Naukratis as a Contact Zone: Revealing the Lydian Connection

NAUKRATIS FOUNDATION DATE: HOW TO RECONCILE BETWEEN HERODOTUS AND ARCHAEOLOGY?

The major difficulty with regard to the foundation of Naukratis has always been how to reconcile the literary evidence for its early history (principally Herodotus 2. 178) with the excavation results. While most archaeologists tend to date the earliest Greek pottery at the site to around 615-610 BC, 4 Herodotus (2. 178) states that Naukratis was given to the Greeks as a trade colony by Pharaoh Amasis, whose reign began only in 570 BC. This, as James following Bowden puts it, raises a clear dilemma: 'should the pottery dating correct Herodotus, or Herodotus correct the pottery dating?' 5 Although the majority of scholars are not willing to reconsider the Aegean chronology of the Archaic period, in Whitley's words, 'the one major anomaly that remains in the traditional picture is the date of the foundation of Naukratis'. 6 In fact, this so far unanswered dilemma was raised by G. Hirschfeld already in 1887, a year after the publication of Petrie's first final excavation report. Hirschfeld held that Herodotus' testimony serves as a reliable terminus post quem for the foundation of Naukratis and that the dating of its earliest Greek pottery must be established in accordance with the chronological anchor provided by Herodotus. 7 While most scholars ignored this proposal, the reliability of the Archaic Greek chronology has been questioned on several occasions. According to the proponents of the Low Chronology, if Naukratis as a Greek settlement was founded only during the reign of Amasis, 8 that is to say post-570 BC, this would require lowering Archaic Greek dates by roughly three to four decades. 9 However, evidence supplied by the Levantine side appears to be crucial: the destruction of Ashkelon by Nebuchadnezzar II in the month of Kislev 604 BC, 10 as reported in the Babylonian Chronicle and the East Greek pottery assemblage exposed in Ashkelon's destruction layer, leaves no room for any significant lowering of the Archaic Greek chronology. 11 Likewise, time and again, based on new discoveries from Ashkelon and Assesos, the chronological sequence for Corinthian pottery established by H. Payne has proved its reliability. 12 In some instances, such as the end of Early Protocorinthian or the beginning of the Early Corinthian series, Payne's chronology should be lowered by a few years, based on a new understanding of certain finds from Gela and Selinus. But on the whole these modifications are fairly modest. 13 How in view of this can we explain the apparent contradiction between Herodotus and archaeology regarding the date of the foundation of Naukratis? Many of the wide variety of explanations already offered have merit.

According to J. Boardman, for example, 'the evidence that Greeks were in Naukratis long before Amasis is overwhelming; Herodotus' words do not contradict this, and the archaeology is emphatic. Indeed it provides an important fixed point for traditional chronology and in no way upsets it, as some have tried to argue'. 14 According to R.M. Cook, however, and the majority of scholars who accept his views, Amasis only reorganised Naukratis, but Herodotus made a mistake and wrongly attributed to Amasis the work of one of his predecessors. 15 O. Murray on the other hand, has argued that the history of Naukratis as told by Herodotus has been shaped by the claim of one political group that centred on the Hellenion (that is merchant class with political pretensions) and that the fact that Herodotus records nothing before the reign of Amasis reflects the biases of his sources. 16 I find it difficult to accept any of these views. Thanks to the presence of bilingual interpreters and Greek mercenaries on Egyptian soil, Herodotus states specifically that Greeks had good knowledge of the history of Egypt from the reign of Psammetichus I onwards. 17 How could Herodotus and his sources be so wrong about the foundation of Naukratis, doubtless the most important Greek settlement in Egypt? But there is more here, including chronological inconsistencies in Herodotus' statements. Thus, he tells us of Rhodopis the courtesan that 'every Greek knew her name'. Rhodopis came to Egypt to work, brought by Xanthos of Samos, but upon her arrival was freed for a pile of 11 Waldbaum and Magness 1997;Waldbaum 2002;Fantalkin 2011. More so, a new publication of the pottery assemblage from Assesos near Miletus, probably associated with the Lydian destruction in the sixth year of Allyates, is in line with Ashkelon's findings (Kalaitzoglou 2008). 12 Payne 1931;1933. 13 Coldstream 1968Neeft 1987;Amyx 1988, 428, passim;Morris 1996. 14 Boardman 1994; and see also Demetriou 2005, 202. 15 R. Cook 1937; and see, for example, Austin 1970, 24;Bard 1999, 679;Möller 2000, 188, 193. 16 Murray 1987. 17 Herodotus 2. 154; and see Lloyd 1975, 13-32. money by Kharaxos of Mytilene, brother of Sappho. According to Herodotus, Kharaxos, after giving Rhodopis her freedom, returned to Lesbos, but was bitterly attacked by Sappho in one of her poems (Herodotus 2. 135). On another occasion, however, Herodotus says Rhodopis was contemporary with Amasis (Herodotus 2. 134), which puts her in the second third of the 6th century BC. According to Boardman, however:

Sappho, and no doubt her eldest brother, were dead by 570 BC, to judge from the literary sources, and so belong to the early decades of the century; and the girl she mentions as involved with her brother is a Doricha not Rhodopis. No doubt they were the same, as Strabo (17. 1. 33) and others have thought, but Sappho's brother must have been trading with Naukratis well before Amasis. 18 Boardman has confessed that he has no answer to this dilemma and that 'we are left to assume that the pubescent Doricha was an old man's darling and survived to be a rich old Madame'. 19 In order to resolve the chronological contradiction related to the foundation of Naukratis, I shall begin by assuming that Herodotus intentionally attributed the establishment of Naukratis to the activity of Amasis, so as to emphasise the achievements of this particular pharaoh in Greek eyes. This is the best possible explanation assuming that, on the one hand, the Greek pottery chronology of the Archaic period is firmly grounded, and on the other, that Herodotus' Egyptian sources from the reign of Psammetichus I on were largely reliable. However, why would Herodotus wish to glorify the achievements of Amasis by linking his name to the establishment of Naukratis?

