Naukratis revisited 2012: Integrating new fieldwork and old research

British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 20 (2013): 81–125

ISSN 2049-5021

Naukratis revisited 2012: Integrating new fieldwork and old researchRoss I. Thomas and Alexandra Villing

picture at 50mm from top

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_journals/bmsaes/issue_20/thomas&villing.aspx

Naukratis revisited 2012: Integrating new fieldwork and old research Ross I. Thomas and Alexandra Villing

Introduction

Ancient Naukratis has been a focus of interdisciplinary research at the British Museum for several years, with the rich yet previously unevenly published and studied material from early excavations shedding new light on the site’s history and role in Egyptian-Greek interaction (Villing et al. 2013).1 Yet this research has also increasingly brought to light the contradictions and lacunae that characterise both early and more recent fieldwork at the site. Therefore, in October 2012 the British Museum conducted its first fieldwork season at Naukratis/Kom Geif in Beheira Governorate, Egypt (SCA site no. 100253).2 The short, eight-day season was conceived of as a first step towards developing a new fieldwork programme, designed to help fill the gaps in our understanding of the site’s history and to resolve the numerous long-standing controversies surrounding the site, by integrating new fieldwork with critically reassessed old fieldwork.

Naukratis: A site and its explorationAs the earliest and, for a period, the only ‘Greek’ city in Egypt, Naukratis was established in the late 7th century BC and was in existence until at least the 7th century AD. It functioned as the port of the royal pharaonic city of Sais and remained an important hub for trade and cross-cultural exchange for much of its history. Archaeological fieldwork was first undertak-en by W. M. Flinders Petrie, who identified the site in early 1884, followed by three further seasons under Ernest Gardner and David Hogarth. These early excavations were pioneering, with Petrie in particular developing his new ‘scientific’ approach to archaeological research at the site, and they revealed a wealth of information and archaeological objects that to this day form the basis for our knowledge about ancient Naukratis (Villing et al. 2013). Yet they also left many questions open, which subsequent scholarship has struggled to answer.

Much of this has to do with the difficult conditions under which Naukratis was excavated and its remains recorded (for a more extensive survey of the site’s excavation history see Vil-ling 2013). By the time Petrie arrived at the site (Fig. 1), a good third of it had already partly been dug away by local sebbakhin mining the site for fertile earth, leaving behind only ‘heaps

1 http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/all_current_projects/naukratis_the_greeks_in_egypt.aspx. The project, directed by Alexandra Villing, has been funded primarily by the Leverhulme Trust (Project Grant number F/00 052/E) and The Shelby White – Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications.

2 The work was carried out with the kind permission of the Permanent Committee of the SCA and the assistance of Inspector Tarik Sayed Ahmed Abdellah (Beheira SCA, Damanhur). The team comprised of field director Ross I. Thomas, Alexandra Villing, Marianne Bergeron (British Museum), Hani Farouk Abd El-Azeez Shalash and Doaa Ferieg Ali (Beheira SCA, Damanhur); the latter two team members were trained in the use of the survey methods and equipment on site.


2013

83 NAUKRATIS 2012

[of sherds] … from a few inches to five or six feet in depth’ (Petrie 1886, 9); their work continued alongside that of the archaeologists for decades, with Giza Bedouins selling the more notable antiquities to dealers and collectors. Petrie’s excavations on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund began in 1884, focussing on the Greek sanctuaries with their rich finds, particularly of Archaic Greek pottery (its early dating starting a long debate on the literary versus the archaeological dating of the site’s foundation), but also excavating what would later come to be recognised as a large Egyptian temple enclosure (the ‘Great Temenos’), contain-ing a substantial building with casemate foundations. Petrie and his assistant Ernest Gardner continued the fieldwork the following year, further working on the sanctuaries and excavating a cemetery to the north.

In 1899 and 1903 David Hogarth, hearing about ‘very serious encroachments […] being made upon the mounds of Gaif ’ by the continuing work of the sebbakhin, instigated two new seasons of fieldwork under the auspices of the British School at Athens (Fig. 2). Finding the site much changed and increasingly prone to flooding, he nevertheless went on to discover the structure that he identified as the Hellenion in the northeast. His attempts to retrace Petrie’s Great Temenos in the southern part, however, remained unsuccessful and he finished by concluding that the temenos, as mapped by Petrie, never existed (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 28, 40; Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905, 107).

When, 70 years later, Albert Leonard Jr. and William Coulson visited the site in 1977, they discovered the central part of the site flooded, forming a lake, thus seemingly preventing any re-examination of the early Greek sanctuaries, as originally hoped (Leonard 1997, 20). Instead, a mound in the southern part of the site (‘South Mound’), featuring mud-brick walls, and believed by the excavators to be associated with the casemate building in Petrie’s Great Temenos, became the main focus of Leonard’s fieldwork between 1980 and 1983 (Leonard 1997). Struggling with the interpretation of the complex architecture he encountered and with the dating of the associated pottery, Leonard concluded that the Egyptian aspect of the site could not predate the Ptolemaic period, an assertion today in need of thorough reassess-ment (see below). Excavations in the east targeted for the first time a low mound called Kom Hadid (Leonard 2001), the name of which means ‘mound of iron’ but which revealed only pottery and pottery slag and was thus identified essentially as a ‘ceramic trash heap’ (Berlin 2001, 26). The project was concerned also with the wider landscape around Naukratis. A number of ancient sites were investigated in the wider region and, for the first time in the Nile Delta, a surface pottery survey was conducted around the site (Coulson 1996). A number of drill cores aimed at locating the Canopic branch of the Nile were interpreted, somewhat im-plausibly, as suggesting a river bed moving through the centre of the site during its historical occupation (Villas 1996).

Today, as in the days of Coulson and Leonard, the ancient site of Naukratis is an area oc-cupied by a number of small, yet ever-expanding villages (Rashwan, Abu Mishfa, Gebril Ab-bas, Hassan Kasim and El Baradany), collectively known as Kom Geif (Figs 3 and 8). These villages surround a large pit left by official and unofficial excavations in the central part of the ancient town, now a seasonal lake. Some fieldwork has been conducted here recently, but with a far more limited scope and aim than previous work. With the goal of clarifying the extent of the archaeological area, Mohammed Ali Hakim, on behalf of the Supreme Council of


84

THOMAS & VILLING BMSAES 20

Antiquities, excavated two series of test pits, one in fields to the east of the lake in 2009, and another on the streets and squares within the villages surrounding the lake in 2011. A single drill core and a small area of magnetometry survey formed part of a ‘light touch’ geophysical survey of the central Western Delta conducted by Hany Mohammed Shaaban El-Awady of Mansoura University (Shaaban El-Awady 2009).

The new fieldwork: Aims and methodsThe sporadic and disjointed fieldwork projects of the past 130 years at Naukratis had specific research agendas and often took little account of previous work, or struggled with joining the disparate pieces of the puzzle, particularly when faced with great changes in the site’s terrain due to the work of the sebbakhin. As a result, many important questions regarding the site re-main open or are the subject of controversy. What was the full extent of the settlement? How were its sanctuaries, habitation quarters, workshops, harbours and quays organised, and how did they develop over time? Can we distinguish ‘Greek’ and ‘Egyptian’ quarters and urban architecture and establish a chronological precedence of one over the other? Did the Canopic branch really cross the centre of Naukratis? What was the nature of the site’s hinterland and its relationship to the network of waterways in the Delta? To what extent have biases in earlier find selection and research strategies determined the extant evidence and how can the result-ing distortions be overcome?

The objectives of the 2012 field season were threefold:1. Create a digital map of the terrain, topography and extant features of Naukratis that

allows for the integration of all previous archaeological research. 2. Assess the site’s potential for answering key questions regarding landscape, settlement

formation and historical change, including: • the location, date and development of the Great Temenos in the south• the location, layout and development of the Hellenion in the north • the location and extent of the Nile river channel and harbour(s) in the west• the extent of the settlement and industrial areas in the east

3. Identify areas with undisturbed archaeology that have the potential to provide:• a solid stratigraphic chronological framework• ‘complete sets’ of stratified archaeological material to counterbalance distortions in

the present record caused by the biased find selection practices of earlier fieldwork.Two methods were used in the field, topographical survey and geophysical prospection. The topographical survey was conducted using two RTK GPS units, a Leica GX1230 as a refer-ence station and another Leica GX1230 as a rover unit, across large parts of the site, mapping even small changes in the site’s surface (Figs 4 and 5).3 The RTK GPS was also used to locate 3 The reference station occupies a fixed point and receives positioning data. It then broadcasts its location to

the rover unit, allowing the rover to more accurately resolve its own position. The RTK GPS unit was used to collect data on a local grid and data was collected at 2 or 5m traverse intervals, where accessible, with read-ings taken every metre or at every 0.1m change in height. The co-ordinate quality (CQ) in x, y and z dimen-sions ranged from 9mm to 49mm, but is usually below 25mm in open areas. Post processing of raw data us-ing RINEX data for Station 1 places the whole survey in real-world co-ordinates with an accuracy of 0.037m (WGS84 with ellipsoid heights. Station 1 Latitude: 30 53 49.50132; Longitude: 30 53 49.50132 http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/OPUS/about.jsp#accuracy, undertaken by Doug Murphy of Opti-cal Survey Equipment Ltd,


2013

85 NAUKRATIS 2012

magnetometry grids, old excavation trenches, archaeological structures and artefacts found. Progress was rapid, with 49,000 topographic measurements taken overall. An initial geo-ref-erenced topographical map of the site’s surface was created in ArcGIS to serve as a basis for any further investigations; to map any finds as well as key modern and ancient features of the site; and to make it possible to incorporate into a composite map also any earlier plans, aerial photographs and satellite images so as to aid their critical evaluation (Fig. 8).

