DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.619#0015
NAUKRATIS.
represented on pi. iii., and hence these may be
dated to about 620 B.C., or the end of the reign of
Psamtik I. An indication of the Milesian Apollo
being prominently known and honoured in Egypt,
and therefore doubtless having a temple there, in
the seventh century, may be seen in the fact of
Neqo in G08 dedicating his corslet to Apollo of
the Milesians at the mother temple of Branchidse
(Herod, ii. 159). The temenos wall of the temple
seems to be of a later age, as by the level of it it
may probably be about 550 B.C., and the bricks are
most like those of even two centuries later. I
should be inclined to suppose that the ground in the
sacred enclosure did not rise rapidly by accumula-
tions as in the town, and that perhaps digging a
foundation has lowered the foot of the wall,
so that we might attribute it to the building of
the second temple about 440 b.c. Some temenos
doubtless existed from the earliest dedication of a
temple, but it may have been entirely ruined when
(he first temple was destroyed.
The Great Temenos we have no exact means
of dating at present; if it were the Pan-Hellenion,
which seems to follow from the statement of Hero-
dotos that that temenos was the largest at Naukra-
tis, then it would probably be as early as the other
tcmene in the town. That it was injured, and
the block of chambers in it in a damaged state,
at about 300 b.c, we may be certain, as at that
time Ptolemy II. (as we shall see in Chapter IV.)
largely repaired it. Hence its age would well
agree with its being the Pan-Hellenion. The
most distinct evidence of its age is that afforded by
the brickwork. So far as I have collected the sizes
of hricks in Egypt, it appears that from the twenty-
sixth dynasty down to late Koman times the sizes
steadily decreased, about an inch in length per
century; and in scarcely any case of plainly dated
bricks that I know of is there a variation of as
much as one inch or one century from this scale.
In the walls and citadel of Sais the bricks are
17-2x8-0 (the thickness is always variable) at
about 0 >0 b.c. ; at Kom Afrin, perhaps about 000
b.o.j the size is 16*3 x 7-4; at Naukratis, about
600 or 550 b.c, according to pottery, the size is
16x7*9 ; and the Great Temenos and chambers
within it are of bricks 16-3x83. Hence we
should expect that the Great Temenos belongs to
the earlier part of the twenty-sixth dynasty, and
not to the Persian period. In contrast to these sizes
of bricks, those of the Ptolemaic building, about
260 b.c, in the gateway, are 14-8x7-2, or
rather less than those which we can date to about
350 b.c. All the details will be found in Chapter X.
Historically speaking, we should expect the Pan-
Hellenion to have been founded at about the same
time as the other archaic temples, perhaps about
620 b.c, when the town was evidently in a
flourishing state, as shown by the quantities of
archaic pottery found, and its wide distribution
on the site.
9. A reverse to the prosperity of. Naukratis
may be seen in the total cessation of the con-
siderable manufacture of scarabsei; if other
trades carried their age in their faces in the same
manner, we might very likely see the same thing
in all the manufactures ; but in the scarabaei the
change is striking, as I have already mentioned,
and points to a check of a temporary but sharp
nature at about the beginning of the reign of
Amasis. This exactly agrees with what Herodotos
records of the usurpation of Amasis over his adop-
tive brother and co-regent Apries, in ii. 163 :
" When Apries heard of this, he armed his auxi-
liaries and marched against the Egyptians; he
had with him Carian and Ionian auxiliaries to
the number of thirty thousand . . . Now Apries'
party advanced against the Egyptians, and the
party of Amasis against the foreigners... 169 ...
and the foreigners fought well, but being far inferior
in numbers, were, on that account, defeated."
Here there must have been an immense disruption
of all Greek business, when thirty thousand
Greeks—all that could be drawn for levies in the
greatest emergency—were defeated and scattered,
and the conqueror marched on the capital, Sais,
and occupied it, within a few miles of the head-
represented on pi. iii., and hence these may be
dated to about 620 B.C., or the end of the reign of
Psamtik I. An indication of the Milesian Apollo
being prominently known and honoured in Egypt,
and therefore doubtless having a temple there, in
the seventh century, may be seen in the fact of
Neqo in G08 dedicating his corslet to Apollo of
the Milesians at the mother temple of Branchidse
(Herod, ii. 159). The temenos wall of the temple
seems to be of a later age, as by the level of it it
may probably be about 550 B.C., and the bricks are
most like those of even two centuries later. I
should be inclined to suppose that the ground in the
sacred enclosure did not rise rapidly by accumula-
tions as in the town, and that perhaps digging a
foundation has lowered the foot of the wall,
so that we might attribute it to the building of
the second temple about 440 b.c. Some temenos
doubtless existed from the earliest dedication of a
temple, but it may have been entirely ruined when
(he first temple was destroyed.
The Great Temenos we have no exact means
of dating at present; if it were the Pan-Hellenion,
which seems to follow from the statement of Hero-
dotos that that temenos was the largest at Naukra-
tis, then it would probably be as early as the other
tcmene in the town. That it was injured, and
the block of chambers in it in a damaged state,
at about 300 b.c, we may be certain, as at that
time Ptolemy II. (as we shall see in Chapter IV.)
largely repaired it. Hence its age would well
agree with its being the Pan-Hellenion. The
most distinct evidence of its age is that afforded by
the brickwork. So far as I have collected the sizes
of hricks in Egypt, it appears that from the twenty-
sixth dynasty down to late Koman times the sizes
steadily decreased, about an inch in length per
century; and in scarcely any case of plainly dated
bricks that I know of is there a variation of as
much as one inch or one century from this scale.
In the walls and citadel of Sais the bricks are
17-2x8-0 (the thickness is always variable) at
about 0 >0 b.c. ; at Kom Afrin, perhaps about 000
b.o.j the size is 16*3 x 7-4; at Naukratis, about
600 or 550 b.c, according to pottery, the size is
16x7*9 ; and the Great Temenos and chambers
within it are of bricks 16-3x83. Hence we
should expect that the Great Temenos belongs to
the earlier part of the twenty-sixth dynasty, and
not to the Persian period. In contrast to these sizes
of bricks, those of the Ptolemaic building, about
260 b.c, in the gateway, are 14-8x7-2, or
rather less than those which we can date to about
350 b.c. All the details will be found in Chapter X.
Historically speaking, we should expect the Pan-
Hellenion to have been founded at about the same
time as the other archaic temples, perhaps about
620 b.c, when the town was evidently in a
flourishing state, as shown by the quantities of
archaic pottery found, and its wide distribution
on the site.
9. A reverse to the prosperity of. Naukratis
may be seen in the total cessation of the con-
siderable manufacture of scarabsei; if other
trades carried their age in their faces in the same
manner, we might very likely see the same thing
in all the manufactures ; but in the scarabaei the
change is striking, as I have already mentioned,
and points to a check of a temporary but sharp
nature at about the beginning of the reign of
Amasis. This exactly agrees with what Herodotos
records of the usurpation of Amasis over his adop-
tive brother and co-regent Apries, in ii. 163 :
" When Apries heard of this, he armed his auxi-
liaries and marched against the Egyptians; he
had with him Carian and Ionian auxiliaries to
the number of thirty thousand . . . Now Apries'
party advanced against the Egyptians, and the
party of Amasis against the foreigners... 169 ...
and the foreigners fought well, but being far inferior
in numbers, were, on that account, defeated."
Here there must have been an immense disruption
of all Greek business, when thirty thousand
Greeks—all that could be drawn for levies in the
greatest emergency—were defeated and scattered,
and the conqueror marched on the capital, Sais,
and occupied it, within a few miles of the head-