¹ So Glotz, , Hist. Grecque I, 204Google Scholar,—he makes Amasis pursue throughout a double policy; ‘le meilleur témoignage de son philhellénisme persistant se trouve dans une ingénieuse application de mesures contraires en apparence à l'expansion hellénique.’ Hall, , CAH iii, 292, 303–4Google Scholar; Meyer, , Gesch. d. Altertums III ², 623–4Google Scholar; How, and Wells, , Commentary on Herodotus, on ii, 30. 2, 154. 3, 178–9Google Scholar, also attribute a double policy to Amasis.

² Naukratis I, 7–8Google Scholar: Tunis II, 47–9Google Scholar.

³ Gnomon, 1925, 330Google Scholar; Chalkidische Vasen, 139Google Scholar: JdI 1933, 60Google Scholar.

⁴ Rec. Trav. xxii, 1Google Scholar.

⁵ Rev. Eg. i, 59Google Scholar.

⁶ The bibliography for Naucratis is considerable. Excavation Reports:

Petrie, W. M. F.Naukratis I (1886)Google Scholar: the conclusions are often hasty and the drawings unreliable.

Gardner, E. A.Naukratis II (1888)Google Scholar.

Hogarth, D. G. (1899) BSA V, 26–97Google Scholar; (1903) JHS 1905, 105–36Google Scholar.

General Studies:

Prinz, H.Funde aus Naukratis, Klio Beiheft 7 (1908)Google Scholar: much of it out of date.

Ure, P. N., Origin of Tyranny, 103–24Google Scholar: archaeological sources often obsolete.

Smith, E. M.JSOR 1926, 119–207Google Scholar: a useful and uncritical collection of material.

Special Studies:

Price, E. R.JHS 1924, 180–222Google Scholar: on the East Greek pottery,—the text is largely out of date.

Beazley, J. D. and Payne, H. G.JHS 1929, 253–72Google Scholar: on the Attic B.F. in the British Museum, and the most important study for the early chronology of Naucratis. (Cf. Payne, Necrocorinthia 25Google Scholar).

Gjerstad, E.LAAA 1934, 67–84Google Scholar: an unsuccessful attempt to recover a useful stratification (see BSA xxxiv, 86, n. 2Google Scholar).

Further Publication of Material:

CVA Oxford ii (Attic, Beazley; Corinthian, Payne; East Greek, Price)Google Scholar.

CVA Cambridge ii (W. LambGoogle Scholar).

A. Fairbanks, Catalogue of Greek and Etruscan Vases in Boston.

CVA Hague i and ii (L. ScheurleerGoogle Scholar).

de Jong, E. Prins, Scherben aus Naukratis (in Hague)Google Scholar.

C. C. Edgar Catalogue du Caire, Greek Vases.

Cook, R. M.BSA xxxiv, 1–98Google Scholar (for the Fikellura pottery: list on p. 97).

Lane, E. A.BSA xxxiv, 99–189Google Scholar (for the Laconian pottery: esp. p. 180).

The finds from Naucratis were scattered without being properly studied. Besides the four excavations a collection of sherds from the site was made by von Bissing, which also has been dispersed; and another by de Mot, who presented his to Brussels. By far the largest mass of the finds is in the British Museum. Next come Oxford, Cambridge and Boston. There are small assortments in The Hague, Cairo, Brussels, Heidelberg, Leipzig and University College, London. And numerous collections have a few relics.

⁷ For references see above. Three or, at the most, five Corinthian fragments from Naucratis of the seventh century were known to Payne (Necrocorinthia, 25). The attribution to Naucratis of a transitional sherd in Boston (Fairbanks pl. 37, 340) is extremely doubtful. Anyhow, a single earlier piece would not affect the argument.

⁸ A representative selection published by Price, , JHS 1924Google Scholar and CVA Oxford ii.

⁹ This view seems to have been accepted since Miss W. Lamb's excavations in 1934 at the site of Apollo Phanaios in Chios (see JHS 1934, 196–8Google Scholar): Payne was convinced. Briefly the arguments are as follows: (1) the continuation from Chiot Geometric of the technique of varnish paint on top of a white slip. (2) A possible ancestry for the ‘chalice’ shape. (3) The distribution of ‘Naucratite’: Chios has more plausible connections with the Pontus. (4) That Chios otherwise has no archaic style of vase-painting, while a foreign settlement like Naucratis is hardly to be expected to have a strong and purely Greek style. (5) That there is not time for the reserving ‘Naucratite’ style to develop in Naucratis after 615–10. (6) That the most prominent dedicators of ‘Naucratite’ pottery at Naucratis are Chiots.

Dedicatory inscriptions painted before firing occur also in Chios and Aegina. The connection between Naucratis and Chios holds, therefore, even if ‘Naucratite’ pottery was manufactured in Naucratis and exported to Chios.

The uniformity of clay, slip, technique, style and alphabet makes it most unlikely that ‘Naucratite’ was made in both Naucratis and Chios.

¹⁰ Nor among the sanctuaries does he mention that of Aphrodite, judging from finds one of the two most important in the early years of Naucratis. Chiots are, I think, the most frequent dedicators to her.

¹¹ Excavation Report: Petrie, W. M. F.Tanis II (1888)Google Scholar; inadeqate, especially the drawings. Important criticism by Rumpf, A., Gnomon, 1925, 330Google Scholar and JdI 1933, 60Google Scholar.

¹² Inventoried under the serial 88. 2–8. Some at least of the sherds inventoried under 1924. 12–1 are also from Tell Defenneh (see BSA xxxiv, 86–87).

