Why Naucratis?

doi: 10.2143/AWE.12.0.2994451 AWE 12 (2013) 265-267

WHY NAUCRATIS?

JOHN BOARDMAN

Abstract The question is explored whether the siting of Naucratis so far from the Mediterranean coast and the ready availability there of natron-salt are in any way connected. The salt was a valuable source for the important fish-pickling industries in the Mediterranean, and it may have helped determine the placing of the port, just as later it was demonstrably a vital element in its trading prosperity.

Naucratis is located as far up the Canopic branch of the Nile as big ships can go, nearly 80 km inland from the later foundation of Alexandria, which supplanted it as the major entry port.1 The advantage to merchants of delivering their wares as close to major centres of habitation as possible is obvious, and Naucratis gave ready access to the cities and centres of industry in the delta. Whether the location was a Greek choice or one imposed by the Egyptians, who carefully regulated all trade through the port, is not clear, but it was obviously of mutual benefit. The foundation took place late in the 7th century BC, as a joint venture of Ionian Greek states, among whom Miletus and Chios seem to have been prominent, and soon, rather unexpectedly, joined by a mainland Greek trading partner – Aegina. The inspiration may have been wholly commercial but it has been suggested by Alexander Fantalkin2 that Lydia, with its control if not hegemony over much of Ionia, was a major stimulus to this closer link with Egypt, with whom the Lydian state had much to do. This seems quite plausible, but it is the more apparent Greek links with Egypt from now on – in terms of trade, associations with King Amasis, use of mercenaries, etc. – that are most apparent, and it is the finds of Greek material and their presence in Egypt that attract more attention than anything reciprocal. Jacob had learnt that ‘there was corn in Egypt’ (Genesis 42:1), but any ‘corn trade’ does not attract attention in our records – especially beside that with Cyrenaica. A probable special role for Naucratis emerges now from the evidence of the Elephantine palimpsest,3 the original text of which proves to be part of an official record in Aramaic (the script of the Persian empire) of the coming and going of shipping from Ionia and Phoenicia (respectively 36 and 6 ships) over the sailing season of ten months in 475 BC. The docu- ment’s reuse explains its travel from the coast so far up-river, but it is clear that the original was prepared to record shipping, cargoes and duty on cargoes at what can most plausibly only be Naucratis. This is apparent from the nature of the cargo taken on the return jour- ney. We may recall that by now Egypt was part of the Persian empire, so Phoenicians could share as never before in what had been an almost total Greek monopoly. Imports recorded in the palimpsest are gold and silver and manufactured goods, especially wooden, and there seems otherwise to be no particular character or emphasis in the nature of

1 Generally on Naucratis, Boardman 1999, 118–33, 280–81. A major project on the finds is being managed by the British Museum. See Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006. 2 Fantalkin 2013. 3 Yardeni 1994.

996073_AWE_12_11_Boardman.indd6073_AWE_12_11_Boardman.indd 265265 224/10/134/10/13 11:3611:36 266 J. BOARDMAN

