This paper analyses the Aramaic and Egyptian (Demotic/Hieroglyphic) textual evidence related to the practice of branding slaves/servants in Late Period Egypt, ultimately concluding that the Aramaic terminology of the period refers to branding—not tattooing, as previously suggested. Aramaic documents from the Late Period in Egypt often refer to an enslaved individual being “marked”; in translation, there is the choice to be made between “branding” and “tattooing”. Aramaic and Egyptian seem to differ in the solutions they imply: Egyptian Aramaic references to slaves marked with l- (‘belonging to’) and the owner’s name seem to be too complex for a branding iron, and support the translation of ‘tattoo’, whereas Demotic Egyptian cattle sale documents indicate that certain ones are marked (wš) and provide a description of some of these marks, parallel to the modern practice of cattle branding. Although contemporary evidence is sparse, archaeological and textual pharaonic evidence—including a visual depiction of human branding and possible examples of branding irons—suggests that branding is a well-known practice by the time of the Late Period. Bearing in mind the use of branding as an indication of ownership, the evidence of tattooing as a cultic practice, and the etymology and usage of the Aramaic terms, this paper will propose that the body mutilation practiced in Egypt on slaves, and therefore a more accurate translation of the Aramaic terminology, is ‘brand’ rather than ‘tattoo’.