http://homepage.mac.com/apephotep/academic/
Saites, Persians, and Greeks, Oh My!
A Brief Look at Egyptian Cultural Influence on Greeks in Egypt during the Saite Period and the Effect of the Persian Conquest
Lucas Livingston
March 25, 2002
During the Third Intermediate Period, the fragmented Egypt waned as a serious player in international power. The civilizations surrounding Egypt, which had formerly been little match for Egypt at the height of her military might during the New Kingdom, grew to become the major political and military powers of the day. It is only with the return of autonomous control under the reign of Psammetichus I at the beginning of the Saite Dynasty that we see Egypt’s reemergence as a central player in Near Eastern and Mediterranean affairs. The eras of Egypt’s isolationist strategies, however, were over. With the nation surrounded on all sides by formidable opposing civilizations, Psammetichus sought not only to establish a strong military presence in Egypt, but also to forge military, political, and economic alliances with sympathetic foreign powers, namely the Greeks across the Mediterranean Sea.
For the first time in Egyptian history, we see a tremendous Greek presence in Egypt. The Saite rulers made widespread use of Greek mercenaries to fight their battles and Greek merchants and craftsmen to support a strong economy of foreign trade within the Mediterranean. We even see the establishment of Greek military barracks and the thriving development of Greek expatriate civilian settlements in Egypt. From such close contact the Greeks had with Egypt during the Late Period (Greek Archaic Period), we see distinct and significant Egyptian influences in the cultural development of Greece in aspects of domestic and religious art, temple architecture, and even religious belief and ritual, themselves.
Some of the most curious and revealing examples of the Egyptianizing effect on Greece can be seen within Egypt, itself, among the Greeks residing there. Herein we seek to examine a significant portion of evidence for the Egyptian cultural influence on Greeks in Egypt during the Saite Period. While incorporating strong literary evidence in support of the Egyptian influence on Archaic Greeks in Egypt, we will examine the archaeological record in an attempt to reconstruct aspects of daily life for the Greeks in Egypt. This may provide us with a better understanding of the ways the which the Greeks were willing and found it necessary to adapt to the changes they encountered in Egypt. Further material evidence, on which we will concentrate, is largely religious artifacts, including votive pottery and statuary and temple architecture. An understanding of the Greek people’s willingness to incorporate various Egyptianizing motifs, iconography, and stylistic elements into their most sacred aspect of life may help us to understand better just how receptive the Greeks in Egypt and their nations back home were to Egyptian cultural influence. This may also grant us insight into to what extent the developments in Greek civilization contemporary to the Saite Period are the effect of an Egyptian influence. Before we examine specific examples of Egyptianizing elements in Greek material culture in Egypt, however, it is necessary briefly to explore the historical background of the Greek military and political involvement with the Saite administration. This may provide a glimpse into the cultural climate, within which the Greeks in Egypt were received, and will prove to set the stage for a progressive Egyptian administration eagerly launching a campaign of foreign trade and international relations. To gain an understanding of the complete picture of the Greek presence in Egypt during the Saite Period from beginning to end, it is only fitting, then, to take a quick look at how the Greeks were affected by the Persian invasion and their subsequent reign over Egypt.
The Mercenary Presence
The earliest Greek presence in Egypt during the Saite Period is that of mercenaries from various regions of the Greek world. With the Assyrians and later Persians threats to the East, the Kushites to the South, and the Libyans to the East, it is easy to understand that the Saite rulers, having dramatically inferior domestic military strength as compared to their Middle and New Kingdom predecessors, desired to employ large quantities of foreign mercenaries and keep up a strong dialog with foreign nations as potential allies.
In his Histories, the 5th century Greek scholar Herodotus presents to us a colorful account of how Psammetichus I came to employ Ionian and Carian mercenaries to take control of Egypt (II.152). Despite Herodotus’ tale of oracles, pirates, and vengeance, we can glean some valuable historical and archaeological information. After the accession of Psammetichis, Herodotus tells us about the establishment of two somewhat permanent foreign mercenary settlements in the delta:
To the Ionians and Carians who helped him to gain the throne Psammetichus granted two pieces of land, opposite one another on each side of the Nile, which came to be known as the Camps (StratÒpeda), and in addition to the grant of land kept all the other promises he had made them. … The tracts of land where the Ionians and Carians settled, and where they lived for many years, lie a little distance seaward from Bubastis, on the Pelusian mouth of the Nile. Amasis subsequently turned them out and brought them to Memphis, to protect him from his own people.[1] They were the first foreigners to live in Egypt, and after their original settlement there, the Greeks began regular intercourse with the Egyptians…[2]
We see further evidence of a widespread employment of Greek mercenaries in Egypt during the Saite Period from Greek graffiti at Abu Simbel during the reign of Psammetichus II (595-589 BCE). One of the longest and most significant inscriptions offers a brief yet valuable account of their travels:
When King Psammetichos had come to Elephantine, this was written by those who sailed with [the Greek] Psammetichos, son of Theokles, who went as far upstream as they could—above Kerkis. Potasimto led the foreigners and Amasis the Egyptians. This was written by Archon son of Amoibichos and Pelekos son of Eudamos.[3]
Despite their extensive expeditions throughout Egypt, however, the Greek mercenaries were ultimately enticed to settle down in the delta region. Contrary to the customary payment of mercenaries with precious metals or coins, the Greek mercenaries in Egypt were rewarded according to Egyptian tradition with land grants in the Egyptian delta (“The Camps” of Herodotus). While this made the mercenaries readily available for Psammetichus, whenever the need arose, it also partially integrated these Greeks into Egyptian society.[4] While encouraging a long-term foreign presence in Egypt, however, the traditionally xenophobic Egyptian State chose to keep the foreign settlers tightly contained within the delta region.[5]
