Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Thonis-Heracleion
in Context
Edited by
Damian Robinson and Franck Goddio
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of
trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired or otherwise circulated
without the publisher’s prior consent in any binding or cover
other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition,
including this condition, being imposed upon the subsequent purchaser.
The reproduction of any part of the text or any of the illustrations in whole
or in part is forbidden without written permission from the copyright holders.
Published by the
Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology
School of Archaeology
36 Beaumont Street, Oxford ox1 2pg
ISBN 978-1-905905-33-1
F O U N D A T I O N
Marianne Bergeron
Herodotus’ Histories (2.178–9) is the earliest textual For instance, Herodotus explains that the Milesians and
source that discusses the site of Naukratis. According the Samians were responsible for the foundation of the
to him, the site was given by the Egyptian pharaoh to sanctuaries of Apollo and Hera respectively. Indeed,
traders from 12 different Greek poleis as a site where they much of the ceramics found within these sanctuaries
could settle, conduct trade in Egypt, and build sanctuar- originated from these poleis and these same wares were
ies to their gods. The archaeological evidence unearthed used for cult activities there as well. The presence of
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries does Attic, Laconian, and Corinthian fine wares at Naukratis
indeed corroborate much of what Herodotus described. cannot be explained in the same manner as the Milesian
Nevertheless, many questions remain regarding the and Samian wares. Likewise, the Aeginetans, we are told,
Greek trading activities in Naukratis. were responsible for the foundation of the sanctuary of
To what extent the presence of Greek pottery in Egypt Zeus, but evidence for an Aeginetan presence is not to
is evidence of a Greek presence or of trade remains a be found in Aeginetan fine wares. The present paper will
matter of debate. Recently, Weber compiled an extensive look at two different groups of pottery found at Naukratis
catalogue of Greek fine wares and transport amphorae during the Archaic Period: Corinthian and Chian fine
that reached the different parts of Egypt, from as far north wares, and compare these with evidence for the same
as Thonis-Heracleion to the south at Elephantine, begin- wares at other contemporary Greek sanctuary sites. My
ning in the Archaic Period.1 Wilson showed that Greek aim is to determine, in the first instance, whether their
pottery found at Saïs, in the western Nile Delta, dem- presence at Naukratis constitutes evidence for trade in
onstrated wide-ranging contacts between Egypt and the these fine wares or evidence for personal use by Greek
eastern Mediterranean world. She argued that at Saïs, as traders and other visitors and, in the second instance,
well as at other sites—including Daphnae in the Eastern whether the spectrum of shapes that is represented, as
Nile Delta—Greek pottery would have been destined well as lacking, at Naukratis might provide some insight
for the Egyptian elite and not resident Greeks, thus sug- into the makeup of the Greek resident population here.
gesting a specifically Egyptian market for Greek goods.2
Similarly, Villing has also suggested that Greek pottery Pottery and trade at Archaic Naukratis
in Egypt in the seventh and sixth centuries BC would
have been destined not only for an Egyptian ‘market’, According to Herodotus, the site of Naukratis was granted
but also for Greeks and Carians (traders, mercenaries, by Amasis II (570–526 BC) to Ionians from Chios, Teos,
and others), residing in Egypt. Villing noted, however, Phokaia, Clazomenai, Samos, and Miletos; Dorians from
important distinctions in the presence and use of Greek Rhodes, Cnidos, Halicarnassos, Aegina, and Phaselis,
fine wares and trade amphorae, and between Naukratis and Aeolians from Mytilene.5 Amasis II granted them
and the rest of Egypt.3 At Naukratis, the ceramic evi- permission to live, worship, and carry out trading activi-
dence, particularly that with Greek votive inscriptions, ties at the site. Herodotus also explained that during the
and Greek sanctuary architecture does confirm the pres- site’s earlier days, Naukratis served as the only port where
ence of people of Greek origin here and, indeed, more the Greeks could conduct trade in Egypt.
specifically Greeks from a number of the founding city- The archaeological excavations at the site, since its dis-
states listed by Herodotus. In general, it seems that the covery in 1884, have demonstrated that trading activities
notion of ‘pots = people and trade routes’ does appear to here were carried out on a large scale and indeed involved
apply at Naukratis, as the origin of much of the Greek fine exchanges in Greek goods. However, hardly any frag-
ware assemblage broadly matches the spectrum of cities ments from Greek trade amphorae are preserved from
mentioned by Herodotus.4 It does not apply, however, to the site, at least for the Archaic and Classical Periods, but
all Greek fine ware pottery groups that are represented at this is probably due in large part to the selective manner
Naukratis, nor does the pottery provide evidence for the in which the early excavators recorded and retained finds.
presence of all the Greek city-states listed by Herodotus. Little care was accorded to coarse wares and transport
1 Weber 2012. 4 For discussions on the equation of ‘pots equal people’, see
2 Wilson 2011: 149–60. Boardman 2004; Tsetskhladze 2009; 2010.
3 Villing 2013: 73–101. 5 Herodotus Historiae 2.178–9.
6 Gantès 2007: 143–55; Petrie 1886; Gardner 1888; Hogarth et al. 8 Boardman 1967: 161–2; Williams 1983: 169–78.
1898/1899: 26–97; Hogarth et al. 1905; Coulson and Leonard 9 Walter-Karydi 1973: 129 cat. no 379; Schlotzhauer 2012: 45–8.
1982: 361–380; Coulson 1996; Leonard 1997; 1998. 10 Kron 1984: 292–7; Furtwängler and Kienast 1989: 86–8.
