Ancient naukratis excavations at a Greek emporium in egypt part I excavations at Kom Geif.

Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt. Part I: The Excavations atKom Ge'ifAuthor(s): Albert Leonard, Jr.Reviewed work(s):Source: The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Vol. 54, Ancient Naukratis:Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt. Part I: The Excavations at Kom Ge'if (1997), pp. v-vii+ix-xxii+1-375+377-415Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3768560 .Accessed: 23/10/2012 07:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3768560?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ANCIENT NAUKRATIS

Excavations at a Greek Emporium

in Egypt

PartI

The Excavations at Kom Ge'if

by

Albert Leonard, Jr.

with contributions by

Andrea Berlin, Douglas J. Brewer,

Brian S. Chisholm, Patricia Crawford, Joanne Curtin,

Jeanne Hourston-Wright, and David S. Reese

American Schools of Oriental Research

ANCIENT NAUKRATIS

EXCAVATIONS AT A GREEK EMPORIUM IN EGYPT

PartI

The Excavations at Kom Ge'if

By Albert Leonard, Jr.

Volume 1 in the Ancient Naukratis series.

The Ancient Naukratis series is edited by William D. E. Coulson

Albert Leonard, Jr. Co-directors, Naukratis Project

Volumes in this series already published are:

Vol. 2, Part I The Survey at Naukratis, by William D. E. Coulson

Vol. 3 The Tomb Chamber of Hsw the Elder: The Inscribed Material at

Kom El-Hisn I: Illustrations, by D. P. Silverman

Vol. 6 Greek Painted Pottery from Naukratis in Egyptian Museums,

by Marjorie S. Venit

This volume has been published with the assistance of the

Provost's Author Support Fund of the University of Arizona.

?1997

American Schools of Oriental Research

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Leonard, Albert.

Ancient Naukratis / by Albert Leonard, Jr. : with contribu? tions by Andrea Berlin . . . [et al.].

p. cm. ? (Annual of the American Schools of Ori? ental Research : v. 54)

Includes bibliographical references. Contents: V. 1. The excavations at Naukratis. Pt. 1. The ex?

cavations at Kom Ge'if ?

ISBN 0-7885-0392-8 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Naucratis (Extinct city) 2. Excavations (Archaeol?

ogy)?Egypt?Naucratis (Extinct city). I. Berlin, Andrea. II. Title. III. Series. DT73.N3L46 1997

932?dc21 97-28045 CIP

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. ?

Contents

Preface. ix

List of Figures. xiii

List of Plates. xvii

List of Tables. xxi

Abbreviations. xxii

Chapter 1. A History of the Excavations at Naukratis/Kom Ge'if, Albert Leonard, Jr. . . . 1

Chapter 2. Excavations in the Northwest Area, Albert Leonard, Jr. 36

Chapter 3. Excavations in the Southeast Area, Albert Leonard, Jr. 85

Chapter 4. Excavations in the Northeast Area, Albert Leonard, Jr. 113

Chapter 5. Excavations in the North Area, Albert Leonard, Jr. 116

Chapter 6. The Pottery from the Northwest and North Areas, Andrea Berlin. 136

Chapter 7. Miscellaneous Material Culture, Albert Leonard, Jr. 286

Chapter 8. The Carbonized Plant Remains, Patricia Crawford. 309

Chapter 9. The Human Burials in the South Mound, A. Joanne Curtin, Jeanne

Hourston-Wright, and Brian S. Chisholm. 324

Chapter 10. The Animal Bones and Shells, David S. Reese. 347

Chapter 11. The Fish Bones, Douglas J. Brewer. 350

Appendix Field Pottery Fabric Types, Albert Leonard, Jr. 352

Bibliography. 361

Plates. 375

Preface

The work of the Naukratis Project has been concentrated in the western Nile Delta, specifically

in an area bounded by the sites of El-Barnugi in the north and Kom el-Hisn in the south (see fig. 1.1).

This area contains the ancient city of Naukratis (modern Kom Ge'if), which. according to the Greek

Historian Herodotus, was the first and only city in which the early Greek merchants were allowed to

settle. The area also contains a number of other sites dating from Pharaonic through later Roman

times. Unfortunately, little is known of these sites and their state of preservation. Indeed, the process

of decay and modern encroachment has been so serious in the Delta that a resolution was passed at

the Second International Congress of Egyptologists held at Grenoble, France, in September 1979,

giving top priority to survey work in the Delta. Accordingly, the Naukratis Project has involved:

1) A survey of all ancient sites within an approximate 30 km area to the north and west of Naukratis

in order to learn more about the environs of the city. Such a survey has assessed the character of the

visible remains, the state of site preservation, and the extent of intrusions made by modern settlements

and cultivation (see now Coulson 1996: 2) a program of excavation at the site of Naukratis based on

modern excavation techniques and backed by an interdisciplinary support staff.

This volume of the Ancient Naukratis series is divided into two volumes. The first describes the

results of the excavation at the southern end of the ancient city at a mound within the village of Kom

Ge'if; the second volume details the excavations to the northeast of that village in an area known to

both Petrie and local farmers as Kom Hadid.

Because the details of the stratigraphy at Naukratis had been debated for almost a century, the

strategy of our excavations in the South Mound at Kom Ge'if was to present first the maximum ver?

tical exposure of the archaeological soils still extant between the rising ground water and the sebakhin-

scarred surface of the ancient site. Then, after we had produced a clear understanding of the historical

periods that were still preserved at Naukratis, we would direct our emphasis to the clearing of larger

(horizontal) areas in an attempt to elucidate the type(s) of occupation represented by each chrono-

logical/historical phase in the life of the inhabitants of this famous emporium. Excavation was conducted according to a modified "Wheeler-Kenyon" (balk/debris) method of

excavation (Dever and Lance 1978; Seger 1971) that was specifically tailored to meet the particular

problems of excavation in the Nile Delta. At Naukratis all archaeological excavation was done by the

excavation team and volunteers under strict supervision by experienced field and square supervisors. The use of local labor was limited to the removal of already-excavated soils, the washing of pottery, and guarding of excavation areas. Our gafir, Mr. Ahmed Shehab Mousa, the local antiquities guard,

provided immeasurable help in securing qualified people to help us in this respect. The basis of our recording system is the Locus, defined simply as any three dimensional entity

encountered during the excavation process. Loci can be either artificial (a procedural device more

commonly termed a probe), or they may be authentic (such as a wall, pit, soil lens, or floor). Occa?

sionally a Locus will carry a "Point P" suffix (Locus XXXX.P) a device that is restricted to artifactual

and ecofactual material found directly on a floor or surface, and is used to call attention to the asso?

ciation of that material to the floor/surface. Also used is a "Point One" suffix (Locus XXXX.l), which

is used as a control when collecting the first 10 cm below such occupation surfaces.

The basic unit of our excavation system is the "pottery bag," which represents the specific material

collected from a precisely-recorded, three-dimensional entity and in that regard may be considered to

x Preface AASOR 54

be a mini-Locus (Seger 1971: 16). A pottery bag may be excavated as one Locus and on the basis

of subsequent study be reassigned to another Locus, but it always remains intact and cannot be

subdivided. Any suspicion of contamination in a pottery bag automatically reassigns it to the latest

of the Loci under consideration, or to Top-soil. A typical pottery bag from our excavations might be

recorded as "N.I.492.40," which stands for Naukratis, Field I (Kom Ge'if), Area/Square 492, Bag 40.

This will have been the fortieth bag assigned during the excavation in Area 492, and that was assigned

(or reassigned) to Locus 49214, a Locus that is considered to be part of Northwest Phase 8B.

Artifacts (e.g., pottery, glass, coins) as well as ecofacts (e.g., bone, shell, soil samples) are all at?

tached to an individual pottery bag so that if that bag is reassigned during the interpretive phase, all

of the material culture will remain (and move) together. Ceramic artifacts other than sherds as well

as other objects of material culture are assigned a Material Culture Number (MC#) sequentially as the

excavation progresses in a given square. They are also tied to the recording of the pottery bag but,

since the numbers are assigned in the square notebook, there may be more than one MC#27 but there

will only be one MC#27 from Area/Square 315?that from pottery bag N.I.315.38 which is assigned to Locus 31514.

The present volume, therefore, presents the first of the two-part final report on our excavations

at the ancient city of Naukratis, specifically the work in the "South Mound" in the modern village of

Kom Ge'if. Chapter 1, written solely by the present author, attempts to put the work of the Naukratis

Project in the context of the previous excavations and interpretations of the site. It should now be read

in conjunction with Richard Sullivan's "Psammetichus I and the Foundation of Naukratis" (Coulson

1996: 177-95) which was unavailable to me at the time that this chapter was written. Chapters 2

through 5, also by the present author, describe the stratigraphy and supply interpretation for the ex?

cavations in the four major areas of the South Mound. Although the interpretations are those of the

author, their formulation was assisted by the fine stratigraphical eye of Cynthia Johnson-Romy who

did much to put this material in order. Ultimately these chapters are based on the meticulous exca?

vation done by an exceptionally dedicated cadre of volunteers and faithfully recorded by area/square and field supervisors. The Locus Summaries appended to each chapter reflect the work of many of the

staff members and specialists. Chapter 6, on the pottery from the North and Northwest Areas, is the

work of Andrea Berlin who joined us late in the study phase our project, but whose scholarship and

personality breathed new life into the publication process. Chapter 7, dealing with miscellaneous

pieces of the material culture, is not intended to be the last word on these pieces but rather an attempt

to present them in a manner in which others might make use of them in future research. Chapter 8

is the study of the carbonized plant remains that were collected by a flotation system designed and

constructed in the field by Julie Hansen. She and Patricia Crawford sorted most of the samples that

were allowed to be sent to the U.S. by the Egyptian Organization of Antiquities, after which Craw?

ford brought the analysis through to the point of completion. Chapter 9, which records and examines

the human remains from the cemetery that covered the South Mound, finds its genesis in the work

of Jeanne Hourston-Wright and Joanne Curtin who excavated and stabilized the burials themselves,

and who produced an exemplary field report of their work. This work was subsequently expanded

through the help of Brian Chisholm producing the basis of the chapter that appears in this volume.

Despite numerous attempts over the years, the author has been unable to reestablish contact with

these authors and so their report is produced here as it was originally submitted with a minimum of

editing by the author for consistency in format. The Human Remains Catalogue (HRC) appended to

1997 Preface xi

that chapter represents the in-field work of Hourston-Wright and Curtin and records the groups by

which the material was removed from the field for stabilization and conservation (by them). This doc-

ument has been modified and edited by the author, often through the suggestions of David Reese, and

produced in its tabular form by Jeff Kramer. Chapter 10, on the animal bones and shells excavated at

Kom Ge'if, represents only the smallest portion of the assistance and expertise that David Reese has

been given to the Naukratis Project since its inception. Because David was not able to work with the

shell material on site, the author made a series of sample cards of distinctive shells by which all field

identifications were made (usually by Joanne Curtain and other Simon Fraser University students).

Through the kindness of the Egyptian Organization of Antiquities, we were able to obtain these cards

during our "division" and David was finally able to handle the shells that he had previously been able

to work with only through photographs. In the study of the animal bones, David was equally ham-

pered since only a small percentage of the total sample (and that randomly selected) was allowed to

us at the division.

Finally, the author would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who labored at Kom

Ge'if. I find it incredible that so much "good archaeology" was done in the constant face of extreme

heat, continual dust, innumerable flies, omnipresent fleas, Halazoned water, tepid Tang, miserably re-

dundant meals, extremely limited shower facilities, closely cramped quarters, constant sickness, and

nocturnal leapings of the canal to the field toilets. Such strength reflects a dedication to a project that

I have never experienced elsewhere. Surely, somewhere in the future, a cold Stella awaits us as our just reward.

The preliminary season of the Naukratis Project, funded by a Research and Development grant awarded by the Smithsonian Institution, was conducted during a three week period in December

1977 and January 1978. The four excavation and study seasons (1980-1983) were funded by match-

ing grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The author wishes to acknowledge the

Endowment's continued support of the project. Matching funds were provided by the Graduate

School and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota, by the Social Sciences and

Humanities Research Council of Canada, the University of Missouri-Columbia, Carleton College, the College of St. Catherine, Gustavus Adolphus College, Honeywell Inc, the 3H Industries in

Sunnyvale (CA), and by private individuals. RCA, Inc. provided much of the computer hardware

used in the field.

Co-directors of the project were William D. E. Coulson, University of Minnesota who was in

charge of the survey project from 1980-1983 as well as the soundings at sites within the survey area,

and the present author, then at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who was in charge of the exca?

vations at Kom Ge'if and Kom Hadid.

The Naukratis Project is indebted to the invaluable help provided by the American Research

Center in Egypt and by its directors at the time of fieldwork, Paul Walker and Robert Wenke. Mme.

Attiya Habachi from her desk in the Cairo office also provided many helpful suggestions. Assistance

was also provided by many Egyptian officials: Ahmed el-Sawy, former Director General of the Egyp? tian Antiquities Organization, Hashem el-Alfy and Ibrahim Amir, former Chief Inspectors of the

West and South Delta Inspectorates respectively, Youssef el-Gheriani and Doreya Said, former Direc?

tors of the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria, Dia abu Ghazi, former Director General of Egyp-

Prefai AASOR 54

tian Museums, and Mohammed Mohsem and Mohammed Saleh, former Directors of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Inspectors assigned to the Naukratis Project by the Egyptian Antiquities Organi- zation were Faten Abdel Halim, Sabry Taha Hassanein, and Adly Roshdy Amin. Thanks also go to

the antiquities guard at Kom Ge'if, Ahmed Shehab Mousa, and his family for help and kindness and

to Abdel Monem, mayor of the municipality. The preparation of this manuscript was greatly assisted by a Research Grant from the National

Endowment for the Humanities in 1990, and by several Small Grants awarded by the University of

Arizona. Most site photography was done by the author, while most of the object photography was

done by the late Duane Bingham, our project photographer. Pottery illustrations were drawn in the

field by a number of volunteers who were supervised by Susan Osgood who, literally, drew hundreds

of sherds herself. Each sherd was checked against its drawing by the author in the field and any errors

are solely his. Pottery drawings were inked primarily by Cynthia Johnson-Romy assisted, in the later

years, by Lois Kane and Kate Mackay. Much of the artwork for this volume was destroyed by nature

in 1989. The ensuing chore of recreating illustrations from the original (in-field) pencil drawings

caused considerable delay in the appearance of this volume. All plate layout was initially done by the

author but assisted in the later stages by Lois Kane and Kate Mackay often working at the suggestion

of Andrea Berlin. The author wishes to offer special thanks to Jeff Kramer and Kate Mackay who have

been especially helpful in the production of the final draft of this manuscript. Albert Leonard, Jr.

Tucson, Arizona 1997

The Excavation Staff

Director

Field Directors

Area Supervisors

Photographer Conservator

Surveyor Artist

Balloon Photogrammetry

Geology

Paleobotany

Physical Anthropology

Albert Leonard, Jr.

Cynthia Johnson-Romy

James W. Rehard

Jan M. Sanders

Mike Arwe

Meg Miller

Duane Bingham'

Gayle Wever

Gerald W. Johnson Susan Osgood Gerald W. Johnson

Christopher Loring Cathleen Villas

Julie Hansen

A. Joanne Curtin

Jeanne Hourston Wright

Core Drilling

Computer Project EAO Inspectors

John Gifford

Alden Arndt

Adlu Roshdy Amin

Faten Abdel Halim

Sabry Taha Hassanein

Post-Seasons Study Staff

Floral Analyses Faunal/Marine Analyses

Physical Anthropology Ceramics Analyses

Project Consultants

Art/History Science

Historian

'Deceased

Patricia Crawford

David S. Reese

Brian S. Chisholm

Andrea Berlin

Bernard Bothmer

George Rapp, Jr. Richard Sullivan'

List ofFigures

Chapter 1

1.1 Map of the Egyptian Nile Delta showing the location of Naukratis/Kom Ge'if (John Huffstot in Coul?

son and Leonard 1981b: 39, fig. 1). 1.2 Plan of Petrie's excavations at Naukratis (Petrie 1886: pl. XL).

1.3 Plan of Petrie's excavations north of the Great Temenos (Petrie 1886: pl. XLI).

1.4 Gardner's plan of the excavations at Naukratis (Gardner 1888: pl. IV).

1.5 Plan of Petrie's Great Temenos (Petrie 1886: pl. XLII).

1.6 Hogarth's site plan of his first season of work (1899) at Naukratis (Hogarth 1898/99: pl. II).

1.7 Hogarth's plan of his 1899 excavations in the northern part of ancient Naukratis (Hogarth 1898/99:

pl. III). 1.8 Hogarth's plan of his 1903 season of excavation in what he felt was the Hellenion of the ancient city

mentioned by Herodotus (Hogarth 1905: 113, fig. 1).

1.9 Photomosaic of present-day Naukratis and its environs with the lake formed in the depression of the

earlier excavations. Kom Ge'if and the South Mound are visible at the bottom of the photograph (com-

posite balloon photos by G. W. Johnson in Coulson and Leonard 1981a: pl. 4).

1.10 Composite drawing indicating the approximate relation of the modern topography to the structures

found by the earlier excavators (G. W. Johnson in Coulson, Leonard and Wilke 1982: fig. 5).

1.11 Balloon photograph showing Areas 1 and 2 of the (1980) excavations in the South Mound (G W.

Johnson in Coulson and Leonard 1981a: pl. 46, fig. 2). 1.12 Plan of the South Mound showing individual excavation areas (G. W. Johnson and C. Johnson-Romy). 1.13 Plan of Naukratis showing the location of the 1980 excavation Fields I and II (G W. Johnson in Coul?

son and Leonard 1981a: 34, fig. 3).

Chapter 2

2.1 General plan of the area excavated in the northwest corner of the South Mound in 1981 and 1982

and the location of the 1983 Probes (A-D). The 1980 soundings (1 and 2) were situated south of

Probe B west of Room 4.

2.2 Plan of architectural phase NW 1 (earliest) showing "Wall" 1026 in Sounding 1 and the cornering of

Walls 2044 and 2045 in Sounding 2.

2. 3 South balks of the Northwest Building areas.

2. 4 Temporary east balk of Sounding 1 (equals the western 1.50 m of NW Area 492) drawn during exca?

vation to illustrate the fact that Locus 1008 and Locus 1009 are equivalent to Locus 49238, upon which Wall 1007/49204 was built.

2.5 Plan of architectural phase NW 2 showing Sounding 1 Wall 1023-1024 and contemporary Sounding 2 Wall 2030 both of which were founded at 4.90-4.91 m ASL on Locus 1025 and 2035 respectively.

2.6 Plan of architectural phase NW 3.



2.9 North balks of the Northwest Building areas.




2.13 Plan of NW Hiatus phase A.

2.14 Plan of NW Hiatus phase B.

2.15 Plan of NW Hiatus phase C.


xm

List ofFigures AASOR 54

Chapter 3

3.1 Area 12: Plan of SE 6 tombs.






3.7 Area 12: Final top plan showing SE 1 walls.

3.8 Area 15: Final top plan showing SE 1 walls.

3.9 Balks of SE Area 12.

3.10 Balks of SE Area 15.

Chapter 4

4.1 Northeast Area 66: Final top plan. 4.2 Northeast Area 88: Final top plan.

Chapter 5

5.1 Area 316: Plan of phase N2. Phase Nl was encountered below Surface 31629P in the southwestern

corner of the square. The outline of the upper, N3 features are indicated in hatching. 5.2 Balks of North Area 316.

5.3 Areas 315 and 316: Plan of phase N 3.

5.4 Balks of North Area 315.

Chapter 6

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

6.10

6.11

6.12

6.13

6.14

6.15

6.16

6.17

6.18

6.19

6.20

6.21

6.22

6.23

6.24

6.25

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

Pottery from

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

f Northwest

Phase IB.

Phases IB and 1C.

Phases 2A and 2B.

Phase 2B.

Phase 2B.

Phases 2B and 3A.

Phases 3A and 3B.

Phase 3B.

Phases 3B and 4A.

Phase 4B.

Phase 4B.

Phase 4B.

Phases 4B and 4B/5.

Phase 6B.

Phase 6C.

Phases 6B, 7, and 7B.

Phase 7B.

Phases 7D and 8A.

Phase 8A.

Phases 8 and 6C-8.

Phase 8B.

Phase 8B.

Hiatus A and B.

Hiatus A and B.

Hiatus A and B.

1998 List of Figures

6.26 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus A.



6.29 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus A and B.

6.30 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus A and B.

6.31 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus B and C.

6.32 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus B.

6.33 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus B.

6.34 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus C.



6.37 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus C and Phase 9A.

6.38 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phase 9.

6.39 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phase 9A.


6.41 Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 9, 9A, and Hiatus C.














6.55 Pottery from Kom Ge'if North Phases 1 and 2.

6.56 Pottery from Kom Ge'if North Phase 2.













Chapter 7

7.1 Profile of a fragment of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8A, Locus 49149. MC#85.

7.2 Profile of a fragment of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8A, Locus 49150. MC#202b.

7.3 Rhodian amphora handle with stamp. NW Hiatus A, Locus 49233. MC#79

7.4 Rhodian amphora handle with stamp. NW Phase 3B, Locus 2020. MC#88.

7.5 Knidian amphora handle with stamp. South Mound surface. MC#202a.

List ofFigures AASOR 54

7.6 Knidian amphora handle with stamp. NW Phase 2B, Locus 2022. MC#87.

7.7 Fragment of a terracotta mortar or baking tile. Northeast Area, topsoil Locus 8801. MC#37.

7.8 Terracotta brazier or lamp, from Field II.

7.9 Fragment of a moldmade, terracotta bowl depicting the Egyptian god Bes (in relief). Northwest Area, Locus 1019. MC#85.

7.10 Tiny fragment of Gnathian ("West Slope") Ware from NW3B, Locus 1019.

7.11 Fragments of faience plates, cups, and small dishes, from the South Mound.

7.12 Fragments of faience plates, cups, and small dishes, from the South Mound.

7.13 Carved, limestone plaque depicting a cobra (Agathos Daimon?) on one face and an unknown scene on

the other. NW Hiatus C, Locus 49136. MC#118.

7.14 Rim from a white, marble dish. North Area Phase 3, Locus 31615. MC#67

7.15 Rim from a black, basalt dish. Northwest Area Phase 8B, Locus 49214. MC#136.

7.16 Rim from a green, diorite dish. Northwest "topsoil" Locus 49156. MC#101.

7.17 Earring consisting of flat pieces of copper connected by gold wire. Southeast Phase 5, Locus 1542.

Chapter 8

8.1 Cultivated Plants: a, b, c: Emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccum); d, e, f: Spikelet forks of

emmer.

8.2 Cultivated Plants: a: Barley (Hordeum vulgare); b: Lentil (Lens culinaris); c, d: Grape (Vitis vinifera); e: Fig (Ficus carica or F. sycomorus).

8.3 Non-Cultivated Plants: a, b, c, d: Darnel (Lolium cf. temulentum); e: Scorpion tail (Scorpiurus mu-

ricatus); f: Clover (Trifolium sp.); g: Medick (Medicago sp.); h: Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale). 8.4 Non-Cultivated Plants: a, b, c: Boraginaceae; d: Polygonaceae; e: Caryophyllaceae; f, g: Compositae;

h: Cyperaceae.

Chapter 9

9.1 A tripolar graph of the results of stable-carbon isotopic analysis. 9.2 A comparison of dental age and skeletal age for infants and children.

List of Plates

Frontispiece

L M. Arwe traces the elusive pattern of a mudbrick wall (A. Leonard, Jr.). R North and east balks of Area 2 (1980) showing close lamination of loci (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Chapter 2

2.1 The western flanks of the South Mound prior to the beginning of excavation in Areas 1 and 2. Photo

from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.2 Area 1 (foreground) and Area 2 during the course of excavation. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.3 The bottom of the sounding in Area 2 showing the cornering of N-S Wall 2045, and E-W Wall 2044,

just before the excavation area began to fill with water. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.4 The bottom of the sounding in Area 2 just as the excavation area began to fill with water. Brick(s) of

N-S Wall 2045 is visible. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.5 East balk of Area 1 showing the base of a small terracotta vessel (MC#36) imbedded in the mudbrick

of Locus 1022 in NW Phase 2A. For the drawing of the vessel, see fig. 6.3:5. Photo from the west (A.

Leonard, Jr.). 2.6 Mudbrick Wall 1016 of NW Phase 3A in Area 1 being measured and drawn by C. Johnson-Romy.

Note the proximity of the wall to the surface of the modern road cutting. Photo from the south

(A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.7 North (working) balk of Area 1, showing Phase 3A beaten clay Surface 1019 situated upon Phase 2

debris Layer 1020. Phase 3A Wall 1016 (on which the scale is placed) was founded on Surface 1019.

Photo from the south (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.8a North and east balk of Area 2. Tags in the north balk (from bottom to top) indicate the position of:

Wall 2030 and courses of the same wall that were dug as Locus 2039 (Phase 2A); Debris Locus 2034

(= Locus 2022) and 2031 (Phase 2B); Pottery-rich debris Layers 2004 and 2020 (Phase 3B); detritus

Layer 2003 underlying the small (E-W) Wall 2002 (Phase 4A); and finally Topsoil (Locus 2001). Photo from the south (A. Leonard, Jr.).

2.8b. Detail of above.

2.9 N-S Wall 49013 bisected for the removal of intrusive Burial 49016. Photo from the northwest (A. Le?

onard, Jr.). 2.10 N-S Wall 49013 (with tags) cut by the removal of intrusive Burial 49016. Individual bricks of lower

courses are visible beyond the point of the trowel. Photo from the East Balk (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.11 Phase 6, E-W screen Wall 49135 (left) shown butting against N-S Wall 49107. E-W Wall 49103-

49003 is visible in the lower right corner. Photo from the northeast (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.12 West end of Northwest Building, Phase 7 and following. Wall 49204 in foreground with scale in door?

way. Wall 49206 (with step) behind Wall 49211 closes Room 4 to the south (right). Photo from the

west (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.13 The westward extension of the Northwest Building forming Room 3 (on right) and Room 4 on the

left. Visible N-S walls (from the right/west): 49107, 49206 (with threshold), and the badly damaged Wall 49204 at the far left. N-S Wall 50202/49013 closes the top of the photo. Bi-pod photograph (D. Bingham).

2.14 Northwest Building Rooms 3 and 4 as they appeared in NW Phases 7 and 8. Scale on Surface 49235 in Room 3 (NW Phase 8); Surface 49238 in Room 4. Note NW Phase 7, Wall 49211 closing Room

4 on the south. Photo from the north balk (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.15 Room 2 looking toward the east, showing "stub" Wall 49133 (NW Phase 8B) built upon Surface

49149 and its make-up (NW Phase 8A). This surface, on which the scale is placed, was cut on the

south (right) by a "fire pit" (Locus 49152) in NW Phase 8A, that was dug against the northern face

of Wall 49135 that was originally constructed in NW Phase 6C. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

List of Plates AASOR 54

2.16 Southwest corner of the Northwest Building in NW Phase 7 and subsequent phases. Scale on Surface

49238. On the right, beyond E-W Wall 49211, the step and threshold (Phases 7 and 8) lead into

Room 3. Photo from the southwest (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.17a Room 4 from the west. Wall 49204 in the extreme foreground. Scale on Surface 49238, Wall 49206

with step, behind and to the right of the scale, leading to Room 3. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.17b Wall 49107 (upper left) with Room 3 (center) and Wall 49206 with step down to Room 4. Photo from

the Northwest (A. Leonard, Jr.). 2.18 Area 491 probe excavation placed against N-S Wall 49107 (rear of photo), north of E-W Wall

49135 (left of photo) in order to determine the relationship between these walls and the ephemeral, NW Phase 7C E-W Wall 49138, that is visible on the right. The tagged northern balk of the probe is shown in Plate 18 below. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

2.19 Temporary north balk against eastern face of Wall 49107 (left) showing its relationship to the small

Wall 49138 (tagged at the center of the photo) that formed the eastern limits of a tiny "bin" at the

western end of Room 2 in NW Phases 7 and 8.

Note (in the lower left): the NW Phase 6B surface, Locus 49146P has been incorrectly tagged as

"Locus 49136P" and should be read as 49146P, as it is to the right of the picture. Photo from the south

(A. Leonard, Jr.).

Chapter 3

3.1 Jeanne Hourston-Wright stabilizes infant Burial 1239 in SE 4b, Tomb 1258 (Type V) while, in the

foreground, Jan Sanders excavates SE 3, detritus Locus 1229. Between the two excavators are the

remains of SE 4a, Tomb 1250 (also Type V). Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.2 Infant Burial 1239 in SE 4b, Tomb 1258. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.3 Eastern half of Area 12 showing SE 4 tombs dug into SE 3 Detritus 1229, which is considered to rep?

resent the slumped, upper courses of ("Great Temenos") Wall 1271. Tomb 1248 (Type V) extends into

the east balk (at the top of the photo), and Tombs 1224 (Type III) and Tomb 1249 (Type V) can be

seen in the right foreground. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.4 SE 4 Tomb 1245 (Type V) sectioned in the east balk of Area 12. Adult Burial 1264 is visible on the

tomb floor (pedestal). The tomb had been dug into detritus Locus 1229 upon which the arrow is

placed. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.5 Partially excavated Burial 1264 (Tomb 1245) extending into the excavation area from the east balk.

Photo from the top of the balk (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.6 SE 7b, Tomb 1223 (Type II) built upon SE 7b, detritus Locus 1233. Photo from the north (A. Le?

onard, Jr.). 3.7 Tomb 1207, a Type I tomb of SE Phase 4c, during excavation. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.8 The close juxtoposition of SE Phase 4 burials (Type III Tomb 1224 and Type V Tomb 1249) dug

into detritus Locus 1229, which is thought to represent the slumped upper courses of Wall 1254, the

best candidate for the architecture encountered by Petrie and Hogarth. Photo from the east (A. Le?

onard, Jr.). 3.9 Southeast corner of Area 12 showing probe excavated to the level of ground water. South balk shows

SE 2 Tomb 1251 (Type I) that had been built built upon SE 1 Locus 1251, which is interpreted as the

upper courses of ("Great Temenos") Wall 1271. Rising ground water can be seen filling the probe in

the right foreground. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.10 Cluster of bones (Locus 1573, SE 6) found in mudbrick detritus Locus 1539/1542 (SE 5). Possibly

representing part of burial(s) from a destroyed tomb in the area. SE 6, Tomb (then being excavated as

"Wall") 1506 is visible to the right. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.11 Jeanne Hourston-Wright stabilizes bone cluster Locus 1573 prior to its removal from the excavation

area. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.12 SE Phase 2a Tomb 1561 (Type V) built in a deep pit that had been dug into a layer of mudbrick

detritus which is considered to represent the collapse or slump of the upper courses of ("Great

Temenos") Wall 1555. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

1998 List of Plates

3.13 Infant Burial 1551 (complete) in SE Phase 2b Tomb 1547 (Type III). Tomb 1547 was built directly

upon SE 2a Tomb 1561, in the same pit that had been dug into Locus 1555. Photo from the east

(A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.14 View of the south balk of Area 15, with SE Phase 2, Tomb 1543 (containing Burial 1569) partially in

balk. In front (north) of it is SE Phase 2a Tomb 1553 (unopened). Arrow rests on SE Phase 1, Locus

1555/1565 which is considered to be the best candidate for evidence of Petrie's "Great Temenos."

Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.15 Looking down on Burial 1569 in SE Phase 2, Tomb 1543 (Type V) after it had been excavated. Arrow

rests on Locus 1555/1565 of SE Phase 1. Photo from the south balk (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.16 The south balk of Area 15 after the removal of Tomb 1543. Unexcavated Tomb 1553 still remains in

front (north) of it; while to the right (west) Tomb 1557 can be seen protruding from the balk. Arrow

rests on Locus 1555/1565 ("Great Temenos") of SE 1. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.17 A cluster of human bones in SE Phase 3 Locus 1537/1538 that represents the cursary burial of a rather

large adult (sex unobtainable) and a young child. Photo from the Southeast (A. Leonard, Jr.). 3.18 Firedbrick and mudbrick Tomb 1558 (Type V, SE Phase 2b). Above an (unexcavated) primary burial

on the floor of this tomb, a layer of sand had been spread (Locus 1567, see arrow) upon (and into) which a group of at least four, secondary burials (an adult male and three or four children) had been

interred. Some of these can be seen in the photograph. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Chapter 4

4.1 Area 66 showing rectangular Tomb 6605 and associated stone paving. To the right (South) can be seen

Tombs 6604 and 6606. Photo from the West (A. Leonard, Jr.). 4.2 Area 66 with Tomb 6605 in the foreground and Tomb 6604 in the upper left corner. A probe in the

Northwest corner of the square (below the arrow) was to produce a second, lower series of burials

including Tombs 6614 and 6615. Photo from the East (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Chapter 5

5.1 Morris Weiss (left) and John GifFord (right) analyse the material from the core that was drilled in the

North Area (A. Leonard, Jr.). 5.2 Sieving the soil matrix from the core sample from the North Area (A. Leonard, Jr.). 5.3 Areas 315 and 316 after excavation. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.). 5.4 Preparing Areas 315 and 316 for excavation. The South Balk (at left) has been trimmed back in "steps"

in order to minimize contamination from above, as well as to regularize the illicit digging of the seba-

khin. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.). 5.5 Areas 315 and 316. The arrow is placed on North Phase 3 Wall 31504, the upper courses of which

were removed by the digging of the sebakhin, but which are still visible in the trimmed South Balk.

Parallel to, and contemporary with, Wall 31504 is Wall 31603 to the right beyond the communal balk.

Photo from the Northeast (A. Leonard, Jr.). 5.6 North-South Wall 31504 (arrow) of North Phase 3 with a succession of tip-lines against it. Traces of

the upper courses of the wall, removed by the sebakhin, can be seen in the balk. Photo from the north

(A. Leonard, Jr.). 5.7 North-South Wall 31603 (arrow) of North Phase 3, founded directly upon Wall 31628 of North

Phase 2. See probe at the right of photograph. Photo from the west (A. Leonard. Jr.). 5.8 North-South Wall 31603 (arrow) of North Phase 3 with the upper courses that were destroyed by the

sebakhin visible in the South Balk. In the probe to the right (west) of the wall, the lower (North Phase

2) Wall 31628 can be seen. Above the probe, and to the right of Wall 31603, an intrusive tomb (dug as Wall 31606) is visible. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.).

xx List of Plates AASOR 54

Chapter 7

7.1.a,b Fragments of a terracotta plaque depicting Papposilenos(?) carrying a jar. NW Phase 3b, Locus 2020.

MC#65 (D. Bingham). 7.2 Fragments of a terracotta plaque depicting the same scene as pl. 7.1(?). NW Phase 3b, Locus 2020.

MC#65A (D. Bingham). 7.3 Terracotta foot or boot. NW Phase 8b, Locus 49214. MC#76 (D. Bingham). 7.4 Fragment of an imported, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 2b, Locus 1020 (D. Bingham). 7.5 Fragment of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8a, Locus 49150. MC#202a (D. Bingham). 7.6 Fragment of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8a, Locus 49149. MC#85 (D. Bingham). 7.7 Fragment of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8a, Locus 49150. MC#202b (D. Bingham). 7.8 Nozzle of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 10, Locus 49201. MC#74 (D. Bingham). 7.9 Fragment of terracotta potter's wheel(?). N Phase 1, Locus 31629. MC#136 (D. Bingham). 7.10 Fragment of a terracotta mortar or baking tile. Northeast Area, topsoil Locus 8801. MC#37 (D. Bing?

ham). 7.11 Terracotta brazier or lamp, from Field II (D. Bingham). 7.12.a,b Fragment of a moldmade, terracotta bowl depicting the Egyptian god Bes and a column (in relief).

Northwest Area, Locus 2020. MC#85 (D. Bingham). 7.13 Tiny fragment of Gnathian ("West Slope") Ware from NW3b, Locus 1018 (D. Bingham). 7.l4.a,b Small, faience amulet depicting the Egyptian god Bes. NW Phase lc, Locus 2036. MC#64a (D. Bing?

ham). 7.15 Small, faience amulet depicting a crocodile or Oxyrhynchos fish. NW Phase 2b, Locus 1020. MC#28

(D. Bingham). 7.16 Discoidal, faience bead with an "X" impressed on one surface. NW Phase 2a, Locus 2035. MC#46

(D. Bingham). 7.17.a,b Carved, limestone plaque depicting a cobra (Agathos Daimon?) on one face and an unknown scene on

the other. From NW Hiatus C, Locus 49136. MC#118 (D. Bingham). 7.18 Small fragment of a mosaic floor from the Southeast Area surface. MC#77 (D. Bingham). 7.19 Limestone slab with tool and cutting marks. From Petrie's claimed Ptolemaic rebuilding of the "Great

Temenos" (?) MC#47 (D. Bingham). 7.20 Fragment of a limestone block or slab with tool and cutting marks. From Petrie's claimed Ptolemaic

rebuilding of the "Great Temenos" ? MC#85 (D. Bingham). 7.21 Ptolemaic(?) mortarium fragments from topsoil loci in the Northeast Area, Square 88. MC#30

(D. Bingham). 7.22.a,b Bronze coin of Ptolemy III. Obverse (left) depicts Alexander III wearing elephant-skin headdress;

reverse (right) shows eagle with closed wings on thunderbolt with cornucopia in front. MC#42

(D. Bingham). 7.23 Bronze fishhook(P). MC#34 (D. Bingham). 7.24 Earring with bronze discs suspended from a central, triangular piece on bronze and gold wires. From

Locus 1542. MC#60 and 151 (D. Bingham). 7.25 Iron Nails from a variety of loci in the South Mound.

7.26 Iron Nails from a variety of loci in the South Mound.

Chapter 9

9.1 An example of corbeled tomb construction.

9.2 An example of slab tomb construction.

9.3 Burial 1253. Prominent bilateral Steida's processes on talar bones.

9.4 Burial 1253. Ankylosed third, fourth, and fifth lumbar vertebrae.

9.5 Burial 1256. Cribriform lesions of both orbits.

9.6 Burial 1230. Bifurcated sternal end of right rib.

9.7 Burial 1562. Deciduous upper left central incisor with carious incisal notch and hypoplastic enamel on labial surface.

9.8 Burial 1562. Geminated deciduous mandibular left lateral incisor.

List of Tables

Chapter 2

2.1 NW Building Phase Identifications.

2.2 NW Area 482: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition 2.3 NW Area 490: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition 2.4 NW Area 491: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition 2.5 NW Area 492: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition 2.6 NW Area 502: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition

Chapter 3

3.1 Period II Tomb Types in the Southeast Area

3.2 Correlation of Tomb Type and Age/Gender of Occupant(s) 3.3 Spatial Distribution of Tomb Types in the Southeast Area

3.4 Wall Construction in the Southeast Area

3.5 SE Area 12: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition 3.6 SE Area 15: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition

Chapter 5

5.1 Wall Construction in the North Area Phase 2



5.4 North Area 316: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition 5.5 North Area 315: Stratigraphic Sequence of Loci Deposition

Chapter 6

6.1 Naukratis Kom Ge'if: Diagnostic Ceramic and Stratigraphic Summary for the Northwest and North

Areas

Chapter 7

7.1 South Mound Lithic Profile

Chapter 8

8.1 Carbonized Macrobotanical Remains from Naukratis

8.2 Dimensions of Wheat Samples 8.3 Dimensions of Lentil Samples 8.4 Dimensions of Grape Seeds

8.5 Dimensions of Darnel Grains

Chapter 9

9.1 Age and Sex Distribution of the Kom Ge'if Burials

9.2 Cranial and Mandibular Measurements and Indices

9.3 Infracranial Measurements and Indices, Burial 1253

9.4 Human Remains Catalog

List of Abbreviations

ASL above sea level

Ste^^^yptt^BK:

M. Arwe traces the elusive pattern of a mudbrick wall

(A. Leonard, Jr.).

North and east balks ofArea 2 (1980) showing close Um- ination ofloci (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Chapti er One

A History

of the Excavations

at Naukratis/Kom Ge'if

Albert Leonard, Jr.

Of the ancient literary references to the origins of the city of Naukratis, the two longest and

most widely discussed are those of Strabo (c. 64/63 B.C-A.D. 21) and Herodotus (traditionally,

c. 480-420 B.c). Strabo described events that took place during the reign of Pharaoh Psamtik/

Psammetichus I, who ruled c. 664-610 B.C:

For in the time of Psammetichos (who lived at the time of Kyaxares the Mede) the Milesians, with

thirty ships, put in at the Bolbontine mouth, and then, disembarking, fortified with a wall the above

mentioned settlement [Milesian Teichos]; but in time they sailed up into the Sai'tic Nome, defeated a

city called Inaros in a naval fight and founded Naukratis, not far above Schedia.

Strabo 17.1.18 (C801-802) (translated by H. L. Jones)

Herodotus detailed the actions of the Pharaoh Ahmose/Amasis, who ruled c. 570-526 B.C:

Amasis liked the Greeks and granted them a number of privileges, of which the chief was the gift of

Naucratis as a commercial headquarters for any who wished to settle in the country. He also made

grants of land upon which Greek traders, who did not want to live permanently in Egypt, might erect

altars and temples. Of these latter the best known and most used?and also the largest?is the Helle-

nium; it was built by the joint efforts of the Ionians of Chios, Teos, Phocaea, and Clazomenae, of the

Dorians of Rhodes, Cnidos, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis, and of the Aeolians of Mytilene. It is to these

states that the temple belongs, and it is they who have the right of appointing the officers in charge of

the port. Other cities claim a share in the Hellenium, but without any justification; the Aeginetans, however, did build a temple of Zeus on their own initiative, the Samians one in honor of Hera, and

the Milesians another in honor of Apollo. In the old days Naucratis was the only port in Egypt, and anyone who brought a ship into any of

the other mouths of the Nile was bound to state on oath that he did so of necessity and then proceed to the Canopic mouth; should contrary winds prevent him from doing so, he had to carry his freight to Naucratis in barges all round the Delta, which shows the exclusive privilege the port enjoyed.

Herodotus, The Histories 11.178-179

(translated by A. de Selincourt)

It has been toward the goal of reconciling these two literary accounts and explaining an apparent

half-century contradiction in the date of the initial Greek presence at Naukratis that much of the

archaeological exploration at the site has been directed (Petrie 1886; Gardner 1888; Hogarth 1898/

99; Hogarth, Lorimer and Edgar 1905). Other texts have been brought into the discussion, such

as Athenaeus' reference (XV. 18) to a temple of Aphrodite at the site as early as 688 B.C, or Hero?

dotus' statement that Pharaoh Necho II (who reigned c. 610-595 B.C.) had dedicated his corselet to

Albert Leonard, Jr. AASOR 54

Fig 1.1. Map of the Egyptian Nile Delta showing the location of NaukratisIKom Ge'if (John Huffstot in Coulson and Leonard 1981b: 39, fig. 1).

the Milesian Apollo in the temple of Branchidae {The Histories 11.159; Petrie 1886: 11), but the

statements by Strabo and Herodotus are the two main sources that have driven the scholarship on the

topic.

W. M. E Petrie and the Excavations of 1884-1885

In 1884 Sir William Flinders Petrie, directed by statuettes that he had purchased in Cairo, and

guided by the position of Naukratis both on the Peutinger map and in the Geographia of Ptolemy,

identified the emporium of ancient Naukratis with the series of large mounds at the modern village of Kom Ge'if (fig. 1.1; Petrie 1886: 1-11; 1904: 142-43). The site is located c. 80 km southeast

of the modern city of Alexandria near the ancient Canopic branch of the Nile. Already by Petrie's

day, there had been considerable destruction at the site, and about one-third of the c. 950 x 580 m

area represented by the mounds had been dug away by the local farmers (sebakhin) for use as a high-

phosphate fertilizer (sebakh) in their fields. In spite of this early destruction, however, Petrie was able

to excavate a tremendously large area of the site.

Excavations in the northern part of the site allowed Petrie to identify the architectural remains

of a Temenos of Apollo, a Temenos of the Dioskouri, and an open area that he identified as the

palaestra (figs. 1.2 and 1.3), as well as ceramic evidence (without architecture) for a Temenos of

Hera and a Temenos of Aphrodite. To the south of these structures Petrie found the remains of a

faience scarab factory (fig. 1.4) while, further to the south, he claimed to have uncovered a huge,

open air structure that he called the "Great Temenos" (figs. 1.2 and 1.5) and which he identified as

the Hellenion described by Herodotus as the combined effort of nine East Greek cities built to serve

the resident Greeks as a place of assembly and a rallying point in times of danger.

1997 A History ofthe Excavations at Naukratis IKom Ge'if

THE SITE OF

NAU KRATIS. SCALE Tfo

/ v v

? * ? > ? .? t i '?. . i , J * ', ? I ' ? ? ? ? i ? : i -t , , ,

' i ? ? ? i ? i i , , ' . I.' i ! . ' ? ? ' !

!: ?' ?. ??? ' ' ? I , l j ? f ' ' ? ' I * I l i i i , < ,i ;

^j' < , ' < ' , '

V ill & qe of

?1 Gaief.

Fig. 1.2. Plan of Petrie's excavations at Naukratis (Petrie 1886: pl. XL).

wms.p.jLU.

Lines ofthe system of roads

parallel with the Canal(?)

QJL-3 ^jnY^if"!

^^aBOH^D

-*a4rT*

600-4000BC

SCALE^- 400 FEET

Existing walls surveyed. Walls restored. Street lines restored.

Lines ofthe system of roads parallel with the Great Temenos 7. M. E P. mans el dal

Fig. 1.3. Plan of Petrie s excavations north ofthe Great Temenos (Petrie 1886: pl. XLI).

PTOLEMAiCj WflUHNG

Fig. 1.4. Gardners plan ofthe excavations at Naukratis (Gardner 1886: pl. IV).


Fig. 1.5. Plan of Petrie's Great Te? menos (Petrie 1886: pl. XLII).

Since so much of the discussion concerning ancient Naukratis has centered on the correct

identification and date of the various buildings excavated at the site, it will be helpful to review briefly the basis for each of Petrie's assignations.

Petrie had originally believed that the part of the site now known as the Temenos of Apollo would

be "unpromising ground owing to the abundance of Roman pottery" but, when local diggers retrieved

a limestone column base and a fragment of a voluted capital, he decided to dig there. After he

encountered a stretch of mudbrick wall, we are told that "a trench was cleared, and all of the earth

thrown to the westward; when this trench was about ten or twelve feet wide, the earth from the east

side was banked against the west, and so the trench was steadily moved eastward over the ground,

turning every fragment of artificial soil above the undisturbed Nile mud.' Through maneuvers such

as this, Petrie produced a roughly rectangular (c. 87 x 47 m) space only scantily defined by a few stubs

of mudbrick walling. Based on the presence of "hundreds" of bowls dedicated to Apollo,7 however,

he determined that this structure was the Temenos of the Milesian Apollo (fig. 1.3) that was recorded

by Herodotus.

In the midst of the temenos, facing westward, stood a Temple of Apollo (not indicated on any

plan) in which Petrie confidently distinguished two, distinct chronological phases. An earlier (lime?

stone) Apollo Temple I had been founded on an artificial mound of earth sometime toward the

end of the reign of Psamtik/Psammetichus I c. 620 B.C (Petrie 1886: 5-60). This building had

been destroyed c. 440 B.C. and its remains had been leveled in order to form the basis for the later

(marble) Apollo Temple II. Both temples were said to have been of the Ionic order (Petrie 1886: 13).9

To the north of these remains, Petrie encountered architecture that was even less easily traced than

the Temenos of Apollo, consisting of an assortment of walls of varying thickness that defined an open- to-the air, quasi-trapezoidal area c. 40 x 50 m (Petrie 1886: 16). There was no trace of a structure

within the "temenos wall" as had been the case in the Temenos of Apollo and, in fact, only a single architectural fragment (a small chip from a white limestone column) was found there (Petrie 1886:

1997 A History ofthe Excavations at Naukratis IKom Ge'if 7

16, pl. XXXV: 688). Nevertheless, Petrie identified these remains as the Temenos of the Dioscouri

(fig. 1.3), basing his interpretation on a number of inscribed dedications the majority of which had

been found in a sandy layer beneath the structure's western wall (Petrie 1886: pl. XXXV).

In the open space between the newly identified Temenos of the Dioscuri and the Temenos of

Apollo, Petrie discovered a few dedications to the goddess Hera, suggesting to him the possibility that

a precinct dedicated to her had existed at one time in the immediate area. None of the walls that he

encountered, however, could be associated with such a structure (fig. 1.3; Petrie 1886: 16).

South of the Temenos of Apollo lay a large, open area that Petrie conjectured had been the

palaestra of the town. Although its plan was quite irregular, and the traces of its enclosure walls were

rather scant, Petrie appealed to an inscribed block of marble found elsewhere on the site that men?

tioned a palaestra dedicated to Apollo (Petrie 1886: 35, pl. XXX: 4; Gardner 1888: 60). Approxi?

mately 200 m to the south of this palaestra, several dedications to Aphrodite were found in and near

the building that Petrie had identified as a scarab factory (Petrie 1886: 36-37). These inscriptions, combined with an (unillustrated) "piece of fretwork, apparently a band around a Doric column" were

sufficient to suggest to him that, at one time, a temenos to that goddess had also existed in this general area. Although Herodotus did not record a Temple of Aphrodite at the site, it will be recalled that

a temple to this goddess played a prominent part in the story of Athenaeus (XV. 18; Gardner 1888: 9).

In spite of Petrie's plans showing areas inhabited or utilized by members of various trades (copper

smelters, silver workers, potters, and possibly iron mongers; fig. 1.3), he simply did not have enough time to investigate much of the actual town. In fact, he noted that most of his knowledge concerning the town had been obtained through the work of the sebakhin from whom he had purchased objects on a daily basis (Petrie 1886: 35). Rather than working in the town, Petrie had concentrated most of

his remaining efforts on clearing the building that he had termed the "Great Temenos," paying special attention to its gateway and to the large block of chambers that he had encountered within it (Petrie

1886: 35).

As reconstructed by Petrie, the Great Temenos was a tremendous (c. 260 x 230 m) monument

that covered an area comprising almost one third of the ancient city (fig. 1.2), and consisting of three

major architectural units: a mudbrick temenos wall within which stood two independent structures

(fig. 1.5). The temenos wall, averaging 15 m in width and preserved in one section to a height of

9 m, enclosed an area in which Petrie estimated between 50,000 and 60,000 people could have as-

sembled either for discourse or for protection (Petrie 1886: 16, 24-25). Within this great enclosure

wall, Petrie noted two large buildings (1886: 24), but he recorded only one of them on his plan, the

so-called "Great Mound" (1886: pl. XL). This was a remarkable mudbrick entity measuring c. 55 x

55 m and consisting of a series of rooms that were said to have been entered at a height of 5 m above

ground level. The plan of this building, which Petrie saw paralleled at Tanis (Petrie 1890: pl. 44), led

him to identify the "Great Mound" as the storehouse of the Hellenion. West of this storehouse, be?

tween it and the entrance to the temenos, lay a second mudbrick building of similar size, that differed

from the first in having its entrances at ground level. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine exactly how much of this second structure Petrie actually excavated since he offered no plan of it. He simply referred to it as "destroyed" in contrast to the Great Mound, which was described as being "in the

course of destruction" (Petrie 1886: 24-25).

Although Petrie considered the dating of the Great Temenos to be problematic, he reasoned that

if the structure was the Hellenion mentioned by Herodotos, that it should have been built at least as

8 Albert Leonard, Jr. AASOR 54

early as the other religious structures in the city (Petrie 1886: 6). In support of this hypothesis, Petrie

called attention to similarities between the size of the bricks in the original portions of the Great

Temenos at Naukratis and the dimensions of the bricks from an (unspecified) structure at the neigh?

boring site of Kom Afrin [Kom Firin] that he dated to the 26th Dynasty (Petrie 1886: 26, 89).

At some point in the history of this complex, a section of the western wall of the temenos had

been damaged, necessitating major repairs to the entryway. The exact date of this destruction was un?

certain, but Petrie allowed a date sometime between "the defeat of Apries (570 B.C.) and the second

Persian invasion (345 B.C.)," believing it to have happened "most likely at the later time" (Petrie

1886: 26). He credited the repair of the temenos to Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) who, we are told, had

built a large (18 x 100 m) limestone-faced structure in the entryway (Petrie 1886: 6, 8, 26?27, and

pl. XLII). In actuality, none of these limestone slabs was found, only their impression in the mor?

tar, which had at one time bonded them to the mudbrick core of the building. The dating of these

repairs was based not only on the dimensions of the individual bricks but also on four foundation

deposits, one of which was found beneath each corner of the structure, below a few inches of light-

yellow desert sand (Petrie 1886: 6, 28). In addition to the repairs made to the temenos wall, Ptolemy

II was said to have embellished his new entryway with a sculptural program consisting, at the mini?

mum, of two white marble rams and a red granite sphinx (Petrie 1886: 27-28, and the "note" pre?

ceding page 1; Gardner 1888: 13-14). Petrie also briefly noted the presence of what he termed

"lesser structures" that had been built against the inner side of the north wall of the temenos, and

which he suggested might have been chapels to local Egyptian deities (fig. 1.5) that had been con?

structed during the Ptolemaic period (Petrie 1886: 34).

Petrie assigned the destruction of Ptolemy's entryway to the Roman period when, after an appar?

ent phase of neglect and decay, the limestone structure was dismantled "stone by stone for (the) large

houses then being built on the mounds" (Petrie 1886: 9). This first century A.D. destruction, we are

told, was accompanied by the partial filling of the chambers of the storehouse of the Great Temenos

in order to turn them into private dwellings. This desecration was placed at the beginning of the reign

of Augustus, although Petrie also claimed to have discovered dwellings as late as the second century

A.D. in some of the chambers of the storehouse (Petrie 1886: 9, 32-33).

Petrie saw the final chapter of the history of these Roman houses in the large piles of lime-slag

that he discovered in several parts of the ancient city (the "slag heaps" on fig. 1.2), hypothesizing that

the limestone facade of the Ptolemaic entryway (at one time removed by the Roman inhabitants of

the city) had been robbed subsequently, during post-Roman times (Petrie 1886: 10, 32). Although

no specific date was offered for the floruit of this lime-slaking activity, Petrie did mention the presence

of a Coptic chapel on top of "the great mound" that appears to have been the last recorded use of the

southern part of the ancient city of Naukratis until "twenty or thirty years" before Petrie's time,

when part of the area was turned into a cemetery, a portion of which Petrie claimed to have removed

(at his own expense) in order to prevent its desecration at the hands of the sebakhin and to allow him

to evaluate more of the area of the Great Temenos (Petrie 1886: 9, 34).

E. A. Gardner and the Excavations of 1885-1886

In November 1885, Petrie assembled E. A. Gardner and F. Griffith at Kom Ge'if in order to plan

strategy for renewed excavation before he moved on to initiate a program of excavation at Tell

Defeneh (ancient Daphne) in the eastern Delta. With Gardner in charge, the continuation of the

1997 A History ofthe Excavations at Naukratis lKom Ge'if 9

work at Naukratis got off to a good start, and soon two hundred workers were in their employ; al?

though Gardner did admit that, without Petrie's help, a work force of between one hundred twenty

and one hundred fifty was the maximum that he was able to "keep under supervision" by himself

(Gardner 1888: 10).17

Gardner began his work at the northern end of the site with a re-examination of the area that

Petrie had termed the Temenos of the Dioscouri. Here, in the northwest corner of the enclosure, he

discovered plaster-faced, mudbrick pillar bases (or the lower portions of the pillars themselves) that

formed a "portico" at the front of a small (c. 8 x 10 m), single-room building oriented toward the

west (fig. 1.4). Sections of the northern wall of the little temple were also found, but no trace

remained of its eastern or southern walls. Gardner described this building as a peculiar variation of

the in antis temple in which the antae extended beyond the row of columns thereby forming a type

of pronaos (Gardner 1888: 30-31). On the inner cella walls traces of painted plaster had survived.

Designs included meander patterns and stars within squares executed in red, blue, and yellow on a

hard white plaster. As for the date of the structure, by making an appeal to the absolute distance

"above Mr. Petrie's datum," Gardner declared the temple to have been almost contemporary with the

Second Temple of Apollo, i.e. the middle of the fifth century B.C. (Gardner 1888: 31-32).

Early in the season, Gardner had been shown a fragment of stone bearing the inscription ieron

Dios Apotropaiou, which a local farmer claimed to have found to the south of the Temenos of Apollo, in the area that had been identified by Petrie as the palaestra of the ancient city (Gardner 1888: 13).

His subsequent excavation in this area produced a few dedications to the goddess Hera, which per-

suaded Gardner to alter the identification of this walled space from palaestra to the Temenos of Hera,

the original construction of which Herodotus had assigned to the Samians.

Gardner also excavated in and around Petrie's scarab factory in the southern part of the city

(fig. 1.4), where potsherds inscribed with dedications to Aphrodite had been found in association

with an assortment of walls and a fragment of a Doric column during the previous season (Gardner

1888: 12; Petrie 1886: 16-17). In spite of the fact that "numerous large trenches" had been dug there

by Petrie, it was actually "some men digging on their own account" that produced the dedications to

Aphrodite that suggested to Gardner where his excavations should be concentrated. Clearing this area

for a period of over three months, he uncovered three phases of a small temple that he attributed to

Aphrodite (Gardner 1888: 33-37). To the east (front?) of this newly found temple stood a mudbrick

altar with stairs leading up to it from the west (temple) side (Gardner 1888: 36). Associated with

both the altar and the steps were the remains of burnt offerings (Gardner 1888: 12).

In spite of the fact that Gardner was able to produce a surprisingly detailed (for 1885!) strati-

graphical section of the successive stages of his Aphrodite temple as well as to plot the relationship of the temple to the rest of the temenos, many major chronological problems still remained. The

construction of the earliest (Phase 1) temple was dated c. 600 B.C. primarily on the similarity in ab?

solute levels between it and the Temenos of Apollo situated nearly a quarter of a mile to the north

(Gardner 1888: 33-34). Subsequently the temple had been destroyed and its contents and fur?

nishings were scattered over a wide area with pieces of the same object having been found in widely

separated parts of the temenos. As with the Temenos of Apollo, this destruction was attributed to

the Persian invasion. This provided Gardner with a terminus post quem for the construction of the

second phase of the Aphrodite temple, a date that was further narrowed to the close of the fifth

century (c. 400 B.C.), in order to parallel events in the Temple of Apollo. The third phase of the


Aphrodite temple was said to have been of Ptolemaic date (c. 300 B.C.), more specifically during the reign of the earliest Ptolemies who had been been active also in redecorating Petrie's "Great

Temenos" (Gardner 1888: 36-37).

In the southern part of the city, Gardner discovered that the digging of the sebakhin had severely altered the appearance of the mound, and he noted specifically that the walls of the Great Temenos

had almost completely disappeared. However, excavation in that area was not completely in vain for,

while searching for a grand avenue leading up to the Hellenion from the canal, he encountered some

six feet below the surface the lower portion of a granite sphinx dating to the Ptolemaic period. Three

pieces of the statue were eventually recovered, which allowed Gardner to restore all but the face of

the creature. Unfortunately, it was never stated whether this statue had originally been part of an elab?

orate avenue of sphinxes or was simply an isolated statue (Gardner 1888: 13-14).

Elsewhere on the site, in the northeastern section of the mound, Gardner encountered a section

of walling that was large enough to be posited for a while to be the city wall of Naukratis. Con?

nected to this large wall Gardner noted some "very large and solid buildings," which he thought to

date to the pre-Ptolemaic period (Gardner 1888: 14). Neither the wall itself nor any of the associated

complex of buildings was further discussed or illustrated, but it is tempting to associate these walls

with part of the "Northeastern Temenos" later dug by Hogarth and considered by him to have been

the Hellenion mentioned by Herodotus (see below).

In summary, it may be stated that both Petrie and Gardner believed that their combined archae?

ological work at Naukratis had done much to reconcile the accounts of Herodotus and Strabo. They

believed that one of their strongest pieces of evidence to support an early Greek presence at Naukratis

was the stratigraphy associated with the scarab factory in the southern part of the city. Their argument can be summarized as follows. The factory had been a Greek enterprise engaged in commercial

relations with Rhodes, a fact that could be demonstrated by the numerous errors that had been com-

mited by the scarab-makers when attempting to render Egyptian hieroglyphs. In addition, the fact

that the scarabs produced in this factory bore the names of many of the predecessors of Amasis, but

none of them displayed his name, would present a very odd situation when one considered his reputed

generosity toward the Greeks. Therefore it was argued that the scarab factory must have flourished be?

fore, and gone out of use by, the time of Amasis the pharaoh who Herodotus claimed had actually

given the site to the Greeks. In order further to support their case for a pre-Amasis, Greek presence

at the site, Petrie and Gardner called attention to the more than two feet of burnt material containing

material that was "distinctly Greek and not Egyptian" that had been encountered below the scarab

factory. Since Petrie considered that "on an average" two feet of accumulation represented a time-span

of half a century, this would produce a date of c. 620 B.C for the actual arrival of the Greeks.

D. G. Hogarth and the Excavations of 1899 (fig. 1.6)

Petrie's and Gardner's seventh century B.C date for the original Greek arrival at Naukratis was

neither immediately nor universally accepted. Scholars such as Joubin (1895) agreed with the seventh

century B.C. dating, while Hirschfeld (1887) and Millet (1893), relying more on the literary tradition

than the results of archaeological excavation, both preferred a date during the reign of Amasis as re?

corded by Herodotus. In February of 1899, therefore, fifteen years after Gardner had left Naukratis,

D. G. Hogarth (assisted by C. C. Edgar and C. D. Edmonds) arrived at the site hoping to provide an-

swers to the several questions about the ancient city's early history that he felt had been left unan-

swered by the previous excavations. Work began with the assistance of more than one hundred

workers, plus "a miscellaneous crowd of sebakhin?diggers for (use as) irregular scouts" from whom

were purchased between fifty and one hundred small objects a day (Hogarth 1898/99: 27).

KUM OA'IF NAUKRATIS

Fig. 1.6. Hogarth's site plan of his first season ofwork (1899) at Naukratis (Hogarth 1898199: pl. II).

12 Albert leonard, Jr. AASOR 54

After an initial inspection of the site, during which Hogarth noted that illicit digging by the

sebakhin had reduced Petrie's Great Temenos to a "cornfield" (1898/99: 26-27), he decided to pursue excavation in what he felt to be a very promising area in the northern part of the site, to the east of

the temene discovered by the earlier excavators. As in the re-excavation of any site, the first order

of business was to tie their work into what had been dug previously and, in attempting this, problems

surfaced immediately. The datum points of the earlier excavators had disappeared, and the walls of

the structures excavated by them could not be identified with any certainty. In fact, Hogarth could

be no more specific than to note that "roughly speaking our 'Northeastern area' marched with the

eastern edge of Petrie's combined Dioscuri and Apollo enclosures, and of about half the area which

he called the 'Palaestra' and Mr. Gardner re-named the Temenos of Hera'" (Hogarth 1898/99: 28).

This inability to link his work with that of Petrie and Gardner (except in this most general way)

is a very important point to keep in mind when comparing the plans of the individual excavation 27 seasons.

Working northward from the line of the southern wall of the Temple of the Dioskouri, Hogarth

encountered only patchy bits of architecture, although he did find pieces of a red granite door jamb

which, when whole, would have measured over 3 m in length and 1 m in depth (Hogarth 1898/99:

30), suggesting that a building of considerable size and stature had once stood in this area. Substantial

mudbrick walls found nearby (features #34, #37 and possibly #8) may originally have formed part of

this building (fig. 1.7; Hogarth 1898/99: 31). Further to the north, aided in part by the digging of

the sebakhin, Hogarth (1898/99: 34, corridor #28) excavated a more coherent complex of rooms (fea?

tures #9-17, #19?28, #30-33) some of which incorporated sandstone blocks in their construction

and displayed plastered floors bearing striped patterns in red, blue, and possibly yellow upon a white

background. Some of these walls appeared to have been founded at different levels, indicating to Ho?

garth that they represented a sequence of temples. The question of which god should be associated with

which piece of architecture, however, was problematic since the names of a variety of deities had been

found inscribed on potsherds. Dedications to Aphrodite were said to have been especially frequent

around the Room 3, while a series of sherds mentioning the "gods of the Greeks" were found in the

area between features #3 and #34 (fig. 1.7), a distance of over 30 m (Hogarth 1898/99: 38, pl. III).

The possibility that Aphrodite may have had two temples at Naukratis (this one and the building

identified by Gardner over a quarter of a mile to the south) did not bother Hogarth given the demon-

strable popularity of the goddess at the site.

In describing these architectural remains, the use of the terms "enclosure wall" and "great enclo?

sure wall" increased in frequency (especially Hogarth 1898/99: 33-37), often making it difficult to

determine which area had been enclosed by which walls. Because he considered the southern end of

the city to have been Egyptian rather than Greek and since he felt that Petrie's "Great Temenos" had

been the fortress of a native Egyptian garrison, Hogarth proposed that his newly excavated "North?

eastern Temenos" should be identified with the Hellenion described by Herodotos. To Hogarth this

had been a sacred complex that had flourished during three periods: dating from the initial settlement

of the site by the Greeks in the first half of the sixth century B.C. through the early Ptolemaic period

(1898/99: 35, 37).

D. G. Hogarth and the Excavation of 1903

In 1903, after an absence of four years, Hogarth returned to Naukratis in order to conduct

what he felt would be the last season of excavation ever to be conducted at the site (Hogarth, et al.


KUM GA'IF - NAUKRATIS ?em*n? at extmme north

Fig. 1.7. Hogarth's plan ofhis 1899 excavations in the northern part of ancient Naukratis (Hogarth 1898199:

pl. III).

1905: 105). In the mean time, a round-top stele originally erected by Pharaoh Nectanebo had been

discovered there?under less than certain circumstances?in the precinct of an otherwise unknown

temple dedicated to the goddess Neith. Because this slab of black granite has played such an impor? tant role in many of the hypotheses concerning the ancient city, especially those dealing with the

ethnic composition (as well as separation) of its inhabitants, the relevant portions of the inscription are presented here:

He (Nectanebo) poured a libation to his father, the lord of eternity [Osiris], in the mansion of Neith. Then his majesty said:

"Let there be given one in ten (of) gold, of silver, of timber, of worked wood, of everything coming from the Sea of the Greeks, of all the goods that are reckonned to the king's domain in the town named Hent; and one in ten (of) gold, of silver, of all the things that come into being in Pi-emroye, called Naucratis, on the banks of the Anu, that are reckoned to the King's domain, to be a divine

offering for my mother Neith for all time . . ." (lines 8-10).

Hogarth had two primary goals for this final (his second) season at Naukratis. The first goal was

to clarify the nature of Petrie's Great Temenos, especially by probing for foundation deposits that might indicate which pharaoh had constructed its massive wall (Hogarth 1898/99: 45; Hogarth, et al. 1905:


110). The second goal was to expand his previous excavations at the northern end of the site where he

believed that he had found the structure that should be associated with the celebrated "Hellenion"

(Hogarth 1898/99: 42-45).

Hogarth had been struck by what he considered to have been the non-Greek character of the

southern part of the ancient city. In fact, neither he nor any of the large number of sebakhin who dug in this area daily had found "anything but Egyptian remains" south of the line between grid squares

7 and 8, and a similar absence of "Greek" remains in this area was noted by Petrie in a letter to

Hogarth in which he firmly stated that he had found "nothing but Egyptian south of (the) Aphro-

dite" temple dug by Gardner (Hogarth 1898/99: 41). To summarize, Hogarth felt that he had dis?

covered a great temenos at the northern (to him "Greek") end of the site associated with structures

that had produced Hellenic pottery, dedications, and other remains of a cultic nature. To him, this

"Northeastern Temenos" was the Hellenion described by Herodotus. Away from this concentration of

Greek religious buildings, at the southern end of the site, "far from the region where Greek things

(were) found at the farther side of the remains of an Egyptian quarter" lay the remains of Petrie's

Great Temenos, which to Hogarth represented the remains of the native section of the town com?

plete with a huge Egyptian fort constructed, and most probably positioned, to impress and intimidate

the foreign traders living at the other end of the town. As for the date of this fortress, Hogarth felt

that it was most probably founded by Psammetichus I and later restored by Ptolemy Philadelphus I

(Hogarth 1898/99: 41-43). As to whether the Egyptian section of the town was already in existence

when the Greeks arrived at the site, and as to the date when that hallmark event took place, Hogarth noted that nothing in his work or that of Petrie and Gardner produced any Greek remains that must

be earlier than c. 570 B.C Also, since he did not think that Amasis would have allowed the Greeks

to settle on a site that did not already possess an Egyptian garrison, he believed that the fort (Great

Temenos) and the entire southern part of the city most probably dated to the reign of Psammeti?

chus I (Hogarth 1898/99: 45-46).

During the 1903 season, Hogarth's work in the northern part of the site was concentrated prima?

rily on the excavation of an extension (c. 35 m wide) eastward from the work that he had begun there

in 1899 (fig. 1.8). Here he encountered a north-south, mudbrick wall (feature #67) over 8 m wide

and c. 40 m long, parallel to the thick western wall (feature #34) that he had discovered during the

previous season. He identified this as the eastern wall of the Hellenion and, guided both by its

location "in the mud" and the dimensions of its bricks, he dated this new wall to the first period of

construction on the site (Hogarth, et al. 1905: 114). Within the protection afforded by this great wall,

two east-west series of "rooms" continued (approximately) the line of rooms discovered in 1899 (fea?

tures #10-11, #14-16, and #19-20), and Hogarth felt that this architecture could be dated to either

of two periods: an earlier group of rooms (features #57, #59, #61, #64, and #65) that belonged to the

early fifth century B.C, and a later group (features #10, #56, #58, #60, #62, and #63) that could be

assigned to a reconstruction (on a thick bed of sand) that had been carried out early in the Ptolemaic

period (Hogarth, et al. 1905: 114) just as had been done to the structures situated immediately to

the west. Such a tripartite relationship of material (Ptolemaic, above early fifth century, above that

of the earliest Greeks at the site c. 570 B.C.) was about as close to a real archaeological stratigraphy as was proposed by the early excavators at Naukratis (Hogarth, et al. 1905: 113, 115-16). In the

southern part of this area, the sebakhin had found the base of a ceramic vessel that bore an inscrip?

tion reconstructed as the name "Herodotus" (Hogarth, et al. 1905: 114 and 116: No. 6). Could this

have been left at the site by that famous visitor from Halicarnassos, one of the nine cities that joined

1997 A History ofthe Excavations at Naukratis!Kom Ge'if 15

Fig. 1.8. Hogarth's plan ofhis 1903 season of excavation in what he felt was the Hellenion ofthe ancient city mentioned by Herodotus (Hogarth 1905: 113, fig. 1).

their efforts to build what had been described as "the best known and . . . the largest" of all the temene

at Naukratis? Hogarth felt that it did (1905: 116, fig. 2, no. 6; Herodotus, The Histories 11.178).

Convinced that he had found the famous Hellenion of Herodotus, Hogarth then proceeded to

assign individual groups of rooms to specific divinities based on the findspots of inscribed sherds,

and he vaguely labeled his plan with their names: Dioscuri, Aphrodite, Herakles, Apollo (?), Arte?

mis, and the Gods of the Greeks (fig. 1.8; Hogarth, et al. 1905: 113, fig. I).32 The evidence for these


individual assignments, however, is often quite tenuous. For instance, the rationale behind the place? ment of the caption "Artemis?" across a c. 16m maze of architectural bits, appears to have been the

finding of a single, incomplete inscription that may bear the name of that goddess (1905: 112 and

117, no. 8). Likewise, the caption "Apollo?" occupied an even larger expanse of open space on the

plan (fig. 1.8). This area was assigned to the god on the basis of four sherds (with only a letter or two

each) that Hogarth himself did not consider "worthwhile to publish." Perhaps this was because they

had not been excavated by him but had been acquired from a group of children, who had found them

as they "raked over the rubbish heaps in the center of the site" (1905: 118).

In Hogarth's mind, therefore, the work of the 1903 season had proven without doubt that the

Hellenion of Herodotus had "nothing to do with Petrie's 'Great Temenos' at all . . . but rather was

to be found in another Temenos at the north end of the Mounds?in the Greek quarter, in fact not

the Egyptian" (Hogarth, et al. 1905: 110; and 1898/99: 42).

Because he had been unable to locate the northwestern corner of the Great Temenos on what he

described as the "somewhat roughly made" plans of Petrie, Hogarth was forced to attack the area in

a manner that might today seem more like military maneuvers than an archaeological excavation.

These included making "wide casts for it from various sides" and digging "a series of pits pushed up

from the north" (Hogarth, et al. 1905: 111). In spite of these efforts, not only was he unable to dis-

cover a corner of the temenos, but he could not find any walls greater in width than c. 5 m: a mere

third of what had been claimed by Petrie for the enclosure wall of the structure. Instead, he found

only a "much ruined complex of buildings," parts of which he described simply as having "the char-

acter of a dwelling house." The extensiveness of his digging in this area, combined with the paucity

of the architectural finds, however, finally forced Hogarth to conclude that

Mr. Petrie was mistaken in the nature of certain masses of construction, which exist on three sides of

the area called by him the "Great Temenos" and that these represent not a solid wall of brickwork, but an aggregate of house remains, piled up around a lower area, wherein lay the Egyptian temples and public buildings, of which one contained the Nectanebo Stela, and another was excavated by Mr. Petrie himself and regarded as a Greek fort. This area was, in fact, the central area of the town,

Pi-emro (Hogarth, et al. 1905: lll).36

Hogarth went on to conclude that not only was there

nothing answering to the Hellenion in this part of the mounds, but no Great Temenos at all. Probably there existed here 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 (Hogarth, et al. 1905: 112).

Having thus dispensed not only with the interpretation, but also with the very existence, of the

large structures published by Petrie as covering almost the entire southern third of the ancient city,

Hogarth was even more firmly convinced that the Hellenion of Herodotus should be equated with the

structure(s) that he had excavated in the northern part of the city.

As for the date of the earliest Greek settlement at Naukratis, Hogarth was less than completely

convinced by Petrie's and Gardner's seventh century B.C. hypothesis. In fact, he felt that their work

at the site had provided a "destructive contribution by urging the inconclusiveness of the archaeolog?

ical evidence" (1898/99: 45). Edgar, in particular, stressed the paucity of imports in that area, claim-

ing that "not a single scrap of early Greek pottery was to be found south of the Temple of Aphrodite"

(in Hogarth 1898/99: 48). He also contended that the hieroglyphically-challenged foreigners (i.e.

non-Egyptians) who had operated the scarab factory need not have been Greeks but, instead, he


preferred to identify them (mainly) as Phoenicians (1898/99: 48-49). This substitution of Phoeni?

cians for Greeks as the fabricants of the scarabs removed any need for a major Hellenic presence at

Naukratis prior to the reign of Amasis, by which time most scholars agreed that the factory had ceased

operation. The veracity of Herodotus' statements would seem to have been upheld.

Research Moves to the Library

Following Hogarth's final season of excavation at Naukratis, the discussion of the nature and date

of the initial Greek arrival at Naukratis moved from the field to the library. A succesion of scholars

mined the excavation reports for material to support a variety of views, and the pendulum swung back

and forth between the late seventh century B.C. (the reign of Psammetichus), and the first half of the

sixth century B.C. (the reign of Amasis) for the initial Greek presence at the site.

In 1908, H. Prinz published a very detailed examination of the (mostly ceramic) finds from the

four seasons of excavation at Naukratis in which he retained Petrie's identification of the Temenos of

Apollo and his Temenos of the Dioscuri, as well as Gardner's Temenos of Aphrodite and Temenos of

Hera, but he opted for Hogarth's northern location of the Hellenion, although he did not assign the

various architectural clusters to specific Greek divinities as Hogarth had done (1908: Taf. I). Prinz

concluded by defending Petrie's and Gardner's dating of the earliest Greek material (and hence their

initial arrival) at the site to the last decades of the seventh century B.C. (1908: 1?6).

The artifactual evidence was also emphasized in the work of E. R. Price who felt that by his day "the general concensus of archaeological opinion . . . had . . . completely veered round in favor of a

seventh century dating" (1924: 181). His method was to identify and isolate the specific styles of pot?

tery from Naukratis that were available to him in British collections. He then attempted to identify each pottery style with one of the individual cities named by Herodotus as having participated what

he considered to have been a "final reorganization" of Naukratis during the reign of Amasis (Price

1924: 180-81).

A more integrated approach was taken by E. Gjerstad (1934), who argued that both the literary evidence as well as the archaeological material were important and that both resources should be given

equal value in any study of the subject. In reviewing the literary evidence, Gjerstad dismissed all but

the two main literary sources, Herodotus and Strabo, and proceeded to reconcile the two reports by means of the following interpretation: The Milesians (as described by Strabo) founded a fortress at

the mouth of the Nile during the reign of Psammetichos and, at some later date, when Amasis al-

lowed the Greeks to settle at Naukratis, the Milesians (and the other groups of Greeks that were men?

tioned by Herodotus) sailed up the Nile and settled there. In such a view, no matter how early one

would date the founding of the town by Egyptians (as Pi-emro), the earliest Greek presence at the site

(as Naukratis) would have been during the reign of Amasis (Gjerstad 1934: 68-69).

In reviewing the archaeological evidence, Gjerstad began with the premise that the southern part of the site had been the Egyptian town/garrison of Pi-emro and that it had pre-dated the Greek

settlement in the northern part of the city (1934: 6). He then turned his attention to an examination

of the chronological evidence provided by the finds from the "Greek quarter" of the site, concentrat-

ing especially on the material from Petrie's Temenos of Apollo. Through painstaking correlations

he isolated four, successive temples (I through IV) within the Apollo temenos, each of which had

several sub-phases (1934: pl. X). Gjerstad then checked this "stratigraphy" by integrating a study of the individual pottery types and sculptural styles into the new architectural framework that he had


created. This exercise convinced him of the accuracy of his work, and he felt that one could do no

more than to assign a date for Apollo Temple I between 600 and 570 B.C, with a preference toward

the lower end of the scale. Such a date would support Herodotus' account of the arrival of the Greeks

during the reign of Amasis (Gjerstad 1934: 681-84).

