Kings Viziers and Courtiers. Executive P

Ancient Egyptian Administration
Edited by
Juan Carlos Moreno Garca
LEIDEN BOSTON
2013
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

CONTENTS
The Study of Ancient Egyptian Administration ........................... 1

The Organisation of a Nascent State: Egypt until the

Beginning of the 4th Dynasty ..................................................... 19
Eva-Maria Engel
The Central Administration of the Resources in the

Old Kingdom: Departments, Treasuries, Granaries and
Work Centers ................................................................................. 41
Hratch Papazian
The Territorial Administration of the Kingdom in the

3rd Millennium .............................................................................. 85
Kings, Viziers, and Courtiers: Executive Power in the Third

Millennium B.C. ............................................................................ 153
Miroslav Brta
The Administration of the Royal Funerary Complexes .............. 177

Hana Vymazalov
Balat, a Frontier Town and Its Archive ......................................... 197

Laure Pantalacci
Setting a State Anew: The Central Administration from

the End of the Old Kingdom to the End of the
Middle Kingdom ........................................................................... 215
Wolfram Grajetzki
The Royal Command (wd-nsw): A Basic Deed of

Executive Power ........................................................................... 259
Pascal Vernus

viii contents
Nomarchs and Local Potentates: The Provincial Administration

in the Middle Kingdom ................................................................ 341
Harco Willems
The Organisation of the Pharaonic Army (Old to

New Kingdom) .............................................................................. 393
Anthony Spalinger
Categorisation, Classification, and Social Reality: Administrative

Control and Interaction with the Population .......................... 479
Katalin Anna Kthay
Crisis and Restructuring of the State: From the Second

Intermediate Period to the Advent of the Ramesses .............. 521
JJ Shirley
The Rising Power of the House of Amun in the New

Kingdom ......................................................................................... 607
Ben Haring
Coping with the Army: The Military and the State in the
New Kingdom ................................................................................ 639
Andrea M. Gnirs
The Administration of Institutional Agriculture in the

New Kingdom ................................................................................ 719
Sally L.D. Katary
A Bureaucratic Challenge? Archaeology and Administration

in a Desert Environment (Second Millennium B.C.E.) .......... 785
John Coleman Darnell
The Ramesside State .......................................................................... 831

Pierre Grandet
Administration of the Deserts and Oases: First

Millennium B.C.E. ......................................................................... 901
David Klotz

contents ix
From Conquered to Conqueror: The Organization of Nubia

in the New Kingdom and the Kushite Administration
of Egypt ........................................................................................... 911
Robert Morkot
The Saite Period: The Emergence of a Mediterranean Power ...... 965

Damien Agut-Labordre
The Other Administration: Patronage, Factions, and

Informal Networks of Power in Ancient Egypt ....................... 1029
Index .................................................................................................... 1067

Kings and Queens ......................................................................... 1067
Divinities ......................................................................................... 1070
Individuals ...................................................................................... 1071
Toponyms ....................................................................................... 1078
Egyptian Words and Selected Titles .......................................... 1085
Thematic Index .............................................................................. 1090

KINGS, VIZIERS, AND COURTIERS: EXECUTIVE POWER
IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM B.C.*
Miroslav Brta**
Introduction
From a modern perspective, the evolution of ancient Egypts adminis-

tration can be viewed as a result of the appearance and growth of the
state and its inherent characteristics, which manifest its unique status,
power, and ideology through written, visual, artistic, and architectural
means. The creation of an administrative apparatus was due in large
measure to an increase in state expenseswhich were largely identical
with the expenses of the king and the royal familyand the prolifera-
tion of elites at court. In both cases, a need for representation of the
power and status of the king, his family, and the ruling class played
a fundamental role. At the same time, the growing political and eco-
nomic control of the country enabled the king to maintain his sym-
bolic position and divine status nationwide, as well as to promote and
finance his family, the court, and loyal officials. These requirements
provided the framework in which the forms and principles of ancient
Egyptian executive power and administration developed.
The development of the administration will be described in this
chapter by means of an examination of three different, yet deeply
interconnected spheres of the states principal sectors: king and king-
ship, viziers and the top central administration, and courtiers and
administrators of lower rank. Given the fact that Egypt was for most
of her existence dominated by a rural infrastructure, with only a few
full-fledged cities and centers of administration, the analyses of the
institution of kingship and of the central administration of the royal
* The preparation of this study was supported by a grant no. P405/11/1873 provided
by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic.
** I express my thanks to Nigel Strudwick, who kindly provided me with many
useful recommendations during the preparatory stage of the article.

154 miroslav brta
Residence represent basic elements that enable better understanding

of the evolution of the state and its administration.1
Research on ancient Egyptian kingship is essential for a proper
understanding of ancient Egyptian society, in which it was the
most central topic. It is thanks to the recent magisterial studies of
D. OConnor and D.P. Silverman and of J. Baines and N. Yoffee that
we better understand the role of the king and the institution of king-
ship in the Old Kingdom.2 According to Baines and Yoffee, order,
legitimacy, and wealth are best suited to characterize the major trends
in the development of ancient Egyptian society dominated by the
notion of kingship.3 The concept of order encompasses the basic char-
acteristics of the ideology of the state and its structure and serves as
a self-explanatory definition of the set of rules and norms underlying
practically all aspects of the society. Legitimacy is then the institution-
alisation of peoples acceptance of, involvement in, and contribution
towards order. Wealth emerges as a formal expression of the order
and legitimacy manifested in . . . hugely extravagant storage spaces,
both for this world and for the next.4
At the same time, we should not forget that the administration of
the ancient Egyptian state operated in a different manner from that in
which modern states administrative apparatuses do. The state in Egypt
developed out of a nuclear, segmentary system arranged in a hierarchic
1
J.J. Janssen, The Early State in Egypt, in The Early State, ed. H.J. Claessen,
P. Skalnk (The Hague, 1978), 216; J.A. Wilson, Egypt through the New Kingdom,
in City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the
Ancient Near East Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, December
47, 1958, ed. C.H. Kraeling and R. McC. Adams (Chicago, 1960), 12464. For the lat-
est overview and evidence see K.A. Bard, Royal Cities and Cult Centers, Administra-
tive Towns, and Workmens Settlements in Ancient Egypt, in The Ancient City: New
Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World, eds. J. Marcus and J.A. Sabloff
(Santa Fe, 2010), 16582. For the most essential works on administration in the Old
Kingdom consult W. Helck, Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des gyptischen
alten Reiches (Glckstadt, 1954); K. Baer, Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom: The
Structure of the Egyptian Administration in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties (Chicago,
1960); N. Strudwick, The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom: The Highest
Titles and Their Holders, (London, 1985).
2
D. OConnor and D.P. Silverman, eds., Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Leiden, 1995);
J. Baines and N. Yoffee, Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Meso-
potamia, in Archaic States, ed. G.M. Feinman and J. Marcus (Santa Fe, 1998).
3
Baines and Yoffee, Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Meso-
potamia, 235.
4
J. Baines and N. Yoffee, Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth: Setting the Terms, in
Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States, ed. J.E. Richards and M. Van Buren
(Cambridge, 2000), 1415.

