprus; but this
only applies to a later date.
52 Cf. e.g. Braun 1982, 41.
53 Schlotzhauer 2006, 301-7, 316 figs 4-6.
54 Torpedo-shaped amphora Petrie 1886b, pl. 16.3.
55 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G.124, from Hogarth’s excavation in the
Hellenion 1903, presumably the piece mentioned by Hogarth 1905,
118, even though he describes the letter as a shin while the
Ashmolean fragment seems to show a mem.
56 Hogarth 1905, 124 fig. 3.
57 Schlotzhauer 2006, 305.
58 This is not a topic to which much research has been devoted;
however, one gets the impression that Herodotus is generally right in
his assessment (2.91) that ‘the Egyptians shun the use of Greek
customs’, even if he himself then goes on to mention an example to
the contrary, namely the Greek-style athletic games at the Egyptian
city of Chemmis.
59 Cf. most recently Weber (forthcoming). We are grateful to the author
for supplying a copy of her article before publication.
60 Höckmann 2001b; Kammerzell 2001.
61 Grallert 2001; Höckmann 2001b; Kammerzell 2001.
10 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
62 Grallert 2001.
63 Ebbinghaus 2006.
64 For Pedon, see e.g. Boardman 1999a, 281 fig. 324; Vittmann 2003,
203-6, fig. 103; Höckmann and Vittmann 2005, 100 fig. 2; cf. also
Kourou 2004 for Egyptian statuettes dedicated in East Greek
sanctuaries.
65 Hürmüzlu 2004b. Note also the fact that Aiolian Larisa seemst to
have been home to Egyptian troops retired from service for Cyrus, so
that continued contact with Egyptians existed even in the homeland:
Xen. Hell. 3.1.7.
66 See e.g. Bietak 2001.
67 Höckmann 2005.
68 See. e.g. Tanner 2003.
69 See e.g. Kyrieleis 1996, 68-86, 108-27.
70 For a detailed discussion, see Haider 2004.
71 Gorton 1996; Hölbl 1979; Webb 1978; James 2003, 251-6.
72 Scarabs seem to have been produced from the late 7th century bc
onwards until the mid-6th century bc and were distributed across
the Aegean and as far as Italy, Spain, Carthage and the Black Sea
region; cf. Gorton 1996, 91-131, and most recently Hölbl 2005. On
‘Egyptomania’, see Ebbinghaus 2006, 201.
73 Discussed in detail by Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005.
74 Dedications especially by Hellenomemphitai and Caromemphitai,
Ionians and Carians at Memphis, into Egyptian sanctuaries are
certainly attested; cf. Braun 1982, 46-7 fig. 4; Höckmann 2001b. East
Greek painted pottery is not normally encountered in Egyptian
sanctuaries, but an exception is Saïs: cf. P. Wilson, Saïs Report,
March-April, 2003, http://www.dur.ac.uk/penelope.wilson/
3g2003a.html (27 June 2006); Weber (forthcoming). Other
instances of Greek painted pottery in connection with Egyptian
towns and burials are cited by Weber 2006. The possibility of ‘prize
vases’, raised by Herodotus’ mention (2.91) of Greek-style gymnastic
contests at Chemmis in the district of Thebes, is discussed most
recently by Decker 2003.
75 The same conclusion (labelled with the term ‘Beharren’) is also
reached also by Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 80-1.
The Hellenion at Naukratis:
Questions and Observations
Ursula Höckmann and Astrid Möller
Abstract
The Hellenion at Naukratis still poses questions as to its
development, its function, the gods being venerated there and what
kind of sanctuary the Hellenion might have been. This contribution
wishes to make some observations towards solving some of these
questions.*
In his description of Naukratis, Herodotus places special
emphasis on a sanctuary named the Hellenion. To Herodotus, it
was the largest, the best known and the most visited of all
sanctuaries at Naukratis. It was set up by the joint efforts of nine
poleis: the Ionian poleis of Chios, Teos, Phokaia, and
Klazomenai, the Dorian poleis of Rhodes, Knidos, Halikarnassos,
and Phaselis, and the Aiolian polis of Mytilene (Fig. 1).1
Herodotus alludes to a conflict between those and other poleis
that claimed an unjustified share in the Hellenion and the right
to appoint the prostatai tou emporiou, the chief officials of the
emporion.2
In 1899, David G. Hogarth started excavating a temenos in
the north-east of Naukratis which he identified with the
Hellenion mentioned by Herodotus.3 It proved rather difficult to
come to clear conclusions as a result of the high water table and
the level of destruction discovered during the excavation. The
whole temenos might have covered an area measuring about 150
x 100m, surrounded by a massive mud brick wall, but further
interpretation involves a lot of guess-work.
Both the literary and the archaeological evidence are
meagre, causing many hypotheses and arguments to flourish.
Indeed, doubts as to whether the Hellenion has been identified
correctly have not ceased.4 The archaeological evidence,
architecture and finds alike, poses questions as to the kind of
sanctuary the Hellenion was. Apart from dedications to the
‘Gods of the Hellenes’ in their entirety, the dedications to
different Greek gods at the Hellenion might indicate cults
branched off from particular cults celebrated in the various East
Greek poleis participating in the Hellenion.
Figure 1 The nine ‘founder
cities’ of the Hellenion
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 11
Höckmann and Möller
1. The Archaeology of the Hellenion (A.M.)
The excavation and the later survey at the site of the Hellenion
point to three phases of development. Remnants of sandstone
structures at 7, 9, 16 and 17, all located underneath the later
chambers, should be attributed to the oldest phase (Fig. 2).5
Their orientation is parallel to the walls of chambers 3, 4, and 5;
chamber 3 is dated to the oldest phase by a North Ionian LWG
vessel fragment of the second quarter of the 6th century bc.6 In a
large earthenware basin (18) which is now suggested to have
been a basin for ritual cleansing7 lay the limestone relief of a
hoplite warrior.8 The relief, dated to the end of the 6th century
bc, seems to be of the same material as the ashlars with
dedications reported by Hogarth.9 The basin, however, was
deposited at its later find spot only secondarily and the relief
was placed in it later, so that it does not permit any secure
connection with the earliest structures of the Hellenion of about
570 bc.
The next phase is indicated by chambers 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and
20, forming a long row of rooms. The walls were made of mud-
bricks. On what remained of the floors, terracotta figurines and
red-figure sherds from the late 5th century bc were found. The
orientation of the chambers slightly changed, indicating a
reconstruction sometime before the end of the 5th century bc.
Chambers 12, 13, 14, and 14a should be seen in connection with
these chambers; some finds made in this area point to the 4th
12 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 2 The Hellenion
century bc. Chambers 57, 59, 61, 64, and 65 follow the same
orientation, and black- and red-figured sherds were found here.
In chamber 64 was discovered the Stesichoros kylix, attributed
to Onesimos.10 The stone foundations found under the Ptolemaic
chamber 63 belong to this phase. These rested on about 60cm of
older objects, including Chian sherds. In the Ptolemaic chamber
58, too, an older floor was discovered.
Hogarth11 maintained that the structures of the Hellenion
‘were restored practically from the foundation in the first half of
the 5th century’, although he did not mention signs of
destruction. Instead he quoted Gardiner, who reported traces of
a ‘calamity’ at the Aphrodite shrine that befell Naukratis at the
time of Cambyses’ conquest in 525 bc, and deduced from the
lack of early red-figured vases that something similar must have
happened to the Hellenion as well. If the first sandstone
Hellenion was destroyed in 525 bc, then, in the 440s or 430s bc,
when Herodotus visited Naukratis,12 he must have admired the
mudbrick building, the second Hellenion, which probably was
set up sometime during the first half of the 5th century bc.13
The Ptolemaic Hellenion was constructed on a sand-bed of
between 60cm to 2m thickness. This sand deposit could be seen
especially well in the north-east of the Hellenion. The complex
of chambers 24, 25, 26, 27 adjoining the long passageway 28
belongs to the Hellenistic period. The pottery finds in these
rooms cover the 3rd century bc to Roman times.

Figure 3 Fragment of the handle plate
of a Late Corinthian column krater,
Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum
GR.31.1899
2. Dedications found at the Hellenion (U.H.)
According to the pottery finds, the Hellenion was in use from the
6th century bc down into the Ptolemaic or even the Roman
period.14 The earliest finds date from the late second quarter of
the 6th century bc. This may be connected with Herodotus’
statement (2.178.1) that the pharaoh Amasis (570–525 bc) gave
the Greeks at Naukratis the right to set up sanctuaries to their
gods. The other sanctuaries display older pottery finds, making
it likely that Herodotus did not distinguish between different
pharaohs, thus crediting only Amasis with benefactions to the
Greeks. The Hellenion, however, seems to have been established
following a possible reorganisation of the emporion by the
pharaoh Amasis.
Among the earliest items in the Hellenion there is a fragment
of the handle plate of a Late Corinthian column krater (Fig. 3).15
Its exact find-spot is not known. Hogarth, however, states that
‘Corinthian pottery was comparatively scarce, and most of the
fragments belonged to large craters, chiefly of the red-clay
variety. Several crater-handles, […], were obtained, with
representations of male and female heads, sirens, &c.’16 We
should add the North Ionian LWG fragment of the early second
quarter of the 6th century bc with dedicatory inscription by a
Chian to Apollo.17
In 1903, Hogarth found a rare Chian chalice, now in Oxford,
to the west of spot 66.18 Eleanor Price states that ‘the violet
ground with white spots is unique’.19 Anna Lemos suggests a date
in the late second quarter of the 6th century bc.20 The two
antithetical riders with their spears seem to be a very rare motif
in Chian pottery. They possibly represent the Dioskouroi.21 For a
clearer picture of the Hellenion and its dedicators in the Archaic
period it would be interesting to know the percentages of South
and North Ionian as well as Attic pottery, a wish that can never
be truly fulfilled, even though we might get a better idea once
the database of Naukratis pottery is completed.
Besides drinking vessels and kraters of the Archaic period,
there are abundant finds from the 5th century bc and later, Late
Archaic and Classical Attic pottery, and terracotta protomes and
statuettes mostly connected with the worship of Aphrodite and,
in several cases, of Herakles.22 An Attic black-glaze cup of 5th-
century date was dedicated to Aphrodite by Teleson of Rhodes.23
Figure 4 Limestone base of Classical statuette of Herakles, dedicated by Aristion,
signed by Sikon of Cyprus, London BM GR 1900.2-14.22
The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations
Figure 5 Inscription on the limestone
base Figure 4
Archaic small-size sculptures of limestone or alabaster of Cypriot
style have not been found in the Hellenion.24 But there are two
classical limestone statuettes of the 5th and 4th centuries bc.
The limestone base of a statuette of Aphrodite dedicated by
Deinomachos from Mytilene which was found near spot 3 is
apparently lost.25 The base of a Herakles statuette dedicated to
him by Aristion,26 a work of the sculptor Sikon of Cyprus, which
was found broken in two parts, was discovered between spots 7
and 9 (Figs 4–5). The only two Cypro-syllabic inscriptions from
Naukratis, on Attic black-glaze cups of the late 5th or early 4th
century bc, have been found in the same area as the Herakles
base (Fig 6).27
Among numerous Hellenistic terracotta statuettes some
Graeco-Egyptian ones may be mentioned.28 Their exact find-spot
is, however, unknown. As far as I know, no Egyptian bronze
statuettes have been found in the Hellenion.29 Some limestone
and sandstone ashlar blocks with dedications may be supposed
to have been excavated by Hogarth in the Hellenion.30 Since
none was found in situ, their original setting is unknown, nor do
we know their current whereabouts.
3. The dedicatory inscriptions (A.M.)31
In the Hellenion only a few dedicators can be identified by
name. Apart from the above-mentioned dedications by
Deinomachos of Mytilene and Teleson of Rhodes, there are
some more personal names, but usually without an ethnikon.32
From other sanctuaries at Naukratis we have dedications by
Chians, Teians, Phokaians, Cnidians, and Mytilenians.33 It seems
that dedicators from poleis that later participated in the
Hellenion first dedicated to gods venerated in the other
sanctuaries. A clearer picture of the dedicators’ behaviour
towards the different sanctuaries will hopefully be gained from
the catalogue of inscribed pottery being prepared by Alan
Johnston as a part of the Naukratis pottery database.
In the area that we now call the Hellenion, Hogarth found
several vase fragments dedicated to the ‘Gods of the Hellenes’.
This prompted him to identify the north-eastern temenos with
the Hellenion mentioned by Herodotus.34 To restore the
standard formula for these otherwise unique dedications is
hampered by the fact that we only have tiny fragments and not a
Figure 6 Bottom of a bowl or plate
(inside and outside and profile
drawing); London BM GR 1900.2-
14.17
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 13
Höckmann and Möller
Figure 7 Pottery fragments with dedications to the ‘Gods of the Hellenes’
single inscription that gives us the full wording. Neither does
there seem to be epigraphic material from other sanctuaries
with which to compare these dedications.35
There are three possibilities as to the restoration of the
dedicatory formula:
(a) toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellh/nwn (Fig. 7)36
(b) toi=j (Ellh/nwn qeoi=si 37
14 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
(c) tw=n qew=n tw=n (Ellh/nwn 38
Some inscriptions could theoretically be restored as toi=j
qeoi=j toi=j (Ellhni/oij – ‘To the Hellenic Gods’,39 but this is not
substantiated by the evidence, as not a single fragment among
the finds known today shows this dative ending. We have,
however, the genitive ending –wn.40 Since in all cases the article
is lacking, we cannot tell whether this could possibly be part of

the formula tw=n qew=n tw=n (Ellh/nwn – ‘Of the Gods of the
Hellenes’, of which we have two fragments.41 The restoration
toi=j qeoi=j toi=j tw=n (Ellh/nwn,42 however, cannot be correct,
because (Ellh/nwn being an attributive genitive requires, if
following the noun, the repetition of the article. That it is
unlikely to be toi=j qeoi=j toi=j tw=n (Ellh/nwn hinges on the fact
that (/Ellhnej is an ethnic name which is usually given without
the article.43 We need to consider, however, that in dedicatory
formula such as these short graffiti on vases, a formula might be
used which might not be grammatically correct. The semantic
use was important. Therefore, the restoration favoured here is
the reading toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellh/nwn – ‘To the Gods those of
the Hellenes (I mean)’, giving Hellenes as attributive genitive,
thus placing special emphasis on the fact that these are the
Greek gods and no others. In a Greek sanctuary in Egypt this is
particularly apt.
The formula toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellhni/oij, though not
substantiated by the epigraphic evidence at Naukratis, is,
however, the formula used in Herodotus. When Herodotus
(5.49.3) relates the story of Aristagoras, the tyrant of Miletus,
coming to Sparta and trying to persuade their king Kleomenes to
fight the Persians, he has Aristagoras imploring the Spartan king
to free the Ionians from slavery, especially since they are their
blood-brothers, by ‘the gods of the Hellenes’ (oi( qeoi\ oi(
(Ellh/nioi). Later in Herodotus (5.92g.1), Sosikles, an envoy from
Corinth, speaks against the Spartan plan to re-install the former
tyrant Hippias at Athens. He beseeches the Spartans not to give
tyrants to the Greek poleis, calling as witnesses again ‘the gods of
the Hellenes’ (oi( qeoi\ oi( (Ellh/nioi). Both contexts make it quite
clear that in Herodotus’ usage the gods of the Hellenes were
evoked when different Greek tribes should be acting together.
Hugh Bowden, who argues against the identification of the
north-eastern temenos with the Hellenion, favours the
restoration toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellhni/oij, although he admits that
toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellh/nwn is far more likely. He considers
(Ellh/nioj as a formal cult title which should have been used in
dedications.44 He knows, however, only one case where
(Ellh/nioj is used as a cult title and this is the cult for Zeus
Hellanios on Aigina.45 Such a cult title at Naukratis could,
however, only be connected to the Hellenion, relating to a
plurality of gods belonging to all Greeks.
toi=j qeoi=j toi=j (Ellh/nwn – ‘To the Gods those of the
Hellenes’ Bowden considers as a more general phrase which
‘would seem to be a convenient grouping for a dedication at any
sanctuary, by any dedicator, not the indicator of a specific cult’.46
With this line of argument he wants to support his disagreement
with the identification of the Hellenion, which he suggests was
either not found or was situated where one usually locates the
Figure 8 Foot of Ionian vessel; London Figure 9 Profile drawing of London
BM GR 1900.2-14.5 BM GR 1900.2-14.5
The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations
Figure 10 Attic black-glaze kylix Figure 11 Profile drawing of London
dedicated to Herakles by Artemon; BM GR 1900.2-14.16
London BM GR 1900.2-14.16
Figure 12 Fragment of Milesian kylix
dedicated to Herakles; Oxford G
141.58
Hera sanctuary.47 But it is exactly this formulation of the
dedicatory inscriptions, which distinguishes the Gods of the
Hellenes from those of the Egyptians, and the discovery of about
two dozen such dedicatory inscriptions to the Gods of the
Hellenes within this temenos, that makes it its identification
with the Hellenion so likely.48
Unfortunately, we cannot tell who dedicated these vases to
‘The Gods of the Hellenes’. All identified inscriptions were
written on cups or bowls, all drinking vessels, the earliest on an
Ionian cup that dates from the 6th century, but the majority date
from the 5th century bc.
4. Deities and cult filiations (U.H.)
As far as can be judged by the dedicatory inscriptions scratched
or painted on pottery found in the sanctuaries of Naukratis,
most cults seem to have been transferred from East Greek cities.
This is clear for Samos49 and Miletus.50 This topic, however, has
not yet been thoroughly investigated and my ideas expressed in
the following pages remain only tentative.51
Among the dedicatory inscriptions on pottery from the
Hellenion only a few deities are mentioned. There are several
dedications to the Dioskuroi52 and the above-mentioned ‘Gods of
the Hellenes’. Dedications to Apollo53 – in the context of the
Hellenion never with an epiclesis54 – to Herakles (cf. infra), to
Artemis55 and to Poseidon, are rarer.56
There are Late Archaic dedications to Aphrodite, one of
them on an Ionian Late Archaic vessel foot to Aphrodite py…57
(Figs 8–9), one on the rim of an Attic Late Archaic red-figured
volute krater (Figs 13–14)58 to Aphrodite Pandemos. The latter
was found near the south wall of the Hellenion at 39.59 Two
more Late Archaic Attic cups dedicated to Aphrodite Pandemos
have been found in the sanctuary of Aphrodite in the south of
Naukratis (Figs 15–18).60 Aphrodite and the Dioskuroi were
probably worshipped, too, as seafarers’ deities.61 The epiclesis
Pandemos refers to another aspect of Aphrodite. As Andrew
Scholtz has demonstrated, this Aphrodite had a ‘broad-based
appeal in connection with economic activity’62 and the famous
hetairai of Naukratis.63 I think that the two dedications to
Aphrodite Pandemos found in her sanctuary in the south were
addressed to the same deity as the Aphrodite Pandemos in the
Hellenion. The same can be supposed for the Dioskuroi, who are
worshipped in a little temenos in the northwest of Naukratis64 as
well as in the Hellenion.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 15
Höckmann and Möller
Figure 13 Two rim fragments of Attic red-figured volute-krater; London BM
GR 1900.2-14.6 and Bonn,Akademisches Kunstmuseum, inv. no. 697.90
Figure 14 Profile drawings of BM GR 1900.2-14.6 and Bonn,Akademisches
Kunstmuseum inv. no. 697.90
Herakles seems to have been venerated at the Hellenion at
Naukratis since the mid-6th century bc; his cult is likely to go
back to contacts with East Greece. The Busiris adventure can be
taken as having been invented by East Greek mercenaries in
Egypt.65 This becomes apparent not only from the Caeretan
hydria in Vienna,66 but also from Attic vase-painters who
represent the gigantomachy with Herakles stepping on the pole
of his chariot in imitation of reliefs of Rameses III.67 Such
emphasis being given to the aspect of the victorious hero would
have been well understood among mercenaries. The earliest
evidence for a cult of Herakles at Naukratis are two kylix
fragments68 with dedicatory inscriptions, one of them Attic (Figs
10–11),69 the other from a Milesian kylix dated to about the mid-
6th century bc (Fig. 12).70
A dedication from the 5th century bc at Naukratis is reported
on a limestone ashlar block.71 The 4th century bc is represented
by the limestone base mentioned above (Figs 4–5). It is usually
referred to as a Cypriot work of the 6th century bc,72 although
F.H. Marshall as early as in 1916 dated the inscription to the 4th
century bc. The remaining parts of the statuette show that
Herakles stood relaxed with his left foot slightly forward of the
right, weight-bearing, leg, his club resting on the ground beside
his right foot. The statuette can be imagined as having been
similar to a bronze statuette of the 4th century bc in the Louvre73
or a Roman statue in the Palazzo Pitti in Florence,74 with the
apples of the Hesperides in the left hand, alluding to the
apotheosis of the hero. The inscription names a certain Sikon as
the sculptor (Fig. 5).75 The third word being reconstructed as
Kyprios, ‘from Cyprus’, presents a problem, since no such
statuette in the Classical Greek posture is known from Cyprus,
only a different type.76 Since limestone was used in Egypt, the
Classical Sikon base might go back to a Classical Naukratite
work by a sculptor from Cyprus. Leaving these considerations
aside, it attests a cult of Herakles at the Hellenion in the 4th
century bc, perhaps its earlier half.77 This cult is further
confirmed by some Hellenistic terracotta statuettes of Herakles
from the Hellenion.78 All this points to a cult of Herakles in the
Figure 15 Fragment of Attic bowl; Figure 16 Profile drawing of London
London BM GR 1888.6-1.211 BM GR 1888.6-1.211
16 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 17 Fragment of Attic small type Figure 18 Profile drawing of London
C cup; London BM GR 1888.6-1.212 BM GR 1888.6-1.212
Hellenion from about the middle of the 6th century bc until
Hellenistic times. As yet, it is impossible to tell which city
instituted the cult of Herakles in Archaic times in the Hellenion.
Erythrai with its old and famous cult of this hero might be a
likely candidate,79 although the polis is not explicitly mentioned
by Herodotus. Further investigations will perhaps show
continuity of cults for the other deities venerated in the
Hellenion as well, including Aphrodite.80
5. Aphrodite Pandemos at Naukratis (A.M.)
There is one dedication81 to Aphrodite Pandemos from the
Hellenion showing the following inscription (Figs 13–14): 82
)Afrod]i/thi : Pandh/m[wi on a rim fragment of an Athenian red-
figured volute krater of around 500 bc. The text is incised in an
almost lapidary manner which seems, however, to have been
applied after firing. D. Williams noticed a rim fragment at Bonn
with the inscription – ]AMM[ – that belongs to this krater.83
In the Aphrodite temenos in the south of Naukratis, two
dedications to Aphrodite Pandemos have been found:
(1) )Afrodi/thi] Pandh/mwi
on an Attic type C cup of 500–480 bc (Figs 15–16).84 Gardner
observed that the dedication was probably incised after the vase
was broken.
(2) )Afrodi/thi P] andh/m[wi
on an Attic type C cup of the first half of the 5th century bc
(Figs 17–18).85
As to the interpretation of the presence of Aphrodite
Pandemos, two main lines of argument can be distinguished:
the political and the erotic.86 Recently, Andrew Scholtz,87 being
unsatisfied with the political interpretation88 in the context of
Naukratis, has argued that at Naukratis, we are not dealing with
an Aphrodite ‘of the whole demos’, but with an Aphrodite ‘for all
people’, a kind of ‘general access’ goddess concerned with trade
and prostitution. His line of argument runs against an early civic
character of Naukratis and emphasizes its cosmopolitan traits.89
Although I do sympathize with Andrew Scholtz’s results, I
should like to follow a different line of argument here, which
might be called a ‘history of ideas approach’, resulting in an
interpretation related to cultural identity.
Ever since Plato in his Symposion (180D–181C) distinguished
between Aphrodite Ourania and Aphrodite Pandemos, there
have been two interpretations concerning the character of
Aphrodite Pandemos. Plato distinguished an older goddess, the
motherless daughter of Ouranos, called Ourania, from a
younger one, daughter of Zeus and Di0̄nē, called Pandemos.
Pandemos’ Eros is therefore called Eros Pandemos or ‘vulgar
love’; he is responsible for love among the common and
uneducated (fau=loi) of human beings.90
Xenophon91 followed Plato in this distinction. He considers
the possibility that there might only be one Aphrodite, because
Zeus has several epithets (e)pwnumi/ai), too. But since each of the

two Aphrodites has her own altar and temple and Pandemos
receives less pure sacrifices than Ourania, there should be two
goddesses. Pandemos sends us, Xenophon goes on to reason,
bodily love, Ourania on the contrary the love of the soul, the
love of friendship, and the love of good deeds.
Taking up these philosophical reflexions, Aphrodite
Pandemos appears closely connected with bodily love, which
matches very well the presence of the renowned hetairai at
Naukratis. The distinction drawn up by Plato, however, is not
necessarily an original distinction, but rather the result of moral
reflexion.
The other interpretation of Aphrodite’s epiclesis, the
political one, also goes back to antiquity. Theseus is said to have
founded the cult of Aphrodite Pandemos and Peitho at the time
of the Athenian synoikism.92 Athenaios93 relates the story that
Solon introduced brothels to Athens and from the profit was
said to have founded the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos. This
story clearly draws on an understanding of Aphrodite Pandemos
as providing erotic entertainment for all people.
The connection between Aphrodite Pandemos and the
synoikism gave way to the political interpretation. The goddess
is made responsible for civic unity, sponsoring synoikism, and
political structure. But even here, the erotic aspect slips in and
makes her responsible for the procreation of the oikoi united in
the polis.94
Although the cult of Aphrodite Pandemos is mythologically
connected with Theseus, the evidence is not early. Her sanctuary
is located on the slopes of the Acropolis, directly below the Nike
temple.95 The earliest inscription found there, which does not,
however, show the epiclesis, dates to the beginning of the 5th
century bc; from around 287/6 bc, we have a lex sacra from the
sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos.96
According to Pausanias, the sanctuary at Athens belonged
both to Aphrodite Pandemos and Peitho.97 Peitho is the goddess
of persuasion and in particular that of erotic persuasion.
Therefore, Peitho appears also as an epiclesis of Aphrodite. It
seems as if Pausanias, being the only one making the cult
connection between Pandemos and Peitho for the Athenian
sanctuary, has divorced the epiclesis Peitho from Aphrodite,
thus referring to two goddesses. This would indicate that
Aphrodite was worshipped under two aspects at Athens, the
erotic aspect perhaps being much stronger than that of civic
unity.
The political interpretation of Pandemos is closely connected
to Athens and no wonder if one considers the Athenians’ civic
ideology. The Athenians, however, did not play a big role at
Naukratis, as far as we know. There were closer connections
with the Greeks from North Ionia, where Aphrodite Pandemos
had a temple at Erythrai.98 Since, however, the inscription on the
Athenian red-figured krater (Figs 13–14) certainly looks very
special, one might be tempted to consider whether it had a
special status. Would it be possible that it was dedicated to the
Hellenion at Naukratis during the process of cult filiation?
If one takes the different meanings of the adjective
pa/ndhmoj or the adverb pandhmei=, collected by Scholtz in his
article,99 it is obvious that in civic as well as non-civic and extra-
civic contexts, the meaning of pa/ndhmoj extends beyond one
single demos. The prefix pan- takes on an inclusive meaning,
integrating Greeks from different poleis. Interestingly enough,
Harpocration interprets Aphrodite’s epithet as pa/gkoinoj –
The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations
‘common to all’. This word is already found in Pindar where it is
used in the Olympic context as pa/gkoinoj xw/ra – the common
land of Olympia.100
Scholtz is probably right in reminding us not to reduce
Pandemos to some pan-Hellenic essence.101 Of course, if the
dedicators at Naukratis knew the Athenian myth of Theseus and
gave Pandemos a political, cohesive meaning, they might well
have played with a pan-Hellenic idea. But if the inscriptions are
early Classical at the latest, this does not seem very likely –
unless one were to assume that the special background of
Naukratis itself fostered a particular sense of unity among the
Hellenes.
The Hellenion, if we follow Herodotus, was a place where all
three ethnic groups of Hellenes worshipped together and
organized some form of administration for the emporion. This is
not too unusual in itself, as any joint venture between Greek
states was normally carried out via a sanctuary. Whether we
should compare this organisation of the Hellenion with an
amphictyony, as suggested by Bowden,102 remains to be
discussed.
The Hellenion at Naukratis, then, clearly evokes
interpretations of a pan-Hellenic cult or even of pan-
Hellenism.103 The Hellenion was a joint venture of very different
Greek poleis, but what about Pan-Hellenism?
6. Pan-Hellenism (A.M.)
In discussing pan-Hellenic sanctuaries and pan-Hellenism more
generally, Naukratis seems to provide an attractive case.
In her article ‘The origins of pan-Hellenism’, Catherine
Morgan starts from the idea of pan-Hellenic sanctuaries like
Olympia and Delphi to look for the beginnings of pan-
Hellenism.104 She points to the confusion the archaeological
application of the term pan-Hellenic causes, as the appearance
of votives from a number of different areas does not
automatically constitute a pan-Hellenic sanctuary. It is
necessary to identify the interests of the dedicators and their
social position and relationship to the community that
controlled the sanctuary. Her idea of pan-Hellenic sanctuaries is
modelled on the examples of Olympia and Delphi. A pan-
Hellenic sanctuary surely involves being a centre of interstate
communication.
In 2003, Irad Malkin published an article on ‘Pan-Hellenism
and the Greeks of Naukratis’105 in which he maintains the
articulation of a pan-Hellenic identity at Naukratis. He holds
Naukratis to reveal the Egyptian view of foreigners as Greeks
(i.e. the outside view of ethnic identity), an accommodated
articulation of Greek identity among Greeks of varying origins
(i.e. the inside view), and he assumes also a generalized, self-
referential Greek identity in relation to Egyptians (i.e. the
identification of oneself in difference to others). Even if the
details of the argument are not entirely convincing, this seems to
be the right approach to the question of Hellenic identity,
though not an assumed pan-Hellenic one.
At the APA-meeting of 2004, Denise Demetriou gave a
paper106 about ‘Negotiating Identity: Group-Definition in
Naukratis.’ She takes Naukratis as an example of a polyvalent
mode of self-definition. The Hellenion and its name show that
the Greeks of Naukratis ultimately formed a cohesive Hellenic
identity and collectively opposed themselves to the Egyptians.
There remains, however, the question whether Naukratis, as
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 17
Höckmann and Möller
Malkin claims, points to an explicit concept of pan-Hellenism?
What then is pan-Hellenism? First of all, this term was coined by
modern scholars to describe the various attempts made by
intellectuals of the late 5th and early 4th centuries bc to promote
Hellenic unity and to prevail over differences between the poleis
in attacking the enemy that was Persia. These appeals to greater
Hellenic unity were hardly a goal in themselves, but a tool of
political propaganda serving the hegemonial and imperialistic
aims of Athens.107 In the 4th century bc, the definition of
Greekness was rather Athenocentric. Xenophon and Isokrates,
the champions of Pan-Hellenism, constantly evoked the
relationship between Hellenes – under Athenian leadership –
and non-Hellenes, or barbarians, i.e. the Persians.
The term Panhellenes, however, appears early in Homer (Il.
2.530), which might be an interpolation, but there are also
references in Hesiod (Op. 528) and Archilochos (fr. 102 West). It
was used as a term for Greeks.108 Pan-Hellenes at this time does
not necessarily imply an ethnic concept of Hellenes: it probably
designated all who settled in Hellas.
To sum up: Pan-Hellenism is a modern term for a concept
introduced around 400 bc and connected to Athens’ renewed
imperialistic ambitions. The pan-Hellenic sanctuaries such as
Olympia and Delphi provide a different case. It does not matter
here just from which time on we are allowed to call them pan-
Hellenic. At Naukratis, the Hellenion can hardly be attributed to
pan-Hellenic ambitions or a pan-Hellenic status such as Olympia
or Delphi. The temenos was proudly called Hellenion109 and
people from different backgrounds dedicated to the gods of the
Hellenes – a sign of something like a cohesive identity in the face
of the surrounding Egyptians.
7. The Hellenion as a place for ritual dining (U.H.)
The vase shapes found at the Hellenion, such as bowls, chalices,
skyphoi and kraters, all belong to the category of drinking
vessels and mixing bowls of the Archaic and Classical periods.
These vases were typically used during sacrificial meals.110
Perhaps plates and the mortaria studied by Alexandra Villing111
could be added to this collection of ritual ware. Fine painted
pottery, as for instance the Chian chalices, was actually used for
sacrificial meals or ritual dining, but it was also dedicated as a
thing of beauty.112
The architectural remains of the Hellenion include some
chambers aligned in a kind of row (Fig. 2). They unfortunately
can only be discussed with some reservation since Hogarth’s
plans are not very detailed. As to the chambers, Hogarth held
that ‘distinct groups of chambers were devoted to distinct
deities’.113 Other scholars interpreted the chambers as small
treasuries,114 living quarters of priests,115 magazines,116 or
administrative offices.117 There might be a chance that further
scrutiny of the excavation reports could contribute details
essential for solving these problems. For the moment, I should
like to add a vague suggestion: Could some of these chambers be
banquet-rooms like the rooms in the south-east building II 2 in
the sanctuary of Aphaia at Aigina,118 or the chambers in the
sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth?119
At Naukratis no reliable evidence exists on which such an
interpretation of the Hellenion’s chambers could be firmly
based. Moreover, all ‘chambers’ date from the Classical and
especially from the Hellenistic periods; it is unknown whether
Archaic ones had existed. There are no direct traces of dining
18 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
couches. Hogarth describes a number of floors of ‘hammered
mud’,120 to some of which a layer of concrete had been added.121
Such floors are characteristic of banquet rooms.122 Finally,
remains of coloured stucco in chambers 19 and 20123 call for
attention. All these details relate to rooms of the Classical and
especially of the Hellenistic periods. Hogarth saw similarities
between the chambers in the Hellenion of Classical and
Hellenistic times and rooms in Egyptian temples of the Fayum
and took their arrangement and architectural structure for
Egyptian.124 The irregular layout of the small chambers,
however, does not show any similarity to Egyptian temples,
which also holds true in respect of the late temples at Karanis
and Dionysias as cited by Hogarth.125
The assumption of ritual dining taking place at the Hellenion
at Naukratis seems to be supported by traces of sacrifices,
namely remains of ashes,126 ‘burnt stuff’ in spot 2,127 and wood,
for instance in the southern part,128 west of the great red granite
door-jamb 1, in well 35.129 Furthermore, altars130 can be
postulated, although no finds can confidently be connected with
an altar. Hogarth, however, believed that an altar may have
stood above a square depression in the ‘basal mud’, filled with
sand, in spot 6.131 The depression measured c. 2m x 1.70m. The
stratum, unfortunately, was badly disturbed. The basal mud
favours an Archaic dating of that feature. Moreover, there seem
to have been basins for the essential ritual cleansing.132 All this
evidence, taken together, suggests that ritual dining at the
Hellenion in Archaic and Classical times is more than likely.
8. The Hellenistic Hellenion as a place for public dining and
political administration (A.M.)
During the Ptolemaic period the Hellenion saw major
reconstructions, the pattern of its rooms, however, does not
seem to have been changed.133 If ritual dining took place here
during the Archaic and Classical periods, the same would hold
true for the Hellenistic period. During Hellenistic times, the
citizens of Greek poleis were provided with banquets by wealthy
benefactors.134
It is from the Hellenistic period that we have the first
evidence for a prytaneion at Naukratis. Athenaios (4.149D-150B)
reports what he found in Hermeias’ second book on Apollo
Gryneios: ‘The Naukratitai feast together in the prytaneion on
the birthday of Hestia Prytanitis, the Dionysia, and at the festival
of Apollo Komaios. They all attend in white garments called
prytanikai esthêtes – garments for the Prytaneion. […] No
women are allowed in the prytaneion except the aulétria, the
female flute player.’ Athenaios quotes a lot about restrictions in
the consumption of food and wine, too, but this is of no interest
here.135
The author Hermeias136 is only known from this quotation,
and Athenaios, of around 200 ad, is not a valuable terminus ante
quem for the Hellenistic or even the Classical period. Of course,
Athenaios would have picked out any work mentioning customs
at Naukratis, his home town.
Hermeias mentioned a cult of Apollo Komaios,137 of which
we unfortunately do not have a trace among the inscriptions.
Fritz Graf138 derives his epiclesis either from kômos – the
procession of revellers in honour of a god, often connected to
Dionysus, or kômê – the village or district which makes Apollo
Komaios the god of the kômê and thus an eminent political deity.
Graf admits that we do not hear of Apollo Komaios in the
 The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations

context of spatial or political divisions. At Naukratis, however,
he is honoured by a symposium in the prytaneion which surely
has political connotations, even if we believe the prytaneion to
be inside the Hellenion and the symposion a ritual banquet – the
function of these feasts is the social and political cohesion of the
group.
All festivities mentioned in Athenaios’ passage are connected
to the prytaneion. Since no prytaneion has been found at
Naukratis, however, we are not able to date this civic building
with any certainty. From Hellenistic times on, when Naukratis
had gained the status of a Greek polis within the Ptolemaic
kingdom, such a public building would certainly have been
required. Herodotus, however, does not mention a prytaneion,
which suggests that before the second half of the 5th century bc
such a building is unlikely. What Naukratis needed as an
emporion concerning administration was probably dealt with by
the prostatai of the emporion having their office possibly in the
Hellenion.139 Only in Hellenistic times do we have evidence for
civic institutions such as bouleutai140 or timouchoi.141
9. Summary
A closer scrutiny of the dedicatory inscriptions to the ‘Gods of
the Hellenes’ found by Hogarth in the north-eastern temenos
confirms its identification as the Hellenion, the place where the
Greeks from different poleis venerated different gods such as
Herakles and Aphrodite and the Greek gods as a collective. The
dedicatory formula seems to particularly emphasize that the
Gods of the Hellenes were invoked and not the Egyptian gods. It
shows a consciousness of belonging to a common Greek culture,
but does not involve ideas of pan-Hellenism. Thus, the Hellenion
seems to be the place where a Greek identity could grow142 in
contrast to the Egyptian culture, which nevertheless provided
inspiration and stimulation to the Greek culture.

Appendix (A.M.)

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

No. A: Hogarth 1898/9 inv. no. Shape (compare Date BC Inscription

B: Hogarth 1905 Sparkes and Talcott
C: Bernand 1970, 2 1970 [S-T] no.)
1 A 71/C 594 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam GR.103.1899 Ath. black-glazed cup —] toi=j (Ell[—
2 A 81/C 604 Oxford G 141.57 Ath. black-glazed cup —]oi=j (Ellh/[—
3 A 95/C 618 BM GR 1911.6-6.13+36 Ath. cup (S-T 576-7) early 5th c. —] qe[oi] si to(i)j E
( [—
4 A 19/C 541 BM GR 1911.6-6.39 Ath. cup type C (S-T 409-10) 500-450 —]ac to[—
5 C 350 Petrie 1886, 62 no. 690 pl. 35: found —]i=j qeoi=[—
between the temenos of Apollo
and that of the Dioskouroi
6 A 14/C 536 Ionian cup —] qeoi=si [—
7 A 15/C 537 BM GR 1911.6-6.22 Ionian cup 550-500 —]eoi=si[—
8 A 16/C 538 Ionian cup —] qe[—
9 A 17/C 539 Ionian cup —]eoi=s[—
10 A 97/C 620 BM GR 1911.6-6.28 Ath. cup-skyphos (S-T 578) c. 480 —]oi=si [—
11 A 72/C 595 Oxford G 141.50 Ath. black-glazed cup —]oi=si t[—
12 A 18/C 540 Ionian cup —] (El(l)h/[—
13 A 79/C 602 BM GR 1911.6-6.40 Ath. cup type C (S-T 398-413) 500-450 — (E]ll[h/nwn
14 A 80/C 603 Oxford G 141.56 Ath. black-glazed cup —] (Ell[h/nwn
15 A 64/C 587 Ath. black-glazed cup — (Ellh/]nwn Aqh-
16 A 73/C 596 Cambridge Fitzwilliam GR.105.1899 Ath. cup — (E]llh/nwn
17 B 4/C 647 Oxford G 141.14 — (E]llh/nwn
18 A 74/C 597 Cambridge Fitzwilliam GR.338.1899 Ath. black-glazed cup — (Ellh/]nw[n
19 A 75/C 598 BM GR 1911.6-6.34 Ath. black-glazed stemless cup (S-T 446) c. 480 — (Ell]h/nw[n
20 A 76/C 599 Cambridge Fitzwilliam GR.104.1899 Ath. black-glazed cup — (El]lh/nwn
21 B 3/C 646 Oxford G 141.31 Ath. cup — (Ellh/n]wn
22 B 1/C 644 Oxford G 141.1 Ath. black-glazed cup toi=j q[e]oi=si [toi=j (Ellh/] I
nwn HN[- I
me a)[ne/qhken
23 A 106/C 629 BM GR 1900.2-14.8 Ath. cup Bloesch 1940, pl. 11.2-3 c. 500 — (El]lh/nwn : q[e]oi=si
24 A 77/C 600 Oxford G 141.51 Ath. black-glazed cup tw=n q]ew=n tw=n [ 9Ellh/nwn
25 A 78/C 601 Cambridge Fitzwilliam Gr.337.1899 Ath. black-glazed cup tw=n q]ew=n [tw=n (Ellh/nwn
26 A 96/C 619 BM GR 1911.6-6.14 Ath. cup-skyphos(S-T 565) c. 520 —ac qeo[i=si —
or 490-80
27 B 2/C 645 Oxford G 141.36 —]qe(ke) qeoi=[si —

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

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 19

Höckmann and Möller

Illustration credits surface debris beyond spot 54), 56 no. 144, pl. 5; Masson 1971, 33
Fig. 1 after Kerschner 2001, 73 fig. 1; Fig. 2 after Möller 2000a fig. 5; (three syllabic signs); Johnston 1978, no. 17; Masson 1983, 354 no.
Fig. 3 photo Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; Figs 4, 15, 17 photos the 370: ka-wa-?-[-; Möller 2000a, 162 n. 593, 238 no. 2. The bottom
British Museum; Fig. 5 after Hogarth 1898/9, 32, photo the British fragment presumably belongs to a shallow (?) bowl or plate; on the
Museum; Figs 6–9, 11, 14, 16, 18 photos the British Museum, drawings O. inside impressed linked palmettes surround the lost middle
Höckmann; Fig. 10 photo the British Museum; Fig. 12 photo Ashmolean ornament, on the outside the inscription is incised in the dark band;
Museum, Oxford; Fig. 13 photo the British Museum; Bonn, cf. Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 107-8, 128-47 pl. 36.1052; pp. 22-32 pls
Akademisches Kunstmuseum inv.no. 697.90, photo U.Höckmann. 53.560, 59.826; cf. bowls from tombs in Marion, Masson 1983, 354 n.
3. – Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G 141.29: Hogarth 1905, 117 no. 38:
mo-ta-to-? Find-spot not indicated, but presumably found in the
Notes same region as the above- mentioned fragment London, BM GR
* We would both like to thank the organisers for inviting us to this 1900.2-14.17 or the Herakles base; Bernand 1970.2-3, 709 no. 681, pl.
inspiring meeting of the Naukratis community. D. Williams, A. 27.1 (third row, first sherd left); Masson 1971, 33 no. 370a (four
Villing, and A.W. Johnston helped with invaluable advice in syllabic signs); Möller 2000a, 162 n. 593, 239 no. 11.
questions of pottery and inscriptions. E. Böhr, U. Schlotzhauer and S. 28 Gutch 1898/9, 85-97 pls 12-3.
Weber contributed to the dating of pottery and B.B. Shefton to the 29 Katja Weitz (Mainz) identified a find of some 70 Egyptian bronze
subject of Castulo cups. U.H. wishes to extend her special thanks to statuettes. They came to light in a house in the south of Naukratis, cf.
O. Höckmann who drew the profiles and to A.M. who helped to Petrie 1886b, 41-2. Most of them seem to be Hellenistic.
translate her manuscript which was also read by S. Weber. A.M. owes 30 Bernand 1970.2, 759 no. 26; 764-5 nos 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41; 767-8 nos
special thanks to M. Nafissi and A. Arenz for discussion of the 45, 48.
dedicatory inscriptions. We like to thank the following institutions 31 Since it was impossible to inspect the inscriptions on pieces at Oxford
for providing photographs: Akademisches Kunstmuseum Bonn (W. which are currently packed into boxes, new observations might
Geominy), Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge (L. Burn), British change the picture. I wish to thank U.H. for checking the pieces in the
Museum (A. Villing), Ashmolean Museum Oxford (M. Vickers). BM.
1 The map was drawn after Kerschner 2001, 73 fig. 1. Herodotus does 32 Edgar 1898/9, 53-7.
not distinguish between Ialysos, Kameiros, and Lindos, the three 33 Möller 2000a, 166-81.
Rhodian poleis before the synoikism. Apparently, Rhodes acted as 34 Hogarth 1898/9, 44.
one polis in external matters already before the synoikism of 408/7 35 Bowden 1996, 23, does not know of evidence from other sanctuaries.
bc (Diod. 13.75.1; Strab. 14.2.10); cf. Bresson 2000, 37-40; Nielsen 36 Cf. Appendix nos 1-22, Fig. 7.
and Gabrielsen 2004, 1196-7, for more evidence. 37 Cf. Appendix no. 23, Fig. 7.
2 Hdt. 2.178; cf. Möller 2000a, 23, 192-6. 38 Cf. Appendix nos 24-25.
3 Hogarth 1898/9. 39 Cf. Appendix nos 1-3 and theoretically nos 4-14, too; cf. Fig. 7.
4 Bowden 1996, 24-5. 40 Cf. Appendix nos 15-23, Fig. 7.
5 Cf. Möller 2000a, 105-8. 41 Cf. Appendix nos 24-5.
6 Hogarth 1898/9, 31, 55 no. 51; cf. n. 17. 42 Cf. Bowden 1996, 23.
7 Cf. infra ns 129, 132. 43 Schwyzer 1959, 2: 24.
8 Hogarth 1898/9, 33, 65-7 pl. 9; for the date see Höckmann and 44 LSJ s.v. (Ellh/nioj refers to the Hellenion with temples for the qeoi\
Koenigs (forthcoming). (Ellh/nioi.
9 Cf. infra n. 30. 45 Bowden 1996, 23-4.
2 46 Bowden 1996, 23.
10 Oxford G 138.3+5+11; ARV 326.93. Onesimos has been dated by
Williams 1993b, 15 to between 505 and 485 bc at the latest. 47 Bowden 1996, 24.
11 Hogarth 1905, 109. 48 Cf. Chaniotis 1997.
12 Lloyd 1993/4, 61-8. 49 Schlotzhauer 2006.
13 To connect Herodotus and Naukratis in this way cannot be taken as 50 Nick (forthcoming); Ehrhardt, Höckmann and Schlotzhauer
an invitation to date Naukratis on the basis of Herodotus’ travels or (forthcoming).
his chronology. The evidence regarding Herodotus is even shakier 51 For cult filiations see Nilsson 1967, 712-3; Fleischer 1973, 132-7; Nick
than that for Naukratis. 2002, 278 s.v. Filialheiligtum.
14 Coulsen, Leonard and Wilkie 1982, 79-80. 52 Archaic dedications to the Dioskuroi from the Hellenion: Hogarth
15 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum GR.31.1899; Hogarth 1898/9, 62 pl. 1898/9, 30; Bernand 1970.2, 697-700 nos 546, 557, 558, 560, 567, 571,
8.6; Lorber 1979, 50 no. 60 pl. 14; Amyx 1988, 508 n. 272; Möller 580 (lamp), all found in spot 34; cf. Jenkins 2000 passim.
2000a, 220 no. 54. 53 Hogarth 1898/9, 30 no. 52 found near spot 34; supra n. 17, found in
16 Hogarth 1898/9, 62. chamber 3.
17 Fragment of a large vessel found in chamber 3, its whereabouts is 54 At Naukratis Apollo Milesios and Apollo Didymeus are attested on
unknown: Hogarth 1898/9, 31, 55 no. 51 pl. 4, who describes the fragments from the temenos of Apollo, and Apollo Komaios and
letters of the dedicatory inscription as running ‘along the back and Apollo Pythios in the context of a so-called prytaneion mentioned by
down the tail of a bull’; Bernand 1970.2, 700 no. 574; Möller 2000a, Athenaios 4.149D-E, cf. Nick (forthcoming); Ehrhardt, Höckmann
106 n. 122; 168 no. 2c; 244 no. 21. The dating was suggested by U. and Schlotzhauer (forthcoming); Herda (forthcoming b).
Schlotzhauer; cf. supra n. 6 and infra n. 53. 55 Hogarth 1898/9, 30 nos 65, 85 = Bernand 1970.2-3, 701 no. 588 pl.
18 Hogarth 1905, 114 pl. 5.1: found ‘in a small patch of undisturbed 26.2 (second row, second sherd left); 703 no. 608; Hogarth 1905, 117
deposit, just west of 66, [...] at a height of 10 inches above the basal no. 8 = Bernand 1970.2-3, 707 no. 651 pl. 25.1 (first row, second sherd
mud’. left).
19 Price 1931, 82 pl. 396.28 a.b. 56 Hogarth 1898/9, 62; Bernand 1970.2-3, 701 no. 585 pl. 26.1 (third
20 Lemos 1991, 118-22 fig. 62, 185, 285 no. 810, pl. 113; cf. also Walter- row, first sherd left).
Karydi 1973, 69, 140 no. 781 pl. 95.781; Boardman 1967, 169 n. 9. 57 London BM GR 1900.2-14.5; Hogarth 1898/9, 55 no. 54; Bernand
21 On the Dioskuroi in general cf. Koehne 1998. 1970.2, 700 no. 577; high foot of an Archaic Ionian vessel, cf. Villing
22 Gutch 1898/9, 67-97 pl. 10.13; Hogarth 1905, 115, 131-2. 1999, 191 fig. 1 a-c; cf. infra n. 81.
23 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G 141.13; Bernand 1970.2-3, 707 no. 659 58 London BM 1900.2-14.6; Hogarth 1898/9, 30, 56 no. 107; Bernand
pl. 27.1 (first row, left sherd); Möller 2000a, 170. It is perhaps not 1970.2, 704 no. 630; Scholtz 2002/3, 232; cf. infra chap. 5 with figs 14-
from a Castulo cup, as I first supposed, see Shefton 1996, 178. I thank 5, n. 82.
B.B. Shefton for his kind information. 59 Cf. Hogarth 1898/9, 30 pl. 2.
24 They come to an end by the mid-6th century bc, Jenkins 2001, 165; 60 London BM GR 1888.6-1.211 and 1888.6-1.212; cf. infra chap. 5 ns 84-5
Nick 2001a, 210-1; Höckmann and Koenigs (forthcoming). with Figs 15–19.
25 Hogarth 1898/9, 38; Bernand 1970.2, 745-6 no. 7 (Classical), found 61 Cf. Scholtz 2002/3 passim; Koehne 1998, 43 n. 130, cf. pp. 189-95.
near spot 3. 62 Scholtz 2002/3, 240. Cf. infra chap. 5.
26 Hogarth 1898/9, 32 pl. 14. 9; infra n. 69. 63 For dedications by hetairai, cf. Williams 1983a, 185 ns 57-9; Steinhart
27 London, BM GR 1900.2-14.17: Hogarth 1898/9, 33 (found in the 2003, 220.

20 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt


64 Möller 2000a, 99-101.
65 Gruppe 1918, 987-8; Laurens 1986, 147-152; Schlotzhauer and Weber
2005, 74-8.
66 Hemelrijk 1984, 50-4, 173-4, 178-9 pls 118-23, figs 39, 41.
67 Herakles treads on the beaten foes like a pharaoh, cf. Wolf 1957, 575
fig. 575 (Abu Simbel); Herakles like a Pharaoh in a chariot, Littauer
1968, 150-2 pl. 62; cf. Shaw and Nicholson 1995, 51 fig. (Beit el-Wali).
68 Cf. the following notes. The inscription of London BM GR 1911.6-6.15
does not relate to Herakles; Hogarth 1898/9, 53 pl. 4 no. 3; Bernand
1970.2, 695 no. 525.
69 London BM 1900.2-14.16; cup type C, concave lip, cf. Sparkes and
Talcott 1970, 91-2 pl. 19 no. 409 (500–480 bc), no. 410 (480 bc), or no.
413 (480–450 bc). The inscription reads: )Arte/mwn (Hrak(l)e[i=];
Hogarth 1898/9, 56 pl. 5 no. 84; Lazzarini 1976, no. 390; Bernand
1970.2, 702 no. 607. My thanks to Dyfri Williams who suggested a
date in the first half of the 5th century bc.
70 Oxford, Ashmolean Mus. G 141 (1899) 58; the inscription reads:
(Hrakle/[oj]; Hogarth 1898/9, 54 pl. 4 no. 33; Price 1931, pl. 1.28;
Lazzarini 1976, no. 529b; Bernand 1970.2, 698 no. 555; Möller 2000a,
258 no. 16. My cordial thanks to Udo Schlotzhauer for his
information on the date. For more Archaic fragments of vessels from
Greece with dedicatory inscriptions to Herakles see Lazzarini 1976,
nos 458, 461, 818; nos 526 und 442 are of the 5th century bc.
71 London BM GR 1886.4-1.5; Bernand 1970.2, 743 no. 2; the fragment of
a limestone inscription London BM GR 1886.4-1.1364 (Inscription
1092) (Marshall 1916, no. 1092 = Bernand 1970.2, 757 no. 23) may
also come from the Hellenion. It was found during the first
campaign, Petrie 1886b, 63 no. 7, pl. 31.7.
72 London BM GR 1900.2-14.22; 17 x 10cm; Hogarth 1898/9, 32, pl. 14.9;
Prinz 1908, 108. 118; Marshall 1916, 210 no. 1081; Gjerstad 1948, 318;
Lippold 1950, 67 n. 15; Lippold 1956; Schmidt 1968, 115; Bernand
1970.2, 746-7 no. 9, pl. 34.2; Davis 1979, 13 n. 7; Floren 1987, 414 n. 3;
Kyrieleis 1996, 74 (signed by a Cypriot at Naukratis); Donderer 1996,
87 n. 2; Vollkommer 2004.
73 Rolley 1984, no. 277.
74 Kansteiner 2000, 46-8; cf. also Palagia 1988, 745-6 for the Albertini
type.
75 Hogarth 1898/9, 32; the inscription reads: Si/kw[n e)p]oi/hse
Ku/p[rio]j I )Aristi/[wn] (Hraklei=; Möller 2000a, 162. The names of
Sikon and Aristion are frequently attested (LGPN s.v.). In Naukratis
we should assume a connection with Cypriot mercenaries during
that time; see infra n.77.
76 Hermary 1989, 299-304; Yon 1992, 156-9; cf. Palagia 1988, 757 no.
566; Karageorghis 1998, 165-9 figs 113-5 (Hellenistic or Roman type
Herakles statuettes from Cyprus).
77 The historical background could be provided by the alliance between
Euagoras I of Salamis (c. 435–374/3 bc) and the Pharaoh Akoris of
the 29th dynasty (393/2–380 bc), see Gjerstad 1948, 501-7; Masson
1983, 356-88; Jansen-Winkeln 1996, 406; Högemann 1998, 201-2. Cf.
also the Attic black-glazed cups with Cypro-syllabic inscriptions,
supra n. 27; for the presence of Cypriot mercenaries in Abydos and
Karnak see Masson l.c.
78 Hogarth 1905, 115, 131-2; cf. the sanctuary of Herakles at the mouth of
the Canopic branch, Hdt. 2.113 and Strab. 17.1.18; Gruppe 1918, 987
lines 47-9; preliminary results of underwater excavations in
Heraklion see Herold 2002, 22-44; Goddio and Clauss 2006. The
Archaic sanctuary of Herakles in Miletos: Rehm 1914, 276-7 no. 132.
Representations of Herakles in Egypt in Hellenistic and Roman times
are frequent; cf. Cassimatis 1978; Quaegebeur 1987; Palagia 1988;
Vorster 1988; Clerc 1994; Felber 2003. For veneration of warlike
Herakles cf. Archilochos fr. 324 West (spurious frgt.) (hymn to
Herakles Kallinikos); Greek Iambic Poetry, ed. and translated by D.E.
Gerber, Cambridge/MA: Harvard UP (Loeb) 1999, 282-7 no. 324;
Farnell 1921, 146-8; Graf 1985, 99, 174 n. 103, 181, 296; Graf 1998, 391;
for representations of Herakles’ labours on Attic black-figure and
red-figure vases from Naukratis cf. Williams 1986, 63-4 (Nereus);
Lamb 1936, pl. 20.5 (Triton); Venit 1989, 99-113 (Hydra); Beazley and
2
Payne 1929, no. 23 (tripod), no. 46 (Nessos); ARV 429, 20 (tripod);
Piekarski 2001b, 34-5 no. B3 (Middle Corinthian, Hydra); Archaic
jaspis from Tell Defenneh and Herakles head vase from Naukratis cf.
Boardman 1988, no. 4.11.
79 Graf 1985, 296-316; cf. p. 99 (Chios); for Herakles und his cult on
Thasos in Archaic time, see Bergquist 1973.
80 Cf. Graf 1985, 260-1.
81 The inscription on a rather high foot of a late Archaic Ionian vessel
from the Hellenion (London BM GR 1900.2-14.5; Bernand 1970.2,
The Hellenion at Naukratis: Questions and Observations
700 no. 577 reads 0Afro]di/thi PU[..., and can therefore not be the
same epiclesis; cf. supra n. 57, Figs 8-9.
82 London BM GR 1900.2-14.6; Hogarth 1898/9, 30, 56 no. 107, find spot
supra n. 59; rim fragment of red-figured volute-krater, right-to-left
meander, in band under rim part of kottabos scene; on upper side of
rim incised dedicatory inscription to Aphrodite Pandemos. Fragment
of the same side of the krater in Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum
Inv. no. 697.90, infra n. 80; first quarter of 5th century bc; cf.
Schleiffenbaum 1991, 60-3, V 212; ARV² 228.20 (490 bc); later: V 292,
ARV² 287.27 (460 bc, Geras-Painter); Bernand 1970.2, 704 no. 630;
Scholtz 2002/3, 232.
83 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum Inv. no. 697.90; Piekarski 2001b,
40, no. C 13 pl. 14.1. We thank D. Williams for this information. The
name of the dedicant could be Psammis, Psammatas, Psammetichos
or the like, cf. LGPN s.v.; Jeffery 1990 s.v.
84 London BM GR 1888.6-1.211; Gardner 1888, 66 no. 818; Bernand
1970.2, 688 no. 467; Scholtz 2002/3, 231; cf. for the type Sparkes and
Talcott 1970, 92 no. 420 fig. 4 pl. 20.
85 London BM GR 1888.6-1.212; Gardner 1888, 66 no. 821; Bernand
1970.2, 689 no. 470; Scholtz 2002/3, 231; cf. for the type Sparkes and
Talcott 1970, 91-2 no. 413 fig. 4 (480–450 bc) or no. 407 pl. 19
(500–480 bc).
86 There is also an interpretation of Aphrodite Pandemos as goddess of
light (Usener, Furtwängler), but this does not need to interest us
here.
87 Scholtz 2002/3.
88 Cf. Graf 1985, 260-1; Pirenne-Delforge 1994.
89 Scholtz 2002/3, 236.
90 Burkert 1985, 155, combines the distinction between Ourania, who is
made the Phoenician queen of heaven, and Pandemos, but gives the
latter a political meaning: she literally embraces the entire people as
the common bond and fellow feeling necessary for the existence of
any state.
91 Xen. Symp. 8.9-10.
92 Paus. 1.22.3.
93 Ath. 13.569D quoting Philemon F3 PCG; Nikandros FGrHist 271-2
F9a; cf. Nikandros FGrHist 271-2 F9b and Apollodoros FGrHist 244
F113 in Harpocration s.v. Pa/ndhmoj 0Afrodi/th.
94 Kruse 1949, 509; cf. Dillon 1999, 68-70; van Bremen 2003, 325-6, who
emphasizes Pandemos as being responsible for the collective well-
being of the civic community.
3 2
95 Paus. 1.22.3; IG I 832 (=IG I 700) of ?480–470 bc (no epiclesis);
Hurwit 1999, 41, 212, 276-7; cf. Jacoby 1944, 72-3 = 1956, 254-6.
96 Sokolowski, LSCG 39; cf. Simon 1970.
97 Paus. 1.22.3.
98 Erythrai: SEG XXXVI (1986) 1039 of around 400 bc, decree about
building of a temple for Aphrodite Pandemos; Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (Erythrai & Klazomenai II) 201 a 24
of 300–260 bc, selling of priesthoods (cf. Parker and Obbink 2000,
415-49). Sacrificial calendar from Isthmos on Cos: LSCG 169 A 12 (3rd
century bc).
99 Scholtz 2002/3, 238.
100 Pind. Ol. 6.63.
101 Scholtz 2002/3, 242.
102 Bowden 1996, 33, cf. Tausend 1992.
103 Thus, A. B. Lloyd in his excellent commentary on Herodotus Book II
(vol. 3 [1988], 224) states: ‘We should expect the Hellenium to be a
pan-Hellenic religious enclosure and that is exactly what the
evidence suggests this area was.’
104 Morgan 1993.
105 Malkin 2003b, 91-5.
106 Demetriou 2004, a talk which I only know from the abstract. She has
informed me that this research is part of her PhD thesis.
107 Hall 2002, 205-20.
108 Hall 2002, 131-2.
109 The only Panhellenion we know of was founded by the emperor
Hadrian in 131/2 ad. The idea sprang from an idealized picture of
good old Classical Greece inspired by the Second Sophistic.
110 Kron 1988, 135-48; Kreuzer 1998, 32-41, both with earlier literature;
Gebauer 2002, 448-70.
111 Villing, this volume. None are, however, recorded as having been
found in the Hellenion.
112 Williams 1983a, 186-7; Kreuzer 1998, 32-41; Stissi 2003, 77-9.
113 Hogarth 1905, 112.
114 Leclère 1997 assumes chapels or treasuries of the individual cities
and their deities. He kindly provided his manuscript to members of
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 21
Höckmann and Möller
the Naukratis research project at Mainz.
115 Von Bissing 1951, 79; Kron (1992, 620-2 n. 58) takes similar chambers
at Bitalemi for treasuries or cultic rooms – amphipoleia – i.e.
chambers of a priest.
116 Martin 1951, 245-6. 123
117 Martin 1956, 44-5; for a summary cf. Bernand 1970.2, 858, and 124
Leclère 1997. 125
118 Williams 1983a, 186-7 n. 66 with earlier literature.
119 Bookidis and Stroud 1997, 393-412.
120 Hogarth 1898/9, 31: in chamber 3 ‘layer of hammered mud’ under 126
the ‘level of the fragment of concrete pavement’, south of it p. 33: ‘a
floor of hammered earth overlaid with fine plaster, part plain 127
crimson, part crimson and white stripe, and part blue and white
stripe. Only small fragments of the coloured surface were preserved’ 128
in room 20; ‘a similar floor in a similar state, but this time overlaid 129
with yellow and red stripe plaster’ in room 19, where the hoplite 130
relief was found in the ‘the large vessel […] below the level of the
plaster floor’. 131
121 Hogarth 1898/9, 30: ‘concrete pavement’ near 39 in the south; p. 31 132
‘concrete paving’ near 2; p. 33 are mentioned remains of ‘brilliant
blue stucco’, the pavement here consisted of a ‘thin layer of concrete’ 133
3.7cm thick, in room 11; ibid. a ‘flooring laid on fragments of coarse 134
plaster’ north of 14 is mentioned, and (p. 34) in spot 30 a ‘thick 135
stratum of concrete laid on chips’, 17.5cm thick, ‘seems to have 136
extended all over the northernmost part of the site’; Hogarth 1905,
115, saw in 58 a ‘patch of pavement of thin concrete’ […] 175cm under
‘the well marked floor level of the Ptolemaic restoration’; in room 10 137
‘much fallen wall-plaster of brilliant blue’ on the ‘Ptolemaic floor 138
[…] made of a concrete of lime, pounded brick, and pebble’, c. 2cm 139
thick. 140
122 Hogarth 1898/9, 33, saw in room 14 ‘remains of a conduit made of
earthen pipes from 4½ to 6 in. (11.25cm to 15cm) in diameter’, over
the terracottas. Cf. Bergquist 1990, 37: ‘common characteristics’ of 141
dining-rooms ‘are a regular square shape, a specific internal wall-
length, and a frequent multiplication of such rooms in paratactic 142
22 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
rows, […] behind a common porch or portico’. The ‘fittings and
furnishings’ are ‘a paved or cemented floor with a raised border
along the walls and/or couches or supports for couches, an off-
centre door, drainage, wall stucco, access to water, etc.’
Supra n. 120.
Hogarth 1898/9, 38.
Cf. Gazda 1983, 35 fig. 61; Schwartz and Wild 1950, pl. 1. I thank my
colleagues from the Egyptological Institute at Mainz for much
helpful information.
Hogarth 1898/9, 30: ‘ashes mixed with late black glazed ware’ near
40-2, see plan pl. 2; p. 31: ‘patchy layer of ashes’ near spots 2.
Hogarth 1898/9, 31: ‘layer of burnt stuff resting on the mud’ near
westernmost spot 2.
Hogarth 1898/9, pl. 2.
Hogarth 1898/9, 30-1.
As an example of an altar at which sacrifices to several gods are
made, cf. Petrakos 1968, 96-8.
Hogarth 1898/9, 32.
Hogarth 1898/9, 30 pl. 2, near east-west wall, 39; p. 33; cf. Iozzo
1985, 7-61; Bookidis 1993, 52.
Cf. Möller 2000a, 107.
Schmitt Pantel 1992, 488-90.
For further discussion see Villing, this volume.
Jacoby 1912, 731. Tresp 1914, 159, identified this Hermeias with H. of
Methymna who wrote a Sicilian history in the 4th century bc. Jacoby
remains sceptical.
FHG 2: 80 = fr. 112 Tresp ap. Ath. 4.149D.
Graf 1985, 187-8. On Apollo Komaios see also Herda (forthcoming b).
Möller 2000a, 195-6; Möller 2005, 189.
In the 3rd century bc the names of two out of four phylai with 10
bouleutai each are known; cf. the new edition of the inscription by
Scholl 1997, 213-28, pl. 18.
Ath. 4.149F; cf. Gottlieb 1967, 28-30, who, however, assumed that
what Athenaios described goes back to the 6th century bc.
Cf. Boardman 1994, 142; Lomas 2004b, 2.
The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta
Alan Johnston

Abstract The range of ethnics used and a few peculiar alphabetic uses
My aim of this short paper is to give a resumé of the range of have long been known and discussed by John Boardman, Anne
epigraphic material from Naukratis of the Archaic period, mostly Jeffery, Rudi Wachter, Mario Torelli and Astrid Möller among
on East Greek pottery, and to focus briefly on just two aspects: non- others.3 On the matter of Aeolic bucchero being marked by
Ionians, and amphora ‘texts’. They comprise a few thoughts ahead Mytilenaians I merely add here some undiagnostic scraps in a
of a comprehensive re-study of the material as both texts and pots.* long series of some 500 inscribed sherds catalogued in the
register of the British Museum’s Greek and Roman Department
Smaller inscribed vases by Donald Bailey under BM GR 1965.9-30, where we might note
The ceramic material from the excavations at both Naukratis two or three alphas with cross-bar ascending right. Nonetheless,
and Tell Defenneh was published with exemplary speed after the fact that two of these, the first to be looked at in my review,
each season of excavation. The texts comprise almost entirely join is either a statistical freak or a sign of substantial surprises
either dedications, to a range of deities, or, in the broadest in store.4 Teos, Miletos and Knidos are also well-known cases –
sense, ‘trademarks’, while what may well be owners’ marks are (Fig. 2) the last reminding us perhaps of the tombstone of a
represented by a rather few short texts or ligatures, increasing in
number in the classical period, though many of the latter are
now seemingly unlocatable. The format of the dedications is
varied, and few patterns seem to emerge; but review of the
material will yield more specific data in this respect.1
When I first worked through some of the material in the
British Museum’s ‘fan room’ in the 1960s, I noted very few
corrigenda to be made in the readings in the relevant pages of
the publications, save some misleading treatment at the breaks.
There were and still are, however, unpublished pieces in the
British Museum and probably elsewhere; André Bernand’s
massive compilation of 1970 is of use in giving clearer listings of
previously published material, but it adds little, since very few
comments are added, and is of minimal use to the
archaeologically minded. Material not then published include
such things as the 25 ‘trademarks’ on East Greek pots which I put
in my ‘Trademarks on Greek Vases’, and one particular piece in
University College London (Fig. 1), which I noted in BICS 1982,
arguing it to be a dedication of Aristophanes (Aristophantos as
Dyfri Williams was soon to make him) and Damonidas to
Aphrodite (cf. Fig. 7); the pair were active also on Aigina, as
demonstrated fully by Williams when publishing the new Chian
material from Aigina which so complicates the story of the
dedication of bespoke Chian kantharoi: found on the island of
Chios, but much more frequently at Naukratis and Aigina – and
not at all, we may note, at Gravisca or the Heraion on Samos.2

Figure 2 a) East Greek cup BM GR 1886.4-1.681-2 (N237) b) Stele from Marion.

Figure 1 UCL-742. Chian kantharos rim and handle Cyprus Museum

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 23

Johnston

b c

Figure 3 BM GR 1888-6-1.173 and UCL-736. Chian lid or krater Figure 4 ‘Lunate’ gamma in graffiti on Chian chalices: a) N750, b) BM GR 1888.4-
1.420, c) BM GR 1965.9-30.141

a b a b

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

c) BSA 22, Samian?

Figure 5 ‘Ionic’ gamma: a) BM GR 1886.4-1.813, Milesian?; b) BM GR 1888.6-1.169,

Chian; c) N815,Attic?; d) Cairo 26152N876, Milesian?

a b

Figure 7 Dedications by Aristophantos and Damonidas from the temple of Figure 8 a) Graffito on Corinthian louterion rim from Chios; b) Laconian bronze
Aphaia on Aigina lion from Samos

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

24 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt


Knidian girl from Marion on Cyprus, and thereby the role of
Cypriots in the trade with Egypt.5 There is little in the use of
script that assists in placing the origin of the more general
‘Ionian’ texts, since the same lettering can be found on pieces of
surely Chian or surely Samian origin.
I wrote a note on one possibly diagnostic letter, sigma, in
BICS 1974, pointing out its diminishing use in the earlier 6th
century bc throughout Ionia, as well as demonstrating, I hope,
the erroneous interpretation, and occasionally reading, placed
on a large percentage of the relevant texts, where nu had
become confused with sigma either by the original writer or the
modern transcriber and interpreter. Astrid Möller, I add
immediately, plausibly suggests that a few of the texts with the
letter may be from Aiginetan dedicators.6
I turn to a few notes on individual pieces which I find of
interest.
First I must add to the note on the unusual gamma that I
included in my offering to John Boardman in Periplous; I
published one lunate example (Fig. 3) in the bespoke
inscription, unusually on a large Chian vase, a lid or krater,7 but I
failed to add further Chian examples – graffito on chalices (Fig.
4): N750 (BM GR 1888.6-1.421) and N752 (BM GR 1888.6-1.420),
and a kantharos scrap (BM GR 1965.9-30.141), where it is found
between an epsilon and perhaps a upsilon. These to add to the
one other oft-cited Ionian occurrence from Samos, Jeffery 1990,
341, Samos 7.
The letter gamma is not otherwise widely attested at
Naukratis – the ‘normal’ form occurs in Aigyptis’ set of bespoke
kantharoi8 and a half dozen other texts (Fig. 5):
• BM GR 1886.4-1.813 (N309, bowl, Milesian?);
• BM GR 1888.6-1.750 (N732, Chian pot);
• where? (N815, Attic? This group of graffiti is of various
fabrics, as far as can be ascertained. I assume the name to be
Megakles);
• Cairo 26152 (N876; Gardner 1888, pl. 20 – ?Milesian);
• Oxford G141.22 (JHS 33, a later piece, perhaps 5th century bc
Attic);
• BM GR 1888.6-1.169 (Cook and Woodhead 1952, no. 54,
Chian bespoke dipinto; the letter is incomplete, though
plausibly forms part of an egrapsen signature);
• perhaps also BM GR 1888.6-1.453 (see below);
while a form with rising second stroke (Fig. 6) appears more
intriguingly on three pieces:
• BM GR 1886.4-1.650 (N340, an unusual cup, with many
Laconian features, but more likely Knidian);
• where? (N762, Chian?);
• where? (BSA 22, Samian?).
All three were dedicated by the same Hermagathinos who
cut the more lunate letter on BM GR 1888.6-1.420 (N752) (Fig.
4b). While no clear picture emerges, and this is not the place
fully to demonstrate that this seems a small patch in the
protohistory of the letter, the four Chian examples of ‘non-Ionic’
gamma, which represent the ‘hand’ of at least three individuals,
should make us pause in pursuing over-relentlessly strict
allocations of scripts to poleis.9 Similar thoughts attend, of
course, the use of the Doric dialect in the name of Damonidas
(Fig. 7), attested in the painted inscriptions on Chian kantharoi
from the Aphaia temple, and plausibly once painted on the
Naukratis fragment, UCL-742 above (Fig. 1).10 To underline the
more inter-polis aspects of our subject, I might mention, inter
The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta
alia, the Corinthian dedication on a Corinthian louterion from
Chios (Fig. 8a), a Spartan’s dedication on a bronze from Samos
(Fig. 8b), and a Corinthian or Megarian dedication on a Chian
sherd from Eleusis, albeit, unlike in the case of our lunate
Chians, none of these reflect non-epichoric forms used by local
dedicators.11
BM GR 1888.6-1.495 (given as 496 in Cook and Woodhead
1952, no. 68, with incomplete reading) (Fig. 9) is a lower wall
fragment of a fairly large Chian chalice, perhaps one of the
‘Grand’ pieces, with a bespoke dedication by a ...]midhj. What is
intriguing is that the mu is actually incised at a point where the
slip had peeled away; that incision is ancient. This suggests,
though does not prove, that the pot had suffered in some
previous history, but that ...mides or his agent was present at or
near the final act of dedication at Naukratis to ‘restore’ the text. I
know of no good parallel but regard the piece as an important
element in our study of ritual offerings.
Full re-study of the material in the British Museum will
undoubtedly throw up items of interest. There follows here a
few prelimary remarks on pieces worthy of further study:
BM GR 1886.4-1.260 (N117, B79) (Fig. 10). ]a?mpuri.[. The
reading in N is slightly defective: there is part of a horizontal to
the left, almost certainly making the first preserved letter an
alpha, and at the end merely a section of a line at the break, but
so situated as to suggest it is from a circular letter. The piece is
the lip of a low-lipped cup with a little mica.
BM GR 1886.4-1.671 (N236, B197, Möller 2000, 174, no. 5b;
sample Nauk 73) (Fig. 11). ]ekankley[. The piece is a large flat-
rimmed bowl, mostly covered with a thin brown ‘glaze’.
Hypothetically it may be of Knidian manufacture.12 It is difficult
not to construe this as an aorist third plural followed by an aorist
participle, a0ne/q]ekan or, as suggested by Möller, ka/qq]ekan
kle/y[antej; her Kley[i/aj can perhaps be discounted in view of
lack of evidence for any such personal names. A compound
adjective perhaps should not be ruled out; but the deus ex
machina of a reference to a klepsydra runs against the
shallowness of the bowl (even if the full depth is not preserved) -
and it would be a truly remarkable occurrence. The topos of
theft and subsequent action appears in graffiti of the
approximate period, though the plural does cause obvious
difficulties.13 One final possibility is to read a verb with apocope,
retaining perhaps the Aeolic nature of Möller’s suggestion,
ka/qq]ek’ a0nkley[... : this would allow a singular dedicator,
though introduces an unexpected elision, despite the elegance
of the contrast of the two prepositions. While epigraphic
probability points in this direction, the prominence of such a
statement of theft in a dedication formula would be striking.
BM GR 1888.6-1.359 (N754, B405). ]yende[ in the first line,
].oaneq[ below. Cut on the outside of the foot of this small Chian
chalice. The first preserved letter is clearly a psi and there is the
minimal trace of a vertical at the start of line 2, perhaps an iota.
One wonders whether there was room on the small pedestal for
a signature egrapsen as well as a dedication, seemingly including
a patronymic, below.
Figure 12 Chian chalice BM GR
1888.6-1.453
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 25
Johnston
Figure 13 Cup BM GR 1886.4-1.261 Figure 14 Cypriot amphora handle BM
GR 1888.6-1.389
BM GR 1888.6-1.453. (N760, B411) (Fig. 12). ]n:o pe.[ |
] aunthj:[. Foot fragment of Chian chalice. Gardner suggested
in line 2 Phaid]runtes, but this is epigraphically highly unlikely.
He may well have had in mind Olympian polishers of statuary,
since no other common or proper nouns in - aunthj or - runthj
seem attested elsewhere, save the daughter of the Persian
Masistes, Artaunte (Hdt. 9.108). In the first line the final
preserved letter has a horizontal at the top – gamma or pi, and in
the second the first can hardly be read as rho; at the end there is
part of a two-dot punctuation, as after the first letter of line 1 –
a0ne/qhke]n : o9 Pe.[ | ]aunthj :[. Regrettably there is not enough
of the word commencing Pe- preserved to allow conjecture as to
whether it was a patronymic, ethnic or something else; I merely
note the lack of any Greek word in Peg- and the extreme rarity of
names in Pep- (with short vowel).14 Should one look outside the
Greek world but in Greek grammar?
BM GR 1886.4-1.261 (N122) (Fig. 13). t]oi zeni t[ Rim of
non-micaceous cup. Non-Ionic script, but Ionic dialect, not
previously noted as such. The script could be Cycladic.
Inscribed amphorae
I mentioned Cyprus above, and the immediate epigraphic
association that comes to mind is with the graffiti on Cypriot
amphora handles from Naukratis, in alphabetic, not syllabic
script (Table 1, 33-41), as indeed is also the case with the Cypriot
style limestone figurines of more disputed origin.15 I have
nothing to add to my 1982 note on the handles, save (Fig. 14)
perhaps stressing the possible Knidian origin of the inscriber of
40, if we take the simplest alphabetic explanation of the hour-
glass sign here as Knidian xi.16
Turning to other inscribed jars, I include in my discussion the
more intact pieces from Defenneh and Qurneh; I do not overlook
the as yet not fully published material from Eliezer Oren’s
excavations at Migdol/ ‘Elephantine’, and the finds from Abusir
Figure 16 Klazomenian amphora
from Tell Defenneh, BM EA 22343
26 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 15 Attic ‘à la brosse’ amphora from Tell Defenneh, BM GR 1888.2-8.60
published by Kvevta Smoláriková, but only two inscriptions are
specifically mentioned.17 A number of handles and other
fragments were retained from the Naukratis excavations, and, to
my knowledge, no uninscribed pieces of plain containers; I
cannot as yet allot more than a few to a given provenance, and
indeed some may not be from amphorae at all.18
The range of material is scarcely atypical of that found
elsewhere in the Mediterranean. I note merely the small number
of Corinthian A jars, compared with the record in the central
Mediterranean, while the Attic SOS too is thinly represented,
despite being a vigorous export until c. 575 bc (though before
the Greek arrival at Defenneh, from where we have just one
example of the later Athenian ‘à la brosse’ type (1) (Fig. 15),
which curiously is, to date, our only assured ‘merchant’s’ mark
appearing on amphorae from two widely separated sites.19
Regrettably the set of short dipinti on bowls from Defenneh
published by Petrie do not seem to be preserved; it would have
been interesting to compare them in all respects, including
fabric, with similar dipinto marks on amphorae from
Klazomenai; such an apparent system of short painted marks
does not appear with regularity in other, probably
contemporary, areas of production.20 A Klazomenian jar in the
Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan in the British Museum
has a mark of this genre (4) (Fig. 16), though it seems not to be
any of the pieces noted by Petrie; my interest in it is its
extraordinary repair – it became cracked but was not broken,
was repaired with very large drill holes used, and survived in
that condition until excavated; very similar is the Milesian piece
from Migdol, Oren 1984, 20, fig. 23.5.
One large dipinto from Qurneh (59) (Fig. 17) is very
different, and recalls published marks from Black Sea sites,
while the profile drawing might suggest North Greek
production.21 The seal on Chian bobbin jars from Defenneh (2)
(Fig. 18) has caused ink to flow, but Amasis’ cartouche on such a
Figure 17 Amphora from Qurneh Figure 18 Chian amphora from Tell
Defenneh, sealed and marked with
cartouche of Amasis, BM EA 22356

Figure 19 Samian amphora from Qurneh, Petrie Museum, UCL, 16391
piece need not surprise us, since it was a long-lived amphora
type.22 I throw in the observation that there is an as yet
unpublished tomb from Rhodes town which had a Chian Late
Archaic amphora in it, which I assume was not buried before c.
408 bc.
Samian jars seem relatively common;23 this type too has a
form of marking unto itself, the pre-firing graffito, which only
occurs with any consistency elsewhere at the period on a few
Corinthian A jars, employing a different set of signs, though it
may well be that both encompass numerical notation. The
Samian jar now in the Petrie Museum from Qurneh (60) (Fig.
19) was said by Petrie to have a post-firing mark, but on the
original it is clearly not so, and a substantial number of parallels
can be cited (Table 2).24 About 40 Samian jars are known to me
with pre-firing graffiti (about half of Samian jars with any
mark), while I know of about 50 other such marks on Archaic
amphorae; 12 are on Corinthian A, the rest very disparate. The
Samian marks, found on jars spread throughout the
Mediterranean, are more coherent, and in fact a number are
duplicated – X is frequent; epsilon, zeta, as on the Petrie jar –
with apologies to scientists – lambda, tau and upsilon are
repeated, and there are two examples of simple impressed small
circle, one hour-glass and one figure-of-eight. Single examples
are known to me of beta, ‘horizontal xi’, wavy line, triple vertical
and triple horizontal. While it is difficult to see an overall
pattern here, some sequences of letters may exist – epsilon,
digamma, zeta; tau, upsilon. There are three examples of
digamma, not a letter used in Ionian script, while a relatively
early, fragmentary jar from Kommos (Fig. 20) has a clear mu
digamma; a method of numeration is very clearly indicated, but
one that can accommodate 46 and in some way privilege 6, 7
Figure 20 Samian amphora from Kommos, Crete, c. 625-600 BC
The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta
Figure 21 Fractional Samian amphora, BM GR 1886.4-1.1291
and 30, as well as probably non-numerical signs, is far from easy
to discern. Note especially that any straightforward
interpretation as capacity is ruled out by the fact that a
‘fractional’ jar in the British Museum from Naukratis (Fig. 21)
has the same zeta as the large Petrie piece. One should add
immediately that zeta iota (= 17), probably also pre-firing, is
found on a lost companion piece to that in the Petrie Museum,
Qurneh no. 850 (Fig. 22).25 One may consider the possibility that
the marks in some way indicate batches in a kiln, though they
presumably do not exist to facilitate the post-firing matching up
of pot and lid, as in the later series of Attic pyxides.26
Addendum ex-Africa SOS
My concern above was for amphorae with inscriptions, but it
may be worth adding these few notes on some uninscribed
pieces, all of which contribute in some way to the dating of
Greek presence at African sites.
Rather to the west of our area of prime concern is Cyrenaica,
but the dating of an SOS amphora to before 650 bc from the area
does reflect on general Greek interests. A piece found in the sea
off Ptolemais/Apollonia was so dated by Emmanuela Fabbricotti
in 1980. The pot does seem rather to belong roughly to the
middle-late period, with a somewhat flat shoulder and roughly
painted decoration. At any rate there is no compelling evidence
for it to be placed earlier than ‘c. 630 bc’.27
Coming east, in the recent publication of finds from the
University of Philadelphia’s excavations on Bates’s Island, Marsa
Matruh, one pot of Greek origin is taken to be the earliest Iron
Age import on the site, at c. 700 bc, by Don Bailey (Fig. 23). As
such it would indeed be a striking fragment, since no other such
import into Egypt can be dated to before c. 640 bc.28
Figure 22 Amphorae from Qurneh
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 27
Johnston

provides no totally similar parallel.31 However, there can be no

Figure 23 SOS amphora neck from Figure 24. SOS amphora neck from
Marsa Matruh Karnak, c .650 BC
However, the piece is most unlikely to be from an Attic SOS
amphora, as suggested by Bailey. While its precise typological
niche cannot be argued in view of the lack of very close parallels,
its characteristics belong generically to what may be termed
those of the ‘Laconian’ amphora, and should probably be dated
to the period 625–575 bc. Against an attribution to the Attic ‘SOS’
amphora type are the profile with angular, jutting lip, the
decoration, with a painted interior to the neck and paint not
extending lower than the point of the ridge below the lip, and
the clay, described as “hard red clay with white grits”, not typical
of Attica.29
Similar material comes from Kommos in south central Crete,
an emporium site in the 7th century bc. Such amphorae are,
however, not fully comparable with the MM sherd; one of the
Kommos variants has a similar lip, but known examples are
reserved inside, while the other is painted inside the neck but
has a ‘fascia’, not a ridge, below the lip.30 This material has been
provisionally assigned to Laconia on adequate geological and
rather broad typological grounds; the range of more
persuasively Laconian jars, largely of the 6th century bc, again
doubt that the piece is not Attic of around 700 bc, but of a type
current in c. 600 bc, emanating on current evidence from either
Laconia or a site yet to be identified.
In addition to the piece of ‘à la brosse’ type noted above, a
second Attic amphora from the Delta is worth noting, and I
thank Helen Jacquet for bringing it to my attention (Fig. 24).32 It
is part of an SOS neck from Karnak, from a stratum containing
26th–30th Dynasty pottery. The profile here does conform more
closely to the ‘middle’ series, with a relatively low lip and sharp
ridge below, as well as having a fairly straight neck, as far as can
be judged. One would certainly be tempted to a date ‘c. 650 bc’
for its manufacture, though that of its arrival in Egypt could
have been some time later.
The question of the contents of the jars is regularly raised,
and more recently John Lund has strongly supported a primary
use for wine,33 stressing the appearance of Dionysos shouldering
an SOS on the François vase as the most important piece of
evidence. True, this scene is not to be underestimated, but one
must also note that the SOS and the Corinthian A jar are the two
earliest types of transport amphora to be made and circulated in
large quantities, from the later 8th century bc onwards, and that
it is impossible that the Corinthian product could have held wine
because of its porosity. We must hope that a carefully conducted
programme of organic analysis may some day help resolve this
debate.

Table 1 Inscribed amphorae from Egypt34

From Tell Defenneh

1 BM GR 1888.2-8.60 ‘à la brosse’ Johnston 2000b, 236; Fig. 15 I–IET
2 BM EA 22356 Chian Petrie 1888 pl. 36.3; Fig. 18 pentalpha*
3 BM EA 22333 E. Greek? API, retrograde, shoulder
4 BM EA 22343 Klazomenian Fig. 16 glaze squiggle, by handle
5 where? Lesbian Petrie 1888 pl. 33.12b N, probably same as next entry
5 Petrie Museum 19247 Lesbian Petrie 1888 pl. 33.12b? two lines on shoulder
6 where? Lesbian Petrie 1888 pl. 33.12a D
7 where? N. Greek? Petrie 1888 pl. 33.1 E, shoulder
8 BM GR 1977.10-11.2 Samian HI, large, shoulder
9 BM GR unregistered Samian? Johnston 1887, 129, fig. 1 ‘anchor’, large, shoulder
10-12 where? (3 pieces) Samian? Petrie 1888 pl. 33.10b-d various letters part-preserved
13 where? Samian? Petrie 1888 pl. 33.10a ‘arrow’, twice
14 where? Samian? Petrie 1888 pl. 34.39 ‘arrow’, shoulder
*The neck is closed with plaster stamped with a seal of Amasis; Petrie (1888, 64) mentions more than one Chian jar so sealed.

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

28 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 The Delta: From Gamma to Zeta

35 BM GR 1910.2-22.4 Cypriot N388, Johnston 1982, 35-7 heta-epsilon, handle

36 BM GR 1910.2-22.5 Cypriot N389, Johnston 1982, 35 xi, handle
37 BM GR 1910.2-22.6 Cypriot N390, Johnston 1982, 36 XIII, handle
38 BM GR 1910.2-22.7 Cypriot N391, Johnston 1982, 36 three lines crossed by diagonal
39 BM GR 1910-2-22.20 Cypriot N404 more complex than sampi, pace N, wall
40 BM GR 1888.6-1.389 Cypriot N764, Johnston 1982, 36-7 ED and hourglass, handle
41 BM GR 1910.2-22.38 Cypriot? N423 LI, trace before, shoulder
42 BM GR 1910.2-22.36 E.Greek N421 LA, shoulder
43 BM GR 1910.2-22.242 E Greek ‘trident’, pre-firing, shoulder
44 BM GR 1910.2-22.9 Klazomenian N393 IIIII: , handle
45 BM GR 1910.2-22.8 N.Greek? N392 ]IXX, handle
46 BM GR 1910.2-22.34 N.Greek? N419 heta-upsilon
47 BM GR 1886.4-1.1261 Samian zeta, pre-firing, shoulder; dark dipinto, L.
48 BM GR 1910.2-22.31 amphora? N415 alpha-upsilon?, shoulder
49 BM GR 1910.2-22.30 amphora, Samian N414 ‘psi’, shoulder?
50 BM GR 1910.2-22.14 local N398 S, handle
51 BM GR 1910.2-22.39 ? N424 phi, on top of mushroom lip; 4th century BC
52 where? ? N396 xi, handle
53 BM GR 1910.2-22.37 ? N422 ]N
54 where? ? N395 ‘psi’ handle
55 BM GR 1910.2-22.32 ? N416 mark perhaps as Johnston 1979, type 12E
56 BM GR 1910.2-22.33 ? N417 crossed theta, plus, shoulder

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

Table 2 Pre-firing graffiti on Samian amphorae

Athens Agora P14694 unpublished L shoulder

Athens Agora P20809 unpublished L under foot
Capua Capua unpublished retrograde digamma by handle
Cerveteri Villa Giulia, Banditacchia Cat VII 12 small circle under handle
Cerveteri Villa Giulia, Banditacchia Cat VII 11 hourglass by handle
Cerveteri Villa Giulia, MA T155 Cat VII 21 L by handle. Complex sign on shoulder
Cerveteri Villa Giulia, MA T546 Cat VII 22 ‘segno’.‘lettera’
Cerveteri Villa Giulia, Mengarelli Cat VII 1 ‘arrow’ by handle
Gravisca Tarquinia 73/26656 Johnston 2000c, no. 288 L, shoulder
Gravisca Tarquinia 78/9168 Johnston 2000c, no. 293 T, handle
Himera Imera RO3 unpublished rectangle?, shoulder
Himera Imera RO747 unpublished ‘W’ shoulder
Kamarina Camarina 3511 unpublished B, shoulder
Kamarina Camarina 3558 unpublished T, handle
Kamarina Camarina T1053, 7395 unpublished +, neck and Z under handle. AN, shoulder
Kamarina Camarina T1375, 7943 unpublished Y, base of handle
Kamarina Camarina T1395, 7966 unpublished triple horizontal, neck. + on each handle
Kamarina Camarina T1402, 7974 unpublished diagonal, base of handle
Kamarina Camarina T1685, 8515 unpublished retrograde digamma. Large horizontal E
Kamarina Camarina T1685, 8515 unpublished digamma.TH [ partly over it
Kamarina Camarina T870, 7194 unpublished + (with two horizontals), shoulder. Graffito
Kamarina Camarina T914, 7226 unpublished ‘E’, shoulder
Kommos Pitsidia I112 Johnston 2005, no. 220; Fig. 20 mu digamma, shoulder. 7th century BC
Marion (T83, 3) Nicosia unpublished o on top of handle
Megara Hyblaea Syracuse unpublished III on lip above handle
Montalto di Castro Villa Giulia Cat VII 7 X, below handle
Naukratis BM GR 1886.4-1.1291 Fig. 21 zeta, shoulder. Dark L, at least, on belly
Pithekoussai Lacco Ameno 1674-7 unpublished X, shoulder.A on handle. c. 700–650 BC
Qurneh where? Qurneh pl. LIV, 850; Fig. 22 zeta iota, shoulder. alpha-kappa?
Qurneh Petrie Museum 16391 Fig. 19 zeta. alpha-lambda
Samos Heraion K3670 unpublished 8
Samos Heraion, Brunnen W2 unpublished wavy horizontal, neck
Samos Heraion, Brunnen W2, unpublished V, neck
Samos lost? Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22 L
Samos lost? Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22 N
Samos lost? Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22 sidelong xi
Samos lost? Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22 E?, plus?
Samos Pythagoreion 16/2/1976 unpublished L L L L to left of handle
? Villa Giulia Cat VII 14 + on shoulder
? Villa Giulia Cat VII 15 + on shoulder

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 29

Johnston
Illustration credits
Fig. 1 photograph Stuart Laidlaw, author’s drawing; Fig. 2b after Masson
1983, pl. 22.3; Fig. 7 after Williams 1983a, fig. 14; Fig. 8a after Simantoni-
Bournia 1992, pl. 5; Fig. 8b photograph E. Feiler, Neg. D-DAI-ATH-
1972/269. All rights reserved; Fig. 8c author’s drawing; Fig. 16 detail:
photograph Sabine Weber; Fig. 17 after Petrie 1909, pl. 54; Fig. 18 after
Petrie 1888, pl. 36.3; Fig. 19 photographs Petrie Museum, University
College London; Fig. 20 photograph Kommos Excavation; Fig. 22 after
Petrie 1909, pl. 55; Fig. 23 after Bailey 2002, fig. 12.4; Fig. 24 author’s
drawing. All other photographs: the British Museum.
Notes
* I am grateful to Dyfri Williams and Alexandra Villing for the
invitation to participate in the Colloquium and for assistance in re-
studying some of the material included here. One may anticipate
further useful results from the complete re-examination of the
material.
1 The primary publications of the material are, for Naukratis, Gardner
1886 and 1888; Edgar 1898/9 and Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905;
and for Tell Defenneh, Petrie 1888. The following abbreviations are
used in citing catalogue numbers in these publications:
N Gardner 1886 (to N700) and 1888 (from N701)
BSA Edgar 1898/9
JHS Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905
B Bernand 1970
2 Johnston 1979 and 1982; Williams 1983a. It is clear that the number
of unpublished pieces (some simply noted by Bernand) is far greater
than I believed until very recently. The apparent lack at the Samian
Heraion may not be unexpected; Kyrieleis (1986) noted the meagre
evidence for connection between the two islands.
3 Boardman 1999a, 130; Jeffery 1990 index (p. 395); Möller 2000a,
167-81; Torelli 1982, 316-25; Wachter 2001, 214-19.
4 BM GR 1965.9-30.403 and 404, from a larger closed or semi-closed
vase; no reading of the two as a text is yet possible, but the
boustrophedon system is used.
5 Masson 1983, no. 164, pl. 22.2-3.
6 Möller 2000a, 174-5.
7 Johnston 2000a, 164-6; also noted by Wachter 2001, 216.
8 Cook and Woodhead 1952, 161.
9 Gamma is not so frequently attested in the 7th century bc that we can
always see the manner in which each area of the Greek world
distinguished its shape from that of the later letters in the alphabet
row, lambda and pi.
10 Damonidas – Williams 1983a, 184 and Johnston 1982, 40-1. It would
perhaps be a tight fit to get both names, Aristophantos and
Damonidas around the lip, but the calculation cannot give a precise
figure for the number of letters lost.
11 Corinthian louterion, Simantoni-Bournia 1992, 19, no. 8, pl. 5;
Laconian bronze lion, Jeffery 1990, 446, no. 16a; Chian sherd from
Eleusis, Johnston 2000a, 166.
12 Clay analysis of the piece (sample Nauk 73) has, however, so far not
confirmed this hypothesis and shown it to belong to a group called
ITAN of unknown provenance; cf. Mommsen et al., this volume.
13 The best preserved example is from Xanthos, Istanbul 1482, Metzger
1972, 166-70, 200; add two fragmentary ones from Olbia, Dubois
1996, no. 28a-b, with further discussion.
14 A rare example, still unpublished (I owe the reference to Olga
Palagia) is Peperia (genitive?) incised on a silver phiale from a rich
early 5th century bc tomb from Vergina, noted without mention of
the inscription in Andronikos 1988, 2 and Kottaridou 2005, 139.
15 Johnston 1982, 35-7. For the statuettes see Jenkins 2000 and in
general Kourou 2002.
16 Johnston 1982, 36, no. 8, giving the abbreviation Erx-. The letter may
also be used in the graffito on the neck of an Attic SOS amphora from
Porto Cheli, Johnston and Jones 1978, 111, no. 40 and 131-2; the text
could be read as Knidian Thox-, i.e. Theox-.
30 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
17 Migdol, Oren 1984, esp. 17-30, noting one ship graffito on a 'torpedo'
jar. Abusir, Smoláriková 2001, and 2002, 23-46, with an overview of
material from all Egyptian sites and illustration of a post-firing mu on
a Samian jar (second figure on p. 117). Add large lettering of Archaic
date on the neck of a probably East Greek jar from Marsa Matruh,
Bailey 2002, no. 12.45.
18 Some pieces in the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan in the
British Museum are incised with arabic numerals; one I hesitatingly
include as a possibly ancient mark (3, above), though '19A' may well
be the reading. Another (BM EA 23776), with '19', is a neck of
generically Milesian type though in thick fabric with minimal mica.
19 Johnston 2000b.
20 Petrie 1888, pl. 32; Klazomenai, Doðer 1986, 465, figs 9 and 10.
21 Most accessible in Monachov 1999, 175 and 178-9, with figs 18 and 30,
and 2003, 252-3; see also the caption to Tunkina 2003, 340, fig. 23.
The material is largely a generation or more later than the Qurneh
vase, which seems to be taken as Samian by Smoláriková 2002, 43, n.
276 (with misprinted number).
22 First noted by Petrie 1888, 64. For a summary of recent views see
Cook 1989, 165, and for the development of the shape of the type
Dupont 1998, 146-8.
23 Unlike Milesian jars, only rarely attested at Abusir and Migdol,
Smoláriková 2001, 167 and Oren 1984, 20, fig. 5, and 29, figs 36-8, as
cogently suggested by Dupont 1998, 216, n. 200. See also n. 18 above.
24 Petrie 1909, 16 for the generic statement that the jars were marked
"after baking". The Petrie Museum amphora is no. 849.
25 Kommos, Johnston 2005, no. 220. Naukratis fractional jar, BM GR
1886.4-1.1291 (Table 1, no. 47), also has a washed out dipinto, lambda
or 'arrow' delta, in dark paint, on the belly. It is not simple to
disentangle the references in Petrie 1909, pl. 54, bottom right, not
least because the present whereabouts of some material is unknown;
the two marks drawn above '848' are presumably those on 849,
where the zeta is repeated; the ligature of alpha and kappa may
perhaps have been on 850. I add two further examples of pre-firing
zeta: on a neck and shoulder fragment of an East Greek jar from
Kommos (Johnston 2005, no. 227) and on the shoulder of, perhaps, a
small, highly micaceous amphora, from Naukratis, BM GR 1886.4-
1.92 (N344, B305); the ductus is unusual in my experience, with thin
incised lines which have pushed up low, rounded ridges of clay to
either side, as distinct from the gouged grooves of most pre-firing
marks.
26 Johnston 1979, 38. Some 25 additional marked lids or boxes have
been added in the supplementary volume, which will be published in
2006.
27 Fabbricotti 1980. For the general typology see Johnston and Jones
1978; a further distinction between ‘late 1’ and ‘late 2’ has been made,
properly enough, in the Villa Giulia catalogue (see n. 34 below), but
is not relevant for my purpose here.
28 Bailey 2002, 126-7, 12.36, with fig. 12.4.
29 Weber 2001, 136 and 142.
30 These details are discussed in Johnston and Jones 1978, as cited by
Bailey.
31 Johnston and de Domingo 2003, 32 and 37, with further bibliography
on the type.
32 I am grateful to her and to Antigoni Marangou-Lerat for allowing me
to include this fragment here.
33 Lund 2004, 213.
34 I have not included dates in the tables since close dating based solely
on shape is rarely possible in the period, as learned from my work on
7th century bc material from Kommos. The ‘readings’ in the final
column should be taken merely as a rough guide; use of a hyphen
indicates a ligature between letters. In the publication column ‘Cat.’
refers to the unpublished catalogue of the exhibition in the Villa
Giulia Museum, 1983. Any graffito listed after a full-stop in the final
column is post-firing. I am indebted to Federica Cordano for
knowledge of some of the Kamarina jars.
‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and
Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
Alexandra Villing
Abstract
Shallow grinding bowls made of buff clay were dedicated in
considerable numbers in the Archaic sanctuary of Apollo at
Naukratis. They belong to a type of mortarium that was
widespread across Eastern Mediterranean households but that was
also used in the preparation of foods in sanctuaries. The type is
known from many sites in the Nile Delta and is also particularly
common in Palestine, Cyprus and Ionia; clay analysis suggests that
Cyprus was the main production centre and that the type was
widely traded. Nevertheless, local imitations of Egyptian clay are
also attested. The Cypro-Phoenician type inspired the production of
mortaria on the Greek mainland, notably Corinth, which in turn
soon became a dominant player in the market in mortaria across
the Mediterranean; Corinthian mortaria of the Classical period are
also attested at Naukratis.*
When Flinders Petrie excavated the temenos of Apollo at
Naukratis in 1885, a group of ‘coarse thick drab bowls’ caught his
attention; one of them he included among the drawings of
pottery in Naukratis I, along with several other fragments of
coarse bowls. The majority of them carry votive inscriptions to
Apollo and form a quite coherent group.1 Together with some
related pieces, these bowls, now in the British Museum, are the
focus of the present study. Even if at first glance they hardly
seem promising material to study (and indeed they have
escaped the attention of most scholars since Petrie), Petrie’s
diligence in recording and preserving them was not wasted. We
shall see that they provide new and unexpected insights not just
Figure 1 Mortarium from Naukratis (cat. no. 1), inscribed twpoll[...]i
Figure 2 Mortarium from Naukratis (cat. no. 2; sample Nauk 35: group CYPT); inscribed twpoll[
into the cult of Apollo at Naukratis but also into the network of
exchange and influence across the ancient Mediterranean.
1. ‘Drab bowls’: mortaria at Naukratis
Twenty-six fragments of shallow, open, undecorated bowls are
today preserved in the British Museum from among the finds
that Petrie made in his excavation of the sanctuary of Apollo in
1884/5. The majority of them (cat. nos 1–20) belong to the same
basic type of bowl and are inscribed with graffiti naming Apollo.
They are flat-based, of truncated conical shape (cf. the complete
profiles of cat. nos 1–2, Figs 1-2), with a thickened, more or less
oval rim, slightly wavy/rippled outside and smooth inside, and
were probably made on a slow wheel, perhaps sometimes with
the help of a mould. Most are made of reasonably hard, dense to
slightly porous buff clay that fires pink-orange to yellow-beige,
with a yellow-beige slip. Many show signs of having been
produced in some considerable haste. They are obviously
functional and all show clear traces of abrasion inside as well as
on the underside of the base or foot. Two (cat. nos 16 and 26;
Figs 3–4, the latter of different type and clay and of uncertain
origin) also feature repair-holes.2
Petrie in his Naukratis publication grouped these ‘coarse
thick drab bowls’, together with the ‘drab amphorae with loop
handles’, in his fabric group P.3 According to his assessment, the
bowls are generally early4 and often found in the same levels in
the Apollo temenos as the loop-handled amphorae,5 which must
have been very common indeed in the excavation:
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 31
Villing

Figure 3 Mortarium from Naukratis

(cat. no. 16); repair hole; inscribed ]nun[

Figure 4 Mortarium from Naukratis

(cat. no. 26); repair hole

Figure 5 Mortarium from Naukratis

(cat. no. 13); inscribed ]wllon[

Figure 6 Mortarium from Naukratis

(cat. no. 9; sample Nauk 56: chemical
single); inscribed twpol[

Figure 7 Mortarium from Naukratis

(cat. no. 18); thread marks and incised
E-shaped symbol under foot

Figure 8 Mortarium from Naukratis

(cat. no. 19; sample Nauk 55: group
EMEA); inscribed nai kr[

Figure 9 Mortarium from Naukratis

(cat. no. 20); inscribed panfa

32 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

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

Figure 10 Corinthian ‘tile fabric’

mortarium from Naukratis, with
stamped decoration (cat. no. 21)

Figure 11 Corinthian ‘tile fabric’

mortarium from Naukratis, with
spool-shaped handle and added grit
inside (cat. no. 22)

Figure 12 Corinthian ‘tile fabric’

mortarium from Naukratis, with
stamped rosette underneath base (cat.
no. 23)

Figure 13 Heavy basin-like mortarium

from Naukratis (cat. no. 24)

The great amphorae of thick greenish-drab ware, with massive loop
handles, and often made by hand, being scraped down on the
outside, are apparently not found above the level of the scarab
factory, or 570 bc. They are so common, and at the same time I
watched so continually for them in digging in order to settle their
age, that this seems probably a real limit; and if so, it is valuable for
fixing other dates. The great drab bowls of similar style are evidently
early, as the inscriptions on them are very rude, and always
retrograde on the inside, while direct on the outside.6
The inscriptions are indeed particularly intriguing. Many are
placed on the inside of the rim (e.g. Figs 1–2 [cat. nos 1 and 2], 5
[cat. no. 13], 21 [cat. no. 10]), some on the outside (e.g. Figs 3
[cat. no. 16], 6 [cat. no. 9], 22 [cat. no. 12] and some under the
foot (Figs 7 [cat. no. 18] and 8 [cat. no. 19]). All are very large
and irregular, and scratched on after firing. Thirteen fragments
(cat. nos 1–13), probably belonging to ten vessels, can be
restored as dedications to Apollo on the pattern twpollwnov
eimi; the others seem to record only parts of personal names, but
none is preserved or can be restored completely,7 nor can we tell
whether they are male or female.
What are these bowls? They can be identified easily as a
particular type of mortarium (shallow grinding bowl)8 that was
widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Archaic period
in Cypro-Phoenician and Ionian contexts; I will refer to this type
in what follows as the ‘Eastern Mediterranean’ or ‘Cypro-
Phoenician’ type.9 Parallels for the general shape are easily
found at many sites in the 7th and 6th centuries bc (see below
section 4). The type’s longevity, together with much variation
that is of little chronological relevance, makes precise dating by
shape difficult, yet the character of most of the inscriptions
(many of which are retrograde) suggests a date before the
middle of the 6th century bc for most pieces; Figure 8 (cat. no.
19) with its low ring base and Figure 9 (cat. no. 20) with its disk-
shaped base should be somewhat later.10
In addition to this group of inscribed drab bowls, there are
also a number of uninscribed, shallow bowls from Apollo’s
sanctuary that can equally be identified as mortaria, but as later
examples of the shape (cat. nos 21–26). Two of them, with spool-
shaped handles, are of uncertain origin (cat. nos 25–26, Fig. 4).11
Others are clearly mainland Greek in type and manufacture, and
of 5th–4th century bc date. They comprise three Corinthian
mould-made, ‘tile-fabric’ mortaria (cat. nos 21–23, Figs 10–12),
two of them with elaborate, impressed designs,12 with added grit
in the bottom of the bowl for increased abrasion, and a shallow
mortarium of fine, sandy yellow clay (cat. no. 24, Fig. 13), with
massively thickened rounded rim and a groove on the outside
wall, a thickened flat base, spout and spool handles, which may

