Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt

Author(s): R. M. Cook
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 57, Part 2 (1937), pp. 227-237
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/627147
Accessed: 11/09/2008 12:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 AMASIS AND THE GREEKS IN EGYPT.
THE excuse for this article is that the accepted reconstruction of the
Hellenic policy of Amasis misinterprets statements of Herodotus and ignores
the archaeological evidence. Most historians seem to agree that Amasis
was put on the throne as the nominee of a fervid nationalist party; that
about 565, to please this party, he concentrated the Greeks in Naucratis,
reorganised, if not founded, at this time, and only permitted them access to
Egypt by the Canopic branch of the Nile; that at the same time he
brought to Memphis from Stratopeda, usually equated with Daphnae and
Tell Defenneh, the Greek and Carian mercenaries-either to have them
more securely under control or from latent philhellenism; and that later
he began more openly to favour the Greeks.1 Further, the date of the
foundation of Naucratis needs further discussion: the view most widely
held puts it back to the middle of the seventh century.
Much of this theory can be traced back to Flinders Petrie,2 who, as a
busy excavator and Egyptologist, can be excused for an over-hasty reading
of the account of Herodotus. Rumpf-alone, I believe-has criticised the
orthodox views about Naucratis and Tell Defenneh; 3 but though he first
published these criticisms in 1925, I do not think they have been noticed
in any more recent study.
The evidence for the relations of Amasis to the Greeks in Egypt is
slight. First we have the statements of Herodotus; secondly, the results of
excavation and finds, chiefly at Naucratis and Tell Defenneh; thirdly, the
Egyptian records-only the stele of the death of Apries 4 and a demotic
5 seem to be relevant. Herodotus's statements are
papyrus ambiguous.
So it seems best to begin with the archaeological evidence.

I. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.

Naucratis.6 Much excavation was done on the site, by Petrie in 1884-5,
E. Gardner in 1885-6 and Hogarth in 1899 and 1903. No stratification was
1 So
Glotz, Hist. Grecque I, 204,-he makes 6 The
bibliography for Naucratis is considerable.
Amasis pursue throughout a double policy; 'le ExcavationReports:
meilleur t6moignage de son philhellenisme persistant W. M. F. Petrie NaukratisI (1886): the conclusions
se trouve dans une ing6nieuse application de mesures are often hasty and the drawings unreliable.
contraires en apparence a l'expansion hellenique.' E. A. Gardner NaukratisII (I888).
Hall, CAH iii, 292, 303-4; Meyer, Gesch.d. Altertums D. G. Hogarth (i899) BSA V, 26-97; (I903)
III2, 623-4; How and Wells, Commentary on Herodotus, 7HS 1905, I05-36.
on ii, 30. 2, I54. 3, I78-9, also attribute a double GeneralStudies:
policy to Amasis. H. Prinz Fundeaus Naukratis,Klio Beiheft 7 (I908):
2 Naukratis I, 7-8: Tanis II, 47-9. much of it out of date.
3 Gnomon, I925,
330; Chalkidische Vasen, 139: P. N. Ure, Originof Tyranny,103-24: archaeological
JdI 1933, 60. sources often obsolete.
4 Rec. Trav. xxii, I.
E. M. Smith JSOR 1926, 119-207: a useful and
5 Rev. Eg. i, 59.
uncritical collection of material.
227
228 R. M. COOK
possible. The finds of pottery were the most important and numerous.
It is unlikely that the excavators' sorting has made unrepresentative the
selection which has since been scattered through the classical museums of
the world. As Payne observed, there is nothing that should be earlier than
the end of the seventh century,-say 6I5-IO. The Attic black-figure
sherds in the British Museum, which has much the largest selection of the
finds of any museum, and the Attic and Corinthian sherds in Oxford, have
been studied by Beazley and Payne.7 Very few are of the seventh century
and those late. Laconian begins about 590. The chronology of East
Greek pottery is admittedly vague; but as far as I know, no East Greek
sherd from Naucratis looks earlier than the end of the seventh century.8
Imports of Greek pottery begin in the last ten or fifteen years of the
seventh century, and their mass becomes great immediately. Later there
seems to be no sudden increase to correspond to the alleged reorganisation
by Amasis: only the replacement of East Greek wares by Attic is perhaps
less marked than in the West or in the Pontic colonies.
The finds of' Naucratite ' pottery at Naucratis are important. First,
no other site has yielded a comparable amount. Secondly, dedicatory
inscriptions, painted before firing, are very frequent. If, as seems probable,
' Naucratite ' was manufactured in Chios,9 there must have been some close

