Kaplan, Cross-Cult Contacts Among Mercenaries in Egypt

181mhr01.
qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 1
Cross-Cultural Contacts among Mercenary

Communities in Saite and Persian Egypt
PHILIP KAPLAN
References in ancient sources and epigraphical, archaeological, and

papyrological material document the existence of mercenary
garrisons in Egypt in the seventh through fifth centuries BCE. These
garrisons of Greeks, Carians, Phoenicians, Cypriotes, Aramaeans,
Jews, and others formed communities in Egypt that endured and
preserved the languages, religions, and customs of their home
communities throughout the period of the Saite Dynasty and the first
Persian domination. At the same time, these communities interacted
with one another and with the host society of Egypt. A dynamic
equilibrium was maintained in which the centripetal pull of
acculturation was balanced by the strong forces that maintained a
sense of group identity among the mercenaries and connections with
their home societies. This equilibrium produced a uniquely fruitful
environment for cross-cultural exchanges among the various
communities and played a major role in the pattern of cultural
exchanges among the societies of the Eastern Mediterranean in this
period.
Egypt in the Late Period was host to individuals and mercenary

communities of various ethnicities Greek, Carian, Aramaean, Jewish,
Phoenician, and others. The evidence that has accumulated over a century
and a half of research has illuminated various aspects of the lives of these
individuals. Although a comprehensive history of the communities they
formed is not yet possible, the data that have accumulated allow for a
systematic consideration of the degree to which these communities came
into contact with each other and with their host culture. The nature of cross-
cultural contact among the foreign communities of Saite and Persian Egypt
forces us to reconsider the role these communities played in the broader
patterns of intercultural exchange, particularly between the Aegean and the
Near East. This article will first of all survey the data for these foreign (that
is, non-Egyptian) mercenary communities with a view to demonstrating that
foreign garrisons were in continuous use in Egypt from the time of Psamtek
Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol.18, No.1, June 2003, pp.131

PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 2
2 M EDI TER R A N E A N H I S TO R I C A L R E V I E W
I (r. 664610) to the final independent native rulers, with the result that
synchronous comparisons and generalizations are valid for the entire
period.1 It will then show that these mercenary communities were subject to
the conflicting forces of internal cohesion, ongoing contacts with home
communities, and the centripetal forces of cross-cultural contact with one
another and with the host society.2 The tension between maintaining an
identity that bonded them together and linked them to their home
communities and making the adjustments that allowed them to exist in the
Egyptian milieu and coexist with other communities produced a dynamic
equilibrium that reinforced concepts of identity among the groups while at
the same time engendering the transfer of ideas and practices from one
group to another. The phenomenon may help to explain the marked influx
of Near Eastern and Egyptian styles and influences into Greece in the
Archaic period. It will contribute to a better understanding of the key role
played by outsiders in the emergence of key aspects of the Greek world in
this early period.
RECRUITING AND USE OF MERCENA RY G A RRI S O N S I N E G Y P T
The Egyptians of the Late Period used foreign troops for three major
purposes. The key ancient sources for information about the Greek and
Carian mercenaries in Egypt, Herodotus and Diodorus, explain their initial
recruitment by Psamtek I (Greek Psammetichos) as being for support in
unifying the country; according to the Greek accounts, the use of foreigners
gave Psamtek an advantage over his rivals in the struggle for control of
Egypt. This interpretation is accepted by modern Egyptologists.3 A
secondary use developed in the decades following the initial recruitment:
namely, preserving the integrity of the Saite state from foreign attack by
manning garrisons at the outposts of Egypt. According to Herodotus, these
garrisons were established by Psamtek at Elephantine in the south for
protection against the Ethiopians, at Daphnae at the Pelusian mouth of the
Delta for protection against the Arabians and Syrians, and at Merea (or
Mareotis) in the west for protection against the Libyans (2.30.2). Herodotus
notes that the Egyptian garrison at Elephantine deserted to the Ethiopians;
at some point subsequently the Egyptian king replaced them with the Jewish
and Aramaean garrisons, whose continued presence is attested from the
Persian period.4 The mercenary camp at Daphnae was identified by Petrie as
the fort he excavated at Tell Defenneh.5 In addition, a fort was excavated by
Oren in the north-western Sinai; the site produced local Egyptian pottery
along with Phoenician and Palestinian vessels and East Greek fine wares
and local copies of the late seventh and sixth centuries BCE, suggesting a
mixed community of Greek and Palestinian (Jewish?) soldiers.6 Another
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 3
M E R C E N A RY C O M M U N I T I E S I N S A I T E A N D P E R S I A N E G Y P T 3
fort in the eastern Delta, at Tell el-Maskhuta, was excavated by Holladay,

who dates its foundation to the end of the reign of Psamtek I or the
beginning of that of Necho II (ca. 609); it was used until the fourth century.
Holladay reports finding some Greek pottery, along with local Egyptian
wares. Inscribed silver bowls reportedly from this site suggest the presence
of Arabs.7
The third use for foreign troops was as a component, perhaps a major
one, of the pharaohs army on offensive campaigns. The projection of power
beyond the borders of Egypt was a consequence of the unification achieved
under the Saites. This projection turned the attention of the pharaoh north to
the land traditionally within the sphere of Egyptian power, Palestine. That
Egypt used foreign mercenaries to control territory in Palestine is indicated
by a notice in Berossos that, following the Babylonian victory over Nechos
army at Carchemish in 605, Nebuchadnezzar brought back with him captive
Jews, Phoenicians, and Syrians who had served under the Egyptians.8 J.
Naveh proposed that a fort he excavated at Mesad Hashavyahu in Israel that
contained substantial amounts of East Greek pottery of the late seventh
century was an Egyptian garrison post manned by Greek mercenaries, an
idea that has subsequently been debated.9 The Saite use of mercenaries in
campaigns abroad can be traced in the south as well: the presence of Greek,
Carian, and Phoenician mercenaries on the campaign against Nubia
undertaken by Psamtek II in 593 is documented by the well-known graffiti
inscribed on the Temple of Rameses II at Abu Simbel.10 The Nubian
campaign shows that the first, second, and third functions of mercenaries in
Egypt were complementary, since the power of the Saite dynasty was
established in the face of Nubian control of the country from the south in
the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. The Elephantine garrison had the responsibility
both of protecting the country from attack from the south and of aiding in
the Saite control of Nubia.11
There are indications that the foreign troops were employed in other
roles as well. In the Persian period there is evidence that the Aramaean and
Jewish troops of Upper Egypt accompanied and guarded caravans.12 There
are also some indications that Carians, Phoenicians and Greeks acted in a
naval capacity. The remains of holkoi to-n neo-n (slipways or windlasses)
could be seen in Herodotus day in the abandoned Stratopeda in which
Psamteks mercenaries had originally been stationed. Necho had triremes
constructed, probably by Greeks or Phoenicians, in the Red Sea and sent
Phoenician ships to sail around Africa. An Aramaic letter from Elephantine
mentions two Carians as masters (nwpt) of a boat. A Carian gravestone from
Saqqara bears a sketchy image of a war galley. Foreign garrison troops
could also be deployed in large-scale construction projects. It is conceivable
that the garrison at Tell el-Mashkhuta took part in the construction of
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 4
Nechos canal. There is some evidence also that Carians were employed in
Upper Egypt on quarrying and construction projects.13
The use of foreign garrisons in Egypt continued under subsequent
regimes, as is demonstrated by Darius use of Jewish, Aramaean and other
troops (discussed in detail below), by the usurper Amyrtaios use of Greek
mercenaries at the end of the fifth century, by the substantial use of Greek
mercenaries by the native dynasts of the mid-fourth century; and by
Artaxerxes reliance on Greek troops in his reconquest of the country. The
Persian use of mercenary troops, like the later Macedonian practice, might
be considered distinct from the Saite practice inasmuch as it is part of an
imperial strategy of controlling annexed territory by using non-native
troops. A situation in which imported troops are used to control conquered
territory is more likely to produce tension between the foreign garrison and
the locals, as is demonstrated in the destruction by Egyptian priests of the
Jewish temple at Elephantine. The difference, however, is more one of
degree than one of kind: the early Saite kings use of mercenaries was not
popular either and indeed contributed to Apries ouster by Amasis. In any
event, the similarities in the experiences of the earlier and later garrisons
outweigh the differences.
M E R C E N A RY C O M M U N I T I E S I N E G Y P T
Greeks
The use of mercenaries from overseas in Late Period Egypt began with the
recruitment of Ionians and Carians by Psamtek I. Herodotus preserves the
colourful story of an oracle given to Psamtek predicting the arrival of
bronze men from the sea, an oracle fulfilled by the chance arrival of Ionians
and Carians who came to maraud and were recruited by the ambitious
Egyptian. Diodorus gives a slightly different account in which the
mercenaries were sent for (metapempsamenos) by the king of Egypt.14
Herodotus goes on to describe the fortunes of these mercenaries under the
subsequent Saite rulers, a tale which ends with Cambyses conquest. Their
presence is securely attested from the time of Psamtek II by the Greek and
Carian graffiti left at Abu Simbel in the course of the pharaohs campaign
against the Nubians in 593.15 Furthermore, the Greek graffiti on the
Memnonion at Abydos come from a wide range of dates, including the sixth
and fifth centuries; but whether the earliest were left by mercenaries, by
merchants, or by tourists is not usually certain.16 The size of the Greek
mercenary garrison is also unknown: Herodotus talks of 30,000 Greek and
Carian mercenaries coming to the defence of Apries in his battle with
Amasis, a figure probably without a firm foundation but meant to indicate
an order of magnitude.17
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 5
It is also not clear whether the Greek soldiers recruited by the Saites
remained in service under the Persians. Cambyses showed himself willing
to employ Greeks in Egypt: he sent a Mytilenean ship to negotiate with
Psamtek IIIs forces in Memphis; and Herodotus mentions that more Greeks
travelled to Egypt in the aftermath of Cambyses conquests, some to do
business, others to fight, and still others to see the country.18 By the middle
of the fifth century, the Greek presence in Egypt may have been
substantially diminished because of the hostile interference with Persian
rule offered by the Athenians and their allies.19 The scant evidence for Greek
mercenaries in this period associates them with the native usurpers who
challenged Persian rule at the end of the century. Greek mercenaries in
Egypt become prominent again in Greek sources in the fourth century, in the
final period of Egyptian independence. A large mercenary force recruited
by Agesilaos of Sparta and a fleet commanded by Chabrias came to the aid
of Teos (362360), son of Nectanebo I of the Thirteenth Dynasty, in his
resistance to Persian attempts to retake Egypt.20 Plutarch notes that
Agesilaos collected mercenaries and brought them to Egypt with him (Ages.
36). Some of those mercenaries chose to stay, in spite of the ensuing conflict
between Agesilaos and Teos. Later, in the course of the Phoenician revolt
against the Persians, the Egyptians lent 4,000 Greek mercenaries under the
generalship of Memnon of Rhodes to Tennes, king of Sidon (Diod. 16.42.2),
a force that subsequently betrayed the Sidonians to the Persians. A Greek
mercenary garrison under a Spartan, Philophron, held Pelusium against the
invasion by Artaxerxes (Diod. 16.46.8). It is also noteworthy that in at least
one prior attempt by the Persian king to recover Egypt, in the time of Teos
father Nectanebo I, at least ten per cent of the Persian force consisted of
Greek mercenaries commanded by Iphicrates (Diod. 15.413). In the
successful campaign to recover Phoenicia and Egypt, Artaxerxes was able
to recruit 10,000 Greeks from Thebes, Argos and Asia Minor. In the final
confrontation between Artaxerxes and Nectanebo II there were substantial
numbers of Greeks on both sides, along with some of the most prominent
Greek mercenary commanders of the day (Diod. 16.4751). Although
Artaxerxes subsequently dismissed these Greeks to their home cities, it is
quite likely that some of the mercenaries serving under the Persians, along
with those recruited by the last kings of Egypt and the descendants of the
original mercenary population, remained in Memphis, making up the
Helle-nomemphitai, the Karomemphitai and the Phoinikaigyptioi known
from Hellenistic times.21
Not all of the Greeks in Egypt were mercenaries in the service of the
pharaoh; a substantial number were involved in trade and other business.
These Greeks coalesced into a distinct community when the Egyptian king
granted them permission to found the town of Naucratis in the Delta. The
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 6
settlement at Naucratis was founded in the reign of Amasis, according to

