3856256

8/10/2019 3856256

1/13

gypt xploration Society

Triremes and the Sate NavyAuthor(s): Alan B. LloydSource: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 58 (Aug., 1972), pp. 268-279Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3856256.

Accessed: 14/10/2014 09:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Egypt Exploration Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www jstor org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=eeshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3856256?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3856256?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees

8/10/2019 3856256

2/13

(268)

TRIREMES AND THE SAITE NAVY

By

ALAN

B.

LLOYD

IN Herodotus' discussion

of

the

reign

of

Necho

(610-595 B.C.)

we

read

the

following

statement:I

1uavadFLevos

8E

Tr]s

StapvXos

o

N?KCSS TpdaTTETo

Trpo arpaT7ilas.,

Kal

rpLqJpeES

t

pLeVTC

rrj

Roprfqit

Oacdac

cro

o'7Orlaav

at

8' ev

rco

Apa/Bt

KO'ATcom)

T

'EpvOpnjOaAdaar,

v

stL

oL

oXAKOiat

S&rjAo&.

Kat

avrrlaLe

eXpa7O

E TC

sOVTr

.

. .

Whenhe

had desisted

rom

the

canalNechoturnedhis attention o

military

ampaigns,

nd

triremes

ere

constructed,

ome

orthe

Mediterranean

nd

others

n the

Red

Sea for

operations

n

the

Erythrian

cean.2 he

slipways

fthe latterarestillto beseen.Andthese

ships

he

put

to use

when

he

need

arose ..

This

passage

creates

a

strong

impression

that the

Saites

were

getting

assistance from

the

Greeks

in naval

matters

and that the

copiously

documented

employment

of

Greek

military

expertise

in

their

army

was

but one

aspect

of a more

general

dependence,

but

this conclusion

has

proved

distinctly

unpalatable

in

many quarters.

De

Meulenaere

writes,

'On the basis of the word

rpTjpeEs

in

Herodotus

Drioton

and

Vandier

take

the

view

(L'tgypte,

pp.

554-5)

that

the Saite

navy

was

of

Greek

origin

and

was

probably

for

the

most

part

manned

by

foreigners;

this seems

to

us

very

doubtful' and

'By

the

rptqpeES

mentioned

by

Herodotus we should

doubtless

understand

kbnt-ships,

a

type

encountered as

early

as the 6th

Dynasty;

they

were

large

sea-going

vessels which in

the

Saite

and Ptolemaic Periods were also used as

warships'.3

M.

.

Austin

adopts

a

similarly

sceptical

attitude.

'From the fact that Herodotus

(2. I59)

speaks

of

Necho as

having

a fleet of

"triremes",

t is

very

often assumed that

Greeksalso

helped

to

develop

the

Egyptian

fleet.... But Greek sources never state this ..

'4

For

these

writers

the

word

TrpLep?Es

s

a

careless,

anachronistic

slip,

the merest

assumption

like

the

6tXaval

and

iron

tools, which,

according

to

Herodotus,

the

Egyptians

had

used

in

building

the

Great

Pyramid.5

Despite

this

scepticism

we believe that

the

obvious

interpretation

s

correct.

Since, however,

many

would

presumably

be

perfectly prepared

to

accept

that

2.

I59.

I.

2

Apadftos

KoATros

s used by Hdt. when he wishes to identify precisely what we call the Red Sea (cf

2.

.

.

4;

I02.

2;

T58.

3; 4.

39.

I;

42.

2;

43.

3).

'Epv6p?]

cfdXaaaa

s,

in

origin,

a

more

general

term,

being

identical

with

7

vor07t

OAXaaaa,

hough

it can

be

also used both of

the Red Sea

(2.

158.

2;

4. 39.

I;

42. 3)

and

the

Persian

Gulf(I.

80o.

I89;

3.

30.

3; 93.

2;

6.

20).

Since there is

a clear

antithesis

in

this

passage

between

p

op-rr)

OaXaaaa,

i.e. the ocean of the

northern

part

of the

oIKovU&ev7r,

nd

D

'EpvOpqj

OdAaaaa,

.e.

the

ocean

of

the

southern

hemisphere,

E. 0. must

here

be identical

with

0

vor5r)

daOaaaa

nd we

should,

therefore,

ranslate

'Erythrian'

or

'Southern

Ocean'.

3

Herodotos

over de

26ste

Dynastie.

Bibliotheque

du

Musdon,

27

(Louvain, I95I),

60

with

n.

49.

4

Greece

and

Egypt

in the

Archaic

Age. Proceedings

of

the

Cambridge

Philological

Society.

Suppl.

2

(1970),

55

5

2.