kings, viziers, and courtiers 155
structure whereby individual segments were largely similar in terms of

their organization. Max Weber coined the term patrimonial household,
which still fits best what we understand as the Old Kingdom state.5
However unfounded it may seem, the most critical factor in estab-
lishing the kingship of the unified country and the basic pillar of the
central administration was a single phenomenon: the founding of
the White Walls, Memphis, at the beginning of the First Dynasty
by the legendary Menes. The first attestations of its existence are indi-
cated by the archaeological finds in North Saqqara, where the oldest
tomb dates to the reign of Hor Aha.6 This is precisely the time when the
central administration seems to have begun to develop. Based on the
available evidence, the third millennium executive system developed
in four general stages: Stage 1 (FirstThird Dynasties), Stage 2 (Fourth
Dynasty), Stage 3 (Fifth Dynasty, down to the reign of Nyuserra), and
Stage 4 (reign of Nyuserra to the end of the Sixth Dynasty).7 This divi-
sion roughly parallels the development scheme elaborated by J. Baines
for the use of writing during the third millennium B.C.8
For the sake of clarity it is indispensable to specify the group(s) of
officials that will be dealt with in the following section. By default we
may call them elite in the sense that it applies to a group or groups of
administrators that hold executive power (vested in different forms).9
These elites were primarily in charge of maintaining the order which
5
M. Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (Berke-
ley, 1978); M. Lehner, Fractal House of the Pharaoh: Ancient Egypt as a Complex
Adaptive System, a Trial Formulation, in Dynamics in Human and Primate Soci-
eties: Agent-based Modeling of Social and Spatial Processes, ed. T.A. Kohler and
G.J. Gumerman (New York, 2000), 275353. Compare also J.D. Schloen, The House
of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East
(Winona Lake, 2001).
6
J. Baines, Origins of Egyptian Kingship, in Ancient Egyptian Kingship, ed.
D. OConnor and D.P. Silverman (Leiden, 1995), 127; W.B. Emery, Great Tombs of the
First Dynasty, 3 vols. (Cairo, 1949); Emery, Archaic Egypt (Baltimore, 1962).
7
For the absolute dates I follow chronology published in E. Hornung, R. Krauss,
D. Warburton, and M. Eaton-Krauss, Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden, 2006), 490
91: Early Dynastic Period29002545 B.C. (First Dynasty 29002730, Second Dynasty
27302590, Third Dynasty 25922544 B.C.), Old Kingdomca. 25432120 B.C. (Fourth
Dynasty 25432436, Fifth Dynasty 24352306, Sixth Dynasty 23052118 B.C.).
8
J. Baines, Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2007), 99110.
Stages 3 and 4 correspond with Dynasties 5 and 6, which for the sake of his argument
Baines considers a single period.
9
J. Scott, Modes of Power and the Reconceptualisation of Elites, in Remembering
Elites, ed. M. Savage and K. Willems (Malden, 2008), 2743. On elites in ancient Egypt
specifically see Baines and Yoffee, Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt
and Mesopotamia, 199260.

156 miroslav brta
operated on the principle of maat.10 The top representative of this body

was, of course, the king. On the basis of this principle operated offices
of individual administrators and by fulfilling their duties they were
thought to be co-conquerors, together with the pharaoh, of the powers
of Chaos. This characteristic is of pivotal importance, as it occurs in
times of both state proliferation (such as the periods of the Old, Middle,
and New Kingdoms) internal decline (Intermediate Periods). The dis-
appearance of the ancient Egyptian civilization began at the moment
when the elites ceased to maintain maat as one of their primary goals.
Administration during the First, Second,

and Third Dynasties (29002544 B.C.)
The evidence for the administration during the First and Second Dynas-
ties is severely limited, as is the number of known offices and officials
for the relevant periods. The meager sources consist mainly of jar
tags, seal impressions, stele, and incipient tomb decoration, including
inscriptions starting in the late Third Dynasty.11 Exactly in this period
emerge the highest ranking titles associated with the uppermost group
of people within the state. It is logical to suppose that many incipient
structures of the future administration passed from the Predynastic
into the Early Dynastic period, undergoing certain modifications.12 Yet
we can make a clear distinction between them: from the beginning of
the First Dynasty we observe the apparent growth in numbers of the
titles held by leading officials of the period, most of them probably
relatives of the king, a phenomenon which seems to have peaked dur-
ing the Fourth Dynasty.13
Three principal groups of titles may be discerned. The first group
may be called ranking titles (Rangtitel), which were used to denote
membership in a certain social group. For instance, the titles (j)r(j) pt
or h t(j)- were used to indicate that their holders belonged to the highly
10
For this concept consult J. Assmann, Maat: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im
alten gypten (Munich, 1990).
11
P. Kaplony, Die Inschriften der gyptischen Frhzeit (A 8; Wiesbaden, 1963);
Kaplony, Die Inschriften der gyptischen Frhzeit. Supplement (A 8; Wiesbaden,
1964); I. Regulski, A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt (OLA 195; Leuven,
2010); J. Kahl, N. Kloth, and U. Zimmermann, Die Inschriften der 3. Dynastie: Eine
Bestandsaufnahme (A 56; Wiesbaden, 1995).
12
T.A.H. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt (London, 1999), 11415.
13
Janssen, The Early State in Egypt, 219.

privileged elite of the society of the day. Along the same lines may be
interpreted titles such as mjtr, smr, and h tm(w) bjtj. The functional
titles (Beauftragungstitel), on the other hand, were more descriptive
and indicated a certain duty (or group of duties) and a formalized office
executed by a specific functionary who was in charge of a number of
subordinates.14 Each such a title implied certain economic income and
it is for this reason that ancient Egyptian officials tended to accumu-
late as many state titles/functions as possible. Finally, so-called insti-
tutional titles were those that specified a particular institution (such
as overseer of the treasury).15 To these three substantial groups we
may add priestly titles, which operated on the same logic, but within
a sacral context (see the chapter by H. Vymazalov in this volume).
Yet in many ways, especially in the royal funerary context, these titles,
as well as their hierarchy, reflected the profane sphere.16 Most of them
may be classified as provisioning titles.17
Despite the meager evidence, it is still possible to suggest some ten-
tative contours of the incipient administrative structure.18 The top of
the society was represented by the king and his family (pat). The inter-
mediary between them and the rest of the population was probably the
vizier, who was originally also of a royal origin. The basic departments
of administration of the state were represented by the royal house-
hold and the Hofstaat, the treasury, which was responsible for taxa-
tion and collection of revenues, and, finally, a very simple regional/
local government of Upper and Lower Egypt and the deserts. The royal
household consisted of pr-nzwt and royal works, royal economic foun-
dations, a palace, and ceremonial matters. The treasury, with a chan-
cellor at the top, was responsible for manufacturing products for the
royal house, as well as their storage, provisioning and redistribution.19
Finally, the regional and local administration covered most parts of
the country, which was divided into individual districts and deserts.
14
W. Helck, Titel und Titulaturen, Lexikon der gyptologie VI (Wiesbaden,
1986), cols. 596601.
15
P. Andrassy, Zur Struktur der Verwaltung des Alten Reiches, ZS 118
(1991):12.
16
M. Baud, Le palais en temple. Le culte funraire des rois dAbousir, in Abusir
and Saqqara in the Year 2000, ed. M. Brta and J. Krej (Prague, 2000), 34760.
17
Helck, Titel und Titulaturen, col. 597.
18
W. Helck, Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit (A 45; Wiesbaden, 1987); Wilkin-
son, Early Dynastic Egypt, 145, fig. 4.6.
19
S. Desplancques, Linstitution du trsor en Egypte des origines la fin du Moyen
Empire (Paris, 2006), passim.

