JEANETTE A. WAKIN

LABOR--IN THE

ANCIENT NEAR EAST

EDITED BY

MARVIN A. POWELL

3 S 3 Y /I%-? J Knbenhavns Universitet

CARSTEN NIEBUHR INSTITUT &a afd.

AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY

NEW HAVEN, - CONNECTICUT

1987

Work and the Organisation of Work in the Old Kingdom

Christopher J. Eyre

University of Liverpool

1 Zntroductzon: Studies, Sources, and Problems The immediate impression created on the mind of the visitor to Egypt, and moreover the first reaction of the scholar concerned with that country, has always been that Egypt is different. In the words of Herodotus [II.35]: "The Egyptians, in agreement with their climate, which is unlike any other, and with the river, which shows a nature different from all other rivers, established for themselves manners and customs in a way opposlte to other men in almost all matters." The result has been a distrust of the usefulness of analogy or general theory in the study of Egypt, a preference for the solid merlt of collection and detailed analysis of basic data over general writing of any sort [Redford in Weeks 1979:3-61. Egyptologists have also tended to be more concerned w ~ t h the preserved material itself than with techniques for its study, so that modern archaeological and geographical methodology has been less used than ~t might for historiographical purposes [Trigger 1974-1975; Butzer 19761, and anthropological comparisons hardly at all [Morenz 1969; O'Connor 19741975; Trigger In Weeks 19791. Attempts to set Egypt~an history and society into universal patterns of historical and social develop- ment have not been successful [Helck 1959:l-2; Schenkel1978, Einleitung; Gutgesell 19831. The current basic economic history [Helck 19751 must still be regarded as a pioneering work, and a modern social history of -Egypt remains to be written [Pirenne 1932-1935 must be used with caution; Trigger et al. 1983 makes a beginning]. The basic sources for descriptions of social life [Erman and Ranke 1923; Kees 19331 have traditionally been literary and pictorial, especially using tomb decoration [Klebs 1915; Wreszinski 1923-1942; Vandier 1952-19781, because the quantity of documentary material is limited, especially for the earliest period of Egyptian history, the Old Kingdom (Dynasties I-VIII, c. 3000-2150 BC), and archaeolog~cal work or analysis has rarely been of a helpful nature [note Davis 1983; Trigger et al. 19831.

The few surviving papyri of this perlod [Posener-Krikger n.d..25-351 include no literary works. The most important are the Abusir papyri, part of the archives of the local pyramid temples of the Fifth Dynasty [Posener-Krikger and de Cenival 1968; Posener-KriBger 1976,1983; Verner 19761, and an unpublished group from Gebelein [Posener-KriCger 19751, probably from the administration of a large estate of the Fifth Dynasty. Other letters [Baer 1966:l-21 and documents [Posener-KriBger 19801 are isolated finds. A small number of legal texts inscribed in private tombs, usually concerning the endowment of funerary foundations [Goedicke 19701, provide a valuable additional source. Narrative mscriptlons of any sort are rare in the Old

6 Labor zn the Anczent Near East

Kingdom [Goedicke n.d.:15-241. Circumstantial personal detal only beglns to appear In tomb inscriptions of the Fifth Dynasty, wlth the first developments towards truly autoblograph~cal texts. Official lnscrlptlons are rare, and never narrative. A small number of commemorative stelae and graffiti provide useful records of quarrying, mining and military expeditions [Goyon n.d.: 193-2051, but more important are a number of royal decrees, issued to protect the revenues and personnel of religious foundations from taxatlon and service. With two mmor exceptions they date to Dynasties VI-VIII [Goedicke 19671.

The poor preservation of documents is all the more to be regretted In that Old Kingdom Egypt was highly bureaucratised, and the key to office was evidently literacy [Bames 1983; Baines and Eyre 19831. Documentary forms were standardised [Helck 1974bl. Registration of people and property was carefully organised for the sake of taxat~on [Helck 1975:44,100,104]. A document or charter CC. Baer 1966:6; Theodorides 1973:78 n.83; Menu and Haran 1974: 134-140; Posener-Krikger 1976:479] was necessary to carry out legal actions and to mantan rights over people, servlces or property [Urk. I, 211,ll; 171,2]. Land might be held specifically under a "document of the king" [Urk. I, 2,11; 4,15-16 = Goedicke 1970:18]. "Scribes of the kmg's document" [Helck 1954:71-72; Fischer 1960:5-61 were responsible for the royal documents or royal decrees, wrltten to set formulas and wlth royal seal [Helck 1974b; Goedicke 1964:32-371, that formed the essentlal instruments of admmlstratlon, ultimately under the authority of the vizier [Strudwick 1985:199-2161. Yet only the remalns of the Abuslr archwe give a true lmpresslon of the Immense mass of records, registers, lists, accounts, letters and authorlsatlons typlcal of Old Kingdom administration [Posener-Krikger and de Cenival1968:xiii-xv; Posener-Krikger 19831.

The scope for grammatical analysls of textual materlal of the Old Kingdom is not less than for later periods [Edel1955/ 19641, but orthographlcal conventions were still developing, writings of words and phrases were extremely concise, phraseology- standardised [Edel1944], and the range of subject matter limited, so that translations [Roccatl 19821 tend to appear stilted, and the precise meamng of even common expressions 1s sometimes unclear. Moreover, the long strlngs of titles that form the major part of tomb inscriptions are preserved in almost too great a profusion [Baer 1960:160 estimates 1600-i-1. The analysls and translation of these titles [Helck 1954: Strudwlck 19851, as well as their association into serles maklng up mdivldual careers [Baer 1960:35-38; de Cenival 1975; Strudwlck 1985:172-1741, are necessary to understanding the administration and social organlsation of the period. However, specific functions can be attached to relatively few tltles; many seem rather to have carried rank, m the sense of gradations of wealth and generalised authority [Helck 1954: 11 1-1 19, 1975: 126-127; pace Baer 1960:2-81. Moreover, the range of tltles used and the status of indivldual titles changed constantly. A wide variety of epithets were added to standard titles, but these might be omitted completely for convenience or lack of space, and they cannot always be taken to Indicate a significant difference of function.

The "difference" of Egypt is most strikmgly illustrated by the fact that ~t has been described as a c~vilisatlon without cities, wlth a resulting difference in economlc and social development from the rest of the Near East [Helck 1975:18-30, 107-109;

EYRE: Work zn the Old Kingdom 7

Trigger et al. 1983:50, 96-1031. Thls tends to be overstated. As elsewhere, the provlnclal centres-nome capitals-seem t x ~ have developed as walled towns at the end of the prehistoric perlod [Kemp 1977; Bietak In Weeks 1979; Helck and Otto 1984:1233-12371, but by the hlstorlcal perlod they were without the self-contamed, local politlcal structures of the clty-state. At the height of the Old Kingdom, "the residence" seems to have been the only centre of real politlcal importance. Archaeologlcal information on domestlc architecture 1s scanty, and much comes from the necropolis, ~n the form of tomb archrtecture or the houses of people attached to mortuary temples [Badawy 19541. Furthermore, the only substantial temple remans from the Old Kingdom are closely connected wlth the person and mortuary cult of the kings, their pyramid temples and sun temples. Thls does not seem to be mere chance. Other temples were probably small, Insignificant as economic units until qulte late m the Old Kingdom [Freier 1976:5,29-32; Helck 1959:18-19; 1975:42-44,52-55; Goedicke in Lipidski 1979:113-131; Posener-KriCger ~n Lipidski 1979:133-1511. The mam sources of informatlon about the Old Kingdom therefore lie in the necropolis, the pyramlds of the klngs and the tombs of thelr officials [for an estimate of the economlc welght of necropolis activity, see Posener- Krikger 1976:638-391. Yet so few tombs have been published m a fully scientific way, if at all, that the preclse dating of even the most important tombs, and therefore the careers of their owners, is often an intractable problem [Strudwlck 1985:part I]. Therefore statlstlcal methods of comparison [Trigger 1974-1975:102; Kanawati 19771, although providing an overall plcture of historical development, cannot always be relied on for detailed reconstructions. ,

The materlal remans themselves and the depictions of workmen in the tomb decoration provide considerable materlal for the study of technology [Clarke and Engelbach 1930; Smith 1949:105-110,244-272; Drenkhahn 1976:2-3,134; Arnold 19761, but less for the organlsatiqn of work. The building workforces have left little more than occasional masons' marks on blocks of stone to wltness their organisatlon. The depictlons m the tombs are so formalised, so lacking m architectural detail, and wlth such restricted narrative continuity, that ~t 1s unsafe to draw conclusions from thelr layout about, for mstance, the division of labour In the manufacturing processes illustrated [Drenkhahn l976:6l, 121-127,156-1581. Nevertheless, these depictlons, the texts attached to them, and the lnscriptlons of the tomb owners, then strings of tltles and the meagre informatlon about thelr lives, are the essentlal basls for the study of social and economic organisatlon. Moreover, pyramids and tombs are the most obvious result of labour in Old Kingdom Egypt, and an examination of thelr building, ~ t s motivation, organlsatlon and financmg, 1s the most obvlous approach to the subject.

2 Royal Projects The orlgins of the state In Egypt [Janssen 1978; Atzler 1981; Trigger et al. 1983:44-511 are shrouded in mystery. Nothmg is known about politlcal and social organlsatlon before "unificatlon" at the beglnnlng of the First Dynasty. Llttle can be sad, 1x1 the present context, about the first two dynasties. Inscrlptlonal or textual materlal is scarce, mostly m the form of labels, seals and dockets, the reading and analysis of whlch [Kaplony 1963-196k Helck 1975:esp. 18-33] are often

8 Labor in the Anczent Near East EYRE: Work m the Old Kingdom 9

speculative. The few preserved buildings are funerary. Preserved tomb goods show that already high, but continually developmg, standards of craftsmanship in the use of wood, ivory, copper and stone were available to the hlghest stratum of soclety [Kaplony 1966:105-1081. Additionally the contents and siting of a few recognisable craftsmen's graves allow limlted speculation about their status, the growth of thelr importance, and their increasmg specialisation. Conclus~ons about thelr organlsation and the mode of distribution of their produce must be speculatwe [Dam 1983; Trlgger et al. 1983:34,63-41, but the status of craftsmen seems to have been espeaally high ~n thls penod [Baines 1983:594 11.141.

The relgn of Djoser, at the beginning of the Third Dynasty marks an important stage of development. Advances m technlcal expertise can be traced ~n the widenmg use of building stone in monuments of the first two dynasties, but Djoser's Step Pyramid at Saqqara is the world's first massive stone monument. The moderate slze of the stone blocks, the manner of then laymg, and the imitation in stone of architectural forms derived from trees, plants, and mud-brick show the experimental nature of the work in some respects, but also demonstrate a hlgh level of technical skill. Yet ~t is the sudden change in scale that 1s most impressive, together presumably wlth new organlsational needs for the adminlstratlon of a mass workforce. These may be connected wlth contemporary developments m the use of writing for administrative purposes and the emergence of a genuine bureaucracy [Helck 1975:32- 35; Martin-Pardey 1974:29-311. Manetho's record of this relgn (the text is emended) attributed medical skill, the mventlon of building with hewn stone, and developments in wrlting to Imhotep, the later deified sage, usually regarded as the genlus behind the Step Pyramid. His name, and probably that of a master sculptor, were carved on the base of a royal statue from the pyramid complex [Gunn 1926:190-1961. There is, however, no useful information about the work organlsation there [but see Gunn 1926:197-2021. Contemporary textual matend is sparse, even. the largest private tombs usually being unmscribed;atl-d-knoW1gddgE of society-in theThird Dynasty 1s correspondingly slight. y % + -

The Old Kingdom has typically been characterised as the Pyramid Age. The size of the great pyramlds of the Fourth Dynasty and the efforts in labour, organisation and finance required to build them have alwaysseemed overwhelmng. Even ignoring mysterious and romantlc explanations of their purpose and construction [cf. Lauer 1974; Goyon 19771, the natural reactlon that nobody wouid be willing to labour at something so huge and essentially pointless as the Great Pyramid has tended to conjure up images of huge gangs of straining slaves, whipped to m~serable and pointless labour. Among Classical wnters, Aristotle [Politics 1313 b 211 implies that the policy underlying the building of the pyramids was to keep the people hard at work, too busy to conspire against the king. Herodotus [II.!24-1291 tells that Cheops and Chephren brought evil on the country, closing the temples and forclng the Egyptians to work for them, whereas Mycermus (owner of the much smaller third pyramid) reopened the temples and allowed the people to return to thelr own business. Diodorus [I.64] tells that the two greatest pyramlds could not be used for the burials of their owners because the populace, after so much suffering, would have broken In and revenged themselves on the royal corpses. It IS clear that the pyramids

early developed their own mythology for the benefit of tourists, though the tradition that Cheops was a tyrant goes b a ~ k atkast to the beglnnmg of the New Kingdom [Posener 1956: 10-131.

An understanding of the economic and social significance of pyramid and tomb building and endowment [Trigger et al. 1983:85-921 is obv~ously central to describing Old Kingdom soclety. However, complex problems arlse when attempts are made to draw soc~al-historical conclusions from variations in the size and technlcal quality of pyramlds and from their relationships, in size and situation, to contemporary private tombs [O'Connor 1974-19751. Pyramld slze reached and passed its peak early in the Fourth Dynasty; the smaller pyramids of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, which do not vary much m size [Edwards 1985:284-2851, have more complex and hlghly decorated temples. At the same tlme the quantity of decoration in private tombs expanded rapidly. Such changes may perhaps reflect a decline in the use of mass gangs of corvee workers for the movement of stone, and an expansion m the numbers of permanently employed craftsmen. The grandeur of a private tomb is likely to reflect the rank of its owner [Kanawatl 19771, although correlations are never absolute and it is not possible to specify the rank at whlch a person might obtain a tomb. The cemeteries at Giza seem to Indicate a centralised overall planning, a town of tombs lad out in streets and quarters around the Cheops pyramid [Reisner 1942, Chapter V]. Yet this impression of absolute royal control is not completely reliable [Helck 1956a:63]. The building history of the major sectors is complex, continuing beyond the reign of Cheops, and the slze and position of tombs IS not related entlrely to status [O'Connor 1974-1975:19-221. Most important, the west cemetery seems to have,contained the tombs of the chef builders of the pyramld, surrounded by those of their families and staffs [Helck 1956bl. Men mvolved m works or personal servlce of the king were often more fortunate m their tomb provlslon. Varlatlons in the relationship between a pyramid and the contemporary prlvate tombs were erratic, as was the gradual . development of provincial cemeteries later I n the Old Kingdom. The complex variations in royal attitudes and policies, as well as the development of the Independence of the officials from the crown reflected in these changes, are not fully understood [Kanawatl 1980: Strudwlck 19851.

Despite the shortage of reliable information, there is no lack of modern descriptions of how apyramid was built [Grinsell 1947:51-83; Edwards 1985, chapter 8 and bibliography; Kozidskl 1969; Garde-Hansen 1974; Goyon 1977; Arnold 1981; Helck and Otto 1984:l-41. The technical processes are known only in outline. Clear archaeolog~cal evldence is not available for the type of ramps used to drag the stone up the pyramid [Clarke and Engelbach 1930:91-94; Garde-Hansen 1974; Goyon 1977:66-7,230-233; but see Edwards 1985:257-260,267-268; Arnold 19811, or for the slipways [but see Chevrier 1975:29-301 used for dragging the stone overland [Chevrier 1970:19-25; Grinsell 1947:64; Clarke and Engelbach 1930:20,23]. Calcula- tlons can indicate the force necessary to move blocks of stone [Goyon 1977:123- 127,291-292; Garde-Hansen 19741, and general remarks can be made about the necessary ordering of the work [Edwards 1985:241-271; Kozi6skl 19691, but these must depend on presumptions about basic data that cannot be substantiated. Questions of timing and plannmg, of work organlsatlon and control on site, of

10 Labor m the Anczent Near East

recruitment, and of the housing and payment of the workforce are largely subjects for conjecture. According to Herodotus [II.l24-1251 100,000 workmen (at a time?), according to Diodorus [I.63] 360,000, took 20 years to build the Great Pyramid. The guesses of their informants seem as reliable as those of modern commentators. No contemporary evidence provides a sound basis for the discussion of these figures [but see Edwards 1985:270-2711. In the end, all speculation about the organisation and the social-economic effects of the massive efforts involved depends solely on the certainty that the monuments exist, built within the limited time-span of particular reigns, with the limited available technology, manpower, and organisational structures.

