Gilbert indeed[1618] doubted the existence of naukraries before the time of Solon, who is suggested as a possible founder by a Scholiast of Aristophanes[1619]. He suspects the evidence of the pro-Alcmaeonid Herodotus, and notes that he describes the attempt of Cylon and its suppression by the naukraroi as having happened “before the time” not of Solon but “of Peisistratus.” He argues also against the possibility of a pre-Solonian Attic fleet of forty-eight ships, since Solon, when he attacked Salamis, sailed against the island with nothing but a large number of fishing-boats and one thirty-oared vessel[1620]. He quotes Photius, who s.v. ναυκραρία says, “Solon having thus called them, as Aristotle states.” His views are not tenable. Even if Herodotus is trying to whitewash the Alcmaeonidae, it by no means follows that he is very far from the truth in his account of the naukraries. If he mentions Peisistratus and not Solon, it is simply because Cylon aimed at becoming not a lawgiver but a tyrant. A weak Athenian fleet in Solon’s time is no proof that the Athenian fleet had never been stronger. When Photius says “thus called” (ὀνομάσαντος), he may quite as well mean “used this name for” as “gave this name to”: if he intended it for the latter, all that follows is that he misunderstood Aristotle, as did also the Scholiast to Aristophanes, _Clouds_, 37. De Sanctis has gone even further than Gilbert, and brings down the establishment of the naukraries, along with the attempt of Cylon, to the time of Peisistratus[1621]. He argues mainly from the naval developments under the tyrant, which, as seen already, are no evidence whatever against a much earlier date. There is no reason to doubt the existence of the naukraries in 632 B.C. The question to be settled is how much further they go back, and what was the naval need that they were organized to meet.