Families, Kinship, Households, Inheritance and Children in Ancient Egypt | Middle East And North Africa

Home | Category: People, Marriage and Society

FAMILIES IN ANCIENT EGYPT

Isis suckling Horus
According to Minnesota State University, Mankato: “The basic family unit in ancient Egypt was the nuclear family. The family was broken down into roles that each would play in order for things to run smoothly. The father was the one who would work all day. In smaller households the mother was in charge of all things pertaining to the house. Cooking, cleaning and watching the children were all her responsibilities. In some larger homes servants served as maids and midwives to help the mother. Ancient Egypt was a patrilineal society with people’s histories being traced through their father’s background. Legal documents have shown that and and property was inherited through the males of the family. [Source: Minnesota State University, Mankato, ethanholman.com +]

A letter from a minor landowner to his steward, conveying instructions about a misbehaving servant reads: “Now have that housemaid Senen thrown out of my house – see to it – on whatever day Sahathor reaches you. Look, if she spends a single day (more) in my house, act! You are the one who lets her do bad things to my wife. Look, how have I made it distressful for you? What did she do against you (to make) you hate her? And greetings to my mother Ipi a thousand times, a million times. And greetings to Hetepet and the whole household and Nefret. Now what is this, bad things being done to my wife? Enough of it! Are you given equal rights with me? It would be good if you stopped.”“ [Source: Nathaniel Scharping, Discover, September 22, 2016 =]

Websites on Ancient Egypt: UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, escholarship.org ; Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Egypt sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Discovering Egypt discoveringegypt.com; BBC History: Egyptians bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians ; Ancient History Encyclopedia on Egypt ancient.eu/egypt; Digital Egypt for Universities. Scholarly treatment with broad coverage and cross references (internal and external). Artifacts used extensively to illustrate topics. ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt ; British Museum: Ancient Egypt ancientegypt.co.uk; Egypt’s Golden Empire pbs.org/empires/egypt; Metropolitan Museum of Art www.metmuseum.org ; Oriental Institute Ancient Egypt (Egypt and Sudan) Projects ; Egyptian Antiquities at the Louvre in Paris louvre.fr/en/departments/egyptian-antiquities; KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt kmtjournal.com; Ancient Egypt Magazine ancientegyptmagazine.co.uk; Egypt Exploration Society ees.ac.uk ; Amarna Project amarnaproject.com; Egyptian Study Society, Denver egyptianstudysociety.com; The Ancient Egypt Site ancient-egypt.org; Abzu: Guide to Resources for the Study of the Ancient Near East etana.org; Egyptology Resources fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk

Households in Ancient Egypt

Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia of the CNRS in France wrote: “The household was the basic unit of the Egyptian social organization, but its composition varies depending on administrative or sociological considerations: administrative records focus on nuclear families while private sources stress the importance of the extended family. Households included people linked by family ties but also serfs, clients, dependants and “friends”, sometimes encompassing hundreds of persons. As for their sources of wealth, they consisted of patrimonial and institutional goods, and household strategies tried to keep and enlarge them within the family. Nevertheless, menaces like debts, shortages or disputes over inheritances could lead them to their disappearance. Hence the importance of ideological values which tied together their members while celebrating their cohesion, autonomy and genealogical pride. [Source: Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

Nakht family outing

“The Egyptian term pr (“house” or “household” being its commonest designations) appears in administrative documents as the basic unit of social organization, and the rich ideological nuances it bore are particularly evident in its inclusion in phraseology for certain territorial units (e.g., pr 2ww “the domain of [the governor] Khuu”) or even kingdoms (e.g., pr 2ty “the House of Khety,” the Herakleopolitan kingdom in the First Intermediate Period). It is not insignificant that both the pharaoh and the state were equated with the notion of the pr-aA “the big house,” and Egyptologists such as Lehner have argued that the entire Egyptian state should be interpreted as a “household of households” instead of a heavily centralized state. However, administrative and sociological images of households could diverge widely. Censuses, for example, tended to focus on nuclear families, thus giving a partial and biased picture of Egyptian society because their main purpose was to record fiscal information (manpower and resources available in fixed, accessible units) rather than changing) social structures: “I assessed households at the (appropriate) numbers thereof and I have separated out the gangs from their households”.

Founding a household was a highly praised act in Pharaonic times, celebrated both in teachings and literature. The troubled times at the end of the third millennium introduced many ideological innovations in private beliefs and self-presentation, with emphasis now put on one’s own initiative, autonomy, and achievements. The concept of restoring the family household (grg pr jt “to restore the house of the father”) became quite popular, and the protagonists usually stated that they had found their family households ruined, but had successfully rebuilt and enriched them, and subsequently transferred them to their heirs, thus ensuring the continuity of their lineage. What is more, the same ideology outlined the piety of the protagonists by asserting that they had given houses to disadvantaged people such as orphans, young women, or, simply, persons deprived of a household. Finally, their own merit was further highlighted because of their condition as the youngest child risen from a family with many heirs. Such an ideal was, nevertheless, confronted with much harsher realities, when debts contracted in hard times, hazardous economic decisions, contested or problematic inheritances, or basic penury could result in the loss of family property or in the destruction of a household .

“Occasional archaeological and textual evidence reveals the importance of extended families and kinship, an aspect hardly evoked at all in official sources. This does not mean that households were highly cohesive, hyper- resilient structures either. Inner and external threats tested their endurance and opened the way for change: on the one hand, conflicts of interest between the demands of kin and the particular ambitions of individuals could lead to the disintegration of a formerly solid household, whereas heritage concerns might encourage special arrangements aimed at the preservation of family assets, as in cases where brothers held (together) fields and houses. Other risks, which weighed heavily on the cycles of family reproduction (especially of peasants), and household strategies and their viability in the long term, were debts and serfdom, whereas elite households faced specific threats such as falling from favor or factional discord—including the murder of entire families. What emerges from these considerations is that the very notion of “household” encompasses a broad range of situations, subject to changes over time, and that it would be misleading to found its study only on administrative sources.”

Household Composition in Ancient Egypt

priest with his wife and child

Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia of the CNRS in France wrote: “The composition of households varied greatly depending on their social status, as the Egyptian vocabulary displays a wide range of terms, from those referring strictly to blood relations to those including individuals linked to the household as co-residents, serfs, clients, “friends,” or dependants—their nuances being quite often difficult to specify. Heqanakht, a moderately well-off official of the Middle Kingdom, mentions eighteen people belonging to his household, including his mother, his second wife, his son, two daughters, his older aunt or daughter, his youngest brother, his foreman (and his dependants), three cultivators, and three female servants . The contemporary general Sebeki represents in his stela his wife, two sons, two daughters, his brother, his sister, his mother, her (second?) husband with his five sons, his mother, the daughter of his mother, seven cultivators, ten female servants, and three other men. [Source: Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“As for the households of the highest members of the elite, they could integrate hundreds of people (including dozens of servants; according to Middle and New Kingdom sources, from 60 to as many as 150 serfs were transferred to dignitaries), many of whom are depicted in their tombs. But archaeological evidence suggests that the average number of people living in a small to medium house would have been six, and an average of two or three children living with their parents seems logical. One or two more people—either dependant relatives or servants—were possibly also resident. Therefore it can be estimated that the number of people living in such a house was five to eight, with an average of six. Hellenistic censuses show that an Egyptian household included two adults and two children on average.