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 33

Villing
Figure 14 Corinthian terracotta figurine of a monkey playing with a mortarium
and pestle, early 4th century BC (BM GR 1903.5-18.3 [Terracotta 957])
be of Corinthian (or Aiginetan?) production.13 From around
500 bc, Corinthian mortaria are found in many parts of the
Mediterranean. Elsewhere in Greece, too, shallow pottery bowls
had been locally produced for use as mortaria since the 7th
century bc, but only the Corinthian production, it seems, gained
such a wide distribution and essentially took over the market in
mortaria from the Eastern Mediterranean/Cypro-Phoenician
type.14
It is only through recent research that we have begun to
understand more about the extraordinary spread of both these
types and their production centres, and this is what I will
concentrate on in the second half of this article. First, however,
we should have a closer look at the mortaria from Naukratis and
their context at the site, and try to explain why they are such a
pronounced feature from the early 6th through to the 5th–4th
centuries bc.
2. Mortaria and their uses in the Eastern Mediterranean kitchen
The function of mortaria has been the object of considerable
discussion among scholars.15 Eliezer Oren,16 with regard to the
wide distribution of Cypro-Phoenician mortaria alongside
torpedo-shaped and basket-handled amphorae in the Eastern
Mediterranean, concluded that these amphorae ‘were probably
the standard transport containers for grain and oil throughout
the Mediterranean basin, with the mortarium serving as a
measuring bowl’. This ‘measuring bowl’ idea was shortly
afterwards expounded at great length by Salles, who saw in
these bowls measures for soldier’s grain rations.17 Others have
put forward the idea that mortaria were used primarily or
exclusively as bowls in which milk was left to curdle and turn
into cheese.18 Both ideas, however, are easily refuted with
reference to the very obvious traces of abrasion in the majority
of Archaic and Classical mortaria,19 which are also found in
mortaria from Naukratis, most obviously in cat. no. 1 (Fig. 1),
where the interior is extremely worn. At Daphnae/Tell
Defenneh we even find the centre of one bowl (cat. no. D1, Fig.
19) worn through. Clearly, many if not all mortaria were subject
to fairly heavy-duty use,20 such as can result only from grinding
with a largish (probably wooden) pestle.21 It is thus with some
justification that we use the Latin term for grinding bowl,
‘mortarium’ for these bowls, which formed such an essential
part of Archaic and Classical Greek and Eastern Mediterranean
kitchen equipment.22
34 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 15 Corinthian terracotta figurine of a mule carrying a mortarium, early
4th century BC (BM GR 1873.8-20.576 [Terracotta 969])
What exactly would have been the function of these grinding
bowls? With their shallow, round shape and usually thick rim
that facilitated being grasped by a human hand, they certainly
seem predestined for the grinding, mashing and mixing23 of
relatively soft to medium-hard materials; being made of clay,
heavy pounding would have been less appropriate. They also
strike one as useful for kneading, although we learn that special
kneading trays (kardopoi) were also known in Greece.24
Unfortunately, there is very little evidence for exactly what
foods were processed in mortaria, and virtually no evidence
outside mainland Greece and before 500 bc.25 The few
representations that show mortaria being used come from
Boiotia and Corinth, while the literary sources largely
concentrate on Classical Athens; both have to be used with
caution as far as the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean is
concerned, and will be discussed in greater detail elsewhere.26
Here I will only briefly summarise what can be gleaned from
them.
Two Corinthian terracotta figurines are particularly relevant
in this context, one a monkey playfully using a mortarium and
pestle (Fig. 14),27 the other a mule carrying a mortarium on its
back (Fig. 15).28 The mortarium in both cases is clearly of the
Classical Corinthian variety, with a long spout and spool-
handles; the pestle is of distinctive angled, ‘finger-like’ shape, as
it is known from the 5th century bc onwards, in Corinth and
elsewhere, made of wood or stone (cf. also Fig. 18).29 The
ingredients in the mortarium carried by the mule are an
indication of what might have been processed in the mortarium:
a small round cheese next to a cheese-grater,30 and a bunch of
garlic or onions. Already some earlier Boiotian figurines show
cheese being grated into a mortarium,31 and it seems also from
literary sources that in both Greek and Roman cuisine the use of
a mortarium for processing cheese was quite common. Mixed
with crushed herbs and garlic, it would produce the Roman
spicy cheese moretum (its manufacture being described in detail
in the poem Moretum), or the Greek spicy cheese sauce called
myttotos/myssotos (Ar., Pax 228-88), which went particularly
well with tunny, as is pointed out by the mid-6th century bc
Ionian poet Hipponax.32 Other ingredients that might be ground
in a mortarium are aromatics and spices (such as cumin,
vinegar, silphium, and coriander – cf. Ath. 403-4), nuts and fresh
green herbs, and seasonings of all kinds, for cakes, sauces,
dressings and side dishes, as well as perhaps spices for wine.
 ‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
For the staples of everyday cooking mortaria should also
have been useful – this would seem to be borne out by the
number of grinding bowls found, for example, in domestic
contexts in Archaic Miletos. They certainly seem ideal to assist
the preparation of mashes and soups made from vegetables or
pulses,33 but also, perhaps, porridge and gruel. Of course, heavy-
duty grinding of flour was usually done with the help of special
stone mills – hand-mills, the saddle quern or the hopper rubber
– while hulling (of barley – krithe) would have required a large
holmos in which the grain was pounded with a large pestle
(hyperon),34 at least if large amounts needed to be processed –
for smaller quantities a mortarium may well have been useful.
Perhaps stone mortaria were also sometimes used.35 A clay
mortarium one could imagine, by contrast, might assist in other
types of grain processing,36 such as the breaking down of grain
into coarse pearl barley, cracked barley (erikis), emmer wheat,
coarse meal (alphita), or semolina.37 Barley meal, alphita,
certainly was a particularly useful form of cereal. It was the basis
for maza (alphita kneaded with water, milk, oil or wine), which
was, next to wheat bread, the main grain-based staple of the
Greek diet, and for ptisane, barley gruel, a drink or soup with a
medicinal function, especially when herbs and spices were
added.38 It has been suggested that alphita, in the shape of pre-
cooked (moistened and sun-dried) groats,39 may have been
ground and mixed with additional ingredients, such as pulses or
nuts, in mortaria.40 In fact, one could imagine that all kinds of
porridges,41 such as athera,42 a porridge or gruel that could be
made from alphita, emmer groats (olyra, a staple in the Near
East and Egypt in particular, and also the basis for the Roman
porridge, puls),43 semolina (durum wheat flour – semidalis), or
wheat (gruel – chondros), might have been mixed in a
mortarium. Literary sources, of course, usually mention just
cooking pots in connection with porridge (e.g. Ar., Plut. 673),
but there is at least one instance in which a bowl is connected
with athera: a Hellenistic Cypriot syllabic inscription (pre-firing)
on a relatively thick-walled shallow bowl of c. 33cm in diameter,
dedicated to the Nymphs, designates this vessel, uniquely, as
‘atharophoron’ (‘porringer’) – whether this means it served in
the preparation of athera or was merely a container of athera
remains, of course, uncertain.44 The inscription dates the bowl to
the year 225/4 bc. Even though typologically the bowl is not a
characteristic mortarium, its basic shape and size, as well as its
clay (medium-hard creamy-buff clay with creamy-yellow slip),
are closely comparable to Cypriot mortaria.45
Spicy cheese sauces for tunny may, thus, not have been all
there was to Archaic mortaria. It is likely that mortaria were
multi-purpose household implements that were useful in the
preparation of daily foods. But what was it then that also made
them suitable votive offerings for Apollo?
Figure 16 Mortarium from the Samian
Heraion, inscribed ‘H’ (Samos, Heraion
inv. K11146)
3. Grinding for the gods: mortaria in sanctuaries
The complex of mortaria with votive inscriptions from Naukratis
is unique: inscriptions on mortaria are rare,46 and nowhere else,
it seems, are they as frequent as in Naukratis. The closest
parallel is a single fragment of an Archaic mortarium in the
Heraion of Samos (Fig. 16), of the same Cypro-Phoenician type,
but with a far more abbreviated inscription: a single ‘H’ (eta) is
incised on the outside of the rim.47 The mortarium is thus in all
likelihood a dedication to Hera: ‘HR’ or ‘HRH’ (but also, it seems,
very rarely just ‘H’) are well known as abbreviations of Hera’s
name on the group of sacred pottery with dipinti that has been
found in great numbers in the Samian Heraion (as well as on
some examples at Naukratis – cf. Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs
14–16),48 and that was presumably used in connection with
sacred meals and other rites during the first half of the 6th
century bc.49 The inscription makes it likely that this Samian
mortarium, too, played a role in the cult, such as in the
preparation of sacrificial meals or other sacred foods, rather
than being a personal dedication of a domestic implement. The
numerous uninscribed mortaria found in the Samian Heraion
from at least 630/20 bc onwards50 presumably served similar
functions. Cult meals may well have required seasonings,
sauces, mashes, meal or porridge, but we could also imagine
that the special sacrificial cake made from barley, honey and oil
(psaistá, a sweet version of maza) that was offered to Hera on
Samos51 might have been prepared in a mortarium. Another
alternative, finally, is that the mortaria might have served in the
preparation of barley groats for sprinkling on sacrificial animals,
but such an idea depends on whether one believes these oulai to
have been hulled or ground, rather than whole and unground.
Further afield, inscribed mortaria appear on Samothrace: in
the Sanctuary of the Great Gods two examples of late 6th or 5th
century bc date were found in the fill beneath the floor of the
Hall of Votive Gifts.52 Their incised inscriptions, in the local
idiom, on the upper surface of the lip read DEL and DE-, like
inscriptions on other types of pottery at Samothrace, and have
been interpreted as an abbreviation of ‘sacred possession of the
gods’.53 Their precise function remains obscure, but they may
well have fulfilled a role in the preparation of sacred meals or
offerings in the sanctuary.
Even more intriguing is the occurrence of inscribed mortaria
at the Corinthian Asklepieion in the late 5th century bc. Two
typical Corinthian mortaria – spouted, with spool-shaped
handles and gritted – carry painted votive inscriptions to
Asklepios, ‘Aisklap[io]’, on the outside rim; according to
Roebuck they were ‘probably used in sacrificial ritual’.54
However, rather than thinking in terms of ritual dining or food
for the god, one might in this particular case instead consider a
different function: Aristophanes in his Wealth (710–23) describes
how Asklepios in his sanctuary pounds Tenean garlic, fig juice
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 35
Villing
Figure 17 Mortarium from Emecik
(inv. ST99K8c-16,78)
and mastix in a stone mortar, mixes it with Sphettian vinegar,
and administers the mixture to the sleeping sick by spreading it
on their eyelids. Though the effect is less than soothing, the
scene may well point to the actual use of mortaria in the
preparation of healing salves, as well as food or drinks (such as
gruel) for the sick. That mortaria were indeed used for the
preparation of medication55 is suggested by a passage in
Aristophanes’ Frogs (123–6), where Dionysos and Herakles
discuss various ways of committing suicide: hemlock ground56 in
a mortarium (thyeia) is among the options rejected by Dionysos.
Finally, a bowl with a Cypriot inscription to Apollo Hylates
from Chytroi on Cyprus should be noted: the bowl seems to be a
mortarium even if its shape is somewhat unusual, and its votive
inscription clearly makes it a close parallel for the bowls from
Naukratis.57
Less unusual are mortaria without inscriptions. In the
Archaic sanctuary of Ephesian Artemis, pottery used in
sacrificial meals during the last third of the 7th century bc and
subsequently deposited in a bothros included cooking pots and
mortaria of Eastern Mediterranean type.58 In the Classical and
Hellenistic sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth, a range of
household casseroles, stewpots, grinding-stones and mortaria
presumably served for the preparation of ritual dinners as well
as votive cakes.59 Many other sanctuaries also feature the odd
mortarium as well as other kitchen wares, among them Archaic
sanctuaries at Miletos (Aphrodite),60 Assesos in the Milesian
chora (probably Athena Assesia),61 Emecik (Apollo; Fig. 17)62
and Vroulia,63 as well as the sanctuaries of Hera Akraia at
Perachora64 and of Aphaia on Aigina in the 5th century bc,65 and
the sanctuary of Apollo at Klaros in the 4th century bc.66 At
Olympia a number of mortaria have been found in wells from
the 6th to the 4th centuries bc.67 Finally, mortaria are also
known from Etruscan and South Italian sanctuaries, including
sanctuaries of Apollo.68
Mortaria (and other kitchen pottery) were thus connected
with a wide range of cults in many regions; in most cases, and
especially when they were found in bothroi, it seems that, rather
than being personal votive offerings, they were used in
connection with the preparation of sacrificial meals, but perhaps
also of votive foods, healing foods or medication. This also
seems to be supported by a much-worn 4th century bc marble
Figure 18 Inscribed marble pestle
from the sanctuary of Athena at
Lindos, 4th century BC
36 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
pestle from Lindos69 (Fig. 18) that carries a votive inscription to
Athena: Ka/naio/j m'a0ne/qhken 0Aqhnai/hj e0pi\ bwmo/n . The wear
dates from after the inscription was incised,70 suggesting that the
pestle was used in the service of the cult, and, given its
association with the altar, perhaps of sacred foods or of oulai.
That the preparation of foods could be an important activity
in a cult is suggested by the role of aletris, (corn) grinder, that
was fulfilled by Athenian girls in Athena’s cult (Ar., Lys. 642),
and there may have been similar roles in other cults.71
Unfortunately, virtually nothing is known of the cult of Apollo at
Naukratis other than that it was a filial cult of Apollo Didymeus
Milesios,72 one of the main gods of Ionia with an important
sanctuary at Didyma. We can, however, assume that, as for other
gods, food played a role in his festivals, notably the Thargelia
and Pyanopsia. Our best evidence for these festivals comes from
Athens, but they also existed in other Ionian cities, including
Miletos.73 The Pyanopsia featured a procession with an olive or
laurel branch (eiresione) attached to which were fillets, figs,
bread, cakes and small pots with honey, oil and wine.74 And at
both the Pyanopsia and the Thargelia, a stew of different
vegetables or grains was offered to the god: at the Thargelia in
May, the first fruits of not yet ripe grains (thargelia) were boiled
in a pot and bread was baked from the grain – seemingly both
barley and wheat; at the Pyanopsia in October a sweetened
porridge (athare) of beans (pyana) and other pulses as well as
wheat flour was cooked in a pot (chytra), offered to Apollo, and
consumed in a communal meal.
In addition, food was also prepared for the pharmakoi, the
two paupers chosen as scape-goats and fed at state cost for some
time before the Thargelia. The Ionian poet Hipponax (frr. 5–10
West) describes how the pharmakos is feasted on figs, barley
cake (maza) and cheese and is then whipped out of the city with
fig branches and sea onions; of these, at least the maza might
have required a mortarium. Of course, mortaria might also,
more generally, have been used in the preparation of sacred
cakes,75 common offerings to all Greek gods. The Milesian so-
called Molpoi Inscription, a lex sacra, mentions in an insertion of
the 5th or 4th century bc cakes called ‘elatra plakontina’, ‘flat
sacrificial cakes’76 made separately for Apollo Delphinios and
Hekate.77 Such ‘flat cakes’ were also called ‘plakous’ (after the
flat, round seed of the mallow)78 and were served in the
prytaneion of Naukratis during the sacrificial meals for Apollo
Pythios Komaios and Dionysos (Ath. 4.149–50, quoting
Hermeias [of Methymna? – 4th century bc]).79 A Classical
version of this cake was close to the Roman ‘placenta’,80 a firm
cake shell filled with alternating layers of honey with goat’s milk
and dough, both of which, according to Cato (Agr. Orig. 76),
required kneading in a mortarium.81 Meals at the prytaneion of
Naukratis (Ath. 4.149f) moreover included ‘a small bowl
[lekarion] of barley gruel [ptisane] or of some vegetable in its
season’, another potential dish for which a mortarium might be
required, alongside various types of bread, pig’s meat, eggs, and
cheese; on non-festival days communal meals also seem to have
been possible at the prytaneion (Ath. 4.150a). Of course, Apollo
Pythios Komaios, the main civic, polis god of Naukratis,82 was
distinct from Apollo Didymaios Milesios, the apparent recipient
of the mortaria, but communal meals were surely also part of his
cult – as might also be indicated by the 6th century bc limestone
figure of a woman kneading dough that was found in the temple
of Apollo.83
 ‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
It seems likely, then, that mortaria were used for some kind
of food preparation in Apollo’s sanctuary, either for sacrificial
meals and ritual dining or for offerings of food, as in other
sanctuaries in East Greece and beyond.84 It remains thus to
consider the origin of these bowls: did they come to Naukratis
together with the many other imports from the main pottery
producing centres of Archaic East Greece?
4. Mortaria in the ancient Mediterranean: types and
distribution
As has been suggested already, most of the mortaria from
Naukratis belong to the common, flat-based variety of the
Eastern Mediterranean type that was extremely widespread
across the whole Eastern Mediterranean and beyond.85 This
wide distribution also included Egypt, and Naukratis is indeed
not the only site in the Egyptian Nile Delta where many mortaria
have been found. They have been recorded also at Herakleion,86
Tell Defenneh (cat. nos D1, Fig. 19, and D2, Fig. 20),87 Tell el-
Balamun,88 Migdol (Site T.21),89 Tell el-Herr,90 Tell Tebilla,91 Tell
el-Maskhouta,92 Mendes,93 Tanis,94 Heliopolis,95 as well as at
Karnak,96 Gourna,97 San el-Hagar98 and Saft el Henneh.99 At Tell
Tebilla,100 the maritime port of Mendes, for example, a number
of flat-based mortaria were discovered, mostly in mortuary
contexts of the Late Period (664–332 bc), often alongside
torpedo amphorae. Evidence for abrasion in the base of vessels
suggests prolonged use before deposition. At Tell el-Herr,101 both
flat-based and ring-footed mortaria of the late 6th–early 5th
century bc appear in connection with Cypro-Levantine basket-
handled amphorae. Also at Migdol (Site T.21), large numbers of
Syro-Palestinian/Phoenician torpedo-shaped amphora as well
as basket-handled amphorae were found alongside the
mortaria,102 in addition to Greek pottery (especially Chian
transport amphorae) and local Egyptian wares.
In general, while Greek imports at these sites are usually
rare, certainly as far as fine wares are concerned, the pottery
finds display a strong connection with the Levant and Cyprus,
suggesting that mortaria reached Egyptian trading or
redistribution centres in the Delta alongside other imported
goods from the Cypro-Phoenician realm. This is also supported
by recent research, which has shown that from as early as 700 bc
onwards mortaria are exceedingly common, especially in
Cyprus and the Levant.103
Figure 19 Mortarium from Tell
Defenneh (cat. no. D1)
Figure 20 Mortarium from Tell
Defenneh (cat. no. D2)
In the Levant, early examples come from a shipwreck
recently found in deep waters off the coast of Israel,104 as well as
from Ashdod,105 Horbat Rosh Zayit in Galilee,106 Mersin,107 and
possibly Tyre;108 the exceptionally early examples reported from
Tarsus/Cilicia remain puzzling.109 In the course of the 7th
century bc, the type becomes more widespread, especially in
coastal sites, such as En Gedi, Mez.ad H.ashavyahu, Tell Keisan,
Batash, Miqne, and Tel Kabri,110 usually alongside other vessels
of Cypro-Phoenician origin. It continues until at least the 4th
century bc. The situation is similar in Cyprus. Here, the first
known occurrence of the type is associated with the first burial
in tomb 79 in Salamis/Cellarka (c. 700 bc)111 where several dozen
mortaria were found in the dromos. As in the Levant, mortaria
are often found together with torpedo and basket-handled
amphorae. The type then continues, in tombs at Salamis and
elsewhere,112 through Cypro-Classical113 until about 300 bc.114
Variations in the shape of these Cypro-Phoenician mortaria
can be observed right from the beginning, but most are only of
limited chronological relevance,115 such as the rim shapes (slim
and elongated, triangular, rounded, more or less undercut),116
and the degree of waviness of the outside wall. The only truly
significant development is the introduction of a variety with a
ring foot in the 6th century bc,117 which becomes common in the
5th and 4th century bc in the Levant, Cyprus118 and Egypt.119
As regards the findspots of Cypro-Phoenician mortaria, in
Cyprus they were often placed in tombs,120 either unused (i.e.
bought especially for deposition in the tomb), or perhaps used
just once or twice, e.g. during a ritual meal. It has been
suggested that they served as containers for food for the
deceased,121 but one could also imagine them more generally as
a symbol of wealth and plentiful food supplies. Sometimes they
were also used as lids for amphorae in children’s burials.122 That
they could also serve regular domestic functions is suggested by
the find in Amathus of over 400 fragments of mortaria in
settlement contexts, in the area of the harbour and the so-called
palace.123 In Palestine they are regularly encountered in
residential contexts, and with clear traces of use.124
Cyprus and Palestine, then, are clear centres for the use of
Eastern Mediterranean mortaria; however, recent excavations
have also firmly placed Ionia on the map.125 Scattered examples
had been known for some time from Crete,126 Rhodes,127
Smyrna128 and the Samian Heraion (Fig. 16),129 but recent work
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 37
Villing
at sites such as Miletos, Klazomenai, Ephesos, and Knidos/
Emecik (Fig. 17) has dramatically altered the picture. At Miletos
in particular, a great number of mortaria has been found in the
7th and 6th century bc settlement. They show obvious traces of
abrasion and were clearly much used in the Archaic Milesian
kitchen, outnumbering even cooking pots.130 What is interesting,
however, is that the ring-footed version of the mortarium, which
in Cyprus and the Levant became common from the later 6th
century bc onwards, seems to find few parallels in East
Greece.131 Furthermore, unlike in Cyprus, mortaria were not
placed in tombs, and their association with Cypriot basket-
handled amphorae is far less strong than elsewhere, as the latter
are attested only relatively infrequently in Ionia.132
Mediation by Ionia probably explains the appearance of
mortaria in the Milesian colonies on the Black Sea coast, such as
Berezan133 and Histria.134 Related types, finally, also appear in
North Africa (Tocra,135 Carthage136), Punic Sardinia (e.g. Nora,
Tharros),137 Southern Italy, Sicily and Etruria,138 as well as Spain
(e.g. Malaga, Ampurias).139 Notable is the absence of mortaria of
the Eastern Mediterranean type on the Greek mainland, with
the exception of two examples at Corinth (late 7th–early 6th
century bc)140 and one from the Athenian Agora.141 Yet this ‘Great
Divide’142 between the Greek mainland and the Eastern
Mediterranean world is bridged to some extent later on by the
eager adoption of the Eastern Mediterranean mortarium shape
on the part of the Corinthians, who at this time maintained close
connections143 with East Greece: Corinthian mortaria in their
earliest form144 may well owe their existence to inspiration from
imported mortaria, as their shape knows no local predecessor
and broadly reflects the Eastern Mediterranean type, even if the
fabric is from the beginning distinctly Corinthian.
5. Eastern Mediterranean mortaria: production and trade
This wide distribution of Eastern Mediterranean mortaria –
which in some ways mirrors the 2nd millennium bc spread of
stone tripod bowls (mortaria) from Anatolia to the Aegean, a
form which also existed in a terracotta version and to which they
may in fact be partial successors145 – has given rise to some
discussion as to the origin of the type. Twenty-five years ago,
Ephraim Stern still wrote that:
Since the main distribution of the early bowls [...] is in the Greek
colonies on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean […], it seems that
we should rather seek its origin in the East-Greek cultural sphere,
from which it spread south and east. A Cypriot source for these bowls
is also impossible for they first appear on that island at a later date
and continue for only a short time.146
Stern further assumed that the (later) variety with ring-foot
might have been a local Levantine version.147 Already Petrie had
considered the ‘thick drab bowls’ an import into Egypt and
Palestine, probably from Greece.148 We know today that in Ionia
the type indeed had a significant presence from the early 7th
century bc onwards. But at least as early, if not earlier, are the
finds from Cyprus and the Levant, where the type was also
extremely long-lived. Although in the Levant the bowls appear
often in coastal settlements, where also imported Greek fine-
wares may be found,149 in Cyprus there is no particular
connection with Greek pottery, and, instead, mortaria are often
found with Cypro-Phoenician torpedo and basket-handled
amphorae (as, indeed, also in the Levant and Egypt).
In fact, new research suggests that the picture is rather
38 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
complex, and involves not just the spread of a type across a large
region, but also trade across a wide area over a long period of
time. This is indicated especially by clay analysis performed on
mortaria in the Levant over the past two decades. Contrary to
what one might have expected, this has shown that virtually
none of the analysed pieces were produced locally, but almost
all must have been imported from one or more centres abroad.
One such centre is the coastal region of North Syria, around Ras
al-Bassit. Here, a Late Roman workshop supplied mortaria to
much of the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, especially
Palestine, Egypt, and Cyprus, but also Athens, Rome, Germania
and Britannia.150 It has been suggested that a similar trade might
already have taken place in the Archaic period, as some Archaic
mortaria have a similar petrographic profile to the later Roman
pieces. This includes one of the earliest mortaria from Palestine,
the late 8th-century mortarium from the Elissa wreck off
Ashkelon.151 However, the petrographic profile of the north-
eastern coast of the Mediterranean and that of Cyprus can be
quite close. Thus, the extensive petrographic and NAA analysis
of 5th century bc ring-footed and flat-based mortaria from Tell
el-Hesi152 have suggested a North Syrian or a (Southern) Cypriot
or possibly South Anatolian origin, i.e. a region with outcrops of
limestone and ophiolitic rocks. Similarly, mortaria from Tell
Keisan153 are thought to have been imported from Cyprus, North
Syria or Eastern Anatolia. Ring-footed mortaria from Tell Anafa
show great petrographic similarity to the mortaria of Tell el-
Hesi, but feature additional gastropod shell temper and have
been identified as Phoenician ‘White Ware’.154 Petrographic
analyses have attributed mortaria from Timnah – Tell Batash155
to a region with metamorphic or volcanic rocks, probably the
Eastern Aegean; three ring-footed mortaria of c. 450–350 bc
from Apollonia-Arsuf, as well as further mortaria from Yavneh-
Yam, Yaoz and Tel Michal, to a (Western) Cypriot or Aegean/
East Greek origin;156 flat-based mortaria from Mez.ad
H.ashavyahu to an ophiolitic region, probably Cyprus;157 and a
flat-based mortarium of the second half of the 7th century bc
from Tel Kabri to a Cypriot coastal centre such as Amathus or
Enkomi.158 Furthermore, three ring-footed mortaria from the
late 5th century bc shipwreck off Ma‘agan Mikha’el, south of
Dor,159 have emerged as Cypriot.160
Cyprus thus presents itself as a highly likely major
production centre for mortaria at least from the 7th century bc
onwards. Reports of misfired examples of ring-footed, greenish
buff mortaria in the harbour area of Amathus, alongside Salamis
one of the island’s main cosmopolitan trading communities,161
further support this assumption. Another possible production
centre has been proposed at Kition/ Larnaka, for classic ‘Plain
White’ pottery; Jean-François Salles claims to have recognized –
through visual observation – mortaria of this class of pottery
among material in Ashdod, Hazor, Lachisch, Tel Michal and
especially Tell Keisan.162 Certainly connections between Cyprus,
the Levant and Phoenicia were strong in the Archaic period,
continuing the tradition of a ‘West Asiatic Trading Sphere’,
possibly involving not just Phoenician but also Cypriot and East
Greek traders, with Amathus in particular functioning as a
gateway for trade with the Levant and Egypt.163
Other regions, however, should not be ruled out as further
production centres for mortaria, notably the Eastern Aegean/
East Greek region. This is suggested by the recent petrographic
analysis by Daniel Master of flat-based mortaria from
 ‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
Figure 21 Mortarium from Naukratis
(cat. no. 10; sample Nauk 67: group
EMEa)
Figure 22 Mortarium from Naukratis
(cat. no. 12; sample Nauk 68: group
EMEa)
Ashkelon164 – all dating to before 604 bc, the date of the
destruction of Ashkelon – which points to the production of two
mortaria in North Syria or Cyprus (Master’s Category 9:
‘Ultramafic rocks and micritic sand’),165 and of another in the
Southern Aegean/Ionia (Master’s Category 14: ‘Highly
micaceous samples with yellow fabric’);166 one further
mortarium remained unclear (Category 12: ‘dark brown/black
fabric’).167
On the basis of such findings, Master,168 as well as Bennett
and Blakely169 assumed specialised workshops in the North
Eastern Mediterranean, in Cyprus and/or possibly Northern
Syria, which from the 8th and 7th century bc exported mortaria
to the Levant, the Aegean and North Africa, thus dominating the
Mediterranean market in clay mortaria.170 One is reminded of
the spread of basket-handled amphorae (often found in
conjunction with mortaria, as we have seen), produced on
Cyprus since the late 8th century bc but later, at least from the
5th century bc onwards, also elsewhere.171 However, only further
analysis, in particular of mortaria found in Ionia, can ultimately
shed more light on the actual range of production centres of
Archaic mortaria.172
6. The mortaria of Naukratis: Cypriots, Phoenicians and Greeks
in Egypt
How does Naukratis fit into this picture? NAA analysis
conducted by Hans Mommsen173 suggests a Cypriot origin for
four of the mortaria from Naukratis (Mommsen et al. Fig. 1).
One (cat. no. 2, Fig. 2, sample Nauk 35) falls into a group (CYPT)
that also contains a Cypro-Mycenaean three-handled jar (FS47)
of LH IIIA2 date and that is close in composition to Cypriot
pottery from Enkomi and Milia.174 Three (Figs 21 [cat. no. 10], 22
[cat. no. 12] and 8 [cat. no. 19], samples Nauk 55, 67 and 68;
groups EMEA and EMEa) go together with material from
Emecik on the Knidos peninsula that includes Cypriot terracotta
figurines175 and one fragment of Cypro-Archaic I painted
pottery.176
The mortaria from Naukratis thus mirror what has been
established for much of the Levant, and what seems likely also
for other mortaria in Egypt. We have already seen earlier that, as
in Cyprus and the Levant, mortaria in Egypt seem to be strongly
associated with other types of Phoenician/Cypriot pottery,
notably storage jars of torpedo and basket-handle shape.177 We
may thus assume that mortaria reached the Nile Delta as part of
cargoes of Cypro-Phoenician wares, which might at times have
included East Greek pottery,178 and which may well have been
carried by Phoenician traders; they might in part have also been
targeted at the resident Judaean, Phoenician179 and Cypriot180
(mercenary) population in Egypt. Indeed, as Diodorus (1.68.8)
points out, Phoenicians and Greeks were the main traders
admitted into Egypt since the time of Psammetichos I.181 That
such trade may date back to as early as the late 8th century bc is
suggested by the Elissa shipwreck off Ashkelon, which in
addition to Phoenician pottery, including torpedo-amphorae,
contained not only a mortarium of Eastern Mediterranean type
(in all likelihood, though, just for the use of the crew)182 but also
a piece of Egyptian pottery.183
The picture at Naukratis, at least at first glance, does not
seem to fit particularly well the pattern encountered elsewhere
in Egypt and in the Levant. Greek finds dominate by far,
dwarfing the very little Phoenician (Schlotzhauer and Villing
Fig. 24)184 and not much Cypriot evidence. Cypriot fine ware
pottery is hardly traceable;185 there are only two Cypro-syllabic
inscriptions, both of Classical date (Höckmann and Möller Fig.
6), some Cypriot-style statuary (some of it perhaps produced at
Naukratis, though this is still disputed),186 Cypriot terracotta
statuettes,187 and a handful of Greek-inscribed Cypriot amphorae
(e.g. Johnston Fig. 14).188 This all mirrors more the situation in
East Greece and the Aegean in general, where Cypriot fine wares
are also virtually absent, but terracotta figurines and limestone
sculptures appear as dedications in sanctuaries. However, we
need to remember that Petrie himself had claimed that Cypriot
basket-handled amphorae (his class P) were ‘common’ in his
early level, and there may have been many more uninscribed or
undecorated mortaria, too. The picture at Naukratis, then, may
have been somewhat closer after all to what we know from other
sites in Egypt, though still undoubtedly of a far stronger Greek
character than elsewhere. Both the Cypriot amphorae and
mortaria, moreover, bear inscriptions in Greek script, which, as
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 39
Villing
Figure 23 Mortarium from Naukratis
(cat. no. 17, sample Nauk 18: Egyptian
Marl)
Alan Johnston189 has pointed out, ‘would not have been used by
any Cypriot (Greek or Phoenician) in the archaic or early
classical period’. Even in the light of the new evidence from the
mortaria, Möller is thus probably right to conclude that there is
very little evidence for Cypriots at Naukratis, although this does
not exclude the possibility of some of the trade at least having
been undertaken by Cypriots, or even of the odd Cypriot trader
or mercenary passing through Naukratis.
Of course, all this goes decidedly against the common
perception that, at least in Archaic and Classical times, coarse,
household pottery, was normally not traded, either because
such simple pottery could easily be produced locally, or because
deeply enshrined local food customs would not allow for the
import of cooking and food preparation wares. Yet it seems
increasingly that such trade did, in fact, take place, especially,
though not exclusively, in a colonial or diaspora environment.
Later on, imported items from the home region were eventually
supplemented or replaced by locally produced ones or ones
imported from elsewhere. This seems to be exactly what
happens also with the Cypro-Phoenician mortaria in the West:
They first appear in Punic settlements, presumably via Cyprus,
in the later 7th and early 6th centuries bc, but from the middle
of the 6th century bc onwards, they become part of the
Carthaginian cultural koine and are often locally produced and
no longer recognizable as Cypro-Phoenician.190
The phenomenon of local production (and import from
other sources) can be witnessed in Naukratis, too: a further
mortarium that was analysed by NAA (Fig. 23, cat. no. 17,
sample Nauk 18) falls into a chemical group (Marl) clearly of
Egyptian composition and is also visually recognisable as marl.191
Given the number of examples of locally produced painted
Greek-style vessels in a range of shapes that have recently
become known from Naukratis,192 as well as the long history of
the imitation of other wares in Egypt,193 the find of locally
produced mortaria (to which also cat. no. 1, Fig. 1, may belong)
may hardly seem surprising. It is, in fact, not a one-off: both
mortaria and Cypro-Phoenician storage jars are reported from
Tell Tebilla,194 Egyptian mortaria may have been found at Tell El
Balamun and Tell Defenneh (Fig. 19, and possibly Fig. 20),195
and there are imitations of Greek trade amphorae from Tell
Defenneh and T. 21 (Migdol) as well as a cooking pot ‘made of
Nile ware after a Greek shape’.196 At T.21 (Migdol) there is also a
smaller bowl of mortarium shape, made of ‘levigated Nile clay,
tempered with black grits and mica, fired red-brown’ with a
‘thick matte creamy slip’ – a description which fits quite well
with the ‘regular’ Naukratis workshop fabric.197 However, the
Naukratis mortarium as well as most of the other mortaria and
amphorae are produced of marl, suggesting either that for
different kinds of shapes different clays were used or that
different workshops were responsible for at least some of these
vessels.
40 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Yet this local production never seems to have flourished all
that greatly, probably not least because Egyptian marl clay
mortaria proved no match for sturdy Cypriot vessels. Potters and
their customers seem to have been quite aware of the properties
of certain clays to make pots good for certain functions,
particularly if it was a matter of heavy-duty daily use; this seems
suggested in particular for cooking pots,198 for which the island
of Aigina, termed ‘chytropolis’, appears to have been famous,199
and which also may have been imported from East Greece into
the Levant.200 For mortaria, too, such considerations may have
played a role201 – presumably already with regard to the widely
traded Cypro-Phoenician mortaria, but certainly for Corinthian
mortaria from the Late Archaic-Early Classical period onwards.
The most common Corinthian types, made from extremely hard-
wearing Corinthian ‘tile fabric’ with an additional scattering of
grit in the lower part of the basin for increased abrasive effect
(cf. especially cat. no. 22, Fig. 11),202 were traded to many places
across the Mediterranean including Athens203 (where they seem
to have replaced local production to a large extent), Miletos,204
Histria,205 Cyrene,206 South Italy and Etruria, as well as, as we
now know, Naukratis (cat. nos 21–23, Figs 10–12).207 Also at 4th
and 3rd century bc Euhesperides (Cyrenaica),208 Keith Swift has
established a very high proportion of imported coarse-wares,209
including Corinthian mortaria and Aeginetan cooking pots: they
may have reached North Africa as part of the same trade
assemblage, alongside Attic black glaze vessels.210 Quality
mattered not just for fine wares, but also for common household
pottery.
7. Conclusion
We have seen that mortaria form a small but significant group
among the pottery from Apollo’s sanctuary at Naukratis from
the first half of the 6th to at least the later 5th century bc. Many
of them carry votive dedications to Apollo and are likely to have
played a role in the preparation of sacred or communal foods in
the sanctuary. Several of the Classical examples are of
Corinthian manufacture, at the time a prolific exporter of high-
quality mortaria across the Mediterranean. That such a trade
existed already in the Archaic period is, however, indicated by
the earlier mortaria from the sanctuary, which could be shown
to belong to an Eastern Mediterranean, or Cypro-Phoenician,
type that was widespread in a koine encompassing Ionia,
Cyprus, the Syro-Palestinian coast, northern Sinai and the Nile
Delta,211 and including to some degree the Phoenico-Punic
regions of North Africa and the Western Mediterranean and the
Ionian settlements on the Black Sea coast – a koine that seems to
have extended to culinary habits,212 and in which Cyprus played
a large part in the production of goods, and where even coarse-
ware mortaria could be traded long distances. Who the traders
were remains open to discussion. In Naukratis certainly the
mortaria were used and dedicated by Greeks, similar to the
 ‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
Cypriot basket-handled amphorae inscribed in Greek characters,
concerning which Alan Johnston has concluded that ‘Ionians
were trading amphorae of a possible Cypriot origin with
Naukratis; possibly Knidians and Aeginetans were also involved’.
Given the evidence discussed above, however, it seems that
Phoenicians, too, as well as perhaps Cypriots, may have been
involved,213 and in later periods perhaps mainland Greeks, too.
The mortaria of Naukratis thus bear witness to a trade in
mortaria, first, from the beginning of the Archaic period, of
Cypro-Phoenician origin, and later, throughout the Classical
period, of Corinthian manufacture – a situation that certainly
contradicts the common assumption that coarse wares were not
traded. For later periods the phenomenon of bulk trade in
mortaria has of course been known for some time: in Roman
times, North Syrian mortaria – popular quite possibly because of
their hard and sharp igneous temper214 – were traded, as we have
seen, to much of the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, even as
far north as Germany and Britain.215 Here, mortaria for the first
time appeared only after the Roman conquest,216 as part of the
spread of the Mediterranean cuisine that required new vessels,
such as the dolium and the mortarium. Perhaps not quite in the
same way, but also as part of a movement of peoples, culinary
customs or techniques, the mortarium had arrived in Rome
centuries earlier from Greece and the Phoenico-Punic region.217
And some centuries earlier, we now begin to see that it had come
to mainland Greece from the Eastern Mediterranean region, at a
time when increased contact through trade and settlements led
not just to the adoption of important cultural features such as
the alphabet, but quite possibly also ‘kick-started’ the
development of the Corinthian mortarium, which some decades
later was to take over the Mediterranean market in mortaria
from its Cypro-Phoenician predecessors. Defying expectations
raised by their unprepossessing appearance, mortaria thus shed
unexpected light on the network of trade and shared culture
that linked the various cultures of the Archaic and Classical
Mediterranean.
Catalogue of mortaria from Naukratis and Tell Defenneh in the
British Museum
1. GR 1886.4-1.790 (Fig. 1)
Nearly complete bowl, long slim collar rim, flat base. Clay buff to light orange-
brown, fairly hard, some vegetable inclusions (marl clay?).
Graffito on inside wall below lip: vac twpoll[…]i vac retrograde. V-shape
incised on inside wall opposite inscription. H. of bowl 8.4cm, Diam. 30.7cm.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 77, pl. 32.77; Bernand 1970, 646 no. 38.
2. GR 1886.4-1.80 (= Nauk 35; CYPT) (Fig. 2)
Large fragment of bowl (2 joining fragments), wavy outside wall, flat base.
Beige-yellow clay, core light orange, quite dense and hard. H. 15.8cm (original
H of bowl 8cm), W. 31cm, Diam. 32cm.
Graffito on outside wall below lip: ]twpollw[.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 78, pl. 4.2 (presumably) and 32.78; Bernand 1970, 646 no.
39, pl. 19.2.
3. GR 1886.4-1.71
3 joining fragments from rim of bowl. Light yellow-beige clay, relatively dense
and hard. W 25.5cm, H. 8.2cm, Diam. 36cm.
Graffito on inside of lip: ]twpollw.[ retrograde.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 68, pl. 32.68; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 29, pl. 19.
4. GR 1886.4-1.72
2 joining fragments from rim of bowl. Light yellow-beige clay, relatively dense.
W. 11.5cm, H. 6cm, Diam. 29cm.
Graffito on inside of lip: ]emi retrograde.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 69, pl. 32.69; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 30, pl. 19.
5. GR 1910.2-22.18
Probably joining 1886.4-1.79; possibly the same bowl as 1886.4-1.74.
Fragment from rim of bowl. Yellow-green clay, core light orange. H. 6cm, W.
10cm, Diam. 41cm.
Graffito inside below lip: ]w[.
Petrie 1886b, no. 402, pl. 34.402; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (‘il ne s’agit là que
de debris’).
6. GR 1886.4-1.73
Three joining fragment from rim of bowl (top lost). Very light, yellow-
greenish, friable clay. H. 6cm, W. 10cm.
Graffito on inside of rim: ]pol[ retrograde. Left stroke of lambda not quite as
in Petrie 1886b.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 70, pl. 32.70; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 31.
7. GR 1886.4-1.79
Possibly the same bowl as 1910.2-22.18 and 1886.4-1.74.
Fragment from rim of bowl. Clay yellow-beige, core light orange. H. 7.5cm, W.
10cm.
Graffito on inside of rim: ]oll[ retrograde.
Bernand 1970, pl. 19.
8. GR 1886.4-1.74
Possibly the same bowl as 1910.2-22.18 and 1886.4-1.79.
Two joining fragments from rim of bowl, Light yellow clay, fairly dense, core
pinkish-red. H. 10cm, W. 13.5cm, Diam. 43.
Graffito on inside of lip: vac kri[ retrograde (Bernand reads kai).
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 71, pl. 32.71; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 32, pl. 19.
9. GR 1886.4-1.75 (= Nauk 56; single) (Fig. 6)
Large fragment from bowl, wavy outside wall, flat base. Yellow clay, light and
chalky. H 15cm (H of bowl 8.6cm), W 13.8cm, Diam. 32cm.
Graffito on outside wall below rim: twpol[. Last letter has longer vertical
than in the drawing in Petrie 1886b.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 72, pl. 32.72; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 33, pl. 19.
10. GR 1886.4-1.77 (= Nauk 67; EMEa) (Fig. 21)
Large fragment from bowl, wavy outside wall, flat base. Light yellow clay,
relatively dense. H 13.4cm (original H of bowl 9.4cm), W. 10.1cm, Diam. 29cm.
Graffito on inside of rim: ]wpoll[ retrograde. Omega cut lower than other
letters.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 74, pl. 32.74; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 35, pl. 19.
11. GR 1886.4-1.78
Fragment from rim of bowl. Yellow-beige clay, core light orange, fairly dense
clay. H 7.5cm, W. 7.2cm, Diam. c. 30cm.
Graffito on inside of rim: ]wn[. Messy writing, unclear whether second letter is
orthograde or retrograde nu; reading as lambda is unlikely.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 76, pl. 32.76; Bernand 1970, 646 no. 37.
12. GR 1886.4-1.81 (= Nauk 68; EMEa) (Fig. 22)
Fragment from rim of bowl. Yellow-beige clay, fairly dense and hard. H.
12.3cm, H. 8.4cm, Diam. 31cm.
Graffito on outside wall below rim: ]lwnoj[. Bernand incorrectly reads
]olwno[.
Marked in pencil inside, possibly reads ‘40 ft W out tem Ap’.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 79, pl. 32.70; Bernand 1970, 646 no. 40, pl. 19.
13. GR 1888.6-1.390 (Fig. 5)
Fragment from rim of bowl. Yellow-greenish clay, quite hard. H. 8cm, W.
11.8cm, Diam. 31cm.
Graffito on inside wall below rim: ].wllon[ orthograde; first letter difficult,
last seems to be nu.
Bernand 1970, pl. 19.1 (illustrated but not included in catalogue).
14. GR 1886.4-1.76
Fragment from rim of bowl, very slim profile. Yellow-beige clay, core light
orange, fairly dense and hard. H. 6cm, W. 6.5cm, Diam. 35cm.
Graffito on inside of rim: ]nj e[ retrograde. Three-bar sigma. Last letter
uncertain, might also be iota. Bernand reads, less likely, ]isn[.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 73, pl. 32.73; Bernand 1970, 645 no. 34; Johnston 1974, 97.
15. GR 1888.6-1.391
Fragment from rim of bowl, rim only barely set off from wall. Yellow-beige
clay, core light orange, relatively dense. H. 8cm, W. 11.5cm, Diam. 38cm.
Graffito on inside of rim and bowl, in two lines: ]ari[ | ]e[. Inscription is,
unusually for an incised inscription on the inside, clearly orthograde.
Bernand 1970, pl. 19.
16. GR 1910.2-22.17(= Nauk 52; single) (Fig. 3)
Fragment from rim of bowl, slightly thickened rim; repair hole underneath
rim. Greenish-yellow clay, quite hard. H. 4.5cm ,W. 11.4cm, Diam. 35cm.
Graffito on lip: ]nun[.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 34.401; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (‘il ne s’agit là que de
debris’).
17. GR 1910.2-22.15 (= Nauk 18; Marl) (Fig. 23)
Fragment from rim of bowl, very long and slim collar rim. Clay brown, porous,
with vegetable inclusions (Egyptian marl clay). H. 6.5cm, W. 8cm., Diam.
33cm.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 41
Villing
Graffito on outside of rim: ]nel[.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 34.399; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (‘il ne s’agit là que de
debris’).
18. GR 1886.4-1.792 (Fig. 7)
Fragment of flat base of bowl with distinctive thread marks. Graffito
underneath foot: E-shaped sign. L. 11.5cm, Diam. base c. 20cm.
Petrie 1886b, 61 no. 75, pl. 32.75; Bernand 1970, 646 no. 36.
19. GR 1910.2-22.16 (= Nauk 55; EMEA) (Fig. 8)
Fragment of base of bowl with low broad ring foot. Inside of bowl worn, foot
slightly worn. Clay light orange, relatively dense and fine, outside surface
beige. H 10.5cm, W 8.4cm, Diam. foot 21cm.
Graffito underneath base: ]nai Kr[.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 34.400; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (‘il ne s’agit là que de
debris’).
20. GR 1886.4-1.1769 (Fig. 9)
Fragment from bottom of bowl, low disk foot. L. 15.2cm, Diam. foot 20cm.
Graffito underneath foot: vac panfa vac.
Unpublished.
21. GR 1888.6-1.762 (Fig. 10)
Fragment from rim of bowl with stamped decoration. Corinthian ‘tile fabric’.
H. 8.1cm, W. 12cm, Diam. 38cm.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 4.5.
22. GR 1965.9-30.539 (Fig. 11)
Fragment from rim of bowl with spool-shaped handle; added grit inside.
Corinthian ‘tile fabric’. H. 8cm, W. 10.6cm, Diam. 27cm.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 4.7.
23. GR 1965.9-30.540 (Fig. 12)
Fragment from base of bowl; part of foot broken off, stamped rosette
underneath centre of base. Corinthian ‘tile fabric’. L. 15.1cm, W. 10.6cm.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 4.6.
24. GR 1965.9-30.537 (Fig. 13)
Large fragment from heavy basin, heavy rounded rim, groove around outside
wall, spool-shaped handle. Fine, sandy yellow fabric. H. of bowl 6.9cm, W.
22.2cm, L. 13.7cm, Diam. 29cm.
Unpublished.
25. GR 1965.9-30.538
Fragment from rim of bowl with ribbed spool shaped handle. L. 7.8cm, W.
8.1cm, Diam. c. 26cm.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 4.8.
26. GR 1965.9-30.966 (Fig. 4)
Fragment from rim of bowl, with spool-shaped handle; fine sandy red clay;
repair hole. H. 10cm, W. 16.5cm, Diam. 27cm.
Unpublished.
D1. EA 23685 (1887.1-1.1258) (Fig. 19)
Dark yellow-green clay with brown-reddish-grey core, porous with some
vegetable matter; inside worn away so much that hole is worn into base;
underside of base worn, too. H. of bowl 6cm, Diam. 23.8cm.
Unpublished.
D2. EA 23703 (1887.1-1.1215) (Fig. 20)
Beige clay, relatively dense but with some vegetable matter; inside worn. H. of
bowl 8.8cm, Diam. 27.5cm.
Unpublished.
Illustration credits
Fig. 16 author; fig. 17 D. Berges; fig. 18 Copenhagen, National Museum.
All other photos the British Museum; all drawings K. Morton/A.Villing.
Notes
* Many colleagues and friends contributed to this study, and I am
grateful to all of them. I would like thank in particular Volkmar von
Graeve for suggesting to me to study and publish the Archaic bowls
from Miletos, and thus kindling my initial interest in ‘drab bowls’;
Regina Attula, Ahmet Aydemir, Donald Bailey, Iulian Bîrzescu, Bodil
Bundgaard-Rasmussen, Dmitry Chistov, Elizabeth Greene, Alex
Fantalkin, Alexander Herda, Bilge Hürmüzlü, Alan Johnston,
Michael Kerschner, Gudrun Klebinder-Gauss, Birgit Konnemann,
Astrid Lindenlauf, Hans Mommsen, Stavros Paspalas, Elizabeth
Pemberton, Marcella Pisani, Udo Schlotzhauer, Jeffrey Spencer,
Keith Swift, Jonathan Tubb, and Dyfri Williams for constructive
discussions, helpful advice and sharing their own knowledge and
material; the audiences at lectures at the Australian Archaeological
Institute at Athens in 2005, at the conferences ‘Formes et usages des
vases grecs’ in Brussels and ‘Walls of the Ruler’ in Swansea in 2006
for their comments and suggestions; and Helen Clark, Jan Jordan,
42 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Guy Sanders, Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier and
Birgit Konnemann for making possible the study of mortaria at the
Athenian Agora, ancient Corinth, and Samos. Alan Johnston
generously contributed readings of the votive inscriptions.
1 Petrie 1886bb, pl. 4.
2 Repair of mortaria of this type is attested also elsewhere, for example
in domestic contexts at Miletos, suggesting that these bowls were
valued enough to warrant the effort of repair.
3 Petrie 1886bb, 18, 20, pl. 17.17, 20-1. These amphorae are what we
now call (Cypriot) basket-handled amphorae: Johnston 1982, 35-7;
Johnston, this volume, Table 1, Johnston Fig 14. See also below, n.
171.
4 ‘A bowl of thickish drab (P), with a short vertical brim’, together with
a large ‘P’ amphora, is recorded in the stratum above the burnt layer,
but below the scarab factory level, in the southern part of Naukratis
town (Petrie 1886bb, 21); ‘P thickish drab bowl with short vertical
brim (like that of 320 level)’ in a higher level from the clearing of a
road about 200 feet north of the scarab factory (ibid, 22); ‘P, dish,
small spout, and a conical bottom of a vase’ at a higher level from
road-mending on the east of the town (ibid, 22-3). Basket-handled
amphorae of the same type are, in addition to those just mentioned,
recorded in Petrie’s ‘deepest strata’ of Naukratis town, at the east of
the south wall of the temenos of Apollo (ibid, 21), in the burnt layer
of the southern part of the town (ibid), and in the scarab factory
layer (ibid p. 22).
5 Petrie 1886bb, 20.
6 Petrie 1886bb, 23.
7 One might be tempted, of course, to associate the inscription ‘Kri-’ on
cat. no. 8 with the name of Krithis, attested in a graffito at Abu
Simbel as the name of one of the mercenaries in the service of
Psammetichos I (cf. Haider 2001, 204, 213 fig. 3). On cat. no. 19 (Fig.
8) a similar name might be identified, but the mortarium is clearly
much later in date. The inscription ‘Panpha’ on cat. no. 20 (Fig. 9)
must be an abbreviation; the ‘E’-like shape on cat. no. 18 (Fig. 7) may
be a symbol (trade mark?).
8 This type of bowl is known under a number of different names in
scholarly literature, such as ‘Persian bowl’ (based on the assumption
that they are diagnostic for the Persian period in the Levant – see
below section 4), ‘cuvettes lourdes’ or ‘plats creux’, ‘open bowls’, as
well as ‘Reibschüsseln’ or ‘Reibschalen’ (‘grinding bowls’) and
‘mortaria’; for a discussion of the terminology, see Sapin 1998, 88-90.
I have opted here for ‘mortaria’, since the function of these bowls (as
discussed below) in essence corresponds to that of the Roman
mortarium, which was a grinding bowl much used in the Roman
kitchen, especially for the grinding of spicy sauces and the grinding
or mixing of other soft creamy and dough-like substances, often
together with spices, and distinct from a pounding bowl for grain:
Hilgers 1969, 68-70, 225-7, cf. also 252, and Baatz 1977. On the term
mortarium and its use in scholarship, see also Blakely and Bennett
1989, 49-50.
9 The term ‘bacino di tipo fenicio-cipriota’ has also been chosen by
Bellelli and Botto 2002 in their recent comprehensive survey of the
type in the West.
10 Ring bases for mortaria seem to have been introduced in the course
of the 6th century bc; see also below, ns 117 and 131.
11 Spool-shaped handles with dense vertical ribbing occur frequently
on mortaria of heavy basin-shape like our cat. no. 24 (Fig. 13), from
the latter part of the 5th century bc onwards, through to the
Hellenistic period (Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 370 no. 1913, pl. 91), but
they are also found elsewhere and on other types of mortaria: cf. e.g.
Olynthus XIII, 414 no. 1030, pl. 250.
12 A close parallel for cat. no. 21 (Fig. 10) comes from Cyrene (Thorn
2005, 638, 765 fig. 410); it has tongues on the top as well as the
outside of the rim. Corinthian mould-made mortaria of ‘tile fabric’
with stamped tongue-decoration on the rim have been found also in
the Tile Factory in Corinth, probably dating from the first half of the
5th century bc: Hesperia 23 (1954), 130 fig. 2b-c; cf. also Sparkes and
Talcott 1970, 12, 370 no. 1913, pl. 91. For cat. no. 22 (Fig. 11) compare
Corinthian mortaria with beaded spool-shaped handles from the
mid-5th century onwards: e.g. Corinth 15.3, no. 2158, p. 348; Corinth
7.3, no. 622.
13 Ongoing clay analysis of examples of this type of mortarium from
Aigina (Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens) as well as Miletos
and Naukratis (Department of Conservation, Documentation and
Science, British Museum, and Hans Mommsen, Bonn) should help to
establish its origin. The type is widespread in the Mediterranean
from the third quarter of the 5th century bc onwards; examples are
 ‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
known from Athens (Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 370 no. 1913, pl. 91)
and from as far north as Torone and as far south as Miletos (see
Pemberton and Villing [forthcoming]).
14 Corinthian mortaria and their typology will be discussed in detail by
Pemberton and Villing (forthcoming). A general typology of Greek
mortaria had already been drawn up by Matteucci 1986, but is in
need of refinement, updating and correction. It seems that Corinth
specialised in the production and trade of a number of commodities
made in its special ‘tile fabric’, notably roof tiles, perirrhanteria and
mortaria: Iozzo 1985, 58-9.
15 For recent summaries and discussions with further references, see
Bellelli and Botto 2002, 296-300; Berlin 1997b, 123-4; Matteucci
1986. A new study with particular reference to Corinthian mortaria is
in preparation: Pemberton and Villing (forthcoming).
16 Oren 1984, 17.
17 Salles 1985, 1991. Cf. also Defernez 2001, 407-8.
18 Hanfmann 1963, 90, refers to customs in modern Cyprus (‘In Cyprus
[…] peasants are said to use such mortars as milk bowls and for
making cheese’) while Tschumi (1931) suspects that thin-walled
Roman Terra Sigillata mortaria might have been used for making
mild curdle, citing parallels in latter-day Swiss cheese manufacture;
cf. also Amyx and Lawrence 1975, 110. Against: Sparkes and Talcott
1970, 222 n. 5; Baatz 1977, 148.
19 Most of the many mortaria at Miletos, for example, show distinct
signs of attrition, as do most of the mortaria in the Levant. In Egypt,
attrition is reported for the mortaria from Tell Tebilleh (Mumford
2004) but not for those from Tell el-Herr (Defernez 2001, 407).
Perhaps the situation in Cyprus (where many mortaria appear
‘unused’: Salles and Rey 1993, 238-9, with note 23) is different on
account of most of the published mortaria having been found in
tombs, where they might have been placed while relatively new.
20 On traces of attrition from the point of view of use-wear analysis, see
Skibo 1992, 115-7, 132-3.
21 A highly detailed analysis of the traces of use on mortaria from Tell
Keisan has been undertaken by Sapin 1998.
22 Their Greek names were thyeia or igdys, the pestle associated with
them ‘aletribanos’ or ‘doidyx’; cf. Amyx 1958, Sparkes 1962; Dalby
2003, 101; Buchholz 1963, 67.
23 Berlin 1997b, 123-4; Sparkes 1962, 125-6, esp. 125; Moritz 1958, 22 n. 4.
24 Sparkes 1962, 126; Amyx 1958, 239-41.
25 A passage in the Bible, Proverb 27.22 (‘Crush [‘katash’] a fool in a
mortar [‘maktesh’] with a pestle [‘`eliy’] along with crushed grain
[‘riyphah’], yet his folly will not depart from him’) – presumably
dating back to the Archaic or at least Classical period – may refer to
wheat being ground to meal in a mortarium, yet given the
uncertainty as to the precise meaning of the crucial words, we
cannot be sure whether the pounding of grain in a larger holmos (cf.
below, n. 34) might not be referred to instead. Another passage in the
Bible (Num. 11.8) contrasts the pounding of manna in a mortar
(‘maktesh’) with its being ground in a mill.
26 Pemberton and Villing (forthcoming). The appearance of a spout in
many examples from the later 6th century bc onwards, moreover,
may well suggest a change in use or a diversification of mortaria for
different uses.
27 London, BM GR 1903.5-18.3 (Terracotta 957), Corinthian, early 4th
century bc. Higgins 1954, 260 no. 957, pl. 135.
28 London, BM GR 1873.8-20.576 (Terracotta 969), Corinthian, early
4th century bc. Higgins 1954, 263 no. 969, pl. 136.
29 Cf. Corinth 12 (1952), 192 no. 1430 (3971), pl. 86. On pestles in
general, see Sparkes 1962, 125; Amyx 1958, 239; Buchholz 1963, 67.
30 On ancient cheese-graters, see also below, n. 71; Weber, this volume,
n. 30.
31 On these Boiotian figurines as well as on the phenomenon of ‘daily
life’ terracotta figurines in general, see most recently Pisani 2003,
esp. 6 fig. 5 (figurine of a man grating cheese into a
mortarium/basin), pp. 13-4 nos 49-65 (catalogue of figurines with a
mortarium or holmos).
32 Fr. 26 West = Ath. 304b; cf. also Anianos fr. 5 = Ath. 282b. On
myttotos, see especially Dalby 1996, 107 with note 48.
33 Cf. Bats 1988, 37-8; Dalby 2003, 307 s.v. soup. Cf. also Garnsey 1998,
218-20.
34 In the Attic stelai, holmoi of stone and of wood (and possibly
pottery?) are listed: Amyx 1958, 236-8, 282-4. For representations, cf.
Sparkes 1962, 1965, and most recently Neils 2004. Note that
Schattner (1995, 81-3) suggested that side B of the Apries amphora
(Bailey Fig. 1) showed two women working at a holmos, but this
interpretation remains doubtful.
35 Marble mortaria existed in Greece, East Greece and Cyprus at least
since Hellenistic times in very similar shapes to the typical Corinthian
mortaria, with handles and a (mostly ornamental) spout; cf. most
recently Korkut 2002, 236-8.
36 Cf. e.g. Artzy and Lyon 2002, 187 (referring to the possibility that
mortaria were used as secondary grinders to achieve a finer grain);
Matteucci 1986, 250-2. Cf. Foxhall and Forbes 1982, 77, for practical
experiments with hulling barley in mortarium (a stone mortarium
with a wooden pestle working best). Note also that Galen (De
alimentorum facultatibus 1.9. 502, 566) suggests rubbing soaked
barley in a mortarium for removing the spelt, while advising against
grinding it raw in a mortarium; cf. Darmstaedter 1933.
37 For Archaic Miletos, for example, it has been shown that barley was
by far the most important cereal crop, followed by wheat (including
Einkorn, Emmer and spelt) and millet: Stika 1997; cf. also Greaves
2002, 24-5. Wheat was, of course, one of the main export staples from
Egypt to Greece, even if such trade is not securely attested before the
5th century bc: Möller 2000, 210-11; Austin 1970, 35 with n. 2. On
semolina, see also Ath. 1.24, citing Antiphanes (4th century bc); cf.
Dalby 1996, 91; Sapin 1998, 111-2 n. 53; Salles 1991, 220.
38 Dalby 2003, 45-7; Darmstaedter 1933.
39 Dalby 2003, 132; Hill and Bryer 1995; Brumfield 1997, 153-4.
40 As argued by Sapin 1998, 110-17. Cf. also Brumfield 1997, 154-5.
41 Cf. Dalby 2003, 349.
42 Perpillou-Tomas 1992; Sapin 1998, 112; Thompson 1995.
43 Braun 1995, 34-6.
44 Mitford 1980, 100-2, no. 133; Salles 1993, 174. Only rim fragments are
preserved and no traces of either wear or burning are recorded in the
publication of the bowl.
45 It might be tempting to interpret also the inscriptions ‘kri-’ (cat. no. 8)
and ‘-nai kr-’ (Fig. 8, cat. no. 19) as somehow related to krithe, barley,
but this would be pure speculation.
46 In addition to these mortaria with votive inscriptions, an
unpublished mortarium from Shave Zion, supposedly inscribed with
personal name in Greek, is mentioned by Stern 1982, 98.
47 Samos, Heraion K11146. H. 7.2 dm, W. 9.4cm, Diam. 35cm. Yellow,
relatively porous clay with a yellow slip. I am indebted to Alexander
Fantalkin for pointing out this fragment to me, and to Professor W.-D.
Niemeier / German Archaeological Institute for permission to
publish it.
48 See Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.
49 Kron 1984, 1988.
50 Finds from a bothros dated to about 600 bc: Walter and Vierneisel
1959, 28, Beilage 61. Cf. also Isler 1978, 97 no. 146, 159 nos 597-8, pl.
50, Beilage 3 and 19; Furtwängler 1980, 204 no. I/35 (Phase I before
630/20 bc). Almost all the Archaic mortaria from the Heraion are of
the flat-based Eastern Mediterranean type.
51 Cf. Kron 1988, 140.
52 Samothrace 51.922 and 51.923: Lehmann 1960, 49 nos 12-13, pl. 3.12-
13; Lehmann and Spittle 1964, 209-10 nos A6-A7.
53 Lehmann 1960, 14-16.
54 Roebuck 1951, 131, 135 nos 61 (not inscribed), 65, 66, pl. 50.
55 Roman sources for the use of mortaria in the preparation of medicine
are collected by Hilgers 1969, 226; cf. also Matteucci 1986, 249.
Apollo, too, was of course at times a healing deity; there is no
evidence to suggest such a role specifically for Apollo at Naukratis or
Didyma/Miletos, although it is attested in Berezan and Olbia (cf.
Herda [forthcoming b], chapter 5). In addition, mortaria could be
used for preparing paint or mortar (cf. Hilgers 1969, 226), and there
are finds of actual mortaria associating them with workshops.
56 This path to death is described as ‘tetrimmene’, so that it is obviously
the word ‘tribo’, to grind, that is associated with the mortar, thyeia.
57 V. Karageorghis and O. Masson, BCH 1960, 260 fig. 29. I am grateful
to Ursula Höckmann for pointing out this piece. Note also the rim
fragment of a 5th century bc stone bowl from Itanos, presumably
from the sanctuary on the acropolis, which seems to carry a
dedication by a woman: Sitia inv. Ms 10244; BCH 121 (1997), 822 no.
C. I am grateful to Didier Viviers and Athena Tsingarida for this
information.
58 Kerschner 1997b, 119 no. 10, p. 122 pl. 4.20, pp. 140-3 no. 63, pl. 9.63,
pp. 186, 203.
59 Bookidis 1990, 86-94; Pemberton 1989, 67-8. For the types of cakes
that would have been produced in the sanctuary, see Brumfield 1997.
60 Several dozens of 7th–6th century bc mortaria as well as cooking
pots.
61 Kalaitzoglou (forthcoming).
62 The opportunity is taken here to illustrate a previously unpublished
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 43
Villing
example of an Archaic mortarium from the recent excavations at
Emecik, from the fill at the southern Temenos wall: Eski Datça,
Depot inv. ST99K8c-16,78; H. 4.7cm, W. 8cm; coarse light yellow-
green clay, Munsell 2.5YR 8/4, yellow slip. Photograph D. Berges. I
am grateful to D. Berges for permission to publish this piece, and to
R. Attula for pointing out its existence.
63 One mortarium in a bothros, together with drinking cups, lamps,
amphorae and chytrai: Kinch 1914, 99.
64 One 5th century bc (?) mortarium: BSA 64 (1969), 183 fig. 10.Z35.
65 I am grateful to D. Williams for this information.
66 de la Genière and Jolivet 2003, 127, 134 fig. 44.1-2.
67 Gauer 1975, 157-61.
68 Matteucci 1986, 274.
69 Copenhagen, National Museum inv. 10864; Blinkenberg 1931, 748 no.
3229, pl. 152. I am grateful to B. Bundgaard-Rasmussen for providing
photographs of this piece. D. Williams furthermore draws my
attention also to an andesite millstone from the sanctuary of Aphaia
on Aigina that is inscribed ‘A’.
70 This was observed first by Blinkenberg; I am grateful to B.
Bundgaard-Rasmussen for confirming Blinkenberg’s observation.
71 Cf. also Homer, Od. 20.105, where the gyne aletris is a female slave
charged with grinding barley and wheat. Note also the term
‘aletribanos’ for a pestle (supra, n. 22). There may also have been
other specific female roles associated with the processing of grain:
on a Boiotian skyphos one of the women pounding (presumably
hulling) grain is called Kodoma, ‘toaster of grain’ – possibly a cult
name? Women were traditionally in charge of grain-processing and
baking (Lewis 2002, 65-71), but on a Campana dinos of c. 530 bc a
woman and a nude man are jointly pounding away at a holmos,
possibly hulling grain: Boston, 13.205; Fairbanks 1928, 191 no. 546, pl.
58.546. We may also note the presence of a cheese-grater in a
Boiotian 4th-century temple inventory: SEG XXIV.361 line 18.
72 On Apollo at Naukratis, see Ehrhardt, Höckmann and Schlotzhauer
(forthcoming); on the cult of Apollo at Miletos and Didyma and in
the Milesian colonies, see Herda (forthcoming a, b). Cf. also
Bîrzescu, this volume.
73 Simon 1983, 76-8; cf. Deubner 1932, 179-201 (esp. 188-90, 198-9).
74 Simon 1983, 77; cf. Nilsson, 1906, 105-15; Deubner 1932, 181-8.
75 Cf. Dalby 1996, 111, 165; Dalby 2003, 70.
76 Cf. also Kearns 1994, 68; Herda (forthcoming a), 397-8 n. 2820.
77 Line 36; cf. Milet 1.3, no. 133; cf. now also Herda (forthcoming a),
10–14, 396–9. A 3rd-century bc poem mentions a rich plakous filled
with cheese among the gifts of a four-year-old boy to Apollo on the
occasion of his first haircut: Anth. Pal. 6.155.
78 Cf. Liddell – Scott s.v. plakous II; Herda (forthcoming a), 397-8 n.
2820.
79 Cf. Tresp 1914, 159ff., esp. 160 fr. 112; cf. also Herda (forthcoming a),
143–50, esp. 146 with n. 1027, p. 398 n. 2824. I am grateful to A. Herda
for his generous advice on this topic. On Hermeias, the prytaneion
and Apollo Komaios, cf. also Höckmann and Möller, this volume, ch.
8.
80 Described by the 4th-century bc poet Antiphanes (cited by Ath.
449b-c); cf. Brumfield 1997, 157. Kandaulos, an Ionian speciality of
Lydian origin, seems to be another version: Dalby 2003, 188; Dalby
1996, 111.
81 Cf. also Hill and Bryer 1995, 45-7.
82 Cf. Herda (forthcoming b); Höckmann and Möller, this volume, ch.
8.
83 British Museum, GR 1886.4-1.1288 (Sculpture B 469); Nick
(forthcoming), 65, 120, cat. no. 43. I am grateful to U. Höckmann and
G. Nick for information on this piece.
84 An ongoing ritual significance of mortaria/holmoi at Naukratis
(though probably unrelated) is indicated by the foundation deposits
of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (282–246 bc) in the four corners of the
entrance building to the Great Temenos, which included, among
other ‘ceremonial models’, pairs of sandstone corn-rubbers and
limestone mortars/holmoi: Petrie 1886bb, 29, pl. 26.32,33,34.
85 A distribution map, albeit now severely outdated, has been
published by Salles 1991, 234 fig. 3.
86 C. Grataloup in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 335 fig. 406.
87 Both mortaria are relatively small, especially cat. no. D1 (Fig. 19), for
which one should consider Egyptian manufacture. I am grateful to
Jeffrey Spencer for pointing out their existence to me and for
allowing me to publish them here. Even though Petrie (1891b, 48)
himself stated that ‘thick drab bowls’ were ‘wholly unknown in the
Greek town of Defenneh’, the two examples published here show
that the type existed there after all, even if manufactured in the Nile
44 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Delta.
88 Spencer 1996, 89, pls 62.48-59; 79.18-19; 81.4-5; 86.15. The mortaria
are described as sometimes made from silt clay but more often a
friable, beige to green-grey marl fabric; some might well be Cypro-
Phoenician imports, while others may be local imitations.
89 Oren 1984, 17, fig. 21.10, fig. 31.
90 Defernez 2001, 402-11, pls 91-2, nos 253-7. I owe this reference to
Sabine Weber.
91 Mumford 2004. I owe this reference to Sabine Weber.
92 Holladay 1982, 109, pl. 16 (from a well dated to 486 bc).
93 Allen 1982, pl. 14 (Stratum IIB-C, attributed to the Late Period) –
Egyptian production?.
94 Khonsu, unpublished; mentioned by Defernez 2001, 403.
95 Petrie 1915, 17, pl. 10.1-2.
96 Mentioned by Defernez 2001, 403.
97 Petrie 1909, pl. 54.821 (used as a lid).
98 Brissaud 1990, pl. X.142; presumably of Egyptian production.
99 Petrie and Duncan 1906, pl. 39F.134.
100 Mumford 2004.
101 Defernez 2001, 402-11, pls 91-2, nos 253-7.
102 Oren 1984, fig. 21.7, figs 27-30 (torpedo amphorae); fig. 21.1,3,5,11,
fig. 28 (basket-handled amphorae).
103 On this type of mortarium in the Levant and Cyprus, see most
recently and comprehensively Sapin 1998; Gal and Alexandre 2000,
190-2; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 51; Stern 1982, 96-8; Salles
1985; Bennett and Blakely 1989, 196-203; Berlin 1997b; Lehmann
1996, types 159 and 173; Waldbaum and Magness 1997, 39-40.
104 Ballard et al. 2002, 162, 160 fig. 9.3; Stager 2005, 242. Cf. also
Waldbaum and Magness 1997, 39-40.
105 Destruction levels of Sargon (712 bc) and Nebuchadnezzar: Dothan
and Freedman 1967, 157, figs 40.10-11, 41.11; Dothan 1971, 140-1, 100,
104, 110.
106 Gal and Alexandre 2000, 189-92, figs VII.11.19, VII.13.
107 Level IV, 8th century bc: Lehmann 1996, pl. 25.161/1; Barnett
1939/40, 107, pl. 52.1 (cf. also p. 88: Level IV covers the 11th–8th
centuries bc but contains mostly 8th-century pottery).
108 It may seem doubtful whether the relatively thin-walled bowls from
Tyre cited by Lehmann (1996, pl. 25. 159/1, 160/1) are really
mortaria.
109 These mortaria, said to be both local and imported, are cited by
Hanfmann (1963, 71, 90-1, 187 nos 297-300, figs 64, 119) as coming
from the earliest Iron Age levels and thus dating to as early as 1050
bc; this would suggest that flat-based mortaria were produced in
Tarsus (and imported there from another centre) for some 300 years
before appearing anywhere else. Later mortaria from Tarsus:
Hanfmann 1963, 233-4 nos 921-30, 255 nos 1152-3, 274-6 nos 1310-19,
1328-31, pls 79, 93, 132, 137, 143.
110 Salles 1980, 1985; Lehmann 2003, fig. 10.11-14.
111 Karageorghis 1973, 13, 116, 121, pls 47, 51, 225, 233.
112 Karageorghis 1973, 13, 121-2, pls 41, 136, 281.
113 Karageorghis 1978, 13 nos 7-9, pls 7, 44.
114 Salamis tombs 6, 16, 20, 23, 33A, 52, 58, 104, 106; Tsambres und
Aphendrika, tomb 23 (5th century bc): RDAC 1937-9, 89-90, fig.
42.11; Salles and Rey 1993, 237.
115 Salles 1985, 200-1; Sapin 1998, 91.
116 Note e.g. the rim variations found in one tomb alone, Salamis tomb
3, dated to about 600 bc: Karageorghis 1967, pls 41, 125.
117 Cf. Salles 1985, 203; Stern 1982, 98; Berlin 1997b, 124 with note 279;
Lehmann 1996, pl. 26-7 no. 168; Roll and Tal 1999, 97-8. It remains
difficult, however, to date precisely the appearance of the first ring-
footed mortaria; few examples seem to date to the 6th century bc,
and there is no firm evidence to date them early in that century or
even into the 7th century bc. Unpublished ring-footed mortaria were
purportedly (Salles 1985, 203) found in Ashdod Phase 2 (late 8th
century bc), but one may doubt this with some confidence. The
fragment of a ring foot found in Period V (700–650 bc) in Tell
Taanach (Raast 1978, fig. 76.5) has been suspected to be from a
mortarium (Salles 1985, 203) but the identification is unconvincing.
With regard to an example from Stratum 5 at Al Mina (Lehmann
2005, 78-9, fig. 12.4), usually dated to the late 7th– early 6th century
bc, the reliability of the stratigraphic information has been doubted.
At Samaria, ring-footed mortaria (Crowfoot et al. 1957,130-2, fig. 12
no. 13) appear in Period VIII which is dated 7th–6th century bc, but
the actual end-point of the period appears somewhat uncertain (cf.
Crowfoot et al. 1942, 115). Also at Lachish (cf. Salles 1985, 203) the
situation regarding the ring-footed mortaria in Level II (c. 700–586
bc) is problematic; the majority of the material there seems to be 5th
 ‘Drab Bowls’ for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
century bc or later: Tuffnell 1953, 279-80, class B.14, pls 80.68,
98.568. Otherwise, ring-footed mortaria appear, for example, in
Stratum II (Persian period) at Hazor (Yadin 1958, pls 79.25, 83.7;
Yadin 1961/89, pls 190.7, 257.3,6,7), in level 3 (Persian period) at Tell
Keisan (Briend and Humbert 1980, 122, 147-8), in Stratum I (Persian
Period) at Timnah/Tell Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 51),
and in Stratum Persian 2 (late 6th–mid-5th century bc) at Apollonia-
Arsuf (Roll and Tal 1999, 110-1 fig. 4.11).
118 Salles 1985, 201; Salles 1983, 73-4; Salles and Rey 1993, 239.
119 Cf. Defernez 2001, pls 91-2, nos 253-7.
120 Cooking pots, which also may have been used at funerary meals and
signified wealth, seem to be rarer: Pilides 2005, 178-9.
121 Karageorghis 1973, 13.
122 Karageorghis 1973, pl. 7, 9.
123 Mentioned by Salles 1993, 237.
124 Sapin 1998, 93 with n. 19. For contexts in which mortaria have been
found in Greece and Etruria, see Matteucci 1986, 272-4.
125 Other sites in the region have so far revealed no trace of the type, or
at least no finds seem to have been published.
126 Flat-based mortarium in the context of a 7th century bc burial at
Arkades: Levi 1927-9, 384 fig. 494, p.493 fig. 592-D, p. 498. Two
further late 7th century bc examples from Kommos have just been
published by Johnston 2005, 359-61 nos 183-4, fig. 24.
127 Kinch 1914, 99, pl. 23.8.
128 A late-7th century bc mortarium from Old Smyrna in the museum at
Izmir is reported by Hanfmann 1963, 60 with n. 221.
129 Above, ns 47 and 50.
130 In the vicinity of Miletos, mortaria have also been found at Assesos
(7th century bc; Kalaitzoglu [forthcoming)); Didyma (6th/5th
century bc: Schattner in Tuchelt 1996, 171-2 nos 105-14 and 129, 182-7
types 47-50 and 63, figs 114-16; Wintermeyer and Bumke 2004, 106
no. S 10.24, fig. 898), and Teichioussa (Voigtländer 2004, 321 no. 134,
325 no. 164, 326 nos 172-4, pls 167, 171-2).
131 The mortaria from Miletos will be published by the author as part of
a study of bowls from the site. At Miletos, with its unbroken and
extremely numerous sequence of mortaria in both settlement and
sanctuary until the end of the 6th century bc, and a scattering of
later, Classical finds, the characteristic form of the Cypro-Phoenician
buff ring-footed mortarium is not attested. We see instead the
emergence in the 6th century bc of a mortarium very similar in
shape, but made in the usual Milesian brown clay and painted with
white slip and bands on rim and foot.
132 No more than 20 examples are attested in the Archaic settlement at
Miletos: Naso 2005a, 77. One example also comes from the area of
the Athena temple: Niemeier 1999, 389-92, fig. 20, 407 fig. 29, 412
no. 21.
133 Pers. comm. D. Chistov; I am indebted to Dr Chistov for showing me
his material from the recent excavations at Berezan during a visit to
London in 2005. The mortaria published in Solovyov 1999, 94 fig. 91
are of a different, probably Late Archaic or Classical type. Two
mortaria from earlier excavations at Berezan, again of different
types, have recently been shown through NAA to be imports, from
Cyprus and the Troad respectively: Kerschner 2006; I am indebted to
M. Kerschner for sharing these results with me pre-publication. We
can thus no longer assume that at Berezan ‘locally produced pottery
fully satisfied the inhabitants’ cooking and food-preparation needs,
regardless of their ethnic roots’ (Solovyov 1999, 52).
134 Alexandrescu 1978, 111 no. 721, fig. 27.111; Alexandrescu 2005, 357 no.
C156, 394 fig. 47, pl. 68 (wrongly labelled C 157).
135 Boardman and Hayes 1973, 69-70 no. 2317, fig. 2317, pl. 36.2317 (=
Bellelli and Botto 2002, 288 fig. 7d [wrongly captioned]). Versions of
this type of bowl (‘collared bowl’), which are not necessarily
mortaria, are common in Cyrene also in later periods: Thorn 2005,
643-4 nos 211-2.
136 Vegas 1999, 182-3, Form 50, fig. 89.
137 Bellelli and Botto 2002, 279-85; Bartoloni 1992; Gaudina 1994;
Bartoloni 1996, 86-7 with fig. 1.3;
138 The spread of this type in the West has recently been charted in great
detail by Bellelli and Botto 2002 (updating Matteucci 1986). They
consider it, however, together with another bowl of different shape,
which somewhat obscures the picture.
139 Bellelli and Botto 2002, 281-5; cf. e.g. Gran-Aymerich 1991, fig. 39. 4-5
(6th–early 5th century bc).
140 Corinth C-40-312 (Weinberg 1948, 228 no. D79, pl. 84; cf. also Bellelli
and Botto 2002, 302) and C-73-163 (unpublished, from lot 73-57).
Both examples will be fully published by Pemberton and Villing
(forthcoming). It has sometimes been thought that the buff-clay
mortaria of Eastern Mediterranean type are in fact of Corinthian
manufacture. This must, however, be ruled out, not merely for the
simple reason of the absence of the type at Corinth (bar the two
examples jus cited), but also in the light of the recent clay analyses
from the Levant, discussed infra.
141 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 369 no. 1889, pl. 90. Elsewhere in
mainland Greece, early pottery mortaria follow completely different
traditions: cf. Cavanagh et al. 1996, 73-4 with refs.
142 Cf. Fantalkin, this volume.
143 In the last quarter of the 7th century bc as much as 75-85% of total
imports to Corinth may be of East Greek or Island origin, and also
some Syro-Phoenician / Palestinian imports are attested: Bentz,
1982, 126-8, 218-41; Siegel 1978, esp. 64-217.
144 Amyx and Lawrence 1975, 91-5; Weinberg 1948, 228 no. D78, pl. 84.
145 Buchholz 1963, 1976/7; Botto 2000.
146 Stern 1982, 96-8.
147 Stern 1982, 98.
148 For a summary of Petrie’s views, see Blakely and Bennett 1989, 50-1.
149 Cf. Niemeier and Niemeier 2002, 240-1, figs 5.96-7, and now also
Fantalkin, this volume.
150 Hayes 1967; Blakely, Brinkmann and Vitaliano 1992; cf. also
C. Grataloup in Goddio and Clauss 2006, 348 fig. 484.
151 Supra, n. 104.
152 Bennett and Blakely 1989, 198-200, pocket insert 23; Blakely and
Bennett 1989, 55-7.
153 Sapin 1998, 97-103.
154 Berlin 1997b, 10-12, 123-32, esp. 124 n. 277; Rautmann 1997, 223-4,
sample 10.
155 Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001, 19-20 FG 13, 51 BL 20.
156 Goralczany 1999, 186 table 4.10.7-11; and id., 2005. Goralczany’s
results from Yaoz and Tel Michal are as yet unpublished. I am
indebted to A. Fantalkin for this information.
157 Fantalkin 2001b, 79-82.
158 Analysis by Yuval Goren: Lehmann 2002b, 205 fig. 5.78.14 (Kabri
93/1947/5216-100).
159 Artzy and Lyon 2002, 186-7, fig. 3.
160 Yellin and Artzy 2004, 225-6, fig. 2.6-8.
161 Mentioned by Salles 1993, 237 n. 16.
162 Salles 1985, 202.
163 Cf. most recently Markoe 2000, 53; cf. also Docter 1997, 28-31.
164 Master 2001, 176.
165 Master 2001, 110 no. 50.58 L318 (49), 111 no. 50.58 L318 (50), 134-5,
137-8, 154 fig. 2.8.2, 4, p. 176.
166 Master 2001, 141-2, 155 fig. 2.9.5. In this category falls also an
amphora with yellowish clay. The clay is said to be very similar to the
clay of Category 13 (‘highly micaceous samples with reddish brown
fabric’), which are all Greek imports, probably from the region of
Miletos or Samos.
167 Master 2001, 114 no. 50.58 L318 (7).
168 Master 2001, 135; cf. also Master 2003.
169 Bennett and Blakely 1989.
170 See Ballard et al. 2002, 162-3; cf. also Bennett and Blakely 1989, 196-
203; Berlin 1997b, 123-32. Perhaps the mortaria travelled around the
Mediterranean alongside not just Phoenician and Cypriot oil and
wine, but also Phoenician semolina and wheat from Cyprus; note the
mid-6th century bc Ionian poet Hipponax (fr. 125 Loeb) mentioning
‘those who ate the bread of Cypriot and Amathusian wheat’.
171 Salles 1991, 225-31; Humbert 1991; Gunneweg and Perlmann 1991;
Niemeier 1999, 389-92; Bennett and Blakely 1989, 212-3.
172 For speculation on East Greek production and trade of mortaria, see
e.g. Bellelli and Botto 2002, 305. A more detailed report on the
origins and trade of mortaria is planned for a future study, which will
include the petrographic clay analysis of mortaria from Naukratis,
Miletos, and Al Mina.
173 Mommsen, this volume.
174 Mommsen, Beier and Aström 2003, 6-8 no. HST 7, 10 table 2.
175 Kleibl 2006, esp. 154-5.
176 Eski Datça, Depot inv. ST00K8c-20,3, sample Emec 122: Attula 2006,
112 cat. no. 202a, pl. 69.3; Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006, 200,
204 table 3. One further mortarium (cat no. 9 [Fig. 6], sample Nauk
56) remains a chemical single, another (cat. no. 17 [Fig. 23], sample
Nauk 18) was identified as Egyptian marl (see below). A further
mortarium in the group EmeA was found at the northern extremities
of the Greek world, at Berezan (sample Bere 025), showing just how
widely Cypriot mortaria were traded: Kerschner 2006, fig. 22.
177 On Levantine pottery in Iron Age Egypt, see e.g. Maeir 2002. He lists
mortaria in his catalogue of Palestinian pottery found in Egypt (pp.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 45
Villing
238-9), thus disregarding the abundance of analyses indicating their
status as imports also to Palestine.
178 The Ma‘agan Mikha’el wreck, for example, carried Cypriot,
Phoenician and East Greek pottery; cf. Artzy and Lyon 2002; Yellin
and Artzy 2004.
179 Cf. Maeir 2002. For Jews and Phoenicians serving as mercenaries in
Egypt, see also Kaplan 2003, 7-9. Cf. also Vittmann 2003, 44-83 on
Phoenicians in Egypt, and 84-119 on Aramaic documents from Egypt,
and Holladay 2004 on the Judaean diaspora in Egypt. On Syro-
Palestinian pottery, see also Gjerstad 1948, 241, 242; Petrie 1888, pl. 3.
180 On Cypriot mercenaries in the service of Egypt in the Archaic period,
see Kaplan 2003, 10; cf. also Fantalkin, this volume, n. 75.
181 As argued by Carrez-Maratray 2005, they may at this period have
docked at a number of ports in the Nile Delta.
182 Small numbers of mortaria have been found in a number of ship
wrecks. In addition to the Elissa and the above-mentioned Ma‘agan
Mikha’el wreck one might list the late 6th century bc Pabuç Burnu
wreck (Greene 2003; the ship carried Samian, Milesian and other
East Greek transport amphorae), the third-quarter-5th-century bc
Tektaþ Burnu wreck (on display in Bodrum Museum; cf. Carlson
2002; the ship carried mainly East Greek transport amphorae and
appears to have traded along the Ionian coast), the Giglio wreck
(Bellelli and Botto 2002, 296, 288 fig. 7e; Bound 1991, 224, fig. 59;
Cristofani 1996, 43-5, fig. 14.2), the mid-6th century bc Antibes
wreck (Bellelli and Botto 2002, 296-7, fig. 10a; Bouloumié 1982, 34
nos 300-301, fig. 9; the Etruscan (?) ship carried mostly Etruscan but
also East Greek pottery presumably destined for Marseille), the
wreck Pointe Lequin 1A (Long, Miro and Volpe 1992, 219, 221 fig. 37.1,
4), the early-5th-century bc Gela wreck (Panvini 2001, 30 fig. 32, 44-5
cat. nos 36274 and 36275, 54-5 cat. nos 38/85 and 36345, pls IV.23-4,
XL.65-6), and the Late Classical Porticello wreck (Eiseman and
Ridgway 1987, 31 no. G10, 32 fig. 3.9-10). Again, in all cases, mortaria
seem to have been part of the galley kitchen equipment rather than
cargo – raising the (albeit remote) possibility of mortaria found in
sanctuaries having been dedicated after a successful journey.
183 Ballard et al. 2002; Stager 2005. Stager believes that the destination
of the Phoenician Elissa with its cargo of wine may have been either
Carthage or Egypt. Egyptian pottery is found occasionally in the
Levant through the 7th and 6th centuries bc; in the late 7th century
bc, of course, the Phoenician coast even found itself under Egyptian
rule. Cypriot trade amphorae, and occasionally fine wares too, also
reached the Levant. Cf. Fantalkin 2001b, 97-8; Fantalkin, this
volume; Markoe 2000, 44-7; Vittmann 2003, 44-83.
184 On Phoenician evidence see Villing and Schlotzhauer, this volume.
185 For a summary of Cypriot material at Naukratis, see Möller 2000a,
161-3. Gjerstad (1948, 241) cites two pieces from Naukratis in the
Cairo Museum: ‘a Black-on-Red III (V) globular miniature hydria
with base-ring, neck widening upwards, swollen rim, horizontal
handles on the belly, a vertical handle from below rim to shoulder,
and decorated with encircling lines around shoulder and belly’
(Cairo Museum C 3132), and ‘a Black-on-Red II (IV) handle-ridge
juglet with funnel-shaped mouth and flat rim; encircling lines
around lower part of neck; upper part of neck and rim covered with
mat, red paint’ (Cairo Museum C 3133). A Cypro-Archaic II small
feeder-jug with eye decoration in Oxford, Ashmolean Museum
1987.62, is also supposedly from Naukratis (gift Peter Fraser; I am
grateful to Helen Whitehouse for information on this piece). The
unpublished imitation of a Cypriot Black-on-Red I (III) juglet in the
collection of UCL that is mentioned by Davis (1979, 16-7, and 1980, 7)
is in fact of faience (Gjerstad 1948, 411); its findspot, however, seems
to be uncertain. As regards other types of material, a bronze bowl
(Petrie 1886bb, pl. 12) that may be of late 7th / early 6th century bc
Cypriot production was kindly pointed out to me by U. Höckmann.
186 Cf. Höckmann and Möller, this volume; Schlotzhauer and Villing,
this volume.
187 Such as, e.g. BM GR 1888.6-1.100 (Terracotta C586).
188 See supra n. 3.
189 Johnston 1982, 36.
190 Cf. e.g. Peserico 1999; Peserico 2002; Bartoloni 1992; 1996; Gaudina,
1994.
46 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
191 Mommsen et al., this volume. I am grateful to Jeffrey Spencer for
confirming the visual identification as marl clay. Marl clays must
have been available on the desert fringes of the Nile Delta, and thus
at least in the wider area of Naukratis. On Egyptian Nile and marl
fabrics, see Arnold and Bourriau 1993; Bourriau, Smith and
Nicholson 2000.
192 Mommsen et al., this volume; Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.
193 Cf. e.g. Holladay 2004.
194 Mumford 2004. Very different, local, carinated mortaria shapes
seem to be found among the materal from Tell El-Herr from the
Persian period onwards: Defernez 2001, 288-93, pl. 65.
195 Cf. supra, n. 85
196 Cf. Oren 1984, 27; Weber 2001, 142 with n. 115 (not all the pieces listed
by Oren are actually local). One example of an Egyptian imitation of
a Samian trade amphora is British Museum EA 22333; I owe this
information to S. Weber. There are no certain Greek cooking pots at
Tell Defenneh: a kind of chytra (Petrie 1888, 64, pl. 35.43; present
whereabouts unkown) was identified by Petrie as of likely Greek
origin, but has been described as reminiscent of late Iron Age Judean
cooking jugs by Maeir (2002, 239, 236 fig. 1.5); although no certain
identification can be made based on the drawing, the fact that Petrie
mentions the existence of similar double-handled vessels might
indeed point to a Judean rather than a Greek type. For the related
phenomenon of both imported and locally-produced (marl) ‘Judean
jugs’, presumably manufactured by Judean potters for a Judean
diaspora community, see Holladay 2004.
197 A small fragment of similar shape and similar-looking clay and slip
has recently also been found at Miletos; its clay analysis, however, is
inconclusive (Sample Milet 41; Mommsen et al., this volume).
198 Cf. e.g. Tite and Kilikoglou 2002.
199 Cf. Hiller 2000, 467, with pp. 497-9 (discussion by P. Alexandrescu, S.
Hiller and P. Dupont). For the modern Siphniot parallel, see Jones
1986, 861-4.
202 Waldbaum 2006, 65; Master 2001, 160-71, esp. 167; Master 2003;
contra Fantalkin, this volume.
201 Master 2001, 220-1; for the possibility of the development of
specialised production centres for mortaria see also Bellelli and
Botto 2002, 299.
202 On Corinthian clays and the manufacturing of mortaria, cf. Sparkes
and Talcott 1970, 222.
203 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 370 nos 1899-1911, fig. 20, pl. 90-1.
204 E.g. Voigtländer 1982, 79 fig. 37.230, 144 no. 230, pl. 27.1. Further
Corinthian mortaria have also been found in the recent excavations
in the Archaic settlement at Miletos, to be published by the author.
Cf. also Voigtländer 2004, 325 no. 164, pl. 171 (Teichioussa).
205 Alexandrescu 1978, 111-2 no. 729, fig. 27; Alexandrescu 2005, 357 no.
C157, 394 fig. 47.
206 Thorn 2005, 638 nos 184-5, figs 377, 410.
207 The type of the ‘collar rim’ mortarium is attested, for example, at
Velia: Gassner 2003, 97, fig. 41.
208 The mortaria of Euhesperides have been studied by Keith Swift, to
whom I owe this information. For a preliminary report, see Swift
2003, 219-20.
209 Swift 2003, 215. Compare also the evidence from Late Archaic– Early
Classical Velia, where c. one fifth of coarse-ware is imported
(mortaria from Calabria and Corinth): Gassner 2003, 220-4. I owe
this reference to Michael Kerschner.
210 Swift 2003, 219-20, and pers. comm.
211 Oren 1984, 8-9, has stressed the position of Northern Sinai and the
Eastern Delta as a densely populated region of commercial,
industrial and military importance that linked Egypt with Canaan.
On connections between Egypt and the Levant, see also Maeir 2002.
212 An observation made already by Lehmann 2005, 74.
213 The prominent role played by Phoenician traders in the Iron Age is
underlined by Fantalkin, this volume; see also Docter 1997.
214 Blakely, Brinkmann and Vitaliano 1992, 208.
215 Blakely, Brinkmann and Vitaliano 1992; Hayes 1967.
216 Cf. Baatz 1977, 154-5.
217 As already suggested by Baatz 1977, 155.
Carian Mercenaries at Naukratis?
Dyfri Williams and Alexandra Villing
Abstract
Two fragments of pottery from Naukratis in the British Museum
are identified here as probable products of Caria. As such, they are
the first examples of pottery from Egypt to be associated with
Caria, and they raise the possibility of the presence of Carians and
in particular Carian mercenaries at Naukratis.
As research progresses on the wealth of pottery excavated by
Flinders Petrie, E.A. Gardner and D.G. Hogarth at Naukratis,
there are bound to be surprises. This article publishes two
pottery fragments that certainly fit the bill, for they raise the
unexpected question of Carians at Naukratis.
The first fragment (Fig. 1) comes from the wall of a krater.1
The clay contains much golden mica, white and black grits, and
has a pinky red core. The exterior is covered with a thin, whitish
wash; the interior is covered with a dull black slip. The
decoration is done with a yellowish brown paint and is
organised in panels. On the right, there is a panel of vertical
chevrons, framed by a pair of vertical lines on each side (on the
extreme right another line at an angle to the vertical suggests an
unidentified part of another motif). On the left a cock with three
drooping tail feathers (rather than a horse) is depicted in
silhouette to the left; on the extreme left there is a blob.
The style of this fragment seems to combine Geometric, or
rather Subgeometric traits with Orientalising ones. The date
might be somewhere in the second half of the 7th century bc.
Neutron Activation Analysis carried out on the fragment by
Hans Mommsen has linked it with a Wild Goat oinochoe in
Bochum attributed by Mommsen and Schlotzhauer to a Carian
workshop.2 Furthermore, the fabric of the fragment seems to
compare quite well by eye with the Carian Geometric pieces in
the British Museum, excavated in tombs at Asarlik by W.R. Paton
in 1887, but it is to be hoped that more Carian material will be
analysed in due course and the attribution to Caria further
supported.3
Carian Orientalising pottery in a local Wild Goat style has
been recognised and studied by a number of scholars since the
discovery in the early 1970s of a necropolis near the village of
Damlýboðaz near Mylasa, when the bed of the River Sarýçay was
Figure 1 Fragment of a krater, BM GR 1888.6-1.653
Figure 2 Fragment of an amphora (?), BM GR 1924.12-1.37
diverted in connection with the construction of a dam.4 The
Naukratis fragment has points of contact with some of these
pieces, including the panel of vertical chevrons, which was also
frequently used as a horizontal band in the Carian style,5 but we
have not been able to parallel the cock among the published
material. Further research and the appearance of additional
publications may shed more light on this fragment and its likely
Carian origin.
The second fragment is from a closed vessel, probably an
amphora, made from a coarse, brown clay with white grits (Fig.
2).6 The decoration is divided into three zones. There is a finely
drawn set of six concentric black circles. A zone of elaborate
banding takes the form of two reddish-brown bands between
lines, with a wavy line between them. Finally, there is a panel of
feathered, or dotted, multiple strokes.
This fragment has not been analysed by Neutron Activation
but the colour and consistency of the clay and the decorative
motifs and scheme can only be paralleled on fragments of a
fabric found at Kaunos and Damlýboðaz which has been studied
by Bernhard Schmaltz (Fig. 3).7 Sadly, there are no clues from
the stratigraphy at Kaunos as to the chronology of this fabric,
which is known in the form of fragments of dinoi or kraters,
amphorae, cups, plates and dishes. Schmaltz, however, has
posited the idea that it is essentially 7th century bc in date.
Figure 3 Fragment of an amphora from Kaunos, Kaunos PT – Ö – 9/8/98
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 47
Williams and Villing
Both the above fragments are the first examples of their
fabrics to be found outside Caria. It seems unlikely, therefore,
that we are dealing with normal examples of the export of
pottery for commercial reasons, as must be the case with so
much of the East Greek pottery found at Naukratis. The Carians
were, however, well known as mercenaries in Egypt and the
Near East.8
Greek mercenaries were a significant presence in the Orient.
Herodotus (2.152–4) and Diodoros (1.66.12–67.2) report that
Psammetichos I (664–610 bc), the last of the Saite pharaohs,
employed Carian warriors. He is said to have settled them later
in ‘Stratopeda’ in the eastern Delta, on the Pelusiac branch of the
Nile. From Polyainos (Strategica 7.3) we also learn that when
Psammetichos overcame Tementhes in a battle at Memphis the
Carian Pigres was his advisor and that he had many Carian
mercenaries. Indeed, it has been suggested that a grave-stele of
Pigres found at Memphis is the same Pigres as mentioned by
Polyainos.9 Carian mercenaries are also attested in Lydia,
especially under Gyges, who may well have been responsible for
sending Carian mercenaries to the aid of Psammetichos. Others
may also have served in Assyria, Judah and Tyre.10
The archaeological evidence for such mercenaries is, of
course, slight and particularly open to question: it is also
regularly unspecific as to the home city of the mercenary. Thus,
a Greek bronze greave and shield found at Carchemish have
been connected with a Greek (or Carian) mercenary in the pay
of Necho at the time of the city’s conquest by Nebuchadnezzar I
of Babylon in 605 bc.11 Similarly, a fragmentary silver bowl of
Cypro-Phoenician workmanship, found at Amathus on Cyprus,
probably shows a city-siege with Greek (or Carian) mercenaries
in both armies.12
Two recent studies have looked at the remarkable series of
grave stelai of Carians from Saqqara, which may be associated
with the mercenary presence.13 Furthermore a pair of bronze
objects found at Sais bear Carian and hieroglyphic inscriptions.14
Less formal Carian inscriptions include graffiti on the statue of
Ramases II at Abu Simbel, in the tomb of Mentuemhet, the
governor of Thebes in the time of Psammetichos I, and in the
temple of Seti I at Abydos.15 In addition, attention has recently
been drawn to a brief graffito on a small oinochoe with ribs
round the neck that is made of local Egyptian clay
(Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 36).16 This oinochoe, now in
Berlin, has no precise find-spot, only the Nile Delta, but it may
well have come from a tomb at Saqqara. The graffito has been
read by Masson and Yoyotte as naming one Mik(k)ylos, but
Kammerzell’s transcription system would perhaps produce
something like Pyhra.17 Other possible Carian graffiti were
reported by Petrie on transport amphorae found at Tel
Defenneh, but there is no way to be sure that any of them are
Carian rather than Greek.18
The identification of one of Herodotos’ Stratopeda with
Daphnae/Tell Defenneh has been questioned by many scholars.
Jeffrey Spencer, however, has argued recently and convincingly
that the balance of the evidence points to the tower-like brick
48 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
structures at Tell el-Balamun, Naukratis and Daphnae all being
fortified camps.19 They were not elaborate forts, like the site of
Migdol in Sinai, on the edge of the Delta Plain, which perhaps
accommodated a variety of mercenaries, including Greeks,
Phoenicians and Jews.20 They were rather, as Spencer writes,
‘fortified barracks, capable of serving the dual purposes of
watchtower and redoubt.’
It is clear that East Greeks were involved in Egypt both by
way of trade and as mercenaries. The Carians, however, seem to
have been mercenaries par excellence. The discovery of two
fragments of Carian pottery at Naukratis could suggest a
number of scenarios. Perhaps the fragments indicate the
presence of Carian mercenaries who showed their gratitude to
the gods for their safe arrival at the nascent port of Naukratis.
They may even have been stationed there by the Egyptians as
some sort of trusted police force, tasked with keeping order in
such a bustling environment full of foreigners. Or perhaps some
Carian mercenaries retired to Naukratis after service elsewhere
in Egypt and dedicated their last remaining pots from home in a
Greek sanctuary, as they took wives and settled down.
Notes
1 British Museum GR 1888.6-1.653 (sample no. Nauk 66): greatest
width 7.3cm; greatest height. 5.0cm; thickness 0.6cm.
2 The fragment is Mommsen, Nauk 66, see Mommsen et al. in this
volume. The Bochum oinochoe (inv. S987) is Mommsen, Kari 2. For
the Bochum oinochoe see further: Cook 1993, 112-3, fig. 7; Cook and
Dupont 1998, 64 fig. 8.26; Cook 1999, 80, list B no. 8.
3 Paton 1887, 68-71. On early Carian pottery see also Özgünel 1979.
Carian pottery is currently the subject of a research project by U.
Schlotzhauer, Ý. Fazlýoðlu, and H. Mommsen.
4 Gercke 1981; Hemelrijk 1987, 33-55; Lenz 1997, 29-61; Cook 1998, 63-
6; Fazlýoðlu (forthcoming).
5 Vertical chevrons: Gercke 1981, nos 13 and 27; Lenz 1997, no. 3. As a
horizontal motif: Lenz 1997, nos 6 and 7; Gercke 1981, nos 1, 8, 11, 12,
27, 35; Hemelrijk 1987, 43, figs 19-21 (Amsterdam APM 10189).
6 British Museum GR 1924.12-1.37: greatest dimension 10.0cm.
7 Schmaltz 2003, 37-42. The fragment illustrated in Fig. 3 is no. 16 on p.
40, fig. 5, 7. We are very grateful to Bernhard Schmaltz for
permission to publish it here and for generously sharing his findings
in Kaunos with us.
8 For mercenaries in Egypt see Haider 1988, 153-211; Laronde 1995;
Möller 2000a, 33-8; Haider 2001; Kaplan 2003, 1-31; Höckmann and
Vittmann 2005. For Egypt and the Near East see, for example, Haider
1996, 95-115; Niemeier 2001, 16-19; and Alexander Fantalkin in this
volume.
9 Brussels E2483: Kammerzell 2001, 240-1, and 246 fig. 2-1.
10 Niemeier 2001, 19-21.
11 Boardman 1999a, 51 and 115; Niemeier 2001, 19-20.
12 Boardman 1999a, 50, fig. 19; Niemeier 2001, 21.
13 Höckmann 2001b, 217-32; Kammerzell 2001, 233-55. See also
Vittmann 2003, 161-79.
14 Vittmann 2003, 160-2, pl. 19 c and fig. 75.
15 Kaplan 2003, 6-7.
16 Schlotzhauer 2006, 308-11.
17 Masson and Yoyotte 1956, 12-3; Cf. the chart, Kammerzell 2001, 245.
18 Petrie 1888, 64 with pl. 33. We are grateful to Sabine Weber and Alan
Johnston for their comments on these pieces.
19 Spencer 1996, 56-8. On Tell Defenneh see also Sabine Weber in this
volume. For the Naukratis structure, which was clearly renovated in
the Ptolemaic period, see Möller 2000a, 109-13.
20 For Migdol see Oren 1984 and 1993.
The Study of East Greek Pottery
John Boardman
It is singularly appropriate that a conference devoted largely to
East Greek pottery should be held in the British Museum, rather
even than somewhere in the Mediterranean world. The study of
Greek vases, especially of the Archaic period, is becoming more
and more one of excavation and modern techniques in the
evaluation of finds, but many of the basic techniques of analysis
are those which have been practised and refined in museum
environments. The pottery resources of this museum, not least
those from Naukratis, bring us away from the pottery sheds and
laboratories, back into a more scholastic environment. Here, the
pots are objects requiring study and understanding individually,
per se, as well as in relationship with the whole range of relevant
material in other museums and from excavation. My paper
breaks no new ground, but reflects a little on the study of East
Greek pottery, where it has gone and where it is going. It is a
lecture which should have been given by Robert Cook, who died
in the last year of the last century. To his sharpness, in every
sense of the word, Greek pottery studies owe a great deal. His
scepticism was usually more positive than negative, and we
might do well to be equally and more often critical of our own
ideas and sources.
The Aegean Sea has been a great comfort to students of the
history and archaeology of ancient Greece. It seemed to effect
both a geographical and a cultural divide between the arts of the
Greek so-called homeland and of the coast and islands of Asia
Minor, and for a while one might conveniently forget that the
heart of ancient Greece was the Aegean Sea itself, even more
than the Balkan mainland. For the historian, the east was an
area where Phrygians, Lydians and Persians dictated events,
where merchants and tyrants flourished, where there were very
special forms of lyric and epic poetry, and where Herodotus, an
East-Greek-cum-Carian was the authority. It was all just a little
foreign to scholars brought up on Athens and Corinth and
Sparta and Olympian ideals. For the archaeologist, what was,
generically, East Greek, seemed to be readily definable and
distinguishable from the mainland products in almost all areas:
it was more broadly Ionian than Dorian, it was Wild Goat not
black-figure. This was a comfortable situation but fraught with
danger, and the overall uniformity of much East Greek
production in pottery, exemplified by the Wild Goat style,
probably led to a more casual attitude in definition of its history
within the East Greek world itself. It has taken a long time for
the situation to be rectified, and we are still some distance from
the sort of solution which, in the homeland, enables us to be
quite confident in identification of most local wares, their
development and dating. In fact, this meeting is exceptional in
concentrating on this analysis and its products, since many
pottery studies have moved into areas so far removed from
consideration of the pottery itself as to seem unreal, if not self-
indulgent. We may take comfort in our more traditional
approach and what it may offer of archaeological, art-historical
and socio-historical importance.
Robert Cook’s account of the history of the study of Greek
vases in his Greek Painted Pottery (its first edition – Methuen,
London – was as long ago as 1960) is nowhere more exciting
than where he describes the way scholars came to assess and
understand the pottery of the East Greek world. He reveals a
catalogue of disastrously wrong assumptions over more than a
century of study. These were sometimes based on superficial
observation of similarities to mainland Greek wares, whose
dating was only slightly better understood, sometimes on almost
wilful disregard of historical evidence for date. The way that
much was allowed to depend on the accident of discovery is
understandable, though we are most of us more cautious
nowadays. There was also the handicap that the coastal sites
were not in Greek territory but Turkish, and little had been done
there since the 19th-century expeditions, which were to the
major architectural sites, rather than to Archaic ones which
seemed to promise less substantial returns than things like the
Mausoleum, Assos and Pergamon Altar sculptures. There was
also one ideological argument which proved attractive to many
and that seems to have carried much weight, and that was the
expectation that Ionia, which could be deemed to be the
mainspring of Greek thought, literature and the higher arts,
especially if one placed Homer on Chios, must also have been
supreme in pottery decoration, which was demonstrably of
importance in Athens and Corinth. This was not a position that
was easy to sustain except by assuming very high dates.
The ideology was Panionism, which seemed almost a cult
and was particularly flourishing a hundred years ago. Cook was
very scornful of its effects on the study of East Greek pottery,
forcing impossibly high dates and ignoring influence from the
mainland, indeed preferring to judge that even in pottery
mainland Greece learned from East Greek models. Cook was
right to be scathing, but perhaps now we need to revisit the
question, even à propos of the pottery. Here I would certainly
have reservations, since in it we can, here and there, detect an
echo of greater things in other media in the East Greek world,
notably wall painting, which has only become known from
western Asia Minor in the last 50 years and may have been a
legacy of Anatolia’s past. There is also the strong possibility that
what happened to Athenian pottery in the second half of the 6th
century bc was due in no small degree to influence from the
East Greek world, even if not always from its potters. Jackson
wrote well about such matters nearly 30 years ago, and probably
did not go far enough.1 We may well still wonder where Lydos,
the Andokides Painter or Amasis came from, and observe the
influence of patterns and shapes. Francis Croissant’s work2 on
the finer terracotta heads of Ionia has given good grounds for
believing in direct Ionian influence on mainland sculptural and
drawing styles, beyond what seemed obvious from the marble
sculpture. Indeed, the debt in sculpture, not least in the korai, is
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 49
Boardman
clear enough and well acknowledged, as it is in architecture,
although the mainland was slow to adopt the florid Ionic and
was in no position to compete with the colossal Ionic temples of
the east, backed by eastern gold.
We have learned much in the last 50 years. Looking back at
the earlier history from an archaeological viewpoint, we see now
on the Asia Minor coast and islands that there is evidence for
substantial occupation in the Bronze Age by Minoan non-Greeks
and Mycenaean Greeks. The so-called Ionian Migration has to
be viewed very differently now, less perhaps as a migration and
more as something like an East Greek parallel to, as well as
reflection of, that regeneration of Greek culture in the early Iron
Age which occurred also on the mainland, followed by some
movement of peoples.
The main difference is that in the east there was also a local
Anatolian population which seemed mainly indifferent to what
happened on its western coast. Can we even be sure that the
cultural break with the Bronze Age was as complete as it seems
to have been in mainland Greece? À propos of the Anatolian
peoples, in many ways, and especially in pottery studies, we may
need to begin to view the relationships of East Greeks with
Carians, Lydians or Phrygians, as not unlike those of Greeks with
Etruscans and Phoenicians in the west. Should we not look for
give and take – think of the bucchero in the north and Rhodes –
and not assume automatically that non-Greeks can only be the
learners in these matters, or that the East Greek world was as
isolated culturally and geographically as was mainland Greece
in the early Iron Age? In the Geometric and Archaic periods it is
clearly a mistake to judge from pottery quality alone. This may
take us far in mainland studies, but gets us nowhere farther east.
East Greek pottery always looked poor stuff, because it
lacked the many figure and narrative scenes of Corinth or
Athens, but we know now that the strength and originality of
East Greek narrative art was expressed in higher crafts than
pottery. It was expressed on relief metalwork, such as appears in
Samos and is identifiable by style in Olympia, and almost as
certainly in major painting, but we have only come to know
about the paintings at Gordion and Elmalý in the last 50 years, or
found an East Greek painting on a wooden panel in Egypt. When
it comes to direct dealings with the foreigner, other than
colonial, East Greeks were on the heels of mainlanders in the
east, at Al Mina from the start of the 7th century bc, and before
them in Egypt later in the century. Samos shows clearly enough
that it was as closely in touch with Near Eastern, Black Sea,
Syrian and Cypriot arts and techniques as Olympia or Corinth,
even Crete. Perhaps there still remains a case for a measure of
Panionism, given the achievements also in sculpture,
architecture, literature and thought, as well as the special
relationship with the east, which the East Greeks seem to have
taken up where the mainlanders left off, with the Black Sea, and
with Egypt. It still will not make our pottery any more
intrinsically important as a source for cultural history, except for
the basic archaeological problems of defining places, people and
trade, while for trade it is the plain carriage wares that may be
the more important, although they are also the pots that
travelled as much on account of their contents as for the folk
who made or used them.
There were other problems introduced by early pottery
studies in this area. The analysis of East Greek pottery in terms
of Early, Middle and Late follows a pattern set by the study of
50 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
prehistory. I am not sure that it has been particularly helpful,
and further, closer definition on the same lines, even by Cook,
leaves one with, for instance, a type of Middle Wild Goat that
overlaps Late Wild Goat in different places. The scheme seems to
imply that each phase has a certain entity and implies a cycle of
growth and decline, while what happens historically may indeed
involve a genesis, but thereafter simply involves change, for
different reasons in different places. Thus, elsewhere in Greek
pottery studies, it is easier to define ‘Late’ Corinthian pottery
than to distinguish between ‘Early’ and ‘Middle’ Corinthian. We
have come to understand ‘Late’ Protocorinthian more in terms of
its painters not its style. ‘Late’ Protoattic is virtually the same as
‘Early’ black-figure. Dr Schlotzhauer’s paper here shows us, I
think, that it is time to forget ‘Middle Wild Goat’ subdivisions
and use group designations that can be justified in terms of date,
style, geography and analysis. He is proposing a new
classification, with Michael Kerschner;3 the only danger, I think,
may be over-complication. The old system tended to distract
attention from other questions. How and why can a style be said
to decline? Is it an internal matter to be explained by some sort
of psychological study of the painters and potters; how can a
style be described or explained as ‘exhausted’; how and why
does ‘taste’ change; what part, and why, is played by the market,
and is it the home or export market?
We have been spared any general use of an Early, Middle and
Late classification for Athenian black-figure, largely thanks to
the analytical work which started over a hundred years ago in
presenting the history of the ware in terms of workshops and
individual potters and painters, their associations with each
other and with their market, at home and abroad. This is
historically far more useful. Does it need to be applied even
more rigorously by now to the East Greek world?
British pottery studies of the 1930s were inspired by
Beazley’s work on Athenian vases and the application of
Morellian analysis to determine hands, combined with
traditional analysis in terms of shape and general decoration,
which had been developed mainly by prehistorians, who had
often nothing more sophisticated to work from, and from
observation of stratigraphy and historical dating points where
there were any. It started with Humfry Payne, from Oxford, and
his book Necrocorinthia (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1931). In
Athens, under Payne’s wing, Robert Cook, John Cook and
Arthur Lane set to the task, with Fikellura, Protoattic, and
Lakonian black-figure respectively. In fact Robert had been
intended to deal with Lakonian, but something changed his
mind, and he was warned off Wild Goat by Payne who was
reserving it for someone else to study. With characteristic
caution, not to say scepticism, Robert was the only one who
tended to shrink from assigning artists and stuck to groups,
whereas his brother John, Arthur Lane, and Humfry Payne,
were happy with the individual. I make no special claim for
British achievement here with the non-Athenian, since in the
1920s Andreas Rumpf had already sorted the so-called
Chalcidian black-figure vases into their painters with the
greatest skill. But this was to be the way forward.
This approach has not been much used in the study of East
Greek pottery except for the later manifestations, in Chian,
Fikellura and black-figure, and eventually, by Robert Cook
himself, on Klazomenian vases and the sarcophagi, which he
called ‘these deplorable monuments’ or ‘these ungainly

creations’, soon after writing a whole book about them. These
are areas where hand and workshop can be readily
distinguished because the painting is detailed. Surprisingly,
though giving full credit to Beazley’s skills in his book, Cook
nowhere describes the Morellian process of analysis which is
what he practised, and which is generally agreed to be as near
scientific as one can hope for in such studies,4 and applicable,
with care, even to non-figurative vase painting and anything as
repetitive as Wild Goat.
It could be objected that too much East Greek pottery,
mainly the Wild Goat, looks alike, that one wild goat is much
like any other, while subsidiary decoration is repetitive. But this
is defeatist and all that is called for is closer perception of
drawing styles and conventions, as well as principles of
composition. It is surprising that more of this had not been done
long ago, but encouraging to discover that, hand-in-hand with
clay analysis, the role of style in East Greek studies is reviving
strongly. The broad styles distinguished by Wolfgang Schiering
long ago, and by Chrysoula Kardara and others since, do not
attempt such detail, and too much still, especially of old finds, is
or has to be judged from drawings, not photographs. Kardara
came close to doing what was needed, but not close enough,
while so far as I know little serious study has been devoted to
potterwork.
Potters/painters generally do not move about much, though
there are exceptions to which I shall revert. If you cannot define
the man at least you may define his home. Regionality is of
course a major issue, by which I mean the definition of regional
styles in a manner which can be applied even when they are
found far from home. Two sources for the solution exist –
observation of a predominance in local finds, and science. For
many years the main problem was inadequacy of excavation and
publication. It was natural to assume that Rhodes was a major
centre as long as Italian excavations on Rhodes were so prolific
and well published. It was probably only the thought that
Miletos ought to be responsible too, given its historical
importance in the early period, that created the term Rhodo-
Milesian. Excavation has led to better understanding of regional
styles, but too much remains unpublished and the major
resource for East Greek pottery still lies, I suspect, locked away
in Greek and Turkish museum storerooms. At least we can hope
for more now from the latest work at major sites like Miletos,
Ephesos and Klazomenai. We need much more raw material to
ensure progress. Think of the improvement in studies of
Corinthian pottery once the Corinth cemeteries and Perachora
were published.
Historically, the different fortunes of the main East Greek
cities are fairly well defined for the Archaic period, even
alliances and dislikes, for instance, that between the neighbours
Chios and Samos, which seems well reflected in the way they
ignore each other’s pottery and pottery styles, while both have
little to do with the major centres on the coast opposite. I do,
however, detect a possible source of confusion comparable to
that with Early, Middle or Late, in defining styles as North or
South Ionian. Where is the divide? For Cook, ‘North’ was
Klazomenai and farther north, but not Chios. He also properly
distinguished Aiolis at the north and the Dorian south. The
convenience is clear, but it may be outweighed by the possibility
of being led to think that there are real differences determined
by being north or south, by being Aeolian or Ionian or Dorian,
The Study of East Greek Pottery
rather than simply by being Lesbian or Samian or Chian or
Milesian. One cannot, however, discount the usefulness of the
terms when it comes to, for instance, indeterminate black-figure
styles of almost anywhere from Klazomenai to Phokaia, for
which ‘North Ionian’ is a very useful description. Black-figure
seems to me a serious problem outside the obvious major
groups. There are far too many isolated pieces, for instance,
from Smyrna and Naukratis, which are not obviously from any
of the major workshops and yet testify to accomplished potters
and painters working somewhere. Perhaps more chemical
analysis should be devoted to these isolated pieces and not just
to major groups.
Science can provide better definition of what clay beds were
in use locally, and this has rendered great service in both
defining local wares and identifying them far from home,
despite whatever was done to the clay after it left its bed. But the
same might have been done if the opportunity had been given,
and taken, of closer stylistic analysis of local finds, since we are
far from the time when clay analysis will become cheap and as
readily applicable as, for instance, taking our own temperatures.
We shall still have to rely on judgement by eye most of the time –
another reason for more work on stylistic analysis. And where
there are possibilities of various different clay sources for a
single centre it becomes absolutely important that what is
analysed is intelligible archaeologically and not merely by
provenance. By which I mean that it must be stylistically and
with certainty attributable to a group or workshop whose other
members are already known. Observation that there is more
than one clay type attributable to a single city, as Miletos, is very
important. In the past, time and money have been spent on
analysis without a proper strategy which can lead to useful
results that go beyond local record; those days, I think and hope,
are past.
The by-products of a proper analysis and attribution of East
Greek pottery centres are important, and they do not apply only
to the homelands. The nature of their influence on local non-
Greek peoples is easier to observe than explain and may not
have depended always on Greek hands – I think of Caria, where
what might be called provincial East Greek styles are easily
defined, and Lydia, where we have more to learn about
elaborate patterned styles, with more of their Anatolian past in
them than appears elsewhere, and the possibility of their
influence on Greek centres. Thasos seems to offer evidence for
wandering potters/painters from Chios, but still in Greek lands.
Then, identity of wares may reveal identity of those who
carried them for use. This has yet to prove of great importance
for East Greek pottery in the western Mediterranean beyond
Italy, but there is hope. The so-called Ionian cup is particularly
elusive without clay analysis, and commonly not Ionian.
Naukratis plays a major role in the study. The pottery found
there matches quite closely the identity of the states involved, as
recorded by Herodotus; at least, I do not think we are being
over-ingenious in such an observation. Perhaps the absence
there of the Rhodian situlae should tell us something too. Where
there is a prolific site, what is missing may be as informative as
what is present. The rather Samian aspect of some of the earliest
East Greek pottery at Al Mina may be historically important –
later it is perhaps more Milesian.
Farther afield, it seems to have been characteristic of Greeks
that wherever they settled in some numbers and with the
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 51
Boardman
intention of staying they sought to make their own pottery. This
is most obvious in the western colonies. The recently fashionable
idea that you cannot identify people from their pottery has
fortunately given place to common sense and judgement of
individual cases. We can see that Greeks in particular were fussy
about pottery for their tables, especially their drinking ware.
In the Black Sea the local production of Milesian wares has
been demonstrated by clay analysis, and there may have been
other centres on the coast of the inland sea. In the west there is a
distinguished succession of immigrant styles in the colonies, but
also working for non-Greeks, it seems; from the Swallow Painter
of wild goats, through the Northampton and Campana groups of
black-figure, to the great Caeretan series.
Egypt is an interesting playground for East Greek pottery
studies. The studios at home were certainly aware of the
possibility of, not an Egyptian market, except for their plain
storage vases which were so much better than the Egyptian, but
of a Greek market for fine-wares in Egypt. Yet when Egyptian-
inspired motifs appear, cartouches or Greek scenes mirroring
Egyptian practices, one wonders whether they were meant only
for Greek eyes. And are they not also sometimes an indication of
Greek production in Egypt? Thus, the only Wild Goat vase I
know on which the bulls are shown with their horns drawn
across the top of their heads and not just pointing forward was
found at Saqqara, and this is of course the normal Egyptian way
of drawing horns, not Greek.5 Surely this was made in Egypt.
And at Saqqara there is evidence for the presence of an East
Greek painter, close kin to those who went on to paint the
Caeretan vases in Italy, creating a processional scene with bulls
on a wooden panel, and drawing horns in the Greek way.6 Cook
thought a piece of a Wild Goat vase from Naukratis could be of
Nile mud, not decent potter’s clay, and there is more evidence
52 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
for such pottery presented in this volume. The question of
whether potters clay was ever carried for use elsewhere is a
thorny one, but most acute for East Greeks in Egypt, where there
is no good clay. It is easy to say there is no evidence for it, since
the evidence is a matter of archaeological judgement, unless
kilns are ever found. The Greeks were well used to carrying raw
materials around the Mediterranean in the Archaic period –
think of the hundreds of tons of Greek island marble – so the
movement of clay cannot be ruled out when there are other
arguments in favour. We must not be timid about assessing what
a Greek might or might not do.
Greek enterprise overseas has been a constant theme in the
history of the east Mediterranean lands, nowhere more than at
Naukratis, and I end with an anecdote which brings us away
from ancient Greek pottery in Egypt and into Greeks in Egypt in
the last century or so. Dick Nicholls and I travelled to Naxos in
1949. There we met an elderly Greek who said he had been with
General Kitchener at Khartoum in the Sudan, when the British
were fighting the forces of the Mahdi at the Battle of Omdurman
in 1898. It was perfectly plausible; he was then a boy, perhaps
already in his early teens, and he said he had helped his father to
sell lemonade to the British troops – and, moreover, at a lower
price than that in the local market. The entrepreneurial skills of
the Greeks must never be underestimated.
Notes
1 Jackson 1976.
2 Croissant 1983.
3 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
4 Boardman 2001b, ch. 2.
5 Boardman 1998b, fig. 305.
6 Ibid., fig. 500.
East Greek Pottery from Naukratis:
The Current State of Research*
Udo Schlotzhauer and Alexandra Villing
Pottery, most of it from East Greece, is by far the largest category
of material discovered at Naukratis. Over 7,000 pieces, mostly
small fragments, are currently held in over 40 collections and
museums, yet this number must be but a small proportion of
what was originally found at the site: we hear of up to 5,000
sherds of pottery being excavated per day, so that looking at the
current sherd count one realises just how much was not kept.1
The finds, speedily published at least in selection by Petrie,
Smith, Gardner, Edgar and Lorimer (from Hogarth’s
excavations)2 fell on fertile ground in the scholarly community,
and soon an intensive discourse developed on East Greek
pottery, led by scholars such as Boehlau, Prinz and Price.3 For
the first time, bird bowls and eye bowls were studied and
discussed, Chian pottery was recognised as a distinct fabric –
even if christened ‘Naukratian white-faced fabric’ and attributed
to local production – and speculation flourished about Egyptian
influence on Greek beliefs and iconography.4 Even today the
material from Naukratis still plays a crucial role in scholarship
on East Greek pottery – though now of course new excavations
in many of the production centres of East Greek pottery in the
East Aegean, and in sites all over Greece, Western Greece, the
Black Sea, the Levant, and North Africa, have completely
revolutionised our understanding of East Greek pottery
production and trade.5 In addition, scientific analysis of clay has
greatly helped in further distinguishing and understanding East
Greek pottery.
The articles in this section present some of the latest
developments in these fields, encompassing new interpretations
of old finds and new results from recent fieldwork, art historical
and scientific analyses, and in particular the results of a recent
programme of clay analyses on the East Greek pottery of
Naukratis (see Table 1, and the detailed report given by
Mommsen et al. in the present volume). In the following
paragraphs we try to summarize some of the new research, and
to highlight some of the insights that have emerged recently but
that are not addressed by other scholars in this volume, in
particular the production and trade of Ionian cups and the
identification of long-suspected but hitherto elusive local
pottery production at Naukratis.
Archaeology and science: the study of the pottery from
Naukratis
Over the past few decades clay analysis has become an integral
part of pottery studies, and the pottery from Naukratis, and East
Greek pottery in general, have particularly profited from this
development.6 In the 1980s, Pierre Dupont’s analysis of pottery
from Istros (Histria) and comparative material from other sites7
already pointed to the Milesian/South Ionian origin of the clay
of much of Middle Wild Goat II and Fikellura pottery and Ionian
cups, the North Ionian origin of Late Wild Goat style pottery,
and the Chian origin of the clay of Chian pottery (including the
so-called ‘Grand Style’), with a possible branch workshop at
Erythrai. Dupont also pointed to the existence of a local
workshop of East Greek style pottery at Histria.8 The results of
his analyses of over 70 samples from Naukratis, covering a great
range of fabrics, are here fully published for the first time.9
Among other things they include fragments of East Greek style
pottery attributed to a local workshop at Naukratis (now
confirmed also by Hans Mommsen’s analyses; see below). At
about the same time as Dupont produced his work, Richard
Jones, together with John Boardman, analysed over 50 samples
of pottery from Naukratis, including Wild Goat, East Greek
black-figure, Klazomenian, Fikellura and Chian pottery, bird
bowls, eye bowls, rosette bowls, Hera cups and locally produced
terracotta figurines, as well as situlae from Tell Defenneh.10
Chian pottery once more emerged as Chian and clearly distinct
from local Naukratis clays, in accordance with Dupont’s results,11
while ‘situlae’,12 again in accordance with Dupont’s results,13 fell
into a ‘Rhodian’ group together with Vroulian cups.14 On a
smaller scale, some fragments from Naukratis had also been
analysed with NAA by Mike Hughes at the British Museum;15 this
included a Hera mug (Fig. 15) now also analysed by Hans
Mommsen (sample Nauk 2), four lamps and a Samian amphora
from Naukratis (Johnston Fig. 21), all of which fell into the
same Samian Group ‘L’.
More recently, pottery from Naukratis and Tell Defenneh has
been the subject of an extensive programme of analysis by Hans
Mommsen, initiated by Udo Schlotzhauer of the Mainz
Naukratis project as part of the database of Mediterranean
pottery established by Hans Mommsen and Michael Kerschner
and now including the British Museum among its many
contributors. A list of analysed British Museum pieces, as well as
some pieces in other collections, is given here in Table 1,
correlating them with the Mommsen’s sample numbers;
elsewhere in the volume, sample numbers are usually given in
brackets after inventory numbers of analysed pieces. The main
results of this programme of analysis are presented in this
volume by Hans Mommsen et al., while the method is set out by
Mommsen and Kerschner, taking a particular group, G, and its
subgroup, g, as a case study. Most importantly, however, the
results have contributed to many of the other articles
throughout this section, and significantly added to our
understanding of the production centres of the pottery from
Naukratis.
One problem which remains, however, in spite of all the
increased efforts in research on the pottery of Naukratis, is the
fact that our material basis is but a small portion of the actual
pottery profile of the site. Some categories of material seem
particularly badly affected by this; note, for example, Petrie’s
mention of an ‘abundance of Roman pottery’ in the area of the
temenos of Apollo,16 although there is clearly no abundance of
Roman pottery among the known preserved material. Likewise,
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 53
Table 1 List of pottery analysed by NAA

NAA Place of production Sample no. Museum no. Findspot Description Date BC Publication Fig. no.
Group
B Northern Ionia (Teos?) Nauk 10 BM GR 1886.4-1.1267f Naukratis Lid with scale decoration 1st half 6th cent. Fig. 1
B Northern Ionia (Teos?) Nauk 22 Boston, MFA 88.851 Naukratis Wild Goat style dinos (?) Late 7th–early 6th cent. Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.8, pl. 34.
B Northern Ionia (Teos?) Nauk 24 Boston, MFA 86.544 Naukratis Jug or amphora with black-polychrome 1st half 6th cent. Fairbanks 1928, 116 no. 328.2, pl. 36.
decoration
B Northern Ionia (Teos?) Nauk 37 BM GR 1924.12-1.1107 Naukratis Painted plate with patterned decoration 1st third 6th cent. Fig. 2
B Northern Ionia (Teos?) Nauk 54 BM GR 1924.12-1.1124 Naukratis Painted plate with metope decoration 1st third 6th cent. Fig. 3
B Northern Ionia (Teos?) Nauk 76 BM GR 1888.6-1.551 Naukratis North-Ionian black-figure plate Mid-6th cent. Fig. 4
+ 1965.4-28.1
B Northern Ionia (Teos?) Nauk 87 BM GR 1924.12-1.1127 Naukratis Large North-Ionian black-figure plate Mid-6th cent. Fig. 5
(belongs to GR 1965.9-30.704)
B Northern Ionia (Teos?) TbEgy 1 Petrie Museum UC30035a-b Thebes, Egypt Black-figured amphora with band of cartouches 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Bailey Figs 1-5
(joining Basel, Cahn, HC 1175) of Pharaoh Apries
B- Northern Ionia (Teos?) Nauk 21 Boston, MFA 88.815 Naukratis Dinos stand (?) 1st half 6th cent. Fairbanks 1928, 116 no. 336, pl. 37.
E Northern Ionia (Klazomenai?) Nauk 20 Boston, MFA P4631 Naukratis Painted plate with Wild Goat style 1st half 6th cent.
decoration
E Northern Ionia (Klazomenai?) Nauk 58 BM GR 1888.6-1.544d Naukratis Painted plate 1st half 6th cent. Fig. 6
E Northern Ionia (Klazomenai?) Defe 7 BM GR 1888.2-8.139b Tell Defenneh Wild Goat style jug or amphora 1st third 6th cent. Fig. 7
E Northern Ionia (Klazomenai?) Defe 9 BM GR 1888.2-8.86 Tell Defenneh Wild Goat style lidded amphora 1st third 6th cent. Petrie 1888, pl. 31.6; Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 605.7 Fig. 8
E Northern Ionia (Klazomenai?) Defe 13 BM GR 1888.2-8.171 Tell Defenneh Klazomenian black-figure slim amphora; c. 540/30 Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 587.7 Fig. 9
Petrie Painter
E Northern Ionia (Klazomenai?) Defe 15 BM GR 1888.2-8.117 Tell Defenneh Klazomenian black-figure amphora; c. 530/20 Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 587.16 Fig. 10
(Vase B.128.1) Urla Group
E- Northern Ionia (Klazomenai?) Nauk 23 Boston, MFA 88.840 Naukratis Amphora or oinochoe with black-polychrome Last third 7th–1st third Fairbanks 1928, 116 no. 328.1, pl. 36.
decoration 6th cent.
G Aiolis (Kyme/Larisa) Nauk 12 BM GR 1888.6-1.573b,c Naukratis Oinochoe with black-polychrome Last third 7th–1st third Kerschner Fig. 9
decoration 6th cent.
G Aiolis (Kyme/Larisa) Nauk 13 BM GR 1886.4-1.1294 Naukratis Dinos of the London Dinos group 1st third 6th cent. Kerschner Fig. 8
g Aiolis Nauk 77 BM GR 1888.6-1.658 Naukratis Male terracotta head, painted Mid–3rd quarter Gardner 1888, pl. 14.5 Kerschner Fig. 11
6th cent.
g Aiolis Nauk 64 BM GR 1888.6-1.637 Naukratis Grey ware fenestrated stand 6th cent. Kerschner Fig. 10
B-Troy Troad Nauk 62 BM GR 1888.6-1.634 Naukratis Grey ware dinos rim with votive graffito to 1st half 6th cent. Möller 2000a, 172-3 no. 1a Fig. 11
Aphrodite by a Mytilenean
B-Troy Troad Nauk 63 BM GR 1888.6-1.613a Naukratis Grey ware stand with votive graffito 1st half 6th cent. Möller 2000a, 173 no. 3 Fig. 12
‘M]aloeisio[s’
B-Troy Troad Nauk 65 BM GR 1965.9-30.508 Naukratis Grey ware vessel with incised wavy lines 7th-6th cent. Fig. 13
(or Tell Defenneh?)
J Samos Nauk 1 BM GR 1888.6-1.401 Naukratis Samian Hera mug with dipinto 1st third 6th cent. Schlotzhauer 2006, 311-13 no. 4.B, 318 fig. 12 Fig. 14
J Samos Nauk 2 BM GR 1888.6-1.403 Naukratis Samian Hera mug with dipinto 1st third 6th cent. Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 81, 106 fig 10 Fig. 15
(bottom right)
J Samos Nauk 3 BM GR 1888.6-1.405 Naukratis Samian Hera mug with dipinto 1st third 6th cent. Schlotzhauer 2006, 311-13 no. 4.A, 318 fig. 11 Fig. 16
J Samos Nauk 72 BM GR 1965.9-30.498 Naukratis East Greek painted plate 2nd quarter 6th cent. ? Fig. 17
A Miletos Nauk 26 Boston, MFA 88.972 Naukratis Krater 2nd–3nd quarter Fairbanks 1928, 117 no. 330.2, pl. 36; Fig. 18
6th cent. Schlotzhauer 2001a, 122, pl. 17.2
A Miletos Nauk 32 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Naukratis Lid with metope decoration Late 7th–early 6th cent.
Museum GR 22.1894
A Miletos Nauk 42 BM GR 1886.4-1.830a Naukratis Krater with votive graffito by Polemarchos Late 7th–early 6th cent. Möller 2000a, 91, 241, 297, pl. Ib; Fig. 19
Walter-Karydi 1973, 59, pl. 77.645
A Miletos Nauk 7 BM GR 1888.6-1.544F Naukratis Plate with metope decoration Late 7th–early 6th cent. Fig. 20
(= 1924.12-1.1114)
D Miletos Nauk 4 BM GR 1886.4-1.570 Naukratis Ionian cup type 11 with votive graffito 1st half 6th cent. Fig. 21
to Apollo
D Miletos Nauk 39 BM GR 1886.4-1.1040 Naukratis Fikellura amphora 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Walter-Karydi 1973, 3, pl. 2.26 Fig. 22
D Miletos Defe 11 BM GR 1888.2-8.46a Tell Defenneh Fikellura amphora 2nd third 6th cent. Walter-Karydi 1973, 66, pl. 89.683 Schlotzhauer Fig. 3
DD n.l. Nauk 6 BM GR 1886.4-1.1025 Naukratis Cup with everted rim (Ionian cup); type 10,2.B 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Fig. 23
EMEB Knidian peninsula Nauk 51 BM GR 1886.4-1.96 Naukratis East Dorian cup with Phoenician Late 7th–first third Schlotzhauer 2006, 301-7 no. 2, 316 figs 4-6 Fig. 24
inscription 6th cent. (epigr. com.W. Röllig)
EMEb Knidian peninsula Knid 1 BM GR 1893.11-13.4 Near Datcha East Dorian plate with representation of ship Late 7th–first third 6th cent. Attula Figs 5-6
(Attula cat. no. 4)
TD n.l. (Eastern Doris?) Defe 1 BM GR 1888.2-8.65 Tell Defenneh East Greek ‘situla’ with representation of owl 2nd third 6th cent. Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 599.3 Weber Fig. 18
(Vase B106.19)
TD n.l. (Eastern Doris?) Defe 2 BM GR 1888.2-8.16b & 17 Tell Defenneh East Greek ‘situla’ 2nd third 6th cent. Petrie 1888, pl. 26, 12-12a; Weber Fig. 19
(Vase B 106.12-13) Cook 1954, pls G.B. 598.3-4, 602.1-2
TD n.l. (Eastern Doris?) Defe 3 BM GR 1888.2-8.20 Tell Defenneh East Greek ‘situla’ with representation of bull 2nd third 6th cent. Petrie 1888, pl. 26.15; Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 603.2 Weber Fig. 20
(Vase B106.11)
TD n.l. (Eastern Doris?) Defe 4 BM GR 1888.2-8.42a Tell Defenneh Stamnos related to East Greek ‘situlae’ 2nd third 6th cent. Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 605.5 Weber Fig. 21
TD n.l. (Eastern Doris?) Defe 5 BM GR 1888.2-8.44a Tell Defenneh Stamnos related to East Greek ‘situlae’ 2nd third 6th cent. Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 605.4 Weber Fig. 20
TD n.l. (Eastern Doris?) Defe 8 BM GR 1888.2-8.25 Tell Defenneh Amphora with with representation of 2nd third 6th cent. Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 598.10; 605.6 Weber Fig. 23
men beside tripod
RHc1 n.l. Nauk 53 BM GR 1886.4-1.1271 Naukratis Wild Goat style plate Late 7th–early 6th cent. Fig. 25
ITAN n.l. Abus 1 Bonn,Akademisches Abusir Small closed vessel with painted bands Last quarter 7th cent. –
Kunstmuseum 2002.5 1st half 6th cent.
ITAN n.l. DlEgy 1 Bonn,Akademisches Egypt, Delta Black-figure amphora 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Geominy 1992, 48-50 figs 10-11; Mielsch 2003, 58-9
Kunstmuseum 1524
ITAN n.l. Nauk 73 BM GR 1886.4-1.671 Naukratis Undecorated plate with graffito 6th cent. Johnston Fig. 11
ITAN n.l. Nauk 74 BM GR 1888.6-1.608.a Naukratis Undecorated plate 6th cent. Fig. 26
KROP Attica (?) Nauk 43 BM GR 1886.4-1.678 Naukratis Black-glazed dinos with votive graffito 2nd half 6th cent. Schlotzhauer 2006, 294-301 no. 1, 315 figs 1-3
by Phanes, son of Glaukos
KROP Attica (?) Nauk 57 BM GR 1886.4-1.1324 Naukratis Head kantharos 2nd half 6th cent. Walter-Karydi 1973, 30, pl. 57.485
perb Attica? Nauk 88 BM GR 1965.9-30.494 Naukratis Hydria or stamnos, white-on-black decoration
CYPT Cyprus Nauk 35 BM GR 1886.4-1.80 Naukratis Mortarium (Villing cat. no. 2) 1st half 6th cent. Villing Fig. 2
EMEA Cyprus Nauk 55 BM GR 1910.2-22.16 Naukratis Mortarium (Villing cat. no. 19) Late 6th cent. Villing Fig. 8
EMEa Cyprus Nauk 67 BM GR 1886.4-1.77 Naukratis Mortarium (Villing cat. no. 10) 1st half 6th cent. Villing Fig. 21
EMEa Cyprus Nauk 68 BM GR 1886.4-1.81 Naukratis Mortarium (Villing cat. no. 12) 1st half 6th cent. Villing Fig. 22
Marl- Egyptian marl Nauk 18 BM GR 1910.2-22.15 Naukratis Mortarium with graffito (Villing cat.no. 17) 1st half 6th cent. Villing Fig. 23
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Defe 10 BM GR 1888.2-8.57 Tell Defenneh Amphora with East Greek style patterned 3rd quarter 6th cent. Petrie 1888, pl. 32.4; Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 606.3; Fig. 39
decoration; NaukA II Weber (forthcoming)
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 9 BM GR 1924.12-1.43 Naukratis Plate with East Greek style decoration and 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Fig. 32
(same vessel as1924.12-1.42) pierced lug-handle
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 14 BM GR 1910.2-22.232b Naukratis Jug with ribbed neck and graffito ‘deka’ 6th cent. Schlotzhauer 2006, 308-11 no. 3.B, 317 fig. 9 Fig. 35
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 15 BM GR 1910.2-22.233 Naukratis Pot stand/kiln furniture with pre-firing graffito Ptolemaic (2nd cent.?) Fig. 43
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 16 BM GR 1910.2-22.243 Naukratis Pot stand/kiln furniture with pre-firing graffito Ptolemaic (2nd cent.?) Fig. 44
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 17 BM GR 1886.10-5.12 Naukratis Closed vessel with painted floral decoration Ptolemaic Fig. 42
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 19 Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum Egypt Jug with ribbed neck and Carian graffito 6th cent. Schlotzhauer 2006, 308-11 no. 3.C, 317 fig. 10 Fig. 36
und Papyrussammlung 7206
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 25 Boston, MFA 86.533 Naukratis Plate with East Greek style decoration 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Fig. 31
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 27 Boston, MFA P 4864 Naukratis Plate with pierced lug handle 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Fig. 33
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 33 Cambridge, Museum of Naukratis Plate with East Greek style decoration 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Fig. 30 and
Classical Archaeology NA 48 Dupont & Thomas
Fig. 1, Nau 9
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 79 BM GR 1965.9-30.501 Naukratis Shallow burnished plate, Egyptian, 26th dynasty 6th cent. Fig.41
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 81 BM GR 1965.9-30.536 Naukratis Trefoil-mouthed oinochoe with wavy-line 1st half 6th cent. Fig. 37
decoration
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 82 BM GR 1965.9-30.739 Naukratis Burnished small dinos with graffito 2nd–3rd quarter 6th cent. Fig. 34
QANN Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 83 BM GR 1886.4-1.83 Naukratis Amphora or hydria with painted bands and 1st half 6th cent. Fig. 38
votive graffito to Apollo
QANN- Egypt (Naukratis?) Nauk 34 Cambridge, Museum of Naukratis Lamp 6th cent.
Classical Archaeology NA 256
Schlotzhauer and Villing
Table 1 cont. List of pottery analysed by NAA
Pairs
Defe 16: BM GR 1888.2-8.139g (1) = Pair 1
Defe 17: BM GR 1888.2-8.139g (2) = Pair 1
Nauk 69: BM GR 1888.6-1.574 (Vase B103.11) = Pair 2
Nauk 70: BM GR 1886.4-1.1113 (Vase B 102.13) = Pair 2
Nauk 85: BM GR 1965.9-30.972 a = Pair 3
Nauk 86: BM GR 1965.9-30.972 d = Pair 3
Nauk 8: BM GR 1886.4-1.1263 + 1924.11-1.1113 = Pair 4
Emec 31: Emecik excavation, inv. no. ST -1-I 8b-8c,74 = Pair 4
Kari 2: Bochum,Antiken- und Kunstsammlung der Ruhr-Universität S 987 = Pair 5
Nauk 66: BM GR 1888.6-1.653 (Williams and Villing Fig. 1) = Pair 5
Singles
Nauk 5: BM GR 1886.4-1.1031
Nauk 11: BM GR 1888.6-1.573a
Nauk 28: Boston, MFA P.4714
Nauk 29: Boston, MFA 88.1091
Nauk 30: Bonn,Akademisches Kunstmuseum 697.25
Nauk 36: BM GR 1886.4-1.1219
Nauk 41: BM GR 1888.6-1.561 + 1924.12.1.1058+1102
Nauk 44: BM GR 1888.6-1.640b
Nauk 47: BM GR 1888.6-1.644c
Nauk 52: BM GR 1910.2-22.17
Nauk 56: BM GR 1886.4-1.75
Nauk 59: BM GR 1888.6-1.569; Weber Fig. 25
Nauk 78: BM GR 1886.4-1.1311; Weber Figs 14-15
Nauk 80: BM GR 1965.9-30.504
Nauk 84: BM GR 1886.4-1.82.b
Defe 6: BM GR 1888.2-8.139a
Defe 12: BM GR 1952.5-5.11
Defe 14: BM GR 1888.2-8.77a (Vase B 109)
Kami 2: BM GR 1860.4-4.44
Kari 1: Bochum,Antiken- und Kunstsammlung der Ruhr-Universität S 985
Milet 41: Miletos excavation inv. no. K86.97.6
Rhod 20: BM GR 1868.4-5.78; Weber Fig. 24
of the numerous pieces of basket-handled amphorae reported by
Petrie very few are known today (e.g. Johnston Fig 14). 76
In general, one of the main criteria for keeping pottery seems to
have been the presence of inscriptions; even the tiniest scraps of
sherds, if they preserved part of a letter, were kept, be they
decorated or not. Painted pottery was often kept even if there
was no dedication, although one gets the impression that some
must also have been thrown away. Undecorated coarse-ware
was by and large only kept if it was a complete pot (Edgar even
devoted a short article to the publication of a group of unpainted
pots found in a well in 1899)18 or if a fragment carried an
inscription or a sealing; large numbers of stamped handles of
trade amphorae, for example, are known to have survived.19 In
addition, a few samples may have been kept as specimens of
particular types of fabrics, which Petrie in particular had been
very keen to distinguish.
The surviving pottery from Naukratis is thus but a skewed
sample of the actual pottery profile of the site, heavily tilted
towards inscribed and decorated votive pottery. This always
needs to be kept in mind when drawing any conclusions based
on the surviving evidence. It is particularly irritating to think
that most of the kitchen and household pottery that must have
existed at Naukratis and that might have added important
additional information to our understanding of the site is lost to
us. No cooking pots, for example, have yet been identified
among the surviving material.20 However, as the contribution by
Villing on the mortaria from Naukratis shows, the study of
coarse-ware sherds can provide new information on cults at the
site as well as on trade links, in this case with Archaic Cyprus
and Classical Corinth. An additional distortion in the perception
of the pottery from Naukratis has been caused by selective
publication: some fabrics and styles have been studied and
published extensively, with nearly every single known sherd
56 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
being catalogued, while others have been severely neglected,
with only a small selection or nothing at all being included. As a
consequence, even among the preserved material the
importance of some types has erroneously been over- or
underestimated, a problem which will only be solved once the
ongoing project of gathering and collating all the known
material is completed.
The painted pottery of Naukratis: the current state of research
As has been observed many times before, the painted pottery
found at Naukratis is mostly of East Greek origin, and in
particular stems from poleis said to have been involved in the
foundation of Naukratis. In addition, much material was also
found that originated in Athens, Corinth, and Laconia. Such
wares were widely traded around the Mediterranean at the time
so that their appearance at Naukratis is hardly surprising.21 Attic
pottery in particular is of a varied character and covers the full
time-span of Athenian pottery trade, including many early
imports,22 but also much late black-glazed material.23 Following
on from earlier studies,24 it is currently being examined by
Valerie Smallwood and Susan Woodford. The Corinthian
pottery, too, encompasses some early material but is not
particularly numerous; Laconian pieces are fewer and later.
These wares, however, are not discussed in the present volume;
instead, emphasis is placed on East Greek pottery, where great
advances have been made recently in our understanding of the
various production centres (for a map of East Greece, see Villing
and Schlotzhauer Fig. 1b).
North Ionia
North Ionian pottery, rich and varied and only slowly becoming
better understood,25 furnishes a large proportion of the painted
pottery from Naukratis – not surprising, perhaps, given that
according to Herodotus Klazomenai, Teos and Phokaia were
among the founding cities of Naukratis. At Klazomenai and
Smyrna in particular, new excavations (and the restudy of old
finds) have revealed much relevant material, providing new
insights into the complex variety of styles produced at those
sites. Other sites, such as Phokaia and Teos, however, remain
archaeologically obscure. It has been raised as a possibility,
however, that the hitherto only little known, but seemingly high
quality, production of Teos can now be recognised in Dupont’s
archaeometric Group D (Dupont and Thomas Figs 1.1-
5,11,14,16; 4.51-52) and particularly Mommsen and Kerschner’s
Group B (Figs 1–5), though this remains to be confirmed by
further analyses.
Group B, otherwise also known as the ‘Bird Bowl
Workshops’, certainly encompasses a wide variety of styles and
shapes, from Wild Goat to black-figure, including also some
high-quality black-figured plates (Figs 4-5) as well as the well-
known Apries amphora (Bailey Figs 1-5), decorated with a band
of Egyptian cartouches, and now thanks to Donald Bailey known
to have been found in Egyptian Thebes. Although the group can
hardly be said to form a stylistically coherent whole, there are
similarities among some of the pieces,26 and certainly several
instances of painters creating a very interesting and unusual
iconography. Some of the shapes are also broadly paralleled in
material from North Ionian sites, such as at Klazomenai, where,
for example, amphorae related in shape to the Apries amphora
have been found.27 Both stylistic and scientific observations,
 East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research
Figure 1 Lid, sample Nauk 10, Group B Figure 2 Painted plate, sample Nauk
(North Ionia – Teos?) 37, Group B (North Ionia – Teos?)
Figure 5 Fragment (left) from black-
figure plate (right), sample Nauk 87,
Group B (North Ionia – Teos?)
Figure 7Wild Goat style jug or Figure 8 Wild Goat style lidded
amphora, sample Defe 7, Group E amphora, sample Defe 9, Group E
(North Ionia – Klazomenai?) (North Ionia – Klazomenai?)
then, support a North Ionian origin of this and other pieces in
the group.
Visual observations alongside clay analysis have also helped
to change our assessment of the highly exceptional large figured
plate from Naukratis (sample Nauk 87, Fig. 5). Once attributed
to a Chian workshop by Walter-Karydi,28 clay analysis has now
confirmed a North Ionian (Group B) origin, which might also
have been suspected purely on stylistic grounds. Another highly
unusual figured plate, though different in style (sample Nauk
76, Fig. 4), belongs to this same group, as (on visual evidence)
do several other examples of plates and other shapes from
Naukratis.29 One may also consider the sherd with a
representation of a black African (book cover) in this context;
its attribution by Walter-Karydi30 to a Chian workshop seems
doubtful, and close examination places it near the Apries
amphora.31
As expected, there is also a fair number of bird bowls, from
around 620/10 bc, and other hemispherical bowls
Figure 3 Painted plate, sample Nauk Figure 4 Black-figure plate, sample
54, Group B (North Ionia – Teos?) Nauk 76, Group B (North Ionia – Teos?)
Figure 6 Painted plate, sample Nauk
58, Group E (North Ionia –
Klazomenai?)
Figure 9 Klazomenian black-figure Figure 10 Klazomenian black-figure
amphora, Petrie Painter, sample Defe amphora, Urla Group, sample Defe 15,
13, Group E (North Ionia – Klazomenai?) Group E (North Ionia – Klazomenai?)
(‘Kalottenschalen’) at Naukratis: rosette bowls, lotus bowls and
eye bowls, banded bowls and maeander bowls are all to be
found (even if eclipsed in number by South Ionian cups with
everted rim).32 They have a wide distribution but their origins lie
predominantly in North Ionian centres; Group B (possibly Teos)
has been detected by clay analysis of pieces from various sites,
but also E (possibly Klazomenai), F (presumably Smyrna), G
(presumably Kyme; e.g. Kerschner Fig 26) and other groups.33
Klazomenian pottery is present at Naukratis in considerable
amounts, and includes examples of the well-known
Klazomenian black-figure. However, this type of pottery has so
far been quite difficult to isolate scientifically: two sherds form a
chemical pair (samples Nauk 69-7034 = pair 2), another sherd
remains a chemical loner (sample Defe 14),35 yet two pieces from
Tell Defenneh – one sherd by the Petrie Painter and another
from the Urla Group (samples Defe 13 and 15, Figs 9-10) – fall
into the chemical provenance pattern group E, which has
tentatively been associated with Klazomenai, not least since
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 57
Schlotzhauer and Villing
Figure 11 Grey ware dinos, sample Nauk 62, Group B-Troy (Troad)
another fragment of an oinochoe of the Urla Group (from
Smyrna) belonged to this group in an earlier set of analyses.36
Further pieces that fall into Group E show that it encompassed a
wide range of shapes and decorative schemes, including
amphorae from Tell Defenneh somewhat reminiscent of
‘Borysthenes’ amphorae (Figs 7-8).37 The material from Tell
Defenneh will shortly be presented in detail by S. Weber.38 There
can be little surprise, therefore, that the decoration of a plate
from Naukratis, Nauk 58 (Fig. 6), closely resembles a plate
found at Klazomenai.39 This latter plate, moreover, features a
sofa rim with a characteristic volute pattern that is also found on
another fragment from Naukratis (Paspalas Fig. 2) as well as,
slightly modified, on a plate from Smyrna (Paspalas Figs 1).
The plate is, of course, a common shape across North Ionia,
and could be decorated with a variety of motifs. The most
characteristic type, perhaps, is that with a meander-rim,
apparently produced in several North Ionian centres. One of
these seems to be Group B (Teos?), but there is also the
possibility of a local production in the Aiolian pottery centre G
(presumably Kyme; e.g. Kerschner Fig. 27) and at Smyrna. As
Stavros Paspalas in his survey on plates from the old excavations
at Smyrna points out, Smyrna seems to have had its share of
imported Klazomenian, Tean(?) and other North Ionian pottery,
as did Naukratis. The pottery production of Smyrna itself is,
however, still somewhat difficult to distinguish. A chemical
provenance group, Group F, might be of local origin.40 Some of
the other plates from old excavations in Smyrna may also be of
local production, notably those with simple floral ornaments
(Paspalas Figs 4, 18, 22). They are found less widely spread
and, unlike many of the other plates from Smyrna, do not seem
to occur at Naukratis. As a phenomenon, the distinct floral
patterns of these Smyrnaean dishes, however, seem to be
mirrored in Aiolian ‘drop-style’ pottery (Group G/g) (Kerschner
Figs 24–5), one of several instances of interconnections between
Aiolian (G) and Smyrnaen (F) pottery.
Aiolia and Grey wares
Aiolian pottery is one group for which a good chemical profile
has now been established in Group G/g, as Michael Kerscher
reports in his contribution in the present volume. Interestingly, a
very wide variety of styles of decoration makes up this group
(Kerschner Figs 8–11, 13–30), such as Wild Goat, black-figure
and black-polychrome styles, including the so-called ‘London
Dinos group’, banded wares, maeander-rim dishes and Grey
ware pottery, to mention but a few. The phenomenon of
extremely widely ranging production has also been witnessed
elsewhere in East Greece, such as at Klazomenai.41 Although the
58 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 12 Grey ware stand, sample Figure 13 Grey ware vessel, sample
Nauk 63, Group B-Troy (Troad) Nauk 65, Group B-Troy (Troad)
actual place of production of Group G/g cannot yet be
determined with certainty, Kerschner argues for Kyme and
perhaps, on a smaller scale, Larisa. The wide distribution of the
pieces might in part at least be explained by Phokaian trade.
Grey wares were found in considerable numbers in
Naukratis, but have to date remained largely unpublished.42
Given that Aiolis is usually assumed to have been a major
production centre for this type of pottery,43 it is not surprising to
find that one such fragment (Nauk 64, Kerschner Fig. 10) falls
into Aiolian subgroup g (presumably Kyme). In addition,
analysis has established a second Aiolian group of Grey wares
from Naukratis, which falls into the chemical Group B-Troy. This
group includes two fragments found in the temenos of
Aphrodite which, through their inscriptions, seem connected
with Mytilene on Lesbos, one of the founding cities of Naukratis.
One (Nauk 62, Fig. 11) is the rim of a dinos inscribed on the
shoulder with a dedication to Aphrodite by a Mytilenean.44
Traces of red pigment can be discerned on this piece, a feature
also witnessed on an Archaic Grey-ware dinos from Troy.45
Added decoration – in red, white and black – is also found on a
few sherds from the Aiolian region, Smyrna, South Ionia,
Rhodes, Delos and Crete.46 Bayne47 had speculatively suggested
production of painted Grey wares in Naukratis, but both our
analyses as well as other studies now show that several places
must have produced such painted wares, and so far there is no
evidence for Naukratite production.48 The second fragment in
Group B-Troy (Nauk 63, Fig. 12) belongs to an open-work stand
preserving a name (?) seemingly related to a Lesbian cult title of
Apollo, Maloeisios;49 its shape, too, can be paralleled on Lesbos.50
Rather than being located on Lesbos, however, Group B-Troy is,
in fact, a pattern which is found in pottery from the region of
Troy from the Bronze Age to the Archaic period, including
Archaic Grey wares.51 It is believed to be local to the area52 and,
as Mommsen argues in the present volume, may be conntected
with what Posamentir has christened the ‘Hellespont
workshops’. Indeed, the third analysed fragment from this
group (Nauk 65, Fig. 13) with its incised wavy lines finds
parallels in pottery from Troy, though also in pieces from
Lesbos.53 The question arises, therefore, how the NAA result can
be reconciled with the Mytilenean/Lesbian credentials of at
least two of the analysed pieces. Certainly Grey wares had been
in common use both on Lesbos and in the Troad for centuries,
and at least from the end of the 8th century bc at least some of
the Grey wares in the Troad may have been produced (and
inscribed?) by Lesbian colonists.54 Perhaps Lesbos and the
Lesbian peraia also exploited related clay beds. It remains to be
seen how future archaeological studies and chemical analyses
 East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research
Figure 14 Hera mug, sample Nauk 1, Figure 15 Hera mug, sample Nauk 2,
Group J (Samos) Group J (Samos)
Figure 19 Painted krater, sample Nauk 42, Group A (Miletos)
will define the role played by Lesbos in the wider Aiolian region,
both with regard to decorated and undecorated pottery.
Chios
Far better known is the pottery of the island of Chios, which
forms a particularly large and conspicuous group among the
pottery from Naukratis – so much so that it was at first widely
believed to a be a locally produced fabric. Well researched and
published, there still remains much to be studied, as can be seen
from the latest research on the workshops that produced Chian
pottery by Dyfri Williams in the present this volume. We find, for
instance, a Laconian artist at work in a Chian workshop, another
example of the well-attested phenomenon of the migration of
artists in the Archaic period and surely one of the reasons for the
transfer of stylistic features from one region to another.
Remarkable, too, is the existence at Naukratis of phallus-shaped
drinking cups, uniquely appropriate perhaps to the cult of
Figure 22 Fikellura amphora, sample Nauk 39, Group D (Miletos)
Figure 16 Hera mug, sample Nauk 3, Figure 17 Painted plate, sample Nauk
Group J (Samos) 72, Group J (Samos)
Figure 18 Painted krater, sample Nauk Figure 20 Painted plate, sample Nauk
26, Group A (Miletos) 7, Group A (Miletos)
Figure 21 Cup with everted rim (Type
11), sample Nauk 4, Group D (Miletos)
Aphrodite in a harbour town famous for its attractive hetairai.
Even if it seems increasingly unlikely that any Chian pottery was
ever produced at Naukratis, more research needs to be devoted
to the question of workshops on Chios and perhaps its vicinity.
There are indications that Chian workshops were operating on
the neighbouring mainland, perhaps at Erythrai, and it is hoped
that more chemical analyses (planned by the British Museum,
H. Mommsen and M. Kerschner) may shed further light on the
question.55
South Ionia and Caria
As regards South Ionia, pottery from Samos and especially
Miletos (both founding cities of Naukratis) is well attested at
Naukratis. From Samos, in addition to trade amphorae (e.g.
Johnston Fig. 21), there are ritual vessels with dipinti (Hera
cups and mugs) used in the Samian filial cult of Hera at
Naukratis (Figs 14–16, 29). That these were imported and not
locally made has been confirmed by analyses and demonstrates
the close cultic link that remained between the Samians at
Naukratis and their home island.56 In addition, a decorated plate
falls into the same chemical provenance group, J (Nauk 77; Fig.
17). Of the hundreds of so-called ‘Ionian cups’, or cups with
everted rim (Knickrandschalen), many have come from Miletos
(Nauk 4, Fig. 21), although some may also have been produced
elsewhere, as will be discussed in more detail below. Wild Goat
style and Fikellura pottery, too, is well attested at Naukratis, and
most has been attributed to two Milesian workshops, Group A
(the ‘Kalabaktepe workshops’: Nauk 7, 26, 32, 42; Figs 18–20)
and Group D (Nauk 39, Fig. 22; cf. also Defe 11, Schlotzhauer
Fig. 3). That Miletus was indeed the major producer and the
driving force behind the development of the Fikellura style has
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 59
Schlotzhauer and Villing
Figure 23 Cup with everted rim (Type 10, 2B), sample Nauk 6, Group DD (not
located)
now become clear through the finds from recent excavations at
Miletos. As Udo Schlotzhauer points out in the present volume,
Milesian pottery not only encompasses shapes that combine the
Fikellura and Wild Goat styles (Schlotzhauer Fig. 1),57 but also
features a previously unparalleled wealth of figured images,
such as the ‘Potnia Theron’ painted on the inside of a cup
(Schlotzhauer Fig. 2). Fikellura pottery thus presents itself
increasingly as on a par with the other figured pottery of the
Archaic II period in East Greece, notably the rich tradition of
North Ionian black-figure painting.
Finally, pottery in a South Ionian style also seems to have
been produced at a few Milesian colonies in the 6th century bc.
Production at Histria had already been suggested by Dupont,
but recent archaeometric analyses by Mommsen, Posamentir
and Kerschner have now established workshops also in the
Hellespont region,58 suspected by Posamentir to be identical
with Dupont’s Ionie du Sud 3, which exported their products
preferentially to the north, towards other Greek colonies such as
Berezan (see Posamentir Figs 17–20).
Stylistically related in many ways, but of a highly distinctive
nature, is the pottery of the region of Caria, around and to the
south of Miletos. None of the characteristic examples of Carian
pottery as we know them for the region of Mylasa seems to have
been found at Naukratis. There is, however, one Subgeometric
fragment which through NAA has been associated with a typical
Carian vessel (Pair 5), and another fragment which seems to
belong to local Carian pottery production at Kaunos on the
Carian/Lycian border; both fragments in all likelihood date to
the earliest period of Naukratis (Williams and Villing Figs 1–2).
One is tempted to think of Carian mercenaries passing through
or settling at Naukratis, or perhaps of traders from
Halikarnassos, another founding city of Naukratis.
East Doris
For another founding city, Knidos, new excavations at the Apollo
sanctuary at Emecik have now established a large body of
Archaic pottery,59 which includes a number of decorated plates.
As Regina Attula demonstrates in the present volume, they are
notable particularly for their figured decoration, which includes
a ‘Potnia Theron’ (Attula Fig. 4 – compare the Fikellura ‘Potnia
Theron’ from Miletos mentioned above, Schlotzhauer Fig. 2) as
well as several representations of ships, an appropriate theme
for a sanctuary close to an important marine port. Many of the
Figure 25Wild Goat style plate,
sample Nauk 53, Group RHc1 (not
located)
60 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 24 East Dorian cup with everted rim, sample Nauk 51, Group EMEB
(Knidian peninsula)
plates fall into the chemical provenance Group EmeB, which
must be attributed to East Dorian, probably local Knidian,
workshops. The group also includes a cup found in Naukratis of
a characteristic East Dorian type, paralleled especially on
Rhodes, and bearing a Phoenician inscription (Fig. 24)60 – a
further instance of the cosmopolitan nature of trade around the
Mediterranean.
Rhodes itself, of course, also had a stake in the port of
Naukratis. While most East Greek pottery used to be thought of
as Rhodian, this idea has now been dispelled by recent
research;61 indeed, there is little left that can with any certainty
still be attributed to the island. The Rhodian origin of the
‘situlae’, discussed here by Sabine Weber, which are so common
in Tell Defenneh, remains a strong possibility. Analysis has
shown several of them (Weber Figs 18–23) to fall into a
chemical provenance Group TD, which cannot yet be localized
but (particurly considering the results of earlier analyses that
placed them in a Rhodian context) which may well eventually
find its home on Rhodes or in its vicinity, as may perhaps
another fragment of a plate, Nauk 53 (Fig. 25; Group RHc1) with
an unusual representation of a deer. Finally, one may speculate
about whether the enigmatic Archaic plate from Naukratis with
the ‘kleps-‘ inscription (Johnston Fig. 11) may also stem from
somewhere in this region. Both in shape and in clay composition
it goes together with a larger fragment (Fig. 26; Group ITAN),
and even though the origin of these pieces cannot be localised
yet, one may point to very similar fragments found on the
acropolis of Lindos.62
Cups with everted rim (‘Ionian cups’): a much-neglected class
of its own
Cups with everted rim have so far not been systematically
studied as a group of material at Naukratis,63 as opposed to other
classes of material such as painted Attic,64 Chian,65 Fikellura
(MileA II),66 or certain North Ionian groups of pottery.67 Even
though over a hundred years have passed, not all the preserved
finds from the four seasons of work in the late 19th and early
20th century have been taken into account by modern
scholarship. This selective treatment of finds from Naukratis68
has repeatedly led to a distortion in their assessment.69
As has been mentioned above, one of the cups with everted
rim from Naukratis (Fig. 24)70 has recently been shown to have
probably been produced in a workshop in the region of
Figure 26 Undecorated plate/bowl,
sample Nauk 74, Group ITAN (not
located)
 East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research
Figure 27 Cup with everted rim (Type Figure 28 Cup with everted rim (Type
5.C), BM GR 1886.4-1.1036 9.A), BM GR 1886.4-1.1035
Knidos/Emecik (NAA Group EmeB). This piece, indeed, belongs
to the East Dorian variant of cups with everted rim, which in
Naukratis is a far rarer import than its prolific South Ionian
sibling, an observation which fits in well with the known pattern
of distribution of both these types in the Levant as well as in
North Africa.71 The South Ionian variant is attested by several
hundred fragments in the store-room of the British Museum
alone. Four of these are illustrated here; they are broadly
representative of the variations that are found of the South
Ionian type among the imports to Naukratis (Figs 21, 23, 27–28).
South Ionian cups with everted rim, in their various
variations, are found in Naukratis from the last quarter of the
7th until the end of the 6th century bc. The earliest type of cup
with everted rim to be found at Naukratis is Type 5.72 This type
still belongs to the late 7th century bc and in its latest Variant
5.C, to which our cup belongs (Fig. 27), comes to an end already
in the first quarter of the 6th century bc. The span of production
of Type 5 thus overlaps with the earliest phase of Greek presence
at Naukratis. Cups with everted rim of Type 5 are, accordingly,
rare among finds at the site. Type 9, by contrast, belongs
exclusively to the 6th century bc .73 Its production begins around
590–80 bc at the earliest. At Naukratis both early variants of this
type, such as a cup of Variant 9.A (Fig. 28) from the second
quarter of the 6th century bc, and late variants from the second
half of the 6th century bc are found. Type 9 is of higher quality
and is indeed quite frequent at Naukratis, which is surely
connected with its dedication in sanctuaries. Cups of this shape
could also be adorned with figured relief-appliqués74 or with
painted figured decoration in MileA II-style (Fikellura).75 The
best-known examples are of course the Ionian Little-Master-
Cups.76 A few of these have also been found in Naukratis and
continue to be counted among the examples of highest quality in
their class.77
Two further types of South Ionian cups with everted rim that
are found at Naukratis are Type 10 (Fig 23) and 11 (Fig. 21).78 The
emergence of these two types in the last quarter of the 7th
century bc marks a significant change in the production of this
class in Miletos.79 While the 7th century bc had been
characterised by a multitude of different types being produced
in relatively small numbers, the 6th century bc was dominated
by mass production of types 10 and 11 and their variants.80 What
is interesting in this respect is that at Naukratis Type 11 (Fig. 21;
Group DD) is only very rarely attested, whereas Type 10 (Fig 23;
Group D) is present in numerous variants. This might suggest
that only products of a specialised workshop were exported to
Naukratis, and the producers of Type 11 only rarely traded with
Naukratis. The current state of research, however, does not yet
allow us to either support or contradict this thesis. Further
chemical analyses to determine the provenance of cups with
everted rim are necessary to gain an overview of the clay
composition of Types 10 and 11. Perhaps these will reveal
fundamentally different clay paste recipes used by different
workshops, as is hinted at by the very limited NAA results
obtained so far. Or it might emerge that both types were made
from similar clay pastes, which might mean that they come from
the same workshop. If so, the evidence from Naukratis could be
interpreted differently, and a greater role be attributed, for
example, to choices made by traders and customers in
Naukratis.
The re-evaluation of the cups with everted rims may finally
help us to close a gap that had long been recognised between the
historical tradition and the archaeological evidence.81 If Samos
and especially the large Ionian metropolis Miletos are the main
production centres of cups with everted rim, then these,
together with MileA II painted pottery, would finally provide
archaeological proof of a significant number of Milesian wares
in Naukratis.82 The archaeological evidence would thus reflect
the historically attested significance of the two sites which is also
manifest in the two filial cults of the main deities of Samians and
Milesians at Naukratis.
Yet the attribution of this class of pottery is not quite as clear-
cut as is suggested in many handbooks. The scientific analyses
aimed at the determination of the provenience of cups with
everted rims caution against the wholesale attribution of classes
of pottery to only few or even a single centre of production.
According to the current state of research the production of cups
with everted rims in Miletos can be considered as certain,83 not
least through the analysis of a cup of Type 11 from Naukratis
(sample Nauk 4, Fig. 21) which falls into the Milesian Group D.
For the island of Samos, the results of analyses conducted by
Hans Mommsen on the Hera mugs of Naukratis (confirming
earlier results to the same effect achieved by Mike Hughes) have
shown provenance Group J to be Samian.84 The cup with everted
rim with a Hera-dipinto (Fig. 29) that was a part of the ritual
dining pottery in the cult of Samian Hera in Naukratis can thus
indirectly be attributed to Samian production,85 as can a cup
with everted rim from Ephesos that has the same Samian clay
composition J.86 But in addition to Samos and Miletos,
production in Ephesos – a site still within the wider radius of
South Ionia – has also been suspected.87 Furthermore, P. Dupont
has raised the possibility of production in Klazomenai88 and
Aiolis,89 and attributed examples of cups with everted rim from
Naukratis to these sites (Dupont and Thomas Figs 5.60
[Klazomenai], 62–3, 100–1 [Aiolis]). And as D. Williams points
out in the present volume,90 Chian workshops, too, produced
their own version of these cups, decorating the rim with myrtle
or laurel wreaths.91
Further examples of this class that have been analysed by
Mommsen provide other interesting information. A cup from
Naukratis (Figs 23) that forms a chemical pair together with a
cup of exactly the same type (though lacking red and white
bands) from Tel Kabri (sample TeKa 3) cannot yet be attributed
to a production place with any certainty. Its chemical
Figure 29 Samian cup with everted
rim with Hera-dipinto, BM GR 1911.6-
6.23
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 61
Schlotzhauer and Villing
provenance Group DD so far consists of only three pieces (the
third is a jug found in Berezan on the northern Black Sea
coast),92 with no kiln waster nor any find concentration to hint at
any particular location.93 Nor do the three pieces show any
chronological spread: all date to the first half to third quarter of
the 6th century bc. What is clear, however, is that their place of
production must have been a trading centre in the Eastern
Aegean which exported its wares during this period to
Naukratis, the Levant and the Black Sea. Such a distribution
could plausibly be reconciled with production at Miletos. Yet in
none of the places attested by our ancient sources to have been
Milesian spheres of interest have only Milesian wares been
found. For this reason, other East Aegean regions cannot be
excluded as possible places of origin for Group DD. Still, the
shapes of all three pieces are usually connected with South
Ionia, and the decoration of the jug (of phase MileA II) in
particular is closely associated with Miletos. The place of
production of DD could thus be Miletos itself – perhaps as a third
local group in addition to A and probably D – or in its immediate
vicinity, or even a colony of Miletos, such as the ‘Hellespont
workshops’ proposed by Posamentir.94 This production centre,
not yet precisely located in the Troad or on the shores of the
Hellespont, is known to have created, among other things,
pottery similar to that of Milesian workshops.95 At any rate, the
findspots of the two cups fit in with an assumed trade route from
the Eastern Aegean to Naukratis/North Africa, which has also
been suggested by Schaus, D’Angelo, Villing and Schlotzhauer in
the present volume, with Tel Kabri being a stop-over en route,96
an assumption supported also by the fact that the typological
range of cups with everted rim from Naukratis is a striking
match for 7th and 6th century bc imports in the Levant. But as
Fantalkin in the present volume argues from a more historical
point of view, such direct imports in the Southern Levant seem
to cease following the Babylonian disaster. It is thus possible that
the cup reached Tel Kabri with Greek mercenaries, perhaps via
Naukratis.
From the evidence presented so far it seems likely that
further production centres for cups with everted rim will be
added. Indeed, if all the results referred to above are correct, it
would seem that at times all the various East Greek regions
produced cups with everted rims! Only for the two South Ionian
centres of Samos and Miletos, however, are there also
archaeological reasons, in addition to the scientific analyses, to
assume a major production of this class of cup. Only here do we
find a broad spectrum of types as well as a continuous
development from the Geometric to the Archaic period. In no
other region, neither Aiolis nor North Ionia, nor even East Doris
(where a close variant was obviously developed) is a
comparably complete line of development attested. Imitations,
however, are quite conceivable in other regions, too, not least
since other imported pottery was imitated frequently.97 Finally, it
is also possible that the imitations attributed to Aiolis by Dupont
may in fact have been produced in a Milesian colony, such as
Posamentir’s ‘Hellespont workshops’.98
Local pottery production at Archaic Naukratis
One of the most valuable results to have emerged from the
archaeometric work on the pottery from Naukratis is the
confirmation of local pottery production at the site itself or in its
immediate vicinity.99 Much of this work is based on material in
62 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
the British Museum.100
It was P. Dupont who in 1983 was the first to demonstrate
local, Egyptian production of Greek pottery,101 as a parallel for
local Greek production in the Milesian colony of Istros (Histria)
on the Black Sea coast.102 A mere few lines in a footnote refer to
his important analyses of two pieces from Naukratis in the
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology of the University of
Cambridge. One of them he considered to be a Late Wild Goat
plate of Aiolian type (Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1, NAU 9), the
other an ‘Ionian’ oinochoe with banded decoration (NAU 71).
For both pieces he assumed local production with Nile clay:
‘présenté des compositions typiques du delta du Nil’.103 The
present volume finally contains Dupont’s complete and detailed
report on his investigations on the pottery from Naukratis and
includes, among the 78 analysed pieces, also the two above-
mentioned sherds attributed to local production in Egypt
(Dupont’s Group G).104
A further 14 products of the Naukratis workshops, located in
five museums (Berlin, Bonn, Boston, Cambridge, and the British
Museum, London; cf. Table 1), have now been added as a result
of the recent investigations on the part of the British Museum’s
Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities and the Naukratis
Project of SFB 295 at Mainz University together with the
laboratory of Hans Mommsen in Bonn.105 In addition, the same
plate in Cambridge as analysed by Dupont was analysed once
more by Mommsen and local production in Egypt confirmed
(Fig. 30, sample Nauk 33 = Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1, sample
NAU 9). The majority of pieces in the provenance group thus
gained (QANN - see the detailed discussion in Mommsen et al,
this volume) are Archaic (12 examples, see Table 1). This
provides a more complete picture of the range of production of
the local pottery workshop of early Naukratis.
It is now clear that both painted and undecorated vessels
were produced at Naukratis. To the shapes already recognised
by Dupont – plate and oinochoe with banded decoration (Fig.
30, Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1, NAU 9; NAU 71) – we can now
add with certainty further plates (Figs 31–33), but also dinoi
(Fig. 34), small oinochoai with a ribbed neck (Fig. 35), large
oinochoai with trefoil mouth (Fig. 37), amphorae (Figs 38 and
39 – from Tell Defenneh106) and lamps. In addition, there are
mugs107 and cups with everted rim, which have not (yet) been
analysed.108 Surely further shapes were produced which have
not been preserved or not yet been discovered among the
preserved material. It is particularly interesting that non-Greek
shapes, too, are found as part of provenance Group QANN, such
as a plate identified by J. Spencer as a 26th dynasty Egyptian
shape (Fig. 41).
The pottery of the Naukratis workshop has a character of its
own. This is obvious already in the idiosyncrasy of the shapes as
well as in their eclectic decoration. A group of three small
oinochoai with a ribbed neck are a case in point (Figs 35, 36).
Although jugs with a trefoil mouth and jugs with a ribbed neck
are known among East Aegean pottery, the combination of both
these features is not. Nor can one agree with the assessment of P.
Dupont, who detected merely an Aiolian character in the plate
fragment Fig. 30 (sample NAU 9 = Mommsen Nauk 33). Rather,
we find here an angle-filled cross as it is know from Aiolian and
North Ionian pottery, next to a flower of a form known both in
Klazomenai and in Miletos before the middle of the 6th century
bc.
 East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research

Figure 30 Painted plate, sample Nauk Figure 31 Painted plate, sample Nauk Figure 32 Painted plate, sample Nauk 9, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?), with
33, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?) 25, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?) fragment from same vessel

Figure 33 Undecorated plate, sample Nauk

27, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?) Figure 34 Undecorated dinos, sample Nauk 82, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Figure 35 Undecorated jug, sample Nauk 14, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?) Figure 36 Undecorated jug, sample Nauk 19, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Figure 37Wavy-line oinochoe, sample Nauk 81, Group QANN (Egypt –

Naukratis?)

Figure 38 Amphora or hydria, sample Nauk 83,Group QANN(Egypt – Naukratis?) Figure 39 Painted amphora, sample Defe 10, Group QANN (Egypt – Naukratis?)

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 63

Schlotzhauer and Villing
Figure 40 Bowl with graffito, BM GR
1888.6-1.739
Such eclecticism is, of course, not without its parallels even
within the workshops of East Greece itself, or indeed Archaic
Greece as a whole. Motifs that are characteristic for production
centres such as Corinth, Laconia, Attica etc. are on occasion
adopted also in the production of other centres. In his
contribution on Chian pottery from Naukratis in the present
volume, for example, D. Williams points to several instances of
such adoptions and influences among Chian pottery of the 6th
century bc, which testify to the vivid exchange of motifs and
ideas among the workshops and pottery centres of the Greek
mainland and the Greek centres of the East Aegean. They
include the possible migration of a Laconian painter closely
associated with the Boreads Painter (575–65 bc) to Chios, and
there christened Sirens Painter by Williams (Williams Figs
14–21), and the adoption of Laconian elements, such as flying
winged creatures, into South Ionian pottery. Or does the
adoption happen the other way round? Certainly, in this period,
as already in the previous Orientialising period, much influence
also moves from East to West, and Eastern traits remain
influential.109 In the third quarter of the 6th century bc
adoptions continue to be attested in Chian workshops, as
Williams points out with reference to atticising kantharoi and
chalices.110
Looking at the whole of the output so far attributed to the
local Naukratis workshops, it must be noted, in addition to the
interestingly broad spectrum of shapes, that there are more
decorated than undecorated pieces. This may be a somewhat
skewed picture, as also the locally produced pottery – which had
not been recognised as such by the excavators, at least not
explicitly in print111 – was subject to the usual criteria for
collection and preservation applied to the all the pottery from
the site by Petrie, Gardner und Hogarth.112 Consequently, only a
small percentage of the local pottery of Naukratis is likely to
have been preserved, and that the undecorated percentage may
well once have been far higher. As for the decorated pottery, its
study shows that the typical decorative schemes current in 6th
century bc East Greece are present here, too: wavy lines, bands,
various types of ornamental decoration, and half or completely
slipped vessel. The decorative designs mostly belong to the
phase A II – filling ornaments as they are found in the late Wild
Goat and early Fikellura styles, and floral ornaments as we know
them from Miletos. Most of the painted examples, moreover,
feature a whitish slip or a distinctive thick, pinkish slip clearly
intended to mimic the whitish-beige slips of pottery in the East
Greek homeland.
A further aspect of the local pottery from Naukratis is the
addition of graffiti. Williams and Villing in their contribution on
Carians at Naukratis in the present volume have already
mentioned the Carian inscription on a locally produced
oinochoe in Berlin (Fig. 36) that may have been an offering in a
tomb. It has two nearly identical siblings from the temenos of
64 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 41 Egyptian plate, sample
Nauk 79, Group QANN (Egypt –
Naukratis?)
Apollo at Naukratis itself (Fig. 35), one of which through clay
analysis has been shown to be a product of the Naukratis
workshop, too. They carry the Greek inscription ‘DEKA’, which
may be an abbreviation of deka/th, signifying the dedication of a
tenth to the god.113 More explicit is the retrograde votive graffito
to Apollo on an amphora or hydria with banded
decoration:…]wpollwso emi[… (Fig. 38).114 A small bowl (not
analysed but of typical Nile clay and covered with the distinctive
pinkish slip of the Naukratis workshop) bears the graffito
AFRO[... (Fig. 40) and may have been a dedication to
Aphrodite,115 and the small undecorated dinos (Fig. 34) with the
graffiti TH[… was probably a votive offering, too.
There finally remains the question of figured decoration on
the local pottery of Naukratis. Not a single example with figured
decoration was identified among the chemically analysed pieces
from Naukratis and Tell Defenneh. Nor is there – as far as we are
aware to date – any piece from Naukratis in any collection in
Europe or America that one might suspect to be local figured
pottery.116 Nevertheless, for a long time there have been
discussions regarding figured pottery from other find places in
Egypt which were suspected to be local products of Greek
character.117 Not all speculation in this regard has been proven
right. The so-called Apries amphora (Bailey Figs 1–5, Group
B),118 for example, is surely no Egyptian product in spite of the
cartouches of the Pharaoh Apries. It now needs to be seen
alongside the situlae from Tell Defenneh,119 which equally
feature Egyptian motifs in their decoration (e.g. Weber Figs
16–17) but are also East Greek products.120 The case may be
different, however, with the amphora from Saqqara.121 Its
iconographic traits (John Boardman in his contribution to the
present volume points, for example, to the characteristically
Egyptian way of representing the bull’s horns) and its stylistic
closeness to the painted pottery from the Naukratis workshop
lead one to suspect that it was produced in Egypt, most likely in
the same workshop, although this has to remain pure
speculation until the clay of this piece, too, is examined. That
products of the workshop were exported within Egypt is also
suggested by the amphora from Tell Defenneh (Fig. 39), which
falls into the same provenance Group QANN. This aspects will
be discussed at length by S. Weber.122
This brings us to the question of the origin and localisation
of the provenance Group QANN. So far we have talked of ‘the
Naukratis workshop’; what is the justification for this association
with Naukratis, as opposed to a localisation at, for example, Tell
Defenneh? When did local pottery begin to be produced and by
whom?
Even beyond their decoration, most of the pieces of
provenance Group QANN are distinctive already at first glance.
Visually, their clay stands out as typically micaceous red-brown
Nile silt with a grey core, very different from other Greek clays,
but resembling locally produced Egyptian pottery. Yet what is
 East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research
Figure 42 Hellenistic painted vessel, Figure 43 Hellenistic kiln furniture,
sample Nauk 17, Group QANN (Egypt sample Nauk 15, Group QANN (Egypt
– Naukratis?) – Naukratis?)
obvious, too, is that the Nile silt in the Greek examples is
processed very differently to regular Egyptian clay (as
exemplified, e.g., in the plate Nauk 79, Fig. 41)– its much denser,
finer texture clearly points to Greek potters at work who brought
with them processing techniques different to those used by their
Egyptian counterparts, in addition to East Greek shapes and East
Greek-style decoration. The enterprise thus appears to have
been an essentially East Greek one, the result of one or more
potters and painters settling down in Egypt to cater to the needs
of other Greeks. Egyptian involvement is not certain, at least not
after, perhaps, some guidance in locating the local clay beds.
That Egyptian potters may have worked in the same workshop –
and produced typical Egyptian plates, according to traditional
Egyptian methods of clay preparation and finishing, such as that
shown in Figure 41 – cannot be excluded, though one may
equally consider the joint use of the same clay beds. The origin
of the potters and painters, on the other hand, is hard to pin
down; as has been observed above, both the shapes and the
decoration display an eclectic mix of styles that covers several
East Greek regions. Egyptian influence, by contrast, is elusive,
unless one counts the distinctively Egyptian way of drawing the
horns on the above-mentioned Saqqara amphora.
That the workshop that produced this pottery was located in
Naukratis or its immediate vicinity, rather than elsewhere in the
Nile Delta, is made likely by several factors. One is the
chronological span that is covered by the pottery in production
Group QANN, between at least the Archaic (second third of the
6th century bc) and Ptolemaic (2nd century bc) periods – the
date of an attractive decorated fragment from Naukratis (Fig.
42) – since it would seem unlikely that the inhabitants of
Naukratis imported their pottery over a long period of time from
another, far removed site in Egypt. Another is the fact that local
pottery production is securely attested in Naukratis in later
periods. Writing in the early 3rd century bc, Athenaios (9.480)
referred to a flourishing pottery production at Naukratis, with a
gate in the potters’ quarter being called ‘Keramike’.123 A potters’
quarter had in fact also been noted by Petrie, and potters’
rubbish and kilns are marked on his map to the east of the
temenos of Hera.124 Little is know about what exactly Petrie’s
evidence was, but even though his description of the potters’
rubbish may be read to include Archaic material, it is more likely
to be mostly Hellenistic or later.125 Kilns, kiln furniture and local
pottery made from Nile clay are certainly attested through the
American fieldwork at Naukratis, from at least the 3rd century
bc onwards. The local potters appear to have produced
imitations (particularly in a characteristic grey fabric) of Greek
Figure 44 Hellenistic kiln furniture, sample Nauk 16, Group QANN (Egypt –
Naukratis?)
(Attic black-glazed) shapes, as well as some local shapes.126 A fair
number of such easily identifiable local wares from the early
seasons of excavations at Naukratis are also preserved in the
store-rooms of the British Museum. Most importantly, however,
there are strangely shaped objects with pre-firing inscriptions,
which in all likelihood are some kind of pot stands or other kiln
furniture inscribed, one may speculate, with a potter’s name so
as to separate different lots in kiln.127 Parallels have been found,
for example, in a 2nd century bc pottery workshop at Athribis.128
Two of these objects from Naukratis have now been analysed
and fall into the local provenance Group QANN (samples Nauk
15 and 16; Figs 43, 44).129 They not only provide direct evidence
for local pottery workshops at Naukratis in the Ptolemaic period,
but also – given the extremely high likelihood of their having
been made locally – securely anchor the provenance Group
QANN at Naukratis. As regards the likely beginnings of this local
Naukratite production, these seem to fall approximately into the
second third of the 6th century bc. Perhaps we may, in fact,
connect them with the re-organisation of Naukratis under
Amasis as it is reported by Herodotus, or with the decades
immediately following that event.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that the fine wares of the
Archaic ‘Naukratis workshop’ are just part of a wider picture, as
is pointed out by Villing in this volume. Local imitations in marl
clay of Archaic Greek (Samian and Lesbian) transport amphorae
are attested at Tell Defenneh and T21.130 Mortaria made from
marl clay at Naukratis and Tell Defenneh (Villing Figs 1, 19, 20,
and esp. 23) and many other sites may go back to Greek or
Cypriot models, and may have been produced by potters of the
‘Naukratis workshop’ working with different clay, or perhaps by
different workshops at Naukratis or elsewhere, perhaps even
ones run by Cypriots, Phoenicians or Egyptians. Other foreign
potters at work in Egypt are certainly attested in the case of the
‘Judean juglets’, which appear to have been manufactured by
Judean potters for a Judean diaspora community.131 The
Naukratis workshop and related production of Greek pottery
shapes in Egypt surely falls into the same category of local
pottery produced by immigrants for an immigrant community.
Archaic Naukratis thus emerges less and less as place where
traders merely passed through going about their trade and
depositing offerings in sanctuaries, but as centre of production
in its own right, with a pottery workshop now having joined the
already attested workshops for scarabs and faience, the likely
terracotta and sculpture workshops, and the possible alabaster
alabastra and perhaps even flower garland workshops.132
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 65
Schlotzhauer and Villing
Illustration credits
Figs 17b, 26b, 37b, 38b, 40a, 41b K. Morton; Figs 23b, 24b, 27, 28, 30, 32b,
34b, 35b, 36, 44b U. Schlotzhauer; Figs. 18, 31, 33 ©2004 Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston; all remaining photographs the British Museum.
Notes
* We are grateful to Dyfri Williams, Michael Kerschner, Richard
Posamentir and Sabine Weber for helpful comments on this essay.
1 See also Gardner 1888, 15; who refers to large numbers of painted
and undecorated fragments coming to light every day: ‘I accordingly
had to content myself with glancing through the contents of each
basket, to make sure that it really consisted of painted fragments of
vases, and had no rubbish put in to fill.’ For a provisional list of
collections with material from Naukratis, see Villing and
Schlotzhauer, this volume, n. 12.
2 On the significance of the finds from Naukratis for scholarship of the
late 19th and early 20th century, see e.g. Cook 1997, 296-9, 305.
3 E.g. Boehlau 1898; Prinz 1908; Price 1924, 1928. For a discussion of
scholarship on the pottery of Naukratis, see also in particular
Kerschner 2001; Schlotzhauer 2001a.
4 See e.g. Stevenson 1890/1.
5 Two recent publications in particular summarise the results of this
development: the late R.M. Cook's magisterial survey on East Greek
pottery (a joint publication with Pierre Dupont), and Sir John
Boardman's handbook on Early Greek vase-painting: Cook and
Dupont 1998; Boardman 1998b.
6 Akurgal et al. 2002; Coldstream and Liddy 1996, 480-1; Dupont 1983,
1986, 2000; Hertel et al. 2001; Harbottle et al. 2005; Hughes et al.
1988; Jones 1986; Kerschner et al. 1993, 2002; Kerschner and
Mommsen 2005; Kerschner 2006; Mommsen, Kerschner and
Posamentir 2006; Mommsen, Schwedt und Attula 2006; Posamentir
and Solovyov 2006; Schlotzhauer 2006; Seifert 1998, 2004; Seifert
and Yalçin 1996.
7 Dupont 1983.
8 Dupont 1983, 36.
9 Dupont 1983, 36 n. 38, where he refers to this series of analyses for
the first time and also mentions two fragments that might have been
produced locally at Naukratis.
10 Jones 1986, 698-702, 663 pls 8.11-13. Mostly samples in Oxford were
analysed, but some pieces in the British Museum were also included;
see ibid., 701 table 8.18. The three situla fragments in Oxford are
wrongly indicated as being from Naukratis; in fact they are from Tell
Defenneh.
11 Jones 1986, 662-3.
12 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Inv. 1925.608 a-c; Beazley et al. 1931,
pl. G.B. 401.25-7; Jones 1986, 669-70.
13 Dupont and Thomas, this volume; cf. Weber, this volume.
14 The new results by Mommsen, Weber, Schlotzhauer and the British
Museum, by contrast, show the situlae in a chemical group of their
own, to which none of the analysed Vroulian vessels belong.
15 Hughes et al. 1988, 475; Mommsen et al., this volume. A later batch
taken by Hughes, analysed independently, included 14 black-glaze
and black-figure pottery samples from Naukratis in Oxford and the
British Museum; the results of this analysis have recently been
published, establishing that all analysed samples are of Attic
production: Harbottle, Hughes and Seleem 2005. Unfortunately, the
descriptions of the analysed pieces given in the article (table 1 on p.
513) are incomplete or flawed; as regards the ten pieces in the British
Museum (all from Naukratis), no. 16 is from a 6th century bc bf dinos
stand (Venit 1982, 481 no. B839); no. 17 is from a bf dinos, circle of
Sophilos ; no. 18 is from a rf column-krater, ca. 500-490 bc (Venit
1982, 486-7 no. C8); no. 20 is from a bf dinos stand, circle of Sophilos
(Venit 1982, 480-1 no. B838; cf. Williams 1983b, 15-16 fig. 10); nos 19
and 21-25 are all from black-glaze vessels. Of the Ashmolean Museum
pieces, two (nos 7 and 9) are catalogued among the Attic material in
Venit 1988, 339 no. B407, 435 no. B702, pls 171 and 214.
16 Petrie 1886b, 13.
17 Petrie 1886b, 23. See also Villing, this volume, and Johnston 1982, 35-
7, and this volume.
18 Edgar 1905, 123-6.
19 Petrie 1886b, 42, reports the find of some 1200 such pieces, which
were all brought back to Britain.
20 Villing, this volume, n. 196; cf. also Kerschner 2001, 75-6.
21 For a summary of Attic, Laconian and Corinthian pottery at
Naukratis, see esp. Möller 2000a, 119-27.
66 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
22 Venit 1984; Schlotzhauer 2006, 294-301, esp. 301 with n. 61.
23 For clay analysis of black-glaze pottery from Naukratis, see supra n.
15.
24 Notably Beazley and Payne 1929; Venit 1982, 1988.
25 For a summary of the current state of knowledge on North Ionian
pottery see especially the recent work by Kerschner and Mommsen:
Kerschner 2001, 85-7; Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002, 63-92;
Kerschner 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006; see also for
Klazomenai: Ersoy 1993, 2000, 2003, 2004; Özer 2004; Hürmüzlü
2004a.
26 The simpler plate Nauk 37 is clearly related. Note also the prominent
use of added red and white dots in many of the examples in this
group.
27 Özer 2004, 215 n. 15; cf. Bailey, this volume.
28 Walter-Karydi 1973, 68-9, cat. no. 732, pl. 99.732.
29 Note, e.g., a similar plate which may have been produced in the same
workshop:Walter-Karydi 1973, 68, cat. no. 731, pl. 97.731.
30 Walter-Karydi 1973, 70, cat no. 819, pl. 100.819.
31 Doubts had already been expressed by Lemos 1991, 179. Further
examination of this topic is envisaged for the future.
32 Kerschner 2001, 79.
33 Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002, 63-72, 97-105.
34 Cook 1954, pls G.B. 587.18 and 590.15.
35 Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 586.
36 Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002, cat no. 88; cf. also an amphoriskos
with scale pattern: ibid. cat no. 86; N-Ionian bf column krater: ibid.
cat no. 87.
37 Cf. Kerschner 2006.
38 Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
39 Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 123.996.
40 Paspalas, this volume, n. 68; Kerschner, this volume, n. 99; Akurgal
et al. 2002, 93-4.
41 Ersoy 2003, and see above.
42 Several dozens of sherds are preserved in the British Museum. Cf.
also a Grey ware fragment with a representation of a Sphinx once in
the collection of von Bissing. Prins de Jong 1925, 23, 55 no. V.1.
43 Grey ware pottery was, in fact, produced all along the western coast
of Asia Minor (and beyond), as far south as Miletos and Samos,
although here the repertoire of shapes and kinds of decoration
clearly distinguishes it from the northern production of Grey wares.
For a survey, see Bayne 2000.
44 Möller 2000a, 173-4 no. 1; Johnston 1978, no. 1.
45 Lamb 1932, 10 fig. 4.10.
46 See Bayne 2000, 254.
47 Bayne 2000, 254.
48 Red painted floral decoration is found especially on 6th century bc
Grey ware cups, jugs, cups with everted rim and stemmed plates
from a tomb on Samos (Gercke and Löwe 1996, 68-70 nos 45.41-50),
as well as on lids painted in Fikellura style at Miletos (Posamentir
2002, 20-21 fig. 5, 26 cat. no. 30). Grey ware cups with everted rims
(Knickrandschalen) from Miletos have been shown through clay
analysis to be local products (to be published shortly by U.
Schlotzhauer), and analysis has shown that Grey ware from Berezan
(Posamentir and Solovyov 2006: sample Bere 136) belongs to
Milesian Group A, the Kalabaktepe workshops. For Grey ware
pottery produced in Ephesos, see Kerschner 1997b, 209-10.
49 Cf. Möller 2000a, 173 no. 3. For a complete example of an open-work
stand from Naukratis, see Lamb 1932, pl. 1.3.
50 E.g. Lamb 1932, 8 fig. 3.7, 15. Less close (though not unrelated to
other fenestrated stands from Naukratis) are the examples from
Larisa: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 128 fig. 53, pl. 48.19-22.
51 Mommsen et al. 2001; Mountjoy and Mommsen (forthcoming).
52 P.A. Mountjoy in Mommsen, Hertel and Mountjoy 2001, 178: ‘This
clay recipe is used at Troy from Troy I-VIII for unpainted wares and
for Mycenaean pottery. The longevity of the group suggests local
production.’
53 Group B-Troy: Mommsen, Hertel and Mountjoy 2001, 200, 201 fig. 48
(Protogeometric-Early Geometric); Group D-Troy: ibid., 178, 179 figs
7-8 (Troy VI). For Archaic parallels, see also Lamb 1932, 10 fig. 4.1
(from Pyrrha), 3 (from Troy VIII), and Utili 2002, passim.
54 Cf. Spencer 1995, 304. For Lesbian Grey wares, see esp. Bayne 2000
and Spencer 1995, 301-3; for a summary of the evidence, see also
Kerschner 2001, 88 with ns 165-6.
55 Bayburtluoðlu 1978; Dupont 1983, 41.
56 Cf. also the extensive discussion by Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer
and Weber 2005, 81; 93; Schlotzhauer 2006, 311-13.
57 Cf. also Schlotzhauer 1999, 119-22; (forthcoming b).
 East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research
58 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006; Kerschner 2006; Dupont 1983, 35-6.
59 Attula 2006.
60 Schlotzhauer 2006, 301-7, 316 figs 4-6.
61 Cf. Schlotzhauer 2001a, 115-16.
62 Blinkenberg 1931, 738-9 nos 3172-4, fig. 74 and pl. 150.3171-3. One of
them carries a graffito underneath the foot. They are dated late by
Blinkenberg and compared with Terra Sigillata shapes but the
inscription on the Naukratis piece contradicts this. That the type
(Petrie’s fabric group D) is indeed early is supported also by at least
one example reported to have come from early levels at Naukratis
(Petrie 1886b, 21, 23), even though the ‘stratigraphy’ at Naukratis is,
of course, notoriously unreliable.
63 Even though they have sometimes been considered by scholars, only
the various randomly published pieces have been collected: e.g.
Möller 2001a, 142-3.
64 Cf. Beazley and Payne 1929; Beazley et al. 1931; Venit 1984.
65 Especially Lemos 1991.
66 E.g. Cook 1933/4.
67 E.g. the Tübingen group, Petrie group, Enman class or the Urla group
etc.: Cook 1952 and 1998, 95-107.
68 On top of the selection already made by the excavators, and thus
further distorting the picture. On the criteria for keeping pottery and
on the distribution of finds, see above, and Villing and Schlotzhauer,
this volume.
69 Schlotzhauer 2001a, 113-4, 122-4. Examples for misinterpretation
through the undifferentiated use of published data on the Archaic
pottery from Naukratis: Bowden 1991; Sørensen 2001.
70 The cup is presumably that illustrated in Petrie 1886b, pl. 10.10.
Petrie (ibid. 19) also points out that further examples of this type
were found during the excavations. There are, indeed, several East
Dorian cups with everted rim, even if they do not correspond to the
precise variant represented by Fig. 24; cf. also Schlotzhauer 2006,
301 n. 64.
71 The sites of Tell Sukas and Tocra (Taucheira), can be considered
representative through their wealth of finds; cf. Schlotzhauer 2001b,
27 table 1, 30-6, 39-43, 297-8. G. Ploug 1973, 27-39, distinguishes ten
groups at Tell Sukas on the basis of a selection of 250 cups with
everted rim (overall c. 1500 such cups, mostly fragments, of the 6th
century bc, were found; cf. ibid, 95-6). On present-day knowledge
most of Ploug’s groups have to be attributed to the South Ionian type;
this includes Ploug’s groups 2, 3, 5, and especially the (at Sukas)
quantitatively strongest groups 6 and 9. Only group 1 and several
examples of group 9, which includes mostly South Ionian types, can
be attributed to the East Dorian variant. Groups 4 and 7-8 consist
partly of singular pieces, and group 10 contains merely handles,
which taken by themselves should not make up a group of their own
and which, moreover, to date cannot be attributed to any production
centres. In Tocra J. Hayes distinguished 14 types with several
variants, and believed the majority of his types to be Rhodian (type I
to XI: Hayes in Boardman and Hayes 1966, 111-5, 120-4) and only few
examples Samian, i.e. South Ionian (Samian i-iii: ibid. 115-6, 124). On
present knowledge, however, only type VI and several singular
pieces, which he considered variants of type IX (Hayes in Boardman
and Hayes 1966, 111-6, 120-4) are not South Ionian. Once more, then,
the quantitatively strongest groups at Tocra in particular belong to
South Ionia. Also at sites where so far only little East Greek pottery
and few cups with everted rim have emerged East Dorian types are
more rare than South Ionian ones, for example at Mez.ad
H. ashavyahu, Tel Kabri or Ashkelon (Schlotzhauer 2001b, 298-303).
72 Type 5 is in some respects close to or identical with Type II/2 of
Boldrini 1994, 149-51 cat. nos 249-50, pl. 4.249-50. The example
presented here belongs to a sub-type, Type 5.C (Schlotzhauer 2000,
410-1; 2001b, 86-7, 326-5).The typology of South Ionian cups used
here is the new typology devised by the author on the basis of the
study of several thousand cups with everted rim from Miletos, see
Schlotzhauer 2001b; Schlotzhauer in Kerschner 1999, 21-3 with no.
71; Schlotzhauer 2000.
73 Schlotzhauer Type 9.A is very similar to Type B1/B2 of Villard and
Vallet 1955, 23-6 and to Type II/1 (253) of Boldrini 1994, 148-52 cat.
no. 253, pl. 5.253. On Type 9.A, see Schlotzhauer 2000, 409-14;
2001b, 96-7, 332-3. For the role of Type 9 in the 6th century bc see
Schlotzhauer 2000, 410-1; 2001b, 123.
74 Cf. Petrie 1886b, pl. 13.1; Price 1924, 183 fig. 2; Venit 1988, 131 fig. 175,
174 fig. 175-6, pl. 41.175-6; Möller 2000a, 143.
75 See Schlotzhauer 2001b, 392-6; Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b).
76 On Ionian Little Master cups see esp. Kunze 1934; but also Cook 1998,
92-4; Schlotzhauer 2001b, 396-402; 2001a, 123-4; (forthcoming b);
Shefton 1989;Walter Karydi 1973, 24-9.
77 Cf. Price 1924, 183 fig 3; Kunze 1934, pl. 7.1-2, Beil. 7; Walter-Karydi
1973, pl. 49.422, pl. 50.445, pl. 53.448-9; Venit 1988, pl. 42.180; Möller
2000a, 142-3.
78 Schlotzhauer Type 10 is more or less comparable to Type B1 of Villard
and Vallet 1955, 23-6. The example presented here belongs to a sub-
type, Type 10,2.B (Schlotzhauer 2000, 409-14; 2001b, 99, 333-5).
79 Schlotzhauer 2001b, 134-5, 503-5; 2001a, 410-1.
80 Schlotzhauer 2001b, 340-1, diagrams 26-7.
81 Boardman 1980, 49; Austin 1970, 51 no. 4; Sullivan 1996, 190; Möller
2000b, 747.
82 As suggested by Schlotzhauer 2001a. This, of course, says nothing
about the actual physical presence of Milesians at Naukratis. It has
long been recognised that the place of origin of finds must not be
equated with that of its carriers or users; see also Villing and
Schlotzhauer, this volume.
83 Proven beyond doubt by the kiln waster of a cup with everted rim
from the area of the kilns at Kalabaktepe in Miletos (Kerschner 2002,
37-8, 114 cat no. 97, 175 fig. 63; provenance Group A, ‘Kalabaktepe
workshops’) as well as a further cup, Fig. 21 (Nauk 4), which,
however, belongs to provenance Group D, likely to be located at
Miletos as well. P. Dupont’s analyses, too, associate the production of
cups with everted rim with Miletos, see Dupont 1983, 34; 1986, 60-1;
2000, 451-2, and Dupont, this volume: Dupont Fig. 6 (sample NAU
61 = Group B1 = Miletos).
84 Cf. Mommsen et al., this volume. Already the archaeometric analyses
of Dupont 1983, 33, 40, had shown Samos to be one of the main
places of production of cups with everted rim, especially of the high-
quality series with a myrtle wreath on the rim or relief appliqués on
the shoulder-band. In the meantime, however, he himself (Dupont
2000, 451, and Dupont, this volume, Group E) questions this
attribution.
85 Schlotzhauer 2006, 311-3, 318 fig. 13. From an archaeological point of
view the production of this special pottery with Hera-dipinti,
otherwise known only from the mother sanctuary on Samos, has
never been in doubt: see ibid. 311-3; Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer
and Weber 2005, 81. For the full range of shapes with Hera-dipinti
(including cups with everted rim) in the Heraion of Samos see Kron
1984, 1988 (with further references) and Furtwängler and Kienast
1989.
86 In the first publication Group J could not yet be located; see
Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002, 51, 108 cat. no. 68, pl. 5.68.
87 Kerschner (forthcoming).
88 Dupont, this volume, Group F, sample NAU 60.
89 Dupont, this volume, Group E, samples NAU 62-3, 100-1.
90 Williams, this volume, esp. n. 63.
91 They are a different phenomenon from the earlier development of
the class of cups with everted rim into the special Chian Chalice
shape as it has been shown, e.g., by Boardman 1967, 103 fig. 60. As is
discussed below, the 6th century bc saw the exchange and adoption
of forms and motifs between several workshops in several
production centres. Such a process must be presumed here.
92 Sample Bere 11, cf. Mommsen et al., this volume; it will be discussed
further by Kerschner 2006.
93 On Group DD see also Mommsen et al., this volume.
94 Posamentir in Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
95 Ibid.
96 The assumption of a stopover is also supported by the character of
the remaining East Greek finds from Tel Kabri, which is similar to
that from Naukratis.
97 For the so-called bird bowls, for example, which were produced in
the North Ionian pottery centre B (also termed the ‘bird bowl
workshops’ after this characteristic group of cups) and which only
there display a long line of development, local imitations are attested
for Miletos (provenance Group D), Kyme (provenance Group G) and
the North Ionian production centres E (Klazomenai?) and F
(Smyrna?) as well as Ephesos (provenance Group H), see Kerschner
in Akurgal et al. 2002 and Kerschner and Mommsen, this volume.
98 Posamentir 2006 and also Dupont 2000, 452, consider the
Hellespont a possibility in this context, even if they only touch on this
issue tentatively and briefly.
99 In the following we will mainly talk of a workshop in the singular,
even if the existence of several workshops – certainly over time but
even at any one time – cannot be excluded. For the Archaic period,
however, at least during the first few decades, historical arguments
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 67
Schlotzhauer and Villing
and the small quantity of known locally produced pottery in
Naukratis make it less likely that several workshops were responsible
for the pottery of Group QANN.
100 The results have been made possible through the generous interest
of the staff of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the
British Museum, especially its Keeper D. Williams. In addition,
further local pottery was discovered and analysed in the Museums of
Bonn, Boston and Cambridge (see Table 1), which will be discussed
more fully in the final publication of the Mainz Naukratis Project:
Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
101 Dupont 1983, 36 n. 38. Scholars had of course, for a long time,
discussed and supposed the possibility of such local production, but
mostly with regard to pottery groups now shown to be Greek / East
Greek, such as Chian pottery. Some, however, correctly pinpointed
local products, such as the amphora from Tell Defenneh (Fig. 39)
considered by Cook 1954, 39, to have been made ‘in the locality of Tell
Defenneh’, and now shown to be part of the local production Group
QANN.
102 Dupont 1983, 36.
103 Dupont 1983, 36 n. 38.
104 Dupont, this volume, n. 13, moreover points out that some further
samples share certain features characteristic for Nile Delta pottery.
105 The authors and also D. Williams have identified further products of
the Naukratis workshops in several museums, but these have not
been (or could not be) analysed, including pieces in Heidelberg,
Alexandria and in The British Museum. Most of them will be
discussed in Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer and Weber
(forthcoming).
106 This amphora will be discussed by S. Weber in length in
Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
107 E.g. BM GR 1965.9-30.450.
108 One such cup with everted rim likely to be of local Naukratite
production is BM GR 1886.4-1.777. Another cup with everted rim
from Naukratis (BM GR 1886.4-1.1034) that was suspected by Oren
1984 (27 with note 19) to be of local Egyptian production, however, is
surely of East Greek manufacture and merely dark grey because it
was burnt. Oren, however, presumably correctly observed a local
Egyptian imitation of an Ionian cup at T.21 (Migdol): Oren 1984, 27,
fig. 23.2, fig. 24; perhaps this, too was produced at Naukratis?
109 For interconnections between the Archaic pottery of East Greece, the
Greek mainland and Western Greece, see also Williams
(forthcoming).
110 See Williams, in this volume.
111 What they considered as local is the type of pottery now identified as
Chian, calling it ‘Naukratian’: Petrie 1886b, 19; Gardner 1888, 38-53;
Edgar 1898/9, 57; see also Williams, this volume. See also n. 14,
below.
112 See also Villing and Schlotzhauer, this volume, and in detail soon
Schlotzhauer in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
113 Schlotzhauer 2006, 310-11.
114 Perhaps this piece falls into Petrie’s fabric group B1 (‘rough red
brown clay, black stripes (earliest pottery from well, retrograde
inscriptions)’), which, together with fabric groups B 5 (‘rough red-
brown clay, coarse’) B6 (‘rough red-brown clay, very coarse red,
white face’) and possibly other sub-groups of B, probably refer to
locally produced vessels: Petrie 1886b, 17, 19, 21.
115 BM GR 1888.6-1.739. A modern incised inscription on the piece,
‘CEM’, puzzlingly seems to suggest the cemetery of Naukratis as the
findspot, which is hard to reconcile with it bearing what looks like a
votive inscription to Aphrodite. A second very similar rim fragment
(BM GR 1888.6-1.291) with the graffito ... ]DIT[... does not join, even
though it is very tempting to see them as belonging to the same bowl.
116 Harbottle, Hughes and Seleem 2005 avowedly set out to establish
whether it could be determined if local Greek pottery workshop at
Naukratis produced black-figure pottery, but the material chosen by
them all emerged as Attic – perhaps hardly surprising given the
rather obviously Attic nature of many of the pieces, including
fragments attributed to well-known Attic vase-painters (see supra, n.
15). From the analyses by Dupont and especially Mommsen it is now
clear that the local pottery of Naukratis looks very different from
Attic pottery.
117 Boardman 1980, 133-41; Boardman, 1998b, 144 with 158 figs 305-6,
222 with 256 fig. 500; Boardman, this volume.
68 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
118 Cf. Boardman 1998b, 144; but now see Bailey, this volume;
Mommsen et al., this volume (sample TbEgy 1).
119 See the discussion by Bailey, this volume; Weber in Schlotzhauer and
Weber 2005, 86-91 esp. 93; Weber this volume; Weber
(forthcoming); Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
The case is similar to that of the fragments of a black-figured
amphora from Karnak in Oxford (Boardman 1998b, 220 with fig.
487). Here, too, it seems most likely that a North Ionian workshop
produced the piece to order with the destination Egypt in mind. The
iconography of the carrying of the boat of Amun is an Egyptian motif
otherwise unknown in the Greek world, but the foreign elements are
mixed with Greek ones and are shaped and interpreted against the
background of Greek experience, presumably the carrying of a
Dionysus ship in a Greek procession.
120 The production even of these pieces in Naukratis by East Greek
potters and painters still cannot be excluded, of course, if one
assumes that clay from their home cities was imported into
Naukratis. This is still discussed particularly in connection with
Chian pottery, yet the lack of evidence (the interpretation of the
imported earth in the Elephantine palimpsest as potters’ clay, still
upheld by Stager 2005, 251, is now discounted by many scholars; see
also Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume, n. 7) and the diversity of
styles and chemical clay groupings among the pieces considered in
this context are potent arguments against this possibility. For a
different opinion, however, see J. Boardman, this volume.
121 E.g. Boardman 1998b, 158 fig. 305. The amphora from Saqqara will
be discussed in detail by S. Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber
(fortcoming).
122 Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
123 ‘Excellent kylikes are also made in Naukratis, the native city of our
boon-companion Athenaios. They are like phialai, made not as on
the lathe but as if fashioned by the finger; moreover they have four
handles and a broadly extended base (there are, by the way, many
potters in Naukratis; from them also the gate which is near the
potters’ workshops is called Keramike).’
124 Petrie 1886b, pl. XLI.
125 Petrie 1886b, 22: ‘In the potters’ rubbish in the north-east of the town
at 350 level were found B5 whorls [red-brown coarse fabric]; D, a
fine-ribbed dish, smooth-faced; F2 [white-faced with orange lines
and figures – i.e. Chiot], and same thicker; G2 [smooth unfaced,
brown to red line; black inside with red and white lines (Eye bowls)];
L1 [plain buff and black bowls – cf. pl. x.4,5,6].’
126 As Leonard 1997, 25-6, notes, potsherds and vitrified mudbrick
fragments found on the hill of Kom Hadid were identified as waste
products from a pottery kiln. Berlin 2001, 45-6, identifies much of the
pottery from Naukratis as products of the nearby pottery workshops
of Kom Dahab. On the local pottery of Hellenistic Naukratis, see
Berlin 1997a; Berlin 2001. Egyptian production, in Alexandria, of
high-quality West Slope and Gnathia pottery, by contrast, remains
disputed: Alexandropoulou 2002, 196-7.
127 Leonard in Leonard 2001, 191-3 nos 31-2, fig. 3.6; see also Coulsen
1996, 79-81, nos 1359, 1427, 1542, 1639, fig. 44, pl. 13. For a full
discussion see now Bailey (forthcoming), section ‘Miscellaneous
objects’, cat. nos 3695-8. We are grateful to Donald Bailey for sharing
this information with us pre-publication.
128 Cf. Bailey, ibid.
129 Oren 1984, 28, had already (correctly) claimed the existence of
locally made pottery vessels shaped after Greek types among the
unpublished material from Daphnae and Naukratis.
130 At least for Tell Defenneh this is certain, as visual observation clearly
identifies the amphora BM AE 22333, of Samian shape, as local. For
further discussion, see Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber
(forthcoming).
131 Holladay 2004; we owe this reference to S. Weber.
132 For workshops at Naukratis, see Möller 2000a, 148-54, 163-6.
Tridacna shells are unlikely to have been produced at Naukratis (see
Villing and Schlotzhauer, this volume, n. 51), but the manufacture of
floral wreaths made of myrtle, marjoram or papyrus (?) is a
possibility already from the time of Anakreon (Ath. 671e, 675f-676d;
Pollux 6.107). For the ongoing debate on sculpture production in a
Cypriot style at Naukratis, see most recently Höckmann in
Höckmann and Koenigs (forthcoming) and Nick (forthcoming).
Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from
Naukratis and other Related Vessels
Hans Mommsen
with M.R. Cowell, Ph. Fletcher, D. Hook, U. Schlotzhauer,A.Villing, S.Weber and D.Williams
Abstract
Abundances of 30 minor and trace elements of pottery sherds from
mainly Naukratis and Tell Defenneh are presented. The
compositions have been measured with the Neutron Activation
Analysis (NAA), a procedure applied routinely in Bonn for many
years. Many different elemental patterns often assigned to known
production centres in western Asia Minor could be detected for the
sherds excavated at Naukratis. All these imported vessels point to
the importance of this Greek emporion in Egypt. In addition, the
data reveal that pottery was also produced locally, presumably at
Naukratis itself or in its vicinity. The archaeological results of these
archaeometric studies are presented and discussed in separate
contributions in this volume.*
Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) of archaeological pottery has
been carried out routinely in Bonn for many years. The aim is to
determine the production centres and places of pottery wares by
comparing elemental compositions with reference material of
known provenance. The assumption is that each paste prepared
by the ancient potters according to a certain recipe using clay
from one clay bed or mixtures of clays from several deposits has
an unique elemental signature which can be traced to its origin.
Our NAA method is described separately in this volume at
length.1 About 80mg of pottery powder is needed, and it is taken
from the sherds or vessels to be analysed with a pure sapphire
drill. Our procedure determines up to 30 minor and trace
elemental weight concentration values using an in-house
pottery standard,2 which is calibrated with the well-known
Berkeley pottery standard . The data evaluation method to
search for samples of similar composition is given in Mommsen
and Kerschner.3
Sample Choice
Seventy-six samples from sherds excavated at Naukratis and 17
samples from sherds from Tell Defenneh, dating to the 7th and
mainly to the 6th century bc and later, were taken and analysed
during the years 2003–2006. In addition, nine samples of related
material found at other sites have been included, one from
Abusir (Abus 1), one from Thebes in Egypt (TbEgy 1), one from a
non-specified site in the Nile Delta (DlEgy 1), one from Miletos
(Milet 41), one from the area of Datça near Knidos (Knid 1), one
from Kamiros, Rhodes (Kame 2), a further sample from Rhodes
(Rhod 20), and two from Caria (Kari 1,2). A description of these
samples and their current location is provided in Schlotzhauer
and Villing Table 1 and an extended discussion of the choice of
samples and the archaeometric results can be found in several
contributions in this volume.4
Results
Here, we summarize the results of our NAA measurements. This
set of 102 samples is unusual in the respect that a very large
number of different concentration patterns appear, 48 in all.
Twenty-two of these patterns belong to samples that are
chemical loners and called ‘singles’. Each of them has an
elemental pattern, which does not match any other of our
patterns. Therefore, nothing can be concluded about these
singles. A rate of about 15–20% of singles is often detected in
NAA studies. The large number of the remaining patterns is,
however, unusual especially for the site Naukratis. The pottery
found there was imported from many different sites. This points,
at the one hand, to the importance of this Greek emporion in
Egypt having many trade or other contacts with numerous
different sites, but, at the other hand, it might also be a
consequence of a well-considered choice of samples for analysis
or of a special selection of archaeologically questionable vessels.
In our opinion, in this case, with many different patterns our
in most cases univariate or, at choice (if sample numbers are
large enough) multivariate statistical data evaluation procedure
is especially important.5 Only with this procedure could all these
many patterns be compared with our total databank, consisting
of more than 6,500 samples from Greece and the Eastern
Mediterranean, and similarities in compositions be detected.
Such large databanks can be handled since our grouping is able
to filter out all samples that are statistically similar to a pre-given
composition, without any limitation of the number of samples.
The total number of pottery groups consisting of more than two
samples of similar composition now exceeds 200. All the
samples in this study have been checked for matches with our
sample and pattern databank. Calculations with such a large
number of samples using Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
or cluster analyses (CA), which generate dendrograms, are not
feasible in practice.
In addition to the already mentioned singles, only three
groups of more than three sherds and five pairs of sherds have a
composition that was new to us. All other remaining 18 patterns
have been encountered before; the search for compositional
matches can thus be considered successful. The reason is that
for many years M. Kerschner has been collecting specific
archaeological sample types for our analyses in order to build up
our databank and to cover the most important workshops
engaged in large scale and overseas trade. However, a definite
production site cannot in all cases be assigned to these patterns.
An overview of the groups encountered and, if known or made
highly probable according to archaeological reasoning, the site
of the producing workshops assigned to these groups are
presented in Table 1. Table 2 gives the total numbers of group
members including the new samples and the calculated average
grouping values M and their spreads s (root mean square
deviations) in % of M. Small differences to formerly published
patterns are due to the increased number of group members.
The measured individual concentration values of the samples
described here can be found at our website homepage.6
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 69
Mommsen et al.
In Figures 1 and 2 the results of discriminant analysis (DA)
calculations are shown. All the samples of our databank that are
members of the larger groups in Table 1 have been included in
these calculations (Table 1, group nos 1–14, 19, and 21). In
addition, one group X assigned to an Ephesian origin7 has been
incorporated, too. The samples described in this study are
represented by black dots. In Figure 1 only five clusters have
been defined as input (the names given are the names of the
groups in Table 1): all samples of the Cypriot groups (group
numbers in Table 1: 1–3), of the Egyptian group QANN (21), of a
group of unknown origin TD (19), of the Attic group KROP (14)
and of all the groups assigned to western Asia Minor (4-13, X).
The calculations are performed using all the elements given in
the data tables except As, Ba, and Na.8 The clusters are well
separated. The large cluster of the groups from western Asia
Minor is treated separately in a second DA calculation with
higher resolution. Figure 2 shows the result. The overlapping
groups B–E and EMEB–EMEb are resolved in higher projections
(not shown here).
In the following only some archaeometric remarks
concerning the different groups and their assignments to
production places, if known, will be made in the sequence of the
list of Table 1. A more extended discussion is given in the
separate archaeological contributions in this volume.9
Patterns that can be exactly or very probably geographically
located
The four samples Nauk 35, 55, 67, and 68 (Villing Figs 2, 8, 21
and 22) are imports from Cyprus. Patterns CYPT (1) and EMEA
(2), EMEa (3) have been discussed by Åström10 and Attula,11
respectively. These three patterns have a general Cypriot
composition and a provenance of the members of these groups
from Cyprus is without any doubt. Since we still do not have
many reference samples from specific different sites of Cyprus,
an accurate assignment to places of origin there cannot be
made.
Samples Nauk 51 (Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 24) and
Knid 1 (Attula Figs 9–10) belong to the not very different groups
EMEB (4) and EMEb (5), respectively, and are made most
probably locally in the area of Emecik/Knidos.12
The three Hera mugs Nauk 1, 2, and 3 and sample Nauk 72
(Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 14–16) have a composition J
(5), which is assigned most probably to a Samian origin.13
Hughes using NAA had already measured the sample Nauk 2.14
According to our repeated grouping of these data this mug
belongs like other sherds from Naukratis to his Samian group
L.15 But this group L has concentration values that do not match
in all elements our Samian group J. Only an extended
interlaboratory study comparing the single steps and the
correction procedures16 of the NAA methods applied in both our
laboratories and checking the different standards used may
explain these differences. A comparison of NAA data with data
taken with other analytical analysis methods, e.g. Optical
Emission Spectroscopy (OES), is even more difficult. Therefore
we did not consult the OES results of sherds from Naukratis
published by Jones.17
Members of several other patterns, which represent well-
known pastes used in different larger workshops in western Asia
Minor, are also found in the wares of Naukratis. The pattern A
(7) (Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 18–20) is assigned to the
70 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Kalabaktepe workshops, Miletos, and D (8) (Schlotzhauer Fig.
3; Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 21–22) can also be assigned to
a Milesian origin with high probability.18 Six vessels altogether
are imports from Miletos to Naukratis and one to Tell Defenneh.
Pattern B (9) belongs to the ‘bird bowl workshops’. They are
assumed to be located somewhere in Northern Ionia, like the
workshops using the paste of pattern E (10), which are also not
definitely located.19 Seven samples excavated at Naukratis
(Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 1–5) and one sample from
Thebes in Egypt (TbEgy 1) – a fragment joining the ‘Apries’
amphora (Bailey Figs 1–5) – have pattern B.20 One sample (Nauk
21 ass.) is associated to the group with pattern B. Samples are
referred to as being ‘associated’ to a pattern, if they have a
statistically similar composition in all the elements except for
one or two. If such a small deviation is due to a measurement
error, which is always possible for trace elements, or if it is real,
but due to a singular contamination by the ancient potter, it can
be added to the group. But it might also represent a quite similar
clay paste of different origin. Pattern E (10) is represented in two
samples at Naukratis (+ one associated sample Nauk 28 ass.)
and in four samples at Tell Defenneh (Schlotzhauer and Villing
Figs 6–10). Patterns G (11) and probably also g (12) can be
traced to Kyme/Larisa or their vicinity in the Aiolis (Kerschner
Figs 8–11, 13–30).21
The occurrence of pattern B-Troy (13)22 in samples Nauk 62,
63, and 65 (Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 11–13) seemed at
first astonishing. This pattern, and also a second pattern, D-Troy,
formed with samples from Troy, can be assigned to the area of
Troy, because clay samples from deposits near Intepe not far
from Troy analysed recently, have very similar compositions.23
But since pattern D-Troy was already found in a sample of
Milesian type at Troy,24 and since now both patterns occurring in
Troy have also been detected in comparable material from
Berezan,25 hitherto unknown workshops in the Troad termed
‘Hellespont workshops’ by Posamentir,26 must be considered as
the origin of these wares.
An Attic provenance emerged for samples Nauk 43, 57
[group KROP (14)], and 88 [group perb (15)].27 Although the
membership of these samples to these chemically not very
different groups is statistically not in doubt, we report this
provenance with a certain reservation, since recent
measurements of some first few samples from Chios28 also show
for one sample pattern KROP and for a second one pattern perb.
A provenance of these samples, an Archaic Chian chalice and a
subgeometric Chian skyphos, from Attica contradicts
archaeological knowledge. More samples of vessels locally
produced on Chios are needed to see if the patterns of Chios are
chemically separable from patterns assigned to Attica.
Still not localized, but known patterns
The sample Nauk 18 ass. (Villing Fig. 23) has a composition,
which can be assigned to an Egyptian origin [group Marl (16)].
It is associated to samples in our databank from Egypt, which,
according to petrographical investigations, are made of Egyptian
Marl D.29
One sample (Nauk 6; Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 23) is
the third sherd of a previously detected compositional pair. A
sample from Tell Kabri (TeKa 3)30 and one from Berezan (Bere
11)31 are made of the same clay paste; the geographical position
of the workshop is still unknown. This triple is now named
 Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Naukratis and other Related Vessels
group DD (17). The occurrence of a third member to be added to
this pair is a nice example of the stability of our measurements,
since the three samples have been measured at different times in
the years 1994, 2003 and 2004.
Also of unknown origin is sample Nauk 53 (Schlotzhauer
and Villing Fig. 25). It has the same composition as a rare group
of Late Bronze Age sherds from Rhodes with silver mica
inclusions. The members of this group RHc1 (18) are, according
to archaeological theory, assumed to have been imported to
Rhodes from one of the neighbouring islands, Kalymnos or
Leros, where there are also clay deposits with silver mica
inclusions.32 We have no reference material from these islands.
Not localized, new patterns
A group of six samples from Tell Defenneh (Weber Figs 16–21),
three of them situlae, forms a new pattern TD (19). There are no
comparable samples in our databank; archaeologically a
provenance from western Asia Minor is probable.33
The same is true for a group of four samples, two from
Naukratis (Nauk 73 and 74) (Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 26;
Johnston Fig. 11), one from an unknown find spot in the Nile
Delta region (DlEgy 1), and one from Abusir (Abus 1). They form
a hitherto unknown pattern called ITAN (20) of unknown
provenance.
A third hitherto unknown pattern is QANN (21). Thirteen
samples from Naukratis, one from the Delta and one from Tell
Defenneh belong to it (Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 30–39,
41–44). This pattern is not similar, but also not very different to a
pattern QANM formed with four sherds from Qantir/Piramesse
and assigned most probably to an Egyptian origin.34 This can be
ascertained comparing the concentration values of both groups
given in Table 2. The general similarity of these two patterns
QANN and QANM can be seen also in Figure 3, where the
differences of the concentration values normalised to the
average spread values save of both groups are plotted as a bar
diagram. After a best relative fit with a factor of 1.04 of group
QANM with respect to group QANN, both patterns agree in all
values inside ± 3save except for the Cr values. This assignment to
Egypt, especially to Naukratis or to its vicinity, is strengthened
by the archaeological classification and also by the fact, that the
sherds of this group cover a time range of more than a 1000
years.35 Therefore, all members of group QANN are attributed to
local workshops, the ‘Naukratis workshops’.36 Sample Nauk 33
was taken from the same sherd as the sample NAU 9 mentioned
in the contribution by Dupont and Thomas in this volume
(Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1),37 which belongs to Dupont’s
group G. Dupont also assigns this group to an Egyptian origin,
although without presenting any reference group.
Pairs of samples of unknown provenance – preliminary grouping
As given in Table 1 there are five compositional pairs of samples.
Although the paired samples agree in nearly all concentration
values with small spreads, sometimes one or two elemental
values measured with small experimental error disagree by an
amount that may exceed an acceptable range for larger groups.
For example, the Rb values of the samples of pair 4 (Nauk 8 [111
ppm] and Emec 31 [88 ppm]) are quite different. Since Rb is
measured with an experimental error of ±2.4 ppm,38 and since it
can be assumed, that potters homogenised their pastes well, this
large deviation may point to the fact that both samples have low
statistical probability to have been made from the same paste.
Also the spread of the compositions of K for this pair (2.3 ppm
and 1.6 ppm, respectively) measurable with an error of ±0.03
ppm is large. But since a deviation of these two alkali elements
has been encountered before,39 this pair has been formed
tentatively. One of the sherds (Nauk 85) of pair 85+86 is clearly
of the same type as a sherd sampled by Dupont and Thomas
(their NAU 55, Dupont and Thomas Fig. 5).40 Both sherds of this
pair are difficult to classify archaeologically. Dupont calls NAU
55 member of his group C1 that is of unknown provenance like
our pair Nauk 85+86.
This study demonstrates that a large databank of many
contemporaneous samples from western Asia Minor is needed to
determine the provenance of pottery originating from there
successfully.
Notes
* The authors wish to thank the staff of the research reactor in
Geesthacht for their technical support.
1 Mommsen and Kerschner and references therein, this volume.
2 Perlman and Asaro 1969.
3 Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume.
4 Schlotzhauer and Villing, Attula, Bailey, Kerschner, Villing, Weber,
Williams and Villing, all this volume.
5 Beier and Mommsen 1994; Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume.
6 www.hiskp.uni-bonn.de/gruppen/mommsen/top.html .
7 Badre et al. 2006, appendix by M. Kerschner.
8 Mommsen 2004.
9 Supra n. 4.
10 Åström in Mommsen, Beier andÅström 2003, 5, 10. Data of group
CYPT (samples HST 7a, 7b) given.
11 Attula, this volume; Attula 2006; Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula
2006.
12 Supra n. 11.
13 Kerschner and Mommsen (forthcoming); Schlotzhauer 2006, 308-
14.
14 BMRL no. 4543-46388-R. Hughes, pers. comm., data unpublished,
available from British Museum, Department of Conservation and
Science. We thank M. Hughes for sending these and additional data.
15 Hughes et al. 1988. Group L is formed there with samples nos 43, 44,
45, and 46. According to our repeated evaluation of these data
including dilution corrections also nos 129 (a Samian amphora, BM
GR 1886.4-1.1291; Johnston Fig. 21) and 130 and Nauk 2 belong to L.
16 Mommsen et al. 1987 summarise these corrections necessary for the
NAA procedure in Bonn with specific consideration to low energy (X-
ray) photons.
17 Jones 1986, 700-1.
18 Akurgal et al. 2002; cf. also Schlotzhauer, this volume.
19 Kerschner and Mommsen (forthcoming); Kerschner 2006 discusses
the probability that the workshops using paste B are situated at or in
the vicinity of Teos and that pattern E might have its origin at or in
the vicinity of Klazomenai.
20 Cf. Bailey, this volume.
21 Kerschner and Mommsen, this volume; Kerschner, this volume.
22 Mommsen et al. 2001; Mountjoy and Mommsen (forthcoming).
23 Mountjoy and Mommsen (forthcoming).
24 Mommsen et al. 2001.
25 Mommsen, Kerschner, and Posamentir (2006 forthcoming).
26 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006; Kerschner 2006. Groups B- and D-
Troy are called there TROB and TROD, respectively. As long as the
workshop(s) using pastes B-Troy and/or D-Troy are not located
exactly, we prefer to use the plural ‘workshops’, although both pastes
could very well originate from the same workshop or an assemblage
of workshops in a pottery production centre.
27 Mommsen 2003; Harbottle, Hughes and Seleem 2005 present an
Attic compositional pattern formed with sherds from Naukratis
measured with NAA by the archaeometry group Brookhaven. We did
not make an interlaboratory study with this laboratory, as, like in the
case of the data of the British Museum of Hughes, these data can not
be compared directly with our data.
28 In collaboration with M. Kerschner, unpublished.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 71
Mommsen et al.