Geophysical prospection (magnetometry) was carried out using a Bartington Grad601-2 Dual Array Twin Fluxgate Gradiometer to detect man-made sub-surface structures (both within and outside previously investigated areas) and to help define the site’s limits and geo-morphological setting (Fig. 6). Fluxgate gradiometers have been used successfully on the sedimentary geology of Nile Delta in locating sub-surface archaeological structures and fea-tures at Tell el-Balamun (Herbich 2012, 13), Buto (Hartung and Herbich 2004, 16–17), Tell el-Daba (Forstner-Müller, Herbich, Schweitzer and Weissl 2007, fig. 7; 2008; Forstner-Müller, Herbich, Schweitzer and Weissl 2010; Forstner-Müller, Bietak, Lehmann and Reali 2011, fig. 5) and Kom Firin (Spencer 2008, pls 74–76), and proved effective also at Naukratis.4 Seven-ty-eight grids measuring 30 x 30m were completed, covering 7 hectares in a series of fields harvested of their crops. Previously identified key areas were targeted in the north, east, west and south of the site, with the aim to identify areas with undisturbed archaeology, and to as-sess the extent and character of the urban area, its relation to the river and the development of the main religious centres.

While it was not our aim to conduct an exhaustive, systematic pottery survey, pottery was collected when indicator sherds were visible in survey areas. Overall, 274 artefacts were col-lected from the four main areas surveyed around Naukratis (see below, Table 1).5 Emerging patterns—clear in spite of likely post-depositional distortions—were compared with previ-ous survey results in Coulson’s fieldwork (Coulson 1996).6 Most of the ancient pottery that

who also supplied the RTK GPS equipment). In the course of working on-site, data was regularly download-ed and viewed in ArcMap to check coverage.

4 Magnetometry is a relatively quick, efficient way of surveying large open areas and works by measuring mi-nor changes in the earth’s magnetic field, facilitating the detection of many different types of anthropogenic archaeological feature including walls, hearths, ovens, ditches, pits and kilns. Archaeological deposits can be masked by other activity, particularly the presence of ferrous material. Readings were taken at 0.25m inter-vals along traverses every 0.5m within the 30 x 30m grids, providing a high-resolution survey for detecting potential archaeological remains. A resolution of 0.1 Nano-tesla (nT) was used for each instrument, with all traverses walking in a zig-zag fashion. The data was recorded using a Grad-01 data logger. The data was downloaded from the instrument using GRAD601 and processed in Geoplot 3.0 by Kristian Strutt (who also supplied the equipment, Archaeological Prospection Service of Southampton, http://www.southampton.ac.uk/archaeology/apss/), so as to remove environmental disturbances or variations produced in the course of the survey. The results will eventually be further processed and interpreted by Strutt following future seasons of fieldwork.

5 All sherds and other finds were recorded as coming from specific magnetometry grids, or as individual finds or concentrations of objects around a point, measured with the RTK GPS rover. This practice allows for collected pottery to be associated with archaeological features, either visible on the ground or in the magne-tometry, and also to be linked with previous survey areas in Coulson’s fieldwork (Coulson 1996, fig. 5).

6 All finds were washed, photographed and bagged with labels, boxed and stored for future study and publica-tion; a number of stamped amphora handles and a complete vessel were registered by the SCA.


86


can be observed in the agricultural fields today is locally produced coarse-ware, as in Coul-son’s survey, thus confirming what is also indicated by the 19th century excavators’ notes, namely that the extant pottery assemblage (mostly Greek fine-ware) from the 19th century excavations is not representative of the site’s actual overall assemblage. Nonetheless, the rel-ative abundance of fragments from Rhodian, Knidian and Koan amphorae of Late Classical to Ptolemaic date, but also of Late Roman Cypriot/Cilician amphorae, testify to a large num-ber of imports passing through Naukratis over a long time span (Fig. 7).

The results of this initial fieldwork season not only demonstrate the site’s archaeological potential and the suitability of the methods employed, but also goes some way already to-wards solving some long-standing controversies. The following sections outline the work and results of the season, focussing especially on the challenges and potential of relating early fieldwork to the current topography of the site. They demonstrate how new observations, combined with a fresh look at existing evidence, can substantially add to our understanding of the history of this important ancient site.

Putting Naukratis on the map: 130 years of research

Understanding previous fieldwork and its relation to the current topography is crucial to un-derstanding Naukratis, certainly when planning new fieldwork at the site. The earliest inves-tigations recorded features with only limited attention to detail, accuracy and developments over different phases, but they also fail to recognise radical changes in the terrain caused by agricultural and settlement activity that have greatly changed the appearance of the site since the days of the early fieldwork. Locating and mapping in real-world co-ordinates structures planned by earlier excavators is a challenge, both with respect to topography and stratigraphy.

The topography of NaukratisThe plan of Naukratis published here (Fig. 8) is the outcome of modern survey methods care-fully integrating earlier evidence. It is the latest in a series of scholarly attempts to reconcile the work of earlier excavators with each other and with actual features on the ground, starting from the 1899 and 1903 work of Hogarth, who searched in vain for Petrie’s Great Temenos, followed by Prinz in 1908, who first published a composite plan of Naukratis combining the maps of Petrie, Gardner and Hogarth, and, more recently, by Leonard and Coulson in 1977–1983. Yet without reliable real-world co-ordinates and GIS software, previous scholars struggled to reconcile different plans with one another and with the current lay of the land. The resulting maps were often riddled with problems, sometimes compounding previous (or creating new) misconceptions about the site’s topography and development. An important first step in reassessing one of the most controversial monuments of Naukratis, the Great Temenos, was made recently by A. J. Spencer in collaboration with the present project (2011, fig. 8). By combining the plans of Petrie, Coulson and Leonard with satellite imagery on the basis of unpublished information in Petrie’s Journals, Spencer was able to demonstrate fun-damental errors in Coulson’s and Leonard’s geographical placement of Petrie’s maps, which had substantially informed the interpretation of their fieldwork (see also below). Yet without


2013

87 NAUKRATIS 2012

the benefit of reliable real-world co-ordinates, this preliminary reconstruction still showed Petrie’s plan at too large a scale and shifted the enlarged Great Temenos too far to the east. The new map is finally able to correct such errors by connecting known points on published plans with the most accurate survey data from 2012 in ArcGIS. It has at its core a satellite image of the site that has been fully geo-referenced with the help of our RTK survey data, including measurements of prominent landmarks and extant archaeological features, and also incorporates data from our magnetometry survey. Overlaid onto this new map are the maps of Petrie, Gardner and Hogarth, using features such as villages, roads and edges of excava-tion areas as guides.7

A composite map is only as good as its source material. Flinders Petrie had a good under-standing of professional survey methods, using six different theodolites in his survey at Giza. His methods are described in his publications, notably The pyramids and temples of Gizeh pub-lished in 1883, the year before his excavations at Naukratis. For Naukratis itself, his methods can be traced in detail through his notebooks, journals and letters.8 The plans he produced were based on a combination of theodolite measurements, augmented by taped offsets and rough sketches; they are more accurate than subsequent scholars sometimes have been ready to admit. The surviving documentation allows us to recognise which parts of his Naukratis plan are more reliable than others, e.g., that the modern features of the landscape (such as the canal, roads, paths and limits of excavation and the site) were less carefully recorded. Differ-ent versions of plans also sometimes disagree. For example, his unpublished sketch plan of the site locates the Great Temenos at a slightly different alignment to his published plan (Fig. 9 combining the two plans). The sketch plan is nevertheless of vital importance, containing additional information on known points, notably the modern villages. Combining Petrie’s and Gardner’s (adjusted and presumably more correct) published plans with Petrie’s sketches thus allows us to correlate with some accuracy their plans with the current topography (Fig. 10). Using known points such as the ‘Pasha’s house’ (the house of Yakub Pasha) in which Petrie stayed, now in the village of Yaqub, the Abu-Diab canal, the locations of Kom Hadid, Abu Mishfa, El Baradany and Hassan Kasim and the ‘South Mound,’ we arrive at a ‘best fit’ that gives us valuable information on the placement of major features of the ancient town.

Incorporating Hogarth’s grid plan for the whole site has its own problems. His maps were not particularly accurate9 and his main map is neither to the correct scale nor quite aligned to the north. In addition to correlating villages and the outline of cultivation and other features, Hogarth’s map can be anchored on the basis of two granite door-jamb fragments (Fig. 11) from the area of the Hellenion (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 27, 30, 35, pl. iii feature no. 1). Now incorporated into our survey (see below, Fig. 14), these fragments, described by

7 The map has its roots in a map originally prepared by François Leclère for the Naukratis Project that was used as our working map during the fieldwork season, helping us plan the survey and identify where refine-ments could be made to the map.

8 He clearly refers to the use of theodolites (in his shorthand as ‘theod’) in his notebooks for the levels and plans of his 1885 excavations at Naukratis (Petrie 1884, notebook 6, scan 24, page 48, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London).

9 Hogarth’s plans from 1899 and 1905 disagree about the location of walls in areas 3, 27 and 37 (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, pl. ii and pl. iii; Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905, fig. 1).


88


Hogarth as a ‘broken granite door-jamb’ are still extant, coated in mud, in the northern, now seasonally dry, bottom part of the lake.10 Hogarth records having lowered the door-jamb frag-ments 3ft from their original location during the process of excavation. If indeed it was main-ly lowered and not also substantially displaced horizontally, then this provides an additional fixed point for Hogarth’s map. The resulting overall ‘best fit’ (Fig. 12) puts the door-jamb fragments and the villages Gebril Abbas, Hassan Kasim and El Baradany in the correct place, but Abu Mishfa out by c. 5m11; of course, the footprint of the village may have changed more over the past 130 years than can be reconstructed from relatively recent satellite and aerial photographs. Walls associated with a road that appears in both Hogarth’s and Petrie’s maps are slightly misaligned by c. 1m, well within the error range of other parts of both Hogarth’s and Petrie’s surveys.

Coulson and Leonard’s fieldwork is easier to locate on the ground due to their extensive use of aerial photography. Unfortunately, the photomosaics they produced suffer from a significant distortion, making them narrower east to west than north to south (Coulson 1996, pl. ii). Their trenches and survey fields (which share the same field boundaries as the fields today) are, however, easily re-mapped through rubber sheeting the old plans and photo-graphs in ArcGIS over the modern Google Earth images (Fig. 13, see also below Fig. 20 for Leonard’s trenches at the ‘South Mound’). The new composite map (Fig. 8) clearly confirms and further develops the observation (cf. Spencer 2011), that Leonard and Coulson’s place-ment of Petrie’s map onto the current topography is incorrect, with significant consequences particularly for the interpretation of the archaeology of the Great Temenos, as outlined in more detail below. Our new map also places Hogarth’s Hellenion in a slightly more northerly position in relation to the maps of Petrie and Gardner than had been suggested by Prinz previously (1908); thus, we can now hypothesise that northern parts of the Hellenion should be preserved under fields adjacent to Abu Mishfa (see also, below).

