[Illustration: Fig. 11. Psamtek I.]
The sixth century tyrants of Athens and Samos may be regarded with some
probability as rulers who had come to their power by means of their
wealth. Before proceeding to deal with the earlier Greek tyrants, as to
whose antecedents the evidence is necessarily much more meagre and
indecisive, it will be found convenient to turn our attention for a
while to Egypt and Lydia. In both these states we shall find evidence,
some of it very positive, that from the end of the eighth century
onwards the kings were gaining and maintaining their power by means of
their wealth. With both these states the Greeks of the seventh century
were in close touch; from both they learned and borrowed much, since
Egypt and the East had still much to teach them. The history therefore
both of Egypt and Lydia is closely relevant at this period to that of
the Greek world that they adjoined. It gives a context to the
disconnected fragments of evidence that will have to be dealt with in
some of the succeeding chapters, and makes it possible to fit them
together into something resembling a significant whole.
[Sidenote: Commercial and industrial developments in seventh century
Egypt.]
Like Greece, Egypt had been through a dark period during the first three
centuries of the first millennium B.C. After about two centuries of
Libyan rulers (XXIInd and XXIIIrd dynasties) whose energies were often
devoted to dealing with rival kings while subject princes spent the
resources of the country in feuds among themselves, Egypt had fallen
during the eighth century under an Ethiopian dynasty which she changed
occasionally for Assyrian rule. But early in the seventh century, Egypt
recovered its material prosperity. By the middle of the next century it
is said to have been more prosperous than ever it was before[447], and
this prosperity is reflected in the law of Amasis (570–526 B.C.) against
unemployment[448] as also in the organization of industry into “more or
less sharply defined classes or guilds[449],” in improved business
methods and mechanical processes. The forms of legal and business
documents became more precise[450]; the mechanical arts of casting in
bronze on a core and of moulding figures and pottery were brought to the
highest pitch of excellence[451]. Inscriptions of this epoch found in
the gold-mining regions prove that the work of the ancient kings was
taken up with renewed ardour[452]. The ports of Egypt were thrown open
to the commerce of all the nations[453]. Strong fleets were maintained
both in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea[454]. An attempt was made
by Pharaoh Necho (610–594 B.C.) to anticipate the Suez Canal by one
connecting the Nile with the Red Sea[455]; and the exploits of Vasco da
Gama were anticipated by a Phoenician ship that was sent out by this
same Pharaoh Necho and circumnavigated Africa[456]. In these activities
of Necho Sayce[457] sees an attempt to make Egypt the chief trading
country of the world.
These great developments took place under a single dynasty, the XXVIth,
which came from Sais on one of the western arms of the Delta[458].
[Sidenote: Psammetichus I (664–610) rose to power] The history of this
dynasty can be traced back at Sais to the eighth century B.C., but the
first of the family to rule all Egypt was Psammetichus (Psamtek), who
reigned from about 664 to 610. Necho the father of this Psammetichus and
grandfather of the Necho mentioned just above had been king or governor
of Sais and Memphis under the Assyrian king Assurbanipal[459].
Psammetichus was driven into war and foreign politics to free his
country from foreign invaders. The details of his warlike achievements
do not here concern us. What does here concern us is to observe how he
secured the power that enabled him to set about them.
Early in his career, Psammetichus, so Herodotus informs us[460], had
been one of twelve kings who had each received a twelfth of the country
to reign over[461]. [Sidenote: according to Herodotus by means of Greek
and Carian mercenaries,] One day some bronze-clad Ionian and Carian
freebooters were driven to Egypt by stress of weather. Psammetichus
“made friends with the Ionians and Carians, and by great promises
persuaded them to join him: and having persuaded them he thereupon, in
conjunction with his supporters in Egypt and the mercenaries, put down
the (other eleven) kings, and became master of all Egypt[462].”
The man who among twelve or more rivals[463] secured the monopoly of
Greek and Carian mercenaries must have been a man of outstanding wealth.
But this is not all our information about him. A fuller account is
preserved in Diodorus[464]:
[Sidenote: according to Diodorus by trading with Phoenicians and
Greeks.]
When the twelve had ruled Egypt for fifteen years it befel that the
kingdom passed into the hands of one of them through the following
causes. Psammetichus of Sais, who was one of the twelve kings, and
ruler of the parts beside the sea, used to provide cargoes (φορτία)
for the merchants, and particularly for Phoenicians and Greeks; by
such means he disposed profitably of the products of his own land
and secured a share of the products of the other nations, and
enjoyed not only great wealth (εὐπορίαν) but also friendship with
nations and princes.
Could it be more plainly stated that Psammetichus owed his throne to his
wealth and his wealth to trade?
[Sidenote: Value of these statements of Herodotus and Diodorus.]
The commercial origin of Psamtek’s power can only be questioned by
questioning the value of our authorities. The rest of this chapter will
be devoted to showing that there is no reason for doing this, while
there is much to confirm the passages just quoted.
Herodotus and Diodorus[465] had both visited Egypt and are among our
best authorities. At first sight indeed they do not seem quite in
agreement. But the story they tell is essentially the same. The
difference is one of emphasis. Herodotus seizes on a single incident and
makes much of the description of the Ionians and Carians as men of
bronze. The point was worth emphasizing; for from the military point of
view the first appearance of the heavy-armed hoplite in Egyptian history
marked an epoch[466]. Diodorus contradicts Herodotus only in stating
that it was not an accident that led Psammetichus to employ these
foreign hoplites[467]. The rest of his narrative only supplements
Herodotus, and the silence of Herodotus is no reason for thinking that
the later historian was not drawing on good and early sources[468]. Even
Herodotus could not incorporate in his history every scrap of knowledge
that he possessed, and for Egypt in the seventh century there may well
have been contemporary documents which were not consulted by Herodotus
but were by Diodorus. Diodorus’ account has in fact been accepted by a
considerable number of modern scholars[469]. [Sidenote: Cp. Strabo on
the Fort of the Milesians] They point out that it agrees with the
statement of Strabo about the Fort of the Milesians[470] that “in the
days of Psammetichus the Milesians sailed with 30 ships and put in at
the Bolbitine mouth, and disembarking built the foundation just
mentioned.”
There is one difficulty in this passage of Strabo. Psammetichus is
described in it as the contemporary of Cyaxares king of the Medes, who
reigned from 624 to 584 B.C., so that the Psammetichus referred to might
be Psammetichus II (594–589). But Psammetichus in Strabo appears
elsewhere always to mean the first and most important king of that name.
Cyaxares too both from his date and his nationality is an odd person for
a Greek writer to quote in order to indicate the date of an Egyptian
king[471]. Hirschfeld is therefore probably right in rejecting this
parenthesis as a learned but unintelligent gloss[472].
The Bolbitine mouth of the Nile is near the great lake and marshes of
Bourlos[473]. Psammetichus I, before he overcame his rivals in Lower
Egypt, is said by Herodotus[474] to have spent a period of exile in the
marshes, and the marshes are shown by the context to have lain near the
sea[475]. Thus quite apart from Diodorus, by simply comparing Herodotus
and Strabo, a case may be made for thinking that the arrival of the
bronze men from Ionia was not the accidental occurrence that Herodotus,
after his way, makes it out to have been, but that it had some close
connexion with the Milesians’ Fort.
