DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.619#0010
NAUKBATIS.
. CHAPTER I.
THE SITE OF NAUKBATIS, AND ITS HISTOBY.
1. The question of the position of Naukratis
has long been an undecided one; and for the very
good reason that no part of the world, so close to
a large Western population, and so essential to
archaeology, is such unknown ground as the Delta
of Egypt. There are hundreds of English travel-
lers who are familiar with Upper Egypt and its
towns; but it would be easier to find anyone to
give a scientific personal account of the sources of
the Nile, than one who could give an archaeological
account of the remains thickly scattered about its
mouths. Yet' this ground is witbin a week's
journey of our homes.
The first search for Naukratis, if I may call it
so, is described in a paper by Silk Buckingham, in
the original papers of the Syro-Egyptian Society,
1845. This, however, only describes a visit to
Sa-el-Hajar, which he assumed to be the site of
Naukratis. No excavations, or evidence for this
identification, are mentioned; and it is now
recognised by all that the Arab Sa is Sa of the
Egyptians, the Greek Sais. So this paper brings
us no nearer to Naukratis. Then it has been
supposed, on the strength of Herodotos and
Strabo, that Naukratis was near Desuk. I went
there, and inquired for any mounds known up or
down the east bank of the stream, but none were
to be seen or heard of.
2. All this while the two most accurate and
definite authorities on the subject were disre-
garded—the Geograpbia of Ptolemy, and the
Peutingerian map. Let us see what they say.
Ptolemy expressly describes Naukratis as being
on the west of the Great River. Now the Great
River is not the Saitic branch, but the Kanobic
branch, which is westward of the Saitic; thus he
places two rivers—the Saitic and the Kanobic—
between Sais and Naukratis. Further, he gives
the latitude and longitude of it, which, when
compared with those of the neighbouring sites,
indicate the position of the mound of Nebireh
(at which I have been working this year) within
two or three miles. For the details of the treat-
ment of Ptolemy's Geograpbia, I must refer to
Chapter XL, where the whole subject is discussed.
The most superficial view will, at least, show
that a city which is placed by Ptolemy with two
branches of the river between it and Sais, and in
the same latitude as Sais, but a quarter of a
degree further to the west, cannot be on the
same side of the same river as Sais, some miles
north of it, and in the same longitude. Both
by description of its site, and by position on
the rivers, Ptolemy distinctly excludes, without
the risk from bad copyists, the possibility of
Naukratis being near Desuk, and, furthermore,
places it certainly within a few miles of the mouud
of Nebireh.
3. The next most distinct authority is that- of
the copy of a Roman road-map, which first came
to notice in the hands of old Conrad Peutinger.
This would be a supreme authority were it
not for its numerous omissions and errata.
. CHAPTER I.
THE SITE OF NAUKBATIS, AND ITS HISTOBY.
1. The question of the position of Naukratis
has long been an undecided one; and for the very
good reason that no part of the world, so close to
a large Western population, and so essential to
archaeology, is such unknown ground as the Delta
of Egypt. There are hundreds of English travel-
lers who are familiar with Upper Egypt and its
towns; but it would be easier to find anyone to
give a scientific personal account of the sources of
the Nile, than one who could give an archaeological
account of the remains thickly scattered about its
mouths. Yet' this ground is witbin a week's
journey of our homes.
The first search for Naukratis, if I may call it
so, is described in a paper by Silk Buckingham, in
the original papers of the Syro-Egyptian Society,
1845. This, however, only describes a visit to
Sa-el-Hajar, which he assumed to be the site of
Naukratis. No excavations, or evidence for this
identification, are mentioned; and it is now
recognised by all that the Arab Sa is Sa of the
Egyptians, the Greek Sais. So this paper brings
us no nearer to Naukratis. Then it has been
supposed, on the strength of Herodotos and
Strabo, that Naukratis was near Desuk. I went
there, and inquired for any mounds known up or
down the east bank of the stream, but none were
to be seen or heard of.
2. All this while the two most accurate and
definite authorities on the subject were disre-
garded—the Geograpbia of Ptolemy, and the
Peutingerian map. Let us see what they say.
Ptolemy expressly describes Naukratis as being
on the west of the Great River. Now the Great
River is not the Saitic branch, but the Kanobic
branch, which is westward of the Saitic; thus he
places two rivers—the Saitic and the Kanobic—
between Sais and Naukratis. Further, he gives
the latitude and longitude of it, which, when
compared with those of the neighbouring sites,
indicate the position of the mound of Nebireh
(at which I have been working this year) within
two or three miles. For the details of the treat-
ment of Ptolemy's Geograpbia, I must refer to
Chapter XL, where the whole subject is discussed.
The most superficial view will, at least, show
that a city which is placed by Ptolemy with two
branches of the river between it and Sais, and in
the same latitude as Sais, but a quarter of a
degree further to the west, cannot be on the
same side of the same river as Sais, some miles
north of it, and in the same longitude. Both
by description of its site, and by position on
the rivers, Ptolemy distinctly excludes, without
the risk from bad copyists, the possibility of
Naukratis being near Desuk, and, furthermore,
places it certainly within a few miles of the mouud
of Nebireh.
3. The next most distinct authority is that- of
the copy of a Roman road-map, which first came
to notice in the hands of old Conrad Peutinger.
This would be a supreme authority were it
not for its numerous omissions and errata.