In the course of writing this article I benefited much from the comments and advice of J. S. Morrison, Wolfson College, Cambridge, R. T. Williams, University of Durham, W. G. G. Forrest, Wadham College, Oxford, and my colleague, Professor J. P. A. Gould, University College, Swansea. The views expressed are, however, my own.

For permission to publish photographs I am indebted to the trustees of the British Museum, the Dept. of Near Eastern and Classical Antiquities of the National Museum, Copenhagen, the Staatlsche Museen, Berlin, l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, Cairo, and the Editor of The Mariner's Mirror.

¹ ‘Triremes and the Saïte Navy’, JEA 58 (1972), p. 268 ff.

² The High Chronology is much more likely to be correct than the Low (Lloyd, op. cit., p. 277, n. 4; S. I. Oost, ‘Cypselus the Bacchiad’, CPh 67 (1972), p. 16, n. 26).

³ ‘Phoenician Oared Ships’, The Mariners' Mirror 55 (1969)) p. 230 ff. This view has been enthusiastically welcomed by L. Casson (‘Another Note on Phoenician Galleys’, ib. 56 (1970), p. 340; Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton, New Jersey, 1971, p. 81, n. 19) and Harden, D. (The Phoenicians, Harmondsworth, 1971, p. 115)Google Scholar.

⁴ Op. cit., p. 152 ff.

⁵ Breitenstein, N., Catalogue of Terracottas, Cypriote, Greek, Etrusco-Italian and Roman, Copenhagen, 1941, p. 56 with pl. 63, no. 520Google Scholar.

⁶ The word Plu. uses is βαρβαρικαί but it is clearly the Phoenicians whom he has in mind. Xerxes' fleet did, however, contain a considerable number of Ionian ships.

⁷ Op. cit., p. 157 ff.

⁸ Op. cit., p. 232.

⁹ Stromateis i 16, 76.

¹⁰ This point appears also ap. Davison, J. A., ‘The First Greek Triremes’, CQ 41 (1947), p. 21, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Op. cit., p. 18 ff.

¹² Basch, op. cit., p. 231 ff.

¹³ Loc. cit.

¹⁴ Op. cit., p. 232.

¹⁵ Morrison, J. & Williams, R., Greek Oared Ships, Cambridge, 1968, p. 161 ff.Google Scholar, particularly 170.

¹⁶ Op. cit., p. 156.

¹⁷ Cf. a coin of Zancle dating c. 489 B.C. showing a bow typical of Samian and Corinthian ships (Morrison & Williams, op. cit., pl. 20e (Arch. 89) with p. 111 ff.).

¹⁸ Op. cit., p. 156.

¹⁹ Casson, op. cit., p. 82, n. 27.

²⁰ Higgins, R. A., Greek Terracottas, London, 1967, p. 132Google Scholar.

²¹ Kaufmann, C. M., Ägyptische Terrakotten der griechisch-römischen und koptischen Epoche, Cairo, 1913, p. 34Google Scholar.

²² Oared Fighting Ships, London, 1962, p. 17.

²³ ‘Den Grekiska Trieren’, Universitets Årsskrift, N.F. I, 9, 7 (1914), p. 38.

²⁴ Op. cit., p. 158.

²⁵ The inaccuracy of models is a perennial problem in nautical archaeology: cf. the bronze model at Athens which was dedicated to Athene at the Erechtheum. This has a hypozoma running along the top of the gunwale instead of around the hull (Morrison and Williams, op. cit., p. 179).