In order to answer this question, we may follow R. Drews in his suggestion that we pay special attention to Herodotus' own words of introduction: 20 This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other (Herodotus 1. 0).

Drews maintains that all that follows in Herodotus' Histories supports the author's opening statement. In other words, not only did Herodotus know in advance what he wished to write; he also stated his intentions and fulfilled his 18 Boardman 1994, 142. It has recently been proposed that, in contrast to the accepted assumption that Herodotus utilised Sappho's original poem (for example Page 1955, 49 n.1), his sources on Rhodopis and Kharaxos reflect a comic tradition of the 5th century BC (of Cratinus and others), dealing with Sappho's poetry and its characters (Lidov 2002). Even if Lidov is correct and Herodotus indeed utilised Cratinus rather than Sappho, which is not reflected in the text, the chronological dilemma described by Boardman remains (and see Lardinois 1994, 62 n. 23). 19 Boardman 1994, 142. 20 Drews 1973; and see Lattimore 1958. task. 21 Herodotus attempted to document all of the information at his disposal (basically the oral traditions, but not only them), 22 while putting a special emphasis on the 'great and marvellous deeds' of the Greeks and the barbarians. According to Drews, the main reason for inserting the barbarian logoi into the narrative of the Histories lies in Herodotus' desire to emphasise the greatness of the Greek victory over the Persians, which defeated all of those ancient and wealthy kingdoms such as Egypt, Lydia and Medes. The Greek victory in the Persian wars was thus a formative event in Greek national awareness and was also the reason to emphasise the erga megala of those barbarian kingdoms who were defeated by the Persians, for the greater and more wondrous their deeds, so also the importance and uniqueness of the Greek victory. 23 It is clear that such a reconstruction may contradict the influential reconstruction of Jacoby, to the effect that following his numerous journeys, Herodotus first composed the barbarian logoi separately, when his primary aim was to create an ethnographic composition, similar to that of Hecataeus of Miletus. According to F. Jacoby, only after his arrival in Athens after ca. 445 BC did Herodotus write the chapters dealing with the Persian wars. 24 For the purposes of the present study, there is no real need to embark upon a comprehensive discussion of the complex question that has weighed on generations of historians of whether the text of the Histories is one long, never-revised first draft, which although it may have taken months or years to write out still should be considered as the result of a single, ongoing creative process with a clearly defined purpose, 25 or if the various logoi were written separately over the course of Herodotus' life and only combined by him into a single work at a relatively late stage in his career. 26 Even if parts of the barbarian logoi of Herodotus were indeed initially created without regard for the Persian wars but as pure ethnographic treaties, the necessary changes in response to an astonishing Greek victory, the great event that transformed the very essence of Greek identity, could have been incorporated at a later stage during the final editing. 21 In this regard, see also Wπcowski 2004. 22 Murray 2001Asheri 2007. 23 Drews's assumption is, in my view, on par with the arguments of Jonathan Hall, who sees the wars with the Persians as the main turning point in defining Greek identity (Hall 2002). While it is possible to raise quite a few objections to a considerable number of Hall's claims (and see, for example, Antonaccio 2004;Mitchell 2006), his chief argument that the Persian wars were a watershed in Greek identity today appears to be a communis opinio. 24 Jacoby 1913. 25 Pohlenz 1937;Lattimore 1958;Immerwahr 1966;Flory 1987;Bichler 2000. 26 Fornara 1971. From here, we can proceed to solving the riddle of why Herodotus attributed the establishment of Naukratis to Amasis rather than to Psammetichus I. While Amasis died several months before the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, in Herodotus' view Amasis and his kingdom were the Persians' targets, 27 for Herodotus begins the third book with the declaration that Cambyses started his Egyptian campaign specifically against Amasis (Herodotus 3. 1). 28 It is absolutely clear that despite the fact that it was actually Psammetichus III who was defeated by the Persians, his brief reign of some six months was less relevant for the major aims of Herodotus, 29 who preferred to focus upon the great deeds of Amasis. More so, according to P. Vannicelli, 'it should not be forgotten that, within the 26th Dynasty, Herodotus devotes much more space to Amasis than to the preceding pharaohs; Amasis is in fact the only Egyptian king to whom Herodotus dedicates a unitary logos, comparable to those dedicated e.g. to Croesus or Darius'. 30 Amasis' logos, however, also clearly relates to a group of extensive and separate logoi dedicated to Croesus and Astyages, the last kings of Lydia and Medes. It may thus be suggested that it is no coincidence that separate logoi were assigned to each of the last Great Kings, Croesus, Amasis and Astyages, whose kingdoms were actually conquered by the Persians. Thus, from Herodotus and his audience's perspective (especially the Athenian audience): the greater the deeds of those barbarian rulers who were actually defeated by the Persians, the more important and unique the Greek victory.

