Ancient Egyptian Temple Organization and Activities: Workers, Wealth and Disputes | Middle East And North Africa

TEMPLE ACTIVITY IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Temple workers

Juan Carlos Moreno García wrote: Temples probably represent the best-documented social environment from ancient Egypt. Abundant sources inform us of temple-related activities and of the personnel (including their internal conflicts and relations with the king and the court) involved in the day-to-day operation of these establishments, thus providing invaluable material for microhistorical research. During the O ld and Middle Kingdoms several archives and royal decrees deal with the organization of cult, priestly organization, and revenue derived from royal funerary temples. [Source Juan Carlos Moreno García, University of Paris IV-Sorbonne, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2018; escholarship.org ]

These particular sanctuaries appear as centers where the central and provincial elites met together, participated in ritual services, and probably thereby strengthened their consciousness of being part of the ruling elite. As sources of income, authority, and social influence, priestly positions could be bought and sold; moreover, many such positions were restricted by royal order for members of the elite. Provincial temples too, though less satisfactorily documented, played a crucial role as bases of authority, prestige, and income for local potentates and their families.

Significantly, they also were key centers that put into contact the local elites, the court, and the king through land donations, the foundation of royal chapels, and the erection of royal statues . Local elites could thus enlarge their political horizons and become more integrated into the government apparatus controlled by the monarchy and preserve their own interests, while at the same time be officially recognized by the king as key local agents, to the detriment of other, rival families. The strategies developed by some of the best-documented families (at El-Hawawish, Elkab, Coptos), including the choice of prestigious zones wherein to build their necropoleis, reveal the complex interplay of these factors and their political and economic impact.

Temple Workers in Ancient Egypt

The official staff of a temple consisted of comparatively few persons — at Aysut for instance of ten; “at Abydos, as it appears, of only five priests.' Each of these had his own special title; thus the collegiate assembly of the Osiris of Abydos was composed of “The great Ue'b," such as the high priest,' The treasurer of the god, The scribe of the god's house, The reciter-priest. [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

At some temples we find a “Superintendent of the storehouse "; a “Superintendent of the house of worship "; a “Scribe of the house of the god"; a “Scribe of the altar," and others. We see that these titles are generally derived from the business duties which the priests exercised in the administration of the temple property, but it would be a mistake to suppose that they were merely administrative officials of the sanctuary. On the contrary, they are priests par excellence: '' \ am the son of a priest like each of you," said Hapd'efan'e, the nomarch of Aysut, to the priests, in order to demonstrate unquestionably his priestly rank."

This close connection of the official staff to the temple is also borne out by the fact that the members enjoyed certain claims on the revenues of the god. The worth of the natural products that comes out to them (to retain an Egyptian expression), is certainly not much, if we may judge by what they received in the temple of Aysut. In the latter temple, the yearly salary of each member of the staff was valued at about 360 jugs of beer, 900 loaves of white bread, and 36,000 ash-baked cakes of little worth; this came to such an insignificant sum that the recipient might sell it for one daily lamp-wick, such as were used in funerary worship. In fact, a high priest of Aysut thought nothing of renouncing the rations due to himself and his heirs for twenty-seven days in each year, such as sacrificing a twelfth part of his priestly income in exchange for some very trifling benefits for his funerary festivals.'

Temple Leadership and Organization in Ancient Egypt

priest

Leadership of at each temple, appears to have been being hereditary from father to son. The prince of each respective nome officiated as chief, and always bore the title of "superintendent of the prophets." At the same time the superintendence exercised by the prince was often only nominal, for many princes state expressly that they have really exercised this office.' It was also not sufficient in itself to be the son of a nomarch and high priest in order to succeed to the priestly office of the father; for though the priestly rank may have been hereditary, yet the distinct degree of rank was certainly not so," at the same time we may be sure that neither the Pharaoh nor the priests themselves would lightly pass over the richest and most distinguished member of the college in the choice of their chief.

It sometimes happened that a prince, in whose town several temples were situate, belonged at the same time to the priesthood of these various temples. He also frequently held several appointments in the same temple; for instance, he might be at the same time “Superintendent of the prophets," “Superintendent of the temple," and “Superintendent of the oxen of the god." "

Juan Carlos Moreno García wrote: New Kingdom sources provide more clues about the internal functioning of temples, including information on the social background of priests and on the conflicts of interest that took place among them. The organization of the nascent New Kingdom monarchy relied heavily on the integration of local elites through the mediation of temples, especially during its earliest steps, following the expulsion of the Hyksos. [Source Juan Carlos Moreno García, University of Paris IV-Sorbonne, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2018; escholarship.org ]

Sataimau of Edfu, for instance, was a scribe and priest who served at the temple of Edfu in the reign of Ahmose, the first king of Dynasty 18. He was, in fact, from an elite family closely connected to the monarchy and achieved career advancement with successive appointments to two significant posts in the temple. These were remunerated with part of the offerings presented to the sanctuary and with the income derived from the cult of a royal statue, including about 40 hectares of land (one hectare being roughly equivalent to 2. 5 acres). His case is quite similar to that of Iuf, another official from Edfu, who lived between the reigns of Ahmose and Thutmose I. Iuf also performed cult activities for royal statues and was recompensed with offerings and land. Further to the north, at Gebelein, things were rather the same, as king Ahmose had endowed the temple of Hathor with revenue (bAkw) later disputed, in the time of Thutmose III, by a soldier. Hence the income, prestige, and influential social relations associated with temple prebends explain why priesthood — especially middle and high ranking functions — was reserved for members of the elite, to the point that it was often stated th at noblemen and their offspring, as well as military personnel, were to be recruited as personnel of the temples, with severe measures taken to restrict access to such coveted positions.

Decline of the Temple Laity and Rise of the Priestly Class in Ancient Egypt

Under the Old Kingdom, as well as to a certain degree under the Middle Kingdom, the laity took an active share in public worship. In the temples of the jackal-headed gods 'Epuat and Anubis at Aysut, we find at this time, besides the official priesthood, an “hour priesthood," such as a brotherhood of pious laymen, who seem to have delegated one of their number every month to the service of their god, whilst they, as a body, took part in the processions on great festival days.' They had no share in the temple property or revenues,' and if the citizens of Aysut gave them a present from the first fruits of their fields, the gift was dictated purely by private piety.'' [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

The same arrangement was in existence at the great temple of Osiris at Abydos, where, besides the five appointed priests, there were many prophets; these formed the “hour priesthood." Though, as under the Old Kingdom, these laymen might take part in the temple worship, yet, apparently, they had already forfeited much of the original dignity of their position in the temple. There is not one of the higher officials of the Middle Kingdom whose tomb remains to us (and their number is legion), who has thought it worth while to tell posterity that he had been a prophet in this or that temple. Indeed, had we not expressly learned of the existence of the hour priesthood from the above-mentioned inscription, we should have concluded, from the study of the other material we possess, that the lay element had already been as jealously excluded from the temple worship as it was afterwards under the New Kingdom.

The great nobles, the nome princes, form an exception to this rule; they state expressly in the long list of their antique titles that they served as priests the god of their nome." It was also customary in these families that the women should dedicate themselves as priestesses to the goddess Hathor.'-

We may conclude, judging from the small stipends allowed to the priests of so considerable a town as the ancient Aysut, that, even under the Middle Kingdom, the part played by the priests was of little importance. The great rise of the priesthood to be the most important factor in the kingdom dates from the complete revolution of ancient conditions which took place under the 18th dynasty. In the cemetery at Abydos, where, under the Middle Kingdom, very few priests or temple officials were interred, we find that, without exaggeration, 25 per cent of those buried there under the New Kingdom belonged to the priestly class; moreover if the latter held a state appointment in addition, it was evidently considered as secondary to their position in the temple.'

Temple Bureaucracy in Ancient Egypt

The enormous properties belonging to a large temple required a large work force and complicated machinery was needed for administration in comparison to the more modest possessions of the old sanctuaries. In the Middle Kingdom certain members of the priestly college were manged the affairs of the treasury, the commissariat and correspondence. There were hardly any officials in these temples except the servants, [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

Under the New Kingdom it was quite otherwise; the priests were no longer able to do the work of administration alone, but required a host of officials to help them. This was the case in all temples, but of course especially so in that of the Theban Amun. This god possessed a central bureau for the administration of the Jwusef of the temple property, and also special departments for the treasury,' for agriculture for the barns for the cattle and for the peasants; and each of these departments had its super inteiident, who was of princely rank,'' as well as its scribes. In the temple of Amun there was also a cJiief scribe of high rank, who had the care of the title-deeds of the sanctuary," and as in a large temple under the New Kingdom new buildings and restorations were always going on, the god was obliged to have his own building department, which was over all zuorks. It follows as a matter of course that the needful number of artisans and artists of all kinds had to be forthcoming, from the painter to the stone-mason.-' In order to maintain order in the temple and on the property, the god possessed his own militia with chief and subordinate officers; and as many secular transactions occurred under his administration, he had also his own prison. We know little of the great staff of lower officials, which must have existed under these conditions, for this class do not come within our ken. We have however many monuments of people like the “superintendents of the sacrificial storehouse," ' “doorkeepers “of all kinds, "barbers," all of whom must to a certain extent have lived in easy circumstances.

The high priest himself should nominally, in addition to the high priesthood, hold one or other important office; but it is not clear, for instance, why the superintendence of the buildings was at one time held as an additional appointment by the chief scribe, and at another time by the superintendent of the granaries; '' this is the more obscure because the former had also the superintendence of the cattle of the god, and the latter had the care of the treasure-houses, and “sealed all the contracts of the temple of Amun." It is a characteristic fact that these high temple officials were also frequently officials of the state as well

Harem of Ancient Egyptian Temple God But No Sex in the Temple

We have seen that, under the New Kingdom, the lay element almost disappeared from the priesthood; at that period however it came forward so much the more in another branch of public worship. In all temples, but above all in that of Amun, wc find "-4-o Jij, female singers (or rather musicians, as we might perhaps translate the word), and indeed in great numbers. We scarcely meet with one lady, under the New Kingdom, whether she were married or unmarried,'' the wife of an ecclesiastic or layman, whether she belonged to the family of a high priest '' or to that of an artisan," who was not thus connected with a temple. [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

This institution of singers was remarkable however for the singular idea associated with it. The god was, in fact, regarded as an earthly prince, and the singers, who made music in his presence, were the beautiful singers, the inmates of the house of women. The singers formed the harem of the god,' and they held various degrees of rank as in an earthly harem; certain women of high rank had the honor of bearing the splendid title of “chief concubine “of the god.

At the head of the mystical harem at Thebes there stood the legitimate consort," called the “wife of the god," the “hand of the god," or the “adorer of the god," and to her house belonged the singers. This lady, usually the queen herself, represented the heavenly consort of Amun, the goddess Mut, and to her therefore belonged special high honours which seem sometimes to have even given her a political importance. Later, under the Saites, we find these women nominally rulers of Thebes, and there are many indications that at the beginning of the 18th dynasty they held a similar position. At public worship their duty was to play the sistrum before the god; probably there was not much more for them to do in their official capacity, for we find that a child could be invested with this high rank. The wife of the god possessed also a large property, administered by a “great man of the house."

Fifth Century B.C. Greek historian Herodotus wrote in Book 2 of “Histories”: The Egyptians were the first who made it a point of religion not to lie with women in temples, nor to enter into temples after going away from women without first bathing: for almost all other men except the Egyptians and the Hellenes lie with women in temples and enter into a temple after going away from women without bathing, since they hold that there is no difference in this respect between men and beasts: for they say that they see beasts and the various kinds of birds coupling together both in the temples and in the sacred enclosures of the gods; if then this were not pleasing to the god, the beasts would not do so. [Source: Herodotus, “The Histories”, Egypt after the Persian Invasion, Book 2, English translation by A.D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920, Tufts]

People Paid to Become Temple Servants In Ancient Egypt

Rather than become forced labor, some ancient Egyptians allowed themselves to become virtual slaves and paid to become temple servants. Colin Schultz wrote in Smithsonian magazine: Ancient Egypt was fueled by forced labor. Not the construction of the pyramids, mind you, but other grand projects, such as quarries and roads and water infrastructure. Most Egyptians, says the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, were drawn in for forced labor duty, a process known as corvée: “forced labor as a form of taxation.” But not everyone. Some people, says research by Kim Ryholt at the University of Copenhagen, bought their way out of the hard life by turning themselves into temple servants. [Source: Colin Schultz, Smithsonian magazine, January 9, 2013]

Musicians and dancers on fresco at Tomb of Nebamun

In Nature, Hazem Zohny describes the ancient Egyptians as volunteering themselves — in fact, paying their own way — to become temple slaves. Ryholt’s research describes the situation a bit differently, suggesting they were making “self-dedications” to become a temple “servant.” One of these pledges, translated, reads:
Ptolemy, living forever.
great god, ..,whose mother is Tahôr:
servant from this day onwards until eternity, and I shall give
as servant fee before Anubis, the great god.
t, an ancient one, a demon, a great one, any on earth
to exercise authority over her you until .
Written in regnal-year 23, second month of shemu, day 1.

The reason anyone would volunteer themselves — and pay for the privilege — to become a temple servant, says Nature‘s Zohny, comes back to Egypt’s forced labor taxation, the corvée: While these contracts bound them as slaves, they also protected them from being subject to forced labours such as digging canals and other harsh and often fatal projects. However, as temple slaves, they were mainly engaged in agriculture and were exempt from forced labour.

According to researcher Ryholt, the people who made these pledges were generally from lower class families. In view of this and the low social status of the majority of supplicants, it may be argued that the self-dedications were the legal instruments of a symbiotic relationship. On one hand, certain people able to pay a monthly fee could exploit the law by acquiring the status of temple servants in order to avoid compulsory labor, this apparently being considered the lesser of two evils. On the other, temples could in turn exploit this circumstance and generate both a modest income and enjoy the benefits of an expanded workforce. In effect the temples thus came to provide a form of asylum – against payment! –for individuals that might be subjected to hard forced labor.

Obviously not everyone working at the temple was fleeing from forced labor, but the symbiotic benefit would be attractive for many. According to Zohny, however, “This loophole for escaping forced labour was likely only open during a 60 year period from around 190 B.C. to 130 B.C., with no other evidence that this practice existed during other periods in ancient Egypt. Ryholt speculates that this is because reigning monarchs could not afford losing too many potential labourers to temples in the long-run.”

Temple Wealth in Ancient Egypt

The priesthood of the New Kingdom owed their great power, and even their final triumph over the king himself, chiefly to their riches. Their riches were due for the most part, as far as we know, to royal gifts, for we rarely find it stated that a private citizen endowed a building to the gods. All the kings, from the very oldest period, followed the same fatal course; some were more generous than others, as for instance the pious kings of the 5th dynasty; thus even during the Old Kingdom many temples were rich enough to keep their own military force. '' The Nubian conquests of the kings of the 12th dynasty opened out those gold districts to Egypt, and the temples received their share of the booty; for instance, the chief treasurer Ikhernofret was sent by Senusret III on a special mission to Abydos “to erect monuments to his father Osiris, the god of the west, and to adorn the most secret place ( such as the Holy of Holies) with the gold which His Majesty had brought in victory and triumph from Nubia. " Ikhernofret obeyed the order of the king and endowed the barks and the vessels of the god with lapis-lazuli and malachite, with electron and all manner of noble stones. [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

The golden age for the temples however began with the Asiatic expeditions of the 18th dynasty. The remains of an inscription at Karnak give us an idea of the gifts of Thutmose III to Amun : fields and gardens “of the most excellent of the south and of the north "; plots of ground in a higher situation, “overgrown with sweet trees," milch cows and other cattle, quantities of gold and silver and lapis-lazuli. In addition, Asiatic and African prisoners, at least 878 souls, men and women, who were to fill the granaries of the god, spin, weave, and till the ground for him. Finally, Thutmose III settled upon Amun three of the conquered towns, 'En'eugsa, Ycnu'amu, and Hurenkaru, which had to pay a yearly tribute to the god. He also established special additional sacrifices for the festival days, besides richly increasing those already established. In the same way we hear that Seti I "bestowed upon his father Amun Re' all the silver, gold, lapis-lazuli, malachite, and precious stones, which he carried off from the miserable country of Syria"; and as the picture accompanying this inscription shows, lordly vases also of precious metal and of curious shapes; these were the much-admired productions of the ancient Syrian goldsmiths."

Isis Temple

Our incredulity would however, in this case, exceed the limits of truth, for some at least of these kings gave gifts to the temples, exceeding all that we could consider probable. The happy chance which has preserved to us the so-called “great Harris Papyrus," allows us to bring numerical proofs on this matter. King Ramses III, at his death, left a comprehensive manifesto, in which he gave full details of all that he had done for the temples of his country during the thirty-one years of his reign. The figures in these lists are evidently taken from the account books of the state and of the various temples, and ought therefore to be worthy of credence.

This great papyrus is 133 feet long, and contains 79 pages of very large size; it is divided into five sections, according to the recipients of the gifts. The first section contains the gifts to the Theban temples; then follow the presents to Heliopolis, to Memphis and to the smaller sanctuaries of the country; finally, the fifth section gives the sum total of all the donations.' The individual sections are in strict order; this much facilitates our finding our way through the long lists of payments. In the first few pages of each section the king recounts the large buildings, the lakes and gardens he has laid out for each respective god; special gifts are particular!y mentioned here before without specification of payments.

I shall now give a few examples from the fifth section, which, as I have said, gives the total sums of all the gifts which Ramses III bestowed upon the various places of worship during the thirty-one years of his reign. The following may be mentioned as special gifts from the king: 169 towns (nine in Syria and Ethiopia), 113, 433 slaves, 493,386 head of cattle, 1,071,780 plots of ground, 514 4 vineyards and tree gardens, 88 barks and galleys, 2,756 images of the god (containing 7,205 deben and I qedet of gold, and 11,047 deben and qedet of silver),'' 10,001 deben and 8 qedet of precious black bronze, 97,148 deben and 3 qedet of embossed bronze vessels, 47 deben and 6 qedet of lapis-lazuli, 18,168 pieces and 1 qedet of various precious stones.A deben is equal to 91 grams; A qedet is equal to 9 grams.

The duties, such as the charges imposed upon the temple subjects, were as follows: 2,289 deben 4. V qedet of golden vessels and ornaments, 14,050 deben 2 qedet of silver vessels and ornaments, 27,580 deben of bronze, 4,575 robes, finely woven, 3,795 deben of yarn, 1,529 jars of incense, honey, and oil, 28,080 jars of wine and similar drinks, 4,204 deben 7 — ; qedet of silver, the worth of various things paid in as a tax,

For the sacrificial funds the following payments were made from the royal treasury: 1,663 deben of golden vases and ornaments, 3,598 deben 8 qedet of silver vases and ornaments, 30 deben 9~ qedet of real lapis-lazuli, malachite, and ruby (?), 327 deben 9 qedet of black bronze, 18,786 deben 7 qedet of embossed bronze vases, 50,877 robes, finely woven, 331,702 jars of incense, honey, and oil, 35,130 jars of incense, 228,380 jars of wine and similar drinks, 1,075,635 amulets, scarabaei, and seals of precious stone, 2,382,605 various fruits, 20,602 oxen, 367 gazelles of various kinds, 353,719 geese, 1,843 bags of salt and natron, 355,084 bricks, 161,287 loaves of various kinds of bread, 285,385 cakes, 466,303 jugs of beer, 3,100 deben of wax, 494,000 fish, 19,130,032 bouquets of flowers, 3,260 pieces of wood for fuel, 3,367 lumps of coal, 1,933,766 jars of incense, honey, oil, fat, etc., 5,279,652 sacks of grain.

Temple Estates in Ancient Egypt

Juan Carlos Moreno García of Université Charles-de-Gaulle wrote: “Alongside the estates of the crown, temples too possessed important estates that provided the agricultural produce needed for offerings or for the support of personnel in charge of the cult. The Royal Annals mention estates granted by the king to cults and temples scattered throughout the country. The beneficiaries of these donations usually included the workers who cultivated the fields, as well as the storage and processing centers (pr-Sna) linked to the fields. The early- 5th-Dynasty inscriptions in the tomb of Nykaankh at Tihna el-Gebel provide insight into the organization of the economic activities of a provincial temple. The local sanctuary, dedicated to Hathor, had been granted a field of 0.5 hectares by 4th-Dynasty king Menkaura, a donation that was confirmed by Sahura at the beginning of the 5th Dynasty. Nykaankh and his family performed the required rituals and were accordingly paid with the produce of that field. [Source: Juan Carlos Moreno García, Université Charles-de-Gaulle, France, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2008, escholarship.org ]

“Sources from the 6th Dynasty show that temples were important economic centers and that their estates were usually exploited by the local elite, who thus became integrated into the economic, social, and political networks controlled by the palace. Royal donations to local temples continued throughout the Old Kingdom, as is recorded in the recently discovered Royal Annals of the 6th Dynasty. At the same time, the pharaohs built royal chapels in the local sanctuaries and provided them with the economic means necessary for their construction: Iy-Mery of el-Hawawish in Upper Egypt, for example, proclaimed in his autobiographical inscription that he never took away the grain that was in his charge, except for that which constituted the payments relating to the works on the Hwt-kA chapel of Pepy at Akhmim. Titles and inscriptions concerning the royal Hwt-kA, and even their architectural remains at Tell Basta, reveal that they were present in many provinces of both Upper and Lower Egypt, very often inside the enclosure of an existing temple. Their construction suggests that the king intervened in the internal affairs of the temples and could control their economic activities, as is further evidenced by the decrees from Coptos.

“The most detailed sources concerning the foundation, organization, and exploitation of a temple domain are the royal decrees from the temple of Min at Coptos, dating from the 6th Dynasty. Two of these decrees refer to the organization of a new domain granted to the local god: first, the location was chosen from a piece of land comprising some fields that were inundated on an annual basis; then, a storage and processing center was created in order to administer the domain, organize its work force, and raise taxes; finally, the domain was divided into plots and placed under the supervision of an administrative council comprising local governors, the high priest of the temple, and some officials.

“The role of the local governors consisted of assembling the work force necessary to cultivate the fields. Other clauses of decrees D and G specified that the estates enjoyed temporary tax exemptions. Such estates formed the economic basis of the provincial temples, and the recent discovery of 6th- Dynasty clay tablets at Balat, in Dakhla Oasis, shows that this kind of economic organization existed even at a remote locality in the Western Desert, hundreds of kilometers from the Nile Valley.

“As for temples in proximity to the capital, two important archives found at the Abusir funerary complexes of 5th-Dynasty pharaohs Neferirkara and Raneferef cast some light on temple resources. It seems that the temples’ main sources of income were other temples, especially that of Ptah at Memphis, as well as several royal institutions. Some fragmentary papyri suggest that these temples also possessed their own estates, but the role played by the royal residence (Xnw) and the royal house (pr-nzwt) appears far more important in the provisioning of temples near Memphis. In fact, the Royal Annals and the administrative papyri from the Old Kingdom show that the transfer of resources from the royal sphere to the temples was a well- established practice during the Old Kingdom. The titles borne by the officials of el- Hawawish also suggest that the crown transferred some estates to the local temple of Min. These measures do not imply, however, that the crown was losing resources and power for the benefit of the temples. The occasional tax exemptions granted to temples were temporary and revocable, and inscriptions like that of 6th-Dynasty official Harkhuf of Elephantine proclaim that both the temples and the royal estates formed networks where food and products were stored and kept at the disposal of the royal agents. The decrees of Coptos also enumerate the officials and the royal departments that usually requisitioned workers and taxes from the temples.”

Temples and Land Tenure in New Kingdom Egypt

Sally Katary of Laurentian University wrote: “While real estate was granted to individuals by the state, individuals also turned property over to the management of temple estates by means of funerary endowments. The endowment of Si- mut, called Kyky, scribe and inspector of cattle in the stalls of Amun in the reign of Ramesses II, exemplifies the custom of the donation of personal property to temples by individuals who entered into contracts with temples for the deity’s protection. Si-mut’s act of endowment comprises a long inscription covering three walls of his Theban tomb and summarizes a legal contract. Not having any children or siblings to care for him in his old age and organize his funeral and mortuary cult, Si-mut donated all his worldly goods to the temple of Mut, likely in return for a pension that would enable him to live out the remainder of his days comfortably, secure in the knowledge that his obsequies would be carried out by the temple. Unfortunately, the lower part of the inscription that contains details concerning the endowment is poorly preserved. Nevertheless, it was by such benefactions that temples gained control over even more property, and more distant relations of the donor were excluded from any possibility of inheriting from the estate. [Source: Sally Katary, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“Papyrus Harris I attests the preponderant role of the temples as distinct economic entities in their own right, with authority over cultivation and landholding. This royal document enumerates the land- wealth of the temples of Amun, Ra, Ptah, and smaller less well-known temples: a total of 1,071,780 arouras, comprising some 13 to 18 percent of the available cultivable land. It is very likely that the temple holdings enumerated here were donations made by Ramesses III, with priority going to his own mortuary temple at Medinet Habu.

“Papyrus Harris I supports the idea that temples were an integral part of the state, yet not a branch or department of the state administration, providing legitimacy to the government in exchange for which the king granted them all necessities and then some. The separate but interlinked bureaucracies of temples and government assured the temples control of their own production but made it possible for the government freely to remit part of its own wealth to the temples. Temples commanded the labor of large numbers of royal subjects to till the land in various arrangements the temples themselves controlled. The cultivators of temple lands were themselves taxed by the state to provide for the temples, thus completing the circle that, in theory at least, connected temples, populace, and the state in a mutually beneficial relationship.”

Temple Disputes in Ancient Egypt

Juan Carlos Moreno García wrote:In some cases, priests expressed their contempt towards potential candidates from a “lesser” social background, as in the case of a merchant’s son who wished to enter the priesthood. Alternatively, bribes were used as a means of joining the temple staff, to the point that royal decrees were periodically enacted in order to prevent this fraudulent practice. And it was not uncommon for former beneficiaries of prebends and temple fields to be dispossessed by force or see their rights usurped by others; there were cases in which officials occupying high positions in a temple were removed from office by royal decree as a result of their involvement in conspiracies, while their supporters were threatened with retaliation. Thus the Coptos decree of king Antef V mentions that a certain Teti, involved in conflicts with the king, was (along with his family) deprived of the priestly positions and income he had enjoyed in the temple of Min. [Source Juan Carlos Moreno García, University of Paris IV-Sorbonne, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2018; escholarship.org ]

According to the extent sources, in troubled times disruptions in the normal life of sanctuaries, and internal conflicts among their personnel, became common currency. In one case, simple cultivators had become wab-priests in the temple of Khnum at Elephantine, and the authorities felt it necessary to send their representatives in order to restore the temple and to relegate those priests to their former occupation. In another case, the installation of the high priest Menkheperra followed the displacement of an unnamed rival and the exile to the Kharga Oasis of the defeated faction, who were later formally forgiven and recalled by Amun with the full agreement of Menkheperra. An oracular procedure from Karnak in the 22nd Dynasty records the fiscal abuses inflicted against the Theban lesser clergy by higher clergy and bureaucrats, perhaps in the framework of competing factions surrounding the rival high priests Osorkon (B) and Harsiese (B), the former apparently supported by the lower clergy and the latter backed by the local elite .

Finally, the extensive Papyrus Rylands 9 describes the long-standing conflicts between a family of dignitaries and the priests of a small provincial temple, involving crimes, bribery, usurpation of property, the destruction of evidence, and the search for support from powerful patrons . From another perspective, a number of small archives provide a glimpse into the strategies exercised by priests and those who performed rituals to obtain income and strengthen their positions as members of a modest local elite. Several papyri mention, for instance, the affairs of Tsenhor, a female choachyte who performed funerary rituals on mummies, an activity that enabled her to accumulate wealth and to invest it in the acquisition of real property, slaves, and cattle. Other choachytes were involved in leasing and cultivating land from temples, thus obtaining agricultural rents. Such modest local sub-elites are also visible in Ramesside papyri (the Wilbour Papyrus is the most famous example), when temple land and fields ascribed to the cult of royal statues made it possible for hundreds of officials, priests, women, and wealthy farmers to enhance their position and strengthen the influence of the king in the provincial sphere.

Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons

Text Sources: UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, escholarship.org ; Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Egypt sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Tour Egypt, Minnesota State University, Mankato, ethanholman.com; Mark Millmore, discoveringegypt.com discoveringegypt.com; Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Discover magazine, Times of London, Natural History magazine, Archaeology magazine, The New Yorker, BBC, Encyclopædia Britannica, Time, Newsweek, Wikipedia, Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, AFP, Lonely Planet Guides, “World Religions” edited by Geoffrey Parrinder (Facts on File Publications, New York); “History of Warfare” by John Keegan (Vintage Books); “History of Art” by H.W. Janson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.), Compton’s Encyclopedia and various books and other publications.

Last updated July 2024