²⁶ Casson has recently suggested that such a flushsided trireme was employed by the Romans, (‘Another Note on Phoenician Galleys’, The Mariner's Mirror 56 (1970), p. 340Google Scholar; Ships and Seamanship, pp. XXIII, 125, 143 ff.). The evidence consists of the Ostia trireme (Fig. 125), one of the Pozzuoli triremes (Fig. 131) and a trireme on Trajan's column (Fig. 127). The first does not convince for two reasons. In the first place the ports for the three rows of oars are represented as being disposed one on top of the other or virtually so. Such an arrangement must surely have been structurally impossible. Therefore, the sculptor has probably made a mistake and the carving cannot be trusted. Secondly it should be noted that the artist may have represented the three rows of oars as being worked through an outrigger. Casson insists (p. XXIII, 125) that the square fixture preceding the oars is simply a plaque bearing the ship's device, but it could just as easily be the front of the outrigger (cf. the structure at this point of Casson, op. cit., Figs. 116 and 133 and of the model published by Basch, L., ‘A Model of an Ancient Warship in the Louvre’, The Mariner's Mirror 52 (1966), pp. 115 ff.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. What we may have here is simply a careless representation of a trireme in which the artist has inadvertently inserted all three rows of oars into the παρεξειρεσία. Clearly it would not be wise to build too much on this relief. As for the Pozzuoli relief, it clearly represents three superimposed banks emerging below an outrigger. This Casson treats as essentially a flush-sided trireme but even if the relief is accurate—and it certainly does not look like it—there is no reason to believe that the topmost row of oars is not being worked through the outrigger. They could as easily pass through the bottom as through the side—so . Certainly Casson argues skilfully for the existence of redundant outriggers in ships of other ratings but his evidence seems fragile—in Fig. 124 the oars certainly emerge below the παρεξειρεσία on the starboard side but the level is not consistent. Those nearest the bow are higher placed and suggest that in fact the arrangement was similar to that postulated for Fig. 131. Note, however, that on the port side the oars appear at the level of the outrigger (for such a sobering inconsistency cf. Fig. 116, where the port oars are worked through the outrigger and those on the starboard side emerge at a level below the outrigger); on Fig. 133 the oars seem to me to emerge from the outrigger in both cases and in Figs. 122–3 the ‘Outrigger’ may simply be a shelf-like projection resembling that in Figs. 119 and 125. As for the trireme on Trajan's Column it would probably allow us to postulate a narrow παρεξειρεσία, since the fixture through which the θρανίται work their oars is clearly fixed outside the gunwale. We might, for example, suggest a profile so .

²⁷ Hopfner, Th., Orient und griechische Philosophie. Beihefte zum ‘Alten Orient’ 4, 1925Google Scholar.

²⁸ In general Kleingünther, A., ‘ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΕΥΡΕΤΗΣ’, Philologus Supp. 26, I (1933), p. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Worstbrock, F. J., ‘Translatio artium: über die Herkunft und Entwicklung einer kulturhistorischen Theorie’, AKG 47 (1965), p. 1 ff.Google Scholar Clement actually mentions ap. 16, 77, 1 Scamon of Mitylene, Theophrastus of Ephesus, Cydippus of Mantinea, Antiphanes, Aristodemus, Aristotle, Philostephanus and Strato the Peripatetic.

²⁹ Worstbrock, op. cit., p. 5.

³⁰ Hickmann, , CGC. Instruments de Musique, Cairo. 1949. p. 122 ffGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Aeschylus, , Supplices 268 ff.Google Scholar; Cyril of Alexandria, , Contra Julian. VI, p. 805 (200–1), 812 (204) (Migne)Google Scholar.

³² Torr, C., Ancient Ships (ed. Podlecki, A. J.), Chicago, 1964, p. 5, n. 12Google Scholar, on the basis of the eponym Bosporus. The fact that Aristotle (F. 600 Rose³; cf. Pliny, , HN vii 207)Google Scholar also attributes the invention to the Carthaginians surely indicates no more than that the corruption was at least as old as the fourth century. Confidence in this view is increased by the tradition preserved ap. Diodorus Siculus (xiv 42) that the quadrireme was invented in Sicily in the time of Dionysius I.

³³ Hickmann, op. cit., p. 34 ff.; ‘Cymbales et Crotales’, ASAE 49 (1949), p. 524.

³⁴ Forbes, R. J., Metallurgy in Antiquity, Leiden, 1950, p. 325 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ This amazing statement is as old as Hellanicus (FgrH 4, F. 178).

³⁶ The word covers both astronomy and astrology, though in Clement's time ‘astrology’ is the most likely meaning (Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexikon, Cambridge, 1914, p. 267a)Google Scholar.

