Legal Procedures in Ancient Egypt: Judges, Plaintiffs and Oracles | Middle East And North Africa

Home | Category: Government, Military and Justice

LEGAL PROCEDURES IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN LAW COURTS

heart scarab of Bak-en-Djehuti, a priest (priests often served as the equivalent of judges

There was never any occupation which corresponded to a lawyer in ancient Egypt but the practice of allowing witnesses to testify on behalf of the accused – while an officer of the court prosecuted – became commonplace.According to a University of Oxford course outline: For criminal cases, government officials were sent to investigate; these reported to the vizier’s permanent court and the king, and had the power to arrest, detain and question suspects, including through torture. Crimes against the state had harsh penalties, including beatings, the twisting of limbs, mutilation, burning and impalement.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica: The ultimate authority in the settlement of disputes was the pharaoh, whose decrees were supreme. Because of the complex nature of legal administration, the pharaoh delegated powers to provincial governors and other officials. Next to the pharaoh, the most powerful individual was the vizier, who directed all administrative branches of the government. He sat in judgment on court cases and appointed magistrates as part of his legal duties.

In a legal proceeding, the plaintiff was required to bring suit. The tribunal then ordered the defendant to appear in court if a point of law seemed to be involved in the dispute. Scribes employed in the legal system supplied procedural information; the parties were not represented by legal advocates. Both parties spoke for themselves and presented any pertinent documentary evidence. Witnesses sometimes were called, but usually the judge ruled on the grounds of the documents and the testimony of each party. The judgment included recommendations for preserving the written record of the trial—possibly the main reason why many of these documents are extant.

Judges and Viziers in Ancient Egypt

The administration of justice was centralised. We meet with the office of judge in many forms. One of the least important of the judicial posts, one often held by sons of the higher judges, was that of "judge and superintendent of the scribes". Another was that of "judge belonging to the city of Nechent”. The latter is sometimes said to assist the high-judge “on all secret occasions," ' a third was the “, which may signify the judge of agriculture. These lower judicial appointments were held as a rule by the “great men of the south “or by their sons, and their jurisdiction extended over the town or the province of their respective great lords. All the judges belonged to one of the “six great houses," that is, to one of the great law-courts, in which “the secret words “were discussed,' and the chief of these great men, the superintendent of the south, was a member of all the six. ' At the head of this court of justice “stood the “Chief judge." The chief judge was always of very high birth; if not one of the sons of the king, he would be one of the "high priests of the great gods,"' or a "hereditary prince," or at least a "real prince.” [Source: Adolph Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt”, 1894]

Irene Cordón wrote in National Geographic: The vizier was one of the most powerful officials in Egypt. Second in power only to the pharaoh, he oversaw the administrative functions of the government. For serious crimes, the vizier served as judge and could dole out punishments or grant pardons. [Source: Irene Cordón, National Geographic, January 30, 2019]

A papyrus known as Salt 124 details a case from the 20th dynasty that was heard by the vizier. The case was brought by Amennakht, a worker at Deir el Medina, against another worker, Paneb. The list of crimes was long: Amennakht charged Paneb with theft, looting tombs, death threats, bribery, misappropriation of tools belonging to the government, bullying the villagers, sexual assault, blasphemy, and murder. Paneb defended himself by claiming that Amennakht was seeking revenge because he felt Paneb had stolen a job from him.

The case most likely came before the vizier because of the charges of tomb raiding. Stealing from one’s neighbor was a crime for the kenbet. Stealing from the royal dead or from Egyptian temples was a much graver offense.

