Figurine Use in Late Period Naukratis

The ancient riverport town of Naukratis was established at the end of the seventh century BCE on the Canopic branch of the Nile and has the archaeological signature of different populations. Naukratis provides a large corpus for understanding figurine production and use in Egyptian houses from the Late Period to the Roman Period, and for distinguishing those practices from foreign traditions (mainly Greek and Cypriot). Rediscovered and excavated by Petrie,⁷ then others,⁸ Naukratis is now the subject of a major reassessment⁹ and renewed excavations by the British Museum.¹⁰ Recent excavations and geophysics have enabled the reconstruction of this more than sixty hectare settlement, which accommodated industry, multistory mud-brick tower houses, and a population of more than sixteen thousand people. Naukratis stretched along a kilometer-long riverbank lined from north to south with Greek and Egyptian sanctuaries, the largest of which was that of Amun-Ra and associated deities (figure 9.2).

Context can now be reconstructed for many of the ca. 2,500 figurines of terracotta, stone, metal, faience, and bone found during the old excavations, complemented by recent excavation data. The typological study and analysis of the large Late Period stone and terracotta figure assemblage revealed two distinct patterns at Naukratis:¹¹

1. 1. Cypriot and Greek figurines of terracotta and stone were placed within Greek sanctuaries (alongside other votives), but were never found in secure contexts outside of these structures. These were dedicated by foreign visitors to Naukratis, from East Greece, mainland Greece, and Cyprus. They represent primarily either human figurines (probably representing the dedicators), or objects or animals (perhaps representing votives or sacrifices), and rarely depict deities. Regional and chronological patterns were recognized in the sanctuaries, which were frequented by different foreign communities.
2. 2. Egyptian figurines of terracotta and limestone were found in Egyptian houses, but could also be found in domestic dumps, down wells, and on the riverbank. Most represent the Egyptian deities Horus-the-child, Isis-Hathor,¹² or Bes. They were rarely found within Egyptian sanctuaries (where most types were entirely absent, and where most Egyptians had limited or no access), within Egyptian chapels,¹³ or adjacent to sanctuaries (where faience and bronze objects were apparently more suitable offerings).¹⁴ They were rarely found within Greek sanctuaries (where most forms were entirely absent).¹⁵

This distinct patterning is significant, for it records the presence and practices of different groups, with the Egyptian terracotta and limestone figurines almost exclusively being found within houses and refuse deposits within the town, or on the riverbank. This Late Period Egyptian figurine assemblage (figure 9.3) was dominated by figurines representing the god Horus-the-child, Hor-pa-khered (Hellenized as Harpocrates, which is used henceforth), who usually appears as macrophallic; he was sometimes depicted on horseback, with or without macrophallus. Some of these macrophallic child god figurines are depicted enthroned and wearing the crown of Upper and Lower Egypt, clearly identifying the subject as Horus the pharaoh, the god of kingship and one of the Egyptian theological justifications for kingship. Other figurines do not depict such clear features, making their identification as Harpocrates unclear, unless one considers the clearly related group together.¹⁶ When there was a Greek pharaoh during the Macedonian and Ptolemaic Periods, Harpocrates was sometimes depicted in Macedonian dress.¹⁷ Nude “Hathoric” female figurines were also popular.¹⁸ They depict Isis-Hathor nude, sometimes emerging from a mammisi or “chapel/house of birth”¹⁹ (identifiable by its distinctive Bes or papyriform columns), sometimes with a child (Harpocrates), or sometimes giving birth. Erroneously named “erotic” figurines show the conception of Harpocrates.²⁰ Other characters include Bes (protector of Harpocrates), who is often depicted within or next to the mammisi, but also priests and cultists celebrating festivals and involved in phallophoric processions.²¹ Collectively, these figurines depict the return of Isis-Hathor, the conception of Horus, the birth of Horus, and the festivals (such as the Festival of Drunkenness) that celebrate these religious events, which occurred during the period of the Nile inundation following the Egyptian New Year.²² Although Osiris is rarely depicted, these important events in the Egyptian calendar connect the success of the harvest to the cult of the Osirian triad, and ultimately, through Horus, to the ruling dynasty. This is because Horus was the patron of the royal family and the pharaoh was recognized as the living embodiment of Horus in Egyptian theology. The abundance of these cheap local figurines in limestone and terracotta suggests a significant proportion of the Naukratis population followed this cult at home, as was the practice in Memphis and across the Nile Delta.²³

Ptolemaic Figurines and Related Objects in Naukratis

Following the founding of Alexandria and the establishment of the Ptolemaic dynasty, significant changes are apparent within the figurine assemblage from Naukratis. An abrupt drop in imported figurines from Greece, East Greece, Cyprus, and other parts of Egypt followed. Workshops in Naukratis produced terracotta figurines, supplying the popular demand from Naukratite households. There was a significant change in technology, design, style, and decoration, including the introduction of Hellenistic-style hollow mold-made and brightly painted figurines like those commonly found across the various Hellenistic kingdoms. The figurines look more “Greek,”²⁴ and there is the introduction of new “Greek” types, depicting characters from Greek theater and Tanagra-style women.²⁵ However, depictions of Greek deities were rare (1.9 percent), while depictions of Egyptian gods and demigods (41 percent) and their followers (based largely on Late Period precedents) continued to dominate the assemblage (figure 9.4).²⁶ Harpocrates remained the most popular representation, followed by Isis/Hathor, Bes, and (rarely) Osiris/Apis/Serapis.²⁷ The two distinct groups—one depicting “Greek” “secular” subjects, while the more common other depicts Egyptian deities and rituals—both use the same visual language. They were produced in the same way, using the same materials, in the same style, in the same workshops,²⁸ and possibly had the same distributors and consumers. They may have held different (and multiple) meanings or significances that are more complicated than the strict binary categories of religious/ritual or secular/decorative.²⁹ But the “Greek” and the “Egyptian” objects were distinguished from each other, as evidenced by their distribution across houses and archaeological sites. The shared style, or visual language, is the medium through which the two groups of objects were used to communicate different things, perhaps signaling identity and membership in (or at least knowledge and appreciation of) Egyptian and Greek religious and/or cultural institutions. Unlike with Late Period Naukratis, discussed above, the Greek and the Egyptian figurines are sometimes, but not always, found together (see below).