Finally, as regards the recent SCA fieldwork, many of the trenches dug in 2011 were still visible in the streets and squares of the villages in 2012. We were able to survey them (Figs 14, 15, 17, 20) with the help of the director of the SCA mission, Mohamed Ali Hakim, and a member of his team, Doaa Ferieg Ali, who were also able to inform us of significant finds, or the absence thereof, in each trench. In rare cases mud-brick walls or sections of mud-brick tumble were apparent in the section. Many of the 2011 trenches are visible on Google Earth Pro satellite images dated 3 Oct. 2011. The 2009 fieldwork trenches, located in fields to the east of the lake, can be seen on Google Earth images dated to 28 Sept. 2009. Other Google Earth Pro satellite images are available for dates 7 Apr. 2002, 22 Oct. 2004, 2 July 2007 and 9 July 2011, sometimes highlighting interesting crop marks that may represent archaeological features for investigation. Cumulatively, they also show the gradual development of the site for farming and settlement, with the latter increasingly encroaching on the area of the ancient site.

10 The bottom of the lake is accessible for the first time following draining in 2011. Ever since, it seasonally fills and empties following the cycle of field irrigation.

11 Abu Mishfa has clearly grown since 1899, but it is also possible that the layout of the town has changed.


2013

89 NAUKRATIS 2012

The stratigraphy of NaukratisCombining not just topographic but also stratigraphic and level information from previous fieldwork with new, real-world co-ordinates is an avenue of research that adds a crucial ad-ditional dimension to the re-investigation of Naukratis. It is an indispensable first step in developing a comprehensive perspective on the site’s development over time by correlating different archaeological layers and building phases. Environmental geomorphological devel-opments will be incorporated, too, with geological work planned for future seasons. By incor-porating data from the earliest fieldwork at the site, new insights can be gained also on areas of the site irretrievably lost today and the early excavators’ conclusions can be subjected to a critical reassessment.

While the earliest excavations at Naukratis were not modern stratigraphical excavations, Petrie and Hogarth were clearly aware of the importance of observing layers and tried to record their depth ‘objectively.’ A schematic diagram of the strata in the temenos of Apollo (Petrie 1886, pl. xliv) and two schematic sections through the Aphrodite temenos (Gardner 1888, pl. 3) were novelties for excavations in Egypt (Trigger 2006, 290–95). Of course, they need to be used with caution in modern reconstructions of the site’s development; indeed, Gjerstad’s attempts at ‘updating’ and refining Petrie’s stratigraphy of the Apollo sanctuary have been greeted with some scepticism (Gjerstad 1934, 1959; cf., Cook 1937, 227–28; Möller 2000, 91). Nonetheless, Petrie’s extensive use of levels across the whole site provides a wealth of vital evidence for reconstructing the site and its history. Levels recorded in publications are substantially supplemented, especially for the Great Temenos and its pylon, by notes in unpublished notebooks and journals, and such additional information sometimes also allows us to recognise and correct mistakes,12 and, when linked with real-world co-ordinates, can be essential for assessing the current archaeological potential of the site. Unfortunately, none of the points surveyed with a theodolite by Petrie or Gardner have so far been identified. A ‘best fit’ for the sequence can nevertheless be attempted by comparing Petrie’s levels for fields, canals and other structures with the same locations today, even if we have to accept that the levels may have changed somewhat over the years.

Hogarth was unable to find Petrie’s benchmark (Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905, 111), and chose instead to describe his stratigraphic units in sequence upwards from the sterile soil that he (like Petrie) called the ‘basal mud.’ It is unclear, however, whether Hogarth’s ‘basal mud’ level was a reliably constant level or merely a geological horizon that fluctuated in height across the site. In fact, it is likely that the ‘basal mud’ described by Hogarth in the southern part of the settlement (Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905, 117) was at a different level to the ‘basal mud’ by the Hellenion at the northern end of the excavation area, if one considers that Petrie’s ‘basal mud’ fluctuates between c. 277 inches in the south and east and 222 inches by the Apollo temple (Petrie 1886, pl. xliv).

As mentioned earlier, the placement of Hogarth’s excavations in the Hellenion area is aid-

12 Petrie’s notebook, for example, disagrees with Gardner’s claim that Petrie’s Temporary Bench Mark (a Roman brick platform) was at 500 inches (Gardner 1888, 33), but instead gives a figure of 600 inches (Petrie notebook 6, scan 24, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London). Thus, clearly, 500 was a typographical error by Gardner, which is confirmed also by his other measurements agreeing with those of Petrie (i.e., they were not 100 inches lower).


90


ed by our identification of the surviving granite door-jamb fragments, and they are important also for understanding the stratigraphy of the Hellenion (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 27, 30, 35, pl. iii feature no. 1; see here Figs 8, 11, 12 and 14). If, as Hogarth explains, these door-jamb fragments were lowered 3ft from their original location during the process of ex-cavation to approximately the level of the ‘basal mud’ (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 30), and if they are still, at least approximately, in that position today, then the complete sequence from ‘basal mud’ to the tops of the walls of the final phase of the Hellenion (14 feet above, Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 34) should still be located under and to the north of the modern road, which appears to fit in well also with the structures visible in this area in the magnetometry (see below). In Hogarth’s day this area was uneven, with disturbed Roman levels left by the ‘sebakk-diggers’ on average 16ft (4.89m) and up to 20ft above the ‘basal mud’ at its highest (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 33–34, 41). It must have been flattened since 1903, before the road was laid, yet it is likely that the lower levels were left undisturbed, with the road today 4.3m above the bottom of the lake (= Hogarths ‘basal mud’ level). Thus, as indicated earlier, a significant portion of the Hellenion should remain pre-served under the soil awaiting further investigation.

We could not locate the Temporary Bench Mark (TBM) used by Leonard and Coulson. Whilst in Leonard’s volumes depths in section drawings are recorded as metres above sea lev-el (Leonard 1997, figs 2.3, 2.9, 5.4) and described as meters above or below sea level in the in-terim reports (Coulson, Leonard and Wilkie 1982, 75), it is clear that their figure for sea-level is very different from ours (following post-processing of our RTK GPS data using a WGS84 Ellipsoid); indeed, it appears from Coulson’s publication that their sea level was very close to the then lake level (Coulson 1996, fig. 6 profile 2, lake level indicated as 0m). Nonetheless, it was possible to relate their stratigraphic sequence to within a few centimetres of our survey, since it is clear from comparing Leonard and Coulson’s topographic map with ours that both the ‘South Mound’ and Kom Hadid have retained roughly the same height, thus serving as points for correlation.

The city of Naukratis: Magnetometry results and a fresh look at old evidence

The programme of magnetometry that complemented our topographic work yielded prom-ising preliminary results in four key areas of the site. Clearly, the ancient site was larger and is better preserved than previously thought, with prospection providing new information on its layout and relation to the Canopic Nile branch. The work completed in 2012 and our interpretation of these results in relation to earlier fieldwork are summarised below by sector, starting in the northern part of the site.

North, the Hellenion and cemetery/modern Rashwan and Abu MishfaThe northern part of the settlement extends under the village of Abu Mishfa, where the tem-ple of the Dioskouroi was once located (Figs 8 and 14). To its east, Hogarth in 1899 excavat-ed the structure he identified as the Hellenion, which is today situated under the road and the fields east of Abu Mishfa. The final remaining ‘isolated patch’ of the settlement mound that


2013

91 NAUKRATIS 2012

was still preserved to its east in Hogarth’s time is now a flat area mostly under cultivation. The villages of Abu Mishfa and, further north, Rashwan, however, still occupy higher ground. Be-tween them, a low mound is now covered by houses, yet, as Petrie’s sketches (Figs 9 and 10) and descriptions indicate, this was not the case in 1885 and it must be the site of the ancient cemetery. Tombs in the area (many but not all of early Ptolemaic date) were excavated and published (without a plan) by Gardner in 1886. Petrie believed that fields in the area to the west of the tombs, towards the canal and the town of Nebeira, might contain further burials of Archaic and Classical date (Petrie letter of January 9 1886 [EES Archive XVIf.104]) along with the area under the modern settlements of Rashwan and Abu Mishfa (Petrie letter of March 6 1886 [EES Archive XVIf.114]). Hogarth, however, who excavated five ‘big pits’ in Rashwan (two ‘in the road to SE’ and three ‘in the heart’ of the village) found merely heaps of bricks and broken pottery and little evidence of a cemetery (Hogarth Diary 1903, Friday April 24th 1903; cf. Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905, 122–23). The fields to the west were an area of dense pottery finds in Coulson’s survey (Coulson 1996, 135–36, fields Nebire A and Nebire B).

Our own fieldwork in the northern part of Naukratis consisted, firstly, of recording the 2011 SCA test pits in the villages of Rashwan and Abu Mishfa excavated by Hakim. The trenches within Rashwan revealed little significant archaeological material, but Ptolemaic finds, including the mould for a Medusa-head, were found in Abu Mishfa. Secondly, magnetometry and topographical surveys were carried out in two narrow fields that had just been harvested of their crops immediately north and northeast of those parts of the Hellenion that Hogarth excavated. Just to the south of this, the area slopes steeply down from the village and fields to the dried-up lake. The granite door-jamb fragments mapped by Hogarth, extant today, not only help to anchor the Hellenion in the topography of the modern site, but also suggest that much of the Hellenion excavated and planned by Hogarth in 1899 and 1903 must still be preserved and unexcavated further to the north under fields. Indeed, the fields immediately north appear to show, in the limited magnetometry possible during the season, a continuation of the structures associated with the Hellenion (Fig. 14); further north–south aligned fea-tures, probably walls, appear to the east. Pottery collected from the freshly ploughed fields in this area includes 36 sherds within the westernmost magnetometry grids. The prevalence of imported Classical Greek and Hellenistic pottery probably reflects activities related to Greek sanctuaries (Table 1; Fig. 7). Very little Roman pottery was found here. West, the Canopic branch of the Nile and the harbour/modern cemetery and western El BaradanyWhile the position of Naukratis relative to the Nile has long been controversially debated on the basis of written sources,13 archaeology has so far contributed little conclusive evidence to answering the question. Nor have archaeologists shown much interest in tackling the question of what the site’s harbour facilities might have looked like and how they developed in what was, after all, a major port town during a period of great change and innovation in ancient maritime technology.

Petrie had suggested that ancient mariners accessed Naukratis from the west. He identified 13 For accounts in Herodotus (2.97), Ptolemy (4.5.49), Tabula Peutingeriana, Strabo (17.1.23) and in ancient

papyri, see esp. Petrie 1886, 2–4, 10; Bernand 1970, 618–23 and Möller 2000, 115–16.


92


ballast stones, barnacles and fishing equipment amongst the ‘town rubbish’ and detected a ‘thick bed of black mud’ at the western limit of the town, west of the temenos of Apollo, which he suggested may have been ‘some old dock or pond’ for sea-going vessels (Petrie 1886, 10).14 Contradicting Petrie’s observations, Hogarth believed the Nile to have flowed down the east side of Naukratis, before crossing to the west between the villages of Abu Mishfa and Rashwan, a suggestion based upon his finding, in the lowest levels of his pits in Rashwan, ‘clean wet black river sand’ (Hogarth Diary 1903, entry for Friday April 24th 1903; cf. Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905, 122–23). Subsequent geological work (drill-coring) by Cathleen Villas as part of Coulson’s team (Villas 1996, 177–90) and John Gifford in the course of Leonard’s excavations (Coulson, Leonard and Wilkie 1982, 75; Leonard 1997, 28 with n. 67), by contrast, seemed to suggest yet another, different path, with the Nile channel approaching the site from the west and crossing it north-eastwards, right through the centre of town during the period of the site’s main occupation, a somewhat astonishing proposal that is essentially impossible to square with the archaeological evidence.15

A re-investigation of this question is clearly required. Our main aim this season was to test Petrie’s original and, to us, plausible hypothesis that the ancient Canopic branch of the Nile followed the course of the modern Abu-Diab canal, but closer to Naukratis. Such a location seems supported also by the western-facing orientation of the Egyptian temple enclosure, which one would expect to have been fronted by a grand quay, an essential requirement for ritual boat processions (Yoyotte 1983, 129–36; Leclère 2008, 117). From this quay, the pro-cessional way would have led to the pylon excavated by Petrie (1886, pls xl and xlii). Indeed, a ‘broad and long’ east–west trench excavated in December 1885 between the pylon and the canal revealed fragments of large sphinx and ram sculptures in front of the pylon that may once have lined the processional way (Petrie Journal 1885–86, Griffith Institute, 18–19; Petrie 1886, vii; Gardner 1888, 13–14; cf. Spencer 2011, 30, fig. 11).

The area to the west of the early excavations today consists of flat fields between the Abu Mishfa–El Baradany road and the Abu-Diab canal (Figs 8 and 15). No substantial fieldwork apart from Petrie’s trenches west of the Great Temenos and the temenos of Apollo has so far assessed the situation here, thus providing an opportunity for future archaeological research. Leonard’s team did excavate a shallow disturbed layer between the lake and the modern ceme-tery (‘Field II’) that revealed 6th century BC as well as supposedly ‘Ptolemaic domestic fabrics and shapes’ (Leonard 1997, 23–25 fig. 1.13, 295 no. 17, fig. 7.8). Pottery still litters the area

14 Petrie Journal 1884–85, p. 186 (EES Archive XVIId.47): ‘We have found among the town rubbish many stones with marine incrustations: bits of brick with oysters stuck on, pieces of stone with serpula and small shells all showing that ships came up here from the sea, bringing such a ballast, as they would not come here otherwise. The large iron fish hooks found here also point to a direct marine intercourse.’ Griffith, in a later note, is more skeptical regarding the interpretation of the muddy layer: ‘Other pits however since sunk in a semicircle at short distance northwards, show little or none of this mud, and I conclude that it marks the site of an unwholesome goose-pond’ (ibid. p. 191).

15 Yet another alternative for the course of the Nile in the Archaic period, published by Möller and frequently reproduced, has the river running to the west of the northern part of the site, but crossing it in the south-ern part, i.e., the area of the Great Temenos. The reconstruction was created before the publication of Villas’s drill cores and thus takes into account merely Leonard’s interpretation of Gifford’s drill-core in the ‘South Mound’ (Möller 2000, 116; cf. Coulson, Leonard and Wilkie 1982, 75).


2013

93 NAUKRATIS 2012

around and just north of the modern cemetery, where Late Period to Late Roman pottery were also found in Coulson’s survey (1996).

Magnetometry undertaken in two discrete areas, west of El Baradany and west of the modern cemetery, highlight a series of man-made magnetic linear features, which in the northern part of the survey area lie to the east of a ‘neutral’ zone. An area of sediments from natural river silting-up would be consistent with the ‘neutral’ zone reading. The series of lin-ear features might thus very well represent harbour terraces or quays following the course of the now dried-up river, a hypothesis that is strengthened by comparison with excavated quays with similar magnetic signatures in Quseir al-Qadim (Earl and Glazier 2006, 37; Blue 2011, 35–42). A linear feature perpendicular to the assumed river course might represent a mole or quay projecting into the river channel, against which Nile silts have accumulated. Inland of the ‘terraces,’ a rectangular structure of ‘cells’ resembles features of similar size excavated nearby by Petrie in 1885 and may represent magazines or warehouses (Fig. 15). It seems likely, then, that this is indeed the Canopic branch with part of the main harbour area of ancient Naukratis.

In the southern part of our geophysical survey, west of the Great Temenos, another rectangular structure with two rows of cells is visible in the magnetometry. Just to the east of the surveyed area, the building of a new school in El Baradany some years ago revealed over 50 substantial limestone blocks, which were relocated to the ‘South Mound’ (Fig. 16). According to the local SCA guard of Kom Geif, who observed the building work and stone removal, the blocks formed a north–south running wall with a set of stone steps parallel to it in the east, terminating in a short stretch of wall abutting the main wall at right angles. It is thus not impossible that the stones derive from an early quay structure, such as the New Kingdom to Late Period quay found at Karnak (Boraik 2010, figs 2, 9 and 13) and associated with the processional way to the sanctuary of Amun-Ra. If so, the structures visible in the magnetometry would represent later building activity over a bank that had prograded west, presumably with the later drying up and narrowing of the Canopic river channel during the Roman or Byzantine periods.

The likely location of the Canopic branch and main harbour facilities of Naukratis to the west of the site do not exclude the possibility of a tributary or canal with a quay running past the eastern side of Naukratis, which would make Naukratis an island similar to Kom Firin and other Nile Delta sites (Spencer 2008), or the possibility (or indeed likelihood, cf. also Thiers 2007, 96) that a canal approached the site from the east, from Sais. In fact, a waterway to the east of Naukratis is indicated by recent survey work conducted by Shaaban El-Awady of Mansoura University in conjunction with Penelope Wilson’s ‘Sais and its hinterland’ proj-ect (Shaaban El-Awady 2009, 54–57, 120–21; Wilson 2010, 116–18, fig. 9.3).

The impression created by the magnetometry results of the western edge of town seems largely confirmed and complemented by observing the surface pottery. Pottery sherds were found in ploughed fields within the easternmost magnetometry grids next to the town ex-cavation, with the distribution decreasing rapidly beyond the magnetic man-made features discussed above. A small number of sherds were also found in the south. All periods were represented by the pottery assemblage, though Ptolemaic material was common and there was a concentration of Roman and Byzantine transport amphorae of the 5th to early 7th


94


centuries AD (Fig. 7). This pattern was noticed also in the modern cemetery and also in Coul-son’s pottery survey of this area (Coulson 1996, field B-W1). Roman material is less common in other areas, suggesting that whilst other areas of the settlement declined in the Roman and Byzantine periods, the area around the harbour facilities was still busy.

In conclusion, the western area of the site has great potential for the investigation of this bustling trading port’s main harbour facilities, which were most likely located in this area. The full extent and development of the network of river channels and canals around Naukratis as well as of its harbour facilities, however, will only be recoverable through a more extensive programme of magnetometry, Electrical Resistivity Tomography, auger core drillings and, ideally, excavations.

East and Kom Hadid: Modern Gebril Abbas and Hassan KasimEast of the lake, the ancient settlement extends under the fields and villages of Gebril Abbas and Hassan Kasim (also known as Abas Kassem) as far as Kom Hadid (Fig. 17). Today large parts of the area are rather flat; however, rising 2 to 3m above the fields are the mounds of Kom Hadid and the villages of Gebril Abbas and Hassan Kasim. Though never systemati-cally explored, the sporadic work done here in the past, in conjunction with our geophysical survey, suggest that in antiquity it was an area of dense housing and industrial activity that remains relatively undisturbed and worthy of further investigation.

The mound of Kom Hadid (the term meaning ‘mound of iron’) was first identified as a site of archaeological interest by Petrie, who describes it, together with a similar mound in the east, as ‘mounds of slag from limestone burning, eight or ten feet high, with adjoining substructures of red, fired Roman brick, some chambers of which show many successive coats of painted frescoes’ (Petrie 1886, 10).16 A range of grand to modest fired-brick and limestone structures, probably dating to the Roman and/or Byzantine periods, immediately west and southwest of Kom Hadid, were recognised by Hogarth (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 41, grids 7b, 8b and 9b, pl. ii; Kom Hadid would have been within his grids 7a and 8a had his map pl. ii extended that far east). Petrie, Gardner and Hogarth only described what was visible on the ground. Archaeological investigation was first undertaken during Coulson’s survey, followed by excavations on Kom Hadid by Leonard (Coulson 1996; Leonard 1997, 23–25 fig. 1.13, ‘Field III’; Leonard 2001). Leonard subsequently corrected Petrie’s identifica-tion of slag by observing the many potters’ kiln wasters (Leonard 1997, 22–26) that still litter the site today. His work treated Kom Hadid largely as an isolated outpost from the main part of the site, identifying it as essentially ‘a ceramic trash heap.’ The origin of this heap remains obscure as does its relationship to the main site (Berlin 2001, 26). Already diminished by the time of Coulson and Leonard, the area of Kom Hadid appears to have shrunk further since the 1970s, although its extent is difficult to assess given the distortions present in Coulson’s aerial photomosaic (and any maps produced from it), notably the foreshortening towards the east (Coulson 1996, pl. ii, reproduced in Leonard 1997, 21 fig. 1.9).

Other work was conducted more recently in the northern part of the area. Hany Moham-

16 It is unclear whether frescoes were encountered in both the western and eastern mound (Kom Hadid); Petrie’s reference to them may well apply primarily to the eastern mound where also Hogarth notes ‘Roman brickwork’ on his map (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9; cf. Leclère 2008, 141 with n. 140).


2013

95 NAUKRATIS 2012

med Shaaban El-Awady of Mansoura University undertook the first ever Fluxgate Gradiom-eter survey in Naukratis in a narrow strip (40 x 40m and 100 x 20m) southwest of Hassan Ka-sim, revealing rectangular and circular features (Shaaban El-Awady 2009, 125–38, esp. 132 fig. 6.6).17 In the same area, structures were exposed in trial pits dug by Mohammed Ali Hakim in 2009. During a visit by Sabine Weber (pers. comm.) as part of Penelope Wilson’s ‘Sais and its hinterland’ project in 2007, Classical Greek black-glazed pottery as well as later ceramics were observed further north, in the fields north of Hassan Kasim and west of Gebril Abbas (Coulson survey fields DE1 and DE2a). In 2011, Hakim excavated a number of small trench-es in the streets and squares of Gebril Abbas and Hassan Kasim, finding Ptolemaic material in the southern parts of both villages.

The British Museum expedition investigated a ‘blank spot’ on the map of Naukratis in the southeastern part of the site, south and west of Kom Hadid. Here the Fluxgate Gradiome-ter survey revealed clear rows of rectangular structures in the southern part of the surveyed area and a number of circular features in the north, which are not dissimilar to the features in Shaaban El-Awady’s nearby survey area. South of Kom Hadid a part of what might be a large apsidal structure, aligned north–south, is discernible. Surface observations in this area, limited as they are, appear to be consistent with what appears in the magnetometry. Contrary to Coulson’s experience (Coulson 1996, 130–31, fields E-E1 and E-E2) we were able to observe a high density of pottery and building material across this area, which yielded 135 pieces of the most diverse range of artefacts collected in 2012, including stoppers, kiln wast-ers and construction materials of limestone, plaster and fired-brick. Pottery was particularly common within the magnetometry grids where there was recently turned over soil, but also in the fields to the west. The pottery represented all periods of occupation, with some Late Period, common Ptolemaic and rare Roman and Byzantine pottery sherds, though no Classi-cal Greek fine-ware was observed in our cursory survey. In general, both the magnetometry and the surface observations combined to produce an impression of a dense domestic, but also industrial quarter. The latter is located west of Kom Hadid, where the earth was red in patches, as if burnt, and kiln wasters litter the area around Kom Hadid.

No significant signs of archaeological structures or anthropogenic activity were visible in the magnetometry or as surface finds east of the road that runs straight south from Kom Hadid to skirt the eastern side of the Great Temenos. At present, this absence suggests that the dense settlement’s eastern limits may have been reached here. Modest quantities of pottery dating up to the Roman and Late Roman periods have nonetheless been found to the east, around the modern eastern canal passing Kom Geif (Coulson 1996, 14, 132–33, 135, fields S-5 and S-21, mostly Ptolemaic and Roman), suggesting that there may be fur-ther structures further to the east, maybe associated with small farming hamlets or another Nile branch or canal. A greater density of pottery from Coulson’s survey in the field directly east of Gebril Abbas (Coulson 1996, 13–14, 133–34, field S-10 with 66 catalogued and 145 un-catalogued sherds) suggest that the ancient habitation may, however, extend some way northeast of Kom Hadid (Fig. 17). The wide distribution of pottery witnessed in Coulson’s survey, both here and elsewhere, goes beyond what the magnetometry survey suggests as the

17 Using a Geoscan Fluxgate Gradiometer type FM36 (Shaaban El-Awady 2009, 42).


96


extent of the settlement. Whilst surface pottery would normally be expected to reflect chang-ing patterns of occupation, with a bias towards the latest material found in each area, this distribution might simply reflect the sherd moving activities of sebbakhin and archaeologists. At Naukratis, the excavation and re-depositing of large amounts of earth by archaeologists and especially by sebbakhin most likely introduced distortions that need to be considered in any interpretation of surface pottery distribution (Bailey 1999, 218; cf. Leclère 2008, 140). Alternatively, it might indicate less dense settlement, farming hamlets and canal stations out-side the immediate urban centre of Naukratis, at least in areas with concentrations of certain phases of pottery. However, Coulson’s survey was often not of high enough resolution to be sure that concentrations are meaningful, reflecting moreover, as many surveys do, the hazards of distributions influenced by the timing of the survey, when and how fields are ploughed, planted and harvested and with what crop.

The eastern part of Naukratis thus appears to be a relatively ‘untouched’ area of settlement and craft activity. Notably the area around Kom Hadid was the focus of some industrial activ-ity during the Ptolemaic period and possibly earlier, given that local production at Naukratis of pottery and figurines are attested at least since the second quarter of the 6th century BC. This may have included warehouses if some of the structures visible in the magnetometry can be confirmed to be magazines. In his fieldwork, Petrie also had observed a concentration of kilns for pottery and terracotta figurines18 and workshops for iron, silver (Petrie 1886, 65: Athenian tetradrachms in a silver hoard) and copper at the eastern edge of town. A Ptolemaic workshop for terracotta figurines was located in the northeastern area, discovered by sebbakh-in who sold the figurines to Petrie (Petrie 1886, 45, terracotta factory ‘site 95’; Petrie Journal 1884–85, 199 [EES Archive XVIId.47]; Bailey 2008, 5). During Hogarth’s fieldwork sebbakhin recovered large numbers of locally made Tanagra-style and phallic terracotta figurines and moulds from around the same or nearby ‘area 38’ (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 41–42, 69–70, 72, 80; Hogarth, Lorimer, and Edgar 1905, 132).19 Industrial activity may thus have covered a large portion of the eastern part of Naukratis, as far as Kom Hadid and quite possibly stretching north to the east of Gebril Abbas, interspersed with domestic structures, including, it seems, a substantial domestic quarter north of the Great Temenos.

South, the Great Temenos/modern El Baradany In its southern part, the site of ancient Naukratis extends into the modern hamlet of El Baradany (also known as Kom Geif and Bahariyyah). Just south of the ‘lake’ is the area of Kom Geif ’s weekly market (also used as a football pitch), which is in the same location as in Hogarth’s day (Figs 18 and 19).20 Further south is the ‘South Mound,’ an elongated hill dis-

18 Petrie 1886, 40–41, 45, ‘site 95,’ which he dates to 1st century AD; cf. Bailey 2008, 51 (on a figurine waster, British Museum 1965,0930.974), correcting the date to the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC.

19 However, Hogarth identified the structure in this area as a sanctuary site for Demeter, based on a votive inscription on a marble basin (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 41–42).

20 According to Hogarth (1898/99, 41), the weekly market in 1899 was held just to the northwest of Petrie’s ‘Great Temenos,’ the area roughly corresponding to the modern football field just north of El Baradany/Kom Geif, which now, every Sunday, hosts the weekly farmers’ market, an interesting instance of a long-lived tradition.


2013

97 NAUKRATIS 2012

playing sections of contiguous mud-brick walling on its north face, ‘protected’ by a modern cemetery on top, the sole substantial and otherwise unoccupied extant remnant of the ‘tell’ of Naukratis (see Figs 24 and 25, below).

In ancient times, this southern area was dominated by the massive ‘Great Temenos,’ an Egyptian temple precinct dedicated to Amun-Ra of Baded and associated deities (Figs 8 and 20; Petrie 1886, 23–34; Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905, 110–12; Leonard 1997; Muhs 1994; Leclère 2008, 118, 120, 128–38). First identified by Petrie, then essentially refuted by Hogarth, Coulson and Leonard, the Great Temenos is one of the most problematic struc-tures of Naukratis and has long been the subject of heated debate, with not only its location and alignment, but also its date and even its very existence hotly contested. As foundation de-posits and surviving sculptural decoration (Leclère 2008, 130–32) show, the Great Temenos was accessed by a monumental pylon in the west erected under Ptolemy II and contained a temple dated to Ptolemy I. Nevertheless, it is clear from Egyptian epigraphic and archaeolog-ical evidence that a predecessor to the sanctuary must have existed by the early part of the 6th century BC (Yoyotte 1983, 129–36; Leclère 2008, 117).

The Great Temenos revisited: TopographySince 1899, scholars have struggled to locate on the ground the features of the Great Te-menos as identified by Petrie. Part of the reason is certainly that little of it was preserved even in Petrie’s day, which may well explain a certain amount of inaccuracy in his plan. Petrie de-scribes how he first identified how ‘sundry bare parts of earth were in banks around a space’ […] ‘a square enclosure about 700 f[ee]t X 900 f[ee]t, with a great mass of brickwork in one part,’ and how, ‘the men seeing us looking about told me without any questioning that there were four great walls all around that, within their memory, walls over 20 ft high,’ concluding ‘Oh! That somebody had worked out this place 30 years ago, when all was comparatively perfect, & the great temenos wall still standing’ (Journal 1884–85, 56–57, 160 [EES Archive XVIId.47]; cf. also Petrie 1886, 24). Much of the eastern half of the site was already used as farmland before Petrie visited the site. Only the casemate building (Petrie 1886, 24–25) and one part of the temenos wall still stood high, covered by a modern cemetery, but the casemate building was levelled already before Hogarth visited Naukratis in 1899 (Hogarth, Edgar and Gutch 1898/9, 27). Nevertheless, Petrie’s Journal records that he did trace the enclosure in several different places (cf. Spencer 2011, 35) and a sketch plan by Griffith of January 1885 shows how Petrie divided up the square of the Great Temenos along the walls into areas for excavation (Fig. 21).

While Petrie thus appears to have been fairly certain of the square shape and location of a massive enclosure wall, David Hogarth never succeeded in locating any such structure. In-stead, he found numerous aggregates of small walls and concluded that the area must have contained ‘small precincts of Egyptian deities (to one of which the Ptolemaic pylon explored by Mr. Petrie gave access), surrounded by a high ring of mud-brick houses’ that Petrie erro-neously interpreted as a single, massive ‘Great Temenos’ (Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905, 111–12). Going even further, Leonard in 1997 took the existence of the ‘South Mound’ with its modern cemetery on top as reason to doubt Petrie’s account of having removed the cem-etery on top of the mound containing the casemate building and excavated this building right


98


to the bottom, thus raising ‘serious questions about the veracity of Petrie’s description(s) of his work at the site’ (Leonard 1997, 27).