158 miroslav brta
Lower Egypt nomes were run by administrators called d-mr, Upper

Egypt by administrators called h q. Finally, desert regions were con-
trolled by officials with the title d-mr (n) zmjt.
Below the king, atop an imaginary administrative pyramid, came
members of the royal family, who were, most frequently, identical with
the highest administrators of the country, lesser officials (of non-royal
origin), scribes, priests, and other court specialists. The lower echelons
belonged then to workers, craftsmen, farmers, laborers, and servants at
the bottom of this hierarchic ladder.20 What is of essential importance
here is that despite the unquestionable symbolic dominance of Aby-
dos during the First and Second Dynasties, most of the top officials of
the state (i.e., members of the royal family) were buried in Saqqara.
According to E.C. Khler, there may even have existed a rather strict
hierarchy within the royal family whereby lesser members were buried
in Helwan and the more important members in North Saqqara.21
The tags from oil jars found in tombs of the First and Second Dynas-
ties indicate that from the very first stages of the incipient state there
existed an administrative division between Upper and Lower Egypt.
This is actually a tradition, the origins of which can be traced back
to predynastic Egypt.22 In this period the seat of the ruler was still
located in Upper Egypt, in the area of This and Hierakonpolis. It is
very likely that the king maintained several palaces scattered through-
out the country. These were built in traditional areas of concentra-
tions of power, economic and political centers of the country that had
survived from the late Predynastic period. The administrative struc-
ture, however, remained much more limited. We have evidence for an
administrative division that used seals featuring wild animals which
was probably in charge of wild game supplies. Additionally, there was
a division of scribes who were in charge of most sectors of the existing
administration. What is important is that members of the royal family
each had their own households.23
The cornerstone of the states administration was the educated
scribes. It is thus the development of scribal hierarchy that best
reflects the growing complexity of what we call the early Egyptian state
20
See E.C. Khler, Early Dynastic Society in Memphis, in Zeichen aus dem Sand:
Streiflichter aus gyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Gnter Dreyer (MENES 5), ed.
E. Engel, V. Mller, and U. Hartung (Wiesbaden, 2008), 384, fig. 2.
21
Khler, Early Dynastic Society in Memphis, 389.
22
G. Dreyer, U. Hartung, and F. Pumpenmeier, Umm el-Qaab I: Das prdynas-
tische Knigsgrab U-j und seine frhen Schriftzeugnisse (AV 86; Mainz, 1998).
23
Helck, Thinitenzeit, 212.

administration. The group of (professional) scribes was growing from

the very beginning of the unified state, if not even earlier.24 Scribes
are first attested in written sources at the end of the First Dynasty.
The evidence for a developed hierarchy of scribes dates to the Third
Dynasty, when, for instance, the title of chief of scribes is attested.
According to Baines and Eyre, only about one percent of the popula-
tion was literate.25 Based on the population estimates amounting to
100,000900,000 around 3000 B.C., the army of scribes would have
numbered in the hundreds.26 Regulski shows rather convincingly that
during the Early dynastic period only two significant centers existed:
the area of This/Abydos in the south and the White Walls in the
north. Comparing the number of scribes involved in the preparation
of labels for burial equipment of some the most important tombs of
the time, she emphasizes the pace at which the development of the
scribal community proceeded. Whereas only two scribes took part in
providing the inscriptions for the late predynastic Abydos tomb U-j,
no fewer than nine scribes are attested from mastaba S 3357 at Saqqara
(reign of Aha). Moreover, they were specialized according to region
for the products from Lower or Upper Egypt. Finally, the labels of the
inscribed stone vessels celebrating the sed festival that originate from
the Djosers complex represent the work of more than fifty scribes.
A major reform is discernible during the reign of Den. In the
archaeological record his reforms are reflected in an enormous rise in
the number of officials tombs in Saqqara and Abu Rawash. This shows
that the growing bureaucratic apparatus had reached a point where
essential reorganization was unavoidable. It is certainly significant
that the title of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt was introduced
by this ruler.27 He established his principal seat, called the Seat of
24
I. Regulski, Scribes in Early Dynastic Egypt, in Zeichen aus dem Sand: Stre-
iflichter aus gyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Gnter Dreyer (MENES 5), ed. E. Engel,
V. Mller, and U. Hartung (Wiesbaden, 2008), 581611.
25
J. Baines and Ch. Eyre, Four Notes on Literacy, Visual and Written Culture in
Ancient Egypt, ed. J. Baines (Oxford, 2007), 67.
26
K.W. Butzer, Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology
(Chicago, 1976), 83, Table 4; B. Mortensen, Change in the Settlement Pattern and
Population in the Beginning of the Historical Period, gypten und Levante 2 (1991),
1137. For the problematic nature of these estimates, however, see D. OConnor, A
Regional Population in Egypt to circa 600 B.C., in Population Growth: Anthropologi-
cal Implications, ed. B. Spooner (Cambridge, 1972), 78100.
27
P. Andrassy, Untersuchungen zum gyptischen Staat des Alten Reiches und seinen
Institutionen (Internet-Beitrge zur gyptologie und Sudanarchologie XI; Berlin,
2008), 9.

160 miroslav brta
harpooning Horus, which was probably located in Buto, and also

founded a domain the specific purpose of which was to support the
requirements of his court. This indicates that the number of persons
involved in administration of the country grew so rapidly that it called
for specific measures to be taken for purposes of their maintenance.
Beside Den, we receive information about palaces belonging to Djer
and Adjib. The references to them indicate that they played a promi-
nent role with regard to the economic and administrative aspects of
the early state. On the other hand, individual households of the royal
family members disappear in the reign of Den, as does the department
of wild game. The state becomes more sophisticatedly organized and
its administration more complex, as is indicated by various domains
called h wt. Moreover, the first attestation of the royal treasurer
(the h tmw bjtj Hemaka) comes from Dens reign.28
The inscriptional evidence from the tomb of Khasekhemwy in Aby-
dos allows us to suppose that the earliest nomes also developed in
this period.29 From the First Dynasty we also have the first attesta-
tions of the spatial division of the country into smaller economic units.
These were represented by domains and estates. The earliest domains
seem to have come into existense as early as during NIIIa2 (around
32003100 B.C.), i.e., prior to the unification of the country, as indi-
cated by the ivory tags from Abydos tomb U-j. On several of them
there appear toponyms of Buto and Bubastis, which make it clear that
the influence/dominion of the ruler Scorpion extended even to some
parts of the Delta at this time.30 During the first dynasties, domains
seem to have developed throughout the country, including the Fayum
and Delta, which were important for their agricultural potential and
the production of cattle, respectively.31 The earliest estates (called h wt)
can tentatively be dated to the mid-First Dynasty as well. These trends
28
W.B. Emery, Excavations at Saqqara: The Tomb of Hemaka (Cairo, 1938).
29
E.-M. Engel, Die Entwicklung des Systems der gyptischen Nomoi in der Frh-
zeit, MDAIK 62 (2006): 15160; see also W. Helck, Die altgyptischen Gaue (BTAVO
5; Wiesbaden, 1974).
30
Dreyer, Hartung, Punpenmeier, Umm el-Qaab I; H. Papazian, Domain of Pha-
raoh: The Structure and Components of the Economy of the Old Kingdom (PhD
dissertation, Chicago, 2005), 8993.
31
J.C. Moreno Garca, H wt et le milieu rural gyptien du IIIe millnaire: conomie,
administration et organisation territoriale (Paris, 1999).

