Klerouchies in Ptolemaic Egypt

I was encouraged, if I had any research to contribute to the EB II project to post it in this forum, so here goes...

For one of my classes this term, I was assigned to write a paper on Klerouchies in Ptolemaic Egypt and, since it was pretty well-received I thought I'd post it here in case the information could be useful for the EB team (and for anyone else who just is curious).

In this paper, I intend to argue that Klerouchy's impact on Egypt was to create an atmosphere of both competition and collaboration, where both the Klerouchs and their native hosts sought to advance themselves, often at the expense of the other, but also frequently to mutual advantage.

The Ptolemies were faced with severe military problems, as were many of the Hellenistic monarchs who carved up Alexander's empire in the wake of his death in 323 BCE. These rulers were Macedonians who sought to rule a non-Hellenized nation, using the portion of the army they had inherited from Alexander (Clarysse and Thompson 141). There was a small population of Greeks settled in Egypt, for there were Hellenes, whose ancestors had fought for Psammetichus in the 7th century. Ultimately though, the nucleus of Hellenic descendents became the erstwhile soldiers of Alexander. Mercenaries were always available, but dependance on them was not encouraged; the cost of employing them was high in the long term. They made inconvenient demands to be paid in particular currencies (hence the discovery of large numbers of Egyptian-made, Athenian Tetradrachms), but most importantly, they were often unreliable (Lewis 21). Extensive use of natives in the military, I think, would have initially been considered an even worse alternative, since the political power of the Macedonian Ptolemies would have been dependent on the good will of the natives. That is not to say the Egyptians were kept out of the military altogether, nor were the units of Egyptian soldiers descended from the old pharaonic Machimoi class (Sage 220), but they represented a minority in the armies of the early Ptolemaic Kingdom which were dominated by Greeks, Macedonians, as well as Jews, Persians and Idoumaians.

The solution was the Klerouchies. In order to entice mercenaries into cheaper, permanent service, the king would offer plots (κληροι) to mercenaries in exchange for a variety of obligations on the part of the new lot-holders (κληροῦχοι). The land would remain in the possession of the king, but would be farmed by the Klerouch for the remainder of his life. He would keep the profits of his agriculture, with the exception of the taxes he paid to the government, which in any case were lower than those paid by non-Klerouchs (Sage 221).

Migration, primarily from Greece and Macedonia, but also from other, non-Hellenic nations, was encouraged by recruiters abroad. A few of the immigrants arriving in Egypt would be retained in Alexandria to serve in the elite military unit (ἄγημα) that formed the King's bodyguard (Lewis 21). The rest would be allocated a plot of land somewhere in the kingdom, either from the monarch's own holdings, from the parcel of land of one of the courtiers or from temple lands. Often times, rough uncultivated land was included in the allotment, with the expectation that the Klerouch would make it fit for production, and to this end, the Ptolemies instituted extensive public works projects directed especially towards improving irrigation throughout Egypt (Lewis 25). The size of plots varied, depending on one's station. Regular infantry received between 20 and 40 arouras, the old pharonic measurement, equal to about 0.68 acres, while members of the royal guard and the cavalry tended to receive between 70 and 100 arouras (Lewis 24) In theory, these lots were allocated randomly, but as evidenced by a letter found on a papyrus scroll from 250 BCE, one could ensure a good lot by appealing to friends in high places (Lewis 25). Additionally, each Klerouch was billeted with a local in the area of his lot and posting, until such a time as permanent housing could be built for him (Lewis 21).

His housing would form part of a village, typically around 500 people (Clarysse and Thompson 106). These villages were organized into tax districts, which were defined by the number of people from whom a single tax collector could collect, often between 1000 and 3200 individuals. From there, groups of several tax districts formed a toparchy, or tax area, administered by a toparch (Clarysse and Thompson 116). Clarysse and Thompson speculate that each toparchy may have been composed of aproximately ten thousand people, although he acknowledges that this is an extremely tentative estimate (Clarysse and Thompson 117-118). The next administrative level was the meris, and the highest in Ptolemaic Egypt was the nome (νομός)(Clarysse and Thompson 103), headed by a governor (my translation of στρᾰτηγός). Some nomes seem to have been allocated especially for particular groups, such as the Arsinoite Nome, where 72.5% of the Klerouchs were cavalry (Clarysse and Thompson 94). The entirety of Hellenistic Egypt was composed of slightly less than forty such nomes, and their governors served at the pleasure of the King (Lewis 57).