125.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:54:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/10/2019 3856256

3/13

TRIREMES AND THE

SAITE

NAVY

Greek

warships

were

used in Necho's

reign

while

baulking

at

the

difficulties

posed

by

the

suggestion

that

they

were

triremes,

it

seems

advisable,

in

our

attempt

to

vindicate

Herodotus,

that

we should

approach

the

problem

in two

stages:

I. Did Necho

get

assistance

in

the

construction

of

warships

from

Greece?

2. If so, what was the

rating

of the

ships

concerned?

i. Greek

assistance

There are excellent reasons

for

believing

that the

Pharaohs of

the

Twenty-Sixth

Dynasty

turned to

Greece for

help

in

building up

a

fleet:

(a)

It is

clear that

imitation

of

foreign

ship

design

was

by

no

means

an

impossibility

for an

Egyptian;

for in the reliefs

depicting

the

battle between

the

Egyptians

and

the Sea

Peoples

at

Medinet Habu the two sides

use

ships

which

show

striking

similarities.'

Certainly

the

hull

designs

are

different,

the

Egyptian being

clearly

the

traditional

Nilotic

type,2

but the

deck

upper

works

are

identical in

both

fleets

as are the

rigging

and the

fighting

tops.

Since the latter are

totally

un-Egyptian

in

style,

we must

surely

assume

that the

Egyptians

are

imitating

the

example

of

their

neighbours

in

the Eastern

Mediterranean.

This new

style

of

rigging

is,

of

course,

both more

economical and more

efficient but

its

adoption

may

well

have

been

prompted

by specifically military

considerations,

since

loose footed

sails

which

could be

brailed

up

to

the

top yard

out of harm's

way

were

much

more

handy3

than the traditional

system

whereby

two

yards

werere

employed,

a

fixed

lower and

a

movable

upper,

arranged

n

such

a

way

that the

sail

was

raised or

lowered

by

hoisting

the

upper yard

up

or

down. Such a

scheme

could

have

been

a

distinct embarrassment n the

type

of

action

depicted

in

the

reliefs.

(b) Since the Saite Pharaohs were using Greek mercenaries on a large scale,4 it

would

be a natural

step

to

employ

Greek

sailors and

with

them

Greek

ships.

(c)

The

Saites,

like

many Egyptian

rulers

after

the traumatic

experience

of

the

Hyksos occupation,

were

deeply

conscious of

the

dangers

of

their

Asiatic

frontier,

as

is

clearly

demonstrated

by

the

heavy

concentrations of

Greek

mercenaries,

the best

troops

they

had,

in the

2Tparo'reSa

and,

later,

Daphnae,

in the

north-

eastern Delta. It

was

not, however,

only

the

armies of the

Assyrians,

Chaldaeans,

or Persians

which

constituted

a

threat.

They

had

good

reason to

fear

naval

action

also;

for

it

would

need

little

strategic

acumen

to

realize

that

the

Phoenician fleet

would

be at

the

disposal

of

any

great

power

invading

from

Asia.

Indeed,

joint

I

Nelson et al., Medinet Habu (Chicago,

1930),

I, pi. 36-7. Cf. our fig. I.

2

So

tentatively

but

rightly

Landstr6m,

Ships of

the

Pharaohs:

4000

Years

of

Egyptian

Shipbuilding.

Archi-

tectura

Navalis,

I

(London,

1970),

IIn.

Faulkner

('Egyptian

Seagoing

Ships', JEA

26

(I940),

9) thought

differently.

3

The

position

of the

reefing/brailing

ropes

(Gk.

KcaAot)

s

not

clearly

indicated

but

L. is

surely

correct

in

comparing

Hdt. 2.

36

and

in

making

them run down

the

inside of

the sail

supported

in

rings

(Gk.

KpiKO&).

For Ptolemaic

representations

of this

rig,

perfectly

substantiating

Herodotus,

see

Chassinat,

Le

Temple

d'Edfou

(Cairo, I892-1934),

XIII,

pls.

470; 471;

508;

530.

4

Parke,

Greek

Mercenary

Soldiers

(Oxford,

I933),

4

ff.; Kienitz,

Die

politische

Geschichte

Agyptens

vom

7

bis

zum

4

Jahrhundert

vor der

Zeitwende

(Berlin,

1953), 35

ff.

269


8/10/2019 3856256

4/13

ALAN B. LLOYD

naval

and

militaryoperations

were

by

no means

unknown

n

earlier

Egyptian

history,'

and

were

certainly

conducted

by

the

Saites,

the Asiatic

campaigns

of

Egyptian Galley

Warships

of the Sea

Peoples

FIG. I

Apries providing

a

classic case

(vide

infra,

pp.

271

ff.).