“In the case of high officials a formal distinction was made between their family household and the domains allowed by the state. Thus, Hapidjefa of Siut, in the early Middle Kingdom, distinguished carefully between his own family household (pr jt, “the house of the father”) and the domain granted to him as a reward for his position as governor (pr HAtj-a, “the house of the governor”); domains of this kind usually included not only provisions but also serfs, fields, specialized workers, and a suitable residence . Leaving aside these rather specific cases, the autonomous household is thought to have been an ensemble formed by an extended family (Abt) and their fields (AHwt) put under the authority of the residence (pr/Hwt) of the household head, an ideal echoed by the ritual texts.

“A further characteristic of the composition of a household is that it changed according to the life cycle and attendant circumstances of its members. Middle Kingdom papyri from Lahun show, for example, that the (nuclear) family of soldier Hori included his wife and his young son. Later on, after the death of his father, he appears as the head of a household also encompassing his mother and five aunts, thus suggesting that, in fact, his family and that of his father shared residence, that multiple family households were acknowledged by the administration if only one male family head was present in the household and, consequently, that two adult males in one household represented two unconnected units from an administrative point of view. At an even later period, Hori seems to have died and his son Sneferu became the head of the household, which now consisted of six people. Another example, from late New Kingdom Deir el-Medina, describes a lady living in her husband’s house while, later on, she and her daughter lived in the house of a married son without children. Outside these institutional settlements, where only one man could be (administratively) the head of a household, women are occasionally attested as heads-of-household in rural environments, as in the case of the 4th Dynasty household (pr.s “her house”) of the lady Tepi, made up of a scribe, a letter carrier (jrj mDAt), and a “property manager” (jrj jxt).”

Families in Ancient Egypt

Nakht family outing

Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia of the CNRS in France wrote: “The nuclear family has been traditionally regarded as the core of Pharaonic social structure on the basis of architecture (both civil and funerary), iconography, and administrative records. Nevertheless, architectural evidence comes mainly from a limited number of sites, such as Deir el- Medina, Lahun, and el-Amarna, often designed by the state according to an orthogonal grid and created to fulfil specific purposes. But a careful re-examination oftheir remains, as in the case of Lahun, shows nevertheless that houses apparently planned for nuclear families were subsequently modified by their inhabitants and adapted to the needs of extended families. As for private tombs and statuary, the iconography stresses the central role played by the owner, his wife, and sons; however, secondary shafts and inhumations were also arranged for other members of his kin, a characteristic mainly visible in provincial mastabas, whose multiple burials prove that they were often designed for the needs of extended families. Finally, it cannot be excluded that dwellings housing nuclear families in villages, towns, and cities were in fact grouped by neighborhoods or residential quarters mainly inhabited by extended families: a passage in the Instruction of Papyrus Insinger, for instance, lists the house (at), the extended family (mhwt), the village/town (tmj), and the province, in ascending order . Some archaeological evidence has also been adduced. [Source: Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“In any case, the collapse of the state at the end of the third millennium was followed by frequent mentions of the extended family (Abt) both in private inscriptions and funerary texts. Taking care of one’s Abt figures prominently in monumental texts, while some formulae in the Coffin Texts enumerate the categories of people encompassed by this term and constituting the household of the deceased; its core was formed by the deceased’s father, mother, children, siblings, and serfs (mrt), as well as by other people related to him by social, not familial, links, such as fellow citizens (dmj), companions (jrj-rmnw), friends (xnmsw), loved ones (mryt), associates (smAw), and concubines (mt-Hnwt). Broadly speaking, a distinction was made between his extended family (Abt, including his serfs) and his dependants, subordinates, and acquaintances (hnw), a distinction outlined by other sources where the extended family (hAw, also including the serfs, bAkw) together with the friends (xnmsw) constituted rmTj nbt “all my people”.

“Other late third-millennium sources, such as some execration texts, confirm this picture as they also evoke, for the first time, the members of a household instead of the traditional lists of Egyptian and foreign enemies. Like the ink inscriptions found on many jars at the necropolis of Qubbet el-Hawa, they provide detailed insight into the composition and social life of the households of local high officials, their tombs being foci of rituals and the deliveries of offerings tying together their kin as well as a dense web of relations, including clients and eminent local personalities. The dead were also considered members of the household (a Late Period stela explicitly represents the deceased relatives among the extended family [Abt] of a lady), and petitions were addressed to them in order to solve domestic problems. Later on, during the Middle Kingdom, private stelae evoked complex genealogies and were often placed in family cenotaphs; in some cases, they took the form of long lists of what seems to be the heads of households linked together by unspecified ties.

“New Kingdom texts mention individuals involved in lawsuits over family property held by a group of brothers or by a group of descendants of a common ancestor. Finally, during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, censuses list only nuclear families while private archives reveal that personal affairs and sales concerned, in fact, other relatives as well as the members of extended families. To sum up, Egyptian households should not be considered limited to nuclear families as they were frequently multifaceted social networks embracing other relatives, serfs, clients, subordinates, and dependants, especially at the uppermost levels of Pharaonic society. Thus, the silos in the richest villas of el- Amarna could be interpreted both as indicators of status and as the foci of a redistributive system involving not only their owners but also their relatives and dependants, also considered members of the household . “Middle class” papyri and houses show that the same principle was operative, although on a smaller scale, in the households of relatively modest officials and individuals.”

Family Relations in Ancient Egypt

Herodotus reported that 'sons never take care of their parents if they don't want to, but daughters must whether they like it or not." In regards to family and kin relations there were 1) six basic terms through which Egyptians expressed relationships of marriage, descent, and collaterality; 2) principles that regulated marriage and inheritance; different terms for kin groups and family members. Kinship relations in ancient Egyptian social organization—both in Predynastic and Dynastic times— can be examined from the point of view of the peasantry, the elite and in the context of the world of the gods.

Marcelo P Campagno of the University of Buenos Aires wrote:“Kinship relationships constitute a system of social organization based on a cultural interpretation of links between individuals, within the sphere of human reproduction. They have, therefore, both a universal biological aspect and a cultural dimension that exemplify the diversity inherent in the multiple ways in which human beings produce society. Within the framework of this diversity, ancient Egyptian sources deriving from funerary, literary, and religious contexts enable us to assemble the traces of a kinship system that, with some variation, appears to have been remarkably stable through the millennia of ancient Egyptian civilization. [Source: Marcelo P Campagno, University of Buenos Aires, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2009, escholarship.org ]

Tutankhamun's (King Tut's) probable relatives

Kinship Terms in Ancient Egypt

Marcelo P Campagno of the University of Buenos Aires wrote: “The ancient Egyptian kinship system was composed of six basic terms; through these terms the three kinds of relationships inherent in any system of affinity and kinship could be expressed: marriage, descent, and collaterality (siblingship). With respect to marriage—that is, a stable link between two individuals of opposing sex coming from different kin groups—the Egyptians used the terms h(A)y for “husband” and Hmt for “woman/wife.” These terms imply very different semantic fields: while the word h(A)y is written with the determinative of a phallus, associating the role of “husband” with the capacity to engender, the word Hmt is followed by the seated woman determinative, denoting the general meaning of the word (“woman”), and also the more specific one of “wife,” thus constituting a “revealing synonymy” wherein a woman was not strictly defined outside of marriage. The same synonymy occurs in some modern languages, such as French and Spanish. [Source: Marcelo P Campagno, University of Buenos Aires, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2009, escholarship.org ]

“As for descent terms, Egyptian had two words to refer to lineal-ascendant kin: jt for “father” and mwt for “mother”. These terms were also used to refer to the lineal kin of more distant ascending generations. Thus, both the father’s father and the mother’s father of ego (that is, the point of view taken in describing a relationship) were identified as jt, while mwt was employed to designate individuals related to ego as the father’s mother or the mother’s mother. Similarly, in the descending line, the term sA and its feminine sAt were primarily used for the identification of the “son” and the “daughter” of ego; however, the same terms were also used to refer to the son/daughter of the son/daughter of ego.