Herodotus, but Strabo suggests that it was founded by Milesians who came
to Greece in the time of Psamtek I.22 Greeks were living there as early as
before 600 BCE.23 The participants in the founding of Naucratis were
eastern Greeks; this is confirmed by the pottery and other finds from the
site. Although an unusual Greek settlement it was founded by several
cities under the grant of pharaoh, and was overlooked by a large Egyptian
fort it was much like a Greek colony in that it preserved an entirely Greek
way of life. The extent to which the Greeks of Naucratis had contacts with
the mercenaries in the service of pharaoh is a question that is not answerable
at present. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that a substantial Greek
community, complete with temples and other Greek institutions, as well as
news from the homeland via recent arrivals, would have been attractive to
the Greek soldiers stationed in Memphis. No such dedicated mercantile
communities are documented for the other groups in Egypt.
Carians
The evidence of Carian soldiers in Egypt, although more plentiful, has been
less extensively studied than that of Greeks.24 This neglect is due to the facts
that the Carian language has yielded only slowly to decipherment, the
Carian homeland in the Archaic period is still underexplored, and Carian
culture has not attracted the same degree of concentrated specialized study
as early Greek culture. Nevertheless, in the past decade significant advances
have been made in the understanding of Carian, thanks in large part to the
inscribed material found in Egypt and significant new finds from the Carian
homeland.25 From the point of view of this article, the ongoing decipherment
of the Carian script and language has added considerably to our knowledge
of Carian and Egyptian intercultural contact.
The major finds of Carian inscriptions in Egypt come from several
locations. The earliest of these is a pair of bronze objects found in Sais
bearing Carian and hieroglyphic inscriptions along with the cartouche of
Psamtek I, dating therefore to the earliest phase of the Carian mercenary
presence in Egypt.26 More material dates to the time of the expedition of
Psamtek II to Nubia: at the statue of Rameses II in Abu Simbel, inscriptions
in Carian were found alongside the Greek and Phoenician graffiti.27 There
are, furthermore, several Carian inscriptions at Buhen south of Abu Simbel
(and just south of the modern EgyptSudan border) that may date to the
same expedition.28 There are also inscriptions, not yet securely dated, in the
tomb of Mentuemhet, the governor of Thebes in the time of Tarhaqa and
Psamtek I.29 A rich trove of material, grave stelae with Carian inscriptions,
has been found in the region of the cemetery of the Caromemphites in
Saqqara.30 This material dates to the second half of the sixth century.
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 7
Numerous Carian graffiti were found in the temple of Seti I at Abydos, next
to the many Greek, Phoenician and Aramaean inscriptions on the temple
walls; but of these only the Greek inscriptions have been published in the
past century. Some of these may date back as early as the sixth century. Not
all of these inscriptions may be attributable to mercenaries. We do not have
evidence of a Carian merchant community parallel to that of the Greeks at
Naucratis, so we do not know what other roles the Carians may have played
in Egypt. But the reference to Caromemphites in later sources indicates the
continuity of residence of Carians in Egypt down to the Hellenistic period
and beyond.31
Aramaeans and Jews

Although a substantial corpus of texts in Aramaic is known from Egypt,
identifying Aramaeans proper, particularly those serving as mercenaries, is
a tricky task. The challenge of identifying Aramaeans lies in the fact that,
by the fifth century BCE, Aramaic had become a lingua franca in the Persian
Empire. Any number of Aramaic texts and inscriptions may be the product
of peoples of other ethnic affiliations, including Egyptians. Other, internal
evidence must be sought: the appearance of names with clear Aramaic
etymologies, references to Aramaean gods, and the common use of the
ethnicon Aramaean (army) in the letters and contracts from Elephantine
and elsewhere all attest to their presence as a separate enclave in Syene
distinct from that of the Jews of Elephantine.32 The ethnic identification of
the named individuals is not always straightforward, however. Many of the
Aramaic letters and contracts from Elephantine were written by or for Jews,
and the distinction between Jews and Aramaeans in this context is not
always clear. There are instances of individuals who are identified as Jews
in one context and Aramaeans in another. In other cases, individuals in the
Elephantine documents are identified as Aramaeans of Syene but have
theophoric names ending in YH.33 The separateness of this community is
further qualified, as will be seen, by the degree to which Aramaeans
intermarried and acculturated both to their neighbours, the Jews and other
peoples resident in Syene, and to the Egyptian host community. In terms of
identifying the individuals named as soldiers, the only clear indication is the
naming of the degel (standard, detachment) of the individual, a standard
feature particularly in legal contracts. Outside of the garrison at Syene, it is
very hard to identify Aramaeans as soldiers.
Very little can be said about the origins of the Aramaean garrison.
Aramaic inscriptions on papyrus dating to the late seventh century, some of
them strongly suggesting the presence of Aramaeans in Egypt, have been
found.34 The earliest Aramaic material that refers to Aramaeans in ways that
make it clear that they were soldiers includes a collection of seven letters
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 8
found at Hermopolis, addressed to family members in Syene, papyri from

Elephantine, and graffiti from Sheikh Fadl, Abydos, and Wadi es-Saba
Riggeleh, all dating to the late sixth and fifth centuries.35
The garrison of Jews stationed at Elephantine in Upper Egypt is well
known from three archives of Aramaic papyri dating to the fifth century.
The documents, letters, contracts, and ostraca give valuable testimony to the
lives of a community of foreign soldiers in Upper Egypt in the period of the
first Persian occupation. Study of these documents by Sachau, Cowley,
Kraeling, Muffs, and most recently Bezalel Porten has clarified the social
structure of the settlement and the relations between Jews, Aramaeans,
Egyptians, and other peoples resident at Elephantine and Syene.36
The material from Elephantine dates to a century and a half after the
arrival of the first Greek and Carian mercenaries in the north, but there was
certainly a substantial chronological overlap in the existence of the different
communities. Members of the Jewish garrison themselves believed that
their presence predated the Persian occupation. In drafts of a letter from the
priests of the Temple of YHW in Elephantine to the governor of Judah
requesting help in reconstructing the temple, the petitioners assert that the
temple dates from the days of the kings of Egypt and that when Cambyses
entered the country he found it already built; this claim was subsequently
endorsed by the governor of Judah.37 The date of the arrival of the Jews in
Egypt is uncertain: estimates range from the reign of Psamtek I to after the
fall of Jerusalem in 587, during the reign of Apries, with the strongest
candidate being during the reign of Psamtek II (595589).38 Evidence for the
community after the end of the fifth century is lacking. There were Jews at
Elephantine a century later, and Ptolemy I imported Jewish soldiers into
Egypt; but it is possible that the Jewish enclave at Elephantine had been
gradually assimilated into the Aramaean population.39
Phoenicians
Although it is certain that Phoenicians lived in Egypt in this period and
served as mercenaries, documenting their presence is difficult because there
is precious little in the historical records of the Phoenician presence in
Egypt and the epigraphic material has received less attention than that of the
Greeks, Carians, Jews, or Aramaeans. The best evidence for the presence of
Phoenician soldiers in Egypt is, once again, from Herodotus. He mentions
a Camp of the Tyrians (Tyrio-n stratopedon) in Memphis in which there are
Phoenician dwellings and a sanctuary of the Foreign Aphrodite
undoubtedly Astarte.40 Herodotus attributes the founding of the Camp of the
Tyrians to Proteus, who cannot be identified with any historical Egyptian
king. His association of the precinct with a mythical king may reflect a
much longer history for the Phoenician presence in Egypt: Egyptian
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 9
involvement with the Phoenician cities dates back to the Bronze Age. It is
just as likely, however, that his informants for the Phoenician presence were
not as reliable as his informants for the Greek presence and that the Camp
of the Tyrians was contemporary with or slightly later than the Camps of
the Greeks and the Carians.41
Finding a specific context for the recruitment of Phoenicians by the Saite
kings is complicated. Shortly before Psamtek Is accession to power, Tyre,
Byblos, and Arwad gave naval assistance to the new Assyrian king,
Ashurbanipal, in his campaign in Egypt. Shortly afterwards, Assyrian
power in the West began to crumble; by late in Psamteks reign Egypt had
gained control over the Phoenician cities. It is to this period (ca. 613) that
the establishment of the Tyrian camp in Memphis may be dated.42
The best evidence that Phoenicians served as soldiers comes from Abu
Simbel: there are around 20 inscriptions written in Phoenician on the legs of
the statue of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel, left by Phoenicians in the army of
Psamtek II. Phoenician graffiti, papyri, and ostraca have been found at
Abydos, in Memphis, at the necropolis at Saqqara, at Elephantine, and at
Mit-Rahineh; most of these are sixth or fifth century.43 As in the case of the
Greeks and the Carians, it is not always certain whether these individuals
were soldiers, merchants, or tourists.
The Phoenicians, experts in naval affairs, put their talents to use in the
service of the Saite kings. Although Herodotus does not call them soldiers,
the Phoenicians who sailed around Africa at the behest of Necho II were
most likely among the residents of the Tyrian camp in Egypt at the time of
the expedition. This king was particularly involved in naval matters; in his
construction of a canal at Pelusium to allow triremes passage to the Red Sea
he probably relied on Phoenician help, and his military ventures focused on
controlling the territory between Egypt and Phoenicia.44
In sum, then, although the links between Egypt and Phoenicia were age-
old by the time of the Saite kings, the connection was reinforced when a
Phoenician garrison was established in Memphis late in the reign of
Psamtek I. Like the Greeks and the Carians, the Phoenicians established a
permanent presence in the Egyptian capital, building a cluster of sanctuaries
dedicated to their principal gods. They remained in service to the Saite
kings, contributing both soldiers to their campaigns and naval resources.
Their presence survived the transfer of power to the Persians, as it naturally
would, given the willing incorporation of the Phoenician home cities into
the Persian empire.
Others
One significant qualitative change in the nature of the mercenary
communities in Egypt in the Persian period was the broader range of lands
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 10
from which soldiers were recruited. This change was a result of the
imposition of the Persian imperial system, which drew soldiers from all over
Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean to service in Egypt. It seems also to have
resulted from the greater availability of mercenaries in the later fifth and
fourth centuries, which benefited those native rulers who, for a time, freed
the country from Persian rule. In Upper Egypt, many of these individuals
from various lands ended up in the Syene garrison, which was more
welcoming to foreigners than the Jewish garrison at Elephantine; but some
are documented in the Elephantine community as well. In addition to the
Carians mentioned above, other Anatolians were present in Egypt:
individuals with Luwian names such as Armapiya served as mercenaries in
the later fifth century. A Chorasmian (Khwarezmian), Dargamana son of
Khvarshaina, served in the Elephantine garrison. The degel of Marya
contained Bactrians, Persians, and Babylonians. Various individuals are
identified as Caspians, and some of them are identified as garrison
members.45 There is no evidence that these other ethnolinguistic groups
formed their own distinct communities. The documents from Elephantine
and Saqqara indicate that these individuals were integrated into the same
military, social, and legal structures established for the Jews and Aramaeans.
Another land from which mercenaries came was Cyprus. There has been
speculation on the role of Cypriote mercenaries in the eastern Mediterranean,
much of it connected with the references to kittiyim serving in the Judean
army in the Bible and in ostraca from Arad.46 Inscriptions in the Cypriote
syllabary and some in alphabetic Greek but written by Cypriotes have been
found throughout Egypt. Not all of them can be associated with mercenaries:
a single graffito on an Attic black-glaze vessel from Naucratis has been used
as part of an argument for a Cypriot presence at the Greek trading colony.47
Some of the graffiti appear in contexts associated with the inscriptions of the
other mercenary groups, as at the temple of Seti I at Abydos and at Karnak
in the chapel of Achoris (390378), the king who accepted Cypriote
mercenaries from Evagoras of Salamis.48 For the most part the graffiti can be
dated to the fifth and early fourth century. There are only two Cypriote
graffiti that might be earlier: one from Abydos in alphabetic Greek, which is
said to be Archaic; and a syllabic signature from Bouhen that is
contemporary with the Greek and Carian inscriptions found there and so
probably from Psamtek IIs expedition.49
I N T E R N A L O R G A N I Z AT I O N A N D C O H E S I O N O F T H E M E R C E N A RY
COMMUNITIES
By its very nature, mercenary service abroad generated an unusual type of