7 Stissi 2003: 77–9; 2009: 23–43. 11 Schlotzhauer 2006: 313.
Figure 14.3 Chian Type B kantharos with partial inscription Figure 14.4 Chian chalice style patterned chalice from
from Naukratis. BM 1924,1201.821. (Photo: © The Trustees Naukratis. BM 1965,0930.399. (Photo: © The Trustees of the
of the British Museum.) British Museum.)
throughout the Greek world and were popular amongst involved in trade at Naukratis and at Aegina. Recently,
most Greeks. Their presence at Naukratis ought not to Johnston has discussed a number of votive inscriptions
be viewed as evidence for direct trade between Athens, on early sixth century BC Ionian cups from the sanctuary
Corinth, or Laconia and Naukratis. of Apollo at Naukratis. While he suggests that these
inscriptions may be Ionian, Johnston points out that the
Aeginetan traders and Corinthian pottery script employed in these inscriptions might also suggest
that some are Aeginetan.17 While the Chian kantharoi
Despite Herodotus’s identification of the Aeginetans as had dipinto dedications including the dedicator’s name,
one of the 12 Greek poleis responsible for the founda- thereby making them specially commissioned personal
tion of the sanctuary of Zeus, no Aeginetan fine ware offerings, the Ionian cups bore graffito inscriptions
has been found at the site. It is generally accepted that which could have been made at any point after manufac-
the Aeginetans, during this period at any rate, did not ture. Nonetheless, both the kantharoi and cups, none of
produce any fine wares of their own.12 They relied on which are of Aeginetan origin, might provide evidence
fine wares from other regions including those from for an Aeginetan presence at Naukratis.
Corinth and Attica. The sanctuary of Zeus has not yet It has been suggested that perhaps the Aeginetans
been located at Naukratis despite the discovery of a frag- were responsible for bringing Corinthian vessels, along
ment from a monumental dedicatory inscription to Zeus with Attic and Laconian fine wares to Naukratis, thereby
in the region of the sanctuary of Hera.13 Another later providing further evidence for an Aeginetan presence at
fragment from a monumental inscription to Zeus was Naukratis by way of trade.18 This is certainly possible, but
also found in the region of the Great Temenos, the large it is not the only likely scenario, in part because of the
Egyptian sanctuary situated south of the Greek sanctuar- popularity of these types of wares elsewhere in the Greek
ies.14 Finally, a number of votive inscriptions on pottery world and in part because of the way in which these
sherds might also be dedications to Zeus, yet these were vases appear at Naukratis.
found in the regions of the sanctuary of Aphrodite and Amongst the fine wares excavated in the sanctuar-
the sanctuary of Apollo.15 ies of Demeter and Kore/Persephone at Taucheira and
Possible evidence for Aeginetan traders at Naukratis Cyrene in Cyrenaica, Corinthian pottery features as the
comes, in part, in the form of votive inscriptions on largest group of imported pottery. In general, the earliest
Chian kantharoi dated to the second quarter of the ceramic deposits at Taucheira date to c. 620 BC, whereas
sixth century BC. The names ‘Aristophantos’ and argu- the earliest at Cyrene are slightly later, c. 600 BC and
ably ‘Damonidas’ appear on dedicated kantharoi both Corinthian pottery is present in these layers.19 Products
at Naukratis and Aegina. ‘Damonidas’—the name of several workshops were found in large quantities, sug-
being spelled with an alpha—may have been Dorian.16 gesting that they arrived in Cyrenaica as parts of large
Both individuals may have been merchants who were batches.20 The quality of the Corinthian wares at Cyrene
12 Williams 1983: 155; Möller 2000: 76. Morris argues that at least sanctuary of Aphrodite: BM 1924,1201.840.
some Middle Proto-Attic pottery (dated to the first half of the 16 Williams 1983: 184.
seventh century BC) was produced at Aegina; Morris 1984: 17 Johnston 2013: 103–12.
19–36. 18 Möller 2000: 76; Schaus 2006: 179.
13 BM 2012,5021.3; Gardner 1888: 68 no. 14. 19 Boardman and Hayes 1966: 13; Schaus 1985: 106.
14 BM 1886,1005.22. 20 Boardman and Hayes 1966: 21; Kocybala 1999: 99.
15 From the sanctuary of Apollo: BM 1886,0401.261; from the
Corinthian Period Corinthian Vase Painters and Groups Number of Vases Registration Numbers
at Naukratis
EC/MC Warrior Group (with no individual painters 8 1–3) Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology NA185,
identified) NA186, and NA187;
4-6) Oxford AN1896-1908-G.120.30, AN1896-1908-G.127.2,
and AN1896-1908-G.127.3;
7–8) British Museum 1886,0401.1298 and 1886,0401.1211
Late EC/Early MC Detroit Painter (possibly) 1 British Museum 1888.0601.562
MC Klyka Painter 2 1) Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology NA173 and
NA174; British Museum 1924,1201.1305, 1924,1201.1155,
and 1924,1201.1304.
2) Oxford AN1888.185
MC Ophelandros Painter (possibly) 1 British Museum 1886,0401.789
MC Otterlo Painter (Near) or Gorgoneion Group 1 Bonn 697.82
MC Painter of Athens 931 1 British Museum 1886,0401.1054, 1886,0401.1043.a,
1886,0401.1043.b, 1886,0401.1009, probably
1886,0401.994, and possibly 1886,0401.1008
MC Scale Painter (probably) 1 British Museum 1886,0401.1143
MC Scale Pattern Group (possibly) 4 1) Cambridge Fitzwilliam GR.6.1894 and British Museum
1924,1201.1219.
2) AN1888.185 [n].
3) 16876.
4) Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology NA177
MC Blaricum Painter 1 Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology NA183
Late MC/Early LC Kalauria Painter (possibly) 1 British Museum 1888,0601.194
LC I Hippolytos Painter (near) 1 Bonn 697.80
ranges from good to mediocre and includes a variety of but the overall numbers are fewer than those observed in
plainer vessels as well.21 Similar observations were made Cyrenaica. Furthermore, there is no evidence for batch
at Taucheira.22 Furthermore, the range of shapes is varied imports. The products of a few workshops have been
too. Approximately 33 per cent of the Corinthian wares identified, but the numbers associated with these work-
at Cyrene are associated with personal use (i.e., alabastra, shops are small (Table 14.1). In terms of quality, the vases
aryballoi, exaleiptra, pyxides, and amphoriskoi). Kotylai, at Naukratis are largely average.