“Concerning sibling relationships, and in a more extended sense, collateral kin—that is, ego’s kin, not connected by a lineal ascendant or descendant link—Egyptian had only the term sn and its feminine snt. The term was basically used to indicate the “brother” or “sister” of ego but, in other contexts, it could also designate the link with brothers/sisters of the mother/father of ego (“uncles” and “aunts”), as well as with their sons/daughters (“cousins”), and with the sons/daughters of the brothers/sisters of ego (“nephews” and “nieces”)—and even with more remote collateral kin.

“Although there were no specific Egyptian terms to designate relationships consisting of more than one link (mother + mother, brother + mother), as is the case with our terms “grandmother” or “uncle,” both lineal and collateral consanguineous relationships could be expressed through “compound” or “descriptive” terms, such as mwt nt mwt (“mother’s mother”) or sn (n) mwt.f (“his mother’s brother”). Egyptian kinship terminology expressed a symmetrical system (the same terms are used for paternal and maternal kin) as well as a bilateral one (the descent of ego was traced through both father’s and mother’s kin).

Inscriptions on stelae dated to the Second Intermediate Period that probably come from Abydos provide basic examples of the range of kinship relationships depicted on non-royal monuments, as well as different strategies of display. One stelae lists the father and mother as well as various people designated sn and snt, of the stela owner and the individual named in line 10. Another depicts numerous kin of both the stela owner and his “nurse.” These kin are often designated with compound terms, such as “his brother of his mother” (sn.f n mwt.f) and “the mother of his mother” (mwt nt mwt.f).

“The strong distinction between kin connected to ego by descent (“fathers” and “mothers” being in the ascendant line, and “sons” and “daughters” being in the descendant line) and other kin (all of them subsumed under the collateral term sn/snt) may suggest that two different criteria for kin membership coexisted. As stated by Judith Lustig, “unlike the lineal terms which express difference in status between alter and ego, . . . persons called sn/snt may be conceptualized as structurally equivalent to ego”; indeed, the term sn/snt could also be used to refer to “friends,” “lovers,” “equals,” or other individuals related to ego through a link of horizontal proximity, as in the case of the Old Kingdom title sn Dt, “brother of the estate” . In this sense, it could be argued that the Egyptian perception of kinship emphasized the specific link between each individual and his or her kin network through descent against the whole network of kinship links—the kindred—which displayed a broad conception of collateral ties.”

Relationship between the main Memphis gods

Kin Groups and Social Organization in Ancient Egypt

Marcelo P Campagno of the University of Buenos Aires wrote: “The core of the family comprised the married couple, unmarried children, and other female kin (aunts, sisters, widowed mothers) who had lost or never formed their own family unit. The mode of residence appears to have been of a neolocal type—that is, any new couple constituted a new nuclear family and established a new, independent home, as we see in Ani’s instruction to his son: “[3,1] Take a wife while you’re young, that she make a son for you” . . . [6,6] Build a house or find and buy one”. However, in First Intermediate Period sources, the emphasis on the preservation of the paternal house (pr jt) suggests that the eldest son could stay in the home. In any case, perceptions of the nuclear family probably predominantly reflected the ideals of the elite, who lived in urban settings, rather than those of the rural population, among which various forms of extended families likely prevailed. [Source: Marcelo P Campagno, University of Buenos Aires, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2009, escholarship.org ]

“The Egyptian language had a remarkably extensive set of terms for kin groups larger than nuclear families. From the late Old Kingdom on, the term Abt referred to households or extended families, while the term hAw identified the close kin of an individual. From the Middle Kingdom on, several terms were in use, such as mhwt (clan or extended kin group), wHyt (kin group in village contexts), Xr (kin group living in the same household), and hnw (all members of a household). During the New Kingdom, dnjt or dnwt was used to refer to a familial kin group. Moreover, terms with broader meanings, such as Xt (group, corporation, generation) or wnDw(t) (group, troop, gang), were sometimes used to refer to kin groups.

“The existence of terms like these that refer to larger kin groups is significant because it points toward the prominence of kinship in ancient Egyptian social organization. Kinship links were likely of great importance in the articulation of social ties both before and after the emergence of the state in the Nile Valley. In accordance with anthropological models of non-state societies, it can be hypothesized that, during Predynastic times, kinship constituted the main axis of social organization in village communities. Archaeological evidence seems to support this assumption: the grouping of tombs in clusters in cemeteries at various sites, such as Badari, Armant, Naqada, and Hierakonpolis, is similar to funerary practices known through ethnographic evidence, where such a distribution of burials reflects contemporaneous descent groups; the parallelism in the shapes of Predynastic tombs and houses (both were oval or rounded from the earliest times but included rectangular shapes from Naqada I on) may reflect a perception of continuity between the two domains, which in turn may suggest the perceived symbolic survival of the dead kin as members of the community; and indeed, the disposition of grave goods around the deceased could reflect notions of reciprocity, which are at the heart of kinship relations.

“In Dynastic times, the state introduced a new mode of social organization based on the monopoly of coercion, but kinship continued to be a decisive factor in many social realms. Some pointers hint at its importance among the peasantry: the organization of agricultural tasks in family units, practices involving cooperation (that is reciprocity) in the field labor, such as we see in tomb representations or in the management of irrigation, the (likely) prominent role of village elders in local decision-making, the scant interference of the state in intra- community matters—all these suggest the importance of kinship logic in the articulation of social dynamics in peasant villages.

“The importance of kinship can also be seen in state-elite contexts. Beyond the state’s power to exert the monopoly of coercion over society’s subordinate majority, the integration of the state elite itself was accomplished through kinship ties. The inheritance of the throne from father to son, matrimonial alliances as strategic reinforcements of cohesion among the elite, the possibility of “making” new kin members through mechanisms of adoption, the expression of rank in kinship terms related to the monarch (as in the case of the title sA nsw, literally “king’s son”), as well as the placement, around a principle tomb, of multiple burials of probable kin-group members, as is found in the Old Kingdom cemeteries at Abusir and Elephantine, evoke the importance of kinship logic in the articulation of the nucleus of state society.”