29 Goren, pers. comm. The sample, from a mortarium, is discussed by 34 Mountjoy and Mommsen 2001, 134, 139, group there called Mqan.
Villing, this volume. 35 Schlotzhauer and Villing, Table 1, this volume.
30 Kempinski 2002, 231, fig. 5.94:2, TeKa 3: Ionian cup reg. no. 36 Cf. Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.
5414/100. 37 Dupont and Thomas, this volume.
31 Kerschner 2006. Bere 11 is a sample from a jug of Fikellura style 38 Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume.
(Louvre group). 39 Mommsen et al. 1996.
32 Marketou et al. (forthcoming). 40 Dupont and Thomas, this volume.
33 Weber, this volume.

Table 1 List of samples analysed, their assignment to the chemical groups, their provenance, and their individual fit factors
[= dilution factors, in ( )] with respect to the groups (ass. = associated to the group, see text)
1. Group CYPT, 1 sample, Cyprus:
Nauk 35 (1.08)
2. Group EMEA, 1 sample, Cyprus:
Nauk 55 (0.96)
3. Group EMEa, 2 samples, Cyprus:
Nauk 67 (1.03), 68 (0.99)
4. Group EMEB, 1 sample, (most probably) Knidian peninsula:
Nauk 51 (1.02)
5. Group EMEb, 1 sample, (most probably) Knidian peninsula:
Knid 1(0.98)
6. Group J, 4 samples, (most probably) Samos:
Nauk 1 (0.95), 2 (0.92), 3 (0.96), 72 (1.01)
7. Group A, 4 samples, Kalabaktepe workshops, Miletos:
Nauk 7 (1.02), 26 (0.98), 32 (1.21), 42 (0.94)
8. Group D, 3 samples, (most probably) Miletos:
Nauk 4 (0.97), 39 (0.96),
Defe 11 (0.96)
9. Group B, 8 samples (+ 1 ass.), Bird Bowl workshops, Northern Ionia (probably Teos):
Nauk 10 (0.99), 21 ass. (1.08), 22 (1.06), 24 (0.99), 37 (0.94), 54 (1.08), 76 (1.03), 87 (0.98),
TbEgy 1 (0.95)
10. Group E, 6 samples (+ 1 ass.), Northern Ionia (probably Klazomenai):
Nauk 20 (0.94), 23 ass. (1.01), 58 (1.02),
Defe 7 (0.96), 9 (0.96), 13 (1.00), 15 (0.97)
11. Group G, 2 samples, Aiolis, Kyme/Larisa:
Nauk 12 (1.00), 13 (1.00)
12. Group g, 2 samples, Aiolis, Kyme/Larisa:
Nauk 64 (1.02), 77 (0.95)
13. Group B-Troy, 3 samples, Troad (Hellespont workshops):
Nauk 62 (1.04), 63 (0.95), 65 (1.09)
14. Group KROP, 2 samples, Attica (questionable, Chios(?), see text):
Nauk 43 (1.00), 57 (0.89)
15. Group perb, 1 sample, Attica (questionable, Chios(?), see text):
Nauk 88 (1.04)
16. Group Marl, 1 sample, general Egypt:
Nauk 18 ass. (0.94)
17. Group DD, 3 samples, unknown:
Nauk 6 (0.97),
Bere 11 (1.05),
TeKa 3 (0.99)
18. Group RHc1, 1 sample, unknown:
Nauk 53 (0.85)
19. Group TD, 6 samples, unknown:
Defe 1 (0.90), 2 (1.01), 3 (1.07), 4 (1.06), 5 (1.02), 8 (0.93)
20. Group ITAN, 4 samples, unknown:
Nauk 73 (0.93), 74 (1.14),
Abus 1 (1.32),
DlEgy 1 (0.77)
21. Group QANN, 14 samples (+ 1 ass.), unknown, most probably local Egyptian (Naukratis workshops):
Nauk 9 (0.99), 14 (1.03), 15 (1.00), 16 (1.06), 17 (1.03), 19 (0.95), 25 (0.98), 27 (0.96), 33 (1.02), 34 ass. (1.18), 79 (1.06), 81
(1.01), 82 (0.94), 83 (1.00),
Defe 10 (0.96)

72 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Naukratis and other Related Vessels

22. Pair 1, unknown:

Defe 16 (1.00), 17 (1.00)
23. Pair 2, unknown:
Nauk 69 (1.01), 70 (0.99)
24. Pair 3, unknown:
Nauk 85 (1.00), 86 (1.00)
25. Pair 4, unknown:
Nauk 8 (1.00),
Emec 31 (1.00)
26. Pair 5, unknown:
Nauk 66 (1.00),
Kari 2 (1.00)
27. Singles, 22 samples, unknown:
Nauk 5, 11, 28, 29, 30, 36, 41, 44, 47, 52, 56, 59, 78, 80, 84
Defe 6, 12, 14,
Kari 1,
Kame 2,
Milet 41,
Rhod 20

Table 2 Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samples
Average concentrations of elements M measured by NAA in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, and spreads s in percent of M.
The individual data of each sample have been corrected for dilution with respect to M (best relative fit factors see Table 1).
CYPT EMEA EMEa EMEB EMEb J
4 samples 32 samples 5 samples 30 samples 7 samples 29 samples
M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)
As - 8.55 19. 9.97 19. 6.56 28. 6.7 23. 28.6 33.
Ba 382. 13. 424. 23. 371. 23. 498. 14. 466. 15. 490. 9.4
Ca % 11.5 2.8 10.3 18. 12.1 19. 5.59 20. 5.5 15. 5.54 21.
Ce 36. 8.2 34.7 3.3 37.7 2.9 69.8 2.8 64.2 2.8 82. 2.4
Co 25.3 26. 27.2 4.4 29.9 5.1 39.3 7.6 48.8 7.9 40.4 6.0
Cr 246. 7.1 291. 21. 326. 18. 394. 14. 547. 3.0 373. 4.6
Cs 2.25 15. 3.32 9.7 2.05 37. 7.79 15. 6.76 11. 13. 16.
Eu 1.01 7.4 0.87 4.2 1.00 3.5 1.13 3.4 1.09 2.0 1.52 3.2
Fe % 4.9 2.0 5.13 3.5 5.47 8.0 5.09 3.4 5.29 3.4 6.77 3.7
Ga 14.1 25. 16.3 11. 20.6 15. 19.5 11. 19. 11. 34.6 46.
Hf 2.84 9.5 2.81 8.8 3.13 2.2 4.57 4.5 4.16 4.2 5.57 5.5
K% 1.5 9.2 1.48 12. 1.3 15. 2.17 8.2 1.9 4.4 2.91 8.0
La 18.6 8.7 16.2 3.5 17.9 4.2 33.8 3.7 31.6 2.7 40. 3.5
Lu 0.41 4.4 0.36 5.5 0.39 5.2 0.46 7.5 0.42 6.4 0.58 4.3
Na % 1.18 8.1 0.88 14. 1.15 32. 0.62 13. 0.61 14. 0.64 18.
Nd 16.1 11. 14.7 11. 17.4 5.7 27.4 8.2 24.8 5.8 33.9 6.7
Ni 169. 50. 220. 16. 242. 24. 409. 16. 599. 14. 378. 11.
Rb 48. 5.3 53.4 11. 38.4 24. 113. 13. 99.1 7.8 162. 7.6
Sb 0.72 23. 0.7 13. 0.87 10. 0.91 16. 0.89 19. 3.24 17.
Sc 23. 4.9 21.7 5.1 23.8 2.2 17.9 3.1 17.7 1.6 25.8 3.2
Sm 3.31 5.6 3.08 4.2 3.49 2.4 5.02 5.1 4.48 9.7 6.57 6.4
Ta 0.52 6.7 0.53 6.2 0.53 9.1 0.98 4.2 0.89 4.0 1.23 5.1
Tb 0.59 7.7 0.52 11. 0.53 6.3 0.69 7.3 0.67 9.4 0.93 6.0
Th 5.1 8.9 5.49 4.3 5.73 6.7 12.8 2.6 11.7 2.9 15.7 4.7
Ti % 0.51 34. 0.53 21. 0.7 9.9 0.47 18. 0.49 16. 0.74 39.
U 1.74 13. 1.66 15. 1.97 8.6 2.24 5.6 2.02 4.6 2.9 6.6
W 1.68 12. 1.56 16. 1.57 16. 2.26 15. 2.19 6.8 3.87 17.
Yb 2.33 4.4 2.08 3.8 2.3 2.5 2.89 3.3 2.69 2.0 3.58 3.8
Zn 84.4 5.4 96.7 12. 107. 26. 97.8 15. 97.4 25. 132. 6.8
Zr 124. 20. 87.5 38. 83.8 50. 141. 20. 119. 25. 185. 35.

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 73

Mommsen et al.

Table 2 cont. Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samples
A D B E G g
42 samples 22 samples 99 samples 29 samples 61 samples 28 samples
M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)
As 16.8 34. 21.5 24. 2 1.2 69. 2 1.7 94. 44.7 45. 45.2 65.
Ba 550. 14. 596. 20. 5 41. 17. 497. 11. 810. 12. 739. 12.
Ca % 4.71 25. 7.36 38. 6.25 35. 5.39 16. 4.82 17. 5.53 15.
Ce 108. 3.7 98.7 5.7 84.1 6.0 79.2 2.8 121. 2.9 103. 5.0
Co 19.9 11. 28.5 10. 19.7 13. 25.6 4.6 27.6 3.8 26.8 6.4
Cr 143. 18. 232. 12. 151. 10. 217. 6.8 188. 6.4 211. 11.
Cs 11.8 3.1 11.1 10. 19.4 16. 15.1 12. 23.8 12. 27.1 11.
Eu 1.45 2.8 1.48 5.5 1.32 4.9 1.32 2.4 1.99 2.5 1.68 5.5
Fe % 4.41 4.0 5.13 3.9 4.51 6.7 5.13 4.2 6.04 3.5 5.55 4.3
Ga 25.3 20. 24.3 43. 22.1 22. 24.2 10. 29.1 13. 24.5 25.
Hf 5.65 11. 4.88 17. 6.29 4.6 5.79 6.0 5.79 9.7 5.4 9.5
K% 3.54 5.1 3.05 6.8 2.65 6.1 2.55 5.7 3.12 3.9 2.92 4.9
La 50.9 3.0 46.5 6.1 39.8 4.6 37.9 2.2 56.1 2.0 48.1 3.6
Lu 0.54 5.3 0.52 5.2 0.48 5.2 0.5 5.7 0.6 3.9 0.53 4.6
Na % 1.13 18. 0.95 30. 0.66 22. 0.94 12. 0.96 13. 1.05 33.
Nd 41.3 6.7 39.3 7.7 31.4 7.8 30.5 4.6 51. 4.7 42.2 6.7
Ni 176. 32. 323. 17. 101. 23. 192. 18. 173. 26. 210. 22.
Rb 219. 4.5 184. 13. 148. 7.6 143. 5.2 178. 3.6 172. 6.0
Sb 1.58 9.8 2.32 32. 1.04 23. 1.43 22. 4.79 12. 4.67 18.
Sc 14.2 3.4 16.9 4.3 20. 4.3 20.8 4.1 21.8 1.8 20. 5.1
Sm 8.02 6.5 7.65 7.7 5.95 11. 5.75 4.0 9.93 5.1 8.18 8.1
Ta 1.56 3.9 1.37 5.3 1.25 7.1 1.14 5.1 1.18 5.2 1.13 5.9
Tb 1.21 5.5 1.11 7.2 0.8 6.5 0.84 6.7 1.29 6.5 1.08 6.3
Th 26.1 4.2 22.1 7.3 17.1 4.4 15.4 2.7 21.1 2.6 18.9 5.8
Ti % 0.42 19. 0.46 21. 0.54 18. 0.59 22. 0.5 22. 0.5 28.
U 4.34 7.6 4.03 9.7 3.38 14. 2.68 6.3 4.0 15. 3.44 9.3
W 4.05 21. 3.15 10. 2.74 11. 2.46 14. 2.7 11. 2.69 9.7
Yb 4.2 4.2 3.87 5.0 3.27 3.3 3.34 2.4 4.23 2.7 3.69 5.1
Zn 85.6 11. 94.9 14. 111. 15. 112. 13. 119. 5.6 107. 9.3
Zr 198. 38. 192. 31. 213. 32. 186. 31. 173. 33. 154. 39.

Table 2 cont. Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samples

B-Troy KROP perb Marl DD Rhc1

96 samples 89 samples 6 samples 5 samples 3 samples 22 samples
M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)
As 34.5 78. 31.8 74. 22.8 81. 8.42 42. 20.4 42. 13.6 57.
Ba 711. 24. 466. 20. 312 . 18. 672. 21. 648. 5.6 751. 24.
Ca % 4.93 37. 6.88 48. 7.67 25. 12.8 18. 7.28 16. 3.68 33.
Ce 71. 5.8 67.6 4.4 47.8 2.9 66.5 2.6 121. 4.9 98.9 5.9
Co 21.5 8.9 35.5 9.0 35. 6.1 18.6 5.3 40.1 9.2 18.3 14.
Cr 173. 13. 500. 18. 469. 7.7 102. 14. 313. 5.2 278. 14.
Cs 9.1 12. 13.8 24. 10.2 27. 1.39 19. 10.4 9.3 11.9 9.0
Eu 1.24 6.3 1.2 4.5 0.98 3.8 1.32 2.8 1.84 5.3 1.42 5.3
Fe % 4.31 4.5 5.27 5.7 5.02 11. 4.41 3.9 6.19 2.7 4.06 7.0
Ga 18.7 19. 21.3 30. 24.5 83. 16.5 7.9 26.6 15. 23. 18.
Hf 4.95 12. 4.37 11. 3.5 14. 7.16 18. 4.28 4.9 7.29 9.0
K% 2.76 15. 2.62 9.1 1.28 16. 0.95 12. 2.8 5.5 2.93 7.5
La 34. 6.4 30.9 4.6 21.7 4.0 28.2 2.5 55. 2.7 50.4 7.0
Lu 0.39 6.7 0.44 6.7 0.38 5.5 0.39 4.0 0.58 12. 0.4 8.9
Na % 0.97 25. 0.64 35. 1.08 30. 0.5 34. 0.96 18. 1.37 31.
Nd 27.2 9.7 27.8 8.9 18.4 6.5 25.7 3.2 49.8 4.6 37.3 11.
Ni 143. 17. 412. 14. 452. 8.3 97. 48. 474. 3.6 225. 27.
Rb 130. 11. 139. 8.2 66.1 12. 34.5 9.9 155. 4.5 163. 4.9
Sb 1.96 28. 1.47 39. 0.94 31. 0.97 97. 2.99 10. 1.77 14.
Sc 16.9 6.1 22.1 4.2 21.5 8.0 14.6 4.7 21.3 2.5 13.4 7.1
Sm 4.99 8.0 5.33 6.4 3.79 7.0 4.95 4.1 9.73 4.1 6.43 10.
Ta 0.86 6.6 0.85 6.8 0.74 6.7 1.21 5.9 1.16 5.7 1.45 4.4
Tb 0.7 7.7 0.73 6.8 0.59 13. 0.71 6.0 1.24 9.9 0.79 9.4
Th 15.9 12. 11. 5.7 8.05 4.6 6.4 4.2 24. 11. 25.8 7.5
Ti % 0.45 21. 0.48 21. 0.41 25. 0.61 17. 0.45 19. 0.47 18.
U 3.37 12. 2.51 18. 1.61 12. 1.72 9.4 4.21 3.7 4.95 13.
W 2.74 14. 2.18 18. 1.49 13. 1.24 13. 2.24 11. 3.47 13.
Yb 2.6 6.1 2.8 5.6 2.3 2.7 2.43 3.8 4.32 13. 2.97 7.1
Zn 99.4 10. 121. 9.8 103. 18. 80.2 6.9 105. 8.9 81.8 16.
Zr 164. 36. 165. 37. 119. 51. 213. 22. 121. 77. 152. 41.

74 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Naukratis and other Related Vessels

Table 2 cont. Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samples
TD ITAN QANN QANM
7 samples 4 samples 14 samples 4 samples
M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)
As 4.37 22. 12.7 12. 2.95 56. 7.30 66.
Ba 170. 36. 361. 5.2 547. 13. 666. 15.
Ca % 6.97 28. 7.12 44. 3.71 22. 1.82 40.
Ce 44.2 2.2 77.7 1.4 69.6 3.2 68.2 1.4
Co 51.6 9.5 15.9 6.9 36.0 5.7 32.9 9.1
Cr 563. 15. 86.2 2.1 160. 3.8 132. 3.3
Cs 4.83 13. 8.46 7.1 1.52 5.6 1.50 8.0
Eu 0.75 5.6 1.23 2.2 1.98 2.4 1.83 2.0
Fe % 4.81 8.6 4.39 2.5 7.39 2.7 6.91 1.6
Ga 12.9 18. 24.6 7.9 25.0 11. 21.0 12.
Hf 2.68 5.3 4.65 2.6 7.55 8.3 6.28 4.0
K% 1.44 6.9 2.84 6.8 1.18 7.4 1.23 13.
La 21.6 3.8 36.9 1.1 30.4 3.0 31.2 2.3
Lu 0.29 5.2 0.43 3.3 0.54 5.1 0.51 33.
Na % 0.58 16. 0.82 23. 1.37 21. 1.23 11.
Nd 13.4 18. 30.1 6.3 31.6 6.5 32.6 8.5
Ni 817. 17. 91.6 35. 136. 29. 100. 10.
Rb 72.1 13. 151. 3.4 53.7 5.0 51.3 4.6
Sb 0.41 18. 1.45 14. 0.34 21. 0.45 46.
Sc 14.8 6.3 16.5 2.9 25.0 2.6 23.7 3.6
Sm 2.69 5.2 5.56 1.6 6.63 5.2 6.82 3.8
Ta 0.64 7.6 1.05 5.1 1.34 4.3 1.36 4.1
Tb 0.47 8.9 0.78 9.3 0.96 5.8 0.95 10.
Th 7.68 7.4 13.9 2.8 6.40 5.6 6.74 2.6
Ti % 0.38 17. 0.47 13. 1.06 6.4 1.00 9.3
U 1.55 16. 3.12 13. 1.58 14. 1.66 6.8
W 1.45 18. 2.61 14. 1.76 23. 1.29 9.0
Yb 1.79 3.6 2.92 2.0 3.35 3.9 3.04 6.3
Zn 88.1 17. 98.3 9.1 111. 6.3 112. 7.6
Zr 106. 29. 116. 35. 281. 13. 312. 9.

Table 2 cont. Patterns of the sample pairs of this study

pair 1 pair 2 pair 3 pair 4 pair 5
2 samples 2 samples 2 samples 2 samples 2 samples
M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%) M +/- s(%)
As 21.8 9.7 4.07 12. 4.77 12. 16.0 35. 6.21 14.
Ba 804. 6.9 430. 3.7 388. 4.0 474. 9.7 479. 5.3
Ca % 2.56 9. 6.14 3.5 9.68 2.4 7.79 25. 4.65 24.
Ce 89.8 2.4 87.6 3.7 81.8 3.2 81.7 2.1 101. 6.0
Co 24.8 4.2 25.4 12. 20.2 30. 34.1 1.6 31.2 3.4
Cr 160. 3.1 204. 4.0 125. 4.2 329. 5.4 262. 7.7
Cs 13.7 4.5 14.0 6.6 7.50 11. 9.70 1.1 8.82 8.5
Eu 1.43 1.8 1.39 2.2 1.26 1.8 1.50 1.8 1.55 7.8
Fe % 4.71 1.4 4.47 1.8 4.33 1.8 5.95 5.8 5.37 4.6
Ga 17.7 75. 21.3 8.5 23.7 3.8 25.4 13. 23.9 5.8
Hf 4.53 7.7 6.64 0.9 4.92 3.6 5.53 3.8 7.18 3.8
K% 2.57 6.7 2.16 1.0 2.39 2.0 1.96 26. 2.61 0.7
La 40.0 1.5 40.6 1.7 39.1 1.8 39.9 2.8 47.1 5.6
Lu 0.42 4.1 0.52 19. 0.41 24. 0.55 3.1 0.59 2.9
Na % 1.74 3.5 0.95 0.5 0.82 3.0 1.06 9.5 1.09 4.7
Nd 40.5 9.0 32.3 2.8 31.5 2.9 35.8 6.7 39.3 4.3
Ni 166. 26. 91.9 63. 276. 37. 303. 12. 453. 8.4
Rb 124. 2.2 123. 2.3 144. 4.2 99.9 16. 153. 6.4
Sb 3.61 8.0 1.11 15. 0.76 14. 2.25 12. 1.25 38.
Sc 19.7 2.0 18.7 0.5 16.9 0.6 23.4 2.1 19.2 2.4
Sm 6.77 0.7 6.03 1.5 5.94 0.8 6.86 7.8 7.24 2.4
Ta 0.92 3.6 1.13 3.6 1.11 3.7 1.19 4.9 1.43 3.6
Tb 0.83 7.0 0.79 3.3 0.76 3.4 0.84 6.2 0.99 9.6
Th 21.8 7.3 14.7 0.4 12.7 0.5 15.0 2.6 19.7 0.9
Ti % 0.42 25. 0.66 11. 0.43 11. 0.60 14. 0.74 53.
U 3.65 5.8 2.74 7.4 3.58 2.6 2.59 3.9 2.68 2.8
W 4.24 9.8 2.21 6.2 2.31 4.3 3.23 12. 2.50 7.0
Yb 2.80 2.1 3.29 1.6 2.92 4.8 3.51 1.7 4.08 1.2
Zn 112. 2.2 90.9 27. 109. 24. 114. 2.3 123. 1.8
Zr 140. 20. 141. 21. 73.0 50. 186. 16. 162. 25.

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 75

Mommsen et al.

Figure 1 Result of a discriminant analysis (DA) calculation of 600 samples
assuming 5 clusters (see text). Samples included in this study are shown as black
dots. Plotted are the discriminant functions W1 and W2 which cover 93 (76 + 17)
% of the between-group variance.The ellipses are the 2s boundaries of the
groups.The Egyptian cluster QANN is well separated from clusters originating
from other regions (Cyprus,Attica, western Asia Minor, unknown cluster TD).The
large cluster of western Asia Minor is treated in a separate DA, see Figure 2.
Figure 2 Result of a discriminant analysis (DA) calculation of 450 samples of the
cluster ‘western Asia Minor’ in Figure 1, assuming now 10 separate clusters as
named in the Figure (TROB = B-Troy). Plotted are the discriminant functions W1
and W2, respectively, which cover 76 % and 11 % of the between-group variance.
The ellipses are the 2s boundaries of the groups.All clusters are well separable,
overlapping clusters (e. g. B and E) are resolved in other projections.

Figure 3 Graphical comparison of chemical compositions of the two groups QANN and QANM given in Table 2. Plotted are the differences of the average concentration
values of the two groups normalised to the averaged standard deviation (spread) save.The values of group QANM have been multiplied by the best relative fit factor 1.04
with respect to group QANN. Both groups have a generally similar composition except for Cr and can be assigned with high probability to an Egyptian origin (see text).

76 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Naukratis: Les Importations Grecques Orientales
Archaïques
Classification et détermination d’origine en laboratoire
Pierre Dupont et Annie Thomas
Abstract
Some 30 years ago a batch of 85 specimens of Archaic East Greek
wares from Naukratis, mostly in the collection of the Museum of
Classical Archaeology in Cambridge, were sampled for
archaeometric analysis under the guidance of the late R.M. Cook.
The aim of these analyses was not to cover the whole range of
Archaic wares from the site, but to test the validity of the general
classification of results obtained from Archaic East Greek finds
from Istros. The batch of samples included the main styles of
painted pottery: Chian, Late Wild Goat, North-Ionian black-figure
and Fikellura, supplemented by some other specimens of Aiolian
Wild Goat, Ionian bowls, Ionian and Vroulian cups, banded ware,
grey ware, lamps as well as a single piece of a situla said to come
from Tell Defenneh. The results of the archaeometric analysis of
these samples are reported here.
Les céramiques ioniennes de Naukratis monopolisent depuis
longtemps l’attention face aux autres catégories importées, en
raison du rôle déterminant joué par onze des principales cités de
Grèce de l’Est (Milet, Samos, Chios, Clazomènes, Téos, Phocée,
Mytilène, Cnide, Halicarnasse, Phasélis, Rhodes), dans la
fondation et le développement de ce comptoir commercial
hellénique en terre d’Egypte.1
Le propos du présent travail va être d’examiner, à la lumière
de quelques séries d’analyses physico-chimiques effectuées au
Laboratoire de Céramologie de Lyon, la provenance de ces
trouvailles céramiques de type grec oriental au cours de
l’époque archaïque, qui a constitué l’âge d’or du site sous les
e
pharaons de la 26 Dynastie.
Les résultats dont nous allons rendre compte ont été obtenus
il y a de nombreuses années déjà, dans le cadre d’une vaste
enquête sur les centres producteurs de la Grèce de l’Est
archaïque à partir des trouvailles d’un site colonial du Pont-
Euxin – en l’occurrence Histria – et d’échantillonnages de
référence collectés sur les principaux sites de fabrication
potentiels de Grèce d’Asie (Phocée, Pergame, Çandarlý, Kymè,
Myrina, Smyrne, Clazomènes, Erythrées, Colophon, Milet,
Ephèse) et sur quelques sites de consommation (Larisa /
Hermos) de Grèce d’Asie et des îles proches (Lesbos, Chios,
Samos, Rhodes, Cos).2 A cette époque là, l’intérêt d’analyser une
série d’échantillons de Naucratis résidait surtout dans une
comparaison avec les approvisionnements d’Histria. Or,
l’échantillonnage dont j’ai pu disposer, grâce à la bienveillance
du regretté Robert Cook, alors en charge de la collection du
Museum of Classical Archaeology de Cambridge, était loin d’être
aussi diversifié que celui dont j’avais pu bénéficier pour Histria.
En effet, il consistait essentiellement en représentants des
principaux styles peints de la Grèce de l’Est: style de Chios (alias
‘Naucratite’), style des Chèvres Sauvages, style nord-ionien à
figures noires et style de Fikellura, le reste des échantillons étant
assez disparate (coupes ioniennes, céramique grise, lampes...).
Pour cette raison, notre échantillonnage de Naukratis ne pouvait
a priori prétendre, en l’absence de céramiques communes et
d’amphores-conteneurs, au même degré de représentativité que
celui d’Histria, y compris d’un point de vue chronologique, du
fait de l’antériorité du site pontique.
Les analyses ont été effectuées en spectrométrie de
fluorescence X au laboratoire de céramologie de Lyon (CNRS-
UMR 5138, Maison de l’Orient). Les premières séries de mesures
n’ont porté que sur les huit éléments chimiques majeurs (CaO,
Fe2O3, TiO2, K2O, SiO2, Al2O3, MgO, MnO), les dernières sur 13
éléments supplémentaires. Par suite, l’exploitation informatisée
des résultats n’a pu porter que sur les huit éléments majeurs,
communs à toutes les séries. Cette exploitation s’est faite en
classification automatique par la méthode hiérarchique
ascendante dite de l’analyse des grappes (‘cluster analysis’), qui
calcule la distance mathématique entre les échantillons: plus
celle-ci est faible entre deux individus, plus leur indice de
similarité est élevé. La partition obtenue se présente sous la
forme d’un diagramme arborescent ou dendrogramme, qui n’est
jamais rien qu’une sorte d’arbre généalogique à l’envers, dont les
échantillons engagés forment les extrémités: plus l’indice de
similarité entre individus est élevé, plus les ramifications se
trouvent placées bas sur le dendrogramme. L’interprétation de
tels diagrammes, simple dans son principe, s’avère en réalité
délicate: il faut déterminer, d’un bout à l’autre du diagramme, à
quel niveau de ramification les groupements géochimiques
correspondent le mieux à la réalité archéologique; d’autre part,
lorsque les dispersions des teneurs sont trop larges pour certains
éléments (cas fréquent du calcium), l’ordinateur a tendance à
faire éclater un même groupe géochimique en plusieurs sous-
groupes purement artificiels, en réalité complémentaires; il faut
être particulièrement attentif aussi aux individus présentant des
valeurs extrêmes au sein de chacun des groupements obtenus,
car ceux-ci revèlent souvent des mal classés ou des classés ‘faute
de mieux’, notamment dans le cas d’individus appartenant à des
groupes mal représentés au sein de l’échantillonnage; en
général, de tels individus sont en position instable et leur
insertion au sein du dendrogramme peut varier à la moindre
modification de l’effectif soumis à la classification automatique;
d’où l’importance des recoupements systématiques de tris.
Quant aux marginaux, ils sont rejetés du côté droit des
principaux groupes et, pour les plus déviants, à l’extrême-droite
du dendrogramme, où ils se rattachent très haut au tronc de
l’arborescence. On obtient de la sorte un premier aperçu de la
partition d’ensemble de l’échantillonnage.
Toutefois, les classifications obtenues par analyse des
grappes sont surtout valables au niveau du groupe. Pour affiner
les résultats et parvenir à des attributions individuelles plus
fiables, on a recours à l’analyse discriminante quadratique, de
maniement plus délicat, laquelle va fournir une probabilité
d’appartenance à chacun des groupes du réseau de références
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 77
Dupont et Thomas
locales.
Quelle que soit la méthode de tri utilisée, les déterminations
d’origine ne peuvent être obtenues qu’indirectement, par
confrontation avec un réseau de références locales sûres, adapté
au problème à traiter. De la qualité et de la densité de ce réseau
dépendra en grande partie la fiabilité des attributions. A Lyon,
notre banque de données sur la Grèce de l’Est rassemble
plusieurs centaines d’échantillons de référence collectés sur les
sites mentionnés plus haut. Même si elle comporte encore
certaines lacunes, on peut estimer qu’elle assure déjà une
couverture satisfaisante des principales zones de production
potentielles.
Après avoir passé en revue les différentes catégories de
matériels composant notre échantillonnage de Naukratis, nous
en examinerons un dendrogramme de tri, dont le dépouillement
va nous livrer les principaux groupes présents sur place. Puis, à
partir de ce canevas, nous rattacherons, dans la mesure du
possible, ces différents groupes à des centres producteurs, à la
lumière des confrontations recoupées avec notre réseau de
références locales pour la Grèce de l’Est. Enfin, nous nous
livrerons à une comparaison sommaire avec la situation
observable en mer Noire sur le site d’Histria.
Notre échantillonnage de Naukratis est composé
essentiellement de spécimens des collections du Museum of
Classical Archaeology de Cambridge, augmenté de quelques
autres pièces d’origine diverse. L’effectif total des tessons
analysés est de soixante-dix-huit échantillons à ce jour. Le style
des Chèvres Sauvages est représenté par une série de quatorze
NAU 1 NAU 2 NAU 3
NAU 4 NAU 5 NAU 6
NAU 7
NAU 8 NAU 9 NAU 10
NAU 11
NAU 13
NAU 14 NAU 15
NAU 12
NAU 17 NAU 18 NAU 19
NAU 16
Figure 1 Echantillons NAU 1-19
78 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
fragments, pour la plupart du ‘Late Wild Goat’ canonique de
R.M. Cook (Fig. 1: NAU 1-10; Fig. 4: NAU 52; Fig. 6: NAU 76),
plus un de faciès éolien (Fig. 4: NAU 74) et un autre de faciès
dorien (Fig. 4: NAU 53); le style clazoménien à figures noires par
quinze pièces (Fig. 1: NAU 11-19; Fig. 4: NAU 51); celui de Chios
par vingt-trois individus, essentiellement des fragments de
calices variés (Fig. 2: NAU 20–39), plus un à décor ‘Middle Wild
Goat II’ (Fig. 4: NAU 54) et deux du ‘Polychrome Style’ de
Boardman (Fig. 4: NAU 56–57); celui de Fikellura par un
assortiment varié de 11 également (Fig. 3: NAU 40–50); cet
échantillonnage a pu être complété de quelques coupes
ioniennes des types de Vallet-Villard (deux de B1 et deux de B3)
(Fig. 5: NAU 60–63, 100–101) et de Vroulia (deux exemplaires)
(Fig. 5: NAU 58–59), d’un fragment de coupe vroulienne du
‘style ancien’ de Kinch surcuite (ou, selon la suggestion de D.
Williams and A. Villing, d’un skyphos de type, mais pas
production, corinthien) (Fig. 5: Nauk 55), d’un fragment de bol
ionien du type à rosettes (Fig. 5: NAU 64) et d’un autre à décor
‘Late Wild Goat’ (Fig. 5: NAU 65), d’un tesson d’épaule
d’œnochoé ionienne fine de type ‘schwarzbunt’ à frise de
languettes incisées sur fond de vernis noir et à rehauts grenat,
proche du style de Vroulia (Fig. 6: NAU 66); d’un autre, à pâte
siliceuse et décor de bandes (NAU 71), de deux fragments de
lampes ioniennes (Fig. 6: NAU 72-73) et de cinq fragments de
céramique grise (Fig. 6: NAU 67, 75); enfin, nous avons inclus à
l’effectif un tesson de situle du type dit ‘de Daphnae’ donné
comme provenant d’Egypte et appartenant au groupe C de
Cook3 (Fig. 6: DEF 1).
NAU 20 NAU 21 NAU 22 NAU 23
NAU 24 NAU 25
NAU 26 NAU 27
NAU 28
NAU 29 NAU 31
NAU 30
NAU 33
NAU 32 NAU 34
NAU 35
NAU 37
NAU 36
NAU 39
NAU 38
Figure 2 Echantillons NAU 20-39

Figure 3 Echantillons NAU 40-50
Figure 4 Echantillons NAU 51-54, 56-57, 74
Après élimination de quelques individus marginaux (la
plupart du temps par fixation de manganèse, un type de
pollution assez fréquent en milieu d’enfouissement de type
réducteur humide) (NAU 33, 34, 68, 75), le dendrogramme de
classification des données d’analyse de cet ensemble (Fig. 7) a
traduit une partition en 11 groupes ou sous-groupes, qui peut
être interprétée comme suit:
A1 rassemble la plupart des échantillons du style de Chios, y
compris les deux spécimens du ‘Polychrome style’ de Boardman
(NAU 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
54, 56, 57), plus un fragment d’œnochoé du style nord-ionien à
figures noires (NAU 19). Il s’agit là d’un groupe particulièrement
homogène, où les fusions entre individus se font très bas. Les
STYLE DE CHIOS
STYLE "LATE WILD GOAT"
STYLE NORD-IONIEN A F.N.
STYLE DE FIKELLURA
BOL IONIEN
COUPES IONIENNES
COUPES VROULIENNES
* SITULES DE DAPHNAE
A1 B1
Naukratis: Les importations grecques orientales archaïques
Figure 5 Echantillons NAU 55, 58-65, 100-101
Figure 6 Echantillons NAU 66-67, 72-73, 75-76, DEF 1
compositions de ce groupe coïncident d’assez près avec celles de
notre principal groupe de référence de Chios. L’attribution à ce
groupe d’un tesson isolé du style nord-ionien à figures noires
apparaît très incertaine, du fait ses teneurs sensiblement plus
élevées en potassium et aluminium, plus proches de celles des
productions d’Ionie du Nord.
B1 regroupe le gros du style de Fikellura (NAU 40, 41, 44, 46,
47, 48, 50), plus un fragment de coupe ionienne Villard B1 (NAU
61). Les compositions de ce groupe correspondent à celles de
l’un de nos trois principaux groupes de référence de Milet. Les
fouilles récentes de Kalabaktepe ont bien confirmé les résultats
de laboratoire obtenus à Lyon: le style de Fikellura est
omniprésent à Milet et tous les groupes de Cook y sont
Figure 7 Dendrogramme de classification automatique
*
C1 A 2 D B2 B3 E F C2 G
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 79
Dupont et Thomas
représentés. Quant au spécimen de coupe ionienne B1, il
correspond à une variante bien attestée sur place, parfois même
avec un décor peint dans le style de Fikellura. Milet a également
produit et exporté d’autres formes de coupes ioniennes (Villard
A2, B2 et B3), mais moins typées.
C1 se réduit à deux échantillons: l’un de pinax du style des
Chèvres Sauvages attribué à la Doride (NAU 53), l’autre de cette
coupe vroulienne ancienne (ou skyphos?) surcuite (NAU 55).4
Les compositions de ces deux pièces ne cadrent avec aucune de
nos références locales de la Grèce de l’Est, en particulier de
celles du groupe principal de Rhodes. On n’a pas affaire non
plus, semble-t-il, à des productions de la vallée du Nil: le surcuit
susmentionné ne devrait donc pas correspondre à un raté de
fabrication, mais résulter d’une fusion accidentelle à l’occasion
d’un incendie. Il est possible que l’on ait affaire ici à des
productions d’un centre de Doride continentale. Il est difficile
d’en dire plus, le groupe d’appartenance de ces deux tessons
étant de toute évidence trop mal représenté dans notre
échantillonnage.
A2 ne comporte également que deux échantillons, tous deux
du style de Chios (NAU 20, 30). Ceux-ci n’ont été rejetés
manifestement qu’en raison de leur teneur très élevée en
calcium par rapport au groupe A1, mais leurs autres
caractéristiques de composition ne s’écartent pas de celles de
nos références de Chios.
D mêle essentiellement des échantillons du style ‘Late Wild
Goat’ (NAU 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 52) et du style nord-ionien à figures
noires (NAU 11, 14, 16, 51), plus un fragment de céramique grise
(NAU 69). Il s’agit là d’un groupe homogène, les analyses de
laboratoire ayant clairement établi que, sur les marchés
d’exportation, les deux styles sont attribuables à des ateliers
d’Ionie du Nord. Toutefois, les caractéristiques géochimiques de
notre groupe D s’écartent de celles de Clazomènes, même si les
gammes de productions sont très voisines. Elles correspondent
en revanche à celles d’un groupe bien attesté parmi les
trouvailles d’Histria et dont l’origine semble devoir être
recherchée du côté de Téos d’après certaines analyses
préliminaires d’échantillons de ce site.
B2 (NAU 45, 49) et B3 (NAU 42, 43) renferment chacun deux
échantillons du style de Fikellura. Les compositions de ces deux
paires distinctes se rattachent à celles de deux autres groupes
locaux de Milet. Il y aurait lieu de renforcer les effectifs de B2 et
B3 pour conforter ces attributions.
E est beaucoup plus fourni et composite à la fois, puisqu’on y
trouve côte à côte des échantillons du style ‘Late Wild Goat’
canonique de Cook (NAU 65, 66) et de sa variante éolienne
(‘Atelier du Deinos de Londres’ de Kardara5 – cf. Kerschner, ce
volume) (NAU 74), d’autres du style nord-ionien à figures noires
(NAU 12, 13, 17, 18), plusieurs exemplaires de coupes ioniennes
B2 et B3 (à ornements d’applique) (NAU 62, 63, 100, 101), ainsi
qu’un fragment de lampe (NAU 73). Après confrontation avec
notre réseau de références locales, il est apparu que ce groupe
est constitué en réalité de deux entités distinctes, de
compositions très voisines: l’une, correspondant manifestement
à un centre de fabrication d’Eolide, distinct de Phocée,
rassemblant deux spécimens ‘Late Wild Goat’ (NAU 65, 66) et
d’autres du style nord-ionien à f.n. (NAU 12, 13, 17, 18); l’autre,
attribué traditionnellement à Samos, comme renfermant
surtout des coupes ioniennes fines de grande diffusion (NAU 62,
63, 100, 101). S’il s’avérait que ces deux entités forment deux
80 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
sous-groupes originaires de la même aire régionale, l’attribution
des coupes ioniennes fines de grande diffusion à Samos s’en
trouverait ipso facto remise en question. En effet, celle-ci repose
encore sur des bases bien fragiles, puisque les coupes ioniennes
en question ne forment qu’un groupe géochimique secondaire,
même au sein des seules trouvailles de l’Héraion. On imagine les
répercussions d’une réattribution du gros des coupes ioniennes
fines à l’Eolide: se trouverait par exemple expliqué la
particulière fréquence de ce type de vase à boire en
Méditerranée occidentale, zone de colonisation phocéenne par
excellence.
F combine des échantillons des styles ‘Late Wild Goat’ (NAU
6, 7, 76) et nord-ionien à figures noires (NAU 15), ainsi qu’un bol
ionien du type à rosettes (NAU 64), une coupe ionienne fine du
type B1 ‘Lambrino’ d’Alexandrescu (NAU 60) et un fragment de
céramique grise (NAU 70). Les compositions de ce groupe se
rattachent à celles des ateliers de Clazomènes. La présence de
cette coupe ionienne fine à vernis noir et filets grenat est
beaucoup moins incongrue qu’il ne paraît: nous avons déja pu
mettre en évidence une composition de ce type sur une autre
coupe B1 ‘Lambrino’ de Bayraklý à décor ‘Late Wild Goat’.6 Cette
pièce est donc à verser aussi au dossier des grands ateliers
spécialisés primordiaux de coupes ioniennes.
C2 associe deux coupes vrouliennes (NAU 58, 59) et le
supposé fragment de situle de Daphnae du groupe C de Cook
(DEF 1). Ces trois échantillons présentent en commun des
teneurs en magnésium très élevées, qu’on ne trouve guère qu’à
Rhodes. L’attribution de la situle de Daphnae à des ateliers
rhodiens plutôt qu’helléno-égyptiens demanderait
naturellement à être confirmée à l’aide d’échantillons
supplémentaires. Si l’attribution rhodienne de notre échantillon
se vérifiait, elle n’exclurait pas pour autant l’éventualité
d’imitations manufacturées en Egypte même.
G est formé d’un fragment de fruit-stand ‘Late Wild Goat’
(NAU 9) et d’un autre d’œnochoé ionienne à bandes (NAU 71).
Les deux présentent en commun des pâtes sablonneuses
rappelant celles des productions de la Vallée du Nil, avec des
teneurs anormalement élevées en titane et particulièrement
basses en potassium. Le style du fruit-stand évoque une variante
éolienne du ‘Late Wild Goat’.7
L’échantillonnage dont nous avons disposé n’est
certainement pas représentatif du faciès céramique de
Naukratis, les proportions réelles des catégories importées
n’étant pas respectées. Les comparaisons avec la situation
observable à Histria ne peuvent donc avoir qu’une valeur
indicative. Néanmoins, il est possible, pour les catégories
principales, de formuler les constatations suivantes.
• Le groupe chiote présente des caractéristiques de
composition identiques à celles de notre principal groupe de
référence de l’île et tout à fait comparables à celles rencontrées
aux antipodes du monde colonial, sur les importations chiotes
d’Histria par exemple. Les formes exportées correspondent
essentiellement à des vases à boire: calices et tasses notamment.
Le fait qu’à Naukratis, même le ‘Grand Style’ de Boardman
présente lui aussi des compositions chiotes et non naukratites
doit être signalé; si aucun exemplaire de cette variante
polychrome du style de Chios n’est encore attestée à Histria,
quelques fragments ont été exhumés à Bérézan.8
• Les productions de l’Ionie du Nord forment, comme à
Histria, deux entités séparées, dont l’une correspond à

Clazomènes et l’autre, plus importante encore sur le plan
quantitatif, à un centre non identifié de la même région,9 situé
sans doute plutôt du côté de Téos qu’en direction d’Erythrées ou
de Smyrne, dont les compositions sont différentes. Les officines
nord-ioniennes, dont les exportations outre-mer ont démarré
plus tard que celles de l’Ionie du Sud, ont choisi la voie, tracée
par Corinthe, de la fabrication en grande série, qui connaîtra le
succès commercial que l’on sait: ‘Late Wild Goat’ bâclé, fruit-
stands et assiettes à décor simplifié de grecques et motifs
lotiformes, bols ioniens... .
• Souvent proches des précédentes, les productions de
l’Eolide, d’allure souvent plus ‘provinciale’, ne semblent pas
avoir eu pour siège Phocée. Leur diffusion paraît avoir été
beaucoup plus restreinte que celle des exportations nord-
ioniennes, sauf si une connection se confirmait avec les coupes
ioniennes fines.
• A Naukratis comme à Histria, ce sont les mêmes groupes
milésiens qui sont représentés, l’un d’entre eux se détachant
nettement des deux autres sur le plan quantitatif. Du fait d’une
fondation plus tardive, Naukratis n’a pas livré de ‘Middle Wild
Goat II’, mais les groupes Fikellura de Cook sont massivement
attestés.
• Les grands centres exportateurs de coupes ioniennes
n’étaient peut-être pas tous localisés en Ionie du Sud. Divers
indices donnent à penser au contraire qu’une partie des formes
fines a pu être fabriquée par des ateliers d’Ionie du Nord /
Eolide.
• Par rapport à Histria et au reste de la mer Noire, où elles
font totalement défaut, les rares productions archaïques
imputables à l’île de Rhodes ou à sa pérée sont bien présentes à
Naukratis, sous la forme d’un petit nombre de coupes
vrouliennes et, semble-t-il de situles de Daphnae.10
• Il reste enfin à évoquer le cas des productions céramiques
coloniales fabriquées sur le sol égyptien. Elles ne paraissent pas
avoir connu un développement très considérable, du moins en
ce qui concerne celles à décor peint, et les rares spécimens que
nous avons pu identifier par les analyses n’ont pas été
nécessairement produits à Naukratis même. Toutefois, il existe
de fortes présomptions pour que ce soit le cas, à en juger d’après
le témoignage, bien postérieur certes, d’Athénée (Deipn.
9.480).11 Contrairement à une opinion tenace,12 sous-estimant
les capacités d’adaptation des artisans potiers installés à
demeure, il n’était point besoin d’importer de l’argile de Grèce
de l’Est, les vases exhumés sur place ne nécessitant pas de
caractéristiques de pâte particulières, à l’exception de la poterie
à feu: les spécimens que nous avons pu identifier présentent des
compositions qui sont celles de la basse vallée du Nil.13 Par
ailleurs, alors qu’à Histria les productions locales à décor peint
sont dominées par le style de Fikellura milésien, à Naukratis, les
quelques imitations identifiées par les analyses sont à
dominante nord-ionienne (‘Late Wild Goat’). Toutefois, il ne faut
y voir, semble-t-il, que l’effet du hasard, car la vaisselle
commune produite à Histria et, plus généralement, au nord de la
Naukratis: Les importations grecques orientales archaïques
mer Noire présente elle aussi un faciès dominant du type Ionie
du Nord – Eolide.
Telles sont donc, rapidement esquissées, les interprétations
archéologiques que l’on peut tirer des données d’analyse
chimique de cet échantillonnage de Naukratis. Mais il est aussi
une leçon sous-jacente ou sub-liminale à tirer de la démarche
archéométrique utilisée en ce qui concerne les critères de
différenciation, dont la fiabilité peut s’avèrer très variable:
élevée dans le cas des ressemblances et dissemblances de
composition (pour autant, bien sûr, que le réseau de références
locales soit assez complet), mais beaucoup plus aléatoire selon
la part tenue par les probabilités a priori, d’ordre archéologique
notamment. Ceci explique que les attributions d’origine en
laboratoire puissent parfois être remises en cause
ultérieurement, au fur et à mesure des compléments apportés au
réseau de références ou des progrès réalisés dans l’étude
typologique traditionnelle des catégories céramiques entrant
dans la composition des échantillonnages. Faute pour les
archéologues (comme pour certains archéomètres) d’en prendre
conscience, les analyses de laboratoire, telles les langues du vieil
Esope, peuvent s’avérer capables du meilleur comme du pire.
Notes
1 Sur ces matériels, cf. la rétrospective récente de Möller 2000a, 127-47,
et, surtout, l’excellente discussion de fond de Kerschner 2001, 69-94,
pls 7-10.
2 Dupont 1983, avec biblio. antérieure.
3 Cook 1954, II. D. m, 29-32; notre échantillon porte le même motif de
palmette à incisions et rehauts grenat que les spécimens illustrés pl.
10.2-3, mais il pourrait s’agir aussi d’un fragment de stamnos, tel
celui reproduit pl. 10.5. Sur les situles de Daphnae et la ‘Dark Ground
Ware’, cf. aussi Schaus 1995, 25-9, pls 11-12; Weber Figs 10-13, 20-22.
4 C’est aussi le cas pour deux autres échantillons de coupes / skyphoi
apparemment similaires du British Museum analysés par le
laboratoire de Bonn (Nauk 85-86), qui ne se rattachent à aucun des
groupes de référence répertoriés de Grèce de l’Est.
5 Kardara 1963, 276 no. 3. Cf. aussi la contribution de M. Kerschner
dans ce même volume.
6 Dupont 2000, 452 fig. 317.
7 Le même tesson a fait l’objet d’une analyse de la part du laboratoire
de Bonn (Nauk 33), qui l’attribue à un atelier du Delta du Nil, baptisé
‘Naukratis workshop’ (Cf. contribution de H. Mommsen dans ce
volume).
8 Korpusova 1987, 45 fig. 18.
9 Groupe ‘Ionie du Nord 2’ apud Dupont 1983, 31-3.
10 Naturellement, le résultat obtenu sur un unique échantillon du
groupe C de Cook demandera à être validé par l’analyse de pièces
supplémentaires et ne saurait être étendu à l’ensemble de cette classe
disparate.
11 Sur l’éventualité d’un production céramique sur place, cf.
dernièrement: Möller 2000a, 136-45; Piekarski 2001b.
12 Cf. encore, récemment, Kreuzer 1992, 54.
13 Sur les ressources argileuses de la vallée du Nil, cf. Hope 1977, 72-4;
Nordström et Bourriau 1993, 157-61; Aston 1996, 2-9. Sur les
compositions des argiles de la vallée du Nil: Hancock, Aufreiter et
Elsokkary 1986/7, 61-71. A en juger d’après les références de la
banque de données du laboratoire de Lyon, le Delta, du fait de la
densité des dépôts anthropogènes, constitue un milieu en moyenne
plus réducteur que le reste de la vallée du Nil, avec de fréquentes
pollutions par les phosphates et le manganèse. C’est un peu le cas
pour nos échantillons NAU 9 et 71 et manifestement le cas pour NAU
34, 67-8 et, surtout, NAU 33.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 81
Dupont et Thomas

Appendice

Inventaire des echantillons analysés

NAU 1 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 7. Deinos. Style ‘LateWild Goat’.
NAU 2 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 13. Deinos. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 3 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 26. Œnochoé. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 4 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 30. Deinos. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 5 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 31. Deinos. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 6 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 32. Deinos. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 7 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 34. Œnochoé. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 8 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 47. Fruit stand. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 9 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 48. Fruit stand. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 10 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 50. Fruit stand. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 11 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 24. Œnochoé. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 12 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 60. Deinos. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 13 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 133. Lékanè. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 14 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 134. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 15 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 135. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 16 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 136. Œnochoé. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 17 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 137. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 18 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 138. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 19 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 140. Œnochoé. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 20 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 68. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 21 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 66. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 22 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 70. Phiale. Style de Chios.
NAU 23 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 73. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 24 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 74. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 25 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 76. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 26 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 77. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 27 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 78. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 28 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 79. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 29 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 80. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 30 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 82. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 31 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 83. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 32 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 84. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 33 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 86. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 34 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 88. Tasse. Style de Chios.
NAU 35 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 89. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 36 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 91. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 37 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 93. Calice. Style de Chios.
NAU 38 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 96. Phiale. Style de Chios.
NAU 39 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 97. Bol (?). Style de Chios.
NAU 40 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, AG 232B. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 41 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 118. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 42 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 119. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 43 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 121. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 44 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 122. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 45 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 126. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 46 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 128. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 47 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 129. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 48 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 130. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 49 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 131. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 50 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 132. Œnochoé. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 51 Louvre, AM 1479. Pinax. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 52 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 51. Segmentteller. Style nord-ionien à f. n.
NAU 53 Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 45. Pinax. Style des Chèvres Sauvages.
NAU 54 Calice. Style de Chios. ‘Middle Wild Goat II’.
NAU 55 Coupe vroulienne ‘ancien style’ de Kinch ou skyphos indéterminé (surcuite).
NAU 56 Calice. Style de Chios. ‘Polychrome Style’.
NAU 57 Calice. Style de Chios. ‘Polychrome Style’.
NAU 58 Coupe vroulienne.
NAU 59 Coupe vroulienne.
NAU 60 Coupe ionienne fine. Forme Villard B1. Type ‘Lambrino’.
NAU 61 Coupe ionienne fine. Forme Villard B1. Type milésien.

82 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 Naukratis: Les importations grecques orientales archaïques

NAU 62 Coupe ionienne fine. Forme Villard B3 . Décor d’applique (tête de bélier).
NAU 63 Coupê ionienne fine. Forme Villard B3. Lèvre: frise de feuilles de laurier.
NAU 64 Bol ionien. Type à rosettes de points.
NAU 65 Bol ionien. Style ‘Late Wild Goat’.
NAU 66 Amphorette à v. n. Frise d’épaule: languettes incisées avec rehauts grenat.
NAU 67 Céramique grise. Rotella d’anse d’œnochoé.
NAU 68 Céramique grise indéterminée.
NAU 69 Céramique grise indéterminée.
NAU 70 Céramique grise indéterminée.
NAU 71 Oenochoé ionienne à bandes. Pâte siliceuse.
NAU 72 Lampe type Howland 19A.
NAU 73 Lampe ionienne massive a flancs en léger dévers.
NAU 74 Deinos. Style des Chèvres Sauvages éolien.
NAU 75 Alabastron fusiforme cotelé, à pâte grise et couverte noire. Cf. Samos VI.1, pl. 35 n° 271-5: ‘spezifisch samisch’.
NAU 76 Amphorette Style ‘Late Wild Goat’ à frise lotiforme incisée / v. n. / épaule.
NAU 100 Coupe ionienne Villard B2 / Hayes VIII.
NAU 101 Coupe ionienne Villard B2 / Hayes VIII.
DEF 1 Situle du type dit ‘de Daphnae’.

Resultats d’analyse
(en %, sauf pour MnO en ppm)
N° CaO Fe2O3 TiO2 K2O SiO2 Al2O3 MgO MnO
NAU 01 09. 8 06. 40 0. 94 2. 88 58. 4 19. 8 02. 60 0740
NAU 02 09. 5 06. 30 0. 91 2. 98 58. 5 19. 4 01. 90 0840
NAU 03 09. 9 05. 85 0. 84 2. 83 59. 6 18. 6 02. 30 0880
NAU 04 09. 4 06. 35 0. 95 2. 88 58. 8 18. 8 02. 05 1260
NAU 05 08. 8 06. 35 0. 91 2. 88 59. 2 19. 3 02. 35 1020
NAU 06 08. 8 06. 70 0. 87 3. 36 58. 6 19. 4 03. 10 1620
NAU 07 06. 9 07. 70 0. 91 2. 93 58. 0 19. 4 03. 30 1740
NAU 08 08. 2 06. 80 0. 91 3. 12 58. 1 20. 0 02. 70 1000
NAU 09 04. 7 10. 80 2. 29 1. 30 59. 3 17. 1 03. 80 1920
NAU 10 05. 3 06. 30 0. 92 2. 98 62. 4 20. 3 02. 75 0880
NAU 11 07. 6 06. 10 0. 93 3. 17 60. 4 20. 1 01. 95 0940
NAU 12 09. 0 09. 00 0. 87 3. 07 52. 8 19. 9 05. 40 1480
NAU 13 06. 5 08. 05 0. 91 3. 50 55. 7 19. 7 01. 85 1040
NAU 14 07. 9 07. 00 0. 96 3. 12 57. 4 21. 8 02. 60 0880
NAU 15 06. 3 07. 50 0. 97 3. 07 58. 4 19. 8 03. 10 1480
NAU 16 04. 7 07. 45 1. 00 3. 60 58. 2 22. 5 02. 35 1020
NAU 17 07. 2 08. 25 0. 95 3. 22 54. 6 21. 3 03. 80 1600
NAU 18 07. 6 08. 80 0. 83 3. 41 53. 4 21. 3 04. 60 1200
NAU 19 08. 3 07. 85 0. 88 3. 07 56. 4 17. 5 05. 40 1000
NAU 20 13. 2 06. 45 0. 72 2. 21 55. 5 13. 8 05. 85 1760
NAU 21 10. 8 06. 85 0. 74 2. 11 58. 1 14. 1 06. 00 1260
NAU 22 11. 5 07. 50 0. 77 2. 02 55. 9 14. 7 07. 20 1300
NAU 23 10. 3 07. 05 0. 75 2. 02 57. 1 14. 7 06. 90 1160
NAU 24 07. 7 07. 50 0. 81 2. 02 58. 9 15. 1 06. 60 1180
NAU 25 09. 0 07. 45 0. 79 2. 02 58. 3 15. 1 05. 55 1340
NAU 26 09. 0 07. 25 0. 78 2. 21 58. 2 15. 6 05. 70 1400
NAU 27 11. 7 06. 55 0. 70 2. 06 58. 6 13. 6 05. 45 1100
NAU 28 09. 0 07. 60 0. 80 2. 21 54. 9 15. 3 05. 70 1500
NAU 29 06. 9 07. 55 0. 88 2. 45 56. 1 16. 9 05. 00 1220
NAU 30 13. 0 06. 47 0. 67 2. 10 57. 0 14. 8 05. 65 2090
NAU 31 10. 0 07. 00 0. 82 2. 21 57. 5 15. 1 06. 25 1140
NAU 32 10. 1 07. 25 0. 84 2. 30 56. 3 16. 2 05. 90 1060
NAU 33 16. 1 06. 85 0. 71 2. 06 53. 2 13. 8 05. 45 6360
NAU 34 08. 2 06. 25 0. 84 2. 26 60. 3 15. 3 05. 15 2960
NAU 35 10. 1 06. 45 0. 74 2. 11 60. 5 13. 8 05. 50 1520
NAU 36 07. 6 08. 05 0. 82 2. 11 58. 6 15. 9 06. 20 1280
NAU 37 13. 2 07. 25 0. 75 2. 11 55. 0 14. 5 06. 30 1280
NAU 38 08. 7 07. 85 0. 85 2. 45 56. 0 17. 1 06. 05 1040
NAU 39 12. 4 07. 25 0. 72 2. 06 54. 5 14. 3 07. 35 1200
NAU 40 11. 0 07. 80 0. 79 3. 41 51. 8 16. 7 06. 70 1300
NAU 41 11. 3 07. 50 0. 76 2. 88 51. 7 16. 4 07. 35 1240

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 83

Dupont et Thomas

N° CaO Fe2O3 TiO2 K2O SiO2 Al2O3 MgO MnO

NAU 42 04. 1 06. 10 0. 80 4. 51 59. 7 20. 0 03. 00 1140
NAU 43 03. 6 06. 10 0. 81 4. 51 60. 1 19. 8 03. 55 0900
NAU 44 10. 9 07. 45 0. 78 3. 17 51. 7 17. 3 06. 90 1160
NAU 45 08. 1 05. 90 0. 72 3. 65 56. 9 17. 2 04. 40 1200
NAU 46 09. 3 08. 05 0. 81 3. 26 51. 5 17. 2 06. 40 1180
NAU 47 09. 0 07.35 0. 80 3. 46 53. 3 17. 9 06. 95 1060
NAU 48 08. 6 07. 40 0. 79 3. 31 54. 0 17. 3 06. 75 1100
NAU 49 07. 1 06. 30 0. 76 3. 89 57. 0 18. 3 04. 65 0820
NAU 50 07. 8 06. 80 0. 78 3. 65 55. 9 17. 9 05. 85 1060
NAU 51 06. 2 07. 00 0. 94 3. 35 57. 0 21. 6 02. 85 0940
NAU 52 08. 9 06. 74 0. 93 2. 96 58. 6 19. 7 02. 20 0850
NAU 53 12. 4 06. 63 0. 86 3. 11 53. 8 16. 4 05. 00 1050
NAU 54 12. 1 07. 05 0. 76 1. 61 53. 2 13. 6 07. 06 1150
NAU 55 12. 9 06. 46 0. 80 2. 83 53. 0 17. 2 03F. 57 0910
NAU 56 08. 5 07. 66 0. 82 2. 08 56. 7 14. 7 06. 84 1190
NAU 57 09. 3 07. 40 0. 81 2. 30 53. 6 15. 3 07. 22 1130
NAU 58 08. 9 08. 52 0. 77 2. 62 44. 3 13. 6 12. 20 0960
NAU 59 03. 9 08. 63 0. 84 2. 59 53. 9 15. 0 11. 86 0650
NAU 60 07. 6 07. 77 0. 95 3. 48 56. 1 19. 1 03. 47 1530
NAU 61 09. 5 06. 83 0. 74 3. 80 53. 1 17. 9 04. 31 1250
NAU 62 08. 6 08. 65 1. 00 3. 82 48. 6 21. 3 05. 09 1290
NAU 63 05. 5 08. 22 0. 98 3. 85 54. 1 21. 4 03. 57 1110
NAU 64 07. 7 07. 92 0. 94 3. 04 56. 2 19. 2 03. 37 1720
NAU 65 06. 9 09. 24 0. 89 3. 46 49. 4 21. 1 04. 82 1270
NAU 66 07. 1 08. 40 0. 90 3. 49 53. 6 20. 4 04. 20 1180
NAU 67 04. 3 06. 72 0. 93 2. 82 63. 6 17. 5 02. 70 1500
NAU 68 05. 3 06. 76 0. 89 2. 75 62. 9 15. 5 03. 63 2940
NAU 69 07. 6 06. 83 0. 87 2. 83 57. 7 17. 2 03. 02 0860
NAU 70 05. 5 07. 30 0. 89 3. 26 57. 3 17. 9 05. 20 1450
NAU 71 08. 6 09. 76 1. 83 1. 37 56. 4 15. 5 03. 60 1500
NAU 72 13. 5 08. 10 0. 86 3. 22 50. 4 18. 5 03. 79 1904
NAU 73 07. 3 08. 85 0. 82 3. 69 53. 8 19. 6 03. 86 1326
NAU 74 06. 30 08. 69 0. 87 3. 61 54. 3 20. 4 03. 98 1191
NAU 75 14. 18 07. 75 0. 84 3. 35 51. 3 16. 8 03. 87 3391
NAU 76 06. 10 07. 22 0. 86 3. 17 60. 3 19. 1 01. 99 1732
NAU 100 05. 8 08. 59 0. 96 4. 04 55. 4 21. 0 03. 06 1202
NAU 101 05. 5 08. 57 0. 95 4. 24 56. 4 20. 4 02. 91 1499
DEF 01 12. 1 08. 13 0. 60 1. 68 50. 3 10. 5 18. 00 1285

84 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at
Emecik, Knidia
Results and Questions Concerning Dorian Pottery Production
Regina Attula
Abstract
New finds from the recent excavations at the sanctuary of Apollo at
Emecik on the Knidian peninsula add much to our understanding
of East Dorian pottery. A large group among the finds are painted
plates. Some of them are decorated with marine or mythological
subjects and functioned as votive plaques. Others, with floral
decoration, for the first time attest the existence of a local, East
Dorian Fikellura production.*
The Turkish-German excavations of 1998–2003 in the extra-
urban sanctuary of Apollo Karneios at Emecik village on the
Knidian peninsula produced a great amount of Archaic Greek
material from the 7th and 6th centuries bc.1 For the first time
clays from the Knidia were analysed by Neutron Activation
Analysis (NAA), with 137 samples in all from terracotta figurines
and ceramic vessels.2 The main result of the NAA are seven new
and hitherto unknown chemical groups, named EMEA, B, C, D,
E, F and G (Fig. 1).3 These new results substantially enrich our
level of knowledge concerning the spectrum of Archaic Greek
finds from the Knidian peninsula and East Dorian pottery
production and its relations to Ionian and other workshops.4 As a
result, a new facet of the production of Fikellura pottery begins
to emerge.
Figure 1 Results of Neutron Activation Analysis with 112 samples
Archaic plates from the Knidan peninsula
One of the most important groups of material from the
excavation at Emecik are the plates and stemmed plates
(‘fruitstands’) or flat bowls, with a minimum of 40 to 45 pieces in
all.5 No complete vessels are preserved. Very similar plates and
stemmed plates are known also from the Archaic settlement
layers in Burgaz/Datça to the west of Emecik, the closest
Knidian findspot for Archaic East Greek pottery.6
These shallow shapes are about 30cm in diameter and are
distinguished by wide rims, several of them with handles or with
spool-shaped lugs. Their undersides can be completely glazed or
streaky; some have ring-bases. Two groups can be distinguished:
plates with patterned decoration and plates with figured
decoration, and in both groups several examples are designed as
segment plates.7
Figure-decorated plates: mythological and narrative scenes
Two plates from Emecik show single animals between various
filling ornaments: a bird with filling rosettes on cat. no. 7 and
the bull on no. 8 (Figs 2–3). Their provenance from a single
workshop is indicated by the use of the same bright reddish-
brown added colour, which was only observed on these two
fragments.
Figure 2 Cat. no. 7 (not sampled)
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 85
Attula
Figure 3 Cat. no. 8 (not sampled)
On the fragmentarily preserved flat plate cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4)
the figure of a Potnia Theron is depicted. She wears a long
belted garment, which on the lower part is decorated with
vertical geometric patterns of zigzags and filled squares. Her
uplifted arm is drawn in outline technique, the other is not
preserved. Her head and the upper body as well as the animals
that are her attributes cannot be reconstructed with certainty;
perhaps figures of lions or geese originally completed the
composition.
Similar East Greek plates with mythological figures include
well-known examples of segment plates, such as the Euphorbos
plate (Fig. 5)8 and the Gorgon plate in the British Museum,9 or
the Perseus plate in Berlin,10 all three from Kameiros. Elena
Walter Karydi admired them for belonging ‘to the heyday of
Archaic East Dorian vase-painting’.11 The movement of these
figured schemes, the frontality of the Gorgon face and the added
colours12 all add to the monumental effect of these pinax-like
painted plates.13 To this small list of mythological figures on
Archaic East Dorian ceramics furthermore may be added the
depictions of Typhon and a Boread on a situla from Tell
Defenneh in the British Museum (Weber Fig. 8).14 Among these
early mythological pictures15 the Euphorbos plate (c. 600 bc)
86 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 4 Cat. no. 6 (Emec 71, EMEB)
occupies a special position because of the complex depiction of a
scene with three fully armed men.16 Two of them are fighting
with their lances and round shields while the corpse of the third
is lying on the earth between them. All three hoplites are
individualized and recognizable by their name inscriptions.
Their names Menelas, Hector and Euphorbos are known from
the Iliad, although the picture and the epic text are not
congruent (Il. 17.70–89).17 The other mythological figures on
East Greek plates, which are single figures without name
inscriptions, are recognizable from their individual appearance
(Gorgo Medusa, Potnia Theron) or from their attributes
(Perseus, Potnia Theron).18 Here we find close parallels to the
representations of Athena Promachos on Chian pottery.19 All
these depictions of an epic scene or of a mythological figure
have both a decorative and a special narrative content.
Like the three above-mentioned examples from Kameiros,
many of the East Greek painted plates come from Rhodian
graves or from neighbouring island sites on Kos or Kalymnos. In
general, the date of the Dorian plates can be given as between
the middle/late 7th and the early 6th century bc. The problem
of their provenance is still unsolved.20 The archaeometric
analysis of the clay sample from plate cat. no. 6 (sample Emec
Figure 5 Euphorbos plate, British
Museum GR 1860.4-4.1

71, Fig. 4) shows that they belong to the main chemical group
EMEB, which contains most of the Archaic painted fine ceramics
from Emecik.21 In all probability, this group EMEB is to be
localized in an East Dorian pottery workshop, presumably in the
Knidia.
Karl Schefold already localized the London Euphorbos plate
and the whole ‘Euphorbosstil’ in the Knidian peninsula.22 Elena
Walter-Karydi, on the other hand, supported a Koan or
Kalymnian origin for this plate and generally described the
Knidian plates as of poor quality and much more provincial than
the painted plates from the Dorian islands.23 It led her to the
assumption ‘that Cos played a leading role in this school’.24 The
role of the Koan workshops will become clearer in future studies
on the Archaic material, which at present is little known. The
placing of the Potnia Theron plate, cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4), directly
into the Euphorbos group is not possible, since unfortunately
this piece is too fragmentarily preserved. Many formal features
match, but the shape of the rim is unknown and therefore the
profile is incomplete. On our cat. no. 6 there seem to be no
incisions such as are found on Hector’s shield-device on the
Euphorbos plate, or on the figure of Perseus on the plate in
Berlin, nor is there evidence for polychromy as it is found on the
Euphorbos plate. Moreover, no filling ornaments are preserved.
The best thematic correspondences are perhaps with the
London Gorgon plate, in so far as both depict a long-garmented
mythological female figure in partial frontality. What emerges,
then, from this comparison of formal and technical features is
that the plates with figured decoration are not a uniform group.
This would suggest caution in the use of the conventional terms
‘Euphorbosstil’ or Euphorbos group, or at least its limitation to
iconographic features. In fact, the name seems hardly suitable
for the classification or localization of the figure-decorated
plates, as regards either form, technique or content.
Furthermore, it is significant that many East Dorian plates
with figured decoration are comparable to Cycladic examples,
such as the Bellerophon plate from Thasos, which is probably of
Naxian origin.25 The similarities extend to both formal and
stylistic features. In order to establish a general model of the
various Archaic traditions in East Greek plate painting, we still
lack an overview of the figure-decorated plates from East Greek
coastal findspots and from the Aegean islands, with their
evidently Cycladic influences. Archaeometric investigations of
selected samples from Dorian, Ionian and Cycladic plates, with a
distinct archaeological question to be answered, would be very
Figure 6 Cat. no. 1 (Emec 1, EMEB) Figure 7 Cat. no. 2 (Emec 60, EMEB)
Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at Emecik, Knidia
Figure 8 Cat. no. 3
worthwhile.
Three other plates from Emecik, cat. nos 1–2 (Figs 6–7) and 5
(Fig. 11), show marine and submarine subjects. Best preserved is
fragment cat. no. 1 (Fig. 6) with the detailed depiction of a
rowing ship. It was painted in diluted glaze without incisions.
We see the bow with an apotropaic eye and the row of side oars.
The armed crew on deck is to be assumed behind the horizontal
line of overlapping semicircles, only four of which are preserved,
which represent the large hoplite shields. Around this ship a
dolphin and several filling ornaments are grouped.
Direct parallels for the plate cat. no. 1 (Fig. 6) are the two
segment plates cat. nos 3 (Figs 8–9) and 4 (Figs 9–10) kept in
the British Museum. They are said to have been ‘found in a small
temenos at Datcha near Cnidus’ and were probably in fact found
in the Apollo sanctuary at Emecik.26 As a result of the NAA we
find the sample from no. 4 (sample Knid 1) in the chemical
group EMEb, which is very close to the main local group EMEB.27
Numbers 3 and 4 each show the ship in the lower segment of the
plate. Fragment no. 4 depicts the bow side of a ship with the
long row of side oars and with two seamen on deck. Their big
eyes are drawn in outline technique, and in general their heads
are depicted with only few lines, which adds special
expressiveness to these figures. They are similar to the depiction
of the helmsman on a warship that is shown on a votive pinax
from the Athena sanctuary at Sounion;28 this example stands in
the strong iconographic tradition of ship depictions on Attic
Geometric vessels.29 The ship on plate no. 4 (Figs 9–10) is
accompanied by a dolphin. Remarkably, it faces to the right, the
opposite direction from the other ship depictions on plates. The
second ship plate in the British Museum, cat. no. 3 (Figs 8–9),
shows a nearly fully preserved ship facing left. Beside the long
Figure 9 Cat. nos 3 and 4, profiles
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 87
Attula
Figure 10 Cat. no. 4 (Knid 1, EMEb)
row of side oars the two steering oars are also preserved, as is
the aphlaston, with its high curved but not yet fan-like, pre-
Classical shape.30 Exactly the kind of steering oars as on cat. no. 3
and part of the ship’s hull also are depicted on a small plate
fragment from Emecik, cat. no. 2 (Fig. 7). This fragment,
therefore, should be restored to a very similar depiction as on
plate no. 3. These four ship plates, cat. nos 1–4, all from the
Knidian peninsula – two from the Apollo sanctuary at Emecik
and two in the British Museum – represent the most detailed
East Greek depictions of ships on ceramics.31 Presumably they
were all produced in the same pottery workshop, at least nos 1, 2
and 4. The smaller plate no. 3 differs from the other three in
shape, colour and the quality of the bright reddish-brown glaze,
but not in its fabric or in the artistic subject. Maybe this
workshop designed such ship plates in several sizes and
produced them in different varieties of glaze.
To this small number of East Dorian ship plates may, on
stylistic grounds, be added also an example from Cyrene, on
which only the bow of the ship is preserved.32 Furthermore,
there is a plate from Delos with a much more stylized depiction
of a ship between a large lotus flower and small rosettes.33
Another plate fragment with a marine subject from Emecik
shows an underwater scene (cat. no. 5, Fig. 11). Beneath two
dolphins a snake-like or Hydra-like sea-monster with sharp
triangular spikes seems to be represented. In Archaic East Greek
vase-painting this remarkable subject is without parallels, but it
is close to a single depiction on an Early Iron Age plate from
Cyprus.34 As a result of the NAA we find the sample from cat. no.
5 (Emec 59) in the main group EMEB, together with the two ship
plates from Emecik cat. nos 1–2 (Figs 6–7), the ship plate in the
British Museum cat no. 4 (Figs 9–10), and the Potnia Theron
plate cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4).
Figure 12 Cat. no. 9 (Emec 62, single)
88 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 11 Cat. no. 5 (Emec 59, EMEB)
The similarities between these plates with figured
decoration and painted pinakes (or plaques) have been
mentioned above. Maybe the ship plates from Emecik, and the
examples from Cyrene and Delos mentioned above, which were
also found in sacral contexts, had a similar function as
dedications in a sanctuary35 as did the Attic votive pinax from
Sounion.36 A strong further argument for this are two small pre-
firing drilled holes in the central upper part of many Archaic
East Greek plates, as can be seen on plate cat. no. 3 (Fig. 8).37
These holes served for hanging or otherwise attaching these
picture plates. Even if on the Emecik fragments no such holes
are preserved, such a representative use of the ship plates seems
suggestive.
Pattern-decorated plates: a further instance of local Fikellura
production?
In the group of plates or stemmed plates with patterned
decoration, cat. nos 9–12 (Figs 12–15) there is no less variety
than among the plates with figured decoration. One of the main
types here is the plate with concentrically decorated surface. In
addition to some plates with purely banded decoration there are
several with concentric decoration around a central floral motif,
often a big star rosette. As in the figure-decorated plates, some
pattern-decorated ones are also designed as segment plates.
Furthermore, added colours are rare and there are no incisions.
Many filling ornaments are in common with those on the figure-
decorated plates and also on the closed vessel forms (amphorae,
jugs). As with the figure-decorated plates cat. nos 1–2 and 5–6,
some of the samples from pattern-decorated plates fall into the
main chemical group EMEB.38
The fragment cat. no. 10 (Fig. 13) from the centre of a
stemmed plate deserves our particular attention, since it shows a
certain connection between Emecik and Naukratis. This is now
the third such link to be established via the Naukratis material
kept in the British Museum, in addition to an East Dorian cup
(Schlotzhauer and Villing Fig. 24)39 and Cypriot pottery.40 The
fine and thick white-ground surface of plate no. 10 contrasts
with the concentric black-glazed bands framing a row of
Figure 13 Cat. no. 10 (Emec 63, EMEE)

Figure 14 Cat. no. 11 (Nauk 8)
meander hooks. From the frieze of alternating lotus flowers and
buds between the glazed zones only the lower half of a single
bud is preserved, but the reconstruction to a lotus frieze seems
unequivocal. Stylistically very close to our no. 10 is a rim-
fragment from a plate or a stemmed plate, cat. no. 11 (Fig. 14),
from Naukratis kept in the British Museum.41 Its colour and
quality of clay, containing mica, as also the quality of the slip and
glaze are closely comparable. Furthermore, the lotus buds show
the same form as those on fragment no. 10. This slim shape of
the buds without a contour-line and with the glazed dot at the
bottom are known to be typical of South Ionian Fikellura lotus-
friezes (SiA II, MileA II).42 The band of meander hooks is also
present: this motif appears twice on no. 11, below the lotus frieze
and also on the rim. In comparing common stylistic features
from both plates no. 10 and no. 11, one would attribute them
without hesitation to the same South Ionian workshop.
The result of the NAA places cat. no. 10 (Emec 63) in the
group EMEE, which is a small and very heterogeneous group of
only five samples, including the plate fragment cat. no. 12 (Fig.
15).43 The fragment from Naukratis (Nauk 8) now finds a
chemical partner in another sample from Emecik (Emec 31),
which belongs to an unglazed base sherd, perhaps from an
amphora.44 Nauk 8 with Emec 31 form a chemical pair with a still
unknown provenance. Since there is no chemical connection
between the Fikellura-style plate no. 10 (Emec 63) and the
unspecific base sherd Emec 31, the provenance of both Fikellura-
style plates nos 10 (Emec 63) and 11 (Nauk 8) still cannot be
localized. On the present state of knowledge we have to focus on
two possibilities for an interpretation model: Either the assumed
local East Dorian (maybe Knidian) production of such Fikellura-
style stemmed plates was so close to South Ionian (Milesian)
that we should speak here of excellent copies – or maybe, on the
other hand, the group EMEE was produced not by an East
Dorian, but by a hitherto unknown South Ionian pottery
workshop, which perhaps is to be placed at Miletos or in the
surrounding region (SiA II, MileA II).45
Recently Richard Posamentir described a similar
phenomenon when publishing an important plate fragment
from Berezan kept in the Hermitage Museum.46 This plate shows
a lotus-frieze very similar to those on plates nos 10 (Emec 63)
and 11 (Nauk 8), but painted in a bright reddish-brown glaze.
From the technical and stylistic features one would identify this
piece as South Ionian or Milesian (MileA II). Surprisingly, the
sample of this plate (Bere 125) fits into the chemical group D-
Troy, which contains samples from Bronze Age and Iron Age
ceramics from Troy and its surrounding region.47 On strong
topographical and historical arguments Posamentir (as well as
Mommsen et al. this volume) assumes the localization of this
group D-Troy in a pottery workshop at Abydos (‘Hellespont
Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at Emecik, Knidia
Figure 15 Cat. no. 12 (Emec 58, EMEE)
workshops’). Furthermore, Udo Schlotzhauer has now
established Fikellura-style production at Naukratis (‘Naukratis-
workshop’), which included plates with a lotus frieze, too
(samples Nauk 25 and 33 [Dupont and Thomas Fig. 1].48
We should not be surprised by the discovery of further local
production centres of Fikellura-style pottery outside Miletos, in
view of the strong influence exerted by the highly-developed
South Ionian workshops on their neighbouring territories and
on the colonized regions.49 In this connection we should
consider also the southern dissemination of South Ionian
pottery, following here the supposition of Robert M. Cook and
Pierre Dupont: ‘Future discoveries are likely to show that it
[Fikellura] was popular generally throughout the southern part
of the East Greek region’.50
With the finds from Emecik we have, then, for the first time,
samples of Archaic South Ionian pottery from the Knidian
peninsula that also include Fikellura.51 Because the sherds from
Emecik were found in a filling layer at the southern temenos-
wall, we lack a stratigraphically-based chronology for the
Archaic ceramics.52 In addition to the plate fragment cat. no. 10
(Emec 63) sherds from Fikellura-style jugs and from banded
plates were found. Among them are three samples (Emec 64, 72,
115) belonging to the well-established group A (Kalabaktepe
workshop) and one sample (Emec 116) belonging to group D
(probably Miletos).53 From the Archaic settlement layers at
Burgaz/Datça five sherds (not sampled) from Fikellura-style
amphorae or from trefoil-mouthed jugs are known (MileA I-II).54
At present the number of Fikellura-style pottery in the Knidia is
not very high, and the amount of Fikellura among the South
Ionian material in general can be given as nearly a third. So at
least the supposition of Robert M. Cook and Pierre Dupont
concerning the Knidia can be confirmed. It seems, then, that the
assessment of Ionian influence on the assumed Cnidian pottery
production depends particularly on the localization of group
EMEE.
Recently, the features and chronologies of South Ionian
pottery have been comprehensively reviewed by Michael
Kerschner and Udo Schlotzhauer.55 In addition, as far as general
observations on the different features of South Ionian and East
Dorian pottery are concerned, I partly follow Elena Walter-
Karydi.56 First, there is her strong point that ‘the East Dorians
have a much greater interest in human figures and mythological
scenes than the South Ionians’, as we have seen here for
example with the Potnia Theron plate, cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4). Walter-
Karydi’s second point, that in the East Dorian regions Wild Goat-
decorated vessels are generally less dominant, is a more complex
matter. Her theory of the islands’ supremacy in comparison with
the mainland is to be rejected so long as there is such an evident
lack of comparable ceramic material from coastal findspots and
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 89
Attula
from the Aegean islands. Now several degrees of Ionian
influence can be distinguished, especially various local
variations in the incorporation of Ionian styles or patterns (as,
for example, elements from the Fikellura style) into the
traditions of the Dorian, or Carian, workshops.57 Referring here
to recent historical and epigraphic research,58 this complex
question can be formulated clearly with regard to one special
aspect: following the epigraphic evidence, there is a linguistic-
dialectical borderline between Ionia and Caria (koine Greek and
Dorian dialect). To what extent does this phenomenon
correspond with the evidence from the material culture – Ionian
(Milesian) influence on the one hand and ‘genuine Dorian art’
on the other? Research into this important question seems more
fruitful than the construction of differences between the Aegean
islands and the mainland in general.
If we go back to the localization of the group EMEE, we have
to mention once more the Fikellura-style examples from
Berezan and from elsewhere. The situation that is known from
the more northern East Greek regions, from the Troad
(Abydos)59 to the western Black Sea shore (as, for example,
Istros),60 could be similar to the Dorian regions (for example the
region of Iasos or the Knidia); at least we cannot exclude such a
model for Caria at present.61 What is significant here is the fact
that at the same time the production model in Ionia itself is now
being reviewed differently. In fact, the equation of Fikellura
production in Ionia with a genuine Milesian workshop (groups
A, D) must be revised in the light of recent investigations
showing us different chemical compositions for Fikellura
products, some of which may belong to non-Milesian
workshops.62 At present, the question of the localization of group
EMEE thus has to be left partially unanswered. But because of
the high frequency with which new archaeological-
archaeometrical results now keep on changing our state of
knowledge of East Greek pottery, I am convinced it will soon
also address this important aspect.
Outlook
The aim of this contribution is to understand Archaic Knidian,
and more generally, Archaic East Dorian, art as a component
part of a general phenomenon. At present, Dorian Archaic
sculpture,63 along with Hellenistic and Roman pottery,64 are still
better understood than Archaic Dorian pottery. We don’t know
much about Archaic Dorian workshops and the actual
dissemination of Archaic Dorian pottery.65 We can expect further
insights in future from other findspots at Dorian coastal sites
(such as Halikarnassos) as well as from the islands.66 The
numerous coarse and unglazed wares (jars, pithoi, mortaria
[Villing Fig. 17]67 and transport containers)68 must be included
in this. The final aim should be a chronological and stylistic
model of the East Dorian pottery production, in which the
Knidia will surely occupy an important position.69
90 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Catalogue
Cat. no. 1. (Fig. 6)
Attula 2006, 120 cat. 204, pls V.2; 60.1-2. Emec 1, EMEB.
Segment plate, fragmentary. Depiction of a ship, beneath a dolphin and
two filling ornaments.
From Emecik.
Cat. no. 2. (Fig. 7)
Attula 2006, 120-21 cat. 205, fig. 19, pl. 62.2. Emec 60, EMEB.
Fragment of a segment plate. Depiction of the back part of a ship, only the
steering oars and a part of the hull are preserved.
From Emecik.
Cat. no. 3. (Figs 8–9)
British Museum GR 1893.11-13.5; Schefold 1942, 129 fig. 1; Basch 1987, 242
fig. 511; Attula 2006, 119 pl. 61.4. Not sampled.
Segment plate, restored, diameter 17.5 cm. With four spool-shaped lugs
and two pre-firing drilled holes. Bottom completely covered in reddish-
brown glaze. Depiction of a ship with side oars, steering oars, and
aphlaston. In the upper segment an animal and filling ornaments,
partially preserved. Without incisions.
From ‘a small temenos near Datcha’.
Cat. no. 4. (Figs 9–10)
British Museum GR 1893.11-13.4; Schefold 1942, 129 fig. 2; Basch 1987, 242
fig. 510; Attula 2006, 119, pl. 61.2-3. Knid 1, EMEb.
Fragment of a segment plate, diameter 29cm. Depiction of the bow side
of a ship with embolon and akrostolion, on deck two seamen, a dolphin.
In the upper segment only the lower legs of an animal are preserved.
Without incisions.
From ‘a small temenos near Datcha’.
Cat. no. 5 (Fig. 11)
Attula 2006, cat. 203 fig. 19, pl. 61.1. Emec 59, EMEB.
Fragment of a plate. Depiction of an underwater-scene with two dolphins
and perhaps a seamonster.
From Emecik.
Cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4)
Attula 2006, 120-2 cat. 206 fig. 19 pl. 62.1. Emec 71, EMEB.
Fragments of a plate. Depiction of a Potnia Theron figure. Without
incisions.
From Emecik.
Cat. no. 7 (Fig. 2)
Attula 2006, 122 cat. 207, fig. 21, pl. VI.3; 62.3. Not sampled.
Fragment of a segment plate. Depiction of a bird, filling ornaments.
Added colour.
From Emecik.
Cat. no. 8. (Fig. 3)
Attula 2006, 122 cat. 208, pl. 62.5, 8. Not sampled.
Fragments of a segment plate. Depiction of a bull. Added colour.
From Emecik.
Cat. no. 9 (Fig. 12)
Attula 2006, 122 cat. 210, pl. 62.6. Emec 62, single.
Fragment of a plate. Ornamental decorated with bands of double-volutes
and hooks around a stylized flower and small dot-rosettes.
From Emecik.
Cat. no. 10 (Fig. 13)
Attula 2006, 142 cat. 279, pl. V.3; 73.6. Emec 63, EMEE.
Fragment of a Fikellura-style stemmed plate, cf. cat. no. 11. Concentric
zones decorated with meander and lotus-frieze between glazed bands.
From Emecik.
Cat. no. 11 (Fig. 14)
British Museum GR 1924.12-1.1113; Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.6.
Nauk 8, pair with Emec 31.
Fragment of a Fikellura-style stemmed plate, cf. cat. no. 10. Concentric
zones decorated with meander, lotus-frieze and hooks between glazed
bands.
From Naukratis.
Cat. no. 12 (Fig. 15)
Attula 2006, cat. 221, pl. 64.8. Emec 58, EMEE.
Fragment of a plate of remarkable weight and different quality of glaze.
Concentric zone decorated with a zigzag-band between glazed bands.
From Emecik.

Illustration credits
Fig. 1 after Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006, 202 fig. 36; Fig. 4 R.
Attula; Figs 5, 8, 9, 10, 14 the British Museum; drawings by K. Morton;
others: Johannes Kramer, after Berges 2006.
Notes
* This project under the directorship of N. Tuna (ODTÜ Ankara,
TAÇDAM), D. Berges (University of Hamburg) and the Museum at
Marmaris was supported by the Gerda-Henkel-Stiftung, Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft and Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
Berlin. I wish to thank the organizers Alexandra Villing and Udo
Schlotzhauer for the invitation to the colloquium.
1 Berges and Tuna 2000; Berges 2002, 2006; Tuna 2004.
2 Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006. The local reference group
were stamped handles from Knidian transport amphorae and debris
from the pottery workshop in Reþadiye, near Emecik.
3 In addition to Berges 2006, in this contribution are used some
corrected abbreviations as EMEA, EMEB to EMEG for the former
names of the new chemical groups EME-A, -B- to -G; or the now
obligatory classification term MileA for the former MilA.
4 For the history of research see Kerschner 2001, 88-9; Schlotzhauer
2001a, 115-6; Attula 2006, 113-4. For the terracottas from Emecik see
Kleibl 2006.
5 Attula 2006, 114-26 cat. nos 203-40.
6 Here, too, only fragments are preserved; see Özer 1998, 30-5 cat. nos
42-8. I thank the author for providing his manuscript. On the Archaic
East Greek sherds from Cape Tekir, at the tip of the peninsula, see
Attula 2006, 114.
7 Attula 2006, 114-5 n. 279. The formal and stylistic analogies between
the various East Greek segment plates and Attic, Corinthian,
Cycladic, and Laconian plates are to be examined in a separate study.
See also Callipolitis-Feytmans 1974; Todd 1973; Manyas 1984.
8 BM GR 1860.4-4.1; Walter 1968, pl. 129.623; Williams 1999, 43-4 fig.
31.
9 BM GR 1860.4-4.2; Walter 1968, pl. 130.626.
10 Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 136.1121. Mandel 2005, 152 n. 123 with
reservations regarding the designation of this figure as Perseus.
11 Walter-Karydi 1998, 292.
12 For polychromy in early East Greek vase painting, see Furtwängler
1980, 188-95 figs 8-11, pls 54-5 (hydria from the Samian Heraion,
c. 600 bc); Schaus 1988; Boardman 1998b, 143, 145-6, 221-2; Lemos
2000, 384-8.
13 Schefold 1993, 18: ‘Archaisch ist das Aneinanderfügen der
Bildelemente, hocharchaisch die einfache Größe der Formen und
typisch ostgriechisch, wie die Gestalten in bunte umgebende
Ornamentik verwoben sind’.
14 BM GR 1888.2-8.1. See Weber, this volume. In addition, two plate
fragments from Emecik may depict a crouching sphinx (or a lion?),
but as only the paws are preserved the figure cannot be identified
with certainty; see Attula 2006, cat. nos 209, 228, pls 62.5, 65.6.
15 For mythological representations in Greek pottery from Egypt, see
Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005. For Eastern, especially Cypriot
influence on the early iconography of Herakles, see Iacovou 1988, 19
cat. no. 33, figs 77-8; Karageorghis 1997, 221-3.
16 Schefold 1964, 8-9, 64 fig. 75; Walter-Karydi 1998, 292. The partial
similarity between the three warriors on the Euphorbos plate and
the battle-frieze figures on the Corinthian Chigi olpe (LPC, c. 640 bc)
is well-known, see Hurwit 2002.
17 Jeffery 1990, 153-4, 353-4; Ahlberg-Cornell 1992, 65 no. 42.
18 Tempesta 1998, 50-68; Coulié 2002, 121 cat nos 327-8, pl. 85.
19 Lemos 1991, 160 figs 12-13; Villing 1998. See Barclay (forthcoming),
I thank the author for information on her manuscript. For female
winged figures in Archaic Klazomenian painting see Cook 1981, 121-
2.
20 Rumpf 1933, 61 separated the Nisyros group and on Rhodes the
Vroulia, Kameiros and Euphorbos workshops. In this field, variations
in terminological use are frequent, as Koch 1996, 9 n. 27 subsumed
the Euphorbos plate under ‘Ostionien’.
21 Mommsen, Schwedt, and Attula 2006, 199-200; Attula 2006, 114-6.
As a sub-group to EMEB there is the small group EMEb with six
samples (which differs only in higher Cr, Ni and Co values). In
addition to the fine pottery also a relief-decorated pithos fragment
(Emec 129) belongs to EMEb, see Berges 2002, 139 cat. no. 32.
22 Schefold 1942, 129 figs 1-2; Schefold 1993, 17-8 cat. no. 4.
23 Walter-Karydi 1986, 76; Walter 1968, 89-92. For concluding remarks
Archaic Greek Plates from the Apollo Sanctuary at Emecik, Knidia
see Cook and Dupont 1988, 61 n. 55.
24 Walter-Karydi 1998, 292 n. 5.
25 Thasos 2057, see Boardman 1998b, 131 cat. no. 256.
26 BM GR 1893.11-13.4 and 5; Schefold 1942, 129 figs 1-2. I thank
A. Scollan and A. Villing for information and drawings. See Attula
2006, 116-7 pl. 61.2-4. For the identification of this sanctuary with the
Apollo sanctuary at Emecik, see Berges 2002, 112-7.
27 Supra n. 21. The technical abbreviation Knid (so far there is Knid 1
only) refers to the origin of the sample from the Knidian peninsula
outside Emecik, not the localization of the clay source. For the 137
samples from Emecik see Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006.
28 The upper part of his body is more elaborate and he is definitely
bearded. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 14935. Proto-
Attic, attributed to the Analatos Painter (c. 700 bc); Morrison and
Williams 1968, 73 pl. 8b; Sweeney 1987, 91 fig. 18; Koch 1996, 13-4;
Cook 1960, 67.
29 Ahlberg 1971, 25-38.
30 Höckmann 1985, 103, 155; Basch 1987, 242-3 fig. 511.
31 Even Torr 1894, 27, after the announcement of the fragments in the
British Museum in 1893, admired them for their ‘grandeur réelle’,
and Basch 1987, 242-3 fig. 511, especially appreciated the depiction on
no. 3 as ‘une galère différente de la précédente’.
32 Schaus 1985a, cat. no. 353, pl. 21.
33 Delos Museum B 6013; Basch 1987, 243 fig. 512.
34 From Kouklia-Skales, Cyprus Museum T.58/104 (CGIB, 11th or 10th
century bc); Yon 1970, 311-7; Iacovou 1988, 19 cat. nos 33, 69-70, figs
77-8; supra n. 15. Well-preserved shallow plate with two remarkably
elaborate handles and with a narrative scene underneath the base.
Underneath several animals two men with bow and arrow and with
two swords are shown fighting a bicephalic snake monster with a
dotted body and a forked tail – maybe an early scene of Herakles and
the Lernaean Hydra?
35 For parallels concerning the worship of Athena, see Wagner 2001.
36 Supra n. 28.
37 Walter-Karydi 1973, cat. nos 1102, 1100, 1090; Attula 2006, 116 n. 300.
38 Attula 2006, 119-24 nos 211 (Emec 70), 212 (Emec 26), 215 (Emec 2),
218 (Emec 56), 225 (Emec 121), 227 (Emec 43), 232 (Emec 113).
39 For the East Dorian cup (‘Knickrandschale’) with Phoenician graffito
(BM GR 1888.4-1.96; sample Nauk 51, EMEBe) see Schlotzhauer
2006, 301-7, no. 2, 316 figs 4-6. I thank the author for providing his
manuscript before publication. See also Mommsen et al., this
volume; and Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
40 On mortaria of Cypriot origin (samples Nauk 55, EMEA; Nauk 67,
EMEa; Nauk 68, EMEa), which match most terracotta figurines as
well as a sherd from a Cypriot bichrome jug from Emecik, see Villing,
this volume.
41 BM GR 1924.12-1.1113. Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.6. I thank U. Schlotzhauer
for information, cf. also Schlotzhauer, this volume.
42 Schlotzhauer (forthcomingb); Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005,
46-52, fig. 52 (SiA IIa).
43 Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006, 200. Group EMEE includes a
black-glazed handle from a krater (Emec 114), an unstamped
amphora handle (Emec 24) and a fragment from a terracotta bull
figurine (Emec 110); see Kleibl 2006, 178 cat. no. 552.
44 Depot, Inv. ST 01 I8b-10, 96. According to the inventory, this is a
‘Boden mit Standring, grob, oxydierend gebrannt’.
45 Attula 2006, 128, 145.
46 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, Berezan B 65-40, sample no. Bere
125. I thank the authors for providing their manuscript before
publication.
47 Mommsen, Hertel and Mountjoy 2001, 198-201.
48 Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b); Schlotzhauer and Villing, this
volume.
49 Schlotzhauer 1999, 239; Schlotzhauer 2001a, 119-21; Schlotzhauer
(forthcoming b); Attula 2006, 128 n. 319. For Ionian influence on
Archaic Carian pottery production, especially in the late 7th and the
first half of the 6th centuries bc, see Fazlýoðlu (forthcoming).
50 Cook and Dupont 1998, 88.
51 Attula 2006, 136-7.
52 For the situation on the lower terrace of the sanctuary, see Attula
2006, 101-2, pl. 17 figs 10-1.
53 Attula 2006, cat. nos 281, 284, 289.
54 Özer 1998, 41-3 figs 31-3.
55 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
56 Walter-Karydi 1998, 293; Attula 2006, 114-18.
57 Supra n. 49. On an assumed local variation of stemmed plates see
Attula 2006, 131 cat. nos 250, 251 (Emec 65, EMEB), 280.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 91
Attula
58 Bresson (forthcoming); see also Blümel 1993.
59 Supra n. 46.
60 Dupont 1983; Cook and Dupont 1998, 88-9.
61 Attula 2006, 128.
62 Information U. Schlotzhauer; Schlotzhauer, this volume.
63 Jenkins and Waywell 1997; Walter-Karydi 1998; Bruns-Özgan 2004,
201-8.
64 Mandel, Hübner and Kögler 2000, 161-94; Attula 2006, 113, 146-48
cat. nos 305-31; Berg Briese 2005; Kögler 2005; Þahin 2003.
65 One also needs to consider the assessment by Walter-Karydi 1982, 9
‘Daß Ostdorisches ... fehlt, ist weniger verwunderlich, denn
außerhalb der Ostdoris scheint diese Keramik sehr wenig verbreitet
zu sein’; Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b), 6; Attula 2006, 145 n. 344.
66 I would like to refer to the current research, including archaeometric
92 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
investigations, by M. Berg Briese at Halikarnassos and by M.
d’Acunto at Rhodes Museum.
67 Mortarium sherd from Emecik, ST 99 K8c-16, 78.
68 Berges 2002, 134-53; Attula 2006, 124 cat. no. 241 pl. 67.2; Attula
(forthcoming).
69 Finally, on terminology, see Schlotzhauer 2001a, 111; Kerschner and
Schlotzhauer 2005, 5. The adoption of this classification system,
which was applied successfully to Archaic Ionian pottery, is not only
desirable but also necessary for Dorian pottery. Since the term OdA
(Ostdorisch Archaisch = Archaic East Dorian) is at present the only
available designation, it is not yet truly distinctive. The application of
this terminology may succeed first with regard to local Fikellura
wares.
The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish
Excavations at Old Smyrna
Points of Contact with Naukratis
Stavros A. Paspalas
Abstract
The excavations at Naukratis produced a large quantity of East
Greek pottery of various categories which resulted in renewed
efforts in their study and classification. The present paper presents
a body of material – comprised mainly of dishes and fruitstands,
but also a number of plates – from the Anglo-Turkish excavations at
Old Smyrna that may be compared to some of the East Greek finds
from Naukratis. In the light of the results of more recent
excavations most of these Old Smyrna pieces and their parallels at
Naukratis may be identified as North Ionian, and similar vessels
are now testified to at many sites which attracted the attention of
East Greeks during the Archaic period. A contrast, though, is
apparent between Old Smyrna and Naukratis – at least as far as
the published record is concerned – as regards pieces probably of
late 6th- and 5th-century bc date decorated with loose floral
schemes, as they occur at the former site, but are not testified to at
the latter.
The pottery from Old Smyrna discussed in this paper forms a
small part of a body of material from the Anglo-Turkish
excavations collected and documented by J.M. Cook.1 I have not
examined the material, and my knowledge of it is based on
Cook’s notes, drawings and photographs.2 The wider corpus is
largely comprised of simply painted wares which may be
classified as belonging to the broad wave-line and banded
categories. There are also a number of more ambitious florally
decorated vessels, some of which are discussed here.
Firstly, however, the point should be made that if one were
to examine the published Naukratite material one would have
the impression that plain wares and simply decorated pottery
were not found in great numbers at the site. Although a small
number of unpainted vessels – all complete or substantially so –
were published, the fact remains that Naukratis, as we now have
it, cannot provide us with a full range of the pottery groups
present at the site during the Archaic period.3
Consequently, the points of contact between the Old Smyrna
material included in my wider study and that published from
Naukratis are few. They are primarily restricted to fruitstands
and dishes that are commonly placed in the Late Wild Goat
tradition and a number of plate fragments. All belong to John
Cook’s ‘Slipped Wares’ except for the fruitstand 11 (Fig. 9) which
he classified with his ‘Stripped Wares’, though it too in all
likelihood bears at least a simple slip. His general description of
the ‘Slipped Wares’ is: ‘The slip was normally white (sometimes
chalky and fugitive), and the glaze was most commonly red… .
The fabric is generally a pinkish buff and contains gold mica.’
In Cook’s papers find contexts of only a small number of
pieces are noted. In this article attention is focused on
presenting the Old Smyrna material and on the links which can
be established between the decorative schemes of its constituent
pieces and finds from Naukratis. Categories of plates, fruitstands
and dishes found at Old Smyrna but not at Naukratis are also
examined in order to present the full range of these shapes from
the former site as preserved in Cook’s notes.
Given that the find contexts of most of the Old Smyrna
pieces are not known they add little to our knowledge of the
chronology of the series. The few pieces for which a datable
context is recorded were either excavated in the ‘white tuff chips
level’ dated by Cook to the late 7th century bc (9–10, Figs 7–8;
13, Fig. 11),4 or in the Temple Deposit dated c. 600 bc (12, Fig.
10).5 Cook and R.V. Nicholls associated both these deposits with
the Alyattan destruction which they dated c. 600 bc, though E.
Akurgal would lower the date by a period of at least 20 years.6
Cook’s dating, of course, reflects the conventional chronology
which is also used by the excavators of most of the other
relevant sites. These carefully and elaborately decorated vessels
may be earlier than some of the simpler fruitstands and dishes
from other sites which are dated well into the 6th century bc.
The richly painted fruitstands 9 (Fig. 7) and 10 (Fig. 8) which
are dated c. 600 bc find a simpler parallel, as regards decoration,
in a fruitstand identified as North Ionian from a burial excavated
at Pitane. The burial also contained a Middle Corinthian
aryballos, datable c. 600–575 bc according to the conventional
chronology. On the basis of the chronology of the Pitane grave
(and caution is advised as it only supplies one limited context) 9
(Fig. 7) and 10 (Fig. 8), as well as 7 (Fig. 5) and 8 (Fig. 6), which
are decorated in the same manner, could be placed immediately
on either side of 600 bc if complexity of decorative design and
precision of execution are taken as indicators of an earlier date.7
The possibility, however, must be kept in mind that their ornate
decorative schemes may be due to the fact that they were
intended to be used as display pieces within a religious milieu as
those with a known context were found in the Sanctuary of
Athena.
Plates
The fragment 1 (Fig. 1) preserves the rim of a plate, the concave
upper surface of which is decorated with a running scrolled
spiral; each scroll carries one pendent and one ascendant drop.
The form of the rim may be readily compared with those of
other East Greek plates, but it is the decorative spiral which links
it to a group which, although small in number, is well defined.
The best preserved example is the plate now in Kassel,8 which is
reported as having been found at Klazomenai. Ornately
decorated with Late Wild Goat motifs in the three zones of its
floor, it is the scroll pattern on its rim which relates it to the Old
Smyrna fragment. Y. Ersoy has studied two other fragments of
such plates from the recent excavations at Klazomenai which are
closely related to the Kassel plate, down to the detail of the dots
along the band of the rim’s lower edge. Furthermore, he reports
five more fragments from similar plates found during survey
work in the Klazomenai area, and recent analysis of examples of
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 93
Paspalas
Figure 1 Plate no. 1 from Old Smyrna
this type from Berezan have confirmed the localization of
production at Klazomenai.9 The descriptions of the fabric and
surface treatment of these three plates tally well with those of
Cook’s ‘Slipped Wares’.
I know of one piece from Naukratis which is of relevance
here: the rim fragment of a plate published by E. Price.10 A
drawing of its profile, slightly heavier than that of 1 (Fig. 1),
appears here as Figure 2. It offers a very close match to the
Klazomenian and Kassel examples in all its decorative details.
All these pieces are closely comparable to the Old Smyrna
rim, but it will be noted that the latter has a simpler spiral
motif. On the other plates individual double-scrolled spirals
are linked by two parallel horizontal bars. Above and below
these bars there is a drop, as there is between the scrolls of
each spiral. This scheme also appears on a ‘bowl’ fragment
found at Naukratis.11 This motif is a variant of a similar pattern
in which the position of the scrolled spirals is actually occupied
by concentric circles. At least three such pieces are know from
Naukratis, one from a dish, the others from a lid and a krater.12
It may be noted that 1 bears a decorative scheme simpler than
that of its parallels. Here there is a running scrolled spiral, not
individual scrolled spirals, consequently there is no need for
linking bars with the result that the frequency of the drops has
been reduced.
The rim and outer floor of the Kassel plate are closely
paralleled by fragments excavated at Berezan and Olbia, while
the scroll pattern also appears on a similar fragment from the
latter site.13 However, from what is preserved the individual
scrolled spirals appear not to be linked by bars. This
observation also holds for a plate fragment from Histria.14 If
one was disposed to think in linear developmental terms one
could say that these pieces stand between the Kassel plate and
its cognates and the Old Smyrna fragment. Closely related
decorative motifs are found at Naukratis on a krater handle-
plate fragment and on a lid fragment where a zone of scrolled
spirals sits above one occupied by lotus palmettes and buds of a
type we shall shortly see on Old Smyrna dishes and their
parallels.15
Cook in his notes assigned the Old Smyrna plate fragment
to the 6th century bc, and, indeed, it is to that century that all
its parallels have normally been dated, though to wildly
varying quarters. The most comprehensively presented pieces,
those from Klazomenai, were found in contexts dated to the
late 6th century bc,16 while the Olbia fragment is presented
with sherd material dated to the second quarter.
To date it would appear that open vessels with decorative
schemes related to that of 1 (Fig. l) are, within East Greece,
concentrated in North Ionia: Old Smyrna and Klazomenai,
though it must be admitted that the numbers on which this
observation is based are very few indeed. Beyond this region,
they are found at Naukratis and in the Black Sea region along,
it may be noted, with other North Ionian material.
A small number of other examples of plates are found
94 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 2 Plate from Naukratis (BM GR 1965.9-30.500)
among the Old Smyrna material, again with a white slip, though
a grooved rim differentiates them from the piece just examined
but not from its related piece illustrated in Figure 2 excavated at
Naukratis. They normally bear floral decorative motifs or cross-
hatching on their rims, though a more substantially preserved
example, 2 (Fig. 3), bears geometrical schemes: triangles, series
of dots and what may be some form of cruciform motif in its
tondo. Its rim can be compared to, but not closely paralleled by,
plates found at Buruncuk (‘Larissa-on-the-Hermos’) ascribed by
the excavators to the second half of the 6th century bc.17
The plate fragments included under the numbers 3 and 4
(Fig. 4), too, may be generally compared to finds from Burunçuk
assigned to the second half of the 6th century bc, though Cook
suggests that they may date into the 5th. The zones of cross-
hatching are reminiscent of those on the top zones of skyphoi
from that site,18 while the disarticulated palmettes and other
floral elements find parallels on vessels of the ‘Pflanzen-
ornamentik’ category.19 Closer parallels for the decorative
schemes of these plates are not available among the published
material, but it may be noted that a few fragments from a
context dated by the excavators to the mid-6th century bc at Old
Smyrna bear loosely-structured florals (though more
undisciplined that those of 4 (Fig. 4)).20 A krater dated as Late
Archaic from the area of Metropolis shares in the same general
repertoire.21 Loosely-structured and disarticulated floral
elements appear not to be a feature restricted to the pottery
found at Buruncuk. They do not have any parallels among the
known material from Naukratis. The fragment 5 (Fig. 4) (and 3
(Fig. 4 top right)) bear properly constituted lotus-bud chains.
Cook places the two fragments numbered 32 (Fig. 4) with these
plates, and their decorative details are also paralleled by
material excavated at Buruncuk.22
The fragments of five different vessels are incorporated
under 6 (Fig. 4). Cook describes all three rim fragments as
deriving from plates with flat rims. Given the lack of any profile
drawings for these pieces it may be that they are similar in form
to the dishes discussed below, though shallower. Their simple
decorative schemes can be paralleled elsewhere in North Ionia
and Aiolis.23
Figure 3 Plate no. 2 from Old
Smyrna
 The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna
Figure 4 Plates nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 15 and 32 from Old Smyrna
Dishes and fruitstands
The dishes and the fruitstands are largely to be dated
approximately to the first half of the 6th century bc on the basis
of parallels with finds excavated elsewhere, though the earliest
examples may, as Cook places them, date to the late 7th century
bc. Many of the simpler examples are dated by Cook into the 5th
century bc. Their exteriors regularly carry series of horizontal
lines and bands. They may be divided, on the grounds of size,
into two basic groups. Most are small, with a rim diameter
between 11 and 15.5cm; a minority are larger with a rim diameter
between 21 and 26cm. Most of the parallels from Naukratis fall
within the latter range. Typically, they carry a slip on their
interior, while the exterior is not slipped.
The most impressive of the fruitstands or dishes excavated at
Old Smyrna is the piece published by E. Akurgal which pictures
a Potnia Theron on its interior. It has long been recognized as a
North Ionian work, and I mention it here as a reference point for
the dishes from the site to which it is related. It may be noted
that its incised lotus bud and flower zones can be profitably
compared to those of a fruitstand from the temenos of Aphrodite
at Naukratis.24
Figure 5 Fruitstand no. 7
from Old Smyrna
The first of the Old Smyrna pieces, 7 (Fig. 5), is close to the
Potnia dish, but is somewhat simplified. It is a dish with cut-out
handles, a form known previously from the site in Wild Goat.25
Its horizontal rim carries a dotted running dog pattern, which
may be seen as a simplification of the guilloche on the rim of the
Potnia dish. Its main zone is decorated with an alternately-
linked lotus flower and bud chain, simpler – as it is not incised –
in execution than the chain on the Potnia dish but still
embellished with added red. The inner zone bears a series of
tongues. It may be noted that the chain’s buds are rather stout.
Naukratis supplies a number of examples of similar non-
figural dishes, though none are as elaborately decorated as 7,
which is distinguished by the running dog pattern on its rim,
whereas all other examples bear meander hooks. Furthermore,
the lotus flowers of 7 consist of four elements, those on its
simpler parallels only of two. It can be noted, however, that
these simpler parallels from Naukratis have more complicated
radial arrangements on their floors rather than a series of
tongues.26 One dish fragment shares the feature of complicated
lotus flowers with 7,27 but they are different in form as they
possess an outlined central element. Furthermore, its buds are
slender, as are those of the other parallels from Naukratis. The
lotus chain on a fragment now in Alexandria stands between the
one on this piece and 7, the bud is similar to that on the former,
whereas the flower consists of solid elements.28 None of these
parallel lotus chains, where the relevant section is preserved, are
alternately-linked as is that of 7. Here note may be made of the
chain on the interior of a turned-up rim fragment, probably
from a fruitstand, illustrated by Akurgal from Old Smyrna.29
Again the lotus flowers have solid elements, but the buds are
slender as are those on the cited Naukratite parallels, and there
is a pellet beneath each flower, a feature also seen in the chain of
7 as well as on the following piece (8, Fig. 6) from Old Smyrna
and – in a simpler form – on a ‘bowl’ lower body fragment from
Naukratis and dish fragments excavated on Delos and at
Syracuse.30 Despite the differences in specifics between 7 and its
Naukratite parallels their shared features show that they belong
to the same stylistic tradition. Fragments of a dish simpler than
7, though similar to those from Naukratis, has been excavated at
Sybaris.31
The fruitstand 8 (Fig. 6) is even more ornately decorated,
though it lacks the narrow encircling meander hook zone seen
on so many simpler examples of the shape. The middle zone is
occupied by a chain in which the flowers have an outlined
central element and two rhomboid secondary petals, and so
share features both with 7 and a fragment already looked at
from Naukratis.32 The outer zone bears a metopal scheme in
Figure 6 Fruitstand no. 8
from Old Smyrna
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 95
Paspalas
Figure 7 Fruitstand no. 9 from Old Figure 8 Fruitstand no. 10 from Old
Smyrna Smyrna
which the ‘triglyphs’ divide concentric circles outlined by solid
circles alternating with dots. This is a slightly more complicated
scheme than that seen on the exterior of the fruitstand fragment
published by Akurgal referred to above.33 The inner zone which
surrounds the now lost tondo carries a series of alternating solid
triangles and diamonds with smaller diamonds occupying the
area between their apices. The overall trizonal arrangement is
not met among the other known finds from Old Smyrna, other
than the Potnia piece. Most other known East Greek trizonal
pieces differ considerably as concerns decorative motifs since
they are mostly figured, as a fruitstand from Naukratis shows,34
though its intricate lotus chains provide a point of contact with
their un-incised counterparts on non-figural pieces such as 7–9
(Figs 5–7). A close trizonal parallel, however, to 8 (Fig. 6) has
been excavated in the vicinity of the Artemision in Thasos on
which the inner two zones are decorated with floral motifs, and
the outer with a close variant to the scheme found on the
corresponding zone of the Old Smyrna vessel.35
Naukratis does, though, supply at least one example of a
two-zone dish with a metopal outer register in which triglyphs
separate concentric circles encircled either by solid circles, or
just possibly stemmed circles.36 The floor of the vessel was
occupied by an example of the usual radial motif. Similar dishes
with an outer zone on their interior wall that is definitely
comparable to 8 (Fig. 6) are known from the site. These dishes
have horizontal rims decorated by meander hooks; their outer
zones are metopal in arrangement and compare well with that
of the trizonal piece.37 There are, however, differences. On the
three pieces from Naukratis offered as parallels the painting is
not as carefully executed, and the tongues are somewhat more
elongated. A dish fragment from Tell Sukas is also to be placed
with these pieces as is a fruitstand from Sybaris.38 The
differences between these parallels reinforce the special
character of 8 and the extra effort invested in its manufacture.
The stout tongues of 8, which are characterized by a nearly
consistent width, appear on two other fragmentary fruitstands
among the Old Smyrna material. On the first of these, 9 (Fig. 7),
which was found in the ‘Temenos chips’ layer dated c. 600 bc,
they flank a single lotus flower which rests on the groundline of
its register. The flower is composed of several elements, the
central one of which is outlined – a feature seen, as already
noted, in a simpler form, on a fragment from Naukratis.39 The
liberal use of added red, along with white, associates this
fruitstand with 8 (Fig. 6) and the Potnia vessel from Old
Smyrna. The second of these fruitstands, 10 (Fig. 8), comes from
the same find context. It too bears an outer zone of tongues
96 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 9 Dish no. 11 and krateriskos from Old Smyrna
separated, at least on the fragment preserved, by a solid
triangle-like ‘leaf’ comparable to those in the inner zone of 8
(Fig. 6). The small rhomboidal elements in its inner field may be
compared to those in the corresponding zone on 11 (Fig. 9), a far
simpler fruit dish from Old Smyrna as well as on a two-zone dish
with monochrome decoration from the Samian Heraion, the
outer zone of which carries a series of lotus flowers and buds
without a linking chain.40
A number of other tongue-bearing fragments from Naukratis
should be mentioned. All carry stout tongues but of a slightly
more elongated form than those of 8–11 (Figs 6–9); some
occasionally carry added paint. One is very small and preserves
little else other than its rilled horizontal rim; a leaf or bud may
be seen between the tongues so the scheme can be interpreted
as a simpler version of that seen on 10 (Fig. 8).41 The second is
similar to the simpler vessels we have seen so far in that its tondo
carries a radial scheme while the ‘triglyphs’ divide a single motif,
in this instance quartered squares (note the scheme of 11, Fig.
9).42 The third is from a dish with inturned rim. The upper band
carries a series of meander hooks, below which tongue
‘triglyphs’ alternate with lotus flowers (compare 9, Fig. 7);43
three other fragments carry the same decorative details, but
they have horizontal rims.44 A better idea of what such a dish
would have looked like is offered by the example, also from
Naukratis, now in Boston, where each metope is occupied by a
lotus flower, and the tondo carries a radial motif.45
The Old Smyrna metopal dishes and their parallels from
Naukratis are characterized by ‘triglyphs’ comprised of stout
tongues. They can be contrasted with corresponding vessels on
which the triglyphs consists of rays. Scientific analyses have now
confirmed older views that we should generally identify the first
group as North Ionian, though with some Aiolian
representation, and the second as South Ionian.46 There is, of
course, little surprise in finding North Ionian material at Old
Smyrna, and it is clear that it also made its way to Naukratis in
some numbers, which – again – occasions no surprise given
Herodotus’ (2.178) testimony that Teians, Phokaians and
Klazomenians were officially involved in the Hellenion.
However, the distribution of such material was not restricted to
regions where a North Ionian presence is testified to by the
written sources.
A good parallel for the metopal decorative scheme, with a
lotus flower in each metope, can be found on a fruitstand from
Pitane found with a Middle Corinthian aryballos,47 and so
should date no earlier than the beginning of the 6th century bc
according to the conventional chronology. From the same site a
 The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna
Figure 10 Fruitstand no. 12 from Old Figure 11 Fruitstand no. 13 from Old
Smyrna Smyrna
dish with metopes occupied by concentric circles encircled by a
series of solid circles also came to light.48 Naukratis provides
evidence that this scheme common in North Ionia and Aiolis
was happily used on contemporary figured wares also assigned
to North Ionia, as indeed were groups of tongues with
intervening lotus flowers as seen on 9 (Fig. 7).49
Beyond Old Smyrna, its neighbouring sites, Aiolis and
Naukratis, the bizonal decorative schemes examined here are
found on pieces, usually identified as North Ionian, both with
inturned and horizontal rims, in widely distributed regions.
Dishes with lotus chains in the outer zone have been excavated
at Samos, Naxos, Rhodes, Cyrene, Selinous, Megara Hyblaea,
Berezan, Olbia and Pantikapaion.50 A fragment of a dish with a
lotus flower flanked by the tongues of a ‘triglyph’ comes from
Gravisca and another from Delos, while a close parallel is now
known from Amorgos.51 The rims of all these pieces carry a
meander hook pattern; an inturned rim fragment from Delos
bears a lotus flower between ‘triglyphs’ but lacks the meander
hook zone.52 A piece with more elaborate lotus flowers was
excavated at Cyrene.53
Similarly, bizonal dishes and fruitstands with concentric
circles in metopes, reminiscent of those seen on the trizonal
fruitstand 8 (Fig. 6) can be documented at Delos, Thera, Leukas,
Kerkyra, Cyrene and Berezan (where the usual meander hook in
the outer zone is replaced by a series of dots).54 A scrap of a dish
with an inturned rim decorated with a meander hook zone
followed by one preserving parts of tongues is also known from
Ephesos, while an even smaller piece from Phokaia preserves
the same tongue motif but there is only a horizontal band at its
rim, not a meander hook series.55
This quick survey of findspots of pieces related to those from
Old Smyrna and Naukratis concentrates on a number of sites in
the Black Sea region, the Cyclades, and with somewhat less
intensity on the west, though one may also note a lid from
Selinous on which we see both a lotus chain zone and a
concentric-circles-in-metopes zone.56 The impression received
from this survey is that 7–10 (Figs 5–8) are more carefully
produced products than their parallels cited here.
Two of the Old Smyrna fruitstands stand apart. The first, 12
(Fig. 10), was found among the votives from the ‘Cella’ area of
the Temple of Athena, and the second in the ‘Temenos chips’
layer, and so both were dated by the excavators to c. 600 bc. The
first carries below the outermost zone of meander hooks a series
Figure 12 Dish no. 14 from Old Figure 13 Fruitstand no. 16 from Old
Smyrna Smyrna
of individual suspended meander elements, and then radially-
placed petals around a tondo with a solid centre. On the second,
13 (Fig. 11), a series of individual meander elements rise from
the groundline; the tondo is comprised of a number of circles
and a series of stemmed solid circles. The use of meander
elements in this fashion is not commonly met on dishes.57 The
closest parallel I have been able to muster is from Naukratis
though the meander elements do not supply a perfect match,58
nor do those on a fragment excavated at Selinous.59 A dish with a
meander from Tocra is placed slightly earlier than the majority
of such examples at that site, i.e. closer to the beginning of the
6th century bc.60
The other major category of dishes and fruitstands from Old
Smyrna are those that carry the one-zone decorative scheme in
which the ornamental motif is restricted to the floor of the
vessel, while the interior upper wall is banded. The dish
fragment 14 (Fig. 12) from the City Wall NE shows the scheme at
its simplest: meander hooks on the rim, bands on the upper
interior wall followed by a series of petals around the tondo.
Most of the known fragments from Naukratis which may belong
to this class preserve little more than parts of their rim and
upper body.61 Two bear sections of their floor decoration, which
consists of bud and leaf schemes,62 or radial schemes,63 though
more complicated than the decoration on 14. Added red and
white paint in the decorative schemes of these Naukratite finds
distinguish them from 14. Comparable dishes are also known
from Old Smyrna, though too little remains of 15 (Fig. 4) to
determine its decorative scheme.64
Many of the comparable fruitstands and dishes which have
been found elsewhere, as at Perachora, Akragas and Leontini,65
are decorated with a more complicated series of encircling lines
and bands than that found on 14, or alternatively, the bands are
of different colours, often with a group of white-red-white
horizontal lines set upon a black band or a sequence of black-
red-black bands. The dishes published by F. Utili from a
cemetery of Assos provide a good range of the various
decorative schemes that may be met, as do those from Pitane,
Delos, Tell Sukas as well as Histria, Pantikapaion, Myrmekeion
and Olbia on the Black Sea coast.66 Northern Aegean sites have
also produced examples of this category.67 Such open vessels,
characterized by their meander-hook zones, have been
associated with groups defined by Neutron Activation Analysis
that have been attributed to North Ionian centres.68
The fruitstand 16 (Fig. 13) excavated in the Temenos area
carries two sets of white-red-white horizontal lines in the
banded upper wall of its interior, and its floor ornament is more
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 97
Paspalas
Figure 14 Dish no. 17 from Old Figure 15 Dish no. 18 from Old
Smyrna Smyrna
complicated than that of 14 (Fig. 12). What is preserved is
enough to indicate that groups of petals alternated with a
triangular leaf-like element, for which I have not found an exact
parallel. Nonetheless, the scheme on a dish fragment from
Naukratis is close,69 and similar floor schemes occur on dishes
and fruitstands excavated at Berezan, Apollonia Pontica, Histria,
Corinth, Gravisca, Cyrene, Tell Sukas, and on an example in
Cambridge and a dish fragment in Reading.70 Two plates from
Tarsus also have a closely comparable floor scheme, although
their upper interior walls are covered by a single glazed band,71
a feature which distances them from the dishes and fruitstands
presented here.
The dish 17 (Fig. 14), with a cut-out rim, was found in a
child’s pithos grave at City Wall East.72 Its floor decoration is
essentially geometrical in concept rather than floral and does
not have any close parallels among the known material from
Naukratis. However, we should see the scheme as within the
North Ionian decorative tradition despite the fact that it is not
floral as are most of its cognates; the floor decoration of a
shallower dish from Klazomenai can act as a link.73 A recently
excavated fruitstand from Liman Tepe, Klazomenai, offers a
parallel for a floor decorated with radially arranged geometrical
motifs separated by dot rosettes, while on the floor of a ‘dish’
from Naukratis a dot rosette is positioned between each of the
stylized leaves and petals of the radial composition.74
The profile of 18 (Fig. 15) is characterized by a rather
ornately worked rim and a sharp carination point on its exterior
wall. This profile type is closely paralleled by dishes with
meander hook-decorated rims from Assos.75 The dotted angular
‘s’ zone on its rim sets the Old Smyrna piece apart from the more
mundane pieces with simple meander hooks, though it does link
it to dishes from Klazomenai with ‘s’ zones on their rims.76 Its
cut-out rim, and especially the dot rosette in added white on the
preserved handle also distinguish this dish. This use of added
white may be paralleled by a similarly discrete motif on a rim
fragment from Naukratis that probably comes from a bizonal
dish with a metopal zone with lotus flowers in its outer register.77
The interiors of the parallels from Assos to 18 are regularly
decorated with bands and a radial motif on the floor. The
interior of the Old Smyrna dish, though, is plain and can be
paralleled by an example with a comparable profile from
Assos.78 F. Utili dates all the Assos pieces c. 580–60 bc, a period
considerably later than Cook’s estimation of the date of 18
‘seems 7th century context’ (see Appendix part B infra).
The simple fruitstand 19 (Fig. 16) finds its proper place
98 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 16 Fruitstand no. 19 from Old Figure 17 Fruitstand no. 20 from Old
Smyrna Smyrna
among the output of North Ionian dishes and fruitstands. The
profile of its distinctive vertical rim is closely paralleled by finds
at Klazomenai, Assos and Tocra, as well as on the far more
ornately decorated fruitstand 9 (Fig. 7).79 The use of a series of
dots to encircle a central decorative element is not unknown,80
and again appears in a more ambitious form on 9 (Fig. 7) and at
Naukratis on a ‘plate’, two dishes and a fruitstand; the latter and
the ‘plate’ also have similar floor patterns to that of 19 (Fig. 16).81
The fruitstand 20 (Fig. 17) stands apart. Its floor decoration
of radial petals occasions no surprise. What is preserved of its
interior’s outer zone – a group of drop-petals that consisted of at
least two petals – is unusual (though see too 27, Fig. 22). Both
fruitstands and dishes normally carry fully decorated interior
zones; here there are clearly extensive areas of this zone which
were left undecorated, and groups of drop-petals alone may
have appeared at intervals in this field. Furthermore, the
treatment of the exterior of the piece also differentiates it from
most of its cognates as it carries zones that bear, in Cook’s
words, a yellow/white slip. These zones contrast with the
painted bands and the ‘natural’ zones. The lack of known
parallels for this piece leaves open the possibility that it is to be
seen as an example of a group with a restricted distribution
within the area of northern Ionia.
The remaining fruitstands and dishes are far more simply
decorated and do not find parallels among the published
Naukratis material. On the basis of the approximate parallels
offered by the material excavated at Burunçuk they may be
dated to the second half of the 6th century bc or later. The
fruitstand 21 (Fig. 18) is characterized by its loose palmette, a
feature which may not possibly be related to the suspended
drop-petals on the 20 (Fig. 17). Dishes may be decorated, as is 24
Figure 18 Fruitstand no. 21 from Old Figure 19 Dish no. 22 from Old
Smyrna Smyrna
 The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna
Figure 20 Dish no. 23 from Old Figure 21 Dish no. 24 from Old
Smyrna Smyrna
(Fig. 21), with hatched triangles along with drop-petal
formations which distantly reflect their floral origins, or
primarily with loosely arranged floral motifs alone, such as 25b
and 27 (Fig. 22). These are to be compared to the material dated
by its excavators to the 6th century bc from Buruncuk.82
Hatched triangles also dominate the decorative scheme of 25a
(Fig. 22); approximate parallels are known from Buruncuk.83
Similarly, the painted schemes on the dishes 22 and 23 (Figs
19–20) find parallels among material excavated at that site; the
former may bear a hatched triangle on its outer zone.84 It may be
noted that their floral decorative elements are, as are those of
the plate fragments 3–6 (Fig. 4), generally more degenerate
than the most disarticulated palmette flowers and buds
encountered in K. Iren’s Aiolische Tierfriesstilkeramik, which
date within the first half of the 6th century bc.85 It is probable
that they should be seen as later in date than the more
accomplished Old Smyrna dishes and fruitstands examined
above, though other examples and parallels from dated contexts
would be welcome so that further work on their dating could be
undertaken. The interior wall of the small dish 28 (Fig. 22)
carries a series of solid circles encircled by dots, a decorative
scheme apparently related to the series of more delicate dot
rosettes well known among simpler East Greek schemes.86
Even more parochial is the little ‘stemmed dish’ 29 (Fig. 23).
It lacks a proper white slip and is covered rather with a ‘thin
wash’. While its central decorative element may be reminiscent
of earlier East Greek representations of trees,87 it may be best to
Figure 22 Dishes nos 25, 25a, 25b, 26, 27 and 28 from Old Smyrna
Figure 23 Dish no. 29 from Old Figure 24 Dish no. 30 from Old
Smyrna Smyrna
simply consider it a rough cruciform scheme. It would be
difficult to relate this piece directly to most of the other vessels
presented here, and it may well be that its manufacturer stood
beyond the pottery-producing traditions represented by the
other pieces.
The dish 30 (Fig. 24), with one of probably four lug handles
preserved, bears testimony to connections with better-known
stylistic traditions. Cook does not record its find context, so
there are no external grounds from which to determine its date.
The generally loose nature of its painting is comparable to that
of a dish excavated at Troy.88 It may be argued that the
decorative motifs of 30 indicate that its painter was not unaware
of Late Wild Goat filling ornaments such as dotted concentric
circles and the quartered square – motifs found on a cognate
piece at Naukratis and, of course, elsewhere.89 The decorative
scheme – quartered squares separated by groups of tongues – of
the middle field of the Naukratis parallel can be seen in a
simplified form on the Old Smyrna fruitstand 11 (Fig. 9), where
the squares are solidly painted. This nexus of relationships
between the decorative elements of North Ionian vessels
excavated at Naukratis and Old Smyrna is further reinforced by
the krateriskos that is pictured next to 11 (Fig. 9) in Cook’s
photograph. The painted scheme on this vessel, the shape of
which can be documented also at Klazomenai, Cyrene and
Tocra,90 is comprised of the stout tongues seen on many North
Ionian dishes and fruitstands, and of meander hooks seen on the
same vessels and on its counterpart from Tocra. Many of the
simpler dishes and fruitstands examined here find their place in
a pottery-producing tradition which included a wider range of
shapes, as the Old Smyrna krateriskos indicates.
The small dish 31 (Fig. 25) belongs to a category the
examples of which are characterized by added white stripes, and
occasionally other motifs such as rosettes, on the upper surface
of their rims. Such dishes have been excavated at Buruncuk,
Tocra, Tell Sukas and Cyrene,91 as well as in the Black Sea region
at sites including Pantikapaion and Myrmekeion.92 While the
category is well represented among the published finds of the
first three sites, neither the profiles of the Old Smyrna dish nor
its decorative scheme are exactly paralleled. The added white
elements on the rim of 31 are more tongue-like than simple
stripes, and the interior and exterior surfaces of these dishes
Figure 25 Dish no. 31 from Old Smyrna
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 99
Paspalas

carry more bands than are usually found on their parallels. Appendix
Despite the fact that the sites at which parallels for this vessel
have been found produced North Ionian material that The aim of this Appendix is to provide the reader with the ‘raw
corresponds to finds made both at Naukratis and Old Smyrna, material’ of this paper as presented in J.M. Cook’s notes. It is
no vessels from Naukratis have been published which may be divided into three parts. Part A is a concordance which gives the
closely compared to 31.93 numbers used in this article for the Old Smyrna material and
their corresponding numbers in Cook’s notes. In Part B I give a
In conclusion list of most of the pieces discussed in this paper. The list is
An examination of the plates, dishes and fruitstands from Old divided into three sections defined by Cook. The first number in
Smyrna shows that they belong to categories characteristic of the left-hand column is the number assigned to the piece in
North Ionia, features of which are also met on vessels produced Cook’s notes; the following number is the number of the piece in
in Aiolis. The earlier Old Smyrna pieces find, by and large, the text of the present article. In the right-hand column I give
parallels in the corpus of published pottery from Naukratis, any details Cook included by his drawing of the piece. (Note that
though the most elaborate pieces stand apart. What direct links the added purple mentioned by Cook in his notes for the
exist between the relevant pieces from these two sites are drawing of ID [13] is not indicated on his drawing.)
further strengthened by finds made elsewhere which are related The details which accompany the drawings should be read
to both bodies of material. These sites are located primarily on in conjunction with Part C of the Appendix which is comprised
the Black Sea coast, and in the Cyclades, the eastern of Cook’s notes on his categories. Cook’s no. 20 in Part C is not
Mediterranean and Sicily, though a greater concentration of presented here as it has been published in Cook 1958/9, 33, pl.
finds is noticeable in the Black Sea area and especially at 6.e. I have not been able to find any details or drawings for the
Naukratis. The distribution of these end of the 7th- and 6th- pieces II and IJ among Cook’s notes. It is conceivable that these
century bc vessels largely corresponds to the routes of East pieces may be represented among the vessels referred to in Cook
Greek mariners and merchants who we know, from the written and Nicholls 1998, 23–6 (see n. 4 supra).
and epigraphical sources, were conspicuous at Naukratis.94 It In order to avoid the risk of introducing any unwarranted
may also be noted that decorative motifs which characterize features into Cook’s drawings they have been inked exactly as he
many of the Old Smyrna pieces and their parallels are also found prepared them. Consequently, the exterior decoration of 16 is
on other North Ionian shapes, and so these open vessels are tied only shown summarily as is that of 21. Note that, uniquely, 19 is
into a broader pottery manufacturing milieu. illustrated by an inked drawing found in Cook’s notes.
Equally notable from the above discussion is that the
relationship between the Old Smyrna and Naukratis material Part A
does not hold for 3–6 (Fig. 4) and 20–30 (Figs 17–24). Vessels Concordance
decorated with loosely-arranged or disarticulated floral motifs No. Cook’s No. Figure
are rarely present beyond their areas of manufacture, and are 1 10 (drawing) 1
2 14 3
not found among the known Naukratis finds nor among other
3 12 4
finds of later Greek pottery made in Egypt. 4 12 4
Of the dishes and fruitstands from Naukratis mentioned in 5 10 photograph 4
this paper only a few have a published findspot, and all these are 6 15 4
7 IK 5
recorded as having been excavated in a temenos.95 A number of
8 IH 6
the pieces from Old Smyrna, and notably some of the more 9 IE 7
ornate examples, were found in the Athena Sanctuary.96 Many of 10 IC 8
the parallels from other sites cited here, for example those form 11 No number 9
12 IB 10
Tocra and Cyrene, were also found in sanctuaries. This evidence
13 ID 11
indicates that dishes and fruitstands could frequently be 14 IN 12
encountered in East Greek sanctuaries, either as votives or items 15 9 4
of equipment. Equally, though, material such as that from Assos 16 IF 13
17 IL 14
and 17 (Fig. 14) from Old Smyrna show that these vessels could
18 IM 15
be placed in funerary contexts, while the parallel pieces studied 19 IA 16
by Ersoy from Klazomenai appear to come from domestic 20 IG 17
deposits, as well may 18 and 20 (Figs 15 and 17). 21 2b 18
22 16 19
23 17 20
24 18b 21
25 3 22
25a-b 5 22
26 4 22
27 7 22
28 6 22
29 2a 23
30 19 24
31 18 25
32 13 4

100 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna

Part B Slipped Ware: dishes and plates, 6th and 5th centuries
2a. 29 drawing P46. No details.
2b. 21 drawing No details.
Slipped Ware: dishes and plates, 7th century
3. 25 photograph No details.
Note: Plain text: notes on drawings. Italics: instructions on drawings
4. 26 photograph No details.
5. 25 a & b photograph No details.
IA. 19 drawing No details 6. 28 photograph No details.
IB. 12 drawing (K318) Temenos H3 7. 27 photograph No details.
Buff micaceous clay. On inside black glaze 9. 15 photograph No details.
design on white slip. 10. 1 drawing No details.
Black band on inside rim on natural. 10. 5 photograph No details.
Presumably late 7th century. 12. 3&4 photograph No details.
IC. 10 drawing (K370) Temenos chips. 13. 32 photograph No details.
Light buff clay, glaze fired red on interior over 14. 2 drawing P201. H West (North) 1310-1300
white slip; colour (possibly originally white). Plain outside.
Stripes of red on exterior on natural. 15. 6 photograph No details.
Late 7th century. Probably Smyrnaean. 16. 22 drawing 6th century or later.
ID. 13 drawing (K383) Temenos chips. 17. 23 drawing No details.
Clay pink in biscuit and little mica; gray on 18. 31 drawing Stripes outside and white painted lines
surface and black paint. Interior slipped and on rim.
faded paint partly retouched in purple. 18b. 24 drawing C pre-wine shop.
Black stripes on exterior on natural. Red, rather rough ware, much mica.
Late 7th century. Surface badly corroded. Exterior
IE. 9 drawing (K384) Temenos chips. plain. On interior traces of red painted
Reddish clay and mica. Exterior, buff dark design on white slip: double chain of
brown glaze. Interior and exterior of lip orange pips on rim, traces of hatched
slipped; purple retouches. triangle and tongues in bowl.
Dark brown stripes on exterior on natural. 19. 30 drawing Reddish clay with light wash;
Late 7th century. polished, micaceous. Thinned clay
IF. 16 drawing (K371) Temenos 820-750. swastika on handle. To be restored
Rather porous light buff clay. Very little mica with four lugs.
and white slip on inside and faint traces of wash
outside (perhaps thinned clay). Purple and
white stripes.
Striped Ware fruit dish with Striped Ware jar IA
No no.11 ‘Found in level distinctly earlier than
7th century, not latest.
the destruction.’
IG. 20 drawing (K367) H XIV G? 1000-770.
Brown clay rough and reddish in break,
micaceous. Exterior: dark glaze on
yellow/white slip. Interior: dark and light
brown paint on white slip.
Light brown paint: the two narrow bands around
floor rosette and the inner circles.
Should be 7th century.
IH. 8 drawing No details.
II. No details, and no illustration included among
drawings or photographs.
IJ. No details, and no illustration included among
drawings or photographs.
IK. 7 drawing No details
IL. 17 drawing (K304) City Wall E, pithos grave.
Buff clay with very little mica. Dark brown to
black glaze. Exterior: black on natural.
IM. 18 drawing (K365) H XIA 10.74-9.97.
Buff clay, little mica. Brown glaze on thin white
slip. Dot rosette painted on white on handle
spur.
Seems 7th century context.
IN. 14 drawing (K319) CW NE.
Dark brown paint on white slip.
7th century.

