human, agricultural and mineral. An entry from the reign of Den apparently records a census of Egypt’s population, and a regular occurrence from the early Second Dynasty onwards was the biennial cattle-count ( nwt). This operation would probably have recorded all the details of Egypt’s agricultural base, including the size and location of herds, the productive capacity of fields, and so forth. A later entry on the Palermo Stone indicates a more general assessment of the country’s wealth, referring as it does to the ‘census of gold and fields’. Government concern for economic matters is reflected in the detailed records that were kept of the height of the annual inundation, a factor which had a direct impact on agricultural yields. From the reign of Djer, nearly every year in the annals records this measurement in cubits, palms and fingers.
The following analysis of Early Dynastic administration is divided into three sections for convenience, although all three spheres of activity are closely interrelated. As the driving force behind all administrative effort, the economy and the mechanisms employed to control it are examined first. The second section considers the activities of the court which were funded by taxation of Egypt’s economic resources. In a way, economic management was simply a means to an end. The end was the ability to mount impressive projects to glorify the king and maintain the status of those around him. Inevitably, close control of the economy on a national scale required a regional approach. The administrative mechanisms introduced by the early state to exploit Egypt’s resources and facilitate efficient taxation led to the development of a system of regional administration. At various periods of Egyptian history, when the power of the central government waned and the influence of the regions increased correspondingly, the administrative divisions imposed upon the country by its early rulers were transformed into political divisions. The Early Dynastic origins of provincial administration are thus of great importance for the later history of Egypt. Moreover, they illustrate how the self- interested ambitions of the court were translated into mechanisms of authority which were to characterise pharaonic civilisation.
Personnel
The word ‘bureaucracy’ has modern connotations of unnecessary complexity and overstaffing. It is not, perhaps, an altogether inappropriate term to describe ancient Egyptian administration, since the indications are that the government apparatus was multi-faceted and employed large numbers of people, even in the Early Dynastic period. The highest office-holders were probably royal kinsmen and members of the ruling élite, the p t (Malek 1986:35). The lower ranks would have been open to persons of non-royal birth, though it is to be expected that many of the leading families of the Predynastic period retained some degree of influence in government, even after the unification of Egypt (Kemp, personal communication). The massive Early Dynastic necropolis at Helwan—which served as the burial ground for all but the highest officials of the Memphite court and comprised in excess of 10,000 graves—gives some idea of the size of the early administration (Wilkinson 1996a).
In discussing the composition of Egyptian administration at any period, it is important to be precise in our use of vocabulary, to avoid imposing on the ancient record modern distinctions which the ancient Egyptians themselves would not have recognised (Quirke, personal communication). Particular care must be taken with the use of the word ‘title’,
since there is a tendency to describe any appellation of officialdom or administrative authority as a title. Strictly speaking, the word ‘title’ should be applied only to terms which indicate rank or distinction; by contrast, most of the ‘titles’ found in the Early Dynastic sources were probably mere descriptive terms, indicating membership of the ruling élite or a particular branch of the administration. (Compare, for example, the terms ‘civil servant’ and ‘First Secretary’, both used to designate members of the present-day British administration; strictly speaking, only the latter is a title.) However, in the absence of sufficient evidence to distinguish between the two categories, the word ‘title’ is applied in the following discussion to all appellations of office, except those few terms which were clearly used as general descriptive labels. A second point to bear in mind concerns Egyptologists’ use of the term ‘ranking title’. There has been a tendency to apply this label to terms whose significance is not properly understood, suggesting that they were used solely to designate relative status within the administrative hierarchy rather than particular offices. This may be misguided, reflecting more on our own imperfect understanding of the Egyptian language than on the ancient Egyptian administrative system. ‘Titles’ are well represented on the surviving Early Dynastic administrative documents, and they even allow the management structure of some government departments to be analysed. Specific titles relating to particular duties will be discussed under their appropriate heading. Here we will restrict ourselves to the more general designations of administrative competence.