The institution of Klerouchy was to change a lot over the years, however. In theory, the lot was the property of the King, and once the soldier who had been given it was dead, or incapable of serving, the land would revert to the King and be given out to another Klerouch. This rarely, if ever was enforced, however. Few immigrants would have been content to partake of the institution if it meant dispossession of the land for their family as soon as they were dead. Fewer still would have been willing to serve if a disability in the line of duty could leave them without house or income. Thus from the middle of the third century, the Ptolemies instituted the practice of allowing sons to succeed to Klerouchic status (Lewis 33). An example of this can be seen with a cavalry officer of the mid-second century. Dryton, whose son, Esthladas inherited his father's armor and succeeded to his role as a cavalry man even before Dryton had died an old man (Lewis 98).

This trend of inheritence was a slippery slope, however. By 241 BCE, we see evidence of Klerouchs passing on lots in their wills (Lewis 33). Not long thereafter it became possible to bequeath it to a person outside the family, or even mortgage it (Lewis 34). The trend we see starting to form is one of increased independence on the part of the Klerouchs and an increasing tendency to treat the lot, not as a fiefdom from the King, but as personal property. Similarly, the Klerouchs were coming to view themselves as a landed aristocracy rather than as part of the military. Such a mentality was encouraged by the fact that very few of the Klerouchs actually worked their land, or even had any expectation of working their own land. Most of the Klerouchs leased it out to natives and collected rent for their livelihood (Lewis 32).

This trend continues and grows throughout Ptolemaic rule. Over the course of the second century it became acceptable to transfer land to a non-Klerouch – sometimes even women – who could not fulfill the military obligation attached to the lot (Lewis 35). Gradually, the connection between Klerouchy and military service was erased in favor of economic and tax production (Sage 222). In 118, the trend received validation from Ptolemy VIII Physkon who, seeking to calm the country after a civil war, passed a decree legalizing all tenure of Klerouchies, provided taxes continued to be paid. Another decree of the same year allowed lots to be ceded to new holders, and it is interesting to note the use of the word “cede” rather than “sell,” which indicates that, despite the de-militarization of the Klerouchic system, the King still held his claim to ultimate ownership of the land (Lewis 35). The transition of the Klerouchy from a form of military payment to an ancestral, aristocratic holding is a crucial point in the Ptolemaic military decline (Sage 222), although it seems entirely predictable that the soldiers, faced with a less dangerous, more profitable livelihood would gradually move toward dissolving the military aspect of their Klerouchic obligations.

The Klerouchy had many benefits as a people of Ptolemaic Egypt. The presence of the holdings, scattered throughout the country, assisted the process of integration for the new Hellenistic ruling class into the Egyptian population and, at least for a time, provided the government with inexpensive garrisons of soldiers throughout the country. Even as military service became more and more difficult to enforce, however, Klerouchs still remained a pillar of the Egyptian economy, and many of them used their lots as spring-boards into other business ventures. The previously-mentioned cavalry officer, Dryton, provides an admirable example here as well. He and his wife, Apollonia, acquired great quantities of land and resources throughout their lives together, so much so that they took up money-lending with exorbitant interest rates as an added means of income (Lewis 94). Contracts written on papyrus highlight instances of Apollonia lending money at 5% interest with a 150% penalty for defaulting on the loan (Lewis 95). In another, she charges no interest, which is an old Egyptian legal trick: the amount listed as the loan is actually the amount that is to be returned. The amount of the loan is, in fact, much smaller than the amount listed on the contract. In this instance, the the recipient of the loan appears to have been her sister (Lewis 96), however, so it is difficult to say for sure that Apollonia is actually employing this trick.

Other effects on the Egyptian cultural landscape can be seen with the influx of Greek culture that Egypt received as a result of the Macedonian conquest and the subsequent insitution of Klerouchies. Like any group of immigrants, the Hellenes sought to make themselves at home in their new land. Towns such as Philadelphia were built on the traditional hellenistic grid pattern (Lewis 26), and gymnasia, quintessential elements of Greek culture, grew prevalent in cities with large populations of Hellenes. Sadly, those of native birth were forbidden entry up until the very end of the Hellenistic period, and were denied access to enriching aspects of traditional Hellenic culture (Lewis 27). New temples showed Greek influence as well. The Greeks had synchronized their pantheon with that of the Egyptians to a certain extent, but nonetheless they continued to build temples on the Greek model and worship using traditional Greek religious practices (Lewis 26).