Egyptian figurines have much in common with molded pottery, lamps, stoves, coffin-fittings, and faience vessels. These were all produced using the same Hellenistic innovation of hollow mold-made terracotta production, and were probably made in the same workshop(s).³⁰ The full range of molded terracotta artifacts can help explain the meaning of these figurines. The mass production of mold-made lamps depicting Egyptian deities and other symbols of the New Year inundation festivities (such as frogs, or Sothis) continued into the Roman Period, when they were replicated on Roman-style discus lamps (figure 9.5).³¹ The popularity of lamps incorporating the same Egyptian religious imagery also found on figurines made them suitable for use in religious contexts, be they domestic, temple, or cemetery, as well as in “magical” contexts, to complement or as an alternative to figurines.³²

A group of goblets with molded decoration celebrating festivals and possibly used as drinking sets found in Naukratis (figure 9.6),³³ can help explain the relationship between Egyptian characters depicted individually on figurines and lamps and as part of a group sequence on these goblets.³⁴ Made in Naukratis and Alexandria during the second century BCE to the first century BCE, these depict a series of mold-made figures that are often also common figurine forms, creating a sequence of scenes around the wheel-made goblets.³⁵ Collectively, the scenes record the inundation myth and were intended to be read in sequence: the return of Isis, the conception of Harpocrates, and his birth. These events were celebrated after the New Year and over the season of the Nile inundation, and were particularly associated with mammisi chapels. The scenes depict the following three events (figure 9.6):

1. 1. Isis is depicted reclining accompanied by Sothis (the Dog Star, figure 9.6e), represented as a dog, whose heliacal rising (on the 1st of Thoth) marks the New Year and was associated with the return of Isis.³⁶ Followers of Isis celebrate her return and the Festival of Drunkenness (20th of Thoth). They are carrying wine amphorae, drinking, playing music, and dancing (figures 9.6a–d). The characters depicted are often Nubians, possibly representing Isis’s retinue of followers when she returns from the south.³⁷ Occasionally the followers are represented as satyrs and maenads, representing the syncretic association of Greek Dionysos with Egyptian Osiris since the Late Period.
2. 2. A male rider (his horse is in the background) and a woman have sex (figures 9.6f–g).³⁸ This represents the conception of Harpocrates, celebrated as the hieros gamos (or holy union) of Isis and Osiris in the “place of drunkenness.”³⁹ Putti/erotes are depicted with cornucopia signifying erotic love and the fertility imbued on the world by hierogamies.

   

3. 3. The birth of Harpocrates (1st of Pachons) is depicted with Isis-Hathor shown as pregnant and/or giving birth within a birth chapel (mammisi) (figures 9.6i, 9.6l); the structure is identifiable by its distinctive papyriform columns (figure 9.6i). Sometimes Isis is clearly depicted with her headdress.⁴⁰ Harpocrates is depicted emerging from this chapel with his distinctive side lock, carrying a goblet, his macrophallus partially concealed by his long red tunic (figure 9.6j), or wearing the double crown and carrying a cornucopia (figure 9.6.k). He is protected by Bes (figure 9.6m), who is depicted dancing (figure 9.6l).

The representation of Isis giving birth within the mammisi, and the emergence of Harpocrates from this chapel, may explain the long-lived tradition of figurines representing a nude woman giving birth (figures 9.3d, 9.3e, 9.4b, 9.6i, 9.6l), and raises doubts about other interpretations of these figurines.⁴¹ Represented from the Late Period to the Roman Period, these are often cited as evidence of the role of Egyptian figurines in the promotion of fertility and protection during childbirth. Yet the figurines are given different labels and interpretations in the academic literature depending on the period when they were produced (Baubo or pseudo-Baubo, fertility-promoting or fecundity beings, fertility demons, beneficent demons, orans figurines and female saints).⁴² Some Ptolemaic examples have been identified as Isis-Demeter or Isis-Bast, but many may depict the birth of Harpocrates.⁴³

These goblets also suggest a close relationship between seemingly separate figurines as well as between objects in multiple media (figurines, lamps, and vessels), all of which may have been used together to celebrate specific annual events concerning the New Year inundation festivities.⁴⁴ If this is the case, then the majority of figurines (as well as certain other objects) found within Ptolemaic and Roman houses across Egypt were conception and nativity sets that were used to celebrate the New Year within the house. Although this distinctive material culture is highly visible archaeologically, we do not know the form of these rituals or whether these objects were temporarily or permanently on display (for example, in wall niches).⁴⁵

Ptolemaic and Roman Figurine Use in Egyptian Houses

The frequency and diversity of figurine production and use changed gradually over the course of the second century BCE through to the second century CE, as we can see from the examples of Naukratis, Memphis, Mons Claudianus, and Myos Hormos, discussed below.

At Naukratis, two excavated late Ptolemaic and early Roman houses revealed a range of Egyptian terracotta figurines.⁴⁶ While archaeological contexts were faithfully recorded for these objects, this does not tell us which room they were used in, as all were fragmentary and found with domestic refuse redeposited inside the courtyard (and occasionally redeposited within the house, possibly after abandonment).⁴⁷ The first house was on Kom Hadid at the eastern end of the settlement next to an industrial area, the second on the South Mound (figure 9.2). Of the eighteen figurines found in Kom Hadid, all were associated with the substantial inner wall of a high-status building that once had a paved floor, cut stone veneers and molded painted plaster decoration on its walls.⁴⁸ Nine figurines date to the period of occupation of this building, 150 BCE–1 BCE; of these nine, five were found within domestic refuse layers disturbed by the collapse from the destruction of the building during the first century BCE. The four remaining Ptolemaic figurines were residual finds within the subsequent Roman refuse layers, where they were found alongside nine Roman figurines, as well as domestic and industrial kiln refuse dating to the period 50 BCE–100 CE. It is interesting to note that the Egyptian figurines of Harpocrates and Isis were concentrated north of the wall, while Greek theater masks were found to the south, or (on one case) as a residual find above the wall.

The Northwest Building on the South Mound can now be identified as the courtyard and outbuildings abutting the west of a large tower house within the southwestern corner of the temenos (boundary) wall of the Amun-Ra sanctuary of Naukratis (thanks to new excavations by the British Museum).⁴⁹ This was once the house of a priest serving that sanctuary. Of the eleven figurines found there, nine are Ptolemaic and two are Roman Period.⁵⁰

The two areas are superficially similar in figurine composition, both being dominated by representations of Harpocrates and Isis-Hathor (found in close proximity to molded lamps and goblets).⁵¹ However, three distinct differences can be noted. First, the Kom Hadid pieces include Greek theater mask fragments (possibly displaying an appreciation of Greek theater); these are not represented within the Egyptian priest’s house, which instead contained a pink painted fragment of a priest’s Bes mask.⁵² Second, the Ptolemaic material has more representations of Harpocrates (or a priest dressed as Harpocrates), who in three brightly painted examples from the South Mound is represented as macrophallic (providing us with a clear link with earlier Late Period representations) and performing a ritual next to a yellow horned altar (figure 9.4d). Third, the Roman material from Kom Hadid includes more Isis-Hathor figurines, which seem to be part of a general chronological trend toward more female figurines in Roman Egypt (see below). The broad-scale analysis of figurines from Naukratis allows us to see how households are constrained within chronological social trends, but this detailed analysis of two contemporary households in Naukratis also enables us to distinguish some minor but significant differences between the assemblages that betray the different priorities of the two households.

