Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age

Citation preview

GREECE AND EGYPT IN THE ARCHAIC AGE

M. M. AUSTIN

THE CAMBRIDGE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1970

© CAMBRIDGE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1970

Printed in Great Britain at the University Printing House, Cambridge (Brooke Crutchley, University Printer)

CONTENTS Acknowledgements Introduction I

II

Early Evidence End of Bronze Age relations Egypt in epic poetry Early Egyptian finds in the Aegean Mercenaries and Settlements The mercenaries in Egyptian service Mercenary settlements

III

7

11 11

13

15

Naukratis

19 22

Other Greek settlements in Egypt

33

Trade Imports from Egypt

IV

Page 5

Exports to Egypt

35 36

The coin hoards

37

Political Relations

41

Conclusion

43

V

Abbreviations

47

Notes

49

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express here my deep gratitude to Dr M. I. Finley, who suggested this study to me, supervised my research on it in Cambridge from 1965 to 1968, and has been generous with help and advice at every stage. An earlier draft of this work was read by Mr John Boardman and Professor R. M. Cook, and I have benefited greatly from their detailed comments. For help and advice on various matters I am indebted to Professor A. H. M. Jones, Mr P. J. Parsons and M. Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Finally, my thanks are due to the Cambridge Philological Society for agreeing to publish this monograph, and to Mr H. J. Easterling, to my brother Colin, and to his wife Mishtu, for reading the proofs. Department of Ancient History St. Salvator’s College St Andrews, 31 August 1969

M. M. AUSTIN

INTRODUCTION1 The present study consists of a revised version of part of my Cambridge Ph.D. thesis entitled ‘Relations between Greece and the Levant in the Archaic Age’, which was completed in June 1968. I was concerned there with collecting and interpreting the available evidence for direct contacts between the Greek world and the Levant in the period from the end of the Mycenaean Age to the late sixth century. The term ‘Levant’ was taken widely to include Cyprus, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and Egypt. The present study is concerned solely with Greek relations with Egypt in this same period, though reference has occasionally been made to the rest of the Levant when it seemed necessary for comparison. Its aim is to collect and analyse the evidence for the development of direct relations between the Greeks and Egypt, and to assess the significance of these relations from both the Greek and the Egyptian points of view. The chronological starting point for this study—the end of the Mycenaean Age—is an obvious one: at that time the regular connexions between the Aegean and Egypt that had existed in the Bronze Age came to an end, and were only to be resumed in a comparable way in the seventh century B.C., when Greeks came to settle in Egypt, first as mercenaries, then later as traders as well. On the other hand, there are indications in the literary and archaeological evidence (Homer and Egyptian finds in the Aegean) of an awareness of Egypt on the part of the Greeks for some time before this, and it is therefore natural to evaluate the significance of this evidence before discussing in detail the regular contacts in the seventh and sixth centuries. These, of course, form the bulk of the study. As for the terminal date, it has proved impossible to opt for a well-defined point beyond bringing the story down to about the late sixth century. The Greeks of Asia Minor played the most important role in Greek relations with Egypt in the Archaic Age, as may be learnt from literary and archaeological sources. Yet, so far as we can see, the Persian conquest of Asia Minor in 546 did not visibly affect the overseas activity of the East Greeks. Nor did the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 completely interrupt Greek relations with Egypt, though it must undoubtedly have affected them somehow. The more significant event may have been the revolt of the Greeks of Asia Minor in 499 (the so-called Ionian Revolt), which must have severely crippled East Greek enterprises abroad. Yet archaeologically the effects of this revolt on Greek relations with Egypt are difficult to judge, for already before this date Attic pottery had replaced all the local pottery schools of Archaic Greece, which up till then enable one to identify (within limits) the Greeks who came to Egypt (and elsewhere), and therefore one can no longer identify the Greeks abroad from their pottery alone. For these reasons I have not sought to give a precise terminal point beyond the late sixth century. The evidence on which this study is based is of several kinds. There is first literary or written evidence, and above all the brief but valuable remarks of Herodotus on the activity of the Greeks in Egypt in the seventh and sixth centuries, as mercenaries and traders, which he included in his general treatment of Egypt in Book II and part of Book III The evidence from Herodotus, despite its incompleteness, forms in fact the [ 7]

8

INTRODUCTION

starting point for this whole study, which is to some extent a developed commentary on it. In addition there is much incidental evidence from many Greek writers from Homer onwards, though sources of the Archaic Age specifically cannot of course be expected to contribute much, and one often has to rely on classical or even later writers. There is also a little to be learnt from Egyptian sources, though here (as with Oriental sources in general) there is a frequent uncertainty as to whether Greeks may be securely identified in them. Were one limited to the evidence of the written sources, the subject would not be susceptible of very detailed treatment. For fresh information that supplements and even corrects the written evidence we have to look to archaeological discoveries of the last few generations. These consist both of finds of Greek objects in Egypt and of Egyptian objects on Greek sites. First in importance is the archaeological evidence of actual Greek settlements in Egypt. Two Greek settlements in Egypt of the Archaic Age have been discovered and excavated so far, those of Naukratis and Tell Defenneh (probably the ancient Daphnae mentioned by Herodotus). The bulk of the Greek finds from these sites consists of pottery, whereas finds of Greek pottery are otherwise scarce in Egypt, except in places where Greeks are known to have resided (as at Memphis). Clearly the Egyptians had little or no taste for Greek pottery as such, otherwise far more would have been found in Egypt and more widely scattered too. The pottery must have been used by Greeks living on the spot, though it is only when a substantial proportion of Greek pottery is found on an Egyptian site that one can assume the presence of Greeks there (unless there is literary or other evidence to prove this independently). The pottery finds are useful, furthermore, in that they give some additional indication of the identity of the Greeks who were active in Egypt. In the Archaic Age there is a predominance of East Greek wares among Greek pottery finds in Egypt. These wares did not circulate widely in the Greek world outside their area of production, and when found in Egypt it is most likely that they were brought and used by their producers. This agrees with the literary and other sources, for they indicate that the majority of the Greeks active in Egypt in the seventh and sixth centuries came from Asia Minor. On the other hand, there has also been found on Egyptian sites some Corinthian and Attic pottery from the late seventh century onwards. But these wares enjoyed a wide popularity and circulation in the Greek world, and one cannot assume that when found in Egypt they must indicate the activity of Corinthians or Athenians. Naukratis provides a test case. Corinthian and Attic pottery has been found at this site, but Herodotus does not list Corinthians or Athenians among the traders there, and there are no dedications by either in the sanctuaries (whereas dedications by East Greeks are frequent). This is not to deny that Greeks from parts of Greece other than Asia Minor may have paid visits to Egypt, as did the Athenian Solon, who is known to have travelled to Egypt in the early sixth century, but the major role was surely played by the East Greeks, and the stress has been placed on them in this study.1 Another important class of Greek finds in Egypt consists of a series of hoards of silver coins, found especially in the Delta, dating from the late sixth century onwards.

INTRODUCTION

9

The significance and interpretation of these finds are quite different from those of the Greek pottery, and will be discussed fully in their proper place. Compared to the evidence of Greek finds in Egypt, that of Egyptian finds in Greece is less decisive for the study of Greek relations with Egypt. In the first place, excavation of Greek sites has been unequal and important sites like Miletus are not well known and may have far more finds than can actually be guessed. Second, and more serious, there is no single and easy way of interpreting this evidence. Finds of Egyptian objects at any particular Greek site do not need to imply any direct relations between that site and Egypt, for such objects are often found widely in the Greek world in the Archaic Age, especially in sanctuaries, and for many of these sites there seems otherwise little probability of any direct link with Egypt. Small finds like scarabs became popular as personal objects or souvenirs and travelled widely from hand to hand. Yet in certain cases Egyptian finds surely have some significance. From the literary evidence it is clear that Samos had in the seventh and sixth centuries particularly close relations with Egypt. It is surely no accident that Egyptian finds, especially bronzes, should be more numerous in the island (at the Heraeum) than at any other site in Greece. But in general there is no easy way of assessing the importance of this evidence. The method followed has been to collect and mention the Egyptian objects alongside other relevant evidence for Greek relations with Egypt, and to lay stress on them only when there is corroborative evidence of direct contacts with Egypt for the site at which they are found. I have quoted such finds as are known to me, without hoping to achieve completeness, for the only attempt so far to collect them systematically, Pendlebury’s Aegyptiaca (1930), is by now out of date and stands in need of revision. The sequence followed in this study is partly chronological and partly topical. I begin with the earliest indications of Greek awareness of Egypt in the Iron Age before the settlements in Egypt in the seventh century: the evidence of Homer and of early Egyptian finds in the Aegean. Next comes a discussion of the mercenary settlements of the mid-seventh century and of the organisation of the mercenaries in Egyptian service. Then follows a general treatment of Naukratis, which concentrates on three questions, first the date of its establishment, second the identity of the traders, and third the organisation of the entire Greek settlement. After mentioning the remaining evidence of Greek activity in Egypt (apart from the mercenary settlements and Naukratis) I go on to discuss the nature of the trade between Greece and Egypt. Political relations between the Greek states and Egypt, which developed comparatively slowly and were only of slight importance at this time, are briefly dealt with at the end. A short conclusion is appended.

CHAPTER ONE

EARLY EVIDENCE END OF BRONZE AGE RELATIONS

Relations between Egypt and the Aegean before the Iron Age had a long history. Contacts with Minoan Crete can be traced far back; later the Mycenaeans are found trading with Egypt. These relations are documented by archaeological finds both in the Aegean and in Egypt, and perhaps too by pictorial representations of Minoans and Mycenaeans bringing gifts and tribute to the Pharaoh and allusions to them (if correctly identified) in Egyptian texts. These relations came to an abrupt end in the twelfth century—no Mycenaean IIIc pottery has been found in Egypt and all mentions of Aegean peoples in Egyptian texts disappear at about the same time.1 How complete the break was, and how long it may have lasted is, however, hard to determine. There are two categories of evidence implying some awareness of Egypt in the Aegean during the early centuries of the Iron Age, though hardly any certain direct contacts. These are allusions to Egypt in epic poetry on the one hand, and on the other finds of Egyptian or Egyptian-type objects in the Aegean, in some places (Crete at least) early in the Dark Age. Both give unfortunately but the vaguest indications of chronology. EGYPT IN EPIC POETRY

There is already in Homer a certain amount of information about Egypt, more so than for the rest of the Levant (excepting the Phoenicians, whom I leave aside here). Yet it is difficult to see how those passages mentioning Egypt should be assessed historically, that is to say, to determine what light they throw on Greek relations with, and awareness of, Egypt before the beginning of the regular contacts described to us by Herodotus and further illuminated by archaeological finds. The usual approach has been to regard all references to Egypt as simply reminiscences of Bronze Age relations between the Mycenaeans and Egypt, which imply little or no contemporary awareness of that country on the part of the Greeks.2 More rarely, they have been brought into direct relation with the renewal of contacts in the Archaic Age.3 But the only sound method must surely be to take each passage on its own merits, without wishing to ascribe all references either to the Bronze Age or to the world in which Homer lived.4 There is only one allusion to Egypt in the Iliad. In Book IX, 381–4, Achilles rejects the overtures of Agamemnon, saying that he would not change his mind even if Agamemnon should give him ‘all the wealth of Egyptian Thebes, where treasures in great quantity are stored up in men’s houses, Thebes which has a hundred gates, and through each of these two hundred men ride out with their horses and chariots’. The description is a conventional one of power and wealth, implying no accurate [nl

12

EARLY EVIDENCE

knowledge of Thebes on the part of the poet.1 Even the semi-mythical Ethiopians are barely alluded to twice (I, 423; XXIII, 206). But the scarcity of allusions in the Iliad need not be so significant, for the subject-matter of the poem is obviously less appropriate to the mention of distant lands than that of the Odyssey. In the Odyssey, by contrast, allusions to Egypt are numerous and scattered. But it should be emphasised that these allusions are not so significant as their frequency might suggest, for the bulk of them consists of repetitions of two main stories, or of incidents from them, namely the Wanderings of Menelaus, in the course of which he reaches Egypt and stays there for a while, and the story of the raid on Egypt which Odysseus, pretending to be a Cretan pirate, relates, first to Eumaeus, then to Alcinous.2 An important distinction must be drawn between these stories. In the Wanderings of Menelaus, the picture of Egypt is vague and inaccurate in detail: the island Pharos is grossly misplaced in relation to the coast (IV, 354–9),3 and fabulous elements abound, such as the narrative of the consultation of the old man of the sea Proteus. There is little here to suggest any genuine and direct knowledge of the country on the part of the poet.4 For him Egypt is just a distant and wonderful land, full of marvels and wealth. It is possible to regard this story as no more than free improvisation around garbled Bronze Age memories; the mention of Egyptian Thebes, which flourished during the Bronze Age, makes this likely. The same would apply, of course, to the allusion to Thebes in the Iliad referred to above. That some such memories might have survived through the Dark Age is not altogether improbable.5 At any rate the story gives little evidence of direct knowledge of Egypt. Quite different in this respect is the story of the raid on Egypt by Odysseus. The narrative abounds in vivid and precise details: the journey from Crete with the north wind is accurately described (XIV, 252–6), the river Nile (called ‘Aigyptos’) is said to be ‘well-flowing’ (ibid. 257), the poet notes enviously the fertility of the ‘magnificent fields’ of the Egyptians (ibid. 263), and Odysseus’ companions seize women and children as slaves (ibid. 264). It seems obvious to regard this story as reflecting contemporary raids by Greek pirates along the Levantine coast down to Egypt. Herodotus tells us in fact that the ‘Ionians and Carians ‘whom Psammetichus I took into his service as mercenaries had come to Egypt as pirates in the first instance (II, 152). Much later Strabo relates (792) how the early kings of Egypt set up a garrison at Rhakoti, the site of the later Alexandria, to keep off the Greeks, who are described as being at that time pirates, eager for other people’s territory through shortage of land. Though Strabo gives no exact date, this would apply most naturally to the later eighth or the early seventh century. It is surely much more plausible to connect the story in the Odyssey with the contemporary world in which the poet lived, rather than seek for distant (and dubious) parallels from the Bronze Age.6 The Odyssey thus reveals in certain passages some knowledge of Egypt on the part of the Greeks before the seventh century (according to the terminal date usually assigned to the composition of the Odyssey).7 There is nothing here to surprise, for Greeks were already active elsewhere in the Levant—in Cyprus, Cilicia and especially Syria—well before that date, perhaps in places as early as the late ninth century, and

EG YP T IN EPIC P O E TR Y

13 it would not be long before they would get to know Egypt as well, though at first perhaps indirectly. But the Odyssey also preserves at the same time in the story of Menelaus the impression of Egypt as a mysterious and little-known country.

EARLY EGYPTIAN FINDS IN THE AEGEAN

The archaeological evidence of Egyptian finds in the Aegean is similarly ambiguous.1 In the first place, the chronology of the finds is often vague and it is frequently uncertain how far back many of them may go. Then there is the difficulty of distinguishing genuine Egyptian objects—at least as far as the minor objects are concerned—from their imitations, whether Greek or Oriental, since these were widely copied. Finally, even in the case of genuine Egyptian objects, it would be hasty to infer a direct link with Egypt from their presence at any particular site, since objects like scarabs, amulets, etc. tend to travel widely from hand to hand, often ending up far from their place of origin. Hence it is no surprise to find these on many sites which in later times probably had no direct relations with Egypt. Small finds are numerous on many Cretan sites (already in Protogeometric times— the earliest), at Sparta (some in Geometric contexts), Argos (the Heraeum), Corinth (from the mid-eighth century onwards), Attica (some in the eighth century and later), Aegina, Rhodes and Samos, and there are slighter finds elsewhere (Thebes, Thessaly, Thera, Paros, Chios). They are also found in the west, and fairly early (late eighth century), in the Euboean colonies of Cumae and Pithecusae, through which some may have passed on to the native populations of Italy.2 More important are the Egyptian bronzes, the identification of which is much more assured. Isolated bronzes are known from Argos, Corinth, Athens, Thessaly (Pherae), Ephesus, Miletus and Rhodes. Two regions, however, have produced such finds in greater numbers than elsewhere, Crete and Samos. The finds in Crete raise the problem of the island’s relations, not only with Egypt, but with the Levant in general. Objects and influences from Egypt and the Levant can be found in Crete from an early date, yet with Egypt as with the rest of the Levant there is no evidence for direct Cretan activity there (beyond allusions in Homer to occasional raids by Cretan pirates on Egypt; see p. 12). Cretan mercenaries are found in Egypt in the fifth century, but they are conspicuously absent before then. The Cretans may have been largely indifferent to trading themselves with the Levant, leaving this to the activity of Phoenician or other intermediaries, and if so this might account for those Oriental finds and influences in the island that cannot be explained by any direct Cretan activity in the Levant.3 This would explain the absence of the Cretans from Naukratis and other Levantine ports of trade. But in the case of mercenaries the explanation is not valid, for they were good soldiers, and not indifferent to colonisation, as their participation in the foundation of Gela and Cyrene in the seventh century shows. One might have expected them to join in the Greek mercenary settlements in Egypt in the Archaic Age, but there is no evidence that they did. The Egyptian finds in Samos, by contrast, are suggestive. On the evidence of Oriental finds in the island, Samos was among the earliest East Greek states to show

14

EARLY EVIDENCE

interest in the Levant (from the early seventh century onwards). Later it was to play an important role in Egypt, and an anecdote in Herodotus (IV, 152) mentions a trip to Egypt by a Samian captain named Colaeus, the date of which is fixed to the early 630’s by being related to the foundation of Cyrene. The story implies that for a Samian the voyage to Egypt was by this date nothing exceptional, even though (on the current archaeological dating) Naukratis did not yet exist.1

CHAPTE R TWO

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS THE MERCENARIES IN EGYPTIAN SERVICE

With the accession of Psammetichus I around 663, a new period of Egyptian history begins. After centuries of near anarchy the unity of the country was restored, and by adroit diplomacy the new ruler was able to free Egypt from Assyrian domination. Also under Psammetichus I took place the first definite settlements of Greeks in Egypt. The significance of this event was emphasised by Herodotus (II, 154): from the time of Psammetichus I onwards, the Greeks had accurate knowledge of Egyptian history, whereas for the time before this their knowledge was hazy. The earliest Pharaoh Greek tradition could remember was Bocchoris, a generation and a half before Psammetichus. The achievements of Psammetichus I obviously impressed the Greeks, since we find Greeks in the Archaic Age calling themselves after his name, and in general Greek tradition had much to say about him.1 Before discussing the organisation and settlements of the Greek and Carian mercenaries in Egypt, a few words should be said on the subject of Greek mercenaries in the Archaic Age. Unfortunately, it is difficult to evaluate their importance, as there is little information to go on. One hears of individual mercenary adventurers like Archilochus of Paros, or Antimenidas of Lesbos who served with the Babylonians. Several tyrants kept bodyguards of mercenaries and small forces, but nothing apparently on any significant scale. For this one has to wait till the early fifth-century tyrants in Sicily (Hippocrates, Gelo), but the history of mercenary service in Sicily was throughout somewhat special.2 The Greek and Carian mercenaries in Egyptian service are the only large group one hears of in the Archaic Age. According to Herodotus (II, 163), there were 30,000 of them under Apries, and the capacity of the military fort at Tell Defenneh has been estimated at 20,000 men (see p. 20). Yet it would be dangerous to generalise on this basis, for, as we shall see, the mercenaries in Egypt formed a special group. Though they have regularly been assumed to be similar to fourth-century mercenaries,3 it is doubtful whether the normal concept of a mercenary fully applies in their case. One is obliged to call them ‘mercenaries’, as Herodotus did,4 for want of a better term, but this can have misleading implications. As far as mainland Greece is concerned, then, there is little evidence that mercenary service was very widespread in the Archaic Age. An obvious reason for this is that emigration abroad was always a possibility then if there was need to dispose of excess population, and this was an outlet that Greeks in the fourth century did not have. Turning to the Levant, apart from Egypt, it is clear that some Greeks did go and take up mercenary service there in the Archaic Age. There is the case of Antimenidas of Lesbos who served with the Babylonians in the sixth century.5 Herodotus (III, 139) mentions casually that many Greeks followed Cambyses’ invasion of Egypt in 525, some as traders, others on military service. There is also archaeological evidence of [ 15]

16

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS

Greek mercenaries in Palestine in the late seventh century. There was recently discovered at Mesad Hashavyahu (about half-way between Jaffa and Ashdod) the remains of a fortress, and in it was found a substantial amount of East Greek pottery, sufficient to imply the presence of East Greeks in some numbers on the spot. The fortress went through only one building phase, and as all the East Greek pottery is dated approximately to the last third of the seventh century, it is reasonable to assume that the fort existed for the same period too. The settlement is likely to have been one of Greek mercenaries, as Mesad Hashavyahu is a fortress. A workshop for producing iron implements was discovered on the spot, and this would be specially relevant if the Greeks settled there were mercenaries. The fort would have been built by, or at least for, them. So much is likely, but what is not clear is in what circumstances and in whose service the mercenaries were settled there, and why the fort should have been abandoned towards the end of the seventh century.1 That is all the evidence for Greek mercenaries in the Levant apart from Egypt in the Archaic Age, and it is unfortunate that so little is known of all these mercenaries, for it is impossible to compare them with the Greek and Carian mercenaries in Egypt, to see how important they were numerically, how they were organised and on what terms they served. At least, there is a difference between Antimenidas, who returned to Greece after serving for a while with the Babylonians, and the Greeks and Carians in Egypt who settled there permanently. Yet there is one feature common to all these Greek mercenaries in the Levant. Whenever their origin is known or can be inferred, they are all Greeks from Asia Minor. Antimenidas came from Lesbos. All the Greek pottery from the mercenary settlement at Mesad Hashavyahu in Palestine is East Greek. Herodotus usually refers to the Greek mercenaries in Egypt as ‘Ionians’ (II, 152, 154, 163), though his terminology is loose and he often means by ‘Ionians’ the Greeks in Asia Minor generally. Once he calls them ‘Greeks’ (III, II), and he specifically mentions a mercenary captain from Halicarnassus (III, 4, II). The graffiti of the mercenaries at Abu Simbel in the Upper Nile valley, dating from the reign of Psammetichus II (594– 589), mention two Rhodians (from Ialysos), one Teian and one Colophonian; the two longest inscriptions are in Doric.2 At the military settlement of Tell Defenneh the Greek pottery is predominantly East Greek (see p. 20). Perhaps one may put forward a hypothesis which will partly account for this special connexion of the East Greeks with mercenary service in the Levant in the Archaic Age. Greek sources—this means in practice chiefly Herodotus—talk almost exclusively about the Greeks in Egypt when they come to mention the activities of non-Egyptians in that country in the Archaic Age. On the other hand, incidental hints in them show that the Greeks formed only one group among the numerous other foreigners who frequented or settled in Egypt in the seventh and sixth centuries, and there is much evidence besides that of the Greek sources to substantiate and develop this point. The activities of these other foreigners—Phoenicians, Jews, Syrians and others—lie, strictly speaking, outside the scope of this study, though occasional mention will be made of them subsequently, since their position, importance and organisation within the Egyptian state should throw light on those of the Greeks as well.3

THE ME R C EN A R I ES IN E G Y P T I A N SERV IC E

17

Yet there is one exception. When talking of the Greek mercenaries in Egypt, Herodotus throughout links the Carians with them; elsewhere in his work he seems to assume a kind of solidarity between Greeks and Carians.1 That the Carians should thus be singled out among other foreigners together with the Greeks is in itself a reason for mentioning here their activity in Egypt; but there is also a further justification for this. In Greek tradition the Carians were reputed to have ‘invented’ mercenary service. Even if one does not take this literally, we have the evidence of Archilochus to show that already in the first half of the seventh century—shortly before the mercenaries migrated to Egypt—the Greeks naturally associated the Carians with mercenary service.2 The Carians were the first to adopt Greek weapons and tactics—they must in fact have adopted them as soon as they were introduced, for it is likely that the Greeks and Carians whose arrival in Egypt made such a great impression were armed as hoplites.3 The Carians are found elsewhere in the Levant as mercenaries in the Archaic Age (and later), in Cyprus at the time of the Ionian Revolt (Hdt. V, 111–12) and in Persia.4 Caria remained subsequently a regular source of mercenaries, as did Arcadia in classical times, and for similar reasons: both Caria and Arcadia were hilly countries too infertile to sustain a large population, hence their dwellers were constantly forced to look for a living abroad, and mercenary service was the obvious expedient. Considering their reputation, and their activity as mercenaries in the Levant, might one not suggest that the Carians gave the lead to their Greek neighbours in Asia Minor, with whom they had close contacts, in taking up mercenary service abroad? The apparently exclusive predominance of East Greek mercenaries in the Levant in the Archaic Age is more easily understandable if the idea of taking up service abroad had first reached the Greeks from Caria. On the other hand it is doubtful, as we saw, how far mercenary service spread in Greece at the time, and this underlines the special character of the Greek and Carian mercenary force in Egypt. It represented one single large migration of men, which was clearly related to special circumstances, for the East Greeks did not maintain subsequently any special connexion with mercenary service, whereas their Carian neighbours did. The circumstance which caused a very large body of East Greeks (see the figures quoted above, p. 15) to migrate to Egypt was clearly overpopulation at home aggravated by foreign pressure (Cimmerians and Lydians). In other words, the migration of the East Greek mercenaries to Egypt is to be seen as part of the colonisation movement, though the peculiar form it took was unprecedented at the time in Greek experience. It is an interesting illustration of the mobility of the Greeks in the Archaic Age that they were prepared to go and settle in the midst of a foreign country and become part of its permanent army. Xenophon’s Ten Thousand, by contrast, resisted any suggestion of settlement and preferred to return to Greece. To turn now to the organisation of the Greek and Carian mercenaries in Egypt.5 It was noted above (p. 12) how there was a connexion between the Greek pirates who made occasional raids on Egypt, perhaps already in the eighth century, and the later mercenaries of Psammetichus I. It had in fact long been a normal practice of the Pharaohs to settle foreigners, even pirates, on Egyptian soil and to enrol them in their army. Thus some of the ‘Sea Peoples’ who assailed Egypt in the late Bronze Age are