That is not to say that the natives were kept out of the new ruling class altogether, however. There many recorded instances of intermarriage between these two cultures, typically between a foreign male and a native female; the children of these marriages acquired the elevated legal status of their father. This trend was especially prevalent in rural areas, where it started in the lower classes and made its way up through the military ranks (Lewis 27). Dryton's family, once again provides us with a good example of assimilation. Having spent most of his early career serving just north of the very-Hellenic city of Diospolis Megale, Dryton was transfered to Pathyris, a largely-native town in the middle of the second century. Soon thereafter, he was engaged to be married to Apollonia (his wife's Greek name), who was the daughter of a local family which was probably of Egyptian descent. Such a marriage was mutually beneficial, as it allowed the groom a smooth transition into his new culture and allowed for a great deal of social climbing among the bride's family. Indeed, the extensive dowry provided by her father would have made the new couple quite prosperous, when combined with the extensive lot of land allocated to him as a cavalry officer. Elements of cultural mixing can be seen in this marriage, as it seems from the documents that Apollonia dropped all references to her Egyptian heritage and portrayed herself in legal documents as “Apollonia, a Cyrenian, daughter of Ptolemaios” (her father's Greek name)(Lewis 93). Dryton, meanwhile, seems to have written many of his later legal documents in Demotic, the cursive Egyptian script (Lewis 92), and had five daughters with his Egyptian wife. This is evidence of cultural assimilation in that the Egyptians, unlike the Greeks, were opposed to infanticide, and would not dispose of girls simply because they were to become future financial burdens(Lewis 94). Such marriages seem to have been common under the Ptolemies, and were an excellent way for the Hellenes to integrate into society in towns that lacked a sizeable population of their own people, but also provided one of the best opportunities for natives to break through the ceiling imposed on their social advancement by their foreign government.

The number of intermarriages between foreigners and natives should not be exaggerated, however, for there is just as much evidence to suggest the separation of classes (Lewis 29), and even conflicts between the two groups. At least one Klerouch from the period claimed to have been a victim of violence by the natives, including priests and acolytes (Lewis 77), while in turn, it seems from the records that some soldiers, and their descendents, enjoyed victimizing the natives. A fragment dated from around 110 BCE describes the foreign settlers of the town Berenikis Thesmophorou as having stolen forty sacred sheep from the native town of Kerkeosiris (Lewis 121).

The billeted housing for the soldiers was a particular source of tension in some instances. Even under ideal conditions, when housing is paid for by the state, the quartering of soldiers by local populations tends to create resentment. The system of billeting soldiers in Hellenistic Egypt was under less than ideal conditions, however, as the local Egyptian natives were expected to house foreigners for for free. A complaint sent to Ptolemy II on 10 August 259 BCE spoke of soldiers fighting over particularly desirable billets, and many others describe them engaging in such acts as marching into random houses and ejecting the occupants before they had even been assigned a billet. The Klerouchs sometimes went so far as to rent out or lock up their quarters while they were away. Numerous royal edicts were issued, forbidding the soldiers to occupy multiple billets or occupy more than half of the house in which they were billeted, but in spite of all this, abuses continued (Lewis 22-23). In response, it appears that the natives developed a number of tricks to discourage billeting in their houses. Some would pull in the roof to make it unfit for residence, others would wall up the doorway to make the house inaccessible or build an altar in a prominent location to disguise it as a religious sanctuary. By far the most successful technique, however, was simply to build a wall that divided the house in half, thus giving the soldier his due but maintaining privacy for the family. Even this system had its problems, however. A complaint from 222 BCE describes a situation in which the widow of a billeted soldier wanted to finish the dividing wall but the owner of the house would not let her (Lewis 23-24). Interactions between foreigners and natives seem frequently to have been the source of ethnic conflict, as the one group sought to maintain its privelidged rank, while the other sought social advancement.

