Deferring the demonstration that a number of the natural objects or animals represented in the Egyptian rebus signs, which were merely employed in hieratic script to express the syllables an, am, ar, ak, etc., are to be found as actual names for Polaris and the Ursæ in different western Asiatic and other countries, I shall now briefly show that, in remotest historical times, the Grecian states were established upon the model of an ideal republic such as is outlined in Plato's works, in accordance with current cosmological conceptions. According to ancient tradition the aborigines of Attica were first civilized under Cecrops who is said to have come hither from Saïs, Egypt, about 1500 B.C.
Turning to Iwan Mueller's monumental “Alterthumswissenschaft” (iv. Handbuch der Griechische Alterthümer), let us examine the data he presents concerning the beginnings of Athenian culture.
“The historical inhabitants of Attica belonged to the Ionic race and claimed to be autochthonous.... They were grouped into four tribes: the Geleontes, Argadeis, Aigikoreis and Hopletes. The existence of these four tribes is usually connected with a territorial division of Attica into four parts and their names are supposed to have been derived from the location and occupation of each tribe. The Geleontæ=the shining ones, are said to have formed the priest or warrior caste and to have lived in Pedion. The Argadæi were the agriculturists and were situated in the plain of Thriasis. The Aigikoræi or goatherds were assigned to Diakria. Authorities still disagree about the habitation of the Hopletes, ‘the armed ones.’ The interpretation of these names is still open to doubt. An ancient tradition attributes to them an Ionic derivation.... On the other hand, it is probable that when they emigrated to Attica the tribe remained separate and became associated with their place of residence ... at a later period the phratries were associated with localities.... Each of the four castes had its chieftain and an equality of rank seems to have been maintained. In ancient times the citizens were divided into three classes: the Eupatridæ or nobility; the Geomoræ or farmers; and the Demiurgæ or artisans, merchants, potters or fishermen,—in fact all who exercised some occupation.
“The political unity of Attica was centred in the plain of Cephisos, which was the kernel of the country. In the lower part of the plain, about a mile from the sea, situated on a plateau, and [pg 455] crowning a high rocky elevation, lay the ancient fortress Cekropia, the residence of Cecrops and Erechtheus, the mythical, earth-born forefathers of the Athenians. At the foot of the fortress, a lower town gradually grew up and spread itself towards the south. This primitive Athens originally formed only the nucleus of a small kingdom situated in the plains and surrounded by enemies.... According to an Attic tradition Cecrops collected the inhabitants of Attica into 12 ... tribes, states or communities.... The names of several of these have been shown to have also been applied to capitals which were independent centres of government. Athens, the centre of the state, developed into a large city in which the nobility of the whole country resided and where many artisans also settled. The majority of the citizens lived, however, in the surrounding country.... The harvest festival, held at ancient Athens, in honor of the goddess Athene, the patroness of agriculture, was also a general feast for all inhabitants of Attica ...” (pp. 104-108).
The foregoing suffices to establish that, in remotest antiquity, Attica was divided into four territorial divisions, with a central seat of government, the capital, which formed the fifth division. The inhabitants of the four regions constituted four tribes, each under its own chieftain. Each tribe became identified with a different occupation and ultimately constituted castes which remained associated with their place of residence. Simultaneously with this territorial distribution, another classification of the population was evolved, which divided it into three strata, corresponding to the upper, central and lower caste and thus yielded a total of seven great divisions of the state, which thus reveals itself as having been a heptarchy and explains the constitution of the Heptanomis, which existed in Central Egypt under Greek rule.
From the preceding material it appears that when Solon divided the people into four classes, he merely reinstated the most ancient form of state organization known in Greece. It would be interesting to learn how far the following offices had been previously known. It is well known that Solon instituted nine archons (literally leaders), which seem to have been the equivalents to the group of “nine gods” mentioned in Egypt in association with the supreme god or goddess. The characteristic feature of the archons appears to have been the fact that they were elected and that the first archon was surnamed Eponymos and gave his name to the year; [pg 456] the second archon, entitled Basileus, was the king, and the third, Polemarchas, was a warrior. The remaining six were collectively called Thesmothetes, administrators of right or justice. Under the above was the Council of Four Hundred. Each of the four phylæ fell into three parts or thirds, producing a total of 12, a number corresponding to the organization of twelve tribes, communities or states. Each of these was divided into 4 Naucrariæ, under 48 captaincies. The following extracts from Iwan Müller's work supply us with further details concerning the Athenian government and show that variants of the same existed at different periods, throughout ancient Greece.