³⁷ Woodhead, A. G., The Study of Greek Inscriptions, Cambridge, 1967, p. 12 ff.Google Scholar; Diringer, D., ‘The Alphabet in the History of Civilization’, ap. Ward, W. A. (Ed.), The Role of the Phoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean Civilizations. Papers Presented to the Archaeological Symposium at the American University of Beirut, March 1967, Beirut, 1968, p. 33 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ D. Harden, op. cit., p. 50 ff.; Moscati, S., The World of the Phoenicians, London, 1968, p. 24 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ E.g. Homer, , Iliad vi 290 ff.Google Scholar; xxiii 740 ff.; Odyssey iv 84, 618; xiii 285 ff.; xv 425; Wace, W. and Stubbings, F., A Companion to Homer, London, 1962, p. 307Google Scholar. Sidon and Sidonians are equally prominent in Herodotus (ii 116; iii 136; vii 44, 96, 99; viii 67–8). Cf. Moscati, op. cit., p. 49.

⁴⁰ Borger, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, König von Assyrien, Graz, 1956, p. 48 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Speiser, E. A.ap. Dentan, R. C. (Ed.), The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, Newhaven-London, 1955, p. 64 ffGoogle Scholar. ‘The Assyrian royal scribes were prone to hyperbole, hypocrisy, and even falsehood. The modern historian must tred warily through this dangerous forest’ (Grayson, A. K., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, I, Wiesbaden, 1972, p. XXI)Google Scholar.

⁴² Jidejian, N., Sidon, Beirut, 1971, p. 39 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ Herodotus, ii, 161; Diodorus Siculus, i 68.

⁴⁴ Jidejian, op. cit., p. 40.

⁴⁵ Vide infra, p. 52.

⁴⁶ Not ‘cedar’; SirGardiner, Alan H., Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1957, p. 122Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ The presence of embellishments such as the lion figure-head and pavisades do not conceal the traditional Nilotic spoon-shaped hull (with Landström, B. (Ships of the Pharaohs: 4000 ϒears of Egyptian Shipbuilding. Architectura Navalis, I, London, 1970, p. 112)Google Scholar and Anderson, R. and Anderson, R. C. (The Sailing Ship, London, 1963, p. 30)Google Scholar, against Faulkner, R. (‘Egyptian Seagoing Ships’, JEA 26 (1940), p. 9)Google Scholar and Casson, L. (Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, p. 36 ff)Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ SirGardiner, Alan H., Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, I, Oxford, 1947, p. 200^* ff.Google Scholar; Desborough, V., The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, Oxford, 1964, p. 237 ff.Google Scholar; Hrouda, B., ‘Die Einwanderung der Philister in Palästina. Eine Studie zur Seevölker-bewegung des 12. Jahrhunderts’, Vorderasiatische Archäologie. Studien Moortgat, Berlin, 1964, p. 126 ff.Google Scholar; Albright, W. F., CAH ³ II, Ch. XXXIII (fasc. 51), Cambridge, 1966, p. 25 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ Morrison and Williams, op. cit., p. 11 BA 11; Vermeule, E., Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago-London, 1964, p. 258 with fig. 43f-e and pl. XXXIIACrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ Lloyd, op. cit., p. 269.

⁵¹ Morrison and Williams, op. cit., p. 7 ff.; Basch, op. cit., p. 142.

⁵² ‘The so-called galleys of Necho’, JEA 58 (1972), p. 307 ff.

⁵³ Vide Morrison and Williams, op. cit., Geom. 25, 32; Arch. 5, 30, 31, 35, 51–7, 90–3; Higgins, R. A., Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities British Museum, I, London, 1954, pl. 130, 901Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Lloyd, ‘Triremes and the Saïte Navy’, op. cit., p. 276 ff. For the chronology vide supra, p. 1, n. 2. Pace Torr (op. cit., p. 4, n. 8), Basch (op. cit., p. 232) and Casson (op. cit., p. 81, n. 17) Thucydides' statement that Corinth was the first place in Greece where such ships were built is not meant, as Torr puts it, ‘to save the priority of the Phoenicians’. Th. is a highly Graeco-centric historian and to him a phrase like ἐν Κορίνθῳ πρῶτον τῆς Ἑλλάδος is equivalent to πρῶτον.