It is in this spirit, I believe, that one must approach Herodotus' notorious 'error' regarding the establishment of Naukratis. In keeping with the concept outlined above, Herodotus, sought to emphasise deliberately the great deeds of Amasis, who was defeated by the Persians. Most probably, he had reliable sources, such as the traditions about Sappho's brother, indicating the foundation of Naukratis prior to Amasis' rule. But, for the Athenian reader or listener he was choosing to cleverly ignore this fact, linking Amasis' name to both 27 Herodotus even notes that Cambyses' personal hatred for Amasis was so great that he ordered Amasis' body removed from his tomb so as to desecrate it (Herodotus 3. 16). For a comprehensive survey of classical traditions concerning Cambyses' supposedly 'savage behaviour' in Egypt, see Dillery 2005. 28 Traditionally, the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in Amasis' forty-fourth year is dated to 525 BC (Parker 1957). Today, however, the widespread view is that the accuracy of this date remains uncertain and it is generally assumed that Cambyses conquered Egypt sometime between 527 and 525 BC (Depuydt 1996, 184 n. 23;2006, 267-68;von Beckerath 2002;Cruz-Uribe 2003, 54-57). 29 Depuydt 2006, 268; Herodotus 3. 14-15. 30 Vannicelli 2001, 240 n. 47. the establishment of the Hellenion and the foundation of Naukratis. 31 Consequently, the glorious deeds of Amasis, whose kingdom was defeated by the Persians, were more powerfully presented here thanks to the literary fiction created by Herodotus, according to whom Amasis not only gave the Greeks who came to Egypt the city of Naukratis, 32 undoubtedly the most important Greek settlement on Egyptian soil, but was also the first to conquer Cyprus and impose a tax upon the island. 33 Having suggested an explanation for Herodotus' chronological confusion, we can move forward in our attempts to understand the Greek presence at Naukratis already in the late 7th century BC and its assumed reorganisation under Amasis after 570 BC. Indeed, pottery chronology is merely a tool enabling us to situate evidence in its proper historical or geopolitical setting. The real question concerning Naukratis, was formulated long time ago by M.M. Austin, who wondered:

How could a whole series of Greek cities, from Mytilene down to Phaselis, which were often quarrelling with each other and, even in the face of a major threat such as that of Persia, were incapable of any coherent plan of action, actually agree year after year on the appointment of officials from their midst who were to take charge of affairs in a distant port in Egypt? There is no parallel to such a complicated procedure in Greek history! 34

Austin believes that the prostatai tou emporiou 35 were appointed in Naukratis rather than periodically sent from home, but even if that were the case it is totally unclear how such a number of different Greek communities managed to co-operate on foreign soil, while convincing the Egyptians to trade with them in Naukratis. Boardman, for example, suggests that we are witnessing a brotherhood of merchants, 'indifferent to the interstate rivalries at home, 31 Both the archaeological evidence from the Hellenion and Herodotus' testimony (2. 178) make possible the claim that this famous temple was indeed founded during the reign of Amasis; and see below. 32 It should be emphasised that in contrast to other cases where Herodotus made clear statements concerning the foundation of a given colony (for example, 2. 44; 3. 91; 5. 42; 7. 143, 170), in the case of Naukratis there is a particular choice of words indicating his desire to emphasise that Naukratis was not founded as a regular colony but was given to the Greeks by the Egyptians. 33 For a similar evaluation, though less specific than that of Herodotus, cf. Diodorus 1. 68. Moreover, in this case as well, Herodotus creates another fiction, for the kings of Cyprus were forced to pay tribute to Assyrian kings as early as 707 BC, in the days of Sargon II, and later on, in 673 BC in the days of Esarhaddon (Lipinski 1991;Na'aman 2001;Iacovou 2002). However we have no way of knowing if, like Naukratis, Herodotus hid the information at his disposal or if this fact was unknown to him. Likewise, there are numerous doubts concerning Amasis' ability to conquer Cyprus (Carpez-Csornay 2006). 34 Austin 1970, 31-32. 35 These Greek officials should be probably interpreted as commercial attaché at the emporion of Naukratis (Möller 2000, 193-96). bound firmly by a common interest in trade with the foreigner, in a word, in making money'. 36 While having no doubts concerning the presumed existence of a brotherhood of merchants at Naukratis, I do not regard that as sufficient to provide a convincing explanation for the atypical co-operation between numerous and diverse Greek city-states, especially on Egyptian soil. There must be something else here. This something is what I call the Lydian connection.

LYDIAN IMPERIAL ASPIRATIONS IN THE 7TH AND THE FIRST HALF OF THE 6TH CENTURIES BC

When considering the importance of the Lydian kingdom in the geopolitics of the 7th and the first half of the 6th centuries BC, including its possible mediation in the provisioning of East Greek mercenaries to Egypt, 37 we have to bear in mind a range of phenomena. For example, it is certainly curious that the beginning of Ionian colonisation around the Black Sea and the establishment of Naukratis occurred at roughly the same time, at the end of the 7th century BC. A few scholars have noted this chronological proximity, 38 however they are unable to offer a convincing answer to the question of whether this is a merely chronological coincidence or if there is another factor at work here that could have caused a sudden outburst of East Greek activity in the Black Sea region, Egypt and the southern Levant. In my view, this is not a chance chronological coincidence but was brought about by a uniting and intentional force: the Lydian kingdom. I believe that the imperialist aspirations of this young kingdom encouraged the movement of those Greeks, who suddenly found themselves under the direct guidance of Lydian rule.