Instigation of Formal Trade
Aside from the large-scale employment of Greek mercenaries for the protection of the Saite rulers from internal and external threats, one result of this desire to keep strong relations with foreign, namely Greek, nations, was, of course, the encouraged growth of foreign trade in Egypt.[6] This, in turn, led to Psammetichus I (664-610 BCE) extending the privilege to Greek and other foreign merchants for commencing large scale trade with Egypt, particularly in the port city of Naukratis.[7] The later Pharaoh Amasis (570-526 BCE), in turn, reorganized the bureaucracy of Naukratis to become the preeminent port of trade in the Mediterranean and as a virtual Greek colony in Egypt.[8] One of the most valuable accounts of this action, albeit second hand, is that of Herodotus, who offers us an insight into the organization and cultural milieu of Naukratis during the Saite Period:
Amasis favoured[9] the Greeks and granted them a number of privileges, of which the chief was the gift of Naucratis as a commercial headquarters for any who wished to settle in the country. He also made grants of land upon which Greek traders, who did not want to live permanently in Egypt, might erect altars and temples. Of these latter the best known and most used—and also the largest—is the Hellenium; it was built by the joint efforts of the Ionians of Chios, Teos, Phocaea, and Clazomenae, of the Dorians of Rhodes, Cnidos, Halicarnassus, and Phaselis, and of the Aeolians of Mytilene. It is to these states that the temple belongs, and it is they who have the right of appointing the officers in charge of the port.[10] Other cities, which claim a share in the Hellenium, do so without justification; the Aeginetans, however, did build a temple of Zeus separately, the Samians one in honor of Hera, and the Milesians another in honor of Apollo.[11]
Naukratis can be seen as an ideal spot for the establishment of a multicultural port of trade in Egypt. Indeed, its geographic location would have been seen as desirable for both the foreign merchants and the Egyptian people. The location of Naukratis in the delta region along the east band of the Canopic of the Nile provided immediate access to both the Mediterranean Sea for the reception of foreign merchants and exportation of goods and the Nile valley for the distribution of imported wares by Egyptians throughout the rest of the land.[12] In common with the reorganization of the bureaucracy of Naukratis by Amasis, the port came to enjoy quite literally exclusive rights to all sea-faring foreign trade in Egypt, as Herodotus explains:
In the old days Naucratis was the only port in Egypt, and anyone who brought a ship into any of the other mouths of the Nile was bound to state on oath that he did so out of necessity and then proceed to the Canopic mouth; should contrary winds prevent him from doing so, he had to carry his freight to Naucratis in barges all round the Delta, which shows the exclusive privilege the port enjoyed.[13]
This, in turn, gave Naukratis the opportunity to thrive as the cosmopolitan and commercial center of the Mediterranean and helped maintain a permanent cultural dialog between Greece and Egypt.
Foreign Relations through Gift Exchange
As a further result of this dialog with Greece, we see the Saite kings sending gifts to Greek rulers and sanctuaries in an effort to solidify their allegiance through diplomatic exchange:
When the Amphictyons paid three hundred talents to have the temple that now stands at Delphi finished (as that which was formerly there burnt down by accident), it was the Delphians' lot to pay a fourth of the cost. They went about from city to city collecting gifts, and got most from Egypt; for Amasis gave them a thousand talents' weight of astringent earth [alum], and the Greek settlers in Egypt twenty minae. … Moreover, Amasis dedicated offerings in Hellas. He gave to Cyrene a gilt image of Athena and a painted picture of himself; to Athena of Lindus, two stone images and a marvellous linen breast-plate; and to Hera in Samos, two wooden statues of himself that were still standing in my time behind the doors in the great shrine. The offerings in Samos were dedicated because of the friendship between Amasis and Polycrates, son of Aeaces.[14]
Herodotus also tells us of the alliance Amasis established with the Spartans (II.44) and with the tyrant Polykrates of Samos (III.39-43), although Polykrates ultimately betrayed Amasis in support for Cambyses (II.44). To a large degree, the reciprocal exchange of valuable gifts or gifts for military support, in effect, helped consolidate these foreign alliances.[15] As these gifts of exchange, Egyptian statuary and art objects, thus, found their way into the palaces and sanctuaries of Greece and before the eyes of the Greek peoples.[16]
The Cultural Climate and Market of Naukratis:
Greek Receptivity of Egyptian Cultural Influence
It is interesting to note the discovery of an increasing number of instances where Greek craftsmen immigrated along with their workshops to Naukratis to apply their trade far away from home.[17] Along with the immigration of craftsmen, we also see the transportation of suitable raw materials needed to craft their objects. In addition to metal and marble being shipped over considerable distances for this purpose, we also see the transportation of raw clay from different regions of Greece to Naukratis for the manufacture of pottery.[18] It has been argued that raw clay would have been easier to ship than fragile pottery[19] and its mass seems even to have served a utilitarian function en-route as the ship’s ballast.[20] While von Bissing notes that it is not uncommon for both modern and ancient “wandering potters” to carry their clay along with them[21], Arafat and Morgan in Classical Greece are skeptical that raw clay was shipped across the Mediterranean. They concede, however, that Naukratis may very well have been an exception due to the lack of availability of suitable potter’s clay in Egypt for Greek vessels.[22] Von Bissing further notes that the uniformity of the fabric used in the manufacture of Chian pottery in Naukratis is best explained only if Chian potters brought their materials with them to Naukratis.[23] This demonstrates the willingness of the Naukratis market to transport raw materials for the purposes of fashioning goods overseas. This willingness to transport raw materials further suggests the artisan’s sentiment that a work of art must use traditional or highly similar materials to remain authentic. Otherwise, why not simply craft a vessel according to the Egyptian art using Nile mud or clay? Greek potters in Naukratis may well have used Egyptian clay later on, however, but only once clay “suitable” for their craft was discovered.[24] This seems to suggest that Greek craftsmen in Egypt were, in fact, willing to adapt their trade to the Egyptian environment, but only if this were agreeable with the market in Naukratis.