South of Memphis, the thriving ancient capital, cult center, and redistribution node, a Roman-period faience kiln within the industrial zone of Kom Helul produced popular tableware vessels that were distributed across Egypt.⁵³ Seventy-five second century CE figurine fragments, possibly from a warehouse collapse, had been dumped over this kiln, providing a useful dataset for the range of figurines produced at this time.⁵⁴ The assemblage is dominated by Isis and Isis-Hathor figurines, with female figurines accounting for more than 60 percent of the assemblage.⁵⁵ Harpocrates, Sothis, Bes, and rarely Serapis are also represented. The limited range is a feature of Roman terracotta production across Egypt. It is distinct from the diverse Ptolemaic production and is very similar in range to the contemporary Naukratis, Mons Claudianus, and Myos Hormos assemblages (figure 9.7).

The Roman quarry of Mons Claudianus supplied fine granodiorite from the Eastern Desert for prestige imperial building projects from 40–235 CE. A fortified administrative settlement was founded in 85–86 CE, and suburbs to the west, south, and north housed any overflow of civilians. The soldiers and civilians of Mons Claudianus were occasionally joined by their families, at least in the earliest periods.⁵⁶ The abundance of Greek texts listing Egyptian and Greek names (and the scarcity of Latin texts) confirms the workforce and administration was composed of people who grew up in Egypt, who were ethnically Egyptian and/or Greek.

The settlement and its extensive refuse dumps to the south have produced eighty figurines, most of which can be dated to 106–154 CE. Other objects that may have been used during cultic activity within the house comprise five horned altars used for making burnt offerings and 815 lamps.⁵⁷ While the horned altars were all found within rooms, most of the lamps and figurines were found broken within refuse deposits outside the fort and settlement (while some are fragmentary figurines found within rooms, most were transported after they were broken to refuse dumps with other domestic rubbish).⁵⁸ The settlement was served by a Serapis temple that contained figurine and cult statue fragments of Serapis and Isis. Despite the temple, Serapis figurines were rare (with only six examples), with Isis-Hathor and nude female figurines dominating (57 percent), followed by Harpocrates and Sothis figurines.

The Roman port and naval station of Myos Hormos was of great importance to the Indo-Roman trade from ca. 30 BCE to ca. 250 CE. The excellent preservation at this settlement has left traces of a diverse population of predominantly Roman subjects (both Egyptian and Greek), but also a wide range of other indigenous groups as well as Sabaean, Indian, Nabataean, Palmyran, and East African visitors. Distinct quarters have been identified at Myos Hormos (and also Berenike),⁵⁹ associated with certain indigenous ethnic groups (the “Ichthyophagi” fishermen⁶⁰ and nomadic “Trogodytes” or Blemmyes).⁶¹ Each had a distinctive diet (almost exclusively Red Sea fish, or Eastern Desert sheep/goat, respectively) and different tablewares (almost exclusively bowls, sometimes made of shell, or Eastern Desert ware globular bowls, respectively).

The earliest figurines from Myos Hormos are dated to 30 BCE–50 CE, while the latest date to 125–175 CE, although the majority are from mid-first to mid-second century CE contexts.⁶² Figurines were rare within the harbor (only a gilded Isis headdress fragment and the fragment of a terracotta Sothis),⁶³ and absent from an area of local fishermen’s huts (associated with the fishing boat permit of one Pakubis Ichthyophagos).⁶⁴ Egyptian figurines were more frequent finds within the two-story houses of the main town area, populated (based on the evidence available to date) by Greek-speaking traders, and associated refuse dumps to the north. The small figurine assemblage contained exclusively Egyptian figurines and amulets of Isis-Hathor, birth figurines, and Harpocrates (figures 9.7a–c, d–e, h, l). One ca. 100 CE concentration of Isis, Isis-Hathor, birth, and Harpocrates figurines was found inside a defensive wall tower alongside illegible (the words appear to have no semantic meaning), possibly “magical” texts. On the contemporary floor surface on the outside sat a mobile that had fallen from the wall. It was made from string strung with sheep’s jaws and the long bones, ribs, jaws, and crania of two young adult males who had been dispatched with sword blows to the head.⁶⁵ Gnawed by rodents while they were displayed on the wall, the sheep mandibles signaled the diet and economy of the eastern desert tribes, some of whom were in revolt at this time.⁶⁶ Collectively, the figurine assemblage from Myos Hormos consists almost exclusively of representations of Egyptian deities, with just two exceptions.⁶⁷ Isis-Hathor and birth figurines dominate the assemblage (66 percent), followed by Harpocrates and a single Sothis figure, making this a similar assemblage to those of contemporary Naukratis, Memphis, and Mons Claudianus (figure 9.8). The Egyptian figurines found to date in Myos Hormos houses and refuse dumps were found exclusively in areas populated by Greco-Egyptian traders, where the faunal and tableware assemblages had more in common with Naukratis and Mons Claudianus than with other parts of the same port populated by indigenous groups (such as the “Ichthyophagi”).

Comparison, Distinction, and Consumption

Egyptian figurines during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods continued to depict a small range of Egyptian deities: specifically, the Osirian triad of Isis, Horus, and (rarely) Osiris, plus their protector Bes and followers.⁶⁸ Such images were already produced on a large scale during the Late Period and found predominantly within the house in all periods (see first section above). The significance of the figurine forms (their stance, posture, and dress) and their collective relevance as a group can be explained by the narrative depicted on the Ptolemaic molded ware pottery, which records the return of Isis, the conception of Horus, and the nativity of Horus (second section above). This sequence of events was associated with the New Year that coincided with the rising of the dog star (personified as Sothis, who is depicted as the dog companion of Isis) and the inundation of the Nile. This was celebrated in the religious calendar of Egypt with festivals, such as the Festival of Drunkenness (which was depicted on objects in the form of Isis’s followers, depicted carrying wine amphorae, playing music, and dancing).

Although the production techniques, decoration, and style changed considerably at the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period and continued to develop after that,⁶⁹ the consistency of themes across time and across Egypt, until the Roman Period, is significant (third section above). One major shift during the Roman Period, recognizable through the quantification of this material, is a shift from the dominance of male (Harpocrates) to female (Isis-Hathor) figurine production and use. During the Late Period, more than half of the figurines depict Harpocrates. During the early Roman Period, more than half the figurines depict Isis-Hathor or birth figurines (figure 9.8). It is possible that this represents a shift from celebrating the conception of Horus toward celebrating the birth of Horus, although this seems unlikely, as both events are depicted together on the Ptolemaic molded goblets discussed above, and it was a standard Egyptian iconographic tradition to depict the birth of the divine baby on objects associated with that child’s conception.⁷⁰

The function(s) of the figurines, the “rituals” they represent, and how all of the above changed over time are all intimately linked to the question of who used these figurines. They represent one highly visible aspect of an evolving practice that used a range of ingredients comprising objects as well as actions, most of which do not survive (either the ingredients or any trace of the actions) in the archaeological record. Although overwhelmingly found within domestic contexts, figurines were also found down wells and at the boundaries between places (for example, the wall at Myos Hormos), where they can be found in different states (broken or whole). Aspects of the use-lives of these figurines may be reconstructed, specifically their production, acquisition, display, breakage, and the choice of disposal location.⁷¹ Some parts of this use-life may have been associated with the New Year inundation festivities, particularly those that relate to the conception of Horus and the rising of Sothis. While their significance may have been tied to specific events, such as festivals, and specific deities, they may have had multiple roles in worship, protection, and displaying (to visitors) the performance or observance of Egyptian religion throughout the year.

