Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt

Alexandra Villing, Marianne Bergeron, Giorgos Bourogiannis, Alan Johnston, François Leclère, Aurélia Masson and Ross Thomas

With Daniel von Recklinghausen, Jeffrey Spencer, Valerie Smallwood, Virginia Webb and Susan Woodford

Search this Catalogue

Advanced search  

See all objects in this catalogue 

Supported by

The Leverhulme Trust
  • The Shelby White - Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications
  • Christian Levett and the Mougins Museum of Classical Art

Share this catalogue

Reconstructing a 19th-century excavation: problems and perspectives

Alexandra Villing

 Download this chapter as a PDF


Among the greatest challenges facing scholars working on Naukratis today are three problems: the early excavators’ methods and find selection strategies, the highly incomplete early excavation reports and the fact that today the finds from the site – often still unpublished – are scattered among numerous museums.

None of these problems is, of course, at all unusual for excavations of the 19th and earlier 20th century, in Egypt or elsewhere. Archaeological method was still in its infancy, and fieldwork funding structures, partage and individual collecting by travellers often resulted in a wide distribution of finds. Yet common as they may be, they nevertheless pose a serious obstacle for the interpretation of a site’s character and history.

1. Find selection and publication

In addition to the influence that the complex and already partly destroyed site had on skewing the archaeological assemblage, and the impact of early excavation and recording methods, a major problem with understanding Naukratis today is the significant bias introduced by early find selection practices. As becomes clear both from publications and excavation journals, in all four early excavation seasons these were highly skewed towards certain categories of finds, to the almost total neglect of others. Undecorated ceramics in particular, though recorded as plentiful (as is clear from the notes of both Petrie and Hogarth discussed above), were generally not kept, studied or published, and only survive today as a small collection of type specimens (Fig. 1). Most of the once large corpus of Egyptian pottery from the site is hence lost to us today, along with, generally, the household pottery and trade amphorae of all periods and types – with the exception only of stamped amphora handles. Other groups of material, including Egyptian bronzes and amulets and Ptolemaic and Roman terracotta figurines, by contrast, are today still extant in many museum collections, where they remain in large parts unstudied and unpublished, and hence outside scholarly discourse. They have the potential, however, to be an important corrective to early excavators’ find selection practices, suggesting, for example, by their mere existence that the bias in the surviving pottery evidence cannot be a true reflection of the find spectrum at the site.

Fiure 1. Locally made Ptolemaic pottery amphora from a well in the Aphrodite sanctuary, 3rd-2nd century BC. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. E186. Photograph © University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, Photographer François Leclère, The British Museum

To further complicate the situation, of the selection of finds that was kept by their excavators only a selection found its way into their publication. Certainly, Petrie’s and Gardner’s publications were a model of speed, with hardly any time lapse between the dig and the publication; Petrie’s turning around of the final proofs of Naukratis I in a single evening in March 1886 while travelling (by foot and donkey) to the site of Nebesha – including writing the plate captions and compiling an index (‘only 160 entries’) – is a measure of his efficiency (Petrie Journal 1885–6, Griffith Institute, pp. 95–6). The results of Hogarth’s excavations, too, were soon put into print (Petrie 1886; Gardner 1888; Hogarth 1898/9, 1905). But neither publication was comprehensive, as already Petrie’s famous motto ‘half a loaf is better than no bread’ suggests (Petrie 1888, v). Only brief overviews of the excavated areas and their finds were included, and only a small portion of the finds was illustrated and discussed, with only a few find groups (Greek inscriptions on pottery, weights and coins for Petrie and Greek inscriptions on pottery and terracotta figurines for Hogarth) compiled into something resembling a catalogue.

As a consequence, even the most recent list of Greek pottery from Naukratis (Möller 2000a) included no more than a quarter of the extant finds of that group, and only half the extant inscriptions on pottery were featured in the important study by Bernand (Bernand 1970; they have now been studied by Alan Johnston, see Johnston 2006, 2008, 2010) – without, mostly, any reference to the kinds of pots bearing them. And even if published, objects were often devoid of any reference to original find contexts. Venit’s studies of Greek pottery in Egypt, for instance, are entirely organized by production place and with an analysis framed in terms of Greek pottery trade and distribution, rather than consumption (e.g. Venit 1988; for a different approach, see Weber, in Schlotzhauer and Weber 2012). This frustrating situation was recognized and lamented by scholars (cf. e.g. Höckmann in Höckmann and Kreikenbom 2001, vi: ‘ein zutreffendes Bild von Kunst und Kunsthandwerk im archaischen Naukratis wird erst dann möglich sein, wenn alle Funde erfaßt sind’), yet the complexity of the task at hand meant it has not been remedied until now.