Kin Relations Reflected in Egyptian Gods

Marcelo P Campagno of the University of Buenos Aires wrote: “Additionally, the relevance of kinship can be detected in the Egyptian world-view, especially in the way links between the king and the gods, and among the gods, were expressed. On the one hand, the king was referred to in many contexts as the son of diverse deities. From the 4th Dynasty on, the monarch incorporated into his titulary a new name marking his status as sA Ra, “Son of Ra,” directly connecting him to the sun-god. In the Pyramid Texts, the king was presented as the son of many gods, such as Atum, Nut, Geb, Isis, and Osiris. During the New Kingdom, pharaohs were recognized as bodily sons of Amun. In all these relationships that the king had with the gods, one idea is emphasized: the king was not only a god himself but also the kin of the gods. [Source: Marcelo P Campagno, University of Buenos Aires, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2009, escholarship.org ]

“Links among the gods themselves were also expressed through kinship ties, as evidenced, for example, in the way the gods of the Heliopolitan Ennead were related to one another: Atum created a brother-sister pair (Shu and Tefnut), who begot another brother- sister pair (Geb and Nut), who in turn engendered four children (Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys); kinship links were then projected forward to the next generation when Horus, the posthumous son of Osiris, fought and subdued his uncle Seth (who had committed fratricide against Osiris), thus attaining the kingship. Beyond the Ennead, other deities were also related to one another through kinship links, most notably as triads of father, mother, and child, such as those of Sobek, Hathor, and Khons in Kom Ombo; of Amun, Mut, and Khons in Thebes; of Horus, Hathor, and Ihi in Dendara; and of Ptah, Sakhmet, and Nefertem in Memphis.”

Relationship between Egyptian gods

Family Served as a Social Safety Net in Ancient Egypt

Based on texts found at Deir el-Medina, a village of artisans near the Valley of the Kings, Anne Austin wrote in the Washington Post: In cases where these provisions from the state were not enough, the residents of Deir el-Medina turned to one another. Personal letters from the site indicate that family members were expected to take care of one another by providing clothing and food, especially when a relative was sick. These documents show us that caretaking was a reciprocal relationship between direct family members, regardless of gender or age. Children were expected to take care of both parents just as parents were expected to take care of all of their children. [Source: Anne Austin, Washington Post, February 17 2015. Anne Austin is a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University ***]

“When family members neglected these responsibilities, there were fiscal and social consequences. In her will, the villager Naunakhte indicates that even though she was a dedicated mother to her children, four of them abandoned her in her old age. She admonishes them and disinherits them from her will, punishing them financially, but also shaming them in a public document made in front of the most senior members of the Deir el-Medina community. ***

“This shows us that health care in Deir el-Medina was a system with overlying networks of care provided through the state and the community. While workmen counted on the state for paid sick leave, a physician, and even medical ingredients, they depended equally on their loved ones for the care necessary to thrive in ancient Egypt.” **

Instruction of Ptah-Hotep (2200 B.C.) on Being a Good Father

The Instruction of Ptahhotep is an ancient Egyptian literary composition written by the Vizier Ptahhotep, during the rule of King Izezi of the Fifth Dynasty. Regarded as one of the best examples of wisdom literature, specifically under the genre of Instructions that teach something, of Ptahhotep addresses various virtues that are necessary to live a good life in accordance with Maat (justice) and offers insight into Old Kingdom — and ancient Egyptian — thought, morality and attitudes. [Source: Wikipedia] The Instruction of Ptahhotep ( c. 2200 B.C.) reads: “If you are wise, look after your house; love your wife without alloy. Fill her stomach, clothe her back; these are the cares to be bestowed on her person. Caress her, fulfil her desires during the time of her existence; it is a kindness which does honor to its possessor. Be not brutal; tact will influence her better than violence; her . . . behold to what she aspires, at what she aims, what she regards. It is that which fixes her in your house; if you repel her, it is an abyss. Open your arms for her, respond to her arms; call her, display to her your love. [Source: Charles F. Horne, “The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East” (New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917), Vol. II: Egypt, pp. 62-78, Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Egypt, Fordham University]

Ramses III and Prince Amenherkhepesef before Hathor

“Treat your dependents well, in so far as it belongs to you to do so; and it belongs to those whom Ptah has favored. If any one fails in treating his dependents well it is said: "He is a person . . ." As we do not know the events which may happen tomorrow, he is a wise person by whom one is well treated. When there comes the necessity of showing zeal, it will then be the dependents themselves who say: "Come on, come on," if good treatment has not quitted the place; if it has quitted it, the dependents are defaulters.

“If you take a wife, do not . . . Let her be more contented than any of her fellow-citizens. She will be attached to you doubly, if her chain is pleasant. Do not repel her; grant that which pleases her; it is to her contentment that she appreciates your work.

“To attend therefore profits the son of him who has attended. To attend is the result of the fact that one has attended. A teachable auditor is formed, because I have attended. Good when he has attended, good when he speaks, he who has attended has profited, and it is profitable to attend to him who has attended. To attend is worth more than anything else, for it produces love, the good thing that is twice good. The son who accepts the instruction of his father will grow old on that account. What Ptah loves is that one should attend; if one attends not, it is abhorrent to Ptah. The heart makes itself its own master when it attends and when it does not attend; but if it attends, then his heart is a beneficent master to a man. In attending to instruction, a man loves what he attends to, and to do that which is prescribed is pleasant. When a son attends to his father, it is a twofold joy for both; when wise things are prescribed to him, the son is gentle toward his master. Attending to him who has attended when such things have been prescribed to him, he engraves upon his heart that which is approved by his father; and the recollection of it is preserved in the mouth of the living who exist upon this earth.

“When a son receives the instruction of his father there is no error in all his plans. Train your son to be a teachable man whose wisdom is agreeable to the great. Let him direct his mouth according to that which has been said to him; in the docility of a son is discovered his wisdom. His conduct is perfect while error carries away the unteachable. Tomorrow knowledge will support him, while the ignorant will be destroyed.

Instruction of Ptah-Hotep (2200 B.C.) on Being a Good Son

The Instruction of Ptahhotep ( c. 2200 B.C.) reads: “A son who attends is like a follower of Horus; he is happy after having attended. He becomes great, he arrives at dignity, he gives the same lesson to his children. Let none innovate upon the precepts of his father; let the same precepts form his lessons to his children. "Verily," will his children say to him, "to accomplish what you say works marvels." Cause therefore that to flourish which is just, in order to nourish your children with it. If the teachers allow themselves to be led toward evil principles, verily the people who understand them not will speak accordingly, and that being said to those who are docile they will act accordingly. Then all the world considers them as masters and they inspire confidence in the public; but their glory endures not so long as would please them. Take not away then a word from the ancient teaching, and add not one; put not one thing in place of another; beware of uncovering the rebellious ideas which arise in you; but teach according to the words of the wise. Attend if you wish to dwell in the mouth of those who shall attend to your words, when you have entered upon the office of master, that your words may be upon our lips . . . and that there may be a chair from which to deliver your arguments.

“Let your thoughts be abundant, but let your mouth be under restraint, and you shall argue with the great. Put yourself in unison with the ways of your master; cause him to say: "He is my son," so that those who shall hear it shall say "Praise be to her who has borne him to him!" Apply yourself while you speak; speak only of perfect things; and let the great who shall hear you say: "Twice good is that which issues from his mouth!"