In 1937, R. M. Cook felt that it was necessary to challenge the (then) widely-held view that

Naukratis had been founded in the middle of the seventh century B.C and that c. 565 B.C, at the be-

hest of strong nationalist elements in the Egyptian government, Amasis had founded or reorganized Naukratis in order to concentrate, and thereby control, the Greeks (1937: 227). In summarizing the

four years of excavation at the site, he had come to the conclusion that "no stratigraphy was possible"

thereby directly opposing Gjerstad's labors, which he dismissed simply as "an unsuccessful attempt to recover a useful stratigraphy" (1937: 228, n. 6; see also 1933/34: 86, n. 2). To Cook, it was the

pottery, not the architecture or the stratification, that would ultimately unravel the mystery of the

date of the founding of Naukratis. By the time that Cook wrote, knowledge of the development and

chronology of early Greek ceramics had advanced considerably. Especially relevant to the present

study was the appearance of Payne's Necrocorinthia (Payne 1931: esp. p. 25) Cook concluded that

the Greek settlement at Naukratis had been founded c. 615-610 B.C, after which it immediately became an important (East) Greek community (1937: 225). As for the actions taken by Amasis with

regards to the city, Cook felt that Herodotus had been too vague (and unreliable), concluding that

"it is not known what Amasis did at Naukratis; nor if he did anything, when it was . . . (that he did

it)" (Cook 1937: 236).

When Gjerstad returned to the controversy in 1959, an interesting reversal had occured. Knowl?

edge of Greek ceramics had advanced to the point where pottery was no longer dependent on the date

of the founding of Naukratis for its early chronology but could, itself, be used to contribute a date

for the initial Greek presence at that site (Gjerstad 1959: 159). In addition to a review of the archi?

tectural arguments offered in his earlier article (1934) and an assessment of the status of the dating of Greek pottery, Gjerstad also brought to this discussion his expertise in the Cypriote sculpture that

had been found at the site, especially those pieces found in association with the first phase of the Apollo

temple, which he dated near the beginning of the reign of Amasis (c. 570/65-555 B.C; 1959: 164).

Based on the archaeological (his reworking of Petrie's stratigraphy), artifactual (pottery and sculpture),

philological (the use of the omega), and literary (especially Herodotus), evidence he concluded that

the initial date of the Greek emporium at Naukratis could not have been earlier than c. 570 B.C

In 1970, M. M. Austin succinctly summarized the situation both past and present, "the contra-

dictions between the sources, between these and the archaeological evidence, and between the excava?

tors themselves, have created confusion in the whole discussion" (1970: 58, n. 3). His wide-ranging, but very detailed and well-documented examination of the literary and archaeological evidence for

the entire spectrum of relations between Greece and Egypt during the Archaic Period led him to the

following conclusions concerning the initial "establishment" of the Greeks at Naukratis. The only ancient literary source that deserved to be taken seriously was Herodotus. However, since the archae?

ological evidence (imported pottery) definitely indicated that there was a Greek presence at the site

in the latter years of the seventh century B.C, he must have "compressed around the figure of Amasis

different stages of the growth of Naukratis" (Austin 1970: 23, 24 [quote], and 32). He felt strongly that the Greek quarter was in the northern section of the city, physically separate and distinct from the

Egyptian quarter, the latter being identified by the massive brick fortress built to "overawe" the Greek

foreigners that Petrie had identified as his Great Temenos (1970: 28).

1997 A History ofthe Excavations at Naukratis fKom Ge'if 19

In 1980, as the first field season of the present project was going into the field, the revised edition

of Boardman's indispensible The Greeks Overseas was published. This volume not only showed how

much our knowledge had increased since the book originally appeared in 1964, but it also demon-

strated how far we had come in interpreting the remains first uncovered at Naukratis by Petrie almost

a century earlier. Boardman assumed a two-part settlement at ancient Naukratis. At the southern end

was the Petrie's Great Temenos, which (following von Bissing) might have been an Egyptian store?

house dating to the end of the seventh century B.C. To the north was the Greek enclave with their

temples, temene and imported pottery that proved their presence at the site at least by 620 B.C and

perhaps as early as 640 B.C. As for the location of the elusive Hellenion, Boardman (following

Hogarth) placed it the northern (i.e. Greek) section of the city, tentatively suggesting that it was part

of a reorganization of the status of the city carried out during the reign of Amasis (1980: 119-20).

Although the excavations of Petrie, Gardner and Hogarth had been carried out with the best of

intentions and according to the best archaeological method of their day, it had, nevertheless, left

many questions unanswered, questions that could not be solved by the library research of Prinz, Price,

von Bissing, Gjerstad, Cook, and so many others. Boardman's reanalysis of the earlier work had

brought this phase of the investigation about as far as it could go. In addition to such basic question as when, and in what capacity the Greeks had first arrived at

Naukratis, many other important questions remained. By focusing so much of their energies on the

religious structures, the earlier excavators had examined little of the domestic sector and almost none

of the commercial quarter. Consequently, our knowledge of the mercantile character of ancient

Naukratis, the very facet of its early history that made it unique, was sparse at best. Furthermore,

almost all effort had been concentrated on the archaic city to the neglect (and almost total exclusion)

of the later Hellenistic and Roman periods. It had been obvious for decades that the major impediment to our ability to understand the

emporium at Naukratis was the lack of a true stratigraphic sequence for the site. Such a sequence offered to provide answers to such crucial chronological questions as the exact date of the Greek foun?

dations, and also elucidate the later history of the city through Hellenistic and Roman times, as well

as its final abandonment or destruction. As has been demonstrated, a century of library-based at-

tempts to reconstruct a stratigraphy by appealing to the notes and publications of the earlier excava?

tors had reached its limits. It was felt that further information could be derived only through further

fieldwork.

The Naukratis Project: 1977-1978 and 1980-1983 51

Actually, as early as 1937, Cook had called attention to the need for additional fieldwork at

Naukratis and its environs, when he wrote that

the future lies with the archaeologists . . . A careful survey of the Delta, if it is possible, might decide

whether there were other Greek settlements besides Naukratis and Tell Defenneh, and if so, when they flourished. Perhaps more work could be done at Naukratis; certainly more could be done on the finds from Naukratis. But Egypt is remote for Hellenic specialists, and Egyptologists not unnaturally neglect Greek intrusions in the late Saite period (Cook 1937: 236).

It was with the hope that renewed fieldwork would be able to answer some of the many ques? tions still extant concerning Naukratis (Kom Ge'if) and its early history, as well as with a view to-

wards fulfilling at least some of Cook's suggestions, that the present Naukratis Project was conceived.

The field strategy was simple: to combine the "vertical" control offered by renewed excavation at


Naukratis with information that would be derived "horizontally" from a pedestrian survey of its en-

virons. It was felt that through a program of excavation following strict stratigraphical principles at Naukratis, the site in the area that was best-known historically and archaeologically, it would be

possible to develop a chronological yardstick by which the lesser known and yet-to-be-discovered sites

in the area could be integrated into a history of cultural development in this segment of the western

Nile Delta. After the initial 1977-1978 season, the survey was directed by W. D. E. Coulson and the

excavation at Kom Ge'if and Kom Hadid was directed by the present author.

The 1977-1978 Season

The co-directors of the project made an initial visit to Kom Ge'if during the winter of 1977-

1978, in order conduct a brief survey and to arrange the necessary logistical matters for the renewed

excavation at Naukratis and extended survey work in its environs.

The destruction that has taken place at Naukratis and neighboring west Delta sites over the

century since Petrie's day has truly been phenomenal. Contrary to the most recently published de?

scription of Naukratis that the site was covered by low vegetation (Shenouda 1976: 609-10), when

we began our work, we found that the area of the early excavations was actually completely under wa?

ter (fig. 1.9). The rapid increase in the water table of the Delta, the high rainfall during the winter

months, and the presence of a small canal nearby had all combined to turn the area into a lake, said

by the villagers to be about 5 m deep. It was both obvious and disheartening that the presence of this

lake would preclude any re-examination of the early sanctuaries and temene so important for an un?

derstanding of the previous excavation and scholarship. However, to the south of the lake, a large

c. 100 x 50 m mound still stood to a height of c. 5 m above the streets of the modern village of Kom

Ge'if. Rough calculations, equating the modern lake with the excavation area of Petrie and Hogarth,

suggested that this mound was located within the area of Petrie's Great Temenos (fig. 1.10). A brief

examination of the summit of the mound (referred to hereafter as the South Mound) produced a

varied assemblage of potsherds (mostly Ptolemaic in date), while a close inspection of the sides of the

mound revealed that the sebakhin, digging along its western face, had exposed sections of contiguous

mudbrick walling. The South Mound, therefore, was the most obvious area for excavation in our

renewed investigation of the ancient emporium of Naukratis.

Supporting the case that the South Mound was the most promising area for excavation was the

fact that it was still capped by traces of what appeared to be a relatively recent cemetery that local

residents told us had gone out of use at the end of the last century. It was possible that this cemetery

was part of the (then) "modern" cemetery described by Petrie as overlying the archaeological deposits

that he had utilized in developing his interpretation of the Great Temenos (Coulson and Leonard

1979: 154). Petrie had given the impression that he had excavated this cemetery totally (after the

contents of the graves were removed by the families involved), but Hogarth had used a cemetery

mound in this area to guide him during his attempts to find the northwestern corner of Petrie's Great

Temenos (Petrie 1886: 34).56

For these reasons, the South Mound at Kom Ge'if became the area in which we hoped to develop

the stratigraphy-based corpus of ceramics that would form the backbone of our excavation and sur?

vey strategies. Regrettably, the opportunity to reexamine the temples and temene in the northern part

of the city had been lost when the lake had formed, but it appeared that we would be able to ex-

amine Petrie's Great Temenos, the enigmatic structure that both he and Gardner believed should be

equated with the Hellenion described by Herodotus.


KOM GEIF

(Naukratis]

Fig. 1.9. Photomosaic of present-day Naukratis and its envirions with the lake

formed in the depression of the earlier excavations. Kom

Ge'if and the South Mound are visible at the bottom of the photograph (composite balloon photos by G. W.

Johnson in Coulson and Leonard 1981a: pl. 4).


Cemetery^ll^N

Fig. 1.10. Composite drawing indi?

cating the approximate relation of the modern topography to the struc? tures found by the earlier excavators

(G. W. Johnson in Coulson, Leonard and Wilke 1982: fig. 5). TOO 200m

The 1980 Season

As we began our initial season of excavation, our understanding of the form and function of the

architecture previously uncovered at the southern end of the ancient city was hampered by the exist?

ence of two diametrically opposed (and mutually exclusive) hypotheses, both of which had been based

on actual excavation. Petrie and Gardner felt that the structure represented the Hellenion, a massive

Greek structure intended to function as a storehouse, a place of assembly, and (if neccessary) a place of refuge. Hogarth, on the other hand, believed that it was a local Egyptian fortress that had been

built and utilized by an Egyptian garrison whose mission was to keep an eye on the actions of the

Greeks at the northern end of the city. Adding to the confusion over the nature of the architectural

remains was the problem of chronology. Was this structure built during the reign of Psammetichus I,

that of Amasis, or as late as the Ptolemaic period? The initial goal of the excavations in the South

Mound, therefore, was an attempt to solve this century-old question by establishing a stratigraphy-

based, ceramic profile of the history of the site.


As the memory of the cemetery on the South Mound had faded from the minds of the local

villagers, the western flanks of the mound had been encroached upon continually by the modern dirt

road from Kom Ge'if to Abu Meshfa, cutting deeply into the archaeological soils that lay stratigraph-

ically beneath the level of the cemetery. Visual inspection of the mound during the 1977-1978 season

had suggested the presence there of an accessible sequence of archaeological strata. Given the "tell-

like" nature of these remains, the site made an ideal candidate for a modified "Wheeler-Kenyon" (or

"balk/debris") method of excavation such as that utilized at other sites in the east to unravel similar

stratigraphic situations.

Because the stratigraphy of Naukratis had been debated for almost a century when we began our

work, the purpose of our first season of excavation was to present the maximum vertical exposure of the archaeological soils that were still extant at this important site. Accordingly, during the 1980

season, we tested the "pre-cemetery" strata of the South Mound by laying out two small probes, our

Areas 1 and 2 below the western flanks of the mound in what was then termed Field I (figs. 1.11 and

1.12). This area had been cut by the dirt road that runs northward, around the lake formed in the

depression left by the excavations of Petrie, Gardner and Hogarth. These two probes were excavated

to a depth of almost 3 m at which point ground water was encountered. Between the level of the

dirt road and the present water table, however, mudbrick walls of three architectural strata were

identified and correlated in both squares. These mudbrick structures at times incorporated parts of

existing walls and at other times were built upon large pottery-rich fills for leveling the area prior to new construction. The pottery from these strata was remarkably homogeneous, consisting of

bowls with incurved rims, bowls with carinated profiles, and a variety of cooking pots and "casseroles"

with internal lid devices. All of these types appeared consistently throughout the individual loci, and

all can find suitable parallels in the Ptolemaic cemeteries of Alexandria as well as in contemporary Cl

"Hellenistic" deposits in Greece and Syria-Palestine. The two small 1980 sondages defined the

vertical extent of the retrievable remains, but equally important was the fact that our program of

(balloon) photogrammetric mapping confirmed our original "rough" calculations that the present South Mound (and hence the two soundings) were located within the walls of Petrie's Great Temenos

(fig. i.io).

In addition to the South Mound, our initial inspection of the Kom Ge'if area during the winter

of 1977-1978, indicated a second area of ancient Naukratis, our Field II (fig. 1.13), that invited

further investigation since it seemed to have escaped the ravages of time and the sebakhin. It was sit-

uated along the western shores of the lake, between it and another modern cemetery, adjacent to fields

where earlier survey work had produced a large collection of local potsherds. This area also seemed

to be somewhat near the area where Petrie located a "Slag Heap" on his plan of the site (here, compare

figs. 1.2 and 1.13). The lower water level of the lake during the summer months had exposed an

irregular band of white material along the lakeshore in this area, possibly offering us a further glimpse of the purported lime-slaking operation. Therefore when ground water was reached in Field I towards

the end of the 1980 season we transferred personnel to begin a small probe in Field II. In a single, small (2.0 x 2.0 m) sounding, the band of white material was reached at a depth of less than 30 cm,

before any sealed deposits had been reached (Leonard in Coulson and Leonard 1981a: 20). Unfortu?

nately, this white material turned out to consist of burnt organic matter (ash) rather than the mineral

by-product recorded by Petrie, and ground water was reached c. 20 cm below the ash level without

the probe ever having encountered a sealed deposit. The pottery associated with these (admittedly

open) loci, however, displayed the same range of Ptolemaic domestic fabrics and shapes as had been


Fig. 1.11. Balloon photograph showing Areas 1 and 2 of the (1980) excavations in the South Mound (G. W. Johnson in Coulson and Leonard 1981a: pl. 46> fig. 2).

Fig. 1.12. Plan ofthe South Mound showing individual excavation areas (G. W Johnson and C. Johnson-Romy).


Fig. 1.13. Plan of Naukratis showing the loca?

tion of the 1980 excavation Fields I and II

(G W. Johnson in Coulson and Leonard

1981a: 34, fig. 3).

KOM 6EIF

(Naukratis)

200m

found during the excavations in Field I (the South Mound). Noteworthy from this small sounding

was the intact brazier (fig. 7.8; Coulson and Leonard 1981a: fig. 13B:1), with an almost exact parallel

from Tell Defenneh in levels assigned by Petrie to the end of the sixth century B.C (1890: 63, 67,

No. 77). The date of this brazier offered the possibility that pre-Ptolemaic levels might still be acces-

sible somewhere on the site, but the presence of ground water so close to the surface in Field II forced

us to abandon excavation in this area after slightly more than one week.

The third area explored during the 1980 season was the low, 50 x 75 m mound known locally

as Kom Hadid, or "Mound of Iron" (figs. 1.10 and 1.13), that is situated just to the east of the earlier

excavations, c. 400 m northeast of the South Mound (Coulson and Leonard 1981a: 48). Petrie had

noted "slag" heaps 2.50 to 3.0 m high in this area, some of which were in direct association with

what he termed "frescoed Roman brickwork" (Petrie 1886: 10). Neither the slag nor the frescoed


brickwork was discernible in 1980, but the surface of Kom Hadid was covered with potsherds and vitrified mudbrick fragments that were identified as the waste products from a pottery kiln

by Dr. George Rapp (see Coulson and Leonard 1982e: 86 n. 30). If this was the material recorded as

"slag" by Petrie, then excavation might reveal an area of pottery manufacture that would be most

helpful for our understanding of the (surprisingly little known) industrial facet of life at ancient

Naukratis. Accordingly, plans were made to excavate Kom Hadid in a subsequent season.

The 1981 Season

Excavation in the South Mound during the 1981 season attempted to complement the vertical

stratigraphy of the Ptolemaic building levels identified in the 1980 soundings by providing the hori?

zontal exposure necessary to understand the nature and function of the architecture (Coulson and

Leonard 1982b: 367-71). To this end, a grid of (4.0 x 4.0 m) squares was laid out directly above

and immediately to the east of the two small soundings of 1980 (fig. 1.12), and this part of the

mound became known as the Northwest Area. Five squares (Areas 482, 490, 491, 492, and 502) were

partially excavated and began to produce at least three interior rooms of a mudbrick-walled building. The shape and fabric of the ceramic material recovered from the structure closely paralleled that from

the deeper, 1980 soundings, while the proposed Ptolemaic date was supported by the discovery of a

bronze coin of Ptolemy III found within a laminated surface in one of the rooms.

As work in the Northwest Area was progressing, two (4.0 x 4.0 m) squares, Areas 12 and 15,

were opened on a lower terrace at the southeastern edge of the mound in what then became known

as the the Southeast Area (fig. 1.12). This was done in order to determine the lateral extent of the

Ptolemaic building remains at the southern end of the ancient city and, more hopefully, in an attempt to reach below them into the earlier levels of the site.

Each of these two squares (Areas 12 and 15) exhibited the same basic stratigraphy: the severely disturbed remains of the post-Ptolemaic cemetery immediately below the surface, below which was

a series of intact burials (of seemingly similar date) that cut into, or were built upon, a thick layer of

mudbrick detritus from the wall (Locus 1254/1565) of a substantial mudbrick structure whose foun?

dations are well below the present level of ground water.

The lower stratum of intact burials consisted predominantly of children who lay on their right sides with their heads to the east. Sophistication in burial type varied widely from simple, disarticu-

lated clusters of bones dug into layers of wind-borne sediment and mudbrick detritus, to fairly sub?

stantial tombs constructed of mudbrick (and occasionally) fired-brick. These tombs were separated from the large wall of the earlier structure below by a series of loci that represent the collapse and sub?

sequent erosion of the upper parts of that building. Neither the northern nor southern face of this

wall could be excavated because of the tight superimposition of the later tombs, but the wall 1254/

1565 had a minimum width of 3 m and it ran through both squares for a minimum distance of 19 m

without showing any evidence of cornering. The wall was excavated to a height of over 1 m, but its

true preserved height could not be obtained since water began to pour into the excavation and forced

excavation in this area to be concluded.

The disturbance inflicted on the Southeast Area by (at least) two phases of burials had been enor-

mous, and none of the debris loci could honestly be considered to have been sealed/closed deposits. The pottery from these loci, however, was all of Ptolemaic date. These small pieces of ceramic inclu?

sions were often frequent in the mudbricks of the wall itself, but unfortunately these bits were usually


morphologically non-diagnostic. Vessel forms that could be determined, as well as the fabric of many of these small fragments, agree with the other Ptolemaic pottery from the site and suggest that this

large building was also Ptolemaic in date. Granted this is an argument ex silentio, but, because nothing was found that must either predate or postdate the Ptolemaic Period, it is a strong one.

As the workspace in Areas 12 and 15 became clogged with the slow and tedious excavation of the

later burials and, in an attempt to find a portion of the South Mound that was not covered with these

seemingly ubiquitous tombs, two 4.0 x 4.0 m squares, Areas 66 and 88, were opened in what then

became known as the Northeast Area of the South Mound (fig. 1.12). Unfortunately, in about a week

both of the new squares exhibited balk-to-balk tombs.

Although slow and painfully frustrating, further excavation had been planned for the Ptolemaic

architecture in Areas 12 and 15, as well as the recently opened Areas 66 and 88. Unfortunately, the

articulation, photographic recording, and removal of the skeletons so disturbed the local villagers that

mid-way through the 1981 season we were prohibited from continuing excavation in these two areas

(Northeast and Southeast) of the mound. Subsequently we shifted the focus of our work to the base

of the northern limits of the South Mound (Areas 315 and 316) where deep cuttings made by local

farmers and brick-makers had reduced the area to a level below the cemetery that we wished to avoid

(fig. 1.12). This North Area appeared finally to offer the opportunity to test archaeological strata at

approximately the same absolute level as the structure indicated by massive Wall 1254/1565 in the

Southeast Area, but without the overburden of the later cemetery.

After the initial clearing and cleaning of the North Area, the recent cuts of the villagers were

regularized into a continuous nine meter balk running east-west, to the north of which two 4.0 x

4.0 m squares, Area 315 to the east and Area 316 to the west, were laid out between the northern edge of the mound and a small pathway. These two squares produced two stratigraphicall'y distinct

archaeological phases: an upper statum that could be correlated in both squares and a lower stratum that

was observable only in Area 316 (Coulson and Leonard 1981b: 42-44). Both strata dated to the Ptole?

maic Period. Excavation in these areas was terminated when ground water was reached (c. 4.0 m ASL).

In summary, the 1981 season of excavations, however, did begin to present a good indication of

the scale of the building program conducted at the site by the Ptolemaic architects, with the multi-

room architecture in the Northwest and North Areas, and the tantalizingly massive structure of

which Wall 1254/1565 formed a part in the Southeast Area. Unfortunately the season also raised

serious questions about the veracity of Petrie's description(s) of his work at the site. These questions

were stimulated by the presence of the extensive cemetery on the surface of the South Mound which,

according to the local villagers, had gone out of use very early in the present century. Petrie, however,

claimed to have financed the transfer of the remains from a cemetery in this same area in order to

allow him to expand his digging, and elucidate the plan of the Great Temenos (Petrie 1886: 34). The

series of empty and disturbed tombs just below the surface of the South Mound at first appeared to

confirm at least a portion of Petrie's statements, and offered the hope of reinvestigating the massive,

pre-Ptolemaic structure(s) cleared by him in 1884. The presence of the layer of intact tombs, how?

ever, east considerable doubt on his claim that he had removed the cemetery in order to dig below it,

a statement of which even Hogarth had been skeptical since he had utilized a cemetery in this area

when he attempted to relocate Petrie's Great Temenos in 1903. This would seem to support some

of the doubts raised by Hogarth as to just how much of the southern portion of the site was actually

excavated by his famous predecesor (1905: 111-12).


The 1982 Season

Because the 1982 season was the final (full) digging season in the South Mound, primary at?

tention was given to two operations. The first was the creation of a vertical (connection) between the

architecture uncovered in the Northwest Area during the 1980 and 1981 seasons and the correlation

of the phasing and date of these structures. The second was an attempt to gain some understanding

of what lay below the present water table through a program of core drilling.

Connecting the stratigraphy of the previous (1980 and 1981) seasons was achieved by continued

excavation in Area 492 (fig. 1.12), which is actually the eastern two-thirds of Area 1 that had been

dug in 1980, but at a higher level on the mound. Through this work, the western face of north-

south Wall 49204 (fig. 2.4) was shown to be the same wall as Wall 1007 whose eastern side had been

visible above the 1980 sounding, and the lowest course of which, although unexcavated, was in?

cluded in the section drawings of that season (Coulson and Leonard 1981a: 37, fig. 6). This wall

(49204/1007) had been founded on a layer of debris, the ceramic hallmark of which was the Ptole?

maic domestic wares that had been ubiquitous throughout the excavations of the South Mound.

These architectural correlations, coupled with subsequent excavation in Area 491 and the opening of

Area 490 to the east (fig. 1.12), were to demonstrate almost six continuous meters of Ptolemaic

"occupation" between the level of the present water table and the "modern" cemetery that caps the

South Mound. Of the ten architectural phases (or sub-phases) that were isolated, at least five could

be shown to be multi-room structures (see below).

Testing below the present water table was achieved by a program of core-drilling that was con?

ducted by Dr. John Gifford, then of the Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Minnesota-Duluth

(Coulson and Leonard 1982c: 44-45). The drill site in the South Mound was in Area 316 (marked

"C" on (fig. 1.10; pls. 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8) a square that had been excavated down to ground water (at

c. 4.0 m ASL) during the 1981 season (Coulson and Leonard 1981b: 42-44). This area had been

backfilled (over plastic sheeting) after the water was encountered; and, although the area had suffered

considerable damage at the hands of the sebakhin during the winter of 1981-1982, the plastic and the

original south balk of the square were easily relocated. This enabled the stratigaphical profile pro?

duced from the (4.60 m deep) core to be added (on paper) below the stratigraphic sequence that had

been determined by conventional methods of excavation in the square.

Sherds and "micro-sherds" were among the inclusions found in the various soil matrices above

sea level in the core, but none of these sherds appeared, by their fabrics, to have been any different

from the Ptolemaic repertoire of pottery previously encountered during excavation on the mound.

Ceramic inclusions abruptly ceased to appear in the core at sea level where a layer of grayish, silty

mud was encountered. The soil became sandier below this and was still being described by the

project's geologist as "muddy coarse sand" when the operation was terminated at c. 4.60 m below sea

level. Such muddy, coarse sand is said to be indicative of a large, moving body of water, and this

would suggest that the Canopic branch of the Nile, or a substantial relative of it, may once have

flowed through the area presently occupied by the South Mound.

Summary

Because of the tremendous destruction inflicted by the sebakhin upon the mound at Kom Ge'if,

the work of the Naukratis Project was restricted to an examination of the area called the South

Mound. Comparisons between the maps and plans made by the earlier excavators and those produced


by our own program of photogrammetric (balloon) mapping suggested that this mound preserved a

section of the southern end of the ancient city of Naukratis, in particular the area that Petrie termed

the "Great Temenos" and which he identifed as the sixth century B.C "Hellenion" described by Hero?

dotus. Although Petrie admitted to having "no exact means of dating" this great structure, he rea-

soned that since this was the structure described by Herodotus, that it should be dated to the "earlier

part of the XXVIth dynasty" (Petrie 1886: 6). To bolster this hypothesis, Petrie utilized what he con?

sidered to have been "the most distinctive evidence" of the structure's age, the comparative dimen?

sions of its mudbricks, for which he believed that he had developed a chronological yardstick (Petrie

1886: 6). In this regard it should be remembered that none of the early Greek imports, so prevalent in the northern part of the city, were ever claimed to have been found in connection with the Great

Temenos (Hogarth 1898/99: 41).

If Petrie's evidence for the dating of the initial phase of the structure was tenuous, his evi?

dence for the extensive Ptolemaic repairs (said to have been begun during the reign of Ptolemy II

Philadelphus) was slightly more definite in that to the comparative size of the mudbricks he added

four groups of objects, which he considered to represent foundation deposits. Whether or not these

groups of objects were actual foundation deposits is a matter of interpretation, but it should be noted

that this was the first time that Petrie utilized artifactual evidence for the dating of the structure

(Petrie 1886: 28-30). In sum, Petrie viewed the remains in the southern end of the city as the Hel?

lenion described by Herodotus: a building that was founded in the "Archaic Greek" period and sub-

sequently repaired and embellished during Ptolemaic times.

While Petrie saw a chronological sequence in the remains at the southern end of the city,

Hogarth, after his own excavations in the area, viewed the situation in ethnic, racial, or perhaps even

ethnographic terms. To Hogarth, these remains indicated the presence of an Egyptian garrison (Pi-

emro of the Nectanebo Stela) "situated far from the region where Greek things are found" (see also

Hogarth 1898/99: 48; and 1905: 106-8). To Hogarth, Petrie's Great Temenos was an Egyptian build?

ing that had been strategically positioned in order to keep a watchful eye on the unpredictable (and

potentially unruly) conclave of foreigners in the northern end of the town. In fact it appears that

the only reason that Hogarth believed that the basal levels in this area were "as old as Amasis" was

his conviction that the Egyptians would never have left the (Archaic) Greeks to their own devices in

the heart of the western Delta.

In addition to the lack of "Greek things" in the southern part of the ancient city, Hogarth also

quoted "the invariable distinction of populations by race or faith into separate self-contained quarter in eastern towns" (1898/99: 43). It is this claimed ethnic division that may provide the potential

key to the nature and date of the architecture that was actually found in this area. Hogarth's definition of "local" or "Egyptian" appears to rely primarily on the absence of things that are Greek,

specifically the richly decorated, early Greek pottery that was the high point of the excavations at the

northern end of the site. If, however, we read "Ptolemaic" for Hogarth's "local" or "Egyptian"?and the vast majority of the Ptolemaic ceramics are drab, monochrome vessels executed in local or Delta

clays?we might be able to integrate the results of his work with those of the present project. Such a

hypothesis would be strengthened by Hogarth's consideration that the fourth century B.C Nectanebo

Stela belonged to one of the buildings identified by Petrie as the "Great Temenos."

It was Hogarth's contention (after his second season of excavations at the site) that not only was there "nothing answering to the Hellenion in this part of the mound, but no Great Temenos at

all" (Hogarth, et al. 1905: 111). Such a conclusion is admittedly harsh, but it should be noted that


nowhere in his excavations of the southern end of the city of Naukratis could Hogarth find any walls

that were more than a third of the thickness claimed by Petrie for his Great Temenos. In fact, the walls

that Hogarth did uncover appeared to him to have the "character of a dwelling house" (1905: 111).

With the possible exception of Wall 1254/1565 in the Southeastern Area this is basically what the

Naukratis Project excavations have revealed. Throughout the contiguous 6 m of vertical deposit in the

South Mound, nothing was encountered that either pre-dated or post-dated the Ptolemaic Period.

The case is further strengthened by the microsherds from Core "C" in Area 316,70 which added

another 4.60 m to our "stratigraphy" in which nothing was noted that was demonstrably not Ptole?

maic. Such artifactual evidence greatly supports the views of Hogarth (against those of Petrie and

Gardner) concerning the nature and date of the architecture in the southern end of the ancient city of Naukratis.71

Notes

The following text is based partially on sections written

by the author that were included in Coulson and Leonard

(1982b), and Coulson, Leonard, and Wilke (1982). Specific references have been offered for those points that are most

germane to the author's excavations at Kom Ge'if and Kom Hadid. In addition, those interested in the site of ancient Naukratis will find the information presented in the rele? vant sections of Bernand (1970), Loyd (1975; 1988), Braun

(1982), and Bowden (1990) to be of tremendous value. Absolute Egyptian dates not credited specifically to

individual authors are from Trigger, et al. (1985: 281, Table

4.1). These are well-summarized and discussed by Austin

(1970: 22-23, and 58-59). 4Not marked on Petrie's site plan (1886: pl. XL; fig. 1.2

here). See below, and Boardman (1980: 126-28). Both of these architectural elements were later destroyed.

The column base was smashed after Petrie was allowed to take a photo (evidently unpublished) of it; the piece with the re? mains of the volute was destroyed while Petrie was on his way to get his camera to take the photograph of the column base

(Petrie 1886: 13). This resulted in a trench almost 40 m long. The wall,

shown in the northern part of the temenos on Petrie (1886:

pl. XLI), is equated with the western wall of the first temple of Apollo and, evidently by extension, was also part of the second temple (Petrie 1886: 12).

Petrie went on to claim that "there is no way of work-

ing so satisfactory for an area of importance as turning over every ounce of soil and placing it on the ground al?

ready cleared; working with a straight trench across the site, wide enough to prevent any confusion, and to show the undisturbed native soil plainly at the bottom of it." (Petrie 1886: 12).

This area is Petrie's famous "trench with bowls"

(1886: 11, pl. XLIV), which was frequently referred to by subsequent writers in attempting to support a variety of

hypotheses.

Petrie noted that the maximum dimensions of the build?

ing were "c. 25 x 50 feet (or perhaps only two-thirds of that

size)" due to the necessity of fitting the building around a series of "early" wells in the area, and making this agree with his stratigraphical yardstick for the site: the "trench with bowls" (Petrie 1886: 12).

The fragments of architecture from Temple I are illus? trated on pls. III and XIV (top). Note that the volutes on the

capital (dotted in the drawing) are conjectural, although a

fragment of a volute was found (but not illustrated), as Petrie tells us "by Arabs digging in the site, before I was aware of

any temple existing there" (Petrie 1886: 13). The architec? tural fragments for Temple 2 are shown on pl. XIV bottom. For the sculpture from both phases, see Smith (1892: 62-

64); on the decoration itself, see Lawrence (1983: 171, n. 19, 388).

Petrie (1886: 16-17), but not recorded on his plans. It does appear in Gardner (1888: pl. IV).

Fragments of limestone slabs were encountered during our excavations in Loci 49116 (NW Phase 8a or NW Hia? tus A), 49148 (NW Phase 9a), 49024 (NW Hiatus A), 31608 (N 3), and 31512 (N 2), but no connection with these events described by Petrie could be made.

When found, the rams were missing their heads and limbs, but the pair was still estimated to weigh a half-ton.

They were reburied after a photo (unpublished) was taken of one of them. Evidently found in association with these pieces was an inscribed base for a third ram (pl. XXX). Another stone sphinx figure and two other stone bases were found by Hogarth during his 1903 season (1905: 122), but their sizes are not recorded.

A brief but tantalizing reference was made also to "Roman buildings" that were found within the temenos to the west of the "great chambers" (1886: 34).

The present project did not find any traces of lime-

slaking activity at Naukratis, although a tremendous amount of ceramic kiln waste was found in both our survey and our excavations.

1997 A History ofthe Excavations at Naukratis/Kom Ge'if 31

For the later history of Naukratis, see Hogarth, et al.

(1905: 109-10), and Sullivan (1981: 16). For our experiences here, see below especially the exca?

vations in the North Area (squares 66 and 88) and South Area (squares 12 and 15).

For the timing of Petrie and Griffith's departure see Gardner (1888: 14). Except for Smith's help with the exca? vations in the cemetery, Gardner was alone for most of the season and was forced to rely heavily on "contract work"

(1888: 14). Some of these workers appear to have been dig? ging "by the meter" (1888: 18).

It is not clear why Gardner stated that the temple faced westward "as might be expected in a temple dedicated to

heroes, and not to a god" (Gardner 1888: 11), since Petrie oriented the neighboring temple to Apollo toward the west because of a pattern of rubbish distribution, and the fact that he felt that the canal (and hence the entry to the town) had been on the west (Petrie 1886: 12). Gardner does, however,

try to differentiate between buildings for gods and those for

demi-gods (1888: 31). Gardner did add a note of caution against the very

existence of the eastern wall, stating that it may have been

placed on the plan on pl. I "by a mistake" (1888: 30). That wall was not included on the plan of the temple on his pl. IV

A few months later, the foundations of a small, rectan?

gular building were detected in the northeastern portion of this enclosure and, although scantily preserved and only briefly described, they led Gardner to believe that the temple had originally been of stone and that all but "one or two

insignificant fragments . . . had been carried ofF' (1888: 13, 60-61).

About 30 m to the south of this structure, in line with, but at a slightly higher level than, its eastern wall, were found the remains of two pillars with small stretches of plas? ter flooring between them. Unfortunately they were simply too detached from the stratigraphy of the surrounding area to allow Gardner to offer any further comments on them

(1888:61). The difference of about 50 cm between the absolute

levels of the two temples was attributed to "accident" given the great distance (a quarter of a mile) between the two struc? tures. Evidently, in spite of its early date, Gardner did not believe that this temple was the same temple to Aphrodite that was mentioned by Athenaeus as already existing at Naukratis during the time of the 23rd Olympiad (688 B.C.) (1888: 34).

Not only did the wide-spread scattering of the mate? rial suggest this to Gardner, but he also detected signs of intentional breakage on the terracotta figurines as if the

damage had been done "by some enemy not only of the

Greeks, but also of their religion" (i.e. the Persians) (1888: 55).

Nor was the size of this sculpture reported. It must have been quite large, since Gardner mentioned that it re-

quired six or seven men to lift one of the fragments (1888: 14). None of the villagers during our tenure at the site had

any memory of such a sculpture nor did the Museum au- thorities in either Alexandria or Cairo.

A red granite sphinx and three (?) marble rams were found in this general area by Petrie (1886: 27-28 and "note" pre? ceding p. 1). See also Hogarth (1905: 122).

The various bits of their case are sumarized and pre? sented well in (1888: 71-72). Boardman (1967: 241) stated the point quite succinctly, "In the sixth century there was also a Greek factory at Naukratis whose products can be

distinguished by their fabric as well as their technique." 25 Petrie quoted by Gardner (1888: 72). See also Hogarth

1898/99: 48. Yet in 1904, Petrie could write that the pottery

demonstrated that Naukratis dated from the middle of the seventh century B.C, which agreed with the statement by Athenaeus that a "statue" had been dedicated there in the 23d Olympiad, or 688 B.c. (1904: 143).

One must also be careful when comparing the plan from Hogarth's 1889 season (fig. 1.7; Hogarth 1898/99:

pl. III), with that from his 1903 season (fig. 1.8; Hogarth, et al. 1905: fig. 1 [p. 113]. Both plans label the (40 x 40

foot) grid-squares from "A" through "G" (from north to

south) across the top; but the 1898/99 plan labels the

squares from "1" though "5" (from east to west) down the

side, while the 1903 plan of the extended excavations of that

year label the squares from "VIII" through "I" (from east to west) down the side. Compare, for instance, feature #37 in Square "Gl" on Hogarth 1898/99: pl. III with the same feature's appearance in Square "GV" on Hogarth, et al.

(1905: fig. 1.) Hogarth's oblique reference to a grid change during the 1903 season (1905: 112-13), is insufficient to

clarify the situation. To minimize confusion, one should also note that the

(200 x 200 foot) grid on the larger site-plan of the 1899 excavations (fig. 1.6; Hogarth 1898/99: pl. II) reverses the scheme used for the northern area in the same volume

(pl. III) and labels the squares by number (1 through 13) across (north to south) the top, and by letter (A through G)

along the (east to west) side. This causes difficulty when

attempting to identify, for instance, "the wall fragments in I.e" or the "parallel dividing c and d" when reference to the

specific plan is not provided (both: Hogarth 1898/99: 29). Note also that in the text of the earlier excavation report, Hogarth often substituted Roman numerals for Arabic numerals: inter alia, "east of this point (43), and beyond the cross wall (III.d. top) . . ." must certainly refer to the square numbered "3d" on the site plan (Hogarth 1898/99: pl. II) where a stub of walling with that number is recorded, and not to square "3d" on the excavation plan in the same vol? ume (pl. III) which is in actuality about 100 m away (in Square Gl). Furthering the confusion is the fact that the latter (and incorrect) area "3d" is approximately the same area that was labeled "Illd" in the plan of the 1903 season


(Hogarth, et al. 1905: 113, fig. 1) written after the earlier

article had been published! The thick, north-south section of walling associated

with feature #34 (Hogarth 1898/99: pl. III), and near which Hogarth added the caption "Dioscuri" to the plan after the 1903 season (Hogarth, et al. 1905: fig. 1), should not be confused with the eastern wall of Gardner's Temple of the Dioscuri, for the former wall is almost twice as thick

as the latter and must, therefore, be from a different (and

larger?) structure. This architecture was dated by Hogarth to the first half

of the sixth century B.C. using Petrie's formula for determin-

ing a wall's date by the dimensions of the individual bricks

used in its construction. Wall feature #8 is described as being 37 feet thick and

built against the walls of feature #3 (Hogarth 1898/99: 31), but the plan on his pl. III is completely at odds with this

description. For the resources available to Hogarth on this impor?

tant inscription see his (1905: 106 n. 4) as well as Bouriant

(1885) and Kamal (1904/05). Lichtheim (1980: 87-89) has pointed out that hSw-nbw may mean either the Greeks

or Phoenicians (i.e. the Mediterranean Sea); that "Hent"

("course" or "watercourse"), a word unknown elsewhere,

may refer to the harbor of Naucratis; and that "Anu" is the

Canopic branch of the Nile. Lichtheim also offers a history of publications and commentaries on the text of the stela

(1980: 87). For Nectanebo's temple building efforts in gen? eral, see Triger et al. (1985: 290-95, 327-28).

Note Hogarth's switch to Roman numerals (p. 41, "VII

and VIH") from the Arabic numerals (7 and 8) on the plan offered on his pl. 2, here fig. 1.6. This should not be confused

with his use of Roman numerals to indicate east-west

squares on his plan (1905: fig. 1; fig. 1.8 here). It will be remembered that Petrie and Gardner had

located (second?) tzm]Aesl temenoi to Apollo, to Aphrodite, and to the Dioscuri in other parts of the ancient city

(Hogarth, et ai 1905: 112).

Actually two such sherds were found, but only one was

published. It is strange that when these sherds were first

mentioned by Hogarth he thought that "it would be unsafe

to name this the Artemis Shrine" on such a small sampling (1905: 115). The identification was further complicated by the fact that dedications to Herakles had been found "not

far off" in 1899 (Hogarth 1898/99: 32, nos. 3, 33, and 84), and a partial inscription to that god had been discovered in

the area in 1903 (1905: 117, no. 15). By the time the 1903

plan was labeled, however, the caption "Herakles" had been

moved to a spot some 30 m to the west. It is strange that the thick sections of an (evidently

east-west) wall (feature #57) almost as thick as the outer

(east-west) Hellenion walls (features #34 and #37), that

appear in the southern part of Square D2 (1898/99, pl. II);

fig. 1.6 here), and could reasonably be interpreted as form?

ing the southern limits of the great building, were not even mentioned in the publication, nor did they appear again on

his detailed plan of the area (1898-1899: pl. III; fig. 1.7

here). The description of this "complex" is confusing; there

seems to have been two stratigraphical levels to it. The lower level consisted of bricks of the same dimensions recorded

by Petrie for the Great Temenos Wall, but above this was a

definitely later element that had been built on a layer of

earth that contained sherds that were said to have been not earlier than the fifth century B.C. (Hogarth 1905: 111).

As has been noted, Hogarth considered the southern

section of Naukratis to have consisted exclusively of a na-

tive Egyptian garrison, that had conveniently been stationed there in order to watch over the activities of the Greek mer? chants in the northern part of the city. It is interesting to

note, however, that the date of these buildings was inferred

by Hogarth from the (original?) presence of the Nectanebo Stela in one of them. This appeal to a fourth century B.C. stela in an attempt to date the buildings is confusing, but it does imply that Hogarth considered such a date to be satis-

factory, if not for the construction of these structures then at least for their utilization. Not only would such a date be

approximately sixty-five years (or about two generations) after Herodotus' reported visit to the site, but almost one

hundred fifty years after the death of the pharaoh Amasis with whom Herodotus credited the original settling of the

Greeks at Naukratis. While the Nectanebo Stela may be valuable for our un?

derstanding of the history of the city, this monument

unfortunately falls far short of providing a useful tool for

determining the stratigraphy of the site, especially consider?

ing the uncertainties concerning the circumstances under which the stela was discovered.

In support of his view that Petrie had never actually examined this area by any systematic method of digging,

Hogarth called attention to Petrie's own statement (1886:

24) that he relied mainly on the memory of local villagers that there had, at one time, been mounds on three sides of

this area (Hogarth 1905: 111). It is interesting that Prinz does not include on his plan

of the Hellenion the three stubs of very thick walling that run in an east-west direction between features #57 and #39 on Hogarth's (1899 pl. II; see also n. 34).

Prinz's arguments often tend to be quite circular, a

point that certainly was not lost on Gjerstad (1934: 67-68).

Unfortunately, Gjerstad relied heavily upon what he

called Petrie's "valuable description of the stratification of the

site" and even reproduced Petrie's "diagramatic section of the

stratigraphy" (1934: 70). The diagram (Petrie 1886: pl. 54) is actually an east-west section (cf. headings across the top)

through the temenos, but note the actual state of this area in Petrie (1886: pl. 41) and Gardner (1888: pl. 4). What

must come as a shock to most readers of Gjerstad's article is the amount of justification that he felt was necessary to

offer when appealing to stratigraphy while discussing archae?

ological problems with a scholarly "audience" in the 1930s.

Unfortunately, Petrie's section, reflecting as it did the strati-


graphical concepts of an admitted pioneer in the field who had constructed his diagram almost half a century before

Gjerstad wrote, was doomed to failure. The method by which the temenos had been excavated, especially the clearing of the "trench with bowls" upon which so much of the strati-

graphical section had been based, simply did not allow a

plausible argument based upon stratigraphy to be made.

Gjerstad noted that this interpretation actually went

against the general consensus of his day, and even went

against Petrie's analysis of his own stratigraphy who had identified only two Apollo temples, but Gjerstad felt that Petrie's "excellent stratigraphical records" allowed him to make these changes in interpretation (1934: 75-76). For a discussion of the individual subphases, see Gjerstad (1934: 78-79).

However one views the results of Gjerstad's efforts, his integration of stratigraphical, artifactual and literary evidence certainly stands as a testimony to his scholarship.

Cook felt that this was the most important study for the early chronology of Naukratis (1937: 228, n. 6); for the other studies upon which he relied, see Cook (1937: 227-28, n. 6). Cook felt his case to be strengthened by the fact that the imports began to appear at Naukratis c. 615- 610 B.C, and that there was no sudden and/or noticeable increase in volume c. 570 B.C. that would coincide with the

reign of Amasis. For a discussion of the relevancy in appealing to the use

of the omega in this instance, see Austin (1970: 24). Austin wisely (and correctly) avoids the term "founda?

tion" in dealing with the arrival of the Greeks at Naukratis since it seemed to him that if Pi-emro existed as an Egyptian entity before the arrival of the Greeks, they never could have "founded" the city. Also, the city does not appear to have been founded as the result of a purposeful and active

policy of the would be founding states, as was the case with more normal foundations of the period (1970: 22).

He did not feel, however, that the seventh century establishment needed to have been made by the Milesians as recorded by Strabo and others.

The earliest imported Greek pottery at the site was a

single sherd?of dubious provenance?from a "Transitional" Corinthian vessel dated c. 630-620 B.c, but there is an increase in quantity of the subsequent Early Corinthian ma? terial of late seventh-early sixth century date (Boardman 1980: 121 and nn. 39 and 40). See now Venit (1988).

It is often difficult to decide whether the presence of an

import represents the movement of pots or the movement of people. However, the dedication of an imported Greek vessel inscribed in Greek to a Greek deity such as we see on the Chian bowl dedicated by Sostratos to Aphrodite (Board? man 1980: 122, fig. 139) limits such an argument when deal?

ing with much of the material from Naukratis.

48Hogarth (1898/99: 27) noted that "like Messrs Petrie and Gardner we also had a miscellaneous crowd of sebakh-

diggers for irregular scouts. From them we bought from fifty to a hundred small objects daily, and on their work some of

our own intermediate and final conclusions have been based."

Nor had the cemetery of the early inhabitants of the

city been located. The cemetery that was found by Gardner to the north of the site during the second season, and excavated mainly by Smith, was much later in date. Only one or two pieces could be dated to the sixth to fifth centuries

B.C, and most of the pottery, in fact, dated to the Ptolemaic

period (Gardner 1888: 14, 21-29). The process of excavat?

ing this cemetery occupied sixty workers for about ten weeks

(Gardner 1888: 11). It should be noted that in Lewis' excellent social history

of Ptolemaic Egypt, reference was made to Naukratis only twice (1986: 8, 15) both of which related to the city's early history. For the later history of Naukratis, see Sullivan in Coulson and Leonard (1981a: 6-17).

1983 was an in-field study of previously excavated ma? terial. Excavation was limited to small probes designed to

clarify stratigraphical ambiguities. See now Coulson (1996), which supercedes the com?

ments in Coulson and Leonard (1981a: 45-104). The survey was executed with a view toward examining the veracity of Herodotus' statement that for a long time Naukratis was the only city at which the Greeks had been allowed to settle. The problem of whether or not there were other Greek set? tlements in the area had been made all the more intriguing by unofflcial reports of Greek pottery (at least as early as that from Naukratis) at the neighboring sites of Kom Firin and Kom Kortas (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 364, n. 13). Therefore, a major facet of the survey was the compilation of a corpus of pottery from several of the largest sites in the survey area, so that their history of occupation could be recorded through comparison with the corpus excavated at Naukratis (Kom Ge'if). At the time that we conducted our

fieldwork, no corpus of any type of pottery existed for the western Delta sites. Also of great urgency was the documen? tation of the state of preservation of the sites surrounding Naukratis. Little was known about them, and they were

(and, unfortunately, still are) being eroded daily by the dig? ging of local farmers for sebakh. Indeed, the process of ero? sion and settlement encroachment has been so widespread in the Delta that a resolution was passed at the Second Inter? national Congress of Egyptologists held at Grenoble, France, in September 1979, giving first priority to archaeological sur?

vey work in the Delta. This work was funded by a Research and Develop?

ment grant from the Smithsonian Institution. For the pre? liminary reports, see Coulson and Leonard (1977/78; 1979).

This is the result not only of local farmers who mine the phosphate-rich soils {sebakh) that constitute ancient sites in the Delta, but also by settlement occlusion that has bur-

geoned in this area in the face of modern Egypt's population explosion.

A similar situation greeted Hogarth at the beginning of his first season, when "late walls" appeared in the exposed


flanks of the mounds in the northeastern part of the site

(1898-1899: 28-29). In fact, Hogarth claimed to have visited the mound

often and at one point offered the tantalizing description of it as a "nucleus of chambers such as I found on the north? west" (1905: 111-12).

Although Hogarth did not agree with Petrie's equa- tion of the ancient Hellenion with the "Great Temenos," it is interesting to read Hogarth's explanations of why Petrie

(whom he described as "a greater digger than myself") could not help but have made such an error in interpretation (1905: 112). This is a powerful commentary on the chivalry that is so apparent in the scholarship of the time.

For the details of such a method see Dever and Lance

(1978), and Seger (1971), both of which were followed

closely at Naukratis. The western balkline of these two probes was turned

c. ten degrees east of north in order to interfere least with the volume of human, animal and vehicular traffic that con-

stantly moved along this road. Excavation was concentrated between the west balk and the eastern face of the roadcut-

ting. The "true" eastern balkline of the probes was, at this

point, hypothetical since it actually lay within the mound. Area 1 was connected with the (initially higher) Area 492

during the 1982 season, and the stratigraphy was tied to?

gether. For the 1980 season, see also Coulson and Leonard

(1981a: 18-29; 1982b: 367-68 and ill. 5) where the posi- tions of Areas 1 and 2 are reversed.

Hogarth, whose excavations were halted at several

points by the high water table at Naukratis (1898-1899: 34), estimated that the water level in the Delta was at least ten feet higher than it was when the Greeks had come to the site (1898/99: 36; with reference to Petrie [1886: 10]). In fact, he thought it a good probablility that the chambers without doors or windows that Petrie had found in the Great Temenos were actually designed to counteract dampness rather than human foes (1898/99: 37, n. 2).

61 Coulson and Leonard (1981a: 18-19). Note in the

present volume that the same material then identified as Stra? tum I is now termed Northwest 3.

For preliminary analysis, see Leonard in Coulson and Leonard (1981a: 28-29 with references); and Coulson and Leonard (1980: 18-44). See also Chapter 6 here.

Area 492 is in actuality the eastward extension (but at a higher level) of the probe dug in 1980 as Area 1.

^Locus 49213, cf. Coulson and Leonard (1982b: 370 and n. 47; 375 [no. 1], pl. 48, figs. 11-12; see Chapter 7, no. 41 here).

In most of our preliminary publications, both the dis? turbed and the intact tombs in this cemetery were referred to simply as "modern" or "Islamic" because the paucity of

"grave goods" did not allow one to be certain of their date. See below the chapter on human burials where a date in the fourteenth century A.D. is offered for them.

Excavation in Areas 12 and 15 is described in Coulson

and Leonard (1982b: 368-69). Note, however, that Areas 12 and 15 are reversed in ills. 6 and 7 (i.e. in fact, Area 12 lies to the east of Area 15 as shown in ill. 5, and that the arrow in ills. 6 and 8 indicates "grid" north rather than

magnetic north. The 1983 work at the South Mound consisted only of

a series of small probes/tests designed to explain or confirm the stratigraphy. The major emphasis during this season was the excavation of neighboring Kom Hadid.

This report is based on notes (taken by Leonard) of conversations with Gifford in the field. In all, four cores were taken. Cores "A" and "B" (fig. 1.10) were drilled in the northeastern part of the old excavations where, during the 1899 season, Hogarth had exposed the corner of a building that he identified as the Hellenion. Since the remainder of the building should have continued under the fields to the northeast of the modern lake, we had originally planned to

expose what remained of this structure, but these plans were abandoned after these two cores indicated that the present water table was simply too high to allow the recovery of any portions of this (hypothetical) structure. The details of cores "A" and "B" will be published elsewhere, as will the fourth core ("D") drilled at Kom Hadid (fig. 1.10).

On this portion of the project, see now "Geological Inves?

tigations" by Cathleen Villas (Coulson 1996: 163-75), which was not available to the author until March 1997, well after this chapter had been completed.

It was not possible to ascertain whether or not this

deposit had any relation to the "very unproductive beit of

muddy sand about four feet thick" that Hogarth frequently encountered during his excavations at Naukratis between "the remains of the later Ptolemaic period and those of the fifth century and earlier" (1898/99: 30). For the possibility that this layer of sand had been intentionally placed by the Ptolemaic builders to combat "rising damp" (cf. Petrie 1886:

8, 37, 66; Hogarth 1905: 108-9).

Recently, a thorough reinvestigation of the Great Te? menos by B. Muhs (1994) appealed to a variety of data to

support a position whereby Petrie's name for the structure

("Great Temenos") should be retained, but his date for it is lowered from Saitic to Ptolemaic, and its function altered from a fortress to a temple of Amun of Batet. Suspicions as to whether the architecture at the southern end of the city of Naukratis was military go back to the nineteenth century as outlined above, and such doubts have certainly formed a

major theme in the present author's excavation at the site. Nor should a Ptolemaic date for the structure(s) surprise, since our four seasons of digging did not produce a single sherd that need be earlier than the fourth century B.C. Muhs is astute in recognizing that the main obstacle to his hypoth? esis is "the complete absence of anything resembling a tem?

ple in the enclosure" (1994: 110), but if one agrees with him that "the complete absence of a temple in the Great Temenos does not preclude it having been a temple enclo? sure" (1994: 111), why would one wish to retain Petrie's title


for the building with all of its attendant chronological and functional baggage? Why not simply refer to the structure as the "Temenos of the Temple of Amun of Batet at Naukratis,"

especially since Muhs has assembled a convincing array of artifactual evidence to support the identification of such a

building at the site. To Petrie and his followers, the "Great Temenos" was the

Saitic structure referred to as the Hellenion by Herodotus and said to have been built by the combined efforts of several Greek states as a place to congregate in times of peace and in times of danger. When one changes the date of the archi? tecture to Post-Saitic (i.e. Ptolemaic) times, it is simply no

longer the Great Temenos and, in this writer's opinion, the name should be dropped.

See now Cathleen Villas' "Geological Investigations" (Coulson 1996: 163-75).

The one fact that comes through most clearly in this review of the literature concerning the ancient emporium of

Naukratis, whether it be archaeological, philological, archi?

tectural, or art historical, is that our scholarship is active and

very healthy. It has not always been correct, but it has been, and continues to be, constantly in motion as hypotheses ("models" to some) have been formulated, tested, accepted or rejected. It also shows that many of the concepts that some of us might think of as "new" have been with us for well over a century.

Chapter Two

Excavations in the Northwest Area

Albert Leonard, Jr.

The Northwest Construction Phases

Excavation at Kom Ge'if began in 1980 with two exploratory soundings at the western base of

the South Mound (Areas 1 and 2) in an attempt to gain an idea of the depth of occupation at the

site (pls. 2.1 and 2.2). Work continued in 1981 and 1982 with the excavation of five 4 x 4 m squares

(Areas 482, 490, 491, 492, 502) designed to provide horizontal exposure (fig. 1.12). The fieldwork

concluded in 1983 with the digging of a series of four probes (A through D) in areas positioned to

confirm and/or clarify some of the stratigraphical observations made during the preceding seasons

(fig. 2.1).

This work presented the substantial (c. sixty square meters) exposure of the remains of a multi-

room structure termed the Northwest Building, which had undergone several phases of construction

modification that were documented as NW Phases 5 though 9 (NW Phase 10 being top-soil and

other open loci). In addition, by means of the deep vertical testing, we were able to link those archi?

tectural modifications to a series of earlier phases of the structure (NW Phases 1 through 4) that

combined to provide a continuous six meter stratigraphic history of the architecture in this area

(Table 2.1).1

In order to emphasize the stratigraphical and historical continuity of the architecture in the

South Mound, the following presentation begins with NW Phase 1, the phase that, because of the

high level of the modern water table in the Nile Delta, represents the earliest material that could be

examined by the project. The discussion, then, documents our knowledge of the successive phases of

the construction/remodelling of the Northwest Building through the latest NW Phase 10 (the mod?

ern surface of the mound: top soil). Possible subphasing for each of the ten NW phases, where such

subdivisions were possible, is offered in the footnotes, and are also indicated in the Locus Summaries

of each of the excavated areas. Although NW Phases 1 through 4 were reached only in very small

areas (some less than a meter square), it should be kept in mind that the architecture of these phases and the material culture associated with them are crucial to our understanding of the history of an?

cient Naukratis.

The Lower Phases

Northwest Phase 1

In the basal, NW Phase 1 (fig. 2.2) all of the excavated walls had been founded below the pres? ent groundwater level. East-west Wall 2044 and north-south Wall 2045 (pls. 2.3 and 2.4), both

encountered in Sounding 2, were bonded into each other at a right angle with a heavy accumulation

or deposition of debris (Loci 2038, 2042, 2043) consisting primarily of fired brick rubble, within the

cornering of the two walls.

36

1998 Excavations in the Northwest Area 37

Rooml

1 ?"r:r----

NAUKRATIS/KOM GE'IF Northwest Building METERS

Fig. 2.1. General plan ofthe area excavated in the northwest corner ofthe South Mound in 1981 and 1982 and the location ofthe 1983 Probes (A-D). The 1980 soundings (1 and 2) were situated south of Probe B west ofRoom 4.

In Sounding 1 to the north, the lowest material reached was a section of mudbrick that was

recorded as "Wall" 1026 (figs. 2.3 and 2.4). The pattern of mudbricks (illustrated in fig. 2.2) was

very difficult to obtain since the outlines of the individual bricks were very often blurred in the

supersaturated soil. Bricks seemed to be larger in Wall 1026 than in Walls 2044-2045 to the south,

but that was not certain. It is probably best to consider this feature (Wall 1026) as the lower por? tion of the NW Phase 2 Wall 1023-1024 above it. Because of the high water table, the relationship between Walls 2044-2045 and Wall 1026 in Sounding 1 (separated horizontally by c. 4.25 m),

was not ascertained stratigraphically. The fact that their masonry patterns differ markedly, how?

ever, does not necessarily preclude the possibility that they were remnants of the same wall or 4

structure.

Debris Locus 2043 was the earliest of the NW Phase 1 Loci to have been deposited, followed

by Loci 2042 and 2038 (in that order). Whether these last two Loci were deposited at the same time

or their deposition was separated by a substantial interval of time, could not be determined. Surpris-

ingly, flotation of the soil matrix of Locus 2038 showed it to have been especially rich in cereal culti-

gens (see Crawford below). Whatever the nature and timing of their placement, however, the deposits of NW Phase la and b represent the earliest (chronologically useful and significant) loci in the NW

area since both of them were well-sealed by the silt of Locus 2036. The ceramic material in these loci

suggest a terminus ante quem of fifth/early fourth century B.C. (see Chapter 6). When ground water

was reached, however, it rapidly filled the excavation area(s), and made it impossible to enlarge the

two probes in order to excavate any additional (artifact bearing) debris levels that may have been as?

sociated with these walls. The filling operation in the deposition of Locus 2036 should be related to

subsequent NW Phase 2 activities.


Table 2.1. NW Building Phase Identifications

NW Hiatus C Similar activity continues

NW Hiatus B Similar activity continues

NW Hiatus A Continued use of building although no new construction. Irregular interior(?) use surfaces develop.

NW 8 The most complex plan of the building emerges when new use debris (8a) is leveled to build new walls (8b)

NW 7 Plan of building becomes more complex with addition of two rooms at W end

(7a): Accumulation of use debris (7b). Small interior wall added later in phase. (7c): More accumulation of use debris (7d). This is the most active construction phase.

NW 6 New walls (6a) built: plan of building emerges. Building use period (6b).

late 2nd/early lst century B.C.

2nd half of 2nd

century B.C.

NW 5 New walls built

NW 4 New walls (4a) built. Phase ends with wallfall (4b) episodes.

mid 2nd

century B.C

NW3

NW1

New walls (3a) built. Debris accumulates (3b) with use of these walls. mid 3rd/early 2nd century B.C

NW 2 New walls (2a) built and/or new courses (2a) added to already-standing walls. 3rd/early 2nd Phase ends with fall (2b) from these walls. century B.C

Big walls already exist (foundations below present groundwater levels) 5 th/early 4th

century B.C

Northwest Phase 2

During NW Phase 2 (figs. 2.3 and 2.5), in Sounding 1, a single course of mudbricks (Locus

1025) was added to NW Phase 1 Wall 1026, upon which Wall 1024 had been constructed at c.

4.90 m ASL. Locus 1023, encountered immediately west of Wall 1024 also appeared to represent in

situ courses of mudbrick, utilizing a different and distinctive (dark and porus) clay that made distin?

guishing between the individual bricks very difficult. At some subsequent point in time, the flattened

top of combined Wall 1023-1024 was covered by Locus 1022 (pl. 2.5), a single course of bricks

similar in fabric to those of Locus 1023.

In Sounding 2, NW Phase 2 (fig. 2.5) witnessed the building of Wall 2030 that was founded

on Locus 2035 at a level (c. 4.90-4.91 m ASL) equal to the founding of Wall 1023-1024 in Sound?

ing 1 to the north. The compacted, clayey soil of Locus 2035, situated to the east (and partially be?

low) Wall 2030, is similar to that used in mudbrick fabrication, and the two loci are here considered

to represent a single Wall 2035. Despite the fact that two horizontal meters of deposit remained

unexcavated between Wall 2030/2035 and Wall 1023/1024, the presence of a common foundation

level, the similarities in the color and texture of the bricks, and the alignment of the bricks themselves,

combined to leave little doubt that they were both segments of the same 6.5 m long wall. Unfortu?

nately, no surface could be associated with these walls in these small soundings. NW Phase 2 ended with wallfall and debris from Wall 1023-1024 and Wall 2030 covering both

soundings. Deposits such as Loci 2022 (with its third century B.C Knidian amphora handle, No. 13,


Fig. 2.2. Plan of architectural phase NW 1 (earliest) showing "Wall" 1026 in Sounding 1 and the cornering of Walls 2044 and 2045 in Sounding 2.

Sounding!

1026

UNEXD TO PHASE I LEVELS

l

2044-y

2043

^2045

Sounding 2

NAUKRATIS/KOMGEIF NORTHWEST PHASE 1

BALK 490/49)

1021 *? T3>

EE5 ~i=^ 3 1024

fl

Fig. 2.3. South balks ofthe Northwest Building areas.


1007/4920 A ?~

1018- 1019-

P'-71012"-'

1025-

1020

Tj 1S22-.

1024 *i- _ ? _ /-ir-l

j-a

1026

METERS

t-2035

Sounding 2

NAUKRATIS/KOM GE'IF Northwest Phase 2

Fig 2.4. (Left) Temporary east balk of Sounding 1 (equals the western 1.50 m of NW Area 492) drawn during excavation to illustrate the fact that Locus 1008 and Locus 1009 are equivalent to Locus 49238, upon which Wall

1007149204 was built.

Fig. 2.5. (Right) Plan of architectural phase NW 2 showing Sounding 1 Wall 1023-1024 and contemporary Sounding 2 Wall 2030 both of which were founded at 4.90-4.91 m ASL on Locus 1025 and 2035 respectively.

cf. fig. 7.6 here), 2031 and 2040 combine to define the phase ceramically in Sounding 2, while Debris

1020 and 1021 represent the contemporary deposits in Sounding 1 (fig. 2.3). A (late?) third to early

second century B.C. date is offered for NW Phase 2.

Northwest Phase 3

In NW Phase 3, the substantial remains of wide (minimum of 1.25 m) mudbrick Wall 1016, was

encountered in Sounding 1, and this could be traced into Sounding 2 as Wall 2012 (figs. 2.3 and

2.6). Both segments of the wall were founded c. 6.68 m ASL. Before our excavation in this area be?

gan, the local villagers had already cut away the top of combined Wall 1016?2012 when the western

face of the South Mound was altered in order to make room for the main road from Kom Ge'if to

the neighboring village of Tell Abu Meshfa (pl. 2.6). Archaeological strata that had been removed


by the road builders from above the wall, therefore, could be observed after the balks had been

trimmed and were recorded in their correct stratigraphic position above the (temporary) east balks

of the two 1980 soundings. Locus 2031, east of Wall 2012, consisted of detritus/debris that had been

laid (evidently) for the foundation of that wall, and the top of this and related Loci appear to have

served as a surface in association with that wall. A similar situation was noted in Sounding 1 where

the top of a thin layer of yellow clay, Locus 1019 (figs. 2.3 and 2.4) had been used as a surface with

Wall 1016 (pl. 2.7). The deposition and use of Loci 1019 and 2031, then, should most probably be

considered to represent the same sequence of events.

Pottery-rich Locus 20208 (pl. 2.8b) above Wall 2012, and Locus 2017 (including Lens 2014)

and Locus 2025 (including Locus 2029) to the east of the wall, provided the chronological basis for

NW Phase 3. Parallel information was provided by contemporary Locus 1018 in Sounding/Area 1

to the north.

In the east balk of Sounding 1 (fig. 2.4) the connection between the stratigraphy in the two lower

Soundings could be joined to that from the upper phases of the architectural sequence: Wall 1007 of

the 1980 Sounding is the same feature that was recorded as Wall 49204 during the later excavation

of the building (i.e. when it was excavated from the top in Square 492).

The architecture documented in Phase 3 appears to date from the mid third to early second cen?

tury B.C

Northwest Phase 4^

In NW Phase 4, Wall 1016/2012 remained in use from Phase 3, continuing to define more than

6 m of the building of which it was a part (fig. 2.7), while to the east of this wall, debris Loci 1012

and 2016 either accumulated or were deposited.

Very late in the period represented by NW Phase 4, Wall 2002 a single (east-west) row of mud?

bricks was constructed on a thin (0.10 m) layer of sediment/detritus (Locus 2003) east of Wall 1016/

2012 (pl. 2.8). This wall was discernible only after the east balk above Sounding 2 had been trimmed,

where so much of the mound had been cut away by the local road builders long before our excavations

had begun. To the north of the 1980 soundings, excavations in 1982 Probe B (figs. 2.1 and 2.7) produced

evidence for a small section of contiguous mudbrick, Wall 50216, that exhibited traces of mudplaster on its excavated southern and eastern surfaces. This wall did not align with Wall 1016/2012 and is

most probably to be intepreted as the southeastern corner of a separate structure that was once situ-

ated to the northwest where the mound has now been cut away by the sebakhin. Wall 50216 was

founded on Detritus 50218, the top of which may have been used as its surface. The collapse of this

wall, at the end of Phase 4, can be seen in debris/detritus Loci 50213, 50214 and 50217, and the pale

yellow lenses of Loci 50212 and 50215 that were associated with this detritus may suggest that the

exterior of the structure, of which Wall 50216 formed the southeastern corner, had been decorated

with a coating of yellow plaster. Phase 4 of the NW building is attributed to the mid-second century B.C

The Upper Phases

Northwest Phase 5

During the excavation of the lower phases of the excavations in the South Mound (NW 1 through

4), very little horizontal exposure could be obtained; but, beginning in NW Phase 5 (fig. 2.8), we were


Sounding I

2020

N

Area 492

BALK

Area 482

i

METERS

Sounding 2

NAUKRATIS/KOM GEIF

Northwest Phase 3

Fig. 2.6. Plan of architectural phase NW 3. Fig. 2.7. Plan of architectural phase NW 4.

able to expose a sufficient amount of architecture to enable us to begin to discuss the architectural

remains as a structure or building rather than simply as a succession of wall-stubs and surfaces. In

Area 490, the courses of a well-constructed Wall 49013 (figs. 2.3, 2.8, and 2.9) were preserved for a

distance of about 4.0 m running in a north-south direction. It was bonded at its northern end (at

a right angle) into east-west Wall 49003, thereby forming the northeastern corner of the large struc-


50213 Probe B

-HbH-tf p,*???<*utB,,^,l. ."

'"mirrirqjjnr-...^. 1010

7.10

UNEXCAVATED BELOW THIS LEVEL

NAUKRATIS / KOM GE'IF Northwest Phase 5

Fig. 2.8. Plan of architectural phase NW 5.

ture that is here termed the Northwest Building. The continuation of this wall could be traced along

the surface of the mound for at least 7.0 m. To the west, in Area 491, it was excavated as Locus

49103 (fig. 2.8), and subsequently referred to as composite Wall 49013-49103. The location of the

wall that would have enclosed the western end of this space during NW Phase 5 could not be de-

termined, since excavation in this area was not carried down to that level.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to associate any surface deposits or debris with this phase.

Artifactual material was not present on (use) Surface 2015, while pottery bags excavated from debris

Locus 1010 were problematic and might be assignable equally to the NW Phase 4 of the building.

Flotation of the soil sample taken from Surface 2015, however, did present a fairly diverse collection

of non-cultivated plant remains (see Chapter Eight).

Approximately 5 m to the west of the exposed limits of Wall 49103, east-west mudbrick Wall

50209 was discovered within the 1981 Probe B (fig. 2.8). This wall has been included in the discus?

sion of NW Phase 5 because of its location and the fact that it had been built upon leveled debris

Layer 50213 that was assignable to Phase 4B. The size, alignment, and the method of laying the

bricks, however, suggest that this wall was not part of the same building. A deep intrusive cut had damaged Wall 49013 sometime during NW Phase 10 (pls. 2.9 and

2.10). The human burial (Locus 49016) that it contained was so well-protected by the older mud?

brick walls into which the pit had been cut that there had been no need for any additional superstruc?

ture to protect it.

Although it was not possible to document the date of Phase 5 from the ceramic evidence, its

position in the stratigraphy would suggest that it also belongs to the middle of the second century B.C.

hiO.OO

49136-j 49101

49143 ?

49250^92,? J 49107

^49235

49851 49?4^^3r^l

BALK 492/491

49119

59JoT

49131

4913?

? 490QT

49133

-49139 M9I20

<

BALK 491 / 490

-8.00

?7.00

3

Fig. 2.9. North balks ofthe Northwest Building areas.

> >

o


^9/03

nr-?--..

{Jir^^r^-

49030

NAUKRATIS/KOM GE'IF

Northwest Phase 6

N

METERS


Northwest Phase 6

During NW Phase 6, both north-south Wall 49013 and east-west Wall 49103/49003 continued

in use from NW Phase 5, and the building was enclosed on its western end by the addition of a

north-south Wall 49107 (figs. 2.3, 2.9, and 2.10). This new wall was joined to the earlier Wall

49103-49003 by means of an integrative join that differed from the usual masonry bonding of

contemporary walls. At the same time, the interior space of the structure was subdivided by the

addition of an east-west screen Wall 49135, butted against Wall 49107 (pl. 2.11), thereby creating a

small (c. 1.5 x 3.5 m) chamber, designated here as Room 2 in order to distinguish it from Room 1,

the larger (southern) end of the interior space (fig. 2.1). Trampled/laminated debris formed the

interior surfaces of the structure: Locus 49161P in Room 1 and Locus 49146P in Room 2. The

weathering tops of architectural debris Loci 1000, 2010, 50207, 50208, and 50210 are believed to

have functioned as exterior surfaces at the western end of the building during this phase because the

broken mudbricks in these loci are of the same composition as those in the earlier, NW Phase 5:

Wall 50209 and Wall 49003-49013.

The architectural additions to the building that are here recorded as NW Phase 6 have been as?

signed a date in the third quarter of the second century B.C. on the ceramic evidence.

Northwest Phase 7

NW Phase 7 was the most active construction phase for the Northwest Building (fig. 2.11). At

this time, east-west Wall 50202 was constructed against the exterior (western) face of Wall 49107


50207^8.11

Room!



at the point where it cornered with 49103/49003, both of which continued in use from the existing NW Phase 6 structure. This new wall was built upon Locus 49238, a compacted debris layer that

seemed to have been leveled intentionally in order to provide a foundation for the wall, and subse-

quently to function as an interior surface. Against, and perpendicular to, the south face of the new

Wall 50202, ran two north-south walls (Wall 49204 to the west and Wall 49206 to the east)17 cre?

ating two long (c. 1.5 x 4.5 cm) interior spaces, that are here identified as Rooms 3 and 4 (fig. 2.11).

Room 4 was closed at its southern end by east-west Wall 49211, but this wall did not continue east-

ward to "close" Room 3. Such a closing wall, if one ever existed, must have been situated further to

the south, beyond the limits of Areas 491/492. Based on surface observations made prior to the

start of excavation in this area, Wall 50202 was expected to be almost two courses wider than the

other walls of the Building. Probe C (dug in three sections, Cl, C2, and C3) in 1983, however,

showed that the cause of this apparently greater width was a thick (c. 20 cm) layer of rough mud

"plaster" that had originally covered both its interior and exterior faces. Plastering on the exterior face

of Wall 50202 was detected only within the limits of Probe C, but interior plastering was noted also

in Rooms 2, 3 and 4, and it is possible that the subtle color/texture changes of mudbrick to mudplaster may have been missed during the excavation of Room 1.

This new western addition to the building contained a doorway (with threshold) at the southern

end of Wall 49206 that communicated between Room 3 and Room 4, and that was equipped with a

narrow [as preserved] step to break the c. 0.30 m descent from the threshold of Room 3 onto the floor

of Room 4 (pl. 2.12). In and just to the west of the doorway a substantial quantity of broken and


tumbled mudbrick was found. These bricks were similar in composition to the bricks that had been

used to build the walls of these two rooms, and it is possible that this material had fallen from the

upper parts of Wall 49206 and/or Wall 49211 during the later, Hiatus A, phase of the structure.

Another architectural feature of the NW Phase 7 addition was a small, regular, and obviously

planned break (c. 0.50 m wide) at the southern end of the outer Wall 49204 where it formed the

southwestern limits of Room 4 (visible in section, fig. 2.4; pls. 2.13 and 2.17b). It would be tempt-

ing to interpret this feature as a doorway opposite the one in Wall 49206, but such an interpreta?

tion is thwarted by the presence of a single brick (apparently in situ) excavated and recorded during

the 1980 season. This brick was aligned with the wall courses across the top of the debris that later

accumulated within the room, and would, if in situ, have limited the height of the "doorway" to an

inconvenient (impossible?) height of 0.50 m Interpretation of this feature as a window would also

seem to be unjustified since the window "sill" would have been only c. 0.35 m above the level of the

floor. Forced to exclude these more plausable solutions to the problem, the feature is interpreted here

as a (convection) vent or low entrance for small animals.

Also during NW Phase 7, the low (c. seven courses high) and narrow (a single row of bricks

wide) Wall 49138 was built from north to south across the western end of Room 2. This wall con?

nected the exterior Wall 49103 to the interior screen Wall 49135 that had been added to the struc?

ture during Phase 6. The function of the small space (1.5 x 0.75 m) created behind Wall 49138

could not be determined. When excavated, the area was filled with Locus 49140, a substantial pile of

red-fired bricks (figs. 2.9 and 2.11), but there was not a sufficient quantity of ashy deposit associated

with these bricks to consider them to have functioned as a heat-retaining device, firebox or the like.

To the east of this "bin" Locus 49141 appears to have served as the NW Phase 7 surface in Room 2,

while the tops of Loci 49158 (to the west) and 49029 (to the east) were the contemporary surface(s)

in Room 1.

It was during Phase 7, when the Northwest Building underwent substantial enlargement with the

addition of the walls that form Rooms 3 and 4 to the west (pl. 2.14), that we note the first indications

that at least some of the walls of the building had been decorated with lime plaster. Locus 49029 and

Locus 49141, associated respectively with the use (Phase 7b) of Rooms 1 and 2, and Locus 49139

representing, in part, its demise (Phase 7d) in Room 2, produced several samples of monochrome

(grayish white) lime (most commonly CaC^) plaster.

This flourish of building activity is dated to the third quarter of the second century B.C.

Northwest Phase 821

The most complex plan of the building to have survived is that from NW Phase 8 (fig. 2.12).

Debris Locus 49139, that had accumulated toward the end of NW Phase 7, and NW Phase 8A Locus

49149, were leveled at this time, and two interior "stub" walls Locus 49119 and Locus 49133 (fig.

2.9) were built upon them, against the southern face of Wall 49103 at the northern end of Room 2.

It should be noted that Wall 49119 is only postulated on the plans. The reasons,for believing that this

wall did, in fact, exist as it has been drawn, are mainly stratigraphical. Although Wall 49119 seems

to have been cut through during our work in 1981, the balk drawings from the end of that season

clearly showed that such a wall had existed, and it had been built upon the same material (Loci 49139

and 49149) as the more clearly definable Wall 49133 situated about 1 m to the east (pl. 2.15).


0^-^003

8.40 49012



Continued excavation in the southern part of Room 2, during the 1982 season clearly demonstrated

that Wall 49119 could not have continued across the room to connect with the northern face of Wall

49135. The function of the area enclosed by these two walls is uncertain, but it probably served as a

small storage area. A similar installation can be seen at Tell Fara'in (Seaton-Williams 1969: fig. 2).

During NW Phase 8, a small, oval firepit, Locus 49152, was dug into Surface 49149 just to the

north of Wall 49135 and appears to have been used for either heating or cooking in Room 2. It is

uncertain whether or not the debris (Loci 49116 and 49118) that had been allowed to accumulate in

the "bin" behind Wall 49138 in Room 2 actually belonged to NW Phase 8A or to the later Hiatus

A, but debris Locus 49115 is to be associated definitely with the Hiatus phase (fig. 2.9).

In Room 4, the NW Phase 7 "surface" at the top of Locus 49238, appears to have continued

in use during NW Phase 8 (figs. 2.11 and 2.12; pl. 2.16). As we discovered for ourselves, this very

compact mixture of red fired-brick and mudbrick detritus could be swept clean easily when neatness

was desired.

Excavation in Room 3 was not continued below Locus 49235P, the compacted surface that had

been in use with that room during NW Phase 8A. Surprisingly, this surface was only 1 cm lower than

the top of the NW Phase 7 threshold in Wall 49206.23 Noting the reuse of Surface 49238 in Room

4 (pl. 2.17a), at a level similar to that of the threshold, it is not impossible that the debris in Locus

49235 had also been deposited (or had accumulated) during NW Phase 7 rather than in NW Phase

8A (fig. 2.9).