2. The formation of the archaeological assemblage

In fact, the actual number of extant finds from the site is far larger than one might guess from the excavation reports and subsequent publications. Well over 17,000 objects (of originally several hundred thousand finds – cf. Gardner 1886) are known to survive today, dispersed amongst more than 70 collections worldwide (Fig. 2; see also below, section 5). Further museums are known to once have held finds from the site, but owing to war loss, transfer to another museum or de-accessioning, at least some of their collection are today lost or untraceable. War loss affected museums notably in Berlin, Liverpool and Leipzig, the latter’s collection including a set of Greek pottery sherds from Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum (which also gave a selection of finds to Dublin). Such transfers or exchanges (of ‘duplicates’) were not uncommon among museums and were often meant for the benefit of university teaching collections.

Figure 2. Objects from Naukratis in museum collections (as at January 2015; see also the list below in section 5)

Figure 3. Fragments from an Attic black figure kantharos, c. 580–575BC, digitally rejoined. British Museum, 1888,0601.444 and Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, GR.131.1894. Photograph © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge

The extremely wide distribution of Naukratis finds today makes it very difficult to gain an overview even of the extant evidence (cf. Kerschner 2001). Fragments of one and the same object may sometimes be found dispersed over several collections (Figs 3 and 4): the sheer number of objects meant that not every possible join was always made, even though the excavators spent a considerable time and effort piecing whole vases together from sherds: ‘By this process [i.e. systematic sorting] were separated more than 150 vases, each represented by a number of fragments varying from two or three to seventy or eighty’ (Gardner 1888, 38). Moreover, some objects that had once been joined appear to have become unstuck and so ended up being shipped off to different destinations. Finally, many artefacts were not registered immediately in the museums that received them (objects of ‘erotic’ character appear to have suffered particular neglect: Fig. 5), and over time provenance information was sometimes lost.

Only recently, in the course of work on the present catalogue, has it been possible to restore an attribution to Naukratis for some of these pieces – prime examples include some 800 ‘unprovenanced’ stamped amphora handles in the British Museum, currently being studied by Alan Johnston, as well as groups of terracotta and stone figurines in the British Museum and Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, catalogued by Ross Thomas. For example, of the 75 figurines in the British Museum registered without a provenance in 1973 (GR1973,0501.1 to GR1973,0501.75 – see Bailey 2008), 50 can now be confidently attributed to Naukratis, as they were made from the same moulds as known Naukratis finds, and as the museum’s acquisition history provides no other likely findspot. A further 61 figurines in the Fitzwilliam Museum had been erroneously registered in 1914 as coming from Antinoopolis, a site founded 450 to 750 years after the actual production of the figurines, hence introducing considerable confusion into scholarship on ‘Greco-Roman’ figurines from Egypt.

Figure 4. Fragments of an early 6th century BC North Ionian plate found in the sanctuary of Apollo, digitally rejoined. Ure Museum, Reading, 26.2.36 and British Museum, 1886,0401.1014. Photograph © Ure Museum, Reading. Photographer Marianne Bergeron, The British Museum

Of course, one might ask if it is indeed necessary to have a full set of finds recorded – might a sample not suffice, such as that held in one or two museums? That this is not a viable option has long been recognized (cf. Kerschner 2001,74–7) and will become even clearer below when the history of the finds distribution is addressed in more detail; if one were to focus on one or just a few of the collections, this would introduce yet further distortions. Already as it stands the extant finds assemblage of Naukratis is not an objectively representative record of the material culture of the site but the product of complex formation processes (cf. Schiffer 1987; Gosden and Marshall 1999), and the finds distribution is but one in a chain of events shaping the assemblage. Deposition and reuse in antiquity; decomposition; modern farming, robbing of earth and construction materials (by locals and sebbakhin); collecting of archaeological finds (by antiquities dealers and private collectors) and discard of finds (by sebbakhin); sampling strategies, recording, publication, storage and transportation of objects on the part of archaeologists; distribution to museums; storage, registration, study and accessibility of objects in museums: all these factors determine what is today known, or can confidently be identified, as the material culture from Naukratis. Many of the resulting biases in the surviving corpus are of course inevitable distortions present in any archaeological assemblage, and will still allow a meaningful analysis of the site throughout its history – but only when all without exception are carefully taken into account.

In the case of Naukratis we are aided in this by a range of archival sources: unpublished excavation diaries, journals, objects lists, letters and photographs. They provide not only essential archaeological information, but also give intimate insight into the social networks and value systems that underlie the 19th- and 20th-century treatment and analysis of the site and that also significantly influenced the formation of the surviving assemblage. [1]

Various parts of this documentation are today held by the archives of the Egypt Exploration Society, the Griffith Institute, and the Petrie Museum and the Library Archives in UCL. In addition, the British Museum’s archives (notably in the Departments of Greece and Rome and Middle East) as well as the archives of the various other museums holding material from Naukratis preserve accession records and object lists, relevant correspondence, meeting notes, etc. The most important evidence, however, ultimately remain the objects themselves. Once collected, re-assigned to their original contexts and assessed against the processes that led to their preservation for us today, they are available to be looked at again afresh from the perspective of 21st-century scholarship, set alongside comparative material from other sites – an enormously enriched body of evidence by comparison to the late 19th century – and subjected to modern scientific techniques.

Figure 5. ‘Naukratite’ figurine, limestone figure of Harpokrates with a huge phallus, Late Period. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, E.85.1914. Photograph © Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge

3. The finds and their dispersal

Apart from the finds from the American fieldwork, which were divided between Cairo and the University of Minnesota, and stray finds that mostly went to Cairo, objects from Naukratis broadly fall into three categories: finds from the two seasons under the aegis of the EEF, finds from Hogarth’s two fieldwork seasons and objects collected privately by foreign collectors that were either given to individuals by the excavators, picked up at site by travellers themselves or acquired via locals or dealers.

The last group is the origin of a number of collections of Naukratis material today held in a small number of museums; besides some individual finds or small groups, this includes notably the collections of Friedrich Freiherr von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology at the Universities of Munich and Utrecht, whose collection is now in Amsterdam, Leiden and Bonn (cf. Prins de Jong 1925); the collection of Otto Rubensohn (Classical archaeologist and excavator of Elephantine) and Percy Gardner, now in Heidelberg; and the collection of Egyptologist and art historian Seymour de Ricci, now in the Louvre.

The second category, finds made by Hogarth, was distributed among a small group of museums. The vast majority went to Cambridge (and is today divided between the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Cambridge University’s Museum of Classical Archaeology: Fig. 6) and the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, which to a large extent also funded his fieldwork; a small number of objects were also given to the British Museum and possibly other collections.

Figure 6. East Greek protome from the Hellenion, excavated by Hogarth, c. 500–425 BC. Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge, NA803. Photograph © Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge. Photography by British Museum staff

The objects excavated in the first two seasons by Petrie and Gardner were dispersed the most widely, eventually finding their way to over 50 museums on five continents. Published reports by the EEF and relevant correspondence in the EES Archives and various museums illuminate the process, principles and practice of distribution. The date for this was usually several months after the end of each fieldwork season, following the study of the objects and their display in the annual summer exhibition at the Royal Archaeological Institute. Still in Egypt, first refusal had, of course, been given to the Cairo (then Bulak) museum, and these objects usually never left Egypt but were deposited in the Bulak museum right at the end of the season.

All the rest was brought to the UK, where its distribution was subject to discussion and agreement by the officers of the EEF, to be officially confirmed by a vote at the EEF annual general meeting. A closer look at this shows that the principles of distribution of the objects, at least at first, were not merely pecuniary, as gifts in exchange for funds (cf. Kerschner 2001, 72), but guided by a mixture of financial and scholarly considerations. 

Generally, the most important finds, or at least a representative set of everything that had been recovered, were destined for the British Museum, as the national collection. Petrie, who had spent much time in the Museum in his days before becoming attached to the EES, clearly kept a particular eye on this: ‘I need hardly say that all important objects, and complete sets of all classes of things, from Naukratis, have been presented to the British Museum by the Egypt Exploration Fund; other museums at home and abroad have benefited by a large number of duplicates which were not necessary for our great collection’ (Petrie 1886b, 51). Even if the emphatic tone of this statement of Petrie’s, made at a lecture before the Archaeological Institute in London, may in part have been tailored specifically to its audience, the general sentiment and direction is certainly genuine. As surviving correspondence suggests, curators at the British Museum themselves were, moreover, heavily involved in choosing the objects to go to the British Museum – several of them sat, of course, on the EEF committee or were involved in studying and writing up finds for publication. Hence Cecil Smith – author of the chapter on Greek pottery in Naukratis Part I – in a letter dated 4 October 1886 somewhat impatiently requested of Ernest Gardner in Cambridge ‘to send the entire collection from Naukratis to the BM in order that our selection may be made’. [2]