[Sidenote: and Assurbanipal on help sent to Psammetichus by Gyges of
Lydia.]
That Psammetichus made it his policy to cultivate “friendship with
nations and princes[476]” in Asia Minor is sufficiently shown by the
famous clay cylinder of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria (about 668–626
B.C.), which states[477] that
Gyges King of Lydia, a district which is across the sea[478], a
remote place, of which the kings my fathers had not heard speak of
its name ... his forces to the aid of Psammetichus[479] of Egypt,
who had thrown off the yoke of my dominion, he sent.
The troops sent by Gyges may well have been none other than the Ionian
mercenaries that made Psammetichus master of all Egypt[480]. The
alliance of Psammetichus with Gyges adds to the probability that the
Egyptian was responsible for the foundation and development of the
Milesian settlement in his country, since we know that Gyges had allowed
the Milesians to establish the Hellespontine Abydos in what was then
Lydian territory[481].
[Sidenote: History of Psammetichus’ predecessors:]
If trade and riches raised Psammetichus to supreme power about the year
664 B.C. their influence was probably making itself felt in Egyptian
politics at least some little while before that date. It will greatly
strengthen the credibility of Diodorus on the early history of
Psammetichus if this can be shown to have been in fact the case.
[Sidenote: (i) Sethon in 701 B.C. based his power on “hucksters and
artizans and trades people.”]
In 701 B.C. Sennacherib made his famous expedition against Palestine and
Egypt, which were saved only by the plague sent upon the Assyrian host
by the Angel of the Lord[482]. According to the Egyptian version
recorded in Herodotus the king of Egypt at this time was Sethon or
Sethos, priest of Hephaestus. When the priest-king prepared to defend
his country against the Assyrian “he was followed by none of the warrior
class, but by hucksters and artizans and trades people[483].” No king of
the name of Sethon is known either to the Egyptian monuments or to the
Greek and Latin lists of the kings of Egypt: his individuality has been
the subject of much controversy. Later in this chapter reasons will be
given for thinking that he was a prince of the same city and probably of
the same house as Psamtek. The point to be emphasized here is the
appearance just at this period of a Pharaoh who rests his power on the
support of the mercantile and industrial classes.
[Sidenote: (ii) King Bocchoris (d. 715 B.C.) and his commercial
legislation.]
Shortly before the days of Sethon another Egyptian king had won great
fame by his recognition of the commercial tendencies of his age. This
was Bocchoris the lawgiver, the solitary representative of the XXIVth
dynasty, who appears for a time to have been recognized as king of Egypt
until in 715 B.C. he was taken and burnt or flayed alive by his
successor Sabacon, the first king of the Ethiopian (XXVth) dynasty[484].
Diodorus says that the laws concerning contracts were attributed to
Bocchoris and that he brought more precision into the matter of
contracts. These statements are illustrated in a remarkable way by
actual business documents that have come down to us from that time[485].
A faience vase (fig. 12) with Egyptian scenes and the name of Bocchoris
has been found in the Etruscan city of Tarquinii (Corneto)[486]. It is
held by Maspero and v. Bissing to be of pure Egyptian workmanship[487].
Before its discovery the only evidence that Bocchoris had dealings with
Europe was a reference in Plutarch[488] which makes Bocchoris the judge
in a case involving a Greek hetaera named Thonis. The Plutarch passage
is doubtful evidence, but the Corneto vase suggests that already in the
reign of Bocchoris the Egyptians and perhaps the king himself already
had dealings with the trading nations of the North. This would fit well
with the fact that Bocchoris was probably the predecessor of a king
whose following consisted of hucksters and artizans and trades people.
Bocchoris himself is said by Diodorus to have been reputed the most
money-loving of men[489].
[Illustration: Fig. 12. Vase with cartouche of Bocchoris found at
Tarquinii.]
[Sidenote: (iii) Tafnekht, father of Bocchoris, resisted the Ethiopians
thanks apparently to his command of the sea.]
Bocchoris’ father Tafnekht[490], the first of the Saite princes (749–721
B.C.), is not known to have had any commercial interests or connexions.
He is best remembered for his struggle against Pianchi, the first
Ethiopian ruler to claim the throne of the Pharaohs. Of this struggle we
have Pianchi’s own version, preserved in the famous Pianchi stele. While
Tafnekht’s partizans were holding Memphis against the Ethiopians we hear
of the employment of artizans and master masons as soldiers[491]. The
force however is stated to have been small, and it is not quite certain
which side it was fighting on. Tafnekht, when the struggle went against
him, retired to “the islands of the sea,” from whence he was able to
negotiate with Pianchi in complete safety. Tafnekht himself described
the situation not without tact in a letter to Pianchi: “To whatsoever
city thou hast turned thy face, thou hast not found thy servant there,
until I reached the islands of the sea, trembling before thy might, and
saying ‘his flame is hostile to me.’” Eventually he submitted to the
Ethiopians, but the submission seems to have been little more than
nominal. Pianchi after receiving it is no more heard of in the Delta,
and Tafnekht, to judge from the position held after him by his son
Bocchoris, must have regained considerable power.
This may have had its base in naval supremacy. In the ancient list of
thalassocrats, or states that successively ruled the waves, preserved to
us by Syncellus, Eusebius and Jerome, the thalassocracy of Egypt falls
at about this period. The only list that gives a precise date is that of
Jerome, who puts it between 783 and 748 B.C. But the lists give the
duration of each thalassocracy as well as absolute dates, and, as
pointed out by J. L. Myres, if, instead of following the dates in years
from Abraham, we calculate from the duration of the various
thalassocracies, working backward from the period of the Persian wars,
then the end of the Egyptian supremacy falls not in 748 but in 725[492].
This dating makes Tafnekht a thalassocrat[493], and explains how he was
able to stand up against Ethiopia and the comparatively little damage
that he sustained in spite of his military failures. In 715 we find
another Ethiopian invading the Delta. The new prince of Sais, Bocchoris,
presumably had no impregnable naval base. He was caught by the Ethiopian
Sabacon and burnt or flayed alive[494]. It is only when Psamtek formed
alliances with the naval power that had replaced Egypt that the Saite
princes fully regained the throne of the Pharaohs. This time their power
had a sounder financial basis. It lasted for nearly a century and a
half, and was then suddenly destroyed at its zenith by irresistible
forces from without. On the reckoning which ends Egyptian naval
supremacy in 725 B.C. the command of the sea when Psamtek was building
up his power was in the hands of the Carians. It is precisely the
Carians, along with the Milesians (who on the same reckoning were
thalassocrats from 725 to 707 B.C.), who are said by all our ancient
authorities to have been the basis of Psamtek’s power[495].
If the king who ruled Egypt in 700 B.C. based his power on the trading
and industrial classes, and a king who reigned twenty years earlier drew
up the first commercial code in Egypt, while under the predecessor of
this latter king Egypt had been supreme at sea, then by 670 B.C.
conditions may well have been favourable for the commercial activities
of Prince Psammetichus as described by Diodorus. [Sidenote: Tafnekht and
probably Bocchoris and Sethon were (not kings of all Egypt but) princes
of Sais, the city of Psammetichus, and belonged possibly to the same
family as Psammetichus.] But still more will this have been so if, as
seems likely, both Sethon and Bocchoris were Saite princes of the same
house as Psammetichus himself. The evidence is weak and inconclusive and
for that reason difficult to summarize shortly. But the conclusions that
it seems to point to are sufficiently important to make the attempt
worth while.