Egyptian Influence on Votive Pottery
We see subtle Egyptian influence on Greek pottery from Naukratis not only in the material used in their manufacture, but also in its stylistic elements. One very notable type of votive vessel from Naukratis from as early as the 7th century is the appropriately named “Naukratite” ware (fig. 1 Boardman). Naukratite ware has its ultimate origin on the Ionian island of Chios off the coast of Asia Minor, but this type of vessel was found to be so prolific among the artifacts of Naukratis before it had been identified in Chios that it has long been called “Naukratite” by modern scholars.[25] The name may not be entirely misleading, however, since some stylistic qualities of Naukratite ware from Naukratis are as of yet not equally represented among its Chian counterpart. The most distinctive of these stylistic qualities is the use of polychrome paint in the pottery’s decoration. This suggests a possible Egyptian influence, evocative more so of the highly polychrome decorative relief-work throughout Egypt than of contemporary Greek pottery.[26]
We also find that many sites on Chios, itself, and elsewhere outside of Egypt that contain Naukratite ware also possess Egyptian faience figurines and scarabs (sometimes even within the Naukratite vessels). No evidence has been found of an Egyptian faience figurine and scarab workshop on Chios, yet one of the more notable factories of Naukratis is in fact a faience workshop dating as far back as the late 7th century.[27] These artifacts, therefore, and quite likely also the Naukratite vessels, considering their respective situation and proximity, probably came from Naukratis and not Chios.[28]
The faience workshop located across from Sanctuary of Aphrodite seems to have been supplied much of Egypt and the Mediterranean with Egyptian and Greco-Egyptian mixed-style votive figurines, amulets, and trinkets (fig. of site, maybe). The types of Greek pottery found in and around the workshop suggest an activity period of the late 7th to the second half of the 6th century BCE. Included among the faience objects of purely Egyptian motif are Ptah, Anubis, and Bes figurines, beads, and amulets such as the Eye of Horus. Among the Greco-Egyptian mixed-style objects one finds scarab beetles and lions with Egyptian Hieroglyphics on their underside (fig. 2 Naukratis I pl. 38).[29] Petrie notes a distinctly un-Egyptian character to many of the scarabs found in the workshop and further suggests that a number of the scarabs seem to have been crafted by artists more familiar with Greek vase-painting than with Egyptian hieroglyphics.[30] Petrie dates some scarabs to as far back as the reign of Psammetichus I[31], further suggesting that Greek artisans were, indeed, working at Naukratis as early as the late 7th century. There is no evidence, however, of continued production after the Persian invasion in 525 BCE. This clearly indicates that the faience workshop was shut down by the new Persian regime, which assuredly severely impacted the Naukratis market and ejected the port of trade from its significant role as a player in Mediterranean trade.
A number of small fine cups[32] dating to the mid-sixth century have also been unearthed at Naukratis. The cups are completely bare except for their dedicatory inscription, which must have been carved into the vessels before they were fired. No kanyaroi cups similar to these have been found outside of Naukratis except for at Cyrene, Aegina, and Athens. The North African Greek colony of Cyrene was likely in close contact with Naukratis, Herodotus claims Aegina was the only non-East-Greek nation to build a temple at Naukratis[33], and only a single example of this style of votive cup was found in Athens. Furthermore, a dedicatory offering among the Aeginian examples had been made by a man, who also made similar offerings at Naukratis.[34] The preceeding evidence (the Egyptian stylistic characteristics of Naukratite ware, the accompaniment of Egyptian faience scarabs and figurines with pottery votive offerings, and the general restriction of certain types of votive pottery to Naukratis[35]) suggests that these votive cups and the aforementioned Naukratite ware were likely being crafted in Naukratis for a specific local religious market rather than for large-scale exportation throughout the Greek. This may further suggest that the Greeks residing in Naukratis seem, to some small extent, to have developed their own religious iconography incorporating some Egyptian stylistic and iconographic elements.
Greek Assimilation of Egyptian Religion
If we look outside Naukratis at the native temples throughout Egypt, we also find traces of Archaic Greek involvement in Egyptian religious institutions, as is evident from bronze votive figures bearing Greek dedicatory inscriptions discovered around Lower Egypt. One example is a bronze statue pedestal from Memphis with a relief depicting Amun and Mut receiving an offering from a worshipper (fig. 3 Masson pl. 2.1-2.4).[36] While the artistry of the scene is distinctly Egyptian, the dedicatory inscription running along the sides and top of the pedestal is written in both Greek and Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The content of the inscription is even more interesting, as it clearly demonstrates that this offering was presented by a Greek to the Egyptian temple of Amun at Thebes: “Melanthios dedicated me, a statue for Theban Zeus”[37]. Based on an analysis of the Greek inscription, it is determined to be of Ionian dialect and has been assigned a date of 550-525 BCE.[38] Another example of a bronze votive figurine of purely Egyptian design, yet bearing a Greek dedicatory inscription, is that of the very familiar Isis with baby Horus type (fig. 4 Masson pl. 3).[39] While the provenance of this statue is unknown, an analysis of the inscription (this time only in Greek) suggests an Archaic Ionian dialect with an approximate date of 500 BCE.[40] The use of such a characteristic Egyptian statue might indicate that the figure was purchased from a stock of similar items crafted specifically for dedication at a nearby Egyptian temple. The inscription was then, no doubt, made to order for the worshipper. The fact that the inscription is in Greek obviously suggests that a Greek traveler or expatriate visited and made offering at an Egyptian temple.[41]
A third and very significant example of a bronze votive figurine dedicated at an Egyptian temple by a Greek speaker is that of a seated Osiris with a lunar-disk crown from Saqqara (fig. 5 Masson pl. 4).[42] Based on an analysis of this figure’s Greek dedicatory inscription, a date as late as 400 BCE has been suggested.[43] What is truly remarkable about this object is found in the inscription: “Zenes, son of Theodotos, made [this] statue of Selene, given life.”[44] First, the inscription incorporates both Greek and Egyptian Hieroglyphics, jumping from one language to the other as appropriate for the divine epithet, whereas the previous example of a bilingual offering presented the complete inscription in both Greek and Egyptian side-by-side. This may suggest that the Greeks were becoming comfortable with the Egyptian language and, in particular, familiar with specific divine and royal epithets, while incorporating them into their religious observance. Second, the appellation of the Greek Selene for Osiris may demonstrate a possible syncretization of the two divinities and the incorporation of Egyptian deities into the Greek pantheon or, at least, a Greek effort to identify this deity in Greek religious terms.[45] The identification of an Egyptian deity as its approximate Greek equivalent, however, is certainly not unknown by this time, as we have already seen above with the identification of Amun as Theban Zeus. Furthermore, we frequently find Herodotus referring in his Histories, composed during approximately the 450’s to 420’s, referring to Egyptian divinities by Greek names.[46] While this may have been largely for the benefit of his audience back home, it nonetheless clearly demonstrates the attitude among the Greeks of relating and assimilating the Greek and Egyptian pantheons. Although the possible date around the end of the 5th century for this Osiris figure would place it at or after the end of the first Persian Dynasty, this is still significantly well before the arrival of Alexander (332 BCE) and the Ptolemies, when full-blown Greco-Egyptian religious syncretizations become commonplace. A date of circa 400, immediately following the end of the first Persian Dynasty, for such a Greco-Egyptian syncretic object may, in fact, be highly significant in suggesting renewed relations between Greece and Egypt after the yolk of Persian rule had been thrown off. Thus we already see traces of the Greek receptivity and incorporation of Egyptian religion into their own as early as the Saite and Persian Periods.