group identity. The individual soldier was not fighting in defence of his
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 11
home community, so the commonplace forms of communal identity did not

necessarily apply. Nevertheless, the ties that bound those soldiers to their
home communities remained strong, at least on a symbolic level as attested
by the frequency with which Greeks gave their home polis in inscriptions,
and the ties that the Jews maintained with the community in Jerusalem. At
the same time, all soldiers must form bonds with their brothers in arms, lest
their effectiveness indeed their lives be in peril. The bonds that tied
mercenary communities together were fluid, drawing in part on ethnic
affiliation but also on professional and other ties.50 The shifting nature of the
internal cohesion of mercenary communities can be traced in the evidence
from Egypt.
Communal Loyalties
The primary factor in inducing mercenary cohesion is the sense of loyalty
to ones fellow soldiers. The cohesion of the group can be demonstrated in
an anecdote of Herodotus: one Phanes of Halicarnassos, who deserted from
Amasis forces because of a falling-out with the Egyptian king and offered
his services to Cambyses, was punished by his fellows with the slaughter of
his children before his eyes.51 The sense of betrayal that this incident
suggests was perhaps particularly intense because Phanes was a
commander; his desertion not only hurt Amasis cause but imperilled the
men he was supposed to be leading.
The cohesion of the group may also have been reinforced by a sense of
loyalty to the commander. In the first instance this meant loyalty to the
commanding officer, often the man who recruited them. The first individual
we hear of in this connection is Pigres the Carian, the commander under
Psamtek I, although the source is late and may not be trustworthy.52 The
inscription left at Abu Simbel by Archon and Peleqos indicates the levels of
command and the sense of attachment to the commanders: the soldiers came
when King Psammetichus came to Elephantine; they describe themselves
as coming with Psammetichus son of Theocles, but the garrison of
foreigners was led by Potasimto while the Egyptians were led by one
Amasis. In this case, it looks as if the Greeks were led by Psammetichus son
of Theocles, who in turn served under Potasimto, commander of all of the
foreigners Greeks, Carians, Phoenicians, and others. By the time of
Amasis, Phanes of Halicarnassos (himself a product of a mixed
GreekCarian milieu) may have played the role of commander of Greeks
and Carians.
But the loyalty of the troops extended also to the individual who paid
their wages. The loyalty of mercenaries is not an oxymoronic concept; in a
foreign land, mercenaries needed the patronage of the king who hired them
as much as he needed their support. While it is often assumed by Classical
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 12
scholars that Greek mercenaries were preferred by foreign kings because the
Greek hoplite was a superior fighter, Herodotus anecdote about the
Egyptian deserters points to the fundamental reason Psamtek relied on these
foreign troops: not because the Greeks (or any of the other peoples) were
better fighters than the native Egyptians but because they were more
reliable, particularly in Upper Egypt, far from his power base in the Delta.
The Herodotean account of Psamteks rise to power, stripped of its folkloric
elements, suggests a situation in which loyalties were divided among rival
power centres in the Delta (not to mention clients of the Nubians in Thebes
and Upper Egypt). It is a situation in which the use of an outside force
whose loyalties were secured by pay made the difference.
The bond felt by mercenaries with the king is demonstrated in the use of
the names Psammetichos and Amasis among Greeks and Carians of the
seventh and sixth centuries.53 That the bond was felt by the king as well is
demonstrated in the inscription of Pedon on a statue found near Priene,
which reports that Psammetichos himself had rewarded the mercenary with
a gold bracelet and a city.54 The fondness of the king for his foreign troops
makes intelligible the report of Herodotus that, after Nechos successful
campaign in Syria and his capture of the city of Gaza, he dedicated his
clothes to the temple of Apollo at Branchidae (Didyma) in Miletus. We
should take this anecdote not, as Herodotus does, as a case of a foreign ruler
showing his reverence for Greek gods but rather as an instance of the king
showing his gratitude to the Greek soldiers who had made his victory
possible.55 Amasis dedications at Greek sanctuaries may be seen in the
same light.
This reciprocal dependence between the king and his mercenaries is
further demonstrated in Amasis revolt against Apries: Amasis secured
support from native Egyptian troops, while Apries was left only with his
Carian and Ionian guards.56 Although mercenaries are often accused of
being loyal only to their own wallets, the Greeks and the Carians remained
staunchly loyal to their employer even when their interests would seem to
have dictated a timely change of sides.57 Later, the Jews of Elephantine
protested their loyalty to the Persian king, contrasting themselves with the
faithless Egyptian troops.58 Under certain circumstances foreign troops
could be unreliable: a hieratic inscription on the statue of Nesuhor, the
governor of the gate of the countries of the south, erected in the temple of
Khnum at Elephantine, says that Asiatics, Greeks, and others attempted
flight to Nubia but Nesuhor dissuaded them and brought them before
Apries.59 What may be different in this instance is the lack of personal
contact between the king and the mercenaries, which caused their loyalty to
waver. Physical proximity was a key factor in retaining the loyalty of
foreign troops: this explains why Amasis moved the camps of the Ionians
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 13
and Carians from the Pelusian mouth of the Nile to Memphis. Under certain
other circumstances mercenaries could be persuaded to change sides. In the
fourth century, Agesilaos abandoned Teos out of pique and threw his
support behind Nectanebo II. Later, Artaxerxes was able to persuade
Memnon and many of the other Greeks fighting for Nectanebo to come over
to the Persian side. To explain such fluid loyalties, we must take account of
the greater mobility of mercenary bands in the fourth century and the
enhanced role of the mercenary commander in this age. In earlier, more
isolated times, a sense of personal loyalty to the supreme commander was a
fundamental part of the internal cohesion of mercenary bands.
Ethnic Solidarity
Another factor that held mercenary communities together was a sense of
common heritage. From a twenty-first-century perspective, we would
expect this common heritage to have been expressed in ethnic terms, but the
ways in which ancient peoples identified themselves ethnically were
complex and often at variance with modern notions.60 The degree to which
the mercenary communities in Egypt identified themselves as ethnically
distinct varied somewhat by circumstance. The earliest evidence, that of the
Greek inscription at Abu Simbel, suggests that ethnic divisions among the
mercenaries were not emphasized; rather, the significant division was that
between native soldiers under one commander, Amasis, and foreigners
under another commander, Potasimto, both commanders being Egyptians.61
At this stage the Ionians and Carians were probably a well-integrated and
cohesive fighting unit. It is likely that they were recruited en masse, as the
accounts suggest.
The possibility that the Greeks, Carians, and other early mercenaries
thought of themselves as belonging to distinct ethnic communities is
obscured by the tendency of these individuals to identify themselves either
with patronymics or by their polies. In the graffiti at Abu Simbel three
soldiers identified themselves by their home towns: Teos and Kolophon, on
the Ionian coast, and Ialysos, a Rhodian town. The practice of identifying
oneself with ones home town may have obtained among the Carians as
well.62 Cypriote mercenaries identified themselves either with their
patronymics or with the towns on Cyprus from which they hailed. At some
point, however, a sense of ethnic distinction may have been imposed: after
being moved to Memphis, the Ionian and Carian communities lived in
separate districts, the Karikon and Helle-nikon, terms which lasted into the
Ptolemaic period.63 This phenomenon parallels the founding of Naucratis,
with its Helle-nion: the function of Naucratis was to encourage Greek traders
to do business in Egypt while at the same time limiting their access to Egypt
as a whole and providing them with a set of communal polis institutions that
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 14
transcended their ties to their respective poleis. Strikingly, Herodotus