One point seems fairly certain. Sethon was not the name of the conqueror
of the Assyrians. Far more probably it was his title, a graecized form
of the priestly title stm, stne, setmi, or satni[496]. If his actual
name is still doubtful, it is not for lack of suggestions. Sethon has
been identified with (_a_) Khamois son of Ramses II[497], (_b_) Shabaka,
first king of the Ethiopian dynasty[498], (_c_) Shabataka, successor of
Shabaka[499], (_d_) Taharqa, the Biblical Tirhaka[500].
These identifications are all untenable, the first two on account of
their dates, the rest because they make Sethon an Ethiopian. The warrior
class that refused to support Sethon was Ethiopian in sympathy and not
likely to desert an Ethiopian[501]. The Sethon story glorifies the god
Ptah (Hephaestus) of Memphis whereas the Ethiopian dynasty was devoted
to Amon of Thebes[502]. Griffith indeed suggests that Taharqa, who
became king of Ethiopia and Egypt after 700 B.C., may at the time of
Sennacherib’s defeat have represented the reigning king Shabataka in
Lower Egypt, possibly with the title of priest of Ptah at Memphis[503].
But there is no evidence for this having been so, and the picture of
Taharqa as a king with no real soldiers at his back is not easily
explained. On the contrary, as pointed out long ago by Lepsius[504], the
Biblical account[505] appears to differentiate Pharaoh king of Egypt,
whom it calls a broken reed, and Tirhaka king of Ethiopia. Similarly the
Assyrian cylinders distinguish the kings of Egypt from the king of
Miluhhi = Meroe = Ethiopia[506]. The kings of Egypt who are thus
referred to in the plural[507] are plainly the rulers who at the period
divided among themselves the lands of the Delta. The evidence all points
to the conclusion that Sethon was one of these Delta chiefs, and
presumably one of the most important of them, who acknowledged when
forced to the suzerainty of Ethiopia or Assyria as the case might be,
but did his best to keep clear of both great powers.
It is not improbable that Sethon belonged to the same family as
Psammetichus, or at any rate that he was one of his predecessors on the
throne of Sais. As starting-point for identifying him we have two facts.
He was high priest of Ptah and he was alive in 701 B.C. A generation
earlier the title Sem of Ptah was borne by Tafnekht, the chief of Sais
from about 749 to 721 B.C.[508] who led the Delta in its struggle
against the Ethiopian Pianchi[509]. A generation after Sethon the
Assyrian cylinders[510] describe Necho I (672–664 B.C.) the father of
Psammetichus I as king not only of Sais but also of Memphis, the home of
the Sethon tradition. A whole line of Saite rulers may be traced from
Tafnekht onwards to Psammetichus I[511]. All of these kings seem to have
been something more than mere local rulers. The Pianchi stele makes it
plain that Tafnekht aimed at becoming king at least of the whole of
Lower Egypt. Bocchoris, the solitary king of the XXIVth dynasty, has
been discussed already. Stephinates, Nechepsus, and Necho I appear in
Africanus[512] as the first three kings of dynasty XXVI, Psammetichus I
coming fourth on the list. This statement is not discredited by the fact
that other writers[513] begin the dynasty with Psammetichus, while
Eusebius[514] puts Stephinates second, after Ammeris the Ethiopian. The
three versions need not be mutually exclusive. Psammetichus was
unquestionably the first of the Saites to win for his house the
undisputed kingship of all Egypt. Hence the position generally assigned
to him. In another way too he represented a new departure dynastically.
He appears to have had family connexions with Ethiopia, and to have
consistently aimed at an entente with the Ethiopian royal house[515],
who may have originally left him a free hand in the Delta from the
desire to put a buffer state between Ethiopia and Assyria. Ammeris
appears to be a Greek form of (Ta) Nut-Amen, Rud-Amen, or Amen-Rud, as
the last of the Ethiopian kings is variously called[516]. His appearance
at the head of the XXVIth dynasty is a record of its Ethiopian
connexions at this time[517]. Africanus on the other hand, following
Manetho, who was himself an Egyptian, records Psamtek’s ancestry in the
direct line, and regards them, rather than any Ethiopian or Assyrian
conquerors, as the lawful kings of the whole country[518].
We are now in a better position for trying to identify the Sethon of
Herodotus. This Saite dynasty was probably represented at the time of
Sennacherib’s invasion by Stephinates. In Africanus his reign as first
king of the XXVIth dynasty begins later, about 685 B.C. But this leaves
a gap of 30 years with no recorded rulers of Sais and Memphis. Petrie’s
explanation of this hiatus may be right. He thinks that Stephinates was
probably son and successor of Bocchoris, but that after Bocchoris had
been crushed and burnt by the Ethiopians in 715 B.C. the Saite power
remained for some time a very broken reed. It is therefore not unlikely
that the Stephinates of Manetho is the Sethon of Herodotus. No prince of
the name appears on Egyptian monuments, but it has been plausibly
suggested by Petrie[519] that Stephinates is another Tafnekht with
perhaps a sigma carried over by a Greek copyist from some word before
his name. May we not guess what this word was? The first Tafnekht styled
himself Sem of Ptah. The story of Satni Khamois[520] shows that the
title might be prefixed to the personal name. May not the strange form
Stephinates be simply a Greek corruption of Satni Tafnekht or, as the
name is sometimes transcribed, Tefnakhte[521]?
A family connexion between Bocchoris and the later Saites is harder to
establish. In support of it there are these facts: a Samtavi Tafnekht
appears among the officials of Psamtek I; and, as the name Tafnekht was
borne by the father and predecessor of Bocchoris[522], this Samtavi
Tafnekht has been recognized by Petrie[523] as “doubtless a brother or
cousin of the king.” The name Bakenranf itself is borne by another of
Psamtek’s officials[524], who may well be the Bocchoris son of Neochabis
(Nekauba) mentioned by Athenaeus[525], in which case he would have been
an uncle of the reigning king[526]. A direct connexion between the
XXIVth and XXVIth dynasties has indeed been often suspected[527]. They
may stand to one another much as the English Lancastrians to the Tudors,
separated by a period of eclipse and by the alliance with their rivals
that was made in each case at the period of the restoration[528].
[Sidenote: Popular stories of Satni Khamois, which probably reflect the
atmosphere of Sais under Sethon,]
It was probably during this period of eclipse that two popular stories
of an earlier date were revised and received the shape in which they
have come down to us[529], and in which also they very possibly have a
bearing on the history of the Herodotean Sethon. Their hero is Satni
Khamois, son of Ramses II, who protects the king his father not by force
of arms but by learning and magic.
Satni and Sethon both save their country where the military had failed.