Right after the British Museum, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston occupied a special position. This was not because of a particularly close connection or from contributing greatly to the fund (the MFA donation for 1884/5 is listed as a very moderate $5), but in recognition of the American friends of the EEF in their totality being a major supporter of the Fund. Amelia Edwards took it upon herself to ensure that the American interests were defended against those of the British Museum, aiming to secure for Boston – considered the main American museum – a find selection ‘of equal worth’ to that of the British Museum (Drower 1985, 69, 85). Thereafter, finds were voted to a variety of local UK, colonial and international museums and learned institutions, partly and notably at first, it seems, ‘with a hint that donations are very acceptable to the Fund’, later also increasingly directly in response to subscriptions (Drower 1985, 70–1). For the objects of the first season at Naukratis, then, we find among the recipients ‘the Louvre, Berlin, Carlsruhe, Geneva, Bristol, Bolton, York, Liverpool, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Charterhouse School, etc., including special donations to the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, and the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford’. [3]

Similarly, at the EEF’s AGM on Wednesday 8 December 1886 (where some finds were also on show), [4] objects from the second season were voted to the British Museum, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, the museums of Bath, Berlin, Brighton, Bristol, Bolton, Birmingham, Cambridge, Charterhouse School, the College of Surgeons (London), Edinburgh, Harrow School, Liverpool, Montreal (Canada), Oxford, Rochester (USA), Sheffield, Sydney, St Albans, University College (London), York, and the Pharmaceutical Museum (London). [5] Some Naukratis objects from the same season were still distributed the following year, at the fifth AGM of the EEF on 22 December 1887, where they were voted to the British Museum and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, having been first apportioned by Poole, Murray and Parrish (USA). [6] Also in later years objects from Naukratis were still being disseminated, though now in smaller numbers – for example, in 1890 to the University of Pennsylvania, in 1892 to Glasgow, in 1902 to Toronto, Colorado and Brooklyn, and in 1911 to the BM, Bolton, Bristol, Brighton and Warrington – suggesting that for quite some time the EEF retained a selection of objects from Naukratis (and other sites) for distribution whenever objects were needed. As has become apparent in the course of our work, in addition to the recipients named in the published EES Reports and in the EEF distribution list held in the archives of the EES, a number of further institutions also received objects. Without much of a paper record these gifts are much harder to trace, meaning that the list of known museums with Naukratis objects will undoubtedly also keep growing in the future as further collections are discovered.

Besides choosing objects of equal value for major institutions and supporters, individual choices and preferences also clearly left their mark on the selection made for different institutions: as Poole points out at the EEF’s AGM of 1887, the choice of objects for the British Museum and Museum of Fine Arts was facilitated by the fact that Peter le Page Renouf, Keeper of the Department of Oriental Antiquities at the British Museum from 1886 to 1891, preferred ‘monuments calculated to throw additional light upon the philology and history of Ancient Egypt’ while the Trustees and Director of Museum of Fine Arts favoured ‘objects of artistic interest’. [7] Petrie, too, appears to have had his own ideas of how objects should be distributed, as a note attached to a statement of expenses for the 1884/5 season suggests, where he outlines ‘principles of distribution’, although it is not clear whether his advice was ever heeded (EES Archive XVIf, 85):

Louvre   a few good objects
Berlin   illustrating the archaic art scientifically.
Boston   a large number of objects both Egyptian & Greek
Oxford   a few good archaic objects w[hic]h compare with others found at Tarentum
Cambridge   a large selection for scientific archaeology

In some cases, attempts were clearly made to distribute objects equally: this is most obvious in the case of the foundation deposits found by Petrie of which a set each was meant to go to Cairo, the British Museum, Boston and Berlin (Petrie 1886a, 30–1). Smaller collections sometimes appear to have received almost a standard ‘set’ of Naukratis objects – a couple of arrowheads and scarab moulds, a lamp, a figurine and a few Greek sherds.