⁵⁵ xiv 42.

⁵⁶ HN vii 207.

⁵⁷ FgrH 90, F. 58.

⁵⁸ It is generally agreed that Nicolaus derived most of his Greek history from Ephorus. The Nic./Eph. tradition on the Cypselids owed something to Herodotus but clearly embodies other material. That their information in toto is substantially accurate admits of no reasonable doubt (Will, E., Korinthiaka, Paris, 1955, p. 460 ff.Google Scholar; cf. the salutary remarks of Oost (op. cit., p. 16, n. 27) on modern hypercriticism).

⁵⁹ Aristotle, , Politics v 12 (1315b)Google Scholar; Nic. Dam., F. 58–9; Lloyd, op. cit., p. 278.

⁶⁰ Diogenes Laertius, i 99.

⁶¹ Verdelis, N. M., ‘Der Diolkos am Isthmus von Korinth’, MDAI(A) 71 (1956), p. 51 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Compare Morrison & Williams, op. cit., Arch. 89 with Arch. 41 and 44. The Sicyonian vessel of Arch. 38 shows the same characteristic, probably through Corinthian influence.

⁶³ Higgins, op. cit., p. 245.

⁶⁴ Stillwell, A. N., Corinth XV.ii. The Potters' Quarter. The Terracottas, Princeton, New Jersey, 1952, p. 195 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ Casson, op. cit., p. 97 ff.

⁶⁶ Carman, W. Y., A History of Firearms, London, 1970, p. 107 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁷ Morrison & Williams, op. cit., p. 160 ff.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 87 ff.

⁶⁹ Ameinocles only built 4 triremes at Samos (vide supra, p. 52).

⁷⁰ Cf. Morrison & Williams, op. cit., p. 169.

⁷¹ Vide supra, p. 47.

⁷² Pliny, , HN VII, 207Google Scholar; Thucydides, I, 13; Diodorus Siculus, XIV, 42, 44; Aelian, VH VI, 12.

⁷³ Vide supra, p. 50.

⁷⁴ Torr, op. cit., p. 112 ff.

⁷⁵ This is not to deny their undoubted expertise as sailors but that is a very different thing from distinction in ship design—in particular naval architecture. The British, for all their universally acknowledged skill as sailors, have not been responsible for many innovations in naval design. If anything, they have tended for long periods in their history to be rather backward.

⁷⁶ Morrison and Williams, op. cit., p. 7 ff.; Casson, op. cit., p. 30 ff.

⁷⁷ Op. cit., p. 142.

⁷⁸ Morrison and Williams, op. cit., p. 38 ff.

⁷⁹ Vide supra, p. 46.

⁸⁰ Compare them with Morrison and Williams, op. cit., pl. 1e; 2c; 3b; 4c; 10d.

⁸¹ FgrH 5, F. 6.

⁸² Lloyd, op. cit., p. 271 ff.

⁸³ Aristotle, loc. cit.; Nic. Dam., FgrH 90, F. 59.

⁸⁴ Herodotus, ii 158.

⁸⁵ Vide supra, p. 53.

⁸⁶ Herodotus, iii 50 ff.

⁸⁷ Ibid., i 20; v 92ε ff.

⁸⁸ Ibid., iii 48.

⁸⁹ An alliance between the Cypselids and Philaids is made certain by inscriptional evidence (Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford, 1969, p. 11)Google Scholar. It is more than likely that the overtures came from the Philaids but we should remember that daughters were precious political capital and the Cypselids will have disposed of them with a clear view of advantages to be gained. Philaid support would have been well worth a daughter.

⁹⁰ Nic. Dam., loc. cit. It would be surprising if the founders of the Cypselid colonies on Leucas and at Anactorium (F. 57) did not fall into the same category.