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 101

Paspalas
Part C: John Cook’s Notes97
Dishes and plates
7th century
Stemmed dishes and plates with Orientalising ornament were
found in considerable numbers in late seventh-century levels.
They were not systematically studied, and there are no notes of
the pieces shown in the photographs. Pieces illustrated here are
numbered IA-N. The clay is usually reddish or buff, with mica
and the glaze red or dark brown. Applied purple is common,
white is only occasionally found (apart of course from the slip),
and on IM where a dot rosette seems to have been painted in
white. On IC there appeared to be an orange paint (unless it
were discoloured white) on some of the tongues in addition to
purple and the red glaze. A high proportion of these dishes and
plates were found at the Temenos, but two of those recorded
came from habitation areas (IG and IM) and two (IL and IN)
from the City Wall east. No. 9 in the following list may also be of
the late 7th century.
6th and 5th centuries
The ware is normally reddish and contains much gold mica. The
slip is white, generally thin and often rather fugitive. The glaze
is normally red, almost always so in the abundant material that
seems to be of relatively late date. Slipped dishes and plates do
not, however, seem to have continued into the later part of the
5th century. Proveniences are not well recorded, but the
majority of the pieces illustrated probably date about the
beginning of the 5th century: no. 3 was from a sixth-century
level, nos 2a, 13, 17 and 18 were from contexts earlier than the
late 5th century; no. 9 could be late seventh-century. Some of
the numbers in the illustrations comprise a plurality of
fragments of similar vases.
A little stemmed dish in this ware is attested by a number of
examples (e.g. nos 2a-b and 3). A fragment with a radiating
petal pattern in the centre of the bowl was found in the mid-
sixth-century deposit in the Temple Pylon, and no. 3 is dated
sixth-century. No. 2a, of porous buff clay with a thin wash and
streaky glaze, is less carefully executed and probably fifth-
century. The spiral pattern shown on no. 4 also occurs in the
centre of the bowl of little stemmed dishes. More commonly,
however, to judge by the fragile and comminuted material, the
little dishes of this ‘fruit dish’ profile had a low ring foot in place
of the high stem. These little dishes are generally less than 18cm
in diameter. Common zone patterns are cross-hatched triangles
and wheels, short pendants of drops and palmettes;
disintegrated lotus flowers occasionally appear (cf. no. 5, on the
left), and one fragment (no. 5, bottom row next to left) shows a
streaky swathe that resembles marbling. Radiating petals,
102 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
concentric rings, or the spiral pattern of no. 4 occupy the centre
of the bowl.
A small number of fragments come from small dishes of
thick fabric and a diameter of about 13.5cm, with a thicker white
slip which is generally confined on the underside to a band
below the lip (as no. 7, upper); no feet were recovered to match
them. This well slipped ware might be Chian. It seems to date
about the early 5th century. On one fragment there seemed to be
a deliberate contrast of a darker shade of glaze along with the
red.
The commonest form among the little slipped dishes is a
plate with out-turned rim. The shape seems to differ from that of
the late 7th century in that the upper surface of the rim tends to
be more convex. It is often set off by grooves; occasionally there
are grooves on top and bottom of the body of the plate (as no.
13). Apart from rare fragments of rims with a lotus chain (no. 10
photograph) or spiral pattern (no. 10 drawing) and the big plate
with an animal band (BSA 60 [1965] 120 no. 32), these plates
were of modest size (under 24cm in diameter). Lotus chains and
meander were found decorating the rims, and cross-hatched
triangles the body (one example being from a mid sixth-century
context). But the commonest elements in the decoration are
crisscross work and the drops and swags like those on slipped
ware jars or dinoi from relatively late levels (...).
Numerous plates are of a smaller format and have a flat rim
(examples no. 15 and no. 18). Many of them have simple glaze
rings in the bowl, with at most radiating petals in the tondo, and
sets of drops on the rim; occasionally the drops are not done in
glaze on the slip but painted in white on a glazed band. Here
again one fragment showed a deliberate contrast of red and dark
tones in the glaze.
No. 19 is a freak; it was not available for study in the
workroom. Diam. 11.5cm. Micaceous reddish ware, polished,
with a light wash; brick-red glaze. The surviving lug (one of
four?) had the swastika on the handle painted in thinned clay. It
is not clear whether this piece is seventh-century or late, nor
whether it would be better listed among the striped wares.
No. 20 is exceptional. Only the upper fragments in the
photograph (a) had a good white slip; diam. c. 22.5cm; buff with
some mica. The fragment (b) was found at the Temple in a late
seventh-century context. The vases depicted should be Chian.
The exteriors or undersides of these dishes and plates vary in
treatment. Those here illustrated were noted as follows: exterior
plain nos 12, 14, 16, 18B; exterior streakily glazed no. 2; partly
glazed no. 6; with glazed stripes (where noted) no. 20; exterior
slipped no. 3 (with glazed stripes). no.4, no.5 (some with glazed
stripes), no. 7 (see above), no. 9, no. 10, no. 15 (some with
glazed stripes), no. 17, no. 18 (with glazed bands).
No. 13 had two perforations on the rim for suspension.
 The Non-figured Wares from the Anglo-Turkish Excavations at Old Smyrna
Illustration credits
Fig. 2 photo the British Museum, drawing Kate Morton; all other
drawings and photos R.M. Cook; drawings inked in by Anne Thomas.
Notes
1 I thank Professor J. Boardman for suggesting to the late Professor R.
Cook that I be entrusted with the publication of this material. The
cost of the inking of Cook’s pencil drawings was borne by the British
School at Athens.
2 See the Appendix for Cook’s notes on the pieces examined here.
3 For this problem see Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume;
Kerschner 2001, 75-6; Petrie 1886b, pl. 4 (mainly impressed wares
and mortaria) and pls 16-7 (mainly transport amphorae); Hogarth et
al. 1905, 123-6 (C.C. Edgar). See Bernand 1970, pl. 19 for coarse ware
fragments that carry graffiti.
4 Cook and Nicholls 1998, 18-9, 22.
5 Ibid. 24-6. An ‘East Greek standed bowl with central star’ (K316) is
also recorded (ibid.) from this deposit, but it does not appear in
Cook’s notes and illustrations. Nor do the fruitstands ibid. 23 SF 1377-
78 from the ‘Alabastron Deposit’ of c. 600 bc.
6 Akurgal 1983, 72-113 (Cook and Nicholls 1998, 27 for the opposing
view). James 2003, 262 would lower the destruction date by 20
years. Bowden 1991, 52-3, with particular reference to Naukratis,
would generally down date the conventional pottery chronology by
40 years.
7 Pitane fruitstand: Ýren 2003, 152-3 and 186 no. 306, pl. 65. The
unpublished thesis by M. Manyas (Oryantalizan Stil Tabaklarý,
Ankara University 1984) in which East Greek dishes and fruitstands,
and their contexts, are discussed was unavailable to me.
8 CVA Germany 35 Kassel 1 pl. 15.6.
9 Ersoy 1993, 176 no.422, 242 no. 423 and pp. 386-7. For the Berezan
pieces, see Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, samples Bere 139 and 142
(group E).
10 Price 1924, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1965.9-30.500).
11 Venit 1988, pl. 31.120 (Alexandria 16893). See also the second zone of
the floor of a plate excavated at Tocra: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 67
no. 819 (=Boardman and Hayes 1973, 17 no. 819, pl. 9). For the
incorporation of the basic motif into a more complex double-spiral
motif: Venit 1988, 18 no. 58, pl. 14 (Cairo 26137, possibly from
Naukratis).
12 Price 1924, 196, pl. 7.2 (BM GR 1965.9-30.527); Fairbanks 1928, 108
no. 319.8 (Boston MFA 88.1085), pl. 34 (though note the
multiplication of the ascendant drops); CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2
IID, pl. 4 no. 24 (G119.48). A fruitstand with a similar zone found in a
tomb at Kameiros (Papatislures Grave 2) has a context date of c.
600–575 bc: Jacopi 1932/3-41a, 19 no. 4 fig. 5, pl.3; Gates 1983, 6.
Note, too, the dish fragments: CVA Great Britain 12 Reading 1, pl. 22
no. 4b (26.ii.34) and CVA Germany 10 Heidelberg 1, pl. 2 no. 19 (I 15)
(with added red). For a parallel to the krater handle plate fragment:
Ploug 1973, 65 no. 274, pl. 14 (Tell Sukas). For examples of the motif
expanded to a grander scale see: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 47 no.
589, pl. 30; Skudnova 1988, 36-7 no. 4; Korpusova 1987, 40 fig. 15.1;
Butyagin 2001, 190-1 fig. 8.
13 Berezan: Kaposhina 1956, fig. 2 third row right-most sherd. Olbia:
Levi 1972, 45-7 fig. 13.1; Rusiaeva 1999, 77 fig. 1 bottom row, right-
most sherd.
14 Alexandrescu 1978, 50-1 no. 133.
15 Fairbanks 1928, 107-8 nos 318.2 (Boston MFA 86.557 [30]) and 319.7
(Boston MFA 88.849 [72]), pl. 34. The lotus palmette and buds are
simplified versions of those seen on 7. It may be further noted that
the double scroll with dots pattern in the upper part of the shoulder
of the Apries amphora (Bailey Fig. 1) may also be compared to the
scroll patterns discussed here.
16 Ersoy 1993, 386-7. Note the fruitstand from Kameiros (n. 12 supra) on
which the place of the spirals of 1 is occupied by circles. Its context is
dated c. 600–575 bc and this may indicate that this decorative
scheme could be earlier than that with spirals.
17 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 153-4 fig. 64 c and d
(‘Pflanzenornamentik’ group), though more ornate. For the group of
triangles on its rim ibid. 82 pl. 35.3 (‘Stufe V’).
18 Ibid. 155 no. 3, pl. 53.11-12.
19 Ibid. 154, pl. 51.9 and 12.
20 Cook 1958/9, 29, pl. 6b; Cook 1985, 26-7 a.
21 Meriç 1982, 47 and 108 no. K47, fig. 115.
22 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, esp. pl. 51.12.
23 For the petal-group rim pattern: Özkan 1999, 54 no. 98 (Pitane). For
the interlocking S rim pattern: ibid. 42 no. 68 (Pitane); Utili 1999, 178
no. 211 fig. 12; Boehlau and Schefold 1942, pl. 31.1-2 and pl. 49.20
(Buruncuk). Groups of bars: Utili 1999, 178-9 nos 214-5, 217- 8.
Groups of petals: ibid. 179 no. 222 fig. 13. For the hatched triangles see
nn. 83 and 84 infra. For a plate and fruitstand with more disciplined
decorative schemes similar to that on 6 bottom right from a Pitane
grave with a context date of c. 580–570 bc see Greenewalt 1966, 200 f
and g, pl. 13E-F.
24 Potnia Theron: Akurgal 1950, 64, pl. 10b; Walter-Karydi 1973, 146 no.
186, pl. 122. Excavated in the ‘white tuff chip stratum’: Cook and
Nicholls 1998, 22. Naukratis fruitstand: Gardner 1888, 44, pl. 9.2-4
(BM GR 1888.6-1.538b-c); Walter-Karydi 1973, 136 no. 185, pl. 120.
Note, too, a fruitstand from Selinous: n. 33 infra.
25 Hundt and Peters 1961, 19-20 no. 120, pl. 11.
26 Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.1 (BM GR 1886.4-1.1309; for which see Gardner
1888, 44 Type F.a.1); Fairbanks 1928, 114 no. 324.7 (Boston MFA
88.973 [125]), pl. 35; Hayes 1992, 205-6 nos N9-N11 (Toronto 910x
234.44, Toronto 910x234.2, Toronto 910x234.17; CVA The Netherlands
2 Musée Scheurleer 2 IID pl.2.3 (T2911) (fruitstand). See too a
fragmentary fruitstand from Sybaris: Guzzo et al. 1972, 96 no. 142,
fig. 96.
27 Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).
28 Venit 1988, pl. 27.100 (Alexandria 17264).
29 Akurgal 1983, fig. 92.
30 Naukratis: Venit 1988, 27 no. 92, pl. 26 (Alexandria 9475). Delos:
Dugas 1928, 39 no. 62, pl. 13. Syracuse: Orsi 1918, col. 528 fig. 115, top
right. And the Potnia Theron dish: n. 24 supra.
31 Guzzo et al. 1972, 95 no. 139, fig. 94. Its rim carries a series of meander
hooks.
32 Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).
33 See n. 29 supra, and compare the plate with a winged figure Dehl-von
Kaenel 1995, 352 no. 3454, pl. 61 (Selinous, first third of the 6th
century bc).
34 Gardner 1888, 44 Type F.a.2, pl. 9.1-4; Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 120.
985. See too ibid. pls 120-1. 980-1 (Selinous).
35 Daux 1966, 944-6, fig. 22 ‘coupe rhodienne’.
36 Venit 1988, pl. 27.96 (Alexandria 17233). Note the ‘dish’, also from
Naukratis, with this scheme in its outer zone, though its ‘triglyphs’
consist of elements that are better termed ‘drop-petals’ (cf. the floor
motif of 16, Fig. 13): CVA Great Britain 11 Cambridge 2 pl. 18.29
(N.25). Compare the use of drop-petals on the fruitstand Ýren 2003,
186 no. 307, pl. 65 (identified as North Ionian: ibid. 152-3).
37 Fairbanks 1928, 112 and 114 nos 323.2 (Boston MFA 89.937 [81]), 323.3
(Boston MFA 86.534 [82]) and 324.9 (Boston MFA 86.545 [126]),
pl.35.
38 Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, pl. 15.289. Sybaris: Guzzo et al. 1972, 96 no.
140, fig. 95.
39 Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).
40 11 (Fig. 9) is illustrated in the catalogues: Dedeoðlu 1993, 12 middle
photo ‘Footed Vessel’; Özkan 1999, 54 no. 100 (first half of the 6th
century bc). Samian Heraion: Isler 1978, 148 no. 511, pl. 69, Beil. 12.
41 CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2 IID pl. 4.20 (G 117.11).
42 Ibid. pl. 4.19 (1912.36.6).
43 Venit 1988, pl. 27.101 (Alexandria 17240).
44 Ibid. pl. 27.100 (Alexandria 17264); CVA Belgium 3 Brussels 3 IID pl. 3
nos 15 (A1776) and 17 (A2042) (the latter with a wavy line, rather
than meander hooks, on its rim); and possibly the fruitstand Venit
1988 pl. 29.113 (Alexandria 9351) and Piekarski 2001a, pl. 12.3 (Bonn
697.18).
45 Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.5 (Boston MFA 88.826 [78]), pl. 35.
46 Kerschner 2001, 85-7; Akurgal et al. 2002, 38-9, 90-2 (M. Kerschner);
Ersoy 2003, 255. For the commonalities between these vessel forms
from North Ionia and Aiolis see Utili 1999, 28.
47 See n. 7 supra.
48 Ýren 2003, 186 no. 305, pl. 65.
49 Walter-Karydi 1973, 147 nos 1020-1 (from the Samian Heraion), pl.
124.
50 Samos: Boehlau 1898, pl. 12.2 (fruitstand). Naxos: Bikakis 1985, pl.
5.51a-b. Rhodes: CVA Germany 33, Berlin 4, pl. 162.1 (V.I.2958)
(Siana). Cyrene: Schaus 1985a, 64-5 no. 363, pl. 22. Selinous: Dehl-
von Kaenel 1995, pl. 64.3511, pl. 65. 3561 and 3565. Megara Hyblaea:
Vallet and Villard 1964, 80, pl. 22.2 and 4. Berezan: Kopeikina 1981,
197 fig. 4ã, and see, too, Posamentir Fig. 12 this volume. Olbia:
Kaposhina 1956, fig. 8 left; Korpusova 1987, 41 fig. 16.4 (more
complicated meander hooks). Pantikapaion: Sidorova 1992, 134 fig. 3
A. See, too, the fragment CVA Belgium 3 Brussels 3 IID, pl. 3.16
(A2413), which is given the provenance ‘Kertsch (?)’. Note, too, the
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 103
Paspalas
fruitstand from Saint-Blaise: Bouloumié 1992, 196 no. 518 figs 50a-b
and p. 271.
51 Gravisca: Boldrini 1994, 97 no. 160. Delos: Dugas 1928, 40 no. 64, pl.
8. Amorgos: Marangou 1993, pl. 119a (Marangou 2002, fig. 121.4). A
fragment of a dish with a similar inner zone scheme from Assos has
tentatively been identified as Rhodian: Utili 1999, fig. 11.192.
52 Daux 1963, 865 fig. 4 bottom right.
53 Schaus 1985a, 64 no. 356, pl. 21. They can be compared with that on
another fragment from Amorgos: Marangou 1996, 294 and 97 fig.
11a; Marangou 2002, fig. 121.7.
54 Delos: Robert 1952, 37 fig. 34.3. Thera: Pfuhl 1903, 176 no. G2, Beil.
23.2. Lenkas: Fiedler 1999, 413; Fiedler 2003, 367 no. 2106 pl. 162 (no.
2105). Kerkyra: Kallipolites 1956, 160, pl. 61g. Cyrene: Schaus 1985a,
60-1 nos 331-32, pls 19-20. Berezan: Skudnova 1960, 162 no. 4, fig.
11.2, see also now the fragment illustrated at the top right of
Posamentir Fig. 4 in this volume.
55 Ephesos: Kerschner 2001, pl. 12.3. Phokaia: Özyiðit 1994, fig. 37 top
right (which may be compared to the fragment Miltner and Miltner
1932, 183 fig. 92.22).
56 Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl. 65.3568a.
57 For a more elaborate piece, excavated at Kameiros, with a far more
complicated meander: Jacopi 1932/3-41a, 19 Papitsilures Grave 2 no.
9 fig. 3, pl. 3 (for the context date see Gates 1983, 6 c. 600–575 bc).
Note too the fruitstand Özkan 1999, 53 no. 95. For a series of more
complicated meander elements on the rim of a fruitstand excavated
at Pitane and Aiolic in character see Greenewalt 1966, 195 h pls 11A
and 12E (p. 198 for its context date of c. 570–565 bc).
58 Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.1 (Boston MFA 86.633 [83]), pl. 35.
59 Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl.65.3553.
60 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 44 and 50 no. 632, pl. 34.
61 Venit 1988, pl. 28.104-6 (Alexandria 17333, Cairo 26147 and
Alexandria 17276); Piekarski 2001a, pl. 12.1 (Bonn 697.18).
62 Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.4 (Boston MFA 88.975 [79]), pl. 35. Note,
too, the decoration of ibid. pl. 35.324.6 (Boston 88.821 [124]).
63 CVA The Netherlands 2 Musée Scheurleer IID 2 pl. 2.1 (T2912).
64 Old Smyrna: Özkan 1999, 55 nos 101-2 (somewhat more complicated
decorative schemes than on 14-15 [Figs 4 and 12]). Note too the
meander-hook rim fragments from Urla, in the wider vicinity of Old
Smyrna: Meriç 1986, 303 fig. 3 nos 17-8.
65 Perachora: Shefton 1962, 374-5 no. 4056, pl. 156. Akragas: de Waele
1971, 96 no. 77, pl. 16. Leontini: Rizza 2000, 100 no. 158 fig. 62.
66 Assos: Utili 1999, 168-9 nos 130-4, fig. 8, nos 137, 139 and 142, fig. 9.
See too an example from Troy: Blegen et al. 1958, 269 no. 38.1245 fig.
296. Pitane: Özkan 1999, 56 no. 105. Delos: Dugas 1928, 40-1 nos 68-
9, pl. 13. Histria: Alexandrescu 1978, 48-9 nos 118, 121-2, pl. 12.
Pantikapaion: Sidorova 1962, fig. 6A,1. Myrmekeion: Butyagin 2001,
192-3 fig. 10. Olbia: Knipovich 1940, 97 fig. 8. See also now fragments
from Berezan in Posamentir Fig. 4 (bottom left) and Fig. 10 (centre
bottom) this volume. Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, 68-9 nos 296-8, 300-2,
pl. 15. For monochrome examples like 14 [Fig. 12]: Boardman and
Hayes 1966, 50 nos 646-50, pl. 36, but with alternating buds and
leaves. For a monochrome fruitstand ibid. 50 no. 621, pl. 34. For a rim
and upper body fragment from Phokaia: Özyiðit 1994, fig. 37 bottom
left; and another from Gela: Orlandini and Adamesteanu 1962, 398
no. 3, fig. 72A. See too Calvet and Yon 1978, 45 fig. 2 for examples
from Salamis, Cyprus.
67 Akanthos: Kaltsas 1998, 165 no. E39, pl. 176e. Kavala (Neapolis):
Bakalakis 1938, 116-8 fig. 8. Ainos: Baþaran 2002, 78 fig. 8. Note, too,
comparable vessels from Chios: Kourouniotes 1915, 79 fig. 15 bottom
right; Kourouniotes 1916, 205 fig. 24 top. As well as the examples
identified as Chian from Emporio: Boardman 1967, 164 no. 795 and
165 no. 805, pl. 61 (with inturned rim).
68 Akurgal et al. 2002, 75-6 fig. 77, associated with ‘Gruppe B/C’ (M.
Kerschner); Kerschner 2001, 85-7 (Teos suggested as a possible
manufacture centre). Old Smyrna has been suggested as the
production centre of ‘Gruppe F,’ another North Ionian category:
Akurgal et al. 2002, 83-4 (M. Kerschner). For the suggestion of local
production at Kyme, just north of Ionia, of vessels with meander
hook zones: Frasca 1993, 55 fig. 9 and p. 64 no. 28.
69 CVA The Netherlands 2 Musée Scheurleer 2 IID pl.2.1 (T2912).
70 Berezan: Skudnova 1960, fig. 11.1, see too Posamentir Fig. 2 (bottom
right) in this volume. Apollonia Pontica: Nedev and Panayatova
2003, 98, Table II,3. Histria: Alexandrescu 1978, 50 no. 125, pl. 12.
Corinth: Williams et al. 1974, 21 no. 23, pl. 4. Gravisca: Dehl-von
Kaenel 1995, 361-2, pl. 64. Cyrene: Schaus 1985a, 67 no. 392, pl. 23.
Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, 69 no. 304, pl. 15. Cambridge: CVA Great
Britain 6 Cambridge 1 IID pl. 7.6 (131). Reading: CVA Great Britain 12
104 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Reading 1 pl. 21.33b (26.ii.31).
71 Hanfmann 1963, pl. 101 nos 1493-4.
72 Özkan 1999, 55 no. 103 (first half of the 6th century bc). It is possible
that this burial is to be identified with the one excavated in quadrant
F8.xxi (Nicholls 1958/9, 65-6), although its vessels were identified as
‘... a feeding bottle, a cup, and a diminutive “fruit-stand”.’ Nicholls
compares these ceramic finds to those from what the excavators
identified as the Alyattan destruction deposit of the end of the 7th
century bc. For the Archaic child burials at Old Smyrna see: ibid. 44-
6, 48, 93 and 134; Mariaud 2006.
73 Ersoy 2003, pl. 43A.
74 Liman Tepe: Erkanal et al. 2002, fig. 1. Naukratis: CVA Great Britain 11
Cambridge 2, pl. 18.29 (N.25).
75 Utili 1999, 169-70 nos 137 and esp. 142 and 151, fig. 9.
76 Ersoy 2003, 255 pl. 43A-B.
77 Price 1924, pl. 7.1 (BM GR 1924.12-1.220).
78 Utili 1999, 171 no. 153, fig. 9.
79 Klazomenai: Ersoy 1993, 82 no. 572 and p. 392, pl. 63. Assos: Utili
1999, 184 fig. 14 no. 254 (pp. 27-8 identified as an import). Tocra:
Boardman and Hayes 1966, 50 no. 627 fig. 24.
80 Schaus 1985a, 65 no. 371 pl. 22 (Cyrene, c. 580–560 bc); Sidorova
1962, 116 fig. 6A.3 and 5 (Pantikapaion); Boardman and Hayes 1966,
50 no. 633, pl. 34 (Tocra); Ersoy 2003, 255, pl. 43A (Klazomenai). For
a series of dots on the outer zone of a rim: Dugas 1928, 39 no. 62, pl. 13
(Delos); Miltner and Miltner 1932, 178 fig. 90.16 (Old Smyrna); Iþik
1989, 57 no. 36, pl. 7 (Klazomenai); CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2 IID
pl. 4 no. 19 (1912.36.6) (Naukratis); Bikakis 1985, 55-6 no. 50 (Naxos).
81 CVA Great Britain 11 Cambridge 2, pl. 18 nos 30 (99, N.235) (‘dish’), 36
(94-6, N.21) (‘plate’); Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.4 (Boston MFA
88.975 [79]) and 114 no. 324.6 (Boston MFA 88.821 [124]), pl. 35.
82 25b and 27: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 82, pl. 35.5 and 9, pl. 51.10. For
the shape of 26: ibid. pl. 35.9 and 13 (fruitstands). Hatched triangle:
ibid. pl. 35.8.
83 Ibid. pl. 35.8 (fruitstand).
84 Ibid. 82. 23: ibid. pl. 35.3.
85 Ýren 2003, pl. 29.239, pl. 53.290.
86 For the scheme see: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, pl. 35.1; Silanteva
1959, 42 fig. 18 top. For East Greek dot rosettes see Paspalas 1999, 91-2.
87 Ýren 2003, 112 fig. 54a-b.
88 Blegen et al. 1958, 269 Sherd VIII.186 pl. 295 no. 3. See, too, the
stemmed dish Akimova 2005, 34 no. 27. Note, though, the dish Ýren
2003, 182 no. 246 (and p. 91), pl. 51 (‘Aiolischer Tierfriesstil IIIb’) the
underside of which is painted in a loose manner, but the scheme of
the bowl was executed in a more orderly fashion. Clearly, the
possibility exists that the degree of care with which a vessel was
painted does not necessarily determine its position in the wider
sequence.
89 E.g. CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2 IID pl. 4.19 (1912.36.6). Selinous:
Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl. 65.3570. Corinth: Williams et al. 1974, 21 no.
23, pl. 4.
90 Tocra: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 49 no. 604, pl. 31. Cyrene: Schaus
1985a, 55 no. 296, pl. 17. Klazomenai: Tzannes 2004, 109, 112-3 no. 7
fig. 22.2 (with references).
91 Buruncuk: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 82, pl. 35.2 (‘Stufe V’) and 153
pl. 50.14 (‘Streifenware’). Tocra: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 44 and
52-3 nos 681-713, pl. 37 (mostly from Deposit II c. 600/590–565 bc);
Boardman and Hayes 1973, 19 nos 1998-2001, pl. 11, and note, too, the
bowl ibid. 20 no. 2008, pl. 11. Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, 69 nos 306-7, pl.
15. Cyrene: Schaus 1985a, 68 nos 407-9, pl. 24, c. 580–560 bc.
92 Sidorova 1962, 147 fig. 21.5 (the rim is also decorated with a lotus
flower). Myrmekeion: Butyagin 2001, 193-4.
93 Though note the dotted cross in added white on a dish from
Naukratis: n. 77 supra.
94 Hdt. 2.178. Möller 2000a, 167-74.
95 Temenos of the Dioskouroi: Fairbanks 1928, 108 no. 319.8 (Boston
MFA 88.1085). Temenos of Hera: ibid. 112 and 114 nos 323.2 (Boston
MFA 88.937 [81]), 323.4 (Boston MFA 88.975 [79]) and 324.7 (Boston
MFA 86.621 [68]). Temenos of Apollo: ibid. 112 no. 323.1 (Boston MFA
86.633 [83]). Temenos of Aphrodite: Gardner 1888, 44 Type F.a.2. For
surveys of these temene see Möller 2000a, 94-104.
96 Though plainer examples are by no means unknown in East Greek
sanctuaries, for example Held 2000, 100 nos K18-K19, fig. 55.
97 I have not found among Cook’s drawings and photographs
illustrations of his nos II, IJ and 2, so, by necessity, these pieces have
not been discussed in the main text of this paper. His no.20 also is not
considered as it has already been published: Cook 1958/9, pl.6e. Note
that (…) indicates a gap in the Ms.
Chemical Provenance Determination of Pottery:
The Example of the Aiolian Pottery Group G
Hans Mommsen and Michael Kerschner
Abstract
The important facts concerning chemical provenance
determinations of archaeological pottery are summarized,
explaining the Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) and the
statistical data evaluation procedure applied in Bonn. As examples
of a successful determination, the chemical pattern for workshops
at Kyme and/or its vicinity, called G, and its subgroup called g, are
presented and discussed.*
One of the most successful activities of the Bonn laboratory for
archaeological science concerns the chemical provenance
determination of pottery: that is the determination of the place
where it was produced. Two main complementary methods,
which look at different information stored in pottery, are known
to yield useful results: petrography and elemental analysis. In
the usual petrographic method,1 thin sections of pottery are
inspected and give information about the minerals in the clay
paste, whether naturally present or added. Alternatively, the
clay paste itself can be characterised by an analysis of the minor
and trace elemental content.2 The firing procedure does not
change the relevant clay paste composition, except sometimes
for the volatile elements As and Br.3 Also the burial conditions in
most cases leave the sherd composition unchanged, again except
for some elements such as Ba, Ca and sometimes the alkali
elements (Na, K, Rb and Cs) and P.4 Since clays have generally
much higher concentrations of trace elements compared to the
admixtures like quartz or calcite, an elemental analysis
characterises mainly the clay and, therefore, the measured
elemental patterns of pottery point to the location of the clay
beds exploited – if the assumption is correct that raw clay has
not itself been traded. Ethnoarchaeological studies of modern
Mediterranean potters working in a traditional way show that
most of them are using clay beds in their vicinity within a radius
of only a few kilometres.5 In many cases, the workshops have
been built close to the clay beds. ‘Data of a worldwide sample of
resource distances have demonstrated that potters travel no
more than 7km to obtain their raw material.’ 6 Only in rare cases,
when a raw material with special properties is required, can
clays be transported over a longer distance.7
Nowadays, in discussions especially with colleagues in the
field of archaeological science, one can notice that the
predominant doctrine reflects a certain reluctance to accept
results if only one of these provenance methods is applied.
Instead, integrated studies are favoured. The results are
considered to be trustworthy only if the so-called integrated
approach is applied, using both methods of provenancing: the
chemical and the mineralogical.8 There seems to be a general
feeling that each of the methods by itself is insufficient. But if
only provenancing is the aim, and not technological questions,
our experience is that provenancing by chemical analysis alone
works very well, provided this method is applied correctly and
used to its full potential. The advantage of chemical analyses
when compared to petrography is that the measured elemental
concentrations are hard data, which can be evaluated according
to certain rules. In petrography one depends on the ability of an
expert to recognise and memorize specific features in thin
sections.
Neutron Activation Analysis method
The analysis method used in Bonn is Neutron Activation
Analysis (NAA). This old and well-proven method9 is very well
suited to measuring elemental concentrations in pottery, since it
is multi-elemental, has high sensitivity for trace elements and is
able to produce precise results with measurement uncertainties
of a few percent. Samples of 80mg are taken by a pointed
sapphire (corundum) drill, usually at the back of the sherds or
from the bottom of the whole vessels to be analysed, leaving no
more damage than a shallow extraction hole of 10mm diameter
and a depth of about 1mm. Alternatively, as done for most of the
samples from the British Museum, a thinner drill of 3mm
diameter can be chosen to take a sample from the broken edge
of a sherd. The Bonn pottery standard is used, which is
calibrated with the well-known Berkeley standard.10 The whole
measurement procedure has already been described at length
elsewhere.11
As an example of the result of a NAA measurement, the
concentration data of sample Kyme 1 are given in Table 1,
second column, including the measurement uncertainty for
each elemental value in the third column and expressed also in
percent in the fourth column. As mentioned above, general
agreement prevails that this pattern characterises the clay paste
the ancient potter prepared. This paste composition itself
depends on the geochemical composition of the clay deposit or
deposits exploited, if several clays have been mixed,12 and,
secondly, on the clay refinement techniques the ancient potters
applied, for example levigating the clays or adding tempering
material. Now, in provenancing, the assumption is made that all
wares having the same composition will have been made from
the same, well-homogenized clay paste prepared according to a
certain recipe and will belong to a certain production series
defined in this way by its characteristic clay paste. The
continued or repeated appearance of a pattern across centuries
at some sites suggests that at times local clays of identical
composition and ready for use without much processing could
be in use for long time spans. Furthermore, the elemental
pattern of such a production series is likely to be unique in the
world. This assumption, especially the uniqueness, will hold
well, if a) many elemental concentrations – at least 20, and the
more, the better – are measured, and b) the measurement
precision, including trace elements, is high. For these reasons
NAA was chosen in Bonn.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 105
Mommsen and Kerschner

Table 1 Concentrations of elements measured by NAA in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise
a) sample Kyme 1, concentrations C and measuring errors d, also in % of C, with fit (dilution) factor 1.19 with respect to group g;
b) averages M and spreads s, also in % of M, of the groups G and g.
For the groups, each individual sample was dilution corrected with respect to the average values M of the group.

Kyme 1 Group G Group g

1 samples 60 samples 28 samples
factor 1.19 factor 1.00 factor 1.00
C +/- d % M +/- s % M +/- s %
As 53.5 ± 0.24 0.5 44.7 ± 20.3 45. 45.2 ± 29.3 65.
Ba 757. ± 40.9 5.4 810. ± 98.6 12. 739. ± 87.4 12.
Ca% 7.42 ± 0.38 5.2 4.82 ± 0.83 17. 5.53 ± 0.84 15.
Ce 95.5 ± 0.92 1.0 121. ± 3.54 2.9 103. ± 5.17 5.0
Co 28.8 ± 0.23 0.8 27.6 ± 1.06 3.8 26.8 ± 1.71 6.4
Cr 265. ± 1.97 0.7 188. ± 12.1 6.4 211. ± 23.7 11.
Cs 27.6 ± 0.28 1.0 23.8 ± 2.80 12. 27.1 ± 2.98 11.
Eu 1.60 ± 0.042 2.6 1.99 ± 0.049 2.5 1.68 ± 0.093 5.5
Fe% 5.37 ± 0.029 0.5 6.04 ± 0.21 3.5 5.55 ± 0.24 4.3
Ga -- 29.1 ± 3.75 13. 24.5 ± 6.11 25.
Hf 5.24 ± 0.11 2.1 5.79 ± 0.56 9.7 5.40 ± 0.51 9.5
K% 3.15 ± 0.036 1.1 3.12 ± 0.12 3.9 2.92 ± 0.14 4.9
La 46.3 ± 0.13 0.3 56.1 ± 1.11 2.0 48.1 ± 1.75 3.6
Lu 0.51 ± 0.024 4.6 0.60 ± 0.023 3.9 0.53 ± 0.024 4.6
Na% 0.98 ± 0.006 0.6 0.96 ± 0.12 13. 1.05 ± 0.35 33.
Nd 37.0 ± 2.04 5.5 51.0 ± 2.41 4.7 42.2 ± 2.82 6.7
Ni 362. ± 70.3 19. 173. ± 45.4 26. 210. ± 45.1 22.
Rb 196. ± 4.93 2.5 178. ± 6.48 3.6 172. ± 10.3 6.0
Sb 5.52 ± 0.21 3.9 4.79 ± 0.58 12. 4.67 ± 0.83 18.
Sc 19.1 ± 0.038 0.2 21.8 ± 0.38 1.8 20.0 ± 1.01 5.1
Sm 6.96 ± 0.018 0.3 9.93 ± 0.51 5.1 8.18 ± 0.67 8.1
Ta 1.10 ± 0.050 4.6 1.18 ± 0.061 5.2 1.13 ± 0.067 5.9
Tb 1.15 ± 0.11 9.4 1.29 ± 0.083 6.5 1.08 ± 0.068 6.3
Th 18.5 ± 0.13 0.7 21.1 ± 0.56 2.6 18.9 ± 1.09 5.8
Ti% 0.44 ± 0.13 30. 0.50 ± 0.11 22. 0.50 ± 0.14 28.
U 3.54 ± 0.19 5.5 4.00 ± 0.59 15. 3.44 ± 0.32 9.3
W 2.63 ± 0.24 9.2 2.70 ± 0.29 11. 2.69 ± 0.26 9.7
Yb 3.53 ± 0.11 3.2 4.23 ± 0.12 2.7 3.69 ± 0.19 5.1
Zn 105. ± 2.65 2.5 119. ± 6.69 5.6 107. ± 9.89 9.3
Zr 192. ± 43.9 23. 173. ± 56.9 33. 154. ± 59.8 39.

Pattern comparison sand, all concentration values will be lowered by a constant

To find samples of similar composition the elemental patterns,
each consisting of about 30 concentration values, have to be
compared. Comparison by hand is cumbersome and computer-
aided methods are used for this task. In such work, usually each
sample is visualized as a point in concentration space. This space
has one dimension for each measured concentration value.
Samples of similar composition will fill the same region in this
multidimensional space and form clusters of points at close
quarters: the distance between two points in this space,
therefore, can be used as a similarity measure. The usual
methods like PCA (Principle Component Analysis) or different
methods of CA (Cluster Analyses resulting in dendrograms)
calculate these distances between all the data points, neglecting
measuring errors. But since each concentration value has a
different experimental measuring error (compare Table 1),
distances should be calculated taking account of these errors. To
give a simple example, two points in a one-dimensional space
having the same distance (difference) may be considered as
being statistically similar or dissimilar depending on the errors:
for example 4 ± 0.1 and 5 ± 0.1 are not similar, but 4 ± 1 and
5 ± 1 are similar! Therefore, as the first improvement, a method
was developed,13 which takes errors into account by normalising
the distances to the error (distance 5 – 4 = 1; first case: 1/0.1 =
10 = not similar; second case: distance 1/1 = 1 = similar).
In addition, a second effect during the comparison of
patterns should be considered, since pottery is man-made. If
potters diluted the clay by varying amounts, for example, of
‘dilution factor’. To correct for dilutions a best relative fit is done
with regard to the centre value of two points or of a point and an
already formed group of samples with similar composition. This
mainly reduces the spreads (root mean square deviations) of the
sum pattern formed. It often reduces positive correlations due to
such dilutions. This is demonstrated in Figure 1 for group G of
53 samples made in the region of Kyme, where the concentration
values of the rare earth elements Eu and Ce are shown before
and after the dilution correction.
To summarize, it is considered to be important during group
formation to include the measurement errors and dilution
effects to find ‘sharp’ concentration patterns of groups of
samples, which were in fact produced with a certain clay paste
at a pottery workshop, and thus avoid overlapping group
patterns. Also, elements that are often part of the diluent like Ca
or Na should be handled with care and at first not be considered
during the search for groups. In publications, as the final result,
the patterns formed should be given together with the spread
values. Single, very large spread values point to either
inhomogeneities of the clay paste or a wrong grouping.
Example: reference patterns assigned to the region of Kyme
The Bonn data bank now holds more than 1,100 samples from
the East Aegean, including 30 pottery samples found at Kyme in
Aiolis. This sample set was selected by M. Frasca (Catania) and
M. Kerschner (Vienna) and is archaeologically discussed in a
separate contribution in this volume.14 The chemical

106 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 Chemical Provenance Determination of Pottery: the Example of the Aiolian Pottery Group G

Figure 1 Plot of Eu and Ce concentrations of pottery group G, most probably made in Kyme, before and after the correction of dilutions by a best relative fit of the
single samples with respect to the average concentrations of the group.The positive correlation coefficient is reduced from 0.95 to 0.60

classification according to the Bonn statistical procedure separable subgroup in G, named ‘g’ and including 28 samples,
revealed that 21 samples from Kyme had a composition not very was detected. The average concentration values M of the two
different from the already known group G, which at that time groups G with the remaining 60 samples and g with 28 samples
was formed of only seven samples, comprising sherds found at and their spreads (1s) are listed in Table 1. As is usually
Ephesos, Klazomenai and Smyrna.15 There are three reasons encountered, spread values of As, Ca and Na, although
why we now assign the provenance group G with high measured with small errors, are quite large and point to an
probability to production workshops at Kyme itself or in its inhomogeneity of these elements in pottery. Other elements
vicinity. There are, firstly, the conspicuous prevalence of this with large spread values (Ga, Ni, Ti, Zr) are measured with large
pattern within the whole set of samples from this site; secondly, experimental errors. In Fig. 2 the normalized differences G – g
the longevity of this group at the site, ranging from the Archaic are plotted as a bar diagram after a best relative fit of subgroup g
to the Roman Imperial period; and thirdly, the great diversity of with respect to G. Group g has a dilution of about 10% compared
ceramic classes showing this element pattern, comprising
painted fine-ware as well as Grey and banded wares and even a
water pipe. The prevalence and longevity of group G also at the
neighbouring small town of Larisa (12 samples) may indicate a
collateral production there exploiting the same clay beds.
Exports from these workshops have been excavated also at
Klazomenai (1 sample) and Smyrna (11 samples), Phokaia (15
samples), at Sardeis (2 samples) and even overseas at Naukratis
(4 samples) and at Berezan on the northern Black Sea shore (12
samples).16 The now much larger number of members of this
group G – altogether 88 samples (+ one repetition
measurement) – permits a better definition of the average
grouping values and their spreads. A small displacement of the
group in concentration space with respect to the small old group
G now results in a statistical separability of the two samples from
Ephesos, a bird kotyle (Ephe 007) and a krater (Ephe 015), both
from the Late Geometric period and both previously assigned to
G.17 These two samples now form, with eight other sherds from
Ephesos, a new provenance group named X.18 X can be localized
with certainty at Ephesos because it comprises a miniature
vessel (Ephe 029) that was part of the original fill of a Late
Hellenistic potters’ kiln at this site.19 Exports of the Ephesian
provenance group X have been detected at Larisa in Aiolis (Laris
12, only chemically associated to X), Thebes in Boeotia20 and at
Tell Kazel in Syria.21 This demonstrates the importance of precise Figure 2 Graphical comparison of chemical compositions of the two very similar
measurements and exact group forming procedures. groups G and g given in Table 1. Plotted are the differences of the average
concentration values G – g normalised by the averaged standard deviations
After a closer and more elaborate inspection of the NAA data (sG2 + sg2)1/2. The values of group g are multiplied first by the best relative fit
of group G the presence of a not very different, but statistically factor with respect to group G of 1.10 (10% enlarged).

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 107

Mommsen and Kerschner
to G and has higher Cr and lower rare earth element
concentrations. Except for the Cr value, the concentrations of all
other elements vary less than 2s. This close agreement in
composition of G and g might be due to a slightly changed paste
recipe at these workshops. There is also a strong archaeological
argument in favour of the localization of both provenance
groups G and g at the same site: both comprise an almost
identical range of ceramic wares and classes.22 Furthermore,
even a well-defined stylistic group like the ‘London Dinos group’
shows both element patterns G and g.23 Such an extremely
homogeneous group must have been produced by a single
workshop at a certain site.24
Both groups can be separated very well from all other groups
in our data bank. This is demonstrated in Kerschner Figure 34,
which shows the result of a discriminant analysis of the groups
assignable to the different East Aegean production sites
represented up to now in our data bank. We hope that the
assignment of groups G and g to workshops at Kyme and/or its
vicinity (with a possible branch at neighbouring Larisa), which
is most likely for the archaeological reasons asserted above, can
be proven in the future by additional reference material from the
site.
Notes
* The authors wish to thank the staff of the research reactor in
Geesthacht for their technical support.
1 E.g. Whitbread 1995.
2 Perlman and Asaro 1969; Jones 1986; Mommsen 2001, 2004.
3 Cogswell et al. 1996; Schwedt and Mommsen (forthcoming) and
references therein.
4 Schwedt et al. 2004 and references therein.
5 Hampe and Winter 1962, 4, 26, 49; Hampe and Winter 1965, 4, 27, 33,
38, 44, 51, 62, 87, 103, 127, 131, 133, 137, 139, 143, 147, 149-52, 177;
Psaropoulou 1996, 81, 97, 236, 264.
6 Arnold 1985, 38–42; Arnold et al. 1991, 85.
7 A famous example are potters of Siphnos who carried with them raw
clay from their island, cf. Dugas 1912b, 103. But, as Dupont 1983, 38,
has pointed out, this transport of raw clay is mainly confined to the
manufacture of cooking pots for which special properties are
required. (cf. e.g. Tite and Kilikoglou 2002; for a discussion of the
108 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
special properties of mortaria fabrics see Villing, this volume). J.
Boardman in Jones 1986, 663 and Boardman 1986, 252-3, 258 n. 14,
expressed the hypothesis that potters’ clay from the island of Chios
might have been exported to Naukratis (for a sceptical view, see
Williams, this volume). Such a hypothesis, however, cannot be
scrutinized by archaeometric methods. Karageorghis 2000/1,
abstract, 92 proposed transport of raw clay from the Argolid to
Cyprus to explain archaeometric chemical results obtained for
Mycenaean pictorial pottery. On the use of different raw clays in
order to achieve different colours of slip: Psaropoulou 1996, 144. On
transport of raw clay on economic grounds, which has become easier
due to modern motor vehicles, cf. Hampe and Winter 1965, 57, 117,
169, 177.
8 Tite 1999.
9 E.g. supra n. 2.
10 Perlman and Asaro 1969.
11 Mommsen et al. 1991.
12 Archaeometric evidence for clay mixing has been provided by
Schwedt et al. 2004. Ethnoarchaeological field studies have shown
that clay mixing is a frequent procedure among traditional potters in
the Mediterranean: Hampe and Winter 1962, 88–9; Hampe and
Winter 1965, 44, 106, 137–8, 143, 147, 150, 161, 169; Psaropoulou 1996,
26, 97, 147, 178, 236.
13 Mommsen et al. 1988; Beier and Mommsen 1994a, b.
14 Kerschner, this volume.
15 Akurgal et al. 2002, 84–92, nos 18, 51, 73, 79, 80, 84, figs 40, 48, 50, 55,
pls. 1, 3, 6, 8.
16 Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006; Posamentir and
Solovyov 2006 ; Kerschner 2006. Generally on the pottery finds from
Berezan: Posamentir, this volume.
17 Akurgal et al. 2002, 85–6, 106 no. 57, pl. 4 (Ephe 015); 85, 98 no. 18, pl.
1 (Ephe 007).
18 Badre et al. 2006, 17, 19, 36-7.
19 S. Ladstätter, in Akurgal et al. 2002, 117-19, 115 no. 102, pl. 8. At that
time, group X was unknown and therefore Ephe 029 was still a
chemical single.
20 Schwedt et al. 2005.
21 Badre et al. 2006.
22 Cf. Kerschner, this volume.
23 Provenance group G: Smyr 06, 45, Akurgal et al. 2002, 109-10, no. 73,
fig. 40 pl. 6; cf. also Posamentir and Solovyov 2006: Bere 106, 109,
110; Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006. Provenance group
g: Smyr 22, Akurgal et al. 2002, 112 no. 84, fig. 55, pl. 8; Bere 178,
Kerschner 2006; Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006.
24 On this point, all archaeologists have agreed up to now, cf. for further
references the contribution of Kerschner in this volume.
On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery
Michael Kerschner
Abstract
Naukratis is a major finding place of Archaic Aiolian pottery
outside the East Aegean. The exact provenance of the various wares
and styles of pottery in Aiolis is still largely unknown and
controversial. This paper uses an archaeometric approach to
attempt to localise the production places and to establish their
repertoire. Based on NA Analysis of samples mainly from Kyme and
Larisa, a chemical provenance group G, including a subgroup g,
has been detected, comprising different styles of painted pottery as
well as Grey and banded wares. This provenance group G/g
represents an important and prolific pottery centre that dominates
the production and even more the export of Archaic Aiolian
pottery. It was most likely situated at Kyme. Neighbouring Larisa,
however, may possibly have played a role, too.*
The Aiolians and Naukratis
Aiolis is the most northerly of the East Aegean regions (Fig. 1)
that had been settled by immigrants from mainland Greece at
the beginning of the Iron Age.1 The newcomers took possession
of the island of Lesbos and of the opposite coast around the gulf
of Elaia. Some of them penetrated into the mountains behind
the fertile, but narrow coastal plain. To the south, the Aiolians
soon lost the territory of Phokaia and Smyrna to the Ionians. To
the north, however, they conquered the coast of the Troad and
the off shore island Tenedos, presumably in the 8th century bc.2
The Aiolians spoke their own dialect. Their arts and crafts have
much in common with the products of their Ionian neighbours,
but at the same time they show peculiarities, as can be
demonstrated in the case of the pottery.
The Aiolians founded only few apoikiai during the great
colonisation movement of the late 8th to 6th century bc. Yet
they took part in the emporion of Naukratis in Egypt, which was
mainly an enterprise by East Greeks. Herodotus provides some
information on the organisation of the emporion during the
reign of Pharaoh Amasis. He says that Ai0ole/wn de\ h9
Mutilhnai/wn mou/nh ‘among the Aiolians only the Mytileneaens’
(2.178.2) held a share in the sacred precinct of the Hellenion and
also in the administration of the harbour. This, however, does
not mean that other Aiolian poleis were not involved in the trade
with Egypt via Naukratis, either directly with their own
merchants acting or indirectly with their products. With regard
to the latter, pottery offers a good possibility to trace the exact
provenance of the exported goods.
The history of research on Aiolian pottery
The British excavations at Naukratis carried out by W.F. Petrie
and E. Gardner in 1884–86 and by D.G. Hogarth some 15 years
later stimulated the beginnings of research on East Greek
pottery.3 Naukratis was, together with Rhodes, the first site
where Aiolian pottery of the Archaic period was found (Figs
2–11). Publishing a selection of East Greek wares from the site in
1924, E.R. Price was the first to recognize a stylistically coherent
group of Orientalising pottery that was later christened the
‘London Dinos group’.4 She argued that ‘they are all, if not the
work of one hand, at least the output of one workshop’.5 In the
following decades, many of the studies on Aiolian pottery
focused on this single Wild Goat style group, which is superior to
the other Aiolian painted wares in quality of execution and more
widely distributed. E. Homann-Wedeking accepted Price’s
grouping, emphasising the homogenous style of the filling
ornaments.6 W. Schiering and N. Sidorova added some
fragments to the group, which they supposed to be the work of
one single painter, whom Schiering called ‘Dinosmaler der
Vlastosgruppe’,7 but Sidorova the “master Londonskogo dinosa’,
thus creating the present name of the group.8 Ch. Kardara
compiled a comprehensive list of this group, considering the
vessels as products of a workshop on Rhodes, which she called
the ‘ergasterion dinou’.9 K. Schefold was the first to realize the
Aiolian origin, comparing the dinos in Basle with the
Orientalising pottery from Larisa.10 E. Walter-Karydi followed his
localisation of this group, which she named after the dinos in
Basle, and compared its style with other examples of Aiolian
vase-painting.11 L.V. Kopeikina published a number of fragments
of the ‘London Dinos group’ from Berezan pointing out that this
Milesian colony on the northern Black Sea shore was, together
with Naukratis, the main finding place outside the East
Aegean.12 Publishing an early example from Pyrrha on Lesbos,
W. Schiering assented finally to the Aiolian provenance of the
group,13 and R.M. Cook, by using the name ‘London Dinos
group’ in his handbook on East Greek pottery, firmly established
it as the canonical name for the group.14 Recently, K. Ýren
enlarged the list of pertinent vessels and fragments
considerably, mostly with finds from Phokaia and Pitane, and
went more fully into details of style.15
In addition to stylistic studies dealing exclusively with the
Wild Goat style, excavations have provided an insight into a
broader range of ceramic classes produced by Aiolian potters. In
Aiolis, however, digging started later and the explored sites have
remained fewer than in other parts of the Aegean, including
adjacent Ionia. At most of the sites, the excavations of early
Greek levels have been limited to small areas and therefore the
stratigraphic evidence was meagre. There are only two
exceptions, where excavations were carried out on a large scale:
Larisa and Pitane. The extensive excavations carried out by L.
Kjellberg and J. Boehlau 1902 and again 1932/4 at the site of
Buruncuk, conventionally identified with ancient Larisa,16
proved particularly prolific in Archaic pottery (Figs 12–14;
16–19; 21–24), yielding a great variety of painted and Grey
wares. In 1942, K. Schefold published the ceramic finds in a
comprehensive analytical monograph, which is still the
cornerstone of Aiolian pottery studies.17 The Larisa material
comprises a much larger range of typological and stylistic groups
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 109
Kerschner
than those known before from Naukratis or Rhodes. Evidently, a
fair number of ceramic classes were never exported outside
Aiolis and its vicinity. At Pitane a large necropolis of the Archaic
period was excavated by E. Akurgal from 1959 to 1965.18 The
graves contained a considerable number of painted Aiolian
vessels that were only recently published by K. Ýren.19 Some
grave contexts with Corinthian imports provided useful
indications for absolute chronology. Ýren devoted a meticulous
study to the stylistic development not only of the Wild Goat style
but also of a simpler variety of Aiolian vase-painting christened
‘Punktstil’ (‘dot style’) by him (Figs 13–14).20
Less rich in painted vessels, but important for the
chronology of Aiolian pottery, is the necropolis of Assos,
excavated by R. Stupperich 1989-94.21 A smaller number of
painted vessels were found in graves at Myrina and Gryneion.22
Until recently, archaeological evidence for the early history of
110 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 1 Map of Aiolis
Kyme was very scanty,23 even though this polis enjoyed,
according to Strabo, a reputation as ‘the largest and best of the
Aiolian cities’.24 From 1988 onwards, M. Frasca succeeded in
revealing a stratigraphic sequence going back to the Late
Geometric period in a trench on the southern of the two hills of
the city.25 On the island of Lesbos, Geometric and Archaic
pottery was unearthed at the ancient towns of Mytilene,
Methymna, Antissa and Pyrrha.26 None of these sites has so far
proved rich in painted vessels. ‘The ceramic repertoire in the
island throughout the Archaic period continues to be dominated
by Aiolic Grey wares.’27
To sum up: great progress has been made in studies on the
stylistic development and, to a lesser extent, on the chronology
of Aiolian pottery. The question of the exact provenance of the
different categories of Aiolian pottery, however, has remained
unresolved.

The unsolved question of the exact provenance
Interpreting quantitative concentrations and distribution
patterns of finds was for a long time the only feasible method to
identify the origin of a certain typological or stylistic group of
pottery.28 Both methods are important, but neither is definitive.
Some ceramic classes were produced mainly for export and
therefore may occur in extremely high quantities at other places.
An indicative example is bird bowls of the standard fabric: they
were made in the ‘bird bowl workshops’ of provenance group B
on the North Ionian mainland, and thousands of them were
unearthed at Ephesos and Miletos to where they had been
exported.29 The reconstruction of distribution patterns depends
greatly on the state of research in the region in question. If only
a few sites have been investigated while major historical centres
remain unexplored, the risk of error is considerable.30 That is the
case in Aiolis, where only two minor sites have been excavated
extensively – Larisa and Pitane – while we have only scarce and
patchy information on the important poleis of Kyme, Myrina or
Mytilene during the Geometric and Archaic periods. This want
of appropriate archaeological evidence is the reason why
general historical considerations have played a decisive role in
the discussion about the location of Aiolian pottery centres.
Vague conclusions drawn from notes by ancient authors on the
economic and political roles of different cities encouraged the
idea that the North Ionian polis of Phokaia could have been the
leading centre of Aiolian art.31 R.M. Cook commented critically
on this view which still prevails: ‘In what place or places this
Aeolian pottery was made is not yet known; ... and claims for
Phocaea are based mainly on its having been Ionian and
therefore progressive’.32 P. Dupont was the first to raise a
substantial objection to the Phokaian claim, basing himself on
scientific analyses of clays and sherds.33 He introduced, at the
same time as J. Boardman,34 archaeometric methods into East
Greek pottery studies.
An archaeometric approach to detect the pottery centres of
Aiolis
Following in their wake, H. Mommsen and I started an
archaeometric programme in 1991. Our aim was to locate the
pottery centres of the East Aegean and to investigate their
repertoire of ceramic classes. In the course of time, a number of
colleagues joined this project, contributing East Greek pottery
from all over the Aegean and from colonial sites from Naukratis
in the South to Berezan in the North and Sicily in the West.35
Each of the participants is working on one or more production
sites or finding places. At the same time, all are networked
through the Bonn data bank, thus ensuring the comparability of
the chemical analyses and providing a platform for the
discussion of the results and their interpretation. From 1997
onwards H. Mommsen and I have focused our research on
Aiolis, in close co-operation with M. Akurgal (Ýzmir) and M.
Frasca (Catania) as well as with the kind support of the curators
of the university museums at Bonn (W. Geominy) and Göttingen
(D. Graepler). Up to now, we have analysed 30 finds from Kyme
and 27 from Larisa in Aiolis as well as 119 from the neighbouring
North Ionian sites of Phokaia and Smyrna.
The chemical provenance group G and its subgroup g
The NAA of pottery finds from the Aiolian sites of Kyme and
Larisa shows a striking predominance of the chemical
On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery
provenance group G, including its subgroup g (cf. Appendix 1).
The differences in the concentrations of the single elements
between G and g are only small, as H. Mommsen detected.36 This
close agreement in composition points to a common origin
rather than to two distant production sites. The slight variations
in the element pattern might be due to minor inhomogeneities
within the clay bed or / and to different recipes used by the
potters in preparing the paste.
In addition, there are archaeological arguments that suggest
a common origin for G and g. Both element patterns cover a long
span of time (cf. Appendix 1): G can be traced at Kyme and
Larisa from the Subgeometric to the Hellenistic period; g even
from Late Bronze Age until Roman Imperial times. Furthermore,
both G and g comprise essentially the same range of wares and
even stylistic groups during the Subgeometric and Archaic
periods (cf. Appendix 1). There are a few more categories
represented in G, a fact which may be explained by the
circumstance that our data bank includes at the moment 59
samples of provenance group G, but only 25 of its subgroup g.
The parallel occurrence of both element patterns at Kyme and
Larisa over a long duration and, even more, their almost
identical repertoire support the interpretation of the chemical
data as a main provenance group (G) and a subgroup (g), both
originating from the same pottery centre, rather than two
distant production places.
Ceramic wares and stylistic groups of provenance group G/g
It is a communis opinio that ‘unlike all other Greeks, the eastern
Aiolians ... did not make any painted Geometric pottery’ during
the Geometric period, but started with a Subgeometric style
early in the 7th century bc.37 Before that date, they appear to
have been satisfied with their traditional Grey ware. The few
finds of Late Geometric vessels in Aiolis were generally regarded
as imports.38 Our NAA so far comprises three examples of Late
Geometric pottery found at Aiolian sites, none of them
belonging to the provenance group G/g. The element pattern of
a krater found at Kyme (Kyme 08) with crosshatched triangles, a
hatched meander and a chequerboard painted on a greyish
brown surface matches no provenance group hitherto known
from the East Aegean.39 The same applies to a krater or dinos
from Larisa in Göttingen (Lari 12, Fig. 12) with vertical zigzags
and a crosshatched lozenge chain framed by multiple lines.40
The third sample, a bird kotyle of standard fabric, shows the
element pattern B of the North Ionian ‘bird bowl workshops’.41
The subsequent development of Aiolian vase painting in the
Archaic period shows two very different styles practised
simultaneously, as Ýren found out from the grave contexts at
Pitane and Gryneion.42 On the one hand, there is an Aiolian
variant of the East Greek Wild Goat style and on the other hand
a simpler, schematic style, which Schefold called
‘Subgeometric’,43 whereas Ýren created the name ‘dot style’
(‘Punktstil’), as a result of the predilection for dots as framing
lines and for the filling of ornaments.44 All three analysed
examples of the latter style belong to the provenance group G: a
dinos from Larisa (Lari 15, Fig. 13)45 with a metope frieze
containing the typical water birds of East Greek Geometric
tradition alternating with herringbone pattern and crosshatched
fields, a pyxis from Larisa (Lari 16, Fig. 14),46 and a stand from
Phokaia (Phok 27).47 The artistic quality of the ‘dot style’ lies in
its spontaneous and dynamic brushwork as well as its gay and
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 111
Kerschner
colourful overall effect,48 which compensate for the evident
carelessness in the finish. Ýren underlines the ‘provincial
character’49 of these vases. This is the reason why he assumes
that they were ‘produced in the small Aiolian towns of the
hinterland’ in the poorer mountainous part of Aiolis.50 Our
archaeometric analyses proved, however, that the ‘dot style’ was
at home at the same place as the most elaborate version of the
Aiolian Wild Goat style, the above-mentioned London Dinos
group (Figs 2–8, 31).
These dinoi can be grouped by stylistic criteria around the
name piece from Kameiros in the British Museum (Fig. 2). Their
decoration is characterized by competent drawing of the figures,
a vivid, bright colouring and a peculiar choice of angular and
voluminous filling ornaments. Trademarks of the London Dinos
group are the cross with inserted chevrons and the doubly
outlined band of tongues with dotted peaks in between. There
are different ways to decorate the rim: either with a broad cable,
also adorned with dotted peaks, with a lozenge net, with a
single line meander, or with a meander hatched at right angles
and framing broad hooks in purple like on a fragment from
Naukratis (Nauk 13, Fig. 8).51 The extensive use of purple is
typical for the London Dinos group. The finest examples show
narrative scenes including human figures, as on the fragment
from Phokaia that has been interpreted by E. Akurgal as the
judgment of Paris.52 The homogeneity in style indicates that the
London Dinos group was made in one single workshop. This
observation is confirmed by our NAA. All examples analysed so
far turn out to be members of the provenance group G/g (Smyr
06,53 Smyr 22,54 Phok 29,55 Nauk 13 – Fig. 8, Bere 178 – Fig. 1556 –
as well as three further examples from Berezan in St. Petersburg
analysed by R. Posamentir, Bere 106 – cf. Posamentir Fig. 13).57
Beside the London Dinos group, there are other varieties of
Aiolian Wild Goat style, and again the majority belongs to the
provenance group G/g, including the skyphos kraters Lari 18 58
(Fig. 16), Lari 1959 (Fig. 17), Lari 20 60 (Fig. 18) and the oinochoe
Lari 21 (Fig. 19),61 all found at Larisa. The animals are stylised,
displaying the typical Aiolian tendency towards the abstract.
The filling ornaments tend to be even more enlarged and
sometimes the figures seem nearly to be swallowed by the
tapestry of ornaments; even the belly of a wild goat can be filled
with a meander (Fig. 18). The fragment of a skyphos krater (Fig.
17) from Larisa demonstrates how broad the stylistic range of
figure drawing is within the provenance group G/g. An
unnaturalistic idea of figures and a clumsy execution, however,
are not a matter of the place of production, or at least not alone.
The provenance group G/g also comprises a large number of
Aiolian Orientalising vessels that are decorated only with
ornaments. The motives are borrowed from the repertoire of the
Wild Goat style, but enlarged and emphasized by putting them
into places normally reserved for figures, like the metopes on
the kotyle from Smyrna (Smyr 46, Fig. 20).62 In the 6th century
bc, vase-painters of the provenance group G/g adopted the
black-figure technique without renouncing the traditional
yellowish slip. The birds on the skyphos-krater Lari 23 (Fig. 21)
are executed in pure black-figure technique, admitting even
incised blobs as filling ornaments.63 The shape of the vessel has a
long tradition at Larisa. The black-figure frieze of ducks on the
krater Lari 22 (Fig. 22) is painted in a bichrome technique, using
a brilliant orange-red shade as the main colour and a dull dark
brown for details in addition to those indicated by incisions.64
112 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
The predilection for the vivid contrast of strong colours is typical
for the painters of the provenance group G/g.
Another method to create a colourful effect was painting
with white and purple directly over the dark glazed surface of
the vessels, sometimes also using incision.65 The main group
decorated in this technique are black-polychrome oinochoai
with incised tongues on the shoulder and purple and white
bands on the body (Fig. 9).66 These Aiolian oinochoai were
exported to Naukratis (Nauk 12, Fig. 9)67 and Berezan,68 as has
been shown by NAA. An exceptional example from Pitane
combines the decorative scheme of these oinochoai with an
animal frieze on the belly that is stylistically related to the
London Dinos group (cf. Appendix 2).69 A group of oinochoai
from Vroulia, possibly made locally on Rhodes, is akin to these
Aiolian vessels.70 The main difference is the decoration of the
neck, which is reserved on the Rhodian pieces, sometimes with
a broken cable. The decorative scheme of the black-polychrome
oinochoai (Fig. 9) seems to have been inspired by Corinthian
examples of the Late Protocorinthian and Transitional periods.71
Beside this class of oinochoai, there is a broad range of other
shapes decorated in similar way by Aiolian vase-painters, like
the dinos Lari 27 (Fig. 23).72 The hastily drawn meander on the
rim and the dot-rosette on the shoulder are painted in added
white colour on a dark reddish brown glaze. The light-on-dark
technique in general is widespread, although not frequent in
East Greek pottery.73 It has a long tradition, reaching back at
least to the early 7th century bc.74 Famous examples are the
Chian chalices with floral and occasionally even figurative
decoration on the interior (see e.g. Williams Fig. 14)75 and the
Vroulian class, principally found on the island of Rhodes and
presumably made there.76
A less ambitious style of Aiolian vase-painting in the late
Archaic period is purely ornamental without incision. Since the
motives are formed from drop-shaped elements, I propose to call
this variety ‘drop style’. The ornaments are simplified versions of
vegetable pedigree like the single palmettes on a kotyle from
Larisa (Laris 24, Fig. 24)77 and the wreath on another from Kyme
(Kyme 14, Fig. 25).78 The potters of provenance group G/g also
played a part in the production of the widespread classes of
rosette bowls (Smyr 32, Fig. 26)79 and dishes with meander on
the rim (Phok 49, Fig. 27).80 There is little surprise that
provenance group G comprises also the ubiquitous ware
decorated with simple bands and wavy lines (e.g. a banded dish
of the Archaic period, Kyme 05, Fig. 29).81 Apart from painted
wares, the pottery centre G/g was an important producer of
Grey ware, which is so characteristic for Aiolis, especially in the
Geometric and Archaic periods. Our analyses comprise different
kinds of Grey ware: with grey surface or with grey slip, polished
or unpolished (e.g. a carinated bowl from Kyme, Kyme 23, Fig.
30,82 and a fenestrated stand from Naukratis, Nauk 64, Fig. 10).83
Apart from ceramic vessels, the pottery centre G/g
produced also architectural terracottas84 and terracotta
figurines. The male head (Nauk 77, Fig. 11) found at Naukratis
and attributed by NAA to the provenance group G/g is one of the
few known Aiolian terracottas of the Archaic period.85 The shape
of the beard with its rolling outline and the pointed moustache
is typical for the middle and the third quarter of the 6th century
bc.86 A strange feature is, however, the omission of the forehead.
The face ends abruptly with the eyebrows, turning at right angle
to the flat calvaria, on which strands of hair are painted. This

has to be regarded as a regional characteristic rather than a
chronological one. A plastic vase in the shape of a mythological
character with horse’s ears from Sardis has many features in
common with the Aiolian head (Fig. 11): the broad face, the
large almond-shaped eyes, the trimmed beard, and the painting
of the details on a yellowish slip.87
Characterisation of the provenance group G/g
Aiolian vase-painting of the Archaic period shows a broad
artistic variety. Most scholars, like K. Schefold, H. Walter, E.
Walter-Karydi, E. Akurgal, R.M. Cook and K. Ýren, explain this
phenomenon by assuming several production places.88 They
pursue, however, two different ideas. K. Schefold and R.M. Cook
generally supposed that most of the pottery was made at its
finding place. They regarded the vessels found at Larisa and
Pitane as works of local potters and painters.89 This means that
different stylistic groups originate from the same site. In
contrast, K. Ýren, following ideas of H. Walter and E. Walter-
Karydi,90 divides the Archaic Aiolian vases according to their
quality of design and execution. Consequently, he tries to
attribute the elaborate groups to big and famous cities, the
simpler varieties like the ‘dot style’ (‘Punktstil’) to smaller towns,
preferably in the mountainous areas:
Es ist anzunehmen, daß die Punktstilgefäße in den kleinen
aiolischen Städten im Hinterland der Aiolis, wie Aigai, Neonteichos,
Killa, Temnos, hergestellt wurden, während die aiolischen Städte an
der Küste Tierfriesstilgefäße produzierten.91
Within the Aiolian Wild Goat style Ýren proposes a distribution
according to the quality of vase-painting. On the one hand, he
assumes that
die aTs [= aiolischer Tierfriesstil] IIIb-Gefäße und die meisten der in
Larisa gefundenen schwarzfigurigen Gefäße auch tatsächlich in
Larisa hergestellt worden sind’, on the other hand: ‘Da die Gefäße
des aTs II und IIIa sorgfältigere Stile als aTs IIIb haben, könnte man
sich die großen und wichtigen aiolischen Städte wie Kyme und
Myrina für sie als Herstellungsort vorstellen.
Furthermore, he considers the most ambitious variant of Aiolian
Wild Goat style, the London Dinos group, as a product of a
‘phokäischen Keramikschule’,92 being ‘pseudo-Aiolian’ rather
than ‘Aiolian’.93 However, K. Ýren cautiously emphasises that the
proposed localisations are hypothetical and have yet to be
verified by archaeometric analyses.94
Such analyses have now been carried out. They evince a
different concept of the pottery centres in Aiolis. Our NAA show
that provenance group G/g covers a diversity of stylistic groups
originating from only one prolific pottery centre and probably
also its vicinity. This means that potters and vase-painters
working in different traditions were living together in the same
town or nearby without absorbing the characteristic style of the
others. Their products seem to have been offered for sale to the
same customers, for vases painted in diverse Aiolian styles were
found together in the same graves in the necropolis of Pitane.95
Social differentiation within the grave goods was evidently not
displayed by means of the style or technical quality of a vessel.
There was, however, a clear differentiation with respect to
the export. Only a small part of the output of the pottery centre
G/g was distributed outside Aiolis. The most widespread class of
figured Aiolian vase-painting is the London Dinos group: it is
also the most elaborate (Figs 2–8, 15, 31, Appendix 2). These
splendid dinoi must have been highly appreciated by customers
On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery
who esteemed a certain accuracy of drawing, but at the same
time preferred a more vivid colouring than that generally
offered by the Ionian Wild Goat style. Apart from these luxury
vessels, the pottery centre G/g had a stake in the mass-produced
rosette bowls (Fig. 26)96 and dishes with meander on the rim
(Fig. 27).97 Both were exported widely around the
Mediterranean and Black Sea. These two classes of pottery were
produced in several centres, mainly in North Ionia (provenance
groups B and E) and, as far as meander-rim dishes are
concerned, also at Ephesos (X)98 and presumably at Smyrna
(F).99 Moreover, there is a class of late, standardised Wild Goat
vases with a similar range of production places: the so-called
‘Borysthenes amphorae’ (cf. Posamentir Fig. 10).100 Those were
produced mainly in North Ionia (provenance groups B and E),
but also in the Aiolian pottery centre G/g, like a fragment from
Berezan in Halle (Bere 174, Fig. 28).101 The ‘Borysthenes
amphorae’ were exported far and wide, to the Black Sea
(Berezan, Istros, Pantikapaion), the Levant (Tell Sukas) and
Kyrenaika (Taucheira/Tocra).102
Such close interconnections between neighbouring pottery
centres in North Ionia and Aiolis are best explained by the
hypothesis of migrating potters.103 Such potters left, as
individuals or in small groups, their home and settled
permanently or for a certain time in a nearby polis. A number of
possible reasons may have caused their movement, among them
the search for economic advantages, for further education by
other masters, or simply private reasons. Migration within the
same region is a natural phenomenon in all periods. The
immigrants brought along their own style, which they had
learned at home, and thus spread it among their new
colleagues. Flourishing in a new cultural environment, this
implanted style was susceptible to new elements.104
Location of the provenance group G/g
Where was the prolific pottery centre G/g situated that
dominated the production of Archaic Aiolian fine ware? The
distribution pattern of the finds analysed up until now shows a
clear concentration on the mainland coast to the north and to
the south of the Hermos estuary in the border region between
Aiolis and North Ionia (Fig. 1). Nearly all East Aegean samples
come from Kyme, Larisa, Phokaia and Smyrna.105 Thus, it is very
likely that the home of provenance group G/g was in this very
area. In order to assess the exact location, misfired vessels and
undisturbed fills of pottery kilns are the best reference material
to prove a local production. Unfortunately, they are rare in this
region. Phokaia is the only site where a pottery workshop has
been excavated. It dates from the Roman Imperial period
(1st/2nd century ad).106 The NAA of 16 wasters from the dump of
this workshop107 and two other misfired vessels discovered by E.
Langlotz (Fig. 32)108 resulted in a number of different element
patterns (T and Y as well as several chemical singles), which are
all distinctly different from provenance group G/g (Fig. 33).109
This is a strong argument against a localisation at Phokaia,110
which had been proposed by E. Walter-Karydi and K. Ýren for the
London Dinos group and related pottery belonging to
provenance group G/g.111
The discriminant analysis of the 56 samples from Phokaia
(Fig. 33) is revealing for the character of the site. The amount of
imports is comparatively high. A number of different
provenance groups are represented among the Archaic fine
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 113
 Kerschner

114 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Figure 31 Finds of the London Dinos group in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (cf.Appendix 2)

wares: Attic (KROP), the North Ionian provenance groups B and
E, the Aiolian provenance group G/g as well as, at a smaller
scale, Miletos (D) and Z (probably Lydian). It is important to
underline that G/g is only one provenance group among several
others represented at Phokaia. Among the remaining samples,
there is no dominant chemical group which could account for an
important local production of Archaic fine ware. We detected
two small chemical groups (T, Y) among the Roman wasters and
a number of singles, none of them going with any of the Archaic
pieces. The chemical disparity of the wasters that are surely
local products points to a complicated geology of the region
around Phokaia with diverse clay beds and probably also clay
mixtures.
Ö. Özyiðit recently reported the discovery of an Archaic
pottery workshop at Phokaia.112 The publication of the ceramic
finds and their contexts, ideally supplemented by archaeometric
investigations, will show, which classes of pottery were made on
site in the Archaic period.113 The predominance of imports with
the element pattern G/g among the Aiolian Orientalising
pottery finds from Phokaia suggests, however, that a possible
local share in it was not plentiful. With regard to the exports, all
Aiolian pieces analysed so far from colonial sites (cf. Appendix 1)
belong to the provenance group G/g that clearly differs in its
element pattern from the local Phokaian wasters. Thus, a
possible Phokaian share in the export of ceramic fine wares can
have been only marginal. In any case, the most widespread class
of Aiolian figured vase-painting, the London Dinos group
(Appendix 2; Fig. 31), shows the element pattern G/g and,
therefore, most likely was not made at Phokaia.
At Kyme and Larisa, however, the situation is significantly
different. At both sites the provenance group G/g is almost
totally dominant in all wares and over a long span of time. Since
no kiln wasters have been found at either site up until now, we
have tried to analyse pots of different types and periods – from
Subgeometric painted ware to a Roman water pipe (Appendix
1). Among the 30 samples from Kyme, five pieces that could
typologically be identified as imports proved to be of Euboean,
Corinthian and North Ionian origin (Fig. 34).114 Twenty-one out
of the remaining 25 samples show one consistent element
pattern – that of provenance group G/g. The remaining four
samples (Kyme 08, 17, 26, 27) are chemical singles, the origin of
which cannot yet be determined. This predominance of one
single element pattern at the same site over a long period of time
is a weighty argument in favour of a localisation of provenance
group G/g at Kyme itself or in its vicinity.115 Otherwise, we would
have to assume that the Kymeans imported all kinds of ceramic
wares from elsewhere over several hundred years. At Larisa, the
NAA show the same predominance of the provenance group G/g
as at Kyme, comprising painted and Grey wares from the Late
Bronze Age to the Late Archaic period. Larisa is, therefore,
another possible candidate for the location of group G.
At the moment we have only historical and geographical
arguments on which to make a decision. Most of them speak in
favour of Kyme, which was an important harbour city of
considerable size and economic power. Strabo called it ‘the
On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery
largest and best of the Aiolian cities’.116 Larisa, on the other hand,
was a small town and flourished only for a short period. Since
both sites are situated only 12km apart (Fig. 1), it is also
conceivable that they shared the same clay beds, or that the
same geological layer extends into the territories of both poleis.
If this is the case, the pottery of both Kyme and Larisa will show
an identical element pattern, unless the potters prepared the
raw material according to divergent recipes.
Such a result contradicts the opinions of E. Walter-Karydi
and K. Ýren on the place of origin of the London Dinos group,
which they assume was Phokaia.117 Only K. Schefold considered
Kyme as the most likely home of the workshop.118 The arguments
that have been brought forward against the localisation of an
important pottery workshop at Kyme have been mainly based on
the alleged insignificance of the city in long distance trade119 and
her reluctance to found colonies overseas. Nor was Kyme
involved in the organisation of Naukratis, as Herodotus (2.178)
indicates. In this kind of overseas venture, Phokaia was much
more active, and that is the reason why some scholars presumed
that Phokaia was also the main centre of arts and crafts in
Aiolis.120 But is it inescapable to conclude that potters and
merchants lived in the same city? There exist counter-examples
demonstrating that neighbouring cities can create an
economically efficient symbiosis, one focusing on the
production, the other on the sale. There are strong indications
that merchants of Aigina traded painted pottery from Athens
and Corinth, as J. Boardman pointed out.121 Whereas Aiginetan
potters did not produce painted pottery during the Archaic
period, the seafarers of the island turned out to be most
adventurous and successful merchants in overseas trade.122 In a
similar way, although to a much lesser extent, Phokaians versed
in long-distance trade may have dealt in the ceramic products of
neighbouring Kyme, especially within their sphere of economic
interest in the Western Mediterranean (cf. Fig. 31).
Summary
In the discussion on the provenance of Aiolian pottery,
archaeometric analyses have proved to be an appropriate way
out of the aporia caused by the lack of archaeological and
literary evidence. This series of NAA should be seen as a
beginning, which has to be extended by further investigations.
So far the following results have been obtained: in Aiolis, one
important and prolific pottery centre prevailed in the
production and even more in the export of Archaic painted
wares. Its ceramic products are defined by the chemical
provenance group G and its subgroup g. The repertoire of the
pottery centre G/g is impressive, comprising different styles and
techniques of painted pottery as well as Grey and banded wares.
The pottery workshops of provenance group G/g were situated
most likely at Kyme. Neighbouring Larisa may possibly have had
a share in G/g, too. Thus, the place of production of the splendid
dinos in the British Museum (Fig. 2), the name-vase of the most
famous group of Aiolian painted vases, can be considered
revealed.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 115
Kerschner
Appendix 1
Differentiation of the chemical provenance
group G and its subgroup g
According to ceramic wares
Provenance group G
painted pottery of Aiolian Subgeometric style (Lari 15, associated with G,
Fig. 13)
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the
London Dinos group: Phok 29, 31; Smyr 06, Smyr 45; Nauk 13, Fig. 8;
other groups of Wild Goat style: Lari 18, Fig. 16; Lari 20, Fig. 18; Lari
21, Fig. 19; Phok 28, 53, 56; with human figures: Lari 19, Fig. 17;
ornamental: Kyme 19; Lari 17; Smy 46, Fig. 20)
painted pottery of Aiolian ‘dot style’ (‘Punktstil’) (Lari 16, associated with
G, Fig. 14; Phok 27)
painted pottery of Aiolian bichrome style (black-figure technique: Lari
22, Fig. 22; ornamental: Smyr 60)
painted pottery of Aiolian black-figure style (Lari 23, Fig. 21)
painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Lari 24, Fig. 24; Lari 25,
26; Smyr 59, 62)
painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian light-on-dark style (Lari 27, Fig. 23)
dishes with meander on the rim: (Phok 49, Fig. 27; Klaz 01)123
rosette bowls (Phok 15 ?; Smyr 32, Fig. 26)
black glazed oinochoai with added red and white (Bere 107, 108,
Posamentir Fig. 1 top left; Nauk 12, Fig. 9)124
banded ware of the Archaic period (Kyme 05, Fig. 29; Kyme 18, 28; Phok
07, 50, 51; Bere 138, Posamentir Fig. 14)
Grey ware of the Archaic period (with grey surface: Kyme 21, 30 and dark
grey slip: Kyme 22, 23, Fig. 30; indeterminate: Phok 10)
undecorated ware of Hellenistic period (Kyme 03)
Sub-group g
Red Wash ware of the Late Bronze Age (Lari 10)
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the
London Dinos group: Smyr 22; Bere 178,125 Fig. 15; other groups of
Wild Goat style: ornamental Kyme 12, Phok 54)
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the
‘Borysthenes amphorae’: Bere 174, Fig. 28)126
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style combining
reservation and Corinthianising black-figure techniques (Bere
001)127
painted pottery of the Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Kyme 14, Fig. 25; Smyr
47)
black glazed oinochoai with added red and white (Bere 105, Posamentir
Fig. 1 top right)128
banded ware of the Archaic period (Kyme 02, 06, 16, 20, 25, 29; Phok 21)
Grey ware of the Archaic period, with grey surface (Kyme 13; Nauk 64,
Fig. 10).
painted pottery of Archaic Lydian marbled ware (Smyr 58)
architectural terracottas of the Archaic period (Phok 32)
terracotta figurine of the Archaic period (Nauk 77, Fig. 11)
trade amphorae of the Hellenistic period (Kyme 01)
lamps of the Hellenistic period (Kyme 24)
water-pipes of the Roman period (Kyme 15)
According to find spots
Finds from Aiolis
At Kyme, both subgroups are represented with a broad range of ceramic
classes.129
Provenance group G
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Kyme 19)
banded ware of the Archaic period (Kyme 05, Fig. 29; Kyme 18, 28)
Grey ware of the Archaic period (both with grey surface: Kyme 21, 30 and
dark grey slip: Kyme 22, 23)
undecorated ware of Hellenistic period (Kyme 03)
Subgroup g
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Kyme 12)
painted pottery of the Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Kyme 14, Fig. 25)
banded ware of the Archaic period (Kyme 02, 06, 16, 20, 25, 29)
Grey ware of the Archaic period (with grey surface: Kyme 13)
trade amphora of the Hellenistic period (Kyme 01)
lamp of the Hellenistic period (Kyme 24)
water-pipe of the Roman period (Kyme 15)
At Larisa, group G is much better represented than subgroup g.
116 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Provenance group G
painted pottery of Aiolian Subgeometric style (Lari 15, Fig. 13)
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style: Lari 18,
Fig. 16; Lari 20, Fig. 18; Lari 21, Fig. 19; with human figures: Lari 19,
Fig. 17; ornamental: Lari 17)
painted pottery of Aiolian ‘dot style’ (‘Punktstil’) (Lari 16, Fig. 14)
painted pottery of Aiolian bichrome style in black-figure technique (Lari
22, Fig. 22)
painted pottery of Aiolian black-figure style (Lari 23, Fig. 21)
painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Lari 24, Fig. 24; Lari 25,
26)
painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian light-on-dark style (Lari 27, Fig. 23)
Subgroup g
red wash ware of the Late Bronze Age (Lari 10)
Nine further examples, mostly of Grey ware, were analysed by D. Hertel
and H. Mommsen (Lari 01-09), six of them belonging to provenance
group G, two to subroup g.
Finds from Phokaia130
Provenance group G
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the
London Dinos group: Phok 29, 31; other groups of Wild Goat style:
Phok 28, 53, 56
painted pottery of Aiolian ‘dot style’ (‘Punktstil’) (Phok 27)
dish with meander on the rim (Phok 49, Fig. 27)
rosette bowl ? (Phok 15)
banded ware of the Archaic period (Phok 07, 50, 51)
Grey ware of the Archaic period (polished: Phok 10)
Subgroup g
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (ornamental: Phok 54)
banded ware of the Archaic period (Phok 21)
architectural terracottas of the Archaic period (Phok 32)
Finds from sites outside Aiolis
Provenance group G
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the
London Dinos group: Smyr 06, Smyr 45; Nauk 13, Fig. 8; ornamental:
Smyr 46 (Fig. 20)).
painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Smyr 59, 62)
painted pottery of Aiolian bichrome style (ornamental: Smyr 60)
black glazed oinochoe with added red and white (Nauk 12, Fig. 9)
dish with meander on the rim (Klaz 01)
rosette bowl (Smyr 32, Fig. 26)
Six further examples were found at Berezan (Bere 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,
138, Posamentir Figs 1 top left, 13, 14 top).131
Subgroup g
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the
London Dinos group: Smyr 22, Bere 178,132 Fig. 15)
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style combining
reservation and Corinthianising black-figure techniques (Bere
001)133
painted pottery of Aiolian Orientalising style (Wild Goat style of the
‘Borysthenes amphorae’: Bere 174, Fig. 28)134
painted pottery of Archaic Aiolian ‘drop style’ (Smyr 47)
painted pottery of Archaic Lydian style (marbled ware: Smyr 58)
Grey ware of the Archaic period (Nauk 64, Fig. 10)
terracotta figurine of the Archaic period (Nauk 77, Fig. 11)
One further example found at Sardis (Sard 41) and three from Berezan
(Bere 101, 105 [Posamentir Fig.1 top right], 126).135

Appendix 2
Dinoi of the London Dinos group and
stylistically related vessels
This list is based on those compiled by Ch. Kardara, E. Walter-Karydi and
K. Ýren,136 augmenting their compilations with further, partly
unpublished pieces and discussing questionable attributions.
Amathus
1. Dinos and stand, Nicosia, inv. 1966/X-29/1: Karageorghis 1961, 312, fig.
65; Dikaios 1961/62, 38, fig. 11; Nicolau 1967, 400, pl. 115.11; Walter-Karydi
1970, 3 no. 4; Gjerstad 1977, 34-5 no. 160, pl. 18.1; Thalmann 1977, 74, 77
no. 111 (dinos), no. 112 (stand), pl. 17.1-3; Stampolidis et al. 1998, 137 no.
93.
Stylistically related vessels of different shape
1. Amphora: Thalmann 1977, 77, pl. 17.4; Ýren 2002, 198 no. 1.
2. Amphora: Thalmann 1977, 77, pl. 17.10; Ýren 2002, 198 no. 2.
3. Oinochoe or small amphora: Thalmann 1977, 77 no. 113, pl. 17, 5-8; Ýren
2002, 199 no. 7. (Ýren detached these two fragments from the shoulder
and belly fragments, which had been attributed to the same vessel by
Thalmann, and classified them as dinoi without having seen them.
Thalmann, however, did not mention glaze on the inside of these two
pieces, whereas he stated that the dinos ibid. 77 no. 111 was glazed on the
interior.)
Ashkelon
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Wall fragments: Stager 1996, 67, 69, fig. 10 (the 2 fragments below at
the right); Ýren 2002, 185-6, 199 no. 8, fig. 10a (Ýren classified the 2
fragments as parts of a dinos, but this is uncertain considering the
smallness of the sherds).
Assos
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Wall fragment of a closed vessel:Utili 1999, 196, 307 no. 314, fig. 22 (the
incline of the piece on the drawing seems too steep, since the tongues
suggest that it belongs to the upper end of the body); Ýren 2002, 199 no. 9.
2. Wall fragment of closed vessel: Utili 1999, 199 no. 334, fig. 23 (the
fragmentary ornament is not the ‘Rest einer Lotosblüte’, but a row of
tongues; Ýren 2002, 199 no. 10.
3. Wall fragments of a closed vessel: Utili 1999, 198 no. 333a+b, fig. 23;
Ýren 2002, 199 no. 11.
Ýren classified the three fragments Assos nos 1-3 as parts of dinoi,
although Utili considered them explicitly parts of closed vessels.
Berezan
1. Rim and wall fragment of a dinos, Odessa, Arkheologicheskii Muzei
inv. 34396, 36924: Kopeikina 1970b, 562, 565, pl. 2.1; Kopeikina 1982, 27,
fig. 22; Ýren 2002, 182, 184, 199 no. 15, fig. 14. (These fragments have
subsequently been joined).
2. Three wall sherds of a dinos: St. Petersburg, Hermitage inv. Á.68-27:
Kopeikina 1970b, 563, 565, pl. 2.2; Kopeikina 1982, 27, fig. 23a (on this
figure, only two fragments are shown); Ýren 2002, 182, 184, 199 no. 16.
3. Two large rim and wall fragments of a dinos: St. Petersburg,
Hermitage Inv. Áåð. 75-7: Kopeikina 1981, 196, fig. 4a; Kopeikina 1982, 27,
fig. 23 á; Ýren 2002, 199 no. 17; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, fig. 2,
sample no. 106, provenance group G.
4. Large wall fragment of a dinos, Odessa, Arkheologicheskii Muzei inv.
A-34903+39640: Kopeikina 1982, 27 fig. 23 â; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 19.
5. Reconstructed dinos, Hermitage Inv. Á. 66-7: Kopeikina 1970b, 563,
565, pl. 1.4; Kopeikina 1982, 27, fig. 24; Ýren 2002, 185, 199 no. 14.
6. Wall fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. B.91.233:
Solovyov 1999, 48-9, fig. 29.2; Solovyov 2001, 126, fig. 6; Ýren 2002, 200
no. 22.
7. Wall fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. B.82.8:
Solovyov 1999, 48-9, fig. 29.1; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 20.
8. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. B.88.20:
Solovyov 1999, 49-50, fig. 32 (bottom right); Solovyov 2001, 126, fig. 8
(bottom right); Ýren 2002, 200 no. 21.
9. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, Halle, inv. 480 (Fig. 15), sample no. Bere
178 (provenance group g): Kerschner 2006 .
10. Wall fragment of a dinos: Kopeikina 1970b, 563, 565, pl. 1.3; Ýren 2002,
199 no. 18.
11.Wall fragment of a dinos, Kiev, Institut Arkheologii inv. Á.63-1003:
Kopeikina 1970b, 563, 565, pl. 1.5; Ýren 2002, 185, 199 no. 13.
12. Reconstructed dinos in Odessa, Arkheologicheskii Muzei.
13. Wall fragment of a dinos, unpublished, excavation K. Marchenko
1999.137
14. Rim fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage: Posamentir and
On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery
Solovyov 2006, fig. 3, sample no. 109, provenance group G.
15. Wall fragments of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage: Posamentir and
Solovyov 2006, fig. 4, sample no. 110, provenance group G.
16. Several further fragments of dinoi were announced by Kopeikina
1970b, 565: ‘Auf Berezan wurden viele Dinos-Fragmente gefunden, die
man der sogenannten Gruppe des ‘Londoner Dinos’ zuschreiben kann.’;
cf. Kopeikina 1982, 27. Yet R. Posamentir (in this volume; Posamentir and
Solovyov 2006) has shown that the many fragments stored in the
Hermitage do not represent that many individual vessels, but belong to at
least 5 dinoi.
Stylistically related
1. Wall fragment of a dinos, Odessa, Arkheologicheskii Muzei inv. A-
36082: Kopeikina 1982, 25, 29, fig. 19b; Kopeikina 1986, 28-9, pl. 1.1a
(top); Ýren 2002, 172-4, 199 no. 12.
Gravisca
1. Rim and wall fragments of a dinos and a stand: Boitani Visentini 1978,
216-7 pl. 90.1; Boldrini 1994, 90-3 no. 157; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 23.
Gryneion
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Lekythos: Ýren 2002, 174-7, 205 no. 86, figs 7-8.
Ikaria, Sanctuary of Artemis Tauropolis
1. Wall fragment of a dinos: Politis 1939, 132, fig. 9; Kardara 1963, 275;
Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 12; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 25.
Istros
1. Wall fragment of a dinos: Lambrino 1938, 256-7 no. 13, fig. 222; Kardara
1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 11; Ploug 1973, 52 n. 337; Alexandrescu
1978, 41 no. 53, pl. 5; Dupont 1983, 30, fig. 2; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 24.
Kameiros (?)
1. Dinos. London, British Museum GR 1848.6-19.1 (Fig. 2): Kinch 1914,
192-3, 234, figs 73, 118e; Price 1924, 193-4, fig. 22 (‘Cameiros’); Schiering
1957, 14, pl. 9.1; Kardara 1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 2
(‘unbekannter Herkunft’); Boardman 1970, 92-4, pl. 44.5; Kopeikina
1982, 27, fig. 21; Schiering 1981-3, 202, 205, 207-8, pl. A; Akurgal 1993, pl.
114; Ýren 2002, 166, 182, 184-5, 203-4 no. 68, figs 1, 18.
Katane
1. Rim and wall fragments of a dinos (meander on the rim, meander
hooks and tongues on the shoulder): Catania, Soprintendenza inv. KC
6300, unpublished.
2. Shoulder fragment (with tongues) of a dinos: Catania,
Soprintendenza Inv. KC 6301, unpublished.
Both Katane nos 1-2 were excavated by G. Rizza (cf. the preliminary
report Rizza 1960) and are prepared for publication by A. Pautasso
(Catania), whom I thank for the permission to mention these pieces.
Both have been analysed in the meantime and yielded the element
pattern G.
Larisa on Hermos
1. Wall fragment of a dinos, Göttingen, Archäologische Sammlung inv.
7/91: Ýren 2002, 177, 200 no. 27, fig. 9b.
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Benoit 1965, 228-9, 294-5, pls 4.2, 37.3; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 29.
Stylistically related vessels of different shape
1. Fragment of an olpe: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 69, fig. 18; Ýren 2002,
177, 206.
2. Fragment of an oinochoe: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 69, pl. 21.17;
Walter 1968, 77-8 (considered to be a krater); Walter-Karydi 1973, 4
(considered to be a krater); Schiering 1981-3, 210 n. 19; Kerschner 1997a,
23 n. 94; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 26 (Ýren listed this fragment among the dinoi,
although Schefold described it as an oinochoe).
3. Fragment of a small oinochoe: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 68, pl. 20.8;
Ýren 2002, 200 no. 28 (Ýren classified this fragment as dinos, although
Schefold published it as a small oinochoe).
Málaga
1. Rim fragment of a dinos, Málaga Inv. 10073: Gran-Aymerich 1988, 209,
fig. 9.1; Olmos 1989, 500, 502, 521, fig. 7; Domínguez and Sánchez 2001,
27, fig. 24.1; Ýren 2002, 200 no. 30.
Massalia
1. Wall fragment of a dinos: Vasseur 1914, 28-9, pls 5.6-7; 6.1; Villard
1960, 39; Benoit 1965, 139-40, pl. 6.2; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 14; Ýren
2002, 200 no. 31.
2. Wall fragment of a dinos: M. Derain in Hesnard et al. 1999, 24 (top left).
Stylistically related vessels of different shape
1. Rim and wall fragment of a cup with concave walls, excavation Rue de
la Cathédrale, inv. 549: Musée d’Histoire de Marseille 1990, 16 (‘calice de
Chios’); Gantès 1999, 369, 378, fig. 2.3 (‘canthare ou ... tasse à anse’).
Megara Hyblaia
1. Shoulder fragment (with tongues) and wall fragments (not
reproduced), inv. 4/184 – 4/186: Vallet and Villard 1964, 79, pl. 65.3
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 117
Kerschner
(It seems doubtful if the rim fragments ibid. 79, pl. 65.1-2 belong to the
same vessel, as suggested by the authors).
2. Wall fragment (with grazing wild goat), inv. 6/3: Vallet and Villard
1964, 85, pl. 72.4.
3. Shoulder fragment (with meander hooks and tongues), inv. 6/5,
possibly from the same vessel as no. 2: Vallet and Villard 1964, 85, pl. 72.7.
Mytilene
1. Wall fragment of a dinos, inv. T86/17 L12 P25: Schaus 1992, 359, 361 no.
6, pl. 80; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 33.
2. Wall fragment of a Dinos (?): Schefold 1933, 154, fig. 11; Kardara 1963,
275; Ýren 2002, 182, 184, 200 no. 32.
Naukratis
1. Rim fragment of a dinos: Boston, Museum of Fine Arts Inv. 86.538 (77):
Fairbanks 1928, 102 no. 307.2, pl. 30; Walter-Karydi 1973, 138 no. 696, pl.
98 (considered to be Chiot).
2. Wall fragment of a dinos, London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1270
(Fig. 3): Price 1924, 193, fig. 20; Homann-Wedeking 1938, 16 no. P1;
Kardara 1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 1; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 39.
3. Large wall fragment of a dinos, London, British Museum GR 1886.4-
1.1288 (Fig. 4): Price 1924, 193, fig. 21; Homann-Wedeking 1938, 16 no. P3;
Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 3, pl. 8.2; Ýren 2002, 182, 185, 201 no. 40.
4. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Boston, Museum
of Fine Arts inv. 86.527 (54): Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.1, pl. 34; Kardara
1963, 275; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 5; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 35.
5. Wall fragment of a dinos (?), formerly Den Haag, Museum Scheurleer:
Prins de Jong 1925, 46; Scheurleer 1931, II D, pl. 2.8; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3
no. 6; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 43.
6. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Oxford,
Ashmolean Museum inv. C 119.110: E.R. Price in Beazley et al. 1931, II D, pl.
4.3; Kardara 1963, 275; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 7; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 44.
7. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Brussels, Musée
du Cinquantenaire inv. A 1761: Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, II D, pl. 3.14;
Kardara 1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 8; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 41.
8. Small wall fragment, presumably of a dinos (?), Heidelberg,
Universität inv. 39: Schauenburg 1954, 11 no. 26, pl. 2.26; Kardara 1963,
276; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 10; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 42.
9. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Boston, Museum
of Fine Arts inv. 88.949 (55): Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.3, pl. 34; Ýren
2002, 201 no. 37.
10. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Boston, Museum
of Fine Arts inv. 88.949 (55): Fairbanks 1928, 111 no. 321.11, pl. 34; Kardara
1963, 275; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 38.
11. Wall fragment of a dinos?, London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.470
(Fig. 5): Kardara 1963, 276.
12. Wall fragment of a dinos (?), Cambridge, Museum of Classical
Archaeology NA 33: Kardara 1963, 276.
13. Wall fragment of a dinos (?), London, British Museum GR 1924.12-1.11
(Fig. 6): Kardara 1963, 276.
14. Rim fragment of a dinos, London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1294
(Fig. 8), sample no. Nauk 13 (provenance group G).
Stylistically related vessels of different shape
1. Askos. London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.462 (Fig. 7): Gardner
1888, 40, pl. 5.1; Price 1924, 193; Schiering 1957, 14, 27, pl. 13.4; Kardara
1963, 275 no. 1; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 18, pl. 3.6.
2. Wall fragment and handle of a krater (?), Boston, Museum of Fine Arts
Inv. 88.949 (55): Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.2, pl. 34; Ýren 2002, 201 no. 37
(Ýren classified the fragment as dinos, although it has a horizontal
handle).
Pantikapaion
1. Wall fragment of a dinos, inv. M45 CM IV/4, no. 2791 (or 4791 according
to Tsvetaeva): Tsvetaeva 1957, 183-4, 186, fig. 2a.2 (‘delossko-melosskoi
keramiki’); Sidorova 1962, 107-8, fig. 1.1 (‘master Londonskogo dinosa’).
2. Wall fragment of a dinos, inv. M52 BM XIV/14, No. 369: Sidorova 1962,
107-8, fig. 1.2 (‘dinos or krater’).
Phokaia
1. Wall fragment, presumably of a dinos: Jacobsthal and Neuffer 1933, 14,
fig. 6a; Schiering 1957, 14, 116 with n. 96; Walter 1968, 79, 128 no. 628, pl.
130 (‘Amphora ?’); Walter-Karydi 1970, 3, 6 no. 13, pl. 4.5 (‘Dinos’); Ýren
2002, 202 no. 58; Kerschner 2004, 138.
2. Wall fragment of a dinos (with remnants of an animal frieze and a
narrative scene with human figures, interpreted as judgment of Paris by
Akurgal): Akurgal 1961, 180, fig. 128; Walter-Karydi 1970, 6-7, 12-3, 18, pl.
8.3 (erroneously considered as a chalice, as the first published photo
suggested a horizontal upper edge); Akurgal 1987, 25, pl. 3b; Akurgal 1993,
pl. 103d; idem in Musée d’Histoire de Marseille 1995, 38; Ýren 2002, 186,
203 no. 59; Kerschner 2004, 138.
3. Wall fragments of a dinos (?) (with a frieze of dancing girls below a
118 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
meander and a running spiral): Akurgal 1961, 180, figs 129-30; Langlotz
1966, 27, figs 25, 27; Langlotz, 1969, 381; Walter-Karydi 1970, 7, pl. 8.5;
Langlotz 1975, 197, pl. 63.3; Akurgal 1993, fig. 103a-c; idem in Musée
d’Histoire de Marseille 1995, 38; Kerschner 2004, 138-9. E. Langlotz and E.
Walter-Karydi erroneously considered these fragments to be parts of a
chalice, judging from the first published photos suggesting a horizontal
upper edge.
4. Wall fragment of a dinos, inv. Foça 1956 H çukuru Güney çýkma 650-
550: unpublished; sample no. Phok 28, provenance group G.
5. Rim fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 201 no. 45, fig. 13a.
6. Rim fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 201 no. 46, fig. 13b.
7. Rim fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 202 no. 47, fig. 13c.
8. Rim fragments of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 202 no. 48, fig. 13d.
9. Shoulder fragments of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi Inv. Foça 1955:
Ýren 2002, 202 no. 49, fig. 13e.
10. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955:
Ýren 2002, 202 no. 50, fig. 13f.
11. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955:
Ýren 2002, 202 no. 51, fig. 13g.
12. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955:
Ýren 2002, 202 no. 52, fig. 13h.
13. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 202 no. 53, fig. 13i.
14. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 202 no. 54, fig. 13j.
15. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 202 no. 55, fig. 10b.
16. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 202 no. 56, fig. 15a.
17. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 202 no. 57, fig. 13k.
18. Wall fragment of a dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. Foça 1955: Ýren
2002, 203 no. 60, fig. 13l.
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Wall fragment: Ö. Özyiðit 1993, 5, fig. 13 (2nd row, at the right edge).
Stylistically related vessels of different shape
2. Shoulder fragment of a closed vessel (with a sphinx), inv. Foça 1955 O
çukuru Kuyu I: unpublished, sample no. Phok 29, provenance group G.
3. Handle fragment of a closed vessel, inv. Foça 1956 D çukuru D Odasý
290-255: unpublished, sample no. Phok 31, provenance group G.
Pitane
1. Dinos, Ýzmir, Arkeoloji müzesi inv. 5018: Dedeoðlu 1993, 21; Cook and
Dupont 1998, 60-1, fig. 8.23; Ýren 2002, 167, 169, 178, 182, 184, 203 no. 62,
fig. 3.
2. Dinos, Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi inv. 5794: Akurgal 1987, 24, pl. 4a, 10d;
Akurgal 1993, pl. 112; Ýren 2002, 185, 203 no. 61, fig. 2.
Stylistically related vessels of different shape
1. Oinochoe: Ýren 2002, 178-9, 204 no. 79, fig. 11.
Pyrrha on Lesbos
1. Several fragments of a dinos, Göttingen, Archäologisches Institut der
Universität: Schiering 1967, 432-3, fig. 28; Walter 1968, 78, 128 no. 631, pl.
131; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4, pl. 4.1-2; Schiering 1981-3; Kerschner 1997a, 15,
24, 27 no. G, fig. 13; Ýren 2002, 184, 203 no. 63, figs 4-5.
2. Rim fragment of a dinos, Göttingen, Archäologisches Institut der
Universität: Ýren 2002, 203 no. 64, fig. 9a.
Saint-Blaise
1. Wall fragments of a dinos: Bouloumié 1992, 212, 214 no. 574, fig. 55.
2. Wall fragment of a dinos: Bouloumié 1992, 212, 214 no. 575, fig. 55. This
small fragment may belong to the same vessel as no. 1, but this cannot be
verified, since the exact finding spot of no. 2 is not known.
Stylistically related vessels of different shape
1. Wall fragment of an oinochoe: Rolland 1964, 571-2, fig. 43; Bouloumié
1992, 224, 227 no. 613, fig. 59.
Selinus
1. Wall fragment, probably of a dinos: Rallo 1976/7, 730, pl. 164.2.
Wall fragment, probably of a dinos: Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 345-6, 359 no.
3489, pl. 63; Ýren 2002, 203 no. 66.
2. Wall fragment, probably of a dinos: Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 345-6, 359
no. 3490 (possibly belonging to the same vessel as no. 3); Ýren 2002, 203 no.
67.
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Salinas 1884, 330, pl. 5.41; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 15; Ýren 2002, 203
no. 65.

Stylistically related vessels of different shape
1. Lower part of an oinochoe: Gàbrici 1927, 315, pl. 82, 2; Kardara 1963,
274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 17, pl. 5.2; Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 345-6 no.
3483a-d, pls 63, 84; Ýren 2002, 181, 205 no. 81. Ýren, making out North
Ionian features in the rendering of the wild goat, assumes that ‘das Gefäß
aus einer nordionischen Werkstatt stammen [muss]’. There are,
however, also Aiolian characteristics, especially the abstract rectangular
shape of the purple spots on the bodies of the animals and the large,
dense filling ornaments with a predilection for the hook square and the
cross with inserted chevrons. This mixing of elements of different styles
suggests that the painter migrated from one region to the other, thus
being familiar with both the North Ionian and the Aiolian style. A similar
case was revealed by the NAA series on the group of the ‘Borysthenes
amphorae’, cf. above and Kerschner 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov
2006.
2. Two rim fragments, presumably from the same dish: Gàbrici 1927, 314
nos 2-2a, pl. 81; Kardara 1963, 276 nos 1-2; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 nos 19-
20, pl. 3.4, 7; Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 358-9 no. 3488; Gàbrici, who alone
saw the original pieces, thought they were parts of the same dish,
whereas Kardara and Walter-Karydi assumed the contrary; Dehl-von
Kaenel leaves the question undecided.
Smyrna
1. Akurgal et al. 2002, 87-8, 109-10 no. 73, fig. 40, pl. 6.
Akurgal et al. 2002, 87-8, 112 no. 84, fig. 55, pl. 8.
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Wall fragment, possibly from the upper part of a dinos stand, inv. BYR
75 B3 *10.42 Env K 8 20: unpublished, sample no. Smyr 45, provenance
group G.
Unknown provenance
1. Antikenmuseum Basel inv. BS 452: Schefold 1966, 57; Walter-Karydi
1970, 3-4, pls 1-2, 3.1, 3.3; Akurgal 1987, 24-5, pl. 4b; Akurgal 1993, pl. 113;
Ýren 2002, 166, 204 no. 69; Ýren 2002, 204 no. 69.
The following pieces should be eliminated from the list of Walter-
Karydi 1970, 3-4:
No. 9: Stevenson 1890/1, 100-2, fig. 36. Neither the filling ornaments nor
the square pattern on the dividing band are consistent with the London
Dinos group (cf. Ýren 2002, figs 19-21).
No. 16: Fairbanks 1928, 110 no. 321.4, pl. 34. The fragment belongs to the
late phase of the North Ionian Wild Goat style (NiA) using the black-
figure technique.
No. 21 (two fragments of a dish found in the sanctuary of Parthenos in
Neapolis / Kavalla): Bakalakis 1937, 61, fig. 3; Bakalakis 1938, 114-5, figs 6,
7.1. The fragments show no clear characteristics of Aiolian vase-painting,
where the shape is rare. This dish might have been made in the region
where it was found, on Thasos or in its peraea.
Illustration credits
Fig. 1: I.E. Kowalleck (Vienna) after a sketch by the author; Figs 2-11:
British Museum; Figs 13-14, 16-19, 21-24: Göttingen, Archäologisches
Institut der Universität, photo: S. Eckardt; Figs 15, 30: Robertinum der
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, photo: H. Löhr (Halle); Figs
20, 27: M. Akurgal (Ýzmir), photo: author; Fig.26: author; Figs 25, 29-30:
M. Frasca (Catania); Fig. 31: I. Benda-Weber (ÖAI, Vienna) after a sketch
by the author; Fig. 32: author, photo: U. Gericks (Münster); Figs 33-34: H.
Mommsen (Bonn).
Notes
* First of all I want to thank the organisers of the 28th British Museum
Classical Colloquium, U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin), A. Villing and D.
Williams (London) for their kind invitation to participate and for
creating the unparalleled possibility of discussing ceramic questions
holding the original pots in one’s hands. Furthermore I thank H.
Mommsen (Bonn) for hundreds of analyses and innumerable
explanations during 15 years of collaboration in our archaeometric
project on the pottery centres of the East Aegean. M. Akurgal (Ýzmir)
and M. Frasca (Catania) kindly allowed me to publish samples from
Kyme, Phokaia and Smyrna, A. Villing and D. Williams four samples
from Naukratis in the British Museum (Nauk 12, 13, 64, 77). An
exhaustive publication of these pieces together with them is in
preparation. W. Geominy (Akademisches Kunstmuseum der
Universität Bonn) and D. Graepler (Archäologisches Institut der
Universität Göttingen) kindly gave me the permission to take
samples of the fragments from Phokaia and Larisa in their
collections, providing me also practical support. I thank M. Akurgal,
M. Frasca, D. Graepler, H. Löhr (Halle), A. Villing and D. Williams for
On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery
photographs. D. Hertel (Bochum) and A. Pautasso (Catania) kindly
gave me information on pieces they are preparing for publication.
Concerning the spelling of Greek toponyms, I have tried to retain the
Greek version, avoiding Latinisation, as Hall 1997, xv proposed.
1 Huxley 1966, 36-9; Cook 1975, 776-80; Coldstream 1977, 262;
Gschnitzer and Schwertheim 1996, 337-9.
2 Cook 1973, 360-3; Cook 1975, 781-2; Gschnitzer and Schwertheim
1996, 339; Arslan and Sevinç 2003, 232-5, 248-9.
3 Petrie 1886b; Gardner 1888; Hogarth 1898/9. On the history of
research on East Greek pottery: Cook 1997, 295-300; Cook and
Dupont 1998, 5-7; Akurgal et al. 2002, 28-36.
4 Price 1924, 193-4, figs 20-2.
5 Price 1924, 193.
6 Homann-Wedeking 1938, 16: ‘Gruppe P’; he added an amphora from
Saqqara (no. P 5), which, however, does not go with this group, as
Schiering 1957, 116 n. 95 already observed.
7 Schiering 1957, 14, pl. 9.1.
8 Sidorova 1962, 107-8, fig. 1.1-2.
9 Kadara 1963, 271-6, figs 258-65.
10 Schefold 1966, 57.
11 Walter-Karydi 1970.
12 Kopeikina 1970b, 562-5, pls 1.3-5; 2.1-2. She thinks that these dinoi
were produced in several workshops of the ‘North Ionian school of
the Rhodo-Ionian pottery’. On the pottery finds from Berezan cf.
Posamentir and Solovyov 2006 and the contribution of R.
Posamentir in this volume.
13 Schiering 1981-3; yet he stills argues in favour of ‘migrating
workshops’ (ibid. 209). On the dinos from Pyrrha cf. Ýren 2002, 170-
3, 197, 203 no. 63, figs 4-5 (‘Gruppe A oder die Gruppe der Steinböcke
mit den ausgesparten Hörnern’). On South Ionian models:
Kerschner 1997a, 23-5 (‘group of the volute dinoi’).
14 Cook and Dupont 1998, 60-1, fig. 8.23.
15 Ýren 2002.
16 The identification goes back to Ramsay 1881, 279-83. Yet Cook
1958/9, 20-1 n. 47, voiced doubts: ‘If not Larisa, this site should be
Cyllene.’ Cf. Cook and Dupont 1998, 5, who refer to the site only as
‘Larisa’.
17 Boehlau and Schefold 1942. Schefold used for his publication the
notes of the late J. Boehlau (ibid. IX-X). His detailed analysis was
based mostly on stylistic criteria for lack of stratigraphy, cf. ibid. 1-2,
58-9. The stratigraphic method was applied only in the excavation of
1932, cf. Schefold 1933, 141 (‘Dalmans sorgfältige Schichtengrabung,
die sich nach seinem Auftrag auf eine Nachuntersuchung von 1902
nur teilweise freigelegten Teilen der Akropolis beschränkte...’).
18 Akurgal 1960; Cook and Blackman 1964/5, 35-6, fig. 5; Metzger 1969,
107-8, pls 61-2; Akurgal 1987, 24-5 pl. 4.10-1, 18, 103-5; Akurgal 1993,
pl. 12.111-2, 115-9. On earlier excavations at the site: Pottier et al. 1887,
504-5 figs 57-8.
19 Ýren 2003.
20 Ýren 2003, 9-56.
21 On the ceramic finds: Utili 1999, 6-95, 145-267, figs 1-28, 30-44
(including a bibliography of articles in preliminary reports).
22 Myrina: Rayet 1884; Pottier et al. 1887, 232-3, 499-504, figs 36, 55-6,
pl. 51. Gryneion: Ýren 2002, 174-6, 205 nos 85-6, figs 6-8; Ýren 2003, 4,
9-10, 12, 14, 16-8, 24, 50-1, 65, 76, 83, 85, 92, 94, 97-8, 155-6, 164-5, 167,
175-9, 182, 184-5, 188, 190-1, nos 12, 15, 46, 93, 123, 125, 129, 131, 139,
140, 176, 179, 203-4, 206, 244-6, 288, 296, 322, 333, 354, 369-70, fig.
17-8, 24, pl. B, 1, 3, 24, 31, 33-4, 43, 47, 50-1, 59-61, 67-8, 71.
23 On Geometric and Archaic pottery finds from early excavations:
Dümmler 1888; Reinach 1889; Cook 1954, 27-8, pl. 14; Akurgal 1956a,
11-4; Akurgal 1956b, 23-4; Bouzek 1974, 77, pls 17-8. On the history of
the excavations at Kyme: Ýdil 1989, 526-8; Frasca 1998, 273-5.
24 Strabo 13.3.6 (translated by H.L. Jones).
25 Frasca 1993; Frasca 1998; Frasca 2000.
26 On Geometric and Archaic pottery from Lesbos: Mytilene: Schefold
1933, 151-2, 154, 157, figs 11-2; Schaus 1992. Methymna: Lamb 1932, 4-
9, fig. 1-3; Buchholz 1975, 90-105, figs 25-9, pls 16-17. Antissa: Lamb
1931/2, 51-60, figs 6-9, pls 20-4. Pyrrha: Schiering 1981-3; Schiering
1989; Utili 2002. For an overview on Lesbos during the Geometric
and Archaic periods: Spencer 1995.
27 Spencer 1995, 301. Cf. Lamb 1932; Schaus 1992, 356; Bayne 2000, 211-
17, 307.
28 E.g. Dugas 1912a, 519: ‘en raison des lieux de trouvaille’; Homann-
Wedeking 1940, 28: ‘Es versteht sich, daß für die landschaftliche
Bestimmung von Denkmälern der Fundort das erste Argument ist.’;
Walter 1968, 9: ‘Um die Gefäße nach Landschaften zu scheiden, darf
man nicht ausgehen von ostgriechischen Gefäßen in europäischen
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 119
Kerschner
Museen,... sondern allein von den Gefäßen und Scherben der
Grabungsorte.’; Ýren 2003, 50, 130: ‘Bevor keine Tonanalysen der
aiolischen Keramik durchgeführt worden sind und konkrete
Ergebnisse vorliegen, kann man Vermutungen über die Herkunft des
aiolischen Tierfriesstils nur nach den Fundstücken äußern.’
29 Kerschner et al. 1993; Akurgal et al., 63-72; Kerschner (forthcoming).
30 See already Cook 1959, 118, 123.
31 Schefold 1942, 132: ‘Larisa selbst war gewiß nicht der Hauptort der
Aiolis. In der geschichtlichen Überlieferung ist es Kyme, man darf
aber damit rechnen, daß die noch bedeutendere ionische Stadt
Phokaia zum gleichen Kunstkreis gehörte, vielleicht sogar führend in
ihm war.’; Walter-Karydi 1970, 10: ‘Fragt man nach den Zentren
äolischer Kunst, so scheint Phokäa ... an der kleinasiatisch-äolischen
Küste führend gewesen zu sein.’; Ýren 2002, 165, 194, 197 considers
Phokaia as home of the London Dinos group, which he calls ‘pseudo-
Aiolian’, see also Ýren 2003, 157.
32 Cook and Dupont 1998, 56-7.
33 Dupont 1983, 22-3.
34 Boardman 1978a; J. Boardman in Jones 1986.
35 Cf. the contributions by R. Attula, R. Posamentir, U. Schlotzhauer, A.
Villing, S. Weber and D. Williams in this volume. Participants of the
network on archaeometric provenance studies of East Greek and
Western Anatolian pottery are M. Akurgal (Ýzmir), R. Attula
(Greifswald), T. Bakýr (Ýzmir), M. Berg Briese (Odense), J.
Boardman (Oxford), N. Cahill (Madison), M. Frasca (Catania), C.H.
Greenewalt, Jr. (Berkeley), G. Gürtekin-Demir (Ýzmir), M.-C. Lentini
(Giardini Naxos), H. Mommsen (Bonn), W.-D. Niemeier (Athen), A.
Pautasso (Catania), R. Posamentir (Istanbul), A. Ramage (Ithaca),
M. Rautman (Columbia), U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin), M. Vakhtina (St.
Petersburg), A. Villing (London), S. Weber (Mainz) and D. Williams
(London).
36 Cf. the contribution by H. Mommsen and the present author in this
volume.
37 Coldstream 1977, 262. Cf. Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 59, 170;
Coldstream 1968, 297-8 (‘it must therefore remain an open question
whether any Aeolian city ... produced any painted pottery earlier
than the Subgeometric from Buruncuk’); Cook and Dupont 1998, 23;
Ýren 2003, 8 (considers the possibility that ‘einige Werkstätten ...
vielleicht schon am Ende des 8. Jhs. ihre Tätigkeit aufnahmen’).
Only Frasca 2000, 394, fig. 280 thinks that at Kyme ‘nella produzione
locale accanto al bucchero sembra presente sin dagli inizi anche la
ceramica dipinta.’ He considered the krater Kyme 08 as a local
product. The element pattern of this sample is still a chemical loner.
38 Dugas 1912a, 508-9; Coldstream 1968, 298; Bouzek 1974, 77;
Coldstream 1977, 263-4; Cook 1998, 23: ‘... in Aeolis, there is so far no
evidence for the making of Geometric painted pottery...’; Frasca
1998, 276, fig. 8 (‘inducono a pensare ad una provenienza smirnea’);
Ýren 2003, 8 (‘Die anderen spätgeometrischen Gefäße aus Kyme und
Myrina erwecken zweifellos auf den ersten Blick den Eindruck der
Importstücke.’).
39 Frasca 2000, 394, fig. 280. He thought that the piece might be local
because of its greyish fabric. Against: Ýren 2003, 8.
40 Unpublished.
41 Inv. 88.IV.26.1, sample no. Kyme 07; Frasca 1993, 60-1, fig. 25; Frasca
1998, 275-6, fig. 7; Frasca 2000, 394-5, fig. 281.
42 Ýren 2003, 156-8, table 1.
43 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 59-61, pls 13-15.
44 Ýren 2003, 9-56.
45 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 60, pl. 14.7 (‘subgeometrisch’); Ýren
2003, 7, 163 no. 4 (‘aiolisch-geometrische Keramik’; ‘kann
subgeometrisch sein’).
46 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 60, pl. 14.6 (‘subgeometrisch’); Ýren
2003, 16, 18, 24, 167 no. 50 (‘Punktstil II’).
47 Inv. Foça 1955 O çuk. B od. Unpublished.
48 Cf. Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 193.
49 Ýren 2003, 155.
50 Ýren 2003, 131, 157.
51 British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1294, unpublished; cf. the dinoi in
Basle: Walter-Karydi 1970, pl. 3.1 and Berezan: Posamentir and
Solovyov 2006, fig. 2 left. For a compilation of the rim ornaments see
Ýren 2002, 187, fig. 19a-d.
52 Akurgal 1961, 180, fig. 128; Walter-Karydi 1970, 6-7, 12-3, 18, pl. 8.3
(erroneously considered as a chalice, as the first published photo
suggested a horizontal upper edge); Akurgal 1987, 25, pl. 3b.
53 Akurgal et al. 2002, 109-10 no. 73, fig. 40, pl. 6.
54 Akurgal et al. 2002, 112 no. 84, fig. 55, pl. 8.
55 Inv. Foça 1955 O çukuru Kuyu I. Unpublished.
120 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
56 The small shoulder fragment was found at Berezan by E. v. Stern,
who donated it to the Robertinum at Halle (inv. 480), cf. Kerschner
2006.
57 Sample nos Bere 106, 109, 110; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
58 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 77, pl. 29.4.
59 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 78, pl. 30.10-11.
60 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 78, pl. 30.2.
61 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 66-7, pl. 19.1.
62 Inv. BYR 74 ‘M’ Döküntü. Unpublished. For the decoration cf. the
dinoi Ýren 2003, 80, 175 nos 125-6, fig. 36, pl. 32.
63 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 97, pl. 42.1.
64 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 97, pl. 42.2.
65 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 91-3, pls 39-40 (‘einheimische
dunkelgrundige Keramik’); Ýren 2003, 80-1, 175 no. 128, pl. 32; 178-9
no. 203, pl. 59.
66 E.g. Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 91-2, pl. 39.3-4.
67 British Museum GR 1888.6-1.573b,c; unpublished.
68 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, fig. 3.
69 Ýren 2002, 178-9, 204 no. 79, fig. 11.
70 Kinch 1914, 190-2, pl. 11.1-3.
71 Payne 1931, 19-20, 277; Villard 1966, 49-50, pls 47.1-2, 48.3, 49; Amyx
1988, 39-40.
72 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 92, pl. 40.12.
73 E.g. Graeve 1973/4, 88, 103-4 nos 90-2, pl. 27; Walter-Karydi 1973, 19-
20, 81, fig. 23, pls 36.277, 36.287, 81.941, 81.943; Kerschner 1997b, 125-
7, 186 no. 38, fig. 21, pl. 5.
74 Boardman 1967, 119 nos 199-204, pl. 32; 123, 125 nos 298-301, pl. 37
(Emporio); Kerschner 1999, 20-1, 41 no. 32, fig. 10 (Miletos).
75 Lemos 1991, 118-24, pls 59-60, 64, 66-7, 69-73, 75-7, 79, 83-4, 87. For
kantharoi and phialai in light on dark techique see Lemos 1991, 119,
121, pl. 90.
76 Kinch 1914, 168-88, figs 58-72, pls 10, 12; Cook and Dupont 1998, 114-
5.
77 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 157, pl. 52.6.
78 Inv. K 95.VIII.1.R. Unpublished.
79 Akurgal et al. 2002, 85, 104 no. 51, pl. 3.
80 Unpublished fragment from the excavations of E. Akurgal, inv. 1956
Foça D a odasý.
81 Inv. 88.IV.29.5. Unpublished, for a similar piece: Frasca 1993, 65 no.
33, fig. 11a.
82 Unpublished, for comparable pieces: Boehlau and Schefold 1942,
103-6, fig. 31, pl. 45 (‘Graue Becken’); Frasca 1993, 63 no. 12, fig. 3b.
Further examples of Aiolian Grey ware, found at Larisa, were
analysed by D. Hertel and H. Mommsen.
83 British Museum GR 1888.6-1.637; unpublished. The irregular shape
of the bars may point to a figured decoration (A. Villing). Small
impressed circles occur on Grey ware from Larisa: Boehlau and
Schefold 1942, 121, 127, pl. 44.8,10-11,19, where fenestrated stands are
represented, too: Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 128, pl. 48, 19-22.
84 Sample no. Phok 32, inv. Foça D 235-245, an unpublished fragment
from E. Akurgal’s excavations at Phokaia, decorated with a lotus-
palmette-frieze of Late Archaic style.
85 British Museum Inv. GR 1888.6-1.658; Gardner 1888, 58, pl. 14.5. The
preserved height is 6.4 cm. The body of the figure, the back of the
head and the ears are lost. The details of the head were moulded
with the fingers in small flat pieces of clay that were added to a
hollow core. Cf. the few early terracottas from Larisa: Boehlau and
Schefold 1942, 25-32, pl. 4-6.
86 Cf. the faces of the plastic kantharoi and mugs: Himmelmann 1973,
28, colour pl. 2; Walter-Karydi 1973, 30, 131 no. 485, pl. 57;
Schlotzhauer 1999, 236 no. 19, fig. 24; Schlotzhauer (forthcoming a).
Cf. also the bearded heads of the triple-bodied monster from the
Athenian Acropolis: Boardman 1978b, 154, fig. 193; Rolley 1994, 194,
fig. 6.
87 G.M.A. Hanfmann in Hanfmann 1983, 80, figs 142-3.
88 Walter 1968, 77-9 (‘Larisäisch’); Walter-Karydi 1970, 10, 14; Akurgal
1987, 25; Cook and Dupont 1998, 57-61; Ýren 2003, 50, 131, 157. K.
Schefold, although dealing intensively with Aiolian pottery, did not
comment explicitly on the question of the production centres. Yet he
considered most of the ceramic finds from Larisa to be local and
distinguished them from other East Greek wares: Boehlau and
Schefold 1942, 58-169. Schefold 1942, 132 seemed to regard the
ceramic finds from Myrina and Pitane as local. Furthermore he
conjectured ‘daß die noch bedeutendere ionische Stadt Phokaia zum
gleichen Kunstkreis gehörte, vielleicht sogar führend in ihm war.’
89 Boehlau and Schefold 1942, 169 (‘Larisa war reich nur an
Geschenken des eigenen Bodens, an Werken einheimischer Hände...

Sobald das einheimische Handwerk leistungsfähig war, brauchte
man nichts mehr einzuführen – solange man mit der heimischen
Kunst zufrieden war.’); Schefold 1942, 132; Cook and Dupont 1998, 57
(Cook treats the London Dinos group as a third ‘assemblage’ of
Aiolian Wild Goat style without proposing a precise localisation).
90 Walter 1968, 78-9 (‘Der larisäische Stil ist ein Stil der Hinterwäldler...
Larisa stand im Ausstrahlungsbereich von Phokäa und Kume.’);
Walter-Karydi 1970, 10 (‘Fragt man nach den Zentren äolischer
Kunst, so scheint Phokäa ... an der kleinasiatisch-äolischen Küste
führend gewesen zu sein... Kyme hatte anscheinend einen rein
bäuerlichen Charakter.’), 14 (‘Und doch müsste Lesbos, der Stellung
von Samos und Chios entsprechend, die reinste Möglichkeit
äolischer Art vertreten.’); cf. also Akurgal 1987, 25 (‘Ferner kommen
in den Zentren Pitane, Myrina und Larisa provinzielle, aber reizvolle
Schöpfungen einer naiven Volkskunst auf.’).
91 Ýren 2003, 157.
92 Ýren 2002, 197.
93 Ýren 2002, 165; Ýren 2003, 157.
94 Ýren 2002, 197; Ýren 2003, 50, 130 (‘Bevor keine Tonanalysen der
aiolischen Keramik durchgeführt worden sind und konkrete
Ergebnisse vorliegen, kann man Vermutungen über die Herkunft des
aiolischen Tierfriesstils nur nach den Fundstücken äußern.’).
95 Ýren 2003, table 1.
96 Akurgal et al. 2002, 76, 85, 104 nos 50-2, pl. 3; Kerschner 2006;
Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
97 Akurgal et al. 2002, 90-1 nos 79, 83, figs 48, 54, pls 6, 8; Kerschner
2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
98 On the provenance group X: M. Kerschner in Badre et al. 2006, 36-7.
99 The as yet unpublished sample Smyr 40 belongs to provenance group
F that is presumably located at Smyrna. Cf. also Paspalas, this
volume, esp. n. 68.
100 On the class: Kerschner 2006. Kardara 1963, 209-10 fig. 180 was the
first who recognized this group and called it ‘sxolh\ oi0no/xohj
0Ocfo/rdhj’. Alexandrescu 1978, 23 n. 23, 37-8, proposed a
subdivision into a ‘classe de Lévitsky’ and a ‘classe de Tocra cat. 580’,
but both classes differ only slightly in the shape, whereas the style of
painting is homogenous. Therefore I have proposed to reunify both
classes in accordance with Ch. Kardara and J. Hayes (in Boardman
and Hayes 1966, 41-2).
101 Kerschner 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006. Furthermore, our
NAA detected a production in a colonial workshop at the Hellespont,
the Propontis or the Black Sea (sample no. Bere 007, provenance
group BERa).
102 E.g. Kopeikina 1968, 44-7, figs 1-3; Kopeikina 1981, 196-7, fig. 4c;
Kerschner 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006 (Berezan);
Sidorova 1962, 108, fig. 1.4 (Pantikapaion); Lambrino 1938, 244-9,
figs 208-14; Alexandrescu 1978, 37-8 nos 2-10, 12, 16, pls 1-2 (Istros);
Dugas 1935, 58-60, pls 39-40, 41.12-4 (Delos); Ploug 1973, 50-2, 59-64,
pls 9-13 (Tell Sukas); Boardman and Hayes 1966, 41, 46 nos 580-1, pl.
28 (Taucheira). For a more comprehensive list see Kerschner 2006.
103 Kerschner et al. 2002, 203-5; Kerschner 2006. See also the discussion
of a Wild Goat style oinochoe found at Selinus in Appendix 2. The
vessel exhibits both Aiolian and North Ionian stylistic features.
104 This concept differs fundamentally from the hypothesis of the
‘wanderende Werkstätten’ formulated by Schiering 1957, 1, 8-14. In
contrast to me, Schiering postulates a systematic migration of whole
workshops and the foundation of branches at several places, which
consistently stick to their stylistic tradition even in a new
environment and over long distances.
105 In order to assess this evidence it is important to mention that we
have not yet analysed any finds from the Aiolian island of Lesbos.
106 Özyiðit 1991, 137-9, figs 1-2, 7-10; Özyiðit 1992, 102-4, figs 3-16.
107 Akurgal et al. 2002, 89, 116; Kerschner and Mommsen
(forthcoming). The samples were taken within the context of an
unpublished project of U. Outschar (Istanbul) and R. Sauer
(Vienna).
108 Langlotz 1969, 379, 381, figs 4-6. For the shape: Hayes 1972, 333, 337,
figs 67-8 (type C). The analyses of this waster by P. Dupont and M.
Picon (cf. Mayet and Picon 1986) prompted Hayes 1980, 525 to
rename the ‘Late Roman C Ware’ ‘Phocaean Red Slip Ware’.
109 In this point, our NAA corroborate the result of Dupont 1983, 22-3.
110 It cannot be totally excluded that the Phokaians exploited other clay
beds showing different element patterns during Roman Imperial
On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery
times than they did in the Geometric to Archaic periods. There is,
however, an argument against this possibility: The provenance
group G/g comprises also Hellenistic and Roman pottery differing
from the element patterns of the wasters from Phokaia.
111 Walter-Karydi 1970, 10; Ýren 2002, 165, 194, 197; Ýren 2003, 157, cf.
already Schefold 1942, 132.
112 A short preliminary notice: Özyiðit 2004, 443-4.
113 The excavator announced finds of ‘Orientalising pottery produced in
the region of North Ionia and the Aiolis’ (Özyiðit 2004, 444).
114 Euboian (or Boiotian): Kyme 04, inv. 90.IV.29.99, wall fragment of a
krater with bands and a wavy line in added white, Frasca 1993, 66 no.
49, fig. 16; Kyme 10, inv. 89.IV.29.17, late Geometric skyphos with
chevrons, Frasca 1993, 67 no. 63, fig. 20b; Frasca 1998, 276-7, fig. 10;
Kyme 11, inv. 88.IV.33.2, rim fragment of a krater with concentric
tangential circles, Frasca 1993, 67 no. 61, fig. 19b; Frasca 1998, 277-8,
fig. 15. Corinthian: Kyme 09, inv. 95.IV.US.2, late Geometric skyphos,
unpublished, cf. Frasca 2000, 395-6, fig. 282. North Ionian (‘bird
bowl workshops’ of provenance group B): Kyme 07, inv. 88.IV.26.1,
bird kotyle, Frasca 1993, 60-1, fig. 25; Frasca 1998, 275-6, fig. 7; Frasca
2000, 394-5, fig. 281.
115 Ýren 2003, 131, 157 argues in favour of Kyme or Myrina as production
place of the Aiolian Wild Goat style pottery of superior quality (‘Da
die Gefäße des aTs [= aiolischer Tierfriesstil] und IIIa sorgfältigere
Stile als aTs IIIb haben, könnte man sich die großen und wichtigen
aiolischen Städte wie Kyme und Myrina für sie als Herstellungsort
vorstellen.’). Although he considers the London Dinos group as
Phokaian (Ýren 2002, 194, 197), he admits: ‘... dennoch darf man sie
[= Kyme] als einen möglichen Kandidaten für die Lokalisation der
Werkstatt des Londoner Dinos betrachten.’ (Ýren 2002, 194).
116 Strabo 13.3.6 (translated by H.L. Jones); cf. Cook 1975, 780.
117 Walter-Karydi 1970, 6; Ýren 2002, 190-7.
118 Schefold 1966, 57, on the dinos in Basle: ‘Unser Dinos gehört aber zu
einer Variante [des ostgriechischen Tierfriesstils], die am häufigsten
in Larisa am Hermos gefunden worden ist und in der Hauptstadt der
Äolis, in Kyme, ihre Heimat gehabt haben dürfte.’
119 Walter-Karydi 1970, 10; Ýren 2002, 193. This opinion is mainly based
on an anecdote bequeathed by Strabo 13.3.6: ‘Cymê is ridiculed for
its stupidity, owing to the repute, as some say, that not until 300 years
after the founding of the city did they sell the tolls of the harbour, and
that before this time the people did not reap this revenue. They got
the reputation, therefore, of being a people who learned late that
they were living in a city by the sea’ (translation H.L. Jones).
However, the phrasing of Strabo reveals that he already had doubts
about this anecdote.
120 Cf. Ýren 2002, 194 (‘... die Phokäer waren ein Seefahrervolk ... sie
fuhren vom Kongo bis in die Nordsee’). For critical views on the
concept of a Phokaian thalassocracy see: Niemeyer 1988/90, 269-
306; Gassner 2003, 261-75; Kerschner 2004.
121 Boardman 1999a, 125.
122 On the commercial activities of Aigina: Johnston 1972; Johnston
1979, 51-2; Hiller 2000 (with further bibliography).
123 Akurgal et al. 2002, 111 no. 79, fig. 48, pl. 6.
124 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
125 Kerschner 2006.
126 Kerschner 2006.
127 Kerschner 2006.
128 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
129 A detailed publication of the NAA from Kyme is being prepared by M.
Frasca, M. Kerschner and H. Mommsen.
130 A detailed publication of the NAA from Phokaia is being prepared by
M. Akurgal, M. Kerschner and H. Mommsen.
131 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
132 Kerschner 2006.
133 Kerschner 2006.
134 Kerschner 2006.
135 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
136 Kardara 1963, 271-6, figs 258-65 (‘ergasterion dinou’); Walter-Karydi
1970, 3-4; Ýren 2002, 198-206; cf. M. Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002,
87 with n. 549.
137 The piece was kindly shown to me by the excavator at a visit on
Berezan with an excursion of the University of Vienna in summer
1999.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 121
Kerschner

Figure 2 Dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, eponymous piece of the London Dinos group, presumably from Kameiros. London, British Museum GR 1848.6-19.1

Figure 3Wall fragment of a dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, London Dinos group, Figure 4Wall fragment of a dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, London Dinos group,
from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1270 from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1288

Figure 5Wall fragment of a dinos (?), Figure 6Wall fragment of a dinos (?),Aiolian Figure 8 Rim fragment of a dinos, London Dinos group, from Naukratis.
Aiolian Wild Goat style, London Dinos Wild Goat style, London Dinos group, from London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1294, sample no. Nauk 13.
group, from Naukratis. London, British Naukratis. London, British Museum GR Provenance group G
Museum GR 1888.6-1.470 1924.12-1.11

122 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

Figure 7 Askos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, stylistically related to the London Dinos group, from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.462

Figure 9 Shoulder fragment of a black-polychrome Figure 10 Fragment of fenestrated stand (?),Aiolian Grey ware, Figure 11 Head of a painted terracotta
oinochoe, from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.637, figurine, from Naukratis. London, British
1888.6-1.573b,c, sample no. Nauk 12. Provenance sample no. Nauk 64. Provenance group g Museum GR 1888.6-1.658, sample no.
group G Nauk 77. Provenance group g

Figure 12 Wall fragment of a Late Geometric krater or Figure 13 Dinos,Aiolian Subgeometric or ‘dot style’, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 22, sample no. Lari 15.
dinos from Larisa. Göttingen, sample no. Lari 12. Provenance group G
Chemical single

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 123

Kerschner

Figure 14 Pyxis,Aiolian Subgeometric or ‘dot style’, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. Figure 15 Shoulder fragment of a dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style of the London
23a-e, sample no. Lari 16. Provenance group G Dinos group, from Berezan. Halle, Robertinum inv. 480, sample no. Bere 178.
Provenance group g

Figure 16 Skyphos krater,Aiolian Wild Goat style, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. Figure 17 Skyphos krater,Aiolian Wild Figure 18 Skyphos krater,Aiolian Wild
38a-c, sample no. Lari 18. Provenance group G Goat style, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. Goat style, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv.
46, sample no. Lari 19. Provenance 44a-d, sample no. Lari 20. Provenance
group G group G

Figure 19 Oinochoe,Aiolian Wild Goat style, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 447, sample no. Lari 21. Provenance group G

Figure 20 Kotyle,Aiolian Orientalizing style, from Figure 21 Skyphos krater,Aiolian black-figure style, from Figure 22 Krater,Aiolian bichrome
Smyrna, inv. BYR 74 ‘M’ Döküntü, sample no. Smyr 46. Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 358a-b, sample no. Lari 23. Provenance ware in black-figure technique, from
Provenance group G group G Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 343, sample no.
Lari 22. Provenance group G

124 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 On the Provenance of Aiolian Pottery

Figure 24 Kotyle,Aiolian ‘drop style’, Figure 25 Kotyle,Aiolian ‘drop style’,

from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 294, from Kyme, inv. K 95.VIII.1.R, sample
sample no. Laris 24. Provenance group no. Kyme 14. Provenance group g
G

Figure 23 Dinos,Aiolian light-on-dark ware, from Larisa. Göttingen, inv. 250,

sample no. Lari 27. Provenance group G

Figure 26 Rosette bowl from Smyrna, sample no. Smyr 32. Provenance group G

Figure 27 Dish with meander on the rim, from Phokaia (excavations E.Akurgal). Figure 28 Neckamphora of the ‘Borysthenes group’,Aiolian Wild Goat style, from
Inv. 1956 Foça D a odasý, sample no. Phok 49. Provenance group G Berezan. Halle, Robertinum Inv. 426, sample no. Bere 174. Provenance group g

Figure 29 Dish, banded ware, from Kyme, Inv. 88.IV.29, ssample no. Kyme 05. Figure 30 Carinated bowl,Aiolian Figure 32 Kiln waster of a fused stack
Provenance group G Grey ware, from Kyme. Izmir, Inv. of 6 bowls of Hayes Form 3C from
03.IV.117.7, sample no. Kyme 23. Phokaia. Bonn (E. Langlotz bequest).
Provenance group G Sample no. Phok 05

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 125

Kerschner

Figure 33 Result of a discriminant

analysis of the grouped samples from
Phokaia, shown as filled-in symbols,
and assuming 10 groups.The
numerous chemically single samples
in the set from Phokaia have also been
included and are shown as stars.The
different groups are described in the
text. Plotted are the discriminant
functions W1 and W2 which cover 73
% and 14 %, respectively, of the
between group variance.The ellipses
drawn are the 2s boundaries of the
groups.

Figure 34 Result of a discriminant

analysis of all the grouped samples
(exclusive of 4 singles) from Kyme and
Larisa, shown as filled-in symbols,
together with some reference samples
of other patterns and assuming 5
groups. Besides the predominant local
group G and its subgroup g only 6
sherds have been identified as imports
to Kyme: one from the ‘bird bowl
workshops’ (group B), one from the
north-eastern Peloponnese (Corinth),
and 4 from Boeotia or Euboea
(Boe/Eub). Plotted are the
discriminant functions W1 and W2
which cover 95 % and 2.8 %,
respectively, of the between group
variance.The ellipses drawn are the 2s
boundaries of the groups.

126 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

The Chian Pottery from Naukratis
Dyfri Williams
Abstract
This paper briefly examines the range of Chian pottery found at
Naukratis, noting in particular some unusual shapes unique to the
site, especially the phallus cup. It also offers a general review of the
development of Chian decorated pottery and the workshops that
produced it. This review ends with a more detailed examination of
a small group of pieces with Laconian connections, the work of the
Sirens Painter, who may even have been a migrant from Laconia.
Finally, it summarises the debate on the places of manufacture of
Chian pottery, arguing against any production at Naukratis.
Chian pottery was first called ‘Naukratian’ by Flinders Petrie
when the first finds of pottery were excavated at Naukratis, as
Cecil Smith notes in his essay for the 1886 volume of Petrie’s
publication.1 By the time of the second volume, in 1888, E.A.
Gardner was calling it ‘Naukratite’.2 Kourouniotis, however,
excavated a good deal of ‘Naukratite’ pottery – decorated,
dedicated and plain – in his excavations on Chios in 1914–15, and
suggested that it was made on that island not at Naukratis.3 The
fabric was more fully studied by Elinor Price in 1924: she still
called it ‘Naukratite’, but did comment that its place of origin
might have been Naukratis or Chios.4 Price’s classification has
been modernised over the years, especially by John Boardman
and Robert Cook, and the fabric is now confidently christened
Chian by all. The subject has been most fully studied and revised
by Anna Lemos in her very important monograph of 1991.5 From
Lemos we have a sequence of styles – the Wild Goat Style, the
Animal Chalice Style, the Grand Style, the Chalice Style, the
Sphinx and Lion Style, the Black-figure Grand Style, and the
Black-figure Chalice Style.6 Boardman refers, even more
recently, in his handbook of 1998 to Lemos’ Animal Chalice Style
as ‘Animal Chalices’ and her Chalice Style as ‘Simple Animal
Chalices’.7
The Orientalizing Wild Goat Style of Chios is distinct. There
seems no strong Early Wild Goat phase, what Kerschner and
Schlotzhauer would perhaps call Chian Archaic Ib (ChiA Ib):
possible examples come from Phana on Chios, from Aigina port
and from the Samian Heraion, but none were found at
Naukratis.8 A more advanced group that Lemos categorises as
Middle Wild Goat I (presumably still within Chian Archaic Ib –
ChiA Ib) includes pieces from Chios, Salamis on Cyprus, Al
Mina, Aigina and Bulgaria, although she notes a degree of
hesitation over the fabric of the Al Mina fragments.9 With Chian
Middle Wild Goat II (Chian Archaic Ic – ChiA Ic), however, we
leave behind the realm of uncertainty and the quantity of
material from Naukratis is of particular and immediate
importance. Lemos has associated a number of Naukratis
fragments with the pair of chalices from Vulci in Etruria, now in
Würzburg, under the sobriquet the Painter of the Würzburg
Chalices.10 She charts this painter and his followers over a
number of years: indeed, a chalice fragment already has added
decoration inside and so takes us down to about 610 bc.11 The
other major artist of the time that Lemos isolates is the painter of
the large bowl dedicated by Sostratos to Aphrodite at Naukratis
(Fig. 5).12 Her list of this Painter of the Aphrodite Bowl, and the
group that she associates with it, seems to follow a similar
course as that of the Painter of the Würzburg Chalices, although
beginning perhaps slightly later. Again, one of the pieces that
she attributes to the painter himself already has interior
decoration.13
As regards the Middle Wild Goat II pottery from Naukratis,
we might perhaps begin with a remarkable shape that is not
found anywhere else: the phallus vessel. Robert Cook listed
three examples in his article of 1949, the two London fragments
from Naukratis in the British Museum and a fragment on the
Athenian Acropolis.14 The latter was drawn to his attention by
the late Martin Robertson, but the illustration and description of
it in van Buren’s book on Athenian architectural terracottas
reveals that it is a very different thing, and clearly neither Chian
nor any sort of vessel attachment or protome. Instead, however,
we might now mention, even though not Chian, a fragment from
the excavation of the cathedral in Marseilles which preserves
part of the erect shaft and the testicles below; there are fingers
attached to the shaft.15 The piece looks thick-walled and it is
described as large; the shaft is undecorated, the glans missing,
but the testicles have glazed dots, recalling Ionian plastic vases,
with which it is perhaps connected. Indeed, it may have come
from an object, or rather pouring vessel, like the extraordinary
terracotta seated man with erect penis from Sardis or the
smaller, earlier and cruder version from Samos.16
The better preserved of the two Chian phalloi from
Naukratis has now been augmented by a small fragment with
more of one of the goats (Fig. 1).17 The phallus is carefully
modelled, not pierced, and the female pudenda strangely added
at the beginning of the shaft, perhaps by way of a reminder of
the intended target. The less well-preserved example is slightly
larger, and damaged just where the female sex was similarly
most probably added.18 Both are finely made and thin-walled
and both glazed inside. Lemos has attributed the painting on the
better preserved piece to the neighbourhood of the Painter of
Figure 1 Phallus from
phallus cup, outside and
inside view, BM GR
1888.6-1.496a-c, with
1924.12-1.178
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 127
Williams
Figure 2 Phallus cup wall (?), outside and inside view, BM GR 1924.12-1.186
the Aphrodite Bowl.19 The addition of the small fragment makes
it clear that it is from the same time as a fragment that she sees
as a fully mature work (the Aphrodite Bowl itself being an early
work).20
We should perhaps ask ourselves what the rest of these
exceptional objects looked like. We know male genitalia used by
Athenian potters for the feet of their cups in the late 6th century
bc and early 5th – the black-figured example in Oxford is the
best preserved, but there is also a ruined fragment of a red-
figured one in Herbert Cahn’s collection.21 Corinthian, East
Greek, and Attic potters also produced perfume pots in the form
of male genitals, an interesting concept in itself. They are also
attached to a variety of later vases which were offered, it seems,
to children as feeding bottles.
The fact that both Naukratis pieces are glazed inside
suggests that they served as special drinking vessels, but what
form did their upper parts take? Here one might consider two
fragments that could have come from the upper part of such
vessels, although the connection cannot as yet be demonstrated.
The first was listed by Lemos as coming from a chalice, but the
profile is clearly different from all chalices and indicates that
there was a much narrower form below the frieze of animals
and, moreover, one that seems to have been set at something of
an angle to the upper cup wall (Fig. 2).22 The second fragment
preserves slightly less of the form below, but both are clearly
from a similar shape (Fig. 3).23 There is a third fragment of the
class in Brussels.24 Such special Chian drinking vessels were
surely dedications in the sanctuary of Aphrodite, perhaps used
Figure 4 Fragment joining Aphrodite
bowl, inside and outside view, BM GR
1924.12-1.418
Figure 6 Amphora fragment, BM GR
1888.6-1.475g Figure 5 Photomontage of Aphrodite bowl (BM GR 1888.6-1.456) and joining fragment (BM GR 1924.12-1.418)
128 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 3 Phallus cup wall (?), outside and inside view, BM GR 1924.12-1.203
at cultic celebrations.
Another special shape to Naukratis, it would seem, is the
class of the Aphrodite Bowl itself. Here I note a small fragment
that joins the name-piece, giving the face of the sphinx on the
interior (Fig. 4) – joined to the Aphrodite bowl in a
photomontage (Fig. 5).25 In ceramic terms these large bowls
with their rim mounted vertical handles would seem in some
ways to be gentrifications of the humble lekane. The Aphrodite
Bowl was perhaps a creation for ritual use, perhaps even a
ceremonial washing of the fingers at the symposium, as if with
cologne or limon. Lemos listed seven examples of the form, all
from Naukratis.26
Another seemingly unique shape, though surely not a special
product, is represented by a fragment that Lemos identified as a
chalice (Fig. 6).27 It is, in fact, rather from a large, thick-walled
closed vessel, undecorated on the inside, most probably a one-
piece amphora, and is decorated with a goose. The painter’s
hand can be seen on fragments of contemporary chalices and is
closely related to the Painter of the Aphrodite Bowl.28
From Naukratis, of course, also come quite a few fragments
of large dinoi. Here we should note that such vessels are in fact
unglazed inside, a fact that can lead to the misidentification of
fragments as being from oinochoai. The Wild Goat examples,
which are the most numerous, had rotelle handles placed on the
shoulder, below the rim, like metal cauldrons (Fig. 7).29 We
might ask ourselves here the question as to why such Chian
dinoi, and indeed dinoi in most other East Greek fabrics, were
unslipped inside.