had an immediate impact on the evolution of executive power in the

provinces, which developed differently in Upper and Lower Egypt.32
The resources for the palace and the Hofstaat of the king were chan-
neled through a treasury. The references to it shift from pr-h d to pr-dr
during the First and Second Dynasties, the reasons for the change being
far from clear. At the same time, we have quite a few attestations of
specific economic departments associated with the palace. We can thus
agree with Helck that during this period the administration of the coun-
try was far from centralisticthere was rather a palace as an economic
and administrative center of the king and his officials.33 It has been
estimated by J. Baines that the king was surrounded by a small group
of trusted officials, about six at a time, belonging to the pat. And these
pats, in turn, were served by a large group of retainers, as indicated by
many secondary burials around early North Saqqara tombs.34
As early as the First Dynasty we also observe the formation of local
elites, as indicated by the existence of several wealthy cemeteries of
the time, such as Abu Rawash, Giza, Tarkhan, Helwan (here including
even some lesser members of the royal family) and others.35
Significant changes accompanied the beginning of the Second
Dynasty and may be connected with the fact that several kings of the
period resided in Inebu-hedj, later known as Memphis. Due to this
fact most of the royal palaces disappear from our record. The estab-
lishment of a permanent seat of the central government had a signifi-
cant impact on the further evolution of administration. We observe
this process with the help of residential cemeteries, which started to
develop in the Saqqara and Abusir area from the early years of the
First Dynasty.36 The central role of the residence was solidified when
kings of the Second Dynasty set up their mortuary complexes in its
vicinity, a tradition which survived, with some modifications, down
to the end of the Old Kingdom.
The central position in administration was taken over by the
pr-nzwt, which replaced the administrative role of the palace, and jz-df,
a central provisioning institution. The existence of the last named
32
E. Pardey, Untersuchungen zur gyptischen Provinzialverwaltung bis zum Ende
des Alten Reiches (HB 1; Hildesheim, 1976), 3663.
33
W. Helck, Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Alten gypten im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend vor
Chr. (Leiden, 1975), 30.
34
Baines, Origins of Egyptian Kingship, 133.
35
Khler, Early Dynastic society in Memphis, 389.
36
W. Helck, Saqqara, Nekropolen der 1.3. Dynastie, Ld V (1984), cols. 38799.

162 miroslav brta
bureau indicates that redistribution had become a critical factor in

central administration. In the provinces there emerged many domains
and estates that became cores of local administration. The pr-nzwt
institution has been known from the mid-First Dynasty (stela of Setka,
reign of Djet).37 By the end of the Second Dynasty we can identify
House of the king with the seat of the central administration. That
registration, sealing, and redistribution were of pivotal concern from
that point on is confirmed by the appearance of pr h rj wdb, i.e., House
of the one who is over the allocations.38
Generally, it may be said that during the Early Dynastic period it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to make a precise distinction between
the administration of the royal court and that of the state. The Ten
great ones of Upper Egypt may be viewed as a surviving form of the
original nobles that helped the future king to unite the country and
whose influence was to some degree preserved in the form of a council
to the king. Yet already at this stage we discern some basic compo-
nents of administration that would later on become characteristic of
the central administration of the Old Kingdom. These include juris-
diction, administration of the countrys economy, administration of
products and grain, construction, expeditions, and the administration
of the provinces.39
The Fourth Dynasty (25432436 B.C.)
The Fourth Dynasty undoubtedly represents the apogee of third-mil-

lennium Egyptian civilization, as it was during this period that most
iconic monuments of the time came into being. At the same time it
may be considered a major transition period between the early and
later forms of kingship and administration. This period may be char-
acterized by its monumental state projects, peaking in the construction
of gigantic afterlife existence residencies and tombs of the kings, which
amply reflect the priorities of the time and likewise the priorities of
the state.40 In contrast to the prevailing opinion that equates the building
37
Andrassy, Untersuchungen, 11.
38
A.H. Gardiner, The Mansion of Life and the Master of Kings Largess, JEA 24
(1938), 84.
39
Andrassy, Zur Struktur der Verwaltung des Alten Reiches, 4, fig. 3.
40
Z. Hawass, The Programs of the Royal Funerary Complexes of the Fourth
Dynasty, in Ancient Egyptian Kingship, ed. D. OConnor and D.P. Silverman (Leiden,

of monumental constructions such as pyramids and temples of the Fourth

Dynasty rulers with state development, already in 1945 V.G. Childe
emphasized that extraordinary . . . royal tombs . . ., will be found to
belong to a single transitional stage in the development of the societies
concernedto the period when the kinship organization . . . was breaking
down to make room for a territorial State. . . .41 Surprisingly enough,
these words suit the situation very well. We may classify the Fourth
Dynasty as a last step towards a full-fledged, complex state administra-
tion as it emerged by the end of the Fourth and at the beginning of
the Fifth Dynasty.
Following the essential concept of order, legitimacy, and wealth, the
first kings of the Fourth Dynasty further elaborated and strengthened
the symbolic forms of their unique status. This was achieved by means
of their expansion of the royal titulary and by means of the develop-
ment of forms of monumental architecture.
The Fourth Dynasty is also a period for which we have compara-
tively more informative sources on the administration of the coun-
try. Yet the basic hierarchical structure remains the same for the most
part of the dynasty. The decisive group of administrators, as well as
the principal office of the vizier, were occupied by members of the
kings family. At the same time we can analyze the social positions of
a rather large (compared to the previous period) group of officials by
means of their tombs and the related inscriptional and iconographic
evidence. The elite of the Old Kingdom (FourthSixth Dynasties) was,
as in the case of all subsequent periods, literate. It has been estimated
by J. Baines and Ch. Eyre that the ruling class of the day consisted
of about 150 officials at any one time. These may be characterized by
their monumental, decorated, and inscribed tombs (the construction
of about ten of which was started each year).42
There is no doubt that the massive investments into state symbols
instigated development of the administration and taxation. It is from
this point on that we have explicit data documenting an intensive evo-
lution of the state. From the reign of Sneferu we have attested the first
1995), 22162. For this policy in detail see B. Trigger, Monumental Architecture: A
Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behavior, World Archaeology 22 (1990):
11932.
41
V.G. Childe, Directional Changes in Funerary Practices during 50,000 Years,
Man 34, (1945): 1319.
42
Baines and Eyre, Four Notes on Literacy, 6667.