consistently identifies the Greeks who fought for the pharaohs as Ionians,
despite the epigraphic evidence that indicates that some of these individuals
hailed from the Dorian Dodecannese. Herodotus use parallels the common
use of Ionian to refer to all Greeks among Assyrian and Persian sources.64
It reinforces the possibility that collective identifiers such as Ionian and
Carian emerged first in zones of intercultural exchange as ways of
identifying and organizing the foreign communities.
Questions of professional and ethnic cohesion are similarly complex in
later Elephantine. The unit to which a soldier belonged in the fifth century
was the degel. Members of digl-n were paid a salary but also could acquire
property in the communities in which they were settled.65 These units were
military, but they were social as well and were considered to include the
wives and children of the soldiers. These were for the most part ethnically
homogeneous units but routinely commanded by someone of a different
ethnic background.66 The digl-n were to an extent geographically and
ethnically separate: the Jewish degel was located on the island of
Elephantine, while the Aramaean degel was located in Syene, on the east
bank of the river. But the communities were not ghettoized: from the
property contracts preserved among the texts it is clear that the Jews of
Elephantine lived cheek-by-jowl with Egyptians and people of other
backgrounds. Even within the digl-n the ethnic distinctions were not
absolute: there are several instances of Jews, Aramaeans, and others serving
in the same degel.67 The use of ethnica Jew, Aramaean, Caspian,
Chorasmian, Carian, Pisidian, Mazdaean, Magian, Mede was
common, but even these designations were not immutable: a single
individual could be known as a Jew of Elephantine and an Aramaean of
Syene in different documents.68 The blurring of the distinction between the
communities may be a function of time: as more Jews settled in Syene, their
identification became more a matter of circumstances. Individuals are also
listed in digl-n under different commanders, but it is not clear whether this
reflects a shift of detachment or a change of commanders.
Religious Bonds
The Israelites are always considered to be the separatists par excellence,
thanks to the Deuteronomic and Prophetic admonitions to avoid the
corrupting influences of their neighbours idol-worshipping. It is certainly
the case that the Jews of Elephantine did not get along with their Egyptian
neighbours; the conflicts leading up to the destruction of the Temple of
YHW by priests of the Temple of Khnum are well known.69 Along with this
separatism went a sense of continued connection to the home community.
This connection is demonstrated in the petition sent to Bagavahya, governor
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 15
of Judah, for support in rebuilding the temple. The sense of connection was
not necessarily fully reciprocated: the letter mentions a previous letter that
had gone unanswered. The community in Jerusalem had good reason not to
be enthusiastic about supporting a rival temple in Elephantine. Eventually
the governor of Jerusalem did communicate with Arsames, the satrap of
Egypt, requesting that the temple be rebuilt but with an altar for incense and
meal offerings and no animal burnt offerings. Thus the home community
acted to reaffirm connections with the outpost community and to reassert
ideological control. There are also indications that the Jews of Jerusalem
intervened with the Persian king to allow the Jews of Elephantine to
celebrate the Passover.70
Another aspect of cultural cohesion at work in Saite Egypt was the
establishment of religious and cultural institutions to serve the needs of the
foreign soldiers. Among the Greeks, Carians, Phoenicians, and Aramaeans,
syncretizing tendencies might have allowed worship of their gods at
Egyptian sanctuaries; nevertheless, whenever possible these various
communities would have preferred to worship in sanctuaries dedicated to
their own respective gods. Little evidence survives for such institutions in
Memphis. The sanctuaries at Naucratis served this purpose for the Greeks
living there; but much of Greek religious and cultural life was strictly local,
and so the needs of the mercenaries in Memphis must have been serviced in
the Ionikon. Little is known about the religious life of the Carians, either in
Egypt or in their homeland. For the Phoenicians, the Camp of the Tyrians
in Memphis had a sanctuary of Proteus and a temple to Astarte and probably
other shrines as well.71 The Aramaeans in Syene had the benefit of several
temples, to Bethel and the Queen of Heaven, to Banit, and to Nabu; all of
these are greeted in the letters to individuals in Syene found at Hermopolis.72
In addition, references to other Aramaean gods receiving donations strongly
suggests their active worship in the community in Syene. Among the Jews of
Elephantine, the religious needs of the community were met by the Temple
of YHW. The absolute necessity of such a structure to the Jews of the
Elephantine garrison is made plain by the fact that it is virtually the only such
temple outside of Jerusalem in this period and the fact that it was maintained
in the face of determined hostility from the local Egyptian priesthood.
Endogamy
One important factor in maintaining the ethnic cohesion of the mercenary
communities and inhibiting the cross-cultural influence of intermarriage is
the availability of women from the home communities. The presence of
women from home is often as hard to document as mixed marriages. Even
among Greeks, whose experience in settling overseas was widespread and
comparatively well documented, there is little evidence concerning the role
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 16
of women in Greek colonies.73 It is also the case that colonies were very
different from mercenary communities. The first Greek and Carian soldiers
in Egypt did not arrive with women, since they did not intend to settle
permanently. Thus, early intermarriage rates were probably higher than in
colonial poleis. Greek women became more available, however, with the
foundation of Naucratis. It is not clear how many Greek women made up
the settlement there, but there were at least a few adventurous souls,
including Rhodopis, the hetaira who stole the heart of Sapphos brother, and
other celebrated courtesans.74 Women from the home cities may have been
enticed or coerced into joining the Greek soldiers at their camps and, later,
in their settlement in Memphis. As for the Carians, we have evidence from
the fifth century: several of the tomb inscriptions at Saqqara have been
deciphered as following the pattern X spouse of Y, with both being Carian
names.75 It is possible, however, that Egyptian wives were given Carian
names or that the women were the daughters of mixed marriages; so this
does not constitute conclusive proof that Carian women were coming to
Egypt in this period.
The later papyri from Elephantine and Syene are rich in information
about the female members of the Jewish community. One collection of
material in particular relates to Mibtahiah, daughter of Mahseiah, a Jewish
garrison member, and allows a detailed reconstruction of her life, including
her marriages and her business affairs.76 Women with Jewish names are
mentioned frequently elsewhere as well. While it is possible that some of
these women were the offspring of mixed marriages, it is likely that a number
of Jewish women made the trip from Judah and elsewhere in the Persian
Empire to accompany or find spouses among the soldiers in Egypt.
EVIDENCE OF CROSS-CULTURAL CON TA C T
Although there is some reason to believe that the mercenary communities of

Egypt were divided by their ethnicity, it is also clear that a wide variety of
contacts were made across ethnic and cultural lines. What needs to be
determined especially is the extent to which the internal coherence of the
group and continuing contacts with the home communities were balanced by
cross-cultural exchanges among the various foreign communities and with
the host community. The evidence of contact with the other foreign
communities and with Egyptian society takes a limited number of forms in
our sources: the evidence of multilingualism, expressions of respect for the
religious practices of other peoples, evidence of intermarriage and consequent
mixing of names in offspring, and evidence of business and legal transactions.
The degree to which the various mercenary groups in Egypt interacted
with one another and with the host country must undoubtedly have varied
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 17
according to place, time, and circumstance. Greeks and Carians were

confrres in the service of the Saite kings; long association led to a high
degree of contact and exchange. The epigraphic evidence suggests that
Phoenicians went along on the expedition against the Nubians, but there is
less evidence for association between the Phoenicians and the Greeks in
Egypt. Jews, Aramaeans, and other peoples were in close contact in the
garrison at Elephantine under the Achaemenids. Doubts about whether
Greeks and Carians were part of this community as well may confidently be
set aside. Their presence is demonstrated by the account lists that underlie
the text of the Proverbs of Ahiqar, found at Elephantine and dated to 475,
which refer repeatedly to Ionians (ywny) who were shipowners, frequently
giving their Greek names.77 They may have been merchants rather than
soldiers, and they may not have been permanently resident in Elephantine,
but the texts show the ubiquity of Greeks in Persian Egypt. Carians are also
mentioned in the Aramaic letters, and there is accumulating evidence that
Carians were employed as stonecutters in Elephantine.78 The Nesuhor
inscription tells of Greeks, Syrians, and Asiatics stationed in the south in the
time of Apries. It may very well be that, apart from the expedition under
Psamtek II, the Saite pharaohs chose to keep their Greek and Carian soldiers
stationed close at hand in Memphis or in the northern garrisons while
employing Jews and Aramaeans in the south. At the same time, the Jews
sent to Daphnae under Apries (Jer. 43:7) must have encountered the Greeks
and Carians stationed there, and the pottery from the fortress excavated by
Oren suggests that Greeks and Palestinians were stationed at border
garrisons together. The evidence, admittedly fragmentary, suggests that
Greeks and Carians had some opportunities for contact with the soldiers of
Palestine and perhaps even, to some degree, for the extensive cohabitation
necessary for cross-cultural exchange.
There are evident variations in the degree to which different
communities of foreign soldiers absorbed influences from one another and
from the host society. At one extreme are the Aramaean mercenaries, whose
syncretic tendencies are marked: the Hermopolis papyri contain salutations
to Aramaean, Babylonian and Egyptian gods and a mixture of names,
mainly Aramaean and Egyptian. The Carians, too, seem to have integrated
thoroughly into Egyptian life. The Greeks were similarly inclined towards
cross-cultural interactions, although according to present evidence they
preserved a greater degree of cultural distinctiveness, perhaps because of
Naucratis. The Jews, despite the ideology of separateness expressed in the
prophetic writings, also ended up being integrated into the larger
community of foreigners in Elephantine and, to a lesser extent, into the
world of the Egyptians.
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 18
Multilingualism
Multilingualism is the most fundamental form of cross-cultural contact; it
occurs whenever members of different cultural communities interact for any
length of time. Identifying it tends to be a problem because communication
between different linguistic communities is so often taken for granted in
ancient literature, with only the barest hints of the mechanisms by which
such communication occurs. That it must have existed among the
mercenaries of Saite and Persian Egypt is axiomatic, since in all attested
cases mercenary garrisons were commanded by individuals of a different
ethnicity, but whether the command structures of these garrisons required
that their commanders learn their language(s) or the soldiers had to learn the
language of the host community is not determinable. The only direct
evidence available is one of Herodotus few explicit statements about how
the language barrier between Greeks and non-Greeks was overcome. In his
account of Psamteks mercenaries, he asserts that the king gave the Greek
soldiers Egyptian children to teach Greek, from which came the interpreters
of his own day (2.154.2). There is nothing inherently implausible about this
account, but I suspect it is incomplete. It is likely that Egyptian wives went
along with those children. Furthermore, it reflects Herodotus perspective as
a visitor to Egypt. He encountered Greek-speaking Egyptians and needed to
account for their linguistic ability. It is inconceivable that, in the long
history of these garrisons, the non-native soldiers never learned Egyptian or
each others language.
Multilingualism among the foreign communities in Egypt is manifested
in bilingual inscriptions.79 Of the various groups resident in Egypt, it is the
Carians who seem most often to have left such inscriptions. Several grave
stelae and a statue of the Apis bull from the Carian cemetery in Saqqara
have inscriptions in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in Carian. Recent studies
indicate that the Carian texts are not simple translations but complementary
to the Egyptian texts.80 This suggests that the Carians could read Egyptian
as well as their own language. There is also the pair of bronze votive objects
with hieroglyphic and Carian inscriptions dating to the time of Psamtek I
found in Sais. Outside the context of these votive and display objects, it is
hard to say what the situation was with regard to languages. The epigraphic
evidence demonstrates that the Greeks in Egypt continued to communicate
in Greek while the Carians continued to use Carian. If Greeks and Carians
were also writing in Egyptian, the evidence is still hidden among the
papyrological material from the Late Period.81
The problem of language is more complicated in the later cases, since
under Persian rule Aramaic had become a lingua franca. There is no trace
of Hebrew at Elephantine; it is quite likely that by this time Aramaic was
the mother tongue of both Jews and Aramaeans and perhaps of many of the
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 19
other peoples serving as soldiers. At the same time, Egyptian was still the
language of the land: there is some evidence for Aramaic-Egyptian
bilingualism.82 But on the whole, by the fifth century, it looks as if most
transactions among the mercenary garrisons took place in Aramaic.
Intermarriage and Mixed Names

Intermarriage is the most intimate form of cross-cultural contact that two
people from different backgrounds can engage in, since it inevitably involves
bilingualism and some degree of cultural adaptation on one side or the other.
It is not always clear which partner is adapting more to the other.
Documenting mixed marriages is a challenge. Actual references to such
marriages are rare. Cases of individuals with names of a different ethnic
origin from one of their parents may indicate mixed marriages. Other
explanations for such naming practices are possible, however: under certain
circumstances, foreign names might be adopted in commemoration of an
honoured individual. This practice is most certainly documented in the
frequency of the name Psammetichos among Greeks and its equivalent
among Carians in the sixth century.83 And in the case of a multicultural society
such as Egypt had become in the Late Period, it is possible that people simply
chose foreign names for their children for reasons of personal preference.
Furthermore, it is hard to say how often instances of intermarriage are masked
by one partners taking a name in the language of the other. Not surprisingly,
the majority of evidence of names pertains to acculturation to the host
community in this case, the Egyptians with a lesser tendency towards
cross-cultural exchange among the mercenary communities.
In contrast to the Greek merchants at Naucratis, the Greek, Carian, and
Phoenician mercenaries and the later Aramaean and Jewish mercenaries of
Elephantine were granted the right to marry native Egyptian women,
undoubtedly to encourage their loyalty and their willingness to remain in
Egypt.84 The Greek graffiti at Abu Simbel may indicate intermarriage. The
name Pabis of Kolophon may be Egyptian, although it could also be a
shortened form of Pambis or Pambios.85 The Carians, too, engaged in
intermarriage and mixed naming practices, particularly with their Egyptian
hosts. Egyptian names, often with theophoric elements, turn up on the grave
stelae. Evidence of intermarriage has also been identified in Egyptian texts
in the form of individuals with Egyptian names and Carian patronyms. After
the first generation, the Caromemphites seem to have taken Egyptian wives
freely and integrated into Egyptian culture to a great degree.86
The Aramaic documents attest to intermarriage between Egyptians,
Jews, Aramaeans, and other garrison members. The indirect evidence of
mixed names is abundant; all of the Aramaic names known from the
Hermopolis papyri have Egyptian patronymics, while a smaller proportion
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 20
of Jews had relatives with Egyptian or Aramaic names.87 There is direct

evidence as well in the form of marriage contracts and other documents.
The most striking example is that of Ananiah son of Azariah, an official of
the Temple of YHW, who married Tamet (or Tapemet), an Egyptian slave
woman, an arrangement that required a contract with her owner, Meshullam
b. Zaccur.88 The couple produced a son, Pilti (or Pelatiah), and a daughter,
Jehoishma (a Hebrew name); the latter grew up to marry Ananiah b. Haggai,
an Aramaean of the same degel as Meshullam.89 In one later document
Tapemet is referred to as lehe-na-h of the Temple of YHW, corresponding to
her husbands role as lohen (servitor); whether her title meant simply wife
of the servitor or whether she had attained her own status as a functionary
in the cult is not clear.90
In the Mibtahiah archive, we have documents of Mibtahiahs marriage
to Eshor son of Djeho, also an Egyptian builder, who later adopted the
Jewish name Nathan; she had two children by him, named Mahseiah and
Jedaniah, named after her father and grandfather, both of whom were
identified as Jews and served in the garrison at Elephantine.91 In another
case, another Mibtahiah (daughter of Gemariah, possibly a niece of the first
Mibtahiah) had a sister with an Egyptian name.92
Worship and Acknowledgement of Other Deities

