DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3332#0078
74
NADKUATIS.
was yet a new and unfamiliar adaptation from
Phoenicia.
In the case of Class IV. our evidence is not
quite so strong; for its vases are selected for
the forms of their letters, not for their fabric,
which is similar to that of many others found
with them. But they serve rather to confirm
than to weaken the evidence of the classes just
discussed; the pottery is of a type that may
very well be nearly as old as the others ; and
the peculiar inscriptions may also be the
earliest—or at least preserve the tradition of
the earliest forms. With them may be classed
the peculiar inscription, 305; but there the
resemblance of p to the Phoenician may be due
to a later and direct Phoenician influence—it
may indeed have been incised by one who knew
the Phoenician alphabet as well as the Greek.
But an example like this cannot weaken the
consistent testimony of the early inscriptions
that we have just discussed; and I think their
early date is at least as well proved on
archaeological and epigraphical evidence as that
of any other set of inscriptions that is allowed
a place among the primitive monuments of the
Greek alphabet.
The last two sections have, I fear, assumed
a somewhat controversial tone; but such a
tone could hardly be avoided in discussing
various views that affect the whole basis of our
work at Naukratis. It is of course a great
advantage to receive so careful a criticism
before our work is completed ; and my thanks
are especially due to Prof. Hirschfeld for
joining me in an elaborate discussion of our
views in the Academy—a discussion that has
done much to clear up the obscurities of the
subject and to reveal the points at issue. If I
am unable to finally agree to his conclusions, it
is from no wish to ignore his arguments, or to
underrate the ability with which they are put
forth.
One more point must be noticed. If scholars
should agree to accept Prof. Hirschfeld's most
ingenious distinction between the Ehodian and
the Ionic inscriptions of Abu Simbel, it will
indeed follow that the Ionic alphabet of Teos
and Colophon is different from the Ionic
alphabet of Naukratis. But there is still
nothing to prevent the difference from being
one of place, not of period. There are no
reasons for assuming that all Ionian cities used
precisely the same alphabet in early times; such
a supposition is indeed contrary to the analogy
of all other early alphabets, which invariably
show strong local divergences, even if closely
allied. And it is by no means impossible that
the alphabet of the colony of Naukratis had
adopted from Cyprus4 il and the other
' complementary ' characters at a time when
they were unknown even to its parent city
Miletus. But in that case Naukratis exhibits
the earliest examples of that complete Greek
alphabet commonly known by the name
" Ionic," but certainly not common to all cities
of Ionian origin. The unity of the early Ionic
alphabet has never been proved, though it is
commonly assumed : and if new facts are
contrary to that assumption, it must be
discarded.
(58) Let us now make a brief review of the
actual results that have been gained by the
second season's work at Naukratis. The
present volume opened with some account of
what had to be sought in the city, and of the
fruits of the first season's excavation. To the
sites already marked in Mr. Petrie's Plan of
1885 we may now add the temple of the
Dioscuri, the temenos dedicated by the Samians
to Hera, and the temple and temenos of Aphro-
dite. All these sites have been carefully
cleared; and although the first two were some-
what disappointing, the third yielded a treasure
of archaic vases, statuettes, and inscriptions,
that surpassed even the anticipations aroused
in the previous season. Thus of the sacred
See Joum. Hell. Stud., 1886, p. 233.
NADKUATIS.
was yet a new and unfamiliar adaptation from
Phoenicia.
In the case of Class IV. our evidence is not
quite so strong; for its vases are selected for
the forms of their letters, not for their fabric,
which is similar to that of many others found
with them. But they serve rather to confirm
than to weaken the evidence of the classes just
discussed; the pottery is of a type that may
very well be nearly as old as the others ; and
the peculiar inscriptions may also be the
earliest—or at least preserve the tradition of
the earliest forms. With them may be classed
the peculiar inscription, 305; but there the
resemblance of p to the Phoenician may be due
to a later and direct Phoenician influence—it
may indeed have been incised by one who knew
the Phoenician alphabet as well as the Greek.
But an example like this cannot weaken the
consistent testimony of the early inscriptions
that we have just discussed; and I think their
early date is at least as well proved on
archaeological and epigraphical evidence as that
of any other set of inscriptions that is allowed
a place among the primitive monuments of the
Greek alphabet.
The last two sections have, I fear, assumed
a somewhat controversial tone; but such a
tone could hardly be avoided in discussing
various views that affect the whole basis of our
work at Naukratis. It is of course a great
advantage to receive so careful a criticism
before our work is completed ; and my thanks
are especially due to Prof. Hirschfeld for
joining me in an elaborate discussion of our
views in the Academy—a discussion that has
done much to clear up the obscurities of the
subject and to reveal the points at issue. If I
am unable to finally agree to his conclusions, it
is from no wish to ignore his arguments, or to
underrate the ability with which they are put
forth.
One more point must be noticed. If scholars
should agree to accept Prof. Hirschfeld's most
ingenious distinction between the Ehodian and
the Ionic inscriptions of Abu Simbel, it will
indeed follow that the Ionic alphabet of Teos
and Colophon is different from the Ionic
alphabet of Naukratis. But there is still
nothing to prevent the difference from being
one of place, not of period. There are no
reasons for assuming that all Ionian cities used
precisely the same alphabet in early times; such
a supposition is indeed contrary to the analogy
of all other early alphabets, which invariably
show strong local divergences, even if closely
allied. And it is by no means impossible that
the alphabet of the colony of Naukratis had
adopted from Cyprus4 il and the other
' complementary ' characters at a time when
they were unknown even to its parent city
Miletus. But in that case Naukratis exhibits
the earliest examples of that complete Greek
alphabet commonly known by the name
" Ionic," but certainly not common to all cities
of Ionian origin. The unity of the early Ionic
alphabet has never been proved, though it is
commonly assumed : and if new facts are
contrary to that assumption, it must be
discarded.
(58) Let us now make a brief review of the
actual results that have been gained by the
second season's work at Naukratis. The
present volume opened with some account of
what had to be sought in the city, and of the
fruits of the first season's excavation. To the
sites already marked in Mr. Petrie's Plan of
1885 we may now add the temple of the
Dioscuri, the temenos dedicated by the Samians
to Hera, and the temple and temenos of Aphro-
dite. All these sites have been carefully
cleared; and although the first two were some-
what disappointing, the third yielded a treasure
of archaic vases, statuettes, and inscriptions,
that surpassed even the anticipations aroused
in the previous season. Thus of the sacred
See Joum. Hell. Stud., 1886, p. 233.