1

Administration,
Pharaonic Egypt
DAVID A. WARBURTON

INTRODUCTION
There was no unified administration in Egypt,
but rather several interlocking systems of
the state and provinces, the military, the cults
of the gods, etc. The Egyptian state of the Bronze
Age evolved over two millennia, during which
time there were considerable changes: on the
one hand, the temples (see TEMPLES, PHARAONIC
EGYPT) and the army (see ARMY, PHARAONIC
EGYPT) became increasingly important, while
on the other, the importance of the provincial
aristocracy changed significantly, depending
on the power and interests of the central
government. Furthermore, individual kings
could promote favorites, altering the functions
associated with the posts (see HATSHEPSUT;
SENENMUT) or appointing friends (see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) IIII).
Hitherto scholars have attributed to the state
administration a monolithic role, controlling
the economy, arts and sciences, and the cults,
etc. Yet the reality is that the documentation is
primarily derived from the state or its dependents. Our view is thus skewed in favor of the
state, yet ironically, documents reveal that
the state had difficulties assuring deliveries for
its own most important institutions and
provide little evidence that more than a small
fraction of the population was directly related to
the state, except through taxes and corvee.
The difficulties of understanding the administration arose due to the nature of the documentation and its analysis. Study commenced
with the impression of an overwhelming role for
the state as witnessed by the pyramids and
temples. The study of the texts rapidly demonstrated that throughout Egyptian history,
administrative titles and institutions were abundant, seemingly confirming the monolithic conception of the state. The rare administrative
documents (see ABU SIR; EL-LAHUN; WILBOUR

PAPYRUS)

which throw considerable light on

the limits of the institutions have not been
studied with the same optic. Thus, despite the
evidence, the earlier stress continues to allow
scholars to project the preserved material into
an over-arching model of an administration
controlling society. In reality, the titles reflect
the prestige of the title holders (and not all of
them are state titles), while biographies and
deeds confirm the narrow range of state interests: projects and rituals. Certainly, these
required substantial material support, and this
enabled a bureaucracy to prosper. However, the
reality was far more mundane, as the documents
confirm that supplies failed to appear
betraying the image of the tomb inscriptions,
where one only hears the success stories.

GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCIAL

ADMINISTRATION
Nominally, Egypt was divided into several
different units. At the highest level was the
bipartite division into Upper and Lower Egypt
(Nile Valley and Delta, respectively). In general,
there was one official at the apex of the administration: the vizier directly answerable to
Pharaoh. At times (e.g., in the New Kingdom),
there were two viziers, one each for Upper and
Lower Egypt, but in practice, one was probably
viewed as being senior. Of nearly equal importance were the Overseers of the Royal (state)
Treasuries and Granaries.
Each of the two halves of the kingdom was
divided into units termed nomes (provinces or
districts), some with important cities. Whereas
the nomes played an important role in the
Old and Middle Kingdoms, administratively,
certain cities may have been more important
in the New Kingdom. Nomarchs were responsible for their nomes and mayors for the
cities, with the former more important in the
Middle Kingdom and the latter more important in the New Kingdom. During the Old
Kingdom, the central state administration
could dispatch Upper Egyptian officials to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,
and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 8588.
2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15015

2
assume responsibilities in the Delta. Yet the
capacity of the state to extend its dominance
was limited. On the one hand, provincial families gradually appropriated power in their own
domains, as they claimed hereditary rights to
posts. Eventually, the kings could only exercise
their authority by favoring officials and/or
families (see KINGSHIP, PHARAONIC EGYPT), rather
than exerting their will through control.
There were numerous other sub-divisions
and categories, such as foundations, domains,
khato-lands, wabet, and phylae, the roles of
which were transformed in the course of history (and confusion increases given the Egyptological tendency to use the same words to
designate institutions that had different names
in Egyptian, for example, the rnmy.t-domains
of the New Kingdom and the Hwt-domains of
the Old Kingdom are completely different).
Transfers

