An Exploration of the term ‘inw’ from the Early Dynastic Period to the New Kingdom

Barbara O’Neill

This article was first published on www.Egyptological.com

http://snipurl.com/28htz5x

Introduction:

The term inw has been described as ‘vexatious’ in its complexity, touching as it

does on a range of intricate subjects outside the scope of this article. The

following article does not claim to cover all aspects of inw. A reading list for those

who wish to explore the subject in more detail, is provided at the end.

In his book The Official Gift in

Ancient Egypt (1996) Edward

Bleiberg notes that there are

thirty eight different

interpretations for the term

‘inw’ in English, French and

German. As Bleiberg notes

‘The Egyptians could not have

been as vague as the

numerous translations

suggest’ (Bleiberg, 1996, p.27). Ostensibly, in its earliest form, inw is a

transaction which expresses a socio-economic relationship between the Egyptian

king and others, ‘kingship itself being an integral institution in the socio-economic

scheme’ (Bleiberg, 1984, p. 156). Image: Princes bearing offerings, Luxor Temple

A closely associated term, ‘bAkw’ often appears in any list of inw exchanges, with

bAkw understood by Bleiberg as a form of gift exchanged between a foreign

country and the Egyptian state. bAkw could also take the form of local

commodities presented as offerings to a temple, whereas the inw exchange

almost always involved the king in the transaction, as recipient or donor. The

social status of the individuals involved in inw exchanges appears significant in

determining if a ‘gift’ can be categorized as ‘inw’ or ‘bAkw’. In its earliest phases

at least, it appears that the inw transaction was primarily a royal prerogative.

(Bleiberg, 1996).

Bleiberg sees the redistributative model as providing the clearest picture of the

Ancient Egyptian economy, with inw and bAkw component elements within a

system in which goods were collected by the temple for eventual redistribution to

the people. Rations were distributed from the temple to people on the basis of

rank rather than need or ability to buy goods. All Egyptians were subject to this

system except for the king (Bleiberg, 1984, p.156). There was no vocabulary for

the concepts of buying, selling or of money throughout most of Egypt’s history.

The Egyptians used words such as ‘give’ rdi or ‘acquire’ ini to describe the barter

system which underpinned their economic system. In the redistributative system

most resources moved from the periphery to the centre; from peasant to palace

or temple, with commodities then redistributed on the basis of class and social

position. There was no coinage in Egypt before the Twenty Sixth Dynasty and

‘true’ money did not exist there before the Twenty Ninth Dynasty. Precious

metals, including gold, silver and copper were used as a medium of exchange

and as a standard of value well before this date.

Ancient records, related to the exchange of goods in barter transactions, make

fascinating reading. In a contract dated to Year 15 of Ramesses II, a nobleman

named Erenofre offered textiles, bronze vessels, a pot of honey, ten shirts and

ten pieces of copper in exchange for a slave girl valued at 4 deben or 1 kite of

silver (for information on deben and kite values, see ‘Notes on Ancient Egyptian

Measurements’ at the end of this article). In another trade contract, an ox was

exchanged for 2 pots of fat, 5 shirts, 1 dress and 1 hide, equivalent to 120 deben,

the value of the ox. In the barter system there was no way to achieve a profit

through selling. Goods were acquired because a person or institution had a need

for them. Egypt’s ancient ‘economy’ was not a separate institution but entwined

with social obligation (Bleiberg, 1996).

The Wörterbuch1 offers four basic renderings of the word inw as ‘offering’,

‘tribute’, ‘gift’ and ‘product’. inw has also been associated with the idea of trade.

Andrew Gordon (1983) rejects the translation of inw as ‘goods’ adhering to the

view of inw as tribute, offerings, revenues or gifts according to the context in

which the term is used. Further, Gordon understands inw as possessing ‘an

intrinsically high value for the giver and the receiver’ (1983, pp.387-388).

Though a word can be used in different contexts, inw does not correspond neatly

to any one modern concept of commodity exchange. Although current historians

still struggle with what Antony Spalinger refers to as the ‘vexacious’ question

behind the precise meaning of the term inw, Bleiberg believes that ‘distinctions

made by the Egyptians in different rubrics to describe economic transactions are

meaningful and consistent’ (Spalinger 1993, Bleiberg,1996).

Inw in Early Egypt and the Old Kingdom

Inw transactions are recognisable in the archaeological and textual records as

early as the First Dynasty. Items marked as Inw are attested from Dynasty 1

when the word inw written as the bulti-fish (in) and the nw-pots appears on

products redistributed to members of the royal family, to bureaucrats who directly

served the king and to ‘even lower’ officials ( Bleiberg, 1996, p.28). Queens Her-

Neith and Meret-Neith both received inw from King Den of the First Dynasty. Ten

1 Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, a multi-volumed dictionary initiated in 1897 which documents how ancient Egyptian words were used.

ivory labels, originally believed to have been attached to containers, along with

seals and ink inscriptions inscribed on to jars were found in mastabas at Naqada,

Abydos and Saqqara inscribed as inw.

The donors of inw are not always named on examples dated to the First Dynasty

from royal tombs. Nor, in the case of labels or seals recovered from non royal

contexts, are individuals, provinces or countries named. Only the king’s name

appears in the earliest examples of inw with minimal information on whether the

inw went to, or originated from the royal court. It appears that inw transactions

were well established by the commencement of Dynastic Egypt which suggests

that the practice may have started significantly earlier in the Predynastic Period.

The practice of tightly controlled redistribution of inw commodities may have

been one of many ancient customs that survived into and continued to develop

throughout the Dynastic era (Bleiberg, 1996, p.35).

By the Second Dynasty, inw is attested from jar labels and on seals associated

with the names of foreign countries, along with the titles of Egyptian nobles who

dealt with these transactions on behalf of the king. The term inw, now written with

the nw-jar combined with walking legs iw, appears on seal impressions from the

Abydos tomb of King Peribsen. Another phrase incorporating this word appears

on Peribsen’s seals. On these items the phrase inw St.t was initially

mistranslated by Egyptologists, including William Ward (1961), as an epithet

describing Peribsen as ‘conqueror of Asia’. This initial rendering of inw St.t is

now understood by Ward, in his later exploration of the phrase, as ‘a fanciful

treatment’ of the term, now translated as ‘that which is brought’ (Ward, 1991).

inw St.t is no longer seen as having anything to do with foreign conquests, but

rather as the record of an agricultural quota sent as inw to Peribsen. This inw

St.t was tribute sent to the king from an Egyptian town; probably from Sehel at

the First Cataract (Ward, 1991).

From the 3rd Dynasty inw is distributed by the king to his family, high officials and

to elite nobles. inw of this type often originate from offerings redistributed via the

royal mortuary temple. These inw contributions indicate a particular relationship

between the living (or deceased) king and a favoured few (Bleiberg, 1996, p.53).

inw was also sent to and received from foreign sources, with the practice growing

in frequency throughout the Old Kingdom era. Donald Redford (1986) interprets

this form of Old Kingdom inw as ‘tribute’, not specifically gained through conquest

but rather representing the ‘benevolence’ of a region, person or state; here inw is

a tribute of respect rather than war-booty. However, Redford believes that inw, in

this era, should also be understood as an ‘enforced gift’.

The products of Palestine were highly valued in this period and were acquired in

four ways:

• by trade;

• by coercion;

• through the reciprocal exchange of presents, or

• as ‘enforced gifts’.

Preferring the term ‘benevolence’ for inw, Redford notes that distinctions

between these acquisitions are ‘blurred’ (1986, p.140). It was more practical,

and no doubt cheaper, to rely on the Palestinians to voluntarily bring their natural

resources as tribute or ‘benevolences’ to Egypt as ‘gifts’. Establishing a fear of

Egypt’s Horus (the king) in foreign lands guaranteed a flow of inw from Palestine

and from other vassal states in the form of ‘spontaneous tribute’ (Redford, 1986,

p.141).

Foreigners were probably expected to produce inw on special occasions. In

support of this, Redford cites an Old Kingdom event known as ‘pA hrw n mst pA

inw’ or ‘the day of bringing the benevolence’, as evidence of such a

‘spontaneous’ process. It is assumed that vassal states received advance notice

of when an instance of pA hrw n mst pA inw was ‘expected’ (Redford, 1986).

Jar labels marked as inw from the Step Pyramid complex specifically mention the

sed festival of Djoser. Although connection between inw and the sed festival

cannot be firmly established, the only examples of jar labels inscribed with the

inw rubric from the New Kingdom, have been dated to the various sed festivals of

Amenhotep III (Bleiberg, 1996, p.42).

In the Old Kingdom inw can also be understood as free-will gifts from foreign

rulers who were not under Egypt’s sphere of influence. It is believed that such

gifts were usually reciprocated. Luxury, inw-inscribed prestige items from Egypt

have been found at Ebla on the Ionian coast and at Ai, in ancient Canaan.

Elsewhere, prestige goods exchanged between Egypt and the Kingdom of Kush

may have permitted Kushite Kings to enhance their own status as receivers of

Egyptian largesse. Items sent as inw to Kushite rulers have been recovered from

both residential and funerary archaeological settings (Burstein, 2001). In early

Dynastic and Old Kingdom Egypt, trade between Egypt and Kush was organised

primarily as a royal monopoly in which Kushite kings provided exotic goods to

their Egyptian counterparts. By way of ‘return’, texts referring to inw received

from the Egyptian king are often referred to as ‘the breath of life’. This apparently

ephemeral reward most likely took the form of prestige items which the Kushite

ruler distributed to his elite supporters; his status in the inw transaction, securely

enhanced (Burstein, 2001).

inw was both received and bestowed throughout the Old Kingdom, usually

presented by the Egyptian monarch to other powerful potentates, or received by

him in reciprocal exchange. inw Items found at Byblos bear the seals of pharaohs

from Khasekhemwy in the Second Dynasty right through to to Pepy II in the Sixth

Dynasty with ‘with few gaps’ indicating that most, if not all of Egypt’s Old

Kingdom rulers routinely presented inw to foreign kings (Redford, 1986, p.141).

inw, in these instances, often took the form of bequests to significant cults within

foreign territories. inw appears to have been governed by social relations rather

than by economic considerations (Bleiberg, 1996).

Despite his count of multiple words for the term inw in modern languages,

Bleiberg sees consistency, at least in its early configuration, in the concept of inw

as a transaction which almost always involved the Egyptian king as either the

donor or receiver of inw commodities. The earliest exception to this, so far as

records show, occurs during the First Intermediate Period. Inw, for the most part,

expressed a socio-economic relationship between the king and others during the

early phases of Egyptian history. During the First Intermediate era however, with

normal functioning of the central government greatly lessened. Provincial rulers,

or nomarchs, are known to have received and donated inw with provincial rulers

attested as both donors and receivers of inw. This situation may have lasted into

the early Middle Kingdom (Bleiberg, 1996).

Inw in the Middle Kingdom In the early Middle Kingdom instances of inw continue to be received by the king

from local and foreign regions and from significant rulers and individuals. On the

stele of Tjetji, dated to the early Middle Kingdom, inw is listed as commodities

sourced from Upper and Lower Egypt and, in the same inscription, goods from

Punt are described as inw sent to Intef II or III:

‘the inw of this entire land was brought to his majesty, lord of Upper and Lower

Egypt, because of the fear of him throughout the land. That which was brought to

The Majesty of my lord by the hand of the chieftains who rule over the Red Land

because of the fear of him throughout the foreign countries’.

(Stele of Tjetji, 11th Dynasty).

This and other Middle Kingdom examples indicate a reemergence of the Old

Kingdom view of inw as a royal prerogative. However, despite this concept of

inw as the prerogative of the king, inscriptions from 12th Dynasty nomarchal

tombs at Beni Hasan attest to instances where provincial rulers claim the right to

offer inw to deceased family members. At around the same period, the nomarch

Khnumhotep II refers to prestige offerings as the ‘inw received from the palace’.

It is possible that this and similar scenes reflect Khnumhotep’s participation in

royal ceremony with inw continuing to reflect the older interpretation of inw as

exclusively the prerogative of kingship (Bleiberg, 1996, pp.71-73).

Paul Smithers (1941) in his examination of inw in A Tax-Assessor’s Journal of

the Middle Kingdom examines a document written during the reign of Senwosret

III ca. 1878–1840 BC, originating from ‘The office of the Land of the Northern

District’. The document records inw collected by an ‘overseer of land’ named

Redynyptch; an official responsible for collections of inw from a particular area.

Administrators, at this time, charged with the collection of inw were required to

keep records of how they had spent their time while on official business.

Accompanying Redynyptch were two minor officials named as the ‘stretcher of

the cord’ and the ‘holder of the cord’. These titles suggest that part of the official’s

duties involved the measuring of cornfields for taxation. This is one of the few

instances where inw may be referred to as a form of tax, although most scholars

refute that inw involved taxation in any form. Whether the example in this

papyrus implied a regular tax collected by Redynyptch or was an irregular tribute

involving the assessment of certain fields and of the crops produced there,

remains unclear.

As noted at the beginning of this article, it is impossible to explore inw without

frequently encountering the related term bAkw. bAkw does not, at any time

appear to involve a royal donor or recipient. In the Middle Kingdom sources,

however, bAkw also indicated ‘tribute’, though more frequently, bAkw appears as

a form of tax. These terms occur in close association in texts dealing with

international relations or in accounting records related to the Egyptian king and

his subjects.

One possible distinction between bAkw and inw is in the ultimate destination of

the goods involved; bAkw commodities received in Middle Kingdom accounts

appear to become part of the redistribution system. inw commodities appear to

be destined exclusively for the king’s privy purse, or are redistributed to elite

individuals honoured as recipients of His Majesty’s inw (Janssen 1993, Bleiberg,

1996). Conceptually, inw might be regarded as free gifts, irregularly delivered or

received and warranting a ‘countergift’, even if, as in the Kushite example above,

this return of inw was described immaterially as ‘the breath of life’. BAkw does

not appear to have warranted reciprocity or compensation (Janssen, 1993).

However, Janssen points out frequent anomalies in the distinctions between

bAkw and inw in Middle Kingdom accounts. bAkw is often listed as commodities

destined for temples, from where the goods were then redistributed. If one

distinction between the terms indicates that inw was not intended to become part

of the movement of commodities redistributed from temple storerooms, it is

apparent in some Middle Kingdom records that the king himself frequently

presented inw to temples where presumably these goods may indeed have

become part of the wider redistribution system. This poses an interesting

conundrum as to how consistently ancient scribes recorded received temple

goods as either inw or bAkw; while also posing the question of whether inw did or

did not become part of the general redistributive system at this time.

The idea of inw as an exchange between the king and his sociopolitical inferiors,

was revived by the Theban kings of the Middle Kingdom. However, the murky

issue of distinctions is not particularly clarified by Hoffmeier (2001) who suggests

that bAkw and inw may be regionally specific with the term bAkw used to denote

tribute from Egypt’s contiguous or vassal states including Kush, (Upper Nubia),

Wawat, (Lower Nubia) and areas of ancient Lebanon. These lands fell under

Egyptian centralised control in the Middle Kingdom, whereas inw is more often

applied to commodities supplied by rulers of powerful, independent states,

including Hatti, Mittani and Babylonia.

Another feature of inw during the Middle Kingdom phase is outlined in the royal

annals of Amenemhet II of the 12th Dynasty where the king is described as

gathering inw from nature, suggesting a ritualistic function of the term. King

Amenemhet is said to have ‘caught’ inw consisting of twelve nets of fish and

many hundreds of water birds in his ritual role as ‘Fisher and Fowler of the Two

Ladies’. This is an obscure title, a rare epithet which perhaps functioned as a

means of emphasising a ruler’s physical prowess (Bleiberg, 1996, p.58). Related

accounts list the actual numbers of fish and fowl caught on this occasion,

suggesting that the ritual produced inw commodities, perhaps destined for use at

the royal residence. Could this inw have been subject to limited redistribution?

There must have been a certain cachet in being the recipient of game or fish

captured by the king of Egypt. Or, might this inw have functioned as ritual

offerings; a symbolic rendering of gifts to the gods produced from the control of

chaos by the king?

inw is presented to the deceased king via his mortuary temple and presented to

the living king in his palace. Entries in the Illahun archives indicate that items

received at the mortuary temple of Senwosret II were considered possessions of

the dead king and are itemised as ‘inw.f.’ or ‘his inw’. Later archives from the

mortuary temple of Senwosret III list deliveries of inw from the temple to the royal

palace. This list includes cattle, various forms of bread and architectural

elements including stone columns. In a related account the entire inw received

that day includes items as diverse as pigeons, incense and white bread

presented to the deceased king via his mortuary temple by the vizier Ankhu.

Although the evidence suggests that inw was not usually subject to ‘normal’

temple redistribution in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, being the exclusive

property of the king; in the case of the inw of a deceased ruler, Bleiberg suggests

the complex structure of the term may have meant that ‘disbursement was no

longer governed by the same restrictions found in regard to inw under the control

of a living individual’ (Bleiberg, 1996, p.82). Whether these distinctions existed

remains unclear, although the fact that inw was supplied or received irregularly;

involved the king as donor or recipient and was not ‘at any period’ offered as

payment of taxes during Egypt’s Middle Kingdom, does seem conclusive

(Spalinger, 1996, p.362, Bleiberg 1996).

Inw in the New Kingdom

In any exploration of the existing literature on New Kingdom inw (or perhaps in all

instances of the term’s occurrence) a consideration of both the context and the

ideology of the instances in which inw transactions occur, is vital. Mario Liverani

(2002) focuses on the example of Hatshepsut’s trade mission to Punt, scenes of

which appear within the second columned hall of her mortuary temple at Deir el

Bahri. Hatshepsut’s intent was to supply her temple with incense and particularly

myrrh, a gum-resin used heavily in religious ritual. Extracted from a small, thorny

shrub, Commiphora Myrrha, the supply of myrrh involved a long, complex

journey; the plant was not native to Egypt. Hatshepsut is believed to have

established a direct route to Punt, Egypt’s primary source of myrrh, through the

Red Sea, bypassing countless middle-men.

There were huge ideological advantages to Hatshepsut’s expedition. In related

imagery in scenes from her mortuary temple inw commodities are shown as gifts

exchanged between the Egyptians and the nobility of Punt. Hatshepsut’s

representatives present foodstuffs, cloth, necklaces and some weapons to a man

identified as the ruler of Punt. In return, the Egyptians receive a range of highly

desired exotic items, including the myrrh trees. There was no common medium

of exchange operating here. Each partner in this particular inw exchange placed

a very different value on his own products. The ruler of Punt was making an

extraordinary profit from a naturally abundant commodity in exchange for

prestige Egyptian items which would have bolstered his official and personal

status. Indeed each partner in this exchange received increased personal

prestige, even if the circumstances in a socio-economic context are on very

different scales of magnitude (Liverani, 1990, p.167).

Intriguingly, related

inscriptions refer to

Hatshepsut’s gifts

to the king of Punt

as exclusively

foodstuffs, ‘every

good thing from the

court … bread,

beer, wine, meat

and fruit’ although

temple scenes show other valuable items presented in this exchange, including

Egyptian cloth, jewellry and weapons. Significantly, the elite courtiers of Punt are

portrayed obsequiously as they deliver their gifts with heads bowed. They are

described as moving towards Hatshepsut’s representatives as the latter stand

still, observing the approaching courtiers who bear the inw of Punt. In the

Egyptian artistic canon, motion on one side and passive observation on the other

act as subtle but important signals of superiority. While the goods from Punt are

described as inw for Hatshepsut, the goods given in reciprocation are labelled as

inw ‘for Hathor, mistress of Punt’ making an Egyptian goddess the chief recipient

of Hatshepsut’s largesse: ‘by this means, gifts brought by Hatshepsut’s

representatives have not really left the Egyptian orbit: they are offered to an

Egyptian goddess who is in control, even of these faraway lands’ (Liverani, 1990,

p.168). Image: Inw from Punt, Temple of Hatshepsut

In the annals of Hatshepsut’s successor, Thutmosis III, inw from Asia is listed

separately from harvest accounts and from accounts related to war booty.

Commodities demanded from and supplied by Egypt’s southern provinces Kush

and Wawat (Upper and Lower Nubia respectively) are listed as bAkw; inw never

appears in this context (Spalinger, 1996). Tribute received by the king from the

great powers of Western Asia (independent, powerful states including Hatti and

Assyria) with which Egypt maintained commercial trade relationships instigated

through political means, are listed in the royal accounts as inw. It appears that in

countries where Egypt had complete control, the expected annual contribution is

always referred to as bAkw in the New Kingdom era. This supports the view that

inw took the form (usually) of irregular offerings of tribute, benevolence, or simply

put, gifts to the Egyptian king (Spalinger, 1996). However, Spalinger disagrees

with Bleiberg’s view that received inw was only destined for the privy purse of the

king, while bAkw commodities were intended for the redistributive system, citing

insufficient evidence. ‘It is unlikely that there was a system of such ‘rational’

bookkeeping in which the king’s personal income was separate from the state or

his people’ (Spalinger, 1996, p.365, Bleiberg, 1996).

In the New Kingdom phase, and perhaps earlier, bAkw contributions appear to

have been obligatory; a source of regular income with the term used particularly

for goods received from foreign countries proximate to the Nile Valley and under

Egypt’s direct control. Inw, at this time, appears as tribute received on an

irregular basis from independent states; some of which were led by their own

powerful kings including Hatti, Cyprus, Babylon and Mitanni. This is not a

universally held definition in understanding the concept of inw in the New

Kingdom. Image: The sons of Ramesses II bearing offerings, Luxor Temple

Jac Janssen (1991) suggests that we deal with inw as presents or gifts,

preferring a literal translation of the term without elaboration as to the king’s role,

if any, in the presentation or receipt of inw; ‘the Egyptians did not use such words

as inw in a well circumscribed, technical sense, with sharply defined meanings.

They always kept in mind their original value, in this case 'that what is brought',

without any implication of why or under what conditions the goods were brought.’

(Janssen, 1991, p. 84).

In the Twentieth Dynasty, instances of inw occur in the document known as

Papyrus BM 10401, recording the inw collected from priests and temples

between Elephantine and Esna by an official entitled the aA-n-St or Chief Taxing

Master. Here, the inw includes fans, date flour, fruits, palm leaves, red stone,

beans, woven mats, a dappled cow and gold. Whether any of these items were

intended for Pharaoh or his court is unknown. In this Ramesside period, there

appears to be an implication that the inw was something exacted, or that inw was

made up from goods physically removed or collected by the aA-n-St. These

goods may have come from temple storerooms. Men described as priests are

listed as administrators in the inw collection process. As for the reasons why the

items were being removed from the temples at Elephantine, Kom Ombo, Edfu,

Hierakopolis, el Kab and Esna in BM 10401, Janssen explains ‘the state could

freely dispose of wealth deposited in their storerooms’ although where the goods

went to is frustratingly, unrecorded (Janssen, 1991, p.81, p.93). By this late 20th

Dynasty date, the king resided in the North and it is therefore likely that the inw

was destined for the Temple of Amun at Karnak, then under the direct control of

the Priests of Amun. In the case of the inw recorded in Papyrus BM 10401,

Janssen does not see this as a form of tax, but rather as delivery of items taken

from Upper Egyptian sanctuaries for use there, or for redistribution at Karnak

Temple.

By the New Kingdom bAkw can be understood as commodities centered on work

and the products of work so that harvest goods, cereals, wine, oil, incense, gold,

ivory and ebony and wood from Lebanon all count as bAkw. bAkw could also

include cattle, other live animals and slaves. The connotations for inw appear to

be considerably wider, although many of the items classified as bAkw are also

found in inw lists including precious metals, precious stone, slaves, live animals

and some agricultural and pastoral commodities. In the accounts of Thutmosis

III, a foreign princess sent for diplomatic marriage and named as ‘the daughter

of the Prince of Retenu’ is listed at the top of an inw account dating from

Thutmosis’ Year 40. It is probably that other foreign brides were sent to Egyptian

kings as inw.

The following circumstances may differentiate between bAkw and inw:

• regularity of supply more often occurs in commodities considered as

bAkw;

• the supply of goods labelled inw is usually infrequent;

• inw is often specially commissioned, sent or received;

• the source of the supply of either bAkw or inw is significant with bAkw

often sent by and received within state institutions;

• the ultimate destination may differ, with bAkw commodities entering the

redistribution system, while inw goods are usually distributed via the king’s

privy-purse, at his behest and usually only issued to elite individuals;

• inw usually involves the Egyptian king, or another powerful individual, as

donor or recipient; and

• the supply of bAkw is stipulated and subject to redistribution whereas inw

is not usually stipulated or widely redistributed

Clearly any attempt to fit either term into a modern translation such as ‘gift’ or

‘tribute’ is, as Antony Spalinger notes, ‘vexacious’. The specific aspect of inw

which once distinguished it from bAkw, its irregularity of presentation, has

apparently broadened during the course of the New Kingdom as inw

commodities are sometimes presented to the king on an apparently regular, pre-

determined basis. The nuances between the terms bAkw and inw are less clear.

It appears that both terms can be described as conceptually fuzzy by the end of

the New Kingdom, at least from an etic perspective. To reiterate Bleiberg’s point

‘The Egyptians could not have been as vague […] (t)hey must have seen an

underlying unity in transactions called inw’ (1996, p.27).

An example of this conceptual change occurs specifically in the depiction of an

inw event first attested from the Old Kingdom. The event known as ‘pA hrw n

mst pA inw’ or ‘the day of bringing the benevolence’ was considered as an

irregularly celebrated, ‘special’ occasion during the Old Kingdom. During the

New Kingdom however, images of this event are portrayed in a range of

Eighteenth Dynasty tombs including those of Nebamun, Huy, Senenmut and in

the tomb of Rekhmire. These men were all high ranking officials, working under

the auspices of a range of New Kingdom monarchs. In all instances, the

deceased tomb owner claims that he had the honour of being present as the inw

from local and foreign dignitaries were presented to the king. It appears that by

the New Kingdom ‘the day of bringing the benevolence’ may have evolved into

an annual calendared event (Redford 1967; Bleiberg, 1996).

The following range of inw presentations indicate events throughout the New

Kingdom, some of which may have been infrequent ‘special events’ with others

believed to have occurred regularly, perhaps annually:

‘All the foreign countries being gathered together bearing their inw for the Good

God of the first occasion, Aakhperkare, living forever’. Context: royal Inscription at

Tombos, Reign of Thutmosis I.

‘Viewing the inw of the Delta consisting of inw and everything without limit’. Context: tomb of Yamunedjeh, Reign of Thutmosis III.

‘Then this enemy and the Princes who were with him caused that their children

be brought forth with them bearing great amounts of inw consisting of gold and

silver’. Context: annals of Thutmosis III, Karnak Temple.

‘Viewing the inw of the treasury by the Overseer of Works and Child of the Harim,

Pahekamun, justified’. Context: tomb of Pahekamen, 18th Dynasty. The deceased

observes the delivery, weighing and recording of gold rings.

‘Receiving the inw that was brought to the powers of His Majesty consisting of

annual revenues by the Chiefs of Retenu caused to go upstream by boat to

Egypt by the Overseer of the Door of the Northern Foreign Country and Royal

Scribe, Djeheuty’. Context: an inscription on a statue of Djeheuty, Reign of Thutmosis

III

‘Receiving the inw of the Chief of Punt by the Royal Messenger’. Context: caption

in the Punt Reliefs in the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut.

‘Receiving the inw of Kush’. Context: caption in the tomb of Senenmut, Reign of

Hatshepsut.

‘Controlling the long-horned cattle and the ht-aA geese without limit and great

amounts of the best inw’. Context: tomb biography of Duaherneheh, Reign of

Hatshepsut.

‘The Princes of Mitanni come to him with their inw on their backs in order to

request the peace of His Majesty and that his sweet breath of life be sent’. Context: inscription dated to Amenhotep II, Karnak Temple.

‘Every land and every country bears its inw. They conduct (it) to the Strong Bull,

Horus Who-Appears-in-Truth, Nebmaatre’. Context: architrave inscription dated to

Amenhotep III, Luxor Temple.

‘Presenting the inw of all foreign lands and the produce of the chiefs of every

land by the king….’. Context: scene from Medinet Habu, Temple of Ramesses II.

‘Presenting inw by the Good God to his father Amun-Re … consisting of silver,

gold, lapis lazuli, turquoise … and all precious stones’. Context: inscription at the

Ramesses II Temple at Abu Simbel.

Conclusion Edward Bleiberg, who has perhaps spent more time than most wrestling with

how inw can be best understood, has written ‘The greatest problem for a modern

observer of an ancient economic transaction is the assumption that it can be

equated with some transaction familiar from modern life.’ (1984, p.155). It is

perhaps no longer surprising that thirty eight different words in at least three

modern languages have been used to interpret inw, considering the undoubted

complexities of the term and how its meaning seems to have evolved over time.

It appears that instances of inw in inscriptions or accounts should always be

viewed in context, considered alongside the ideological principles of location,

recipient, donor and intended readership; ‘The word cannot be taken at face

value but rather as part of a complex vocabulary of political, strategic and

socioeconomic language through which Egypt communicated with domestic and

foreign territories close to and far from her boundaries’ (Spalinger, 1996, p.368).

Bibliography and Further Reading

Bleiberg, E., 1984, ‘The King's Privy Purse During the New Kingdom: An

Examination of INW’ Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 21

pp. 155-167.

Bleiberg, E., 1996, ‘The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt’, University of Oklahoma

Press.

Burstein, S., 2001, ‘State Formation in Ancient Northeast Africa and the Indian

Ocean Trade’

http://www.historycooperative.org/proceedings/interactions/burstein.html

Gordon, A., 1983, ‘The Context and Meaning of the Egyptian word inw from the

Proto-Dynastic Period to the end of the New Kingdom’, Ph.D Thesis, University

of California, Berkeley.

Haring, B.J.J., 1997, ‘Divine Households, Administrative and Economic Aspects

of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes’, Nederlands

Instituut, Leiden.

Hoffmeier, J., 2001, ‘Aspects of Egyptian Foreign Policy in the 18th Dynasty in

Western Asia and Nubia’, Penn State University.

Hovestreydt, W., 1997, ‘Secret Doors and Hidden Treasure’, in ‘Essays in

Honour of Herman Te Velde’, ed. Jacobus van Dijk, Styx Publications,

Netherlands.

Janssen, J., 1991, ‘Requisitions from Upper Egyptian Temples’ (P. BM 10401),

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 77 (1991), pp. 79-94, EES.

Janssen, J., 1993, ‘Bkw: From Work to Product’, Studien zur Altägyptischen

Kultur, Bd. 20 (1993), pp. 81-94, Helmut Buske Verlag GmbH.

Liverani, M., 2002, ‘Hatshepsut and Punt, Trade or Tribute’ in ‘International

Relations in the Ancient Near East 1600-1100 BC’, pp.166-170, Palgrave-

Macmillan.

Redford, D., 1986, ‘Egypt and Western Asia in the Old Kingdom’, Journal of the

American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 23 (1986), pp. 125-143, American

Research Center in Egypt.

Serpico M., 2000, ‘Resins, amber and bitumen’ in P. Nicholson and I. Shaw,

eds., ‘Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology’, Cambridge University Press.

Smithers, P., 1941, ‘A Tax-Assessor's Journal of the Middle Kingdom’, The

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 27 (Dec., 1941), pp. 74-76, EES.

Spalinger, A., 1996, ‘From Local to Global: The Extension of an Egyptian

Bureaucratic Term to the Empire’, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Bd. 23, pp.

353-376

Ward, W., 1963, ‘Egypt and the East Mediterranean from Predynastic Times to

the End of the Old Kingdom’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the

Orient, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-57, Brill.

Ward, W., 1991, ‘Early Contacts between Egypt, Canaan, and Sinai: Remarks on

the Paper by Amnon Ben-Tor’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research, No. 281, Egypt and Canaan in the Bronze Age, pp. 11-26, The

American Schools of Oriental Research.

Notes on ancient Egyptian Measurement: ‘Old and Middle Kingdom (about 2025-1700 BC) inscribed weights attest to units

of around 12-14 grams, and 27 grams. These units seem to have been called

dbn (vocalised in Egyptology as ‘deben’) meaning ‘ring’: this is the main name for

the standard unit of weight in any period. It seems likely that 1 gold deben = 12-

14 grams, 1 copper deben = 27 grams. In the New Kingdom (about 1550-1069

BC) the system changes, with 1 deben of 91 grams divided into 10 qdt (vocalised

in Egyptology as qedet or kite) – each qedet is then around 9 grams. The deben-

qedet system continued in use to the Late Period’.

From: http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/weights/weight.html