^{page 55 note 1} Fullest discussions of the pottery are by Price, E., JHS xliv. 205 ff.Google Scholar, Classification des céramiques ‘East Greek Pottery’ 15 ff., and Cook, R. M., BSA xliv. 154 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 2} At Kato Phana by Kourouniotes, , ADelt i. 78 ff.Google Scholar and ii. 196 ff., and by Lamb, W., BSA xxxv. 158 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 3} At Kophina by Chios town, Anderson, , BSA xlix. 128 ff.Google Scholar The excavations at Emporio in south Chios have afforded a rich series of stratified groups of Chian pottery from the eighth century B.C. on.

^{page 55 note 4} Or ‘Chiot’: it seems simpler to use the one adjectival form ‘Chian’ for both pots and people.

^{page 55 note 5} For: E. Homann-Wedeking, Archäische Vasenornamentik 28, AM lxv. 28 f., and Bissing, von, Bull. Soc. Arch. Alex, xii (39) 46 f.Google ScholarAgainst: Cook, R. M., JHS lvii. 228, lviii. 266Google Scholar, BSA xliv. 154.

^{page 55 note 6} Lane, , BSA xxxiv. 182 ff.Google Scholar; Rumpf summarizes, MuZ 54.

^{page 55 note 7} Price, op. cit. 206; Cook, , JHS lviii. 266.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} To Homann-Wedeking, , AM lxv. 29, n. 2Google Scholar; and cf. Mallet, quoted by Price, in JHS xliv. 206.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} Naukratis i. 45.

^{page 56 note 3} For the attempt to identify a Milesian pottery see von Bissing, op. cit. 42. It may be significant that the Clazomenian vases by the Petrie Painter (Cook, , BSA xlvii. 128–30Google Scholar) have all so far been found in Egypt. The situlae were probably made there (CVA British Museum, viii. 32) and cf. JHS lvii. 237.

^{page 56 note 4} To suggest, as does Homann-Wedeking, (AM lxv. 28 f.)Google Scholar, that a third centre might have supplied both Chios and Naucratis with clay seems unnecessarily complicated.

^{page 56 note 5} In BSA xlvii. 159 ff. I refer here to individual inscriptions in their catalogue (ibid. 165–70), thus—CW no. 10, &c. Having recently been able to study briefly the inscribed pottery in Greece, London, and Oxford I would like to offer here one or two emendations and additions. CW no. 9 is by the ‘A. I writer’; nos. 38 and 42 are of the same vase; no. 53 reads ]αφρο[; no. 66 reads ]ν̣ηςυ[; no. 106 reads ]ςανε[; no. 111 reads ]θηκε[; no. 118 reads ]α̣ν̣ε[; no. 165 reads ]μ̣εα[; no. 170, the two fragments cannot be of the same vase; no. 187 is upside-down and should read ]νοΧΧ[ for ὰνὲθηκε]ν δ Χὶ[ος the iota being crossed as a chi by mistake; cf. no. 46, which is also low on the wall of a kantharos; no. 224, the two fragments are probably not of the same vase; no. 225 reads ]ηκενο[ Other scraps in the British Museum have ]διτλ̣[ (1924.12–1.707), ]θηκεν[ (—.732), ]ηκε[ (—.758), ]τ̣ιαφ[ (—.779), ]σ̣ιν̣[ (—.793). There are also Reading 26. ii. 59 ]ον[ (CVA i, pl. 550, 1) and Dublin University College 4008 ]ανεθη[ by the ‘M. writer’. There are several from the Emporio excavations in Chios. On shape-identifications see below, pp. 57f., nn. 5 and 1 (p. 58).

^{page 57 note 1} Mikis (or -mikis) gives a batch of kantharoi with undecorated interiors and the paint slightly overlapping the rim on to the outside, and two with interior decoration (CW nos. 188,221 + 222), to Zeus Hellenios (the ‘M. writer’). Demophon the Chian gives kantharoi (the certain attributions to the ‘D. writer’ have no decoration within) to Aphrodite. The ‘N. writer's’ batch have plain interiors, the ‘E. writer's’ decorated interiors; both for Aphrodite. Aigyptios gives kantharoi with interior decoration (the ‘Aig. writer’: ? to Aphrodite). Zoilos' phialai (the ‘Z. 2 writer’) for Aphrodite are decorated with lions or sphinxes (I am not sure that there is room for a Heracles so near the rim on CW no. 60) and all have the same rim pattern; they are all decorated in a reddish-brown paint, but their inner decoration is not repetitive (it seldom is in phialai): CW no. 144 is not a phiale and does not belong to this batch. Zoilos' kantharoi for Aphrodite have interior decoration; his ‘writer’ (Z. 1) occasionally uses punctuation, though we cannot be sure it is always for him (CW no. 190 probably does not belong here; it is from a chalice with elaborate interior decoration). I do not know on what type of vase Zoilos incised a dedication (Naukratis ii. 67, no. 825: ? Attic).