SpecialStudies: 7 For references see above. Three or, at the most,

E. R. Price JHS I924, 180-222: on the East five Corinthian fragments from Naucratis of the
Greek pottery,-the text is largely out of date. seventh century were known to Payne (Necrocorinthia,
J. D. Beazley and H. G. Payne JHS 1929, 253-72: 25). The attribution to Naucratis of a transitional
on the Attic B.F. in the British Museum, and the sherd in Boston (Fairbanks pl. 37, 340) is extremely
most important study for the early chronology of doubtful. Anyhow, a single earlier piece would not
Naucratis. (Cf. Payne Necrocorinthia 25). affect the argument.
8 A
E. Gjerstad LAAA 1934, 67-84: an unsuccessful representative selection published by Price,
attempt to recover a useful stratification (see BSA JHS 1924 and CVA Oxfordii.
9 This view seems to have been accepted since
xxxiv, 86, n. 2).
FurtherPublicationof Material: Miss W. Lamb's excavations in I934 at the site of
CVA Oxfordii (Attic, Beazley; Corinthian, Payne; Apollo Phanaios in Chios (see JHS I934, I96-8):
East Greek, Price). Payne was convinced. Briefly the arguments are
CVA Cambridgeii (W. Lamb). as follows: (i) the continuation from Chiot Geo-
A. Fairbanks, Catalogueof Greekand Etruscan Vases metric of the technique of varnish paint on top of a
in Boston. white slip. (2) A possible ancestry for the ' chalice '
CVA Hague i and ii (L. Scheurleer). shape. (3) The distribution of ' Naucratite ':
E. Prins de Jong, Scherben aus Naukratis (in Chios has more plausible connections with the
Hague). Pontus. (4) That Chios otherwise has no archaic
C. C. Edgar Cataloguedu Caire, GreekVases. style of vase-painting, while a foreign settlement like
R. M. Cook BSA xxxiv, I-98 (for the Fikellura Naucratis is hardly to be expected to have a strong
pottery: list on p. 97). and purely Greek style. (5) That there is not time
E. A. Lane BSA xxxiv, 99-I89 (for the Laconian for the reserving 'Naucratite ' style to develop in
pottery: esp. p. I80). Naucratis after 615-10. (6) That the most pro-
The finds from Naucratis were scattered without minent dedicators of ' Naucratite ' pottery at
being properly studied. Besides the four excavations Naucratis are Chiots.
a collection of sherds from the site was made by von Dedicatory inscriptions painted before firing
Bissing, which also has been dispersed; and another occur also in Chios and Aegina. The connection
by de Mot, who presented his to Brussels. By far the between Naucratis and Chios holds, therefor-, even
mass of the finds is in the British Museum. if ' Naucratite ' pottery was manufactured in
largest
Next come Oxford, Cambridge and Boston. There Naucratis and exported to Chios.
are small assortments in The Hague, Cairo, Brussels, The uniformity of clay, slip, technique, style and
Heidelberg, Leipzig and University College, London. alphabet makes it most unlikely that ' Naucratite'
And numerous collections have a few relics. was made in both Naucratis and Chios.
 AMASIS AND THE GREEKS IN EGYPT 229
connection between Naucratis and Chios. Herodotus does not suggest
this.10
Tell Defenneh.11 Tell Defenneh, a site in the east of the Delta, was
partially excavated by Petrie in I886. Again the Greek finds of use for
dating are pottery. The quantity is small, if, as one must believe, the
British Museum 12 has nearly everything that was removed from the site.
These finds have only a limited value, since the excavations were incom-
plete and the bulk of the pottery came from two rooms.l3 The site appears
to be that of a fort.
The Greek pottery belongs to four main categories: Attic black-figure,
Fikellura, Clazomenian, and the Situlae. The Attic belongs to the middle
and third quarter of the sixth century. The Fikellura probably covers the
years 560-30.14 Clazomenian has not yet been accurately dated, but the
finds are roughly contemporary with the Fikellura: one fragment 15 at
least is not before 540. The date of the Situlae is uncertain, but apparently
may fall in the Persian period.16 Except for an odd stray or two 17 the
earliest date given by the pottery is 570-60, the latest not before 535-30
and possibly the end of the century. The common belief is clearly wrong,
that Amasis recalled his Greek mercenaries from the eastern frontier about
565.
The comparison of the contemporary pottery from Naucratis and Tell
Defenneh is interesting. At Tell Defenneh the proportion of East Greek
wares is higher, and there is no Laconian-a point which must not be
stressed because of the relatively small quantity of the finds from Tell
Defenneh. But whereas fragments of at least fifteen to twenty Situlae were
found at Tell Defenneh, not a single fragment of that class is recorded
among the numerous finds from Naucratis. This can hardly be accidental.
The place of origin of the Situlae is still in doubt,18 unnecessarily, I think.
If the Situlae were manufactured in an East Greek city, specimens should
have been found locally. Actually two have turned up-at Ialysos in
Rhodes, and Rhodes is the one East Greek district for which we have
evidence enough to think that the Situlae were not manufactured there.
And why, if the Situlae were made in an East Greek city, should they have
been exported to Tell Defenneh and not to Naucratis ? On the other hand,
10 Nor among the sanctuaries does he mention 16 Two Situlae have
been found outside Tell
that of Aphrodite, judging from finds one of the two Defenneh: Rhodes Io64I (Cl.Rh. iii, grave clxxxiii,
most important in the early years of Naucratis. Chiots figs. 186-9; fig. I88 execrable: CVA Rhodes i,
are, I think, the most frequent dedicators to her. pl. 423. 4-5) and Rhodes 10773 (Cl.Rh. iii, grave
11 Excavation Report: W. M. F. Petrie Tanis II cxciv, fig. 198)-both found with Attic B.F. of about
(1888); inadeqate, especially the drawings. Im- 500-490: I thank Professor Beazley for this in-
portant criticism by A. Rumpf, Gnomon,I925, 330 formation. See Rumpf JdI 1933, 6I. On the other
and JdI I933, 6o. hand, the context of the Situlae at Tell Defenneh
12 Inventoried under the serial 88. 2-8. Some at would suggest their dating to the third quarter of the
least of the sherds inventoried under I924. I2-I sixth century.
are also from Tell Defenneh (see BSA xxxiv, 17 Middle 'Rhodian '-Tanis II, pl. 24. 6: late
86-87). 'Rhodian '-Boston 28. 86. 114. Further excavation
13 Tanis
II, 58. might well prove a seventh-century origin for the
14
See BSA xxxiv, 87: list given on p. 97. Greek settlement.
15 B.M. B 15 (Tanis II, pl. 29. 3). Rumpf dates 18
E.g. Price, East GreekPottery9. Rumpf Jdl 1933,
it to the last third of the sixth century (Gnomon1925, 6:, does not commit himself. Petrie thought the
330)- Situlae of local manufacture (Tanis II, 62).
230 R. M. COOK
the situla is apparently derived from an Egyptian shape. And the Situlae
show no stylistic unity, but borrow from various sources: compare similar
phenomena in Etruria, and perhaps Aeolis and Cyprus. There are a
few other probable examples of fringe Greek art from Egypt.19 Whether,
as seems to me reasonably certain, the Situlae were made at or near Tell
Defenneh, or were imported from some East Greek city, there are two
important consequences to be considered. First, that at some time Tell
Defenneh was not entirely dependent on Naucratis and perhaps not even
closely related. Secondly, that Tell Defenneh was sufficiently important
to have a pottery fabric of its own; or, if not, was yet in direct communi-
cation with the Aegean. Herodotus does indeed note that there were at
Stratopeda, which anyhow cannot have been far away, oAKoi rTCV vEC)V