Marrying into the families of Klerouchs and foreigners was far from the only means by which native Egyptians could advance in social standing, however. Few, if any of the Greeks knew Egyptian, at least at the beginning, and indeed, Kleopatra VII, the last of the Ptolemies, is known to have been the first member of her family to be fluent in Egyptian (Lewis 156). In such a multi-cultural environment, communication was essential, and so natives who knew Greek found an important niche in the day-to-day running of the kingdom. These roles were relevant in both the small town offices of the clerk and in the nome-spanning offices of the royal secretary and finance officers; the natives who spoke Greek could climb high in the ranks of the state bureaucracy. Nevertheless, they were confined to internal administration, and we know of not a single native who achieved a governorship (Lewis 29).

The second means by which natives could advance themselves was through military service. Early in the Ptolemaic era, the military was largely the province of the Greeks, Persians, Jews and Idoumaians who made up the corps of Klerouchs. In 217, Ptolemy IV Philopator was faced with a shortage of manpower in the Syrian wars. Thus, he conscripted a large force of natives and won a victory against the Seleukids at Raphia. From that point forward, all natives were candidates for military service (Sage 220). Military service gave natives a better social and economic standing as well, and allowed them to become Klerouchs in their own right. This reform also benefitted the Ptolemies, as the inclusion of native forces broadened popular support by this time (Lewis 29). Very importantly, the native troops were less expensive than mercenaries and were eager enough for the social advancement that they would accept smaller allotments than Hellenes (typically between five and thirty arouras)(Lewis 24). And as funds became tighter, this was an important factor for the Ptolemies. The admission of native Egyptians into Klerouchy did not, however, lead to an easing of tensions. The Ptolemies had to avoid offending their foreign forces, and to that end, they severely restricted the number of natives who were able to either join the cavalry or become officers (Lewis 30). Other methods were employed to enforce the division between Egyptians and foreigners as well.

The first of these methods was to designate the foreigners as members of the “colonist” (κατοικος) caste. This caste was designed to keep the two groups legally separate, but it was not long before natives managed to find their way into the colonist caste as well, and it was soon abandoned as a means of enforcing ethnic distinctions. The second, far more successful means was to enroll the soldiers in polities (my translation of πολιτευματα) by ethnicity. When a soldier was newly recruited, he was enrolled into the proper Polity for his culture, Dryton, for example, was a member of the Cretan Polity (Lewis 88), and in this way the Ptolemies could enforce a form of segregation that would satisfy their foreign contingents. The term “polity” had originally been used by Classical Greek cities to designate a body politic. In Ptolemaic Egypt, it fulfilled a similar function, as they were typically organized around the cult of a particular god; they met for the purpose of electing officers and passing decrees in the manner of a Greek assembly. They were also an efficient means by which the Ptolemies could make administrative decisions, even as they served the purpose of keeping the natives from achieving equal status (Lewis 30-31).

A large part of what makes the Hellenistic Era so fascinating is this mixing of Greek and non-Hellenic cultures that characterized the times. The Ptolemaic Empire is a prime example of this, as Greek soldiers met and engaged in cultural exchange with the native Egyptians under their rule. Conflict was inevitable, as each side had a vested interest in subverting the other, but there were positive aspects to their exchange also. In the end, while conflict remained, the two groups could not remain culturally separate forever, and the documents stand as a testament to their aculturation. Over time we see more and more documents written in Demotic, signed by more and more Egyptian names, even when the authors were members of Greek and Macedonian polities (Lewis 153). The value of the papyri, as evidence of the competition and collaboration that went on between the Klerouchs and Egyptian natives, is an incomparable source of information on the day-to-day lives of Greeks and Egyptians in the Hellenistic Period.

Annotated Bibliography
1.Sage, M. M. (1996) Warfare in Ancient Greece: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge.
2.Lewis, N. (1986) Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World Oxford: Clarendon Press
3.Clarysse, W. and D. J. Thompson (2006) Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. Volume 2: Historical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hope this is of use to the Team. -M

This is a very informative article. When you read history, it's usually about the big battles, the conquests etc yet these details about everyday life, administration problems, the class struggles and the myriad interactions between the different groups within a state, really give you a deeper understanding of the past. And it is exactly this kind of information that is hard to come by.
Fortunately, EB takes into account some of these internal "complexities" and it seems that EBII will incorporate many more to the satisfaction of us nerds :egypt:
So thanks for sharing your work with the community and I hope the Team will find it useful too.

