UNESCO Ancient Civilizations of Africa (Editor G. Mokhtar)

Pharaonic Egypt: society, economy and culture
nation's affairs, Pharaoh, theoretically the sole priest, sole warrior, sole
judge and sole producer, delegated his power to a whole hierarchy: one
way of paying these officials was to assign them land, the revenue of which
became theirs. In fact, at all periods the royal monopoly of the means of
production was more theoretical than real.
Certainly, the expeditions to Punt, Byblos, Nubia and the deserts to
seek out exotic commodities and stones were normally sent out by the
king and led by government officials. The building of the temples was
likewise a government function, whilst, during the imperial era, the
annexed territory of Kush and the Palestinian and Syrian protectorates
were, for instance, directly exploited by the crown. In contrast, the development
of the land in Egypt itself did not depend exclusively on the crown.
Alongside the royal domain there were the lands owned by the gods,
who possessed fields, flocks, workshops, etc. (in the heyday of the cult
of Amon, the god himself could own mines), and had their own bureaucratic
hierarchy. The fact that the gods were sometimes granted royal
charters exempting them from certain taxes and levies is, ultimately, a
sign that the temples were the 'owners' of their lands, personnel and
tools. Moreover, at least from the eighteenth dynasty on, warriors were
given hereditary tenure of land. High officials received gifts of land
that they managed themselves. Scenes of domestic life carved in Old
Kingdom mastabas show that their households included their own flocks
and craftsmen and their own flotillaof boats. We do not know how
inheritable private fortunes were made, but it is obvious that there were
some and that apart from the official position that one could only hope
to be able to hand on to one's children, there were 'household effects'
that could be bequeathed freely. However, virtually at every period, land
tenure covered limited and scattered areas, so that the great fortunes did
not take the form - of which the authorities were apprehensive — of large
landed estates. Smallholdings are known to have existed, notably in the
New Kingdom, when the term 'fields of poor men' in fact designated
the lands of small independent farmers quite distinct from tenants working
the fields of the king or the gods. Relatively few in number, the foreigners
deported to Egypt in the era of the great conquests were specialists
(Palestinian viticulturists, Libyan drovers) or military settlers; the slaves
acquired by private individuals were often only household servants and,
although there is evidence that it existed, slave labour (sometimes penal
labour) is believed to have provided only a limited amount of manpower
for agriculture (even though the likening in later times of the magic
'respondents' placed at the disposal of the dead to a troop of bought
slaves 10 would lead one to believe that under the Ramses it was slavery
that made possible the major works of irrigation and land improvement).
It remains true that the mass of the working population seems to have
io. J. Cerny, 1942, pp. 105-33.
117