(ii. I54).
GreekArchaic Potteryfrom otherEgyptian Sites.
A few Greek sherds of the late seventh and of the sixth centuries have
been found at sites in Egypt other than Naucratis and Tell Defenneh. A
tentative list is given in the Appendix. The distribution is wide-in the
Delta, round Memphis and in the Thebaid. Petrie's claims for Memphis 20
are interesting: it is a pity more exact information has not been published.
Most of these sherds are East Greek imports: a few are perhaps the work of
Greeks resident in Egypt, painting in an East Greek tradition. The dates
of these strays should be observed: the majority belong to the reign of
Amasis, but the evidence may, of course, be unrepresentative.2

Conclusionsfrom the ArchaeologicalEvidence.

I. Naucratis was probably founded about 615-IO, and was without
doubt a very important Greek settlement-an East Greek settlement: wit-
ness the proportion of East Greek pottery, the nationalities of the dedicators
and the literary tradition. 2. But Naucratis was not the only settlement of
Greeks during the reign of Amasis. In the East of the Delta, Tell Defenneh,
and perhaps other Greek outposts,22 had a more or less independent life,
which Rumpf suggests may have continued into Persian times.23 The
pottery suggests even closer East Greek connections for this area than for
Naucratis. 3. The contact between Greeks and Egyptians was probably
greater than is usually recognised: there was some infiltration beyond
Naucratis and Tell Defenneh of Greek settlers or sentiments. And in-
fluence of Greek sculpture on Egyptian is considered possible.24 The Egypt
of Amasis was not entirely closed to the Greeks; indeed, it seems to have
been more open than before. These views conflict with the conventional

19 See below, p. 237, Appendix II. firmly established till the very end of his reign. But
20 See MemphisI, 3. the archaeological evidence is inadequate.
21 There are no certain Hellenic finds from 22 See
Egypt, below, p. 234.
from Naucratis, Tell Defenneh or elsewhere, which 23 JdI 1933, 6o.
are to be dated back beyond 6I5. If, as the literary 24 A. W. Lawrence, History of Herodotusof Hali-
evidence suggests, it was Psammetichus I whose need carnassus II, I82, n. I: 'the "archaic smile" of
for mercenaries opened Egypt to the archaic Greeks, sixth-century Greek sculpture, was probably intro-
commercial relations do not seem to have been duced into Egyptian portraiture under Amasis.'
 AMASIS AND THE GREEKS IN EGYPT 231

interpretation of Herodotus, but archaeological evidence is better than the

records of a traveller of a century later. Nor is that interpretation of
Herodotus necessarily correct.