As noted, the performance of state projects

(construction projects, military expeditions,
the performance of rituals, creation of cult
images, jewelry, etc.) required that manpower
and materials be placed at the disposal of the
officials entrusted with the responsibility for
carrying out their projects. Most of our actual
documentation concerns such aspects of the
state administration. In general, specific institutions were associated with specific producers; there was no central organization
collecting materials due to the state and
redistributing them according to local needs.
Instead, goods collected from both individuals
and state institutions were earmarked for specific institutions, for storage or consumption;
producers need not have been located near
intended recipients, and thus logistical management was required to assure their delivery.
The central task of the state administration was
assuring that taxes paid ended up where they
should, and that workers appeared on relevant
state construction projects. In principle, this
was relatively simple, since state and temple
dependents received plots of land from which
they derived their income and paid a nominal

tax or rent to the state. Although monthly

rations are known from temple and expedition
records, with the exception of the workers at
DEIR EL-MEDINA steady annual wages are rarely
documented. Deliveries, such as obelisks and
grain, dominated the concerns of the institutions, but these were relatively insignificant as
part of the overall economy which was not
the concern of the state.
Logistical management assured grain for
workers on expeditions in the deserts; accounting kept track of obligations and those temples and temple dependents exempted from
taxation; the annual inundation could cause
havoc with markers in the fields; some fields
would not be touched by the inundation; boats
had to be constructed to transport obelisks, etc.
Justice and laws

Such difficulties demanded reliable and energetic bureaucrats: it is hardly surprising that
even for major state institutions, deliveries
rarely met expectations. Furthermore, the provisions of the Decree of Horemhab (Kruchten
1980) and the Nauri Decree (David 2006)
demonstrate that officials would frequently
abuse their powers. Beyond carelessness and
abuse of office, the Tomb Robbery Papyri (see
THEBES, WEST) and other sources (Demaree
2006) demonstrate that official dishonesty and
corruption added to such complications, meaning that supervision was required to assure that
the system functioned correctly. In general, the
officials in office would be expected to take care
of complaints and rectify errors; only exceptionally would officials be delegated as magistrates
to investigate or judge misbehavior (see LAW,
PHARAONIC EGYPT). The only real checks on irregularities were that: (1) the king and the highest
officials might punish misbehavior which
touched their interests; and (2) the system
would break down if officials were totally
unreliable. There were laws, but these are not
cited in judicial proceedings, which appear to
have been resolved by establishing the facts and
relating these to principles rather than precedent
or law. Thus, the exercise of justice was a matter
of official pragmatics and principles rather than

3
law; there was no independent legal system and
the magistrates were ordinary officials.
Study of the administration

Hitherto scholars have compounded the difficulties of understanding the role of the administration by identifying all titles as state titles and
by projecting state activity into all domains of
the economy and arts, etc. However, the documentation clearly reveals the limits of state
interests and the inability of the bureaucracy to
meet even these limited demands. Furthermore,
state and private documentation clearly confirms the limited role of the state and the larger
nature of the economy (Warburton 2007).

the Middle Kingdom, a series of forts was

established along the frontiers facing the
Levant and along the Nile in Nubia, requiring
permanently stationed troops and officers.
During the New Kingdom, aggressive military
campaigning in Syria required an officer corps
as the skeleton of what was effectively a militia
army (since the soldiers were effectively farmers
who tended the fields from which they received
their income). The growth of the army was not
matched by the emergence of a corresponding
bureaucracy, and thus the requirements of the
military were met through the civil administration, meaning that the military assumed an
increasingly important role in the state administration by the end of the 18th Dynasty.

OFFICIALS
TEMPLES
The growth of the administration is traced
through chains of titles or autobiographies.
A private stele with numerous titles reveals
that by the end of the 1st Dynasty, a single
official in the capital served gods and palace.
Metjen (beginning Old Kingdom) reveals that
provincial administration was staffed by officials named by the state. The autobiography of
Weni (see ABYDOS, EGYPT) shows that towards
the end of the Old Kingdom, individual officials
could perform military, judicial, administrative,
and expeditionary functions. Khnumhotep (see
BENI HASAN) confirms that during the Middle
Kingdom, the provincial aristocracy managed
to secure royal recognition for the inheritance
of the highest provincial positions.
Rekhmire (see THEBES, WEST) demonstrates
that in the early New Kingdom, even the post
of vizier was maintained by a family; later favorites were advanced; in general, military officials
advanced through the ranks, and could even
end their careers in the highest priestly offices.

MILITARY
During the Old Kingdom, warfare was
conducted on an ad hoc basis, with officials
delegated to lead expeditionary forces. During

During the Old Kingdom, the kings created

temples for themselves and equipped the temples of provincial gods. Since the beginning of
the Middle Kingdom, the state supported
the construction of stone temples for the
gods throughout the land, and this led to the
emergence of clergies independent of the kings.
Cult images, rituals, and offerings had to be
organized. In general, ordinary priests were
farmers and local state officials responsible for
the priesthoods of provincial temples; most
such temples were supplied locally. However,
during the New Kingdom, kings appointed the
high priests of the most important gods; such
temples had their own state support, and likewise merited the attention of the vizier.

SUMMARY
The main function of the bureaucracy was assuring that the needs of the state were satisfied by
seeing that taxes were paid, rituals performed,
temples built, palaces staffed and maintained,
soldiers trained, etc. By assuring that landed
property was recognized and bureaucratic zeal
rewarded, civil servants could prosper. In practice, performance was rarely optimal, yet under

4
strong kings (when the state was unified),
requirements were satisfied so long as the officials perceived that their own interests coincided
with those of the state and the people.
SEE ALSO: Accounting, Egyptian; Economy,
Pharaonic; Land and landholding, Pharaonic
Egypt; Taxation, Pharaonic Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Baer, K. (1960) Rank and title in the Old Kingdom.
Chicago.
Boorne, G. P. F. van den (1988) The duties of the
Vizier. London.
David, A. (2006) Syntactic and lexico-semantic
aspects of the legal register in the Ramesside royal
decrees. Wiesbaden.
Demaree, R. (2006) The Bankes late Ramesside
papyri. London.
Gnirs, A. M. (1996) Militar und Gesellschaft.
Heidelberg.
Godecken, K. B. (1982) Metjen. Lexikon der
gyptologie, vol. 4: 11820. Wiesbaden.
A
Grajetzki, W. (2000) Die hochsten Beamten der
agyptischen Zentralverwaltung zur Zeit des
Mittleren Reiches. Berlin.
Gundlach, R. and Klug, A., eds. (2006) Der
agyptische Hof des Neuen Reiches: Seine
Gesellschaft und Kultur. Wiesbaden.

Kanawati, N. (1980) Governmental reforms in Old

Kingdom Egypt. Warminster.
Kemp, B. J. (2006) Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a
civilisation. London.
Kruchten, J.-M. (1980) Le Decret dHoremhab.
Brussels.
Leprohon, R. J. (1979) Some remarks on the
administrative department (waret) of the Late
Middle Kingdom. Journal of the Society for the
Study of Egyptian Antiquities 10: 16171.
Martin, G. (1971) Egyptian administration and
private name seals. Oxford.
Posener-Krieger, P. (1979) Les Papyrus dAbousir
et leconomie des temples funeraires de lAncien
Empire. In E. Lipinski, ed., State and Temple
economy in the ancient Near East, vol. 1: 13351.
Louvain.
Quirke, S. (1990) The administration of Egypt in
the Late Middle Kingdom. New Malden, UK.
Strudwick, N. (1985) The administration of Egypt
in the Old Kingdom. London.
Warburton, D. A. (2007) Texts, translation,
lexicography, and society: a brief note. Lingua
Aegyptia 15: 26379.
Ward, W. (1982) Index of Egyptian administrative
and religious titles of the Middle Kingdom.
Beirut.
Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1999) Early dynastic Egypt.
London.
Wilkinson, T. A. H. (2007) The Egyptian world.
London.