164 miroslav brta
vizier with a fully-fledged titulary. The vizier was second to the king in
the state administration and was in fact the head of executive power
in the administration.43 Despite this, the evidence for the early viziers
is still relatively meager. The very first explicit attestation of this office
may be found on a seal impression from Saqqara tomb S 3504, which
dates to the end of the First Dynasty.44
Down to the end of the Fourth Dynasty this office was held exclu-
sively by royal princes.45 The principal duty was administration of the
country in all important aspects (see below); at the same time the vizier
stood at the top of the executive, played a dominant role in jurisdic-
tion, and was in charge of the temples in the country.46 From the very
beginning the vizier was also in charge of all royal works, including
the mortuary complex of the king. We are well informed about the
principal characteristics of the office of the vizier from later sources,
although the other offices of holders of the title during the Old King-
dom indicate that the situation was very similar from the beginning
of this institution.47
Diachronic analysis of the vizierial titles of the Old Kingdom
period shows rather clearly several major modifications in the defi-
nition of the office. The titles associated with the office demonstrate
that this institution also had a massive symbolic background. For fif-
teen viziersprincesof the Fourth Dynasty, the most characteristic
titles were those of h tj-, (j)r(j)-pt, smr wtj, z-nzwt, and its variants,
and h tmw bjtj. Most of the viziers also held the legal title of wr 5 (m)
pr-dh wtj; seven viziers also acted as inspectors of the palace; and six
viziers were in charge of all royal works. All this is evidence of a very
intimate relationship with the king.
Starting in the second part of the Fourth Dynasty, we discern sig-
nificant changes in many areas of society. The huge pyramid construc-
tions in Giza resulted in parsimonious policy in other spheres of the
society, such as provisioning for cults of high officials, including mem-
bers of the royal family. The tombs tended to be built on standardized
43
E. Martin-Pardey, Wesir, Wesirat, in Lexikon der gyptologie VI (Wiesbaden,
1986), cols. 122735.
44
Helck, Thinitenzeit, 218.
45
Helck, Beamtentitel, 134.
46
Martin-Pardey, Wesir, Wesirat, col. 1229.
47
G.P.F. van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New
Kingdom (London, 1988). For the Old Kingdom sources see Strudwick, Administra-
tion, 32834.

ground plans during the reign of Sneferu and Khufu, their decoration
was temporarily limited very strictly, and provisioning for their tomb
equipment and mortuary cult was downsized and economized.48
By the end of the Fourth Dynasty, it seems, the limits of the cur-
rent system of administering the country were reached. The state had
grown out of the former limited proportions and it had become almost
impossible to run it with a mere handful of officials. It was, therefore,
necessary to initiate limited changes and slowly open state positions to
officials of non-royal origin. This may be demonstrated by the inscrip-
tion of Ptahshepses, who describes how he was brought up at the royal
court (probably one of the means employed by the kings to ensure the
loyalty of future officials) and married to a royal daughter by the name
of Khamaat.49
B. Schmitz was able to show that at the end of the Fourth and at
the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty (down to the reign of Sahura) the
office of vizier had been held by several men who were not sons of the
king, but who belonged to the wider circle of the royal family. These
included officials Duaenra, Seshathotep Heti, and Babaf.50 A similar
transitional period can be attested in other spheres of the administration
as well.51 As a consequence, officials of non-royal origin took over the
administration of the country.
The Fifth Dynasty Down to the Reign of Nyuserra
It is thus only during the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties that we can discern
real proliferation of the central administration and its bureaucratic
elite.52 Whereas the Fourth Dynasty may be characterized as a period of
monuments generating power and identity, the following period may
48
Helck, Politische Gegenstze, 1926; M. Brta, Pottery Inventory and the Begin-
ning of the IVth Dynasty, GM 149 (1995): 1524; P. Der Manuelian, Slab Stelae of
the Giza Necropolis (New Haven and Philadelphia, 2003) 16769; A.M. Roth, Social
Change in the Fourth Dynasty: The Spatial Organisation of Pyramids, Tombs, and
Cemeteries, JARCE 30 (1993): 3355.
49
P. Dorman, The Biographical Inscription of Ptahshepses from Saqqara: A Newly
identified fragment, JEA 88 (2002): 95110.
50
Schmitz, Knigssohn, 166; Strudwick, Administration, 31213.
51
M. Brta, The Title Inspector of the Palace during the Egyptian Old Kingdom,
ArOr 1999/1 (1991): 1214.
52
M. Brta, Kingship during the Old Kingdom, in Experiencing PowerGener-
ating Authority: Cosmos and Politics in the Ideology of Kingship in Ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia, ed. J. Hill, P. Jones, A. Morales (Philadelphia, 2013).

166 miroslav brta
be more positively considered a standard state phase. In a sociological

sense, it is in this period that the definition of rule includes increas-
ing depersonalization of the function of the king, formalization of the
administration, and intensive integration of the country.53 At the same
time, the kingship became explicitly socially obliged, which means that
large groups of non-royal officials were involved in the administration
of the state and penetrated even its highest offices, including that of
vizier. This trend accelerated from the reign of Nyuserra on, when it
was not the king, but kinship that frequently decided ones position in
the administration hierarchy, as many prestigious offices in the state
became hereditary. This development is clearly to be connected with
the growing complexity of state administration, which was becoming
increasingly occupied with provincial administrative matters as the
territorial expansion of the state proceeded.54
With the onset of the Fifth Dynasty, dramatic change also occurred
in the definition of the office of the vizier, a result of the fact that it had
become accessible to officials of non-royal origin. The viziers ceased
to be called kings sons, yet maintained some of the most important
honorific titles, such as h tj-, smrt wtj, and to some extent also ( j)r( j)-
pt. From this point on the viziers occupied offices that were of stra-
tegic importance for the state and its maintenance and which were
not so discernible during the Fourth Dynasty (at least they are not
attested in their titulatures), such as supreme responsibility for juris-
diction, scribes, and various departments of the state archives, cen-
tral granaries, and treasury. These are (j)m( j)-r h wt wrt and ( j)m( j)-r
h wt wrt 6, (j)m(j)-r z -nzwt, (j)m(j)-r kt nbt (nt) nzwt, ( j)m( j)-r
nwty, and (j)m(j)-r prwj-h d. Quite frequently the viziers held them
all together. N. Strudwick shows clearly that they demonstrate the five
basic pillars of the state administration: jurisdiction, record keeping,
state construction of the projects, tax collection, and storage of surplus
products and redistribution.55 These principal components are explic-
itly attested in the tomb of the vizier Nebkauhor as well. Nebkauhor
provides us with a rare enumeration of the principal offices of the
53
H. Popitz, Phnomene der Macht: AutorittHerrschaftGewaltTechnik
(Tbingen, 1986), 42.
54
J.C. Moreno Garca, Lorganisation sociale de lagriculture dans lEgypte phara-
onique pendant lancien empire (26502150 avant j.-c.), JESHO 44 (2001): 41150.
55
Strudwick, Administration, 172ff.