2. THE LITERARY EVIDENCE.

Herodotus is our chief authority for the archaic Greeks in Egypt. The
points that call for criticism are the policy of Amasis, the ' gift' of Naucratis,
the ' concentration' in Naucratis and the identity of Tell Defenneh. The
statements of Herodotus are vague, even if they are reliable; and the
archaeological evidence must be used to interpret them.
The important passages of Herodotus are the following.
6 "ApaaCtIS
I. )lA)2trlv 6EyeVOi6EVOS a&AcaTrEE'S'EAXlVCOV &aCTESE?CxTO
PE'rETEET'povs
KaCi&S Kai T'oTicIaTKVEUUEVOICt?S AyurrTrov E8SoKENaUKpccrtv TroX6v EVOIKlCaai,Totat
S6E p1 pouXopivoiCoi aUT-rv EVOIKEEIV auTrovi &6 VaCTuriXopevoiai e8'OKE XcApous
vitS6pvaaaeaitp3pooUsKai TrepivEaOEolCn. (ii. 178.)
2. 'Hv 6 'r6 warraatv poUVTrNainpcarrS?Prr6ptov Kai a?AXoovSEv Aiyvrrrro. Ei 8B
Tis ES rTCVTi aCAooArotArrcov Tro NeiXuova'riKOTro, Xpiv O6pioai Pilp FevEK6vTrcOa
8eiOv,
a&roi6oaavcra6S Tri vri airrj XTrAEiv S TO KavcoptiK6v'q El ?Ji ye o0l TE eT'rlTp'
aVEiouos cVTiovS TrXAiv, Tr qyopria E6EeTrrpiyeiv EV P&apicri TTEpi TO A&ATra, X)(pi oi
arriKorTo ?S NacxKpcarv. (ii. 179.)
3. Toiali "Iocn
Kcai TroiCaKapaolToTal ovyKaTrEpyaaacctCvoia aciOrc6oTacxppiTiXos
6i6cocrI XcbpovS EvoKficait avTious a&XXAAcov, rTO NeXov TO r6 aov ?XOVTOS, TOICt
oOv6opcrcraE?TerOl T-rpacrTre8a .... -r oi opo[
etal S'EO&TO X rrpo6seOaAcaars 6oiyov
EvEpOe Bouj&Parios Tro6ios TrC)
E'TTi 1TriouCvikp KaOECojiEVCA)aTor6aTi TOU NeiXov. TOUTOvS
IIEV861 Xp6vc0 0icrrTpovPacixAeVS "Aiacis ?avacaTrfcas EvOeUrevKCaTOiKICtE ES MEpwiiv,
ECOuTOv
q)vpuCAaK1v 'roieuieVOs Trpos AiyuTrricov . . .
E.
. . v 8E
?cavorrlccav Xcbpcwv?v
o 8i oi TrEAKO6
TOITOtit i TrV veo-v Kai Tr EppeTrita TrOVoiKTjiJ&roov"r6TOixppt peS
iaav. (ii. 154.)
4. 'ErTIT'rlYa Tirxov Pacainos q)uXaKai KOc&rccrTaav EV TE 'EAepavTrivriTr6At rpOs
AieiTOArovKai Ev A&<pvrlaiTrijai 1rlsovaicrii a&Xr?'rrpos 'Apap3icov T Kai ZVpicov Kal EV
Mapsr lrrpos Ati3vrls aXArl. gTrl ?T' Ej'ieu Kai -epa:cov Kar& TraCr ati puAoKal
EXOUvCI CdSKai Ti ?aav-
YappiirlTi'XoU Kai yap Ev 'EA(pavTivri rTEpalt (ppoupEouViaKai
Ev Aaqcpvnl. (ii. 30.)

The origin of the accepted theory is simple. Seven data are selected:
Naucratis was founded in the seventh century; Amasis became king at the
head of a nationalist reaction; Amasis 'gave' Naucratis to the Greeks;
Greek trade in Egypt was at some time confined to Naucratis; Psammetichus
settled Greek veterans at Stratopeda and Amasis removed them; Daphnae
also is a post on the eastern frontier; Tell Defenneh shows evidence of
Greek military occupation. The conclusions are most economical. Amasis
on his accession concentrated the Greeks in Naucratis (rTOiaat6ov has to
be ignored), reorganised it and removed the mercenaries from Stratopeda-
all at the same time. The concentration was to please the Egyptians, the
reorganisation to please the Greeks, the removal of the mercenaries to
JHS-VOL. LVII. R
232 R. M. COOK
please Egyptians, Greeks and himself. To round this off, Stratopeda,
Daphnae and Tell Defenneh become a single site-three in one and one in
three.
(i) The Philhellenic Policy of Amasis.
The general belief that Amasis became king at the head of an anti-
Greek movement is supported by the stele of the death of Apries,25 which
states that in the third year of the co-regency of Amasis, Apries raised the
Greeks in an attempt to recover effectual sovereignty. The account of
Herodotus is garbled and makes no definite statement of the nationalist
attitude of Amasis,26 but his text will admit of this construction. The
conclusion that Amasis's early policy would have been anti-Greek is there-
fore reasonable; and the spectacular philhellenism recorded by Herodotus
fits best to a later period of the reign, as indeed the datable examples
suggest.
The contribution to the rebuilding of the temple at Delphi (ii. I8o)
must be after 548. The alliance with Polycrates (iii. 39) falls in the thirties.
The dedication at Samos seems to be later than the completion of the
Rhoikos temple (ii. I82)-that is, after about 540. The capture by the
Samians of the dedication intended for Sparta is mentioned by Herodotus as
a preliminary to the Spartan expedition against Polycrates (iii. 47), and so
should not be much earlier than 526. The dedication at Lindos (ii. 182)
and -the connections with Cyrene (ii. 181-182) offer no help to conjecture.
It is, then, logical to expect nationalist measures early rather than late
in the reign of Amasis, and philhellenic measures late rather than early.
Since we have no explicit evidence for the time of the alleged innovations at
Naucratis or of the evacuation of Stratopeda, the only indication of the dates
of these measures is the attitude they imply towards the Greeks. The attitude
is debatable; and so conjecture is free.27

The ' Gift' of Naucratis.28

(2)
There are two interpretations of the text of Herodotus, depending on
the translation of the word EScoKE. Either he thought, wrongly, that Amasis
founded the Greek city of Naucratis, or else he meant that Amasis gave
special privileges to an existing settlement. The arguments are as follows.
(I) The simple interpretation of the text is that Amasis founded the
Greek city. Even if ENCOKE NaUKpariTV wTo6tv SVOIKfiCai could be taken as
referring to a reorganisation, a difficulty is presented by ESCOKEX?opouS
EvitSpUiaoOai Ppooos KcXiTE'ivea OEEoTcl. Can EScoKEbe given two different
meanings in two parallel clauses ? floAlv is scarcely to be taken predicatively:
according to Herodotus's usage, it goes naturally with NocIKpraIv; compare
Si6coanXcpovs EvotKioacin ii. I54. If Herodotus meant that Amasis only
reorganised Naucratis, he certainly expressed his meaning ambiguously.
(2) But Herodotus presumably visited Naucratis, and it would there-

27 See above, p.
25 See above, p. 227, n. 4. 227, n. I.
26 Unless piNAiXrIvyev6PEvos(ii. I78) is to be taken 28 Hdt. ii. 178.
as a sign of (sudden) conversion.
 AMASIS AND THE GREEKS IN EGYPT 233
fore be surprising if he was ignorant about its foundation.29 On the other
hand, he says nothing about its earlier history, nor mentions any event
connected with it before the accession of Amasis. About some of the -rEpEEa
Herodotus is certainly wrong: although he ascribes the gift of the sites to
Amasis, some at least of the sanctuaries mentioned later go back to the
seventh century. Nor do the finds from the site suggest any considerable
changes or increase in prosperity during the reign of Amasis.
It is, I think, better to conclude that Herodotus made a mistake, and
wrongly attributed to Amasis the work of one of his predecessors. Even so,
if Herodotus did make a mistake, there may have been some reorganisation
by Amasis that led to this mistake; but for such a reorganisation there is no
direct evidence.

(3) ' The Concentration

of the Greeksin Naucratis.'30
It is usually assumed that Amasis on his accession, either to please
nationalist sentiment or to secure the goodwill of the largest Greek settle-
ment in Egypt, or with both purposes, concentrated the Greeks in Nau-
cratis. (IlXEMXnv86 yEsv6OpVOS,says Herodotus, 6 "Aipacas aXXacTrEEs 'EXAivcov
p?T?EE-?TpOVS&dTrESoaTO KaC 86 i Kcai roiTcl ?S AiyuvTrov E6coK?NaVKpcaTIV
&TrKVE?UVVOCt7l
wrr6OvEvotKfcrai. After mentioning the sanctuaries of Naucratis, he writes:
i'v 6 Tr wrrcalOcv poUvrl NauKpaCrs i7ro6plov Kali &aXo o6?,v AiyuOrrou.
First, Herodotus does not specifically connect these restrictions with
Amasis's ' gift' of Naucratis, nor even with Amasis; and the vague -ro crAal6v
does not suggest that previously there had been any considerable period of
unrestricted trade. Secondly, these restrictions should not be regarded as
applying to Stratopeda and the mercenaries- i 6 T iS?s TAv -r aXXAo
oronaTrov
-roO NEiXova&iKoro.. . Tr&C 9opTria SE6?TTE?pIy?Ev. Thirdly, the motive is
uncertain, though xenophobia is the most obvious.
With reference to the second point, Tell Defenneh, presumably a
military settlement, shows Greek occupation for at least most of the reign
of Amasis: to the first, the pre-Persian finds of Greek pottery in Egypt
outside Naucratis seem to belong mainly to his reign. If, however, Hero-
dotus believed that Amasis founded the Greek settlement of Naucratis,
he must then have attributed the concentration also to Amasis; but on
this also he might well have been wrong.

(4) Stratopeda.3'
Petrie in 1886 made partial excavations at Tell Defenneh, where he
found what from his plan appears to be a fort, and in it weapons and Greek
sherds. Collating two passages of Herodotus (ii. 30 and I54), he jumped
to the equation Tell Defenneh = Daphnae = Stratopeda.32 On the whole
29 Naucratis was not a Greek the MlANalov -rETXos
colony, properly (xvii. 801) could fit the archaeo-
founded, so that there may have been few data logical conclusions about Naucratis.
about its origins. Two centuries later Apollonius 0s Hdt. ii. 178-179.
Rhodius wrote a NavKp6dTcos K-rtInr(Ath. vii. 283): 31 Hdt. ii. I54.
but how far he is likely to have used historical evidence 32 Tanis II, 48.
I do not know. Strabo's date for the foundation of
234 R. Mi. COOK
historians have assented, though some more scrupulous of the text of Hero-
dotus make Stratopeda a suburb or an appendage of Daphnae.33 Rumpf
has objected on literary and archaeological grounds; 34 but his objections
have been neglected.
First, is Stratopeda Daphnae? The only argument for the identi-
fication is that the topographical descriptions of Herodotus put them in
roughly the same area.35 On the other hand, Herodotus does not speci-
fically equate Stratopeda and Daphnae, as one would expect him to do if
they were one and the same. Stratopeda seems to be rather a colony of
veterans than the frontier fort that Daphnae is described as being. Strato-
peda was in ruins in the time of Herodotus, Daphnae still garrisoned.
These arguments still allow the view that Stratopeda was a suburb of
Daphnae. But there is one more point. Herodotus nowhere describes the
position of Daphnae: perhaps it was too well known to need description.
He does describe the position of Stratopeda, not in relation to Daphnae, but
as T-rps ocAao&cris o6XiyovgvEpOEBovpcrio -rros
wAtoS 7 T
'
HrlAouvai& KaAEO0EvCp
oTr6oaTr TOi NEiAou. Unless Stratopeda and Daphnae were to the Greeks (of
the time of Herodotus) interchangeable names-and for this there is no
evidence-the two sites should be some distance apart and Stratopeda
should lie south of Daphnae: it would be reasonable to settle veterans in
reserve behind an important frontier post.
Next, is Stratopeda Tell Defenneh ? For this the only argument is
that they were in the same area. In itself this is inconclusive; and Petrie's
results do not fit too well with the description of Herodotus- xbpous &vTious
a,XqXcov, TO0NEiAouTO IEaovEXOVTOS. No sign of the second camp is given in
Tanis II.
Lastly, is Daphnae Tell Defenneh ? Again the area seems to be the
same. More important is the similarity of name.36 And from the map it
is very possible that Tell Defenneh is on the strategical route between Egypt
and Asia.37
There are, then, no conclusive reasons for identifying Tell Defenneh
with Stratopeda or Daphnae, though the identification with Daphnae is
plausible. And Daphnae is not Stratopeda. If it is objected that three
Greek or partially Greek sites are unlikely close together up the Pelusiac
branch of the Nile, it must be remembered that this area has been little
explored.
It is usually assumed that when, early in his reign, Amasis concentrated
the Greeks in Naucratis, he removed at the same time the Greek and Carian
mercenaries from Stratopeda. Even if the initial assumption is granted,
the date of this evacuation does not follow. Herodotus gives no precise
date, nor does he connect it at all with Naucratis. Amasis, he says, recalled
these foreign mercenaries vpuAcKiv hcoUtrroi TroitEUs'voS wrpOSAiyvuT-ricov. If,
33
E.g. Hall (CAH iii, 292) and Lawrence (op. cit. the Pelusiac branch and on the strategical route to
II, 30, n. 2) take Petrie whole. Glotz (op. cit. 203, Asia, since the frontier post is there (ii. 30); and
n. 223) puts Stratopeda just outside Daphnae. Sesostris is casually mentioned as returning by way
How and Wells (op. cit., on ii. 30, n. 2) partly outside. of Daphnae (ii. 107).
34 Gnomon
1925, 330: JdI 933, 60. Cf. R. M. 36 See Petrie Tanis II, 47: RumpfJ7dl 1933, 6o.
Cook BSA xxxiv, 87, n. 3. 37 And Petrie claims that the modern caravan route
35 Position of
Stratopeda (ii. I54). Daphnae is on passes Tell Defenneh (Tanis II, 47).
 AMASIS AND THE GREEKS IN EGYPT 235
then, the policy of Amasis was at first nationalist, the installation of a
foreign bodyguard belongs more naturally to a later period of his reign.
In 565 such an action would have been rash and dangerous, both for its
effect on Egyptian sentiment and for the opportunity it might have offered
to angry foreigners. Even more rash if he was at the same time introducing
vigorous restrictions on Greek trade with Egypt. To call this a subtle
compromise is perverse. Whether, then, Amasis did or did not introduce
the restrictions on Greek commerce, from Herodotus, as well as from the
finds at Tell Defenneh, it appears that they did not interfere with the
mercenaries. So much for the literary evidence.
Herodotus, then, is not a very useful guide to the position of the Greeks
in Egypt before the Persian conquest. He wrote a history of Egypt, not
a history of Greek contact with Egypt, and his allusions to Greeks are mainly
casual. The Amasis of Herodotus is a half-legendary figure, and his reign
the Golden Age of the Greeks in Egypt. The Amasis of the Egyptian
records rose to power as the head of an anti-Greek movement: Herodotus,
deliberately or from ignorance, does not record this. But even if Herodotus's
sketch of Amasis and his policy is correct, there is no excuse for an arbitrary
selection of isolated statements to fit conventional theories.

3. CONCLUSIONS.
The following conclusions seem to be permitted by the available
evidence.
(I) The Greek settlement at Naucratis was founded about 6I5-IO.38
There is no evidence in Egypt of Greek trade before this time. Naucratis
immediately became an important East Greek community, and the sanc-
tuaries of Apollo and Aphrodite 39were established then.
(2) There were apparently Greek mercenaries on the eastern frontier
from some time in the reign of Psammetichus I till about the time of the
Persian conquest. Herodotus says that Psammetichus settled Greek veterans
at Stratopeda, and that this settlement lasted till the reign of Amasis; and
Tell Defenneh shows Greek military occupation for most at least of Amasis's
reign.
(3) A concentration of Greek traders in Egypt at Naucratis is mentioned
by Herodotus. First, the object of this concentration is unknown-possible
motives are nationalist jealousy of the Greeks, better control of commerce
and of foreigners, deference to the Greek community of Naucratis by
granting a monopoly. Secondly, the date is uncertain: rTOrraXaiovsuggests
that it was early, but one or more of the motives mentioned above would fit
38 Cf.
Payne .Jecrocorinthia,25. To judge from Mme. Lambrino's final report will be illuminating:
the archaeological evidence the end of the seventh I base my conclusions on the sherds in the National
century seems to mark the beginning of the Museum, Bucharest, some of which she has published
distant colonising period of the East Greek cities. in Dacia iii-iv, 362-77. For Apollonia Pontica there
Naucratis seems to have been founded about 615- are numerous sherds in Sofia and Burgas, and some
io, Berezan, Istria and Apollonia Pontica about in the Louvre and in Bonn.
6Io-6oo. For Berezan there are some hundreds of 39 Not mentioned by Herodotus. The most
sherds collected by von Stern and given to Halle and prominent dedicators are Chiots.
Leipzig, and perhaps to Heidelberg. For Istria
236 R. M. COOK
any period. Thirdly, the concentration did not affect mercenaries: and
on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile Tell Defenneh seems to have had some
commercial life of its own, certainly during the reign of Amasis.
(4) The policy of Amasis is probably rightly interpreted as balanced
between conciliation of the Egyptian nationalists and fear of Persia. Fear
of Persia, eventually at least, dominated. Hence his alliances with Lydia
and then with Polycrates, and perhaps with Cyrene; and the philhellenism,
even at home, which won him his place in Greek fable. The recall of the
mercenaries from Stratopeda to be his bodyguard looks like a late stage in
this policy. Archaeological finds suggest that intercourse between Greeks
and Egyptians may have increased during his reign.
(5) It is not known what Amasis did at Naucratis; nor, if he did
anything, when it was.
(6) Amasis did not necessarily evacuate Stratopeda at the beginning
of his reign. If the motive given by Herodotus is right, and anyhow if
Amasis removed the mercenaries to Memphis to be his bodyguard, the
evacuation is likely to have been later.
(7) Stratopeda is not Tell Defenneh or Daphnae. Tell Defenneh may
be Daphnae. Anyhow Tell Defenneh provides no absolute date for
archaeology. 40
(8) Herodotus on Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt is vague and not
entirely reliable.
The future lies with the archaeologists. A thorough exploration of the
Pelusiac branch of the Nile and further excavations at Tell Defenneh might
elucidate Stratopeda and Daphnae. A careful survey of the Delta, if it
is possible, might decide whether there were other Greek settlements besides
Naucratis and Tell Defenneh, and, if so, when they flourished. Perhaps
more work could be done at Naucratis: 41 certainly more could be done on
the finds from Naucratis. But Egypt is remote for Hellenic specialists,
and Egyptologists not unnaturally neglect Greek intrusions in the late
Saite period.
It remains for me to express my gratitude for help and criticism to
Mrs. K. M. T. Atkinson, Mr. J. A. Davison, Miss M. S. Shaw and Professor
T. B. L. Webster.
ManchesterUniversity. R. M. COOK.