Another significance of these bronze finds outside Naukratis is the evidence supporting the theory that the Archaic Greeks in Egypt were not necessarily largely confined to Naukratis. It is unclear whether the Greeks, who made votive offerings at Egyptian temples, lived in these areas outside of Naukratis or were merely visiting these temples. When we take a look at some of the native Egyptian settlements surrounding Naukratis, however, we can hope to get a better understanding of the interaction the Greeks in Egypt had with their Egyptian neighbors. The Egyptian towns of Kom Firin and Kom Kortas near Naukratis are likely to have been in contact with Naukratis during the Saite and later periods. Trade relations with Naukratis are suggested by the discovery of Greek pottery fragments dating to the 7th, 6th, and 5th centuries BCE.[47] The presence of Greek pottery in these Ancient Egyptian towns suggests not only the likelihood that other regions of Egypt had trade relations with Naukratis during the Saite Period, but also the possibility that the Greeks may have been allowed to span out and settle in other regions of Egypt.[48] Evidence for a Greek presence south of Memphis, however, is scanty. This may suggest either that the Greeks were generally not permitted to expand in Egypt beyond this area or that they simply preferred to remain in Lower Egypt, where the Saite rulers, with whom the Greeks enjoyed good relations, held their greatest sway.
Egyptianizing Elements of Votive Statuary
In addition to Egyptian stylistic and iconographic elements in Greek votive pottery and the Greeks’ willingness, to some extent, to incorporate Egyptian religion into their own, we also see a remarkably strong Egyptian influence on votive statuary during the Saite Period. Exemplary of the local “Egyptianizing” style of Greek figurines at Naukratis is a series of crudely rendered small stone figures of a nude woman sitting on a couch or bed (fig. 6).[49] She displays a stiffness and straightness in her posture characteristic of Egyptian statuary. It is thought that this figure commonly occurring at Naukratis may have some cultic affiliation due to the occurrence of a crown and uraeus on a few examples.[50] Some examples of this series date to as early as the 6th century BCE and it appears that the manufacture of this statue type continues in a more or less unchanged iconographic and representational style for many centuries.[51]
Further small stone votive figurines suggestive of an Egyptian stylistic and iconographic influence on early Greek statuary have been found in the various Greek temples at Naukratis. One votive figurine of distinctly Egyptian style dating to the early 6th century and found within the Temple of Apollo is that of a seated worshipper holding an offering table on his lap, upon which are lying what Petrie identifies as either four vases or fishes (fig. 7).[52] Another figure of distinctly Egyptian style is that of a small kneeling figure resembling the seated-man hieroglyphic determinative (fig. 8).[53] The figure in profile is worked in low relief on both sides with an Egyptian-style wig and tight-fitting pleated robe. Another figure, appearing perhaps to be more indicative of an Egyptianizing style, also found within the Temple of Aphrodite is that of a seated woman with child (fig. 9).[54] This immediately brings to mind the well-established Egyptian sculptural representation of Isis with the baby Horus.[55] As we have already seen above, Greeks in Egypt were indeed familiar with this statue type through dedications made by them at Egyptian temples. While the Egyptian origin of this statue type is generally accepted, the question as to whether or not its presence here in Archaic Greco-Egyptian style is the result of an Egyptianizing influence is a bit more ambiguous. Figures of this and other styles[56] found within the temples of Naukratis frequently occur in the contemporary temples of Cyprus and literary evidence even suggests that such votive figurines were sometimes initially purchased on Cyprus and brought to Naukratis.[57] The Cypriot style, however, is certainly derived from the Egyptian type.[58] The question remains, then, whether these figures found at Naukratis were the result of a direct Egyptian influence on the colonists’ votive tradition or an indirect influence by means of Cyprus. Either way, however, it remains important to realize that statuary of a distinctly Egyptianizing style frequently occur at the Greek colony of Naukratis in Egypt and were dedicated within her Greek temples.