central administration of the state, which consist of h wt-wrt, granaries,

treasury, archives and the records office.56
The viziers were then relying largely on the so-called srw-officials,
whose tasks consisted of tax collection and recruitment of the workforce
in the provinces. It is important to stress that these officials belonged to
the central administration and not to the provincial one.57 At the same
time, E. Martin-Pardey made a convincing case that the srw-officials
also played a significant role in juridical aspects of the state administra-
tion. The conclusion is that in the Old Kingdom we have more often
than not executive and legal aspects united in the same titles.58
With the onset of the Fifth Dynasty the function and importance
of provincial temples and religious foundations also became more sig-
nificant.59 It seems that by putting more explicit emphasis on temples
now distributed all over the country and their endowments, the kings
aimed at more comprehensive control of the country by means of
expansion of their political and economic control.60 A precursor of this
policy may be found in the small, symbolic pyramids set up by Snofru
at politically important sites.61 As H. Papazian pointed out in his 2005
study, the temples became an indispensable part of the states economic
and administrative structure.62 They also played a major role in main-
taining the status of the king and helped to preserve his supremacy.
With this trend came the building of new settlements, which seems to
gain in intensity starting with the reign of Userkaf.63
Hand in hand with the growing complexity of the state, some indi-
viduals managed to secure certain spheres of influence within the
administration. Currently, we are able to track this process back to
56
H. Goedicke, Die privaten Rechtsinschriften aus dem Alten Reich (Vienna, 1970),
83; E. Martin-Pardey, Richten im Alten Reich und die sr-Beamten, in Essays in Egyp-
tology in honor of Hans Goedicke, ed. B.M. Bryan and D. Lorton, (San Antonio, 1994),
158.
57
Martin-Pardey Richten im Alten Reich und die sr-Beamten, 163.
58
Ibid., 16465.
59
R. Bussmann, Die Provinztempel gyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie:
Archologie und Geschichte einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und
Provinz (Leiden, 2010), 50912.
60
For a similar conclusion see H. Papazian, The Temple of Ptah and Economic
Contacts Between the Memphite Cult Centers in The Fifth Dynasty, in 8. gyptolo-
gische Tempeltagung: Interconnections between temples. Warschau, 22.25. September
2008, ed. M. Doliska and H. Beinlich, (Wiesbaden, 2010), 13753.
61
M. Brta, Location of the Old Kingdom Pyramids in Egypt, CAJ 15 (2): 181.
62
Papazian, Domain of Pharaoh, 157.
63
Ibid., 10917.

168 miroslav brta
the time of Nyuserra. In this connection it is highly interesting to note

that the time between the final years of Menkaura and the beginning of
Nyuserras rule correspond with the average life expectancy of a high
official, as shown by Ptahshepses, who mentioned in his biographical
inscription that he started his career under Menkaura and still served
even under Nyuserra.64 Based on the latest chronological scheme, this
time span is calculated to have lasted for about forty years.65 This is
a rather short period given the importance of all the changes we can
observe in written and archaeological sources.
During the reign of Nyuserra we have also evidence indicating that
there was a tendency to favor family members for their future careers
in specific offices. Cemetery G 6000 in Giza is a classic example. Offi-
cials buried there were concerned primarily with the running of the
funerary cults of the kings buried at Giza and at Abusir. The titles of
(j)r(j)-(j)h t nzwt, wb nzwt, (j)m(j)-r pr h wt-t, z pr-mdt, ( j)m( j)-r
pr, h m-ntr H wfw, h m-ntr Sh wr , h m-ntr Nfrjrkr , and h m-ntr Njwsrr
were the most frequently occurring titles shared by Shepseskafankh,
Iymery, and Neferbauptah, father, son, and grandson, respectively.66
Similarly, sons of the Abusir vizier Ptahshsepses were also following in
the footsteps of their father, despite the fact that they were not able (with
the exception of Ptahshepses II) to reach the highest levels of adminis-
tration. Out of his seven attested sons, most of them bore the courtly
titles unique friend, lector priest, and servant of the throne and two
of them also bore the title of inspector of the palace and keeper of the
diadem. Only Ptahsepses II, however, attained the office of overseer
of Upper Egypt.67 As a last example we may cite the four generations
of the powerful family of Senedjemib Inti buried in Giza. Senedjemib
Inti, the actual founder of the dynasty, who occupied all five typi-
cal offices of the vizier, i.e., (j)m(j)-r h wt wrt 6, ( j)m( j)-r z -nzwt,
(j)m(j)-r kt nbt (nt) nzwt, (j)m(j)-r nwty, and ( j)m( j)-r prwj-h d.
64
J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest
Times to the Persian Conquest, vol. I (Chicago, 19061907), 116; Dorman, The Bio-
graphical Inscription of Ptahshepses from Saqqara, 107; N. Strudwick, Texts from The
Pyramid Age (Atlanta, 2005), 303305 [226].
65
Hornung, Krauss, Warburton, and Eaton-Krauss, Ancient Egyptian Chronology,
491.
66
K.R. Weeks and Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts Boston Expedition,
Mastabas of Cemetery G 6000: Including G 6010 (Neferbauptah); G 6020 (Iymery);
G 6030 (Ity); G 6040 (Shepseskafankh) (Boston, 1994).
67
M. Brta, Architectural Innovations in the Development of the Non-Royal Tomb
during the Reign of Nyuserra, in Structure and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient
Egyptian Architecture, ed. P. Jnosi (Vienna, 2005), 10530.

His son, Senedjemib Mehi, was also vizier, royal master builder in
both houses (i.e., in Upper and Lower Egypt), overseer of the two gra-
naries, and overseer of the scribes of royal records. Mehis younger
brother, Khnumenti, was also appointed to the office of the vizier and
his titulary was almost identical with that of Inti. Nekhebu, son of
Khnumenti, passed through most of the offices associated with the
construction works of the king and reached the peak of his career as
overseer of all works of the king. His younger brother had an almost
identical career. Finally, two sons of Nekhebu, Ptahshepses Impy and
Sabuptah Ibebi, reached the rank of a vizier and both of them were
also overseers of all works of the king. Thus we can see that within four
generations of a single family five male members reached the highest
administrative position within the state and all of them were deeply
connected to royal construction projects.68 This is probably one of the
most typical examples indicating the symptoms of a declining Egyp-
tian state.
The fact that it was the Fifth Dynasty that witnessed a clear and
intensive proliferation of titles has already been indicated by Helck.69
An excellent example is the title of (j)r(j) Nh n (n) zb, which was con-
nected to the central administration, most likely endowed with duties
of a juridical nature, and appeared only in the time of Neferirkara or
slightly later.70 Significant expansion may also be noted in the sphere
of the administration of the royal mortuary complexes and the sun
temples, which mark the major part of the history of the Fifth Dynasty.
In these particular cases, most of the titles are the priestly ones and are
strictly connected either to the cult of the deceased king or the daily
rebirth of the sun.71 The same expansion in titles may be observed in
more profane offices at the court.72
68
E. Brovarski, The Senedjemib Complex. Part 1, The Mastabas of Senedjemib Inti
(G2370), Khnumenti (G2374), and Senedjemib Mehi (G2378) (Boston, 2001), 2335,
83, 128, and 158.
69
Helck, Beamtentiteln, 2944, 10619.
70
V.G. Callender, propos the title of r Nh n n zb, in Abusir and Saqqara in the
Year 2000, ed. M. Brta and J. Krej (Prague, 2000), 36180.
71
M. Baud, Le palais en temple: Le culte funraire des rois dAbousir, in Abusir
and Saqqara in the Year 2000, ed. M. Brta and J. Krej (Prague, 2000), 34760;
M. Nuzzolo, The V Dynasty Sun Temples Personnel: An Overview of Titles and Cult
Practise through the Epigraphic Evidence, SAK 39 (2010): 289312; M. Brta, Abu
Gurob, in Encyclopedia of Ancient History, ed. R. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. Champion,
A. Erskine, and S. Huebner (Oxford, 2013).
72
See, for instance, M.A. Speidel, Die Friseure des gyptischen alten Reiches: Eine
historisch- prosopographische Untersuchung zu Amt und Titel (jr-n) (Konstanz, 1990),

170 miroslav brta
Last but not least, the fact that the state started to be run by officials
of non-royal origin caused the proliferation of a specific group of titles
beginning with the component h r(j)-st keeper of the secrets. Unlike
the Fourth Dynasty, with only eleven attestations of the title, in the
Fifth Dynasty we are aware of at least ninety-six holders of the title.73
Given its context and range of duties, it must be supposed that the title
was applied to those non-royal officials who replaced former members
of the royal family in positions for which (being members of the royal
family) this duty was a self-evident mode of behavior.
The Fifth and Sixth Dynasties were a period when a new policy of
occasional marriages of royal daughters to high, yet non-royal, officials
took place. The kings used this policy in order to secure the loyalty of
their highest officials, especially, but not exclusively, the viziers.74
The Fifth Dynasty shows an increased interest in the administra-
tion of the provinces. Evidence of the origins of provincial adminis-
tration for the periods preceding the Fifth Dynasty is very limited. In
fact, for the Fourth Dynasty the titles of Pehernefer, Netjeraperef, and
Metjen show that administrators of Upper Egyptian provinces held
the titles of sm-t, h q-spt, and (j)m(j)-r wpt, while those of Lower
Egypt consisted of d-mr, h q h wt-t, and ( j)m( j)-r wpwt.75 From the
Fifth Dynasty onwards we are far better informed about the relation-
ship between the center and the provinces. Unlike previous periods,
from the Fifth Dynasty on the provinces were administered by high
officials, who had begun to reside there despite their maintaining
strong connections with the Residence.76 The principal titles connected
with administration of the nomes were ( j)m( j)-r mnww, ( j)m( j)-r
njwwt mwt, (j)m(j)-r nzwtjw, (j)r(j)-(j)h t nzwt, h q h wt-t, ( j)m( j)-r
wpwt, and sm-t.77 Not all the nomarchs held all the titles and, as
was the case in Akhmim, sometimes there were two officials jointly
96100, for the dating of the title, or P. Piacentini, Les scribes dans la socit gyptienne
de lAncien Empire. Vol. I. Les premires dynasties: Les ncropoles Memphites (Paris,
2002), passim.
73
K.T. Rydstrm, H ry st In Charge of Secrets: The 3000-Year Evolution of a
Title, DE 28 (1994): 8689.
74
A.B. Lloyd, A.J. Spencer, and A. Khouli, Saqqra Tombs. 3, The Mastaba of Nefer-
seshemptah (London, 2008), 2.
75
H.G. Fischer, Dendera in the Third Millennium B.C., down to the Theban Domi-
nation of Upper Egypt (Locust Valley, 1968), 9.
76
Martin-Pardey, Untersuchungen zur gyptischen Provinzialverwaltung, 41108;
N. Kanawati and A. McFarlane, Akhmim in the Old Kingdom. Part I: Chronology and
Administration (Sydney, 1990), 2345.
77
Baer, Rank and title in the Old Kingdom, 275; Fischer, Dendera, 10.

administering a nome, each of them with different responsibilities:

Menuankh being responsible for the province and the local temple,
whereas Duamenu was in charge of land administration.78 In the Sixth
Dynasty the nomarchs are designated only as h r( j)-tp .79
The Late Fifth and the Sixth Dynasties
Probably as a consequence of the previous development, king Djedkara

introduced significant changes into the administration of the country.
These included a new policy towards the nomarchs, which meant that
each now became responsible exclusively for his own nome.80 At the
same time Djedkara (or perhaps even Nyuserra) founded the new office
of overseer of Upper Egypt, whose duty was to control, on behalf of
the king, regions south of Memphis.81 The title itself is indicative of
the deepening interest paid by the kings to the southern provinces and
to their administration precisely at the time when high officials of the
central administration started to reside and also (equally importantly)
to be buried there. This policy, as well as most of the administrative
reforms of the king, was simply a reaction to the new situation, in
which the centrally organized state began to experience more serious
disintegrative tendencies.82 Along the same lines we may explain the
slightly earlier appearance (starting in the reign of Neferirkara) of the
office of (j)m(j)-r zw -nzwt overseer of scribes of royal documents.83
Djedkara moreover established three administrative centers for the
control of the most economically important nomes of Upper Egypt
(10, 15, and 20). It was also in his reign that the officials start to be
buried in the provinces. Djedkara also had to fight powerful courtiers.
It is probably for this reason that we have indications that from this
time on there existed two parallel viziers, the principal one in Memphis
and the second one in the provinces.84 Based on the statistics presented
by N. Strudwick, there were some thirteen viziers buried in the
78
Kanawati and McFarlane, Akhmim, 2627.
79
Pardey, Untersuchungen zur gyptischen Provinzialverwaltung, 111.
80
Fischer, Dendera, 12.
81
Pardey, Untersuchungen zur gyptischen Provinzialverwaltung, 152.
82
N. Kanawati, Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt (Warminster, 1980).
83
Strudwick, Administration, 200201, Table 12; Andrassy, Zur Struktur der Ver-
waltung des Alten Reiches, 7.
84
Helck, Beamntentitel, 136ff.; Strudwick, Administration, 32128; E. Martin-
Pardey, Die Verwaltung im Alten Reich: Grenzen und Mglichkeiten von Untersuc-
hungen zu diesem Thema, BiOr 46 (1989): 54647.

172 miroslav brta
provinces during the late Fifth and the Sixth Dynasties. Their titulatury
was largely honorific, but also included some important administrative
titles (such as overseer of the scribes of royal documents, overseer
of Upper Egypt, overseer of the pyramid complex of the king NN),
which underscore the fact that they played an important role in the
central administration of the country.85
Djedkaras successor, Unas, temporarily reverted to a more cen-
tralized administration and no nobles from his reign are known to
have been buried in the provinces. Unas also continued the policy of
employing two viziers, although at this time both of them resided in
Memphis. In contrast to prevailing opinion, however, it now seems
that in some cases the nomarchs resided in the provinces already at
the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty.86
During the Sixth Dynasty we observe that every Egyptian king
attempted in one way or another to reform the states administra-
tion as a consequence of increased tendencies toward centralization.
Teti installed two viziers in Memphis, each with separate and specific
responsibilities in the provinces, i.e., revenues and works, respec-
tively. He also created the seat of the vizier in Upper Egypt at Edfu.
High officials began to be buried in Elephantine at the southern fron-
tier of Upper Egypt. Pepy I married, probably for political reasons
in an attempt to regain control over Upper Egypt, two daughters of
the Abydos official, Khui, and his wife, Nebet, who were to become
mothers of the future kings Merenra and Pepy II. The reign of his
successor, Merenra, is characterized by the fact that the number of
burials of nomarchs throughout Upper Egypt attests to the increasing
political and economic importance of individual nomes (nome 1Ele-
phantine, 2Edfu, 4Thebes, 5Coptos, 6Dendereh, 7Qasr
el-Sayiad, 8Abydos, 9Akhmim, 12Deir el-Gebrawi, 14Meir,
15Sheikh Said, 16Zawiyet el-Mayitin, 18Kom el-Ahmar/Sawaris,
20Deshasha).
Eventually, the last historically significant king of the Old King-
dom, Pepy II, assigned the family of Khui from Abydos the task of
holding the office of vizier and overseer of Upper Egypt. Later on,
within the years 2535 of his reign, the centralized office of overseer of
85
Strudwick, Administration, 319, Table 31.
86
A. El-Khouli and N. Kanawati, The Old Kingdom Tombs of El-Hammamiya
(Sydney, 1990), 16.