APPENDIX.
I. Pre-PersianGreekPotteryfromsites in Egypt otherthanNaucratisand Tell Defenneh.42
SAIS. Late 'Rhodian': I. Cairo 26138. Fragment of dinos. Edgar, pl. 2. Early
first quarter of sixth century.
BENHA. Clazomenian: 2. Berlin Inv. 4530. Amphora. AD ii. pl. 54: Pfuhl, MuZ III,
pl. 33, I44. Middle of sixth century.
ZAGAZIG (?). Clazomenian: 3. Oxford I921. I204. Plastic head from vase. CVA
Oxford,ii, pi. 401. 22. Bought at Zagazig. Middle of sixth century.
40 As '
Rumpf says, die Funde aus Defenneh tion of' Rhodian ' as in BSA xxxiv, 2, n. I.
datieren nicht, sie sind zu datieren ' (JdI I933, 60). Apparently no Greek pottery has been discovered
41 See Hogarth, BSA v, 46. in Egypt between Mycenean and the fabrics of the
42 Numbers of end of the seventh century.
pieces in Cairo are those of Edgar,
Cataloguedu Musee du Caire: GreekVases. Classifica-
 AMASIS AND THE GREEKS IN EGYPT 237
MEMPHIS.43 Early Corinthian: 4. British Museum. Aryballos. Payne, Necrocorinthia187,
as no. 585. Last quarter of seventh century.
Fikellura: 5. University College, London. Fragment of amphora. BSA xxxiv, 33,
P. 23 c. Second half of sixth century.
Clazomenian: 6. Oxford G. I29. 4. Fragment of amphora, decorated with scale-pattern.
CVA Oxfordii, pi. 40I. I4.44 Middle of sixth century.
ABUSIR. Late ' Naucratite': 7. Bonn 2002. 14. Fragment of oinochoe (?), decorated
with lions. First quarter of sixth century.45
Fikellura: 8. Bonn 2002. i8. Fragments of oinochoe. BSA xxxiv, 43, T 8. Middle
of sixth century.
Clazomenian:9. Bonn 2002. 3-4. Fragments of amphora, decorated with scale-pattern.
Middle of sixth century.
SAQQARAH. Egyptian Greek: Io. Cairo 26135. Amphora. Edgar, pl. I: Prinz,
Fundeaus Naukratis,pl. 3. In the ' Rhodian' tradition. First half of sixth century.
I. Cairo 32377. ' Amphora.' Edgar, pls. 5 and 6. Middle of sixth century (?).
LUxoR. Early Corinthian: I2. Aryballos. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 187, no. 599B.
Last quarter of seventh century.
Fikellura: 13. Berlin University D. 764. Fragments of amphora. BSA xxxiv, 13, G 9.
Third quarter of sixth century.
Clazomenian: I4. Berlin University D. 764. Fragments of amphora. Middle of sixth
century.
I5. Hildesheim I539. Amphora. Middle of sixth century.
KARNAK. Clazomenian: i6. Berlin Inv. 5844. Amphora. Said to be from Karnak.
Third quarter of sixth century.
17. Oxford I924. 64. Fragments of amphora. CVA Oxford,ii, pl. 40I. 24. Middle to
third quarter of sixth century.
EDFU. Middle 'Rhodian' : I8. Oxford I892. II03. Fragment of Middle ' Rhodian'
stemmed dish. CVA Oxford,ii, pl. 395 I 7. Very end of seventh century.
In addition, a considerable number of Greek pots and sherds have been bought on the
market at Cairo and Alexandria. This is in itself no proof that such pieces were found in
Egypt; but the poor quality of many of them is against importation by art dealers. The
vast majority are of the reign of Amasis or the early Persian period: if these pieces had
been picked up at Naucratis, the late seventh and early sixth centuries should have been
well represented It is therefore likely that some at least are from other sites in Egypt.
II. Egyptian-GreekPottery.
46
Besides the Situlae some of the Greek pottery found in Egypt was possibly made by
Greeks resident in Egypt. A tentative list follows. These pieces show little or no influence
of Egyptian art, but rather are provincial Greek.
I. Cairo 26135. (No. IOabove). This amphora is in the general' Rhodian ' tradition,
but fits into no close group. From Saqqarah. First half of sixth century.
2. Cairo 32377. (No. II above). A freak in shape and style. From Saqqarah.
Middle of sixth century (?).
3. Bonn 1524. Bauch-amphora. Said to be from the Delta. Pfuhl, MuZ III, pl. 39,
I67. Greifenhagen, JdI 1936, 396-7, figs. 48-51. Middle of sixth century (?). This
piece has been considered by some to be Pontic and the provenance doubted.
4. British Museum 88. 2-8. 57. Amphora. The shape perhaps derived from Clazo-
menian; the cable-pattern from Fikellura. The style and clay do not belong to any
known Greek ware. From Tell Defenneh. Tanis II, pl. 32. 4: BSA xxxiv, 79, n. I.
Second half of sixth century.

43 Petrie, Memphis I, 3, mentions more Greek 45 I thank Dr. Kukahn for

knowledge of this
pottery from that area. fragment.
44 46 See
Price, CVA Oxford, ii, 88, mentions two similar above, p. 229.
fragments from Memphis.