^{page 57 note 2} Of the ‘writers’ the only real individualist seems to be the ‘N. writer’.

^{page 57 note 3} CW nos. 25 (attributed to the ‘M. writer’, however), 59. 61.

^{page 57 note 4} So far as I know no complete kantharos has been preserved from Naucratis, though the shape appears on one of the chalices in a komos scene (JHS xliv, pl. 6, 27). It has been found on a number of other sites, often complete: Ialysos, , Clara Rhodos viii. 43Google Scholar, fig. 26 (right); Delos, , EADélos x, pl. 20, 119, 120Google Scholar; Aegina pl. 120, shape 103 (most of the inscribed fragments seem to be from kantharoi); Chios, , ADelt ii. 199, fig. 15Google Scholar; Lindos i. 280, no. 973a(?): Ithaca, , BSA xliii. 97Google Scholar, no. 586, fig. 51, and 99 f.; no provenance, Oxford CVA ii, pl. 392,18. The absence of slip beneath the paint on the interior is a mark of lateness. The cups which spread to the base (Aegina shape 104, cf. JHS xliv. 217, fig. 61) are of a different tradition. EADélos xv, pl. 32, Ae 90, 91 may well be Chian also. Clara Rhodos iii. 207, fig. 204 (centre top) seems a late example.

^{page 57 note 5} Certainly kantharoi are CW nos. 15, 35, 46, 47, 49, 69 (not a phiale), 75, 102, 103, 150, 151, 156, 173, 185, 187, 188, 224, 229. Phialai are CW nos. 16, 45, 60, 62, 64, 89, 125, 139, 145, 193–5. 198?, 201, 212, 213; not nos. 69, 94, 95, 108, 138. CW no. 51 seems from a one-handled roundmouthed jug.

^{page 58 note 1} Thus on CW nos. 14, 27, 54, 58, 58a (the number is 88.6–1.495), 198? (possibly aphiale). The only decorated chalice found with an inscribed dedication at Emporio has it in this position also. CW no. 58 is not a lid, but again the lower bowl of a decorated chalice; the inscription is upside down on the vase, which is not usual, but understandable as it would be easier to write that way, i.e. with the vase inverted, and a graffito in a similar position on a chalice (BM 88.6–1.182) is also upside down. Chian and Naucratite lids are only slipped inside, not painted over. Some rim fragments with elaborate decoration are probably from chalices, but none of the inscriptions which appear there are for certain dedicatory rather than descriptive labels for figures now missing or the like; cf. CW nos. 1, 30, 196, 197, 200, Reading 26. ii. 59.

^{page 58 note 2} At Kato Phana (CW nos. 35–43 and BSA xxxv. 161 f., fig. 13) and Emporio (for the potter's signature see JHS lxxv Suppl., pl. 2e).

^{page 58 note 3} If a Naucratite ‘writer’ is indeed to be identified on a vase in Chios we need be no more surprised than at the inscriptions in Aegina.

^{page 58 note 4} Cf. Boardman, , BSA xlix. 194.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 5} Op. cit. 162. Lacking an article it cannot be an ethnic.

^{page 58 note 6} Ibid. 161, n. 19.

^{page 58 note 7} Hdt. ii. 135 (part of the basis of her dedication in Delphi, , BCH lxxviii. 133Google Scholar, JHS lxxiv. 158, Mastrokostas, Γερας Κεραμοπουλλου 635 ff.). She was brought to Egypt by a Samian, bought and freed by Sappho's brother Charaxos, a wine-importer. It would be interesting to learn on what grounds she could be identified as an Ethiopian princess (cf. AJA lix. 177). For the charmers of Naucratis see Hdt. ii. 135, 5, Ath. xiii. 596b, and note the dedications Naukratis i. 61, nos. 33, 117; ii. 63, no. 712, 66, no. 798 Δωρὶς φὶλτ[ρον(?)]᾿Αφροδὶτη and BSA v. 56, no. 108, that of the hetaira Archedike. Mikis' dedications are the only ones to mention Zeus Hellenios at Naucratis. This need not be taken as evidence of a regular cult of Zeus with this epithet (cf. RE s.v. ‘Hellenios’) and might even be a non-Greek's thank-offering to the God of the Greeks (? for the Greeks). Cf. the Hellenion dedications with formulas like τοὶς θεοὶς τῶν ῾Ελλὴνων (JHS xxv. 116, BSA v. 55 f.), which incidentally could as easily explain the Naucratite dedications attributed to the Dioscuri, CW nos. 164, 166, to which we might add the shaky no. 160 and BM 1924.12–1.793. The sanctuary of Zeus founded by the Aeginetans (Hdt. ii. 178) has yet to be identified; Zeus Hellenios was worshipped on Aegina and it may be that the Zeus of Mikis' dedications is the Aeginetan one.