The use of figurines apparently declines over the course of the late Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, long before the rise of Christianity (which is commonly described as causing this decline).⁷² There is a significant drop in the absolute number of figurines at Naukratis during the Roman Period, despite this being a period when other objects are abundant and the settlement is apparently thriving.⁷³ Measuring the popularity of figurines compared with other small finds (excluding industrial and building materials, vessels, and ecofacts) within reliable contexts can add further information (figure 9.9).⁷⁴ At Naukratis, in Kom Hadid, and the South Mound, the Ptolemaic and Roman contexts had a relatively high, if declining, occurrence of figurines (56 percent and 50 percent of all the small finds respectively, figure 9.9).⁷⁵ An even higher occurrence was recorded at the second century CE kiln at Memphis (63 percent).⁷⁶ The unusually high frequency experienced at Kom Hadid and Kom Helul may relate to industrial production associated with both areas. The data from Mons Claudianus and Myos Hormos suggest a significantly lower use of figurines (4.6 percent and 0.5 percent respectively), with the majority of the Myos Hormos examples coming from a single area (11 percent of finds within trench 6P). There are many possible explanations for this: better preservation of small finds (which do not usually survive),⁷⁷ the dominance of finds associated with quarrying and trading, the identities (be they ethnic, cultural, gender, or vocational) of the inhabitants, or the possibility that figurines were simply less popular within these (mainly) second-century-CE contexts. The answer is likely to be a combination of these factors. However, it is worth considering that both Myos Hormos and Mons Claudianus had mainly male demographics. One possible explanation for the exceptionally rare figurine use at these sites could be that figurine ownership was higher among women or family units, as represented by the more gender-balanced demographies expected in Naukratis.

Egyptian religious performance could use different ingredients and objects in different places and at different times. It is clear that lamps were not used exclusively for practical lighting purposes, because they were often deposited within sanctuaries and graves, and their use in rituals is described in texts.⁷⁸ Looking at the broad chronological trend at Naukratis, while figurine use declined over the Roman Period, lamp use did not. At this time molded lamps frequently depicted Egyptian deities (figure 9.5) and frogs, which were another symbol of the inundation and New Year festivities.⁷⁹ Perhaps lamps were increasingly being used instead of figurines for religious rituals. The multifunctional affordances of lamps and vessels (with representations of Egyptian deities on them), as opposed to figurines, may have impacted (or been determined by) changes in both household activities and ritual practice, concerning where and how they were used. We do not know what changes in ritual practice occurred, but a decline in figurine use and potential rise in lamp use are the archaeological signatures of the physical form of changing ritual practices.

Regional differences may also be significant. Lamps were abundant in Mons Claudianus (accounting for 46.5 percent of all small finds), but were relatively rare at Myos Hormos (where they represent only 1.3 percent of all small finds). Unfortunately, it is not possible to distinguish specific religious ritual contexts for any of these lamps, as they are largely redeposited. Despite the apparent similarities between the types of figurines found, the popularity of figurine and lamp use was quite different between these contemporary sites. The patterns are context specific, relating to either the frequency with which such figurines were acquired and used, or the proportion of the population that followed such practices.

The people who used these figurines are distinctive within the archaeological record. It is not surprising that the majority of the population represented within the papyri and ostraka preserved at Myos Hormos and Mons Claudianus have Egyptian or Greek names, and that the majority of these documents are written in Greek. These populations are also distinctive in what and how they eat, specifically regarding their faunal diet and what tablewares they chose to use.⁸⁰ Egyptian figurines were found in domestic areas or their adjacent dumps, both of which also record a mixed diet and an Egyptian tableware service (heavily influenced by Hellenistic and Roman fashions). The diet comprised fish and domesticates (pig,⁸¹ sheep/goat, and cattle) from the Nile Valley, supplemented in the Eastern Desert with locally sourced fauna (sheep and goats) and Red Sea fish and occasionally transport animals (donkey, horse, and camel, as confirmed by butchering marks, papyri, and the presence of their disarticulated remains within domestic refuse). The Egyptian tableware service comprised a range of bowls, dishes, plates, and cups that developed out of Ptolemaic forms and were supplemented by Roman fashions.

While a larger sample of figurines would be necessary to prove through statistical analysis a clear association between Egyptian figurines and specific diet and tableware assemblages, it is clear that the Egyptian figurines found to date in Myos Hormos came exclusively from areas populated by Greco-Egyptian traders, and never indigenous ethnic groups (the “Ichthyophagi,” “Trogodytes,” or Blemmyes). This pattern can be contrasted with Naukratis, where the ceramic assemblage is indistinguishable—and the Egyptian figurine assemblage is very similar—for the Egyptian priests resident in the South Mound of the Amun-Ra sanctuary and the inhabitants of Kom Hadid, except for the presence of Greek theater masks in the latter and the absence of pig in the diet of the former.⁸²

Clear patterns emerge when the types of Egyptian figurine are quantified. First, Greek deities were rarely depicted, even in the Greek city of Naukratis. Second, Egyptian figurines consistently depicted Harpocrates and Isis-Hathor as they had since the Late Period (although it is not always clear from the iconography of Late Period representations of macrophallic child gods whether they represent Harpocrates specifically). Third, Isis-Hathor became a more popular subject than Harpocrates over the course of the Roman Period. Fourth, a long, steady decline in figurine production⁸³ and use coincided with a rise in lamp use,⁸⁴ although this may have been complicated by regional practices.

Egyptian figurines were made and acquired to celebrate the conception and nativity of Horus, the former being associated with the New Year and the Nile inundation. Their acquisition, use, and deposition may relate to rituals associated with specific festivals within the Egyptian religious calendar. However, figurines may have held multiple meanings and numerous functions over their use-life. The owners may have believed the figurines, being associated with divine conception and nativity events, were imbued with the fertile power that hierogamies were thought to bestow on the world.⁸⁵ Displaying Isis and Harpocrates figurines clearly communicated to visitors that the household observed Egyptian traditions, but this did not exclude the inhabitants from possessing Greek names, language, legal ethnic status, or also displaying figurine characters from Greek theater. Thus the function of a figurine as either decorative or religious (or both) could vary significantly depending on the context and audience.

These figurines record the constant popularity of Egyptian religious rituals and beliefs over a long period of time and across geographical, class, language, and ethnic boundaries. The presence (or absence) of these common objects within houses is then significant for understanding which people lived (and how they lived) in different areas of multicultural ports, quarries, and urban centers. It is thus important that figurines are not considered alone, but that a correlation is made between contexts, figurine uses, and other ways in which people signaled (or distinguished) their identity. The multifunctional role of figurines should be considered, and the patterning of use across different finds groups could be rewarding for further study. These objects were powerful, as illustrated by their presence marking the boundary wall of a naval base at the limits of the Roman Empire alongside the bound and exposed remains of Rome’s enemies. Can there be a clearer distinction, signaled more vigorously, of who belongs and who is excluded?

Notes

1Editors’ note: We are deeply saddened to write that Ross I. Thomas passed away while this volume was in preparation. Aside from minor formatting changes and occasional extremely light edits to punctuation or wording, we have kept the text as Ross left it after his initial round of edits. We thank his wife, Elisabeth O’Connell, for conducting a final review of the copy-edited text to ensure that it represents Ross’s vision for the chapter. We are honored to be able to include Ross Thomas’s work in this volume, as a testament to the insights and achievements of a brilliant scholar, colleague, and friend.

2Bailey 2008, 1–3.

3Dunand 1979; Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004; Frankfurter 1998, 136; 2014; 2017, 34–36. See Frankfurter, chapter 10, this volume, on the use of figurines as routine apotropaia against domestic threats to pregnancies or children, such as child-killing daimones or disease. Frankfurter also notes the difficulty in distinguishing between apotropaic/fecundity and binding/curse figurines.

4See particularly the discussion of the Ptolemaic priestly decrees of Memphis and Philae in Barrett (2015, 408) and the special case of magic (Barrett forthcoming, 14–15).

5Studying the context of hundreds of Egyptian figurines (see note 10 below) revealed that in the majority of cases, the last phase in the use-lives of these objects was deposition within a domestic refuse context after fragmentation.

6See Boozer, chapter 8, this volume, who also recognizes that (broken) figurines are commonly found in the courtyard or among trash, but rarely within the house.

7Petrie 1886.

8Gardner 1888; Hogarth et al. 1898–1899; Hogarth et al. 1905; Coulson 1996; Leonard 1997; Leonard 2001.

9Villing et al. 2013–2019.

10Thomas and Villing 2012; Thomas and Villing forthcoming; Thomas 2015h.

11Thomas 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; 2015d; 2015e; 2019a; 2019b; Möller 2000; Nick 2006.

12The syncretism of Egyptian goddesses Isis and Hathor developed during the Late Period, when Isis increasingly acquired the iconography and functions of Hathor. Both were worshipped as versions of the solar eye goddess.

13Chapels are small subsidiary or ancillary structures, distinct from larger temples. Both are found within sanctuary precincts bounded by temenos walls.

14Masson 2018; Masson-Berghoff 2019.

15Rare exceptions found in Greek sanctuaries comprise cow figurines within the Aphrodite sanctuary (possibly representations of the Egyptian goddess Hathor who was associated with Aphrodite) and limestone Harpocrates rider figurines found within the Hellenion sanctuary (one has a Greek inscription). Rarely the local Nile silt fabric was used to produce Greek-style terracotta figurines, such as the female protome busts found in the Hellenion (Thomas 2015d, 14).

16The range of (frequently, but not exclusively macrophallic) child gods may not always have been understood as Harpocrates, as local variants in Egyptian religion had regional triads (Sandri 2006; Ballet and Galliano 2010, 197–220). However, over the course of the Hellenistic and Roman Period, representations of Harpocrates acquired iconography from other deities through a process of syncretism, which is why the name Harpocrates is used below.

17Thomas 2015b, 60.

18Specifically identifying these Late Period “Hathoric” nude figures is problematic (Thomas 2015b, 54), as many Egyptian “Eye of Re goddesses” (Hathor, Tefnut, Mut, Isis, Sakhmet, Bastet, and Anuket) were associated with local variants of the inundation myth, rituals, festivals and the associated prosperity and fertility (Fazzini 1988, 8–14; Barrett 2011, 136). Ptolemaic and Roman examples more clearly display symbols consistent with Isis, Hathor, or a syncretic deity incorporating both (which is why the name Isis-Hathor is used within this text). The same regional reception of such deities applies as with “Harpocrates,” above.

19The pr-mst (Arnold 2003, 33; Knoblauch and Gill 2012, 9–13).

20While most figurines reference the standard mythology of Harpocrates’ conception, broader sexual themes associated with inundation festivals can also be depicted on material culture (Barrett 2019).

21On phallophoric processions of Osiris and Dionysos and their possible association with Pamylia, see Herodotus 2.48; Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 36.365B; Montserrat 1996, 174; Myśliwiec 1997, 126; Coulon 2013, 182–83; Meyboom and Versluys 2006; Thomas 2015, 58–59.

22See bibliography in Barrett 2011; 2019; Thomas 2015b.

23Thomas 2015b, 72, 78.

24The technology and style of these figurines borrows from Hellenistic figurines found across Greece and the Hellenistic kingdoms. These comprise “naturalistic” representation (an idealized form drawn from Greek statuary repertoire), following figurine forms from the Greek world.

25The term Tanagra style is often used to describe the production of various centers, not just the famous center of Tanagra itself, because it has become synonymous with a specific style of early Hellenistic figurine (Burn and Higgins 2001, 26; Kassab Tezgör 2010, 186).

26Dionysos, Eros, Athena and Aphrodite and Priapus are the non-Egyptian deities represented (although they may have been viewed as equivalents to certain Egyptian deities in antiquity).

27The cult of the syncretistic deity Serapis is commonly attributed to Ptolemy I in the third century BC, although it derived from the Memphite cult of Osiris-Apis (Osiris and Apis).

28On Naukratis workshop(s) see Thomas 2015e, 3.

29Barrett 2019, 317; forthcoming.

30Thomas 2015f; 2015g; 2017; 2018.

31The Dog Star (Sirius) was personified by the Egyptian goddess Sothis, depicted as a “spitz-type” dog wearing a bulla pendant, and is found in association with representations of Isis and Harpocrates (Dunand 1990, nos 867–76; Montserrat 1996, 170; Bailey 2008, 175; Barrett 2011, 187). Boutantin’s interpretation that these may have been multivalent symbols, also representing pets (2014, 217–50), is unlikely in this context.

32Thomas 2015f, 10–13, 15–16.

33A group of 76 catalogued sherds (49 from Naukratis, 22 from Alexandria and 5 from “Egypt”) comprise 39 fragments of goblets with molded decoration, 19 table-amphorae, 2 plate or bowl fragments, and 16 unidentified body sherds. They represent at least three different forms of goblet and can be found in two different fabrics (possibly from Naukratis and Alexandria).

34See Thomas 2018, 12.

35Bailey 2011, 71–93; Thomas 2018, 11–12. Fine mold-made pottery and faience vessels made at Athribis and Memphis appear during the mid to late third century BCE (Thomas 2017, 4–6; Thomas 2018, 11–12; Myśliwiec 1996, 35–36; Welc 2011, 244, 253). Stratified examples from Naukratis were found within deposits redated (Thomas 2018) to 175–50 BCE (Leonard 1997, MC#85 from South Mound Locus 2019 phase NW3a) and (with abundant residual material dating 150–1 BCE) from a 50 BCE—CE 100 context in Kom Hadid (Leonard 2001, 193, no.33, MC#29; Egyptian Museum JE97814.1–2).

36See British Museum 2002,0419.1.

37Barrett 2011, 260–62; Thomas 2015b, 62.