Temple Architecture
The Greek receptivity of Egyptian cultural influence is seen not only in the stylistic characteristics of votive offerings, but also in the temple architecture itself. We see an adoption of local Egyptian stone and mud-brick among the materials used for the construction of the Greek temples of Naukratis. Most early temenos walls and temples and at Naukratis seem to have consisted of a stone foundation with mud-brick walls.[59] The use of Egyptian materials and adoption of Egyptian architectural techniques here seems likely to have been the result of sheer necessity rather than a conscious effort to emulate the design of Egyptian architecture.[60] Egyptian temples, of course, are constructed of more durable stone rather than mud-brick. However, just as the early Greeks in Naukratis seemed unable to afford the importation of mass quantities of Greek stone for their temples, so too could they likely not afford sufficient Egyptian stone for its exclusive use in temple construction.
Conversely, later temple construction at Naukratis during the Saite Period makes widespread use of marble. A stable isotope analysis of marble fragments believed to have come from Temple II of the Sanctuary of Apollo at Naukratis suggests Ephesus as a likely origin for these fragments.[61] This demonstrates that Greek stone was imported for the construction of, at the very least, parts of the Greek temples in Naukratis. This effort to ship large quantities of Greek stone for their sacred architecture may be likened to the aforementioned implications of the importation of potter’s clay. Clearly, the employment of marble in temple construction was not for the lack of suitable material in Egypt, since earlier Naukratis temples consisted to a large extent of Egyptian mud-brick and stone. Rather, the effort to acquire Greek marble for temple construction expresses a conscious notion in the mind of the Greek architect that there exist appropriate materials for Greek sacred architecture, as with the potter, who felt that a work of art must use traditional or highly similar materials to remain authentic. This does little, however, to support the theory that the Greeks of Naukratis were receptive of Egyptian cultural influences.
Despite the more popular use of Greek marble in Naukratis’ temple construction during the late Saite Period, we see some evidence of slight Egyptian stylistic influence on the design and decoration of these Greek temples. The first stone temple, constructed between approximately 570 and 550, in the Sanctuary of Apollo bore the first example of the true Ionic column capital, with the volutes lying horizontally across the cushion instead of springing vertically from the shaft as in the Proto-Ionic form (fig. 10 Dinsmoor and Naukratis I). The volute and lotus decorative motifs of the Ionic column have an Egyptian origin attributed to them, though the influence of other Near Eastern and Aegean civilizations cannot be overlooked.[62] More significantly with respect to the Naukratis Apollo capital, however, is the absence of the palmette among the lotus bud and flower decorative band at the top of the column shaft. This exclusively lotus decorative motif seems to emphasize the purely Egyptian influence on the design of the temple.[63]
Further possible Egyptian architectural influence can be seen in the design of the great altar in the Sanctuary to Aphrodite at Naukratis (fig. 11 Möller back).[64] This step altar stood a few meters before the first temple and at the front of the sanctuary. It was comprised of a thin case of mid-brick walls filled with ashes, possibly of the sacrificial victims. Leading up to the altar platform was a short flight of steps. Small wings projected from each side of the platform, which Hoffman suggests as resembling the ramps of Egyptian step altars from Tell el Amarna and Saqqara[65] and possibly representing a link between Egyptian and Ionian step altars.[66]
A peculiar architectural anomaly consisting of the incorporation of Egyptian red granite must be noted in the famed Hellenion, the most well known and visited of the Greek sanctuaries at Naukratis, according to Herodotus.[67] While the oldest remains of the structure date to the first half of the 6th century, the wealth of pottery fragments date to no earlier than the second quarter of the 6th century.[68] This suggests a date of construction following the reorganization of Naukratis by Amasis in 570 BCE. Belonging to the oldest layers of the Hellenion are a chamber, in which a votive inscription to Apollo was found on an Ionian vase from before 570 BCE[69], and the remnants of a threshold of red granite (fig. 12 Möller, note granite loc.). The use of red granite in a structural foundation in this location could suggest the presence of an Egyptian temple[70] or the conscious effort on the part of the architects of the Greek temple to use a very specific Egyptian material into its construction. While there is little evidence favoring a possible Greek function over an Egyptian function for this structure[71] with the red granite threshold, its placement amidst a cluster of Greek sanctuaries and temples strongly suggests it was not an Egyptian temple. Furthermore, the close proximity of Ionian votive pottery found within the same early Hellenion stratum suggests a strong Greek cultic presence in this location. Though not impossible, it seems improbable that there would be such a homogenous multicultural mixture of Greek and Egyptian places of worship in this Greek settlement so as to place an Egyptian temple beside the Hellenion and other adjacent Archaic Greek sanctuaries.[72]
It is further unlikely that the red granite threshold could belong to an Egyptian temple predating the Greek constructions at Naukratis. Some scholars suspect an Egyptian settlement to have existed at Naukratis prior to the Saite Period influx of Greek people.[73] The archaeological record, however, suggests otherwise. Immediately to the east of the Sanctuary of Aphrodite in the southern part of Naukratis begins a stratum of burnt earth extending in a southeasterly direction for approximately 200 meters. The location of the burnt stratum beneath a pottery and faience workshop dating to the late 7th century BCE likely places it during the reign of Psammetichus. Based upon an erroneous assumption by Hogarth[74] that no Greek pottery was found in this stratum, it has been traditionally assumed that this was evidence for the southern part of Naukratis having been the Egyptian quarter.[75] Petrie, however, does indeed mention Greek pottery having been discovered in this burnt stratum[76] and concludes that everything found in this stratum was distinctly Greek.[77] In fact, the only type of amphora discovered in the burnt stratum during Petrie’s excavation is typical of a late 7th to 6th century East Greek amphora style generally found accompanying burials as grave goods.[78] The late 7th century artifacts discovered in the burnt stratum suggest that this is the earliest layer of Naukratis, in light of the lack of earlier finds. Its distinctly Greek character, furthermore, suggests that an earlier Egyptian settlement could not have existed at Naukratis.[79] Bearing this into consideration, it becomes clear that the aforementioned remnants of a red granite threshold are not likely to have belonged to an earlier Egyptian temple on the site, but rather were most likely used in the construction of a Greek structure. It seems likely that these blocks are recycled materials from some other location in Egypt. The scavenging of raw materials and even statuary is certainly not without precedent in Egypt[80] and it is evident that red granite existed in native Egyptian structures very close to Naukratis.[81]