“The military chieftains of the chief ones of Egypt were standing before
him (Pharaoh Usimares) each one according to his rank at court” when the
Ethiopian came and threatened to “report the inferiority of Egypt in his
country, the land of the Negroes.” And just as the captains and the
courtiers proved helpless against the Assyrians in the days of Sethon,
so did they against the Ethiopians in the days of Satni. This is the
connecting link. The value of the Satni story for the history of Sethon
is that it probably gives the atmosphere of the Sethon period, and that
being so it helps to show that Sethon was already pursuing in many ways
the Saite policy. Griffith for instance has observed that Satni is not
presented in a very heroic light. But neither did any of the later
Saites adopt the heroic pose. Nothing could be less like the grand
monarque than Psamtek as pictured on a relief in the British Museum
(above fig. 11)[530] or Amasis as pictured in the pages of
Herodotus[531]. [Sidenote: recall in tone those told of Amasis, the last
great Saite pharaoh.] The same picture of Amasis is presented to us by
the popular Egyptian stories. “Is it possible,” his courtiers ask, “that
if it happens to the king to be drunk more than any man in the world, no
man in the world can approach the king for business[532]?”
Amasis, who was virtually the last of the Saites, is said to have been a
man of the people[533]. In the days of Sethon (Satni Tafnekhte), who
perhaps heads the dynasty, a story of the Satni Khamois cycle told how
that royal prince had personally visited the kingdom of the dead to
learn the lesson of Dives and Lazarus[534].
[Sidenote: Conclusions as to the early history of the Saite dynasty.]
This concludes our examination of the history of the early Saites. It
points to a consistent policy carried out with a remarkable combination
of perseverance and versatility by a succession of rulers who may have
been all of a single family and who certainly inherited in unbroken
succession the same aims and the same essential method of attaining
them, which was marked out for them by the place and the age they lived
in. The Saite power grew to be supreme in Egypt while Ethiopians and
Assyrians were contending for the land. From force of circumstances Sais
had to be a military power. But the city owed its victory over its
rivals between 721 and 670 B.C. first and foremost to the fact that it
lay off the main track of war. As always when Egypt is involved in a
great war it is the Eastern frontier that faces the main enemy. Sais was
not always able to remain neutral, but lying right away in the West it
was able at least to preserve and even to develop its commerce. It
seized its opportunity and did so. The commercial code of Bocchoris, the
hucksters and artizans and tradespeople of Sethon, and the cargoes of
Psammetichus mark three great stages in the development, at the end of
which, to quote the words of Maspero, “the valley of the Nile becomes a
vast workshop, where work was carried on with unparalleled
activity[535].”
All these considerations lend a general probability to the narrative of
Diodorus. They do not however specially confirm his statements about
Psamtek’s trading with the Greeks. [Sidenote: Sais and Greece:
foundation of Naukratis:] Greek commerce in Egypt in the days of the
Saites is bound up with the name of Naukratis. “In the days of old,”
says Herodotus[536], “Naukratis was the only emporium in Egypt. There
was none other.” This is an overstatement the origin of which will be
seen when we come to deal with Amasis, the last but one of the Saite
Pharaohs. But it implies that Naukratis eclipsed in importance all the
other Greek trading stations in the country. It concerns us therefore to
enquire what was the position of Naukratis in the days of Psammetichus.
The question has been much disputed, especially since the eighties of
the last century, when the site was excavated by Petrie and Ernest
Gardner, and an account of the city was published by Petrie[537] based
on the literary sources and the results of the dig. As however some of
the excavators’ archaeological conclusions have been challenged in many
quarters, and as too some important archaeological evidence has only
recently come to light, it may be worth while to summarise briefly the
whole body of available material.
[Sidenote: (_a_) literary evidence;]
S. Jerome under the date Olymp. VII 4 (= 749 B.C.) says “the Milesians
held the sea for eighteen years and built in Egypt the city of
Naukratis[538].” This statement agrees with Stephanus Byzantinus[539]
who calls Naukratis “a city of Egypt from the Milesians who were at that
time supreme at sea.” Jerome and Stephanus are in harmony with
Polycharmus[540] who mentions a certain Herostratos as living at
Naukratis and trading there and making long voyages in the XXIIIrd
Olymp. (688 B.C.). But there are other writers who put the foundation
later. Strabo, in the passage already referred to[541], after describing
the foundation of the Milesians’ Fort in the days of Psammetichus,
continues: “and eventually they sailed up to the Saite nome and after
defeating Inaros in a naval engagement they founded the city of
Naukratis.” Lastly we have Herodotus[542] stating that King Amasis
(570–526 B.C.) “gave the city of Naukratis for Greeks who came to Egypt
to dwell in,” an assertion that taken by itself might mean that
Naukratis was founded in or after 570 B.C.[543].
One further witness remains to be cited. Sappho wrote a poem reproaching
her brother Charaxos for his devotion to a Naukratite hetaera named
Doriche, with whom he had fallen in love when bringing Lesbian wine to
Naukratis by way of trade[544]. Among the papyri discovered by Grenfell
and Hunt at Oxyrhynchus is a fragment containing sixteen mutilated
Sapphic lines that almost certainly form part of this very poem[545].
This means that Naukratis had already grown to be a pleasure city in the
days of Sappho. Unfortunately her dates are not absolutely certain. A
recent heresy brought her down to the reign of Amasis, but her floruit
is generally given as the end of the seventh century, and there seem to
be no sufficient reasons for not accepting that date.
Such is the literary evidence. No single item of it is decisive for an
early occupation. Those which are definite can be questioned on point of
fact. Sappho, whose evidence alone cannot be so questioned, may
conceivably have written after 570. Combined however they make it
probable that Naukratis rose to importance before the days of Amasis,
and that Herodotus either confused the foundation of the city with that
of the Hellenium[546] or else did not intend his words “gave the city
for Greeks who came to Egypt to dwell in” to imply that the Milesians
were not there in force before the granting of this concession[547].
Nevertheless, if we were limited to these literary sources, we could not
be certain that where Diodorus seems to supplement his predecessors he
was not merely adding details that they appear to imply. That is in fact
the view of his narrative that some modern scholars apparently
hold[548]. Even if this were so, his additions would still have a
certain value. If Diodorus, writing in the first century B.C., read
between the lines of Herodotus the same unstated implications that have
been read there in recent times, the coincidence points to the
probability that this reading is not altogether wrong[549].
[Sidenote: (_b_) archaeological evidence:]
That is as far as the texts take us. For further light we must look to
archaeology. The new light began by increasing the perplexity. Petrie
and Gardner both claimed that their excavations at Naukratis proved that
it had been an important Greek city from the middle of the seventh
century. But their main arguments were before long shown to be mistaken,
and somewhat naturally it began to be assumed that they must be wrong in
their conclusions.
[Sidenote: (i) excavations of Petrie, who dated Naukratis from the time
of Psammetichus I;]
Petrie[550] based his arguments on the following observations. In the
South part of the town he came across what he described as a scarab
factory. There were numerous scarabs of Psamtek I, some of Psamtek II,
and some that are probably of Apries; but none of Amasis. This seems to
date the factory from well before 610 till after 589. Two feet beneath
the factory was a burnt stratum of plain potsherds which must take us
back a good way further, to at least 650 B.C. and probably earlier. The
scarabs are imitation Egyptian and are taken by Petrie to be Greek.
Further South, but also within the area of the burnt stratum, there is a
large enclosure which he describes as surrounded by a strong brick wall.
This he identified with the Hellenium, where Herodotus states that nine
Greek cities had quarters assigned to them by Amasis. The dimensions of
the bricks point to the early Saite period.
[Sidenote: (ii) further excavations by Hogarth invalidated Petrie’s
arguments;]
But in 1899 and 1903 further work was done at Naukratis by Hogarth which
led him to the following conclusions. Petrie’s Hellenium is wrongly
identified: it is not a walled enclosure: what Petrie took for walls is
simply débris of houses[551]. The real Hellenium is to be found in what
Petrie called the North Temenos[552]. All Petrie’s evidence for a
seventh century Naukratis comes from his scarab factory and his “Great
Temenos,” both in the South part of the town, which is marked off by the
occurrence there of the burnt stratum already referred to, and is shown
by the finds to have been the Egyptian quarter of the town[553]. The
Greeks would naturally have separate quarters and occupy the Northern
seaward end of the town[554]. The scarabs, it is maintained, may well be
of Phoenician make[555].
[Sidenote: (iii) arguments from the vase inscriptions shown to be
indecisive.]
The early arrival of the Greeks in Naukratis has been thought by Ernest
Gardner to be confirmed by the numerous inscriptions, some painted but
most (about 700) incised, on the pottery from the site[556]. His
arguments were criticized by Hirschfeld and Kirchhoff[557] and have
received little support[558]. In some of them the lettering appears very
crude and primitive; but this may be due simply to the fact that they
are scratched by hasty and unskilled hands. They are not more archaic in
appearance than some of the graffiti on vases from Rhitsona (Mykalessos)
in Boeotia, of which the earliest must be dated in the middle of the
sixth century, while others are contemporary with the finely written
signatures of Teisias, who flourished at the end of the sixth
century[559]. Gardner is certainly wrong in thinking that the lettering
of any of his inscriptions proves a seventh century date. But on the
other hand, as well remarked by Edgar[560], all that his critics have
proved is that none of the inscriptions are _necessarily_ so early. It
by no means follows that they are necessarily not. But even supposing
that the Naukratite graffiti are all sixth century, it does not follow
that Greek Naukratis was of no importance till then. Both Gardner and
his critics and likewise Mallet[561] discuss the inscriptions with too
little reference to the particular sherds on which they are inscribed.
Thirty years ago, when the study of archaic Greek pottery was still in
its infancy, this was perhaps inevitable. But in the present state of
our knowledge the style of the potsherds would be a natural
starting-point for dating the graffiti. Unfortunately the information on
this point given by Gardner is inadequate, and the Naukratite finds have
been so dispersed, that the task of collating sherds and graffiti must
now wait for someone who can devote to it his undivided time and
attention[562].
Under these circumstances the best that can be done is to turn to some
more recently excavated site. At Rhitsona the graffiti are nothing like
so numerous as at Naukratis. Still they are numerous enough to justify
certain observations. Some 50 examples have been found[563]. All of them
are on vases of the sixth century. Not one occurs on the numerous vases
of the seventh century also found on the site[564]. Plainly in Boeotia
the fashion of scratching inscriptions on pottery only became
prevalent[565] in the sixth century. By itself therefore the absence of
seventh century Greek graffiti from Naukratis would no more prove the
absence of seventh century Greek worshippers[566] than the corresponding
absence from Rhitsona proves the absence of seventh century graves. At
the other end of the period Edgar has already noticed that “the practice
of dedicating vases in the temples appears to have almost died out at
Naukratis before the middle of the fifth century[567].” Edgar makes this
remark at the end of his discussion of the inscriptions found in 1899.
He is apparently thinking of inscribed dedications. Elsewhere,
discussing the pottery discovered during the same dig, he mentions late
red figure (_i.e._ about 450 B.C. onwards) as plentiful and black glazed
pottery with stamped ornaments inside as particularly common. This
latter ware dates from about the middle of the fifth century, but its
main vogue is later still[568]. Unfortunately not a sherd of this latter
ware from Naukratis has been published, and not a word is said as to its
distribution over the site. It was customarily offered to the dead at
Rhitsona. It may well have been offered to the gods at Naukratis[569].
There is of course no need to assume that the fashion of inscribing
vases came in and went out simultaneously in Naukratis and Mykalessos.
Boeotia was often behind the times, the Ionians of the seventh and sixth
centuries generally ahead of them. But the Boeotian evidence shows how
cautiously the Naukratite graffiti must be used for determining the date
of the first Greek settlement.
[Sidenote: (iv) The absence of proto-Corinthian pottery proves little.]
Nor is there anything against a seventh century date in the absence of
proto-Corinthian pottery[570], which is so prevalent on the mainland in
seventh century Greece. Edgar indeed[571] infers from this absence that
the fabric must have been obsolete by the time the Greeks came to
Naukratis. This argument cannot be maintained. Kinch notices that there
is none of this ware in a chapel that he excavated at Vroulia in Rhodes
and in which he found a good deal of seventh century Greek pottery[572].
Within the proto-Corinthian sphere of influence the style lasted on side
by side with its successors all through the sixth century[573]. This
late proto-Corinthian ware is equally conspicuous by its absence from
Naukratis. To push Edgar’s argument to its logical conclusion we should
have to doubt the existence of Naukratis in the days of Amasis
himself[574]. Of the twelve Greek cities that had quarters in Naukratis
in the days of Amasis only one, Aegina, belonged to European Greece. For
the little known history of this Aeginetan settlement the absence of
proto-Corinthian may be of significance. Beyond that it is not.
So far then all that has been proved is that both Petrie and Gardner
fixed partly on the wrong material for deciding whether Naukratis was a
Greek city of importance in the days of Psammetichus I. And even here on
one important point the criticism of them has been shown to be ill
founded. Edgar doubted the Greek character of the scarab factory: but
not only are the types on some of the scarabs of Greek origin, but a
faience fragment from the site shows fragments of a Greek inscription
placed on it before the glazing of the vase[575], a fact that can hardly
be explained except by assuming a Greek maker.
A great advance was made by Prinz, whose monograph _Funde aus Naukratis_
marked the first adequate treatment of the pottery. The earlier
controversies about the date of Naukratis had made little appeal to the
potsherds that from their mere numbers offer the most valuable evidence
that has been yielded by the site. [Sidenote: (v) Positive evidence for
an early foundation comes from the pottery actually found, viz.:] Edgar
indeed observed in 1905[576] that
it seems very doubtful whether all the fragments from the Naukratite
temples can be as late as 570. There is at least a probability that
some of the temples, especially that of the Milesian Apollo, date
from the earlier [_i.e._ Hogarth’s Egyptian] days of the town.
But apparently the question was still regarded as “primarily a question
of historical criticism[577].” Since Prinz’s monograph appeared the
pottery has taken the first place in the discussion, and it has now
finally confirmed the earlier dating.
[Sidenote: Milesian (?) (fig. 13),]
Much of the pottery belongs to the well-marked style known generally as
Rhodian or Milesian[578] (fig. 13) which had its chief vogue in the
seventh century and the first part of the sixth[579]. The crucial point
however for our immediate enquiry is to know how long the style may have
survived. When Prinz states[580] that it is hard to imagine the style
surviving as a competitor of the developed black figure (_i.e._ sixth
century) style he is treading on dangerous ground. The earlier ware has
a charm of its own. The excavations at Rhitsona show that, in Greece
Proper at any rate, old styles of pottery often lasted long after a new
style had been introduced, and that a white ground ware with no human
figures[581] maintained itself all through the sixth century. Against
any such survival of the fabrics under discussion there is however the
fact that at Berezan in South Russia it does not occur with Attic black
figure of the style that spread all over the Greek world by the middle
of the sixth century[582]. At Naukratis itself it is said not to have
been found in the Hellenium erected very soon after 570 B.C., a fact
which points to its vogue having ended by about that date[583]. On the
other hand fragments, mainly of a later phase, have been found in Samos
in a cemetery that can hardly go back beyond the middle of the sixth
century[584]. The Samian material is however scanty[585] and hardly
demands any modification of the conclusions suggested by the rest of the
evidence.
[Illustration: Fig. 13. Rhodian or (?) Milesian vase found at
Naukratis.]
Though generally known as Rhodian this ware was probably made at
Miletus[586]. It is the dominant ware in archaic Miletus[587] and has
been found all over the Milesian sphere of influence, including the East
coast of the Aegean, Rhodes, Rheneia, the Black Sea, and to some extent
Sicily and Italy (_via_ Sybaris?). It has seldom been found outside it,
scarcely any being recorded from Greece Proper. The occurrence at
Naukratis in large quantities of what is probably seventh century
Milesian pottery is distinctly in favour of a Milesian occupation in the
reign of Psammetichus[588].
[Sidenote: Fikellura (Samian?) (fig. 14),]
Another fabric of the end of the seventh century and beginning of the
sixth that is well represented at Naukratis is the so-called
Fikellura[589]. This ware is similar to the later phases of the
“Milesian” that show full silhouettes, incisions, and a comparative
absence of fill ornament. Its distinguishing mark is the zone of
crescent-shaped ornament that never appears in the “Milesian” style. Its
date is sufficiently established by its occurrence at Daphnae[590],
which had its Greek garrison removed by Amasis almost certainly in
connexion with his concentration of Greeks in Naukratis[591]. This ware
is assigned by Boehlau to Samos[592], but Perrot[593] well observes how
rash it is to draw wide general conclusions from the meagre finds
published in Boehlau’s _Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen_.
[Sidenote: Corinthian (figs. 22, 34),]
Corinthian sherds are also fairly frequent at Naukratis[594]. This ware
prevailed in the seventh century and early sixth and survived till the
end of the sixth century in certain stereotyped forms. Some of the
examples from Naukratis appear to be fairly early; _e.g._ the aryballi
with four warriors[595] belong to a type that was very prevalent about
600 B.C. but had died out before Black Figure came in[596].
[Illustration: Fig. 14. Fikellura or (?) Samian vase found at Daphnae
(Defenneh).]
[Sidenote: Attic (fig. 41)]
The earliest examples of Attic pottery from Naukratis[597] likewise go
back to the very beginning of the sixth century. They belong to a series
of amphorae called Netos amphorae from the name of a centaur painted on
one of them in Attic lettering. Their general archaic appearance and the
survival of the fill ornament show that they must be considerably
earlier than the François vase or the earliest Panathenaic amphorae,
which date from about 565 B.C. Prinz puts them back to about 600.
[Sidenote: and Naukratite (fig. 15),]
For dating the Greek settlement at Naukratis this probably imported ware
is of less importance than a very distinctive style of painted
pottery[598] that was found there in far larger quantities than any of
the fabrics just mentioned, and was almost certainly made by Greeks in
Naukratis itself[599].
For the dating of this pottery Naukratis offered no certain data. The
decisive evidence is derived from Naukratite vases recently found in
three other sites, Vroulia in Rhodes, Rhitsona (Mykalessos) in Boeotia,
and Berezan in South Russia. Vroulia was excavated by Kinch in 1907 and
1908. The finds were fully and sumptuously published in 1914. They led
him to believe that the site was occupied only from the first third of
the seventh century B.C. to about 570–560[600]. Among them were
fragments of nine Naukratite cups, none of them particularly early
examples of the style, and of one vase in what seems to be a late
development from it. The decoration of the Vroulia Naukratite seems
moreover to correspond to one of the earlier phases of the Milesian (?)
pottery from the same site.
The Vroulia evidence is confirmed by that of the Naukratite chalice
(fig. 15) unearthed at Rhitsona just at the time when Vroulia was being
excavated by Kinch. The vase, which is almost complete, belongs to a
late phase of the style[601]. Fill ornaments have almost disappeared.
Red and incisions are abundantly used for details. The vase was found
with some hundreds of others in a single interment grave that cannot be
dated much after 550 and maybe a little before that date[602]. A
Naukratite vase cannot have been made to order for a Boeotian funeral.
The Rhitsona chalice by itself renders it practically certain that the
making of Naukratite ware at Naukratis began long before the accession
of Amasis.
Finally at Berezan on the Black Sea the Russian excavators report that
in 1909 Naukratite pottery was found along with Rhodian (= Milesian),
Fikellura and Clazomenae wares in the lowest stratum of the excavations,
which they date seventh to sixth century, whereas Attic pottery of the
middle of the sixth century (especially Kleinmeister kylikes) first
appears in a higher stratum (sixth to fifth century B.C.)[603].
[Illustration: Fig. 15. Naukratite vase found at Rhitsona in Boeotia.]
[Sidenote: all pointing to a foundation in the seventh century.]
In the face of all this evidence it becomes highly probable that
Naukratite pottery began to be made before the end of the seventh
century[604]. It is against all likelihood to suppose that the first
thing the Greek settlement at Naukratis did was to start a large
pottery, which proceeded at once to turn out a highly original kind of
ware. And in point of fact we have seen that the finds include a good
quantity of an earlier style of pottery, that takes us back well into
the reign of Psamtek. We have seen too that this pottery, which is one
of the starting-points of the Naukratite style, is probably Milesian.
[Sidenote: Evidence as to Naukratis based on differences observed in
different parts of the site, viz. (α) the temenos of the
Milesians,]
A further proof of early Milesian influence at Naukratis remains to be
mentioned. At one spot in the excavations literally hundreds of vases
were found with incised dedications to Apollo[605]. Some ten of these
speak of the Milesian Apollo, the god to whom Necho the son of
Psammetichus made an offering after the victory over Josiah at
Megiddo[606]. The Milesian sherds that it is natural to put into the
seventh century come largely from this spot. Herodotus tells us that the
Milesians did not have quarters in the Hellenium but occupied a separate
temenos. The spot where these sherds and inscriptions were found is
unquestionably the site of this temenos. As to why the Milesians thus
kept apart there can be little doubt that Petrie gives the right
explanation. It means that they were there before the cities that shared
the Hellenium[607]. The finds show that their occupation was already on
a considerable scale before the end of the seventh century.