⁹¹ Freyer-Schauenburg, B., ‘Kolaios und die westphönizischen Elfenbeine’, MDAI(M) 7 (1966), p. 89 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹² Boardman, J., The Greeks Overseas, Harmondsworth, 1964, p. 134 ff.Google Scholar; Austin, M. M., Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Supp. 2 (1970), p. 22 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹³ Diodorus Siculus, i 98, 5–9; Anthes, R., ‘Affinity and Difference between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries’, PAPhS 107, I (1963), p. 66 ffGoogle Scholar. Generally speaking statements on alleged visits of Greek philosophers, artists etc. to Egypt are untrustworthy (Hopfner, op. cit., passim) but there is much to be said in favour of this one. (This point I shall discuss fully in my forthcoming commentary on Herodotus Bk. II). In any case, for our purposes the very existence of the tradition is highly significant.

⁹⁴ de Meulenaere, H., Herodotos over de 26ste Dynastie. Bibliothèque du Muséon 27, Louvain, 1951, p. 111Google Scholar. It is also worth recalling that Samian involvement in this part of the world is further indicated by their settlement at the city of Oasis, seven days W. of Thebes, probably in the Khargeh Oasis. The date is, however, uncertain (H., iii 26, 1; cf. Hec., FgrH 1, F. 326).

⁹⁵ Casson, op. cit., p. 318.

⁹⁶ Op. cit., p. 320.

⁹⁷ FgrH I, F. 310.

⁹⁸ Strabo, xvii 1, 18 (c801–2).

⁹⁹ A trireme required 170 oarsmen (Casson, op. cit., p. 305).

¹⁰⁰ On the Egyptian technique vide Casson, op. cit., p. 18.

¹⁰¹ Casson, op. cit., p. 278 ff.

¹⁰² Polyaenus, iii 11, 7.

¹⁰³ Cf. [Xenophon], Ath. Pol. i 19–20.

¹⁰⁴ J. Leclant, ‘Les Relations entre l'Egypte et la Phénicie du voyage d'Ounamon à l'expédition d'Alexandre’, ap. W. A. Ward, op. cit., p. 16 ff.

¹⁰⁵ ii 112, 2.

¹⁰⁶ Vide supra, p. 56.

¹⁰⁷ Vide supra, p. 46.

¹⁰⁸ Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende, Berlin, 1953, p. 24.

¹⁰⁹ Luckenbill, D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. II. Historical Records of Assyria, Chicago, 1927, p. 293Google Scholar; Piepkorn, A., Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, I. Chicago, 1933, p. 13Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Drioton, E. and Vandier, J., L'Egypte, 4th Ed., Paris, 1962, p. 396Google Scholar. The XIXth Dynasty occupation (Faulkner, R., CAH ² II, Ch. XXIII (fasc. 52), Cambridge, 1966, pp. 6, 12Google Scholar) must be seen in the same light.

¹¹¹ At first sight it might seem reasonable to use this general situation as in itself an argument in favour of my thesis that Necho's triremes were Greek, i.e. it might be asserted that, if Necho were hostile to Phoenicia, the Phoenicians would not have built ships for him, but such an argument would be specious. It would surely have been perfectly feasible for Necho to buy individual Phoenicians, if that had been necessary, irrespective of the international political situation.

¹¹² Hornung, E., ‘Die Sonnenfinsternis nach dem Tode Psammetichs I’, ZÄS 92 (1965), p. 39Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Yoyotte, J.ap. Pirot, L. et al. (Eds.), Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément VI, Paris, 1960, 382 ff.Google Scholar; J. Leclant, ‘Les relations entre l'Egypte et la Phénicie du voyage d'Ounamon à l'expédition d'Alexandre’, ap. W. A. Ward, op. cit., p. 16 ff.

¹¹⁴ D. Blackman ap. Morrison and Williams, op. cit., p. 181 ff.; Casson, op. cit., p. 363 ff.

¹¹⁵ Morrison and Williams, op. cit., p. 245.

¹¹⁶ For kbnt in this sense vide Lloyd, ‘Triremes and the Saïte Navy’, op. cit., p. 272 ff.