That the distribution could be a matter of contention and that disputes could at times turn ugly is illustrated by a letter written by the British Museum’s Peter le Page Renouf to Amelia Edwards, apparently on the instigation of his assistant Wallis Budge. In it he castigates the EEF for not sending the objects chosen by Budge but substituting them with ‘a vast quantity of pottery & small objects which from our point of view are worthless’, pointing out that he could on no account take upon himself ‘the responsibility of crowding the museum with such a number of valueless objects’. (EES Archive IIIa, 47). This in the end turned out to be a misunderstanding, as the chosen objects were in fact awaiting transfer to the British Museum from the exhibition. Nevertheless, it seems that Petrie was greatly upset at the ignorance of genuine and scientific archaeology that the letter displayed, leading to strained relations between Petrie and Budge for the rest of their lives (Drower 1985, 105).

‘Value’, clearly, was not always a matter of universal agreement – particularly where Petrie’s recognition of the scientific value of even small and unattractive scraps of evidence clashed with the aesthetically trained eye of a museum curator. This also underlies the sad fate of Petrie’s iron tools from Naukratis: while these were highly valued by Petrie, who also included them in the yearly summer exhibition, Charles Newton apparently disagreed and disposed of them: ‘Mr Newton said they were ugly things and he did not want them, so they were thrown away’ (Petrie 1932, 59).

Chart 1. Finds from different excavation seasons at Naukratis as represented in the collections of the British Museum and the Ashmolean Museum

4. Naukratis finds in museums today: profiles and biases

Given that each of the excavation seasons focused on different areas of the site, and that individual excavators had different find selection strategies, it is obvious that groups of finds distributed in different years must be inconsistent in character. Combined with the fact that not all museums received finds from all excavation seasons, that each museum and private collector had individual predilections (or that such were anticipated by those making the selection for them), it is thus not surprising to find major differences in the composition between different museum collections.

These differences can be illustrated by way of example in three charts, based on data collected so far. Chart 1 shows the composition of the two largest collections with Naukratis objects: while the British Museum’s collection is mostly made up of finds from the first two seasons, the Ashmolean Museum’s is dominated by finds from the last two seasons.

Chart 2. Examples of different categories of material from Naukratis as represented in individual museum collections.

The impact these and other factors had on the character of the assemblage in the different museum collections is clear from Chart 2, which plots categories of material across some of the main museums with Naukratis holdings. The differences are glaring, with Reading and the Greco-Roman Museum in Alexandria, for example, heavily biased towards Greek pottery, while Bolton stands out for its significant groups of Egyptian bronzes and Cambridge (both the Fitzwilliam Museum and the university’s Museum of Classical Archaeology taken together) for its important collection of terracotta figurines.

This variability in categories is often indicative of major differences in the ‘cultural’ and chronological composition of the finds in different collections. The terracotta figurines from Naukratis are a good example to illustrate this more clearly (Chart 3).

While the British Museum is certainly home to some fine specimens of figurines from Naukratis, its collection actually only represents a small proportion of the total assemblage and, with a heavy Cypriot and Egyptian bias, is not representative of the Naukratis material overall. This is directly related to the fact that its collections derived mostly from fieldwork by Petrie and Gardner, i.e. from the temples of Apollo, Aphrodite, Hera and the Dioskouroi, the cemetery and sites across town, while nearly all of the terracotta figurines unearthed by Hogarth in the Hellenion area are today in Cambridge and Oxford, with those collections consequently displaying a very different profile.

Chart 3. Examples of differences in the finds spectrum across museum collections, by date and production place.

The great differences in the make-up of different museum collections thus make clear the necessity of a comprehensive overview of all existing evidence across all collections. Looking at individual collections in isolation would risk providing misleading results. The study of the material culture of Naukratis across modern collections is thus an essential prerequisite for any assessment either of the overall assemblage, or of individual findspots and groups of material, and one for which the present catalogue aims to provide a suitable platform





5. Appendix: Museums holding material from Naukratis (as at January 2015)


Number of objects

The British Museum, London


Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford


Museum of Fine Arts, Boston


Museum of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge


Oriental Institute, University of Chicago


Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge


Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria


Egyptian Museum, Cairo


City Art Gallery and Museum, Bristol


Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto


Musée du Louvre, Paris


Antikenmuseum der Universität Heidelberg


World Museum, Liverpool


Redpath Museum, Montreal


Bolton Museum


University College London, Institute of Archaeology


Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua (NY)


