DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3332#0074
70
NAUKRATIS.
CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUSION.
(56) The date of the foundation of Naukratis,
and the various historical problems associated
therewith, have already been discussed by Mr.
Petrie in Naukratis I. The discoveries that
have been made since he wrote have not, for
the most part, belonged to the earliest period
of the city's growth, but rather to the time of
its highest prosperity in the sixth century. It
would not therefore have been necessary to re-
open the discussion of its earliest history, but
that the very existence of that earliest history
has been called into question. Prof. Hirschfeld
has published a paper in the Bheinisches
Museum, xlii. p. 209 sq., the substance of which
is, for our present purpose, summed up in these
words;
" Also f riihestem ins Jahre 570, aber gewiss
auch nicht viel spiiter, d.h. nicht lange nach
dem Beginn der Alleinherrschaft des Amasis,
fallt der feste Punkt fur all Arten von Denk-
malern, welche vom griechischen Naukratis
erhalten sind." This is the conclusion Prof.
Hirschfeld draws from the testimony of Hero-
dotus. Earlier factories, such as the Mikrjaimv
Teix°5 mentioned by Strabo, may have existed
before the time of Amasis, but these were not
at Naukratis; they were, perhaps, absorbed into
it on its foundation.
Such, in brief, is Prof. Hirschfeld's theory.
I must refer to his paper (loc. cit.) those who
wish to follow his arguments in detail, but I
think the above will be found to be a fair state-
ment of his position. Let us first examine the
literary evidence on which the theory is, for
the most part, based ; and afterwards consider
such evidence of excavation as tends to refute
or confirm Prof. Hirschfeld's opinion. I may
be excused if I here repeat some statements
already made in Naukratis I. by Mr. Petrie.
For the raising of this question has given to
them a new bearing and importance.
Beyond vague traditions as to the foundation
of Naukratis, mostly pointing to a Milesian
origin, there are only two sufficiently circum-
stantial to be of much use as evidence.
Strabo says (p. 801) : " to MiXijcriW rei^os'
TrXevo-avTes yap inl "¥ap,p.y]Ti^(ov Tpio-Kovra vavaiv
MlXiJctlol (Kara KvafjdpT) 8' ouros rjv tov MfjBov)
Karia^ov eis to BoKBitlvov ' ew e/cySavTes
iT€i)(Lcrav to \e^9ev KTtcrp,a' ~%p6v<p 8' dvairkev-
cravres ets tov Sclltlkov vop-bv, KaTavavfia^qcravTe?
"ivapov, Ttokiv atTurav NavKpariv ov tto\v ttj?
^X^S"1? v-n-epOev." Here we are told that the
Milesians first made a fortified post, the Mu\rj-
aioiv tci^os : then " after a certain lapse of time
they sailed up to the Saite nome, and having
conquered Inarus in a naval fight, they founded
the city of Naukratis, not far above Schedia.*'
I do not agree with Mr. Petrie that " we cannot
make use of this statement" because an Inarus
lived in the fifth century. We need not assume
the two to be identical: and the statement of
Strabo is so clear and definite that he evidently
is drawing from some well-informed author or
tradition. If we find Herodotus and Strabo
inconsistent, we may feel compelled to accept
the statement of the former, as living nearer
to the time he writes about. But we have no
right to reject arbitrarily the story of Strabo,
if it is confirmed by tradition, and shows no
NAUKRATIS.
CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUSION.
(56) The date of the foundation of Naukratis,
and the various historical problems associated
therewith, have already been discussed by Mr.
Petrie in Naukratis I. The discoveries that
have been made since he wrote have not, for
the most part, belonged to the earliest period
of the city's growth, but rather to the time of
its highest prosperity in the sixth century. It
would not therefore have been necessary to re-
open the discussion of its earliest history, but
that the very existence of that earliest history
has been called into question. Prof. Hirschfeld
has published a paper in the Bheinisches
Museum, xlii. p. 209 sq., the substance of which
is, for our present purpose, summed up in these
words;
" Also f riihestem ins Jahre 570, aber gewiss
auch nicht viel spiiter, d.h. nicht lange nach
dem Beginn der Alleinherrschaft des Amasis,
fallt der feste Punkt fur all Arten von Denk-
malern, welche vom griechischen Naukratis
erhalten sind." This is the conclusion Prof.
Hirschfeld draws from the testimony of Hero-
dotus. Earlier factories, such as the Mikrjaimv
Teix°5 mentioned by Strabo, may have existed
before the time of Amasis, but these were not
at Naukratis; they were, perhaps, absorbed into
it on its foundation.
Such, in brief, is Prof. Hirschfeld's theory.
I must refer to his paper (loc. cit.) those who
wish to follow his arguments in detail, but I
think the above will be found to be a fair state-
ment of his position. Let us first examine the
literary evidence on which the theory is, for
the most part, based ; and afterwards consider
such evidence of excavation as tends to refute
or confirm Prof. Hirschfeld's opinion. I may
be excused if I here repeat some statements
already made in Naukratis I. by Mr. Petrie.
For the raising of this question has given to
them a new bearing and importance.
Beyond vague traditions as to the foundation
of Naukratis, mostly pointing to a Milesian
origin, there are only two sufficiently circum-
stantial to be of much use as evidence.
Strabo says (p. 801) : " to MiXijcriW rei^os'
TrXevo-avTes yap inl "¥ap,p.y]Ti^(ov Tpio-Kovra vavaiv
MlXiJctlol (Kara KvafjdpT) 8' ouros rjv tov MfjBov)
Karia^ov eis to BoKBitlvov ' ew e/cySavTes
iT€i)(Lcrav to \e^9ev KTtcrp,a' ~%p6v<p 8' dvairkev-
cravres ets tov Sclltlkov vop-bv, KaTavavfia^qcravTe?
"ivapov, Ttokiv atTurav NavKpariv ov tto\v ttj?
^X^S"1? v-n-epOev." Here we are told that the
Milesians first made a fortified post, the Mu\rj-
aioiv tci^os : then " after a certain lapse of time
they sailed up to the Saite nome, and having
conquered Inarus in a naval fight, they founded
the city of Naukratis, not far above Schedia.*'
I do not agree with Mr. Petrie that " we cannot
make use of this statement" because an Inarus
lived in the fifth century. We need not assume
the two to be identical: and the statement of
Strabo is so clear and definite that he evidently
is drawing from some well-informed author or
tradition. If we find Herodotus and Strabo
inconsistent, we may feel compelled to accept
the statement of the former, as living nearer
to the time he writes about. But we have no
right to reject arbitrarily the story of Strabo,
if it is confirmed by tradition, and shows no