The presence of Aegean
mercenaries operating in the eastern Mediterranean can be traced back to the
latter New Kingdom period in Egypt (18th–20th Dynasties, 13th–11th c. BCE).
Inscriptions from the period of the Eighteenth Dynasty mention the Sherden serving
in the Egyptian military. Several of the letters from El Amarna acknowledge
Sherden people who live under the suzerainty of Rib-Hadda of Byblos, ultimately
under Egyptian control. Inscriptions of Ramesses II include the Sherden as
troops in his army during the battle of Qadesh. Likewise, inscriptions from the
reigns of Merenptah (19th Dynasty) and Ramesses III (20th Dynasty) include
Sherden among their troops. The Sherden also constitute part of the ‘Sea
Peoples’, a coalition of Aegean people groups that would invade Egypt and the
Levant around 1200 BCE. Although the process by which Egypt hired the Sherden
is unclear, the evidence of trade networks in the Mediterranean indicates a
relationship between Egypt and the Aegean. Furthermore, in payment for their
service, Egypt gave land within its own borders to the Sherden. This continues
to be a standard form of payment for mercenary service in later periods.
While there is little
extra-biblical evidence of an Aegean mercenary presence in the Levant during
Iron Age I (ca. 1200–1000 BCE) and IIA (ca. 1000–925 BCE), a gradual increase
of Aegean mercenaries occurs later in Iron Age II (~ 8th c. BCE). Several
historical factors contributed to the increase of Aegean mercenaries in the
Levant during this period. One of the casualties of the Great Collapse of 1200
BC was the disintegration of the Mycenaean palace system. Around the same time,
Aegean people groups began to migrate east, settling in Anatolia, Cyprus, and
the Levant. With the collapse of Mycenaean power, as well as the breakdown of
the other major powers of the Near East, the Aegean people groups experienced
new freedom to engage in maritime trade relations directly with the smaller
states of the Levant. (Eric A. Barrios, Foreign Soldiers in Judah’s Military:
Biblical Attitudes in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence [Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 204; Leiden: Brill, 2026], 74-76)
Pottery
at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu
Approximately 426 pieces of
pottery were discovered at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu in a fairly even distribution. As
stated above, there was only one phase of settlement at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu, and
every room of the fortress contained an assortment of both East Greek and local
pottery. In his publication of the entire pottery assemblage, Fantalkin
calculates that the ratio of pottery is approximately 53.04% local, 46.96%
imported. The imported finds are mostly East Greek and Western Anatolian, with
a small number of Egyptian finds.
The pottery that is identified as
East Greek includes Ionian cups, Greek cooking pots, Greek lamps, several Wild
Goat Style oinochoai, and painted bowls and sherds containing Aegean style art.
Naveh, following the work of Cook, identifies the Greek art as belonging to the
Middle Wild Goat Style, which is usually dated to 630–600 BCE.
Two features of the pottery are
of particular interest. First, the quantity of East Greek ware is noticeably higher
than is usually found at Judean sites. The high quantity of Greek ware led
Naveh and others to regard the site as containing an Aegean presence, either
mercenaries or merchants. Several characteristics of the pottery suggest that
it was intended for daily use, likely by mercenaries, rather than to be traded
by merchants. The pottery is primarily utilitarian, and there is not a high
concentration of luxury ware that would be in demand for trade. For example,
Dion argues that the assortment of cooking dishes, which lack any artistic
pretensions, is a decisive argument that they were brought by their natural
users and not for the sake of trade.60 Furthermore, as Fantalkin observes, the
relative lack of East Greek ware in Judah, as well as the location of Meṣad Ḥashavyahu
away from a densely populated area, further discredit any identification of the
fort as a trading outpost. Similar pottery occurs at other sites in the coastal
plain, such as Ashkelon, but the pottery does not make its way inland in large
quantity, as would be expected of merchant activity.
A second important feature
concerns the presence of a large quantity of Greek cooking pots. The remains of
33 imported cooking pots were found at the site, in contrast to only 15 local
cooking pots. As Fantalkin argues, this style cooking pot would not be used for
trade:
Imported cooking-pots, for
example, are open vessels unsuitable for transporting products commercially.
They are also relatively coarse and it is difficult to imagine that they had
any intrinsic commercial value (such as fine wares). As a result, their
presence at the site is most probably indicative of the foreign ethnic groups
that actually brought them.
Therefore, the used cooking pots
are evidence of an Aegean presence at the site. The utilitarian nature of the
pottery, which does not leave the site, along with the historical context of
imminent warfare and the status of the site as a fortress, suggests that the
Aegean residents of Meṣad Ḥashavyahu were mercenaries. (Eric A. Barrios, Foreign
Soldiers in Judah’s Military: Biblical Attitudes in Light of Extra-Biblical
Evidence [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 204; Leiden: Brill, 2026], 88-90)
The
“Baal” Name
Another important ostracon from
Meṣad Ḥashavyahu contains a reconstructed name that bears a Canaanite
theophoric element. The ostracon is difficult to read. Although there are
several unclear words in line 2, the following words on the ostraca were
deciphered:
צבעל
[
… כסף…
[
1) ---]aṣbʿal
2) ---] … silver …
In his initial publication, Naveh
interpreted the unclear letters and reconstructed the text to read, “Netaṣbaʿal
… weighed four (shekels of) silver, 4 after the king’s weight, as a
donation.”78 Based on this translation, Naveh interprets the name “Netaṣbaʿal”
to mean “Baʿal who destroys.” This interpretation has come under criticism,
though. Lemaire has proposed the reading ʿnybʿl, which he translates
“Baal has responded.” Dobbs-Allsopp rejects both Naveh’s and Lemaire’s readings
and proposes the reading ʿṣbʿal, another personal name. Although the
letters before the theophoric element are unclear, scholars at least agree that
this is a name with the theophoric element Baʿal. Names containing the
element Baʿal are common in Canaanite and Phoenician, and they appear
among Israelite names in earlier periods. Due to this ambiguity, Naveh notes
that the nationality of the figure is uncertain. A second ambiguity is that the
fragmented condition of the ostracon makes it unclear whether the name is a
father’s name (i.e., “son of …”) or the proper name of the individual.
Some scholars have concluded that
this text is evidence that Phoenician mercenaries also occupied the fort. In turn,
they suggest that the fort contained an assortment of mercenaries, including
Judeans. Due to the fragmented and laconic nature of the text, the conclusion
that this person is a Phoenician mercenary is overstated. Furthermore,
regarding the veracity of this conclusion, I would draw attention to the
character of the text itself. Naveh’s reading of the text is that it records a
donation of 4 shekels of silver by a man named Netaṣbaʿal. Although the text
contains very little information, it appears to describe a type of economic
transaction. The location of the text’s discovery is important, as well. The
text was unearthed at the gate of the fortress, along with several other texts
bearing similar information. Ultimately, there is nothing in the text to imply
that the person involved is a mercenary/soldier, or that he even occupied the
fortress. It seems more likely that, like the “Reaper’s Letter”, this ostracon
was delivered to the fortress or recorded a transaction that occurred at or
near the fortress, and then the ostracon was retained by an administrator. (Ibid.,
94-95)