In Room 1, the leveled debris Layer 49150 made a compact interior floor, Locus 49150P, that

exhibited the same "easy-to-clean" properties as did the surface at the top of Locus 49238 in Room

4 (fig. 2.3). Contemporary Surface 49012 in the eastern part of Room 1, however, did not contain


the characteristically large quantity of red fired brick debris that was such a common feature in the

western part of the room, Surface 49150P.

During NW Phase 8, the east-west screen Wall 49135, which had separated Room 1 from

Room 2 from the time that it was constructed in NW Phase 6, appears to have undergone some

modification or rebuilding, for the two uppermost courses of the wall (as preserved) show differences

in construction technique. The mortar between the bricks of the two upper courses is of the same

color as the bricks themselves and are much more widely spaced and less carefully laid than in the

lower courses where the mortar is of a significantly darker color than that of the bricks. Furthermore,

a new coating of mud plaster (of the same color as the bricks and mortar) was applied to both faces

of the upper courses of Wall 49135 at the time that it was rebuilt. This plaster contrasted in color

with the facing applied to the lower courses which, like the earlier mortar, was of a much darker and

stickier material. By this time, the feature may have been intended to function more as a low bench

than as a room divider.

The western half of the NW Phase 8 Floor in Room 1 (i.e. the area south of Wall/Bench 49135)

was apparently covered by a mat, probably of straw, that had been held in place by iron nails.

These nails, found embedded in the laminations of the surface, were associated with patches of white

organic fibers that are considered to be remnants of straw matting. Occasionally, similar iron nails

were encountered sporadically within the Northwest Building in loci of the later Hiatus A and B

phases as well as during NW Phases 9 and 10. All of these occurrences postdate the heavy concen?

tration of nails in, or on, the NW Phase 8 surfaces.

There is evidence from later deposits associated with the demise of the Phase 8 structure to sug?

gest that during Phase 8 the walls of at least Rooms 1 through 3 had been decorated with lime plaster. The use of a single-layer of (monochrome) lime plaster had already been noted in Phase 7 of the

building, but in Phase 8 the grayish white plaster had been subsequently embellished {al secco) with

red (ochre) pigment producing a bichromatic decoration.

Diagnostic pottery from secure deposits dates the extensive construction that occurred during NW Phase 8 to the third quarter of the second century B.C.

The Hiatus in Construction Between NW Phases 8 and 9

NW Phase 8 was followed by a hiatus in construction that reflected either a time of less regular

use, or a temporary (or partial?) abandonment of the building that preceded the resumed building

activity that is here identified as NW Phase 9. This "pause" in construction activity has been divided

into three subphases (Hiatus A, Hiatus B and Hiatus C), each having been defined as much by the

accumulation of debris within and around the building as by the effect that such accumulation (s) may have had on the plan of the structure.

It should be noted that, technically speaking, it would be possible to consider the material that is

presented here as Hiatus A through C to have been a continuation of NW Phase 8B (i.e. Hiatus A

as NW Phase 8C; Hiatus B as NW Phase 8D; and Hiatus C as NW Phase 8E). Such a presentation,

however, has purposely been avoided since that would suggest or emphasize a continuity with the

previous development of the structure that definitely does not seem to have been the case. These hi?

atus phases form a period of indeterminable length that should be viewed as a slowing down, or stall-

ing, of the architectural progress that had been achieved through the preceding phases. NW Phase 8B

is definitely the last energetic building phase in the history of the structure after which followed a

period of slow but steady decline.


50202

-7^9*03

Room 1/2

49037

49004 49024

NAUKRATIS/KOM GE'IF Northwest Hiatus A

Fig. 2.13. Plan of NW Hiatus phase A.

Hiatus Phase A represents the period immediately following the destruction at the end of NW

Phase 8 (fig. 2.13). The phase was characterized chiefly by the deposition of substantial layers of de?

bris in all of the rooms of the building. These deposits covered such earlier architectural details as the

threshold (but not the doorway) between Room 3 and Room 4, the screen wall (Locus 49135) that

separated Room 1 from Room 2, and the narrow Wall 49138 that had formed the eastern side of the

"bin" at the western end of Room 2 (pls. 2.18 and 2.19).

The tops of detritus layers appear to have served as use-surfaces (Locus 49004 to the east and

Locus 49137 to the west) in the area that had been Room 1 before Wall 49135 was covered. Locus

49004 and Locus 49137 blended into each other across the southern end of the area now known

collectively as Room 1 /2, and had been open (exposed) for a sufficient span of time for them to have

undergone a significant amount of erosion before the beginning of Hiatus B. This was contemporary

with Locus 49115, with its ashy streaks of Locus 49114 above what had been Room 2 in NW Phases

6 and 7. Loci 49233 and 49250 were the surfaces in Room 3; while compacted silt and detritus Locus

49207, on top of which was found a scree of flat-lying potsherds (Locus 49207P), served as the surface

in Room 4 during NW Phase 8.

The exterior surfaces related to Hiatus Phase A were Locus 49024 to the east of the structure and

Locus 49034 just outside its northeastern corner. Both loci were encountered only in small probes at

the end of the 1982 season.

The slowdown in construction that is here recorded as Hiatus A should be dated to the late sec?

ond or early first century B.C.

The activity associated with Hiatus Phase B was conducted within the same three room struc?

ture (Rooms 1/2, 3, and 4) that had been created when Wall 49135 was covered during the preceding


50202

- ?9<03

^?s_

Room 1/2

49137

49034P

49004Z49004P

NAUKRATIS/KOM GE'IF Northwest Hiatus 8

Fig. 2.14. Plan of NW Hiatus phase B.

Hiatus Phase A (fig. 2.14). The upper surfaces of the debris layers, however, were even more irregular than they had been in the earlier Hiatus A, especially in the large, main room (Room 112) where sur-

viving Locus 49137 was used as a surface on the west in association with Locus 49004 on the east.

Locus 49004P, consisting of patches of flat-lying potsherds on the top of a compacted and indurated

layer of detritus (Locus 49004) was also in use during Hiatus B, and sections of it would remain in

use into the following Phase C. In Room 3, the tops of Locus 49210 were used as a surface, while at

the northern end of Room 4, Locus 49207 remained in use at approximately its Hiatus Phase A level

to which a lens of debris material, Locus 49213, had been added at the southern end of the room in

order to create/maintain a level surface. It was in the Locus 49213 surface that the coin of Ptolemy

III was found, just inside the doorway in the southern end of the room (pl. 7.22; Coulson and

Leonard 1982b: 370, 375 and pl. 48, figs. 11-12).32

The only possible exterior surface that could be associated with this phase of the building was

Locus 49034P, complete with flat-lying pottery was encountered only in the small Probe A (fig. 2.1,

2.14) at the northeastern corner of the building during the 1982 season.

As was the case with Hiatus A, a late second or early first century B.C. date has been assigned to

Hiatus B.

Hiatus Phase C was also confined to the same three-room building that had been established dur?

ing Hiatus Phase A (fig. 2.15). Notable was the large amount of pottery-bearing debris that was found

strewn across the use-surface(s) of Room 1/2: Locus 49136 at the western end mixed with patches of

Locus 49004P at its eastern end. Locus 49210 in Room 3 and Locus 49207 in Room 4 continued

to be used as they had been in Phase B, with the addition of a small lense of detritus, Locus 49212,

that was uncovered at the southern ends of both of these rooms (fig. 2.15). The presence of this


50202

"TT^'--r!9P33 49033

rr'iClrr

teamnffi

49004P

NAUKRATIS/KOM GE'IF Northwest Hiatus C

Fig. 2.15. Plan of NW Hiatus phase C.

material in the general area of the NW Phase 7 threshold in both rooms, strongly suggests that the

doorway between these two rooms remained open and passable until at least this time.

The small patch of exterior Surface 49033 that was detected in Probe A at the northeastern corner

of the building should also be assigned to this phase.

With the end of the events represented here by the Hiatus C deposits, however, we appear to have

reached the early years (first half) of the first century B.C.

Northwest Phase 933

It is uncertain whether or not NW Phase 9 (fig. 2.16) represented a change in either the character

or function of the structure, but it can be demonstrated that, at this time, the plan of the Northwest

Building was further reduced in complexity. With the covering of north-south Wall 49206 that had

formerly divided Rooms 3 and 4, the building atrophied into a simple, two-room structure (Rooms

1/2 and 3/4). The southern end of Wall 49204 underwent some modification; and east-west Wall

49211, which had been part of the structure at least since NW Phase 7, was covered (evidently inten-

tionally) by a thick layer of detritus 49203, the top of which may have served as a use-surface. This

resulted in the fact that the western Room 3/4 was no longer closed but completely open at its south?

ern end. Conversely, however, for the first time in the history of the structure it can be demonstrated

that the main Room 112 was enclosed along (at least part) of its southern side by the construction of

a new east-west Wall 49144 in NW Phase 9. Curiously, all of the interior use-surfaces of these rooms

(Loci 49148, 49017, 49202, 49203) were extremely irregular and uneven in this phase, and it is felt

that NW Phase 9 represents the final abandonment of the structure.

The contraction in architectural complexity that characterized the NW building during Phase 8

contrasts sharply with the manner in which the walls of the structure had been decorated. Deposits


50202

Room 1/2

N

49033P

Cr~ 49003

49017



both in the existing Room 1/2 (Locus 49017) and, especially in the newly formed Room 3/4 (Locus

49203), have produced samples of lime wall-plaster that had often been built up in several coats be?

fore being finally decorated alsecco with red to red-brown pigment. This method of application differs

from the smoothed, single coat of plaster that had applied to the walls of earlier phases of the struc?

ture. Nor can the Phase 9 plastering technique be interpreted as a series of redecorations since there

was only one "finish" coat, beneath which were the preparation courses in much coarser plaster. In

addition to the red/red-brown decoration noted on the walls of previous phases of the structure, Phase

9 produced the only example from Kom Ge'if of a fragment that had been decorated (also al secco)

with light blue pigment. The small size of the sample, unfortunately, only allows speculation as to

whether the blue (and the much more common red) pigments were applied separately or in concert

with other colors in order to from a design or pattern. The small piece of mortar with a single peb? ble ("tessera") adhering to it that was found in NW Phase 9 debris (Locus 49148) might suggest that

in this phase the floors were also given special treatment.

According to the ceramic evidence, the final abandonment of the Northwest Building appears to

have occurred toward the middle of the first half of the first century B.C.

Northwest Phase 10

With the demise of the Northwest Building in Phase 9, debris began to accumulate both within

and around it. This is NW Phase 10, which consisted of three sub-phases (a-c). The lowest of these

(a) produced pottery similar in date (first half of first century B.C.) to that from Hiatus C and NW

Phase 9. The upper two subphases (b and c) contained?although not in secure contexts?ceramics

that date to the later portion of the first century B.C.


At some subsequent date (see Chapter 9) simple burial pits and more extensively built tombs

began to be dug into many of the earlier deposits forming a substantial cemetery that at one time had

spread over most of the "South Mound" (see below, especially the excavations in the Southeast Areas

12 and 15). This material comprises NW Phase 10 (the south Mound as it was when we arrived) and,

in addition to the cemetery, consisted of a variety of open topsoil loci consisting of recent debris,

erosion layers, and sediments. Especially representative of these deposits were Loci 1003 and 2001.

Aeolian and waterwashed detritus soils were also frequent, indicating the steady deterioration not

only of the early mudbrick structures but also of the later tombs themselves.

Table 2.2. NW Area 482: Stratigraphic Sequence ofLoci Deposition

2007 NW10

2009

2010

2015

2016

2018

NW7

NW6

NW5

NW4b

2002 W

2003

NW4a

2020

2017

NW3b

2012W

2019

2031

NW3a

2022

2040

NW2b

2039 2030W

2036

2038

2042

2043

2035W? NW2a

NWlc

NW lb

2037W

2044W

2041W

2045W

NW la



49011

49026

49002

49005

49017

49004P

49004

49012

49029

49030

49003 W

49024

49031

I

49032

49033P

49033

49034P

I

49034

NW10

49013 W

NW9

Hiatus C

Hiatus B

Hiatus A

NW8

NW7

NW6

NW5



49130

49154

49144 W

49148

49136

49131

49114

49115

49118

49116

49140 -

49138W

49141

49145

49146P -

49146

49107W-

49155

49143

49137

49120

49119W 49133W

49149

49139

49150P

49150

49158

49161P

NW10

NW9b

NW9a

Hiatus C

Hiatus B

Hiatus A

NW8b

NW8a

NW7d

NW7c

NW7b

NW6b

49135W NW6a

49161


Table 2.5. NW Areas 492: Stratigraphic Sequence ofLoci Deposition

(Includes Loci Dug as Sounding 1 Naukratis Project 1980 Season)

1007 W

I

(1008)

(1009)

1010

1012

1018

1016 W

1019

I

1020

1022

1024 W

I

1025 W

1026 W

49212

49213

49207

49214-

49204 W

49238

1023 W

49202

49203

49206 W

49210

49250

- 49233

49235P

I

49211 Wl

NW9

Hiatus C

Hiatus B

Hiatus A

NW8b

NW8a

NW7

NW6

NW4

NW3b

NW3a

NW2b

NW2a

NW1



50201

50203

50202 W

50207

50208

50210

50211

50209 W?

50215

50217

50216 W

50218

50214

50212

50213

NW10

NW8

NW7a

NW6c

NW5

NW4b

NW4a


Locus Summaries List Area 492

Locus Phase Description

1001 ? Cancelled. Combined with Locus 1003.


1003 NW 10 Description. Artificial locus of topsoil. Includes Locus 1001, 1002.

Pottery Bags. N.1.1.00-05.

Material Culture.

Other-. Fired-brick with mortar.

1004 Cancelled. Combined with Locus 1009.


1006 NW 10 Description. Artificial locus of topsoil. Includes Locus 1005.

Pottery Bags. N.I.1.07, .08.

Material Culture.

Other-. soil sample (float contained sm burnt bone frags and fish).

1007 NW 7 Cancelled. Combined with Locus 49204.

1008 NW6c Description. Thick Brown (10YR 4/3) mudbrick detritus layer upon which Wall 49204 was founded. [EBalk].

1009 NW 6c Description. Debris layer of Brown (10YR 4/3) mudbrick detritus. Matrix includes chunks of red- fired brick and white mortar/stucco rubble. Includes Locus 1004. [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bag. N.I.1.06.

Material Culture.

Other \ soil sample (float contained fish).

1010 NW 4/5 Description. Silty Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick debris including red fired-brick and white mortar rubble. [N, S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.1.1.10-13, 25.

Material Culture.

Animal bone-. #12, mammal frags with OvislCapra phalanx 3 (adult); sm bird ulna and distal humerus.


1012 NW 4 Description. Debris layer of Reddish Brown (5YR 4/3-5/3) mudbrick detritus. Matrix includes

frequent red fired-brick and white mortar rubble. [N, S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.1.14, 20, 21, 31, 57.

Material Culture.

Shell: ud frags.






1016 NW 3a Description. Major N-S wall built of mudbricks in three different clays: Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2), Dark Brown (10YR 4/3), and Yellowish Brown (10YR 3/2). This wall was founded on Locus 1019. Preserved/excavated width was four rows. Includes Loci 1011, 1013, 1014, and 1015. [N, S Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.l.17-19, 22-23, 26-29.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #7, med mammal frags. Shell: ud frags.


1018 NW 3b Description. Debris layer of fired brick and mortar rubble mixed with sherds, kiln waste, and

frags of charcoal. Material may have been swept into eroded crevices at base of Wall 1016 dur?

ing use of area. [N, S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.1.24, 30, 58.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #14, sm mammal rib shaft, mammal worked bone (artifact?).

Other: bits of plaster/stucco; kiln waste.

1019 NW 3a Description. Beaten surface (c. 5 cm thick) of Fine Yellow (10YR7/6) and Pale Yellow (5YR 7/3)

clay. possibly mixed with powdered limestone marl. Matrix includes infrequent sm bone frag? ments. This locus underlies Wall 1016 and seals Locus 1020 below it. Includes Locus 1017. [N, S, E, W Balks].


Material Culture.

Bone: ud frags. Terracotta: sm frag of Gnathian Ware (fig. 7.10, pl. 7.13).

Other: soil sample (float contained sm mammal frags, one was burnt).

1020 NW 2b Description. Debris of fine (moist) Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) and Very Dark Grayish Brown

(10YR 3/2) detritus soils including many whole and broken mudbricks ofthe same two colors. This locus is interpreted as the fall from Courses 1022-1024 in Wall 1026. [N, S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.l.32-33, 35-36, 38-39, 42.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #10, mammal frags (one with cut-marks); #11, Ig mammal frag. Shell: ud frags. Terracotta: no MC#, lamp (pl. 7.4).

Faience: #28, crocodile(?), pl. 7.15.

Other: soil sample (float contained shrew jaw); kiln waste.

1021 NW 2b Description. Scree of limestone chips within Locus 1020 brickfall. Matrix includes sherds and fired brick rubble. [N, S, E Balks].

Pottery Bag. N.I.l.34.

Material Culture.



Other: kiln waste; soil sample (PB 34 float contained fish vertebrae and spikelet fork [lx], Tri-

folium [lx], and Medicago [lx]).

1022 NW 2a Description. Partially fallen courses of Wall 1024 consisting of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) and Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbricks laid in Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mud mortar. Matrix was very damp and quite compacted. [N, S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.1.1.40-41, 43-45, 47, 48.

Material Culture.

Terracotta: #36, a base from a small jar found inside a mudbrick.

Other: soil sample (PB 47 float contained spiklet forks [7x], Lolium [lx], and indet. grass [lx]).

1023 NW 2a Description. Series of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbricks that could not always be

individually delineated. Matrix is very clay-like. Most probably this locus represents individual courses in Wall 1024. [N, S, W, Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.1.1.46.

Material Culture.

Stone: #33, two frags of white, fine-grained limestone, plus assorted pieces of (medium- to) coarse-

grained feldspar mica granite, and medium-grained black diorite; #37, chip of fine-grained black basalt.

Other: kiln waste; soil sample.

1024 NW 2a Description. Three courses of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) and Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbricks in Wall 1026. [N, S, E Balks].


Material Culture.

Faience: #47, yellow rim (figs. 7.11.20)

1025 NW 2a Description. Single course of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbricks in Wall 1026 that could not always be individually delineated. Matrix is very clay-like (as Locus 1023). [N, S, E, W

Balks].


Material Culture.

Other: kiln waste.

1026 NW 1 Description. Lowest courses (?) of a major N-S wall of mudbrick built with two types of bricks: a well-compacted Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) clay-like material, and a sandy disintegrated Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) soil. These are the lowest courses of this wall that could be excavated. Includes Loci 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025. [N, S, E, W Balks].


Material Culture.

Shell: #51, ud frag; #54, land snail frag. Stone: #52, ud frag. Other: kiln waste.




2001 NW 10 Description. Topsoil. Includes Loci 2006, 2008.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.01-06, 11, 13, 19.

2002 NW 4a Description. Small E-W wall, consisting of a single row of Very Dark Gray (5YR 3/1) mudbricks.

2003 NW 4a Description. Thin layer of fine, compacted Brown (7.5 YR 5/4) detritus soil. Matrix includes bits of marl, sand, and clay. Locus underlies Wall 2002.

2004 NW 3b Description. Debris layer of Brown (10 YR 4/3) mudbrick detritus soil. Matrix includes lumps of deteriorated Very Dark Gray (10 YR 3/1) mud brick.

2005 NW 3b Description. Thin lens of Very Pale Brown (10YR 7/3) detritus soil [with frequent sandy mortar inclusions].


2007 NW 10 Description. A thin layer of Light Yellowish Brown (10YR 61 A) silt-sand detritus. No visible inclusions.


2009 NW 6/7 Description. Debris layer of coarse Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) detritus soil. Matrix includes a small amount of fired-brick and mortar frags and some broken mudbricks.

2010 NW 6 Description. Silty sediment of Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) detritus soil.


2012 NW 3a Description. Major N-S wall, four rows wide, built of mudbricks of Light Brown

(7.5YR 6/4) clay-like material. Locus was founded on/in Locus 2019.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.07, 16A, 18.


2014 NW 3b Description. Lens of Light Yellowish Brown (10YR 6/4) wash-sediment within debris Locus 2017.


2015 NW 5 Description. Use-surface consisting of sandy, Very Pale Brown (10YR 7/4) mudbrick detritus.


Material Culture.

Other: soil sample (PB 08 float contained grape [lx], Trifolium [6x], Boraginaceae [6x], Com-

positae [2x], and Polygonaceae [2x]).

2016 NW 4b Description. Layer of Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) mudbrick detritus soil east of Wall 2012.

Infrequently, the matrix includes small chunks of mortar. Included Locus 2013.




Material Culture.

Shell: ud frags. Other: kiln waste; soil sample (float contained fish).

2017 NW 3b Description. Thick debris layer of Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbrick detritus. Includes several lenses: Loci 2014, 2024, 2025, and 2048.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.14, 17, 18A.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #84, mammal long bone shaft frag (charred); mammal long bone shaft frag (humerus?).

2018 NW 4b Description. Coarse Light Brownish Gray (10YR 6/2) debris accumulated against the east face of Wall 2002.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.16, 17A, 21.

2019 NW 3a Description. Lens of coarse Pinkish Gray (7.5YR 6/2) detritus and [burnt?] sandy-silt from beneath Wall 2012.

Pottery Bag. N.I.2.22. Material Culture.

Terracotta: #85, frag of molded bowl with Bes, column, and vegetation, (fig. 7.9, pl. 7.12).

2020 NW 3b Description. A thick, pottery-rich debris layer of Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbrick detritus.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.19A, 20A, 22A, 26, 28, 32, 36, 38, 53-54, 60, 74, 76.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #6, med (immature?) mammal diaphysis, metapodial, and frags, Bos molar frag; #27, mammal lg frag, fish ud frags. Shell: #20; #26, lg land snail frags. Terracotta: #65 and #65a, frags of plaques depicting Papposilenos(?) (pls. 7.1 and 7.2). #88, stamped amphora handle No. 10 (fig. 7.4).

Faience: #16, rim, fig. 7.11.6.

Metal: #10, frag of copper alloy pin. Preserved length c. 1.5 x W. 0.3 cm. Completely mineralized.

Stone: ud frags.


2022 NW 2b Description. Debris layer of Brown (10YR 5/3-7.5YR 5/4) mudbrick detritus. Matrix includes mortar and limestone frags and cinders.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.21A, 23, 27, 29, 31, 39, 47, 49, 51, 55.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #17, fish(?) frag, bird ulna (prox end?); #37, mammal frags; #58, mammal lg frags. Shell: #12, tellen(?) and mussel(?).

Terracotta: #87, stamped amphora handle No. 13 (fig. 7:6).

Faience: #56, rim (fig. 7.11.4).

Stone: #18, including lapis(?).



Other: kiln waste; mortar.

2023 NW 3b Description. Deposit of Light Grayish Brown (10YR 6/2) debris.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.25, 30.

2024 NW 3b Description. Lens of dry and crumbly Yellow (10YR 7/6)?Pale Yellow (5YR 7/3) detritus within Locus 2017.


2025 NW 3b Description. Lens of burnt detritus within debris Locus 2017. Mudbrick had been fired to a Pinkish Gray (5YR 6/2) color and mixed with ash, charcoal and sherds. See also Locus 2029.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #22, med mammal rib frag (burnt) and longbone shaft frag (burnt).

Shell: ud frag.

2026 NW 3b Description. A lense of whitish-orange (no Munsell equivalent) ash within Locus 2025.


2027 NW 3b Description. A white ash lens within Locus 2025. Matrix contains small bits of charcoal.


2029 NW 3b Description. Lens of whitish-orange ash within Locus 2025.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #25, mammal lg frag (charred).

2030 NW 2a Description. Major N-S wall constructed from Dark Brown (7.5YR 4/2) and Brown (10YR 4/3)

clay-like mudbricks. This wall is four rows, wide and three courses were preserved/excavated. This locus possibly represents the upper courses of Wall 2035. See also Locus 2039.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.37, 41, 45, 50, 66, 69.

Material Culture.

Shell: ud frag. Metal: #79, two frags (2.2 cm and 2.2 cm in length) of iron nail(s). Completely rusted. Coating of lime plaster below the corrosion could indicate that they had been driven into a lime wall.

Other: kiln waste; wood?

2031 N W 2b Description. Debris layer of coarse Brown (10YR 4/3) mudbrick detritus. This locus appears to have been leveled for the foundation of Wall 2012 and subsequently used as a surface with that wall.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.43-44, 46, 48.






2035 NW2a Description. Fine, well compacted Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) clay below Wall 2030. This locus most probably constituted the lower courses of same wall although the individual bricks could not be differentiated with great certainty.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #43, red frags. Faience: #46, bead No. 22 (pl. 7:16); #52, rim (fig. 7:12.5); #59, base (fig. 7.11.17).

Metal: #60, frag of copper or copper alloy. Preserved dimensions: 2.4 x 2.2 x 0.3 cm Active bronze disease.

Stone: #35, sm frag of fine grained black basalt; #37, two frags of med coarse-grained feldspar mica

granite; #45, several frags of white fine-grained limestone; #53, white, fine-grained limestone.

Other: kiln waste.

2036 NW lc Description. Fine, silty 10YR 4/3 (Brown-Dark Brown) sediment layer that sealed the pit-debris between Walls 2044 and 2045.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #62, mammal (adult pig?) metapoidal III/IV, lg mammal ud frags with phalanx 2

(F).

Faience: #64a, Bes figurine No. 20 (pl. 7.14).

Other: pumice?

2037 NW la Description. Fine Brown (7.5YR 4/2) soil layer interpreted as an upper coarse in both Walls 2044 and 2045.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #73, mammal frag (charred with cut marks).

Shell: ud frags.

2038 NW lb Description. Coarse rubble fill(?) within the cornering of Walls 2044 and 2045. Matrix [no Munsell equivalents available] included c. 50% crushed sherds, 40% kiln waste and 10% char? coal.


Material Culture.

Metal: #67, frag (c. 3.3 x 0.6 cm) iron nail(?), completely mineralized.

Other: kiln waste; soil sample (PB 63 float contained fish and emmer wheat [lx], spikelet forks

[129x], lentil [lx], grape [lx], fig [2x], cereal frags [24x], Lolium [35x], Chenopodium [lx],

Trifolium [19x], Cyperaceae [2x], and indeterminate [lx]).

2039 NW 2a Description. A course of mudbricks fallen (?) from Wall 2030 onto the Locus 2040 fall-debris. Mudbricks of two materials: a Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) fabric and a Pale Brown

(10YR 6/3) soil.

2040 NW2b Description. Fall-debris of fine Brown (10YR 4/3) detritus. Matrix includes c. 30% broken mudbricks.

Pottery Bags. N.I.2.62, 64, 73, 75.

Material Culture.

Faience: #68, red bits.



Stone: #70, two pieces of very coarse-grained feldspar-mica-granite and one piece of gray, medium-

grained marble.

Other: #71, carved(?) bone.

2041 NW la Description. Two courses, of Brown (7.5YR 4/2) and Dark Brown (7.5YR 3/2 mudbricks in Wall 2045.

Pottery Bags: N.I.2.67, 71.

Material Culture:

Other: kiln waste.

2042 NW lb Description. Debris of coarse Brown (7.5YR 4/4) soil within the cornering of Walls 2044 and

2045. Matrix includes c. 20% sherds).


Material Culture.

Other: kiln waste.

2043 NW lb Description. Lowest debris layer excavated within the cornering of Walls 2044 and 2045. Brown (7.5YR 4/4) matrix includes c. 5% sherds, 10% kiln waste, 10% fired-brick frags mixed with flecks of charcoal.


Material Culture.

Other: kiln waste; soil sample (PB 70 float contained sm bone frags and lentil [lx]).

2044 NW la Description. E-W wall of Dark Reddish Gray (5YR 4/2) mudbricks, bonded into Wall 2045.

[G-I Balks].

2045 NW la Description. N-S wall of Dark Reddish Gray (5YR 4/2) mudbricks, bonded into Wall 2044. Includes course of bricks dug as Loci 2037, 2041. [I-J Balks].

2046 NW 7/6 Description. Three Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) mudbricks, interpreted as part ofa row/course of bricks fallen from an unexcavated/unidentified wall in the immediate vicinity. [A-B Balks].

2047 NW 617 Description. A single mudbrick. Similar to those of Locus 2046.

2048 NW 3 Description. A lens of Pinkish Gray (7.5YR 7/2) ash, charcoal, and marl bits, within debris

Layer 2017. This locus is associated with lens 2014.


Locus Summaries Lists Area 490


49001 NW 10 Description. Top soil.

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.01-12, 14-19, 28, 84, 86, 90.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #6, med mammal axial frags; #12, med mammal proxima ulna(?) frag and axial frags, rodent canine tooth; #14, med mammal axial and ud frags; #21, lg bird long bone (prox tarso-metatarsus).

Human bone: HRC #4, #8, #10, and #84.

Shell: #3, Corbula; #4, Bellamaya; #8, land snail; #9, Bellamaya; #11,

Bellamaya; #12, land snail; #13, Bellamaya and Unio; #15, Unio; #18, Bel?

lamaya, land snail, and Donax trunculusr, #22, Donax trunculus; #31 and

#33, Bellamaya. Other: glass; charcoal.

49002 NW 10 Description. Late debris layer of mixed Brown (10YR 5/4) and Very Dark

Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2), mudbrick debris. [Probe].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.13, 15-18, 22-24, 27-30, 41, 43-44, 52, 60.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #21, bird (chicken) prox tarsometatarsus; #27, med-lg mam? mal axial frags and v lg fish vertebral centrum; #32, med bird distal femur; #40 med mammal axial frags. Shell: #17, Bellamaya; #26, Bellamaya and land snail; #28, lg land snail and

operculae; #30, AspatharialEtheria frag and Bellamaya; #41, land snail; #6A, Unio, Bellamaya, and land snail.

49003 NW 5 Description. Major E-W wall segment enclosing the Northwest Building at its northern end. Equivalent, most likely, to 49103 Wall; gap between the

49103 and 49003 ofthe wall may be a doorway into the building from the north side. Made of Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbricks, with mortar of similar material between courses. [N Balk].

49004P Hiatus Description. Thin layer of use surface in room 1, trampled and indurated B & C with flat-lying sherds; at top of debris 49004. [S, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.31, 64, 97.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #29, sm mammal ud frags, med mammal rib shaft frags (with rodent gnaw marks).

49004 Hiatus Description. Layer of fine Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) detritus in Room 1. A & B Top used as surface (?). Matrix includes sherds, plaster frags, bone, shell and

charcoal. [N, S, W, Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.20, 32-34, 37, 82, 85, 87-88, 91, 94-95, 98, 102.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #31, rodent-gnawed med mammal rib shaft frag; #79, rodent

mandible, sm mammal mandible, long bone shaft frag (burnt), humerus shaft

frag, and sternal rib frag; #95, med mammal rib shaft frags; #99, rodent(s) mandibles, cranial frags, right femur (lacks distal epiphysis), humerus (lacks

prox epiphysis), prox tibia, scapular frags, and med mammal pelvic frag; #78,

med/lg mammal long bone shaft frags; #113, med mammal frag.


Phase Description

Shell: #89, Bellamaya and land snail; #93, land snail and Donax trunculus.

Metal: #35, #94, #98, and #114, four iron nails, sizes vary. Stone: #86, "polished" limestone burnisher; #40, unillustrated.

Plaster: #92, c. ten pieces (ave. 5.0 x 4.5 x 2.5 cm). of white plaster with limestone chips; #100, chunk of mortar with plaster face adhering. Other: charcoal; kiln waste; soil.

49005 NW 10 Description. Debris layer of fallen bricks in Room 1. Most bricks are Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) with some Dark Brown (10YR 3/3 [N, S, E, W

Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.19, 21, 25, 72, 74, 78-79.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #61, lg fish cranial frags, med mammal axial frag, sm/med mammal long bone shaft frags, and lg mammal (Bos?) left calcaneus; #66, med mammal distil radius, med/lg mammal longbone shaft frags, sm mam? mal or bird ud frag (axial?).

Shell: #28, land snail; #26, #64, Bellamaya and land snail.

Metal: #24, several sm frags of iron nail(s).

Stone: #111, frag of light brown, coarse-grained quartzite. Other: ud bits of plaster; charcoal.

49006

49007

49008

49009

49010

49011

? Cancelled. Combined with Locus 49017.



NW 10 Possible tomb in balk. [S Balk].


NW 10 Description. Burial pit filled with Brown (10YR 5/3) detritus soil cut down from topsoil to hard brick debris 49005. Contained disarticulated bones of

incomplete skeleton, most probably represents a secondary burial. [S, E, Balks].

49012 NW 8 Description. Level layer of mudbrick detritus, soil, and rubble in Room 1. Used as surface? Dark Brown-Yellowish Brown (10YR 4/3-4/4) matrix that includes iron nails and patches of white organic fibers, some of which were found at levels comparable to similar material/items found on 49150P also inRoom 1. [S, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.40, 49-50.

Material Culture.

Shell: ud frags. Metal: #37, six frags of iron nails, sizes vary; #44, frag (2.7 x 0.5 cm) of iron nail.

49013 NW 5 Description. Major N-S wall of Brown (10YR 5/4) mudbricks laid with mud mortar of similar material between courses, closing the NW Building at its eastern end. Wall was bisected by burial pit 49016. [N, S, Balks].



49014

49015

49016

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.119-20.



NW 10 Description. Burial pit containing an (apparently) articulated skeleton (not excavated), dug into/through Wall 49013. Only part ofthe matrix was exca? vated. [EBalk].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.36, 38, 42, 45, 58-59, 68, 89, 99-100.

Material Culture.

Human bone: #104, femur head (F, charred), pelvis frag, frags. Animal bone: #39, med mammal long bone shaft frags, Bos vertebral centrum (UF, butchered); #52 med/lg mammal axial frag, bird long bone shaft

frag. Shell: #53 Unio; #105 Bellamaya and lg land snail.

Faience: #107, ud frags. Metal: #56, iron nail.

Plaster: #19, frags of white lime plaster (some pieces to 1.4 cm) with coarse sand and gravel of fluvial origin. Surface 7.5YR 5/8 (Red) pigment applied al secco.

Other: charcoal.

49017 NW 9 Description. Thick debris of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) and Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbrick rubble in Room 1/2. Matrix includes some broken Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) bricks, some lighter colored bricks, spo- radic sherd concentrations, and well-compacted areas. Interpreted as fall from Wall 49013. [N, S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.15, 26, 35, 39, 46-48, 51, 53-57, 61-63, 66-67, 69-70, 73, 75-77, 80, 83, 92.

Material Culture.

Animal bone; #58, med mammal ud frag cancellous bone (axial) and bird

long bone shaft frags; #60, OvislCapra mandible frags (burnt) and sm mam? mal frags; #65, med mammal long bone shaft frags and astralagus frags; #66, mammal frags and sm mammal/bird frag; #70, med mammal axial frag; #71, med mammal axial frags, humerus shaft frag, and tooth frags and Sus(V) metatarsus.

Shell: #30, Bellamaya and Aspatharia rubens or Etheria elliptica; #42, #63, #67, land snail and frags; #80, land snail and Donax trunculus.

Metal: #47, iron nail. Preserved length 4.7 cm; W. (at head) 1.3 cm Severely corroded; #50, iron nail. Preserved length 3.6 cm; W. (at head) 1.5 cm. Very corroded.

Stone: #57, sm segment (3.4 x 1.1 cm) of brown flint blade; #38, both ends

snapped (unillustrated); #73, three pieces of "stone" with clump of mortar with plaster adhering; #81, limestone, white with shades of yellow decora? tion. Broken block with cut marks. (preserved: 10.5 x 7.5 x 6.0 cm). #82, limestone, white-yellow, fine grained. Plaster: #73, frag (c. 10.0 x 15.0 x 3.0 cm) of white-gray plaster with mor? tar adhering. Other: kiln waste.






49021P ? Cancelled. Combined with Locus 49004P.




49024 Hiatus A Description. Debris layer of Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mud-brick detritus, rubble and silt, interpreted as fall of bricks from Wall 49013 to the east of that wall. [N, S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.65, 71, 93, 95, 102.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #95, med mammal rib frags; #97, med/lg. fish cranial frag. Shell: #83, land snail.

Faience: #110, red frags. Metal: #108, iron nail.

Stone: #85, frag of soft, white limestone block with cutting marks.

Plaster: misc bits of white plaster. Other: brick; charcoal.

49025

49026


NW 10 Description. Large pit containing fine Brown (10YR 5/3) detritus, cut from

topsoil. Included some human bone frags, suggesting its secondary use as a burial. [S, W Balks].


49027

49028

49029

Cancelled. Combined with Locus 49016.


NW 7 Description. Debris layer of Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbrick detritus in Room 1. Matrix includes sherds, mortar/plaster fragments, charcoal, and a few iron nails. Top of Locus served as surface. [S Balk]

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.103, 105-7.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #113, med mammal axial (scapular?) frag. Faience: #116, rim, (fig. 7.12.7).

Plaster: #115, small frag of plaster; #117, ten (c. 8.0 x 7.0 x 3.0 cm) pieces of

white-gray plaster with smoothed "exterior" surface; #119, piece (11.0 x 7.2 x 3.2 cm) of gray mortar, and one piece (5.0 x 2.5 x 2.0 cm) of white plaster with smoothed face.


Loc Phase Description

Other: soil sample.

49030 NW 6 Description. Debris layer quite similar to Locus 49029 above it, but matrix is more compacted and included many chunks of red-fired brick as well as other inclusions found in 49029. [S Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #120, long bone shaft (humerus?) and med/lg mammal longbone frags. Faience: #123, ud frags. Other: plaster; soil sample.

49031 NW 10 Description. Backfill debris from previous seasons removed from probe. [Probe].


49032

49033P


NW 9 Description. Possible exterior surface N of the cornering of Wall 49003 and 49013, the lumpy trampled top of Locus 49033 with some flat-lying sherds in evidence. [Probe].


49033 Hiatus C Description. Coarse Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbrick detritus debris outside NE corner of building. [Probe].

Pottery Bags. N.I.490.113-16, 120-21.

49034P Hiatus B Description. Possible exterior surface outside NE corner of building. Tram?

pled with flat-lying sherds in evidence. [Probe].


49034 Hiatus A Description. Brown to Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 5/3-2.5Y 4/2) soil of mudbrick detritus origin, accumulated outside N corner of building. [Probe].



Locus Summaries Lists Area 491


49101 NW10 Description. Topsoil.

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.01, 02, 40, 45, 47, 51, 67, 75, 80, 96, 125, 158, 164.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #2, lg mammal frags. Human bone: HRC #4.

Shell: #2, lg land snail; #3, land snail frags; #7, lg land snail; #55, lg land snail.

Faience: #6, base (fig. 7.11.15); #187, ud frags. Metal: #188, iron nails.

Plaster: #5, frags of white lime (CaCo3) plaster. Red surface pigment applied al secco.

Other: soil; marl.

49102 NW10 Description. Modern tomb of Brown (10YR 5/3) sunbaked bricks, and red fired bricks

(10YR 5/4 Weak Red?5YR 5/6 Yellowish Red). Bones removed and reburied. Tomb is sim? ilar to Type III or Type V known in SE areas of mound (in Areas 12 and 15). The pit for the tomb, (possibly pit 49112) was dug into Locus 49130.

49103 NW 5 Description. Major E-W section ofthe western extension of Wall 49003 in Area 490.

49104 NW 10 Description. Modern tomb of Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbricks had been severely damaged when its presence was recorded in 1981. It was not excavated and disappeared between the 1981 and 1982 seasons. Apparently a tomb of Type V known in the SE areas of South Mound.



49107 NW 6a Description. Major N-S wall forming west end of building during some of its phases. Con? structed of Brown-Grayish Brown (10YR 5/3-2.5Y 5/2) mudbricks laid in mud mortar of similar material. [N, S Balks].


49108 ? Cancelled.

49109 ? Cancelled.



49112 NW 10 Description. Large pit cut from topsoil, filled with Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) detritus. This may be the pit dug for Tomb 49102, although the stratigraphic connection could not be made. [S Balk].

49113 NW 10 Description. Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) layer of mudbrick detritus, perhaps debris from the

digging of Pit 49112. [S Balk].



49114 Hiatus A Description. Layer of ash lenses upon Locus 49115 and 49151. Matrix included charcoal and burnt detritus of many colors ranging from Black (7.5YR 2/0) to White (7.5YR 8/0, and including Strong Brown (7.5YR 5/6), Light Yellowish Brown (10YR 6/4), and Dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 4/4). Used as a surface(?). [N Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #35, OvislCapra-sized rib (burnt).

Other: soil sample.

49115 Hiatus A Description: Layer of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) detritus behind the top course of Wall 49138 in Room 2. It is interpreted as leveled rubble from fall of Wall 49138. [N Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #39, lg land mammal longbone shaft, ungulate(?) lumbar vertebra (spinous process), bird sternum.

Metal: #38, spike. Stone: ud frags. Other: kiln waste.

49116 NW 8a or Description. Layer of mixed pit material located behind Wall 49138 in Room 2. Dark Hiatus A Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) matrix includes pieces of fired brick, plaster/mortar, kiln waste,

and limestone fragments. Matrix became very silty at the bottom. [N Balk].


Material Culture.

Shell: #A6, lg land snail frag. Stone: #A7, slab/block of fine grained, white limestone with rasp marks (pl. 7.19).

Other: kiln waste.


49118 NW 8a or Description. Debris layer of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) detritus behind west of Wall Hiatus A 49138 in the "bin" in Room 2. [N Balk].


Material Culture.

Faience: #42, ud frags.

49119 NW8b Description. Hypothetical short wall stub identical to 49133 against interior face of Wall 50202-49003 in Room 2. Very likely it existed; it is clear in balk but did not reach Wall 49135. [NBalk].

49120 NW8b Description. Surface of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) detritus upon debris Layer 49149 in Room 2. [N, E Balks].


49121- ? Description. Removal and cleanup of 1981 backfill before the commencement ofthe 1982 49129 season.

49130 NW 10 Description. Debris layer of deteriorated mudbrick fall. A silty Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) detritus matrix with inclusions of broken Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1-3/2) mudbricks. [N, S, E Balks].



Pottery Bags. N.I.491.03-07, 11, 17, 23-24, 41-43, 55, 60, 62, 86-87, 90, 92-94, 97, 160-163.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #51, med fish(?) rib(?) frags, bird incomplete 1st phalanx, femur shaft, and sternal frag process; #109, mammal tooth frags (probabaly Bos) and rodent and fish frags; #114, med bird coracoid; #186, OvislCapra tooth frags. Human bone: HRC #90.

Shell: #52, #53, Donax trunculus and lg land snails; #115, AspatharialEtheriatf) frag. Metal: #9, head of iron nail. Preserved dimensions: 1.4 x 1.7 cm Oxidized. Completely min-

eralized; #10, frag of iron nail. Preserved length 2.6 cm; W. 1.8 cm red, brown and black oxides.

Faience: #103, rim (fig. 17.12.4); #106, base (fig. 7.11.16).

Other: kiln waste; plaster.

49131 Hiatus B Description. Debris of silty clear Brown-Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/3-5/4) layer in Room 1/2. Detritus soil riddled with animal burrows and nests. [N, S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.19-22, 26-27, 44, 46, 49-50, 56-57, 66, 70, 72, 82-83, 126, 128-

130, 133, 138, 140-141, 145-146, 167-168.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #28, Ovisl Capra-sized longboneshaft frags (burnt); #54, bird pelvis frag; #57, shrew and rodent frags; #59, med/lg mammal and bird frags; #61, med mammal very weath? ered longbone (or axial) frags; #75, complete rodent tibia; #94, shrew femur, pelvis, ulna and ud frags and sm bird carpometacarpus; #96, med mammal horn core(?) frags; #97, shrew tibia, ulna, rib, vertebra, mandible, and complete maxillae, lg rodent rib, and sm bird rib; #149, bone; #163, Bos molar frags; #173, mammal frag. Shell: #74, lg land snail opercula frags; #82, #144, lg land snails; #98, Donax trunculus frags. Faience: rims, #23 (fig. 7.11.8), #56a and #56b (figs. 7.11.11 and 7.11.9), and #92, (fig. 7.12.12); ud frags #145, #150. #153. and #171.

Metal: #21, a group of five (incomplete) iron nails. Preserved dimensions L x W (at head): 6.2 x 1.3 cm; 3.1 x 1.6 cm; 4.1 x 1.7 cm; 4.9 x 1.7 cm; and 3.7 x 0.8 cm (head not pre? served), Red and brown oxides. Mineralized; #22, iron nail. Preserved length 7.7 cm; W. (at head) 1.8 cm. Completely mineralized; #24, copper or copper alloy pin or awl. Preserved

length 6.1 cm. Circular in section (0.6 cm D.) at one end and square in section (3.0 x 3.0 cm) at other end. Fairly good condition, but active bronze disease starting to erupt on an otherwise compact surface; #25, iron nail. Preserved length 6.2 cm; W. (at head) 1.6 cm. Red and brown oxides. Completely mineralized; #31, pieces of iron representing two nails. Preserved

length 6.6 and 2 6.3 cm respectively; W. 1.2 cm. Completely mineralized; #60, two pieces of

(the same) iron nail. Preserved length (joined) 7.8 cm; W. (at head) 1.6 cm. Completely mineralized; #93, frag of iron nail (preserved length 4.0 cm; W 0.6 cm). Almost completely mineralized; #139 and #142, ud bronze coins, poor condition; #149, iron nail. Preserved

length 4.3 cm; W. 1.2 cm. Corroded.

Stone: #60 and #146, frags of coarse-grained, felspar mica granite (pink, gray and black); #149, a gypsum rosette (common in the salt lakes around Alexandria).

Plaster: #32, sm (2.0 x 1.5 x 0.5 cm) lump of soft and crumbly, white, lime plaster. Conser? vator Weber noted that this appeared to be CaCo4 (not CaCo3), since it did not react to/ with hydrochloric acid.

Other: soil sample; kiln waste; charcoal; burnt wood (#91, #95, #96 and #161); ochre (#99).


49133 NW 8b Description. Short N-S stub wall abutting N face of wall 50202 in Room 2. Built of Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbricks laid in mortar of similar material. [E Balk].



49134 ? Cancelled. Combined with Locus 49149

49135 NW6a Description. Interior E-W screen wall separating Rooms 1 and 2. Built of Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbricks laid with mud mortar of two types: Brown (10YR 5/3) mortar-like brick material between the individual bricks of each course, with Dark Grayish Brown mortar (10YR 4/2) used between each course. Abuts E face of contemporary Wall 49107, but not, as preserved, at right angle. Together with stub Wall 49133, Wall 49135 makes an "entryway" into Room 2. As preserved, the upper two courses of Wall 49135 were apparently added later either to serve as a low bench, or a partition wall [if Debris 49137 is interpreted as fall from Wall

49135] with Surface 49150P in Room 1.

49136 Hiatus C Description. Debris lens of fine Brown/Dark Brown detritus (10YR 4/3-5/3) deposited across the entire extent of the undulating top of debris Locus 49131. Used as a surface. Matrix includes 90% broken pottery with ash and small bone fragments. [N, S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.08-09, 12-13, 15, 18, 25, 48, 52, 65, 81, 84, 102, 111-112, 122, 124, 127, 134, 137, 166.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #11, rodent skeleton and sm bird femur; #15, lg mammal longbone frags; #59, med bird longbone shaft frags and med/lg mammal axial frags; #87, sm bird humeri, ulna, and femur and rodent mandibles and femur; #111, med mammal very friable axial frags; #112, ex? tensive rodent remains from a burrow intrusive to the locus and very sm carnivore mandibles; #122, rodent femur (immature), tibia, and pelvic frag, bird shaft and distal femur, synsacrum, tarsometatarsis and thoracic vertebra frags, sm mammal axial and long bone shaft frags; #132, med mammal axial frags (rib?); #138, med/lg mammal axial frags; #147, bird coracoid frag, ud mammal frags, and ud coprolite specimen; #193, bird(?) long bone shaft frag and med mam? mal humerus shaft frag (with possible cut-marks) and numerous long bone shaft frags. Shell: #12, land snail; #17, land snail; #58, land snails; #87, land snail frags; #88, land snail

frags; #123, land snail; #132, land snail; #136, land snails and land snail frags; #147, Donax trunculus.

Terracotta: #196, stamped amphora handle No. 11 (not illustrated).

Metal: #137, piece of iron nail. Preserved length 4.1 cm, W. 1.8 cm Rusted; #157, iron nail. Preserved length 4.1 cm; width 1.6 cm. Corroded; #192, bronze coin, poor condition, ud.

Stone: #118, broken plaque (c. 4.5 x 3.6 x 2.5 cm) of soft white limestone. Two original edges preserved. Carved on both faces. Side A: Cobra (Agathos Daimon?), Side B: Uncertain

(fig. 7.13 and pl. 7.17).

Other: soil sample (PB 111 float contained rodent and fish frags); pink ash; charcoal.

49137P _

49137 Hiatus A


Description. Very thick debris layer of Brown (10YR 5/3) detritus soil in Room 1. Matrix includes c. 80% broken bricks, with occasional patches of white organic material thought to be remains of straw matting similar to that from Locus 49150P. Possibly represents fall from Wall 49135. Top used as surface. [N, S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.32, 53-54, 59, 116, 118-119, 139, 142, 144, 147, 148a, 148b, 153, 155-156, 159, 169, 170.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #130, rodent prox femur half and distal tibia frag and sm mammal rib shaft

frag; #167, med mammal humerus shaft frag; #183, med/lg mammal ud frags (possibly cra?

nial); #203, rodent long boneshaft frags, mandibles, vertebra tibias(?), femurs and pelvics, med mammal axial frags, sm bird right humerus and coracoid.



Shell: #129 and #166, Donax trunculus.

Faience: #194, ud frags. Metal: #62, two frags of iron nail(s): Preserved length 4.5 and 3.2 cm, respectively; W. 0.6 cm; #128, three pieces of iron nail(s).

Stone: #79, three frags of "mortar" of which two frags (7.2 x 6.0 x 5.0 cm, and 3.5 x 3.0 x 1.4 cm) are lime and one frag (5.0 x 4.8 x 2.8 cm) is not lime. The non-lime frag is whiter than the lime mortar; #160, round, smooth pebble of chert.

Other: bits of white plaster; kiln waste.

49138 NW 7c Description. Narrow N-S interior wall stretching between Walls 50202 and 49135 at the western end of Room 2. Built with two types of mudbricks: a sandy-textured Very Dark

Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2-3/3) clay and heavier Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) material. One row of bricks wide, preserved to a height of seven courses. Accumulation between Wall 49138 and Wall 49107 is considered to be pit material. [N Balk].


49139 NW 7d Description. Debris layer in Room 2 of fine, Dark Brown (10YR3/3) detritus. Matrix includes c. 40% broken Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) bricks from fall of Wall 49138. [N Balk].

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.67-69, 71, 73.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #78, incomplete rodent pelvis; #80, bird longbone shaft frag, sm/med mammal axial frag; #81, sm birds' carpometacarpus, premaxillae(beak), shaft and distal tibias, prox tarsometatarsus, distae, and (1st, 2nd and 3rd) phalanges. Shell: #52, Donax trunculus; #68, #71, #73, lg land snails and operculae. Plaster: #72, thick (3.0 cm) chunk (c. 5.2 x 3.7 cm) of coarse lime (CaCo3) plaster with fine surface (40x magnification showed that this surface was merely smoothed and did not repre? sent a separate coat of plaster). L. (0.5-1.0 cm) fluvial gravel in a sandy matrix.

Other: wood; mortar.

49140 NW 7d Description. Architectural debris in Room 2 consisting of silty Brown (10 YR 4/3) mud? brick detritus. Matrix includes c. 80% fired [red] brick fragments with white plaster/mortar attached, c. 10% broken Very Dark Gray to Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/1-3/2) mudbricks, and 0.5% each mortar fragments and lumps of charcoal. Nature of deposition is uncertain. [N Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #101, bird and ud frags. Shell: #67, lg land snail operculae. Stone: limestone chips. Other: fired brick with mortar/plaster; kiln waste.

49141 NW 7b Description. Coarse debris layer of silty Dark Grayish Brown to Brown (10YR 4/2-5/3) mudbrick detritus in Room 2. Matrix includes c. 40% chunks of Very Dark Gray (10YR

3/1) bricks. Interpreted as leveled fill for foundation of small Wall 49138. Top of locus used as a surface. [N Balk].

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.76, 79, 85, 88, 91.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #101, sm bird carpometa-carpus, med mammal ud frags (axial?). Shell: #104, land snail frag.



Plaster: #85, frag (8.5 x 6.0 x 2.6 cm) of "faced" med-gray lime plaster. Other: kiln waste; soil sample.

49142 ?

49143 NW 10


Description. Layer in Room 3 of crumbly Brown to Dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/3-4/4) mudbrick detritus. Matrix includes lumps of Brown and Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 5/3-4/2) bricks, probably equivilant to wallfall debris Locus 49130 on the east side of Wall 49107.

[NBalk].


Material Culture.

Metal: #133, iron nail. Preserved length 4.0 cm; W. (at head) 1.6 cm

49144 NW 9b Description. E-W wall enclosing S end of Room 1. Built of Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbricks

except for one Dark Grayish Brown (10 YR 4/2) brick, apparently bonded into upper courses of E face of Wall 49107. [S Balk].

49145 NW7b Description. Compacted debris layer of Brown to Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/3-4/2) de? tritus in Room 2. Matrix includes pieces of mudbricks and some fired-brick debris possibly from Locus 49140. [N Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #105, med mammal longbone frags (humerus?).

49146P NW6b Description. Trampled surface at top of layer 49146 in Room 2. Flat-lying sherds occur fre?

quently. This locus is interpreted as the first surface N of 49135 Wall to be used with that wall and with Wall 49107. [N Balk].


49146 NW6b Description. Well-mixed, compacted debris layer of two mudbrick detritus soils: a sandy Brown to Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 5/3-4/2) soil and a stickier Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) ma? terial in Room 2. This matrix includes small charcoal and white mortar/plaster bits and, very occasionally, a small sherd. This is a heavy, deliberately leveled fill that reinforced the founda? tions ofthe two major Walls 49107 and 49135. [N Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #120, sm mammal distal metapodial frags and bird(?) frags. Shell: #121, Aspatharia rubens or Etheria elliptica frags. Faience: #124-125, rim frags of same vessel(?) (figs. 7.11.3 and 7.12.4)

Stone: ud frags Other: soil sample (PB 107 float contained Trifolium [2x] and Caryophyllaceaeflx]); fired- brick with mortar.


49148 NW9a Description. A heavy layer of debris spread across Room 1 consisting of a Brown/Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) detritus matrix that includes a large quantity of broken mudbricks of

Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) and (10YR 4/3). This locus was used as a foundation layer for Wall 49144, while its top was probably used as a surface during the final use phase of the

building. [S, E Balks].



Pottery Bags. N.I.491.98, 100-101, 103-104, 106, 108, 113-115, 117, 120, 123, 165.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #109, rodent right femur, fish cranial frag, and tooth and maxillae/mandibular

frags fm a herbivore larger than OvislCapra; #114, med bird coracoid; #135, bird longbone shaft and scapular(?) frags and med/lg mammal humerus.

Shell: #115, Aspatharia rubens or Etheria elliptica frag. Metal: #190, iron nail.

Stone: #189, frag (18 x 9.0 x 6.5 cm) ofa slab of fine-grained white limestone with rasp marks (unillustrated); #110, limestone tessera(}).

Other: soil sample.

49149P ? Cancelled. Combined with Locus 49120.

49149 NW 8a Description. Leveled debris layer in Room 2, of coarse Brown to Dark Brown (10YR 5/3- 3/3) detritus with many broken mudbricks predominantly Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) but some Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2). Used as surface. [N, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.58, 61, 64, 149, 152.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #173, med mammal axial frag. Shell: #68, lg land snail.

Terracotta: #85, lamp frag (fig. 7.1, pl. 7.6).

Metal: #63, iron nail. Preserved length 7.2 cm; W. (at head). 4 cm rusted, black and red oxide. almost completely mineralized; #66, "rusty" sherd; #69, two pieces (each c. 2.5 and 1.4 cm, and 0.7 cm) of iron nail(s). Severely corroded and consisting primarily of corrosion

product. Other: kiln waste.

49150P NW 8b Description. Trampled, a laminated surface that included a very thin, patchy layer of organic white material traced all across Room 1. This white material is interpreted as the remains of a straw mat spread on floor and secured with many iron nails. A few flat-lying sherds were

present, most of which were clearly above/upon the "mat." [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.131-132, 135, 157, 171.

Material Culture.

Metal: #147, two iron nails. One, straight (preserved length 3.7 cm; W. 1.7 cm), and one bent

(length?if straightened?5.7 cm; W 1.9 cm); #151 and #154, two iron nails. Preserved length 4.3 cm; W. (at head) 2.0 cm including a heavy coat of corrosion; #182 and #195.

Other: soil sample: (PB 171 float contained chenopodium [lx]); charcoal; kiln waste.

49150 NW 8a Description. A leveled layer of coarse, Brown (10YR 5/3-4/3) debris/detritus in Room 1. Matrix includes c. 50% broken bricks of same color and Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2). [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.491.136, 143, 172-173, 179-188.

Material Culture.

Shell: #199, Venus verrucosa.

Terracotta: #202a pl. 7.5 and #202b fig. 7.2 and pl. 7.7, lamp frags. Faience: #198, rim (fig. 7:19.11); #213, ud frags. Metal: #165, #197, and #200, iron nails.

Stone: mortar/plaster. Other: soil sample (PB 136 float contained Lolium [lx]).




49152 NW 8a Description. Small "firepit" lined with large sherds in Room 2 along the N face of Wall 49135. Pit was dug from Surface 49149, and contained, fibery black charcoal and black ash as well as bone fragments and large snails shells [intrusive ?]. The pit was topped by a single Light Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbrick, and some of the clay from this brick had eroded and accumulated at the sides of the giving the false impresion of a lining. Later intrusion by rodent burrowing was evident.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #179, med mammal longbone shaft frags. Shell: #176 and #180, lg land snails.

Other: soil sample; charcoal.

49153 ? Cancelled. Combined with Wall 50202.

49154 NW 9a Description. A scree of whole and broken mudbricks at top of debris Layer 49148. Equiva? lent to 49005 to east. [S, E Balks].

49155 NW 6a Description. Detritus layer with matrix similar to Locus 49146, but with larger lumps of mudbrick. Top probably used as the initial surface for Wall 49107.

Pottery Bag. N.I.174.

Material Culture.

Plaster: bits of white plaster. Other: soil sample.

49156 ? Description. Post-1982 season backfill, of unknown provenience (done by villagers). Pottery recorded as "topsoil." [Probe].


Material Culture.

Faience: ud frag. Metal: #207, bronze coin, poor condition, ud.

Stone: #101, rim of bowl in fine-grained, green diorite no. 29 (fig. 7:16).


49158 NW 7b Description. Architectural debris in Room 1: consisting of fired brick and mortar frags as well as broken Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2-4/3) and Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) mud? bricks in a matrix of coarse Brown (10YR 5/3) detritus. Top of locus appears to have been leveled and used as a surface. [Probe].


Material Culture.

Metal: bronze frag. Other: Charcoal.

49159 ? Cancelled.



Locus Phasi Description

49161P NW6b Description. Laminated interior surface. The earliest floor in Room 1 to be used with Walls 49135 and 49107. Lamination may indicate relatively long use period. [Probe].


49161 NW 6a/b Description. Debris layer of Brown/Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) detritus in Room 1. Matrix in? cludes broken Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) bricks and white plaster/mortar fragments. Many sherds concentrated near the E face of Wall 49107. This locus is interpreted as equivalent to debris Locus 49155, although Wall 49135 was not removed to prove the stratigraphic connection directly. This locus was the foundation layer for Walls 49107 and 49135 and was most probably utilized as a surface during NW 6b. Leveled [Probe].


Material Culture.

Terracotta: #218, figurine (plaque base).

Other: soil sample (PB 193 float contained Lolium [lx]).




50201 NW 10 Description. Topsoil.

Pottery Bags. N.I.502.01, 10, 23, 30.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #1, charred frag; #2, mammal/lg mammal frags. Shell: #3, land snails.

Metal: #1, frag (1.4 x 0.4 cm) of copper or copper alloy. Mineralized.

Other: charcoal; kiln waste; glass (#11); bits of painted plaster.

50202 NW 7 Description. Major E-W wall built of Brown (10YR 5/3) and Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) bricks, laid in a mortar of similar clay-like material. This wall forms the long northern side ofthe building, and is "broken" in Area 490 possibly for doorway. [Probe].

50203 NW 8 Description. Exterior surface located to the N of Wall 50202 made up of compacted Pale Brown,

(10YR 6/3) detritus soil. This locus "disappeared" after the 1981 season (by villagers?).

50204 NW 10 Description. Small pit filled with Brown (10YR 5/3) detritus soil.

50205 NW 8 Description. An installation of unknown function, built of (slumped) mudbricks of 3 distinct colors: Brown (10YR5/3), Dark Brown (10YR4/3), and Very Dark Brown (10YR 3/1). This locus

may be the stub of a wall that was butted against (not bonded into) the W face of Wall 49204, and is most probably to be considered later than Walls 49204 and 50202.


50207 NW 6c Description. Debris layer consisting of Dark Grayish Brown (2.5YR 4/2) and Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbrick detritus. Matrix includes building rubble such as bits of fired brick and mortar frag? ments. The locus seems to represent an intentional leveling to be used both as a "foundation" for Wall 50202 and as a surface in the next phase. [Probe].

Pottery Bags. N.I.502.11, 12, 34.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: ud frags. Other: charcoal.

50208 NW 6c Description. Debris layer of Brown (10YR 5/3) detritus soil. Matrix includes rubble of Brown

(10YR 5/3) and Dark Gray (10YR 4/1) broken mudbricks, and white mortar fragments. Top used as surface.

Pottery Bags. N.I.502.13-14, 17-19.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: ud frags. Shell: ud frags. Other: charcoal; soil sample; bits of painted plaster.

50209 NW 5 Description. An east-west wall(?) built of mudbrick of three types: Brown (10YR 5/3), Very Dark Brown (10YR 3/1), and Dark Brown (10YR 4/3). [C-D Balks].

50210 NW 6c Description. Debris layer of Brown (10YR 5/3) to Dark Brown (10YR 4/1) mudbrick fall. Top of locus used as surface.

Pottery Bags. N.I.502.15-16, 20-22, 24, 31.



Material Culture.

Faience: #32, ud bits.

Other: soil sample; charcoal; painted plaster.

50211 NW 6c Description. Thick fall debris layer of two types of mudbrick detritus: a Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) silty soil and sticky, Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) fabric. Matrix includes charcoal and white

organic material, which are probably the remains of a straw mat caught in the brickfall and sub-

sequently burned.

Pottery Bags. N.I.502.25-29, 32, 33, 35-37.

Material Culture.

Faience: #53, ud frags. Stone: kiln waste; soil sample. Metal: #45, ud copper frag. Other: #50, glass.

50212 NW 4b Description. Irregular lens of Pale Yellow (5Y 7/3) clay /silt encountered in patches across the

top of debris Locus 50213. This and Locus 50215 may be the remains of wall plaster that had fallen in the destruction at the end of this phase.


50213 NW 4b Description. A layer of fall debris consisting of two well-mixed types of detritus: a matrix of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) clayey soil with a substantial concentration of broken chunks of Brown (10YR 5/3) brick. Straw casts were still evident in broken bricks of both colors. This locus and Locus 50214 are thought to represent wallfall debris: perhaps upper courses from col-

lapse of Wall 50216. The yellow Lenses 50212 and 50215 are interpreted as having been wall

plaster from the same wall. Locus 50213 was leveled for the "foundation" of Wall 50209, and its

top was used as surface during the next phase.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: ud frags. Other: bits of white plaster.

50214 NW 4b Description. Wallfall debris, as Locus 50213 [A-B-C-D, E-F-A Balks].


Material Culture.

Faience: #65, ud bits.

50215 NW 4b Description. A thin, patchy lens that appears to be the product of two laminations: an upper Brownish Yellow (10YR 616) soil and a lower Light Yellowish Brown (10YR 6/4) material. Each, however, displays some streaks of Light Olive Gray (5Y 6/2). As with Locus 50212, this locus

may represent fall of wall plaster within Debris 50214 and 50213. [A-B, E-F-A Balks].


Material Culture.

Other: soil sample.

50216 NW 4a Description. The SE corner ofa wall built of Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) mudbricks laid in Brown

(10YR 5/3) mud mortar. A similar mortar/stucco facing was noted on its south and eastern faces of the wall. As excavated, this wall does not appear to be related to any other walls in the probe.

50217 NE 4b Description. Fall debris consisting of broken Dark Gray (10YR 4/1) bricks with a high clay content in a matrix of loose, silty Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) detritus. This material is possibly fall from Wall 50216, which was subsequently leveled to the top ofthe stub ofthe remaining wall.




Material Culture.

Metal: #68, iron nail.

50218 NW 4a Description. Mudbrick detritus similar to Locus 50217 but was much more easily separated in the balks. This material is the "foundation" layer for Wall 50216.


Material Culture.

Metal: #75, sm (1.4 cm) piece of copper wire (modern?).

Notes

Overall work in the South Mound was under the su-

pervision of Cynthia Johnson-Romy. In Coulson and Leonard

(1981a) the author presented the earlier material from the initial (1980) soundings in the South Mound according to three strata (I-III). Here, that arrangement has been revised and is discussed in ten phases. The earlier Stratum III is now NW Phase 1, Stratum II is now NW Phase 2, and Stratum I is now NW Phase 3, to which has been added NW Phase 4

consisting of Crosswall 2002 in Area 2/482, as well as the southeastern corner of contemporary Wall 50216 (Probe B).

Subphasing: Phase la, the building of the walls; Phase

Ib, the deposition of the lower debris loci; lc, the sealing of the lower debris levels.

Note that Locus 2037 was dug and interpreted as up? per courses of both of these walls. See Locus Summaries.

4 In fact, Wall Loci 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025 and 1026,

although exhibiting slight vagaries in color and texture, may all represent courses of the same wall, recorded separately as

they were excavated vertically by loci. The brown, clay-like matrices of Loci 1023 and 1025 are positioned appropri- ately to have been single courses or clusters of bricks within Wall 1024, since isolated bricks of similar color and tex? ture were also detected in that wall. Perhaps the sandy tex? ture of the brown bricks that was noticed during excavation, was the result of the soil from which these bricks were

formed, i.e. it was less durable than the more clay-rich bricks in the wall, and these two mixtures reacted differently to the dampness of their super-saturated matrix.

Subphasing: Phase 2a, new walls built and/or new courses added to existing walls; Phase 2b, fall from these walls and debris.

For the botanical inclusions in the matrices of Loci

1020, 1021, and 1022, see Chapter 8.

Subphasing: Phase 3a, new walls built; Phase 3b, de? bris accumulated during and after the use of these walls.

Cf. the stamped Rhodian amphora handle from this locus (fig. 7.4; Rehard in Coulson 1996: 148, no. 3).

Subphasing: Phase 4a new walls built; Phase 4b, episodes of wallfall and debris.

The stratigraphy in the deep soundings and the archi? tecture excavated above them can be tied together visually

by comparing the position of Locus 1010 on the NW Phase 5 plan (fig. 2.8) with the composite Area 492/Sound?

ing 1 section on fig. 2.4. As noted above, Wall 1007 is the same wall as 49204 but each locus carries the number of the area in which it was excavated/recorded. A further contribution to the synchronization of the two areas is offered by the fact that Wall 1007/49204 was built upon Locus 1008 and Locus 1009 which represent the same material that was excavated as Locus 49238 in Area 492 (see figs. 2.4 and 2.9).

For the position of burial Pit 49016, see figs. 2.8 and 2.10-2.16 where Wall 49013 has been reconstructed in broken lines. This burial extended out of the E balk of Area 490, the head and shoulders of the body were within the wall-cut section of the pit.

Subphasing: Phase 6a new walls built; Phase 6b,

building in use; Phase 6c, debris and wallfall. 13

Compare the treatment of Walls 49003 and 49013 at the NE corner of the building. Such an integrated bond would have produced a stronger union than the common butt used when a minor wall is built against a major existing wall: cf. Wall 49206 in NW Phase 7.

Flotation of soil from these two surfaces produced only a modicum of non-cultivated plant remains (see Chap? ter 8).

Subphasing: Phase 7a, the addition of two rooms at western end of the building; Phase 7b, accumulation of use-

debris; Phase 7c, small interior wall (49138) added; Phase

7d, additional accumulation of use-debris. Locus 49238 was used as a surface in Room 4. It is

probable, but not provable, that it continued eastward to

perform the same function in Room 3, but that area was not excavated to the appropriate level (s).

It was unclear whether these two walls were built

against, or bonded into, Wall 50202. A similar situation occurred in the large, main room

of the structure (Room 1) where, with the exception of NW Phase 10, a wall delineating the southern limits of the space was never found.

This feature was first noticed when the western face of Wall 1007 was trimmed in 1980 (note in the section draw?

ing, fig. 2.4, that Wall 49204 equals Wall 1007).


All of the pieces of plaster were analyzed in the field

by conservator Gail Weber who noted that, although they were visually quite similar, not all of the plaster samples were CaCo3. Some pieces may have been CaCo4 since they did not react to contact with hydrochloric acid. Inspection (under 40x magnification) showed that the walls had been

given a single coat of plaster, the face of which had subse-

quently been smoothed. There was no evidence for multiple coats of plaster the last of which had been smoothed. The latter technique, however, was practiced elsewhere at Kom Ge'if.

Subphasing: Phase 8a, use-debris is leveled in order to

construct; Phase 8b, new walls. A similar situation can be seen on the eastern (exterior)

wall of the Ptolemy IV Philometer (Phase IIA) guardhouse at Tell Fara'in, where the space between the two stubs is approx? imately 0.75 m. As was most probably the case at Naukratis, these features apparently served a utilitarian function.

Compare figs. 2.11 and 2.12: the levels 8.31 m vs.

8.32 m ASL, respectively. 24 If Locus 49050P equals Locus 49238/1009 the debris

may have been brought in and leveled at this time or it could have existed beneath the western half of the building since its original deposition there in NW Phase 6.

Flotation of samples from the matrices of Loci 49150 and

49150P produced only a small range of non-cultivated plant types (see Chapter 8).

These two courses are both situated above Surface

49150P, and the suggested modification of Wall 49135 seems to have been connected with the use of that surface.

Contemporary Surface 49150P at the western end of Room 1 and Surface 49012 in the east blended into each other without any clear line of demarcation. The nails and the matting were found in both loci.

The presence of an iron nail in the earlier NW Phase 4b (Locus 50217) might be explained by the nail's proxim? ity to an intrusive animal burrow c. 0.15 m in diameter, that originated at least in NW Phase 6c (Locus 50211), where white organic fibers were interpreted as straw matting caught in brickfall from an unidentified wall. This locus, a

layer outside the northeast corner of the house, appears to have been the earliest, as well as the least certain, context of these nails.

28 Hiatus A (Locus 492330, A/B (Locus 49004), B (Lo? cus 49131), and B/C (Locus 49210).

Subphasing: The hiatus represents a period of use of the building without any new construction; while irregular, interior (?) use-surfaces developed that are here divided into Hiatus Phases A through C.

Because no new construction could be detected, some of the detritus layers were not clearly assignable to a par? ticular phase. For instance, Wallfall 49214 in Room 4 could have belonged to either Phase 8b or Hiatus A, while Loci 49116 and 49118, behind the small wall in Room 2, could have been deposited either in NW 8a or Hiatus A. When such uncertainties existed, that fact is noted in the Locus Summaries.

Locus 49137 also contained both iron nails and

patches of white organic material as did Locus 49150P that

lay directly below it. The exact relationship between Locus

49137 and 49150 was never clear. 32 See Chapter 7, no. 41. '

Subphasing: Phase 9a, irregular accumulation contin?

ues; Phase 9b, new wall built. Flotation of a sample of the Locus 49148 matrix

produced only a single (non-cultivated), botanical type (see

Chapter 8). The plaster in the preparation courses was often

mixed with straw and/or sand and gravel (some pieces as

large as 1.5 cm) of fluvial origin. Locus 49017 also pro? duced a small fragment of a white limestone block with both cut marks and traces of yellow (painted?) decoration

(MC#81). * Plaster decorated with yellow pigment was encoun?

tered in the North Area 316 in a relatively deep deposit (Locus 31614) that was contaminated, and thus reassigned the status of an open (top soil) locus. It should be noted, however, that Hogarth encountered small fragments of plas? ter painted in red, blue and yellow that were in "terrible

condition, owing to the dampness" (See inter alia 1898? 1899: 33-34).

Two loci (49016 and 49101) produced fragments of lime plaster with al secco red decoration as had been noted in association with Phases 8 and 9 of the building.

All lxxx and 2xxx loci were dug in Sounding 1 and

Sounding 2 (respectively) during our initial 1980 season in the (lower) western part of what was to become Areas 491 and 492 when the site grid was imposed over the South Mound prior to beginning the 1981 season. The eastern

(higher) part of Area 492 was excavated during the 1981

(Loci 49201-49216), 1982 (Loci 49230-49238), and 1983 (49250-49251) seasons.

* As has been noted above, all 2xxx loci were dug dur?

ing our initial 1980 season as Sounding 2. When the site

grid was imposed upon the South Mound prior to the 1981

season, Sounding 2 became the lower, western portion of Area 482 (see fig 1.12). For the Sounding 2 balk drawings, see Coulson and Leonard (1981a: 37, fig. 6).

Chapter Three

Excavations in the Southeast Area

Albert Leonard, Jr.

Excavations in the Southeast Area of the South Mound consisted of two 4 x 4 m squares ori?

ented N-S and separated from each other by 10 m According to our site-grid, they became Area 15

to the west and Area 12 to the east (fig. 1.12). The purpose of excavation in these two squares was

to elucidate the Great Temenos that Petrie claimed to have found in the area.

The eight stratigraphic phases that were identified during these excavations can be assigned to two

chronologically distinct "periods." Period I: a lower group of loci (Southeast Phase 1) representing the earliest architecture retrievable

by conventional excavation in the area, and

Period II: an upper group of loci, consisting of a collection of later tombs (Southeast Phases 2, 4 and

6) and a series of soil layers (Southeast Phases 3, 5, and 7) that either covered these tombs or into

which they had been dug.

Phase Identification SE 8 Top-soil. Most recent accumulations and disturbances.

SE 7 The latest depositions.

SE 6 A late series of SE tombs and burials (figs. 3.1 and 3.2).

SE 5 The detritus layers that immediately postdate the intermediate series of SE tombs.

SE 4 An intermediate series of SE tombs and burials (figs. 3.3 and 3.4; pl. 3.3).

SE 3 The detritus layers that immediately postdate the early Series of SE tombs.

SE 2 An early series of SE tombs and burials (figs. 3.5 and 3.6).

SE 1 Large mudbrick walling (e.g. Loci 1271, 1565), possibly related to Petrie's "Great Temenos" (figs. 3.7 and 3.8).

Southeast Period II (Phases Southeast 2 through 8)

The upper, Period II remains in the southeastern area can be viewed archaeologically as a se?

quence of three groups of village tombs (early, middle and late), each group of which was separated in time and space by an accumulation/deposition of mudbrick detritus layers resulting from the regular processes of weathering on the mound. While this stratigraphic sequence was very clear within

each area (see section drawings in figs. 3.9 and 3.10), the correlation of the individual phases between

the two squares is slightly less certain. However, since the two areas were originally positioned on the

same topographic level of the mound and separated from each other by only ten meters, the correla?

tion of loci offered here seems to be both sufficient and appropriate for the purposes of this study.3 The forty Period II tombs encountered in the Southeastern Areas (pl. 3.1) can be divided into five

general "types" based on architectural similarities. The characteristics of each type are offered in

Tables 3.1 and 3.2, but it should be noted that some tombs may not fit a specific type exactly since

many of the tombs had been disturbed or destroyed (by Petrie's workers?) before we began our work.

85


1505 ^^^-To

F=

Fig. 3.1. Area 12: Plan ofSE 6 tombs. Fig. 3.2. Area 15: Plan ofSE 6 tombs.

f?I M r- 0 .5 1M 2 3

Fig. 3.3. Area 12: Plan ofSE 4 tombs.

-H h-H h

.5 1 M


1998 The Southeast Area 87

\-\ M 0 .5 1M 2 3


1564

'^m^^m^^4

F= 31

0 ,5 1M 2 3


F= 0 .5 1 M

Fig. 3.7. Area 12: Final top plan showing SE 1 walls.

"\ F

Fig. 3.8. Area 15: Final top plan showing SE 1 walls.


The most common examples of funerary architecture encountered in the South Mound were the

tombs of Type V, and they might be considered to have been the standard tomb type at Kom Ge'if

since seventeen of the tombs from Areas 12 and 15 were built in this manner (Tombs 1228, 1242,

1245, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1258, 1270, 1510, 1535, 1543, 1550, 1553, 1554, 1557, 1558, 1561). Sim?

ple in both concept and execution, Type II was the second most popular type, appearing in only eight instances (Tombs 1221(?),1223,1238(?), 1246, 1272(?), 1530, 1536, 1548(?)), less than half the num?

ber of Type V tombs. Type I tombs, the most complex structurally, and impressive in appearance, of

the group, were slightly less well represented with only six such tombs occurring in the sample (Tombs

1207, 1251, 1505, 1506, 1521, 1532). Equally infrequent were Type III (Tombs 1552, 1224, 1564,

1547), and Type IV (Tombs 1222(?), 1519, 1541, 1571) represented by only four examples each.

As can be seen in Table 3.2, there does not appear to be any obvious correlation between the

tomb type and the age of the occupant. Where the age of the deceased could be determined, we

find that infants were buried in Types I (lx), III (2x) and V (4x); children were buried in Types III

(lx), IV (lx) and V (2x); while adults were buried in Type III (lx) and V (2x). A mixed burial oc-

cured in Type V Tomb 1558. Insufficient evidence does not allow us to comment on distribution by

gender and only the most general and obvious statements can be made concerning the level of social

status evidenced in the tomb types.

Likewise, as Table 3.3 illustrates, there does not seem to be any significant meaning to the

numerical or spatial distribution to the five tomb types in either of the excavation areas.

None of these interments were accompanied by the kind of grave goods that would allow us to

speculate on the status or role in the community that was played by the individuals buried in this

cemetery. In fact, even their date is ephemeral, although radiocarbon ( C) analysis of some of the

skeletal materials suggests a date in the Mamluk period (see Chapter 9).

