Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Greek Diversity
in Egypt
Studies on East Greek Pottery and
Exchange in the Eastern
Mediterranean
Contents
Contributors
Preface
Naukratis and the Eastern Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future
Alexandra Villing and Udo Schlotzhauer
v
vii
1
11
23
Drab Bowls for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the
Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
Alexandra Villing
31
47
II EAST GREEK POTTERY AND ITS PRODUCTION CENTRES: ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENCE
The Study of East Greek Pottery
John Boardman
49
53
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
69
77
85
93
105
109
127
133
145
155
III EAST GREEK POTTERY AND THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN: CONTACT, EXCHANGE AND
IDENTITY
The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?
Richard Posamentir
159
169
Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrenes Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter
Gerald Schaus
175
Imported Greek Pottery in Archaic Cyrene: The Excavations in the Casa del Propileo
Ivan DAngelo
181
187
Identity in the Making: Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Iron Age
Alexander Fantalkin
199
Bibliography
209
Contributors
Regina Attula
Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitt Greifswald
Institut fr Altertumswissenschaften
Rudolf-Petershagen-Allee 1
17487 Greifswald
Germany
attula@uni-greifswald.de
Alexander Fantalkin
Tel Aviv University
Department of Archaeology and Ancient
Near Eastern Civilizations
Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978
Israel
fantalk@post.tau.ac.il
Donald Bailey
The British Museum
Greek and Roman Department
Great Russell Street
London WC1B 3DG
United Kingdom
dmbailey@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk
Ursula Hckmann
Taunusstr. 39
55118 Mainz
Germany
u.hoeck@t-online.de
Iulian Brzescu
Institute for Archaeology Vasile Prvan of the Romanian
Academy
Str. Henri Coanda, nr. 11, sector 1
010667 Bucharest
Romania
iulian2@gmail.com
John Boardman
Ashmolean Museum
Beaumont Street
Oxford OX1 2PH
United Kingdom
john.boardman@ashmolean-museum.oxford.ac.uk
Ivan D'Angelo
Universit di Napoli L'Orientale
Dipartimento Mondo Classico e Mediterraneo Antico
Palazzo Corigliano
Piazza S. Domenico Maggiore
80138 Naples
Italy
ivandangelo@tiscali.it
Pierre Dupont and Annie Thomas
CNRS-UMR 5138,
Archomtrie Archologie
Universit Lyon 2
7, Rue Raulin
69365 Lyon CEDEX 7
France
pierre.dupont@mom.fr
Alan Johnston
Institute of Archaeology
University College London
3134 Gordon Square
London WC1H 0PY
United Kingdom
tcfaawj@ucl.ac.uk
Michael Kerschner
sterreichisches Archologisches Institut, AI
Franz-Klein-Gasse 1
1190 Vienna
Austria
Michael.Kerschner@oeai.at
Astrid Mller
Albert-Ludwigs-Universitt
Seminar fr Alte Geschichte
Kollegiengebude 1
Werthmannplatz
79098 Freiburg i. Br.
Germany
Astrid.Moeller@geschichte.uni-freiburg.de
Hans Mommsen
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitt Bonn
Helmholtz-Institut fr Strahlen- und Kernphysik
Nussallee 1416
53115 Bonn
Germany
mommsen@iskp.uni-bonn.de
Contributors
Alessandro Naso
Universit degli Studi del Molise
Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche, Umane e Sociali
Via G. de Sanctis, snc
86100 Campobasso
Italy
alenaso@tiscalinet.it
Udo Schlotzhauer
Deutsches Archologisches Institut, DAI
Eurasien-Abteilung
Im Dol 2-6, Haus II
14195 Berlin
Germany
us@eurasien.dainst.de
Stavros Paspalas
Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens
Zacharitsa 23
Koukaki
11741 Athens
Greece
spas2266@mail.usyd.edu.au
Alexandra Villing
The British Museum
Greek and Roman Department
Great Russell Street
London WC1B 3DG
United Kingdom
avilling@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk
Richard Posamentir
Deutsches Archologisches Institut, DAI
Abteilung Istanbul
Gmssuyu/Ayapasa Camii
Sok. 48
34437 Istanbul
Turkey
posamentir@istanbul.dainst.org
Sabine Weber
Walkmhlstr. 6
65195 Wiesbaden
Germany
SWeber3@web.de
Gerry Schaus
Wilfrid Laurier University
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario
N2L 3C5
Canada
gschaus@wlu.ca
Dyfri Williams
The British Museum
Greek and Roman Department
Great Russell Street
London WC1B 3DG
United Kingdom
dwilliams@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk
Preface
and Carians in Egypt. The colloquium had been held under the
auspices of the Mainz Naukratis Project, led by Ursula
Hckmann, 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
Museums collaboration with the Mainz group, and a starting
point for future research into the extraordinary trading port that
was Naukratis.
Fig. 1 drawing Kate Morton; Fig. 2 drawing Marion Cox, after Mller
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
2
3
4
5
6
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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; CarrezMaratray 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. Mller 2000a, 108-13.
25 Hogarth 1898/9, 41-3, 45-6, an interpretation considered likely also
by Spencer 1996, 1999, and Smolrikov 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 Mller 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; Mller 2005.
31 As pointed out by Mller 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 Hckmann and Koenigs (forthcoming).
36 Cf. Mller 2000a, 94-113; 2001, with Kerschner 2001, 70; cf. also
Hckmann and Mller, this volume.
37 Gardner 1888, 21-9; Hckmann 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 Hrmzl 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 12) that
presumably were brought by Carians. Whether the few examples of
Etruscan bucchero (Naso Figs 34) were brought by Etruscans is
uncertain.
39 Cf. Paspalas, Attula, Hckmann and Mller, 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);
Mller 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 Hlbl 1979, 368-73.
50 Cf. also Bellelli and Botto 2002.
51 On Phoenicians in Egypt, see Kaplan 2003, 8-9; Vittmann 2003, 4483; Docter 1997. A Phoenician community at Naukratis has again
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 9
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
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; Hlbl 2005)
are considered by many experts to have been produced primarily by
Greek craftsmen (Hlbl 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 (Mller
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.
Cf. e.g. Braun 1982, 41.
Schlotzhauer 2006, 301-7, 316 figs 4-6.
Torpedo-shaped amphora Petrie 1886b, pl. 16.3.
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G.124, from Hogarths 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.
Hogarth 1905, 124 fig. 3.
Schlotzhauer 2006, 305.
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.
Cf. most recently Weber (forthcoming). We are grateful to the author
for supplying a copy of her article before publication.
Hckmann 2001b; Kammerzell 2001.
Grallert 2001; Hckmann 2001b; Kammerzell 2001.
62 Grallert 2001.
63 Ebbinghaus 2006.
64 For Pedon, see e.g. Boardman 1999a, 281 fig. 324; Vittmann 2003,
203-6, fig. 103; Hckmann and Vittmann 2005, 100 fig. 2; cf. also
Kourou 2004 for Egyptian statuettes dedicated in East Greek
sanctuaries.
65 Hrmzlu 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 Hckmann 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; Hlbl 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 Hlbl 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; Hckmann 2001b. East
Greek painted pottery is not normally encountered in Egyptian
sanctuaries, but an exception is Sas: cf. P. Wilson, Sas 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.
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.
Appendix (A.M.)
Vases dedicated to the Gods of the Hellenes found in the Hellenion
No.
1
2
3
4
5
A: Hogarth 1898/9
B: Hogarth 1905
C: Bernand 1970, 2
A 71/C 594
A 81/C 604
A 95/C 618
A 19/C 541
C 350
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A 14/C 536
A 15/C 537
A 16/C 538
A 17/C 539
A 97/C 620
A 72/C 595
A 18/C 540
A 79/C 602
A 80/C 603
A 64/C 587
A 73/C 596
B 4/C 647
A 74/C 597
A 75/C 598
A 76/C 599
B 3/C 646
B 1/C 644
23
24
25
26
27
inv. no.
BM GR 1911.6-6.28
Oxford G 141.50
BM GR 1911.6-6.40
Oxford G 141.56
Shape (compare
Sparkes and Talcott
1970 [S-T] no.)
Ath. black-glazed cup
Ath. black-glazed cup
Ath. cup (S-T 576-7)
Ath. cup type C (S-T 409-10)
Ionian cup
Ionian cup
Ionian cup
Ionian cup
Ath. cup-skyphos (S-T 578)
Ath. black-glazed cup
Ionian cup
Ath. cup type C (S-T 398-413)
Ath. black-glazed cup
Ath. black-glazed cup
Ath. cup
Date BC
Inscription
] toi=j (Ell[
]oi=j (Ellh/[
early 5th c. ] qe[oi] si to(i)j E
( [
500-450
]ac to[
]i=j qeoi=[
550-500
c. 480
500-450
A 106/C 629
A 77/C 600
A 78/C 601
A 96/C 619
BM GR 1900.2-14.8
Oxford G 141.51
Cambridge Fitzwilliam Gr.337.1899
BM GR 1911.6-6.14
B 2/C 645
Oxford G 141.36
c. 500
c. 520
or 490-80
] qeoi=si [
]eoi=si[
] qe[
]eoi=s[
]oi=si [
]oi=si t[
] (El(l)h/[
(E]ll[h/nwn
] (Ell[h/nwn
(Ellh/]nwn Aqh (E]llh/nwn
(E]llh/nwn
(Ellh/]nw[n
(Ell]h/nw[n
(El]lh/nwn
(Ellh/n]wn
toi=j q[e]oi=si [toi=j (Ellh/] I
nwn HN[- I
me a)[ne/qhken
(El]lh/nwn : q[e]oi=si
tw=n q]ew=n tw=n [ 9Ellh/nwn
tw=n q]ew=n [tw=n (Ellh/nwn
ac qeo[i=si
]qe(ke) qeoi=[si
Note: Only those sherds in the British Museum, London, were inspected for the data in the above table.
Fig. 1 after Kerschner 2001, 73 fig. 1; Fig. 2 after Mller 2000a fig. 5;
Fig. 3 photo Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; Figs 4, 15, 17 photos the
British Museum; Fig. 5 after Hogarth 1898/9, 32, photo the British
Museum; Figs 69, 11, 14, 16, 18 photos the British Museum, drawings O.
Hckmann; Fig. 10 photo the British Museum; Fig. 12 photo Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford; Fig. 13 photo the British Museum; Bonn,
Akademisches Kunstmuseum inv.no. 697.90, photo U.Hckmann.
Notes
*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
surface debris beyond spot 54), 56 no. 144, pl. 5; Masson 1971, 33
(three syllabic signs); Johnston 1978, no. 17; Masson 1983, 354 no.
370: ka-wa-?-[-; Mller 2000a, 162 n. 593, 238 no. 2. The bottom
fragment presumably belongs to a shallow (?) bowl or plate; on the
inside impressed linked palmettes surround the lost middle
ornament, on the outside the inscription is incised in the dark band;
cf. Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 107-8, 128-47 pl. 36.1052; pp. 22-32 pls
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
same region as the above- mentioned fragment London, BM GR
1900.2-14.17 or the Herakles base; Bernand 1970.2-3, 709 no. 681, pl.
27.1 (third row, first sherd left); Masson 1971, 33 no. 370a (four
syllabic signs); Mller 2000a, 162 n. 593, 239 no. 11.
Gutch 1898/9, 85-97 pls 12-3.
Katja Weitz (Mainz) identified a find of some 70 Egyptian bronze
statuettes. They came to light in a house in the south of Naukratis, cf.
Petrie 1886b, 41-2. Most of them seem to be Hellenistic.
Bernand 1970.2, 759 no. 26; 764-5 nos 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41; 767-8 nos
45, 48.
Since it was impossible to inspect the inscriptions on pieces at Oxford
which are currently packed into boxes, new observations might
change the picture. I wish to thank U.H. for checking the pieces in the
BM.
Edgar 1898/9, 53-7.
Mller 2000a, 166-81.
Hogarth 1898/9, 44.
Bowden 1996, 23, does not know of evidence from other sanctuaries.
Cf. Appendix nos 1-22, Fig. 7.
Cf. Appendix no. 23, Fig. 7.
Cf. Appendix nos 24-25.
Cf. Appendix nos 1-3 and theoretically nos 4-14, too; cf. Fig. 7.
Cf. Appendix nos 15-23, Fig. 7.
Cf. Appendix nos 24-5.
Cf. Bowden 1996, 23.
Schwyzer 1959, 2: 24.
LSJ s.v. (Ellh/nioj refers to the Hellenion with temples for the qeoi\
(Ellh/nioi.
Bowden 1996, 23-4.
Bowden 1996, 23.
Bowden 1996, 24.
Cf. Chaniotis 1997.
Schlotzhauer 2006.
Nick (forthcoming); Ehrhardt, Hckmann and Schlotzhauer
(forthcoming).
For cult filiations see Nilsson 1967, 712-3; Fleischer 1973, 132-7; Nick
2002, 278 s.v. Filialheiligtum.
Archaic dedications to the Dioskuroi from the Hellenion: Hogarth
1898/9, 30; Bernand 1970.2, 697-700 nos 546, 557, 558, 560, 567, 571,
580 (lamp), all found in spot 34; cf. Jenkins 2000 passim.
Hogarth 1898/9, 30 no. 52 found near spot 34; supra n. 17, found in
chamber 3.
At Naukratis Apollo Milesios and Apollo Didymeus are attested on
fragments from the temenos of Apollo, and Apollo Komaios and
Apollo Pythios in the context of a so-called prytaneion mentioned by
Athenaios 4.149D-E, cf. Nick (forthcoming); Ehrhardt, Hckmann
and Schlotzhauer (forthcoming); Herda (forthcoming b).
Hogarth 1898/9, 30 nos 65, 85 = Bernand 1970.2-3, 701 no. 588 pl.
26.2 (second row, second sherd left); 703 no. 608; Hogarth 1905, 117
no. 8 = Bernand 1970.2-3, 707 no. 651 pl. 25.1 (first row, second sherd
left).
Hogarth 1898/9, 62; Bernand 1970.2-3, 701 no. 585 pl. 26.1 (third
row, first sherd left).
London BM GR 1900.2-14.5; Hogarth 1898/9, 55 no. 54; Bernand
1970.2, 700 no. 577; high foot of an Archaic Ionian vessel, cf. Villing
1999, 191 fig. 1 a-c; cf. infra n. 81.
London BM 1900.2-14.6; Hogarth 1898/9, 30, 56 no. 107; Bernand
1970.2, 704 no. 630; Scholtz 2002/3, 232; cf. infra chap. 5 with figs 145, n. 82.
Cf. Hogarth 1898/9, 30 pl. 2.
London BM GR 1888.6-1.211 and 1888.6-1.212; cf. infra chap. 5 ns 84-5
with Figs 1519.
Cf. Scholtz 2002/3 passim; Koehne 1998, 43 n. 130, cf. pp. 189-95.
Scholtz 2002/3, 240. Cf. infra chap. 5.
For dedications by hetairai, cf. Williams 1983a, 185 ns 57-9; Steinhart
2003, 220.
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; ARV 228.20 (490 bc); later: V 292,
ARV 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 (480450 bc) or no. 407 pl. 19
(500480 bc).
86 There is also an interpretation of Aphrodite Pandemos as goddess of
light (Usener, Furtwngler), 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 wellbeing of the civic community.
3
2
95 Paus. 1.22.3; IG I 832 (=IG I 700) of ?480470 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 Stdte aus Kleinasien (Erythrai & Klazomenai II) 201 a 24
of 300260 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 Leclre 1997 assumes chapels or treasuries of the individual cities
and their deities. He kindly provided his manuscript to members of
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
Abstract
My aim of this short paper is to give a resum of the range of
epigraphic material from Naukratis of the Archaic period, mostly
on East Greek pottery, and to focus briefly on just two aspects: nonIonians, and amphora texts. They comprise a few thoughts ahead
of a comprehensive re-study of the material as both texts and pots.*
Smaller inscribed vases
The ceramic material from the excavations at both Naukratis
and Tell Defenneh was published with exemplary speed after
each season of excavation. The texts comprise almost entirely
either dedications, to a range of deities, or, in the broadest
sense, trademarks, while what may well be owners marks are
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 Museums 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; Andr Bernands
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
Johnston
a
Johnston
Johnston
Chian
Chian
Chian
Chian
Chian
Chian
Chian
Chian, not amphora?
Chian, not amphora?
Chian, not amphora?
Chian, not amphora?
Chian?
Chian?
Chian?
Chian?
Corinthian?
Cypriot
Cypriot
Cypriot
Cypriot
N403
N411
N410
N409
N408
N407
N I pl. 16.4
N394
N397
N397a
N397b
N412
N413
N405
N406
N420
N385
N384, Johnston 1982, 35-7
N386, Johnston 1982, 35-7
N387, Johnston 1982, 35
large O
II?
part of ligature?, shoulder
M, shoulder
alpha-lambda?, shoulder by handle
]IIL neck
large white arrow, shoulder
psi handle
X, handle
lambda-alpha, handle
hour-glass, handle
mark as Johnston 1979, type 12E, neck
NILE, shoulder, handle to right
X, part preserved, wall
]IIII, shoulder
lambda-epsilon, neck
II above H, handle
ENLH and strokes, handle
IIY, handle
deeply cut X, handle
BM GR 1910.2-22.4
BM GR 1910.2-22.5
BM GR 1910.2-22.6
BM GR 1910.2-22.7
BM GR 1910-2-22.20
BM GR 1888.6-1.389
BM GR 1910.2-22.38
BM GR 1910.2-22.36
BM GR 1910.2-22.242
BM GR 1910.2-22.9
BM GR 1910.2-22.8
BM GR 1910.2-22.34
BM GR 1886.4-1.1261
BM GR 1910.2-22.31
BM GR 1910.2-22.30
BM GR 1910.2-22.14
BM GR 1910.2-22.39
where?
BM GR 1910.2-22.37
where?
BM GR 1910.2-22.32
BM GR 1910.2-22.33
From Qurneh
57
Qurneh
58
where?
59
where?
60
Petrie Museum 16391
61
where?
Cypriot
Cypriot
Cypriot
Cypriot
Cypriot
Cypriot
Cypriot?
E.Greek
E Greek
Klazomenian
N.Greek?
N.Greek?
Samian
amphora?
amphora, Samian
local
?
?
?
?
?
?
N415
N414
N398
N424
N396
N422
N395
N416
N417
heta-epsilon, handle
xi, handle
XIII, handle
three lines crossed by diagonal
more complex than sampi, pace N, wall
ED and hourglass, handle
LI, trace before, shoulder
LA, shoulder
trident, pre-firing, shoulder
IIIII: , handle
]IXX, handle
heta-upsilon
zeta, pre-firing, shoulder; dark dipinto, L.
alpha-upsilon?, shoulder
psi, shoulder?
S, handle
phi, on top of mushroom lip; 4th century BC
xi, handle
]N
psi handle
mark perhaps as Johnston 1979, type 12E
crossed theta, plus, shoulder
Klazomenian
Lesbian?
N. Greek?
Samian
Samian
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
Cat VII 12
Cat VII 11
Cat VII 21
Cat VII 22
Cat VII 1
Johnston 2000c, no. 288
Johnston 2000c, no. 293
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
unpublished
Johnston 2005, no. 220; Fig. 20
unpublished
unpublished
Cat VII 7
Fig. 21
unpublished
Qurneh pl. LIV, 850; Fig. 22
Fig. 19
unpublished
unpublished
Brunnen W2, unpublished
Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22
Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22
Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22
Technau 1929, 30, fig. 22
unpublished
Cat VII 14
Cat VII 15
L shoulder
L under foot
retrograde digamma by handle
small circle under handle
hourglass by handle
L by handle. Complex sign on shoulder
segno.lettera
arrow by handle
L, shoulder
T, handle
rectangle?, shoulder
W shoulder
B, shoulder
T, handle
+, neck and Z under handle. AN, shoulder
Y, base of handle
triple horizontal, neck. + on each handle
diagonal, base of handle
retrograde digamma. Large horizontal E
digamma.TH [ partly over it
+ (with two horizontals), shoulder. Graffito
E, shoulder
mu digamma, shoulder. 7th century BC
o on top of handle
III on lip above handle
X, below handle
zeta, shoulder. Dark L, at least, on belly
X, shoulder.A on handle. c. 700650 BC
zeta iota, shoulder. alpha-kappa?
zeta. alpha-lambda
8
wavy horizontal, neck
V, neck
L
N
sidelong xi
E?, plus?
L L L L to left of handle
+ on shoulder
+ on shoulder
N393
N392
N419
Agora P14694
Agora P20809
Capua
Villa Giulia, Banditacchia
Villa Giulia, Banditacchia
Villa Giulia, MA T155
Villa Giulia, MA T546
Villa Giulia, Mengarelli
Tarquinia 73/26656
Tarquinia 78/9168
Imera RO3
Imera RO747
Camarina 3511
Camarina 3558
Camarina T1053, 7395
Camarina T1375, 7943
Camarina T1395, 7966
Camarina T1402, 7974
Camarina T1685, 8515
Camarina T1685, 8515
Camarina T870, 7194
Camarina T914, 7226
Pitsidia I112
Nicosia
Syracuse
Villa Giulia
BM GR 1886.4-1.1291
Lacco Ameno 1674-7
where?
Petrie Museum 16391
Heraion K3670
Heraion, Brunnen W2
Heraion,
lost?
lost?
lost?
lost?