In this regard, Herodotus' remarks regarding Ionian enslavement, first by the Lydians and later by the Persians (Herodotus 1. 6, 169), 39 are somewhat misleading, since both archaeologically and historically the period of Lydian rule (and the same holds true for the Persian rule, at least up to the beginning of the Ionian rebellion) was a particularly prosperous time in the history of Ionia. Thus, in comparison to most parts of the Greek world in the Archaic period, at the end of the 7th century BC and particularly during the course of the 6th century BC, 36 Boardman 1994, 142. 37 Fantalkin 20062011. 38 Waldbaum 2002Master 2001, 169-70. 39 Needless to say that Herodotus' biased account on this issue, intended mainly to a mid-late 5th-century BC Athenian audience, reflects the realities and perceptions of the time of his writing, rather than genuine states of affairs in earlier periods. Ionia and its centre at Miletus were responsible for most of the revolutionary advances in a wide variety of fields, including colonisation and trade, architecture and philosophy. 40 Indeed, I. Morris and J. Hall note the dichotomous way in which the Greeks seem to have viewed the Lydians, for the most part positively by Greek elites and negatively by representatives of what is referred to as the 'middling ideology'. 41 Thus according to Hall, 'when Sappho mentions Lydia in the same breath as Lesbos or the Ionian cities, it is hard to detect the sort of ethnic demarcation that we might have expected had the Lydians been regarded as so desperately others'. 42 Intermarriages between Greek elites (especially those from Ephesos) and the Lydian royal house, point in the same direction. 43 The complex relations that took shape over many years between the Mermnad rulers of Lydia and the Greeks have received considerable attention and it is not my aim to deal here in detail with all its aspects. Some scholars have claimed that this is an essentially reciprocated relationship that, despite various power struggles, brought prosperity to all parties involved. 44 Others have emphasised the negative effect, for it was the Lydian occupying power that first imposed taxes on those Greek communities that found themselves under its rule. 45 I concur with Boardman, according to whom 'the kings of Lydia seem to have cultivated relations with the Greeks, however harsh their treatment of the Ionians'. 46 Beginning in the early days of the Mermnad dynasty, which apparently took control from the previous dynasty by violent means, we witness the development of an imperialist ego, that is the creation of an ideological basis for Lydian aspirations in the international arena. 47 The 40 See, for example, R. Cook 1946;Hanfmann 1953;Roebuck 1959;J. Cook 1962;1982-b;Huxley 1966;Emlyn-Jones 1980;Sandywell 1996;Gorman 2001;Couprie et al. 2002. It should be noted that during the period of Athenian domination, Ionia lost its importance in the pan-Hellenic arena, most probably, as a result of the intentional Athenian policy (J. Cook 1961;Emlyn-Jones 1980, 165-66;Balcer 1991;Georges 2000;see, however, Osborne 1999). It is curious that the 'Ionian Renaissance' of the 4th century BC (Isager 1994;Pedersen 2004), began mainly after the 'King's peace' of 387 BC, following which Persian control was restored over most of the Ionian cities of Asia Minor. 41 Morris 2000, 178-85;Hall 2002, 119. 42 Hall 2002, 119. 43 Georges 1994Hall 2002, 102 n. 65. 44 See, for example, Radet 1893;Lenschau 1913;Hogarth 1909;1929;Mazzarino 1947;Boardman 1980, 99, passim;Georges 1994, 26, passim. 45 See, for example, Akurgal 1962; Koshelenko and Kuznetsov 1992;Tsetskhladze 1994;1998;Greaves 2002, 107-08;Lavelle 2009;Lungu 2010. 46 Boardman 1980, 99. 47 The close relations formed between Lydia and Delphi should be noted in particular. On the one hand, the Mermnad dynasty received the required legitimacy in the eyes of the Greeks from the temple of Apollo at Delphi, while on the other it indirectly resulted in Delphi becoming a pan-Hellenic centre of major international importance (Georges 1994, 22-46;Buxton 2002;Kaplan 2006;David 2006). For a possible Lydian involvement in the cultic activities at the geographical location of Lydia, beyond the Assyrian kingdom's direct area of control, 48 but in proximity to the Greek settlements along the western coast of Asia Minor, determined the main features of the method by which, through the creation of a Lydian king list, legitimacy was given to the deeds of the new dynasty, in the eyes of both the Assyrians and the Greeks. W. Burkert points out that the creation of the Lydian king list is an attempt 'to establish relations and equality of rank first with Assyria, then Sparta'. 49 However, the ideological basis for the lofty position of the Mermnad dynasty is also evident elsewhere.

According to M. Munn's novel thesis, the legitimacy of the Mermnad royal house in Greek eyes was achieved by Greek acknowledgment of the 'divine legitimation of Lydian sovereignty', whereby Kybele is perceived as divine mother and as consort of the Lydian ruler. 50 In Munn's interpretation, Lydia and its capital Sardis, which inherited these features of divine sovereignty from the Phrygians, became the natural centre of the world in Ionian cosmology. Munn believes that the essence of this cosmology, as presented in the works of Anaximander and Thales, are in fact a response to the imperialist ambitions of the Lydian kingdom.

In view of this, one may assume that Lydia was actively engaged in promoting an imperialist agenda against contemporary superpowers, first versus Assyria, and later on, versus Egypt, Babylon, Sparta and Persia. Some of the clearest manifestations of imperialist aspirations can be seen in the ways that great powers have treated dependant populations, monitoring and protecting their longdistance trade activities, often for the mutual benefit of all parties involved.

