Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T16:28:35.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Two Naucratite Vases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Extract

The two vases of which portions are reproduced upon Pl. LXXIX. may serve as representative specimens of the two most important classes of Naucratite pottery. They were both found, mixed with innumerable other fragments, amid the rubbish that covered the whole area of the temenos of Aphrodite, excavated by me in the season 1885–6. The two smaller figures represent the two sides of one fragment. These two vases are of especial interest, because they were both beyond any doubt made in Naucratis. Last year the special name of Naucratite ware was given to a class of vases covered with a fine whitish glaze, and with a polychrome decoration outside; black inside, with lotus patterns in red and white. This ware was often found by Mr. Petrie in 1884–5, and also in 1885–6, with dedicatory inscriptions painted on before baking, thus proving beyond doubt its local origin. The fragment now figured with a sphinx is one of the finest specimens of this same ware; in its treatment both inside and outside it preserves the essential characteristics that may be seen in the simpler examples.

The other vase, with the lions and the stag, is one of a set of large bowls of which I found several nearly complete; in 1884–5 only a few fragments had appeared. These always have a dark glaze inside—red or black according to the firing; on this are painted concentric circles in white and purple. Their ornamentation is identical with that found on the inside of the eye-bowls; hence it would seem that these large bowls are a development of the eye-bowl type, just as the large polychrome vases are of the other Naucratite ware.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1887

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 120 note 1 That to which our fragments belong must have been about 14½ inches in diameter at the top.

page 121 note 1 Perhaps we see the hind legs and tail of one in our fragment; but there is hardly enough to identify the beast by. It may be another sphinx.

page 121 note 2 Both Mr. Petrie and Mr. Cecil Smith have written of the pottery in Naukratis, I.; but last year the finest styles were either unknown, or represented only by very inadequate fragments.