^{page 58 note 8} Naukratis ii. 64, no. 758. The Χαλκιδ[εὺς of BSA v. 55, no. 48 (now Oxford G. 123.2) was thought not an ethnic by Gardner, though a name could have preceded it.

^{page 58 note 9} Naukratis ii. 63 f., nos. 706, 757; and perhaps other inhabitants of Naucratis, ibid. no. 754 and cf. no. 737.

^{page 59 note 1} CW nos. 1–15.

^{page 59 note 2} Hdt. ii. 178; Price, , JHS xliv. 202 f.Google Scholar; von Bissing, op. cit. 80; Zeit und Herkunft 97 f. That several Fikellura vases might have reached Aegina (and Attica for that matter) via Naucratis is not surprising (BSA xxxiv. 85, 97). The early coins on die Aeginetan standard which were once thought Chian are almost certainly not so. See Seltman, , KumChron 1926, 150 f.Google Scholar See abo p. 58, n. 7.

^{page 59 note 3} Doubtful evidence of more direct Athenian relations with Naucratis may be read into the mention in Ath. Pol. 11 of Solon's visit to Egypt combining business with pleasure: ἀποδημὶαν ὲποιὴσατο κατ᾿ ὲμπορὶαν ὰμα καὶ θεωπὶαν εὶς Αὶγυπτον; cf. Freeman, , Work and Life of Solon 155–7, 182 f.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 4} BSA xlvii, 161 f.

^{page 59 note 5} The καλὴ εὶμ[; on a chalice there more likely refers to the vase than its owner (CW no. 1).

^{page 59 note 6} Op. cit. 46 f.; he cites the distribution of these objects and of Naucratite pottery as an argument in favour of a local Greek factory for the latter at Naucratis. Cf. Pendlebury, Aegyptiaca 95 ff.

^{page 59 note 7} Examples in JHS xliv, pl. 6, 1–6, 8–17, 19–28.

^{page 59 note 8} Graef-Langlotz, , Akropolis Vasen i, pl. 15, 24, no. 450.Google Scholar If an Athenian ever dedicated at Naucratis, no record of his nationality is preserved in the extant dedications: Chians dedicated Attic pottery, BSA v. 55, no. 60; CVA Brussels, iii, pl. 122, 2, and see p. 57, n. 1.

^{page 60 note 1} BSA xlvii. 159, 163; the dates are perhaps a little high. The interior decoration of the vases is a simpler derivative of that current in the first quarter of the century, and on the date of some of the Samian inscriptions compared see Klaffenbach, , D Mitt vi. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 2} JHS xliv. 219, pl. 6, 21; Price, ibid., thinks this may be a Danaid. Or Isis reassembling Osiris?

^{page 60 note 3} Op. cit. 213, fig. 51 (CVA Cambridge, ii, pl. 496, 45). Common in Egyptian myth and religion as the path to heaven, the approach to Osiris' throne; even a pyramid! Price explained the steps as of an altar. A recent study derives the stepped Ionian altar from Egypt and finds the earliest example in that before the Temple of Aphrodite at Naucratis, of the early sixth century (Hoffmann, , AJA lvii. 193 f.Google Scholar). The bird is apparently a partridge.

^{page 60 note 4} JHS xliv. 218 f., pl. 6,6, explained as perhaps Aphrodite protecting Aeneas (but see Beazley, , Attic Vase Paintings in Boston ii. 20Google Scholar). It might be the Greek way of depicting the Egyptian and oriental ‘embrace’ of a king by his tutelary deity.

^{page 60 note 5} CW no. 59, pl. 34, 5. Other myths represented on Naucratite are more easily explained; Price, op. cit. 218 f. The ‘monster’ of her pl. 9, 10 is a siren. A fragment in Oxford with half of a torn dog may be from a boar-hunt scene (Oxford G. 114. 43). For a possible scene from the Midas story see Brommer, , AA 1941. 40Google Scholar, 52, fig. 8.