2.1 Stone Quarrytng Stone for building came from two sources. For the cores of buildings poor quality stone from local quarries was used. The remains of such quarries are impressive, allowing the technical details of their working to be studied [Reisner 1931:69-71; HGlscher 191233, Abb.19; Clarke and Engelbach 1930, fig.131, but there is no documentary evidence about their use. High quality stone, for statues, stelae, sarcophagi, casing blocks and architectural elements, came only from a limited number of quarries [Helck and Otto 19841276-12831. The most important were the limestone quarries of Tura El-Masara [Clarke and Engelbach 1930:1222].i These are now inaccessible, but it is clear that traces of Old Kingdom activity had already been destroyed by later working in antiquity.

The most detailed source of information about work organisation is provided by inscriptions left by men working the distant quarrles and mnes, especially the turquoise mines in Sinai [Gardiner, Peet and Cerny 1952; 19551, the quarries of the Wadi Hammamat [Couyat and Montet 1912; Goyon 19571, and the quarries of Hatnub [Anthes 19281. As in the granite quarnes of Aswan and the diorite quarries of Lower Nubia [Engelbach 1933; 19381, they were worked by expeditions sent specially by the king, not by men regularly employed there. The earliest records left in Sinai simply depct the-k~ng-strilnng down.fweigners. Later more detailed records were often entitled "the royal_commisslon, carried out by so-and-so" [Vallogia 1976:21-22;pace Goedicke 1964:39-411. In general terms these expeditions cannot be distinguished from other missions abroad, trading or military.

In a few examples-the leader of a quarrying expedition bore the title jmj-r mF, "general" [Gardiner, Peet and Cerny 1955:14-16; Couyat and Montet 1912, no.206; Goyon 1957, no.23; Gardiner 1927; Faulkner 1953:33-341. mSC, "army", although determined by signs of armed men, and used to refer to fortress garrisons [Fischer 1959:260-2651, was also used of "expeditionary forces," to the quarries for Instance [Urk. I, 107,9-11; Fischer 1959:268-2691. As head of a quarrying expedition such a general might also be entitled "overseer of quarrymen7" [Couyat and Montet 1912, nos.35,95]. Normally, however, it was not a "detachment @st) of army" [Urk. I, 134,17, a trading expedition], but a "detachment of (boat's) crews" [Urk. I, 99,13; Anthes 1928, Gr. 3: Gardiner 19271 that was led to the quarries. Apart from the "generals" and rarely a royal master builder [mdh nsw qd: Couyat and Montet 1912, nos.61,107; Goyon 1957, no. 211, the leading personnel of the expeditions had naval connections [Helck 1975:127-1281. Many expeditions were led by a "god's treasurer" (s&wty nlr, the normal tltle of Middle Kingdom expedition leaders). Though

EYRE: Work m the Old Kingdom 11

apparently afinancial title, it was frequently connected with that of boat captain, and with the navy. Boat captans thernselvgssometimes led expeditions [Gardiner, Peet and Cerny 1955:13], although they normally served in the highest subordinate positions.

2.2 Organzsatzon of Transport The very geography of Egypt made the transport of materials inconceivable except by boat. Neither the desert nor the regularly inundated cultivable land were suitable for road building or the use of the wheel. The donkey and the ox were the only beasts of burden known. The ownership of a boat, or access to the use of one, was therefore of vital importance to all [Helck 1975:6,160; Edel 1944:41-421. A variety of transport boats are shown on the walls of the tombs [Vandier 1952-1978, V, 659-8861, usually those transporting goods, food and animals, not those brmging stone from the quarries [Clarke and Engelbach 1930:34- 45; Chevrier 1970:25-331. Exceptionally, Snedjemib Inty showed [Lepslus 1849-1858, 11, 76e] his sarcophagus and its lid being brought from Tura in a great &-boat named The Might (? pht) of (King) Isesi. The responsible officers in the boat were labelled: captain, overseer of ten, director ( s h a of [the boat], and over[seer] of sb3 [see Posener-Krikger 1976:576]. This sarcophagus was brought to Giza in 5 (or 7?) days [Urk. I, 66,5-91. Finer depictions from the Unas causeway show boats carrying granite columns of up to 20 cubits height (c. 10.5 m.), already loaded on their transport sledges, from the quarries at Aswan [Goyon 1971bl. A fragmentary inscription [Fischer 19751 records that the responsible official performed this, or a similar job within 7 days, was praised (hsj) by the king, and spent 4 days "in transit7" (m 5mt m jjt). The 7 days would be a remarkably fast time for the roughly 580 miles from Aswan to Memphis [Goyon 1971b:30-311. The 4 days "going and coming" are obscure. This official was probably responsible only for transport, not for the extraction of the ston$.

Expedition leaders sometimes (presumably as special achievements) recorded thatthey built their own transport boats, and texts from the quarries themselves sometimes refer to boat building [Anthes 1928, Gr. 1 and 31. On an expedition to Hatnub, Wen1 said [Urk. I, 108,4-61 that he brought down the stone from the quarries in 17 days, and also "made a wsbt-boat from accacia wood, of 60 cubits length and 30 cubits width, built in (the same?) 17 days." Again, on an expedition to Aswan, Wen1 not only dug 5 canals in Upper Egypt, but also built 3 wsbt-boats and 4 s3t-boats with accacia wood supplied by Nubian chieftains, in order to return with large quantities of granite for the pyramid of Merenre. Similarly, Sabni says [Martin 1977:30-311: "The Majesty of my Lord sent me to make 2 great wsbt-boats in Wawat to transport 2 great obelisks to Heliopolis."

2.3 Patterns of Work Organzsatron The importance of transport, the pervasive influence of boating, and the prominence of naval officials and sailors in public works is seen in that, from earliest times [Helck 1975:28,31], the organisatlon of a boat was the archetype for the organisation of any body of men. Such a naval pattern of organisation [Helck 1975:127-129; Helck and Otto 1975:371-374; Edel 1969:ll-22; Reisner 1931:69-95,273-2771 is best attested among stone workers, from the masons'

12 Labor zn the Ancient Near East

marks they left on building blocks. They were divided Into crews ('pr) named after the king for whom they worked, names such as [Helck 1975:128-1291 "the crew, Mycennus exc~tes love" or "the crew, Mycerinus is drunk (? thw)." Each crew was subdivided Into s3, "gangs" or "phyle." There has been considerable controversy over the number and names of these subdiv~sions, but the most probable list, In order of seniority, is:jmj-wrt or wr = starboard-front, t3-wr = port-front, w3d = starboard- rear, n& = port-rear and jmj-nfrt = steerage9 Each of these five gangs was further divided into 2 or 4 subgroups, identified by the addition of an extra slen to then name; for instance a wss-sceptre, or the nfr slgn [full collection by ~ d i ln Ricke 1969:!3-161.

The priesthood of a temple or mortuary cult was div~ded up in the same way. In the pyramid temple of Neferirkare [Posener-Krikger 1976, chapter VI] each phyle seems to have consisted of a director of god's servants (shd hm ntr), a deputy (director) of god's servants Omj-kt hm nir), simple god's servants or priests, a scribe, and a number of "tenants" (? hq-9, who served together for a month, in rota, performing all the duties necessary for the service and admlnlstratlon of the temple, under the overall control of the overseer of god's servants Omj-r hm ntr). A private mortuary priesthood, under an overseer of ka-pjlests, ccj?nsisted of the same individual phyle, each Ideally w~th a director, a deputy (director), a scribe and ordinary ka-priests. The hierarchy In the crews and gangs of stone workers is not attested, but is likely to have been slmilar.

The not uncommon title "overseer of 10," held by men connected with work at a lower level [Gardiner, Peet and Cernjr 1955:15; Couyat and Montet 1912, nos.39,93,94; Fischer 1959:266], may well Imply that ten men formed a normal work unit [Helck 1975:129], but such a unlt cannot be slmply correlated to the subdivisions of the crew. Petrie [n.d..210] calculated, in relation to the Giza pyramids, that no more than 8 men could actually find room to work on a slngle block of normal slze in the quarries. yet-tablets -from the Userkaf sun temple, recording the work of subdivisions of phyle, tell of them having about 20 "units" (') each. presumably 20 - men [Edel in Ricke 1969:7-81. Reisner's experience dunng his work at the thlrd pyramid [Reisner 1931:11] showed that he needed about 18 men to move one of the ordinary granlte caslng blocks. In practice, calculations of the size of subdivisions, gangs and crews [e.g., Reisner 1931:273-2771 have to depend on such obs&rvations and on assumptions about the tasks each group was expected to perform, particularly that the smallest subdivision was that required for quarrymg or moving an ordinary block of stone. They cannot be absolutely reliable. Nor is there reason to suppose that the numbers were constant, not varying from project to project.

Old Kingdom inscrlptlons from the mines and quarries prov~de only limited information about the working personnel and thelr administration. A general picture of the hlgher command structure can be reconstructed [Helck 1954:98-102,1975:126- 129; Gardiner, Peet and Cerng 1955:14-15; Helck and Otto 1980:128-1341, but lower ranking administrators, such as "overseers" or "directors of officials" and "judges?" or "admimstrators'"[s~b; cf. de Cenival 19751 are less commonly mentioned, and thelr functions are usually unknown. Scribal titles appear irregularly and In a varlety of forms [note an overseer of scribes of crews, Goyon 1957, no.311, so that the functlonlng of control at a lower level is virtually unknown.

EYRE: Work m the Old Kingdom 13

Only rarely can the isolated appearance of a more detailed minor tltle provide good evldence for work orgarusatlo&-For instance, a "metals scribe" [ss' bj3?. Gardiner, Peet and Cernfr 1955:13 and no.13; also a director ( s h a of metals] presumably controlled the materials for the copper work tools. Further indications of centralised control of workmen's tools may be found in the inscription of royal names, or the names of work crews and their subdivisions, on the tools themselves [Rowe 1936, 1938:391-393; the unprovenanced examples, Kaplony 1965, must-be used with caution]. Similarly the appearance of large numbers of tools in property lists in private tombs, and .the placing of tools themselves in the tomb, are likely to reflect the provision of tools to hls workmen by the tomb owner [Junker 1940:72-731. It is worth noting that weighing and the direct supervision of a scribe are standard elements only of metal-working scenes ~n private tombs, implying a more direct control than was usual for other raw materials. The detail of such supervlslon is not, however, documented for the Old Kingdom.

2.4 Classes and Numbers of Workers The classes of workers lnvolved ln quarrying expeditions are sometimes revealed ln the tltles of their overseers. Officers controlling 'w, "foreigners" or "mercenary troops," were frequently attached, perhaps providing a mixture of military escort' and labour. Texts from the Wadi Hammamat refer to overseers or directors of a more specialised group of workmen. The word is wrltten by a man holding something (a bag?) ln hls hand [read smntyw?: Goyon 1957:41-43; Lopez 196757; Seyfried 1976; Fischer 19851. For convenience it will be presumed that the term 1s ldentlcal to one wrltten in texts from Hatnub and the Wadi Hammamat by a man holding a stick in hls hand, and both will be translated "quarryman'." In the latter case there is further room for confusion with the word for "sailor," wrltten by a man holding an oar. There are also references from the-Wadi Hammamat to officials of "craftsmen" or "state craftsmen" [hmwt pr-' 3:

-. Cgd3;at .a,nbMontet 1912, nos.34,85,101] and occasionally to officials of builders -,- _"_k._nb:

[Couyat and Montet 1912, no. 107; Goyon 1957, no.241. There were also "controllers ... ,-. 3

of 1evies""or of "crews of lev1es9" (hrp 'prw nfrw), doubtless the unskilled labour. There 1s no way to assess what proportion of men were permanently employed in

quarrying and building. One may presume some standing "navy" at least, to pr transport. At royal command Wen1 was brought a sarcophagus and other elements from Tura by a god's treasurer, commanding a detachment of boats c in a great s2t-boat "of the resldence" [n hnw: Urk. I, 99,11-17; cf. Anthes 1928, Gr. 1 and 71. Boats and men sent to fetch such royal gifts [Urk. I, 20,7; 61,9; 65,lO-7,9] were perhaps regularly employed on that passage. A slmilar mlssion for Washptah [Urk. I, 44,3-41 was carrled out by "all crews from the residence," and an expedition to the Wadi Hammamat included "many detachments from the residence" as well as a group of "state-people" b r - = 3: Couyat and Montet 1912, no.2061. This latter class may have been people regularly connected with the state for servlce, although their status and functions are unknown [cf. Goedicke 1959:lO-111. A "detachment from the resldence" probably referred to any body of men provided from there for duty [cf. Urk. I, 220, 9-11], without implication that they were permanent employees, although craftsmen "of the resldence" worklng in a provincial tomb [Drenkhahn 1976: 139-1401 doubtless were professlonals.

14 Labor zn the Anczent Near East

Interesting in thls context are some ostraca bearing the names of dead sailors7 [Goedicke 19681. The fullest examples glve the dead man's name, under that of his "controller of crew" (brp 'pr), his nome of origin, and his parentage. The natural assumption that these people, having died on duty, were to be transported home for (state?) burial can be related to the evident royal desire that every effort be made to recover the bodies of expedition leaders who died abroad [Urk. I, 134,13-135,4; 135, 9-140,111. There is, however, no indication that they were permanent employees.

The numbers of men taking part in expeditlons is only rarely recorded [Helck 1975:128], and the figures, mostly dating to the very end of the period. and from texts quotmg the authority of high officials rather than the king, may not be typlcal. At Hatnub a text of the time of Teti [Anthes 1928, Gr. 11 records an expedition of 300 quarrymen7, apparently sent from the residence. Sixty of them, or an additional 60, were occupied in building [the necessary boat]. The leader of another expedition [Anthes 1928, Gr. 61, in the time of Neferkare (Pepi 11), was accompanied by 1600 men (3 groups of nfrw 500, 600 and 500 strong), recruited from 3 different places. They brought down 300 stones at one tlme, and loaded them into two boats belonging to the "house" of the "count" (h3~-'), sole companion, overseer of tenants of the state, and overseer of the treas2ry7, Id$ who had sent the expedition. Similarly the overseer of Upper Egypt andlocal nomarck Ihasent 1600 men to bring back stone for his own use [Anthes 1928, Gr. 93.

From the Wadi Hammamat one text [Couyat and Montet 1912, no.2061 lists 1000 state-people, 1200 quarrymen7, 100 necropolis workmen (hrg-nlr) and 50 .- men, and refers also to the provision by the king of many detachments from the residence, and of 50 oxen and 200 donkeys. In another case [Couyat and Montet 1912, no.1691, the admirals and boat captains Ipi and Nykauptah were accompanied by 200 sailors, 200 quarrymen' and 200 -men, to do work for the pyramid of an unknown king Ity. An overseer of Upper Egypt Ihy was accompanied by 20 . -men, 5 sealers', 10 necropolis workmen, at least 200 quarrymen?, and an unknown number of stone-cutters (? w&). To bring down a 12 cubit stone for an overseer of Upper Egypt a certain Idy used 200 men, 2 oxen, 50 donkeys, and 5 -men [Couyat and Montet 1912, no.1521. Finally a broken inscription from Sinai [Gardiner, Peet and cernfr 1955, no.191 seems to indicate an expedition of 1400 men.

The oxen and donkeys attached to quarrying expeditions provlded transport [cf. Gardiner. Peet and Cerny 1955:11]. Donkeys were regularly attached in large numbers to trading expeditlons [Helck 1975:7-8: 161, and the route from the rlver to the Old Kingdom diorlte quarries was easily recognlsable by the tracks left by donkey caravans. An early New Kingdom depiction from Tura [Daressy 1911:262-2651 shows oxen dragglng stone in the quarries there. Old Kingdom tomb scenes showing the draggmg of we~ghts are restricted to the placement of burial equipment, especially statues, in the tomb, the necessary force being provided by men, oxen, or a mixture of both [Settgast 19631. The usual presumption that heavy stone moving was done entirely by gangs of men [Chevrier 1970:19-25; Goyon 1977:123] may therefore be overstated. It 1s hardly conceivable that oxen were not used with some regularity to drag stone from place to place [Borchardt 1907:122-123,1651, and donkeys for the shifting of rubble or material for building construction ramps.

EYRE: Work zn the Old Kingdom 15

2.5 Payment and Commzssarzat Inscriptions of the Old Kingdom do not record details of the payment and commissariat-afthese expeditions. A papyrus letter found at Saqqara provides some information [Gunn 1925; Gardiner 1927; Grdseloff 1948; Posener-KriCger 19801. The writer, a "general," protested at an order to bring a detachment of crews from Tura m order for them to be glven clothing in the vuler's presence. His objection was apparently to the waste of time (he quoted 6 days as necessary to clothe them at the residence), when a courier (jrj m&t) was coming over anyway in a wsht-boat (and could presumably deliver the clothes). Normally, anjrj m&t, "he of the book," seems to have been a scribe's assistant, but when listed among the officials of quarrying expeditions [Couyat and Montet 1912, nos.61,107; Goyon 1957, nos.20,33] he was probably the courier ensuring communications [Vallogia 1976:212-2131. The wsbt-boat is likely in thls case to have been a stone- barge plying between Tura and the pyramid of Pepi I1 at Saqqara. The detachment of crews was perhaps a force worklng regularly in the quarries.

The "residence" is likely to have been the normal source of payment. Nekhebu s a d [Urk. I, 215,13-141 that during the 6 years he controlled work at Heliopolis he was rewarded ( b j ) whenever he vislted the residence. Such visits were presumably to report, recelve instructions, and collect supplies. When an expedition was travelling it was supplied by the areas it passed'through. Thus Pep1 I [Urk. I, 214 = Goedicke 1967:41-541 specifically exempted his mother's ka-house at Coptos from supplying envoys gomg south on a mlsslon. For Harkhuf, returmng from Nubia [Urk. I, 131,4-71, the klng issued special decrees that exemptions were not to be observed. He was to be Issued food and drlnk from every estate of the supply institutions and from all temples (m hwt nb ntpr-inc m hwt-nlr nb). It was perhaps a special favour when the king sent an "overseer of the two cool rooms," with a boat load of provisions, to meet Harkhuf as he returned to the residence from another mlssion [Urk. I, 127,13-151.

. * .- -

2.6 Evzdence for Seasonal Patterns of Work Following the early authority of Petrie [n.d..209-2151, whose knowledge of the practlcalitles and conditions of work in Egypt surely remans unrivalled among modern scholars, it has generally been assumed that some permanent staff was employed for skilled quarrying and building work, but that during the inundation, when work in the fields was impossible, idle hands were turned in large numbers to the movement of building stone for pyramids. This is oversimplified.

The inundation, the hottest months of the year, was an unsudable time for labour in the deserts. Indeed, Diodorus [I.36] would have us believe that "the masses of the people, being relieved of their labours during the entire time of inundation, turn to recreation, feasting all the while and enjoying wlthout hindrance every device of pleasure." Nor did the shallow flooding of the fields provide free passage over them [Goyon 1971a:146-147, l977: 131-138.196-1971. It must be presumed that some real channel was necessary for the passage of the boats (not rafts) in whlch the stone was moved [Helck and Otto 1984:610-613; above 12.21. Each pyramid had a port or quay, at the edge of the cultivation, attached to its Valley Temple, from whlch a causeway for supply and access ran up to the pyramid proper [Goyon 1971a,

16 iabor in the Anczent Near East

1977:127-1471. Unfortunately no such port of the Old Kingdom has been properly excavated. Nor can ~t now be clear whether the baslns and quays before each pyramid or group of pyramids were connected by channels directly to the Nile, or to a canal along the edge of the cultivation, from Memphls or the Fayum towards the sea [Goyon 1971a, 1977: 13 1-138; KoziAskl1969:52-55; Smrth et al. 1983:41]. This canal, if it exlsted, would have provlded more stable condit~ons for transport. It m~ght be represented In scenes from prlvate tombs showing the boats of the deceased sailing on "the Canal of the West" [Moussa and Altenmiiller 1977:79].

Thls is not to say that the months of high water were not the most sultable for transport by rlver. Wen1 recorded [Grrk. I, 108,l-101 that In month I11 of shemu he ferried an altar north from the quarrles at Hatnub, although no water was coverlng the sandbanks, that IS, at a season unsu~table for transport [cf. P. Westcar, 9,15-181. Even so he moored successfully at the pyramid of Merenre. Another tlme, more su~tably, he completed a varlety of jobs in the south, returning wlth gran~te from Aswan for that pyramld "in one year, In the mundatlon"[m rnpt wC m mh; similarly Anthes 1928, Gr. 41.

Care is necessary when attributing dates ln the Egyptlan clvil year to the~r true seasons. The 365 day calendar (three seasons, each of four th~rty day months, akhet, "inundat~on," peret, "emexgence," and shemu, "low water," plus five epagomenal days) gradually became out of step wlth the true year. By calculat~on back from later penods, the first day of akhet (New Year's Day) coinc~ded wlth the heliacal rising of the star Sothls, heraid of the inundatlon, In midJune 2773 BC (Gregonan). The calendar, presumably adopted In ~ t s permanent form about then, should, by the end of the Old Kingdom. have been nearly five months ahead of the year. Allowlng for the necessary calibratlon, Weni's journey In I11 shemu took place ~n December/ January, a t~me of low, if not the lowest, water.

The few dates In late Old Kingdom mscriptions from the Wadi Hammamat [Montet 1959:96: IV akhet 2, I11 themu 2 and 18, IV shemu 31 mostly support the sparse later evidence from that slte [Montet 1959:103; cf. Engelbach 1933:73-741, that the stone was normally moved in the wlnter months, reachmg the river bank by March or April, where it presumably awalted the rlslng waters. Old Kingdom dates from Hatnub lnscrlptlons fit Into a slmilar pattern [Anthes 1928, In. IV, I akhet, temp. Pep1 I; Gr. 1, I11 shemu, temp. Tetl; Gr. 3, I akhet 24, and Gr. 7, I shemu 20, temp. Pep1 11; Gr. 9, I1 akhet, end of Old Kingdom]. The only preserved date from Sinai [Gardiner, Peet and Cernjr 1955, no.15: IV shemu, temp. Djedkare Isesi] fits the same pattern of wlnter work, but the deleterious effects of hot sun on the turquoise mlned there was always a specla1 reason for worklng ~t m winter. Evidence IS

completely lacking from the quarrles at Tura, where the constant need for stone may have requ~red a more regular and permanent organlsatlon of work.

Dates are also preserved In masons' marks pa~nted on blocks of building stone. These marks have rarely been properly collected [Reisner 1931:69-95,273-277; Smith 1952; Verner 1976:75-84; Saweljewa 19621, and the problems of the~r purpose, and of wh~ch parts of the building operations they recorded and why, often seem insoluble [Haeny In Ricke 1969:27]. They were made for a varlety of reasons, and marks of more than one type may appear on a smgle block. L~nes, measurements, and marks concerned with the placing of blocks [Relsner 1931:76-78; Haeny in Ricke 196927-

EYRE: Work In the Old Kingdom 17

29; Verner 1976:81-841 are easily enough connected with technical needs. Other marks belong to systems of work co_ntroJ,_an_d cause much greater problems [Haeny In Ricke 1969:31-391. Single symbols wrltten on more than one block presumably indicate forms of checkmg, but whether m quarry or on slte will often be obscure. For t h ~ s reason ~t can be Important to know, although ~t IS often difficult to tell, whether a mark was made before or after a block was put ln posltion [Junker 1929:157-161, 1951:69,80-81; Relsner 1931:82-83; Maystre 1935:94; Sm~th 1952126; Haeny in Ricke 1969:26-271. In some cases, for mstance, a date was clearly added to a block m sltu to note the state of progress of the work [Verner 1980:159], or the date of an lnspectlon [Junker 1947:58-601.

The most Important dated blocks are those that seem to record responsibility for the work, partlcularly those (in prlnclple thls applies only to h~gh quality stone from distant quarnes) that bore the names of the work crews, phyle and subdiv~slons employed [Relsner 1931:273-2771. Sometimes the final mark referring to the sub- divis~on seems, from ~ t s posltion, to have been added separately and later [Relsner 1931:73-79; Haeny ~n Rlcke 1969:30]. These marks seem normally to have been made after rough dressing, but before positioning in the walls. A number of blocks from Fifth Dynasty buildings carry the names of officials rather than work crews [Borchardt 190T144-146:1909:27,45-48,52-55; Haeny ~n Ricke 1969:37-391, probably showlng a different way of accountmg the work, and possibly of its organ~sat~on. The evidence dates almost entirely to the Fourth and early Fifth Dynasties. The few later marks available [Nagel 19501 are unmformatwe.

The dates recorded on Old Kingdom blocks fall almost without exception in the seasons of peret and shemu [Saweljewa 1962131-132; Verner 1976:78]. Since the major~ty belong to the earlier part of the penod, little allowance is necessary for calibratlon of the calendar, and they can be taken to record actlvltles not durlng the mundatlon, but In the cooler months from autumn to spring [Maystre 1935:93]. It 1s most likely that the inundatlon was the tlme for the movement of stone by river, and the cooler remainder of the year the tlme for excavation, working, and dragglng Into place [Gnnsell 194757-58; Saweljewa 1962:131-1321. There, remalns, however, the difficulty of declding what preclse work procedures the date-marks recorded.

Actual work records are very rarely preserved [note Posener-KriCger l9801. Most notable are four small stone tablets found at the Userkaf sun temple [Edel ~n Ricke 1969: 1-22]. Each carrles a month date, wlth (in two cases) a place of work, the name of one or two subdivlslons of a phyle, and (in three cases) the number of un~ts (people?) In the subdivisions. Dlv~sions of responsibility wlthin thewerall structure of building work are virtually impossible to define. It IS not unlikely, for mstance, that the crews employed In the quarries were a separate organisation from those at work on the building site [Haeny ln R~cke 1969:31-341. The latter group may have operated from a sort of desert workshop ln the vlcinlty of the pyram~d under constructlon. A number of marks refer to such a hmwt smjt [Re~sner 1931:276-277; Saweljewa 1962:132-133; Helck 1975:129] where stone may have been stockpiled and dressed, but nothing more IS known of the place.

Some Middle Kingdom masons' marks carry more detailed explanatory texts, but comparison may not be helpful. Those from two late Middle Kingdom pyramids [JCqmer 1933:lO-15.62-31 are dated to peret and shemu, then roughly April to

November, including the inundation. A number include the name of the official who "brought" the stone. Blocks of the early Twelfth Dynasty from Lisht carry similar dates (from I11 akhet to I shemu, then roughiy March to September), a few carry texts referring to the transport of Tura stone from the quay to the pyramid site, and exceptionally some local stone bears the name of its quarry [Lansing 1933a, 1933b:6, n.31. It may be that Middle Kingdom marks were concerned with the delivery of the blocks, Old Kingdom ones with their final working and positlolung in the building.

2.7 The Corvee The mass of people needed for basic labour on any project can only have been provided by corvke, compulsory conscription or national service, but information is sparse and mostly indirect [Bakir 1952:2-4; Helck and Otto 1977:333- 3341. Titles provide some information. For instance, "overseers of gangs (s3w) of Upper Egypt" [Helck f954:102; Martin-Pardey 1976:94-1031, a function usually held by provincial administrators, and "great ones of 10(s?) of Upper Egypt" [Fisher 1959:265-2661, doubtless controlled workforces recruited in the southern provinces. Curiously no Old Kingdom titles are clearly connected with irrigation work or the recruitment of labour for it. Canal digging [Helck and Otto 1980:310-3121, the only attested form .of major water,works, may have been for navigation rather than irrigation: Whetherthis should be taken to imply that there was no serious official control of the flood waters before the end of the Old Kingdom [Schenkel 19781 or that such work was limited in extent and local in nature [Butzer 1976:109-112; cf. Janssen 1978:217], it does not seem that a specific need to organise large bodies of men for irrigation works provided direct organisational models for the recruitment and control of mass labour forces and the development of bureaucracy in Egypt.

The most detailed information about the imposition of labour duties is to be found in the provisions of royal exemption decrees [Goedicke 1967; Hafemann 19851, where recruitment for work was referred to as a form of taxation [Helck 1975:llO- 1131. Unfortunately the precise sense of the technical vocabulary is not always cleat. The regulations for the pyramid town of Dahshur [Urk. I, 209-213 = Goedicke 1967:54-771 protected its people against work (k3t), impost (mdd) or labour duties (h 3 and st h 3) of the king's house @r n nsw) or of any department of residencc(st nbt nt hnw). Specifically they could not dig for the r-.?of the pyramid of a king Ikauhor. Similarly Neferirkare decreed [Urk. I, 170-172 = Goedicke 1967:2236] that the priests of the temple of Abydos, as well as their serfs, were free from any 7 4 & [harvest or agricultural work?, cf. Montet 19551 of the nome, or any work (k3t) of the nome, over and above the service and administration of the temple properties (hwwt-ntr) they belonged to. The official who ignored the exemption was to lose his house, land, people and property, and himself be put to -& [cf. Urk. I, 305.9-101.

he mechanics of recruitment for duties are best illustrated by a decree of Pepi I1 [Urk. I, 280-283 = Goedicke 196787-1161 protecting the entire staff, from priest down to serf (mrt) of the Q&,P of the temple of Min, from any *&* of the king and from any service (wnwt) or Impost accounted in the king's nouse. A list of officials-overseer of Upper Egypt, local governor ( h r ~ tp), great one of 10(s?) of Upper Egypt, overseer of gangs of Upper Egypt, overseer of commissions, royal

EYRE: Work zn the Old Kingdom 19

acquaintance, overseer of crews, or overseer of nswtyw-people-were forbidden to register them for any department b s ) afaaumber of administrations, presumably tax registration offices-the house of the king's book, the house of largess @r wdb), the house of the book, or (the administration of) sealing documents [Helck 1954:71- 721-for the purpose of putting them to do any work of the king's house. These were the officials responsible in chief; lower officials likely to attempt such registration were listed as any "official (sr), royal documents' scribe, overseer of scribes of the fields, overseer of scribes of sealing documents, or (other) functionary bmj st-')." Any such regstration sent from the nome to the overseer of Upper Egypt was to have the names of the temple personnel purged from it. Even if the royal decree ordering "labour duty of work of the king" specifically waived such exemptions, even then the people of the temple of Min were not to do any,carrying, digging, or labour duty in connection with work done in Upper Egypt.

The unpublished Gebelein papyri [Posener-Kritger 19751 may have preserved some registrations of the sort mentioned in this decree. The recto of the first roll is described as containing four lists of people-in one case, of women as well as men-recruited for temple construction work, together with a list of days and an account ofsgrain and bread. The verso contains further lists and accounts. The names in the main lists are grou~ed by locality, and the "titles" of the individuals recorded.

- A - One list contains people called nfrw. Conventionally translated "recruits," the term refers to groups of young men, enrolled for some form of service [Faulkner 1953:34- 351, typically young men of low status engaged on large projects [Fischer 196O:S-6,11- 131. Controllers of crews of nfrw are attested in quarrying expeditions, and one large expedition to Hatnub was made up entirely of 1600 nfrw, in three roughly equal groups from three different places [Anthes 1928, Gr. 61. These nfrw were probably levies of a certam age, called up for mass labour [but see Fisher 1959:258-2611.

The most detailed record of the recruitment of a large body of men is Weni's description of his expedition against Asiatic bedouin [Urk.T, 101,8-102,8; Faulkner 1953:32,34-351. Recruited from the whole of Egypt, together with Nubians and Libyans, its officers at the highest level bore titles of state rank. Essentially, however, local officials, local governors (hr~w tp), rulers of manors (hq3w hwt), overseers of priests, and overseers of gs-pr (the two administrative divisions of the Delta), were "at the head of detachments of Upper and Lower Egypt, the estates and villages they ruled." The administrators of landed property controlled their own levies [Helck 1954: 1131. The foreigners were led by their own officials, the overseers of mercenaries Omj-r 'w). Through all this material the local responsibility for regigration and recruitment of work forces is clear. Indeed, when, in the reign of Pepi 11, Sabni led an official expedition to Nubia, to recover his father's body and to trade, he was accompanied by detachments from his own property, his p r dt, along with 100 donkeys [Urk. I, 136,4,17]. Supervision of taxation and work duties was clearly an important part of the duties of provincial administrators, but the history and mechanics of provincial admnistration as a whole [Helck 1975:34-37; Martin- Pardey 1976; Kanawati 1980; Strudw~ck 19851 are far from clear.

Enough has been quoted here to show the basic structures of state work duty, the liability of all, below the rank of official, even priests, to be recruited for

20 Labor zn the Anczent Near East EYRE: Work zn the Old Kingdom 21

agricultural and building works, for the needs and profit of the local nome, and for the state as represented by the king's house and the residence. Something can beseen of the detail of the registration of the populace for taxation and work [Helck 1975:100,104; Hafemann 19851, and of the officials responsible for their overall supervision and their immediate control. However, the types of documents preserved are not likely to reveal the conditions under which such service was carned out. There is no good evidence for the length of time men might serve in work gangs. Herodotus [II. 1241 clamed that on the Great Pyramid men were employed for three months at a time [in rota? Note the comparisons to temple service: Kees 1948:76-811. Similarly there is no gooa evidence for fheirdpaymerit, although it is natural to presume that thev were ~rovided at least with subsistence rations. Payments recorded for actual performance of priestly service similarly look like the provision of subsistence during penods of duty [Baer 1966:7, n.w].

extraordinarily complex [Fiala in Verner 1976:47-601, but the likely conclusion is that different subordinates of Ptahshepses mpeyvised the work on different parts of his tomb at different times. Despite the unusual size and complexity of the tomb, its close relation to the Abusir pyramids, its owner's relation to the royal family and his office of overseer of works [Fiala in Verner 1976591, the texts as yet available provide no evidence of royal assistance in the provision of workmen or stone.

3 Work on Przvate Tombs Detail of a different sort is available concerning work on private tombs, and the questions posed by the matenal are not the same. For instance, masons' marks have also been found on the blocks from private tombs. ~omet lme~ ' fh$f r6&b?e flie qamG'of work crews indistinguishable from those mentioned-bn '$lijcki frdm royal monuments [Junker 1951:68-81; Saweljewa 1962:129-1311. Thus the Fourth Dynasty "Mastaba VII" at Giza bore marks identifying the crew "the Horus Ka-khet is great," a crew (presumably of state workmen) named after Mycerinus. In other cases the marks include the name of the tomb owner [Smith 1952125; Borchardt 1907:144-1461, possibly as an indication of the tomb to which a central quarry administration should send the stone [Junker 1929:157-1611. Yet the stone might also have been quarried by the tomb owner's own subordinates [cf. Haeny in Ricke 1969:37-391 and marked as a sign of his authority. The curses included in tomb inscfiptions,against those who removed stone for re-use [Edel 19443-191 imply that t&b builders theinselves sougfit'stone wherever they could find it. Variations in the type and content of the marks are difficult to evaluate. The speculations of Junker [1951:80-811 show possible lines of interpretation: that the presence or absence of crew marks would indicate whether the tomb was financed and built by the king or its owner, and the absence or presence of date marks on the stone might indicate whether the payment of the men was by the whole job or by daily wages. In practice, the evidence is far too slight for such speculation.

The most extensive collection of material, that from the tomb of the vizier Ptahshepses, although available only in preliminary reports [Verner-1976I75-841 and untypical in many ways, provides interesting insights. The marks, unusually from core blocks, name no royal crews. A small number give the name and titles of Ptahshepses, and two mention his wife, the princess Khamerernebty. Commonest were blocks bearing a single mark,jr, nfr, or dd, perhaps indications of work crews. It is not clear whether these were normally put on before or after positioning in the wall. Other blocks bore one or more elements of a series: date, title, name. In most cases the names and titles are recognisably those of subordinates or ka-priests depicted in the reliefs of the tomb. Particular names and titles tend to be found only on one type of stone or in one part of the tomb. The building history of this tomb is

3.1 The Problem of Royal Patronage The question of how much royal patronage and state workforces were involved in private mortuary provision is central to an understanding of the system of service and recompense in Old Kingdom society, for such provision and the expected patterns of life after death can be taken as direct reflections of the otherwise virtually undocumented structures of con- temporary social organisation. Evidence is plentiful [Donadom 1976; Helck 1975:73- 77; Heick and Otto 1977337. 845-8471, but apparently contradictory [cf. Wilson 1947:238-2421. In some cases the entire tomb was built and equipped at royal command. There can be no doubt of the literal truth of this when the tomb was that of a royal dog [Fischer 1966:57-601. The phraseology is similar to that for officials: "the-dpg ,ghqLused to perform attendance (stp-s?) on His Majesty, 'bwtyw by name. His Majest~ordered that he be buried, that a coffin be given him from the treasury, and exceedingly much fine cloth, incense and scented oil. His Majesty had a tomb constructed for him by the crews of tomb-makers Oswt ntjrj-js). His Majesty did this for him for the sake of his provision (rjrn3bw.fl."

The badly damaged text from the tomb of Debehni [Urk. I, 18-21; Hassan 1943:168 and pl.XLVII1, neither copy 1s completely reliable; Helck 1975:73-741 preserves the most incidental detail concerning the royal provision of a private tomb. Mycerinus provided the tomb, or its site, on the approaches to his pyramid, among tombs of members of the royal family, for the sake of Debehni looking over the work done on the kmg's own tomb. Involved inthe workulete +royal master builder, two chief controllers of craftsmen, and a workforce. Fifty craftsmen (hmw) are mentioned, working every day, by the royal command. They were not to be taken for any other duty until that work was completed. Two god's treasurers were assigned for some duty, presumably bringing stone from the quarries. The record of other details is mostly too fragmentary for understanding, but thereare references to ferrying stone from Tura, at least two false doors and the tomb portal, under the control of the two chief controllers of craftsmen and the royal master builder, as well as statues for different parts of the tomb. It was stressed that the kingdid all this for the sake of - Debehni's Om?bw), "provision," before his lord. A final note indicates that the royal decree for work on the tomb had specified its measurements.

It seems a reasonable presumption that at least the fine stone of the distant quarries was available only through the state [Helck 1956a:64], as probably certnn luxury materials imported from abroad [HGck 1975:120-1251. Inscriptions attribut- ing quarrying expeditions to the authority of great provincial magnates only appear at the end of the Sixth Dynasty, but it was not unusual for tomb owners to describe how luxury items were begged from the king, who sent a boat specially to fetch such elements as sarcophagi, false doors, and offering stones [Urk. I, 38.1-39,3; 63,12-65,9;

22 Labor m the Anclent Near East i j 99,9-100,4]. It mlght be stressed that "the like had never been done for any servant" [Urk. I, 100,1], but it IS always difficult to know how seriously this convenaonal phrase should be taken, In what way the favour mlght have been unique.

The standard introductory formula to offerlng lists or invocations was htp dj nsw [+ divine name(%)], conventionally translated "a boon whlch the lung glves [+ divme name(s)]." The analysis of the phrase is difficult [Gardiner 1957:170-173; Barta 19681, and m later perlods a was no more than a cliche, but some of its literal force must be presumed effectwe m the Old Kingdom. It attributes the provislon of food and clothmg, burlal in the necropolis, even embalmment, to the favour of the kmg [Helck 1975:77], directly or through a god or gods [Kaplony 1976:79,86]. Thls Implies that in principle the tomb, any funerary foundation, and the continumg provlslon of offermgs came by royal authority, from the state, from an offering reversion, or from the endowed income of specified estates [Urk. I, 144,ll-21. Examples where only a god, not the kmg, is mentioned in the formula are not common [Federn 19581, and probably refer to that god's offenngs as the source of the provislon. A literal interpretation [Goedicke 1970:37] sees the king as absolute owner of the necropolis and provlder of tombs m ~ t . Arguments have further been put forward &at &document of royal authorlsation was necessary before a tomb could be"bUi1t '[Goedicke n.d..24; 1968:29-301, but the slight textual evldence for this argument [Helck 1956a:68, 1975:75; Goedicke 1970:38 n.14, 188 n.9; Fischer 1978:52- 561 is open to other interpretatlons, and the case not proved [but see also Urk.I,65,2; 203,7; 232,14-161.

The tomb owner referred to hlmseK as an jrn3bw. It was often s a d of his tomb and mortuary provislon that "His Majesty made thls for him as hls jrn3bw before hls lord" [Fischer 1979:42-461. Later referrmg vaguely to a state of "reverence," jrn3bw in orlgin indicates a "provlsion" [Helck 1956a:68-701. Normally a person was jrn:hw before (br) one or more kmgs, wlth few exceptions those of his own tlme [Helck 1974a:220-223; 1975:31e-323, or beforetheUgreat god:'T-Frorn thejater Old Kingdom regularly [but not exclusively, Barta 1968:291-2921 identified with the royal dead god Osms, thls "great god" was the figure who carried out the functions of klng among and for the dead, an amalgam of all dead kings continuing to function for then contemporarles. Statements that someone was jm3bw before a god probably refer to Income durlng life, and offerlng reversions after death [e.g., Urk. I, 37; note Jacquet- Gordon 1962231 from the property of a god and hls templeIHelck 1975:82-83; Freler 1976:31]. Claims to be jm:bw before a private person [cf. Goedicke 1955:31-331 indicate provlslon made from that person's endowments [Helck 19755351. Thus an heir or dependent, requlred to perform mortuary service, mlght be jrn?hw before the tomb owner [Urk. I, 32; 33,15-34,6; 72,13-14; 163,13; 227,15-171. Such cases are rare. Such provlsion was doubtless normally made to people of too low rank to own monuments and tombs. Examples from the later Old Kingdom where the tomb owner stresses hls personal popularity by clzumlng to be jm3hw before people in general [br rml: Urk. I, 204,lO; 222,5] doubtless Indicate the weakening of the force of the term.

The jrn3bw provlslon by the klng mlght consist of the entlre tomb [Fischer 1979:45-461, the necessary Income for the htp djnsw [Urk. I, 175,lO-141 or the estates

EYRE: Work In the Old Kingdom 23

to provlde it [Urk. 1,12,17; 14,7 and 161. There IS ample evldence to show that the palace played a real part in the contlnulngprovlslon of offerlngs for prlvate tombs. For instance, Tjenty [Goedicke 1970, Taf.XIIIl was able to bequeath the mortuary income hls cult recelved from the (state) treasury and grananes. Offering lists mentlon "every department of the residence from whlch offerings are issued" [Urk. I, 177,16; cf. 184,3]. For mstance, Kaemsenu was to receive [Urk. I, 175,lO-141: "A boon whlch the lung gives: that he may be gwen all (sorts of) offenngs from the house of the kmg, gram from the granary, clothlng and oil from the treas[ury. . .I, sweet thlngs from the Cqt-house and joints of meat at the entrance (rwt) of the jst- storehouse, all the (sorts of) offermgs which are given to anjrnsbw from the house of the kmng, for ever." Such income mlght be distinguished from the tomb- owners' personal resources. For instance, Khufukhaef was shown in his tomb [Simpson 1978:12-13, fig. 291 vlewmg offenngs brought from both the king's house and the villages of hls own property (pr &). The evidence does not allow an assessment of the balance between direct provlsion from the king and from prwate resources [Helck 1956a:70-731, or even the extent to which royal funerary provislon was permission to appropriate resources in perpetuity for the cult. The Abusir papy

similarly show that a large part of ~ t s endowment reached the pyramid temple NeYerirkare from the palace [Posener-Krikger 1976:611-341.

Centralised distribution of offermgs may partly be explamed by the rmpractlca- bility of the collection of small endowments due on estates scattered through the country, but will also be connected to the concept of patronage [Kaplony 1976:36-441 so vltal to Egyptlan social organisatlon. Direct provision at the palaccmay be seen as the onginat payment of officials [Helck 1975:56], but at the helght of the Old Kingdom they were supported by then landholdings, and the degree to which they were pald from the palace through such lnstltutlons as the st df:, "department of foods" [note Fischer 1959:267] or the p r wdb, "house of largess" [Gardiner 1938:88- 89],1s unclear [note Jansserl 197R2231. When ah afficial carried out hls duty to the satisfaction of the kmg, he was "pralsed" (hsj), which meant the receipt of gold ornaments, but also large quantities of food and drink from the king [Urk. 1,59,15- 60,11; 129,8-14; 139,15; 220,9; 221.3 and 101 or even agift of land as source of income [Urk. I, 140,9-111.

Too r~gld and literal an mterpretatlon should not be applied to these standard phrases concerning tomb provislon. It is not clear, in practice, when an official started to build his tomb, and how quickly it was completed. Tombs were not normally begun on a small scale early in a man's careeryand extended as he rose in rank [Baer 1960:40-41; Strudwlck 1985:343-3441. Rather he seems to have wa~ted until hls wealth and offices justified the grandest possible tomb. Often, therefore, even hlgh ranklng officials must have died before their tombs were completed, or even started. In a unique case, the Sixth Dynasty nomarch Djau constructed a jomt tomb for hlmself and for his like-named but lower ranking father, claimmg [Urk. 1,145- 1471: "I have caused that I be buned in a slngle tomb with this Djau, because I want to be wlth hlm in a smgle place. It 1s not because I am not in possession of resources? (or authonsations' ') for maklng two tombs." Indeed, he stresses that he had obtamed from the kmg both burial equipment and even posthumous promotion for

26 Labor in the Ancient Near East

information they give is limited. Organised in crews bswt), they were overseen by controllers (brp) of tomb-makers, and at the highest level by an overseer of the gs-pr of tomb-makers. T h ~ s gs-pr m~ght be a purely administrat~ve organisation, or an actual place, with workshops and living quarters. The only detailed reference to their work is their building the tomb of the dog Cbwtyw at the orders of the king (see 13.1). The normal term for unskilled or sem-skilled tomb workers was hrg-nlr, "necropolis man," often in effect "stone-worker" [as when employed in the quarries, e.g., Couyat and Montet 1912, no.1881. A depiction in a tomb at Mex [Blackman and Apted 1953, pl.XXI] shows five such men cutting stone with ch~sel and mallet, doubtless ~n the preparation of the tomb ~tself. However, like the tomb-makers, they have not left significant records of the~r activities or organisation. ,

The title, overseer of works, with various additional epithets, stood at the peak of supervision of public works [Smith 1949:357-358; Freier 1976:15; Strudw~ck 1985:217-2501. It was often held by the h~ghest official of state, the vlzier, an indicat~on of the central importance of public works within the administratwe structure. Actual supervision of projects belonged to the administrat~on of the "royal

ster builder" and h ~ s subordinates. The best known such official, Nekhebu nham 19381 recorded his supervision of a w~de range of projects, building, canal J

digging and quarrying. Craftsmen and artists seem to have formed a separate group, of higher status than ordinary workmen [Helck 1975:lOO; cf. Wilson 1947; Junker 1956, 1959; Smith 1949:351-365; Kaplony 19661. Thus Meni, recording that he sat~sfied all the builders of his tomb, "whether craftsman or necropolis man" Or jmj hmwt jmj hrg-nlr), apparently dist~ngu~shed the two groups on the grounds of status and organlsatlon [Fischer 1966:69]. Doubtless it was for the same reason that the work on the tomb of Debehni (see 13.1) was supervised by a royal master builder together with two great controllers of craftsmen, offic~als of two different administrat~ons.

The $rEM'd@nt'r6116fS-o~~cr&s~II-[wr brp hmwt: Helck 1954:102-106; Fischer 1966:63-68; Preier 19761 stood atthe head of the organisat~on of craftsmen, and in close relat~onsh~p to the king. This orig~nally functional title, held by two people at the same tlme [Urk. I, 20,7; 38,151, was at later periods distmct~ve to the High Priest of Ptah at Memphis. Throughout the Old Kingdom there was, indeed, a connection between the holding of craft titles and the holding of religious titles indicating a part m (and income from) the cult of Ptah and Sokaris. The extensive development of the temple's wealth, leading to an increase in the importance of its functionaries, and the conversion of t h ~ s h~ghest craft title into a (purely?) religious function cannot be dated before the late Old Kingdom [Freier 1976:16-22.26-321. The structure of craft organlsatlon at a lower level can only be traced through titles, and through the cursus honorum through which higher craft officials seem to have passed [cf. Freier 1976:lO-111.

Most important were variants of the titles "overseer of (all) craftsmen (of the state)" or "overseer of (craftsmen of) wcbt." Literally "pure place," wCbt was especially used of the embalmer's workshop [Brovarslu 1977:110,114]. Otherwise it was used, alone or with a variety of epithets such as "southern," or "of the lung" [Drenkhahn 1976:147-154; Brovarski 19771, to mdicate the most important of craft organisations [Junker 1959:22-361, to which all sorts of workers were attached:

EYRE: Work zn the Old Kingdom 27

metalworkers, carpenters, pamters and sculptors, together w~th the~r overseers, directors, deputy (directors) and oversee~s-of ten. Perhaps the two uses of wcbt should not be completely separated, both bemg organisatlons connected with work in the necropolis [Junker 1959:23; Drenkhahn 1976:148]. Craftsmen of the state seem to have had their own separate organisation, and presumably different spheres of normal activity. For instance, Ankhu, who reached the lughest rank of royal master (mdh nsw) in overseemg metalworkers of the state, held a long series of titles connected with metalworking and its control. Despite difficulties of understanding, it is the best source for reconstructing the hierarchy of the profession [Goyon 1959:ll- 151. Most interestmg are his control of weapons and of "fashionmg gods (statues)." '

4.1 Craft Actzvztzes Depleted in the Tombs In principle, and over simplified, the reliefs of a private tomb depict the range of act~vities needed for the provision of the tomb and the continuation of life within it. They are not random depictions from the everyday life of the tomb-owner's household [cf. Drenkhahn 1976:35], although to a large extent coinciding with it. There is a large content of rural and agricultural life, and a strong element of domestic labour, espec~ally baking and brew~ng. Pottery manufacture, necessary to the provision of food and drmk, was shown injuxtaposi- tlon to bakmg and brewmg [Drenkhahn 1976:86-87; Holthoer 1977:27-281, that is, treated as a domeshc activity. Old Kingdom pottery was generally crude and domestic, not the product of a large scale industry w~th wide distribut~on [Arnold 1976:22 n.65; Holthoer 1977:27-28, but note O'Connor 1974-1975:27-281. Carpen- ters, boat-builders, leather workers and to some extent metalworkers are shown making tomb goods that did not differ significantly from goods needed in life. However, the skills of jewellers and the most technically sophisticated metalworkers can hardly have been needed regularly in any but the very greatest households. The work of sculptors, regularly shown, or of stone-vessel makers, seems to hav r e . q ~ r ~ ~ ~ h e p m B ~ u t I i e ~ o n l y for his tomb.

Because the depictions often name minor figures, some detailed informat~on is available about the actual personnel who worked on a tomb. Epithets showing the workforce to which named craftsmen belonged are unfortunately rare [Drenkhahn 1976:135-1551. Most often they belonged to the tomb owner's estate (pr dt), but also named werircraftsmen of the state, of wcbt, of the k~ng's house, or exceptionally, of the king. The unusual mention of craftsmen of the res~dence comes from a prov~ncial tomb [Drenkhahn 1976:139-1401. The evidence 1s too sparse for conclusions to be certain and exclusive,' but it seems that the most specialised workmen, notably sculptors and painters, were only attached to the state or wcbt. The personnel of less unusual crafts were said to belong to thepr dt of the tomb owner rather than the state or wcbt. The only craftsmen noted to be "of the king's house" were carpenters. Craftsmen "of the kmg" were probably the very best, who produced only the highest quality, most luxurious goods for the king personally [Drenkhahn 1976:145]. It seems that, in effect, one has to presume an effective state monopoly over the control of certain of the most skilled crafts.

The ch~ef doctor, Nyankhsekhmet, asked the kmg [Urk. I, 38-39]: "'Would that that ka of yours, beloved of Re, might decree that I be given a false door of limestone for that tomb of mlne in the necropolis!'Then His Majesty had brought for h ~ m two

28 Labor m the Anczent Near &t

false doors from Tura, of limestone. They were put inside the &dw of (the palace) Khai-weret-Sahure. Two chief controllers of craftsmen, and craftsmen of wCbt were put on them. The work was done in the presence of the king himself. The work (? 9 went on every day. What was done on them was seen during the duties of each day. Then His Majesty caused drawing implements [? or "authorisations", Fisher 1978:52- 561 to be applied to them, that they might be decorated in blue." The employment of the chief controllers of craftsmen [cf. Urk. I, 18-21], doubtless signalling the very highest quality of work, and the detailed supervision of the king [a similar example: Junker 1957:30; 1959:25; Strudwick 1985:240-2411 were special. This d3dw is also attested as the place where the chef royal leather worker Weta worked and lived [Urk. I, 22; Junker 1957:27-321, and was probably awork centre attached to the royal residence [Goedicke 196770-72; the depictions adduced by Drenkhahn 1976:151-154 are New Kingdom, but the companson seems valid]. The craftsmen of wCbt were presumably brought in specially for the work of Nyankhsekhmet.

The private tomb was, therefore, built and stocked partly by workmen from the tomb owner's estates. For instance, detachments of men from his dt are shown dragging a shrine into place in the tomb of Djau [Settgast 1963:21], promding the ordinary labour. Partly it was prepared by craftsmen with 6~me.status.a~ state or royal employees, brought in specially for the most skilled work. A partial resolution of the apparent contradictions between royal and private provision in tomb building is thus likely to be that these skilled workmen (as certmn of the best materials) were only available through the state, in principle as a favour from the king, through the "lending" of wCbt or state craftsmen to the household of the tomb owner, where they would be provided for as, or rather better than his own dependants [cf. Drenkhahn 1976:138-1401. There is no way that craftsmen acting purely as independent wage labourers might be recognised from this material, but it seems unlikely that they existed outside the known orgaois,ational frameworks. Yet withm that structure their activities-may welkhave been lewrigidly fixed than the theonsmg here might ~mply, particularly in the terms,coqtrpq:ed and the."satisfaction" expected.

4.2 Dwellings and Workshops It is natural to expect that craftsmen of the king or a great official liyed and worked near their employer's great house. It is more difficult to spewlate about the normal homes and places of work of craftsmen of the state or of wcbt. It is not even-clear whether wCbt should be thought of as purely administrative organisations or as work centres, with workshops and housing. There are, indeed, no excavated remams of a permanent workmen's village from the Old Kingdom [Helck and Otto 1975:374, 1984:9-141, and information about a possible industrial quarter in the excavations of Early Dynastic Hierakonpolis [Hoffman 1974:45-48; note also Davis 1983:126] is too slight for real comparison with known craft organisations. No useful information is preserved about the remams of a possible necropolis administrative centre of the Sixth Dynasty in the Step Pyramid compound [Posener-KriCger 1980:92]. The rows of crude buildings, series of long, narrow rooms, behind the Chephren pyramid [Petrie n.d.:101-103 pl.IV, Holscher 191212, 36,70, Abb. 41, if not indeed storerooms [Goyon 1977:197-1981, were only barracks providing mass shelter for work gangs. Equally specialised shelter can be

EYRE: Work m the Old Kingdom 29

seen in the small, crude workmen's huts in the quarries, at Wadi Maghara in Sina [Gardiner, Peet and cernjr 1955:6,22], arHzfnub, or in the Nubian diorite quarries [Engelbach 1938:372]. Such accomodation was short term, for workers away from home.

People regularly employed on tomb building doubtless lived in or near the necropolis. The sale of a house before the court of the pyramid town of Cheops at Giza [Goedicke 1970:149-1731 included a necropolis man as well as ka-priests among the witnesses. The will of Wepemnofret [Goedicke 1970:31-43; Fischer 1966:60-611, bequeathing a shaft and rights in his tomb to his eldest son, was witnessed by all sorts of craftsmen and workmen: builders, a painter, a sculptor, a tomb-maker, an embalmer, a carpenter, a necropolis man and an jdw-man, as well as doctors and ka-pnests. Presumably they were people living and working close to the properties concerned [Trigger et al. 1983:92-941. It may be that the towns attached to pyramid temples grew up in origin from settlements of men involved on the pyramid projects, and continued to some extent to be inhabited by craftsmen as well as priests [Helck 1957, 1959:19; denied by Stadelmann 1981bI. Archaeologcally such sites are poorly known [for Giza see Zivie 1976:13-14,20-22; Abdel-Aziz Saleh 1974; note also Borchardt 19051, and the documentary ewdence of-the Abusifipapyri is concerned only with the temple, not with the associated town.

The depictions in private tombs, usually of a large seated figure of the deceased "watching" registers of different craftsmen at work, are too formalised and idealised to provide evidence for the physical appearance of workshop buildings or the organisation of work in them. In two cases [Drenkhahn 1976:75-76,135-136; Moussa and Altenmiiller 1977, p1.651 the tomb owner is labelled as "looking at the work in the js (of all) the craftsmen." js here is unlikely to have meant the tomb, rather the place of work. The js of certain institutions were mentioned in royal decrees (see 72.8) as "offices" responsible for the registration, recnutment and organisation of lab dutlt%, *any wGTc%f't?le Eing's house.'' People entitled jmj-rjs (or jswy), "oversee tkie (two) JS," controlled' storage facilities [Helck 195459,651 separate from, but parallel to the granaries and treasury, and doubtless also the related production, notably of oils and meat [cf. Urk. I, 177,3 and 10; 178,6]. Storage and work facilities are always likely to have been associated.

'Tliebeit attested facilities of this sort in the Old Kingdom were called SnCw orpr Sncw [Perepelkin 1962; Bakir 1952:41-47; Helck and Otto 1975:377-378; Helck 1975:47-48, 96-97], a term that basically meant "magaune." In the temple of Neferirkare a wide variety of materials were stored or administered in suchpr incw [Posener-KriCger 1976:327-328, 333-335, 406-409, grain, bread and beer; 346,354, 357-358,362-365, cloth and oils; 368-384, various goods; 384-388, bricks; 392, wood], and a guard stood over their entrances day and night [Posener-KriCger 1976:34-381. However, emdence from private tombs, both depictions and references to the personnel and activities ofpr Sncw, is limted to the receipt, storage, and preparation of food for the needs of ritual and daily consumption, especially the receipt of gram and its conversion into the staple foods of bread and beer. Workmen of other trades were not attached to p r SnCw, so that they cannot be considered workshops in a general sense, but rather the food storage and production centres of the household,

30 Labor in the Ancient Near East

whether of an official or some institution such as a temple [Perepelkin 1962; Moussa and Altenmuller 1977:67,71].

Other work units are even less well known. For instance, the temple of Neferirkare had an 'ryt nt nhp, "gateway of potters" [Posener-KriCger 1976:45- 46,5121, doubtless the place where they worked. It also had a number of r-i, "entrance" or "place of L" These had their ownpr-Snc w, with the^ own mrt, "serfs." Pepi I specifically protected the people of Dahshur from any requirement to dig for the r-Sof a king Ikauhor (see 12.8). These cannot have been simply agricultural units [Posener-KriCger 1976:612-19; Berlandini 1979:13-151, and most likely they were work places and organisations of a general nature attached to pyramid temples [Helck 1975:95; Stadelmann 1981a; 198113376-771. The gin this term will not be the word indicating a pool or piece of land, but the homonym connected with work [Posener-KriCger 1976:578-5791. Overseers of S, or of the i of craftsmen, appear in quarry inscriptions [Helck 1954:101], but also in connection with other types of work, notably weaving [cf. Junker 1941:12-13; 1959:81-821. A depiction of carpenters in the tomb of Iimery is labelled "i of the carpenter" [Lepsius 1849-1858,II, 49b], and Nyankhsekhmet told (see 114.1) that the i of his-false doors was inspected daily. Despite the considerable number of exampl6s [&lsoCUrk.2, 60;2;61,1; 62,1,17; 232,151 there can still be no certainty whetherLi shbuld be translated simply "work" [Fischer 1978:52-581 or "workplace," "workshop" [Goedicke 1967:69-72, n.291.

The existence of specialised provincial industries or local manufacturies seems almost untraceable but cannot be completely discounted. Pottery manufacture seems t o have been essentially domestic [above 114.11 and most other manufacture associated with large households or institutions. It is possible, however, to suggest [Brovarski 1973 11.211 for instance that at the end of the Old Kingdom the Abydos nome was an important centre for cattle rasing, with an associated leather industry. This is based on the presence of the tomb of an Overseer of Leatherwork atsheikh Farag and'the f a 8 that both leather-working titles and, more commonly, titles' relating to'sacredscattleappear on stelae of the period from that nome.

4.3 The Tomb Owners Patronage of His Craftsmen State craftsmen named and depicted ih private tombs were only rarely shown actually working. Usually they appeared in the more distinguished role of offering bearer or ka-priest, or as companioh to the tomb owner in "domestic" or fishing and fowling scenes, even being presented with food and dnnk by a servant [Junker 195952-9; Drenkhahn 1976:66-671. Such depictions, so-called craftsmen's "signatures" in tombs they build [Ware 1926-1927; Smth 1949:351-355; Wilson 1947:245-247; Junker 1956 and 19591, put them on a par with the closest associates, subordinates and dependants of the tomb owner. Such people were sometimes referred to as the tomb owner's mhnk [Helck 1956a:65; 1975:75-76; Junker 1959:esp. 16-18, 96-97]. Thus in the tomb of Nebemakhet there are depicted on a doorway [Urk. I, 16,l-71 "his mhnk, who drew this his tomb for him, the draughtsman, Smerka," and "his mhnk, who made this his tomb for him, the over<seer>? of works, [Inilkaef." The etymology of this title, from hnk, "give," "bestow," indicates that ihe person holding it was a beneficiary or pensioner in some, unfortunately, unknown way.

EYRE: Work in the Old Kingdom 31

Similar classes of skilled royal employees, notably craftsmen, hardressers and manicurists, were favoured witk the-eqmvalent title mhnk of the king [Helck 1954: 104; Goedicke 1970: 151-152; Drenkhahn 1976:46; Freier 1976: 151. An equiva- lence can be seen between the occasional, rather small tombs of people with specific craft titles [Junker 1959:69-791, and those of royal doctors [Junker 1959:96-971, hairdressers and manicurists [Moussa and Altenmuller 19771. Although such people did not fit clearly into the bureaucratic hierarchy of Egyptian officialdom, they mght own a not insignificant tomb, presumably as a result of their personal service to, and contact with the king.

The subsidiary burials around major tombs of the Early Dynastic Period were doubtless to provide the same continuing personal service as the depictions on the walls of later tombs [cf. Helck 1959:17]. It is rarely possible to identify modest burials associated with a major tomb of the Old Kingdom proper as those of dependants rather than family [Helck 1956a:64,68; Simpson 1978:28,31-32; Goedicke 1970, Taf.IV], although they may represent a form of patronage the tomb owner could provide for hls favoured servants. As the lung provided his officials and favoured employees with priesthoods and offices in pyramid and sun temples [Helck 19571, so the official's personnel received ka-priesthoods in his*tomb and cult [for artists and craftsmen, Junker 1959:50-691, which gave rights to land and income in return for duties that were presumably not very strenuous. Craftsmen as such took part in the burial ceremonies, bnngmg their products to place in the tomb [Gardiner 1955:14-15; Kaplony 1966:108-112; note Urk. I, 204-2051, but as ka-priests they held a permanent income in the service of their employer, that passed to their heirs in perpetuity [cf. Allam 19851.

5 Evzdence for Trade and Markets A small number of tombs show market scenes [Helck and Otto 1980:1191-1194; Hodjash and Berlev 19801, sometimes - - - clearly recognisable because the recorded speeches include requests to buy or sell: - - " - - - - - -

. The.goods traded are not luxury items: for a large part the scenes show the sale of- >, -- ,.= - food and drink, especially vegetables, fruit and fish. In some cases a refreshments

may be intended [Moussa and Altenmuller 1977, Abb.10, 3rd register, b It would be an extraordinarily rigid social organisation that had no local tr

in such commodities among the lower classes. Manufactured goods appear in range of essentially simple goods [listed Hodjash and Berlev 1980:47], for inst head-rest, spmdle-whorls, oils, cloth, fishhooks, or jewellery. Among the scenes in the tomb of two brothers at Saqqara [Moussa and Altenmuller 1977:79-81, Abb.101 are two men, standing, measuring and discussing the price per cubit of a bale of cloth, before a seated fat (= superior) man named as the "great one of craftsmen" (wr nw hmwt). Another salesman offers to exchange the fish from his basket with a man seated in front of him engraving a seal. Behind the fish-salesman a metalworker is offenng a chisel' and fishhooks. Further along another metalworker [? hmw dbnw, "craftsman of the dbn-weight'"] is exchanging a deben-weight? for a beaker (of pottery? or copper?). Another man is exchangng a fan for a drink.

Men in these scenes typically carry shoulder bags, tied by a cross strap over their shoulders, as well as sacks and boxes. Such bags may have been for the valuables

32 Labor m the Ancient Near East

they traded [Hodjash and Berlev 1980:45-461, and one 1s tempted to Identify some of these bagmen as ltlnerant peddlers, the more so because they do not always appear in the context of a formal market. In the tomb of Iimery [Lepsius 1849-1858,II, 49bl a reglster showing scenes of oil making Includes a man carrying a sack and vessel, apparently trying to buy oil. The register above shows a man with a shoulder bag, apparently trylng to trade ln sklns (? fis) with men working leather [but see Drenkhahn 1976:lO-111. Scenes of manufacture and sale seem to be run together also In the tomb of Ti [Wild 1966, ~1.1741, where a angle register depicts the manufacture of staffs, leather work, seal engraving, a man carrylng bags and oil, an exchange of sandals, a man carrylng fans, and the sale of staffs. These goods were presumably traded at or near where they were made.

The scenes from the tomb of Tepemankh seem to associate workshops and trading with a riverbank [Hodjash and Berlev 1980:36]. The registers depicting trade In the tomb of the two brothers have above them scenes of manicuring and barbermg, and below a depiction of sailing on the canal of the west. It is possible to visualise a riverbank market, where trading was assoc~ated with certaln simple craftwork and personal services, such as refreshments and barberlng. However, archltectural detail is almost completely lacking ln Old Kihgaom to&6-.&eries, scenes were not necessarily juxtaposed because they were connected, and such interpretatlon 1s speculatlve. It is impossible to tell from the scenes whether a local or major market is shown, how formal was ~ t s conduct lpace Hodjash and Berlev 1980:44], or how far advanced the trading process was from the purest form of barter [cf. Daumas 1977:425-4261.

The nature of internal trade in the Old Kingdom 1s difficult to understand [Helck 1975:114-1151. There is no obvious reason why market scenes should have been Included In tomb decoratlon. They do not obviously belong to the cycle of provislon - for the tomb owner, for it is difficult to believe that such markets were necessary to the supply of-their personal households lpace Hodjash and Berlev 1981:39-40,441. The relatlve*rarity of such scenes may argue, not that market actlvitles were lnslgnificant, but perhaps that they were so typical as not to be excluded from incidental mater~al. It is also likely that members of the tomb owner's household, in the wldest sense of the word, were ~nvolved. It may be that the work of his craftsmen and dependants, their surplus production, both industrial and agrlcultural, was belng traded, rather than the products of wholly Independent artisans [Helck 1959:35-36; Hodjash and Berlev 1980:36; but cf. Drenkhahn 1976:156]. This might have been for the benefit of the individual, trading on the side, or for the household to which he belonged. Both of those models of trading are known from the New Kingdom.

6 Agrzcultural Actzvztzes and Land Tenure All the activities of the agrlcultural year are shown In the decoration of pnvate tombs, arable farmlng [Vandier 1952- 1978, VI], pasturage, fishing, fowling and sometlmes huntlng [Montet 19251. Like other work shown in the tombs, they were the activltles of the dt orpr (n) dt, "house of dt" of the tomb owner, his personal household [Perepelkm 1966; Helck 1975:57-61; Menu and Hararl 1974:142-145; Schnelder 1977:18-19; Goedicke 1970:34-351. Preserved references to these terms appear mostly in the context of the necropolis

EYRE: Work in the Old Kingdom 33

and afterlife because they come from tombs. Thus the tomb owner refers to his "house of dt,"meanlng the tomb 13 wh& h_e will live [Urk. I, 189,8,15; 199,121, "this tomb of my dt"[Urk. I, 174,12,16], "the daily offerings of my dt9'[Urk. I 174,8], "the ka-prlests of my dt" [Urk. I, 36,5], estates of hls dt to provide for his cult [Urk. I, 14,16: 15,7; 144.111 and serfs (mrt) of hls dt to work them [Urk. I, 144,16; Junker 1938:93,98]. Buildings of hls dt [Jbquler 1926:54] o rpr dt [Urk. I, 44,12; 64,6; 65,9] mlght be located In a pyramid complex or pyramd town. However, the funerary foundation was slmply a reduced contlnuatlon of the household after death, when the land, people, anlmals and property that the deceased had endowed, and therefore still owned, were held in trust by co-beneficlanes, sometlmes referred to as "brother of dt" [Helck 1956a:67; 1975:90; Goedicke 1970:127-129: Menu and Harari 1974:148- 1501, under strict sets of rules [Allam 1974; Goedicke 1970; Moussa and Altenmiiller 197737-881 that made them approximate to family members under the authority of the chlef helr [Kaplony 1976:42; but note Allam 1974:139-1431. The dt or p r dt exlsted as household and personal property before death. The official's personnel belonged to hls p r dt. Workmen were paid with bread and beer from thepr dt [Edel 1958:15], and officials provlded for the destitute from the same source. A nomarch "measured out Upper Egyptlan barley f5gmiCmy,jx,dt for thq hungry Ifound In thls nome" [Urk. I, 254,161 and "burled every man of t h nome who had no son, in cloth from the property of my dt" [Urk. I, 255,2-31. By the Middle Kingdom, dependants of an official were slmply referred to as hls dt or ndt, effectively hls property [Helck 1975:60].

Major landholdings were divlded up, throughout the country, Into hwt, "mansion," or "estate," and njwt, "village." Personifications of these properties are shown bringlng offenngs in the tomb decoratlon, In effect providing lists of the estates held by the tomb owner [Jacquet-Gordon 1962; but note Kanawatl 1977:72]. From then names [Helck 1975:35-441 a hlgh proportion seem to be royal founda- ti&, .although2apparently private foundations also occur [Helck 1975:68-721. The same,estates may appear ln more than one tomb, from whlch ~t seems they did not normally pass from father to son. Most probably they were held for thelr usufruct, in connection with the person's offices, durlng hn liietlme, and provlded some small, resldual offering after death [Jacquet-Gordon 196221-251. This seems the bas major landholding [Menu and Hararl 1974:141-1451, although clear evidence distinction between prlvate property and property held wlth office 1s lack~ng fort Old Kingdom [possibly Urk. 1,l-7; see Menu and Hararl 1974:134-135; Godecken 19761.

It is easy to overestlmate the Importance of funerary endowments, since they are the only well documented economlc units. They were frequently rather small, not large series of estates [see the collection of examples Baer 19561. It has frequently been argued [Menu and Hararl 1974:145; cf. Helck 1959:19; Jacquet-Gordon 196224-25; Allam 1974:146; Drenkhahn 1976:136-1371 that the origlns of prwate property In Egypt lie ln assignments of land to provlde incomes for the contlnuatlon of cults, and then the lapse of the dutles attached to them. Thls may be too slmplistlc {Helck and Otto 1975:732-743; Gutgesell 19831. However, the terms of such endowments help to illustrate standard practices of employment and ownership, if

Labor In the Anczent Near East

sometimes rather by what they forbad than what they required. They restricted the use the hen could make of the property to the funerary provision, in the same way as kings, by protection decrees, prevented the use of temple personnel and property for wider state financial needs. The chief heir and benefic~aries, who did not necessarily perform the dutles themselves, could not take their subordinate ka-prlests for any other duty. If the ka-pr~est failed to perform, notably if he accepted some other service, he lost his rights to income from the endowment lands asslgned to him. This usufruct he could only pass on, together wlth his office, to a slngle heir (eldest son). The work and resulting property and ~ t s Income were thus a unlty.

The distinction between-the types of property hwt and njwt is not now clear [Jacquet-Gordon 19623-4.121: perhaps the former was more centralised In organlsa- tlon as an estate or large farm, and ln the latter, perhaps run as a smaller "rent" paylng unit, the village was more evident. The English term "manor" is likely to cover both effectively. They were run by men entltled hq3 [Helck 195479,126; Junker 1938:90-971, hq3 hwt and hq3 njwt, who were responsible for the income. Their audit is frequently shown in the tombs. That of Mereruka shows [Duell 1938, p1.361 hq3w hwt, bowmg, ushered into a hall where scribes are at work. Some, presumably for un~atisfactory~resu~ts~are shown-tied to a whlpplng post, to be beaten wlth stlcks. The accounts of the pr dt as a whole were regularly shown belng presented to the tomb owner by his steward (pj-r pr) as he sat "watchmg" the work of hls people [e.g., Junker 1941:88-89; Kaplony 1976:n.208].

The unpublished Gebelem papyri [Posener-Kritger 19751 may belong to the admlnistratlon of such manors, and represent just such accounts, for one of the texts [Posener-Kritger 1975:216-2201 was specifically a register of two manors belonging to a p r dt. The second of these manors also appears ln the earlier tomb of Seshemnefer at Giza, and had presumably once been ln his possession. The registers include all the types of minor-artisans, and the scribes and clerks necessary ,$or the admln1stratlon of an independent village or manor; but in general the people-bided seem to have been of the lowest status, since thelr names were not formed with royal, and only rarely with divlne names. Many of those listed in the register of the manors were described as hm nsw, literally "royal slave." This term is rare in the Old Kingdom, but comparison with later evidence indicates that it referred to agricultural workers on an estate [Posener-Kritger 1975:218-2191, not to a group immediately dependent on the king [but see Helck 1975: 1021. A more commonly attested element of the rural population were the nswtyw, literally "those of the king," who might likewlse be thought to have some special relationship to the crown [Goedicke 1965, 1967:134-135; Helck 1959:14,26-27, 1975:101]. Overseers of nswtyw were provincial administrators [Junker 1938:173; Martin-Pardey 1977:80,239], who Included among their duties supervision of public works. However, assessment of the status of such people, whether as a group of small landholders dependent only on the klng, or as a type of serf assigned by the kmng, depends on interpretation of the statement of Metjen [Urk. I, 2,8; 4.81 that he bought Onj rpw) land br many nswtyw-edher with them (as peasantry) or possibly from them.

The surviving types of evidence are not iikely to provlde clear indications of the terms under which the land was farmed, whether mostly for rent or for servlce or for

EYRE: Work in the Old Kingdom 35

wages, whether mostly as free agents or as serfs. A free peasantry IS notoriously a class that leaves little historical ~ r - a r ~ h & ~ ~ l ~ g i ~ a l evidence of its existence. The fact that Egyptian material deals entlrely wlth great estates does not mean that other types of holding did not exlst and that the status of all peasants was the same. For instance, rare deplctlons of field work being performed by "crews" Cjswt) of the tomb owner's pr dt [Junker 1938:93; Lepslus 1849-1858,II, 51,561 doubtless indicate that farming was sometimes carrled out on a large scale by bodies of men controlled as units. The balance between such practices, and small holdings run by family units, cannot be deduced for the Old Kingdom.

References to the disposal, acquisition or endowment of land may refer also to the necessary people, animals and other property attached to the fields [Urk. I, 11-15; 172 = Goedicke 1967:22-36; Baklr 1952:8]. The personnel who worked the lands and estates of the officials, providing the correct imposts (mdd) for them, were referred to as their mrt [Baklr 195222-25; Helck 1975:102; cf. the tltle, "overseer of commissions of rnrt and fields," Vallogia 1976:34]. Thus the depiction of women, personificatlons of manors, bringmg offerings, is explained on a tomb wall [Urk. I, 144,7-145,3]: "This is done for me from the villages of my dt, as (funerary-) service (? m wCb), belng

.,a_& ,dj nsw whlch the Majesty of my Lord gave to me [in order] to make for me fields . under mrt of my dt, full with cattle, with goats and with donkeys, with [what] is made into [(offerings of) legs (of meat)?], beyond the belongings of my father. So I am hq: hwt of thepr SnCw of land (extending) 203 arurae, 1 t 3, which the Majesty of my Lord gave me to strengthen (snht) me." Nefenrkare's protection decree forbad the recrultment not only of the priests of the Abydos temple who performed service (wCb) for their fields, but also of the rnrt who actually worked the fields for whlch the prlests did their service [Urk. I, 170-172 = Goedicke 1967:22-361. When, at the end of the Old Kingdom, prlests for a cult were sald to be recruited from the mrt of the founder's dt [Urk. I, 303,6-7; Helck 1975536-871: the ierm p~esumably indicated the whole body'Cif hisdependants. Thus, althzugh thd ~ t r i ~ t k ~ a l . ~ o s i t i o n ^

of rnrt, or their terms of service cannot be defined, ap English ~ r a ~ s 1 a ~ l o ~ ' s e r f " is the most convenient indication of their status.

The decree of Pep1 I protecting the pyramid town of Dahshu; [Urk. I, 209-213 = Goedicke 1967:54-77; Helck 1959:17-181 agalnst taxation and labour dutles con- tained a number of speaal clauses concerning ~ t s bntpipeople. They were freed from assisting the passage of envoys or expeditions. Only the _h&-S of that town were permitted to cultivate its fields; their working by the rnrt of any queen, prlnce or princess, or officlal (smr or sr), or their holding by any "settled Nubian" (nhs htp) was expressly forbidden. Once established In the cataster, no bntJ-3 (the wrlting IS

aberrant, but the reading virtually certain) mlght be taken away by any person, or "settled Nubian" with whom he mlght previously have been. HntJ-S were to be recruited from the children of those already established there (? ms jmnw), and registered on the cataster [Schott 1965:10]. Property and functions belonging to the town were not to be given to people from other pyramids, specifically not the function' of bnt~-s', except under certam (obscure) conditions.

Literally "the one ~n front of S,:' the most convenient translation of &tJ-S 1s "tenant" [Gardiner 1908:129-1301. s'mlght perhaps be the term "work" [above 14.21

! 36 Labor m the Anczent Near East i

and the title refer to the servlce Incumbent on the hnq-5 ("he to whom 1s attached work-duty?"). It might refer to the kmg's land or territory as a productwe unit [Stadelmann 1981a:157-158; Helck and Otto 1984:10]. More usually ~t has been regarded as a class of land holding. d basically indicated a "pool" [a marsh, cf. Moussa and Altenmiiller 1977, Abb.8; "irngatlon-basmn?," Berlandini 1979:13-151. As a patch of land it was often planted with trees [Edel1944:49-50; Fischer 1968:154, 1601; the Middle Kingdom hnt-5, "garden," "orchard," will be related [cf. Helck 1959:17]. As a title, hng-5 first appears ln the Fifth Dynasty [Helck 1954:106-109, 1957:102; Baer 1960:272-273; Kanawati 1977:26-271 and was held only in relation to the state or a pyramid temple. The Abusir papyri show hng-s'servlng with prlests as members of the temple phyle, carrymg out dutles in the cult and admixlistratlon of the temple, and recelvlng shares of the revenues In return [Posener-Krikger 1976575- 5811. They seem, therefore, to have been small farmers, paymg ln service and possibly providing towards the offenngs [Helck 1957:102; Stadelmann 1981a, 1981b:74-771, in return for thelr protected plots of land. Presumably brig-S of the state held land ln return for some state service [Schott 1965:ll-12; Urk. I, 100,5-111. An overseer of hng-5 of the state was included ln the officlal address of the Dahshur decree, whlch may indicate that he was also ln authonty, for state purposes, over temple hng-5.

It seemilike19 that the ban on the cultivation of fields at Dahshur by mrt of high officlals or members of the royal family was Intended to protect the existence of the brig-5 as a rlcher class of peasant who could personally perform the servlce for his land. In the same way tomb owners banned their ka-prlests from other service, for a pluralist ka-priest would take the revenues, but not personally perform the service. However, high officials of the Sixth Dynasty held the function of simple hnq-5 and other offices, sometimes ln more than one pyramid temple [e.g., Urk. I, 131,15-132.2; Schott 1965:11], that they could not possibly have carrled out regularly in person [Helck 1957:102-1031. The attraction of such a holding is likely to have been ~ t s freedom from Interference by the living kmg-pfelck 1925:66-71. Such landholdings were, moreover, spread throughout the country [Helck ?57:104; Jacquet-Gordon 1962:104-1081. Thus Sabnl received, as a reward from the king, more than 124 arura (the exact amount 1s uncertain) throughout Upper and Lower Egypt as brig-3 of the pyramid of Pept I1 [Urk. I, 140,9-111. By that-date the assignment of land w~th pyramld-temple office seems to have been the most Important expression of royal patronage and provision for high officlals [Helck 1959:20; note Urk. I, 283,12-241.

7 Forelgners zn the Work Force Also mcluded ln the address of the Dahshur decree were officials of mercenarles ('w) from three parts of Nubia, doubtless those In charge of the "settled Nubians" mentioned In the text, of whom there must have been a large settlement in the reglon [Fischer 1961:76; Helck and Otto 1982:134-1351. There 1s considerable evldence for the influx of captives and herds, throughout the Old Kingdom, taken as booty from the surrounding countries [Helck 1974a. 1975:98- 991, although the numbers recorded consistently seem unrealistically high Cpace Lopez 1967:61-621. Foreigners were important from an early date In military forces [Fischer 19611, the 'w whose overseers [Goedicke 19601 appear so regularly m the higher personnel of expeditions of all klnds. Their Importance ln other areas is less

EYRE: Work in the Old Kingdom 37

clear [Helck 1974aI. There 1s no-evidezce-for their use in clearly defined groups on work projects In Egypt [Rowe 1938:393 1s rejected by Edel in Ricke 1969:14-151. Nor can the surrounding areas have provided the most deslrable of pnsoeers: craftsmen and skilled workers. Forelgners do not seem to have attruned any high rank In royal service. and their extreme rarity as subsdiary figures m prlvate tombs [Fischer 1961:75; Junker 1934, Abb.28: 1938, Abb.27; Helck 1975:102-1031 would imply that they rarely found thelr way into the household and personal service of Egypt~an officlals ln the classic form of slavery, whlch, if it existed at all in the Old Kingdom, will have been of no great lmportance, essentially an irrelevance to the overall social structure [Helck 1959:25-27; Baklr 19521.

A hlgh proportion of foreign captives and their flocks may have been used for Internal colonlsatlon [Helck and Otto 1980:672-73; note Kanawati 1980:lO-111, a process directly attested by mentions of njwt m3wt, "new villages," and by the naming of villages and estates after the kings and officials presumed to be then founders. These were largely concentrated in the Delta [Jacquet-Gordon 1962:104- 108; Helck 1975:39-41,461, probably as a result of deliberate efforts to develop new areas to provide endowments and incomes for a growing official class [cf. Helck, , -_

-f954:126;'1974a:223; Jacquet-Gordon 1962:24-25; Gutgesell1983:74-761, rather than ' as a reaction to Internal pressures such as a rislng population or the loss of cultivable land through lower Nile levels [the typlcal problem of the First Intermediate Period, to which Urk. I, 76-79 really belongs].

-- - 8 Women in the Work Force Women did not normally have a tomb separate

from then husbands. Those who did were special cases, often queens or princesses. They did, however, hold, inherlt and bequeath land [e.g., Urk. I, 2,9-10; Goedicke 1970, Taf.XIII], even as hntt-l "tenant" landholder, of a pyramid town [Fischer 1976:72-73; n.241, and they held ka-priesthoods [Goedicke 19701103; Fischer 1976:70, n.151. Herodotus' belief that women never h$d prlestly office in temples was completely mlstaken [Blackman 192l;-Helck and Otto 1982:lIOO-11021. One may, however, doubt whether a woman holding land or an endowment in return for service actually performed it personally. The inscription of Tjenty [Goediclte 1970:122-1301, while lnslstlng that the benefits from, and performance of rites for himself and h ~ s mother were in the hands of his wife, actually named four ka-priests who should hold land and perform the rltes under her endowment. In a number of cases a woman bears tltles clearly of administratlve or functional form, but it can often be demonstrated that she was ln the servxe of another woman's household, or that some other unusual circumstances surrounded her association with the tltle [Fischer 1976:69-751. It is unlikely that such women held normal functions within the state administratlve structure. No women can be shown to have had work authority as officials over men.

The deplctlons of women ln the tomb scenes are restricted In range [Drenkhahn 1976:133-1341. They are shown as relations of the tomb owner, or In domestic employment, especially brewmg and bakmg, as singers and dancers [titles: Fischer 1976:71], occasionally In agricultural, or rather harvest scenes, especially wlnnowmg [Vandier 1952-1978, VI, esp. 176-183,272-2731, and In market scenes, both as

38 Labor m the Anctent Near East

purchaser and seller [Moussa and Altenmiiller 1977:79-81, Abb.101. This seems to glve a fan plcture of the normal "women's professions," essentially domest~c and personal servlce. To these must be added weaving, possibly In special workshops or organlsatlons [note Lepslus 1849-1858, 11, 103a], for women bear tltles connected with the craft [Fischer 1976:70-72: Helck 1954:63]. Depictions in the tomb of Seneb [Junker 1941:41-611, showlng the reward of female weavers with jewellery, Imply that women of some status could be involved in such work. Othenvlse women do not seem to have performed crafts. A Gebelem papyrus which includes women among people recruited for work on a building project [Posener-Krikger 19751 is, for the present, an isolated example of uncertam significance.

9 Soczai Mobility In theory a hlgh degree of soclal mobility was possi Egypt [Theodorides 1973; Donadoni 19761. Except for membership of the family nobility of blrth was not an expliclt source of position. Wisdom lite frequently Implied that the lowest might rise to high rank and t nothing. Thus the instructions of Ptahhotep [175-185: probably a

in an Old Kingdom setting] advlsed the pupil, as a depend orth and not to despise him for his former poverty,

hls wealth resulted from hls merlt and divlne favour. The tr If-made, self-reliant man, boasting of hu wealth, 1s a characte ographical texts of the First Intermediate Perlod that can be seen dev xth Dynasty, but at no date did the tomb owner hesitate to attribute e king to hls personal merit.

The statements of classical authors [Diodorus 1.74; Herodotus 11.1641 that the son was compelled to follow hls father's trade are presumably too rigld even for their own tlmes, the attribution of normal practlce to legal necessity, but the ideal that a son succeeded his father was alqvays strongp Egypt. .It is to be expected that skille men, officials, scribes and craftsmen, educated thew own children to their own trade The skill of an overseer of works [Urk, I, 63,6], ox of a lector priest reading rituals [Urk. I, 186,151, was hmt the same as that of a craftsman. Knowledge of the prosopography of the Old Kingdom is insufficient to illustrate family careers m a systematic way [Baer 1960:1]. Evenso, such successions can be demonstrated among families holding the highest craft and,work tltles. For Instance, many of the known chlef controllers of craftsmen seem to havebeen related to each other; members of thelr families held other craft tltles [Freier 1976:11]. The overseer of craftsmen of wcbt, Washptah, showed three sons m his tomb, two bearing the subordinate title director of craftsmen of wcbt [Hassan 1936:5-141. A tomb complex at Saqqara[Kees 19571 was the burlal place of the family of Kaemheset, varlous members of which held office as royal master builder or overseer of builders. Such examples can be multiplied considerably.

The most interesting family is that of a vizler and overseer of works, Snedjemib, of the late Fifth Dynasty. Several generations of hls descendants, holding high titles connected wlth public works, were buried m a complex of tombs surrounding his own [Relsner 19131. The inscriptions of his grandson7, Meryptahankhmeryre, called Nekhebu [Urk. I, 215-221; Dunham 19381, provides the most detailed description of

EYRE: Work m the Old Kingdom 39

the actual career of a work officlal. He tells how the kmg promoted him from common builder (qdn 'S:) through the-mmus offices of the building administration, to "sole companlon and royal master builder In the two houses" [Helck 1954:104- 1051. Other texts reveal that he eventually became overseer of all works of the kmg, and overseer of commsslons of the pyramid of Pep1 I [Baer 1960:37-38.95-961.

Although constantly stressmg the successful performance of all his tasks and the favour of the king as the reason for each promotion, the texts of Nekhebu clearly reveal the importance of his family connection. He rose, effectively, as hls brother's deputy. He recorded how, at different stages of h ~ s brother's career, he carried his palette. or his measunng rod, or acted as his assistant. When hls brother became royal master builder, he ruled his village for hlm. When his brother became sole companlon and royal master builder in the two houses, he controlled ( ~ p ) his property ~n such a way that "there were more things in hls house than in the house of any noble (sch)." The brother finally reached the posltion of overseer of works, when Nekhebu acted as his representatwe. It may be that one can identify here the rank at which an officlal obtamed a manor for hls support, and the growth of his property as his rank rose. Nekhebu administered his brother'spr n dt for 20 years, to everybody's satisfaction: "I did not beat any person there so that he fell under my fingers"(= into ,

unconsciousness?), and "I never went to bed enraged at any people" are representa- twe of h ~ s cla~ms. The same prmciple of employment is seen in the literary format of the wisdom of Ptahhotep. The aged vlzier was to train hls son, by leave of the kmg, to act as hu "staff of old age," his active assistant and thus virtually designated successor. In his turn, when overseer of works, Meryptahankhmeryre was accom- panied by a son of the same name on an expedition to the Wadi Hammamat [Goyon 1957, no.21; Couyat and Montet 1912, nos.61,107].

10 Concluszon In summary, Egypt of the Old Kingdom was not so uni develop-ment. ObvrauslJi~~a "state" m the termmology of political anthro [Balandier 1972, chapter 6; Trlgger 1974-1975:lOl-103; Janssen 1978; Atzler 19811, the only term used by the Egyptians for that concept was pr-C 2, "the great house." Although tn prlnclple referrmg to the palace, lt was not in practlce used for such. The essential governmental units were rather "the residence" (bnw) or "the king's house" (pr nsw) [Helck 1975:95-971. People whose tltles described them as "of pr-' 3" were not so much employees or dependants of the king hlmself, but of the state run by the king as a house. Government actlvity and public office, public administration at all levels, can be seen to have developed by expansion of the functions of personal service wlthm the royal household [Helck 1959:15-21; Janssen 1978:223-2341. The "taxatlon" system originates as a biennial royal progress around the country ("Follow~ng of Horus"), associated with the "counting" of all livestock and taxable property [Helck and Otto 1975:4, 1980:51-521. Early in the Old Kingdom the hlghest offices were held only by members of the royal family, but by the Fifth Dynasty the state had developed [Helck 1975:56; Strudwlck 1985:337-3461 into a complex sort of feudal [Balandier 197295-981 bureaucracy. The officials had thelr own houses,pr dt, made up of land and peasantry exploited to provlde their income, manors m the form of villages and estates throughout the country, together wlth craft personnel,

40 Labor in the Anczent Near East

administrators and personal servants [Helck 1975:131-1341. This 1s essentially the typical economic unit of the great estate [cf. Gelb in Lipihski 1979:l-111, held in origin and principle from the king In return for the performance of office. Within such a house the personnel were in the same way dependent on the favour, patronage and provision of the official as he was on the king. This estate the official tried, so far as possible, to maintain as a unit in his personal possession even after death [Helck 1959: 171.

At the peak of the Old Kingdom officials did not in principle form an hereditary nobility of birth, but held their position by appomtment of the king, admnistering with seals of office [cf. Urk. I, 8-9: "I never slept with my seal away from me since I was appointed an official"]. They stressed constantly the performance of their public duties, to the king and to the populace at large, especially their assistance of the destitute, judgement of disputants to their satisfaction, fair payment of their workmen, and not oppressing anybody in any way [Edel1944:31-471. A hlgh concept of civic duty was the ideal norm, formalised as the desire of king and god [Thtodondes 19731, and provlding the necessary justification of the social structure.

Any such description will, as a matter of course, be too rigid. Over-formalised even for the peak of the Old Kingdom, it cannot mace allowhnce'for changing conditions as society developed [Helck 1975:134-138x It is too heavily biased towards the necropolis, depending on the idealised information the king and officials chose to leave in their mscriptions, and relates basically to the state and the estates of great officials, providing little information about lower or middle classes of society. For instance, even the terms on which the peasantry worked the land are not clear; whether they paid a proportion of the produce to the estate holder, which seems likely In the Egyptian environment [cf.'Baer 19621, or whether they worked for rations or wages. Economic life outside the great houses is effectively undocumented, which does not mean itcdid-not exist. However, the general picture is likely to be *-." - , , F correct, pf patronage and provision wo;king downwards through society from the - king, in retern for 1alab'our.aIid service worhng up from the lowest peasant.

Allam, S. 1974: T o m Stiftungswesen der alten Agypter," Das Altertum 20:131-146. Allam 1985: "Le hm-k3 &tat-il exclusivement pretre funtrare," RdE 36:l-15. Anthes, R. 1928: Die Felsenznschriften von Hatnub nach den Aufnahmen Georg

Mollers (Untersuchungen zur Geschzchte und Altertumskunde Aegyptens. 9, herausgegeben von K. Sethe), Leipug.

Arnold, D. 1976: "Wandbild und Scherbenbefund. Zur Topfertechnik der alten Agypter vom Beginn der pharaonischen Zeit bis zu den Hyksos," MDAIK 32: 1-34.

Arnold 1981: "Oberlegungen zum Problem des Pyramidenbaues," MDAIK 37:15-28. Atzler, M. 1981: Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung von Herrschaftsformen zn

Agypten, Hildesheim.

EYRE: Work zn the Old Kingdom 41

Badawy, A. 1954: A History of Egyptzan Archztecture, Vol. 1: From the Earliest Times to the end of the Old Kingdom? Giza.

Baer, K. 1956: "A note on Egyptian units of area in the Old Kingdom," JNES 15:113-117.

Baer 1960: Rank and Title m the Old Kingdom. The Structure of Egyptzan Admznzstratzon m the Fifth and Sixth Dynastzes, Chicago.

Baer 1962: "The low price of land In Ancient Egypt," JARCE 1:25-45. Baer 1966: "A deed of endowment in a letter of the time of Ppjj I?," Z& 93:l-9. Baines, John, 1983: "L~teracy and Anc~ent Egyptian society," Man (N.S.) 18572-599. Baines J. and Eyre, C. J. 1983: "Four notes on literacy," Gottznger Miszellen -

61:65-96. Balandier, G. 1972: Politzcal Anthropology, Harmondsworth (Penguin edition). Barta, W. 1968: Aufbau und Bedeutung der altiigyptzschen Opferformel, Gliickstadt. Berlandini, J. 1979: "La pyramide 'ruinee' de Sakkara-Nord et le roi Ikaouhor-

Menkaouhor," RdE 3 1:3-28. Blackman, A. M. 1921: "On the position of women m the Ancient Egyptian

Hierarchy." JEA 7%-30. Blackman, A. M. and Apted, M. R. 1953: The Rock Tombs of Mezr, part V , London. Borchardt, L. 1905: "Ein Konigserlass aus Dalischur," ZAS 42: 1-1 1. Borchardt 1907: Das Grabdenkmal des Konzgs Ne-user-rec, Leipzig. Borchardt 1909: Das Grabdenkmal des Konzgs Nefer--a-ke3-rec, Leipzig. Brovarski, E. 1973: "An unpublished stele of the First Intermediate Period in the

Oriental Institute Museum," JNES 32:453-465. Brovarski 1977: "The doors of heaven," OrNS 46:107-115. Butzer, K. W. 1976: Early Hydraulic Civilisatzon m Egypt, Chicago and London. Cenival, J. L. de 1975: "A propos de la sttle de Ch6chi. fitude de quelques types de

t~tulatu~es~privtes de rancien empire," RdE 27:62-69. - ehevner,--H:- f970:--'"Technique de la- construction dans l'ancie - -- - ., J?roblemesrposb par les obelisques," RdE 2215-39.

Chevrier, H . 1975: "Techniques de l'kgypte antique," Actes du XXIXe Congrb des Orzentalistes, Egyptologze I:29-32.

Clarke, S. and Engelbach, R. 1930: Anczent Egyptran Masonary, The Building Craft, London.

Couyat, J. and Montet, P 1912: LRS Inscrptzons hi6roglyphzques et hi6ratzques du Oucidi Hammcimcit, MIFAO 34, Cairo.

Daressy, G. 1911: "Inscriptions des carrikres de Tourah et Mbarah," ASAE 11:257-268.

Daumas, F 1977: "Le problkme de la monnaie dans Egypte antique avant Alexandre," Mklanges de Pkcole francazse de Rome, Antzquztk 89/11:425-442.

Davis, W. 1983: "Artists and patrons In predynastic and early dynastic Egypt," SAK 10:119-139.

Donadoni, S. 1976: "XPHMATA ANHP Ricchezza e stato sociale nell' Egitto pih antico," PdP 31:273-285.

Drenkhahn, R. 1976: Die Handwerker und ihre Tiitzgkelten zm Alten gypt ten, Wiesbaden.

42 Labor m the Ancient Near East

Duell, P 1938: The Mastaba of Mereruka, 2 parts, Chlcago. Dunham, D. 1938: "The blographlcal mscrlptlons of Nekhebu m Boston and Cam,"

JEA 24: 1-8. Edel, E. 1944: "Untersuchungen zur Phraseologie der agyptlschen Inschriften des

Alten Relches," MDAZK 13:l-90. Edel 1953: "Inschriften des Alten Relchs 111. Die Stele des Mhw-3btj (Reisner

G2375). IV. Die Grablnschrift der Komgm Hcj-mrr-nbtj," MI0 1:327-336. Edel 1958: "Inschriften des Alten Reiches (6. Folge). VII. Inschriften des Bj3. VIII.

Zur Inschrift des Jbbj. IX. Inschriften des Mtfj. X. Nachtrag zur Inschrift des Mhw-?btj," ZAS 83:3-18.

Edel 19551 1964: Altagyptzsche Grammatik, Rome. Edwards, I.E.S. 1985: The Pyramzds of Egypt, Harmondsworth. Engelbach, R. 1933: "The quarnes of the Western Nublan Desert," ASAE 33:65-74. Engelbach 1938: "The quarnes of the Western Nublan Desert, and the ancient road

to Tushka," ASAE 38:369-390. Erman, A. and Ranke, H. 1923: Aegypten und aegyptrsches Leben rm Altertum,

Tiibingen. Fakhry, A. 1935: Sept Tombeau& &ss~ ge:h -Grunde;Pyramrde d Guzzeh, Cairo. Faulkner, R. 0. 1953: "Egyptlan military organisation," JEA 39:32-47. Federn, W. 1958: "Htp (r)dj(w) (n) Inpw: zum Verst8ndms der vor-osmanlschen

Opferformel," MDAZK, 16:120-13. Fischer. H.G. 1959: "A scribe of the army In a Saqqara mastaba of the early Fifth

Dynasty," JNES 18:233-272. Fischer 1960: "The Inspector of youths NFR-N-UWFW," OMROL 41:l-13. Fischer 1961: "The Nublan mercenaries of Gebelem dunng the First Intermediate

Penod," Kush 9:44-80. Fischer 1966:-"An Old Kingdom monogram: T... ZAS 9356-69. Fischer 1968: 'Denderd m the Thzrd Millennrum B. C. down to the Theban domma-

tron of. Upper. Egypt,. Locust Valley. Fischer 1975: "Two tantalizmg blographlcal fragments of hlstorlcal mterest," JEA

61:33-37. Fischer 1976: Egyptzan Studies I, Varza, New York. Fischer 1978: "Five mscnptions of the Old Kingdom," ZA'S 105:42-59. Fischer 1979: "Two Old Kingdom inscriptions restored," JEA 65:42-46. Fischer 1985: "More about the Smnt~w," Gottrnger Miszellen 84:25-32. Freler, E. 1976: "Zu den sogenannten Hohenpnestern des Ptah von Memphis lm

Alten Relch," AoF 45-34. Garde-Hansen, P 1974: "On the building of the Cheops pyramid," Ingentmen 1-74.

Transactrons Udgrvet af Dansk Zngenrsrforenrng 1974 Nr. 1. Gardiner, A.H. 1908: "Inscr~ptlons from the tomb of Si-renpowet I., prlnce of

Elephantine," ZAS 45: 123-140. Gardiner 1927: "An admlnistratlve letter of protest," JEA 13:75-78. Gardiner 1938: "The manslon of life and the master of the kmg's largess," JEA

24233-91. Gardiner 1955: "A umque funerary liturgy," JEA 41:9-17.

EYRE: Work in the Old Kingdom 43

Gardiner 1957: Egyptlan Grammar, Oxford and London. Gardiner. A.H., Peet T.E., and &rny.J.,-1952: The Znscrlptrons of Sinar, Part I ,

Zntroductron and Plates: 1955: Part 11, Translatzons and Commentary, London. Godecken, K.B. 1976: Eine Betrachtung der Inschriften des Meten zm Rahmen der

socralen und rechtlichen Stellung von Przvatleuten rm agyptzschen Alten Rezch, Wiesbaden.

Goedicke, H. n.d.. "Hieroglyphlc lnscrlptlons of the Old ,Kingdom," Textes et Langages de rEgypte Pharaonlque 215-24, Caro.

Goedicke 1955: "A deification of a pnvate person m the Old Kingdom," JEA 41:31-33. Goedicke 1959: "A fragment of a blographlcal lnscnptlon of the Old Kingdom," JEA

45%-11. Goedicke 1960: "The tltle gg m the Old Kingdom," JEA 46:60-64. Goedicke 1965: "Bemerkungen zum Siegelzylinder Berlin Inv. Nr. 20659," ZAS

9232-38. Goedicke 1967: Konrgliche Dokumente aus dem Alten Rerch, Wiesbaden. Goedicke 1968: "Four hleratlc ostraca of the Old Kingdom," JEA 54:23-30. Goedicke 1970: Dieprzvaten Rechtsrnschriften a? dem Alten Rezch, Vienna. Goyon, G. n.d.. "Les mscript~ons des carrieres etdes mnes,': Textes et Languages de

rBgYpte Pharaonrque 2:193-205, Calro. Goyon 1957: Nouvelles Znscrzptrons Rupestures du Wadi Hammamat, Pans. Govon 1959: "Le tombeau d'Ankhou ?I Saaaarah." Kgmr 15:lO-12.

- A

Goyon 1971a: "Les ports des pyramldes et le grand canal de Memphis," RdE 23:137-153.

Goyon 1971b: "Les navlres de transport de la chausee monumentale d'ounas," BZFAO 69:Il-41.

Goyon 1977: Le Secret des B6tzsseurs des Grandes Pyramrdes. Khbops, Pans. arques concepant ropposltlon B un r

Pyramids, Gloucester. Dynasty letter from Saqqara," ASAE 25:242-255. from the Step Pyramid site," ASAE 26:177-202. Entwicklung des Privateigentums an Produktionsmltt

ttznger Miszellen 66:67-80. Problem der staatlichen Arbeitspflicht im alten Agypte

I," AoF 123-21. Hassan, S. 1936: Excavatrons at Giza, 1930-1931, [Vol. 111, Cairo. Hassan 1943: Excavatzons at Giza, Vol. ZV 1932-1933, Cairo. Helck, W. 1954: Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentrteln des Agyptuchen Alten

Rezches, Gliickstadt, Hamburg and New York. Helck 1956a, "Wirtschaftliche Bemerkungen zum prlvaten Grabbesltz lm Alten

Relch." MDAZK 14:63-75. Helck 1956b. "Zur Entstehung des Westfriedhofs an der Cheops-Pyramide," ZAS

81:62-5. Helck 1957: "Bemerkungen zu den Pyramidenstadten im Alten Reich," MDAZK

44 Labor in the Ancient Near East

Helck 1959: "Die sociale Schichtung des Agyptischen Volkes im 3. und 2. Jahr- tausend v. Chr.," JESHO 21-36.

Helck 1974a: "Die Bedeutung der Felsinschriften J. Lopez, Inscrzpcrones Rupestres Nr. 27 und 28," SAK 1:215-225.

Helck 1974b: Altagyptachen Aktenkunde des 3. und 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr., Munich and Berlin.

Helck 1975: Wirtschaftsgeschrcht des Alten Agypten rm 3. und 2. Jahrtausend vor Chr., Leiden and Cologne.

Helck and Otto E. (eds.) 1975,1977,1980,1982,1984,1985: Lexikon der Agyptologze, Band I (1975), Band I1 (1977), Band 111 (1980), Band IV (1982), Band V (1984), Band VI (1985), Wiesbaden.

Hodjash, S.I. and Berlev, O.D. 1980: "A market-scene in the mastaba of D3d:-m- 'no (Tp-m-%b)," AoF7:31-49.

Hoffman, H. 1974: "The social context of trash disposal in an Early Dynastic Town," Amerzcan Antiquity 39/1:35-50.

Hiilscher, U. 1912: Das Grabdenkmal des Konrgs Chephren, Leipzig. Holthoer, R. i977: New Kingdom Phara~nrc Sites, The. Pottery (The Scandinavzan

Joznt Expedition to Sundanese.Nubza,.vol. 5/I), Sto6kholm. Jacquet-Gordon, H.K. 1 9 6 2 . h *Noms des Domaines Fun6raires sous PAncien

Empire ~ g ~ p t r e n , Csuro. Janssen, J.J. 1978: "The early state in Egypt," in H.J.M. Claessen and P Skalnik

(eds.), The Early State, The Hague, Paris and New York. JCquier, G. 1926: "Rapport prtliminare sur les fouilles executCes en 1925-1926 dans

la partie meridionale de la ntcropole memph~te," ASAE 26:44-62. JCquier 1933: Fouilles 2 Saqqarah. Deux Pyramzdes du Moyen Empire, Csuro. Junker, H. 1929: Giza I, Vienna and Leipzig. Junker 1934: .Giza 11, Vienna and Leipzig. Junker 1938:- Giza 111, Vienna and Leipzig. Junker 1940: Giza ZV, Vienna and Leipzig. Junker 1941: Giza V, Vienna and Leipzig. Junker 1947: Giza VZZI, Vienna. Junker 1950: Giza IX, Vienna. Junker 195 1: Giza X, Vienna. Junker 1956: "Der Maler Irj," AnzAWW459-79. Junker 1957: Weta und das Lederkunsthandwerk zm Alten Rezch. SA WW231/I. Junker 1959: Die gesellschaftliche Stellung der agyptischen Kiinstler im Alten Rerch.

SA WW233/I. Kanawati, N. 1977: The Egyptran Admznzstration m the Old Kingdom. Evidence on

rts Econornzc Decline, Warmmister. Kanawati 1980: Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt, Warminister. Kaplony, P 1963-1966: Die Inschriften der agyptischen Friihzezt, 3 vols., Supple-

ment and Kleine Beztrage. Kaplony 1965: "Bemerkungen zu einigen Steingefien mit archaischen K6nigs-

namen," MDAZK 20: 1-46. Kaplony 1966: "Die Handwerker als Kulturtriiger Alt'agyptens," Aszatzsche Studien

2O:lOl-125.

EYRE: Work in the Old Kingdom 45

Kaplony 1976: Studien zum Grab des Methethz, Bern. Kees, H. 1933: Handbuch der Alt_ertum~w~senschaft, herausgegeben von W. Otto,

Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orzents, Erster Abschnztt, ~ ~ y p t e n , Munich. Kees 1948: "Die Phylen and ihre Vorsteher lm Dienst der Tempe1 und Totenstif-

tungen," OrNS 17:71-90 and 314-325. Kees 1957: "Eine Familie kgl. Maurermeister aus dem Anfang der 6. Dynastie,"

WZKM 54:91-100. Kemp, B.J. 1977: "The early development of towns in Egypt," Ant~quity 51:185-200. Klebs, L. 1915: Die Reliefs des alten Reiches (2980-2475 v. Chr.). Materzal zur

ugyptrschen Kulturgeschichte. Heidelberg. Kozifiski, W. 1969: The Investment Process Organizatzon of the Cheops Pyramid,

Warsaw. Lansing, A. 1933a. "The Egyptian Expedition 1931-1932. The Museum's Excava-

tions at Lisht", and 1933b: "The Egyptian Expedition [1932-19331. The Exca- vations at Lisht," BMMA 28.

Lauer, J.P. 1974: Le MystPre des Pyramides, Paris. und Athiopen, 6 vols of plates,

ncrent Near East, 2 vols. (= OLA 5-6), Leuven.

Lopez, J. 1967: "Inscnptions de Panclen empire $. Khor el-Aquiba," RdE 19:51-66. Martin, K. 1977: Ein Garantssymbol des Lebens, Hildesheim. Martin-Pardey, E. 1976: Untersuchungen zur agyptzschen Provznzialverwaltung b u

zum Ende des Alten Reiches, Hildesheim. Maystre, C. 1935: "Les dates des pyrarnides de Snefrou," BIFAO 3539-98. Menu, B. and Harari, I. 1974: "La notion de propritte privee dans Pancien empire

"egyptien," CRZPEL 2: !25-154. Montet, P 1925: Les Scknes de la Vie Privke dans les tombeaux egyptrens de fancien

" emprre, Strasbourg. Montet !955: "La rentrte des ctrCales en ~ a u t - ~ g y ~ t e " in 0. Firchow (ed.),

~gyptologuche Studien, Berlin, 232-237. Montet 1959: "La saison du travail dans la monfagne de Bekhen," K8mz 15:94-103. Morenz, S. 1969: Prestrge- Wirtschaft im alten Agypten. SBA W 1969/IV, Munich. Moussa, A. and Altenmiiller, H. 1977: Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnum-

hotep, Mainz am Rhein. Nagel, G. 1950: "Marques de carribre dans le temple funtraire de PCpi 11," ASAE

50:93-126. O'Connor, D. 1974-1975: "Political systems and archaeological data in Egypt: 2600-

1780 B.C.," World Archaeology 6:15-38. Perepelkin, J.J. 1962: "'Dom shnau' v starom tsarstve" in Trudy 25. Mezhdunarod-

nogo Kongressa Vostokovedov, vol. I:138-142, MOSCOW. Perepelkin 1966: "Chastnaia sobstvennosV v predstavlenii egipetsgogo starogo

tsarstva," Palestinskii Sbornik 16 (79). Petrie, W.M.F. n.d.. The Pyramzds and Temples of Gizeh, London. Petrie 1907: Gizeh and Rifeh, London.

46 Labor in the Ancient Near East EYRE: Work zn the Old Kingdom 47

Pirenne, J. 1932-1935: Histozre des Instztutzons et du Drozt Przvke de Panczenne ggypte, 3 vols, Brussels.

Posener, G. 1956: Lzttirature et Politzque dans P ~ ~ ~ ~ t e de la XIZe Dynastze, Paris. Posener-KriCger, P. n.d.. "Les papyrus de ranclen emplre," Textes et Langages de

Pggypte Pharaonzque 225-35, Cauo. Posener-KriCger 1975: "Les papyrus de GCbClein. Remarques PrClimmaires," RdE

27:211-221. Posener-Krikger 1976: Les Archzves du Temple Funkrazre de NiferzrkarE Kakai:(Les

Papyrus dAbouszr), Traductzon et Commentazre, (two parts), Caro. Posener-KriCger 1980: "Fragments- de papyrus provenant de Saqqarah," RdE

3283-93. Posener-Krikger 1983: "Les nouveaux papyrus dAbousir," SSEAJ 1351-57. Posener-KriCger, P. and de Cenlval, J.L. 1968: Hieratzc Papyrz zn the Brztzsh

Museum. Fifth Serzes. The Abu Sir Papyn, London. Reisner, G.A. 1913: "New acquislt~ons of the Egyptlan Department," BMFA 11

no.6653-66. Relsner 1931: Mycerznus. The Temples of the Thzrd Pyramzd at Giza, Carnbndge,

Massachusetts, I - j j

Relsner 1942: A Histdry 01 the. ~ i ; ? . a ~ e & o ~ o l i s , Vol. I , Cambridge [Massachusetts] and London.

Ricke, H. (ed.), 1969: Beztrage zur agyptzschen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde, Heft 8, Das Sonnenheiligtum des Konzgs Userkaf, Band 11, Wiesbaden.

Roccatl, A. 1982: ia LztJrature Historzque sous PAnczen Empzre ggyptren, Pans. Rowe, A. 1936: A Catalogue of Egyptzan Scarabs, Scarabozds, Seals and Amulets zn

the Palestine Archaeologzcal Museum, Calro. Rowe 1938: "Provlslonal notes on the old Kingdom inscr~ptlons from the diorlte

quarries," ASAE 38:391-396 and 678-688. ~ a l e h , Abdel-Azlz 1974: "Excavat~ons around Mycerlnus pyramid complex,"-

MDAIK 3O:l3l-l54. Sauneron, S. 1965: ''Cl?gypte" in L.-H. Parias (ed), Histozre Gknkrale du Travail.

[Vol. 11 Prkhzstozre et Antzquztk, 105-144, Pans. Saweljewa, T.N. 1962: "Inschriften der Pyramldenerbauer als historische Urkunde"

m Trudy 25. Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa Vostokovedov, Vol. 1:128-135, Moscow.

Schenkel, W. 1978: Die Bewasserungsrevolutzon zm Alten Agypten, Mainz am Rheln.

Schneider, H.D. 1977: Shabtzs, part I, Lelden. Schott, S. 1965: "Aufnahmen vom Hungersnotrelief aus dem Aufweg der Unas-

pyramlde," RdE 17:7-13. Sethe, K. 1903: Urkunden des Alten Rezchs, Lelpzig. Settgast, J . 1963: Untersuchungen zu altagyptzschen Bestattungsdarstellungen,

Gliickstadt, Hamburg and New York. Seyfned, K.J. 1976: "Nachtrbe zu Yoyotte: 'Les Sementlou . ' BSFE 73, p. 44-55,"

Gottznger Miszellen 20:45-47.

Simpson, W.K. 1978: The Mastabas of Kawab, Khafkhufu I and II, G 7110-20, 7130-40 and 7150 and subszdary mastshas-of Street G 7100, Boston.

Smith et al. 1983: H. S. Smlth, D. G. Jeffreys and J. M&lek, "The survey of Memphls, 1981," JEA 69:30-42.

Smith, W.S. 1949: A History of Sculpture and Pazntzng zn the Old Kingdom, London.

Smlth 1952: "Inscr~ptional evidence for the history of the fourth dynasty," JNES 11:113-128.

Stadelmann, R. 1981a: "Die ~NTYW-3, der Konigsbezlrk N PR-'' und die Namen der Grabanlagen der Friihzeit," Bulletzn du Centenazre,, Suppliment au BZFAO 81:153-164.

Stadelmann 1981b: "La ville de pyramlde a l'anc~en empire," RdE 33:67-77. Strudwick, N. 1985: The Admznzstratzon of Egypt zn the Old Kingdom. The Highest

Titles and thezr Holders, London. Theodorides, A. 1973: "Les Cgyptiens anciens, 'cltoyens' ou 'sujets de Pharaon'?,"

RIDA 3e sene 20:5l-l12. Trigger, B. 1974-1975: "The Archaeology of Government," World Archaeology

6:95-W . , . .'.,- - Trlgger et al. 1983: B.G. ~rlggk;:~:~. Kemp, D. OYConnor, and A.B. Lloyd, Anczent

Egypt: A Soczal History, Carnbndge. Vallogla, M. 1976: Recherche sur les "messagers" (WP WTYW) dans les sources

kgyptzensprofanes, Geneva and Pans. Vandier, J. 1952-1978: Manuel dArchkologze ~gyptzenne, 6 vols, Paris. Verner, M. (ed.) 1976: Prelimznary Report on Czechoslovak Excavatzons zn the

Mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abuszr, Prague. Verner 1979: "Neue Papyrusfunde m Abusir," RdE 31:97-100.

80: "~xcava&ns at Abuslr, Season 1978/1979-Prelimmary

E.W. 1926-1927: "Egyptlan artists' signatures," AJSL, 43: 185-207. s, K. (ed.) 1979: Egyptology and the Soczal Sczences, Calro.

Wild, H. 1966: Le Tombeau de Ti, Fasczcule III, La Chapelle (deuxikme partz

Wilson, J.A. 1947: "The artist of the Egyptlan Old Kingdom," JNES 6:231-249. Wreszinski, W. 1923-1942: Atlas zur altaegyptzschen Kulturgeschzchte, 3 vols,

-