¹ ‘Were Nccho's Triremes Phoenician?’ JHS xcv (1975) 45 ff., hereafter Lloyd, (1975), developing an earlier study, ‘Triremes and the Saïite Navy’, JEA lviii (1972) 208 ff.Google Scholar, hereafter Lloyd (1972). The conclusions of both are summarized in my Herodotus Book II. Introduction (Leiden 1975) 32 ff.

² Lloyd (1972) 276 ff.; (1975) 52 ff.

³ Id. (1975) 53 ff.

⁴ (1975) 55 ff.

⁵ (1975) 59 ff.

⁶ (1975) 49 ff.

⁷ (1975) 51 ff.

⁸ ‘Trières grecques, phéniciennes et égyptiennes’, JHS xcvii (1977) 1 ff.

⁹ Lloyd (1975) 54.

¹⁰ Op. cit. (n. 8) 6 ff.

¹¹ On Ferguson's, career and achievements see the excellent article in the Dictionary of National Biography xiii (London 1889) 348Google Scholar ff.

¹² Thuc. i 14.

¹³ ‘The First Greek Triremes’, CQ xli (1947) 18 ff. Most recently the argument has been resuscitated by Austin, M. M. and Vidal-Naquet, P., Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece (London 1977) 224Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Op. cit. (n. 8) 6 ff.

¹⁵ Polycrates may have inherited a fleet of triremes from Demoteles or Amphicrates, both of whom seem to have been tyrants before him and both of whom were embroiled in serious naval activity: see Barron, J. P., ‘The Sixth-Century Tyranny at Samos’, CQ xiv (1964) 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff. and Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants (London 1974) 40Google Scholar, 44.

¹⁶ In addition to penteconters and triremes we hear of a dual-purpose σάμαινα ναῦς which is alleged to have been invented by Polycrates (Plut. per. 26. 4) and which is stated by Photius and the Souda (s.v. Σαμίων ό δῆμος) to have been a bireme (δίκροτος). I have already pointed out the feasibility of combining vessels of different ratings in an early Greek battle-fleet, (1975) 54. Basch, M. comments ‘l'emploi tactique des pentécontores et des trières était différent’ (8 n. 75)Google Scholar. Presumably he has in mind the fifth-century situation where penteconters functioned as frigates and triremes as line-of-battle ships: cf. Morrison, J. S. and Williams, R. T., Greek Oared Ships (Cambridge 1968) 131Google Scholar. For the sixth century and earlier the argument is unsound (cf Thuc. i 14.1). It should be remembered that a vessel which is regarded as fit to lie in the line in one century might well be regarded as unfit in the next, e.g. in the seventeenth century a so was acceptable whereas after c 1756 it was not: Clowes, W. Laird, The Royal Navy iii (London 1898) 6 ff., 328Google Scholar. During the sixth century B.C. penteconters would have figured on the same terms as triremes in general fleet-actions.

¹⁷ Op. cit. (n. 8)3.

¹⁸ Stadelmann, R., Syrisch-Palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Leiden 1967) 37Google Scholar; id., Lexikon der Ägyptologie i (Wiesbaden 1975) 590 ff; cf also Helck, , RE ix A (1967) 1409Google Scholar.

¹⁹ ii 49.3, 161. 2; iv 45.4; vii 98; viii 67. 2.

²⁰ Spiegelberg, W., ‘Der Aegypterkönig Proteus’, BIFAO xxx (1930) 103 ff.Google Scholar This problem will be discussed at greater length in the third volume of my Herodotus Book Il.

²¹ Op. cit. (n. 8) 9.

²² It is questionable whether the model represents a trireme at all. The prototype may have been a Hellenistic polyreme: Bass, G., A History of Seafaring (London 1972) 58, 14Google Scholar.

²³ The dating of the first is a problem. Since the Egyptian dealer from whom it was purchased in 1902 claimed that it derived from Armant (Breitenstein, N., Catalogue of Terracottas Cypriote, Greek, Etrusco-Italian and Roman [Copenhagen 1941] pl. 63, 520)Google Scholar, there is a temptation to regard the date of the foundation of the Bucheum (c. 350 B.C.) as a terminus post quern. (Cf. Basch, , ‘Phoenician Oared Ships’, Mariner's Mirror lv [1969] 232Google Scholar). Unfortunately, the claims of Egyptian dealers are notoriously untrustworthy and the provenance should be treated as uncertain. On the other hand, since it is improbable that such a terracotta would be earlier than the Hellenistic Period, we are entitled to the strong suspicion that it post-dates the Macedonian conquest. On the date of the second see Lloyd, , ‘The so-called Galleys of Necho’. JEA lxiv (1972) 307Google Scholar ff. On that of the third see id., ‘Two figured Ostraca from North Saqqára’ JEA lxiv (1978) 110 ff.

²⁴ Op. cit. (n. 8) 4.

²⁵ Op. cit. (n. 8) 3 ff.

²⁶ Lloyd (1975) 55.

²⁷ The clearest evidence of Late Bronze-Age naval warfare in the E. Mediterranean is Egyptian. The reliefs at Medinet Habu representing Ramesses Ill's battle with the Sea-Peoples c. 1170 depict just such an action. The Egyptian ships are closely paralleled by non-military types (e.g. Vandier, J., Manuel d' Archéologie Egyptienne v [Paris 1969] 952Google Scholar fig. 360, left) and that impression is confirmed by linguistic data. The Egyptian words ‘ḥ’ (Wörterbuch i 222.4–8) and mnš(ii 89.8–10) are used both in military and civilian contexts, the former even occurring at Medinet Habu in the description of the sea-fight in the significant phrase ‘ḥ’, n ‘ḥ3t, ‘ḥ’ for fighting'. The Levantine naval activities discussed by M. Basch (n. 8) 2 ff. will doubtless have taken the same form as those of Ramesses III. (It is probably as well to scotch Linder's recent attempt to render the Ugaritic mi-ši in the phrase ameluti mi-ši as ‘warship’ (‘Naval Warfare in the El-Amarna Age’ in Blackman, D. J., ed., Marine Archaeology [London 1973] 319 ff.)Google Scholar. The notion is based on the assumption that the word descends from an Old-Egyptian word mš' alleged in one instance to mean ‘warship’ (Wörterbuch ii 156.2). This rendering has long since been abandoned in favour of the normal translation of mš' as ‘expedition’: Boreux, C., Etudes de Nautique Egyptienne [Cairo 1924] 128Google Scholar n. 1. In any case, even if the Ugaritic had meant ‘warship’, it would probably have referred to nothing more elaborate than the Egyptian ‘ḥ’, n ‘ḥ3t.)

²⁸ Lloyd (1975) 49 ff.

²⁹ Op. cit. (n. 8) 8 ff. On the parexeiresia-question the case for and against has been, in general, adequately stated. Two points only need be added. First, the issue of the presence or absence of the parexeiresia on Phoenician triremes is irrelevant to the problem of the date of the trireme's introduction; for, if the parexeiresia were used in Phoenicia, Greek influence would be an obvious possibility. If it were not, Greek influence still remains a possibility since the motivation for adding the third bank could have been the prior existence of Greek triremes. Second, Basch, M. misrepresents the meaning of Apollonius Arg. i 394Google Scholar ff. The poet is not describing ‘une pentécontoredière’ but a standard Homeric penteconter with twenty-five men a side disposed on one level.

³⁰ The British Museum Dockyard Papyrus, probably dating to the reign of Tuthmose III (c. 1490–1436), refers to shipbuilding or, at least ship-repairing, apparently in Prw-nfr, but it is poor evidence of the importance of Phoenicians as shipwrights. Not one of the shipwrights has a Phoenician name. In fact the vast majority of the names are Egyptian. The only clear exception is' Irṯ(verso 8, 11) and that means not ‘Aradian’, as the older literature has it, but ‘Arzawan’ (i.e. Pamphylian, , Gardiner, A. H., Ancient Egyptian Onomastica [Oxford 1947] 129^* ff.)Google Scholar. On the other hand, one of the officials assisting the crown-prince Amenhotpe in dispensing materials from the magazines is called Teshub-ba'al. He has been claimed as a Phoenician but, if the name is any guide at all, he could just as well have come from anywhere in the Semitic Near East. At all events his rôle does not involve shipbuilding proper. Essentially he functions as a high-ranking store-room clerk and need not have known any more about the technicalities of shipbuilding than his royal superior. The other text always invoked on this subject is P. Hermitage 1116B (verso). It is generally assumed, though it is far from certain, that it refers to work at Prw-nfr. At 15 ff. It mentions dispensing fifty pieces of wood to six individuals who are described as Kharu, i.e. Syrians. With one exception they bear Egyptian, not Asiatic, names. If we accept the connection of the papyrus with Prw-nfr, this situation might encourage the guess that a large number of the Egyptian names in the British Museum papyrus conceal foreigners, but any such assumption would involve a petitio principii. How many were Egyptian and how many were foreigners is absolutely undemonstrable. One query, however, irresistibly suggests itself. If most of the workmen mentioned in the British Museum papyrus were Syrians, why do we not have at least some Syrian names? As for the Syrian who made divine barks for all the gods of Egypt, he need not detain us long. In view of the sacred nature of the divine barks in question, it is in the highest degree unlikely that under this individual there was any departure from time-hallowed and god-sanctioned formulae. Therefore, his position cannot be regarded as evidence of Syrian influence on Egyptian shipbuilding.

³¹ ‘Le navire Mnš et autres notes de voyage en Egypt’, Mariner's Mirror lxiv (1978) 99 ff. Note, however, that influence on one type does not prove Phoenician domination of Egyptian naval architecture. Food for thought is provided by the Aramaic papyrus which refers to a Memphite naval arsenal at the very end of the fifth century B.C.: Aimé-Giron, N., Textes Araméens d'Egypte, (Cairo 1931) 12Google Scholar ff.; Bowman, R. A., ‘An Aramaic Journal Page’, AJSL lviii (1941) 302Google Scholar ff. The text mentions individuals with Egyptian, Persian, Babylonian, Khivan, Caspian, Phoenician, Moabite and probably Jewish names. It presumably refers to a situation which came into existence after the Persian occupation and is hardly relevant to Saïte conditions. We should, however, observe that the polyglot nature of the names indicates that, even in the Persian period, Phoenicians were simply one of many nationalities active in Memphite nautical circles.