used in wine consumption, make up approximately 50 Corinthian vessels associated with food consumption
per cent of the regular-sized pots. Miniatures, which at Naukratis are few; perhaps such vessels were supplied
have a purely votive purpose, make up approximately by other Greek regions or perhaps as plain, non-inscribed
33 per cent of all finds and most of these are kotylai wares, the excavators chose not to keep them. Similarly,
and Black Glaze hydriai. Less than three per cent of the only a small number of miniature vessels were found or
Corinthian wares are associated with food consump- kept: five kotyle fragments and a single alabastron.25
tion, thus suggesting that such vessels, including bowls Perhaps most interestingly, however, is the fact that
and lekanides, were supplied either locally or from other some Corinthian shapes that are typically found in large
Greek regions.23 Again, a similar pattern has emerged at numbers in Greek sanctuaries are almost entirely absent
Taucheira.24 at Naukratis. As mentioned previously, objects associated
At Naukratis, amongst the surviving Corinthian fine with personal use were recorded at Naukratis, arybal-
wares, there are some similarities with the Corinthian loi and alabastra in particular. These small unguent
material at Taucheira and Cyrene, but there are also jars were common sanctuary dedications during the
some noticeable differences. First and foremost, the early part of the sixth century BC throughout the Greek
Corinthian fine wares at Naukratis constitute a small world.26 Other similar objects that were commonly found
group, only approximately four per cent of the whole in sanctuaries are amphoriskoi, exaleiptra, and pyxides.
assemblage as preserved. The range of Corinthian shapes At Naukratis, however, these were rare. To date, we know
at Naukratis includes vases for personal use and drinking, of only one exaleiptron, one amphoriskos, and very few
21 Kocybala 1999: 97. 26 For instance at Aegina, where Corinthian aryballoi and alabastra
22 Boardman and Hayes 1966: 21. were found in large numbers in the sanctuary of Aphaia. Here,
23 Kocybala 1999: 98 note 653. Corinthian pottery featured as the largest group of imports and
24 Ibid.: 99; Boardman and Hayes 1966: 24. whilst only the aryballoi and alabastra from the site were ever
25 Kotylai: Royal Ontario Museum 910x234.16, BM 1924,1201.1181; published, Neeft also refers to the Corinthian pyxides, exaleip-
1924,1201.1180, 1924,1201.1179, 1924,1201.1154; alabastron: BM tra, and kalathoi excavated there: see Neeft 1993: 543–69.
1886,0401.1471.
pyxides (five lid fragments and eight body fragments).27 does not remove the possibility that some Greek women
Although Venit suggests that such absences are prob- may have accompanied their husbands to Libya, but no
ably not significant, that cannot be so, because the types mention of them is made by Herodotus.
of wares and shapes, in general, can also be important Archaeology too is often cited as evidence for
indicators of the types of activities occurring within the intermarriage, for instance, the burials at the site of
sanctuaries.28 Likewise, the absence of certain wares and Pithekoussai in Ischia. Whether Pithekoussai was first
shapes may be equally revealing and serve to shed some meant to be an emporion or an apoikia when it was
light on the members of the worshipping communities. founded in c. 760 BC is a matter that has excited much
Currently, very little is known about the Greek com- debate over the years.33 What is clear, however, is that
munity at Naukratis: who lived here and how were the people of Greek, Phoenician, and Italic origin settled
sanctuaries and the larger community administrated? here and were involved in trade and metallurgy. Here,
Much of what we know comes from the ancient literary the eighth century BC cremation and inhumation burials
sources, first and foremost Herodotus, who wrote about suggest the presence of people of different origins living
the Greek merchants from the founding poleis who were side by side. Some archaeologists have argued that the
also given permission to live at Naukratis. Other literary presence of fibulae of distinctive local manufacture in
sources mention the famous hetairai who also resided Greek burials at Pithekoussai demonstrates the practice
(perhaps temporarily) at Naukratis and whose beauty of intermarriage between Greeks and natives: native
was much appreciated by the visiting and resident women would have adopted the Greek way of life but kept
traders.29 Inscriptions on Chian kantharoi bearing the their native dress type.34 However, as Shepherd points
names of women have been found at Naukratis. These out, much in the same way that ‘pots do not always =
inscriptions have been used to support historians’ claims people’, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that
of the presence of hetairai at Naukratis. That these per- Greek women, some of whom may have accompanied
sonalised dedications demonstrate the presence of the Greek men to Pithekoussai or perhaps arrived shortly
women at the site and more importantly as active partic- afterwards, could have appreciated Sicel and Italic met-
ipants in cult activity at Naukratis, seems clear, but there alwork and made use of it for themselves.35 D’Agostino
is no reason to suppose that all or any of these women further suggested that that the presence of impasto
were hetairai.30 Beyond this, virtually nothing is known vessels in burials also serves as evidence for intermar-
about women or children amongst the Greek population riage between local women and Greek residents.36 Most
at Naukratis. recently, Kelley, taking as an example Tomb 678 (the
Further to this is the possibility of intermarriage Carpenter’s Tomb), argued that the existence of differ-
between Greeks and natives at Naukratis. Certainly, there ent burial customs in the single grave was not necessarily
is some evidence from the ancient sources, in general, evidence for intermarriage, but rather the adoption and
regarding intermarriage between Greek men and native combination of Greek, Phoenician, and native material
women. Perhaps the clearest example of intermarriage culture which combined to create a unique Pithekoussan
comes from Herodotus, who wrote about the Therans identity.37
who founded Cyrene and how, according to the Theran Unlike Cyrene, but perhaps not entirely unlike
version of events, the colonising party consisted of one Pithekoussai, Naukratis was not an exclusively Greek
adult male from each family of the seven cities at Thera.31 site. To what extent the Greeks and Egyptians here
Herodotus then explained that Cyrenaican women, like interacted is not clear. Nonetheless, the possibility of
the Libyan nomads, did not eat cow’s meat, thus sug- intermarriage does exist, whereupon a Greek merchant
gesting that the Theran men, upon arrival in Libya and may have taken on an Egyptian wife who then adopted
having founded Cyrene, married native women.32 This the Greek way of life.38 Certainly, some evidence for the
Figure 14.6
E-MC Corinthian
alabastron from
Naukratis. BM
1886,0401.1210.
