When I was exploring in the marshy desert about Tanis, I saw from the top of a mound—Tell Ginn—a shimmering grey swell on the horizon through the haze; and that I was told was Tell Defenneh, or rather Def’neh, as it is called. It was generally supposed to be the Pelusiac Daphnae of Herodotos, and the Tahpanhes of the Old Testament; but nothing definite was known about it, and as it lies in the midst of the desert, between the Delta and the Suez Canal, twelve miles from either, it was not very accessible. After working at Tell Nebesheh for some time, I left it in Mr. Griffith’s hands, and told my men that I wanted to work at Defneh; immediately I had more volunteers than I could employ, and I went into the desert to the work with a party of forty,—men, boys and girls,—and formed a settlement which enlarged up to seventy. We pitched on the old Pelusiac branch, which is now rather brackish, and it was sometimes difficult to drink the water: the people, however, made the best of it, and I never had a pleasanter time with my men than the two months I lived there, independent of all the local authorities which are generally met with. No one was allowed about the camp except the workers, and I never had the least trouble with them, nor heard a single squabble.

On reaching the place I found a wide flat plain bordering on the river, strewn all over with pottery, and with a mound of mud-brick building in the midst of it. I asked the name of the mound, and was told Kasr Bint el Yehudi, ‘the palace of the Jew’s daughter.’ This at once brought Tahpanhes to my mind. Can there be any tradition here? I thought. I turned to Jeremiah, and there read how he came, with Johanan, the son of Kareah, and all the officers, and the king’s daughters, down to Tahpanhes and dwelt there. We can hardly believe that the only place in Egypt where a celebrated daughter of a Jewish king lived, was called in later times ‘the palace of the Jew’s daughter’ by accident, especially as such a name is only known here. Rather has this unique name clung to the place, as so many names have lasted, as long or longer, in Egypt and Syria. The next question was, if any reason could be found for its possessing a Greek name, Daphnae. Soon this was settled by finding an abundance of Greek pottery of the archaic period; and so many Greek remains, and so little Egyptian, that it was evident a Greek camp had been here. This then was the camp of the Ionians described by Herodotos as having been founded by Psametichos I on the Pelusiac branch; and on reaching down to the foundation of the fort, I there took out the tablets with the name of Psamtik I as the founder. But Herodotos relates a tale about Sesostris having been attacked here by treachery, suggesting that buildings had existed here in Ramesside times; and beneath some work of Psamtik I found part of a wall of baked bricks, such as were used in tombs at Tell Nebesheh, not far from this, and only in Ramesside times. Literature and discovery therefore go hand in hand here remarkably closely.

This place then appears to have been an old fort on the Syrian frontier guarding the road out of Egypt; and here Psamtik settled part of his ‘brazen men from the sea,’ and built a great fortress and camp, the twin establishment to that of the rest of the Greek mercenaries at Naukratis, on the Libyan side. The fort was a square mass of brickwork, with deep domed chambers or cells in it, which were opened from the top; this sustained the actual dwellings at about forty feet above the plain, so that a clear view of the distant

towns and the desert could be seen over the camp wall, to some ten or twenty miles. The camp was defended by a wall forty feet thick, and probably as high; but this is now completely swept away down to the ground by the winds and rains. Beneath each corner of the fort was placed a set of plaques of various materials, both metals and stones, with the name of Psamtik, and at the south-west corner were also the bones of a sacrifice and other ceremonial deposits. This fort was enlarged by chambers added to it during a couple of generations later; and it must have been over that threshold which still lies in the doorway that the Jewish fugitives entered, when Hophra gave them an asylum from the Assyrian scourge. We cannot doubt that Tahpanhes—the first place on the road into Egypt—was a constant refuge for the Jews during the series of Assyrian invasions; especially as they met here, not the exclusive Egyptians, but a mixed foreign population, mostly Greeks. Here then was a ready source for the introduction of Greek words and names into Hebrew, long before the Alexandrine age; and even before the fall of Jerusalem the Greek names of musical instruments, and other words, may have been heard in the courts of Solomon’s temple.

Another remarkable connection with the account given by Jeremiah was found on clearing around the fort. The entrance was in the side of a block of building projecting from the fort; and in front of it, on the opposite side of its roadway, similarly projecting from the fort, was a large platform or pavement of brickwork (see fig. 38), suitable for out-door business, such as loading goods, pitching tents, &c.,—just what is now called a mastaba. Now Jeremiah writes of ‘the pavement (or brickwork) which is at the entry of Pharaoh’s house in Tahpanhes’ (chap. xliii. 9, R.V.); this passage, which has been an unexplained stumbling-block to translators hitherto, is the exact description of the mastaba which I found; and this would be the most likely place for Nebuchadrezzar to pitch his royal tent, as stated by Jeremiah.

The Greek vases found here show us an entirely new type, derived from the form of the Egyptian metal vases, but with the pointed base replaced by a circular foot. The painting and style of these vases are also unknown elsewhere, and were never found at Naukratis, so that it is certain that they were made by Daphniote potters. Several other styles of vases are found here, but it is very remarkable to note the total difference from the pottery of Naukratis. If the vases had been mainly imported to these settlements in Egypt, we should certainly find the remains much alike in two towns both occupied by Ionians at the same period, and probably trading with the same places; whereas every style that is most common at either of these towns is almost or entirely unknown at the other town. Such a widespread distinction shows how largely the pottery was made by local schools of potters, at the place where we find it, and how little of it was carried by trade.

The decoration of some of the vases is surprising, as showing at what an early date some patterns were used. On one vase are two bands of design, one of the archaic square volute, and the other of the lotus or ‘palmetto’ pattern, which would otherwise have been supposed to be a century later.

The greater part of the vase fragments were found in two chambers of the out-buildings of the fort. These rooms had been standing unused by the Greeks, and served for rubbish holes, so that when we cleared them out every scrape of the earth brought up some painted fragments, and the lucky workmen who had these places filled basket after basket each day. The finest vase of all was found alone, in a passage on the north of the fort, and nearly every fragment

was secured, ninety-nine pieces in all; it had been very probably a present to the Egyptian governor, or possibly to the king on some visit there, as it had traces of an inscription in demotic written on it with ink.

The ground of the camp also supplied us with a large number of things; for although it would hardly be worth while to dig over so many acres exhaustively, yet the ground had been so much denuded that the surface-dust was rich in small objects. I therefore had it scraped over, and found hundreds of arrow-heads of iron and bronze, iron scale armour, swords, &c. One curious find was turned up the last afternoon of the work; a large lot of cut-up lumps of silver, and a massive gold handle off a tray, with lotus ‘palmetto’ design; it had been violently wrenched off, and the question is where would a soldier have a chance of looting such valuable gold plate of Egyptian design? It seems not unlikely that it was part of the royal treasure of Apries, plundered on his overthrow by Amasis. Another unusual object was picked up by one of the workmen on the surface (see Fig. 47, end of chapter); it appeared to be a little silver box with a sliding lid. The lid was slightly opened, and the feet of a gold figure showed inside it. As it could not be opened more without breaking it, I carefully cracked out one side, and took from it a most beautiful little statuette of Ra, hawk-headed, and then restored the case again. It had evidently been a shrine to wear on a necklace, as there was a loop at the back of the box.

Although all the stone buildings had been destroyed, and lines of chips alone remained to show the sandstone and limestone of their construction, yet the larger part of a great stele of sandstone still lies there, bearing a long hieroglyphic inscription. It is evident therefore that Egyptian interests were not neglected, and that there must have been both Egyptian and Greek living side by side, together with Phoenician and Jew. One curious class of Egyptian remains

has given us the dates of some parts of the building; for the plaster sealings of the wine jars bear the cartouches of the king, and they were most likely knocked off and thrown aside within a few years of being sealed. One room seemed to have belonged to the royal butler, for dozens of plaster sealings of Psamtik were found together there. A jar had been fraudulently opened by boring through the plaster, and the pottery stopper below it, and then stopping the hole with fresh plaster. The prudent butler had struck off the whole neck of the jar, so as to preserve the proofs of the theft entire. The particularity of the sealing is remarkable; first the pottery bung was tied down, and the string sealed on clay by six inspectors; then a plaster cap was put over all that, and marked with the royal cartouche in several places.

The ruin of all this community came suddenly. Apries trusted to the Greek mercenaries, and defied the old Egyptian party (if indeed he was king at all according to Egyptian law); and Amasis, who had married the royal princess (and who was therefore a legal ruler), took the national side, and ousted his brother-in-law. Civil war was the consequence, and the Greeks—though straining all their power—were completely crushed by Amasis. He then carried out the protective policy of Egypt, and depopulated Daphnae, and all other Greek settlements excepting Naukratis, which latter thus became the only treaty-port open to Greek merchants. Hence, as we can date the founding of Defenneh almost to a year, about 665 B.C., when Psamtik established his mercenary camps, so we can also date its fall to a year in 564 B.C. when Amasis struck down the Greek trade. And this just accords with what we find, as there is a sudden cessation of Greek pottery at a stage someway before the introduction of red figured ware, which took place about 490 B.C.

It appears likely that as Naukratis was the home of the scarab trade to Greece, so Daphnae was the home of the jewellery trade, and the source of the semi-Egyptian jewellery so often found in Greek tombs. Much evidence of the goldsmith’s work was discovered; pieces of gold ornaments, pieces partly wrought, globules and scraps of gold, and a profusion of minute weights, such as would only be of use for precious metals.

We see then that Daphnae is the complement of Naukratis: they were twin cities, and teach us even more by their contrasts than their resemblances. We again reach back, as at Naukratis, through the pre-Alexandrine period to the foundation of Greek power in Egypt. We again find the interaction of Greek and Egyptian civilization. We again see the rise of a local school of pottery, and have the great advantage of its being confined to just a century, of which we know the exact limits. On the Jewish side of the history the arrangement of ‘the king’s house in Tahpanhes’ exactly explains the narrative; the very name of the place echoes the sojourn of the fugitive heiresses of Judah; and a valuable light is thrown on the early contact of the Hebrew race with the language and thought of the Greeks with whom they here dwelt.