¹³ Tanis II, 58Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See BSA xxxiv, 87Google Scholar: list given on p. 97.

¹⁵ B.M. B 115 (Tanis II, pl. 29. 3). Rumpf dates it to the last third of the sixth century (Gnomon 1925, 330Google Scholar).

¹⁶ Two Situlae have been found outside Tell Defenneh: Rhodes 10641 (Cl.Rh. iii, grave clxxxiii, figs. 186–9; fig. 188 execrable: CVA Rhodes i, pl. 423. 4–5Google Scholar) and Rhodes 10773 (Cl.Rh. iii, grave cxciv, fig. 198)—both found with Attic B.F. of about 500–490: I thank Professor Beazley for this inportant formation. See Rumpf, JdI 1933, 61Google Scholar. On the other hand, the context of the Situlae at Tell Defenneh would suggest their dating to the third quarter of the sixth century.

¹⁷ Middle ‘Rhodian’—Tanis II, pl. 24. 6: late ‘Rhodian’—Boston 28. 86. 114. Further excavation might well prove a seventh-century origin for the Greek settlement.

¹⁸ E.g. Price, , East Greek Pottery 9Google Scholar. Rumpf, JdI 1933, 6Google Scholar:, does not commit himself. Petrie thought the Situlae of local manufacture (Tanis II, 62).

¹⁹ See below, p. 237, Appendix II.

²⁰ See Memphis I, 3Google Scholar.

²¹ There are no certain Hellenic finds from Egypt, from Naucratis, Tell Defenneh or elsewhere, which are to be dated back beyond 615. If, as the literary evidence suggests, it was Psammetichus I whose need for mercenaries opened Egypt to the archaic Greeks, introcommercial relations do not seem to have been established till the very end of his reign. But the archaeological evidence is inadequate.

²² See below, p. 234.

²³ JdI 1933, 60Google Scholar.

²⁴ Lawrence, A. W., History of Herodotus of Halicarnassus II, 182, n. 1Google Scholar: ‘the “archaic smile” of sixth-century Greek sculpture, was probably introduced into Egyptian portraiture under Amasis.’

²⁵ See above, p. 227, n. 4.

²⁶ Unless φιλέλλην γενόμενος (ii. 178) is to be taken as a sign of (sudden) conversion.

²⁷ See above, p. 227, n. 1.

²⁸ Hdt. ii. 178.

²⁹ Naucratis was not a Greek colony, properly archaeofounded, so that there may have been few data about its origins. Two centuries later Apollonius Rhodius wrote a Ναυκράτεως κτίσις (Ath. vii. 283): but how far he is likely to have used historical evidence I do not know. Strabo's date for the foundation of the Μιλήσιον τεῖχος (xvii. 801) could fit the archaeological conclusions about Naucratis.

³⁰ Hdt. ii. 178–179.

³¹ Hdt. ii. 154.

³² Tanis II, 48Google Scholar.

³³ E.g. Hall, (CAH iii, 292Google Scholar) and Lawrence (op. cit. II, 30, n. 2) take Petrie whole. Glotz (op. cit. 203, n. 223) puts Stratopeda just outside Daphnae. How and Wells (op. cit., on ii. 30, n. 2) partly outside.

³⁴ Gnomon 1925, 330Google Scholar: JdI 1933, 60. Cf. Cook, R. M.BSA xxxiv, 87, n. 3Google Scholar.

³⁵ Position of Stratopeda (ii. 154). Daphnae is on the Pelusiac branch and on the strategical route to Asia, since the frontier post is there (ii. 30); and Sesostris is casually mentioned as returning by way of Daphnae (ii. 107).

³⁶ See Petrie, Tanis II, 47Google Scholar: Rumpf, JdI 1933, 60Google Scholar.

³⁷ And Petrie claims that the modern caravan route passes Tell Defenneh (Tanis II, 47Google Scholar).

³⁸ Cf. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 25Google Scholar. To judge from the archaeological evidence the end of the seventh century seems to mark the beginning of the distant colonising period of the East Greek cities. Naucratis seems to have been founded about 615–10, Berezan, Istria and Apollonia Pontica about 610–600. For Berezan there are some hundreds of sherds collected by von Stern and given to Halle and Leipzig, and perhaps to Heidelberg. For Istria from Mme. Lambrino's final report will be illuminating: I base my conclusions on the sherds in the National Museum, Bucharest, some of which she has published in Dacia iii – iv, 362–77Google Scholar. For Apollonia Pontica there are numerous sherds in Sofia and Burgas, and some in the Louvre and in Bonn.

³⁹ Not mentioned by Herodotus. The most prominent dedicators are Chiots.

⁴⁰ As Rumpf says, ‘die Funde aus Defenneh datieren nicht, sie sind zu datieren’ (JdI 1933, 60Google Scholar).

⁴¹ See Hogarth, , BSA v, 46Google Scholar.

⁴² Numbers of pieces in Cairo are those of Edgar, Catalogue du Musée du Carre: Greek Vases. Classification of ‘Rhodian’ as in BSA xxxiv, 2, n. 1Google Scholar.

Apparently no Greek pottery has been discovered in Egypt between Mycenean and the fabrics of the end of the seventh century.

⁴³ Petrie, , Memphis I, 3Google Scholar, mentions more Greek pottery from that area.

⁴⁴ Price, , CVA Oxford, ii, 88Google Scholar, mentions two similar fragments from Memphis.

⁴⁵ I thank Dr. Kukahn for knowledge of this fragment.

⁴⁶ See above, p. 229.