Upper Egypt was removed and the title granted to most Upper Egyp-
tian nomarchs, who become responsible for tax collection under the
supervision of the southern vizier. At Thebes and Meir Pepy II created
central granaries, and possibly a third one in Abydos. Nomarchs of
these nomes held the title overseer of the granaries. During the lat-
ter half of his reign many nomarchs combined their titles with that of
overseer of priests. The nomarchs simultaneously lost the title over-
seer of Upper Egypt. The governor of Meir became the only overseer
of Upper Egypt and the vizier of the south. As a consequence, shortly
upon the death of Pepy II the nomarchs continued to combine admin-
istrative and priestly titles and started to adopt the rank of hereditary
prince; the nomarchs of Thebes gained control over nomes 14.87
By the end of the Sixth Dynasty the provincial administrators had
lost the provisioning from the Residence and from the royal mortuary
cults (as suggested by the fact that the relevant titles were no longer
used) and were forced to secure their independent income from local
cults.88 At the same time, still during the reign of Pepy II, we have evi-
dence of an explicit disintegration of the country: from Dara (Upper
Egyptian nome 13) we are informed about a nomarch by the name of
Khui who began to put his name into a cartouche and most likely was
responsible for the defeat of the once powerful nomarch families in
nomes 8, 12, and 14 (Deir el-Gebrawi and Meir).89
In a similar fashion the disintegration proceeded in Upper Egyp-
tian nome 3 (Moalla), as indicated by the incident of bringing the
qnbt of the overseer of Upper Egypt at Abydos to Moalla in order to
confer with Ankhtifis father, Hetep.90 Yet, despite all odds, the kings
of the Eighth Dynasty were still able to exert some influence over the
southern part of the country, as shown by king Neferkauhor (reigning
shortly some forty years after Pepy II), who explicitly appointed Idy,
son of the nomarch Shemay, to the office of his father, i.e., as overseer
of Upper Egypt in charge of nomes 17.91
87
Kanawati, Governmental Reforms.
88
89
A. Kamal Bey, Fouilles Dara et Qoer El-Amarna, ASAE, 12 (1912): 132,
fig. 9; R. Weill, Dara: Campagnes de 19461948 (Cairo, 1958), 79; Kanawati and
McFarlane, Akhmim, 15152.
90
91
H. Goedicke, Knigliche Dokumente aus dem Alten Reich (A 14; Wiesbaden,
1967), 17883.

174 miroslav brta
Throughout the whole Old Kingdom we observe a growing com-

plexity of the administration. What does it mean? To illustrate this
notion we should have a closer look at the titulary of the vizier. It
has already been indicated that the office of the vizier underwent sig-
nificant changes during the Old Kingdom. Apart from different con-
cepts of the duties of the vizier in different periods, there were also
significant changes in the number of individual titles found in their
titularies. During the Fourth Dynasty the number of titles of the vizier
ranges from three to thirty-five. In the Fifth Dynasty some viziers held
up to twenty-six titles, the vizier Kai with his fifty-one attested titles
at the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty being an anomaly. At the begin-
ning of the Sixth Dynasty the number of individual titles was at its
highest: some officials such as Kagemni (fifty), Mereruka (eighty),
and Khentika Ikhekhi (fifty-three) possessed an extreme number of
titles. Typical for the critical period, all three of them reached the peak
of their career under the reign of Teti at the beginning of the Sixth
Dynasty. Shortly thereafter, however, the length of the viziers titulary
falls abruptly (frequently fewer than twenty titles) and only two viziers
of the very late Old Kingdom, Tjetju and Kanefer, possess a high num-
ber of titles (fifty-one and forty-five, respectively).
It is interesting to observe that the factors that formed the backbone
of ancient Egyptian kingship and statenamely, the growth of an elite
class of administrators, penetration of the state administration by non-
royal officials, centralization of the country and the management of
resourcesturned into crisis factors that worked together to precipi-
tate the decline of the Old Kingdom during the Sixth Dynasty (most
of the factors were already in play from the reign of Nyuserra). These
negative factors all centered around failures of the central administra-
tion and the Residence and they were as follows:
Crisis of identitythe manner in which the ruling group was

accepted;
Crisis of participationwho took part in state administration and
how;
Crisis of ability of the executive to control the states administration
and economy;
Crisis of legitimacythe authority and ability to enforce decisions
made;

Crisis of distributionthe effectiveness of the redistribution of eco-

nomic resources.92
We may add one further factor, which is the very intensive transfer of
landholdings from the state to funerary, non-taxable domains, whose
only purpose was to provide the economic base for both royal and
non-royal cults, and the creation of an army of officials involved which
led to eventual exhaustion of economic capacities of the country.93 On
a general level, power and rule had by the end of the Old Kingdom
become territorial and personal (in contrast to the situation in the
central government of the Old Kingdom state) and the state failed to
maintain the previously introduced norms and preset rules.94
It is interesting to note that it is precisely by the end of the Old
Kingdom that these factors which undoubtedly stimulated develop-
ment turned into ones that inhibited further development (these are
personalization, multiplication, and disintegration). In fact they led to
the ultimate decline of the Old Kingdom state. Chase and Chase were
able to demonstrate that it was the process during which elites usurped
many originally royal privileges that led to a crisis and disintegration.95
In fact, what we have here is not a collapse of just any kind, but a
reduction of verticality, in which the notion of centrality was under-
mined and political and administrative networks became downsized.
As a result, many local centers emerged during the First Intermediate
Period, a time characterized by a proliferation of the relevant local
material cultures.
92
H. Kaufman, The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilisations as an Organi-
sational Problem, in The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, ed. N. Yoffee
and G.L. Cowgill, (Tucson, 1988), 21935; R. Mller-Wollermann, Krisenfaktoren im
gyptischen Staat des ausgehenden Alten Reichs (Tbingen, 1986).
93
R. Gundlach, Der Pharao und sein Staat: Die Grundlegung der gyptischen Knig-
sideologie im 4. und 3. Jahrtausend (Darmstadt, 1998), 227ff.
94
Brta, Kingship during the Old Kingdom, (forthcoming).
95
Mesoamerican Elites: An archaeological Assessment, ed. D.Z. Chase and A.F.
Chase (Norman, 1992).

Kings Viziers and Courtiers. Executive P

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kings Viziers and Courtiers. Executive P

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ancient Egyptian Administration

2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

The Study of Ancient Egyptian Administration ........................... 1

The Organisation of a Nascent State: Egypt until the

The Central Administration of the Resources in the

The Territorial Administration of the Kingdom in the