Southeast Period I (Phase 1)

For the Naukratis Project, the main archaeological interest in the Southeastern Areas of the

South Mound was the huge mudbrick walls and associated deposits that predated the Period II tombs

(figs. 3.7 and 3.8), and into which the earliest tomb(s) of that series had been dug (pls. 3.8, 3.9, 3.14

and 3.16). These large walls could well originally have formed part of the massive structure that Petrie

called the "Great Temenos." Phase 1 consisted of a series of loci of mudbrick that were able to be

correlated in both squares. These deposits appear to formed have parts of the same, very large (east-

west) wall that was identifed as Wall 1254/1271/1565. The individual elements of the wall, however,

do have their own peculiarities, as can be seen in Table 3.4.

Thus, the wall would have been at least 3 m wide and a minimum of over 19 m in length. In Area 12 it could be demonstrated that Wall 1254 had been built on top of the courses that

were excavated as Wall 1271 and thus, in turn was founded directly upon Locus 1267, a soil layer that

was lighter in color than the courses of mudbricks that had been built upon it (it was also free from

the straw inclusions of the wall loci). The interface between the two features presented a very distinct

stratigraphic change and the compact mudbrick of the wall was easily separated from the very sandy

and porous Locus 1267 material. Unfortunately, ground water filled the excavation area shortly after

the detection of this soil change and no ceramic material could be retrieved. Although its exact nature

was never fully understood, Locus 1267 may have formed the original, natural surface of an area that

existed before the large wall was constructed. If this was the case, the bricks of Wall 1271, which were

n

P

u.?

i

^o

A

8 8

*n

<o

3


Table 3.1. Period II Tomb Types in the Southeast Area

Type Construction Architectural Features

Surface Built

II Surface Built

III Pit

IV Pit

V Pit

Foundation: rectangular in plan.

Size: usually large.

Brick: more often baked than unbaked.

Other: exterior can be lime-plastered; the use of a vaulted roof is

known (Area 12).

Foundation: ovoid in plan. The foundation course is constructed of

very broad, fired bricks.

Size: usually small.

Brick: baked/fired.

Other: Domed/vaulted superstructure of broad width fired brick.

Foundation: ovoid in plan. A deep pit lined with baked and unbaked

brick.

Size: varies.

Brick: baked. Bits of fired brick used as "chinking" to stabilize the

courses of bricks in the lining.

Other: superstructure of ovoid plan.

Foundation: a deep, unlined pit.

Size: varies.

Brick: baked and unbaked.

Other: At/above (original?) ground level, individual tombs would

vary from a simple pile of bricks (as preserved) to one or two layers of fired brick (as preserved) laid in a vault-like formation over the

burial matrix.

Foundation: A shallow pit lined with fired brick. A rectangular

plan was used for the foundation and the lower courses of super? structure walls; this changed to an ovoid plan for the upper courses

of the superstructure.

Size: varies.

Brick: baked and unbaked.

Other: Tops of tombs are often sealed by closely positioned mud?

bricks placed on top of, and perpendicular to, the upper courses ofthe

tomb walls.

strangely laid on end (vertically) must have been put this way for the expressed purpose of providing a firm foundation for the wall to be built above.

In Area 15, however, there was no obvious equivalent to the "natural" Locus 1267, nor was there

any evidence for a lower course of "standing" bricks to parallel those in Wall 1271. In fact, the mud?

bricks of Locus 1565 continued straight down to the level at which ground water was reached.

Above the stratified courses of Wall 1254/1271/1565, a thick layer of fine silty detritus, in the

same colors as the bricks in the wall, was correlated in both squares (Locus 1229/1555). These two

loci have been interpreted as the slumped and deteriorated upper courses of Wall 1254/1271/1565.

The relatively common top level that they share most probably reflects the existing surface of the

mound before it was exploited as a cemetery.


Table 3.2. Correlation of Tomb Type and AgeIGender ofOccupant

Tomb No.lType Burial Interment

Southeast Phase 7 (latest)

Tomb 1223 (II)

Tomb 1526 (unique)

Southeast Phase 6

Tomb 1221 (II ?)

Tomb 1246 (II)

Tomb 1272 (II ?)

Tomb 1505 (I)

Tomb 1506 (I) (pls. 3.10)

Tomb 1519 (IV)

Tomb 1521 (I)

Tomb 1530 (II)

Tomb 1535 (V)

Tomb 1536 (II)

Tomb 1541 (IV)

Southeast Phase 4

Tomb 1207 (I) (pl. 3.7)

Tomb 1222 (IV)

Tomb 1224 (III) (pls. 3.3 and 3.8)

Tomb 1228 (V)

Tomb 1238 (II ?)

Tomb 1242 (V)

Tomb 1245 (V)

Tomb 1248 (V) (pl. 3.3)

Tomb 1249 (V) (pls. 3.3 and 3.8)

Tomb 1250 (V) (pl. 3.1)

Tomb 1258 (V)

Tomb 1270 (V?)

Tomb 1510a (V)

Tomb 1552 (III)

Tomb 1554 (V)

Southeast Phase 2 (earliest)

Tomb 1251 (I) (pl. 3.9)

Tomb 1532 (I)

Tomb 1543 (V) (pl. 3.14)

Tomb 1547 (III)

Tomb 1548 (II ?)

Tomb 1550 (V)

Tomb 1553 (V?) (pls. 3.14 and 3.16)

Tomb 1557 (V) (pl. 3.16)

Tomb 1558 (V) (pl. 3.18)

Tomb 1561 (V) (pl. 3.12)

Tomb 1564 (III)

Tomb 1571 (IV)

Disturbed. No burial (pl. 3.6)

No burial known

Known only in balk. Unexcavated

Unexcavated. No burial known.

Known only in balk. Unexcavated

Disturbed. No burial

No burial known

No burial known



Burial 1566

No burial known

No burial known

Infant


Table 3.3. Spatial Distribution ofTomb Types in the Southeast Area

AREA 12 SE Phase Tomb Types Total Tombs in Phase

I II III IV V

Phase 7 _ i _ _ _ 1

Phase 6 ? 3 ? ? ? 3

Phase 4 11118 12

Phase 2 1 _____ __ 1

Total of type in Area 12 2 5 118 17

AREA 15 SE Phase Tomb Types Total Tombs in Phase

Phase 7

Phase 6

Phase 4 ? ? 1 ? 2 3

Phase 2 112 16 11

Total of type in Area 15 4 3 3 3 9 22

As has been noted above, Wall 1254/1565 was the largest wall encountered during our four sea?

sons of excavation at Naukratis and, while falling short of the dimensions of some of the architecture

claimed to have been excavated in this area by the earlier excavators, it does represent a fairly massive

structure. Although none of the pottery-bearing deposits associated with the wall could be said to be

secure, the ceramic material is consistent with the Ptolemaic pottery found elsewhere on the site, and

small sherds of similar appearance were even noted in some of the individual bricks that made up the

wall. It is unfortunate that, because of the modern water table in the area, no pre-wall deposits could

be reached. This mound had succeeded once again in guarding the secrets of the past as it had done

so many times over the past century.


Table 3.4. Wall Construction in the Southeast Area

Area Wall Description

Area 12 Wall 1254 Material: Mudbricks in clays of at least three colors (see Locus Summary) laid in Very Dark Gray (7.5YR N3/0) mud mortar. Individual bricks c.

40 x 20 x 12 cm, oriented N-S. At least seven rows of up to 15 headers

each were excavated.

Foundation Level: c. 5.50 m ASL on Locus 1271.

Orientation: E-W.

Relationship(s): Founded on Wall 1271.

Area 12 Wall 1271 Material: Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) mudbricks laid in Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) mud mortar. Individual bricks c. 40 x 15 x ? cm, oriented

N-S. Four rows of at least 15 headers each were preserved.


Orientation: E-W.

Relationship(s): Founded on Locus 1271.

Other: Bricks appear to have been laid intentionally on end (vertically) as foundation course(s) for Wall 1254.

Area 15 Wall 1565 Material: Mudbricks in a spectrum of at least six colors (see Locus Sum?

mary) laid in mud mortars of the same colored clays, often mixed with

white marl flakes. Individual bricks c. 45/40 x 20 x 12/15 cm, oriented

N-S. At least 17 rows of (up to) 14 headers each; between 12 and 15

courses were excavated. Original horizontal boundaries not established.

Foundation Level: Not reached. It is below present ground water level.

Orientation: E-W.

Relationship(s): Founded on unknown Locus below present water level.


Table 3.5- SE Area 12: Stratigraphic Sequence of Deposition ofLoci

1203

1201 1202 1236 1205

IW

1223

1207

1258

1 ?J4S 1 ?JS0

1230

T2J08 12|T3 T2p T233"

12T72 12146 12121

1217

1241

SE8

SE7b

SE7a

SE6

SE5

SE4

12)49 12)24 12148 12142 12J38 12J28 12)22 12)70

1229

1251

1254

1271

1267

Foundation Layer at Groundwater Level

SE3

SE2

SE 1


Table 3.6. SE Area 15: Stratigraphic Sequence of Deposition ofLoci

1502

1514- 1526

1505 1506 1519 1521

1532a

1507

1542

1538

1530 1535 1536 1541 1573

SE8

SE7b

SE7a

SE6

SE5

1572 1552 1554 1510 SE 4

1532b 1557 1543

1558

1553

1549

1547

1561

SE3

1571 SE2

1548 1564 1550

1555 SE1

1565

Foundation Layer at Groundwater Level


o Locus Summaries List Area 12


1201 SE 8 Description. Pit dug from 1204, lined with straw, mud and dung. Filled with light red-

brown granular material.

Pottery Bag. N.I.l2.01.

1202 SE 8 Description. Pit dug from 1204. Lined with straw and mud. Filled with light red-brown

granular material.


1203 SE 8 Description. Pit dug into 1236. Lined with straw and dung. Filled with wind blown

deposit of light red-brown granules and straw. [N Balk].

Pottery Bags. N.I.l2.03, 33, 36.

1204 SE 8 Description. Present topsoil on mound. Silty gray-brown detritus soil with 5% granular marl inclusions. Includes 1206, 1212. [N,S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.04, 07, 10, 12, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 28-31, 35, 37, 38, 50, 53.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #1, mammal frag; #4, Bos lower premolar in mandible frag; #8, mammal

frags; #12, mammal frags including mandible frag; #30, Bos/Equus-sized frag; #31, Equus caballus distal radius (F).

Shell: Donax trunculus frag. Metal: #21, several frags (largest: 10.0 x 6.5 cm) of corroded iron. Almost entirely cor-

roded, virtually no metal remains.

1205 SE 8 Description. Pit dug from 1204. Filled with straw and sandy, light gray-brown soil.

Pottery Bags. N.1.12.05, 06, 07, 08.


1207 SE 4c Description. Large fired-brick tomb containing burial 1210, built on 1229. Intrudes on

earlier tombs 1245 and 1258. Exposed/disturbed. Includes 1209, 1211, 1220. Type I.

[SBalk].


1208 SE 7a Description. Lens of Silty Brown (10YR 5/3) wind-laid sediment on 1214. Includes

1213, 1218, 1219. [S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.13?, 16?, 18, 20, 66, 71.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #6, mammal frag. Human bone: HRC #3.


1210 ? Description. Scattered remains of an infant burial in the fill of tomb 1207. Disarticulated, disturbed or secondary. Includes material excavated as Locus 1225.

Pottery Bags. N.1.12.09, 17, 27, 32, 39, 43, 46, 52.



Material Culture.

Animal bone: #17, Ovisl Capra-sized vertebra; #20, mammal frags with Ovisl Capra-sizzd vertebra; #26, mammal frags with OvislCapra molar (M3, much worn down); #27, mam?

mal frags with OvislCapra molar frag; #32, fish vertebra.

Human bone: HRC #15, #17, #20 and #27.

Shell: #13, Etheria frags. Metal: #12, sm (0.8 x 0.5 cm) bit of copper. Very corroded.

Other: kiln waste; glass.




1214 SE 7a Description. Sandy Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) mudbrick detritus layer below topsoil; 2%

granular marl matrix inclusions. Includes 1215. [N, S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.19, 22, 47, 48, 67, 72, 83.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #29, ud bird frags and lg mammal tooth; #39, OvislCapra-slzed frags

including vertebrae.

Human bone: HRC #7

Shell: #39, ud frag. Metal: #40, section (4.6 x 1.0 cm) of "metal" (or graphite?) cylinder with copper or copper

alloy cap. Corroded.


1216 SE 7a Description. Lens of fine, Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4), wind-laid sediment below 1214.

Includes 1226, 1232.

Pottery Bags. N.1.12.24, 45, 49, 68, 77, 80, 97.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #50, mammal frag. Other: kiln waste.

1217 SE 7a Description. Lens of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick detritus below

1214; 5% granular marl inclusions in matrix.




1221 SE 6 Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb of irregular shape built on 1241. Unexcavated,

possibly disturbed, known only in balk. No burial known. Type II(?). [E Balk].



1222 SE 4 Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb built on or dug into 1229. Disturbed, partially excavated. No burial. Type IV(?). [S Balk].


1223 SE 7b Description. Tomb of fired-bricks and large sherds built on 1233. Disturbed, no burial.

Type II.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #22, mammal frags including charred longbone shaft.

1224 SE 4 Description. Fired-brick tomb dug into 1229 with mudbrick-lined pit containing burial

1255. Disturbed. Type III.

Pottery Bags: N.I.l2.40, 82, 84, 95, 117, 121, 127.

Material Culture:

Animal bone: #61, ud mammal.

Human bone: HRC #65.

Other: fired brick, and pottery.




1228 SE 4? Description. Tomb of Brown (10YR 4/3) mudbricks, possibly dug into 1229. Avg. brick size 25 x 10x6 cm, laid with mud mortar. Unexcavated, no burial known. Type V. [WBalk].


Material Culture.

Other: kiln waste; glass.

1229 SE 3 Description. Thick layer of clear, fine, compacted, Very Dark Grayish Brown (10 YR

3/2) mudbrick detritus thought to be slumped upper courses of Wall 1271. On 1254 wall courses, covered by 1241 Debris. Includes 1227, 1231, 1244, 1247, 1252, 1268.

[N, S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.51, 56, 59-61, 64-65, 88-89, 92, 94, 96, 100-103, 106, 107,

109, 113-114, 116, 118, 119, 123-125, 130-131, 133-134, 139, 141, 143, 145-146,

153, 156, 160.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #34, mammal frags; #37, crushed bone; #52, sm rodent ulna; #64, mammal

frag; #70, fish bone; #79, lg mammal rib frags (butchered). Human bone: HRC #38, #49, #51, #52, #55, #56, #58, #71 and #73.

Shell: #33, Cerastoderma frag; #62, Donax trunculus frag, #68, #72, and #85, land snails;

#83, gastropod. Other: charcoal; kiln waste.

1230 SE 7b Description. Infant (2-3 months) burial, articulated and complete, in a silty Dark Brown

(10YR 3/3), mudbrick detritus matrix. Presently considered to have been the slumped remnant ofa simple mudbrick tomb, the bricks now deteriorated. Dug into 1216.




Material Culture.




1233 SE 7a Description. Lens of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick detritus below

1214; matrix includes 50% granular marl. [E Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #41, mammal frag.

HumanO) bone: #41, epiphysis. Other: glass.



1236 SE 8 Description. Pit filled with Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) Clayey soil including 25%

straw and some marl bits, dug from 1204. [N Balk].

Pottery Bag. N.1.12.74.

1237 SE 7a Description. Lens of silty Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick detritus on

1216.


1238 SE 4 Description. Fired-brick tomb built on 1229. Known only in balk.

1239 SE4b Description. Infant (c. 1 year) burial in silty Brown/Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) detritus soil

matrix, in tomb 1258. Semi-articulated, incomplete. Disturbed.

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.104, 105, 108.

Material Culture.

Human bone: HRC #53, #54, and #57.

1240 SE 7a Description. Lens of fine silty Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) water-laid sediment with

marbled appearance on 1241.

1241 SE 5 Description. Laminated layer of sandy Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) water-laid sediment

on 1229. Includes 1234, 1243. [N, S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.70, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 99.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #44, mammal frag (eroded); #48, mammal longbone shaft; #64, mammal

frag.

100 Albert Leonard, Jr, AASOR 54


1242 SE 4? Description. Fired-brick tomb possibly dug into 1229. Possibly undisturbed, not

excavated. Type V (?). [W Balk].



1245 SE4a/b Description. Large fired-and-mudbrick tomb containing burial 1264, dug into 1229.

Undisturbed. Partially excavated. Type V. [E Balk].


Material Culture.


Shell: #66, land snails.

Stone: #77, sm (c. 12 x 12 cm) section of mosaic. Conservator Weber noted that the

tessarae were neither limestone nor marble, but may be alabaster or dolmite. They were

set in lime mortar with inclusions of small quartz pebbles and fired brick chips (pl. 7.18).

1246 SE 6 Description. Fired-brick tomb built on 1241. Unexcavated, no burial known. Includes

1235. Type II. [E Balk].


1248 SE 4? Description. Tomb of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbricks of avg. size 24

x 10 x 5 cm laid with mud mortar, possibly dug into 1229. Unexcavated, no burial known.

TypeV. [EBalk].

1249 SE 4 Description. Fired-brick tomb containing burial 1256, dug into 1229. Type V.

1250 SE 4a Description. Fired-brick tomb containing burial 1253, dug into 1229. Disturbed, cut by tomb 1258. Type V


Material Culture.

Other: kiln waste.

1251 SE 2 Description. Large, Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) mudbrick (occasional fired bricks) tomb with vaulted/corbelled upper courses, built on 1254. Avg. brick size 20 x ? x 6 cm, laid with mud mortar. Partially exavated, no burial known. Type I. [S Balk].

Pottery Bag: N.I.12.154.


1253 ? Description. Burial of female adult (c. 60 years) in tomb 1250, within burial matrix 1261.

Articulated, and complete. Bones in fair condition. Evidence for extensive arthritis and

premortem tooth loss.

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.140, 144, 149.

Material Culture.

Human bone: HRC #83 and #86.

Other: cloth impression.



1254 SE 1 Description. Three or four courses of distinguishable mudbricks below 1229 slump,

interpreted as upper courses of wall 1271. Bricks oriented N-S form at least seven

as-known rows of up to fifteen "headers" in wall running E-W. Bricks are avg. size 40 x

20 x 12 cm, known in three clays: Very-Dark-Grayish-Brown (10YR 3/2), Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) and Brown/Dark Brown (10YR 4/3), laid in Very Dark Gray (7.5YR

N3/0) mud mortar. Includes 1259, 1260, 1262, 1263, 1265. [S, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.135-138, 148, 151, 155, 157-158, 161, 170.

1255 ? Description. Child burial in Tomb 1224. Articulated but incomplete. Hair and vegetal material recovered. Burial in poor condition. Within silty Dark Grayish Brown

(10YR 4/2) mudbrick detritus matrix.


Material Culture.

Bone: ud frags. Other: vegetal material.

1256 ? Description. Child (1 1/2-2 years) burial in Tomb 1249. Good condition: articulated

and complete within silty Brown/Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) mudbrick detritus matrix.


Material Culture.

Human bone: HRC #81 and #82, also see HRC for baby burials 1, 2, 3 east of E Balk.

Other: leather; vegetal material.

1257 ? Number not used, cancelled.

1258 SE 4b Description. Fired-brick tomb containing burial 1239, dug into 1229. Cuts tomb 1250.

Disturbed, E end cut by Tomb 1207. Type V.




1261 ? Description. Burial matrix of sandy Dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 4/4) detritus around

Burial 1253 in Tomb 1250.




1264 Description. Adult burial in silty Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) detritus matrix, in tomb 1245. Sex uncertain. Articulated, evidently complete, only partially excavated.


Material Culture.





1266 ? Cancelled. Pottery reassigned to 1254, 1271.

1267 SE la Description. Layer of sandy Brown (10YR 5/3) detritus soil upon which wall 1271 was

founded. Groundwater encountered in this layer at c. 4.80 m ASL (1981 season). [S,W

Balks].



1270 SE 4? Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb cut by pit 1236. Possibly dug into 1229, known

only in balk. Unexcavated. Includes 1269. Type V(?). [N Balk].

1271 SE 1 Description. Huge mudbrick wall of unknown length or width, founded on Layer 1267.

Wall is hypothesized as a foundation wall of the "Great Temenos" uncovered by Petrie.

Bricks oriented N-S form four known rows of at least 15 "headers" each, in wall running E-W. Bricks are all of same Dark Brown (10YR 4/3) clay, laid with (10YR 3/1) Very Dark Gray mud mortar. Bricks appear to be similar in size to those of the same color in

1254 wall courses above these foundation courses/ [S, W Balks]. See 1254 and 1229; also

Wall 1565 inarea 15.

Pottery Bags. N.I.12.162(?), 163-164, 165, 166.

Material Culture.

Shell: #88, Unio frag and land snail frag.

1272 SE 6 Description. Mudbrick tomb known only in balk. Type V(?). [W Balk]. a Here bricks are laid on end, a technique that makes a very stable foundation for this large wall. A similar pattern of masonry is

used to build foundations in the contemporary (fired- and mudbrick) architecture of the Egyptian Delta.





1502 SE 8 Description. Present topsoil on mound. Silty Brown (10YR 5/3) wind-laid detritus soil, with straw chaff, sherds, fired-brick frags included in the matrix. Includes 1501. [N, S, E

Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.01, 02, 03, 06-08, 11, 13, 14.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #12, lg bird vertebra; #37, med/lg mammal frag; no #, Equus asinus phalanx 1 (F).


Shell: #35, Red Sea Cypraea ground-down and open dorsum.

Metal: no MC# assigned, Handle of "modern" copper alloy spoon or fork (bowl/tines

missing). Preserved dimensions 15.2 x 1.9 cm (maximum). Good condition, lightly corroded.

Other: bits of painted plaster; mortar; fired brick; terracotta tile(?); glass; kiln waste.



1505 SE 6 Description. Fired-brick tomb built on 1542. Disturbed, no burial. May be two tombs

lime-plastered together as one. Includes 1511, 1512, 1522-1525, 1529, 1531. Tomb

Typel. [N, E Balks].

1506 SE 6 Description. Wall of fired-brick tomb wall in foundation trench cut into Locus 1542.

Tomb Type I(?). [WBalk].

1507 SE 7a Description. Layer of mixed Brown/Dark Brown and Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/3 and 2/3) coarse soils of mudbrick detritus origin, below topsoil upon layer 1542. Frags of lime plaster/marl fired bricks, and lumps of broken mudbrick are frequent inclusions

in the matrix. Includes 1503, 1504, 1508, 1513, 1515-1517, 1527. [S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.04, 05, 10, 12, 16-18, 21 (modern china), 22-25, 27, 28, 29,

29a(?), 29b(?), 33-35, 36(?)-37(?), 38a(?), 44, 46, 57, 58, 61, 63b.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #57, mammal frag; #79, mammal frags; #80, med mammal frags; #108, med

mammal frags.


Shell: #22, lg land snail frag.

Metal: #60, flat, copper or copper alloy discoid (c. 1.0 x 0.80 cm). Surface corroded though core. May be part of MC #151.

Other: bits of painted plaster; mortar; fired brick; terracotta tile(?); glass; kiln waste.





1510a SE 4 Description. Fired-brick tomb dug into 1538. Disturbed, partially excavated. No burial

known. Includes 1509. Tomb Type V. [W Balk].

1510b ? Description. Burial matrix in tomb 1510a. Known only in balk. [W Balk].




1514 SE 7b Description. Pit filled with fired bricks and silty Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) detritus soil, "modern" dinner plate fragments. Dug from top of 1507, it bottoms out in 1542. Pit is

a relatively recent intrusion into a [phase SE 6] fired-brick Tomb now destroyed. Includes

1528.

Pottery Bags. N.1.15.20, 26, 76.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #49, #108, mammal frags.

Other: #50, glass frag.




1517.1 ? Cancelled. Combined with Locus 1507.

1518 ? Cancelled.

1519 SE 6 Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb dug into 1542. Partially excavated, no burial

known. Tomb Type IV. [E Balk].


1521 SE 6 Description. Fired- and mudbrick tomb built on 1542. Disturbed, no burial. Includes

1520. Tomb Type I.


Material Culture.

Human bone: HRC #69B.







1526 SE 7b Description. Late fired-brick tomb dug into 1507, with rectangular plan and brick-lined

pit. Fired-brick "pavement" to N and W of tomb is laid upon 1507. Partially excavated,

probably disturbed. No burial known. Tomb Type is unique. [S Balk].


Material Culture.





1530 SE 6 Description. Fired-brick tomb built on Locus 1542. Disturbed, no burial. Tomb Type II.


1532 SE 2 Description. Fired-brick tomb dug into 1555. Re-used, lime-plastered in SE 4. Disturbed,

partially excavated. Matrix includes frags of human bones, but no burial known. Includes

1540. Tomb Type I. [S, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.56, 131, 133.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #78, lg mammal longbone shaft.


1533 ? Cancelled. Pottery reassigned to 1538, 1542.


1535 SE 6 Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb containing Burial 1566, dug into 1542. Well

preserved. Tomb Type V.

Material Culture.

Bone: Bone (cf. Locus 1566).

Other: unbaked brick; seed(?); kiln waste.

1536 SE 6 Description. Fired-brick tomb dug into 1542. No burial. Tomb Type II.



Material Culture.

Other: Fired brick.


1538 SE 3 Description. Clean, laminated layer of Yellowish Brown to Dark Brown (10YR 6/4-

3/3) detritus clay that has been sloughed off the unbaked mudbricks by wind and rain.

Rarely, small worn sherds are included in matrix. On 1555, covered by 1542. Includes

1537. [S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.39b, 40, 54, 72(?), 770), 78, 84-85, 104-105, 134, 136, 153,

154(?),200(?),201(?).

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #74, #112, mammal frags; #77, sm mammal frags; #109, mammal frags with

sm mammal distal metapodial and charred rib.

Human bone: HRC #74, #76, #109, #142, #154, #162, #177.

Shell: #109, land snails.

Stone: #111, segment of flint blade No. 37, trapezoidal in section.

Other: #110, glass bead.



1541 SE 6 Description. Fired-brick tomb dug into 1542. No burial indentified, but matrix of locus

includes scatter of human bones. Tomb Type IV. [S Balk].

Pottery Bags. N.1.15.63a, 69.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #86, lg mammal frags; #90, mammal frags. Human bone: HRC #86 and #90.

Shell: #99, ud frags.

Other: burnt brick; marl boulder.

1542 SE 5 Description. Layer of mixed Brown and Dark Brown (10YR 4/3 and 3/3) coarse soils

of mudbrick detritus origin. Randomly distributed marl/plaster and fired-brick or terra?

cotta frags are frequent inclusions in matrix. Covers layers 1538 and 1555, is covered by

layer 1507. Includes 1534, 1539, 1544, 1545, and 1572. [N, S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.19, 25, 38b, 39a, 48-51, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64-67, 68, 69-72,

74-76, 86, 89-91, 98, 113, 130.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #59, mammal frags including Bos metapodial shaft frag; #61, mammal frags; #79, #80, #84, #96 and #112 mammal frags; #82, mammal frags with OvislCapra-sized rib and OvislCapra-slzed vertebra centrum epiphysis; #90, sm/med mammal frags; #98,

slightly charred bird shaft; #104, sm mammal frag. Human bone (much of human bone was recorded with Burial 1573; cf. HRC #62, #65, #68,

#79, #80, #82, #84, #92, #93, #97, #98, #100, #105, #107, #121, #132, #137 and #149).

Shell: #99, #106, Unio frags; #134, land snails.



Metal: #94, sm (0.2 cm diameter) copper alloy bead. Corroded; #101, iron cylinder. Pre?

served length 5.0 cm; W. 0.6 cm Appears to have been a flat piece of metal that was rolled

into the cylindrical shape. rusted. Completely mineralized (weakly magnetic); #151, frags of a copper alloy earring. Flat, triangular (2.3 x 2.4 cm) piece from which are suspended

(by gold wire) four groups of three (each) discs (c. 1.0 cm D). MC#60 may have formed

a part of this earring.

Other: kiln waste; bits of plaster; soil sample PB 39a (float contained bits of barley [lx]).

1543 SE 2 Description. Fired- and mudbrick tomb containing burial 1569, dug into 1555. Tomb

TypeV. [SBalk].




1546 ? Cancelled. Pottery bags reassigned to 1538, 1542, 1558-1559, and 1565.

1547 SE 2b Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb containing burial 1551. Built directly upon tomb

1561, in same pit dug into 1555. Tomb Type III.


1548 SE 2 Description. Fired-brick tomb dug into 1555, burial within not excavated. Disturbed.

Includes 1570. Tomb Type II (?). [W Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #79, mammal frags.


1549 SE 2 Description. Rectangular patch of fine Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbrick detritus above

tomb 1550 considered to be in situ deteriorated mudbricks which covered exterior of fired-

brick Tomb 1550. [EBalk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #113, charred mammal frag.

Metal: #117, frag of iron nail. Preserved length 3.2 cm; W. 0.8 cm Mineralized.

1550 SE 2 Description. Fired-brick tomb containing Burial 1556, dug into 1555. Tomb Type V.

[EBalk].

1551 Description. Infant burial, articulated and complete, in Tomb 1547. Burial matrix of

silty Brown/Dark Brown (10 YR 4/3) detritus soil is stained Dark Yellowish Brown (10 YR 3/0) around the skeleton.




Material Culture.


1552 SE 4 Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb containing Burial 1563, dug into 1538. Partially excavated. Tomb Type III. [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.137.

Material Culture.


1553 SE 2a Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb built on or dug into Locus 1555. Disturbed/cut

by pit dug for Tomb 1558. No burial known. Tomb Type V (?)


1554 SE 4 Description. Fired-and-mudbrick tomb dug into 1538. Unexcavated, no burial known.

Tomb Type V [N, W Balks].

1555 SE 1 Description. Thick layer of clear, fine, compacted Dark Brown to Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/3-3/2) mudbrick detritus considered to be in situ slumped courses of

"Great Temenos" Wall 1565. On 1565 covered by layers 1538 and 1542. [S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.106, 111-112, 114-115, 143, 149, 157?, 158, 167.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #158, mammal vertebra frag and fish.

Human bone: HRC #161, #179 and #174.

Shell: #164, Arcularia (unmodified).

1556 Description. Infant burial in silty Brown (7.5 YR 5/4) detritus soil matrix in tomb

1550. Disarticulated burial. Articulated and complete rodent skeleton found with re?

mains. Disturbed.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #136, rodent maxilla and incisors; #140, complete rodent.


1557 SE 2 Description. Fired-brick tomb dug into 1555. Unexcavated, no burial known. Tomb Type V [SBalk].

1558 SE 2b Description. Large fired-and-mudbrick tomb dug into Locus 1555 cutting Tomb 1553.

Contains unexcavated primary burial plus four secondary, latter dug as burial(s) 1559 in

burial Matrix 1567. Tomb Type V.

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.83, 88, 92, 119, 173, 177.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #120, mammal.

Human bone: HRC #115, #139, #182 and #184.

Metal: #117, iron nail.

Other: kiln waste.



1559 SE 2c Description. Secondary burials: adult male and three or four children upon sand matrix

1567 in Tomb 1558. Beneath the sand the primary burial in Tomb 1558, an articulated

adult (sex indeterminable), remains unexcavated. Bones are very poorly preserved.

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.93, 94, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128,

132, 135, 138, 147, 152.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #124, #125, #126, #129, #130, #131, #133, and #135, mammal frags; #141,

#144, lg mammal longbone shaft frag; #153, OvislCapra prox metatarsus frags; #167, rodent rib and vertebrae frags.

Human bone: HRC #143, #144, #146, #153, #155, #157, #168 and #171 HRC (secondary burial).

Other. glass; bits of white plaster.

1560 SE 2b Description. Secondary, disarticulated burial of three or more infants in cavity in exterior

wall of Tomb 1564. One infant c. 1 1/2-2 years; one newborn 6 months.


Material Culture.

Human bone: HRC #159 and #176 (secondary burial).

1561 SE 2a Description. Fired-brick tomb containing burial 1562, in deep pit dug into 1555. After

this tomb was sealed another Tomb (1547) was built above it in the same pit. Tomb Type V.


Material Culture.


1562 Description. Child (c. 18 months) burial, articulated and complete, in silty Yellowish

Brown to Dark Brown (10YR 5/4-3/3) detritus soil matrix in Tomb 1561. Directly under

Tomb 1551.

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.146, 148, 150, 152.

Material Culture.

Human bone: HRC #165, #169 and #178.

Metal: #172, frag (1.0 x 0.4 cm) of copper or copper alloy chain(?). Mineralized.

Other: glass.

1563 Description. Disarticulated burial of single adult(?), sex undetermined, in Tomb 1552.


Material Culture.


1564 SE 2a Description. Fired-brick tomb dug into 1555, containing secondary burial 1560. Tomb

Type III. [S, E Balks].



1565 SE 1 Description. Huge mudbrick wall of unknown horizontal extent hypothesized as a wall

of Petrie's "Great Temenos," founded below level of groundwater (c. 4.39 M. ASL in 1981

season). Bricks oriented N-S form five known rows of up to 14 "headers" each in wall

running E-W. Known in six fabrics/colors: Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4), Brown (10YR

4/3), Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2), Dark Brown (10YR 3/3), Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2), Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1), bricks are laid in mud mortars of same

clays plus frequent inclusions of white marl flakes. Average brick size 45/40 x 20 x

12/15 cm. Includes 1568, 1574, 1575, 1577. [S, E, W Balks] see 1555; also Wall 1271

and Courses 1254 in Area 12.

Pottery Bags. N.I.15.116, 155, 162-164, 169, 172, 174-176, 179-185, 186, 187-188,

189, 190, 191, 192-198.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #189, OvislCapra molar frag; #193, #194, and #200, fish frags. Human bone: HRC #181.

Shell: #186, ud shell; #188, #189, #192, #195, #197, #198, land snail; #199, land snails, and lg land snail frag; #200, ud frags; #201, Cypraea annulus frag (open dorsum), sm land

snail, and lg land snail.

Stone: #203, flint blade segment, trapezoidal in section, with slight bulb of percussion; #204, two sm (c. 6.5 x 5.0 cm) crystaline chips of clear agate. Other: charcoal; soil.

1566 ? Description. Newly born (to 3 months) infant burial in silty Yellowish Brown (10YR

5/4) detritus soil matrix in Tomb 1535. Disarticulated, framentary, poorly preserved.


Material Culture.

Human bone: HRC #69a, #72 and #102.

Other: #103, sm (1.2 x 4.2 cm) frags of cloth.

1567 SE 2c Description. Thin (less than 1 cm) layer of Very Pale Brown (10YR or 4 7/4) sand in tomb

1558. Spread in rectangular pattern beneath secondary burial(s) 1559, it covers the un?

disturbed primary interrment (unexcavated).


1569 Description. Infant (3-6 months) burial in silty Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) detritus soil

matrix in Tomb 1543. Articulated and complete.


Material Culture.



1571 SE 2b Description. Small pit tomb containing Burial 1576, dug into 1555 against N wall of

Tomb 1532. Partially lined with fired bricks, pit was covered by roughly crosslaid fired

bricks. Tomb Type IV [W Balk].



1572 SE 4? Description. Burial of cluster of bones of two or more individuals within clear, fine Dark

Brown (10YR 3/3) detritus matrix considered as the slumped remnant ofa simple mud?

brick tomb containing this secondary burial. Bones in fair condition. Dug into 1538.

Material Culture:

Animal bone: #174, frags. Other: glass.

1573 SE 6 Description. Burial of cluster of bones of two (14-16 years youth; c. 1 year infant) or

more individuals within clear, fine Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) detritus matrix considered as

the slumped remnant of a simple mudbrick tomb containing this secondary burial. Dug into 1542.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #98, bird shaft ud frags.




1576 Description. Burial ofa small child (1 1/2-2 years old), articulated as partially excavated, in silty Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) detritus soil matrix in Tomb 1571. Rest of burial extends

into the balk.


Material Culture



Notes

Work in Southeast Area was directed initially by James Rehard and later by Jan M. Sanders. In retrospect, excavation in the Southeast Area probably should have been terminated sooner than it was. It seemed, however, to be one of the most

promising parts of the South Mound for finding traces of Petrie's "Great Temenos" if, in fact, the building ever existed.

However, we were consistantly misled by Petrie's statements that he had moved/removed a cemetery in this general area. Petrie's claims appeared to have been bolstered by the fact that the late tombs encountered in the upper levels were in? deed empty. Unfortunately, this did not hold true for the

deeper ones. In some of these deposits, subphasing was either indi?

cated or suggested during excavation. In order not to com-

plicate the text with excessive detail, such information has been included here in the Locus Summaries with "a" indi?

cating the earliest and "c" the latest discernible activity in a

given subphase. It appears that tombs were built in one part of the cem?

etery until such time as that space was completely occupied, after which the tomb builders moved to another area. Only following a period of disuse, after the seasons had caused an accumulation of wind and water-washed detritus, would a

particular area again become suitable for renewed tomb-

building. This total of forty tombs does not include Burials 1230,

1572, and 1573, which were not found associated with any architecture.


Burial 1559 represents the secondary burials of an adult male and three children upon a layer of sand in Tomb 1558. Beneath this sand layer, the original burial in Tomb 1558, the presence of an articulated adult (sex unknown) was re? corded but not excavated.

Even "blind" excavation (bailing!) below the water level to c. 4.39 m ASL produced no noticeable changes.

Of minor stratigraphical interest was debris Layer 1542

(fig. 3.10), which cut through yellow detritus soil Layer 1538, forming an intrusive "trench" extending across the northern quarter of the Area 15 (figs. 3.4 and 3.8). Al-

though this was thought at first to represent Petrie's excava? tion in the area, the trench appears to have been dug too late

(stratigraphically) for such an interpretation, and Trench 1542 now seems simply to have been a very deep cutting for the placement of Tomb 1554. The depth of the pit and the

weight of the heavy refill over the tomb provided the deceased with more security than was offered by most of the

contemporary burials that were encountered. HRC refers to the Human Remains Catalog that appears

at the end of Chapter 9.

Chapter Four

Excavations in the Northeast Area

Albert Leonard, Jr.

As work in the Southeastern Area slowed under the ever increasing number of burials encoun?

tered in the two squares during the 1981 season, excavation was initiated in the Northeast Area of the

South Mound. Here, two 4 x 4 m squares (Areas 66 and 88, fig. 1.12) were laid out in an attempt to locate a part of the ancient city that had not been covered by the cemetery that had complicated our work to the southeast.

Since no archaeologically discrete loci had been excavated in the brief amount of time that we

were allowed to excavate in these two areas, our work is simply outlined here for the sake of com-

pleteness and to give some context to the bits of material culture that were excavated from secondary contexts in the two squares.

Area 66 (fig. 4.1)

Work in Area 66 was shortlived (one week). During the initial cleaning (sweeping and scraping) of the surface, prior to beginning excavation in this square, six tombs appeared in our 4.0 x 4.0 m

excavation area.

Locus 6603 (1.50 x 1.00 m): a small, ovoid tomb, probably containing a young child's burial.

Locus 6604 (1.35 x 1.00 m): a small, ovoid tomb, probably containing a young child's burial (pls. 4.1 and 4.2).

Locus 6605 (2.25 x 1.25 m): a rectangular tomb, probably containing an adult burial (pls. 4.1

and 4.2).

Locus 6606: a small, ovoid tomb [disturbed], probably containing an infant burial (pl. 4.1).

Locus 6607 (1.00 x 0.35 m): a rectangular tomb, only partially exposed. Locus 6609 (1.30 x 0.85 m): a disturbed burial.

Each of these tombs appeared to have been oriented in such a manner that the burial could be

positioned so that it would face Mecca, southeast of Kom Ge'if.

Subsequently a small (c 2.0 x 2.0 m) area in the northeast corner of Area 66 seemed, at first, to

be devoid of these intrusive tombs and, therefore, most of the excavation in this square was concen-

trated in that area. Unfortunately, within 30 cm of the surface, excavation of the probe in Area 66

had encountered two additional tombs:

Tomb 6613 (0.75 x 0.75 x 0.50 m) containing infant Burial 6615, which was recorded but not

excavated; and

Tomb 6614 (1.00 x 0.40 m), which contained an infant burial that was left unregistered.

The soil around this lower level of tombs was very spongy, a condition that, in the SE Area, had

indicated that more tombs were located below. The material evidently represents wind/water borne

sediment deposited while the cemetery was in use.

113


6611

6612

6614

6602

V w^S^ "~ - 6606 * $660* ^

POO O6603,

*?^

6602

6607

f hH r?I I- I / 0 1M 2

Fig. 4.1. Northeast Area 66: final top plan.

Probt 8810 Tomb 8811

f

6808

8804

?8605

g8806

oOCoOOt&o

<D^Q

3 0 1M 2

Fig. 4.2. Northeast Area 88: final top plan.

Tombs 66313 and 6614 were never excavated. Our physical anthropologists were bogged down

in the SE Area, and before they could finish their work in Areas 12 and 15 (and while Burial 6615

was being drawn and photographed), we were prohibited from excavating any more tombs.

Area 88 (fig. 4.2)

Frustrated in Area 66, our efforts were transferred to Area 88. Even while sweeping Area 88, prior

to the start of excavation, a segment of a wall of fired brick (Locus 8802) was encountered in the Top?

soil Locus 8801 in loose stratigraphical association with two adult human skulls and a human femur.

This collection of bones, however, was without any burial context and the wall proved to be a frag?

ment of a tomb of the relatively distant past. Because of the disturbed nature of the topsoil in Area

88, excavation proceeded quickly, but in less than a meter's depth three tombs had been encountered

(Loci 8805, 8806, and 8807). Because these tombs were "safely" located in the corners of the exca?

vation area, it was thought at first that there was sufficient space available to allow a deep probe into

the archaeological levels associated with Petrie's Great Temenos. Continued excavation, however, re?

vealed two more tombs (Loci 8808 and 8809) and unfortunately these were located directly in the

center of the square.

With the hope that the unexcavated, northwest corner of Area 88 would provide clear space for

a second probe, subsequent excavation was concentrated in that area but, unfortunately, the top of a

domed, mudbrick tomb (Locus 8811) was soon uncovered. Testing around this tomb (Locus 8810)

demonstrated that it stood at least 1.70 m high and that it filled the entire probe area, even after the

probe had been enlarged by an additional 0.50 m to the south. While Tomb 8811 was being exca-

1998 The Northeast Area 115

vated, in response to protests by the local villagers, the Egyptian Antiquities Organization prohibited

us from excavating any further tombs at the site.

Because at least three weeks of the digging season remained, we subsequently moved our work to

the northern base of the South Mound and opened Areas 315 and 316 in what was to become the

North Area.

Notes

Section drawings are not included here since the balks were vandalized by the villagers.

Work was stopped before Tomb 8811 could be drawn. As was the case in Area 66, the balks in Area 88 were vandalized.

Chapter Five

Excavations in the North Area

Albert Leonard, Jr.

Towards the end of the 1981 season, after we were precluded from further excavation in the

Southeast and Northeast Areas, we moved to the base of the steep northern face of the South Mound,

between the mound itself and the dirt road passing (east-west) to the north of it. Here local villagers,

engaged in manufacturing mudbricks, had exposed large chunks of ancient brickwork and potsherds.

Again, the purpose of the work in this area was to clarify Petrie's Great Temenos. The results of a core

taken from this area by John Gifford (pls. 5.1 and 5.2), were published by Villas (in Coulson 1996:

163-65).

Excavation in this northern area appeared to be especially promising because it was below the

(absolute) level of the cemetery, and thus should be free from the intrusions excavated in the Northeast

and Southeast areas. Accordingly, after clearing the destruction done by the mudbrick makers, two

4 x 4 m squares were laid out: Area 315 (to the east) and Area 316 (to the west), separated from each

other by a 1 m balk (pl. 5.3) . In preparation for excavation, the entire area was scraped horizontally

to eliminate contamination from the brick makers' activities, while the high (artificial) south balk was

trimmed back to obtain a fresh vertical exposure and to establish control (pl. 5.4).

The stratigraphy of the northern area is best understood if it is considered in five phases: from

the lowest "North Phase 1" through the uppermost "North Phase 5." As elsewhere at Naukratis, the

high water table precluded complete excavation of the earliest remains in this part of the mound.

In the present order of the material, an individual phase is considered to begin with the construc?

tion rather than the destruction of a particular wall or group of walls. Since more architecture was

encountered in Area 316 than in Area 315, that square has been used as the control, and the material

from Area 315 has been keyed into the stratigraphical sequence established there.

North Phase 1

This phase is represented by material that was reached in small probes at, or slightly below,

ground water level. The phase is most clearly demonstrated in Area 316 where it consisted of Locus

31629, a deposit of mudbrick rubble below (and sealed) by the later (Phase 2) Surface 31629P that

had been in use with north-south Wall 31613 and Wall 31628 that runs parallel to it c. 1.50 m to

the east (figs. 5.1 and 5.2). Nothing can be said with certainty about the type of architecture that

would have been associated with this phase in Area 316, since the material was encountered only in

a very small (1.00 x 0.20 m) probe that rapidly and continually filled with muddy ground water as it

was being excavated. However, the pottery from Locus 31629 does provide the terminus post quem for

all subsequent archaeological phases in the area.

Corresponding Phase 1 deposits in Area 315 should be beneath a use-surface that would have

been contemporary with Surface 31629P. Such a surface could be represented by the top of either

Locus 31541 or 31543 (fig. 5.4), both of which were detected very close to the point at which ground water was encountered and, in fact, it was while digging the latter Locus (31543) that the seepage of

116

1998 Excavations in the North Area 117

31634

1 Unexcavated IS$$S$>$$$I Unexcavated

31632-

-31616

DE , 31603

0 1M 2

Phase 3

Fig. 5.1. Area 316: plan of phase N2. Phase Nl was encountered below Surface 31629P in the southwestern corner of the square. The outline ofthe upper, N3 features are indicated in hatching.

ground water forced excavation in the Area 315 to be terminated. In the absence of diagnostic

pottery from these two thin loci, the ceramic material from Locus 31629 has been used to date this

phase.

Despite its limited exposure and the uncertainties concerning the nature of its context, the mate?

rial from North Phase 1 is instructive because it represents the deepest (and most probably the earli?

est) material recovered during our excavation of the South Mound; and, evidently, it also represents the deepest/earliest material that can be recovered from the North area by conventional archaeological methods (i.e. without pumps). This material seems to be the late third century B.C.

North Phase 2

This phase began with the construction of north-south Wall 31613 and parallel Wall 31628 fur?

ther to the east (fig. 5.1). Both walls were founded on or in the Phase 1 debris Locus 31629, evidently without a foundation trench of any type. Although the two walls were reached in a very small probe in the southwest corner of Area 316, it can be shown that each wall had been constructed quite differ-

ently. Wall 31613 consisted of (at least) two rows of headers laid without mortar, while Wall 31628

displayed a western face comprised of stretchers laid in clay mortar. It is possible that a northward

continuation of Wall 31613 can be seen in Installation 31632 (and perhaps also in the mudbricks dug as Locus 31631) but the poorly understood connection cannot be proven stratigraphically. This is be?

cause the relationship between Locus 31632 and ashy Detritus 31617 could not be determined since


EAST SOUTH

Fig. 5.2. Balks of North Area 316.

Fig. 5.3. Areas 315 and 316: Plan of phase N3.

time did not allow the former's complete removal (fig. 5.2). It should be noted that the flotation of

the soil matrix of Locus 31617 produced the largest sample of emmer wheat encountered during the

excavation (see Chapter Eight).

Although at Kom Ge'if brick patterns change frequently, often within the same stretch of walling,

it was felt, at the time of excavation, that Wall 31628 had been the major wall in the area, and that

Wall 31613 represented a minor addition built to define a narrow space (c. 1.30 m wide) for pedestrian

traffic or storage (Table 5.1). As noted above, the surface in use with these walls was Locus 31629P

from which only a single sherd, a large handle from a coarse ware (local) pithos, was recovered.

At some point in time, the structure of which Walls 31613 and 31628 had formed a part was

destroyed and Detritus 31612, consisting of fallen, slumped and broken mudbricks mixed with arti-

factual material, was allowed (or intentionaly added) to cover the stubs of its walls.


WEST NORTH

5.00 MASI

Fig. 5.2. continued

Wall

Table 5.1. Wall Construction in the North Area Phase 2

Description

Wall 31613

Wall 31628 (pls. 5.5

and 5.6)

Wall 31632

Material: Very Dark Gray Brown (10YR 3/2), Very Dark Gray (10YR 3/1-

4/1) or Dark Brown (10R 3/3) mudbricks c. 28 x 22 x 15 cm, laid without

mortar, possibly in two rows of headers. Three(?) courses preserved. Soil too

damp to ascertain masonry pattern.


Orientation: Approximately N-S [S].

Relationship(s): Used with Surface 31629P and contemporary parallel Wall

31628.

Material: Brown (10YR 5/3) or Dark Gray (10YR 4/1) mudbricks c. 40 x

20 x 13 cm. Laid in Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) clay mortar. Two rows

of stretchers were identified, and four(?) courses were preserved. Insufficient

exposure and soil too damp to determine masonry pattern.


Orientation: Approximately N-S. [S].

Relationship(s): Used with Surface 31629P and with contemporary parallel Wall 31613.

Material: Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbrick dimensions not discernible. This lo?

cus is considered to have been a (possible) northern extension of Wall 31613

(see above). Very elusive at this level.

Contemporary, Phase 2, architecture was not encountered in Area 315. However, if we are cor?

rect in interpreting the top of either Locus 31541 or 31543 as a Phase 1 surface contemporary with

Surface 31629, then some (or all) of the accumulation of sediment and detritus (excavated as Loci

31512, 31513, 31514, 31529, 31535, 31537, and 31545) would represent the use and/or the demise

of the Phase 2 architecture in Area 315. Many of these loci, especially 31512 and 31514, were very rich in pottery, while flotation of the matrices of Locus 31533 (a lens/pit in Locus 31514) and Locus



Wall Description

Wall 31504 (pls. 5.3 and Material: Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbricks c. 35 x 20 x 12 cm, laid with

5.4) clay mortar in masonry pattern as Wall 31603. Nine courses identified.

Foundation Level: c. 5.35 m ASL.

Orientation: Approximately N-S [S].

Relationship (s): Used with "surfaces" at top(s) of Layer 31508 (interior?) and

Layer 31528 (exterior?) and with (contemporary) Wall 31515.

Wall 31515 Material: Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4) mudbricks c. 40 x 15 x 17 cm, laid

with clay mortar known in all but the uppermost courses, Four courses known.

Masonry pattern as Wall 31603.

Foundation Level: c. 5.29-5.34.

Orientation: Approximately E-W [E,W].

Relationship (s): This is the eastern extension of Wall 31616. Used with same

surfaces as 31504 and with contemporary, abutting Wall 31504.

Wall 31603 (pls. 5.5 and Material: Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbricks c. 36 x 17 x 13 cm, laid in Very 5.6)^ Dark Gray (10YR 3/1) clay mortar in masonry pattern as follows:

one course stretcher-header-header, then one course header-header-stretcher, then one course header-stretcher-header, then all repeated. Ten courses

identified.

Foundation Level: c. 5.21 m ASL on remnant of earlier Wall 31528.

Orientation: Approximately N-S.

Relationship(s): Used with "surfaces" at tops of Layer 31612 (exterior?) and

Layer 31621 (interior?), and bonded into contemporary Wall 31616.

Wall 31616 Material: Dark Brown (0 YR 3/3) mudbricks c. 36 x 17 x 13 cm, laid in Very Dark Gray (10 YR 3/1) clay mortar. Five courses known. Masonry pattern as

31603 to which it is bonded.

Foundation Level: c. 5.20 m ASL on Detritus 31612.

Orientation: Approximately E-W [E].

Relationship (s): This is the western extension of Wall 31515. Used with (ex?

terior?) surface at top of Layer 31612 and (interior?) surface at top of Layer 31621.

Wall 31632 Material: Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) mudbricks. Wall, installation or per?

haps an oven. Bricks seem to enclose ashy Debris 31617. Brick size not de-

termined.

Foundation Level: Not determined.

Orientation: Unknown.

Relationship(s): Possible western extension of Wall 31616/31515.

Wall 31634 Material: Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbricks of indistinguishable size, laid

in clay mortar of same color. Two courses identified. Masonry pattern incom-

pletely recovered.

Foundation Level: Uncertain, not excavated below 5.20 m ASL.

Orientation: Approximately N-S [N].

Relationship(s): Contemporary with Wall(s) 31603 and 31616.

flNote that Wall 31603 was used later in North Phase 4. Both Walls 31606-31626 (on the west) and Wall 31604 (on the east) were built against it.


31539 (a pit cut into Locus 31537) presented a wide array of both cultivated and non-cultivated plant remains.

The event(s) associated with the deposition of this material brought an end to Phase 2 and this

most probably occurred in the late third or early second century B.C.

North Phase 3

With Phase 3, the stratigraphy of the two northern squares can be tied together with considerable

certainty due to the presence of (east-west) Wall 31515-31616 on either side of the common balk

(Table 5.2). This wall may have continued westward to include a reuse of the upper courses of the

installation/wall that was excavated as North Phase 2 Locus 31631/31632 (fig. 5.2). Perpendicular to

Wall 31515-31616 were two parallel (north-south) walls: Wall 31603, bonded into Wall 31515-

31616 (pls. 5.7 and 5.8), and Wall 31504 that was built against that wall (pls. 5.5 and 5.6).5 If In-

stallation/Wall 31632 is correctly interpreted as a westward extension of Wall 31515-31616, these

walls would combine to define a structure consisting of at least three rooms to the south of the main

east-west wall (the areas of loci 31612, 31621/31508, and 31514, fig. 5.3 and Table 5.2).

During the course of excavation, a large, open area (Loci 316l2a-31528) was encountered to the

north of Wall 31515-31616-31632 that gave every indication that it had served as a courtyard or

other exterior space. When the final bits of Detritus 31608 were removed from the northwest corner

of Area 316, traces of what appeared to be another north-south wall, Locus 31634, was detected in

the north balk. Wall 31634 may have originally joined Wall 31515-31616-31632 before both were

covered by the detritus of Locus 31608. Flotation of the Locus 31608 soil matrix produced a sample of emmer wheat in association with darnel. Darnel is a non-fodder weed that grows among cereal

crops but one that must be removed manually in order to prevent the introduction of a poisonous

fungus. This would further strengthen the interpretation that the area north of the wall had func-

tioned as a courtyard or other semi-enclosed, exterior space. The surfaces in what are interpreted as North Phase 3 "interior" rooms situated to the south of

Wall 31632/31616/31515 were created on the trodden and metalled tops of thick layers of debris or

detritus: Locus 31612 in the westernmost room, Locus 31621/31508 in the central room, and Locus

31514 in the easternmost room, all at approximately the same absolute level (5.20 m ASL). To the

north of the main, east-west wall, "exterior" surfaces were formed by the tops of Locus 31612a and

Locus 31528 at c. 5.25-5.30 m ASL. Unfortunately, none of these archaeological interfaces presented

flat-lying pottery or other chronologically significant indicators of a use-surface. The matrix of Locus

31514, however, did produce one of the most varied botanical assemblages in the South Mound (see

Chapter 8).

Subsequently, most probably at the end of the second or early in the first century B.C, the Phase

3 structure went out of use and the area filled up with wall-fall, detritus and an assortment of artifac?

tual material (Loci 31502, 31524; Loci 31608, 31611, 31617, 31619, and 31621). These events

brought about the demise of what is interpreted here as Phase 3, and the material in these loci com?

bine to provide a terminus post quem for North Phase 4.

North Phase 4

As noted above, North Phase 4 does not represent an excavated phase but rather the recording of

the balks (figs. 5.2 and 5.4) subsequent to our cleaning of the area after the departure of the brick

makers and prior to our initial excavation in the area. The phase was more clearly observable in


SOUTH

Fig. 5.4. Balks of North Area 315.

Area 316 where three architectural elements could be assigned to it: Wall 31604, Wall 31606, and

Wall 31626 all of which appear to have been dug into the debris and mudbrick detritus associated

with the collapse of the North Phase 3 structure (especially Locus 31611 or Locus 31624).

In Area 315, North Phase 4 is most probably represented by (partially excavated) Wall 31503,

and possibly also by Wall(?) 31524, which had been built upon detritus Locus 31502.

All of these walls are considered to have been the remnants of tombs that comprised the "mod?

ern" cemetery, the southern portions of which were so extensively encountered during our excavations

in the northeast and southeast areas. Associated with these bits of walling were several debris layers and deposits, none of which was sealed and thus could not provide secure archaeological contexts, but

a date in the first century B.C. is the most likely for this disturbed phase, since no later material (other

than the "modern" burials) was recorded in the area.

North Phase 5

Normally, the uppermost phase of an excavated area would represent the modern top-soil and

other very recent deposits. However, North Phase 5 in the South Mound at Kom Ge'if consisted of

material excavated when the area was being cleaned after the modern brickmaking activities had al?

ready cut away the existing topsoil and much of what would have been represented here as Phase 4.

These loci, therefore, are open (i.e. non-sealed) deposits and as such have little to contribute to our

reconstruction of the stratigraphy of the area. They do, nevertheless, present a large selection of the

wide range of the ceramic material found in South Mound deposits, and for this reason a representa?

tive, sampling has been illustrated. None of the pottery is demonstrably later than the first century B.C.

Work in the North area presents a microcosm of the excavations at Kom Ge'if for, even when one

is able to get below the level of the cemetery (as also was the case in the Northwest area), one is frus-

trated by the high level of the ground water in the area. Excavation in these two squares produced a

stratigraphic sequence of architecture whose chronological parameters were completely within the

Ptolemaic period. If an earlier settlement (either Greek or local) had existed at some time at the

southern end of the site, its remains completely avoided detection during our clearing of the 32 m

of Areas 315 and 316. Not even a "stray" sherd from the earlier period was encountered.


WEST NORTH

5.00 MASL

Fig. 5.4. Continued.


Wall Description

Wall 31604 Material: Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) mudbricks c. 28 x unknown x 11 cm, dry laid, four

courses identifed. May be tomb or other installation.

Foundation Level: c. 6.40 m on eroded wall-fall debris of North Phase 2.

Orientation: Approximately E-W [S].

Relationship(s): Built against earlier Wall 31603. No related surfaces excavated.

Wall 31606 Material: Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) or 10YR 5/3 (Brown) mudbricks c. 30 x un?

known x 12 cm, laid in Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) mortar. Six courses identified. May be

portion of a tomb.

Foundation Level: c. 5.95-6.05 m ASL on eroded and leveled wall-fall debris from earlier

North Phase 2.

Orientation: Approximately E-W [S].

Relationship(s): Built against earlier Wall 31603. Possibly used with marly pebbled Locus

31607 as surface.

Wall 31626 Material: Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4 ) mudbricks of unknown size, laid in Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) clay mortar.

Foundation Level: c. 6.05 m ASL on Level 31611 May be wall of tomb. [S].


Wall 31503 Material: Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbricks c. 15 x 10/12 x 30/32 cm. Two

courses identified. Masonry pattern is unknown. This may be a tomb.

Foundation Level: c. 5.81 m ASL. along E face of Wall 31504. [S].

Orientation: East-west(?).

Wall 31524 Material: Light Yellowish Brown (10YR 6/4) to Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mud?

bricks of undetermined size Very eroded and not much known, possibly a tomb.

Foundation Level: c. 5.85 m ASL on 31502. [S].



Table 5.4. N Area 316: Stratigraphic Sequence ofLoci Deposition

W31604-

S31612

W31616/-

W31603

Topsoil

D31605

W31606

D31608/

D31611/

D31616/

D31617/

D31619/

D31621/

D31624

D31612

(+others?)

W31626

S31612a/

S31621

?W31631/

W31632/

?W31434

N5

N4

N3

N2

W31613- S31629P

D31629

Ground Water

W31628/

?W31631/

?W31632

N 1


Table 5.5. N Area 315: Stratigraphic Sequence ofLoci Deposition

?D31521/-

D31522

W31505-

Topsoil

D31502/

D31526

-D31519

?W31524

N5

N-

N3

S31508

S31528

W31515/

31504

S31514

D31512/

D31513/

D31514/

D31529/

D31535/

D31537/

D31547

N2

D31541 N 1

D31543

Ground Water




31501 N5 Description. Topsoil and artificial loci.


31502 N3 Description. Thick layer of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick detritus and de?

tritus soil. [N,S,E,W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.315.02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 10, 15, 17, 27, 42.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #2, fish bone plate; #4, mammal frags of lg shaft (UF, burnt); #9, OvislCapra- sized frags including butchered ribs; #16, OvislCapra-sized frags including ribs and butchered

vertebra spine Metal: #15, metal wire. Modern?

Plaster. ud bits.

31503 N4 Description. Installation or wall of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) bricks known only in the balk. Construction techniques and plan not clear but 31503 together with 31521 and

31522 is presently interpreted as a tomb similar to those known in SE areas of mound. [S, E

Balks].


31504 N3 Description. Major N-S wall of Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbricks, abutting S face of con?

temporary wall 31515. [S Balk].


31505 N3 Description. Thin layer of Brown to Dark Brown (10YR 4/3 to 3/3) mudbrick detritus E of

wall 31504. [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.315.08, 11-12, 16.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #3, sm/med mammal frag; #7, lg mammal frag; #8, sm mammal rib; #10, sm

mammal caudal vertebra (UF).

Shell: #10, fresh-water bivalve frag.

31506 N3 Description. Scree of white limestone chips in detritus lens 31505. [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bag. N.I.315 09.

Material Culture.

Stone: #6, sm chip of white limestone.


31508 N3 Description. Layer of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick detritus, the top of

which was apparently utilized as a surface inside cornering of walls 31504 and 31515. [S, W

Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.315.14, 18-19,40,75.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #11, med mammal rib (butchered)



Shell: #30, lg fresh-water bivalve frags, Bellamaya.

Stone: #83, two chips of white limestone and one chip of fine-grained red garnet.

Other: kiln waste.

31509 N3 Description. Compacted Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) within 31526, probably eroded mudbricks. [S Balk].

31510 N3 Description. Pit of Very Dark Gray soil, ash, and charcoal S of wall 31515, cut from 31526.

[None].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #20, fish bone plates.

Other: soil sample.


31512 N2 Description. Thick layer of Dark Grayish Brown (1OYR 4/2) mudbrick detritus, upon which

Walls 31515 and 31504 were founded see 31514 and 31529. [S, W Balks].


Material Culture.

Faience: #12, rim (fig. 7.12.10).

Stone: #85, corner frag ofa roughly hewn, limestone block No. 33 (preserved: 7.0 x 7.0 x 6.5 cm).

31513 N2 Description. Layer of fine Dark Grayish Brown (1 OYR 4/2) mudbrick detritus, probably same

as 31537 layer E of (but earlier than) Wall 31504. [S, W Balks].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #86, rodent bones; #87, fish bones and rodent.

31514 N2/3 Description. Thick layer of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick detritus, upon which Walls 31515 and 31504 were founded. Equivalent to 31512, but stratigraphic connec-

tion not made directly. [S, E Balks]. Top of locus used as Phase 3 Surface.

Pottery Bags. N.I.315.26, 33, 36-39, 41, 48-50, 52, 55, 58, 60, 62, 63, 73, 80.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: 323, mammal frag and fish frags; #26, fish bone frag; #31, fish; #50 mammal

frags and fish frags; #57, mammal frags and bird phalanx 1.

Shell: #24, fresh-water bivalve frag; #31, lg fresh-water bivalve frag; #51, fresh-water bivalve

frag, lg land snail, and snail.

Faience: #22 and #28, rims (figs. 7.11.12 and 7.11.13) from same vessel(?); #58, rim (fig. 7.11.21); #27, bead (not illustrated); #81, pierced bead white with blue-green exterior (not

illustrated); #42, ud frags.

Metal: #39, frag of iron nail. Preserved length 4.6 cm, W. 0.8 cm. Completely mineralized;

#40, frag of copper or copper alloy nail. Preserved length 4.2, W. 0.7 cm. Completely min?

eralized, oxide core; #88, frag of copper or copper alloy nail. Preserved length 5.7, W. 0.6 cm.

Very active bronze disease, heavily mineralized, but a sm (0.4 cm) core remains.



Other: shell; kiln waste; stone; soil sample (PB 41, float contained fish and emmer wheat [lx],

spikelet forks [9x], lentil [4x], cereal frags [5x], Lolium [6x], and Vicia [2x]).

31515 N3 Description. Major E-W Wall of Yellowish Brown (1OYR 514) bricks. [E, W Balks].


31516 N3 Description. Thin lens of charcoal, ash, and burnt detritus along N face of Wall 31515, prob?

ably associated with 31619 only a few meters to the West. [None].


Material Culture.

Other: soil sample (PB 51, float contained Lolium [lx]).


31518 N4 Description. Layer of coarse Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) mudbrick detritus known only inbalk. [SBalk].

31519 N4 Description. Thin lens Very Dark Brown (10YR 2/2) charcoal and ash known only in balk.

[SBalk].

31520 N4 Description. Small deep pit cut from top of 49131 filled with Dark Yellowish Brown (10YR

414) detritus at West face of Wall 31504. [S Balk].

31521 N4 Description. Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/6) layer known only in balk, perhaps deteriorated

brick debris from the superstructure ofa relatively modern tomb (see 31503). [S Balk].

31522 N4 Description. Layer of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) mudbrick debris (see 31521). [S

Balk].

31523 N5 Description. Shallow modern dung pit.

31524 N4 Description. Apparently architectural debris of mudbricks of two colors: Light Yellowish

Brown (10YR 6/4) and Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2). Possibly this is a tomb of type known in other parts of mound. Known only in balk. [S Balk].


31526 N3 Description. Layer of fall of Dark Grayish Brown to Dark Brown (10YR 4/3-3/3) mudbrick

detritus. [N,S,E,W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.315.13, 25, 28-30, 32, 35, 43, 45-47, 53.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #17, mammal frags including teeth, sm mammal vertebra, and fish cranial frag; #33, mammal frags, OvislCapra-sized ribs, and fish plates; #35, lg mammal frags, bird scapula, and fish plate; #37, mammal frags and bird phalanx. Shell: #14, Cerastoderma; #21, lg fresh-water bivalve frag; #33, bivalve frag. Faience: #13, ud frags; #36, rim (fig. 7.11.9). Metal: #34, flake of copper alloy. Preserved dimensions: 0.6 x 0.5 x 0.1 cm. Fragile. Unstable.



Other: shell; stone; kiln waste bits of MC.


31528 N3 Description. Thin layer of Dark Grayish Brown to Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/

2-3/2) detritus, apparently a use surface. [N, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.315.54, 56, 74.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #43, mammal frags.

Shell: #45, Donax trunculus.

Other: kiln waste; fired brick.

31529 N2 Description. Thick debris layer of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) detritus upon which

walls 31515 and 31504 were founded (see 31514 and 31512: although direct connection not

excavated, these three loci seem to be the same layer). [N, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.31557, 59.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #48, fish frags; #87, fish frags.

Shell: #55, lg fresh-water bivalve frag; #82, land snail.


Other: kiln waste.

31530 N4 Description. Thin water-washed lens below 31518, known only in balk. [S Balk].

31531 N4 Description. Eroded detritus of Wall 31504. [S Balk].


31533 N2 Description. Shallow lens or pit in 31514, of Dark Reddish Brown (2.5YR 3/4) detritus.


Material Culture.

Other: soil sample (PB 61, float contained spikelet forks [lx], grape [lx], cereal frags [5x], Lolium [6x], Scorpiurus [lx], and indet. grass [lx]).


31535 N2 Description. Thin burnt lens of Dark Reddish Brown to Dark Grayish Brown, and Black

(2.5YR 3/4-10YR 4/2, 2.5YR 2.5/0) detritus on top of 31537 debris. [S, E, Balks].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #65, bird frags and fish spine (all stained green).

Shell: #62, lg fresh-water bivalve frags.

Metal: #60, sm frags of iron, largest 1.0 x 0.2 cm. Conservator noted that this may be the re?

mains of a pin, needle, or nail. With the sample were sm shreds of organic fiber (flax or other

reed material?); #61, flat piece (3.1 x 1.4 x 0.2 cm) of asheet of tin. Gray with white corrosion.

Other: soil sample (PB 64, float contained fish vertebrae); kiln waste.



31536 N2 Description. Concentration of crushed red-fired brick associated with 31535 burnt lens.

Material Culture.

Other: soil sample.

31537 N2 Description. Thick layer of Dark Brown and Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/3 and 3/

2) detritus, interpreted as wall fall episodes in this earliest phase. [S, E Balks].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #68, lg bird shaft frag (stained green); #72, fish bone.

Shell: #69, fresh-water bivalve frag.

Metal: #66, lump (0.8 x 0.6 cm) of copper-alloy bronze. Mineralized.

Other: kiln waste; mudbrick.


31539 N2 Description. Pit cut into 31537, filled with Dark Grayish Brown detritus and limestone frag? ments. [None].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #77, fish dentary frag.

Other: soil sample (PB 67, float contained spikelet fork [lx], and Lolium [lx]).

31540 N2 Description. Pit cut into 31545. Filled with limestone fragments and fired bricks in matrix

of Very Dark Grayish Brown detritus. [None].

Material Culture.


Other: kiln waste; soil sample.

31541 Nl Description. Thin layer possibly an early use surface, above 31543. [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.31571.

Material Culture.

Other: kiln waste.


31543 Nl Description. Layer of Dark Yellowish Brown (10YR 3/4) mudbrick detritus. Top possibly used as a surface. [S, E Balks].


31544 N2 Description. Concentration, possibly a brick, of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) detritus.

[EBalk].


31545 N2 Description. Thin sediment of fine, Weak Red (1OYR 4/3) matrix, below 31537. [S, E Balks].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: ud frags.




31601 N5 Description. Top soil and artificial loci. PB N.I.316.20 had originally been dug as Locus

31614, but was contaminated and subsequently combined with topsoil Locus 31601.

Pottery Bags. N.I.316.01-02, 06, 16, 20, 22-23, 30, 33, 35-36, 38, 40-41, 57.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #18, mammal frag; #34, bird shaft frag; #44, lg mammal frag; #59, Equus asinus molar (very worn down); #68, mammal frag and lg mammal rib; #74, lg mammal

vertebra frag; #79, mammal frags including Bos scapula with chop marks - butchered across

gelnoid, Bos ribs (some are butchered), OvislCapra-sized ribs, vertebrae spine frags (one is butchered); #84, med/lg mammal frags and fish plate.

Shell: #60, lg fresh-water bivalve frags and land snail.

Metal: #35, lump (0.7 x 0.7 cm) of copper alloy. No definite shape. Mineralized; #49,

flat(?) piece of iron. Preserved dimensions: 4.1 x 1.1 x 0.3 cm. Dark red-brown oxides;

completely mineralized; #60 and #69, lg piece of iron. Preserved length c. 7.4 cm; greatest W. 2.0 cm. Appears to have been originally rectangular in section c. 1.3 x c. 0.8 cm. Min?

eralized. Thick red oxide; #80 and #83, sm (1.8 x 1.0 cm) "lump" of mud with iron oxide

stains. Not magnetic so there is very little iron remaining in the sample. Crumbly, ud.

Stone: #1, coarse-grained (pink, gray, white and black) feldspar-mica-granite; plus fine-

grained black basalt; and coarse-grained olivine (green and black) basalt(?); #5, chip of

fine-grained black basalt; #9, chip of coarse-grained felspar-mica granite; #75, approxi?

mately twenty chips of (weathered) white limestone; plus one chip of granite, coarse-

grained felspar mica; #78, a variety of stone chips including: coarse-grained black diorite;

coarse-grained biotite (mica) granite; coarse-grained feldspar basalt; and fine-grained black

basalt; #85, two groups of stone flakes and chips. Fine-grained basalt (largest was 7.0 x

2.5 x 1.0 cm); and red-pink-gray (Aswan?) granite (largest was 10 x 9 x 2.5 cm); #86,

coarse-grained biotite (mica) granite. Mostly black with traces of pink and white; #88, chip of fine-grained black basalt; #109, frag of med-grained mica schist; #116, frag (12 x 10

x 10.5 cm) of limesone block. Top has been fired gray.

Plaster: #46, frag of three-dimensional relief plaster, surface color between 5Y 8/3 and

7/3 (Pale Yellow). Fabric color as exterior surface; innermost 4 mm, was c. 2.5Y 8/4.

Other: kiln waste; burnt daub.

31602

31603

? Cancelled.

N3 Description. Major N-S wall of Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbrick. [S Balk].


Material Culture.

Animal bone: #53, mammal frag.

Shell: #52, Unio.

31604 N4 Description. E-W wall of Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) bricks abutting E face of earlier

Wall 31603. [SBalk].

31605 N4 Description. Debris layer of Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) mudbrick detritus, known only inbalk. [SBalk].

31606 N4 Description. E-W Wall of Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2) and Brown (10YR 5/3) bricks abutting W face of earlier Wall 31603. [S Balk].



31607 N4 Description. Undulating surface of flattish chips of white limestone, possibly associated

with use of Walls 31606-26 and 31603. [S, W Balks].

31608 N3 Description. Thick layer of wall fall detritus including Dark Gray (10YR 4/1) broken

bricks in finer Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) detritus matrix. [N, S, E, W Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.316.08-09, 11, 13-14, 17-18,21,24-26,42-43,45-46,49-51,53,

59,71.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #26, bird shaft frags; #38, mammal frags; #41, med/lg mammal frag (cut down shaft); #48, med/lg mammal frag; #51, fish plate; #90, Bos(?) carpus/tarsus and fish

plate frags.

Shell: #23 and #43, Aspatharia frag.

Terracotta: #101.

Faience: #17, rim (fig. 7.11.7); #47, rim (fig. 7.12.8); #20, #21, #39, and #50, ud pieces.

Metal: #13, broken piece of copper or copper alloy nail/pin. Preserved dimensions: 1.2 x

0.6 cm. Corroded; #16, fragmentary disc of copper or copper alloy. Preserved dimensions

c. 1.7 cm diameter, 0.6 cm thickness. Completely mineralized. possibly a coin; #89, Frag? ment (1.5 x 0.3 c. 0.1 cm) of copper or copper alloy. Fragile. Mineralized; #115, head(?) of copper or copper alloy nail. Preserved dimensions: 1.0 x 0.8 cm. Active bronze disease,

completely mineralized.

Stone: #40, med-grained pink quartzite; #42, sm frag of limestone; #93, sm limestone chip,

plus sm piece of coarse-grained pink quartzite (weathered); #102, frag (14x13.5x5 cm) of a limestone slab with rasp marks, No. 34 (not illustrated).

Other: charcoal; soil sample (PB 26, float contained emmer wheat [4x], cereal frags [5x], and Lolium [59x]); kiln waste; burnt brick.

31609 N3(?) Description. Thick Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) debris layer of mudbrick detritus known

only in balk. [S Balk].

31610 N5 Description. Pit filled with clear Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) mudbrick detritus soil, perhaps deteriorated tomb of the type known in SE Areas.

31611 N3 Description. Leveled Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) debris layer of mudbrick origin upon which

Wall 31606-31626 was founded. [S, W Balks].

31612 N2/3 Description. Thick layer of Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) detritus including 90% broken,

fallen, slumped mudbricks of 3 clays: Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2), Dark

Brown (10YR 3/3) and most frequently Dark Gray to Very Dark Gray (10YR 4/1-3/1).

Interpreted as fall from Walls 31613 and 31628, leveled and compacted for foundation

of walls of next phase. Top of Locus used as a Phase 3 surface (?). Note area to north of

Wall 31616 was dug as Locus 31612a [S Balk].

Pottery Bags. N.I.316.15, 47, 54-55, 58, 60, 62, 64, 70.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #29, med mammal frag and fish bone; #33, bird frag; #120, fish bone.

Shell: #119, fresh-water bivalve frags and land snails.

Terracotta: #105-#106, #114 and #121; #30, Gnathian sherd.

Faience: #103, ud frags. Stone: #104, frag of coarse-grained quartzite. Other: charcoal; kiln waste; mud daub; burnt brick.



31612a N2/3 Description. As 31612 but excavated N of Wall 31616-31632.

31613 N2 Description. Major N-S wall of Very Dark Grayish Brown (1 OYR 3/2), Very Dark Gray- Dark Gray (10YR 3/1-4/1) and Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) bricks. [S Balk].

31614 Cancelled. Pottery bags quite contaminated. Combined with Locus 31601 (Topsoil).

31615 N3 Description. Debris of Brown (1 OYR 513) to Pale Brown (1 OYR 6/3) mudbrick detritus,

interpreted as a lens of eroded fall from Walls 31616 and/or 31603. [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.316.28, 31-32, 34, 37.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #56, bird shaft frag; #63, mammal frag and fish frags; #65, mammal frags,

lg mammal frag, and bird shaft frag; #70, lg mammal rib; #72, mammal frags, lg mammal

frags, bird frags.

Shell: #72, land snail frag.

Faience: #64b, white (pierced) bead, No. 24, not illustrated; #76, white (pierced) bead

with light blue exterior, No. 25, not illustrated.

Metal: #61, sm frags (c 1.0 x 1.0 cm) sheets of copper or copper alloy, hopelessly friable

and completely mineralized.

Stone: #67, rim of bowl, No. 27 (fig. 7.14) of white, medium-grained, marble; #71, chip of basalt, black, med-grained. Other: soil sample (PB 28, float contained emmer wheat [2x] and indeterminate [lx].

31616 N3 Description. Major E-W Wall of Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) mudbricks, bonded at West

end with N end of Wall 31603. [E Balk].

31617 N2/3? Description. Coarse ashy lens of Very Dark Grayish Brown to Dark Brown (10YR 3/2-

3/3) mudbrick detritus and ashy fire debris associated with installation 31632. Includes

large limestone chips at bottom, and large sherds at top. [W Balk].

Pottery Bags. N.I.316.29, 56, 63.

Material Culture.

Other: soil sample (PB 29, float contained emmer wheat [39x], spikelet forks [317x], lentil

[lx], Lolium [lllx], and indet. grass [86x]; PB 56 float contained emmer wheat [17x],

spikelet forks [300x], barley [lx], lentil [lx], grape [2x], and Lolium [225x]); mudbrick; burnt detritus.

31618 ? Cancelled.

31619 N3 Description. Irregularly shaped fire pit on/in top of 31612. [None].

Pottery Bags. N.I.316.48, 52, 61.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #99, fish frags; #123, fish dentary.

Shell: #100, fresh-water bivalve frag; #119, lg fresh-water bivalve frag. Stone: #98, piece (1.4 x 0.6 cm) of yellow, fine-grained, limestone marl.

Other: charcoal, soil sample (PB 29, float contained emmer wheat [39x], spikelet forks

[317x], lentil [lx], Lolium [lllx], and indet. grass [86x]; PB 56, float contained emmer

wheat [17x], spikelet forks [300x], barley [lx], lentil [lx], grape [2x]. and Lolium

[225x]); kiln waste.




31621 N3 Description. Well compacted debris layer of Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) soil

of mudbrick origin heavy with broken Dark Gray (10YR 4/1) bricks. Level top used as

surface inside corner of Walls 31603 and 31616. [S, E Balks].

