Courts of Law in Ancient Egypt | Middle East And North Africa

Home | Category: Government, Military and Justice

LEGAL COURTS IN ANCIENT EGYPT

official with a pleated costume

Courtrooms were usually a courtyard of a temple and judges consisted of the mayor, members of the council of elders, priests and sometimes the pharaoh himself. A "trial" consisted of accusations made by a plaintiff and a reply by the defendant. According to one record from 1375 B.C., "what [the plaintiff]" said" was followed by "what [the defendant] said."

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen in Germany wrote:“Egyptian law courts originated as councils of officials, which, besides acting as judges, also had other administrative tasks. Accordingly, they were known by the rather unspecific terms DADAt (Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom) or kenbet (qnbt) (Middle Kingdom until the beginning of the Late Period), which simply means “committee.” Their members are usually referred to as srw, “officials,” although more specific designations also occur. From the 26th Dynasty onwards, the members of the courts seem to have been mainly, if not exclusively, priests with a specific juridical education, called wptjw, “judges.” [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“From the New Kingdom onwards, a division into smaller local courts and great courts located in the capital(s) can be observed. Local courts dealt with minor cases of disputed property and petty crimes, which were punished with beatings, while the great courts attended to trials about land ownership, cases concerning officials, and crimes entailing heavier punishments like mutilation or the death penalty. This double system probably remained in action until the Ptolemaic Period when the local courts were integrated into a new system and the great courts were finally abolished and their role was taken over by Greek officials. Native Egyptian judicature fast declined under the Roman rule. Legal procedure changed little over time. Several laws about court procedure survive, which show that the conduct of cases was established in detail and that the judges had little scope for arbitrariness.

“Ancient Egyptian law courts are attested in textual sources from the Old Kingdom onwards. The earliest references to courts are in non-royal titles. The range of sources expands from the 6th Dynasty to include documents recording legal disputes and judgments, as well as sources which are not specifically legal but use judicial settings or terminology, such as tales, biographies, and letters. Courts originated as councils of officials, who adjudicated legal disputes, determined punishments, and held administrative, often notarial, functions, including witnessing legal documents and decisions and administering oaths. The composition of the courts, procedures and processes of judgment, terminology, as well as oracular proceedings will be discussed in the following in chronological order. A bibliography for the key primary sources treated in this entry is given at the end.”

Kenbets — Ancient Egypt’s Secular Courts with Juries

Irene Cordón wrote in National Geographic: In addition to the oracles, there was another, more formal method of resolving legal disputes during the New Kingdom. The kenbet (secular court) most closely resembles the approach of modern trials by jury. Two major kenbets were located in Memphis and Thebes and functioned like a high court. The major kenbet juries consisted of higher-ranking members of society, such as scribes of the vizier of Thebes or police chiefs. There is evidence that access to the kenbet service was surprisingly democratic, and that petitioners of higher social status were not given preferential treatment. [Source: Irene Cordón, National Geographic, January 30, 2019]

The kenbet typically handled civil issues such as nonpayment for goods or services, disputes and quarrels between neighbors, theft, injuries, and calumnies. The kenbets were empowered to administer punishments for the minor offenses that came before them, which usually entailed the guilty party suffering a beating. In a few cases, when a kenbet could not reach a decision, it would recommend that the question be submitted to the oracular statues for resolution.

Lesser kenbet councils sat in the region’s smaller towns, like the builders’ village. They would hear complaints of local residents and decide their cases. Scholars believe that juries consisted of craftsmen and artisans, who would sit in judgment over their fellow workers. If a serious crime originated in the lower kenbet, it would be moved up the legal system to the major kenbet councils, which reported directly to the vizier, the pharaoh’s principal minister.

Famous among historians, one case originated in the local kenbet near Deir el Medina. The accused, a woman called Heria, was initially charged with stealing a cup from a resident. The lower kenbet ordered that Heria’s house be searched for the missing property. The search revealed not only the cup but also goods missing from the temple of Amun. Theft from a temple was a more serious crime. The kenbet found Heria guilty of stealing the cup and then passed the matter of the stolen temple goods to be judged by the vizier. When passing off the case, the kenbet sent a letter to the vizier noting its thoughts: “Heria is a great fraud who deserves to die. ”

Law Courts in the Old Kingdom (2649–2150 B.C.)

During the Old Kingdom Upper Egypt possessed six courts of justice or great houses, at the head of which was an allpowerful chief judge. Each of the "thirty great men of the south" was a judge and a district chief, and as such was also a “privy councillor of the pondering of the secret words of the great house," that is, he was member of one of the six courts of justice; “the chief of these great men, the “governor of the south," as “privy councillor of secret words of the six great houses," alone had a seat in all. Before these great men rose to the rank of full judge, they usually superintended the office work of the court; they were entitled "judge and scribe,"' "judge and deputy superintendent of the scribes," or later in their career "judge and chief of the scribes," finally they were promoted by the favor of Pharaoh to be one of the thirty great men of the south. Besides these collegiate judges, there were individual judges, as they seem to have belonged to no court of justice. The latter, the "judges belonging to the town of Nechent," officiated as assistants of the chief judge; they gave audience with him “on all secret occasions," and like him they represented “the king, the royal household, and the six great houses. " [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

The administration of justice was evidently well organised, and played an important part in the state. The judges had a special patron saint, Ma'at the goddess of truth; all judges of horus weighs the heart of the deceased in the high rank served her as priests, and the chief judge wore a little hieroglyph Jj, the sign for truth. The most ancient constitution of the courts of justice seems to have perished early during the Middle Kingdom. The office of chief judge, on the other hand, in connection with the dignity of governor, survived even under the New Empire. Probably this office, like others which also outlived the Old Kingdom, had long become a sinecure, and survived only as the addition of a traditional title. [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Although a number of Old Kingdom titles seem to indicate a juridical office, very little is known about the precise functions of their bearers: sAb is often translated as judge and can be found on its own and in combination with other titles. WDa-mdw, literally “divider of words,” is also found as a designation for officials in a judicial capacity. The judicial titles combined with Hrj sStA seem to refer to positions of special confidence within the court system: Hrj sStA n wDa mdw (and similar), “privy council of decision,” Hrj sStA n sDmt wa, “privy council of solitary examination,” Hrj sStA n Hwt wrt, “privy council of the court”. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ] “Old Kingdom courts were composed of several members, sometimes perhaps ten, as the titles wr mD Hwt wrt, “greatest of the 10 of the court house,” and wr mD 5maw, “greatest of the 10 of Upper Egypt,” suggest. Common designations were the rather unspecific terms srw, “officials,” or DADAt, “council.” In the tombs of nomarchs of the 9th/10th Dynasty, the term kenbet first appears for local councils. The tasks of these committees seem to have extended over notarial as well as juridical duties.

“Like other sectors of the administration, jurisdiction was headed by the vizier who, in this function, bore the title jmj-rA Hwt wrt 6, “supervisor of the 6 great houses”. Philip- Stéphan translates “great court of the six,” which is grammatically quite unlikely: if a direct genitive were intended, the adjective wrt should not stand between regens (Hwt) and rectum (6)—although a few exceptions to this rule have been collected by Edel—and the persistent ellipsis of the genitival adjective nt before 6 would be highly unusual at that period. The “six great houses” are traditionally interpreted as law courts because people who violated royal decrees were sent there to be condemned; the accused could also be jailed and beaten there (Inscription of Akhet-hotep). It remains unclear where they were situated; at least one of them probably was within the royal residence. Information about provincial courts is rather scarce, but it can be assumed that the local DADAt councils, which appear in a notarial capacity, also had juridical functions. As locations where courts convened, the rwt Hwt wrt, “the doorway of the great house”, and the wsxt (1rw), “broad hall (of Horus),” are also mentioned.”

Law Courts in the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2030–1640 B.C.)

back of the heart scarab of Bak-en-Djehuti

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “As in the Old Kingdom, committees of officials designated as DADAt or kenbet acted as courts while, at the same time, being responsible for administrative and notarial duties. The expression mabAyt, “the Thirty” seems to refer to a panel of thirty judges but is attested only in titles. The term xnrt or xnrt wrt has variously been interpreted as “court house” and “penal compound”; perhaps it was a mixture of both. Court sessions at the gate (arryt) probably of a public building recall Old Kingdom practice. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“Again there are a number of most likely juridical titles, the exact meaning of which remains unclear, like those formed with the element tmA, “mat(?)/cadastre(?)”: Hrj tmA, sX n tmA, DADAt nt tmA. For the examining judges, sDmy, literally “hearer,” is attested since the 13th Dynasty, sometimes in combination with other terms. The heralds (wHmww), local administrators, were also involved in juridical action; they seem to have collaborated closely with the bureau of the vizier, sending in their cases for directives. Philip-Stéphan additionally claims a juridical function for the title jmj-rA Snt based on her etymology as “directeur de querelles,” but has to admit to a total lack of evidence for this.

“A number of juridical terms are preserved in the Stèle Juridique and the leather scroll Berlin P 10470, some even in both. 4pr is still the common word for “to file a complaint.” Rdj m Hr, “to put before someone,” is used for the action of presenting the plaintiff’s evidence to the defendant, who may acknowledge (shnn) the facts. WSd means “to interrogate” by the judges. The parties’ consent is expressed by hrw, “to be content,” the taking of an oath by arq, “to swear.”“

Law Courts in the New Kingdom (1550–1070 B.C.)

During the New Kingdom we still find the “governor of the six great houses," though these ancient courts of justice had long since ceased to exist except in name. The court of justice of the New Kingdom had not only an entirely different constitution. It consisted of “wise men and princes," that is of priests and officials, who “formed the great court of justice; “on a certain day they assembled at the gate of a temple, such as “near the two stelae in the court of Amun, at the gate ' adoration,' “or near the great gate, 'contented with truth,' of King Ramses II., opposite that of Amun. " On the latter spot there stood in facta "justice hall of the Pharaoh,'" which became so famous as a place of justice that a deceased poet amongst the justified of the nether world entitles it the “excellent gate, ' contented about the doing of truth. ' “We see by the fact that the court of justice was called the "court of this day,"' that those who were qualified by their official or priestly office to serve did not all sit at the same time. [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “After the Middle Kingdom, the term mabAyt, although still attested in religious and literary texts , occurs only rarely in documentary texts; it may be considered archaic and therefore somewhat highbrow by that period. In the New Kingdom, two levels of jurisdiction can be clearly distinguished. The great courts, presided over by the vizier(s), were situated in the capitals Memphis and Thebes and, at least during some periods, at Heliopolis. Their members were high court officials usually selected by the vizier and occasionally by the king; the king sometimes was even present himself and gave judgment. The great courts were concerned with litigation about land, law suits involving officials, and trials for crimes which demanded heavy corporeal punishments, i.e., mutilation or death penalty. Even direct pleas to the king during public ceremonies seem to have been possible. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“On a regional level, small qnbwt composed of at least three local dignitaries—according to the Decree of Horemheb D Z.6 - 7, from among the prophets Hmw-nTr), priests (wabw), and mayors (Hatjw-a)— adjudged cases of theft, property damage, overdue loans and payments, personal injury, and rape/sexual intercourse with married women. We are best informed about local jurisdiction at Deir el- Medina, but unfortunately, due to the exceptional character of this village, it is impossible to use this evidence generally. In trials for perjury, lèse-majesté, murder or similar, the local courts only decided on whether the crime actually had been committed by the accused but then had to transfer the case to the vizier (i.e., the great kenbet). Perhaps a system like the one assumed for the Middle Kingdom according to which local courts had to refer their cases to the bureau of the vizier in order to receive information about the applicable laws was still in use at the beginning of the New Kingdom (Instruction for the Vizier, R 25 - 26). On the other hand, the great courts could delegate on-site investigations and the enforcement of their decisions to the local court. Very small villages might have been served by mobile courts.

“Neither the great nor the local courts were permanent institutions; they assembled for court sessions only. A selection of judges for each session of each local court by the vizier seems improbable; therefore a procedure like the drawing of lots among the potential candidates is likely. At least the court of Deir el-Medina had a bailiff, who executed orders by the judges , as well as a scribe, who recorded the proceedings and might have been responsible for putting down the judgment in the proper legal phrasing. Since Deir el-Medina was under direct supervision of the vizier, the scribe could possibly also have acted as a representative of the bureau of the vizier. As in the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom, courts of the New Kingdom also fulfilled notarial duties like authenticating documents and continued to convene (at least occasionally) in the gateways of official buildings, cf. Papyrus Berlin P 3047 Z. 3 - 4. In the Third Intermediate Period, court might also have been held at the xA n sXw, “bureau of documents,” perhaps a record office where legal documents were filed. Besides the great and local courts, special committees for the investigation of major crimes like tomb robbery or conspiracy against the king could be set up.

annuity contract

“In the course of the expansion of personal piety in the 19th and 20th Dynasties, oracles of various gods were addressed in order to judge legal affairs (usually of the same categories as those brought before local courts). Some changes seem to have occurred during the Third Intermediate Period, although due to the small number of sources it is difficult to assess them. Allam assumes that the courts were restructured from all-purpose administrative bodies to strictly juridical committees with quasi- professional judges.”

Composition of the Law Courts in the New Kingdom

The composition of the court varied very much. On the 2ist of Athyr in the 16th year of Ramses IX. the court of justice sitting in judgment on the princes of the town consisted of:
The governor Cha'emuese, the superintendent of the town.
Amenhotep, the first prophet of Amun-Ra, king of the gods.
Nesamun, of the temple of Ramses IX. enduring for millions of years, the prophet of Amun-Ra, king of the gods.
The royal vassal Nesamun, the scribe of the Pharaoh, and chief of the house of the high priestess of Amun-Ra, king of the gods.
The royal vassal NefcrkcRa-em-per-Amun, the speaker of the Pharaoh.
Hor'e, the deputy of . . .
The fan-bearer of the household of Hor'e.
Paser, the prince of the town. " ' In this case the lay element preponderated, but on the 14th of Phaophi in the 46th year of Ramses II. we find the members of the court consisted of:
“Bekenchons, the first prophet of Amun.
Ueser-mont, the prophet of Amun. [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

Ram, the prophet of Amun.
The prophet Uennofre of the temple of Mut.
The prophet Amen-em-'en of the temple of Khons.
The (holy father?) Amen-em-opet of the temple of Amun.
Amenhotep, the priest and reader of Amun.
Any, the priest and reader of Amun.
The priest Huy of the temple of Amun.
The accountant Huy of the court of justice of the town. "

In this case therefore we find nine priests and but one layman, such as the permanent scribe of the court who reported the lawsuit. '' It was right that there should be a permanent official in these affairs of law, for the protocol was the determining document of the process, the whole transaction being conducted by word of mouth. In the civil court, the plaintiff first preferred his complaint, the court being seated and the contending parties standing;" the court then declared that the case was heard, and summoned the defendant to answer. After the defence, the court gave sentence. The victor, then turning to the other party, stated the award adjudicated to him, and the one who had lost declared with the words “I do it, indeed I do it, I do it," that he submitted to the sentence of the court. It was the same in criminal cases, except that the accusations were addressed to the governor, who took the place of the plaintiff. In these cases also the sentence was not always pronounced by the court. It sufficed for the court to declare the guilt of the prisoner, to “find him guilty "; the deed was then sent to the Pharaoh, and it was left for him to decide what punishment should be inflicted.

Law Courts in the Late Period (712–332 B.C.)

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “It seems likely that the two levels of jurisdiction— centralized great courts at the capitals versus small local courts in towns and perhaps even villages— either survived into the 26th Dynasty or were resurrected. The revival of judicial titles reminiscent of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom, e.g., jmj-rA-sX-xnty-wr, “chief scribe of the great prison” and jmj-rA-sX(w)-DADAt-wrt, “chief (of) scribe(s) of the great court”, extended into the 26th and in some cases even the 30th Dynasty. The Saite kings as judges are mentioned in Papyrus Rylands 9 col. 11.19 and col. 15.8—in the last instance, Psammetichus II would have held court if he had not become ill. A court presided by the vizier occurs in col. 15.9. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“The term kenbet, “court,” is used only in cursive hieratic documents while Demotic ones employ nA wptjw, “the judges.” Not much is known about the background of the judges, but it may be assumed that, as in the New Kingdom, they consisted mainly of local officials, and, as in the Ptolemaic Period, especially of priests.

“During the Persian Period, the satrap (provincial governor) residing in Memphis gave judgment as well as local administrators and, for the soldiers, the chief of their garrison. Councils of judges are also mentioned in Aramaic documents from the 27th Dynasty, but their composition remains unknown: perhaps the dyny mlk’, “judges of the king,” were the successors of the great courts while the dyny mdnt’, “judges of the province,” those of the local courts. Papyrus Rylands 9 recounts court sessions by several local officials as well as the snty.”

contracts with a west nurse that requires her to suckle with both breasts

Law Courts in the Ptolemaic Period (304–30 B.C.)

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “The Ptolemaic king was the highest judicial authority but limited his personal performance to legal matters of state importance. Although petitions to initiate a law suit were formally addressed to the king, they actually were attended to by the dioiketes (minister of finance) or the strategos (governor) of the nome. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ] “At the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period, the Greek poleis in Egypt seem to have had their own juridical systems; in the case of Alexandria, it was based on the Athenian legal constitution, including dikastêria (courts), kritêria (arbitration boards), and diaitêtai (arbiters). The Greek population in the rural areas turned to dikastêria of frequently ten judges (dikastai) in the larger settlements. For the native Egyptians, the local courts of judges (nA wptjw) continued to exist and were known by the Greek as laokritai, “judges of the (native) people.” They consisted of three judges, usually priests of the local main god, who had obtained a legal education in the temple and based their judgments on the Egyptian law code collected under Darius I and sanctioned by Ptolemy II as nomoi tês chôras, “law of the land”. Since only very few transcripts of court proceedings before the laokritai survive, our main source for the scope of their jurisdiction are the temple oaths (see below). They concern cases of divorce, inheritance, sale, loan, securities, guaranties, lease, work contracts, fraud, theft, but rarely also damage to property and assault , thus showing that the competence of the laokritai was limited to civil cases and minor criminal ones by the Ptolemaic Period.

writing on the heart scarab of Bak-en-Djehuti

“For litigation between Egyptians and Greeks, a “common court” (koinodikion), probably composed of Egyptian and Greek judges, existed in the third century, later such cases were adjudged by the epistatês, a nome official. Ptolemy II is most likely to be credited with integrating the two parallel systems into a state- approved (and, to a certain degree, state-controlled) comprehensive judicial system. To initiate a law suit, the plaintiff had to write a petition (enteuxis)—nominally to the king, but in fact to the strategos of the nome who, after a short investigation, decided which court was to be approached. A Greek official, the eisagogeus, was assigned to the Greek as well as the Egyptian local courts; he introduced the cases, was responsible for the summoning of the defendant, supervised the suitability of documents as evidence (only if they contained a tax receipt and were properly recorded), issued the court orders, and had them executed. At least for the dikastêria, he also selected the judges (probably by drawing lots) from a list of candidates, possibly local honoraries.

“Ptolemy II also introduced a new court system, the chrêmatistai, who were initially sent out into the countryside on special orders to judge particular cases and later constituted permanent courts situated in the larger towns of the nomes. The chrêmatistai consisted of three judges, selected by the archidikastês (the highest judicial offical) probably from the Alexandrian upper class, appointed by the king and supervised by the dioiketes. An eisagogeus, a scribe (grammateus), and a bailiff (huperêtês) accompanied them. The judges had a comparatively short term of office, probably only two years. In the second century B.C., the chrêmatistai completely took over the role of the dikastêria as courts for the Greek population and later even diminished the importance of the laokritai because even Egyptians chose to bring their cases before them instead of their native courts. The advantage consisted in the fact that the chrêmatistai could be applied to either through enteuxis or directly, and that there was no appeal against their judgments. The disadvantage for Egyptians was that Egyptian documents had to be translated into Greek before they could be used as evidence and that the Greek judges had no profound knowledge of the Egyptian law. “Until 118 B.C., the case was presented to a Greek or an Egyptian court according to the nationality of the parties. Afterwards, the language of the document on which the case was based decided whether Greek or Egyptian law was to be applied and therefore whether it fell under the jurisdiction of chrêmatistai or laokritai.

“In addition to these boards of judges, high district officials like the nomarch, the strategos, and the epistatês had a certain judicial power by themselves. From about the middle of the third century B.C., the nomarch was obliged to call in the strategos at least for cases concerning lease and sale. Suits concerning taxes were administered by financial officials instead of normal courts. For soldiers, their commander or, if they were outside of their garrison, the chief of the Alexandrian police acted as judge. Cult associations required their members to apply for the association’s decisions and to refrain from suing each other before public courts.

“The Greek courts and officials acting as judges had no comprehensive law code but based their judgments primarily on royal prescriptions (diagrammata), if these did not exist for the case, on the laws of the particular town (politikoi nomoi) or, if these did not apply either, on their personal sense of justice. Despite this obviously very complicated situation, neither the judges of the dikastêria, the chrêmatistai, nor the officials with judicial authority were obliged to receive proper legal training.”

Account of Diodorus Siculus of Ptolemaic-Era Law Courts

transcription of the heart scarab of Bak-en-Djehuti (a spell)

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Diodorus Siculus, who visited Egypt around 50 B.C., also described the Egyptian judicial system , but his account most likely derived from the (almost completely lost) Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I. He depicts a single central court with thirty judges (ten each from Memphis, Heliopolis, and Thebes), presided by a high judge who wore a piece of jewelry (agalma) called Truth (Alêtheia) made from a blue gemstone (sappheirou lithou) around his neck and had the laws of Egypt on eight scrolls before him. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“It is impossible to reconcile this picture with the early Ptolemaic, let alone late Ptolemaic judicial system; we have no evidence for a central court of native Egyptian judges at that time, and Diodorus’ account lacks the local courts for which there is evidence. But the individual elements recall earlier conditions: the thirty judges resemble the mabAyt of the Middle Kingdom (see above Middle Kingdom and 2nd Intermediate Period: 1. Composition of courts), the three cities of origin of the judges correspond with the three sites of the great kenbet courts of the New Kingdom, which might have survived into or been revived in the Late Period.

“The pendant of Truth (i.e., the goddess Maat) is well attested on statues from Dynasty 26 onwards, and even original pendants of lapis lazuli have been discovered; Maat is called “who is on the neck of the (chief) judge (sAb or tAyty sAb)” in temple inscriptions of the Ptolemaic Period. The Maat pendant (“emblem of Justice”) is still mentioned as ensign of the chief judge in BGU V 1210 (l. 194), the so-called Gnomon of the Idios Logos, a Roman collection of instructions for the administration of Egypt, which incorporated among other things a number of earlier Egyptian priestly regulations— although not from any Roman interest in the proper execution of Egyptian cult but for the sake of collecting the fines in case of nonobservance. All in all, it seems that either Hecataeus or Diodorus assembled chronologically disparate and incomplete bits and pieces to make up an ostensibly consistent account of the Egyptian legal system.”

Law Courts in the Roman-Era Egypt (30 B.C.–364 A.D.)

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Although the term laokritai is not attested after the end of the second century B.C., Egyptian courts might still have existed during the first century of Roman rule. This is indicated by the existence of transcripts of Demotic temple oaths from that period—such oaths are never attested in connection with suits before the chrêmatistai—and although courts of cultic and other associations used temple oaths as well, the number and scope of the surviving examples make it unlikely that all of them should derive from procedures before these courts. The chrêmatistai last appear in the second century CE, but their duties seem to have changed by then. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“The main judicial authority in Roman Egypt was the praefectus Aegypti as deputy of the emperor. He held court on his annual convents in selected towns of the country. Since the prefect was usually not a jurist, he had legal advisors probably from Rome. However, the prefect usually only took on criminal cases and others of higher importance, e.g., concerning fiscal matters or liturgies, while minor cases without state interest were delegated to subaltern officials.

“The iuridicus Alexandreae was responsible for inheritance and bankruptcy as well as voluntary jurisdiction. Cases concerning state finances or temples and priests were managed by the official responsible for the idios logos (special exchequer) and later by the dioiketes. Other officials like the epistrategos and the nome strategos could also be charged with judicial functions and thus became iudices pedanei, i.e., delegate judges, rendered in Greek papyri as dikastai or kritai.”

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 August 2024