Pythagoreion 16/2/1976
Villa Giulia
Villa Giulia
Johnston
Illustration credits
Notes
*
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Migdol, Oren 1984, esp. 17-30, noting one ship graffito on a 'torpedo'
jar. Abusir, Smolrikov 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, Doer 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 Smolrikov 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,
Smolrikov 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 1886.41.92 (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.
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 120) 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 12, 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 34, 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:
Figure 2 Mortarium from Naukratis (cat. no. 2; sample Nauk 35: group CYPT); inscribed twpoll[
Villing
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)
in what follows as the Eastern Mediterranean or CyproPhoenician 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 types 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 diskshaped 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 Apollos
sanctuary that can equally be identified as mortaria, but as later
examples of the shape (cat. nos 2126). Two of them, with spoolshaped handles, are of uncertain origin (cat. nos 2526, Fig. 4).11
Others are clearly mainland Greek in type and manufacture, and
of 5th4th century bc date. They comprise three Corinthian
mould-made, tile-fabric mortaria (cat. nos 2123, Figs 1012),
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
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, heavyduty 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 precooked (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?
Villing
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 Apollos 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 elBalamun,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 (664332 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 6thearly 5th
century bc appear in connection with Cypro-Levantine baskethandled 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
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 baskethandled 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 7thearly 6th
century bc)140 and one from the Athenian Agora.141 Yet this Great
Divide142 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
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 northeastern 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 elHesi, 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. 450350 bc
from Apollonia-Arsuf, as well as further mortaria from YavnehYam, 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 Maagan Mikhael, 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 islands 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-Franois 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)
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, Mller 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
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 orangebrown, 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.
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.
6. GR 1886.4-1.73
Three joining fragment from rim of bowl (top lost). Very light, yellowgreenish, 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.
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.
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.
Villing
Graffito on outside of rim: ]nel[.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 34.399; Bernand 1970, 673 no. 317 (il ne sagit l que de
debris).
1
2
3
5
6
7
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.
Illustration credits
9
10
11
Notes
*
12
13
Drab Bowls for Apollo: The Mortaria of Naukratis and Exchange in the Archaic Eastern Mediterranean
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
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]).
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.
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).
Oren 1984, 17.
Salles 1985, 1991. Cf. also Defernez 2001, 407-8.
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.
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.
On traces of attrition from the point of view of use-wear analysis, see
Skibo 1992, 115-7, 132-3.
A highly detailed analysis of the traces of use on mortaria from Tell
Keisan has been undertaken by Sapin 1998.
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.
Berlin 1997b, 123-4; Sparkes 1962, 125-6, esp. 125; Moritz 1958, 22 n. 4.
Sparkes 1962, 126; Amyx 1958, 239-41.
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.
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.
London, BM GR 1903.5-18.3 (Terracotta 957), Corinthian, early 4th
century bc. Higgins 1954, 260 no. 957, pl. 135.
London, BM GR 1873.8-20.576 (Terracotta 969), Corinthian, early
4th century bc. Higgins 1954, 263 no. 969, pl. 136.
Cf. Corinth 12 (1952), 192 no. 1430 (3971), pl. 86. On pestles in
general, see Sparkes 1962, 125; Amyx 1958, 239; Buchholz 1963, 67.
On ancient cheese-graters, see also below, n. 71; Weber, this volume,
n. 30.
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).
Fr. 26 West = Ath. 304b; cf. also Anianos fr. 5 = Ath. 282b. On
myttotos, see especially Dalby 1996, 107 with note 48.
Cf. Bats 1988, 37-8; Dalby 2003, 307 s.v. soup. Cf. also Garnsey 1998,
218-20.
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.
Villing
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
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 CyproPhoenician 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 11th8th
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 ringfooted 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 (700650 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 7th6th 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. 700586
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
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Villing
238-9), thus disregarding the abundance of analyses indicating their
status as imports also to Palestine.
178 The Maagan Mikhael 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 SyroPalestinian 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 Maagan
Mikhael wreck one might list the late 6th century bc Pabu Burnu
wreck (Greene 2003; the ship carried Samian, Milesian and other
East Greek transport amphorae), the third-quarter-5th-century bc
Tekta 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; Bouloumi 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 Mller 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. Hckmann.
186 Cf. Hckmann and Mller, 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.
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
Damlboaz near Mylasa, when the bed of the River Saray was
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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? 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 Elmal 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
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 Egyptianinspired 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 potters clay, and there is more evidence
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jackson 1976.
Croissant 1983.
Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
Boardman 2001b, ch. 2.
Boardman 1998b, fig. 305.
Ibid., fig. 500.
Aiolis (Kyme/Larisa)
Aiolis (Kyme/Larisa)
Aiolis
Aiolis
Troad
Troad
Troad
Samos
Samos
Samos
Samos
Miletos
Miletos
Miletos
Miletos
Miletos
Miletos
B
B
B
BE
E
E
E
E
E-
G
g
g
B-Troy
B-Troy
B-Troy
J
J
J
J
A
Nauk 39
Nauk 4
Nauk 7
Nauk 42
Nauk 32
Nauk 3
Nauk 72
Nauk 26
Nauk 1
Nauk 2
Nauk 65
Nauk 63
Nauk 64
Nauk 62
Nauk 13
Nauk 77
Nauk 12
Nauk 58
Defe 7
Defe 9
Defe 13
TbEgy 1
Nauk 87
Nauk 37
Nauk 54
Nauk 76
Nauk 10
Nauk 22
Nauk 24
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Findspot
BM GR 1886.4-1.1040
BM GR 1888.6-1.544F
(= 1924.12-1.1114)
BM GR 1886.4-1.570
Cambridge, Fitzwilliam
Museum GR 22.1894
BM GR 1886.4-1.830a
BM GR 1888.6-1.405
BM GR 1965.9-30.498
Boston, MFA 88.972
BM GR 1888.6-1.401
BM GR 1888.6-1.403
BM GR 1965.9-30.508
BM GR 1888.6-1.613a
BM GR 1888.6-1.637
BM GR 1888.6-1.634
BM GR 1886.4-1.1294
BM GR 1888.6-1.658
BM GR 1888.6-1.573b,c
BM GR 1888.2-8.117
(Vase B.128.1)
Boston, MFA 88.840
BM GR 1888.6-1.544d
BM GR 1888.2-8.139b
BM GR 1888.2-8.86
BM GR 1888.2-8.171
Description
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Tell Defenneh
Naukratis
Tell Defenneh
Tell Defenneh
Tell Defenneh
BM GR 1924.12-1.1107
Naukratis
BM GR 1924.12-1.1124
Naukratis
BM GR 1888.6-1.551
Naukratis
+ 1965.4-28.1
BM GR 1924.12-1.1127
Naukratis
(belongs to GR 1965.9-30.704)
Petrie Museum UC30035a-b Thebes, Egypt
(joining Basel, Cahn, HC 1175)
Boston, MFA 88.815
Naukratis
Boston, MFA P4631
Naukratis
BM GR 1886.4-1.1267f
Boston, MFA 88.851
Boston, MFA 86.544
Place of production
NAA
Group
B
B
B
Publication
7th-6th cent.
c. 530/20
Mid-6th cent.
Date BC
Fig. 22
Fig. 21
Fig. 20
Fig. 19
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 13
Fig. 12
Kerschner Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Kerschner Fig. 8
Kerschner Fig. 11
Kerschner Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 5
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 1
Fig. no.
Nauk 82
Nauk 83
Nauk 34
n.l.
n.l.
n.l.
n.l.
n.l.
Attica (?)
Attica (?)
Attica?
Cyprus
Cyprus
Cyprus
Cyprus
Egyptian marl
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
Egypt (Naukratis?)
TD
TD
TD
TD
TD
TD
RHc1
ITAN
ITAN
ITAN
ITAN
KROP
KROP
perb
CYPT
EMEA
EMEa
EMEa
MarlQANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
QANN
Nauk 79
Nauk 81
Nauk 25
Nauk 27
Nauk 33
Nauk 14
Nauk 15
Nauk 16
Nauk 17
Nauk 19
Nauk 9
Nauk 57
Nauk 88
Nauk 35
Nauk 55
Nauk 67
Nauk 68
Nauk 18
Defe 10
Nauk 73
Nauk 74
Nauk 43
DlEgy 1
Nauk 53
Abus 1
Defe 4
Defe 5
Defe 8
Defe 3
Defe 2
Defe 1
Knid 1
Knidian peninsula
EMEb
Defe 11
Nauk 6
Nauk 51
Miletos
n.l.
Knidian peninsula
D
DD
EMEB
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Tell Defenneh
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Egypt, Delta
Naukratis
Abusir
Tell Defenneh
Tell Defenneh
Tell Defenneh
Tell Defenneh
Tell Defenneh
Tell Defenneh
Near Datcha
Tell Defenneh
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Naukratis
Cambridge, Museum of
Naukratis
Classical Archaeology NA 256
BM GR 1965.9-30.739
BM GR 1886.4-1.83
BM GR 1965.9-30.501
BM GR 1965.9-30.536
BM GR 1924.12-1.43
Naukratis
(same vessel as1924.12-1.42)
BM GR 1910.2-22.232b
Naukratis
BM GR 1910.2-22.233
Naukratis
BM GR 1910.2-22.243
Naukratis
BM GR 1886.10-5.12
Naukratis
Berlin, gyptisches Museum Egypt
und Papyrussammlung 7206
Boston, MFA 86.533
Naukratis
Boston, MFA P 4864
Naukratis
Cambridge, Museum of
Naukratis
Classical Archaeology NA 48
BM GR 1886.4-1.1324
BM GR 1965.9-30.494
BM GR 1886.4-1.80
BM GR 1910.2-22.16
BM GR 1886.4-1.77
BM GR 1886.4-1.81
BM GR 1910.2-22.15
BM GR 1888.2-8.57
BM GR 1886.4-1.1271
Bonn,Akademisches
Kunstmuseum 2002.5
Bonn,Akademisches
Kunstmuseum 1524
BM GR 1886.4-1.671
BM GR 1888.6-1.608.a
BM GR 1886.4-1.678
BM GR 1888.2-8.65
(Vase B106.19)
BM GR 1888.2-8.16b & 17
(Vase B 106.12-13)
BM GR 1888.2-8.20
(Vase B106.11)
BM GR 1888.2-8.42a
BM GR 1888.2-8.44a
BM GR 1888.2-8.25
BM GR 1893.11-13.4
BM GR 1888.2-8.46a
BM GR 1886.4-1.1025
BM GR 1886.4-1.96
Black-figure amphora
Fikellura amphora
Cup with everted rim (Ionian cup); type 10,2.B
East Dorian cup with Phoenician
inscription
East Dorian plate with representation of ship
(Attula cat. no. 4)
East Greek situla with representation of owl
6th cent.
6th cent.
1st half 6th cent.
6th cent.
Ptolemaic (2nd cent.?)
Ptolemaic (2nd cent.?)
Ptolemaic
6th cent.
6th cent.
6th cent.
2nd half 6th cent.
Fig. 34
Fig. 38
Fig. 31
Fig. 33
Fig. 30 and
Dupont & Thomas
Fig. 1, Nau 9
Fig.41
Fig. 37
Fig. 35
Fig. 43
Fig. 44
Fig. 42
Fig. 36
Fig. 32
Villing Fig. 2
Villing Fig. 8
Villing Fig. 21
Villing Fig. 22
Villing Fig. 23
Fig. 39
Johnston Fig. 11
Fig. 26
Fig. 25
Weber Fig. 21
Weber Fig. 20
Weber Fig. 23
Weber Fig. 20
Weber Fig. 19
Weber Fig. 18
Schlotzhauer Fig. 3
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Figure 5 Fragment (left) from blackfigure plate (right), sample Nauk 87,
Group B (North Ionia Teos?)
Figure 11 Grey ware dinos, sample Nauk 62, Group B-Troy (Troad)
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 23 Cup with everted rim (Type 10, 2B), sample Nauk 6, Group DD (not
located)
Figure 24 East Dorian cup with everted rim, sample Nauk 51, Group EMEB
(Knidian peninsula)
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 32 Painted plate, sample Nauk 9, Group QANN (Egypt Naukratis?), with
fragment from same vessel
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 39 Painted amphora, sample Defe 10, Group QANN (Egypt Naukratis?)
Figure 44 Hellenistic kiln furniture, sample Nauk 16, Group QANN (Egypt
Naukratis?)
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
*
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
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 Mller 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 Hckmann in
Hckmann and Koenigs (forthcoming) and Nick (forthcoming).
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 114, 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: 13), 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 BE and EMEBEMEb 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 strm10 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 910) 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 1416) 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 wellknown 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 1820) is assigned to the
70 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
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 1621),
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 3039,
4144). 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 Duponts
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mommsen et al.
29 Goren, pers. comm. The sample, from a mortarium, is discussed by
Villing, this volume.
30 Kempinski 2002, 231, fig. 5.94:2, TeKa 3: Ionian cup reg. no.
5414/100.
31 Kerschner 2006. Bere 11 is a sample from a jug of Fikellura style
(Louvre group).
32 Marketou et al. (forthcoming).
33 Weber, this volume.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Mountjoy and Mommsen 2001, 134, 139, group there called Mqan.
Schlotzhauer and Villing, Table 1, this volume.
Cf. Schlotzhauer and Villing, this volume.
Dupont and Thomas, this volume.
Mommsen and Kerschner, this volume.
Mommsen et al. 1996.
Dupont and Thomas, 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)
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 g/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
4 samples
M +/- s(%)
As
Ba
Ca %
Ce
Co
Cr
Cs
Eu
Fe %
Ga
Hf
K%
La
Lu
Na %
Nd
Ni
Rb
Sb
Sc
Sm
Ta
Tb
Th
Ti %
U
W
Yb
Zn
Zr
382.
11.5
36.
25.3
246.
2.25
1.01
4.9
14.1
2.84
1.5
18.6
0.41
1.18
16.1
169.
48.
0.72
23.
3.31
0.52
0.59
5.1
0.51
1.74
1.68
2.33
84.4
124.
13.
2.8
8.2
26.
7.1
15.
7.4
2.0
25.
9.5
9.2
8.7
4.4
8.1
11.
50.
5.3
23.
4.9
5.6
6.7
7.7
8.9
34.
13.
12.
4.4
5.4
20.
EMEA
32 samples
M +/- s(%)
8.55
424.
10.3
34.7
27.2
291.
3.32
0.87
5.13
16.3
2.81
1.48
16.2
0.36
0.88
14.7
220.
53.4
0.7
21.7
3.08
0.53
0.52
5.49
0.53
1.66
1.56
2.08
96.7
87.5
19.
23.
18.
3.3
4.4
21.
9.7
4.2
3.5
11.
8.8
12.
3.5
5.5
14.
11.
16.
11.
13.
5.1
4.2
6.2
11.
4.3
21.
15.
16.
3.8
12.
38.
EMEa
5 samples
M +/- s(%)
9.97
371.
12.1
37.7
29.9
326.
2.05
1.00
5.47
20.6
3.13
1.3
17.9
0.39
1.15
17.4
242.
38.4
0.87
23.8
3.49
0.53
0.53
5.73
0.7
1.97
1.57
2.3
107.
83.8
19.
23.
19.
2.9
5.1
18.
37.
3.5
8.0
15.
2.2
15.
4.2
5.2
32.
5.7
24.
24.
10.
2.2
2.4
9.1
6.3
6.7
9.9
8.6
16.
2.5
26.
50.
EMEB
30 samples
M +/- s(%)
6.56
498.
5.59
69.8
39.3
394.
7.79
1.13
5.09
19.5
4.57
2.17
33.8
0.46
0.62
27.4
409.
113.
0.91
17.9
5.02
0.98
0.69
12.8
0.47
2.24
2.26
2.89
97.8
141.
28.
14.
20.
2.8
7.6
14.
15.
3.4
3.4
11.
4.5
8.2
3.7
7.5
13.
8.2
16.
13.
16.
3.1
5.1
4.2
7.3
2.6
18.
5.6
15.
3.3
15.
20.
EMEb
7 samples
M +/- s(%)
6.7
466.
5.5
64.2
48.8
547.
6.76
1.09
5.29
19.
4.16
1.9
31.6
0.42
0.61
24.8
599.
99.1
0.89
17.7
4.48
0.89
0.67
11.7
0.49
2.02
2.19
2.69
97.4
119.
23.
15.
15.
2.8
7.9
3.0
11.
2.0
3.4
11.
4.2
4.4
2.7
6.4
14.
5.8
14.
7.8
19.
1.6
9.7
4.0
9.4
2.9
16.
4.6
6.8
2.0
25.
25.
J
29 samples
M +/- s(%)
28.6
490.
5.54
82.
40.4
373.
13.
1.52
6.77
34.6
5.57
2.91
40.
0.58
0.64
33.9
378.
162.
3.24
25.8
6.57
1.23
0.93
15.7
0.74
2.9
3.87
3.58
132.
185.
33.
9.4
21.
2.4
6.0
4.6
16.
3.2
3.7
46.
5.5
8.0
3.5
4.3
18.
6.7
11.
7.6
17.
3.2
6.4
5.1
6.0
4.7
39.
6.6
17.
3.8
6.8
35.
Mommsen et al.
Table 2 cont. Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samples
A
42 samples
M +/- s(%)
As
Ba
Ca %
Ce
Co
Cr
Cs
Eu
Fe %
Ga
Hf
K%
La
Lu
Na %
Nd
Ni
Rb
Sb
Sc
Sm
Ta
Tb
Th
Ti %
U
W
Yb
Zn
Zr
16.8
550.
4.71
108.
19.9
143.
11.8
1.45
4.41
25.3
5.65
3.54
50.9
0.54
1.13
41.3
176.
219.
1.58
14.2
8.02
1.56
1.21
26.1
0.42
4.34
4.05
4.2
85.6
198.
34.
14.
25.
3.7
11.
18.
3.1
2.8
4.0
20.
11.
5.1
3.0
5.3
18.
6.7
32.
4.5
9.8
3.4
6.5
3.9
5.5
4.2
19.
7.6
21.
4.2
11.
38.
D
22 samples
M +/- s(%)
21.5
596.
7.36
98.7
28.5
232.
11.1
1.48
5.13
24.3
4.88
3.05
46.5
0.52
0.95
39.3
323.
184.
2.32
16.9
7.65
1.37
1.11
22.1
0.46
4.03
3.15
3.87
94.9
192.
24. 2
20. 5
38.
5.7
10.
12.
10.
5.5
3.9
43.
17.
6.8
6.1
5.2
30.
7.7
17.
13.
32.
4.3
7.7
5.3
7.2
7.3
21.
9.7
10.
5.0
14.
31.
B
99 samples
M +/- s(%)
1.2
41.
6.25
84.1
19.7
151.
19.4
1.32
4.51
22.1
6.29
2.65
39.8
0.48
0.66
31.4
101.
148.
1.04
20.
5.95
1.25
0.8
17.1
0.54
3.38
2.74
3.27
111.
213.
69. 2
17.
35.
6.0
13.
10.
16.
4.9
6.7
22.
4.6
6.1
4.6
5.2
22.
7.8
23.
7.6
23.
4.3
11.
7.1
6.5
4.4
18.
14.
11.
3.3
15.
32.
E
29 samples
M +/- s(%)
1.7
497.
5.39
79.2
25.6
217.
15.1
1.32
5.13
24.2
5.79
2.55
37.9
0.5
0.94
30.5
192.
143.
1.43
20.8
5.75
1.14
0.84
15.4
0.59
2.68
2.46
3.34
112.
186.
94.
11.
16.
2.8
4.6
6.8
12.
2.4
4.2
10.
6.0
5.7
2.2
5.7
12.
4.6
18.
5.2
22.
4.1
4.0
5.1
6.7
2.7
22.
6.3
14.
2.4
13.
31.
G
61 samples
M +/- s(%)
44.7
810.
4.82
121.
27.6
188.
23.8
1.99
6.04
29.1
5.79
3.12
56.1
0.6
0.96
51.
173.
178.
4.79
21.8
9.93
1.18
1.29
21.1
0.5
4.0
2.7
4.23
119.
173.
45.
12.
17.
2.9
3.8
6.4
12.
2.5
3.5
13.
9.7
3.9
2.0
3.9
13.
4.7
26.
3.6
12.
1.8
5.1
5.2
6.5
2.6
22.
15.
11.
2.7
5.6
33.
g
28 samples
M +/- s(%)
45.2
739.
5.53
103.
26.8
211.
27.1
1.68
5.55
24.5
5.4
2.92
48.1
0.53
1.05
42.2
210.
172.
4.67
20.
8.18
1.13
1.08
18.9
0.5
3.44
2.69
3.69
107.
154.
65.
12.
15.
5.0
6.4
11.
11.
5.5
4.3
25.
9.5
4.9
3.6
4.6
33.
6.7
22.
6.0
18.
5.1
8.1
5.9
6.3
5.8
28.
9.3
9.7
5.1
9.3
39.
Table 2 cont. Patterns of the groups of this study with more than two samples
B-Troy
96 samples
M +/- s(%)
As
Ba
Ca %
Ce
Co
Cr
Cs
Eu
Fe %
Ga
Hf
K%
La
Lu
Na %
Nd
Ni
Rb
Sb
Sc
Sm
Ta
Tb
Th
Ti %
U
W
Yb
Zn
Zr
34.5
711.