Figure 7 Dinos fragment, BM GR 1888. Figure 8 Lid fragment, Cambridge,
6-1.499g and b, 1924.12-1.21 and Mus.Arch. and Anth. NA 103
1888.6-1.443
With the last decade of the 7th century bc, the beginning of
Chian Archaic Id, there came substantial change.30 Indeed, it
seems to me that we can now talk about two parallel workshops
in this phase, differentiated as they are by shape production,
technique and style. The first uses the black-figure technique to
enliven miniature animal friezes that concentrate on lions and
sphinxes, but occasionally admit bulls, birds and sirens, as well
as, very rarely, a human figure. We will do best not to confuse
terminology too much and I propose to call this workshop the
Sphinx and Lion Workshop, following Boardman’s naming of
the ‘Style’.
This workshop does not seem to have decorated chalices,
whether large or small, but instead produced a series of
stemmed skyphos-like vases with lids. As with the chalices, its
smaller scions were presumably used as drinking vessels, the
larger, such as the example from Pitane, as kraters.31 On a
fragment of a large lid from Naukratis, now in Cambridge, we
find a combination of incised filling ornaments and an outline
goat (Fig. 8).32 This suggests that the piece belongs early in the
series and, indeed, the painting of the goat suggests that at least
one of the painters from the followers of the Painter of the
Aphrodite Bowl became part of our Sphinx and Lion Workshop.
Another Naukratis fragment is, exceptionally, decorated both
inside and outside (Fig. 9). It is not from the bowl but rather
from the lid, although most lid fragments are simply slipped
inside with white.33 The very large fragment of a bowl, decorated
inside and out and found by Kourouniotis on Chios, presumably
came from the bowl of one of these extravagantly decorated
lidded skyphos-kraters.34 The workshop also produced other
lesser shapes and from Naukratis we have fragments of plates
and small dishes – indeed, to a fragment of a plate in Cambridge
we may join a piece in London (photomontage Fig. 10).35 There
is the occasional surprise too, such as the fragment of a fine ring
vase with a centaur depicted on it.36
The second workshop continued the old Wild Goat
technique of the 7th century tradition: mixed outline and
silhouette, usually abjuring incision. This I propose to call the
Chalice Workshop (simplifying Lemos’ and Boardman’s Animal
Chalice Styles), as a result of its preferred shape. It did, however,
also produce kantharoi, phialai and plates, but no stemmed
skyphoi, large or small.
The shape of the chalice has changed and the metopal
arrangement of decoration given way to free-field design. In
addition, the interior is also now treated as a field for gloriously
colourful decoration in red and white on the black ground. The
iconography remains in the animal world, at least for a while,
with lions, boars, bulls, sphinxes and sirens; but goats and geese
have gone. What is new is a greater sense of monumentality, a
concentration on only a few animals on each vase, painted on a
larger scale.
The Chian Pottery from Naukratis
Figure 9 Lid fragment, outside and inside view, BM GR 1886.4-1.998
Figure 10 Plate fragment, BM GR
1924.12-1.16 and Cambridge, Mus.
Arch. and Anth. NA 98
A particularly splendid example from this workshop is a
large, heavy-walled chalice-krater divided between the British
Museum, Boston, and University College London.37 On one side
there was a sphinx and a bull, all in outline, but with much
added colour – second white for the sphinx’s face (Fig. 11), red
on the bull’s hindquarters and a vivid interior floral band. A
group of fragments with a lion attacking a boar should come
from the other side of the vessel.38 On a lighter walled piece is
found the beginnings of the introduction of the human figure – a
woman in black and red garments.39
A liking for human figures, and for polychromy, seems to
have grown with time. Indeed, some painters began to depict
only human figures, on both small and large chalices: this
perhaps already from soon after 580 bc. With the appearance of
figures, the inclusion of filling ornaments is soon abandoned40 –
they were a feature of the wider Greek animal frieze style, but
had no real place in a mature 6th century figured style. Some of
these figured chalices have more polychromy than others. In his
key Chian article of 1956 Boardman introduced the term ‘Grand
Style’ for these large-scale chalices with polychrome decoration
and human figures,41 but this perhaps tends to isolate one part of
the production of the workshop and so prevents us from seeing
the whole. We also need to note that incision begins to make an
appearance on some pieces: for example two fragments with
horses or horsemen, one from Naukratis (Fig. 12), the other
from Aigina.42 These are not from large heavy-walled chalices,
but a fragment from such a polychrome chalice in Bonn reveals
incision too.43
The subjects represented on these figured chalices range
from gods and heroes to mortals in ritual processions and komos
dances.44 The fragments are often too small to enable us to
Figure 11 Chalice-krater fragment, BM GR 1888.6-1.465a
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 129
Williams
Figure 12 Chalice
fragment: horseman,
outside and inside
view, BM GR 1924.12-
1.343
Figure 13 Chalice interior: lion, BM GR
1888.6-1.790
understand the full scenes with any confidence. We may also
isolate particular painters – Lemos notes, in addition to the
Aphaia Painter, the Naukratis Painter, and this is clearly an area
where more work could be done.45 The pair of chalices from
Pitane46 is particularly important and good published
illustrations would be of great help: one might note too the lions
inside in added colour – a fragment from Naukratis has the same
motif (Fig. 13).47
Gradually, perhaps from around 570 bc, the simpler chalices
began to minimise their decoration further and further until a
vessel might just have a pair of animals, or even just one, with no
filling ornaments, on one side, and on the other a simple rosette
ornament, or even nothing at all.48 Instead of the animal we
sometimes find a single figure, as on a chalice from Berezan.49
At some point, perhaps near 560 bc, it would seem that these
two workshops merged again, for we suddenly find a
continuation of the general style of the Sphinx and Lion
Workshop on a series of chalices decorated with black-figure
komasts, and even the reappearance of very debased filling
ornaments. On one remarkable fragment from Berezan, the
painter has used added white instead of incisions for the interior
details of the komast.50 There are also a couple of fragments in
black-figure komast style that might be from oinochoai or dinoi
– the usual problem.51 Connected with this phase is a group of
chalices (and a kantharos) that depict a variety of animals,
specifically cocks, hens, geese and dolphins – Lemos calls it the
Poultry Group.52 Some are slight works with debased filling
ornaments and clearly go with the komast chalices.53 Indeed, on
a fragmentary chalice from Berezan we find black-figure
komasts on one side and a cock on the other.54 Others, however,
have something grander and more restrained about them and
are perhaps earlier, or at least retain more of the tradition of the
Chalice Workshop.55 Indeed, the group of four chalices found at
Tocra, two from the Chalice Workshop and two from Lemos’
Figure 16 Chalice fragment: two Figure 17 Chalice fragment: seated
heads, BM GR 1888.6-1.550a figure, BM GR 1924.12-1.206
130 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 14 Cup fragment interior:
siren, Oxford G 133.2 and 6
Figure 15 Cup fragment, interior: two
heads, BM GR 1888.6.4-1.1283
Poultry Group would seem perhaps to be roughly contemporary,
despite the differing techniques.56 Finally, the last gasp of
decorated Archaic Chian is to be found on a group of unslipped,
Atticising kantharoi and chalices that takes us down into the
third quarter of the 6th century bc.57
This leaves us with what Lemos calls the Black-figure Grand
Style.58 She lists fragments of two cups,59 five chalices, and a
bowl, all from Naukratis, and an indeterminate vessel from
Berezan. The bowl fragment should be omitted – it really finds a
place in the Sphinx and Lion workshop.60 The Berezan fragment
is also best omitted, as the fabric is surely not Chian.61 This leaves
us with fragments of two cups, one in Oxford, one in London:
both clearly by the same painter (Figs 14–15).62 The shape is
different from that of the regular, stemmed Ionian cup, a shape
which Chian potters also produced, decorating the rim with
myrtle or laurel wreaths, 63 and with their exterior decoration
and interior border of pomegranates point strongly towards the
Laconian class of cup, as has been noted many times before.64 A
rim fragment from a chalice in London is also clearly by the
same hand (Fig. 16).65 Two of the other chalice fragments must
come from one and the same vessel – indeed, we can add a third
fragment to this group, which was not listed by Lemos (Figs
17–19).66 These fragments may even be from the same vessel as
the rim fragment with the heads. The wall fragment from a
chalice in Cambridge may be augmented by joining the last of
the chalice fragments listed by Lemos, and a second London
fragment that she did not include (photomontage Fig. 20).67
We thus have two cups and two or three chalices in a fine
black-figure technique all by the same, rather accomplished
painter – let us call him the Sirens Painter after the Cambridge
and London chalice and the Oxford cup. He decorated two cups
that show decided connections with Lakonian cups, both in
shape and decorative scheme, and a couple of chalices that have
figures that recall some of the standing and seated figures on
Figure 18 Chalice fragment: drapery, Figure 19 Chalice fragment: drapery
BM GR 1924.12-1.204 and tail, BM GR 1924.12-1.342

Figure 20 Chalice
fragment: siren and winged
demon. Photomontage of,
left: BM GR 1888.6-
1.550b; right: Cambridge
GR 97.1894; top: BM GR
1924.12-1.352
Lakonian cups, as well as a wing-footed figure flying over a siren
that similarly recalls some of the Lakonian cups with winged
daemons and sirens flying round symposium scenes.68 The
closest connection seems to be with the work of the so-called
Boreads Painter, usually dated 575–565 bc.69 Our Chian Sirens
Painter was presumably allied to the Chalice Workshop and
influenced one or more of the later painters who worked in the
recombined workshop. His own contribution to the
development of the earlier scions of Lemos’ Poultry Group is
perhaps seen on a fine fragment of a thick-walled chalice with a
cock raising one leg (Fig. 21).70
How do we explain this phenomenon? Boardman has noted
that no Laconian pottery has yet been found on Chios and has
gone on to conclude from this that the influence cannot have
occurred there (incidentally using this Laconian connection to
bolster the theory of production at Naukratis, where Laconian
has been found). The alternative solution, however, is that a
Laconian vase-painter actually moved to Chios. Since we have a
Laconian shape with its distinctive decorative scheme and
Laconian iconography and style, this is not perhaps such an
unlikely scenario. The Sirens Painter’s impact was immediate
and discernible, but sadly the quality of his painting was not
maintained by his local pupils.
Finally, we return to the issue that was already mentioned at
the beginning of this paper – where was Chian pottery made?
We are beginning to see the strength of the possibility that
migrant Chians went to the region of Thrace, perhaps to the
Chian colony at Maroneia, and from there served the markets of
Ainos and Thasos, influencing local potters and adopting local
shapes.71 In counterpoint to this, there has been a reluctance to
the complete abandonment of the idea of Chian potters working
at Naukratis in Egypt, even following the confirmation by
scientific analysis that the pottery was all made with Chian clay.
The local clay was poor by Greek standards, but some potters do
seem to have tried to work it in the Greek manner and produce
rough imitations of North and South Ionian wares, as is laid out
in this volume by Schlotzhauer and Villing. They did not attempt
anything like Chian.
In extremis, then, one has to postulate the import of raw
Chian clay. How might we hope to detect such a situation? Three
considerations come to mind: the adoption of native shapes; the
use of native languages and scripts; and the reflection of native
customs and people through the iconography. For native shapes,
one thinks of the situlae studied by Sabine Weber, only one
fragment of which seems to have been found at Naukratis.72 Clay
analysis points to Rhodes as the source of clay, but should we
think of them as having been made at Naukratis with imported
clay? For native scripts, one thinks of Herbert Cahn’s
extraordinary amphora with the cartouche of Apries, a new
The Chian Pottery from Naukratis
Figure 21 Chalice: cock, BM GR
1888.6-1.549
fragment of which was found by Don Bailey in the Petrie
Museum with the reported provenience of Thebes (Bailey Figs
1–5).73 Clay analysis points to Northern Ionia, but was it made at
Naukratis with imported clay?74
The idea that iconography might indicate local knowledge is
more complex, because it could be reported and created
(however closely or loosely we would never know) at home. In
any case, there is nothing inexplicable or even really vaguely
Egyptian about the iconography of Chian vases found at
Naukratis, unlike the pottery produced by other East Greeks,
especially some of the material from Tel Defenneh,75 Karnak,76 or
even perhaps the Naukratis fragment showing an Ethiopian with
curly hair and African features (Cover illustration).77 To
conclude, there seems nothing in Chian painting and potting to
suggest that any of the finds from Naukratis (or elsewhere) were
actually made in Egypt.
The existence of so many painted dedications on Chian vases
from Naukratis has been commented on often (e.g. Johnston
Fig. 9). Such pieces, however, do not point to local production
but rather to the sophistication of the trading mechanisms of
Chian potters that enabled them to take commissions from
customers, not only at home on Chios, but also abroad.78 On
Aigina they catered for prosperous traders, it would seem (e.g.
Johnston Fig. 7); at Naukratis they served not only traders but
also perhaps one of the famous ladies of Aphrodite, Aigyptis.79
Furthermore, Chiot pottery is not the only fabric found at
Naukratis with pre-firing dedications, for we should not forget
the fragments of a large North Ionian rimless bowl with a long
painted dedication in added white inside that names Aphrodite
in Naukratis.80
In the end, therefore, although we cannot prove absolutely
that Chian potters did not work with their own clay at Naukratis,
there no longer seems a single persuasive argument to support
such a hypothesis.
Illustration credits
Figs 8, 10(right fragment) Mus. Arch. and Anth. Cambridge; Fig. 14
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Fig. 20 (right fragment) Fitzwilliam
Museum, Cambridge; all others the British Museum.
Notes
1 Smith 1886, 51-3.
2 Gardner 1888, 38-9.
3 Kourouniotis 1915, 64-93; Kourouniotis 1916, 190-215. Kourouniotis’
unfinished excavations were continued by Winifred Lamb for one
season in 1933: Lamb 1934/5, 138-64.
4 Price 1924, 205.
5 Lemos 1991, with earlier bibliography. See also the following articles:
Lemos 1986, 233-49; Lemos 1999/2000, 11-50; Lemos 2000, 380-1
and 384-5. In addition, note Schauss 1996, 30-42.
6 Lemos 1991, 163-75: she does not in fact use the word ‘Style’ here, but
simply calls them Black-figure Chalices.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 131
Williams
7 Boardman 1998b, 145.
8 Two pieces were isolated by R.M. Cook, Cook 1949, 154-5, see Lemos
1991, nos 264, 273; see also Boardman 1967, 149 with n. 5. Lemos adds
a chalice from the Samian Heraion, Lemos 1991, no. 247. For the new
classification system see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 1-56.
9 Lemos 1991, 67-70.
10 Lemos 1991, 71-3. Lemos 1991, no. 176 (BM GR 1924.12-1.421) is
attributed to the painter himself. Note that the dinos fragment,
Lemos 1991, no. 281 (BM GR 1886.4-1.1122), which she places in the
larger group, is not Chian. A second non-Chian dinos is Lemos 1991,
no. 280 (BM GR 1886.4-1.1003), to which belongs Brussels inv. A 1769
(CVA Brussels pl. 3.10, Belgium 105).
11 Lemos 1991, no. 140 (BM GR 1888.6-1.473a), interior decoration not
noted.
12 Lemos 1991, 73-5. Price 1924, 216-7, had thought of the painter of the
Würzburg chalices and the Aphrodite bowl as one and the same.
13 Lemos 1991, no. 211 (BM GR 1886.4-1.1078), interior decoration not
noted.
14 Cook 1949, 158 n. 12, with pl. 41 b. Acropolis fragment: van Buren
1926, 16 and 184 no. 7, figs 49-50. See Lemos 1991, 24; the Naukratis
fragments listed as nos. 365-7.
15 Hermary et al. 1999, 62, fig. on p. 61.
16 Sardis vessel: Greenewalt 1971, 29-46. Samos vessel: Buschor 1951,
32-41, pl. 8.
17 Lemos 1991, no. 365 (BM GR 1888.6-1.496a-c). The joining fragment
is BM GR 1924.12-1.178 (Lemos 1991, no. 390).
18 Lemos 1991, no. 366 (BM GR 1888.6-1.496d).
19 Lemos 1991, 75.
20 This is Lemos 1991, no. 253 (BM GR 1888.6-1.460k and 1924.12-1.84).
21 For such plastic additions see Boardman 1976, especially 287-8. The
unpublished Cahn fr. is Basel, Cahn HC 476. They are also sometimes
shown attached to the side of skyphoi , kantharoi and rhyta, see
Boardman 1976, 289; add that on the rhyton shown on the
Kleophrades Painter’s psykter, Princeton y1989-69, Guy 1990, 46-7.
For a fragment from a skyphos see Getty 86 AE 585.
22 Lemos 1991, no. 480 (BM GR 1924.12-1.186).
23 Lemos 1991, no. 391 (BM GR 1924.12-1.203).
24 Lemos 1991, no. 1254 (Brussels inv. A 1788: CVA Brussels pl. 3.7,
Belgium 105 – upside-down).
25 Aphrodite bowl: Lemos 1991, no. 252 (BM GR 1888.6-1.456). Joining
fragment: BM GR 1924.12-1.418.
26 Lemos 1991, 243-4, nos 252-8. There is also a group of fragments from
later, smaller lekanai, all found at Rizari (Lemos 1991, 244-5, nos 269-
72), that have mock rivets.
27 Lemos 1991, no. 154 (BM GR 1888.6-1.475g = GR 1924.12-1.119).
28 Cf. Lemos 1991, nos 151 (BM GR 1888.6-1.475d), 170 (BM GR 1924.12-
1.115) and 222 (Cambridge N 48 and 49: CVA Cambridge 2, pl. 17, nos
18 and 20, GB 496).
29 One group of joining fragments is BM GR 1888.6-1.499g and b,
1924.12-1.21 and 1888.6-1.443. A second group is BM GR 1888.6-
1.499e, 1924.12-1.20 and 1888.6-1.459, to which also belong 1888.6-
1.460 e, f and g.
30 Compare changes elsewhere – e.g. from Wild Goat into Fikellura, see
Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b). For the date note the Chian fragment
from the Lion and Sphinx workshop found in the destruction deposit
at Old Smyrna – Lemos 1991, no. 1457.
31 Lemos 1991, no. 1272 (Istanbul, Arch. Mus.).
32 Lemos 1991, no. 1449 (Cambridge, Mus. Arch. and Anth. NA 103).
This may also have been the case on the fragment from a stemmed
skyphos bowl, Lemos 1991, no. 1278 (from Chios town). Cf. also
perhaps, if it is Chian, a fragment in Leiden: Prins de Jong 1925, pl. 1.9
(not in Lemos 1991).
33 Lemos 1991, no. 1338 (BM GR 1886.4-1.998).
34 Lemos 1991, no. 1419, pls 182-3.
35 Plate fragments: Cambridge, Mus. Arch and Anth NA 98 (Lemos
1991, no. 1411) and BM GR 1924.12-1.16 (Lemos 1991, no. 1406).
36 Ring vase: Lemos 1991, no. 1440 (BM GR 1888.6-1.763).
37 Lemos 1991, no. 552 (BM GR 1888.6-1.465a,b,d,e etc.). Boston
88.830.7 (Lemos 1991, no. 582) joins BM GR 1888.6-1.465a; Univ.
Coll. London 751 (Lemos 1991, no. 682) joins BM GR 1888.6-1.465b
(Lemos 1991, pl. 70 row 3).
38 Lemos 1991, no. 439 (BM GR 1888.6-1.466d,f,e).
39 Lemos 1991, no. 458 (BM GR 1888.6-1.464).
40 Note that the Chios plate (Lemos 1991, no. 684) and the Berezan
fragments (Lemos 1991, no. 799) still have filling ornaments and
should be early.
41 Boardman 1956, 55-62.
132 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
42 Lemos 1991, no. 516 (BM GR 1924.12-1.343 – subject wrongly
identified by Lemos) and Lemos 1991, no. 796 (Aigina, Kolonna fr.).
43 Bonn 697.7: Lemos 1991, no. 788; Piekarski 2001b, no. A 11, pl. 3.3.
44 On the iconography see most recently Tempesta 1998.
45 Lemos 1991, 111-2.
46 Lemos 1991, nos. 800 (Istanbul inv. no. 8904) and 801. See also
Lemos 2000, 384-5.
47 Red lion inside: BM GR 1888.6-1.790.
48 E.g. Lemos 1991, no. 972.
49 Lemos 1991, no. 964.
50 St. Petersburg, Hermitage, Berezan B 465: Solovyov 2005, 65 no. 95.
51 BM GR 1924.12-1.366; 1924.12-1.367; 1888.6-1.548p (=Lemos 1991,
no. 1495).
52 Lemos 1991, 173-5. Add the twin reed-handled kantharos from
Berezan: Lemos 1991, no. 1635.
53 Lemos 1991, nos 1603, 1597, 1598, and 1614.
54 I am very grateful to Dmitry Chistov, of the Hermitage Museum and
the current director of the Berezan excavations, for bringing this new
find to my attention.
55 Lemos 1991, nos 1600 and 1601, 1602, 1611, 1605.
56 Tocra chalices: Lemos 1991, nos 927 and 928, and 1600 and 1601.
57 Lemos 1991, nos 1617-1619 and 1625-1634.
58 Lemos 1991, nos 1458-1460 (cups), 1461-1465 (chalices), 1466 (bowl)
and 1467 (fragment).
59 The current whereabouts of the third fragment in her list, Lemos
1991, no. 1459, once in Berlin (Lane 1933/4, 186 fig. 26), is not known:
it might well have come from one of the two other cups.
60 Cf. Lemos 1991, nos 1331, 1351, 1302, 1296 and 1279.
61 I am very grateful to Yulia Ilyina of the State Hermitage in St
Petersburg for confirming that though the interior is slipped, there is
no white slip under the black. She also notes that the pale clay makes
one think of Corinthian.
62 Oxford G.133.2 and 6: Lemos 1991, no. 1458. BM GR 1886.4-1.1283:
Lemos 1991, no. 1460.
63 The class was noted in Price 1924 (p. 183 with fig. 59 on p. 215 = BM
GR 1924.12-1.188; cf. Boardman 1956, 61 with n 9). Add: BM GR
1924.12-1.169,170,171,172, and 176; BM GR 1888.6-1.561u (= GR
1924.12-1.456 – elaborate meander inside rim); BM GR 1965.9-
30.400a; BM GR 1965.9-30.400 (complete profile); BM GR 1910.2-
22.57 (foot fragment).
64 Boardman 1956, 60-1; Boardman 1986, 254; Lemos 1991, 154-62.
65 BM GR 1888.6-1.550a: Lemos 1991, no. 1463
66 BM GR 1924.12-1.206 (Lemos 1991, no. 1462), 204 (Lemos 1991, no.
1464), and 342 (not in Lemos 1991). BM GR 1924.12-1.205 should
probably come from another chalice by this painter; so, too, perhaps
a fragment in Oxford, 1925.608e (Lemos 1991, no. 162), which
preserves traces of a horseman with a spear.
67 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Mus. GR 97.1894: Lemos 1991, no. 1461. BM
GR 1888.6-1.550b (Lemos 1991, no. 1465) joins, as does GR 1924.12-
1.352 (not in Lemos 1991).
68 See Pipili 1987, 71-3; also 76 and 41. Winged demons do occur on
other East Greek vases, but they are very different – see Schaus 1986,
275 ns 71-7. Add the many more Milesian examples excavated in
recent years at Miletos, and the fragment in the collection of William
Suddaby – Padgett 2003, 276-7 no. 69 (creature wrongly identified).
69 Stibbe 1972, 88-89 (the Oxford fragment is illustrated on pl. 60.2-3).
70 BM GR 1888.6-1.549.
71 See Lemos 1991, 209-22; and Lemos 1992, 157-73.
72 See Sabine Weber, this volume.
73 See Donald Bailey, this volume.
74 For the question of clay sources, see Mommsen and Kerschner, this
volume, n.7.
75 The hawk on a nb (Neb) basket (as identified by Petrie) – BM GR
1888.2-8.3: Weber, this volume (Weber Fig. 16); CVA British Museum
8, pl. 2.2 (GB 597) and 9.14 (GB 604). See further Schlotzhauer and
Weber 2005, 88-91.
76 Opet’s boat (?): Oxford 1924.64 (from Karnak) – CVA Oxford 2, pl. 10,
nos 24 a-f, GB 401; Boardman 1958, 4-12; Boardman 1999a, 138 fig. 162.
77 African: BM GR 1886.4-1.1282 (BM Cat Vases B 102.33); Lemos 1991,
no. 1657. This seems more North Ionian than Chian.
78 At home on Chios there are even examples of painted dedications on
coarse wares (Lamb 1934/5, 161 and fig. 13 on p. 162) – the island of
Homer enjoyed its literacy!
79 See Williams 1983a, 183-6, for Aigyptis see 185; see also Boardman
1986, 254 and 257 fig. 5.
80 BM GR 1888.6-1.531: Gardner 1888, 64-5 and pl. 21 (inscr. no. 768);
Möller 2000a, 178 no. 4.
Some Observations on Milesian Pottery
Udo Schlotzhauer
with contributions by P. Herrmann (†) and S.Weber
Abstract
Compared with the immense importance attributed to the Archaic
polis of Miletos during the Archaic period, only very little
information about this epoch, gathered from archaeological
excavations in Miletos itself, has been available until now.
Questions regarding the numerous colonies and emporia of the
city, for example, are therefore somewhat difficult to answer. Due
to mass production and the virtually indestructible nature of
pottery, this category of finds in particular has been at the centre of
attention when questions regarding dating, trade and artistry have
arisen. The following contribution intends to portray the current
state of archaeological research on Miletos as concisely as possible,
with pottery as its main focus.*
Introduction
Miletos was one of the most important Greek centres in the East
Aegean during the Archaic period. In addition to its extensive
colonial activities in the Black Sea area,1 the polis, together with
other Greek city states, also operated the port of trade Naukratis
at the Canopic mouth of the Nile.2 However, archaeological
evidence that would confirm the role ascribed to Miletos at
Naukratis by literary tradition has so far failed to materialise.
This gap in the archaeological record was often overrated in the
past, with Miletos’ role in Naukratis even being questioned
altogether.3 Sir John Boardman, however, had already realised
that this discrepancy between the literary and archaeological
traditions must be attributed foremost to the lack of knowledge
about pottery from the East Aegean: ‘When we know more, it
seems likely that the Milesian share will be recognised at the
expense of the Rhodian.’4 Thus, the state of research on pottery
production at Miletos is of immediate relevance to research in
Naukratis.5
Until only a few years ago, knowledge of Milesian pottery
and the pottery of the entire East Aegean was extremely meagre.
Yet it is precisely pottery that is at the heart of archaeological
research. In contrast to other categories of finds, their statistical
components are hardly affected by chance preservation or
through displacement and reuse in other contexts. In addition,
pottery is found in large quantities in all locations, as it is a trade
good or commodity, on the one hand, and, on the other,
sometimes even an artistic work itself, the canvas for vase-
painting and coroplastic ornamentation. Thereby, pottery
contributes significantly to our understanding of trade, the arts
and crafts and cultural transfer during any particular period.
Furthermore, inscriptions are occasionally found on pottery in
sanctuaries, and they aid in the understanding of the activities
of individual persons in the past.
In recent years there have been rapid advances in research
on Archaic pottery from the East Aegean.6 Although extensive
excavations have been carried out for many years in various
locations – including in Archaic layers – it is a well-known fact
that publications do not keep pace with the finds.7 Theories
based on individual archaeological results should, therefore,
for the time being, not be generalised, as they are far from
conclusive for many regions and locations. The increase in
fundamental information about pottery from the East Aegean is,
however, not only the result of excavations. Important advances,
particularly in the determination of the origin of individual
pottery groups and types, have also been made thanks to
cooperation with the natural sciences in the form of
archaeometry.8 Thus, it is now possible to determine a surprising
diversity in production within a few ceramic production
centres.9 Scientific studies have their place in many
contributions in this volume10 or are the actual subject of the
work.11 A third aspect of the progress in research on the ceramic
production in the East Aegean lies in the renewal of outdated
terminological systems of classification. The development and
establishment of new systems of classification and terminology
are closely linked to the innovations mentioned earlier, that are
due to the increase in finds and the results from scientific
studies.12 Communicating the new information and achieving an
adequate conformity across the results is essentially only
possible with the consistent dismissal of obsolete systems, which
are based on fundamental misinterpretations. This moreover
prevents the danger of outdated research opinions being carried
on within systems that have merely been modified. At the same
time, however, the possibility of a new terminology has to be
approached with particular care. Only where it seems inevitable
and where sufficient arguments for its use exist, should this path
be chosen. A further danger lies in depriving categories of
material of their history of research, or in establishing parallel,
rival strands of research. With all this in mind, devising a new
classification system for the East Aegean, which moreover
makes the region comparable internally as well as with other
Greek landscapes, seemed an inevitable conclusion; this system
has already been introduced and explained in detail elsewhere,
and will be applied also in following (cf. also the overview chart
Fig. 10).13
Miletos and its hinterland
While previous research had always regarded Samos as the
prominent centre of the arts in southern Ionia, the results of
recent excavations in Miletos show that this site was in no way
inferior to its neighbouring island.14 This can be concluded from
a large number of objects, which were discovered in the
settlement, the sanctuaries and the necropoleis of Miletos in
recent years.15 However, very little understanding of Milesian
pottery production, particularly of painted pottery, exists as yet,
even though the main focus of excavations in the city and its
hinterland over the last one and a half decades has been on the
Archaic period.16
The following pages are intended to provide an overview of
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 133
Schlotzhauer
Milesian pottery, as far as it is understood at present, as well as
add some new results from the German excavations in Miletos.
The polis of Miletos
During the past 15 years the most important findspots for
Archaic pottery within Miletos have been the well known
sanctuary of Athena in the centre of the ancient city, the
settlement and Artemis temple on the Kalabaktepe, and the
Aphrodite sanctuary on the Zeytintepe.17 Intensive excavation
activities took place in the settlement at the southern edge of the
walled Archaic city, at the Kalabaktepe, under the direction of
V. von Graeve between 1986 and 1995.18 Here it was possible to
establish a stratigraphic sequence for the settlement layers,
especially on the southern slope of the Kalabaktepe,19 through
which important information regarding the relative and
absolute chronology for the large quantity of associated pottery
could be gained. Excavations on a smaller scale by M. Kerschner,
who was able to identify the temple of Artemis Chitone on the
eastern hill of the Kalabaktepe, yielded further stratigraphically
relevant pottery.20 A further focus of recent excavation activity
has been the Zeytintepe, a hill next to the gates of the city in the
area of an ancient settlement called Oikous.21 The sanctuary of
Aphrodite of Oikous was discovered here in 1990 and excavated
subsequently.
Thechora of Miletos22
Three important findspots for Archaic material are to be noted in
the chora of Miletos.23 Firstly, Assesos, presumably a Milesian
frurion at the Eastern edge of Milesia.24 In a rather restricted trial
trench, pottery was found, mainly of Archaic date, which
essentially resembled that found in Miletos. The finds are being
published by G. Kalaitzoglou.25 It is tempting to assume that this
may be the sanctuary of Athena at Assesos mentioned by
Herodotus (1.19) and other ancient authors.26 However, the
topography of this site has not yet been clarified to an extent
that would permit its definitive identification. The proportion of
fine ceramics, particularly that of painted vases, is relatively
large, so that these can hardly be classified as settlement finds.
The absence, however, of votive inscriptions in general as well as
upon the pottery itself, otherwise a common occurrence in
Milesian sanctuaries, argues against these finds being sanctuary
pottery. The question must thus remain open for the time being.
Another important sanctuary in the chora, connected to the polis
of Miletos by a prominent processional road, is the widely
renowned oracular temple of Apollo at Didyma.27 Despite many
years of excavation, only very little pottery pre-dating the
5th century bc was found at this location.28 Only in recent years
finds from the Archaic period have been accumulating. Thanks
to the archaeologists excavating and studying the material in
Didyma, the discovery of one specific find from this site can be
placed in a wider context here.29 Further finds, some Archaic,
have been made along the processional road mentioned
earlier.30 An intensive survey was also carried out in the
remaining areas of the chora of Miletos.31 It did not, however,
yield any noteworthy information relating to the Archaic chora
or pottery from this period.32
134 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
The pottery of Miletos: state of research on painting style and
types of vessels33
A new classification system has been developed for pottery of
the East Aegean, which allows the integration of results from
recent excavations, the natural sciences and an expanded
material basis.34 The system distinguishes undecorated as well as
decorated fine and everyday pottery according to larger and
smaller phases of development within the production site or
larger regions. This terminological convention has the
advantage that the spatial and chronological placement of
pottery can be readily determined by means of a standard
selection of terms and code structure. The consistent application
of this model will enable developments in different regions to be
correlated in a generally intelligible way. Thus, developments in
a workshop in Aiolis can be easily and intelligibly compared with
developments in northern Ionia, southern Ionia or eastern Doris
as well as Caria and Lydia. Until now correlations such as these
were only achievable by a specialist who was immediately able
to recognize that, for instance, the northern Ionian so-called
‘Tübingen group’35 and the Chian ‘Comast group’,36 the groups S
and R, as well as the ‘Altenburg painter’ of the so-called Fikellura
style37 from Miletos represent parallel developments from the
later second third of the 6th century bc. The geographical
localisation as well as the stylistic classification and the
chronological horizon of the categories of Knipovich group38 and
Enmann group,39 too, cannot simply be presumed. The new
classification makes it easy to recognise, by means of the second,
chronological component of the code, ‘A II’, that these are
stylistically (often also chronologically) parallel developments,
whether in northern Ionia (NiA II), on the island of Chios (ChiA
II) or in south Ionian Miletos (MileA II).
This system is an open model, which can be adapted to
conditions in different regions or parts of regions, in poleis and
as far as workshops. The course of development is not
necessarily parallel everywhere, nor are developments
structured in the same way. A phase may, for example, be absent
in one particular landscape or smaller region, while another
workshop elsewhere could, in turn, feature a phase more than
its neighbour. A developmental structure has yet to be drawn up
for many locations and periods, as research on ceramics in the
East Aegean has yet to reach the stage of that on the Archaic and
Classical periods of Athens.
In Miletos, the division between the two main phases of
Milesian vase-painting is the change from the Wild Goat
(henceforth ‘WG’) style, MileA I of the 7th and beginning of the
6th century bc, to the so-called Fikellura style (MileA II), which,
according to my opinion, emerged during the first third of the
6th century bc. Figural and ornamental friezes, in which large
portions of the figural body (e.g. the heads – except for birds –
wings and the belly) were reserved and the ornaments (e.g.
buds and blossoms, as well as dividing bands) were outlined,
had always been grouped together under the WG style. By
contrast, the outlining technique became unusual in the
Fikellura style (MileA II).40 Until now a clear definition of both of
these two main phases of Milesian painting has not been
established in any studies of these styles, which has often led to
different ascriptions of individual examples. Unlike other Greek
regions, Milesian painters retained their reserving technique
even during the phase of black-figured vase-painting and did not
switch to the incising technique. Therefore, in the case of

Milesian products, it is not always easy to distinguish between
the two main phases AI and AII, particularly in cases of small
fragments. For the incising technique is regarded as an indicator
for the clear division between the earlier and the later stylistic
phases. Only recently was an attempt made to establish a
definition that can now be used as a starting point for a better
differentiation between the phases of Milesian vase-painting.41
A comprehensive proposal so far exists only for the early
phase, the Archaic I period (MileA I), of Milesian painted
pottery. It suggests a division into four sub-phases, which
approximately span the time from the second quarter of the 7th
to the first quarter of the 6th century bc, based on the
development of shapes and decorations.42 This kind of internal
division does not as yet exist for the second period of Milesian
vase-painting, MileA II.43 Ceramics from the Geometric44 and
Classical periods will also need to be classified accordingly in the
future.
The early period of Archaic vase-painting in Miletos: MileA I
The state of publications on vase-painting of the phase MileA I,
which essentially encompasses the styles known so far as
‘Subgeometric’ and ‘Wild Goat’ style,45 is extremely disparate.46
Noticeable in Milesian vase-painting of MileA I is the limited
range of variation of ornaments and figures. Simplification and
a limited figural repertoire occur in those phases in particular, in
which there is an increase in production and standardisation
(phases MileA Ic-d).47 Whereas sphinxes, griffins, boars, bulls,
lions, panthers, foxes, hares and dogs were still represented
more frequently in the first two phases MileA Ia/b, in MileA
Ic/d, almost exclusively ibexes, deer and geese are depicted.
Representations of humans, too, are very rare and have only
been documented for the late phase MileA Id, several times in
form of a head protome48 and once as a horseman on a sherd
from Daskyleion.49 Other representations of humans
(presumably mythical or divine beings), in contrast, can only be
cited for the earliest phase MileA Ia.50
The newly proposed development is, according to the
current state of research, divided further into four phases.
Phase MileA Ia51 (c. 670–650 bc) is characterised as being
the transition from the Geometric to the Early Archaic period.
The distinction between it and the Geometric period is best
manifested by the presence of several figures in the central
metope field. Dot-filled volutes appear for the first time; in the
following phase they develop into the virtually mandatory
central motif of the volute blossom, primarily in the shoulder-
frieze on jugs. The lowest zone of decoration consists only of a
row of vertical strokes or a wreath of rays. Sometimes the figures
still have filled-in faces as in late Geometric, but usually they are
already reserved. In phase MileA Ia painted pottery shapes are
limited to oinochoai with a round mouth, kraters, amphorae and
cups with everted rim.
In phase MileA Ib52 (c. 650–630 bc) the decoration of vessels
changes to include friezes encircling the whole vase. Aside from
the row of strokes and the wreath of rays, lotus-and-bud chains
emerge and soon become canonical in the zone above the foot.
Ornamental volutes are sometimes found on the underside of
dinoi or in the centre of plates and bowls. Filling ornaments and
fauna attain their richest diversity during this phase. So far it has
been possible to detect phase MileA Ib on the following shapes:
kraters, dinoi, lids, cups with everted rim, plates, and trefoil and
Some Observations on Milesian Pottery
round-mouthed oinochoai.
MileA Ic53 (c. 630–610 bc) is characterised in particular by
the fact that the hanging and standing triangles and the half-
rosettes, which had already emerged in MileA Ib, are now linked
with animals in the friezes and, thus, slow down its movement.
The number of friezes on a vessel’s body also increases in some
examples, so that the body of the Lévy oinochoe,54 for instance,
is covered by five animal friezes. There is a decrease in the
variety of figures and filling ornaments, the heights of the
friezes are reduced and friezes become more standardised.
Likewise, the lotus-and-bud chain in the zone just above the foot
is only rarely replaced by a wreath of rays. The repertoire of
painted shapes in MileA Ic comprises oinochoai with a trefoil
mouth, kraters, dinoi, cups with everted rim, lids, plates and
bowls.
The final phase MileA Id55 (c. 610–580 bc) leads to a
simplification in decoration with elongated animals and
ornaments of exaggerated size. It is an economising
development, in which Milesian vase-painters fill out a frieze
with only few animals or ornaments, an obvious result of mass
production. This characteristic feature of phase MileA Id is easily
noted. On the other hand, a superior figural painting style
persists, which continues to feature numerous figures, often
interacting, as well as complicated ornamental friezes. Thus far
this it has not been possible yet to clearly differentiate this
feature in all its aspects from the preceding phase MileA Ic. The
fact that this superior trend continues to exist even in the last
phase of MileA Id, alongside mass goods affected by
simplification, is indicated by vessels that represent the
transition to the late phase MileA II.
Phase MileA Id is also the earliest Milesian phase, the
ceramic produce of which is found at Naukratis. Amongst these
is the so-called Polemarchos-krater (Schlotzhauer and Villing
Fig. 19), which scientific analyses have identified as a product of
the Kalabaktepe workshops.56 Further Milesian finds, including
those of phase MileA Id, were made in Egypt, but outside of
Naukratis. One example57 is the amphora from Thebes/Gurna.58
The late period of Archaic vase-painting in Miletos: MileA II
Vessels which combine both stylistic stages MileA I and II, so-
called bilinguals (cat. no. 1, Fig. 1), display in their MileA II
friezes features of the first phase of the new period, MileA IIa.59
They should therefore be consistently attributed to MileA IIa,
according to the archaeological principle ‘the youngest element
dates the find’, even if elements of the previous stylistic phase
MileA Id sometimes still prevail. Surprisingly, these early
examples already feature human representations with a
narrative potential alongside conservative MileA I-style animal
friezes with animal-fighting scenes or rows of animals, all on the
same vessel.
The further development has not yet been worked out.
However, there is now a much larger basis of material known
from excavations at Miletos, that will enable us to go beyond the
limits of the previously recognised groups,60 painters61 and
repertoire of shapes.62 The resulting increased diversity in
known designs in the period MileA II is easily explained by the
fact that our previous knowledge was merely based on the
pottery that was exported from Miletos.63 Only certain vase
shapes decorated in this style and only certain workshops and
painters, however, appear to be represented in export markets.64
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 135
Schlotzhauer

Figure 1 MileA IIa, 'Aphrodite-Cup', cup with everted rim: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 1)

Figure 2 MileA II, cup with everted rim: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 2)

136 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt


Figure 3 MileA II, amphora:Tell Defenneh, fort (BM GR 1888.2-8.46a; sample Defe
11: group D) (cat. no. 5)
Others vases, particularly those of high quality, seem to have
remained within the most immediate geographical
surroundings. Vessels in this style have now been discovered in
Miletos, and they feature an abundance of representations of
myths, gods, everyday life and religious festivals, as well as
names. This may be exemplified by a piece that was recently
discovered in the sanctuary of Aphrodite at Miletos (cat. no. 2,
Fig. 2).65 It is presumably the goddess herself who appears as the
mistress of nature in the centre of the finely made vessel, a cup
with everted rim. She holds a panther in her left hand.66 Floral
motifs complete the reference to nature. The ‘bent-knee’ running
pose of the goddess is so far unique and distinguishes her from
the static, frontally orientated and winged mistress of the
animals, who usually also holds an animal in both hands.
Only a few examples of unusual vase forms or unparalleled
decoration from phase MileA II reached the Milesian colonies
and emporia. Mugs with trefoil mouth67 and plastic head-
kantharoi or -mugs68 should be recalled here.69 A prime example
for this phenomenon is a long-known vase from Egypt that had
been thought to be unique but that can now be associated with a
Milesian workshop. The first indication of its Milesian origin was
provided by the scientific determination of origin via NAA in
2004. This was later confirmed by new finds in Miletos in the
summer of 2005, thus confirming the reliability of the scientific
procedure. This piece will be discussed in some detail in the
following paragraphs.
Some Observations on Milesian Pottery
An amphora from Tell Defenneh
S. Weber (NAA carried out by H. Mommsen and A. Schwedt, Bonn)
The amphora (cat. no. 3, Fig. 3) was found at an undesignated
place in the ‘kasr’ during the excavation at Tell Defenneh, a site
in the eastern Nile delta, which was conducted by William M.
Flinders Petrie in 1886.70 The vessel is decorated with a row of
strokes on the lip and a triple cable on the neck, which is
surmounted, on side A, by a simple gear pattern and, on side B,
by chevrons. On the shoulder is a small lotus-frieze and a broad
frieze of water birds facing to the right. The belly is painted with
a meander-and-square band; below that is a frieze of animals
(seven goats and a deer are preserved), followed below by a
hook meander and enclosed palmettes; and finally below that a
narrow band with a simple gear pattern and a lotus band. Filling
ornaments consist of simple four-dot-rosettes in the figural
friezes and of very hastily painted small lotus flowers between
the feet of the animals.
The amphora, together with seven other examples decorated
in the so-called ‘Fikellura style’, was assigned by R.M. Cook to
his group C, named after our amphora ‘group of B.M. B 117’.71
Cook suggested a date not long after 550 bc. It is a very
heterogeneous group related to his group B or ‘Lion group’, but
the rendering of the animals of our amphora is clumsier than
that on vases of this group. Thus, this amphora stands
stylistically somewhat apart from the other vases painted in this
style. This led to speculations about the amphora’s place of
origin. The possibility that Fikellura (= MileA II),72 like the
Orientalizing animal frieze style, the so-called Wild Goat style
(= EA I),73 was produced in different cities in the East Greek
area with Samos or Rhodes as the main centres, was considered
by R.M. Cook74 and also favoured by E. Walter-Karydi.75 For the
amphora B 117, however, Walter-Karydi tentatively proposed an
Ephesian origin.76 As a characteristic feature of Ephesian
manufacture she cited the band of black and white squares,77 a
decorative element, however, not painted on the amphora B 117.
Walter-Karydi, of course, based her attributions upon stylistic
studies long before clay analyses were carried out. In the last 20
years analyses have shown that patterns of the chemical
elements in the clay paste of vases in the Fikellura style conform
to Milesian clay beds.78 In consequence, in 1986 G.P. Schaus
rejected the hypothesis of different production centres for
Fikellura vases, basing his arguments upon the clay analyses and
his stylistic study of two major Fikellura painters. He concluded
that vases in the Fikellura style must have been made in one city
only: Miletos.79 Nevertheless, we still have the Ephesian origin
for the amphora from Tell Defenneh once suggested by Walter-
Karydi. New clay analyses could be the key to solving this
problem.
In fact, NAA analyses of three MileA II (= Fikellura) sherds
found in Ephesos, which are close in style to two of the vases
from Ephesos listed by Walter-Karydi and assumed by her to be
Ephesian, have been carried out by M. Kerschner and H.
Mommsen.80 The analyses revealed that the vases belong to the
chemical provenance groups A and D. Group A is definitely a
Milesian pattern and belongs to the so-called Kalabaktepe
workshops; D can be located in all probability in Miletos as
well.81
The NAA analysis of amphora B 117 now carried out by H.
Mommsen and A. Schwedt in Bonn, sample number Defe 11, has
proven that the clay paste of our vessel belongs to the chemical
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 137
Schlotzhauer
Figure 4 MileA II, mug: Miletos;
temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 4)
Figure 5 MileA II, cup: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 5)
group D.82 With this result we can conclude that at the moment
there is no evidence for the production of vases belonging to the
MileA II period ( = Fikellura) in Ephesos. Vases in this style were
produced in different workshops in Miletos and its chora. In
addition local imitations can be detected in some of its colonies
and in Naukratis.83
The results attained by S. Weber and H. Mommsen on the
amphora from Tell Defenneh have thus led to quite surprising
conclusions that stand in a long line of similar new discoveries
having been made through scientific clay analyses. Earlier
investigations by R.E. Jones, M.J. Hughes and P. Dupont, as well
as more recent work by J.N. Coldstream together with D.J. Liddy
and by M. Seifert with Ü. Yalçýn had already provided evidence
that the so-called animal frieze and Fikellura styles were
produced in Miletos, as were cups with everted rim, transport
amphorae and other shapes.84 This evidence and a detailed
discussion have been presented by M. Kerschner.85 Augmented
by new research initiated by M. Kerschner and H. Mommsen
using the NAA method, all this now allows a much clearer and
differentiated picture of Milesian pottery to be drawn.
Investigations continue as colleagues with pottery finds from
different sites join the project of M. Kerschner and
H. Mommsen.86 As a result, a multitude of different vessels can
now be added to the Milesian groups A and presumably D,87 a
138 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
new overview of archaeometric results on Milesian ceramics is
therefore of utmost urgency.
In addition to scientific results, new finds from Miletos also
provide added support for the stylistic attribution to a Milesian
workshop of the amphora from Tell Defenneh, which with its
peculiar decoration has stood in isolation thus far. These recent
finds show that the creator (or his workshop) of the amphora
from Tell Defenneh also decorated other shapes, and that
perhaps he/they also potted them. One cup (cat. no. 4, Fig. 4) is
decorated with young leaping deer, which clearly displays the
same style in painting as the deer and goats on the amphora
from Tell Defenneh (Fig. 3). The same painter’s hand can be
recognised in the clumsy depiction of the animals with their
characteristically exaggerated spots, as well as in the peculiarity
of the composition despite the difference in the type of animals.
Although filling ornaments are absent on the cup from the
sanctuary of Aphrodite near Miletos, nevertheless the same
decorative scheme can be recognised as on the amphora.
Simple, sometimes double dividing lines border the frieze and
the dividing bands, and the painter’s preference for simple
separating bands with a gear pattern is more than obvious on
both vessels. Furthermore, a third vessel, a bowl (cat. no. 5,
Fig. 5), provides the perfect analogy for the depictions of birds
on the amphora (Fig. 3), which until now had been unique.
Here, too, the similarities are astonishing, in detail as well as in
general conception. Although, again, the filling ornaments that
decorate the amphora are absent, a simple band with a gear
patter divides the bird frieze from the band of flower buds on
the cup from Miletos, just as on the amphora.
Further observations on painted mugs of the phase MileA II
from Miletos
The group of painted mugs and their variety of shapes has
received little attention thus far. Yet mugs constitute a
substantial part of the finds from Miletos and quantitatively are
hardly less significant than cups with everted rim (Ionian cups)
or hemispherical cups (‘bowls’). The abundance of variations in
shape and type is likewise notable. Some differ considerably in
the shape of the foot, the rim or the number of handles. For
example, there are mugs with a disk base,88 with a ring-base that
can be offset (Figs 8, 9)89 or not,90 and mugs with a simple flat
base91 (Fig. 7). Likewise, the rim can be shaped differently. Some
rims are straight and others flaring.92 In another variety the rim
is undulating. In view of the similarity to oinochoai with trefoil
mouth, these mugs are designated ‘with trefoil mouth’ (Fig. 9).93
Their mouth, however, is much flatter and has more lobes than
the mouth of trefoil-mouthed oinochoai, which have only three
pronounced lobes. Recently, a further significant and almost
complete example of the type of ‘mug with trefoil mouth’ has
been published, from the area of the sanctuary of the Milesian
oracular temple of Apollo at Didyma.94 In view of its almost
complete state of preservation, it is now apparent that this group
of trefoil mugs usually had two handles.95 Other varieties of
mugs possess up to three handles, although the mug with only
one vertical handle is most common. However, no examples of
such mugs have been found thus far in Naukratis. In spite of the
unusually large multitude of pottery types from the East Aegean
at this site, only South Ionian mugs with a simple flat base and a
flaring rim are known from the site. It can be proven that these
were produced not just at Miletos but also at Samos, as attested

Figure 6 MileA II, mug: Didyma, sanctuary on the Taxiarchis hill (cat. no. 6)
Figure 7 MileA II, mug with flat base: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 7)
Figure 8 MileA II, mug with an offset ring-base: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite
(cat. no. 8)
Some Observations on Milesian Pottery
by their dipinto HRH as well as by scientific analyses of their clay
(e.g. samples Nauk 1-3, Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 14–16).96
By contrast, it had long been assumed that an example of
another South Ionian/Milesian group of high quality mugs or
kantharoi was represented in Naukratis, namely a Milesian mug
or kantharos in the form of a head (sample Nauk 57, group
KROP). The long development of this type can be traced in
Miletos through a series of new finds.97 However, it has been
shown that the unusual stylistic features of the fragment, which
until now had been attributed to its date, must be interpreted
differently, for the fragment found in Naukratis is presumably
from a painted mould-made head-kantharos with additional
modelling that was produced in Athens.98
The rich variety of mugs presented here represents only a
part of the Milesian production of painted and plastically
decorated MileA II mugs of the 6th century bc.99 Mugs of the
phases MileG and MileA I from the preceding Geometric and
early Archaic periods, especially the painted examples, will be
discussed elsewhere.100 Here, mention will be made, however, of
a further aspect, which is connected with the category of late
painted MileA II cups and which is significant especially in
connection with Naukratis. Decorated cups with votive
inscriptions in the form of dipinti have recently been discovered
at Miletos in unprecedented large numbers.101 Three of these
mugs, from different find contexts, are almost identical in form
and on the basis of their similar decoration are presumably
closely connected in date. Moreover, in three cases (cat. nos 7–9;
Figs 7, 8, 9) the name of the dedicator is the same, so that it
seems conclusive that the three mugs were ordered by the same
person from the same workshop within a short span of time.
Precisely this aspect is encountered in Naukratis as well. Here,
vessels with the name of the dedicator AIGUPTIS, likewise
painted before firing on Chios, arrived at the sanctuary of
Aphrodite, most likely have been transported there by a trader
acting on a customer’s order.102 A further argument for the
theory or a special order to a workshop in Miletos is the essential
correspondence in decoration and form observable in two of the
four mugs presented here (cat. nos 6–9, Figs 6–9). Of special
interest is the fact that the four vessels had already been
determined for dedication to specific deities prior to their
completion. In fact, the mugs were found in different
sanctuaries at Miletos, in the ancient city as well as in the
surrounding area, but only one vessel preserves the name of the
deity (cat. no. 7, Fig. 7).
The fragment of the mug (cat. no. 6, Fig. 6) from the
Taxiarchis hill near the oracular sanctuary of Apollo Didymaios
has already been published.103 The excavators assume that the
hill is the location of one of the historically documented
sanctuaries of Didyma.104 In view of the find context there is no
doubt that the pottery was meant for the sanctuary. The
dedicatory inscription A]NEQHK[E(N) on the mug fragment
illustrated here adds certainty to this assumption. Although in
this case the deity to whom the dedicator offered the mug
cannot be determined, nevertheless the fragment of the
Milesian mug from Didyma can be added to a series of votive
mugs. A better preserved mug (cat. no. 7, Fig. 7) from the site of
the temple of Athena in Miletos corresponds to the mug in
Didyma in form and decoration. On this mug as well there is a
dipinto in the same place as on the mug from Didyma, between
the likewise identical decoration, and this dipinto also attests
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 139
Schlotzhauer
Figure 9 MileA II, mug with trefoil mouth and offset ring-base: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 9)
that the dedicator already had determined the intended deity
prior to ordering it in the workshop. But even more information
can be gained from the mug from the temple of Athena. The
mug was dedicated to Apollo by a man by the name of )/Alsioj
or La/sioj, although it was allegedly found ‘near the temple of
Athena’. Unfortunately, not all the documentation of the
excavation of P. Hommel in 1957 at the site is accessible, nor did
Hommel publish many of the important finds. Therefore, the
exact spot of the mug’s discovery cannot be determined with any
certainty. However, the fact that the mug was found near the
sanctuary of Athena is clearly to be understood from the
excavation diary.105 Other, still extant finds from the context AT
57.O.191 range in date from late Geometric to the Classical
periods. Dedications to other deities in a sanctuary of one
particular deity are attested in other places as well. Thus, in the
Milesian colony at Olbia a dedication to Athena was found in the
sanctuary of Apollo.106 This might suggest that same cult
partnership was present in Miletos’ colony as might be deduced
for Miletos from the discovery of the mug. The veneration of one
or several deities in a sanctuary dedicated to one specific god is
not exceptional. But this is not the only possible solution. It is
worth contemplating whether other sanctuaries stood to the
east of the temple of Athena. Indeed, a sanctuary of Demeter has
been postulated after the 5th century bc in the area close to
where the mug was found.107 However, its existence is not
attested with any certainty either through architecture or
inscriptions. In view of the mug’s good preservation and the
sherds’ clean breaks, it does not seem likely to have been
brought from the distant sanctuary of Apollo Delphinios near
the South Market. Overall, it is thus perhaps most likely that yet
another sanctuary of Apollo is to be located in the unexcavated
area to the east of the so-called Southeast building108 or in the
southeast section,109 about whose epithet, however, as little can
be said at present as about the architectural form of the
presumed sanctuary.110
And what about the inscription on the mug? Following the
author’s rediscovery of the long forgotten mug in the store-
rooms of the Miletos excavation, P. Herrmann – shortly before
his sadly premature death – wrote the following short
commentary on the inscription:111
Der Textaufbau ist klar, allein der Name des Dedikanten bleibt
problematisch. Nach meinen Notizen führen die Schriftreste am
Anfang eher auf LA als auf AL, also
)/A?lsioj m[a)ne&q]hken tw)p?[o/l]lwni
oder
140 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
)/Alsio/j m[e a)ne&q]hken tw~i? [ 0Apo/l]lwni
Für einen Namen )/Alsioj konnte ich keinen Beleg finden.
Es gibt in Kos und Kalymna einen Monatsnamen )/Alseioj oder
)Alsei=oj, der auf a)/Lsoj zurückgeführt wird. a)/Lsoj selbst
wiederum wird etymologisch nach einer unter mehreren
Annahmen mit dem Stamm al- ‘nähren’ verbunden, danach
auch eine lexikalische Glosse a)/Lsij ‘Wachstum’, die mit dem
Wort a)ldai/nw ‘zum Wachsen bringen’ kombiniert wird.112 Von
der Bildung her hielte ich diese Namensform also für möglich.
Sollte die Lesung aber doch La/sioj lauten, hätte man einen
Beleg für diese Namensform in Tegea,113 dazu wohl auch Lasi/aj
auf Münzen von Katane und Achaia. La/sioj wird von
F. Bechtel114 von dem Adjektiv La/sioj abgeleitet und als ‘mit
behaarter Brust’ interpretiert.
Ich finde übrigens dasselbe Dilemma bei einem Namen auf
Chios: eine Inschrift hat einen Namen )/Alswn.115 Auf Münzen
der Alexanderzeit aus Chios ist dagegen ein La/swn bezeugt.116
Beide Belege dürften aber denselben Namen meinen117 – nur:
welche Form ist richtig?
Man sollte im Falle der Tasse von Milet vielleicht schreiben:
)/A?lsioj oder L?a?&sioj, eine sichere Entscheidung scheint mir
nicht möglich.
Beitrag P. Herrmann †
In the year 2005 a further mug (cat. no. 8, Fig. 8) was discovered
in the sanctuary of Aphrodite of Oikous, which was located
outside the walls of Miletos, to the northwest on the hill known
today as ‘Zeytintepe’. It differs in form and decoration from the
two preceding mugs and belongs to the group of mugs with
incurving ring-base.118 It nevertheless represents the stylistic
group MileA II and, hence, was produced during the same
period. This is clearly confirmed by the dipinto as well. For, not
only does the form of the letters correspond most closely, but the
name )/A?lsioj or L?a?&sioj (Fig. 8) – unknown until now –
appears again on this mug. The appearance of such a rare name
on two almost coeval mugs found at the same site would render
it unlikely that two different persons were the dedicators.
N. Ehrhardt points out, furthermore, that this person does not
use an ethnikon nor a surname, so that there is no possibility of a
mix-up in dedicators.119 This new inscription also solves
P. Herrmann’s problem of how to reconstruct the inscription: it
can now be considered as certain that the inscriptions on all
three mugs must derive from one and the same person, and that
this person presumably chose the same form with krasis, that is,
)/A?lsioj or L?a?&sioj ma)ne&qhken .
In the year 2005 yet another find appeared, which elucidates
 Some Observations on Milesian Pottery

New classification of East Greek pottery

(demonstrated on the example of South Ionia)

New Classification of R. M.
Classification Cook 1998

SiG
675
670
Early Orientalising
a
650 650
EWG
b
630
MWG I
SiA I 625
c
610
MWG II
600
d
590

580 Hiatus? or
E.g. Bilinguals
570 MWG III?
a
560

SiA II
Fikellura

494 494

SiC
Figure 10 Classification system of South Ionian pottery

the final remaining question as to the person behind the three
dedicated mugs with dipinto inscriptions. This time the
fragment of a trefoil-mouthed mug (cat. no. 9, Fig. 9)120 with
eye-decoration121 displays a graffito on the inside of the rim.
Here, finally, both of the disputed first letters are preserved.
Thus, the name is now confirmed at Miletos in three cases:
)/Alsioj. With the graffito, in contrast to the dipinto, we have a
presumably spontaneous expression of the same person, who
once more dedicated a mug in the sanctuary of Aphrodite near
Miletos. It cannot be determined whether or not the person
carried out this act before or after offering the other mugs. But it
does indeed illustrate the variety of forms and decorations that
were in vogue on mugs alone during this short period, the
period in which )/Alsioj ordered mugs painted in the style of
MileA II in a Milesian workshop and then dedicated them in
Milesian sanctuaries.
Catalogue
Abbreviations
Diam. Diameter
L. Length
Th. Thickness
W. Width
NAA Neutron Activation Analysis
1. Aphrodite-cup, cup with everted rim; MileA IIa (Fig. 1)
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near Miletos
Balat Depot, Inv. Z 01.15.3– Z 01.70.2 – Z 02.20.3 – Z 02.56.1
Ht. as restored 7.7cm; Diam. of rim 17.8cm; Diam. of foot 6.8cm;
Th. 0.26–0.34cm.
Clay: 7.5 YR 7/4-6 to 2.5 Y 7-6/2; soft consistency; very fine temper, dense,
fine black particles, much fine dark mica; surface well smoothed; paint:
reddish-black, varying on the outside, in some places ‘lacquer red’, in
others (inside) dark reddish-black; applied colour: red; slip: 2.5 Y 8/1 to 5
Y 7/1.
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 01.15 from Q 01.10:
Archaic layer, undisturbed, on the virgin soil (‘Feste Erdschicht direkt auf
dem Felsen’). Z 01.70 from Q 01.14: also contained worked marble
fragments, therefore post-Archaic layer (‘Schutt der persischen
Zerstörung’). Z 02.20 from Q 01.14: continuation of Z 01.75 (= late Archaic
dislodged and recently disturbed?). Z 02.56 from Q 01.14: oldest layer,
eroded limestone, above the natural depression in the centre of the
trench, perhaps the northern extension.
Published: Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b); Kerschner and Schlotzhauer
2005, 50-1 figs 50-1.

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 141

Schlotzhauer
2. Cup with everted rim; MileA II (Fig. 2)
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near Miletos
Balat Depot, Inv. Z 04.14.60 – Z 04.21.19
Ht. 4.1cm; Diam. of rim 12.8cm; Diam. of foot 6.2cm; Th. 0.2–0.4cm
Clay: 5-7.5 YR 6-7/4-6; firm consistency; very fine temper; fine compact
matrix; much fine dark mica; surface: well smoothed; paint: reddish-
brown to black, varying, light metallic sheen; applied colour: red; slip: 10
YR 8/3.
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 04.14 from Q 04.3:
firm, light brown, layer of earth mixed with many pieces of limestone and
marble; much pottery at the southern edge, increasing in number
towards the adjoining find context Z 04.12, a lamp depot. Building debris
and rubbish from the sanctuary, Late Archaic period, end of the 6th
century bc. Z 04.21 from Q 04.3: sandy, whitish-grey layer with limestone
chips and ash; strong concentrations of ash in several places, some with
pieces of charcoal; worked marble blocks; lots of bones and building
debris: Building debris and rubbish from the sanctuary, Late Archaic
period, end of the 6th century bc.
Unpublished.
3. Amphora from Tell Defenneh; MileA IIa (Fig. 3)
From Tell Defenneh
London, British Museum, GR 1888.2-8.46a including GR 1924.12-1.1080
(Vase B 117)
Ht. as restored 31.5cm; Diam. of rim 15.6–14.7cm
Clay: light reddish brown (2.5 YR 6/3), contains mica, very pale brown
slip (10 YR 8/4), contains mica; paint: reddish brown.
Lower part of the belly and the foot are missing; one reed of the triple
handle on each side is missing; on side B most part of the belly is restored.
The restoration renders too squat an impression of the shape.
Published: Petrie 1888, pl. 27.3 and 3a; Petrie 1891a, 56 fig. 1; Walters
1893, 92 no. B 117; Cook 1933/4, 8 (C1), 9, 65, 73, fig. 13.9, pl. 4c; Cook
1954, 7 pl. G.B. 574, 1, details of shoulder pl. G.B. 569, 3-4; Walter-Karydi
1973, 137 no. 683, pl. 89; Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber
(forthcoming).
4. Fragment of a mug; MileA II (Fig. 4)
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near Miletos
Balat Depot, Inv. Z 04.23.13 – Z 04.71.11
L. 7.9cm; W. 9.3cm; Th. 0.3–0.65cm
Clay: 5-7.5 YR 7/6; firm consistency; fine temper; dense matrix; much
fine dark mica; surface: well smoothed; paint: dull reddish ‘lacquer-like’;
slip: 2.5 Y 8/2.
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 04.23 from Q 04.3:
large sherds of amphorae and bowl, densely packed: sanctuary rubbish,
Late Archaic period, end of the 6th century bc. Z 04.71 from Q 04.1: layer
of greyish brown sandy clay, little marble, only few worked pieces: fill of
building debris and sanctuary rubbish, Late Archaic period, end of the
6th century bc.
Unpublished.
5. Fragment of a cup; MileA II (Fig. 5)
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near Miletos
Balat Depot, Inv. Z 04.7.51 – Z 04.75.102
L. 6.2cm; Diam. of foot 10.1cm; Th. 0.3–0.35cm
Clay: 5 YR 7/4; firm consistency; very fine temper; fine dense matrix;
much fine dark mica; surface: very well smoothed; paint: brownish-
black, dull, dense; applied colour: red; slip: 10 YR 8/3.
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 04.51 from Q 04.3:
light brown, in places whitish earth: sanctuary rubbish, Late Archaic
period. Z 04.75 from Q 04.5: loose, medium grey layer of fill with lots of
worn pottery, medium-sized to large pieces of limestone and marble:
building debris and sanctuary rubbish, Late Archaic period, end of the
6th century bc.
Unpublished.
6. Fragment of a mug from Didyma with dipinti-dedication (Fig. 6)
Sanctuary on the Taxiarchis near the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma
Didyma Depot, Inv. Ke 00-110
Published: Bumke and Röver 2002, 98 fig. 18, 99 fig. 21.
7. Fragment of a mug with simple flat base;122 MileA II (Fig. 7)
Near the sanctuary of Athena at Miletos
Balat Depot, Inv. AT 57.O.191.1
Ht. as restored 7.3cm; Diam. of foot 6.8cm; Th. 0.4 - 0.6cm
Clay: 7.5 YR 7/6; firm consistency; very fine temper; with fine inclusions,
dense clay mass; much fine and coarse dark glimmer; surface: well
smoothed; paint: visible strokes, varying reddish-brown to black, light
metallic sheen.
Near the sanctuary of Athena. Find context 191: Archaic layers. Southeast
142 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
section, north-eastern part. Upper layers disturbed, lower layers mixed:
from the Archaic to late Mycenaean periods.123
Unpublished.
8. Fragment of a mug with offset ring-base, type b;124 MileA II (Fig. 8)
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near Miletos
Balat Depot, Inv. Z 05.19.18
Ht. as restored 7.8cm; W. 7.7cm; Diam. of foot 6.6cm; Th. 0.25–0.6cm
Clay: 5-7.5 YR 7/6; firm consistency; fine temper; fine dense matrix;
much fine and some coarse dark mica; surface: well smoothed; paint:
varying black to brown, dull sheen, visible brush strokes.
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context Z 05.19 from Q 05.3:
grey earth with much pottery and building debris: rubbish pit, Late
Archaic, end of the 6th century bc.
Unpublished.
9. Fragment of a mug with trefoil mouth125 and offset ring-base, type
b126 MileA II (Fig. 9)
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe near Miletos
Balat Depot, Inv. Z 05.20.36 – Z 05.88.100 – Z 05.106.46
H. 13.2cm; Diam. of rim c. 16.5cm; Diam. of foot 14cm; Th. 0.38–1.02cm
Clay: 7.5-10 YR 7/6-4; firm consistency; fine temper; fine dense matrix;
much fine dark mica; surface: well smoothed; paint: varying black to
brown, dull sheen, visible brush strokes; slip: 10 YR 8/2.
Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Zeytintepe. Find context: Z 05.20 from Q 05.4:
part of the thick, densely packed pottery layer found in most of this
quadrant as well as in the neighbouring quadrants Q 04.3, Q 05.1 and Q
05.2. Firmly bonded mixture of largish pieces of limestone and chalky
soil. Pottery and bone finds correspond to Z 05.6. Z 05.88 from Q 05.2:
high concentration of pottery, bone and small finds as well as many
marble chips. Dark humus-rich soil, with limestone chips spilling in from
the east. Part of the pottery deposition of the terrace fill, with diagonal
layers of fill. Borders in the W on Q 05.4 and is connected with Z 05.6 and
Z 05.20. Z 05.106 from Q 05.2: underneath Z 05.88. Loose humus soil
with a large proportion of ash and thereby intensely grey-ish in colour.
Interspersed with small stones, much pottery and marble. Borders on Q
05.4 in the W and is connected with Z 05.6 and Z 05.20.
Unpublished.
Illustration credits
Fig. 1a author, 1b–d H. Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 2a–b author, 2c–e H.
Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 3a-b British Museum; Fig. 4a author, 4b H.
Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 5a author, 5b H. Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 6a–b
excavation at Didyma; Fig. 7a–c author, 7d H. Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 8a–b
author, 8c H. Grönwald, Berlin; Fig. 9a–b author; Fig. 9c H. Grönwald,
Berlin; Fig. 10 U. Schlotzhauer.
Notes
* My gratitude is extended to the director of the excavation at Miletos,
Prof. Dr. Volkmar von Graeve (Bochum), who gave me this material
from Miletos for research and made it possible for me to report on it
here. I also express my thanks to H. Bumke (Bonn) and to F. Heinrich
(Bonn), who researches Archaic pottery from Didyma, for
permission to publish and for providing the illustration of the mug
(cat. no. 6, Fig. 6). For taking on the task of translating and checking
my text I am grateful to E. Schalk (Berlin) as well as A. Villing and D.
Williams (London).
With regard to terminology, there have been regrettable alterations
compared to the preliminary report (for example, Kerschner in
Akurgal et al. 2002, 10). The terminology used here is based upon the
publication by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005 (for example, ‘Mile’
instead of ‘Mil’, ‘A Ia’ instead of ‘SubG’, etc.), and this is the
terminology which should also be used by future studies.
1 Ehrhardt 1988.
2 Hdt. 2.178; Strabo 17.1.18; but see the discussion of the role of Miletos
in Naukratis from the viewpoint of ancient literature; e.g. Möller
2001, 1–21; 2005; Bresson 2005.
3 See, e.g., Austin 1970, 51 n. 4; Sullivan 1996, 190; Möller 2000b, 747;
for the other position favouring a leading role of Miletos, see Haider
1996, 97; Herda (forthcoming b).
4 Boardman 1980, 49.
5 See e.g. Schlotzhauer 2001a.
6 Important articles on pottery in the East Aegean that have appeared
in recent years: Akurgal et al. 2002; Attula 2006; Ersoy 2003, 2004;
Hürmüzlü 2004a; Kerschner et al. 2002; Kerschner 2003, Ýren 2002,
2003; Özer 2004.

7 A fact that is rarely brought to speech, but which presents a serious
problem for many excavations.
8 Akurgal et al. 2002; Coldstream and Liddy 1996, 480-1; Dupont 1983,
1986, 2000; Hertel et al. 2001; Hughes et al. 1988; Jones 1986;
Kerschner et al. 1993, 2002; Kerschner and Mommsen 2005;
Kerschner 2006; Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006;
Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov
2006; Schlotzhauer 2006; Seifert 1998, 2004; Seifert and Yalçýn
1996.
9 One need only compare the surprising results relating to group G
and g, which have been localised in Aiolian Kyme. With the aid of
archaeometry an especially broad range of production can be
proven; see Kerschner and Mommsen in this volume. The scientific
results found archaeological confirmation in the fill of a kiln at
Klazomenai, which contained a large number of different fabrics and
decorative styles. See the preliminary report by Y. Ersoy 2003.
10 See the papers in this volume by Attula, Bailey, Schlotzhauer and
Villing, Weber, and Williams and Villing.
11 See the papers in this volume by Attula and Mommsen; Dupont and
Thomas; Kerschner; Kerschner and Mommsen; and Mommsen et al.
12 See, e.g., Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
13 See Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 1-4.
14 Thus far there are few summarising monographs on Miletos. The
most recent attempts are Gorman 2001 and Greaves 2002 (for
Greaves see the reviews: Osborne 2003; Cobet 2004; Posamentir
2006), which includes older literature on Miletos and publications
until 1999. A very comprehensive bibliography on Miletos is
forthcoming by Ehrhardt, Lohmann and Weber in Cobet et al.
(forthcoming). Important recent works on urban history,
excavations and finds (excluding Milesian pottery), are Barrandon
and Marcellesi 2005; Brize 2001; Cobet 2000, (forthcoming);
Ehrhardt 1998, 2003a, 2003b; Forbeck 2002; Forbeck and Heres
1997; Günther 2003; Donder 2002; Graeve et al. 1999, 2001, 2005;
Graeve 1997/8, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2005, (forthcoming);
Heinz (forthcoming); Held 2000, 2002, 2004; Henke 2005; Herda
1998, 2005, (forthcoming a), (forthcoming b); Herrmann et al. 2006;
Köster 2004; Krumme (forthcoming); Kunisch (forthcoming);
Panteleon 2005; Pfisterer-Haas 1999; Schneider 1999; Selesnow
2002; Senff 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, (forthcoming); Starke
2000; Stümpel et al. 2005; Weber 2002, 2004; and Zimmermann
(forthcoming).
15 See e.g. on aegyptiaca: Hölbl 1999, (forthcoming); bronzes: Brize
2001; Donder 2002; terracotta figurines: Graeve 1999,
(forthcoming); stone sculpture: Graeve 1983, 1985, 1986a, 1986b,
1996, 2005.
16 The most important publications on Milesian pottery, mainly of the
Archaic period, are the following: A. finds: Graeve 1971, 1978; Graeve
et al. 1986, 1987; Heinz 1990; Hommel 1959/60; Kleine 1979; Kleiner
1959/60; Mallwitz and Schiering 1968; Niemeier 1999, 381-414.
B. Individual categories and observations: Aydemir 2005; Carl
(forthcoming); Käufler 1999; Kerschner 1999, 2002; Kerschner and
Mommsen 2005; Ketterer 1999; Krumme 2003; Naso 2005a;
Posamentir 2002; Schlotzhauer 1999, 2000, 2001a, 2001b,
(forthcoming a), (forthcoming b); Seifert 2004; Villing 1999;
Voigtländer 1982, 1986.
17 See Held 2000, 2004; Niemeier 1999.
18 Brinkmann 1990; Graeve et al. 1986, 1987, 1990b; Seifert 1991; Senff
1997c.
19 Graeve 1997/8, 75-80; Graeve and Senff 1990, 1991; Heinrich and
Senff 1992; Senff 1995a, 1997b, 2000.
20 See Kerschner 1995, 1999; Kerschner and Senff 1997. For cult, see
Ehrhardt 2003b, 280-9; Herda 1998.
21 See e.g. Gans 1991; Graeve 1997/8, 83-7; Graeve et al. 2005; Heinz
and Senff 1995; Senff 1992, 1997a, 2003. For the settlement at
Oikous, see Herrmann 1995, 285; Ehrhardt 2003b, 270-80; Herda
2005, 288-9 with ns 216-18, 291 with n. 230; (forthcoming b, chap. I
with n. 12, chap. IX with ns 289, 292-6); Lohmann 2002, 232-3.
22 Most recently on the hinterland of Miletos, with extensive literature:
Lohmann 2002. See also on Teichioussa: Voigtländer 2004.
23 A general overview is presented by Senff 2006.
24 Lohmann 1995, 311-22, 1997a, 2002, 179-81; Senff 1995b; B.F. Weber
1995. O. Rayet and A. Thomas already localised the site in 1877 as
well as U. v. Wilamowitz in 1906 (detailed descriptions by Herrmann
1995, 291-2 with ns 152-3).
25 Kalaitzoglou (forthcoming).
26 See Lohmann 1995, 1997b; Kalaitzoglou (forthcoming).
27 The bibliography on Didyma is very comprehensive. Here only the
Some Observations on Milesian Pottery
most recent are mentioned; through them older works can also be
accessed: Bumke et al. 2000, 2002; Filges 2004; Filges and Tuchelt
2002; Tuchelt (forthcoming).
28 See e.g. Naumann and Tuchelt 1963/4, 42-62 pls 8-26; Tuchelt et al.
1971, 57-87 pls 3-17, 1973/4, 149-51, Schattner 1989, 1992.
29 This excavation is part of a project being conducted by H. Bumke
(Bonn), E. Röver (Berlin) and A. Filges (Frankfurt) at the Taxiarchis
hill. See preliminary reports by Bumke and Röver 2002; Filges 2004;
Filges and Tuchelt 2002. My gratitude to H. Bumke (Bonn) and F.
Heinrich (Bonn), who is studying the Archaic pottery, for the
opportunity to see the excavation material and illustrations of the
mug fragment cat. no. 6 (Fig. 6).
30 Tuchelt 1996; Bumke et al. 2000. For a summary on the Processional
Avenue, see Herda (fortcoming a), (forthcoming b). For Archaic and
later pottery from the cultic area on the Sacred Road, see Schattner
in Tuchelt 1996.
31 Lohmann 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004,
(forthcoming); Berndt 2003.
32 In particular, thus far no Archaic kilns have been found outside of the
ancient city of Miletos.
33 In the following the new classification system for East Greek pottery
according to Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005 is used.
34 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
35 A group classified within the Klazomenian black-figured style,
according to R.M. Cook. See Cook 1998, 95-8; Özer 2004, 202-3.
36 Likewise a group of black-figured vases, presumably produced
foremost on the island of Chios. See Lemos 1991, 169-75, 189-90;
Cook 1998, 75; see also Williams, this volume.
37 In which details were reserved and not incised. For the divergence
from the technique of black-figured vase-painting, see Cook 1998,
78–82, 89; for a different opinion on the dating of MileA II (Fikellura)
see Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b).
38 See Cook 1998, 101-3; Özer 2004, 204-5.
39 See Cook 1998, 103-5; Özer 2004, 204-5.
40 Where they were still used, they experienced a change in meaning,
as for instance in the characterisation of layers of cloth: the
differentiation between the upper garment and the trousers
underneath or contours of the body visible through the cloth. See the
symposiast: Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 72.555.
41 Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b) attempts to define the distinction
between the two main phases, while Kerschner and Schlotzhauer
2005 provide definitions for the fine classification of the early phase
SiA I.
42 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
43 Forthcoming are monographs with the following corresponding
sections on: amphorae in the Fikellura style (MileA II): F. Wascheck
(Bochum); lids: R. Posamentir (Ýstanbul); trade amphorae: A. Naso
(Campobasso); cooking vessels: A. Aydemir (Bochum); oinochoe: S.
Käufler (Bochum); bowls: A. Villing (London); and mugs and cups
with everted rim: U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin).
44 Pottery of the Geometric period is being prepared for publication by
M. Krumme (Athens).
45 For the older systems of classification and their correlation with the
new division, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 9, 17, 25, 33.
46 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005. Among the recent publications,
special mention is made here of the detailed study by Käufler 1999 as
well as the general description by Cook 1998, 29-45.
47 Further essential publications on this topic can be found in the article
on the classification of the phase SiA I by Kerschner und
Schlotzhauer 2005, 33-45.
48 See e.g. Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 65.530, 67.530.
49 Kerschner 2002, 40, 172 fig. 52.
50 See Graeve 1971 and the satyr from excavations at Kalabaktepe (K
1992.696.2), illustrated in Simon 1997, 1114 no.29c, pl. 751.29c .
51 For MileA Ia, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 9-16.
52 For MileA Ib, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 17-25. Käufler
(1999) demonstrates the early development of the phase MileA Ib by
way of some examples, however, still without the new classification
and terminology.
53 For MileA Ic, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 25-33.
54 Walter 1968, pls 116-17.592.
55 For MileA Id, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 33-45.
56 See Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 43 fig. 43. For the results of
the chemical analysis of the krater, see Mommsen et al. this volume
and Schlotzhauer and Villing this volume; for the Kalabaktepe
workshop, see Kerschner 2002, 37-42.
57 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 44 fig. 44.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 143
Schlotzhauer
58 In addition, for the fragment of a plate of the phase MileA Id from
Edfu, see Weber 2001, pl. 23.3.
59 For this phase, see Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b).
60 For the traditional classification into groups, see Cook 1933/4.
61 See Schaus 1986, with a bibliography of older publications.
62 For a list of known shapes in Fikellura (= MileA II), see Cook 1998,
77-8; Schaus 1986, 268-70, 281-2 (on the two painters discussed by
Schaus in his paper).
63 Cook 1998, 78, who concludes his discussion of the shapes of
Fikellura (MileA II) vases with: ‘Further excavation at Miletus may
well add more.’
64 For the distribution of painted pottery in the style of MileA II, see
Cook 1933/4, 85-9; 1998, 88-9; Schaus 1996, 31, 34-6, 40 fig. 3
(limited to the East Greek region). G. Schaus discusses in detail two
vase painters from two different generations known from exported
vessels (Schaus 1986). See also Schlotzhauer 1999; Posamentir 2002.
65 The best comparison for this image thus far comes from the Heraion
on Samos, where it decorates the same kind of vase, a cup with
everted rim, but of a more elaborate type, similar to the well-known
‘Little-Master’ cup in the Louvre (Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 46); see
Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 47.424. Nevertheless, there is one important
difference: the figure from the Heraion is winged and is not
represented in the ‘bent-knee’ running position.
66 The theme of the potnia theron in Miletos will be discussed more
fully in a planned study of the iconography of MileA II pottery from
Miletos.
67 Schlotzhauer 1999, 235-6.
68 Schlotzhauer (forthcoming a).
69 See infra with ns 97-98.
70 BM GR 1888.2-8.46; Petrie 1888, pl. 27, 3 and 3 a; Petrie 1891a, 56 fig.
1; Walters 1893, 92 no. B 117; Cook 1954, 7 pl. G.B. 574.1, details of
shoulder pl. G.B. 569.3–4; Walter-Karydi 1973, 137 no. 683 pl. 89.
71 Cook 1933/4, 8 (C1), 9, 65, 73 fig. 13.9, pl. 4c.
72 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 7, 46.
73 Different places of production are one of the grounds for defining the
new classification system of Archaic East Greek pottery suggested
recently by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 4-5, 7.
74 Cook 1960, 118-26.
75 Walter-Karydi 1973, 2-52. Kerschner 2002, 41-4, and Schlotzhauer
(forthcoming b) give good overviews of the history of research on
Fikellura pottery.
76 Walter-Karydi 1973, 137 nos 677-84 pl. 89. Walter-Karydi (1973, 66)
postulated ‘[…] das scheint ephesische Art zu sein […]’, p. 107 n.
180. However, she qualified this by adding: ‘Die Technik ist der
milesischen sehr ähnlich; das Gefäß könnte auch milesisch sein.’
77 Walter-Karydi 1973, 137. Her nos 677, 678 and 679 belong to the so-
called ‘Ephesian Ware’, a distinctive ware found in Sardis, Ephesos
and, marginally, Miletos. Cf. Greenewalt, Jr. 1973, 91-122.
Greenewalt, Jr., no. 1 = Walter-Karydi 1973, no. 677, Greenewalt, Jr.,
no. 2 = Walter-Karydi no. 678. Analyses show that some of the
vessels of the ‘Ephesian ware’ were manufactured in Sardis:
Kerschner 2005, 139. For locally produced Archaic vessels in Ephesos
(groups H and I), cf. Kerschner 1997, 211; 2002, 189-205. Bands of
squares are not found exclusively on vases of the ‘Ephesian ware’, but
also on vases of the late animal frieze style (SIA Id) and the Fikellura
style (MileA II). Cf. Cook 1933/4, 71, 75 fig. 10.7, pl. 16.
78 Dupont 1983, 37-9; 1986, 57-71; Jones 1986, 665-6.
79 Schaus 1986, 283-4.
80 Kerschner 2001, 82 pl. 8.3; Kerschner 2002, 43-4.
81 For group D, cf. Kerschner 2002, 44-7, 137, 143.
82 Cf. the paper by H. Mommsen et al. in this volume. The analyses will
be published in detail in Schlotzhauer and Weber (forthcoming).
83 Dupont 1983, 37-9; Cook 1998, 77-90; Kerschner 2002, 204-5;
Mannack 2002, 98; Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 46; cf. also the
papers by Dupont and Thomas and by Attula in this volume. For
locally produced pottery, imitations of the South Ionian Archaic style
II (SiA II), found in Tell Defenneh cf. Weber (forthcoming) and in
Naukratis, see Schlotzhauer and Villing in this volume.
84 Cf. note 8.
85 Kerschner 2002, 34-6.
86 M. Akurgal (Ýzmir), R. Attula (Greifswald), M. Frasca (Catania),
W.-D. Niemeier (Athens), R. Posamentir (Ýstanbul) and S. Solovyov
144 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
(St. Petersburg), U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin), A. Villing (London),
S. Weber (Mainz) and D. Williams (London).
87 Cf. Schlotzhauer and Villing Figs 18–22.
88 Schlotzhauer 1999, 224-5.
89 Schlotzhauer 1999, 225-7.
90 Schlotzhauer 1999, 227-8.
91 Schlotzhauer 1999, 228-32.
92 Schlotzhauer 1999, 232-5.
93 Schlotzhauer 1999, 235-6.
94 Filges 2004, 152 fig. 3 (= Filges and Tuchelt 2002, 8 fig. 5.2 = Bumke
and Röver 2002, 98 fig. 18.2). See also the new fragments of a trefoil
mug from Istros: Bîrzescu Figs 10–11.
95 During a visit in 2005 the author was able to view the comparable
mug from Olbia, now in the Museum in Kiev (Schlotzhauer 1999, 224
fig. 1). Thereby he could discern that the mug originally had two
handles (cf. also the recent publication of the mug, with two
handles, by Reeder 1999, 178 no. 65), whereas in the above-
mentioned article (Schlotzhauer 1999) it is pictured with only one
handle; see also Lemos 1991, 179-80, pl. 220.1658, who refers to it as a
one-handled mug and tentatively thinks of Chian production; the
first publication of the piece, Shtitelman 1977, no. 12, had assigned it
to Rhodes.
96 For this group of mugs with dipinto, see Schlotzhauer 2006, 311-3.
97 Schlotzhauer 1999, 236-8; (forthcoming a).
98 See the preliminary discussion of this problem in: Schlotzhauer
(forthcoming a).
99 In the contribution by Schlotzhauer (1999) the well-known
decorated MileA II-mug from Istros (Alexandrescu 1978, 52 fig. 153)
is unfortunately omitted (as kindly pointed out by P. Alexandrescu
during the Panionion conference in Güzelçamlý 1999 on the occasion
of the 100th anniversary of the German excavations at Miletos).
100 The Geometric forerunners will be discussed by M. Krumme
(Athens) and the early Archaic examples by the author.
101 The dipinti and graffiti from Miletos have been studied by N.
Ehrhardt (Münster). I am grateful to N. Ehrhardt for permission to
present here these inscriptions from Miletos, some of which are as
yet unpublished.
102 Chian chalices or kantharoi with dipinti of Aigyptis (first identified
by D. Williams) in the BM: GR 1924.12-1.755 and 808; GR 1924.12-
1.720; GR 1924.12-1.827; see Boardman 1986, 254-6; Williams 1983a,
185 with n. 59; Williams 1999, 138 and fig. 52d.
103 Bumke and Röver 2002, 98 fig. 18, 99 fig. 21.
104 Bumke and Röver 2002, 86 and n. 5.
105 It can be gathered from the excavation reports (Hommel 1959/60,
1967) that in 1957 Hommel excavated in trenches H/J XII/XIII and
J XIV, directly below and next to the foundations of the late Athena
temple. Through the explicit note in the diary about find context 191,
in which the fragment of the mug was found: ‘191: 25./26.9.57
SOAbschnitt, NOTeil...’ (excavation diary 1957, p. 27 [P. Hommel],
Miletos Archive, Bochum), the exact location of the mug can be
pinpointed.
106 See Ehrhardt 1988, 164 with n. 757.
107 See Held 1993, 371-5, esp. 375.
108 Held 1993.
109 Hommel 1959/60, 31-2.
110 Nevertheless, one architectural fragment discovered during
excavations in 1968, conducted to the northeast of the Southeast
building, could stem from an altar, which need not necessarily
connected with the Athena sanctuary. Cf. Schiering 1979, 90-1, 96-7,
figs 4a-b.
111 Letter of October 27, 1998.
112 See Frisk 1960, 65; Chantraine 1968, 55.
113 IG V 2,6 Z.117, mit der Lesung L?asi/w.
114 Bechtel 1917, 494.
115 SEG XXII 508 A 20.
116 Belege: Sarikakis 1989, 24, 286.
117 See Haussoullier 1879, 244 n. 2.
118 See Schlotzhauer 1999, 225-7.
119 Pers. comm.
120 See Schlotzhauer 1999, 235-6.
121 For eye-decoration see Schlotzhauer (forthcoming a) n. 82. Cf. also
Kunisch 1990, 20-7; Steinhart 1995, 55-6.
East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt
Sabine Weber
With an Appendix: Neutron Activation Analysis Results
by H. Mommsen,A. Schwedt, S.Weber and M.R. Cowell
Abstract
A distinctive group of East Greek vases with elongated shape and
wide open mouth called ‘situlae’ was mainly found in Tell
Defenneh, Egypt. The shape and some painted Egyptianizing
subjects indicate that the Greek potters and painters focused on a
clientele living in Egypt. The place of manufacture of the ‘situlae’ is
a question of debate. NA-analyses carried out in cooperation with
H. Mommsen and A. Schwedt, Bonn, showed that with the same
clay paste not only ‘situlae’ but also other shapes like stamnoi and
an amphora had been made. The place of manufacture, however,
could not be precisely located because the samples belong to a new
chemical group not as yet represented in the databank of Greek
pottery compiled by H. Mommsen and M. Kerschner.*
The evidence
The so-called East Greek ‘situlae’ raise questions of shape,
iconography, and place of manufacture. Fundamental to the
study of East Greek ‘Situlae’ is the chapter in the Corpus Vasorum
of the British Museum, fasc. 8 by Robert M. Cook.1
East Greek ‘situlae’ were found in East Greece (Rhodes and
Samos) and in Egypt (Tell Defenneh, Memphis and, just recently
noted, possibly also at Naukratis [Fig. 1]).2 These three sites also
yielded the greatest quantity of the Greek painted pottery from
the late 7th to the late 6th century bc found in Egypt (Naukratis
more than 7,000 vessels and sherds, Tell Defenneh about 340,
Memphis with its necropoleis about 30). In other places in Egypt
Greek painted pottery has been found in much smaller
quantities.3
The study of East Greek ‘situlae’ began with the excavation
of a site in the eastern Delta at the Pelusian branch of the Nile
by W.M. Flinders Petrie in 1886, because the first vessels of this
shape were found here.4 Petrie identified the place from the
Figure 1 Map of find places of East Greek ‘situlae’
Arabic name, the location, and the name in the Old Testament,
Tahpanhes (Jeremiah 43.5–13), as the cosmopolitan city of
Pelusian Daphnai mentioned by Herodotus 2.30. He equated
this city with the stratopeda, or the camps, where Psammetichos
I, the first king of the 26th Dynasty (reigned 664– 610 bc),
settled the Ionian and Carian mercenaries who helped him to
establish his reign. It is, however, more plausible that the
stratopeda are sites archaeologically not located up to now and
thus not identical with Daphnai.5 The high percentage of Greek
pottery and the position at the eastern border of the Delta let
Petrie conclude that Greek mercenaries were stationed at Tell
Defenneh and that it was the Greeks living there that used the
pottery. But Greek cooking pots, a good indicator of different
culinary practices and therefore indicative of the presence of
different ethnic groups, have not been found.6 The function of
the main excavated architectural structure with a casemate
2
foundation of about 43.5 m is not quite clear.7 It is very probable
that it was an official building, constructed under the reign of
Psammetichos I, as attested by the foundation deposits. The
purpose of the building is still debated: a secure centre for local
administrative purposes and control,8 a royal palace, a treasury,
a temple or a temple storehouse. Annexes with many small
chambers were added successively to the main structure. In
these adjacent rooms most of the Greek pottery was found, the
greatest quantity of Greek pottery outside of Naukratis, together
with Egyptian material of various kinds (pottery, scarabs, gold
and silver objects, faience objects, military and non-military
bronze and iron objects like knifes, scale-armour, arrow-heads
and weights) mostly without any significant stratigraphy, just
lying in the dust of the desert. It is not possible to give the
percentage of the Greek pottery in relation to the Egyptian
material because Petrie often just noted that a shape was
‘common’ without quoting the number. In two rooms sink-jars
were found, suggesting that they might have served as kitchens
and the others as storage rooms. In this connection we may note
that Greek and Phoenician amphorae were reused as water
containers as attested by Herodotus (3.5-7) for the Persian
Period: the amphorae were collected at Memphis, refilled with
water and than sent to the arid areas in the Eastern Delta.9
Perhaps this was already the case in the 6th century bc and
could be the reason for the high percentage of container vessels
in Tell Defenneh. The Greek painted pottery found there dates
from the last decade of the 7th century to about 525 bc – then it
ends. This could be explained by the Persian conquest of Egypt.
Other Greek objects said to be found in Tell Defenneh are an
East Greek gem, two terracotta antefixes, and a bronze bowl
(the last three objects not mentioned by Petrie).10 That Greeks
possibly still lived there in the first half of the 5th century bc is
suggested by the graffito at Abydos of a certain Timarchos, who
describes himself as being from Daphnai’.11
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 145
Weber
Egyptian bronze situlae and the question of the origin of the
shape of the East Greek ‘situlae’
Petrie named the vessels of a distinctive group as ‘situla-form
vases’ because the shape reminded him of the Egyptian bronze
situlae (Fig. 2), which were very popular during the Late
Period.12 These are relatively small bronze vessels that served a
different purpose from the big Greek storage vessels (the height
of the so-called Typhon ‘situla’ is 54.0cm; the others can be
restored to a height between 39.5 and over 40.0cm depending
on the state of preservation and possible reconstruction; the
Egyptian bronze situlae in contrast are usually between 6.0 and
20.0cm high and rarely taller than 30.0cm). East Greek ‘situlae’
cannot easily be carried around but are practical for storage and
mixing. The small Egyptian vessels with their characteristic
omega-shaped bail handle and bag-like shape, sometimes
ending in a nipple (perhaps reminiscent of the female breast),
were used in Egyptian cult practice (in the ritual of Djeme and in
funerary ritual, involving Amenope and Isis) for carrying and for
the subsequent libations of water or milk to the dead, at least
from the time of the New Kingdom onwards.13 They bear a
distinctive decorative scheme in three registers: in the upper
register below the rim the solar barque, with jackals and
baboons, represents the transit of the sun across the sky. The
middle register represents the earth and depicts a worshipper in
front of gods: an ithyphallic god (Amun-Min or Amenope), Isis,
Nephthys, Horus and other deities. The lower register represents
the water, and the bottom of the vase is decorated by a lotus
flower. Some Egyptian bronze situlae have also been found
outside Egypt, in the Near East,14 Italy and Greece: Lefkandi in
Euboia,15 Pherai in Thessaly,16 the sanctuary of Malophoros in
Selinus/Sicily,17 sanctuaries and necropoleis in Cyprus,18 and the
Samian Heraion (Fig. 2).19 Greek artists were therefore able to
become acquainted with the Egyptian shape in Greece. But
obviously they did not copy the Egyptian bronze situla itself.
When copying or adopting a foreign vase into their repertoire,
Greek potters always kept the shape either because it was a
handy addition to their repertoire or because they could
increase their export volume to the place of origin of this
shape.20 They usually transformed the foreign shape merely by
painting it or by using another material.
Figure 2 Egyptian bronze situla from
Samos,Vathy,Archaeological Museum
146 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
The term ‘situla’ is Latin.21 In Greek, vessels with the same
function were called kados, antlion or gaulos.22 The expression
‘situla’ is in use for various bucket-shaped metal and clay vessels
with bail handles which were produced all over the
Mediterranean23 and in Central Europe.24 But in nearly all of
these cases the type of handle of these vessels is indeed that of a
modern little bucket, carrying and pouring being the main
characteristic features.
In the Eastern Mediterranean a big pyxis shape with a
conical body, horizontal banded handles and a wide flat bottom
without a separate foot is also called a ‘situla’.25 The rendering of
the lip, with a distinctive ridge underneath, is comparable to our
‘situlae’. A Late Geometric example from Smyrna shows a similar
decorative scheme as the early ‘situlae’: a broad frieze
underneath the ridge with three fields, the middle one with
figural decoration (water bird to right), the outer ones
geometric patterns. Below this frieze is a banded decoration.26
A krater-like Lydian vessel found in Rhodes was also put
forward as a possible prototype for the Greek ‘situlae’.27 But the
rendering of the handles applied directly at the lip differs from
the ‘situlae’ and the body is not as elongated as in the ‘situlae’.
Possible ancestors of the shape of the ‘situla’ might be
undecorated Greek pithoi like the ones from Rhodes, Samos or
Nisyros (Fig. 3).28 In Egypt, too, we find a wide range of parallels
in storage vessels with long, bulging bodies but without a foot
(Fig. 4).29 For the ‘situlae’ the Greek potters just added a foot and
copied the figural and ornamental decoration from other
shapes.
The name ‘situla’ for our special group is thus misleading,
but has been well established for over a century. I would like to
suggest putting it in quotation marks to symbolize the ‘so-called’
status.
East Greek ‘situlae’
The shape is a tall narrow tube, swelling gradually towards the
base and then curving quickly in to a low foot; the lip is flat and
wide, and below it, separated by a narrow ridge, are two vertical
handles. These Greek ‘situlae’ are containers for storage and
mixing.30 It is not surprising to find them in an Egyptian context,
because the percentage of containers among the Greek finds in
Egypt is overwhelming. Being painted, these vessels were a
more exclusive version of a container.
Figure 3 Greek pithos from Samos, Figure 4 Egyptian jar from Thebes,
necropolis Medinet Habu, burial 9, 25th dynasty

Figure 5 East Greek ‘situla’ from
Vroulia (Group A)
East Greek ‘situlae’ were mainly found in Egypt (Tell
Defenneh, Memphis and Naukratis) but are as well attested in
Greece: on Samos and Rhodes from the end of the 7th to the end
of the 6th century bc where they were found in settlement
contexts in Vroulia, in the sanctuary of the Samian Hera, and as
grave goods on Rhodes.31 The earliest ‘situlae’ came to light in
Vroulia, Rhodes (Fig. 5), and in the Heraion of Samos (Fig. 6).
The shape continues in Southern Ionia and Eastern Doris for
over a century. Whether some fragments mentioned in this
context from Miletos,32 Samos,33 Burgas (Datça)34 and Rhodes35
belong to this group of vases is, however, doubtful because of
their bad state of preservation. They could also belong to other
shapes like the ‘pyxis situla’ and are therefore not included here
in the map.
R.M. Cook divided the ‘situlae’ into three different,
essentially chronological groups as follows.
Group A comprises ‘situlae’ with banded decoration and wavy
lines between the handles (Fig. 5). This is a distinctive group of
five examples from Vroulia (they can be dated by their
association with North Ionian bird bowls in contexts of the end
of the 7th/ beginning of 6th century bc).36 G.R. Schaus
suggested that perhaps one fragment with banded decoration
from Tell Defenneh belongs to this group.37
Group B (Figs 6–9): To this group belong the so-called Typhon
‘situla’ (Figs 8–9), the ‘situla’ from Memphis and a fragment
from Rhodes with the depiction of a griffin (Fig. 22). The
decoration between the handles is divided into three fields, the
middle one figurative, the outer ones ornamental. The handles
are composed of three reeds. The lower part of the vessel is
painted with broad black bands interrupted by small reserved
stripes. Maybe the ‘situla’ from Samos (Figs 6-7), rendered in
the animal frieze style (Wild Goat Style II/ SiA I c) and therefore
Figure 6 East Greek ‘situla’ from Figure 7 Profile of East Greek ‘situla’
Samos, Samos, Heraion, Inv. K 1590 from Samos, Samos, Heraion, Inv. K
(Group B) 1590
East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt
Figure 8 East Greek ‘situla’ from Tell Figure 9 East Greek ‘situla’ from Tell
Defenneh, London, British Museum, GR Defenneh, London, British Museum, GR
1888.2-8.1 (Vase B104) (group B) 1888.2-8.1 (Vase B104)
to be dated to the end of the 7th or beginning of the 6th century
bc, is an earlier variant of this group.38 The ‘situlae’ from Egypt
are all in black figure style with added red and can be dated to
the second quarter of the 6th century bc. The pieces of this
group are always made very finely. In proportion to the height
the wall is very thin. The rendering of the mouth of the Typhon
‘situla’ is remarkable. The mouth plate juts out on the outside as
well as on the inside.
Group C (Figs 10–13): We can count about 32 ‘situlae’ belonging
to this group, most of them badly preserved and restored. Except
for two examples from Rhodes,39 the vases of group C were all
found in Tell Defenneh. The three-field-decoration is given up in
favour of a broad panel with figural decoration. The lower part
of the body is painted with two or more friezes of alternating
incised lotus flowers and palmettes highlighted by added red.
This colourful decoration recalls the ‘Vroulian’ ware.40 The
handles may be three or four reeded. The evolution of the shape
shows a tendency from a more bulky to a more slender, tubular
body.
A common, never neglected feature of all ‘situlae’ of Group
A–C is the small ridge some centimetres beneath the lip (cf. Figs
7, 9, 11). On some examples the ridge on the outside
corresponds to a groove on the inside as well.41 The handles are
applied to the body always at the level of this ridge. Late
examples from the necropolis of Ialysos still preserve the lids
and it can be assumed that a lid belonged to every single vase of
Figure 10 East Greek ‘situla’ from Tell Figure 11 Profile of East Greek ‘situla’
Defenneh, London, British Museum, GR from Tell Defenneh, London, British
1888.2-8.27 (Vase B 106.2) (Group C) Museum, GR 1888.2-8.27 (Vase B 106.2)
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 147
Weber
Figure 12 East Greek ‘situla’ from Figure 13 East Greek ‘situla’ from
Rhodes, Rhodes,Archaeological Rhodes, Rhodes,Archaeological
Museum, Inv. No. 10641 (group C) Museum, Inv. No. 10641
this shape.42 The ‘situla’ from Ialysos (Figs 12–13) can be dated
by an Attic late black-figure olpe in the same grave context to the
last decade of the 6th century or around 500 bc. So we can trace
the shape for almost a century.
The new ‘situla’ fragment from Naukratis (Figs 14–15) does
not fit in one of these groups. Being a more slender vase it comes
close to ‘situlae’ of the younger group C but the decoration is
different.
Subjects on East Greek ‘situlae’ from Egypt
Some of the subjects on the ‘situlae’ found in Egypt are
remarkable, as already noted by Petrie and other scholars.43
Subjects suitable for both cultures are depictions of lions, rams,
bulls, birds and sphinxes.44 But there are also subjects with a
distinctive Egyptian flavour.
On a small flat fragment, flaked off from the surface of a
‘situla’, a falcon on nb-basket is painted (Fig. 16).45 The
hieroglyphic sign nb (basket) means ‘lord’ or ‘all, everybody’.
The falcon is the emblem of the god Horus who was equated
with Greek Apollo. Perhaps it could be completed as ‘Horus, lord
of…’ or ‘the two lords of Upper- and Lower Egypt’, but in that
case the Seth animal or a second falcon would also have had to
be depicted on the nb-basket. This sign can also be part of the
name of the pharaoh. The painter could have known this
hieroglyphic sign either from having seen it in Egypt or via
small-scale Egyptian and/or Egyptianizing objects traded to, or
manufactured in Greece, such as the silver cartouche from a
cremation burial in Ialysos, Rhodes, with the depiction of a bird
on a basket.46 The bird on this ‘situla’ fragment must have been
an integral part of the figural decoration of the ‘situla’, but due
to the bad state of preservation we cannot judge what the
original picture looked like. Besides the cartouches on the
Figure 14 Fragment of ‘situla’ from Figure 15 Fragment of ‘situla’ from
Naukratis, London, British Museum, GR Naukratis, London, British Museum, GR
1886.4-1.1311 1886.4-1.1311
148 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 16 Fragment of ‘situla’ from Figure 17 Fragment of ‘situla’ from
Tell Defenneh, London, British Tell Defenneh, London, British
Museum, GR 1888.2-8.3 Museum, GR 1888.2-8.5 (Vase B106.1)
amphora in Basle and the Petrie Museum, London (Bailey Figs
1–5),47 this depiction is the only known painted hieroglyph on a
Greek vase from Egypt.48
Another subject is two men fighting with clubs (Fig. 17).49
The better preserved man is characterised as Egyptian by his
shaved head and circumcision. Herodotus (2.36) tells us that the
Egyptians used to be circumcised for hygienic reasons. In the
second quarter of the 5th century bc, on the Attic red figure
pelike by the Pan Painter, Egyptian priests of the Egyptian king
Bousiris are also characterised this way.50 This feature was
therefore judged appropriate to indicate an Egyptian. Club
fighting or fencing was a sport depicted in Egyptian art from the
time of the Old Kingdom, and mainly in the New Kingdom
(1551–1085 bc).51 The picture of this Egyptian sport is, however,
rendered in a Greek manner on the ‘situla’. The sportsman is
naked, a feature not often found on Egyptian representations
where a loin cloth is usually worn52. The rendering of nudity
gave the Greek painter the opportunity to indicate the ethnicity
of the sportsman by means of the circumcision. In Egypt
representations of athletics in the Late Period are rare and there
are no illustrations of fighting contemporary with our vase;53
thus this picture is an important reference, showing that fighting
was either performed in the 6th century bc or that the Greek
painter had seen ancient Egyptian illustrations of club fighting.
On the ‘situla’ from Memphis,54 found next to the Ptah
enclosure where the Apis bull was worshipped, the subject of
two bulls on one side seems appropriate. The rendering of a man
on the other side wearing a dress with broad borders, striding to
the right carrying a long staff in the right hand and holding
some object in the left looks unfamiliar to a Greek eye.55 The
painter had obviously difficulty in rendering this figure
correctly: he erased a part of the right foot and leg and a tip of a
cloak.56 If we take the representation ‘man with staff’ as a sign or
code,57 then the picture could be understood in a Greek as well
as in an Egyptian context. In both cultures the staff is the sign of
dignity or age.58 This figure may vaguely recall Egyptian
dignitaries.59 Even more puzzling is the rendering of a
rectangular frame with two wavy lines in the upper right corner.
It is not a Greek decorative pattern but placed in front of the
head of the dignitary. Could it be an Egyptian sign, a
hieroglyphic pattern, to give additional information on the
man? If this were the case, the painter was not able to read or
write Egyptian hieroglyphs but intended to paint a sign that
looked like a hieroglyph.60 In G. Schaus’s opinion the man could
be a worshipper of Apis.61 If so, the painter had selected a subject
that would well suit this location. This phenomenon has already
been noted in connection with Attic pottery for other areas.62
Few other Greek vases of the 6th century bc found in Egypt

show Egyptian influence and were therefore intentionally
produced for a market with a clientele living in Egypt.63
The representation of the snake-bodied demon on side A of
the best-preserved ‘situla’ from Tell Defenneh (Fig. 8) could also
have been painted for the Egyptian market, or at least fits very
well its find spot.64 The mixed creature is usually called Typhon.65
In Greek mythology Typhon was the son of Gaia and Tartaros,
battling against the established order with the aim of dethroning
Zeus.66 He was slain by Zeus and thrown into Tartaros where he
revolted by means of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Typhon is rendered in Greek art as a mixed monster with a
winged human body and snake legs, as on the lost Amyklaean
throne, described by Pausanias 3.18.10. The battle between Zeus
and Typhon was a subject on bronze shield-bands from Olympia
in the first half of the 6th century bc.67 The depiction of the
demon on the ‘situla’ recalls representations on late
Protocorinthian vases, mainly alabastra from the 7th century bc
onwards, and on other Greek vases.68 From the 6th century bc
onwards the name Typhon was also used for the Egyptian god
Seth (Hdt. 2.144, 156).69 There are hints that the Greek name was
also accepted in Egypt.70 The name was written with the
hieroglyph of the so-called Seth-animal, a jackal-like animal
with long ears, very probably a mythical animal for it is not
possible to determine its zoological identity.71 The Egyptian
representation of Seth was the Seth-animal or a semi-
anthropomorphic form with the head of the Seth-animal. He
was the god of confusion and chaos who disturbs order. He was
both an enemy and friend of Horus and murderer of Osiris. Seth
was set in opposition to Horus. Horus is lord of Lower Egypt and
lord of the home country. Seth is the lord of Upper Egypt and
lord of foreign countries and the desert. He was venerated on
the border of the desert and where caravan routes began, e.g. in
the vicinity of Tell Defenneh. The Egyptians accepted him as a
god up to the 20th Dynasty; later worship turned into
demonization. His physical strength is characteristic for Seth. He
is able to conquer the great chaos serpent Apophis,72 but he
could also be identified with her. The Greek painter of the ‘situla’
chose to depict the Greek version of a demon known in both
cultures. A further indication that the vase might have been
highly esteemed in an Egyptian context is Petrie’s note of traces
of a Demotic inscription in ink.73 Unfortunately Petrie gave no
exact description of it and neither Cook nor I could detect traces
of this inscription.74
Place of manufacture
One important question is where the ‘situlae’ from Tell Defenneh
may have been made. The ‘situlae’ of Cook’s group A from
Vroulia on Rhodes are supposed to have been produced locally,
a claim never refuted.75 As to the place of manufacture of the
Group B ‘situlae’, Rhodes or another place in the Eastern Doris
was favoured.76 Shape and Egyptian subjects on some of the
fragments were the reasons why M.W. Flinders Petrie supposed
that the ‘situlae’ were produced locally at Tell Defenneh.77 R.M.
Cook also favoured the idea of a production centre in Egypt but
only for his group C ‘situlae’, except for the two late pieces from
Rhodes, which he thought to be manufactured near the place
where they had been found.78 E.R. Price suggested that the
‘situlae’ were made for the Daphnae market by Ionian potters,
but not on the spot.79 She favoured a Rhodian origin, because
the earliest example known to her came from Rhodes and the
East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt
youngest are stylistically close to the ‘Vroulian ware’, which she
believed to be Rhodian. In E. Walter-Karydi’s opinion the
‘situlae’ of Cook’s group C should be Aiolian.80 She compared the
figures on some of the ‘situlae’ in London with the so-called
Caeretan hydriae. G. Schaus noted that the ‘situlae’ are not
homogeneous but made in more than one fabric, and put
forward the suggestion that they were produced in Rhodes and
Egypt.81 J.Y. Carrez-Maratray followed Cook in assuming an
Egyptian origin for the ‘situlae’ of group C,82 a hypothesis
thought possible also by A. Möller83 and K. Smoláriková.84 They
favoured the idea that Rhodian clay must have been transported
to Tell Defenneh or its vicinity and there made into ‘situlae’ by
Rhodian potters.85
The clay of Cook’s group C, to which most of the ‘situlae’
from Tell Defenneh belong, is not the local Egyptian Nile silt nor
is it marl; it is dense and usually of light brown colour (most
sherds correspond to Munsell 7.5YR 6/4 and 10YR 6/4 = light
brown to light yellowish brown). Petrie described it as ‘fine-
grained hard pale buff clay’, some examples being harder and
browner, some paler and soft light grey. He remarked further
that a group of stamnoi from Tell Defenneh share exactly the
same clay, colouring and designs, but never have figured
decoration.86 This observation led to the conclusion that the clay
for both the ‘situlae’ and the stamnoi was transported from
somewhere in Eastern Greece to Egypt and that the vessels were
manufactured at Tell Defenneh or its environs.87 But the
principal find place of a stylistically homogeneous group of
ceramics is a weak indicator for the determination of the place of
manufacture; this has been obvious ever since the true place of
manufacture of Chian pottery, formerly called ‘Naukratite’, was
revealed.88
J. Boardman and R. Jones carried out scientific analyses on
‘situla’ fragments in Oxford belonging to Cook’s group C and
suggested a Rhodian origin.89 The ‘situlae’ matched Jones’s
cluster II, comprising also 8th century bc pottery and mid-5th
century bc terracotta statuettes found on Rhodes and thought to
have been produced locally. The style of the analysed ‘situla’
fragments is close to Vroulian vases, believed to have been
produced on Rhodes.
The analyses carried out by P. Dupont also led to an assumed
Rhodian origin. He took a sample of a sherd perhaps belonging
to a ‘situla’ with the provenance ‘from Egypt’ (sample no. DEF 1;
Dupont and Thomas Fig. 6) that could be associated with
samples of two Vroulian cups (sample nos NAU 58 and 59;
Dupont and Thomas Fig. 5) (Dupont’s group C2).90 These two
analyses point to Rhodes as place of manufacture for some of the
‘situlae’ of Cook’s group C.
We had the opportunity to make NA-analyses from
fragments in the British Museum and took samples from three
situlae of Cook’s group C (sample nos Defe 1-3, Figs 18–20),
from two fragments belonging to stamnoid vessels (sample nos
Figure 18 Fragment of ‘situla’ from
Tell Defenneh, London, British
Museum, GR 1888.2-8.65 (Vase
B106.19)
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 149
Weber
Figure 19 Fragment of ‘situla’ from Tell Defenneh, London, British Museum, GR
1888.2-8.16+17
Figure 20 Fragment of East Greek ‘situla’ from Tell Defenneh, London, British
Museum, GR 1888.2-8.20 (Vase B106.11)
Figure 21 Fragment of stamnos from
Tell Defenneh, London, British
Museum, GR 1888.2-8.42a
Figure 23 Fragment of amphora from Tell Defenneh, London, British Museum,
GR 1888.2-8.25 (Vase B106.15)
150 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 22 Fragment of stamnos from
Tell Defenneh, London,The British
Museum, GR Reg. No. 1888.2-8.44a
Defe 4-5, Figs 21–22)91 and from a black-figured amphora
(sample no. Defe 8, Fig. 23), all found at Tell Defenneh.92 Our
aim was to check a) a possible assumed Rhodian provenance
and b) whether all the fragments were made with the same clay
paste, as suggested by their appearance. As comparanda a
‘situla’ fragment from Cook’s group B, found in Rhodes, with the
depiction of a griffin (Fig. 24) and a Vroulian cup from
Naukratis (Fig. 25) were also analysed. The analyses of the
pieces from Tell Defenneh (sample nos Defe 1-5, 8) showed that
all belong to one chemical group, named TD. Our analysis
therefore proved that the group does not consist only of ‘situlae’
but also of stamnoi and an amphora. But it is a hitherto
unknown group in the data bank of H. Mommsen and M.
Kerschner, and not close to any of the known Greek groups.93 In
addition, the other two pieces did not match any of the groups;
they were made from different clay pastes. The analysis of the
new ‘situla’ from Naukratis (sample no. Nauk 78; Figs 14–15) has
shown that this piece, too, is a chemical single that does not
correspond to the other samples of Group TD.
The Bonn data bank does not yet possess a large corpus of
Archaic vases from Rhodes or other places in the East Dorian
region for comparative purposes. On the other hand, thanks to
the databank we know where the ‘situlae’ could not have come
from. It seems, however, very unlikely that in Egypt, in addition
to the workshop of the vases of group QANN (very probably a
workshop in Naukratis using local Nile silt),94 a second workshop
for Greek vases was established in the third quarter of the
6th century bc using imported clay. A more likely place of
manufacture would be the East Dorian region, where a
workshop might have specialized in these vessels. Close contacts
with Egypt could explain the Egyptianizing subjects on some of
the ‘situlae’. The incorrect renderings on some of the vases could
be better understood if the place of origin was outside of Egypt.95
Archaic ceramic material from the Dodecanese is still little
known.96 Analyses of pottery of the East Dorian region will
provide further information and one day, perhaps, the result
that the ‘situlae’ from Tell Defenneh were manufactured at a
place in the Eastern Doris will emerge. An amphora handle from
among the material from Emecik (Old-Knidos) that was
analysed very recently 97 falls into group TD.98
Our analyses have made it obvious that the ‘situlae’ come
from at least three different as yet unlocated workshops (single
from Rhodes, group TD and single from Naukratis). The
statement of R.M. Cook is therefore still valid: ‘More analyses
would be helpful’.99
Figure 24 Fragment of ‘situla’ Figure 25 Fragments of Vroulian cup from
from Rhodes, London, British Naukratis, London, British Museum, GR 1888.6-
Museum, GR 1868.4-5.78 1.569a-c
 East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt

Appendix: Neutron Activation Analysis Results

H. Mommsen,A. Schwedt, S.Weber and M.R. Cowell

The samples taken from sherds in the British Museum, Greek and Roman Department, London,100 have been analysed by Neutron
Activation (NAA), a method routinely applied in Bonn (run P064, irradiated September 2003).101 The composition data have been
grouped and compared with the Greek databank of more than 5300 samples.102 The program SEARCH was used, which works like a
filter sorting out of a large databank all samples with statistically similar concentration values, taking into consideration
experimental errors and also a possible ‘dilution’ of the clay paste by varying amounts of non-plastic parts poor in trace elements.
This dilution factor (= best relative fit-factor to the mean concentration values M of the group) is given for each of the grouped
samples (= factor in the tables).

Table 1: Group TD, pattern unknown

Element concentrations C in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, average errors, also in percent of C, average values M and spreads, also in percent of M

Sample factor As Ba Ca % Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe % Ga
Defe 1 0.903 4.61 217. 5.71 51.0 52.7 524. 5.52 0.91 4.89 12.2
Defe 2 1.008 4.04 180. 9.82 47.9 56.5 530. 4.87 0.82 5.40 15.0
Defe 3 1.069 4.11 180. 8.37 46.5 60.8 650. 4.76 0.76 5.47 12.8
Defe 4 1.063 6.42 115. 8.84 44.3 54.6 674. 4.20 0.77 5.59 14.9
Defe 5 1.021 5.00 187. 8.47 48.5 54.4 551. 5.94 0.86 5.19 15.8
Defe 8 0.933 3.53 115. 7.46 49.0 63.8 761. 5.15 0.83 5.29 15.4
av.meas.error 0.11 39. 0.20 0.51 0.22 2.2 0.081 0.020 0.018 2.4
in % 2.4 23. 2.5 1.1 0.4 0.4 1.6 2.4 0.3 17.
av.value M 4.6 166. 8.1 48. 57. 615. 5.1 0.82 5.3 14.
spread 1.0 42. 1.4 2.3 4.3 96. 0.61 0.057 0.25 2.4
in % 22. 26. 17. 4.7 7.5 16. 12. 6.9 4.6 17.

Sample factor Hf K% La Lu Na % Nd Ni Rb Sb Sc
Defe 1 0.903 3.21 1.66 25.1 0.34 0.63 14.9 829. 86.7 0.44 15.8
Defe 2 1.008 2.79 1.43 23.1 0.33 0.69 15.0 773. 65.7 0.35 16.4
Defe 3 1.069 2.83 1.55 22.3 0.30 0.69 17.5 1041. 74.3 0.29 16.5
Defe 4 1.063 2.77 1.62 21.1 0.30 0.77 9.99 935. 67.6 0.30 16.7
Defe 5 1.021 3.02 1.65 23.5 0.32 0.58 11.7 874. 84.6 0.41 16.4
Defe 8 0.933 2.72 1.42 24.9 0.29 0.52 15.9 1081. 74.0 0.40 15.4
av.meas.error 0.056 0.028 0.091 0.015 0.004 1.9 50. 2.2 0.020 0.021
in % 1.9 1.8 0.4 4.8 0.7 14. 5.4 2.9 5.6 0.1
av.value M 2.9 1.6 23. 0.31 0.65 14. 919. 75. 0.37 16.
spread 0.19 0.11 1.5 0.019 0.087 2.7 121. 8.6 0.060 0.48
in % 6.6 7.0 6.6 6.0 13. 19. 13. 11. 17. 2.9

Sample factor Sm Ta Tb Th Ti % U W Yb Zn Zr
Defe 1 0.903 3.15 0.80 0.58 8.70 0.43 1.73 1.76 2.08 72.9 107.
Defe 2 1.008 3.09 0.66 0.52 8.05 0.43 2.22 1.73 1.96 98.7 60.9
Defe 3 1.069 2.79 0.64 0.48 7.76 0.26 1.48 1.80 1.82 99.9 147.
Defe 4 1.063 2.59 0.66 0.42 7.28 0.43 1.66 1.75 1.86 115. 91.7
Defe 5 1.021 3.00 0.73 0.49 8.16 0.42 1.61 1.33 1.94 84.4 132.
Defe 8 0.933 3.01 0.68 0.51 9.59 0.46 1.52 1.09 1.89 90.9 153.
av.meas.error 0.017 0.030 0.043 0.060 0.068 0.11 0.17 0.056 2.4 24.
in % 0.6 4.3 8.5 0.7 17. 6.2 11. 2.9 2.6 21.
av.value M 2.9 0.70 0.50 8.3 0.41 1.7 1.6 1.9 94. 115.
spread 0.21 0.060 0.053 0.80 0.068 0.27 0.30 0.089 14. 35.
in % 7.2 8.6 11. 9.7 17. 16. 19. 4.6 15. 31.

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 151

Weber

Table 2: Raw concentration data of sample Rhod 20 (chemical single)

Element concentrations C in µg/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, average experimental errors, also in percent of C

Sample factor As Ba Ca % Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe % Ga
Rhod 20 1.000 4.90 186. 8.03 51.5 56.6 995. 6.07 1.00 5.57 16.8
av. meas. error 0.11 1.0 46. 10 0.21 3.4 0.63 0.8 0.18 0.4
in % 1.6 0.5 0.11 1.2 0.026 1.8 0.020 0.3 2.1 9.2

Sample factor Hf K% La Lu Na % Nd Ni Rb Sb Sc
Rhod 20 1.000 3.36 2.29 25.8 0.32 0.31 16.4 859. 106. 0.45 18.5
av. meas. error 0.068 1.3 0.025 1.2 0.11 0.3 0.016 3.3 0.005 0.5
in % 2.3 7.5 42. 10.0 2.5 2.2 0.023 1.8 0.025 0.1

Sample factor Sm Ta Tb Th Ti % U W Yb Zn Zr
Rhod 20 1.000 3.11 1.15 0.51 9.73 0.63 1.85 2.18 1.90 80.6 112
av. meas. error 0.020 0.3 0.033 2.9 0.051 6.0 0.071 0.5 0.064 9.3
in % 0.11 4.4 0.16 6.3 0.063 2.0 2.5 2.4 27 15

The sample numbers correspond to the following registration numbers in the British Museum, Greek and Roman Department:
Defe 1 = fragment of situla, Reg. no. GR 1888.2-8.65 (Vase B106.19) (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 4.3), Fig. 18
Defe 2 = fragment of situla, Reg. no.GR 1888.2-8.16 + 17 (Vase B106.12-13) (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 7.1-2), Fig. 19
Defe 3 = fragment of situla, Reg. no. GR 1888.2-8.20 (Vase B106.11) (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 8.2), Fig. 20
Defe 4 = fragment of stamnos, Reg. no. GR 1888.2-8.42a (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 10.5), Fig. 21
Defe 5 = fragment of stamnos, Reg. no.GR 1888.2-8.44a (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 10.4), Fig. 22
Defe 8 = fragment of amphora, Reg. no. GR 1888.2-8.25 (Vase B106.15) (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 10.6), Fig. 23
Rhod 20 = fragment of situla, Reg. no. GR 1868.4-5.78 (CVA British Museum [8] II. D. m pl. 4.1), Fig. 24

The samples of the sherds of three ‘situlae’, two stamnoid vessels and fragments from an amphora make a new group (named as TD).To this group a sherd of an
amphora handle from Emecik can be added and the data show a close relationship with three other samples also found in Emecik (group EMED).103

The sample of the ‘situla’ sherd found in Rhodes (cf.Table 2) is a chemical loner. It has high Cr and Ni values.104 The sample of the ‘situla’ from Naukratis (Nauk
78) is a single as well as the sample of the Vroulian cup (Nauk 59).

Illustration credits
Figs 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16 the author; Fig. 2 DAI Athens Neg. no. 1983/1014,
photo: Hellner; Fig. 3 after Boehlau 1898, 17 fig. 14; Fig. 4 after Hölscher
1954, pl. 47 F 3; Fig. 5 after Kinch 1914, pl. 28, 8; Fig. 6 DAI Athens Neg.no.
Samos 2305, photo: Wagner; Figs 8, 10, 17–24 the British Museum; Fig. 12
22nd Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities, Rhodes; Figs 14,
25 photo U. Schlotzhauer; Fig. 15 author after drawing U. Schlotzhauer.
Notes
* I should like to express my gratitude to the members of the staff of
the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British
Museum, London, namely A. Villing and D. Williams, who enabled
me to study the material and provided me with information and
photographs. I am also glad to have the opportunity to thank the
22nd Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities, Rhodes
(M. Filimonos), the German Archaeological Institute, Athens
(M. Krumme, B. Konnemann), and the University Museum,
Philadelphia (A. Blair Brownlee) for the opportunity to study
objects, for photographs and the permission to reproduce them in
this paper. For help and various suggestions I should like to thank
R. Attula (Greifswald), M. Kerschner (Wien), F. Meynersen (Mainz),
H. Mommsen (Bonn), R. Posamentir (Istanbul), and U. Schlotzhauer
(Berlin). This contribution emerged from the project ‘Griechische
Kunst und Kunsthandwerk in Ägypten’ within the
Sonderforschungsbereich 295 ‘Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte’
at the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz, and I owe a great
debt of gratitude to the heads of this project, U. Höckmann and
D. Kreikenbom.
1 Cook 1954, 29-37 pl. G.B.596-605 (with earlier literature); Cook
1960, 139-40; Boardman 1998b, 144 figs 303-4; Cook and Dupont
1998, 116-8.
2 London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1311. During one of the
handling sessions at the colloquium in London, Dyfri Williams
showed me an unpublished piece of the lower part of the body of a
closed vessel that in my opinion could come from a ‘situla’. It would
be the only known example of this shape from this site; Petrie (1888,
62) stated in his list of situla-form vases: Naukratis = none,
Defenneh = common). L. 10.3; W. 14.2; Th. of wall 0.35-0.6cm; very
pale brown clay (10YR 8/3); two joining fragments, mended. The
lower part is painted in a dull grey on the outside. Greek letters were
incised upside down after firing; the painted surface is flaked away
where the incisions were made. The reading of the preserved letters
is difficult: [?] M O [N?] [.] or [A?] M O [N?] [.].
3 Clairmont 1954/5, 85-141; Venit 1982, passim; Weber 2001, 127-50;
Smoláriková 2002, 23-46.
4 Petrie 1888, 62-3 pls 25-6. A good overview of the history of research
on Tell Defenneh is presented by Carrez-Maratray (1999, 274-86). Cf.
also Leclère 1997.
5 Carrez-Maratray 1999, 275-9.
6 The only non-Egyptian cooking pots are Levantine: cf. Maeir 2002,
235-46. On the importance of cooking pots as indicator of Greek
presence in the Levant cf. Fantalkin 2001b, 84-6,116-26; Wenning
2001, 262, 267 fig. 3; Niemeier and Niemeier 2002, 238.
7 Spencer 1999, 297 n. 9.
8 Spencer 1999, 299-300.
9 Smoláriková 2002, 70.
10 East Greek gem: London, British Museum GR 1888.2-1.161 (Gem
321); Walters 1926, no. 321 pl. 6; Zazoff 1983, pl. 22.6. Terracotta
antefixes: Cairo, Egyptian Museum; Maspero 1914, 528 nos 5570-1;
Empereur 2003, 32 fig. 11b-c. Bronze bowl: Cairo, Egyptian Museum,
JE 31665 and 25212; Bissing 1901, 62-3.
11 Jeffery 1998, 355. 358 no. 51 pl. 70: 500–450 bc (?); Carrez-Maratray
2000, 165. 170.
12 Petrie 1888, 62: labelled as ‘situla-form vases’ in the table, as ‘situla-
type of vase’ in the text. Petrie (1891a, 55 fig. 40) even depicted both
classes of vessels side by side. The derivation of the ‘situla’ from the
Egyptian bronze situla was accepted by Walters 1893, 42 but
contested by Zahn 1898, 51 n. 1, and Walter-Karydi 1973, 100 n. 23. Cf.
in general on Egyptian bronze situlae: Bissing 1901, 7-58; Lichtheim
1947, 169-79; Green 1987, 66-115; Nicholson 2004, 7-9.
13 Teeter 1994, 259-63; on the use of the Egyptian bronze situla see most
recently Bommas 2005, 257-72, esp. 264 with further literature.
14 Montet 1928, 254 pl. 153 no. 965; Woolley 1921, 119 pl. 2.1-3; Stager
1996, 69-70; Frankel and Ventura 1998, 39-55; Kamlah 1999, 163-90.
15 From the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi in Euboia: Popham et al.
1982, 238 fig. 8. p. 239 pl. 33 a and h; Popham and Lemos 1996, pl.
132; 143 a (T.42,17 = LPG or SPG I). f (T.70,17 and 20= LPG).
16 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum; H 12cm; Pendlebury 1930, 91-2 pl.
3 no. 227.
17 Gàbrici 1927, 357, 359 fig. 154b: undecorated miniature situla, H with
handles about 6.0cm.
18 Matthäus 1985, 226-8.
19 Bronze situla, Vathy, Archaeological Museum; AR 1983/4, 59 fig. 114;

152 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt


Kyrieleis 1991, 129 pl. 29, 2, found together with other votives and
ritual pottery in a well in the sanctuary of Hera that was given up in
the beginning of the 6th century bc. The shape of the situla
corresponds to types I or III in Lichtheim 1947, 174-5 pl. 4.10, 16, 17.
Below the rim are five ornamental bands (two friezes with triangles,
one with floral ornaments and three friezes with triangles. The
middle register is a figural frieze depicting a standing worshipper
wearing a long tunic in front of Amun-Min (or Amenope), a
rectangular altar, Horus or Haroeris with ankh-sign, Isis with wadj-
sceptre and ankh-sign, Nephthys with wadj-sceptre and ankh-sign.
The space in front of the heads of the gods is left empty, like on the
example in Fribourg, Switzerland (Page Gasser 2001, 139-42) and on
some situlae from the animal necropolis at Saqqara. The next
register is decorated with a scale pattern, an unusual feature in
Egyptian situlae. A parallel for the scales beneath the figural scene is
only found on the example from Lefkandi (Popham and Lemos 1996,
pl. 132, T. 42, 17). The rounded bottom of the vessel is decorated with
lotus leaves.
20 Cf. e.g. the case of the Nikosthenic amphora. The potter Nikosthenes
produced this Etruscan shape for export to Etruria. Tosto 1999, 95-8;
Shapiro 2000, 313-37.
21 Hilgers 1969, 77-9, 282-3.
22 Zahlhaas 1971, 7; Hurschmann 2001, 605.
23 Greek metal situlae cf. Zahlhaas 1971, 109-12 fig. 1 D (her ‘Form D’
with rounded bottom and without foot in some respects recalls
Egyptian situlae); Gauer 1991, 110-23. Etruscan bronze situlae from
Spina cf. Hostetter 2001, 19-34.
24 Kastelic 1964, 18; Kromer 1969, 72-80; Frey 1969, 83-7; Megaw and
Megaw 1989, 37-9.
25 Late Geometric pyxis situla from Smyrna, cf. Özkan 1999, 36 no. 65.
Orientalizing pyxis situlae with palmette decoration from
Klazomenai, http\: klazomenai.tripod.com/resim04-01.html and
Hürmüzlü 1995, 61 pl. 22 fig. 82 pl. 23 figs 83-4.
26 Izmir, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10946, Özkan 1999, 36 no. 65.
27 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 2894, H 36cm; first half of the
6th century bc, A: two confronted bulls in the handle zone, B: goat
and lion; below the wave pattern typical of Lydian art. The
connection was made by Cook 1954, 32. Good illustrations in Akurgal
1961, 151-3 figs 102-3 and Amandry 1962, 54, 68 Beil. 14.2 [side B].
Walter-Karydi (1973, 100 n. 23) denied the possibility that the
‘situlae’ could depend on a shape like this. A vase close in shape to the
krater in Istanbul is in Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 14222, H
15, 5cm; Dm mouth 21cm; only one half of the vessel is preserved. It
was found in a grave in Nisyros, cf. Jacopi 1932/3-41b, 522-23 figs 50-
1, pl. 2. The vessel has two broad handles attached directly to the rim.
Figure-decorated ‘metopes’ feature on side A a dog, on side B a bird.
Jacopi (1932/3-41b, 522) considered a possible local manufacture of
the vessel and called the shape ‘specie di corta situla’.
28 Cook 1954, 32. From Kamiros: Jacopi 1931/9, pl. 8.139, 159. From
Samos: Boehlau 1898, 17 fig. 14. From Nisyros: Jacopi 1932/3-41, 513-
15 figs 41-3; 519 fig. 48. From Histria: Lambrino 1938, 41-9 figs 96-7.
29 Schäfer 1908, 127. Shapes with a bulging bottom have a long
tradition in Egypt and were manufactured in various materials, cf.
Hölscher 1954, pl. 47; Radwan 1983, pls 64-6 nos 347-60 (small
vessels, the highest about 30cm high, mainly without handles, from
Middle Kingdom onwards, many pieces from New Kingdom for wine
or beer); French 1988, 82 fig. 1; on Egyptian storage jars cf. Aston
1996, 45, 231 fig. 129.10 (from Matmar), 64 ‘group 37’, 301 fig. 199a,
datable to the 12th–9th centuries bc; 65 ‘group 42’, 303 fig. 201d;
meat jars 66 ‘group 50’ 307 fig. 205f; 76 ‘group 30’ Phase III south
8th–7th centuries bc, 323 fig. 221c; 326 fig. 224f.
30 The vases might have been used for preparing kykeon, a mixture of
wine, herbs and cheese: in Ialysos, grave 183 a situla (Rhodes,
Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10641) was found together with Attic
and local pottery and a bronze cheese grater (Rhodes,
Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10642, Jacopi 1929, 192 fig. 186;
Jacobsthal 1932, fig. 1; Jacopi 1933, II D m pl. 1.4-5), like the ones from
Pyres 13 and 14 at Lefkandi, Toumba cemetery: Popham and Lemos
1996, pl. 146c (Pyre 14,18 = SPG IIIa) and d (T.79B,2 = SPG II) and
T.79A (three graters, SPG II). One of these cremations may be
connected with a warrior and therefore the grater could have been
used in the funeral feast, cf. Popham et al. 1982, 213-48, esp. 240-1.
Graters are not connected so much with female burials but mainly
with male ones. Perhaps they were used during the symposion to mix
wine with grated cheese or to prepare the kykeon, a mixture of
Pramnian wine, barley groats, grated cheese and honey, cf. Homer,
East Greek ‘Situlae’ from Egypt
Od. 10, 243-4; 11, 624. 628ff.; Ar. V. 938; Ar. Lys. 231; Kroll 1919, 1494;
Jacobsthal 1932, 1-7, 6; Liddell - Scott: 1837 s.v. turo/knhstij; Bruns
1970, 2, 15, 37. Other graters, votive or household utensils, are known
from Samos (Gehrig 1964, 9-10 no. 50-4; p. 97-8), Perachora (Payne
1940, 182 pl. 81.11 and Olynthus (Robinson 1941, 191), the Enodia
sanctuary in Pherai (Kilian 1975, pl. 94.33). Further cheese grater in
animal form: Hoffmann 1964, no. 12.
31 Kinch 1914, 105-6, 125-6; 1929, figs 186-9. 198; Cook 1954, 29-37;
Walter 1968, no. 591 pl. 115. Cook and Dupont 1998, 116-18.
32 Ketterer 1999, 217 fig. 9, 221 cat. no. 6: two small joining fragments
from the body of an open vase in Fikellura style (MileA II); sphinx
and another figure with wings. No rim or foot fragments are
preserved, therefore it is doubtful whether the fragments belong to a
vase of ‘situla’ shape.
33 Walter 1968, 57, 116 nos 435-7, pl. 79. Ýren (2003, 141, 184 no. 284)
attributed one of these rim fragments mentioned by Walter 1968 (no.
437) to Aiolis because of the angular rendering of the loop ornament.
34 Three unpublished rim fragments were found in Burgas (Datça),
Özer 1998, 36-9. I owe information about these fragments R. Attula.
35 Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. C/310 A-H, from Ialysos, clay:
7.5YR 7/4 (pink), on fragment c/310 H parts of a graffito are
preserved: H L; unpublished black-figured fragments of neck or body
of a straight closed vase from the stipe votive of the sanctuary of
Athena Polias, mentioned by Vita 1985, 368 (‘[…] frammenti di una
situla tipo Daphne con raffigurazione di guerriero […]’) and by Cook
and Dupont 1998, 205 n. 3 and 5. The decorative system does not
correspond to the ‘situlae’ from Tell Defenneh: two figural friezes are
separated by a hook meander. In the upper frieze warriors are
depicted, in the lower chariots. There are no fragments from rim or
base, so the shape could be another type of vessel, e.g. a slender
hydria or a ‘situla pyxis’.
36 Five examples in Istanbul from Vroulia: Kinch 1914, 105 no. 11 pl. 23.12
(from the main sanctuary); 125-6 nos 2-5 pl. 28.8, 9, 11 (from houses
of the settlement). Cook 1960, 140 supposed that these vessels may
be local Vroulian.
37 Philadelphia, University Museum, E147.3: Schaus 1995, 25-6 pl. 11.1.
Cf. Kinch 1914, pl. 28.11.
38 Samos, Heraion, Inv. K 1590. Our Fig. 6 shows an old state of
preservation. Today, the ‘situla’ is broken again into fragments (14,
two still glued together). Some of the parts, still visible on the
photograph, are missing, for instance the head of the water bird. The
surface is much worn. The old illustration was chosen because it
shows best the original shape of the vase.
39 1. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10641, H 35.5cm; Dm mouth
18.2–18.5cm; Dm foot 11.95–12.2cm; reddish yellow clay (Munsell
7.5YR 8/6) with many small dark and fewer white grits; A: woman to
right, B: stylized tree with birds on the volutes. Below two broad
registers with lotus flowers and palmettes, 1929, 192 fig. 186; 1933, II
D m pl. 1.4-5.– 2. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10773, H as
restored 39cm; Dm mouth 18.3cm; pink clay (between Munsell 7.5YR
8/4 and 7.5YR 7/4); A: horseman to right, B: warrior to right; two
lower registers with carelessly drawn lotus flowers and palmettes,
1929, 204-7 fig. 198.
40 Cook and Dupont 1998, 114-5.
41 This feature is not only found with situlae but also with other vessels,
cf. Johnston 1993, 351 cat. no. 53 (amphora, Laconian ?), 353 fig. 5.A.
42 The local Egyptian ceramic repertoire consists of many lids in various
sizes, see Petrie 1888, pl. 36, but only one Greek lid of East Greek grey
ware was found (London, British Museum GR 1888.2-8.139,
unpublished).
43 Petrie 1888, 62-8; Cook 1937, 227-37; 1954, 31; Boardman 1958, 4-12;
2000, 133-53; Schaus 1995, 27; Hoffmann and Steinhart 1998, 49-61;
Carrez-Maratray 1999, 283-6; Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 89-91.
44 Sphinx: Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 598.3-4. The winged, crouching female
sphinx is a Greek type, in Egyptian art the sphinx is depicted as a
reclining male sphinx, symbolizing either the sun god Re-Harmachis
or the pharaoh. On the differentiation between Greek and Egyptian
sphinxes see Höckmann and Winkler-Horacvek 2005, 90-6.
45 London, British Museum GR 1888.2-8.3; preserved H 6.7cm; pink
clay (Munsell 5YR 7/4) with a wash (Munsell 10YR 7/4); Petrie 1888,
62 pl. 26.1; Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 597.2; Weber in Schlotzhauer and
Weber 2005, 88, 110 fig. 17.
46 Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10696, 1929, 50-3. Cf. also the
Egyptian objects from the stipe votiva di Kamiros: Jacopi 1932/3-41,
317 fig. 57 (falcons from faience).
47 Cf. Bailey, this volume.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 153
Weber
48 Other hieroglyphs or Egyptian signs are graffiti scratched after firing
on two fragments of Greek trade vases from Tell Defenneh: London,
British Museum, Department of Ancient Egyptian and Sudan, AES
23761 (Petrie could read three signs: k m khu. I can confirm two
signs: Gardiner G 17 [m] and N 27 [khu]); AES 23762 (shuttle of
Neith = Gardiner list R 24/25 25); on fragments of two trade
amphorae, kept in the same department, are painted demotic signs:
EA 23775; EA 22343 (Johnston Fig. 16). All vases are unpublished but
mentioned by Petrie 1888, 74 without distinguishing Egyptian or
Greek fabric. A further Demotic inscription in black ink is on a
Levantine amphora from Tell Defenneh; possibly a votive
inscription: London, Petrie Museum, UC19250, cf.
www.petrie.ucl.ac.uk under the Museum number.
49 London, British Museum GR 1888.2-8.5 (Vase B106.1); H (restored)
16.4cm; Dm lip (restored) 19.3cm; light yellowish brown clay
(Munsell 10YR 6/4); Petrie 1888, 62 pl. 26.3; Walters 1893, 88 no.
B106.1; Cook 1954, pl. G.B. 598.6; Weber in Schlotzhauer and Weber
2005, 89, 110-12 figs 20-1. Petrie (1888, 62) notes: ‘[…] the lotus
group between the two fighters is again not a Greek lotus pattern,
but like the lotus flowers on piles of Egyptian offerings. It cannot be
doubted that this was painted with living Egyptians under the artist’s
eyes.’
50 Athens, National Museum, Inv. 9683; ARV² 554.2.
51 Decker 1987, 90-5; Decker and Herb 1994, 564-71; Weber in
Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 89-92. There is only a later written
source for ritual club fighting in the Saite Period: Hdt. 2.63.
52 On Greek athletic nudity cf. Decker 2003, 51-2. In Egyptian art only
children or youths performing sports or playing are rendered naked,
cf. Decker and Herb 1994, pls 291, 302, 314-5, 340, 345-6, 348.
53 Decker 2003, 55.
54 Philadelphia, University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
Inv. 29.71.189. Cf. the illustrations in Schaus (1995, pl. 11.2-5) and
Weber (2001, pl. 21.3 a-b).
55 The object in the left hand could be a flower or a small stone vessel
like the jar for holy oil, cf. on the vessel Arnold 1977, 485-6 no. 41.
56 On Egyptian shawls and dress: Bianchi 1978, 95-102.
57 This cipher corresponds to the hieroglyphic signs A 21 (sr or smr =
official or noble) and A 107 (with outstretched right hand). Gardiner
1973, 444.
58 Hassan 1976, passim; Steuernagel 1991, 35-48; Fehr 2000, 139.
59 Cf. the representation of the mayor of Thebes, Sennefer, 18th Dyn., in
the pillared hall of his tomb, Strouhal 1996, 165 fig. 182.
60 A quadrangular sign could stand for a building or a precinct, cf. the
sign-list by Gardiner 1973, 492-8 no. O. The reading of the sign on the
‘situla’ as a pseudo-hieroglyph was doubted by Hoffmann and
Steinhart 1998, 57. For incorrectly written but legible Egyptian signs
on Greek vases cf. the cartouches on the amphora in Basle, collection
Cahn, HC 1175/London, Petrie Museum (Bailey Figs 1–5), cf. Decker
(2003, 49-56 with reference to older literature) and Bailey in this
volume. Decker (2003, 56) hypothetically put forward, like other
scholars, an Egyptian place of manufacture for this vase. This
hypothesis has now been refuted on the basis of clay analysis, unless,
of course, one assumes the import of clay. Cf. the paper by Bailey in
this volume.
61 Schaus 1995, 26-7.
62 Brommer 1984, 178-84; Shapiro (2000, 318-37) on the stamnoi and
kantharoi of the Perizoma group designed for the Etruscan market.
Special commission for the Persians in Egypt: Kahil 1972, 271-84.
Lezzi-Hafter (1997, 353-69) published two Attic red-figured mugs
with special shape and subjects for a Thracian clientele.
63 Boardman 1958, 4-12.
64 Carrez-Maratray 1999, 284-6.
65 Walters 1893, no. B 104; Cook 1954, 32-3 pl. G.B. 596; Walter-Karydi
1973, no. 1060 pls 135-6; Touchefeu-Meynier 1997, 149 s.v. Typhon no.
11; Tempesta 1998, 71-2, 147, 172 no. 80, pl. 38.1-2.
66 Schmidt 1916-24, 1426-54; Schefold 1978, 53-4; Schefold 1993, 196-9.
154 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
67 Kunze 1950, 82-8.
68 Touchefeu-Meynier 1997, 148-9 s.v. Typhon nos 1-10.
69 Griffiths 1970, 259; Kranz 1934, 114-15; Kolta 1968, 161-8; Velde 1986,
816-17 s.v. Typhon.
70 Erman and Grapow 1982, 262 (tbh).
71 Velde 1967, 1-26; Donadoni 1981, 115-23; Velde 1984, 908-11;
Wilkinson 2003, 197-9.
72 Hornung and Badawy 1975, 350-2 s.v. Apophis.
73 Petrie 1888, 74 § 71; Petrie 1891a, 57-8; Leclère 1997.
74 Cook 1954, 32-3. I had the opportunity to study the vase in 2001.
75 Cook 1960, 140.
76 Cook 1960, 140; Walter-Karydi 1973, 90-1 nos 1061-63, pl. 136.
77 Petrie 1888, 62.
78 Cook 1954, 32; Cook 1960, 140.
79 Price 1928, 9.
80 Walter-Karydi 1970, 8 with n. 27 and 31; Walter-Karydi 1973, 100 n.
23.
81 Schaus 1995, 25.
82 Carrez-Maratray 1999, 284.
83 Möller 2000a, 145.
84 Smoláriková 2002, 64.
85 The question of clay imports to Naukratis is also addressed by
Williams (this volume), Bailey (this volume), and Schlotzhauer and
Villing (this volume).
86 Petrie 1888, 63.
87 Cook 1960, 140 put forward as the place of manufacture the
‘stratopeda’, or camps, given to the Ionian and Carian mercenaries by
Pharaoh Psammetichos I.
88 Lemos 1991, 191-4; Mannack 2002, 93-4.
89 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Inv. 1925.608 a-c; Beazley et al. 1931,
pl. G.B. 401.25-7; Jones 1986, 669-70.
90 As discussed by P. Dupont and A. Thomas in this volume; cf. also
Dupont 1983, 29.
91 Cf. similar stamnoi from Ialysos: Rhodes, Archaeological Museum,
Inv. 1320: Jacopi 1933, II D m pl. 1.3, Inv. 12062: Jacopi 1934, II D m pl.
3.5, Inv. 10487: Jacopi 1934., II D h pl. 8.3.
92 Cf. Mommsen et al., this volume.
93 Cf. Mommsen et al. Fig. 1.
94 Cf. the papers by Schlotzhauer and Villing and by Mommsen et al. in
this volume.
95 As it is the case with the amphora in Basel with the cartouches of
pharaoh Apries, Basel, Cahn HC 1175/London, Petrie Museum UC
30035A-B, cf. the paper by Bailey (this volume).
96 Schefold 1942, 128-30; Walter-Karydi 1998, 287-96; Berges and Tuna
2000, 198, 212.
97 R. Attula pers. comm.
98 To be published by R. Attula.
99 Cook and Dupont 1998, 118.
100 The samples were taken by Michael R. Cowell, Department of
Conservation, Documentation and Science, British Museum,
London.
101 On the method in general cf. Mommsen et al. 1991, 57-64 and
Mommsen 2005, 40-1.
102 Cf. samples of various East Greek wares in Akurgal et al. 2002 and the
paper by Mommsen et al. in this volume.
103 The samples 17, 23 and 117 from Emecik belong to group EMED.
Samples 17 and 117, both body fragments, are published by Attula
2006, 130-1 cat. no. 245 fig. 26 pl. 67.8 and 140 cat. no. 287 fig. 30 pl.
75.2. Cf. also Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006, 199-204.
104 NAA carried out in Bonn and by other scientists showed that an
unusually high level of Cr and Ni is present in Mycenaean and later
pottery made in Rhodes, a feature hitherto not known from other
workshops of the Eastern Aegean, thus hinting at a Rhodian source,
cf. Jones 1986, 669-70; Leonard et al. 1993, 118 with n. 36; Marketou
et al. (forthcoming).
The Apries Amphora – Another Cartouche
Donald M. Bailey
Abstract
Two joining sherds with a cartouche of the Egyptian Pharaoh
Apries were recently noted in the collections of the Petrie Museum of
Egyptian Archaeology in London. They have been shown to fit into
a well-known, but fragmentary East Greek amphora with two of
the names of Apries, a king of the 26th Egyptian Dynasty, painted
round its neck. The Petrie sherds have ‘Thebes’ written upon them
in pencil, thus suggesting the findspot of the vase itself.*
As the present volume emphasises, and the many publications of
the last decades have shown, the study of East Greek vases is in a
healthy state, but there are still groups that are difficult to place,
and the vase under discussion, bearing the names of the
Pharaoh Apries, falls into one of these (Fig. 1).1 Although the
vase itself has not been analysed, a joining sherd in the
collections of the Petrie Museum has recently been traced, and
due to the kindness of the Curator, Stephen Quirke, has been
examined by Neutron Activation Analysis. It has been found to
belong amongst Mommsen’s Pattern B, of the ‘bird bowl
workshops’ and is probably North Ionian.2
The Apries Amphora, a neck-amphora, assembled from
fragments, has black-figure decoration. On one side confronted
boxers flank a prize dinos on a stand; a bird, probably a raptor,
Figure 1 The Apries Amphora, Cahn Collection HC 1175, with the joining fragments Petrie Museum UC30035a-b
standing on an ionic column, survives behind one of the boxers.
On the other side of the pot the heads of two standing women
remain, behind whom are plants, a tree or a bush. Only one
handle is present and the lower body is almost completely gone,
together with the base. Around the neck of the vase, interrupted
by the upper springs of both handles, is a band of four
cartouches. First published by John Boardman in 19803 several
subsequent articles have mentioned and discussed it.4 Very full
descriptions of the vase, defining the subjects of the figural
decoration and the hieroglyphs, and also discussions of the
vessel’s date, are given by Thomas Schattner and Norbert
Dürring, and by Friedhelm Hoffmann and Matthias Steinhart.5
The Petrie Museum fragment, UC30035a-b, consists of two
joining sherds from a neck-amphora with a thickened squared
rim (diam. 17.0cm: Fig. 2). The fabric is orange with a buff slip
outside and on top of the rim. There is black glaze on the outside
of the rim and in a narrow band on the top of the inner rim.
Below this band, inside the mouth, is a thinned black glaze
merging with a red glaze; at about 5.5cm below the rim inside
are two narrow bands of white ceramic colour, not quite parallel
with the rim. On the outside, below the rim, a cartouche is
painted in black-glaze medium, with hieroglyphs laid over in
white fired-on ceramic colour (Figs 3–4). Both fragments have
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 155
Bailey
Figure 2 Section drawing of the Petrie fragments, Petrie Museum UC30035a-b
‘Thebes’ written in pencil.
The new cartouche was noticed when the writer was
browsing the Petrie Museum website and he was encouraged by
John Boardman and Alexandra Villing to put this short note into
the present publication. It seemed probable that the fragment
was either from the Apries Amphora or from one closely
resembling it: Alexandra first pointed out the place where it
fitted the Apries Amphora, where part of the cartouche and a
part of a r‘ sign matched.
The cartouche band (Fig. 5) encompasses the Throne Name
and the Birth Name of the Saite king Apries, one of each on the
front and on the back of the neck of the vase, between the
handles. The new cartouche is on the side with the major
(remaining) scene of the boxing contest and (despite
considerable errors on the part of the painter) is the Throne
Name of Apries. The painter appears to have inserted titles (with
a lavishly loaded brush), not only between cartouches, but also,
in one surviving example, between a cartouche and an upper
handle-spring. Thus, reading right to left, we have probably the
lower stroke of the nt-r of the Good God title between the handle-
spring and the new cartouche with the Throne Name Haaibre;
after this is the Son of Re title and the Birth Name Wahibre,
followed by a Good God title (signs transposed) in front of the
scar of the other handle-spring; on the further side of this
handle-spring scar is another Good God title (again with
transposed signs) in front of the Throne Name; following the
latter name is the Son of Re title in front of a largely lost
cartouche, no doubt containing the Birth Name of Apries;
between this cartouche and the handle spring it seems very
likely that there was another title. I am grateful to Kate Morton
handle
spring
handle
spring
handle
spring
Figure 5 Cartouche band adapted from Norbert Dürring’s version.A: on vase; B: transcribed; C: reconstructed
156 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 3 The Petrie fragments, Petrie Figure 4 Cartouche on Petrie
Museum UC30035a-b fragment UC30035a
for adapting Norbert Dürring’s illustration of the layout of the
cartouche-band. It can be seen (Figs 3–4) that the new Throne
Name is less accurately depicted than that in the cartouche
already on the vase, and in both Throne Names the letter h. is
omitted.
One useful aspect of the identification of the new fragment
with the Apries Amphora is the probability that the vase comes
from Thebes. One cannot be sure that the pencilled words
‘Thebes’ are in Petrie’s hand; however, comparison with
documents written by him has convinced me that he did indeed
write on the Petrie Museum’s sherds. Petrie collected and
purchased anything that was offered to him that he felt was of
interest and that he could afford, and he would be certain to
regard a royal cartouche on a vessel as worth acquiring.
Boardman and Sabine Weber both have mentioned the presence
of a small number of Greek painted pots in Thebes.6 It is not
known when the fragmentary Apries Amphora was found, but
the new fragment must have been recovered at the same time,
presumably before Petrie abandoned Egypt in 1926. The
Egyptian dealer who acquired it may not have received all the
sherds, the finder retaining the new fragment for disposal
elsewhere: there are several possible scenarios, but it eventually
came into Petrie’s hands.
Other as yet unanswerable questions include where and
when the vase was manufactured, and why it had royal
cartouches.
Dyfri Williams, in this volume, has discussed the difficulties
(with Chian pottery, found sometimes in large quantity outside
Chios) of deciding whether pots or potters moved about, with
the attendant possibility that raw clay moved with the potters.
handle
spring
handle scar
handle
spring
handle
spring

He tends to favour a sophisticated and well-ordered system of
trade, with merchantmen crossing wide areas of the eastern
Mediterranean, carrying safely, on the whole, shiploads of
desirable finewares, some of which had been specially ordered
by individuals in Egypt for votive purposes in particular shrines.
He cannot wholly reject the idea that potters from Chios used
Chian clay while resident in Naukratis. The small North Ionian
grouping into which the Apries Amphora falls seems even less
likely to have been made in Egypt.
Many of those discussing the date within the 26th Dynasty of
the Apries Amphora believe that it was not made before Apries’
deposition by Amasis in 570 bc; his death in 567 bc does not add
much to the period that his name might or might not have been
used officially, although Leahy in 1988 has shown that it was
employed after Amasis claimed the throne. Indeed there may
have been parallel rule of the two kings for three years after 570
bc.7 Stylistically, dates of about 550-540 and as late as the 530s
bc have been suggested for the vase, but I have not the expertise
to know whether they are plausible; some of the comparanda
brought forward, of widely differing sources, materials,
decoration and dating, however, show signs of desperation.
Decker 2003 prefers a date before the death of Apries and
discusses at length the possibility that the vessel was a prize-
vase for the sport shown on it, but cannot arrive at certainty.
A vase from Klazomenai with a black-glaze neck and scale
patterns on the body has a closely similar body shape and rim-
form, and also has a moulding at the base of the neck.8 It is from
a context of c.520–500 bc. A small number of black-figure sherds
from Klazomenai published by Özer are perhaps stylistically
similar to the Apries Amphora and may date between 570 and
560 bc; the author also mentions amphorae of the same shape
from a kiln of the middle of the 6th century bc.9
The cartouches, while not wholly accurate, are sufficiently
well rendered for the names of Apries to be read. A speculative
potter in North Ionia might have painted them on a pot for
export to Egypt as an inducement to persuade rich Egyptians to
purchase it (and others similar?). He may not have realised (or
even cared) that the king was dead at the hands of his still living
successor when he copied the names from an inscribed object,
perhaps a sealing from a commercial import or from an Egyptian
object dedicated at a Greek shrine.10 A band of cartouches was
what he wanted, not a particular pharaoh. This procedure may
have been followed whether the vase was painted before or after
567 bc. The presence in Thebes of a vase with Apries’ names may
not have been as dangerous as may be thought. The real ruler of
The Apries Amphora – Another Cartouche
the Thebaid at this time was not Amasis, but the God’s Wife of
Amun, the Divine Adoratrice Ankhnesneferibre, who reigned for
over 60 years (586–525 bc).11 Daughter of Psammetichus II, she
was Apries’ half-sister; Budge12 regarded her as his full sister.
Had she known of such vessels as the Apries Amphora, she may
have liked him enough to have tolerated the use of his name well
after his death. The names of previous pharaohs were legion
throughout Egypt and few were, as Hatshepsut was with
Tuthmosis III, subjected to damnatio memoriae. There is little
evidence that Apries’ name was erased by Amasis,13 who buried
him at Sais with full honours. It would seem likely also that
Amasis, possibly legitimised on the throne of Egypt by marriage
to the God’s Wife, was more often than not in his northern
capital of Sais, and may never have come across vases such as
this, particularly if they were in a batch that reached Thebes.
Illustration credits
Fig. 1 the British Museum; Fig. 2 drawing D.M. Bailey; Fig. 3 photo D.M.
Bailey, ed. C.M. Johns; Fig. 4 photo A. Villing; Fig. 5 drawing K. Morton.
Notes
* Concerning the names within the cartouches, I am most grateful to
Jeffrey Spencer and Stephen Quirke for discussing them, and to
Stephen for allowing me to photograph the fragments. Alexandra
Villing had much advice to offer about East Greek painted vases. I am
very grateful to David Cahn for making the Apries Amphora
available for examination.
1 Vase HC 1175, Kreuzer 1992, 52-4. It was acquired by the late Herbert
Cahn on the Paris art market and is said to be from Egypt.
2 Mommsen et al., this volume, TbEgy 1.
3 Boardman 1980, 138-9.
4 Boardman 1987, 147-8, fig. 4; Cook 1989, 167; M. Weber 1995, 163-70;
Gill and Vickers 1996, 7; Cook and Dupont 1998, 107; Decker 2003,
49-56.
5 Schattner and Dürring 1995, 65-93; Hoffmann and Steinhart 1998,
49-61.
6 Boardman 1958, 4-12; Boardman 1980, 137-8; Weber 2001, 139-40.
7 James 1981, 736.
8 Ersoy 1993, 539-40, pls 40-41; Ersoy 2004, 58, fig. 17a.
9 Özer 2004, 201-2; 215, n. 15. I am grateful to Bilge Hürmüzlü for
pointing out this reference.
10 Cf. most recently Ebbinghaus 2006, 189-202.
11 A selection of references to Ankhnesneferibre includes Budge 1909,
224, pl. XXX; James 1981, 733; Leahy 1988; Clayton 1994, 197; Elwood
1994, 93, 103; Lloyd 1983, 303; Dodson 1995, 194; Myśliwiec 2000,
130-31; Dodson 2002, 186: only Budge and Elwood refer to her
marriage to Amasis. Ankhnesneferibre’s splendid sarcophagus, only
slightly usurped, is in the British Museum (EA 907): Budge 1885.
12 Budge 1885, p. x.
13 Leahy 1988, 198.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 157
The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis:
A Similar Story?
Richard Posamentir
Abstract
Ionian Greeks founded hundreds of colonies in many different places
and along various coastlines, always having to face problems such
as unknown territories, climate or local cultures. Even though these
cities and settlements to the west, north or south of Ionia lie far from
each other, several similar phenomena can be observed in most of
these places – which means that similar questions have to be
answered in order to understand the processes taking place at every
new spot where Greeks arrived. Among these colonies there are some
places which have been investigated archaeologically for a long time,
providing us with countless artefacts of Ionian style that are among
the finest ever found, and giving us the chance to learn more about
their Ionian mother cities as well. Berezan and Naukratis are both
sites of major importance in this respect and, by showing
remarkable parallels, offer a most welcome opportunity to study
early Greek colonies in different parts of the world.
On the occasion of a conference held at Mainz in 1999, M.
Kerschner1 offered a comprehensive account of the essential
problems one encounters when studying Archaic Ionian pottery
found in Naukratis. Assessing his contribution one easily reaches
the conclusion that in fact similarities between Naukratis and
Berezan are not only limited to the involvement of Ionian people
in their foundation history – but continue up to the present time.
They also relate to the long history of modern excavations at
both sites as well as the structural phenomena which will be
focused on in this contribution.2
As is the case with Naukratis, Berezan (most likely once
called Borysthenes) has long been of major interest to
archaeologists, and numerous generations have already
explored the site, while simultaneously great damage was done
to the area by non-archaeological interference; in Berezan this
was mostly due to military action.3 Apart from the usual loss of
archaeological information caused by early excavation and
conservation techniques, which are common at every site of the
Greek and Roman world, the island suffered additionally from
subsequent changes of the sea level, submerging substantial
parts of one of the earliest Greek colonies along the northern
Black Sea shore.
Furthermore, the excavated material has been distributed
among different museums, making it difficult to present a
comprehensive study and quantification of the pottery to the
public – again most unfortunately a parallel with the situation
regarding Naukratis. Museums in St. Petersburg, Moscow,
Odessa, Cherson and Ochakiv hold collections of various sizes –
the Halle and Bonn collections (with smaller amounts of pottery
from excavations of Ernst von Stern, one of the first excavators
of this site) must also be mentioned. Additionally, frequent
changes in scholarly approach and applied techniques must
necessarily lead to a high degree of diversity concerning the
choice of which shapes, wares or fragments of pottery are
collected and which are left on the site. This results in
unintentional and unpredictable differences between the
collections mentioned above. Thus also the choice of fragments
already published most naturally depended on personal opinion
or rating, or was sometimes made with the aim of supporting
certain theories about the site. In this contribution more
emphasis is put on those fragments which have never before
been published or have even escaped the attention of scholars
working on this material.
Excavations in Berezan continue up to the present,4 and
fortunately a lot has changed since the early days. Still – working
on a limited amount of material, such as the Archaic Ionian
pottery5 kept in the State Hermitage in St. Petersburg, some
problems immediately become apparent: the thousands of
sherds found in cemeteries and in the settlement between 1963
and 1991 represent fine-ware pottery only; almost no ‘Greek’
coarse-ware (except transport amphorae) was found6 or
collected if not showing dipinti or graffiti. The lack of coarse-
ware (as well as unpainted fragments of fine-ware) should
already be an obvious warning not to expect a strict adherence
to proportions in the collection of certain wares – the so-called
‘schwarzbunte’ pottery, mostly represented by jugs which are
already well-known from other Mediterranean sites,7 can serve
as an example: about 50 different shoulder parts (Fig. 1) with
applied red and white colour found their way to the Hermitage
and other museum collections, while undecorated parts of these
jugs are almost completely missing from the earlier years –
which means that they were obviously previously sorted out at
the site. Theoretically the loss of these undecorated parts would
be of minor importance since information on the total number
of different vessels of this type might certainly seem of higher
value from a statistic point of view – but during the processing of
all these sherds it increasingly emerged that, surprisingly, a lot
of fragments could at least partly be assembled and that a
Figure 1 Shoulder parts (inv. nos. B65–36; B73–97; B76–14; B80–29) of four so-
called ‘schwarzbunte’ jugs
Naukratis:Greek Diversity in Egypt | 159
Posamentir