The restudy of Petrie’s Journal entries shows that such doubts are unwarranted and are based on a series of misunderstandings (Spencer 2011). First, the realisation, clear from Petrie’s journals, that there were once not one but two mounds with cemeteries on top, one containing the casemate building and today levelled, and the other most likely containing part of the temenos wall and still standing (the ‘South Mound’) does much to clear up Leonard’s conundrum. Second, the new composite map of the site clearly indicates that Coulson and Leonard incorrectly correlated Petrie’s map with the current topographical situation (Fig. 22). In fact, the Great Temenos’ position needs to be revised significantly to the north compared with their map, which means that it is part of the southern wall of the Great Temenos and not the casemate building that should still be preserved in the ‘South Mound.’

Still the question remains: was there ever a Great Temenos wall as mapped by Petrie, or does the fact that both Hogarth (excavating all over the site) and Leonard (digging in the ‘South Mound’) apparently failed to find massive walls mean that no such enclosure ever existed? Further fieldwork is indispensable for better understanding this area of ancient Naukratis, but already now a reconsideration of existing evidence and some general obser-vations go some way towards answering this question. First of all, Late Period to Ptolemaic evidence—the massive pylon, extant fragments of the temple’s sculptural decoration, the inscriptional references—clearly indicate the existence of a substantial sanctuary enclosure. Second, we need to remember that any large enclosure wall existing over centuries is likely to present a complex archaeological picture, with several phases of walls, cut away and added to in places, partly destroyed and overbuilt. Thus, the Great Temenos enclosure wall exactly as mapped by Petrie may indeed be impossible to identify on the ground, not because it is outright fiction, but rather an oversimplification.

Certainly, when comparing Petrie’s Great Temenos with the present terrain (Fig. 20), mod-ern landscape features seem to fit in remarkably well with the shape of the enclosure as mapped by Petrie. The southern edge of the lake with a modern road running east–west broadly seems to follow the line of the northern wall. A slight rise can be seen in the terrain where the central and eastern sections of the wall once would have stood, with a depression in the area of the northwestern corner of the temenos possibly due to the removal of sebakh. The eastern edge of the village of El Baradany forms a rise that aligns with the western wall of the temenos and the pylon. Mud-brick walls could be observed in SCA trenches dug by Hakim in the street along this alignment. Sections of the eastern part of the south wall are probably contained in the mound commonly known as the ‘South Mound,’ preserved to over 3m in height and featuring exposed stretches of mud-brick wall (see below, Figs 24 and 25). The eastern wall and southeastern corner were already levelled completely and under cultiva-tion in Petrie’s days, yet a modern road to the east seems to skirt the walls with considerable accuracy. Also the casemate building, completely levelled between 1886 and 1899, has left no traces discernible on the ground today. Comparisons between Petrie’s, Leonard’s and our RTK GPS levels nevertheless suggest that c. 3.5m of the structure should still be preserved beneath the current field levels. In spite of the disturbance of the ground by previous exca-vations and sebbakhin, the area thus still offers clear potential for fieldwork. This is born out


2013

99 NAUKRATIS 2012

also by our magnetometry results. Magnetometry in 2012 concentrated on the central and eastern area of the enclosure (Fig.

20). In its very eastern parts it revealed linear structures running north–south, notably a line at the very eastern edge that ties in suspiciously well with the alignment of the temenos wall in Petrie’s plan in our composite map. Within the eastern temenos area, features are mostly less clear, but a number of structures are discernible, including a row of pits that may denote an-cient or also more recent (archaeological?) activity. Much is obscured unfortunately by three modern iron electricity pylons running diagonally across the area and by a path and irrigation ditches (Fig. 23). A substantial structure in alignment with the pylon, probably displaying at least two phases, with magnetic signatures typical of limestone and mud-brick architecture (a large limestone block was found in an irrigation ditch nearby), stands out in the western part of the survey. This could be the large building between the casemate building and the pylon mentioned by Petrie (1886, 24), but not planned by him,21 or another, earlier structure. Whether it could be part of a temple (of Amun-Ra?), an earlier pylon or a structure associat-ed with a later re-use of this area in the Roman to Byzantine period remains to be explored.

Neither Coulsen (1996, fields G-S1 and G-S2) nor the British Museum expedition found much pottery in the fields, which may at least in part be explained by the practice of farmers removing sherds from their fields and placing them by the well pump to the north of the Great Temenos. Material deposited here (and probably deriving from the Great Temenos area and its vicinity) includes Late Period Egyptian and much Ptolemaic, with very little Roman or Byzantine material.

The Great Temenos revisited: StratigraphyWith the realisation that Petrie’s Great Temenos must be positioned in such a way that the ‘South Mound’ should contain part of its southern wall rather than the casemate building, the excavations conducted here by Leonard in 1980–82 are due for a re-examination. As the fieldwork was conducted according to modern standards, extensively documented and com-prehensively published, it is indeed possible to reach new interpretations and insights that are very different from the conclusions reached by excavators themselves, purely on the basis of their published documentation. Two areas of particular importance are the northwest, where the excavations uncovered structures in a series of ten Ptolemaic phases above an earlier structure that could only be accessed in a small part of the trench, and the southeast trenches, which revealed a substantial, over 3m wide wall aligned east–west (Fig. 20). Above both areas was a ‘modern’ cemetery dated by Leonard to the 14th century AD.

In the northwest, Leonard claimed that in the ten architectural phases ‘throughout the contiguous 6m of vertical deposit in the ‘South Mound,’ nothing was encountered that either pre-dated or post-dated the Ptolemaic Period’ (Leonard 1997, 30). He extended this to a 10m stratigraphy of Ptolemaic phases with reference to auger Core C, on the basis that in this core

21 Petrie 1886, 24, describes it as containing passages and rooms, ‘with entrance on the ground-floor’ and notes that it was already destroyed by the time he began work in Naukratis; cf. also Petrie Journal 1884–85, EES Archive XVIId.160: ‘I am told there was another great building of mud-brick inside the enclosure, with passages & chambers opening from them, like European houses at Alex[andria] or Cairo; all that has been carried off for sebach.’


100


‘nothing was noted that was demonstrably not Ptolemaic’ (Leonard 2001, 30). The Ptolemaic dating of the sherds and micro-sherds in this core, however, rested solely on ‘none of these sherds … by their fabric … [being] any different from the Ptolemaic repertoire of pottery previously encountered during excavation on the mound’ (Leonard 1997, 28). Leonard also applied the same a priori dating of pottery made from a local fabric to the Ptolemaic period to earlier fieldwork, hence summarily dismissing in particular Hogarth’s pre-Ptolemaic dat-ing of some of the finds in this area, suggesting that we should simply ‘read ‘Ptolemaic’ for Hogarth’s ‘local’ or ‘Egyptian’’ (Leonard 1997, 29; cf. Möller 2000, 117). These profoundly methodologically flawed conclusions are all the more surprising as they contradict Leonard’s own dating of the earliest phase in this area, NW 1, in the more detailed discussion of this context some pages later. Here Leonard asserts that ‘the ceramic material in these loci suggest a terminus ante quem of fifth/early fourth century BC’ (Leonard 1997, 37–38, based on Andrea Berlin’s pottery report: Berlin 1997, 140). In spite of these internal contradictions, Leonard’s overall conclusions have widely impacted on scholarship, taken henceforth by many as ‘con-clusive evidence that Petrie’s Saite date for the Great Temenos is too early’ (Muhs 1994, 107; cf. also e.g., Möller 2000, 113).

A closer look at the underlying evidence reveals that whilst the majority of the pottery excavated by Leonard in the ‘South Mound,’ and published by Andrea Berlin, is indeed Ptol-emaic, there are a number of pieces that are earlier, as in part already recognised by Berlin. In particular, sherds from trenches 1, 2, 492 and 482 (Berlin 1997, 150–51 fig. 6.1.1–10, 12–15; 270–71 fig. 61.1.1–9), which were not published in full, clearly date from the Late Period, spe-cifically the late 7th to 5th centuries BC (cf. Spencer 2011, 33). This calls for a re-examination of Leonard’s interpretation of the area. The new interpretation proposed here suggests that Ptolemaic domestic structures were built over the uneven ground left by a large mud-brick structure, perhaps the same structure visible to this day in the northern face of the ‘South Mound,’ and, if so, representing a massive wall that can only represent an early phase of the Great Temenos wall.

The argument for this rests on the following observations (see also, Table 2). Leonard’s phases NW 1 and NW 2 (Leonard 1997, 36–40) are difficult to understand due to the lim-ited size of the excavated area and problems with ground water. The bottom of the wall of phase 1 was not reached and the edges could not be defined for reasons of limited space and ground water intrusion (context 1026). It was abutted to the south by a flimsy structure, of which two thin walls were revealed in the excavations (2044, 2043, 2037 and 2045). Pottery from within the wall and subsequent rebuilds of phases NW 1a and NW 1b dates from the late 7th to 5th century BC, placing this structure in the late Saite or First Persian period (Spen-cer 2011, 33). Phase NW 1c also has pottery of 6th to 5th century BC date, though one sherd of a Ptolemaic cooking pot was also found, in pit fill context 2036 (ibid.). This may, however, represent contamination or be intrusive, as the subsequent phase NW 2a is also of 6th to 5th century BC date. During phase NW 2a, the wall (2030, 2035, 1023, 1024, 1025) was widened over the ephemeral structure abutting it in phase NW 1a (2041, 2037).

Leonard suggested a north–south alignment for this wall, despite finding no edge, and despite the alignment of the bricks being east–west. Indeed, an east–west alignment might


2013

101 NAUKRATIS 2012

link this structure with the 19m long east–west section of a mud-brick wall22 that is currently exposed on the north face of the ‘South Mound’ (Fig. 24). No ancient outer face is preserved here and excavations would be required to locate it. Now at current street level, the lowest visible level of this wall section is 1.5m below Leonard’s Ptolemaic phases NW 5–10, though its foundation remains to be discovered. Thus it is possible that this wall section belongs to the same pre-Ptolemaic period as the wall section discovered by Leonard and that it is even part of the same structure, i.e., a massive temenos wall. Later contexts in Leonard’s phase NW 2a (1022 and 2035) containing Ptolemaic pottery, as well as contexts of phase NW 2b, might then belong to a period when this part of the temenos wall had fallen into disuse. It is subsequently built on in phases NW 3 to NW 10, which are all Ptolemaic occupation levels, as suggested by the excavators (Leonard 1997, 38).

