Th e Egyptians used four units of measurement to price
and trade commodities, the deben, the senyu, the hen, and
the khar. Th ese units coincided with quantities of certain
commodities: weights of silver and copper or bronze and
units of capacity of grain and sesame oil. More specifi cally,
the deben was a measure of weight used mostly for copper
but also for other precious material, such as gold and sil-
ver. One deben of copper weighed about 3.5 ounces. Silver
and gold deben are not mentioned in the ostraca but only
in the papyrus records. Th e ostraca were used and distrib-
uted only among the lower-class populace, while the papyri
recorded mostly transactions among the high offi cials and
the palace.
Th e senyu was a weight in silver equal to one-half de-
ben, or 1.75 ounces. Its use was inaugurated during the
Nineteenth and early Twentieth Dynasties (ca. 1307–1155
b.c.e.). Th e senyu could be used to express a value in the
same column of fi gures with the deben. One could fi nd in an
ostracon the value of certain objects in senyu but the total of
the column in deben of copper.
Th e hen was a measure of volume equal to half a quart or
less. Its value could vary according to the substance or liquid
to be measured, but generally it was regarded as equal to one
deben. Finally, the khar was a measure of the volume of grain,
either emmer (a type of wheat) or barley, equal to about 20
gallons, and it was valued at two deben. Th e khar was most
commonly found as a unit of value for baskets, both because
the volume of a basket was equal to its value and because bas-
kets were inexpensive.
Th e ratios among the four units as well as their exact val-
ues are not fi xed in the sources. For example, one document
values a basket at one-quarter senyu for a volume of one-half
khar. Because one khar is valued at two deben, one senyu is
worth four copper of deben. In another document, though,
one senyu of garment was worth fi ve copper of deben. Weight
and price, both expressed in deben, were hardly distinguish-
able from one another. In the Egyptian mind there was no
diff erence at all, for the deben was not money.
Cases of infl ation and price fl uctuation have been re-
corded. Quite oft en, one deben of silver was valued as 100
deben of copper. Th is uncertainty in the value system was
a strong indication that the Egyptians were not looking for
monetary profi t in their transactions but only the acquisition
of objects. Th e lack of fi xed prices led to the introduction and
development of a unique bartering system.
BARTER
Acquiring and disposing of goods was done by bargaining on
a price. Although there were no fi xed prices, ancient Egyp-
tians were fairly consistent in determining how much an item
was worth. For everyday goods, like food, clothes, or sandals,
the cost would have been one or two deben, but bigger and
more valuable items, like animals or territories, would have
cost more deben. Th e objects were traded for goods that were
worth the same amount.
Metals were used in exchanges but not as coinage. Th eir
values, equated with their weights, were measured on a bal-
ance against stone weights. An example of the bartering
method was documented in an ostracon from the village of
Deir el-Medina. According to the inscription, one person
wanted to buy a wooden coffi n, nationally valued at 25 deben
of copper. He had to exchange a set of commodities of equal
value. Th ese could have included actual copper pieces whose
deben value was obtained by direct weighing on scales, vari-
ous animals such as pigs or goats, or raw materials for coffi n
construction.
Before deciding whether to barter his product, the cof-
fi n maker examined the exchange goods to determine if they
met his needs. According to the inscription, the coffi n maker
valued the exchange items as follows: the copper items for 8.5
and fi ve deben, respectively; one of the off ered animals (a pig)
with fi ve deben; the other animals (two goats) with three and
two deben, respectively; and the two logs of sycamore tree for
two deben. In total, the price of the exchanged goods was 25.5
deben, which was slightly more than the assessed value of the
coffi n. It seemed that this slight diff erence did not trouble the
buyer, because he wanted the coffi n and was willing to off er
for it the items the seller required.
Evidence of loans has also been recorded in the Egyp-
tian sources. Two types of loans existed: one was made with a
fi xed date for repayment and a penalty if that day was missed.
Th e second type was based not on a fi xed day for repayment
but rather on an obligation for reciprocity between the lender
and the debtor.REDISTRIBUTION AND LABOR
Th e land benefi ciary and redistribution system was an im-
portant component of the ancient Egyptian economy. Under
this system, the soil of Egypt was the exclusive property of
the king, who could concede it to temple authorities, state
offi cials, or the populace, according to his wish. Priests and
high dignitaries were granted the use of land, but the king
retained direct ownership. A careful distinction was made
between the ownership of the land, a royal prerogative, and
the right to gain income from land.
Th e benefi ciary system led to the increase of the temples’
territories and wealth, which gradually became hereditary.
Control of the land was passed through the priestly offi ces,
which were free from all obligations to the royal administra-
tion. It is known that in the time of Ramses III (r. ca. 1194–
1163 b.c.e.) the domain of the god Amun in the ancient city of
Karnak (South Egypt) controlled well over 900 square miles
of usable agricultural land, along with vineyards, gardens,
marshlands, quarries, and mines.
Trade relations between temples and religious centers
from diff erent regions as well as between temples and their
surrounding areas or various state offi ces are well docu-
mented in the surviving sources. A primary source of income
for a temple came from renting land to the peasant popula-
tion. Another source of income was the plunder and foreign348 economy: Egypt