Figure 2 Places of origin of Archaic

Ionian pottery found on Berezan

Figure 3 Places of origin of Archaic

Ionian pottery from the 7th century BC
found on Berezan

Figure 4 Places of origin of Archaic

Ionian pottery from the 6th century BC
found on Berezan

160 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt


number of additional complete or almost complete vessels
would have been gained if all sherds had been kept – even
though Berezan is already extremely rich in this regard. Most
important, nevertheless, is still the quantity – it means that an
amazingly high number of such more or less identical vessels,
being representative for a certain time span, existed at Berezan
at a certain time.
Still, the remaining material, even if only a selective cross-
section of fine-ware pottery from the 7th/6th centuries bc,
represents one of the finest complexes of Archaic Ionian pottery
ever found – this alone would justify the attempt to produce a
comprehensive study. Furthermore, the sherds are in amazingly
good condition as regards their surface and their sharp breaks –
giving the impression of pots that, once broken, had not been
moved much subsequently. Even more remarkable is the size of
the sherds, which is very impressive compared to what can be
found in the mother cities of Ionia. It must therefore be a
declared aim of this study not only to present a general survey of
the whole complex but also to restore as much context
information as possible about the ‘where’, ‘how’ and ‘with what’
of each single fragment.
Apart from these general considerations a couple of essential
questions need to be addressed, as is the case regarding other
colonies such as Naukratis.
Where exactly does the imported Archaic Ionian pottery derive
from?
This question might be of major importance concerning the
ethnic composition of the Greek settlers and the trading habits
of these people, wherever they might have originated. Even
though many important sites, especially in northern Ionia, and
other hitherto unknown sites still await further investigation,
our knowledge in this field has been considerably expanded due
to recent and well-established archaeometric results:8 it has
become feasible to determine places of manufacture more
precisely. Understandably, scholars generally tend to look for
intensive contacts between mother or founding city and colony –
e.g. Miletos in the case of Berezan – yet we have to ask ourselves
without prejudice whether this concept is always valid. Many
pottery exports might well be more dependent on the rules of a
Figure 5 Detail of North Ionian
amphora (inv. no. B408) showing
North Ionian Wild Goat style in
combination with black-figure style
from the early 6th century bc
found on Berezan
The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?
free market in which price, quality and aesthetics are more
important than the actual ties to the founding city.9 Additionally,
sources of influence might change and strong directional
connections in the early days of a colony might not exist at a
later time. We also have to consider whether traditional views
such as the uncritical en gros assignation of countless colonies to
the colonising spirit of the powerful Archaic city of Miletos alone
stands firm in the light of archaeological evidence.10
At first sight some facts seem to be not only obvious but also
alarmingly surprising: North Ionian products by far
predominate the whole complex of Archaic Ionian pottery from
Berezan (Fig. 2)11 – but this result must be critically considered,
since proportions change substantially when one looks at the
material divided according to its date. By focusing on 7th
century bc pottery it turns out that Milesian or South Ionian
pottery is still predominant (Fig. 3) – while things change
dramatically in the first half of the 6th century bc in favour of
North Ionian products (Fig. 4). The same pattern has recently
been established by M. Kerschner for the western colonies, but it
might also hold true for the northern colonies:12 the late 7th
century bc imported pottery is generally dominated by South
Ionian, mainly Milesian products, while the market in the early
6th century bc is dominated by North Ionian products.
Superfluous to mention that we are still not able to assign
precisely every single fragment to its point of origin – but we
definitely should be able to discern tendencies by now. Yet a
pottery kiln, discovered on the southern slope of the acropolis of
Klazomenai and providing important evidence for the local
production in Klazomenai should be taken into consideration:
the kiln was in use during the 2nd quarter of the 6th century bc
and the range of material found inside seems to contradict
generalizations concerning the definition of fine-ware pottery
produced in the Eastern Greek world.13
Nevertheless, these tendencies lead to another important
conclusion: the undeniable parallel, contemporary existence of
South Ionian and North Ionian pottery, which cannot usually be
studied in the Ionian centres where one tends to find just one or
the other type of pottery, but not both at once, is definitely of
major importance. Since pottery trade seems to be amazingly
rare between the various important sites in Ionia,14 we are
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 161
Posamentir
Figure 6 North Ionian bird bowls (inv. nos B69–60; B70–56; B89–28) from the
late 7th century BC found on Berezan
heavily dependent on colonies like Naukratis or Berezan in order
to synchronize stylistic development and certain changes of
substantial significance – such as the transition from the so
called Wild Goat to the Fikellura style15 in the southern part of
Ionia and respectively the transition from the so called Wild
Goat to the black-figure style16 in the northern part of Ionia.
Even though this most fascinating period of changes remains
unclear in many aspects,17 it seems very unlikely that these two
transition processes should be seen as independent and local
phenomena. Unfortunately, it is easier in Berezan to follow the
change between North Ionian Wild Goat and black-figure style
(Fig. 5), while transitional pieces of the South Ionian products
are rather scarce. Obviously, they are far more prominent in the
area where the style was invented; in Miletos. This circumstance
is definitely also due to the fact that around the time of change
during the first half of the 6th century bc, North Ionian pottery
already dominated the ceramic spectrum in Berezan. The typical
North Ionian table amphorae or meander rim plates, being
produced not only in one but most likely several places, had
obviously already overrun the market.
Yet the question whether the mutable partition between
South Ionian and North Ionian products reflects a free market
only or also indicates changes in the origin of probably newly
arrived settlers18 remains open to debate – fine-ware pottery
alone cannot provide a solution to a problem which in a similar
way concerns the considerable amount of rough and locally
produced coarse-ware,19 as well as other, non-pottery evidence.
Figure 8 Fragments (inv. nos B254; B69–79; B83–15) of South Ionian Wild Goat
style vessels from the end of the third quarter of the 7th century BC (SiA Ib/c)
found on Berezan; the lower sherd probably of North Ionian origin and slightly
later (?)
162 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 7 South Ionian cup (Knickrandschale) (inv. no. B69–138) from the late 7th
century BC found on Berezan
How can the material be dated and what are the consequences
for our understanding of the foundation, development and
progress of a flourishing colony?
The foundation of Berezan has been set, according to written
sources,20 at a very early date and a small amount of apparently
early material has been published in order to support this view.21
Recently this opinion has rightly been put to further discussion.22
Now, that important centres of Archaic pottery production such
as Miletos23 for the South Ionian area or Klazomenai24 for the
North Ionian area have been investigated more intensively, we
are able to view earlier assessments on a more solid basis.
At first glance it is remarkable that the surface of the earlier
sherds is mostly not so well preserved as that of the following
period even though the quality of production is usually higher in
the 7th century bc; also the size of the sherds is generally
noticeably smaller. Taking a closer look, it becomes perfectly
clear that the amount of pottery found in Berezan dating from
the 7th century bc is furthermore significantly smaller than that
dating to the first half of the 6th century bc. This circumstance is
not surprising since most colonies need at least two generations
in order to reach a first period of higher accomplishments; the
settlement might have been much smaller and the number of
inhabitants might have been significantly lower. Nevertheless,
the state of preservation and size of sherds seem to indicate that
a lot more imported pottery was at hand at the site within the
6th century bc and broke after a shorter period of use.25
But an additional reason for this fact is revealed by focusing
on the earliest pieces which should – according to the written
sources – go back to the middle of the 7th century bc: the
pottery does not attest Greek inhabitation before the last third of
this century. There are practically no early types of the so-called
bird bowls (Fig. 6; unlike the finds from Taganrok, for
example)26 and there are also no early or even subgeometric
Figure 9 Fragments (inv. nos B172; B451) of South Ionian Wild Goat style pottery
from the late 7th century BC (SiA Ic/d) found on Berezan

types of the so-called Ionian cups, or Knickrandschalen(Fig. 7):27
even though one exceptional piece has been considered by
Kopeikina28 to be one of the oldest sherds found in Berezan.
Early pieces of the Middle Wild Goat style in the Black Sea area,
such as the beautiful pieces from Nemirov29 or the well-known
jug from Temir Gora30 find only few and fragmentary parallels
among the Berezan material (Fig. 8).31 What we do have from
the 7th century bc consists mostly of so-called Milesian Middle
Wild Goat II jugs and plates (or so called stemmed dishes, Fig.
9), accompanied by a number of North Ionian bird bowls dating
not earlier than 630 bc.
It has to be emphasised again that an early foundation date
of around 650 bc is not supported by any firm evidence and is
even contradicted by it; pottery does not indicate the presence of
Ionian settlers before around 630 bc. In the following decades of
the 6th century bc, pottery seems to reflect a time of
comparative steadiness and importance as a trading emporium
for the northern Black Sea coast, as we will see below.
The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?
Does the profile of imported East Greek pottery varieties at
Berezan show the same features as in the cities where these
kinds of pottery were produced?
Even though full statistic analysis from major Ionian sites is still
not available, such fundamental differences as exist can be
recognized.32 A comprehensive overview of the material kept in
the Hermitage of St. Petersburg shows a surprisingly limited
variety of shapes (Fig. 10) and at the same time an even more
surprising amount of almost identical objects. What is
remarkable, for example, is the fairly high number of
‘extraordinary’ shapes such as askoi, alabastra, lydia etc. – this is
without parallel in the mother city of Miletos. The fact that the
majority of the vessels was obviously imported from northern
Ionia (or even brought by North Ionian people?) offers a
reasonable explanation, since most of these shapes are by far
more common in the area of Klazomenai, for example. Still, one
might wonder for what purpose the considerable number of
askoi, for example, were dispatched to Berezan.
Figure 10 Variety of shapes of Archaic
Ionian pottery from the 7th and 6th
centuries BC found on Berezan
Figure 11 Variety of Archaic drinking
cups from the 7th and 6th centuries BC
found on Berezan
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 163
Posamentir
Figure 12 North Ionian plates (inv. nos B101; B66–27; B67–68; B71–60) from the
6th century bc with floral decoration found on Berezan
More difficult to explain is the circumstance that there is not
a single example of the typical Milesian one-handled drinking
cup or mug among the thousands of sherds. Since these thin-
walled mugs were more than common in 7th/6th century bc
Miletos,33 this might seem rather surprising but should possibly
not be overrated considering the fact that these vessels are
mostly undecorated. Besides these unusual features the
spectrum of shapes is dominated by table amphorae, jugs,
kraters, plates or stemmed dishes, and drinking cups. Taking a
closer look at specific shapes (such as drinking cups [Fig. 11])
one finds mostly well-known types of the North Ionian area,
such as bird-, rosette-, meander-, lotus-, eye-, banded-ware- and
animal-frieze bowls next to the so-called Ionian cups
(Knickrandschalen) of South Ionian origin. Only a small portion
(approximately 20%) of these vessels is less easy to assign but
will not be discussed on this occasion. Similar classifications of
the other shapes yield more or less the same results: most of the
objects belong to well-known categories, underline the North
Ionian predominance, and surprise only through their well
preserved appearance.
Much more interesting in this context is the fact that some of
the objects exist in numerous and almost identical copies.34
Admittedly, North Ionian meander plates or meander rim
kraters, for example, do not in general show a high level of
creativity and can surely be classified as mass-produced ware,
but nevertheless the unexpected and frequent repetition of
certain products is somewhat remarkable for a rather small
place like Berezan (Fig. 12). Yet the mere existence of several
identical vessels holds true for other and more sophisticated
wares as well, such as, for example, the Aiolian Dinoi of the so
called London Dinos group. The number of sherds of these
vessels found on Berezan makes the location one of the most
important places of discovery for this group in the ancient
world, next to Naukratis, which alone should be more than
interesting.35
Taking a closer look at this material, one has to assume that
most of these sherds can be assigned to a, naturally, smaller
number of vessels; yet according to the rim pieces no less than
five huge vessels of superior quality can be identified among the
material kept in St. Petersburg (Fig. 13). Taking into account
164 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 13 Fragments of Aiolian dinoi (inv. nos B75–7; B83–8; B88–3; B89–20;
B91–16) of the so-called ‘London Dinos group’ from the early 6th century BC
found on Berezan
that this is most likely only a small percentage of all the vessels
of this type once present in the settlement of Berezan, one is
tempted to conclude that Berezan served as an important
trading point for Ionian goods for a larger area during the 7th/
6th centuries bc. If so, it would be interesting to find out
whether certain preferences could be discerned concerning
shape and, even more, iconography among the material stored
at Berezan and waiting to be sent to other places. This task
would certainly be difficult to accomplish with ornamentally
decorated plates or simple drinking cups – but material such as
Fikellura or Klazomenian black-figure style pottery could be
investigated in this regard.
Are there any indications for a local production of Archaic
Ionian pottery on the island of Berezan?
Even though already suggested by certain scholars,36 the idea of
the production of vessels in, for example, Milesian or
Klazomenian style on the island of Berezan itself is still almost
entirely rejected by many archaeologists.37 If there were
indications or even proof of such a production, the next question
would concern the variety of copied material and, even more
fascinating, whether the rules of a possibly existing local market
were taken into consideration.38 Again, this complex of problems
is strongly connected to one of the most interesting questions
concerning Ionian pottery found in Naukratis.
Pottery found on the island of Berezan consists, as already
mentioned, not only of imported ceramics but also of handmade
and locally produced coarse-ware – most likely used by the local
population39 as well as by the Greek colonists. That ‘Greek’
Figure 14 Two stemmed dishes of banded ware (inv. nos B82–39; B84–32) from
the 6th century BC found on Berezan

Figure 15 South Ionian cup (Knickrandschale, inv. no. B66–76) of the first half of
the 6th century BC found on Berezan
coarse-ware might have been produced by the colonists at the
site should, in my opinion, be at least considered, but this
question will not be addressed in the present investigation due
to the more or less complete absence of such material among the
objects kept in the State Hermitage in St. Petersburg.
Also the possibility of a local production of painted pottery
should be considered, at least theoretically.40 Even though it is
not possible to discern peculiarities among the fine-ware pottery
from Berezan at first glance, there are, in fact, some sherds that
attract our attention in regard to this question.
These fragments can be divided into three groups: first,
copies of more or less well-known types of vessels originating
from the southern or northern part of Ionia in style, shape and
decoration. Only the poor quality of surface and slip, combined
with minor irregularities, cast doubt on their Ionian origin. It is
interesting to note in this context that Archaic lamps with
central tube (Stocklampen) made of rough local clay, as well as
unpublished imitations of Fikellura amphorae made of dark clay
with black slip, are found on Berezan. The second group consists
of vessels where – for whatever reason – shape or decoration do
not fit into our known picture of Ionian vases. The third group
consists of vessels which are apparently left unfinished – objects
which would not normally have been exported one might think.
In fact, a number of pieces belonging to these three groups –
though faintly resembling Ionian products – must be classed as
so peculiar that one feels forced to look for further explanations.
A handful of examples should support this statement.
For the first group we could exemplarily refer to two
fragments of simple banded stemmed dishes (Fig 14) which find
hundreds of parallels in Miletos or other Ionian cities: one (at
the top) does not show any difference in shape, clay and surface
to those found in Ionia, and recent clay analysis has in fact
shown it to be Aiolian;41 yet the other (at the bottom) not only
seems to be thicker and less carefully made, but most unusually
bears a ropy and streaky coating, perfectly visible under soft
raking light. Also the beige colour of this coating seems
Figure 17 Mixture between bowl and plate of banded ware (inv. no. B75–111)
from the 6th century bc found on Berezan
The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?
Figure 16 Ionian cup (Knickrandschale, inv. no. B86–7) of the first half of the 6th
century BC found on Berezan
somehow unfamiliar, but one encounters this specific feature on
several other vessels and fragments among the Berezan
collection. Strikingly this kind of coating is used on other pieces
in order to cover those parts of a vase which are normally left
without such treatment: a so-called Ionian cup
(Knickrandschale) of common type should be compared with a
similar vessel, both found on Berezan (Figs 15, 16). While the
first one bears no features that could attract our attention, the
other again appears to be different, mainly because of the
thickish beige layer below the rim. Furthermore a small detail is
also different: while normally cups like these are decorated on
their inside with thin bands of additionally applied red and
white colour in the sequence white-red-white, this specific
example most surprisingly shows a sequence red-beige-red.
Even though these differences are minor, it should be clear that
such peculiarities require an explanation – which is even more
true for the following examples belonging to the second group.
Among the numerous banded-ware plates or stemmed
dishes of undoubtedly Ionian character (similar to those
discussed above), one complete example stands out among the
rest (Fig. 17): a peculiar mixture of plate and bowl, it has a shape
which is, up to now, without parallels in the southern as well as
the northern part of Ionia. Again, the thickish beige coating is
remarkable, but even more puzzling is the fact that this vessel
finds identical parallels only on Berezan itself – namely in at
least four more pieces. Even though these other vessels are
preserved only in fragments, small differences in execution –
one has some kind of spout on the inner side of the rim, for
example (Fig. 18) – make it perfectly obvious that the sherds in
question belong to four different, if very similar, objects. This
fact should be a clear warning not to assign strange fragments to
one single vessel too easily, even when these fragments might be
perfectly comparable to each other.
Figure 18 Fragment (inv. no. B75–114) of a similar vessel to Fig. 17, but with
spout on the inner rim from the 6th century bc found on Berezan
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 165
Posamentir
Figure 19 Fragments of South Ionian(?) krater (inv. nos B73–6.26.34; B78–14;
B79–2) from the early(?) 6th century BC found on Berezan
Several sherds of a huge krater (Fig. 19), for example,
bearing unfamiliar features and decorations besides the already
well-known thickish beige layer, were found in different places
on the island during eight different seasons and might belong to
one or even to three or more objects – minor differences in the
colour of the red-brown painted decoration do not offer any
kind of solution to this question. At least the shape of the krater
can be reconstructed (Fig. 20); it was a huge and coarse
container with carelessly executed ornaments of doubtlessly
Ionian character. These last two types of vessels certainly do not
fit into the familiar spectrum of North or South Ionian pottery of
the Archaic period – either they represent examples of local
pottery production in the Black Sea area, or they derive from a
hitherto unknown production centre which, for whatever
reason, developed rather strange features. As I argue elsewhere,
evidence from clay analysis (including the pieces illustrated in
Figs 17–20) now suggests that the latter is in fact the more likely
option, and that this production centre might be located in the
Hellespont area.42
The third group is represented here by a huge body sherd of
a small krater in black-figure or Corinthianising style (Fig. 21)
and a small plate with floral decoration on the inside (Fig. 22).
Both share a remarkable feature: they seem to have been left
unfinished. The small krater shows a goat moving up towards
Figure 21 Fragment of North Ionian(?) krater (inv. no. B67–64) in black
figure/corinthianising style from the first half of the 6th century BC found on
Berezan
166 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 20 Profile drawing of South Ionian(?) krater Fig. 19
the left surrounded by some filling ornaments. Even though the
animal’s body bears the usual application of added red colour,
the otherwise obligatory incisions are, surprisingly, missing in
the whole depiction. What makes the situation even more
obscure are the again unusual (but in this case white) thickish
coating of the image field and the generally awkward
impression of the scene, which cannot be compared to any of the
numerous North Ionian kraters of similar size and iconography.
Normally, only deer but not goats carry dots on their belly in
North or South Ionian depictions – on Aiolian dinoi of the
London Dinos group, on the other hand, this detail is common.
Of this latter group one also feels reminded as far as the
rectangular application of the red colour on the back of the
animals is concerned, but the difference in quality is still
enormous.43 Again, a fragment like this could be an indication of
local production – but also an origin in a less well-investigated
geographic area seems conceivable.
To the same group also belong, finally, two seemingly
unfinished small plates (Fig. 22) – shape and surface are
finished carefully here, but the customary central floral element
on the inside is only laid down in its outline. Again, the fact that
more than one object displays this phenomenon leaves the
observer quite puzzled – but in this case not only the skillful
execution, but also the existence of very similar pieces from
other places, including Naukratis,44 seem to make local
manufacture rather unlikely.
In conclusion, it must be emphasized that certain indications
for a local production of painted fine-ware pottery of the Ionian
style definitely seem to be present among the ceramic material
from Berezan kept in the State Hermitage of St. Petersburg. This
does not necessarily mean that these vessels were produced on
Figure 22 Small North Ionian(?) plate (inv. no. B86–56) from the second half of
the 6th century BC (?) with unfinished central floral element; found on Berezan

Berezan itself; it could also be the case that another production
centre within the wider Black Sea area has not as yet been
located. Again, this fact represents a strong parallel to the
situation at the colony of Naukratis – but in this case a local
production has already been proven.45
More archaeometric analysis must be undertaken on the
material from Berezan in order to further verify the observations
discussed above. Even if no proof of fine-ware pottery
manufacture on Berezan or its surrounding region were to be
revealed, one would still be forced to find explanations for some
highly unusual ceramic products. Besides, as we have seen, the
overall profile of the Archaic Ionian pottery found on Berezan
also raises numerous questions that are of far-reaching
importance for other colonies as well, such as Naukratis. It is,
indeed, a similar story.
Illustration credits
All photos S. Solovyov; Fig. 20 drawing R. Docsan; diagrams by the
author.
Notes
1 Kerschner 2001, 72-7.
2 I am greatly indebted to S.L. Solovyov, curator of the Berezan
collection in the State Hermitage of St. Petersburg and former head
of excavation in Berezan, for offering me the chance to publish large
parts of the Archaic Ionian pottery from Berezan. Nevertheless this
contribution is a preliminary report on my work, while the whole
study will be printed within the framework of the Berezan
publication project. For this reason most objects discussed here are
presented in photography only – profile drawings and further
information will be given on this later occasion; special thanks are
due in this context to R. Docsan for producing thousands of profile
drawings. For a detailed presentation of the first archaeometric
analyses of the Berezan material, see also Posamentir and Solovyov
2006; Kerschner 2006; Mommsen, Kerschner and Posamentir 2006.
3 Cf. the comprehensive study of the site by Solovyov 1999, 19-27.
4 Russian archaeologists stopped working on the site in 1991 while a
Ukrainian team under the leadership of V. Nazarov continued.
Archaeologists from the State Hermitage St. Petersburg started with
a special team again in 2003, now headed by D. Chistov.
5 Excluding Fikellura, Chian or Klazomenian pottery, which are the
subject of a study by I.Y. Ilyina, material in St. Petersburg has been
divided among various scholars in order to make possible the
publication of a huge amount within a reasonable time; the first
volume of this publication project containing, for example, the Chian
pottery has already appeared in print; cf. Ilyina 2005, 70-173.
6 Solovyov 1999, 52 – but full drawing documentation of the pottery
excavated in the 1980s is at hand.
7 A complete vessel of this ware has been found on Rhodes: Jacopi
1933, 54 fig. 52; similar objects (Walter-Karydi 1973, 19-20 fig. 23 pl.
36 no. 277) derive from Samos. Several fragments have been
excavated in the Aiolian city of Larisa on Hermos: Boehlau and
Schefold 1942, pl. 39. Some small jugs from Aiolis (see Ýren 2002, 179
fig. 11) display an odd mixture with Aiolian Wild Goat style and thus
give a hint to look for a production centre within this geographical
area. This supposition has now been confirmed by clay analysis of
some of the Berezan pieces (samples Bere 105, 107, 108), which
places them in the same group as the London Dinos group; see
Kerschner this volume; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
8 Akurgal et al. 2002, 28-116, with full reference to other and earlier
attempts towards the identification of production centres in this
geographical area.
9 Kerschner 2000, 488-90.
10 For a critical review of each site once attributed to Miletos, see
Ehrhardt 1983, 49-97; Tsetskhladze (1998, 36) goes one step further
by considering the occasional participation of other Ionian centres.
11 Pottery decorated in Fikellura style is not included in this statistical
analysis – but nor is pottery of Chian and Klazomenian origin; the
two amounts almost neutralize each other. More interesting is the
Aiolian share of the whole complex, which is surprisingly high, even
The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?
though only present in very specific products.
12 Kerschner 2000, 487; see also Tsetskhladze 1998, 51.
13 Ersoy 2000, 403-5.
14 This surprising but important fact has already been underlined by
Ersoy 2000, 406.
15 Correctly described as a process of transition by Schlotzhauer (1999,
119-22; forthcoming b). Earlier contributions by Cook (1998, 63-6;
1999, 79-93) were focused on similar fragments but of Carian origin.
16 Özer 2004, 200-1; see also Ersoy 1993, 234-349; 2000, 403. The
progressive parts of these transitional – or even bilingual – fragments
or vessels show strongly corinthianising features and are still quite
different from depictions of the developed Klazomenian black-figure
pottery. Compare e.g. the vessels from Syracuse, Samos, Cyprus and
Rhodes with several fragments from Naukratis and the huge
amphora found on Berezan: Walter-Karydi 1973, pls 108, 109, 112, 115,
116, 119, nos 902, 907, 918, 941, 952, 975.
17 A new classification system of Archaic Ionian Pottery has just been
presented by Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 1-56.
18 Tsetskhladze 1998, 51.
19 Solovyov 1999, 42-52.
20 Euseb., Chron. 95b Helm.
21 Kopeikina 1973, 241-3 figs 1-3.
22 Boardman 1998a, 201-2; Solovyov 1999, 29.
23 Schlotzhauer 2000; 2001; forthcoming b; Käufler 1999, 203-12;
Ketterer 1999, 213-21; Posamentir 2002, 9-26; Villing 1999, 189-202.
24 Ersoy 1993, 291-419; 2000, 399-406; 2004, 51-66; Özer 2004, 199-219;
Hürmüzlü 2004a, 82-7.
25 Compare Tsetskhladze 1998, 53.
26 Kopylov and Larinok 1994, 69.
27 Schlotzhauer 2000, 407-16; 2001.
28 See n. 22 – it is to my mind still hard to date these fragments
accurately because of the lack of parallels – but certain details such
as the applied red colour are certainly no indications for an early date
of the cup.
29 Vakhtina 1996, 85-92; forthcoming.
30 Cook and 1998, 36 fig. 8.5. For a compilation of early Greek pottery in
the Black Sea Area see Tsetskhladze 1998, 10-15.
31 The material at hand still proves the exceptional position of the
settlement of Berezan; for outstanding but isolated fragments from
Olbia see cf. Ilyina 2004, 76.
32 The author has been working extensively with Archaic Ionian
pottery in Miletos, Ephesos and Samos. Frequent trips to many other
important sites such as Klazomenai have enabled him to observe the
differences as they are set out here.
33 The Milesian examples are not published yet, but the same type is
also very common on Samos: see Eilmann 1933, 57-9.
34 Compare Kopeikina 1982, 10-30.
35 Extensively discussed by Kerschner, this volume. See also Kerschner
2001, 87-92; Ýren 2002, 165-207. For the clay analysis of the pieces
from Berezan, see Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
36 See Cook and Dupont (1998, 66-7, 90-1) for imitations found in
Histria and Olbia. Cook already suggested that the imitations found
in Histria might have been imports from the bigger place Olbia.
37 Shortly before his tragic death, V. Nazarov claimed to have found
wasters of a pottery kiln in a rubbish pit. In fact, one can find a
misfired table amphora of North Ionian style in the museum of
Ochakiv, inv. no. Ab-021213. For a compilation of pottery kilns found
in the Black Sea Area, see Tsetskhladze 1998, 42-3.
38 This question has already been most carefully raised by Tsetskhladze
1998, 13.
39 Solovyov 1999, 42-7, and comprehensively now Senatorov 2005, 174-
349.
40 Production of metalwork seems to find proof in several moulds
found on the island; cf. Treister 1998, 182-8. Additionally it has to be
said that the possible lack of suitable clay on Berezan directly is
definitely no conclusive argument against local pottery production.
41 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, sample no. Bere 138; Kerschner this
volume.
42 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
43 Compare, for example, with Solovyov 1999, 61 fig. 45.
44 Naukratis: Cambridge, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
NA 5; Tocra: Boardman and Hayes 1966, 50 no. 627 pl. 34.
45 Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005, 92-3; Mommsen et al. this volume;
Schlotzhauer and Villing this volume.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 167
Some Ceramic Inscriptions from Istrian Sanctuaries:
The Naukratis Approach
Iulian Bîrzescu
Abstract
Some inscriptions on pottery from the ‘Sacred Area’ in Istros are
discussed in the wider context of similar discoveries from Ionian
sanctuaries, especially in Naukratis. Although a great number of
divinities are attested in this part of the city, the majority of the
dedications do not form homogeneous groups. The Archaic
inscriptions are written in the Ionian alphabet, albeit without a
clear indication of the dedicators’ origins. In this context a ceramic
inscription from the Archaic settlement is also considered which
preserves the name of a certain Rhomis.
The subject of this paper has presented itself as a result of the
recent discoveries of a number of ceramic inscriptions in the
Istrian sanctuaries (Figs 1-2). A catalogue of those unearthed
until 1990 was published recently in a volume dedicated to the
excavations of the ‘sacred area’.1 The small number of graffiti and
dipinti discovered until now should be emphasized, about 35,
among which 15 date from the Archaic period, less than 1% of the
Naukratis total.2 In Istros it is, moreover, often difficult to relate
the votive dedications to temples or other sacred monuments.
Figure 1 The ‘sacred area’ of Istros
Figure 2 The ‘sacred area’ of Istros (2004)
The votive inscriptions presented here are arranged mainly
by deity. Among the 12 epigraphically known gods from the
sacred area, 7 of them are known from the graffiti. What
distinguishes the ceramic inscriptions from Istros is first of all
the lack of compact groups of dedications. Apart from the simple
dedications to Zeus, there are various other inscriptions that can
be understood only in the broader context of discoveries from
the Istrian or other Ionian sanctuaries and places.
Zeus and Apollo
The first group relates to the family of Leto. Beginning with the
3
Classical period there are five or six dedications to Zeus. Each of
them bears the same simple Ionian inscription in the dative, Di/.
Only one fragment on a West-Slope kantharos raises some
questions concerning its restoration. All appear on black-glazed
vases, four of them from the 5th century bc (Fig. 3), one on a
Campanian black-glazed bowl from the second half of the 2nd
century bc (Figs 4–5). The use of the same formula for such a
4
long time is remarkable. Probably the Istrian graffiti are to be
connected with the cult of Zeus Soter, widespread in Milesian
colonies.5
Among the recent discoveries is also a well-preserved
dedication to Apollo.6 The inscription,7 in the Ionic alphabet, was
Figure 3 Dedication to Zeus on an
Attic black-glazed cup, third quarter of
the 5th century BC
Figures 4-5 Dedication to Zeus on a
Campanian black-glazed bowl, second
half of the 2nd century BC
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 169
Bîrzescu

Figure 6 Limestone base with Figure 7 Limestone base with Figure 8 Limestone base with dedication to Orpheus (?) and marble slab with
dedication to Boreus, Hellenistic dedication to Orpheus (?), Hellenistic dedication to Apollo Pholeuterios
period period

incised on the rim of an Attic eye-cup: (Fig. 8), according to Jurij Vinogradov a boundary stone.15 This
)A[po]llwni/dhj m’ a)ne/qhken tw)po/llwni du/o e[?---] latter stone was also discovered in the ‘sacred area’ and dates
‘Apollonides has dedicated me to Apollo, as two …’ from the 3rd century bc. Another similar stone, this time with a
Both the name of the dedicator and the name of the god dedication to Phorkys, preserved only in fragments, was
represent the earliest epigraphic evidence of the Apollo cult in discovered in 1949, on the south-eastern part of the acropolis
Istros. Furthermore, the inscription documents the worship of (Fig. 9).16 I would suspect that this slab was aligned in the same
the god in the sacred area. The occurrence of the god without way as the bases discussed above.
epiclesis is rather an exception for this time in the Pontic colonies, The inscriptions on these bases for Orpheus and Boreus
but almost the rule in the sanctuaries of Apollo in Didyma and suggest that we can presume for Istros a situation similar to that
Naukratis. Several hundreds of Archaic sherds from Apollo’s in Olbia. Without wanting to insist here too much on the Orphic
sanctuary of the Milesians in Naukratis bear votive inscriptions to issue, I must, however, stress the relationship between Boreas
Apollo. Among these there are some examples that preserve the and Orpheus, as it is portrayed by ancient authors. Homer in the
same formula as our graffito. Despite the lack of an epiclesis, the Odyssey (13.109-112) describes the cave of the Nymphs, situated in
dedication from Istros was perhaps made to Milesian Apollo, the Ithaka near the harbour of Phorkys. It is said that this cave had
god worshipped in Naukratis and Didyma. two entrances, a northern one, through which mortals would
This is not the only inscription from the ‘sacred area’ related enter, and a southern one for the immortals. The cave myth,
to Apollo, who probably had his main sanctuary here.8 In the discussed at length by Porphyry, conveys the ancient belief in the
1970s a number of bases were uncovered, bearing inscriptions transmigration of the souls, a common belief among the Orphics.
dated to the 3rd century bc. These were aligned on a via sacra As Aristotle (De anima 1.5) relates, the Orphics used to ascribe to
oriented north-south.9 The inscription carved on the first base the winds an important role in the metempsychosis process: ‘the
was restored by Pippidi as a dedication of the Boreis tribe,
Borew/n (Fig. 6).10 But since there is no place on the stone for the
letter ny, the inscription should rather be restored as Bore/w, an
Ionic genitive dedication for Apollo Boreus. Such an epithet is
attested five times in the Archaic and Classical period in Olbia.11
Furthermore, a 5th-century bc Olbian graffito provides evidence
for the existence of an association of worshippers honouring
Apollo Boreus, boreikoi thiasitai.12 As L. Dubois had already
noticed, these were most probably related in some way to Orphic
beliefs.13
The second limestone base, preserved only in fragments, was
recently published in the above-mentioned volume concerning
the excavations from the ‘sacred area’ (Fig. 7).14 On it the end of
an inscription can be seen, – few (omega with iota subscriptum).
At the beginning of this line, due to the limited space, not more
than two or three letters could have been carved. In this case a
suitable restoration would be 0Orfe/w. The slab that fits perfectly
into this base is a marble stele dedication to Apollon Pholeuterios Figure 9 Marble slab with dedication to Phorkys, Hellenistic period

170 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

 Some Ceramic Inscriptions from Istrian Sanctuaries: The Naukratis Approach
Figures 10–11 Fikellura eye-mug with dedication to Dionysos, second half of the
6th century BC
souls enter from the Universe into their body when they are
breathing, brought by the winds’. In this interpretation of the
myth of the cave of the Nymphs, Boreas is the wind that brings
life.
Dionysos
At the end of the archaeological campaign of 2004, fragments
from the rim of a Fikellura trefoil mug17 (Fig. 10) came to light in
the eastern part of the so called ‘great hollow’, in an Archaic
layer directly on the base-rock. There is no difficulty in reading
the five letters – onusw – on the inside surface of the rim. They
belong to a dedication to Dionysos: [--- Di]onu/sw [---]
(Fig. 11). The archaeological context, the ceramic typology and
the letter-forms date the object into the second half of the 6th
century bc. The four-stroked sigma and omega are indicative of
the Ionic alphabet. The V-shaped ypsilon is common in the 6th
century bc.
Noteworthy is, of course, the deity to whom the dedication
was offered. Until this find was made, the worship of Dionysos in
Istros had been attested only from the Hellenistic period
onwards, through theophoric names, illustration on coins and
especially the reference to the Dionysia in a decree from the 2nd
century bc.18 In the north-western colonies of the Black Sea, the
cult of Dionysos is well-attested from earliest times onwards.19 At
Olbia it is attested indirectly, by the Orphic tablets.20
Hera
The vase, probably an East Greek cup, is only partially preserved,
namely the lower part, yet the inscription written on the foot is
complete (Figs 12–13). It is a votive inscription to Hera in the Ionic
dialect, (/Hrhj. The archaeological context gives us as a terminus
ante quem of 530 bc. The closest comparisons are a dedication
discovered between the sanctuaries of Apollo and that of the
Figures 12–13 North Ionian cup with dedication to Hera, third quarter of the 6th
century BC
Dioskuroi in Naukratis, published for the first time by Ernest
Gardner,21 and some dedications from Gravisca.22 This Istrian
graffito is the first attestation of Hera’s worship in a Milesian
colony of the Archaic period; although in Miletus itself, her cult
had been known for some time.23 Hera’s cult could have been
brought to Istros by the Samians, as in the case of Naukratis,
where a great number of ceramic inscriptions has come to light in
her sanctuary.24
Aphrodite
A roof-tile from the first half of 6th century bc, carrying a votive
inscription to Aphrodite, has been meticulously published by K.
Zimmermann.25 Its inscription, written in boustrophedon, has
been discussed many times. The only difficulties in restoring the
inscription are some letters from the end of the first and the
beginning of the second line. In his study, Zimmermann repeats
numerous reconstruction possibilities, using the few
recognizable letters, EX...L?E... . One of the variants proposed by
A.W. Johnston for the name of the dedicator was a rare Ionian
name, Echeleon,26 which seems to me very likely. Zimmermann
also admitted the possibility of a name with this patronymic.27
The reconstruction can now be supported by the reading of some
letters discernible on the second line, which probably were the
end of the patronymic name in the genitive case, – wnoj (Fig.
14). It is almost certain that the second line contains no ethnikon.
)Afrodi/thi a)ne/qhken )Exe?l?e/[wn] | [---]wno?j? a)/pargma.
Figure 14 Dedication on a roof-tile to Aphrodite, first half of the 6th century BC
(drawn after Pippidi 1983, 247, cat. 101)
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 171
Bîrzescu
Figures 15–16 Dedication to Hermes on an Attic band-cup, second half of the
6th century BC
Hermes
From the same archaeological context that contained the graffito
for Apollo, and in the same year, 2003, a sherd was discovered
with a dedication to Hermes (Figs 15–16): [---]hmeq[---|-
--]hj : (Erm[h=i ---]. Although the inscription is not well
preserved, there are no difficulties in restoring the name of the
deity. From the name of the worshipper only the two final letters
survive, -hj, and from the name of the deity the first three. The
separation between the two names has an accurate
punctuation.28 The relationship between Hermes and Aphrodite
is well-known from Olbia, where these two gods were
worshipped together.29
Phorkys
The first graffito unearthed from the ‘sacred area’ is also one of
the earliest Istrian inscription: [--- a)ne/qhk]e?n tw= Fo/r[kui --
-] (Fig. 17). Phorkys does not appear often in the literary
sources, but his epithets seem favourable. The old god of the sea,
as Homer called him (Odyssey 1.72), had a harbour named after
him on Ithaka (Odyssey 13.96). In Greek art he is represented
extremely rarely.30 Thought to be a pre-Greek deity, Phorkys was
not treated as a ‘true’ god.31 Istros is the only place for which we
can presume the existence of his cult. To the inscription from the
‘sacred area’ another two documents from the Hellenistic period
can be added: a graffito on a roof-tile and the marble slab
discussed above (Fig. 9).32
Figure 17 Dedication on a North Ionian krater (?) to Phorkys, first half of the 6th
century BC
172 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Figure 18 Dedication of a Smyrnean on an East Greek krater, 2nd century BC
Dedicators
One of the important features of the Naukratian graffiti is the
appearance of ethnika on some sherds. These are also to be found
in the Istrian sanctuaries, but only in the Hellenistic period. In the
3rd century bc a Thasian who erected the temple of Theos
Megas33 and a Smyrnaean (Fig. 18) appear in ceramic inscription
discovered in the ‘great hollow’ four years ago.34
The few names that appear on the sherds from Istros are of
Greek origin. Only four or five names date to the Archaic period,
all masculine. As in Naukratis, one might tentatively suppose that
the colonists brought with them women from different
Mediterranean regions.35 The largest part of the visitors at this
time came from Ionia. One of them engraved his name on a
Milesian ‘Knickrandschale’:36 (Rw=mij. This cup (Figs 19–21) was
discovered in the Archaic settlement, in area Z2.37 The name was
presumed to have an Etruscan-Italic origin.38 But the reading of
the sculptor’s name in an inscription on the monument of
Theugenes the Potidean from Delphi made Alan Johnston
presume that the name Rhomis was common in other regions as
well in the Archaic period.39
Although different in quantity, the Archaic graffiti from Istros
share several characteristic with many inscribed sherds of
Naukratis, such as the related dedication formulae, the shape of
the letters, the types of the vases – primarily of East Greek origin –
and in part the same worshipped gods. Even if at this moment it is
still too early to draw any conclusions regarding the origin of the
dedicators in Istros, the lack of ethnika could indicate a single
provenance, namely Miletos.
Figures 19–21 Graffito with the name of Rhomis on cup with everted rim
 Some Ceramic Inscriptions from Istrian Sanctuaries: The Naukratis Approach

List of deities from the ‘sacred area’ at Istros

Deities Epiclesis Object Observations Date

Zeus Six graffiti: four on stemless cup, delicate Probably with the Four are dated to the 3rd
class, rim offset inside, and two epiclesis Soter quarter of the 5th c. BC, two
on Hellenistic black glaze pottery from the Hellenistic period
Zeus Polieus Decree Had an altar in the 3rd c. BC
‘sacred area’
Leto Dedication 4th c. BC
Artemis Pythie Dedication Priestess 4th c. BC
Apollo Dedication on an Attic eye-cup 3rd quarter 6th c. BC
Apollo Boreus Limestone base 3rd c. BC
Apollo Pholeuterios Stele 3rd c. BC
Dionysos Fikellura trefoil mug On the inside rim 2nd half 6th c. BC
Orpheus(?) Limestone base The ‘Apollo Pholeuterios’ 3rd c. BC
stele probably fits into
the Orpheus base
Phorkys Graffito on an East Greek krater (?) 1st half 6th c. BC
Hera Graffito on an East Greek high-foot cup 3rd quarter 6th c. BC
Aphrodite Dedication on a ‘Sattelkalypter’ 1st half 6th c. BC
Aphrodite Dedication on a basalt perirrhanterion 2nd half 6th c. BC
Aphrodite Dedication 3rd c. BC
Hermes Dedication on an Attic cup 2nd half 6th c. BC
Theos Megas Dedication on a temple architrave Erected by a Thasian 3rd c. BC
Moirai Dedication on a votive relief 3rd c. BC
Kybele Statue Hellenistic?
Apollo Ietros Dedication on a marble architrave Not discovered in the ‘sacred End of the 5th c. BC
area’ but connected with the
propylon (monument C)

Illustration credits the 5th century bc, Dinu/so.

Fig. 1 after Alexandrescu 2005; all other photographs and drawings are 20 Rusiaeva 1978, 85-104.
by the author. 21 Gardner 1886, 62, cat. 689; Bernand 1970, 673, cat. 318. Other
dedications to Hera in Naukratis, Gardner 1888, 67, cat. 841-8.
22 Johnston and Pandolfini 2000, 17-9, cat. 4-46.
Notes 23 Kawerau and Rehm 1914, 162-3, cat. 31a.
1 Alexandrescu 2005. 24 The Samian provenance of Hera mugs from Naukratis is now
2 The figure of over 1,500 ceramic inscriptions at Naukratis mentioned confirmed by chemical analyses: Schlotzhauer 2006, 308-14, figs 12-
by Möller 2000a, 166, has been nearly doubled through the recent 4; Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.
cataloguing of all the inscribed material in the British Museum by 25 SEG XXXIII 582; Zimmermann 2000, 239-51, with literature;
Alan Johnston; the great majority of these inscriptions date to the Alexandrescu 2005, 69, 418 and 476. The beginning of the name of
Archaic period. the dedicator is wrongly reconstructed in the last publication: the
3 The only missing member of the family, Artemis Pythie, is now second letter is clearly a chi and not a xi.
attested on a marble inscription, a dedication of an ex-priestess of 26 SEG XXII 514; Fraser and Matthews 1987, 192.
the goddess honouring Leto: Avram et al. (forthcoming). 27 Zimmermann 2000, 251.
4 Information from Dr. Vasilica Lungu. 28 The same punctuation in Olbia, Dubois 1996, 126, cat. 126,
5 Ehrhardt 1988, 156. )Igdampaihj : (Ermh=i.
6 Another theophoric name, Ietrodoros, appears in Istros in the third 29 Rusiaeva 1992, 87, fig. 24.7.
quarter of the 6th century bc, Johnston 1996, 99-101. 30 LIMC VII.1 (1994), 398. Dipinto on a Corinthian vase in the Museum
7 Zimmermann and Bîrzescu (forthcoming). of Kavalla, Wachter 2001, 103-4, cat. 106a (Porkos).
8 Alexandrescu 2005, 62 and esp. 83-4. 31 See for example Heubeck and Hoeckstra 1989, 169-70.
9 Zimmermann 1981, 463. Alexandrescu 2005, pl. 2.2. 32 Alexandrescu 2005, 418-20.
10 Pippidi 1983, cat. 97. 33 Alexandrescu 2001, 95.
11 Vinogradov and Rusiaeva, 2001, 134-40. 34 Alexandrescu 2005, 422.
12 Rusiaeva 1992, 18, fig. 4.1. 35 See also Oppermann 2004, 7. Until now only Metriche had been
13 Dubois 1996, 156. known in Istros, on a jug from the middle of the 6th century bc,
14 Alexandrescu 2005, 126. Jeffery 1990, 479.
15 Vinogradov 2000, 139. 36 For the shape, see Schlotzhauer 2000, 410 (type 9).
16 Pippidi 1983, 250-1. 37 Museum of Histria, Inv. no. V 26031.
17 For the shape, see Schlotzhauer 1999 234-6 figs 21-3. 38 Dubois 1989, 50, cat. 36 (Selinunt) and 120, cat. 114 (Camarina). The
18 Pippidi 1983, 173, cat. 64. latter appears also at Arena 1992, 56, cat. 123; Fraser and Matthews
19 Herodotus 4.79, initiation of Skyles in Dionysos’ cult. For the cult in 1997, 386.
Olbia, Rusiaeva 1992, 96-9; Berezan, Tolstoýv, 1953, 55-6, graffito from 39 Johnston 1980, 95-7.

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 173

Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrene’s
Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter
Gerald Schaus
Abstract
It is well known that Cyrene was settled first by Greek islanders,
with some later settlers from East Greece and the Mainland. Pottery
and other finds from the extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and
Persephone at Cyrene, help support historical sources about the
settlers’ origins. Some evidence, however, especially from pottery,
suggests links between Cyrene and Naukratis, whose Greek
population largely came from East Greece.*
The story in Herodotus (4.152) of Kolaios, the ship captain from
Samos, who, in c. 639 bc, landed on Plataia, an island off the
coast of Libya, is well known.1 His destination was Egypt, but his
ship was blown off course, presumably having intended to sail
directly to Egypt from the Aegean. Clearly the direct route south
to Africa from the Aegean was not unusual.2 Korobios, the
Cretan purple fisher or trader who guided the Theran colonists
to the same island of Plataia, surely sailed this way after he
learned about it from his own misadventure with contrary winds
(Hdt. 4.151), and thereafter it must have been a common route
for Greeks to sail between the Aegean and the coast of
Cyrenaica.
Though undoubtedly founded by colonists from the small
island of Thera, literary evidence supports a mix of settlers at
Cyrene by about 500 bc.
1) Therans were the original colonists (Hdt. 4.150–58), with a
Cretan guide to Plataia. Later suggestions that Laconians had a
hand somehow in early efforts, including mention of the
Spartan three-time Olympic victor, Chionis, in the original
expedition, cannot be trusted by themselves.3 Samian help at the
earliest stage is remembered, but nothing confirms the presence
of Samian settlers till later.
2) Herodotus (4.159) says that the population of Cyrene stayed
the same during the reigns of the first two kings, but we know
from archaeology that other settlements were founded along the
coast during this time (Apollonia, Taucheira, ‘Ptolemais,
Euhesperides), so there must have been an influx of Greeks.4
Did all come from Thera? This is not likely, given the size of the
island.5 The Lindian Chronicle (17) mentions early settlers at
Cyrene from Rhodes, for example,6 and it is possible that
Laconians (Isokrates, Philip. 5) took an early interest.7 Common
sense and a little archaeological material also suggest at least
some settlers from Crete and the Cyclades.8
3) After a major second wave of settlers was encouraged by
Battos II, c. 580 bc, causing serious conflicts with the native
Libyans (Hdt. 4.159), we learn of a mid-6th century bc
constitutional change by an arbitrator from Mantinea
(Demonax) which divided the citizens into three tribes:
a) Therans and Perioikoi (the latter are problematic. They
clearly have some status to be joined with the Therans in this
tribe. One suggestion is that they were native Libyans [Hdt.
4.159 – ïß ðåñßïéêïé Ëßâõåò] who revolted and won the battle
of Leucon, killing 7,000 [!] Cyreneans, says Herodotus
[4.160]. Another possibility is that they were from districts
on the island of Thera outside Thera town itself);9
b) Cretans and Peloponnesians (the latter again are
problematic, but for lack of any literary evidence or clear
archaeological evidence for Peloponnesians other than
Lacedaemonians, surely the south Peloponnese was best
represented, and rather than Spartiates sailing to Libya, it
may be that members of the Perioikoi of Laconia are as likely
candidates as any);10
c) Islanders (Rhodians and Samians have the best claim, but
others from the Cyclades or Cythera seem likely).
Quite separate from Demonax’s division of Cyrene’s citizens
are the Samian-led mercenaries who won back the throne for
Arkesilas III, probably in the third quarter of the 6th century bc,
in return for a promise of land (Hdt. 4.162–4). These men may
have come from Samos and elsewhere, including a wide region
of Asia Minor opposite the island.
Before examining East Greek wares excavated in the
Demeter Sanctuary at Cyrene, which provide the best evidence
for influence from Greek commercial activity in the direction of
Naukratis, it is worth considering other fabrics found during the
University of Pennsylvania excavations in the 1970s.11 It should
be emphasized that almost all the Archaic material is scrappy.
Besides 300 published fragments of Athenian12 and 400 of
Corinthian wares,13 there were about 550 pieces of other
imported fine wares published from the Sanctuary, divided into
nine fabric categories. Although Cyrene was settled by c. 631 bc,
the Demeter Sanctuary contains very little material from the 7th
century bc. For example, of 5,000 pieces of Corinthian pottery,
Kocybala was only able to identify six which could be ascribed
with any confidence to Early Corinthian.14 Three Island gems, an
amulet seal, two ivory objects, seven engraved tridacna shells
and some terracotta figurines have also been dated to the 7th
century bc.15 No Athenian, East Greek, Laconian or other fabric
need be earlier than c. 600 bc. So this has become the accepted
starting date for the Sanctuary.
Of first interest then is the little bit of Theran, Cycladic and
Cretan pottery which is so rarely found outside the Aegean.16 It is
particularly clear in demonstrating an on-going link between the
colonists and their south Aegean homeland for several
generations after the initial settlement. What is notably absent is
any of the so-called ‘Melian’, ‘Siphnian’ and ‘Parian’ pottery
which occurred in the contemporary Demeter Sanctuary at
Tocra, ancient Taucheira, 125km west of Cyrene.17 Over 50
examples of these wares appeared at Tocra. The difference, I
suggested elsewhere, might be due to the arrival at Taucheira of
a group of colonists from other islands in the Cyclades than went
to Cyrene.18 These vases are also not commonly traded, except to
Thasos, a colony of Paros.19 No pottery of these types has been
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 175
Schaus

reported from Naukratis. It is interesting to compare these finds with Naukratis, which
Laconian pottery has more of a story to tell. In the Cyrene Marjorie Venit has done in publishing the Laconian from Egypt.24
Demeter Sanctuary, 223 vases of this fabric were published from About 50 pieces are known, all are from Naukratis where
a wide range of shapes, and dating from the early to the late 6th provenience is recorded. Of these, there are only two shapes
century bc.20 No Laconian vase painter is represented in represented in numbers, kraters and black-figure cups. Of the 34
significant numbers, although the workshops of the Hunt black-figure cups, about 27 can be attributed to painters, and of
Painter, the Naukratis Painter, and the Rider Painter are best these, a remarkable 18 are by the Boreads Painter, and where
represented with 16, 13 and 8 pieces respectively.21 Regarding the datable, belong to the brief period c. 570–565 bc. The possibility
range of shapes, there is a remarkable variety, greater than that they arrived in a single shipment has been considered.25 The
almost anywhere else, especially for the black-painted vases. only other place where the Boreads Painter is represented in
The following table lists the most common types, with a such impressive numbers is at Samos, where so much Laconian
comparable count of the same shapes among Tocra’s 110 has been found. Venit suggested that there is no reason to
published Laconian vases. believe that the Laconian pottery found at Naukratis came by
way of Cyrene since the assemblages are so different, but instead
Counts of Laconian vases by shape came via Samos or at least in Samian ships.26
Shapes Cyrene (% of 223) Tocra (% of 110) Maria Pipili has disconnected the Naukratis Painter’s name
Cups 94 42% 20 18%
vase, found at Naukratis, from any link with Cyrene, identifying
Kraters 40 18 5 4.5
Lakainai 23 10 5 4.5 the goddess on this vase as Orthia (Artemis) holding two
Dishes 12 5.5 3 3 stylized boughs, not a silphium branch, the remarkable
Aryballoi 11 5 6 5.5 medicinal plant of Cyrenaica.27 Two fragments on Samos
Chalices 4 2 0 0
probably have the same subject. Also the only known vase with a
Hydriai 4 2 0 0
Oinochoai 3 1.5 7 6.3 dipinto by the Naukratis Painter was found at Cyrene, in a script
Flat-based bowls 3 1.5 27 25.022 which could be Cyrenean.28 It has properly been pointed out to
Jugs and juglets 2 1 11 10 me, however, that it may just as likely, if not more likely, be in
the Corinthian script.29 If so, this would reduce the Egypt–
Many rare or unique shapes also occur in the two assemblages, Cyrene–Laconia connection to one vase, the name vase of the
including a beaker, kothon, skyphos, stamnos, lekythos, pyxis Arkesilas Painter (Fig. 1) who has clearly imitated an Egyptian
and a double vase. The difference in the numbers of each shape theme of Osiris overseeing the weighing of the heart (soul) of
between the two sites is quite striking and hard to account for, the dead (Figs 2–3), but has substituted a named figure,
especially because both are Demeter sanctuaries. Only the generally accepted as King Arkesilas II of Cyrene, who here
workshops of the Naukratis Painter (10 vases) and the Rider supervises the weighing of a bulky white material, likely wool or
Painter (4 vases) are at all well represented at Tocra.23 Despite silphium, both of which were important exports of the city.30
the differences, the percentage of Laconian compared to the Unusual features in the Laconian vase painting include the
total Archaic pottery from both sites is similar, and they both pointed hat worn by Arkesilas II, and the sceptre in his hand.
have a full range of shapes and decorative types. These seem to imitate the figure of Osiris, with tall pointed

Figure 1 Paris, Cab. des Méd. 189.

Arkesilas Cup tondo

176 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

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

Figure 2 The ‘weighing of the heart’ from the Book of the Dead of Hunefer, c. 1275 bc (British Museum EA 9901/3)

Figure 3 Detail from the ‘weighing of the heart’ with a monkey sitting on the scales from the Book of the Dead of Any, c. 1275 bc (British Museum EA 10470/3)

crown and sceptre on the Egyptian paintings. The workers
around the scale pans as well as the writing over their heads also
find similarities in the Osiris scenes, as do the birds, especially
the flying stork, which recalls the composite, falcon-like winged
eye of Horus in the Egyptian scene.31 The canopy over the group
with Osiris is paralleled by the sail over the head of Arkesilas.
The lizard crawling beside Arkesilas may be a symbol of
foreboding or omen of ill-fortune, as Hurwit recently
suggested.32 The most striking feature which has convinced
scholars of the imitation of an Egyptian Osiris scene is the figure
of the monkey on top of the balance beam, a common feature in
Egyptian scenes of Osiris weighing the heart of the dead (Fig. 3).
The monkey represents Astes, the associate of Thoth, and
watches over the correct and just procedure of weighing.
The artist could have seen an Egyptian painting of the god
Osiris as his model, without travelling to Egypt himself, but one
must ask what made him depict an historical figure like the king
of Cyrene, especially since historical figures of any kind are so
rare as subjects in vase painting?33 Is this a joke, or political
cartoon at the expense of a king nicknamed, ü ÷áëåðüò (the
Harsh) (Plut. Mor. 260E) – in contrast to his father, Battos the
Fortunate?
Osiris has a very serious task in his weighing duties, but why
should the king of Cyrene be depicted supervising the weighing
and storage of a mass of material, presumably of some
importance? One possibility is that the vase painter is here
alluding to the close relationship between Arkesilas II and the
Egyptian pharaoh, Amasis.34 According to Herodotus (2.161;

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 177

Schaus
4.159) a Cyrenean army badly defeated an Egyptian one sent by
Pharaoh Apries at Irasa in Cyrenaica (570 bc) just a few years
before Arkesilas became king. This Egyptian army was not
apparently supported by Apries’ Greek mercenaries and it was
unused to fighting Greeks. The defeat led to the rebellion of the
Egyptians against Apries whose Carian and Ionian mercenaries
acquitted themselves well but were not enough to save Apries.35
Thereafter, Herodotus (2.181) says that Amasis concluded a
treaty of friendship and alliance with Cyrene by which the two
countries became close friends and allies, and he even married a
woman named Ladike, who was either the daughter of the
Cyrenean king (Battos or Arkesilas, accounts differ, notes
Herodotus 2.181) or of a leading citizen of Cyrene, named
Kritoboulos. Herodotus admits he does not know whether
Amasis did it as a goodwill gesture or he just wanted to marry a
Greek woman, but we now know that Herodotus, in fact,
conflated events, that there were as many as three battles to
settle the issue between Amasis and Apries, and that in the third,
in 567 bc, Amasis was supported by soldiers from Cyrene in
defeating Apries.36 It seems likely that Amasis’ marriage to
Ladike of Cyrene occurred at this time for political purposes,
cementing the alliance that Amasis made with the Greeks
beyond his western border.
It is just before he mentions the pact and the marriage that
Herodotus discusses the favour with which Amasis treated the
Greeks in Egypt, granting them various privileges, and in
particular, establishing Naukratis as their commercial center,
along with land for temples and altars. It is now recognized
though that in the climate of anti-Greek feeling leading to the
overthrow of Apries, and with a need to tighten the
administration of foreigners in Egypt, Amasis intended to
restrict all Greek commercial activities to a single location and to
force Greeks in the country to be governed by him through their
representatives, the ðñïóôÜôáé of Naukratis.37 The result of these
restrictive measures, however, was that Naukratis enjoyed a
period of considerable prosperity remembered by Herodotus a
hundred years later, coinciding with the prosperity that Amasis’
long rule brought the country as a whole (Hdt. 2.177–9).
With an alliance and friendship established between Cyrene
and Amasis’ Egypt by 567 bc, and the port of Naukratis
designated as the sole place for Greeks to do business in Egypt,
one would expect that a close relationship between Cyrene and
Naukratis was established. Herodotus (2.182) goes on to list the
benefits that Cyrene received from Ladike and Amasis, including
statues, one of Athena and the other perhaps of Aphrodite, and a
painting of Amasis himself. It may be presumptuous to suggest
that these gifts left Egypt on board ships that had docked at
Naukratis, but surely there were many other items that made
their way to Cyrenaica from this port.
As a further sign of the alliance with Amasis, Arkesilas II was
apparently supported during his reign by Egyptian soldiers, as
Stibbe argued based on Plutarch (Mor. 261C).38 The reign was
short (c. 566–560 bc), during which Arkesilas fought with his
brothers, and was assassinated either by Learchos, one of his
brothers, (Hdt. 4.160) or a friend named Laarchos (Plut. Mor.
260E). Arkesilas’ wife, Eryxo, says Herodotus, took revenge by
killing Learchos.
We return then to the vase by the Arkesilas Painter which
seems also to reflect the close ties between Egypt and Cyrene at
this time. It is certainly puzzling that he may have included
178 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Eryxo’s name (here OPYXO retrograde), yet left her out of the
scene,39 and this is all the more strange if the vase painter is
copying from a panel painting as some have suggested.
Although speculative, the artist might, for example, be
making a pointed comment about an unpopular king who was
being propped up on his throne by troops from Egypt. In any
case, the painter was apparently aware of events in a distant
Greek polis in Africa, and was interested enough to comment on
them through his well-labelled vase. In the end though, the vase
found its last use as grave furniture in an Etruscan tomb.
Before discussing the East Greek fabrics from Cyrene’s
extramural Demeter Sanctuary, one should note that certain
Egyptian and Egyptianizing objects have been found both at
Cyrene and Tocra. These include faience and alabaster vases,
carnelian beads, seals, bronze figurines, as well as ostrich eggs
and decorated tridacna shells.40 Some of these objects, however,
might have been produced by Phoenicians, not Egyptians, and
so are not necessarily confirmation of the ties with Egypt. On the
other hand, one direct link between Cyrene and Naukratis has
been argued by Steven Lowenstam in publishing the seals from
Cyrene’s Sanctuary of Demeter. 18 of the 44 glyptic objects (or
41%) are Egyptianizing, and he believes that they all came from
Naukratis itself where there was a workshop making scarabs of
closely similar types. The alabaster alabastra from Cyrene and
Tocra and a faience head scarab from Tocra have also been
linked to Naukratis.41 In the other direction, the only certain
objects from Cyrene found in Egypt are silver coins found in fair
numbers in hoards.42
We arrive at the East Greek fabrics from the Demeter
Sanctuary, and it is these which can be explained best by
referring to Naukratis. The great majority of the Late Wild Goat
pottery at Cyrene, including floral and banded wares, must have
come from the North Ionian region.43 Add to this the large group
of Chian vessels, and the black-figure vases related to
Klazomenian and one can see that the representation of pottery
from the area is substantial. Yet none of Cyrene’s known settlers
came from North Ionia. At Naukratis, on the other hand,
Herodotus (2.178) says that the largest, most famous and most
frequently attended sanctuary, the Hellenion, was built by
Greeks from nine states, of which four are North Ionian: Chios,
Teos, Phokaia (once Aiolian) and Klazomenai. There was a large
amount of Late Wild Goat and floral pottery at Naukratis, and
these same types are reflected at Cyrene.44 Of particular note at
Cyrene are the large hemispherical bowls with Wild Goat animal
friezes, and in general the use of black-figure for the Wild Goat
decoration.45 There is also great variety in the floral dishes,
greater even than Tocra. Many of them are likely to come from
North Ionia.
Chian pottery in Cyrenaica is surpassed in quantity only on
Chios itself, at Erythrai opposite the island, Berezan and Olbia in
the Black Sea, Aigina, and, of course, Naukratis, to my
knowledge.46 More than half of Lemos’s catalogue of decorated
Chian pottery (887 out of 1659 pieces) comes from excavations
at Naukratis where the fullest range of Chian styles and vase
shapes was found. The assemblage at Cyrene is different from
Tocra’s, particularly in its greater range of shapes.
Most of the styles of decoration from the first half of the 6th
century bc are represented at Cyrene, including the Animal
Chalice, black-figure, Lion-and-Sphinx, Patterned Chalice, and
perhaps even an example of the Grand Style.
 Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrene’s Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter
Counts of Chian vases by shape
Shape Cyrene Tocra
Chalices 25 56
Lids 11 1
Dishes 8 0
Phialai 7 1
Bowls 3 1
2-handled pots 3 0
Fruitstands 2 0
Large closed vases 4 0
Plate 1 0
Not only were the Chians among the founders of the
Hellenion at Naukratis, but the Sanctuary of Aphrodite was also
much used by them. It is hard not to recognize the influence of
the Chian population at Naukratis on the finds of pottery from
Cyrene’s extramural Sanctuary of Demeter particularly in the
quantity and range of shapes and decoration of the Chian at
Cyrene. It is especially noteworthy since the Chians were among
the least likely of the Islanders to have come to Cyrene as
colonists. It seems evident that Chian goods were being brought
to North Africa in the first place because of the interest of the
island in Egypt, but that ships bearing these goods also found
their way to Cyrenaica.47 Some Chian transport amphorae have
been found both at Cyrene and Tocra. Their numbers in both
Demeter Sanctuaries of these cities are not unusual, but they are
more common close to Cyrene’s agora.48 It is possible that Chians
traded for grain, silphium and wool among other things in the
region, leaving behind wine, and perhaps silver, given their
contacts with the North Aegean mining area.
Two fabrics remain, Fikellura and Ionian ‘bucchero’. John
Hayes argued for a South Ionian origin for the latter, in the
Ephesos – Meander valley area.49 A fair number of these
‘bucchero’ vessels were found on Samos. Many more have
occurred in Magna Graecia and Etruria, and an Etruscan series
is well known. The finds at Cyrene tell us very little at the
moment, but the discovery of 23 examples is worth noting.
As for Fikellura pottery, a product of Miletos for the most
part, Strabo (801) says that it was a Milesian fleet of 30 ships
that defeated the local Egyptians and founded Naukratis in the
reign of Psammetichos I, while Herodotus (2.178) tells us that
they established their own sanctuary of Apollo there. Much
Fikellura has been found both at Naukratis and Tell Defenneh to
suggest a continuing Milesian presence through the 6th century
bc.50 The 19 pieces of Fikellura from Cyrene (just one was
uncovered at Tocra), mostly amphorae and some cups, may well
be an echo effect of the pottery being brought to Naukratis.51
There is no reason to think that Milesians came among the
colonists in the second wave of settlement, especially when
there were so many opportunities for them in their Black Sea
colonies; however, there is also no reason to insist that Fikellura
was brought in Milesian merchant ships rather than others after
a stop in Egypt, though this is less efficient. Uhlenbrock has
argued that the occasional Milesian perfume flask found in the
Demeter Sanctuary at Cyrene arrived by a complicated route,
having been sold and resold as the shipment was disbursed
along the way.52
Nothing has been said about Athenian or Corinthian pottery,
perhaps rightly in this context, but Corinthian has a remarkably
long life at Cyrene, well down into the 5th century bc after other
places had given up on this fine ware.53 Roebuck commented on
the strength of the link between Corinth and Egypt, with
Corinthian silver coins being found in Egyptian hoards, while
many Egyptian objects were found at Perachora.54 One wonders
if this link has been overlooked too often, especially since both
stone architecture and examples of polychrome wall painting
occur as early in the Corinthia as anywhere, both owing some
debt to Egypt. It is usually just assumed that Corinthian and
Athenian wares were carried regularly in Aiginetan ships,
perhaps to Cyrenaica as well as to Naukratis.
To sum up, the origins of Cyrene’s settlers certainly help
explain several special features of the Archaic imported fine
wares in the city, but there are enough other features which
cannot be explained this way to look for a second significant
influence, and this second one seems to be the exchange of
goods between Cyrenaica and the mainly East Greek settlement
at Naukratis.
Illustration credits
Fig. 1 photo © Bibliothèque Nationale de France; Figs 2, 3 the British
Museum.
Notes
* I wish to thank Alexandra Villing for kindly inviting me to participate
in the Naukratis Colloquium, and Udo Schlotzhauer for stimulating
discussions and his efforts in assisting with my travel. I especially
wish to thank Ivan D’Angelo for so generously sharing with me the
results of his study of pottery from the Italian excavations at Cyrene.
1 Discussed again recently by Möller (2000a, 54-5 with refs).
2 Fulford (1989, 169-72) discusses navigational conditions, noting that
prevailing winds made sailing in a north-south direction easier than
in an east-west direction. Strabo (10.4.5 [475]) says that the trip
between the western tip of Crete and Cyrene was two days and nights
in length. He notes that the trip from the eastern tip of Crete to Egypt
was four days and nights, ‘though some say three.’
3 For Chionis, see Paus. 3.14.3, but note Jeffery’s (1961, 143 n. 10)
suggestion of a later Chionis.
4 Boardman 1966, and 1994, 143. For Archaic pottery as early as the
second quarter of the 6th century bc from Euhesperides, see Vickers
and Gill 1986. Earlier material has now been uncovered, suggesting
Greek settlement at Euhesperides at least by c. 600 bc, if not before.
See Gill 2004; cf. also Zimi 2003, 212. The recent proposal by James
(2005), suggesting the foundations of Taucheira, ‘Ptolemais’,
Apollonia and Euhesperides occurred with the influx of new settlers
under Battos II c. 580 bc, is dependent on a lowering of the
chronology of Archaic pottery by about 35 years. This is less
appealing than the assumption that Herodotus (4.159) only means
Cyrene, not Cyrenaica in general, when he says that the population
at Cyrene stayed the same as the original settlement during the
reigns of Battos I and Arkesilas I, and that expansion did occur quite
early along the coast. Even so, it is hard to take Herodotus at face
value when he says that the population of Cyrene did not increase at
all for its first 56 years. He (4.153, 156) indicates that it only had about
100 original settlers (‘two fifty-oared ships’), all men apparently, as
the Foundation Degree seems to confirm. Pottery finds from the
Casa del Propileo in the agora area of Cyrene, discussed by D’Angelo
in this volume, tend to support the traditional dating of Archaic
pottery.
5 Malkin 2003c, 160-3.
6 Shaya 2005 for a summary of the Chronicle and discussion of the
context of the inscription, dated 99 bc.
7 For Rhodians, see Schaus 1985a, 102-3; and for Laconians, Schaus
1985a, 98-102; Schaus 1985b; and comments in Malkin 2003c, 160-1,
165.
8 For pottery from these areas at Cyrene, see below. For 7th century bc
terracotta figurines likely of Cretan origin found in Cyrene’s
extramural Demeter Sanctuary, see Uhlenbrock 1985, 297-9. An early
house plan at Euhesperides with offset door is compared to houses
on Crete, see Gill 2004, 399-402 fig. 3.
9 Jeffery 1961, 142-4.
10 On the Laconian Perioikoi, see Shipley 1992.
11 Archaic pottery from the extensive Italian excavations in the agora of
Cyrene still awaits detailed publication. For references, see
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 179
Schaus
D’Angelo’s paper (in this volume) nn. 9-10. D’Angelo is studying early
material from one area of the agora. For a recent paper discussing
pottery as an indicator by which to compare Greek activity in Cyprus
and in Egypt, see Sørensen 2001.
12 Moore 1987.
13 Kocybala 1999.
14 Kocybala 1999, 5.
15 For the gems and seal, see Lowenstam 1987, 10-4, nos 20, 25-6, 28.
The seal (no. 28) is an heirloom, dated to the first half of the 7th
century bc. For the ivory objects, Warden 1990, 10-1 no. 26 (ivory
ram, perhaps Laconian), and 24 no. 106 (2-faced head -– dated to the
7th century in Expedition 34, 1-2 [1992] 54 fig. 8), tridacna shells,
Warden 1990, 61-2 nos 467-73. For the terracotta figurines,
Uhlenbrock 1985, 297-9; 1992, 18.
16 Schaus 1985a, 5-6 nos 1-11 (Theran), 7-9 nos 12-16 (Cycladic), 10-14
nos 17-43 (Cretan).
17 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 73-8 nos 885-920; Boardman and Hayes
1973, 34-6 nos 2083-100.
18 Schaus 1980, 24; 1985a, 107.
19 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 73 with references.
20 Schaus 1985a, 15-48 nos 44-266.
21 Schaus 1985a, 121 Appendix II.
22 The high number of black painted, flat-based bowls at Tocra
compared to Cyrene can be explained to a certain degree by the poor
preservation of the pottery at Cyrene, making it difficult to identify
Laconian examples of this vase type.
23 Based on Stibbe’s lists, Stibbe 1972, 269-74 (Naukratis P.), 285-7
(Rider P.).
24 Venit 1985, 393-4.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., 394 n.28 for references to others who have likewise proposed
Samos. Williams 1993a, 595 suggested that Aigina replaced Samos as
transporter of Laconian pottery after c. 550 bc.
27 She follows Droop, Lane and Shefton in this identification, see Pipili
1987, 41-2 with refs.
28 Schaus 1979.
29 Faustoferri 1985, 341 and pers. comm.
30 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 189 from Vulci. Stibbe 1972, 30, 115-7,
279-80 no. 194, pls 61-2 fig. 28. On the Arkesilas cup, Stucchi (1987)
attempts to identify the white material as blocks of rock salt, but fails
to explain how such a heavy friable material could be stacked in
rounded ‘balls’ (skein-like) so high in the open weighing pans, or
held easily in the hand of the far right worker. He omits from his
discussion the dipinto, ÓËÉÖÏÌÁ×ÏÓ, for this worker (not his
ÏÑÕÎÏ[Ó), most suggestive in identifying the material as silphium.
An explanation for the lack of final sigmas in ÏÑÕÎÏ and ÌÁÅÍ (he
suggests that ‘ìÜíåò’ was meant) in otherwise very careful labels is
also not offered. For a recent opinion in favour of silphium being
weighed on the vase, see Luni 2002, 359-62.
31 I am grateful to A.J. Spencer and N. Spencer for information on the
composite ‘bird’ of the Hunefer papyrus.
32 Hurwit 2006, 129.
33 Prof. U. Hoeckman kindly pointed out to me that Greeks may have
been explicitly forbidden from entering Egyptian tombs, or at least
learning of Egyptian burial customs, where such scenes with Osiris
were commonly found. Prof. U. Verhoeven informs me that ‘the Book
of the Dead from Herakleopolis Magna dated c. 600 bc (P. Colon. Aeg.
10207; cf. Verhoeven 1993, 304) mentions that no Greek (‘hau-
nebut’) should know the spell (BD spell 148)’ and it should be
performed within a cloth tent with yellow stars as decoration. ‘Du
sollst <sie> ausführen im Innern eines Zeltes aus Stoff, der ganz mit
Sternen von gelber Farbe besetzt ist. 117,13 Es ist ein wahres
Geheimnis, nicht sollen <es> die Nordvölker an irgendeinem
<Ort> kennen.’ On the other hand, instances of the scene of Osiris
weighing hearts (souls) can be found on objects other than papyri,
tombs, coffins, shrouds, and mummy wrappings, see Seeber 1976,
27-9, including an ostracon found in the tomb of Ramesses VI (Cairo
CG 25057) as a sketch for a wall painting; a stele from the pyramid
complex of Pepi II with a short version of the weighing scene; a
pectoral (London, Univ. Coll. 7726) also from the Ramesside period;
and two ushebti boxes of a man from the 21st dynasty with the
balance on one side, adoration in front of Osiris on the other side
(Louvre N 4124). Prof. Verhoeven adds, ‘I think there must have been
model books for this kind of scene; the balance of Osiris is so
widespread and of common knowledge that a Greek could anyway
180 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
get notice of it.’ I am indebted to Profs Hoeckman and Verhoeven for
this information.
34 For a discussion of the reign of Arkesilas II and the involvement of
Egyptians, see Stibbe 1972, 195-201.
35 Supposedly numbering 30,000 (Hdt. 2.163), but doubtfully so (Lloyd
1988, 41). On Carian mercenaries in Egypt see also Williams and
Villing, this volume.
36 Boardman 1994, 141 n. 10 (with references). Key to this is Edel 1978,
14-6 where a cuneiform tablet in the British Museum (ANE 33041) is
understood to mention military help received by Amasis from
‘Putujaman’, identified as Cyrene, against a force sent by
Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th regnal year (567 bc) to assist Apries
against Amasis.
37 Boardman 1994, 141; James 1981, 734-6.
38 Stibbe 1972, 198-9.
39 See Schaus 1983, 89.
40 Besides the Egyptianizing faience objects believed to be made on
Rhodes (Cyrene: Warden 1990, 11-3 nos 29-35 [human and animal
figurines], 53-4 nos 382-6, 388-9 [vessels]; Tocra: Boardman and
Hayes 1966, 165 nos 86 [horse figurine], 87-91 [aryballoi]), other
Egyptian and Egyptianizing objects include from Cyrene: Warden
1990, 4, 7-9 nos 13, 16, pls 4-5 (bronze falcon and frog); 24-5 nos 113-18
pl. 18 (carnelian poppy-head pendants); 28 nos 154-60, pl. 21 (heart
and face pendants of bronze and terracotta); 53-4 no. 387, pl. 39
(faience lentoid jar); 55-6 nos 403-13 fig. 8 pl. 41 (alabaster
alabastra), 58 nos 436-8, 444-6 fig. 11, pls 43, 45; 60 no. 464 (ostrich
egg cup?); 60-2 nos 465-73, pl. 49 (tridacna shells); Tocra: Boardman
and Hayes 1966, 165 no. 92 (faience head scarab), no. 93 (faience
disc beads), 166 nos 98-100 (alabaster and carnelian objects).
41 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 166 no. 98 (alabastron); and 165 no. 92
(head scarab); see also Warden 1990, 56. At least 40 alabaster vases
are in evidence at Cyrene.
42 Roebuck 1950, 239 and n. 5. Thompson, Mørkholm, and Kraay 1973,
hoard nos 1636-7, 1639, 1641-2, 1644-5, 1647, 1652 (a total of 50 silver
coins from Cyrene, of which 35 occurred in the Asyut hoard, no.
1644). I owe this reference to Robert Weir.
43 Schaus 1985a, 49-72 passim. For North Ionian Late Wild Goat pottery,
see Cook 1998, 51-6.
44 The material has been scattered widely among European and other
museums. For a fair idea of its appearance, see Fairbanks 1928, pls
34-5. A small selection of LWG pieces is listed in Möller 2000a, 243-4
Appendix 1.d; for ones in Egyptian museums, Venit 1988, 6 (list of
catalogued vases with incised Wild Goat ornament). A selection of
the many Late Wild Goat and other pieces in the British Museum
from Naukratis were made available for viewing to the Colloquium
participants.
45 Hemispherical bowls, Schaus 1985a, nos 299-308; and Late Wild
Goat black-figure, nos 270 (amphora), 273 (oinochoe), 304-5
(hemispherical bowls), 327-30 (fruitstands), 350 (dish), 420-2
(plates).
46 Cyrene, Demeter Sanctuary: Schaus 1985a, 77-85 nos 469-537; Tocra:
Boardman and Hayes 1966, 57-63 nos 771-817; Boardman and Hayes
1973, 24-8 nos 2042-55. For the decorated styles of Chian pottery,
Lemos 1991, especially Chapt. 6 ‘Distribution’ pp. 191-208; they are
re-assessed in the article by Williams in this volume. For a few other
remarks on its distribution, see Schaus 1996.
47 For the strength of the Chian presence in Naukratis, see Roebuck
1950; and Chian trade, Möller 2000a, 79-81, 135.
48 Schaus 1985a, 105 n.133. See D’Angelo Fig. 14, this volume, for Chian
transport amphorae from the Casa del Propileo site near the agora.
49 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 65-6 nos 828-37; Boardman and Hayes
1973, 28 nos 2057-8. For examples from Cyrene, mostly of narrow
alabastra and ‘perfume pots’ with horizontal grooves, Schaus 1985a,
73-6 nos 446-68.
50 Möller 2000a, 88 suggests a Milesian trading connection for
Egyptian grain by the end of the 7th century bc, to help the city
survive annual invasions by the Lydians. Pottery in the Apollo
Sanctuary at Naukratis goes back to the earliest years of the
settlement. For Fikellura pottery from Naukratis and Tell Defenneh,
Cook 1933/4, passim; 1954, 1-13, pls 568-81.
51 Schaus 1985a, 86-9 nos 538-56.
52 Uhlenbrock 1992, 19.
53 Kocybala 1999, 6.
54 Roebuck 1950, 238.
Imported Greek Pottery in Archaic Cyrene:
The Excavations in the Casa del Propileo
Ivan D’Angelo
Abstract
Since the volumes on the agora by Stucchi and Bacchielli, very little
has been published about imported Greek Archaic pottery from the
Italian excavations in Cyrene. The finds in the Archaic levels of a
domestic complex that were brought to light in the area of the late
Hellenistic Casa del Propileo, and that are presented here for the
first time, are therefore of particular importance and provide new
elements for discussion. Together with the results from the
extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, the data from the Casa
del Propileo seem to confirm that the overwhelming percentage of
the imported pottery in Cyrene during the Archaic period came
from and was produced in the East Greek region. This fact leads us
also to speculate upon a possible trade link between Naukratis and
Cyrene. Another relevant aspect is the remarkable number of
Laconian kraters from the excavations, which suggests that elite
symposia took place.*
The aim of this paper is to present some preliminary results of
the research into the pottery of Cyrene – the famous city which
bears witness to the expansion of Greek colonies along the coast
of North Africa. The still ongoing excavations in the Casa del
Propileo1 started in the years 1966–69, and were reopened in
1999–2002, each time under the direction of I. Baldassarre2 of
the University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’.
The Casa del Propileo is located in the area measuring about
200m in width which remains between the acropolis and the
agora (Fig. 1). The area is intersected by the Skyrotà, the street
which Pindar sings about in the fifth Pythian Ode;3 starting at
the acropolis, the street runs down towards the terrace of the
sanctuary of Apollo. The Casa del Propileo, immediately to the
west of the agora (Fig. 2), is a large uniform building complex,
measuring 25 x 50m, which can be dated to the middle of the 1st
century bc (Fig. 3). The entrance from the Skyrotà to the south
is preceded by the tetrastyle propylon (Fig. 4) of which today
only the foundations remain and which has given the whole
complex its conventional name, Casa del Propileo (‘House of the
Propylon’).
Investigation has focused on this monument with the aim of
understanding its functions, and above all because of the
interest aroused by the Archaic structures brought to light
underneath it (Fig. 5). All the trenches have actually revealed
the same stratigraphy: an Early Hellenistic layer that seals the
preceding remains from the Classical and Archaic period. In all
the trenches, the structures from the Hellenistic period show
remains of floors in opus signinum that preserve the
homogeneity of the layers underneath.
The excavations carried out in the first peristyle of the house
have led to the identification of Archaic structures of a
residential district probably laid with a different orientation
with respect to the later urban grid.
The entire complex is being studied by the Mission of the
University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’. Preliminary conclusions
indicate that the Archaic pottery covers a stretch of time from
the last quarter of the 7th to the end of the 6th century bc. The
majority of these materials have been recovered in homogeneous
strata, the rest from mixed contexts.
The specific aim of this study is to examine Archaic materials
from a domestic context rather than a sacred context, which is a
substantially new approach compared to earlier publications on
Cyrene4 and the Cyrenaica.5 Analysis of the Archaic material has
led to the identification of local pottery and the clays used to
make these vessels6 as well as to a better knowledge of Archaic
pottery imports to Cyrene and the Cyrenaica, adding to the
picture delineated in important publications7 by the American
Archaeological Mission of the University of Pennsylvania, and
the still fundamental volumes on Tocra8 (it should be
emphasised that both are sacred sites, dedicated to Demeter and
Kore). Furthermore we have partial data on materials recovered
by the Italian Archaeological Mission at the terrace of the
sanctuary of Apollo9 and in the agora,10 and initial reports from
Euhesperides11 by the English Mission.
As already mentioned, this is only a preliminary report and
one needs to be aware of the very fragmentary state of the
material. The pieces are often very small and complete vessels
are rare.
Looking at the classes of imported pottery found at the Casa
del Propileo, 3% of the pottery can be traced to Thera and the
Cycladic area in general. At first sight, this fact seems to add
value to the observation that Theran pottery is very rarely found
outside the island itself.12 In any case, important pieces like a
Theran amphora (Fig. 6)13 and a Cycladic skyphos with the
typical decoration of concentric circles were recovered. All these
materials can be dated to between the end of the 7th century bc
and the first half of the 6th century bc.
As usual, Corinthian pottery is well represented at 19.2% of
the total; most finds can be attributed to Middle Corinthian (Fig.
7). But there are also examples of Early Corinthian; in
percentage terms there are more of them at the Casa del
Propileo than at the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and
Kore.14 This class provides chronological pegs for an early dating
of the Archaic structures in the area of the Casa del Propileo,
assigning them to the first phase of the colony.15
Although 8.1% of the pottery is Attic, this presents us with a
particular problem: we have hardly any decorated fragments.
This can be explained by the fact that at the Casa del Propileo,
we are dealing with an Archaic domestic site. Decorated vessels
seem to have ended up almost exclusively in necropoleis16 and
sacred areas.17
Laconian pottery makes up a little less than 5%. The
presence of this pottery in Cyrene has aroused the interest of
scholars who have tried to single out possible Cyrenean
subjects,18 mainly on cups, or to prove that these vessels were
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 181
D’Angelo
produced in Cyrene itself. Lane, in an article19 written more than
70 years ago, has already disproved this latter hypothesis,
fittingly describing it as the ‘Cyrenaican heresy’.
Sparta is certainly one of the most important factors in the
reconstruction of Cyrene’s mythical and historical past.20 On one
side, from the exegesis of literary sources like Herodotus and
Pindar, Cyrene seems indebted to and thus strongly linked to the
Lacedaemonian polis, for example institutionally. Also the
legendary history of Chionis, mentioned21 as second mythical
founder, is to be taken into consideration, but with appropriate
caution. On the other hand, however, the vases would appear to
be evidence of connections between aristoi rather than of
regular and direct ‘trade’. Significantly, in fact, some 19
examples of Laconian kraters have been found at the Casa del
Propileo (Fig. 8). The earliest krater (Fig. 9), from the
beginning of the 6th century bc, belongs to the so-called group
‘with double-stepped rims’ in Stibbe’s classification,22 and finds a
particularly close match, among others, in an example
uncovered in the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore.23
On the whole, however, with upwards of 40% of the total,
East Greek pottery prevails. This fact accords with sources which
reflect instances of close ties between the polis of the Battiades
and the East Greek area.24 The reform of Demonax25 allows us to
place the presence of settlers from this area around the middle
of the 6th century bc. The conspicuous presence of East Greek
pottery at the Casa del Propileo, some of which prior to this
event, cannot be used sic et sempliciter to date the appearance of
settlers or merchants; it does nevertheless testify to the
existence of strong commercial links in which Naukratis could
have played an important role.26
At present, in the absence of scientific analyses of the clays,
it is not possible to determine exactly in which production
centres the finds from the Casa del Propileo were made,
something which is now possible for the East Greek area thanks
to the results of analyses carried out by, among others, R. Jones27
and P. Dupont28 and most recently by M. Kerschner and H.
Mommsen.29
There are fragments pertaining to nine bird-bowls, which
can be dated to between the end of the 7th and the first quarter
of the 6th century bc. One of them (Fig. 10)30 can be attributed
to Coldstream’s31 Group III (c. 650–615 bc), while the rest are of
Group IV (after 615 bc). The type with rosettes is less common.
There are four lotus-bowls (Fig. 11), the diffusion of which is
for the most part limited to the East Greek area.32 Significantly,
examples are known from Naukratis.33
As in many other sites in the Mediterranean, a truly
overwhelming percentage of ‘Ionian cups’ (cups with everted
rim/Knickranschalen), a very common class34 of pottery, is found
in the Casa del Propileo (Fig. 12). As is well known, it was widely
exported from the second half of the 7th century bc through the
6th century bc. The main types are represented. Adopting the
canonical typological classification, as proposed by Villard and
Vallet,35 many examples of type A2 (with and without bands on
the rim) and B2 have been found, but also some examples of A1
and B1. It is immediately possible to recognize imports from the
East Greek area and also a series of local imitations, identifiable
as such from clay and decoration.36
There are also numerous fragments of East Greek dishes
(Fig. 13), some of which can be traced back to Cook’s North
Ionian Late Wild Goat style type (NiA I).37
182 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Finally, we should also point to the conspicuous presence of
amphorae of different origin: for the East Greek area a
remarkable number of Chian (Fig. 14) and some Samian
amphorae have been found, but also examples of the Attic type,
‘SOS’ and ‘à la brosse’, as well as Corinthian and Laconian
amphorae. Many of these came to light inside what would have
been a storeroom of an Archaic house.
All the Archaic classes of pottery from the Casa del Propileo
presented here have also been found elsewhere in Cyrene and
Cyrenaica (Tocra), at sites that appear to give an analogous
picture.38 But we can claim without doubt that the excavations at
the Casa del Propileo, together with the analysis of the materials
and structures uncovered, have provided significant new
information about Archaic Cyrene on issues of its history,
topography and relations with other areas of the Greek world. At
this point, it does not seem superfluous to underline once more
the preliminary stage of the conclusions. The following brief
considerations should therefore be understood as working
hypotheses:
Whether Cyrene is to be considered an anomalous colony
within the scope of Greek colonial movements39 because of the
supposed non-homogenous composition of its colonists and
because of the nature of its relationships with local populations
is open to question. More convincing is the particularity of its
institutional, monarchical and hereditary regime.40
Right from its foundation in c. 631–630 bc, Cyrene became
part of a network of established commercial naval routes which
were well structured and well used. The hypothesis of
A. Johnston, who suggests that goods from the East Greek area
were passing through the ports of east and south Crete, is very
credible.41 Evidence from Building Q at Kommos,42 dating from
the last 30 years of the 7th century bc, fits well with the episode
narrated by Herodotus43 in which Theran settlers were helped by
Korobios, a Cretan from Itanos. Crete’s function as a passageway
can also be imagined for the route that brought goods from the
ports of Laconia to Cyrenaica, according to recent theories put
forward by M. Gras.44
Furthermore, in line with opinions already expressed, by,
among others, Roebuck45 and Schaus,46 it is possible to recognise
the existence in the Archaic period of a second, coastal route,
which connected Cyrene and its subcolonies to more eastern
sites like Naukratis. Evidence recently published by D. Bailey47
on Marsa Matruh, where East Greek pottery is most in evidence
among Archaic imports, backs this up. It is certainly possible to
find points of contact between Naukratis and Cyrene,48 even as
early as the Archaic period, but the exact nature of the relation
between these two important Greek centres on the North
African coast needs to be clarified. They were founded for
different reasons and functions: while Naukratis was born
initially as an emporion or port of trade,49 Cyrene is clearly a
colony of essentially agricultural character.50 This emerges from
several facts, such as the progressive acquisition of new land, the
resulting deterioration of relations with local tribes, the
foundation of subcolonies both in the territory and on the coast,
the exploitation and trade of a natural resource – the famous
sylphion plant.51
It is hoped that as the excavation and study of the structures
and materials associated with them in the Casa del Propileo
continue, more light can be shed on Archaic Cyrene and its
relations with Naukratis and the Greek world in general.
 Imported Greek Pottery in Archaic Cyrene: The Excavations in the Casa del Propileo

Illustration credits Calame 1996. Also very interesting is Malkin 2003c.

Fig. 1 after Stucchi 1967; Fig.2 after Baldassarre 2002; Fig.3 E. Mitchell, 21 Paus. 3.14.3.
elaborated by H.J. Beste and C. Zieschang, Deutsches Archäologisches 22 Stibbe 1989, 29-30 (no. C12).
Institut Rom; Figs 4–14 the author. 23 Schaus 1985a, 27 (nos 100 and 102).
24 See the Lindian Chronicle (FGrHist 532, 17): this source is, however, a
late document (early 1st century bc) and links the Therans with a
Notes
group of Rhodians, who were led by a certain Pankis. See, for
* First of all I wish to thank Prof. I. Baldassarre (Naples), who oversaw
instance, Applebaum 1979, 12; Uhlenbrock 1992, 18. Schaus (1985a,
my research with care and patience. Thanks are due to Prof. N.
102-5) made a thorough and cautious analysis of the possible
Bonacasa (Palermo) and all the members of the Italian
connections between the East Greek pottery from the extramural
Archaeological Mission at Cyrene, the Libyan Authorities in Cyrene
sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Cyrene and the origin of Cyrene’s
(Shahat), the Supervisor of the Antiquities Mr. Abdulgader Mzeini,
colonists. On this subject see also his article in this volume.
and to the colleagues and friends with whom I was able to discuss
25 Hdt. 4.161.7. See, for instance, Corcella 1993, with previous
various aspects of this research: H.J. Beste, M. D’Acunto, I.
bibliography.
D’Ambrosio, K. Iara, M. Kerschner, M. Mirold, R. Posamentir, A.
26 Möller 2000a, 2001. And see also the important observations by
Salerno, A. Santucci, G.P. Schaus, C. Zieschang. Finally, my gratitude
Uhlenbrock 1985, 297-308; 1992, 16-23; (forthcoming), on the East
to U. Schlotzhauer and A. Villing, who kindly invited me to the
Greek influence in the local production of Archaic and Classical
Colloquium, and to E. Manning, K.S. Powell and E.M. Steinby, for
votive terracottas found at the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and
helping me with the translation of the text into English.
Kore at Cyrene.
1 The denomination of the complex is, as is mentioned below,
27 Jones 1986.
conventional; see for instance Stucchi 1967, 95; 1975, 144, 308.
28 Dupont 1983, 19-43.
2 For the excavations in the years 1966–69 see Baldassarre 1987, 17-24.
29 On East Greek pottery see Kerschner 1997b, 1999. On the results of
A short summary of the results of the most recent excavations is
chemical analysis, see Kerschner et al. 2002, 189-206; Akurgal et al.
given in Baldassarre 2002, 18-20.
2002; Mommsen et al., this volume; Mommsen and Kerschner, this
3 The building of the Skyrotà street is attributed to the mythical king
volume.
and founder of Cyrene, Battos I (vv. 90-3: ‘he laid out a stretch of
30 I wish to thank M. Kerschner for indicating typical details to me,
ground, level, cut straight to be a road of hoof-clattered
present in the example from the Casa del Propileo, which date back
cobblestones: Apollo’s martial parades pass there, by the edge of the
to the third quarter of the 6th century bc.
market place,’ transl. F.J. Nisetich); on the scholia to these verses of
31 Coldstream 1968, 300.
Pindar, see Stucchi 1967, 21 with references.
32 Examples of lotus bowls are also known from the Black Sea area,
4 Pernier 1931, 1935; Stucchi 1967, 1984; Bacchielli 1981; Schaus 1985a;
which is of course closely linked to the East Greek world. For this type
Kocybala 1999.
in general, Cook and Dupont 1998, 26-8; for items from Histria see
5 For Tocra, see Boardman and Hayes 1966, 1973. For Apollonia, see
Lambrino 1938, 59-61, figs 28-30. See also here in this volume the
Goodchild et al. 1976. For Euhesperides, see Vickers and Gill 1986.
very interesting article of R. Posamentir, who sheds new light on the
James (2005) has recently proposed a lower chronology of Archaic
East Greek pottery from this area.
pottery which may not be impossible, but for the pottery from the
33 Price 1924, 187, fig. 9.
Casa del Propileo we prefer to follow the traditional chronology; cf.
34 See, among others, the very useful work by Boldrini 1994, with
also the doubts expressed by Schaus on James’ proposal: Schaus, this
complete previous bibliography. A convincing suggestion to define
volume, n.4.
these forms is made by Schlotzhauer 2000 (Knickrandschalen), cf.
6 The Archaic local pottery from the Casa del Propileo and the fabrics
also Schlotzhauer 2001a, 122; 2001b.
that have been identified will be published by D’Angelo
35 Villard and Vallet 1955, 7-34.
(forthcoming).
36 The local examples of ‘Ionian Cups’ recovered at the Casa del
7 Such as, among others, the volumes of the series most quoted in the
Propileo will be published in D’Angelo (forthcoming).
present paper: Schaus 1985a; Kocybala 1999.
37 Cook and Dupont 1998, 51-6.
8 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 1973.
38 For percentage terms and the use of statistics, see Stucchi 1984, 164-
9 Pernier 1931, 1935.
8, and particularly the perspicacious observations of Boardman
10 Stucchi 1965; Bacchielli 1981; Stucchi and Bacchielli 1983; Santucci
1994, 144-7.
1998; (forthcoming).
39 Mitchell 2000 deals with this subject.
11 Zimi 2001, 2002, 2003 and Gill 2004 for imported pottery; for coarse
40 On this aspect exhaustively De Vido 1998.
wares and local production, mostly post-Archaic, see most recently
41 Johnston 1993, 376-7.
Swift 2003, 2005.
42 For which see Johnston 1993.
12 As explained well in Schaus 1985a, 5.
43 Hdt. 4.151.8. Also Strabo, 10.4.5 (C475), reports details, though he
13 For the decorative details see Dugas 1928, nos 8 and 14, pl. 8A
refers to a later period, about the trip between Crete and Cyrene. For
(belonging to the so-called ‘style insulaire orientalisant’); another
the navigational conditions between Crete and Cyrenaica see Fulford
very close match is illustrated in Dragendorff 1903, 17, fig. 12.
1989, 169-72; Purcaro 1976, 285-95, indicates also other routes with
14 Kocybala 1999, 5.
many references.
15 The story which Herodotus (4.145-67) tells about the foundation of
44 Gras 1997, 52-5; 2000a, 158.
Cyrene seems to be confirmed by the chronology of the pottery
45 Roebuck 1950, 242, 247.
recovered, thanks to survey activities, at the site identified as Aziris;
46 Schaus 1980, 22. But see also Venit 1985, 393.
see, for instance, Boardman 1966, 150-52.
47 Bailey 2002, 118.
16 See, for instance, Beschi 1969/70; Thorn 2005, who has
48 See among others Schaus 1985a, 104, and this volume, and
commendably reorganized the finds from the Cyrenaic tombs
Boardman 1999a, 123.
recovered by A. Rowe. I wish to thank here J.C. Thorn for giving me a
49 As has been well demonstrated by Möller 2001.
copy of his work before publication. On Attic pottery from the
50 Chamoux 1953, 115-27, 230-4; Applebaum 1979, 74-82; Baldassarre
necropoleis of Cyrene see also Maffre 1996, 1998; and finally
1999, 385; Boardman 1999a, 153-9.
Elrashedy 2002.
51 On sylphion (lat. laserpicium) see Chamoux 1953, 246-63 and Gras
17 Attic pottery from the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at
1985, 165-72 with previous bibliography and information from the
Cyrene is published by Moore 1987 (black-figure and black-glazed)
literary sources; see also most recently Roselli 2001, 11-20. On the
and McPhee 1997 (red-figure).
botanical aspects see Manunta 2002; on the iconography see Luni
18 An attempt by Faustoferri 1985, 337-48. See also Schaus 1985b, 395-
2002. The sylphion may appear also on the famous cup of Arkesilas
403, for the evidence for Laconians in Cyrenaica in the Archaic
(Schaus Fig. 1; Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 189, from Vulci): on this
period.
problem see Stibbe 1972, 115-17, 279, no. 194, pls 61-2, fig. 28; Stucchi
19 Lane 1933/4, 182-5.
1987, 29-34; and Schaus, this volume.
20 See, for instance, the in-depth analysis of: Nafissi 1980/1, 1985;

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 183

D’Angelo

Figure 1 Cyrene: the acropolis, the terrace of the sanctuary of Apollo and the agora Figure 2 Cyrene: the Casa del Propileo immediately to the west of the agora

Figure 3 Plan of the Casa del Propileo

184 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in the East

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

Figure 4 The Propylon on the Skyrotà street

Figure 5 Trench CP01B Figure 6 ‘Theran’ amphora

Figure 7 Middle Corinthian closed vessel Figure 8 Laconian krater

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 185

D’Angelo

Figure 9 Laconian krater of double-stepped rim type Figure 10 East Greek pottery: bird bowl

Figure 11 East Greek pottery: Lotus bowl Figure 12 East Greek pottery: Ionian cup

Figure 13 East Greek pottery: dish Figure 14 Chian amphora

186 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in the East

Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa,
7th–2nd Century BC
Alessandro Naso
Abstract
North Africa has revealed some Etruscan and Italic finds dating to
the 7th–6th century BC, and these are particularly concentrated in
Carthage. The quantity and the nature of the pottery and bronzes
found here show that the Punic city had direct and intense trade
relationships with Etruscan partners such as Caere, that were both
barbaroi and natural allies against the Greeks, as the literary
tradition confirms. Etruscan artefacts have also been found in
Greek colonies such as Cyrene and Naukratis, probably brought
along the complex trade routes connecting the western and eastern
Mediterranean in the Archaic period. The good relationships
between Carthaginians and Etruscans continued for many
centuries, since in Tunisia and Algeria there are isolated finds until
the 2nd–1st century BC, sometimes inscriptions, revealing the
presence of Etruscan people, who probably escaped from their
homeland conquered by the Roman armies.
Two finds lists are provided as appendixes to the paper, the first
relating to Etruscan and Italic artefacts in North Africa, the second
to a type of bronze tool, part of an Etruscan drinking wine set, that
has been found all over the Mediterranean.*
Introduction
Etruscan finds in North Africa is a rather neglected field of
research, and an overview of the relationship of Etruria and the
Italian peninsula with North Africa that includes an exhaustive
finds list is still lacking. The evidence for Etrusco-Punic relations
was collected in the 1960s by M. Pallottino,1 in the 1970s by J.
MacIntosh Turfa,2 in the 1980s by J. P. Morel and J. P. Thullier3
and in the 1990s by Fr. W. von Hase;4 however all these works
are limited to finds from Carthage.5 This paper will extend the
research to the whole of North Africa and compare the large
amount of data from the Punic city with finds from elsewhere,
including Greek colonies such as Cyrene and Naukratis. Two
main phases can be distinguished, the first corresponding to the
late Orientalizing to Archaic periods, and the second to the late
Archaic to the Hellenistic periods. In accordance with the main
theme of this conference, I will concentrate more on the earlier
period, but as so many important finds belong to the later phase,
this cannot be ignored completely.
Figure 1 Antennae sword
The Iron Age
One object that needs to be mentioned here is an antennae
sword that the Marquess of Courtance bought in Egypt in the
early 70s of the 19th century and gave as a gift to the king of Italy
for the Royal Armoury Museum of Turin, where it is still
preserved (Fig. 1). There is no record of the original provenance
of the sword. The type has a wide distribution in Italy as well as
in Central Europe in the 9th–8th centuries bc. R.C. de Marinis
recently discussed the various typologies developed by scholars
for these swords. The sword in Turin belongs to the oldest type,
the so-called Tarquinia-Vetulonia type, dating to the 9th century
bc.6 This chronology makes it highly improbable that the
provenance of this Italic sword, a Prunkwaffe, could be North
Africa, but of course the question is still open to debate.
Late Orientalizing and Archaic periods
From the second half of the 7th century bc the founding of Greek
colonies, such as Cyrene7 (with its subcolonies at Taucheira,
modern-day Tocra,8 and Apollonia9), Euhesperides10 in western
North Africa and Naukratis in central-eastern North Africa,
brought not only Greek colonists, but also new connections and
new waves of trade.11 At that time, Carthage had not yet begun its
expansion into the western zone of North Africa, but had already
established trade relationships with the Etruscans, as the many
finds indicate, and probably also with the Italic populations in
Sicily, as reported by ancient authors.12 In its tombs, from both old
and new excavations, more than 60 bucchero vases have been
found, dating at least from the third quarter of the 7th century
onwards (Fig. 2). Amongst these early finds, an oinochoe in thin
bucchero (or bucchero sottile) is particularly notable; it is of a
form quite typical for Caere and its district and dates to just after
650 bc (Fig. 2.7). Twenty-eight little amphorae, 12 oinochoai and
jugs, found in several graves and probably connected to wine
consumption, are further indications for contacts with southern
Etruria in the second half of 7th century bc. In Carthage there are
also bucchero drinking cups: 2 kotylai, 11 kylikes and above all 11
kantharoi. The bucchero kantharos, as is widely known, is the
real marker of the Etruscans all over the Mediterranean from
Spain to Turkey and from the South of France to North Africa,
Naukratis: Eastern Greeks in Egypt | 187
Naso

Figure 2 Bucchero pottery from Carthage

188 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt


Figure 3 Etruscan bucchero
kantharos from Naukratis
particularly the shape classified as 3e by T. Rasmussen, used from
the end of the 7th to the first half of the 6th century bc. It is
possible to add other finds to the distribution map compiled by
Fr. W. von Hase, from Megalopolis and Paros in Greece, and
Daskyleion, Miletos, Didyma and Datça on the Knidos peninsula
in Turkey.13
In this map we can include Tocra and Naukratis, too: at
Naukratis at least two kantharoi sherds were found, belonging
to the type Rasmussen 3e. The first, once in the von Bissing
collection, has been published by E. Prins de Jong (Fig. 3).14 The
second, still unpublished, has been seen in the Museum of Fine
Arts in Boston by U. Schlotzhauer, who kindly told me of its
existence (Fig. 4).15 The first sherd is relevant, because,
according to Prins de Jong, some traces of silvering are still
preserved on it: this is a very fine coating that may have been
achieved in two different ways. The first method, which is older,
quite rare and more expensive, sees the application of a thin
layer of metal (silver or gold) onto the pottery using mercury as
adhesive material;16 according to research by K. Burkhardt, the
second method, cheaper and more frequently used, was
obtained by polishing the surface before firing the pot.17 Because
both methods are exclusive to workshops in Caere, we can
assume a provenance from that city for the bucchero kantharos
found at Naukratis. The presence in Naukratis of bucchero with
silvering decoration is all more significant, since in the whole of
the Mediterranean I only know of one other sherd with such a
decoration, and that is a sherd from the Heraion in Samos.18
According to B. Bouloumié, some bucchero kantharoi with
silvering decoration were found in the wreck of Cap d’Antibes;
but these materials are badly documented, because they are
preserved in private collections.19
The provenance from Caere of bucchero vases found in
Naukratis and Samos is not surprising: as we have seen, many
bucchero vases found at Carthage probably come from Caere.
Using other evidence, I am able to add that some bucchero vases
from Miletos were also made in Caere. Because of the director of
the Miletos excavations, V. von Graeve’s, interest in pottery
analysis, it has been possible to analyse some bucchero samples
found in the Aphrodite sanctuary on Zeytintepe in Miletos. The
as yet unpublished results of the thin sections and the
petrological analysis carried out in the laboratory of SOB
University of Naples by G. Trojsi show values very close to those
found with similar analyses by K. Burkhardt in his large research
project on bucchero pottery from southern Etruria.20
It is noteworthy that in the older excavations in Carthage
more than 20 Etrusco-Corinthian vases were found: they are
Etruscan imitations of the Corinthian pottery and were very
popular in Vulci and Tarquinia, but less so in Caere, the Etruscan
city that imported the largest quantity of Corinthian pottery and
Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd century BC
Figure 4 Etruscan bucchero
kantharos from Naukratis
that therefore had less interest in the imitations (Fig. 5).21 The
Etrusco-Corinthian vases found in Carthage were classified by J.
Szilágyi as imports from Vulci and Tarquinia, all dating to the
first half of the 6th century bc. These classifications have
recently been confirmed by some new Etrusco-Corinthian
fragments that were found in the two German excavations near
the Decumanus Maximus of Roman Carthage, led respectively
by Fr. Rakob and H.G. Niemeyer;22 the number of imports from
Tarquinia, particularly for the vases of the ‘Pittore senza Graffiti’
has thus increased. In Carthage, Etruscan transport amphoras
have yet to be found, but it would not be surprising if they were
to be identified.23 Again these results are compatible with the
Etruscan finds from Miletos, where some bucchero sherds may
belong to vases from Tarquinia and perhaps Vulci: Miletos is the
find spot of the only Etruscan transport amphora identified up
to now in all of the eastern Mediterranean.24
How can we interpret the bucchero and Etrusco-Corinthian
vases found in Carthage? I think they may be something more
than simply objects of trade or exotic pieces for deposition as
grave goods, especially if we connect these pots, whose numbers
increase from the third quarter of the 7th century to 550 bc, with
later events. We know, thanks to many historians, that the
relationships between Carthage and the cities of southern
Etruria were particularly good and intensive. The role of the
Etruscans was not a secondary one in the middle of the 6th
century bc, when the expansionist policy of Carthage, which
was destined to become almost an empire in the following years,
began with the famous expedition led by Malcus in Sicily and
Sardinia.25
This is stated by Herodotus himself, who expressly mentions
the alliance between Carthage and Caere against the Greeks of
Phokaia in the battle of the Sardinian Sea in about 540 bc.26
Aristotle in his Politiká cites a deliberate, official alliance
between Etruscans and the Punic empire: his references seem to
indicate the existence of written documents (graphaí)
concerning trade and military agreements.27 The existence of
such treaties between Carthage and Caere can be supported by
other historical traditions, such as the information from Polybios
about the first treaty between Rome and Carthage, dated to
about 509 bc.28 Scholars currently accept the existence of this
first treaty, and only a few are convinced that this is an
invention, a retrojection in the past of the treaty between Rome
and Carthage dating to 348 bc. Some years ago C. Ampolo
stressed the authenticity of this early treaty and dated it to the
end of the 6th century bc.29 At that time the relations between
Caere and Carthage were fruitful and included a military
alliance: it is widely accepted that only after the battle of the
Sardinian Sea, in the second half of the 6th century bc, the
Carthaginian obtained control of Sardinia, while the Etruscans
Naukratis: Eastern Greeks in Egypt | 189
Naso
1 2
Figure 5 Etrusco-Corinthian pottery from Carthage: round aryballos of the Poggio Buco group; cup of the Macchie Bianche group;Vulcian aryballos
began their domination of Corsica.
An important find (Fig. 6) shows the existence of close
personal relationships between Etruscans and Carthaginians,
and probably also reflects the custom of both people visiting one
another in their respective cities. In a tomb of the Santa Monica
necropolis in Carthage, one of the few Archaic Etruscan
inscriptions outside Etruria has been found. Inscribed on the
reverse of an ivory tessera in the shape of a quadruped is: mi
puinel karqazie elsf[—-]na, meaning ‘I belong to Puinel the
Carthaginian … ’. The little tablet, dating to the last quarter of
the 6th century bc, is a tessera hospitalis. It is almost an identity
card, destined to match another similar piece belonging to an
Etruscan. Only few other ivory tesserae hospitales are known; it is
not by accident that one in the shape of a panther was found
outside Etruria, in Rome.30 In the last quarter of the 6th century
bc, then, after the battle of the Sardinian Sea, we can clearly see
direct and personal contacts between southern Etruscans and
Carthaginians, both barbaroi and therefore natural allies against
the Greeks.31 From this perspective it is also possible to accept
the proposal of D. Berges, who also included Etruscan people
among the possible clients visiting the state archive in
Carthage.32
Figure 6 Etruscan tesserae hospitales from Carthage and Rome
190 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
3
The end of the 6th century bc at Caere is the age of Thefarie
Velianas, the king responsible for the construction of the so-
called temple B in the sanctuary of Pyrgi, the main harbour of
the city. Thefarie Velianas is expressly named in the three gold
tablets from Pyrgi, two in the Etruscan language and one in
Punic. According to many scholars, the honour of putting a
Punic inscription in one of the main sanctuaries near Caere is
closely connected to the alliance quoted by Herodotus.33
Therefore we may conclude that the presence of rich Archaic
Etruscan finds in the western part of North Africa was due not
only to trade, but in some cases also to direct relations with
Etruria, particularly with Caere.
In the Greek colonies of North Africa, on the contrary, we
can ascribe the Etruscan finds to indirect contacts through trade.
This may be the case with the bucchero kantharoi in Tocra and
Naukratis and the bucchero oinochoe from Naukratis (Appendix
1, no. 22), published by A. Johnston (Fig. 7). I wish to stress that,
in my opinion, the other bucchero sherds from Naukratis
published as Etruscan are not Etruscan, both because of their
shape and their clay; I have to add that P. Perkins found further
bucchero sherds from Naukratis in the British Museum
storerooms, which I have never seen (see Appendix 1, no. 23

0 5 cm
Figure 7 Etruscan bucchero oinochoe from Naukratis (BM GR 1888.6–1.643a)
Figure 8 Etruscan bucchero kantharoi from Greek sanctuaries: top left, Perachora;
top right, Ialysos; bottom, Leontinoi
Figure 9 Frog belonging to a bronze infundibulum from Cyrene
Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd century BC
with note 57). The bucchero sherds from Karnak in Egypt and
Tipasa in Algeria shall be mentioned only briefly: thanks to the
kind information provided by P. Touillard we know that in
Karnak only one sherd has been found, of a small amphora
dated to 600 bc.34 In general we can consider the bucchero vases
found in Greek sanctuaries as gifts from Greek merchants
returning home, as can be seen from the Greek inscriptions on
bucchero vases dating to the first half of the 6th century bc
found in Perachora, Ialysos (on Rhodes) and in Sicily (in
Selinous and now in Leontinoi): we know of one Néarchos in
Perachora and probably one Leukios in Leontinoi (Fig. 8).35
What is quite surprising in North Africa is the absence of
bucchero at Cyrene.36 This may, of course, be due to the scarcity
of pottery published from the site, at least until this conference.
What has been found in Cyrene, however, is a bronze fragment
belonging to an infundibulum, a very elaborate Etruscan funnel
that was part of a wine set.37 It is in the form of a little bronze
frog with a cross hole, and a cut-away to fit a tang, that hinged
the frog to a bronze handle (Fig. 9). The frog held a strainer,
originally attached with rivets. Both frog and strainer could be
raised backwards and the funnel be used alone. The infundibula
usually have one handle in the form of a lyre; they end in a
duck’s head with a long bill, or more rarely in a ram’s head. It is
quite common for the hinge to have the shape of a T, or, if it is
figured, of a couchant lion, or a frog or more rarely a sphinx.
They are a typical Etruscan invention and were, of course, used
to pour wine, for instance from a krater into an oinochoe or from
an oinochoe into a kantharos. In the second half of the 6th
century bc they were very popular all over the Mediterranean.
From this perspective we can consider infundibula in the second
half of the 6th century bc the counterpart in bronze of the
bucchero kantharoi in the first half of the same century: a real
Etruscan marker, one of the appreciated turrhnoi/ xalkoi
celebrated in ancient Greek literature.38 Since the study of M.
Zuffa in 1960 that listed 28 tools, many new finds have surfaced:
I am now able to list more than 80 infundibula, belonging to at
least four main types: 1. lyre-handled (the most numerous, with
sub-types); II. San Martino in Gattara; III. Palmette-handled; IV.
special forms, including tools that are not Etruscan.
Although many have appeared on the art market without
any provenance (Fig. 10), the find spots, when known, are
significant (Fig. 11). In Italy they are quite widespread: the main
source is in southern Etruria, but some tools have also been
found in Campania, Umbria, ancient Picenum (corresponding to
the modern-day southern Marche and northern Abruzzo) and in
the Veneto. Outside Italy I know of three in Spain, one in
Cyrene, three (or more) in Olympia (one with a Greek
inscription), one in Argos, one in Ialysos on Rhodes. Another
funnel was found in Switzerland, in the Arbedo hoard.39 Two
bronze fragments representing a duck’s head from Carthage and
from Didyma may belong to infundibula or to ladles, which have
also been found in Greece.40 This wide distribution, including
not only many Italic regions, but also the Mediterranean basin
and central Europe, where Hallstatt imitations are also known,
and the provenance of many pieces from illegal excavations of
the 19th and 20th centuries, seem reason enough to localize the
workshop in southern Etruria. Against current opinion, which
presumes only one workshop in Volsinii, the different forms (or
sub-types) of the lyre-handled tools are enough to postulate the
existence in southern Etruria of more than one workshop. One
Naukratis: Eastern Greeks in Egypt | 191
Naso
of these may be located in Vulci,41 where the most famous
Etruscan bronze workshops flourished, which were responsible
both for masterpieces, such as the rod tripods found on the
Athenian Acropolis and in a Celtic grave in Bad Dürkheim near
Speyer in Germany, and everyday tools, such as the countless
Schnabelkannen, found above all in the territories north to the
Alps, but not yet in Greece, that were destined for long-distance
trade, too.42
From the Late Archaic to the Hellenistic periods
Finally, a few words on the later period, concerning Etruscan-
Punic relations only. Herodotus (6.17) reports that in the early
5th century bc Dionysios of Phokaia fought against Etruscans
and Carthaginians, who, according to the same historian, also
shared a common fate in the battles lost against the Greeks of
Syracuse (the Carthaginians in Sicily at Himera in 480 bc, the
Etruscans in the sea of Cumae in Campania in 474 bc). From
Diodorus of Sicily (10.11.1) we learn that at the end of the 4th
century bc Etruscan mercenaries fought for Agathokles of
Syracuse against the Carthaginian army. The few, but relevant,
archaeological finds may confirm the relationships that are
behind these contacts.
In a chamber tomb in Tunisia near Ksour es Saaf, not far
from Mahdia, an impressive triple-disc cuirass of gilded bronze
was found, perfectly preserved, in 1909. Similar cuirasses,
datable to the end of the 4th century bc, are common in
southern Italy among Samnites, Lucanians and other Italic
populations. Initially a bronze belt was thought to be associated
with the tomb group, too, but a recent restoration has excluded
the presence of this belt, a typical south Italian product.43 So
now the interpretation of the cuirass without the belt is less
clear: is it war booty? Or is it the panoply of an Italic soldier, or
192 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
better of an officer of Agathokles? Both are possibilities.
In Carthage, in the so-called Salammbô tophet, a 50cm high
marble cippus was found. Such cippi are typical markers for
male tombs in Caere from the 4th century bc onwards. It would
seem very probable that this cippus was the gravestone of an
Etruscan who died in Carthage, perhaps in the early 3rd century
bc.44 In Carthage and in Cyrene there are also some red-figured
Etruscan plates of the Genucilia class, dating to the end of the
4th–early 3rd century bc.45
During the 4th and 3rd centuries bc, when the Roman
armies were conquering Etruria city by city, some north
Etruscans probably fled their land and tried to find a new
homeland in Africa. This could explain how the longest Etruscan
inscription, the so called Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis, now in
Zagreb, written on a mummy linen cloth and dated by
radiocarbon to 390–25 bc, came to be found in Egypt.46 There is
no record of the circumstamces of the transport of the Etruscan
book to Egypt: it has been presumed to have happened quite
late, perhaps after the bellum Perusinum (41–40 bc), because its
characteristics suggest that the book was written in the Perugia
area.47
Finally, eight Etruscan inscriptions on three boundary
stones, found in Tunisia in the hinterland of Carthage, record the
same person, the Etruscan Marce Unata Zutas. They probably
relate to the escape from Clusium in 82 bc of the Roman consul
Cn. Papirius Carbo and his Etruscan friends, quoted by
Appianus, because Unata is a typical name of Clusium and its
district.48
We can conclude that the presence of Etruscans in North
Africa was a persistent phenomenon, a feature of the histoire de
longue durée of the region.
Figure 10a & b Etruscan bronze infundibula of the lyre
handled type, nos 26 and 34
Figure 11
Distribution of
infundibula in the
Mediterranean

■
Arbedo ●
Ceregnano Pantikapaion
■
Marzabotto
■■
●
San Martino in Gattara
Populonia ■ ● ■ Numana Novi Pazar
■ ▼
■ ▼ ■ ■
Volsinii ■ ■ ■
▼■ ■ Campovalano
■
■▲ Cales
Cancho Roano ▼▼ Trebenishte
Cuma ■ ▲ Nola ▼
Xàbia ■ ■ ■Sala Consilina

M.Bubbonia ■Argos■ ★ Didyma

● Olympia
Gela
Carthage ★ ●
■ Lindos

■
Cyrene

?
I ■ II ● III ▲ IV ▼ ★
Naso
Appendix 1
Etruscan and Italic Artefacts from North Africa
Algeria
Gouraya
1. Small bronze disc (diam. 7.7cm) with incised
decoration and an inscription, dated to the 3rd
century bc. Found in a Punic grave near
Gouraya, approximately 130km west of Algiers.
Liébert 1996. About the inscription: Briquel
2004, with previous bibliography.50
Tipasa
2. Bucchero pottery is mentioned, but is still
unpublished.
Hase 1989, 327-8 note 2.
Tunisia
Carthage
3. Bucchero pottery: 28 small amphorae, 12
oinochoai, two kotylai, 11 cups, 11 kantharoi.
Fig. 2
Hase 1989, 383-92; for the unpublished sherds
from the excavations led by H.G. Niemeyer:
ibid., 330-2, note 15; Docter 1993, 229-30 nos 23-
4: bucchero and impasto (?)
4. Etrusco-Corinthian pottery. Fig. 5
MacIntosh Turfa 1982; Hase 1989, 377-8; Docter
1993, 229-30 nos 25-6 (Etrusco-Corinthian
sherds); Trias 1999, nos 26-7 (two non-joining
Etrusco-Corinthian sherds probably belonging
to the same plate of the ‘Pittore Senza
Graffito’); Szilágyi 1998: 375 no. 61 (cup of the
‘Pittore delle Code Annodate’), 414 no. 15
(Vulcian aryballos), 444 no. 19 (plate with foot
of the ‘Pittore senza Graffito’) 448 nos 132-3
(plates with foot of the ‘Pittore senza Graffito’),
526 no. 34 (cup of the ‘Macchie Bianche’
Group), 532 no. 22 (cup of the Poggio Buco
Group), 533 no. 42 (round aryballos of the
Poggio Buco Group) 601 no. 72 (alabastron of
the ‘Galli Affrontati’ Cycle, Michigan group,
standardized), 684 no. 98 (unattributed
sherd), 694 (general considerations).
5. Bronze handle ending in a duck’s head,
belonging to a ladle or infundibulum.
Mackensen 1999, 540-1, no. 35, figure 1.1, pl.
44.1.
6. Etruscan bronze statuette. Hase 1989, 378.
7. Seven bronze Schnabelkannen, probably
Vulcian. Hase 1989, 378.
8. Ivory tessera hospitalis with Etruscan
inscription. Fig. 6
Petersen 1903, 23; Martelli 1985a, 237 fig. 91;
Martelli 1985b; Hase 1989, 374.
9. Etruscan marble cippus, probably Caeretan.
Pallottino 1966, 12, pl. I.2 (= Pallottino 1979,
393, pl. 8.1); Hase 1996.
194 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
49
10. Etruscan red-figured plates of the Genucilia
class (at least six examples) von Hase 1996, 188
with previous literature; Morel 1990, 85-6, fig.
22 (3 further sherds of Genucilia plates);
Poulsen 2002, 90.
Uadi Milian
11. Three cippi with Etruscan inscriptions.
Heurgon 1969a, 1969b; Carruba 1976; Colonna
1980b, 1-5; Sordi 1995, 115-20.
Utica
12. Bucchero cup.
Morel 1981, 484-5, note 100 with previous
bibliography.
Ksour es Saaf
13. South Italian triple-disc cuirass. Tunis,
National Museum.
Colonna 1981, 177-8, pl. 8; Tagliamonte 1994,
153-4; Carthage 1995, 147-9; Ben Younès 1997,
2001; Tagliamonte 2004, 161 note 103.
Libya
Cyrene
14. Bronze ladle handle from the second
Artemision in Cyrene, which is dated (p. 226) to
450–400 bc. Pernier 1931, 214, fig. 40.51
15. Infundibulum handle. Warden 1990, 8-9, no.
17, pl. 5. Fig. 9
16. Bronze ladle handle with incised
decoration. Warden 1990, 55, no. 402, pl. 40.
17. Etruscan red-figured plate. Bacchielli 1976;
Colonna 1981, 183 note 107; Bacchielli 1986, 375
note 15.
18. Two cups of the Gnathia class. Kenrick 1987,
3-4, nos 20-1.52
Leptis Magna53
Tocra
19. Sherd belonging to the handle of a bucchero
kantharos. Boardman and Hayes 1973, 58 no.
2246, pl. 31 from Deposit II, dated (p. 3) to
590–565 bc, a votive deposit of the sanctuary of
Demeter and Kore.
Egypt
Naukratis54
20. Once in the Fr. W. v. Bissing collection,
whereabouts unknown.55 Fig. 3
Rim of a bucchero kantharos with remains of
one handle. Silvering and arches on the
shoulder. Dimensions: 55mm (height), 60mm
(width). Prins de Jong 1925, 55-6 no. V.2, pl. 3
(top right).
21. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, unpublished
(Inv. no. 88.959). Fig. 4
Sherd of kantharos with three horizontal
grooves beneath the rim and knotching on the
sharp carination.
Johnston 1982, 38, pl. 4, published five
bucchero sherds (four are preserved in the
British Museum, one in University College,
London).
22. Johnston 1982, sherd no. 1 (Inv. no. BM GR
1888.6-1.643a) is an oinochoe rim formed by
three joining sherds. H 6.8cm. It may belong to
an oinochoe Rasmussen 3a (Rasmussen 1979,
161), which is documented at the end of 7th–6th
century bc (Rasmussen 1979, 78-9, pls 7-8) or
Rasmussen 7a, very common in the first half of
the 6th century bc (Rasmussen 1979, 84-5, pl.
16).56 Fig. 7
23. Johnston 1982, sherd no. 2 (UCL-357) was
never reproduced nor photographed. I have
never seen it, in spite of the kind efforts of Dr. A.
Johnston.57
24. Two sherds of skyphoi of the Gnathia class
2nd century bc. Prins de Jong 1925, 70, nos 1-2.
Karnak
25. Karnak, storeroom, Inv. no. A 960.
One sherd belonging to a small amphora (kind
information of P. Rouillard).
Rouillard 1985; Hase 1989, 327-8 note 2.
Tell Defenneh (?)
26. Cairo, National Museum, Inv. no. 27963.
Bronze handle with two plastic horse heads on
the top, belonging probably to an Etruscan
podanipter. Edgar 1904, 81, no. 27963, pl. 10.58
(?)
27. Zagreb, National Museum, Inv. no. 1
(bought in Egypt).
Liber linteus. Roncalli 1980b; Roncalli 1985;
Mirnik 1986. For the chronology: Srdocv et al.
1990.
(?) 59
28. Turin, National Museum, Inv. no. A’ 43
(bought in Egypt). Fig. 1
Antennae sword. Angelucci 1876, 25; Bianco
Peroni 1970, 113 no. 305, pl. 45; Venturoli 2002,
36-7, no. A’ 43.
29. From Alexandria (presumably bought in
Alexandria). Cairo, National Museum, Inv. no.
27902.
Etruscan mirror with Dioscuri and two shields.
Edgar 1904, 68, no. 27902, pl. 18.60

Appendix 2
Etruscan Bronze Infundibula
I LYRE-HANDLED TYPE
Populonia (Livorno)
1. Grave ‘dei Flabelli di Bronzo’. Florence,
Museo Archeologico, Inv. no. 89332.
Zuffa 1960, 178-9, no. 1, pl. 21; Schindler 1998,
276 (Typ I).
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of T.
Grave ‘dei Colatoi’. Florence, Museo
Archeologico, Inv. no. 92589-92590.
2. De Agostino 1961, 86, no. 4, fig. 24.1; Terrosi
Zanco 1974, 163; Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I).
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
quadruped.
3. De Agostino 1961, 86, no. 5, fig. 24.2; Terrosi
Zanco 1974, 163; Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I).
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
Bisenzio (Viterbo)
4. Grave 74 (540–520 bc). Rome, Museo
Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Inv. no.
57165/3.
Colonna 1980a, 45 note 9, figs 3-4; Schindler
1998, 275 (Typ I).
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.
Volsinii or Todi
5. Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Antiquarium.
Zuffa 1960, 186-7 no. 13, pl. 29.a-b.
Handle with the hinge in the form of a couchant
lion.
Castelgiorgio (Terni)
6. Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Inv. no. 82.892.
Zuffa 1960, 190-1 no. 18, pl. 32.c-d.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
quadruped.
Volsinii (Terni)
7. Crocefisso del Tufo, grave 17.
Bizzarri 1962, 89-90, 333, 34061 fig. 30;
Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I).
Bottom of the funnel.
Falerii Veteres, grave 34 (LIII) (Viterbo)
8. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa
Giulia, Inv. no. 371.
Cozza and Pasqui 1887, 175d;62 Cozza and
Pasqui 1981, 170 no. 8 (grave 48).63
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
Castro, grave della Biga (530–520 bc)
female deposition (Viterbo)
9. Moretti Sgubini and De Lucia Brolli 2003,
382, fig. 37.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
Castel San Mariano, grave del Carro
(Perugia)
10. Perugia, National Museum, Inv. no. 1433.
Zuffa 1960, 192-3 no. 21, fig. 7: Höckmann 1982,
159; Schindler 1998, 275 (Typ I).
Broken handle.
Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd Century BC
Todi (Perugia)
11. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa
Giulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 24594.
Zuffa 1960, 185 no. 8, pl. 25.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
12. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa
Giulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 24595.
Zuffa 1960, 193 no. 22, pl. 33.b-c.
Duck’s head; hinge not preserved.
Vetulonia (?) (Grosseto)
13. Collection Stefani.
Zuffa 1960, 185 no. 9, pl. XXVI.a.
Only the hinge in the form of a couchant lion
remains.
Ceregnano near Adria (Rovigo)
14. Whereabouts unknown (perhaps to be
identified with no. 43 in Manchester?).
Zerbinati 1994, 148-9, fig. 1; Schindler 1998, 276
(Typ I).
Ram’s head and hinge in the form of a couchant
lion.
Marzabotto (Bologna)
15. Marzabotto, Museo P. Aria, Inv. no. B 9.
Zuffa 1960, 197 no. 27, pl. 35.d; Muffatti 1968,
155, no. 32, pl. 21.b 3; Schindler 1998, 275 (Typ
I).
Only the funnel remains.
Casalfiumanese (Bologna)
16. Bologna. Museo Civico.
Zuffa 1960, 193-4 no. 23, pl. 34.
Ram’s head (hinge not preserved).
Belmonte Piceno (Ascoli Piceno)
17. Ancona, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Inv. nos 12563 (funnel), 12581 (handle).
Zuffa 1960, 187-9 no. 15, pl. 30.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.
18. Once Ancona, Museo Archeologico
(destroyed during the Second World War).
Zuffa 1960, 194-5 no. 24, pl. 35.a-c.
Lyre handled-type with a peculiar funnel
(pastiche?).
Tolentino, grave near Porta del Ponte
(Macerata)
19. Tolentino, Museo Civico, Inv. no. 1854/1.
Zuffa 1960, 186 no. 12, pl. 28; Massi Secondari
1982, 38-9, note 1, fig. 2.
The hinge is in the form of a couchant lion.
Numana (Ancona)
20. Ancona, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Inv. no. 50769.
Landolfi 1997, 237, no. s.2.
Double lyre handled, duck’s head and hinge in
the form of a couchant lion.
Campovalano, grave 2 (Teramo)
21. Chieti, Museo Nazionale, Inv. no. 5146.
Zanco 1974, 51-2, no. 18; Schindler 1998, 275
(Typ I); Grassi 2003, 502, note 70.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a T.
22. Poggio Sommavilla (Rome)
Whereabouts unknown. Funnel
Bellelli 2006, 94.
Cuma (Naples)
23. Naples, Museo Nazionale, Inv. no. 86069.
Zuffa 1960, 186, no. 11, pl. 27; Albore Livadie
1985, 137 note 49; Grassi 2003, 502, note 70.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
Castellammare di Stabia (?)
24. Albore Livadie 1985, 137 note 49; Grassi
2003, 502, note 70.
Sala Consilina (Salerno)
25. Paris, Petit Palais, Inv. no. 235.
Zuffa 1960, 195-6, no. 25, pls 36-37.
Double lyre handled with ram’s head and hinge
in the form of a sphinx.
Provenance and whereabouts unknown
26. Zuffa 1960, 180 no. 2, pl. 22.2; Terrosi Zanco
1974, 163; Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I) DAI
Rome, Inst. Neg. 29.441, 29.442, 29.443. Fig. 6
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a T.
Provenance unknown
27. Florence, Museo Nazionale, Antiquarium,
Inv. no. 1537.
Zuffa 1960, 183-4 no. 6, pl. 24.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
28. Florence, Museo Nazionale, Antiquarium,
Inv. no. 1538.
Zuffa 1960, 189-90 no. 17, pl. 32.a-b.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.
29. Florence, Museo Nazionale, Antiquarium.
Only the hinge in the form of a couchant lion
remains.
(May be no. 13?)
30. Milan, Museo Civico Archeologico, Inv. no.
1055.
Zuffa 1960, 185 no. 10, pl. 26.b-c.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
31. Raccolta Benedetto Guglielmi. Città del
Vaticano, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, Inv. no.
34864.
Magi 1941, 230-1, no. 117 pl. 68; Zuffa 1960, 187
no. 14, pl. XXIX.c.
Only the hinge in the form of a couchant lion
remains.
32. Turin, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Inv.
no. 933.
Zuffa 1960, 189 no. 16, pl. 31.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.
33. Perugia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Inv. no. 600.
Saioni 2003, 56.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a frog.
34. London, British Museum, Inv. no. GR
1937.10-21.1 (Bronze 2469). Fig. 10b
Walters 1899, 322, note 2469.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
quadruped.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 195
Naso
35. Leipzig, Antikenmuseum der Universität,
Inv. no. MB 4-M 53a. Bought in Vienna in 1917
from L. Pollak.
Zuffa 1960, 184-5 no. 7, pl. 23.c-d; Paul 1988.
Rest of the handle with the hinge in the form of
a couchant lion.
36. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. no.
VI, 2962.
Zuffa 1960, 182-3 no. 4, pl. 23.a.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a T.
37. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. no.
VI, 4637.
Zuffa 1960, 183 no. 5, pl. 23.b.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a T.
38. New York, Metropolitan Museum, Inv. no.
34.11.8.
Zuffa 1960, 196-7 no. 26, pls 38-39.
Ram’s head and hinge in the form of two
couchant lions
39. Newcastle upon Tyne, Shefton Museum of
the University, Inv. no. 139.
Shefton 1970, 55-6, figs 5-6.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
40. Newcastle upon Tyne, Shefton Museum of
the University, Inv. no. 667.
Unpublished.
41. Collection H. Cahn, Basel.
Das Tier in der Antike 1974, 52 no. 311, pl. 52.
Only the hinge in the form of a sphinx remains.
42. Whereabouts unknown.
Kunstwerke der Antike. Auktion 51. Münzen und
Medaillen AG, Basel 1975, 102 no. 228; Treister
1990, 165; Schindler 1998, 276.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of two
couchant lions. Two further lions are on the lid
(pastiche?).
43. Manchester Museum, Inv. no. 29973.
Perhaps to be identified with no. 14 from
Ceregnano.
MacIntosh Turfa 1982, 175 no. 33, pl. 14.d;
Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I).
Ram’s head and hinge in the form of a couchant
lion.
44. Private collection (CH).
Reusser 1986, 27, no. 6.2.
Duck’s head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
45. From the Gorga collection. Rome, Museo
Nazionale Romano.
Lodovici 1999, 49, fig. 12.
Duck’s head without any hinge (the funnel is a
strainer, too).
46. Stuttgart, Württembergisches
Landesmuseum (Inv. no. 3. 190)
Hinge in the form of a couchant lion.
47. Formerly in the collection E. Berman (now
Museo Archeologico, Civita Castellana?)
De Lucia Brolli 2004, fig. 2 (top left).
Handle, probably complete.
Greece
Argos, Heraion
48. Fletcher De Cou 1905, 203-4, no. 31, pl.
LXXVI.
Only the hinge in the form of a frog remains.
196 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Olympia, sanctuary of Zeus (Olympia,
Museum)64
49. Inv. no. Br 12844.
Zuffa 1960, 180-2 no. 3, pl. 22.b-c.
Duck’s head without any rest of a hinge.
50. Inv. No. B 286.
Zuffa 1960, 191 no. 19, pl. 33.a.
Partly preserved, without any rest of a hinge.
51. Inv. No. B 4574.
Siewert 1991, 82 no. 7, pl. 9.2/3.
Handle partly preserved, with a duck’s head,
without any rest of a hinge.
Lindos (Rhodes), sanctuary of Athena
52. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, Inv. no.
3495 m, 3503 m.
Zuffa 1960, 191-2 no. 20, fig. 6.
Duck’s head without any rest of hinge
Libya
Cyrene, sanctuary of Demeter and
Persephone
53. Warden 1990, 8-9, no. 17, pl. 5.
Only the hinge in the form of a frog remains.
Spain
Cancho Roano (Estremadura)
54. Badajoz, Museo Arqueológico Provincial.
Celestino Pérez 1991, 78, fig. 12a; Pallottino
1992, 179, 260, no. 304; Schindler 1998, 275
(Typ I); Celestino Pérez and de Zulueta 2003,
56-8, 92, n. 213.
Ram’s head without any rest of a hinge.
From the sea near Jávea (Alicante)
55. Museu Arqueològic i Etnogràfic ‘Soler
Blasco’, Xàbia.65
Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez (forthcoming).
Duck’s head without any rest of the hinge.
Switzerland
Arbedo, hoard
56. Schindler 1998, 80-2, 275, 321 no. 153 [154],
397 pl. 7.
A funnel and a duck’s head, belonging not
necessarily to the same tool.
II SAN MARTINO IN GATTARA TYPE
San Martino in Gattara, male grave 15
(530–520 bc)
57. Ravenna, Museo Nazionale.
Bermond Montanari 1975, 74, fig. 4; Colonna
1980a, 45-6; Bermond Montanari 1982, 172-4,
no. 20, pl. 93; Treister 1990; Schindler 1998, 276
(Typ IIIa).
Pantikapaion
58. Moscow, Pushkin State Museum of Fine
Arts, Inv. no. GMII. M 410.
Treister 1988; Treister 1990; Treister 1991, 73-4;
Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ IIIa); Treister 1999, 81-
5; Naso 2000, 180-1, pl. IV.2; Naso 2001, 179, fig.
8.
Populonia
59. Collection Gasparri. Populonia, Museo
Archeologico, Inv. no. 1237.
Romualdi 2001, S 2.
Provenance unknown
60. Geneva, Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, Inv. no.
MF. 1170.
Treister 1990, 166; Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ
IIIa).66
61. Gela (Caltanissetta), Archaic wreck
Gela, Museo Archeologico, Inv. no. 38303
Panvini 2001, 31,62.
Monte Bubbonìa (Mazzarino, CL), grave
13/1971 (550–500 bc)
62. Caltanissetta, Museo Archeologico, Inv. no.
34981.
Panvini 2003, 194.
Close to San Martino in Gattara type
Monte Bubbonìa (Mazzarino, CL), grave
10/1955
63. Gela, Archaeological Museum, Inv. no.
9302.
Pancucci and Naro 1992, 126 no. 397 pl. 31.3.
The tomb group is dated to the early 5th
century bc by an Attic olpe by the Painter of
Berlin 2268 (ARV2, 156 no. 63).
III PALMETTE-HANDLED TYPE
Nola (?)
64. Brussels, Musée Royale, Inv. no. R 1127.
Meester de Ravestein 1884, 329-30, no. 1127.
Frog on the lid (pastiche?).
Provenance unknown
65. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. no.
VI-932.
Zuffa 1960, 197-8 no. 28, fig. 8, pl. XL.
Spain
Cancho Roano (Estremadura)
66. Badajoz, Museo Arqueológico Provincial.
Celestino Pérez 1991, 78, fig. 12b; Celestino
Pérez and de Zulueta 2003, 56-8, 92, n. 233.
Hinge in form of a lion.
IV OTHER TYPES
Bisenzio
67. Olmo Bello, grave 80 (excavations
Benedetti 1927-31). Rome, Museo Nazionale
Etrusco di Villa Giulia.
Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ III).
68. Bazzano (L’Aquila), grave 1566 (excavation
V. d’Ercole).
Celano, Museo di Preistoria
Unpublished; kind information of J. Weidig
(Mainz-Marburg)
Trevignano Romano, grave Annesi-
Piacentini.
69. Trevignano Romano, Museo Civico.
Moretti 1967, 65 no. 47, pl. (bottom right);
Colonna 1980, 45 note 8; Schindler 1998, 276
(Typ III); Bellelli 2006, 41-54.
 Etruscan and Italic Finds in North Africa, 7th–2nd Century BC

Provenance unknown
70. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa
Giulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 51370.
Zuffa 1960, 204 no. 31, pl. XLV; Schindler 1998,
276 (Typ III).
Trestina
71. Florence, Museo Archeologico, Inv. no.
77813.
Tarchi 1936, pl. C (bottom, middle); Colonna
1980, 45 note 9; Romualdi 1991, 629; Schindler
1998, 276 (Typ I); Naso (forthcoming).
Cales, grave 89
72. Passaro and Ciaccia 2000, 21; Grassi 2003,
502, note 70.
Santa Maria Capua Vetere
73. Berlin, SMPK, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 6332
and Copenhagen, Kunstmuseet, Inv. no. 3284.
Brown 1960, 111-112; Zuffa 1960, 198-203 no. 29,
pls 41-43; Bellelli 2006, 41-54.
74. Museo di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (?)
Terrosi Zanco 1974, 162-3 (included in the
exhibition ‘Gli Etruschi in Campania’, Teano
1963); Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ I); Grassi 2003,
502, note 70.
Provenance unknown
75. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa
Giulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 24689.
Zuffa 1960, 203-4 no. 30, pl. XLIV.
Provenance unknown
76. Warsaw, National Museum, Inv. no. 147078.
Dobrowolski 1966, 377-8, figs 1, 3.
The following infundibula are not
Etruscan:67
Rhodes, sanctuary of Apollo Erethimios
77. Rhodes, Museum.
Zuffa 1960, 207 no. 33, fig. 10.
Trebenishte, grave VII
78. Sofia, Archaeological Museum.
Zuffa 1960, 204-7 no. 32, pl. 46.
Novi Pazar
79. Beograd, National Museum.
Mano-Zissi and Popovic 1969, 80-1, pl.. 8, 39;
Mano-Zissi and Popovic 1971, 195, pl. 56-60;
Popovic 1975, 89, fig. 18; Treister 1990, 166;
Schindler 1998, 276 (Typ III).
Olympia, sanctuary of Zeus (Olympia,
Museum)
80. Inv. no. Br 14030
Furtwängler 1890, 147, no. 924-924a.
81. Inv. no. Br 12866
Furtwängler 1890, 147, unnumbered, between
924-5).

fig. 1 (general map of bucchero finds) and 27 (kantharoi 3e). Further

Illustration credits
Fig. 1 after Bianco Peroni 1970, 113 no. 305, pl. 45; Fig. 2 after Hase 1989,
fig. 29; Fig. 3 after Prins de Jong 1925 ; Fig. 4 photo MFA, Boston; Fig. 5
after Hase 1989, pl. 28.II; Fig. 6 after Pugliese Carratelli 1986, figs 55–6;
Fig. 7 Drawing Kate Morton; Fig. 8 after Hase 1997 and Rizza 2003; Fig. 9
after Warden 1990; Fig. 10a DAI Rome, Inst. Neg. 29.442; Fig. 10b the
British Museum; Fig. 11 the author.
Notes
* I wish to thank the organizers, particularly U. Schlotzhauer and
A. Villing, for the kind invitation to the Naukratis conference. Thanks
are due to the directors of excavations who permitted me to examine
unpublished material from many sites, namely Prof. V. von Graeve
(Miletos), Prof. A. Furtwängler and Dr. H. Bumke (Didyma), and Dr.
H. Kienast (Samos). I have discussed various aspects of this research
with many friends and colleagues, receiving useful information:
I would like to mention in particular Rosa Maria Albanese Procelli,
Regina Attula, Vincenzo Bellelli, Gebhard Bieg, Massimo Botto,
Brenda Breed, Dominique Briquel, Alan Johnston, Pierre Rouillard,
Brian Shefton, Stephane Verger and J. Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez.
Finally, Phil Perkins improved my English and made some helpful
comments on an earlier draft of the paper.
1 Pallottino 1963.
2 MacIntosh Turfa 1977 (369-70 for a finds list).
3 Morel 1981; Thuillier 1985.
4 Hase 1989, 1993.
5 See for instance the in-depth, documented analysis of Gras 1985 and
the synthesis of Gras 1997, 48-55, where Naukratis and Cyrene are
quoted in relation with the Greek expansion.
6 See Appendix 1, no. 28. For the type: de Marinis 1999, 542-7.
7 On the founding of Cyrene: Parisi Presicce 2003.
8 Boardman and Hayes 1966, 1973.
9 Humphrey 1976.
10 Vickers and Gill 1986; Gill 2004.
11 Excavations have shown that tumuli were used in North Africa for a
long time (Camps 1961, 65-91). It would be interesting to collect the
few scientifically explored grave mounds and compare them with
the monuments of Greece and Etruria. The list of the tumuli in
Cyrenaica includes Rowe 1956, 6-7, fig. 1 (five stone tumuli
containing wooden chamber tombs, dating to the 6th century bc;
Stucchi 1964, 127-31 (tumulus near Messa); Stucchi 1975, 12-13;
Bacchielli 1985, 10-12, fig. 1.4 (tumulus in the agora in Cyrene,
probably erected in honour of Battos, the mythical founder of
Cyrene).
12 The role of Phoenicians and Carthaginians is analyzed by many
authors in Pisano 1999. The literary tradition is collected and
commented on by Hans 1983.
13 The bucchero vases from Carthage, studied by Hase (1989, 1993), are
listed infra (Appendix 1, no. 3). The distribution maps are Hase 1992,
finds of kantharoi: Megalopolis: Tripoli, Archaeological Museum,
unpublished. Paros: Buschor 1929, fig. 8. Daskyleion: Izmir,
Archaeological Museum, unpublished; Miletos: Pfisterer-Haas 1999,
265, 267; Naso 2001, 175-6, fig. 4. Datça: Berges and Tuna 2000, 198-
201, fig. 15b; Berges and Tuna 2001, 162, fig. 13 (three kantharoi are
actually identified). Didyma: sherd belonging to the handle of a
giant kantharos, unpublished (from Taxiarchis, Inv. no. Ke 01-264).
14 See Appendix 1, no. 20.
15 See Appendix 1, no. 21. For the identification of the sherd thanks are
due to Brenda Breed (MFA, Boston).
16 Hirschland Ramage 1970, 17 note 45 for the leaf-silver: Naso 2005a,
for the leaf-gold.
17 Burkhardt 1991, 114-15.
18 Unpublished (Inv. no. So 91-208), but already mentioned in Naso
2001, 175.
19 Boulomié 1982, 14-16, pl. 2.
20 A selection of the bucchero vases from Miletos and the results of the
clay analysis will be published by G. Trojsi and myself in AA.
21 They are listed infra (Appendix 1, no. 4).
22 They are listed infra (Appendix 1, no. 4).
23 Cristofani 1985. The so-called ZitA amphores, which R. Docter
considered to be also of Central Italic origins (Docter 1998), are now
definitively attributed solely to Sardinian production (Oggiano
2000, 241-2).
24 Naso 2001, 180, fig. 9.
25 Concerning Malcus, depicted in the literacy tradition as a general
from Carthage, an interesting opinion has recently been expressed
by M. Gras, who identifies him with the leader of the Carthaginian
fleet, who fought with the Etruscan ships against the Greeks in the
Sardinian Sea battle (Gras 2000b, 38-9). This hypothesis, although
very stimulating, is far from certain. Therefore, I still prefer to follow
Bondì 2000, 63-5, Fantar 2000, 77-8 and Krings 2000: according to
them, the more probable enemies of Malcus were the Phoenician
cities in Sardinia or, less convincingly, the Sardinian people.
26 Hdt. 1.166.1-2. On this battle see now Bernardini et al. 2000
(comprising many articles devoted to the various people involved in
the battle); Bernardini 2001.
27 Arist. Pol., 3.5.10-11. MacIntosh Turfa 1977 (the chronology that puts
the early treaty between Carthage and Rome in 580 bc is now
completely obsolete).
28 Polyb. 3.22.4-13.
29 Ampolo 1987, 80-4; Scardigli 1991, 47-87.
30 See Appendix 1, no. 8. The identification as tesserae hospitales is due
to Messineo 1983. The animal of the tablet from Carthage is usually
considered to be a wild boar; the inscription is ET, Af 3.1. For the
tablet from Rome see Torelli 2000, 554, no. 38 (with previous
bibliography; more has been written since); the inscription is ET, La
2.3. For further tesserae hospitales from Murlo see Maggiani
(forthcoming).

Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 197

Naso
31 Krings 1998, 2.
32 Berges 1997, 52.
33 The literature on Caere in this period is quoted in Colonna 2000,
which concerns the relevant finds from Pyrgi. Further data about the
new excavations in the urban area of Caere are presented in
Cristofani 2003.
34 It has been found in the excavation of the treasury of Thoutmosis I,
carried out by the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO)
under the direction of H. Jacquet-Gordon: Rouillard 1985, 24. A
Klazomenian amphora from Karnak has been published by
Boardman 1958.
35 The inscribed kantharoi from Perachora and Ialisos are discussed by
Hase 1997, 317-18, fig. 24. The bucchero vases with Greek inscriptions
from Sicily (Selinous and Girgenti) are gathered in Gras 1985, 498;
the new finds from Leontinoi are illustrated by Rizza 2003, 546-8,
figs 7-8, pl. 6.
36 Only Ionian bucchero is known from the site (Schaus 1985a, 73-6 nos
446-68).
37 Warden 1990, 8-9, no. 17, pl. 5.
38 The ancient literacy tradition on the Etruscan artefacts is collected
and discussed by Mansuelli 1984.
39 The ‘classic’ work on infundibula is Zuffa 1960, added to by Colonna
1980, 45-6, who proposed to localize the workshop in Volsinii; M.
Schindler has furnished a list (Schindler 1998, 275-6) and a
distribution map (Schindler 1998, 81, fig. 20) that are not always
congruous; further bibliography is listed in Naso (forthcoming).
Camporeale 2003, 164 quotes the infundibula among the products of
craftsmen of Volsinii. I give here a comprehensive list (Appendix 2). I
hope to devote a proper study to these objects soon, to support my
hypothesis.
40 Carthage: Mackensen 1999, 540-1, no. 35, fig. 1.1, pl. 44.1. Didyma:
Bumke and Röver 2002, 97-9, fig. 20. About Etruscan ladles: Donati
1998, 163-6; Jurgeit 1999, 439-47, nos 740-56; Naso 2003a, 105-6, no.
159-61. Recently two Etruscan ladles from Macedonia and Nemea
have been published (Blackman 2001/2, 21 fig. 38).
41 The localization in Vulci of the infundibula workshop has already
been hypothesized (Martelli 1988, 23-5; Paul 1988). Even if only one
infundibulum was presumably found in that centre (Appendix 2, no.
30) and one in Castro, a minor centre of the Vulcian territory
(Appendix 2, no. 9), one can presume the provenance from Vulci of
many tools of unknown provenance (Appendix 2, nos 27-47),
because the necropoleis around this city have been often disturbed
by illegal excavations.
42 On the Vulcian bronzes the old article of Neugebauer 1943 is still
useful, although the most comprehensive and recent study is now
Riis 1998; M. Martelli provides a comprehensive study of the Vulcian
stone workshops in the 6th century bc (Martelli 1988, 2001, 2004,
forthcoming). For the bronze Schnabelkannen see now Vorlauf 1997.
43 See Appendix 1, no. 13. A similar cuirass is preserved in Naples,
Archaeological National Museum, Inv. no. 5735: Acquaro and Ferrari
2004, 114-15, no. 154. The Italic bronze belts have been collected by
Romito 1995.
44 See Appendix 1, no. 9. On these cippi see Blumhofer 1993 and my
review (Naso 1994).
45 See Appendix 1, no. 10. For the distribution of Genucilia plates in
central Italy: Naso 1996, 175, note 265; Poulsen 2002. Dr. L. Vuono
(Rome/Mannheim) is publishing her thesis including new data
about the Genucilia plates from the Palatine Hill.
46 See Appendix 1, no. 27. Concerning Etruscan linen books: Roncalli
1980a.
47 Colonna 1988, 16, note 8.
48 See Appendix 1. no. 11. The inscriptions are ET, Af 3.2.
49 The following bibliography has been accessible to me: AfrIt (1, 1927-
8, 1941); LibAnt (1, 1964-16, 1979, n.s. 1, 1995- 4, 1998); LibSt (1, 1970-
33, 2002); Monografie di archeologia libica (1-19); QAL (1,1950-17,
2002); Karthago I-III. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago,
edited by F. Rakob, 1991-1997. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
50 For the Italic bronze discs: Tomedi 2000, reviewed by Naso 2003b.
51 These objects, as parts of Etruscan wine sets, are concentrated in
Etruria, but they are occasionally also found in southern Italy
(Jurgeit 1999, 462, nos 778-9).
52 These vases are not a certain import from Italy, since a production
similar to Gnathia has been suggested for Alexandria (Piekarski
2001a, 107-8; Alexandropoulou 2002, 196-7).
198 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
53 In my opinion the kotyle from the necropolis of Leptis Magna
published as Etrusco-Corinthian (De Miro and Fiorentini 1977, 31, fig.
38) is not Etruscan, as J.P. Morel correctly hypothesized (Morel 1981,
484-5, note 100).
54 The presence of Etruscan bucchero in Naukratis is stressed by many
authors (Boardman 1958, 12 note 47; Morel 1981, 468 note 15;
Boardman 1999a, 124; Möller 2000a, 144; Kerschner 2001, 75).
55 The collection v. Bissing was divided among the museums of
Amsterdam, Berlin, Bonn, Den Haag and Munich (Kerschner 2001,
72). The sherds in the museums of Berlin and Munich were destroyed
during the Second World War; in Bonn there is no Etruscan bucchero
(Piekarski 2001a).
56 Johnston 1982, nos 3-5, Inv. no. BM GR 1888.6-1.643b-d (d refers to
two sherds), are four sherds not all joining, but belonging to the
same vase, with a form similar to an Attic black-figure olpe. Similar
forms are not represented among the Etruscan bucchero repertoire;
the clay, quite fine, with mica and a slim slip, is also untypical for
Etruscan bucchero.
57 Dr. Phil Perkins kindly informed me that in the British Museum’s
storerooms also the following bucchero sherds from Naukratis are
preserved: 22 sherds of an oinochoe Rasmussen 3a or 3d (GR 1924.12-
1.76 b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,v,w); one sherd incised with a
palmette (GR 1924.12-1.75); two unidentified sherds (GR 1924.12-1.77
and 78); one oinochoe, nearly complete but restored, of type
Rasmussen 3a, the provenance of which is, however, not certain (GR
1977.10-11.89); one unidentified sherd possibly of bucchero (GR
1888.6-1.633). This material will be published by Perkins
(forthcoming).
58 For this type of vase, probably from Volsinii (Colonna 1985, 45, note
2): Höckmann 1982, 100, nos 57, 66-7, pl. 55.1-5 (without horse
heads), dated to 550–500 bc. A further Etruscan podanipter with lion
feet has been found in a grave group in Vaste dating to 430 bc
(Semeraro 1990, 89-90 no. 102; Tarditi 1996, 39 no. 53).
59 In the Cairo Museum also fakes of Etrusco-Italic antiquities are
preserved, such as a bronze Herakles (Edgar 1904, 71, no. 27918, pl.
I), belonging to a group of similar statuettes (Franzoni 1966, 50-1, fig.
11; Naso 2003a, 280, no. 531, pl. 106). One should also mention a
female head-oinochoe from el Kantara (Bissing 1903, 146 fig. 3f;
Edgar 1904, 29, no. 27743, pl. VII) close to (but not Etruscan: the eyes
have been made of glasspaste!) a group of Etruscan female head-
vases of the Hellenistic period (Menzel 1959; Haynes 1959; Naso
2003a, 77-9, nos 119-21).
60 This subject is very popular (Naso 2003a, 122, note 172).
61 No. 332 had usually also been attributed to an infundibulum, but it
probaly belonged to a torch-holder (like Hostetter 2001, 142-3, no.
353-5, pl. 63-4, from Spina).
62 ‘Manico fuso di bronzo appartenente a un simpulum. Nella parte
piana, sopra ad un ornamento traforato, incastra in una cerniera
girante un piccolo leone a tutto rilievo, le cui zampe anteriori erano
inchiodate nella lamina che serviva da coperchio’.
63 ‘Manico elegante di colum. Si può distinguere in due porzioni, l’una
vicina all’alto del vaso, è in forma di …, che parte, sulla linea
mediana della quale un leoncino si accovaccia, l’altra semplice,
ricurvandosi in basso, termina in una testa d’oca. Lungh. mm 220’.
This is probably the same tool that A. Furtwängler saw in the Villa
Giulia Museum (Furtwängler 1890, 196, ad no. 1267, 1267a: grave 38)
and that could not be found by H. Sauer (1937, 296), F. Magi (1941,
230) and M. Zuffa (1960, 181 note 37).
64 Furtwängler 1890, 147, no. 924a, is a small fragment of a handle,
perhaps belonging to a non-Etruscan infundibulum. Brown’s (1960,
111, note 2) careful attribution of Furtwängler 1890, 152 no. 966, pl.
57, to an infundibulum is very probably wrong, because the plomb
rests under the paws and the hinge under the hindlegs are never
documented among infundibula.
65 Xàbia is the Catalan name of Jávea. Thanks to Vincenzo Bellelli I
have heard from Dr. J. Vives-Ferrándiz Sánchez (Valencia) of the
existence of this infundibulum, which will be published in a German
periodical.
66 Contrary to the brief published description (Fol 1874, 252, note 1169
from Vulci), another bronze sherd preserved in Geneva (Musée d’Art
et d’Histoire, Inv. no. MF. 1169) does not belong to an infundibulum.
67 B.B. Shefton classified as ‘Hallstatt imitation’ the tool from Novi
Pazar (Shefton 1970, 55-6).
Identity in the Making: Greeks in the
Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age
Alexander Fantalkin
Abstract
Although Greek contacts with the Southern Levant during the Iron
Age have been studied at length, the matter remains controversial
in many aspects. The present study provides an overview of East-
West contacts during the first half of the 1st millennium bc,
suggesting to divide it into five major periods of contact. These
periods, involving a different chronological setting, are
characterized by different ‘total contexts’, heavily shaped by geo-
political dynamics. It is suggested that every period of contacts (or
their absence) requires a different explanation.
Introduction
For scholars interested in Greek contacts with the Southern
Levant during the Iron Age two developments in the late 7th
century bc are truly remarkable: the establishment of Naukratis
in Egypt and the massive appearance of East Greek pottery on
the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. It is not surprising
therefore that these themes were chosen, inter alia, for the 28th
British Museum Classical Colloquium.1 However, any attempt at
discerning and decoding patterns in the dispersion of East Greek
pottery in the Levant, as well as explaining the Naukratis
phenomenon, requires an understanding of East–West contacts
during the first half of the 1st millennium bc. Such an overview
is undertaken here.
However, since I could not hope in the present format to do
justice to the whole range of issues that preoccupy scholars
dealing with Greeks in the East, I offer instead an extremely
brief synopsis of Greeks in the East during the Iron Age, with
special emphasis on a few thorny issues.
Since I shall concentrate on a number of broad
historical/archaeological issues, it is perhaps prudent to
acknowledge that every generation writes its own history and
that every scholar has a view of the past coloured by his/her
education, experience and environment. I have no pretensions
therefore that my interpretations of East–West contacts will be
taken as the only possible scenario. On the other hand, I hope
that among the pool of potential explanations for the changing
nature of East-West contacts, the model I offer best accounts for
the available evidence.2
From an epistemological point of view, I am on the side of
many who argue that among the three main poles – realism,
positivism and idealism3 – it is usually realism that offers the
most useful point of departure for any archaeological
reconstruction, especially when this realism is combined with a
healthy dose of scepticism and a pinch of imagination.4 And
although I can accept, at least to a certain extent, that in too
many cases ‘there are no facts, only interpretations’, archaeology
does often supply facts. Some facts, such as the presence or
absence of Greek pottery on the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean, matter a great deal. The question remains: what
we are going to do with these facts? But before I embark on the
‘pots and people’ question, I would like to emphasize the
significance of the historical/chronological context – the
backbone of any historical interpretation.
The accumulation of data, an essential beginning, should
lead to contextualization involving the understanding that
different chronological settings may represent different geo-
political dynamics. Ian Morris rightly observes that one of the
major shortcomings of the post-modern trend of emphasising
connectivity and mobility is its timelessness.5 He points out that
many of what he calls first wave studies ‘showing links between
Greek and Near Eastern cultures, often threw together evidence
scattered across centuries, disregarding traditional
chronologies’.6 The recent contribution of Horden and Purcell
takes this approach even further,7 arguing ‘against
interpretations that emphasize radical change and violent
discontinuity in the Mediterranean past’.8 What is offered
instead is a vision of a permanently integrated Mediterranean,
wherein change is constant and ubiquitous, but generally local
in its effects. Such a reconstruction, with its emphasis on
microregions, leaves little room for pivotal turning points in
Mediterranean history, since the assumed connectivity stretches
across extremes of time, by-passing geo-political boundaries and
empires, together with symbolically expressed ideologies of
economic exchange and political domination.9
With mobility as the norm and a permanent feature of
human activity around the Mediterranean shores, we are forced
to ask questions differently. Or, as Emma Blake recently put it,
‘rather than ask, why did people move, one may ask, why did
people stay put in some cases?’10 Heavily affected by current
globalization,11 Horden and Purcell’s vision of the
Mediterranean is already considered by some, and not without
reason, as ‘one of those manifest watersheds in the study of
antiquity’, which will take a generation of historians to digest.12
Indeed, taking into consideration a number of earlier studies in
favour of a permanently connected Mediterranean, one is
tempted to suppose that we are witnessing a paradigm shift.13
What is missing in the portrait of a permanently connected
Mediterranean, however, is the notion of historical/
chronological context. In this regard, Bakhtin’s concept of the
total context of an utterance provides an applicable insight. The
total context relates to the ways in which voices circulate in both
spoken and written dialogues and, according to Bakhtin, is
unrepeatable.14 Even if one repeats the words employed in the
same order, the total context would be always different, if for no
other reason than because the words have already been uttered
once.15
And when Horden and Purcell insert the distribution of Late
Bronze Age ox-hide ingots into the model of a permanently
connected Mediterranean, for instance, comparing it
simplistically with the whole spectrum of later metallurgical
distributive systems,16 the ‘total unrepeatable context’ of
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 199
Fantalkin
particular periods is lost. The problem is not one of comparing
some chronologically distant metallurgical distributive systems.
After all, the merits of the comparative approach are
undeniable.17 Likewise, analogies are appropriate tools and
salient features of any historical/archaeological investigation.
The problem is a deliberate unwillingness to recognize that the
distribution of Late Bronze Age ox-hide ingots should be
understood on its own terms and against the background of Late
Bronze Age geo-political dynamics,18 which are a world apart
from the distributive systems of the Greeks and Romans, let
alone those of medieval Genoa. Or, as Mario Liverani observes,
‘the “Bronze Age”, invented as a classificatory device for tools
and weapons, can still be used as a large historical label,
encompassing similarly structured socioeconomic systems and
quite sharply opposed to the (differently labelled) preceding and
succeeding periods’; (emphasis added – A.F.).19
Although it might be relevant, I am not concerned here with
the long-running debate involving polarising tendencies ‘to see
the past as Same (a primitive version of our present, which
teleologically evolves into it) or as Other (as a remote, alien,
fundamentally different world)’.20 My main concerns are socially
embedded cultural contexts21 and their chronological settings.
Therefore, with regard to metallurgical distributive systems, the
only reliable conclusion that may be deduced from the analogies
scattered across the centuries is, in my view, an
acknowledgment that different distributive systems have existed
in the Mediterranean at different times. However, in order to
understand the forces driving these and other exchange
activities, they must be viewed in their proper chronological/
historical contexts. It is not helpful to gather all the cases of
connectedness and mobility under the same rubric of a
permanently interconnected Mediterranean without
distinguishing between different historical periods.
Indeed, the presence or absence of Greeks in the Eastern
Mediterranean during the Iron Age suggests that there is no
single model that would explain these contacts (or their
absence) through different time periods. Quite the opposite:
judging from the facts on the ground (and there are some),
every subsequent historical period requires a different
explanation, a different narrative.
Greek contact with the eastern Mediterranean during the Iron
Age: stressing the context
The area under discussion runs from the coast east of Cilicia
down to the Sinai Peninsula. The contacts in question may be
divided roughly into five major periods, each involving a
different chronological setting. These settings are characterized
by different ‘total contexts’ heavily shaped by geo-political
dynamics.
First period: a renewal of contact
The first period is characterized by the presence of mainly
Euboean pottery (but also Attic and Atticizing) found in
northern Syria, Phoenicia and northern Israel in the late 10th,
the 9th and the better part of the 8th centuries bc.22 The
assumed Phoenician superiority in virtually everything leaves,
according to many modern scholars, no room for independent
Euboean ventures at such an early date, especially to the East.
When even pure Cypriot ventures are labelled Cypro-
Phoenician,23 it is quite obvious that Euboeans could not
200 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
compete with the advanced Phoenicians, let alone establish a
trading post at Al Mina toward the end of the 9th century bc.
The dominant view among Aegean specialists, although with
notable exceptions, is that the Phoenicians brought Euboean
pottery with them to the East.24
However, the trend during the last decades of pinpointing
the beginning of Phoenician expansion to as early as the
11th/10th centuries bc,25 if not earlier, is based almost entirely on
a handful of presumably historical sources: to a lesser extent on
the so-called ‘Report of Wenamun’26 and to a larger extent on the
biblical accounts regarding the cooperation between Kings
Solomon and Hiram I.27 These sources can no longer be treated
as reliable.28 Furthermore, the low Iron Age chronology,
advanced in Israel nearly a decade ago,29 has enormous
implications for the Aegean world.
First, it leaves no room for Phoenician colonial expansion
before the late 9th–early 8th centuries bc.30 The presence of
imported Phoenician vases in the assemblages at Palaepaphos
Skales31 should not imply the beginning of Phoenician
colonisation of Cyprus before their establishment in Kition at the
late 9th century bc.32 Indeed, judging from available
archaeological evidence, the initial Phoenician expansion
overseas, accompanied by settlements abroad, took place only in
the second half of the 9th century bc; and I refer to the well-
known Phoenician establishment at Kition,33 but also to evidence
from new radiocarbon dating from Carthage34 and Southern
Spain.35
In my view, this expansion may be explained as a result of
pressure from Hazael, the king of Aram Damascus.36 A plethora
of archaeological data accumulated in Israel, such as Hazael’s
inscriptions37 and possible destruction layers, mostly in northern
Israel,38 but also to the south in biblical Gath,39 suggests that
Hazael’s kingdom was one of the most serious players in the
Southern Levant during the second half of the 9th century bc.40
I believe that Susan Frankenstein’s theory,41 that the
Phoenician specialization in trade, accompanied by their
settlements abroad, should not be seen entirely as free-trade
activity, but rather in the context of their functioning as
commercial agents for the Neo-Assyrian Empire, is basically
correct. However, judging from the archaeological data
regarding the beginning of Phoenician expansion overseas, this
delicate arrangement, which eventually transformed the
Phoenicians into pan-Mediterranean traders, started in the days
of Hazael, with Phoenicians serving the trade ambitions of Aram
Damascus.42
Second, and even more important, the low Syro-Palestinian
chronology provides, finally, an anchor for Aegean Proto-
Geometric and Geometric chronologies.43
A minimalist approach to the beginning of Phoenician affairs
in the Mediterranean44 leads, in conjunction with a low
chronology,45 to an emphasis on the principal role played by the
Euboeans in the renewal of contact between East and West,46
culminating in the establishment of Al Mina sometime around
800 bc.47 This, of course, occurred on behalf of local rulers.48 The
same pattern will be observed almost 200 years later, with the
establishment of Naukratis in Egypt. In this regard, Boardman’s
notion that we should consider a trading port at Al Mina as a
modest precursor of Naukratis is rather attractive.49 The Greek
presence in the Eastern Mediterranean at this early period
seems always to be restricted and controlled by local
 Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age
authorities.50 Therefore, I strongly disagree with the idea that
accepting a prominent Euboean role in Early Iron Age journeys
to the East makes one Helleno-centrist.51 The Euboeans were
conducting these journeys because they were interested in re-
establishing lost contacts with the East.52 It would give to the
ruler of Lefkandi, for example, an enormous advantage
compared to other contemporary Greek rulers.53 For the Greek
side it meant a great deal. For the East, it does not seem to mean
much at all. But for the Greeks it meant the beginning of the
Orientalizing movement, with a minor Phoenician contribution,
but mainly, through the Syrians, as was already suggested long
ago and on many occasions by John Boardman. To this, one
should add the adoption of the Greek alphabet, sometime
around the middle of the 8th century bc.54 All in all, although
the renewal of contact may be attested during the 10th/9th
centuries bc, it certainly intensified during the better part of the
8th century bc at least until the beginning of the Neo-Assyrian
domination over the Southern Levant.
Second period: the Neo-Assyrian domination
Greek contacts with the East were halted by Assyrian expansion;
here we arrive at a second period, the period of Assyrian
domination. The recent understanding of the processes that
took place in the Southern Levant near the end of the 8th and
during the main part of the 7th centuries bc shows
unprecedented involvement of the Assyrian administration in
local affairs. This involvement may be seen in a variety of fields,
such as the annexation of many Levantine kingdoms
accompanied by the transformation of some of them into
Assyrian provinces; population exchanges; re-arrangement of
the borders and intensive construction activity. The latter is
particularly visible in the coastal area, which is dotted with
Assyrian emporia and fortresses.55 One of the most important
Assyrian goals was the supervision of Phoenician trading
activity. In this regard, as I have already stated, Susan
Frankenstein’s theory viewing the Phoenicians as commercial
agents for the Neo-Assyrian Empire seems to be basically
correct.56 Concerning the Eastern Mediterranean, it is quite clear
that every aspect of Phoenician commerce was closely overseen
and taxed by Assyrian officials. What we are witnessing here is a
delicate balancing act. On the one hand, the Phoenicians
enjoyed the stability produced by the pax Assyriaca and the
exclusive access to the network of trade-routes and trade-centres
across the Eastern Mediterranean. On the other hand, their
commerce was strictly regulated and taxed.57 The Phoenicians
involved in commercial and colonial activities in the Western
Mediterranean, far from their Assyrian masters, doubtless
enjoyed a higher degree of flexibility than their counterparts in
the Eastern Mediterranean. From the point of view of the
present colloquium, however, the most important conclusion is
that, with regard to the southern Levant, this new world-order
left most of the mainland Greeks quite effectively out of the
game.
The single limited point of contact that was left was again Al
Mina, which became a port of trade toward the end of the 8th
and during the 7th centuries bc. But after c. 700 bc, Euboean
imports to the Southern Levant almost disappear. Starting from
Al Mina’s Level 6, it is mainly East Greek pottery that shows up
during the period of Assyrian domination, not Euboean. Besides
it is not yet entirely clear who was responsible for carrying this
pottery to Al Mina. Did it arrive directly from Eastern Greece or
was the Cypriot connection involved? What appears to be quite
clear, however, is that mainland Greece seems to be without
direct connections with the East, starting from the period of the
Neo-Assyrian domination. In fact, excluding Al Mina, while even
at this site there is a clear structural break between Levels 7 and
6, Greek pottery (except for a few insignificant cases) is almost
non-existent in the Neo-Assyrian contexts.58 This contrasts with
a much broader distribution prior to the Neo-Assyrian
domination and, especially, immediately after its collapse.
Lanfranchi’s recent speculations regarding Greek contact
with the Neo-Assyrian Empire,59 which are based,
archaeologically, almost exclusively on Haider’s earlier study,60
will find no echo in the archaeological realities of the Southern
Levant. Dependent as they are on mistaken representations and
understandings of the archaeological data involved,61
Lanfranchi’s historical implications, according to which
Assyrians favoured Greeks over Phoenicians in commercial and
settlement activities in the southern Levant,62 can confidently be
rejected. Similar confusion regarding the Greek pottery in the
Southern Levant appears in Rollinger’s recent attempt to draw a
picture of Greek contacts with the East during Neo-Assyrian
period.63 Likewise, his suggestion that we consider the
individuals mentioned in the Near-Eastern texts as Iaman +
suffixes other than āya as possible Greeks acting in the midst of
the Neo-Assyrian Empire, seems to reside on rather shaky
ground.
Both archaeological and historical data suggest that during
the Neo-Assyrian regime the Greeks occupied a marginal space
in the Mesopotamian understanding of the universe. Bearing in
mind the Neo-Assyrian imperial ideology, with its pretensions of
ruling a universal domain,64 such a role for Greeks is
understandable. Located in the ‘midst of the sea’,65 where the
Neo-Assyrian regime was not able to insert them physically into
the ‘correct relationship’ with the imperial new-world order,
Greeks were reduced to the status of ‘disparate, remote people
living on the edge of the world’66 in the Neo-Assyrian mappa
mundi.
The Phoenicians apparently were chosen to serve as
commercial agents for the Neo-Assyrian empire not because
they were natural-born traders,67 although their expertise
should not be underestimated, but because the Neo-Assyrian
regime was able to control their trade, which was not without
benefits for both sides. Given this state of affairs, I tend to agree
with Helm’s suggestion that, for the Greek side, ‘the imperial
obligations imposed on permanent residents in Assyrian
provinces made life in the Levant unattractive’.68 Indeed, as
Helm pointed out more than 25 years ago:
Even in the few nominally independent port cities such as Arvad,
Tyre, Ashkelon and Gaza it is likely that Greek traders would have
encountered Assyrian administrators, commercial regulations and
economic institutions. It was doubtless these contacts, and the
contacts with other representatives of Assyrian provincial
government, which gave visiting Greeks the not inaccurate
impression that the entire east Mediterranean coast comprised
’Assuri&h.69
The unprecedented involvement of the Neo-Assyrian
administration in the local affairs of the Southern Levant (see
above), attested both historically and archaeologically, is
certainly in accord with Helm’s suggestions. In this regard,
Amélie Kuhrt’s rather sceptical look at the evidence for direct
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 201
Fantalkin
contact between Greece and the Mesopotamian empires is
particularly revealing.70 Although, as in the earlier periods, the
Greeks definitely continued to meet Easterners, this time these
were mostly Phoenician competitors. And these are indeed the
Homeric Phoenicians.71
The nature of direct contact between the Greeks and the
Near East during the second period in my provisional scheme
suggests therefore the beginning of a ‘Great Divide’ rather than
Burkert’s Orientalizing revolution.72
It should be explicitly stated, however, that the concept of a
Great Divide does not imply an immediate break in contacts. It is
better described as a gradual process, starting with Tiglath-
pileser III’s annexation of the kingdom of Unqi/Patina in
738/737 bc. If Zadok’s identification of Al Mina as A∆tâ in
Tiglath-pileser’s inscription on the Iran stele is correct,73 this
might indicate that right after the annexation of Unqi, an
Assyrian emporium was installed at Al Mina,74 in order to
regulate and incorporate the existing Greek enclave into the
sphere of the Neo-Assyrian realm. Already at that time, a letter
from Calah (Nimrud)(ND 2370), sent most probably to Tiglath-
pileser III by Qurdi-Aššur-lāmur, points to a possible Ionian raid
on the Phoenician coast.75 To this one may add a reference to the
town of Yauna, mentioned in a Neo-Assyrian letter (ND 2737)
published a few years ago by Saggs.76 The letter contains no
firmly dateable details. However, the themes discussed and the
arenas of operation seem to be echoed in the letters of Qurdi-
Aššur-lāmur, who was probably the governor of S.imirra in the
time of Tiglath-pileser III.77 In this regard, Na’aman’s suggestion
that we identify the town of Yauna with Ras el-Bassit,78 would, if
accepted, point to a possible Greek presence at this site at that
time. Hereafter, however, the handful of Neo-Assyrian sources
that mention Ionians, mostly in hostile contexts,79 when
combined with an almost total lack of Greek pottery in the Neo-
Assyrian assemblages (see above), leave little doubt about an
intensification of the Great Divide.
Third period: stressing the significance of the late 7th-century BC
contact, during a brief period of Egyptian domination
The next period, although chronologically brief, is the most
important for the purposes of the present colloquium. I refer to
some 20–25 years of Egyptian rule in the Southern Levant,
following the Assyrian withdrawal. When the Assyrians pulled
out from the Levant sometime in the twenties of the 7th century
bc,80 the Egyptians took over their territories and ruled until the
Babylonian invasion. This period, the third in my provisional
schema of the Greek presence in the Levant, lasted until the
Babylonian destructions at the end of the 7th and in the early
6th centuries bc.
The sudden and massive appearance of East Greek pottery
on the coastal plain of Israel toward the end of the 7th century
bc 81 and its subsequent disappearance after only a few years fit
the time-span during which the area fell under Egyptian rule.82
Following Nadav Na’aman’s insightful observations, I have
elsewhere discussed at length the East Greek pottery
assemblages found in places such as Ashkelon, and the
fortresses of Mez.ad H.ashavyahu and Kabri, arguing that these
represent Greek mercenaries in the employ of the Egyptians.83 In
this reconstruction, the placement of these garrisons along the
coast together with the employment of Kittim along the
southern fringe of the kingdom of Judah, conformed to two
202 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Egyptian goals: first, to protect the coastal plain – the main route
to the North; and second, to protect the Arabian trade networks,
which the Egyptians inherited from the Assyrians.84 The modest
finds of East Greek pottery in the vicinity of major military
bases85 probably reflect Greek mercenary activities in these areas
rather than pottery trade.
Many scholars, however, have claimed that the abundance
of East Greek pottery should be taken as evidence of East Greek
trade.86 In these reconstructions even the coarse East Greek
cooking pots are considered a tradable commodity to the East.87
In my view, most of these reconstructions are untenable. The
attested distribution and the nature of East Greek finds in the
region of Palestine are insufficient to prove either the existence
of a developed pottery trade88 or the existence of a directional
exchange of other goods that may be less visible in the
archaeological record.89
An additional point that argues in favour of East Greek
mercenary garrisons rather than trading emporia is the
restriction of East Greek trade to Naukratis in Egypt.90 It must be
remembered that the establishment of Naukratis toward the end
of the 7th century bc overlaps with the appearance of East Greek
pottery on the Israeli coast. There is hardly any doubt that the
entire coastal plain up to Phoenicia should be considered
Egyptian domain.91 In these circumstances it is reasonable to
assume that Egyptians would not have allowed the uncontrolled
establishment of East Greek emporia on the Southern Levantine
coast, just as they did not allow it in Egypt itself. While Phoenicia
proper and the areas to the north might have enjoyed East Greek
trade during the Egyptian interlude,92 the evidence collected so
far from the southern part of the Eastern Mediterranean points
mainly to East Greek mercenary activity.93
The sudden appearance of Greek mercenaries in the East
and their employment by the different Near Eastern Powers
continues to be a subject of debate.94 In my opinion, both
historical and archaeological evidence suggests that the
presence of Greek mercenaries in the region should be
explained as an organized movement orchestrated by a central
Egyptian authority. These Greeks were not individual
mercenary adventurers but were formally garrisoned.95 I cannot
accept the ideas expressed by several scholars that East Greek
assemblages point to individual adventurers or small groups of
Greek mercenaries96 pursuing Homeric honour and glory.97 I
dealt with this issue in detail a few years ago,98 and I intend to
expand the discussion elsewhere. Likewise, today I am even
more convinced that attempts to attribute the employment of
Greek mercenaries to Egyptian vassals, be it the kingdom of
Judah or the kingdom of Tyre, should be abandoned.
Most recently, however, Wenning99 defended his date for the
establishment of Mez.ad H.ashavyahu between 600 and 598 bc,
under the reign of King Jehoiakim.100 This is in contrast to
Na’aman’s suggestion that the fortress of Mez.ad H.ashavyahu
was abandoned in 604 bc, the year in which Nebuchadnezzar II
launched a campaign to the Philistine Coast and destroyed
Ashkelon.101 In my opinion, however, Na’aman’s scenario
remains the most plausible option. Moreover, I hope I was able
to demonstrate that since the abandonment pattern attested at
Mez.ad H.ashavyahu points to a ‘planned abandonment without
anticipated return’,102 it fits nicely with the assumption that this
Egyptian fortress was intentionally abandoned in face of the
approaching Babylonian army.103
 Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age
The historical improbability of Wenning’s scenario, on the
other hand, which attributes the employment of Greek
mercenaries to Jehoiakim, who was an Egyptian vassal, has
already been demonstrated104 and there is no need to revisit it
here. Likewise, from a strictly archaeological point of view,
Wenning’s entire case rests on the presence of a single pottery
sherd he attributes to the North Ionian Late Wild Goat style.
Even if we assume that the sherd has been identified correctly,
Wenning’s belief that it cannot be earlier than 600 bc is
untenable. The East Greek pottery chronology for this period,
with its approximate dates, rests on synchronisms with
Palestinian destruction levels and on synchronisms with
Corinthian and Attic pottery.105 It is simply impossible to assume
such precision (+/– 4 years, which is the difference between
Wenning and myself!) in dating this North Ionian East Greek
sherd. In terms of absolute chronology, both the East Greek
pottery and the local pottery from Mez.ad H.ashavyahu may be
placed either in the late 7th or in the early 6th centuries bc.106
Therefore one must consider the broader historical situation.
In support of his thesis, Wenning cites Niemeier’s response
to my treatment of the finds from Mez.ad H.ashavyahu.
Niemeier’s critique, however, is confused. First he concurs with
Wenning that ‘Mez.ad H.ashavyahu was erected by King
Jehoiakim during the brief period of possible Judahite
autonomy after 600 bc and was abandoned when
Nebuchadnezzar II attacked Judah in 598/97 bc’.107 On the next
page, however, he contradicts himself, claiming that the pottery
assemblage at Mez.ad H.ashavyahu may be interpreted ‘as
evidence that Greek mercenaries were in the service of Egypt at
the site, since the Egyptian army was the only army in which
large units of Greeks served’.108
The main issue in Niemeier’s reply, however, is to reject my
suggestion to attribute the presence of the Greek garrison at Tel
Kabri to the Egyptian administration, since, according to
Niemeier, these Greek mercenaries were in the pay of Tyre.
Niemeier’s conclusions are based on two assumptions: first, that
after Assyrian withdrawal Tel Kabri belonged to Tyre; and
second that the small proportion of Greek pottery found at the
site points to individual soldiers of fortune pursuing Homeric
values. Even if the first assumption is true, it would simply imply
that the kingdom of Tyre, like the kingdom of Judah, was
required to provide supplies to Egypt’s East Greek mercenaries.
Likewise, Niemeier’s second assumption is hardly defensible.
The proportions may be misleading, since only a small portion
of the Late Iron Age fortress at Tell Kabri was excavated.109
Besides, it is not necessary to deduce that a small proportion of
Greek pottery should represent individual adventurers on behalf
of Tyre rather than a small contingent stationed by the
Egyptians.
All in all, it appears from the archaeological record that
dependent local powers were obliged to provide supplies to
Greek mercenary units, and to cooperate with these Egyptian
representatives in every possible way.110 The rationale behind the
establishing of the fortresses at Mez.ad H.ashavyahu and Tell
Kabri is logistical. These and, most probably additional hitherto
undetected fortresses, served as focal points for collecting
supplies for Egyptian troops on their way to the Lebanese coast
and northern Syria and, no less important, on their way back to
Egypt.111 More important, places like Mez.ad H.ashavyahu, where
East Greek mercenaries co-existed with Judahites, definitely
offered points of direct contact, and provided channels of
cultural exchange through which certain Greek ideas penetrated
into Judahite texts and vice versa.112 But the employment of East
Greek mercenaries was an Egyptian prerogative, not Judahite or
Tyrian. And this is where we find the Lydian connection.
The crucial role played by the Lydians with regard to the
thousands of Ionian and Carian mercenaries hired by
Psammetichos I emerges from the Rassam Cylinder, in which
Gyges, King of Lydia, is accused by Ashurbanipal of having sent
his army to the aid of Psammetichos I.113 It appears that the first
Mermnad ruler might have imprudently challenged the
Assyrians during the reign of one of the most powerful Assyrian
kings. In my view, Lydian imperial policy triggered a sudden
explosion of East Greek activity in different directions.
Space constraints prevent me from addressing this issue at
proper length but I intend to do so elsewhere. I think, however,
that there are good reasons to suspect that, contrary to scholarly
consensus, which connects the dispersion of Ionians abroad
with an aggressive Lydian and later Persian policy toward the
Ionian cities,114 it is cooperation rather than confrontation that
we are witnessing here. In the East, via Egyptian connections,
Lydian imperial ambitions opened the way to Greek mercenary
penetration, followed by the establishment of Naukratis. In the
North, it opened the way to the Ionian colonization of the Black
Sea, which, I believe, is better explained in the context of rising
Lydian imperialism. The role that East Greeks played on behalf
of Lydian domination is much the same as that played by the
Phoenicians on behalf of the Assyrians.
The negative view suggested by Herodotus’ remarks
regarding Ionian enslavement, first by the Lydians and later by
the Persians (Hdt.1.6; 1.169), is somewhat misleading, since,
archaeologically, these are the most prosperous periods in East
Greece, at least until the Ionian revolt. This is quite contrary to
the situation observed during the period of Athenian
domination.115 Besides, there is little doubt that Herodotus’
biased account on this issue, addressed mainly to a mid-/late
5th-century-bc Athenian audience,116 reflects the realities and
perceptions of the time of his writing, rather than genuine states
of affairs in earlier periods.
Summarizing the third period in my provisional schema, I
wish to emphasize that from the second half of the 7th century
bc, East Greece, via Lydian mediation, rediscovered Egypt and
then, during a brief period of Egyptian expansion toward the
end of that century, the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean. But it
is East Greece that was involved in both mercenary and trade
activity in the Eastern Mediterranean. For mainland Greece the
Great Divide was still there. Even in the later period, during the
reign of Amasis, when we hear of an Aiginetan presence in
Naukratis, the Aiginetans, being the sole representatives of a
broadly taken mainland Greece, ‘did set up separately a temenos
of Zeus on their own initiative’.117
What can we learn from the fact that the Aiginetans were
excluded from the Hellenion, which was established by Ionians,
Dorians and Aeolians in a very unusual act of early Greekness?
Is it possible that the common denominator behind the mixture
of the poleis that participated in the establishment of the
Hellenion has more to do with the fact that all of them were
located in East Greece? Whereas for the Samians and Milesians,
who also kept their temene separately, a good case can be made
that their presence in Naukratis goes back to the late 7th century
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 203
Fantalkin
bc, it would be hard to postulate the same for the Aiginetans.
Perhaps what we are witnessing here is not an all-embracing
pan-Hellenism118 but rather the crystallization of an East Greek
identity, dictated by geography?
Fourth period: the Neo-Babylonian Empire
The Neo-Babylonian period is characterized by a total lack of
Greek material in the southern part of the Eastern
Mediterranean.119 During the major part of the 6th century bc,
the period of greatest prosperity at Naukratis, this part of the
Levant, except for a few inland areas, is in ruins, chiefly serving
as a buffer zone with Egypt.120 In the northern part of the
Eastern Mediterranean, there is a settlement gap at the site of Al
Mina. However, a good quantity of 6th century East Greek
pottery found at Tell Sukas suggests that it may have served as a
point of contact. This notion, however, should be accepted only
with hesitation, since it is possible that the majority of East
Greek material can be dated to the last two decades of the 7th
century bc/very early 6th century bc, implying that the main
phase of the Greek presence at Tell Sukas may have started
during the period of Egyptian political domination, slihgtly
overlapping with the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian rule.
After a certain gap in the settlement’s history during the better
part of the Neo-Babylonian period, the next phase of the Greek
presence at Tell Sukas may be pushed into the last third of the
6th century bc,121 implying that it should be viewed mainly as the
result of Persian rule and not necessarily Neo-Babylonian. This
issue, however, deserves additional study.122
Fifth period: the beginning of Persian domination
The fifth and final period in my short overview begins with the
end of Babylonian and the beginning of Persian rule during the
last third of the 6th century bc. A significant difference (that
finds expression in the pottery repertoire) must be noted
between East Greek assemblages from the end of the 7th century
bc and the renewal of East Greek imports observed toward the
end of the 6th and during the 5th centuries bc, which may point
to commercial activity. This time, unlike in the earlier period,
there is an abundance of amphorae made in Chios and Samos
(but other localities are also represented) as well as banded
bowls. The distribution is considerably wider than during the
third period.123 During the 5th century bc, East Greek pottery is
gradually replaced by Attic imports. Properly appreciating the
nuances of the Persian period, however, would require a
separate study well beyond the scope of the present endeavour.
Greeks and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age:
some final observations
Nowadays, no scholar would even imagine reconstructing the
history of Greece without considering oriental influences. And,
to my mind, the only way to understand the genesis of Greek
civilization is by putting it into a broad geo-political context: it is
the western periphery of the East. However, I also think that
making everything that has emerged on Greek soil ‘a gift from
the East’ simply misses the point. If, as many modern scholars
want us to believe, the impact of Eastern civilizations and
influences was so total and tremendous, how and why did the
ancient Greeks manage to produce the idea of the polis, a
community of equal, local-born men, which stands in total
opposition to everything which the East symbolizes?124
204 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Obviously, something has gone wrong.
In my view, it is striking to realize that after the lively traffic
and renewal of contact during the late 10th, the 9th and,
especially, the better part of the 8th centuries bc,125 mainland
Greece, on the whole, seems to be without direct connections
with the Eastern Mediterranean from the end of the 8th–early
7th centuries bc until perhaps the Persian period. The
Orientalizing period in Greek history turns out to be the period
of the Greeks’ exclusion from the Near Eastern milieu, the main
source of cultural borrowing in the preceding centuries.
But what does it mean? Does it imply viewing one of the
most important developments in Greek history, the late 8th
century bc ‘structural revolution’,126 as essentially untouched by
external influences? I think it requires quite the opposite. Just as
the quest for the origins of European identity in the Minoan and
Mycenaean civilizations appears to be the fruit of Eurocentric
imagination,127 the lengthy disengagement between mainland
Greece and the Near East, triggered by the Neo-Assyrian
expansion, need not imply that the rise of Greek polis culture
occurred in total isolation from Near Eastern influences. In any
case, we are better off de-familiarizing ourselves with the past
that we study,128 throwing away an endless search for the
imaginary, pristine origins of the different civilizations
connecting remote antiquity to the present.129 Concerning the
‘East–West’ question, we are best off treating the history of both
sides as one.130
Although in many cases it is hard to pinpoint all possible
channels of transmission, it is clear that even after what I have
called the Great Divide, Eastern influences continued to
penetrate into Greece through numerous channels: through the
interaction with the Phoenicians (gradually changing from
friendly to hostile),131 through Ionian craftsmen,132 etc. But the
general path of development witnessed in many parts of the
Greece from the end of the 8th century bc and later yielded
something quite different from that found among the Near
Eastern cultures,133 including the Phoenicians.134 As a matter of
fact, the difference is tremendous.135 Ian Morris captures it
brilliantly, comparing the main messages behind Hesiod and
prophetic literature: ‘whereas Hesiod’s instructions call for the
basilees to share power with the geitones, the prophets want the
kings of Judah and Israel to reform the priesthood’.136
In the same vein, Susan and Andrew Sherratt have observed
that by the 7th century bc ‘many forms of east Mediterranean
goods seem to have been bypassing the Aegean, although
turning up in some numbers further west; and it seems likely
that some degree of ‘import restriction and substitution’ (along
with other forms of cultural resistance) was taking place. At the
same time, by the later part of the 8th century, evidence of a
growing panhellenic consciousness in Greece itself, defined
specifically in relation to a Phoenician ‘other’, combined with
the rush to found overtly political colonies in the west, marks the
initial conception of the two distinct ideological, cultural and
politico-economic spheres which were to dominate Greek
relations with the east for millennia to come.’137
Although it might be tempting to resurrect an unpopular
notion of binarism, the simplistic concept of ‘West against the
East’ offers little more than a dead end. Likewise, at least in our
case, postcolonialism, and its constant obsession with hybridity,
creolization and resistance, does not necessarily provide a better
perspective. It might be more helpful in the case of the Western
 Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age
Mediterranean, although even there it too often serves modern
political agendas rather than unbiased historical interpretations.
Our case is Janus-faced: on the one hand, at least until the
beginning of the Persian Empire, the great powers of the Near
East show little interest in Greek affairs; on the other hand, even
in the periods of Greek exclusion from the Near Eastern milieu,
the challenges posed by the older civilizations, and a variety of
Greek responses to these challenges, continue to be among the
central factors in shaping Greek identities. In many ways these
influences were turned inward, negotiated among the Greeks
themselves as they attempted to make sense of the East. In this
regard, the concept of ‘negotiated peripherality’, developed by
Nick Kardulias138 and adopted by Ian Morris for Iron Age
Greece,139 is especially helpful. Morris argues for a nuanced and
chronologically sensitive approach that takes into consideration
a plethora of Greek responses to Near Eastern challenges. In his
reconstruction the ‘totality of context’ is prominent, since
chronologically different geo-political configurations yielded
distinct Greek responses.140 Morris also convincingly shows that
these responses, triggered by the renewal of contact with the
East, varied significantly among different Greek communities:
some struggled to preserve the model of isolation, while others
embraced the East. The basic premises of Morris’ approach are
reasonable. Nevertheless, in view of the low chronology in
Israel, they need to be modified in a way that emphasises
Euboean agency in the initial establishment of contact, rather
than Phoenician (see above). And Morris also fails to recognize,
like so many others, the significance for Greeks of the Great
Divide.
The Mediterranean was indeed, as Morris suggests, ‘a
smaller place in 700 than it had been in 800’.141 However, despite
the assumed ‘collapse of distance’ (due to the technical advances
in shipbuilding), the Great Divide resulted in the gradual
exclusion of mainland Greece from the Near Eastern koine and
paved the way for a re-negotiation of Greek peripherality.
I cannot discuss here all the possible consequences of the
geo-political disengagement between mainland Greece and the
Near East after the Neo-Assyrian expansion. As a telling
example, however, one may consider the widespread
appearance of domestic ‘Hero and tomb cults’ in late 8th century
bc mainland Greece. Indeed, even if the initial occurrences of
‘tomb cults’ may be projected into the Proto-geometric period,142
it doubtless remains a salient feature of the Late Geometric
period.143 One is tempted to ask therefore, what are the reasons
for such a sudden obsession with ancestors and local heroes?
How does it happen that only toward the end of the 8th century
bc, Greeks everywhere begin to rediscover and admire their
local past, attaching themselves to mythical ancestors and
heroes? Many of the wide variety of explanations already
offered have merit,144 but the concept of a Great Divide, as
suggested here, may provide an additional, explanatory
background for the sudden emergence of an active quest for
local roots. Once again, it is a diversity of inwardly focused
Greek responses – this time to the exclusion from the Near
Eastern koine – that we are witnessing. It is worth mentioning
that unlike what will emerge as a poleis zone, with its Eastern
influences and abundant orientalia, the ethne, which were never
truly involved in dialogue with the East, showed no interest in
hero and tomb cults in the periods discussed.145
In my opinion, it is plausible to suggest that establishing ties
with a remote heroic past rather than with the East should be
viewed as one of the main outcomes of the Great Divide.
Furthermore, it is not at all improbable that the rise of what
Morris calls the ‘middling ideology’ in Archaic Greece,146
culminating eventually in Athenian democracy, should be seen
and explained against the background of this Great Divide.147 To
a certain extent, this might be a real ‘Near Eastern gift’
contributing in the most important way to the rise of the Greek
polis and its institutions. If things had turned out differently and,
as in previous periods, the elites of mainland Greece had
maintained their links with the East, the ‘middling ideology’
would not necessarily have won. However, given that the
Assyrians seem not to have had any interest in establishing
direct control over remote Greece, a Great Divide was very
nearly inevitable.148
I want to conclude by pointing out that from the end of the
8th century bc until the Persian period the ‘mainland Greeks’
are barely if at all attested in the Near East. East Greece, the
main mediator between East and West, is another story. But to
my mind, at least during the Archaic period, it should be
considered more a part of the East than a part of the West. East
Greeks fully experienced this dual status. Physically they lived in
the East, and were part of the Eastern milieu. But, in part
because of proximity they had constant contact with their
mother country and this and only this prevented East Greeks
from losing their ethnic and cultural identity altogether. This
was otherwise a very real possibility: we need only recall the
complete assimilation of the Philistines, who, in a much earlier
period, penetrated too deeply into the Levant.
Notes
1 I am grateful to Udo Schlotzhauer and Alexandra Villing for their
kind invitation to attend the 28th British Museum Classical
Colloquium ‘The Naukratis Phenomenon: Greek Diversity in Egypt’.
Likewise, I wish to express my gratitude to numerous scholars who
have offered valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper,
including John Boardman, Margalit Finkelberg, Israel Finkelstein,
Baruch Halpern, Peter James, Amélie Kuhrt, Irad Malkin, James
Muhly, Benjamin Sass, Oren Tal, Alexandra Villing, Ran Zadok and
especially Ephraim Lytle. Obviously, the responsibility for the views
expressed henceforth rests with me alone.
2 In Lipton’s (2004) famous treatment of the ‘Inference to the Best
Explanation’, this kind of explanation may be considered as the
‘likeliest’ and the ‘loveliest’.
3 Trigger 1998.
4 Joffee 2003, 82.
5 Morris 2003, 42.
6 See, e.g., Bernal 1987, 1991, 2001; S. Morris 1992; Burkert 1992, 2004;
Faraone 1992; West 1999.
7 Horden and Purcell 2000; see also Purcell 2003; Horden 2005;
Horden and Purcell 2005.
8 Horden and Purcell 2000, 5.
9 Cf. Algazi 2005, 230.
10 Blake 2004, 240.
11 Morris 2003; Morris and Manning 2005, 20-1.
12 Shaw 2001, 453.
13 See, e.g., Shaw 2001; Morris 2003; Malkin 2003a, 2004; and see
papers in Blake and Knapp 2005.
14 Bakhtin 1981, 275-85; 1986, 75, 105.
15 Morson and Emerson 1990, 125-7; Joyce 2002, 29-34.
16 Horden and Purcell 2000, 347-8.
17 Kocka 2003.
18 Cf. Kolb 2004, 579-86.
19 Liverani 2005a, 48.
20 Moreland 2000, 2, emphasis in original.
21 Cf. Boggs 2004.
22 A number of studies offer useful summaries regarding the earliest
Iron Age finds of Greek pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean: e.g.,
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 205
Fantalkin
Boardman 1990a, 1999a; Waldbaum 1994; Haider 1996; Sørensen
1997; Crielaard 1999; Coldstream 1998a, 2000; Luke 2003. For the
most recent finds from Tel Rehov, see Coldstream and Mazar 2003;
Mazar 2004.
23 For the demolition of a long-standing scholarly consensus that the
dispersion of Cypriot Black-on-Red pottery in the Aegean should be
connected with a Phoenician monopoly of commercial networks, see
Schreiber 2003, passim, esp. 312.
24 See Helm 1980, 95; Graham 1986; S. Morris 1992, 127, 141; Perreault
1993; Papadopoulos 1997; Sherratt and Sherratt 1998, 335; Markoe
2000, 174; Sherratt 2003, 229-30; and contra Boardman 2002a,
2002b; Lemos 2001, 2003; Luke 2003.
25 See Negbi 1992; Aubet 2000; Niemeyer 2000, 2004.
26 For ‘Report of Wenamun’ as a piece of literature rather than
historical account, see Helck 1986; Baines 1999; Schipper 2005; for
the date of composition, see Sass 2002, with further references.
27 For the numerous supporters of Phoenician domination in the
Mediterranean already at the beginning of the Iron Age it may
perhaps come as some surprise to discover that the biblical testimony
regarding the cooperation between Kings Solomon and Hiram I does
not reflect the realities of the 10th century bc, a fact that has been
recognized for some time. The literature on the subject is enormous;
see e.g. Knauf 1991; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, 2006, with
further references.
28 Needless to say that the same holds true regarding the Classical
literary tradition, which suggests that the foundation of Cadiz, Utica
and Lixus took place at the turn of the 12th/11th centuries bc.
29 After Finkelstein 1995a, 1996, 1999. Whether or not to accept
Finkelstein’s low chronology is still a subject of ongoing discussion,
mainly among Syro-Palestinian archaeologists. The literature is
extensive and I do not intend to summarize the history of the
question here. But judging from the most recent publications, the so-
called conventional Palestinian chronology, with a huge United
Monarchy of Kings David and Solomon as well as early Phoenician
expansion in the days of Hiram I is, at least to my mind, doomed.
30 Fantalkin (forthcoming a). That is not to deny the existence of some
meagre pre-colonial contacts with places like Cyprus, and see Gilboa
2005.
31 Bikai 1983.
32 Iacovou 2005. In any event, in terms of absolute chronology, the
beginning of Bikai’s Kouklia horizon (1987, 68-9) should certainly be
down-dated (Gilboa and Sharon 2001, 2003).
33 Guzzo Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977, 7; Yon 1997.
34 Docter et al. 2005; Nijboer 2005, with further references.
35 Aubet 2001, 372-81; Torres Ortiz 1998, 2005. The recent suggestion by
Nijboer and Van der Plicht (2006), that the beginning of Phoenician
settlement activity abroad may be pinpointed to the first half of the
9th century bc, if not before, is barely defensible, as it is based on a
few 14C dates obtained from a secondary mixed deposit at Huelva
(south-west Spain).
36 For detailed accounts of Hazael’s realm, see Na’aman 1995a; Dion
1997, 191-204; Yamada 2000, 310-20; Hafthorsson 2006.
37 See Biran and Naveh 1993, 1995; Na’aman 2000; Irvine 2005.
38 See Na’aman 2000; Coldstream and Mazar 2003; Finkelstein 2004.
39 Maeir 2004.
40 Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006, 30-2.
41 Frankenstein 1979.
42 Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006, 31.
43 Fantalkin 2001a; Coldstream 2003. The most recent suggestion that
the Proto-Geometric period should start c. 1100 bc, if not earlier
(Newton et al. 2005a, 2005b), is impossible to sustain. Such a drastic
upward chronological revision for the Proto-Geometric period,
based on the data from Assiros, is unacceptable as it stands against
all other data collected in the southern Levant. Besides, the Proto-
Geometric amphora in question is not necessarily correctly identified
and may belong typologically to Submycenaean or even Late
Helladic IIIC (cf. Muhly 2003, 28). Likewise, the old wood affect may
be responsible for the high dendrochronological dates from Assiros
(Finkelstein and Piasetzky [forthcoming]).
44 Following Muhly’s original suggestion from 1985 (unlike Muhly
1999).
45 See Gilboa and Sharon 2001, 2003; Boaretto et al. 2005; Finkelstein
and Piasetzky 2003a, 2003b, (forthcoming); Sass 2005.
46 Cf. Coldstream 1998a. Although I tend to agree with Boardman
(1999c, 42) that ‘the question of “who was first?”… seems quite
meaningless, indeed almost childish’, it has never disappeared from
206 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
view and remains the subject of continuous controversy.
47 As anything connected to this site (cf. Boardman 1999b, 2002a,
2002b), the foundation date of Al Mina is a matter of controversy. In
my view, the earliest possible dates suggested by Kearsley (1995) and
Descœudres (2002, 50-1) are certainly too low and should be rejected
(Fantalkin 2001a, 121; [forthcoming a]).
48 In the case of Al Mina, this should be the kingdom of Unqi/Patina, at
least until its incorporation into the Neo-Assyrian system in 738 bc
(Harrison 2001; Luke 2003, 21, 36).
49 Boardman 2002a, 328.
50 Möller 2000a, 203-8; Fantalkin 2001b, 137-46. A few authors have
expressed the view that Strabo’s account (17.1.18) of the Milesian
arrival at Naukratis, accompanied by the foundation of the Milesian
fort, should be taken literally (Braun 1982, 37-8; Kaplan 2002, 238,
n.27; Petropoulos 2003, 50). This view , however, is hardly
defensible.
51 As may be deduced, inter alia, from Papadopoulos 1997; Morris and
Papadopoulos 1998; Markoe 2000, 174; Sherrat 2003, 229-30;
Niemeyer 2004.
52 Luke 2003, 59, with further references.
53 For a useful model, although from a later period, see Spencer 2000;
he argues that the polis of Archaic Mytilene differed considerably
from its counterparts on the isle of Lesbos, due to Mytilene’s
deliberate ‘investment’ in international activities rather than in more
traditional avenues for the expression of power (such as large-scale
constructions). In the case of Lefkandi, however, an unquestionable
desire for interactions abroad was accompanied by unprecedented
(for Greece) large-scale construction.
54 Sass 2005, 133-54. Nowadays, however, especially in light of the
recent upward revision of the Gordion dates (De Vries et al. 2003,
2005; Voigt 2005; but see contra Muscarella 2003; Keenan 2004; and
Sass 2005, 147, n. 239, who questions Muscarella’s conclusions), even
the adoption of the Greek alphabet directly from the Phoenicians is
not necessarily obvious. There are good reasons to suspect that the
Greeks might have adopted the alphabet via Phrygian agency (Sass
2005, 146-52, with extensive bibliography).
55 See Na’aman 1995b, 2001; Gitin 1997; Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz
2001, all with further references.
56 Frankenstein 1979.
57 Cf. Na’aman 1994; Kuhrt 2002a, 22-3; Edelman 2006, 219-23.
58 Jane Waldbaum (1994, 59) summarizes the issue as follows: ‘A
curious gap in the roster of early Greek pottery in Palestine is the
complete lack of Protocorinthian pottery of the late 8th through
most of the 7th centuries, a lack that is nearly matched in Cyprus and
Tel Sukas, but not in Al Mina. Since Protocorinthian is the Greek
trade ware for most of the 7th century bc, it is odd that so little
interest was shown in it – and its contents of perfumed oil – in much
of the Levant.’
59 Lanfranchi 2000.
60 Haider 1996.
61 Thus, for instance, one discovers, amazingly, that in the 8th century
bc at Tell Sukas Greek pottery ‘progressively overwhelms and finally
replaces other foreign (especially Phoenician) items; in the 7th
century its numbers increase to the point that a Greek settlement
may be almost safely envisaged’ (Lanfranchi 2000, 10). And so it goes
on (ibid., 9-11). Judging from the excavation reports of Tell Sukas,
however, one learns that only some 15 possible Greek sherds were
unearthed in the contexts of the late 8th century bc and only a few of
them may be dated to the early 7th century bc (although to my mind
the latter statement remains uncertain). On the other hand, during
the main part of the 7th century bc, i.e. the period of Assyrian
domination, the Greek imports from Tell Sukas are virtually absent
(Ploug 1973, 92-3). The amount of Greek pottery at Tell Sukas
increase impressively only toward the end of the 7th/early 6th
centuries bc, but this development has nothing to do with the Neo-
Assyrian policies, since it occurred after the collapse of the Neo-
Assyrian regime.
62 Thus, according to Lanfranchi 2000, 32: ‘… Assyria opposed the
Greeks only on very limited occasions, and was ready to enhance and
encourage their trade, presence and settling after its domination had
definitely consolidated. But more, this happened, as attested by
archaeological data, at the expense of other concurrent traders, like
Cypriotes or Phoenicians: and this should show, instead, that
Assyrians favoured Greeks over others in commercial and settling
activities.’ (emphasis added – A.F.)
63 Rollinger 2001, 249-50, passim.
 Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age
64 Liverani 2005b, 232.
65 For detailed treatment of the Neo-Assyrian written sources,
mentioning, inter alia, the location of Ionia in the ‘midst of the sea’,
see Brinkman 1989; Kuhrt 2002a; Rollinger 2001.
66 Kuhrt 2002b, 27.
67 As may be deduced from Coldstream 1998b, 257.
68 Helm 1980, 113.
69 Helm 1980, 112-13.
70 Kuhrt 2002a.
71 Cf. Muhly 1970, 1985; Winter 1995; Sherratt 2005, 35-6.
72 Burkert 1992, 2004, 1-15.
73 Zadok 1996; accepted by Parpola and Porter 2001, 5 and Na’aman
2004.
74 Na’aman 2001, 261. For the text, describing the city of A∆tâ as an
‘emporium (b1̄t kāri) on the seashore, a royal store-house’, see
Tadmor 1994, 104-5, line 13.
75 Parker 2000; Kuhrt 2002a, 18; Na’aman 2004, 70, all with further
references.
76 Saggs 2001, 166-7, pl. 33.
77 I owe this observation to Nadav Na’aman.
78 Na’aman 2004; corroborated, perhaps, by a minor presence of Greek
pottery there, although slight compared to Al Mina.
79 Brinkman 1989; Kuhrt 2002a; Rollinger 2001.
80 Na’aman 1991a, 33-41; 1991b; Fantalkin 2001b, 134-5; 2004, 254-5. Or,
perhaps, slightly earlier, and see Vanderhooft 1999, 64-8, with
further references.
81 The reliability of the Archaic Greek chronology has been questioned
on several occasions (e.g., Francis and Vickers 1985; Bowden 1991).
Recent and thorough contributions by James (2003; 2005) suggest
lowering the Archaic Greek chronology of late 7th to early 6th
century bc by roughly three to four decades. However, as for the
earlier periods, the evidence supplied by the Levantine side appears
to be crucial. In fact, the destruction of Ashkelon by Nebuchadnezzar
II in the month of Kislev 604 bc, as reported in the Babylonian
Chronicle (Wiseman 1961, 68-9, 85; Stager 1996, 61*, n. 1) and the
East Greek pottery assemblage exposed in Ashkelon’s destruction
layer (Waldbaum and Magness 1997; Waldbaum 2002a), leaves no
room for any significant lowering of the Archaic Greek chronology.
82 The appearance of East Greek pottery in Levantine assemblages
toward the end of the 7th century bc has been summarized in a
number of detailed studies: see e.g. Waldbaum 1994, 1997, 2002a;
Waldbaum and Magness 1997; Fantalkin 2001b; Niemeier 2001;
Niemeier and Niemeier 2002; Wenning 2001, 2004.
83 Na’aman 1991a; Fantalkin 2001b, with further references. Likewise,
references to units of Kittim in the Arad documents provide
additional evidence for the activity of these mercenaries in the
service of Egypt (Na’aman 1991a, 47-8; for Kittim in the later sources,
see Eshel 2001). The Qrsy, mentioned in Inscription 18 from Arad,
may relate to Carian mercenaries (cf. Zadok 2005, 80). It is possible
that these units were also active during a brief period when Egypt
returned to the region (601/600–599/598 bc) as a result of
Nebuchadnezzar’s unsuccessful campaign against Egypt in 601/600
bc.
84 Na’aman 1991a; Finkelstein 1995b, 148, 152-3; Fantalkin 2001b.
85 See e.g., Magness 2001; Fischer 2005a, 181, fig. 10; Fantalkin
(forthcoming b).
86 See e.g., Weinberg 1969, 90; Kelm and Mazar 1989; Waldbaum 1994,
60-1; Master 2003; Faust and Weiss 2005, 75.
87 Master 2001, 167-8, 171; Waldbaum 2002b.
88 In too many cases, scholars automatically assume that the presence
of imported pottery is evidence of pottery trade. But any valid
explanation that deals with distribution of the imported pottery
must take into consideration a wide spectrum of circumstances that
may distinguish various regions during different periods (cf.
Snodgrass 1980, 126-8; Gill 1994).
89 Fantalkin 2001b, 137-41.
90 Hdt. 2.179; and see Möller 2000a, 204-8.
91 Already in 616 bc, Psammetichos I and his army came to the aid of
Assyrian king Sin-shar-ishkun and fought alongside the Assyrians in
the far north, in the vicinity of Qablinu/Gablini (Wiseman 1961, 11-
13, 44, 54-5; Spalinger 1978, 49-50; Zadok 1985, 135). In 612 bc,
Psammetichos I’s rule certainly extended at least as far as the
Lebanese coast, as attested by various written sources in which the
tribute brought by the kings of Phoenicia to Egypt is mentioned
(Spalinger 1977, 228-9; 1978, 55, n. 27; Na’aman 1991a, 51-2).
92 In this regard, Ionian involvement in a slave and metal trade with
Tyre, as reported in Ezekiel 27:13, deserves to be mentioned.
93 Saying all this, however, I do not wish to reject completely the
possibility of certain East Greek trade with the coast of Palestine,
especially with places like Ashkelon. On the other hand, we should
consider the possibility that whatever East Greek trade existed, if
any, would have been directed mainly toward the East Greek
mercenaries who were stationed in the region. In this case, those
East Greek mercenaries were able to receive some familiar goods
(including pottery), otherwise inaccessible in the local environment.
94 Bettalli 1995; de la Genière 1999; Kearsley 1999; Trundle 1999, 2004;
Niemeier 2001; Wenning 2001; Fantalkin 2001b; Kaplan 2002, 2003;
Raaflaub 2004a.
95 Fantalkin 2001b, 141-6.
96 Helm 1980, 137.
97 Bettalli 1995; Niemeier 2001, 2002.
98 Fantalkin 2001b, 141-6.
99 Wenning 2004, 31-2, n. 13.
100 Wenning 1989.
101 Na’aman 1991a, 47.
102 Cf. Stevenson 1982, 255-61.
103 Fantalkin 2001b, 10-49, 144.
104 Fantalkin 2001b, 143-4.
105 Waldbaum and Magness 1997; Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
106 Fantalkin 2001b, 128.
107 Niemeier 2002, 329.
108 Niemeier 2002, 330.
109 Lehmann 2002a, 77-87.
110 As may be deduced from both Mez.ad H.ashavyahu and the Arad
ostraca; and see Na’aman 1991a, 46-8, in more details.
111 The location of Mez.ad H.ashavyahu in the vicinity of the natural
anchorage of Yavneh-Yam (cf. Galili and Sharvit 2005), supports
Na’aman’s (1991a, 51) suggestion that Necho II and his army may
have sailed as far as the Lebanese coast and launched campaigns
from there. In this regard the increasing importance of the naval
forces under the Saïte Dynasty should definitely be emphasized (cf.
Lloyd 1972).
112 Finkelstein 2002.
113 Luckenbill 1927, 297-8; cf. Jer. 46:9; Hdt. 2.152.
114 See e.g., Kocybala 1978, 132; Koshelenko and Kuznetsov 1992;
Tsetskhladze 1994, 2002; Gorman 2001, 67; Greaves 2002, 107-8. It
should be noted that earlier scholarship tends to be more
sympathetic to ‘Barbarian Asia’ when describing the relations
between the coastal Ionian cities and the Lydian and Persian
empires, cf., e.g., Radet 1893; Hogarth 1909, 78; 1929; Lenschau 1913;
Dunham 1915, 70-6; and more recently, Balcer 1991; Georges 1994,
2000; Buxton 2002; Burkert 2004.
115 Is it a coincidence that Ionia’s cultural renewal, which is sometimes
called ‘the Ionian Renaissance’, started in the 4th century bc, mainly
after the ‘King’s peace’ in 387 bc? Cf. Isager 1994; Pedersen 2004;
Lawall 2006.
116 Hall 2002, 182, n. 44; Moles 2002.
117 Hdt. 2.178.
118 As may be deduced from Hall 1997, 49-50 and Malkin 2003b.
119 Weinberg 1969.
120 Cf. Vanderhooft 1999; Lipschits 2005.
121 For instance, Frank Wascheck kindly informs me that most of the
Fikellura pottery fragments unearthed at Tell Sukas should be dated
to the last third of the 6th century bc.
122 It is quite clear, for instance, that the so-called Greek temple of Tell
Sukas is not Greek at all and is perfectly at home in a Near Eastern
milieu (cf. Bonatz 1993; Mazzoni 2002).
123 Cf. Wenning 1981, 2004; Elayi 1988; Tal 1999, 107-9; Ambar-Armon
2005.
124 It goes without saying that certain traditions of collective decision
making, mostly on the communal level, were already widespread in
the ancient Near East. Still, such phenomena, which are sometimes
characterized as ‘democracy’s ancient ancestors’ (Fleming 2004),
remain a world apart from what was achieved on the Aegean side.
125 Cf. Coldstream 1983, 1995, 1998a, 2000; Lemos 2001.
126 Snodgrass 1980, 15-84; Morris 2005.
127 Papadopoulos 2005.
128 Hamilakis 2002, 18-19; Osborne 2004, 7-22.
129 Turner 2001.
130 Morris and Manning 2005.
131 Cf. Boardman 2001a; Winter 1995.
132 I think Muhly’s skepticism about the notion of so-called traveling
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 207
Fantalkin

Oriental craftsmen working as long-term residents on Aegean soil is Whitley 1988, 1994, 1995, 2002; Antonaccio 1994, 1995; Mazarakis
well-founded (Muhly 2005). Ainian 1999; Finkelberg 2004, 2005.
133 Snodgrass 1980. 145 Antonaccio 1995, 254. Except for a few insignificant cases, see
134 Raaflaub 2004b. Morgan 2003, 187-95.
135 See e.g. Thornton 2000; Boardman 2005. 146 Morris 2000, 155-91.
136 Morris 2000, 168. 147 Cf. Sahlins 2005, who convincingly demonstrates that the
137 Sherratt and Sherratt 1998, 335; and see also Sherratt 2005, 36. intensification of any one opposition is likely to engage and
138 Kardulias 1999. aggravate all the other antagonisms. That is to say the small-scale
139 Morris 1999. initial disputes may easily be magnified into large-scale struggles
140 See also Morris 2000, passim; Whitley 2001, 102-23. between nations and kingdoms, making macrohistories out of
141 Morris 2000, 257. microhistories and vice versa.
142 Mazarakis Ainian 1999. 148 For a general framework of counterfactual approach, see Tetlock and
143 See e.g. Coldstream 1976; Antonaccio 1995; Mazarakis Ainian 1999. Belkin 1996; Ferguson 1997.
144 The literature is vast, but to cite a few: Coldstream 1976; Morris 1988;

208 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt

Bibliography
Acquaro, E., and D. Ferrari. 2004. I Fenici. L’Oriente in Occidente. Milan:
Biblioteca di via Senato Edizioni.
Ahlberg, G. 1971. Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art.
Stockholm: Åström.
Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1992. Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art.
Representation and Interpretation. Stockholm: Åström.
Akimova, L. 2005. Arkheologiia voývny. Vozbrashchenie iz nebytiia.
Moscow: IPTS Khudozhnik i Kniga.
Akurgal, E. 1950. ‘Bayraklý: Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die
Ausgrabungen in Alt-Smyrna.’ Universitesi Dilve Tarih-Coðrafya
Fakültesi Dergisi 8.1: 52-97.
Akurgal, E. 1956a. ‘Les fouilles de Phocée et les sondages de Kymé.’
Anadolu 1: 3-14.
Akurgal, E. 1956b. ‘Les fouilles de Phocée et les sondages de Kymé.’
TürkArkDerg 6.1: 19-24.
Akurgal, E. 1960. ‘Çandarlý (Pitane) Kazýsý.’ TürkArkDerg 10.1: 5-6.
Akurgal, E. 1961. Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Akurgal, E. 1983. Alt-Smyrna I. Wohnschichten und Athenatempel. Türk
Tarih Kurumu Yayýnlarý V. Dizi, Sa. 40. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basýmevi.
Akurgal, E. 1987. Griechische und römische Kunst in der Türkei. Munich:
Hirmer.
Akurgal, E. 1993. Eski Çaðda Ege ve Ýzmir. Izmir: Net Turistik Yayýnlar
Sanayi A.S.
Akurgal, M., M. Kerschner, H. Mommsen, and W.-D. Niemeier. 2002.
Töpferzentren der Ostägäis: Archäometrische und archäologische
Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen
Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (mit einem Beitrag von S.
Ladstätter). 3. Ergänzungsheft ÖJh. Vienna: Österreichisches
Archäologisches Institut.
Albore Livadie, C. 1985. ‘La situazione in Campania.’ In Il commercio
etrusco arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di studi, edited by M. Cristofani, 127-
54. QArchEtr 9. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Alexandrescu, P. 1978. Histria 4. La céramique d’époque archaïque et
e e
classique (VII -IV s.). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii
Socialiste România.
Alexandrescu, P. 2001. ‘Le temple de Théos Megas d’Istros redressé.’
Dacia N.S. 43-45: 79-96.
Alexandrescu, P. 2005. Histria 7. La zone sacrée d’époque grecque (fouilles
1915-1989). Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
Alexandropoulou, A. 2002. Gnathia- und Westabhangkeramik: Eine
vergleichende Betrachtung. Münster: Scriptiorium.
Algazi, G. 2005. ‘Diversity Rules: Peregrine Horden and Nicholas
Purcell’s The Corrupting Sea.’ Mediterranean Historical Review 20:
227-45.
Allen, S.J. 1982. ‘The Pottery.’ In Cities of the Delta II. Mendes: Preliminary
Report on the 1979 and 1980 Seasons, edited by K. Wilson, 13-27.
American Research Center in Egypt, Reports 5. Malibu: Undena
Publications.
Amandry, P. 1962. ‘Plaques d’or de Delphes’. AM 77: 35-71.
Ambar-Armon, E. 2005. ‘The Greek World and the Coastal Plain of Eretz
Israel Prior to the Macedonian Conquest.’ Cathedra 116: 5-30.
(Hebrew; English abstract on p. 177)
Ampolo, C. 1987. ‘Roma arcaica tra Latini ed Etruschi: aspetti politici e
istituzionali.’ In Etruria e Lazio arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di studio,
edited by M. Cristofani, 75-87. QArchEtr 15. Rome: Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Amyx, D.A. 1958. ‘The Attic Stelai, Part 3: Vases and Other Containers.’
Hesperia 27: 163-310.
Amyx, D.A. 1988. Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period. Berkeley,
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Amyx, D.A., and P. Lawrence. 1975. Corinth 7,2. Archaic Corinthian
Pottery and the Anaploga Well. Princeton: American School of
Classical Studies at Athens.
Anderson, J.K. 1949. ‘Excavations on the Kofinà Ridge, Chios.’ BSA 49:
123-72.
Andronikos, M. 1988. ‘Bergi/na 1988. Anaskafh/ sto nekrotafei/o.’
AEMQ 2: 1-2.
Angelucci, A. 1876. ‘Spada e scure d’arme, di bronzo, dell’Armeria Reale
in Torino.’ BPI 2: 25-8.
Antonaccio, C.M. 1994. ‘Contesting the Past: Hero Cult, Tomb Cult and
Epic in Early Greece.’ AJA 98: 389-410.
Antonaccio, C.M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero
Cult in Early Greece. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Applebaum, S. 1979. Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene. Leiden: Brill.
Arena, R. 1992. Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia 2:
Iscrizioni di Sicilia, Gela e Agrigento. Milan: Edizioni Universitarie di
Lettere Economia Diritto.
Arnold, D.E. 1977. ‘Gefäße, Gefäßformen (Gf.), Gefäßdekor.’ In LÄ 2,
edited by W. Helck, 483-501. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, D.E., H. Neff, and R.L. Bishop. 1991. ‘Compositional Analysis and
‘Sources’ of Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach.’ American
Anthropologist 93: 70-90.
Arnold, D.E., and J. Bourriau, eds. 1993. An Introduction to Ancient
Egyptian Pottery. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Arslan, N., and N. Sevinç. 2003. ‘Die eisenzeitlichen Gräber von Tenedos.’
IstMitt 53: 223-49.
Artzy, M., and J. Lyon. 2002. ‘The Ceramics.’ In The Ma’agan Mikhael Ship
1, edited by E. Linder and Y. Kahanov, 183-202. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society and University of Haifa.
Aston, D. 1996. Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and Third
Intermediate Period (Twelfth–Seventh Centuries bc). Studien zur
Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 13. Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Attula, R. 2006. ‘Keramik.’ In Berges 2006: 101-53.
Attula, R. Forthcoming. ‘Transportamphoren und Reliefpithoi aus
Emecik auf der knidischen Halbinsel.’ In Transport Ceramics: An
Article of Mass Production as Key to the History of Economics and Trade
in the Ancient World. Proceedings of the DEGUWA-Symposium ‘In
Poseidons Reich XI’ Frankfurt am Main 17.-19. February 2006.
Skyllis.
Aubet, M.E. 2000. ‘Aspects of Tyrian Trade and Colonization in the
Eastern Mediterranean.’ Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken
Handelsgeschichte 19: 70-120.
Aubet, M.E. 2001. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and
Trade. 2nd edn. Translated by M. Turton. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Austin, M.M. 1970. Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age. Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philological Society, Suppl. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge
Philological Society.
Avram, A., I. Bîrzescu, and K. Zimmermann. Forthcoming. ‘Die
apollinische Trias.’ In Apollon zwischen Milet–Zypern–Naukratis:
Kolloquium in Mainz, March 2004, edited by R. Bol and U.
Höckmann.
Aydemir, A. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet: XX. Kochgeschirr und Küchengeräte
aus dem archaischen Milet.’ AA 2005,2: 85-101.
Baatz, D. 1977. ‘Reibschale und Romanisierung.’ Rei Cretaria Romanae
Fautorum Acta 17/8: 147-58.
Bacchielli, L. 1976. ‘Un piattello di Genucilia: I rapporti di Cirene con
l’Italia nella seconda metà del IV sec. a. C.’ In Cirene e la Grecia, edited
by P. Romanelli and S. Stucchi, 99-108. QAL 8. Rome: «L’ERMA» di
Bretschneider.
Bacchielli, L. 1981. L’Agorà di Cirene, 2,1: L’area settentrionale del lato ovest
della Platea Inferiore. Monografie di archeologia libica 15. Rome:
«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Bacchielli, L. 1985. ‘Modelli politici e modelli architettonici a Cirene
durante il regime democratico.’ In Cyrenaica in Antiquity, edited by
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 209
Bibliography
G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 1-14. BAR International Series
236. Oxford: BAR.
Bacchielli, L. 1986. ‘I piattelli Genucilia.’ In Italian Iron Age Artefacts in the
British Museum: Papers of the 6th British Museum Classical
Colloquium, edited by J. Swaddling, 375-80. London: British
Museum Press.
Badre, L., M.-C. Boileau, R. Jung, and H. Mommsen, with an appendix by
M. Kerschner. 2006. ‘The Provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-type
Pottery Found at Tell Kazel (Syria).’ Egypt and the Levant 15: 13-47.
Bailey, D.M. 2002. ‘Pottery of the Greek and Roman Periods.’ In Marsa
Matruh: The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology’s Excavations on Bates’s Island, Marsa Matruh, Egypt,
1985-1989. II. The Objects, edited by D. White, 117-52. Prehistoric
Monographs 2. Philadelphia: The Institute for Aegean Prehistory
Academic Press.
Bailey, D.M. Forthcoming. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British
Museum 4: Ptolemaic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt. London:
British Museum Press.
Baines, J. 1999. ‘On Wenamun as a Literary Text.’ In Literatur und Politik
im pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten: Vorträge der Tagung
zum Gedenken an Georges Posener, 5.-10. September 1996 in Leipzig,
edited by J. Assmann and E. Blumenthal, 209-33. Bibliothèque
d’Etude 127. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie
orientale du Caire.
Bakalakis, G. 1937.‘ ’Anaskafh\ 0en Kabala| kai Kalami/tsa|.’ Prakt: 59-
67.
Bakalakis, G. 1938. ‘ ’Ek tou= 9ierou= th=j Parqe/nou 0en Neapo/lei Kaba/la|.’
Archaiologike Ephemeris: 106-54.
Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Diologic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by M.
Holquist. Translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essyas. Translated and
edited by C. Emerson. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Balcer, J.M. 1991. ‘The East Greeks under Persian Rule: A Reassessment.’
In Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New
Empire. Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History
Workshop, edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, 57-65.
Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Baldassarre, I. 1987. ‘Tracce dell’abitato prebattiaco ad ovest dell’agorà di
Cirene.’ QAL 12: 17-24.
Baldassarre, I. 1999. ‘Cirene.’ In La città greca antica. Istituzioni, società e
forme urbane, edited by E. Greco, 385-94. Rome: Donzelli.
Baldassarre, I. 2002. ‘Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Missione
Archeologica a Cirene. La cosiddetta Casa del Propileo.’ In Il dialogo
interculturale nel Mediterraneo: la collaborazione italo-libica in campo
archeologico, edit. by Ministero degli affari esteri, 18-20. Rome:
Grafica Cristal.
Ballard, R.D., L.E. Stager, D. Master, D. Yoerger, D. Mindell, L.L.
Whitcomb, H. Singh, and D. Piechota. 2002. ‘Iron Age Shipwrecks in
Deep Water off Ashkelon, Israel.’ AJA 106: 151-68.
Barclay, A. Forthcoming. Mastery of Animals in Near Eastern and Aegean
Imagery: Its Distribution and Reception in Early Iron Age Greece.
Toronto: University Press.
Barnett, R.D. 1939/40. ‘The Greek Pottery.’ In Garstang 1939/40: 98-130.
Barrandon, J.-N., and M.-Ch. Marcellesi. 2005. ‘Le monnayage de bronze
aux types de Milet du IVe au IIe siècle avant J.-C.: L’apport des
analyses métalliques.’ AA 2005,2: 227-42.
Bartoloni, P. 1992. ‘Nora-I: Nota su due frammenti di bacino di tipo
fenicio-cipriota.’ Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archaeologica per le
Provincie di Cagliari e Oristano 9: 99-103.
Bartoloni, P. 1996. ‘Appunti sulla ceramica fenicia tra Oriente e Occidente
dall VIII al V sec. A. C.’ Transeuphratène 12: 85-95.
Bartoloni, P., and S. Moscati. 1995. ‘La ceramica e la storia.’ RSF 23: 37-45.
Baþaran, S. 2002. ‘Enez (Ainos) 2001 Yýlý Kazý ve Onarým Çalýþmalarý.’
Anadolu Araþtýrmalarý 16: 59-86.
Basch, L. 1987. Le musée antique imaginaire de la marine antique. Athens:
Institut hellénique pour la préservation de la tradition nautique.
Bayburtluoðlu, C. 1978. ‘Les céramiques chiotes d’Anatolie.’ In Centre
Jean Bérard 1978: 27-30.
Bayne, N. 2000. The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia in the Middle and
Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age and their Relation to the Early
Greek Settlements. Asia Minor Studien 37. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Beazley, J.D., and H.G.G. Payne. 1929. ‘Attic Black-Figured Fragments
from Naucratis.’ JHS 49: 253-72.
Beazley, J.D., H.G.G. Payne, and E.R. Price. 1931. CVA Oxford, Ashmolean
Museum 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bechtel, F. 1917. Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur
210 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Kaiserzeit. Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer.
Beck, H., P.C. Bol, and M. Bückling, eds. 2005. Ägypten Griechenland
Rom: Abwehr und Berührung. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Städelschen
Kunstinstitut Frankfurt, 26.11.2005-26.02.2006. Tübingen: E.
Wasmuth Verlag.
Beier, T., and H. Mommsen. 1994a. ‘A Method for Classifying
Multidimensional Data with Respect to Uncertainties of
Measurement and its Application to Archaeometry.’
Naturwissenschaften 91: 546-8.
Beier, T., and H. Mommsen. 1994b. ‘Modified Mahalanobis Filters for
Grouping Pottery by Chemical Composition.’ Archaeometry 36: 287-
306.
Bellelli, V. 2006. La tomba ‘principesca’ dei Quattordici Ponti nel contesto di
Capua arcaica. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Bellelli, V., and M. Botto. 2002. ‘I bacini di tipo fenicio-cipriota:
considerazioni sulla diffusione di una forma ceramica nell’Italia
medio-tirrenica nel periodo compreso fra il VII e il VI secolo A.C.’ In
Etruria e Sardegna centro-settentrionale tra l’età del bronzo finale e
l’arcaismo: atti del 21. Convegno di studi etruschi ed italici, Sassari,
Alghero, Oristano, Torralbo, 13-17 ottobre 1998, edited by O. Paoloetti
with L. Tamagno Perna, 277-307. Pisa, Rome: Istituti editoriali e
poligrafici internazionali.
Belloli, A.P.A, ed. 1987. Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World:
Colloquium sponsored by the Getty Center for the History of Art and the
Humanities and symposium sponsored by the J. Paul Getty Museum,
Malibu 1986. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum.
Ben Younès, H. 1997. ‘Découverte de deux nouveaux éléments dans le
mobilier de la tombe à la cuirasse de Ksour es Saaf au Sahel Tunisien.’
Reppal 10: 35-9.
Ben Younès, H. 2001. ‘La cuirasse de Ksour es Saaf au Sahel Tunisien:
Probléme de chronologie.’ Pallas 56: 67-70.
Bennett Jr., W.J., and J.A. Blakely. 1989. Tell El-Hesi: The Persian Period
(Stratum V). Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Benoit, F. 1965. Recherches sur l’hellénisation du Midi de la Gaule. Aix-en-
Provence: Orphys.
Bentz, J.L. 1982. ‘Pottery at Ancient Corinth from mid-sixth to mid-fifth
Century bc.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.
Berg-Briese, M. 2005. ‘Halikarnassian Wine-Production? The Evidence
from two Households.’ In Berg-Briese and Vaag 2005: 184-201.
Berg-Briese, M., and L.E.Vaag, eds. 2005. Trade Relations in the Eastern
Mediterranean from the late Hellenistic Period to late Antiquity: the
Ceramic Evidence; Acts from a Ph.D.-Seminar for Young Scholars,
Sandbjerg Manorhouse, 12-15 February 1998. Halicarnassian Studies
3. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.
Berges, D. 1997. ‘II. Die Tonsiegel aus dem karthagischen Tempelarchiv.’
In Karthago 2. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago, edited by D.
Berges, W. Ehrhardt, A. Laidlauer and F. Rakob, 10-244. Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern.
Berges, D. 2002. ‘Archaische Funde aus Alt-Knidos.’ IstMitt 52: 99-164.
Berges, D., ed. 2006. Knidos: Beiträge zur Geschichte der archaischen
Stadt. Mit Beiträgen von J. Nollé, R. Attula, K. Kleibl, A. Slawisch, E.
Calligas, T. Fockenberg, H. Mommsen und A. Schwedt. Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern.
Berges, D., and N. Tuna. 2000. ‘Das Apollonheiligtum von Emeçik:
Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1998 und 1999 (mit einem Beitrag
von R. Attula).’ IstMitt 50: 171-214.
Berges, D., and N. Tuna. 2001. ‘Kult-, Wettkampf- und politische
Versammlungsstätte: Das Triopion-Bundesheiligtum der dorischen
Pentapolis.’ AntW 32.2: 155-66.
Bergquist, B. 1973. Herakles on Thasos: The Archaeological, Literary and
Epigraphic Evidence for his Sanctuary, Status and Cult Reconsidered.
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Boreas. Uppsala Studies in Ancient
Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 5. Uppsala: Almqvist
& Wiksell, Stockholm.
Bergquist, B. 1990. ‘Sympotic Space: A Functional Aspect of Greek Dinig
Rooms.’ In Sympotika: A Symposium on the Symposion, edited by O.
Murray, 37-65. Oxford: University Press.
Berlin, A. 1997a. ‘The Pottery from the North and Northwest Areas.’ In
Leonard 1997: 136-285.
Berlin, A. 1997b. ‘The Plain Wares.’ In Tel Anafa 2,1. The Hellenistic and
Roman Pottery, edited by S.C. Herbert, 123-32. Ann Arbor: Kelsey
Museum of Ancient and Medieval Archaeology.
Berlin, A. 2001. ‘Naukratis/Kom Hadid: A Ceramic Typology for
Hellenistic Lower Egypt.’ In Leonard 2001: 26-163.
Bermond Montanari, G. 1975. ‘Il problema dei Celti in Romagna in
relazione agli scavi di San Martino in Gattara.’ Alba Regia 14: 65-77.
Bermond Montanari, G. 1982. ‘San Martino in Gattara: Necropoli.’ In La

Romagna tra VI e IV sec. a.C.: La necropoli di Montericco e la
protostoria romagnola. Catalogo della mostra, edited by P. v. Eles
Masi, 171-9. Imola: Bologna University Press.
Bernal, M. 1987. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical
Civilization. Volume I: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Bernal, M. 1991. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical
Civilization. Volume II: Archaeological and Documentary Evidence.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Bernal, M. 2001. Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to His
Critics. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bernand, A. 1970. Le Delta Egyptien d’après les textes Grecs 1: Les confins
libyques. Mémoires Publiés par les Membres de l’Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 91. Cairo: L’Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire.
Bernardini, P. 2001. ‘La battaglia del Mare Sardo: una rilettura.’ RStFen
39.2: 135-58.
Bernardini, P., P.G. Spanu, and M. Zucca, eds. 2000. Mache: La battaglia
del Mare Sardonio. Studi e ricerche. Cagliari, Oristano: La Memoria
Storica-Mythos.
Berndt, M. 2003. Funde aus dem Survey auf der Halbinsel von Milet (1992-
1999): Kaiserzeitliche und frühbyzantinische Keramik. Internationale
Archäologie 79. Rahden, Westf.: Leidorf.
Beschi, L. 1969/70 [1972]. ‘Divinità funerarie cirenaiche.’ ASAtene, 47-8,
n.s. 31/2: 133-342.
Bettalli, M. 1995. I mercenari nel mondo Greco 1: Dalle origene alla fine del
V. secolo a.C. Studi e testi di storia antica 5. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.
Bianchi, R.S. 1978. ‘The Striding Draped Male Figure of Ptolemaic Egypt.’
In Das ptolemäische Ägypten: Akten des internationalen Symposions
27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin, edited by H. Maehler and V.M.
Strocka, 95-102. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Bianco Peroni, V. 1970. Le spade nell’Italia continentale. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde 4.1. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Biering, R., V. Brinkmann, U. Schlotzhauer, and B.F. Weber, eds.
Forthcoming. Maiandros: Festschrift für Volkmar von Graeve.
Munich: Verlag Biering & Brinkmann.
Bietak, M., ed. 2001. Archaische griechische Tempel und Altägypten.
Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Bikai, P.M. 1983. ‘The Imports from the East.’ In Palaepaphos-Skales. An
Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus, edited by V. Karageorghis, 396-405.
Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.
Bikai, P.M. 1987. The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: A.G. Leventis
Foundation.
Bikakis, M. 1985. ‘Archaic and Classical Imported Pottery in the Museums
of Paros and Naxos.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.
Biran, A., and J. Naveh. 1993. ‘An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan.’
IEJ 43: 81-98.
Biran, A., and J. Naveh. 1995. ‘The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment.’
IEJ 45: 1-18.
Bisang, W., T. Bierschenk, D. Kreikenbom, and U. Verhoeven, eds. 2005:
Prozesse des Wandels in historischen Spannungsfeldern
Nordostafrikas/Westasiens. Akten zum 2. Symposium des SFB 295,
Mainz, 15.10.-17.10.2001. Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte 2.
Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.
Bissing, F.W. von. 1901. Metallgefäße: Catalogue général des antiquités
égyptiennes du Musée du Caire II, nos. 3426-3587. Vienna: Adolf
Holzhausen.
Bissing, F.W. von. 1903. ‘Die griechisch-römischen Altertümer im
Museum zu Kairo.’ AA: 145-51.
Bissing, F.W. von. 1951. ‘Naukratis.’ BSRAA 39: 33-82.
Bizzarri, M. 1962. ‘La necropoli di Crocefisso del Tufo in Orvieto 1.’ StEtr
30: 1-154.
Blackman, D. 2001/2 [2002]. ‘Archaeology in Greece 2001-2002.’ AR 48:
1-114.
Blake, E. 2004. ‘Space, Spatiality, and Archaeology.’ In A Companion to
Social Archaeology, edited by L. Meskell and R.W. Preucel, 230-54.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Blake, E., and A.B. Knapp, eds. 2005. The Archaeology of Mediterranean
Prehistory. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology 6. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Blakely, J.A., and W.J. Bennett Jr. 1989. ‘Levantine Mortaria of the
Persian Period.’ In Analysis and Publication of Ceramics: The
Computer Data-Base in Archaeology, edited by J.A. Blakely and W.J.
Bennett Jr., 45-65. BAR Series 551. Oxford: BAR.
Blakely, J.A., R. Brinkmann, and C.J. Vitaliano. 1992. ‘Roman Mortaria
and Basins from a Sequence at Caesarea: Fabrics and Sources.’ In
Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower. Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and
Bibliography
Byzantine Caesarea, edited by R.L. Vann, 194-213. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Blegen, C.W., C.G. Boulter, J.L. Caskey, and M. Rawson. 1958. Troy vol. 4:
Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII. Cincinnati: Princeton University Press.
Blinkenberg, C. 1931. Lindos 1. Fouilles de l’acropole 1902-1914: les petits
objets. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Bloesch, H. 1940. Formen attischer Schalen. Bern, Bümpliz: Benteli A.-G.
Blümel, W. 1993. ‘Dialekte und Dialektmischungen im südwestlichen
Kleinasien’. In Dialectologica graeca: Actas del II Coloquio
International de Dialectologica griega, Madrid junio de 1991, edited by
E. Crespo, 29-35. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Blumhofer, M. 1993. Etruskische Cippi: Untersuchungen am Beispiel von
Cerveteri. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau.
Boardman, J. 1954: ‘Painted Votive Plaques and an Early Inscription from
Aegina’. BSA 49: 183-201.
Boardman, J. 1956. ‘Chian and Naucratite.’ BSA 51: 55-62.
Boardman, J. 1958. ‘A Greek Vase from Egypt.’ JHS 78: 4-12.
Boardman, J. 1966. ‘Evidence for the Dating of Greek Settlements in
Cyrenaica.’ BSA 61: 149-56.
Boardman, J. 1967. Greek Emporio: Excavations in Chios 1952-1955. BSA
Suppl. 6. London: Thames and Hudson.
Boardman, J. 1970. ‘A Protocorinthian Dinos and Stand.’ AntK 13: 92-4.
Boardman, J. 1976. ‘A Curious Eye Cup.’ AA: 281-90.
Boardman, J. 1978a. ‘The Problems of Analyses of Clays and Some
General Observations on Possible Results.’ In Centre Jean Bérard
1978: 287-9.
Boardman, J. 1978b. Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Boardman, J. 1980. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade.
3rd edn. London: Thames and Hudson.
Boardman, J. 1986. ‘Archaic Chian Pottery at Naucratis.’ In Boardman
and Vaphopoulou-Richardson 1986: 251-8.
Boardman, J. 1987. ‘Amasis: The Implications of his Name.’ In Belloli
1987: 141-52.
Boardman, J. 1988. ‘Herakles.’ LIMC 4,1, edited by L. Kahil, 728-838.
Zürich und Munich: Artemis-Verlag.
Boardman, J. 1990a. ‘Al Mina and History.’ OJA 9: 169-90.
Boardman, J. 1990b. Review of Greek Painted Pottery from Naukratis in
Egyptian Museums, by M.S. Venit. Gnomon 62: 473-4.
Boardman, J. 1994. ‘Settlement for Trade and Land in North Africa:
Problems of Identity.’ In The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation:
Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman, edited by G.R.
Tschetskhladze and F. De Angelis, 137-49. Oxford: Oxford University
Committee for Archaeology.
Boardman, J. 1998a. ‘Olbia and Berezan: The Early Pottery.’ In The Greek
Colonisation of the Black Sea Area, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 201-4.
Historia Einzelschriften 121. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Boardman, J. 1998b. Early Greek Vase Painting. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Boardman, J. 1999a. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade.
4th edn. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Boardman, J. 1999b. ‘The Excavated History of Al Mina.’ In Ancient
Greeks: West and East, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 135-62.
Mnemosyne Supplementum 196. Leiden: Brill.
Boardman, J. 1999c. ‘Greek Colonization: The Eastern Contribution.’ In
Centre Jean Bérard 1999: 39-50.
Boardman, J. 2000. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade.
4th edn. 1999, repr. 2000. London: Thames and Hudson.
Boardman, J. 2001a. ‘Aspects of Colonization.’ BASOR 322: 33-42.
Boardman, J. 2001b. The History of Greek Vases. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Boardman, J. 2002a. ‘Al Mina: The Study of a Site.’ Ancient West & East 1:
315-31.
Boardman, J. 2002b. ‘Greeks and Syria: Pots and People.’ In Tsetskhladze
and Snodgrass 2002: 1-16.
Boardman, J. 2005. ‘Greece: The Rise without Fall.’ Common Knowledge
11: 306-10.
Boardman, J., and J. Hayes 1966. Excavations at Tocra 1963-1965: The
Archaic Deposits 1. BSA Suppl. 4. London: Thames and Hudson.
Boardman, J., and J. Hayes 1973. Excavations at Tocra 1962-1965. The
Archaic Deposits 2 and Later Deposits. BSA Suppl. 10. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Boardman, J., and C.E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson, eds. 1986. Chios: A
Conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Boaretto, E., A.J.T. Jull, A. Gilboa, and I. Sharon. 2005. ‘Dating the Iron
Age I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results.’
Radiocarbon 47: 39-55.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 211
Bibliography
Boehlau, J. 1898. Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen. Leipzig: B.G.
Teubner.
Boehlau, J., and K. Schefold. 1942. Larisa am Hermos 3: Die Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen 1902-1934. Die Kleinfunde. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter &
Co.
Boggs, J.P. 2004. ‘The Culture Concept as Theory, in Context.’ Current
Anthropology 45: 187-209.
Boitani Visentini, F. 1978. ‘Le ceramiche decorate di importazione greco-
orientale di Gravisca.’ In Centre Jean Bérard 1978: 216-22.
Bol, R., and D. Kreikenbom, eds. 2004. Sepulkral- und Votivdenkmäler
östlicher Mittelmeergebiete (7. Jh. v. Chr.–1. Jh. n. Chr.). Möhnesee:
Bibliopolis.
Boldrini, S. 1994. Gravisca: Scavi nel Santuario Greco 4. Le Ceramiche
Ioniche. Bari: Edipuglia.
Bommas, M. 2005. ‘Situlae and the Offering of Water in the Divine
Funerary Cult: A New Approach to the Ritual of Djeme.’ In L’acqua
nell’antico Egitto. Vita, rigenerazione, incantesimo, medicamento:
Proceedings of the First International Conference for Young
Egyptologists, Italy, Chianciano Therme, October 15-18, 2003, edited by
A. Amenta, M.M. Luiselli and M. Novella Sordi, 257-72. Rome:
«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Bonatz, D. 1993. ‘Some Considerations on the Material Culture of Coastal
Syria in the Iron Age.’ Egitto e Vicino Oriente 16: 123-57.
Bondì, S.F. 2000. ‘Fenici e Punici nel Mediterraneo occidentale tra il 600
e il 500 a.C.’ In Mache: La battaglia del Mare Sardonio. Studi e ricerche,
edited by P. Bernardini, P.G. Spanu and M. Zucca, 57-71. Cagliari,
Oristano: La Memoria Storica-Mythos.
Bookidis, N. 1990. ‘Ritual Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at
Corinth: Some Questions.’ In Sympotica: A Symposium on the
Symposion, edited by O. Murray, 86-94. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bookidis, N. 1993. ‘Ritual Dining at Corinth.’ In Greek Sanctuaries: New
Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, 45-61. London, New
York: Routledge.
Bookidis, N., and R.S. Stroud. 1997. Corinth 18,3. The Sanctuary of
Demeter and Kore. Topography and Architecture. Princeton, New
Jersey: The American School of Classical Studies.
Botto, M. 2000. ‘Tripodi siriani e tripodi fenici dal Latium Vetus e
dall’Etruria meridionale.’ In La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: Dati,
problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale
Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco 1997, 63-98. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche.
Bouloumié, B. 1982. L’épave etrusque d’Antibes et le commerce en
Méditerranée occidentale au VIe siècle av. J.-C. Kleine Schriften aus
dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar Marburg 10. Marburg:
Vorgeschichtliches Seminar.
Bouloumié, B. 1992. Saint-Blaise (Fouilles H. Rolland): L’habitat
protohistorique. Les céramiques grecques. Aix-en-Provence:
Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Bound, M. 1991. ‘The Pre-classical Wreck at Campese Bay, Island of
Giglio: First Season Report.’ In Studi e materiali: scienza dell’antichità
in Toscana 6. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Bourriau, J.D., L.M.V. Smith, and P.T. Nicholson. 2000. New Kingdom
Pottery Fabrics: Nike Clay and Mixed Nile/Marl Clay Fabrics from
Memphis and Amarna. Egypt Exploration Socity Occasional
Publications 14. London: Egypt Exploration Society.
Bouzek, J., ed. 1974. Kyme 1: Anatolian Collection of Charles University.
Praha: Universita Karlova.
Bowden, H. 1991. ‘The Chronology of Greek Painted Pottery: Some
Observations.’ Hephaistois 10: 49-59.
Bowden, H. 1996. ‘The Greek Settlement and Sanctuaries at Naukratis:
Herodotus and Archaeology.’ In More Studies in the Ancient Greek
Polis, edited by M.H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub, 17-37. Historia
Einzelschriften 108. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Braun, E. 2005. ‘Identifying Ethnicity from Prehistoric Pottery in Ancient
Egypt and the Southern Levant.’ In Clarke 2005: 140-54.
Braun, T.F.R.G. 1982. ‘The Greeks in Egypt.’ In CAH 3,3: 32-56.
Braun, T.F.R.G. 1995. ‘Barley Cakes and Emmer Bread.’ In Wilkins et al.
1995: 25-37.
Bresson, A. 2000. La cité marchande. Bordeaux: Ausonius Publications.
Bresson, A. 2005. ‘Naucratis: De l’Emporion à la cité.’ Topoi 12/3: 133-55.
Bresson, A. Forthcoming. ‘Karien und die dorische Kolonisation.’ In
Rumscheid (forthcoming).
Briend, J., and J.P. Humbert, eds. 1980. Tell Keisan (1971-1976): Une cité
phénicienne en Galilée. Orbis Biblicus et Orientales, Series
Archaeologica 1. Freiburg/Schweiz, Göttingen, Paris: Gabalda.
Brinkman, J.A. 1989. ‘The Akkadian Words for ‘Ionia’ and ‘Ionian’.’ In
Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V. Schoder, edited by R.F.
212 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Sutton, 53-71. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers.
Brinkmann, V. 1990. ‘Der Westbau.’ In Graeve et al. 1990: 51-5.
Briquel, D. 2004. ‘L’inscription étrusque de Gouraya (Algérie).’ Annales
du Musée National des Antiquités (Algiers) 14: 22-60.
Brissaud, P. 1990. ‘Répertoire préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à San el-
Hagar (1er partie).’ Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 1: 77-80.
Brize, Ph. 2001. ‘Funde aus Milet: X. Treibverzierte Bronzebleche.’ AA:
559-73.
Brock, R., and S. Hodkinson, eds. 2000. Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of
Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Brommer, F. 1984. ‘Themenwahl aus örtlichen Gründen.’ In Ancient Greek
and Related Pottery: Proceedings of the International Vase Symposium
in Amsterdam, 12.-15. April 1984, edited by H.A.G. Brijder, 178-84.
Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Series.
Brown, W.Ll. 1960. The Etruscan Lion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brumfield, A. 1997. ‘Cakes in the Liknon: Votives from the Sanctuary of
Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth.’ Hesperia 66: 147-72.
Bruns, G. 1970. Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten. ArchHom 2, Q. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bruns-Özgan, C. 2004.’Ein neues archaisches Kopffragment aus Knidos.’
In Anadolu’da Doðdu. Festschrift für Fahri Iþýk, edited by T. Korkut,
201-8. Istanbul: Ege Yayýnlarý.
Buchholz, H.-G. 1963. ‘Steinerne Dreifusschalen des ägäischen
Kulturkreises und ihre Beziehungen zum Osten.’ JdI 78: 1-77.
Buchholz, H.-G. 1975. Methymna: Archäologische Beiträge zur
Topographie und Geschichte von Nordlesbos. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Buchholz, H.-G. 1976/7. ‘Mörsersymbolik.’ Acta Praehistorica et
Archaeologica 7/8: 249-70.
Budge, E.A.W. 1885. The Sarcophagus of Anchnesraneferab, Queen of
Ahmes II, King of Egypt. London: Whiting.
Budge, E.A.W. 1909. British Museum: A Guide to the Egyptian Galleries
(Sculpture). London: British Museum.
Bumke, H., and E. Röver. 2002. ‘Ein wiederentdecktes Heiligtum auf dem
‘Taxiarchis’ in Didyma.’ In Bumke et al. 2002: 84-104.
Bumke, H., A. Filges, E. Röver, and H. Stümpel. 2002. ‘ Didyma: Bericht
über die Arbeiten 2000.’ AA: 79-118.
Bumke, H., A. Herda, E. Röver, and T.G. Schattner. 2000. ‘Bericht über
die Ausgrabungen 1994 an der Heiligen Strasse von Milet nach
Didyma.’ AA: 57-97.
Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Burkert, W. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on
Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Burkert, W. 2004. Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek
Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Burkhardt, K. 1991. ‘Petrographische und geochemische Untersuchungen
an etruskischer Bucchero-Keramik von den Fundorten Chiusi,
Orvieto, Vulci, Tarquinia, Allumiere, Tolfa, Cerveteri, Ceri, Veio und
Rom.’ Münchner geologische Hefte 5. Munich: Institut für allgemeine
und angewandte Geologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München.
Buschor, E. 1929. ‘Kykladisches’. AM 54: 142-63.
Buschor, E. 1951. ‘Spendekanne aus Samos.’ BSA 46: 32-41.
Butyagin, A.M. 2001. ‘Painted Pottery from the Early Levels of
Myrmekeion (1992 Field Season).’ In Northern Pontic Antiquities in
the State Hermitage Museum, edited by J. Boardman, S.L. Solovyov
and G.R. Tsetskhladze, 179-98. Leiden: Brill.
Buxton, A.H. 2002. ‘Lydian Royal Dedications in Greek Sanctuaries.’
Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Calame, C. 1996. Mythe et histoire dans l’Antiquité grecque. La création
symbolique d’une colonie. Lausanne: Payot.
Callipolitis-Feytmans, D. 1974. Les plats attiques à figures noires. Travaux
et mémoires des anciens membres étrangers de l’Ecole et de divers
savants 19. Paris: Boccard.
Calvet, Y., and M. Yon. 1978. ‘Salamine de Chypre et le commerce ionien.’
In Centre Jean Bérard 1978: 43-51.
Camporeale, G. 2003. ‘L’artigianato artistico’. In Storia di Orvieto I.
Antichità, edited by G.M. Della Fina, 147-215. Perugia: Quattroemme.
Camps, G. 1961. Monuments et rites funéraires protohistoriques. Paris: Arts
et Métiers Graphiques.
Carl, T. Forthcoming. ‘Neues vom milesischen Löwen: Ein Fikellura-
Aryballos aus dem Aphrodite-Heiligtum auf dem Zeytintepe.’ In
Biering et al. (forthcoming).
Carlson, D.N. 2002. ‘The 2001 Excavation Season at Tektaþ Burnu,

Turkey.’ INA Quarterly 29.2: 12-4.
Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 1999. Péluse et l’angle oriental du delta Egyptien aux
époques grecque, romaine et byzantine. Cairo: Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale.
Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2000. ‘Le ‘monopole de Naucratis’ et la ‘bataille de
Péluse’: rupture ou continuité de la présence grecque en Egypte des
Saites aux Perses.’ Transeuphratène 19: 159-72.
Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2005. ‘Réflexions sur l’accès des grecs au littoral
égyptien aux époques saïte et perse.’ Topoi 12/13: 193-205.
Carruba, O. 1976. ‘Nuova lettura dell’iscrizione etrusca dei cippi di
Tunisia.’ Athenaeum 54: 163-73.
Carthage. 1995. Carthage. L’histoire, sa trace et son écho. Paris: Société
Française de Promotion Artistique.
Cassimatis, H. 1978. ‘Herakles et Lysippe.’ BIFAO 78: 541-64.
Cavanagh, W., J. Crouwel, R.W. Catling, and G. Shipley. 1996. The
Laconia Survey: Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape.
London: British School at Athens.
Celestino Pérez, S. 1991. ‘Nuevos jarros tartésicos de bronce en el sur
peninsular.’ MM 32: 52-85.
Celestino Pérez, S., and P. de Zulueta. 2003. ‘Los bronces de Cancho
Roano.’ In Cancho Roano 9: Los materiales arqueólogicos 2, edited by
S. Celestino Pérez, 11-123. Mérida: Instituto de Arqueología de
Mérida.
Centre Jean Bérard. 1978. Les céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur
diffusion en occident: Colloques internationaux du Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique N. 569, Centre Jean Bérard. Institut Français
de Naples 6-9 juillet 1976. Paris and Naples: Editions du CNRS.
Centre Jean Bérard. 1999. La colonisation Grecque en Méditerranée
occidentale: Actes de la rencontre scientifique en hommage à Georges
Vallet (Rome-Naples, 15-18 novembre 1995), edited by Centre Jean
Bérard, l’Ecole française de Rome, l’Istituto Universitario orientale et
l’Universita degli studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’. Collection de l’Ecole
française de Rome 251. Rome: Ecole française de Rome.
Chamoux, F. 1953. Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades. Bibliothèque
des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 177. Paris: Boccard.
Chaniotis, A. 1997. Review of Bowden 1996. In BMCR 97.7.16:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1997/97.07.16.html (16 July 1997).
Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque I.
Paris: Klincksieck.
Clairmont, C. 1954/5. ‘Greek Pottery from the Near East.’ Berytus 11: 85-
141.
Clarke, J., ed. 2005. Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and
Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Clayton, P.A. 1994. Chronicles of the Pharaohs. London: BCA/ Thames
and Hudson.
Clerc, G. 1994. ‘Herakles et les dieux du cercle isiaque.’ In Hommages à
Jean Leclant III, edited by C. Berger, 97-137. Bibliothèque d’étude 106,
3. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Cobet, J. 2000. ‘Miletos [2]: I. Geschichte.’ In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited by
H. Cancik, and H. Schneider: 170. 173-5. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B.
Metzler.
Cobet, J. 2004. Review of Miletos: A History, by A.M. Greaves. Gnomon
76: 136-9.
Cobet, J. Forthcoming. ‘Hätten wir doch einen Thukydides für Milet.’ In
Biering et al. (forthcoming).
Cobet, J., V. v. Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier, and K. Zimmermann, eds.
Forthcoming. Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Akten des
Symposions Panionion (Güzelçamlý) 26. September bis 1. Oktober 1999.
Milesische Forschungen 5. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. 1977. ‘Gyges and Ashurbanipal: A Study in
Literary Transmission.’ Orientalia 46: 65-85.
Cogswell, J.W., H. Neff, and M.D. Glascock. 1996. ‘The Effect of Firing
Temperature on the Elemental Characterization of Pottery.’ JAS 23:
283-7.
Coldstream, J.N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey of Ten Local
Styles and their Chronology. London: Methuen & Co.
Coldstream, J.N. 1976. ‘Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer.’ JHS 96: 8-17.
Coldstream, J.N. 1977. Geometric Greece. London: Methuen & Co.
Coldstream, J.N. 1983. ‘Gift Exchange in the Eighth Century bc.’ In The
Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century bc: Tradition and Innovation.
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish
Institute in Athens, 1.-5. June, 1981, edited by R. Hägg, 201-7. Skrifter
utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4, 30. Stockholm: Paul Åströms
Förlag.
Coldstream, J.N. 1993. ‘Early Greek Visitors to Egypt and the Levant.’
Journal of Ancient Chronology Forum 6: 6-18.
Bibliography
Coldstream, J.N. 1995. ‘The Rich Lady of the Areiopagos and her
Contemporaries.’ Hesperia 64: 391-403.
Coldstream, J.N. 1998a. ‘The First Exchanges between Euboeans and
Phoenicians: Who Took the Initiative?’ In Mediterranean Peoples in
Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Century bce. Papers of the First
International Symposium Held by the Philip and Muriel Berman Center
for Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1995. In Honor of Professor T.
Dothan, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, 353-60. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society.
Coldstream, J.N. 1998b. ‘Crete and Dodecanese: Alternative Eastern
Approaches to the Greek World during the Geometric Period.’ In
Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th-6th Cent. bc,
edited by V. Karageorghis and N.C. Stampolidis, 255-62. Athens:
University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation.
Coldstream, J.N. 2000. ‘Exchanges between Phoenicians and Early
Greeks.’ National Museum News 11: 15-32.
Coldstream, J.N. 2003. ‘Some Aegean Reactions to the Chronological
Debate in the Southern Levant.’ Tel Aviv 30: 247-58.
Coldstream, J.N., and H.W. Catling. 1996. Knossos North Cemetery: Early
Greek Tombs. BSA Suppl. 28. London: The British School at Athens.
Coldstream, J.N., and D.J. Liddy. 1996. In Coldstream and Catling 1996:
465-514.
Coldstream, J.N., and A. Mazar. 2003. ‘Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov and
Iron Age Chronology.’ IEJ 53: 29-48.
Colonna, G. 1970. Bronzi votivi umbro-sabellici a figura umana. I. Periodo
‘arcaico’. Florence: Sansoni.
Colonna, G. 1980a. ‘Problemi dell’archeologia e della storia di Orvieto
etrusca.’ In Orvieto Etrusca: Relazioni e interventi nel convegno del
1975, 43-53. Annali della Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 1.
Rome: Quasar.
Colonna, G. 1980b [1983]. ‘Virgilio, Cortona e la leggenda etrusca di
Dardano.’ ArchCl 32: 1-15.
Colonna, G. 1981. ‘La Sicilia e il Tirreno nel V e IV secolo.’ Kokalos 25/6,1:
157-83.
Colonna, G. 1985. ‘La Romagna fra Etruschi, Umbri e Pelasgi.’ In La
Romagna tra VI e IV sec. a.C. nel quadro della protostoria dell’Italia
centrale: Atti del Convegno, Bologna 23-24 ottobre 1982, edited by G.
Bermond Montanari, 45-65. Bologna: University Press.
Colonna, G. 1988. ‘Il lessico istituzionale etrusco e la formazione della
città (specialmente in Emilia Romagna).’ In La formazione della città
preromana in Emilia Romagna: Atti del convegno di studi, Bologna –
Marzabotto 7-8 dicembre 1985, edited by Istituto per la storia di
Bologna, 15-36. Convegni e colloqui N.S. 8. Bologna: Università di
Bologna.
Colonna, G. 2000 [2002]. ‘Il santuario di Pyrgi dalle origini mitistoriche
agli altorilievi frontonali dei Sette e di Leucotea.’ Scienze
dell’Antichità 10: 251-335.
Cook, J.M. 1958/9. ‘Old Smyrna, 1948-1951.’ BSA 53/4: 1-34.
Cook, J.M. 1973. The Troad. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cook, J.M. 1975. ‘Greek Settlement in the Eastern Aegean and Asia
Minor.’ In CAH II 2,2 3rd edn. History of the Middle East and the
Aegean Region c. 1380-1000 bc, edited by I.E.S. Edwards, C.J. Gadd,
N.G.L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, 773-804. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cook, J.M. 1985. ‘On the Date of Alyattes’ Sack of Smyrna.’ BSA 80: 25-8.
Cook, J.M., and D.J. Blackman 1964/5. ‘Greek Archaeology in Western
Asia Minor.’ AR 11: 32-62.
Cook, J.M., and R.V. Nicholls. 1998. Old Smyrna Excavations: The Temple
of Athena. BSA Suppl. 30. London: The British School at Athens.
Cook, R.M. 1933/4. ‘Fikellura Pottery.’ BSA 34: 1-98.
Cook, R.M. 1937. ‘Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt.’ JHS 57: 227-37.
Cook, R.M. 1949. ‘The Distribution of Chiot Pottery.’ BSA 44: 154-61.
Cook, R.M. 1952. ‘A List of Clazomenian Pottery.’ BSA 47: 123-52.
Cook, R.M. 1954. CVA London, British Museum 8. Oxford: University
Press.
Cook, R.M. 1959. ‘Die Bedeutung der bemalten Keramik für den
griechischen Handel.’ JdI 74: 114-23.
Cook, R.M. 1960. Greek Painted Pottery. London: Butler and Tanner.
Cook, R.M. 1981. Clazomenian Sarcophagi. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Cook, R.M. 1989. ‘The Francis-Vickers Chronology.’ JHS 109: 164-70.
Cook, R.M. 1993. ‘A Carian Wild Goat Workshop.’ OJA 12,1: 109-15.
Cook, R.M. 1997. Greek Painted Pottery. 3rd edn. London, New York:
Routledge.
Cook, R.M. 1998. In Cook and Dupont 1998: 1-141.
Cook, R.M. 1999. ‘A List of Carian Orientalising Pottery.’ OJA 18,1: 79-93.
Cook, R.M., and P. Dupont. 1998. East Greek Pottery. London, New York:
Routledge.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 213
Bibliography
Cook, R.M., and A.G. Woodhead. 1952. ‘Painted Inscriptions on Chiot
Pottery.’ BSA 47: 159-70.
Corcella, A. 1993. Erodoto: Le Storie, volume IV. Libro IV. La Scizia e la Libia
(Introduzione e commento). Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori/Fondazione
Lorenzo Valla.
Coulié, A., 2002. La céramique thasienne à figures noires. Etudes
Thasiennes 19. Paris: Boccard.
Coulson, W.D.E. 1988. ‘The Naukratis Survey.’ In The Archaeology of the
Nile Delta: Problems and Priorities. Proceedings of the Seminar Held in
Cairo, 19–22 October 1986 on the Occasion of the 15. Anniversary of the
Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo,
edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 259-63. Amsterdam: Netherlands
Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt.
Coulson, W.D.E. 1996. Ancient Naukratis 2: The Survey at Naukratis and
Environs 1, edited by W.D.E. Coulson. Oxbow Monograph 60. Exeter:
The Short Run Press.
Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1977/8. ‘The Naukratis Projekt: 1978.’
ARCE Newsletter 103: 13-26.
Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1979. ‘A Preliminary Survey of the
Naukratis Region in the Western Nile Delta.’ JFA 6: 151-68.
Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1981a. Cities of the Delta 1: Naukratis.
ARCE Reports 4. Malibu: Undena Publications.
Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1981b. ‘Excavations in the South
Mound of Naukratis: 1981.’ Muse 15: 39-45.
Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1982a. ‘The Naukratis Projekt: 1982.’
Muse 16: 44-6.
Coulson, W.D.E., and A. Leonard Jr. 1982b. ‘Investigations at Naukratis
and Environs: 1980 and 1981.’ AJA 86: 361-80.
Coulson, W.D.E., A. Leonard Jr., and N. Wilkie. 1982. ‘Three Seasons of
Excavations and Survey at Naukratis and Environs’. In JARCE 19: 73-
109.
Cozza, A., and A. Pasqui. 1887. ‘Civita Castellana (antica Faleria). Scavi
nella necropoli falisca in contrada La Penna.’ NSc: 170-6.
Cozza, A., and A. Pasqui. 1981. Carta archeologica d’Italia (1881-1897):
Materiali per l’agro falisco. Florence: Olschki.
Crielaard, J.P. 1999. ‘Early Iron Age Greek Pottery in Cyprus and North
Syria: A Consumption-Oriented Approach.’ In The Complex Past of
Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and
Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries bc). Proceedings of the
ARCHON International Conference, Held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November
1996, edited by J.P. Crielaard, V. Stissi and G.J. van Wijngaarden, 261-
90. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.
Cristofani, M., ed. 1985. Il commercio etrusco arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di
studi. QArchEtr 9. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Cristofani, M. 1996. Etruschi e altre genti nell’Italia preromana: mobilità in
età arcaica. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Cristofani, M., ed. 2003. Caere 4. Vigna Parrocchiale: Scavi 1983-1989. Il
santuario, la «residenza» e l’edificio ellittico. Rome: Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Croissant, F. 1983. Les protomés féminines archaïques. Paris: Ecole
Française d’Athènes.
Crowfoot, J.W., K.M. Kenyon, and E.L. Sukenik. 1942. Samaria-Sebaste 1:
The Buildings at Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
Crowfoot J.W. et al. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste 3: The Objects from Samaria.
London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
D’Angelo, I. Forthcoming. ‘Le produzioni ceramiche locali di età arcaica
dagli scavi alla ‘Casa del Propileo’ a Cirene.’ In SOMA 2005:
Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Chieti, 24.-
26. February 2005.
Dalby, A. 1996. Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece.
London, New York: Routledge.
Dalby, A. 2003. Food in the Ancient World From A to Z. London: Routledge.
Darmstaedter, E. 1933. ‘Ptisana: ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der antiken
Diaetetik.’ Archeion 15: 181-201.
Das Tier in der Antike. 1974. Das Tier in der Antike: 400 Werke ägyptischer,
griechischer, etruskischer und römischer Kultur aus privatem und
öffentlichem Besitz. Zürich: Archäologisches Institut der Universität
Zürich.
Daux, G. 1963. ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en
Grèce en 1962.’ BCH 87: 689-879.
Daux, G. 1966. ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en
Grèce en 1965.’ BCH 90: 715-1019.
Davis, W.M. 1979. ‘Ancient Naukratis and the Cypriotes in Egypt.’
Göttinger Miszellen 35: 13-23.
Davis, W.M. 1980. ‘The Cypriotes at Naukratis.’ Göttinger Miszellen 41: 7-
19.
De Agostino, A. 1961. ‘Populonia (Livorno): Scoperte archeologiche nella
214 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
necropoli, negli anni 1957-1960.’ NSc 15: 64-102.
de la Genière, J. 1999. ‘De la céramique pour les mercenaires.’ In Centre
Jean Bérard 1999: 121-30.
de la Genière, J., and V. Jolivet. 2003. Cahiers de Claros 2: L’aire des
sacrifices. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
De Lucia Brolli, M.A. 2004. ‘La collezione: aspetti e problemi.’ In Scavo
nello scavo: Gli Etruschi non visti. Ricerche e ‘riscoperte’ nei depositi dei
musei archeologici dell’Etruria Meridionale. Catalogo della mostra,
edited by A.M. Sgubini Moretti, 205-11. Viterbo: Union Printing
Edizioni.
de Marinis, R.C. 1999. ‘Il confine occidentale del mondo proto-
veneto/paleoveneto dal Bronzo finale alle invasioni galliche del 388
a.C.’ In Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum Angulus’: Atti del XX
Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, edited by O. Paoletti, 511-64.
Pisa, Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali.
De Miro, E., and G. Fiorentini. 1977. ‘Leptis Magna: La necropoli greco-
punica sotto il teatro.’ QAL 9: 5-76.
De Vido, S. 1998. ‘Regalità e aristocrazia a Cirene.’ AccScTor 132: 3-44.
De Vries, K., P.I. Kuniholm, G.K. Sams, and M.M. Voigt. 2003. New Dates
for Iron Age Gordion. Antiquity Project Gallery.
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/devries/devries.html (June 2003).
De Vries, K., G.K. Sams, and M.M. Voigt. 2005. ‘Gordion Re-Dating.’ In
Anatolian Iron Ages 5: Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages
Colloquium held at Van, 6.-10. August 2001, edited by A. Çilingiroðlu
and G. Darbyshire, 45-6. The British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara Monographs 31. London: British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara.
de Waele, J.A. 1971. Acragas Graeca: Die historische Topographie des
griechischen Akragas auf Sizilien I. Historischer Teil. ‘s-Gravenhagen:
Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk.
Decker, W. 1987. Sport und Spiel im Alten Ägypten. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Decker, W. 2003. ‘Kampfsport und Kartuschen. Zu einer ionischen
Amphora mit dem Namen des Apries.’ In Es werde niedergelegt als
Schriftstück. Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65. Geburtstag,
edited by N. Kloth, K. Martin and E. Pardy, 49-56. Hamburg: Buske.
Decker, W., and M. Herb. 1994. Bildatlas zum Sport im alten Ägypten:
Corpus der bildlichen Quellen zu Leibesübungen, Spiel, Jagd, Tanz und
verwandten Themen. Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill.
Dedeoðlu, J. 1993. Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi. Istanbul: A Turizm Yayýnlarý.
Defernez, C. 2001. La céramique d’époque perse à Tell el-Herr: Etude
chrono-typologique. CRIPEL Suppl. 5. Lille: Université Charles-de-
Gaulle – Lille III.
Dehl-von Kaenel, Ch. 1995. Die archaische Keramik aus dem Malophoros-
Heiligtum in Selinunt: Die korinthischen, lakonischen, ostgriechischen,
etruskischen und megarischen Importe sowie die ‘argivisch-
monochrome’ und lokale Keramik aus den alten Grabungen. Berlin:
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz.
Demetriou, D. 2004. Negotiating Identity: Group-Definition in Naukratis.
http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/04mtg/abstracts/De
metriou.html (20 Februar 2004).
Descœudres, J.-P. 2002. ‘Al Mina Across the Great Divide.’ MeditArch 15:
49-72.
Deubner, L. 1932. Attische Feste. Berlin: Keller.
Dikaios, P. 1961/2. ‘Archaeology in Cyprus, 1959-61.’ AR 8: 32-46.
Dillon, M.P.J. 1999. ‘Post-nuptial Sacrifices on Kos (Segre, ED 178) and
Ancient Greek Marriage.’ ZPE 124: 63-80.
Dion, P.-E. 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du fer: Histoire politique et structures
sociales. Paris: Gabalda.
Doðer, E. 1986. ‘Premières remarques sur les amphores de Clazomènes.’
In Recherches sur les amphores grecques: Actes du Colloque
international organisé par le Centre national de la recherche
scientifique, l’Université de Rennes II et l’Ecole française d’Athènes,
Athènes 10–12 septembre 1984, edited by J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan,
461-71. BCH suppl. 13. Athens: Ecole française d’Athènes.
Dobrowolski, W. 1966. ‘Les modifications de la manière de présenter
Triton dans l’art étrusque de l’archaïsme tardif.’ In Mélanges offerts à
Kazimierz Michalowski, edited by M.-L. Bernhard, 375-80.
Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Docter, R.F. 1993. In Niemeyer and Docter 1993: 201-44.
Docter, R.F. 1997. ‘Archaische Amphoren aus Karthago und Toscanos.
Fundspektrum und Formentwicklung. Ein Beitrag zur phönizischen
Wirtschaftsgeschichte.’ Ph.D. diss. Amsterdam.
Docter, R.F. 1998. ‘Die sogennanten ZitA-Amphoren: nuraghisch und
zentralitalisch (19.7.1997).’ In Archäologische Studien in
Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, edited by R. Rolle and K. Schmidt,
359-74. Joachim Justus Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 87.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Docter, R.F., H.G. Niemeyer, A.J. Nijboer, and J. van der Plicht. 2005.
‘Radiocarbon Dates of Animal Bones in the Earliest Levels of
Carthage.’ In Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto.
Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro in Italia: Atti dell’incontro
di studi, Roma, 30–31 ottobre 2003, edited by G. Bartoloni and F.
Delpino, 557-577. Mediterranea 1. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici
Internazionali.
Dodson, A. 1995. Monarchs of the Nile. London: Rubicon Press.
Dodson, A. 2002. ‘The Problem of Amenirdis II and the Heirs to the Office
of God’s Wife of Amun During the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty.’ JEA 88:
179-86.
Domínguez, A.J., and C. Sánchez. 2001. Greek Pottery from the Iberian
Peninsula: Archaic and Classical Periods. Leiden, Boston, Cologne:
Brill.
Donadoni, S. 1981. ‘Per la morfologia del dio Seth.’ MDIK 37: 115-22.
Donati, L. 1998. ‘Sul simposio etrusco: Osservazioni in margine al
restauro di un rilievo chusino.’ In In memoria di Enrico Paribeni,
edited by G. Capecchi, 153-68. Archaeologica 125. Rome: «L’ERMA»
di Bretschneider.
Donder, H. 2002. ‘Funde aus Milet: XI. Die Metallfunde.’ AA: 1-8.
Donderer, M. 1996. ‘Bildhauersignaturen griechischer Rundplastik.’ ÖJh
65: 87-104.
Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons of
Excavations, 1963, 1965 – Soundings in 1967. Atiqot 9-10. Jerusalem:
IAA.
Dothan, M., and D.N. Freedman. 1967. Ashdod I: The First Season of
Excavations, 1967. Atiqot 7. Jerusalem: IAA.
Dragendorff, H. 1903. Theraeische Graeber 2. Berlin: Georg Reimer.
Driesch, A.von den, S. Fünfschilling, B. Hedinger, G. Jöhrens, M.
Mackensen, K. Mansel, S. Martin-Kilcher, G. Nobis, J. Nollé, F.
Rakob, T. Redissi, G. Schneider, S. von Schnurbein, G. Trias, F.
Vattioni (†), and M. Vegas, eds. 1999. Karthago 3. Die deutschen
Ausgrabungen in Karthago. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Drower, M.S. 1985. Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology. London: Vicor
Gollancz LTD.
Dubois, L. 1989. Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Sicile. Contribution a
l’étude du vocabulaire grec colonial. CEFR 119. Paris, Rome: Ecole
française de Rome.
Dubois, L. 1996. Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont. Hautes
études du monde gréco-romain 22. Genève: Librairie Droz.
Dugas, C. 1912a. ‘Les vases ‘rhodiens-géométriques’.’ BCH 36: 495-522.
Dugas, C. 1912b. ‘Vase ‘Cyrénéens’ du Musée de Tarente’. RA 20: 88-105.
Dugas, C. 1928. Délos 10. Les vases de l’Heraion. Paris: Boccard.
Dugas, C. 1935. Délos 17. Les vases orientalisants du style non mélien: Les
vases de Délos 3. Paris: Boccard.
Dümmler, F. 1888. ‘Vasenscherben aus Kyme in Aeolis.’ RM 3: 159-80.
Dunham, A.G. 1915. The History of Miletus down to the Anabasis of
Alexander. London: London University Press.
Dupont, P. 1983. ‘Classification et détermination de provenance des
céramiques orientales archaïques d’Istros: Rapport préliminaire.’
Dacia N.S. 27: 19-43.
Dupont, P. 1986. ‘Naturwissenschaftliche Bestimmung der archaischen
Keramik Milets.’ In Müller-Wiener 1986: 57-71.
Dupont, P. 1998. ‘Archaic Greek Trade Amphorae.’ In Cook and Dupont
1998: 142-91.
Dupont, P. 2000. ‘Trafics méditerranéens archaïques: quelques aspects.’
In Krinzinger 2000: 445-60.
Ebbinghaus, S. 2006. ‘Begegnungen mit Ägypten und Vorderasien im
archaischen Heraheiligtum von Samos.’ In Naso 2006: 187-229.
Edel, E. 1978. ‘Amasis und Nebukadrezar II.’ Göttinger Miszellen 29: 13-20.
Edelman, D. 2006. ‘Tyrian Trade in Yehud under Artaxerxes I: Real or
Fictional? Independent or Crown Endorsed?’ In Judah and the
Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming,
207-46. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Edgar, C.C. 1898/9. ‘The Inscribed and Painted Pottery.’ In Hogarth
1898/9: 47-57.
Edgar, C.C. 1904. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du
Caire: Greek bronzes. Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’Institut français
d’Archéologie Orientale.
Edgar, C.C. 1905. ‘Naukratis 1903, G. – Minor Antiquities.’ JHS 25: 123-31.
Ehrhardt, N. 1983. Milet und seine Kolonien: Vergleichende Untersuchungen
der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen. Europäische
Hochschulschriften Reihe 3. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Verlag.
Ehrhardt, N. 1988. Milet und seine Kolonien: Vergleichende
Untersuchungen der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen, 2nd
edn. Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe 3. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter
Lang Verlag.
Bibliography
Ehrhardt, N. 1998. ‘Didyma und Milet in archaischer Zeit.’ Chiron 28: 11-
20.
Ehrhardt, N. 2003a. ‘Milet nach den Perserkriegen: Ein Neubeginn?’ In
Stadt und Stadtentwicklung in Kleinasien, edited by E. Schwertheim
and E. Winter, 1-19. Asia Minor Studien 50. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Ehrhardt, N. 2003b. ‘Poliskulte bei Theokrit und Kallimachos: das
Beispiel Milet.’ Hermes 131: 269-89.
Ehrhardt, N., U. Höckmann, and U. Schlotzhauer. Forthcoming.
‘Weihungen an Apollon Didymeus und Apollon Milesios in
Naukratis.’ In Kulturkontakte: Apollon in Myus, Milet/Didyma,
Naukratis und auf Zypern: Akten der Table Ronde Mainz, 11.-12. März
2004, edited by R. Bol and U. Höckmann.
Ehrhardt, N., H. Lohmann, and B.F. Weber. Forthcoming. ‘Milet-
Bibliographie.’ In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).
Eilmann, R. 1933. ‘Frühe Griechische Keramik im Samischen Heraion.’
AM 58: 47-145.
Eiseman, C.J., and B.S. Ridgway. 1987. The Porticello Shipwreck: A
Mediterranean Merchant Vessel of 415–385bc. College Station: Texas
A&M University Press.
Elayi, J. 1988. Pénétration grecque en Phénicie sous l’Empire perse. Travaux
et memoires études anciennes 2. Nancy: Presses universitaires de
Nancy.
Elrashedy, F.M. 2002. Imports of Post-Archaic Greek Pottery into
Cyrenaica: From the End of the Archaic to the Beginning of the
Hellenistic Period. BAR International Series 102. Oxford:
Archeopress.
Elwood, P.G. 1994. Later Dynasties of Egypt. Chicago: Ares Publishers.
Empereur, J.-Y. 2003. ‘Les Grecs en Egypte.’ In The Greeks Beyond the
Aegean: from Marseilles to Bactria. Papers Presented at an
International Symposium Held at the Onassis Cultural Center, New
th
York 12 October 2002, edited by V. Karageorghis, 23-34. Nicosia:
Onassis Publ. Benefit Foundation.
Erkanal, H., M. Artzy and O. Kouka. 2002. ‘2001 Yýlý Liman Tepe Kazýlarý.’
Kazý Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 24,1, edited by K. Olþen, H. Dönmez, F.
Bayram, A. Özme, N. Güder, Ç. Morçöl and Ý. Gençtürk-Kýlýç, 423-36.
Ankara: Kültür Bakanlýðý Dösimm Basýmevi.
Erman, A. and H. Grapow. 1982. Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, Vol.
5. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Ersoy, Y. 1993. ‘Clazomenae: The Archaic Settlement.’ Ph.D. diss., Bryn
Mawr College.
Ersoy, Y. 2000. ‘East Greek Pottery Groups of the 7th and 6th Centuries bc
from Clazomenae.’ In Krinzinger 2000: 399-406.
Ersoy, Y. 2003. ‘Pottery Production and Mechanism of Workshops in
Archaic Clazomenae.’ In Schmaltz and Söldner 2003: 254-57.
Ersoy, Y. 2004. ‘Klazomenai: 900–500 bc. History and Settlement
Evidence.’ In Ersoy et al. 2004: 43-76.
Ersoy, Y., A. Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, and M.-C. Tzannes, eds. 2004.
Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony: Proceedings of
the International Symposium Abdera 20-21 October 2001.
Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.
Eshel, H. 2001. ‘The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim.’ In
Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Associated Literature, 27-31 January 1999, edited by D. Goodblatt,
A. Pinnick and D.R. Schwartz, 29-44. Studies on the Texts of the
Desert of Judah 37. Leiden: Brill.
Fabbricotti, E. 1980. ‘Tolemaide: una testimonianza arcaica.’ QAL 11: 5-9.
Fairbanks, A. 1928. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: Catalogue of Greek and
Etruscan Vases I. Early Vases, Preceding Athenian Black-Figured Ware.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Fantalkin, A. 2001a. ‘Low Chronology and Greek Protogeometric and
Geometric Pottery in the Southern Levant.’ Levant 33: 117-25.
Fantalkin, A. 2001b. 'Mez.ad H.ashavyahu: Its Material Culture and
Historical Background.' Tel Aviv 28: 3-165.
Fantalkin, A. 2004. ‘The Final Destruction of Beth-Shemesh and the Pax
Assyriaca in the Judahite Shephelah: An Alternative View.’ Tel Aviv
31: 245-61.
Fantalkin, A. Forthcoming a. ‘The Al Mina Debate Again: Real Euboeans
and Phantom Phoenicians.’ Ancient West and East.
Fantalkin, A. Forthcoming b. ‘An Iron Age Ceramic Assemblage from
Yavneh-Yam Excavations: Some Preliminary Observations.’ In
Yavneh-Yam Reports 1, edited by M. Fischer. Tel Aviv University
Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series. Tel Aviv: Emery and
Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Fantalkin, A., and I. Finkelstein. 2006. ‘The Sheshong I Campaign and the
8th-Century-bce Earthquake: More on the Archaeology and History
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 215
Bibliography
of the South in the Iron I-IIA.’ Tel Aviv 33: 18-42.
Fantar, M.H. 2000. ‘Carthage au temps de la bataille de la Mer
Sardonienne.’ In Mache: La battaglia del Mare Sardonio. Studi e
ricerche, edited by P. Bernardini, P.G. Spanu and M. Zucca, 73-84.
Cagliari, Oristano: La Memoria Storica-Mythos.
Faraone, C.A. 1992. Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in
Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farnell, L.R. 1921. Greek Hero Cults. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Faust, A., and E. Weiss. 2005. ‘Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean
World: Reconstructing the Economic System of the Seventh Century
bce.’ BASOR 338: 71-92.
Faustoferri, A. 1985. ‘Soggetti cirenaici della ceramica laconica.’ In
Cyrenaica in Antiquity: Papers Presented at the Colloquium on Society
and Economy in Cyrenaica, Cambridge March-April 1983, edited by G.
Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 337-48. BAR International Series
236. Oxford: BAR.
Fazlý oðlu, Ý. Forthcoming. ‘Damlý boðaz Finds: Inland Carian Archic
Pottery and Related Regions.’ In Rumscheid (forthcoming).
Fehr, B. 2000. ‘Bildformeln und Bildtypen in der archaisch-griechischen
Kunst als Ausdruck von sozialen Normen und Werten.’ Hephaistos 18:
103-54.
Felber, H. 2003. ‘Von Söhnen, Vätern, Müttern’. In Kindgötter im Ägypten
der griechisch-römischen Zeit, edited by D. Budde, S. Sandri and U.
Verhoeven, 113-46. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 128. Leuven,
Paris, Dudley, MA: Peeters.
Ferguson, N. 1997. ‘Introduction.’ In Virtual History: Alternatives and
Counterfactuals, edited by N. Ferguson, 1-90. London: Picador.
Fiedler, M. 1999. ‘Leukas: Wohn- und Alltagskultur in einer
nordwestgriechischen Stadt.’ In Geschichte des Wohnens 1: 5000 v.
Chr.–500 n. Chr. Vorgeschichte, Frühgeschichte, Antike, edited by W.
Hoepfner, 412-26. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.
Fiedler, M. 2003. ‘Antike Häuser in Leukas: Wohnhausarchitektur und
Fundmaterial aus einer nordwestgriechischen Stadt des 6. bis 1. Jh.
v. Chr.’ Ph.D. diss., Freie Universität Berlin.
Filges, A. 2004. ‘Die Arbeiten des Jahres 2002 in Didyma.’ In Kazý
Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 25,1, 26-31 Mayýs 2003 Ankara, edited by H.
Dönmez, A. Özme and K. Olþen, 147-54. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm
Bakanlýðý Millî Kütüphane Basýmevi.
Filges, A., and K. Tuchelt. 2002. ‘Didyma 2000.’ In Kazý Sonuçlarý
Toplantýsý 28,2, edited by F. Bayram, H. Dönmez, N. Güder, A. Özme,
K. Olþen and N. Toy, 1-15. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlýðý Dösimne
Basýmevi.
Finkelberg, M. 2004. ‘The End of the Heroic Age in Homer, Hesiod, and
the Cycle.’ Ordia Prima 3: 11-24.
Finkelberg, M. 2005. ‘Greece in the Eighth Century bce and the
‘Renaissance’ Phenomenon.’ In Genesis and Regeneration: Essays on
Conceptions of Origins, edited by S. Shaked, 62-76. Jerusalem: The
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Finkelstein, I. 1995a. ‘The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in
Canaan.’ Tel Aviv 22: 213-39.
Finkelstein, I. 1995b. Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of
the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages.
Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Finkelstein, I. 1996. ‘The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An
Alternative View.’ Levant 28: 177-87.
Finkelstein, I. 1999. ‘State Formation in Israel and Judah.’ Near Eastern
Archaeology 62: 35-52.
Finkelstein, I. 2002. ‘The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic
Perspective.’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27: 131-67.
Finkelstein, I. 2004. ‘Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology.’ Levant 36: 181-
8.
Finkelstein, I., and E. Piasetzky. 2003a. ‘Wrong and Right; High and Low:
14
C Dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology.’ Tel Aviv 30: 283-
95.
Finkelstein, I., and E. Piasetzky. 2003b. ‘Recent Radiocarbon Results and
King Solomon.’ Antiquity 77: 771-9.
14
Finkelstein, I., and E. Piasetzky. Forthcoming. ‘ C and the Iron Age
Chronology Debate: Rehov, Khirbet en-Nahas, Dan, Megiddo and …
Assiros.’ Tel Aviv 33.2.
Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed:
Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred
Texts. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silberman. 2006. David and Solomon: In Search
of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Traditions. New
York: Free Press.
Finkelstein, I., and L. Singer-Avitz. 2001. ‘Ashdod Revisited.’ Tel Aviv 28:
216 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
231-59.
Fischer, M. 2005a. ‘The Archaeology and History of Yavneh-Yam.’ In
Fischer 2005b: 173-208. (Hebrew; English abstract)
Fischer, M., ed. 2005b. Yavneh, Yavneh-Yam and their Neighborhood:
Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Judean Coastal Plain. Tel
Aviv: Eretz, Tel Aviv University.
Fleischer, R. 1973. Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus
Anatolien und Syrien. Leiden: Brill.
Fleming, D.E. 2004. Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early
Collective Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fletcher De Cou, H. 1905. ‘The Bronzes of the Argive Heraeum.’ In The
Argive Heraeum 2, edited by C. Waldstein, 191-331. Boston, New York:
Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
Flinders Petrie, W.M. s. Petrie.
Floren, J. 1987. Die geometrische und archaische Plastik: Die griechische
Plastik 1. Handbuch der Archäologie. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Fol, W. 1874. Catalogue descriptif du Musée Fol, 1. Genève: Georg.
Forbeck, E., and H. Heres 1997. Das Löwengrab von Milet. BWPr 136.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Forbeck, E. 2002. ‘Gräber des hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Milet.’
In Patris und Imperium: Kulturelle und politische Identität in den
Städten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit.
Kolloquium Köln, November 1998, edited by Ch. Berns, H. v. Hesberg,
L. Vandeput and M. Waelkens, 97-105. BABesch Suppl. 8. Leuven,
Paris: Peeters.
Fourrier, S. 2001. ‘Naucratis, Chypre et la Grèce de l’Est: le commerce des
sculptures ‘chypro-ioniennes’.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001:
39-51.
Foxhall, L., and H.A. Forbes. 1982. ‘Sitometreia: The Role of Grain as a
Staple Food in Classical Antiquity.’ Chiron 12: 41-90.
Francis, E.D., and M.E. Vickers. 1985. ‘Greek Geometric Pottery at Hama
and its Implications for Near Eastern Chronology.’ Levant 17: 131-8.
Frankel, R., and R. Ventura. 1998. ‘The Mizpe Yamim Bronzes.’ BASOR
311: 39-55.
Frankenstein, S. 1979. ‘The Phoenicians in the Far West: A Function of
Neo-Assyrian Imperialism.’ In Power and Propaganda: A Symposium
on Ancient Empires, edited by M.T. Larsen, 263-94. Copenhagen
Studies in Assyriology 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Franzoni, L. 1966. ‘Bronzetti pseudoantichi di officine venete.’ Atti
dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 124 [1965/6]: 39-59.
Frasca, M. 1993. ‘Osservazioni preliminari sulla ceramica protoarcaica ed
arcaica di Kyme.’ CronCatania 32: 51-70.
Frasca, M. 1998. ‘Ceramiche greche d’importazione a Kyme eolica
nell’VIII secolo a.C.’ In Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in
Calcidia e in Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli 13-
16 novembre 1996, edited by M. Bats and B. d’Agostino, 273-9.
Collection Centre Jean Bérard 16. AION Quaderno 12. Napoli: Centre
Jean Bérard, Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Frasca, M. 2000. ‘Ceramiche Tardo Geometriche a Kyme Eolica.’ In
Krinzinger 2000: 393-8.
Fraser, P.M., and E. Matthews, eds. 1987. A Lexicon of Greek Personal
Names 1: The Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Fraser, P.M., and E. Matthews, eds. 1997. A Lexicon of Greek Personal
Names 3 A: The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Grecia.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
French, P. 1988. ‘Late Dynastic Pottery from the Berlin/Hannover
Excavations at Saqqara, 1986.’ MDIK 44: 79-89.
French, P. 2004. ‘Distinctive Pottery from the Second Half of the 6th
Century bc.’ Cahiers de la Céramique Egyptienne 7: 91-6.
Frey, H.-O. 1969. Die Entstehung der Situlenkunst: Studien zur figürlich
verzierten Toreutik von Este. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Fulford, M.G. 1989. ‘To East and West: the Mediterranean Trade of
Cyrenaica and Tripolitania in Antiquity.’ LibSt 20: 169-91.
Furtwängler, A. 1890. Olympia 4. Die Bronzen und die übrigeren kleineren
Funde aus Olympia. Berlin: Asher.
Furtwängler, A.E. 1980. ‘Heraion von Samos: Grabungen im Südtemenos
1977, I. Schicht- und Baubefunde, Keramik.’ AM 95: 149-224.
Furtwängler, A.E. and H.J. Kienast. 1989. Samos 3. Der Nordbau im
Heraion von Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Gàbrici, E. 1927. ‘Il santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte.’ MonAnt 32: 1-
419.
Gal, Z., and Y. Alexandre. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage
Fort and Village. Israel Antiquities Authority, Reports 8. Jerusalem:
IAA.

Galili, E., and J. Sharvit. 2005. ‘Underwater Archaeological Remains at
Yavneh-Yam.’ In Fischer 2005b: 303-14. (Hebrew; English abstract on
p. xx-xxi)
Gans, U. 1991. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Zeytintepe.’ In Graeve et al. 1991:
137-40.
Gantès, L.-F. 1999. ‘La physionomie de la vaiselle tournée importée à
Marseille au VIe siècle av. J.-C.’ In Céramique et peinture grecque:
Modes d’emploi. Actes du colloque international Ecole du Louvre 26-27-
28 avril 1995, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarague, P.
Rouillard and A. Rouveret, 365-81. Paris: La Documentation
française.
Gardiner, A.H. 1973. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the
Study of Hieroglyphs. 3rd edn. London: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, E.A. 1886. ‘The Inscriptions.’ In Petrie 1886b: 54-63.
Gardner, E.A. 1888. Naukratis 2. Sixth Memoir of the EEF. London:
Trübner & Co.
Garnsey, P. 1998. Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gassner, V. 2003. Materielle Kultur und kulturelle Identität in Elea in
spätarchaisch-frühklassischer Zeit: Untersuchungen zur Gefäß- und
Baukeramik aus der Unterstadt (Grabungen 1987-1994). Velia-Studien
2. Archäologische Forschungen 8. Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Garstang, J. 1939/40. ‘Exploration in Cilicia: The Neilson Expedition,
Forth Interim Report. Part 1 and 2: Excavation at Mersin 1938-1939.’
AnnLiv 26: 89-170.
Gates, C. 1983. From Cremation to Inhumation: Burial Practices at Ialysos
and Kameiros during the Mid-Archaic Period, c.625-525 bc. Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Occasional Paper
11. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Gaudina, E. 1994. ‘Bacini punici non decorati da Tharros: Appunti per
una tipologia.’ RSF 22: 243-7.
Gauer, W. 1975. Die Tongefäße aus den Brunnen unterm Stadion-Nordwall
und im Südost Gebiet. OlForsch 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Gauer, W. 1991. Die Bronzen von Olympia mit Ausnahme der geometrischen
Dreifüße und der Kessel des orientalisierenden Stils 1: Kessel und Becken
mit Untersätzen, Teller, Kratere, Hydrien, Eimer, Situlen und Cisten,
Schöpfhumpen und verschiedenes Gerät. Olympische Forschungen 20.
Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Gazda, E.K. 1983. Karanis: An Egyptian Town in Roman Times. Discoveries
of the University of Michigan Expedition to Egypt (1924-1935), edited by
E.K. Gazda. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, The
University of Michigan.
Gebauer, J. 2002. Pompe und Thysia. Attische Tieropferdarstellungen auf
schwarz- und rotfigurigen Vasen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Gehrig, U.L. 1964. ‘Die geometrischen Bronzen aus dem Heraion von
Samos.’ Ph.D. diss., Universität Hamburg.
Geominy, W. 1992. ‘Katalog.’ In Archäologische Forschungen im
Akademischen Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn: Die griechisch-
ägyptischen Beziehungen, edited by N. Himmelmann. Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Georges, P. 1994. Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience: From Archaic
Period to the Age of Xenophon. Baltimore, London: The John Hopkins
University Press.
Georges, P. 2000. ‘Persian Ionia under Darius: The Revolt Reconsidered.’
Historia 49: 1-39.
Gercke, P. 1981. Funde aus der Antike: Samlung Paul Dierichs, Kassel.
Kassel: Verlag Paul Dierichs.
Gercke, P., and W. Löwe, eds. 1996. Samos – die Kasseler Grabung 1894.
Kassel: Staatliche Museen.
Gilboa, A. 2005. ‘Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern
Phoenician Coast – A Reconciliation: An Interpretation of Šikila
(SKL) Material Culture.’ BASOR 337: 1-32.
Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon. 2001. ‘Early Iron Age Radiometric Dates from
Tell Dor: Preliminary Implications for Phoenicia and Beyond.’
Radiocarbon 43: 1343-51.
Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon. 2003. ‘An Archaeological Contribution to the
Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for
Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece.’
BASOR 322: 1-75.
Gill, D.W.J. 1986. ‘Two Herodotean Dedications from Naukratis.’ JHS
106: 184-7.
Gill, D.W.J. 1994. ‘Positivism, Pots and Long-Distance Trade.’ In Classical
Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, edited by I.
Morris, 99-107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gill, D.W.J. 2004. ‘Cyrenaica and its Contacts with the Greek World.’ In
Bibliography
Lomas 2004a: 391-409.
Gill, D.W.J., and M. Vickers. 1996. ‘Bocchoris the Wise and absolute
Chronology.’ RM 103: 1-9.
Gitin, S. 1997. ‘The Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Western Periphery: The
Levant, with a Focus on Philistine Ekron.’ In Assyria 1995: Proceedings
of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project, edited by S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting, 77-103. Helsinki:
University of Helsinki.
Gjerstad, E. 1934. ‘Studies in Archaic Greek Chronology I. Naucratis.’ AAL
21: 67-84.
Gjerstad, E. 1948. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-
Classical Periods. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4.2. Lund: The
Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
Gjerstad, E. 1959. ‘Naukratis Again.’ AArch 30: 147-65.
Gjerstad, E., ed. 1977. Greek Geometric and Archaic Pottery Found in
Cyprus. SkrAth 4, 16. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.
Goddio, F., and M. Clauss, eds. 2006. Egypt’s Sunken Treasures. Munich:
Prestel.
Goodchild, R.G., J.G. Pedley, and D. White. 1976. Apollonia, the Port of
Cyrene: Excavations by the University of Michigan 1965-1967. LibAnt
Suppl. 4. Tripoli: The Department of Antiquities.
Gorman, V.B. 2001. Miletos: The Ornament of Ionia. A History of the City to
400 bce. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gorton, A. 1996. Egyptian and Egyptianizing Scarabs: A Typology of
Steatite, Faience and Paste Scarabs from Punic and Other
Mediterranean Sites. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,
Monographs 44. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology.
Gorzalczany, A. 1999. ‘Petrographic Analysis of Persian Period Pottery – A
Preliminary Report.’ In Roll and Tal 1999: 185-9.
Gorzalczany, A. 2005. ‘Petrographic Analysis of Persian Period Pottery
from Yavneh-Yam – Preliminary Report.’ In Fischer 2005b: 209-16.
(Hebrew; English abstract on p. XVII)
Gottlieb, G. 1967. Timuchen: Ein Beitrag zum griechischen Staatsrecht.
SBHeid 3. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Graeve, v. V. 1971. ‘Eine Sagendarstellung der frühen milesischen
Vasenmalerei.’ IstMitt 21: 109-19.
Graeve, V. v. 1973/4. ‘Milet: Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt an
der hellenistischen Stadtmauer 1963.’ IstMitt 23/4: 63-115.
Graeve, v. V. 1978. ‘Zur milesischen Keramik im 8. und 7. Jh. v. Chr.’ In
Centre Jean Bérard 1978: 34-39.
Graeve, v. V. 1983. ‘Archaische Plastik in Milet. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der
Werkstätten und der Chronologie.’ MüJb 34: 7-24.
Graeve, v. V. 1985. ‘Archaische Skulpturen.’ In Müller-Wiener et al. 1985:
116-22.
Graeve, v. V. 1986a. ‘Über verschiedene Richtungen der milesischen
Skulptur in archaischer Zeit: Bemerkungen zur formalen Gestaltung
und zur Lokalisierung.’ In Müller-Wiener 1986, 81-94.
Graeve, v. V. 1986b. ‘Neue archaische Skulpturenfunde aus Milet.’ In
Archaische und klassische griechische Plastik, 1: Akten des
internationalen Kolloqiums vom 22.-25. April 1985 in Athen, edited by
H. Kyrieleis, 21-30. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Graeve, v. V. 1996. ‘Der Kuros aus Tekirdað.’ IstMitt 46: 103-9.
Graeve, v. V. 1997/8. ‘Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen im
archaischen Milet.’ Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 14: 73-88.
Graeve, v. V. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: V. Ein neuer Figurentypus der
archaischen milesischen Koroplastik.’ AA: 241-61.
Graeve, v. V. 2000a. ‘Die Belagerung Milets durch Alexander den
Großen.’ In Civilisation greque et cultures antiques périphériques:
hommage a Petre Alexandrescu a son 70e anniversaire, edited by A.
Avram and M. Babeş, 113-29. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica.
Graeve, v. V. 2000b. ‘Miletos [2]. II: Topographie und Archäologie.’ In Der
Neue Pauly 8, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, 176-80.
Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Graeve, v. V. 2001. ‘Milet: Grabungsgeschichte.’ In Der Neue Pauly 15,1,
edited by M. Landfester, 420-31. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Graeve, v. V. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet: XVII. Fragmente von Bauskulptur
aus dem archaischen Aphrodite-Heiligtum.’ AA 2005,2: 41-8.
Graeve, v. V. 2006. ‘Milet.’ In Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschungen im
westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes. Internationales
Symposium 6./7.August 2004 Bergama, edited by W. Radt, 241-62.
BYZAS 3. Istanbul: Ege Yayýnlarý.
Graeve, v. V. Forthcoming. ‘Zur Kunstgeschichte früher milesischer
Terrakotten.’ In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).
Graeve, v. V., and R. Senff. 1990. ‘Die Grabung am Südhang des
Kalabaktepe.’ In Graeve et al. 1990: 44-50.
Graeve, v. V., and R. Senff. 1991. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Kalabaktepe.’ In
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 217
Bibliography
Graeve et al. 1991b: 127-33.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1986. ‘Grabung auf dem Kalbaktepe.’ In Müller-Wiener
et al. 1986: 37-51.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1987. ‘Grabung auf dem Kalbaktepe.’ In Müller-Wiener
et al. 1987: 6-33.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1990a. ‘Milet 1989.’ IstMitt 40: 37-78.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1990b. ‘Der Schnitt auf dem Gipfelplateau des
Kalabaktepe 1988.’ In Graeve et al. 1990a: 39-42.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1991. ‘Milet 1990.’ Ist Mitt 41: 125-86.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1995. ‘Milet 1992-1993.’ AA: 195-333.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1997. ‘Milet 1994-1995.’ AA: 109-284.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1999. ‘Milet 1996-1997.’ AA: 1-124.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 2001. ‘Milet 1998-1999.’ AA: 409-50.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 2005. ‘Milet 2000-2002.’ AA 2005,1: 167-82.
Graf, F. 1985. Nordionische Kulte. Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 21.
Rome: Schweizerisches Institut.
Graf, F. 1998. ‘Herakles.’ In Der Neue Pauly 5, edited by M. Landfester, 387-
92. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Graham, A.J. 1986. ‘The Historical Interpretation of Al Mina.’ Dialogues
d’histoire ancienne 12: 51-65.
Grallert, S. 2001. ‘Akkulturation im ägyptischen Sepulkralwesen – Der
Fall eines Griechen in Ägypten zur Zeit der 26. Dynastie.’ In
Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 183-95.
Grammenos, D.V., and E.K. Petropoulos. 2003. Ancient Greek Colonies in
the Black Sea. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of
Northern Greece 4. Thessaloniki: Greek Ministry of Culture.
Gran-Aymerich, J.M. 1988. ‘Cerámicas griegas y etruscas de Málaga.
Excavaciones de 1980 a 1986.’ ArchEspArq 61: 201-21.
Gran-Aymerich, J. M. 1991. Malaga phénicienne et punique: Recherches
franco-espagnoles 1981-1988. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
Civilisations.
Gras, M. 1985. Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques. Rome: Ecole Française.
Gras, M. 1997. Il Mediterraneo nell’età arcaica. Paestum: Fondazione
Paestum.
Gras, M. 2000a. ‘Commercio e scambi tra oriente e occidente.’ Atti
Taranto 39: 125-64.
Gras, M. 2000b. ‘La battaglia del Mare Sardonio.’ In Bernardini et al.
2000: 37-46. Cagliari, Oristano: La Memoria Storica-Mythos.
Grassi, B. 2003. ‘Il vasellame e l’instrumentum in bronzo della necropoli
di Campovalano nel quadro delle produzioni dell’Italia preromana.’
In I Piceni e l’Italia medio-adriatica: Atti del XXII convegno di studi
etruschi ed italici, Ascoli Piceno, Teramo, Ancona. 9-13 aprile 2000, 491-
518. Pisa-Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali.
Greaves, A.M. 2002. Miletos: A History. London, New York: Routledge.
Green, C.I. 1987. The Temple Furniture from the Sacred Animal Necropolis
at North Saqqâra 1964-1976. London: Egypt Exploration Society.
Greene, E. 2003. ‘Endless Summer: The 2002 Excavation Season at Pabuç
Burnu, Turkey.’ INA Quarterly 30.1: 3-11.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H. 1966. ‘Lydian Pottery of the Sixth Century bc. The
Lydion and Marbled Ware.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H. 1971. ‘An Exhibitionist from Sardis.’ In Studies
Presented to George M.A. Hanfmann, edited by D.G. Mitten, J.G.
Pedley and J.A. Scott, 29-46. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Gregory Warden, P. 1990. ‘The Small Finds.’ In The Extramural Sanctuary
of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 4, edited by
D. White, 1-86. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania.
Griffiths, J.G. 1970. Plutarch’s de Iside et Osiride. Cardiff: University of
Wales Press.
Gruppe, O. 1918. ‘Herakles.’ In RE Suppl. 3, edited by W. Kroll, 910-1121.
Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Gschnitzer, F., and E. Schwertheim. 1996. ‘Aioleis.’ In Der Neue Pauly 1,
edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, 336-41. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B.
Metzler.
Gunneweg, J., and I. Perlmann. 1991. ‘The Origin of ‘Loop-Handle Jars’
from Tell Keisan.’ RBibl 98: 591-9.
Günther, W. 2003. ‘‘Unsterbliche Kränze’: Zur Selbstdarstellung
milesischer Propheten in didymeischen Inschriftendenkmälern.’
Chiron 33: 447-57.
Gutch, C. 1898/9. ‘The Terracottas.’ BSA 5: 67-97.
Guy, J.R. 1990. ‘Acquisitions of the Art Museum 1989: Mediterranean
Antiquities.’ Record of The Art Museum Princeton University 49,1: 44-
53.
Guzzo Amadasi, M.G., and V. Karageorghis. 1977. Fouilles de Kition 3:
Inscriptions phéniciennes. Nicosia: Cyprus Department of Antiquities.
Guzzo, P.G., M.N. Pagliardi, U. Spigo, and L. Rota. 1972. ‘Sibari III:
Rapporto preliminare della campagna di scavo. Stombi, Casa Bianca,
218 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Parco del Cavallo, San Mauro (1971): Descrizione dei materiali.’ NSc
16 suppl.: 48-146.
Hafthorsson, S. 2006. A Passing Power: An Examination of the Sources for
the History of Aram-Damascus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century
bc. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 54. Stockholm:
Almqvist and Wiksell International.
Haider, P.W. 1988. Griechenland – Nordafrika. Ihre Beziehungen zwischen
1500 und 600 v. Chr. Damstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Haider, P.W. 1996. ‘Griechen im Vorderen Orient und in Ägypten bis c.
590 v. Chr.’ In Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität: Die Bedeutung
der früharchaischen Zeit, edited by Ch. Ulf, 59-115. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag.
Haider, P.W. 2001. ‘Epigraphische Quellen zur Integration von Griechen
in die ägyptische Gesellschaft der Saïtenzeit.’ In Höckmann and
Kreikenbom 2001: 197-209.
Haider, P.W. 2004. ‘Kontakte zwischen Griechen und Ägyptern und ihre
Auswirkungen auf die archaisch-griechische Welt.’ In Griechische
Archaik: Interne Entwicklungen – Externe Implulse, edited by R.
Rollinger and C. Ulf, 447-91. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Hall, J.M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hall, J.M. 2002. Hellenicity: between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hamilakis, Y. 2002. ‘What Future for the ‘Minoan’ Past? Re-thinking
Minoan Archaeology.’ In Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking ‘Minoan’
Archaeology, edited by Y. Hamilakis, 2-28. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hampe, R., and A. Winter. 1962. Bei Töpfern und Töpferinnen in Kreta,
Messenien und Zypern. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz.
Hampe, R., and A. Winter. 1965. Bei Töpfern und Zieglern in Süditalien,
Sizilien und Griechenland. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz.
Hancock, R.G., S. Aufreiter, and I. Elsokkary. 1986/7. ‘Nile Alluvium:
Soils and Ceramics.’ Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 8: 61-71.
Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1963. ‘The Iron Age Pottery of Tarsus.’ In Excavations
at Gözlü Kale, Tarsus 3: The Iron Age, edited by H. Goldman, 18-322.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1983. Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Results
of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958-1975. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hans, L.-M. 1983. Karthago und Sizilien: Die Entstehung und Gestaltung
der Epikratie auf dem Hintergrund der Beziehungen der Karthager zu
den Griechen und den nicht griechischen Völkern Siziliens (VI.-III.
Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Hildesheim, New York: G. Olms Verlag.
Harbottle, G., M.J. Hughes, and S. Seleem. 2005. ‘The Origin of Black-
Figure Greek Ceramics Found in Naukratis (Nile delta).’
Archaeometry 47: 511-8.
Harrison, T.P. 2001. ‘Tell Ta’yinat and the Kingdom of Unqi.’ In The World
of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of
Paul-Eugène Dion, edited by P.M.M. Daviau, J.W. Wevers and M.
Weigl, 115-32. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 325. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1989 [1992]. ‘Der etruskische Bucchero aus Karthago:
Ein Beitrag zu den frühen Handelsbeziehungen im westlichen
Mittelmeergebiet (7.-6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.).’ JRGZM 36: 327-410.
Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1993. ‘Il bucchero etrusco a Cartagine.’ In Produzione
artigianale ed esportazione nel mondo antico: Il bucchero etrusco. Atti
del colloquio internazionale, Milano 10–11 maggio 1990, edited by M.
Bonghi Jovino, 187-94. Milan: Edizioni ET.
Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1996. ‘Ein etruskischer Säulencippus aus Karthago.’ In
Fremde Zeiten: Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt zum sechzigsten
Geburtstag, edited. F. Blakolmer, K.R. Krierer, F. Krinzinger, A.
Landskron-Dinstl, H.D. Szemethy and K. Zhuber-Okrog, 187-96.
Vienna: Phoibos Verlag.
Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1997. ‘Présences étrusques et italiques dans les
sanctuaires grecs (VIII-VII siècle av. J.-C.).’ In Les Etrusques, les plus
religieux des hommes: Etat de la recherche sur la religion étrusque. Actes
du colloque, edited by F. Gaultier and D. Briquel, 293-323. Paris: La
Documentation française.
Hassan, A. 1976. Stöcke und Stäbe im Pharaonischen Ägypten bis zum Ende
des Neuen Reiches. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Haussoullier, B. 1879. ‘Inscriptions de Chio (I).’ BCH 3: 230-55.
Hayes, J. W. 1967. ‘North Syrian Mortaria.’ Hesperia 36: 387-47.
Hayes, J.W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery. London: The British School at
Rome.
Hayes, J.W. 1980. A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery. London: The
British School at Rome.

