Of this series the Arkesilaos cup is the only one with inscriptions. They are without doubt in an alphabet of Peloponnesian, not Ionian, character, as is shown, for instance, by the
for Χ in Σλιφόμαχος. But this may be explained by reference to the history of the city, which in the seventh and sixth centuries received a considerable influx of the Dorian element, especially from Sparta, whose alphabet may have been adopted for general use.
The total number of specimens in existence is about forty; some of which, however, are merely fragmentary examples.[[1130]]
Allusion has already been made to the extensive finds of pottery at Naukratis, among the most remarkable of recent years, which have done much to increase our knowledge of Ionian industrial art. As has been said, almost every other early fabric is represented there, from the Melian and Corinthian wares to those of Rhodes and other Asiatic sites, including a large series of Athenian vases or fragments down to the latest times. But with these were present in overwhelming numbers specimens of an entirely new fabric which could only be regarded as local in its origin. Of the pottery with figure subjects three stages can be traced, all characterised by the Ionian cream-coloured slip, of which the earliest is remarkably like the Rhodian wares, the next is distinguished by its polychrome decoration on a white ground, and the third represents a sort of transition from the quasi-Rhodian style of decoration to the regular black-figured ware, and is parallel in many respects to the sister-fabric of Daphnae (see below).
All this pottery was discovered in favissae or rubbish-heaps attached to the sanctuaries of Apollo, Aphrodite, Hera, and the Dioskuri, especially the two former. As the vases had been rejected as useless or crowded out by new ones, they are almost all broken and fragmentary. But it is interesting to note that on numbers of the earlier potsherds from the Apollo temple the words Ἀπόλλωνος ἐμί, “I am Apollo’s,” have been roughly scratched, as if the priests had wished to mark them as sacred and preserve them from profane uses, although no longer required. Even more frequent on all the sites are dedications to the respective deities, with the formula ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθηκε τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, or τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ, in the Ionic alphabet (cf. Fig. [16], p. 139). On palaeographical grounds the inscriptions may be dated as ranging from about 600 to 520 B.C., but there are some difficulties with regard to the date of the foundation of the settlement.
Strabo (xvii. 1, p. 801) assigns the foundation to Greeks of Miletos, about 620 B.C., but the words of Herodotos (ii. 178) are to the effect that Amasis (564–526 B.C.), “who was a phil-Hellene ... gave those who arrived in Egypt the city of Naukratis to inhabit.” If this means that no Greeks had lived there before his time, we cannot place any of the pottery earlier than 570; but it does not seem unreasonable to take the words to mean that the city already existed, and that Amasis merely recognised the right of Greeks to reside there. Herodotos also tells us that by permission of Amasis the Milesians independently founded the temenos of Apollo. From the evidence of the excavations Messrs. Petrie and Ernest Gardner felt themselves justified in placing the foundation of the city about the middle of the seventh century, a date which certainly seems to be required by the character of the earliest pottery. The disappearance of the local fabrics and their replacement by Attic importations would then fall about 520 B.C.
FIG. 94. FRAGMENT FROM NAUKRATIS, ILLUSTRATING “MIXED TECHNIQUE.”
In the earliest class a distinction, as in Rhodes, is to be noted between figures without incised lines, but with faces in outline, and figures with incised lines, the two being sometimes combined on one vase, as in Fig. [94]. It has already been shown that the former must be earlier in origin than the latter. On the other hand, in the polychrome white ware (see below) the incised lines again disappear; but the more advanced style of the drawing and choice of subjects testifies to its being a later variety. There can, however, be no doubt that the influence of Rhodes (or whatever was the fabric-centre of “Rhodian” pottery) was very strong at Naukratis, and if we adopt Böhlau’s theory of a Milesian origin for the Rhodian wares, this is fully accounted for by the history of the place. Consequently the two fabrics are very difficult to distinguish, and, in fact, the difference is mainly in point of style.