38While the woman depicted having sex is wearing a wig with Isis locks, it is not certain that these images always depict Isis herself, who (when dressed) elsewhere on these vessels is clearly depicted in full regalia, including her crown (figs. 6e, 6i, 6l).

39The place of drunkenness was a chapel structure where the conception of Harpocrates was commemorated. It was also known as “columned porch of drunkenness” or “hall of roaming the marches” (Jasnow and Smith 2010–2011, 42–43). The Bes Chambers in Saqqara is one possible archaeologically attested example (Quibell 1907, 13; Martin 1981, 27–89; Jeffreys et al. 1988, 33–63; Klotz 2012, 395) as is Queen Hatshepsut’s earlier limestone gate at the Mut precinct (Bryan 2014). On the rituals associated with the “festival of drunkenness,” see Darnell 1995; DePauw and Smith 2004; Jasnow and Smith 2010–11, 42–43; Bryan 2014.

40On these goblets, Isis wears the Hathoric crown with horns and sun disk above a wreath with lotuses atop a wig of Isis locks (figs. 6i, 6l, see also 6e for wreath, lotus buds, and an unclear sun disk). She also wears a fringed shawl tied across her chest with an Isis knot (fig. 6e), carries a sistrum in her right hand, and carries a small globular pot with an everted rim in her left (figs. 6e and 6i). Harpocrates also carries this small pot in his left hand (fig. 6j), similar to the goblets which depict these scenes (see fig. 6l). These goblets may be a Ptolemaic variant of what are commonly called Bes jars (named so because they frequently depict Bes).

41The figurines are vulvate, depicted squatting (sometimes as though on a birthing stool, Bailey 2008, 47), appear pregnant, or are depicted resting after birth alongside a baby (fig. 3e). The birth scene on these goblets is depicted within the mammisi, and the appearance of Harpocrates from the mammisi on the same vessels confirms that they commemorate the birth of that deity.

42Hellenistic and earlier figurines are often called “Baubo,” or female fertility demons, while Roman Period examples are assumed to be beneficent demons (Bailey 2008, 43, nos 3112–43). These in turn influenced the Byzantine Period “female saint” figurines (Bailey 2008, 3387–400). The Byzantine examples are clothed and not obviously pregnant, but they are often depicted holding babies or praying in the same pose as earlier examples. See also Frankfurter, chapter 10, this volume.

43Török 1995, 132–33; Bailey 2008, 46–47.

44Barrett 2015, 408.

45Frankfurter 1998, 134, 140. See Boozer, chapter 8, this volume, fig. 8.6, for an example of a robbed niche within a house (although its original function is unclear).

46The dating of the material from both areas has now been reappraised on the basis of the ceramics, which require some adjustments for the dating of the Ptolemaic and Roman levels (Thomas 2018, 5).

47See Boozer, chapter 8, this volume.

48Leonard 2001, trenches 52, 63, and 76. Recorded finds from Kom Hadid comprise: pottery (1003); faience vessels (27); stone vessels (1); building materials (24); figurines (18); lamps (5); glass (1).

49Leonard 1997, “Northwest Building” trenches 1, 2, 482, 490, 491, 492. Recorded finds from Leonard’s excavations of this building comprise: pottery vessels (1015); stone vessels (2); faience vessels (30); faience beads (4) and amulets (2); lamps (5); stone tools (4); and a fish hook.

50Five figurines were found in 175–50 BCE deposits (phases 3–4) in the northwest corner of the courtyard; two were found in 150–50 BCE deposits (phases 6–8) in Rooms 4 and 1 respectively. One has no findspot recorded, and one was found in Roman deposits above Rooms 3 and 4 (phase 10). Two figurines found during British Museum excavations comprise a Harpocrates head, found immediately to the north of Room 1 from a disturbed Roman context, and a Ptolemaic Bes mask fragment, found in a disturbed late Ptolemaic context potentially belonging to the neighboring house to the southeast of this building, but still within the temenos of Amun-Ra.

51One lamp, a goblet depicting Bes (Fig. 6m), and five figurines (of macrophallic Harpocrates, Fig. 4d, and Isis) were all found within two to four meters of each other in the northwestern corner of the ca. 175–50 BCE courtyard (phases 2B to 4), under and just to the south of where Room 4 was subsequently built. Two figurines of Harpocrates and Isis (in Rooms 4 and 1) and three lamps (two in Room 1 and one in fire pit Room 2) were found in ca. 150–50 BCE phases 6 to 8. One figurine was found above Rooms 3 and 4 and a lamp in room 1 within Roman deposits (phase 10).

52This mask is reminiscent of a figurine found 130 years earlier at Naukratis, which may represent how this was used. It depicts a macrophallic priest wearing a Bes mask, carrying a cult statue of Harpocrates (Bailey 2008, no.3154, British Museum 1888,0601.95).

53Nicholson 2013.

54Thomas and Nicholson 2013, 201.

55Including the nude female figurines, often called “beneficent demons,” discussed above as putative Isis-Hathor birth figurines.

56Maxfield and Peacock 2001, 450–52.

57Bailey 1998, 21–30; 2006, 261–70.1751, small finds were catalogued from the site, although this excludes the large quantities of ceramics also found at Mons Claudianus.

58See the discussion in Boozer, chapter 8, this volume, on the categories of domestic rubbish disposal.

59See Thomas 2012, 172 and bibliography.

60While the ethnonyms Ichthyophagi and Trogodytes are Greek exonyms applied to these indigenous groups, there is evidence that members of those groups used these ethnonyms in Myos Hormos.

61Tomber 2005; Van Rengen and Thomas 2006; Thomas 2007, 149–60.

62Thomas 2011, 79–84. Some previously unidentified or misinterpreted fragments have since been reidentified by the author.

63Although associated with Isis, the New Year, and the Nile flood, the heliacal rising of Sothis was also used to time the start of the sailing season to Arabia (Thomas 2011, 79).

64Van Rengen 2002, 53–54; O.Myos, 512; Thomas 2007, 149–60; Thomas 2012, 174.

65Van Rengen and Thomas 2006.

66De Romanis 2003, 118.

67A bronze Herakles and an unidentified steatite plaque are the only clear exceptions. An acrolithic marble arm from a female figure may be from either an Aphrodite or Isis figurine.

68The Nubian retinue of the solar eye goddess, and occasionally Dionysiac figures (Barrett 2011; 2019).

69Thomas 2015e, 5.

70Barrett 2011, 127.

71See Boozer, chapter 8, this volume.

72Thomas 2015a, 9, fig.17.

73Thomas 2014, 201, fig. 5; 2015a, 9.

74This is not to say that such classes of finds are not relevant to understanding figurine use. However, assessing their relationship with figurines is difficult, because of their differential preservation, recording, publication, and the volume of the objects.

75These were more frequent than the preceding Late Period secondary deposits (18 percent) that the British Museum excavated on the riverfront at Naukratis.

76That was dominated by industrial waste from faience vessel production, which has been excluded from these figurines. While the nonindustrial waste comprises material that could have been redeposited from a domestic context, this corpus is most useful for comparing similarities and differences between production and consumption patterns.