Another powerful indicator of cross-cultural exchange is the
acknowledgement by people of one cultural background of the existence or
power of the deities of others. The Carians seem within a few generations
to have integrated fully into the religious system of the Egyptians. The
stelae and other inscribed objects from Saqqara (particularly those
decorated with images in traditional Egyptian fashion) show that some of
the Carians adopted Egyptian religious practices to a high degree.93
Aramaeans, although continuing to venerate their own deities,
acknowledged the Egyptian gods: the salutations of the letters sent by
Aramaeans to relatives or friends in Syene contain greetings sent to temples
of several Aramaean deities in Syene, but the addressee is blessed by Ptah.
In this case it is not clear whether this is a genuine form of respect for the
god of Memphis or a polite formality.94
Even among the Jews there is some indication of syncretizing tendencies.
Jeremiah chastises the Jews who have settled in Tahpanes (Daphnae),
Migdol, Noph, and Pathros in the land of Egypt during the reign of Apries
for making offerings to other gods and in particular to the Queen of Heaven.95
The evidence from Elephantine itself demonstrates a willingness on the part
of the Jews of the garrison to acknowledge other gods. Letters from Jews,
although they usually ask that protection be granted to the addressee by the
God of Heaven, occasionally refer simply to the gods.96 Porten has
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 21
attempted to explain these instances away by positing Aramaean scribes who

inserted their own pagan formulas, but the fact remains that the Jews of
Elephantine seem to have been quite willing to acknowledge the power of
other gods, particularly in the taking of oaths.97 These instances may have
been motivated by legal needs: in contracts and disputes with non-Jews, it
was evidently considered acceptable to swear by gods other than YHW. But
the phenomenon clearly reflects a progressive syncretizing of the religious
system of the Jews with those of the Egyptians and the Aramaeans. Even
more telling is the list of moneys collected among the Jewish garrison for
YHW the God at Elephantine, which ends with contributions for
Eshembethel and Anathbethel.98 The impression that the texts leave is that,
while the Jews focused their religious energies on the worship of their god,
they acknowledged and even materially supported the gods of their
neighbours, perhaps for the sake of preserving peace in the community.
Contracts
The documents from Elephantine and Syene make it abundantly clear that a
significant amount of contact between the different ethnic groups was
mediated by legal forms. A willingness to enter into transactions with
members of other ethnic or religious groups indicates some form of cross-
cultural contact inasmuch as it requires the recognition of a common legal
code, usually that of the host country (although in the fifth century Persian
law came to predominate in Egypt). It is in the sphere of contract law that
the archives of Elephantine and Syene prove most informative. These texts
demonstrate the extent of the legal and business contacts among the various
groups in the fifth century.99 These contracts were an important mechanism
for ensuring harmonious relations among the members of a multicultural
society. Informal mechanisms of mediation, economic exchange, and
judgement are characteristic of societies with stable and commonly
accepted legal and economic forms. Legal formalities become necessary in
circumstances in which communal bonds are not as strong.
The Jews of Elephantine entered freely and frequently into contracts
with people of other cultures as well as with their fellow Jews. Egyptian
names are common in these documents; perhaps many more such contracts
between Jews and Egyptians were written in demotic, of which only a trace
survives.100 Furthermore, these contracts were drawn up by people of a
variety of nationalities; in some cases, contracts between Jews were drawn
up by non-Jews. That these contracts served to bind the diverse groups
together is further demonstrated by the fact that Jews, Aramaeans, Persians,
and others acted as witnesses for each other.101
The commonality of the legal system in the garrison communities
required a system of courts to which all could resort. The courts were those
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 22
of the state, represented by the Persian governor, and of the commander of

the garrison.102 In addition to a common court, the legal forms of the
Aramaic documents presuppose common legal norms which other peoples
choosing to enter into dealings with Aramaeans and Jews had to accept.
Whether the legal system underlying the Aramaic documents is based on the
legal systems of other cultures is an open question. Yaron notes a general
similarity in forms between Aramaic and Egyptian law. Porten argues for a
great influence of Egyptian forms over AramaeanJewish forms in deeds of
conveyance, less in loan contracts, and hardly any in marriage contracts.103
The influence of Persian law is harder to gauge, since the comparanda of
Persian legal texts are lacking.
Contracts involving land give some indication of the physical proximity
of various peoples to one another. We have, for example, a deed of sale for
a house originally owned by a Caspian, Apuli/Yanbuli b. Misdai, and then
sold by the Caspians Bagazusht and Ubil to Ananiah b. Azariah; the house
was located next to the property of Satibar, father of Ubil, and across the
street from the Temple of YHW.104 Three years later, Ananiah ceded half of
the house to his Egyptian wife, Tamet, to be passed on to their children.105
Another series of contracts, in which Ananiah bequeathed part of the
property to his daughter Jehoishma, describes it as next to the house of Hor
son of Peteese, a gardener of the god Khnum.106 In the Mibtahiah archive are
a number of contracts involving property from which we learn that the
property controlled by Mibtahiah, inherited from her father Mahseiah, was
adjacent to that of the Chorasmian Dargamana and across the street from
that of an Egyptian, Peftoneith son of Espemet.
As a subset of the category of contracts of ownership, there are several
instances in the Elephantine and Syene texts of Jewish ownership of
Egyptian slaves.107 It is quite likely that ownership of native slaves was
common among the Greeks and the Carians as well, as there does not seem
to have been any Egyptian prohibition against it. In such an arrangement it
is much less likely that the masterslave relationship would have resulted in
significant cultural influence on the slave owner, although effective
utilization of native slaves in the context of the native environment may
have required the owner to acquire some local language skills. On the
contrary, the evidence, such as it is, points to the Egyptian slaves adapting
to their foreign masters, taking Jewish names and perhaps a Jewish religious
identity. In the case of Tamet, who married Ananiah, she and her Hebrew-
named daughter Jehoishma were eventually freed by her owner, Meshullam,
and adopted into his family (a common form of continued service which
suggests some cultural intimacy).108 In another case, Uriah son of Mahseiah
frees and adopts a slave of his, Jedaniah son of Takhoi the Hebrew-named
son of an Egyptian woman, undoubtedly a slave in Uriahs household.109
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 23
There is also evidence of foreigners being owned as slaves: a fragmentary