During the second half of the 8th and the 7th centuries BC, for example, Assyrians invested a great deal into the supervision of Phoenician trading activity. 51 On the one hand, the Phoenicians enjoyed the stability produced by the pax Assyriaca and the exclusive access to the network of trade routes and trade centres across the eastern Mediterranean. On the other hand, their commerce was strictly regulated and taxed. 52

Temple of Artemis at Ephesos (even prior to Croesus' well-attested activity), see de Polignac 1995, 75-76, nos. 108-110;; see also Kerschner 2008. 48 When Gyges first approached Ashurbanipal in hope of achieving recognition and legitimacy from a superpower of the day, Lydia, from the Assyrians' point of view, was merely a distant province on the other side of the sea, whose name the kings who went before Ashur banipal had not heard mentioned (Luckenbill 1927, 352). 49 Burkert 1995, 145; and see also Berndt-Ersöz 2008. 50 Munn 2006, 4, 175-220, passim; and see also Roosevelt 2009, chapter 2, passim. 51 See, for example , Frankenstein 1979;Niemeyer 2000. 52 The Phoenicians involved in commercial and colonial activities in the western Mediterranean, however, far from their Assyrian masters, doubtless enjoyed a higher degree of flexibility than their counterparts in the eastern Mediterranean.

As already noted, the representatives of the Mermnad dynasty attempted to create an impression of equality with the Assyrian kings, both through the creation of the impressive Lydian kings' list and through various types of co-operation with Egypt (even if this could have a negative effect upon their relations with the Assyrian empire). 53 At the same time, it appears that in their actions the Lydians attempted to imitate the imperialistic approach of the Assyrian superpower, and this finds expression in both the rather regular punitive campaigns against East Greek city states and in the adoption of certain characteristics of Assyrian state machinery, from the organisation of the royal palace at Sardis to the musical preferences of Mesopotamian origin. 54 Did the relations that developed between the Phoenician city-states and the Assyrians, including the promotion of Phoenician trade under Assyrian patronage, influence the Lydian attitude toward the East Greek communities? In other words, did the Ionian colonisation and trade enjoy the protection and support of the Lydian kings in a manner similar to the relations that existed between the Phoenicians and the Assyrians?

The complex relationships between the Mermnad rulers of Lydia and the Eastern Greeks cannot be compared directly to the ones that we are witnessing between the Assyrians and Phoenicians or between the Spartans and their dependant colonies. After all, Lydia, despite its attempts to imitate Assyrian ways, was certainly not Assyria with its colossal war machine. Likewise, Lydian connections with the Greek city states were more intimate than Assyrians with Phoenicians. Still, it is in this framework of an imperialist world view that we should examine the question of Ionian colonisation and trade abroad under the Lydian regime.

NAUKRATIS: REVEALING THE LYDIAN CONNECTION

It seems to me that toward the end of the 7th century BC, one of the most important developments in the relations between the Lydians and the eastern Greeks is connected to a peace treaty between Miletus and Lydia, following some 12 years of wars (Herodotus 1. 17-22). 55 The pact was conducted in the sixth year of 53 Nonetheless, it should be noted that despite Gyges' one-time 'slip', in sending Carian and Ionian mercenaries to the assistance of Psammetichus I (apparently without first notifying Ashurbanipal), the Lydians shortly after hurriedly declared their loyalty to the Assyrian throne (Spalinger 1978). 54 Franklin 2008; it seems that numerous Mesopotamian influences passed to the Greeks via the Lydians, for when Lydia was at its height, 'all the sages from Hellas who were living at that time, coming in different ways, came to Sardis' (Herodotus 1. 29; and see also E. Cook 2004). 55 According to Herodotus, it was Sadyattes who began the war against Miletus and fought for 6 years. His son Alyattes fought for five more years and we can add an additional year to the general Alyattes II and I cannot embark here on the problems involved in determining the exact year. I opt for 612/1 BC, but it depends of course on how one counts and if one adopts the dates from Herodotus, or from Eusebius or from the Parian Marble, and where exactly shall we place the destruction of Sardis. 56 In any case, even if the sixth year of Allyates should be lowered to, for instance, 605/4 BC, it is obvious that the main reason for ending the war between Lydia and Miletus, culminated in the peace treaty, was Lydian desire to secure its western border with a new threat developing from the east following the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC. The decline of the Assyrian kingdom in the 620s BC and its final collapse in 612 BC 57 caused a chain of events that, in a short time, reshaped the geopolitical map of the Near East. Thus, Egypt and Babylonia found themselves fighting each other for control over the southern Levant, while Lydia via strategic treaty with Miletus had pacified its western border in response to the growing strength of the kingdom of Media. The significance of this pact for the Milesians, however, can hardly be overestimated, for they received protection under the Lydian umbrella and support for operations in both the Black Sea area and Egypt. The importance and uniqueness of this agreement was apparently so great for Miletus that after the fall of Sardis, the Milesians guaranteed the alliance with Cyrus under the same terms that had existed between them and the Lydians (Herodotus 1. 141).