Legal Procedures in Old Kingdom Law Courts

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “A single fragmentary document of the 6th Dynasty informs us about court procedure (Papyrus Berlin P 9010). The beginning is lost, therefore it remains unknown what court was involved and how the lawsuit concerning inheritance was initiated. Both parties seem to have been present in court, with the plaintiff making the first move by producing a document on which he based his claims, i.e., that the deceased had made him the trustee for his heirs. The defendant countered with the allegation that the document was a forgery and that therefore he (presumably as eldest son) should remain the sole heir. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“The judges decided that the plaintiff had to produce three witnesses who would confirm the authenticity of the document on oath—the oath was drafted by the court and included an invocation of divine wrath (bAw) against the perjurer. If he could not do so, he would lose the case. The decision of the court therefore could consist of a conditional judgment, which made the final outcome dependent on the result of a proof of authenticity. There is no reference to the consultation of written law, nor to a discussion among the judges. The sketchy style and fragmentary state of the sole source do not permit us to draw any more general conclusions.

“The Autobiography of Weni, although often cited in this context, is not relevant since the procedure mentioned there is not a normal trial but a special examination probably in connection with a conspiracy involving a royal wife; moreover, no details about this case are divulged. Although not a documentary text, the Story of the Eloquent Peasant, which takes place during the 10th Dynasty, might also be used in order to elucidate court procedures—possibly before the vizier—in the First Intermediate Period.”

Legal Procedures in Middle Kingdom Law Courts

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Information about procedure is still scarce for the Middle Kingdom. The fragmentary Papyrus UC 32055 contains the evidence of the plaintiff in which he describes an earlier transaction of his deceased father, either a sale or a loan against security. The father seems to have fallen ill or even died without ever receiving the price/loan, so the son now charges the other party in his stead. Beginning and end are lost, therefore it is impossible to decide whether the text is a writ (thus proving that written claims were used) or part of a protocol of proceedings. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“Unfortunately, the only two completely preserved sources for a court procedure could possibly be exceptional, since both ended not with a judgment but with a settlement between the parties; it is also possible that in both cases the procedure was notarial rather than juridical. The Stèle Juridique tells the whole involved history of a proceeding that resulted in drawing up an jmjt-pr document about the position and income of the mayor of Elkab from one brother to another as compensation for a loan or deposit that could not be paid back. The documents presented in court are copied as well as those that resulted from the proceeding.

“The leather scroll Berlin P 10470 also concerns a transfer, namely of a slave woman from her former owners to the city of Elephantine. Even if these two documents concern notarial procedure disguised as law suits, the fact that both parties (or their representatives) had to be present, that the “plaintiff” started by stating his claims to which the “defendant” responded, and that the judges then viewed the relevant documents and questioned both parties resemble Old Kingdom procedure and can therefore be considered as basic elements of trials.”

Legal Procedures in New Kingdom Law Courts

back of the heart scarab of Bak-en-Djehuti

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Some regulations for legal procedures before the vizier are preserved in the Instructions for the Vizier: both parties had to be heard. Decisions about fields in the vicinity of Thebes had to be made within three days, about those in other regions within two months. If a law existed for a certain case, the vizier had to judge accordingly and not use his own discretion.

“Law courts became active on application of a plaintiff. There was no institutionalized public prosecution, although officials were under oath to report illegal actions they witnessed. Although some scholars assume that plaintiffs had to address an official in order to try for an extrajudicial settlement before going to court, there is no evidence for this. The great courts probably had to be approached through a petition to the vizier or the king himself. A large number of ostraca from Deir el-Medina contain notes, sketches, or drafts for transcripts of court proceedings, but few of them are complete. Often only the date, names of the parties and the judges, and the judgment are mentioned, while the statements of plaintiff and defendant are missing. However, since the status of Deir el-Medina was not comparable to that of other villages of this size, caution should be used in assuming this evidence as typical. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“At least in some cases, plaintiffs handed in a written claim, but viva voce complaints may have been possible as well before the local courts. New Kingdom juridical terminology stresses the oral element, cf. mdw Hr/m, “to litigate” lit. “to speak about something”, and Sm r mdwt Hna, “to go to court with someone” lit. “to go in order to talk with someone” (Instruction for the Vizier R 27). From the 25th Dynasty onwards, “to litigate with (someone)” is expressed as jrj qnbt jrm or Dd qnbt jrm, lit. “to make/talk court with,” which remains the standard phrasing in Demotic texts. Plaintiff and defendant had to be present before the court. The plaintiff commenced with his presentation of the case (smj, “to complain, to plead”), sometimes he presented documents (mtrww, “witness documents”) to substantiate his claim. Then the defendant gave his statement. If necessary, the judges posed questions to the parties, viewed the documents, interrogated witnesses, sent agents off to investigate, or even went to visit the location themselves. Statements of both parties and witnesses had to be sworn to, only rarely witnesses were sworn in before they gave evidence . During the tomb robbery trials, witnesses and defendants were also beaten. The judges then decided and judgment was given in the standard formula mAaty X aDA Y, “X is right, Y is wrong.” The setting free of acquitted defendants in criminal proceedings was phrased as rdjt TAw, lit. “to give breath”.

“The protocols also might contain how the judgment was to be effected: punishment by beating was sometimes administered without delay. Sometimes the one who lost the case had to take an oath on the king or a god (anx n nb, “oath of the lord”) drafted by the court to comply with their judgment by paying his debts, not repeating his illegal actions, or never acting against the judgment. These oaths usually included the punishment applicable in case of noncompliance. The prephrasing of oaths is shown by the later procedural parallels, see below Late Period, 2. Procedure and process of judgment. It is highly unlikely that the judgments should not have been effective without these oaths, as Seidl assumes; they merely put more pressure on the culprit by making him realize the possible effects of his recalcitrance in public. The sometimes drastic punishments—which, although threatened by the local court, could not be executed except by vizierial or royal decision (see above)—did not always deter the condemned from repeating their crimes.”

Oracular Proceedings in New Kingdom Law Courts

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Oracle proceedings used the same system as other oracles: the answer of the god was derived from the movements his cult statue made during a festive procession. A forward motion, called hnn, “nodding,” was considered as affirmative answer, a backward motion, called naj n HA=f, “receding,” as negative. Oracular proceedings are best attested from Deir el-Medina. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

Oracle of Delphi

“The procedure for oracular trials resembled normal procedure inasmuch as the plaintiff gave his statement, sometimes probably in writing, including the presentation of documents. Oracles were approached for mainly the same types of suits as local courts. But the presence of the defendant seems not to have been necessary, especially since oracular procedures were quite common in cases of theft when the culprit was unknown. Three basic methods to address the god can be distinguished: 1. oral yes/no questions like “Is A’s claim correct?” or “Is B the culprit?” which the god answered with “yes” or “no” movements; 2. orally presented lists of possibilities (e.g., of possible thieves or prices for disputed goods) during the reading of which the god gave his assent at a certain point; 3. double written statements (positive and negative versions of a statement or the statements of plaintiff and defendant) between which the god chose, possibly by moving towards one of them. Like normal court sessions, oracle sessions were recorded.

“In the transcripts, the participants and onlookers were put down as witnesses for the judgment. The movement was usually translated directly into the standard judgment formula (see above), e.g., “X is right, Y is wrong.” The condemned was able to appeal at another god’s oracle. It remains unclear whether oracular trials took place on days when there were religious processions anyway or whether special processions had to be arranged for them: the fact that in Deir el-Medina most oracle trials are dated to the 10th, 20th, and 30th day of the month when the workers had their day off cuts both ways. During the 21st and 22nd Dynasties, when Amun became nominally head of the Upper Egyptian state, oracles also took over the notarial functions of courts, i.e., the authentication of documents.”