Aramaic papyrus from Saqqara, ca. 440, names one Thibrachos, a Cretan
slave.110 It is not clear whether the owner was a soldier or the slave a former
soldier.
CONCLUSIONS
Mercenaries who came from foreign lands to serve in Egypt, either under
the native kings or under the Persian occupiers, tended to remain in
communities which retained their ethnic and cultural integrity and
maintained substantial links with their home communities. The internal
cohesion of these communities was reinforced by the organization of the
mercenary garrisons adopted by the Egyptians and the Persians and by the
presence of women from home and the establishment of institutions
associated with home, while the links to home were kept alive most likely
through contacts with other communities such as Naucratis or through
travel. It is, in fact, evident that the experience of living side by side with
other mercenary groups from different lands and being organized according
to place of origin by their Egyptian and Persian employers tended to
reinforce the sense of individual ethnic and cultural identities. At the same
time, forces of cross-cultural contact that tended to break down barriers
between the foreign garrisons and the host society and to a certain extent
among themselves, were constant. Multilingualism was an absolute
necessity for the functioning of these communities. Intermarriage was
inevitable, and with it other types of influence. Acknowledgement of other
gods became an occasional feature of life in these communities. A common
legal system emerged to regulate legal and economic interactions; business
ties and close physical proximity strengthened social bonds. Even among
the Jews, whose religious ideas resisted assimilationist tendencies, the
forces at work were strong. These forces of acculturation seem to have
increased under Persian rule, but they were present from the earliest
presence of foreign mercenaries in Egypt. The balance of the opposing
forces of separatism and cross-cultural contact may well have provided an
excellent environment for the transmission of ideas and tastes from Egypt
back to the Levant and to Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries.
NOTES
1. I have chosen not to consider the Ptolemaic period on the grounds that the imposition of a
Macedonian ruling elite and the influx of large numbers of Macedonian and Greek troops and
settlers substantially altered the nature of Greek and native interactions. Various aspects of
Graeco-Egyptian society in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods have been explored in the
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 24
papers published by J.H. Johnson, Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to
Constantine and Beyond (Chicago, 1992).
2. I use the awkward term cross-cultural contact as the most general way of expressing a web
of reciprocal influences among different cultural communities: cf. P.S. Wells, Culture
Contact and Culture Change: Early Iron Age Central Europe and the Mediterranean World
(Cambridge, 1980); Wells, Cross-Cultural Interaction and Change in Recent Old World
Research, American Antiquity, 54 (1989), pp.6683. I prefer it to such terms as
transculturation as defined by M.L. Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and
Transculturation (London, 1992), p.6, who uses the term to suggest the complex forms of
cultural imposition and response that are mediated in a colonial relationship between
metropolitan and subordinate populations. The circumstances of dominance and subalternity
do not necessarily apply to Saite Egypt.
3. Hdt. 2.52.5; Diod. Sic. 1.66.12; M.M. Austin, Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age
(Cambridge, 1970), p.18; K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100650
BC) (Warminster, 1973), p.402; B.G. Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt: A Social History
(Cambridge, 1983), p.250; D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times
(Princeton, 1992), p.433. Diodorus also reports that Psamtek entrusted them especially with
the administration of his rule; if Diodorus source (possibly Hecataeus of Abdera) has any
independent value, it suggests the granting of offices and honours to Greek soldiers.
4. Hdt. 2.30; Diodorus identifies the deserters as Egyptian soldiers on campaign in Syria who
are offended by the preference that the king shows for his Greek troops (1.67.3). On their
replacement by the Jews and Aramaeans, see E. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic
Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century BC from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine
(New Haven, 1953), pp.437; and see below on the date of the Jewish garrison.
5. W.M.F. Petrie, Tanais II (London, 1888); R.M. Cook, Amasis and the Greeks in Egypt,
Journal of Hellenic Studies (hereafter JHS), 57 (1937), pp.22737.
6. E. Oren, Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, 256 (1984), pp.744. Oren identifies the site with
the Migdol of the Hebrew Bible, named by Jeremiah as one of the places to which Jews fled
after the fall of Jerusalem, but not with the Magdolos of the classical geographers, which he
puts at the site of Tell el-Her, or with the Migdol of Egyptian New Kingdom sources. He also
identifies the Saite Migdol with Herodotus Stratopeda, an identification that has been
widely accepted: cf. A.B. Lloyd, Herodotus Account of Pharaonic History, Historia, 37
(1988), p.44.
7. On the identification of Tell el-Maskuta with Patoumos/Pithom, see E. Naville, The Store-
house of Pithom (London, 1903), pp.3 ff.; A.B. Lloyd, Necho and the Red Sea: Some
Considerations, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 63 (1977), p.142 n.1; J.S. Holladay,
Cities of the Delta, Part 3: Tell el Maskhuta, Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project
197879 (Malibu, 1982). The vessels, dated 450400, have Aramaic inscriptions to Hanilat,
a North Arab goddess, and donors with Arab, Egyptian and mixed names: B. Porten and A.
Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (Jerusalem, 198699)
(hereafter TAD), D15.15; I. Rabinowitz, Aramaic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century BCE
from a North-Arab Shrine in Egypt, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 15 (1956), pp.19;
Rabinowitz, Another Aramaic Record of the North-Arabian Goddess Han-Ilat, Journal of
Near Eastern Studies, 18 (1959), pp.1545; W.J. Dumbrell, The Tell el-Mashkhuta Bowls
and the Kingdom of Qedar in the Persian Period, Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, 203 (1971), pp.3344.
8. In Josephus AJ 10.222, Contra Ap.1.137. H.J. Katzenstein, The History of Tyre: From the
Beginning of the Second Millennium BCE until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538
BCE (Jerusalem, 1973), pp.3067, argues that the Phoenicians were not soldiers but experts
and mariners, but given that Phoenicians served in Psamtek IIs army 12 years later there is
no reason to think that they were not already fighting for the pharaoh.
9. On the Saite expansion into Palestine and its use of foreign mercenaries, see Redford, Egypt,
Canaan, and Israel, pp.4415. On Mesad Hashavyahu, see J. Naveh, A Hebrew Letter from
the Seventh Century BC, Israel Exploration Journal (hereafter IEJ), 10 (1960), pp.12939;
The Excavations at Mesad Hashavyahu, IEJ, 12 (1962), pp.89113; More Hebrew
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 25
Inscriptions from Mesad Hashavyahu, IEJ, 12 (1962), pp.2732. Naveh distinguished two
phases at the site: the first, containing the Greek pottery, he interpreted as an Egyptian
outpost manned by Greek mercenaries, while the second, which he associated with the
Hebrew ostraca found on the site, he saw as a successive phase of Israelite occupation.
Others have interpreted the site as having one phase only, with the Greeks in the pay of the
king of Judah: R.M. Cook, A Note on the Absolute Chronology of the Eighth and Seventh
Centuries BC, Annual of the British School at Athens, 64 (1969), pp.1315; Austin, Greece
and Egypt in the Archaic Age, p.53 n.1. J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (New York,
1980), p.51, suggested that the Greeks remained in service to Necho until they were ousted
by Babylonians and (p.117) that Amasis used Greek troops to fend off Nebuchadnezzar.
10. S. Sauneron and J. Yoyotte, La campaigne nubienne de Psammtique II et sa signification
historique, Bulletin de lInstitut Franais de lArchologie Orientale, 50 (1952),
pp.157207.
11. B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony
(Berkeley, 1968), p.24.
12. Ibid., pp.412.
13. Slipways at the camps: Hdt. 2.154.5; LSJ s. holkos, I, gives capstan, windlass for this
passage, admittedly less likely. Nechos triremes: Hdt. 2.59; 4.42; cf. L.M. Basch,
Phoenician Oared Ships, Mariners Mirror, 55 (1969), p.239; Trires grecques,
phniciennes et gyptiennes, JHS, 97 (1977), p.1; A.B. Lloyd, Triremes and the Sate
Navy, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 58 (1972), pp.26879; Were Nechos Triremes
Phoenician? JHS, 95 (1975), pp.4561. Carian boatmasters: TAD A6.2 l. 8 [B 11]. Carian
gravestone: MY, F; Lloyd, Nechos Triremes, pp.5960, pl. VIIb, c; F. Kammerzell, Studien
zu Sprache und Geschichte der Karer in gypten. Gttinger Orientforschungen 4, Vol.27
(Wiesbaden, 1993), pp.1246. Nechos canal: Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, p.451.
14. The Greek mercenaries in Egypt have been considered extensively: Austin, Greece and
Egypt, pp.1518; A.B. Lloyd, Herodotus. Book 2, Introduction and Commentary (Leiden,
1975), pp.423; M. Bettalli, I mercenari nel mondo greco (Pisa, 1995), pp.5373. There is
some disagreement about Diodorus value as an independent source. Austin (p.55, n.4)
argues that Diodorus follows Herodotus and merely embellishes the older historian, while
others see him as preserving a different strain of evidence, from Hecataeus of Abdera; cf. A.
Leahy, The Earliest Dated Monument of Amasis and the End of the Reign of Apries,
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 74 (1988), p.189. In this case, the testimony of the Rassam
cylinder endorses Diodorus account.
15. A. Bernand and O. Masson, Les inscriptions grecques dAbou Simbel, Revue des Etudes
Grecques, 70 (1957), pp.146. On the date of the expedition, see J.D. Ray, The Carian
Script, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 208 (1982), p.85; Lloyd in
Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt, p.281.
16. The Greek graffiti at Abydos were published in part by P. Perdrizet and G. Lefebvre, Les
graffites grecs du Memnonion dAbydos (Nancy, 1919). On the earliest graffiti at Abydos, see
L.H. Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961), p.355; I.C. Rutherford,
Pilgrimage in Greco-Roman Egypt: New Perspectives on Graffiti from the Memnonion at
Abydos, in R. Matthews and C. Roemer (ed.), Encounters with Ancient Egypt, Vol.5,
Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (forthcoming). Several inscriptions from Memphis are dated
by Jeffrey to the sixth century; the earliest ones from Abydos date to the end of the sixth
century: Perdrizet and Lefebvre, Graffites grecs, no.427. One Onesandros, a Kydonian,
describes himself as an epikouros of Amyrtaios, probably the native ruler who freed Egypt
from Persian control at the end of the fifth century (no.405; cf. no.445). Another graffiti-
leaver identifies himself as Timarchos of Daphnai (no.614).
17. So Lloyd, Herodotus Account, p.41. The Amasis stele speaks of ships filled with Greek
soldiers without number; see n.56.
18. Hdt. 3.139.1.
19. Known mainly from Thucydides 1.104, 10910; see P.J. Rhodes in the Cambridge Ancient
History (hereafter CAH), Vol.52, pp.5052.
20. For discussion and sources, see A.B. Lloyd in CAH, Vol.62, pp.341, 349.
21. Austin, Greece and Egypt, pp.1819.
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 26
22. Hdt. 2.178; Strab. 17.1.18 C 801. Sullivan argues that Psamtek I organized the founding of
Naucratis as a settlement for his mercenaries: R.D. Sullivan, Psammetichus I and the
foundation of Naukratis, in William D.E. Coulson (ed.), Ancient Naukratis, Vol.2, Part 1,
The Survey at Naukratis (Oxford, 1996), pp.17795. Most of his evidence is unconvincing.
In citing Strabo as the clearest statement that the settlement was founded under Psamtek I,
he elides Strabos use of in time (chrono-) to qualify the interval between the arrival of the
Milesians and their founding of Naucratis.
23. The site was excavated first by W.F.M. Petrie and A.D. Gardiner, later by Hogarth, and
recently by Leonard, with a survey by Coulson. The recent excavations have not succeeded
in clarifying its controversial early history. For a history of the excavations, see A. Leonard,
Ancient Naukratis: Excavations at a Greek Emporium in Egypt, Annual of the American
Schools of Oriental Research, Vol.545 (Atlanta, 1997), pp.135. Discussion of Naucratis
can be found in Austin, Greece and Egypt, pp.2234; Lloyd, Herodotus, Book 2; Boardman,
Greeks Overseas, pp.11833.
24. Overviews of the Carians in Egypt can be found in O. Masson, Les Cariens en Egypte,
Bulletin de la Socit Franaise dEgyptologie, 56 (1969), pp.2536; O. Masson, Karer in
gypten, in W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), Lexikon der gyptologie (Wiesbaden, 1980),
pp.3337; Kammerzell, Karer in gypten, pp.107202; J.D. Ray, Soldiers to Pharaoh: The
Carians of Southwest Anatolia, in J.M. Sassoon et al. (eds.), Civilizations of the Ancient
Near East (New York, 1995), pp.118594.
25. J.D. Ray, Aegypto-Carica, Kadmos, 37 (1998), pp.1256. The most significant advances in
recent years have come about thanks to a symposium devoted to the decipherment of Carian
held in Rome in 1993, published as M.E. Giannotta (ed.), La Decifrazione del Cario (Rome,
1994), with a complete bibliography. Further breakthroughs have been inspired by the
publication of a Greek-Carian bilingual text from Kaunos: P. Frei and C. Marek, Die
Karisch-Griechische Bilingue von Kaunos: Eine Zweisprachige Staatsurkunde des 4. Jh.s v.
Chr, Kadmos, 36 (1997), pp.189, and the subsequent issue of Kadmos (Vol.37, 1998)
devoted to a colloquium on the Carian language held near Zurich in the autumn of the
previous year.
26. Masson, Cariens en gypte, pp.356; Karer in gypten, p.335.
27. O. Masson, Les graffites cariens dAbou-Simbel, in J. Vercoutter (ed.), Hommages la
mmoire de Serge Sauneron, 19271976 (Cairo, 1979), pp.2437.
28. O. Masson, Carian Inscriptions from North Saqqara and Buhen (London, 1978). Probably
of the same date is an inscription in Carian from a spot less than two kilometers north of the
site of the Temple of Dendur (Inscription 196: Z. Zaba, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower
Nubia [Czechoslovak Concession] [Prague, 1974], p.193), as are the inscriptions identified
by Sayce in the Wadi Shatt er-Rigl in the region of Gebel el Silsila: Masson, Cariens en
gypte, p.32; J.D. Ray, The Carian Inscriptions from Egypt, Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology, 68 (1982), p.183.
29. Masson has studied this material but has not yet published it in detail: Masson, Les
inscriptions cariennes du tombeau de Montuemhat (Thbes), in Giannotta (ed.), La
decifrazione del Cario, pp.1914. Ray, in response to Massons note, suggested that the
graffiti were left by Carian soldiers as an act of piety towards the governor, who was perhaps
their patron, in which case the Carians may be of the first generation of mercenaries in Egypt.
30. Masson, North Saqqara and Buhen; Kammerzell, Karer in gypten, pp.11862. Kammerzell
dates the earliest group of stelae to the seventh and early sixth centuries (pp.16370).
31. Polyaenus, Strat. 7.3.4; Steph. Byz. s. Karikon.
32. See TAD and, for a largely complete bibliography to 1990 of all known Aramaic texts from
Egypt, J.A. Fitzmyer and S.A. Kaufman, An Aramaic Bibliography 1: Old, Official, and
Biblical Aramaic (Baltimore, 1992), pp.53148. On the Aramaeans as a separate community,
see Porten, Archives, p.17.
33. On Jews labelled as Aramaeans, see B. Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three
Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (Leiden, 1996), p.153 n.4.
34. Inventory and distribution lists naming Aramaeans: TAD C3.1, 2. A land lease written in
Aramaic is dated to 515; but its parties are an Egyptian and one Padi son of Daganmelech,
probably a Philistine; TAD B1.1.
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 27
35. Hermopolis letters: TAD A2.17; graffiti: D22.7; 25, 27.
36. The texts from Elephantine have been published and discussed extensively: Fitzmyer and
Kaufman, Aramaic Bibliography, pp.57117. In addition to publication in TAD, the most
important material has been translated, with notes, in Porten, Elephantine Papyri, pp.74276
(the numeration of this edition, B152, will be given in square brackets after the TAD
numeration). Except for one text that Porten dates to the first or second quarter of the fifth
century (TAD A3.3 [B 8]), all of the letters from Jews date to the last three decades of the
same century.
37. TAD A4.7 [B19], l. 13; A4.8 [B20], l. 12; A.4.9 [B21] l. 45.
38. For discussion of the various dates for the recruitment of the Jewish garrison, see Kraeling,
Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, pp.434; Porten, Archives, p.8.
39. E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA, 1988), p.45; Letter of Aristeas,
12.
40. Hdt. 2.112. On the Camp of the Tyrians, see H.J. Katzenstein, The Camp of the Tyrians at
Memphis, Eretz Israel, 14 (1965), pp.614; a dedication from the necropolis at Saqqara
mentions the Camp of the Tyrians: W. Spiegelberg, Die Stele 119c des Louvre und das
Turion stratopedon, Kmi, 2 (1929), pp.10712.
41. On Herodotus sources for Egyptian history, see Lloyd, Herodotus Account, pp.2253.
42. For the history of the Phoenicians involvement with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon in this
period, see Katzenstein, History of Tyre, pp.295337; G.E. Markoe, Phoenicians (Berkeley,
2000), pp.467. Both see the Phoenician presence in Egypt as mercantile, but Herodotus use
of stratopedon betrays the military nature of the installation.
43. On Phoenician inscriptions in Egypt, see J.B. Peckham, The Development of the Late
Phoenician Scripts (Cambridge, MA, 1968), pp.1279; H. Donner and W. Rllig,
Kananische und Aramische Inschriften, 4th ed. (Wiesbaden, 1979), Vol.1, pp.1112;
Vol.2, pp.6470; A. Lemaire, Les phniciens et le commerce entre la Mer Rouge et la Mer
Mditerrane, in E. Lipinski (ed.), Studia Phoenicia 5: Phoenicia and the East
Mediterranean in the First Millennium BC (Leuven, 1987), pp.567.
44. Hdt. 2.1589, 4.42. Basch formulated the argument for Nechos triremes being Phoenician:
M.L. Basch, Phoenician Oared Ships, pp.22745; Trieres grecques, pp.110. Lloyd sees