As noted above, based upon archaeological evidence Naukratis was founded around 615-610 BC, and perhaps the decade between 615-605 BC would suite the archaeological evidence even better. Given the approximate range of this date, we are talking about the final years of Psammetichus I or the beginning of Necho II reign. Ceramic evidence clearly indicates that Milesians began to do business in Naukratis toward the end of the 7th century BC, 58 though finds from Chios are also prominently represented. 59 calculation, for the episode of the burning of the temple of Assesian Athena relates to the twelfth year of the war. Clearly, according to Herodotus, the war came to an end and the treaty was conducted in the twelfth year from the beginning of the war; that is during the sixth year of Alyattes' reign. 56 Cf. Cargill 1977;West 2003;Cahill and Kroll 2005;Berndt-Ersöz 2008;Kokkinos 2009. 57 The final Assyrian attempt of re-organisation in Harran, under the leadership of Ashuruballit II, did not survive after 608 BC, despite the Egyptian assistance. 58 Kerschner 2001;Weber 2001;Schlotzhauer 2006a-b;Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005;Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006;Herda 2008 (however, a number of North Ionian sherds, belonging mainly to the Bird Bowls group, should be mentioned as well). As is well known, post-Classical traditions used to attribute the establishment of Naukratis to Miletus (Möller 2005;Herda 2008). Although the majority of these traditions are not reliable and should be treated as ideological constructs of later period, specifically designed to emphasise the role of Miletus, some historical evidence may hint into acceptance of special role reserved for the Milesians in the foundation of Naukratis (Ehrhardt 1983, 87-90, 119;Herda 2008). 59 Williams 2006. The isolated Corinthian sherds from the first phase of settlement (primarily some Early Corinthian pieces and one Transitional Corinthian piece) as well as sherds of Attic Is there a connection between the archaeologically established date for the beginning of Greek settlement at Naukratis and the strategic treaty between Lydia and Miletus? I believe so; otherwise, we have no satisfactory explanation for why the Milesians, despite the presence of Carian and Ionian mercenaries in Egypt from the 660s-mid-7th century BC, 60 did not attempt to establish their commercial foothold in Egypt prior to the end of the 7th century BC. It appears that the geopolitical parity between Lydia and Egypt, and the cooperation between the rulers of the Mermnad and Saite dynasties, beginning with Gyges and Psammetichus I and culminating in a full military pact between Croesus and Amasis, 61 opened the Egyptian market to Miletus.

It seems to me that Naukratis was established as a Greek commercial settlement only following the pact between Lydia and Miletus. 62 It is noteworthy black-figure ware (Venit 1988;Möller 2000, 119-23;Kerschner 2001;Piekarski 2001;Smoláriková 2002, 47, 59), despite their chronological significance, do not attest to Corinthian or Attic presence here. For this pottery, due to its special qualities, was widespread throughout the Greek world and beyond (Boardman 1980, 125;for Naukratis, see Harbottle et al. 2005). 60 Haider 1996. 61 Herodotus (1. 77) notes that Croesus made a military agreement with Amasis prior to the agreement with the Spartans. According to Xenophon's Cyropaedia, numerous Egyptian mercenaries came to the aid of Croesus at the eve of his battle with Cyrus (6. 2. 9; 7. 1. 45). If so, it may be assumed that these were Ionian and Carian mercenaries sent by Amasis, at Croesus' request. In Hellenica, the same Egyptian mercenaries are probably mentioned again, and according to Xenophon, at the end of the war and Croesus' defeat, they were settled by Cyrus at Larissa, which is generally regarded as the Egyptian Larissa (3. 1. 7), apparently located in Aeolia. In view of the bold co-operation between Psammetichus I and Gyges already during the reign of Ashurbanipal (Luckenbill 1927, 297-98; and see Jeremiah 46:9; Herodotus 2. 152), it may be assumed that the Lydian king Alyattes II, Gyges' great-grandson, also maintained close relations with both Psammetichus I and Necho II. 62 According to Herda's recent suggestion, however, the Milesians were allowed to settle and to do business in Naukratis following Necho II victory over king Josiah of Judah at Magdolus in 609 BC. Herda claims that it is after this battle that Necho has dedicated his garments to the temple of Apollo at Didyma ('Branchidae of Miletus') as reported in Herodotus 2. 159 and that this gesture to the Milesians should be considered as appreciation for the services provided by the Milesian mercenaries for Necho's strategic victory at Megiddo (Herda 2008). Herda, however, has confused between two different historical events, Josiah's execution at Megiddo in 610 BC or 609 BC (Hayes and Hooker 2001) and Necho's victories at Magdolus and Cadytis (Gaza), which most probably took place around 601/0 BC. It is after the latter event (corroborated by the statement in Jeremiah 47:1) that Necho has dedicated his garments, in which he won the battles, to the temple of Apollo at Didyma (Herodotus 2. 159). This episode most probably relates to Necho's confrontation with the Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar, who were attacking Egypt around 601/0 BC (Wiseman 1956, 70-71) and following this victory, to Necho's attempt to re-established control over southern Palestine between 601/0 BC and 599/8 BC, accompanied by a conquest of Gaza (Katzenstein 1983;Fantalkin 2001, 143-44). In any case, although mistaken identification of Magdolus (mentioned in Herodotus 2. 159) with Megiddo has taken root in the past scholarship, this identification should be rejected (Lipschits 2005, 50 n. 46); indeed, Magdolus mentioned by Herodotus, was almost certainly located in the northern Sinai (Verreth 2006, 725-30). The circumstances of Josiah's death at Megiddo in 610 BC or 609 BC, on the other hand, have been treated that, according to Herodotus, during the course of the war between Miletus and Lydia, the Milesians did not accept assistance from any of the Ionians, excepting those of Chios (Herodotus 1. 18). Is it possible that the prevalence of Chian and Milesian finds in early Naukratis is a direct consequence of co-operation between Chians and Milesians during the war against Alyattes? I see this as a reasonable hypothesis, given that an identical situation is also documented for most of the Ionian settlements along the Black Sea coast, where at the end of the 7th and beginning of the 6th century BC there appears to have been extensive commercial co-operation between Milesians and Chians.