(Photo: © The
Figure 14.5 Corinthian globular aryballos from Naukratis. Trustees of the British
BM 1888,0601.651 E-MC. (Photo: © The Trustees of the Museum.)
British Museum.)
presence of Egyptian women at Naukratis appears in the that there is no direct link between the anointment of the
form of Late Period Egyptian fertility terracotta figurines body of the deceased and the perfume containers found
found in the settlement.39 in burials. She questions whether these mass-produced
Returning to the Corinthian fine wares and their late Hellenistic unguentaria, which appear regularly in
possible uses in the sanctuaries at Naukratis, certain burials and are so often of such poor quality, could have
vessels such as amphoriskoi, alabastra, and aryballoi, been used prior to their final use as burial offerings. 45
i.e., perfume containers, are most often associated with Rather, she prefers to see the unguent jar as having
women (Figures 14.5–6). However, there is also evidence a specific symbolic role within the funerary vase set.
to support that these shapes could be used also by men, Nonetheless, the iconography and the literature, at any
including representations on vases and in sculpture. For rate, do demonstrate that some men did use unguents.
instance, a late Archaic Attic Black Figure alabastron Pyxides are cosmetic or jewellery containers and
by the Theseus Painter shows a clothed male, presum- these are also most typically associated with women
ably a vendor, holding an alabastron in his left hand and (Figure 14.7). Pyxides found in sanctuary contexts may
handing a dipstick coated in perfume to a naked athlete.40 have contained other items including incense, as dem-
In another example, a late Classical grave stela depicts onstrated on an Attic Red Figure kylix. The image on
a naked boy looking up at a young man or youth, pre- the tondo shows a woman holding a pyxis containing
sumably an athlete. The boy holds a strigil and globular incense in her left hand and burning the incense in a
aryballos in his hands.41 Some ancient sources also high- brazier (Figure 14.8).46 Milne suggested that the word
light the importance of coating an athlete’s skin in oil.42 the Greeks used for ‘pyxis’ during the Classical Period
Admittedly, these are athletes and there is no evidence to was kylichis and not only was the shape used to contain
suggest the presence of athletes early on at Naukratis.43 cosmetics or incense, but it was also used as a physician’s
Unguent jars are also sometimes found as burial offerings box.47 More recently, Oakley, in his article on Attic Red
in men’s graves.44 Yet as oil may have been used to anoint Figure pyxides, argued that Type D pyxides were used
the deceased, the use of such oils is not specific to one by men as well. In at least one case, such a pyxis was
gender over another. In a recent article, Massar argues found in a man’s grave.48 We have no information to
39 Examples include Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology during his travels to Alexandria, he left his diadem as an offer-
NA 587 and NA 598. ing in one of the sanctuaries. Pausanias Graeciae Descriptio
40 Hatzivassiliou 2009: 232, fig. 8. 6.14.2–3.
41 Malibu 73.AA.84. 44 At Pithekoussai, for example, see T.149, T.167, and T168. Buchnor
42 Lucian Anacharsis 24; Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia 15.4–5. 1993: 184, 211–2, 212–23.
43 A first century AD gold diadem was found at Naukratis bearing 45 Massar 2009: 315.
an inscription with the name ‘Tiberius Claudios Artemidoros’ 46 BM 1836,0224.167.
(BM 1886,0401.1765). He is mentioned in some ancient sources 47 Milne 1939: 247–54.
as an Olympian who partook in the Pankration. Perhaps, 48 Oakley 2009: 63.
49 Kreuzer 2009: 27–8; Pernice 1899: 60–72; Burrows and Ure 1911: 52 Ibid.: 80–1.
72–99; de la Genière 1980: 31–62. 53 Stissi 2003: 78.
50 BM 1886,0401.1149; 1886,0401.1137; 1886,0401.1104; 1886,0401.1136. 54 Ibid. 2009: 29.
51 Dugas 1928:67–78. 55 Schaus 1985: 107.
56 Herodotus Historiae 2.178. duction of mastic oil, see Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia 12.72.
57 Schlotzhauer 2012:43–8. Examples include BM 1886,0401.682; 59 Ilina 2005: 70–173. For the distribution of Chian fine ware, see
1886,0401.672; 1886,0401.737; 1886,0401.667. Lemos 1991: 191–208.
58 For Chian amphorae found in the Punic Amphora Building in 60 For kernoi used in sanctuaries: Athenaios Deipnosophistae 478d;
Corinth, see Williams 1978: 17–19. For Chian amphorae found in 500d; Pausanias Graeciae Descriptio 8.42.11; Boardman and
region of the sanctuary of Aphaia at Aegina, see Johnston 1990: Hayes 1966: cat. no 1446. As burial offerings, kernoi have been
38–40. For Chian amphorae at Berezan on the Black Sea coast, in use since the Bronze Age, particularly in Cyprus; for example,
see Dupont 2005: 46–50. For Chian amphorae at Carthage, see see from Tomb 521 at Amathus in Karageorghis and Iacovou
Bechtold and Docter 2010: 102. For information on Chios’ pro- 1990: 91–2, pl. VIII, no. 96.
(Figure 14.10). Two Chian phallus cups are attested the Xenia, during which the Greeks entertained heroes
at Naukratis, as well as sherds belonging to possibly and gods.64 Elsewhere, such banquets are associated
three more.61 To date, we know of only one other Chian particularly with the Dioskouroi, yet, to date, only two
phallus cup elsewhere, a single sherd from the acropo- sherds from chalice-kraters have been identified as pos-
lis at Athens.62 The phiale mesomphalos was also found sibly coming from the sanctuary of the Dioskouroi at
in large numbers at Naukratis (Figure 14.11). The phiale Naukratis.65
shape was a common one to most Greeks and it had a The skyphos-krater is a large stemmed bowl with
specific ritual purpose in the pouring of libations.63 relatively low walls and a domed lid. It is unlikely to have
Two other shapes deserve a special mention: the been used as a mixing bowl, but could have been appro-
chalice- and skyphos-kraters (Figures 14.12–13). The priate to serve food. It may have found its place in dining
chalice-krater is quite simply a larger version of the activities in the sanctuary.
chalice, yet would have been too large to drink from, In the second quarter of the sixth century BC, kan-
while it was equally inappropriately-shaped to mix wine tharoi became popular at Naukratis (Figure 14.3). These
with water. Perhaps it was used to represent the deity’s simple and largely undecorated cups bore dipinto dedi-
portion of wine, thus giving it a ritual and/or dedicatory cations that included the name of the deity and the name
use? A similar use has been suggested for other large- of the dedicator. Thus these cups might have served a
scale cups, for instance, Attic Red Figure parade cups. dual purpose in sanctuaries: they were used for drinking
These large kylikes are too large to drink from and the first and then left behind as votives.
iconography is elaborate and usually depicts scenes from Taking a look first at other Greek sanctuary sites, a
mythology, thus, as Tsingarida suggests, they must have number of different patterns in the Chian pottery rep-
been made for heroes and gods, perhaps specifically for ertoire emerge. At the sanctuary of Aphaia at Aegina,
61 1. BM 1888,0601.496.a–c and 1924,1201.178; 2. BM 1888,0601.496.d; Fitzwilliam GR.P.13, from Naukratis; BM 1890,0730.1 from
3. BM 1924,1201.186; 4. BM 1924,1201.203 and 1924,1201.550; 5. Kyzikos; Herodotus Historiae 7.54.
Brussels A.1788. 64 Tsingarida 2009: 195.
62 Athens Acropolis Museum no. 5043. 65 Burkert 1985: 107, 213; Boston 88.1077; BM 1888,0601.355.
63 For the use of phiale as depicted in iconography, see Cambridge
Figure 14.12
Chian Sphinx and Lion
Style Skyphos krater lid. BM
1888,0601.547.a. (Photo: © The
Trustees of the British Museum.)
where cultic activity predates that at Naukratis, we may suggests that the lack of earlier wine amphorae here
notice an absence of Wild Goat Style vases and Patterned might be attributed to the use of wine skins.70
chalices. The earliest Chian wares date to 610–580 BC. Similarly at the sanctuaries of Demeter and Kore/
The main shape here is the chalice. Numerous inscribed Persephone at Cyrene, Chian chalices and only a few
kantharoi similar to those at Naukratis and bearing chalice-kraters, skyphos-kraters, and phialae were
the name of at least one of the same dedicants as at observed. Furthermore, a few bowls, dishes, and at least
Naukratis were also found.66 There are very few chal- one oinochoe were also identified.71 Elsewhere at the site,
ice-kraters and phialae and no kernoi. It would appear Chian fine wares were found, as were a number of Attic,
that the Chian vases at Aegina were primarily related to Chian, Lesbian, Clazomenian, Corinthian, Laconian,
ritual drinking. and Samian amphorae.72
In all likelihood, these drinking vessels arrived along- At Taucheira, the principal shape found was the
side Chian and other amphorae. Evidence for trade in chalice, but at least one skyphos-krater, one phiale and
Chian wine at Aegina, albeit from a later period, comes a small number of chalice-kraters were also recorded.73
from fragments of Chian wine amphorae that were Chian, Corinthian, Samian, and Lesbian wine amphorae
unearthed in the terrace fill prior to the construction from the same period were also noted.74 The East Greek
of the second stone temple of Aphaia in the late sixth goods here, as well as those at Cyrene, in particular
century BC.67 Johnston comments on the similarities suggest that these cities were stops on trade routes that
between the amphora sherds here and those from the partly involved Naukratis, certainly no later than the
Persian destruction layer in the Athenian Agora.68 Some early sixth century BC and fine wares likely accompanied
North Ionian, possibly Clazomenian, amphorae might shipments of wine amphorae.
date as early as the sixth century BC, but, in general East Much of the Chian decorated pottery at Naukratis
Greek trade amphorae appear later at Aegina.69 Johnston was likely brought by Chian merchants who sold wine
left behind by visitors. From what we know about cultic The only known Chian type of mixing bowl at
activities in Greek sanctuaries, wine consumption did Naukratis is the dinos and this Chian shape first
occur and mixing bowls are regularly found. appeared in the earliest phase of the site and persisted
The evidence at Naukratis shows that the Chians until c. 580 BC. Its decline in popularity after c. 580 BC
did produce dinoi. Interestingly, a small number of might be attributed to the increased popularity of both
dinos fragments were excavated from burials at Rizari Attic and Corinthian Black Figure mixing vessels.
on Chios, thus suggesting that Chians had a funerary, Between 595–570 BC, Corinthian kraters were found
indeed a ritual, purpose for their dinoi.86 They, however, in surprising numbers at Naukratis and Attic Black
apparently did not use the shape within the context of Figure kraters and at least one dinos also appear in large
ritual drinking in their own sanctuaries. The presence of numbers beginning at approximately the same time and
no fewer than 31 Chian dinoi at Naukratis demonstrates lasting through to the end of the sixth century BC.90 It
that someone at the site was using the Chian mixing bears repeating that while these new mixing bowls were
bowl. It appears that a small group of Chian potters was popular throughout most of the Greek world, the lack
producing dinoi for a market that was not entirely their of locally-made and imported mixing bowls, including
own. Perhaps they were aware of decorated dinoi being those of Attic and Corinthian origin, on Chios suggests
sought after in sanctuary contexts and capitalized on that the Chians appear to have been largely uninterested
this by exporting specially-made bowls. Perhaps Chian in them. The relatively short production span for the
dinoi found at Naukratis were purchased at Chios by Chian mixing bowls versus the Chian drinking cups
non-Chian traders who then shipped them abroad. This (both chalices and kantharoi), which reached the height
would suggest that certain Chian goods were shipped of their popularity between 575–550 BC, suggests that,
not only by Chian traders, but also moved within a whilst Chian goods were still arriving at Naukratis, the
wider network. If so, one might expect to see some of popularity of Chian dinoi ceased after a period, perhaps
these locally made vessels also in the Harbour sanctuary to be replaced largely by Corinthian and Attic kraters.
at Emporio, if indeed this was frequented also by a non- Chian fine ware is particularly well represented at
local clientele. Indeed, a very small number of dinos Naukratis and its presence here persisted for almost a
sherds were found here.87 If these dinoi were exported on century. The diversity of shapes here, in contrast with
a large scale, one might expect to find a greater number that at other sites where Chian fine wares were recorded,
of them at sites where other Chian wares are found. attests the importance of Naukratis for the Chians both
There are no Chian dinoi at Taucheira, Aegina, and in terms of cultic and trading activities, with one not
Cyrene, however, where Chian chalices and other drink- necessarily being exclusive of the other.
ing shapes were found in significant numbers. Chian
dinoi have been identified as only a few isolated sherds Conclusion
in a small number of sites.88 At Histria for instance, a
single Chian dinos sherd was found, but the presence of At a time when Corinthian fine wares were found,
a number of contemporary North Ionian column kraters generally in large numbers, all over the Greek world,
and even more Corinthian and Attic Black Figure mixing Corinthian decorated pottery at Naukratis makes up
bowls suggests that visitors to the sanctuary used such only a small proportion of the whole preserved assem-
bowls.89 It seems that this Chian production of dinoi was blage of pottery from the site. A few workshops only are
carried out only on a small scale and its focus was on represented and the numbers of vessels associated with
Naukratis. these workshops are even fewer, making the import of
If merchants arriving at Naukratis brought their batches unlikely and therefore suggesting that these
own banqueting equipment for dining activities in the imports were brought individually and dedicated as
sanctuaries, then perhaps the Chian dinoi were brought personal offerings. Furthermore, several specific shapes
to Naukratis by non-Chian merchants, who knew the typically observed elsewhere in Greek sanctuaries are
shape well and found the Chian version suitable for their largely absent at Naukratis, including shapes that were
needs. These vessels may also, in part, have been shipped most commonly associated with, but not exclusive to,
to Naukratis to be sold on to Greek traders residing here women, thus possibly indicating that there were few
for use in a way they were not originally intended. No women (of Greek origin or who had adopted the Greek
matter how few, the Greeks here would have required way of life) at the site who might require them.
wares for dedication and for participating in ritual ban- The Chian material at Naukratis presents a different
queting at the various sanctuaries. picture. The Chians were involved in the foundation of
86 Lemos 1986: 235–9. oinochoai. The possibility remains that other dinoi elsewhere
87 Boardman 1967: 115. may have been misidentified.
88 Lemos 1991: 247 cat. nos 303–9. It ought to be pointed out 89 Alexandrescou 1978: 41, 64, 66–8.
that Chian dinoi were not typically slipped on the interior, 90 Bergeron (forthcoming).
consequently a number of dinoi have been misidentified as
the emporion. Their trade amphorae have been found Beaumont, L., Archontidou-Argyri, A., Bearnes, H.,
at different sites in the Egyptian Nile Delta and beyond, Tsigkou, A. and Wardle, N. (2004). ‘Excavations at
indicating both a Greek and local Egyptian interest in Kato Phana, Chios: 1999, 2000, and 2001’, The Annual
Chian wine. Alongside these amphorae travelled a variety of the British School at Athens 99: 201–55.
of fine ware vase shapes, including chalices that were also Bechtold, B., and Docter, R. (2010). ‘Transport
common elsewhere in Greek sanctuaries. The absence at Amphorae from Punic Carthage: an Overview’, in
other Greek sanctuary sites of most Chian ritual shapes, L. Nigro (ed.), Motya and the Phoenician Ceramic
such as kernoi, and the presence of only a very few Repertoire between the Levant and the West 9th–6th
phialae, suggest that these were not articles of trade, but century BC. Proceedings of the International Conference
used in rituals at Naukratis by Chians, who used them held in Rome, 26th February 2010, Quaderni di arche-
in their own rituals at home as well. Equally, the absence ologia fenicio-punica 5. Rome.
of Chian dinoi in sanctuary contexts in Chios suggests Bergeron, M. (forthcoming). ‘Greek vases offer-
that the Chians did not normally use these vessels for ings in Naukratis and other harbour sanctuaries’,
ritual purposes in sanctuaries. The large number of dinoi in M. Bergeron and A. Masson (eds), Naukratis
found in sanctuary contexts at Naukratis might indicate in Context II: Cults, Sanctuaries and Offerings.
that Chian potters and traders identified a demand for Proceedings of the Second Naukratis Project Workshop
such mixing bowls for ritual banqueting purposes and held at the British Museum, 22nd–23rd June 2013.
produced them largely for export and that Naukratis, London.
with its Greek sanctuaries, was the perfect market for Bernand, A. and Masson, O. (1957). ‘Les inscriptions
this shape. The presence of Chian fine ware at Naukratis grecques d’Abou-Simbel’, Revue des Études grecques
therefore indicates that such wares were transported 70: 1–46, nos 329–30.
here for use by Chians and as articles of trade. Boardman, J. (1967). Excavations in Chios 1952–1955
The Greek pottery at Naukratis attests a Greek pres- Greek Emporio, Suppl. 6, The British School of
ence here as early as in the late seventh century BC and Archaeology at Athens. Oxford.
the Corinthian and Chian fine wares represent two Boardman, J. (2004). ‘Copies of Greek Pottery: by and
very different yet important groups of Greek imports for whom?’, in K. Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the
in the western Nile Delta. Separately, these fine wares Western Mediterranean. Leiden: 149–62.
offer some information about how they were brought to Boardman, J. and Hayes, J. (1966). Excavations at Tocra
Naukratis, the people who brought them, and the people 1963–1965: The Archaic Deposits I, The Annual of the
who used them. British School at Athens Suppl. 4. Oxford.
Boardman, J. and Hayes, J. (1973). Excavations at Tocra
Bibliography 1963–1965: The Archaic Deposits II, The Annual of the
British School at Athens Suppl. 10. Oxford.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae Buchnor, G. (1975). ‘Nuovi asspetti e problem posti degli
Herodotus, Historiae scavi di Pitecusa con particolari considerazioni sulle
Lucian, Anacharsis oreficerie de stile orientalizzante antico’, Contribution
Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio à l’étude de la société et de la colonisation eubéennes,
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard 2. Naples: 59–86.
Sappho, Frg. 20 Buchnor, G. (1993). Pithekoussai I, Monumenti antichi,
Serie monografica IV. Roma.