18

ME RCENAR I E SC ANDC SET TL EMENT S

found later holding land in Egypt in return for military service. The treatment of the Greeks and Carians was not exceptional in this respect.1 Herodotus relates how the Greek and Carian pirates arrived in Egypt, were then persuaded by Psammetichus I to take up service for him, helped him to dispose of his rivals and were subsequently settled in ‘camps’ (II, 152 and 154). This account is somewhat misleading, for it gives the impression that the arrival of the Greeks and Carians and their subsequent enrolment were fortuitous; yet the character of the operation makes this unlikely. There must surely have been some understanding previous to the settlement of the Greeks and Carians in Egypt. One may conjecture that once Psammetichus I had realised the possible usefulness of the foreigners to him, an invitation was extended to them to come and settle in Egypt in return for military service, and the migration followed afterwards. From the Pharaoh’s point of view the foreign troops were meant from the start to form a permanent army. They were not ad hoc levies raised for immediate and limited military objectives, and this distinguishes them sharply from other mercenary armies (like the Ten Thousand). The Pharaoh needed them both for ensuring the security and independence of the country against outside enemies, and as a counterweight and supplement to the old and decaying class of the Warriors, whose presence had constituted for long an element of disturbance in Egypt. But the same system was used for the Greeks and Carians as for the Warriors: they were granted the right to settle in Egypt and hold land. They were, in other words, half colonists and half soldiers.2 This raises a further question: how did the Egyptians ensure a permanent supply of troops? There is no evidence for periodic recruitments in Greece to fill gaps caused by losses or death, nor of the return to Greece of time-expired veterans from Egypt. On the contrary, Herodotus implies that the Greeks and Carians came in one single movement, were settled in Egypt, and remained there for at least several generations. At Stratopeda they were established continuously from Psammetichus I to Amasis (II, 154). Concerning the Warriors, Herodotus tells us that they formed a hereditary class (II, 166). Now it is likely that when the Greeks and Carians came to Egypt they did not all migrate with wives and families; in fact the frequent stories of Greeks marrying native women when founding colonies on foreign soil suggest the opposite. Even if no proof were available, it would be a necessary assumption that the Greeks and Carians were granted rights of intermarriage with native Egyptian women. There is in fact enough evidence to suggest that this was the case. At Memphis we hear in Hellenistic times of three groups of foreigners settled there, the Ἑλληνομεμφῖται, the Kαρομεμφῖται and the Φοινικαιγύπτιοι. The evidence for these may date from the Hellenistic period, but there is every reason to regard these groups as the descendants of Greeks, Carians and Phoenicians settled in Memphis long before, the Greeks and Carians at least from the time of Amasis (Hdt. II, 154 and see p. 20), and in fact Polyaenus (VII, 3) asserts this for the Carians (he dates their establishment in Memphis to the time of Psammetichus I). It is specified that the Kαρομεμφῖται had ἐπιγαμία with the Egyptians, and the source explains their composite ethnic accordingly, though this may be only a learned guess (Aristagoras, FGrHist, 608 F 9). Now it is hard to see what else the Carians can have been except mercenaries; it is

THE ME R C E N A R I E S IN E G Y P T I A N SERVICE

19

noteworthy that there is virtually no evidence for their presence at Naukratis, which must have been largely visited by traders.1 This probability is strengthened if they and the Greeks are the descendants of the mercenaries settled there by Amasis. Herodotus (II, 112) mentions a settlement of Phoenicians at Memphis in his time, and says that their settlement, grouped around a sanctuary, was called ‘Stratopedon’. This obviously recalls the ‘Stratopeda’ of the Greek and Carian mercenaries (Hdt. II, 154), and makes it likely that these Phoenicians were also, or had once been, mercenaries themselves. It is possible that this group of Phoenicians mentioned by Herodotus might be identical with the Φοινικαιγύπτιοι we hear of in Hellenistic times. These various strands lead to the same conclusion: mercenaries were granted—at least in some cases—rights of intermarriage with native Egyptian women, and by this method the Pharaoh attempted to ensure the permanence of his military force. The point of interest here is that we know that the Greeks at Naukratis were expressly denied any rights of intermarriage, a restriction which remained in force for a very long time (see below, p. 28). In other words, the Pharaoh treated differently the various groups of foreigners according to their usefulness to him.2 There is no need to describe all the campaigns in which the Greek and Carian mercenaries may have taken part. Let it suffice to give here an account of what is known from literary, archaeological and other sources of their settlements in Egypt. Herodotus describes first how the Greek and Carian pirates arrived in Egypt, were then taken into Psammetichus’ service and helped him to dispose of his rivals (II, 152).3 As a reward for their help they were settled in opposite ‘camps’, with the Nile flowing in between them, on the eastern (Pelusian) branch of the river, near the sea and a little below Bubastis. The mercenaries lived there for a long time until Amasis, at an unspecified moment in his reign, moved them to Memphis to use them as a bodyguard against the Egyptians (II, 154). Traces of the mercenary settlement at Stratopeda were still extant in Herodotus’ time (ibid.). On the settlement and organisation of the Greek and Carian mercenary force this is all Herodotus has to say, and the account is clearly incomplete.4 Elsewhere (II, 30) he describes the three main garrison posts in Egypt established by Psammetichus I and preserved by the Persians, one being at Elephantine against the Ethiopians, another at Daphnae on the Pelusian branch of the Nile against the Arabs and Assyrians, the third at Marea on the Canopic branch against the Libyans. There is no mention here of Greek and Carian garrisons, though their presence at Elephantine is possible, and certain at Daphnae if (as seems likely) it is to be identified with Tell Defenneh, where there is archaeological evidence of the presence of Greeks and Carians in the Archaic Age. MERCENARY SETTLEMENTS

Elephantine. An official under Apries relates how he quelled a rebellion of the troops at Elephantine, and Greeks and Carians (?) might be named among these, though this is doubtful. The participation of Greek and Carian mercenaries in the great Ethiopian expedition under Psammetichus II should be mentioned in this context. On the other hand there is no mention of Greeks and Carians in the Aramaic papyri of the Jewish

20

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS

garrison at Elephantine in the late fifth century, and if there were Greek and Carian troops there, they must have been removed at some unknown time before this.1 Daphnae. The identification of Daphnae with Tell Defenneh on the strength of the similarity in name is very likely, though not susceptible of final proof. And at any rate Tell Defenneh is not Stratopeda, as was assumed by Petrie, though Stratopeda (of which nothing is known archaeologically) may not be far from Tell Defenneh. To judge from the remains and finds of the only partially excavated site, Tell Defenneh was a settlement of Greek mercenaries, and there is a little evidence for Carians also. Not only does the site consist of a large military fort, but quantities of bronze and iron weapons were found on the spot, and from the piles of iron and copper slag found there it is likely that the metals were worked locally, presumably by Greeks (compare the evidence for metalworking at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu in Palestine; above, p. 16). The pottery finds are unfortunately not representative: the bulk of the vases, dating from the time of Amasis, came from a single deposit, whereas earlier pieces (some going back to the late seventh century) were found scattered on the site. Hence the initial date of the Greek and Carian presence cannot be inferred from the finds, though it could conceivably go as far back as the reign of Psammetichus I. The pottery is, as one would expect, mainly East Greek, with also a certain amount of Attic vases dating from the reign of Amasis. The range of styles represented is slighter than at Naukratis, but arguments from silence are dangerous when the finds are not representative in the first instance. There is, however, an interesting group of large baggy-shaped vases called ‘situlae’, dating from the third quarter of the sixth century. None has been found at Naukratis, and local manufacture at Tell Defenneh seems likely. In other words, Tell Defenneh had an independent life of its own, and was sufficiently important to have a local pottery manufacture. In fact, Petrie estimated the fort could contain some 20,000 men. The pottery finds endaround 525, and it is reasonable to connect this with the Persian invasion of Egypt. But whether this means that the entire Greek settlement at Tell Defenneh came to an end then and never revived after is another matter.2 Memphis. Herodotus mentions the transfer of the Greek and Carian mercenaries from Stratopeda to Memphis at some time in Amasis’ reign (II, 154), that is to say, in the period 570–526 B.C. On the other hand, according to Polyaenus (VII, 3), Carians were settled there already under Psammetichus I. The two accounts need not be mutually exclusive, assuming they are correct. At any rate archaeological evidence of Greek finds (pottery and other objects) begins as early as at Naukratis, in the late seventh century, well before Amasis is said by Herodotus to have removed the garrisons of Stratopeda to Memphis. There is also evidence of Greek finds from the outlying cemeteries of Memphis, Abusir and Saqqarah. The Carians are attested archaeologically by a number of graffiti on various objects.3 A further point of interest is that the Greek community had in later times its Ἑλλήνιον and τιμοῦχοι as its chief magistrates, precisely as Naukratis did (see pp. 30 f.). When these were introduced is unknown, though on the analogy of Naukratis they might go back to some time in the Archaic Age. In this respect at least the Pharaoh treated the Greeks—whether traders or

MERCENARY SETTLEMENTS

21

mercenaries—according to a similar pattern in conceding them the right to build sanctuaries around which they would organise themselves. This was in fact the normal practice with all foreigners: the Carians and Phoenicians at Memphis also enjoyed the right to have their own sanctuaries, as we saw (p. 19), as did the Jews at Elephantine, and all these settlements go at least as far back as the sixth century. On the other hand we do not know whether every military settlement had its sanctuary; for Stratopeda Herodotus is silent on this point (II, 154).1 Greek tradition implies that the Greek and Carian mercenaries were left under their own commanders (or at least it fails to suggest the contrary), and the Abu Simbel inscriptions have been thought to strengthen this belief, in that the Greek commanders who scratched the inscriptions wrote (perhaps deliberately) as though they were under no one else’s orders (except those of the Pharaoh, of course). But the two Egyptian generals mentioned in these graffiti, Potasimto and Amasis, are known otherwise from Egyptian monuments. From the titles they bear, and from those of other officials, it is clear that only Egyptians provided the higher officers for all the troops, Egyptians and foreigners alike. Whatever their importance to the Pharaoh, the Greeks and the Carians (and other foreign troops) were kept under strict control, just as the trade at Naukratis was closely regulated.2 Admittedly, the influx of foreign troops was resented by the Warriors, and rivalry between these and the foreigners occasionally broke out in mutinies (as under Psammetichus I). When Apries made an unsuccessful campaign against Cyrene, using only the Egyptian troops, the discontent broke out in rebellion. Apries tried to resist with the help of his foreign troops, but he was defeated and killed. All the same his successor Amasis, though brought to power at the head of a nationalist reaction, could not dispense with the Greeks and the Carians (and the other foreign mercenaries as well), and Greek tradition even remembered him as a philhellene.3 There remains a final problem to consider, namely the subsequent fate of the Greek and Carian mercenaries after the Persian conquest. Unfortunately no clear picture emerges. On the available archaeological evidence it looks as though the fort of Tell Defenneh was abandoned at the time of this conquest (525). But then the evidence may not be representative, and there is certainly the case in the fifth century of one Timarchos who described himself as Δαφναίτες on a graffito at Abydos, and this argues for continuity of the Greek community there in the fifth century (assuming the equation Tell Defenneh = Daphnae).4 At Elephantine, any Greek and Carian mercenaries there may have been in the Archaic Age disappeared before the late fifth century. On the other hand Herodotus in his references to the Greeks and Carians does not necessarily imply that they were a phenomenon of the past, and whence did he derive his detailed information on them if they had disappeared by his time? The answer could be, of course, from Greeks in Naukratis, but the settlements of the traders and those of the mercenaries may have had a separate existence, and it is uncertain how much they would have known of each other.5 More decisive still is the continuity of the communities in Memphis; since they existed in Hellenistic times as in the sixth century, there cannot have been any serious and prolonged break in their existence. On another fifth-century graffito from Abydos one Chariandros describes

22

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS

himself as Μεμφίτης and, as in the case of the man from Daphnae, this suggests continuity of the Greek community at Memphis in the fifth century.1 Perhaps what happened was that when the Persians conquered Egypt they simply enlisted these foreign troops in their service, as they certainly did with the Jews at Elephantine. That this might have been the case could be inferred from a passage in Herodotus (III, 91), where he talks about the division and tribute of the Persian Empire as set up by Darius, and says that the Egyptians, among other dues, had to provide corn to the Persians established at Leukon Teichos in Memphis καὶ τοῖσι τούτων ἐπικούροισι: these might simply be the Greek, Carian and Phoenician mercenary settlements of the Archaic Age. But if the Persians re-enlisted the Greeks and Carians after the conquest, then Herodotus has failed to make this explicit, and after his mention of the battle between the Persians and the mercenaries (and Egyptians) at the time of the Persian invasion of Egypt in 525, he abruptly loses sight of the mercenaries and says no more about them.2 NAUKRATIS3

(1) Establishment For the establishment of Naukratis one has two classes of evidence, the literary evidence on the one hand, and on the other that of archaeological finds. Let me take each in turn. Literary.4 It should be stressed at the outset that the literary sources are of unequal value, and that a sharp distinction should be drawn between earlier and later sources. The passage in Herodotus (II, 178–9) is the earliest and fullest account of Naukratis in ancient literature; nevertheless there is much which it does not make clear, as we shall see, and on a fundamental point it is probably wrong. If Herodotus, closest to the events he describes, is found wanting, what weight can be attributed to later sources which contradict him on essential points? Three characteristics distinguish the later sources. In the first place there is their use of the concept of ‘foundation’. I have deliberately avoided talking here of the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis, for this might have carried misleading implications, and I have used instead the neutral term ‘establishment’. As we shall see, there may have been an Egyptian community at Naukratis before the arrival of the Greeks; hence the Greeks cannot in any case be said to have ‘founded’ the city. Secondly, as is clear from Herodotus, the permission of the Pharaoh was necessary in the first instance before the Greeks could settle, and there can thus be no question of an autonomous ‘foundation’ by them. Finally, and most important, it is very likely that the Greek community at Naukratis consisted originally of a group of traders from different cities, acting on their own initiative, before there developed in addition a πόλις of Naukratis separate from the community of traders (see pp. 29–33). In other words Naukratis had no proper metropolis and its establishment did not constitute a deliberate act of policy by the founding states, unlike that of so many colonies founded in the Archaic Age. The later sources forget all this and falsify the perspective when they talk of the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis, which Herodotus avoids doing.5

NAUKRATIS

23

In the second place, when a date for the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis is given or implied by the later sources, it is well before anything Herodotus had in mind; moreover, these dates vary from one writer to another. Thus in one version of the ‘Thalassocracy List’ the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis is put well back into the eighth century, in the seventh Olympiad, i.e. 752–749 (ap. Eusebius, ed. Schoene, II, 81 = Diod. VII, II). An anecdote in Athenaeus (XV, 675 f = Polycharmus, FGrHist, 640 F 1) implies the existence of Naukratis in the 23rd Olympiad, i.e. 688–685. Strabo 801 sets the ‘foundation’ at some unspecified date during the reign of Psammetichus I, that is, in the second half of the seventh century.1 Obviously, none of these statements can claim any value; but they allow at least one important negative inference, namely that at no time was there any fixed tradition on the establishment of Naukratis, hence diverging dates could be freely given. In the third place, the later sources universally state or imply that Naukratis was from the start a strictly Milesian ‘foundation’ and remained so subsequently. The Milesian origin of Naukratis is asserted in the ‘Thalassocracy List’ and in the passage in Strabo mentioned above, and is also found elsewhere.2 Yet according to the testimony of Herodotus Naukratis was a composite community, in which many Greeks from Asia Minor (and also the Aeginetans) shared. It has been asserted time and again that one can harmonise Herodotus’ account with that of the later writers usually by supposing that Naukratis was initially a Milesian ‘foundation’, which was then enlarged later, perhaps in the reign of Amasis, by the addition of the numerous traders mentioned by Herodotus.3 Against this it should be emphasised that the later writers never speak of Naukratis as anything but a purely Milesian community, and this should exclude any attempt to reconcile versions which are in fact irreconcilable. In later times Miletus somehow managed to assert an exclusive claim to the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis, which then passed into the literary tradition and thus became historical fact.4 We are thus left with Herodotus as the only source which deserves to be taken seriously, and it seems very likely (though even this has been challenged) that in his mind Naukratis was established under Amasis as a result of the Pharaoh’s goodwill towards the Greeks.5 But as is shown by the archaeological evidence, and also perhaps by a few older and genuine anecdotes,6 there is conclusive evidence of Greek presence on the site well before Amasis. Archaeological.7 The most explicit evidence is that of the pottery finds. To be sure, the East Greek vases are not securely dated and cannot be used for chronological purposes. On the other hand, Corinthian and Attic pottery is found in some quantity dating from the late seventh century onwards. The finds are immediately abundant from the earliest years of the site’s history, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that Greek presence at Naukratis goes back to this time, i.e. around 615–610.8 Other finds are less clearly dated. The remains of the various sanctuaries are slight and allow only a rough chronological estimate. At least it is possible to make a distinction between, on the one hand, the sanctuary of Aphrodite in the south of the town and those of Samian Hera, Milesian Apollo and the Dioscouroi in the north and,

24

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS

on the other, the Hellenion, jointly founded by traders from many different East Greek cities. The finds from the Hellenion begin later than those from some of the other sanctuaries, and there is no evidence that the Hellenion existed before the time of Amasis. Moreover, its eccentric position in relation to the sanctuaries in the north of the town makes it probable in itself that it should have been founded later than them. Finds from the sanctuary of Aphrodite go back to the beginning of the sixth century, and an architectural feature of the temple, a stepped altar, is thought to date from the same time. The fairly central position of the sanctuary on the site might be a further indication of an early date. The remains of the sanctuary of Samian Hera are too few to allow any dating, but its position side by side with that of Milesian Apollo makes it possible that its construction should be roughly contemporary with it. Finds from the sanctuary of Apollo go back to the early sixth century. Too little is left of the sanctuary of the Dioscouroi to allow any dating.1 A final class of evidence is constituted by the numerous inscriptions (mostly scratched, some painted) found on vases dedicated in the sanctuaries to various gods and goddesses. It was at one time argued that these must all belong to the reign of Amasis or later, since omega was constantly used in them, whereas it was absent from the Abu Simbel inscriptions of the reign of Psammetichus II, but this view is no longer valid.2 Yet if this negative argument cannot stand, it remains very difficult to date the inscriptions, especially since so many are very fragmentary. To sum up the archaeological evidence. The pottery finds show conclusively that Greek presence on the site should be dated back to the late seventh century. On the other hand there is reason for dating the foundation of the Hellenion perhaps in the reign of Amasis, and at any rate later than some of the other sanctuaries; the latter might go back to the early years of the Greek presence at the site. The remaining archaeological evidence does not add anything further to this picture, but at least it does not contradict it. There will be more to say later on the foundation of the Hellenion. For the time being suffice it to say that Herodotus’ account of the establishment of Naukratis is, to judge from the archaeological evidence, misinformed or misleading, and compresses around the figure of Amasis different stages in the growth of Naukratis.3 (2) Traders Here again Herodotus provides our most explicit evidence. He writes (II, 178): ‘But to those who did not wish to settle there, but only sailed there [for trade],4 he [Amasis] granted land to found altars and sanctuaries to the gods. Now the greatest, most famous and most frequented of these, which is called the Hellenion, was founded jointly by the following cities, of the Ionians Chios, Teos, Phocaea and Clazomenae, of the Dorians Rhodes, Cnidus, Halicarnassus and Phaselis, of the Aeolians only Mytilene…Apart from this the Aeginetans have founded by themselves a sanctuary of Zeus, the Samians another of Hera, and the Milesians one of Apollo.’ The remaining evidence, as far as it goes, confirms the accuracy of this list.5 The best test is provided by the inscriptions, scratched or painted, found on the vases dedicated in the various sanctuaries. But the limitations of this evidence should be emphasised. Perhaps over a thousand inscriptions were found, but of these only very few give an ethnic after the

NAUKRATIS

25

dedicator’s name. It is only rarely possible to guess the exact origin of the dedicators just from their names. Many inscriptions bear only the name of the god or goddess. And few inscriptions are complete. To add an ethnic after one’s name was in fact clearly the exception rather than the rule. Another important point is that the sanctuaries, though originally founded (in many cases) by citizens from a single city, were not used exclusively by these but, as can be seen from the dedications which bear an ethnic, were frequented by all the Greeks in Naukratis. Hence it cannot be assumed that, for example, dedications to Apollo or Hera which bear no ethnic must necessarily have been made by Milesians or Samians.1 Of the ethnics which are definitely attested we have Chiots (the most numerous), Teians, Phocaean(s), a Clazomenian (?). No Samian ethnics are found, but some Samians can be identified from their names. The only certain trace of a Milesian at Naukratis is from an epitaph which has the ethnic. Dorians (including Aeginetans) are betrayed by the dialect, though except for a Rhodian (who might belong later in time) and possibly Cnidians, there seems no obvious way of assigning them to one Doric city rather than another. Aeolians are again traceable by their dialect, and here several dedicators described themselves as Mytilenaeans. In all cases there are no more than a few examples of each ethnic. The inscriptions, then, confirm the accuracy of Herodotus’ list in that all the dedicators attested by them belonged to cities mentioned there and there are none besides. Several are not certainly attested, however, e.g. Phaselis, Halicarnassus (?) and Aegina. But the number of useful inscriptions is obviously too slight to permit statistical comparisons or arguments from silence.2 The evidence of the pottery finds is less valuable: if we did not have Herodotus’ list in the first instance we could hardly obtain from them alone such a precise picture of those who traded at Naukratis and those who did not. Nevertheless, from what is otherwise known of the East Greek wares, many of the finds can be made to correspond with one or more of the traders recorded. At the same time I shall mention any other relevant indications of connexions with Egypt for each particular city. I follow the order in Herodotus’ list.3 Chios. A considerable amount of pottery which is now generally taken to be of Chiot manufacture was found at Naukratis. The finds go from the late seventh century to the middle of the sixth, after which there is a falling off, which cannot easily be accounted for, though one reason may be a fall in quality together with the competition of Attic vases (the same happened with Corinthian ware). Many finds come from the sanctuary of Aphrodite, and though the Chiot vases need not all have been dedicated by Chiots, it is possible that this sanctuary might have been a Chiot foundation. In any case the finds imply a greater interest on the part of Chiots in the trade with Egypt than could have been guessed from the literary evidence alone. On the other hand Egyptian finds in the island are not yet very numerous.4 Teos, Phocaea, Claiomenae. Traders from these three cities are those most likely to have brought and used the ‘Clazomenian’ vases found in some quantity at Naukratis,

26

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS

which date from the third quarter of the sixth century. Phocaeans too may have brought some of the Aeolian ‘bucchero’ ware.1 Rhodes (Lindos, Ialysos, Camiros). Much ‘Rhodian’ ware is reported from Naukratis, some perhaps already of the late seventh century, and it is reasonable to suppose that some at least will have come from Rhodes. For the Fikellura ware of the second quarter of the sixth century onwards, Rhodes has with Samos the best claim to have been an important centre of manufacture, though Miletus cannot be excluded as it is still largely an unknown quantity for the Archaic Age. Finally, a number of cups, described as ‘Vroulian’ and dating from the first three quarters of the sixth century, are probably of Rhodian origin. Further indications of Rhodes’ relations with Egypt are the dedications of Amasis at Lindos, and two Lindian proxeny decrees for Greeks in Naukratis, admittedly dating from the late fifth century. Egyptian finds in the island in the Archaic Age are fairly numerous.2 Cnidus, Halicarnassus, Phaselis. For these three cities no separate pottery type can be certainly assigned, but traders from them might well have carried some of the vases described otherwise as ‘Rhodian’ or ‘East Greek’.3 Mytilene. The Mytilenaeans (and any other Aeolians who went with them) are represented by finds of grey bucchero ware, to be attributed to them especially since several vases carried dedications in Aeolic, some by Mytilenaeans. Further evidence is provided by the genuine anecdote of the relations of Charaxos, Sappho’s brother, with the courtesan Rhodopis at Naukratis.4 Aegina. Of all the Greeks trading in Egypt the Aeginetans are archaeologically among the most elusive. In the first place Aegina had no fine pottery of her own. It has been conjectured that some of the Attic and Corinthian pottery could have been brought by Aeginetans, a possible suggestion, but one which unfortunately cannot be verified. Second, the sanctuary of the Aeginetans, alone of those mentioned by the literary evidence, has not been discovered. This is especially regrettable, since there is reason to believe that some of the separate sanctuaries may go back to the early years of the Greek settlement on the site and indicate an early interest in the Egyptian trade on the part of their founders, but this cannot be tested in Aegina’s case. On the other hand, finds in the island give independent evidence of the connexion with Egypt. In the late fifth century Lindos appointed as proxenos an Aeginetan (?) settled in Naukratis. More important is a passage in Herodotus (VII, 147) describing how ships—unfortunately unidentified—carried corn from the Black Sea to Aegina and the Peloponnese at the time of Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. The island, though not as infertile as often supposed, depended on foreign imports of corn, and (on the supposition that wheat was the chief commodity sought by the Greeks in Egypt) this would explain the Aeginetan presence at Naukratis. But whether this justifies sweeping theories on Aegina as distributor of imported corn to the Greek mainland is another matter (see pp. 39f.).5

NAUKRATIS

27

Samos. To Samos can perhaps be attributed some of the Fikellura vases already referred to. Samos has also been regarded as the most probable centre of manufacture of some fine BF cups in the mid-sixth century, of which a few have been found at Naukratis. It is, besides, possible to regard Samians as the carriers of some of the Laconian vases of the first half of the sixth century found at Naukratis, since a surprising quantity of this ware has been found in Samos. Samian relations with Egypt are further documented by the abundant finds of Egyptian objects at the Heraeum in Samos, by the story of the captain Colaeus, by the dedications of Amasis at the Heraeum, by the relations of the tyrant Polycrates with Amasis (see p. 41) and by various indications besides. Taking all this evidence together it is clear that Samos had a major share in Greek relations with Egypt in the Archaic Age.1 Miletus. A specifically Milesian pottery style has of course yet to be identified; hence the exact importance of the Milesian element at Naukratis is hard to define, by contrast with earlier works which confidently credited Miletus with a decisive lead in relations with Egypt and proceeded to attribute vase finds accordingly.2 Beyond a dedication of Necho at Branchidae (Hdt. II, 159) definite indications of Milesian connexions with Egypt are slight.3 Thus far the remaining evidence can confirm or be brought into agreement with that of Herodotus. The absentees from this list deserve perhaps a brief word of notice. They include all the Aeolians apart from Lesbos, the minor Ionian cities (Erythrae, Lebedos, Myus, Priene, Magnesia), but also more important ones (Colophon, Ephesus).4 Only the absence of Cos and Carpathos prevents the Dorians from being all represented. (3) Institutions (a) Egyptian point of view. Later sources talking of the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis seem to conceive it as an autonomous act on the part of the Greeks (the Milesians, in fact). They thus assume that Naukratis had been established in the same manner as the many other colonies which Greeks founded on their own initiative on foreign soil by virtue of their superior strength. This involves a misreading of the situation in the Archaic Age, as is clear once one turns to the account of Herodotus. According to him Naukratis was in the first instance conceded to the Greeks by the Pharaoh (II, 178). The phrase he uses (ὁ Ἄμασις… ἔδωκε… πόλιν ἐνοικῆσαι) returns in other comparable situations in a similar form (II, 154; IX, 106; Thuc. IV, 56), where land is conceded for a settlement but where Herodotus and Thucydides avoid talking of a proper foundation. Indeed, to judge from the wording of the Naukratis stele, the Pharaoh retained even in the fourth century a theoretical claim to the city’s territory (section 10: ‘Naukratis…which (is) reckoned to the King’s Domain’ [see note 1 to p. 29]). The remaining evidence makes clear the degree of control exercised by the Egyptian authorities over the Greeks in Naukratis. Herodotus writes (II, 179): ‘In former times5 Naukratis was the only place of trade in Egypt and there was no other besides.6 If anyone arrived at any other of the Nile’s branches, he had to swear that he had not come of his own free will, and having sworn he had to sail with his ship to the Canopic

28

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS

branch. Or if the ship could not sail against contrary winds, he had to convey his cargo round the Delta in barges until he reached Naukratis.’ The implications of this passage are obvious and have long been recognised: the Egyptians insisted on strict regulation of the Greek commerce. Control was for them an end in itself, and it had the further advantage of facilitating fiscal exploitation, and of avoiding profiteering or pillaging.1 It was not so long ago, one recalls, that the Greeks were chiefly known to the Egyptians as pirates who raided their land for booty and for slaves (see p. 12). Furthermore, at Naukratis the Greek quarter in the north of the town was clearly separated from the Egyptian one in the south, and the Greek quarter was overlooked by what was probably a large Egyptian fort intended to overawe the Greeks. We know in addition from later evidence that the Greeks in Naukratis had no marriagerights with the Egyptians, by contrast with the mercenaries, and this restriction remained in force for a very long time. Thus the foreign traders were not to mix freely with the native population. And finally the actual location of Naukratis should not be overlooked: one normal route of access to Egypt for the Greeks would be to follow the Syrian coast coming from Cyprus, and they would thus reach first the eastern (Pelusian) branch of the Nile. Instead Naukratis was placed on the western (Canopic) branch, within close reach of the Egyptian capital Sais.2 Such regulations were not peculiar to the Greek traders at Naukratis. It was normal practice for the Egyptians to control trade with foreigners by concentrating it in one or more particular places, often frontier positions where an emporium could be combined with a military garrison. There are examples of this much earlier in Egyptian history, especially concerning the regulating of the trade on the southern frontier. A group of papyri of the Middle Kingdom shows the official in charge there reporting to his superiors the movements of the Nubians. They are allowed at intervals to come and dispose of their wares at the frontier market, but are then sent home each time after completing their business; the Greeks at Naukratis got more favourable terms. Under the XXVIth Dynasty several officials bear the title of ‘the person in charge of the gate of the foreign countries’, and this office applies to three key areas, which were at the same time the three main garrison areas of Egypt as established by Psammetichus I (Hdt. II, 30), namely Nubia (Elephantine), the eastern Delta (Daphnae) and the western Delta (Marea). The Phoenician traders were restricted to the eastern part of the Delta, the Greek traders to the western at Naukratis. In other words, each group of traders was assigned to one place only, for greater convenience of control.3 An official in charge of the western Delta is already known under Psammetichus II. Control of the trade in this area therefore goes back before the time of Amasis— perhaps an indication that Greeks traded at Naukratis before this time. Another official, under Amasis, claims to have restored, with the help of a decree by the Pharaoh, the offerings to various gods and goddesses, and especially to Neith of Sais, which had of late ceased to be offered. The context of this interruption is the war between Amasis and his predecessor Apries. The official was presumably acting in virtue of his office, which meant that he was entrusted with the supervision of the customs, whence came the revenues for the gods. Now we know of certain custom dues on all imports from Greece and all manufactured goods from Naukratis which

NAUKRATIS

29 were imposed in the fourth century by Nectanebo I. These dues took the form of a tithe dedicated to the goddess Neith. It is an attractive supposition that Nectanebo was not innovating here, but merely re-enforcing older regulations which had fallen into disuse. The earlier regulations may not have been identical with those mentioned in the Naukratis stele, but the form is the same: taxes on foreign imports went to the gods, and the collection of these taxes was entrusted to an official who had a general supervision over one of the key frontier areas. The system can be traced back to Psammetichus II, though it could of course be older.1 (b) Greek point of view. Thus the conditions on which the Greeks were admitted to Naukratis were carefully laid down by the Egyptian authorities. On the other hand, in their internal organisation the Greeks at Naukratis were allowed some independence. But the question of how Naukratis is to be described in institutional terms is even more difficult than that of its establishment. Even on such an apparently straightforward problem as whether Naukratis can be considered in the Archaic Age a πόλις or whether it was only an ἐμπόριον without any civic existence of its own, there is a straight conflict in the views that have been expressed.2 It is of course agreed that at least from the fourth century onwards Naukratis was considered to be a normal Greek πόλις. Naukratite citizens make offerings at Delphi and Didyma, Athens appoints a Naukratite proxenos, and there are tombstones at Athens of Naukratite metics. The city issues an independent coinage. There are extant honorific decrees passed by ἡ πόλις ἡ Nαυκρατιτῶν in Hellenistic times. And generally later writers constantly assume that Naukratis was a πόλις, which had been ‘founded’ like any other colony that enjoyed an independent civic status. It is also agreed that Naukratis’ position was peculiar in any case, as its existence depended all the time on the continued favour and tolerance of the rulers of Egypt, whether Egyptian, Persian, Macedonian or Roman. And whatever the date of the development of Naukratis into a proper πόλις, what genuine political existence can it have had, placed as it was inside a centralised and authoritarian country? Again, how could the continuity of this πόλις be maintained when the Greek community there had no right of intermarriage with native women? But before the fourth century there is no certain evidence of its status which could help to clarify the words of Herodotus. Perhaps the ambiguity of the passage in Herodotus reflects the difficulty a Greek had in describing in normal terms an unusual community, made up of different classes of members drawn from many different cities. Nevertheless this passage (II, 178) must be the starting point for any discussion of the problem, and if it cannot be made to yield adequate sense, it is unprofitable to resort to speculations which are quite unverifiable, since they start by rejecting the only good evidence available.3 At the outset one comes upon a remarkable fact, which has not been stressed as much as it should. This is that within a few sentences Herodotus seems to refer to Naukratis at once as a πόλις and as an ἐμπόριον. First we have: ὁ Ἄμασις…τοῖσι ἀπικνεομένοισι ἐç Aἴγυπτον ἔδωκε Nαύκρατιν πόλιν ἐνοικῆσαι—’to those Greeks who came to Egypt Amasis gave the city of Naukratis to dwell in’. One should not object here that Herodotus means in fact that Amasis gave to the Greeks the

30

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS

‘previously existing Egyptian city of Naukratis’.1 There was, to be sure, an Egyptian quarter at Naukratis which may even have existed before the coming of the Greeks. But no Greek source ever makes any mention of it, and whenever Naukratis is spoken of in Greek sources it is assumed to be a purely Greek community. When Herodotus speaks of the ‘city of Naukratis’, he must therefore be thinking of the Greek community.2 But then a little later Herodotus says: ἦν δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν μούνη Nαύκροτις ἐμπόριον καὶ ἄλλο οὐδὲν Aῖγύπτου—’and formerly Naukratis was the only place of trade in Egypt and there was no other besides’. Here too Herodotus is surely using ἐμπόριον as a general designation for the Greek settlement at Naukratis.3 Thus it seems that in two different contexts Herodotus can think of Naukratis as both a πόλις and an ἐμπόριον. Yet normally in Greek writers the distinction between the two terms is sharply drawn: an ἐμπόριον is a community which lives on trade but does not have any civic existence of its own. It is arbitrary to omit the first part of what Herodotus says and assert that Naukratis was simply one such community, even though it may have been established in special circumstances, besides leaving in the dark the process by which it later became a πόλις.4 But should one then with Roebuck consider Naukratis to be a ‘normal Greek πόλις? Let us take up again the words of Herodotus: ‘to those who came to Egypt Amasis gave the city of Naukratis to dwell in; but to those who did not wish to settle there, but who sailed there [for trade], he gave land for building altars and sanctuaries to the gods… [the Hellenion and its founders]… the sanctuary belongs to these, and these cities provide the chief magistrates of the ἐμπόριον;5 all the other cities which claim a share in it have no right to do so.6 Apart from this one the Aeginetans have founded by themselves one of Zeus, the Samians another of Hera, and the Milesians one of Apollo.’ In other words Herodotus is making here a fundamental distinction between the residents in the πόλις of Naukratis and those who only came for trade but did not settle permanently in Naukratis—the latter being presumably excluded from the πόλις of Naukratis. It is wilful to ignore this distinction, and to assume that all the Greeks at Naukratis must have had a similar status and similar interests.7 It seems rather that we are dealing with, so to speak, a double Naukratis, the first composed of citizens resident on the spot, the second of foreigners not included in the civic organisation, though the latter were most probably the initial cause of the growth of the Greek Naukratis and were granted important privileges. Herodotus has not told us who exactly were these Greeks who had settled in Naukratis, nor indeed why they should have wished to settle there in any case. As we know little about the πόλις of Naukratis proper, and as this evidence is anyhow late, dating from a time when Naukratis had ceased to have any but a local importance, there has been a tendency to forget this aspect of Naukratis altogether, and to suppose that the traders listed by Herodotus formed the whole of the Greek community on the spot. Little therefore can be said on this subject, though presumably these Greeks also came from Asia Minor. One hears later of τιμοῦχοι as the chief magistrates of the city (Hermeias ap. Athenaeus, IV, 149 d-150 b), a generic term used for describing the highest magistrates chiefly (but not solely) in the Ionian cities of Asia Minor and their

NAUKRATI S

31 colonies, though in the absence of specific evidence one cannot define their exact competence. The cult of Apollo Komaios (Athenaeus, loc. cit.) also points to an Ionian origin (though it is not confined to the Asiatic Ionians).1 There is no archaeological evidence for separate sanctuaries of the residents in Naukratis and Herodotus’ wording implies there were none in his time. Presumably they used the sanctuaries conceded to the traders, which were, as we have seen, in general use by all the Greeks in Naukratis (see p. 25). As to what these residents did, one can only guess. Evidence was found on the spot of small local industries—a scarab factory, metal work and statuary. Others are implied by literary evidence, though most of this is admittedly of later date, and by the Naukratis stele of the early fourth century. There is also the possibility of some local manufacture of pottery. It is useless to pretend that this is the whole story, but beyond this we do not know.2 At what time this πόλις of Naukratis came into existence is impossible to say, and the archaeological evidence only allows inferences about the date of the earliest Greek presence in general and possibly about the relative dates of the sanctuaries, not about the growth of the civic community specifically. But the absence of civic sanctuaries carries at least the important implication that the πόλις of Naukratis developed later than the arrival of the traders and did not precede it. At any rate Naukratis had acquired its double aspect in the Archaic Age, or at least Herodotus implies that it had, for he connects the dual organisation of Naukratis with the name of Amasis. To judge from his words, it still had it in the fifth century. There may be some more evidence for the continued existence of these same foreign traders at Naukratis who were not members of the πόλις in the Rhodian decrees mentioned above (see p. 26 and note 3 to page 29) where there is mention of an ‘Aeginetan (?), an interpreter from Naukratis’ and one ‘Damoxenos…who lives in Egypt’ [Naukratis is meant]; in the Hellenistic epitaph of a man from Teos who died at Naukratis; and in the pedestal dedicated by a Mytilenaean.3 But as the commercial importance of Naukratis declined greatly after Alexander, the traders of Naukratis gradually fell out of the picture, and little was left but the actual citizens of Naukratis. Hence later writers would think of Naukratis as being solely a πόλις, and would assume that this had always been so. The hypothesis just put forward means a return (with some modifications and elaborations) to older views on the institutions of Naukratis which have recently fallen out of favour. Yet these remain the only valid approach to the problem, since they start from the text of Herodotus and attempt to make sense of it.4 This is not to deny that much remains speculative and uncertain in the account proposed, and this is partly due to Herodotus’ brevity and omissions. First, the method of appointment of the προστάται τoῦ ἐμπορίου. Herodotus seems to imply that these were appointed by the Greek states who founded the Hellenion, and it is admittedly hard to picture this taking place in practice. How could a whole series of Greek cities, from Mytilene down to Phaselis, which were often quarrelling with each other and, even in the face of a major threat such as that of Persia, were incapable of any coherent plan of action, actually agree year after year on the appointment of officials from their midst who were to take charge of affairs in a

32

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS

distant port in Egypt? There is no parallel to such a complicated procedure in Greek history. Herodotus must be writing loosely and must have confused the members of each city who were present on the spot with their city of origin. It is more likely to suppose that it would be the traders of each city who were present in Naukratis (though not permanently resident) who chose their own officials.1 Second, and much more difficult, is the question of the separate sanctuaries and their significance. Herodotus firmly states that only the founding members of the Hellenion had the right to appoint the προστάται τοῦ ἐμπορίου; he then mentions the separate sanctuaries but without defining their status. His silence has prompted many guesses by modern scholars, though none can carry conviction when there is no evidence in the first place. In earlier writings on Naukratis these sanctuaries were taken to denote a ‘privileged position’ on the part of their founders, and this conviction was strengthened by the belief that Miletus must have played an important, perhaps decisive, role in the growth of the Greek community there. Even if this view is no longer to be accepted, there remains the strong probability that some of these sanctuaries might antedate the Hellenion and indicate an earlier interest in the trade with Egypt by their founders (see p. 24). But then, on the evidence of Herodotus, these had no say in the appointment of the chief officials of the market, and this has naturally seemed hard to accept. To get around this difficulty Prinz assumed that each sanctuary was related to a separate ἐμπόριον—a very improbable suggestion. Recently Roebuck has followed the literal implication of Herodotus’ words and has assumed that the separate sanctuaries denoted in fact a lesser interest in the Egyptian trade by their founders, which for Samos at least is equally improbable, in view of the many signs of a close connexion between Samos and Egypt in the Archaic Age. All the same he supposes that the Aeginetans, Samians and Milesians ‘must somehow have been admitted as citizens’ of the city of Naukratis. Frankly, we do not know what the answer is; in the absence of explicit evidence the status of the traders from these three cities at Naukratis must remain an unsolved problem.2 Finally, what are the stages by which the developed Naukratis came into being? First of all, we know nothing of how the πόλις of Naukratis (as opposed to the community of non-resident traders) originated, except that it most probably developed after the arrival of the traders. It is only for the traders that there is room for speculation. The earlier view which distinguished an originally Milesian Naukratis which then became enlarged under Amasis may be said to have lapsed. Taking all the evidence together the following schematic picture may be given. Greek presence at Naukratis is definitely attested from the end of the seventh century. To judge from the pottery finds Chiots had from early on a strong interest there, but quite probably were not the only East Greeks to be thus interested. The sanctuary of Aphrodite may have been founded by them. Of this the literary evidence gives no indication. As at least the sanctuary of Milesian Apollo seems also to have been in existence before Amasis it becomes plausible that the other separate sanctuaries might indicate early arrivers. This one would expect for the Samians, but the Aeginetans remain elusive and the founders of the sanctuary of the Dioscouroi are anonymous. If these had some lead in opening up trade at Naukratis their example was soon followed by many others.

NAUKRATIS

33 Perhaps in the reign of Amasis the Hellenion was founded to accommodate these newcomers, and at the same time the institutions of the Greek trading community were redefined, though what then became of the status of the older traders is a mystery.1 It should be emphasised how much is uncertain in the account of Naukratis that has been proposed here, and, given the limitations of both the literary and the archaeological evidence, the full truth may never be known. OTHER GREEK SETTLEMENTS IN EGYPT The main Greek settlements in Egypt in the Archaic Age—or at least those about which most is known, namely Naukratis, Tell Defenneh, and Memphis—have now been discussed, and reference has also been made to some slighter settlements. It remains to mention the little evidence there is besides to show Greek activity in Egypt. This consists mainly of pottery finds, and most of these date from the reign of Amasis. From the Delta Greek pottery finds are reported from Kom Frin (near Naukratis), and East Greek specifically from Sais, Bubastis and Benha. There is a little Corinthian pottery from Rhakoti, the site of the later Alexandria.2 Proceeding southwards, Greek pottery (mainly East Greek with some Corinthian) is known from Heliopolis, the Fayum, perhaps also Thebes together with Luxor and Karnak (though these proveniences are very uncertain), from Edfu and even from Nubia (Sanam). There are besides finds described as from Egypt in general, though the exact provenience is unknown.3 All these finds are slight, and it is doubtful whether by themselves they can be taken to imply that the Greeks enjoyed any great freedom of circulation in Egypt generally.4 It is only in the fifth century that there is definite evidence of Greeks living scattered in different parts of the country (see e.g. Hdt. II, 39, 41, 91), but by this time conditions had considerably changed. To judge from the archaeological finds, the reign of Amasis was the time of greatest Greek activity in Egypt, and Greek tradition remembered it as such. The Persian conquest of 525 brought with it a temporary setback. As seen above (p. 20) the archaeological finds at the fort of Tell Defenneh come to an end at about this time, though it is doubtful whether in fact the whole existence of the fort was interrupted permanently. At Naukratis early Attic RF ware is rather scarce compared to the BF preceding it. This, however, need not mean anything at Naukratis, for early RF is in general rare everywhere except perhaps in Etruria. The East Greek pottery at Naukratis naturally disappeared altogether before the end of the sixth century, which does not mean that the East Greeks ceased to have a major share in the trade with Egypt. It has even been claimed that there are signs of destruction of the sanctuaries of Aphrodite and Apollo, and of the scarab factory, around this time, and this has been connected with the Persian invasion.5 So much may be possible, but the assumption of inevitable and systematic hostility between Persians and Greeks has too often been taken for granted without adequate proof. Greek tradition is entirely silent on this point. Herodotus speaks of the excesses of Cambyses against the Egyptians, not against the Greeks in Egypt. Naukratis may have declined, but this need not mean a

MERCENARIES AND SETTLEMENTS 34 permanent slowing down of Greek trade with Egypt. The Persian conquest simply abolished the trade restriction through Naukratis, and Herodotus implies (II, 179) that in his time the old regulations were no longer in force. Hence trade would no longer be through Naukratis alone.1 There was presumably no major interruption in the life of the Greek community at Memphis, since it was still in existence in the fifth century and even over two centuries later. Moreover, a passage in Herodotus should be stressed in this connexion (III, 139): when Cambyses invaded Egypt, he writes, Greeks flocked to Egypt in the wake of the Persian army, some of them for trade. Similarly, there was no total break in Greek relations with the rest of the Levant—in fact it was under Persian rule that the trading port of Al Mina on the Orontes, at which Greeks had been trading since the late ninth century until there was an interruption in the sixth century during the period of Babylonian domination, came back into existence.2

CHAPTER THREE TRADE From early on Greek writers developed a considerable interest in Egypt and wrote much about the country, its ancient institutions, the wisdom of the Egyptians and so on. But characteristically they did not think it worth while to give any connected account of Greek relations with Egypt. Herodotus mentions Naukratis at some length, but this is only because he takes it to be an illustration of the philhellenic leanings of Amasis. Elsewhere he makes casual hints as to the nature of the Greek trade with Egypt. It is from such allusions in him and other writers, and also from archaeological evidence, that an account of Greek trade with Egypt must be reconstructed.1 IMPORTS FROM EGYPT There is every reason to believe that corn was the chief commodity sought by the Greeks. To be sure, no source of the Archaic Age states this explicitly. But from the fifth century onwards ancient writers make it clear that Egypt was naturally associated with the corn trade, and this remained so right through antiquity. There is no need to collect all the passages in ancient literature which celebrate the fertility of Egypt. Already in the Odyssey (XIV, 263 = XVII, 432) the poet comments enviously on the ‘magnificent fields of the Egyptians’. In the Old Testament the Phoenicians are described as trading corn from Egypt (Isaiah xxiii. 2–3). Among the early Greek evidence a fragment of Bacchylides (fr. 20 B Snell, lines 14–16) is the most explicit for our purpose. It describes how a man sees in a dream a vision of wealth: ‘ships loaded with wheat bring countless wealth from Egypt’.2 Admittedly, there is no evidence from East Greece in the Archaic Age to prove that corn was already being imported then. The evidence starts only in the fifth century, and even then it is very slight.3 Yet a motive is needed to account for the early and massive interest of the East Greeks in Egypt, and by elimination corn seems the only possibility left. Perhaps this will explain why it was in the late seventh century that the establishment of Naukratis took place, for it was also around that time that East Greek interest in the Black Sea became strong, and the Black Sea regions were also later known as a source of grain to the Greek world.4 This reliance on imports of food represents a new and significant departure in the economic life of the Greek cities. Hitherto the only response to population pressure had been emigration, which the East Greeks had already resorted to. Now they turned to imports of food from abroad as well, the process being encouraged by the increased pressure of the Lydians at home. The initiative in developing this trade, which later became widespread in much of the Greek world, seems thus to belong largely to the East Greeks, and it will have arisen as a result of their special circumstances in Asia Minor.5 Corn, then, was probably what encouraged the Greeks to trade with Egypt in the first instance. But of course it need not have been the only commodity purchased by them.6 To judge from the literary evidence, there are at least two other articles which [35]

TRADE 36 in classical times were regular imports from Egypt, and may have been so earlier, namely linen and papyrus. The cultivation of linen goes far back to the early period of Egyptian history. According to the Old Testament (Ezekiel xxvii. 7) it was imported from Egypt to Tyre in the sixth century. Classical and later sources imply that Egypt enjoyed a certain reputation for weaving. Linen might be used for making garments; another important use was for the manufacture of sails. Both are attested as imports from Egypt in classical times.1 To judge from the sources the case with papyrus is less clear for the classical period. On the other hand, as papyrus grew almost solely in Egypt, as it was assumed by classical writers to be the normal writing material (as well as being used for other purposes besides), and as it was obviously in fairly wide use, it is likely that it formed a regular article of trade between Greece and Egypt. Yet the Greek name for papyrus in the classical period was βύβλος (or βίβλος—the word πάπυρος is not found before Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. IV, 8, 2); hence it has been widely assumed that the Greeks first got to know papyrus through a Phoenician intermediary, calling the material after the name of the city of Byblos. The derivation of βύβλος from Byblos has, however, been challenged on philological grounds, and it may be that the Greeks gave Byblos its name from the material, not vice versa, though this does not affect the likelihood of a Phoenician intermediary. It is uncertain when the Greeks first got to know papyrus, though this may have taken place fairly early as papyrus was already known to Homer (Odyssey XXI, 390 f., where it is used for making ropes). The transmission could have taken place at the same time as the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet, that is to say, in the eighth century; but then papyrus was not used solely for writing, as may be seen from the reference in the Odyssey and others from later sources. Be that as it may, as soon as the Greeks began to trade directly with Egypt they could obtain the papyrus straight from its source. In the fourth century the papyrus trade was a royal monopoly, though whether it was so before is unknown. But the cultural significance of this trade was probably greater than its actual economic importance.2 EXPORTS TO EGYPT The two main commodities named as Greek exports to Egypt by literary sources are wine and olive oil. Both, it is true, were to be found in Egypt for a long time before the arrival of the Greeks. Herodotus, to be sure, strangely states that there were no vines in Egypt (II, 77), but he is the only writer to say so and is contradicted by other evidence, both Greek and Egyptian. With olive oil the case is different. Though some was to be found, the olive did not grow well in the country, as Strabo observed (809), nor is there any mention of Egyptian olive oil in classical writers before Theophrastus (Hist. Plant, IV, 2, 9). The evidence for export of wine and olive oil by Greeks to Egypt is anecdotal, as so often. Thus we learn casually that Sappho’s brother Charaxos brought a cargo of Lesbian wine to be sold at Naukratis (Strabo, 808), and Plutarch relates how Plato sold olive oil in Egypt to pay for his journey (Plut. Solon., II, 4). Archaeological finds both at Naukratis and at Tell Defenneh have provided concrete

EXPORTS TO EGYPT

37

evidence of this trade in wine and olive oil in the shape of numerous jars and amphoras and also amphora handles, of Greek make, which have unfortunately not been studied and published in full. At both sites a number of amphoras may be identified as Chiot. At Tell Defenneh (but not at Naukratis) many of the amphoras were sealed with cartouches of the reigning Pharaoh (there is apparently no sealing on a Greek container before Amasis, though this need not mean much: see p. 20 on Tell Defenneh). The purpose and significance of this practice are not clear—why have Egyptian sealings on Greek containers?—unless of course the Egyptians were merely re-using empty Greek containers for their own purposes.1 Wine and olive oil, then, were exported to Egypt by the Greeks in substantial quantities. But this does not tell us whether they were exported for the Egyptians as well or merely for the Greeks resident in Egypt. This latter view has in fact been exclusively upheld. Now one may take it as very likely that the numerous Greeks settled permanently or temporarily in Egypt would prefer wine and olive oil from Greece to the native products, and since Greeks regularly sailed to Egypt a continuous supply of these might be ensured. Thus, besides the trade between Greeks and Egyptians, another trade would develop, that between Greece and the Greeks in Egypt. This can be extended to other commodities as well, such as pottery, which was of course not in demand by the Egyptians. One may wonder, too, whence came the abundant iron ore which was worked at Naukratis and Tell Defenneh (the copper ore could have come from Egypt).2 But it should be admitted that we do not know how freely the Greek traders were allowed to visit other Greek settlements apart from Naukratis, such as Tell Defenneh, and how the trade to supply these with Greek products worked within the framework of the trade restrictions that existed in the Archaic Age, as mentioned by Herodotus. Wine and olive oil, then, were exported to the Greeks in Egypt. But this does not mean that some was not exported to the Egyptians as well. Herodotus relates (III, 6) how in his time jars full of wine were exported twice a year from all Greece and Phoenicia to Egypt. The empty jars were collected by the village chiefs, brought to Memphis, and then filled with water and taken to Egypt’s eastern desert frontier to ensure a continuous supply of water on the spot. The story implies that the wine jars found their way right through Egypt, and this could be true of an earlier period, though admittedly finds of Greek vases are slight in the Archaic Age away from the places of known Greek settlement. We know further that during the New Kingdom wine and oil were frequent exports from Syria to Egypt, and the Old Testament mentions the export of olive oil to Egypt (Hosea xii. 1).3 THE COIN HOARDS So much may be learnt from the literary sources, supplemented by archaeological finds, about the trade between Greece and Egypt. There remains one important commodity to mention, the evidence for which is wholly archaeological. This consists of a whole series of hoards of Greek silver coins, which starts in the late sixth century. These are found not only in Egypt, but also elsewhere in the Levant; the latter I have

TRADE 38 included in the present discussion, though strictly they lie outside the scope of this study. But as they raise similar questions to those in Egypt, it would be misleading to concentrate exclusively on the Egyptian hoards and risk giving the impression that they were a purely Egyptian phenomenon. I shall of course be chiefly concerned with the earliest hoards (late sixth and early fifth centuries); on the other hand, it would be unrealistic to ignore altogether the later ones (fifth and fourth centuries), and this for several reasons. First, the actual date of many of the hoards is largely conjectural, besides the fact that the down-dating of many of the early Greek coinages which is now taking place will necessarily bring down the date of hoards discovered earlier. Second, Greek silver coins, because of their intrinsic metallic value, continued to circulate for very long after being issued, and coins going back to the sixth century are still found in Levantine hoards buried only in the fourth century. Finally, as all the hoards reflect a similar interest in Greek silver on the part of the Orientals, it would be artificial to dissociate earlier from later finds. The hoards are most numerous in Egypt, where they are largely confined to the Delta; hoards have been found at Naukratis, Tell Defenneh and Memphis. There are a few on or near the Syrian coast, some in Mesopotamia, while a few even strayed further east, to Iran, and one (in the fourth century) as far as Afghanistan. The composition of the hoards follows in general a definite pattern of development, though allowance must always be made for originality in individual hoards. Until the early fifth century coins from the Thraco-Macedonian area predominate and form about one third of the total finds. The rest consists of small proportions of coins from many different areas—the Greek cities of Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, Aegina, Athens, Corinth, Cyprus, Cyrene and others besides. But soon after c. 500 the proportion of Athenian coins increases very sharply, with a corresponding decrease in the other coinages, until Athenian silver holds a virtually dominating position, which it retains in the fourth century, and hoards with only owls are often found. However, other coinages continue to be represented occasionally, though usually sparsely.1 But the hoards do not consist solely of Greek silver coins. Many contained in addition pieces of silver, whether in worked or unworked form, sometimes in large quantities, and this is true of the earliest hoards as well as of the later ones. There are also hoards (especially in Egypt) which consist solely of such accumulations of scrap silver (in which case it is of course very difficult to determine the origin of the silver). The coins themselves have often been gashed or drilled through, obviously as a test of purity, and in a few cases the hoards were apparently buried while they were being melted down (the precise circumstances are of course always unknown).2 These latter characteristics pointed the way towards a correct interpretation of the hoards as a whole, though their significance was for long misunderstood. They were variously described as ‘loot from the Persian Wars’, ‘silversmiths’ hoards’, or as silver collected by merchants in ‘business trips round the Aegean’. It was only in 1927 that Dressel and Regling found the true explanation: the Greek coins found in the Levant represented payments by Greeks for purchases made there, the coins being accepted by the Orientals for their metallic, not their nominal, value.3 So much may be taken as certainly established. Unfortunately this explanation was

THE COIN HOARDS

39 subsequently taken up (without acknowledgement) and systematised into a theory according to which silver coins were struck by Greek states specifically with a view to the purchase of Egyptian wheat, and those Greek states which commanded immediate supplies of silver exploited their advantage in a mercantile spirit, by redistributing dear to the other Greek states wheat they had purchased cheap in Egypt (the authors of the theory had especially Aegina in mind for the Archaic Age). The theory in its extreme form may not have been universally accepted, but it has none the less achieved a status among ancient historians which it did not deserve.1 It carries several misleading implications. As far as Egypt is concerned, the Greeks did not just buy wheat, as we saw, and payments for purchases there consisted of other things besides silver. Then the hoards are not restricted to Egypt, but are found elsewhere in the Levant, where again the trade was varied in both directions: the one-sided emphasis on the Egyptian hoards and trade with Egypt is wholly unjustified.2 Finally, the theory encourages the assumption that there must have been a direct link between the invention of coinage and foreign trade, and such a link is still often postulated.3 Yet the earliest hoards (late sixth century) are much later than either the beginning of the trade with the Levant4 or the striking of the first coins. Further, the earliest coins, struck in Asia Minor, were of electrum, not silver, and hoards of Greek coins other than silver ones are non-existent in the Levant.5 The reasons for the invention and spread of coinage may still be a matter of conjecture;6 but to judge from the evidence of the hoards, foreign trade will not have been a consideration, at least in the initial stages, since what the Orientals required was silver, not coin, and the metal could just as easily be transported as bullion.7 This is not to say that once it had become established practice to pay for imports from the Levant and elsewhere with silver coins, some states did not deliberately strike coins of a large denomination precisely for this end. Thus first the Thraco-Macedonian peoples, and from these the idea was taken up by Athens. Both had silver mines and could afford to export silver in large quantities.8 A clear case of coins struck for export is provided by Abdera, which till the fourth century struck large denominations (tetradrachms and, for a while, octodrachms) on a standard different from that used for fractional denominations. This standard may have been deliberately related to that current for gold in the east, to make these coins immediately acceptable to the Orientals.9 This leaves us with the following proposition: there was a general demand for silver in the Levant, and Greek traders brought the metal as payment for whatever commodities they obtained there.10 This still leaves open the question of the identity of the traders who conveyed the silver to the Levant. The composition of the hoards as outlined above brings out one important distinction in the provenience of the coins, namely that between the silver-producing areas (at first Thrace and Macedon, then Attica), which always supply the largest proportions of coins, and those areas which had no silver mines of their own, whose coinages never form more than a small percentage of the total finds. Scholars soon realised that the Thraco-Macedonian coins did not reach the Levant as a result of direct trade between the two regions, since there was otherwise no reason to believe in any direct contacts.11 Yet curiously

40

TRADE

scholars for long failed to extend this inference to the other coinages as well, and it is still often assumed that there is a correlation between the provenience of the coins and the identity of the traders who brought them.1 Pushed to its logical conclusion this view would involve the assumption of commercial relations with Egypt (for which there is most controlling evidence) on the part of cities which in all probability had none, whereas those known to have been the most active (the Greeks of Asia Minor) would have their importance drastically diminished. Clearly, one cannot count the coins of each city found in hoards to assess its importance in trade with Egypt and the Levant. The hoards have been looked at too much in isolation: emphasis on the few coins of a particular city which strayed to Egypt and the Levant rather than on the mass which stayed at home has radically distorted the picture, most notably in the case of Aegina.2 But once one dissociates the producers of the coins from their carriers, it obviously becomes almost impossible to identify the traders from the coins at all. We know that in the Archaic Age the East Greeks played the leading role in trade with Egypt (and the Levant). Their coins are scarce in the hoards, and some cities (e.g. the cities in Rhodes) are not represented at all. It has been plausibly suggested (by Milne, Sutherland and Roebuck) that they were the carriers of the coins from Thrace and Macedon. There is, to be sure, much evidence of interest and activity by the East Greeks in this region in the Archaic Age.3 Yet even then there need be no close connexion between activity there and trade in Egypt (as Roebuck tacitly assumes). Admittedly, the evidence is incomplete. Yet several East Greek cities which traded in the Levant have hardly any certain relations with the Thraco-Macedonian area. This applies notably to all the Dorians (Halicarnassus, Cnidus, Phaselis, the three Rhodian cities), and also to some Ionian cities (Phocaea, Miletus). On the other side, if the evidence for Colophonian activity in the Thraco-Macedonian area is valid, then we have the case of an East Greek city showing interest in that area, but without apparently trading in the Levant. In any case East Greek interest in the ThracoMacedonian area went beyond the search for silver only. To speak, therefore, of a ‘triangle of trade’ between Thraco-Macedonia, East Greece and the Levant is overschematic. We have here a particular illustration of a wider problem: with some exceptions it is simply unknown how most of the Greek states obtained their silver, though it is too often assumed that we can know. In the present state of our knowledge it is doubtful whether one can go much further than this.4

CHAPTER FOUR POLITICAL RELATIONS Before the sixth century there is no sure evidence of relations which may be called political between the Greek states and Egypt (and the same is true of the other countries of the Levant). Before this time the Greek states were still too small and unimportant to become involved at such a distance.1 By the sixth century, however, much of the Greek world had experienced a great rise in prosperity and power. Sources of wealth at home were more intensively exploited, contacts abroad brought further wealth, and tyrants in many Greek states further encouraged the process. At the same time the colonisation movement had brought many Greeks into direct relations with foreign nations. In the Levant there were only two countries with which political relations (or anything approaching them) could be expected, namely Cyprus and Egypt. Cyprus does not concern us here, and in any case the evidence for the Archaic Age is very slight, though the attempt by Greeks from Asia Minor to bring the island firmly within the Greek orbit during the Ionian Revolt is not without importance despite its failure, as it set a precedent that Athens in the classical period did not forget. More important was Egypt. Here was a large country striving in the seventh and sixth centuries to maintain its independence against powerful neighbours in Mesopotamia. That Egypt was for long successful in this aim was partly due to Greek and Carian mercenaries. In the sixth century one hears of relations between Amasis and the tyrant Polycrates of Samos, though these did not go beyond the exchange of gifts and the forming of ties of guest friendship. One hears too of numerous gifts and offerings made by the Pharaoh to various Greek states or sanctuaries, namely Sparta, Cyrene, Lindos and Delphi. Reversing the policy of his predecessor Apries, who had made a disastrous attack on Cyrene in answer to a Libyan call for help, Amasis established friendly relations with that city, marrying a Greek lady from there and concluding an alliance. Hence Greek tradition remembered him as a philhellene.2 It has been widely, and probably rightly, assumed that his purpose was to win support among the Greek states (and elsewhere) against the rising power of Persia. But whether the Greeks were aware of this, and if so whether they were willing to enter into the bargain, may be seriously doubted. To be sure, it has very often been held that some of them did. Sparta especially is credited with a consistent anti-Persian policy from early on, and Polycrates’ relations with Amasis are similarly explained in terms of an anti-Persian coalition.3 But as soon as it came to the test, their supposed antiPersian convictions vanished. Sparta did nothing to assist her allies (the alliance with Croesus may in fact be a fiction4). Before the invasion of Egypt Polycrates offered help to Cambyses. At the same time Cyprus, which had been conquered by Amasis (Hdt. II, 182), went over to the Persians (Hdt. III, 19), and as soon as the Persians had invaded Egypt the Greeks of Cyrene and Barce promptly submitted (III, 13; see too IV, 165 and Diod. X, 15).

42

POLITICAL RELATIONS

On the available evidence, then, it is clear that the Greeks were slow to become seriously involved in the political affairs of the Levant and of the Near East in general. They may have been active there as traders and mercenaries for several generations, but this did not imply the simultaneous development of political relations between their home states and the countries of the Near East. But it would not be long before they learnt that what took place in those distant countries might one day affect them too. A new chapter in Greek relations with the Levant would then begin.

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION The results reached on all particular points of detail have been made explicit in the course of this study, and there is no need to repeat them here. But it remains to consider what more general conclusions can be drawn from the study of Greek relations with Egypt in the Archaic Age. The first is the comparative slowness in the development of relations between the Greeks and Egypt, as compared with the rest of the Levant. Greeks were established in ports in Syria, especially Al Mina, and in Cilicia and Cyprus, in some cases perhaps as early as the late ninth century. These settlements were established for the purpose of trade with these regions, probably at first in metals, then also in slaves and various luxury goods besides (textiles, perfumes), and clearly aimed at developing regular contacts between the Aegean and the Levant.1 But in the case of Egypt there were, as far as we can see, no settled relations at this period or for a long time afterwards. Previous to the mid-seventh century one only hears of piratical raids by the Greeks on Egypt. Nor does the evidence of Egyptian objects in the Aegean allow the assumption of regular relations, and they may not even have come directly from Egypt to the Greek world. The first definite settlements of Greeks in that country took place shortly before the middle of the seventh century, when a large group of Greeks from Asia Minor, together with Carians, came to establish themselves in Egypt, presumably on the explicit invitation of the Pharaoh, providing military service in return for tenure of land. This migration should clearly be seen as part of the colonisation movement, though the specific form it took was unprecedented at the time in Greek experience. The Greeks and Carians went to settle in Egypt, not to establish regular relations between Egypt and their cities of origin. Occasional trade between Greece and Egypt also began to develop in the course of the seventh century, as is implied in particular by the trip of the Samian Colaeus. But it was not before the late seventh century that a definite settlement for the purpose of trade was established at Naukratis in the Delta, perhaps as much as two centuries after similar settlements had been made further north in the Levant. This relative slowness in the development of Greek relations with Egypt is not easy to explain, unless it was simply the result of the greater distance involved than in the case of Syria, Cyprus and Cilicia. One explanation may be that previous to the accession of Psammetichus I the condition of Egypt, both internally and in her external relations, was too disturbed to allow or encourage the settlement of foreigners on Egyptian soil. When Psammetichus I came to power, settled conditions and a firm central government were restored. Moreover, the Pharaohs of the XXVIth Dynasty felt the need to rely on foreigners for their army, and later saw their usefulness as traders as well. Another explanation that may be given (as far as trade with Egypt is concerned) lies in the nature of this trade. As has been seen, it is likely to have been concerned in the first instance with imports of corn from Egypt. Trade in food supplies reflects a more developed stage [ 43l

CONCLUSION 44 in foreign trade, requiring both a certain regularity and a larger scale to make it effective. Another noteworthy feature of Greek activity in Egypt in the Archaic Age is the degree of control exercised by the Egyptian authorities over the Greeks. This is clear despite the Greek sources, which magnify the role of the Greeks in Egypt at that time and manage to pass over almost entirely the fact that other foreigners besides them were active in Egypt as well. Writers after Herodotus present the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis as an autonomous act on the part of the Greeks, similar to the foundation of many typical Greek colonies of the Archaic Age. They omit the important fact, mentioned by Herodotus, that the right to settle and build altars and sanctuaries at Naukratis was dependent in the first instance on the decision of the Pharaoh; they were too far removed from the Archaic Age to see this. Moreover, it is evident that the Greeks who came to Naukratis, whether to settle there or for trade, were under very strict regulations and close supervision. One must suppose that all the important trading activity, both as regards imports and exports, took place in Naukratis alone— the Greeks brought their goods and took their return cargoes on the spot. It is uncertain whether they enjoyed much freedom of circulation in Egypt generally. With the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 these rules lapsed, and one then finds Greeks living scattered in much of the country. There is no decisive evidence that they had done this before; previously they had not enjoyed such freedom from control. Similarly with the mercenaries. The Greek sources (Herodotus and the Abu Simbel graffiti) convey the impression that they were left under their own commanders, taking their orders directly from the Pharaoh. From the evidence of Egyptian monuments we know that this was not so, but that all the higher command was provided by Egyptian officers. In the fourth century the Pharaohs were again to use Greek soldiers in large numbers, and mercenary captains like Chabrias were to be entrusted with the whole conduct of campaigns, including their organisation and financing.1 This pattern was characteristic of the fourth century, when the use of Greek mercenaries in the Near East had for various reasons developed to an unprecedented degree. But the mercenaries in Egypt in the Archaic Age were treated quite differently. The Pharaoh wanted to ensure that he kept control over the foreigners. Yet, much as the Egyptians regulated the activities of the Greeks (and the other foreigners), they did not keep them out either; the traders brought in useful supplies to Egypt and the mercenaries were an indispensable element in the country’s security. There is here an ambivalence in attitude which is reflected in the picture of Egypt in Greek sources. The Egyptians in general and some of their Pharaohs are portrayed as xenophobic, yet other Pharaohs pass (rightly or wrongly) as philhellenes. Herodotus talks of the ‘privileges’ granted to Naukratis by the philhellenic Amasis, yet these were to a large extent restrictive measures. In general it is not known how much, if any, of the activity of the Greeks in Egypt was prompted, on the Greek side, by state interest and how much was merely the result of private initiative. We have seen how slight were genuine political relations between the Greek states and Egypt even in the late sixth century. In the case of the migration

CONCLUSION

45

of the mercenaries in the mid-seventh century, no state interference was needed: Greeks from many cities simply left in response to the (probable) invitation of the Pharaoh, and the governments at home, in so far as they took any notice, would be glad to dispose of excess population in this way. As far as trade with Egypt was concerned, one might have expected some state interest. In classical Athens, and perhaps in other cities too, the corn supply was a matter of state concern, and various rules were enacted to protect it. But one cannot say whether this was already the case in the Archaic Age. The sources here are misleading. The later sources present the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis as a deliberate act by Miletus; yet, as seen above, this tradition is very doubtful. Herodotus when mentioning Naukratis speaks as though the sanctuaries had been founded by cities, and says that the founding cities of the Hellenion had the exclusive right to appoint officials in charge of the emporium. In practice, this cannot be true and Herodotus must have confused the members of each city who were present on the spot with their city of origin. It is interesting that no Greek ruler, such as Thrasybulus the tyrant of Miletus in the late seventh and early sixth centuries, was ever connected with the establishment of Naukratis. On the Greek side the establishment was, so to speak, entirely anonymous, the work of a group of traders from many different cities acting on their own initiative, not the result of a concerted enterprise by the rulers of these cities. The ruler whom tradition (Herodotus) did remember in this connexion was Amasis, because the establishment was dependent in the first instance on the Pharaoh’s permission. One of the continuous themes running right through the whole history of the Greeks is the story of their relations with the countries and peoples of the Near East. This was already true of their Bronze Age history, and it remained true of their Iron Age history as well. In the Iron Age, and after the breakdown of relations with the Near East that had marked the end of the Bronze Age, contacts were re-established on a regular basis in the late ninth century, when Greeks came to settle for trade in Syria, and perhaps in Cilicia and Cyprus. It may be, too, that Phoenicians had been visiting the Aegean, or at least Crete, for some time before, and contributed to the reawakening of Greek interest in the Near East. That was the beginning of a process of relations which kept on developing and expanding until centuries later Alexander conquered the East and Greeks moved in large numbers to settle there, this time as a conquering people. The history of Greek relations with the Near East is a long one, and it has many different aspects. But for all its length and diversity it remains a unity, and Greek relations with Egypt in the Archaic Age are but one chapter in the larger story.

ABBREVIATIONS AA = Archäologischer Anzeiger Acta Arch. = Acta Archaeologica AE = Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολοyική AJA = American Journal of Archaeology AJP = American Journal of Philology AM = Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung Annales = Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations Ann. Service = Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte Annuario = Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene Ant, Journ. = The Antiquaries’ Journal Arch. Delu = Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον Arch. Rep. = Archaeological Reports BASOR = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BCH = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Beitr. z. Namenforschung = Beiträge zur Namenforschung BIFAO = Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale BMC = British Museum Catalogue BSA = Annual of the British School at Athens Bull. Alexandrie = Bulletin de la Société Royale d’Archéologie d’Alexandrie CE = Chronique d’Egypte CIG= Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum CP = Classical Philology CQ = Classical Quarterly CR = Classical Review CRAI = Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres CVA = Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum FGrHist = Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (F. Jacoby) GDI = Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften Hesp. = Hesperia IG = Inscriptiones Graecae 1st. Mitt. = Istanbuler Mitteilungen J AOS = Journal of the American Society of Oriental Research JdI = Jahrhuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts JEA = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JHS = Journal of Hellenic Studies JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies JSOR = Journal of the Society of Oriental Research LAAA = Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology Mus. Helvet. = Museum Helveticum

[4 7 ]

48

ABBREVIATIONS

NC = Numismatic Chronicle OGIS = Orientis Graeci Inscriptions Selectae (Dittenberger) OLZ = Orientalistische Literaturieitung Opusc. Arch. = Opuscula Archaeologica Opusc. Ath. = Opuscula Atheniensia Praktïka = Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἐταιρείας Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. = Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology PSI = Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana di Papirologia RE = Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft REA = Revue des Etudes Anciennes REG = Revue des Etudes Grecques Rev. Arch. = Revue Archéologique Rev. Hist. = Revue Historique Rev. Hitt. As. = Revue Hittite et Asianique Rev. Num. = Revue de Numismatique Rev. Phil. = Revue de Philologie Rh. Mus. = Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Riv. Fil. = Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica J. and L. Robert, Bull. = J. and L. Robert, Bulletin épigraphique; the year is that of the REG, the number that of the entry SB München = Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse SCE = The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Syll.3 = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (Dittenberger, ed. 3) ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgendländischen Gesellschaft ZfN = Zeitschrift für Numismatik

NOTESS PAGE 7 1

The fullest treatment of Greek relations with Egypt in the Archaic Age remains that of D. Mallet, Les premiers établissements des Grecs en Egypte (1893), now necessarily dated, especially on the archaeological side, as are also P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History (1892), 187–230, and P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny (1922), 86–126. The most up-to-date account is now that of Boardman, Greeks Overseas (1964), 127–69.

PAGE 8 1

For all these inferences from Greek pottery finds see R. M. Cook, JdI LXXIV (1959), 114–23, though cf. also J. N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (1968), 333, 388 f. on the question whether Levantine peoples had no taste for Greek pottery at all.

PAGE 11 1

I need only refer to J. Vercoutter, Essai sur les relations entre Egyptiens et Préhellènes (1954), the later part of which is fully developed in L’Egypte et le monde égéen préhellénique (1956). For the possible mention of Aegean place-names in an Egyptian text in the Bronze Age see K. A. Kitchen, BASOR CLXXXI (1966), 23 f. and M. C. Astour, AJA LXX (1966), 313–17. To be sure, it has even been claimed on philological grounds that Greeks settled very early in Egypt and stayed there permanently; see P. Montet, Rev. Arch. 1947 (fasc. 2), 129–44; Rev. Arch. 1949 (fasc. 2), 129–44. Since Ptolemaic scribes used the term ‘Haounebout’ to translate ‘Greeks’ and the word occurs in Egyptian texts from very early on, M. claims that Greeks were always meant by it; pushed to its logical conclusion this involves the assumption of continuous Greek presence in Egypt since the late fourth millennium, which M. is prepared to accept, though this can hardly be taken seriously. For criticism of this view see J. Vercoutter, L’Egypte et le monde égéen, 15–32. In any case as far as Greek tradition was concerned, the first true settlements only came under Psammetichus I in the seventh century (Hdt. II, 154). 2 So, for example, among many others, V. Bérard often and especially Les Phéniciens et l’Odyssée (2nd ed. 1927); G. S. Kirk, The Songs of Homer (1962), 41–3; H. L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (1950), 85–100; A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings, A Companion to Homer (1962), 307 f. One suspects that this conviction rests to a large part on the very dubious belief that the Mycenaeans are named among the invaders who assailed Egypt in the late Bronze Age; the parallel is then drawn between these raids and those described in the Odyssey. So Bérard, Kirk, Wace and Stubbings, also P. Mertens, CE XXXV (1960), 81 f. For a critique of the traditional view of the Aqiyawasha of the Egyptian inscriptions as being simply the Achaeans, see D. L. Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (1959), 21–2 n. 1. 3 So Rhys Carpenter, Folk Tale, Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics (1946), 91–100, 176 f., who goes so far as to attempt to date all allusions to Egypt in Homer by reference to relations in the seventh and early sixth centuries. He is thus led to down-date drastically the time of composition of several passages, and I doubt whether many would follow him here. 4 So, rightly, P. Gilbert, CE XXVII (1939), 47–61, to whom I owe much in what follows, though I differ from him on details. PAGE 12 1

The first two lines recur in Od. IV, 126–7, but not the description of the hundred gates through which the charioteers ride. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, 97–9, considers the passage in the Iliad an interpolation from the Odyssey. [493

50 2

3 4

6

7

NOTES TO PAGES 12-13 Menelaus in Egypt: this story is presented in a particularly fragmentary form. See Od. III, 299–302; IV, 81–5, 125–32, 220–32 and especially 351–586. The Cretan pirate: Od. XIV, 245–86, partly repeated XVII, 424–44. In Od. II, 15, an old man from Ithaca bears the name Aἰγύπτιος, which could imply some connexion with Egypt, but what exactly we do not know. The name ai-ku-pi-ti-jo is already found in a Linear B tablet from Pylos: see M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (1956), 136. See Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, 90. Rhys Carpenter attempts to explain away the error (Folk Tale, etc., 98–100), but this is hardly convincing. The only hint to suggest a more precise knowledge of the country is the remark that Egypt is famed for drugs and medicines (IV, 220–32), a fame Egypt continued to have later, of course (see Mallet, Premiers êtablissements, 306 f., 309 f., for some literary references). 5 For a particular instance see A. Dihle, Umstrittene Daten (1965), 65–79, who argues that the name ‘Ethiopian’ goes back to Mycenaean times; then with the break-up of relations in the Dark Age the meaning of the word was forgotten, and in Homer the Ethiopians are a semi-mythical people; with the resumption of direct contacts in the Archaic Age the real meaning was re-invented. The parallel between pirates in Herodotus and pirates in the Odyssey was already drawn by Beloch, Griech. Gesch. 1, 1, 262; so too Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers (1933), 4. Gilbert, op. cit. in note 4 to p. II above, curiously failed to see this point. Rhys Carpenter, Folk Tale, etc., 94 f., overemphasises the connexion by insisting that Odysseus must even have stayed in Egypt as a mercenary. For the passages referring to Egypt the date should probably not be lowered too much since, as was already pointed out in antiquity, the Nile is still called ‘Aigyptos’ in the Odyssey (references collected by Pietschmann, art. Aigyptos (2), RE 1 (1894), col. 1005), whereas already in Hesiod’s Theogony (338) the later and definitive name is used (but cf. West ad loc.).

PAGE 13 1

There is hardly any certain Greek pottery from Egypt before the settlement at Naukratis, see R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 230 n. 21, 236 n. 42; J. Boardman, JHS LXXVII (1957), 357. 2 For a summary of early Egyptian or Egyptian-type finds in Greece, see Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 129–31. The chronology of the finds in Pendlebury’s Aegyptiaca is not always reliable, see Dunbabin, Western Greeks (1948), 461–5; James, Perachora II (1962), 463. For convenience I have collected here and in n. 1 to p. 14 all the Egyptian finds of the Archaic Age as a whole, not just those of the period before c. 650 B.C. Crete: P. Demargne, La Crete dédalique (1947), 112 f., 121–5, and Boardman, The Cretan Collection in Oxford (1961), 152 and n. 2. Add Boardman, BSA in (1960), p. 134 no. 37 and comments p. 148 (where other similar finds are mentioned); BSA lxii (1967), 64 and nos. 22–3, p. 69 (late ninth century); perhaps too BSA LVIII (1963), 43 n. 4. Sparta: Pendlebury nos. 75–9, 297–307 (Artemis Orthia—on nos. 302–4 see Perachora I (1940), 77 n. 1), 80–4 (Menelaion). Note the lowering of Spartan chronology by J. Boardman, BSA LVIII (1963), 1–7. Argos: Pendlebury 106–47 (the bulk of the XXVIth Dynasty). Corinth: for the chronology of the finds in general see Perachora I (1940), 34; for the finds Perachora II (1962), 461–516. Also Pendlebury 152. Attica (Perati): Praktika 1955, 105 f. and pl. 31 a (sub-Mycenaean); Egyptian or Syrian cylinder seal, BCH LXXXVII (1963), 714 f. with fig. 26 [III c context]. For the eighth century onwards see Pendlebury 153–6 (Acharnae, Geometric), 157–8 (Athens, Geometric), 160–4 (Eleusis, Geometric), 165–75 (Eleusis, XXVIth Dynasty), 176–225 (Sunium, XXVIth Dynasty). Aegina: Pendlebury 228– 70 (XXVIth Dynasty), 271–86 (context unknown). Rhodes: a catalogue of Egyptian finds from Rhodes was compiled by Pendlebury but has not been published (Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, 88–9 n. 4). A local manufacture in Rhodes (Camiros

NOTES TO PAGES 13-14

5i

and perhaps Lindos), established c. 700, has been suggested for a series of small faience perfume flasks in various shapes: see F. W. Freiherr von Bissing, Zeit und Herkunft der in Cerveteri gefundenen Gefässe aus ägyptischer Fayence und glasiertem Ton (1941), who collects the evidence in Rhodes and elsewhere, and see esp. pp. 78–98 for his conclusions. His suggestion on the establishment of workshops staffed by Egyptians is tentatively accepted by Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 129, 143 f. Dunbabin, Greeks and Eastern Neighbours (1957), 39 f., 49, would substitute Phoenicians for Egyptians. The whole question is reviewed by T. H. G. James, Perachora II (1962), 461–4, and E. Diehl, AA 1965, cols. 835–8. James accepts a Phoenician origin but doubts that the centre of manufacture was Rhodes; Diehl is undecided. A misunderstanding has been introduced into the discussion, for whereas von Bissing was careful to distinguish the case of these perfume flasks from that of the other faience objects like the Egyptian-type scarabs and amulets (op. cit. p. 86), James and Diehl seem to generalise his conclusions to make them apply to all faience objects. The question needs further clarification. For other faience objects from Lindos see Lindos I (1931), cols. 333–9 (col. 395 on the chronology, which is not very precisely established). There is a large votive deposit from Camiros with many faience objects, Clara Rhodos VI–VII (1932–3), 302–28 (the context of the pottery puts these in the seventh century). Other finds from Camiros and Ialysos are widely scattered. For Camiros see Clara Rhodos IV (1931), 19, 58 f., 270, 280, 318 f. (numerous), 325 f. (numerous), 348, 359, 363, 389; Clara Rhodos VI–VII (1932–3), 26 f., 55 f., 63, 97 f., 109, 337. For Ialysos see Clara Rhodos III (1929), 23 f., 25, 50, 55, 56, 68, 81, 115, 133 f., 143; Clara Rhodos VIII (1936), 164, 166; Annuario VI–VII (1923–4), 271, 317, 340. Two scarabs from Vroulia: Kinch, Vroulia (1914), nos. 15–16, cols. 47 f. Samos: for Egyptian ivories see B. Freyer-Schauenburg, Elfenbeine aus dem samischen Heraion (1966), II f., discussed pp. 111–16; H. Walter and K. Vierneisel, AM LXXIV (1959), 35–42 with figs. 76–86, include many Egyptian objects of ivory, faience and alabaster; E. Diehl, AA 1965, cols. 823–50, includes some Egyptian objects. Further Egyptian finds: see AA 1965, col. 440 (piece of stone with hieroglyphs, in an early sixthcentury context), AA 1966, 158 f. (wood carvings). For the chronology of Oriental finds in general from Samos see H. Walter and K. Vierneisel, AM LXXIV (1959), 36, 71 f. :it is doubtful whether any goes back beyond the early seventh century, cf. Freyer-Schauenburg, op. cit. 13–15 on the ivories. It should be noted, however, that Walter’s chronology is a high one, as may be seen from his publication of the early pottery from Samos in Samos v (1968). Thebes: Pendlebury 226 (Geometric). Thessaly (Philia): Arch. Rep. 1964–5, 20 (two scarabs, XXV-XXVIth Dynasty). Thera: Pendlebury 295–6 (Geometric). Paros: Pendlebury 290–3 (XXVIth Dynasty); O. Rubensohn, Das Delion von Paros (1962), 73–9, 169 f. Chios: Pendlebury 288–9 (Geometric context, with an imitation of a Phoenician scarab); a few faience objects from Kato Phana, W. Lamb, BSA XXXV (1934–5), 155 f. and A. W. Shorter, ibid. 163 f. They are dated to c. 650–580, and some are said to come from Naukratis, which is doubtful on chronology; faience objects from Emporio, J. Boardman, Greek Emporio (1967), 241 f., but only one of these could be Egyptian. The west: S. Bosticco, Parola del Passato XII (1957), 215–29 (Pithecusae); Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, 370 and n. 3 (Pithecusae); Monumenti Antichi XXII (1913), figs. 51 and 54, cf. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, 355 (Cumae); S. Curto, Parola del Passato XXIII (1968), 149–52 (Calabria). 3

On the problem of Crete’s apparent passivity in relations with the Levant in general, see Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, 382 f., 389 f.

PAGE 14 1 Argos: Horus, AJA XLIII (1939), 437 f., fig. 24. Corinth: mirror dated c. 700, Perachora 1 (1940), 142 f. and pl. 46. Athens: Horus, Pendlebury 159 (XXVIth Dynasty). Thessaly:

NOTES TO PAGES 14- 15

52

situla, probably Geometric context, Pendlebury 227. Ephesus: statuette of a priest with an inscription containing a cartouche of Psammetichus II (594–89), AJA LXXIII (1969), 221 (other finds of ivory objects are referred to ad loc., but their origin is not specified). Miletus: ibis, 1st. Mitt, VII (1957), 128 and pl. 40, 2. Rhodes: situla, Lindos I, no. 800, col. 229; ring recalling Egyptian work, no. 804, col. 229; other objects, Clara Rhodos VI–VII (1932–3), 345, fig. 91 (XI, 19) and pl. XIII, 1, and G. Roeder, Ägyptische Bronzefiguren, 320 and 322. Parlasca in 1953 curiously stated there were no Egyptian bronzes from Rhodes (AM LXVIII (1953), 135 n. 61). Crete: a series of jugs with openwork lotiform handles, earlier than the mid-seventh century and not found elsewhere in Greece, Boardman, Cret. Coll. Oxford, 152; a statuette from the Dictaean Cave, Pendlebury 15 (the date given, c. 900, is conjectural). Cretan mercenaries in Egypt; P. Perdrizet and G. Lefebvre, Les graffites grecs du Memnonion d’Abydos (1919), nos. 405, 445, 446, and Jeffery, Local Scripts (1961), 314 and pl. 60 (on these see O. Masson, Beitr. z. Namenforschung XVI (1965), 158–66). Cretan mercenaries are not attested before the fifth century; see H. van Effenterre, La Crète et le monde grec de Platon à Polybe (1948), 43 and nn. 5–6. The Cretan mercenary Hybrias who may have served in the east cannot be dated before the late sixth century and could be much later; see D. L. Page, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. CXCI (1965), 62–5. Samos: K. Parlasca, AM LXVIII (1953), 127–36 and pls. XI–XII (two Egyptian bronzes published out of some thirty known at the time); H. Walter and K. Vierneisel, AM LXXIV (1959), 35–42 with figs. 76–86, include Egyptian bronzes. Cat, found in a mid-seventhcentury context, AA 1937, fig. 4, col. 204. Apis, from Vathi, Pendlebury 294. Horn of Apis and Horus hawk, AA 1966, 159 f. Ibis, Inst. Phot. Athens, Samos 214. Bust of statuette, early Archaic Age, AA 1964, col. 85 and figs. 5–6, cols. 81 f.; see further AA 1964, cols. 228, 231 and fig. 12, cols. 229 f. Statuette of a woman, AA 1965, col. 439. Statuette, Arch. Delt. XVIII (1963), pl. 340. Colaeus: F. Chamoux, Cyrene sous la monarchie des Battiades (1953), 120– 4; Hasebroek, Staat und Handel im alten Griechenland (1928), 70, seemed to doubt the story, but see Heichelheim, An Ancient Economic History I (1958), 245 f. For a survey of the archaeological finds in Cyrenaica, which confirm the traditional dates, see J. Boardman, BSA LXI (1966), 149–52. However, the synchronism with the foundation of Cyrene is often curiously lost sight of in attempts to date the trip of Colaeus; thus F. Gisinger, RE Supp. VIII (1956), cols. 253 f.; U. Jantzen, Griechische Greifenkessel (1955), 67 f. (dated to the midseventh century from the type of monumental cauldron dedicated); B. Freyer-Schauenburg, Madrider Mitteilungen VII (1966), 89–108, dates the trip to the second quarter of the seventh century from a group of ivory combs found in Samos and dating from the first half of the seventh century which she attributes to a West Phoenician workshop. Even granting the attribution, I do not see that there should be a necessary connexion with the trip of Colaeus, and having initially stressed (rightly) the synchronism with the foundation of Cyrene (90 f.), F.-S. then seems to consider this as providing only a terminus ante quem.

PAGE

1

15

For the history of Egypt during this period see especially F. K. Kienitz, Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom yten bis zum 4ten Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende (1953); H. de Meulenaere, Herodotos over de 26ste Dynastie (1951); E. Drioton and J. Vandier, L’Egypte (4th ed. 1962). M. F. Gyles, Pharaonic Policies and Administration 663–334 B.C. (1959), does not add much. Impact of Psammetichus on the Greeks: Mallet, Premiers établissements, 402–5. His name adopted by Greeks: thus a mercenary in the Abu Simbel inscriptions (see n. 2 to p. 16), a nephew of Periander (Will, Korinthiaka (1955), 554 f.) and possibly too the owner of a seventh-century Attic vase (E. T. H. Brann, The Athenian Agora VIII (1962), Inventory no. 194 p. 54; [Ψαμ]άτιχος, cf. J. M. Cook, Gnomon XXXIV (1962), 823).

NOTES TO PAGES I 5—16

53

Evidence in Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers (1933), 7–13. A. Aymard, ‘Mercenariat et histoire grecque’, Etudes d’histoire ancienne (1967), 487–98, is clear but too schematic and he seems to overestimate the importance of mercenaries in the Archaic Age (pp. 489 f.). 3 Thus by Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers, 4–6; Will, REA LXII (1960), 255 f.; Aymard, Etudes d’histoire ancienne, 489. 4 He normally calls them ἐπίκουροι (II, 152, 154, 163, 169; III, 4, II), the word already used by Archilochus with reference to the Carians (fr. 40 Diehl); at II, 169 he also says ξεῖνοι. Diod. I, 66, uses μισθοφόροι, which has the wrong associations altogether and shows that he (or his source) misunderstood the situation, for these mercenaries did not serve for pay (see pp. 17–18). 5 Alcaeus fr. 350 Lobel and Page, with Page’s commentary in Sappho and Alcaeus (1955), 223 f. According to a scholion on this fragment, Antimenidas went on a campaign of Nebukadnezar ἀν(τὶ) τῶν Ἱεροσυ[λιμιτῶν] (quoted by S. Mazzarino, Athenaeum n.s. XXI (1943), 76). Page, loc. cit., mentions conjectures about which campaigns in Palestine Antimenidas may have joined, but he appears to ignore this scholion. 2

PAGE

16

1 See J. Naveh, Israel Exploration Journal XII (1962), 89–113, for the archaeological report, esp. pp. 97–9 for conclusions and pp. 104–13 for some of the East Greek pottery (there is no Greek pottery besides East Greek). On the iron workshop see p. 93. Naveh assumed that the mercenaries were placed there by Psammetichus I. The fort must then have come under the control of King Josiah of Judah (reigned 640–609), for Hebrew control of the fortress is attested, among other documents, by a Hebrew letter implying the presence of a Hebrew governor on the spot (J. Naveh, ibid. X (1960), 129–39 and XII (1962), 27–32, for all these documents). In that case, the mercenaries must have changed sides (though N. does not mention this). Then the fortress would have been abandoned in the face of the Egyptian invasion of 609. This is possible, but might one not assume that the mercenaries had been in Hebrew service from the start, posted against dangers from the south? A weakness of N.’s hypothesis is that there is no evidence of Egyptian control of the fortress at any time, such as Egyptian objects found on the spot, as is the case at Carchemish (see n. 2 below), and it involves postulating a change of sides on the part of the Greek mercenaries which is not so far attested. However, Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 75, suggests the fortress may have been under Egyptian control and was deserted at the time of the Babylonian invasion of 605. On the relevant political events in the Near East at this time see briefly Kienitz, Politische Geschichte Ägyptens, 21–4. 2 See A. Bernand and O. Masson, REG LXX (1957), at pp. 1–20 for the archaic texts texts (whence R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (1969), no. 7); this supersedes previous editions and incorporates results of an unpublished study by S. Sauneron on the inscriptions and the organisation of the forces under Egyptian command (cf. BIFAO L (1952), 187 n. 7). An Ionian Gorgoneion shield was found at Carchemish in a house full of Egyptian objects, and probably belonged to a Greek mercenary in Egyptian service during Necho’s campaign here in the late seventh century; see C. L. Woolley, Carchemishw (1921), 125–9 and pl. 24, and cf. Hdt. II, 159 (dedication of Necho at Branchidae after his Syrian campaign). J. Yoyotte in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supp. VI (1958), 372, suggests that Greeks and Carians are meant by the ‘Lydians’ mentioned as present at Carchemish in Jeremiah xlvi. 3–4, 9, but the allusion is uncertain. 3 For a brief account of the foreign mercenaries apart from the Greeks and Carians, see Kienitz, Politische Geschichte Ägyptens, 39 f., and see in general Heichelheim, An Ancient Economic History I (1958), 500 f.

NOTES TO PAGES 17-18

54 PAGE 17 1

2

3 4

5

Carians and Greeks together in Egyptian service: Hdt. II, 152, 154, 163; III, II. Solidarity between Greeks and Carians: VIII, 19, 22. The Carians in Xerxes’ army were armed like Greeks (VII, 93) and the Carian contingent is named together with the ‘Ionian’ one (VII, 97). Earlier the Carians had played an important role in the Ionian revolt (V, 103, 117–22; VI, 25). Herodotus probably had a Carian ancestry and this may partly account for his interest in them (Jacoby, RE Supp. II (1913), cols. 212 f.), but he will of course not have been the only East Greek in this situation, to judge from the evidence for close relations between the two peoples from the earliest years of Greek settlement (Beloch, Griech. Gesch. I, 1, 97 f. for some of the literary evidence; clear evidence of the racial mixture at Halicarnassus is provided by the numerous names on the fifth-century inscription, Syll.3 46). But archaeologically the Carians in Asia Minor remain elusive apart from a few graffiti on vases, as at Old Smyrna (Akurgal, Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander (1961), 186, 229) or Sardis (Hanfmann, BASOR CLXVI (1962), 10 f.), and the attempt of G. Kleiner, Alt Milet (1966), to find traces of them in Miletus—which in the Iliad (II, 87) is said to be inhabited by Carians—is not decisive; see J. M. Cook, Gnomon XXXIX (1967), 212– 14. Archilochus fr. 40 Diehl, and for general statements see Strabo 662 οὗτοι δὲ καθ’ ὅλην ἐπλανήθησαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα, μισθοῦ στρρατεύοντες; Theocritus XVII, 89 φιλοπτολέμοισί τε Kαρσί; most explicit are Aelian, De Nat. Animalium XII, 30 πρῶτοιγὰρ οἱ Kᾶςες ἀγορὰν πολέμου ἐπενόησαν καὶ ἐστρατεύσαντο ἀργυρίουυ and Ephorus, FGrHist, 70 F 12 on the proverb ἐν τῷ Kαρὶ ὁ κίνδυνος, found already in the fifth century. But the tradition that the Carians were great armourers as well is a myth; see A. M. Snodgrass, JHS LXXXIV (1964), 107–18. Rise of the hoplite phalanx: H. L. Lorimer, BSA XLII (1947), 76–138; A. M. Snodgrass, JHS LXXXV (1965), 110–22. Mercenaries in Egypt armed as hoplites: Snodgrass, JHS LXXXIV (1964), 117. Persia: W. Eilers, ZD MG XCIV (1940), 189–200, 225–8. For Carian mercenaries later see M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellênistiques I (1949), 451–60, with prosopography II (1950), 1215–19. Carians in Persian service as stonemasons: G. C. Cameron, Persepolis Treasury Tablets (1948), no. 37, 4 f., corrected by Hallock, JNES XIX (1960), 98 f.; and Cameron, JNES XXIV (1965), 170 f. On the Greek mercenaries in Egypt see Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers, 4–6 (superficial); Mallet, Premiers établissements, 35–144, though much here is not strictly relevant. The best account from the institutional point of view is that of Kienitz, Politische Geschichte Ägyptens, 35–45.

PAGE 18 1 2

Kienitz, op. cit. 36; A. H. Gardiner, The Wilbour Papyrus II (1948), 80 f., collects some references. So Kienitz, op. cit. 35, and see the description of the rights of the Warriors in Hdt. II, 164–8. It is widely, and probably rightly, assumed that there existed in Greek history a frequent connexion between the issue of coinage and the payment of mercenaries. It is in fact clear that issues in Egypt in the fourth century served to pay Greek troops in the Pharaoh’s service (J. W. Curtis, JEA XLIII (1957), 71–6). Hence it seems at first sight tempting to speculate further and wonder whether this might not have been true much earlier as well. The guess would gain additional point from the fact that the Greek traders brought silver in payment for purchases in Egypt (see pp. 37–40). There could thus be a direct relation between the development of Greek trade and the growth of the mercenary armies in Egypt (Will, REA LXII (1960), 255 f.; M. A. H. el Abbadi, The Alexandrians (Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge i960), 6, but he simply projects back to the Archaic Age the

N O T E S TO P A G E S 1 8 -1 9

55

conditions of the fourth century). Yet this hypothesis is very unlikely: quite apart from the fact that the use of foreign mercenaries started well before the Greek trade with Egypt became regular, Herodotus speaks of grants of land and presents to the mercenaries and no more (II, 154). Gyges of Lydia may have struck coins to pay his mercenaries (R. M. Cook, Historia VII (1958), 261), but even if it was he who sent the mercenaries to Psammetichus (see below, note 3 to p. 19), the Egyptians did not follow his example but retained their own peculiar system—a clear case of their conservatism. The analogy of the mercenaries in the fourth century turns out to be quite misleading here. From the fact that Herodotus (II, 159) speaks of Necho as having a fleet of ‘triremes’, it is very often assumed that Greeks also helped to develop the Egyptian fleet (e.g. Drioton and Vandier, L’Egypte, 583). But Greek sources never state this, and there is no proof that the Egyptian fleets were anything but Egyptian; so, rightly, Gyles, Pharaonic Policies, 85 f PAGE 19 1

Merely one graffito on a sherd: J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler (1932), ch. VIII no. 49, but the identification is in any case doubted by O. Masson and J. Yoyotte, Objets pharaoniques à inscription carienne (1956), 14..

2

P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History (1892), 194, had already assumed that the Greek mercenaries were granted the right to marry Egyptian women, though he did not discuss the point and quoted no evidence in support. Otherwise the question has not even been raised. Note in this context that the mercenary captain Phanes of Halicarnassus, who deserted to the Persians, left a family behind in Egypt (Hdt. III, II). On the Greeks, Carians and Phoenicians in Memphis, see in addition to the evidence mentioned in the text a papyrus from the Zenon Correspondence (PSI V, 531) which mentions a petition by the priests of Astarte of the Φοινικαιγύπτιoι in Memphis asking for the same treatment for their sanctuary as the ἱερὰ τῶν Kαρῶν καὶ Ἑλληνομεμφιτῶν get, and stressing that they have long been settled in the land. On all this, and for further evidence from the papyri, see U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäer-Zeit 1 (1922), 537–9; A. Świderek, Eos LI (1961), 55–63; for the Carians specifically see M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques I (1949), 455. As regards the question of intermarriage with the Egyptians, cases of this are known from the late-fifth-century Jewish community at Elephantine (A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (1923), nos. 14, 15; E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (1953), 52–4)—but there were also Jewish women at Elephantine, and this does not throw much light on the conditions of the other mercenaries earlier under the Saites.

3

From the Assyrian Annals we know that Gyges sent troops to the revolted King of Egypt

(Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia II (1927), para. 785). It is not specified what troops these were, and in Herodotus’ account the Greeks and Carians come on their own initiative; moreover, Herodotus gives no precise indication of date. Some have conflated the two accounts (e.g. Smith, JSOR X (1926), 131–3; Hall, CAH III, 290 f.; Mazzarino, Fra Oriente e Occidente (1947), 139–43 [overpositive and not entirely reliable]); others have seen here two different sets of mercenaries (e.g. Kienitz, Politische Geschichte Ägyptens, 37; Gyles, Pharaonic Policies, 17, 20). There is obviously no way of settling the question. 4

The statements of Herodotus on the mercenaries are found in briefer form in Diodorus 1, 66 and 67. It should be

stressed here that the account in Diodorus of the XXVIth Dynasty (I, 66–8) has no independent value, though it is often used as though it were an important supplement to Herodotus. The bulk of it is a rationalised version of Herodotus’ narrative, as a comparison of the two texts shows. When Diodorus (or rather his source, who is widely assumed to be Hecataeus of Abdera/Teos, see Ed. Schwartz, RE V (1903), cols.

NOTES TO PAGES 19-20

56

670–2; F. Jacoby, art. Hekataios (4), RE VII (1912), cols. 2750–69) adds additional details, this is mere embroidery. Such are the statements that ‘Psammetichus I provided cargoes to all traders, especially the Phoenicians and the Greeks that he made ‘alliances with Athens and the other Greeks’, or that he ‘conferred benefits on the mercenaries who came voluntarily to serve in Egypt’. PAGE 20

Greeks and Carians at Elephantine: see the translation of the text by H. Schaefer, Klio IV (1904), 156–8 at para. 6: ‘…the mercenaries, Syrians, Greeks, Asiatics and others’. Cf. too Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt IV (1907), paras. 989–95. But see the warning of Vercoutter, L’Egypte et le monde égéen, 28–31, on the identification of Greeks in Egyptian texts at this time: the term ‘Haounebout’ was certainly restricted to them in Ptolemaic times, but may have had a wider connotation in the XXVIth Dynasty. The Abu Simbel inscriptions: see above, note 2 to p. 16, and for the Carian graffiti J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler (1932), ch. VIII nos. 31–7 (but see Bernand and Masson, op. cit. in note 2 to p. 16, for corrections of some false readings; Friedrich, Orientaίia XXI (1952), 231 n. 2, admits the readings he gave earlier were very doubtful). The Ethiopian expedition is very briefly alluded to by Herodotus (II, 161), but was in fact a large-scale undertaking; see S. Sauneron and J. Yoyotte, BIFAO L (1952), 157–207. A (?) Clazomenian sherd from Elephantine: R. M. Cook, CVA Brit. Mus. vm (1954), 60 n. 7. 2 Tell Defenneh: see W. M. F. Petrie, Tanis II (1888), 47–96, but P.’s identification with Stratopeda (p. 48) and his consequently high chronology (pp. 51 f., 62) are wrong: doubts already in Duemmler, JdI X (1895), 36 n. 2, and see A. Rumpf, Gnomon I (1925), 330, and JdI XLVΠI (1933), 60, followed by R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 229 f., 233–5 (yet de Meulenaere, Herodotos, 107, still seems to assume that Stratopeda and Daphnae are identical). See too in general R. M. Cook, loc. cit., and CVA Brit. Mus. VIII (1954), 57–60 for a list of the pottery (summary p. 59 and see index p. 64) and a discussion of the chronology and representativeness of the finds; 40–4 for the Attic BF; 29–37 for the situlae. A. L. Fontaine, ‘Daphnae’, Bulletin de la Société d’Etudes historiques et géographiques de l’Isthme de Suez I (1947), 41–57, ignores Cook and largely summarises Petrie. Carians at Tell Defenneh: Petrie alludes to Carian letters scratched on various jars and amphoras while the clay was still wet (Tanis II, 64). Tell Defenneh a fort: Tanis II, 49. Weapons and metal work: ibid. and pp. 59, 77–9 and pls. XXXVII–XXXVIII. Capacity of the fort: Tanis II, 49. On the economic life of Tell Defenneh see pp. 36–7. 3 Much Greek pottery has been found at Memphis (Petrie, Memphis I (1909), 3; R. M. Cook, CVA Brit. Mus. VIII (1954), 60 n. 7), but only a small part is published. There are sherds already from the later part of the seventh century, and the finds carry on in the sixth century: C. Clairmont, ‘Greek Pottery from the Near East’, Berytus XI (1955), 85–139 and XII (1956–7), 1–34, nos. 8, 59 (but see Boardman, JHS LXXVII (1957), 357: Corinthian Transitional), 19 (Early Corinthian), 45, 47 (Rhodian, Middle Wild Goat); R. M. Cook, CVA Brit. Mus. VIII (1954), 60 n. 7: two more Rhodian sherds, late seventh and early sixth centuries; Clairmont 60 (but see Boardman, loc. cit.—Late Wild Goat); Memphis II, pl. 22, 8 and p. 15 (fr. of Middle Wild Goat dish); Clairmont 63, situla of Group B (CVA Brit. Mus. VIII (1954), 29, ‘probably by same hand as B. I, but style less Greek: so adds to argument for Egyptian manufacture’—R. M. Cook). Fikellura fragments: Clairmont 69; Memphis II (1909), pl. 22, 6–7; R. M. Cook, op. cit. pl. 575, 2; also two frs. from the lip of two amphoras, Philadelphia 29.71.179 and 29.71.188. East Greek BF: Clairmont 96 (second quarter of sixth century?—R. M. Cook) and R. M. Cook, loc. cit. Clazomenian: Clairmont 82, 85–6; R. M. Cook, loc. cit. Attic BF: Clairmont 100. Also from Memphis an archaic kore (Hoffmann, AJA LVII (1953), 192 n. 23) and a group of terracotta heads (Memphis II, 16– 18, pls. 28–30). A tridacna shell, Bollettino d’Arte XLIV (1959), 165. Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 154, mentions a few more small 1

NOTES TO PAGES 20-21

57

finds, one of which is in his Island Gems (1963), 51 f., fig. 5, no. 185. A sixth-century dedication in Ionic letters on the basis of a statuette: Jeffery, Local Scripts, 355 and pl. 70. Finds from the outlying cemeteries of Memphis: Abusir: sherds of Chiot, Fikellura and Clazomenian, Clairmont 61, 71 and 79. Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 153 and pl. 9a, mentions from there a tombstone of Greek work for (apparently) a Milesian. Saqqarah: Rhodian and Clazomenian (?) vases, Clairmont 39 and 98; two ‘Egyptian-Greek’ vases, R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 237. Also from Saqqarah a faience ushabti figure with a Greek head (Boardman, Greeks Overseas, fig. 39, p. 153) and a funeral stele with an archaic inscription (Preisigke, Sammelbuch, 4300). Carian graffiti at Memphis: see Friedrich (n. I to p. 19), nos. 43–8. Add V. V. Ševoroškin, ‘Ägyptisch-Karische Inschrift am Sockel einer IsisstatuetteRev. Hitt. As. XXII, 74 (1964), 57–65 and pls. I–IV, date and find-place uncertain, though S. suggests Memphis in the sixth century. For other Carian graffiti in Egypt see Friedrich; he dates them to the reigns of Psammetichus I to II, though without giving his grounds for this belief. A number of the objects he mentions (nos. 38, 40, 43–52, 65, 74 and 75) have been restudied by O. Masson and J. Yoyotte, Objets pharaoniques a inscription carienne (1956), and they add an epitaph from Memphis (pp. 4–6) and a funeral stele from Saqqarah (pp. 31–5). Their chronology is substantially lower and wider than that of Friedrich, though they infer from Herodotus that there cannot have been any Carians in Memphis before the time of Amasis (p. 2). A study of the numerous Carian graffiti (many unpublished) is promised (p. xi), as well as a general account of the Carians in Egypt (p. xiv). In the fourth century an officer of the Carian dynast Mausolus bears the name Aἴγυπτος (Polyaenus VI, 8), but it is unknown whether he was a Carian. PAGE

21

Ἑλλήνιον and τιμοῦχοι: see U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäer-Zeit 1 (1922), 636–41 (fuller than Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde I, 1 (1912), 18 f., and I, 2, no. 30). For the Jewish sanctuary at Elephantine see Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, no. 30 lines 13 f.; Kraeling, Brooklyn Museum Papyri, 41–8. The practice is also found in Greece; see for example the sanctuaries granted to Egyptian and Phoenician metics in fourth-century Athens, Tod 189. This need not be connected with asylia, nor do the sources say so, though Glotz, Le travail dans la Grèce ancienne (1920), 136–8, and (without knowing G.) D. van Berchem, Mus. Helvet. XVII (1960), 26–9 (inadequately documented), thought that the granting of sanctuaries to the traders at Naukratis was intended to provide a protection for the trade. E. Revillout, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch, XIV (1892), 252, saw an allusion to grants of land and the right to build sanctuaries by Amasis to Greek mercenaries in a later demotic papyrus, but his reading of the text is very dubious. See W. Spiegelberg, Die sog. Demotische Chronik (1915), 32 f., according to whom the text is an edict of Cambyses relating to the administration of the temples. 2 So Kienitz, Politische Geschichte Ägyptens, 43. Potasimto and Amasis: see A. Rowe, Ann. Service XXXVIII (1938), 157–95; J. Yoyotte, CE XXVIII (1953), 101–6 (Potasimto). Other examples of generals with the title ‘commander of the Greeks (?)’, Kienitz, op. cit. 43. Amasis has only the title ‘overseer of the soldiers’ (Rowe, 170, 193), whereas Potasimto is ‘overseer of the foreigners’, ‘controller of the foreigners’, ‘overseer of the Greeks (?)’, ‘overseer of the soldiers’, ‘great warrior’ and ‘master of triumph’ (Rowe, 169, 192). Hence Kienitz inferred that Potasimto was commander-in-chief while Amasis was lower in rank (42). Yet on the evidence of one of the Abu Simbel inscriptions, where Amasis is named after the Pharaoh, Bernand and Masson, REG LXX (1957), 8, 14 f., following Sauneron, drew the opposite inference (they apparently did not know Kienitz). Surely the precise evidence of the Egyptian monuments should have greater weight here. 3 Rebellion under Psammetichus I: H. Schaefer, Klio IV (1904), 152–63. Apries and Cyrene: Hdt. II, 161 (cf. IV, 159), 163. Attempted recovery of power with the help of the 1

58

NOTES TO PAGES 21-22

mercenaries: Breasted, Anc. Rec. IV, para. 1003, but the text is uncertain (Posener, Rev. Phil. LXXIII (1947), 128 f. n. 4, 131 n. 1). On Egyptian hostility towards the Greeks see generally Kienitz, op. cit. 50 f., though K. is wrong in supposing (45) that all the Greek troops may have been concentrated by Amasis at Memphis—see p. 20 above on Tell Defenneh. Amasis and Greek tradition: see below, note 3 to p. 24. 4 Perdrizet and Lefebvre, Graffites d’Abydos, no. 614; Jeffery, Local Scripts, 358 no. 51 and pl. 70. R. M. Cook has in fact suggested to me that the archaeological break at Tell Defenneh may be purely illusory and reflect only the incompleteness of the excavations. 5 Hdt. II, 61 alludes to Carians living in Egypt in his own time. PAGE 22 1 Perdrizet and Lefebvre, Graffites d’Abydos, no. 536 and Jeffery, Local Scripts, 359 no. 54. 2 The reference in Herodotus to Cambyses’ dismissal of the Greeks (III, 25) surely refers only to the Greek contingents he had brought with him against Egypt (III, 1) 3 The bibliography on Naukratis is very large, and I can only mention here the more general works published; special studies will be referred to when relevant. Excavation reports: W. M. F. Petrie, Naukratis I (1886) and E. A. Gardner, Naukratis II (1888); D. G. Hogarth and others, BSA V (1898–9), 26–97; idem, JHS XXV (1905), 105–36. General studies: H. Prinz, Funde aus Naukratis, Klio, Beiheft VII (1908); E. M. Smith, JSOR X (1926), 119–207 (uncritical); H. Kees, art. Naukratis, RE XVI (1935), cols. 1954–66, summarises the work done until then; F. W. Freiherr von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 33–82, an important re-examination of the early archaeological history of the site, especially the buildings; the best and most up-to-date general account is that of Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 134–50. Much of the older literature on the subject is dated, since it rests on a chronology of the finds which is no longer accepted. 4 For discussions of the literary evidence see G. Hirschfeld, Rh. Mus. XLII (1887), 209–21, against Petrie and Gardner (Naukratis I, 4, and Naukratis II, 70–2) who held that Herodotus implied the existence of Naukratis before Amasis, as did Mallet, Premiers établissements, 146 f.; Prinz, Funde aus Naukratis, 1–6 (partly fanciful and attempts to harmonise the sources); Hogarth, BSA V (1898–9), 45 f. (upholds a strict interpretation of Herodotus); Smith, JSOR X (1926), 130 f., 133, 135–7, 144 f. (combines Strabo and Herodotus); Gjerstad, LAAA XXI (1934), 68 f. and Acta Arch, XXX (1959)5 159–61 (also attempts a compromise between Strabo and Herodotus); von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 38–41 (rather undecided, but tends to follow Gjerstad). The contradictions between the sources, between these and the archaeological evidence, and between the excavators themselves, have created confusion in the whole discussion. R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 232 f., virtually leaves aside all literary sources other than Herodotus. 5 So Strabo 801, the Thalassocracy List quoted ap. Eusebius, ed. Schoene II, 81 = Diod. VII, II, and the Milesian inscriptions (dating from the time of the Antonines and the Severi) where Miletus boasts of being ‘the earliest city to be founded in Ionia’, and of being ‘the metropolis of many great cities in the Euxine, in Egypt and in many places in the world’: CIG 2878 = Le Bas–Waddington 212 (see too Milet I, 7 (1924), 319) and Milet I, 7, nos. 233–6, 240, 260, 262 and perhaps nos. 237–9 (the relevant part of these inscriptions is missing). There are many more inscriptions starting with the same stereotyped formula which are still unpublished (Milet I, 317 n. 2; one more referred to, 339; one newly discovered published in 1st. Mitt, XV (1965), 122). That Naukratis must be meant by ‘the great city in Egypt’ mentioned in these inscriptions was seen already by Hirschfeld, Rh. Mus. XLII (1887), 213. It is now fully confirmed by lines 9–12 of a Milesian inscribed epigram of Hellenistic times (c. 200 B.C.) discussed by W. Peek, Wiener Studien LXXIX (1966), 218–30; this epigram parallels the phraseology of the later inscriptions and shows that the theme of Miletus’ great colonising activity was already set in Hellenistic times. See the remarks of J. and L. Robert, Bull. 1967, 528

NOTES TO PAGES 22-23

59

Apollonius Rhodius wrote a Nαυκράτεως κτίσις (Athenaeus VII, 283 d). L. Braccesi, Riv. Fil. XCVI (1968), 28–32, sees an allusion to Naukratis in Aesch. P. V. 813–15, where Iο is said to be destined to found (κτῖσαι) a μοακρὰ ἀποικία in Egypt. B. stresses that this is the only instance in Greek literature where Naukratis is referred to as an ἀποικία. But it has to be proved in the first instance that the allusion is to Naukratis (the further deductions B. draws from the passage do not concern us here). PAGE

1 2

3

4

5 6

7

23

That only Psammetichus I can have been meant in the Strabo passage is shown by Hirschfeld, Rh. Mus. XLII (1887), 210 f. None the less Gjerstad and von Bissing ignore this. See also Schol. Theocritus XVII, 98, the numerous Milesian inscriptions quoted in note 5 to p. 22 above, and Steph. Byz.s.v. Nαύκρατις.Since Steph.Byz. s.v. Ἄβυδοι τρεῖς πόλεις also credits the foundation of the Egyptian Abydos to Miletus, the quality of his sources can hardly have been of the highest. So in one form or another Mallet, Premiers étahlissements, 146–55, 172 f., Gardner, Hirschfeld, Prinz, Glotz (see note 3 to p. 30 below), Ure (Origin of Tyranny, 120), Smith, Hasebroek (Staat und Handel, 63–7; Griechische Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte his zu den Perserkriegen (1931), 112), Kees, de Meulenaere (Herodotos, 102 f., 105, 154 f.), Kienitz (Politische Geschichte Ägyptens, 38, 45 f.), H. Michell (The Economics o f Ancient Greece (2nd ed. 1956), 237 f. [with several inaccuracies]), Gjerstad (though he took Strabo to apply possibly to the reign of Amasis), van Berchem (Mus. Helvet. XVII (1960), 26–9). It could perhaps be argued that the Milesians founded—quite literally—the city of Naukratis, as opposed to the trading community which apparently remained outside the civic organisation (see pp. 29–33). Herodotus does not specify the origin of the citizens of Naukratis, and from later offerings by Naukratites at Didyma (A. Rehm, Didyma II. Die Inschriften (1958), nos. 452, 457, Hellenistic) it is plausible that some of them might have been of Milesian origin. But then there is no archaeological confirmation of an earlier arrival of the Milesians—from the start the pottery is fairly varied. Moreover the absence of sanctuaries of the city of Naukratis would imply that the city developed only after the arrival of the traders, and after their sanctuaries had been put into general use (see pp. 30– 1). So, rightly, Hogarth, Cook. Attempts to show that Herodotus’ words imply Greek presence at Naukratis before Amasis (Petrie, Naukratis I, 4, Gardner, Naukratis II, 70–2, and Prinz, Funde aus Naukratis, 5) seem to me unconvincing. The story of the Samian Colaeus (see above, note 1 to p. 14) of course proves nothing, since there is no mention of Naukratis in the context After his legislation Solon sailed to Egypt and stayed Nείλου ἐπὶ προχοῆσι Kανωβίδος ἐγγύθεν ἀκτῆς (fr. 6 Diehl, cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. XI, 1 and Plut. Solon XXVI—I omit the later embroideries of the story); this was in fact his second trip to Egypt. But whether this means that Solon actually stayed at Naukratis, as is sometimes asserted (Prinz, Funde aus Naukratis, 4; Beloch, Griech. Gesch. I, 1, 263; Smith, JSOR X (1926), 136 [on 184 f. she is more cautious]; Hasebroek, Staat und Handel, 66 n. 79), is uncertain, and ancient writers appear not to have taken the passage thus, or else they would probably have specified it. Finally, there is the story of the trip to Naukratis of Sappho’s brother Charaxos and his relations with the courtesan Rhodopis (Hdt. II, 134–5; Sappho frs. 5, 15 (b) Lobel and Page) which implies the existence of Naukratis in the lifetime of Sappho, and this could (but need not) apply to the time before Amasis. Moreover Herodotus dates Rhodopis to the reign of Amasis. See Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, 45–51. See note 3 to p. 22 and also E. Gjerstad, LAAA XXI (1934), 67–84; idem, Acta Arch.

6o

NOTES TO PAGES 23-24

XXX (1959), 147–65 (but see on G.’s approach R. M. Cook, BSA XXXIV (1933–4), 86 n. 2; von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 68 f.). The best and clearest discussion remains that of R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 227–37. 8 For the Corinthian see Payne, Necrocorinthia (1931), 25; for the Attic, Beazley and Payne, JHS XLIX (1929), 253–72. For a general conclusion see R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 228, whose view has been widely followed, e.g. Roebuck, CP XLVI (1951), 213 f., Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 138 (Boardman mentions a scrap of Corinthian Transitional c. 630–620, but the provenience of this particular sherd is doubtful, see R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 228 n. 7). Gjerstad, however, believes in settlement only under Amasis; he rejects the current vase chronology though retaining at the same time a fixed—and low— chronology for other classes of finds which is open to criticism (the Cypriot terracottas, which he dates to the reign of Amasis—see too The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV, 2 (1947), 318–22; but for criticism of his chronology of the terracottas see H. Walter and K. Vierneisel, AM LXXIV (1959), 32 f.; K. Vierneisel, AM LXXVI (1961), 34, 42; J. Boardman, Greek Emporio (1967), 193 n. 1). He is reluctant to consider the possibility that Herodotus might have been wrong in attributing to Amasis the establishment of Naukratis. His view has not so far found much acceptance. Another view is that of von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 47 f., who, though not rejecting the vase chronology, argues for a gap between their time of manufacture and their appearance on the site, and dates the earliest Greek settlement to the reign of Psammetichus II (after 594), basing his argument on the absence of Greek-made scarabs with the name of any living Pharaoh before Psammetichus II (41, 65 f.). The argument from silence need not be compelling; and, though the position of the scarab factory in the south of the site makes this likely, is it certain that it must have existed from the earliest years of the Greek settlement? (Von Bissing promised a full study of the scarabs, but this has not been published.) PAGE

24

On the sanctuaries of Naukratis see the summary in Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 135–7. The literary sources are slight: Hdt. II, 178 mentions the Hellenion and the sanctuaries of Hera, Apollo and Aeginetan Zeus—the latter has not been discovered (the emendation Διοσκούρων for Διός in Herodotus is not likely, see Boardman, op. cit. 137). For what it is worth the anecdote in Athenaeus (see p. 23) implies the existence of the sanctuary of Aphrodite at an early date. No ancient source mentions the sanctuary of the Dioscouroi. The Hellenion: BSA (1898–9), 38 f., 42–6; JHS XXV (1905), 110, 112–16; von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 75–80. Aphrodite: Naukratis II, 11–13, 14 f., 33–7; von Bissing, 64 f.; the stepped altar: Hoffmann, AJA LVII (1953), 193 (but H. assumes the date rather than demonstrates it). Hera: Naukratis II, 13, 60 f.; von Bissing, 66 f.; Apollo: Naukratis I, 11–16; BSA V (1898–9), 53 n. 1; F. N. Pryce, BMC Sculpture I, 1 (1928), 171–8; von Bissing, 67–73. Dioscouroi: Naukratis II, II, 30–2; von Bissing, 74 f. Smith, JSOR X (1926), 144 f., 166 f., unjustifiably attributed the building of the sanctuaries of Aphrodite and the Dioscouroi to Cypriots. 2 Rhys Carpenter, AJP LVI (1935), 294–7, followed by von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 48, but see R. M. Cook and A. G. Woodhead, BSA XLVII (1952), 163 f. and now Jeffery, Local Scripts, 37 f. Gjerstad all the same would still accept Carpenter’s argument (Acta Arch, XXX (1959), 161). Jeffery, Local Scripts, 354 f., refrains from giving any general chronological framework for the inscriptions; in her discussion of those which bear an ethnic (which are in any case only a very small proportion of the total finds) she only mentions a few which could go back to the early sixth century and none is dated to the late seventh century (see note 2 to p. 25 below). 3 So R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 235. On the date of the establishment of Naukratis no help is to be derived from Egyptian sources, since the earliest mention of Naukratis in 1

NOTES TO PAGES 24-25

6l

them dates from year 16 of Amasis’ reign (W. Spiegelberg, SB München 1928, 3. Abhandlung, pp. 8–10). Amasis was a popular figure and many anecdotes have crystallised around him. Of all the Pharaohs of the XXVIth Dynasty, he is in Greek tradition the only live one. See Mallet, Premiers établissements, 368 f., 405 f. Some Greeks adopted his name (so the sixth-century potter, see R. M. Cook, JHS LXVIII (1948), 148; a Naukratite in the fourth century, Syll.3 239, A3), just as others earlier adopted the name of Psammetichus (see above, note 1 to p. 15); so too a youth in Attica in the sixth century may have been called after Croesus of Lydia (G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi (1960), 115). Greek tradition seems to have drawn (consciously or not) a parallel between the two contemporary kings Amasis and Croesus: both were remembered as philhellenes, with some justification, to judge from their numerous dedications in Greek sanctuaries and their alliances with some Greek states (see p. 41). But Croesus was also responsible for subjugating all the Greeks of Asia Minor, and the policy of Amasis cannot have been wholly friendly to the Greeks, at least in the early part of his reign (F. Bilabel, Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher 1934, 146 f.; R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 232, 235): even if Herodotus is wrong in attributing the organisation of Naukratis to him, he thought of the measures as philhellenic, though they were largely restrictive. Finally, both were defeated by the Persians (or at least Amasis died shortly before the Persian invasion, which his son had to face), and the time before this conquest was thought of as one of prosperity and good rule. I am dealing here only with the traders of Naukratis, not with the residents whom Herodotus has just mentioned; see pp. 30–1 on these. 5 The finds of coin hoards from Egypt and elsewhere in the Levant provide no reliable indication of the identity of the traders who brought them; see pp. 39–40 on this. PAGE 25 4

1

For the inscriptions of Naukratis see Naukratis 1, 54–63 and pls. XXXII–XXXV; Naukratis

II, 62–9 and pls. XX–XXII; BSA V (1898–9), 53–7 and pls. IV–V; JHS XXV (1905), 116– 18. That the sanctuaries were in general use by all the Greeks present in Naukratis was first hinted at by Edgar, BSA V (1898–9), 53 n. 1; it is fully demonstrated by Roebuck, CP XLV (1950), 241 f. This important point was long unnoticed, and still is, as for example by von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 41 (dedications to Apollo attributed to Milesians) and Jeffery, Local Scripts (see next note). 2 Chiots: Jeffery, Local Scripts, 338, who dates both scratched and painted inscriptions roughly to the second quarter of the sixth century. (1) Scratched. The following have the ethnic: Naukratis II, nos. 706, 757, pl. XXI; BSA V (1898–9), p. 55 nos. 51 (?), 60, pls. IV– V; CVA Brussels III (1949), pl. 28 no. 2 (on Attic BF). (2) Painted. See R. M. Cook and A. G. Woodhead, BSA XLVII (1952), 159–70 and pls. 34– 5, with further comments by Boardman, BSA LI (1956), 56–9 (some additions and corrections to the list of Cook and Woodhead, ibid. 56 n. 5). These form a homogeneous group, both from the style of the vases, dated within the first half of the sixth century and probably not in its earlier years, and from the letter forms. Four names account for about half of the dedications, and there is a general relation between the individual dedicators and the hands that wrote the dedications. Hence Boardman argues that the votives were ordered and made in batches for a few people who would offer simultaneously several vases (he also argues for manufacture in Naukratis). Many of the dedicators could be Chiots, though the ethnic is only rarely attested: see nos. 46, 142, 168, 171 in the list of Cook and Woodhead, and Boardman, op. cit. 56 n. 5 on no. 187. Teians: Jeffery, Local Scripts, 340, dates the following three to the first and second quarters of the sixth century: Naukratis I, no. 5 pl. VI and no. 700 pl. xxxv; Naukratis II, no. 876 pl. XX and no. 779 pl. XXI. Add Naukratis I, no. 209 pl. XXXII ὁ δεῖνα ὁ] Tήϊος [Ἀπόλλωνι, possibly Naukratis II, no. 758 pl. XXI T]εισα[μένου υἱὸς…]κλῆς [ἀνέθηκεν τῆι Ἀφροδίτη]ι ὁ

62

NOTES TO PAGE 25 T[ήϊος (restoration uncertain), and note an epitaph for a man from Teos of the Hellenistic period, Naukratis II, 68 f. Phocaeans: Naukratis I, no. 666 pl. XXXV, may be first half of the sixth century, according to Jeffery, Local Scripts, 341; add perhaps JHS XXV (1905), p. 117 no. 39, ? Φωκ]αιεύς on a sherd from a BF kylix. The name KαῖϞος (see end of this note) may also refer to Phocaeans, for it is well attested in Phocaea’s western colonies; see J. and L. Robert, Bull. 1965, 507, and L. Robert, Rev. Arch. 1966, 220–2. Clazomenian: a single graffito on two sherds, dated around the mid-sixth century by Jeffery, Local Scripts, 340: BSA V (1898–9), p. 55 no. 55 a–b and pl. IV, but Edgar ad loc. doubts the reading. Samians: a number of dedications to Hera, attributed to Samians by Jeffery, Local Scripts, 328, but see previous note: Naukratis II, p. 67 nos. 841–8 and pl. XXII; there is a dedication to Aphrodite by one Rhoikos, perhaps of the first quarter of the sixth century, and the name could be Samian: Naukratis II, p. 65 no. 778 and pl. XXI, and P. Jacobstahl, AM XXXI (1906), 420 and n. 1. Jacobstahl identifies two more Samians from their names, Ὑβλή(σιος) on Naukratis II, pl. XXII, 853–4 and Ἡραγόρης on Naukratis II, p. 66 and pl. XXI, 804. Milesians: dedications to Apollo, attributed to Milesians by Jeffery, Local Scripts, 332: Naukratis I, pls. XXXII–XXXIII, but see previous note. Gravestone of a Milesian at Naukratis: GDI 5513. Dorians: Naukratis I, p. 62 nos. 237, 239, 354, pl. XXXIII (attributed to Cnidus by Jeffery, Local Scripts, 352, following Prinz, Funde aus Naukratis, 83, and dated by her around the mid-sixth century); Naukratis II, nos. 802, 807, 814, pl. XXI (though these three might also be Aeolian); BSA V (1898–9), p. 56 and no. 85 a–b, pl. V; p. 56 and no. 93, pl. V (on an RF kylix). Rhodian: JHS XXV (1905), p. 117 no. 16: Tελέσων ‘Pόδιος Ἀφρο[δίτηι] (not included by Jeffery), but this is undated and the ethnic might seem to put this after the synoecism of Rhodes in 408/407, though see Hdt. II, 178 where Herodotus uses the term ‘Rhodes’ instead of the names of the three main Rhodian cities. Similarly a graffito on a fifth-century Attic vase from Lindos reads ‘Pόδιος Kλετήας (IG XII, 1, 728), and Thuc. VIII, 44, 2 also uses the term ‘Pοδίους for the time before the synoecism; popular terminology was evidently not strict. One Phanes made a dedication to Milesian Apollo (Naukratis I, no. 218 pl. XXXIII) and it has been widely assumed that this is the mercenary captain from Halicarnassus mentioned by Herodotus III, 4 and II(Naukratis I, 55, followed by many): this is obviously unverifiable and anyway not particularly likely. Aeolians: Naukratis I, no. 185 pl. XXXII and Naukratis II, pp. 65 f. nos. 786–93 (possibly too nos. 802, 807, 814 pl. XXI, if these are not Doric)—nos. 788–90 bear the ethnic Mytilenaean (dated to the sixth century by Jeffery, Local Scripts, 360). Add to these JHS XXV (1905), p. 117 no. 40, and an undated pedestal, BSA V (1898–9), 38, both with the ethnic Mytilenaean. See too the name Σάπφω on Naukratis I, no. 532 pl. XXXIV and perhaps Naukratis II, nos. 717 and 795, pl. XXI, from the name of the dedicator, KαῖϞος, suitable to Aeolis (if this is not a Phocaean—see above in this note). The name is also found on a graffito at Abydos (Perdrizet and Lefebvre, Graffites d’Abydos, no. 427, dated c. 500 by Jeffery, Local Scripts, 360), but the reading is uncertain and the article before the name odd (the text in Perdrizet–Lefebvre reads M[άγν]ης ἦλθ[᾿ ἐ]νθάδε ὁ Kάϊκος).

3 I should emphasise here that the order in which Herodotus enumerates the traders has no special significance. There is surely no warrant for saying with, for example, P. de Jong, Scherben aus Naukratis (1925), 15, or von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 46, that Herodotus ‘puts Chios at the head of the cities which founded the Hellenion’. Since there is no comprehensive publication of the pottery from Naukratis, I can only give a selection of references to the most important finds. For a summary see Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 138–42 4 Chian pottery: see note 2 above and E. R. Price, JHS XLIV (1924), 205–22; R. M. Cook, BSA XLIV (1949), 154–61, at 160; idem, JHS LVII (1937), 228 f., for the importance of Chios at Naukratis, and generally C. Roebuck, CP XLV (1950), 239 f., 242 (for the possibility that the Aphrodite sanctuary may be a Chiot foundation). When first

NOTES TO PAGES 25-27

63

discovered the Chiot vases were described as ‘Naukratite’, but subsequent excavations in Chios modified the attribution; for a summary of the arguments for manufacture in Chios see R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 228 n. 9. Recently Boardman has argued for manufacture in Naukratis of two classes of Chiot vases (BSA LI (1956), 55–62; doubted by Cook, Greek Painted Pottery, 346). For Egyptian finds from Chios see note 2 to p. 13 above. A Chiot woman bears the name Aῖγυπτίη on a fourth-century epitaph from Athens (IG II2 10.597, corrected by M. T. Mitsos, AE 1961, 202 f.). 26 1 Clazomenian: see R. M. Cook, BSA XLVII (1952), 123–52, esp. 148 f., with additions in CVA Brit. Mus. VIII (1954), 14–28; J. M. Cook, BSA LX (1965), 128–32, for finds from Old Smyrna. Bucchero: see in general W. Lamb, JHS LII (1932), 1–12; some has been found at Phocaea (F. Sartiaux, CRAI 1921, 119–29; Arch. Rep. 1959–60, 41), and there is much in the west that may have been brought by Phocaeans (P. Jacobstahl and E. Neuffer, Préhistoire II, 1 (1933), 16–31; F. Villard, La céramique grecque de Marseille (1960), 51– 3). Boardman, Greek Emporio (1967), 135, in fact considers Phocaea a possible centre of manufacture for some of the bucchero ware. For bucchero from Naukratis see below, note 4. 2 Rhodian vases: for some see e.g. JHS XLIV (1924), pls. VII–VIII; CVA Oxford II (1931), pls. I, 4; CVA Cambridge II (1936), pl. XVIII. Fikellura: R. M. Cook, BSA XXXIV (1933– 4), 1–98, esp. 97 f. for those from Egypt; some additions and corrections to the list given there in CVA Brit. Mus. VIII (1954), 1–5. Vroulian cups: JHS XLIV (1924), 188 f., and R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery, 140 f. Dedication of Amasis at Lindos: Hdt. II, 182; III, 47; Lindos Temple Chronicle (FGrHist, 532), para. 29. Proxeny decrees: Syll.3 110, though better in Lindos II (1941), 1, no. 16, cols. 210–14. The earliest (set up in the Hellenion at Naukratis) dates from before 411, the second (from Lindos) from 411–408. For Egyptian finds in Rhodes see notes 2 to p. 13 and 1 to p. 14 above. 3 The name Aἰγύπτιος is found at Halicarnassus in the fifth century, Syll.3 46, lines 7 f. 4 Bucchero: see note 1 above, and for that from Naukratis Naukratis I, 49; Naukratis II, 47 f., 50 f., 65 f. Charaxos: Sappho frs. 5 and 15 (b) Lobel and Page, Hdt. II, 134–5, and see generally Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, 45–51. Hasebroek, Staat und Handel, 67, curiously made a Samian of Charaxos. Alcaeus also went to Egypt: fr. 432 (z 109) Lobel and Page. There are no Egyptian finds from Lesbos so far 5 The conventional view of Aegina as a ‘mercantile oligarchy’ was sharply challenged by Hasebroek, Staat und Handel, 53 f. and Griechische Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 278 f.; his thesis was then fully developed by H. Winterscheidt, Aigina (1938), who showed that the Aeginetan aristocracy was one of rich landowners, and that the Aeginetan traders came from the lower classes and engaged in a carrying trade of various fancy goods. See esp. 22–4, 51–9 (though W. ignored the evidence for the corn trade). Use of Attic and Corinthian pottery at Naukratis: Price, JHS XLIV (1924), 202 f., so too Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 142. In fact a wide variety of vase fabrics is found in Aegina (Winterscheidt, op. cit. 55). For Egyptian-type finds in the island see above, note 2 to p. 13. One of the dedicators found at Naukratis, a certain Aristophanes, is also found at Aegina; and if some of the Chiot pottery was made at Naukratis, its presence in Aegina would be significant (Boardman, BSA LI (1956), 59, and see above, notes 2 and 4 to p. 25). Proxeny decree: see above, note 2, and below, note 3 to p. 29. Resources of Aegina: Winterscheidt, op. cit. 4–9, correcting current misconceptions. PAGE

27 Fikellura: see above, note 2 to p. 26. bf cups: for some see E. Kunze, AM LIX (1934), 81–122, at 91–7 for those from Naukratis. Laconian at Naukratis: Naukratis II, 27, 43 f., 51 f.; E. A. Lane, BSA xxxiv (1933–4), 180. Samos and Sparta: Lane, op. cit. 178 f.; E. Diehl, AA 1964, cols. 541–81. The suggestion that some of the Laconian vases were

PAGE

1

64

NOTES TO PAGE 27

brought to Naukratis by Samians is that of Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 141, whereas Cyrenaeans were otherwise usually thought to have been the carriers (e.g. Lane, op. cit. 184). The evidence for Cyrenaeans at Naukratis is in fact very slight; the attempted identification of two of them from dedications (Naukratis II, 44 and nos. 766–7, pl. XXI) is uncertain and rests largely on the earlier misattribution of the vases to Cyrene. Cyrene had plenty of wheat and even exported some later to the Greek world, hence (on the assumption that wheat was the chief commodity sought by the Greeks in Egypt—see p. 35) it is hard to see what could have incited her to trade on any significant scale with Egypt (see Chamoux, Cyrene, 231 f., 239 f.). Egyptian finds from the Heraeum: see notes 2 to p. 13 and 1 to p. 14 above. Colaeus: see note 1 to p. 14 above. Dedication of Amasis: Hdt. II, 182 and III, 47. It was a Samian captain who brought Rhodopis to Egypt (Hdt. II, 135). A group of Samians was settled at ‘Oasis’ in Libya (Hdt. III, 26)—see Chamoux, Cyrene, 63–6. Finally, there is a little more epigraphic evidence for Samians in Egypt in the Archaic Age. A bronze statuette of Isis and the child Horus was dedicated by Πúθερμος ὁ Nείλωνος (Edgar, JHS XXIV (1904), 337; dated by Jeffery, Local Scripts, 355 and see pl. 70, to the late Archaic Age). The statuette is reported to come from Egypt, but the exact find-place is not known. Pythermos is probably a Samian, especially in view of another dedication, also from Egypt, by one Πυθογείτων Nείλωνος Σάμιος, perhaps a member of the same family; see P. Jacobstahl, AM XXXI (1906), 420 and n. 1. Much later, in the third or second century B.C., we find a large inscription in the Assuan stone quarries reading ΠYΘOΓEITΩN NEIΛΩNOΣ ΣAMIOΣ (AA 1965, col. 522, and figs. 33–4, cols. 525 f.). This seems almost too good to be true—could these all be members of the same family, settled permanently in Egypt from the sixth century till (at least) Hellenistic times? 2 For a critique of this view see Roebuck, CP XLV (1950), 241 and XLVI (1951), 217 f., but his view that the Milesians at Naukratis might have had a different interest from the other Greeks, that they might have been, for example, only mercenaries, does not rest on any other evidence than the dubious authority of Strabo 801. Von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 41 f., also thought that the part of Miletus had been exaggerated. 3 There is of course the story of the foundation by them of Mιλησίων τεῖχος in the Delta during the reign of Psammetichus I, which is supposed to have been the prelude to the ‘foundation’ of Naukratis (Strabo 801). It is difficult to see what to make of this; on the one hand Strabo’s information seems precise, yet no other source mentions this foundation. Strabo does not actually say that the fort was abandoned when the Milesians ‘founded Naukratis’, though his wording might imply this, and the passage is usually taken in this sense (see Hirschfeld, Rh. Mus. XLII (1887), 219–21; Ure, Origin of Tyranny, 120). If it was really abandoned so soon after its foundation, it becomes hard to see how anything could be remembered about it at all. But the most serious difficulty is to understand how the Greeks could have founded any settlement anywhere in Egypt on their own initiative and without the permission of the Pharaoh; for what is otherwise clear concerning Greek activity in Egypt under the Saite Dynasty is the degree of control exercised by the Egyptians. Pliny, NH VI, 159, also describes a certain Ampelone in Arabia as ‘colonia Milesiorum’; nothing further is known of this place. An Egyptian bronze from Miletus: see note 1 to p. 14 above. Dedications by Naukratites at Didyma in Hellenistic times: see above, note 4 to p. 23. 4 According to Hecataeus (FGrHist, 1 F 310) there was an ‘island’ in the Nile called ‘Ephesus’. Bürchner, RE V (1905), col. 2788, takes this to show that Ephesians traded in Egypt. This is very doubtful. Ephesians are not found at Naukratis, and the Greeks were just naming places in Egypt after places they knew in Asia Minor. There is in any case a joke in calling an island ‘Ephesus’. Egyptian glass vessels from archaic tombs at Ephesus reported in AJA LXXII (1968), 140, and see above, note 1 to p. 14, for a sixth-century bronze from Ephesus.

N O T E S TO P A G E S 2 7 -2 9

65

5

Seen from Herodotus’ point of view this should mean the time of Amasis, of which Herodotus is thinking all through this context, as opposed to his own time when the regulations had presumably lapsed with the Persian conquest. However, el Abbadi, The Alexandrians, 25 f., denies that Herodotus had anything precise in mind

6

Herodotus might have specified ‘for the Greeks’, since there were other places of trade in Egypt besides Naukratis.

PAGE

28

So already Mallet, Premiers établissements, 355 f. Of course the passage does not mean

1

that Amasis ‘concentrated all the Greeks in Naukratis’, as was supposed by Petrie and has been repeated frequently since; this restriction affected the traders but the case of the mercenaries was quite different (so,

JHS LVII (1937), 233). (1937), 233). Petrie’s view was already doubted by Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde I, 1 (1912), 12 n. 5.

rightly, R. M. Cook,

2

Separation of Greek and Egyptian quarter and the Egyptian fort: BSA V (1898–9), 43, 45, 48; JHS XXV (1905), 106–8. Von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 54 f., appears to accept the suggestion that Petrie’s ‘Great Temenos’ once housed a garrison to watch the Greeks; he would qualify a little the extent of the separation between the two parts of the town, without denying it altogether (36, 49). No ἐπιγαμία with the Egyptians: see Wilcken, Einleitung und Chrestomathie der

Papyruskunde

I, 2 (1912), 44 f., no. 27. No wonder prostitution flourished at Naukratis (Hdt. II, 134–5;

Athenaeus XIII, 596 b–d). Routes of access to Egypt: P. Salmon,

d’Athènes (1965), 6–12. 3

La politique égyptienne

Evidence for the presence of Phoenicians at Naukratis in any significant numbers is lacking, though some might have been active on the spot as artisans, for example as the carvers of the tridacna shells found on the site, if these are really of Phoenician workmanship (Edgar, BSA V ( 1 8 9 8 – 9 ) , 4 9 f . ) . T h e r e i s a s i n g l e P h o e n i c i a n g r a f f i t o o n a n a m p h o r a f r o m t h e H e l l e n i o n ( JHS XXV (1905), 118). Other

evidence is late ( Naukratis I, 41). F o r t h i s r e a s o n t h e t h e s i s o f H . L . F . L u t z ( University

of California Publications in Semitic Philology X (1943), no. 2, 275–80), that Naukratis was originally a Phoenician foundation and that the later Greek cults were hellenised versions of Semitic ones, is gratuitous; nor is there any reason to look for a nonGreek origin of the name Naukratis. PAGE

1

29

On all this see the valuable article of G. Posener, article was apparently unknown to Roebuck,

Ägypten

Rev. Phil, LXXIII (1947), 117–31 (the CP XLVI (1951), 214). For earlier parallels

see H. Kees,

(1933), 106. For the regulating of the southern frontier see P. C. Smither and B. Gunn,

XXXI (1945), 3–10, esp. 4. The Naukratis stele: most recent text and translation by B. Gunn, (1943), 55–9 (though Gunn wrongly attributes it to Nectanebo II, see Will,

JEA

JEA XXIX

REA LII (1960), 260–1 n. 3); see

especially sections 8–14. In this document the dues are not exacted at Naukratis but at some place called Henwe which has not been located; on the other hand it must somehow have been connected with Naukratis, for the Pharaoh mentions both dues together and had the stele put up in Naukratis alone (section 13). For other examples of a tithe on trade being dedicated to a god in the Near East (Ugarit, Babylon) see D. van Berchem,

Syria 2

XLIV (1967), 78 n. 2.

The fullest treatment of these problems is C. Roebuck, CP XLVI (1951), 212–20; I differ from him on many fundamental points. G. E. M. de Ste Croix, JHS LXXXVII (1967), 179, has promised a full treatment of the question. Shorter discussions will be mentioned in their proper place.

3 Naukratites at Delphi: Syll.3 239, A 1–6, B 37–9, c III 21–4 (369–360 B.C.); Syll.3 424 l. 65 (268–265 B.C.); at Didyma: see above, note 4 to p. 23. Athenian proxenos decree: IG II2 206 (mid-fourth century). Tombstones of Naukratite metics in Athens: IG II2

66

N O T E S TO P A G E S 2 9 - 3 0 9984–7, the last three of the fourth century, the first dated to the late fifth—if correct, the earliest occurrence of the ethnic so far. Coinage: Head NC 1 8 8 6 , 1 0 f . ; Naukratis Naukratis I, 66 f.; Historia

Nummorum (2nd ed. 1911), 845. Decrees of Naukratis: Naukratis 1 ,

n o . 3 p l . X X X a n d OGIS 120. Literary sources: see for example Strabo 808 ἐν τῇ πόλει τῶν Nαυκρατιτῶν, Steph. Byz. s.v. Nαύκρατις πόλις Aῖγύπτου…ὁ πολίτης Nαυκρατίτης ( other forms of the ethnic are also quoted). When later writers speak of Naukratis in former times and call it a πόλις, this has of course no value as evidence for the earlier period (e.g. Strabo,

loc. cit., ., also 801 on the

‘foundation’ of Naukratis; Athenaeus XV, 675 f. = Polycharmos FGrHist, 640 f 1, talks of a Naukratite

citizen in the early seventh century!). Roebuck, CP XLVI (1951), 216, claims that the late-fifth-century Rhodian proxeny decrees for Greeks in Naukratis (see note 2 to p. 26 above) prove that Naukratis was an independent community with her own citizens; this is precisely what they do not do, since in both cases the proxenoi are not described as Naukratites—in the first he is ‘the Aeginetan (?) [so-and-so], an interpreter from Naukratis’; in the second he is, even more vaguely, ‘Damoxenos son of Hermon who lives in Egypt’ (the

reference is to Naukratis). The inscriptions deliberately avoid talking of citizen here, and use instead vague periphrases which would tend to prove the opposite of what Roebuck claims. Naturally no illumination is to be expected from the archaic dedications, since a citizen making a dedication in his own city would never add the

ethnic; for this reason the restoration of one dedication as …Nα]υκρα[τίτης… (JHS XXV (1905), p. 117, no. 27) is probably wrong. It is of course impossible to say whether any of those dedications which have no ethnic are by citizens either. Originality of Naukratis: Gwynn, JHS XXXVIII (1918), 106; A. J. Graham,

City in Ancient Greece (1964), 5, but both are too brief

o n the question of Naukratis’ exact status; Boardman, Greeks

Colony and Mother

Overseas, 148, is cautious. If Naukratis

became a real πόλις only in the fourth century, there is no evidence to show how and in what circumstances this took place, and what happened to the distinction between residents and non-residents mentioned by Herodotus (see pp. 29–33). PAGE 30

1 As asserted by Hogarth, JHS XXV (1905), 108. 2 Very little is known archaeologically of the Egyptian quarter of Naukratis (von Bissing,

Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 39–53), though as it was wholly in the south of the town (see note 2 to p. 28 above) and the town seems to have expanded northwards as it grew, it is plausible that it should have existed before the Greeks came. Von Bissing, however (op. cit. 33–5), denies any settlement before the Greeks on the ground that there is no trace of a native name of the city; the Egyptians called Naukratis ‘Piemro’ (which means ‘harbour’ and is found elsewhere in Egypt), and von Bissing takes this to be a translation from the Greek. But the Greek name could have displaced the native one, as Alexandria did with Rhakoti (W. Spiegelberg,

SB München

(1928), 3. Abhandlung, 4 f.); besides, is it not equally possible

that ‘Naukratis’ might be a translation from the Egyptian? (Cf. Boardman, 3

Greeks Overseas, 149.)

So, rightly, Hasebroek, Staat und Handel, 67; von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 81, and Roebuck, CP XLVI (1951), 215, against the fanciful and unrealistic supposition of Prinz, Funde

aus Naukratis,

5 f., that each sanctuary had a separate ἐμπόριον attached to it—a view which was

Le travail dans la Grèce ancienne (1920), 130, 144–6; K. antiken Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres, Klio, Beiheft XIV (1923),

unfortunately followed by Glotz, Lehmann-Hartleben, Die

38; Kees, RE XVI (1935), cols. 1959–61. This supposition arose from the failure of Herodotus to define the rights of the three groups of traders outside the Hellenion, and the conviction that they must have had some share in the conduct of affairs in Naukratis; see pp. 32–3 on this

4

As done by Gwynn and Graham (above, note 3 to p. 29). Graham’s terminology is loose as he calls Spina and Adria first ‘trading stations’, then a little further ‘trading cities’ (loc. cit.).

NOTES TO PAGES

3 0 -3 1

67

5

Roebuck rightly argues against too narrow a translation of προστάται τοῦ ἐμπορίου (CP XLVI (1951), 215 f.).

6

Who these were we are not told, and in general we do not know how any later comers to Naukratis were admitted to the current organisation. This is what Roebuck does when he seems to think that all the traders are resident in

For other examples of ‘magistrates of the ἐμπόριον’ see L. Robert, Rev.

7

Arch. 1933, 139.

Naukratis, in contradiction of Herodotus’ words, and when he states that the ‘founders of the Hellenion are the founders of the πόλις of Naukratis’ (CP XLVI (1950), 217); he does not fully admit how far his own view involves a rejection of Herodotus’ testimony. If Roebuck is right, then the Greeks at Naukratis will have become Naukratite citizens, and must have dropped their former citizenship; but then how is one to explain the various ethnics found on dedications and which correspond with the list of traders given by Herodotus? (See note 2 to p. 25 above.)

PAGE 31 1

τιμοῦχοι: the known instances are collected by L. Robert, BCH LII (1928), 167 f. and Hellenica XI–XII (1960), 213. The earliest occurrence is at Teos in the fifth century (Meiggs-Lewis 30, line 30). See now G. Gottlieb, Timuchen (1968), esp. 28–30 on those from Naukratis, but G. is vague on the status of Naukratis and the circumstances of its settlement (forthcoming review of G. by L. Robert in Gnomon (1970)). Apollo Komaios:

2

L. Robert, REG XLVII (1934), 26–30, and Ἐπιστημονικὴ ἐπετηρὶς τῆς Φιλοσοφικῆς Σχολῆς τοῦ Πανεπιστημίου Ἀθηνῶν 1962–3, 525–7. Scarab factory: von Bissing, Bull. Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 41, 65 f. Metal work:

Naukratis I, 39 (iron tools and iron slag), but the inference that Naukratis was a great centre of metallurgy in op. cit. 50. Statuary: F. N. Pryce, BMC Sculpture I, 1 (1928), 181–200 (some statuettes locally manufactured to judge from the material). Gjerstad, SCE IV, 2, 318– the Greek world is fantastic; see von Bissing,

22, also thinks a number of the Cypriot figurines could have been made on the spot. Literary evidence: Mallet,

Premiers établissements,

233–9. Naukratis stele: mentions a ‘tithe…on all the things which are

produced in Naukratis’ (section 10; see above, note 1 to p. 29). Locally made pottery: see above, note 4 to p. 25. 3

Since the custom of dedicating vases was at Naukratis chiefly a fashion of the Archaic Age

(BSA V (1898–9), 57), little help can be expected from this quarter. I admit the Rhodian inscriptions are a difficult case, since in the first of these Damoxenos is said to be settled in Egypt (Naukratis is meant), though he is clearly not a citizen, and in the second the reference to the Aeginetan implies that he was living on the spot. It is in fact impossible to know how rigid the distinction between residents and traders drawn by Herodotus remained in later times. In a speech of Demosthenes (XXIV, II) there is an allusion to a Naukratite ship, and this implies that by this time at least Naukratites engaged in overseas trade. The statement in the text on the continuity of the institutions of Naukratis into Hellenistic times is only a guess. For the other two inscriptions see above, note 2 to p. 25.

4 The first to stress the distinction between residents and non-residents was Prinz, Funde aus Naukratis, 4–6, though see above, note 3 to p. 30, for criticisms of some of his views. He was followed by K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antiken Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres (1923), 37–9, 298, who emphasised the significance of the right the traders had to appoint their own officials to supervise the market, since normally in classical and later times a city would appoint its own citizens to supervise the foreigners— here at least Herodotus has reason to talk of the ‘privileges’ of Naukratis. Lehmann-Hartleben further quotes an interesting parallel for the distinction between residents who are citizens and traders who merely frequent a

Staat und Handel, 62–8, and Griechische Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 282 f., insisted strongly on the exclusion of the traders from

place in the double status of the Venetians at Constantinople. Hasebroek, the πόλις, in conformity with his thesis that

NOTES TO PAGES 31—33

68

trade in Greek cities was normally left in the hands of foreigners. But trade at Naukratis would include both the supplying of the resident Greeks with such Greek products as they needed (see pp. 36–7), and the export trade to the Greek world, of which Hasebroek says nothing, as he is looking at Naukratis from the wrong end —Greek exports to Egypt instead of Egyptian exports to Greece. Hence his polemic against the view of Naukratis current at the time as a great ‘commercial and industrial centre’ is partly misguided, as when he asserts that Naukratis was originally a military foundation (Staat

und Handel,

63–5,

Griechische

Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 112). PAGE 32 1

So Roebuck, CP XLVI (1951), 215 f., 217 f., partly followed by Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 148; but R. insists that these traders must also have been residents and Naukratite citizens—on which see p. 30.

2

For Prinz’s view see above, note 3 to p. 30; for Roebuck’s view see CP XLV 1950), 238 f., 241, and CP XLVI (1951), 217 f. Von Bissing, Bull. important role at Naukratis.

Alexandrie XXXIX (1951), 45, also denied that Samos played an

PAGE 33 1

Roebuck starts from the distinction of earlier separate sanctuaries and the later collective Hellenion, but insists that the founders of the Hellenion must have been those most interested in the trade (CP XLVI (1951), 217 f.). He points out that the cults of Aphrodite, the Dioscouroi and Zeus are duplicated in the Hellenion, and thus the founders of these sanctuaries could have obtained a place in the reorganised community. But this still does not account for the Samians and Milesians.

2

Kom Frin: Fasti Archeologici V (1950), no. 61, where the pottery is said to be as early as the earliest from Naukratis, but no details are given about the importance of the finds nor about how Kom Frin stands in relation

JHS LVII (1937), 236. BSA XLVII (1952), 126 and Clairmont 82 ter. Benha:

to Naukratis. Sais: late Rhodian, early first quarter of the sixth century, R. M. Cook, Bubastis: two Clazomenian fragments, R. M. Cook,

Clazomenian amphora, Clairmont 77. Delta: Fikellura amphora, Clairmont 67. Rhakoti: two Corinthian vases, Clairmont 9 and 30, the first of these of doubtful provenience. A. von Premerstein saw a reference to a settlement of Greeks at Rhakoti on the site of the later Alexandria

Bibl. Univ. Giss. V, col. II, lines 16–21), but his restoration of the passage is highly dubious. For a better text see H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (1954)? 13. The one definite reference in the papyrus is the twofold allusion (lines 17, 23) in the early sixth century in a papyrus of the Roman period (P.

to ‘630 years’, which could conceivably refer to the alleged foundation date of Alexandria, calculated back from the present; the dramatic date of the papyrus being the end of the reign of Tiberius and the beginning of the reign of Gaius, this would point to the early sixth century (cf. Musurillo, p. 107). It is misleading to quote Strabo 792 in this connexion, for Strabo does not refer to a settlement of Greeks at Rhakoti, but to the settlement of a garrison to keep the Greeks out, and his evidence applies more naturally to the late eighth and early seventh centuries (see p. 12). 3

Heliopolis: Late Corinthian, Rhodian and Fikellura fragments, Clairmont 34, 55 and 74 respectively. Fayum: Rhodian fragment, R. M. Cook, CVA Brit. Mus. VIII (1954), 60 n. 7. Thebes: two Corinthian vases, Clairmont 29 and 35 (cf. on the latter Boardman, JHS LXXVII (1957), 357); two Rhodian vases, Clairmont 38 and R. M. Cook, loc.

cit.—the latter dates from the last quarter of the seventh century. Also from Thebes a number of Greek amphoras, some having Greek marks scratched on them: W. M. F. Petrie, Qurneh (1909), 16 and pls. LIV–LV, nos. 849–57. Luxor: Corinthian aryballos, Clairmont 18 (last quarter of the seventh century); amphoras of Fikellura and Clazomenian style, Clairmont 68, 76 and 80 respectively. Karnak: two Clazomenian amphoras, Clairmont 78

NOTES TO PAGES and 81 (on the latter see J. Boardman,

33—35

69

JHS LXXVIII (1958), 4–12). Edfu: Rhodian fragment, end of seventh century, Greeks Overseas, pl. 2a. From Egypt generally: Corinthian

Clairmont 49. Sanam: Rhodian faience flask, Boardman,

aryballos, Clairmont 31; Rhodian vases, Clairmont 41, 43, 48, 52, 54; Fikellura amphora, Clairmont 66; Clazomenian fragment, Clairmont 82 bis. See too in general R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 237. Clairmont lists more vases as ‘probably from Egypt’, but see the warning of Boardman, JHS LXXVIII (1958), 4 n. I.

4 Despite R. M. Cook, JHS LVII (1937), 230, 233, 237. 5 Scarcity of early Attic RF: Hogarth, JHS XXV (1905), 109; Lorimer, ibid. 120, qualifying the sweeping statements of Petrie and Gardner (Naukratis 1, 8, and Naukratis II, 14, 36, 49, 5 5). For one illustration of the general scarcity of early Attic RF at a particular site, see G. Vallet and F. Villard, Mégara

Hyblaea

II (1964), 115–19. There was only one (fragmentary) RF vase from the tumulus of Marathon of 490 B.C. (B. Stais, AM XVIII (1893), 56 f., 63 and pl. v, 2).

loc. cit. See too Rhys Carpenter, AJP LVI Bull. Alexandrie xxxix (1951), 69 (Aphrodite and Apollo), 65 f. (the

Destruction of buildings at Naukratis: Petrie, Gardner, (1935), 296 f., and von Bissing,

scarab factory; to explain the absence of scarabs of Amasis and Psammetichus III, B. is driven to the desperate assumption that they may have been systematically destroyed by the Persians!).

PAGE 34 1

So, rightly, Mallet, Premiers

établissements, 435.

2

Interruption in the archaeological record at Al Mina in the sixth century: doubted by Woolley, JHS LVIII (1938), 20 f., but see Robertson,

JHS

LX

(1940), 16–18, 21 (Robertson later changed his mind on the

evidence of one Fikellura sherd from Al Mina l

(JHS

LXVI

(1946), 125; there is another in Oxford

JHS LXXVII (1957), 357]), but this evidence is insufficient); Smith, Ant. Journ. XXII (1942), Iraq XXI (1959), 87 (gap in local pottery). For the early Attic pottery from Al Mina see Beazley, JHS LIX (1939), 1–4. [Boardman,

105–7 (for the connexion with Babylonian domination); Taylor,

PAGE 35 1

Premiers Funde aus

The literary evidence for trade between Greece and Egypt is collected by Mallet,

établissements, 267–364. In earlier works on the subject (so Mallet, Naukratis, 109–12), the tendency was to put all the different imports from

also Prinz,

Egypt on the same level of

importance; sometimes, too, the Greek interest in Egypt was hardly defined at all (so Hasebroek, Staat

und Handel, 62–8), and one was left wondering what could have attracted the East Greeks in such large numbers to that country. Subsequently the stress was put (probably rightly) on the import of com above other commodities: see J. G. Milne, JEA XXV (1939), 177–83 (dogmatic); C. Roebuck, CP XLV (1950), 236–47;

The Alexandrians, 1–30 (not always sufficiently informed or critical). However, H. Michell, The Economics of Ancient Greece (2nd ed. 1956), 263, dogmatically denies that the establishment el Abbadi,

of Naukratis was connected with the corn trade. On the resources of Egypt a valuable source-book is A. Lucas,

Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries (3rd ed. 1948). 2

For other passages describing the fertility of Egypt or alluding to the corn trade, see for example Aeschylus fr. 300 Nauck2; Hdt. II, 14; Plut.

Pericles XXXVII, 3; Philochorus, FGrHist, 328 F 119; Schol. Ar. Vesp.

718 and Plutus 178; Diodorus I, 29. There is evidence from the late fifth century onwards that Cyprus also provided corn (at least to Athens); see Andocides II, 20, and several fourth-century Attic decrees referring to the import of corn to Athens from Cyprus or by Cypriots, IG II2 283, 360 [= Syll.3 304] and 407. See too Hesychius s.v. ‘Pοίκου Kριθοπομπία. The earliest possible hint of a corn trade with Cyprus I have found is Aeschylus, Supp. 554 f., τὰν Ἀφροδίτας πολύπυρον αῖαν,

70

N O T E S TO P A G E S 3 5 - 3 6 and the question whether Cyprus already played this role in the Archaic Age must be left open.

3

Import of grain is attested at Teos in the first half of the fifth century (Meiggs-Lewis 30, lines 6–12), at Lesbos in the early years of the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. III, 2, and there is a fourth-century treaty on corn imports with the Bosporan rulers [Tod 163]), at Clazomenae in the early fourth century (Tod 114, line 18 [387/6], see too later Ps. Aristotle, Oeconomica II, 1348 b). Herodotus relates (I, 17–22) how at the time of Alyattes’ attacks (late seventh century), Miletus ‘controlled the sea’ and was able to hold out against the Lydians who ravaged its fields; but there is no reference to imports of food from abroad here, though Roebuck assumes this,

Ionian Trade and Colonization (1959), 128–30, 132 f.; in CP XLV (1950), 245 n. 36, he was more cautious. 4

Roebuck, CP XLVIII (1953), 12–14; Ionian Trade, 128–30, 132 f.

5

Note R. M. Cook’s remark (JHS LXVI (1946), 79) that the Ionian settlements in the Black Sea and the Levant were complementary to the founding cities and not meant to be independent communities as the early colonies in the west. It is of course difficult to say exactly when the mainland began to depend on foreign corn; Aegina traded at Naukratis, but was the only mainland state to do so, and her importance there is difficult to judge (see p. 26). Dunbabin,

Western Greeks, 214, assumed a trade in corn with the west already in the seventh

century, but there is no direct evidence for this. Roebuck at first thought that the Ionians and the mainland Greeks developed simultaneously according to a similar pattern, but later he stressed—perhaps rightly—the initiative of the Ionians (more correctly, the East Greeks generally) in this field (see previous note). Heichelheim, art. Sitos, RE Supp. VI (1935), col. 828, admitted some local corn trade in Archaic Greece, but did not think that large-scale foreign imports started before the fifth century when Athens took the lead (cols. 834–6). Slight as is the evidence, this is unlikely. Athens, here as elsewhere, merely pursued on a larger scale a pattern set by other Greeks well before this time. K. Koester,

Die Lebensmittelversorgung der

altgriechischen Polis (Diss. Bonn 1939), 17–21, assumes as a matter of course that the import of grain started in many places soon after the beginning of colonisation, and thus avoids the problem altogether. For the Archaic Age he ignores East Greece and the activity at Naukratis and concentrates on Athens. 6

Milne, (see above note 1) dogmatically denies this, but ignores evidence to the contrary; against him see Roebuck, CP XLV (1950), 243 n. 6, and el Abbadi, The Alexandrians, 24.

PAGE 36

Reputation of Egypt for weaving: see for example Soph.

OC 349 f., Schol. Ar. Thesm. 935 (the Egyptians

described as λινοποιοί), Pliny NH XIX, 2, 14. Garments: Ion quoted in Athenaeus X, 451 e (a λινουλκὸς χλαῖνα from Egypt); Pollux VII, 71–3 generally, and on the ‘kalasiris’ in particular see also Hdt. II, 81; Schol. Ar. Aves 1294; Hesychius, Photius and Suidas s.v. καλάσιρις. Sails: Hermippusfr. 63 Kock (1, 243) ἐκ δ᾿ Aἰγύπτου τὰ κρεμαστὰ | ἱστία; Ar. Thesm.935 with the scholiast. Import of linen from Egypt to Greece in general: Hdt. II, 105 (see too III, 47).

2

Papyrus in Egypt: see e.g. Aesch. PV 811 f.; Hdt. II, 92 especially, also 37 and 96. Papyrus an import from Egypt: Hermippus fr. 63 Kock (I, 243) δ’ Aἰγύπτου τὰ κρεμαστὰ | ἱστία καὶ βίβλους. Papyrus the normal writing material: Hdt. V, 58. Availability: in addition to the passage in the Odyssey mentioned in the text, see Aesch. Supp. 761, 947; rolls of papyrus mentioned in IG I2 374, lines 379–81. See in general F. G. Kenyon,

Books and Readers in Greece and Rome (2nd ed. 1951), 18–25; E. G. Turner, Athenian Books in the Vth and IVth Centuries B.C. (1952); Jeffery, Local Scripts, 56 f.; H. R. Immerwahr, ‘Book Rolls on Attic Vases’, Classical, Medieval and Renaissance Studies presented to B. L. Ullmann, I (1964), 17–48 (earliest representations at the beginning of

NOTES TO PAGES 36-37

7i

the fifth century); see too the discussion of writing materials in Entretiens 79. Phoenician intermediary: see e.g. Lorimer, Homer Hemmerdinger, Archiv

Hardt X (1964), 163–5, 168– and the Monuments, 526–7 n. 2; B.

fur Papyrusforschung XVII (1962), 186 f. But see on the origin of the word sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques engrec (1967),

βύβλος E. Masson, Recherches

101–7, who questions the derivation from Byblos though not a Phoenician intermediary in supplying the Greeks with the material. The Phoenicians and Egyptians provided papyrus and linen for Xerxes’ bridge over the Hellespont (Hdt. VII, 24). Papyrus a royal monopoly: G. Glotz, Annales

d’hist. écon.soc. I (1929),

3–12, esp. p. 8. For perfumes and incenses Egypt was in antiquity one of the sources, but though Homer has already heard of the φάρμακα of Egypt (Od. IV, 229 f.), there is no definite allusion to a trade in these before the late fourth century; see Lucas, Ancient

Egyptian Materials, 105–19. el Abbadi, The Alexandrians, 9 f.,

incautiously mentioned these as an article of trade already in the Archaic Age; whether any transit trade from Arabia also passed through Naukratis is doubtful. Nor is there any evidence for a slave trade with Egypt, by contrast with Syria.

PAGE 37 1

Wine in Egypt: Lucas, op.

cit. 23–33. Olive oil: idem, 386–9. Lucas collects as well the classical sources for

Naukratis I, 21, 23, 42 (amphora handles) and see pls. XVI–XVII for some illustrations. A few plain amphoras, some of them Greek, mentioned and illustrated in JHS XXV (1905), 123–6. Chiot amphoras at Naukratis: Tanis II, 64. Amphoras at Tell Defenneh: Tanis II, 64, 66 both. Amphoras at Naukratis: briefly alluded to in

f. and pls. XXXIII–XXXVI for illustrations, though the distinction between Greek and non-Greek is often difficult, nor is the chronology assured. For some Greek amphoras from Thebes see above, note 3 to p. 33. Olive oil and especially wine have, of course, always been basic products of East Greece, especially the large islands: see for example

RE XVII (1937), col. 2002, for olive oil, and J. André’s notes on Pliny NH

XIV,

9–10, in the Budé

edition, for wine. 2

Wine and oil exclusively for Greeks: so Milne (above, note 1 to p. 35), but see Roebuck, CP XLV (1950), 243 n. 6 and el Abbadi,

The Alexandrians, 19 f. (though he denies that Egypt imported oil from Greece).

Pottery: in earlier works pottery was assumed to be a major Greek export to Egypt, and the ‘industrial and commercial’ importance of the Greek cities which were held to have produced it was assessed accordingly; so

Funde aus Naukratis, 109–12, 120–2. Against see Hasebroek, Staat und Handel, 64; Milne, JEA XXV (1939), 178; Roebuck, CP XLV (1950), 236. Iron and copper ore at Naukratis: Naukratis I, 39. At Tell Defenneh: see above, note 2 to p. 20. Copper and iron mines are found in Egypt (Lucas, op. cit. 228–56 and 268–75), but the origin of the iron ore from the two Greek sites is uncertain, for example Prinz,

unless one assumes (without any direct evidence) that Greeks opened up iron mines in Egypt (so e.g. R. Moss,

JEA XXXVI (1950), 112 f.). That the iron was brought by Cypriots (Roebuck, Ionian Trade, 102 f.) is unverifiable. Hdt. II, 154 refers to ship hauls at Stratopeda, the remains of which were still visible in his time; this could indicate contacts by sea with the outside world. 3

Herodotus’ story is confirmed by the existence of a place called Ostrakine on the n o r t h eastern frontier of Egypt (H. Kees,

RE XVIII (1942), cols. 1673 f.). Wine and oil from Syria: see for

example Breasted, Anc. Rec. II, paras. 461, 462, 491, 509, 510, 518, 519 (all XVIIIth Dynasty, usually as tribute). The Naukratis stele (see above, note 1 to p. 29) mentions ‘timber and worked wood’ as being brought by Greeks to Egypt in the fourth century (sections 9 f.); this is unlikely to have come from Greece. Lebanon is a possibility (Roebuck, CP XLV (1950), 243 n. 6), and so are Cilicia (cf. L. Robert, Etudes (1937), 506) and Cyprus (RE XII (1924), cols. 70–2).

Anatoliennes

NOTES TO PAGES 38-39

72 PAGE 38

1

The relevant hoards are: from Egypt, early: S. P. Noe,

A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards (2nd

ed. 1937), nos. 143 (c. 485; Noe’s description is incomplete and reference should be made to the publications he quotes), 299 (undated but perhaps not later than the early fifth century), 323 (late sixth to early fifth century), 722 (late sixth century), 888 (late sixth or early fifth century?), 1178 (a little later than no. 323). From Egypt, later (I include only those with earlier coins): 362 (second half of fifth century, see D. Schlumberger,

L’argent gree dans l’empire achéménide (1953), 10), 729 (Naukratis, same time), 730 (Naukratis, fifth century), and one of the fifth century (Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin, Jan. 1960, 9 f. and pl. 3).

From Egypt, undated: 361, 411 (both could be early), 850. From elsewhere in the Levant (proceeding eastwards): one c, 480 from S. Anatolia (E. S. G. Robinson,

NC 1961, 107–17), one from Ras Shamra, late

sixth century (C. F. A. Schaeffer, Melanges R. Dussaud I (1939), 461–87; R. R. Holloway, AJA LXXI (1967), 321, down-dates it slightly), Noe2 55 (Antioch, undated but perhaps early), 605 (Latakia, perhaps early), one unpublished from Lebanon, c. 430 (mentioned by Kraay,

JHS LXXXIV (1964), 78 and n. 15), one

unpublished, from between Jordan and Syria, c. 455 (Kraay, Greek Coins and History (1969), 46–8), Noe2 1109 (Mesopotamia, undated but perhaps late), another from Mesopotamia, early fourth century (E. S. G. Robinson, Iraq XII (1950), 44–51), one from Persepolis, 516–515 (E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis II (1957)? 113 f.), one from Malayer (Iran), first half of fourth century (Schlumberger, Kabul (Afghanistan), same time (Schlumberger, op. 2

L’argent grec, 50–5) and one from

cit. 31–45).

Hoards with scrap silver: Egypt: Noe2 143, 323, 722 (75 kg. of silver ingots), 888, 1178, 729, 730. Elsewhere in the Levant: those from Ras Shamra, from between Jordan and Syria, from Mesopotamia (1) and Kabul (see previous note). Hoards of scrap silver only, from Egypt: Noe2 141 (50 kg.), 571 (Memphis), 956, 1083 (Tell Defenneh). From Syria (Sendschirli): 958. From Mesopotamia (Assur): 91. Such hoards are obviously hard to date closely. For instances of hoards with gashed coins see e.g. Noe2 323, 888, 1178, those from S. Anatolia and Ras Shamra (see previous note). Athenian coins achieved early a reputation for purity and were often left intact when other coins were tested (e.g. Noe2 730, the S. Anatolia hoard), but they are also found gashed (e.g. Noe2 673, fourth century according to Schlumberger, while being melted down: see e.g.

3

Noe2

L’argent grec, 10, from Memphis). Hoards buried

729 and especially the Ras Shamra hoard, a clear example.

Thus Dressel and Regling, ZfN XXXVII (1927), 3–27, esp. 22–7. See now in general Schlumberger, L’argent

grec, and the remarks of Kraay, JHS LXXXIV (1964), 84. Other studies will be mentioned subsequently. PAGE 39 1

The ‘corn and coin’ theory: so Milne (above, note 1 to p. 35), also Hesperia XIV (1945), 232–5, 241 f., and

C. H. V. Sutherland, NC 1942, 1–18; idem, AJP LXIV (1943), 129–47. Even Roebuck (above, note 1 to p. 35) was too much influenced by this theory. Doubts already in Will, Annales IX (1954), 22, and see especially the critique of M. I. Finley, Second

International Conference of Economic History, Aixen-Provence 1962 (1965), I, 18–28, to whom I owe much in this section.

2

This is well emphasised by J. M. F. May, The Coins of Abdera (1966), 3 f. The use of metals in an amorphous form for payments or as currency can be paralleled in many different places; see K. Regling, Ebert’s Reallexicon der Vorgeschichte IV (1926), 225–30. On Phoenicia and Palestine specifically see M. Balmuth,

Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem

1963

(1967), 25–32. I have not seen J. W. Curtis, ‘Media of Exchange in Ancient Egypt’, The Numismatist 1961, 482–91. Hoards with scrap silver are most frequent in the Levant, but are also found elsewhere; see Noe2 43

NOTES TO PAGE 39

73

(Amathus, sub-Mycenaean), 231 (Chalcis), 237 (Tauric Chersonese), 584 (Croatia), 700 and 826 (Spain), 989 (Smyrna, Hellenistic), 1052 (Taranto, archaic). 3

As by Milne, JEA XXV (1939), 180; most strongly by el Abbadi, The

4

For this reason some are inclined to doubt whether silver was at all conveyed to the Levant and Egypt by the Greeks in the Archaic Age; so W. L. Brown, NC 1950, 201 n. 31, and E. Will, Annales IX (1954), 22. If the Greeks brought silver in lump form before they brought it as coin, it has necessarily left no trace, and the problem becomes insoluble.

5

Merely a few Lydian gold pieces from Egypt (Noe2 365) and Persepolis (above, note 1 to p. 38).

6

For recent attempts to answer this question see E. Will, Rev. Hist, CCXII (1954), 209–31; idem, Rev. Num. XVII (1955), 5–23; R. M. Cook, Historia VII (1958), 257–62; C. M. Kraay, JHS LXXXIV (1964), 76–91 (cf. P. Vidal-Naquet, Annales XXIII (1968), 206–8).

7 8 9

Alexandrians, 21–3.

So Cook, Historia VII (1958), 259 f. and Kraay, JHS LXXXIV (1964), 88 f. See Kraay, JHS LXXXIV (1964), 82 f., 90 f., and his remarks in NC 1956, 61–4. For the wide popularity and deliberate dispersion of the owls Ar. Frogs 721–5, and Xen. Revenues III, 2, are quite explicit. See J. M. F. May, The

Coins of Abdera (1966), 2–6, 9–19 (esp. 16–19). Kraay has pointed out (Greek

Coins and History (1969), 44 f.) that the Ras Shamra hoard contains a high proportion of die-links; the hoard thus represents a single consignment of silver collected in Thrace for export, not an accumulation of silver circulating in the Levant. I can only touch briefly here upon a subsidiary problem, over which agreement has not yet been reached. This is the question whether the Greek coins were used by the Orientals just as metal, or whether they retained a currency aspect in those countries which did not as yet have a coinage of their own. The latter view was asserted by Dressel, ZfN XXII (1900), 256–8; Dressel and Regling, ZfN XXXVII (1927),

12. On the other side see Milne and Sutherland (above, note 1 to p. 35, and note 1 above);

Schaeffer, Melanges

Dussaud I (1939), 477 f.; Kraay, JHS LXXXIV (1964), 84. Schlumberger,

L’argent grec, 17 f., 24–6, 30, is not clear—and even contradictory—on this issue, and seems to confuse the two notions of ‘currency’ and ‘coin’. For a particularly schematic view, see W. Schwabacher, Opusc.

Arch, VI (1950), 139–49: S. classifies the hoards into those with only raw silver, those with coins as well and those with only coins, and interprets this as a progression towards the development of a monetary economy, the final stage being the creation by the countries concerned of their own coinages. Yet, as S. admits (142), hoards containing raw silver as well as coins are still found in the fourth century (thus Noe2 144, and those from Mesopotamia (2) and Kabul—above, note 1 to p. 38), and this destroys the whole theory. It is possible that in the course of time Greek coins may have been used occasionally as currency—the imitations of Athenian owls which began in the Levant in the late fifth century might imply this, and so might the fact that archaic coins were still circulating in the fourth century. But this need not mean that this was always the case. And concerning the earlier period, how is one to determine what purpose the coins were meant to serve once their character as coins was more or less destroyed by tests of purity? The two points of view should not be considered mutually exclusive; so Will, Annales IX (1954), 22, and see his remarks on the question of currency in Egypt in REA LXII (1960), 262–4 n. 4. 10 In the Bronze Age silver was already one of the most important commodities brought by Minoans and

Mycenaeans to Egypt; see J. Vercoutter, L’Egypte et le monde égéen, 423 f. Import of silver from Greece to Egypt in the fourth century is attested by the Naukratis stele, section 9 (see above, note 1 to p. 29). There is also mention there of gold, but nothing further is known of this in classical times (though some was brought to Egypt in the Bronze Age; see Vercoutter, op. Lucas, Ancient

Egyptian Materials, 278–85.

11 So already Dressel and Regling, above, note 3 to p. 38.

cit. 424). Silver was particularly scarce in Egypt, see

NOTES TO PAGES

74

4 O -4 I

PAGE 40 Roebuck (above, note 1 to p. 35) is not free from this tendency. For particular instances see O. Rubensohn, Das Delion von Paros (1962), 169; J. P. Barron, The Silver Coins of Samos (1966), 37, 89; J.

1

Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos 1 (1954), 51–4, 56–8, 60 f., BCH LI (1927), 228–32 (the onomastic evidence quoted by S. is too late to prove anything for the Archaic Age; the view is rightly doubted by P. M. Fraser, AJA LXI (1957), 99); also on Thasos H. W. Pleket, Historia XII (1963), 70 f., 73; F. Salviat, BCH LXXXVI (1962), 108 f. and BCH XCI (1967), 98–101. For a detailed critique of this assumption see M. I. Finley, Aix-en-Provence 1962, 19–21, 25 f. Pouilloux,

following H. Seyrig,

2

Against the far-flung views on Aegina of Milne and Sutherland (above, notes 1 to p. 35 and 1 to p. 39), see Finley, loc. cit. in previous note, and Kraay, JHS LXXXIV (1964), 78 f. and generally 91. H. Winterscheidt,

Aigina (1939), 56 f. had already doubted whether all Aeginetan coins found abroad must have been brought by Aeginetans. 3

For a summary see Roebuck, Ionian Trade, 106–9 (less schematic than CP XLV (1950), 238–41); add the possible evidence for Colophon’s activity at the mouth of the Strymon (Suidas s.v. χρυσὸς Kολοφώνιος) and recent archaeological discoveries in Thrace: D. Lazaridis, VIIIe Congrès d’Archéologie (1965), 295– 7 (Neapolis–Kavalla), F. Salviat,

ibid. 299–303 (early Greek colonisation in Thrace and at Thasos); finds of Rep. 1966–7, 16.

Chian amphoras from Nea Peramos (Macedonia) mentioned in Arch. 4

M. Cary,

Melanges Glotz 1 (1932), 133–42, is brief. A particular example of the assumptions that are

often made in this field concerns Aegina. It is frequently asserted that Aegina obtained her silver from Siphnos; this may be so, but it needs to be supported by better evidence than the passage in Herodotus (III, 57– 9) which is the only proof adduced. H. relates there how Samian exiles made a raid on Siphnos, which is described as having gold and silver mines; they then settled at Kydonia in Crete until they were expelled by the Aeginetans. The story has been unaccountably rationalised into implying rivalry between Samos and Aegina over control of the Siphnian mines: there is not a word of this in Herodotus

PAGE 41 1

Diod. I, 67, 8 mentions alliances concluded by Psammetichus I ‘with Athens and other Greek states’. These were unknown to Herodotus, and the value of Diodorus as a source is dubious (see above, note 4 to p. 19).

2

Samos: Hdt. II, 182 and III, 39–45. F. Bilabel, ‘Polykrates von Samos und Amasis von Aegypten’, Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher 1934, 129–59, is speculative and generally more concerned with the separate careers of each than with their relations. Sparta: Hdt. III, 47. Delphi: Hdt. II, 180. Lindos: Hdt. II, 182 and III, 47; Lindos Temple Chronicle (FGrHist, 532), para. 29; Pliny, NH XIX, 2; Aelian, On Animals IX, 17. Cyrene: Hdt. II, 181–2 and for earlier relations under Apries see II, 161 and IV, 159. The interference by Amasis in dynastic troubles in Cyrene mentioned by Plut. Mor. 260 D-261 D is doubtful; see Chamoux, Cyrène, 138, 142 f. Mazzarino,

Fra Oriente,

149–57, conjectured on the basis of a fragmentary cuneiform

Kienitz, Politische Geschichte Ägyptens, 30. But the theory is not adequately based; see Chamoux, loc. cit. According to Schol. Ar. Plutus 178 the Athenians made an alliance with Amasis against the Persians, in document that Greeks from Cyrene assisted Amasis against a Babylonian attack in 568–7; see too

return for supplies of com sent to them from Egypt. It is impossible to take this seriously (though Salmon,

Politique égyptienne d’Athènes, 52 f., 56 f., does)—the story was unknown to Herodotus, and arose in fourth-century Athens when it became a fashion to connect Athens systematically with Egypt; see Jacoby on Phanodemus, FGrHist, 325 F 25.

3

Sparta anti-Persian: see for example Busolt, Griech.

Gesck. II2, 511 f.; A. Andrewes,

NOTES TO PAGES 4I-44

75

Greek Tyrants (1956), ch. X; N. G. L. Hammond, History of Greece (2nd ed. 1967), 194. For an extreme example of this assumption see B. Segall, AJA LIX (1955), 315–18, where some Peloponnesian (and possibly Laconian) bronze statuettes of warriors of the sixth century found in Samos and in S. Arabia (J. D.

BSA XL (1939–40), 83 f.) are assumed to have been put in circulation by Sparta as tokens of her RE XXI (1952), cols. 1729–31; Andrewes, loc. cit.; J. P. Barron, The Silver Coins of Samos (1966), 33, 35. Polycrates Beazley,

military strength and her anti-Persian leanings (!). Polycrates anti-Persian: Lenschau,

having become ‘pro-Persian’ at the crucial moment, this is held to explain the Spartan attack on Samos. For proper scepticism on all these views see e.g. Will, Korinthiaka, 634 f. 4

As argued e.g. by F. Jacoby, RE

Supp. II (1913), col. 383; L. Moretti, Riv. Fil. n.s. XXVI (1948), 213–22.

PAGE 43 1

The evidence for these statements is too lengthy to set out here, though on the date of the settlements at Al Mina and elsewhere see now J. N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (1968), 310–16, 345 f., 348.

PAGE 44 1

See E. Will, ‘Chabrias et les finances de Tachos’, REA LXII (1960), 254–75.