The Persian Effect
In addition to the aforementioned closure of the faience workshop at the beginning of the Persian Period, further disastrous effects of the Persian invasion are clearly reflected in the archaeological record. There is a marked break in the pottery record throughout Naukratis during the last quarter of the 6th century, suggesting that, in addition the faience workshop, the manufacture and trade of pottery at Naukratis was initially hampered by the Persian invasion.[82] From an analysis of the stratification of some 5,000 potsherds recovered from the Sanctuary of Aphrodite, the possible destruction of her Temple I during the Persian invasion at the end of the Saite dynasty seems likely. The strata of the sanctuary reveal continuous layers of pottery fragments, terracotta, ash, and bone outside the area of Temple I, suggesting a period of continued use during the Saite period. This series is abruptly interrupted by a layer of sand of undetermined date. Above this layer of sand are further pottery fragments, terracotta, ash, and bone of the same date as the similar remains beneath the sand. This suggests the possible destruction of Temple I resulting in the scattering of its votive artifacts. After a period of inactivity producing the sandy layer, the sanctuary may have undergone a renovation, resulting and the further scattering of remnant artifacts from within Temple I’s remains to other areas of the sanctuary just above the sandy layer.[83] Furthermore, numerous votive figurines from the Temple of Aphrodite show signs of deliberate destruction from a “severe blow upon one side.”[84] Fragments of the same figurines were also found in different areas of the sanctuary, suggesting their deliberate destruction and scattering more so than accidental. Though the evidence is inconclusive, it is suspected that the destruction of the Temple of Aphrodite and other Greek temples at Naukratis coincided with the Persian invasion.[85] The effect this wholesale destruction at the hands of the Persians had on Naukratis, her Greek inhabitants, surrounding Egyptian markets, and the interested markets overseas is difficult to comprehend. The sudden break in the archaeological record suggests an effective dark age for Naukratis, only to reemerge for a brief period during the Egyptian independence between the first and second Persian periods (the tail end of the Greek Classical Period). We know, however, that Greek merchants continue to some extent to trade in Egypt during the Persian Periods, as is evident from the Ahiqar Scroll from Elephantine, which details the taxes collected from Ionian and Phoenician ships during the reign of Xerxes in the year 475 BCE.[86] This leads us to conclude that, while Naukratis may have been severely hindered from remaining the preeminent port of trade in the Mediterranean and while Persia waged war with mainland Greece, her Ionian Greek subjects were permitted to maintain trade relations with Egypt, so long as it was not against the interests of the Persian Empire.
Through a detailed examination of the archaeological and literary evidence for the Greek port city of Naukratis and Greek people elsewhere in Egypt during the Saite Period, we have come to recognize significant Egyptianizing elements influencing Archaic Greek culture. Some of the most prominent examples of the Egyptian influence on Greek culture in Egypt is evident in religious statuary and votive pottery, where we see the emergence of distinct Egyptian stylistic and iconographic elements incorporated into these sacred Greek objects. Furthermore, Greek religion, itself, seems to have begun incorporating the Egyptian pantheon and ritual, in that we see Greeks dedicating votive offering at Egyptian temples to Egyptian deities under a Greek or sometimes even Greco-Egyptian syncretic guise (e.g. Osiris-Selene). Lastly, we also see a marked adaptation of Greek architects to the Egyptian environment through their adoption of local Egyptian construction materials and the incorporation of Egyptian decorative elements into temple architecture.
The strong Egyptian influence on Archaic Greek Civilization came about as a result of the strong political, military, and economic relations they enjoyed with Egypt during the Saite Period. It is no surprise that we see such an enthusiastic campaign of foreign relations on the part of the Saite rulers, when we come to realize the role Egypt played, struggling to maintain her autonomy amidst surrounding Kushite, Lybian, Assyrian, and later Persian foes. In turn, it is again no surprise that we see a clear and tragic blow to Greco-Egyptian relations upon the Persian invasion of 525 BCE. For the Persian administration to put a tight strangle on Egypt’s relations with Persia’s adversaries might best be described as “fair game”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Somewhat contrary to Herodotus’ account, the archaeological record demonstrates that Amasis did not permanently move the Greek mercenaries out of the Camps, or at least not all of them, as is suggested by evidence for continued occupation of the Camps during and after Amasis (Lloyd in Shaw, Ian. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 372).
[2] Herodotus. The Histories. Trans. Aubrey de Sélincourt. New York: Penguin Books, 1972. II.154.
[3] Boardman, John. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1999, 116; c.f also A. Bernand and O. Masson, Rev. Et. Gr. 70 (1957) 3-20.
[4] Möller, Astrid. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 33.
[5] Time and time again, Egypt shows mastery for the assimilation of foreign peoples into its own culture. We see a similar establishment of foreign settlements during the New Kingdom upon the defeat of the Libyan tribes. In turn, Libyans became deeply integrated into the Egyptian machimoi warrior class and eventually into the royal house itself. In contrast, one might suspect the initial movement for isolating the Greek presence to the Camps in the delta region was in part in an effort to curb any potential saturation of foreign peoples in Egypt for fear of another situation not unlike the traditionally despised Hyksos period. We also see the Egyptian effort to put a swift end to potential foreign rule at the end of Dynasty XIX with the ousting of the all-too influential Syrian chancellor Bay during the reigns of Siptah and Twosret. Consequently, the establishment of these foreign Greek settlements in Egypt could be seen as an effort either to attempt integration or prevent too strong a foreign saturation.
