larly made whenever the need arose. Local mayors (haty) were
responsible for the collection of these additional taxes.
Along with the treasury, other key areas of administra-
tion included the department of agriculture, the department
of works, the judiciary, and the army. Th e title of “imy-ra,” or
“overseer,” was used by every senior or middle-ranking of-
fi cial in every level of the administration. Reporting directly
to the vizier were the all-important overseer of the treasury
(imy-ra per hedj, literally “overseer of the ‘the house of sil-
ver’”) and the overseer of the royal construction works (imy-
ra kawet nesut). During the Fourth Dynast,, the golden age of
pyramid building, several viziers also held the title of over-
seer of the royal construction works.
A Nineteenth Dynasty inscription found in Nuri (in Nu-
bia, a region to the south of Egypt) instructs various govern-
ment offi cials to observe tax exemptions granted his funerary
temple at Abydos. Th e text, which dates to the reign of Seti
I (ca. 1306–1290 b.c.e.) outlines the major offi cials of the
realm: “the vizier, magistrates, courtiers, councils of hearers,
the viceroy of Kush, the commandants, the superintendents
of gold, mayors of town and controllers of camps/tribes of
Upper and Lower Egypt, the charioteers, the stable-chiefs,
the standard bearers, every agent belonging to the king’s es-
tate, all persons sent on mission to Kush.”
PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION
Administratively, Egypt was divided into 42 discrete admin-
istrative units, or provinces, k nown as “nomes” (derived from
the Greek nomos, meaning “district,” which is a direct trans-
lation of the Egyptian term spat). To the ancient Egyptians,
Egypt was known as “the Two Lands” in reference to Upper
Egypt (the valley) and Lower Egypt (the delta). Th ere were 22
Upper Egyptian nomes, with the fi rst nome at Aswān being
also the southernmost. Th e nomes were numbered sequen-
tially northward. Memphis, the “Balance of the Two Lands,”
constituted the fi rst Lower Egyptian nome, with the 19 other
nomes of Lower Egypt lying in the delta. Despite various
changes, this division of Egyptian into discrete provinces
survived into the Roman period.
By the Sixth Dynasty (ca. 2323–2150 b.c.e.) the Upper
Egyptian nomes were grouped together into three larger ad-
ministrative units. Th e “northern region” comprised the 16th
Oryx nome to Memphis. Th e “middle nomes” extended from
the modern city of Akhmīm to the Hare nome (that is, nomes
9 to 15). Th e “southern region” included the fi rst through the
eighth Upper Egyptian nomes. Abydos and Aswān seem to
have maintained their administrative separateness. Little is
known about Lower Egyptian nomes in the Old Kingdom. An
overseer of these administrative districts (known in Egyptian
as waret) interacted directly with the local governors.
Each province had its own governor (or “nomarch,” liter-
ally “governor of a nome”). Each nomarch was an absolute
ruler in his province, running it as a miniature version of the
state, with its own treasury and militia. Nomarchs were re-
warded with titles and land parcels (estates) and occasionally
the right to build a tomb in the royal necropolis, the greatest
of all honors. Th e demise of central government at the end
of the Old Kingdom is sometimes attributed the increased
power of the local rulers, who challenged the central author-
ity at Memphis.
Although originally a nomarch was appointed by the
king (or his deputy), during the First Intermediate Period (ca.
2134–2040 b.c.e.) the offi ce of nomarch became hereditary.
Some nomarchs sought to expand their territory through
the use of military force or strategic political alliances and
intermarriage. Sesostris III installed several governmental
reforms that curtailed the power of the nomarchs. At the lo-
cal level, authority was given to capable administrators rather
than to important regional families. In ancient Egypt gov-
ernment administration and high offi ce were open to capable
individuals from all classes. Ideally, it was a person’s aptitude
and hard work that brought him success, and it was that prin-
ciple that propelled Egyptian society.THE MIDDLE EAST
BY JAMES A. CORRICK
Ten thousand years ago the ancient Near East was home to
small farming communities and nomadic tribes. No doubt, a
variety of ways of governing these groups existed. A number
of them were surely led by chiefs, with some being elected and
some inheriting their position, while other bands were prob-
ably headed by priests or councils of elders. Th eir authority
was limited to each these leader’s or council’s small group,
numbering only a few dozen individuals on average and no
more than a few hundred at the most. Over time local rule
was extended to include more and more people, as fi rst city-
states, such as Uruk (beginning in the fourth century b.c.e.),
Ur, and Babylon, and then larger domains, such as the Assyr-
ian and Persian empires, rose in Mesopotamia and the rest
of the ancient Near East. Th e cities alone had populations in
the tens of thousands: Large ones like Uruk exceeded 50,000
inhabitants, and Babylon had a population of 100,000. In ad-
dition, each city controlled many thousands more in the vil-
lages surrounding it. In later periods the Assyrians and the
Persians ruled over hundreds of thousands of people.KINGSHIP IN MESOPOTAMIA
Leadership of these states generally came to rest in the hands
of a single autocratic ruler, most oft en a king—and occa-
sionally a queen—who was aided by a cadre of advisers and
bureaucrats. Th e fi rst of these monarchs appeared in the Su-
merian cities of Mesopotamia, probably sometime in the late
fourth millennium b.c.e. Kings may not have originally ruled
the city-states of the Sumerians. Rather, the early cities may
have had a form of democratic rule exercised through an as-
sembly. Th is assembly appears to have been made up of two
divisions, a council of elders and a congress of all free resi-
dents, both men and women. Policy was determined through
debate that eventually led to consensus; in this give-and-take514 government organization: The Middle East