Royal Museum of Art and History, Brussels


The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London


Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Universität Bonn


Leiden University, Faculty of Archaeology


University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia


Ure Museum, Reading


Castle Museum, Nottingham


Antikenmuseum der Universität Leipzig


McLean Museum and Art Gallery, Greenock


Kyoto University Museum, Kyoto


National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh


Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Munich


Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam


Staatliche Museen zu Berlin


Spurlock Museum, University of Illinois


Wellesley College


McManus Galleries, Dundee


University College Dublin, Department of Classics, Classical Museum


British School at Athens


Queen’s University Belfast, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology


Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York


National Museum of Ireland, Dublin


Art and Artifact Collections, Bryn Mawr College


The Nicholson Museum, University of Sydney


Brooklyn Museum, New York


Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow


Mercer Art Gallery, Harrogate


Ruth and Elmer Wellin Museum of Art, Hamilton College, Clinton (NY)


Warrington Museum


Roemer and Pelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim


Manchester Museum


Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove


Harrow School, Old Speech Room Gallery and Museum


Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities


Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery


Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen


St. Helens Council Collection, The World of Glass


Bagshaw Museum, Kirklees


Yorkshire Museum, York


West Park Museum, Macclesfield


Sammlung des Ägyptologischen Instituts der Universität Heidelberg


Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow


Merchant Taylor's School, Northwood


Touchstones Rochdale, Rochdale


Museum August Kestner, Hannover


Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum, Baltimore


Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, Glasgow


The Field Museum, Chicago


The Atkinson, Southport


Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery, Exeter


Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden


Oriental Museum, Durham University


Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan


Great North Museum: Hancock, Newcastle


Alexandria University Museum


Agricultural Museum, Cairo


Location unknown

c. 1500


  • ^ [1] - The main groups of such records are Petrie’s photographs (old glass plate negatives and some prints), diaries, ‘journals’ (actually weekly letters to his mother and later also to others that detail the archaeological and other events on the dig), notebooks (containing various notes, sketches and calculations regarding stratigraphy, payments to workmen, photographs taken, finds, etc), letters written by Petrie, Griffith and Gardner, and a few relevant notes in notebooks by Gardner. While any detailed excavation diaries by Hogarth (as well as any site plans) appear to have been lost, his personal day-books (in the possession of his granddaughter) survive, along with a significant number of photographs from Naukratis (in the Archives of the British Museum’s Department of Greece and Rome) and a list of objects sent to Oxford. Cf. Lock p. 182: ‘The records kept by Hogarth of his excavations seem to have consisted of the following components: a personal daybook kept by Hogarth and apparently written up in the evening or the next morning noting the progress of work, posing questions of the material, recording meteorological information together with much ad hoc material about visitors, post, local conditions and some personal record ranging from the state of his temper to the state of his bowels; a general site-book, none of which have survived, but in which it appears he or his assistants made the official record of the dig; a site plan, often referred to as the “big plan” which was drawn by the excavation architects […] a photographic record none of which appears to have survived except where published. The taking of photographs is frequently noted in the daybooks. Hogarth was personally very interested in photography and reasonably adept at it.’ The set of photographs from Hogarth’s excavations at Naukratis from the archives of Sir John Boardman, now in the British Museum, are thus a rare exception to the rule of the loss of Hogarth’s photographs.
  • ^ [2] - Book of Original Letters 1886 of the Department of Greece and Rome, British Museum, letter no. 126. Smith points out that this is the only option as he had been refused travel money for a Cambridge trip by the Keeper – a rather feeble argument that makes one suspect that the removal of the finds to Cambridge in the first place was generally resented on the part of the Museum and that proper authority was to be restored by their transfer to London.
  • ^ [3] - Egypt Exploration Fund, Report of the Third Annual General Meeting & Balance Sheet, 1885 (London 1885) 11–13.
  • ^ [4] - Egypt Exploration Fund, Report of Fourth Annual General Meeting, and Balance Sheet 1885–6 (London: Trübner & Co, 1886) 8
  • ^ [5] - Egypt Exploration Fund, Report of Fourth Annual General Meeting, and Balance Sheet 1885–6 (London: Trübner & Co, 1886) 23–4
  • ^ [6] - Egypt Exploration Fund, Report of Fifth Annual General Meeting, Subscription List and Balance Sheet 1886–7 (London: Trübner & Co, 1887) 14
  • ^ [7] - Egypt Exploration Fund, Report of Fifth Annual General Meeting, Subscription List and Balance Sheet 1886–7 (London: Trübner & Co, 1887) 18–19