77The desiccated deposits at Myos Hormos and Mons Claudianus preserved a wide variety of organic artifacts not usually preserved at other sites.

78See Thomas 2015f for examples and bibliography.

79Thomas 2015f, 11–12, 17.

80Thomas 2012, 178–80.

81An exception being the priests from the Amun-Ra sanctuary at Naukratis, whose observations of ritual purity meant they avoided consuming pig, as suggested by the faunal remains found there (Thomas and Bertini 2019).

82Thomas and Bertini 2019.

83Thomas 2015a, 9, fig.17; 2015e, 9, fig. 24.

84Thomas 2015f, 15, fig. 37.

85Montserrat 1996, 166.

Works Cited

Arnold, D. 2003. The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bailey, D.M. 1998. “Terracotta Figures in Mons Claudius.” In Life on the Fringe: Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and Early Byzantine Periods. Proceedings of a Colloquium held in Cairo, 9–12 December 1996, edited by O.E. Kaper, 21–30. Leiden: Research School CNWS.

Bailey, D.M. 2006. “Terracotta and Plaster Figurines, Sealings, and a Stone Group.” In Mons Claudianus III: Survey and Excavation, edited by V.A. Maxfield and D.P.S. Peacock, 261–88. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 54. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Bailey, D.M. 2008. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum 4: Ptolemaic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt. London: British Museum.

Bailey, D.M. 2011. “Drinking-Goblets and Table-Amphorae Groups of Ptolemaic Painted Pottery.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 9: 71–93.

Ballet, P., and G. Galliano. 2010, “Les Isiaques et la petite plastique dans l’Égypte Hellénistique et Romaine.” In Isis on the Nile: Egyptian Gods in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Proceedings of the IVth International Conference of Isis Studies, Liège, November 27–29, 2008, Michel Malaise in honorem, edited by L. Bricault and M.J. Verluys, 197–220. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 171. Leiden: Brill.

Barrett, C.E. 2011. Egyptianizing Figurines from Delos: A Study in Hellenistic Religion. Leiden: Brill.

Barrett, C.E. 2015. “Terracotta Figurines and the Archaeology of Ritual: Domestic Cult in Greco-Roman Egypt.” In Figurines grecques en contexte: Présence muette dans le sanctuaire, la tombe et la maison, edited by S. Huysecom-Haxhi and A. Muller (editors-in-chief) and C. Aubry, C.E. Barrett, C. Blume and T. Kopestonsky (collaborating editors), 401–20. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.

Barrett, C.E. 2019. Domesticating Empire: Egyptian Landscapes in Pompeian Gardens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barrett, C.E. Forthcoming. “The Affordances of Terracotta Figurines in Domestic Contexts: Reconsidering the Gap between Material and Ritual.” In Stuff of the Gods: The Material Aspects of Religion in Ancient Greece, edited by M. Haysom, M. Mili, and J. Wallensten. Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae. Stockholm.

Boutantin, C. 2014. Terres cuites et culte domestique: Bestiaire de l’Égypte gréco-romaine. Religions in the Graeco-World 179. Leiden: Brill.

Bryan, B. 2014. “Hatshepsut and Cultic Revelries in the New Kingdom.” In Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut, edited by J.M. Galán, B.M. Bryan, and P.F. Dorman, 93–124. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 69. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Burn, L., and R. Higgins. 2001. Catalogue of Greek Terracottas in the British Museum III. London: British Museum.

Coulon, L. 2013. “Osiris chez Hérodote.” In Hérodite et l’Égypte regards croisés sur le livre II de l’enquête d’Hérodote, edited by L. Coulon, P. Giovannell-Jouanna and F. Kimmel-Clauzet, 167–90. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerrané.

Coulson, W.D.E. 1996. Ancient Naukratis, II/1: The Survey at Naukratis. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Darnell, J.C. 1995. “Hathor Returns to Medamûd.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 22: 47–94.

DePauw, M., and M.J. Smith. 2004. “Visions of Ecstasy: Cultic Revelry before the Goddess Ai/Nehemanit. Ostraca Faculteit Letteren (K.U.Leuven) dem. 1–2.” In Res Severa Verum Gaudium, edited by F. Hoffmann and H.J. Thissen, 67–94. Leuven: Peeters.

Dunand, F. 1979. Religion populaire en Égypte Romaine. Leiden: Brill.

Dunand, F. 1990. Catalogue des terres cuites Gréco-Romaines d’Egypte. Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux.

Dunand, F., and C. Zivie-Coche. 2004. Gods and Men in Egypt: 3000 BCE to 395 CE. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

De Romanis, F. 2003. “Between the Nile and the Red Sea: Imperial Trade and Barbarians.” In Arid Lands in Roman Times: Papers from the International Conference in Rome, July 9th–10th, 2001, edited by M. Liverani, 117–22. Arid Zone Archaeology Monographs 4. Florence: All’insegna del giglio.

Fazzini, R.A. 1988. Egypt Dynasty XXII–XXIV. Leiden: Brill.

Frankfurter, D. 1998. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Frankfurter, D. 2014. “Terracotta Figurines and Popular Religion in Late Antique Egypt: Issues of Continuity and ‘Survival.’ ” In Le myrte et la rose: Mélanges offerts à Françoise Dunand par ses élèves, collègues et amis, edited by C. Zivie-Coche and G. Tallet, 129–41. Montpellier: Équipe Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne.

Frankfurter, D. 2017. Christianizing Egypt: Syncretism and Local Worlds in Late Antiquity. The Martin Classical Lectures. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gardner, E.A. 1888. Naukratis. Part II. Sixth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Hogarth, D.G., C.C. Edgar, and C. Gutch. 1898–99. “Excavations at Naukratis.” Annual of the British School at Athens 5: 26–97.

Hogarth, D.G., H.L. Lorimer, and C.C. Edgar. 1905. “Naukratis 1903.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 25: 105–36.

Jasnow, R., and M. Smith. 2010–11. “ ‘As For Those Who Have Called Me Evil, Mut Will Call Them Evil’: Orgiastic Cultic Behaviour and Its Critics in Ancient Egypt (PSI Inv. [provv.] D 114a + PSI Inv. 3056 verso).” Enchoria 32: 9–53.

Jeffreys, D.G., H.S. Smith, M. Price, and L.L. Giddy. 1988. The Anubieion at Saqqâra. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 54. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Kassab Tezgör, D.K. 2010. “The Production of Tanagra Figurines at Myrina and Alexandria.” In Tanagras: Figurines for Life and Eternity. The Musée du Louvre’s Collection of Greek Figurines, edited by V. Jeammet, 186–94. Valencia: Fundación Bancaja.

Klotz, D. 2012. “The Lecherous Pseudo-Anubis of Josephus and the ‘Tomb of 1897’ at Akhmim.” In Et in Ægypto et ad Ægyptum: Recueil d’études dédiées à Jean-Claude Grenier, edited by A. Gasse, F. Servajean and C. Thiers, 383–96. Montpellier: Équipe Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne.