^{page 60 note 6} Cook, , BSA xlvii. 147.Google Scholar Rumpf detects Chian influence in the Boccanera plaques from Caere and the newly found Gordion frescoes (MuZ 46, AJA lx. 75); but polychrome painting has yet to be found in Chios itself.

^{page 61 note 1} Lane, , BSA xxxiv. 186Google Scholar, discusses and illustrates the Berlin fragment. To the Oxford piece (G. 133. 2, CVA ii, pl. 396, 33) has now been added another fragment (G. 133. 6) giving part of the handle palmette, which is pure Laconian in type. The CVA description of the outside decoration is not accurate, as there are only one band of tongues and one of rays between the red and black stripes: the shape cannot be a phiale as stated there. CVA Cambridge, ii, pl. 496, 67 is from another cup by the same hand, and JHS xliv, pl. 12, 16 may be another (BM 86.4–1.128). In the style of the Oxford cup are the chalice fragments, ibid. pl. 12, 17–19: poloi are uncommon in Naucratite but cf. the Arkesilas Painter's cup, BSA xlix, pl. 50.

^{page 61 note 2} Shefton, , BSA xlix. 300 f.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 3} The fragment in Munich, ibid. 300, no. 8 (not a fawn). I am indebted to Dr. R. Lullies for a photograph. Ibid. pl. 50 shows a fine specimen.

^{page 61 note 4} Most have filling ornament, which is almost unknown in the Grand Style, and elaborate rim decoration which develops directly from the Wild Goat chalices of around 600.

^{page 61 note 5} Cf. JHS xliv, pl. 10, 9; Naukratis i, pl. 5, 44; CVA Oxford, ii, pl. 396, 20 (on its side); Fairbanks, Boston Vases pl. 34, 321. 5, and other fragments in London.

^{page 61 note 6} EADélos x, pls. 19, 51, 52, no. 121; note the pomegranate motif in the interior decoration.

^{page 61 note 7} Africa Italiana iv, pl. 3, 12 (upside-down).

^{page 61 note 8} A possible Cyrenaic Greek graffito on a Laconian, vase, Naukratis ii. 64Google Scholar, no. 767 (Roebuck, , Classical Philology xlv. 247 n. 72Google Scholar); no. 766 is better read Νε(i)λὸμανδρος as Miss Jeffery has pointed out to me.

^{page 61 note 9} JHS xliv. 215, fig. 59; the models are found at Chios as at Naucratis.

^{page 61 note 10} The column-crater fragment, Naukratis ii, pl. 13, 1 (cf. Price, op. cit. 204 and Cook, , BSA xlvii. 127 n. 20Google Scholar, 139 n. 64), seems certainly Naucratite but the treatment of the subject, use of incision and white dots, is unfamiliar and best explained as imitative of Clazomenian. The plastic head in Oxford (CVA ii, pl. 401, 22; Cook, , JHS lvii. 236Google Scholar and BSA xlvii. 126) is Clazomenian by decoration and profile, seems Naucratite by fabric and slip, but still is better omitted from the list of Chian, , BSA xlvii. 159Google Scholar, n. 5. Little Clazomenian has been found in Chios, BSA xxxv. 162Google Scholar (cf. xlvii. 148) and BSA xlix, pl. 6, 69.

^{page 62 note 1} Classical Philology xlv. 241 f., and cf. xlvi. 217. Von Bissing (op. cit. 38 f., 64 f.) has other views on the introduction of the Aphrodite cult.

^{page 62 note 2} There are in Oxford scraps of black-figure kantharoi and other vases of the type found at Emporio, (JHS lxxiv. 162, fig. 12b)Google Scholar of the mid-sixth century or later. The fragment CVA Oxford, ii, pl. 396, 3 is probably as late.

^{page 62 note 3} Cook, , CVA British Museum viii. 32Google Scholar, and cf. above, p. 56, n. 3.

^{page 62 note 4} Cook, op. cit. 59: add the wine jar from Chios (c. 600) which had been reused in Egypt and sealed with cartouches of Amasis, (Tanis ii, pl. 36, 5Google Scholar; Petrie, Ten Tears Digging in Egypt 60 f.). Argument from the frequency of fabrics at Tell Defenneh is not, however, very safe, as Cook, points out, JHS lvii. 229 f.Google Scholar