[Sidenote: (β) the temenos of the Samians,]
Two other cities had separate temene, namely Samos and Aegina[608]. The
Samian has been identified by a find of sherds dedicated to the Samian
goddess Hera. But there is from this temenos no mass of pottery that
takes us back into the first half of the sixth century or the second of
the seventh, as there is from the Milesian. “Fikellura” ware that is
very possibly Samian[609] and that may date from about 600 B.C. was
indeed found, but not in quantities like the Milesian[610]. The scanty
finds may be due to Arab farmers who had removed much earth from the
Samian temenos before the excavations began[611]. But the finds as we
have them, with inadequate accounts of the exact spots they come from,
hardly make it likely that the Samian temenos was an early
establishment[612]. True Herodotus[613] tells the tale of a Samian ship
that set sail for Egypt between 643 and 640 B.C. But it got to Spain by
mistake, a fact which suggests an imperfect knowledge of the route it
wished to take. A Samian nymph appears in a fragment of the “Foundation
of Naukratis” of Apollonius Rhodius[614]. But we only know that she once
went to a festival at Miletus and was there carried off by Apollo.
[Sidenote: (γ) the temenos of the Aeginetans,]
Of the Aeginetan temenos no trace has been found. It might be suggested
that the Aeginetans had not the habit of inscribing their dedications.
But the absence of proto-Corinthian finds favours the view that this
temenos was not unearthed. It is idle therefore to speculate on its date
and importance[615].
In any case we have good reason for interpreting the written texts in
the sense that the Milesians’ Fort made way for the Greek Naukratis
during the reign of Psammetichus. This is historically important. The
Milesians’ Fort may have been a fortified trading station[616]: but it
never had the commercial importance of Naukratis. If, as we have just
seen good evidence for believing, Greek Naukratis was already a
considerable place before Psamtek’s death and owed the fact to Psamtek
himself, then there is an increased probability that Diodorus is right
when he says that Psamtek owed his throne to commercial dealings with
traders from across the sea.
[Sidenote: (δ) the Egyptian quarter, with its early temple of Aphrodite]
There are two further points in which the Naukratis excavations bear out
the texts that support this view. Hogarth has shown that South Naukratis
was the Egyptian quarter, and that it goes back probably to before King
Psamtek’s reign. We have seen too that as early as 688 B.C. the Greek
merchant Herostratos is said to have made offerings at Naukratis in the
temple of Aphrodite. There is only one spot at Naukratis that compares
with the Milesian temenos for early Greek finds, and that spot is marked
by a long series of dedications to Aphrodite[617] incised or sometimes
painted on the pottery, which includes Milesian, Naukratite, Ionian buff
and black, and other seventh and sixth century wares. The site of this
temenos has a significance that seems to have been overlooked. It lies
just on the borders[618] of the black stratum area that appears to mark
the limits of the original Egyptian town. When excavations were resumed
in 1899 there was discovered in the North part of the town a second
Aphrodite shrine forming a sort of side chapel to the real
Hellenium[619]. The earliest finds from this Northern Aphrodite shrine
date from the earlier part of the fifth century[620]. May not the
position of the earlier and more southerly shrine be due to the fact
that it was founded before the occupants of the Milesians’ Fort had
moved to Naukratis and established a Greek quarter there? In other
words, may we not see in it a confirmation of Polycharmus[621] when he
speaks of a Greek as offering an image of Aphrodite in a temple of that
goddess at Naukratis in 688 B.C.? The fact that the Aphrodite site was
not burnt is no proof that it did not form part of the earliest
settlement. The men from the Milesians’ Fort who defeated Inaros may
well have spared the Greek sanctuary when they burnt the rest.
[Sidenote: and the statuettes of the goddess found on the temple site.]
The voyage of Herostratos was held in remembrance at Naukratis because
of a statuette of Aphrodite that he dedicated in her temple as a
thank-offering for having saved him during a storm. The statuette was a
span long and of archaic workmanship, and had been bought by him at
Paphos during the voyage. When the storm arose the people on board had
betaken themselves to this eikon and prayed it to save them. The goddess
heard their prayers and gave them a sign by suddenly filling the ship
with a most fragrant perfume. The story is discussed by Gardner[622] in
his chapter on the statuettes from the temenos of Aphrodite, which
include a number that may represent the Paphian goddess. But he makes no
reference to the statuette that probably has the closest bearing on the
tale. The upper half is of the normal draped female type, but the lower
shows simply the form of an alabastron. The whole is a perfume
vase[623]. This particular example (fig. 16) cannot be earlier than the
end of the sixth century. The type however is shown both by the style
and the context of other examples to go back to the seventh century, and
probably to the earlier part of it. The home of the type is thought by
Poulsen[624] to be Cyprus. An object that combined the functions of an
eikon and a smelling-bottle might indeed work miracles in a storm. It is
tempting to believe that such was in fact the image that saved
Herostratos. The miracle takes place just at the period when this type
of figurine was started. If we are right in associating the two, then we
are further justified in thinking that Polycharmus may have had some
solid grounds for his dating as well as for the rest of his account.
[Illustration: Fig. 16. Perfume vase found at Naukratis.]
[Sidenote: Evidence of large jars used for merchandise.]
The other point concerns the large plain jars that were found on the
site[625]. Many of these are of Egyptian forms. But others, of which one
is shown in fig. 17, are unmistakably Greek. This jar was found in the
burnt deposit in the South end of the city, which represents the earlier
Egyptian settlement on the site[626]. These large jars were used by the
Greeks for the transport of wine, oil and the like[627]. In jars such as
these Sappho’s brother must have brought to Naukratis the wines of
Lesbos, and they must have figured largely in the cargoes brought by
Greeks and Phoenicians[628] to Psamtek in exchange for the cargoes that
they received from Psamtek in the days when he was building up his
power[629].
[Illustration: Fig. 17. Greek wine jar found at Naukratis.]
[Sidenote: Conclusions about early Naukratis.]
To sum up our conclusions about Naukratis: texts and excavations confirm
and supplement one another to the effect that there was an Egyptian
settlement from the beginning of the seventh century, that Greek traders
found their way there almost from the first, and that about the middle
of the seventh century the Greek trading settlement became of
considerable importance[630] through the removal to it of the occupants
of the Milesians’ Fort[631]. Finally about 569 B.C. we have the
concentration in the city of all the Greek traders in Egypt.
[Sidenote: The position of Naukratis under Amasis]
The Greek traders were concentrated by Amasis in Naukratis as a
concession to the Egyptians with whom they had grown more and more
unpopular owing to their influence and success. Amasis had risen to
power as the leader of an anti-Greek agitation[632], and, as Petrie
pointed out[633], the concentration was an anti-Greek move[634]. But
Amasis cleverly contrived that it should be not unpopular, but even the
reverse, with the Greeks. Naukratis as a monopoly city enjoyed an
immense reputation during Amasis’ long and prosperous reign. [Sidenote:
contrasted with its position under Psammetichus.] But the Amasis
tradition cannot conceal the fact that the time when Greek traders got
the freest welcome in Egypt was that of Psammetichus, when Greek
hoplites were being employed to establish the Saite dynasty as rulers of
all Egypt.