At the most basic level, all officials employed by the administration would have required a certain degree of literacy. The use of writing as a means of political control has been described as ‘the key factor in the administration of Early Dynastic Egypt’ (Shaw and Nicholson 1995:15). Moreover, the very origins of writing in Egypt can be linked to a nascent national administration. Supervision and control of the economy on a national scale required detailed accounting, which could only be achieved by means of the written record (Postgate et al. 1995). Hence, all administrators were scribes, and the designation ‘scribe’ (zh ) seems to have been borne by certain individuals whose low rank in the government did not permit them the use of a grander title but who were, none the less, members of the literate élite. A good example is Metjen’s father, Inpuemankh, who must have lived in the second-half of the Third Dynasty. He is described by two designations, z3b and zh , ‘noble, official’ and ‘scribe’ (Goedicke 1966). (The transliteration zh for ‘scribe’ is generally preferred by modern philologists; note, however, a late Second or early Third Dynasty seal-impression from the Shunet ez-Zebib which gives a phonetic spelling zš [Newberry 1909: pl. XXV.XVII].) The meaning of the first, not attested before the Third Dynasty, is not entirely clear. It probably indicated membership of the administrative class. The second term indicates Inpuemankh’s status as a literate administrator, but does not tell us any more about his actual responsibilities. The designation ‘scribe’ is first attested at the end of the First Dynasty on a private stela from Abydos dating to the reign of Semerkhet or Qaa (Petrie 1900: pl. XXXI.43). Further examples of the term occur in the reigns of Peribsen and Netjerikhet (Petrie 1901: pl. XXII.189; Lacau and Lauer 1965:60, no. 144, respectively). Other general administrative terms attested from the Early Dynastic period include ỉn -hr, ‘counsellor’ (Petrie 1900: pl. XXII.30; Emery 1958: pl. 106.4); ỉmỉ-h nt, ‘he who is at the front’ (Lacau and Lauer 1965:17, no. 23); and two connected but obscure terms from the reign of Netjerikhet, wn- and h rp wn- , perhaps meaning ‘assistant’ and ‘controller of assistants’ (Lacau and
Lauer 1959:9, 76). The designation ỉrỉ-h t, ‘functionary’, attested on sealings of Hetepsekhemwy and Nebra (Kaplony 1963, III: figs 294, 295; Dreyer 1993b: 11; Dreyer et al. 1996:72, fig. 25, pl. 14.a), appears more frequently in the form ỉrỉ-h t-nswt, ‘concerned with the king’s property’ (Weill 1908:220, 226, 256, 257–9; Junker 1939; Goedicke 1966). The precise nature of the office is not clear (for the transliteration of the title see Wood 1978:15; contra Junker 1939:70; cf. Goedicke 1966:62). The term may have designated someone with particular responsibility for palace income or property, or may simply have reflected access to the ultimate source of power.
THE ECONOMY
Two different spheres of economic administration are discernible in the Early Dynastic sources. The first involves the exploitation of Egypt’s agricultural resources, achieved by means of an organised network of royal foundations throughout the country. These land- holdings seem to have acted both as primary producers of agricultural income for the court and as collection points for the taxation levied by
the state on all production in Egypt. They were thus the structural backbone of the economic system. The second sphere was concerned with the processing of government revenue and its redistribution to the various state operations which were funded in this way. These operations were carried out by the treasury, the government department with overall responsibility for the management of the economy. We shall examine each of these two administrative spheres in turn.
Royal foundations
Ostensibly, a new royal foundation was established by each king to support his mortuary cult. Seal-impressions from the royal and élite tombs of the Early Dynastic period name many of these foundations, most of which can be linked to a particular ruler. Whilst each king seems to have established a new mortuary foundation, it is clear that the foundations of earlier kings were frequently maintained. Hence, an estate founded by Huni was maintained as late as the Fifth Dynasty, while Netjerikhet’s foundation was still recognised in the Nineteenth Dynasty. As we have seen, the surviving sources for Early Dynastic administration are undoubtedly biased, and the emphasis they give to royal foundations should be regarded with caution. None the less, royal estates clearly played an important part in the apparatus of the early state, through their primary economic role in production and collection (Helck 1954:131). The gradual increase in the number of royal foundations must have brought a larger swathe of agricultural land directly under court control. The income from these land-holdings would probably have exceeded what was required to maintain the royal cult, and any surplus could have been used to support other government activities. The ideological justification for the creation of royal foundations remained divine kingship and its central importance to Egyptian civilisation. Just as the governing Egyptians in New Kingdom Nubia used state temples as agents of economic exploitation, so in Early Dynastic Egypt the victorious kings of the First Dynasty and their successors used the royal cult in the same way (Seidlmayer 1996b: 124–6). This method of imposing effective economic management on the country is
another example of the early state’s adeptness in fashioning mechanisms of rule inextricably interwoven with ideology.
In the First and Second Dynasties, most, if not all, of the royal foundations may have been located in the Delta—where they were to form the backbone for the administration of the region as a whole—and more specifically in the western half. As well as being one of the most extensive fertile areas in Egypt, it is possible that the western Delta was less densely populated and politically developed than the eastern Delta in late Predynastic times. Hence, it may have been regarded by Egypt’s new rulers as ‘conquered territory’, ripe for annexation and economic exploitation (Wilkinson 1996b: 96). Although the deity closely associated with royal foundations on Early Dynastic sealings is Ash, in later times a local god of the western desert oases, it is unlikely that royal estates would have been located in the oases themselves (contra Helck 1954:83).
Towards the end of the Third Dynasty, royal land-holdings seem to have been distributed more widely. We may discern the beginnings of the Old Kingdom’s nome- based economic system in the distribution of the small step pyramids—markers of the royal cult—erected by Huni and his successor throughout Egypt. ‘Constructing these monuments throughout the country could have served to make explicit and intelligible the ideological background of the economic demands of the state on a local level’ (Seidlmayer 1996b: 122). Recent excavations in the vicinity of one of these small pyramids, at Elephantine, have revealed an administrative building of the Third Dynasty (Seidlmayer 1996a; 1996b: 121–2). Seal-impressions from the site indicate that the building was connected with the administration of the pr-nswt (see below), and that it employed bureaucrats with the general titles ‘scribe’ (zh ) and ‘functionary’ (ỉrỉ-h t). The pottery assemblage is noteworthy for its huge numbers of bread moulds and beer jars, indicating that the complex prepared and distributed basic rations to a large number of people. Both the architecture of the building and its associated artefacts point to an economic role, and more specifically to involvement in the administration of the royal estate. The complex was ideally located for such a role, being close to the river—for the loading and unloading of commodities—and near an area of cultivable land which may have belonged to the pr-nswt.
In addition to the pr-nswt, which seems to have supported the royal household directly, the Early Dynastic sources distinguish two different types of land-holding associated with the maintenance of the royal cult. The first type is denoted by a crenellated oval frame enclosing the name of the foundation. The second type is indicated by a rectangular enclosure with a small building in one corner which forms the hieroglyph hwt. For convenience, these two types of foundation will be referred to as domains and estates respectively (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The precise difference between the two is difficult to establish from the fragmentary sources, but there are some indications that domains and estates differed in both size and function, although both contributed income to support the royal cult and other state projects. Each domain was established by a particular king, above all to guarantee the maintenance of his mortuary cult. The oval frame probably represents the totality of the institution in question: its land, work-force and administrative apparatus. We may envisage domains as substantial, though not necessarily contiguous, areas of farming land in the Delta, each with its dependent communities and each served by its own bureaucracy. In contrast, an estate (hwt) seems to have designated a more specific institution, either a particular locality or a
foundation supplying a particular commodity. To confuse matters, the royal palace and royal tomb also seem to have been denoted by the term hwt. As the larger and more general economic foundations, it is domains that are attested more frequently in the inscriptions.
Figure 4.1 Royal domains. Names of royal foundations preserved on Early Dynastic seal-impressions from Abydos and Saqqara: (1) Hr-sh ntỉ- w (after Petrie 1901: pl. XIX.153); (2) W3 -Hr (after
Petrie 1900: pl. XVIII.5); (3) tpỉ-t-w (after Petrie 1900: pl. XXI.22); (4) Hr-tpỉ-h t (after Petrie 1901: pl. XVIII.139); (5) Hr- sb3-h t (after Petrie 1900: pl. XXVI.63);
(6) Hr- sr-h t (after Petrie 1900: pl. XXVIII.76); (7) Hr-nbw-h t (after Petrie 1900: pl. XXIX.84); (8) Hr-h -sb3 (after
Kaplony 1963, III: fig. 281); (9) wỉ3w-
ỉtỉ(?) (after Petrie 1901: pl. XXII.179);
(10) two writings of Hr-sb3-b3w (after Kaplony 1963, III: fig. 303; and Petrie 1901: pl. XXIII.200); (11) Hr-sb3-h ntỉ- pt (after Kaplony 1963, III: fig. 304). Not to same scale.
Consequently, we know rather more about the administration of domains than of estates.
Domains
The oval frames denoting royal domains were once identified as vineyards, because of the close association of one such foundation of Netjerikhet with wine production. However, it has become clear that they represent a more general type of royal land- holding—often, though by no means exclusively, associated with vineyards (Kaplony 1963, I: 123) – established to support royal activities, especially the king’s mortuary cult. It appears that each king of the Early Dynastic period founded a new domain, the name of which usually expressed an aspect of the god Horus (Kaplony 1963, I: 104).
The earliest attested domain, hr-sh ntỉ- w, ‘Horus who advances the mountain (?)’, first appears on a sealing from the reign of Djer (Petrie 1901: pl. XVI.124). It was maintained throughout the following reign under the management of the same individual (Amka), and survived into the reign of Den when it was successively the responsibility of Ankhka (Emery 1938:64, fig. 25, 1949:75, fig. 37), Medjedka (Emery 1958: pls 80–1) and Hemaka (Emery 1938:62, fig. 19, 1958: pl. 8.21). For some reason, the tomb of Merneith contained no references to hr-sh ntỉ- w, a fact which is of clear, but unknown, significance (Kaplony 1963, I: 92). A seal-impression from the reign of Djet mentions a second royal domain, W3 -hr, ‘Horus flourishes’ (Petrie 1900: pl. XVIII.5; Emery 1954:116, fig. 50). Given the striking similarity between this name and the king’s Horus na
me (W3 ), the domain was probably Djet’s own foundation, though it was maintained into the succeeding reign. Throughout its existence, W3 -hr was apparently administered by the same official, Sekhemkasedj. The regency of Merneith, early in the reign of Den, saw the foundation of two new domains. The first, tpỉ-t-w, is rarely attested (Petrie 1900: pl. XXI.22); the second, hr-tpỉ-h t, ‘Horus, first of the corporation (of gods)’ (Petrie 1900: pl. XXI.23), continued to flourish throughout Den’s majority, being administered by the high official Hemaka (for example, Petrie 1900: pl. XXV.53–6; Emery 1938:63, figs 21, 23). After the death of Den, each of his successors founded a new domain. The one established by Anedjib was called hr-sb3-h t, ‘Horus, star of the corporation’ (Petrie 1900: pl. XXVI.63; Emery 1949:95, fig. 55); Semerkhet’s foundation was named hr- sr- h t, ‘Horus, holy of the corporation’ (Petrie 1900: pl. XXVIII.76); Qaa’s domain was called hr-nbw-h t, ‘Horus, the gold one of the corporation’ (Petrie 1900: pl. XXIX.82–4;
Early Dynastic Egypt Page 17