Hayes, J.W. 1992. Greek and Greek-Style Painted and Plain Pottery in the
Royal Ontario Museum, Excluding Black-Figure and Red-Figure Vases.
Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Haynes, S. 1959. ‘Etruskische Bronzekopfgefässe aus hellenistischer Zeit.’
JRGZM 6: 115-27.
Heinrich, H., and R. Senff. 1992. ‘Die Grabung am Kalabaktepe.’ In
Graeve et al. 1992: 100-4.
Heinz, M. 1990. ‘Katalog ausgewählter Funde.’ In Graeve et al. 1990: 56-
61.
Heinz, M. Forthcoming. ‘Eine Amuletthülse vom Zeytintepe.’ In Biering
et al. (forthcoming).
Heinz, M., and R. Senff. 1995. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Zeytintepe.’ In
Graeve et al. 1995: 220-4.
Helck, W. 1986. ‘Wenamun.’ LÄ 6, edited by W. Helck, 1215-7. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Held, W. 1993. ‘Milet – Heiligtum und Wohnhaus.’ IstMitt 43: 371-80.
Held, W. 2000. Das Heiligtum der Athena in Milet. Milesische
Forschungen 2. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Held, W. 2002. ‘Funde aus Milet: XIV. Ein Reiterrelief aus Milet und die
Kabiren von Assessos.’ AA: 41-6.
Held, W. 2004. ‘Zur Datierung des Klassischen Athenatempels in Milet.’
AA 2004,1: 123-7.
Helm, P. 1980. ‘‘Greeks’ in the Neo-Assyrian Levant and ‘Assyria’ in Early
Greek Writers.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Hemelrijk, E.A. 1987. ‘A Group of Provincial East Greek Vases from South-
Western Asia Minor.’ BABesch 62: 33-55.
Hemelrijk, J.M. 1984. Caeretan Hydriae. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Henke, J.-M. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet: XVIII. Kyprische Koroplastik.’ AA
2005,2: 49-71.
Herda, A. 1998. ‘Der Kult des Gründerheroen Neileos und die Artemis
Kithone in Milet.’ ÖJh 67: 1-48.
Herda, A. 2005. ‘Apollon Delphinios, das Prytaneion und die Agora von
Milet: Neue Forschungen.’ AA 2005,1: 243-94.
Herda, A. Forthcoming a. Der Apollon-Delphinios-Kult in Milet und die
Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma: Ein neuer Kommentar der sog.
Molpoi-Satzung (Milet I 3 Nr.133). Milesische Forschungen 4. Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern.
Herda, A. Forthcoming b. ‘Apollon Delphinios – Apollon Didymeus: Zwei
Gesichter eines milesischen Gottes und ihr Bezug zur Kolonisation
Milets in archaischer Zeit.’ In Kulturkontakte: Apollon in Myus,
Milet/Didyma, Naukratis und auf Zypern: Akten der Table Ronde
Mainz, 11.-12. März 2004, edited by R. Bol and U. Höckmann.
Hermary, A. 1989. Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre: Sculptures. Paris:
Edition de la Réunion des musées nationaux.
Hermary, A. 2001. ‘Naucratis et la sculpture égyptisante à Chypre.’ In
Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 27-38.
Hermary, A., A. Hesnard, and H. Treziny. 1999. Marseille Grecque 600-49
av. J.-C.: La cité phocéenne. Paris: Editions Errance.
Herold, A. 2002. ‘Die Auferstehung der Götter’. In Geo: Das neue Bild der
Erde. January 2002: 22-44.
Herrmann, P. 1995. ‘Inschriften.’ In Graeve et al. 1995: 282-92.
Herrmann, P., W. Günther, and N. Ehrhardt. 2006. Milet 6.3. Inschriften
von Milet: Inschriften n. 1020-1580. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Hertel, D., H. Mommsen, and P.A. Mountjoy. 2001. ‘Neutron Activation
Analysis of the Pottery from Troy in the Berlin Schliemann
Collection.’ AA: 169-211.
Hesnard, A., M. Moliner, F. Conche, and M. Bouiron, eds. 1999. Marseille:
10 ans d’archéologie, 2600 ans d’histoire. Musées de Marseille. Aix-en-
Provence: Editions Edisud.
Heubeck, A., and A. Hoeckstra. 1989. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey,
Volume II, Books IX-XVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heurgon, J. 1969a. ‘Inscription étrusques de Tunisie.’ CRAI: 526-51.
Heurgon, J. 1969b. ‘Les Dardaniens en Afrique.’ REL 47: 284-93.
Higgins, R.A. 1954. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek
and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London: British Museum.
Hilgers, W. 1969. Lateinische Gefäßnamen: Bezeichnungen, Funktion und
Form römischer Gefäße nach antiken Schriftquellen. 31. Beiheft BJb.
Düsseldorf: Rheinland-Verlag.
Hill, S., and A. Bryer. 1995. ‘Byzantine Porridge: Tracta, Trahanás and
Tarhana.’ In Wilkins et al. 1995: 44-54.
Hiller, S. 2000. ‘Die Handelsbeziehungen Äginas mit Italien.’ In
Krinzinger 2000: 461-9.
Himmelmann, N. 1973. Das Akademische Kunstmuseum der Universität
Bonn. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Hirschland Ramage, N. 1970. ‘Studies in Early Etruscan Bucchero.’ BSR
38: 1-61.
Höckmann, O. 1985. Antike Seefahrt. Beck’s archäologische Bibliothek.
Bibliography
Munich: Beck Verlag.
Höckmann, U. 1982. Die Bronzen aus dem Fürstengrab von Castel San
Mariano: Antikensammlung München. Katalog der Bronzen 1.
Munich: Beck Verlag.
Höckmann, U. 2001a. ‘Zusammenfassung.’ In Höckmann and
Kreikenbom 2001: v-xii.
Höckmann, U. 2001b. ‘‘Bilinguen’: Zu Ikonographie und Stil der karisch-
ägyptischen Grabstelen des 6. Jhs.v.Chr.’ In Höckmann and
Kreikenbom 2001: 217-32.
Höckmann, U. 2004a. ‘Ägyptisierende Motive an den zyprisch-
griechischen Kourosstatuetten aus Naukratis.’ In Staedel Jahrbuch
N.F. 19: 71-84.
Höckmann, U. 2004b. ‘Rezeption und Umbildung einiger ägyptischer
Motive an den zyprisch-griechischen Kourosstatuetten aus
Naukratis.’ In Kultur, Sprache, Kontakt, edited by W. Bisang, T.
Bierschenk, D. Kreikenbom and U. Verhoeven, 231-50. Kulturelle und
sprachliche Kontakte 1. Würzburg: Ergon.
Höckmann, U. 2004c. ‘Werke zyprischer Bildhauer im griechischen
Naukratis: Eine Kourosstatuette in Oxford.’ In Bol and Kreikenbom
2004: 61-72.
Höckmann, U. 2005. ‘Archaische Löwenstatuen aus Südionien in
ägyptischer Haltung.’ In Beck, Bol and Bückling 2005: 83-9.
Höckmann, U., and W. Koenigs. Forthcoming. Zyprisch-griechische
Kleinplastik aus Kalkstein und Alabaster / Archaische griechische
Bauteile. Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis 2. Worms:
Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft.
Höckmann, U., and D. Kreikenbom, eds. 2001. Naukratis: Die
Beziehungen zu Ostgriechenland, Ägypten und Zypern in archaischer
Zeit. Akten der Table Ronde in Mainz, 25.-27. November 1999.
Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.
Höckmann, U., and Vittmann, G. 2005. ‘Griechische und karische
Söldner in Ägypten in archaischer Zeit (7.-6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.):
Archäologische Zeugnisse.’ In Beck et al. 2005: 97-103.
Höckmann, U., and L. Winkler-Horacv ek. 2005. ‘Sphinx im frühen
Griechenland und thebanische Sphinx.’ In Beck et al. 2005: 90-6.
Hoffmann, F., and M. Steinhart. 1998. ‘Apries und die ostgriechische
Vasenmalerei.’ ÖJh 67: 49-61.
Hoffmann, H., ed. 1964. Norbert Schimmel Collection. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Hogarth, D.G. 1898/9. ‘Excavations at Naukratis.’ BSA 5: 26-97.
Hogarth, D.G. 1905. ‘Naukratis 1903.’ In Hogarth et al. 1905: 105-18, 122-3.
Hogarth, D.G. 1909. Ionia and the East: Six Lectures. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Hogarth, D.G. 1929. ‘Lydia and Ionia.’ CAH III: 501-26.
Hogarth, D.G., H.L. Lorimer, and C.C. Edgar. 1905. ‘Naukratis 1903.’ JHS
25: 105-36.
Högemann, P. 1998. ‘Euagoras I.’ In Der Neue Pauly 4, edited by H. Cancik
and H. Schneider, 201-2. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Hölbl, G. 1979. Beziehungen der ägyptischen Kultur zu Altitalien. Leiden:
Brill.
Hölbl, G. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: VIII. Die Aegyptiaca vom
Aphroditetempel auf dem Zeytintepe.’ AA: 345-71.
Hölbl, G. 2005. ‘Ägyptisches Kulturgut in der griechischen Welt im frühen
ersten Jahrtausend vor Christus (10.-6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.).’ In Beck
et. al. 2005: 114-32.
Hölbl, G. Forthcoming. ‘Ionien und Ägypten in archaischer Zeit.’ In Cobet
et al. (forthcoming).
Holladay Jr., J.S. 1982. Cities of the Delta 3. Tell El-Maskhuta. Malibu:
Undena Publications.
Holladay Jr., J.S. 2004. ‘Judaeans (and Phoenicians) in Egypt in the Late
Seventh to Sixth Centuries bc.’ In Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient
Mediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donals B. Redford, edited by
G.N. Knoppers and A. Hirsch, 405-37. Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Hölscher., U. 1954. Excavations at Medinet Habu V. Post Ramessid
Remains. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Homann-Wedeking, E. 1938. Archaische Vasenornamentik in Attika,
Lakonien und Ostgriechenland. Athen: Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut.
Homann-Wedeking, E. 1940. ‘Zur Beurteilung ostgriechischer
Vasenstile.’ AM 65: 28-35.
Hommel, P. 1959/60. ‘Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957:
II. Der Abschnitt östlich des Athenatempels.’ Ist Mitt 9/10: 31-62.
Hommel, P. 1967. ‘Archaischer Jünglingskopf aus Milet.’ IstMitt 17: 115-27.
Hope, C. 1977. ‘Jar Sealings and Amphorae of the 18th Dynasty: A
Technological Study. Excavations at Malkata and the Birket Habu
1971-1974. ‘ Egyptology Today 5.2: 72-4.
Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study in
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 219
Bibliography
Mediterranean History. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Horden, P. 2005. ‘Mediterranean Excuses: Historical Writing on the
Mediterranean since Braudel.’ History and Anthropology 16: 25-30.
Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2005. ‘Four Years of ‘Corruption’: A Response
to Critics.’ In Rethinking the Mediterranean, edited by W.V. Harris,
348-75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hornung, E., and A. Badawy. 1975. ‘Apophis.’ In LÄ 1, edited by W. Helck,
350-2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hostetter, E. 2001. Bronzes from Spina 2. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Hughes, M.J., M.N. Leese, and R.J. Smith. 1988. ‘The Analysis of Pottery
Lamps Mainly from Western Anatolia, Including Ephesus, by
Neutron Activation Analysis.’ In D.M. Bailey, A Catalogue of the
Lamps in The British Museum 3: Roman Provincial Lamps, 461-85.
London: British Museum Publications.
Humbert, J.B. 1991. ‘Essay de classification des amphores dites ‘à anses de
panier’.’ RBibl 98: 574-90.
Humphrey, J.H., ed. 1976. Apollonia, the Port of Cyrene: Excavations by the
University of Michigan 1965-1967. LibAnt Suppl. 4. Tripoli: The
Department of Antiquities.
Hundt, A., and K. Peters. 1961. Greifswalder Antiken. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter & Co.
Hürmüzlü, B. 1995. ‘Klazomenai’de m. ö. 7. ve 6. yüzyýl bezemeli vazo
formlarý.’ Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Izmir Ege University.
Hürmüzlü, B. 2004a. ‘Burial Grounds at Klazomenai: Geometric through
Hellenistic Periods.’ In Ersoy et al. 2004: 77-95.
Hürmüzlü, B. 2004b. ‘A New Type of Clazomenian Sarcophagus: The
Alteration of the Burial Customs in Clazomenae.’ In Bol and
Kreikenbom 2004: 195-8.
Hurschmann, R. 2001. ‘Situla II. Griechisch-römisch’. In Der Neue Pauly:
Enzyklopädie der Antike 11, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider,
605. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Hurwit, J.M. 1999. The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and
Archaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hurwit, J.M. 2002. ‘Reading the Chigi Vase.’ Hesperia 71: 1-22.
Hurwit, J.M. 2006. ‘Lizards, Lions, and the Uncanny.’ Hesperia 75: 121-36.
Huxley, G.L. 1966. The Early Ionians. Shannon: Irish University Press.
Iacovou, M. 1988. The Pictorial Pottery of 11th Century bc Cyprus. Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology 79. Stockholm: P. Åströms Förlag.
Iacovou, M. 2005. ‘Cyprus at the Dawn of the First Millennium bc:
Cultural Homogenisation Versus the Tyranny of Ethnic
Identifications.’ In Clarke 2005: 125-34.
Ýdil, V. 1989. ‘Neue Ausgrabungen im aeolischen Kyme.’ Belleten 53: 525-
43.
Ilyina, Y.I. 2004. ‘The Early Ceramics from Olbia.’ In The Phenomenon of
Bosporan Kingdom: Problems of Chronology and Dating, Proceedings
of the International Conference, St. Petersburg October 2004, edited by
M. Ju. Vachtina, 75-83. St. Petersburg: The State Hermitage Museum
Editors House. (in Russian)
Ilyina, Y.I. 2005. ‘Chian Pottery from the Excavations on Berezan Island.’
In Borysthenes – Berezan: The Hermitage Archaeological Collection 1,
edited by S.L. Solovyov, 70-173. St. Petersburg: The State Hermitage
Publishing House. (in Russian)
Iozzo, M. 1985. ‘Bacini corinzi su alto piede.’ ASAtene 63: 7-61.
Ýren, K. 2002. ‘Die Werkstatt des Londoner Dinos: Eine phokäische
Werkstatt?’ IstMitt 52: 165-207.
Ýren, K. 2003. Aiolische orientalisierende Keramik. Istanbul: Ege Yayýnlarý.
Irvine, S.A. 2005. ‘The Last Battle of Hadadezer.’ JBL 124: 341-7.
Isager, J., ed. 1994. Hecatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance.
Halicarnassian Studies I. Odense: Odense University Press.
Ýþik, E. 1989. Elektronstatere aus Klazomenai: Der Schatzfund von 1989.
Saarbrücker Studien zur Archäologie und Alten Geschichte 5.
Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Isler, H.-P. 1978. Samos 4. Das archaische Nordtor und seine Umgebung im
Heraion von Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Jackson, D.A. 1976. East Greek Influence on Attic Vases. Suppl. Papers 13.
London: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies.
Jacobsthal, P. 1932. ‘Lenaina epi Turoknhstidoj.’ AM 57: 1-7.
Jacobsthal, P., and E. Neuffer. 1933. ‘Gallia Graeca: Recherches sur
l’hellénisation de la Provence.’ Préhistoire 2: 1-64.
Jacoby, F. 1912. ‘Hermeias 6.’ In RE 8, edited by W. Kroll, 731. Stuttgart:
J.B. Metzler.
Jacoby, F. 1956. Reprinted. ‘GENESIA: A Forgotten Festival of the Dead.’
In Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, edited by F.
Jacoby, 243-59. Leiden: Brill. Original edition, CQ 38, 1944: 65-75.
Jacopi, G. 1929. ‘Scavi nella necropoli di Jalisso 1924-1928.’ ClRh 3: 1-284.
Jacopi, G. 1931/9. ‘Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro I, scavi nelle
220 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
necropoli Camiresi 1929-1930.’ ClRh 4: 7-376.
Jacopi, G. 1932/3-41a. ‘Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro II.’ ClRh 6/7:
1-439.
Jacopi, G. 1932/3-41b. ‘Scavi e ricerche di Nisiro.’ ClRh 6/7: 469-552.
Jacopi, G. 1932/3-41c. ‘Sepolcreto di Papatislures.’ ClRh 6/7: 17-103.
Jacopi, G. 1933. CVA Rodi, Museo Archeologico dello spedale dei Cavalieri 1.
Milan: Sestetti e Tumminelli.
Jacopi, G. 1934. CVA Rodi, Museo Archeologico dello spedale dei Cavalieri 2.
Milan: Sestetti e Tumminelli.
James, P. 2003. ‘Naukratis Revisited.’ Hyperboreus: Studia Classica 9: 235-
64.
James, P. 2005. ‘Archaic Greek Colonies in Libya: Historical vs.
Archaeological Chronologies?’ LibSt 36: 1-20.
James, T.G.H. 1981. ‘Egypt: The Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth
Dynasties.’ In CAH 3.2, edited by J. Boardman, 677-747. 2nd edn.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1996. ‘Akoris (2).’ In Der Neue Pauly 1, edited by H.
Cancik and H. Schneider, 406. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Jeffery, L.H. 1961. ‘The Pact of the First Settlers at Cyrene.’ Historia 10:
139-47.
Jeffery, L.H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin
of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth
Centuries bc. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. Rev. ed.
with a Suppl. by A.W. Johnston. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jeffery, L.H. 1998. Reprinted. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study
of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth
to the Fifth Centuries bc. Oxford Monographs on Classical
Archaeology. Rev. ed. with a Suppl. by A.W. Johnston. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Jenkins, I. 2000. ‘Cypriot Limestone Statuettes from Cnidus.’ In
Tsetskhladze et. al. 2000: 153-62.
Jenkins, I. 2001. ‘Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: The Case for Cypriot
Origin.’ In AJA 105: 163-79.
Jenkins, I., and G.B. Waywell, eds. 1997. Sculptors and Sculpture of Caria
and the Dodecanese. London: British Museum Press.
Joffee, A.H. 2003. ‘Identity/Crisis.’ Archaeological Dialogues 10: 77-95.
Johnston, A.W. 1972. ‘The Rehabilitation of Sostratos.’ PP 27: 416-23.
Johnston, A.W. 1974. ‘Naukratis: More Light, no SÓN.’ BICS 21: 96-8.
Johnston, A.W. 1978. Pottery from Naukratis: An Exhibition on the
Occasion of the 11th International Congress of Classical Archaeology.
London: University College.
Johnston, A.W. 1979. Trademarks on Greek Vases. Warminster: Aris and
Philipps.
Johnston, A.W. 1980. ‘Rhomis.’ ZPE 38: 95-7.
Johnston, A.W. 1982. ‘Fragmenta Britannica II: Sherds from Naukratis, 4.
Etruscan Bucchero.’ BICS 29: 38.
Johnston, A.W. 1987. ‘Amasis and the Vase Trade.’ In Belloli 1987: 129-40.
Johnston, A.W. 1993. ‘Pottery from Archaic Building Q at Kommos.’
Hesperia 62: 339-82.
Johnston, A.W. 1996. ‘An Epigraphic Curiosity from Histria.’ Il Mar Nero
2/3: 99-101.
Johnston, A.W. 2000a. ‘Chios 1 Athens 3 (Ionian cup).’ In Tsetskhladze et.
al. 2000: 163-70.
Johnston, A.W. 2000b. ‘PET food for thought.’ ZPE 133: 236.
Johnston, A.W. 2000c. ‘Greek and Latin Insciptions.’ In Johnston and
Pandolfini 2000, 11-66.
Johnston, A.W. 2005. ‘Kommos: Further Iron Age Pottery.’ Hesperia 74:
309-93.
Johnston, A.W., and C. de Domingo. 2003. ‘A Petrographical and
Chemical Study of East Greek and other Archaic Transport
Amphorae.’ Eulimenh 3: 27-60
Johnston, A.W., and R.E. Jones. 1978. ‘The ‘SOS’ Amphora.’ BSA 73: 103-
41.
Johnston, A.W., and M. Pandolfini, eds. 2000. Gravisca 15. Le iscrizioni.
Bari: Edipuglia.
Jones, R.E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies.
BSA Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1. Athens: British School at
Athens.
Joyce, R.A. 2002. The Languages of Archaeology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Jurgeit, F. 1999. Die etruskischen und italischen Bronzen sowie
Gegenstände aus Eisen, Blei und Leder im Badischen Landesmuseum
Karlsruhe. Pisa, Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali.
Kahil, L. 1972. ‘Un nouveau vase plastique du potier Sotadès au Musée du
Louvre.’ RA, 271-82.
Kalaitzoglou, G. Forthcoming. Assesos: Ein geschlossener Befund
südionischer Keramik aus dem Heiligtum der Athena Assesia.
Milesische Forschungen 6. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Kallipolites, B.G. 1956 [1961]. ‘’Anaskafh\ e)n Palaiopo&lei th\j
Kerku&raj.’ Prakt 112: 158-63.
Kaltsas, N.E. 1998. /Akanqoj. H Anaskafh/ sto nekrotafi/o kata/ to
1979. Upourgei/o Politismou/, Dhmosieu/mata tou Arxaiologikou/
Delti/ou ar. 65. Athens: Tamei/ o Arxaiologikw&n Po/rwn kai
Apallotriw&sewn.
Kamlah, J. 1999. ‘Zwei nordpalästinische ‘Heiligtümer’ der persischen
Zeit und ihre epigraphischen Funde.’ ZDPV 115: 163-90.
Kammerzell, F. 2001. ‘Die Geschichte der karischen Minderheit in
Ägypten.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 233-55.
Kansteiner, S. 2000. Herakles: Die Darstellungen in der Großplastik der
Antike. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau.
Kaplan, P. 2002. ‘The Social Status of the Mercenary in Archaic Greece.’
In Oikistes: Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in
Ancient World Offered in Honor of A.J. Graham, edited by V.B.
Gorman and E.W. Robinson, 229-43. Mnemosyne Supplementum
234. Leiden: Brill.
Kaplan, P. 2003. ‘Cross-Cultural Contacts among Mercenary
Communities in Saite and Persian Egypt.’ Mediterranean Historical
Review 18: 1-31.
Kaposhina, S.I. 1956. ‘Iz istorii grecheskoýv. Kolonizatsii Nizhnego
Pobuzhia.’ In Ol’viia i Nizhnee Pobuzhe v Antichnuiu Epokhu (MIA 50),
edited by V.F. Gaývdukevich, 211-54. Moscow, Leningrad: Akademiia
Nauk SSSR.
Karageorghis, V. 1961. ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes
archéologiques à Chypre en 1960.’ BCH 85: 256-315.
Karageorghis, V. 1967. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I. Nicosia:
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
Karageorghis, V. 1973. Excavations in the Nekropolis of Salamis III. Nicosia:
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
Karageorghis, V. 1978. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis IV. Nicosia:
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
Karageorghis, V. 1997. ‘Greek Gods and Heroes in Cyprus: a Preview of
the Problem. ‘ In Greek Offerings: Essays on Greek Art in Honour of
John Boardman, edited by O. Palagia, 221-9. Oxbow Monograph 89.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Karageorghis, V. 1998. Greek Gods and Heroes in Ancient Cyprus. Athens:
Commercial Bank of Greece.
Karageorghis, V. 2000/1, ‘The Mycenaean Pottery of the Pictorial Style.’
OpAth 25/6: 91-3.
Kardara, Ch. 1963. Rodiakh\ 0Aggeiografi/a. Athens: Biblioqh/kh th=j )en
)Aqh/naij )Arxaiologikh=j (Etairei/aj.
Kardulias, P.N. 1999. Preface to World-Systems Theory in Practice:
Leadership, Production and Exchange, edited by P.N. Kardulias, xvii-
xxi. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Karetsou, A., ed. 2000. Krh/th-Ai/guptoj.Politismikoi/ desmoi/ triw/n
xilietiw/n. Kata/logoj; Arxaiologiko/ Mousei/o Heraklei/ou, 21
Noembri\ou 1999 - 21 Septembri\ou 2000. Herakleion: Upourgei\o
Politismou\.
Kastelic, J. 1964. Situlenkunst: Meisterschöpfungen Prähistorischer
Bronzearbeit. Vienna, Munich: Schrollverlag.
Käufler, S. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: II. Die Frühstufe des Middle Wild Goat
I-Stils.’ AA: 203-12.
Kawerau, G., and A. Rehm. 1914. Milet 1.3. Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin:
Georg Reimer.
Kearns, E. 1994. ‘Cakes in Greek Sacrifice Regulations.’ In Ancient Greek
Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence, edited by R. Hägg, 65-70.
Stockholm: Åström.
Kearsley, R. 1995. 'The Greek Geometric Wares from Al Mina Levels 10-8
and Associated Pottery.' MeditArch 8: 7-81.
Kearsley, R. 1999. ‘Greeks Overseas in the 8th Century bc: Euboeans, Al
Mina and Assyrian Imperialism.’ In Ancient Greeks: West and East,
edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 109-34. Mnemosyne Supplementum
196. Leiden: Brill.
Keenan, D.J. 2004. ‘Radiocarbon Dates from Iron Age Gordion are
Confounded.’ Ancient West & East 3: 100-3.
Kees, H. 1935. ‘Naukratis.’ In RE 16,2, edited by W. Kroll, 1954-66.
Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Kelm, L.G., and Mazar, A. 1989. ‘Excavating in Samson Country.’ Biblical
Archaeology Review 15.1: 16-27.
Kempinski, A. 2002. Tel Kabri: The 1986-1993 Excavation Seasons. Tel Aviv
University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology,
Monograph Series 20. Tel Aviv: Emery and Clair Yass Publications in
Archaeology.
Kenrick, P.M. 1987. ‘Hellenistic and Roman Fine Wares.’ In The
Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya.
Final Reports 3, edited by D. White, 1-18. Philadelphia: The University
Bibliography
Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Kerschner, M. 1995. ‘Die Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe.’ In Graeve et al.
1995: 214-20.
Kerschner, M. 1997a. ‘Ein Kessel des frühen Tierfriesstiles aus den
Grabungen unter der Tetragonos-Agora in Ephesos.’ ÖJh 66: 9-27.
Kerschner, M. 1997b. ‘Ein stratifizierter Opferkomplex des 7. Jhs. v. Chr.
aus dem Artemision von Ephesos.’ ÖJhBeibl. 66: 82-226.
Kerschner, M., and R. Senff. 1997. ‘Die Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe.’ AA:
120-2.
Kerschner, M. 1999. ‘Das Artemisheiligtum auf der Ostterrasse des
Kalabaktepe in Milet: Stratigraphie und Keramikfunde der
Sondagen des Jahres 1995. Mit einem Beitrag von U. Schlotzhauer.’
AA: 7-51.
Kerschner, M. 2000. ‘Die bemalte ostgriechische Keramik auf Sizilien.’ In
Krinzinger 2000: 487-91.
Kerschner, M. 2001. ‘Perspektiven der Keramikforschung in Naukratis 75
Jahre nach Elinor Price.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 69-94.
Kerschner, M. 2002. ‘Die lokalisierten chemischen Gruppen A, D und H
und ihr Aussagewert für die Keramikproduktion von Milet und
Ephesos.’ In Akurgal et al. 2002: 37-47.
Kerschner, M. 2003. ‘Stratifizierte Fundkomplexe der geometrischen und
subgeometrischen Epoche aus Ephesos.’ In Rückert and Kolb 2003:
43-59.
Kerschner, M. 2004. ‘Phokäische Thalassokratie oder Phantom-Phokäer?
Die frühgriechischen Keramikfunde im Süden der iberischen
Halbinsel aus der ägäischen Perspektive.’ In Lomas 2004a: 115-48.
Kerschner, M. 2005. ‘Die Ionier und ihr Verhältnis zu den Phrygern und
Lydern: Beobachtungen zur archäologischen Evidenz.’ In Neue
Forschungen zu Ionien, edited by E. Schwertheim and E. Winter, 113-
46. Asia Minor Studien 54. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Kerschner, M. 2006. ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaischer
ostgriechischer Keramik: Die Funde aus Berezan im Akademischen
Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn und im Robertinum der
Universität Halle-Wittenberg.’ IstMitt 56 (forthcoming).
Kerschner, M. Forthcoming. ‘Das Keramikbild von Ephesos im 7. und 6.
Jh. v. Chr.’ In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).
Kerschner, M., and H. Mommsen. 2005. ‘Transportamphoren
milesischen Typs in Ephesos: Archäometrische und archäologische
Untersuchungen zum Handel im archaischen Ionien.’ In Synergia:
Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, G.
Ladstätter and S. Ladstätter, 107-18. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag.
Kerschner, M., and H. Mommsen. Forthcoming. ‘Neue archäologische
und archäometrische Forschungen zu den Töpferzentren der
Ostägäis.’ In Les productions céramiques du Pont-Euxin à l’époque
grecque: Actes du colloque international Bucarest, 18-23 septembre
2004, edited by P. Dupont and V. Lungu. Bucharest: Il Mar Nero.
Kerschner, M., and U. Schlotzhauer. 2005. ‘A New Classification System
for East Greek Pottery.’ Ancient West & East 4.1: 1-56.
Kerschner, M., and U. Schlotzhauer. Forthcoming. ‘Vorschlag zu einem
neuen Klassifikationssystem ostgreichischer Keramik.’ In Cobet et al.
(forthcoming).
Kerschner, M., H. Mommsen, T. Beier, D. Heimermann, and A. Hein.
1993. ‘Neutron Activation Analyses of Bird Bowls and Related
Archaic Ceramic Finds from Miletus.’ Archaeometry 35.2: 197-210.
Kerschner, M., H. Mommsen, C. Rogl, and A. Schwedt. 2002. ‘Die
Keramikproduktion von Ephesos in griechischer Zeit: Zum Stand der
archäometrischen Forschungen.’ ÖJh 71: 189-206.
Ketterer. K. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: III. Ein Fikellurakessel aus dem
Aphroditeheiligtum.’ AA: 213-21.
Kilian, K. 1975. Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zur
archaischen Zeit. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 14.2. Munich: Beck
Verlag.
Kinch, K.F. 1914. Vroulia. Berlin: Georg Reimer Libraire.
Kleibl, K. 2006. ‘Terrakottavotive.’ In Berges 2006: 153-82.
Kleine, J. 1979. ‘Milet: Bericht über die Arbeiten im Südschnitt an der
hellenistischen Stadtmauer, 1968-1973.’ IstMitt 29: 109-59.
Kleiner, G. 1959/60. ‘Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957:
VI. Die Grabung im Norden des Athena-Tempels.’ IstMitt 9/10: 109-
59.
Knauf, E.A. 1991. ‘King Solomon’s Copper Supply.’ In Phoenicia and the
Bible, edited by E. Lipiński, 167-86. Studia Phoenicia 11. Leuven:
Peeters.
v v
Knipovich, T.N. 1940. ‘Nekropol’ v Severo-Vostochnoý chasti Ol’viýskogo
Gorodishcha (po raskopkam 1937 g.).’ SovArch 6: 92-106.
Koch, N.J. 1996. De picturae initiis: Die Anfänge der griechischen Malerei
im 7. Jh. v. Chr. Munich: Biering and Brinkmann.
Kocka, J. 2003. ‘Comparison and Beyond.’ History and Theory 42: 39-44.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 221
Bibliography
Kocybala, A.K. 1978. ‘Greek Colonization of the North Shore of the Black
Sea in the Archaic Period.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Kocybala, A.K. 1999. ‘The Corinthian Pottery.’ In The Extramural
Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 7,
edited by D. White. Philadelphia: The University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania.
Koehne, E. 1998. Die Dioskuren in der griechischen Kunst von der Archaik
bis zum Ende des 5. Jhs. v. Chr. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.
Kögler, P. 2005. ‘Import, Export, Imitation: Trade and the Economic
Power of Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial Knidos According to the
Fine Pottery.’ In Berg Briese and Vaag 2005: 50-62.
Kolb, F. 2004. ‘Troy VI: A Trading Center and Commercial City?’ AJA 108:
577-613.
Kolta, S.K. 1968. ‘Die Gleichsetzung ägyptischer und griechischer Götter
bei Herodot.’ Ph.D. diss., Tübingen University.
Kopeikina, L.V. 1968. ‘Gruppa rodosskikh amfor s ostrova Berezan’.’
Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennogo ordena Lenina Ermitazha 29: 44-7.
v v
Kopeikina, L.V. 1970a. ‘Osobennosti razvitiia rodossko-ionýskoý keramiki
v
v pervoý polovine VI v. do n. e. i voprocy lokalizatsii nekotorykh ee
grupp.’ VDI 111: 93-106.
v o
Kopeikina, L.V. 1970b. ‘Rodossko-ioniýskaia keramika
orientaliziruiushchei gruppy iz raskopok na ostrove Berezan’.’
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock 19.1: 559-66.
Kopeikina, L.V. 1973. ‘The Earliest Example of Greek Painted Pottery from
Berezan Island.’ SovArch 1: 240-244. (in Russian with engl.
summary).
Kopeikina, L.V. 1981. ‘Osobennosti razvitiia poseleniia na o. Berezan’ v
v
arkhaicheski ý period.’ SovArch 25.1: 192-208.
v
Kopeikina, L.V. 1982. ‘ Rodossko-ioni ý skaia keramika VII v. do n. e. s o.
Berezan’ i ee znachenie dlia izucheniia rannego etapa
sushchestvovaniia poseleniia.’ In Khudozhestvennye izdeliia
antichnykh masterov, edited by S.P. Boriskovskaya, 6-35. Leningrad:
Iskusstvo Leningradskoe otdelenie.
Kopeikina, L.V. 1986. ‘ Raspisnaia keramika arkhaicheskogo vremeni iz
v
antichnykh poseleni ý nizhnego pobuzh’ia i podneprov’ia kak
v
istochnik dlia izucheniia torgovykh i kul’turnykh sviaze ý.’
v
Arkheologicheskiý sbornik 27: 27-47.
Kopylov, V.P., and Larinok, P.A. 1994. The Settlement of Berezan: Materials
and Investiagtions of the Archaeological Expedition of Taganrog.
Rostov on the Don: Gefest.
Korkut, T. 2002. ‘Steinerne Mörserschalen aus Patara.’ AA: 233-45.
Korpusova, V.N. 1987. ‘Vostochnogrecheskiia raspisnaia keramika.’ In
Kul’tura naseleniia Olvii i ee okrugi v Arkhaicheskoe Vremia, edited by
v
S.D. Krishchinhi ý, 35-53. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.
Koshelenko, G.A., and V.D. Kuznetsov. 1992. ‘The Greek Colonization of
the Bosporus (in Connection with Certain General Problems of
Colonization).’ In Essays on the Archaeology and History of the
Bosporus, edited by G.A. Koshelenko, 6-28. Moscow: Nauka. (in
Russian)
Köster, R. 2004. Milet 7.1. Die Bauornamentik von Milet 1: Die
Bauornamentik der frühen und mittleren Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter & Co.
Kottaridou, A. 2005. ‘The Lady of Aigiai.’ In Alexander the Great: Treasures
from an Epic Era of Hellenism, edited by D. Pandermalis, 139-47. New
York: Onassis Foundation.
Kourou, N. ed. 2002. Limestone Statuettes of Cypriote Type found in the
Aegean. Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation.
Kourou, N. 2004. ‘Inscribed Imports, Visitors and Pilgrims in the Archaic
Sanctuaries of Camiros.’ In XARIS XAIRE: Mele/tej sth mnh/mh thj
Xa/rhj Ka/ntzia. Athens: Arxaiologiko/ Institou/to Aigaikw&n
Spoudw&n.
Kourouniotes, K. 1915. ‘ 0Anaskafai\ kai\ e2reunai e0n Xi\w|.’ ArchDelt 1: 64-
93.
Kourouniotes, K. 1916. ‘ 0Anaskafai\ kai\ e2reunai e0n Xi\w| 2.’ ArchDelt 2:
190-215.
Kranz, W. 1934. ‘Vorsokratisches I.’ Hermes 69: 114-5.
Kreuzer, B. 1992. Frühe Zeichner 1500-500 vor Chr., ägyptische, griechische
und etruskische Vasenfragmente der Sammlung H.A. Cahn, Basel:
Katalog der Ausstellung Freiburg 4.12.1992 bis 4.4.1993, edited by V.M.
Strocka. Freiburg: Waldkircher Verlagsgessellschaft.
Kreuzer, B. 1998. Samos 22. Die attisch schwarzfigurige Keramik aus dem
Heraion von Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Krings, V. 1998. Carthage et les Grecs (c. 580-480 av. J. C.). Cologne,
Leiden, New York: Brill.
Krings, V. 2000. ‘Quelques considerations sur l’«empire de Carthage». À
propos de Malchus.’ In Actas del IV. Congreso Internacional de
Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Cádiz, 2.-6. Octubre 1995, edited by M.E.
222 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Aubet, 167-72. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.
Krinzinger, F., ed. 2000. Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer:
Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr. Akten des
Symposions Wien, 24.-27. März 1999. Denkschrift Wien 288, AF 4.
Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Kroll, W. 1919. ‘Käse.’ In RE 10,2, edited by W. Kroll, 1489-96. Stuttgart:
J.B. Metzler.
Kromer, K., ed. 1962. Situlenkunst zwischen Po und Donau: Verzierte
Bronzearbeiten aus dem ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. Katalog zur
Ausstellung. Vienna: Prähistorische Abteilung des Naturhistorischen
Museums.
Kron, U. 1984. ‘Archaisches Kultgeschirr aus dem Heraion von Samos: Zu
einer speziellen Gattung von archaischem Trink- und Tafelgeschirr
mit Dipinti.’ In Ancient Greek and Related Pottery: Proceedings of the
International Vase Symposium in Amsterdam 12-15 April 1984, edited
by H.A.G. Brijder, 292-7. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.
Kron, U. 1988. ‘Kultmahle im Heraion von Samos archaischer Zeit:
Versuch einer Rekonstruktion.’ In Early Greek Cult Practice:
Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish
Institute at Athens, 26-29 June, 1986, edited by R. Hägg, N. Marinatos
and G.C. Nordquist, 135-48. SKrAth 4 , 38. Stockholm: Paul Åströms.
Kron, U. 1992. ‘Frauenfeste in Demeterheiligtümern: Das
Thesmophorion von Bitalemi.’ AA: 611-50.
Krumme, M. 2003. ‘Geometrische Keramik aus Milet.’ In Schmalz and
Söldner 2003: 244-5.
Krumme, M. Forthcoming. ‘Trapezomata: Bleimodell eines Tisches aus
Milet.’ In Biering et al. (forthcoming).
Kruse, B. 1949. ‘Pandemos.’ In RE 18, edited by K. Ziegler, 507-10.
Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Kucv an, D. 1995. ‘Zur Ernährung und dem Gebrauch von Pflanzen im
Heraion von Samos im 7. Jahrhunder v. Chr.’ JdI 110: 1-64.
Kucv an, D. 2000. ‘Rapport synthétique sur les recherches
archéobotaniques dans le sanctuaire d’Héra de l’île de Samos.’ In
Paysage e alimentation dans le monde grec, edited by J.-M. Luce, 99-
108. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
Kuhrt, A. 2002a. ‘Greek Contacts with the Levant and Mesopotamia in
the First Half of the First Millennium bc: A View from the East.’ In
Tsetskhladze and Snodgrass 2002: 17-40.
Kuhrt, A. 2002b. ‘Greeks’ and ‘Greece’ in Mesopotamian and Persian
Perspectives: A Lecture Delivered at New College, Oxford, on 7th May,
2001. J.L. Myres Memorial Lectures 21. Oxford: Leopard’s Head
Press.
Kunisch, N. 1990. ‘Die Augen der Augenschalen.’ AntK 35: 20-27.
Kunisch, N. Forthcoming. ‘Anstelle eines Hafenlöwen... .’ In Biering et al.
(forthcoming).
Kunze, E. 1934. ‘Ionische Kleinmeister.’ AM 59: 81-122.
Kunze, E. 1950. Archaische Schildbänder: Ein Beitrag zur frühgriechischen
Bildgeschichte. OlForsch 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Kuznetsov, V.D. 1991. ‘Kepoi: Ionian Pottery.’ SovArch 4: 36-52. (in
Russian with Engl. summary)
Kuznetsov, V.D. 2001. ‘Archaeological Investigations in the Taman
Peninsula.’ In North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and
Studies, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 319-44. Colloquium Pontica 6.
Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill.
Kyrieleis, H. 1986. ‘Chios and Samos in the Archaic Period.’ In Boardman
and Vaphopoulou-Richardson 1986: 187-204.
Kyrieleis, H. 1991. ‘The Relations between Samos and the Eastern
Mediterranean.’ In The Civilizations of the Aegean and their Diffusion
in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean 2000-600 bc: Proceedings of
an International Symposium 18-24 September 1989, edited by V.
Karageorghis, 128-31. Larnaca: Pierides Foundation.
Kyrieleis, H. 1996. Samos 10. Der große Kuros von Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf
Habelt.
Lamb, W. 1931/2. ‘Antissa.’ BSA 32: 41-67.
Lamb, W. 1932. ‘Grey Wares from Lesbos.’ JHS 52: 1-12.
Lamb, W. 1934/5. ‘Excavations at Kato Phana in Chios.’ BSA 35: 138-64.
Lamb, W. 1936. CVA Cambridge, Fitzwilliam 2. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lambrino, M.F. 1938. Les vases archaïques d’Histria. Bucharest: Fundaţia
Regele Carol I.
Landolfi, M. 1997. ‘Sirolo, necropoli picena «I Pini». Tomba monumentale
a circolo con due carri (520-500 a.C.).’ In Carri da guerra e principi
etruschi: Catalogo della mostra, edited by A. Emiliozzi, 229-41. Rome:
«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Lane, E.A. 1933/4. ‘Laconian Vase Painting.’ BSA 34: 99-189.
Lanfranchi, G.B. 2000. ‘The Ideological and Political Impact of the
Assyrian Imperial Expansion on the Greek World in the 8th and 7th

Centuries bc.’ In The Heirs of Assyria, edited by S. Aro and R.M.
Whiting, 7-34. Melammu Symposia I. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text
Corpus Project.
Langlotz, E. 1966. Die kulturelle und künstlerische Hellenisierung der
Küsten des Mittelmeeres durch die Stadt Phokaia. Cologne, Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Langlotz, E. 1969. ‘Beobachtungen in Phokaia.’ AA 1969: 377-85.
Langlotz, E. 1975. Studien zur nordostgriechischen Kunst. Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern.
Laronde, A. 1995. ‘Mercenaires grecs en Egypte à l’époque Saïte et à
l’époque Perse.’ In Entre Egypte et Grèce: Actes du colloque du 6-9
octobre 1994, edited by Jean Leclant, 26-36. Cahiers de la Villa
Kérylos 5. Paris: Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
Laurens, A.F. 1986. ‘Bousiris.’ In LIMC 3, edited by L. Kahil, 147-52. Zurich,
Munich: Artemis Verlag.
Lawall, M.L. 2006. ‘Ionian Renaissance? Late Fifth- and Fourth-Century
bc. Amphora Types in the Eastern Aegean.’ Paper Read at the 2006
Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 6-8
January, Montreal, Quebec.
Lazzarini, M.L. 1976. ‘Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia
arcaica.’ MemLinc: 47-354.
Leahy, A. 1988. ‘The Earliest Dated Monument of Amasis and the End of
the Reign of Apries.’ JEA 74: 183-99.
Leclère, F. 1997. ‘Les villes de Basse Egypte au Ier millénaire av. J.C.
Analyse archéologique et historique de la topographie urbaine.’
Ph.D. diss., University of Lyon.
Lehmann, G. 1996. Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und
Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen c. 720 bis 300 v.
Chr. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5. Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag.
Lehmann, G. 2002a. ‘Area E.’ In Kempinski 2002: 73-90.
Lehmann, G. 2002b. ‘Pottery: Late Bronze Age, Iron Age.’ In Kempinski
2002: 176-222.
Lehmann, G. 2005. ‘Al Mina and the East: A Report on Research in
Progress.’ In The Greeks in the East, edited by A. Villing, 61-92.
London: the Trustees of the British Museum.
Lehmann, K. 1960. Samothrace 2.2.The Inscriptions on Ceramics and
Minor Objects. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lehmann, K., and D. Spittle. 1964. Samothrace 4.2.The Altar Court.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lemos, A.A. 1986. ‘Archaic Chian Pottery.’ In Boardman and
Vaphopoulou-Richardson 1986: 233-49.
Lemos, A.A. 1991. Archaic Pottery of Chios: The Decorated Styles. Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 30. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lemos, A.A. 1992. ‘Un atelier archaique Chiote en Macédoine orientale.’
In Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux époques géométrique,
archaique et classique, edited by F. Blondé and J.Y. Perreault, 157-73.
Paris: Boccard.
Lemos, A.A. 1999/2000. ‘O Trwiko/j Ku/kloj sthn Proklasikh/
eikonografi/a thj anatolikh/j Ella/daj.’ Archaiognosia 10: 11-50.
Lemos, A.A. 2000. ‘Aspects of East Greek Pottery and Vase Painting.’ In
Krinzinger 2000: 377-91.
Lemos, I. 2001. ‘The Lefkandi Connection: Networking in the Aegean and
the Eastern Mediterranean.’ In Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500 –
450 bc, edited by L. Bonfante and V. Karageorghis, 215-26. Nicosia:
The Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Lemos, I. 2003. ‘Craftsmen, Traders and some Wives in Early Iron Age
Greece.’ In Sea Routes… Interconnections in the Mediterranean
16th–6th c. bc: Proceedings of the International Symposium held in
Rethymnon, Crete in September 29th- October 2nd 2002, edited by N.C.
Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis, 187-93. Athens: A.G. Leventis
Foundation.
Lenschau, T. 1913. ‘Zur Geschichte Ioniens.’ Klio 13: 175-83.
Lenz, D. 1997. ‘Karische Keramik im Martin von Wagner-Musem.’ ÖJh 66:
29-61.
Leonard Jr., A., ed. 1997. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations of a Greek
Emporium in Egypt 1. The Excavations at Kom Ge’if. AASOR 54. New
Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Leonard Jr., A., ed. 2001. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations of a Greek
Emporium in Egypt 2. The Excavations at Kom Hadid. AASOR 55. New
Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Leonard Jr., A., M. Hughes, A. Middleton, and L. Schofield, 1993. ‘The
Making of Aegean Stirrup Jars: Technique, Tradition, and Trade.’
BSA 88: 105-23.
Levi, D. 1927-9. ‘Arkades VII – le tombe sul colle ‘sto Selì’.’ ASAtene 10-2:
381-7.
Bibliography
Levi, E.I. 1972. ‘Arkhaicheskaia Keramika iz Raskopok Olviý skoý Agory
v v
1968-1969 gg.’ Kratkie Soobshchenia 130: 45-52.
Lewis, S. 2002. The Athenian Woman: An Iconographic Handbook.
London: Routledge.
Lezzi-Hafter, A. 1997. ‘Offerings Made to Measure: Two Special
Commissions by the Eretria Painter for Apollonia Pontica.’ In
Athenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings, edited by
J.H. Oakley, W.D.E. Coulson and O. Palagia, 353-69. Oxford: Oxbow
Books.
Lichtheim, M. 1947. ‘Oriental Museum Notes: Situla No. 11395 and some
Remarks on Egyptian Situlae.’ JNES 6: 169-79.
Liébert, Y. 1996. ‘Une inscription étrusque d’Algérie.’ REL 74: 38-46.
Lippold, G. 1950. Die Plastik. Handbuch der Archäologie 3. Munich: Beck
Verlag.
Lippold, G. 1956. ‘Sikon 2.’ In RE Suppl. 8, edited by K. Ziegler, 718.
Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller.
Lipschits, O. 2005. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian
Rule. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. 2nd edn. London, New
York: Routledge.
Littauer, M.A. 1968. ‘A 19th and 20th Dynasty Heroic Motif on Attic Black-
Figured Vases?’ AJA 72: 150-2.
Liverani, M. 2005a. ‘The Near East: The Bronze Age.’ In The Ancient
Economy: Evidence and Models, edited by I. Morris and J.G. Manning,
47-57. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Liverani, M. 2005b. ‘Imperialism.’ In Archaeologies of the Middle East:
Critical Perspectives, edited by S. Pollock and R. Bernbeck, 223-43.
Malden: Blackwell.
Lloyd, A.B. 1972. ‘Triremes and the Saïte Navy.’ JEA 58: 268-79.
Lloyd, A.B. 1983. ‘The Late Period, 664-323 bc.’ In B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp,
D. O'Connor and A.B. Lloyd, Ancient Egypt, a Social History, 279-348.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lloyd, A.B. 1988. ‘‘Herodotus’ Account of Pharaonic History.’ Historia 37:
22-53.
Lloyd, A.B. 1993/4. Herodotus Book II. Introduction, Commentary 1-182. 3
Vol. EPRO 43. 2nd edn. Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill.
Lodovici, F. 1999. ‘Il vasellame: l’instrumentum domesticum.’ In Museo
Nazionale Romano: La collezione Gorga, edited by M. Barbera, 45-50.
Milan: Electa.
Lohmann, H. 1995. ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet: Vorbericht über die
Kampagnen der Jahre 1990, 1992 und 1993.’ In Graeve et al. 1995:
285-311.
Lohmann, H. 1996. ‘Zur Siedlungsarchäologie der griechischen Polis.’
Geographische Rundschau 10: 562-7.
Lohmann, H. 1997a. ‘Assesos.’ In Der Neue Pauly 2, edited by H. Cancik
and H. Schneider, 111. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Lohmann, H. 1997b. ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet: Vorbericht über die
Kampagnen der Jahre 1994 und 1995.’ AA: 293-328.
Lohmann, H. 1999a. ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet: Vorbericht über die
Kampagnen der Jahre 1996 und 1997.’ AA: 439-73.
Lohmann, H. 1999b. ‘Survey auf der Halbinsel von Milet.’ In Ara þtýrma
Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 16,2, edited by K. Olþen, H. Çakmak, F. Bayram,
F. Kaymaz, N. Tarlan, A. Özme, K. Ataþ and H. Dönmez, 497-511.
Ankara: Kültür Bakanlýðý Milli Kütüphane Basýmevi.
Lohmann, H. 2000. ‘Milesia.’ In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited by H. Cancik and
H. Schneider, 166-7. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Lohmann, H. 2001. ‘Survey in der Chora von Milet 1999:
Abschlußbericht.’ In Ara þtýrma Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 18,2, edited by K.
Ataþ, F. Bayram, H. Dönmez, N. Güder, K. Olþen and N. Toy: 11-22.
Ankara: Kültür Bakanlýðý Millî Kütüphane Basýmevi.
Lohmann, H. 2002 [2006]. ‘Zur historischen Topographie des südlichen
Ionien.’ Orbis Terrarum 8: 163-272.
Lohmann, H. 2004. ‘Milet und die Milesia: Eine antike Großstadt und ihr
Umland im Wandel der Zeiten.’ In Chora und Polis, edited by F. Kolb,
325-60. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 54. Munich: R.
Oldenbourg.
Lohmann, H. Forthcoming. ‘Die Chora Milets in archaischer Zeit.’ In
Cobet et al. (forthcoming).
Lomas, K., ed. 2004a. Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers
in Honour of Brian Shefton. Leiden: Brill.
Lomas, K. 2004b. ‘Introduction’. In Lomas 2004a: 1-14.
Long, L., J. Miro, and G. Volpe. 1992. ‘Les épaves archaïques de la pointe
Lequin (Porquerolles, Hyères, Var).’ In Marseille grecque et la Gaule,
edited by M. Bats, G. Bertucchi, G. Conges and H. Treziny, 199-234.
Lattes: A. D. A. M; Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, Service
des Publications.
Lorber, F. 1979. Inschriften auf korinthischen Vasen. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 223
Bibliography
Lowenstam, S. 1987. ‘Scarabs, Inscribed Gems, and Engraved Finger
Rings.’ In The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at
Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 3.1, edited by D. White. Philadelphia: The
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Luckenbill, D.D. 1927. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia II:
Historical Records of Assyria (from Sargon to the End). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Luke, J. 2003. Ports of Trade, Al Mina and Geometric Greek Pottery in the
Levant. BAR International Series 1100. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Lund, J. 2004. ‘Oil on the Waters? Reflections on the Contents of
Hellenistic Transport Amphorae.’ In Transport Amphorae and Trade
in the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by J. Eiring and J. Lund, 211-6.
Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 5. Aarhus : Aarhus
University Press.
Luni, M. 2002. ‘Iconografia del silfio e realtà botanica.’ QAL 16: 351-62.
MacIntosh Turfa, J. 1977.’Evidence for Etruscan-Punic Relations.’ AJA 81:
368-74.
MacIntosh Turfa, J. 1982. ‘The Etruscan and Italic Collection in the
Manchester Museum.’ BSR 50: 166-93.
Mackensen, M. 1999. ‘X. Metallkleinfunde.’ In Driesch et al. 1999: 530-44.
Madau, M. 1991. ‘Tharros XVII: Lo scavo dei quadrati F-G 17 ed F-G 18.’
RSF 19: 165-79.
Maeir, A.M. 2002. ‘The Relations between Egypt and the Southern
Levant during the Late Iron Age: the Material Evidence from Egypt.’
Egypt and the Levant 12: 235-46.
Maeir, A.M. 2004. ‘The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2:
An Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Sâfì/Gath.’ Vetus
Testamentum 54: 319-34.
Maffre, J.J. 1996. ‘Quatre pélikai attiques à figures rouges conservées a
Cyrène.’ In Scritti di antichità in memoria di Sandro Stucchi, 1: La
Cirenaica. La Grecia e l’Oriente mediterraneo, edited by L. Bacchielli
and M. Bonanno Aravantinos, 193-210. Rome: «L’ERMA» di
Bretschneider.
Maffre, J.J. 1998. ‘Pièces de céramique grecque conservées à Cyrène.’ In
La Cirenaica in età antica: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi,
Macerata 18-20 maggio 1995, edited by E. Catani and S.M. Marengo,
351-61. Macerata-Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.
Maggiani, A. Forthcoming. ‘Forme del commercio arcaico: le tesserae
hospitales.’ In Gli Etruschi e il Mediterraneo: Commerci e politica.
Annali della Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 13. Rome:
Quasar.
Magi, F. 1941. La Raccolta Benedetto Guglielmi nel Museo Gregoriano
Etrusco 2: Bronzi e oggetti vari, edited by J. D. Beazley and F. Magi.
Monumenti vaticani di archeologia e d’arte 5. Città del Vaticano:
Tipografia del Senato.
Magness, J. 2001. ‘The Greek Pottery.’ In Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:
142-5.
Maguire, L.C. 1995. ‘Tell el-Dab’a: The Cypriot Connection.’ In Egypt, the
Aegean and the Levant: interconnections in the second millennium bc,
edited by W.V. Davies and L. Schofield, 54-65. London: British
Museum Press.
Malkin, I. 2003a. ‘Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity.’
Mediterranean Historical Review 18.2: 56-74.
Malkin, I. 2003b. ‘Pan-Hellenism and the Greeks of Naukratis’. In La
naissance de la ville dans l’antiquité, edited by M. Reddé, 91-95. Paris:
Boccard.
Malkin, I. 2003c. ‘‘Tradition’ in Herodotus: The Foundation of Cyrene.’ In
Herodotus and His World: Essays from a Conference in Memory of
George Forrest, edited by P. Derow and R. Parker, 153-70. Oxford:
University Press.
Malkin, I. 2004. ‘Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient Greek Colonization.’
Modern Language Quarterly 65: 341-64.
Mallwitz, A., and W. Schiering. 1968. ‘Der alte Athena-Tempel von Milet:
Vorwort von G. Kleiner.’ IstMitt 18: 87-160.
Mandel, U., Hübner, G., and Kögler, P. 2000. ‘Hellenistische
Reliefkeramik und Lagynoskeramik aus Knidos.’ In E’ Episthmonikh\
Suna/nthsh gia\ th\n Ellhnistikh\ Keramikh/: Chania 1996, edited by
S. Drougou, 161-94. Athens: TAPA.
Mandel, U. 2005. ‘Ägyptische Schemata in ostgriechischer Aneignung:
Figürliche Salbgefäße und Terrakotten archaischer Zeit’. In Beck et
al. 2005: 138-53.
Mannack, T. 2002. Griechische Vasenmalerei: Eine Einführung.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Mano-Zisi, D., and L.B. Popovic. 1969a [1971].’Der Fund von Novi Pazar
(Serbien).’ BerRGK 50,: 191-208.
Mano-Zisi, D., and L.B. Popovic. 1969b. Novi Pazar. The Illyrian-Greek
Find. Beograd: Narodni Muzej.
224 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Mansuelli, G.A. 1984. ‘Tyrrhenoi philotechnoi: Opinioni degli antichi
sull’arte etrusca.’ In Studi di antichità in onore di Guglielmo Maetzke,
edited by M.G. Marzi Costagli, 355-65. Archaeologica 49. Rome:
«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Manunta, A. 2002. ‘Cachrys ferulacea (L.) Calestani è il ‘silfio cirenaico’?
Identificazione botanica su basi teoriche e rappresentazioni su
monete.’ QAL 16: 345-50.
Manyas, M. 1984. ‘Oryantalizan Dönem Stil Tabaklarý, Metoplu Tabaklar.’
Ph.D. diss., University of Ankara.
Marangou, L. 1993 [1996]. ‘ 0Anaskafh\ Minw&aj Amorgou=.’ Prakt 148:
188-208.
Marangou, L. 1996 [1998]. ‘ 0Ergasi/ev stere/wshj, sunth/rhshv kai
mele/thv anaskafh=v Minw&av 0Amorgou=.’ Prakt 151: 277-301.
Marangou, L. 2002. ‘ AMORGOS I – H MINWA.’ Athens : 9H e0n 0Aqh/naij
0Arxaiologikh\ 9Htairei/a.
Mariaud, O. 2006. ‘Rituel funéraire et transformations spatiales en Ionie
archaïque: le cas des tombes d’enfant à Smyrne.’ REA 108:173-202.
Marketou, T., E. Karantzali, H. Mommsen, N. Zacharias, V. Kilikoglou,
and A. Schwedt. Forthcoming. ‘Pottery Wares from the Prehistoric
Settlement at Ialysos (Trianda) in Rhodes.’ BSA.
Markoe, G.E. 2000. Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Marshall, F.H. 1916. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the
British Museum 4,2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Martelli, M. 1985a. ‘Gli avori etruschi tardo arcaici: botteghe e aree di
diffusione.’ In Il commercio etrusco arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di studi,
edited by M. Cristofani, 207-48. QArchEtr 9. Rome: Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Martelli, M. 1985b. ‘8.9.1. Tessera hospitalis.’ In Civiltà degli Etruschi:
Catalogo della mostra. Museo archeologico, Firenze, 16 Maggio–20
Ottobre 1985, edited by M. Cristofani, 229-33. Milan: Electa.
Martelli, M. 1988. ‘La cultura artistica di Vulci arcaica.’ In Un artista
etrusco e il suo mondo: Il Pittore di Micali. Catalogo della mostra,
edited by M.A. Rizzo, 22-8. Rome: De Luca.
Martelli, M. 2001. ‘Sculture vulcenti arcaiche: paralipomena – III.’ In
Zona archeologica: Festschrift für Hans-Peter Isler zum 60. Geburtstag,
edited by S. Buzzi, D. Käch, E. Kistler, E. Mango, M. Palaczyk and O.
Stefani, 289-94. Antiquitas 3. Abhandlungen zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischen
Archäologie und zur Geschichte des Altertums 42. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf
Habelt.
Martelli, M. 2004. ‘Sculture vulcenti arcaiche: paralipomena – II. Il
Maestro del Louvre.’ In Studi in onore di Gustavo Traversari, edited by
M. Fano Santi, 623-30. Archaeologica 141. Rome: «L’ERMA» di
Bretschneider.
Martelli, M. Forthcoming. ‘Sculture vulcenti arcaiche: paralipomena – I. I
Maestri di Civitavecchia e di Amburgo-New York.’ In Miscellanea di
studi in memoria di Mauro Cristofani: Prospettiva.
Martin, R. 1951. Recherches sur l’agora grecque. Paris: Boccard.
Martin, R. 1956. L’urbanisme dans la Grèce antique. Paris: Picard & Cie.
Maspero, G. 1914. Guide du visiteur de Musée du Caire. 3rd edn. Cairo:
Institut francais d’archéologie orientale.
Massi Secondari, A. 1982. ‘La tomba di Porta del Ponte di Tolentino.’Atti e
memorie della Deputazione di Storia Patria delle Marche 85: 37-49.
Masson, O. 1971. ‘Les Chypriotes en Egypte.’ Bulletin de la Société
Française d’Egyptologie 60: 28-46.
Masson, O. 1983. Les Inscriptions Chypriotes Syllabiques: Recueil critique et
commenté. Réimpression augmentée. Etudes chypriotes 1. Paris:
Boccard.
Masson, O., and J. Yoyotte. 1956. Objets Pharaoniques à inscription
Carienne. Bibliothèque d’étude 15. Paris: Institut français
d’archéologie orientale du Caire.
Master, D.M. 2001. ‘The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century bce:
A Petrographic Study.’ PhD diss., Harvard University.
Master, D.M. 2003. ‘Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing Act in the
Seventh Century bce.’ BASOR 330: 47-64.
Matteucci, P. 1986. ‘L’uso dei mortai di terracotta nell’alimentazione
antica.’ Studi classici e orientali 36: 239-77.
Matthäus, H. 1985. Metallgefäße und Gefäßuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der
geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern mit einem Anhang
der bronzezeitlichen Schwertfunde auf Cypern. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Mayence, F., and V. Verhoogen. 1949. CVA Bruxelles, Musées Royaux d’Art
et d’Histoire (Cinquantenaire) 3. Bruxelles: Musées Royaux d’Art et
d’Histoire.
Mayet, F., and M. Picon. 1986. ‘Une sigilée phocéene tardive (Late Roman
‘C’ Ware) et sa diffusion en occident.’ Figlina 7: 129-42.
Mazar, A. 2004. ‘Greek and Levantine Iron Age Chronology: A Rejoinder.’
IEJ 54: 24-36.

Mazar, A., and N. Panitz-Cohen. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) 2. The Finds
from the First Millennium bce. Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of
Archaeology.
Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1999. ‘Reflections on Hero Cults in Early Iron Age
Greece.’ In Ancient Greek Hero Cult: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult Organized by the
Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg
University, 21–23 April 1995, edited by R. Hägg, 9-36. Stockholm: Paul
Åströms Förlag.
Mazzoni, S. 2002. ‘Temples in the City and the Countryside: New Trends
in Iron Age Syria.’ DM 13: 89-99.
McPhee, I. 1997. ‘Attic Pottery.’ In The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter
and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 6.2, edited by D. White.
Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Meester de Ravestein, E. 1884. Musée de Ravestein: Notice. Bruxelles:
Société Générale d’Imprimerie.
Megaw, R. and V. Megaw. 1989. Celtic Art: From its Beginnings to the Book
of Kells. London: Thames and Hudson.
Menzel, H. 1959. ‘Zwei etruskische Kopfgefässe im Römisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseum.’ JRGZM 6: 110-4.
Meriç, R. 1982. Metropolis in Ionien: Ergebnisse einer Survey-Untersuchung
in den Jahren 1972-1975. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 142.
Königstein/Ts.: Verlag Anton Hain.
Meriç, R. 1986. ‘1985 Yýlý Ýzmir ve Manisa Ýlleri Yüzey Araþtýrmasý.’
Araþtýrma Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 4, edited by T.C. Kültür ve Turizm
Bakanlýðý Eski Esler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü, 301-10. Ankara.
Messineo, G. 1983. ‘Tesserae hospitales.’ Xenia 5: 3-4.
Metzger, H. 1969. Anatolien 2: Vom Beginn des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. bis
zum Ende der römischen Epoche. Archaeologica Mundi. Genf: Nagel
Verlag.
Metzger, H. 1972. Fouilles de Xanthos 4. Paris: Klincksieck.
Mielsch, H. 2003. Das Akademische Kunstmuseum: Antikensammlung der
Universität Bonn. Petersberg: Imhof.
Miltner, F. and H. Miltner. 1932. ‘Bericht über eine Voruntersuchung in
Alt-Smyrna.’ ÖJhBeibl 37: 127-90.
Mirnik, I. 1986. ‘Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis.’ Vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u
Zagrebu 19: 41-71.
Mitchell, B.M. 2000. ‘Cyrene: Typical or Atypical?’ In Brock and
Hodkinson 2005: 82-102.
Mitford, T.B. 1980. The Nymphaeum of Kafizin: The Inscribed Pottery.
Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Moles, J. 2002. ‘Herodotus and Athens.’ In Brill’s Companion to
Herodotus, edited by E.J. Bakker, I.J.F. de Jong and H. van Wees, 33-
52. Leiden: Brill.
Möller, A. 2000a. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Möller, A. 2000b. ‘Naukratis.’ In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited by H. Cancik
and H. Schneider, 747-9. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Möller, A. 2001. ‘Naukratis – griechisches emporion und ägyptischer ‘port
of trade’.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 1-25.
Möller, A. 2005. ‘Naukratis as Port-of-Trade Revisited.’ Topoi 12/3: 183-92.
Mommsen, H. 2001. ‘Provenance Determination of Pottery by Trace
Element Analysis: Problems, Solutions and Applications.’ Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 24: 657-62.
Mommsen, H. 2003. ‘Attic pottery Production, Imports, and Exports
during the Mycenaean Period by Neutron Activation Analysis.’
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 3: 13-30.
Mommsen, H. 2004. ‘Short Note: Provenancing of Pottery – The Need for
the Integrated Approach?’ Archaeometry 46: 267-71.
Mommsen, H. 2005. ‘Schaufeln, Scherben, Spektrometer: Physikalische
Methoden in der archäologischen Forschung.’ Physik Journal 4: 37-
43.
Mommsen, H., Th. Beier, and P. Åström. 2003. ‘Neutron Activation
Analysis Results of Six Mycenaean Sherds from Hala Sultan Tekke,
Cyprus.’ Archaeology and Natural Science 2: 5-10.
Mommsen, H., D. Hertel and P. A. Mountjoy. 2001. ‘Neutron Activation
Analysis of the Pottery from Troy in the Berlin Schliemann
Collection.’ AA: 169-211.
Mommsen, H., M. Kerschner and R. Posamentir. 2006. ‘Provenance
Determination of 111 Pottery Samples from Berezan by Neutron
Activation Analysis.’ IstMitt 56 (forthcoming).
Mommsen, H., A. Kreuser, and J. Weber. 1988. ‘A Method for Grouping
Pottery by Chemical Composition.’ Archaeometry 30: 47-57.
Mommsen, H., A. Schwedt and R. Attula. 2006. ‘Chemische
Klassifizierung von 137 Keramikproben aus den Grabungen von
Emecik und des Töpfereistandortes Resadiye durch
Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse.’ In Berges 2006: 202-6.
Bibliography
Mommsen, H., A. Kreuser, E. Lewandowski, and J. Weber. 1991.
‘Provenancing of Pottery: Status Report and Grouping.’ In Neutron
Activation and Plasma Emission Spectrometric Analysis in
Archaeology, edited by M. Hughes, M. Cowell und D. Hook, 57-65.
BMOP 82. London: British Museum Press.
Mommsen, H., A. Kreuser, J. Weber, and H. Büsch. 1987. ‘Neutron
Activation Analysis of Ceramics in the X-ray Energy Region.’ Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A257: 451-61.
Mommsen, H., Th. Beier, A. Hein, Ch. Podzuweit, E. Pusch, and A.
Eggebrecht. 1996. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of Mycenaean
Sherds from the Town of Ramesses II near Qantir and Greek-
Egyptian Trade Relations.’ In Archaeometry 94:Proceedings of the 29th
International Symposium of Archaeometry, Ankara 9-14 May 1994,
edited by Þ. Demirci, A.M. Özer and G.D. Summers, 169-78. Ankara:
Tübitak.
Monachov, S. 1999. ‘Quelques séries d’amphores grecques des VIIe-VIe s.
av. n.è. au nord de la mer noire.’ In Production et commerce des
amphores anciennes en mer noire, edited by Y. Garlan, 163-94. Aix-en-
Provence: University of Provence.
Monachov, S. 2003. ‘Amphorae from Unidentified Centres in the North
Aegean.’ In The Cauldron of Ariantas, edited by P.G. Bilde, J.M. Hrjte
and V.F. Stolba, 247-59. Aarhus: University Press.
Montet, P. 1928. Byblos et Egypte: Quatres campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil,
1921-24. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 11. Paris:
Geuthner.
Mook, M.S., and W.D.E. Coulson. 1995. ‘East Greek and Imported
Pottery.’ In Excavations at Dor, Final Report Volume 1 B. Areas A and C:
The Finds (Qedem Reports 2), edited by E. Stern, 93-125. Jerusalem:
Institute of Archaeology.
Moore, M.B. 1987. ‘Attic Black Figure and Black Glazed Pottery.’ In The
Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya:
Final Reports 3.2, edited by D. White. Philadelphia: The University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Morel, J.-P. 1981. ‘Le commerce étrusque en France, en Espagne et en
Afrique.’ In L’Etruria mineraria: Atti del XII Convegno di Studi Etruschi
e Italici. Firenze, Populonia, Piombino 16-20 giugno 1979, edited by A.
Neppi Modona, 463-508. Florence: Olschki.
Morel, J.-P. 1990. ‘Nouvelles données sur le commerce de Carthage
punique entre le VIIe et le IIe siècle avant J.C.’ In Carthage et son
territoire dans l’antiquité: IV colloque international réuni dans le cadre
du 113e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Strasbourg, 5-9 avril
1988, 67-100. Paris: Editions du CTHS.
Morel, J.-P. 2001. ‘Céramiques ioniennes et commerce Phocéen en
occident: avancées et problèmes.’ In Ceràmiques jònies d’època
arcaica, centres de producció i comercialització al Mediterrani
Occidental: actes de la taula rodona celebrada a Empúries, els dies 26 al
28 de maig de 1999, 11-25. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Moreland 2000. ‘Concepts in the Early Medieval Economy.’ In The Long
Eighth Century, edited by I.L. Hansen and C. Wickham, 1-34. Leiden:
Brill.
Moretti Sgubini, A.M., and M.A. De Lucia Brolli. 2003. ‘Castro: un centro
dell’entroterra vulcente.’ In Tra Orvieto e Vulci: Atti del X Convegno
Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Etruria. Orvieto
10th 2003, edited by G.M. Della Fina, 363-405. Annali della
Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 10. Rome: Quasar.
Moretti, M. 1967. ‘Tomba di Trevignano’. In Arte e civiltà degli Etruschi:
Catalogo della mostra. Torino, giugno–luglio 1967, edited by L.
Manino, 45-67. Turin: S.A.N.
Morgan, C. 1993. ‘The Origins of Pan-Hellenism.’ In Greek Sanctuaries:
New Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos, 18-44. London: Routledge.
Morgan, C. 2003. Early Greek States beyond the Polis. London, New York:
Routledge.
Moritz, L.A. 1958. Grain-mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Morris, I. 1988. ‘Tomb Cult and the ‘Greek Renaissance’: The Past in the
Present in the 8th Century bc.’ Antiquity 62: 750-61.
Morris, I. 1999. ‘Negotiated Peripherality in Iron Age Greece: Accepting
and Resisting the East.’ In World-Systems Theory in Practice:
Leadership, Production and Exchange, edited by P.N. Kardulias, 63-84.
Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron
Age Greece. Malden: Blackwell.
Morris, I. 2003. ‘Mediterraneanization.’ Mediterranean Historical Review
18: 30-55.
Morris, I. 2005, 1. December. The Eighth-Century Revolution.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/morris/120507.pdf. (13
December 2005).
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 225
Bibliography
Morris, I., and J.G. Manning. 2005. Introduction to The Ancient Economy:
Evidence and Models, edited by I. Morris and J.G. Manning, 1-44.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Morris, S., and J.K. Papadopoulos. 1998. ‘Phoenicians and the Corinthian
Pottery Industry.’ In Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der
antiken Welt, edited by R. Rolle and K. Schmidt, 251-63. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Morris, S.P. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Morrison, J.S., and R.T. Williams. 1968. Greek Oared Ships 900–322 bc.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morson, G.S., and C. Emerson. 1990. Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a
Prosaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mountjoy, P., and H. Mommsen. 2001. ‘Mycenaean Pottery from Qantir-
Piramesse, Egypt.’ BSA 96: 123-56.
Mountjoy, P., and H. Mommsen. Forthcoming. ‘Neutron Activation
Analysis of Mycenaean Pottery from Troy (1988- 2003 excavations).’
In Studia Troica.
Muffatti, G. 1968. ‘L’instrumentum in bronzo.’ StEtr 36: 119-56.
Muhly, J.D. 1970. ‘Homer and the Phoenicians: The Relations between
Greece and the Near East in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages.’
Berytus 19: 19-64.
Muhly, J.D. 1985. ‘Phoenicia and the Phoenicians.’ In Biblical Archaeology
Today: Proceedings of the International Congress of Biblical
Archaeology. Jerusalem, April 1984, edited by J. Amitai, 177-91.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Muhly, J.D. 1999. ‘The Phoenicians in the Aegean.’ In Meletemata: Studies
in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he Enters his
65th Year, edited by P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur
and W.-D. Niemeier, 517-26. Aegaeum 20. Liège: Université de Liège.
Muhly, J.D. 2003. ‘Greece and Anatolia in the Early Iron Age: The
Archaeological Evidence and the Literary Tradition.’ In Symbiosis,
Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and Their
Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina.
Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium W.F. Albright Institute of
Archaeological Research and the American Schools of Oriental
Research Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000, edited by W.G. Dever and S.
Gitin, 23-35. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Muhly, J.D. 2005. ‘Traveling Craftsmen: Love ‘em or Leave ‘em.’ In
Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean.
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, Italian School of
Archaeology, Athens, 14-18 April 2004, edited by R. Laffineur and E.
Greco, 685-90. Aegaeum 25. Liège: Université de Liège.
Muhs, B. 1994. ‘The Great Temenos of Naucratis.’ JARCE 31: 99-113.
Müller-Wiener, W., ed. 1986. Milet 1899-1980: Ergebnisse, Probleme und
Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung, Kolloquium Frankfurt a. M. 1980.
IstMitt Beiheft 31. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth Verlag.
Müller-Wiener, W. et al. 1985. ‘Milet 1983-1984.’ IstMitt 35: 13-138.
Müller-Wiener, W. et al. 1986. ‘Milet 1985.’ IstMitt 36: 5-57.
Müller-Wiener, W. et al. 1987. ‘Milet 1986.’ IstMitt 37: 5-79.
Mumford, G.D. 2004, 5 January. ‘East Delta – Tell Tebilla 10 – Imported
Pottery.’ In SEPE: Survey and Excavation Projects in Egypt.
http://www.deltasinai.cm/delta-10.htm.
Muscarella, O.W. 2003. ‘The Date of the Destruction of the Early
Phrygian Period at Gordion.’ Ancient West & East 2: 225-52.
Musée d’Histoire de Marseille. 1990. Marseille: itinéraire d’une mémoire.
Cinq années d’archéologie municipale. Marseille: Musée d’Histoire de
Marseille.
Musée d’Histoire de Marseille. 1995. Phocée et la fondation de Marseille.
Marseille: Musée d’Histoire de Marseille.
Myśliwiec, K. 1987. Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Grabung im Tempel
Sethos I in Gurna. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 57. Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern.
Myśliwiec, K. 2000. The Twilight of Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Na’aman, N. 1991a. ‘The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah.’ Tel Aviv 18: 1-
69.
Na’aman, N. 1991b. ‘Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire
(631-619 bc).’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 81: 243-67.
Na’aman, N. 1994. ‘Esarhaddon’s Treaty with Ba‘al and Assyrian
Provinces along the Phoenician Coast.’Rivista di studi Fenici 22: 3-8.
Na’aman, N. 1995a. ‘Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob.’
UgaritF 27: 381-94.
Na’aman, N. 1995b. ‘Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern
Syria and Palestine in the Neo-Assyrian Period.’ In Neo-Assyrian
Geography, edited by M. Liverani, 103-15. Quaderni di Geographia
storica 5. Rome: Università di Roma.
226 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Na’aman, N. 2000. ‘Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel
Dan.’ IEJ 50: 92-104.
Na’aman, N. 2001. ‘An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rah.el?’ Tel Aviv 28:
260-80.
Na’aman, N. 2004. ‘Re’si-suri and Yauna in a Neo-Assyrian Letter (ND
2737).’ Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 3: 69-70.
Nafissi, M. 1980/1. ‘A proposito degli Aigheidai: grandi ghéne e emporia
nei rapporti Sparta-Cirene.’ AnnPerugia 18: 183-209.
Nafissi, M. 1985. ‘Battiadi e Aigeidai: per la storia dei rapporti tra Cirene e
Sparta in età arcaica.’ In Cyrenaica in Antiquity: Papers Presented at
the Colloquium on Society and Economy in Cyrenaica, Cambridge
March-April 1983, edited by G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 375-
88. BAR International Series 236. Oxford: BAR.
Naso, A. 1994. Review of Etruskische Cippi. Untersuchungen am Beispiel
von Cerveteri, by M. Blumhofer. StEtr 59: 487-92.
Naso, A. 1996. Architetture dipinte: Decorazioni parietali non figurate nelle
tombe a camera dell’Etruria Meridionale (VII-V sec. a.C.). Rome:
«L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Naso, A. 2000. ‘Materiali etruschi e italici nell’Oriente mediterraneo.’ In
Magna Grecia e Oriente mediterraneo prima dell’età ellenistica: Atti del
Trentanovesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1 -5
ottobre 1999, 165-85. Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia
della Magna Grecia.
Naso, A. 2001. ‘La penisola italica e l’Anatolia (XII-V sec. a.C.).’ In Der
Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos, edited by U. Muss, 169-83.
Sonderschriften Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut in Wien
37. Vienna: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut.
Naso, A. 2003a. I bronzi etruschi e italici del Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Naso, A. 2003b. Review of Italische Panzerplatten und Panzerscheiben, by
G. Tomedi. Germania 81,2: 621-7.
Naso, A. 2005a. ‘Funde aus Milet: XIX. Anfore commerciali archaiche a
Mileto. Rapporto preliminare.’ AA 2005,2: 73-84.
Naso, A. 2005b. ‘Il tumulo del Sorbo a Caere.’ In Dinamiche di sviluppo
delle città nell’Etruria meridionale: Veio, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci: Atti
del XXIII. Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Roma, Veio,
Cerveteri/Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Tuscania, Vulci, Viterbo 1-6 ottobre 2001,
edited by O. Paoletti, 193-203. Pisa, Rome: Istituti Editoriali e
Poligrafici Internazionali.
Naso, A., ed. 2006. Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari Greci: Atti del
convegno internazionale, Udine 20 al 22 novembre 2003, edited by A.
Naso. Studi Udinesi sul Mondo Antico 2. Grassina, Firenze: Le
Moninier Università.
Naso, A. Forthcoming. ‘Anathemata etruschi nel Mediterraneo
orientale’. In Gli Etruschi e il Mediterraneo: Commerci e politica.
Annali della Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 13. Rome:
Quasar.
Naumann, R., and K. Tuchelt. 1963/4. ‘Die Ausgrabungen im Südwesten
des Tempels von Didyma 1962.’ IstMitt 13/4: 15-62.
Nedev, D., and K. Panayatova. 2003. ‘Apollonia Pontica (End of the 7th-
1st Centuries bc).’ In Grammenos and Petropoulos: 95-155.
Negbi, O. 1992. ‘Early Phoenician Presence in the Mediterranean Islands:
A Reappraisal.’ AJA 96: 599-615.
Neils, J. 2004. ‘Kitchen or Cult? Women with Mortars and Pestles.’ In
Greek Art in View: Essays in Honour of Brian Sparkes, edited by S. Keay
and S. Moser, 54-62. Oxford: Oxbow.
Neugebauer, K.A. 1943. ‘Archaische Vulcenter Bronzen.’ JdI 58: 206-78.
Newton, M.W., P.I. Kuniholm, and K.A. Wardle. 2005a. Dendrochronology
and Radiocarbon Determinations from Assiros and the Beginning of the
Greek Iron Age. http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/
AETHCaptured.pdf
Newton, M.W., P.I. Kuniholm, and K.A. Wardle. 2005b. ‘A
14
Dendrochronological C Wiggle-match for the Early Iron Age of
North Greece.’ In The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology,
Text and Science, edited by T.E. Levy and T. Higham, 104-13. London:
Equinox.
Nicholls, R.V. 1958/9. ‘Old Smyrna: The Iron Age Fortifications and
Associated Remains on the City Perimeter.’ BSA 53/4: 35-137.
Nicholson, P. 2004. ‘Conserving Bronzes from North Saqqara.’ Egyptian
Archaeology 25: 7-9.
Nick, G. 2001a. ‘Apollon als Löwenbändiger im östlichen
Mittelmeergebiet.’ IstMitt 51: 191-216.
Nick, G. 2001b. ‘Typologie der Plastik des zyprischen und des ‘Mischstils’
aus Naukratis.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 55-67.
Nick, G. 2002. Die Athena Parthenos: Studien zum griechischen Kultbild
und seiner Rezeption. AM-BH 19. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Nick, G. Forthcoming. Zypro-ionische Kleinplastik aus Kalkstein und

Alabaster. Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis 1. Möhnesee:
Bibliopolis.
Nicolau, K. 1967. ‘Archaeological News from Cyprus, 1966.’ AJA 71: 399-
406.
Nielsen, T.H., and V. Gabrielsen. 2004. ‘Rhodos’. In An Inventory of
Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the
Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation,
edited by H.M. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen, 1196-210. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Niemeier, B., and W.-D. Niemeier. 2002. ‘Archaic Greek and Etruscan
Pottery.’ In Kempinski 2002: 223-42.
Niemeier, W.-D. 1999. ‘Die Zierde Ioniens: Ein archaischer Brunnen, der
jüngere Athenatempel und Milet vor der Perserzerstörung.’ AA: 373-
413.
Niemeier, W.-D. 2001. ‘Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and
Archaeological Evidence.’ BASOR 32: 11-32.
Niemeier, W.-D. 2002. ‘Greek Mercenaries at Tel Kabri and Other Sites in
the Levant.’ Tel Aviv 29: 328-31.
Niemeyer, H.G. 1988-90. ‘Die Griechen und die iberische Halbinsel: Zur
historischen Deutung der archäologischen Zeugnisse.’ HBA 15-7:
269-306.
Niemeyer, H.G. 2000. ‘The Early Phoenician City-States on the
Mediterranean: Archaeological Elements for their Description.’ In A
Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures: An Investigation
Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, edited by M.H. Hansen,
89-115. Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 21. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels
Forlag.
Niemeyer, H.G. 2004. ‘Phoenician or Greek: Is There a Reasonable Way
Out of the Al Mina Debate?’ Ancient West & East 3: 38-50.
Niemeyer, H.G., and R.F. Docter. 1993. ‘Die Grabung unter dem
Decumanus Maximus von Karthago: Vorbericht über die
Kampagnen 1986-1991.’ RM 100: 201-44.
Nijboer, A.J. 2005. ‘The Iron Age in the Mediterranean: A Chronological
Mess or ‘Trade before the Flag’, Part II.’ Ancient West & East 4: 254-77.
Nijboer, A.J., and J. van der Pflicht. 2006. ‘An Interpretation of the
Radiocarbon Determinations of the Oldest Indigenous-Phoenician
Stratum thus far, Excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (south-west
Spain).’ BABesch 81: 31-6
Nilsson, M.P. 1906. Griechische Feste. Leipzig: Teubner.
Nilsson, M.P. 1967. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 5.2, Vol. 1. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Nordström, H.-A., and J. Bourriau. 1993. ‘Ceramic Technology: Clays and
Fabrics.’ In An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, fasc. 2., edited
by D. Arnold and J. Bourriau, 147-86. Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, Abteilung Kairo Sonderschrift 17. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Oggiano, I. 2000. ‘La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero – SS).’ In
La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: Dati, problematiche, confronti, edited
by P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, 235-58. Rome: Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Olmos, R. 1989. ‘Los griegos en Tartessos: una nueva contrastación entre
las fuentes arqueológicas y las literarias. ‘ In Tartessos: Arqueología
protohistórica del Bajo Guadalquivir, edited by M.E. Aubet Semmler,
495-521. Sabadell: Editorial AUSA.
Oppermann, M. 2004. Die westpontischen Poleis und ihr indigenes Umfeld
in vorrömischer Zeit. Zentrum für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte
des Schwarzmeerraumes 2. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran.
Oren, E.D. 1984. ‘Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile
Delta.’ BASOR 256: 7-44.
Oren, E.D. 1993. ‘Northern Sinai’. In The New Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 4, edited by E. Stern. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Orlandini, P., and D. Adamesteanu. 1962. ‘Gela. L’acropoli di Gela.’ NSc
16: 340-408.
Orsi, P. 1918. ‘Gli scavi intorno a l’Athenaion di Siracusa negli anni 1912-
1917.’ MonAnt 25: 353-762.
Osborne, R. 2003. Review of Miletos: A History, by A.M. Greaves. CR 53:
139-41.
Osborne, R. 2004. Greek History. London, New York: Routledge.
Özer, B. 1998. ‘Datça Burgaz kazýlarýnda ele geçen arkaik dönem bezemeli
seramikleri.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Izmir.
Özer, B. 2004. ‘Clazomenian and Related Black-Figured Pottery from
Klazomenai: Preliminary Observations.’ In Ersoy et al. 2004: 199-219.
Özgünel, C. 1979. Carian Geometric Pottery 1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basýmevi.
Özkan, T. 1999. Ýzmir Arkeoloji Müzesi: Seramik Kataloðu. Izmir: T.C.
Kültür Bakanlýðý Anýtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü.
Bibliography
Özyið it, Ö. 1991. ‘1989 yýlý Phokaia kazý çalýþmalarý.’ In Kazý Sonuçlarý
Toplantýsý 12,1, edited by T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlýðý Eski Esler
ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü, 127-53. Ankara: Ankara Ünversitesi
Basýmevi.
Özyið it, Ö. 1992. ‘1990 yýlý Phokaia kazý çalýþmalarý.’ In Kazý Sonuçlarý
Toplantýsý 13,2, edited by T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlýðý Eski Esler
ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü, 99-122. Ankara: Ankara Ünversitesi
Basýmevi.
Özyið it, Ö. 1993: ‘1991 yýlý Phokaia kazý çalýþmalarý.‘ In Kazý Sonuçlarý
Toplantýsý 14,2, edtied by T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlýðý Eski Esler
ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüðü, 1-22. Ankara: Ankara Ünversitesi
Basýmevi.
Özyið it, Ö. 1994. ‘The City Walls of Phokaia.’ REA 96: 77-109.
Özyið it, Ö. 2004. ‘2002 yýlý Phokaia kazý çalýþmalarý.’ In Kazý Sonuçlarý
Toplantýsý 25,1, edited by K. Olþen, H. Dönmez and A. Özme, 441-53.
Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlýðý Dösim Basýmevi.
Padgett, J.M. 2003. The Centaur’s Smile. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Page Gasser, M. 2001. Götter bewohnten Ägypten: Bronzefiguren der
Sammlungen ‘Bibel+Orient’ der Universität Freiburg Schweiz.
Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Palagia, O. 1988. ‘Herakles: C. Classical and Hellenistic Greek, and
Roman. Commentary.’ In LIMC 4,1, edited by L. Kahil, 738-96. Zürich
and Munich: Artemis Verlag.
Pallottino, M. 1963. ‘Les relations entre les Etrusques et Carthage du VIIe
au IIe siècle avant J.C. Nouvelles données et essai de périodisation.’
CahTun 11: 23-8 (= Pallottino, M. 1979. Saggi di antichità 1, 371-6.
Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider).
Pallottino, M. 1966. ‘II.’ In Rapporti tra Greci, Fenici, Etruschi ed altre
popolazioni italiche alla luce delle nuove scoperte, edited by S. Moscati
and M. Pallottino, 11-6. Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura,
quaderno 87. Rome: Accademia dei Lincei (= Pallottino, M. 1979.
Saggi di antichità 1, 391-7. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider).
Pallottino, M. ed. 1992. Gli Etruschi e l’Europa: Catalogo della mostra.
Milan: Fabbri.
Pancucci, D., and M.C. Naro. 1992. Monte Bubbonìa: Campagne di scavo
1905, 1906, 1955. Sikelika 4. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Panteleon, I.A. 2005. ‘Funde aus Milet: XVI. Zum Schicksal der am Ort
verbliebenen Funde der Wiegandschen Grabung nach 1914.’ AA
2005,2: 27-39.
Panvini, R. 1997. ‘La nave greca di Gela.’ In Omaggio a Gela, edited by D.
Adamesteanu, 127-37. Milan: Portoria Editrice.
Panvini, R. 2001. The Archaic Greek Ship at Gela and Preliminary
Exploration of a second Greek Shipwreck. Palermo: Salvatore Sciascia
Editore.
Panvini, R. ed. 2003. Caltanissetta: Il Museo Archeologico. Catalogo.
Palermo: Regione Siciliana.
Papadopoulos, J.K. 1997. ‘Phantom Euboians.’ JMA 10: 191-219.
Papadopoulos, J.K. 2005. ‘Inventing the Minoans: Archaeology,
Modernity and the Quest for European Identity.’ JMA 18: 87-149.
Parisi Presicce, C. 2003. ‘La città dei re di Cirene.’ LibSt 34: 9-24.
Parker, B.J. 2000. ‘The Earliest Known Reference to the Ionians.’ The
Ancient History Bulletin 14: 69-77.
Parker, R., and D. Obbink. 2000. ‘Aus der Arbeit der »Insciptiones
Graecae« VI: Sales of Priesthood on Cos 1.’ Chiron 30: 415-49.
Parpola, S., and M. Porter. 2001. The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the
Neo-Assyrian Period. Casco Bay: The Casco Bay Assyriological
Institute.
Paspalas, S.A. 1999. ‘A Lydian Oinochoe Identified.’ MeditArch 12: 89-93.
Passaro, C., and G. Ciaccia. 2000. ‘Cales: la necropoli dall’Orientalizzante
recente all’età ellenistica.’ In Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti: In occasione
della Mostra ‘Italia dei Sanniti’, Roma, Museo Nazionale Romano,
Terme di Diocleziano, 14 gennaio–19 marzo 2000, edited by R.
Cappelli, 20-5. Milan: Electa.
Paton, W.R. 1887. ‘Excavations in Caria.’ JHS 8: 64-82.
Paul, E. 1988. ‘B 7.35. Infundibulum.’ In Die Welt der Etrusker:
Archäologische Denkmäler aus Museen der sozialistischen Länder,
Staatlische Museen zu Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR, Altes Museum vom
4. Oktober bis 30. Dezember 1988, edited by J. Brosig, 191. Berlin:
Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft.
Payne, H.G.G. 1931. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the
Archaic Period. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Payne, H.G.G. 1940. Perachora: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and
Limenia 1. Architecture, Bronzes, Terracottas. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Pébarthe, C. 2005. ‘Lindos, l'Hellénion et Naucratis.’ Topoi 12/13: 157-81.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 227
Bibliography
Pedersen, P. 2004. ‘Pergamon and the Ionian Renaissance.’ IstMitt 54:
409-34.
Pemberton, E.G. 1989. Corinth 18.1. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore:
The Greek Pottery. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at
Athens.
Pemberton, E.G., and A.Villing. Forthcoming. ‘Corinthian Mortaria,
Form and Function.’ Hesperia.
Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1930. Aigyptiaca: A Catalogue of Egyptian Objects in the
Aegean Area. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, P. Forthcoming. Etruscan Bucchero in the Collections of the British
Museum. British Museum Research Publication no. 165. London: the
Trustees of the British Museum.
Perlman, I., and F. Asaro 1969. ‘Pottery Analysis by Neutron Activation.’
Archaeometry 11: 21-52.
Pernier, L. 1931 [1932]. ‘L’Artemision di Cirene.’ AfrIt 4: 173-228.
Pernier, L. 1935. Il tempio e l’altare di Apollo a Cirene. Bergamo: Istituto
italiano d’arti grafiche.
Perpillou-Thomas, F. 1992. ‘Une bouillie de céréales: l’Athèra.’ Aegyptus
72: 103-10.
Perreault, J.Y. 1993. ‘Les emporia grecs du Levant: mythe ou réalité?’ In
L’emporion, edited by A. Bresson and P. Rouillard, 59-81. Publications
du Centre Pierre Paris 26. Paris: Publications du Centre Pierre.
Peserico, A. 1999. ‘Pottery Production and Circulation in the Phoenician
and Punic Mediterranean. A Study on Open Forms.’ In Phoenicians
and Carthaginians in the Western Mediterranean, edited by G. Pisano,
125-35. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma ‘Tor Vergata’.
Peserico, A. 2002. Die offenen Formen der Red Slip Ware aus Karthago:
Untersuchungen zur phönizischen Keramik im westlichen Mittelmeer.
Hamburger Werkstattreihe zur Archäologie 5. Münster: Lit.
Petersen, E. 1903. ‘Aus dem französischen Afrika.’ AA: 13-29.
Petrakos, B.C. 1968. 9O Wrwpo/j kai/ to/ (iero/n tou= Amfiara/ou.
Biblioqh/kh th=j )en )Aqh/naij )Arxaiologikh=j (Etairei/aj 63.
Athens: )Arxaiologikh 9Etairei/a.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1885. ‘The Discovery of Naukratis.’ JHS 6: 202-6.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1886a. ‘The Finding of Naukratis.’ Archaeological
Journal 43: 45-51.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1886b [2nd edn. 1888]. Naukratis 1: 1884-5. Third
Memoir of The EEF. London: Trübner & Co.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1888. Tanis 2: Nebesheh (Am) and Defenneh
(Tahpanhes). London: Trübner & Co.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1891a [2nd edn 1893]. Ten Years’ Digging in Egypt,
1881-1891. London: The Religious Tract Society.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1891b. Tell el-Hesy (Lachish). London: A.P. Watt.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders, and J.G. Duncan. 1906. Hyksos and Israelite Cities.
London: School of Archaeology in Egypt/ Bernard Quaritch.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1909. Qurneh. London: School of Archaeology in
Egypt, University College and Bernard Quaritch.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1915. Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa. London:
School of Archaeology in Egypt/Bernard Quaritch.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1923. Seventy Years in Archaeology. Rep. 1969 New
York: Greenwood Press.
Petropoulos, E.K. 2003. ‘Problems in the History and Archaeology of the
Greek Colonization of the Black Sea.’ In Grammenos and
Petropoulos 2003: 17-94.
Pfisterer-Haas, S. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: VI. Die Importkeramik.’ AA:
263-71.
Pfuhl, E. 1903. ‘Der archaische Friedhof am Stadtberge von Thera.’ AM
28: 1-290.
Piekarski, D. 2001a. ‘Die Keramik aus Naukratis im Akademischen
Kunstmuseum Bonn.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 95-110.
Piekarski, D. 2001b. Die Keramik aus Naukratis im Akademischen
Kunstmuseum Bonn. Bonner Sammlung von Aegyptiaca, 4.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Pilides, D. 2005. ‘Storage Jars and Cooking Pots: Implications and Social
Significance.’ In Cyprus: Religion and Society from the Late Bronze Age
to the End of the Archaic Period, edited by V. Karageorghis, H.
Matthäus and S. Rogge, 171-82. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.
Pipili, M. 1987. Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century bc. Oxford:
Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
Pippidi, D.M. 1983. Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae 1:
Inscriptiones Histriae et viciniae. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1994. L’Aphrodite grecque. Kernos suppl. 4. Athens,
Liège: Centre International d’Etude de la Religion Grecque Antique.
Pisani, M. 2003. ‘Vita quotidiana nel mondo greco tra il VI e il V secolo
a.C. Un contributo per la classificazione delle rappresentazioni
fittili.’ Bolletino d’Arte 123: 3-24.
Pisano, G., ed. 1999. Phoenicians and Carthaginians in the Western
228 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Mediterranean. Studia Punica 12. Rome: II Università di Roma.
Pittau, M. 1996. ‘Gli Etruschi e Cartagine: i documenti epigrafici.’ In
L’Africa romana: Atti dell’XI Convegno di studio, Cartagine 15-18
dicembre 1994, edited by M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggeri and C. Vismara,
1657-74. Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di storia dell’Università
degli studi di Sassari 28. Ozieri: Editrice Il Torchietto.
Ploug, G. 1973. Sūkās II: The Aegean, Corinthian and Eastern Greek Pottery
and Terracottas. Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to
Phoenicia 2. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab,
Historisk-Filosofiske Skrifte 6.2. København: Munksgaard.
Politis, L.N. 1939. ‘ 0Anaskafai\ )en )Ikari/a|.’ Prakt: 124-38.
Popham, M.R., and I.S. Lemos. 1996. Lefkandi III: The Toumba Cemetery.
The Excavations of 1981, 1984, 1986 and 1992-4. BSA suppl. 29.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Popham, M.R., E. Touloupa, and L.H. Sackett. 1982. ‘Further Excavation
of the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi, 1981.’ BSA 77: 213-48.
Popovic, L.B. 1975. Archaic Greek Culture in the Middle Balkans. Beograd:
Narodni Muzej.
Posamentir, R. 2002. ‘Funde aus Milet: XII. Beobachtungen zu
archaischen Deckeln. Tierfries und ‘Graue Ware’.’ AA: 9-26.
Posamentir, R. 2006, January. Review of Miletos: A History, by A.M.
Greaves. AJA 101.1 (2006). http://www.ajaonline.org/pdfs/
book_reviews/110.1/AJA1101_Posamentir.pdf (15 February 2006).
Posamentir, R., and S. Solovyov. 2006. ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung
archaischer ostgriechischer Keramik: Die Funde aus Berezan in der
Eremitage von St. Petersburg.’ IstMitt 56 (forthcoming).
Posener, G. 1947. ‘Les douanes de la Méditerranée dans l'Egypte saïte.’
RPhil 21: 117-31.
Pottier, E., S. Reinach, and A. Veyries. 1887. La nécropole de Myrina. Paris:
E. Thorin.
Poulsen, B. 2002. ‘Genucilia-Small Plate with a large Range.’ In Pots for
the Living, Pots for the Dead, edited by A. Rathje, M. Nielsen and B.
Bundgaard Rasmussen, 83-100. Acta Hyperborea 9. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum Press University of Copenhagen.
Pressl, D.A. 1998. Beamten und Soldaten. Die Verwaltung in der 26.
Dynastie in Ägypten (664-525 v. Chr). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Price, E.R. 1924. ‘Pottery of Naukratis.’ JHS 44: 180-222.
Price, E.R. 1928. ‘East Greek Pottery: Orientalizing Style (Seventh and
Sixth Centuries bc).’ In Classification des céramiques antiques 13,
edited by C. Dugas. Macon: Union académie internationale.
Price, E.R. 1931. s. In Beazley et al. 1931.
Prins de Jong, E.F. 1925. ‘Scherben aus Naukratis aus der Sammlung des
Universitäts-Professors Dr. Fr. W. Freiherr von Bissing.’ Ph.D. diss.,
Utrecht University.
Prinz, H. 1908. Funde aus Naukratis: Beiträge zur Archäologie und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte des 7. und 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Klio-BH 7.
Leipzig: Dieterich.
Psaropoulou, B. 1996. Last Potters of the East Aegean. Nauplion:
Peloponnesian Folklore Foundation.
Pugliese Carratelli, G., ed. 1986. Rasennua: Storia e civiltà degli Etruschi.
Milan: Scheiwiller.
Purcaro, V. 1976. ‘Le rotte antiche tra la Grecia e la Cirenaica e gli itinerari
marittimi e terrestri lungo le coste della Grande Sirte.’ QAL 8: 285-
352.
Purcell, N. 2003. ‘The Boundless Sea of Unlikeness? On Defining the
Mediterranean.’ Mediterranean Historical Review 18: 9-29.
Quaegebeur, J. 1987. ‘Une statue égyptienne représentant Héraclès-
Melquart?’ In Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the first
millennium bc: Proceedings of the conference held in Leuven from the
14th to the 16th of November 1985, edited by E. Lipiński, 157-166.
Studia Phoenicia 5. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 22. Leuven:
Peeters.
Raaflaub, K.A. 2004a. ‘Archaic Greek Aristocrats as Carriers of Cultural
Interaction.’ In Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World:
Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Proceedings of the
Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual
Heritage Project, held in Innsbruck October 3rd-8th 2002, edited by R.
Rollinger and Ch. Ulf, 197-217. Melammu Symposia 5. Oriens et
Occidens 6. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Raaflaub, K.A. 2004b. ‘Zwischen Ost und West: Phönizische Einflüsse auf
die griechische Polisbildung?’ In Griechische Archaik: Interne
Entwicklungen – Externe Impulse, edited by R. Rollinger and Ch. Ulf,
291-310. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Raast, W.E. 1978. Taanach I. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge,
Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Radet, G. 1893. La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des Mermnades (687-
546). Paris: Thorin and Fils.

Radwan, A. 1983. Die Kupfer- und Bronzegefäße Ägyptens (Von den
Anfängen bis zum Beginn der Spätzeit). Prähistorische Bronzefunde,
Abt. 2.2. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Rallo, A. 1976/7. ‘Scavi e ricerche nella città antica di Selinunte. ‘ Kokalos
22/3: 720-33.
Ramsay, W.M. 1881. ‘Contributions to the History of Southern Aeolis II:
Myrina, Larissa, Neonteichos, Temnos, and Aegae. ‘ JHS 2: 271-308.
Rasmussen, T. 1979. Bucchero Pottery from Southern Etruria. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rautmann, A.E. ‘Ceramic Petrography Report.’ In Tel Anafa 2.1. The
Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, edited by S.C. Herbert, 212-35.
Journal of Roman archaeology, Suppl. 10,2,1. Ann Arbor: Kelsey
Museum of Ancient and Medieval Archaeology.
Rayet, O. 1884. ‘Vase antique trouvé dans la nécropole de Myrina. ‘ BCH 8:
509-14.
Reed, C.M. 2004. Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reeder, E., ed. 1999. Scythian Gold: Treasures from Ancient Ukraine. New
York: Harry N. Abrams.
Rehm, A. 1914. ‘Die Inschriften’. In Milet 1.3. Das Delphinion in Milet,
edited by G. Kawerau and A. Rehm. Berlin: Mann.
Reinach, S. 1889. ‘Statues archaiques de Cybèle découvertes à Cymé
(Eolide).’ BCH 13: 543-60.
Reusser, C. 1986. Testimonianze d’arte etrusca in collezioni private ticinesi.
Lugano: Banca della Svizzera Italiana.
Riis, P.J. 1970. Su-ka-s 1: The North-Eastern Sanctuary and the First Settling
of Greeks in Syria and Palestine. Publications of the Carlsberg
Expedition to Phoenicia 1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Riis, P.J. 1998. Vulcientia vetustiora: A Study of Archaic Vulcian Bronzes.
Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-filosofiske
Skrifter 19. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Rix, H., ed. 1991. ET Etruskische Texte 1-2. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Rizza, G. 1960. ‘Stipe votiva di un santuario di Demetra a Catania. ‘BdA
45: 247-62.
Rizza, G. 2003. ‘Scoperta di un santuario dei Dioscuri a Lentini.’ RendLinc
(s. 9) 14,4: 537-68.
Rizza, S. 2000. Studi sulle fortificazioni greche di Leontini. Studi e
Materiali di Archeologia Greca 7. Catania: Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche/Centro di Studio sull’ Archeologia Greca.
Robert, F. 1952. Délos 20. Trois sanctuaires sur le rivage occidental:
Dioscurion, Asclepiéion, sanctuaire anonyme (Leucothion?). Paris:
Boccard.
Robinson, D.M. 1941. Olynthus 10. Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Roebuck, C. 1950. ‘The Grain Trade Between Greece and Egypt.’ CP 45:
236-47.
Roebuck, C. 1951. Corinth 14. The Asklepieion and Lerna. Princeton:
American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Roll, I., and O. Tal, eds. 1999. Apollonia-Arsuf: Final Report of the
Excavations 1: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods (with Appendices on
the Chalcolithic and Iron Age II Remains). Tel Aviv University, Institute
of Archaeology Monograph Series 16. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire
Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Rolland, H. 1964. ‘Saint-Blaise.’ Gallia 22: 569-72.
Rolley, C. 1984. Die griechischen Bronzen. Munich: Hirmer.
Rolley, C. 1994. La sculpture grecque: 1 Des origines au milieu du Ve siècle.
Paris: Picard éditeur.
Rollinger, R. 2001. ‘The Ancient Greeks and the Impact of the Ancient
Near East: Textual Evidence and Historical Perspective.’ In
Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to
Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium
of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project held in
Paris, October 4-7, 1999, edited by R.M. Whiting, 233-64. Melammu
Symposia 2. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Romito, M. 1995. I cinturoni sannitici. Materiae 4. Napoli: Electa.
Romualdi, A. 1989/90 [1991]. ‘Luoghi di culto e depositi votivi
nell’Etruria settentrionale in epoca arcaica: considerazioni sulla
tipologia e sul significato delle offerte votive.’ Scienze dell’Antichità.
Storia, Archeologia, Antropologia 3/4: 619-50.
Romualdi, A. ed. 2001. Le rotte nel Mare Tirreno: Populonia e l’emporio di
Aleria in Corsica. Catalogo della mostra. Suvereto: Isografiche.
Roncalli, F. 1980a. ‘Carbasinis voluminibus implicati libri: Osservazioni
sul liber linteus di Zagabria.’ JdI 95: 227-64.
Roncalli, F. 1980b. ‘Osservazioni sui libri lintei etruschi.’RendPontAcc
51/2: 3-21.
Roncalli, F. 1985. ‘Il Liber Linteus di Zagabria.’ In Scrivere Etrusco:
Catalogo della mostra, 17-64, 88. Milan: Electa.
Bibliography
Roselli, A. 2001. ‘Breve storia del silfio.’ AION n.s. 8: 11-20.
Rouillard, P. 1985. ‘Note préliminaire sur la céramique grecque, étrusque
et campanienne de la fouille du Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier, Mission de
l’I.F.A.O., Karnak Nord’. Bulletin de liaison du Groupe International
d’Etude de la Céramique Egyptienne 10: 22-4.
Rowe, A. 1956. The Round, Rectangular, Stepped and Rock-Cut Tombs at
Cyrene: Cyrenaican Expeditions of the University of Manchester 1952.
Manchester: University Press.
Rückert, B., and F. Kolb, eds. 2003. Probleme der Keramikchronologie des
südlichen und westlichen Kleinasiens in geometrischer und archaischer
Zeit. Antiquitas 3. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Rumpf, A.A. 1933. ‘Zu den klazomenischen Denkmälern.’ JdI 48: 55-83.
Rumscheid, F., ed. Forthcoming. Die Karer und die Anderen: Akten des
Internationalen Kolloquiums in Berlin, 23.-25. November 2005.
Rupp, D.W. 2005. ‘Transmission and Assimilation in Context: An
Economic Model for the Selection and Use of Greek and Phoenician
Ceramic Imports in 8th Century bc Cypriot Society.’ In Clarke 2005:
48-58.
Rusiaeva, A.S. 1978. ‘Orfizm i kul’t Dionisa v Ol’vii. ‘ VDI 143.1: 87-104.
Rusiaeva, A.S. 1992. Religiia i kul’ty antichnoýv Ol’vii. Kiev: Naukova
Dumka.
Rusiaeva, A.S. 1999. ‘Les temene d’Olbia à la lumière de son histoire au
VIe s. av.n.è.’ In Religions du Pont-Euxin: Actes du VIIIe Symposium de
Vani (Colchide)- 1997, edited by A. Fraysse and E. Geny, 75-84.
Besançon: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comptoises.
Saggs, H.W.F. 2001. The Nimrud Letters, 1952. Cuneiform Texts from
Nimrud 5. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Þahin, M. 2003. Hellenistische Kohlenbecken mit figürlich verzierten
Attaschen aus Knidos. Knidos-Studien 1. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.
Sahlins, M. 2005. ‘Structural Work: How Microhistories become
Macrohistories and vice versa.’ Anthropological Theory 5: 5-30.
Saioni, M., ed. 2003. Appunti d’artista: L’inventario dei Musei Civici di
Perugia compilato da Walter Briziarelli. Perugia: Fabbri.
Salinas, A. 1884. ‘Memoria del prof. A. Salinas, intorno agli oggetti
rinvenuti negli scavi eseguiti a Selinunte nel 1883, e ora depositati nel
Museo di Palermo.’ NSc: 325-36.
Salles, J.F. 1980. ‘Le niveau 4.’ In Tell Keisan (1971-1976): Une cité
phénicienne en Galilée, edited by J. Briend and J.P. Humbert, 131-56.
Orbis Biblicus et Orientales, Series Archaeologica 1.
Freiburg/Schweiz, Göttingen, Paris: Gabalda.
Salles, J.F. 1983. Kition-Bamboula 2. Les égouts de la ville classique. Maison
de l’Orient méditerranéen. Mémoires, 27. Paris: Editions Recherche
sur les Civilisations.
Salles, J.F. 1985. ‘Cuvettes et ‘mortiers’ du Levant au 1er millenaire avant
J.C.’ In De l’Indus aux Balkans: Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes,
edited by J.L. Huot, M. Yon and Y. Calvet, 199-212. Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Salles, J.F. 1991. ‘Du blé, de l’huile et du vin… (Notes sur les échanges
commerciaux en Méditerranée orientale vers le milieu du 1er
millénaire av. J.-C.).’ In Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt:
Old Cultures in a New Empire, edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and
A. Kuhrt, 207-35. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten.
Salles, J.F. 1993. Kition-Bamboula 4: Les niveaux hellénistique. Paris:
Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Salles, J.F., and C. Rey. 1993. ‘Le basin 417.’ In Salles 1993: 227-59.
Saltz, D.L. 1978. ‘Greek Geometric Pottery in the East: The Chronological
Implications.’ Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
Santucci, A. 1998. ‘Il Santuario dell’Anax nell’Agorà di Cirene.’ In La
Cirenaica in età antica: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi,
Macerata 18-20 maggio 1995, edited by E. Catani and S.M. Marengo,
523-35. Macerata-Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.
Santucci, A. Forthcoming. ‘Un deposito votivo nell’Agorà di Cirene.’ In
Cirene e la Cirenaica nell’Antichità: Convegno Internazionale di Studi,
Roma-Frascati 18-21 dicembre 1996.
Sapin, J. 1998. ‘Mortaria: Un lot inedit de Tell Keisan. Essai
d’interpretation fonctionnelle.’ Transeuphratène 16: 87-120.
Sarikakis, T.C. 1989. Xiakh/ Proswpografi&a. Athens: s.n.
Sass, B. 2002. ‘Wenamun and His Levant – 1075 bc or 925 bc?’ Ägypten
und Levante 12: 247-55.
Sass, B. 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic
Alphabet c. 1150–850 bce. The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and
Phrygian Alphabets. Occasional Publication of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 4. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology.
Sauer, H. 1937. ‘Ein etruskisches Infundibulum in Kopenhagen.’ AA: 285-
308.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 229
Bibliography
Scardigli, B. 1991. I trattati romano-cartaginesi. Pisa: Scuola Normale
Superiore.
Schäfer, H. 1908. Priestergräber und andere Grabfunde vom Ende des Alten
Reiches bis zur griechischen Zeit vom Totentempel des Ne-User-Rê.
Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Schattner, T.G. 1996. ‘Die Fundkeramik.’ In Tuchelt 1996: 163-216.
Schattner, T.G. 1992. ‘Frühe Keramik I: Allgemeine Probleme
Leitformen.’ In Didyma Wegweiser: Ausgrabungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts 26. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut.
Schattner, T.G. 2003. ‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Bearbeitung
geometrisch-archaischer Fundkeramik am Beispiel Didymas.’ In
Rückert and Kolb 2003: 61-7.
Schattner, T.G., and N. Dürring. 1995. ‘Zur Apries Amphora.’ JdI 110: 65-
93.
Schauenburg, K. 1954. CVA Heidelberg, Universität 1. Munich: Beck
Verlag.
Schaus, G.P. 1979. ‘A Foreign Vase Painter in Sparta.’ AJA 83: 102-6.
Schaus, G.P. 1980. ‘Greek Trade along the North African Coast in the
Sixth Century bc.’ Scripta Mediterranea 1: 21-7.
Schaus, G.P. 1983. ‘Two Notes on Lakonian Vases.’ AJA 87: 85-9.
Schaus, G.P. 1985a. ‘The East Greek, Island and Laconian Pottery.’ In The
Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya:
Final Reports 2, edited by D. White. Philadelphia: The University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Schaus, G.P. 1985b. ‘The Evidence for Laconians in Cyrenaica in the
Archaic Period.’ In Cyrenaica in Antiquity: Papers presented at the
Colloquium on Society and Economy in Cyrenaica, Cambridge
March–April 1983, edited by G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 395-
403. BAR International Series 236. Oxford: BAR.
Schaus, G.P. 1986. ‘Two Fikellura Vase Painters.’ BSA 81: 251-95.
Schaus, G.P. 1988. ‘The Beginning of Greek Polychrome Painting.’ JHS
108: 107-17.
Schaus, G.P. 1992. ‘Archaic Imported Fine Wares from the Acropolis,
Mytilene.’ Hesperia 61: 355-74.
Schaus, G.P. 1995. CVA Philadelphia Pennsylvania, The University Museum
2. Philadelphia: University Museum.
Schaus, G.P. 1996: ‘The Distribution of Chian and Fikellura Pottery in
East Greece.’ Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 15:
30-42.
Schefold, K. 1933. ‘Arbeiten in Larisa 1932 und Frühjahr 1933.’ AA: 141-58.
Schefold, K. 1942. ‘Knidische Vasen und Verwandtes.’ JdI 57: 124-42.
Schefold, K. 1964. Frühgriechische Sagenbilder. Munich: Hirmer.
Schefold, K. 1966. Führer durch das Antikenmuseum Basel. Basel:
Antikenmuseum Basel.
Schefold, K. 1978. Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der
spätarchaischen Kunst. Munich: Hirmer.
Schefold, K. 1993. Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der früh- und
hocharchaischen Kunst. Munich: Hirmer.
Scheurleer, C.W. Lunsingh. 1931. CVA La Hague, Musée Scheurleer 2. Paris:
Champion.
Schiering, W. 1957. Werkstätten orientalisierender Keramik auf Rhodos.
Berlin: Gebrüder Mann.
Schiering, W. 1967. ‘Zweihundert Jahre Göttinger Archäologische
Sammlungen: 4. Tongefäße. Varia.’ AA: 431-4.
Schiering, W. 1979. ‘Milet: Eine Erweiterung der Grabung östlich des
Athenatempels.’ IstMitt 29: 77-108.
Schiering, W. 1981-3 [1989]. ‘Ein Tierfrieskessel aus Pyrrha auf Lesbos.’
Anadolu 22: 201-10.
Schiering, W. 1989. ‘Pyrrha auf Lesbos: Nachlese einer Grabung.’ AA:
339-77.
Schindler, M.P. 1998. Der Depotfund von Arbedo TI und die
Bronzedepotfunde des Alpenraums vom 6. bis zum Beginn des 4. Jh. v.
Chr. Antiqua 30. Basel: Verlag Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur-
und Frühgeschichte.
Schipper, B.U. 2005. Die Erzählung des Wenamun: Ein Literaturwerk im
Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion. Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 209. Fribourg: Academic Press.
Schleiffenbaum, H.E. 1991. Der griechische Volutenkrater. Frankfurt,
Bern, New York, Paris: Peter Lang Verlag.
Schlotzhauer, U. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: IV. Beobachtungen zu
Trinkgefäßen des Fikellurastils.’ AA: 223-39.
Schlotzhauer, U. 2000. ‘Die südionischen Knickrandschalen: Formen
und Entwicklung der sog. Ionischen Schalen in archaischer Zeit.’ In
Krinzinger 2000: 407-16.
Schlotzhauer, U. 2001a. ‘Ausgewählte ostgriechische Keramik aus
Naukratis im Blickwinkel neuer Forschungen.’ In Höckmann and
230 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Kreikenbom 2001: 111-26.
Schlotzhauer, U. 2001b. ‘Die südionischen Knickrandschalen: Eine
chronologische Untersuchung zu den sog. Ionischen Schalen in
Milet.’ Ph.D. diss., Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
Schlotzhauer, U. 2006. ‘Griechen in der Fremde: Wer weihte in die
Filialheiligtümer der Samier und Milesier in Naukratis?’ In Naso
2006: 292-320.
Schlotzhauer, U. Forthcoming a. ‘Ostgriechische koroplastisch gestaltete
Gesichts- und Kopfgefäße aus milesischen Werkstätten.’ In Biering et
al. (forthcoming).
Schlotzhauer, U. Forthcoming b. ‘Zum Verhältnis zwischen sog. Tierfries-
und Fikellurastil (SiA I und II) in Milet. ‘ In Cobet et al.
(forthcoming).
Schlotzhauer, U., and S. Weber. 2005. ‘Griechenland – Ägypten:
Verschiedene Aspekte griechischer Keramik aus Ägypten des 6. Jhs.
v. Chr.’ In Prozesse des Wandels in historischen Spannungsfeldern
Nordostafrikas/Westasiens: Akten zum 2. Symposium des SFB 295
Mainz, edited by W. Bisang, T. Bierschenk and U. Verhoeven, 69-114.
Kulturelle und Sprachliche Kontakte 2. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.
Schlotzhauer, U., and S. Weber. Forthcoming. Griechische Keramik des 7.
und 6. Jahrhunderts aus Naukratis und anderen Orten in Ägypten.
Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis 3. Worms: Wernersche
Verlagsgesellschaft.
Schmaltz, B. 2003. ‘Frühe lokale Ware in Kaunos.’ In Rückert and Kolb
2003: 37-42.
Schmaltz, B., and M. Söldner, eds. 2003. Griechische Keramik im
kulturellen Kontext: Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions in
Kiel vom 24.-28.9.2001 veranstaltet durch das Archäologische Institut
der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Münster: Scriptorium.
Schmidt, G. 1968. Samos 7. Kyprische Bildwerke aus dem Heraion von
Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Schmidt, J. 1916-24. ‘Typhon.’ In Roscher 5, 1426-54. Leipzig: Teubner.
Schmitt Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet: Histoire des repas publics dans
les cités grecques. Rome: Ecole française de Rome.
Schneider, C. 1999. Die Musengruppe von Milet. Milesische Forschungen
1. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Scholl, R. 1997. ‘Phylen und Buleuten in Naukratis: Ein neues Fragment
zur Inschrift SB VIII 9747’. In Tyche 12: 213-28.
Scholtz, A. 2002/3. ‘Aphrodite Pandemos at Naukratis.’ In GRBS 43: 231-
42.
Schreiber, N. 2003. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age. Culture
and History of the Ancient Near East 13. Leiden: Brill.
Schröder, B. 1914. Griechische Bronzeeimer im Berliner Antiquarium.
BWPr. 74. Berlin: Reimer.
Schwartz, J., and H. Wild. 1950. Qasr-Qarun/Dionysias 1948. Fouilles
franco-suisses, rapports 1. Kairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français
d’archéologie orientale.
Schwedt, A., V. Aravantinos, A. Harami, V. Kilikoglou, M. Kylafi, H.
Mommsen, and N. Zacharias. 2005. ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of
Hellenistic Pottery from Boeotia, Greece.’ JAS 33: 1065-74.
Schwedt, A., and H. Mommsen. Forthcoming. ‘On the Influence of
Drying and Firing of Clays on the Formation of Trace Element
Concentration Profiles within Pottery.’ Archaeometry.
Schwedt, A., H. Mommsen, and N. Zacharias. 2004. ‘Post-depositional
Elemental Alterations in Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis of
Surface Samples.’ Archaeometry 46: 85-101.
Schwyzer, E. 1959. Griechische Grammatik. 2nd edn. Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 2.1,2. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Seeber, C. 1976. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Totengerichts im Alten
Ägypten. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 35. Munich, Berlin:
Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Seifert, M. 1991. ‘Ein Töpferofen vor der Stadtmauer.’ In Graeve et al.
1991: 134-6.
Seifert, M. 1998. ‘Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen an einer Gruppe von
Fikellura-Amphoren.’ In Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der
antiken Welt: Festschrift für Hans Georg Niemeyer, edited by R. Rolle,
K. Schmidt and R.F. Docter, 131-41. Veröffentlichungen der Joachim-
Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg 87. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Seifert, M. 2004. Herkunftsbestimmung archaischer Keramik am Beispiel
von Amphoren aus Milet. BAR International Series 1233. Oxford: John
and Erica Hedges.
Seifert, M., and Ü. Yalçýn. 1996. ‘Bemerkungen zum Export und Import
archaischer Amphoren aus Milet: Interdisziplinäre
Untersuchungen.’ In Arkeometri Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý 11, edited by I.
Eroðlu, N. Ülgen, H. Eren, F. Bayram, N. Tarlan, N. Tutlýcan, A.H.
Ergürer and Y. Morkaya, 117-38. Ankara: T.C. Kültüt Bakanlýðý Milli

Kütüphane Basýmevi.
Selesnow, W. 2002. ‘Funde aus Milet: XIII. Marmor und andere
Steinlampen.’ AA: 27-40.
Semeraro, G. 1990. ‘Metalli.’ In Archeologia dei Messapi: Catalogo della
mostra, edited by F. D’Andria, 89-90. Bari: Edipuglia.
Senatorov, S.N. 2005. ‘Local Pottery from the Colony on Berezan Island.’
In Borysthenes – Berezan: The Hermitage Archaeological Collection 1,
edited by S.L. Solovyov, 174-349. St. Petersburg: The Hermitage
Publishing House. (in Russian)
Senff, R. 1992. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Zeytintepe.’ In Graeve et al. 1992:
105-8.
Senff, R. 1995a. ‘Die Grabung am Kalabaktepe.’ In Graeve et al. 1995: 208-
13.
Senff, R. 1995b. ‘Sondierungen am Südhang des Mengerevtepe
(‘Assesos’).’ In Graeve et al. 1995: 224-8.
Senff, R. 1997a. ‘Arbeiten am Zeytintepe im Jahre 1994.’ In Graeve et al.
1997: 114-7.
Senff, R. 1997b. ‘Das Wohnviertel am Südhang des Kalabaktepe.’ In
Graeve et al. 1997: 118-20.
Senff, R. 1997c. ‘Die Grabung auf dem Gipfelplateau des Kalabaktepe
1995.’ In Graeve et al. 1997: 122-4.
Senff, R. 2000. ‘Die archaische Wohnbebauung am Kalabaktepe in Milet.’
In Krinzinger 2000: 29-37.
Senff, R. 2002. ‘Milet: Die archaische Stadt im Zentrum eines Handels-
und Kulturnetzes.’ In Stadtnetze: Veröffentlichungen der
Interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe Stadtkulturforschung 3, Symposium
22.-24.06.1995 Paris, edited by M. Jansen and J. Hook, 87-119.
Wissenschaftliche Schriften an der Fakultät für Architektur der
RWTH Aachen 7. Aachen: Verein der Freunde des Reiff.
Senff, R. 2003. ‘Das Aphroditeheiligtum von Milet.’ In Neue Forschungen
zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens, edited by G. Heedemann and E.
Winter, 11-25. Asia Minor Studien 49. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Senff, R. 2004. ‘Ein gebissener Held? Zur Statuette eines
Löwenbezwingers aus Milet.’ In Bildergeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus
Stähler, edited by J. Gebauer, E. Grabow, F. Jünger and D. Metzler,
443-50. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.
Senff, R. 2006. ‘Form and Function of Sanctuaries in Archaic Miletus.’
REA 108 (forthcoming).
Senff, R. Forthcoming. ‘Die Löwen der Aphrodite.’ In Biering et al.
(forthcoming).
Sevillia Cueva, C. 1993/4. ‘Naucratis: una ciudad griga en el antiguo
Egipto.’ In Homenaje a José M. Blázquez 1, edited by J. Mangas and J.
Alvar. ARYS 2. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Shapiro, H.A. 2000. ‘Modest Athletes and Liberated Women: Etruscans
on Attic Black-Figure Vases.’ In Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the
Construction of the Other in Greek Art, edited by B. Cohen, 313-37.
Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill.
Shaw, B.D. 2001. ‘Challenging Braudel: A New Vision of the
Mediterranean.’ JRA 14: 419-53.
Shaw, I., and P. Nicholson. 1995. ‘Beit el-Wali.’ In The British Museum
Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.
Shaya, J. 2005. ‘The Greek Temple as Museum.’ AJA 109: 423-42.
Shefton, B.B. 1962. ‘Chapter X. Other Non-Corinthian Vases.’ In
Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia 2, edited by
T.J. Dunbabin, 368-88. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shefton, B.B. 1970. ‘The Greek Museum, University of Newcastle upon
Tyne.’ AR 16: 52-62.
Shefton, B.B. 1989. ‘East Greek Influences in Sixth-Century Attic Vase
Painting and Some Laconian Trails.’ In Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty
Museum 4: 41-72. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum.
Shefton, B.B. 1996. ‘Castulo Cups in the Aegean, the Black Sea Area and
the Near East with the Respective Hinterland.’ In Sur les traces des
Argonautes: Proceedings of the sixth International Symposium on the
Ancient History of the Black Sea Littoral, Vani, Georgia 1990, edited by
A. Fraysse, E. Geny and T. Khartchilava, 163-85. Besançon, Paris:
Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté.
Sherratt, E.S. 2003. ‘Visible Writing: Questions of Script and Identity in
Early Iron Age Greece and Cyprus.’ OJA 22: 225-42.
Sherratt, E.S. 2005. ‘‘Ethnicities’, ‘Ethnonyms’ and Archaeological Labels.
Whose Ideologies and Whose Identities?’ In Clarke 2005: 25-38.
Sherratt, E.S., and A. Sherratt. 1998. ‘Small Worlds: Interaction and
Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean.’ In The Aegean and the Orient
in the Second Millennium, edited by E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline,
329-43. Aegaeum 18. Liège: Université de Liège.
Shipley, G. 1992. ‘Perioikos: The Discovery of Classical Lakonia.’ In
FILOLAKWN : Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling, edited
by J.M. Sanders, 211-26. London: The Managing Committee, British
Bibliography
School at Athens.
Shtitelman, F.M. 1977. Antique Art. Works of World Art in the Museums of
Ukraine. Kiev: Midteztvo.
Sidorova, N.A. 1962. ‘Arkhaicheskaia keramika iz Pantikapeia.’ In
Pantikapaeý , edited by I.B. Zeest and I.D. Marchenko, 94-148. MIA
v
103. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Sidorova, N.A. 1987. ‘Arkhaicheskaia keramika iz raskopok Germonassi.’
In Kul’tura i iskusstvo Bospora, edited by H.A. Sidorova and L.M.
Smirnova, 110-25. Soobshchenia Gosudarstvennogo muzeia
izobrazhitelnykh iskusstv imeni A.S. Pushkina 8. Moscow: Sovetskiý
v
Khudozhnik.
Sidorova, N.A. 1992. ‘Keramika Arkhaicheskogo perioda iz raskopok
Pantikapeia 1965-1985 gg. (Krome Atticheskoý Chernofigurnoýv).’ In
v
Arkheologiia i Iskusstvo Bospora, edited by D.I. Molok, 131-72.
Soobshchenia Gosudarstvennogo Muzeia Izobrazhitelnykh Iskucctv
Imena A.S. Pushkina 10. Moscow: Sovetskivý Khudozhnik.
Siegel, L.J. 1978. ‘Corinthian Trade in the Ninth through Sixth Centuries
bc.’ Ph.D. diss., Yale University.
Siewert, P. 1991. ‘Staatliche Weihungen von Kesseln und anderen
Bronzegeräten in Olympia.’ AM 106: 81-4.
Silanteva, L.F. 1959. ‘Nekropol’ Nimfeia.’ In Nekropol’ Bosporskikh
gorodov, edited by V.F. Gavýdukevicha, 5-107. MIA 69. Moscow,
Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Simantoni-Bournia, E. 1992. La ceramique à reliefs au musée de Chios.
Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens.
Simon, E. 1970. ‘Aphrodite Pandemos auf Attischen Münzen.’ SNR 40: 5-
19.
Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary.
Madison, London: University of Wisconsin Press.
Simon, E. 1997. ‘Silenoi.’ In LIMC 8, edited by L. Kahil, 1108-33. Zurich,
Düsseldorf: Artemis Verlag.
Skibo, J. 1992. Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. New York:
Plenum Press.
Skudnova, V.M. 1960. ‘Rodosskaia Keramika c o. Berezan’.’ SovArch 2:
153-67.
Skudnova, V.M. 1988. Arkhaicheskiý Nekropol’ Ol’vii. Leningrad:
v
Iskusstvo.
Smith, C.H., 1886. ‘VI. The Painted Pottery.’ In Petrie 1886b: 46-53.
Smoláriková, K. 2000. ‘The Great Temenos at Naukratis Once Again.’
Archiv orientální 68: 571-8.
Smoláriková, K. 2001. ‘Archaic East Greek Amphorae in the Tomb of the
Egyptian Dignitary Iufaa.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 163-
73.
Smoláriková, K. 2002. Abusir 7. Greek Imports in Egypt: Graeco-Egyptian
Relations during the First Millenium bc. Prague: Czech Institute of
Egyptology.
Snodgrass, A.M. 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment. Berkeley,
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Sokolowski, F. 1969. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris: E. de Boccard.
Solovyov, S.L. 1999. Ancient Berezan: The Architecture, History and
Culture of the First Greek Colony in the Northern Black Sea. Colloquia
Pontica 4. Leiden: Brill.
Solovyov, S.L. 2001. ‘The Archaeological Excavation of the Berezan
Settlement (1987-1991).’ In North Pontic Archaeology: Recent
Discoveries and Studies, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze, 117-41. Colloquia
Pontica 6. Leiden: Brill.
th
Solovyov, S.L. 2005. Borysthenes-Berezan: 120 Anniversary of
Archaeological Investigation of the Ancient Settlement on Berezan
Island. St. Petersburg: The Hermitage Publishing House. (in
Russian)
Sordi, M. 1995. Prospettive di storia etrusca. Como: Edizioni New Press.
Sørensen, L.W. 1997. ‘Traveling Pottery Connections Between Cyprus,
the Levant, and the Greek World in the Iron Age.’ In Res Maritimae:
Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late
Antiquity. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium ‘Cities
on the Sea’ Nicosia, Cyprus, 18-22 October 1994, edited by S. Swiny,
R.L. Hohlfelder and H.W. Swiny, 285-99. Cyprus American
Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series 1. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Sørensen, L.W. 2001. ‘Archaic Greek Painted Pottery from Cyprus,
Naukratis and Tell Defenneh.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001:
151-61.
Sourouzian, H., and R. Stadelmann. 2005. ‘Die ältesten Erwähnungen
von Ioniern und Danaern.’ AntW 2005.6: 79-83.
Spalinger, A. 1977. ‘Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey (c. 620 bc-550 bc).’
Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 5: 221-44.
Spalinger, A. 1978. ‘Psammetichus, King of Egypt: II.’ JARCE 15:49-57.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 231
Bibliography
Sparkes, B. 1962. ‘The Greek Kitchen.’ JHS 82: 121-37.
Sparkes, B. 1965. ‘The Greek Kitchen: Addenda.’ JHS 85: 162-3.
Sparkes, B.A., and L. Talcott. 1970. Agora 12. Black and Plain Pottery.
Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Spencer, A.J. 1996. Excavations at Tell El-Balamun 1991-1994. London:
British Museum Press.
Spencer, A.J. 1999. ‘Casemate Foundations Once Again.’ In Studies on
Ancient Egypt in Honour of H. S. Smith, edited by A. Leahy and J. Tait,
295-300. London: Egypt Exploration Society.
Spencer, N. 1995. ‘Early Lesbos between East and West: A ‘Grey Area’ of
Aegean Archaeology.’ BSA 90: 269-306.
Spencer, N. 2000. ‘Exchange and Statis in Archaic Mytilene.’ In Brock and
Hodkinson 2000: 68-81.
Srdocv, D., N. Horvatincv ić, I. Mirnik, and A. Rendić-Miocv ević. 1990.
‘Radiocarbon Dating of the Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis, an Etruscan
Linen Book.’ In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium
14
C and Archaeology, Groningen 1987, edited by W.G. Mook and H.T.
Waterbolk, 429-38. PACT 29. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe.
Stager, L.E. 1996. ‘Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev
604 bce.’ ErIsr 25: 61-74.
Stager, L.E. 2005. ‘Phoenician Shipwrecks and the Ship Tyre (Ezekiel 27).’
In Terra Marique: Studies in Art History and Marine Archaeology in
Honor of Anna Marguerite McCann on the Receipt of the Gold Medal of
the Archaeological Institute of America, edited by J. Pollini, 238-54.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Stampolidis, N.C., A. Karetsou, and A. Kanta, eds. 1998. Eastern
Mediterranean: Cyprus – Dodecanese – Crete 16th-6th cent. bc:
Proceedings of the International Symposium Rethymnon 13-16 May
1997. Athens: The University of Crete and The A.G. Leventis
Foundation.
Starke, F. 2000. ‘Miletos [2]: I. Geschichte.’ In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited by
H. Cancik and H. Schneider, 170-5. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Steinhart, M. 1995. Das Motiv des Auges in der griechischen Bildkunst.
Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Steinhart, M. 2003. ‘Literate and Wealthy Women in Archaic Greece:
Some Thoughts on the ‘Telesstas’ Hydria.’ In Poetry, Theory, Praxis:
Essays in Honour of William J. Slater, edited by E. Csapo and M.C.
Miller, 204-231. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Stern, E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian
Period. Warminster: Aris & Philips.
Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 2: The Assyrian,
Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–332 bce. New York: Anchor
Bible Reference Library.
Steuernagel, D. 1991. ‘Der gute Staatsbürger: Zur Interpretation des
Kouros.’ Hephaistos 10: 35-48.
Stevenson, C. 1890/1 [1892]. ‘On Certain Symbols Used in the Decoration
of Some Potsherds from Daphnae and Naukratis.’ Proceedings of the
Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, 72-121.
Stevenson, M.G. 1982. ‘Toward an Understanding of Site Abandonment
Behavior: Evidence from Historic Mining Camps in the Southwest
Yukon.’ JAnthArch 1: 237-65.
Stibbe, C.M. 1972. Lakonische Vasenmaler des sechsten Jahrhunderts v.
Chr. Amsterdam, London: North-Holland Publishing.
Stibbe, C.M. 1989. Laconian Mixing Bowls: A History of the krater
lakonikos from the Seventh to the Fifth Century bc. Laconian Black-
glazed Pottery, 1. Allard Pierson series Scripta Minora 2. Amsterdam:
Allard Pierson Museum.
Stika, H.P. 1997. ‘Pflanzenreste aus dem archaischen Milet: Vorbericht
zur Kampagne 1992.’ In Graeve et al. 1997: 157-63.
Stissi, V. 2003. ‘From Catalogue to Cultural Context: Bringing Life to
Greek Sanctuary Pottery.’ In Schmaltz and Söldner 2003: 77-79.
Strouhal, E. 1996. Life of the Ancient Egyptians. Liverpool: University
Press.
Stucchi, S. 1964. ‘La tomba a tumulo presso Messa in Cirenaica.’ LibAnt 1:
127-31.
Stucchi, S. 1965. L’Agorà di Cirene 1: I lati nord ed est della platea inferiore.
Monografie di archeologia libica 7. Rome: «L’ERMA» di
Bretschneider.
Stucchi, S. 1967. Cirene 1957-1966: Un decennio di attività della Missione
Archeologica Italiana a Cirene. Tripoli: Quaderni dell’istituto italiano
di cultura di Tripoli.
Stucchi, S. 1975. Architettura cirenaica. Monografie di archeologia libica
9. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Stucchi, S. 1984. ‘I vasi greci arcaici e la Cirenaica: importazioni,
imitazioni ed influenze.’ RendLinc 39: 161-71.
Stucchi, S. 1987. ‘La ceramica laconica e la coppa de Arkesilas.’ In Da Batto
Aristotele a Ibn El-’As: Introduzione alla mostra. Roma, Museo della
232 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
civiltà romana, 3 novembre–15 dicembre 1987, 29-34. Rome: «L’ERMA»
di Bretschneider.
Stucchi, S., and L. Bacchielli. 1983. L’Agorà di Cirene 2,4. Il lato sud della
platea inferiore e il lato nord della terrazza superiore. Monografie di
archeologia libica 17. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Stümpel, H., S. Wölz, P. Musmann, and W. Rabbel. 2005.
‘Geophysikalische Prospektion in Milet: Arbeiten in den Kampagnen
2000-2002.’ AA 2005,1: 223-39.
Sullivan, R.D. 1996. ‘Psammetichus I and the Foundation of Naukratis.’ In
Coulson 1996: 177-95.
Sweeney, J., ed. 1987. The Human Figure in Early Greek Art: Catalogue of
the Exhibition National Gallery of Art, Washington 31 January–12 June
1988. Athens, Washington: Greek Ministry of Culture, Washington,
National Gallery of Art.
Swift, K. 2003. ‘Coarse Pottery.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides
(Benghazi): Preliminary Report on the Spring 2003 Season.’ Libyan
Studies 34: 214-21.
Swift, K. 2005. ‘Coarse Pottery.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides 2005:
Preliminary Report on the Spring 2005 Season.’ Libyan Studies 36:
161-5.
Szilágyi, J.G. 1998. Ceramica Etrusco-Corinzia Figurata 2, 590/580–550
a.C. Monumenti etruschi 8. Florence: Olschki.
Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III, King of Assyria.
Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Tagliamonte, G. 1994. I figli di Marte: Mobilità, mercenari e mercenariato
italici in Magna Grecia e Sicilia. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Tagliamonte, G. 2004. ‘Il mercenariato italico nel mondo italiota del IV
sec. a.C.’ In Alessandro il Molosso e i ‘condottieri’ in Magna Grecia: Atti
del XLIII convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto-Cosenza 26-30
settembre 2003, 135-64. Napoli: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia
della Magna Grecia.
Tal, O. 1999. ‘The Persian Period.’ In Roll and Tal 1999: 83-222.
Tanner, J. 2003. ‘Finding the Egyptian in Early Greek Art.’ In Ancient
Perspectives on Egypt, edited by R. Matthews and C. Roemer, 115-43.
London: Institute of Archaeology, UCL Press.
Tarchi, U. 1936. L’arte etrusco-romana nell’Umbria e nella Sabina. Milan:
Fratelli Treves.
Tarditi, C. 1996. Vasi di bronzo in area Apula: produzioni greche ed italiche
di età arcaica e classica. Lecce: Congedo Editore.
Tausend, K. 1992. Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen
zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland.
Historia Einzelschriften 73. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Technau, W. 1929. ‘Griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion.’ AM 54:
6-64.
Teeter, E. 1994. ‘Bronze Votive Offering Tables.’ In For his Ka – Essays
Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, edited by D.P. Silverman, 255-65.
SAOC 55. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Tempesta, A. 1998. Le raffigurazioni mitologiche sulla ceramica greco-
orientale arcaica. RdA Suppl. 19. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Terrosi Zanco, O. 1974. ‘Possibili antiche vie commerciali tra l’Etruria e la
zona teramana.’ In Aspetti e problemi dell’Etruria interna: Atti dell’VIII
Convegno Nazionale di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Orvieto 27-30 giugno
1972, 161-84. Convegno nazionale di studi etruschi e italici 8.
Florence: Olschki.
Tetlock, P., and A. Belkin. 1996. ‘Counterfactual Thought Experiments in
World Politics.’ In Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World
Politics, edited by P. Tetlock and A. Belkin, 1-38. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Thalmann, J.P. 1977. ‘Céramique trouvée à Amathonte.’ In Gjerstad 1977:
65-86.
Thompson, D.J. 1995. ‘Food for Ptolemaic Temple Workers.’ In Wilkins et
al. 1995: 316-25.
Thompson, M., O. Mørkholm, and C.M. Kraay, eds. 1973. An Inventory of
Greek Coin Hoards. New York: The American Numismatic Society.
Thorn, J.C. 2005. The Necropolis of Cyrene: Two Hundred Years of
Exploration. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider
Thornton, B. 2000. Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western
Civilization. San Francisco: Encounter Books.
Thuillier, J.-P. 1985. ‘Nouvelles découvertes de bucchero à Carthage.’ In Il
commercio etrusco arcaico: Atti dell’incontro di studi, 5-7 dicembre
1983, edited by M. Cristofani: 155-63. QArchEtr 9. Rome: Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Tite, M.S. 1999. ‘Pottery Production, Distribution and Consumption – the
Contribution of the Physical Sciences.’ Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 6: 181-233.
Tite, M.S., and V. Kilikoglou. 2002. ‘Do We Understand Cooking Pots and
is there an Ideal Cooking Pot?’ In Modern Trends in Scientific Studies

on Ancient Ceramics: Papers presented at the 5th European Meeting on
Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999, edited by V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein and Y.
Maniatis, 1-8. BAR International Series 1011. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Todd, R.W. 1979. ‘Tondo Compositions of Pre-classical Plates: With
Special Consideration of the 7th and 6th Centuries bc.’ Ph.D. Diss.,
University of Colorado.
Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1974. Samos 14. Das Kastro Tigani. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf
Habelt.
v
Tolstoý, I.I. 1953. Grecheskie graffiti drevnikh gorodov severnogo
Prichernomor’ia. Moscow, St Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Tomedi, G. 2000. Italische Panzerplatten und Panzerscheiben.
Prähistorische Bronzefunde 3.3. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Torelli, M. 1982. ‘Per la definizione del commercio greco-orientale: il caso
di Gravisca.’ PP 37: 305-25.
Torelli. M., ed. 2000. The Etruscans. Milan: Bompiani.
Torr, C.M. 1894. ‘Navires sur les vases du Dipylon.’ RA 25: 14-27.
Torres Ortiz, M. 1998. ‘La cronología absoluta europea y el inicio de la
colonización fenicia en occidente: Implicaciones cronológicas en
Chipre y el Próximo Oriente.’ Complutum 9: 49-60.
Torres Ortiz, M. 2005. ‘Tartesios, Fenicios y Griegos en el Sudoeste de la
Península Ibérica: algunas reflexiones sobre los recientes hallazgos
de Huelva.’ Complutum 16: 292-304.
Tosto, V. 1999. The Black-figured Pottery signed
NIKOSQENESEPOIESEN. Allard Pierson Series 11. Amsterdam:
Allard Pierson Series.
Touchefeu-Meynier, O. 1997. ‘Typhon.’ In LIMC 8, edited by L. Kahil, 147-
51. Zurich, Düsseldorf: Artemis Verlag.
Treister, M.J. 1988. ‘I 7. Fragment eines Weinsiebes.’ In Die Welt der
Etrusker: Archäologische Denkmäler aus Museen der sozialistischen
Länder, Staatlische Museen zu Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR, Altes
Museum vom 4. Oktober bis 30. Dezember 1988, edited by J. Brosig,
390. Berlin: Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft.
Treister, M.J. 1990. ‘The Earliest Etruscan Object in the North Pontic Area
from the Collection of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts.’ In Die
Welt der Etrusker: Internationales Kolloquium 24.-26. Oktober 1988 in
Berlin, edited by H. Heres and M. Kunze, 165-9. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag.
Treister, M.J. 1991. ‘Etruscan Objects in the North Pontic Area and the
Ways of their Penetration.’ StEtr 57: 71-9.
Treister, M.J. 1998. ‘Ionia and the North Pontic Area: Archaic
Metalworking.’ In The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area, edited
by G. Tsetskhladze, 179-99. Historia Einzelschriften 121. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag.
Treister, M.J. 1999. ‘Ephesos and the Northern Pontic Area in the Archaic
and Classical Period.’ In 100 Jahre österreischische Forschungen in
Ephesos: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, edited by H. Friesinger and
F. Krinzinger, 81-5. AF 1. Denkschriften Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 260. Vienna:
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tresp, A. 1914. Die Fragmente der griechischen Kultschriftsteller.
Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 15.1. Gießen:
Töpelmann.
Trias, G. 1999. ‘Etrusco-corinthian Ware.’ In Driesch et al.1999: 264-6.
Trigger, B.G. 1998. ‘Archaeology and Epistemology: Dialoguing across
the Darwinian Chasm.’ AJA 102: 1-34.
Trundle, M. 1999. ‘Identity and Community among Greek Mercenaries in
the Classical World: 700–322 bce.’ The Ancient History Bulletin 13: 28-
38.
Trundle, M. 2004. Greek Mercenaries: From the Late Archaic Period to
Alexander. London, New York: Routledge.
Tschumi, O. 1931. ‘Bemerkungen zu den sogenannten Reibschalen.’
Germania 15: 179-80.
Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1994. ‘Greek Penetration of the Black Sea.’ In The
Archaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John
Boardman, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis, 111-35.
Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 40.
Oxford: Institute of Archaeology.
Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1998. ‘Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area:
Stages, Models, and Native Population.’ In The Greek Colonisation of
the Black Sea Area, edited by G. Tsetskhladze, 9-68. Historia
Einzelschriften 121. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2002. ‘Ionians Abroad.’ In Tsetskhladze and
Snodgrass 2002: 81-96.
Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2006. ‘Introduction. Revisiting Ancient Greek
Colonisation.’ In Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and
Other Settlements Overseas, volume 1, edited by G.R. Tsetskhladze,
xxiii-lxxxiii. Leiden: Brill.
Bibliography
Tsetskhladze, G.R., and A.M. Snodgrass, eds. 2002. Greek Settlements in
the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. BAR International
Series 1062. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Tsteskhladze, G.R., A.J.N.W. Prag, and A.M. Snodgrass, eds. 2000.
Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir
John Boardman. London: Thames and Hudson.
Tsvetaeva, G.A. 1957. ‘K voprosu o torgovykh sviazach Pantikapeia.’ In
Pantikapei, edited by I.B. Seest, 182-201. Materialy i issledovaniia po
arkheologii SSSR 56. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Tuchelt, K., ed. 1996. Didyma 3,1. Ein Kultbezirk an der Heiligen Strasse von
Milet nach Didyma. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Tuchelt, K. Forthcoming. ‘Überlegungen zum archaischen Didyma.’ In
Cobet et al. (forthcoming).
Tuchelt, K. et al. 1971. ‘Didyma: Bericht über die Arbeiten 1969/70.’ IstMitt
21: 45-108.
Tuchelt, K. et al. 1973/4. ‘Didyma: Bericht über die Arbeiten 1972/3.’
IstMitt 23/4: 139-68.
Tuchelt, K. et al. 1989. ‘Didyma: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1985 und
1986 an der Heiligen Strasse von Milet nach Didyma.’ AA: 143-217.
Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish 3: The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press.
Tuna, N. 2004. ‘Datça/Emecik/Sarý Liman Mevkii Arkaik Tapýnak 2002
Yýlý Çalýş malarý.’ In Kazý Sonuçlarý Toplantýsý. 25,2, edited by K.
Olşen, H. Dönmez and A. Özme, 41-8. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm
Bakanlýðý Dösinm Basýevi.
Tunkina, I. 2003. ‘The Formation of a Russian Science of Classical
Antiquities in Southern Russia in the 18th and early 19th Century.’ In
The Cauldron of Ariantas: Studies Presented to A. N. Šcv eglov on the
Occasion of his 70th Birthday, edited by P.G. Bilde, J.M. Højte and V.F.
Stolba, 303-64. Black Sea Studies 1. Aarhus: University Press.
Turner, B.S. 2001. ‘On the Concept of Axial Space: Orientalism and the
Originary.’ Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 62-74.
Tzannes, M.-C. 2004. ‘The Excavations of G. Oikonomos at the Archaic
Cemetery of Monastirakia in Klazomenai, 1921-22.’ In Ersoy et al.
2004: 97-120.
Uhlenbrock, J.P. 1985. ‘Terracotta Figurines from the Demeter Sanctuary
at Cyrene: Models for Trade.’ In Cyrenaica in Antiquity: Papers
Presented at the Colloquium on Society and Economy in Cyrenaica,
Cambridge March–April 1983, edited by G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J.
Reynolds, 297-304. BAR International Series 236. Oxford: BAR.
Uhlenbrock, J.P. 1992. ‘Gifts to the Goddesses: Cyrene’s Sanctuary of
Demeter and Persephone. History, Trade and the Terracottas.’
Expedition 34.1/2: 16-23.
Uhlenbrock, J.P. Forthcoming. ‘Influssi stranieri nella coroplastica
cirenaica.’ In Cirene e la Cirenaica nell’Antichità: Convegno
Internazionale di Studi, Roma-Frascati 18-21 dicembre 1996.
Utili, F. 1999. Die archaische Nekropole von Assos. Asia Minor Studien 31.
Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Utili, F. 2002. ‘Graue Keramik aus Pyrrha auf Lesbos im Archäologischen
Institut Göttingen.’ AA: 135-59.
Vakhtina, M.Y. 1996. ‘Greek Painted Pottery from the Excavation of
Nemirov City-Site.’ Arkheologia 4: 85-92.
Vakhtina, M.Y. Forthcoming. ‘Archaic East Greek Pottery from Nemirovo
City-Site’ In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).
Vallet, G., and F. Villard. 1964. Mégara Hyblaea 2: La céramique archaïque.
Ecole Française de Rome. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire,
Supplément 1. Paris: Boccard.
Van Bremen, R. 2003: ‘Family Structures’. In A Companion to the
Hellenistic World, edited by A. Erskine, 313-30. Malden: Blackwell.
van Buren, E.D 1926. Greek Fictile Revetments in the Archaic Period.
London: John Murray.
Vanderhooft, D.S. 1999. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the
Latter Prophets. Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs 59. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Vandersleyen, C. 1999. Ouadj our (w3d wr). Un autre aspect de la vallée du
Nil. Connaissance de l'Egypte ancienne, 7. Brussels: Editions Safran.
Vasseur, G. 1914. L’origine de Marseille. Annales du Musée d’Histoire
Naturelle de Marseille 13. Marseille: Moullot.
Vegas, M. 1999. ‘Phöniko-punische Keramik aus Karthago.’ In Driesch et
al. 1999: 93-219.
Velde, H. te, 1967. Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in Egyptian
Mythology and Religion. Leiden: Brill.
Velde, H. te. 1984. ‘Seth.’ In LÄ 5, edited by W. Helck, 908-11. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Venit, M.S. 1982. ‘Painted Pottery from the Greek Mainland found in
Egypt, 640-450 bc.’ Ph.D. diss., New York University.
Venit, M.S. 1984. ‘Early Attic Black Figure Vases in Egypt.’ JARCE 21: 141-
154.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 233
Bibliography
Venit, M.S. 1985. ‘Laconian Black Figure in Egypt.’ AJA 89: 391-8.
Venit, M.S. 1988. Greek Painted Pottery from Naukratis in Egyptian
Museums. American Research Center in Egypt Catalog 7. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Venit, M.S. 1989. ‘Herakles and the Hydra in Athens in the First Half of
the Sixth Century bc.’ Hesperia 58: 99-113.
Venturoli, P. ed. 2002. ‘Arma virumque cano’: Le armi preistoriche e
classiche dell’Armeria Reale di Torino. Armeria reale. Quaderni di
restauro 2. Turin: Umberto Allemandi.
Verhoeven, U., ed. 1993. Das saitische Totenbuch der Iahtesnacht.
Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 41. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf
Habelt.
Vickers, M., and D.W.J. Gill. 1986. ‘Archaic Greek Pottery from
Euesperides, Cyrenaica.’ LibSt 17: 97-108.
Villard, F., and G. Vallet. 1955. ‘Megara Hyblaea V. Lampes du VII siècle et
chronologie des coupes ioniennes.’ MEFRA 67: 7-34.
Villard, F. 1960. La céramique grecque de Marseille (VIe-IVe siècle): Essai
d’histoire économique. Paris: Boccard.
Villard, F. 1966. CVA Paris, Musée du Louvre 13. Paris: Champion.
Villing, A. 1998. ‘Athena as Ergane and Promachos: the Iconography of
Athena in Archaic East Greece.’ In Archaic Greece: New Approaches
and new Evidence, edited by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, 147-68.
Leiden: Brill.
Villing, A. 1999. ‘Funde aus Milet: I. Zwei archaische Schüsselformen.’
AA: 189-202.
Vinogradov, J.G. 2000. ‘Heilkundige Eleaten in den
Schwarzmeergründungen.’ In Bürgersinn und staatliche Macht in
Antike und Gegenwart. Festschrift für Wolfgang Schuller zum 65.
Geburtstag, edited by M. Dreher. Konstanz: Universitäts-Verlag
Konstanz.
Vinogradov, J.G., and A.S. Rusiaeva. 2001. ‘Graffiti iz sviatilishcha
Apollona na zapadnom temenose Ol’vii.’ In Anacharsis. Pamiati Juria
Germanovicha Vinogradova, edited by M.I. Zolotarev, 134-142.
Sevastopol’: Natsional’nyvý zapovednik ‘Chersones Tavricheskivý’.
Vita, A. di. 1985. ‘Atti della scuola.’ ASAtene 63, N.S. 47: 337-76.
Vittmann, G. 2003. Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen
Jahrtausend. Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 97. Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern.
Vivés-Ferrándiz Sánchez, J. Forthcoming. ‘Un infundibulum etrusco
hallado en aguas de Xàbia (Alicante).’
Voigt, M.M., 2005. ‘Old Problems and New Solutions: Recent Excavations
at Gordion.’ In The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent
Work at Gordion, edited by L. Kealhofer, 22-35. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology.
Voigtländer, W. 1982. ‘Funde aus der Insula westlich des Bouleuterion in
Milet.’ IstMitt 32: 30-173.
Voigtländer, W. 1986. ‘Zur archaischen Keramik in Milet.’ In Müller-
Wiener 1986: 17-34.
Voigtländer, W. 2004. Teichiussa: Näherung und Wirklichkeit. Rhaden in
Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Vollkommer, R. 2004. ‘Sikon.’ Künstlerlexikon der Antike 2, edited by R.
Vollkommer, 385. Munich-Leipzig: K.G. Saur.
Vorlauf, D. 1997. Die etruskischen Bronzeschnabelkannen: Eine
Untersuchung anhand der technologisch-typologischen Methode.
Espelkamp: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Vorster, C. 1988. ‘Die Herme des fellbekleideten Herakles: Typenwandel
und Typenwanderung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit.’ In
KölnJb 21: 7-34.
Wachter, R. 2001. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wagner, C. 2001. ‘The Worship of Athena on the Athenian Acropolis:
Dedications of Plaques and Plates.’ In Athena in the Classical World,
edited by S. Deacy and A. Villing, 95-104. Leiden: Brill.
Waldbaum, J.C. 1994. ‘Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, c.
1000-600 bc: The Eastern Perspective.’ BASOR 293: 53-66.
Waldbaum, J.C. 1997. ‘Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East?
Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence.’ BASOR 305:
1-17.
Waldbaum, J.C. 2002a. ‘Seventh Century bc. Greek Pottery from
Ashkelon, Israel: An Entrepôt in the Southern Levant.’ In Pont-Euxin
et Commerce: la Genèse de la ‘Route de la Soie’. Actes du IXe Symposium
de Vani (Colchide) – 1999, edited by M. Faudot, A. Fraysse and E.
Geny, 57-75. Besançon: Presses universitaires franc-comtoises.
Waldbaum, J.C. 2002b. ‘Trade Items or Soldiers’ Gear? Cooking Pots
from Ashkelon, Israel.’ In Autour de la mer Noire: Hommage à Otar
Lordkipanidzé, edited by D. Kacharava, M. Faudot and E. Geny, 133-
234 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
40. Besançon: Presses universitaires franc-comtoises.
Waldbaum, J.C., and J. Magness. 1997. ‘The Chronology of Early Greek
Pottery: New Evidence from Seventh-Century bc. Destruction Levels
in Israel.’ AJA 101: 23-40.
Walter, H. 1968. Samos 5. Frühe samische Gefäße: Chronologie und
Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Walter, H., and K. Vierneisel. 1959. ‘Die Funde der Kampagnen 1958/59
im Heraion von Samos.’ AM 74: 35-42.
Walter-Karydi, E. 1970. ‘Äolische Kunst.’ In Studien zur griechischen
Vasenmalerei, 3-18. AntK Beiheft 7. Bern: Francke Verlag.
Walter-Karydi, E. 1973. Samos 6,1. Samische Gefäße des 6. Jahrhunderts v.
Chr. Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Walter-Karydi, E. 1982. ‘Ostgriechische Keramik.’ In Alt-Ägina 2.1, edited
by H. Walter, 9-18. Munich: Philipp von Zabern.
Walter-Karydi, E. 1986. ‘Zur archaischen Keramik Ostioniens.’ In Müller-
Wiener 1986: 73-80.
Walter-Karydi, E. 1998. ‘Nothing to do with Crete: Towards Defining the
Character of East Dorian Art.’ In Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus –
Crete 16th–6th Centuries bc. Proceedings of the International
Symposion in Rethymnon – Crete, May 1997, edited by V. Karageorghis
and N.C. Stampolidis, 287-96. Athens: University of Crete and the A.
G. Leventis Foundation.
Walters, H.B. 1893. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British
Museum 2: Black-Figured Vases. London: Trustees of the British
Museum.
Walters, H.B. 1899. Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Etruscan and Roman
in the Department of Antiquities, British Museum. London: William
Clownes and Sons.
Walters. H.B. 1926. Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos: Greek,
Etruscan, Roman in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the
British Museum.
Warden, G. 1990. ‘The Small Finds.’ In The Extramural Sanctuary of
Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 4.1, edited by
D. White. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of
Pennsylvania.
Webb, V. 1978. Archaic Greek Faience: Miniature Scent Bottles and related
Objects from East Greece, 650–500 bc. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
Weber, B.F. 1995. ‘Ein spätarchaischer Tempel auf dem Mengerevtepe bei
Milet.’ In Graeve et al. 1995: 228-38.
Weber, B.F. 2002. ‘Die Bauteile des Athenatempels in Milet.’ AA: 415-38.
Weber, B.F. 2004. Milet 1.10. Die römischen Heroa von Milet. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter & Co.
Weber, M. 1995. ‘Zu einer datierten ionischen Halshenkelamphora aus
Ägypten.’ AA: 163-70.
Weber, S. 2001. ‘Archaisch ostgriechische Keramik aus Ägypten
außerhalb von Naukratis.’ In Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001, 127-
50.
Weber, S. Forthcoming. ‘Greek Painted Pottery in Egypt: Evidence for
Contacts in the 7th and 6th Centuries bc.’ In Foreign Relations and
Diplomacy in the Ancient World: Egypt. Greece. Near East. Proceedings
rd th
of the International Conference in Rhodes, 3 -5 Dec. 2004, edited by
P. Kousoulis and K. Magliaveras. Leiden: Brill.
Weinberg, S.S. 1948. ‘A Cross-Section of Corinthian Antiquities
(Excavations of 1940).’ Hesperia 17: 197-241.
Weinberg, S.S. 1969. ‘Post-Exilic Palestine: An Archaeological Report.’
The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings 4: 78-97.
Wenning, R. 1981. ‘Griechische Importe in Palästina aus der Zeit vor
Alexander d.Gr. – Vorbericht über ein Forschungsprojekt.’ Boreas 4:
29-46.
Wenning, R. 1989. ‘Mesad Hashavyahu: Ein Stützpunkt des Jojakim?’ In
Vom Sinai zum Horeb: Stationen alttestamentlicher
Glaubensgeschichte, edited by F.-L. Hossfeld, 169-96. Würzburg:
Echter.
Wenning, R. 2001. ‘Griechische Söldner in Palästina.’ In Höckmann and
Kreikenbom 2001: 257-68.
Wenning, R. 2004. ‘Griechischer Einfluss auf Palästina in
vorhellenistischer Zeit?’ In Die Griechen und das antike Israel:
Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Religions- und Kulturgeschichte des
Heiligen Landes, edited by S. Alkier and M. Witte, 29-60. Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 201. Fribourg: Academic Press.
West, M.L. 1999. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek
Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitbread, I.K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae – A Petrological and
Archaeological Study. The British School at Athens, Fitch Laboratory
Occasional Paper 4. Athens: British School at Athens.
Whitley, J. 1988. ‘Early States and Hero Cults: A Re-Appraisal.’ JHS 58:
173-82.

Whitley, J. 1994. ‘The Monuments that Stood before Marathon: Tomb
Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Attica.’ AJA 98: 213-30.
Whitley, J. 1995. ‘Tomb Cult and Hero Cult: The Uses of the Past in
Archaic Greece.’ In Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology:
Bridging the ‘Great Divide’, edited by N. Spencer, 43-63. London, New
York: Routledge.
Whitley, J. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Whitley, J. 2002. ‘Too Many Ancestors.’ Antiquity 76: 119-26.
Wilkins, J., D. Harvey, and M. Dobson, eds. 1995. Food in Antiquity.
Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Wilkinson, R.H. 2003. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Williams II, C.K., J. MacIntosh, and J.E. Fischer. 1974. ‘Excavations at
Corinth, 1973.’ Hesperia 43: 1-45.
Williams, D. 1983a. ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel: V. The Pottery from Chios.’
AA: 155-86.
Williams, D. 1983b. ‘Sophilos in the British Museum.’ In Greek Vases in The
J. Paul Getty Museum 1, 9-34. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum.
Williams, D. 1986. ‘In the Manner of the Gorgon Painter: The Deianeira
Painter and Others’. In Enthousiasmos: Essays on Greek and Related
Pottery Presented to J. M. Hemelrijk, edited by H.A.G. Brijder, A.A.
Drukker and C.W. Neeft, 61-8. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.
Williams, D. 1993a. ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel: XVII. The Laconian Pottery.’
AA: 571-98.
Williams, D. 1993b. CVA London, British Museum 9. London: British
Museum Press.
Williams, D. 1999. Greek Vases. 2nd edn. London: British Museum Press.
Williams, D. Forthcoming. ‘From East and West: the Inspiration of
Athenian Potters.’ In Images of Drinking. Athenian Vase Painting in the
6th century bc. Essays in Honour of Herman A.G. Brijder, edited by E.
Moormann and V. Stissi.
Winter, I.J. 1995. ‘Homer’s Phoenicians: History, Ethnology or Literary
Trope? (A Perspective on Early Orientalism).’ In The Ages of Homer: A
Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, edited by J.B. Carter and S.P.
Morris, 247-72. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Wintermeyer, U., and H. Bumke 2004. Didyma 3,2. Die hellenistische und
frühkaiserzeitliche Gebrauchskeramik auf Grundlage der
stratifizierten Fundkeramik aus dem Bereich der Heiligen Strasse.
Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Wiseman, D.J. 1961. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 bc) in the
British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Wolf, W. 1957. Die Kunst Ägyptens: Gestalt und Geschichte. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Woolley, C.L. 1921. Carchemish Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on
Behalf of the British Museum 2: The Town Defences, edited by C.L.
Woolley. London: British Museum.
Yadin, Y. 1958. Hazor 1: Excavations 1955. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Yadin, Y. 1961/89. Hazor 3/4: Excavations 1957-1958. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press.
Yamada, S. 2000. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical
Study of Shalmaneser III (859–824 bc) Relating to His Campaigns to
the West. Leiden: Brill.
Bibliography
Yellin, J., and M. Artzy. 2004. ‘Ceramic Provenance: NAA.’ In The Ma’agan
Mikhael Ship 2, edited by Y. Kahanov and E. Linder, 221-8. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society and University of Haifa.
Yon, M. 1970. ‘Sur une représentation figurée chypriote.’ BCH 94: 311-7.
Yon, M. 1992. ‘Héraclès à Chypre.’ In D’une rive à l’autre de la
Méditerranée: Bilan et Perspectives. Actes de la Table Ronde de Rome
1989, edited by C. Bonnet and C. Jourdain-Annequin, 145-63.
Brussels, Rome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome.
Yon, M. 1997. ‘Kition in the Tenth to Fourth Centuries bc.’ BASOR 308: 9-
17.
Yoyotte, J. 1982/3. ‘L’Amon de Naukratis.’ RdE 34: 129-36.
Yoyotte, J. 1991/2 (1992). ‘Naukratis, ville égyptienne.’ Annuaire du
Collège de France: 634-44.
Yoyotte, J. 1994. ‘Les contacts entre Egyptiens et Grecs (VIIe-IIe siècle
avant J. C.): Naucratis, ville égyptienne (1992-1993, 1993-1994).’
Annuaire du Collège de France 1993/4, no. 94: 679-83.
Zadok, R. 1985. Geographical Names according to New- and Late-
Babylonian Texts. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients
7. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert Verlag.
Zadok, R. 1996. ‘Geographical and Onomastic Remarks on H. Tadmor,
‘The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria’.’ Nouvelles
assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 1: 11-13.
Zadok, R. 2005. ‘On Anatolians, Greeks and Egyptians in ‘Chaldean’ and
Achaemenid Babylonia.’ Tel Aviv 32: 76-106.
Zahlhaas, G. 1971. ‘Großgriechische und römische Metalleimer.’ Ph.D.
diss., Universität München.
Zahn, R. 1898. ‘Vasenscherben aus Klazomenai.’ AM 23: 38-79.
Zanco, O. 1974. Bronzi arcaici da Campovalano. Rome: Soprintendenza
alle Antichità degli Abruzzi/Centenari.
Zazoff. P. 1983. Die antiken Gemmen. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Zerbinati, E. 1994. ‘Breve nota su alcuni bronzi preromani scoperti nel
Settecento a Pezzoli-Mezzana di Ceregnano (RO).’ In Studi di
archeologia della X Regio in ricordo di Michele Tombolani, edited by
B.M. Scarfì, 147-55. Rome: «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider.
Zimi, E. 2001. ‘Finewares.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides (Benghazi ):
Preliminary Report on the Spring 2001 Season’. LibSt 32: 166-70.
Zimi, E. 2002. ‘Finewares.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides (Benghazi ):
Preliminary Report on the Spring 2002 Season’. LibSt 33: 103-8.
Zimi, E. 2003. ‘Finewares.’ In A. Wilson et al., ‘Euesperides (Benghazi ):
Preliminary Report on the Spring 2003 Season’. LibSt 34: 212-13.
Zimmermann, K. 1981. ‘Ausgrabungen in der Tempelzone von Histria.’
Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 22: 453-67.
Zimmermann, K. 2000. ‘ 0Afrodi&thi a)ne/qhken ... . Zu einem Dachziegel
mit Votivinschrift.’ In Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques
périphériques: Hommage à Petre Alexandrescu à son 70e anniversaire,
edited by A. Avram and M. Babes, 239-51. Bucharest: Editura
Enciclopedica.
Zimmerman, K. Forthcoming. ‘Altfunde vom Kalabaktepe: Zu
wiederentdeckten Dachterrakotten aus Milet.’ In Biering et al.
(forthcoming).
Zimmermann, K., and I. Bîrzescu. Forthcoming. ‘Eine Schale mit
Votivinschrift aus Histria.’ AA.
Zuffa, M. 1960. ‘Infundibula.’ StEtr 28: 165-208.
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 235