4.93
71.
21.5
173.
9.1
1.24
4.31
18.7
4.95
2.76
34.
0.39
0.97
27.2
143.
130.
1.96
16.9
4.99
0.86
0.7
15.9
0.45
3.37
2.74
2.6
99.4
164.
78.
24.
37.
5.8
8.9
13.
12.
6.3
4.5
19.
12.
15.
6.4
6.7
25.
9.7
17.
11.
28.
6.1
8.0
6.6
7.7
12.
21.
12.
14.
6.1
10.
36.
KROP
89 samples
M +/- s(%)
31.8
466.
6.88
67.6
35.5
500.
13.8
1.2
5.27
21.3
4.37
2.62
30.9
0.44
0.64
27.8
412.
139.
1.47
22.1
5.33
0.85
0.73
11.
0.48
2.51
2.18
2.8
121.
165.
74.
20.
48.
4.4
9.0
18.
24.
4.5
5.7
30.
11.
9.1
4.6
6.7
35.
8.9
14.
8.2
39.
4.2
6.4
6.8
6.8
5.7
21.
18.
18.
5.6
9.8
37.
perb
6 samples
M +/- s(%)
22.8
312 .
7.67
47.8
35.
469.
10.2
0.98
5.02
24.5
3.5
1.28
21.7
0.38
1.08
18.4
452.
66.1
0.94
21.5
3.79
0.74
0.59
8.05
0.41
1.61
1.49
2.3
103.
119.
81.
18.
25.
2.9
6.1
7.7
27.
3.8
11.
83.
14.
16.
4.0
5.5
30.
6.5
8.3
12.
31.
8.0
7.0
6.7
13.
4.6
25.
12.
13.
2.7
18.
51.
Marl
5 samples
M +/- s(%)
8.42
672.
12.8
66.5
18.6
102.
1.39
1.32
4.41
16.5
7.16
0.95
28.2
0.39
0.5
25.7
97.
34.5
0.97
14.6
4.95
1.21
0.71
6.4
0.61
1.72
1.24
2.43
80.2
213.
42.
21.
18.
2.6
5.3
14.
19.
2.8
3.9
7.9
18.
12.
2.5
4.0
34.
3.2
48.
9.9
97.
4.7
4.1
5.9
6.0
4.2
17.
9.4
13.
3.8
6.9
22.
DD
3 samples
M +/- s(%)
20.4
648.
7.28
121.
40.1
313.
10.4
1.84
6.19
26.6
4.28
2.8
55.
0.58
0.96
49.8
474.
155.
2.99
21.3
9.73
1.16
1.24
24.
0.45
4.21
2.24
4.32
105.
121.
42.
5.6
16.
4.9
9.2
5.2
9.3
5.3
2.7
15.
4.9
5.5
2.7
12.
18.
4.6
3.6
4.5
10.
2.5
4.1
5.7
9.9
11.
19.
3.7
11.
13.
8.9
77.
Rhc1
22 samples
M +/- s(%)
13.6
751.
3.68
98.9
18.3
278.
11.9
1.42
4.06
23.
7.29
2.93
50.4
0.4
1.37
37.3
225.
163.
1.77
13.4
6.43
1.45
0.79
25.8
0.47
4.95
3.47
2.97
81.8
152.
57.
24.
33.
5.9
14.
14.
9.0
5.3
7.0
18.
9.0
7.5
7.0
8.9
31.
11.
27.
4.9
14.
7.1
10.
4.4
9.4
7.5
18.
13.
13.
7.1
16.
41.
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
7 samples
M +/- s(%)
As
Ba
Ca %
Ce
Co
Cr
Cs
Eu
Fe %
Ga
Hf
K%
La
Lu
Na %
Nd
Ni
Rb
Sb
Sc
Sm
Ta
Tb
Th
Ti %
U
W
Yb
Zn
Zr
4.37
170.
6.97
44.2
51.6
563.
4.83
0.75
4.81
12.9
2.68
1.44
21.6
0.29
0.58
13.4
817.
72.1
0.41
14.8
2.69
0.64
0.47
7.68
0.38
1.55
1.45
1.79
88.1
106.
22.
36.
28.
2.2
9.5
15.
13.
5.6
8.6
18.
5.3
6.9
3.8
5.2
16.
18.
17.
13.
18.
6.3
5.2
7.6
8.9
7.4
17.
16.
18.
3.6
17.
29.
ITAN
4 samples
M +/- s(%)
12.7
361.
7.12
77.7
15.9
86.2
8.46
1.23
4.39
24.6
4.65
2.84
36.9
0.43
0.82
30.1
91.6
151.
1.45
16.5
5.56
1.05
0.78
13.9
0.47
3.12
2.61
2.92
98.3
116.
12.
5.2
44.
1.4
6.9
2.1
7.1
2.2
2.5
7.9
2.6
6.8
1.1
3.3
23.
6.3
35.
3.4
14.
2.9
1.6
5.1
9.3
2.8
13.
13.
14.
2.0
9.1
35.
QANN
14 samples
M +/- s(%)
2.95
547.
3.71
69.6
36.0
160.
1.52
1.98
7.39
25.0
7.55
1.18
30.4
0.54
1.37
31.6
136.
53.7
0.34
25.0
6.63
1.34
0.96
6.40
1.06
1.58
1.76
3.35
111.
281.
56.
13.
22.
3.2
5.7
3.8
5.6
2.4
2.7
11.
8.3
7.4
3.0
5.1
21.
6.5
29.
5.0
21.
2.6
5.2
4.3
5.8
5.6
6.4
14.
23.
3.9
6.3
13.
QANM
4 samples
M +/- s(%)
7.30
666.
1.82
68.2
32.9
132.
1.50
1.83
6.91
21.0
6.28
1.23
31.2
0.51
1.23
32.6
100.
51.3
0.45
23.7
6.82
1.36
0.95
6.74
1.00
1.66
1.29
3.04
112.
312.
66.
15.
40.
1.4
9.1
3.3
8.0
2.0
1.6
12.
4.0
13.
2.3
33.
11.
8.5
10.
4.6
46.
3.6
3.8
4.1
10.
2.6
9.3
6.8
9.0
6.3
7.6
9.
21.8
804.
2.56
89.8
24.8
160.
13.7
1.43
4.71
17.7
4.53
2.57
40.0
0.42
1.74
40.5
166.
124.
3.61
19.7
6.77
0.92
0.83
21.8
0.42
3.65
4.24
2.80
112.
140.
9.7
6.9
9.
2.4
4.2
3.1
4.5
1.8
1.4
75.
7.7
6.7
1.5
4.1
3.5
9.0
26.
2.2
8.0
2.0
0.7
3.6
7.0
7.3
25.
5.8
9.8
2.1
2.2
20.
pair 2
2 samples
M +/- s(%)
4.07
430.
6.14
87.6
25.4
204.
14.0
1.39
4.47
21.3
6.64
2.16
40.6
0.52
0.95
32.3
91.9
123.
1.11
18.7
6.03
1.13
0.79
14.7
0.66
2.74
2.21
3.29
90.9
141.
12.
3.7
3.5
3.7
12.
4.0
6.6
2.2
1.8
8.5
0.9
1.0
1.7
19.
0.5
2.8
63.
2.3
15.
0.5
1.5
3.6
3.3
0.4
11.
7.4
6.2
1.6
27.
21.
pair 3
2 samples
M +/- s(%)
4.77
388.
9.68
81.8
20.2
125.
7.50
1.26
4.33
23.7
4.92
2.39
39.1
0.41
0.82
31.5
276.
144.
0.76
16.9
5.94
1.11
0.76
12.7
0.43
3.58
2.31
2.92
109.
73.0
12.
4.0
2.4
3.2
30.
4.2
11.
1.8
1.8
3.8
3.6
2.0
1.8
24.
3.0
2.9
37.
4.2
14.
0.6
0.8
3.7
3.4
0.5
11.
2.6
4.3
4.8
24.
50.
pair 4
2 samples
M +/- s(%)
16.0
474.
7.79
81.7
34.1
329.
9.70
1.50
5.95
25.4
5.53
1.96
39.9
0.55
1.06
35.8
303.
99.9
2.25
23.4
6.86
1.19
0.84
15.0
0.60
2.59
3.23
3.51
114.
186.
35.
9.7
25.
2.1
1.6
5.4
1.1
1.8
5.8
13.
3.8
26.
2.8
3.1
9.5
6.7
12.
16.
12.
2.1
7.8
4.9
6.2
2.6
14.
3.9
12.
1.7
2.3
16.
pair 5
2 samples
M +/- s(%)
6.21
479.
4.65
101.
31.2
262.
8.82
1.55
5.37
23.9
7.18
2.61
47.1
0.59
1.09
39.3
453.
153.
1.25
19.2
7.24
1.43
0.99
19.7
0.74
2.68
2.50
4.08
123.
162.
14.
5.3
24.
6.0
3.4
7.7
8.5
7.8
4.6
5.8
3.8
0.7
5.6
2.9
4.7
4.3
8.4
6.4
38.
2.4
2.4
3.6
9.6
0.9
53.
2.8
7.0
1.2
1.8
25.
20
W 2 (10.84 %)
W 2 (17.37 %)
Mommsen et al.
Egypt
(QANN)
A
D
TROB
10
G+g
Asia Minor
Cyprus
(CYPT,EMEA,EMEa)
(A,B,D,E,G...)
-10
X E
EMEB
TD
Attica
(KROP)
50
60
nauk0001
-20
70
-120
W 1 (75.59 %)
-110
nauk0002
-100
-90
W 1 (76.13 %)
QANN - QANM
distance/ave. spread
EMEb
(factor 1.04)
10
-2
-4
-6
-10
As
Ba
Ca
Ce
Co
Cr
Cs
Eu
Fe
Ga
Hf
K
La
Lu
Na
Nd
Ni
Rb
Sb
Sc
Sm
Ta
Tb
Th
Ti
U
W
Yb
Zn
Zr
-8
elements
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).
Dupont et Thomas
locales.
Quelle que soit la mthode de tri utilise, les dterminations
dorigine ne peuvent tre obtenues quindirectement, par
confrontation avec un rseau de rfrences locales sres, adapt
au problme traiter. De la qualit et de la densit de ce rseau
dpendra en grande partie la fiabilit des attributions. A Lyon,
notre banque de donnes sur la Grce de lEst rassemble
plusieurs centaines dchantillons de rfrence collects sur les
sites mentionns plus haut. Mme si elle comporte encore
certaines lacunes, on peut estimer quelle assure dj une
couverture satisfaisante des principales zones de production
potentielles.
Aprs avoir pass en revue les diffrentes catgories de
matriels composant notre chantillonnage de Naukratis, nous
en examinerons un dendrogramme de tri, dont le dpouillement
va nous livrer les principaux groupes prsents sur place. Puis,
partir de ce canevas, nous rattacherons, dans la mesure du
possible, ces diffrents groupes des centres producteurs, la
lumire des confrontations recoupes avec notre rseau de
rfrences locales pour la Grce de lEst. Enfin, nous nous
livrerons une comparaison sommaire avec la situation
observable en mer Noire sur le site dHistria.
Notre chantillonnage de Naukratis est compos
essentiellement de spcimens des collections du Museum of
Classical Archaeology de Cambridge, augment de quelques
autres pices dorigine diverse. Leffectif total des tessons
analyss est de soixante-dix-huit chantillons ce jour. Le style
des Chvres Sauvages est reprsent par une srie de quatorze
NAU 21
NAU 20
NAU 1
NAU 24
NAU 4
NAU 5
NAU 6
NAU 9
NAU 10
NAU 25
NAU 27
NAU 26
NAU 7
NAU 28
NAU 8
NAU 23
NAU 22
NAU 3
NAU 2
NAU 29
NAU 31
NAU 30
NAU 11
NAU 33
NAU 34
NAU 32
NAU 13
NAU 12
NAU 35
NAU 15
NAU 14
NAU 37
NAU 16
NAU 17
NAU 18
NAU 19
NAU 36
NAU 38
NAU 39
STYLE DE CHIOS
STYLE "LATE WILD GOAT"
* SITULES DE DAPHNAE
A1
B1
C1 A 2
B2 B3
C2 G
Dupont et Thomas
reprsents. Quant au spcimen de coupe ionienne B1, il
correspond une variante bien atteste sur place, parfois mme
avec un dcor peint dans le style de Fikellura. Milet a galement
produit et export dautres formes de coupes ioniennes (Villard
A2, B2 et B3), mais moins types.
C1 se rduit deux chantillons: lun de pinax du style des
Chvres Sauvages attribu la Doride (NAU 53), lautre de cette
coupe vroulienne ancienne (ou skyphos?) surcuite (NAU 55).4
Les compositions de ces deux pices ne cadrent avec aucune de
nos rfrences locales de la Grce de lEst, en particulier de
celles du groupe principal de Rhodes. On na pas affaire non
plus, semble-t-il, des productions de la valle du Nil: le surcuit
susmentionn ne devrait donc pas correspondre un rat de
fabrication, mais rsulter dune fusion accidentelle loccasion
dun incendie. Il est possible que lon ait affaire ici des
productions dun centre de Doride continentale. Il est difficile
den dire plus, le groupe dappartenance de ces deux tessons
tant de toute vidence trop mal reprsent dans notre
chantillonnage.
A2 ne comporte galement que deux chantillons, tous deux
du style de Chios (NAU 20, 30). Ceux-ci nont t rejets
manifestement quen raison de leur teneur trs leve en
calcium par rapport au groupe A1, mais leurs autres
caractristiques de composition ne scartent pas de celles de
nos rfrences de Chios.
D mle essentiellement des chantillons du style Late Wild
Goat (NAU 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 52) et du style nord-ionien figures
noires (NAU 11, 14, 16, 51), plus un fragment de cramique grise
(NAU 69). Il sagit l dun groupe homogne, les analyses de
laboratoire ayant clairement tabli que, sur les marchs
dexportation, les deux styles sont attribuables des ateliers
dIonie du Nord. Toutefois, les caractristiques gochimiques de
notre groupe D scartent de celles de Clazomnes, mme si les
gammes de productions sont trs voisines. Elles correspondent
en revanche celles dun groupe bien attest parmi les
trouvailles dHistria et dont lorigine semble devoir tre
recherche du ct de Tos daprs certaines analyses
prliminaires dchantillons de ce site.
B2 (NAU 45, 49) et B3 (NAU 42, 43) renferment chacun deux
chantillons du style de Fikellura. Les compositions de ces deux
paires distinctes se rattachent 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 la fois, puisquon y
trouve cte cte des chantillons du style Late Wild Goat
canonique de Cook (NAU 65, 66) et de sa variante olienne
(Atelier du Deinos de Londres de Kardara5 cf. Kerschner, ce
volume) (NAU 74), dautres du style nord-ionien figures noires
(NAU 12, 13, 17, 18), plusieurs exemplaires de coupes ioniennes
B2 et B3 ( ornements dapplique) (NAU 62, 63, 100, 101), ainsi
quun fragment de lampe (NAU 73). Aprs confrontation avec
notre rseau de rfrences locales, il est apparu que ce groupe
est constitu en ralit de deux entits distinctes, de
compositions trs voisines: lune, correspondant manifestement
un centre de fabrication dEolide, distinct de Phoce,
rassemblant deux spcimens Late Wild Goat (NAU 65, 66) et
dautres du style nord-ionien f.n. (NAU 12, 13, 17, 18); lautre,
attribu traditionnellement Samos, comme renfermant
surtout des coupes ioniennes fines de grande diffusion (NAU 62,
63, 100, 101). Sil savrait que ces deux entits forment deux
80 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Dupont et Thomas
Appendice
Inventaire des echantillons analyss
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. nocho. 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. nocho. 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. nocho. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 12
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 60. Deinos. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 13
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 133. Lkan. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 14
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 134. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 15
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 135. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 16
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 136. nocho. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 17
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 137. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 18
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 138. Amphorette. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 19
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 140. nocho. Style nord-ionien 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. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 41
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 118. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 42
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 119. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 43
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 121. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 44
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 122. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 45
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 126. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 46
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 128. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 47
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 129. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 48
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 130. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 49
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 131. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 50
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 132. nocho. Style de Fikellura.
NAU 51
Louvre, AM 1479. Pinax. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 52
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 51. Segmentteller. Style nord-ionien f. n.
NAU 53
Cambridge, Arch. Museum, NA 45. Pinax. Style des Chvres Sauvages.
NAU 54
Calice. Style de Chios. Middle Wild Goat II.
NAU 55
Coupe vroulienne ancien style de Kinch ou skyphos indtermin (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 milsien.
82 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Resultats danalyse
(en %, sauf pour MnO en ppm)
N
NAU 01
NAU 02
NAU 03
NAU 04
NAU 05
NAU 06
NAU 07
NAU 08
NAU 09
NAU 10
NAU 11
NAU 12
NAU 13
NAU 14
NAU 15
NAU 16
NAU 17
NAU 18
NAU 19
NAU 20
NAU 21
NAU 22
NAU 23
NAU 24
NAU 25
NAU 26
NAU 27
NAU 28
NAU 29
NAU 30
NAU 31
NAU 32
NAU 33
NAU 34
NAU 35
NAU 36
NAU 37
NAU 38
NAU 39
NAU 40
NAU 41
CaO
09. 8
09. 5
09. 9
09. 4
08. 8
08. 8
06. 9
08. 2
04. 7
05. 3
07. 6
09. 0
06. 5
07. 9
06. 3
04. 7
07. 2
07. 6
08. 3
13. 2
10. 8
11. 5
10. 3
07. 7
09. 0
09. 0
11. 7
09. 0
06. 9
13. 0
10. 0
10. 1
16. 1
08. 2
10. 1
07. 6
13. 2
08. 7
12. 4
11. 0
11. 3
Fe2O3
06. 40
06. 30
05. 85
06. 35
06. 35
06. 70
07. 70
06. 80
10. 80
06. 30
06. 10
09. 00
08. 05
07. 00
07. 50
07. 45
08. 25
08. 80
07. 85
06. 45
06. 85
07. 50
07. 05
07. 50
07. 45
07. 25
06. 55
07. 60
07. 55
06. 47
07. 00
07. 25
06. 85
06. 25
06. 45
08. 05
07. 25
07. 85
07. 25
07. 80
07. 50
TiO2
0. 94
0. 91
0. 84
0. 95
0. 91
0. 87
0. 91
0. 91
2. 29
0. 92
0. 93
0. 87
0. 91
0. 96
0. 97
1. 00
0. 95
0. 83
0. 88
0. 72
0. 74
0. 77
0. 75
0. 81
0. 79
0. 78
0. 70
0. 80
0. 88
0. 67
0. 82
0. 84
0. 71
0. 84
0. 74
0. 82
0. 75
0. 85
0. 72
0. 79
0. 76
K2O
2. 88
2. 98
2. 83
2. 88
2. 88
3. 36
2. 93
3. 12
1. 30
2. 98
3. 17
3. 07
3. 50
3. 12
3. 07
3. 60
3. 22
3. 41
3. 07
2. 21
2. 11
2. 02
2. 02
2. 02
2. 02
2. 21
2. 06
2. 21
2. 45
2. 10
2. 21
2. 30
2. 06
2. 26
2. 11
2. 11
2. 11
2. 45
2. 06
3. 41
2. 88
SiO2
58. 4
58. 5
59. 6
58. 8
59. 2
58. 6
58. 0
58. 1
59. 3
62. 4
60. 4
52. 8
55. 7
57. 4
58. 4
58. 2
54. 6
53. 4
56. 4
55. 5
58. 1
55. 9
57. 1
58. 9
58. 3
58. 2
58. 6
54. 9
56. 1
57. 0
57. 5
56. 3
53. 2
60. 3
60. 5
58. 6
55. 0
56. 0
54. 5
51. 8
51. 7
Al2O3
19. 8
19. 4
18. 6
18. 8
19. 3
19. 4
19. 4
20. 0
17. 1
20. 3
20. 1
19. 9
19. 7
21. 8
19. 8
22. 5
21. 3
21. 3
17. 5
13. 8
14. 1
14. 7
14. 7
15. 1
15. 1
15. 6
13. 6
15. 3
16. 9
14. 8
15. 1
16. 2
13. 8
15. 3
13. 8
15. 9
14. 5
17. 1
14. 3
16. 7
16. 4
MgO
02. 60
01. 90
02. 30
02. 05
02. 35
03. 10
03. 30
02. 70
03. 80
02. 75
01. 95
05. 40
01. 85
02. 60
03. 10
02. 35
03. 80
04. 60
05. 40
05. 85
06. 00
07. 20
06. 90
06. 60
05. 55
05. 70
05. 45
05. 70
05. 00
05. 65
06. 25
05. 90
05. 45
05. 15
05. 50
06. 20
06. 30
06. 05
07. 35
06. 70
07. 35
MnO
0740
0840
0880
1260
1020
1620
1740
1000
1920
0880
0940
1480
1040
0880
1480
1020
1600
1200
1000
1760
1260
1300
1160
1180
1340
1400
1100
1500
1220
2090
1140
1060
6360
2960
1520
1280
1280
1040
1200
1300
1240
Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt | 83
Dupont et Thomas
N
CaO
Fe2O3
TiO2
K2O
SiO2
Al2O3
MgO
MnO
NAU 42
NAU 43
NAU 44
NAU 45
NAU 46
NAU 47
NAU 48
NAU 49
NAU 50
NAU 51
NAU 52
NAU 53
NAU 54
NAU 55
NAU 56
NAU 57
NAU 58
NAU 59
NAU 60
NAU 61
NAU 62
NAU 63
NAU 64
NAU 65
NAU 66
NAU 67
NAU 68
NAU 69
NAU 70
NAU 71
NAU 72
NAU 73
NAU 74
NAU 75
NAU 76
NAU 100
NAU 101
DEF 01
04. 1
03. 6
10. 9
08. 1
09. 3
09. 0
08. 6
07. 1
07. 8
06. 2
08. 9
12. 4
12. 1
12. 9
08. 5
09. 3
08. 9
03. 9
07. 6
09. 5
08. 6
05. 5
07. 7
06. 9
07. 1
04. 3
05. 3
07. 6
05. 5
08. 6
13. 5
07. 3
06. 30
14. 18
06. 10
05. 8
05. 5
12. 1
06. 10
06. 10
07. 45
05. 90
08. 05
07.35
07. 40
06. 30
06. 80
07. 00
06. 74
06. 63
07. 05
06. 46
07. 66
07. 40
08. 52
08. 63
07. 77
06. 83
08. 65
08. 22
07. 92
09. 24
08. 40
06. 72
06. 76
06. 83
07. 30
09. 76
08. 10
08. 85
08. 69
07. 75
07. 22
08. 59
08. 57
08. 13
0. 80
0. 81
0. 78
0. 72
0. 81
0. 80
0. 79
0. 76
0. 78
0. 94
0. 93
0. 86
0. 76
0. 80
0. 82
0. 81
0. 77
0. 84
0. 95
0. 74
1. 00
0. 98
0. 94
0. 89
0. 90
0. 93
0. 89
0. 87
0. 89
1. 83
0. 86
0. 82
0. 87
0. 84
0. 86
0. 96
0. 95
0. 60
4. 51
4. 51
3. 17
3. 65
3. 26
3. 46
3. 31
3. 89
3. 65
3. 35
2. 96
3. 11
1. 61
2. 83
2. 08
2. 30
2. 62
2. 59
3. 48
3. 80
3. 82
3. 85
3. 04
3. 46
3. 49
2. 82
2. 75
2. 83
3. 26
1. 37
3. 22
3. 69
3. 61
3. 35
3. 17
4. 04
4. 24
1. 68
59. 7
60. 1
51. 7
56. 9
51. 5
53. 3
54. 0
57. 0
55. 9
57. 0
58. 6
53. 8
53. 2
53. 0
56. 7
53. 6
44. 3
53. 9
56. 1
53. 1
48. 6
54. 1
56. 2
49. 4
53. 6
63. 6
62. 9
57. 7
57. 3
56. 4
50. 4
53. 8
54. 3
51. 3
60. 3
55. 4
56. 4
50. 3
20. 0
19. 8
17. 3
17. 2
17. 2
17. 9
17. 3
18. 3
17. 9
21. 6
19. 7
16. 4
13. 6
17. 2
14. 7
15. 3
13. 6
15. 0
19. 1
17. 9
21. 3
21. 4
19. 2
21. 1
20. 4
17. 5
15. 5
17. 2
17. 9
15. 5
18. 5
19. 6
20. 4
16. 8
19. 1
21. 0
20. 4
10. 5
03. 00
03. 55
06. 90
04. 40
06. 40
06. 95
06. 75
04. 65
05. 85
02. 85
02. 20
05. 00
07. 06
03F. 57
06. 84
07. 22
12. 20
11. 86
03. 47
04. 31
05. 09
03. 57
03. 37
04. 82
04. 20
02. 70
03. 63
03. 02
05. 20
03. 60
03. 79
03. 86
03. 98
03. 87
01. 99
03. 06
02. 91
18. 00
1140
0900
1160
1200
1180
1060
1100
0820
1060
0940
0850
1050
1150
0910
1190
1130
0960
0650
1530
1250
1290
1110
1720
1270
1180
1500
2940
0860
1450
1500
1904
1326
1191
3391
1732
1202
1499
1285
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 19982003 in the extraurban 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.
Attula
worthwhile.
Three other plates from Emecik, cat. nos 12 (Figs 67) 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 89) and 4 (Figs 910) 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 910) 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 89),
shows a nearly fully preserved ship facing left. Beside the long
Attula
row of side oars the two steering oars are also preserved, as is
the aphlaston, with its high curved but not yet fan-like, preClassical shape.30 Exactly the kind of steering oars as on cat. no. 3
and part of the ships 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 14, 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 12 (Figs 67), the ship plate in the
British Museum cat no. 4 (Figs 910), and the Potnia Theron
plate cat. no. 6 (Fig. 4).
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 linguisticdialectical 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 archaeologicalarchaeometrical 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 dont 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
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 89)
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 reddishbrown 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 910)
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.
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
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Attula
58
59
60
61
62
63
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
Cooks 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
Cooks 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 Cooks 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 Cooks 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 (910, Figs 78;
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
Cooks 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. 600575 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 rims 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
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 crosshatching 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 Burunuk
assigned to the second half of the 6th century bc, though Cook
suggests that they may date into the 5th. The zones of crosshatching 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 Pflanzenornamentik 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 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 alternatelylinked 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 chains buds are rather stout.
Naukratis supplies a number of examples of similar nonfigural 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
Paspalas
of individual suspended meander elements, and then radiallyplaced 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 blackred-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 22 Dishes nos 25, 25a, 25b, 26, 27 and 28 from Old Smyrna
Paspalas
carry more bands than are usually found on their parallels.
Despite the fact that the sites at which parallels for this vessel
have been found produced North Ionian material that
corresponds to finds made both at Naukratis and Old Smyrna,
no vessels from Naukratis have been published which may be
closely compared to 31.93
In conclusion
An examination of the plates, dishes and fruitstands from Old
Smyrna shows that they belong to categories characteristic of
North Ionia, features of which are also met on vessels produced
in Aiolis. The earlier Old Smyrna pieces find, by and large,
parallels in the corpus of published pottery from Naukratis,
though the most elaborate pieces stand apart. What direct links
exist between the relevant pieces from these two sites are
further strengthened by finds made elsewhere which are related
to both bodies of material. These sites are located primarily on
the Black Sea coast, and in the Cyclades, the eastern
Mediterranean and Sicily, though a greater concentration of
finds is noticeable in the Black Sea area and especially at
Naukratis. The distribution of these end of the 7th- and 6thcentury bc vessels largely corresponds to the routes of East
Greek mariners and merchants who we know, from the written
and epigraphical sources, were conspicuous at Naukratis.94 It
may also be noted that decorative motifs which characterize
many of the Old Smyrna pieces and their parallels are also found
on other North Ionian shapes, and so these open vessels are tied
into a broader pottery manufacturing milieu.
Equally notable from the above discussion is that the
relationship between the Old Smyrna and Naukratis material
does not hold for 36 (Fig. 4) and 2030 (Figs 1724). Vessels
decorated with loosely-arranged or disarticulated floral motifs
are rarely present beyond their areas of manufacture, and are
not found among the known Naukratis finds nor among other
finds of later Greek pottery made in Egypt.
Of the dishes and fruitstands from Naukratis mentioned in
this paper only a few have a published findspot, and all these are
recorded as having been excavated in a temenos.95 A number of
the pieces from Old Smyrna, and notably some of the more
ornate examples, were found in the Athena Sanctuary.96 Many of
the parallels from other sites cited here, for example those form
Tocra and Cyrene, were also found in sanctuaries. This evidence
indicates that dishes and fruitstands could frequently be
encountered in East Greek sanctuaries, either as votives or items
of equipment. Equally, though, material such as that from Assos
and 17 (Fig. 14) from Old Smyrna show that these vessels could
be placed in funerary contexts, while the parallel pieces studied
by Ersoy from Klazomenai appear to come from domestic
deposits, as well may 18 and 20 (Figs 15 and 17).
Appendix
The aim of this Appendix is to provide the reader with the raw
material of this paper as presented in J.M. Cooks notes. It is
divided into three parts. Part A is a concordance which gives the
numbers used in this article for the Old Smyrna material and
their corresponding numbers in Cooks notes. In Part B I give a
list of most of the pieces discussed in this paper. The list is
divided into three sections defined by Cook. The first number in
the left-hand column is the number assigned to the piece in
Cooks notes; the following number is the number of the piece in
the text of the present article. In the right-hand column I give
any details Cook included by his drawing of the piece. (Note that
the added purple mentioned by Cook in his notes for the
drawing of ID [13] is not indicated on his drawing.)
The details which accompany the drawings should be read
in conjunction with Part C of the Appendix which is comprised
of Cooks notes on his categories. Cooks no. 20 in Part C is not
presented here as it has been published in Cook 1958/9, 33, pl.
6.e. I have not been able to find any details or drawings for the
pieces II and IJ among Cooks notes. It is conceivable that these
pieces may be represented among the vessels referred to in Cook
and Nicholls 1998, 236 (see n. 4 supra).
In order to avoid the risk of introducing any unwarranted
features into Cooks drawings they have been inked exactly as he
prepared them. Consequently, the exterior decoration of 16 is
only shown summarily as is that of 21. Note that, uniquely, 19 is
illustrated by an inked drawing found in Cooks notes.
Part A
Concordance
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25a-b
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Cooks No.
10 (drawing)
14
12
12
10 photograph
15
IK
IH
IE
IC
No number
IB
ID
IN
9
IF
IL
IM
IA
IG
2b
16
17
18b
3
5
4
7
6
2a
19
18
13
Figure
1
3
4
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
22
22
22
23
24
25
4
19
12
drawing
drawing
IC.
10
drawing
ID.
IE.
IF.
13
16
drawing
drawing
drawing
IG.
20
drawing
IH.
II.
drawing
IK.
IL.
7
17
drawing
drawing
IM.
18
drawing
IN.
14
drawing
IJ.
No details
(K318) Temenos H3
Buff micaceous clay. On inside black glaze
design on white slip.
Black band on inside rim on natural.
Presumably late 7th century.
(K370) Temenos chips.
Light buff clay, glaze fired red on interior over
white slip; colour (possibly originally white).
Stripes of red on exterior on natural.
Late 7th century. Probably Smyrnaean.
(K383) Temenos chips.
Clay pink in biscuit and little mica; gray on
surface and black paint. Interior slipped and
faded paint partly retouched in purple.
Black stripes on exterior on natural.
Late 7th century.
(K384) Temenos chips.
Reddish clay and mica. Exterior, buff dark
brown glaze. Interior and exterior of lip
slipped; purple retouches.
Dark brown stripes on exterior on natural.
Late 7th century.
(K371) Temenos 820-750.
Rather porous light buff clay. Very little mica
and white slip on inside and faint traces of wash
outside (perhaps thinned clay). Purple and
white stripes.
7th century, not latest.
(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.
No details.
No details, and no illustration included among
drawings or photographs.
No details, and no illustration included among
drawings or photographs.
No details
(K304) City Wall E, pithos grave.
Buff clay with very little mica. Dark brown to
black glaze. Exterior: black on natural.
(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.
(K319) CW NE.
Dark brown paint on white slip.
7th century.
2a.
2b.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
10.
12.
13.
14.
29
21
25
26
25 a & b
28
27
15
1
5
3&4
32
2
drawing
drawing
photograph
photograph
photograph
photograph
photograph
photograph
drawing
photograph
photograph
photograph
drawing
15.
16.
17.
18.
6
22
23
31
photograph
drawing
drawing
drawing
18b.
24
drawing
19.
30
drawing
P46. No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
No details.
P201. H West (North) 1310-1300
Plain outside.
No details.
6th century or later.
No details.
Stripes outside and white painted lines
on rim.
C pre-wine shop.
Red, rather rough ware, much mica.
Surface badly corroded. Exterior
plain. On interior traces of red painted
design on white slip: double chain of
orange pips on rim, traces of hatched
triangle and tongues in bowl.
Reddish clay with light wash;
polished, micaceous. Thinned clay
swastika on handle. To be restored
with four lugs.
Paspalas
Part C: John Cooks 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 midsixth-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 fifthcentury. 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,
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
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
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. 580570 bc see Greenewalt 1966, 200 f
and g, pl. 13E-F.
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.
Hundt and Peters 1961, 19-20 no. 120, pl. 11.
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 Muse Scheurleer 2 IID pl.2.3 (T2911) (fruitstand). See too a
fragmentary fruitstand from Sybaris: Guzzo et al. 1972, 96 no. 142,
fig. 96.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).
Venit 1988, pl. 27.100 (Alexandria 17264).
Akurgal 1983, fig. 92.
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.
Guzzo et al. 1972, 95 no. 139, fig. 94. Its rim carries a series of meander
hooks.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).
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).
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).
Daux 1966, 944-6, fig. 22 coupe rhodienne.
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 ren 2003,
186 no. 307, pl. 65 (identified as North Ionian: ibid. 152-3).
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.
Tell Sukas: Ploug 1973, pl. 15.289. Sybaris: Guzzo et al. 1972, 96 no.
140, fig. 95.
Petrie 1886b, pl. 7.3 (BM GR 1924.12-1.1104).
11 (Fig. 9) is illustrated in the catalogues: Dedeolu 1993, 12 middle
photo Footed Vessel; zkan 1999, 54 no. 100 (first half of the 6th
century bc). Samian Heraion: Isler 1978, 148 no. 511, pl. 69, Beil. 12.
CVA Great Britain 9 Oxford 2 IID pl. 4.20 (G 117.11).
Ibid. pl. 4.19 (1912.36.6).
Venit 1988, pl. 27.101 (Alexandria 17240).
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).
Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.5 (Boston MFA 88.826 [78]), pl. 35.
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.
See n. 7 supra.
ren 2003, 186 no. 305, pl. 65.
Walter-Karydi 1973, 147 nos 1020-1 (from the Samian Heraion), pl.
124.
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: Dehlvon 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. 4, 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
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
fruitstand from Saint-Blaise: Bouloumi 1992, 196 no. 518 figs 50a-b
and p. 271.
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.
Daux 1963, 865 fig. 4 bottom right.
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.
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.
Ephesos: Kerschner 2001, pl. 12.3. Phokaia: zyiit 1994, fig. 37 top
right (which may be compared to the fragment Miltner and Miltner
1932, 183 fig. 92.22).
Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl. 65.3568a.
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. 600575 bc).
Note too the fruitstand zkan 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. 570565 bc).
Fairbanks 1928, 112 no. 323.1 (Boston MFA 86.633 [83]), pl. 35.
Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, pl.65.3553.
Boardman and Hayes 1966, 44 and 50 no. 632, pl. 34.
Venit 1988, pl. 28.104-6 (Alexandria 17333, Cairo 26147 and
Alexandria 17276); Piekarski 2001a, pl. 12.1 (Bonn 697.18).
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]).
CVA The Netherlands 2 Muse Scheurleer IID 2 pl. 2.1 (T2912).
Old Smyrna: zkan 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: Meri 1986, 303 fig. 3 nos 17-8.
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.
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: zkan 1999, 56 no. 105. Delos: Dugas 1928, 40-1 nos 689, 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: zyiit 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.
Akanthos: Kaltsas 1998, 165 no. E39, pl. 176e. Kavala (Neapolis):
Bakalakis 1938, 116-8 fig. 8. Ainos: Baaran 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).
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.
CVA The Netherlands 2 Muse Scheurleer 2 IID pl.2.1 (T2912).
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
Kyme 1
1 samples
factor 1.19
C +/- d %
As
Ba
Ca%
Ce
Co
Cr
Cs
Eu
Fe%
Ga
Hf
K%
La
Lu
Na%
Nd
Ni
Rb
Sb
Sc
Sm
Ta
Tb
Th
Ti%
U
W
Yb
Zn
Zr
53.5
757.
7.42
95.5
28.8
265.
27.6
1.60
5.37
-5.24
3.15
46.3
0.51
0.98
37.0
362.
196.
5.52
19.1
6.96
1.10
1.15
18.5
0.44
3.54
2.63
3.53
105.
192.
Group G
60 samples
factor 1.00
M +/- s %
0.24
40.9
0.38
0.92
0.23
1.97
0.28
0.042
0.029
0.5
5.4
5.2
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.0
2.6
0.5
0.11
0.036
0.13
0.024
0.006
2.04
70.3
4.93
0.21
0.038
0.018
0.050
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.19
0.24
0.11
2.65
43.9
2.1
1.1
0.3
4.6
0.6
5.5
19.
2.5
3.9
0.2
0.3
4.6
9.4
0.7
30.
5.5
9.2
3.2
2.5
23.
44.7
810.
4.82
121.
27.6
188.
23.8
1.99
6.04
29.1
5.79
3.12
56.1
0.60
0.96
51.0
173.
178.
4.79
21.8
9.93
1.18
1.29
21.1
0.50
4.00
2.70
4.23
119.
173.
Pattern comparison
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 computeraided 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
106 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Group g
28 samples
factor 1.00
M +/- s %
20.3
98.6
0.83
3.54
1.06
12.1
2.80
0.049
0.21
3.75
0.56
0.12
1.11
0.023
0.12
2.41
45.4
6.48
0.58
0.38
0.51
0.061
0.083
0.56
0.11
0.59
0.29
0.12
6.69
56.9
45.
12.
17.
2.9
3.8
6.4
12.
2.5
3.5
13.
9.7
3.9
2.0
3.9
13.
4.7
26.
3.6
12.
1.8
5.1
5.2
6.5
2.6
22.
15.
11.
2.7
5.6
33.
45.2
739.
5.53
103.
26.8
211.
27.1
1.68
5.55
24.5
5.40
2.92
48.1
0.53
1.05
42.2
210.
172.
4.67
20.0
8.18
1.13
1.08
18.9
0.50
3.44
2.69
3.69
107.
154.
29.3
87.4
0.84
5.17
1.71
23.7
2.98
0.093
0.24
6.11
0.51
0.14
1.75
0.024
0.35
2.82
45.1
10.3
0.83
1.01
0.67
0.067
0.068
1.09
0.14
0.32
0.26
0.19
9.89
59.8
65.
12.
15.
5.0
6.4
11.
11.
5.5
4.3
25.
9.5
4.9
3.6
4.6
33.
6.7
22.
6.0
18.
5.1
8.1
5.9
6.3
5.8
28.
9.3
9.7
5.1
9.3
39.
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
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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 188486 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
211). Publishing a selection of East Greek wares from the site in
Kerschner
Kerschner
colourful overall effect,48 which compensate for the evident
carelessness in the finish. ren underlines the provincial
character49 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 28, 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
Figure 31 Finds of the London Dinos group in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (cf.Appendix 2)
Kerschner
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. ren 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.
Kerschner
Appendix 1
Differentiation of the chemical provenance
group G and its subgroup g
According to ceramic wares
Provenance group G
Sub-group g
Provenance group G
Subgroup g
Provenance group G
Subgroup g
Subgroup g
Subgroup g
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. ren,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; ren 2002, 198 no. 1.
2. Amphora: Thalmann 1977, 77, pl. 17.10; ren 2002, 198 no. 2.
3. Oinochoe or small amphora: Thalmann 1977, 77 no. 113, pl. 17, 5-8; ren
2002, 199 no. 7. (ren 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); ren 2002, 185-6, 199 no. 8, fig. 10a (ren 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); ren 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 Lotosblte, but a row of
tongues; ren 2002, 199 no. 10.
3. Wall fragments of a closed vessel: Utili 1999, 198 no. 333a+b, fig. 23;
ren 2002, 199 no. 11.
ren 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; ren 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. .68-27:
Kopeikina 1970b, 563, 565, pl. 2.2; Kopeikina 1982, 27, fig. 23a (on this
figure, only two fragments are shown); ren 2002, 182, 184, 199 no. 16.
3. Two large rim and wall fragments of a dinos: St. Petersburg,
Hermitage Inv. . 75-7: Kopeikina 1981, 196, fig. 4a; Kopeikina 1982, 27,
fig. 23 ; ren 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 ; ren 2002, 200 no. 19.
5. Reconstructed dinos, Hermitage Inv. . 66-7: Kopeikina 1970b, 563,
565, pl. 1.4; Kopeikina 1982, 27, fig. 24; ren 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; ren 2002, 200
no. 22.
7. Wall fragment of a dinos, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. B.82.8:
Solovyov 1999, 48-9, fig. 29.1; ren 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); ren 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; ren 2002,
199 no. 18.
11.Wall fragment of a dinos, Kiev, Institut Arkheologii inv. .63-1003:
Kopeikina 1970b, 563, 565, pl. 1.5; ren 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
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; ren 2002, 201 no. 33.
2. Wall fragment of a Dinos (?): Schefold 1933, 154, fig. 11; Kardara 1963,
275; ren 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; ren 2002, 201 no. 39.
3. Large wall fragment of a dinos, London, British Museum GR 1886.41.1288 (Fig. 4): Price 1924, 193, fig. 21; Homann-Wedeking 1938, 16 no. P3;
Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 3, pl. 8.2; ren 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; ren 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; ren 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; ren 2002, 201 no. 44.
7. Wall fragment of an open vessel, presumably a dinos, Brussels, Muse
du Cinquantenaire inv. A 1761: Mayence and Verhoogen 1949, II D, pl. 3.14;
Kardara 1963, 274; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 8; ren 2002, 201 no. 41.
8. Small wall fragment, presumably of a dinos (?), Heidelberg,
Universitt inv. 39: Schauenburg 1954, 11 no. 26, pl. 2.26; Kardara 1963,
276; Walter-Karydi 1970, 3 no. 10; ren 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; ren
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; ren 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; ren 2002, 201 no. 37
(ren 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); ren
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 Muse dHistoire de Marseille 1995, 38; ren 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 Muse
dHistoire 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. Foa 1956 H ukuru Gney kma 650550: unpublished; sample no. Phok 28, provenance group G.
5. Rim fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 201 no. 45, fig. 13a.
6. Rim fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 201 no. 46, fig. 13b.
7. Rim fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 202 no. 47, fig. 13c.
8. Rim fragments of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 202 no. 48, fig. 13d.
9. Shoulder fragments of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi Inv. Foa 1955:
ren 2002, 202 no. 49, fig. 13e.
10. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955:
ren 2002, 202 no. 50, fig. 13f.
11. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955:
ren 2002, 202 no. 51, fig. 13g.
12. Shoulder fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955:
ren 2002, 202 no. 52, fig. 13h.
13. Wall fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 202 no. 53, fig. 13i.
14. Wall fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 202 no. 54, fig. 13j.
15. Wall fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 202 no. 55, fig. 10b.
16. Wall fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 202 no. 56, fig. 15a.
17. Wall fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 202 no. 57, fig. 13k.
18. Wall fragment of a dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. Foa 1955: ren
2002, 203 no. 60, fig. 13l.
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Wall fragment: . zyiit 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. Foa 1955 O
ukuru Kuyu I: unpublished, sample no. Phok 29, provenance group G.
3. Handle fragment of a closed vessel, inv. Foa 1956 D ukuru D Odas
290-255: unpublished, sample no. Phok 31, provenance group G.
Pitane
1. Dinos, zmir, Arkeoloji mzesi inv. 5018: Dedeolu 1993, 21; Cook and
Dupont 1998, 60-1, fig. 8.23; ren 2002, 167, 169, 178, 182, 184, 203 no. 62,
fig. 3.
2. Dinos, zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi inv. 5794: Akurgal 1987, 24, pl. 4a, 10d;
Akurgal 1993, pl. 112; ren 2002, 185, 203 no. 61, fig. 2.
Stylistically related vessels of different shape
1. Oinochoe: ren 2002, 178-9, 204 no. 79, fig. 11.
Pyrrha on Lesbos
1. Several fragments of a dinos, Gttingen, Archologisches Institut der
Universitt: 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; ren 2002, 184, 203 no. 63, figs 4-5.
2. Rim fragment of a dinos, Gttingen, Archologisches Institut der
Universitt: ren 2002, 203 no. 64, fig. 9a.
Saint-Blaise
1. Wall fragments of a dinos: Bouloumi 1992, 212, 214 no. 574, fig. 55.
2. Wall fragment of a dinos: Bouloumi 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; Bouloumi
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; ren 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); ren 2002, 203 no.
67.
Stylistically related vessels of uncertain shape
1. Salinas 1884, 330, pl. 5.41; Walter-Karydi 1970, 4 no. 15; ren 2002, 203
no. 65.
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: Gttingen, Archologisches
Institut der Universitt, photo: S. Eckardt; Figs 15, 30: Robertinum der
Martin-Luther-Universitt Halle-Wittenberg, photo: H. Lhr (Halle); Figs
20, 27: M. Akurgal (zmir), photo: author; Fig.26: author; Figs 25, 29-30:
M. Frasca (Catania); Fig. 31: I. Benda-Weber (AI, Vienna) after a sketch
by the author; Fig. 32: author, photo: U. Gericks (Mnster); 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 ones 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 (zmir)
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
Universitt Bonn) and D. Graepler (Archologisches Institut der
Universitt Gttingen) 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. Lhr (Halle), A. Villing and D. Williams for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Kerschner
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
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.
Walter-Karydi 1970, 10; ren 2002, 165, 194, 197; ren 2003, 157, cf.
already Schefold 1942, 132.
A short preliminary notice: zyiit 2004, 443-4.
The excavator announced finds of Orientalising pottery produced in
the region of North Ionia and the Aiolis (zyiit 2004, 444).
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.
ren 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 Gefe des aTs [= aiolischer Tierfriesstil] und IIIa sorgfltigere
Stile als aTs IIIb haben, knnte man sich die groen und wichtigen
aiolischen Stdte wie Kyme und Myrina fr sie als Herstellungsort
vorstellen.). Although he considers the London Dinos group as
Phokaian (ren 2002, 194, 197), he admits: ... dennoch darf man sie
[= Kyme] als einen mglichen Kandidaten fr die Lokalisation der
Werkstatt des Londoner Dinos betrachten. (ren 2002, 194).
Strabo 13.3.6 (translated by H.L. Jones); cf. Cook 1975, 780.
Walter-Karydi 1970, 6; ren 2002, 190-7.
Schefold 1966, 57, on the dinos in Basle: Unser Dinos gehrt aber zu
einer Variante [des ostgriechischen Tierfriesstils], die am hufigsten
in Larisa am Hermos gefunden worden ist und in der Hauptstadt der
olis, in Kyme, ihre Heimat gehabt haben drfte.
Walter-Karydi 1970, 10; ren 2002, 193. This opinion is mainly based
on an anecdote bequeathed by Strabo 13.3.6: Cym 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.
Cf. ren 2002, 194 (... die Phoker 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, 269306; Gassner 2003, 261-75; Kerschner 2004.
Boardman 1999a, 125.
On the commercial activities of Aigina: Johnston 1972; Johnston
1979, 51-2; Hiller 2000 (with further bibliography).
Akurgal et al. 2002, 111 no. 79, fig. 48, pl. 6.
Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
Kerschner 2006.
Kerschner 2006.
Kerschner 2006.
Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
A detailed publication of the NAA from Kyme is being prepared by M.
Frasca, M. Kerschner and H. Mommsen.
A detailed publication of the NAA from Phokaia is being prepared by
M. Akurgal, M. Kerschner and H. Mommsen.
Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
Kerschner 2006.
Kerschner 2006.
Kerschner 2006.
Posamentir and Solovyov 2006.
Kardara 1963, 271-6, figs 258-65 (ergasterion dinou); Walter-Karydi
1970, 3-4; ren 2002, 198-206; cf. M. Kerschner in Akurgal et al. 2002,
87 with n. 549.
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.
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,
from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1270
Figure 4Wall fragment of a dinos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, London Dinos group,
from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1886.4-1.1288
Figure 7 Askos,Aiolian Wild Goat style, stylistically related to the London Dinos group, from Naukratis. London, British Museum GR 1888.6-1.462
Figure 13 Dinos,Aiolian Subgeometric or dot style, from Larisa. Gttingen, inv. 22, sample no. Lari 15.
Provenance group G
Kerschner
Figure 16 Skyphos krater,Aiolian Wild Goat style, from Larisa. Gttingen, inv.
38a-c, sample no. Lari 18. Provenance group G
Figure 19 Oinochoe,Aiolian Wild Goat style, from Larisa. Gttingen, inv. 447, sample no. Lari 21. Provenance group G
Figure 26 Rosette bowl from Smyrna, sample no. Smyr 32. Provenance group G
Figure 27 Dish with meander on the rim, from Phokaia (excavations E.Akurgal).
Inv. 1956 Foa D a odas, sample no. Phok 49. Provenance group G
Figure 29 Dish, banded ware, from Kyme, Inv. 88.IV.29, ssample no. Kyme 05.
Provenance group G
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.
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 Petries
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 191415, 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 Prices 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
Wrzburg, under the sobriquet the Painter of the Wrzburg
Chalices.10 She charts this painter and his followers over a
number of years: indeed, a chalice fragment already has added
Williams
Figure 2 Phallus cup wall (?), outside and inside view, BM GR 1924.12-1.186
Figure 3 Phallus cup wall (?), outside and inside view, BM GR 1924.12-1.203
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 onepiece amphora, and is decorated with a goose. The painters
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 5 Photomontage of Aphrodite bowl (BM GR 1888.6-1.456) and joining fragment (BM GR 1924.12-1.418)
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 Boardmans 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 Boardmans 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.
Williams
Figure 12 Chalice
fragment: horseman,
outside and inside
view, BM GR 1924.121.343
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
Williams
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
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
round-mouthed oinochoai.
MileA Ic53 (c. 630610 bc) is characterised in particular by
the fact that the hanging and standing triangles and the halfrosettes, 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 vessels body also increases in some
examples, so that the body of the Lvy 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. 610580 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, socalled 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)
Figure 3 MileA II, amphora:Tell Defenneh, fort (BM GR 1888.2-8.46a; sample Defe
11: group D) (cat. no. 5)
Schlotzhauer
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 . Yaln 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
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)
Schlotzhauer
Figure 9 MileA II, mug with trefoil mouth and offset ring-base: Miletos; temenos of Aphrodite (cat. no. 9)
Classification of R. M.
Cook 1998
SiG
675
670
Early Orientalising
a
650
650
EWG
MWG I
630
SiA I
625
c
610
MWG II
600
590
E.g. Bilinguals
580
Hiatus? or
570
MWG III?
560
SiA II
Fikellura
494
494
SiC
Figure 10 Classification system of South Ionian pottery
Catalogue
Abbreviations
Diam.
L.
Th.
W.
NAA
Diameter
Length
Thickness
Width
Neutron Activation Analysis
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. 0.20.4cm
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: reddishbrown 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 15.614.7cm
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. 0.30.65cm
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. 0.30.35cm
Clay: 5 YR 7/4; firm consistency; very fine temper; fine dense matrix;
much fine dark mica; surface: very well smoothed; paint: brownishblack, 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 Rver 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
Illustration credits
Fig. 1a author, 1bd H. Grnwald, Berlin; Fig. 2ab author, 2ce H.
Grnwald, Berlin; Fig. 3a-b British Museum; Fig. 4a author, 4b H.
Grnwald, Berlin; Fig. 5a author, 5b H. Grnwald, Berlin; Fig. 6ab
excavation at Didyma; Fig. 7ac author, 7d H. Grnwald, Berlin; Fig. 8ab
author, 8c H. Grnwald, Berlin; Fig. 9ab author; Fig. 9c H. Grnwald,
Berlin; Fig. 10 U. Schlotzhauer.
Notes
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
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).
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.
This excavation is part of a project being conducted by H. Bumke
(Bonn), E. Rver (Berlin) and A. Filges (Frankfurt) at the Taxiarchis
hill. See preliminary reports by Bumke and Rver 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).
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.
Lohmann 1995, 1996, 1997b, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004,
(forthcoming); Berndt 2003.
In particular, thus far no Archaic kilns have been found outside of the
ancient city of Miletos.
In the following the new classification system for East Greek pottery
according to Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005 is used.
Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
A group classified within the Klazomenian black-figured style,
according to R.M. Cook. See Cook 1998, 95-8; zer 2004, 202-3.
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.
In which details were reserved and not incised. For the divergence
from the technique of black-figured vase-painting, see Cook 1998,
7882, 89; for a different opinion on the dating of MileA II (Fikellura)
see Schlotzhauer (forthcoming b).
See Cook 1998, 101-3; zer 2004, 204-5.
See Cook 1998, 103-5; zer 2004, 204-5.
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.
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.
Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005.
Forthcoming are monographs with the following corresponding
sections on: amphorae in the Fikellura style (MileA II): F. Wascheck
(Bochum); lids: R. Posamentir (stanbul); trade amphorae: A. Naso
(Campobasso); cooking vessels: A. Aydemir (Bochum); oinochoe: S.
Kufler (Bochum); bowls: A. Villing (London); and mugs and cups
with everted rim: U. Schlotzhauer (Berlin).
Pottery of the Geometric period is being prepared for publication by
M. Krumme (Athens).
For the older systems of classification and their correlation with the
new division, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 9, 17, 25, 33.
Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005. Among the recent publications,
special mention is made here of the detailed study by Kufler 1999 as
well as the general description by Cook 1998, 29-45.
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.
See e.g. Walter-Karydi 1973, pl. 65.530, 67.530.
Kerschner 2002, 40, 172 fig. 52.
See Graeve 1971 and the satyr from excavations at Kalabaktepe (K
1992.696.2), illustrated in Simon 1997, 1114 no.29c, pl. 751.29c .
For MileA Ia, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 9-16.
For MileA Ib, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 17-25. Kufler
(1999) demonstrates the early development of the phase MileA Ib by
way of some examples, however, still without the new classification
and terminology.
For MileA Ic, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 25-33.
Walter 1968, pls 116-17.592.
For MileA Id, see Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 33-45.
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.
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. 569.34; 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 hnlich; das Gef knnte auch milesisch sein.
77 Walter-Karydi 1973, 137. Her nos 677, 678 and 679 belong to the socalled 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 (zmir), R. Attula (Greifswald), M. Frasca (Catania),
W.-D. Niemeier (Athens), R. Posamentir (stanbul) and S. Solovyov
Arabic name, the location, and the name in the Old Testament,
Tahpanhes (Jeremiah 43.513), 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
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.
Weber
this shape.42 The situla from Ialysos (Figs 1213) 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 1415) 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
Weber
Figure 20 Fragment of East Greek situla from Tell Defenneh, London, British
Museum, GR 1888.2-8.20 (Vase B106.11)
factor
0.903
1.008
1.069
1.063
1.021
0.933
As
4.61
4.04
4.11
6.42
5.00
3.53
0.11
2.4
4.6
1.0
22.
Ba
217.
180.
180.
115.
187.
115.
39.
23.
166.
42.
26.
Ca %
5.71
9.82
8.37
8.84
8.47
7.46
0.20
2.5
8.1
1.4
17.
Ce
51.0
47.9
46.5
44.3
48.5
49.0
0.51
1.1
48.
2.3
4.7
Co
52.7
56.5
60.8
54.6
54.4
63.8
0.22
0.4
57.
4.3
7.5
Cr
524.
530.
650.
674.
551.
761.
2.2
0.4
615.
96.
16.
Sample
Defe 1
Defe 2
Defe 3
Defe 4
Defe 5
Defe 8
av.meas.error
in %
av.value M
spread
in %
factor
0.903
1.008
1.069
1.063
1.021
0.933
Hf
3.21
2.79
2.83
2.77
3.02
2.72
0.056
1.9
2.9
0.19
6.6
K%
1.66
1.43
1.55
1.62
1.65
1.42
0.028
1.8
1.6
0.11
7.0
La
25.1
23.1
22.3
21.1
23.5
24.9
0.091
0.4
23.
1.5
6.6
Lu
0.34
0.33
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.29
0.015
4.8
0.31
0.019
6.0
Na %
0.63
0.69
0.69
0.77
0.58
0.52
0.004
0.7
0.65
0.087
13.
Nd
14.9
15.0
17.5
9.99
11.7
15.9
1.9
14.
14.
2.7
19.
Sample
Defe 1
Defe 2
Defe 3
Defe 4
Defe 5
Defe 8
av.meas.error
in %
av.value M
spread
in %
factor
0.903
1.008
1.069
1.063
1.021
0.933
Sm
3.15
3.09
2.79
2.59
3.00
3.01
0.017
0.6
2.9
0.21
7.2
Ta
0.80
0.66
0.64
0.66
0.73
0.68
0.030
4.3
0.70
0.060
8.6
Tb
0.58
0.52
0.48
0.42
0.49
0.51
0.043
8.5
0.50
0.053
11.
Th
8.70
8.05
7.76
7.28
8.16
9.59
0.060
0.7
8.3
0.80
9.7
Ti %
0.43
0.43
0.26
0.43
0.42
0.46
0.068
17.
0.41
0.068
17.
U
1.73
2.22
1.48
1.66
1.61
1.52
0.11
6.2
1.7
0.27
16.
Cs
5.52
4.87
4.76
4.20
5.94
5.15
0.081
1.6
5.1
0.61
12.
Ni
829.
773.
1041.
935.
874.
1081.
50.
5.4
919.
121.
13.
W
1.76
1.73
1.80
1.75
1.33
1.09
0.17
11.
1.6
0.30
19.
Eu
0.91
0.82
0.76
0.77
0.86
0.83
0.020
2.4
0.82
0.057
6.9
Rb
86.7
65.7
74.3
67.6
84.6
74.0
2.2
2.9
75.
8.6
11.
Yb
2.08
1.96
1.82
1.86
1.94
1.89
0.056
2.9
1.9
0.089
4.6
Fe %
4.89
5.40
5.47
5.59
5.19
5.29
0.018
0.3
5.3
0.25
4.6
Sb
0.44
0.35
0.29
0.30
0.41
0.40
0.020
5.6
0.37
0.060
17.
Zn
72.9
98.7
99.9
115.
84.4
90.9
2.4
2.6
94.
14.
15.
Ga
12.2
15.0
12.8
14.9
15.8
15.4
2.4
17.
14.
2.4
17.
Sc
15.8
16.4
16.5
16.7
16.4
15.4
0.021
0.1
16.
0.48
2.9
Zr
107.
60.9
147.
91.7
132.
153.
24.
21.
115.
35.
31.
Weber
Table 2: Raw concentration data of sample Rhod 20 (chemical single)
Element concentrations C in g/g (ppm), if not indicated otherwise, average experimental errors, also in percent of C
Sample
factor
Rhod 20
1.000
av. meas. error
in %
As
4.90
0.11
1.6
Sample
factor
Rhod 20
1.000
av. meas. error
in %
Hf
3.36
0.068
2.3
Sample
factor
Rhod 20
1.000
av. meas. error
in %
Sm
3.11
0.020
0.11
Ba
186.
1.0
0.5
Ca %
8.03
46.
0.11
Ce
51.5
10
1.2
Co
56.6
0.21
0.026
Cr
995.
3.4
1.8
Cs
6.07
0.63
0.020
K%
2.29
1.3
7.5
La
25.8
0.025
42.
Lu
0.32
1.2
10.0
Na %
0.31
0.11
2.5
Nd
16.4
0.3
2.2
Ni
859.
0.016
0.023
Ta
1.15
0.3
4.4
Tb
0.51
0.033
0.16
Th
9.73
2.9
6.3
Ti %
0.63
0.051
0.063
U
1.85
6.0
2.0
W
2.18
0.071
2.5
Eu
1.00
0.8
0.3
Rb
106.
3.3
1.8
Yb
1.90
0.5
2.4
Fe %
5.57
0.18
2.1
Ga
16.8
0.4
9.2
Sb
0.45
0.005
0.025
Sc
18.5
0.5
0.1
Zn
80.6
0.064
27
Zr
112
9.3
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 Hlscher
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, 1724 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
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
where the incisions were made. The reading of the preserved letters
is difficult: [?] M O [N?] [.] or [A?] M O [N?] [.].
Clairmont 1954/5, 85-141; Venit 1982, passim; Weber 2001, 127-50;
Smolrikov 2002, 23-46.
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 Leclre 1997.
Carrez-Maratray 1999, 275-9.
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.
Spencer 1999, 297 n. 9.
Spencer 1999, 299-300.
Smolrikov 2002, 70.
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.
Jeffery 1998, 355. 358 no. 51 pl. 70: 500450 bc (?); Carrez-Maratray
2000, 165. 170.
Petrie 1888, 62: labelled as situla-form vases in the table, as situlatype 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.
Teeter 1994, 259-63; on the use of the Egyptian bronze situla see most
recently Bommas 2005, 257-72, esp. 264 with further literature.
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.
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).
Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum; H 12cm; Pendlebury 1930, 91-2 pl.
3 no. 227.
Gbrici 1927, 357, 359 fig. 154b: undecorated miniature situla, H with
handles about 6.0cm.
Matthus 1985, 226-8.
Bronze situla, Vathy, Archaeological Museum; AR 1983/4, 59 fig. 114;
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
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 wadjsceptre 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.
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.
Hilgers 1969, 77-9, 282-3.
Zahlhaas 1971, 7; Hurschmann 2001, 605.
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.
Kastelic 1964, 18; Kromer 1969, 72-80; Frey 1969, 83-7; Megaw and
Megaw 1989, 37-9.
Late Geometric pyxis situla from Smyrna, cf. zkan 1999, 36 no. 65.
Orientalizing pyxis situlae with palmette decoration from
Klazomenai, http\: klazomenai.tripod.com/resim04-01.html and
Hrmzl 1995, 61 pl. 22 fig. 82 pl. 23 figs 83-4.
Izmir, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10946, zkan 1999, 36 no. 65.
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 501, 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.
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, 51315 figs 41-3; 519 fig. 48. From Histria: Lambrino 1938, 41-9 figs 96-7.
Schfer 1908, 127. Shapes with a bulging bottom have a long
tradition in Egypt and were manufactured in various materials, cf.
Hlscher 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 12th9th centuries bc; 65 group 42, 303 fig. 201d;
meat jars 66 group 50 307 fig. 205f; 76 group 30 Phase III south
8th7th centuries bc, 323 fig. 221c; 326 fig. 224f.
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,
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
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.
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.
Walter 1968, 57, 116 nos 435-7, pl. 79. ren (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.
Three unpublished rim fragments were found in Burgas (Data),
zer 1998, 36-9. I owe information about these fragments R. Attula.
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.
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.
Philadelphia, University Museum, E147.3: Schaus 1995, 25-6 pl. 11.1.
Cf. Kinch 1914, pl. 28.11.
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.
1. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 10641, H 35.5cm; Dm mouth
18.218.5cm; Dm foot 11.9512.2cm; 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.
Cook and Dupont 1998, 114-5.
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.
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).
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.
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 Hckmann and Winkler-Horacvek 2005, 90-6.
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.
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).
Cf. Bailey, this volume.
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 artists
eyes.
50 Athens, National Museum, Inv. 9683; ARV 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 15), 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.
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 Mommsens 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
Bailey
handle
spring
handle scar
handle
spring
A cartouche band
handle
spring
handle scar
handle
spring
handle scar
handle
spring
B transcription
handle
spring
C reconstruction
Figure 5 Cartouche band adapted from Norbert Drrings version.A: on vase; B: transcribed; C: reconstructed
the Thebaid at this time was not Amasis, but the Gods Wife of
Amun, the Divine Adoratrice Ankhnesneferibre, who reigned for
over 60 years (586525 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 Gods 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
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Figure 1 Shoulder parts (inv. nos. B6536; B7397; B7614; B8029) of four socalled schwarzbunte jugs
Posamentir
Figure 2 Places of origin of Archaic
Ionian pottery found on Berezan
Posamentir
Figure 6 North Ionian bird bowls (inv. nos B6960; B7056; B8928) from the
late 7th century BC found on Berezan
Figure 7 South Ionian cup (Knickrandschale) (inv. no. B69138) 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 8 Fragments (inv. nos B254; B6979; B8315) 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 (?)
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
Posamentir
Figure 12 North Ionian plates (inv. nos B101; B6627; B6768; B7160) from the
6th century bc with floral decoration found on Berezan
Figure 13 Fragments of Aiolian dinoi (inv. nos B757; B838; B883; B8920;
B9116) 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 B8239; B8432) from
the 6th century BC found on Berezan
Figure 15 South Ionian cup (Knickrandschale, inv. no. B6676) of the first half of
the 6th century BC found on Berezan
Figure 16 Ionian cup (Knickrandschale, inv. no. B867) of the first half of the 6th
century BC found on Berezan
Figure 17 Mixture between bowl and plate of banded ware (inv. no. B75111)
from the 6th century bc found on Berezan
Figure 18 Fragment (inv. no. B75114) of a similar vessel to Fig. 17, but with
spout on the inner rim from the 6th century bc found on Berezan
Posamentir
Figure 22 Small North Ionian(?) plate (inv. no. B8656) from the second half of
the 6th century BC (?) with unfinished central floral element; found on Berezan
Notes
1
2
Brzescu
Figure 8 Limestone base with dedication to Orpheus (?) and marble slab with
dedication to Apollo Pholeuterios
Figures 1011 Fikellura eye-mug with dedication to Dionysos, second half of the
6th century BC
Figures 1213 North Ionian cup with dedication to Hera, third quarter 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 1213). 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
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.
Brzescu
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 1516): [---]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
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 1921) 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 sculptors 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.
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
Figures 1921 Graffito with the name of Rhomis on cup with everted rim
Epiclesis
Zeus
Polieus
Leto
Artemis
Apollo
Apollo
Apollo
Dionysos
Orpheus(?)
Phorkys
Hera
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
Hermes
Theos Megas
Moirai
Kybele
Apollo
Pythie
Boreus
Pholeuterios
Ietros
Object
Six graffiti: four on stemless cup, delicate
class, rim offset inside, and two
on Hellenistic black glaze pottery
Decree
Dedication
Dedication
Dedication on an Attic eye-cup
Limestone base
Stele
Fikellura trefoil mug
Limestone base
Fig. 1 after Alexandrescu 2005; all other photographs and drawings are
by the author.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Alexandrescu 2005.
The figure of over 1,500 ceramic inscriptions at Naukratis mentioned
by Mller 2000a, 166, has been nearly doubled through the recent
cataloguing of all the inscribed material in the British Museum by
Alan Johnston; the great majority of these inscriptions date to the
Archaic period.
The only missing member of the family, Artemis Pythie, is now
attested on a marble inscription, a dedication of an ex-priestess of
the goddess honouring Leto: Avram et al. (forthcoming).
Information from Dr. Vasilica Lungu.
Ehrhardt 1988, 156.
Another theophoric name, Ietrodoros, appears in Istros in the third
quarter of the 6th century bc, Johnston 1996, 99-101.
Zimmermann and Brzescu (forthcoming).
Alexandrescu 2005, 62 and esp. 83-4.
Zimmermann 1981, 463. Alexandrescu 2005, pl. 2.2.
Pippidi 1983, cat. 97.
Vinogradov and Rusiaeva, 2001, 134-40.
Rusiaeva 1992, 18, fig. 4.1.
Dubois 1996, 156.
Alexandrescu 2005, 126.
Vinogradov 2000, 139.
Pippidi 1983, 250-1.
For the shape, see Schlotzhauer 1999 234-6 figs 21-3.
Pippidi 1983, 173, cat. 64.
Herodotus 4.79, initiation of Skyles in Dionysos cult. For the cult in
Olbia, Rusiaeva 1992, 96-9; Berezan, Tolstov, 1953, 55-6, graffito from
Date
Four are dated to the 3rd
quarter of the 5th c. BC, two
from the Hellenistic period
3rd c. BC
Illustration credits
Observations
Probably with the
epiclesis Soter
Erected by a Thasian
4th c. BC
4th c. BC
3rd quarter 6th c. BC
3rd c. BC
3rd c. BC
2nd half 6th c. BC
3rd c. BC
Schaus
reported from Naukratis.
Laconian pottery has more of a story to tell. In the Cyrene
Demeter Sanctuary, 223 vases of this fabric were published from
a wide range of shapes, and dating from the early to the late 6th
century bc.20 No Laconian vase painter is represented in
significant numbers, although the workshops of the Hunt
Painter, the Naukratis Painter, and the Rider Painter are best
represented with 16, 13 and 8 pieces respectively.21 Regarding the
range of shapes, there is a remarkable variety, greater than
almost anywhere else, especially for the black-painted vases.
The following table lists the most common types, with a
comparable count of the same shapes among Tocras 110
published Laconian vases.
Counts of Laconian vases by shape
Shapes
Cyrene
Cups
94
Kraters
40
Lakainai
23
Dishes
12
Aryballoi
11
Chalices
4
Hydriai
4
Oinochoai
3
Flat-based bowls
3
Jugs and juglets
2
(% of 223)
42%
18
10
5.5
5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
Tocra
20
5
5
3
6
0
0
7
27
11
(% of 110)
18%
4.5
4.5
3
5.5
0
0
6.3
25.022
10
Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrenes 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)
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 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. 2.1779).
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. 566560 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
Eryxos 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 Cyrenes
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
Cyrenes 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 Cyrenes 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 Lemoss 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
Tocras, 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 Cyrenes Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter
Counts of Chian vases by shape
Shape
Chalices
Lids
Dishes
Phialai
Bowls
2-handled pots
Fruitstands
Large closed vases
Plate
Cyrene
25
11
8
7
3
3
2
4
1
Tocra
56
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Notes
*
Schaus
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
DAngelos paper (in this volume) nn. 9-10. DAngelo 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 Srensen 2001.
Moore 1987.
Kocybala 1999.
Kocybala 1999, 5.
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.
Schaus 1985a, 5-6 nos 1-11 (Theran), 7-9 nos 12-16 (Cycladic), 10-14
nos 17-43 (Cretan).
Boardman and Hayes 1966, 73-8 nos 885-920; Boardman and Hayes
1973, 34-6 nos 2083-100.
Schaus 1980, 24; 1985a, 107.
Boardman and Hayes 1966, 73 with references.
Schaus 1985a, 15-48 nos 44-266.
Schaus 1985a, 121 Appendix II.
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.
Based on Stibbes lists, Stibbe 1972, 269-74 (Naukratis P.), 285-7
(Rider P.).
Venit 1985, 393-4.
Ibid.
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.
She follows Droop, Lane and Shefton in this identification, see Pipili
1987, 41-2 with refs.
Schaus 1979.
Faustoferri 1985, 341 and pers. comm.
Paris, Cabinet des Mdailles 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, , for this worker (not his
[), most suggestive in identifying the material as silphium.
An explanation for the lack of final sigmas in and (he
suggests that 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.
I am grateful to A.J. Spencer and N. Spencer for information on the
composite bird of the Hunefer papyrus.
Hurwit 2006, 129.
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 (haunebut) should know the spell (BD spell 148) and it should be
performed within a cloth tent with yellow stars as decoration. Du
sollst <sie> ausfhren 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 Nordvlker 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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
DAngelo
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 Cyrenes 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 Stibbes 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 Coldstreams31 Group III (c. 650615 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 Cooks North
Ionian Late Wild Goat style type (NiA I).37
182 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Imported Greek Pottery in Archaic Cyrene: The Excavations in the Casa del Propileo
Illustration credits
Fig. 1 after Stucchi 1967; Fig.2 after Baldassarre 2002; Fig.3 E. Mitchell,
elaborated by H.J. Beste and C. Zieschang, Deutsches Archologisches
Institut Rom; Figs 414 the author.
21
22
23
24
Notes
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
DAngelo
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
Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds from Cyrenes Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter
DAngelo
Naso
that therefore had less interest in the imitations (Fig. 5).21 The
Etrusco-Corinthian vases found in Carthage were classified by J.
Szilgyi 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 Politik cites a deliberate, official alliance
between Etruscans and the Punic empire: his references seem to
indicate the existence of written documents (grapha)
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
Figure 5 Etrusco-Corinthian pottery from Carthage: round aryballos of the Poggio Buco group; cup of the Macchie Bianche group;Vulcian aryballos
5 cm
Figure 8 Etruscan bucchero kantharoi from Greek sanctuaries: top left, Perachora;
top right, Ialysos; bottom, Leontinoi
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 Narchos 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
ducks head with a long bill, or more rarely in a rams 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 ducks 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 Drkheim 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 EtruscanPunic 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
Figure 11
Distribution of
infundibula in the
Mediterranean
Cancho Roano
II
Xbia
III
IV
Carthage
Campovalano
Cales
Cuma Nola
Sala Consilina
M.Bubbonia
Gela
Volsinii
Ceregnano
Marzabotto
Arbedo
Cyrene
Argos
Olympia
Trebenishte
Novi Pazar
Lindos
Didyma
Pantikapaion
Naso
49
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.
Libert 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 234: 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); Szilgyi 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 ducks 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.
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 Youns 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
450400 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.
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.
(?)
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
590565 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).
(?) 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).
Ducks 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).
Ducks 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).
Ducks head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
Bisenzio (Viterbo)
4. Grave 74 (540520 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).
Ducks 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.
Ducks 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.
Todi (Perugia)
11. Rome, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa
Giulia, Antiquarium, Inv. no. 24594.
Zuffa 1960, 185 no. 8, pl. 25.
Ducks head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
Cuma (Naples)
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.
Rams head (hinge not preserved).
Numana (Ancona)
20. Ancona, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Inv. no. 50769.
Landolfi 1997, 237, no. s.2.
Double lyre handled, ducks head and hinge in
the form of a couchant lion.
Provenance unknown
27. Florence, Museo Nazionale, Antiquarium,
Inv. no. 1537.
Zuffa 1960, 183-4 no. 6, pl. 24.
Ducks 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.
Ducks 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.
Ducks head and hinge in the form of a
couchant lion.
31. Raccolta Benedetto Guglielmi. Citt 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.
Ducks head and hinge in the form of a frog.
33. Perugia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale,
Inv. no. 600.
Saioni 2003, 56.
Ducks 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.
Ducks head and hinge in the form of a
quadruped.
Naso
35. Leipzig, Antikenmuseum der Universitt,
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.
Ducks 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.
Ducks head and hinge in the form of a T.
Libya
Cyrene, sanctuary of Demeter and
Persephone
Greece
Argos, Heraion
48. Fletcher De Cou 1905, 203-4, no. 31, pl.
LXXVI.
Only the hinge in the form of a frog remains.
Spain
Cancho Roano (Estremadura)
54. Badajoz, Museo Arqueolgico Provincial.
Celestino Prez 1991, 78, fig. 12a; Pallottino
1992, 179, 260, no. 304; Schindler 1998, 275
(Typ I); Celestino Prez and de Zulueta 2003,
56-8, 92, n. 213.
Rams head without any rest of a hinge.
Switzerland
Arbedo, hoard
56. Schindler 1998, 80-2, 275, 321 no. 153 [154],
397 pl. 7.
A funnel and a ducks head, belonging not
necessarily to the same tool.
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, 815; 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, Muse dArt et dHistoire, 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.
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 Arqueolgico Provincial.
Celestino Prez 1991, 78, fig. 12b; Celestino
Prez 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 (LAquila), grave 1566 (excavation
V. dErcole).
Celano, Museo di Preistoria
Unpublished; kind information of J. Weidig
(Mainz-Marburg)
Trestina
Provenance unknown
Cales, grave 89
72. Passaro and Ciaccia 2000, 21; Grassi 2003,
502, note 70.
Provenance unknown
76. Warsaw, National Museum, Inv. no. 147078.
Dobrowolski 1966, 377-8, figs 1, 3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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).
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 556;
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.
Illustration credits
Notes
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
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 Franais dArchologie 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 Rver 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, 19278, 1941); LibAnt (1, 1964-16, 1979, n.s. 1, 1995- 4, 1998); LibSt (1, 197033, 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).
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 CyproPhoenician,23 it is quite obvious that Euboeans could not
200 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
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 reestablishing 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
Frankensteins 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 Minas 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
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
Burkerts 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 Tiglathpileser IIIs annexation of the kingdom of Unqi/Patina in
738/737 bc. If Zadoks identification of Al Mina as At in
Tiglath-pilesers 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 Tiglathpileser III by Qurdi-Aur-la
mur, 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 QurdiAur-la
mur, who was probably the governor of S.imirra in the
time of Tiglath-pileser III.77 In this regard, Naamans 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 NeoAssyrian 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 2025 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 Naamans 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
Naamans 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, Naamans 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 Wennings 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,
Wennings 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,
Wennings 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 Niemeiers response
to my treatment of the finds from Mez.ad H.ashavyahu.
Niemeiers 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 Niemeiers 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.
Niemeiers 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 Egypts East Greek mercenaries.
Likewise, Niemeiers 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
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 settlements 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
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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Fantalkin
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
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 Naaman
2004.
74 Naaman 2001, 261. For the text, describing the city of At as an
emporium (b1t ka
ri) on the seashore, a royal store-house, see
Tadmor 1994, 104-5, line 13.
75 Parker 2000; Kuhrt 2002a, 18; Naaman 2004, 70, all with further
references.
76 Saggs 2001, 166-7, pl. 33.
77 I owe this observation to Nadav Naaman.
78 Naaman 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 Naaman 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 Ashkelons 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 Naaman 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 (Naaman 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 (601/600599/598 bc) as a result of
Nebuchadnezzars unsuccessful campaign against Egypt in 601/600
bc.
84 Naaman 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 Mller 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, 1113, 44, 54-5; Spalinger 1978, 49-50; Zadok 1985, 135). In 612 bc,
Psammetichos Is 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; Naaman 1991a, 51-2).
92 In this regard, Ionian involvement in a slave and metal trade with
Fantalkin
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
Bibliography
Anderson, J.K. 1949. Excavations on the Kofin 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 darme, di bronzo, dellArmeria 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. Gefe, Gefformen (Gf.), Gefdekor. In L 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. Sevin. 2003. Die eisenzeitlichen Grber von Tenedos.
IstMitt 53: 223-49.
Artzy, M., and J. Lyon. 2002. The Ceramics. In The Maagan 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 (TwelfthSeventh Centuries bc). Studien zur
Archologie und Geschichte Altgyptens 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. Mnstersche Beitrge 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. Brzescu, and K. Zimmermann. Forthcoming. Die
apollinische Trias. In Apollon zwischen MiletZypernNaukratis:
Kolloquium in Mainz, March 2004, edited by R. Bol and U.
Hckmann.
Aydemir, A. 2005. Funde aus Milet: XX. Kochgeschirr und Kchengerte
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
lItalia nella seconda met del IV sec. a. C. In Cirene e la Grecia, edited
by P. Romanelli and S. Stucchi, 99-108. QAL 8. Rome: LERMA di
Bretschneider.
Bacchielli, L. 1981. LAgor di Cirene, 2,1: Larea settentrionale del lato ovest
della Platea Inferiore. Monografie di archeologia libica 15. Rome:
LERMA 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
Anthropologys Excavations on Batess 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 ptolemischen gypten: Vortrge der Tagung
zum Gedenken an Georges Posener, 5.-10. September 1996 in Leipzig,
edited by J. Assmann and E. Blumenthal, 209-33. Bibliothque
dEtude 127. Cairo: Imprimerie de lInstitut franais darchologie
orientale du Caire.
Bakalakis, G. 1937. Anaskafh\ 0en Kabala| kai Kalami/tsa|. Prakt: 5967.
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 dellabitato prebattiaco ad ovest dellagor di
Cirene. QAL 12: 17-24.
Baldassarre, I. 1999. Cirene. In La citt greca antica. Istituzioni, societ 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 sicle avant J.-C.: Lapport des
analyses mtalliques. 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. Transeuphratne 12: 85-95.
Bartoloni, P., and S. Moscati. 1995. La ceramica e la storia. RSF 23: 37-45.
Baaran, S. 2002. Enez (Ainos) 2001 Yl Kaz ve Onarm almalar.
Anadolu Aratrmalar 16: 59-86.
Basch, L. 1987. Le muse antique imaginaire de la marine antique. Athens:
Institut hellnique pour la prservation de la tradition nautique.
Bayburtluolu, C. 1978. Les cramiques chiotes dAnatolie. In Centre
Jean Brard 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
Bibliography
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 daprs les textes Grecs 1: Les confins
libyques. Mmoires Publis par les Membres de lInstitut Franais
dArchologie Orientale du Caire 91. Cairo: LInstitut Franais
dArchologie 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 (19921999): Kaiserzeitliche und frhbyzantinische Keramik. Internationale
Archologie 79. Rahden, Westf.: Leidorf.
Beschi, L. 1969/70 [1972]. Divinit 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 ptolemische gypten: 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 nellItalia continentale. Prhistorische
Bronzefunde 4.1. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Biering, R., V. Brinkmann, U. Schlotzhauer, and B.F. Weber, eds.
Forthcoming. Maiandros: Festschrift fr Volkmar von Graeve.
Munich: Verlag Biering & Brinkmann.
Bietak, M., ed. 2001. Archaische griechische Tempel und Altgypten.
Vienna: Verlag der sterreichischen 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: Universittsverlag 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.
Wrzburg: Ergon Verlag.
Bissing, F.W. von. 1901. Metallgefe: Catalogue gnral des antiquits
gyptiennes du Muse du Caire II, nos. 3426-3587. Vienna: Adolf
Holzhausen.
Bissing, F.W. von. 1903. Die griechisch-rmischen Altertmer 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: Stratons Tower. Herods Harbour, and Roman and
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 grecoorientale di Gravisca. In Centre Jean Brard 1978: 216-22.
Bol, R., and D. Kreikenbom, eds. 2004. Sepulkral- und Votivdenkmler
stlicher Mittelmeergebiete (7. Jh. v. Chr.1. Jh. n. Chr.). Mhnesee:
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 Lacqua
nellantico 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:
LERMA 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.
Bond, 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. Hgg, 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
dallEtruria meridionale. In La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: Dati,
problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale
Sulcitano, SantAntioco 1997, 63-98. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche.
Bouloumi, B. 1982. Lpave etrusque dAntibes et le commerce en
Mditerrane occidentale au VIe sicle av. J.-C. Kleine Schriften aus
dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar Marburg 10. Marburg:
Vorgeschichtliches Seminar.
Bouloumi, B. 1992. Saint-Blaise (Fouilles H. Rolland): Lhabitat
protohistorique. Les cramiques grecques. Aix-en-Provence:
Publications de lUniversit de Provence.
Bound, M. 1991. The Pre-classical Wreck at Campese Bay, Island of
Giglio: First Season Report. In Studi e materiali: scienza dellantichit
in Toscana 6. Rome: LERMA 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 cit marchande. Bordeaux: Ausonius Publications.
Bresson, A. 2005. Naucratis: De lEmporion la cit. 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 cit
phnicienne en Galile. Orbis Biblicus et Orientales, Series
Archaeologica 1. Freiburg/Schweiz, Gttingen, 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
Bibliography
Turkey. INA Quarterly 29.2: 12-4.
Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 1999. Pluse et langle oriental du delta Egyptien aux
poques grecque, romaine et byzantine. Cairo: Institut Franais
dArchologie Orientale.
Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2000. Le monopole de Naucratis et la bataille de
Pluse: rupture ou continuit de la prsence grecque en Egypte des
Saites aux Perses. Transeuphratne 19: 159-72.
Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2005. Rflexions sur laccs des grecs au littoral
gyptien aux poques sate et perse. Topoi 12/13: 193-205.
Carruba, O. 1976. Nuova lettura delliscrizione etrusca dei cippi di
Tunisia. Athenaeum 54: 163-73.
Carthage. 1995. Carthage. Lhistoire, sa trace et son cho. Paris: Socit
Franaise 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 Prez, S. 1991. Nuevos jarros tartsicos de bronce en el sur
peninsular. MM 32: 52-85.
Celestino Prez, S., and P. de Zulueta. 2003. Los bronces de Cancho
Roano. In Cancho Roano 9: Los materiales arquelogicos 2, edited by
S. Celestino Prez, 11-123. Mrida: Instituto de Arqueologa de
Mrida.
Centre Jean Brard. 1978. Les cramiques de la Grce de lEst et leur
diffusion en occident: Colloques internationaux du Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique N. 569, Centre Jean Brard. Institut Franais
de Naples 6-9 juillet 1976. Paris and Naples: Editions du CNRS.
Centre Jean Brard. 1999. La colonisation Grecque en Mditerrane
occidentale: Actes de la rencontre scientifique en hommage Georges
Vallet (Rome-Naples, 15-18 novembre 1995), edited by Centre Jean
Brard, lEcole franaise de Rome, lIstituto Universitario orientale et
lUniversita degli studi di Napoli Federico II. Collection de lEcole
franaise de Rome 251. Rome: Ecole franaise de Rome.
Chamoux, F. 1953. Cyrne sous la monarchie des Battiades. Bibliothque
des Ecoles franaises dAthnes 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 tymologique de la langue grecque I.
Paris: Klincksieck.
Clairmont, C. 1954/5. Greek Pottery from the Near East. Berytus 11: 85141.
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
Jean Leclant III, edited by C. Berger, 97-137. Bibliothque dtude 106,
3. Le Caire: Institut Franais dArchologie 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. Htten wir doch einen Thukydides fr Milet. In
Biering et al. (forthcoming).
Cobet, J., V. v. Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier, and K. Zimmermann, eds.
Forthcoming. Frhes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Akten des
Symposions Panionion (Gzelaml) 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. Hgg, 201-7. Skrifter
utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4, 30. Stockholm: Paul strms
Frlag.
Coldstream, J.N. 1993. Early Greek Visitors to Egypt and the Levant.
Journal of Ancient Chronology Forum 6: 6-18.
Coldstream, J.N. 1995. The Rich Lady of the Areiopagos and 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 dellarcheologia 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 dellItalia
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
citt (specialmente in Emilia Romagna). In La formazione della citt
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: Universit di
Bologna.
Colonna, G. 2000 [2002]. Il santuario di Pyrgi dalle origini mitistoriche
agli altorilievi frontonali dei Sette e di Leucotea. Scienze
dellAntichit 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 fr 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.
Couli, A., 2002. La cramique thasienne 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, 1922 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: 73109.
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 dItalia (1881-1897):
Materiali per lagro 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, 26190. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.
Cristofani, M., ed. 1985. Il commercio etrusco arcaico: Atti dellincontro di
studi. QArchEtr 9. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Cristofani, M. 1996. Etruschi e altre genti nellItalia preromana: mobilit in
et arcaica. Rome: LERMA di Bretschneider.
Cristofani, M., ed. 2003. Caere 4. Vigna Parrocchiale: Scavi 1983-1989. Il
santuario, la residenza e ledificio ellittico. Rome: Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Croissant, F. 1983. Les protoms fminines archaques. Paris: Ecole
Franaise dAthnes.
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.
DAngelo, I. Forthcoming. Le produzioni ceramiche locali di et 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 gyptischer,
griechischer, etruskischer und rmischer Kultur aus privatem und
ffentlichem Besitz. Zrich: Archologisches Institut der Universitt
Zrich.
Daux, G. 1963. Chronique des fouilles et dcouvertes archologiques en
Grce en 1962. BCH 87: 689-879.
Daux, G. 1966. Chronique des fouilles et dcouvertes archologiques en
Grce en 1965. BCH 90: 715-1019.
Davis, W.M. 1979. Ancient Naukratis and the Cypriotes in Egypt.
Gttinger Miszellen 35: 13-23.
Davis, W.M. 1980. The Cypriotes at Naukratis. Gttinger Miszellen 41: 719.
De Agostino, A. 1961. Populonia (Livorno): Scoperte archeologiche nella
214 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Bibliography
Docter, R.F., H.G. Niemeyer, A.J. Nijboer, and J. van der Plicht. 2005.
Radiocarbon Dates of Animal Bones in the Earliest Levels of
Carthage. In Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto.
Riflessioni sulla cronologia dellet del ferro in Italia: Atti dellincontro
di studi, Roma, 3031 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 Gods Wife of Amun During the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. JEA 88:
179-86.
Domnguez, A.J., and C. Snchez. 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: LERMA
di Bretschneider.
Donder, H. 2002. Funde aus Milet: XI. Die Metallfunde. AA: 1-8.
Donderer, M. 1996. Bildhauersignaturen griechischer Rundplastik. Jh
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. Fnfschilling, B. Hedinger, G. Jhrens, M.
Mackensen, K. Mansel, S. Martin-Kilcher, G. Nobis, J. Noll, 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
ltude du vocabulaire grec colonial. CEFR 119. Paris, Rome: Ecole
franaise de Rome.
Dubois, L. 1996. Inscriptions grecques dialectales dOlbia du Pont. Hautes
tudes du monde grco-romain 22. Genve: Librairie Droz.
Dugas, C. 1912a. Les vases rhodiens-gomtriques. BCH 36: 495-522.
Dugas, C. 1912b. Vase Cyrnens du Muse de Tarente. RA 20: 88-105.
Dugas, C. 1928. Dlos 10. Les vases de lHeraion. Paris: Boccard.
Dugas, C. 1935. Dlos 17. Les vases orientalisants du style non mlien: Les
vases de Dlos 3. Paris: Boccard.
Dmmler, 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 dtermination de provenance des
cramiques orientales archaques dIstros: Rapport prliminaire.
Dacia N.S. 27: 19-43.
Dupont, P. 1986. Naturwissenschaftliche Bestimmung der archaischen
Keramik Milets. In Mller-Wiener 1986: 57-71.
Dupont, P. 1998. Archaic Greek Trade Amphorae. In Cook and Dupont
1998: 142-91.
Dupont, P. 2000. Trafics mditerranens archaques: quelques aspects.
In Krinzinger 2000: 445-60.
Ebbinghaus, S. 2006. Begegnungen mit gypten und Vorderasien im
archaischen Heraheiligtum von Samos. In Naso 2006: 187-229.
Edel, E. 1978. Amasis und Nebukadrezar II. Gttinger 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 gnral des antiquits gyptiennes du Muse du
Caire: Greek bronzes. Le Caire: Imprimerie de lInstitut franais
dArchologie 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. Europische
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. Europische Hochschulschriften Reihe 3. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter
Lang Verlag.
Ehrhardt, N. 1998. Didyma und Milet in archaischer Zeit. Chiron 28: 1120.
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. Hckmann, 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. Mrz
2004, edited by R. Bol and U. Hckmann.
Ehrhardt, N., H. Lohmann, and B.F. Weber. Forthcoming. MiletBibliographie. In Cobet et al. (forthcoming).
Eilmann, R. 1933. Frhe 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 415385bc. College Station: Texas
A&M University Press.
Elayi, J. 1988. Pntration grecque en Phnicie sous lEmpire perse. Travaux
et memoires tudes 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 Yl Liman Tepe Kazlar.
Kaz Sonular Toplants 24,1, edited by K. Olen, H. Dnmez, F.
Bayram, A. zme, N. Gder, . Morl and . Gentrk-Kl, 423-36.
Ankara: Kltr Bakanl Dsimm Basmevi.
Erman, A. and H. Grapow. 1982. Wrterbuch der gyptischen 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 Sldner 2003: 254-57.
Ersoy, Y. 2004. Klazomenai: 900500 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.
Fazl olu, . Forthcoming. Daml boaz 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 Shnen, Vtern, Mttern. In Kindgtter im gypten
der griechisch-rmischen 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, Frhgeschichte, Antike, edited by W.
Hoepfner, 412-26. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.
Fiedler, M. 2003. Antike Huser in Leukas: Wohnhausarchitektur und
Fundmaterial aus einer nordwestgriechischen Stadt des 6. bis 1. Jh.
v. Chr. Ph.D. diss., Freie Universitt Berlin.
Filges, A. 2004. Die Arbeiten des Jahres 2002 in Didyma. In Kaz
Sonular Toplants 25,1, 26-31 Mays 2003 Ankara, edited by H.
Dnmez, A. zme and K. Olen, 147-54. Ankara: Kltr ve Turizm
Bakanl Mill Ktphane Basmevi.
Filges, A., and K. Tuchelt. 2002. Didyma 2000. In Kaz Sonular
Toplants 28,2, edited by F. Bayram, H. Dnmez, N. Gder, A. zme,
K. Olen and N. Toy, 1-15. Ankara: Kltr Bakanl Dsimne
Basmevi.
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: 1818.
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: 28395.
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:
Archaeologys 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 Bibles 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. Democracys 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 Archologie. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Fol, W. 1874. Catalogue descriptif du Muse Fol, 1. Genve: Georg.
Forbeck, E., and H. Heres 1997. Das Lwengrab von Milet. BWPr 136.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Forbeck, E. 2002. Grber des hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Milet.
In Patris und Imperium: Kulturelle und politische Identitt in den
Stdten der rmischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frhen Kaiserzeit.
Kolloquium Kln, 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 Grce de lEst: le commerce des
sculptures chypro-ioniennes. In Hckmann 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
dellIstituto 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 dimportazione a Kyme eolica
nellVIII secolo a.C. In Euboica: LEubea e la presenza euboica in
Calcidia e in Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Napoli 1316 novembre 1996, edited by M. Bats and B. dAgostino, 273-9.
Collection Centre Jean Brard 16. AION Quaderno 12. Napoli: Centre
Jean Brard, 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 Cramique Egyptienne 7: 91-6.
Frey, H.-O. 1969. Die Entstehung der Situlenkunst: Studien zur figrlich
verzierten Toreutik von Este. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Fulford, M.G. 1989. To East and West: the Mediterranean Trade of
Cyrenaica and Tripolitania in Antiquity. LibSt 20: 169-91.
Furtwngler, A. 1890. Olympia 4. Die Bronzen und die brigeren kleineren
Funde aus Olympia. Berlin: Asher.
Furtwngler, A.E. 1980. Heraion von Samos: Grabungen im Sdtemenos
1977, I. Schicht- und Baubefunde, Keramik. AM 95: 149-224.
Furtwngler, A.E. and H.J. Kienast. 1989. Samos 3. Der Nordbau im
Heraion von Samos. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Gbrici, E. 1927. Il santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte. MonAnt 32: 1419.
Gal, Z., and Y. Alexandre. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage
Fort and Village. Israel Antiquities Authority, Reports 8. Jerusalem:
IAA.
Bibliography
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.
Gants, L.-F. 1999. La physionomie de la vaiselle tourne importe
Marseille au VIe sicle av. J.-C. In Cramique et peinture grecque:
Modes demploi. Actes du colloque international Ecole du Louvre 26-2728 avril 1995, edited by M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarague, P.
Rouillard and A. Rouveret, 365-81. Paris: La Documentation
franaise.
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:
Trbner & Co.
Garnsey, P. 1998. Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gassner, V. 2003. Materielle Kultur und kulturelle Identitt in Elea in
sptarchaisch-frhklassischer Zeit: Untersuchungen zur Gef- und
Baukeramik aus der Unterstadt (Grabungen 1987-1994). Velia-Studien
2. Archologische Forschungen 8. Vienna: sterreichische
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 Tongefe aus den Brunnen unterm Stadion-Nordwall
und im Sdost Gebiet. OlForsch 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Gauer, W. 1991. Die Bronzen von Olympia mit Ausnahme der geometrischen
Dreife und der Kessel des orientalisierenden Stils 1: Kessel und Becken
mit Unterstzen, Teller, Kratere, Hydrien, Eimer, Situlen und Cisten,
Schpfhumpen und verschiedenes Gert. 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. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Gehrig, U.L. 1964. Die geometrischen Bronzen aus dem Heraion von
Samos. Ph.D. diss., Universitt Hamburg.
Geominy, W. 1992. Katalog. In Archologische Forschungen im
Akademischen Kunstmuseum der Universitt Bonn: Die griechischgyptischen 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. Lwe, 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 ikila
(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
Graeve et al. 1991b: 127-33.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1986. Grabung auf dem Kalbaktepe. In Mller-Wiener
et al. 1986: 37-51.
Graeve, v. V. et al. 1987. Grabung auf dem Kalbaktepe. In Mller-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, 38792. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Graham, A.J. 1986. The Historical Interpretation of Al Mina. Dialogues
dhistoire ancienne 12: 51-65.
Grallert, S. 2001. Akkulturation im gyptischen Sepulkralwesen Der
Fall eines Griechen in gypten zur Zeit der 26. Dynastie. In
Hckmann 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. Cermicas griegas y etruscas de Mlaga.
Excavaciones de 1980 a 1986. ArchEspArq 61: 201-21.
Gran-Aymerich, J. M. 1991. Malaga phnicienne et punique: Recherches
franco-espagnoles 1981-1988. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
Civilisations.
Gras, M. 1985. Trafics tyrrhniens archaques. Rome: Ecole Franaise.
Gras, M. 1997. Il Mediterraneo nellet 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 linstrumentum in bronzo della necropoli
di Campovalano nel quadro delle produzioni dellItalia preromana.
In I Piceni e lItalia medio-adriatica: Atti del XXII convegno di studi
etruschi ed italici, Ascoli Piceno, Teramo, Ancona. 9-13 aprile 2000, 491518. 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 Saqqra 1964-1976. London: Egypt Exploration Society.
Greene, E. 2003. Endless Summer: The 2002 Excavation Season at Pabu
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. Plutarchs 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.
Gnther, W. 2003. Unsterbliche Krnze: Zur Selbstdarstellung
milesischer Propheten in didymeischen Inschriftendenkmlern.
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: 4453.
Guzzo Amadasi, M.G., and V. Karageorghis. 1977. Fouilles de Kition 3:
Inscriptions phniciennes. 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 gypten bis c.
590 v. Chr. In Wege zur Genese griechischer Identitt: Die Bedeutung
der frharchaischen Zeit, edited by Ch. Ulf, 59-115. Berlin: AkademieVerlag.
Haider, P.W. 2001. Epigraphische Quellen zur Integration von Griechen
in die gyptische Gesellschaft der Satenzeit. In Hckmann and
Kreikenbom 2001: 197-209.
Haider, P.W. 2004. Kontakte zwischen Griechen und gyptern 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 Tpfern und Tpferinnen in Kreta,
Messenien und Zypern. Mainz: Verlag des Rmisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz.
Hampe, R., and A. Winter. 1965. Bei Tpfern und Zieglern in Sditalien,
Sizilien und Griechenland. Mainz: Verlag des RmischGermanischen 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 Gzl 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 Vlkern Siziliens (VI.-III.
Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Hildesheim, New York: G. Olms Verlag.
Harbottle, G., M.J. Hughes, and S. Seleem. 2005. The Origin of BlackFigure Greek Ceramics Found in Naukratis (Nile delta).
Archaeometry 47: 511-8.
Harrison, T.P. 2001. Tell Tayinat and the Kingdom of Unqi. In The World
of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of
Paul-Eugne 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 frhen 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 1011 maggio 1990, edited by M.
Bonghi Jovino, 187-94. Milan: Edizioni ET.
Hase, Fr.-W. von. 1996. Ein etruskischer Sulencippus aus Karthago. In
Fremde Zeiten: Festschrift fr Jrgen 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. Prsences trusques et italiques dans les
sanctuaires grecs (VIII-VII sicle av. J.-C.). In Les Etrusques, les plus
religieux des hommes: Etat de la recherche sur la religion trusque. Actes
du colloque, edited by F. Gaultier and D. Briquel, 293-323. Paris: La
Documentation franaise.
Hassan, A. 1976. Stcke und Stbe im Pharaonischen gypten 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.
Bibliography
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 Bronzekopfgefsse 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 ausgewhlter Funde. In Graeve et al. 1990: 5661.
Heinz, M. Forthcoming. Eine Amuletthlse 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. L 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 SouthWestern 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 Grnderheroen Neileos und die Artemis
Kithone in Milet. Jh 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. Mrz 2004, edited by R. Bol and U. Hckmann.
Hermary, A. 1989. Catalogue des antiquits de Chypre: Sculptures. Paris:
Edition de la Runion des muses nationaux.
Hermary, A. 2001. Naucratis et la sculpture gyptisante Chypre. In
Hckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 27-38.
Hermary, A., A. Hesnard, and H. Treziny. 1999. Marseille Grecque 600-49
av. J.-C.: La cit phocenne. Paris: Editions Errance.
Herold, A. 2002. Die Auferstehung der Gtter. 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. Gnther, 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 darchologie, 2600 ans dhistoire. Muses de Marseille. Aix-enProvence: Editions Edisud.
Heubeck, A., and A. Hoeckstra. 1989. A Commentary on Homers Odyssey,
Volume II, Books IX-XVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heurgon, J. 1969a. Inscription trusques 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 Gefnamen: Bezeichnungen, Funktion und
Form rmischer Gefe nach antiken Schriftquellen. 31. Beiheft BJb.
Dsseldorf: Rheinland-Verlag.
Hill, S., and A. Bryer. 1995. Byzantine Porridge: Tracta, Trahans and
Tarhana. In Wilkins et al. 1995: 44-54.
Hiller, S. 2000. Die Handelsbeziehungen ginas mit Italien. In
Krinzinger 2000: 461-9.
Himmelmann, N. 1973. Das Akademische Kunstmuseum der Universitt
Bonn. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Hirschland Ramage, N. 1970. Studies in Early Etruscan Bucchero. BSR
38: 1-61.
Hckmann, O. 1985. Antike Seefahrt. Becks archologische Bibliothek.
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 L 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 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.
Hrmzl, B. 1995. Klazomenaide m. . 7. ve 6. yzyl bezemeli vazo
formlar. Yksek Lisans Tezi, Izmir Ege University.
Hrmzl, B. 2004a. Burial Grounds at Klazomenai: Geometric through
Hellenistic Periods. In Ersoy et al. 2004: 77-95.
Hrmzl, 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-rmisch. In Der Neue Pauly:
Enzyklopdie 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. strms Frlag.
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.
dil, V. 1989. Neue Ausgrabungen im aeolischen Kyme. Belleten 53: 52543.
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.
ren, K. 2002. Die Werkstatt des Londoner Dinos: Eine phokische
Werkstatt? IstMitt 52: 165-207.
ren, K. 2003. Aiolische orientalisierende Keramik. Istanbul: Ege Yaynlar.
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.
ik, E. 1989. Elektronstatere aus Klazomenai: Der Schatzfund von 1989.
Saarbrcker Studien zur Archologie und Alten Geschichte 5.
Saarbrcken: Saarbrcker 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
lhellnisation de la Provence. Prhistoire 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
Bibliography
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 nordpalstinische Heiligtmer der persischen
Zeit und ihre epigraphischen Funde. ZDPV 115: 163-90.
Kammerzell, F. 2001. Die Geschichte der karischen Minderheit in
gypten. In Hckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 233-55.
Kansteiner, S. 2000. Herakles: Die Darstellungen in der Groplastik der
Antike. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Bhlau.
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 grecheskov. Kolonizatsii Nizhnego
Pobuzhia. In Olviia i Nizhnee Pobuzhe v Antichnuiu Epokhu (MIA 50),
edited by V.F. Gavdukevich, 211-54. Moscow, Leningrad: Akademiia
Nauk SSSR.
Karageorghis, V. 1961. Chronique des fouilles et dcouvertes
archologiques 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, xviixxi. 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: Meisterschpfungen Prhistorischer
Bronzearbeit. Vienna, Munich: Schrollverlag.
Kufler, S. 1999. Funde aus Milet: II. Die Frhstufe 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. Hgg, 65-70.
Stockholm: strm.
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
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.
Kgler, 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 gyptischer und griechischer Gtter
bei Herodot. Ph.D. diss., Tbingen 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-ionsko keramiki
v
v pervo polovine VI v. do n. e. i voprocy lokalizatsii nekotorykh ee
grupp. VDI 111: 93-106.
v
Kopeikina, L.V. 1970b. Rodossko-ioniskaia keramika
orientaliziruiushchei gruppy iz raskopok na ostrove Berezan.
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universitt 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 period. SovArch 25.1: 192-208.
v
Kopeikina, L.V. 1982. Rodossko-ioni 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 nizhnego pobuzhia i podneprovia kak
v
istochnik dlia izucheniia torgovykh i kulturnykh sviaze .
v
Arkheologicheski 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 Mrserschalen aus Patara. AA: 233-45.
Korpusova, V.N. 1987. Vostochnogrecheskiia raspisnaia keramika. In
Kultura naseleniia Olvii i ee okrugi v Arkhaicheskoe Vremia, edited by
v
S.D. Krishchinhi , 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)
Kster, R. 2004. Milet 7.1. Die Bauornamentik von Milet 1: Die
Bauornamentik der frhen 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: 6493.
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. Frhe Zeichner 1500-500 vor Chr., gyptische, 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 lempire de Carthage.
propos de Malchus. In Actas del IV. Congreso Internacional de
Estudios Fenicios y Pnicos, Cdiz, 2.-6. Octubre 1995, edited by M.E.
222 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Bibliography
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 knstlerische Hellenisierung der
Ksten 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 lpoque Sate et
lpoque Perse. In Entre Egypte et Grce: Actes du colloque du 6-9
octobre 1994, edited by Jean Leclant, 26-36. Cahiers de la Villa
Krylos 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.
Leclre, F. 1997. Les villes de Basse Egypte au Ier millnaire av. J.C.
Analyse archologique et historique de la topographie urbaine.
Ph.D. diss., University of Lyon.
Lehmann, G. 1996. Untersuchungen zur spten Eisenzeit in Syrien und
Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen c. 720 bis 300 v.
Chr. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5. Mnster: UgaritVerlag.
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 Macdoine orientale.
In Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux poques gomtrique,
archaique et classique, edited by F. Blond 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
16th6th 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. Jh 66:
29-61.
Leonard Jr., A., ed. 1997. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations of a Greek
Emporium in Egypt 1. The Excavations at Kom Geif. 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 Sel. ASAtene 10-2:
381-7.
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 realt 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-Sf/Gath. Vetus
Testamentum 54: 319-34.
Maffre, J.J. 1996. Quatre plikai attiques figures rouges conserves a
Cyrne. In Scritti di antichit in memoria di Sandro Stucchi, 1: La
Cirenaica. La Grecia e lOriente mediterraneo, edited by L. Bacchielli
and M. Bonanno Aravantinos, 193-210. Rome: LERMA di
Bretschneider.
Maffre, J.J. 1998. Pices de cramique grecque conserves Cyrne. In
La Cirenaica in et 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 darte 5. Citt 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-Daba: 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 lantiquit, edited by M. Redd, 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., Hbner, G., and Kgler, 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. gyptische Schemata in ostgriechischer Aneignung:
Figrliche Salbgefe und Terrakotten archaischer Zeit. In Beck et
al. 2005: 138-53.
Mannack, T. 2002. Griechische Vasenmalerei: Eine Einfhrung.
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
Bibliography
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, Gteborg
University, 2123 April 1995, edited by R. Hgg, 9-36. Stockholm: Paul
strms Frlag.
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. Muse de Ravestein: Notice. Bruxelles:
Socit Gnrale dImprimerie.
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 Kopfgefsse im RmischGermanischen Zentralmuseum. JRGZM 6: 110-4.
Meri, R. 1982. Metropolis in Ionien: Ergebnisse einer Survey-Untersuchung
in den Jahren 1972-1975. Beitrge zur Klassischen Philologie 142.
Knigstein/Ts.: Verlag Anton Hain.
Meri, R. 1986. 1985 Yl zmir ve Manisa lleri Yzey Aratrmas.
Aratrma Sonular Toplants 4, edited by T.C. Kltr ve Turizm
Bakanl Eski Esler ve Mzeler Genel Mdrl, 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 rmischen Epoche. Archaeologica Mundi. Genf: Nagel
Verlag.
Metzger, H. 1972. Fouilles de Xanthos 4. Paris: Klincksieck.
Mielsch, H. 2003. Das Akademische Kunstmuseum: Antikensammlung der
Universitt Bonn. Petersberg: Imhof.
Miltner, F. and H. Miltner. 1932. Bericht ber eine Voruntersuchung in
Alt-Smyrna. JhBeibl 37: 127-90.
Mirnik, I. 1986. Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis. Vjesnik Arheolokog 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 Brills Companion to
Herodotus, edited by E.J. Bakker, I.J.F. de Jong and H. van Wees, 3352. Leiden: Brill.
Mller, A. 2000a. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mller, A. 2000b. Naukratis. In Der Neue Pauly 8, edited by H. Cancik
and H. Schneider, 747-9. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Mller, A. 2001. Naukratis griechisches emporion und gyptischer port
of trade. In Hckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 1-25.
Mller, 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 archologischen Forschung. Physik Journal 4: 3743.
Mommsen, H., Th. Beier, and P. strm. 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 Tpfereistandortes Resadiye durch
Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse. In Berges 2006: 202-6.
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 Archologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der
antiken Welt, edited by R. Rolle and K. Schmidt, 251-63. Gttingen:
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 900322 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 QantirPiramesse, 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. Linstrumentum 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. Lige: Universit de Lige.
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. Lige: Universit de Lige.
Muhs, B. 1994. The Great Temenos of Naucratis. JARCE 31: 99-113.
Mller-Wiener, W., ed. 1986. Milet 1899-1980: Ergebnisse, Probleme und
Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung, Kolloquium Frankfurt a. M. 1980.
IstMitt Beiheft 31. Tbingen: E. Wasmuth Verlag.
Mller-Wiener, W. et al. 1985. Milet 1983-1984. IstMitt 35: 13-138.
Mller-Wiener, W. et al. 1986. Milet 1985. IstMitt 36: 5-57.
Mller-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.
Muse dHistoire de Marseille. 1990. Marseille: itinraire dune mmoire.
Cinq annes darchologie municipale. Marseille: Muse dHistoire de
Marseille.
Muse dHistoire de Marseille. 1995. Phoce et la fondation de Marseille.
Marseille: Muse dHistoire de Marseille.
Mysliwiec, K. 1987. Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Grabung im Tempel
Sethos I in Gurna. Archologische Verffentlichungen 57. Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern.
Mysliwiec, K. 2000. The Twilight of Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Naaman, N. 1991a. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 169.
Naaman, N. 1991b. Chronology and History in the Late Assyrian Empire
(631-619 bc). Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 81: 243-67.
Naaman, N. 1994. Esarhaddons Treaty with Baal and Assyrian
Provinces along the Phoenician Coast.Rivista di studi Fenici 22: 3-8.
Naaman, N. 1995a. Hazael of Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob.
UgaritF 27: 381-94.
Naaman, 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: Universit di Roma.
226 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Bibliography
Alabaster. Archologische Studien zu Naukratis 1. Mhnesee:
Bibliopolis.
Nicolau, K. 1967. Archaeological News from Cyprus, 1966. AJA 71: 399406.
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
jngere Athenatempel und Milet vor der Perserzerstrung. AA: 373413.
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 archologischen 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 ber 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.
Nordstrm, 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 Archologisches
Institut, Abteilung Kairo Sonderschrift 17. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Oggiano, I. 2000. La ceramica fenicia di SantImbenia (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 contrastacin entre
las fuentes arqueolgicas y las literarias. In Tartessos: Arqueologa
protohistrica 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 vorrmischer Zeit. Zentrum fr Archologie und Kulturgeschichte
des Schwarzmeerraumes 2. Langenweibach: 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. Lacropoli di Gela. NSc
16: 340-408.
Orsi, P. 1918. Gli scavi intorno a lAthenaion di Siracusa negli anni 19121917. 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.
zer, B. 1998. Data Burgaz kazlarnda ele geen arkaik dnem bezemeli
seramikleri. Ph.D. diss., University of Izmir.
zer, B. 2004. Clazomenian and Related Black-Figured Pottery from
Klazomenai: Preliminary Observations. In Ersoy et al. 2004: 199-219.
zgnel, C. 1979. Carian Geometric Pottery 1. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu
Basmevi.
zkan, T. 1999. zmir Arkeoloji Mzesi: Seramik Katalou. Izmir: T.C.
Kltr Bakanl Antlar ve Mzeler Genel Mdrl.
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]. LArtemision di Cirene. AfrIt 4: 173-228.
Pernier, L. 1935. Il tempio e laltare di Apollo a Cirene. Bergamo: Istituto
italiano darti grafiche.
Perpillou-Thomas, F. 1992. Une bouillie de crales: lAthra. Aegyptus
72: 103-10.
Perreault, J.Y. 1993. Les emporia grecs du Levant: mythe ou ralit? In
Lemporion, 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: Universit degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata.
Peserico, A. 2002. Die offenen Formen der Red Slip Ware aus Karthago:
Untersuchungen zur phnizischen Keramik im westlichen Mittelmeer.
Hamburger Werkstattreihe zur Archologie 5. Mnster: Lit.
Petersen, E. 1903. Aus dem franzsischen 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: Trbner & Co.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1888. Tanis 2: Nebesheh (Am) and Defenneh
(Tahpanhes). London: Trbner & 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 Hckmann 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.
Matthus and S. Rogge, 171-82. Mhnesee: 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. LAphrodite grecque. Kernos suppl. 4. Athens,
Lige: Centre International dEtude 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 dArte 123: 3-24.
Pisano, G., ed. 1999. Phoenicians and Carthaginians in the Western
228 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Bibliography
Radwan, A. 1983. Die Kupfer- und Bronzegefe gyptens (Von den
Anfngen bis zum Beginn der Sptzeit). Prhistorische Bronzefunde,
Abt. 2.2. Munich: Beck Verlag.
Rallo, A. 1976/7. Scavi e ricerche nella citt 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 trouv dans la ncropole 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 Cyble dcouvertes Cym
(Eolide). BCH 13: 543-60.
Reusser, C. 1986. Testimonianze darte 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. Tbingen: 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. Dlos 20. Trois sanctuaires sur le rivage occidental:
Dioscurion, Asclepiion, 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 sicle.
Paris: Picard diteur.
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
nellEtruria settentrionale in epoca arcaica: considerazioni sulla
tipologia e sul significato delle offerte votive. Scienze dellAntichit.
Storia, Archeologia, Antropologia 3/4: 619-50.
Romualdi, A. ed. 2001. Le rotte nel Mare Tirreno: Populonia e lemporio 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
Scardigli, B. 1991. I trattati romano-cartaginesi. Pisa: Scuola Normale
Superiore.
Schfer, H. 1908. Priestergrber und andere Grabfunde vom Ende des Alten
Reiches bis zur griechischen Zeit vom Totentempel des Ne-User-R.
Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Schattner, T.G. 1996. Die Fundkeramik. In Tuchelt 1996: 163-216.
Schattner, T.G. 1992. Frhe Keramik I: Allgemeine Probleme
Leitformen. In Didyma Wegweiser: Ausgrabungen des Deutschen
Archologischen Instituts 26. Berlin: Deutsches Archologisches
Institut.
Schattner, T.G. 2003. Mglichkeiten und Grenzen der Bearbeitung
geometrisch-archaischer Fundkeramik am Beispiel Didymas. In
Rckert and Kolb 2003: 61-7.
Schattner, T.G., and N. Drring. 1995. Zur Apries Amphora. JdI 110: 6593.
Schauenburg, K. 1954. CVA Heidelberg, Universitt 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
MarchApril 1983, edited by G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds, 395403. 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. Mnstersche Beitrge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 15:
30-42.
Schefold, K. 1933. Arbeiten in Larisa 1932 und Frhjahr 1933. AA: 141-58.
Schefold, K. 1942. Knidische Vasen und Verwandtes. JdI 57: 124-42.
Schefold, K. 1964. Frhgriechische Sagenbilder. Munich: Hirmer.
Schefold, K. 1966. Fhrer durch das Antikenmuseum Basel. Basel:
Antikenmuseum Basel.
Schefold, K. 1978. Gtter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der
sptarchaischen Kunst. Munich: Hirmer.
Schefold, K. 1993. Gtter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der frh- und
hocharchaischen Kunst. Munich: Hirmer.
Scheurleer, C.W. Lunsingh. 1931. CVA La Hague, Muse Scheurleer 2. Paris:
Champion.
Schiering, W. 1957. Werksttten orientalisierender Keramik auf Rhodos.
Berlin: Gebrder Mann.
Schiering, W. 1967. Zweihundert Jahre Gttinger Archologische
Sammlungen: 4. Tongefe. Varia. AA: 431-4.
Schiering, W. 1979. Milet: Eine Erweiterung der Grabung stlich 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 fr Urund Frhgeschichte.
Schipper, B.U. 2005. Die Erzhlung 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
Trinkgefen des Fikellurastils. AA: 223-39.
Schlotzhauer, U. 2000. Die sdionischen Knickrandschalen: Formen
und Entwicklung der sog. Ionischen Schalen in archaischer Zeit. In
Krinzinger 2000: 407-16.
Schlotzhauer, U. 2001a. Ausgewhlte ostgriechische Keramik aus
Naukratis im Blickwinkel neuer Forschungen. In Hckmann and
230 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Bibliography
Ktphane Basmevi.
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. DAndria, 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: 20813.
Senff, R. 1995b. Sondierungen am Sdhang 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 Sdhang 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 Handelsund Kulturnetzes. In Stadtnetze: Verffentlichungen der
Interdisziplinren Arbeitsgruppe Stadtkulturforschung 3, Symposium
22.-24.06.1995 Paris, edited by M. Jansen and J. Hook, 87-119.
Wissenschaftliche Schriften an der Fakultt fr 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
Lwenbezwingers aus Milet. In Bildergeschichte: Festschrift fr Klaus
Sthler, edited by J. Gebauer, E. Grabow, F. Jnger and D. Metzler,
443-50. Mhnesee: Bibliopolis.
Senff, R. 2006. Form and Function of Sanctuaries in Archaic Miletus.
REA 108 (forthcoming).
Senff, R. Forthcoming. Die Lwen der Aphrodite. In Biering et al.
(forthcoming).
Sevillia Cueva, C. 1993/4. Naucratis: una ciudad griga en el antiguo
Egipto. In Homenaje a Jos M. Blzquez 1, edited by J. Mangas and J.
Alvar. ARYS 2. Madrid: Ediciones Clsicas.
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. Besanon, Paris:
Annales Littraires de lUniversit de Franche-Comt.
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. Lige: Universit de Lige.
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
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
v
Pantikapae , edited by I.B. Zeest and I.D. Marchenko, 94-148. MIA
103. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Sidorova, N.A. 1987. Arkhaicheskaia keramika iz raskopok Germonassi.
In Kultura i iskusstvo Bospora, edited by H.A. Sidorova and L.M.
Smirnova, 110-25. Soobshchenia Gosudarstvennogo muzeia
v
izobrazhitelnykh iskusstv imeni A.S. Pushkina 8. Moscow: Sovetski
Khudozhnik.
Sidorova, N.A. 1992. Keramika Arkhaicheskogo perioda iz raskopok
v
Pantikapeia 1965-1985 gg. (Krome Attichesko Chernofigurnov). In
Arkheologiia i Iskusstvo Bospora, edited by D.I. Molok, 131-72.
Soobshchenia Gosudarstvennogo Muzeia Izobrazhitelnykh Iskucctv
Imena A.S. Pushkina 10. Moscow: Sovetskiv 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
Bronzegerten in Olympia. AM 106: 81-4.
Silanteva, L.F. 1959. Nekropol Nimfeia. In Nekropol Bosporskikh
gorodov, edited by V.F. Gavdukevicha, 5-107. MIA 69. Moscow,
Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Simantoni-Bournia, E. 1992. La ceramique reliefs au muse de Chios.
Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens.
Simon, E. 1970. Aphrodite Pandemos auf Attischen Mnzen. SNR 40: 519.
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,
Dsseldorf: 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.
v
Skudnova, V.M. 1988. Arkhaicheski Nekropol Olvii. Leningrad:
Iskusstvo.
Smith, C.H., 1886. VI. The Painted Pottery. In Petrie 1886b: 46-53.
Smolrikov, K. 2000. The Great Temenos at Naukratis Once Again.
Archiv orientln 68: 571-8.
Smolrikov, K. 2001. Archaic East Greek Amphorae in the Tomb of the
Egyptian Dignitary Iufaa. In Hckmann and Kreikenbom 2001: 16373.
Smolrikov, 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 sacres des cits 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.
Srensen, 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.
Srensen, L.W. 2001. Archaic Greek Painted Pottery from Cyprus,
Naukratis and Tell Defenneh. In Hckmann and Kreikenbom 2001:
151-61.
Sourouzian, H., and R. Stadelmann. 2005. Die ltesten Erwhnungen
von Ioniern und Danaern. AntW 2005.6: 79-83.
Spalinger, A. 1977. Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey (c. 620 bc-550 bc).
Studien zur altgyptischen 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 ic, I. Mirnik, and A. Rendic-Miocv evic. 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 lEurope.
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, 732332 bce. New York: Anchor
Bible Reference Library.
Steuernagel, D. 1991. Der gute Staatsbrger: 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 Blackglazed 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 Sldner 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. LAgor di Cirene 1: I lati nord ed est della platea inferiore.
Monografie di archeologia libica 7. Rome: LERMA di
Bretschneider.
Stucchi, S. 1967. Cirene 1957-1966: Un decennio di attivit della Missione
Archeologica Italiana a Cirene. Tripoli: Quaderni dellistituto italiano
di cultura di Tripoli.
Stucchi, S. 1975. Architettura cirenaica. Monografie di archeologia libica
9. Rome: LERMA 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
Bibliography
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.
Tlle-Kastenbein, R. 1974. Samos 14. Das Kastro Tigani. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf
Habelt.
v
Tolsto, I.I. 1953. Grecheskie graffiti drevnikh gorodov severnogo
Prichernomoria. Moscow, St Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Tomedi, G. 2000. Italische Panzerplatten und Panzerscheiben.
Prhistorische 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 cronologa absoluta europea y el inicio de la
colonizacin fenicia en occidente: Implicaciones cronolgicas en
Chipre y el Prximo Oriente. Complutum 9: 49-60.
Torres Ortiz, M. 2005. Tartesios, Fenicios y Griegos en el Sudoeste de la
Pennsula Ibrica: 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, 14751. Zurich, Dsseldorf: Artemis Verlag.
Treister, M.J. 1988. I 7. Fragment eines Weinsiebes. In Die Welt der
Etrusker: Archologische Denkmler aus Museen der sozialistischen
Lnder, 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 sterreischische Forschungen in
Ephesos: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, edited by H. Friesinger and
F. Krinzinger, 81-5. AF 1. Denkschriften sterreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 260. Vienna:
Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tresp, A. 1914. Die Fragmente der griechischen Kultschriftsteller.
Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 15.1. Gieen:
Tpelmann.
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: 700322 bce. The Ancient History Bulletin 13: 2838.
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
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 dellArmeria 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 sicle et
chronologie des coupes ioniennes. MEFRA 67: 7-34.
Villard, F. 1960. La cramique grecque de Marseille (VIe-IVe sicle): Essai
dhistoire conomique. Paris: Boccard.
Villard, F. 1966. CVA Paris, Muse 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 Schsselformen.
AA: 189-202.
Vinogradov, J.G. 2000. Heilkundige Eleaten in den
Schwarzmeergrndungen. In Brgersinn und staatliche Macht in
Antike und Gegenwart. Festschrift fr Wolfgang Schuller zum 65.
Geburtstag, edited by M. Dreher. Konstanz: Universitts-Verlag
Konstanz.
Vinogradov, J.G., and A.S. Rusiaeva. 2001. Graffiti iz sviatilishcha
Apollona na zapadnom temenose Olvii. In Anacharsis. Pamiati Juria
Germanovicha Vinogradova, edited by M.I. Zolotarev, 134-142.
Sevastopol: Natsionalnyv zapovednik Chersones Tavricheskiv.
Vita, A. di. 1985. Atti della scuola. ASAtene 63, N.S. 47: 337-76.
Vittmann, G. 2003. gypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen
Jahrtausend. Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 97. Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern.
Vivs-Ferrndiz Snchez, J. Forthcoming. Un infundibulum etrusco
hallado en aguas de Xbia (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.
Voigtlnder, W. 1982. Funde aus der Insula westlich des Bouleuterion in
Milet. IstMitt 32: 30-173.
Voigtlnder, W. 1986. Zur archaischen Keramik in Milet. In MllerWiener 1986: 17-34.
Voigtlnder, W. 2004. Teichiussa: Nherung und Wirklichkeit. Rhaden in
Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Vollkommer, R. 2004. Sikon. Knstlerlexikon 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 rmischer Zeit. In
KlnJb 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 Entrept in the Southern Levant. In Pont-Euxin
et Commerce: la Gense 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. Besanon: 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 Otar
Lordkipanidz, edited by D. Kacharava, M. Faudot and E. Geny, 133234 | Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt
Bibliography
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. Homers 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
frhkaiserzeitliche 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 gyptens: 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 (859824 bc) Relating to His Campaigns to
the West. Leiden: Brill.
Yellin, J., and M. Artzy. 2004. Ceramic Provenance: NAA. In The Maagan
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 reprsentation figure chypriote. BCH 94: 311-7.
Yon, M. 1992. Hracls Chypre. In Dune rive lautre de la
Mditerrane: 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: 917.
Yoyotte, J. 1982/3. LAmon de Naukratis. RdE 34: 129-36.
Yoyotte, J. 1991/2 (1992). Naukratis, ville gyptienne. Annuaire du
Collge de France: 634-44.
Yoyotte, J. 1994. Les contacts entre Egyptiens et Grecs (VIIe-IIe sicle
avant J. C.): Naucratis, ville gyptienne (1992-1993, 1993-1994).
Annuaire du Collge de France 1993/4, no. 94: 679-83.
Zadok, R. 1985. Geographical Names according to New- and LateBabylonian Texts. Beihefte zum Tbinger 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 brves 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. Grogriechische und rmische Metalleimer. Ph.D.
diss., Universitt Mnchen.
Zahn, R. 1898. Vasenscherben aus Klazomenai. AM 23: 38-79.
Zanco, O. 1974. Bronzi arcaici da Campovalano. Rome: Soprintendenza
alle Antichit 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. Scarf, 147-55. Rome: LERMA 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-Archologische Zeitschrift 22: 453-67.
Zimmermann, K. 2000. 0Afrodi&thi a)ne/qhken ... . Zu einem Dachziegel
mit Votivinschrift. In Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques
priphriques: Hommage Petre Alexandrescu 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. Brzescu. Forthcoming. Eine Schale mit
Votivinschrift aus Histria. AA.
Zuffa, M. 1960. Infundibula. StEtr 28: 165-208.