the triremes as Greek: Lloyd, Triremes and the Sate Navy, pp.26879; Lloyd, Nechos
Triremes, pp.4561. He also argues that the circumnavigation of Africa was invented by
Herodotus, but his reasons for distrusting the account are not convincing: Lloyd, Necho and
the Red Sea, pp.14854. That Necho fought against Syrians does not pose a problem for
his retention of Phoenician mercenaries; Herodotus uses the term generally, and is here
referring specifically to the inhabitants of Gaza.
45. On Arma-piya and other Cilicians: G.R. Driver, Aramaic Documents from the Fifth Century
BC (Oxford, 1954), pp.4456; Dargamana (Translator, a suggestive name in this context):
TAD B2.2 [B24], ll.7, 8; B2.3 [B25], ll.5, 23. Members of degel of Marya, Persian: TAD B7.2
[B 50], l.4; Bactrian: TAD D2.12, l.3; Babylonian: TAD D.3.39, l.4. Caspians: TAD B2.7
[B29], ll.18, 19; B3.4 [B37], ll.2, 23, 24 (cf. TAD B3.12 [B45], l.4; TAD B3.12 [B45], l.4).
TAD C3.8 are fragments from a shipyard journal found in Memphis and refer to Caspians and
others attached to various detachments.
46. A.T. Reyes, Archaic Cyprus: A Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence (Oxford,
1994), pp.278.
47. O. Masson, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques: Recueil critique et commente (Paris,
1983), p.354, no.370; for the Cypriote presence at Naucratis, see W. Davis, Ancient
Naukratis and the Cypriotes in Egypt, Gttinger Miszellen, 35 (1979), pp.1323; W. Davis,
The Cypriotes at Naukratis, Gttinger Miszellen, 41 (1980), pp.719; Reyes, Archaic
Cyprus, p.70.
48. Masson, Karer in gypten, p.335; Inscriptions chypriotes, pp.35388.
49. Greek grafitto at Abydos, that of [Stasi]oikos of Salamis: Perdrizet and Lefebvre, Graffites
grecs, p.77, no.426. Bouhen: Masson, Inscriptions chypriotes, p.388, no.455.
50. The ways in which identity and community were constructed by Greek mercenaries have
been discussed recently by M.F. Trundle, Identity and Community among Greek
Mercenaries in the Classical World: 700-322 BCE, Ancient History Bulletin, 13 (1999),
pp.2838.
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 28
51. Hdt. 3.4, 11. A cup was found at Naucratis inscribed with the name Phanes, possibly the
same individual: Boardman, Greeks Overseas, p.132.
52. Polyaenus, Strat. 7.3.4. A grave stele from Saqqara (MY,D) has the name Pekrjs, the Carian
form of Pigres; it dates to the second half of the seventh century. But there are doubts about
the historical authenticity of Polyaenus anecdote: Kammerzell, Karer in gypten, pp.1468.
Polyaenus story about how Tementhes (Tantuatamun, son of Tirhakah and the last Nubian
ruler of Egypt) received a prophecy warning of roosters seems to have been concocted from
Herodotus statement about the Carians having invented the helmet crest (1.171.4), but
naming Pigres the Carian as Psamteks mercenary commander may be an authentic historical
datum.
53. Other than the Psammetichos son of Theokles who left his name at Abu Simbel, there was
Psammetichos, nephew and successor of Periander of Corinth: Nic Dam. FGrH 90 F 59.4,
60.1; cf. J.B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 BC (Oxford, 1984),
pp.2256. The name Amasis is attested as that of the famous Athenian potter of the sixth
century; he may be an Egyptian immigrant or a Greek from Naucratis or the descendant of a
Greek who served in Egypt: D. v. Bothmer, The Amasis Painter and His World (Malibu, CA,
1985), p.38. There are several instances of Psamteks among the Caroegyptian material,
although it is impossible to tell whether these are Carians or Egyptians: Kammerzell, Karer
in gypten, pp.10, 18.
54. For references, see P. Kaplan, The Social Status of the Mercenary in Archaic Greece, in
V.B. Gorman and E.J. Robinson (eds.), Oikistes: Papers in Honor of A.J. Graham (Leiden,
2002), p.340.
55. Hdt. 2.59. The desire to reward Greek soldiers and the cities and communities that provided
them is a plausible explanation for many of the dedications made by foreign kings at Greek
sanctuaries; see Boardman, Greeks Overseas, p.115; P. Kaplan, Dedications to Greek
Sanctuaries by Foreign Kings in the Seventh and Sixth Centuries BCE; paper presented to
the American Philological Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 2003.
56. Hdt. 2.163. The text on a stele of Amasis found at Elephantine and other dating indications
have demonstrated that the chronology of Herodotus account is in error: E. Edel, Amasis
und Nebuchadnezzar II, Gttinger Miszellen, 29 (1978), pp.1320; Leahy, Earliest Dated
Monument, pp.18399; Lloyd, Herodotus, pp.445. The reference in the stele to ships
overflowing with H3w nbw(t) (= Greek soldiers) coming to the aid of Apries has been taken
to confirm that aspect of Herodotus account: see Lloyd, Nechos Triremes, p.59 n.117. But
C. Vandersleyen argues that H3w nbw(t) always means Phoenicians: Les guerres dAmosis
(Brussels, 1971), pp.13974. J.C. Darnell more moderately suggests that the term here means
Levantines and could include Carians and Ionian Greeks: The KBN.WT vessels of the Late
Period, in J.H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a Multi-Cultural Society, p.84. On the possibility that
the island (iw) that sent the ships was Cyprus, see Reyes, Archaic Cyprus, pp.723. It could
be that the island was Elephantine Apries continues to be acknowledged in Thebes, so his
power base may be in the south but Leahy (p.190) argues that the text of the Amasis stele
has no connection with Elephantine and prefers the unique use of iw for Apries palace at
Memphis. Leahy also suggests (p.198) that Herodotus construction of Apries support as
being from his mercenaries while Amasis received support from the native Egyptians is the
result of propaganda generated by Amasis long after the coup.
57. The situation of Apries mercenaries is similar to that reported by Quintus Curtius of the
Greek mercenaries of Darius III, who remained loyal to the Persian king even after his native
troops had abandoned him (5.11).
58. TAD A4.5 [B 17], l.1. But of course the Jews had served under the Saite kings and would
continue to serve under the upstart Amyrtaios: e.g., TAD B4.6 [B 51], l.1.
59. Louvre A90; H. Schfer, Die Auswanderung der Krieger unter Psammetich I und der
Sldneraufstand in Elephantine unter Apries, Klio, 4 (1904), pp.15263; Kraeling, Brooklyn
Museum Aramaic Papyri, p.47; Porten, Archives, p.15. Austin doubts the reading of Greeks:
Greece and Egypt, p.19.
60. The problems involved in understanding ethnicity among the Greeks have been recently
explored at length; see J.M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Identity (Cambridge, 1997); also
the essays in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Washington DC, 2001).
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 29
61. Potasimto is Pedisamtawi, who is known from his sarcophagus as commander of the foreign
mercenaries under Psamtek II: M.N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions
(Oxford, 1933), p.6.
62. Ray, Carian Inscriptions, p.187, reads one inscription from Saqqara (M29) as containing
Tdalde(s), which, he suggests, is a gentilic derived from the city of Tralles; another from
Buhen (M50) may contain u-r-m-s, which may be Euromos.
63. Aristagoras of Miletus in Steph. Byz. s. Karikon; also in a papyrus of the third century:
Masson, Cariens en gypte, p.28. A demotic letter of the fourth to third century BC from
Saqqara, S.71/2-136, mentions a Quarter of the Greeks: H.S. Smith, Foreigners in the
Documents from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, Saqqara, in J. Johnson (ed.), Life in a
Multi-cultural Society, p.296.
64. The use of Ionian is found in the accounts underlying the Ahiqar palimpsest at Elephantine
(TAD C3.7).
65. Porten, Archives, p.277; Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, p.39.
66. Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, pp.2835. The names of the commanders of the Jewish
digl-n are Persian and Mesopotamian (Artabanus, Atroparan, Haumandata, Varyazata,
Iddinnabu, Nimasu, Arpahu, Nabukudurri) and most likely represent appointees. Certain
members of the community, such as the officials of the Temple of YHW, were not associated
with a degel: Porten, Archives, p.202.
67. E.g., Anani son of Haggai, a Jew of the degel of Nabukudurri, and Pakhnum son of Besa, an
Aramaean of Syene of the same detachment (TAD B3.13 [B46]).
68. Mahseiah son of Jedaniah, who has a theophoric name ending in YH, is identified
interchangeably as Aramaean of Syene (TAD B2.1 [B23], B2.6 [B28], B2.7 [B29]) and
Jew of Elephantine (TAD B2.2B2.4 [B2426]). He is variously identified as belonging to
the degel of Haumadata and that of Varyazata: Porten, Elephantine Papyri, p.164 n.7.
Similarly Meshullam son of Zaccur is known alternately as an Aramaean of Syene of the
degel of Varyazata (TAD B2.7 [B29], B3.3:23 [B36]) and a Jew of Elephantine the fortress
of the degel of Iddinnabu (TAD B3.6:2 [B39]. See Porten, Elephantine Papyri, pp.153 n.4
and 185 n.7. And a list of men with Hebrew names who offer to support the reconstruction
of the Temple-of-YHW-the-God of ours are identified as persons, Syenians who in
Elephantine the fortress are heredi[tary property-hold]ers (TAD A4.10 [B22]).
69. On the use of YHW instead of the Tetragrammaton at Elephantine, see Porten, Archives,
pp.1056; on the conflict over the temple of YHW, see ibid., pp.2849.
70. TAD A4.5 [B 17], A4.74.10 [B1922]; Porten, Archives, pp.281, 29091.
71. Herodotus discussion of the worship of Heracles in Egypt leads him to a consideration of
the sanctuary of Heracles in Tyre (2.4344). It is possible that Herodotus interest in Heracles
was sparked by a visit to a sanctuary of the Tyrian Heracles (Melqart) in Memphis; Melqart
was often worshipped alongside Astarte: Markoe, Phoenicians, pp.11618. Also, Baal was
worshipped at Memphis and at its dockyards at Prw Nfr in the New Kingdom: Basch,
Trires grecques, p.3.
72. TAD A2.14 [B14].
73. See the instructive comments of J. Roug, La colonization grecque et les femmes, Cahiers
dHistoire 15 (1970), pp.30717; R.V. Compernolle, Femmes indigenes et colonisateurs, in
Modes de contacts et processus de transformation dans les socits anciennes (Pisa and
Rome, 1983), pp.103349. For a very positive view of the significance of mixed marriages
in exchanges between Greeks and non-Greeks, see J.N. Coldstream, Mixed Marriages at the
Frontiers of the Early Greek World, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 12 (1993), pp.89107.
A.J. Graham argues for the primary role of Greek women in Greek colonial settlements in
Religion, Women and Greek colonization, in Religione e citt nel mondo antika: Atti,
Centro Richerche e Documentazione sullAntichit Classica, Vol.11 (198182), pp.293314.
Some useful data have been adduced from the prosopography of Cyrene, where Greek and
Libyan names alternate within families and Ptolemy Soter decreed that Cyreneans born of a
Libyan mother were to be considered citizens; see A. Laronde, Greeks and Libyans in
Cyrenaica, in Jean-Paul Descoeudres (ed.), Greek Colonists and Native Populations:
Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology (Oxford, 1990),
p.178.
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 30
74. Hdt. 2.135. Herodotus adds that the hetairai of Naucratis were considered particularly
desirable and mentions in this context a well-known Archidike. Whether they would have
made willing matches for the soldiers of the Memphis garrison is another question.
75. The term mgajuk in a stele (M3) depicting a man taking leave of a woman may mean
spouse; cf. Ray, Carian Inscriptions, p.184. Several other inscriptions use the term (M9,
M10, M25a).
76. TAD B2.111 [B2333]. Mibtahiah is on one occasion (TAD B2.8 [B30]) identified as
daughter of Mahseiah son of Jedaniah, an Aramaean of Syene of the detachment of
Varyazata, although I suspect that the ethnic and the degel affiliations refer to her father, not
to her (contra Porten, Elephantine Papyri, p.188 n.5).
77. The importance of these documents has been recognized by Pierre Briant, who suspects that
they originate in Memphis: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire,
(Winona Lake, 2002), p.385. TAD C3.7, pl.A col.2, l.22; pl.B col.1, l.9; pl.C col.2, l.4
(Sumenos/Somenes son of Simonides); pl.E col.2, ll.12 (P..ltn son of Moschos), 18 (...son of
Ergilos); pl.K col.2, l.24 (Tmkts [Timokedes/Timokrates?] son of Mikkos), col.3, l.5; pl.G
col.2, l.16 (Glaphyros); pl.J col.1, ll.34, 2728 (Iokles), col.2, l.6 (Phanes); pl.F col.3, ll.19,
22; pl.G col.5, l.18; pl.K col.2, ll.7, 18, 20 (Protokles), 22 (Glaphyros); pl.E col.1, l.11
(Glaphyros); pl.E col.2, ll.8, 15 (Iokles), 17 (Phanes) . The accounts are a fascinating
resource for the study of trade goods and carriers in the early fifth century. In addition, a
fragmentary Aramaic papyrus from Saqqara mentions a Cretan slave named Thibrachos; see
n.110.
78. For Carian boat owners, see above n.13. There are Aramaic and Carian (?) inscriptions on
the rocks of a sandstone quarry at Syene: A.H. Sayce, An Inscription of S-ankh-ka-Ra.
Karian and Other Inscriptions, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (hereafter
PSBA), 28 (1906), pp.1745; An Aramaic Ostrakon from Elephantine, PSBA, 30 (1908),
p.41. Inscriptions left in Wadi Hammamat by Khnumibre, superintendant of works under
Darius I, refer to him as Commander of Soldiers and Commander of the Troop: Porten,
Archives, p.40. For possible Carian letters as masons marks on the stones of the temple of
Khnum at Elephantine, see S.L. Gosline, Carian Quarry Markings on Elephantine Island,
Kadmos, 31 (1992), pp.4350.
79. Admittedly, the implications of such bilingual texts for our understanding of language use in
the communities is not clear. On the problem of true bilinguals versus pseudobilinguals,
hybrid texts, and other phenomena, see Kammerzell, Karer in gypten, pp.35.
80. Masson, North Saqqara and Buhen; J. Faucounau, Reflexions sur le dchiffrement des
inscriptions cariennes, Klio, 62 (1980), pp.2947; Kammerzell, Karer in gypten,
pp.11962.
81. The potential richness of this material is indicated by the data concerning foreigners in the
Late Period available in demotic documents from Saqqara: see H.S. Smith, Foreigners in the
Documents, pp.295301.
82. The evidence of AramaicEgyptian bilingualism is scant: a fragment of papyus, probably a
deed of conveyance, with a text in Egyptian demotic with an endorsement in Aramaic: TAD
D2.35; Porten, Archives, p.194.
83. Psammetichos son of Theoklos appears among the graffiti at Abu Simbel. There is also the
well-known case of the nephew of Periander, although the significance of a kypselid bearing
the name of the pharaoh is unclear. The name is also found among the Caromemphites: p-s-
m-a-[-k] appears once at Saqqara (M46), more often elsewhere (Buhen: M50, M53, M54;
MY text F; Silsileh: Sev.61; Abu Simbel: AS3 [Psamtek son of Sarku]).
84. Austin, Greece and Egypt, pp.1819.
85. Bernand, Inscriptions grecques dAbou Simbel, p.19.
86. For a discussion of the Carian texts see Ray, Carian Inscriptions, pp.18198. On Egyptian
names, see Ray, Carian Script, p.89; Ray, New Egyptian Names in Carian, in Giannotta
(ed.), La decifrazione del Cario, pp.195206; D. Schrr, Bastet-Namen in Karischen
Inschriften gyptens, Kadmos, 35 (1996), pp.614; Ray, Aegypto-Carica, pp.1289. On a
stele from Saqqara (M7), the deceased is named in the Carian as the grandson of Ktbse but
in the Egyptian as the grandson of Jh. Whether these are alternate names for the same
individual or evidence of a mixed Carian/Egyptian couple is not clear.
181mhr01.qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 31
87. Lists of names in the Aramaic papyri, dated broadly to the second half of the fifth century,
show all permutations of mixed parentage (TAD C4.18), but the context to which these
individuals belong is uncertain. On non-Jewish names in Jewish families, see Porten,
Archives, pp.14850, 25051.
88. TAD B3.3 [B36]; Porten, Archives, pp.20513. Porten suggests that the woman had been
leased by her owner Meshullam to Ananiah, who had then married her when she had a
child by him. It is possible that the boy was fathered by another man, but the fact that the
marriage contract specifically protects the boy not from Ananiah but from Meshullam
suggests that the husband was his natural father.
89. TAD B3.8 [B41]; Porten, Archives, pp.2215.
90. TAD B3.12 [B45], l.2; Porten, Archives, p.200.
91. TAD B2.6, B2.9, B2.10 [B28, 31, 32]. The supposed previous marriage to Peu son of Pahe
(TAD B2.8 [B30]) is now seen as a reference to her marriage to Eshor: Porten, Elephantine
Papyri, pp.1889 n.10.
92. TAD B5.5 [B49]; Porten, Elephantine Papyri, p.259 n.6, adduces other examples of Jewish
women with Egyptian names.
93. MY, E, F, G, H, M1, and M2 all display traditional Egyptian iconography, as well as
Egyptian inscriptions honouring Egyptian gods, along with Carian inscriptions.
94. TAD A2.16 [B16]; Porten, Elephantine Papyri, p.90.
95. Jer. 44. The Queen of Heaven may be an Aramaic deity or she may be a consort of YHW,
known in one text as Anat-YHW; see Porten, Archives, pp.171, 177; Elephantine Papyri,
p.266 n.7.
96. Porten, Archives, p.153; TAD A4.2 [B14] and A4.4 [B16] use variants of the formula May
the gods seek after your welfare at all times.
97. E.g., Mibtahiah swears by the Egyptian goddess Sati in a contract with Peu (TAD B2.8
[B30]); Malchiah son of Jashobiah (described as an Aramaean but with a Jewish theophoric
name) swears an exculpatory oath before Herembethel (TAD B7.2 [B50]); Menahem son
of Shallum swears by Herem and by Anatyahu (TAD B7.3 [B52]). In this last instance the
oath is sworn to a fellow Jew, Meshullam son of Nathan. See R. Yaron, Introduction to the
Law of the Aramaic Papyri (Oxford, 1961), p.32; Porten, Archives, p.158.
98. TAD C3.15 col.7, ll.127, 128; Porten, Archives, pp.16064, 1749.
99. The legal system of the Jewish community of Elephantine has been studied in depth by
Yaron, Introduction to the Law; Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from
Elephantine (Leiden, 1969).
100. Porten, Archives, p.194.
101. Yaron, Introduction to the Law, pp.1213.
102. Ibid., p.27.
103. Ibid., pp.99113; Porten, Archives, pp.191, 33443. Yaron also notes a possible influence
from Greek legal language (pp.1034). See also Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal
Papyri.
105. TAD B3.5 [B38]. The house was ultimately sold to their son-in-law Anani b. Haggai (TAD
B3.12 [B45]); see Porten, Archives, pp.21719.
106. TAD B3.7, B3.10, B3.11[B40, B43, B44].
107. Teba and her children Petosiri, Bela and Lilu (TAD B2.11); Ta(pa)met, daughter of Pethu
(TAD B3.3; cf. B3.5, 3.6, 3.12); and Tetosiri (TAD B5.6); see Porten, Archives, p.203.
109. TAD B3.9 [B42]; Yaron, Introduction to the Law, p.40; Porten, Archives, p.203; Porten,
Elephantine Papyri, p.235 n. 9.
110. TAD B8.3.