In addition to the two long mud-brick wall sections on its north face, a 48.5m-long stretch of mud-brick walling can be observed on its southern flank. As parts of the ‘South Mound’ were not accessible or were concealed by rubbish or tumble, it is not clear at present whether these stretches belong to separate features or whether solid mud-brick walling is contained in the ‘South Mound’ throughout (or indeed how many phases of wall it might contain, piled on top or abutting each other). Petrie describes the Great Temenos wall as being some 15m wide. However, the ‘South Mound’ is significantly wider, over 23m north–south. The discrepancy becomes even larger if one considers Leonard’s southeast area trenches 12 and 15, where an over 20m long east–west aligned wall (contexts 1254, 1266, 1260, 1259, 1263, 1262, 1271, 1555, 1565, 1568, 1574, 1575, 1577) over 3m wide and 2.2m high was revealed and interpret-ed as a temenos wall (Leonard 1997, 110; Spencer 2011, 33–34). If this was part of the same wall as the sections preserved in the north of the ‘South Mound,’ then the wall would be over 41m thick. However, this southern wall may instead represent a different, more southerly phase of temenos wall or a different structure altogether. According to Leonard, the bottom of the wall was reached in trench 12 at 4.75mASL, but not reached in Area 15, where exca-vation stopped at 4.39mASL due to ground water intrusion. The wall was clearly built on un-even ground. Unfortunately the pottery from trenches 12 and 15 was not published (Leonard 1997, 26–27, 86–112; Coulson and Leonard 1982, 368–71; cf. Spencer 2011, 33), though said to be of Ptolemaic date (Leonard 1997, 92; Coulson and Leonard 1982, 369, n. 44).

The wall in trenches 12 and 15 could thus be explained as a later Ptolemaic temenos wall built over the uneven ground left by a collapsed or dismantled earlier Late Period wall imme-diately to the north, a relatively common feature of Late Period temple precincts that have subsequently been modified (Spencer 2008, 24–25; Spencer 2011, fig. 13). A later date for this wall seems to be supported also by the (partly) higher level on which it was built, compared with that of phase NW 1 described above (wall 1026, 4mASL, though the bottom was never reached). This hypothesis and other others will need to be tested in future excavations.

22 If one includes a second 9m stretch of mud-brick to the east, and a further 12m stretch to the west under archaeological deposits, the east–west section of the mud-brick wall could be as long as 66m. These other sections of mud-brick may, of course, equally represent different phases or structures as the relationship is concealed by modern rubbish or recent damage.


102


Conclusions

The results of the first fieldwork season at Naukratis by the British Museum’s Naukratis Proj-ect in 2012 demonstrate the great potential of an integrated approach combining information from earlier work with modern topographic, geophysical and archaeological data.

In addition to testing and confirming the effectiveness of the methods employed, import-ant first steps were taken to answer some crucial questions concerning the topography of the ancient site, its stratigraphy and its development. For the first time we have an accurate map of the site in which real-world co-ordinates can be given to ancient features, data from previ-ous excavations and surveys can be incorporated and which can serve as the benchmark for any future fieldwork at the site. Careful overlaying and analysis of old and new data, including recent archaeological and geophysical results, in ArcGIS has made it possible to correct errors arising from previous attempts at composite maps and to produce ‘best fits’ between different maps and with the current topography, even for features difficult to place. It has also made it possible to establish an initial matrix for the site’s stratigraphy, suggesting that several metres of archaeology are still preserved below the present soil level.

Magnetometer survey has allowed the likely identification of features under the ground with some known structures and revealed previously unknown features, shedding light in par-ticular on the extent of the ancient town. The area of dense settlement is clearly larger than previously thought, stretching from the likely location (as suggested by the magnetometer data) of the Canopic river branch at the western edge of town as far as Kom Hadid to the east. The ancient cemetery to the north, in the area of the village of Rashwan, must indicate the northern limits of the town, while the southern limits have not yet been determined. Ar-chaeological finds in the village of El Baradany suggest that the town stretched south beyond the Great Temenos. Clearly there was a substantial industrial quarter in the northeast of the site. A number of areas could be identified as likely to provide undisturbed archaeological contexts.

In the south, Petrie’s plan of the Great Temenos could be more accurately positioned, occasioning a revision of Leonard’s interpretation of his fieldwork in this part of the site that moves away from the simplified, ‘collapsed time’ picture evoked by Petrie’s map and accounts more fully for the site’s archaeological and historical complexity. It suggests that archaeolog-ical evidence does exist for the Egyptian sacred enclosure from the Late Period onwards. In the north, the location of the Hellenion, in many ways the Greek counterpart to the Egyptian ‘Great Temenos,’ was equally revised counter to Prinz’s suggestions. In both cases, linking old stratigraphic levels with new GPS data makes it clear that substantial remains of the archae-ological structures are still to be expected under the surface.

Preliminary comparison of the observable pottery distribution, both from our own and Coulson’s survey, with settlement areas apparent in the geophysical survey highlight some dis-crepancies that may well be due to more recent activity by sebbakhin. Nevertheless, patterns in some areas, such as the prominence of Late Roman pottery in the west or of Classical Greek and Ptolemaic pottery in the northeast, appear to be entirely consistent with our current un-derstanding of the site’s likely historical development. The survey pottery from Naukratis is thus clearly a valuable resource, which, however, needs to be reassessed carefully in the light


2013

103 NAUKRATIS 2012

of the site formation processes particular to the rural Nile Delta region.This initial fieldwork season at Naukratis thus amply demonstrates the site’s potential for

new archaeological work. The data assembled thus far provides the basis for addressing cen-tral questions relating to the site’s layout and history, giving preliminary answers to some of them and pointing the way for future research.

Acknowledgements

In addition to those team members and SCA inspectors who participated in the fieldwork (see note 2), we would like to thank A. J. Spencer and François Leclère for their invaluable contribution to the research presented here; Kristian Strutt and Doug Murphy for assistance with equipment and post-excavation processing of data; Penelope Wilson, Alan Johnston, Aurélia Masson-Berghoff and A. J. Spencer for assistance in the preparation of this article; Caroline Barron for generous access to David Hogarth’s archival documentation and her permission to publish it; Chris Naunton and other staff at the Egypt Exploration Society; Stephen Quirke, Paolo del Vesco and the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, Univer-sity College London; and Elizabeth Frood and the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford. We are grateful to the British Museum for financial support for this initial season and to the British Academy and Honor Frost Foundation for fieldwork planned in 2013.

Bibliography

Bailey, D. M. 1999. Sebakh, sherds and survey. JEA 85: 211–18.———. 2008. Catalogue of terracottas in the British Museum IV: Ptolemaic and Roman terracottas from

Egypt. London.Berlin, A. 1997. The pottery from the Northwest and North Areas. In Ancient Naukratis: Ex-

cavations at a Greek emporium in Egypt I: The excavations at Kom Geif, A. Leonard (ed.), 136–285. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 54, 1997. Boston.

Berlin, A. 2001, Naukratis/Kom Hadid: A ceramic typology for Hellenistic Lower Egypt. In Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek emporium in Egypt II: The excavations at Kom Hadid, A. Leonard (ed.), 26–163. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 55, 1998. Boston.

Bernand, A. 1970. Le Delta égyptien d’après les textes grecs I: Les confins libyques. MIFAO 91.2. Cairo.Blue, L. 2011. The amphora wharf: The context and construction of Roman amphora instal-

lations. In Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim Roman and Islamic ports on the Red Sea 2: Finds from the excavations 1999–2003, D. P. S. Peacock and L. Blue (eds), 35–42. Oxford.

Boraik, M. 2010. Excavations of the quay and the embankment in front of Karnak temples: Preliminary report. Cahiers de Karnak 13: 65–78.

Cook, R. M. 1937. Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt. Journal of Hellenic Studies 57: 227–37.Coulson, W. D. E. 1996. Ancient Naukratis II.1: The survey at Naukratis. Oxbow Monograph

60. Oxford.


104


Coulson, W. D. E. and A. Leonard. 1982. The Naukratis Project 1982. Muse 16: 44–49.Coulson, W. D. E., A. Leonard and M. Wilkie. 1982. Three seasons of excavation at Naukra-

tis. JARCE 19: 74–109.Earl, G. and D. Glazier. 2006. Site survey. In Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim Roman and Islamic

ports on the Red Sea 1: The survey and excavations 1999–2003, D. P. S. Peacock and L. Blue (eds), 34–42. Oxford.

Forstner-Müller, I., M. Bietak, M. Lehmann and C. Reali. 2011. Report on the excavations at Tell el-Dabca 2011. http://www.oeai.at/index.php/335.html (last accessed May 2013).

Forstner-Müller, I., T. Herbich, C. Schweitzer and M. Weissl. 2007. Geophysical survey 2007 at Tell el-Dabca. Ägypten und Levante 17: 97–106

———. 2008. Preliminary report on the geophysical survey at Tell el-Dabca/Qantir in Spring 2008. Ägypten und Levante 18: 87–106.

Forstner-Müller, I., T. Herbich, C. Schweitzer and M. Weissl. 2010. Preliminary report on the geophysical survey at Tell el-Dabca/Qantir in Spring 2009 and 2010. Jahreshefte des Österrei-chischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 79: 67–86.