Pottery Bags. N.I.316.37-39, 44, 65, 68.

Material Culture.

Animal bone: #129, mammal frags (some butchered) and fish frag; #131, ud frags; #134,

lg mammal femur shaft and rib frags.

Shell: #128, Glycymeris (water-worn, hole at umbo).

Faience: #76, bead, no. 25 (not illustrated).


31623 N3 Description. Charcoal ash lens within 31624. [S Balk].

31624 N3 Description: Light Yellowish Brown (10YR 6/4) mudbrick detritus sediment leveled for

foundation of Wall 31604; covers lumpy top of 31609 brick slump. [S Balk].


31626 N4 Description. Very slumped wall section or tomb of type known all across mound, asso?

ciated with Wall section 31606 and probably surface 31607. [S, W Balks].


31628 N2 Description. Major N-S Wall parallel to and contemporary with Wall 31613, of Brown

(10YR 5/3) and Dark Gray (10YR 4/1) bricks. Top of 31628 was later used as foundation

for Wall 31603. [SBalk].

31629P N2 Description. Trodden surface between Walls 31628 and 31613, comprised of Very Dark

Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick detritus soil heavily covered with flat lying sherds.

[SBalk].


31629 Nl Description. Very Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 3/2) mudbrick rubble including a large concentration of pottery, sealed below surface 31629P.


Material Culture.

Animal bone: no #, bird shaft frag. Terracotta: #136, potter's wheel (pl. 7.9).

31630 N3 Description. Debris of brown (10YR 5/3) slumped mudbrick fall inside corner of Walls

31603 and 31616, probably fall from those walls. [E Balk].



31631 N2/3 Description. Brown (10YR 5/3) mudbricks are apparently part of Wall installation

31632.

31632 N2/3 Description. Wall or installation of Grayish Brown (10YR 5/2) mudbrick known only in balk. Construction technique not clear, may include 31631. See 31617. Loci 31631 and

31632 may be a continuation of 31616-31515. [W Balk].

31633 N3 Description. Lens of Pale Brown (10YR 6/3) detritus, possibly a crosssectioned pit

along E face of Wall 31603, covered by leveling Layer 31624. [S Balk].

31634 N3 Description. N-S Wall of Dark Brown (10YR 3/3) bricks found within unexcavated

31608 after excavation. Apparently contemporary with Walls 31616 and 31603 but its

southern limit is unknown. [N Balk].

31635 N3(?) Description. Possibly a small installation of Dark Gray (10YR 4/1) mudbrick upon 31612. Only two bricks clearly defined. [S Balk].

Notes

Excavation in Area 315 was supervised by James Rehard while Area 316 was supervised by Cynthia Romy.

This description of the excavation in Areas 315-316

represents a more detailed presentation than that offered by the author in Coulson and Leonard (1981b: 42-44).

In reality, only North Phases 1, 2 and 3 were actually ex? cavated by us. North Phase 4, although representing an ar? chitectural phase, had already been dug away by the local

villagers during the course of the mudbrick making opera? tion that had originally called our attention to this part of the mound. This phase could only be defined during the trim-

ming of the south balks of the two squares. North Phase 5, of course, consisted of open loci forming the equivalent of

topsoil. Neither of these upper two phases (North Phase 4 or Phase 5), therefore, contained sealed loci.

The top of Surface 31629P was recorded as c. 4.65 m ASL in square 315, the tops of Locus 31541 and 31543 were recorded at c. 4.73 and 4.69 respectively. Ground water was encountered c. 4.60 m ASL.

Wall 31504 is considered to have been an integral part of this structure although it was built later than these two

walls since it abuts Wall 31515-31616 and was not bonded into it as was Wall 31603. However, after watching the local

villagers build with mudbrick, it is impossible to say whether this situation represents a negligible interval such as a few hours or days, or actually should constitute a subphase in itself. The homogeneity of the material culture suggests the former position.

The "a" (Locus 31612a) was assigned to all pottery ex? cavated from Locus 31612 north of Wall 31616 in order to

keep it separate from the material dug as Locus 31612 to the west of Wall 31603. However, the matrix, Locus 31612, ap? peared to have been identified in both areas. The "a" locus

represents a device for the purpose of control only. Note that Wall 31603 was used later in North Phase 4.

Both Walls 31606-31626 (on the west) and Wall 31604 (on the east) were built against it.

Nor could a plan be produced since it no longer pos- sessed a horizontal dimension.

Locus 31626 may actually be the western continuation/

collapse of (east-west) Wall 31606 where it has suffered from a greater degree of slumping.

Chapter Six

The Pottery

from the Northwest

and North Areas

Andrea M. Berlin

Introduction

A great deal of pottery was recovered on and in the walls, floors, and fills of the Northwest and

North Areas of the Kom Ge'if excavations. Virtually every sherd was collected and drawn, and is il?

lustrated on the accompanying plates. These are arranged by phase and locus, with the entire North?

west Area assemblage presented first, followed by that from the North Area. This report discusses only

the significant ceramic types, since the bulk of the pottery is neither chronologically nor typologically

significant. Whereas the architectural remains lay too far apart to be physically connected, and so are

presented separately above, there is enough overlap of diagnostic ceramic types that the two areas can

be correlated. The ceramics are therefore presented together, and the following discussion concen-

trates on the evidence they provide for dating each of the architectural phases, as well as for linking

the Northwest and North Areas.

The pottery from Kom Ge'if is almost exclusively early to later Hellenistic in date. Considering

its chronological import, the assortment of wares and types recovered is unfortunate, and certainly

somewhat surprising: few of the familiar, well-dated, imported and/or decorated types occur. Instead,

the vessels are almost wholly local and utilitarian: plain, undecorated wares manufactured largely of

the heavy, red-brown Delta silt from which the site itself is formed. These serviceable and undistin-

guished vessels do, however, conform in general shape and in many specific morphological permuta-

tions to vessels found in objectively datable contexts at other sites in the southeastern Mediterranean.

Despite the absence of the traditionally datable Hellenistic wares, then, the Kom Ge'if ceramics do

permit each phase at the site to be fixed chronologically. The architectural remains from both areas reveal a neat succession of construction and occupation

phases, and at least for the upper phases in the Northwest Area (NW 5-9), the exposure is broad

enough and the remains coherent enough to reconstruct most of a large building. However much of

the pottery gives the appearance of residual debris or secondary fill material perhaps carried within soil

that was brought in for construction purposes rather than primary household assemblages. Few com?

plete or restorable vessels were found; instead the ceramics are almost all fragmented sherds. More-

over, throughout the site's ten discrete occupation phases and approximately three hundred years of

occupation, only one complete ceramic assemblage occurs, in NW2B. In the remaining two hundred

years of occupation, less than twenty new forms or types appear. While it is true that local Egyptian

pottery tends to monotony, this is an especially striking absence of change, and one unparalleled at

other Hellenistic Egyptian sites. Of course, in no phase were the excavations extensive enough, or the

buildings small enough, that a construction (and consequently a ceramic assemblage) was recovered

in its entirety, so it may be misleading to characterize the pottery as at odds with the architecture.

Nevertheless, the impression of a mass of unaffiliated sherds remains.

The datable, diagnostic ceramics are discussed below according to the architectural and occupa? tion phases of the Northwest and North Areas (for a summary see Table 6.1). The bulk of the finds

136

1 ^

^ s ^

5v

1

s 0)

<5>

2Z

^2

o ^ S2 Z

~ .6

6.2

g _rt, S J2

CN CN CN CN v5 \o \6 \6

~ CN CN \6 ^6 \6

? .2 6 -

3 5 !i a2"3

^ e.s 6 -o "C 3 B ??

-* bO"d g : "0 a ?!S e 33 * e-S .5^ - ?c -o ?

a >

CN U"N ^2 ^ <^ 2 I -^ co o -vo ? o

r^^^i/>cNoq^^^oovoc\cooq.-H

? g

vq t\

3 6

F! J3

&8 o ?-> o O 3 " u C rt 6-&J &"* ? -d rt rt

llil oo

oo r^ r^ t\ oo oq *o vo vo ̂ d vo vd

\6 vd

Z Z

2 Z

"> vf u5 00 00 J2 O 'Z ? CN =3 m j: ia ir\

w O

0 ? c > _o .5 _g o

"m -d _2r oi

? -> o u -c 6 fc: 2 -d

CN C\ fO QO ~ r-H

-^ CO O ?o *o *o -

o. ? ?'

10 cN v> O

CN O o ?

co CN ? 2 O O

=3 O

0 -h -; *-*. ^ xr ̂ i 06

U

? xr

^ ^> ̂ Uh- c^^o S ^ CN r; "> e* ? ^ S ^O -H ?C , - ̂ ^ \o j t: .a ^ - (U -j u> CN O

CN ?< vd K

U Q

?^ IT\

o ^

JD ?

-r. bb Sj

?< _r vr\

? ' o-l

r~ -rj s^

<*-" -C ? .

cL ? ^ ^ 2 ^ -1 -H C\

s* CO o I22

^3 (N M <U ON ON -O Hf xf

oo?2S

-d co co m

s U

?1 OhT3

li

3j s s-

^o vo ̂ o ̂ o v? *o

vo \o vo vo ^O VO \0 ^ \fl \fl VO v? v? <

x<

"^ cO S ? O ON ON Nt

X m E U

?2 2 $ s ? -O ̂ .2 CN <N -d 5 -O ̂ ^

_D CN u ON

^ ? ^

\6 ON <N

cO ? cO ? ON ^f

J ̂ ?1

O fN CN o ON (N ^ ON

CN

2?

J2 ̂

2 cn

-* ? qj i/N -2 ?

J3 ro

?.5

ON ON v? \o

?1 M _ ~ jo g C ? U ON o 3 ON -d Hf is _d -^

? 2 .*

lllg O rt ~ ON 2 -o E ̂

r- _? ̂ o g ? ^ 2 a cs ^ *o h ri cn ro

^ - CN O CN ^ on .a

cl0 ? 2 2^

o 00 q o rs o ?H CN O v?

140 Andrea M. Berlin AASOR 54

were recovered from the debris accumulated on collapsed walls built in the immediately preceding

subphase. It will be seen that the ceramic divisions do not always precisely follow the architectural

phases, and that not every phase and subphase is represented. In some phases no pottery was recovered

(e.g. NW phases 1 A, 6A, 7C). In others, no new or recognizably datable types occur (e.g. NW phases

5, 6C, 7A). In a few cases, ceramic types that first appear late in the Kom Ge'if sequence occur earlier

elsewhere, and their tardy appearance here is probably not chronologically meaningful (e.g. NW

phases 8A, 9A).

Northwest 1A-B

The walls of NW1A were not excavated; their foundations lay below the water table at the lowest

excavatable levels of Kom Ge'if. There is consequently no associated pottery. Pottery was found in

the three successive loci of debris (NW1B) piled up in the corner between two of the walls. None of

these loci contained anything demonstrably Hellenistic, and only from the uppermost (locus 2038)

are there sherds distinctive enough to categorize confidently. These include two forms: a mortarium

(fig. 6.2.1) and a jar (fig. 6.2.4), both dated elsewhere to the fifth/early fourth centuries B.C. These

may then be taken as providing a terminus ante quem for the NW1A walls.

Key pieces, parallels, and dates

Mortarium, fig. 6.2.1

Lower Egypt: Tell Maskhuta (Holladay 1982: pl. 16.1, 5th c. B.C.); Palestine: Anafa (Berlin 1997:

PW 348-56, pls. 38, 82, first half 3rd c. B.c), Ashdod (Dothan 1971: fig. 6.11, Area A, stratum 5,

5th/early 4th c. B.c), Dor (Stern 1995, fig. 2.2. 1, 2, 5th-4th c. B.C; Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig.

6.9.1, 2, 3rd c. B.c), Samaria (Hennessy 1970: fig. 13.30, Phase F, 5th/4th c. B.c, fig. 12.30, lower

Phase E, 3rd c. B.C but probably residual).

Rounded rim jar, fig. 6.2.4

Lower Egypt: Tell Maskhuta (Holladay 1982: pl. 12.16, 5th c. B.C.); Palestine: Samaria (Hennessy 1970: fig. 14.2, fig. 14.2, phase G, 5th/4th c. B.C, fig. 12.33, lower phase E, 3rd c. B.c but probably

residual).

Northwest 1C-2B and North 1-2B

The pottery associated with these subphases is uniformly early Hellenistic (third to early second

century B.C.) in date, and includes the largest and most varied group of ceramics found at the site.

These ceramics should be considered as a single unit for two reasons: first, there is neither sufficient

quantity nor variety in the finds of NW1C or 2A to consider them as separate assemblages from

NW2B; and second, both Nl and 2B contain types that occur together in NW2B. Taken together, the constructions and ceramics of these subphases represent the first Hellenistic period activities at

the site. The phase begins in the Northwest area with a sediment layer (indicating temporary aban-

donment?) that sealed the walls and fills of NW1A-B (locus 2036, NW1C), and in the North Area

by debris found at the water line (locus 31629, Nl). These must be at least roughly contemporary, since the same two forms were found in both: an angled rim cook pot (figs. 6.2.11, 6.55.13) and a

long necked delta rim jug (figs. 6.2.12, 6.55.17), each dated elsewhere to the early third century B.C

1998 The Pottery from the Northwest and North Areas 141

Subsequent activities in both areas included new wall constructions (NW2A and N2A) and their

partial collapse and leveling (NW2B and N2B, which comprise floors atop the leveled debris of Nl).

A late third century B.C. Knidian stamped amphora handle came from locus 2022 in NW2B (see

fig. 7.6). This provides a terminus post quem for the succeeding NW3A construction phase. The pottery of these three subphases includes an appropiate number and ratio of vessels necessary

for table, serving, cooking, and storage use and therefore comprises a complete household assemblage. For eating and drinking there are, most commonly, plain rim saucers (figs. 6.4.1-3, 6.5.15, 6.6.1,

6.55.14) and incurved rim bowls (figs. 6.3.2, 6, 6.55.1-3), as well as everted rim (figs. 6.4.14, 15,

6.6.2) and carinated bowls (figs. 6.5.1, 6.55.12), and one possible grooved rim bowl (fig. 6.6.5). As

is common in most Hellenistic households, all these vessels are fairly small, ranging from 8 to 12 cms.

in diameter, and would therefore have been appropiate for single servings only. No large platters or

bowls occur. For preparation and serving use, this assemblage contains a couple of ledge rim kraters

(fig. 6.4.8) and dinoi (fig. 6.4.10), as well as several jugs of varying types: folded rim (figs. 6.4.6,

6.5.21?, 6.58.20?), narrow ledge rim (fig. 6.4.16), long necked squared rim (figs. 6.5.8, 19, 6.55.18),

and long necked globular (fig. 6.55.16). In addition to the angled rim cook pots cited above (figs.

6.2.11, 6.55.13), cooking could be done in the high necked flattened rim cook pots (fig. 6.6.6) as well

as broad bodied angled rim casseroles (figs. 6.6.9, 6.57.20). A couple of small dishlids (figs. 6.5.3,

6.55.6) might have covered the cook pots while in use. Wine, oil, water, and other liquid commodi-

ties (and perhaps also milled grain) were purchased and/or stored in amphoras, some locally produced

(figs. 6.6.4, 8) and others imported (figs. 6.3.10, 12, 6.6.7). A last item is a single, small unguentar? ium (fig. 6.3.5), of the short, narrow form common in the third century eastern Mediterranean. Some

body sherds, possibly deriving from wider-bodied, painted unguentaria also occur (figs. 6.4.23,

6.55.22). These very few personal vessels highlight the rigorously utilitarian nature of the entire as?

semblage. The vessels detailed above are certainly to be interpreted as the primary household goods of the

site's third century inhabitants. They include many of the most familiar shapes of the Hellenistic cor?

pus, such as incurved rim bowls, ledge rim kraters, beaded rim amphoras, and short unguentaria, albeit produced in the local Delta silt. The conformity of their local plain wares to the ceramic koine

of the southeastern Mediterranean indicates that in early Hellenistic times the residents of Naukratis

were aware of and participated to some extent in the period's material culture. That extent was clearly

limited, however, as the wholesale absence of imported or decorated wares reveals. This is a notable

phenomenon, especially considering the status and function of the site as a commercial center for

Greek wares in Archaic and Classical times (or in local terms, in the second part of the Late Period).

The early Hellenistic ceramic corpus may be the physical reflection of the site's wholly altered status

after the foundation of Alexandria, to which traders and vendors previously stationed at Naukratis

then transferred.


Angled rim cook pot (figs. 6.2.11, 6.55.13)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P231, late 4th-3rd c. B.C.); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes

1991, fig. 28.W11.61, estimated date mid-2nd c. B.C.); Palestine: Samaria (Zayadin 1966, pl.

31.87, 3rd c. B.c).


Long necked delta rim jug (figs. 6.2.12, 6.55.17)

Lower Egypt: Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, pl. 30.11, second half 2nd c. B.c); Upper Egypt: Coptos

(Berlin personal study, C91P136, second half 2nd c. B.C.); Palestine: Ashdod (Dothan 1971, fig.

11.1, pl. 14.11, Area A, stratum 3A, late 2nd c. B.c).

Incurved rim bowl (figs. 6.3.2, 6, 6.55.1-3)

Lower Egypt: Alexandria (Adriani 1940, figs. 40.1, 4, 6, 53.55, 63, 64), Plinthine (Adriani 1952,

fig. 70.23), Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, pl. 28.9-13, second half 2nd c. B.c); Upper Egypt: Coptos

(Berlin personal study, H1.3, late 4th-3rd c. B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 13.1-9).

Short unguentarium (fig. 6.3.5)

Lower Egypt: Alexandria (Adriani 1940, fig. 53.3, 18), Plinthine (Adriani 1952, fig. 70.17); Upper

Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P189, late 4th c. B.C.); Palestine: Anafa (Berlin 1997, PW

83-84, pls. 12, 75, first half 3rd c. B.c), Dor (Guz-Zilberstein 1995, photo 6.25.C, h, fig. 6.26.14,

21, 29, 3rd c. B.c); Greece: Athens (Thompson 1934, A64, fig. 9, B6, fig. 15, late 4th-3rd c. B.c).

Plain rim saucer (figs. 6.4.1-3, 6.5.15, 6.6.1, 6.55.14)

Lower Egypt: Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, pl. 15.10, 5th c. B.c).

Folded rim jug (figs. 6.4.6, 6.5.21, 6.58.20)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P244, 3rd c. B.c).

Ledge rim krater (fig. 6.4.8)


Ledge rim dinos (fig. 6.4.10)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C91P28, 3rd c. B.C.); Palestine: Dor (Guz-Zilberstein

1995, fig. 6.12.2-5, 3rd c. b.c).

Everted rim bowl (figs. 6.4.14, 15, 6.6.2)

Lower Egypt: Alexandria (Adriani 1940, fig. 40.3), Plinthine (Adriani 1952, fig. 70.25); Upper

Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P238, 3rd c. B.c); Cyprus: Kition (Salles 1993, fig.

210.323, 324, 3rd c. B.c), Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 15.12-14, 3rd-early 2nd c. B.c); Asia Minor:

Tarsus (Jones 1950, fig. 179.41, 42, H).

Narrow ledge rim jug (fig. 6.4.16)

Lower Egypt: Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, pl. 30.7, second half 2nd c. B.C.); Upper Egypt: Coptos

(Berlin personal study, C92P253, 3rd c. B.C; this is Aswan fabric, though uncatalogued marl ver-

sions also occur in this phase); Palestine: Ashdod (Dothan 1971, fig. 11.5, Area A, stratum 3A, late

2nd c. B.C).

Painted wide-bodied unguentarium (figs. 6.4.23, 6.55.22)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P260, 3rd-early 2nd c. B.C.); Palestine: Dor (Guz-

Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.26.3-5, 3rd c. b.c).

Carinated bowl (figs. 6.5.1, 6.55.12)


Lower Egypt: Alexandria (Adriani 1940, figs. 40.5, 53.56, pl. 48.5, early 3rd c. B.C.).

Small dish-lid (fig. 6.5.3, 6.55.6)

Lower Egypt: Alexandria (Adriani 1940, pl. 30.25); Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin unpublished ms.,

C92P460, 3rd c. B.c); Palestine: Ashdod (Dothan 1971, fig. 24.11, Hellenistic), Dor (Guz-Zilber-

stein 1995, fig. 6.24.1-8, 3rd-2nd c. B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, figs. 25.5, 30.3); Asia Mi-

nor: Tarsus (Jones 1950, no. 223, figs. 135, 187); Greece: Athens (Thompson 1934, A58, fig. 8, late

4th-early 3rd c. B.c).

Long necked squared rim jug (fig. 6.5.8, 19, 6.55.18)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C91P148, second half 2nd c. B.c); Cyprus: Paphos

(Hayes 1991, fig. 16.7)

Grooved rim bowl? (fig. 6.6.5)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P54, late 4th-3rd c. B.c).

Flattened rim cook pot (fig. 6.6.6)

Lower Egypt: Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, pls. 29.2, 30.1, 2, second half 2nd c. B.c); Upper Egypt:

Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P25, first half 2nd c. B.C.); Palestine: Samaria (Crowfoot et al.

1957, figs. 41.6, 43.12, first half 2nd c. B.c).

Angled rim casserole (fig. 6.6.9, 6.57.20)

Lower Egypt: Alexandria (Adriani 1940, fig. 53.53); Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study,

C92P382, C92P266, 3rd c. B.c); Palestine: Ashdod (Dothan 1971, fig. 8.18, Area A, stratum 3b,

late 2nd c. B.C, fig. 99.11, pl. 90.1, Area K, stratum 3, 3rd-2nd c. B.c), Samaria (Hennessy 1970,

fig. 7.34, 2nd c. B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, figs. 32.1, 4, 33.1).

Beaded rim amphora (fig. 6.6.8)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P20, 3rd-first half 2nd c. B.c).

Long necked globular jug (fig. 6.55.16)


C92P271, first half 2nd c. B.c)

Northwest 3A-B and North 2C

Northwest 3A comprises new walls built upon the collapse of NW2B, which in turn collapsed

in NW3B. Some ceramics were recovered from the NW3A walls, but the bulk of the pottery was

recovered from the 3B collapse. This material certainly represents the household goods of the people

who rebuilt the walls in 3A. Several new types and forms appear, including local versions of two com?

mon late third century B.C table vessels: the thickened rim saucer (figs. 6.7.4, 20) and a type of cup

with a recurved wall and handle (fig. 6.8.2). A locally produced lagynos appears (fig. 6.7.8), along

with a variation of the flattened rim cook pot of the previous phase, this time with a short neck and

small ledge rim (figs. 6.7.6, 6.8.6). Finally, a new amphora form appears, with a high squared rim

(figs. 6.7.1, 2) and possibly a doughnut-shaped toe (fig. 6.8.10). An imported Aegean amphora base


was also found in this assemblage (fig. 6.8.11). In addition, locus 2020 of this deposit produced a

stamped Rhodian amphora handle, dated c. 220-180 B.C. (see No. 10 in next chapter and fig. 7.4).

Meanwhile, in the North Area, the 2A walls collapsed in 2C, and a great deal of pottery accu?

mulated within and above them, almost all examples of types already attested in the preceding phase.

Only one sherd belongs to one of the new types found in the NW3A-B phase: a rim fragment of a

squared rim amphora (locus 31612, fig. 6.56.16). This single point of comparison constitutes the

sole evidence for correlating N2C with the activities of NW3A-B. The occupation represented by

N2A-B may in fact have continued throughout the NW3A-B phase (or even longer); the appear?

ance of the squared rim amphora fragment need only suggest that N2 did not end until NW3 began.


Squared rim amphora (figs. 6.7.1, 2, 6.56.16)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P457, 3rd c. B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991,

fig. 47.129, late 2nd c. B.c).

Thickened rim saucer (fig. 6.7.4, 20)

Lower Egypt: Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, pl. 29.6-8, second half 2nd c. B.C.); Upper Egypt: Coptos

(Berlin unpublished ms., C92P71, 3rd c. B.c); Palestine: Samaria (Hennessy 1970, fig. 9.16); Cy?

prus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 15.5, 6, 10).

Lagynos (fig. 6.7.8)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P216, first half 2nd c. B.C; this is an Aegean import).

Small ledge rim cook pot (figs. 6.7.6, 6.8.6)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study., C92P3, first half 2nd c. B.C.); Palestine: Samaria (Hen?

nessy 1970, fig. 12.35, lower Phase E, 3rd c. B.c).

Cup with recurved wall and handle (fig. 6.8.2)

Lower Egypt: Alexandria (Adriani 1940, fig. 53.57, 58), Plinthinge (Adriani 1952, fig. 70.24); Upper

Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P46, first half 2nd c. B.C; this is in marl); Cyprus: Kition

(Salles 1993, fig. 209.322, late 3rd c. B.c), Paphos (Hayes 1991, figs. 12.1-3, late 3rd-early 2nd c.

B.c); Palestine: Anafa (Berlin 1997, PW 149, pls. 17, 76, late 3rd-early 2nd c. B.c), Ashdod (Dot?

han 1971, figs. 9.15, 10.15, strata 3a-b, late 2nd c. B.c), Dor (Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.7.1-7,

2nd c. B.C).

Amphora doughnut toe (fig. 6.8.10)


Aegean amphora (fig. 6.8.11)

Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, similar to fig. 37.7).

Northwest 4A-B, 5 and North 3A-B

In NW4A new walls are constructed and in NW4B debris accumulates against those walls, which

eventually partially collapse. As in the preceding phase, the bulk of the pottery, including several new


forms and types, was recovered from the later debris and collapse. In the subsequent NW5 phase more

new walls were built, but very little pottery was found, and no new types. In the North Area, a new

building was constructed (N3A) above the accumulated slump and sediment of the preceding N2C

phase, and several associated floors were identified (N3B). No pottery was recovered from the N3A

construction, and no new types from the N3B occupation. The subsequent period of collapse (N3C)

contained a vessel type unattested in the Northwest area until Hiatus A (see further below). Conse-

quently N3A-B can only be correlated in general with NW4A-8B.

New types that appear in NW4B include a locally produced small hemispherical bowl (fig.

6.11.8), probably used as a drinking vessel; a narrow ledge rim jug of a similar type to one produced

locally (see above, NW2B) but in Aswan fabric, and so acquired from Upper Egypt (fig. 6.13.19);

several new stew pots with a ledge/folded rim (figs. 6.10.13, 6.12.8, 9, 11); and a locally made krater

with an overhanging rim (figs. 6.11.13, 14). All are types with parallels from mid-second century B.C

contexts elsewhere.


Ledge/folded rim stew pot (figs. 6.10.13, 6.12.8, 9, 11)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P272, late 2nd-early 1st c. B.c), Quseir al-Qadim

(Whitcomb and Johnson 1982, pl. lOv, pre-lst c. A.D.); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 30.1-2).

Hemispherical bowl (fig. 6.11.8)

Asia Minor: Tarsus (Jones 1950, fig. 181D); Greece: Athens (Thompson 1934, C7, fig. 29, early-mid

2nd c. B.c).

Krater with overhanging rim (figs. 6.11.13, 14)

Lower Egypt: Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, pl. 28.18, second half 2nd c. B.c); Upper Egypt: Coptos

(Berlin unpublished ms., C92P125, first half 2nd c. B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 56.20,

150-125 B.c); Palestine: Anafa (Berlin 1997, PW 393-99, early 1st c. B.c), Ashdod (Dothan

1971, fig. 61.9, 10), Dor (Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.11.1-11, 175-125 B.c); Greece: Athens

(Thompson 1934 D67, figs. 76, 122, mid 2nd c. B.c), Corinth (Williams 1978, no. 8, pl. 23, first

half 2nd c. B.C.).

Narrow ledge rim jug, Aswan fabric (fig. 6.13.19)


Northwest 6A-8B

These nine subphases display a paradoxical situation: a continuous series of new wall and room

constructions; debris accumulation; wall fall and subsequent constructions; and a great deal of asso?

ciated pottery, but singular examples of only six new types. As noted above, this absence of changes

in or additions to the ceramic corpus is peculiar. Despite the fact that in these phases the size of the

excavated area was more than three times larger than in the previous phases, it nevertheless appears

that the associated pottery should not be considered representative of the inhabitants' household

goods. Much of it may in fact have been churned up, residual fragments from earlier occupations,

while the bulk of the inhabitants' household goods were kept or deposited elsewhere.


The few new types that do appear include the following: in NW6B, a shallow casserole or pan with inset lip (fig. 6.14.10); in NW7B, a deep casserole with a ledge rim and squared lip (fig.

6.17.15); in NW8A, a bevelled lip saucer (fig. 6.20.12), and an everted rim bowl and thickened rim

saucer in terra nigra, the local imitation of imported black glaze ware (see Berlin unpublished ms., fig.

6.22.1); and in NW8B, a wide, heavy baking pan, probably imported (fig. 6.22.3). Dated parallels for

these types suggest that the order in which they occur at Kom Ge'if may not be significant. The

bevelled lip saucer, as well as the terra nigra bowl and saucer, all occur elsewhere in third century B.C

contexts; the casserole/pan with inset lip is dated at Coptos to the late third century B.C; and the

squared lip casserole occurs elsewhere in the later second century B.C. The baking dish cannot be

dated more precisely than the second century B.C. The dates suggested for the preceding phases re-

quire all of these subphases to be placed within the second half of the second century, a date not con-

tradicted by the new types found.


Inset lip casserole (fig. 6.14.11)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P10, first half 2nd c. B.c).

Squared lip casserole (fig. 6.17.15)

Lower Egypt: Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, pl. 30.4, second half 2nd c. B.C.); Palestine: Anafa (Berlin

1997, PW 248-53, pls. 29, 80, late 2nd c. B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, figs. 33.5, 73.1).

Bevelled rim saucer (fig. 6.20.12)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C91P222, second half 2nd c. B.C.); Cyprus: Paphos

(Hayes 1991, fig. 15.8, 41.31, 3rd c. B.c).

Terra nigra everted rim bowl

Lower Egypt: Tell el-Fara'in-Buto (Charlesworth 1969, fig. 3.1, 10), Tell Timai-Thmuis (Ochsen-

schlager 1967, fig. 27, early-mid2nd c. B.C.); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 5.9, 10, late2nd c. B.c).

Terra nigra thickened rim saucer (Leonard, in press, fig. 6.22.1)

Lower Egypt: Tell el-Fara'in-Buto (Charlesworth 1969, fig. 3.8, 11, 12), Tell Timai-Thmuis (Ochsen-

schlager 1967, fig. 12, mid 2nd c. B.c); Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P52, 3rd c.

B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 5.4-6, late 2nd c. B.c)

Baking dish (fig. 6.22.3)

Palestine: Ashdod (Dothan 1971, fig. 24.6, Hellenistic), Anafa (Berlin 1997, PW 298-301, pls. 34,

81, late 2nd c. B.c); Asia Minor: Tarsus (Jones 1950, figs. 187A, 190A, B, 191.F); Greece: Athens

(Thompson 1934, E139, fig. 105, late 2nd c. B.c).

Northwest Hiatus A-B and North 3C

Beginning with Hiatus A, the rhythm and continuity of new construction previously evidenced

ceases. Three subphases of debris, some leveled off as floors, accumulate within the NW8B structure;


they are here called Hiatus A-C. As in other periods of building use, much pottery was recovered

from these levels. Among them were three new types, all of which appear in Hiatus A contexts (no

new types were found in Hiatus B): a hydria (fig. 6.24.16), a casserole with offset rim (figs. 6.23.19,

20), and a deep piriform stew pot (figs. 6.24.8-12, 6.26.3, 6.29.4, 5, 6.30.10). This last shape occurs

in sufficient quantity that it may be considered a secure ceramic marker of this occupation phase. For-

tunately, a fragment also appears in the North 3C abandonment layer (loc. 31608, fig. 6.64.3), sug?

gesting that this subphase's wall fall may have occured shortly after the beginning of NW Hiatus A.

Both the offset rim casserole and the stew pot are found in late second/early first century B.C. levels

at Coptos, so Hiatus A-B at Kom Ge'if may be dated around that time as well. A stamped Rhodian

amphora handle of uncertain date was also found in this assemblage (see no. 9 in Chapter Seven and

fig. 7.3).


Offset rim casserole (figs. 6.23.19, 20)


C92P466, late 2nd c. B.c); Palestine: Anafa (Berlin 1997, PW 254-58, pls. 30, 80, early 1st c. B.c),

Dor (Guz-Zilberstein 1995, fig. 6.22.4, 175-125 B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991, figs. 33.6,

73.6).

Piriform stew pot (figs. 6.24.8-12, 6.26.3, 6.29.4, 5, 6.30.10, 6.64.3)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C91P124, 2nd c. B.c); Cyprus: Paphos (Hayes 1991,

fig. 5.3).

Hydria (fig. 6.24.16)

Lower Egypt: Alexandria (Adriani 1940, fig. 48.1, 2, pls. 47, 48.5, 7; 1952, figs. 13, 16); Cyprus:

Kition (Salles 1993, fig. 198.222; Greece: Athens (Thompson 1934, D26, fig. 60, E59, figs. 87, 88,

mid-late 2nd c. B.C.).

Northwest Hiatus C-IOA

The pottery associated with these final subphases of ancient Kom Ge'if indicate that occupation

of this part of the site ceased very close to the end of the Hellenistic period, probably by the middle

of the first century B.C Although this was a period of growing use, throughout the southeastern Med?

iterranean as well as in Egypt, of the fine red-slipped table ware known as Eastern Sigillata A, the

residents of Kom Ge'if remained either too poor or too disinterested to acquire this or any other im?

ported ware (a total of three fragments were recovered from Kom Hadid). Instead they continued to

use locally manufactured vessels exclusively, though some of these did copy types made elsewhere in

the larger region. Within these subphases, new types appear only in the debris of Hiatus C; in the sub?

sequent accumulations of NW9A, wall constructions of NW9B, and further accumulations of

NW10A there occured much pottery but no new types. In the North Area there was no further an?

cient construction or occupation after the wall collapse of N3C.

New types appearing in Hiatus C debris include a broad casserole with a wide ledge rim and

folded lip (fig. 6.37.4); an Italian style pan with grooved rim (figs. 6.34.15, 16); a deep storage jar or

pithos with a thick squared rim (fig. 6.36.4); and two new locally made amphoras, one with a concave


beaded rim (figs. 6.36.10-12) and another a "bitronconique" form with a squared rim (figs. 6.35.20,

21, 6.37.8). These last occur at several other Egyptian sites in mid-first century B.c contexts, as do

the casserole and pan. Taken together, this last group of ceramics provides a consistent and convincing end date for this occupation in the South Mound at Kom Ge'if.


Folded lip casserole (fig. 6.37.4)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C88P12, mid-lst c. B.c); Palestine: Anafa (Berlin 1997,

PW 259-65, pls. 30, 80, early lst c. B.c).

"Bitronconique" amphora with squared rim (figs. 6.35.20, 21, 6.37.8, 19)

Lower Egypt: Tell el-Haraby (Majcherek and Shennawi 1991, type B, fig. IB, later than Ptolemaic);

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C88P121, late lst c. B.c); Quseir al-Qadim (Whit?

comb and Johnson 1982, pl. 14.g, lst c. B.C-A.D.).

Italian-style pan (figs. 6.34.15, 16)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P462, C92P461, late lst c. B.C-early lst c. A.D.).

Concave beaded rim amphora (figs. 6.36.10-12)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C92P13B, late lst c. B.C-early lst c. A.D.); Quseir al-

Qadim (Whitcomb and Johnson 1979, pls. 21z, 22e; 1982, pl. I4.f; lst c. B.C-A.D.); Cyprus:

Paphos (Hayes 1991, fig. 30.8).

Northwest 10B-C and North 4-5

In both areas of the mound, modern constructions?largely built tombs?and topsoil immedi?

ately overlay the late Hellenistic stratum. Unsurprisingly, a tremendous amount of Hellenistic pot?

tery was found within these levels, practically all of which includes types and forms already accounted

for. Two examples of previously unattested yet ancient types do occur within topsoil loci of NW10C:

a deep cook pot with a ridged ledge rim (fig. 6.49.6) and a stew pot with angled rim and flanged lip

(fig. 6.49.10). Both are contemporary with the latest Hellenistic types that appeared in the preceding Hiatus C-NW10A assemblage; parallels elsewhere are dated from the later second to around the

middle of the first century B.C These fragments confirm that date as the final occupation of this sec?

tor of Kom Ge'if.


Ridged ledge rim cook pot (fig. 6.49.6)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C91P183, late 2nd c. B.c); Asia Minor: Tarsus (Jones

1950, fig. 190.G, mid-lst c. B.c).

Flanged lip stew pot (fig. 6.49.10)

Upper Egypt: Coptos (Berlin personal study, C91P140, C92P217, first half lst c. B.C.), Quseir

al-Qadim (Whitcomb and Johnson 1982, pl. lOr, pre-lst c. A.D.),


Notes

The figures omit only those sherds that are too small to be recognizable forms or are types already amply repre? sented. Leonard analyzed the pottery in the field, as well as

overseeing all drawing and restoration work. Leonard also created the original fabric typology, from which derive the field fabric readings included in the figure explanations (see

Appendix). Leonard and Berlin are responsible for the lay? out of the figures. Berlin is responsible for the assignment of

type names and general fabric designations included in the

figure explanations, the identification of indicative ceramic

types (from drawings and occasional color pictures), and the ceramic discussion included here. Berlin's work is based ex-

clusively on study of the drawings, written descriptions, and occasional color photographs/slides. The pottery remains in

storage in Egypt. For further discussion of most of the ceramic types

that occur at Kom Ge'if, see the second part of this report, on the ceramic typology from Kom Hadid.

I consider a complete assemblage to contain the entire assortment of household necessities, including an appropiate quantity and ratio of storage, preparation, cooking, serving, and personal vessels.

It is especially odd considering the location of

Naukratis, so close to the bustling metropolis of Alexandria,

and situated in the well-populated and easily traveled Delta

region. Compare the Hellenistic period ceramic assemblages at Coptos, in Upper Egypt (Berlin personal study). As at

Naukratis, a great variety of early Hellenistic types appear in the third century B.C. deposits; however, during the subse?

quent two centuries, seventy new ceramic forms or types (including imports) appear.

This amphora form, as well as the lagynos, may have been manufactured at the nearby kiln site of Kom Dahab, where warped fragments of both types were found among the kiln's interior debris (Coulson and Leonard, 1983, figs. 4A and 5A, D, E). The kiln apparently went out of use sometime in the first century B.C, but no evidence was re? covered to date its beginning. The appearance of these forms in a stratified context at Kom Ge'if suggest their ini? tial appearance towards the end of the third or the begin? ning of the second century B.C. A detailed discussion of the date of production of the Kom Dahab kiln will appear in the forthcoming volume on Kom Hadid.

Though it is of interest that in the well-dated series of

deposits from Paphos, vessels in terra nigra do not appear until the second half of the second century B.C. (Hayes 1991, 130, discussing the quarry pit in room AL).


Fig. 6.1. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phase IB.

1 These fabric types are further described in the Appendix.


I

Ocm

4

10

\

1


Fig. 6.2. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases IB and IC.


^

t

10 7

11

12 /

Fig. 6.2

T

Ocm

13

15

I

f

10

1

fi

14 /

f


Fig. 6.3. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 2A and 2B.

No. Shape Phase Locus Pottery

bag no.

Field

no. Description

Delta silt (Fabric IIB)

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA)

Coarse marl (Fabric IV with mottled orange slip on exterior).

Moderately well levigated red fabric (10R 5/8), white grit to 1 mm, sand-size mica, and straw

casts to 3 mm that break the surface.

Coarse marl (Fabric IV with mottled orange slip on exterior).

Delta silt (Fabric I)

Smooth marl (Fabric IXA)





Dark pink fabric, white slip




Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB)

Coarse marl (Fabric IV)


7

^

7

1

m~

Ocm 10

10 t

11 t

13

12

Fig. 6.3

17

14

15

16

f


Fig. 6.4. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phase 2B.


C

Ocm

?

I

r

10

10

Fig. 6.4

V

<r

^

T

15

J

7

20 7

21 F

22

23




bag no.

Field

no. Description



Delta silt (Fabric II)


Moderately well levigated pale red fabric (10R

6/4), white grit to 1 mm, infrequent gray grit to 1 mm, sand-size mica, and straw casts 1-2

mm that break the surface. Light red slip (10R

616) sloshed on exterior. String-cut base.


Handmade (Fabric VA)

Smooth marl, slipped (Fabric X)




Coarse marl (Fabric IVB)




Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIB)







^ r

LA

I

7

10

/

14

15

16

17

^f

18

0cm F

7

1

ii

lu v

7

I

f

19

F^rr

21 i

?

t 12

Fig. 6.5


Fig. 6.6. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 2B and 3A.


bag no.

Field

no. Description




Delta silt (Fabric VI)



Very well levigated pink fabric (5YR 7/3), red

and white sand-size grit, sand-size mica, fine

straw casts rarely breaking the surface. Pink to

red yellow slip (5YR 714-716).

Smooth marl (Fabric IX)

Delta silt (Fabric III)



Delta silt (Fabric IIC). Secondary firing at one

spot over rim?vessel used as lamp?


I

4

i

*

10 jr

u

0cm 10

Fig. 6.6


Fig. 6.7. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 3A and 3B.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Amphora NW3A 1019 N.I.l.37 239 Moderately well levigated clay with sand-sized

(occasionally to 1 mm) white grit and mica?

ceous inclusions. Fine straw casts to 3 mm.

Core (to 4 mm): 7.5YR 4/2 (Dark Brown), sandwiched by fabric: 7.5YR 5/6 (Strong Brown). Slipped, in/out: 5YR 5/3-5/4 (Red? dish Brown).


Smooth marl (Fabric IXB)









Delta silt (Fabric IIC)


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIB). Wheel burnish?

ing on interior.



Well levigated light red fabric (2.5YR 614), white grit to 1 mm and fine straw casts rarely

breaking the surface. Weak red core. Light red

slip (2.5YR 6/8) on interior and upper exterior.

Randomly spaced horizontal burnish, some

overlapping, tighter at rim.





Handmade (Fabric VB)


10 ~P 13 v

11 14

12

15

0cm

16

\

20

21 4

\0 0

l^

1

17 )

18

\d 22

Fig. 6.7




bag no.

Field

no. Description

Casserole NW3B 2020 N.I.2.28 375 Delta silt (Fabric III). Wheel burnishing on

interior.


Smooth marl (Fabric IX)



Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB). Drippy slip on

interior.

Delta silt (Fabric IIIA)

Delta silt (Fabric IIIA)

Delta silt (Fabric VIA). Pink slip on interior.

Delta silt (Fabric VI)

Pink fabric, white slip. Aegean.


Fig. 6.8


No. Shape

Fig. 6.9. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 3B and 4A.

Phase Locus Pottery

bag no.

Field

no. Description

Bowl NW3B 2029 N.I.1.35 193 Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB). Finger nail

ridges on exterior at rim.








Delta silt, slipped and burnished (Fabric VII)

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIA)



Coarse marl (Fabric IVC)



7

Ocm 10

^T

u

V

I

10

\ 11

13 J

"i \?4

Fig. 6.9

14




bag no.

Field

no. Description











Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1-2 mm, straw/chaff casts c. 5-10 mm. Straw in slip. Dark

gray fabric/core, slipped 5YR 5/4 (Brown) on in?

terior and c. 7.5YR 4/2 (Dark Brown) on exterior.



Fabric: between 10YR 714 (Very Pale Brown)-7/6

(Yellow). Slip in/out: 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale

Brown). Import.

Moderately well levigated clay with very frequent white grit sand-sized to 1 mm giving sherd a sandy "feel." Fabric/core: 5YR 716 (Reddish Yellow).

Slip in/out: c. 2.5Y 8/2 (White).


;

;

)

12

13 <

Ocm

10

I

I

11

15

Fig. 6.10


No. Shape


Phase Locus Pottery

bag no.

Field

no. Description





Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIC)







Coarse marl (Fabric IVA)




7

c

d

U

13

Ocm

11

12

i

#

14

Fig. 6.11


Q

7

=1

=t

11

Ocm

12

10

Fig. 6.12


Fig. 6.13. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 4B and 4BI5.

No. Shape Phasi Locus Pottery

bag no.

Field

no. Description



Moderately well levigated light red fabric

(5YR 5/6), gray and white grit, sand-sized

to 1 mm and sand-sized mica. Red slip (10R 5/4) on exterior.


Delta silt, slippped (Fabric IA)

Terra nigra, unslipped (Fabric IID)













Very well levigated pale yellow fabric (2.5Y

8/4), some sand-sized white grit and mica.

Fully fired. Aswan?




Coarse marl (Fabric IV). Light red bands

(of slip?) on exterior.


Combination of Delta silt (Fabric I) and

coarse marl (Fabric IV).




Ocm

i

?

10

)

)

)

ii 7

12 j

13 J

14

10

26

24

7

19

21

4

15 7

16 /

17 f

18 ~4

^7'

*_ 22

23

25

27

Fig. 6.13




bag no.

Field

no. Description

Cookpot/jar NW6B 49161 N.I.491.193 135

Cookpot/jar NW6B 49161P N.I.491.191 129

21 Jug? NW6B 49146P N.I.491.105 1221







Well levigated light red fabric (5YR 6/8), some sand-sized white grit and mica. Pink

slip (7.5YR 8/4) on exterior, fired white

(2.5Y 8/2) on interior.


Moderately well levigated light red fabric

(2.5YR 5/8), white grit to 1 mm and sand-

sized mica, light red core. Pale yellow slip (2.5Y 8/4) on exterior and rim.







Very well levigated light red fabric (5YR

776), some grit to 1 mm. Pale brown slip (10YR 8/2) on interior and exterior.




Rhodian: fabric 2.5YR 616, surface 10YR 8/3.



)

;

V

Ocm

10 t

12

14 > 15

v

16 r

17

19 f

18

v

I

10

11 r

13

21 20

Fig. 6.14


Fig. 6.15. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phase 6C.


bag no.

Field

no. Description


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA/B)

Smooth slipped buff fabric. Palestinian

import?











Delta silt (Fabric II). String-cut base.















Very well levigated pale brown fabric (1OYR

4/8), frequent sand-sized white and red grit, reddish yellow core.


Ocm

)

) I

1

K 10

)

)

10

16 j

11 J

14

17 i

112

13

15

18

I

i

19

F

22

20 7

24 ;

26 "f \ 27 28

25

21

23

C

f

V

29 i

Fig. 6.15


Fig. 6.16. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 6B, 7 and 7B.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Amphora NW6B 49161P N.I.491.191 130

9 Cook pot? NW7B 49141 N.I.491.85 775

10 Amphora NW7B 49141 N.I.491.88 1361

Moderately well levigated clay with sand-

sized to 1 mm white grit occasionally to

2 mm Core/fabric and interior surface:

5YR 5/6-5/8 (Yellowish Red). Exterior

slipped (very thin) c. 10YR 8/2 (White).

Delta silt (Fabric II). Exterior tool(?) marks.

Sherd secondarily used for carding? Terra nigra, black slipped in/out, gray core


Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1 -2 mm, straw/chaff casts c. 5-10 mm Straw in slip. Dark gray fabric/core, slipped 5YR 5/4

(Brown) on interior and c. 7.5YR 4/2 (Dark

Brown) on exterior.



Moderately well levigated clay with white

grit to 1 mm and fine straw casts. Core/

fabric: c. 7.5YR 5/4 (Brown). Exterior

slipped(?) as core; interior slipped(?) 7.5YR 6/4 (Light Brown).


Well levigated clay with white and gray

grit to 1 mm and sand-sized micaceous in?

clusions. Core: light gray (no Munsell)

throughout. Slip in/out: 2.5YR 6/4 (Light Reddish Brown)-6/6 (Light Red).









)

Ocm 10

r

(

i

T

10

\ 11

V

Fig. 6.16

)

^

17

13

U

15

16 /



22 Amphora NW7B 49145 N.I.491.99 1108 Moderately well levigated clay with very

frequent white grit sand-sized to 1 mm giv-

ing sherd a sandy "feel." Fabric/core: 5YR

716 (Reddish Yellow). Slip in/out: c. 2.5Y 8/2 (White).


W

^

\

^

/ Ocm

I N 10

r ii

15

16

17

18

19

14

f

Fig. 6.17

10

?*>

1

I

12 ?

13 *

t

20 /

21

22

1


Fig. 6.18. Pottery from Kom Ge'i Northwest Phases 7D and 8A.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Amphora NW7D 49139 N.I.491.67 4335 Well levigated clay with white and gray grit to 1mm, and frequent straw/chaff casts to

2 mm. Fabric: between 10YR 8/4 and 714

(Very Pale Brown). Slipped in/out as fab?

ric. Import.


Handmade (Fabric VB). Surfaces slipped c. 10R 5/8 (Red).

Terra nigra black slipped in/out. Gray core.



Terra nigra black slipped in/out. Gray core.



Well levigated clay with occasional white

grit to 1 mm and some fine straw casts. Fab?

ric/core: 7.5YR8/6 (Reddish Yellow). Slip in/out: c. 7.5YR8/4 (Pink). Neck of vessel

drilled completely through as illustrated.




Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIB). Interior

burned black. used as lamp?


grit to 1 mm. Fabric and interior surface:

2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Light Red). Traces of slip/ wash on exterior: 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale

Brown).




grit to 1 mm and sand-sized micaceous

inclusions. Core: 2.5YR 4/2 (Weak Red) c. 3 mm sandwiched by 2.5YR 5/8 (Red).

Slip out and over rim: 2.5Y 8/4 (Pale

Yellow).





F

7

r

12

13 j

V 14

0 1CM 5

c

V

^

16

19 7

w

10

11

15

17

18 1

20 (

yt 21

Fig. 6.18


Fig. 6.19. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phase 8A.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

6 Cook pot

7 Saucer

8 Jug

9 Jug

10 Amphora

NW8A 49149 N.I.491.152

NW8A 49149 N.I.491.64

NW8A 49149 N.I.491.64

NW8A 49149 N.I.491.61

NW8A 49150 N.I.491.180

11 Amphora NW8A 49150 N.I.491.181

4070

809

808

305

65

69

12 Amphora NW8A 49150 N.I.491.184 71





Very well levigated clay with white grit to

1 mm. Fabric: 7.5YR 716-616 (Reddish

Yellow). Slip, in/out: 10YR8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown). Import.



Very well levigated clay with occasional

sand-sized white grit. Core/fabric and in?

terior surface: 7.5YR 8/6-7/6 (Reddish

Yellow); exterior slipped 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown). Import.

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA) that is nearer

the "orange" of Fabric IB on interior.


sized white grit and micaceous inclu?

sions. Core/fabric: 2.5YR 5/8-4/8 (Red).

Slipped in/out 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale

Brown).


sized (occasionally to 1 mm) white grit and micaceous inclusions. Fine straw casts

to 3 mm. Core (to 4 mm): 7.5YR 4/2

(Dark Brown), sandwiched by fabric:

7.5YR 5/6 (Strong Brown). Slipped, in/

out: 5YR 5/3-5/4 (Reddish Brown).

Well levigated clay with sand-sized white

grit and micaceous inclusions. Core/fabric:

c. 7.5YR 5/6 (Strong Brown). Slipped: 5YR 6/3-6/4 (Light Reddish Brown) on

exterior; 5YR 616 (Reddish Yellow) on

interior.









J

T

1

)

7

_<

I

10

/

f

1

13

S"

H

J

15

16

17

19


Fig. 6.20. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 8 and 6C?8.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

16 Jug NW6C-8 49238 N.I.492.44 118




Poorly levigated clay with white grit c. 1-

2 mm, and straw/chaff casts c. 5 mm

and occasionally to 1 cm. Straw/chaff

in slip also. Core/fabric: dark gray.

Slipped c. 7.5YR 4/2 (Dark Brown) on

interior; 5YR 5/4-4/4 (Reddish Brown) on exterior.










Fabric as II, Mineral-tempered Brown

ware but slipped 5YR 7/4 (Pink)-7/6

(Reddish Yellow).

Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1 -2

mm, straw/chaff casts c. 5-10 mm. Straw

in slip. Dark gray fabric/core, slipped 5YR

5/4 (Brown) on interior and c. 7.5YR 4/2

(Dark Brown) on exterior.



v

X KL> Ocm 10

)

)

i

10

11

12

13

7

16

15 U

Fig. 6.20


No.


Shape Phasi Locus Pottery

bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Cook pot NW8B 49214P

2 Amphora NW8B 49214P

3 Amphora NW8B 49214P N.I.492.23

Jug

1008

1007

1006

4 Amphora NW8B 49149P N.I.491.151 4054

5 Amphora NW8B 49150P N.I.491.131 3058

NW8B 49150P N.I.491.132 3055


No field description available

Fabric: between 10YR 7/4 (Very Pale

Brown)-7/6 (Yellow). Slip in/out: 10YR

8/3 (Very Pale Brown). Import.


sized white grit and micaceous inclusions

to 1 mm. Thick, medium gray core/fabric.

Slipped: 2.5YR 616 (Light Red) to 5/6

(Red) on interior; 7.5YR 8/4 (Pink) on

exterior.



inclusions. Core: 2.5YR 4/2 (Weak Red).

Slip out and over rim, 2.5Y 8/4 (Pale

Yellow).

Delta silt (Fabric II). Poorly applied slip, 10YR 8/4-7/4 (Very Pale Brown) dripped on exterior. Interior and unslipped exterior

as fabric.















Ocm

=k

10

\.

I

I

10

mi 1

7

16

17

11 1

12 ^

13 v

14

15

j

18

19

Fig. 6.21




bag no.

Field

no. Description

Krater? NW8B 49214 N.I.492.34 45

Jug NW8B 49214 N.I.492.40 106

13 Juglet NW8B 49214 N.I.492.40 103



Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA). Wheel bur?

nishing on interior.

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA). Wheel bur?

nishing on interior.


Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1-

2 mm, straw/chaff casts c. 5-10 mm. Straw





Very well levigated clay. Very little temper. Fabric: 7.5YR 7/6-6/6 (Reddish Yellow).

Slip in/out: 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale

Brown).




Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1-

2 mm, straw/chaff casts c. 5-10 mm.

Straw in slip. Dark gray fabric/core,

slipped 5YR 5/4 (Brown) on interior and

c. 7.5YR 4/2 (Dark Brown) on exterior.

Well levigated clay. Fabric as Mineral-

tempered Red ware but with White (No

Munsell) slip on exterior. Traces of 5YR

8/4 (Pink) slip on interior.



Well levigated clay. Fabric/core: 7.5YR

8/6 (Reddish Yellow). Slip in/out: 10R

4/6-4/8 (Red).

Terra nigra, black slipped in/out. Where

glaze does not cover interior it is 7.5YR

714 (Pink) as fabric.





e

C

10

ii

12

y

16

0 1CM 5

13

#1

17

K

^

15

1

18

rn

19

y\

20 u

Fig. 6.22


Fig. 6.23. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus A and B.


;

i

;

s

J

j

J

)

J

c

Ocm

10

7

I

12

-/

7

17

10

Fig. 6.23

13

15

20

7

7

7

19

7




bag no.

Field

no. Description

19 Jug Hiatus A+B 49004 N.I.490.20 1216


Terra nigra, unslipped (Fabric IID). Kiln

warped.











Coarse marl (Fabric IVB)


Well levigated clay with sand-sized white

grit averaging 1 mm occasionally to 2 mm, and fine straw casts. Fabric and interior

surface: 5YR 8/3-8/4 (Pink). Exterior

slipped 7.5YR 8/4 (Pink). Import?




sized white and gray grit often to 1 mm.

Fabric: 7.5YR 7/6-6/6 (Reddish Yellow). Exterior surface fired (?) c. 2.5YR 5/6

(Red). Interior as fabric.



C

T

T

13

H

tT

\

#

\

15

Fig. 6.24

Ocm

T

12

CT

17

W

10

10

\

r

r^rx

E ?

19




bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Amphora Hiatus A+B 49004 N.I.490.91 3612

2 Juglet Hiatus A+B 49004 N.I.490.98 4036



5 Cook pot Hiatus A+B 49004 N.I.490.98 4038



8 Cook pot Hiatus A+B

9 Cook pot Hiatus A+B

10 Saucer Hiatus A

11 Bowl Hiatus A

12 Amphora Hiatus A


size to 1 mm white grit, occasionally to

2 mm. Core/fabric: c. 5YR4/2 (Dark Red?

dish Gray). Interior surface as fabric, exte?

rior slipped 2.5Y 7/2 (Light Gray) to 714

(Pale Yellow).

Delta silt (Fabric I). Traces of White Slip/ Wash(?).

Poorly levigated clay with white and gray

grit to 1 mm, and straw/chaff to 3 mm.

Fabric: 7.5YR 4/4 (Brown). Slipped in/

out: 5YR 5/6 (Yellowish Red).


sized micaceous inclusions and white grit to 1 mm. Core/fabric: 10R 5/8 (Red).

Slipped in/out: 2.5Y 8/2 (White)-8/4 (Pale Yellow). Secondary burning.



sized micaceous inclusions, white grit to

2 mm, and straw/chaff casts 2-3 mm.

Fabric/core: 5YR 5/3-5/4 (Reddish

Brown). Interior as fabric, exterior

slipped c. 5YR 616 (Reddish Yellow).


sized micaceous inclusions and white

grit to 1 mm. Fabric/core: 7.5YR 5/2

(Brown). Slipped in/out: 5YR 5/4 (Red? dish Brown)-2.5YR4/4 (Reddish Brown).


Delta silt (Fabric IIC). Warped at neck.



Well levigated clay with white grit to 1 mm, and straw casts (to 3 mm) in fabric and slip. Fabric: 7.5YR 5/6 (Strong Brown) with

core of 7.5YR 5/2-5/4 (Brown). Interior

slipped(?) 7.5YR4/2 (Dark Brown). Exte?

rior slipped with splotchy 10YR 8/1

(White).

Delta silt, very hard (variant of Fabric I?)




(

i

i

i

/

Ocm

7

r

Fig. 6.25

13

l

14

"\

15


Fig. 6.26. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus A.

1998 Tfe Pottery from the Northwest and North Areas 201

i

J

^

0cm 10

V

10

Fig. 6.26

)

J

)

y>

)

J

t 20

/

21




bag no.

Field

Description

1 Bowl/Basin

2 Jug

3 Jug 4 Amphora

Hiatus A 49137 N.I.491.153 4090

Hiatus A 49137 N.I.491.119 1872

Hiatus A 49137 N.I.491.159 4156

Hiatus A 49137 N.I.491.153 4089




Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1 -



slipped 5YR 5/4 (Brown) on interior and c.

7.5YR 4/2 (Dark Brown) on exterior.










Delta silt (Fabric II), with 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown) slip on exterior only.




grit 1-2 mm and chaff averaging 3-5 mm.

Fabric: c. 5YR 616 (Reddish Yellow) with

dark gray core. Interior as fabric, exterior

slipped c. 5YR 5/3 (Reddish Brown).


i

t r

^

_?

12

I

0cm

H

I

T

\

10

16

13 15 17

Fig. 6.27



No. Shape Phase Pottery

bag no.

Field

no. Description

8 Amphora Hiatus A 49207P N.I.492.21 634

13

14

15

16

17

Stew pot

Lid/Disc

Cook pot

Bowl

Cook pot

Jug?

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

49207

49207

49207

49207

49207

49207

N.I.492.22

N.I.492.22

N.I.492.22

N.I.492.22

N.I.492.22

N.I.492.22

997

1001

1000

1002

999

996







Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1-2







grit to 1 mm. Fabric/core: 7.5YR 5/2

(Brown). Slipped in/out: 5YR 5/4 (Red? dish Brown)-2.5YR 4/4 (Reddish Brown)






inclusions. Core: 2.5YR4/2 (Weak Red) c. 3 mm sandwiched by 2.5YR 5/8 (Red).

Slip out and over rim: 2.5Y 8/4 (Pale

Yellow).

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I)

Coarse ware (Fabric VB)

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric II)




sand-sized grit and micaceous inclusions.

Core (thin): 7.5YR7/6 (Reddish Yellow). Fabric: 5YR 7/6 (Reddish Yellow). Slip out: 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown); in: un?

slipped as fabric. Import?


)

i

i

^

0 cm 10

1

I

1

l

4

Fig. 6.28




bag no.

Field

no. Description

49004 N.I.490.85 3870 Delta silt (Fabric I)


49004 N.I.490.85 3873 Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB)



49004 N.I.490.85 3872

7 Casserole

8 Bowl

9 Bowl

10 Bowl

11 Bowl

12 Juglet

Hiatus

A+B

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

Hiatus A

49004 N.I.490.102 4196

49024 N.I.490.71 3833

49024 N.I.490.95 3997

49024 N.I.490.93 3865

49024 N.I.490.95 4001

49024 N.I.490.71 3834

13 Body sherd Hiatus A 49024 N.I.490.93 3864A


sized micaceous inclusions, 1 mm white

grit, and chaff 2-3 mm and occasionally to 1 mm. Core: 5YR (Reddish Brown)- 5/6 (Yellowish Red). Surfaces: c. 5YR 616

(Reddish Yellow).






Fabric I variant. Mineral-tempered Red

ware with 10YR 8/2 (White) slipped exte?

rior and over rim to form c. 1 cm band on

interior.

Very well levigated clay with no trace of

temper. Fabric: 5YR 714 (Pink). Slipped: 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown)-2.5Y 8/4

(Pale Yellow). Incised decoration on exte?

rior. Import?



Fabric II variant. Mineral-tempered Brown

ware with c. 2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red) slip in/out. Reserve band of unslipped fabric in

interior.

Delta silt (Fabric I). Fired very hard.


Fabric IA variant. Mineral-tempered Red

ware with Slip. Slipped as Fabric IA but

firing(?) has resulted in series of radial

bands on top of rim alternating weak red

of fabric with 5YR 8/4 (Pink).


c

i?11?i i?? ??i i?i i=j 0 1 CM 5 10

\

I

f I

7

11 J

12 I

10 V 1-^

13

14

15

19

r

17

18

r

\

i

Fig. 6.29




bag no.

Field

no. Description

Amphora Hiatus A 49137 N.I.491.54

8 Jug?

Casserole

Hiatus A 49137 N.I.491.54

Hiatus A 49137 N.I.491.169 4365

223 Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1-



slipped 5YR 5/4 (Brown) on interior and

c. 7.5YR 4/2 (Dark Brown) on exterior.






Delta silt (Fabric I) but color nearer 5YR

716-616 (Reddish Yellow)

224 Black Glaze out. Interior plain except 1 OR

4/8 (Red) at top. Fabric: c. 5YR7/6 (Red? dish Yellow). Import.

Delta slip (Fabric I) with firing variations.

Exterior has alternating bands of normal

color and 7.5YR 4/2 (Weak Red). Interior

fired almost to color of Mineral-tempered Red ware with Orange slip. Burnishing on

interior.


932 Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I)



Delta silt (Fabric I). Traces of burning on

interior. used as lamp?











i

^

<

11 "V

13

14 j

15 j

16 )

\

1

17 J

18 ~?

7

c

10 r

0 1 CM 5

19 7

20 j

21 ;

22 J

23 ;

Fig. 6.30


Fig. 6.31. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus B and C.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

49004P N.I.490.64

49004P N.I.490.64

49004P N.I.490.64

2055 Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA)

2058 Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIC)

2054 Delta silt (Fabric I)

49004P N.I.490.97 4003

49004P N.I.490.31 1486

Very well levigated clay with infrequent sand-size to 1 mm grit. Fabric/core: 5YR

8/4-7/4 (Pink). Surfaces slipped 10YR

8/2-8/3 (Very Pale Brown). Import.


49004P N.I.490.31 1485 Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA)

49004P N.I.490.64 2056 Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IVC)

49004P N.I.490.64 2053 Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIC)

49004P N.I.490.64 2057

10 Amphora Hiatus

B+C

49004P N.I.490.31 1487


and greenish grit to 1 mm. Core/fabric:

5YR 5/3-5/4 (Reddish Brown). Surfaces

slipped 5Y 7/2 (Light Gray)-7/3 (Pale

Yellow).

Well levigated clay with white and gray grit c. 1 mm. Fabric/core: 5YR 7/6-6/6 (Red? dish Yellow). Exterior slipped c. 7.5YR 8/

4 (Pink), interior slipped (?) as fabric.

Import.



Delta silt (Fabric II). Secondary burning on interior and exterior of rim.


Well levigated clay. Litlle trace of temper but strange gritty "feel." Fabric/surfaces:

c. 5Y8/4 (Pale Yellow).






Mineral-tempered Red ware variant with

splotchy slip in/out: 5YR 8/4 (Pink)-7/6

(Reddish Yellow).



7

I

f

\

1

10

?

\ 17

\AjT 18

\et 19

20

21 ~f

I

22

Fig. 6.31


Fig. 6.32. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus B.


7

;

)

u

j

j

i

7

18

if

10

Fig. 6.32

11

1 2

13

15

16

17

19

/

20

21

0 1 CM 5


Fig. 6.33. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus B.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Stew pot? Hiatus B 49131 N.I.491.72 709

2 Cookpot/jar Hiatus B 49131 N.I.491.46 1611

8 Amphora Hiatus B 49131 N.I.491.82 650


10 Amphora/jar Hiatus B 49131 N.I.491.145 4018


12 Amphora/jar Hiatus B 49131 N.I.491.140 3652



Delta silt (Fabric II) with 5YR 8/4 (Pink)

slip on exterior and over rim (as illus?

trated). Some areas nearer 5YR 716 (Red? dish Yellow); Painted bands on exterior of

7.5R 4/2-4/4 (Weak Red).


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB) (same vessel

as no. 5).

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB) (same vessel

as no. 4).



white and red grit sand-sized to 1 mm

Core/inner surface: c. 5YR7/4 (Pink). Ex?

terior Slip: 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale

Brown).







(Dark Brown) on exterior. Mottled to gray on exterior.


sized micaceous inclusions, sand-sized to

1 mm white grit, and some fine straw casts

to 2 mm. Core: 5YR 6.6-6/8 (Reddish

Yellow). Slip in/out: 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown).


sized to c. 1 mm white grit. Fabric: 2.5YR

614 (Light Reddish Brown). Slip: 5YR

8/4-7/4 (Pink).

Well levigated clay with white grit sand-

sized to 1 mm and sand-sized micaceous

inclusions. Fabric: 5YR 5/6 (Yellowish

Red). Surfaces in/out: 1 OYR 6/6 (Reddish

Yellow).


Handmade (Fabric VB). Traces of slip in/

out 10YR 8/2 (White) where thin and

10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown) where thick.


0 1 CM 5

/

1

l

c

1

15

1

1

10

l

12

1

f

13

l

u

Fig. 6.33


Fig. 6.34. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus C.


7

7

J

7

/

?

7

/

20

7 15

2 0cm

7

7

7

7

7

22

23

10

Fig. 6.34




bag no.

Field

no. Description

14 Jug

15 Bowl

16 Bowl

17 Bowl

18 Bowl

19 Bowl

20 Amphora

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.121 1791

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.111 1464

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.166 4296

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.122 1861

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.112 1484

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.81 770

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.81 769

21 Amphora Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.134 3080




Delta silt (I)

Delta silt, slipped (IA)






Delta silt (Fabric I) with White-Pink Slip on exterior only.


Moderately well levigated clay with fre?

quent, sand-sized white and red grit and

micaceous inclusions. Very fine straw casts.

Fabric and surfaces: 7.5YR 716-616 (Red? dish Yellow). Import?





Delta silt (Fabric I). Spatula(?) marks on

exterior.

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA). Burnishing on exterior.



in slip. Dark gray fabric/core, slipped 5YR 5/4 (Brown) on interior and 5YR

5/4-4/4 (Reddish Brown) on exterior.

Fabric as II Mineral-tempered Brown

ware, but large 3-7 mm chaffin fabric and

slip.


7

VJ^

l 10

r

7

7

7

j

)

20

1

0cm 10

Fig. 6.35




bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Stew pot

2 Stew pot

3 Stew pot

4 Pithos

5 Jar

6 Jug/Hydria

7 Stew pot

8 Stew pot

9 Amphora

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.166 9294

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.137 657

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.137 663

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.166 4277

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.111 1465

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.122 1868

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.127 1869

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.48 206

Hiatus C 49136 N.I.491.111 1460







Handmade (Fabric VB). Traces of 2.5Y

(White) slip on exterior surface.

Handmade (Fabric VB). Traces of 10YR 8/

2 (Very Pale Brown) slip on interior (!) surface.





grit averaging 1-2 mm, and straw/chaff casts

2-7 mm. Core and surfaces: 7.5YR 5/4

(Brown).


white and gray grit c. 1 mm. Fabric be?

tween 2.5YR 616 (Light Red) and 5/8

(Red). Slip(?) out and over rim (in): 10YR

8/4 (Very Pale Brown). Import. See below

no. 12.

Very well levigated clay with slight trace of

temper: white grit to 1 mm. Fabric: 2.5YR

6/8 (Light Red)-5/8 (Red). Slipped in/out:

10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown). Import.

Redraw of no. 10 after joins were made.


I

Ocm 10

N

7

;

Fig. 6.36


Fig. 6.37. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Hiatus C and Phase 9A.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

5 Jug

6 Amphora

7 Amphora

8 Amphora

Hiatus C 49033 N.I.490.113

Hiatus C 49033 N.I.490.116

Hiatus C 49033 N.I.490.121

Hiatus C 49033 N.I.490.113

20 Amphora NW9A 49148 N.I.491.98

27

40

42

23

1058


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB). Burnish marks on interior.


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIA). Burnish marks on interior.

Very well levigated clay with sand-size white grit and micaceous inclusions. Fabric: c. 2.5YR 616 (Light Red). Slipped in/out: 2.5Y 8/2 (White)-8/4 (Pale Yellow).

Moderately well levigated clay with white grit to 1 mm and occasionally to 2 mm, straw casts to 3 mm, and sand-size micaceous inclusions. Thick, light gray core; thin sandwich of fabric c. 2.5YR 5/6 (Red) below exterior surface. Interior surface gray as core. Very abraded slip c. 2.5Y 8/2 (White).

Well levigated clay with fine straw casts, sand-size mi? caceous inclusions, and occasional white grit c. 1 mm. Core/fabric: 5YR 5/6-4/6 (Yellowish Red). Slip in: c. 5YR 4/4 (Reddish Brown); out: traces of thin c. 10YR 8/2 (White) slip, but very splotchy, most of surface is c. 5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown).

Moderately well levigated clay with sand-size white

grit occasionally to 1 mm, sand-size micaceous inclu?

sions, and fine straw casts to 2 mm (in slip also). Core: 3 mm 5YR 5/6 (Yellowish Red). Fabric/sandwich:

7.5YR 5/6-4/6 (Strong Brown). Slip in: c. 2.5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown); out: mottled 2.5YR 5/4 (Red? dish Brown)-5/6 (Red).





Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIB), but rim fired toward weak red.

Delta silt (Fabric I). Stance uncertain.





Moderately well levigated clay with sand-sized mica? ceous inclusions, white and gray grit to c. 1 mm, and straw casts to 3 mm. Fabric: 5YR 5/3-4/3 (Reddish Brown) with core of 10R 4/4 (Red). Traces of slip/ wash 10YR 8/2 (White) on exterior; Plain interior.

Moderately well levigated clay with white grit to 1 mm

and straw csists to 3 mm. Core: dark gray throughout. Surfaces vary from 10R 6/8 (Red)-5/8 (Red).


^V 10

^\

1

11

14

y

0cm 10

12

J

13

/

15 T

I

\

16 \

17

18

r

19

20 f

Fig. 6.37


Fig. 6.38. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phase 9.


bag no.

Field

Description






Well levigated clay with sand-sized micaceous

inclusions and fine straw casts. Fabric and in?

terior surface: 2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Light Red). Exterior surface and bottom: slipped(?) 2.5Y

8/2 (White) with small areas approaching color of fabric. Import?


KL7

j

w

w

Ocm

c

10

20

/ 22

23

24

Fig. 6.38


^

c

s

s

Ocm 10

e

Y

\

<

10

s=

F

12

13

14

11

T

T

Fig. 6.39



No. Shape Phase Locus Pottery Field

bag no. no. Description

1 Amphora

2 Amphora

NW9 49017

NW9 49017

N.I.490.83 3388

N.L490.75 3577

15 Jar

16 Jug/Bowl

17 Jug/Bowl

18 Bowl

19 Saucer/Lid

20 Cook pot/Jar

21 Cook pot

22 Amphora

23 Amphora

NW9 49017 N.I.490.92 3914

NW9 49017

NW9 49017

NW9 49017

NW9 49017

NW9 49017

NW9 49017

NW9 49017

N.I.490.63 2068

N.I.490.80 3645

N.I.490.53 3206

N.I.490.92 3912

N.I.490.92 3907

N.I.490.83 3382

N.I.490.83 3391

NW9 49017 N.I.490.92 3910

Delta silt (Fabric II with chaff (c. 2-5 mm)

tempering)

Poorly levigated clay with white grit (1-2

mm) and straw (3 mm-1 cm). Core/fab?

ric: 5YR 5/6-5/8 (Yellowish Red). Slip out: 5YR 5/3 (Reddish Brown); in: as out, but wiped(?) with streaky 5YR 4/2 (Dark Reddish Gray).





Delta silt (Fabric IIC). Traces of burnish?

ing on interior.





Well levigated clay with white grit c. 1 mm.

Core: c. 2.5YR 616 (Light Red). Slip in/

out: 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown). Import.


Coarse marl (Fabric IVC). Gray core.

Chaff much finer (c. 1-2 mm) than nor-

mal. Much less chaff in slip. Traces of hor?

izontal burnishing on exterior.

Delta silt (Fabric I) with 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown) slip in/out. Band of c. 7.5R

4/4 (Weak Red) "painted" on exterior

below rim.





Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB) but exterior

is mottled as Fabric IIC.


Delta silt (Fabric II), with added chaff

(c. 2-4 mm) temper.


sized micaceous inclusions and white grit

averaging 1 mm. Fabric: 10R 5/6 (Red).

Slip in/out: 2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red).


T

^

12

f=

13

Ocm

7

7

r

[

10

^

I ^

10

20

21

22

23

18

19

J

\

H

15

16

17

T

7

1

^1

Fig. 6.40


Fig. 6.41. Pottery from Kom Ge'if Northwest Phases 9, 9A and Hiatus C.

Pottery Field

No. Shape Phase Locus bag no. no. Description

1 Bowl NW9 49017 N.I.490.92 3918

2 Basin/Jar NW9 49017 N.I.490.54 3170

3 Juglet? NW9 49017 N.I.490.92 3917

4 Amphora NW9 49017 N.I.490.56 3791

5 Amphora NW9 49017 N.I.490.80 3647

6 Body sherd NW9 49017 N.I.490.48 1922

7 Body sherd NW9 49017 N.I.490.26 1439

Black "glaze" in/out. Fabric Pink. Stance un?

certain. Import?

Well levigated clay with sand-sized micaceous

inclusions and white grit to 1 mm. Core/

interior surface: 5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown). Exterior slip: 5YR 716 (Reddish Yellow).


Moderately well levigated clay with white and

pink grit to 1 mm and 2-3 mm straw casts.

Black core. Fabric: 5YR 614 (Light Reddish

Brown)-6/6 (Reddish Yellow). Slip: c. 5YR

5/3 (Reddish Brown).

Moderately well levigated clay with sand-sized

micaceous inclusions and sand-sized to 1 mm

white grit. Core/interior surface: 5YR 5/6

(Yellowish Red). Exterior traces of thick but

fugitive slip c. 2.5YR 616 (Light Red).

Well levigated clay with sand-sized white grit. Fabric and surfaces: 5YR 7/6-7/8 (Reddish

Yellow). Exterior decorated with "bands" of

7.5R 5/6-4/6 (Red) "paint." Same vessel as

No. 7?

Well levigated clay with numerous sand-sized

white grit. Fabric and both surfaces: 5YR 716-

7/8 (Reddish Yellow). Exterior decorated with

splotchy 7.5R 5/6-4/6 (Red) "paint." Same

vessel as No. 6?



Terra nigra, slipped (shiny-lusterous) in/out.

Gray-brown fabric.












\Jr

16 10

Q 17

11

12 18

13 CT 19

14 r

15 7

20 7

0cm

Fig. 6.41




bag no.

Field

no. Description

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA). Stance uncer?

tain, here reconstructed as an open form. Cf.

no. 14 below.







Handmade (Fabric VB). Trace of thin, 10YR

8/2 (White) slip on exterior.


Delta silt (Fabric I) with 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown) slip on exterior and bottom.


Terra nigra, slipped out. Core and interior

surface of Dark Gray.


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA). Stance uncer?

tain, here reconstructed as a closed form.

Cf. also no. 1 above.


Delta silt (Fabric I) (Fired Black Inside)


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA). Fired(?) as

Fabric IIA on exterior.






>

Ocm 10

) j

7

4 w

b

J

12

13

f 18 U

r r

19 15

\ 20

16

1

21

17 22

Fig. 6.42




bag no.

Field

no. Description






Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA). Secondary

burning on exterior.


Delta silt (Fabric I) but color variegated in

firing.











J

BZ 0 1 CM S

17

16

r

Fig. 6.43



No. Shape Phase Locus Pottery bag no. Field) Description





















7

J

^

I

;

Ocm 10

f

^

10

11

12

13

14

15 j

16

19

7

7

)

J

7

J

17 I

18

7

Fig. 6.44




bag no.

Field

no. Description

18 Jar

19 Basin

NW10 49005 N.I.490.74 3893

NW10 49005 N.I.490.72 3252





Delta silt (Fabric I). Irregular profile.


Well levigated clay with occasional sand-

sized to 1 mm grit. Fabric: 2.5YR 5/8

(Red). Slip: exterior and dripped on in rim

7.5YR 716 (Reddish Yellow) and stripe of

fabric color on exterior. Import?










Mineral-tempered Brown ware with 5YR

8/4 (Pink) slip in/out. 2 bands of paint c.

2.5YR 614 (Light Reddish Brown).

Mineral-tempered Brown ware. Thick slip out 5YR 8/4 (Pink). Burnished areas:

c. 5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown).



<ZL

/

f

0 1 CM 5

11 J

12 /

13

14 )

n*

J

10

\

\

15

16

17

I

1

\

I

19

Fig. 6.45



Pottery Field

No. Shape Phase Locus bag no. no. Description

1 Amphora NW10 49005 N.I.490.21 1213

2 Amphora NW10 49005 N.I.490.74 3892

3 Amphora NW10 49005 N.I.490.74 3894

11 Jar

12 Amphora

13 Bowl

14 Bowl

15 Jar

16 Amphora

NW10 49005 N.I.490.72 3247

NW10 49005 N.I.490.21 1215

NW10 49005 N.I.490.21 1214

NW10 49005 N.I.490.72 3249

NW10 49005 N.I.490.79 4024

NW10 49005 N.I.490.72 3250

NW10 49002 N.I.490.43 1901

NW10 49002 N.I.490.22 1231

NW10 49002 N.I.490.44 1588

NW10 49002 N.I.490.27 1483

NW10 49002 N.I.490.52 3786

NW10 49002 N.I.490.23 1224

NW10 49002 N.I.490.43 1900

17 Bowl/Jug NW10 49002 N.I.490.43 1899

Well levigated clay with white grit 1 -2 mm.