Agut-Labordère, D. (2012). ‘Le statut égyptien de Burkert, W. (1985). Greek Religion. Oxford.
Naukratis’, in V. Dieudonné, C. Feyel, J. Fournier, Burrows, R. M. and Ure, P. N. (1911). ‘Kothons and Vases
L. Graslin, F. Kirbilher and G. Vottéro (eds), Entités of Allied Type’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 31: 72–99.
locales et pouvoir central: la cité dominée dans l’Orient Coulson, W. D. E. (1996). Ancient Naukratis II (1): The
hellénistique. Nancy: 353–73. Survey at Naukratis. Oxford.
Alexandrescou, P. (1978). Histria IV. La céramique Coulson, W. D. E. and Leonard, A. jr. (1982).
d’époque archaïque et classique (VIIe-IVe s.). Paris. ‘Investigations at Naukratis and Environs, 1980 and
Beaumont, L. (2007). ‘Chios: The Kato Phana 1981’, American Journal of Archaeology 96 (3): 361–80.
Archaeological Project’, in J. Corbet, V. von Graeve, D’Agostino, B. (1999). ‘Pitecusa e Cuma tra Greci e
W.-D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds), Frühes indigeni’, in G. Vallet (ed.), La colonisation grecque
Ionien eine Bestandsaufnahme. Berlin: 137–48. en Méditerranée occidentale: Actes de la rencontre
Beaumont, L., Archontidou-Argyri, A. and scientifique en hommage à Georges Vallet, Rome–
Whitbread, K. (1999). ‘New Work at Kato Phana, Naples, 15–18 novembre 1995. Rome: 51–62.
Chios: The Kato Phana Archaeological Project Dugas, C. (1928). Exploration archéologique de Délos
Preliminary Report for 1997 and 1998’, The Annual of faite par l’École française d’Athènes. Les Vase de
the British School at Athens 94: 265–87. l’Héraion. Paris.
Furtwängler, A. E. and Kienast, H. J. (1989). Der Heraion von Samos. Zu einer speziellen Gattung
Nordbau im Heraion von Samos, Samos III. Bonn. von archaischem Trink-und Tafelgeschirr mit
Gantès, L.-F. (2007). ‘Les amphores commerciales, Dipinti’ , in H. A. G. Brijder (ed.), Ancient Greek and
grecques, leventines et égyptiennes découvertes à Related Pottery. Proceedings of the International Vase
Naukratis’, in S. Marchand and A. Marangou (eds), Symposium in Amsterdam 12–15 April 1984, Allard
Amphores d’Égypte de la Basse Époque à l’Époque Pierson Series 55. Amsterdam: 292–7.
arabe I. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 8. Le Lamb, W. (1934–5). ‘Excavations at Kato Phana in Chios’,
Caire: 143–55. The Annual of the British School at Athens 35: 138–64.
Gardner, E. (1888). Naukratis Part II. London. Lemos, A. A. (1986). ‘Archaic Chian Pottery’, in
de la Genière, J. (1980). ‘A propos d’un vase grec du J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson
Musée de Lille’, Monuments et mémoires 36: 31–62. (eds), Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios
Hall, J. M. (2002). Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and 1984. Oxford: 233–49.
Culture. London. Lemos, A. A. (1991). Archaic Pottery of Chios Vol. 1–2.
Hatzivassiliou, E. (2009). ‘Black-figure alabastra by Oxford.
the Diosphos and Emporion Painters: specific sub- Leonard, A. jr. (1997). ‘Excavations at a Greek
jects for specific uses?’, in A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapes Emporium in Egypt. Part I: The Excavations at Kom
and Uses of Greek Vases (7th–4th centuries B.C.). Ge’if ’, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Brussels: 225–36. Research 54: 1–415.
Hogarth, D. G., Edgar, C. C. and Glutch, C. (1898– Leonard, A. jr. (1998). ‘Excavations at a Greek
1899). ‘Excavations at Naukratis’, Annual of the British Emporium in Egypt. Part II: The Excavations at
School at Athens 5: 26–97. Kom Hadid’, The Annual of the American Schools of
Hogarth, D. G., Lorimer, H. L. and Edgar, C. C. Oriental Research 55: 1–273.
(1905). ‘Naukratis 1903’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 25: Massar, N. (2009). ‘Parfumer les morts. Usages et
105–36. contenu des balsamaires hellénistiques en contexte
Ilina. Y. (2005). ‘Chian Pottery from the Excavations on funéraire’, in A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapes and Uses of
Berezan Island’, in S. L. Solovyov (ed.), Borysthenes- Greek Vases (7th–4th centuries B.C.). Brussels: 307–18.
Berezan: The Hermitage Archaeological Collection I. Mei. O. (2006). ‘Ceramica greca arcaica dall’area del
St. Petersburg: 70-173. Ginnasio-Caesareum di Cirene’, in E. Fabbricotti
Johnston, A. W. (1990). ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel. XIII. and O. Menozzi (eds), Cirenaica: studi, scavi e sco-
The Storage Amphorae’, Archäologischer Anzeiger: perte. Parte I: Nuovi dati da città e territorio, BAR
37–64. International Series 1488. Oxford: 491–4.
Johnston, A. J. (2013). ‘Naukratis, Aegina and Laconia; Milne, M. (1939). ‘Kylichnis’, American Journal of
Some individuals and pottery distribution’, in Archaeology 34: 247–54.
A. Tsingarida and D. Viviers (eds), Pottery markets Möller, A. (2000). Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece.
in the Ancient Greek World (8th-1st centuries B.C.), Oxford.
Proceedings of the International Symposium held Morris, S. P. (1984). The Black and White Style. Athens
at the Université libre de Bruxelles, 19–21 June 2008, and Aigina in the Orientalizing Period. London.
Études d’Archéologie 5. Brussels: 103–12. Neeft, K. (1993). ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel XVI.
Karageorghis, V. and Iacovou, M. (1990). ‘Amathus Corinthian Alabastra and Aryballoi’, Archäologischer
Tomb 521. A Cypro-Geometric I Group’, Report of the Anzeiger: 543–98.
Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 75–100. Petrie, W. M. F. (1886). Naukratis Part I, 1884–5. London.
Kelley, O. (2012). ‘Beyond Intermarriage: The role of Pernice, E. (1899). ‘Kothon und Rächergerät’, Jahrbuch
the indigenous Italic population at Pithekoussai’, des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 14: 60–72.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31 (3): 245–60. Oakley, J. H. (2009). ‘Attic red-figured Type D pyxides’,
Kocybala, A. (1999). The Corinthian Pottery, The in A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases
Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at (7th–4th centuries B.C.). Brussels: 59–76.
Cyrene, Libya Final Reports VII. Philadelphia. Ridgway, D. (1993). The First Western Greeks. Cambridge.
Kourouniotis, K. (1915). ‘Ανασκαφαί και έρευναι έν Rougou, K. (2012). ‘Κοκώνα Ρούγγου, Αρχαϊκά γλυπτά
Χίω’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 1: 64–93. από το Ιερό του Λιμανιού στο Εμποριό της Χίου’, in
Kourouniotis, K. (1916). ‘Ανασκαφαί και έρευναι έν G. Kokkorou-Alevras and W.-D. Niemeier (eds), Neue
Χίω 2’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 2: 190–215. Funde archaischer Plastik aus griechischen Heiligtümern
Kreuzer, B. (2009). ‘The Exaleiptron in Attica and und Nekropolen, Athenaia 3. Munich: 133–46.
Boeotia: early black figure workshops reconsidered’, Schaus, G. (1985). ‘The East Greek, Island, and Laconian
in A. Tsingarida (ed), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases Pottery’, in D. White (ed.), The Extramural Sanctuary
(7th–4th centuries B.C.). Brussels: 17–30. of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya Final
Kron, U. (1984). ‘Archaisches Kultgeschirr aus dem Reports II. Philadelphia.
Schaus, G. (2006). ‘Naukratis and Archaic Pottery Finds A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases
from Cyrene’s Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter’, (7th–4th centuries B.C.). Brussels: 185–201.
in A. Villing and U. Schlotzhauer (eds), Naukratis: Venit, M. S. (1982). Painted Pottery from the Greek
Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery Mainland found in Egypt, 640–450 B.C. Ph.D. thesis,
and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, British New York University.
Museum Research Publication 162. London: 175–80. Villing, A. (2013). ‘Egypt as a “market” for Greek
Schlotzhauer, U. (2006). ‘Griechen in der Fremde: pottery: Some thoughts on production, consumption
Wer weihte in die Filialheiligtümer der Samier und and distribution in an intercultural environment’, in
Milesier in Naukratis?’, in A. Naso (ed.), Stranieri e A. Tsingarida and D. Viviers (eds), Pottery markets
non cittadini nei santuari del Mediterraneo antico, in the Ancient Greek World (8th–1st centuries B.C.),
Atti del convegno internazionale, Studi Udinesi sul Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the
Mondo Antico 2. Florence: 292–324. Université libre de Bruxelles, 19–21 June 2008, Études
Schlotzhauer, U. (2012). ‘Untersuchungen zur d’Archéologie 5. Brussels: 73–101.
archaischen griechischen Keramik aus Naukratis’, in Walter-Karydi, E. (1973). Samische Gefässe des 6.
U. Schlotzhauer amd S. Weber (eds), Archäologische Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Samos VI (1). Bonn.
Studien zu Naukratis III. Griesches Keramik des 7. und Weber, S. (2012). ‘Untersuchungen zur archaischen
6. Jhs. V. Chr. Und Andern Orten in Ägypten. Worms: griechischen Keramik aus andern Ägyptischen
23–194. Fundorten’, in U. Schlotzhauer amd S. Weber (eds),
Shepherd, G. (1999). ‘Fibulae and Females: Intermarriage Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis III. Griesches
in the Western Greek Colonies and the Evidence from Keramik des 7. und 6. Jhs. V. Chr. Und Andern Orten
the Cemeteries’, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient in Ägypten. Worms: 196–455.
Greeks West and East. Leiden: 267–300. Williams, C. K. (1978). ‘Corinth 1977, Forum Southwest’,
Stissi, V. (2003). ‘From Catalogue to Cultural Context: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of
Bringing Life to Greek Sanctuary Pottery’, in Classical Studies at Athens 47 (1): 1–39.
B. Schmaltz and M. Söldner (eds), Griechische Keramik Williams, D. (1983). ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel: V. The
im kulturellen Kontext, Akten des Internationalen Pottery from Chios’, Archäologischer Anzeiger: 155–86.
Vasen-Symposions in Kiel vom 24.–28.9.2001. Münster: Williams, D. (2006). ‘Chian Pottery from Naukratis’,
77–9. in A. Villing and U. Schlotzhauer (eds), Naukratis:
Stissi, V. (2009). ‘Does Function Follow Form? Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery
Archaic Greek Pottery in its Find Contexts: Uses and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean. London:
and Meanings’, in V. Nøskov, L. Hannestad, C. Isler- 127–32.
Kerényi and S. Lewis (eds), The World of Greek Vases. Wilson, P. (2011). ‘Pots, People and the Plural
Rome: 23–43. Community: A Case Study of the Greeks in Egypt
Tsetskhladze, G. R. (2007). ‘Pots and Pandemonium: at Sais’, in K. Duistermat and I. Regulski (eds),
the earliest east Greek pottery from north Pontic Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean.
native settlements’, Revista Pontica 40: 37–70. Proceedings of the International Conference at the
Tsetskhladze, G. R. (2010). ‘The Black Sea Trade: Some Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo, 25th–29th
further general observations’, Anadolu Araştırmaları October 2008. Leuven: 149–60.
19 (1): 197–212. Yoyotte, J. (1993–4). ‘Les contacts entre Égyptiens et
Tsingarida, A. (2009). ‘Vases for heroes and gods: early Grecs, viie-iie siècles avant J.-C.: Naucratis, ville égyp-
red-figure parade cups and large-scale phialai’, in tienne, (1992–1993, 1993–1994)’, Annuaire du Collège
de France: 679–92.