It

could

not

have

been

lost

on

them

hat

their enemies

might

do

likewise.

ndeed,

such a

circumstance

id n

fact

arise

during

he

Persian

nvasionof

Egypt

which ed to the

overthrow f the

Saite

Dynasty

in

525

when we

find

Phoenician

warships

operating

rom Acre

I

Urk.

I, ioI ff.;

Drioton

and

Vandier,

L'Agypte4,

Paris,

1962),

435

ff.;

Faulkner

CAH

(Cambridge,

1966),

II,

Ch.

23,

2

iff.

270


8/10/2019 3856256

5/13

TRIREMES AND

THE SAITE

NAVY

in

support

of

Cambyses'army.'

Now Phoenician

warships,

as

early

as

c.

700

B.C.,

were two-deckers

built for

ramming2

and

by

Necho's time

this

tactic

had

long

been standard in naval

warfare,

quite

superseding

the old maritime

land-battle

such as

is

represented

at

Medinet

Habu. The

design

of

native

Egyptian

ships,

FIG.

2.

Phoenician War

Galley

c.

700

B.C.

however,

was

quite

unsuitable for

fighting

actions of this

type.

The hull

profile

was such that at

allperiods

the

forward

overhang

made

a

killing

blow

on the

water

line

absolutely impossible (cf. figs.

i and

3

and

contrast

2).

Furthermore,

and

even

more

important,

they

had

no keel3 and without the

longitudinal

strength

imparted

by

this feature

ramming

would

have

been suicidal.

The

attacker

would

simply

have

disintegrated-a

fate which

many

a

trireme

came

near

to

suffering

despite

its

rpor7Tm.4

Greek

warships,

on

the

other

hand,

from a

very early

period

had beenfast, highlymanceuvrable alleys expresslybuilt forthis style of fighting.

It

seems

extremely

unlikely

that the

Saite

kings

would fail

to

obtain

an

antidote

to the

Phoenician

navy

when

such

nav

obvious

remedy lay

at

hand-and

plenty

of

Greeks

likely

to

point

it out

(d)

There is

another,

closely

related

argument. Apries

is

known to have

fought

successful naval

actions

against

the Phoenicians

during

the

Syrian

campaigns

of

Strabo,

I6.

2.

25 (C.

758).

That

Acre was

a naval base

is

certain:

(a)

OdpqrrjpLOV

s

exemplified

in

that

sense

both

ap.

Strabo

and

elsewhere

(LSJ9, p.

1253 (b)

s.v.

op1tri

p&ov,

II);

(b)

it is

much too far north

to

act as

a

base of

operations

for the

army.

Joint

naval and

military

campaigns

were

a

Persian

speciality,

e.g.

the

counter-

measures

during

the revolt of

Inarus

(D.S.

I

1.

77)

and Xerxes'

invasion

of

Greece.

2

Layard,

Monuments

of

Nineveh

(First

Series,

London, I853),

pl.

7I;

cf. our

fig.

2;

Morrison

and

Williams,

Greek Oared

Ships

(Cambridge, 1968),

pl. 22a;

Basch,

'Phoenician

Oared

Ships',

The

Mariner's

Mirror

55

(1969),

139

ff. See

Postscript,

p.

279.

3

Landstr6m

(op.

cit.

I07)

states

that

a keel was

employed

in

the N.K.

but

his

only

evidence

consists

of

ship

models found

in

the tombs

of

Amenophis

II and

Tut'ankhamun.

This

is

not

enough:

(a)

In

Egyptology

models

cannot be taken

as a

guide

for technical

details

of

this

sort.

(b)

If the

keel were

used,

we

should

not

expect

a

hogging

truss

on the

Punt

ships

of

Hatshepsut

(fig.

3).

(c)

Evidence

from

the

Pharaonic

Period

down

to modem times indicates

essential

continuity

in

hull

con-

struction

on the Nile-and

in Nubia

during

the

last

century

no keel was

employed (Homell,

Water

Transport, Origins

and

Early

Evolution

[Cambridge,

1946],

215 ff.).

4

Tarn,

Hellenistic

Military

and Naval

Developments

(Cambridge, I930), 144.

271


8/10/2019 3856256

6/13

c.

589-573

B.C.'

This

proves

that the

Egyptian

navy

was able to meet

the

Phoenicians

with

ships

at least

as

good

as

anything

the latter

possessed

and

that,

in

turn,

surely,

compels

us

to admit that

Apries

was

using

war

galleys

built

for

ramming.

(e) Finally, we may turn to a philologicalpoint. In Egyptian texts of the Saite and

Persian

Period we encounter

several

times the word

T'

.a

'kbnt-ship'

n con-

texts which

prove

that it

is a

warship:

(i)

In the Stele of Year

I of Amasis

large

numbers

of

kbnt-ships

are mentioned in the same breath as Greek

mercenaries

(HIjw

nbw)

as

part

of

the forces of

Apries.2 (2)

In

the

texts

on

the

Naophorous

Statue

of

Wadjhorresne

which dates

to

the

early

Persian

Period

we

meet

the

title

im

kc

k

y-r

kbnt

nsw 'Admiral

of the

Royal

kbnt-ships',

a

title,

indeed,

which

that

worthy

boreunderAmasisandPsammetichus

III,3

presumably

to be relieved

of

it

by

the Persians

in

accordance with

their

policy

of

keeping

the

highest

military

commands

in

Persian and Median hands.4

There is

good

reasonto believethatthis word denotesGreek-stylewargalleys,since

(i)

the kbnt-

ships

of

Apries

are

presumably

the fleet

with which he had

previously

defeated

the

Phoenicians,

and

that

fleet,

as we

have

shown,

must

have

consisted

of war-

ships

built

for

ramming.

(2)

The title

imy-r

kbnt does not occur

before

the Saite

Period. In

the New

Kingdom

the

expression

for Admiral of

the Fleet was

L-,4a

k=ik

-4NJ

imy-r

rhrw

nsw.5

Why

should such

a

consciously

archaizing

body

of

men as

the Saite

rulers ntroduceor countenance uch

a novel term?

The answermustbe

that

something

ompletely

new had

appeared

which

needed

a novel

expression

o

describe t. Now

there

are

only

three

ways

of

solving

the

problem

of

naming

a

newly

introduced

bject: (a)

take over

the

foreign

name,

if one

exists;

b)

coin a

new

one;

(c)

employ

one of

the old

words

of

the

language

to referto it. In this case it is clearlythe third alternativewhich has been

employed.

Now

there

s

one essential

precondition

ithout

whichsuch

a semantic

development

annot

ake

place,

viz.,

that the

new

object

or ideawhich

requires

a

name

must

bearsome

general imilarity

o the

object

or ideawhose

appellation

it is

borrowing.

Applied

to

the case in

point

this

principle

suggests

that the

novelty

which we

are

trying

to

identify

will bearsome

general

resemblance

o

the old

Egyptian

kbnt,

.e. it must resemble

what

Sive-Soderbergh

efinesas a

'fast-running

alley'.6

Would

not Greekwar

galleys

ill

the bill

admirably?

3)

In

the PersianPeriod

we

find

that

triremes

were

being employed

on

a

large

scale

in the

Egyptiannavy.

According

o

Herodotus

he

Egyptians

ent a

contingent

of

200

shipsof this classas theircontributiono the Persian leet whichfought

Herodotus,

2.

i6i.

2;

D.S.

I. 68.

i.

2

Daressy,

'Stele de

1'An III

d'Amasis',

RT

22

(1900),

I

ff.;

11.

3

and

12.

Jelinkova-Reymond

('Quelques

Recherches

sur les Reformes

d'Amasis',A

SAE

54

(I957), 263 ff.)

and Posener

('Les

Douanes de

la

Medi-

terranee

dans

1'Egypte

Saite',

RdPh

21

(1947), I29)

show that

the date is Year i.

3

Posener,

La PremiereDomination Perse en

Egypte.

Bibliotheque

d'Stude, II, (Cairo,

1936),

9.

4

Gray,

CAH

(1926),

Iv,

I90

ff.; Olmstead,

History

of

the Persian

Empire

(Chicago,

1959 [1948]), 237

ff.

5

Save-S6derbergh,

The

Navy of

the

Eighteenth

Egyptian

Dynasty (Uppsala,

Universitets

Arsskrift,

6,

1946,

88

ff.

6

On the

kbnt-ship

see

SaIve-S6derbergh,

op.

cit.

48

ff.

ALAN B.

LLOYD

72


8/10/2019 3856256

7/13

TRIREMES

AND THE SAITE NAVY

at

Salamis

(7.

89)

and

we

are

further told that

they

distinguished

themselves

mightily

therewith

at the Battle of

Artemisium

(8.

I17).

In

the next

century

Achoris

(393-380

B.C.)

sent no fewer than

fifty

triremes to the assistance of

Evagoras

of

Cyprus.'

The

Egyptians

would

require

a name for these vessels

and,

as we

have

FIG.

3.

Eighteenth-Dynasty

kbnt-ships.

already

shown,

the

obvious candidate

is

kbnt.

Certainly,

it is

true that the

word

does

not

occur in the

required

context at this

period,

but that

may

simply

be because

the office and

title

imy-r

kbnt

were

no

longer

held

by

an

Egyptian

(vide

supra,

p.

272)

and, therefore,

kbnt-ships

do

not

figure

on

the

monuments.

(4) Although

it

has

apparently

never

been

noticed,

the

word

kbnt s

certainly

used

of Greek

war

galleys

in the Ptolemaic

Period. In

an

official document of

Ptolemy,

son of

Lagus,

dating

from

the

7th

Year

of Alexander II

(3

I I

B.C.)

we

read,

amongst

other things, the following passage referringin general terms to the victorious

campaigns

which he had

waged against

Laomedon,

Antigonus,

and Demetrius.

The

text

concentrates

on

the

military

campaigns

in

Syria

between

320

and

I

Theopompus, FgrH

II5,

F.

103;

D.S.

15.

2.

4.

Gyles,

Pharaonic

Policies

and

Administration,

663

to

323

B.C.

(James

Sprunt

Studies in

History

and Political

Science

4I,

Chapel Hill, I959),

43

claims

that

Nepherites

(399-393

B.C.)

sent the

Spartans

100

triremes.

Justin

says

so

(6.

2.

2)

but D.S. states

(14. 79. 4)

that it was

only

the

equipment

aKEv

')

for

that number.

The

authority

of D.S.

is

little

enough,

but that of

Justin

is still less

on

such

a

matter.

We

should,

therefore, prefer

the older

writer.

C 8219

T

273


8/10/2019 3856256

8/13

ALAN B.

LLOYD

312

B.C.but

it

also

hints at

the

wide-ranging

and

highly

successful

naval

opera-

tions conducted

by

Ptolemy

in

the

Eastern

Mediterranean.'

'He

mustered

the

Greeks

n

great

numbers

together

withtheirhorses and

many

kbnt-ships

with

their crews. He

marched

with his

army

against

the

land

of

Syria.

They [sc. the Syrians] fought against him when he entered amongst them, his

5e ? hm + '

-

OX/

-- eS0-

:5P

8/10/2019 3856256

9/13

8/10/2019 3856256

10/13

ALAN B.

LLOYD

Let us

now summarize

the

conclusions of the first

phase

of

our

argument:

(I)

it

is

clear

that

the

Egyptians

had

the

precedent,

motive,

and

opportunity

to

make

naval

borrowings

from the

Greeks.

(2)

The naval

history

of the

reign

of

Apries

can

only

be

explained

if

he

employed warships

of

a

totally

un-Egyptian

type

built for

ramming.

(3) It is well-nigh certainthatwe have identified the word used

by

the

Egyptians

during

the

Saite Period

to denote

Greek-style

war

galleys

employed

in

their

own fleet. In

the

light

of such

evidence

we have no

alternativebut to

accept

that

the Saites did make

use

of such

vessels?I

2.

Rating

For

the

time of

Necho

we need

discuss

only

two

possibilities-pentaconters

and

triremes,

both of

which were

built for

ramming,

a

technique

of naval

warfare

denti-

fiable in Greece

from

the first

half

of the second millennium B.c.2 and

absolutely

stan-

dard

by

the

period

in

question.

The

pentaconter,

rowed

by fifty

men,

was the

standard

capital

ship

in

the Greek world from the seventh

century

and

retained this

position

well

into the sixth until the time of

Polycrates

of Samos,when it was

being relegated

slowly

but

surely

to the

rank of the

frigate

in an

eighteenth-century

European

navy,

though

it

formed

the backbone

of

second-rate

navies such

as

those

of

Athens

and

Aegina

down

to the Persian

Wars.3

Pentaconters,

then,

were

clearly

available to Necho but

triremes

are a different

matter,

for

it

is

generally

assumed

that

they

had

not been

invented

by

Necho's

reign.

We

believe

this

opinion

to be

mistaken.

The evidence is

as

follows:

(a)

The

earliest

xtant

eference

o

a

trireme ccurs

n

Hipponax

n the

early

econd

halfof the

sixth

century.4

(b)

The

earliest

extant

representation

s

found

in

the

second

half of the fifth

century.5

(c) Ourpassage mpliesthattriremeswereavailablen

the

reign

of Necho

(610-595 B.C.).

t

may

be a

guess

and

then

again

t

may

not.

A

decision

on

that

question

must

depend

on our other

evidence.

(d)

Thucydides,

.

I3. I-4.

The

interpretation

fthis

passage

has

been

bedevilled

by

scholars

who,

in the

interests

of

their

own

preconceived

deas,

have

attempted

o distort ts obvious

meaning.

Two

points

need

discussion:

(I)

Kal

Tpnpew

e'v

KoplvO0

rpwTrov

Ts

'EA?d$os

vavrrfqyqOrvat.

orr

regarded

thisas

entirely

parenthetical.

Having

once

thought

of

the naval

innovation

of

Corinth,

Thucydides

naturally

switches

to another

Corinthian

first

which

has

no

chronological

links

with the

surrounding

passage.6

This

idea

is

designed

to remove

all

association

of the

passage

with Ameinocles and

the

late

eighth

century

B.C. and

is based

entirely

on

Torr's

distaste

for the

idea

of

eighth-

century

triremes.

Steup7

is

obviously right

that the

trend

of the

passage,

'wenn man ihn

unbefangenbetrachtet's opposedto such an interpretation.The

Kat

andthe infinitivecon-

struction

join

the clause

too

closely

with what

precedes

for

any

other alternative to be

possible.

It

would be

gratifying

if I could

accept

that

the

Louvre

jewel

boats

(E I0687)

represented

Necho's Greek

galleys,

as

is

usually

claimed.

Unfortunately,

they

almost

certainly

do not

(see

my

n.

pp.

307

f.).

2

Morrison

and

Williams,

op.

cit.

37

ff.

3

Thucydides,

I.

I4.

In

general

Morrison and

Williams, op.

cit.

I28

ff.

4

Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica

Graeca

(3rd

edn., Leipzig, 1952),

Fasc.

3,

94,

F.

45.

s

Morrison and

Williams,

op.

cit.

I69.

6

Ancient

Ships (Chicago,

I964), 4

n. 8.

7

ap.

Classen, Thukydides Berlin, 1963),

I,

50,

n. ad

loc.

276


8/10/2019 3856256

11/13

TRIREMES

AND

THE SAITE

NAVY

(2)

9atvErat

e Kat

2atLoLts

AULELVOKA7sg

oplvtos

av7rrr-yoS

vavS

7roiq'aaS

e'EaapaS

Morrison

and

Williams

point

out that Ameinocles

s

not stated

to have

built

triremes

for the

Samians,

simply

vavs

re'aaapas.'

That is

true,

but

in

the

context

the natural

assumption

is

that

Thucydides

means

riremes

and were

it

not for the

chronological

difficulties

we

may

legiti-

mately

doubt

that

anyone

would

ever have

questioned

t.

We

therefore

paraphraseThucy-

dides'

meaning

as

follows.

With the rise

of

wealth

in

Greek

states

after

the

regal period

tyrannies

were

establishedand

in

these

circumstances he

Greeks

ook

more

interest

in

naval

affairsand

seafaring.

The

Corinthianswere the first to make naval

arrangements

imilar to

those of

Thucydides'

own

time2

and were

the

first

people

to build

triremes

n Greece.

There

was reason

o

believe that Ameinocleswent to Samos and there

built

four

of

these

vessels

for

the

Samians,

an

event which

took

place

about

300

years

before

the end of

the

Peloponnesian

War.

The

difficulty

here s

clearlychronological.Thucydides

irst alksof

the

tyrannies

nd

the

considerable

increase in

revenues

at that

period,

but then

goes

on

to

discuss

Corinth

and

her

naval

innovations which

must

date at the

latest,3

on

his

chronology,

earlier than

the known

date

of the

Cypselid tyranny (second

half of the seventh

century

B.C.).4

Something

has

obviously gone

badly wrong

somewhere,

but it is

possible

to isolate

the area in

which

the

mistake must lie. Only two possibilities exist: either the association of the naval developments

with

tyranny

is

wrong,

or

the dates

of

Ameinocles

and

the

vavtaXtla

between

Corinth

and

Corcyra

are

incorrect. The second is the obvious answer since

(a)

on

general

grounds,

given

the nature of the

human

mind,

we

may

say

that the

association

of two

phenomena

is

more

likely

to be

correctly

transmitted

than

their

date;

(b)

not

only

were the

construction,

main-

tenance,

and

manning

of triremes

extremely expensive,

but

the

other naval

reforms

mentioned

would

require

considerable

resources,

in

finance,

man-power,

and technical

skill,

as

well as

the

means to

concentrate

these resources

for one

particular

task.

A

tyranny

would

provide

the

perfect

conditions.

It

is, then,

evident that

Thucydides firmly

believed that

the

trireme was

invented

at

Corinth

in

the time of the

Cypselids,

but was

hopelessly

confused on the

question

of

their date. This is not as disturbing as it might seem at first sight when once we begin

to

inquire

how

Thucydides

obtained

these

figures.

For

such

an

early period

it

is

unlikely

that he had

any

source

other than

genealogies.S

That such existed both for

legendary

and historical times

is

certain,

and

absolute

dates could

only

have

been

obtained

from them

by relating

one's

own

time to the

genealogical

scheme and then

converting

the

genealogy

into

years

on

the

basis of

a

fixed

generation length.

Now the

length

of

the

generation,

like most

things

in

Greece,

was not a matter of common

agreement.

We

know

of

40

years,

30

years,

and the Herodotean scheme

of

3

yeveat

to

Ioo

years,

only

the last two of which

are,

for a Greek

context,

statistically

near the truth.

Thus,

whenever we have

a

year

figure

of

this

type

for

early

Greek

history

we

must

accept

that it is

at

best

approximate

and

may

be

much

too

high

if

it

is

based on

a

40-year

Op.

cit.

158.

2

Trpj2TOL

e

KoplvOtoLEyovral

eyyvTraa

TOV

VVv

TrporoV

LETaXeplaal

Ta

7repl

ras

vavs.

3

According

to

the view we take of

reAEVT)r

TOVSE

TOV

1IroAiEtov.

Is it the

Peace of Nicias or

404?

I

believe

the latter.

4

According

to the Traditional

(Apollodoran) Chronology

the

date

was

657-584/3

B.C.

(evidence

Will,

Korinthiaka,

Paris, 1955, 363

ff.).

The Low

Chronology

(c.

620-550

B.C.)

championed

by

Will

(op.

cit.

366

ff.)

et

al.

is

surely placed

out

of

court

by

epigraphic

evidence

(Meiggs

and

Lewis,

A

Selection

of

Greek

Historical

Inscriptions,

Oxford, I969, p.

i

).

5

Gomme,

Commentary

on

Thucydides

(Oxford,

I945,

repr. 966),

I,

I22,

n. ad

loc.,

thinks

along

the

same

lines

and considers that the

figure

was

deduced like that

in

Herodotus,

2.

53.

2.

277


8/10/2019 3856256

12/13

ALAN B. LLOYD

generation.

If such

figures

are to

be of

any

use,

all

we can do

is

to

try

to determinewhat

the

number

of

yeveal

behind

them

happened

to

be,

i.e. what

generation-length

hey

were

based

upon.

Now

that

this is

a

hazardous

business

we

should

readily

admit,

but

worth-

while

results

can

be

obtained

if

we

observe one

elementary

and

oft-ignored

principle.

We should try, firstof all, to obtain,on general grounds, a pictureof the naturalcourse

of

events and

their

interrelationsand

then deal

empirically

with the

year-figures

in an

attempt

to

identify

them with a

chronologicalrelationship

which

fits.

Where

this is im-

possible

we

have

no

basis

for

analysis

and

the

figures

must be

left

to their own devices.

In the

present

case,

fortunately,

we are

not in

such

desperate

straits. It has

already

been demonstrated

that there is excellent

reason

to

accept

that the

phenomenon

in

question

was

connected with

the

Cypselids

who

are

known

to date to the latter

half

of

the

seventh

century.

Now

Thucydides

gives

us

two

figures.

Ameinocles is dated

c.

300

years

e'

-rjv

TEAev7v

vrov8 TO roAov

=

7

generations

at

40

years per

genera-

tion and

the

vaviaXia

is

dated

c.

250

years

before the same

point

=

61

generations

at

the same rate,

exactly one generation

later.I

If

we take

the

reAEvr7j

ov&e

rovi

7VroA4tov

as

404

B.C. and convert

at

the

rate

of

3

generations

per

Ioo

years2

we

obtain as

a date

for

Ameinocles

c.

2

X

I00+404 years

=

c.

654

B.C.

and a date

for

the

vavuaXxia

one

generation

later. This fits

what

the

general

considerations

mentioned

above would lead

us to

suspect

and

harmonizes with

two other considerations:

I.

The

period

of

the

Cypselids

saw

the rise of

Aegina

as

a

threat

to

Corinthian

commercial

supremacy

and was also a

period

of

considerable overseas

expansion,

sometimes,

as

at

Potidaea,

at

the

expense

of other Greek

states

3

Such a

situation

might

well have

provided

a

marked stimulus to

experimentation

n naval

matters

at Corinth.

2.

It is

probable

that

hoplite

tactis were invented

some

time in the middle of the

seventh

century

B.C.,

though hoplite

equipment

had

been available

since

the latter

part

of

the

eighth.4

The earliest certain

representation

of a

phalanx

occurs

c.

650

B.C.5

though

it is

possible,

if

undemonstrable,

that this tactical unit

had been

invented

by

Pheidon

of

Argos

some

decades before.6

Such an

innovation

consti-

tuted

a revolution

in

Greek

warfare,

the

passing

of the

individual

champion,

and

the rise of

the

citizen

army

which

functioned as a

single,

coherent

body.

In such

an

atmosphere

of

upheaval

in

military

thinking

it

would be

likely enough

tlat

some

agile

mind would

turn

its

thoughts

towards

making

corresponding

nnova-

tions

in

naval

techniques.7

Forrest,

'Two

Chronographic

Notes',

CQ

19

(I969), ioo,

interprets

the

figures

in

the

same

way

though

he

uses them for a different purpose.

2

This

is

the Herodotean

scheme.

It is

statistically

more or

less

right

and we

use

it

for

that reason

only.

3

Andrewes,

The Greek

Tyrants (London, 1956), 49

ff.

4

Snodgrass,

Early

Greek

Armourand

Weapons Edinburgh, I964), 195

ff.,

has demolished the

old

view

that

the

introduction of

hoplite equipment

and

hoplite

tactics must be

contemporaneous.

He

demonstrates

beyond

all

doubt

that

there is a considerable

time

lag

between the two.

5

The

Chigi-

Vase c.

650

B.C.

(Lorimer,

'The

Hoplite

Phalanx',

BSA

42

[I1947],

fig.

3;

Snodgrass,

op.

cit.

I97 ff.).

6

Andrewes,

op.

cit.

39.

7

If

Andrewes

is

correct

in

believing

that Pheidon was the inventor of

hoplite tactics,

the

impact

of

the

invention

may

have been

particularly strong

at

Corinth because Pheidon was

certainly

active

in

Corinthian

278


8/10/2019 3856256

13/13

TRIREMES

AND THE

SAITE NAVY

We

submit,

therefore,

that

Thucydides,

or his

source,

knew

a

tradition

that

an

Ameinocles

had built triremes at

SamosI

7i generations

before

404

andthat

these

ships

had

been

invented

in

Corinth

some

time

about the

middle of

the seventh

century

B.C.2

Let

us now sum

up.

The

evidence here

presented suggests

that

triremeswere

invented

in the latterpartof the seventhcenturyat Corinthand that Ameinocleswasoneof thefirst

exponents

of

the art of

building

them.

During

the sixth

century

they spread

slowly,

for lack

of

builders,

crews,

and

money,

and doubtless also

the innate

conservatism

of

the

military

mind,

until

they

were

found,

if

sporadically,

n

the Eastern and

Western

Mediterranean.

The

rise of

the

tyrants

in

the

west

provided

ideal conditions for

the

construction

of

large

fleets about the

turn of the

sixth

century

and their

example

began

to be

followed in the

homeland

during

the first

half of

the fifth

century

B.C.

Given

this

picture

we

have

no

reason

to

reject

the

possibility

that triremes were

built

for

Necho,

especially

since

Egyptian

relations

with Corinth

appear

to have

been

close.

Indeed,

Periander's

nephew

was

actually

called Psammetichus.3 If

Ameinocles could

go

to

Samos

in the

seventh

century

it is

perfectly possible

that

the wealth

of

Pharaoh

would

attract

later

shipwrights

to

Egypt

in order

to build this

new

type

for him.

Conclusions

There

is a

strong

case on

historical

and

linguistic

grounds

in

favour

of the

thesis

that

Greek

war

galleys

were in

use in

Egypt during

the

Saite Period.

Furthermore,

there is

good

reason

to

believe that

triremes

were

available

and

that the

Saites were in

touch

with

the

city

responsible

for

their

development.

Even

by

itself the

evidence

presented

amounts

to the

most

compelling

circumstantial

case.

If

we

add

to it

Herodotus'

express

statement,

we

should

be

guilty

of

the

merest

perversity

if

we denied that

in

the

reign

of

Necho

triremes

were

constructed

for the

Egyptian navy.

Postscript

When

this

articlewas

already

n

proof

there

cameto

my

attention n

extremely

nteresting

studyby

LucienBasch

ntitled

Phoenician

ared

Ships'

The

Mariner'sMirror

5

(I969),

I39

ff.,

227

ff.)

in

which

t

is

argued

hat

Necho's

triremes

were

Phoenician,

ot

Greek

n

origin.

This

view

finds

a

willing champion

n

Casson,

Ships

and

Seamanship

n the

Ancient

World,

Princeton,

I971,

8I

n.

I9.

Exciting

though

this

thesis

may

be,

I find

it

unconvincing

and

hope

to

reply

at

a

later

date.

politics

and,

since

he is said to

have been

killed

there,

this action

may

well have had a

military

character

(cf.

Forrest,

The

Emergence

of

Greek

Democracy (London,

1966)

116

ff.).

I

In

the

development

of

the

trireme it was

the

rTapeetlpeata, 'outrigger',

which

was

the

crucial

step

(K6ster,

Das antike Seewesen [Berlin,

1923], I05

ff.). Presumably Ameinocles invented this device and then added a

third bank to

the

biremes

which

had

already

been

in

existence tor some

time.

2

Cf.

Morrison

and

Williams,

op.

cit.

I29.

3

Nic.

Dam.,

FgrH

go,

F.

59.

279

3856256

Documents