But why, such a short time after the end of the war and the forging of a pact with Miletus, would the Lydians have rushed to take advantage of their connections with Egypt to advance an initiative to found Naukratis as a Greek commercial settlement? On the one hand, it is probable that Lydian mediation in advancing the interests of Miletus in Egypt was an integral part of the agreement. In this arrangement, Lydians may have enjoyed their share from the revenues of the Milesian trade with Egypt, simultaneously fulfilling their imperial appetite for Aegyptiaka. On the other hand, there was also an issue of the establishment of Cyrene in Libya by the Therans. I believe that the new date proposed by myself for the founding of Cyrene, around 615-610 BC rather than 632/1 BC as generally accepted by scholars, 63 allows us to view the almost simultaneous establishments of Cyrene and of Naukratis within the framework of imperialist in the literature for years and considerable doubts have been expressed on the reliability of the battle between Necho II and Josiah, as reported in 2 Chronicles 35: 20-36 (Na'aman 1991, 51-55). It seems, therefore, that Herda's suggestion should be rejected, since accepting his reconstruction would push the initial Greek settlement at Naukratis to around 600 BC or slightly later, and this would contradict the available archaeological evidence. More so, similar to other Saite rulers, Necho II has dedicated the royal gifts to a number of Greek sanctuaries, among them what seems to be the royal shrine, dedicated to the sanctuary of Athena Ialysia in Rhodes (Kousoulis and Morenz 2007). Considering the numbers of Greek mercenaries in the armies of Saite rulers, it is not surprising and there is no reason to connect between the initial Greek settlement at Naukratis and Necho's specific dedication to the temple of Apollo at Didyma. 63 This claim is based on my re-evaluation of Cyrenean foundation date, presented elsewhere (Fantalkin 2008, 145-56). I based my claim on the fact that that the earliest Corinthian pottery from Cyrene belongs to the Early Corinthian period and on Theophrastus' statement: 'The people of Cyrene say that the silphium appeared seven years before they founded their city; now they had lived there for about three hundred years before the archonship at Athens of Simonides' (Enquiry into Plants 6. 3. 3). Since Simonides was the archon of Athens in 311/10 BC, according to Theophrastus, the date of the foundation of Cyrene was sometime around 611/10 BC. It should be emphasised that Theophrastus' affirmation that the people of Cyrene discovered the famed silphium plant seven years before the founding of Cyrene matches Herodotus' version, in which the Greeks settled in Aziris for six years and only in the seventh founded Cyrene . Needless to say that Theophrastus' chronological speculations are not necessarily worthy; however, by contrast to Eusebius' three different dates for foundation of Cyrene, they fit better the archaeological evidence. competition between Sparta and Lydia. This involved the formation of new mental maps of the division of the world in the minds of both the ruling regimes and their subjects, with Libya closely tied in this theoretical space, by way of Cyrene, to Sparta, and Lydia, by way of Naukratis, to the Nile Delta.

A similar approach, revealing Lydia's important role as a sponsor of Greek commercial presence in Egypt, should be adopted with regard to Amasis' reform.

I believe that all of the reconstructions proposed thus far concerning this reform, including the reorganisation of Naukratis, are unsustainable. In contrast to the prevailing view that in the aftermath of Amasis' reform Greek commerce was restricted to Naukratis alone, 64 it appears more probable that during Amasis' reign the Egyptian market was opened to additional Greek communities (involving the establishment of additional commercial ports, such as Heraklion/Thonis) that had not been represented at Naukratis from the time of its establishment. 65 The main reason for Amasis' administrative reform, it seems to me, was related to Croesus' conquests in Asia Minor.

Following Alyattes' death in 561/0 BC, his 35-year-old son Croesus began to reign. According to Herodotus, he first attacked Ephesos and later conquered all of the Ionian and Aeolian cities. After Croesus succeeded in subjugating the Asiatic Greeks, who were forced to pay tribute, he decided to conquer the inhabitants of the Aegean islands as well (Herodotus 1. 6, 26-27). Herodotus offers his interpretation of why the idea of conquering the islands was ultimately rejected by Croesus (introducing the motif of the wise adviser, Bias of Priene or Pittakos of Mytilene), but it appears that it was Croesus' own common sense in action: as an inland rather than maritime kingdom, Lydia would have encountered considerable difficulties in attempting to conquer the islands. But what is important for our purposes is that instead of embarking on a war against the islands, Croesus preferred to turn their inhabitants into his allies. As time went on, one learns from Herodotus that Croesus subjugated almost all the nations west of the Halys; for except the Cilicians and Lycians, all the rest Croesus held subject under him. These were the Lydians, Phrygians, Mysians, Mariandynians, Chalybes, Paphlagonians, the Thracians, both Thynians and Bithynians, Carians, Ionians, Dorians, Aeolians and Pamphylians (Herodotus 1. 28). 64 See, for example, Malkin 2003. 65 Both the distribution of the Greek pottery in Egypt during the reign of Amasis (and see Smoláriková 2002;Schlotzhauer and Weber 2005) and the information supplied by Fragment 310 of Hecataeus of Miletus (Lloyd 1975, 29;Braun 1982, 47) point into the same direction.