I wish there more fans were like you Mulceber:2thumbsup:

3.Clarysse, W. and D. J. Thompson (2006) Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. Volume 2: Historical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Heh, lol I failed his course this Christmas.

Thanks guys - hope it's of use in the EB II project. :beam:

@ Moros - I can understand why - that book was really technical. Mainly just delivered up statistical analysis of tax/census records. That's why I only cited it a couple times in the paper, I was trying to get more of a qualitative picture of life in Ptolemaic Egypt. It was still useful though. -M

Nice read!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

3.Clarysse, W. and D. J. Thompson (2006) Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. Volume 2: Historical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Heh, lol I failed his course this Christmas.

---

you should have taken statistics first :jester:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

you should have taken statistics first :jester:

---

I passed that one last year 16 on 20, so no problem. Also the main reason I failed is I only had one day to learn it and as I had a more important exam before it I just chose to put all my effort in the other one. Quite sure I'll pass it in September. It's a fun professor though, not always that organised in his courses and way of work, but you can really learn from him. Good old Willy, sad that he's probably going to retire in not so far future, we're really have been losing a bunch of good professors the last and will be comming years. ~:(

Excellent post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

Excellent post.

---

Indeed, if there were only more posts like this. But well the last one who made such post became a member, hmmm oudy?
I do miss a 'the art of keeping a secret' like thread as well though. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

I passed that one last year 16 on 20, so no problem. Also the main reason I failed is I only had one day to learn it and as I had a more important exam before it I just chose to put all my effort in the other one. Quite sure I'll pass it in September. It's a fun professor though, not always that organised in his courses and way of work, but you can really learn from him. Good old Willy, sad that he's probably going to retire in not so far future, we're really have been losing a bunch of good professors the last and will be comming years. ~:(

---

Ah, I see. but seriously, a day to learn that book? It took me 3 days to learn a similar book on historical geology.

nice read :thumbsup:

Very nice little read. I am interested in the "mutation" of the nature of the klerouchy over time. I am reminded of more than one military/social institution, eg Janissaries and Strelzy, the way the financial rewards of service are transmuted into a partible inheritance.

I wonder if there's a way to build a long term "decay" into the klerouch system. Increased corruption from wealth becoming concentrated over generation? Dunno.

Just reading a little book about Imperialism Phillip II of Macedon where it mentions Athenioan klerouchs in Chalkidike, and the settlement of Phillips Hetaroi on lots in conquered Olynthus. Way too simplified to contribute anything here though but this gave a nice sidelight on what I read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

...the main reason I failed is ...(

---

not because you couldn't resist saying "hello, Clarysse" in a really creepy Anthony Hopkins voice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Ah, I see. but seriously, a day to learn that book? It took me 3 days to learn a similar book on historical geology.

---

Nah, didn't have to learn the book. I actually have never read it even.

Ok, this comes late and I really liked reading the paper, but here's a little remark. You say: "In theory, the lot was the property of the King, and once the soldier who had been given it was dead, or incapable of serving, the land would revert to the King and be given out to another Klerouch. This rarely, if ever was enforced, however."
In Sage's sourcebook you are citing is a proof that the land indeed was reverted when a klerouch died (or at least the administration tried to do so, and it doesn't sound like an irregular praxis) - you probably overlooked it. Anyway, at least up to 237/8 BC the land fell back to the king:
"Artemidorus. I have written below a copy for your information of the letter to Nicanor.
Ninth year, Phaophi 29.
To Nicanor: The cavalrymen listed below have died. Repossess their allotments for the royal
treasury.
At Boubastis, in the lochos of Epimenes, Sitalces the leader, son of…
At Theogeneis, lochos of Lacon…machus son of Sea…, captain…." (Sage, 221f.)

@Moros: Does he teach at Leuven University?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Good old Willy, sad that he's probably going to retire in not so far future, we're really have been losing a bunch of good professors the last and will be comming years. ~:(

---

Yeah all the good people are coming to Ghent :smug:
No, but seriously, Louvain has one of the best departments on Hellenistic Egypt in the world, with Clarysse being the foremost representative. Nevertheless I'm sure his replacement (if there is one, silly austerity) will be great as well.