Legal Procedures and Oracles in Late Period Law Courts

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “There are hardly any sources for court proceedings during the Late Period. The proceedings in Papyrus Rylands 9 (see above) are described in a very general way. No transcripts of trials before small local courts survive from that era. However, some information about the rules of procedure can be gained from the law collection compiled under Darius I, which gives detailed instructions for the handling of different cases by the judges, e.g., in which order the parties have to give evidence, who has to prove his claims and how, who is to be questioned and about what, which party has to take an oath, etc.. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“The evidence for oracular proceedings in the Late Period is sparse and indirect. A lavishly illustrated transcript of an oracular proceeding of the 26th Dynasty with an exceptionally large number of witness copies concerns the transfer of a priest from one priesthood to another and is therefore more administrative than judicial in nature. Herodotos II, 174 reports that king Amasis of the 26th Dynasty had repeatedly been acquitted from quite legitimate accusations of theft in his youth by the oracles of some gods but condemned by others, with the effect that, as king, he esteemed only the latter and did not take the first seriously any more. There is no evidence for real oracular proceedings after the 26th Dynasty—what Seidl supposes to be writs in an oracular trial are letters to gods containing prayers for protection against injustice. Although oracle questions with legal content, usually concerning cases of fraud or theft with unknown perpetrator, are still to be found in the Roman Period and, in Christianized form, continue into the seventh century CE, these are no longer part of a proper trial.”

Legal Procedures in Ptolemaic Period Law Courts

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Procedure varied according to the judicial organ. Before the Egyptian judges, the procedure began with the plaintiff handing in a written plea (xrw), which was also delivered to the defendant who wrote his response to it. To this, the plaintiff commented again in writing, and finally the defendant gave his view to the second statement as well. A full set of four writs is preserved in Papyrus BM 10591 rto. After the writs were completed and had been handed to the court, the judges summoned both parties and questioned them. No evidence that was not in the original writs was accepted, and no documents that were issued after the trial had started could be used as evidence. If documents were presented in court, their authenticity had to be proved by hearing the signatories or their children as witnesses and, after the introduction of the registration in a notary archive, also through the records. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

Oracle Temple in Siwa, Egypt

“No lawyers seem to have been present: the parties presented their cases themselves, although sometimes obviously after having taken legal council; women could ask a man to speak for them. A prohibition of lawyers before the Egyptian court as stated by Diodorus I, 76 is therefore possible, but not verifiable. The judges were well trained in the Egyptian legal code and cited the applicable laws in their judgments. As can be seen in the so-called Siut trial, they did not let themselves be hoodwinked by parties who tried to conceal a law to their disadvantage by putting forward another, more favorable one that in reality did not fit the facts. The judgment was quite often given conditionally, dependent on whether one of the parties did or did not take the oath that the judges had imposed on him, as evidenced by temple oath texts including the possible judgment in both cases.

“Before the Greek courts and officials, lawyers were quite common. They were controlled by the state and a tax had to be paid for them. Only in cases of fiscal interest, lawyers were forbidden by a decree of 259 B.C.. Contrary to the Egyptian procedure in which the main evidence of the parties was given in writing, the Greek procedure was dominated by the oral pleas of the parties, respectively their lawyers. As in the Egyptian court, legal documents were the most important evidence, followed by entries in official land registers and oaths of the parties and witnesses.”

Neighborly Disputes in Ptolemic-Era Egypt

Jason Urbanus wrote in Archaeology magazine: It didn’t rain frequently in ancient Egypt, but when it did, says Sapienza University of Rome archaeologist Aneta Skalec, it could come down so violently that it led to legal quarrels between neighbors. Skalec examined a papyrus known as the Demotic Legal Code of Hermopolis West, which was recorded in the time of the pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 285–246 B.C.), although its origins are likely centuries earlier. The document contains the most extensive known collection of Egyptian laws, many of them concerning leasing of property and rules of inheritance. “Among the various regulations, we find those concerning neighborly disputes,” Skalec says. “I was surprised when I came across the regulations relating to rain. ” [Source: Jason Urbanus, Archaeology magazine, January/February 2024

One passage stipulates how to handle a complaint brought forward by someone whose house is being splashed by rainwater discharged from their neighbor’s roof. The document instructs judges to assess the situation themselves by pouring water through the neighbor’s gutters to determine whether the plaintiff’s grievance is valid. If they determine that it is, then the drainage system of the offending party should be blocked off. The text is puzzling, in part because there are no known examples of rainwater drainage systems such as the one described in the legal code.

After analyzing the miniature facsimile of ancient gutters, Skalec determined that during heavy rainfall, water rushing from these spouts could have been discharged with such force, and to such a distance, that it would have splashed onto neighboring properties, which were often separated by just a three-foot-wide street. “THere’s no reason to assume that the code regulates a purely theoretical event,” Skalec says. “Such splashing was particularly dangerous due to the fact that Egyptian houses were made of mudbrick, which was not durable and not very resistant to water. ” It seems that Egyptian homeowners were right to fear for the structural integrity of their houses and to plead their cases before the courts, lest their homes be washed away due to their neighbors’ negligence.

Legal Procedures in Roman-Era Egyptian Law Courts

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “To initiate a law suit, the plaintiff had to write a petition to the prefect including his statement. If the prefect decided to hear the case himself, it was put on the agenda of the next convent, if not, it was delegated to another official. The defendant was informed about the plaintiff’s claim; if the plaintiff did this himself, he needed witnesses, but the notification could also be given by the judicial organ. Both parties then received a summons and had to give a sworn declaration about their appearance at the hearing. If the defendant did not appear for the third appointment at the convent, judgment in absence was given in favor of the plaintiff. If both parties were present, the law suit started with the plaintiff stating his claim and then the defendant replying. Parties often relied on lawyers to present their cases. They or their lawyers were also responsible for collecting and presenting the applicable laws, including Greek and Egyptian ones, the latter in Greek translation, decrees of Ptolemaic kings or Roman prefects, the opinion of legal experts (nomikoi), and precedents excerpted from the court journals of the prefects. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“Depending on the case, the taking of evidence followed, including the reading of legal documents, which could also be copied into the transcripts; Demotic documents had to be translated into Greek. In an edict of 138 CE, the prefect ordered that the authenticity of documents presented as evidence had to be contested immediately in order to be considered . Declarations of witnesses probably had to be in the shape of an affidavit deposited beforehand since there are no references to oral testimonies. Evidence could include expert opinions, especially for medical conditions. The parties were not normally put under oath by Roman officials, and a conditional judgment dependent on an oath is attested only once—perhaps influenced by Egyptian practice. Personal investigation by the Roman judges is rarely attested. The prefect could also cut short the proceedings before the parties appeared in court as in Papyrus Oxy. II 237 when he dismissed the complaint after having the defendant’s evidence checked by the local strategos. Another shortcut, which made judgment unnecessary, was the confession of the defendant.

“The transcript of the proceedings contained the date, the name of the judge, the important steps of the process, and the judgment and was entered into the journal of the official. If a case was not decided by the prefect on the convent, the judgment was announced later on public display both in Alexandria and the home town of the plaintiff.

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

“Roman officials acting as judges were not bound by either Greek or Egyptian law and, because Roman law at that period was not very comprehensive, quite often judged by their own discretion. Although Egyptian laws were sometimes cited by the lawyers of the parties, Egyptian legislation seems to have been followed only if this was profitable for the state, but completely ignored if not. The most striking example for this is the so-called trial of Nestnephis, in which the official of the idios logos convicted the Egyptian defendant of appropriation of ownerless land although he possessed a valid Demotic sales document and the vendor declared under oath that he had inherited the land from his father. The completely innocent defendant, who had been slandered by a colleague, was fined 500 drachmas. Theoretically it was possible to appeal against a judgment of the prefect, although this would have involved sending to the emperor himself at Rome. Appeal was impossible if the party already had acknowledged the judgment by his reactions.”

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