Knoblauch, C.M., and J.C. Gill. 2012. “Antecedents to the Ptolemaic Mammisis.” In Australasian Conference for Young Egyptologists, 4–6 September 2009, Melbourne, edited by C.M. Knoblauch and J.C. Gill, 9–13. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2355. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Leonard Jr., A. 1997. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt I. The Excavations at Kom Ge’if. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 54. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Leonard Jr., A. 2001. Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt II. The Excavations at Kom Hadid. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 55. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Martin, G.T. 1981. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqâra, the Southern Dependencies of the Main Temple Complex. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 50. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Masson, A. 2018. “Scarabs, Scaraboids and Amulets.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801123440mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Masson_Scarabs_and_amulets.pdf.

Masson-Berghoff, A. 2019. “Naukratis: Egyptian Offerings in Context.” In Naukratis in Context I and II: Proceedings of the First and Second Naukratis Workshops held at The British Museum, 16–17 December 2011 and 22–23 June 2013, edited by A. Masson-Berghoff and R.I. Thomas. A special issue of British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 24: 127–58. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801105854mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/BMSAES/Issue%2024/Masson-Berghoff_24.pdf.

Maxfield, V.A., and D.P.S. Peacock, eds. 2001. Mons Claudianus II: Excavations Part I. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 43. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Meyboom, P.G.P, and M.J. Versluys. 2006. “The Meaning of Dwarfs in Nilotic Scenes.” In Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Isis Studies, edited by L. Bricault, M.J. Versluys, and P.G.P. Meyboom, 170–208. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 159. Leiden: Brill.

Möller, A. 2000. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Montserrat, D. 1996. Sex and Society in Graeco-Roman Egypt. London: Kegan Paul.

Myśliwiec, K. 1996. “Les ateliers d’Athribis ptolémaïque.” Archeologia (Warsaw) 47: 7–20.

Myśliwiec, K. 1997. “Phallic Figurines from Tell Atrib.” Aksamit 1997: 119–37.

Nick, G. 2006. Zypro-ionische Kleinplastik aus Kalkstein und Alabaster. Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis I. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis.

Nicholson, P.T., ed. 2013. Working in Memphis: The Production of Faience at Roman Period Kom Helul. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 105. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Petrie, W.M.F. 1886. Naukratis. Part I, 1884–5. Third Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund. London: Trubner.

Quibell, J.E. 1907. Excavations at Saqqâra 1905–1906. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Sandri, S. 2006. Har-pa-chered (Harpokrates): Die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes. Leuven: Peeters.

Tomber, R. 2005. “Trogodytes and Troglodytes: Exploring Interaction on the Red Sea during the Roman Period.” In People of the Red Sea: Proceedings of Red Sea Project II Held in the British Museum October 2004, edited by J.C.M. Starkey, 41–50. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1395. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Thomas, R.I. 2007. “The Arabaegypti Ichthyophagi: Cultural Connections with Egypt and the Maintenance of Identity.” In Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea, edited by J.C.M. Starkey, P. Starkey and T. Wilkinson, 149–60. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1661. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Thomas, R.I. 2011. “Terracotta Figurines.” In Myos Hormos—Quseir al-Qadim: Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea 2. The Finds from the 1999–2003 Excavation, edited by D.P.S. Peacock and L. Blue, 79–84. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2286. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Thomas, R.I. 2012. “Port Communities and the Erythraean Sea Trade.” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 18: 169–99. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801105904mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/Thomas.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2014. “Roman Naukratis and its Alexandrian Context.” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 21: 193–218. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801105730mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas2014_B.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2015a. “Stone and Terracotta Figures from Naukratis: An Introduction.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801123901mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Figurines_SF_AV.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2015b. “Egyptian Late Period Figures in Terracotta and Limestone.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801123428mp_/http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Egyptian_figures_final.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2015c. “Cypriot Figures in Terracotta and Limestone.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801125419mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Cypriot_Figures.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2015d. “Greek Terracotta Figures.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801123855mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Greek_Figures.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2015e. “Ptolemaic and Roman Figures, Models and Coffin-Fittings in Terracotta.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801123425mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Ptolemaic_figures.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2015f. “Lamps in Terracotta and Bronze.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801123856mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Lamps.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2015g. “Portable Stoves and Braziers in Terracotta.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801125424mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Stoves.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2015h. “Naukratis, ‘Mistress of Ships’, in Context.” In Thonis-Heracleion in Context, edited by D. Robinson and F. Goddio, 247–65. Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology Monograph 8. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology.

Thomas, R.I. 2017. “Ptolemaic and Roman Faience Vessels.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801123904mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Ptolemaic_and_Roman_faience.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2018. “Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Pottery.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801123911mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Thomas_Ptolemaic_and_Roman_pottery.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2019a. “Terracotta and Stone Figurines from Naukratis.” In Naukratis in Context I and II: Proceedings of the First and Second Naukratis Workshops Held at The British Museum, 16–17 December 2011 and 22–23 June 2013, edited by A. Masson-Berghoff and R.I. Thomas. Special issue of British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 24: 175–203. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801105854mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/BMSAES/Issue%2024/Thomas_24.pdf.

Thomas, R.I. 2019b. “Egyptian and Cypriot Stone Statuettes in Context at Late Period Naukratis.” In Statues in Context: Production, Meaning and (Re)uses, edited by A. Masson-Berghoff, 159–80. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 10. Leuven: Peeters.

Thomas, R.I., and L. Bertini. 2019. “Shell and Bone Artefacts and Faunal Remains.” In Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, edited by A. Villing, M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson and R.I. Thomas. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801105436/https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt.aspx.

Thomas, R.I., and P.T. Nicholson. 2013. “Figurines.” In Working in Memphis: The Production of Faience at Roman Period Kom Helul, edited by P.T. Nicholson, 201–35. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 105. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Thomas, R.I., and A. Villing. 2013. “Naukratis Revisited 2012: Integrating New Fieldwork and Old Research.” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 20: 81–125. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801110637mp_/https://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/ThomasAndVilling.pdf.

Thomas, R.I., and A. Villing. Forthcoming. “Return to Naukratis: New Fieldwork at Kom Geif, 2012–2014.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte.

Török, L. 1995. Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.

Van Rengen, W. 2002. “Sebakh Excavations and the Written Material.” In Myos Hormos—Quseir al-Qadim: A Roman and Islamic Port on the Red Sea Coast of Egypt, edited by D.P.S. Peacock, L. Blue and S. Moser, 53–54. Southampton: University of Southampton.

Van Rengen, W., and R.I. Thomas. 2006. “The Sebakh Excavations.” In Myos Hormos—Quseir al-Qadim: Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea 1. Survey and Excavations 1999–2003, edited by D.P.S. Peacock and L. Blue, 146–54. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Villing, A., M. Bergeron, G. Bourogiannis, A. Johnston, F. Leclère, A. Masson, and R.I. Thomas, eds. 2013–19. Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt. The British Museum, Online Research Catalogue. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190801105436/https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt.aspx.

Welc, F. 2011. “Decorated Ptolemaic Faience Bowls from Athribis (Tell Atrib, Nile Delta).” Études et Travaux 24: 244–69.