[6] Möller 31; Lloyd in Shaw The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. (371): “In addition to military power, our sources highlight a further dimension to his [Psammetichus I] strategy: strengthening his economic base by developing trade links with Greeks and Phoenicians. It was evidently firmly grasped by this formidable ruler that all power must be based on a sound exchequer.”
[7] The fact that Herodotus does not mention Naukratis when discussing the establishment of “The Camps” by Psammetichus for Greek mercenaries in Egypt (II.154) is seen by von Bissing as suggesting that Naukratis did not yet exist (von Bissing 40). In all likelihood, this is correct, if we are to believe that Naukratis was initially founded by Psammetichus and it is with the aid of these Greek mercenaries that he came to power. Herodotus, furthermore, goes as far as to say that these settlers of the Camps were the first foregin speakers (éllÒglvssoi) to establish residence in (katoik€syhsan – lit.: “who were removed to”) Egypt (II.154.4). Of course, Herodotus was not aware of (or failed to mention) the previous Hyksos occupation and Libyan reservations or even the entire Libyan dynasty of the Third Intermediate Period. As further evidence beyond the literary record for the dating of Naukratis, the archaeological record of Naukratis will be treated below.
[8] Möller (75ff.), in addressing the possible motivations for the Greek involvement in Naukratis, explores in some detail the twelve Greek poleis (city-states) mentioned by Herodotus (II.178). While some less arable poleis likely established settlements in Naukratis for the purpose of importing grain, others played a greater role in the exchange of fine goods. Overall, the motivation from the Greek perspective seems to have been directed more so at trade rather than military allegiance.
[9] fil°llhn d¢ genÒmenow ı ÖAmasiw — literally, “Amasis became a philhellene”, or “lover of Greeks”. It may be somewhat ironic that Herodotus grants Amasis this epithet and further descriptions of his generosity towards the Greek people and nations (II.180-182) in light of the account of the battle against Apries and foreign mercenaries: “At the news of their defection, Apries armed his mercenaries (a body of 30,000 Carians and Ionians, who were with him at Sais, where his palace was—a large and noteworthy building), and advanced to the attack, the Egyptians under Amasis marching to meet them.” (Herodotus II.163).
[10] prostãtaw toË §mpor€ou — “overseers of the port of trade”
[11] Herodotus II.178
[12] Möller 20
[13] Herodotus II.179
[14] Herodotus II.180-2, trans. by A. D. Godley, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Hdt.+2.182.1
[15] Möller 38
[16] It is generally assumed that many of the more valuable Egyptian art objects that found their way to the private households (not the temples) of Greece were not the result of a direct exchange of goods between Greece and Egypt, but rather made their way to Greece at the hands of Phoenician traders (J. Pendlebury Aegyptica: A Catalogue of Egpytian Objects in the Aegean Area, 1930; R. B. Brown, A Provisional Catalogie of and Commentary on Egyptian and Egyptianizing Artifacts Found on Greek Sites, 1975). Nonetheless, Greeks serving as mercenaries or trading as merchants in Egypt very likely brought back with them Egyptian souvenirs to Greece (Möller 30).
[17] Möller 43
[18] Boardman 123; Möller 43
[19] W. M. F. Petrie, Tanis II, London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1888, 62.
[20] Boardman 123
[21] von Bissing 44 n. 1
[22] Morris, Ian. Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 109 n. 1.
[23] von Bissing 46
[24] von Bissing 46
[25] Boardman 123
[26] ibid. One set of polychrome Chian “Naukratite” vase fragments from Naukratis dates to about 560 BCE (fig. 1 Boardman). The polychrome style does not make an appearance in Greece until the last quarter of the 6th century with the introduction of red-figure vase painting on the Greek mainland.
[27] Petrie Naukratis I 36ff.
[28] von Bissing 47
[29] Möller 114; Petrie Naukratis I, pl. 38
[30] Naukratis I 36
[31] Naukratis I 37
[32] specifically the kanyarow, a large handled drinking-cup; coincidentally also the Greek word for the Egyptian scarab or dung-beetle
[33] Herodotus II.178
[34] Boardman 123
[35] This was not necessarily by intention of the Greeks in Naukratis, but more so likely due to a lack of taste for this ware in the Greek markets back home. Naukratite ware “never seriously competed in the markets of the Greek world…” (Boardman 123).
[36] Masson, Olivier. “Quelques Bronzes Égyptiens à Inscription Gracque.” Revue d’Egyptologie 29 (1977) 53-57, pl. 2.1-2.4.
[37] [Me]lãnyiÒw me an°yhke t«i Zhn‹ Yhba€vi ëkalma.
[38] Masson 54
[39] Masson 57-61
[40] Masson 57. The inscription reads: PÊyermÒw me ı N°lvnow ¢lÊsato t∞w ’Esiw êgalma -- “Pythermos, son of Neilon, offered me, a statue of Isis.”
[41] As the provenance is unknown, it is possible that the statue could have been dedicated at a Greek temple in Naukratis, such as the Temple of Aphrodite. While we find similar mother and child votive statues in the Temple of Aphrodite, they are much cruder and of mixed Greco-Egyptian style. Such distinctly Egyptian examples are not found and certainly nothing in bronze.
[42] Masson 63-7
[43] Masson 64
[44] Zhn∞w YeodÒto SelÆnhw êgalma §poiÆsato, di ankh.
[45] As we see in Herodotus, Osiris was usually referred to as Dionysus (II.42.2, II.144.2).
[46] E.g. “Theban Zeus” – I.182, II.42 & 54.
[47] Coulson and Leonard, Jr. 72, 78
[48] Coulson and Leonard, Jr. 72. If Greeks did indeed live among Egyptians outside of Naukratis, it is disputed whether or not they had the right of epigamia, or marriage with an Egyptian. Since Egypt had no laws restricting intermarriage between a Greek and Egyptian, it was theoretically permissible. Herodotus tells us, however, of the great social taboos the Egyptians associated with the Greeks, which leads us to suspect such a relationship would have been doubtful (Möller 34).
[49] Petrie Naukratis I 40-1 and pl. XIX.7-9; Coulson 143, fig. 54.18 and pl. XVII.4
[50] Coulson 146, n. 16
[51] Coulson 142
[52] Petrie Naukratis I 13 and pl. II.20
[53] Gardner Naukratis II 58; pl. XIV.2
[54] Gardner Naukratis II, pl. XIV.7
[55] Von Bissing disagrees with the possibility that this figurine is influenced by the Egyptian Isis with Horus type, stating that “every distinctive mark of Isis and Horos [sic] is missing, and that we have simply to do with a kurotrophos” (65).
[56] In the Temples of Apollo and Aphrodite are found a number of nude standing male figurines (Petrie Naukratis I 13; Gardner Naukratis II 56-7) and the Temple of Aphrodite further reveals examples of a standing woman in heavy drapery holding one arm in front of her chest (often grasping an object) and the other at her or gathering up her drapery (Naukratis II 57). Both votive figurine types are also attributed to Cyprus.
[57] Gardner Naukratis II 55
[58] Additionally, the conquest of Amasis over certain town on Cyprus gave him control over the powerful Cypriot navy, which allowed Egypt to expand its sea-faring trade throughout the Mediterranean (Grimal 364). Heavy trade between Egypt and Cyprus likely contributed to the Phoenician Cypriots’ strong taste for Egyptian and Egyptianized goods. Many such good, in turn, also found their way to Greece through Phoenician trade.
[59] Möller 99ff.; Gardner Naukratis II 60
[60] von Bissing 67
[61] Möller 98. It is interesting to note that the Sanctuary of Apollo was founded by the Milesians, according to Herodotus (II.178.3), while Epheseus is their northern neighbor and generally viewed as their rival in trade (Sacks, David. Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World. New York: Facts on File, 1995, 89).
[62] Dinsmoor, William Bell. The Architecture of Ancient Greece: An Account of its Historic Development. New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1928, 59.
[63] ibid. 126
[64] While the Sanctuary of Aphrodite is not mentioned by Herodotus, its presence is attested to in Athenaios’ account of the rescue of Herostratos (Athenaios 15.676b).
[65] Hoffman, AJA 57, 1953, 190-2, pls. 55-6.
[66] Möller 102; Hoffman 193. Greeks in Egypt during the Saite Period, of course, would have had no exposure to any long-since razed architecture of Tell el Amarna, but a Greek exposure to Saqqara is suggested by the aforementioned bronze Osiris votive statue.
[67] II.178; c.f. note 11 above
[68] Möller 106
[69] It is certainly possible that a vase predating the Hellenion, itself, could have been offered at the Hellenion following its construction.
[70] von Bissing 76
[71] By its proximity with the other remains of the Hellenion it seems not to have been directly incorporated into the structure of the Hellenion.
[72] Immediately to the west of the Hellenion lies the Sanctuary of Apollo, the first stone temple of which was constructed ca. 570-550 BCE, and the Sanctuary of Hera. The earliest mud-brick foundations within the Sanctuary of Hera seem to lie ca. 15 cm below the Temple of Apollo and, thus, possibly indicate its earlier construction. Pottery of the style found within the Temple of Hera is known to have been crafted elsewhere in the Greek world from ca. 625 to the second half of the 6th century BCE (Gardner Naukratis II 61). To the north of the Sanctuary of Apollo lies the Sanctuary of the Dioskoroi (the “sons of Zeus [and Leda]”; i.e. Castor and Pollux). While Petrie and Gardner both place the date of construction of the first monumental temple of the Dioskoroi at the same time as the second temple of Apollo (mid-fifth century BCE) the date remains unclear due to the lack of any identifiable architectural fragments or wall remains. The establishment of the cult of the Dioskoroi, however, is likely to have existed here well before the 5th century, as is evident from the discovery of 6th century pottery fragments bearing votive inscriptions to the Dioskoroi. (Petrie Naukratis I 62, pl. 35 nos. 665, 675-82; Naukratis II 67, nos. 833-40).
[73] Peter W. Haider, Griechenland, Nordafrika: ihre Beziehungen zwischen 1500 und 600 v. Chr., 1988, 186-90; Hogarth JHS 25 106ff.
[74] Hogarth JHS 25, 1905, 107
[75] Möller 117, n. 203
[76] Petrie Naukratis I 21
[77] Gardner Naukratis II 72. It is suggested by von Bissing that, after the Pertie excavations at Naukratis, all Greek painted pottery fragments were subsequently removed by modern local inhabitants after realizing their potential value, while “worthless” undecorated Egyptian pottery was left behind. This, in turn, led later excavators to conclude on the basis of discovering exclusively Egyptian pottery remains that the burnt stratum belonged to an earlier Egyptian settlemet or contemporary Egyptian quarter in Naukratis (von Bissing 49).
[78] von Bissing 36; Petrie Naukratis I pl. XVI.4
[79] Mallet, Le premiers établissements des Grecs en Egypte, 1893, 157, 172; Möller 118
[80] The Third Intermediate Period Libyan rulers scavenged a tremendous quantity of stone and statuary from the New Kingdom capital of Pi Ramesses and other northern cities for the construction of nearby Tanis (Shaw 331).
[81] Three large red granite blocks of some unidentifiable structure, perhaps a temple, have been found at the nearby town of Kom Firin. While Coulson and Leonard noted faint traces of an inscription on one of these blocks, the content of this inscription was not, or perhaps could not be, provided (Coulson and Leonard, Jr. 72). Since further archaeological evidence from this site suggests a largely native Egyptian population, it is likely that these blocks and also the inscription belonged to an Egyptian and not Greek structure.
[82] Möller 99
[83] Gardner Naukratis II 35-6
[84] Gardner Naukratis II 55
[85] ibid.
[86] Porten and Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt III, 1993; BASOR (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem and Baghdad) 294, 1994, 67-78.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic