348 economy: Egypt The Egyptians used four units of measurement to price and trade commodities, the deben, the senyu, the hen, and the khar These units coincided with quantities of certain commodities: weights of silver and copper or bronze and units of capacity of grain and sesame oil More specifically, the deben was a measure of weight used mostly for copper but also for other precious material, such as gold and silver 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 The ostraca were used and distributed only among the lower-class populace, while the papyri recorded mostly transactions among the high officials and the palace The senyu was a weight in silver equal to one-half deben, or 1.75 ounces Its use was inaugurated during the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Dynasties (ca 1307–1155 b.c.e.) The senyu could be used to express a value in the same column of figures 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 The 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 The 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 baskets were inexpensive The ratios among the four units as well as their exact values 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 five copper of deben Weight and price, both expressed in deben, were hardly distinguishable from one another In the Egyptian mind there was no difference at all, for the deben was not money Cases of inflation and price fluctuation have been recorded Quite often, one deben of silver was valued as 100 deben of copper This uncertainty in the value system was a strong indication that the Egyptians were not looking for monetary profit in their transactions but only the acquisition of objects The 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 Egyptians 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 The objects were traded for goods that were worth the same amount Metals were used in exchanges but not as coinage Their values, equated with their weights, were measured on a balance 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 These could have included actual copper pieces whose deben value was obtained by direct weighing on scales, various animals such as pigs or goats, or raw materials for coffin construction Before deciding whether to barter his product, the coffin 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 five deben, respectively; one of the offered animals (a pig) with five 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 coffin It seemed that this slight difference did not trouble the buyer, because he wanted the coffin and was willing to offer for it the items the seller required Evidence of loans has also been recorded in the Egyptian sources Two types of loans existed: one was made with a fi xed date for repayment and a penalty if that day was missed The 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 The land beneficiary and redistribution system was an important 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 officials, 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 The beneficiary system led to the increase of the temples’ territories and wealth, which gradually became hereditary Control of the land was passed through the priestly offices, which were free from all obligations to the royal administration 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 different regions as well as between temples and their surrounding areas or various state offices are well documented in the surviving sources A primary source of income for a temple came from renting land to the peasant population Another source of income was the plunder and foreign