[Sidenote: Daphnae and the Greek mercenaries]
In the early days of Psammetichus, when he was overthrowing the
dodecarchy, his Greek merchants and his Greek soldiers probably had
their headquarters together, in the Milesians’ Fort. At Naukratis the
military element does not appear. From about 650 B.C. till shortly after
the accession of Amasis in 570 the Greek mercenaries are found quartered
in a place called The Camps at Daphnae on the most Easterly (Pelusian)
arm of the Nile[635]. The history of the transition from the Milesians’
Fort to Daphnae is obscure[636]; but in a broad sense there can be
little doubt that the Fort was as much the parent of the camp at Daphnae
as of the emporium at Naukratis. Naukratis and Daphnae, the Greek
emporium and the Greek camp, were alike essential to the Saite Pharaohs,
and both had plainly gone far in their development and organization
early in Psamtek’s reign.
[Sidenote: and the Egyptian warrior caste.]
How closely the two were associated may be realized from the consistent
attitude of the Saite Pharaohs towards another element of the
population. The Ionian and Carian bronze men were not the first
mercenaries to form the basis of a Pharaoh’s power. The XXIInd and
XXIIIrd dynasties (_c._ 943–735 B.C.) had rested their power on their
mercenaries from Libya. These Libyan mercenaries had developed into a
caste of professional soldiers and were still in the land[637]. It is
noteworthy that no Saite, with one possible exception nearly 100 years
after Psamtek’s accession, ever attempted to use them either for
securing or for maintaining his power. Mallet notes that for the time
before Psammetichus the monuments often show commanders of Libyan
mercenaries bearing high titles, but that from his reign onwards there
is no similar instance[638].
Meyer[639] is probably right in suspecting that this warrior class
(μάχιμοι) formed Psamtek’s bitterest opponents. Eventually a large body
of them deserted and took service with the king of Ethiopia, and Psamtek
seems to have made no determined effort to prevent them[640]. The one
exceptional case in which the Libyan warrior class may possibly have
placed a Saite on the throne is that of Amasis (570–526 B.C.)[641], who
overthrew his predecessor Apries (589–570) by leading the native
population against the Greek mercenaries[642]. But, as Herodotus tells
us, he was soon driven to “become a philhellene[643].” Petrie thinks
that Amasis was converted under pressure of the Persian peril, and in
support of this view quotes the alliance of Amasis with Croesus[644],
Polycrates[645], and the Greek Battus of Cyrene[646], as also his
friendship with Delphi[647].
This point of foreign policy no doubt had its weight in the years that
saw the rise of Cyrus and his overthrow of Media in 549 B.C., Lydia in
546, Babylon in 538 (?). But it was not the cause of his conversion.
Amasis became Pharaoh in 570. In the sixth year of his reign he made an
edict that contained the following words: “Let the Ouinin (= Ionians) be
given place of habitation in the lands of the nome of Sais. Let them
take to their use ships and firewood. Let them bring their gods[648].”
Long therefore before the rise of Persia Amasis had realized how
impossible it was to maintain his position otherwise than by coming to
an understanding both with the Greek merchants and the Greek
mercenaries. Philhellenism was in fact an essential part of Saite
policy. Necho (610–594 B.C.), the son and successor of Psammetichus I,
sent offerings to Apollo at Branchidae (Miletus) after his victory over
Josiah of Judah and the Syrian fleet[649]. Psammetichus II (594–589)
died probably as a child: to his reign are probably to be assigned the
Abu Symbel inscriptions[650] scratched by Greek soldiers on monuments
far up the river by Elephantine. The people of Elis are said to have
appealed to him or his government on a point respecting the Olympian
games[651]. Apries (589–570), who fell foul of his Greek troops, had
30,000 Ionians and Carians under arms[652]. A small Greek vase found at
Corinth[653] has the cartouche of Apries. It is in the form of a
helmeted head (fig. 18). The vase is of faience (so-called). It was
probably made at Naukratis, perhaps in Petrie’s scarab factory, and
gives us a contemporary picture of one of Apries’ Greek mercenaries, or
at least of the top part of his equipment.
[Illustration: Fig. 18. Corinthian vase with cartouche of Apries.]
Amasis accordingly became a friend of the Greeks and remained so till he
died. The Greeks reciprocated his friendship. The feelings of the
Naukratite traders towards him are reflected plainly enough in the pages
of Herodotus[654]. The Greek mercenaries supported him loyally to the
end of his long reign, and in spite of the treachery of their commander
Phanes they fought gallantly at Pelusium in 525 B.C. when Psammetichus
III, the last of the Saites, was overthrown by the Persians. Under the
military rule of Persia the Libyan warrior class recovered its old
position[655].
[Sidenote: Personal relations between Saite sovereigns and Greek
tyrants.]
Thus we have seen the Saite dynasty rising to power by means of Greek
merchandise and Greek mercenaries and maintaining its power by the same
means. Its general policy follows the same lines as that of the
tyrannies that sprang up at this time all over the Greek world.
Herodotus with his usual insight recognized this fact when he put into
his history the story of the friendship between Amasis and the Samian
tyrant Polycrates. Amasis was probably not the first of the Saites to
have a Greek tyrant for his friend. Cordial relations with Thrasybulus,
the tyrant of Miletus, are suggested by Necho’s offerings to the
Milesian Apollo, and the friend of Thrasybulus must have been also the
friend of the Corinthian tyrant Periander. It has often been assumed,
and not without reason, that Periander’s successor was called
Psammetichus from some personal connexion with the lord of Sais.
[Sidenote: The name Psammetichus.]
Psammetichus I is the first individual known to have borne that name. It
is possible therefore that it may have had some special appropriateness
to his own or his father’s career[656]. One of the most probable
interpretations of the name is “man (vendor) of mixing bowls.” The
choice seems to lie between this interpretation and “man (vendor) of
mixed wine” (_i.e._ wine mixed with spices, etc.). Which of these is to
be preferred depends on the interpretation of the root mtk[657]. In
hieratic writing the phonetic symbols are sometimes followed by a
“determinative” symbol or pictograph, placed at the end to prevent
misunderstanding. The determinative for mtk is the picture of a vase, as
seen for instance in _Rylands Library Demotic Papyri_, p. 201. The vase
has a barrel or pear-shaped body, narrow neck, and broad flat mouth, ⚱.
The particular shape must not be pressed, and the picture may be meant
to denote not the vase but its contents. But it must mean one or the
other[658]. Griffith thinks it denotes the contents, his reasons being
these[659]: mtk is a Coptic root meaning “mix” and has a Hebrew
equivalent meaning “mixture” (wine mixed). This meaning “seems to fit
all requirements[660],” _i.e._ it suits the story of the libation which
led Psammetichus to become king[661], and also the tales of the low and
bibulous (φιλοπότης) origin of Amasis[662]. Griffith’s interpretation
rests ultimately on the philological point, and on the assumption that
the root in Egyptian must have precisely the same meaning as in Coptic
and Hebrew. I am indebted to the writer himself for the information that
this is not always the case. Apart from philology “mixed wine” may suit
all requirements[663]: but does it do so quite as well as “mixing bowl”?
The whole point of the story of Psammetichus’ libation depends not on
the wine but its receptacle. On either interpretation however it is
sufficiently remarkable that the ruler who is said to have risen to
power by trade should have had so mercantile a name. Griffith does not
forget the possibility that the name may have been the source of the
stories[664]. The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. A
merchant prince may be proud of his origin: but that fact will not
always prevent other people from telling good unofficial stories about
his early days.