Fabric/interior slip: c. 7.5YR 716 (Reddish

Yellow). Exterior slip (thin): 7.5YR 8/2

(Pinkish White)-8/4 (Pink). Import.


grit to 1 mm and chaff 2-3 mm. Fabric: 5YR

5/4 (Reddish Brown). Exterior slip: c. 5YR

6/4 (Light Reddish Brown). Local amphora.

Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 1 -2 mm, straw/chaff casts c. 5-10 mm. Straw in slip. Dark gray fabric/core, slipped 5YR 5/4

(Brown) on interior and c. 7.5YR4/2 (Dark

Brown) on exterior.





Delta silt (Fabric I), with slip interior: 10YR

8/2 (White); out: 7.5YR 8/4 (Pink).

Mineral-tempered Red ware with slip out

and bottom: 5YR 8/4 (Pink)-(where thick) 716 (Reddish Yellow).

Very well levigated clay with sand-sized mi?

caceous inclusions and white grit. Core:

c. 5YR 716 (Reddish Yellow). Slip in/out:

5Y 8/3-8/4 (Pale Yellow). Import?



Terra nigra, slipped in/out. Core: 10YR4/2

(Dark Grayish Brown). Import?



Fabric as 1006 (Fig. 6.21.3) but with 10YR

8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown) Slip.



1

10

x/?or ii L?o>

c

^

T

m 0 1 CM 5

14 /

xy 16

Fig. 6.46

^

17

L

12 I

13 /

15 N




bag no.

Field

no. Description

15 Amphora? NW10 49130 N.I.491.43 166

16 Jug NW10 49130 N.I.491.97

17 Amphora NW10 49130 N.I.491.43

1286

165

lt, slipped (Fabric IA)

lt (Fabric II)

lt (Fabric I)

lt (Fabric I)

lt (Fabric I)




lt (Fabric II)

lt (Fabric I)








Poorly levigated clay. White grit c. 2 mm, straw and chaff casts c. 5-10 mm. Straw


5/4 (Brown) on interior and 7.5YR 4/2




in slip, Dark gray fabric/core, slipped 5YR 5/4 (Brown) on interior and traces

of 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown) slip on

exterior.

Fabric I variant. Mineral-tempered Red

ware with White Slip in/out.



in slip. Dark gray fabric/core, slipped with

weak red wash on interior and exterior.


j

/

11 i

*-J i?j *?i >?? i?i ^?> 0 1 CM 5

7)

13

10

12

t

iJTP

16

z>

)

r

t

17

Fig. 6.47


T

X

"L

7

10

11

0 1CM 5 10

14 I

16 )

\A

18

j *

7

12

c

19

Fig. 6.48

13

15

17

/

^

t

3

;


Fig. 6.49. Pottery from Kom Ge 'if Northwest Phase 10.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

8 Jar

9 Stew pot

10 Jug/Hydria

11 Amphora(?)

NW10 49101 N.I.491.80

NW10 49101 N.I.491.40

NW10 49101 N.I.491.96

NW10 49101 N.I.491.45

12 Bowl

13 Bowl/Jug 14 Bowl

15 Bowl

NW10 49101 N.I.491.75

NW10 49101 N.I.491.80

NW10 49026 N.I.490.101

NW10 49101 N.I.491.40

771

182

1240

186

705

772

4152

181

Handmade coarse (Fabric VB)






Black glaze in/out, exterior fired to silver in

places. Fabric: 5YR 7/6-7/8 (Reddish Yel?

low) . Band of white "paint" below rim in/

out as illustrated. Import?














XI

I

c

r

?

0 1 CM 5

12

\

7

I

I

10 fi

14 \

13

Fig. 6.49



Description

18 Amphora NW10 49001 N.I.490.14 1277









Delta silt (Fabric I). Exterior base fired gray.








Well levigated clay with white grit sand-sized

to 1 mm and occasional fine straw casts. Fab?

ric: c. 7.5YR 7/6-6/6 (Reddish Yellow). Slip interior: 7.5YR 7/6 (Reddish Yellow); exterior

and interior over rim: 7.5YR 8/2 (Pinkish

White)-8/4 (Pink). Painted band 10R 5/8-

4/8 (Red). Import.

Moderately well levigated clay with sand-sized

white grit and micaceous inclusions and

straw/chaff 3-5 mm. Fabric: 2.5YR 5/4-4/4

(Reddish Brown). Slip in/out: between 5YR

6/3 (Light Reddish Brown)-5/3 (Reddish

Brown).





7

s

y

s

7

ED 0 1 CM 5

12

T

I*

V

13

17 7

10

11

14

15

e

r

16 r

19 c

20 x

18

Fig. 6.50

21 X




bag no.

Field

no. Description

9 Bowl NW10 49156 N.I.490.177 64



Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA) (Second-

arily fired black inside).




Delta silt (Fabric I). String-cut base.

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB variant, in?

terior slip mottled between orange and

weak red).

Terra nigra, slipped lustrous in/out. Gray core to 3 mm. Exterior fired to light gray- brown in places.


Delta silt (Fabric I), but splotches of

orange and weak red.

Delta silt (Fabric II). Rim warped.


Delta silt (Fabric I).

Delta silt (Fabric I). Sherd abraded.


Delta silt (Fabric I). Spiral (fingernail?) incision on exterior.




v

<

)

I

T

V> 13

^-^ I?I I?t l?i i?i -R 0 1 CM 5 ,n

16

7

14

11

f

15 f

H-

L~a<~aJ

17

Fig. 6.51

18


J

)

)

^

\

10

1*3

/

s

7

I

13

H

7

7 16

11 0cm

Fig. 6.52

10


T

Ocm

1 1

"<, r

"f

c

10

J

10

I

1

y

N=W

13

Y

H

J

15

12 16

1

"^S"

17

18

19

Fig. 6.53


7

7

J

I

)

;

^

15

X

16 17

j-r Ocm

18

V

13

H

10

i

7

7

10

7

/

S

19

/

20

Fig. 6.54


Fig. 6.55. Pottery from Kom Ge'if North Phases 1 and 2.


bag no.

Field

no. Description



Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IC)


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric II)















Very well levigated clay with sand-sized

white grit occasionally to 1 mm. Core

(c. 2 mm): 10R 4/8-5/8 (Red), sand-

wiched with 5YR 5/6 (Yellowish Red). Traces of 10YR 8/2 (White) leaving surface

5YR7/4 (Pink). Interior slipped(?) 5YR6/

6 (Reddish Yellow)-5/6 (Yellowish Red).

Fabric IVA. Chaff-tempered Brown ware.

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IA, bands of

Weak Red "paint" on exterior).

Fabric as #1010 (no. 20) with c. 7 mm

red core.


Ocm 10

1

7

L

7

7

17

21

h 22

20

Fig. 6.55

11

12

13

14

t

19

s

1

\

7

15

16

18

r

7

I

23


Fig. 6.56. Pottery from Kom Ge'if North Phase 2.


bag no.

Field

no. Description


Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IVA)











Very well levigated clay with no signs of

temper. Fabric: 5YR 7/2 (Pinkish Gray) Lustrous black "glaze" in/out. Import?



Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IVC)

Handmade (Fabric VB, coarse). Fired

through dark gray in/out.



Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I variant, 2.5YR

6/6-6/8 (Light Red) slip.


Delta silt (Fabric IA, burnished)






Extremely well levigated clay. No trace of

temper. Fabric: c. 2.5YR 616 (Light Red).

Interior, as fabric; exterior, lustrous black

glaze. Import, West Slope Style.


Ocm

Q

K

\

f

C

S

c

7

/

7

J

f

A

4

t_ 20

^1

=9

22

7

%

23 <

\

2U

25

26

I 27

I 28

Fig. 6.56




bag no.

Field

no. Description

\7

/

# 12

13

1

V///////////A

f 7

?

10

7

7 ?i

11

17 18

4?

Q

19

27 N

Fig. 6.57

\ 14

\ 15

V

16

7

21

22

28



Interior slip: c. 7.5YR 716 (Reddish Yellow). Exterior slip (thin): 7.5YR 8/2 (Pinkish

White)-8/4 (Pink). Import.


Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I)A





Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IVC)


Smooth marl (Fabric X)






l

\

7

I

9

)

t

Ocm

7

10

i

t

A

1

20

7

22

7

23

Fig. 6.58




bag no.

Field

no. Description

7 Bowl/Dish-lid foot

8 Amphora?

9 Bread disc?

10 Body sherd

11 Body sherd

12 Body sherd

13 Perforated Bowl/Basin

14 Body sherd

N2 31514 N.I.315.49

N2 31514 N.I.315.33

N2 31514 N.I.315.60

N2 31514 N.I.315.62

N2 31514 N.I.315.62

485

473

475

489

399

N2 31514 N.I.315.60 398

N2 31514 N.I.315.80 437

N2 31514 N.I.315.80 486

22 Jug


Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IVB)




Very well levigated clay. No trace of

temper. Fabric/core varigated 7.5YR

714 (Pink) through 7/6-7/8 (Reddish

Yellow). Lusterous Black glaze in/out.

Import?


Moderately well levigated clay. White

grit c. 1-2 mm, straw casts c. 2-5 mm.

Dark gray fabric/core, slipped 5YR 5/4

(Brown) on interior and c. 7.5YR 4/2



Fabric IXA. White Gritty-slipped ware.

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIB, slip in

horizontals bands).

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I B), with hor?

izontal band of slightly darker slip on

interior.


Very well levigated clay. No visible tem?

per. Fabric/core: c. 7.5YR 716 (Reddish

Yellow). Interior as fabric, exterior cov?

ered with lustrous black glaze. Import. Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I A)



Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I A)

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I B)

Delta silt (Fabric I )




Y

=\

L?

t I

A-hQ

*

1

Tl

#

R

Ocm 10

T

20

22

Fig. 6.59


Fig. 6.60. Pottery from Kom Ge'if North Phases and 3.


bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Jug handle N3 31508 N.I.315.18 271

2 Krater? N3 31621 N.I.316.38 644


sand-sized white grit and micaceous inclu?

sions. Fabric: 5YR 716-6/6 (Reddish Yel?

low) . Black "glaze" in/out lustrous to silver.

Import.

Extremely well levigated clay with occa?

sional sand-sized micaceous inclusions and

very fine straw casts. Fabric: 5YR 616 (Red? dish Yellow). Black in/out, dull to shiny. sherd abraded all surfaces. Import.

Coarse ware (Fabric VB) with 5YR 616

(Reddish Yellow) slip in/out.












Delta slit, slipped (Fabric IA)


Coarse marl (Fabric IV). Very fine.

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric I A)





Ocm

e

T=

T%

7

16

/

18

1 10

7 17

7

19

Fig. 6.60

"^

?>

11

12

13

14

1

15

20

7

7

21




bag no.

Field

no. Description

Smooth marl (Fabric IXB) White slip mottled pink. Coarse ware (Fabric VA)

Coarse ware (Fabric VA)


Moderately well levigated clay with white grit sand-sized to 2 mm. Core: varies 10YR 7/3-8/3 (Very Pale Brown). Sand? wich: 5YR 6/4 (Light Reddish Brown). Thin slip out: 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown); in: unslipped(?), color as sandwich.

Import? Amphora rim?





Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IVC, Interior: plain. Exterior: red slip horizontally brushed).

Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IID)


Mineral-tempered ware with white/pink slip but here streaky in/out. Note section?similarities with some local amphora necks. Core (c. 2 mm): c. 10R4/8 (Red). Sandwich: 7.5YR 5/6-4/6 (Strong Brown). Streaky slip?where thick: 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown).


Smooth marl, slipped (Fabric IXA)

Extremely well levigated clay with occasional sand-sized white grit. Fabric: 5YR 7/4 (Pink). Slip out: c. 2.5Y 8/2

(White); interior: unslipped(?), color as fabric. Import. Smooth marl, slipped (Fabric IXA)

Delta silt (Fabric I), with bands of 7.5R 5/2-4/2 (Weak Red)

"paint" on exterior.






Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IVC with Horizontal Burnish)

Extremely well levigated clay. No trace of temper. Fabric: 7.5YR 6/6-6/8 (Reddish Yellow). Brown "glaze" out c. 5YR 5/6 (Yellowish Red). Import. Delta silt (Fabric I)



Very well levigated clay sand-sized white and red grit and sand-sized to (rarely) 1 mm micaceous inclusions. Fabric: 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown). Slip out only: 5YR 6/6-6/8

(Reddish Yellow). Import?

Very well levigated clay with occasional sand-sized white and red grit, sand-sized micaceous inclusions, and some fine straw casts. (Unslipped?) surfaces: c. 5YR 6/6-6/8 (Reddish Yel? low). Import?


1 ^

r

7

t

m r=nr

I

(

7 20

7

T

26

1

28

r

0 cm

22

23

Ik

\ 29

f

7

7

7

r

i

I

TT7 25

l

30

27

Fig. 6.61




bag no.

Field

no. Description

12 Amphora

13 Table amphora?

14 Jug 15 Jug 16 Jar

24 Jar

25 Stew pot

N3

N3

31608 N.I.316.18

N3

N3

403

31608 N.I.316.24 453

31608 N.I.316.59 928

31608 N.I.316.25 844











Very well levigated clay with occasional sand-sized white grit and fine straw casts. Core: 10YR 6/2 (Light Brownish Gray). Sandwich below exterior surface: 10YR 714 (Very Pale

Brown). Slip in/out: 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown). Second-

arily fired to light gray. Import? Amphora?

Very well levigated clay. Occasional sand-sized white grit and micaceous inclusions fabric/core 2.5YR 616 (Light red). 10YR 8/3 (Very pale Brown) slip in/out. Import.

Very well levigated clay with occasional sand-sized white grit and micaceous inclusions. Fabric: 7.5YR 5/6 (Strong Brown). Slip in/out: 1 OYR 8/4-7/4 (Very Pale Brown). Paint out rim and over rim in: 10R 5/8 (Red). Import? Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIA)


Moderately well levigated clay with frequent white grit to 1 mm and straw casts to 2 mm. Fabric: 2.5Y 8/4 (Pale Yellow). Below exterior of surface is 2 mm of 5YR 616

(Reddish Yellow). Slip in/out: 2.5Y 8/2 (White). Import? Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIC)

Fabric IXA. White Gritty-slipped ware





Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IV variant). Slip exterior/ interior rim: c. 7.5R 4/4 (Weak Red). Slip interior: c. 2.5YR 6/4 (Light Reddish Brown). Drop of other slip(?) on exterior: 1 OYR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown).

Well levigated clay with sand-sized white grit and rarely white and red grit c. 1 mm. Core/fabric: 5YR 716-616 (Reddish Yellow). Slip in/out: between 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown) and 2.5Y (Pale Yellow). Import? Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIC)


J

^T

T

t Ocm

\

S

7

I

f

\

22

23 l l 24 25

Fig. 6.62

*

^^

20

^^1

=r

r




bag no.

Field

no. Description


Coarse ware (Fabric VB) with traces of abraded

slip out: 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown)-7.5YR 8/4 (Pink).



Caorse marl, slipped (Fabric IVC)

Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IVC) with traces of

burnishing in/out.

Coarse marl (Fabric IV, but very coarse)






Moderately well levigated clay. Gritty fabric with

frequent sand-sized white grit and occasional

sand-sized micaceous inclusions. Fabric: 5YR 614 (Light Reddish Brown). Thin sandwich:

5YR 6/6 (Reddish Yellow). Surfaces: 5YR 7/3- 714 (Pink).

Very well levigated clay with white grit c. 1 mm

and fine straw casts. Fabric: 7.5YR 6/6 (Reddish

Yellow). Surfaces: 7.5YR 8/4-7/4 (Pink).




C

"V

(

T

c

t

l

/

Ocm

f

Q

J c

t

Fig. 6.63

1

t

*

1

X

t

f



No. Shape Phase Locus Pottery baz no.

Field

no. Description

1 Bowl/Basin

2 Bowl

3 Jar/Cooking pot?

4 Jar

5 Bowl bottom

6 Jug foot

N3 31608 N.I.316.53 848

N3 31608 N.I.316.09 267

N3 31608 N.I.316.42 773

N3 31608 N.I.316.14 293

N3 31608 N.I.316.24 458

N3 31608 N.I.316.49 806

Coarse ware (Fabric VB) mottled pink and

gray.




Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IV-IVA, mottled

pink and brown. Interior fired dark gray).

Smooth marl, slipped (Fabric IXA with buff

core).

Delta silt (Fabric I, with 10YR 8/2 (White)- 8/3 (Very Pale Brown) slip(?) on exterior only.

Delta silt (Fabric I, white to pink slip(?) in/

out).

Smooth marl, slippedFabric IXA)




Exceptionally well levigated clay with occa?

sional sand-sized micaceous inclusions. Fab?

ric: 7.5YR 716 (Reddish Yellow) fired to 7/4

(Pink) just below exterior surface. Black glaze

shiny to lustrous. Bottom: 7.5YR 4/6-4/8

(Red) band. Import.




Smooth marl, slipped (Fabric IXA)



Extremely well levigated clay with infrequent sand-sized micaceous inclusions and rarely sand-sized white grit. Fabric: 5YR 614 (Light Reddish Brown) to 616 (Reddish Yellow). Black "glaze," shiny to lustrous. Import.



Extremely well levigated clay with occasional

sand-sized white grit. Fabric: 7.5YR 7/6 (Red? dish Yellow). Thin white slip turns surfaces

C.7.5YR8/4 (Pink). Import.


Fabric X. Pink slipped ware


y

UJ

\-l-t

W

13

nI^

Ocm 10

Fig. 6.64

i

j

*3-

i-e- 20

)

) 22

23

24

/N

25




bag no.

Field

no. Description

1 Jar

2 Jar/Jug

3 Jar

31615 N.I.316.31

31615 N.I.316.34

31615 N.I.316.34

4 Jar

5 Juglet

6 Jug

7 Jar

31615

31615

31615

31615

N.I.316.31

N.I.316.32

N.I.316.32

N.I.316.34

14 Jar N3 31619 N.I.316.61

549

616

615

550

570

574

613

889



Well levigated clay with frequent red grit sand-sized to 1 mm and sand-sized micaceous

inclusions. Fabric: 5YR 7/6-7/8 (Reddish

Yellow). Slip in/out: c. 7.5YR 8/6 (Reddish

Yellow). Import.


Very well levigated clay with sand-sized white

grit and micaceous inclusions. Fabric: be?

tween 2.5YR 5/8 (Red)-6/8 (Reddish Yel?

low). Slip: 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Pink). Import.


Extremely well levigated clay. No trace of

temper. Fabric: between 2.5YR 6/8 (Light Red)-5/8 (Red). Surfaces: 5YR7/6 (Reddish

Yellow). Import.




Delta silt (Fabric II variant with Gray Core

and weak red stripe on exterior).


Exceptionally well levigated clay with infre?

quent sand-sized white grit and very fine straw

casts. Fabric: 10YR 7/3 (Very Pale Brown).

Slip in/out: 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown).

Import?

Extremely well levigated clay with occasional

sand-sized white grit and micaceous inclu?

sions and rarely sand-sized red grit. Fabric:

5YR 6/6-6/8 (Reddish Yellow). Surfaces:

slipped(?) 5YR 7/6 (Reddish Yellow). Import.













?t r m f

t I

r

?\ i r

I I

15 1 Ocm

y

20

f

23

24

I

1

22

i

I

25

Fig. 6.65


Fig. 6.66. Pottery from Kom Ge'if North Phases and 5.

No. Shape Phase Locus Pottery bag no. Field no. Description

1 Moldedbowl N5 31501 N.I.315.01 187 Very well levigated clay with occasional

sand-sized white grit and micaceous

inclusions. Fabric: 5YR 6/8 (Reddish

Yellow). Sandwich: 7.5YR 7/6 (Reddish

Yellow). Black "glaze," lustrous in/out.

Import.



Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IIA). Stance is

correct.


Fabric IVD. Chaff-tempered Black ware.



Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IID)


sand-sized white grit. Fabric/core: 5YR

714 (Pink)-7/6 (Reddish Yellow). Slip in/out: between 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale

Brown)-2.5Y8/4 (Pale Yellow). Import?

Coarse marl, slipped (Fabric IVC) Hori?

zontal burnish.

Fabric VA. Smooth Slipped Coarse ware.

Secondary burning.

Fabric I. Mineral-tempered Red ware

with 5YR 8/3-7/3 (Pink) Slip out only.




Delta silt (Fabric I variant with 10YR

8/2 (White)-5YR8/3 (Pink) Slip in/out)





C

^

/

^^) r

10

11

7

I

y

7 d

l

HM M M M M 0 1 cm 5 10

12

13

17

18

19

s=

7 15

y 16

7"

20

Fig. 6.66




bag no.

Field

Description

10 Amphora N5 31601 N.I.316.38 598

11 Jug N5 31601 N.I.316.38 602

12 Jug/Jar N5 31601 N.I.316.40 693

13 Jug

14 Jug/Jar

15 Jar

N5 31601 N.I.316.02 200

N5 31601 N.I.316.16 369

N5 31601 N.I.316.16 365

Delta silt (Fabric 10

Handamde (Fabric VA)






Delta silt (Fabric I) Secondary burning in/out.


sional sand-sized white and red grit, mica?

ceous inclusions, and fine straw casts.

Fabric: between 5YR 716-616 (Reddish

Yellow). Slip in/out: where thick?10YR

8/3 (Very Pale Brown); where thin?

c. 7.5YR8/4 (Pink). Import.


micaceous inclusions and sand-sized to

occasionally 1 mm white grit. Fabric/core:

2.5YR 6/6 (Light Red)-5/6 (Red). Sand?

wich: c. 5YR 6/5-6/6 (Reddish Yellow).

Slip in/out: 10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale

Brown). Import. Amphora rim.


and gray grit to 1 mm and straw casts to

3 mm in slip that also break surfaces.

Core (thick): 10R 5/8-4/8 (Red). Thin

sandwich: 7.5YR 5/6 (Strong Brown). Surfaces: c. 7.5YR 7/6 (Reddish Yellow).

Import?



grit sand-sized to occasionally 1 mm. Core

(c. 1 mm): 10R4/8 (Red). Fabric: 5YR

5/4 (Reddish Brown)-5/6 (Yellowish

Red). Surfaces: slipped(?) 5YR 7/6-6/6

(Reddish Yellow).

Delta silt (Fabric I variant with white, pink

slip, out only)




r

I Ocm

^

7*

f

1

t

?

f^

Fig. 6.67



No. Shape Phase Locus Pottery bag no. Field; Description

6 Juglet foot N5 31601 N.I.316.38

11 Body sherd N5 31601 N.I.316.02

12 Juglet handle N5 31601 N.I.316.40

13 Perforated sherd N5 31601 N.I.316.16

14 Perforated sherd N5 31601 N.I.316.16

600

199

689

370

371



Fabric IXA. White Gritty-slipped ware.

Well levigated clay with white and gray grit sand-sized to 1 mm light gray core. Fabric/

surfaces: 7.5YR 616 (Reddish Yellow).

Very well levigated clay with infrequent sand-sized white grit, red grit to 1 mm, and

very fine straw casts. Fabric: 5YR 7/4

(Pink)-7/6 (Reddish Yellow). Slip in/out:

between 10YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown)- 2.5YR 8/4 (PaleYellow). Import?


sional sand-sized grit and micaceous

inclusions. Fabric: c. 5YR 8/4-7/4 (Pink).

Slip out: c. 2.5Y 8/2 (White)-IOYR 8/3

(Very Pale Brown); interior: as fabric

(plain?). Import?


Well levigated clay. No temper. Core/

fabric: 10YR 8/4 (Very Pale Brown). Slip in/out: near 5Y 8/3 (Pale Yellow). Import. Delta silt, slipped (Fabric IB)

Well levigated clay with frequent white

and gray grit c. 1 mm, red grit c. 1 mm

and rarely to 2 mm, and sand-sized mica?

ceous inclusions. Fabric: 5YR 616 (Red? dish Yellow). Slip (sandy/gritty): 2.5Y 8/2

(White). Import?

No fabric type assigned. Islamic/Modern?


white and red grit to 1 mm. Core/fabric:

between c. 2.5YR 616 (Light Red)-5YR 61

6 (Reddish Yellow). Slip: between 10YR 8/

3 (Very Pale Brown)-2.5Y 8/4 (Pale Yel?

low); slip is slightly gritty as Fabric IXA.

Delta silt (Fabric I with slightly orange surface and some straw casts. Nos. 13 and

14 may be from the same vessel but did

not join).

Delta silt (Fabric I with slightly orange surface and some straw casts).


\

\

?

I

I \

\]4

Ocm

Fig. 6.68

Chapter Seven

Miscellaneous Material Culture

Albert Leonard, Jr.

The most common element in the assemblage of material culture retrieved from the four seasons

of excavation in the South Mound were the broken bits of pottery vessels that had been used to store,

prepare and present the meals of its early inhabitants. In addition, however, there were several other

items, both in terracotta and a variety of other materials (for example, faience, stone, and metal),

that can help us to gain a better understanding of those who lived in, or passed through, the ancient

emporium of Naukratis. These are presented below according to the material from which they were

crafted.

Ceramic

In addition to the large corpus of domestic and household pottery that is presented by Berlin in

this volume, excavation in the South Mound also produced terra-cotta plaques, figurines, lamps, and

other ceramic items that, because of their distinctiveness, were removed from the normal recording

system and treated separately as items of "material culture."

Plaques and Figurines

It appears that the Greeks at Naukratis began to utilize the local Nile clays in the coroplastic arts

soon after they had founded their settlement toward the end of the seventh century B.C. (Higgins

1967: 56; 1969: 404). The earliest archaeological evidence for this practice is a series of Daedalic

plaques executed in a hybrid style that mixed Rhodian and local Egyptian elements. It is assumed that

production of such figurines continued at Naukratis during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C, but,

in the absence of a sizeable corpus of well-dated examples, very little can be said about the develop?

ment of the genre during that period (Higgins 1967: 93). It was after the cosmopolitan city of Alex?

andria was founded in 331 B.C, however, that the choroplasts' art can be seen to flourish in Egypt

(Higgins 1967: 129-33). At first, the immigrant artisans in the new city had been forced to compete

for sales with their counterparts at Naukratis, but soon a true Alexandrian "school" of terracotta figu? rine production developed, one that can be clearly defined by the large number of well-preserved ex?

amples from the cemeteries of the ancient capital (Chatby and Hadra, for example). By 200 B.C,

Naukratis and Alexandria had lost whatever exclusivity they may have shared and figurine production

became widespread throughout the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, especially at sites around the Fay-

oum Oasis. These new workshops produced figurines and plaques characterized by an eclecticism in

which an array of complex and distinctive "Graeco-Egyptian" religious motives appeared side-by-side

with a wide range of themes and characters that had been drawn from the Greek comic stage. Many

of these manufacturing centers continued to be prolific well into the Roman Period.

Terracotta figurines, plaques, and masks were some of the earliest finds at the site of Naukratis,

over four hundred of them being reported by Gutch (1898/99: 67) from the spring campaign of

1899 alone. Our work at the site, however, was much less productive in this regard with a combined

286

1998 Miscellaneous Material Culture 287

total of fewer than two dozen fragments having been retrieved from the excavations at Kom Ge'if and

Kom Hadid.3

1. Fragments of a plaque. Papposilenos(?) (pl. 7.1)

Locus 2020 P.B. N.I.2.28 MC#65 (278)

Technique: Mold-made. Open back. It is difficult to determine if this piece was originally intended

to have a back. Hand-tooling to "clean up" plaque, and to emphasize some features (such as feet).

Fabric: Well levigated Delta silt. Interior surface and fabric range from 7.5R 5/6 (Red) to to 5YR

5/3 (Reddish Brown) with c. 7.5YR 4/2 (Weak Red) core. Tempered with fine (sand-size to 1 mm)

white, gray and red grit, with frequent micaceous inclusions of similar size. Traces of white paint on

man's garment.

Description: Bearded male with long phallus, wearing long (to mid-calf) tunic, advancing on a dou-

ble (stepped) base. Left arm cradles an oval pot(?) against his hip and upper body, and he leans(?)

against an architectural element (altar/shrine/herm?) to his left. A small animal (?) may be to his left

below (and in front of) the architectural feature. The figure's right arm hangs to the side holding a

(broken and now missing) phiale (? or animal?) in his hand. The head of the male is not preserved

above the bridge of the nose. Adjacent to the right foot a piece of shrubbery possibly existed (now

broken: compare the same area in no. 2, below, which is iconographically very similar to this piece). Maximum preserved H. c. 17.2 cm, W. c. 10.2 cm.

Date: 3rd-2nd century B.C.

Discussion and Possible Comparanda: Papposilenos(?). The stance and action(s) of the figure are

difficult to interpret, A similar scene appears on a plaque depicting an older, offering-bearer with a long

phallus carrying a round pot (Schurmann 1989: 301-2, nos. 1134, 1135, Taf. 189); on a bearded figure identified as Herakles (Laumonier 1956: 132, no. 353); and even a standing woman with phiale or mir?

ror (Bell 1981: 189, no. 482, pl. 93). Interestingly, the stance of the figure on the Naukratis plaque is

quite similar to the Lysippan (Type B) portrait statue of Socrates, a marble copy of which once stood

in Alexandria (Stewart 1990: 188, pl. 558; cf. Also Ridgeway 1990: 79-80, pl. 39). Observations on

Socrates' satyr-like features have been made since the time of Plato, Pliny and Xenephon (Beiber 1961:

45 for references), and these same facial characteristics, complete with a "double corkscrew" beard, can

be seen on several masks or figurines representing the comedic theatre (Bieber 1961b: 94, fig. 331).

At least eight such figurines from Morgantina have been interpeted as Papposilenos who was a fre?

quent character in such plays (Bell 1981: 68, nos. 754-763, pl. 119). Later, although probably drawing

upon third century B.C. Alexandrian sources, Athenaios of Naukratis described the number of satyrs

and sileni that frolicked in the luxurious procession of Ptolemy (Ridgway 1990: 320).

The attributes of the figure are especially confusing. The elongated phallus, although distinctive,

would certainly be at home among the worshipers of Isis-Aphrodite and Harpocrates, as well as in the

numerous "fertility" scenes that are predominant in the Ptolemaic minor arts. The figure appears to

cradle a jar against his side with his left hand, possibly bracing his left elbow on the architectural el?

ement below. This vessel does not appear to be a standard-shaped amphora (with its body tapering to a point) often carried against the left side by many characters in the Ptolemaic coroplastic reper?

toire, but a smaller, more ovoid vessel, perhaps with outsplayed rim. Possibilities for the object car?

ried in the right hand include a phiale, as carried at the right side by an elderly, bearded man with his

left hand on his hip (Birmingham Museum 1968: 18. no. 42, pl. 6).

Although the identity of the figure and the task in which he is engaged are less than certain, a ten-

tative identification as Papposilenos in a cultic setting is offered here.


2. Fragments of a plaque (pl. 7.2)

Locus 2020 P.B.N.I.2.36 MC#65a (277)

Technique: Mold-made. Open back. It is difficult to determine if this piece was originally intended

to have a back. Hand-tooling to "clean up" plaque, and emphasize some features (such as feet). A

punctate pattern has been added to the "shrubbery" in the foreground.

Fabric: Well levigated Delta silt. Interior surface and fabric range from 7.5R 5/6 (Red) to 5YR 5/3

(Reddish Brown), with a 7.5YR 4/2 (Weak Red) core. Tempered with fine (sand-size to 1 mm) white,

gray and red grit, with frequent micaceous inclusions of similar size. Traces of paint: white on gar-

ment, yellow on "altar" and red on both the phallus and the vegetation that overhangs the base.

Description: Male with long phallus wearing long (mid-calf) garment advancing on a double

(stepped) base. Architectural element (shrine/herm/altar?) to his left; drooping vegetation (?) to his

right overhanging the top step of the base. The figure, which is preserved only from the thighs to the

feet, appears to lean awkwardly to his left. Iconographically, this plaque is very similar to no. 1.

Maximum preserved H. c. 18 cm, W. c. 10.3 cm.

Date: 3rd-2nd century B.c

Discussion and Possible Comparanda: This and the previous piece are so similar that the subject

matter is considered to have been the same. See the discussion above.

3. Figurine: boot/foot (pl. 7.3)

Locus 49214 P.B.N.I.492.40 MC#76

Technique: Mold-made. Hollow, but seams not detectable.

Fabric: Well levigated Delta silt. Fabric ranges from 5YR 6/3 (Light Reddish Brown) to 5/3 (Reddish

Brown) with a 7.5YR 5/6-5/8 (Red) core. Temper consists of finely ground (sand-size to 1 mm)

white, gray and red grit, and frequent "micaceous" inclusions of similar size. Covered in places with

thick, white (lime?) concretions: not paint.

Description: Fragment of a single foot (right or left?), broken at mid-calf.

Maximum preserved H. 4.0 cm, W. 2.8 cm.

Date: Indeterminate.

Discussion and Possible Comparanda: It is very difficult to determine whether the Naukratis piece

is complete as preserved, or whether originally it had been part of a larger figurine. Since the same

confusion exists with the comparative material, it cannot be said (with any certainty) whether the

foot is indicative of something frivolous: such as a figure of Eros (Bell 223, no. 841, pl. 129), or a

"doll" (Thompson et al. 1987: 241: no. 7 a-b [pl. 2], 268: no. 3 [pl. 15]); or whether it served a

more serious purpose, such as a votive offering (Laumonier 1956: pls. 43, 45, 75, Demeter Baubo

[Priene]; Schtirmann 1989: 254, no. 969, Taf. 159; and Ammerman 1990: 39, the sanctuary of

Amynos [Athens]).

Lamps

Fragments of five lamps were found during our four seasons of excavations at Naukratis. This is

a surprisingly small number when one considers the amount of other ceramic material that the work

had produced, and the fact that Petrie had found (or purchased?) two hundred eighty lamps during his first season at the site in 1884-1885 (1886: 45). The assignments and dates that are suggested here can only be considered approximate not only because the fragments are so small, but also because


r Fig. 7.1. Profile of a fragment of a local, C M terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8A, Locus 49149.

MC#85 (278).

the study of Ptolemaic lamps has been hampered by the fact that most were derived primarily from

multiple burial funerary contexts or appear (without provenance) in museum collections. They are

rarely from stratigraphically secure, domestic deposits.

4. Lamp fragment, imported (pl. 7.4)

Locus 1020 N.I.1.35 no MC# assigned Preservation: Small portion of the upper body (shoulder to filling hole) and nozzle (complete)

preserved. L. 5.1 cm; W. 4.7 cm.

Technique: Wheelmade.

Fabric: Very well levigated Reddish Yellow (5YR 6/6-6/8) clay with occasional sand-sized white grit and micaceous inclusions. Exterior covered with a shiny "glaze" (dilute in spots) that is mottled from

black (no Munsell) to Dark Brown (5YR 3/4). Abraded.

Date: 2nd half (?) of the 5th Century B.C.

Discussion: This small fragment is difficult to identify with certainty because such important morpho-

logical characteristics as the type and thickness of the base, or even the presence or absence of a

tube, handle or lug are unknown. However, both the relatively wide filling-hole with grooves, and the

abbreviated length of the nozzle are reminiscent of Howland Type 22C from the Athenian Agora

(1958: 54-55). An alternative interpretation would consider this to be a short-nozzled variant of

Howland Type 24A (1958: 63?64, especially no. 245). Together, these two Agora types cover the

second through final quarter of the fifth century B.C; and both can be equated with Broneer's Type V from Corinth (Broneer 1930; Howland 1958: 246). The color of the fabric definitely identifies this

fragment as non-Egyptian. It may be the earliest imported lamp in the present corpus.

5. Lamp fragment, local (pl. 7.5)

Locus 49150 N.I.491.172 MC#202a

Preservation: Portion of top/shoulder with vestigial lug preserved. Concave discus with small, ovoid

filling hole. Raised decoration (?) on side toward nozzle.

L. 3.2 cm; W. 3.3 cm.

Technique: Moldmade.


Fabric: Well levigated Delta silt. Fine (sand-size to 1 mm) white, gray and red grit temper with fre?

quent micaceous inclusions of similar size. Fabric c. 5YR 6/3 (Light Reddish Brown). Core ranges

from gray, through 10R 5/8 (Red) to 5YR 4/6 (Yellowish Red). Exterior covered with a (relatively)

thick, 5YR 5/3 (Reddish Brown) slip.

Date: Late 2nd-early 1st century B.C.

Discussion: See the comments on no. 6 below. Although similar in fabric and type these two frag?

ments (Nos. 5 and 6) cannot be from the same piece since they both represent the same portion of

a lamp.

6. Lamp fragment, local (fig. 7.1, pl. 7.6)

Locus 49149 N.I.491.64 MC#85

Preservation: Small portion of the top/shoulder with a small section of lower body adhering. Con?

cave discus with small, ovoid filling hole. Raised decoration: linked (?) volutes on shoulder at front,

vestigial lug with cable pattern (?) at side.

L. 6.1 cm; W. 3.5 cm.

Technique: Moldmade in bipartite mold.

Fabric: Well levigated Delta silt. Fine (sand-size to 1 mm) white and dark gray grit temper with some

micaceous inclusions of similar size. Fabric c. 5YR 6/3 (Light Reddish Brown) to 5/3 (Reddish

Brown) with a core ranging from gray, through 10R 5/8 (Red) to 5YR 4/6 (Yellowish Red). Traces

of a slip exhibiting the same color variation (s) as the fabric. Secondarily (?) mottled to gray/black on

underside

Date: Late 2nd-early 1st century B.C.

Discussion: The three-dimensional decoration on this fragment relates it to the series of similarly

embellished "Knidian" lamps that were exported to, and imitated at, several sites in the Aegean and

eastern Mediterranean region. That this lamp was manufactured locally (in Egypt) is certainly indicated by its distinctive fabric,

as well as by the fact that the raised decoration had been an integral part of the upper mold and

was not formed separately and subsequently applied to the lamp, as was the case with the "originals"

and most other imitations. Hayes noted similar lamps from the Fayoum (now in the Royal Ontario

Museum) that had been fashioned in his "Standard Nile Valley Ware" (1980: 34-36, especially

nos. 172 and 173) in which he saw similarities with the Knidian type (Broneer XIII). At Karanis,

such lamps are classified by Shier as Type A.4.2 ("imitation 'Cnidian' lamps") but in those examples

the decoration has been applied and not molded (1978: 18-19, nos. 12 and 13). Shier's observation

of the "flatness" of the copies molded in Egypt is certainly true of this lamp (1978: 19).

In all, two examples of Knidian or Knidian-inspired lamps were recovered from our work at

Naukratis forming twenty percent of the total sample. This would certainly belie their relative scarcity

in other Egyptian contexts (Osborne 1924: 8; Shier 1978: 19).

7. Lamp fragment (fig. 7.2, pl. 7.7)

Locus 49150 N.I.491.172 MC#202b

Preservation: Small portion of the upper body: shoulder to filling hole preserved.

L. 3.7 cm; W. 2.3 cm.

Technique: Wheelmade (?).

Fabric: Well levigated Delta silt. Fine (sand-size to 1 mm) white, gray and red grit temper with mi?

caceous inclusions of similar size. Fabric c. 5YR 6/3 (Light Reddish Brown) to 5/3 (Reddish Brown)


^

Fig. 7.2. Profile of a fragment of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8A, Locus 49150. MC

C M #202b.

with a core ranging from gray, through 10R 5/8 (Red) to 5YR 4/6 (Yellowish Red). Unslipped? Sur?

face abraded.

Date: 3rd/2nd century B.C. (?)

Discussion: Despite the similarity in fabric, and the fact that both this and the last fragment (No. 6)

came from the same locus (even the same pottery bucket!), they are not considered to be part of the

same lamp. Their close stratigraphical association underscores the nature of Locus 49150 as deliberate

fill, a matrix in which such "coincidences" would not be out of place. Unfortunately, most of the

diagnostic elements are either uncertain or missing from this fragment, and even the method of man?

ufacture (wheel or mold) is unclear. It should be noted that the suggestion of a "cable" pattern indi?

cated in the drawing was not discernible to all who viewed this piece.

The fragment can be loosely compared with Howland Type 25C Prime or Type 25D Prime,

depending on the original stance of the Naukratis lamp. Both Agora types date from the third quarter

of the fourth century through the first quarter of the third century B.C; and both can be equated with

Broneer Type VII from Corinth (Broneer 1930: Howland 1958: 246).12

8. Lamp fragment (pl. 7.8)

Locus 49201 N.I.492.31 MC#74

Preservation: Nozzle only L. 3.9 cm; W. 3.5 cm.

Technique: Handmade tubular nozzle for moldmade (?) body.

Fabric: Well levigated Delta silt. Fine (sand-size to 1 mm) white, gray and red grit temper with fre?

quent micaceous inclusions of similar size. Fabric c. 10R 5/4 (Weak Red), with a 7.5YR 4/2 (Weak

Red) core, and thick 10R 5/8-4/8 (Red) slip. Traces of longitudinal burnishing. Burning marks on

top of nozzle and at spout. Date: Late 2nd-early lst century B.C. (?).

Discussion: The tapering, tubular (rounded-top) nozzle with oval wick hole is very similar to the

nozzles on Daszewski's Type 9 (1987: 55, fig. 2) especially in the way that it has broken from the

mold-made body of the lamp.

Stamped Amphora Handles

9. Amphora handle fragment with stamp (fig. 7.3)

Locus 49233 N.I.492.52 MC#79

Fabric: Exceptionally well levigated clay. Occasional sand-size white grit and micaceous inclusions.

Core/fabric: 5 YR 7/6-6/6 (Reddish-Yellow). Exterior slipped 10 YR 8/3 (Very Pale Brown), interior

5 YR 7/4 (Pink). Poorly preserved, horizontal band of 10 YR 5/8-4/8 (Red) paint below exterior rim.

Secondary deposit of "plaster" on exterior.


Fig. 7.3. Rhodian amphora handle with stamp. NW Hiatus A, Locus 49233. MC#79.

Fig. 7.4. Rhodian amphora handle with

stamp. NW Phase 3B, Locus 2020. MC #88.

Stamp; <PiA,u)ia rectangular with anchor (?) or caduceus(?) on right

Rhodian fabricant

Date: 2nd century B.C (?).

Discussion: This stamp also occurs on Rhodes (Lindos) and on Delos.

10, Amphora handle fragment with stamp, fig. 7.4

Locus 2020 N.I.2.19A MC#88

Fabric; Very well levigated clay. Infrequent white grit and micaceous inclusions, sand-size to 1 mm;

very few fine straw casts. Fabric 5 YR 7/6-7/8 (Reddish-Yellow). Exterior slipped 10 YR 8/3 (Very

Pale Brown), interior 10 YR 8/2 (White).

Stamp:

9E7t[l A0avo5]o rectangular stamp

tou Rhodian eponym

AptajitTtoi)

Date: 220-180 B.C

Discussion: The inscription is incomplete. The stamp is considered to be Rhodian on the basis of the

profile of the handle, the fabric, and the slip. The eponym appears at Athens in Middle Stoa fill de?

posits with a terminal date of c. 183 B.C

11. Amphora handle fragment with stamp, unillustrated

Locus 49136 N.I.491.166 MC#196

Fabric: Very well levigated clay. White sand-size grit and occasional fine micaceous inclusions. Fabric:

5 YR 7/6-6/6 (Reddish-Yellow). Exterior slipped 10 YR 8/2 (White), interior 5 YR 8/3 (Pink).

Stamp:

illegible rectangular with anchor

Rhodian?


\

n rA5lTPA?ToV

MHU Fig. 7.5. Knidian amphora handle with

stamp. South Mound surface. MC#202a.

Fig. 7.6. Knidian amphora handle with stamp. NW Phase 2B, Locus 2022. MC#87.

Date: Uncertain.

Discussion: The stamp is incomplete but it is considred to be Rhodian because of the handle profile,

fabric, and the slip 16


South Mound Surface (initial clean up); MC#202A

Fabric: Very well levigated clay. White and gray grit average 1 mm; sand-size micaceous inclusions.

Fabric 5 YR 6/6-6/8 (Reddish-Yellow). Surface slipped(?) 5 YR 6/3-6/4 (Light Reddish-Brown).

Stamp:

'Emcpd] ysuQ 'Etu rectangular with bee in lower right

KapvsoSoTou Knidian fabricant and eponyn

Kvt8[i]ov Knidian Type #568

Date: 125-108 B.c

Discussion: Stamps from the same die also occur at: Athens, Asine, and Delos.


Locus 2022 N.I.2.49 MC#87

Fabric: Very well levigated clay, White and gray grit average 1 mm; sand-size micaceous inclusions.

Fabric: 5 YR 6/6-6/8 (Reddish-Yellow). Surface slipped(?) 5 YR 6/3-6/4 (Light Reddish-Brown).

Stamp: Ki)8- circular, inscription retrograde

oKXfja Knidian

(retrograde) Date: Late 3rd century B.C

Discussion: This stamp also occurs at: Athens.

14. Amphora handle fragment with stamp, unillustrated.

South Mound Surface Find no MC# assigned


Fig. 7.7. Fragment ofa terracotta mortar or baking tile. Northeast Area, topsoil Locus 8801. MC#37.

Fabric: Moderately well levigated clay. Frequent white grit averaging 1 mm; less frequent red and gray

grit sand-size to 1 mm; frequent sand-size micaceous inclusions; some fine straw casts. Fabric:

between 5 YR 6/6-6/8 (Reddish-Yellow). Exterior slipped with very thin white (?) slip producing col?

ors c. 5 YR 7/4 (Pink) to 7/6 (Reddish-Yellow).

Stamp:

Fl square

Origin unknown

Date: Late 4th century B.C (?)

Discussion: Rhodian (?).

15. Potter's wheel(?) (pl. 7.9)

Locus 31629 N.I.316.69 MC#136

Preservation: Slightly over half preserved. D. c. 22 cm, Th. c. 7 cm.

Technique: Handmade.

Fabric: Moderately well levigated clay with sand-size to 1?2 mm white, gray and red grit and fine

straw casts. Fabric and (unslipped) surfaces, c. 5YR 6/2 (Light Reddish Brown).

Description: Disc of coarse clay flattened on top and bottom. Possible (slightly raised) "hub" in the

center c. 6 cm in diameter.

Date: Ptolemaic.

Discussion: The location of the break makes it very difficult to determine whether the center of this

piece had been pierced originally. The interpretation of the piece as a potter's wheel (or "tournette"),

as well as the chronological assignment, are hypothetical since no suitable comparanda can be cited.

16. Mortar or baking tile(?) (fig. 7.7 and pl. 7.10)

Locus 8801 N.I.88.18 MC#37

Preservation: Portion of rim preserved. D. indeterminable, Th. varies from c. 8 to 10 cm.

Technique: Handmade.

Date: Ptolemaic?


Fig. 7.8. Terracotta brazier or lamp, from Field II.

Description: Thick piece of moderately well levigated, 2.5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown) clay with white

and gray grit to 2 mm and fine straw casts. Concave top and bottom surfaces, with vertical rows of

finger-impressions around the sides.

Discussion: The original shape of this pieces could not be determined, but a square or a rectangular seems most likely since, if it had been circular, the diameter would be tremendous. Both the upper and lower surfaces are smooth which may be the result of the function of the piece. The finger

impressions appear to have been decorative rather than functional. Its identification as a mortar or a

baking tile, as well as the date, are speculative.

17. Brazier (fig. 7.8 and pl. 7.11)

Locus not assigned N.II no MC# assigned Preservation: Intact. Rim D. c. 12 cm, Base D. c. 21 cm, H. c. 13 cm.

Technique: Wheelmade.

Fabric: Fabric/surfaces of c. 5YR 5/3 (Reddish Brown) with sand-size micaceous inclusions, white

and gray grit to 1 mm and fine straw casts.

Date: End of 6th century B.C. (?).

Description: Brazier (or lamp) with outsplaying "keel" at the carination, and circular perforations

(D. c. 2.5-3 cm) in the vessel wall for ventilation.

Discussion: The identification as a brazier or lamp follows Petrie who found an almost identical piece at Tell Defenneh in a context that he assigned to the end of the 6th century B.C. (Petrie 1890: 63 and

67:70).

18. Molded bowl fragment (fig. 7.9 and pl. 7.12)

Locus 2019 N.I.2.22 MC#85

Preservation: portion of base and lower body only: H. c. 6.2 cm, Max. W. 3.2 cm.

Fabric: Very well levigated 7.5YR 7/6 (Reddish Yellow) clay with very little evidence of temper. 10YR

8/4 (Very Pale Brown)-8/5 (Yellow) slip in/out.

Date: Ptolemaic.


Fig. 7.9. Fragment ofa mouldmade, terracotta bowl depicting the Egyptian god Bes (in relief. Northwest Area, Locus 2019. MC#85.

Fig. 7.10. Tiny fragment of Gnathian ("West Slope") Ware

from NW3B, Locus 1019.

Description: Molded bowl with raised decoration on exterior preserved in two registers. Top register: frontal Bes on pedestal flanked by fluted column on his right; Bottom register: two vegetal fronds.

Discussion: The Egyptian nature of the iconography coupled with the yellow color of the clay would

suggest an Alexendrian origin for this piece (see Higgins 1967: 132). In the Naukratis example Bes

appears in an architectural setting, but he can also appear as an Atlantid figure in a temple to Athena

(Weber 1914: 110, Abb. 73). For the scene with more standard columns, see Breccia (1930: 47,

no. 196, Taf. XXV:7).

19. Sherd of Gnathian Ware (fig. 7.10 and pl. 7.13, inverted?)

Locus 1019 N.I.l.24 no MC# assigned Preservation: Very small, 2.8 x 1.8 cm body sherd (shoulder?).

Fabric: Exceptionally well levigated clay with no trace of temper. 5YR 6/6 (Reddish Yellow) fabric,

with a lustrous black "glaze" in/out.

Date: 3rd to 2nd century B.C.

Description: The interior is completely covered with the lustorus "glaze" while the exterior has a

reserve band showing the natural color of the clay, and two clusters of grapes (?) in slight relief, also

in the color of the fabric.

Discussion: The scarcity of this ware at Naukratis especially when compared to its frequent appear? ance in the tombs of Alexandria reinforces the impression of stagnation at Naukratis during this

period.


Faience

In Egypt, the manufacture and use of glazed wares, often termed "faience," can be traced back to

the Predynastic Period of the fourth millennium B.C. (Lucas and Harris 1962: 155). Fabrication of

items from this distinctive material has had an especially strong association with the site of Naukratis

since the early work of Petrie at the site (Petrie 1886: esp 5a, 36-37, 40; Webb 1978 passim). Our

excavations in the South Mound produced many fragments of faience that were simply too small to

determine the type of object from which they had come, and the presence of such finds are simply

noted in the Locus Summaries. In other instances, however, the wet soils of Naukratis had been

kinder, and identification of the original object could be ascertained. These pieces fall into three cat?

egories: figurines, beads and small dishes.

Figurines

20. Bes figurine (pl. 7.14)

Locus 2036 N.I.2.58 MC#64a

Fabric: White faience with yellow (to white) surfaces.

Preservation: Intact. H. 1.5 cm, W. 0.6 cm.

Description: Bes standing frontal with feathered crown, Pillar at back.

21. Crocodile or Oxyrhynchos fish(?), figurine (pl. 7.15)

Locus 1020 N.I.1.42 MC#28

Fabric: White faience with pale blue (to white) surfaces.

Preservation: Broken. H. 1.1 cm, L. 2.2 cm, W. 0.8 cm preserved.

Description: Profile of crocodile or Oxyrhynchos fish.

Beads

22. Discoidal bead (pl. 7.16)

Locus 2035 N.I.2.52 MC#46

Fabric: White faience with slight bluish-green east in places.

Preservation: Intact. D. 1.1 cm, T. 0.5 cm.

Description: Discoidal bead. One surface impressed with an "X" or cross.

23. Bead (not illustrated)

Locus 31514 N.I.315.38 MC#27

Fabric: White faience with pale blue-green (to white) surfaces.

Preservation: Intact. D. 1.4 cm, Th. 1.0 cm, with perforation 0.2 cm.

Description: Bead. Pierced for suspension.

24. Faience bead (not illustrated)

Locus 31615 N.I.316.32 MC#64b

Fabric: White faience.

Preservation: Intact. D. 0.4 cm, Th. 0.2 cm, with perforation 0.1 cm.



25. Faience bead, (not illustrated)

Locus 31615 N.I.316.37 MC#76

Fabric: White faience.

Preservation: Intact. D. 0.5 cm, Th. 0.2 cm, with less than 0.1 cm perforation.


In addition to the faience objects presented individually above (Nos. 20-25), our work at Kom

Ge'if also produced a surprisingly large number of very poorly preserved (and unstable) fragments from small faience plates, cups, and dishes. When possible, these fragments were drawn, and they are

presented below in figs. 7.11 (1-22) and 7.12 (1-12). They are very similar in shape to the most

popular forms of the ceramicists' repertoire, to which appeal is usually made for their date. For indi?

vidual pieces see the locus summaries.

Lithic Objects

Despite the relative scarcity of stone in the Egyptian Delta, many different types were encoun?

tered during the excavations in the South Mound. The lithic material is presented below according to function: objet d'art, vessels, architectural elements, and tools. All identifications as to the type of

stone were made in the field by geologist C. Villas.

Objet d'art

Although Petrie and Hogarth had found evidence for monumental sculpture in a variety of hard

stones during their excavations at Naukratis, the only piece of stone sculpture encountered during our

work at the site was a small limestone plaque.

26. Carved bifacial plaque (fig. 7.13 and pl. 7.17)

Locus 49136 N.I.491.111 MC#118

Fabric: Soft, white limestone.

Preservation: Broken. H. 4.5 x W. 3.6 x Th. 2.5 cm.

Date: Ptolemaic (?)

Description: Fragment of a plaque. Two original edges are preserved. Carved on both faces:

Side A: Cobra (Agathos Daimon?),

Side B: Uncertain.

Vessels

The shape(s) of these small stone dishes closely parallel similar forms in pottery and faience.

These parallels have formed the basis for the chronological assignations offered here.

27. Rim ofa dish (fig. 7.14)

Locus 31615 N.I.316.31 MC#67

Fabric: White, medium-grained marble.

Preservation: Rim only. Date: 3rd-lst century B.C

Description: Small dish.


r

10

)

I

f

)

)

1

11

Fig. 7.11. Fragments of faience plates, cups, and small dishes, from the South Mound.


C

+

7

>

7 12

10

*

)

11

HH H H H H 0 1cm 5 10

Fig. 7.12. Fragments of faience plates, cups, and small dishes, from the South Mound.

Fig. 7.13. Carved, limestone plaque depictinga cobra (Agathos Daimon?) on one face and an unknown scene on the other. NW Hiatus C, Locus 49136. MC#118. CM


CM

Fig. 7.14. Rim from a white, marble dish. North Area Phase 3, Locus 31615. MC#67.

CM

Fig. 7.15. Rim from a black, basalt dish. Northwest Area Phase 8B, Locus 49214. MC#73.

CM

Fig 7.16. Rim from a green, diorite dish. Northwest "topsoil" Locus 49156. MC#101.

28. Rim of a dish (fig. 7.15)

Locus 49214 N.I.492.24

Fabric: Black, medium-grained basalt.

Date: 3rd-lst century B.C.

Preservation: Rim only.


MC#73

29. Rim of a dish (fig. 7.16)

Locus 49156 N.I.491.177 MC#101


Fabric: Green, fine-grained diorite.

Date: 3rd-lst century B.C.

Preservation: Rim only.


Architectural Elements

In most excavations, small chunks of limestone building material would hardly be considered as

suitable candidates for subsequent study under the heading of material culture. At Naukratis, how?

ever, building stone was so rarely encountered that each piece was given its own number in the

recording system whether it showed traces of being worked or not. The use of stone as a building material was also the exception in the structures encountered by the earlier excavators. In addition

to its scarcity, however, the presence of stone assumed added importance during our excavations in

the South since it was Petrie's firm belief that Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) had built a huge (100 m

long), limestone-faced structure in the entrance to the Great Temenos (Petrie 1886: 6, 8, 26-27), and

the location of the modern "South Mound" closely coincides with the claimed location of Petrie's an-

cient structure (fig. 1.10).

Mosaic Flooring

30. Fragment of mosaic (pl. 7.18)

Locus 1245 N.I.12.120 MC#77

Fabric: Lime-matrix mortar with inclusions of small (quartz) pebbles and fired brick chips (grog). Conservator Weber noted that the tessarae were neither limestone nor marble, they may be alabaster

or dolmite.

Preservation: Fragmentary. H. 3.7 x W. 3.8 x Th. 2.2 cm.

Date: Ptolemaic?

Description: Small piece of a pebble mosaic flooring(?).The tesserae are natural and do not appear to

have been clipped to a uniform size or shape.

Limestone Slabs

31. Limestone block or slab (pl. 7.19)

Locus 49116 N.I.491.31 MC#47

Fabric: Soft limestone.

Preservation: Complete(?). 11.8 x 12.2 x 6.6 cm.

Date: Ptolemaic?

Description: Block of stone with cutting/rasp marks.

32. Limestone block or slab (pl. 7.20)

Locus 49204 N.I.492 MC#85

Fabric: Fine graineded (white) limesone.

Preservation: Fragmentary. Date: Ptolemaic?

Description: Stone slab with rasp marks.


33. Limestone block or slab, not illustrated

Locus 31512 N.I.315.76 MC#85

Fabric: White limestone.

Preservation: Fragmentary. 7.0 x 7.0 x 6.5 cm.

Date: Ptolemaic?

Description: The surviving corner of roughly hewn block of stone.


Locus 31608 N.I.316.53 MC#102

Fabric: White limestone.

Preservation: Fragmentary. 14 x 13.5 x 5 cm.

Date: Ptolemaic?

Description: Stone slab displaying rasp marks.


Locus 49148 N.I.491.165 MC#189

Fabric: Fine-graineded (white) limesone.

Preservation: Fragmentary. 18 x 9.0 x 6.5 cm.

Date: Ptolemaic?

Description: Stone slab with rasp marks.

Tools

The use of stone for tools is not very evident at Naukratis or other Ptolemaic sties. The mortar?

ium fragments obviously take advantage of the physical properties of basalt to grind grain. The flint

blades could be much older than their Ptolemaic find-spots but similar blades have been used (and

reused) in threshing sledges until modern times. Strangely, neither a silica sheen, nor any other indi-

cation(s) of use, was discernible on these blades.

36. Mortaria fragments (pl. 7.21)

Locus 8801 N.I.88.18 MC#30

Fabric: Black, medium-grained basalt.

Preservation: Fragmentary. Date: Ptolemaic?

Description: Two, similar (but non-joining) pieces of grinding stones {mortaria). Wavy lines incised

radially from the rim of the exterior (non-use) surface.

37. Flint blade, not illustrated

Locus 1546 N.I.l 5.77 MC#111

Fabric: Flint.

Preservation: Fragmentary. Date: Uncertain.

Description: Segment of blade, trapezoidal in section.



Locus 49017 N.I.490.70 MC#57

Fabric: Brown flint.

Preservation: Fragmentary. L. 3.4 x W. 1.1 cm.

Date: Uncertain.

Description: Segment of blade, both ends snapped.


Locus 49214 N.I.492.32

Fabric: Light gray flint/chert.

Preservation: Fragmentary. Date: Uncertain.

Description: Segment of blade. Not retouched.

MC#53

40. Burnishing tool(?), not illustrated

Locus 49004 N.I.490.91 MC#86

Fabric: Gray limestone.

Preservation: Intact. 0.7x05 x05 cm.

Date: Uncertain.

Description: An approximately rectangular piece of "polished" stone, posibly used as a burnishing tool.

In addition to the stone artifacts discussed above as items of material culture, small chips and

pieces of a surprisingly wide variety of geological types were encountered during both excavation and

sieving. The types and their findspots are included here, in an attempt to present a lithic profile of the

South Mound (Table 7.1). The majority of the identifications were made by staff geologist Cathleen

Villas, while some were made by conservator Gail Weber.

Garnet

Table 7.1 South Mound Lithic Profile

fine-grained red Locus 31508


Lithic Type Description Locus(i) Found

Granite medium/coarse-grained feldspar mica

very coarse-grained feldspar-mica

pink, gray and black coarse-grained, felspar mica

coarse-grained biotite (mica), mostly black with traces

of pink and white.

red-pink-gray (Aswan?)

Gypsum rosette, common in the salt lakes around Alexandria

Limestone white, fine-grained

white-yellow, fine-grained

Marble gray> medium-grained

Quartzite light brown, coarse-grained medium-coarse grained pink

Schist medium-grained mica

Loci 1023, 2035, 31601

Loci 2040, 3160

Loci 49131, 31601

Locus 31601

Locus 31601

Locus 49131

Loci 1023, 2035, 31506, 31508,

31601,31608,31619 Locus 49017

Locus 2040

Locus 49005

Loci 31608, 31612

Locus 31601

Metal

Metal objects, whether they were of bronze or iron did not survive well in the moist soils of the

South Mound. Usually, all that remained of these items was the byproduct of metal disease and

corrosion, and the original shape and function of an individual piece was often merely a matter of

speculation.

Coin

Bronze coins were encountered in several loci during the excavations in the South Mound, but

all except the following piece were almost completely mineralized and non-diagnostic. No. 41 (be?

low) is attributable to Hiatus B Phase of the NW sequence.

41. Coin of Ptolemy III (pl. 7.22)

Locus 49213 N.I.492.20 MC#42

Material: Bronze (copper alloy).

Preservation: Worn, but metal is sound beneath mineralized crust.

Date: 247-221 B.C.

Description: Obv.: Head of Alexander III r., wearing elephant-skin headdress. Punch mark in center.

Rev.: ITTOAEMAIOYl., BAZIAE[QI] r., eagle with closed wings 1. on thunderbolt; in front,

cornucopia; between legs, monogram >R; (Coulson and Leonard 1982b). Punch mark in center.

Discussion: See Coulson and Leonard (1982b: 375, pl. 48:11-12).

Miscellaneous Metal Objects

42. Fishook(?) (pl. 7.23)

Locus 49203 N.I.492.10

Material: Bronze (copper alloy).

MC#34


Fig. 7.17. Earring consisting of flat pieces of copper connected by gold wire. Southeast Phase 5, Locus 1542.

Preservation: Broken. Dimensions: 2.3 cm.

Date: Ptolemaic(?).

Description: Lower, curved end of fishook(?), upper portion missing.

43. Earring (fig. 7.17, pl. 7.24)

Locus 1542 N.I.15.130 MC#60 and 151

Material: Bronze.

Preservation: Severely corroded.

Date: 14th century A.D.

Description: Earring comprised of copper alloy sheet in triangular form suspended on a gold wire.

A series of four "chains" of three discs (each) are suspended from the triangle and from each other

by gold or copper alloy wire.

44. An Assortment of Iron Nails (pls. 7.25, 7.26)

As noted above, the Northwest Areas produced iron nails (and larger "spikes") from a variety of

loci. These are listed individually in the Locus Summaries, but a selection is illustrated here in order

to give a general impression of the group. By their context, it is assumed that they should be assigned to the Ptolemaic Period.

Notes

For other terracotta figurines from Naukratis, in addi? tion to those published by Petrie (1886), Gardener (1888), and Gutch (1898-1899), see also Higgins (1969: 404-7), for pieces in the British Museum (nos. 1542-1550) that for the most part predate the material presented here; as well as Dunand (1979: 74-75 [no. 142] and 108 [no. 252]), and

Dunand (1990: nos. 146-151, 153-157). It is unfortunate, but understandable, that Gutch illustrated only about twenty percent of the figurines with which he dealt.

For coroplastic material found at Naukratis that is illustrative of the ancient Greek theatre, see the following works by Webster. For tragedy and satyr plays: a terracotta


mask (male?): ET7 (Webster: 1967: 66, cf. Gutch 1898- 1899: 96, no. 322); the terracotta head of a Satyr figurine: ET16 (Webster: 1967: 67 [= B.M. C638]), and two satyr heads from clay braziers: AV50 and AV51 (Webster 1967: 53; cf. Conze 1890: 130, no. 814, 816 [= B.M. C889 and

C891]). For Old and Middle Comedy: a terracotta (male ?) mask: AT120, possibly of Attic fabric (Webster 1969b: 127, 221 = Webster 1969a: 100, UT12); and New Comedy: a terracotta mask of a young man: ETl 1 (Webster 1969a: 103); terracotta heads of male slaves: ET41, ET42, ET 43, and

possibly ET 44 (Webster 1969a: 107-8; cf. Petrie 1886: fig. 14, pl. 15; and Walters 1903: Cat. no. 261).

The author wishes to thank Dr. Irene Bald Romano for her helpful comments on photographs of these pieces. Errors and misstatements, of course, are those of the author. An excellent integration of the coroplastic arts with Alexandrian

society in general can be found in Connelly (1990). There are also some similarities between the Naukratis

piece and a Silenus/Dionysos group in the British Museum

(C 281) where attention is called to the pedagogue's "So- cratic satyr face" (Hutton 1899: 74, fig. 36). Also related: the "Horus" with similar pot published by Weber (1914: Abb.

35); the "Markethandler" with two such jars (Weber 1914:

194, no. 326, Taf. 31); and a Harpocrates "au pot" (Perdrizet 1921: 30-32, especially no. 92 for the shape of the pot; see

pl. XXXIII, lower right). Graindor (1939: 91) lists a pot ovide as a frequent at-

tribute of Harpocrates. Cf. pl. IX, no. 20, and XXII, no. 59. For a young, seated Harpocrates who clutches a round/ovoid wine jar against his left side, see Birmingham Museum

(1968: 39, no. 159, pl. 28). In general, the standard ampho? rae seem to lean away from the body while the smaller, ovoid vessels are clutched to the side as seen on the Naukratis piece. For the shape of the Naukratis pot/jar, cf. Bayer-Niemeyer (1988: #209, Taf. 40:6), and Philipp (1972: 20-21 and 32-

33, Cat nos. 11 and 48, Abb. 8 and 45-46). A nude youth, with a similar pot cradled in his left arm and holding a phiale in his relaxed right hand, identified as a slave carrying per- fumed oil to his master is published by Perdrizet (1921: 19, no. 75, pl. XLVI, upper left) from Achmounein.

Other comparanda might include a male carrying a lan- tern (with hole in garment for genitals [Adriani 1940: 168

(Inv. no. 24016), pl. LXIX:7]); a bearded grotesque with

phallus (Dunand 1990: nos. 804-813); and Priapus with a similar beard (Pedrizet 1921: 88-91, especially nos. 225, 228, and 231, (pl. XLVI).

Hollow boots/shoes are known from Gordion with

comparanda at Sardis, the Kerameikos (Athens), and Bogaz- kou. Their function is vague and uncertain (Irene Bald Ro?

mano, personal communication). The first attempt to classify the "Greco-Roman" lamps

of Egypt was made by Petrie (1904) based primarily on the tremendous number of lamps found during his excavations at Ehnasya (Herakleopolis Magna). Subsequent schemes

have been presented by Osborne (1924), Robbins (1939a and b), and recently Daszewski (1987). The last of these has been the most useful to this study. Excellent discussions of the development of the various types of lamps are given by Bailey (1975) in connection with the examples in the British

Museum, and by Hayes (1980) in his discussion of the lamps in Royal Ontario Museum. At least during the Hellenistic

period, Egyptian lamp production was more influenced by events and trends in the eastern Aegean and eastern Medi? terranean (Shier 1978); but the corpora of lamps from the Athenian Agora (Howland 1958), Corinth (Broneer 1930), and Isthmia (Broneer 1977) remain indispensible to any study of the form. Also valuable is Shier's (1978) presenta? tion of the lamps from the site of Karanis in the Egyptian Fayoum.

Note, however, that one of the main defining features of Howland's Agora Type 43A (1958: 133) is the fact that the delphiniform lugs are east in the upper mold (only).

For the history and development of this group of

lamps, see Bailey (1975: 124-59). On the Greek mainland these lamps are Broneer's Type

XIII at Corinth (1930: 53-54, nos. 190-92), while in the Athenian Agora, wheelmade imported Knidian Lamps are Howland Type 40A (locally imitated as Type 40B) whereas moldmade imports are Type 50A (locally imitated as Types 50B and 50C, the latter of which can appear well into the first

century A.D.). Both actual imports and local copies of this

type of lamp formed a significant part of the corpus of lamps as far afield as Sidi Khrebish (ancient Bernice) in Libya (Bailey 1985: 191).

If, however, it could be demonstrated that this piece had been fashioned in a mold, it should most probably be in? cluded with such Knidian-inspired lamps as nos. 5 and 6, since no. 5 also exhibits a bit of cable pattern on the shoul?

der, and there are some similarites in the profiles of the two

pieces. In this case a date in the second century (or later) would be preferable.

For a fuller treatment of the stamped amphora/handles from the Naukratis excavations, see Coulson, Wilkie and Rehard (1986), and Rehard (in Coulson 1996: 147-61). The latter work became available to the present author in March 1997, well after this section was written. It should be

noted, contra Rehard p. 152, that pottery bag N.1.492.52 was assigned to Locus 49233. See Locus Summaries above.

14 See Coulson, Wilke and Rehard (1986: 541, no. 17), and Rehard in Coulson (1996: 152, no. 17, fig. 59:17).



17 See Coulson and Leonard (1982b: 375, no. 3, pl. 47,

fig. 7), and Rehard in Coulson (1996: 154, no. 24, fig. 60.24). 18 See Coulson and Leonard (1982b: 374, no. 1), Coul?

son, Wilke and Rehard (1986: 541, no. 25), and Rehard in


Coulson (1996: 154, no. 25, fig. 60:25 and pl. XXI:5). Note that pottery bag N. 1.2.49 was excavated as Locus 2034, a Lo? cus that was subsequently combined with Locus 2022. See Locus Summaries above.

19 See Coulson, Wilke and Rehard (1986: 541: no. 18), and Rehard in Coulson (1996: 153, fig. 59:18 and XX:8).

20 See Andrews (1994: 39-40, and fig. 37). For a similar piece identified as a crocodile, see Scott

(1992: 157 and 159, no. 109b). Our excavations, however, were much less productive

in this regard than had been the work of the earlier excvators at the site, for, in addition to stone architectural elements

(assembled in Pryce 1928, and Shoe 1936), Petrie had dis? covered the battered remains of a red granite sphinx and three marble rams near his Great Temenos (1886: 27-28, and note preceding p. 1; and also Hogarth 1905: 122). Gard? ner found a huge granite sphinx that required the efforts of at lest six men to lift just one of its fragments, as well as

pieces of a door, jamb of similar material that (if intact) would have measured over three meters in length (1898- 1899: 30-31).

Reference is made by Griffith (in Gardner 1888: 83) to a copy (dated to Year 23 of the reign of Ptolemy V) of (at least) the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone that had been found at Naukratis in 1884 in the area of the Great Temenos. Cf. Bouriant (1885) and Kamal (1904/05).

See also the fragments of larger bowls found by Petrie within the Great Temenos (Petrie 1886: 34, pl. 36; and Gardner 1888: 81,87 and pl. 23). Most of the smaller vessels

("schalen") published by von Bissing (1907: pl. VIII) have much more inturned rims.

For individual occurrences, see the Locus Summaries. An exception to this was the rubbish from masons'

shops encountered by Petrie in the area of his Great Temenos

(1886: 33). Petrie gave chronological importance to the use

(and type) of stone when he appealed to it as one of his main criteria for differentiating between the seventh century B.C.

(limestone) Apollo Temple I, and the fifth century B.C. (mar? ble) Apollo Temple II (Petrie 1886: 5-6). Most of the (lime? stone and marble) architectural sculpture recovered by the earlier excvators, and which is now in the British Museum, has been collected by Pryce (1928) and Shoe (1936).

It will be remembered that Petrie never actually saw these slabs in situ, but rather he inferred their existence and

position from what he felt was their impressions in mud? brick walls excavated in the area. Petrie felt that the ultimate demise of the entryway were the "slag heaps" that he placed on his plan to the northwest and northeast of his Great Temenos (1886: 26-27, pl. XL) but which were no longer evident during our tenure at the site.

In addition, ud coins were found in Hiatus B, Locus 49131 (N.I.491.128, MC#142), and a single unidentified bronze coin was encountered in Hiatus C, Locus 49156

(N.I.491.175, MC#207). Three unidentified coins were found on the surface of the South Mound during different

cleaning operations, and a very poorly preserved bronze coin was found in Locus 49136, which consisted of post- 1982 backfill of unknown origin.

Chapter Eight

The Carbonized Plant Remains

Patricia Crawford

Introduction

Plant remains retrieved from archaeological sites can be used to provide information about the

past. Reconstructions of past subsistence, aspects of the economy, and characteristics of the immedi-

ate natural environment are possible. The purpose of plant retrieval at Naukratis was primarily to answer questions regarding the econ?

omy of the settlement and to clarify the nature of the domestic occupation of the site. Plant remains

were preserved at Naukratis by conditions that produced charred or carbonized material (organic ma?

terial exposed to high temperatures in a depleted oxygen environment) primarily in association with

debris from domestic fires or hearths.

Method

During the four excavation seasons (1980-1983), plant remains were retrieved from archaeolog? ical contexts using a flotation system devised and implemented by Julie Hansen and adapted from

the Siraf-Syria system (Williams 1973). Soil samples of approximately one to two liters were taken

from each locus and held until it could be determined whether a deposit was sealed or not. The soil

contents of pots and bowls as well as pieces of mudbrick were also included for analysis. These sam?

ples were stored in sealed and labeled plastic bags until they were processed. Some samples were not

floated either because they were composed of clay-like soils or, in the case of pieces of mudbrick, be?

cause they were too hard to break up. In these cases the plant remains, where visible, were removed

by hand. The floated samples were dried and stored in plastic until the end of the final season (1983)

at which time a number of randomly selected samples were sent to the U.S. with the permission of

the Egyptian Organization of Antiquities. Samples were sorted under a binocular dissecting micro-

scope (7-40x) by Julie Hansen and Patricia Crawford with further analysis done by Crawford.

For the purposes of this study, thirty-seven samples were selected from the four seasons of exca?

vation. These samples were given priority (by Leonard) as coming from stratigraphically secure and

promising loci. Only twenty of these priority samples contained remains of charred or carbonized

seeds. Nine of the "seedless" samples contained wood charcoal only, while eight had no preserved

plant material. Eight of the productive samples came from domestic deposits in the North Building, eleven from the Northwest Building, and one from the Temenos (the Southeast Area). The types of

deposits examined include pits, ash lenses, debris accumulations, and soils from surfaces, and are as?

sociated with "secondary" domestic occupations rather than with the original or "primary" uses of the

buildings. Deposits designated as "fire pits," for the most part, contained wood charcoal only.

Results

The plant materials retrieved from Naukratis are summarized in Table 8.1. The remains are prin-

cipally in the form of carbonized seeds and in some cases plant parts (spikelet forks). Desiccated

materials and wood charcoal, though present, were not included in this study. The plant types are

grouped according to cultivated vs. non-cultivated (weeds) categories.

309

(S)V9A[N

fyWMN QSMN

fytfMN VSMM

fylRAiN V6MN

89 MN

fyWMN ffrMN

fyWJAM ffl MN

SJAN

VZMN

fyWMN QZMN

RZMN

$pjg c/uoN i?/ZM

$m huom i?IZN

tipjQ CfUON

$m huom

$m huom

?N

$m w?n ?N

$m w?n f/ZN

soudiudjf ?3S

toJD C

'3

?6LWI 1916*

iziwi d0?l6^

9?TT6^T 0?l6fr

?ZV\6Vl 8H6fr

zorwi 9H6*

OZTI

?WZ

<&'Z'\ 8?0c"

80TI ?101"

ZfrTI cTOI

oz:ot

KTI 1301

9?"9iei ZI9IS

6Z'9\?'l L\9\?

8r9l?'I

9V9\?'l 809I?

Z9'?iei 6?$\?

19'îei ??$l?

iîei 9l?l?

iîei n^\?

G?^Vl c"Hl

i^

% &

o

$ J

rs

b o ,-

- 1 ! i

^9 00

u 5

1-1

?i (U **3 CL,

WO

u3 U

I

fco

^ 3 S

^ ? ^ r ^ ^ k ? ^

1998 The Carbonized Plant Remains 311

Cultivated Plants

Plants in this category generally may be considered as food items or economically important

plants and provide information regarding possible diet choices at Naukratis. Cereals (wheat and bar?

ley), lentils, grapes, and possibly figs are present. Wheat is the most plentiful of the cultivated plants

and appears to have played a dominant role in the economy.

Emmer Wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccum Schubl.)

The principal cereal found at Naukratis is emmer wheat. Whole or partial caryopses (cereal grains) and/or spikelet forks attributable to emmer occur in over half (55%) the samples (fig. 8.1). The grains are spindle-shaped and widest across the middle. The dorsal side is domed and the ventral side is flat

or concave with a deep furrow running vertically. The grains from Naukratis range in length from 4.7

to 6.0 mm with the breadth less than half the length, and the thickness less than the breadth (Table 8.2).

(Dimensions for cereals and other seeds are expressed in millimeters as length x width/breadth x thick?

ness, respectively, unless otherwise specified.)

Although emmer was first domesticated in and introduced from the eastern Mediterranean, it

was grown in Egypt in predynastic times and remained the principal type of wheat produced during the Pharaonic periods. It was grown as late as Hellenistic and Roman times when free-threshing types

such as bread wheat and durum wheat became more prevalent (Dixon 1969; Zohary and Hopf 1988:

44-45).

Cereals provided a carbohydrate base for the diet. In ancient Egypt wheat flour was used to make

bread as well as a fermented beer-like beverage (Renfrew 1973: 67; Tackholm and Tackholm 1941:

248-50). Emmer had a variety of medicinal purposes ranging from the stimulation of hair growth to

contraception (Manniche 1989: 152-53).

Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)

Barley is rare in the Naukratis samples. Only two grains occur in the contexts studied. One grain

from the Southeast Area is described as a "trench find." The other occurs in the North Building in

the same context with wheat grains and other plant remains (Locus 31617, PB 1.316.56). No rachis

fragments or other parts relating to barley were found. The grains are the naked type, oval in outline

and convex on both the dorsal and ventral faces with a deep ventral groove. The dimensions are 6.3

x 3.2 x 2.8 mm and 5.9 x 3.3 x 2.0 mm respectively (fig. 8.2:a). Both exhibit "puffing" and damage

from charring.