the cargoes. But, without exception, every ‘Ionian’ ship left laden only with natron-salt, on which duty was paid. One might have expected Naucratis to be busier, but its hey-day had passed with the arrival of the Persians and the development of other Nile delta ports. I have elsewhere in this journal4 dwelt on the importance of the fishing industry in the Mediterranean area, as a major, and at some times and places, the major source of food.5 It has long been accorded a relatively subsidiary role in the economics of the area, but there is growing evidence that this is untrue, and that the more conspicuous role of corn and meat has been too readily judged to afford the main if not only criteria for judging the subsistence of Mediterranean peoples. Fish does not remain fresh for long; it needs drying or salting, and it has long been recognised, mainly by non-classical scholarship, that the provision of salt was a major consideration for European peoples, and especially for its use in the pres- ervation of raw foodstuffs. Salt is not easy to come by. Sea-shore salt beds can be prepared but they take time and trouble and space and there were few places near the Mediterranean where rock-salt beds might be mined easily in early days. The largest source of any preserving material in the Mediterra- nean basin was in Egypt, in the Natron Lake (Wadi el Natrun), just west of Naucratis, and at Naucratis itself there were local natron-pits at Barnugi close by (Pliny NH 41. 447). This close association of natron with Naucratis proves that this must be the port of the palimpsest – there are no serious rivals whatever, either on the coast or within the delta, where the natu- ral export could be natron, and only natron. Natron itself has a variable content of salt but serves in exactly the same way, for pickling. In 475 BC it was only natron-salt that the Ionian ships carried from Naucratis, and the trade continued well into Ptolemaic times when it was a profitable royal monopoly.6 It was lucrative for the Egyptians – the source was virtually inexhaustible, and it generated income from both sale and taxation. For the Egyptians, of course, its main value was for use in the mummification of humans and animals, and its dry- ing properties were paramount – far more attractive, at this date and on this scale of bulk export, for the preservation of a vital source of food than for any of its cleansing properties (for textiles, etc.) for which it could also be used. In the later period its use for glass and glazes may have been more demanding, but this was certainly not the case in the Greek world of 475 BC. Herodotus (2. 86. 1), Diodorus (1. 7; 2. 1) and Athenaeus (of Naucratis) (3. 116– 119) use the same word taricheuein for both pickling fish and embalming, and there is evidence elsewhere for this use of natron-salt. Alfred Lucas, in an exhaustive account of natron and mummification, remarks ‘The phraseology of Herodotus, Diodorus, Athenaeus and other writers makes it perfectly clear that the ancient Egyptian process of embalming the human body was analogous to that used for preserving fish’7 – also using natron-salt.8

4 Boardman 2011. 5 It has been suggested that in antiquity fish were more plentiful in the Mediterranean and some species much larger; see Patel 2012, citing the research of Paolo Guidetto of Salento. 6 Lucas 1962, 263–67, on Barnugi and Naucratis; ch. 12 on mummification. 7 Lucas 1932, 133. 8 For recent Oxford research on natron, see Shortland et al. 2006, where (p. 523) the role of Naucratis and the relevance of the palimpsest is approved: ‘the bridgehead of a large-scale Mediter- ranean natron trade’. Natron’s value has not been forgotten and the plentiful natron around Lake Chad fuels the lucrative export of dried fish from the Lake area.

996073_AWE_12_11_Boardman.indd6073_AWE_12_11_Boardman.indd 266266 224/10/134/10/13 11:3611:36 WHY NAUCRATIS? 267

It is not easy to judge, and is perhaps unlikely, that the availability of natron was even part of the original decision to found Naucratis as a terminal for Mediterranean trade with Egypt, but it is not altogether impossible, since it could not have been the most obvious choice for Mediterranean shipping dealing with Egypt. That it became a major, if not the major, reason for the continued use and prosperity of the port seems, however, highly prob- able, and the very close proximity of the port to a major source made it ideal for bulk ship- ment of the natron, which would otherwise have had to be carried far overland, or on other shipping upstream, before being carried to Greece.

Bibliography

Boardman, J. 1999: The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, 4th ed. (London). —. 2011: ‘Fish and the Mediterranean: the Nourishing Sea’. AWE 10, 1–9. Fantalkin, A. 2013: ‘Naukratis as a Contact Zone: Revealing the Lydian Connection’. In Rollinger, R. and Schnegg, K. (eds.), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel, (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA.), 27–51. Lucas, A. 1932: ‘The use of natron in mummification’. JEgA 18, 125–40. —. 1962: Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th ed., rev. J.R. Harris (London). Patel, S.S. 2012: ‘The incredible shrinking grouper’. Archaeology Jan/Feb 2012, 12. Schlotzhauer, U. and Villing, A. (eds.) 2006: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt (London). Shortland, A., Schachner, L., Freestone, I. and Tite, M. 2006: ‘Natron as a flux in the early vitreous materials industry: sources, beginnings and reasons for decline’. JAS 33.4, 521–30. Yardeni, A. 1994: ‘Maritime Trade and Royal Accountancy in an Erased Customs Account from 475 B.C.E. on the Ahiqar Scroll from Elephantine’. BASOR 293, 67–78.

Beazley Archive The Classics Centre 66 St Giles Oxford OX1 3LU UK [email protected]

996073_AWE_12_11_Boardman.indd6073_AWE_12_11_Boardman.indd 267267 224/10/134/10/13 11:3611:36