Gardner, E. A. 1888. Naukratis II. Sixth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund. London.Gjerstad, E. 1934. Studies in Archaic Greek chronology: Naukratis. Liverpool Annals of Archae-

ology and Anthropology 21: 67–84.———. 1959. Naukratis again. Acta Archaeologica (Copenhagen) 30: 147–65.Hartung, U. and T. Herbich. 2004. Geophysical investigations at Buto (Tell el-Farain). Egyp-

tian Archaeology 24: 14–17.Herbich, T. 2012. Geophysical methods and landscape archaeology. Egyptian Archaeology 41:

11–14.Hogarth, D. G., C. C. Edgar and C. Gutch. 1898/9. Excavations at Naukratis. The Annual of

the British School at Athens 5 1898/9: 26–97.Hogarth, D. G., H. L. Lorimer and C. C. Edgar. 1905. Naukratis 1903. Journal of Hellenic Studies

25: 105–36.Leclère, F. 2008. Les villes de basse Égypte au Ier millénaire av. J.-C. BdE 144. Cairo.Leonard, A. 1997. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek emporium in Egypt I: The excavations

at Kom Geif. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 54, 1997. Boston.———. 2001. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt II: The excavations at

Kom Hadid. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 55, 1998. Boston.Möller, A. 2000. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archae-

ology. Oxford.Muhs, B. 1994. The Great Temenos of Naukratis. JARCE 31: 99–113.Petrie, W. M. F. 1883. The pyramids and temples of Gizeh. London.———. 1886. Naukratis I. Third Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund. London.———. 1891. Ten years’ digging in Egypt, 1881–1891. London.Prinz, H. 1908. Funde aus Naukratis: Beiträge zur Archäologie und Wirtschaftsgeschichte des 7. und 6.

Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Klio-Beiheft 7. Leipzig.Shaaban El-Awady, H. M. 2009. Application of the geophysical survey for environmental

and archaeological purposes, central western part of the Nile Delta, Egypt. MSc Thesis, Mansoura University, Egypt.


2013

105 NAUKRATIS 2012

Spencer, A. J. 2011. The Egyptian temple and settlement at Naukratis. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 17: 31–43.

Spencer, N. 2008. Kom Firin I: The Ramesside temple and the site survey. British Museum Research Publications 170. London.

Thiers, Ch. 2007. Ptolémée Philadelphe et les prêtres d’Atoum deTjékou: Nouvelle édition commentée de la « stèle de Pithom » (CGC 22183). Orientalia Monspeliensia 17. Montpellier.

Trigger, B. G. 2006. A history of archaeological thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge.Yoyotte, J. 1983. L’Amon de Naukratis. Revue d’Égyptologie 34: 129–36.Villas, C. 1996. Geological investigations. In Ancient Naukratis II.1: The survey at Naukratis, W.

D. E. Coulson (ed.), 163–75. Oxbow Monograph 60. Oxford.Villing, A. 2013. Introduction. In Villing et al. 2013.Villing, A., M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, F. Leclère and R. Thomas. 2013. Naukratis: Greeks

in Egypt. British Museum Online Research Catalogue. http://www.britishmuseum.org/naukratis (last accessed May 2013).

Wilson, P. 2010. Settlement connections in the Canopic region. In Alexandria and the North-West-ern Delta, D. Robinson and A. Wilson (eds), 111–26. Oxford.


106


Table 1: Surface pottery collected during the 2012 season.

Table 2: Leonard’s phases in the northwest area of the ‘South Mound’ excavations. Pottery dates follow Spencer for phases 1 and 2 (Spencer 2011, 33).* One sherd of Ptolemaic pottery was found in the pit fill, probably contamination.

Fig. 1: Photograph by W. M. F. Petrie of the mounds of Kom Geif, ‘Nebireh mounds looking south,’ 1884–5 (Delta series negative 314, photograph © Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London, PMAN 2693).

Late Period Classical Greek Ptolemaic Roman Byzantine Unidentified TotalNorth 2 6 26 1 0 1 36West 3 0 24 2 8 2 39East 25 0 84 6 5 15 135South 9 1 47 5 1 1 64

Leonard’s Context New Date of pottery mASLphasing Interpretation NW 1a 1026, 2044,2037, 2045, 2041 temenos wall, abutting late 7th–5th BC <4–4.9m structure in southNW 1b 2043, 2042, 2038 occupation late 7th–5th BC 4–4.9mNW 1c 2036 pit fill 6th–5th BC* 4.9mNW 2a 1025, 1024, 1023, 2030, 2039 temenos wall, widened 6th–5th BC 4.9m–5.6mNW 2a 1022, 2035 deposit Ptolemaic 5.6m–6m NW 2b 2040, 2022, 1020, 2031 temenos wall, removed 5th BC, late 3rd BC, 6m–6.7m PtolemaicNW 3–4 1016 and others house mid 3rd–mid 2nd BC 6.7–7.4mNW 5–10 49013 and others house mid 2nd–1st BC 8–11m


2013

107 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 2: Photograph by David Hogarth of the mounds of Kom Geif, 1899 (Hogarth negative 73, photograph © Department of Greece and Rome, archive, British Museum).

Fig. 3: Kom Geif, view north towards Abu Mishfa over the dried-out lake, 2012 (Photo: A. Vil-ling, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).


108


Fig. 4: Leica RTK GPS GX1230 base station being set up in 2012 by Ross Thomas, Tarik Sayed Ahmed Abdel-lah and Hani Farouk Abd El-Azeez Shalash (Photo: A. Villing, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).


2013

109 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 6: Tarik Sayed Ahmed Abdellah using Bartington Grad 601 assisted by Marianne Bergeron, 2012 (Photo: A. Villing, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).

Fig. 5: Doaa Ferieg Ali using Leica RTK GPS GX1230 rover, 2012 (Photo: A. Villing, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).


110


Fig. 7: Pottery from 2012 survey (Photo: M. Bergeron and A. Villing, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).


2013

111 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 8: Google Earth satellite image (Image © 2013 Google. Satellite image taken on 9 July 2011) of the area of Kom Geif (Rashwan, Abu Mishfa, Gebril Abbas, Hassan Kasim and El Baradany) overlaid with archae-ological plan of Naukratis (Petrie 1886, pls xl–xliii; Gardner 1888, pl. iv; Hogarth 1899, pl. ii; Hogarth 1905, fig. 1) and 2012 magnetometry. SCA trenches are represented as white squares.


112


Fig. 9: Petrie’s sketch map of Naukratis, 25 December 1884 (EES Archive XVI F63; image © Egypt Exploration Society) combined with Petrie’s published plan (Petrie 1886, pl. xl) and Griffith’s sketch of 17 Jan. 1885 in Petrie Notebook (PMA/WFP1/99/1/150 image © Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London).


2013

113 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 10: Petrie’s sketch map of Naukratis, 25 December 1884 (EES Archive XVI F63; image © Egypt Explora-tion Society) over satellite image (Image © 2013 Google. Satellite image taken on 9 July 2011).


114


Fig. 11: The northern area of the now dried-out lake (2011), with the two large stone block fragments probably identical with the door-jamb fragments excavated by David Hogarth in 1899 (Photo: R. I. Thomas, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).


2013

115 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 12: Hogarth’s plan of Naukratis (Hogarth 1899, pl. ii) over satellite image (Image © 2013 Google. Satellite image taken on 28 Sept 2009).


116


Fig. 13: Coulson’s plan of Naukratis (Coulson 1996, fig. 3) over satellite image (Image © 2013 Goo-gle. Satellite image taken on 28 Sept 2009).


2013

117 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 14: Northern Naukratis: the Hellenion, ancient cemetery, modern Rashwan and Abu Mishfa with archae-ological plan of Naukratis (Petrie 1886, pls xl–xliii; Gardner 1888, pl. iv; Hogarth 1899, pl. ii; Hogarth 1905, fig. 1) and 2012 magnetometry over satellite image (Image © 2013 Google. Satellite image taken on 9 July 2011). SCA trenches are represented as white squares.


118


Fig. 15: Western Naukratis, the likely course of the Canopic branch and harbour location, modern cemetery and western El Baradany, with archaeological plan of Naukratis (Petrie 1886, pls xl–xliii; Gardner 1888, pl. iv; Hogarth 1899, pl. ii; Hogarth 1905, fig. 1), 2012 magnetometry, with magnetometry by Shaaban El-Awady (2009, 132 fig. 6.6 outlined in red) over satellite image (Image © 2013 Google, satellite image taken on 9 July 2011). SCA trenches are represented as white squares.


2013

119 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 16: Stone blocks found during the building of the new school in El Baradany, now relocated to the eastern slope of the ‘South Mound,’ 2011 (Photo: R. I. Thomas, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).


120


Fig. 17: Eastern Naukratis, modern Kom Hadid, Gebril Abbas and Hassan Kasim with archaeological plan of Naukratis (Petrie 1886, pls xl–xliii; Gardner 1888, pl. iv), 2012 magnetometry and magnetometry by Shaaban El-Awady (2009, 132 fig. 6.6, outlined in red) over satellite image (Image © 2013 Google, satellite image taken on 9 July 2011).


2013

121 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 18: Kom Geif market, photographed by David Hogarth, 1899 (Hogarth negative 10, photograph © Department of Greece and Rome, archive, British Museum).

Fig. 19: Kom Geif market, 2013 (Photo: A. Villing, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).


122


Fig. 20: The Great Temenos, modern El Baradany, overlain by archaeological plan of Naukratis (Petrie 1886, pls xl–xliii; Gardner 1888, pl. iv), with the location of Leonard’s trenches in the ‘South Mound’ (Leonard 1997, fig. 1.12) shown in red and 2012 magnetometry over satellite image (Image © 2013 Google. Satel-lite image taken on 9 July 2011). SCA trenches are represented as white squares.

Fig. 21: Excavation areas in the Great Temenos, January 1885. Sketch by F. Ll. Griffith, entry of 17 Jan. 1885 in Petrie Notebook 150 (PMA/WFP1/99/1/150; image © Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London).


2013

123 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 22: Leonard and Coulson’s positioning of Great Temenos overlain by corrected position (Petrie 1886, pls xl–xliii; Coulson 1996, fig. 3) over satellite image (Image © 2013 Google, satellite image taken on 28 Sept 2009).


124


Fig. 24: Exposed brick wall in north face of ‘South Mound,’ 2011 (Photo: R. I. Thomas, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).

Fig. 23: Great Temenos area viewed from ‘South Mound,’ 2011 (Photo: R. I. Thomas, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).


2013

125 NAUKRATIS 2012

Fig. 25: Exposed brick wall in north face of ‘South Mound,’ 2011 (Photo: R. I. Thomas, The Naukratis Project, British Museum).

Naukratis revisited 2012: Integrating new fieldwork and old research

Documents

Transcript of Naukratis revisited 2012: Integrating new fieldwork and old research