All that remains is to compare this list of subject peoples with the list of poleis that suddenly achieved official standing at Naukratis during the reign of Amasis. Let us recall the list of Greek cities that, according to Herodotus, participated in establishing the Hellenion at Naukratis: 'it was set up by the joint efforts of these poleis: of the Ionians Chios, Teos, Phocaea, and Clazomenae, of the Dorians Rhodes, Cnidus, Halicarnassus, and Phaselis, and of the Aeolians Mytilene alone' (Herodotus 2. 178).

As may be clearly seen, a considerable portion of the communities mentioned in this passage (Teos, Phocaea, Clazomenae, Knidos, Halikarnassos and Phaselis) 66 found themselves under direct Lydian rule shortly after 560 BC; while the islanders (Chios, Rhodes and the Mytilenians from Lesbos) benefited from pacts of friendship with Croesus. Thus, Lydian expansion during the reign of Croesus faithfully reflects the expansion of Naukratis during the reign of Amasis. In other words, the Greek poleis that found themselves under the aegis of the Lydian empire, or who were on friendly terms with it, could now officially join the Milesians to do business at Naukratis. In this arrangement, the burden of tribute that many of the Greek communities of Asia Minor were forced to provide to the Lydian suzerain became considerably easier, since new attractive economic opportunities were suddenly opened to the merchants of these communities. 67 Such a reconstruction lays to rest the doubts expressed by scholars over how Greeks from such diverse and widely scattered communities would have been able to co-operate in Egypt.

According to one view, following Amasis' reform, only those who had participated in the establishment of Hellenion received commercial privileges at Naukratis, while Miletus, Samos and Aegina had no share in it. 68 On the other hand, it is claimed that one of the main reasons behind the establishment of the Hellenion lay in Amasis' desire to promote (through the reform) only those Greek cities that did not support his predecessor Apries. 69 In my view, 66 It would appear that Phaselis, located in Lycia, is not included in the list of Croesus' conquests, for according to Herodotus, Croesus subjugated nearly all of the peoples living west of the River Halys, except for the Cilicians and the Lycians. However, Phaselis was a Dorian city rather than a Cilician one. Thus, it appears more likely that it also belonged to the area under Croesus' control. Moreover, in terms of geography, Phaselis is very close to Pamphylia, whose inhabitants, according to Herodotus, were subjugated by Croesus. It is also likely that the entire area north-west of Phaselis was inhabited by Lydian settlers: according to Strabo (13. 4. 17), the Cibyratae, who were the descendants of the Lydians who took possession of Cabalis, spoke Lydian long after this language had entirely disappeared from Lydia proper. 67 This delicate arrangement reminds in a many ways the Assyrian treatment of the Phoenician subjects, already mentioned above (see also Fantalkin and Tal 2009). 68 Roebuck 1951. 69 For more details, see, for example, Bresson 2005;Pébarthe 2005. such reconstructions are flawed: otherwise, one must assume that suddenly, on the one hand, starting from the second third of the 6th century BC, people from Miletus, Samos and Aegina showed no interest in trade with Egypt (which is difficult to imagine), while on the other that Amasis conducted an in-depth investigation of each of the cities that participated in the construction of the Hellenion to determine whether they had supported him or Apries. Such reconstructions appear problematic to me. From an archaeological perspective, both the Temple of Apollo that belonged to the Milesians (mentioned by Herodotus) and the Temple of Aphrodite that apparently belonged to the Chians (not mentioned by Herodotus) are the two oldest temples in Naukratis. Both temples are certainly older than the Hellenion and belong to the Milesian/Chian phase in the history of Naukratis, following the treaty that was concluded between Lydia and Miletus toward the end of the 7th century BC. Regarding the construction of the Hellenion, the accepted explanation is that both its construction and the reform of Amasis occurred around 570 BC, the first year of Amasis' reign. However, the most ancient pottery found in the Hellenion does not prevent us from claiming that it was only constructed after 560 BC, or, more precisely, between 560 and 550 BC, 70 while for the Samian Temple of Hera, we have no clear evidence concerning the date of its construction. It may have been built before, at the same time as, or even later than the Hellenion, a result of the friendly relations that developed between Polycrates and Amasis after Croesus' fall. Regarding the temple of the Aeginetans, the only representative at Naukratis of central Greece, loosely conceived, we have no archaeological data. No evidence for that temple was uncovered during the excavations. The Aeginetans probably came to Naukratis at some point through the mediation of the Spartans, who enjoyed friendly relations with Croesus.

In view of all of the above data, it appears that the best explanation for the Greek presence at Naukratis during the late 7th and the first half of the 6th century BC (including the Milesian/Chian phase and the phase during which they were joined by other Greek cities [construction of the Hellenion]) is that all of the poleis that had a share in Naukratis' affairs and especially those that participated in the construction of the Hellenion belonged, in one 70 Herodotus' words centainly do not contradict such an assumption. For more details, see Höckmann and Möller 2006. The most recent chronological reconstruction, made by R.W. Wallace (after this paper went to press: a lecture at the International Congress 'White Gold: revealing the World's Earliest Coins', Jerusalem, 25 June 2012), suggests an accession date for Croesus of sometime between 585 and 580 BC. If so, it fits my reconstruction even better, since even if the Hellenion was indeed constructed very early in the reign of Amasis, it would mean that, in any event, this was occurring during the reign of Croesus. way or another (whether as subjects or through friendly relations) to the Lydian kingdom's sphere of influence.

If this reconstruction is accepted, Naukratis should be considered a unique and particularly important instance of a zone of intense contact with 'open use of power', 71 where Greek trade, although controlled by the Egyptians and mediated to a certain extant by the Lydians, both contributed to and profited from imperial ambitions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY