Nor is there anything against a seventh century date in the absence of proto-Corinthian pottery[570], which is so prevalent on the mainland in seventh century Greece. Edgar indeed[571] infers from this absence that the fabric must have been obsolete by the time the Greeks came to Naukratis. This argument cannot be maintained. Kinch notices that there is none of this ware in a chapel that he excavated at Vroulia in Rhodes and in which he found a good deal of seventh century Greek pottery[572]. Within the proto-Corinthian sphere of influence the style lasted on side by side with its successors all through the sixth century[573]. This late proto-Corinthian ware is equally conspicuous by its absence from Naukratis. To push Edgar’s argument to its logical conclusion we should have to doubt the existence of Naukratis in the days of Amasis himself[574]. Of the twelve Greek cities that had quarters in Naukratis in the days of Amasis only one, Aegina, belonged to European Greece. For the little known history of this Aeginetan settlement the absence of proto-Corinthian may be of significance. Beyond that it is not. So far then all that has been proved is that both Petrie and Gardner fixed partly on the wrong material for deciding whether Naukratis was a Greek city of importance in the days of Psammetichus I. And even here on one important point the criticism of them has been shown to be ill founded. Edgar doubted the Greek character of the scarab factory: but not only are the types on some of the scarabs of Greek origin, but a faience fragment from the site shows fragments of a Greek inscription placed on it before the glazing of the vase[575], a fact that can hardly be explained except by assuming a Greek maker. A great advance was made by Prinz, whose monograph _Funde aus Naukratis_ marked the first adequate treatment of the pottery. The earlier controversies about the date of Naukratis had made little appeal to the potsherds that from their mere numbers offer the most valuable evidence that has been yielded by the site. [Sidenote: (v) Positive evidence for an early foundation comes from the pottery actually found, viz.:] Edgar indeed observed in 1905[576] that it seems very doubtful whether all the fragments from the Naukratite temples can be as late as 570. There is at least a probability that some of the temples, especially that of the Milesian Apollo, date from the earlier [_i.e._ Hogarth’s Egyptian] days of the town. But apparently the question was still regarded as “primarily a question of historical criticism[577].” Since Prinz’s monograph appeared the pottery has taken the first place in the discussion, and it has now finally confirmed the earlier dating. [Sidenote: Milesian (?) (fig. 13),]