“At Athens, in historical times, the members of one tribe formed a corporation, recognized a common ancestor, observed a form of ancestral cult and kept a tribal register with the names of all newly born children (p. 20). The tribes formed corporations within the state, and each had its own cult and chieftain.... The Doric nation consisted of three such tribes.... In Ephesus the citizens were divided into five ‘gens’ (i. e., four quarters and centre). It is certain that in Athens, Cyrene, and Chios, the phratries were communities with separate forms of cult, who worshipped beside their tribal deities, Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria ...” (pp. 20 and 21).
“In Teos the towns inhabited by a ‘gens’ were divided into at least seven quarters.... In Tenos each gens was known as ‘a tower,’ and each individual bore the name of his tower and his gens.” Pausing here for an instant, I draw attention to the recurrence in Greece of certain features of the Great Plan which must now be familiar to the reader: the association of divisions of people with a “tower,” an artificial “high place” or mountain, the development and existence of separate forms of cult, corresponding to tribal and territorial divisions; the supreme cult of a male and female divinity, corresponding to the traditions that the state was founded by two individuals and was governed by two rulers. An illustration of this is furnished by Sparta, which “was governed by two kings, belonging to two different royal families ... the origin of this custom is unknown ... these kings usually were at enmity with each other....” “The population of Sparta was primarily divided into five ‘phyles,’ identified with five local districts. The names of the latter, Pitane, Mesoa, Limnai, Konoura and Dyme, were identical with those of the five Comes or [pg 457] group of separate communities which had constituted the state of Sparta at the time of Thucydides.” It will be perceived that this organization corresponds to that of a capital and four provinces. Simultaneously the population was grouped into three main classes and twenty-seven phratries.
Considering that in ancient times the belief prevailed, and was shared by the Spartans themselves, that Lycurgus had introduced his scheme of organization from Crete, it is interesting to learn that “the Cretans themselves claimed that their laws dated from a remote antiquity and had been communicated to Minos and Rhadamanthus by Zeus himself.” In one of the most ancient portions of the Odysseus, Idomeneus is represented as ruling in particular over cities situated in the middle of the island. In historical times the central rulership or monarchy had been abolished and “the state was ruled by ten chiefs of tribal divisions, who bore in common the title Cosmos and held office for the limit of one year.” Although the most ancient accounts of the maritime supremacy of Crete under its king Minos, the “son of Zeus,” are regarded as grossly exaggerated, modern authorities agree that, on account of its geographical position, Crete must undoubtedly have been an extremely important centre of maritime commerce, during a prolonged period.
On this account, and because the Spartans acknowledged to have received their scheme of organization from Crete, I draw particular attention to the design on a coin from Cnossus, the most important capital of Crete, which recently arrested my attention. It is preserved at the Berlin Museum and is reproduced in Spamer's work, already cited (fig. [72], 14 and 15). On the obverse, it exhibits the fabulous Minotaurus the monster, half man and half bull, who is stated to have ruled the island. On the reverse, is a geometrical figure, representing a swastika, in the centre of which is the five-dot group. A similar coin also found on the site of Cnossus, and assigned to B.C. 700, is preserved at the British Museum. Its reverse exhibits also the five-dot group and the swastika, between whose branches are four large dots or circles. In the Berlin Museum specimen the latter are replaced by squares containing cross lines. To any one familiar, in the first case, with the scheme of organization into five Comes, i. e. 4+1, such as has been shown to have been adopted in Sparta and elsewhere in Greece, the design on the reverse of both coins appears perfectly intelligible. No geometrical or cursive sign could more clearly express the [pg 458] scheme or ground-plan upon which the most ancient form of government in Greece has been shown to have also rested.