Kaplan, Cross-Cult Contacts Among Mercenaries in Egypt

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kaplan, Cross-Cult Contacts Among Mercenaries in Egypt

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

181mhr01.

qxd 22/12/03 09:20 Page 1

Cross-Cultural Contacts among Mercenary

References in ancient sources and epigraphical, archaeological, and

Egypt in the Late Period was host to individuals and mercenary

Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol.18, No.1, June 2003, pp.131

RECRUITING AND USE OF MERCENA RY G A RRI S O N S I N E G Y P T

fort in the eastern Delta, at Tell el-Maskhuta, was excavated by Holladay,

settlement at Naucratis was founded in the reign of Amasis, according to

Aramaeans and Jews

found at Hermopolis, addressed to family members in Syene, papyri from

By its very nature, mercenary service abroad generated an unusual type of

home community, so the commonplace forms of communal identity did not

transcended their ties to their respective poleis. Strikingly, Herodotus

EVIDENCE OF CROSS-CULTURAL CON TA C T

Although there is some reason to believe that the mercenary communities of

according to place, time, and circumstance. Greeks and Carians were

Intermarriage and Mixed Names

of Jews had relatives with Egyptian or Aramaic names.87 There is direct

Worship and Acknowledgement of Other Deities

attempted to explain these instances away by positing Aramaean scribes who

of the state, represented by the Persian governor, and of the commander of

There is also evidence of foreigners being owned as slaves: a fragmentary

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen