Egypt under the Saite Dynasty

Only after considering the social background of the countries involved is it possible to determine whether we are indeed talking about a ‘port of trade’. For this reason, we first examine Egyptian society at the time of the Saites, and thereafter focus attention on its Greek counterpart. It is only when this change of perspective has been undertaken that we can cease to regard Naukratis unthinkingly as a Greek colony, and can grasp fully the phenomenon that it represents. It is primarily from Herodotus’ Second Book, supplemented by Egyptian and oriental sources, that we learn about the Egyptian Late Period, of which the Saite dynasty is a part. Egyptologists regard this period as somewhat peripheral, especially with respect to our particular interest, the economy; for this reason, it will occasionally be necessary to construct analogies, drawing on examples from the Middle and New Kingdoms. It can be assumed that the picture will have appeared somewhat different in the so-called Intermediate Periods, which are thus rendered invalid for purposes of comparison, the lack of strong central administration leading to a loss of influence on the part of the centres of redistribution. According to Polanyi, the dominant pattern of integration is determined by the manner in which land and work are allocated. The prevalent social and economic system in Egypt is characterized principally by redistribution, although a closer examination results in a more differentiated view. Agriculture, the basis of every pre-industrial economy, functions in Egypt according to a system of instructions and quota calculations. Taxes and dues are used to support the court and the bureaucracy, but are also redistributed to the producers, who thereby participate in Egypt’s ‘surplus society’. The bureaucracy is maintained by the producers, but simultaneously ensures that the system continues to function, thereby setting itself up as the ruling class. The desire for social prestige is typical of this elite, and finds expression in titles, dress, and the cult of the dead. In principle, all land in ancient Egypt belonged to the Pharaoh; however, it is possible to distinguish two forms of land ownership.

Karl Polanyi’s Anthropological Theory of Economy

In accordance with the hermeneutical principles laid down in the introduction, this chapter will be devoted to an account of the theoretical models underlying the analysis and interpretation of the source material. Karl Polanyi’s empirical observations resulted in a series of ideal-types such as can be employed for the evaluation of the evidence from Naukratis in the following chapters. Polanyi’s works do not form one single, complete theory of economy; rather, they should be seen—as Sally Humphreys has put it so aptly—as sketches of areas within largely unexplored territory. It is of course true that George Dalton went to great lengths to develop Polanyi’s ideas further; the fact nevertheless remains that they continue to be far from accepted as paradigms for all further research in the field of economic anthropology or economic history. Indeed, such continuations of Polanyi’s approach have served only to limit unduly the openness that is the very advantage of his ideal-types. It is for this reason that one should return to Polanyi himself and employ his original ideas. His work has been taken up by only a few within the realm of the economic history of classical antiquity, something due partly to his own—problematic—statements on the subject of Greek history, and partly to lack of interest shown for anthropological approaches within ancient history. Polanyi disagreed with the view that markets were the ubiquitous form of economic organization—an attitude regarding the notion of the market as essential to the description of every economy—and also with the belief that it is the economic organization of any given society which determines its social, political, and cultural structures. For his part, Polanyi contended that an economy organized around the market first came into being with the Industrial Revolution, and that it was not until then that the two root meanings of the word ‘economic’—on the one hand, in the sense of provision with goods; on the other, in the sense of a thrifty use of resources, as in the words ‘economical’ and ‘economizing’—merged.

The Greek Economy and Its Market Elements

The fall of the Mycenaean world marks a deep historical break. Mycenaean society was characterized by a redistributive economy, indicated by accurate book-keeping in its centres. According to Finley, in the following Dark Ages, Greek society was largely determined by reciprocity, thus differing not only from the preceding Mycenaean age but also—fundamentally—from the advanced civilizations of the Near East. Reciprocity can still be found in Herodotus, who records traces of consolidation of social relationships through the exchange of gifts. The friendship between Polykrates of Samos and Pharaoh Amasis, for example, was strengthened by means of gifts and counter-gifts; the alliance between Kroisos and the Spartans came about through the gift of a krater as a reciprocal present for gold. Given the absence of great centres of redistribution for the collection and reallocation of land, labour, and products, Greek society and its economy should be regarded as developing along completely different lines to those of the Near Eastern civilizations. Any attempt at commenting on trade in Archaic Greece seems a risky undertaking in that the results depend wholly on the approach applied and the questions asked. Written sources are rare and difficult to interpret. Archaeological sources, for their part, while extensive and varied, are no easier to explain. Do we have to assume that every sherd of pottery, every ivory fragment, and every oriental seal arrived at its place of discovery through trade—indeed, what precisely do we mean by ‘trade’? My feeling is that it is impossible to find a definition of the term that is both general and really useful; nonetheless, the review of a few attempts aiming at such a definition will serve to indicate at least some possible direction. Polanyi has rightly observed that trade can signify not only the two-way movement of commodities through a market—that is, via supply-and-demand price mechanisms and involving the use of money—but also peaceful, usually two-way movements of objects over a considerable distance directed at acquiring items which are not available on the spot. He uses the word ‘trade’ for every form of exchange, however, making it necessary for us further to determine and define its meaning in each case. Polanyi’s remarks are of great assistance if one is seeking to grasp the variety of exchanges, but not if one wishes to differentiate pre-market-economy trade from other forms of exchange.

Naukratis as ‘Port of Trade’

This chapter is devoted to an interpretation of the written sources alongside the archaeological material discussed above. It will proceed by way of an investigative account (untersuchende Darstellung), one kind of historiography distinguished from other historical narratives by Johann Gustav Droysen, the German historian. Droysen regarded this way of writing history as especially suitable for those historical periods in which the evidence at hand is scarce and garbled. An investigative account proceeds on the premise that the result still has to be found; it is not a record of the steps actually followed by the historian in his investigation, but a reconstruction of this investigation in terms of the principles underlying it. My account will therefore reproduce the process of scrutiny as guided by the ‘port of trade’ model which I have adopted. Naukratis is mentioned in a multitude of written sources; however, few of these are of significance for our purposes. The earliest account of any considerable length is to be found in Herodotus’ Histories, 2. 178–9. His Egyptian logos represents the most detailed and most important classical outline of Egypt’s political and cultural conditions, particularly those at the time of the Saite dynasty. His ethnographic achievement influenced every successive description, whether Greek or Latin. Unfortunately, there are aspects in which his account of Naukratis is lacking in clarity; furthermore, the archaeological evidence has served to qualify his information. Nonetheless, this does not have the effect of rendering Herodotus’ account as such unreliable, because it is not in the nature of archaeological material to do so, as Snodgrass quite rightly observes. Herodotus reports: 178: Amasis, being a Philhellene, granted some Greeks certain rights, and in particular he gave those who came to Egypt the polis Naukratis to dwell in. And, what is more, to those among them who were going to sea and did not want to live there [in Naukratis] permanently he gave lands to erect altars and temenea for the gods. Of these latter the largest which is also the best known and most visited temenos is the so-called Hellenion; 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.

The Archaeological Material from Naukratis

The discovery of Naukratis by Sir William Flinders Petrie more than a hundred years ago resulted in a veritable flood of historical and archaeological research, one which shows no signs of abating. The reason for so much attention lies not only in the discovery of countless Archaic pottery fragments of previously unknown styles but also in the fact that many fragments bear inscriptions in Archaic alphabets. It is not surprising, therefore, that the continuing interest in Naukratis has come primarily from archaeologists, attempting, for example, to explain Egyptian influences upon Greek art by means of Greek contact with Egyptians in Naukratis. However, there have also been numerous attempts within the field of ancient history to evaluate the phenomenon of Naukratis. While this chapter will be devoted to the archaeological material, taking stock of what has been found in the light of the results produced by recent research, the following chapter will present a historical interpretation of this material and the literary sources, based on Karl Polanyi’s ideal-type ‘port of trade’ as discussed above. Naukratis lies 83 km. south-east of Alexandria, in the western part of the Nile delta. There is no direct road between Naukratis and the Cairo–Alexandria motorway, rendering access to the ancient site exceedingly difficult; indeed, it becomes almost impossible in winter, when heavy downpours of rain turn the untarred roads into mud tracks. Nor does Naukratis nowadays offer any architectural attractions to the tourist; furthermore, the old area of excavation, covering about 950×580 m., is largely covered today by a lake. Finally, even the first excavations of 1884–1903 unearthed very little of the temples mentioned in Herodotus 2. 178. It was impossible for me to carry out an autopsy of all the discoveries and finds that have been made, and so I will refer to the available site reports and publications concerning the material from Naukratis. Unfortunately, the former are incomplete in the extreme: they appeared immediately after the campaigns, with no insistence upon comprehensiveness. Many finds were sorted out and destroyed at the excavation site itself; quite a few were distributed to museums, institutions, and private individuals all over the world—in part in return for subscriptions to the Egyptian Exploration Fund—before they could be published. Some of these finds have meanwhile been published in the catalogues of the various museums.

Introduction

For over a hundred years, the study of the ancient economy has been characterized by two opposing views based on different conceptions of the economy and its historical development. The modernists describe the Greek and Roman economy as if it were a fully-fledged modern capitalist economy in terms like ‘market’, ‘export interests’, ‘monopolies’, and ‘entrepreneurs’. An outspoken advocate of this opinion was Eduard Meyer, who claimed that we can hardly imagine the Greek economy as too modern. He was attacking Karl Bücher’s identification of three historical stages in economic evolution which corresponded roughly to the three great epochs: according to Bücher, classical antiquity was characterized by ‘closed household economy’ (geschlossene Hauswirtschaft), the Middle Ages by ‘city economy’ (Stadtwirtschaft), and the modern world by ‘national economy’ (Volkswirtschaft). Bücher’s deductive model very easily proved inapplicable in the light of the evidence. The reluctance to attach the stigma of primitivism to the ancient Greeks still prevails. As long as we consider ourselves as the heirs of the ancient Greeks, we are not inclined to portray them as being in any way backward or primitive. In regarding their legacy as the foundation of our thought, it seems impossible to assume that their consciousness could have been different from ours. Karl Polanyi acknowledged the fundamental difference between pre-industrialized economies and our own and attempted an inductive approach by collecting evidence from different cultures in order to develop an economic theory of pre-industrialized societies. Polanyi was convinced that pre-industrialized societies and their economies could only be analysed in substantive terms. These terms describe how institutions guarantee the provision of material needs, and take particular account of the social context of economic activity. On the other hand, the formal approach in economic history considers the economy as detached from society and sees the market as a ubiquitous phenomenon. According to Polanyi, this statement can only hold true for the industrialized market economy. The work of Karl Polanyi resulted in the debate between modernists and primitivists being superseded by a debate between formalists and substantivists; the point at issue was no longer the historical development of economy but rather what approach ought to be used to analyse past economies.