¹¹⁷ The H3w nbw(t) are a long standing problem. A study of the examples of the term listed and discussed by Vercoutter (‘Les Haou-Nebout’, BIFAO 46 (1947), p. 125 ff.; ib. 48 (1949), p. 107 ff.) reveals quite clearly that from at least the Middle Kingdom it was essentially a generic geographical term applied to the peoples living to the N. and N.E. of Egypt and that throughout later Egyptian history it retained that general sense (cf. the Edfu Gloss on the term Ḏd(w) r n3 m3(w)t n p(3) ym r ḫ3s(wt) mḥt(t) 'š3(wt) wr(wt) ‘Said concerning the islands of the sea and the many great northern lands’—SirGardiner, Alan H., Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I, Oxford, 1947, p. 208^*)Google Scholar. Since, however, it never became an ethnic, changes in historical circumstances in this vaguely defined area would mean that it could embrace different peoples at different times. Hence, with the development of Graeco-Macedonian power in the Near East during the late fourth century, H3w nbw(t) can be used to refer, amongst other inhabitants of the area, to Greeks and Macedonians (Gardiner, loc. cit.; Vercoutter, op. cit., 48 (1949), p. 178 ff.). Greeks of Asiatic origin had, however, been coming to Egypt since at least the beginning of the Saite Period and it has generally been assumed that the term H3w nbw(t) can refer to them as early as the XXVIth Dynasty. Vercoutter certainly thought so (op. cit., p. 175) and though one of his translations is certainly question-begging (Doc. LXXI, p. 175) there can be no doubt that he is correct. The evidence consists of the correspondence between the Amasis Stele and Herodotus ii 163, 1 which is clearly talking of the same events and where the forces used by Apries are explicitly stated to be This argument has recently been assailed by C. Vandersleyn (Les Guerres d'Amosis Fondateur de la XVIII^e Dynastie. Monographies Reine Elizabeth I, Brussels, 1971, p. 144 ff.) on two grounds: (1) H.'s claim that the mercenaries were Carians and Ionians must not be taken at the foot of the letter; for he wrote from a Greek point of view and might have ignored other nationalities. (2) Kbnwt in the Amasis Stele are, etymologically, ‘Byblos-ships’. It is, therefore, possible that they are Syrian or Phoenician ships with crews of the same nationality. The first of these points is easily met. It is true that H. may have omitted to mention troops of other nationalities, but there is no escaping the implication that Carians and Ionians formed a major part of his forces. We may, therefore, admit ‘que cet historien rapporte les faits du point de vue grec, qu'il a donc pu passer sous silence d'autres ethnies’ without denying that the term Ḥ3w nbw(t) can cover, amongst other things, Carian and Ionian mercenaries. The second argument is even more difficult to accept. Certainly the word Kbnt appears to mean ‘Byblosship’ but V.'s deduction is inadmissible for several reasons: (1) Despite its etymology the word is used until the Saite Period of purely Egyptian ships (T. Säve-Söderbergh, The Navy of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift, 1946, 6, p. 47 ff.). It is, therefore, patently unsound to argue that the etymology can be taken to reflect the nationality of the type. (2) Though the etymology is ‘Byblosship’ it is just as likely that the term means ‘Ship Plying to Byblos’ as ‘Ship from Byblos’ (Säve-Söderbergh, loc. cit.). (3) There is excellent evidence that the term Kbnt from the Saite Period onwards can be used of war galleys built for ramming whether triremes or larger types irrespective of their origin (see above n. 116). We conclude, therefore, that the term. Ḥ3w nbw(t) in the Amasis Stele includes, without exclusively designating, H.'s Carian and Ionian mercenaries.

¹¹⁸ Masson, O. and Yoyotte, J., Objets Pharaoniques à Inscription Carienne. IFAO. Bibliothèque d'Etude 15, Cairo, 1956, p. 20 ffGoogle Scholar. Recent excavations at Saqqâra have amply confirmed the presence of Carian cemeteries in this area (Emery, W. B., ‘Preliminary Report on the Excavations at North Saqqâra, 1968–9’, JEA 56 (1970), p. 6 ff.Google Scholar).

¹¹⁹ op. cit., p. 22.