Barley was a cereal commonly produced in Egypt from Predynastic times to the present and is

found in most sites where paleobotanical remains have been studied. As a crop it is tolerant to dry

conditions and can prosper in poor or saline soils. In addition to being a source of flour for bread, it

was used to make beer and was also a common fodder plant (Tackholm and Tackholm 1941: 283-

84; Darby et al. 1977: 484). Its medicinal properties included use as a paste material for setting bones

and as a predictor of the sex of an unborn child (Manniche 1989: 107-8).

Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.)

Lentils are found in four of the samples from Kom Ge'if. The circular, lens-shaped seeds occur

in varying states of preservation (often only 1/2 of a seed) (fig. 8.2b). The Naukratis specimens aver?

age 3.3 mm in diameter putting them in the category of L. culinaris var. microsperma, a small-seeded

variety of lentil (Table 8.3).

312 Patricia Crawford AASOR 54

Fig. 8.1. Cultivated Plants: a, b, c: Emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccum); d, e,f: Spikelet forks of emmer.


Table 8.2. Dimensions of Wheat Samples (in millimeters)

N=20 Length Breadth Thickness

Max. 6.0 2.8 2.0

Min. 4.7 2.2 2.0

Avg. 5.2 2.5 2.0

Lentils were a popular food in ancient Egypt and provided both protein and starch in the diet.

This legume has been grown and consumed in Egypt since the Neolithic. Some of the earliest remains

come from Merimde in the western Delta and from the Predynastic site of Nagada in Upper Egypt

(Wetterstrom n.d.; Zohary and Hopf 1988: 91).

Grape (Vitis vinifera L.)

Grape seeds are found in six samples from four loci in the North and Northwest Buildings. The

pear-shaped seeds are generally in good condition with the stalk and chalazal scar preserved in some

specimens. A broad range of seed sizes and shapes from a single context (Locus 31617 PB 1.316.29)

suggest various stages of maturity for the fruits represented (fig. 8.2:b-d; Table 8.4).

Grapes are found in Egypt from as early as the Old Kingdom (Germer 1985: 116-18). The Delta

was a prominent wine-producing area during the Graeco-Roman period (Erman 1971: 196-99).

Grapes were also grown in private gardens for household consumption. The fruits were consumed in

both the fresh and dried form (raisins) and the leaves were eaten as a wrap for rice or meat. The fruits

and leaves were also used medicinally as components of laxatives and as poultices (Manniche 1989:

155-56).

Fig (Ficus carica L.)

Two possible fig seeds were found in a botanically rich context in the Northwest Building (Locus

2038, PB 1.2.63). The small comma-shaped seeds (1.2 x 1.0 mm) have a tiny hole on the ventral sur?

face and a slight ridge on the rounded dorsal surface (fig. 8.2:e). These small seeds may belong to the

type of wild fig common to Egypt, the sycamore fig (Ficus sycomorus L.).

The fruits and leaves were used as food for both humans and animals and had medicinal proper-

ties as a laxative and as a remedy for heart complaints (Darby et al. 1977: 615-16, 708-11, 744-48).

The wood of the sycamore fig was used for timber and the sap was used medicinally (Manniche 1989:

102-5).

Summary of Cultivated Plants

The principal plant used as food at Naukratis appears to have been the cereal emmer wheat with

lentils providing a source of plant protein and grapes and possibly figs as fruits. The absence of re?

mains of dates and other fruits is difficult to explain especially since the large woody stone of the date

is highly visible and easily preserved by carbonization. Remains of the olive, an important food and

oil plant in ancient Egypt, are also not present. This sparse grocery list may reflect specialized preser?

vation or deposit conditions rather than a limited diet. It is possible that only the remains produced

by short-term secondary uses of buildings are represented. Remains specifically identified as debris

from tabuns, kitchen middens, or long-term domestic refuse deposits could not be documented dur?

ing excavation, further supporting the scenario of a series of short-term (secondary) domestic phases in both building complexes.


a

e

o

L

1 mm

Fig. 8.2. Cultivated Plants: a: Barley (Hordeum vulgare); b: Lentil (Lens culinaris); c, d: Grape (Vitis vinifera); e:

Fig (Ficus carica or E sycomorus).

Non- Cultivated Plants

Carbonized remains of non-cultivated species can reflect plants used for domestic, industrial, or

ritual purposes as food, beverages, medicine, animal fodder, fuel, construction material, fiber, dyes,

hallucinogens etc. They can also be crop contaminants deposited as residue from the processing and

final cleaning of cultivated plants. Some species, especially woody annuals, shrubs, or trees, may be


Table 8.3. Dimensions ofLentil Samples (in millimeters)

N=6 Diameter Thickness (of complete specimens)

Max. 4.0 1.8

Min. 2.7 1.2

Avg. 3.3 1.5

introduced directly as fuel or as foraged plant components of animal dung burned as fuel. Plant

remains derived from the burning of dung can further indicate aspects of the environment within the

foraging area or catchment of the site.

Specimens of non-cultivated types generally are not present in great quantities at Naukratis (Table

8.1). The greatest variety of types occurs in the Northwest Building in the same context (Locus 2038

PB 1.2.63) with the greatest variety of cultivated plants.

Darnel (Lolium sp. L.)

Darnel is the most plentiful weed-type found in the Naukratis samples.3 It occurs with the same

frequency and in most cases in the same contexts as wheat caryopses or spikelet forks. Its small

spindle-shaped seed ranges in length from 2.8 to 3.7 mm and has a faint ventral groove (fig. 8.3:a-

d; Table 8.5). Although there is considerable variation in the shapes and sizes of the seeds, comparison of size range with archaeological material from eastern Mediterranean sites and other Egyptian sites

puts the Naukratis material in the minimum range of Lolium temulentum L. (Crawford 1994: 129?

31; Germer 1985: 214-15; Helbaek 1958: 315; van Zeist and Heeres 1973: 33, 35). This particular

species of darnel is known to be a host for a poisonous fungus that taints the flour if not cleaned from

the grain crop. The mature grains themselves are toxic or fatal to livestock but the young plants can

be used as fodder (Boulos and el-Hadidi 1984: 98).

Darnel is a common grass contaminant of cereal crops and the seeds are separated and dis-

carded from the threshed and winnowed grain along with undersized or damaged cereal grains, other

weed contaminants, and chaff debris such as spikelet forks and rachis fragments. Its presence in the

Naukratis samples, in most cases along with cereal grains and spikelet forks, suggests that the deposits are residues from cleaning cereal crops and have been burned in a hearth fire or discarded into a mid-

den deposit. Since the mature plant is not palatable to animals, its presence does not likely reflect the

burning of dung.

Vetch types (Vicia spp.L.)

Two damaged and partial vetch-like seeds were found in a single context in the North Building

(Locus 31514, PBI.315.41). The lack of a hilum scar or other distinguishing characteristics makes


0

L

5 mm

I I I

0

L 1 J_

5 mm 1 mm

I_I_I

Fig. 8.3. Non-Cultivated Plants: a, b, c, d: Darnel (Lolium cf. temulentum); e: Scorpion tail (Scorpiurus mu-

ricatus); f: Clover (Trifolium sp.); g: Medick (Medicago sp.); h: Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale).


identification uncertain. The seed sizes (3.0 x 3.2 x 1.5 mm and 3.0 x 3.0 x < 1 mm) suggest that

these are smaller than cultivated types and may therefore be classified as weed species.

Vetches and related leguminous plants (cf. vetchling = Lathyrus sp.) are cultivated as food and

fodder plants. The wild types are found as contaminants of cereal crops and would have been cleaned

and discarded from the threshed and winnowed grain (Sa'ad 1980: 37; Zohary and Hopf 1988:

102-9). Species of vetch have been found in Egypt since Predynastic times and were probably used

as fodder at Kom el-Hisn (Germer 1985: 76-81; Moens and Wetterstrom 1988). Medicinal uses in?

clude a paste for the external treatment of teeth and gums (Manniche 1989: 153).

Scorpion tail (Scorpiurus muricatus L.)

A damaged specimen of this leguminous weed was found in the North Building (Locus 31533,

PB 1.315.61). The C-shaped seed has organic material extruding from the hilum area on the dorsal

side (3.2 x 2.3 x 1.3 mm). Ribbing follows the C-contour of the seed coat (fig. 8.3:e). A less well-

preserved specimen was the only seed found in a context associated with small pieces of wood charcoal

in the Northwest Building (Locus 49148, PB 1.491.123).

Scorpion tail is a weed of cereal fields and may have been introduced into the site as a cereal crop

contaminant although it does not seem to be associated with other probable crop debris from

Naukratis (Sa'ad 1980: 37). It is reported from the Old Kingdom sites of Kom el-Hisn and the Djoser

complex at Saqqara as well as from Middle Kingdom Abusir and the Second Intermediate and Saite

periods at Tell el-Maskhuta (Crawford 1994: 137-38; Germer 1985: 73-74; Moens and Wetterstrom

1988).

Clover (Trifolium spp.L.)

The seeds of this leguminous plant occur in several samples from the Northwest Building (Table

8.1). They are most numerous in Locus 2038 (PB 1.2.63) associated with cereal remains, but are

otherwise found independent of such materials. These small ovoid seeds have a slightly raised

embryo extending along one side and vary greatly in size and shape (1.7-1.8 x 1.2 x 1.0-1.2 mm;

fig. 8.3:f). It is not possible to determine from the small sample of seeds present if this plant occurs

at Naukratis as a cultivated or wild form.

Clover is cultivated as a fodder called "berseem" (T. alexandrinum L.) in modern Egypt and is also

foraged as a wild plant {Trifolium spp.). In either case it can be introduced into archaeological con?

texts as a component of dung fuel (Miller 1984; Miller and Smart 1984). Its presence in great quan?

tities at the Delta site of Kom el-Hisn suggests that it was cultivated there as fodder for royal cattle

herds during the Old Kingdom (Moens and Wetterstrom 1988). Clover seeds are also present as a

component of dung fuel in Second Intermediate, Saite, and Persian period contexts at Tell

el-Maskhuta in the Wadi Tumilat (Crawford 1994: 100-101). Clover leaves and blossoms were found

in Graeco-Roman contexts at Hawara (Germer 1985: 71-73).


0

I_L J_L

5 mm

J_I

h

0

L J_L l

5 mm

J_I

0

L i

2 mm

Fig. 8.4. Non-Cultivated Plants: a, b, c: Boraginaceae; d: Polygonaceae; e: Caryophyllaceae; f, g: Compositae; h: Cyperaceae.


Medick (Medicago spp. L.)

One seed of this leguminous plant was found in a "wall fall" context in the Northwest Building

(Locus 1021, PB 1.1.34). Although damaged, it is flat, crescent-shaped, and measures 3.1 x 1.8 x

1.1 mm (fig. 8.3:g). Medick or burclover is a common weed of grain fields as well as gardens, road-

sides, and waste areas (Boulos and el-Hadidi 1984:120; Sa'ad 1980: 35). Species of medick are im?

portant as pasture plants and are cultivated as fodder.

Seeds of various species of this plant have been found at Kom el-Hisn (Moens and Wetterstrom

1988), Tell el-Maskhuta (Crawford 1994: 136-37), and el-Hibeh (Wetterstrom 1984).

Goosefoot (Chenopodium murale L.)

One specimen of this small lens-shaped seed was found in the Northwest Building (Locus 2038,

PB 1.2.63). The size of the seed (1.0 mm diameter) and the presence of a ridge around its circumfer-

ence identifies this species of goosefoot as C. muraleL. (fig. 8.3:h). A small, flat, comma-shaped seed

from a surface in the same building (Locus 49150P, PB 1.491.171) may also be from the goosefoot

family of plants, i.e. Chenopodiaceae. This weed is widespread and found in a variety of habitats?fields, gardens, roadsides, and waste

ground. The crops it is associated with include cereals and clover (Sa'ad 1980: 33). The fact that

the leaves of goosefoot are palatable suggests that it may have been eaten by either humans or ani?

mals and the seeds could have been burned in dung fuel (Boulos and el-Hadidi 1984:19). Chenopo? dium spp. is found at sites as early as Nagada (Wetterstrom n.d.), and at Kom el-Hisn (Moens and

Wetterstrom 1988), Tell el-Maskhuta (Crawford 1994), and Amarna (Renfrew 1985).

Borage Family-Boraginaceae

Three different types of seeds (total = 6) from this plant family were found in a single locus in

the Northwest building (surface Locus 2015, PB 1.2.08). All specimens are wedge-shaped with a flat

triangular base surrounded by a distinct rim or "collar" and taper to a pointed apex. Each seed type in the Naukratis sample exhibits different surface features. The largest seed ( N=l, 4.2 x 2.3 mm) has

a smooth, glossy surface (fig. 8.4:a). The second type (N=l, 2.5 x 1.3 mm) has wart-like bumps

covering the surface (fig. 8.4:b). The most numerous type (N=4) is covered with small spikes and

bumps and varies in size (2.4-3.0 x 1.2-1.5 mm; fig. 8.4:c). Seeds or "nutlets" of the borage family are hard and turn gray or white rather than black when exposed to fire. It is sometimes difficult,

therefore, to determine whether the seeds are ancient or intrusive (Helbaek 1970: 237; van Zeist and

Bakker-Heeres 1982: 211-12). The genera probably represented at Naukratis are Echium sp. L.,

Buglossoides sp L.(Lithospermum sp. L), and Arnebia sp. L.

These weed seeds are found in the same context with the remains of three other weed types and a fragment of a grape seed, but are not found with plant material associated with cereal debris.

Plants from this family are found in archaeological contexts during the Pharaonic periods and later.

The leaves of some types are eaten and the roots of others provide a red dye color (Germer 1985:

159-62). Borage is generally associated with disturbed soils and waste ground and may have been

introduced to the record as debris from plants being used as fuel.

Buckwheat Family-Polygonaceae

Two seeds from this plant family occur in the same context with the borage (Locus 2015, PB

1.2.08). The small, three-sided seeds (1.2 x 1.3 mm, fig. 8.4:d) come from plants such as knotweed


(Polygonum sp.) and dock (Rumexsp.) that grow in a wide spectrum of habitats, including cultivated

wheat or clover fields, disturbed or waste areas, canal banks, and refuse ditches (Boulos and el-Hadidi

1984: 140-44; Sa'ad 1980).

Knotweeds and dock are found in contexts from all periods in ancient Egypt (Germer 1985: 27-

29). Remains of dock specifically occur in domestic contexts at Kom el-Hisn, Tell el-Maskhuta, and

Amarna and may be indicative of either animal dung being used as fuel or crop cleaning activity

(Moens and Wetterstrom 1988; Crawford 1994; Renfrew 1985).

Pink Family-Caryophyllaceae

A single seed from this family of plants occurs in building debris (Locus 49146, PB 1.491.107)

along with two clover seeds and bits of charcoal. The small (1.7 mm D.) C-shaped seed has parallel rows of bumps following its curved contours and resembles the seeds of catchfly (fig. 8.4:e). Weeds

in this genus (Silene sp. L.) are often associated with cultivated fields (Boulos and el-Hadidi 1984:

10-12; Tadros and Atta 1958).

Seeds from this family of plants are not commonly reported in archaeological contexts. The small

size makes them difficult to retrieve from the soil or they can be overlooked in later stages of analysis. Eleven seeds are reported from the site of Kom el-Hisn where they may have been components of

dung fuel (Moens and Wetterstrom 1988).

Daisy (Composite) Family-Compositae

Two different seeds (achenes) may be attributed to this large family of plants. Both are found

on a surface (Locus 2015, PB 1.2.08) in the Northwest Building. One of the two seeds is cylindri-

cal, tapering at the bottom with a slight ridge encircling both the top and bottom. It measures 2.1

x 1.0 mm (fig. 8.4:f). The other specimen (1.8+ length x 1.0 mm breadth) is incomplete, damaged at the bottom. It is oblong with a square cross section defined by four longitudinal ridges. There is a

slight raised collar around top (fig. 8.4:g).

Although these specimens are not identified to genus, their morphology resembles that of thistle-

like plants included in the composite family. Such plants are diverse in habitat ranges and therefore

are not helpful for the reconstruction of microenvironments. They are generally annuals that persist

through dry summer months. The spiny nature of the thistle types discourages foraging except by camels and donkeys. The dry, woody stems provide tinder for small domestic fires and may be

included in the archaeological record as fuel debris.

Remains of composites are a common occurrence in the tombs of ancient Egypt (Germer 1985:

172-86). A wide variety of uses include dye and oil sources, salad greens, medicinal teas and infu-

sions, insecticides, bouquets and decorative garlands in burials, and woven containers such as baskets

(Boulos and el-Hadidi 1984: 21-46; Manniche 1989: 22-32). Except for Anthemis sp., which is a

common cereal crop contaminant, composites are not commonly reported from domestic contexts

(Moens and Wetterstrom 1988).

Sedge Family?Cyperaceae

Two seeds resembling types from the sedge family occur in a plant-rich context in the Northwest

Building (Locus 2038, PB 1.2.63). The small ovate or heart-shaped seeds (1.0 length x 0.6 mm

breadth) are biconvex in profile and have faint vertical striations on the surface (fig. 8.4:h).


Generally, sedges are indicators of moist ground and are often found on canal banks or irrigation ditches. Because of the uncertainty of identification, however, one cannot conclude that there was a

wet ecozone in the vicinity of the settlement. The richness of weed types in this sample from the NW

building suggests that dung fuel may have been used in this context.

Sedges and rushes provide many useful resources such as edible tubers, animal feed, fuel, materials

for baskets, boats, mats, rope, and paper (papyrus). They occur in quantity in sites where animal dung is a primary domestic fuel, such as Kom el-Hisn (Moens and Wetterstrom 1988) and Tell el-Maskhuta

(Crawford 1994).

Summary of Non-cultivated Plants

The seeds of weed species encountered in the Naukratis samples are few in number and provide limited information regarding the economy and natural environment. The richest samples of non-

cultivated plants come from two samples (PB 1.316.29 and PB 1.316.56) in the same locus (31617)

in the North Building. One sample from the Northwest Building is comparable?Locus 2038, PB

1.2.63. Darnel and other unidentified grass species are most likely field weeds found in the debris from

cleaning grain samples. The presence of other types of weed species may also be explained as field

weeds present in grain cleanings, as woody annuals used as fuel or tinder, or as the residue of animal

dung used as fuel. Burned dung can represent possible fodder plants or plants foraged by the animals

grazing within the catchment area of the site. Foraged plants may partially represent elements of the

natural environment in the vicinity of the site.

Fuel Choices

The fuel choices observed suggest something about the domestic economy especially in regard to

the availability and utilization of certain resources.

Wood was as scarce a commodity in ancient Egypt as it is in the present. Egypt was known to

import woods such as cedar from the Levant and ebony from the land of Punt for shipbuilding, fur-

niture, funerary objects and crafts (Germer 1985: 6-13; Lucas 1962: 429-56; Meiggs 1982: 57-62).

Wood was sparse both in the desert and in the Nile floodplain. Along the Nile banks overgrown thickets composed of shrubs and hydrophilic tree species such as tamarisk and willow could thrive.

Such types of wood would suffice as domestic fuels but were not the most useful for construction or

industrial uses. Fruit trees were grown primarily in private gardens above the flood level and irrigated

by hand. The wood of dead fruit trees such as sycamore fig and palm, as well as acacia was harvested

for domestic purposes. Prunings from olive trees and grape vines were also utilized. The conservation

of wood resources for industrial uses was an important economic strategy in the past, making animal

dung a preferred source of fuel for domestic purposes. Animal dung as an alternate fuel is a common resource both in the present (ethnographic evi?

dence), and in the past (archaeological evidence) (Moens and Wetterstrom 1988; Crawford 1994;

Miller and Smart 1984). The type of archaeological evidence expected to support the use of dung fuel

is that of the presence of identifiable burned dung combined with the presence of a relatively large

quantity of a single fodder plant or range of fodder plants (Moens and Wetterstrom 1988) as well as

a broad spectrum of weeds incorporated as foraged plants (Miller 1984; Miller and Smart 1984;

Crawford 1994).

At Naukratis wood does not occur in great quantities in the flotation samples. It does, however,

occur as the only charred remains in nine of the samples examined. Evidence for the use of dung as


fuel is speculative and inconclusive. Contexts in which both wood and seeds are present resemble

debris from the final stage of cleaning grain. Such debris was used as an alternative fuel source both

in domestic and industrial contexts. Deposits in which a greater variety of weeds are present may cau-

tiously be attributed to dung fires rather than wood fires since some of the seeds are those of known

fodder-type plants (clover and other legumes). Possible fodder plants do not occur in sufficient quan?

tities, however, to definitively indicate either the production of fodder crops or the burning of dung.

Natural Environment

The few weed species encountered in the Naukratis remains provide a very limited range of en?

vironmental information. The reason for limited information, as mentioned above, may be due to the

lack of dung used as fuel and therefore lack of presence of types found within the foraging range or

catchment of the site.

The presence of weed types associated with cultivation suggest the proximity of cultivated fields,

specifically cereals. The same weeds also suggest disturbed plant communities, a finding not surprising

given the presence of a large permanent settlement.

Although it is not appropriate procedure to reconstruct past natural environments based on the

absence (rather than presence) of specific weed types, it can be noted that weeds representing saline

or wet soils (halophytes and hydrophytes) are not present in the material from Naukratis. Since the

Delta is known as an area of marshes and wetlands in both the past and present (Butzer 1976: 36-

38), this "absence" may be the result of conditions that were not favorable for the deposition and

preservation of environmental indicators (such as dung burned as fuel).

Economy And Subsistence

Information regarding the domestic economy of Naukratis derived from the plant remains alone

is limited to the utilization of cereals and some fruits as foods. No one species is represented in

sufficient quantity to suggest an emphasis on the production of a specific resource. Although the

wheat crop appears in a relatively clean state, the contamination with darnel seeds and spikelet forks

suggests local production probably for local consumption and possibly for export. The sparseness of

barley in the archaeological record suggests that this crop was not heavily utilized in domestic context.

It may have been grown as a fodder crop but the limited (or non) utilization of animal dung as fuel

would inhibit its introduction into the archaeological record.

The lack of evidence for olive production or the consumption of dates is notable, especially since

grape pips are present. The three plants were often grown together in the same agricultural setting and were an important aspect of the Egyptian economy in the Late Period (Bowman 1986: 101).

There is no direct evidence for wine production either, although grapes were consumed in a domestic

context.

The use of woody plants rather than animal dung as the preferred fuel in most contexts suggests that animal husbandry may not have been closely affiliated with the settlement. Although bone re?

mains suggest sheep, goat, cattle, and pig were probably utilized as food, their byproducts such as

dung may not have been collected and directly available for domestic uses.

Such observations are not surprising in that Naukratis had originally been established primarily

as a trading colony, the implication being that food resources could be obtained by exchange rather

than by reliance on internal production.


Conclusion

The carbonized plant remains from Naukratis provide limited information regarding the domes?

tic economy and natural environment of the site. The species represented are not unusual for the

temporal and cultural context of the site. The species absent, on the other hand are remarkable, but

cannot be used to represent a definitive picture of the past because of problems in conditions of dep? osition and preservation. Information gleaned from the materials present must be combined with

other sources of information (faunal record, material culture, written record) to provide a more com?

plete reconstruction of life at Naukratis during its Hellenistic occupation.

Notes

1 North Building: Loci 31514 and 31617; Northwest

Building: Loci 2015 and 2038. North Building: Loci 31533 and 31617 (three samples);

Northwest Building: Loci 2015 and 2038.

3North Building: Loci 31514, 31516, 31533, 31608, and 31617 (two samples); Northwest Building: Loci 1022, 2038, 49150, and 49161.

4Loci 1021,2015, and 49146.

Chapter Nine

The Human Burials in the South Mound

A. Joanne Curtin

Jeanne Hourston-Wright

Brian S. Chisholm

Introduction

Archaeological excavations in the South Mound of Naukratis Kom Ge'if were complicated by

the presence of numerous intrusive burials. Both in Petrie's day and in the present, excavators have

been faced with the necessity of first removing these burials in order to expose the underlying Greek

deposits that were the focus of their research. Petrie (1886) addressed this problem by having the

skeletons removed by workmen and reburied away from the area of investigation. The Naukratis

Project, recognizing that these burials were a worthy object of study in their own right, arranged to

have the burials carefully excavated and properly analyzed by physical anthropologists. This report

describes the excavation and presents the results of the osteological and ancillary analyses.

Aims ofthe Analysis

As a result of religious proscriptions, Islamic burials are rarely excavated or examined sci-

entifically; consequently little is known about the physical anthropology of earlier Islamic popula-

tions. The Naukratis Project affbrded a unique opportunity to examine an Islamic skeletal sample and

construct a preliminary biological profile of this population. In conducting this analysis, two major

research goals were identified

1. to compile a complete descriptive profile of the excavated skeletons, in order to provide a

body of appropriate comparative data for future research should other Islamic skeletal samples

become available for study.

2. to reconstruct, if possible, the biological and demographic features of the earlier inhabitants

of Kom Ge'if through specialized analyses and interpretation of the basic descriptive data.

Methodology

The physical anthropological component of the Naukratis Project was undertaken in three stages.

1. Burial excavation. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of tombs and burials were mea?

sured, and given a map placement within each excavation square. Burials were excavated using fine

instruments and were photographed and drawn to scale prior to removal. Where skeletal preserva?

tion was poor, elements were first treated with a polyvinyl acetate solution. In extreme cases, re?

mains were stabilized with gauze wrappings soaked in the preservative solution before removal was

attempted (see pls. 3.10 and 3.11). The back dirt from infant burials was sieved through fine-mesh

window screening to ensure recovery of the smallest elements and bones fragments.

2. Preliminary Field Examination. Burials were unwrapped and cleaned in the field laboratory, and pertinent archaeological and osteological observations were recorded on standard data recording

324

1998 The Human Burials 325

forms. The information collected at this stage of the analysis included a complete skeletal inventory of each individual, determination of sex (where feasible), estimation of age-at-death, cranial and

intracranial measurements, presence/absence of cranial and intracrainial morphological variants,

and assessment of all visible skeletal and dental pathologies and anomalies. Selected portions of each

skeleton were then photographed in the field photography lab.

3. Subsequent Analyses. Through the courtesy of the Egyptian Organization of Antiquities, a

sample of fourteen skeletons from Kom Ge'if, representing approximately half of the human remains

recovered during the 1981 field season, was later sent to the Physical Anthropology Laboratory of the

Department of Archaeology at Simon Fraser University for more intensive investigation. Analyses conducted at this stage included radiocarbon dating, determination of diet through stable-carbon

isotopic analysis, and a complete radiographic survey of all dentitions and long bones. At the same

time it was possible to reexamine and reevaluate previous observations, made in haste and under

somewhat primitive conditions in the field lab.

The Burial Sample

The human skeletal sample from the South Mound at Kom Ge'if consists of seventeen burials

containing the complete or partial remains of at least twenty-nine individuals. The majority of these

were recovered from Areas 12 and 15 in the Southeast Area; while one burial, containing the remains

of two individuals, was removed from excavation Area 88 in the Northeast Area.

These remains by no means represent the entire inventory of Islamic burials interred in the South

Mound. At least nine other tombs were partially or completely exposed in the four main excavation

areas, but were not excavated due to time constraints. An additional thirty-five tombs in varying

degrees of preservation were observed around the periphery of the South Mound, exposed by on-

going natural erosion of the sides of the mound. It seems likely that the present skeletal sample rep? resents only a small proportion of the burial population at Kom Ge'if, and that at least a hundred and

possibly many time this number of burials are contained within the South Mound.

This observation raises the question of how representative the recovered skeletal sample is of

the total Kom Ge'if burial population. Potential sources of sample bias include cultural patterning in

burial location according to such attributes as age, sex, or personal status; differential preservation, which could bias the sample in favor of large, robust, male skeletons at the expense of the smaller,

more delicate remains of infants, children, or perhaps even adult females; and simple sampling bias

whereby a particular age/sex class of burial may more frequently be selected for excavation. There is

no indication that the first two factors have affected the Naukratis burial sample; the third factor,

however, may have had a significant effect on sample composition. This factor is addressed at greater

length below.

Archaeological Content and Chronology

Tombs were encountered at two separate levels in the South Mound. The top stratum consisted

of disturbed, and with one exception, empty tombs, located just beneath current ground surface.

Most of the coverings of these tombs had been damaged considerably, or were completely missing. A second level of tombs, containing both primary and secondary burials (see section on burial pat?

terns) was located between 50 and 100 cm below the first. Surrounding the second level of tombs

was extensive mud brick debris, containing ceramic inclusions dating to the Ptolemaic period. Tomb

326 A. Joanne Curtin, Jeanne Hourston-Wright, Brian S, Chisholm AASOR 54

style and burial patterns, however, were characteristic of a more recent, Islamic period, possibly as late

as the last half of the nineteenth century.

Tomb design was generally uniform, though size and architectural sophistication varied widely.

Construction ranged from large, substantial tombs, built of fired brick held together by mortar, to

disorganized arrangements of fired and mud bricks piled around and over the body. Some tombs

featured corbelled roofs (pl. 9.1) whereas others were of slab construction (pl. 9.2). Potsherds often

formed an intrinsic part of tomb walls and covering. The date of the burials in the South Mound cemetery was determined by radiocarbon ( C) anal?

ysis of bone collagen extracted from two of the excavated skeletons. Three samples were submitted

to the Radiocarbon Laboratory at Simon Fraser University for analysis, but collagen preservation in one individual was so poor (probably as a result of the extremely hot climate to which it has been

exposed) that no date could be obtained; in the other two samples, poor collagen preservation is

reflected in the relatively large calculated errors of estimate. Unfortunately the single skeleton recov?

ered from the upper level of burials was not among those submitted for further analysis by the Egyp? tian government; consequently the radiocarbon dates relate only to burials in the earlier, lower level

of tombs.

The rwo bone samples were dated at 550 ? 160 years BP (SFU 403) and 610 ? 200 years BP (SFU

404). Following the method of Damon et al. (1974: 350-66). these radiocarbon estimates have

been converted to the following calendrical dates: A.D. 1390 ?164 years, and A.D. 1340 ? 202 years,

respectively. Both dates coincide with the period of Mamluk domination in Egypt, a time of Egyp? tian preeminence over the Arab world, characterized by extensive trade with Europe and agricultural intensification at home, through expansion of existing irrigation systems and dam and aqueduct

construction (Vatikiotis 1980). The common fellahin were probably unaffected by these develop-

ments, however, and the lives of the medieval inhabitants of Kom Ge'if probably differed little from

the pattern established by their ancestors.

Burial Patterns

In general, the burials from Kom Ge'if may be categorized as single, simple (as opposed to com-

pound) inhumations. The majority (twelve out of seventeen burials, or 70.6% of the sample) were

found in primary context, in well-articulated condition, buried singly in individual tombs. Bodies

were invariably oriented east-west, with heads to the west, and with one exception, were placed on

their right sides in a semi-flexed position. The single exception was a one to two year old child found

lying on its back with legs extended. Arms were variably positioned, either flexed at the elbow with

hands to face, or extended alongside the body.

Small fragments of unidentifiable cloth were found with three skeletons, indicating that at least

in some cases, bodies were prepared for interment by being dressed in clothing or wrapped in a

shroud. No other forms of grave inclusions were observed.

The five burials that diverge from this common pattern share certain characteristics. Each con?

tained the disarticulated, fragmented and incomplete remains of more than one individual, and, with

one exception, each is located not in a tomb, but in the mud brick debris surrounding the tombs. It

is possible that these burials represent a totally different pattern of burial at the site, i.e., multiple,

compound inhumation. A more plausible explanation is that they represent primary burials that had

been partially disturbed by later activity at the site, such as construction of another tomb; the dis?

turbed and disarticulated bones were then collected together and reburied at the conclusion of this


Table 9.1. Age and Sex Distribution ofthe Kom Ge'if Burials

activity either outside the new tomb, or as in one instance, inside the tomb, alongside its primary oc-

cupant. Such burials may be classed as "secondary" in the sense that they are no longer in primary

context, but their condition is most probably the result of accidental disturbance rather than deliber-

ate mortuary practices.

Descriptive Osteology

Sex and Age Determination

Standard physical anthropological techniques were employed in determining sex and age-at-death of adolescent and adult skeletons. No attempt was made to attribute gender to younger individuals

since it is unlikely that the secondary sexual characteristics on which such assessments are based would

be apparent before puberty. Two main criteria were employed in assessing the age of infants and

children: dental development and eruption, and diaphyseal (long bone) measurements. The problems associated with age estimates for immature individuals are discussed at greater length below.

Table 9.1 presents the age and sex determinations of the Kom Ge'if burials, summarized accord?

ing to the following seven age classes: fetus (< 40 menstrual weeks); infant (newborn-1 year); child

(1-6 years); juvenile (7-14 years); adolescent (15-20 years); young/middle adult (21-45 years);

and middle/old adult (> 45 years). Greater precision in the age estimates of adult skeletons was not

possible since with one exception they were very fragmentary and few diagnostic elements were

recovered.

The Kom Ge'if burial sample is characterized by a striking preponderance of immature individ?

uals. Fully 80% of the excavated skeletons are from individuals less than six years of age at the time

of death, and nearly 50% are less than one year old (infants and fetuses). The presence of the four

fetuses is of particular interest since they are all the same age (approximately six and a half months'

gestation), and appear to have been buried together in the same tomb, associated with the skeleton

of a young adult female (unexcavated). Together, these circumstances suggest that the remains are

those of aborted or miscarried quadruplets whose premature delivery may have resulted in the death

of their mother as well.

Although high levels of infant mortality are a distinguishing feature of earlier, pre-twentieth

century populations, the proportion of infants in this sample is greater than would be expected even

328 A. Joanne Curtin, Jeanne Hourston-Wright, Brian S. Chisholm AASOR 54

under the most adverse natural conditions. The Kom Ge'if burial sample deviates in other ways from

expected mortality patterns, which typically display sex differences in adult mortality. Among females,

a mortality peak is usually apparent in the late adolescent/young adult years as a result of maternal

and childbirth deaths. Male mortality, particularly in agricultural societies, is generally significantly lower than female mortality during the early and middle adult years, reaching its maximum with old

age. The Kom Ge'if burial sample, by contrast, exhibits no meaningful differences between the scxes

in adult mortality.

From this it is logical to conclude that the Kom Ge'if sample is not representative of a natural

population, but is heavily weighted towards immature individuals. This bias may have been intro-

duced in the field through deliberate selection of small, infant burials for excavation in preference over

larger, more complex adult burials which are more time consuming to excavate. This interpretation is supported by the fact that at least four, and perhaps more, of the nine exposed but unexcavated

tombs (44.4%) contained adult burials, whereas adults comprised only 13.3% of the excavated sample.

Although the bias towards young individuals precludes reliable demographic reconstruction or

calculation of such vital statistics as birth rate, fertility, age and sex-related mortality rates, and life

expectancy, the relatively large number of complete, well-preserved immature skeletons does afford

other useful opportunities for research. These will be discussed in the following section on specialized

analyses.

Cranial Morphology

The sample contains only four adult crania, and three of these are very incomplete. Consequently few inferences may be drawn regarding typical skull size or morphology in the medieval Kon Ge'if

population. Table 9.2 presents the few cranial measurements and indices that could be calculated for

three of the existing skulls (Burials 880IA, 880IB, and 1253). In general these crania appear to be

of intermediate size and relatively long and narrow (dolichocranic), with high cranial vaults (acro-

cranic). Foreheads are broad (eurymetopic), orbits are wide (chamaeconch), and the nasal aperture is

very broad (platyrrhine). Sutural anomalies appear to be uncommon: no examples of metopism, os

inca, os japonicum were seen, and accessory sutural ossicles occur only in the lambdoidal suture, with

approximately 50% incidence.

Nuchal musculature was apparently well-developed, as all three crania exhibit prominent highest nuchal lines. The absence of maxillary tori, palatine tori, and zygomaxillary tuberosities and low

incidence of mandibular tori in this sample suggest that masticatory muscles were less well-developed.

Infracranial Morphology

Even less information is available regarding infracranial morphology in the Kom Ge'if popula? tion. Of the four adults in the burial sample, only one is represented by a complete skeleton; the

infracranial skeletons of the remaining adult individuals are represented by only a few incomplete

fragments. Unfortunately, both axial and appendicular elements of the complete skeleton have been

significantly altered by the effects of advanced age and severe osteoarthritis, so any inferences regard?

ing stature, body build, or limb proportionality may be suspect. AU available infracranial measure?

ments for this individual (Burial 1253) are presented in Table 9.3.

The occurrence of non-metric infracranial variants was recorded where possible, since these may often be observed in incomplete and fragmentary skeletons. Of particular interest are the extremely

prominent Steida's processes, which occur bilaterally on the tali of Burial 1253, the old adult female


Table 9.2. Cranial and Mandibular Measurements and Lndices

* All measurements are recorded in mm.

(pl. 9.3). Other variants observed in this individual are a suprascapular foramen (right side only), and

bilateral acetabular notches.

A large fossa was noted at the insertion for the medial gastrocnemius muscle on the left femur

of the adolescent individual, Burial 1573A. This trait occurs with relatively high frequency in the

skeletons of young individuals, particularly adolescents, and may be related to the effects of long bone

growth on muscular development (Saunders 1978: 143). The only other infracranial discrete traits

recorded in this sample occur in the vertebral column of a one to two year old child. Two cervical

vertebrae have bilateral double transverse foramina, and an additional cervical vertebra has an incom-

pletely bridged transverse foramen on the right side only.

Skeletal Pathology and Anomalies

Visual inspection of the Kom Ge'if skeletons revealed few gross indications of disease or ill-health,

and no evidence of trauma. The only two pathological conditions apparent are severe degenerative


Table 9.3. Lnfracranial Measurements and Indices, Burial 1253

Measurements* Left Right

Clavicle - Maximum length 153.0 ?

Humerus - Maximum length Humerus - Deltoid perimeter Humerus - Subdeltoid perimeter Humerus - Maximum head diameter

Ulna - Maximum length 264.0 266.0

Radius - Maximum length ? 239.5

Femur - Maximum length Femur - Oblique length Femur - Midshaft A-P diameter

Femur - Midshaft M-L diameter

Femur - Subtrochanteric A-P diameter

Femur - Subtrochanteric M-L diameter

Femur - Maximum head diameter

Tibia - Maximum length Tibia - Nutrient foramen A-P

Tibia - Nutrient foramen M-L

Fibula - Maximum length 349.0 348.0

Indices - Platymeric Indices - Pilastric

Indices - Platycnemic

* All measurements are recorded in mm.

osteoarthritis in the aged female skeleton (Burial 1253), and indeterminate hemopoietic disorders in

a newborn (Burial 1230) and a two year old child (Burial 1256).

Osteoarthritis, or degenerative joint disease as it is sometimes called, is the most common disease

affecting prehistoric human populations (Jurmain 1977; Ortner and Putschar 1981). Primary degen? erative arthritis develops as part of the normal aging process, with progressive deterioration of the

articular cartilage of most joints. In extreme cases, degeneration may progress to the point of com?

plete destruction of the articular cartilage, leading to erosion and polishing (eburnation) of articulat-

ing bone surfaces. In Burial 1253, osteoarthritis is expressed by extensive pitting of joint surfaces and

lapping of joint margins with osteophytic outgrowths. Particularly severe involvement is apparent in

the hand and foot phalanges, many of which are grossly deformed, and in the lumbar spine, where

osteophytosis has almost completely ankylosed the third, fourth, and fifth lumbar vertebrae (pl. 9.4).


Hemopoietic disorders are characterized by hypertrophy of the blood cell forming marrow, usu?

ally in response to one of the anemias (Ortner and Putschar 1981; Cybulski 1977; El-Najjar, et al.

1976). Associated bone lesions occur primarily in the cranium, and include expansion of the cancel-

lous bone accompanied by thinning of the outer table, or, in extreme cases, destruction of the outer

table with thickening and outgrowth of the exposed diploe. The two most common locations of he?

mopoietic lesions in the skull are the orbital roof, where the defect is termed "cribra orbitalia,"and in

the parietal region of the cranial vault, where it is called "porotic hyperostosis." Both affected individuals from Kom Ge'if (Burials 1230 and 1256) exhibit cribriform lesions of

the orbital roof (pl. 9.5), and the older individual also displays an area of porotic hyperostosis on the

anterior mandible. The lesions are well-developed in the two year old, but only slight in the newborn,

perhaps reflecting a relatively recent onset of the disease process in this individual.

The newborn (Burial 1230) also exhibits another skeletal anomaly which, while perhaps not

disease-related, does not occur as part of the normal range of variation in the human skeleton. One

of the right ribs of this individual (broken post mortem and reconstructed) has an unusually broad

and flattened sternal end with a double tip (pl. 9.6). Since all of the remaining twenty-three ribs are

present, it does not appear that this condition has arisen from the fusion of two normal ribs, but

perhaps from some developmental disturbance that has resulted in incomplete bifurcation of a nor?

mal rib.

Dental Pathology and Anomalies

In general, the individuals excavated at Naukratis exhibit reasonably good dental health. Not

surprisingly, the most widespread and severe dental pathology is found in the oldest individual,

Burial 1253. Advanced periodontal disease has resulted in the antemortem loss of almost the entire

mandibular dentition and approximately half of the maxillary teeth. A healed dental abscess may be

present at the site of the left mandibular canine, but alveolar remodeling has obliterated most of the

evidence of this lesion. Extreme alveolar recession has exposed the roots of the remaining teeth for

almost two-thirds of their length, and large calculus deposits cover both crown and root portions of

these teeth. Three teeth (two maxillary incisors and a mandibular second molar) display large dental

caries. All recovered teeth from this individual display some degree of hypercementosis, with severity of involvement increasing distally along the dental arcade.

In the remainder of the burial sample, enamel hypoplasia is the most common pathological con?

dition of the teeth. It appears in the form of deep lines, grooves, or pits in the enamel surface of a

tooth crown as a result of a systemic insult occurring during the period of enamel formation. Enamel

hypoplasia does not have a specific etiology, but may occur in response to a number of nutritionally or disease-dependent conditions (El-Najjar, et al. 1978: 185-92). Hypoplastic lines were observed in

two of the three adults with teeth present, and in three of the immature individuals.

In both adults, the hypoplastic lines occur in the maxillary canines and/or incisors. Location of

the lines suggests that the developmental disruption occurred at approximately three years of age. The

three immature individuals displaying this condition include a 12-18 month old child with a faint

hypoplastic line on a deciduous incisor; an 18-24 month old child (Burial 1562) with small, circular

hypoplastic lesions on both lower deciduous canines; and an 18-24 month old child with broad

horizontal bands of deficient enamel on all eight deciduous incisors, and a deep notch on the incisal

edge of an upper central incisor (pl. 9.7) that may be an example of incisal hypoplasia.


Incisal hypoplasia occurs when enamel formation is severely disrupted in the initial stages of

tooth calcification; since the deciduous central incisors began calcifying at approximately fourteen

weeks intrauterine (Kraus and Jordan 1965), this lesion may be indicative of a severe disruption in

the maternal environment occurring during the third or fourth month of pregnancy. Dental caries

have begun to form in the incisal notch and on the labial surfaces of both upper central incisors

where the enamel is most deficient. An association between dental caries and enamel hypoplasia has

been observed by other researchers (Rosenzweig and Sahar 1962), and may be a relatively common

occurrence.

One other dental anomaly was observed in the same young child (Burial 1562), a relatively rare

feature called a geminated incisor. The lower left deciduous lateral incisor has two separate crowns of

nearly equal size, and a single, abnormally broad root that appears to consist of two normal roots

fused together (pl. 9.8). The crowns are slightly rotated, so that lingual surfaces face each other at an

angle of approximately 110 degrees. This anomaly does not appear to have resulted from the fusion

of two normal teeth, since the full complement of deciduous teeth are present. Instead, it appears to

represent a supernumerary tooth that has partially adhered to the lateral incisor. Radiographs of the

unerupted permanent dentition indicate that the permanent successor to this tooth is developing nor-

mally, with a single crown. Since gemination is generally more common in permanent maxillary teeth

(Brabent, et. al. 1958), this occurrence in a deciduous mandibular incisor may represent a rather rare

anomaly.

Ancillary Analyses

Dietary Analysis

A preliminary examination of diet in the Kom Ge'if sample was attempted through stable-carbon

isotope analysis. The measurement used in this analysis is the ratio of C to C for the sample as compared to a standard and expressed as d C in parts per mil (%c). There are three groups of spe?

cies that can be identified and used in diet reconstructions (fig. 9.1):

1) terrestrial plants that use the C3 (Calvin Benson) photosynthetic cycle; average isotopic ratio

-26.5.

2) terrestrial plants using the C4 (Hatch-Slack) cycle; average isotopic ratio -12.5.

3) marine plankton and plants which use a cycle similar to the C3 plants but obtain their carbon

from a different reservoir; average isotopic ratio -19.5.

The isotopic ratio for all consumers, including humans, is determined by and reflects their diet

and hence the food chains that support them, and can therefore be used in diet reconstruction. In

archaeological situations the tissue measured is bone collagen extract because collagen is the only tis-

sue known that preserves its initial isotopic composition reliably through time in sufficient quantity to permit analysis. A measured value for a consumer will allow a calculation of an average value for

the consumer's diet, allowing for an average displacement of 5%c

Since all three of the dietary alternatives mentioned above are present within 100 km of

Naukratis, there are seven different options that must be considered:

1) the diet is composed exclusively of C3 plants and/or herbivores that consumed only C3

plants. In this case the consumer values would all be about d C=-21.5%c and -20.5%c;


Fig. 9.1. A tripolar graph ofthe results ofstable-carbon isotopic analysis.

2) the diet is based only on C4 species and/or their herbivore consumers, in which case con-

sumer values will all be about d C=~7.5%c and -6.5%c;

3) the diet is composed solely of marine species, in which case the consumer values will all be

about dl3C=-\4.5%c and -12.5%*;

4) the diet is based on a mixture of C3 and C4 species, in which case the humans will have values

between d13C=-2L5%c and -6.5%c;

5) the diet is based on a mixture of C3 and marine species, in which case the human values will

be between d13C=-21.5%* and -12.5%*;

6) the diet is based on a mix of marine and C4 species and will give human values between

d13C=-l4.5%* and -6.5%*;

7) the diet is a combination of all three, in which case the human result will lie between d C=

-2l.5%o and -6.5%c, but not at the extremes.

Collagen samples from eleven individuals, ranging in age from fetal to old adult, were prepared at Simon Fraser University according to the method of Longin (1971: 241-242) and measured on an

isotope-ratio mass spectrometer at McMaster University. Resulting values range from -13.3 to-18.5,

with an average value of -15.0 ? l.7%c Comparison of these values with the seven dietary options outlined above indicate that options 1, 2, 3, and 6 may be eliminated. This leaves three options for

consideration: numbers 4, 5, and 7.

Since there are three variables to consider and only one measured parameter, the easiest way to

handle the interpretation is to use tripolar graphing techniques (fig. 9.1). If we calculate the C3 versus

C4 and the C3 versus marine proportions for the latter two options applicable at Naukratis then we

can plot the proportions of C3 species eaten as maximum and minimum values for the percent C3

species in the local diet. All mixtures from option 7 will fall within these limits. We can further limit


the range of proportion interpretations possible for the observed results, by plotting the mean value

for the samples and its ls limits. These two sets of lines will then define the range within which the

diet mixture proportions will lie for this particular sample population. Individual results will lie some-

where in the range represented by their measured d C value and its measurement error. It can be seen

that the plotting of these lines also defines a maximum value for the percent of C4 species eaten, of

55% (if we include the ls lines); if we based the result on the mean value line only the C4 maximum

would be 43%.

Without further evidence, we cannot achieve greater accuracy than this, but if we could arrive

at a reasonable limit for the marine species intake, or the C4 intake, we could further limit the range of possible proportion estimates. For example, if faunal or other evidence strongly suggests a maxi?

mum marine species of 30%, then we can plot this on the tripolar graph and thereby restrict the pro?

portion range to the area left of the 30% marine line. As can be seen, this also reduces the possible

range for C3 species to 33-57%, and limits the C4 intake to a range of 17-55% (or of 25-43% if

we use only the mean value and ignore the ls range). It is impossible, based on the data presented here, to provide complete and accurate determina-

tions of the proportions of C3, C4 and marine species in the diet of the Naukratis inhabitants. How?

ever, it is possible to establish reasonable limits within which these proportions must lie. Based only on the d C mean value and its ls range (and with no information about any of these alternatives)

it is possible to state that the C3 proportion must lie between 27 and 57% of the dietary intake, that

the C4 proportion must be less than 55%, and that the marine proportion must be less than 72%. If

information about either (or both) of the C4 or marine species intake is obtained, then it will be pos? sible to further define and limit the range of these proportion estimates.

Health and Development

Determination of age-at-death for immature individuals is essentially an attempt to predict chro?

nological age from dental and/or skeletal development. A positive correlation exists between chrono?

logical age, dental formation, and skeletal growth but the three variables are not identical due to

variations in the timing and rate of developmental processes. It is generally accepted that dental de?

velopment is a more reliable criterion for estimating chronological age than skeletal development since the former is less variable, shows fewer and less profound differences between the scxts, and is

less affected by environmental insult (Gleiser and Hunt 1955; Lewis and Garn 1960; Miles 1962;

Sundick 1977). By the same token, significant differences between age estimates based on these two

different criteria may provide useful information regarding health problems in earlier populations.

Accordingly, both dental age and skeletal age were calculated for all immature burials from the

site. Ideally, these estimates should be based on developmental standards established for the same

biological population from which the sample was drawn. In the absence of appropriate maturation

standards for medieval Egyptian populations, long bone measurements and dental formation

stages were compared with several existing standards, derived primarily from modern American and

European populations. By employing several different maturational standards, we hoped to be able

to recognize and eliminate internal inconsistencies and population-specific biases.

The five comparative standards used to determine skeletal age all provided generally consistent

age estimates for the Kom Ge'if infants and children. This was not the case with the dental series.

Three of the dental maturation standards (cf. the tables of Massler and Schour, Aprile and Figun, and


21.5V.,

-16.7V..,

13.3V..

-6.5%./-1_<_x_s_A ?..marine\ .K5%#

Fig. 9.2. A comparison of dental age and skeletal age for infants and children.

MacCall and Ward in Legoux 1966) produced anomalously high age estimates, exceeding those

derived from other standards by several years; these discrepancies were considered in the final dental

age assessment of each individual.

Of greater interest are several apparent inconsistencies in patterns of development between the

Kom Ge'if sample and the comparative standards. The first discrepancy is in the order of eruption of the deciduous mandibular second molars. The comparative standards depict the mandibular sec?

ond molar as erupting before its maxillary counterpart; at Kom Ge'if this sequence is reversed. Dis?

crepancies are also apparent in the rates of development of two teeth, the deciduous second molars

and the permanent canines. Deciduous molars in the Egyptian sample appear to be developing at

a significantly slower rate than is typical in the comparative standards. Consequently, when age esti?

mates based on several teeth from the same individual are compared, the deciduous second molars

often yield considerably younger age estimates than the anterior teeth. Conversely, the permanent canines typically produce anomalously high age estimates in comparison with other teeth in the same

dentition, suggesting that they are developing at a relatively faster rate. These inconsistencies were

considered when assigning a final dental age estimate for each individual.

Thirteen immature skeletons were complete enough to allow calculation of both dental and skel?

etal age (fig. 9.2). This number includes four fetuses, five infants (newborn to 12 months) and four

young children (12-24 months). Fig. 9.2 presents calculated ages in graphic form for each individual

for whom an age estimate was available. The skeletal and dental age curves coincide closely during the fetal period and the first months after birth. By one year of age, however, a significant divergence is apparent, with skeletal age estimates consistently lower than dental age estimates. There are two

possible interpretations for this observed discrepancy. First, the comparative standards upon which


the age estimates were based may not reflect the normal developmental pattern of this population,

creating an erroneous impression of skeletal age retardation. The alternate hypothesis is that the

observed discrepancy is a product of real inhibition of skeletal growth in relation to dental matura?

tion. Since growth and maturation are independent processes in which maturation can continue

even when growth is arrested, it is possible that the infants in this sample were subjected to some

kind of stress that inhibited their skeletal growth. These stresses could be caused by malnutrition, im-

balances in particular vitamins or minerals, childhood infections, and certain congenital diseases

(Blanco, et al. 1974).

During the third stage of analysis, which took place at the Physical Anthropology Laboratory of

Simon Fraser University, we were able to test this hypothesis by radiographic examination of a 50%

sample of the excavated burials from Kom Ge'if. Long bones from all available skeletons were x-rayed,

and the resulting radiographs were examined for evidence of lines of arrested growth (LAGs), or

Harris's Lines, as they are sometimes called, in their metaphyses. The results of this analysis indicate

that severe growth disruptions have indeed occurred in individuals exhibiting discrepancies between

skeletal and dental age. Burials 1239, 1256, and 1560A all display two or three separate episodes of

growth arrest ranging in occurrence from shortly after birth to within a few months before death. By

contrast, none of the individuals for whom dental and skeletal age coincided (burials 1230, 1551,

1556, 1569, and the four fetuses designated the "Balk Babies") exhibited any evidence of growth ar?

rest. This latter finding can be accounted for by the fact that these individuals died at birth or shortly

afterwards, so that for most of their existence they were buffered somewhat from deleterious external

forces by the maternal environment.

Conclusions

Seventeen burials containing the remains of at least twenty-nine individuals were uncovered in

the South Mound during the course of the 1981 excavations at Naukratis. Radiocarbon ( C) analysis

suggests that the burials from Kom Ge'if date to the time of Mamluk rule in Egypt during the four-

teenth century A.D., and as such, this group represents one of the few samples of medieval Islamic

skeletons that have been excavated or studied scientifically.

The sample is not demographically representative of the medieval Kom Ge'if population, being

skewed towards the subadult age groups. The largest proportion of individuals consists of infants and

young children, aged three years or less. Four fetuses were identified in the sample, and were thought to represent miscarried or aborted quadruplets. The majority of the infants appear to have died at or

around the time of birth. Infants that survived childbirth were exposed to numerous morbid condi?

tions in their first years of life that significantly inhibited skeletal growth. Some form of anemia may

have been a contributing factor in the deaths of at least two of the infants, but the specific cause or

manner of death is unknown for the remainder of the sample. Interpersonal violence does not appear

to have figured prominently in village life at the time, since none of the skeletons exhibit any evidence

of skeletal trauma.

Little is known about the adults from Kom Ge'if since they are significantly under-represented in the sample. The presence of one old adult female indicates that at least some of the population survived to old age, at which time they were exposed to the debilitating effects of arthritis and dental

disease.

Human burial analysis has the potential of making an enormous contribution to our understand?

ing of earlier human populations because it deals with aspects of culture that are not readily acces-


sible through other lines of archaeological enquiry, such as demography, health and disease, biological

relationships, marriage and residence patterns, social organization, and ideology. Unfortunately, anal?

yses of small, incomplete skeletal samples, such as the one from Kom Ge'if, often raise more questions than they can answer. Promising areas of research that must await larger and less biased samples in?

clude demographic reconstruction of sex and age related mortality rates and life expectancy, and

identification of patterns of health and disease. Although an introduction has been made in the area

of dietary reconstruction, much more research must be conducted before we can clarify the rela?

tionship between diet and disease that has been intimated in the evidence for anemia in the skeletal

sample.

Despite the limitations of the data base, it is hoped that this study will provide that important first step in the examination of a heretofore virtually unknown population: the Islamic agricultural laborers of medieval Egypt.

Table 9.4. Human Remains Catalog

The following Human Remains Catalog lists units of bone material according to groups by which it was removed from the field to be preserved by our conservation staff. Within each Area, the material is presented sequentially by Material Culture number (MC#) and not necessarily by Locus/Burial number.

dThe catalog (abbreviated as HRC in the Locus Summaries of the individual excavation areas) was created in the field by J. Curtin and J. Hourston-Wright, modified by D. Reese, edited and modified by A. Leonard, and arranged in a tabular format by J. Kramer. Some human remains were not included in the HRC and maybe found in the individual locus summaries.


Table 9.4. ?continued

7A 1245

Tooth

hypercementosis); one heavy hypoplastic line buccally from anterior dentition: I or C? Heavy attri-

tion to neck prevents positive ID. Slight

hypercementosis


HRC* Locus Element Side Age No. Comments

75

HRC#

1255

Locus Element Side Age No.

Burial 1255: Articulated, incomplete remains.

In poor condition. Hair and vegetal material

recovered

Comments

Balk burial (Bag 1 of 3): Remains of at least

four, all fetal, excavated outside the area in balk

extension

Balk burial (Bags 2 and 3): Remains of at least

four, all fetal, excavated outside the area in balk

extension

Burial 1256

Burial 1256

Burial 1253

Burial 1253

HRC# Locus Element

AREA 15

Side Age No. Comments

52

55

62

65

68

69a

69b

71

72

74

75

76

1507

1507

1542

1542

1542

1566

1521

1526

1566

1538

1573

1538

phalanx

5 th metatarsal

atlas

h rib

metacarpal rib

epiphysis

frag

frags

zygoma

vert. centrum

hand phalanx

frag

R ? 1 0-1 attrition, no caries ? I? 1 middle phalanx of foot? (II or III)

L A 1 distal end (broken) ? A 1 Burial 1572

1 calculus on labial surface

A 1 sternal frag I 1 distal end (II?)

I 1 shaft frag I 1 ud 2 pieces

? 1 ud immature ? 11 ud ? ? Burial 1572

I 1 Burial 1572 ? ? ? Burial 1566 ? I 13 frags

? ? 1 prob. proximal ? ? 1 ud

R 1 roots broken off ? ? ? Burial 1566

? ? ? Burial 1572

_ _ _ Burial 1573

? ? ? Burial 1572

L

L

L?

R


Table 9.4. ?continued

HRC# Locus Element Side Age No. Comments

78

79

80

82

83

84

86

90

92

93

97

98

100

102

1532

1542

1542

1542

1573

1542

1541

1541

1542

1542

1542

1542

1542

1566

rib

hand phalanx vert. centrum

clavicle

lst metatarsal

rib

metacarpal

2nd phalanx, foot

prox foot pha? lanx

metatarsal

lateral occiput rib

frags

vertebral 1/2

arch

distal hand

phalanx

metacarpal or

metatarsal

skull

mandible

rib

frags

3 rd metatarsal

frags

temporal rib

rib

skull

ischium

frags 1 /2 vert. arch

metatarsal?

R

L

p

L?

R?

p

R

R

L

R

R

p

p

p

R

A

YA

A

p

C

p

A

? ? 2

in 2 pieces-head and shaft frag

proximal (?)

newborn or fetal (in crypt)

lateral 2/3

distal epiphysis fusing; prox unfused

shaft frag

(or metatarsal?)

Burial 1573

Middle. Epiphysis fused

Epiphysis fused

distal fusing-epiphysis fusing

head-both epiphysis fusing ud

< 2 years old

3 fitted pieces-occipital?

condyle only (Recatalogued with Burial 1572

head. 18-24 years (Recatalogued with Burial

1572

ud (Recatalogued with Burial 1572)

? ? ? Burial 1573

1 2 pieces 15 ud

petrous portion shaft frag artic. facet unfused

2 fitted pieces

frag

? Burial 1573

? Burial 1573

5 Burial 1566

2 Burial 1566 < 2 years 1 Burial 1566


HRC* Locus Element Side Age No. Comments


Table 9.4.?continued

balk


HRC* Locus Element

AREA 66



HRC* Locus Element

AREA 88


scapula

bone cluster. See Burial notes B8801

1 superior & vertebral borders broken

1 ud ID frag

1 shaft and prox end

1 frag

2 incomplete

incomplete LIC

49101

49101

90 49130


Notes

In assessing sex, heaviest reliance was placed on pelvic attributes as defined by Phenice (1969: 297-301) and

Houghton (1974: 381-90). Anatomical features of the skull as well as size and robusticity of infracranial elements were also considered, where applicable following Krogman (1962) and Stewart (1979).

Adult age determinations were based on dental attrition

(Brothwell 1972), endocranial suture closure (Ferembach, et al. 1980: 517-49), and general degenerative changes, such as vertebral osteophytosis, cortical thinning and degenera? tive joint disease (Stewart 1979). Two main criteria were

employed in determining age of immature remains: dental formation and eruption, and long bone length, following standard techniques described in Stewart 1979.

Standard measurement techniques were employed, fol?

lowing Bass 1971, and Olivier (1969). A compilation and summary of know cranial discrete

traits is available in Curtin (1984). Intracranial variants are described in Saunders (1978).

For a complete description of the sample pretreatment techniques, benzene synthesis, and numerical analysis em?

ployed by this laboratory, refer to "Simon Fraser University Radiocarbon Dates I," Radiocarbon 24:3 (1982) 344-51.

This method adjusts for fluctuations in the atmospheric inventory of C02 by recalibrating radiocarbon dates with reference to the established dendrochronological time scale.

Burial terminology follows Sprague (1968: 479-85). Model life tables depicting infant mortality rates in

various skeletal populations may be found in Acsadi and Nemeskeri (1970).

Leonard does not agree with this interpretation since

only those burials were selected for excavation that were

inhibiting the excavation of the pre-cemetery strata of the

mound, which was the goal of the Naukratis Project. Personal communication from Dr. Ross Gifford,

D.D.S., Vancouver, British Columbia. This research was conducted by Mr. Brian Chisholm

of the Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University; the following discussion of his results is derived from his

unpublished research report "Human Diet at Naukratis: Stable-Carbon Isotopic Analysis Results." The theory under-

lying the technique of isotopic analysis for dietary determination has been explained for marine versus terrestrial

comparisons by Chisholm, et al. (1982: 1131-32 and (1983: 396-98), and for maize determinations by DeNiro and Ep- stein (1978: 495-506), and van der Merwe and Vogel (1978: 815-16).

Long measurements from the following sources were used for this study: Aremelagos, et al. (1972), Fazekas and Kosa (1979), Gindhart (1973), Johnston (1961), and Maresh

(1970). For the dental standards used for this study Fanning

(1961), Fanning and Brown (1971), Haavikko (1970), Kraus and Jordan (1965), Meredith (1954) Moorees, Fanning, and Hunt (1963), and Legoux (1966; in particular Table 19

[Aprile and Figun], Tables 21 and 35 [MacCall and Wald], Tables 14, 31, and 32 [Massler and Schour]).

Chapter Ten

The Animal Bones and Shells

David S. Reese

Introduction

Kom Ge'if was excavated from 1980 through 1983. Although the excavated material was not dry-

sieved, a sample of soil was taken from selected loci and that material was water-sieved ("floated"),

and the fauna extracted by Julie Hansen and added to the faunal collection. During the 1981 and

1982 seasons (when most of the digging took place), the bones and shells retrieved from the exca?

vation were catalogued and studied in a preliminary fashion by Jean Hourston-Wright and Joanne

Curtin, both of whom formed part of the project's physical anthropology component conducted by

Simon Fraser University. Since it was not possible for the project to have a specialist study the shell

material in the field, and in order to facilitate registration of these objects, the director of excavations

(Leonard) prepared "type cards" of twenty-six shell forms present in the excavations. These cards were

sent to me in 1982 for identification of the individual specimens.

At the end of the in-field study season (1983), a division of the faunal remains was made in Cairo,

and the excavation's portion of that material was sent to me in 1985. Because of the division "process"

the samples sent to the US. represented an indeterminable percentage of the total excavated. There?

fore, for the present study, I have combined my observations with the preliminary field identification

made by Hourston-Wright and Curtin. The full faunal identifications are presented in the Locus

Summaries of each area (see above).

SheeplGoaty Cattle, and Pig

Bone fragments from large mammals were common in the excavations, but most fragments per-

sonally seen by the author were either unidentifiable shaft fragments or finds from the surface. The

more informative remains are briefly noted here.

Deposits of the mid-third to second half of the second century B.C. yielded OvisICapra-sized frag?

ments and one ?Bos carpusltarsus. Mid-second century B.c. loci produced an OvislCapra phalanx 3

(adult) and one Bos molar fragment, while second-half of second century B.C. deposits produced a Bos

molar (from a rodent burrow), a burnt OvislCapra mandible and rib, and also unburnt tooth frag?

ments.

Most of these remains came from the topsoil, including a Bos scapula (with chop marks) butch?

ered across the glenoid (Locus 31601), and a very worn-down adult OvislCapra molar (M ) from

Locus 1210, the scattered remains of an infant burial in Tomb 1207.

The only recorded evidence for pig was a ?Sus metatarsus of the second half of the second cen?

tury B.C. (Locus 49017, a deposit of mudbrick rubble in Room 1/2), which was not available for re-

study. Not surprisingly, the ovicaprids and cattle are the most common remains.

Equids

There were three equid remains, all from topsoil: an Equus caballus (horse) distal radius (fused)

(Locus 1204), an Equus asinus (ass) phalanx 1 (fused) (Locus 1502), and a very worn-down E. asinus

347

348 David S. Reese AASOR 54

molar (Locus 31601). These were probably draught animals. Note that no camel bones were present

in the available sample.

Fish

Thirty-six loci, seven of them water-sieved, were recorded as having produced fish remains, from

contexts of the following dates: fifth/early fourth century B.C. (two), late third century B.C. (three),

late third to early second century B.C. (five), mid third to second half of the second century B.C.

(seven), late third to second half of the second century B.C. (two), mid second century B.C. (two), sec?

ond half of the second century B.C. (six), open deposits in Areas 12 and 15 presented four, and top?

soil included five (see Chapter Eleven and the locus summaries).

Turtle

Remains of soft-shelled turtle (Trionyx) were encountered in two deposits at Kom Ge'if (Loci

31526 and 31618).

Birds

Bird remains were recorded from thirty-two loci. Many of these bones were unidentified shafts,

with most of the identifiable remains being Chicken (Gallusgallus). Many of the smaller bird bones,

often from rodent burrows, are of unspecified songbirds and were probably intrusive into the occu?

pation deposits in which they were found.

Their distribution is as follows: late third century B.C. (two loci, two bones), late third to early

second century B.C. (two loci, two bones), late third century B.C. to second half of the second cen?

tury B.C. (two loci, two bones), mid third to second half of the second century B.C. (three loci, thir-

teen bones), mid second century B.C. (one locus, three bones), second half of the second century B.C.

(twelve loci, about one hundred fifty bones, including ninety-seven small bird bones with twenty-

three tarsometatarsi from at least twelve birds (Locus 49139, a debris layer in Room 2), first half of

the first century B.c. (seventeen plus bird bones from Locus 49136, which included a rodent burrow),

and topsoil (nine loci, thiry-two bones).

Rodents and Shrews

Small rodent and shrew remains were very common and most probably represent post-occu-

pational intrusions. One water-sieved late third century B.C. sample (Locus 1020) produced a shrew

jaw. A late third to early second century B.C. locus (31513) produced thirty-seven rodent bones from

two individuals. A second half of the second century B.C. deposit with shrew/rodent burrows (Locus

49131), produced about two hundred seventy-five bones from at least four shrews and one rodent;

while a first half of the first century B.C. deposit (Locus 49136) produced over one hundred fifty ro?

dent bones from over four individuals, again largely from a burrow. Several burials in the Southeast

Area produced intrusive rodent remains, as did the topsoil loci.

Marine Invertebrates

The most common Mediterranean marine shell was the wedge-shell Donax trunculus, with thirty-

four fresh valves from as many as twenty-three individuals. Donax was probably a food item at Nau?

kratis. There were seven valves from the topsoil: two valves (1 left, fresh from Locus 49001), four

1998 The Animal Bones and Shells 349

valves (2 right [1 lg], 2 left, 3 fresh, 3 individuals) from Locus 49130 and one fragment from Locus

1204. Stratified deposits contained one valve from the first half of the first century B.C. (Locus

49136), one fragment from the mid second century B.c. (Locusl229), twenty-three valves from the

second half of the second century B.C: three fragments (2 left, 1 right, 2 individuals) (Locus 49131),

six valves (Locus 49004) three valves (Locus 49137), two fragments (left, right) (Locus 49233), four

valves (Locus 49017), one valve (left, large) (Locus 49203), three fragments (1 right, 1 left) (Locus

49214), and one valve (Locus 49139). There are also one mid third to second half of the second cen?

tury B.C. valve (left) (Locus 31528) and one late third century B.C. fragment (Locus 1565). Davidson

(1972: 226) has noted that Donax "is plentiful in many parts of the Mediterranean, including the

coast by the mouths of the Nile, where it is the bivalve most heavily fished and very popular with the

local inhabitants."

The other Mediterranean shells include: from the late third century B.C, an unmodified Arcu-

laria gibbosula (basket shell) in Locus 1555; from the mid third to second half of the second century

B.C, a fresh Cerastoderma (cockle) in Locus 31526; and a water-worn Glycymeris (dog-cockle) with

a hole at the umbo in Locus 31621; from the mid-second century, a fresh Cerastoderma fragment in

Locus 1229; and from the second half of the second century a fragment of a large Venus verrucosa

(venus shell) in Locus 49203, and a complete V. verrucosa valve of a smaller individual in Locus

49150. The Mediterranean coast is today about 50 km from the site.

There are two Red Sea cowries from Kom Geif, a late third century B.C. Cypraea annulus (money

cowrie) fragment with an open dorsum appeared in Locus 1565; and another Cypraea with a ground- down and open dorsum was found on the surface (Locus 1502). Both of these pieces were probably

personal ornaments and may have derived from the graves. The Red Sea is today about 225 km from

the site.

Fresh-water Invertehrates

The remains of several fresh-water bivalves (Aspatharia rubens, Etheriay Unio) and gastropods

(mainly Bellamaya) were also present in the Kom Ge'if sample. Most of them were found in contexts

that can be dated from the mid third to the second half of the second century B.C. All could have

provided a food source, while the fragments could also have derived from decayed mudbrick.

Chapter Eleven

The Fish Bones

Douglas J. Brewer

The piscene remains recovered from Naukratis are similar to other non-marine delta assemblages. The assemblage is dominated by the Nile and schall catfish (Clarias spp. and Synodontis spp. respec?

tively), followed by the mouthbrooder (Tilapia spp.), elephant fish (Mormyrus sp.) and Nile perch

(Lates niloticus). These taxa, with the exception of the Nile perch, can be found in slow backwater

areas. The Nile Perch, which prefers well-oxygenated water, was likely to have come from a larger branch of the Nile possessing some current.

Table 11.1. Piscine Remains

Locus Taxon #, Side Element Comments

1006 ud 3 ud

1009 Synodontis 1 Pectoral spine 1009 ud 2 vertebra

1021 ud 2 vertebra

1210 ud 1 vertebra

1229 Clarias 1 Cranial

1565 Clarias 4, 1 Dentary 2016 ud 1 Spine 2038 Clarias 1, 1 Pectoral spine 2038 Synodontis 1 Pectoral spine 2038 Tilapia 1 Pterygiophore 2038 ud 6 vertebra

2043 cf. Synodontis 1 Cranial

2043 Synodontis 1, 1 Pectoral spine 2043 ud 2 vertebra frag 2043 ud 2 vertebra

31502 Clarias 1 Cranial

31514 Synodontis 1, r Humeral process 31514 Synodontis 1, r Humeral process 31514 Synodontis 1 2nd Dorsal spine 31514 Synodontis 1, 1 Cleithrum

31514 Tilapia 1 Dorsal spine 31514 ud 1 vertebra (caudal) 31526 Clarias 4 Cranial

31526 Synodontis 1 Humeral process 31529 Clarias 1, r Pectoral spine 31529 Clarias 1 Cleithrum

31529 Lates 1 Pterygiophore (dorsal) 31529 Synodontis 1, 1 Pectoral spine 31535 Mormyrus 1 vertebra (caudal)

Burnt

Burnt

All from one element

med frag

Too small

Too small

Two parts

350

Appendix

Field Pottery

Fabric Types

Albert Leonard, Jr.

How much further can the process of parceling out the motley fabrics of Naukratis among her equally motley population be carried? (Lorrimer in Hogarth, Lorrimer and Edgar 1905: 120)l

Although a small number of imported sherds were found during our four seasons of excavation,

the vast percentage of the ceramic material represented plainer wares, the majority of which are con?

sidered to have been of relatively local production. The amount of well-excavated and well-published

comparative material for the pottery that we excavated at Kom Ge'if was quite limited during the

years that we were in the field. It therefore was considered best to register this pottery according to a

number of individual fabric "types," with the understanding that the divisions and differences between

them may not always have been intentional or desired. These "fabrics," however, formed the basis for

all work on the pottery during our seasons at Naukratis and they are included in the present publi? cation in the hopes that our material might be assimilated more easily into corpora of pottery from

other sites in the Nile Delta and beyond. The plain wares from Naukratis, presented below, can be divided readily into two subgroups:

those predominantly tempered with mineral inclusions, and those tempered with organic matter. The

mineral tempered fabrics, discussed first, appear to be a basically homogeneous group with minor,

internal variations such as the presence or absence of a slip and/or color variants that were presumably the result of differences in kiln temperatures or other vagaries of the manufacturing process.

Following discussions with Mike M., and later with Andrea Berlin, however, it seemed best to

discuss the pottery in the final publication according to the recognized terminology of the 1990s.

Through resource to photos, fabric descriptions, and actual samples, the following correlations be?

tween our field fabrics and the more recent terminology were made, but it was felt that a great deal

of information would be lost if the details of our original groupings were not presented. Note that in

the captions to the pottery drawings both sets of information are included, for instance: "Delta silt

(IA)" is the fabric recorded in the field as Fabric IA (Mineral-tempered Red Ware: with a Red Slip). Such a fabric, however, is now more recognizeable to many scholars simply as "Delta Silt." Imports, local amphorae, and sherds that did not fit readily into one of these specific "fabrics" were given a

more formal and specific description, and these are included in the captions to the figures.

Delta Silt Fabrics

Field Fabric I

Plain Mineral-tempered Red Ware. This fabric consisted of a well levigated clay, which in its ba?

sic version was unslipped. The core ranges from 7.5YR 4/2 (Weak Red) to 10R 5/8 (Red) below a

surface generally in the range of 7.5R 5/6 (Red) or 10R 5/4 (Weak Red). Temper consisted of finely

ground (sand-size to 1 mm) white, gray and red grit with the white being the predominant mate-

352

1998 Appendix 353

rial. Micaceous inclusions of similar size were also quite frequent. All the vessels in this fabric were

wheelmade with deep finger corrugation frequently visible on the interior of the vessel, while the

exteriors of many vessels were scored by the potter's fingernails.

Field Fabric IA

Mineral-tempered Red Ware, with Red Slip. On some (predominantly the open) forms of this

variant, a 7.5YR 4/6 (Red) to 3/6 (Dark Red) slip had been added. This slip had often been bur?

nished while it was still turning on the wheel in 1 to 2 mm wide horizontal bands, usually spaced from 1 to 1.5 cm apart. A preference to restrict the slip to the upper portions of the vessel was

noted on the exterior of many pieces, and the slip was often allowed to drip down the sides in an

irregular pattern.

Field Fabric LB

Mineral-tempered Red Ware, with "Orange" Slip. The fabric of this subtype was also similar to

that of the main fabric with the addition of an orange slip between 10R 6/8 (Light Red) and 5/8

(Red). In some instances the slip appeared to have been used to completely cover the interior and/

or exterior of the vessel, while in other examples it has been applied "decoratively" in a band on the

upper surface of the vessel or allowed to drip down the sides of the vase. Randomly spaced wheel-

burnishing was frequently noted on this fabric.

Field Fabric IC

Mineral-tempered Red Ware, with White "Painted" Band(s). This subtype was recognized in

only one example (Leonard in Coulson and Leonard 1981a: fig. 8:30). Its fabric is similar to that

of the main type, but the exterior surface had been decorated with an undulating band of 7.5YR

8/2 (Pinkish White) paint.

Field Fabric LD

Mineral-tempered Red Ware, with Red "Painted "

(Bands). This subtype is definitely a variant of the

main type but with the addition of a "painted" band of 7.5YR 5/2-4/2 (Weak Red) or 10R 4/4 (Weak

Red) wash(?).

Field Fabric LE

Mineral-tempered Red Ware, with "Painted" Designs. A variant of the main Mineral Tempered Red Ware with the addition of designs in 7.5YR 5/2-4/2 (Weak Red) or 10R 4/2-4/3 (Weak Red)

and/or 5YR 8/4-8/3 or 10YR 8/2 (White). Examples of this fabric may simply have been more

elaborately decorated examples of Fabrics IC and ID.

Field Fabric LL

Plain Mineral-tempered Brown Ware. This fabric must be considered as a (firing?) variant of the

main Field Fabric I, being similar in the method of manufacture, as well as in the type and size of

354 Appendix AASOR 54

the inclusions. It differs, however, in the color of its core, which is sometimes gray, often 10R 5/8

(Red), but most frequently 5YR 4/6 (Yellowish Red). The interior and exterior surfaces are un?

slipped and vary in color from 5YR 6/3 (Light Reddish Brown) to 5/3 (Reddish Brown).

Field Fabric IIA

Mineral-tempered Brown Ware, with Brown Slip. This subtype is identical in fabric to the main

Fabric II ware, except that it has been covered with a slip of or fired to the same color as the fabric.

As in the "A" variant of the Mineral-tempered Red Ware, this slip can exhibit randomly spaced bands of wheel burnishing.

Field Fabric IIB

Mineral-tempered Brown Ware, with "Orange" Slip. As with Field Fabric IB, this subtype exhib-

ited a slip, which was used either to cover the whole vessel or to highlight specific portions of the

form. The slip varied in color between 5YR 7/6 and 6/6 (Reddish Yellow) and was placed directly on the brown fabric of the main Fabric II.

Field Fabric IIC

Red or Brown Mineral-tempered Ware, Mottled. The existence of this category reinforced the re?

lationship between the red and brown mineral tempered wares, as well as supported the suggestion that the color differences between the two wares were the product of vagaries in the firing stage of

the vessels' manufacture. The pieces included here had either red or brown as their predominant color but were mottled through a full spectrum of earth colors to a dark gray and very occasionally black. This appeared to be the result of the primary firing, and not, as in the class of cooking pots, the result of secondary burning associated with the use of the vessels. In most cases, parallels for the

shapes could be found readily among the vessels of Fabric Fabrics I and II.

Field Fabric IID

Mineral-tempered: Fired Black. The last variant of the Red (Field Fabric I) and Brown (Field

Fabric II) mineral-tempered wares was that in which the surfaces had been completely fired to

black. Again, it should be noted that this is the result of primary, not secondary, firing.

Field Fabric III

Cooking Pot Ware. Many of the cooking pots or "casseroles" from our excavations at Naukratis

had been fashioned from a fabric that shares many similarities with the red mineral-tempered ware

to which it must be directly related. The clay of the cooking pots is as well levigated as that of any of the other fabrics, and the grit inclusions remain about 1 mm rather than the larger, more heat

conductive, pieces that are often found in vessels with this function. Whereas the examples of Field

Fabric IIC were randomly mottled from their position or time in the kiln, the cooking pots exhib-

ited gray to black discoloration on the lower portions of the body, below the slightly projecting handles and other areas that would be in close proximity to the heat of a secondary fire. Many of

the pots had been given the same, thin, horizontally burnished bands noted above in some exam?

ples of Field Fabric I and Field Fabric II.

1998 Appendix 355

Field Fabric IIIA

Cooking Pot Ware: Variant. This subfabric was represented in the Naukratis catalogue by only two pieces. Both of these fragments were from similar necked jars and differ only in their size.

Although they closely resembled the Field Fabric I Ware, the fabric appeared to be much more

completely levigated, and the vessels were fired to a hardness paralleled only by the cooking pots discussed above. The exteriors, and portions of the interiors, of the two certain examples were cov?

ered with a 7.5R 4/6 (Red) Slip, as are the Fabric I pieces. Where abraded, the Fabric IIIA sherds

reveal a surface close to 10R 6/8 (Light Red), the color seen on decorated examples of Fabric IB.

Chaff-Tempered Fahrics

Field Fabric LV

Chaff-tempered Pink Ware. While the first three field types were characterized by mineral tem?

per, the Fabric IV fabric, and its variants, rely heavily on straw and chaff temper. The clay of Fabric IV vessels was poorly, or at best moderately, levigated. That it is related to the

fabrics of Fabrics I?III can be seen by the presence of red, white and gray grit averaging c. 1 mm,

but the mineral inclusions were in the minority. As shown by the casts, the major tempering agent was straw (c. 3-5 mm in length and c. 1 mm in diameter) and chaff (up to 1 cm in length and

2-3 mm in diameter), both of which were used in large quantities. Although in most cases the ves?

sels had been fired at a temperature sufficient to burn away most of this organic material, the cores of

some of the fragments showed the temper itself rather than the casts. The low temperature of the kiln

was also evidenced by the color of the core, which ranges from black on the thicker pieces through 7.5R 5/4-4/4 (Weak Red) on some of the thinner sherds. The interior and exterior surfaces of all ex?

amples of this type had been heavily coated with a slip that ranged from 2.5YR 61A (Light Reddish

Brown)-6/6 (Light Red) to a 10R 6/4 (Pale Red)-6/6 (Light Red), but this slip was as rich in organic inclusions as the fabric. Hence the surfaces were heavily pocked by the casts of the temper. This slip was very thick, up to 2-3 mm, and readily adhered to the surface corrugation resulting from the for-

mation of the pot. Only a single example (an unillustrated ring-base fragment) varied from this norm,

exhibiting a thick 10YR 8/2 (White) slip on the interior surface. In all other respects, however, it was

the same as the standard Fabric IV

Field Fabric LVA

Chaff-tempered Brown Ware. As with the mineral-tempered wares, the chaff-tempered fabrics also

had color variants that were most probably the result of differing kiln conditions. Examples of Fabric

IVA had cores of 5YR 5/3-4/3 (Reddish Brown) with surface between 7.5YR 6/4 (Light Brown) and

5/4 (Brown), but in other respects they were the same as the major Fabric IV A small base (Leonard

in Coulson and Leonard 1981a: fig. 5:7) was the exception; both its core and its surface have 5YR

7/8 (Reddish Yellow).

Field Fabric LVB

Chaff-tempered Mottled Ware. Fabric IVB was a version of the chaff-faced wares with surface

colors mottled between those of Fabrics IV and IVA.


Field Fabric IVC

Chaff-tempered Red Ware. Three sherds (unillustrated) of a fabric similar to that of Fabric IV,

but covered on the exterior with a 7.5R 6/8 (Light Red) slip, stood out sharply from the rest of the

assemblage. Unfortunately, these were all body sherds and thus did not contribute to our knowl-

edge of the shapes of this variant. They are included here because of their distinctive nature and for

the sake of completeness.

Field Fabric IVD

Chaff-tempered Black Ware. Although the colors of the chaff-tempered class did vary and mot-

tling did occur, only one example had been fired completely black. It was assigned a special subfabric

in order to balance the Fabric IIC of the mineral-tempered ware and to hold a position in the cor?

pus for future occurrences of the type.

Field Fabric IVE

Chaff-tempered Painted Ware. Only one example of chaff-tempered ware had been noted that

bore a painted decoration. This is, unfortunately, a body sherd, which shows a broad (4 cm) band

of 5YR 8/3-7/3 (Pink) paint around the body of the vessel, bordered above and below by a c. .06-

.07 cm band of 5YR 6/2 (Pinkish Gray) paint.

Coarse Fabrics

Field Fabric VA

Smooth-slipped Coarse Ware. Coarse wares appeared in the Naukratis assemblage in two very

distinct sub-types: Fabric VA (Smooth-slipped Coarse Ware) whose use of chaff tempering formed

a bridge between the chaff-faced wares of Fabric IV and the very rudimentary Fabric VB (Coarse

Ware) to be discussed below. Morphologically, Fabric VA vessels consisted basically of low, thick-

walled bowls or platters. The fabric was poorly levigated, and the large (1.0-1.5 cm) pieces of chaff

temper often appeared in clumps in the thick gray and/or 10R 5/4 (Weak Red) sections. The inte?

rior and exterior surfaces of these vessels had been covered with a thick slip, which corresponded in

color to the various subtypes of the chaff-faced group. Surprisingly, compared with the Fabric IV

fabrics, much more care has been taken to remove the large organic temper from the slip. It was

replaced by small (sand-size to .01 cm) white and gray mineral temper. Admittedly, the surfaces, on

occasion, are broken by the casts from the small organic tempering agents which remained, but, on

the whole, the slip presented a much better appearance than the chaff-tempered wares and recalled

the slips of the mineral-tempered vessels. This fact can, perhaps, be used to argue the relative ho-

mogeneity of the local fabrics at Naukratis during this period.

Field Fabric VB

Coarse Ware. Fabric VB consisted of the truly coarse vessels of the assemblage. Forms had thick

walls and simple shapes. Large pieces of chaff, to 1.50 cm in length and up to 3 mm in diameter,

were frequent in the poorly levigated fabric, and thick gray cores are common. Most fabric colors

1998 Appendix 357

range from 2.5YR 5/4 (Reddish Brown) to 616 (Light Red) and slips, when present, were the same

color as the fabric but broken by the chaff casts. To judge from the marks on the preserved surfaces,

some of the vessels were apparently smoothed with a handful of chaff before they were fired.

One vessel, illustrated by Leonard (Coulson and Leonard 1981a: fig. 13.B:2), appeared from its

charred interior and fenestrated body to have functioned as a type of brazier. Two other fragments

also had traces of holes through their wall, but neither was sufficiently preserved to give any indi-

cation of its original shape. The remainder of the Fabric VB coarse-ware sherds come from low bowls

and platters.

Local Amphora Fabrics

Field Fabric VI

Amphorae. Fragments from amphorae constituted our Field Fabric VI. Although it is readily

admitted that this is equivalent to changing typological horses in mid-stream, it was thought best

to keep fragments of such a distinctive form together in one section.

The most common amphora type had a long neck, and slightly outsplayed rim. The fabric was

moderately well levigated, containing mineral temper similar to, but larger (up to 2 mm) than, the

mineral-tempered fabric, Fabric I, and its variants. The thin (c. 3 mm) cores range from gray to 7.5YR

5/2 (Brown), usually sandwiched by a 10R 6/6 (Light Red)-5/6 (Red) fabric. Traces of a very thin slip

appeared on the exterior of most of the examples. Where relatively thick, this slip was approximately

10YR 8/3-8/4 (Very Pale Brown), but where thinner, it approached 5YR 8/3-8/4 (Pink). It is here

considered that this is the same slip and that the color of the pinker variant is simply a result of the

overlapping of a thin layer of whitish slip over the reddish fabric. The slip was entirely missing from

some parts of these vessels, especially near the rim and in the handle zone, where raised ridges of clay

had been left after paring or hand-smoothing the junction of these features to the main form.

Although morphologically similar to the other amphorae of Fabric VI, the neck fragment illus?

trated by Leonard (Coulson and Leonard 1981a: fig. 12:4) differed completely in terms of fabric and

temper. It was made of a poorly levigated fabric with a thick black core and surface colors not unlike

the redder variants of the amphorae previously discussed (5YR 6/3 [Light Reddish Brown]-5/3 [Red?

dish Brown]). It was the temper, however, seen also in some of the amphora "toes," that caused it to

stand out so sharply from the other vessels of this form, for it is closely related to the chaff-tempered

fabrics of Fabric IV and its variants. In fact, this similarity might, at first, suggest that it was a local

version of an imported form were it not for the fact that the temper and levigation of the majority

of the amphorae gave the impression of being related to the mineral-tempered wares of Fabric I. It

is here considered, therefore, that almost all of the amphorae from Naukratis that were included in

Fabric VI represented relatively local products, with the mineral-tempered being the norm and the

chaff-tempered forming an evidently not too successful variant.

Field Fabric VLA

Amphora with Pink PaintlSlip. The only variant to the local amphorae noted in the assemblage

was the upper portion of a small vessel illustrated by Leonard (in Coulson and Leonard 1981a:

fig. 12:8). The fabric was 7.5YR 5/2 (Brown), as the standard amphorae considered above, and

the well levigated clay showed only sand-sized white grit and micaceous inclusions. The exterior


surface, however, had been covered with a 5YR 7/4 (Pink) to 7/6 (Reddish Yellow) slip/paint, which had been carried over the rim to form a horizontal band c. 3 cm wide on the interior. That

this paint was extremely fluid when applied is illustrated by the way that it had dripped down into

the interior of the vessel.

Delta Silt Slipped and Burnished Ware

Field Fabric VII

Red Burnished, Drip-painted Ware. Three sherds from the corpus had a 10R 5/6 (Red) paint

applied in drips on their exterior surfaces. The fabric, temper and color of these fragments were all

similar to Fabric IIA, with which they are probably to be grouped, but at this embryonic stage in

the development of the present corpus they are best kept as a separate entity. That they should be

considered among the finer wares is evidenced by the randomly-spaced, horizontal band-burnishing that appeared on the interior surface of the fragments (illustrated by Leonard in Coulson and

Leonard 1981a: fig. 12.7).

Miscellaneous Fabrics

Field Fabric VIII

Red Slipped Closely-burnished Ware. Although the use of randomly spaced band-burnishing has

been previously noted, examples of the burnishing of the entire exterior surface of a vessel to a high

luster are quite rare. Three of these fragments were body sherds, while the remaining four offered

minimal information about their complete forms. The fabrics of two sherds appeared to be related

to the mineral-tempered wares, while one fragment might suggest a relation with the Chaff-tem?

pered class.

Perhaps to be included in this category was an (unillustrated) body fragment of a well levigated

and well-fired fabric. The color of the fabric was within the range of the Fabric I clays, 10R 6/8 (Light

Red)-5/8 (Red), but the burnishing strokes (applied after the vessel had been removed from the

wheel) were "vertical" rather than horizontal and closely spaced. The possibility that it was an import

to Naukratis would not be excluded.

Field Fabric IX

White Smooth-slipped Ware. The vessels included in this category were made of a moderately

well levigated fabric resembling, in color, Field Fabric I (Mineral Tempered Red Ware). It con?

tained white and gray grit temper averaging 1-2 mm, and fine straw casts could be present, but

were infrequent. One surface was left as the fabric, while the other surface was covered by a smooth

coat of 7.5YR 8/2 (Pinkish White) or "white" (no Munsell equivalent) slip. Below the slip, the

color of the core could range from 7.5YR 7/4 (Pink) to 5YR 7/4 (Pink). Where the slip was applied

more thinly, the surface often took on the pinkish hue, but even where thinly applied the slip

was unbroken by the mineral inclusions of the fabric with the result that the surface was always

smooth. The range of shapes in this fabric is limited at Naukratis, and it may have been an import.

Perhaps the minute fragment of a double amphora handle in this fabric would point to an East

Greek origin.

1998 Appendix 359

Field Fabric LXA

White Gritty-slipped Ware. This ware was characterized by a slip approximating 10YR 8/2

(White) that was slightly gritty to the touch. The clay was well levigated and tempered with sand-

sized to 1 mm white grit and fine straw. The firing of the individual vessels varied as did the color

of the cores, which could range from the color of the slip through 5YR 7/3 (Pink). The range of

vessel types was larger than that of Fabric IX from which the presence of the gritty slip definitely sets it apart. The shape of the "baggy" base (Leonard in Leonard and Coulson 1981a: fig. 13A:7)

and internally grooved rim (Leonard in Coulson and Leonard 1981a: fig. 13A:6) might suggest that

we are dealing here with products of a local workshop.

Field Fabric LXB

White-slipped Coarse Ware. The two, rather abraded, sherds (Leonard in Coulson and Leonard

1982: fig. 13A:12, and one unillustrated fragment) of this category were definitely from amphorae;

but, because the shapes are completely different from the more standard amphora of Fabric VI, and

since they may be related by fabric to Fabric IX, they were classified as a separate entity. The fabric

was well levigated with c. 1 mm white grit, which was surprisingly fine for vessels of this size. The

core was approximately 5YR 5/3 (Reddish Brown) below a fabric of 5YR 7/4 (Pink). The interior

surface of the amphora "toe" had been given a coating of a 5YR 7/3-7/4 (Pink) slip, while the ex-

teriors of both sherds had been covered with a slip between 5YR 8/2 (Pinkish White) and 7.5YR

8/2 (Pinkish White.) This category is considered to be an import at Naukratis, and its similarities

to Fabric IX may suggest an East Greek origin.

Field Fabric X

Pink-slipped Ware. Although there was some variety within Fabric X, the common denomina-

tor was the presence of a thick slip ranging in color from 5YR 8/3-8/4 (Pink). In some cases the

color of the slip appears to be the result of how thickly it had been applied, since it can vary

through 5YR 8/3 (Pink) to 10YR 8/2 (Pinkish White) on the same fragment. The fabric was well

levigated and tempered with c. 1 mm white, gray, and occasionally red temper. The core was gray on the thicker fragments, sandwiched between the 2.5YR 6/4 (Light Reddish Brown) of the fabric,

but in the thinner sherds the color of the fabric predominates throughout the entire section. Al?

though Fabric X contained more variety than other types noted here, it was definitely distinct from

them and, in that sense at least, warranted consideration as a separate class.

Terra Nigra Fabrics

A significant quantity of "Black Glazed" or Terra Nigra sherds were encountered during the ex?

cavations at Naukratis. In the field such pieces were separated by Leonard into seven groups, which

appeared to him to represent five different and distinct "fabrics." The surface appearance of a given

piece was recorded on a simple, tripartite scale: dull/shiny/lustrous.

Terra Nigra 1

Terra Nigra 1, as defined in the field is the equivalent to our standard Fabric IID (Mineral-

tempered Ware: Black) whose fabric and surface color appear to have occurred during the firing process.


Terra Nigra 2

Examples of Terra Nigra 2 differ from the above fabric in that a lustrous black slip has been ap?

plied over extremely well levigated and (usually temperless) fabrics of distinctive color that range from

c. 2.5YR 616 (Light Red) to 5YR 6/6 (Reddish Yellow). Such pieces appear to have been genuine

imports from the "Greek World."

Terra Nigra 3

The fabric of Terra Nigra 3 is fired throughout to a light to medium gray, often approaching 5YR

6/1 (Gray). There is no distinct "core."

Terra Nigra 4

Consists of a group of three, visually-related, gray-brown fabrics that may be variants of each

other. In the field these were separated into three subgroups (4A through 4C).

Terra Nigra 4A

A fabric c. 10YR 3/2 (Very Dark Grayish Brown) that can range to 10YR 4/3-3/3 (Dark Brown).

It does not exhibit any distinct core. The surfaces are usually shiny to lustrous.

Terra Nigra 4B

A c. 10YR 3/2 (Very Dark Grayish Brown) that can range to 10YR 4/3-3/3 (Dark Brown). It

differs from the above fabric in that it exhibits a very distinct gray or black core. In addition there

seem to be minute pieces of lithic temper in the slip. Surface appearance is shiny to lustrous.

Terra Nigra 4C.

Gray-brown fabric with red or red and gray core. A. c. 10YR 3/2 (Very Dark Grayish Brown) to

10YR 4/3-3/3 (Dark Brown) fabric, with a distinct c. 5YR 4-8 (Red) or 7.5YR 3/6-3/8 (Dark Red)

core. An evidently related variant of this fabric (recognized and recorded but not isolated in the field)

displayed a c. 7.5YR N5/ (Gray) central core within a red (as above) sandwich. Surfaces were usually

at least shiny to lustrous.

Terra Nigra 5

A fabric that has been fired c. 7.5YR N6/-N5/ (Gray) almost completely through the section,

except just below the slip where there is a very thin sandwich in the gray-brown range of the Terra Ni?

gra 4 series [c. 10YR 3/2 (Very Dark Grayish Brown) to 10YR 3/3 (Dark Brown)] and may, in fact,

actually be related to that group. There are traces of fine organic temper in the slip. Surfaces are usu?

ally dull, although sometimes dull to shiny.

Notes

1 Also quoted by Price (1924: 181), and answered in a

somewhat different manner. The description of this fabric differs slightly from that

presented after it had been isolated during our initial season

of excavation (Leonard in Coulson and Leonard 1981a). This fuller description is the result of the examination of the tremendous quantity of sherd material during subsequent

Bibliography

Acsadi, G., and Nemesk^ri, J. 1970 History of Human Life Span and Mortality. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.

Adams, W. Y.

1961 The Christian Potteries at Faras. Kush 9: 30-43. 1962 Pottery Kiln Excavations. Kush 10: 62-75. 1986 Ceramic Industries ofMedieval Nubia. Vol. 1: Memoirs ofthe UNESCO Archaeological Survey ofSudanese Nubia.

Lexington: University of Kentucky. Adamsheck, B.

1979 Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth: Results of Investigations by the University of Chicago and Indiana University for the American School of Classical Studies at Athens IV: The Pottery. Leiden: Brill.

Adriani, A.

1940 Fouilles et Decouvertes-Alexandrie. Annuaire du Musee Greco-Romain II, (1935-1939): 65-135. 1952a Nouvelles D^couvertes dans la Necropole de Hadra. Annuaire du Musie Greco-Romain III, (1940-1950): 1-27. 1952b Necropole et ville de Plinthine. Annuaire du Musee Greco-Romain III (1940-1950): 140-59. 1961 Reportorio d'arte delV Egitto greco-romano, I-II. Palermo: Fondazione "Ignazio Mormio" del Banco di Sicilia.

Ammerman, R. M.

1990 The Religous Context of Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines. Pp. 37-46 in The Coroplasts Art: Greek Terracottas

ofthe Hellenistic World, ed. by J. P. Uhlenbrock. New York: State University of New York.

Amiran, R.

1969 Ancient Pottery ofthe Holy Land. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Anderson, J. K.

1954 Excavations on the Kofina Ridge, Chios. Annual ofthe British School at Athens 49: 123-82.

Anderson-Stojanovic, V. R.

1992 Stobi I: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Results of the Joint American- Yugoslav Archaeological Investigations, 1970-1981, ed. J. Wiseman. Princeton: Princeton University.

Andrews, C.

1994 Amulets of Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum.

Armelagos, G. J.; Mielke, J. H.; Owen, K. H.; Van Gerven, D. R; Dewey, J. R.; and Mahler, P. E.

1972 Bone Growth and Development in Prehistoric Populations from Sudanese Nubia. Journal of Human Evolution 1: 89-119.

Austin, M. M.

1970 Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age. Cambridge: The Philosophical Society. 1981 The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Bagnall, R. S.

1976 The Administration ofthe Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt. Leiden: Brill.

Bailey, D. M.

1975 A Catalogue ofthe Lamps in the British Museum. Volume I: Greek, Hellenistic, and Early Roman Pottery Lamps. London: The British Museum.

1985 Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice). Volume III, Part 2: The lamps. Supplement to Libya Antiqua V.

Tripoli: Department of Antiquities. Bass, W. M.

1971 Human Osteology: a Laboratory and Field Manual ofthe Human Skeleton. Columbia: University of Missouri.

Bayer-Niemeier, E.

1988 Griechisch-Romischer Terrakotten. Liebieghaus-Museum Alter Plastik Bildwerke der Sammlung Kaufmann, Band I. Melsungen: Gutenberg.

Bell, M.

1981 The Terracottas. Morgantina Studies, Volume I. Princeton: Princeton University. Ben-Tor, A., and Rosenthal, R.

1978 The First Season of Excavations at Tel Yoqne'am, 1977. Israel Exploration Journal 2%\ 57-151.

361

362 Bibliography AASOR 54

Bennett, W J., Jr., and Blakely, J. A.

1989 Tell el-Hesi: The Persian Period (Stratum V). The Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi 3. Winona

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Berlin, A.

1997 Tel Anafa vol. II, I. The Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Plain Wares. Journal of Roman Archaeology supplementary series 10.2.1. Ann Arbor.

Bernal, M.

1990 Cadmean Letters: The Transmission ofthe Alphabet to the Aegean and Further West before 1400 B.C. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Bernand, A.

1970 La Delta Egyptien d'apres les textes grecs, I: les confins libyques. Cairo: L'Institut francais d'archeologie du Cairo.

Bieber, M., 1961a The Sculpture ofthe Hellenistic Age, revised edition. New York: Columbia University. 1961b The History ofthe Greek and Roman Theater, second edition. Princeton: Princeton University.

Birmingham Museum

1968 Ancient Life in Miniature: An Exhibition of Classical Terracottas from Private Collections in England. Birming? ham: Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery.

Blakely, J. A., and Horton, E L., Jr. 1986 South Palestinian Bes Vessels ofthe Persian Period. Levant 1986: 111-19.

Blanco, R. A.; Acheson, R. M.; Canosa, C; and Salomon, J. B.

1974 Height, Weight, and Lines of Arrested Growth in Young Guatemalan Children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 40: 39-48.

Boardman, J. 1967 Excavations in Chios 1952-1955. Greek Emporio. The British School of Archaeology at Athens, Supplementary

Volume No. 6. Oxford: Thames and Hudson.

1980 The Greeks Overseas. Their Early Colonies and Trade. 2nd Edition. London: Thames and Hudson.

Bol, P. C, and Kotera, E.

1986 Bildwerke aus Terracotta aus Mykenischer bis Romischer Zeit. Liebieghaus-Museum Alter Pastik Antike Bild-

werke, Band III. Melsungen: Gutenberg. Bon, A.-M., and Bon, A.

1957 Les Timbres Amphoriques de Thasos. Etudes Thasiennes IV. Ecole Francaise dAthenes. Paris: E. De Boccard.

Boulos, L., and el-Hadidi, N.

1984 The Weed Flora of Egypt. Cairo: American University in Cairo.

Bouriant, U.

1885 La Stela 5576 du Musee de Boulaq et I'lnscription de Rosette. Recueil de Travaux 6: 1-20.

Bowden, H.

1990 Herodotus and Greek Sanctuaries. D. Phil. thesis, Departments of Classics and History, King's College London.

1991 The Chronology of Greek Painted Pottery: Some Observations. Hephaistos 10: 49-50.

Bowman, A. K.

1986 Egypt after the Pharaohs: 332 B.C.-A.D. 642, from Alexander to the Arab Conquest. London: The British Museum.

Brabent, H., Klees, L., and Werelds, R. J. 1958 Anomalies, Mutilations et Tumeurs des Dents Humaines. Paris: Prelat.

Braun, T. F. R. G.

1982 The Greeks in Egypt. Pp. 32-56 in The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume III Part 3, The Expansion ofthe Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C, ed. J. Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Breccia, E.

1912 La Necropoli di Sciatbi. Cairo: l'institut francaise archeologique orientale.

1930 Monuments de L' Egypte Greco-Romaine, 11:1. Terracotte figurate Greche e Greco-Egizie del Museo di Alessan- dria. Bergamo.

1970 Le Musee greco-romaine dAlexandrie (1925-1931), Volume I. Reprint of Bergamo 1932 edition. Rome: Bretschneider.

1978 Le Musee greco-romaine dAlexandrie (1931-1932), Volume II. Reprint of Bergamo 1933 edition. Rome: Bretschneider.

1998 Bibliography 363

Brothwell, D. R.

1963 Digging Up Bones. London: The British Museum.

Broneer, O.

1930 Corinth, IV, Pt. II, Terracotta Lamps. Cambridge: American School of Classical Studies at Athens and Harvard

University. 1977 Terracotta Lamps, Isthmia Volume III. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies.

Bruneau, P.

1965 Les Lampes. Exploration Archeologique de Delos faite par L'flcole francaise d'Athenes. Fascicule XXVI. Paris: Editions E. de Boccard.

Bruno, V J. 1985 Hellenistic Painting Techniques: The Evidence ofthe Delos Fragments. Leiden: Brill.

Budge, E. A. W.

1972 From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt. New York: Benjamin Bloom.

Butzer, K. W.

1976 Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago. Calvet, Y.

1972 Salamine de Chypre III: Les Timbres Amphoriques. Paris: E. de Boccard.

Canarache, V.

1957 Importul Amforelor Stampilate la Istria. Bucharest: Editura Acadamiei Republicii Populare Romine. di Caprio, N. C.

1992 Fornaci e Officine da Vasaio Tarde-Ellenistiche. Morgantina Studies III. Princeton: Princeton University. Charlesworth, D.

1967 The Industrial Area. Pp. 149-55 in the Tell el-Fara'in Expedition, 1967, by M.V. Seton-Williams. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 53: 146-55.

1969 Tell el-Fara'in: The Industrial Site, 1968 in the Tell el-Fara'in Expedition, 1968, by M.V. Seton-Williams.

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 55: 23-30.

Chisholm, B. S., Nelson, D. E., and Schwarcz, H. P.

1982 Stable Carbon Isotope Ratios as a Measure of Marine versus Terrestrial Protein in Ancient Diets. Science 216:

1131-32. 1983 Marine and Terrestrial Protein in Prehistoric Diets on the British Columbia Coast. Current Anthropology 24/3:

396-98.

Connelly, J. B.

1990 Hellenistic Alexandria. Pp. 89-92 in The Coroplasts Art, Greek Terracottas ofthe Hellenistic World, ed. J. P. Uhlenbrock. New Rochelle: A. D. Caratzas.

Cook, R. M.

1933/34 Fikellura Pottery. The Annual oj^the British School at Athens 34: 1-98. 1937 Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt. Journal of Hellenistic Studies 57: 227-38.

Corbett, P. E.

1955 Palmette Stamps from an Attic Black-Glaze Workshop. Hesperia 24: 172-86.

Coulson, W D. E.

1996 Ancient Naukratis, Volume II: The Survey at Naukratis and Environs. Part I: The Survey at Naukratis. Oxbow

Monograph No. 60. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Coulson, W D. E., and Leonard, A., Jr. 1978 Naukratis. Bulletin de Laison du groupe international d'etude de la ceramique Egyptienne III: 30. 1979 A Preliminary Survey of the Naukratis Region in the Western Nile Delta. Journal of Field Archaeology 6: 151-

68. 1981a Cities ofthe Delta, Part 1. Naukratis. American Research Center in Egypt Reports, Vol. 4. Malibu: Undena.

1981b Excavations in the South Mound at Naukratis, 1981. Muse 15: 39-45. 1981c Naukratis: Pottery Types from the 1980-81 Excavations. Bulletin de Laison du groupe international d'etude de

la ceramique Egyptienne IV: 2-6.

1982a Archaeological Survey in the Naukratis Region of the Western Nile Delta. Pp. 371-74 in Proceedings ofthe Col-

loquium on Archaeological Surveying in the Mediterranaean Area, British Archaeological Reports. International Series No. 155 Oxford.

1982b Investigations at Naukratis and Environs, 1980-1981. American Journal of Archaeology 86: 361-80. 1982c The Naukratis Project, 1982. Muse 16: 44-49.


1982d The Naukratis Survey. Pp. 203-20 in LEgyptologie en 1979. Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique, No. 595, Volume I. Paris.

1983 The Naukratis Project, 1983. Muse 17: 64-71.

Coulson, W. D. E.; Wilkie, N. C; and Rehard, J. W.

1986 Amphoras from Naukratis and Environs. Pp. 535-50 in Recherches sur les Amphores Grecques, eds. J.-Y. Em-

pereur and Y. Garlan. Bulletin de Correspondance Hell^nique, Supplement XIII. ficole Francaise dAthenes. Athens: Diffusion de Boccard.

Coulson, W D. E., and Wilkie, N. C.

1986 Ptolemaic and Roman Kilns in the Western Nile Delta. Bulletin ofthe American Schools of Oriental Research 263:

61-75.

Coulson, W D. E.; Leonard, A. Jr.; and Wilkie, N. C.

1980 The Naukratis Project, 1980. American Research Center in Egypt Newsletter 112: 49-50.

1982 Three Seasons of Excavations and Survey at Naukratis and Environs. Journal of the American Reasearch Center

in Egypt 19: 73-109.

1983 The 1982 Campaign at Naukratis and its Environs. American Research Center in Egypt Newsletter 122: 51-58.

1984 The Naukratis Project, 1983. American Research Center in Egypt Newsletter 125: 28-40.

Courby, E

1922 Les vases grecs a reliefs. Paris: E. de Boccard.

Crawford, P.

1994 Man-Land Relationships in the Wadi Tumilat of Egypt at Tell el-Maskhuta. Ph.D. Dissertation, Boston University. Crowfoot, G.; Crowfoot, J.; and Kenyon, K.

1957 Samaria-Sebaste: Reports ofthe Expedition in 1931-33 and ofthe British Expedition in 1935. 3 volumes. London:

Palestinian Exploration Fund.

Crowfoot, J. 1957 The Objects from Samaria. London: Palestinian Exploration Fund.

Curtin, A. J. 1984 Human Skeletal Remains from Namu (ElSx 1): A Descriptive Analysis. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology,

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Cybulski, J. S.

1977 Cribra Orbitalia, a Possible Sign of Anemia in Early Historic Native Populations of the British Columbia Coast. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 47: 31 -40.

Damon, P. E.; Ferguson, C. W; Long, A.; and Wallick, E. I.

1974 Dendrochronological Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale. American Antiquity 39/2: 350-66.

Darby, W J.; Ghaliounghui, P.; and Grivetti, L.

1977 Food: The Gift ofOsiris. 2 volumes. New York: Academie.

Davidson, A.

1972 Mediterranean Seafood. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Daszewski, W.

1987 Les lampes egyptiennes d'epoque hellenistique. Les lampes de terre cuite en Mediterranee, eds. T. Ozoil and

A. Justinien. Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 13. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient.

DeNiro, M. J., and Epstein, S.

1978 Influence of Diet on the Distribution of Carbon Isotopes in Animals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 42:

495-506.

Dever, W G., and Lance, H. D.

1978 A Manual of Field Excavation: Handbook for Field Archaeologists. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College. Diederichs, C.

1980a Plats Estampes d'epoque Byzantine. Pp. 389-93 in Salamine de Chypre Histoire et Archeologie: Etat des Recher?

ches. 578 Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. 1980b Ceramiques hellenistiques, romaines et byzantines, Salamine de Chypre IX. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard.

Dixon, D. M.

1969 A Note on Cereals in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 131-42 in The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, eds. P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby. London: Duckworth.

Dothan, M.

1971 Ashdod II-III. The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965. Atiqot 9-10 (English series). Jeru? salem: Israel Antiquities Authority.


Dunand, F.

1979 Religion populaire en Egypte romaine: les terres cuites isiaques du Musie du Caire. Leiden: Brill. 1990 Catalogue des terres cuites greco-romaines d'ligypte. Musee du Louvre, departement des antiquites ^gyptiennes.

Paris: R^union des mus^es nationaux.

Edgar, C. C.

1888/89 Excavations at Naukratis. The Annual of the British School at Athens 5: 46-67. 1922 Some Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from Naukratis. Annales du Service des Antiquites de VEgypte 22: 1-6.

Edwards, G. R.

1956 Hellenistic Pottery. Pp. 79-112 in L. Talcott, et al. 1956. 1975 Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery. Corinth, Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical

Studies at Athens, vol. VII, part III. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

El-Najjar, M. Y.; Ryan, D. J.; Turner, C. G.; and LozoffB. 1976 The Etiology of Porotic Hyperostosis among the Prehistoric and Historic Anasazi Indians of Southwestern

United States. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 44: 477-88.

El-Najjar, M. Y; Desanti, M. V; and Ozbek, L. 1978 Prevalence and Possible Etiology of Dental Enamel Hypoplasia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 48:

185-92.

Empereur, J.-Y. 1986 Un atelier de Dressel 2-4 en figypte au Ille siecle de notre ere. Pp. 599-608 in Recherches sur les Amphores

Grecques, ed. J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan. Bulletin de Correspondance Hell^nique, Supplement XIII. ficole Francaise d'Athenes. Athens: Diffusion de Boccard.

Empereur, J.-Y, and Garlan, Y, eds. 1986 Recherches sur les Amphores Grecques. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Supplement XIII. ficole Francaise

d'Athenes. Athens: Diffusion de Boccard.

Empereur, J.-Y. and Picon, M. 1986 A la recherche des fours d'amphores. Pp. 103-26 in Recherches sur les Amphores Grecques, ed. J.-Y. Empereur

and Y. Garlan. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Supplement XIII. ficole Francaise d'Athenes. Athens: Diffusion de Boccard.

Erman, A.

1971 Life in Ancient Egypt., reprint of 1894 edition. London: Macmillan.

Fanning, E. A.

1961 A Longitudinal Study of Tooth Formation and Root Resorption. New Zealand Dental Journal 57 \ 202-217.

Fanning, E. A., and Brown, T.

1971 Primary and Permanent Tooth Development. Australian Dental Journal: AX-A3. Fazekas, I., and Kosa, F.

1979 Forensic Fetal Osteology. Budapest: Akademia Kiado.

Fazzini, R. A.

1988 Egypt, Dynasty XXII-XXV Leiden: Brill.

Ferembach, D.; Schwidetzky, I.; and Stloukal, M.

1980 Recommendations for Age and Sex Diagnoses of Skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution 9: 517-49. Forbes, R. J.

1964 Studies in Ancient Technology Vol.V, second edition. Leiden: Brill.

Fossing, P.

1940 Glass Vessels before Glassblowing. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Fouquet, D. M.

1990 Catalogue des terres cuites greco-romaine d'ligypte. Paris: Musee du Louvre, Departement des antiquites egyptiennes. Frankel, M.; Schuchhardt, C; and Fabricius, E.

1895 Altertiimer von Pergamon, Die Inschriften von Pergamon VIII: 2. Berlin: W Spemann. Gardner, E.

1888 Naukrati II. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Germer, R.

1985 Flora des pharaonischen Agypten. Deutsches Archeologisches Institut. Sonderschrift Abteilung Kairo #14. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.

Gindhart, P. S. 1973 Growth Standards for the Tibia and Radius in Children Aged One Month to Eighteen Years. American Journal

of Physical Anthropology 39: 41-48.


Gjerstad, E.

1934 Studies in Archaic Greek Chronology: Naukratis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology andAnthropology'21: 67-84. 1959 Naukratis Again. Acta Archaeologica 30: 147-65.

Gleiser, L, and Hunt, Jr., E. E.

1955 The Permanent Mandibular First Molar: its Calcification, Eruption and Decay. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 13: 253-84.

Goldman, H., ed.

1950 Excavations at Gozlu Kale. Tarsus. Vol. I. Princeton: Princeton University. Grace, V.

1934 The Stamped Amphora Handles Found in the American Excavations in the Athenian Agora 1931-1932. Hes?

peria?}: 197-310. 1950 The Stamped Amphora Handles. Pp. 135-48 in Excavations at Gozlii Kule, Tarsus I, ed. H. Goldman. Prince?

ton: Princeton University. 1952 Timbres amphoriques trouves a Delos. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique 76: 514-40. 1953 The Eponyms Named on Rhodian Amphora Stamps. Hesperia 22: 116-28.

1956 Stamped Wine Jar Fragments. Pp. 113-89 in Small Objects from the Pnyx: II. Hesperia Supplement X, L. Talcott, et al. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Graindor, P.

1939 Terres cuites de TEgypte greco-romaine. Antwerp: de Sikkel.

Grainger, J. D.

1991 Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford: Clarendon.

Grandjean, Y.

1992 Contribution a l'etablissement d'une typologie des Amphores Thasiens. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique 116: 541-84.

Grandjouan, C, Markson, E, and Rotroff, S.

1989 Hellenistic Relief Molds from the Athenian Agora. Hesperia Supplement XXIII. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies.

Griffith, F. Lt.

1890 The Antiquities ofTell el Yahudiyeh and Miscellaneous Work in Egypt during the Years 1887-1888. Egypt Explo? ration Fund, Memoir 7. London: Kegan Paul.

Gunn, B.

1943 Notes on the Naukratis Stela. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 29: 55-59.

Gutch, C.

1898/99 Excavations at Naukratis. The Terracottas. Annual ofthe British School at Athens 5: 67-97.

Guz-Zilberstein, B.

1995 The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Pp. 289- 433 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report, vol. I B. Areas A and C: The Finds. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The Israel Exploration Society.

Haavikko, K.

1970 Pysyvien hampaiden formaatiosta seka alveolaarisesta ja kliinisesta puhkeamisesta The Formation and the Alveolar and Clinical Eruption of the permanent Teeth. Suomen Hammaslaakariseuran 66: 101-2.

Hayes, J. W.

1975 Roman andpre-Roman Glass in the Royal Ontario Museum: A Catalogue. Toronto: The Royal Ontario Museum.

1976 Roman Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum: A Catalogue. Toronto: The Royal Ontario Museum.

1980a Ancient Lamps in the Royal Ontario Museum I: Greek and Roman Clay Lamps: A Catalogue. Toronto: The Royal Ontario Museum.

1980b Problemes de la ceramique des 7e-9e siecles ap. J.-C. a Salamine et a Chypre. Pp. 375-80 in Salamine de Chypre Histoire et Archeologie: Etat des Recherches. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Sci?

entifique; No. 578 Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. 1983 The Villa Dionysos Excavations, Knossos: The Pottery. The Annual ofthe British School at Athens 78: 97-169. 1984a Greek and Roman Related Metalware in the Royal Ontario Museum: A Catalogue. Toronto: The Royal Ontario

Museum. 1984b Greek and Italian Blackgloss Wares and Related Wares in the Royal Ontario Museum: A Catalogue. Toronto: The

Royal Ontario Museum. 1985 Etruscan and Italic Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto: The Royal Ontario Museum. 1991 Paphos, vol. III. The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities of Cyprus.


1992 Greek and Greek-style Painted and Plain Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto: The Royal Ontario Museum.

Helbaek, H.

1958 Plant Economy in Ancient Lachish. Pp. 309-17 in Lachish IV, The Bronze Age, ed. O. Tufnell. London: Oxford

University. 1970 The Plant Husbandry of Hacilar. Pp. 189-244 in Excavations at Hacilar, ed. J. Mellaart. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University. Hennessy, J.

1970 Excavations at Samaria-Sebaste, 1968. Levant 2: 1-21.

Heres, G.

1969 Die Punischen und Griechischen Tonlampen der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Deutsche Akademie der Wissen- schaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion fiir Altertumswissenschaft 54. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.

Herodotus

1954 The Histories. Trans. A. de Selincourt from Greek. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Higgins, R. A.

1967 Greek Terracottas. London: Methuen.

1969 Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, Volume I

(Greek: 730-330 B.c). London: The British Museum.

1986 Tanagra and the Figurines. London: Trefoil Books.

Hirschfeld, G.

1887 Die Griindung von Naukratis. Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie N.F. 42: 209-25.

Hogarth, D. G.

1898/99 Excavations at Naukratis. The Annual ofthe British School at Athens 5: 26-46.

Hogarth, D. G.; Lorrimer, H. L.; and Edgar, C. C.

1905 Naukratis, 1903. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 25: 105-36.

Holladay, J. S., Jr. 1982 Cities ofthe Delta, Part 3: Tell el-Maskhuta. American Research Center in Egypt Reports Vol. 6. Malibu: Undena.

Holscher, LL

1954 The Excavations of Medinet Habu V: Post-Ramessid Remains. Oriental Institute Publications 66. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

Holscher, R. H.

1958 Greek Lamps and their Survivals. The Athenian Agora Volume 4. Princeton: American School of Classical Stud? ies at Athens.

Hope, C. A.

1979 Dakhleh Oasis Project: Report on the Study of the Pottery and Kilns. The Journal ofthe Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 9: 187-201.

1980 Dakhleh Oasis Project: Report on the Study of the Pottery and Kilns. The Journal ofthe Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 10: 283-313.

1981 Dakhleh Oasis Project: Report on the Study of the Pottery and Kilns. Third Season-1980. The Journal of the

Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11: 233-41.

Houghton, P.

1974 The Relationship of the Pre-auricular Groove of the Ilium to Pregnancy. American Journal of Physical Anthro?

pology Al: 381-90.

Howland, R. H.

1958 The Athenian Agora IV: Greek Lamps and Their Survivals. Princeton: American School of Classicals Studies at Athens.

Humphrey, J. H., ed.

1988 The Circus and a Byzantine Cemetery at Carthage I. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Iakovidis, S.

1990 The Hellenistic Pottery of Gla. Pp. 131-34 in Eumousia: Ceramic and Iconographic Studies in Honour ofAlex- ander Cambitoglou, ed. J.-P. Descoeudres. Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement I. Sydney: Meditarch.

Jehasse, L.

1981 La Ceramique Attique a Vernis Noir de Kition de la Fin de VI a la Fin du IV Siecle avant J.C. Pp. 75-99 in Excavations at Kition IV: The Non-Cypriote Pottery, eds. V Karageorghis, J. N. Coldstream, P. M. Bikai, A. W.

Johnston, M. Robertson and L. Jehasse. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. Johnston, A. W

1982 Fragmenta Britannica II: Sherds from Naukratis. Bulletin ofthe Institute of Classical Studies 29: 35-42.


Johnston, F. E.

1961 Sequence of Epiphyseal Union in a Prehistoric Kentucky Population from Indian Knoll. Human Biology 33: 67-81.

Jones, F.

1950 The Pottery. Pp. 149-296 in Excavations at Gozlu Kule, Tarsus. Vol. I. ed. H. Goldman. Princeton: Princeton

University. Joubin, M.

1895 Sarcophages de Clazomene. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 19: 69-94.

Jurmain, R. D.

1977 Stress and the Etiology of Osteoarthritis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 46: 353-66.

Kamal, A.

1904-5 Steles ptolemaiques et romaines. Catalogue General des Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire, nos 22001- 22208. Cairo: L'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale.

Kaufmann, C. M.

1915 Graeco-Agyptische Koroplastik. Terrakotten der griechisch-romischen und koptischen Epoche aus der Faijum-Oase und anderen Fundstatten. Leipzig: Heinrich Finck.

Koster, A.

1926 Die Griechischen Terrakotten. Berlin: Hans Schoetz.

Koehler, C. G.

1979 Corinthian A and B Transport Amphoras. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University. Kraus, B. S. and Jordan, R. E.

1965 Human Dentition Before Birth. Philadelphia: Kimpton. Krogman, W M.

1962 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield: C.C. Thomas.

Kunze, M.

1972* Die Tonlampen im Agyptischen Museum. Forschungen und Berichte 14: 91-103.

Lacovara, P.

1984 Archaeology and the Decay of Mudbrick Structures in Egypt I: Wattle and Daub. Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt 128: 20-21.

Landau, Y.

1979 Tel Istabah, Beth Shean: The Excavations and the Hellenistic Jar Handles. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 152-159.

Lapp, P. W.

1961 Palestinian Ceramic Chronology, 200B.C.-A.D. 70. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Laumonier, A.

1921 Catalogue de terres cuites du Musee archeologique de Madrid. Bordeaux: Feret.

1956 Delos XXIII. Les figurines terre cuite. Exploration archeologique de Delos faite par L'Ecole Francois dAthenes, fasc. 23. Paris: E. de Boccard.

1977 La ceramique hellenistique a reliefs. Exploration archeologique de Delos faite par L'ficole Francois dAthenes, fasc. 31. Paris: E. de Boccard.

Lawrence, A. W

1983 Greek Architecture. New York: Penguin Books.

Leclant, J. 1982 Fouilles et travaux en Egypte et au Soudan, 1980-1981. Orientalia 51: 411-92.

Leonard, A., Jr. In press Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt, Part IL: The Excavations at Kom Hadid. AASOR

55. Atlanta, GA: ASOR.

Leveau, P.

1978 Une Mensa de la Necropole Occidentale de Cherchel. Karthago: Revue dArcheologie Africaine XVIII: 127-31.

Lewis, A. B. and Garn, S. M.

1960 The Relationship between Tooth Formation and other Maturational Factors. The Angle Orthodontist 30: 70-77.

Lewis, N. 1986 Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt, Case Studies in the Social History ofthe Hellenistic World. Oxford: Clarendon.

Lichtheim, M. 1976 The Naukratis Stele Once Again. Pp. 139-46 in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, eds. J. Johnson and

E. Wente. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.


1980 Ancient Egyptian Literature, III. The Late Period. Berkeley: University of California.

Lloyd, A. B.

1975 Herodotus Book II. Volume 1, Introduction. Leiden: Brill.

1988 Herodotus Book II. Volume 3, Commentary 99-182. Leiden: Brill.

Longin, R.

1971 New Method of Collagen Extraction for Radiocarbon Dating. Nature 230: 241-42.

Lorimer, H. L.

1905 Naukratis, 1903. The Journal ofHellenic Studies 25: 105-36

Lucas, A., and Harris, J. R.

1962 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, fourth edition. London: Edward Arnold.

Lurker, M.

1980 The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames & Hudson.

MacAlister, R. A. S.

1901 Amphora Handles with Greek Stamps from Tell Sandahannah. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 25-43: 124-44.

1912 The Excavations at Gezer II. London: John Murry. MacCall, J. D. and Wald, S. S.

1966 Tables 21 and 35 (1957), in P. Legoux, Determination de VAge Dentaire de la Lignee Humaine. Paris.

Majcherek, G., and Shennawi, A.

1991 Tell el-Haraby: A Newly discovered kiln-site. Bulletin de Liaison du Groupe International d'^tude de la ceramique egyptienne 16: 1-4.

Maksoud, M. A.

1989 Excavations on The Way of Horus. Tell Heboua, North Sinai, 1986-87. Pp. 173-92 in Proceedings ofthe Col-

loquium on the Archaeology, Geography and History ofthe Egyptian Delta in Pharaonic Times. Oxford: Discus- sions in Egyptology Special Number 1.

Manniche, L.

1989 An Ancient Egyptian Herbal. Austin: University of Texas.

Maresh, M. M.

1970 Measurements from Roentgenograms: Heart Size, Long Bone Lengths, Bone, Muscles and Fat Widths, Skeletal Maturation. Human Growth and Development, ed. R. W McCammon. Springfield: Charles S. Thomas.

Meiggs, R.

1982 Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon.

Meredith, H. V

1954 Order and Age of Eruption for the Deciduous Dentition. Pp. 11-34 in Basic Readings in the Identification of Human Skeletons. Estimation ofAge, eds. T. D. Stewart and M. Trotter. New York: Werner-Gren.

Michelucci, M.

1975 La Collezione di lucerne del Museo Egizio di Firenze. Accademia Toscana di scienze e lettere, Studi XXXIX. Firenze: Lep S. Olschki Editore.

Miles, A. E. W

1963 The Dentition in the Assessment of Individual Age. Pp. 191-208 in Dental Anthropology, ed. D. R. Brothwell. New York: Pergamon.

Miller, N. F.

1984 The Use of Dung as Fuel: An Ethnographic Example and an Archaeological Application. Paleorient 10(2): 71 -79. Miller, N. F. and T. L. Smart

1984 Intentional Burning of Dung as Fuel: A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archae?

ological Record. Ethnobiology A: 15-28.

Moens, M.-E, and Wetterstrom, W

1988 The Agricultural Economy of an Old Kingdom Town in Egypt's West Delta: Insights from the Plant Remains.

Journal ofNear Eastern Studies Al: 159-73.

Moorees, C. F. A., Fanning, E. A., and Hunt, Jr., E. E.

1963 Age Variation of Formation Stages for Ten Permanent Teeth. Journal of Dental Research 42: 1490-1502.

Muhs, B.

1994 The Great Temenos at Naukratis. Journal ofthe American Research Center in Egypt-31: 99-113.

Nachtergael, G.

1985 Les terres cuites "du Fayoum" dans les maisons de l'figypte romaine. Chronique dEgypte 119-20: 223-29.


Negev, A.

1986 The Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Nabatean Oboda: Final Report. Monographs of the Institute of

Archaeology, The Hebrew University 22. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Institute of Archaeology. Nelson, D. E. and Hobson, K. A.

1982 Simon Fraser University Radiocarbon Dates I. Radiocarbon 24(3): 344-51.

Nilsson, M.

1909 Timbres Amphoriques de Lindos. Copenhagen: Bianco Luno.

Nordstrdm, H.

1985 Ton (Clay). Pp. 629-34 in Lexikon der AgyptologieVl, eds. W Helck and E. Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Olivier, G.

1969 Practical Anthropology. Springfield: C. C. Thomas.

Oren, E.

1984 Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256: 7-44.

Ortner, D. J. and Putschar, W J. G.

1981 Identification ofPathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Osborne, A.

1924 Lychnos et Lecerna; catalogue raisonne d'une collection de lampes en terre cuite trouvees en Egypte. Alexandria: Societe archeologique d'Alexandrie.

Payne, H.

1931 Necrocorinthia, A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period. Oxford: Clarendon. Pemberton. E.

1989 Corinth: The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Greek Pottery. Corinth XVIII, Part I. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Perdrizet, P.

1921 Les terres cuites Grecques dEgypte de la collection Fouquet. Strasbourg: Berger-Levrault. Petrie, W M. F.

1886 Naukratis Partl. London: The Egypt Exploration Fund.

1889 Tanis. London: Trubner.

1891 Ten Years Digging in Egypt, 1881-1891. London: The Religioius Tract Society. 1904 Method and Aims in Archaeology. New York: Macmillan.

1905 Roman Ehnasya (Herakleopolis Magna). 1904. Plates and Text Supplementary to Ehnasya. London: The Egypt Exploration Society.

Petrie, W. M. E; Mackay, E.; and Wainright, G.

1910 Meydum andMemphis III. Egyptian Research Account Publication 18. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Phenice, T. W

1969 A Newly Developed Visual Method of Sexing the Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30: 297-301.

Phillip, H.

1972 Terrakotten aus Agypten im Agyptischen Museum Berlin. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

Poesner, G.

1947 Les douanes de la Mediterranee dans l'Egypte sai'te. Revue de Philologie 21:117-31.

Porter, B. and Moss, R.

1951 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Heiroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Oxford: Clarendon.

Prinz, H.

1908 Funde aus Naukratis: Beitrage zur Archoalogie und Wirtschafsgeschichte des VII und VI Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Klio Beiheft 7. Leipzig: Scientia Verlag Aalen.

Pryce, F. N.

1928 Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum. Volume 1

{Part 1 Prehellenic and Early Greek). London: The British Museum.

Reifstahl, E.

1968 Ancient Egyptian Glass and Glazes in the Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum.

Reinders, H. R. 1988 New Halos: A Hill Town in Thessaly, Greece. Utrecht: HES.


Reisner, G.

1924 Harvard Excavations at Samaria I. Cambridge: Harvard University. Renfrew, J. M.

1973 Palaeoethnobotany: the Prehistoric Food Plants ofthe Near East and Europe. New York: Columbia University. 1985 Preliminary Report on the Botanical Remains. Pp. 175-90 in Amarna Reports II, ed. B. J. Kemp. London: The

Egypt Exploration Society.

Ridgway, B. S.

1990 Hellenistic Sculpture I. The Styles of ca. 331-200 B.C. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Robins, F. W

1939a The Story ofthe Lamp. London: Oxford University. 1939b Graeco-Roman Lamps from Egypt. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25: 48-52.

Robinson, H. S.

1959 Pottery ofthe Roman Period, Chronology. The Athenian Agora, Results of Excavations Conducted by the Amer? ican School of Classical Studies at Athens, Volume 5. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Rohde, E.

1968 Griechische Terrakotten. Tiibingen: Ernst Wasmuth.

Romano, I. B.

1994 A Hellenistic Deposit from Corinth, Evidence for Interim Period Activity (146-44 B.c). Hesperia 63: 57-104.

Rosenthal, R. and Sivan, R.

1978 Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection, Qedem 8. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

Rosenzweig, K.A., and Sahar, M.

1962 Enamel Hypoplasia and Dental Caries in the Primary Dentition of Prematuri. British Dental Journal 113

(Oct. 16): 279-80.

Rotroff, S.

1982 Hellenistic Pottery, Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls. The Athenian Agora Volume 22. Princeton: Amer? ican School of Classical Studies at Athens.

1991 Attic West Slope Vase Painting. Hesperia 60: 59-102.

Sa'ad, F. M.

1980 Identification of Weed Seeds Encountering the Crops Cultivated in Egypt. Notes Agr. Res. Centre Herb. Egypt 5: 25-41.

Salles, J.-F. 1993 Ceramiques Hellenistiques de Kition. Pp. 165-283 in Fouilles de Kition-Bamboula, vol. 4: Les Niveaux Hellenis-

tiques. Paris.

Samuel, A. E.

1989 The Shifting Sands of History: Interpretations of Ptolemaic Egypt. Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians 2. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Saunders, S. R.

1978 The Development and Distribution of Discontinuous Morphological Variation ofthe Human Infracranial Skeleton. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.

Schmidt, V

1911 Der Graesk-Aegyptishe Terrakotter, I. Kopenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek. Schurmann, W

1989 Katalog der Antiken Terrakotten im Badischen Landsmuseum, Karlsuhe. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 84. Goteborg: Astroms.

Scott, G. D., III

1992 Temple, Tomb and Dwelling: Egyptian Antiquities from the Harer Family Trust Collection. San Bernadino, CA: California State University, University Art Gallery.

Seger, J. D.

1971 Handbook for Field Operations. New York: Hebrew Union College. Seger, J. D., and P. F. Jacobs

1992 Field Operations Guidebook, third edition. Mississippi State, MS: Cobb Institute of Archaeology. Seton-Williams, M. V

1969 The Tell El-Fara'in Expedition, 1968. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 55: 5-22.


Shier, L. A.

1978 Terracotta Lamps from Karanis Egypt. University of Michigan, Kelsey Museum of Anthropology Studies No. 3. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Anthropology Studies.

Shenouda, S.

1976 Naukratis. Pp. 609-10 in Princeton Encycbpaedia of Classical Sites, ed. R. Stillwell. Princeton: Princeton University. Shoe, L.

1936 Profiles of Greek Mouldings. Cambridge: Harvard University for the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Sidebotham, S. E.; Zitterkopf, R. E.; and Riley, J. E.

1991 Survey of the 'Abu Sha'ar-Nile Road. American Journal of Archaeology 95: 4: 571-622.

Smetana-Scherrer, R.

1982 Spatklassische und Hellenistische Keramik. Pp. 56-91 in Alt-Agina, Band 11:1, ed. H. Walter. Bayerische Akad- emie der Wissenschaften, Institut fiir Klassische Archaologie der Universitat Salzburg. Mainz: von Zabern.

Smith, A. H.

1892 A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London: The Brit?

ish Museum.

Smith, E. M.

1926a Naukratis. A Chapter in the History ofthe Hellenization of Egypt. Ph.D. Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College (1924).

Privately Printed in Vienna, Austria.

1926b Naukratis, A Chapter in the History of the Hellenization of Egypt. Journal for the Society of Oriental Research 10: 119-206.

Sprague, R.

1968 A Suggested Terminology and Classification for Burial Description. American Antiquity 33: 479-85.

Stern, E.

1995 Local Pottery of the Persian Period. Pp. 51-92 in Excavations at Dor, Final Report, vol. I B. Areas A and C: The Finds. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The Israel

Exploration Society. Stewart, A.

1990 Greek Sculpture. An Exploration. New Haven: Yale University. Stewart, T. D.

1979 Essentials of Forensic Anthropology. Springfield: C. C. Thomas.

Sullivan, R.

1981 Historical Introduction. Pp. 6-17 in Cities ofthe Delta, Part 1. Naukratis, eds. W. Coulson and A. Leonard. American Research Center in Egypt Reports, Vol. 4. Malibu: Undena.

Sundick, R. I.

1977 Age and Sex Determinations of Subadult Skeletons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 22: 141-44.

Sztetyllo, Z.

1975 Timbres amphoriques grecs des fouilles polonaises a Alexandrie (1962-1972). Etudes et Travaux 8. Strasbourg: Le

Group de Recherche d'Histoire Romaine de l'Universite des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg. (Association

pour l'etude de la civilisation Romaine) 1976 Nea Paphos I: Les Timbres Cermaiques. Warsaw: Editions Scientifiques de Pologne.

Tackholm, V, and Tackholm, G.

1941 Flora of Egypt I. Bulletin of the Faculty of Science. Vol. 17. Cairo: Fouad I University. Tadros, T. M., and Atta, B. A. M.

1958 The Plant Communities of Barley Fields and Uncultivated Desert Areas of Mareotis (Egypt). Vegetatio 8:

161-175.

Talcott, L.; Philippaki, B.; Edwards, G. R.; and Grace, V. R.

1956 Small Objects from the Pnyx: II. Hesperia Supplement X, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Trigger, B. G.; Kemp, B. J.; O'Connor, D.; and Lloyd, A. B.

1985 Ancient Egypt A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Thompson, D. B.

1963 Troy. The Terracotta Figurines ofthe Hellenistic Period. Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati,

Supplementary Monograph 3. Princeton.

Thompson, H.A. 1934 Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery: Hesperia 3: 310-480.


Thompson, H. A.; Thompson, D. B.; and Rotroff, S. I.

1987 Hellenistic Pottery and Terracottas. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Trendall, A. D, and Webster, T. B. L.

1971 Illustrations of Greek Drama. London: Phaidon.

Uhlenbrock, J. P.

1990 The Coroplasts Art, Greek Terracottas ofthe Hellenistic World. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas.

van der Merwe, N. J., and Vogel, J. C.

1978 3C Content of Human Collagen as a Measure of Prehistoric Diet in Woodland North America. Nature 276:

815-16. van Zeist, W and Bakker-Heeres, J. A. H.

1982 Archaeobotanical Studies in the Levant. 1. Neolithic sites in the Damascus Basin: Aswad, Ghoraife, Ramad.

Palaeohistoria 24: 165-256. van Zeist, W and Heeres, J. A. H.

1973 Paleobotanical Studies of Deir 'Alia, Jordan. Paleorient 1: 21-37.

Vanderpool, E.; McCredie, J. R.; and Steinberg, A.

1964 Koroni: The Date of the Camp and the Pottery. Hesperia 33: 69-75.

Vatikiotis, P. J. 1980 The History of Egypt. 2nd edition. London.

Venit, M. S.

1988 Greek Painted Pottery from Naukratis in Egyptian Museums. Ancient Naukratis, 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

von Bissing, F. W

1902 Steingefasse. Catalog general Nos. 18065-18793. Vienna: Adolph Holzhausen.

1907 Fayencegefdsse. Catalog general Nos. 3618-4000, 18001-18037, 18600, 18603. Vienna: Adolph Holzhausen.

1941 Zeit und Herkunft der in Cerveteri Gefasse aus dgyptischen Fayence und Glasierem Ton. Munich: Verlag der

Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

1951 Naukratis. Bulletin Societe Royale dAnthropologie dAlexandrie 39: 33-82.

Walbank, F.W

1982 The Hellenistic World. Cambridge: Harvard University. Walters, H. B.

1903 Catalogue ofthe Terracottas (Brtiish Museum). London: The British Museum.

1914 Catalogue ofthe Greek and Roman Lamps in the British Museum. London: The British Museum.

Webb, V

1978 Archaic Greek Faience, Miniature Scent Bottles and Related Objects from East Greece, 650-500 B.C. Warminster:

Aris & Phillips. Weber, W

1914 Die Agyptisch-Griechischen Terrakotten. Mitteilungen aus der Agyptischen Sammlung, Konigliche Museum

zu Berlin Band II. Berlin: Karl Curtius.

Webster, T. B. L.

1967 Monuments Illustrating Tragedy and Satyr Play. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 20.

London: University of London.

1969a Monuments Illustrating New Comedy. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 24. London:

University of London.

1969b Monuments Illustrating Old and Middle Comedy. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 23. London: University of London.

Wells, B.

1982 Stamped Amphora Handles from Asine. Opuscula AtheniensiaXW: 119-28.

Wetterstrom, W

n.d. Paleoethnobotanical Studies at Predynastic Sites in the Nagada-Khattara Region. Unpublished manuscript. 1984 The Plant Remains. Pp. 50-79 in Archaeological Investigations at El-Hibeh 1980, ed. Robert J. Wenke. Malibu:

Undena.

Whitcomb, D. S., and Johnson., J. H.

1979 Quseir al-Qadim 1978. Preliminary Report. American Research Center in Egypt: Cairo.

1982 Quseir al-Qadim 1980. Preliminary Report. American Research Center in Egypt Reports, vol. 7. Malibu.


White, D., ed. 1990 The Extramural Sanctuary ofDemeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya IV. University Museum Monograph 67.

Philadelphia: The University Museum.

Wilkie, N. C.

1981 Kom Dahab. Pp. 73-77 in Cities of the Delta, Part 1, eds. W. D. E. Coulson and A. Leonard, Jr. Malibu: Undena.

Williams, C. K.

1978 Corinth 1977, Forum Southwest. Hesperia 47: 1-39.

Williams, D. 1973 Flotation at Siraf. Antiquity 47: 288-92.

Williams, H.

1981 Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth: Results of Investigations by the University of Chicago and Indiana University for the American School of Classical Studies at Athens IV: The Lamps. Leiden: Brill.

Yadin, Y.

1970 Symbols of Deities at Zinjirli, Carthage and Hazor. Pp. 199-231 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth

Century, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City: Doubleday. Yoyotte, J.

1983 L'Amon de Naukratis. Revue dEgyptologie 34: 129-36.

Zayadin, F.

1966 Early Hellenistic Pottery from the Theater Excavations at Samaria. Annual ofthe Department of Antiquities of Jordan 11: 53-64.

Zohary, D., and Hopf, M.

1988 Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Oxford: Clarendon.

Plates

Plate 2.1. The western flanks ofthe South Mound prior to the beginning of excava? tion in Areas 1 and 2. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.2. Area 1 (foreground) and Area 2 during the course of excavation. Photo from the north

(A. Leonardy Jr.).

[377]

Plate 2.3. The bottom ofthe sounding in Area 2 showing the cornering ofN-S Wall

2045> and E?W Wall 2044, just before the excavation area began to fill with water. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.4. The bottom ofthe sounding in Area 2

just as the excavation area began to fill with wa? ter. Brick(s) ofN-S Wall 2045 is visible. Photo

from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[378]

Plate 2.5. East balk ofArea 1 showing the base

ofa small terracotta vessel (MC#36) imbedded in the mudbrick of Locus 1022 in NW Phase 2A. For the drawing of the vessel, see fig. 6.3.5. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.6. Mudbrick Wall 1016 of NW Phase 3A in Area 1 being measured and drawn by C. Johnson-Romy. Note the proximity ofthe wall to the surface ofthe modern road cutting. Photo from the south (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[379]

Plate 2.7. North (working) balk ofArea 1, showing Phase 3A beaten clay Sur?

face 1019 situated upon Phase 2 debris Layer 1020. Phase 3A Wall 1016 (on which the scale is placed) was founded on Surface 1019. Photo from the south

(A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.8 (a) North and east balk ofArea 2. Tags in the north balk (from bottom to top) indicate the po? sition of: Wall 2030 and courses ofthe same wall that were dug as Locus 2039 (Phase 2A); Debris Locus

2034 (= Locus 2022) and 2031 (Phase 2B); Pottery-rich debris Layers 2004 and 2020 (Phase 3B); detri?

tus Layer 2003 underlying the small (E-W) Wall 2002 (Phase 4A); and finally Topsoil (Locus 2001). Photo from the south (A. Leonard, Jr.). (b) Detail.

[380]

Plate 2.9. N-S Wall 49013 bisected for the removal of intrusive Burial 49016. Photo from the northwest (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.10. N-S Wall 49013 (with tags) cut by the removal of intrusive Burial

49016. Individual bricks of lower courses are visible beyond the point ofthe trowel. Photo from the East Balk (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[381]

Plate 2.11. Phase 6, E-W screen Wall 49135 (left) shown butting against N-S Wall 49107. E-W Wall 49103-49003 is visible in the lower right corner. Photo

from the northeast (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.12. West end of Northwest Building, Phase 7 and following. Wall 49204 in

foreground with scale in doorway. Wall 49206 (with step) behind Wall 49211 closes Room 4 to the south (right). Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[382]

Plate 2.13. The westward extension ofthe Northwest Building forming Room 3 (on

right) and Room 4 on the left. Visible N-S walls (from the rightIwest): 49107, 49206 (with threshold), and the badly damaged Wall 49204 at the far left. N-S Wall 50202149013 closes the top ofthe photo. Bi-pod photograph (D. Bingham).

Plate 2.14. Northwest Building Rooms 3 and 4 as they appeared in NW Phases 7 and 8. Scale on

Surface 49235 in Room 3 (NW Phase 8); Surface 49238 in Room 4. Note NW Phase 7, Wall 49211 closing Room 4 on the south. Photo from the north balk

(A. Leonard, Jr.).

[383]

Plate 2.15. Room 2 looking toward the east, showing "stub" Wall 49133 (NW Phase 8B) built upon Surface 49149 and its make-up (NW Phase 8A). This surface, on which the scale is placed, was cut on the south (right) by a "fire pit" (Locus 49152) in NW Phase 8A, that was dug against the northern face ofWall 49135 that was originally constructed in NW Phase 6C. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.16. Southwest corner ofthe Northwest Building in NW Phase 7 and subse?

quent phases. Scale on Surface 49238. On the right, beyond E-W Wall 49211, the

step and threshold (Phases 7 and 8) lead into Room 3. Photo from the southwest

(A. Leonard, Jr.).

[384]

P/^te 2.17a. Room 4 from the west. Wall 49204 in the extreme foreground. Scale on

Surface 49238, Wall 49206 with step, behind and to the right ofthe scale, leading to Room 3. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.17b. Wall 49107 (upper left) with Room 3 (center) and Wall 49206 with

step down to Room 4. Photo from the Northwest (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[385]

Plate 2.18. Area 491 probe excavation placed against N-S Wall 49107 (rear of photo), north ofE?W Wall 49135 (left of photo) in order to determine the relation?

ship between these walls and the ephemeral, NW Phase 7C E-W Wall 49138, that is visible on the right. The tagged northern balk ofthe probe is shown in Plate 18 be? low. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 2.19. Temporary north balk against eastern face of Wall 49107 (left) showing its relationship to the small Wall 49138 (tagged at the center of the photo) that

formed the eastern limits ofa tiny "bin" at the western end ofRoom 2 in NW Phases 7 and 8.

Note (in the lower left): the NW Phase 6B surface, Locus 49146P has been incor-

rectly tagged as "Locus 49136P" and should be read as 49146P, as it is to the right of the picture. Photo from the south (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[386]

Plate 3.1. Jeanne Hourston-Wright stabilizes infant Burial 1239 in SE 4b, Tomb 1258 (Type V) while, in the foreground, Jan Sanders excavates SE 3, detritus Locus 1229. Between the two excavators are the remains of SE 4a, Tomb 1250 (also Type V). Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 3.2. Infant Burial 1239 in SE 4b, Tomb 1258. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[387]

Plate 3.3. Eastern half of Area 12 showing SE 4 tombs dug into SE 3 Detritus

1229, which is considered to represent the slumped, upper courses of ("Great Temenos") Wall 1271. Tomb 1248 (Type V) extends into the east balk (at the

top ofthe photo), and Tombs 1224 (Type III) and Tomb 1249 (Type V) can be

seen in the right foreground. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 3.4. SE 4 Tomb 1245 (Type V) sectioned in the east balk of Area 12. Adult

Burial 1264 is visible on the tomb floor (pedestal). The tomb had been dug into detritus

Locus 1229 upon which the arrow is placed. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[388]

Plate 3.5. Partially excavated Burial 1264

(Tomb 1245) extending into the excavation area

from the east balk. Photo from the top of the balk (A. Leonard, Jr.).

H38P;

Plate 3.6. SE 7b, Tomb 1223 (Type II) built upon SE 7b, detritus Locus 1233. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[389]

Plate 3.7. Tomb 1207, a Type I tomb of SE Phase 4c, during excavation. Photo

from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 3.8. The close juxtoposition of SE Phase 4 burials (Type III Tomb 1224 and Type V Tomb

1249) dug into detritus Locus

1229, which is thought to repre? sent the slumped upper courses of Wall 1254, the best candidatefor the architecture encountered by Petrie and Hogarth. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[390]

Plate 3.9. Southeast corner ofArea 12 showing probe excavated to the level of ground water. South balk shows SE 2 Tomb 1251 (Type I) that had been built built upon SE 1 Locus 1251, which is interpreted as the upper courses of ("Great Temenos") Wall 1271. Rising ground water can be seen filling the

probe in the right foreground. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.).

^S^^^^^Sifeifei?^

Plate 3.10. Cluster of bones (Locus 1573t SE 6) found in mudbrick detritus Locus 153911542 (SE 5). Possibly representing part of burial(s) from a destroyed tomb in the area. SE 6, Tomb (then being excavated as "Wall") 1506 is visible to the right. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[391]

Plate 3.11. Jeanne Hourston-Wright stabilizes bone cluster Locus 1573 prior to its removal from the excavation area. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 3.12. SE Phase 2a Tomb 1561 (Type V) built in a deep pit that had been dug into a

layer of mudbrick detritus which is considered to represent the

collapse or slump of the upper courses of CGreat Temenos") Wall 1555. Photo from the east

(A. Leonard, Jr.).

[392]

Plate 3.13. Infant Burial 1551

(complete) in SE Phase 2b Tomb 1547 (Type III). Tomb 1547 was built directly upon SE 2a Tomb 1561, in the same pit that had been dug into Locus 1555. Photo from the east

(A. Leonard, Jr).

Plate 3.14. View ofthe south balk ofArea 15, with SF Phase 2, Tomb 1543 (con?

taining Burial 1569) partially in balk. In front (north) of it is SE Phase 2a Tomb 1553 (unopened). Arrow rests on SE Phase 1, Locus 1555/1565 which is considered to be the best candidate for evidence of Petrie's "Great Temenos." Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[393]

Plate 3.15. Looking down on Burial 1569 in SE Phase 2, Tomb 1543 (Type V) af? ter it had been excavated. Arrow rests on Locus 155511565 of SE Phase 1. Photo

from the south balk (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 3.16. The south balk ofArea 15 after the removal of Tomb 1543. Unexca? vated Tomb 1553 still remains in front (north) ofit; while to the right (west) Tomb

1557 can be seen protruding from the balk. Arrow rests on Locus 155511565

CGreat Temenos") ofSE 1. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[394]

Plate 3.17. A cluster of human bones in SE Phase 3 Locus 153711538 that repre? sents the cursary burial ofa rather large adult (sex unobtainable) and a young child. Photo from the Southeast (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 3.18. Firedbrick and mud? brick Tomb 1558 (Type V, SE Phase 2b). Above an (unexca? vated) primary burial on the floor ofthis tomb, a layer of sand had been spread (Locus 1567, see

arrow) upon (and into) which a

group ofat least four, secondary burials (an adult male and three or four children) had been interred. Some of these can be seen in the photograph. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[395]

Plate 4.1. Area 66 showing rectangular Tomb 6605 and associated stone paving. To the right (South) can be seen Tombs 6604 and 6606. Photo from the West (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 4.2. Area 66 with Tomb 6605 in the foreground and Tomb 6604 in the upper left corner. A probe in the Northwest corner ofthe square (below the arrow) was to

produce a second, lower series of burials including Tombs 6614 and 6615. Photo

from the East (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[396]

Plate 5.1. Morris Weiss (left) and John Gifford (right) analyse the material from the core that was drilled in the North Area (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 5.2. Sieving the soil matrix from the core sample from the North Area (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[397]

Plate 5.3. Areas 315 and 316 after excavation. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 5.4. Preparing Areas 315 and 316 for excavation. The South Balk (at left) has been trimmed back in "steps" in order to minimize contamination from above, as well as to regularize the illicit digging of the sebakhin. Photo from the east (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[398]

Plate 5.5. Areas 315 and 316. The arrow is placed on North Phase 3 Wall 31504, the upper courses of which were removed by the digging ofthe sebakhin, but which are still visible in the trimmed South Balk. Parallel to, and

contemporary with, Wall 31504 is Wall 31603 to the right beyond the communal balk. Photo from the Northeast (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 5.6. North-South Wall 31504 (arrow) of North Phase 3 with a succession of tip-lines against it. Traces ofthe upper courses ofthe wall, removed by the sebakhin, can be seen in the balk. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[399]

Plate 5.7. North-South Wall 31603 (arrow) of North Phase 3, founded directly upon Wall 31628 of North Phase 2. See probe at the right of photograph. Photo from the west (A. Leonard, Jr.).

Plate 5.8. North-South Wall 31603 (arrow) of North Phase 3 with the upper courses that were destroyed by the sebakhin visible in the South Balk. In the probe to the right (west) of the wall, the lower (North Phase 2) Wall 31628 can be seen. Above the probe, and to the right of Wall 31603, an intrusive tomb (dug as Wall

31606) is visible. Photo from the north (A. Leonard, Jr.).

[400]

Plate 7.1. a,b. Fragments ofa terracotta plaque depicting Papposilenos(?) carrying a jar. NW Phase 3b, Locus 2020. MC#65 (D. Bingham).

Plate 7.2. Fragments of a terracotta plaque depict- Plate 7.3. Terracotta foot or boot. NW Phase 8b,

ing the same scene as pl. 7.1(0- NW Phase 3b, Locus 49214. MC#76 (D. Bingham). Locus 2020. MC#65A (D. Bingham).

[401]

Plate 7.4. Fragment of an imported, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 2b, Locus 1020 (D. Bingham).

'?' S^.^S55L^H^r;x^.r;. -i:/,:: ̂J^^^^Sipt]. ~:&?Z^#ji%$J?l-i ::!;.ijj?,|

Plate 7.5. (Left) Fragment ofa local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8a, Locus 49150. MC#202a (D. Bingham).

Plate 7.6. (Right) Fragment of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8a, Locus 49149. MC#85 (D. Bingham).

[402]

/Y^te 7.7. Fragment ofa local, terracotta lamp. NW Plate 7 8. Nozzle of a local, terracotta lamp. NW Phase 8a, Locus 49150. MC#202b (D. Bingham). Phase 10, Locus 49201. MC#74 (D. Bingham).

Plate 7.9. Fragment of terracotta potters wheel(?). N Phase 1, Locus 31629. MC#136 (D. Bingham).

[403]

Plate 7.10. Fragment ofa terracotta mortar or baking tile. Northeast Area, topsoil Locus 8801. MC#37 (D. Bingham).

Plate 7.11. Terracotta brazier or lamp, from Field II (D. Bingham).

[404]

Plate 7.12.a,b. Fragment ofa moldmade, terracotta bowl depicting the Egyptian god Bes and a col? umn (in relief). Northwest Area, Locus 2019. MC#85 (D. Bingham).

Plate 7.13. Tiny fragment of Gnathian CWest Slope") Ware from NW3b, Locus 1019 (D. Bingham).

[405]

Plate 7.14. a, b. Small, faience amulet depicting the Egyptian god Bes. NW Phase lc, Locus 2036. MC#64a

(D. Bingham).

Plate 7.15. Small, faience amulet depicting a croco- Plate 7.16. Discoidal, faience bead with an "X"

dile or Oxyrhynchos fish. NW Phase 2b, Locus impressed on one surface. NW Phase 2a, Locus

1020. MC#28 (D. Bingham). 2035. MC#46 (D. Bingham).

[406]

Plate 7.17a,b. Carved, limestone plaque depicting a cobra (Agathos Daimon?) on one face and an unknown scene on the other. From NW Hiatus C, Locus 49136. MC#118 (D. Bingham).

Plate 7.18. Small fragment ofa mosaic floor from the Southeast Area surface. MC#77 (D. Bingham).

[407]

Plate 7.19. Limestone slab with tool and cutting marks. From Petrie's claimed

Ptolemaic rebuilding ofthe "Great Temenos"(?) MC#47 (D. Bingham).

Plate 7.20. Fragment ofa limestone block or slab with tool and cutting marks. From

Petrie s claimed Ptolemaic rebuilding ofthe "Great Temenos"(?) MC#85 (D. Bingham).

[408]

Plate 7.21. Ptolemaic(?) mortarium fragments from topsoil loci in the Northeast

Area, Square 88. MC#30 (D. Bingham).

Plate 7.22a,b. Bronze coin of Ptolemy III. Obverse (left) depicts Alexander III wearing elephant-skin head-

dress; reverse (right) shows eagle with closed wings on thunderbolt with cornucopia in front. MC#42

(D. Bingham).

[409]

Plate 7.23. Bronzefishhook(?). MC#34

(D. Bingham).

Plate 7.24. Earring with bronze discs suspended from a central, triangular

piece on bronze and gold wires. From Locus 1542. MC#60 and 151

(D. Bingham).

[410]

Plate 7.25. Iron Nails from a variety ofloci in the South Mound.

lilllf

Plate 7.26. Iron Nails from a variety of loci in the South Mound.

[411]

Plate 9.1. An example of corbeled tomb construction.

Plate 9.2. An example ofslab tomb construction.

[412]

Plate 9.3. Burial 1253. Prominent bilateral Steida'sprocesses on talar bones.

iilllll

Plate 9.4. Burial 1253. Ankylosed third, fourth, and fifth lumbar vertebrae.

[413]

iilllllllllllllllp

Plate 9.5. Burial 1256. Cribriform lesions ofboth orbits.

.'^V. yx*> /&^ _ $88!' sJ?fi

"HHfe Vi^, :*##?* .^'"

P/tfte 5?. 61 Burial 1230. Bifurcated sternal end of right rib.

[414]

Plate 9.7. Burial 1562. Deciduous up? per left central incisor with carious in? cisal notch and hypoplastic enamel on labial surface.

Plate 9.8. Burial 1562. Geminated de? ciduous mandibular left lateral incisor.

[415]

Ancient naukratis excavations at a Greek emporium in egypt part I excavations at Kom Geif.

Documents

Transcript of Ancient naukratis excavations at a Greek emporium in egypt part I excavations at Kom Geif.