“Do that which your master bids you. Twice good is the precept of his father, from whom he has issued, from his flesh. What he tells us, let it be fixed in our heart; to satisfy him greatly let us do for him more than he has prescribed. Verily a good son is one of the gifts of Ptah, a son who does even better than he has been told to do. For his master he does what is satisfactory, putting himself with all his heart on the part of right. So I shall bring it about that your body shall be healthful, that the Pharaoh shall be satisfied with you in all circumstances and that you shall obtain years of life without default. It has caused me on earth to obtain one hundred and ten years of life, along with the gift of the favor of the Pharoah among the first of those whom their works have ennobled, satisfying the Pharoah in a place of dignity. It is finished, from its beginning to its end, according to that which is found in writing.”

Children in Ancient Egypt

The ancient Egyptians revered children and children were a valued part of ancient Egyptian society. Examples of child abuse are extremely rare. By contrast, Joseph Castro of Live Science wrote, “though Romans loved their kids immensely, they believed children were born soft and weak, so it was the parents' duty to mold them into adults. They often engaged in such practices as corporal punishment, immobilizing newborn infants on wooden planks to ensure proper growth and routinely bathing the young in cold water as to not soften them with the feel of warm water.” [Source: Joseph Castro, Live Science, May 28, 2013]

toy mummies

Despite the fact that children played a central part in the lives of ancient Egyptians, pregnant women are seldom depicted. One of the few examples depicts queen Ahmose in the Deir el-Bahri divine birth sequence. In Sudan, a skeleton of an adult Nubian female was found with baby's skeleton lying across her ankles

Joyce M Filer wrote for the BBC: “Many women died as young adults, and childbirth and associated complications may well have been the cause.Although Egyptians 'experimented' with contraception-using a diverse range of substances such as crocodile dung, honey and oil-ideally they wanted large families. Children were needed to help with family affairs and to look after their parents in their old age. This would have led to women having numerous children, and for some women these successive pregnancies would have been fatal. Even after giving birth successfully, women could still die from complications such as puerperal fever. It was not until the 20th century that improved standards of hygiene during childbirth started to prevent such deaths. [Source: Joyce M Filer, BBC, February, 17, 2011 |::|]

“People are open to the greatest health risks during infancy and early childhood, and in Egypt and Nubia there was a high infant mortality rate. During the breastfeeding period the baby is protected from infections by ingesting mother's milk, but once weaned onto solid foods the chances of infection are high. Consequently many infants would have died of diarrhoea and similar disorders caused by food contaminated by bacteria or even intestinal parasites. In some ancient Egyptian and Nubian cemeteries at least a third of all burials are those of children, but such illnesses rarely leave telltale markers on the skeleton, so it is hard to know the exact numbers affected.” |::|

There is evidence that Egyptian children played marbles 5000 years ago ( rounded semiprecious stones buried with a child around 3000 B.C., in Nagada Egypt). Marbles and knucklebones from dogs and sheep were used by adults in divining rituals. Rock, Scissors, Paper was played by the Egyptians and Romans. An Egyptian painting dated to 2000 B.C. shows a finger game like it being played.

Children in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome made hoops from dried and stripped grapevines and rolled them down the street with a rod. Rattles made with dried gourds filled with clay balls or pebbles were discovered in children's tombs dated at 1360 B.C. They were shaped like birds, pigs and bears. Rattles were also used in ancient rituals to scare off evil spirits. The earliest dolls were images and idols of gods. Playing with idols was considered sacrilegious so the first true dolls were model or ordinary people played with by children. Early females dolls had breasts and male dolls had penises.

See Education

Children and Upbringing in the Harem

Silke Roth wrote: “Another key function of the harem was the upbringing of royal and elite children. From the Old Kingdom on, a pr mna(t), a “house of education” or “house of the nursery,” is attested as place of learning and from the Middle Kingdom a kAp. The latter can be identified as part of the royal private quarters or the jpt nswt. It is possible that a number of kAp existed, which were assigned to particular royal children. 4bAw nswt, “instructors of the king,” and mna(t) nswt, “tutors” or “wet nurses of the king” were responsible for raising and educating the royal children. [Source: Silke Roth, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“The sons and daughters of distinguished officials could be raised together with royal children, thus creating a close personal bond between the future ruling class and the successor to the throne. Later in their careers they bore titles such as sbAtj nswt or sDtj(t) nswt, “foster son/daughter of the king”; Xrd(t) n kAp, “child of the kAp”; and sn(t) mna n nb tAwj, “foster brother/sister of the Lord of the Two Lands”.

Wet nurses were often senior harem members. A drawing found in a chapel for King Tutankhamun showed a wet nurse with the young pharaoh. It bore the inscription: "royal nurse who suckled the boy of the god (pharaoh) and who was favored by the king."

Patronage and Economic Pressures on Egyptian Families

Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia of the CNRS in France wrote: “Self- sufficiency was hardly achievable for many Egyptians, who were thus obliged to depend on powerful or influential fellow citizens and to join their patronage networks to the point of being considered part of their households. In other cases, such networks provided a kind of “vertical integration” in addition to the “horizontal” one constituted by family and neighbors, thus linking high officials to minor ones, local potentates to courtiers, and officials to ordinary workers and citizens. A New Kingdom ostracon, for instance, reports that fugitive oarsmen were found in the company of prominent officials at different locations in the Delta. [Source: Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“The economic strategies followed by Egyptian households naturally depended on their status and wealth. Nevertheless, certain points deserve attention. As stated previously, self- sufficiency was an ideal hardly attainable for many Egyptians, who were thus forced to borrow from richer neighbors, to work (at least part-time or seasonally) for institutions and wealthier neighbors, or to enter into patronage networks that perpetuated social inequalities between households. Late third- millennium sources evoke these problems, probably current in a rural environment: on the one hand, wealthy individuals boasted about their autonomy and acquisitions when lending staple cereals, yokes, and livestock, and acquiring fields, serfs, and flocks, especially in periods of crisis; on the other hand, indebted people lost their goods and became the serfs of other people.

“Young women seem to have been particularly vulnerable and the first members of indebted households to be enslaved. It is also quite possible that debts and loans reinforced the influence of local potentates and lubricated social ties between peers, as is exemplified in the archive of Heqanakht: up to twelve persons owed Heqanakht cereals, while he himself leased land from well-off neighbors. In some cases, the sources offer a glimpse of individual strategies: thus one Ikeni bought land from several persons (mostly priests) during a troubled year (lit. “the bad time”; in one case the field of a lady was actually sold by a male kinsman of her household). Most of the fields were located “by the well of Ikeni,” therefore suggesting that he pursued the control of land around a water source of his own. As for the lady Tsenhor, she built up a modest (but not unsubstantial) asset: she acquired a slave, obtained a building area, inherited part of a building, a cow, and a field of 11 arouras from her father, and, finally, she acquired some income as a choachyte, or mortuary priest. The detailed archive of Heqanakht also provides a good picture of the composition of the household of a well-off Egyptian: it included about eighteen persons, a sizeable amount of land (between 55 and 110 arouras) and 35 head of cattle, and its owner was also involved in other lucrative activities such as renting out and leasing land, and lending cereals to neighbors. Other well-documented socio-economic activities in modest households include the domestic production of women (especially clothes), small credit, exchanges of gifts and agricultural products, and transactions between villagers. Wealthier households participated in more profitable activities like leasing land from temples, buying and selling real estate (especially urban houses), or lending money, as late legal manuals and contracts show.

“If bad years tested the resilience of households, inheritances and the subsequent fragmentation of property holdings (including family land and houses) were another threat, which could be avoided through the collective possession of land and buildings, such as by creating (transmissible) shares giving rights to a part of a house or of the incomes from a field. Conflicts of interest between an official and his kin about the institutional goods granted to him were not unknown, for example, in situations where the (extended) family claimed the right to dispose of property while the individual tried to keep these goods for himself or for his immediate offspring; in some cases, officials actually forbade their siblings and family from using the funds allocated for their own funerary service.”

Inheritance and Maintaining Family Power in Ancient Egypt

family of three --- one man, two women

Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia of the CNRS in France wrote: “Finally, sources are most explicit when dealing with strategies undertaken by powerful households to preserve their power bases. 6th Dynasty inscriptions from Akhmim show, for instance, that a high official called Tjeti- Kaihep abandoned a very promising career at the court, in Memphis, and returned to Akhmim in order to replace his (prematurely deceased?) elder brother as chief of the local temple and “great overlord of the nome,” two positions traditionally held by his family and which ensured them a leading role in the province. Apparently, Tjeti-Kaihep preferred to control the traditional, local power-base of his family instead of developing a high- ranking career in the capital. In the case of the Middle Kingdom governor Khnumhotep II of Beni Hassan, his claim to his position was hereditary right and royal favor, and his autobiography illustrates the degree to which power-blocks cemented by marriage alliances could arise, based on the control of some provinces, on positions held at court, and on connections with other powerful families. Other inscriptions show that the position of governor of a city, held for generations within a family, could be sold to a member of the kin-group (hAw) and thus preserved within the extended family. Even at a modest level, buying and selling official positions (such as priestly office) prevented a household from losing control over institutional income and sources of power. [Source: Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 2012, escholarship.org ]

“In fact, the transmission of the household to the next generation was always a delicate affair. The elder son usually inherited a larger share of the family possessions, with the obligation to bury his parents and perform rituals in their honor. However, the family ideology was strong enough to mask other forms of transmission within a set of fictitious kin expressions (e.g., the simultaneous existence of several “elder sons,” pseudo-adoptions, etc.). Significantly, the transfer of permanent legal rights to own and bequeath property was established by means of a document called jmjt-pr (lit. “what is in the house”). In the end, family ideology was a powerful tool that not only ensured the cohesion of the household and preserved its identity, but also provided alternative values to the official ones. Multiple burials, the cult of dead relatives, the display of genealogies and pride of lineage, and economic self-sufficiency figure prominently as its most conspicuous elements.”

Inheritance in Ancient Egypt

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen in Germany wrote: “In ancient Egypt inheritance was conveyed either through the legal order of succession, favoring sons over daughters, children over siblings, and older over younger, or through written declarations that allowed for individualized arrangements. Adoption was the common means by which a childless person could acquire an heir. The initial tendency towards a sole heir (preferably the eldest son) was replaced by the division of parental property among all children, although the eldest son continued to play an important role as trustee for his siblings and received a larger or better share according to the legal order of succession. Documents used for the bequeathing of inheritance varied over time and were gradually replaced by donations and divisions after the Middle Kingdom. Effectiveness only after the death of the issuer is rarely mentioned explicitly. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“In ancient Egypt the process of inheritance was ideally represented in the scenario of the firstborn son inheriting the property of his deceased father, while at the same time carrying out the duty to bury him and take care of the other family members. This situation (with the exception of the care for siblings) was portrayed prototypically in the mythological constellation of Osiris and Horus. Since in reality various factors could render this ideal scenario impossible or at least undesirable to execute—perhaps there were no male children, or no children at all, or the eldest son was not trustworthy or was otherwise unsuited—Egyptian law prepared for these eventualities and allowed for intentional changes in the succession. “Like modern societies, that of ancient Egypt developed two complementary systems of inheritance, which can be traced back almost to the beginning of Pharaonic history: the legal order of succession and that established through a written declaration of intent, with the last overruling the first. The Egyptian word jwaw was used not only for the factual heir after the death of the bequeather but also for the possible or future heir, i.e., the person who, through either the legal order of succession or a will document, was supposed to become an heir. Although the basic principles of inheritance seem to have remained quite stable, there were particular developments in the practice and the details of the laws. However, since sources are rare before the Late Period (712–332 B.C.), it is difficult to deduce exactly how and when changes occurred.”

Legal Order of Succession for Inheritance in Ancient Egypt

family of four

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen in Germany wrote: “In earlier periods the purpose of the legal order of succession seems, tentatively speaking, to have been the creation of a sole (male) heir. It is to be assumed that he had a certain moral, although probably not legal, obligation to care for his non-inheriting relatives. The defendant in Papyrus Berlin P 9010 from the 6th Dynasty alludes to this system when he claims, without referring to any documents, that his father’s property should remain with him because the will brought forth by the other party was not authentic. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“In the early New Kingdom this principle is already weakened: the heir is no longer a sole one with mere moral obligations to support his siblings, but rather acts as rwDw—that is, caretaker administrating the estate—who must deal out the profits equitably. However, the rwDw did not always meet his obligation towards his siblings. In such cases, the law courts of the later New Kingdom went even further to strengthen the siblings’ position. This stance might lie behind the developments described in the 19th Dynasty Inscription of Mes: some disputed land had originally (i.e., in the 18th Dynasty) been passed, undivided, to heir after heir who acted as rwDw-caretakers for their non-inheriting relatives, but when arguments arose concerning the distribution of the income, a later court decided to split the land into parcels for each descendant, thus allowing those who belonged to the same level of kinship as the main heir more direct access to a share of the inheritance. This decision was later contested by the decendants of the original caretakers, who wanted to be reinstated into their more advantageous position. A similar case is treated in the broadly contemporaneous P. Berlin P 3047: one member of the community of heirs sues his brother/caretaker because he had not been allowed to profit from his share of the inheritance. In court, the rwDw admits the brother’s right and declares his consent to splitting the plaintiff’s share off the inheritance; it is then rented to a temple to ensure an income.

“The struggle between the older principle of sole heirship and the later one of division between the descendants still had not been fully resolved in the 20th Dynasty, as can be seen in the complaint on P. Cairo CG 58092 recto: The writer recounts how he refuted the demands of his siblings for their shares of the inheritance from their parents. Interestingly, his argument is not that he is the eldest but that he alone had borne the financial burden of the parents’ burials.

“The Codex Hermupolis, a third century B.C. manuscript transmitting to us a part of the Egyptian law code collected under Darius I, also covers the topic of inheritance. The passages concerning the legal order of succession show that, by the Late Period, the rights of the other siblings as co-heirs have finally been fully acknowledged: the eldest son (here always used as prototypical legal heir) still takes possession of the property of his father and may even sell part of it, but as soon as his younger siblings demand their shares, even without any allusion to mismanagement on his part, he is obligated to divide it (or the price received), although he himself retains the most advantageous position, being entitled to a better or larger (e.g., double) share.

“While inherited land could be split up into single plots (even if this was sometimes avoided), division was difficult when the inherited object was a house. In Codex Hermupolis, column 9.19-9.21, such a case is dealt with. The pattern of division followed that of other possessions but, as many documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods show, the shares were virtual, the house itself remaining “without division”: it was not converted into separate apartments for each co-owner but was held jointly, and the profit, if the eldest son sold it, had to be divided by him among his siblings according to the size of their shares when they demanded to receive them.

“The eldest son additionally received the shares of those siblings who died childless. This privilege was, however, not shared by a daughter if she, in the absence of male children, became legal heir. Furthermore, the eldest son was the only heir allowed to prove his claims to objects simply by referring, without documentation, to the fact that he inherited them from his father; all other heirs had to prove their title by producing the document through which they had gained it. In sales documents, this title by legal succession seems occasionally to be referred to as nty mtw.y (n) wS sX, “which belongs to me without document”. Property that the father had given as a gift to one of the younger children before his death was no longer considered part of the estate; if no donation document existed, the presentee had to take an oath.”

Requirements for the Legal Heir in Ancient Egypt

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “In the ideal case, the legal (i.e., the sole or principal) heir was the firstborn male child of the deceased. If there was no person fulfilling these requirements, the next best candidate stepped into his place. Of the three categories in which the heir had to qualify, a closer degree of kinship was more important than gender, which in turn was more important than order of birth. Thus, for example, a daughter became legal heir only if there were no male children, whether older or younger than herself, and a brother became legal heir only if there were no children, whether male or female. The most complete evidence for this hierarchy comes from the Late Period, but it is plausible that it had not changed over time, as occasional glimpses from earlier periods show. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“The role of kinship: Children of the deceased preceded siblings of the same as legal heirs, as can already be seen in the Old Kingdom (2649–2150 B.C.) from the order in which they were listed in enumerations of possible heirs. Gödecken assumes an equality between the inheritance rights of children and siblings by referring to the Inscription of Penmeru and P. Berlin P 9010, but these texts deal with dispositions of property by document, not with legal succession, while the Inscription of Kaemnofret, as mentioned above, consistently names children before brothers and sisters. That siblings inherited if there were no children is mentioned explicitly in Codex Hermupolis column 9.3-9.4 and 9.17. It is possible that parents inherited if there were neither children nor siblings, but such a scenario is not attested and was probably quite rare. Spouses were not considered heirs in the legal order of succession.

family of three

“The role of gender: While Egyptian women held property independently from their husbands and there are numerous attestations of their ability to pass it on to whomever they liked, in the legal order of succession there is a clear preference for male children: male children preceded female children as legal heirs, regardless of their age. When the inheritance was divided into lots among the siblings according to Late Period practice, sons chose their lots before daughters. Only if there were no sons could a daughter step into the position of legal heir and administer the estate for her younger sisters (also the woman who acted as administrator for her co-heirs, mentioned in the Inscription of Mes). In such a situation a daughter was not allowed to take the shares of sisters who had died childless; instead the whole inheritance was divided by the number of surviving siblings plus one and she received a double share. It is possible that the rule “male before female” also applied to other categories of relatives (siblings and parents), but there is no evidence to support it. 4. The role of the order of birth.

“The role of the order of birth: Among children of the same gender, older children always preceeded younger ones in the legal order of succession; the ideal heir was the sA smsw/Sr aA, “eldest son.” In some monuments of the Old Kingdom, there can, however, be found more than one sA smsw. Whether this is to be explained by the first one having died and the second having then taken his title, by multiple marriages each resulting in one “eldest son,” or even by a sort of testamentary decision of the father who, by artifically creating more than one “eldest son” (the testator’s ability to name an “eldest son” is explained below), decided to divide the property equally between them, is yet to be determined. This preference of older over younger also applied to siblings, at least partially: if someone died childless, his share of the paternal property fell to his eldest brother, but the same was not true for an all-female group of siblings.

Role of the organization and financing of the burial: The strong connection between the burial of the deceased and the inheritance of his property is already visible in the Inscription of Tjenti of the 5th Dynasty. But from at least the Second Intermediate Period onwards, when the injunction “Bury him, succeed into his inheritance!” is attested on a ceramic bowl in the Pitt Rivers Museum, this connection took on a life of its own, ultimately resulting in a law, “The property is given to the one who buries,” cited in P. Cairo CG 58092 recto and referred to obliquely in Ostracon Petrie 16 of the 20th Dynasty. Thus the duty to bury changed from being a consequence of the inheritance to a prerequisite. This law seems mainly to have been invoked to defend the position of sole heir against relatives who would have had a right to a share under the later legal practice.”

Adoption as a Way to Establish an Heir for the Childless

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Although Egyptian laws on legal succession allowed the inheritance to fall to siblings if there were no descendants, a child, especially a son, as heir was considered much more desirable. Childless Egyptians were expected to adopt an orphan, who would then act for them as their “eldest son”. In the case of the 19th Dynasty couple Ramose and Mutemwia, an adoption seems to have followed after several prayers for a child had remained unanswered. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“An adopted child had the same rights of inheritance as a biological child. An exception is given in the priestly rules resumed in the Roman Period Gnomon of the Idios Logos (§ 92): a foundling adopted by a priest could not become a priest himself because the candidates for this office had to be from pure priestly bloodlines.

“Since wives could not inherit from their husbands in the legal order of succession, there are one or two cases from the New Kingdom of a childless husband actually adopting his wife. Slaves could also be adopted for the same purpose: After her husband’s death, the childless Nanefer emancipates and adopts a slave woman and her children, most likely fathered by Nanefer’s husband; additionally, she marries the eldest of the girls to her (Nanefer’s) brother whom she also adopts. It remains unclear whether adoption was only possible through a written declaration of the adopter or could also have become effective without a document, e.g., by public announcement.”

Wills and Inheritance Documents in Ancient Egypt

Nakht family outing

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “If a person wanted to bequeath his property to a person or persons other than the one who would have inherited in the legal order of succession, or to ensure and stress the inheritance rights of a certain person (even though he might have been the legal heir anyway), to allot objects or shares of different sizes to specific persons, to impose special terms, or to exclude someone from the inheritance, he had to draw up a document. Depending on the era, but also on how the inheritance was to be distributed, different types of documents were used. Modern legal historians are sometimes reluctant to use the term “testament” for these documents since they do not conform to the Roman legal definition of “testamentum”. In fact, the Egyptians avoided stating explicitly within such documents that they were meant to become effective only upon the death of the issuer—the reason being the well- known Egyptian belief in the power of the written word to create reality. However, Egyptian documents did not usually become effective upon the date of their being drawn up but at the moment they were handed over to the beneficiary, which might easily have been delayed until after the issuer’s death by depositing it with a trustworthy third party. There are only two known Egyptian will documents in which the death of the testator is alluded to: P. Vienna KHM Dem. 9479, a division document, and Moscow 123, a fictitious sale. Both date to the first century B.C. and seem influenced by Greek wills. As a measure against later litigation among heirs, testators sometimes had all beneficiaries (and sometimes even those relatives who did not inherit) agree on a document. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“The jmt pr is the best-known type of will document. The term jmt pr has variously been interpreted as “that which is in the house” or “that which the house is in”, both of which are equally unsatisfactory translations. The assets that are transferred through jmt-pr documents are typically land, sometimes with appurtenant personnel, but also offices. Opinions about the purpose of jmt-pr documents differ, they being variously interpreted as documents regulating complicated situations, including donations and property transfers against payment, documents for the incomplete transfer of rights among family members and co-opted persons, and wills in favor of persons who otherwise would not inherit. In considering all the evidence, there can be no doubt that jmt-pr documents were used as wills: jmt-pr documents transfer property gratuitously: “to give away by jmt pr” is regularily contrasted with “to give for a price (i.e., to sell)” in regulations relating to private funerary foundations from the Old Kingdom. Since in earlier periods offices could not be sold but only transferred by jmt pr, there are a few cases of jmt-pr documents having been drawn up in connection with deposits or loans that were not repaid, with the office (or rather the will concerning the office) acting as security or compensation, but this does not mean that the jmt pr itself documented a transfer against payment.

“Jmt-pr documents did not become effective immediately but after the death of the issuer: In Papyrus UC 32037 of the 12th Dynasty, an earlier jmt-pr document was revoked and a new one put in its place; this would not have been possible if the first one had already been valid from the date of writing. Moreover, the jmt pr was so closely linked to succession and inheritance that it had to be mentioned explicitly if any of the provisions were to be executed immediately, like the institution of the son as “staff of old age” (assistant to an official going into partial retirement) in P. UC 32037.

“The beneficiaries of jmt-pr documents are almost always relatives and mainly children . The only known possible exception is the above-mentioned P. UC 32055. Johnson’s statement that only those persons who would not otherwise inherit received jmt-pr documents is contradicted by the standard phrase in Old Kingdom regulations relating to private funerary foundations , in which it is forbidden for the funerary personnel to sell or to give their office by jmt-pr document to anyone except a son (in the Inscription of Senenuankh, msww “children” are mentioned instead of the son): thus it was possible to write such documents even for primary heirs.

“Although jmt-pr documents are first mentioned in inscriptions of the 3rd and 4th Dynasties (e.g., Inscription A of Metjen), no document of the Old Kingdom identifies itself as an “jmt pr.” The phrase jmt pr tn “this jmt-pr document” occurring in Inscription A of Nebkauhor does not refer to the text itself but to the underlying document of which the text is but an additional provision. There exist on tomb walls, however, transcripts of documents in which property is transferred gratuitously to relatives (i.e., donations) and which therefore might be jmt-pr documents (Inscription of Wepemnofret; Inscription of Nikaura).

“From the Middle Kingdom, there are two jmt-pr documents labeled as such by their introductory formula jmt pr jrt.n NN n NN, “jmt-pr document that NN made for NN.” In P. UC 32037, the eldest son inherits the office of his father (he is introduced as his assistant already during his lifetime), while an older jmt-pr document for a first wife is canceled and a new one in favor of the children of a second wife put in its place. In P. UC 32058 a husband bequeaths his property to his wife, stipulating that she is allowed to pass it on to her children as she likes. In phrasing, these jmt-pr documents therefore resemble the documents for gratuitous property transfer of the Old Kingdom, thus strengthening the argument for the aforementioned identification, but contain additional provisions, which in the Old Kingdom seem to have been laid down in separate documents. The first known jmt- pr document drawn up in connection with a payment, most likely as a security, dates from the 12th Dynasty, and this practice seems to have continued since there is a somewhat similar case documented on the 17th Dynasty Stèle Juridique, where an jmt pr transferring the office of mayor of Elkab is used to pay back a loan from one brother to another.”

Division of an Inheritance in Ancient Egypt

family portrait

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Through division documents, equal or unequal shares of property are allotted to several prospective heirs (usually the children of the testator). One of the earliest real divisions of property between children of the deceased is documented on Clay Tablet 3689-7 + 8 + 11 from Balat from the 6th Dynasty: of at least four sons, one receives eight water wells, one four, and two received two each. It remains unclear how this division came about: the person (Kmj) who announces the division to the authorities is neither the testator, named 6Sjw (who is probably already dead at this point), nor is he one of the inheriting children. In fact, he seems to be no relation of the family at all but rather a minor official. Therefore it cannot be determined whether the division had already been decided by the father and perhaps deposited with Kmj, or whether the children themselves wished to divide their inheritance in specie. It cannot, moreover, be excluded that the division was enacted by the administrative council to whom the clay tablet was addressed.[Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“The examples for testamentary divisions from the New Kingdom show that the procedure at that time consisted of a public oral declaration of intent (r) by the testator about what items of his property should be given to whom, which was then recorded in writing. P. Ashmol. Mus. 1945.97, also known as the Will of Naunakhte, calls itself hry n Axt, “document about property”; it is a protocol of a division, although including the disinheritance of some children as well. A similar deed, cited on the occasion of a later redistribution of property among the heirs, is referred to on O. Louvre E 13156 as tp n pS, “account of division,” a term that remained in use until at least the 26th Dynasty.

“During the Late Period, possibly coinciding with the switch from abnormal hieratic to Demotic , the practice of testamental division changed from a public declaration to the setting up of individual documents for each heir, and from the allotment of specific objects to a division of the property into proportional shares, e.g., one half, one third, or the like. (It is, however, possible that simply another type of document was used if the testator wanted to allot specific objects—namely, fictitious sales documents.) Sometimes the recipients of the other shares were also mentioned. This type remained the standard for the Demotic division documents of the Ptolemaic Period (304–30 B.C.). Examples of division documents from the same testator to different beneficiaries are Papyri Bibl. nat. 216 and 217 of the 27th Dynasty, and P. BM 10575, together with the original of the transcript in P. BM 10591 verso 5.1- 5.24 of 181 B.C.. It was even possible to make the size of the share dependent on the total number of children at the time of the death of the testator.

“A remarkable exception to this pattern is P. Moscow 123 (68 B.C.), not only because it states clearly that the division is to become effective “after [the] lifetime” of the testator and “when [he is] dead” (jw.y mwt), respectively, but also because it rather resembles the New Kingdom divisions: one document, addressed to the eldest son as main heir, specifies the whole division for all co-heirs; there seem to have been no additional documents for each beneficiary.

“The division documents used as wills should not be confused with another type of division document known from the Late Period onwards that was drawn up between co-owners in order to specify their shares within a jointly owned property. This second type was also quite often connected to inheritance, since inheritance was the most common cause for joint ownership.”

Disinheritance in Ancient Egypt

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Complete disinheritance of close relatives is not attested before the New Kingdom, although wills through which the inheritance of eldest sons was curtailed in favor of other children were possible from at least the 6th Dynasty onwards. In the Will of Naunakhte from the 20th Dynasty the testatrix specified in detail which of her children should receive none, or only a smaller share, of her property because they had neglected her. This explanation was probably not due to legal requirements, as Allam thinks, but to the feeling that some sort of justification was necessary towards the local community or the disinherited children themselves. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“Requirements for the designated heirs: “There seems to have been no legal objection against appointing someone as heir who was not a blood relative or an adopted child; indeed at least in the New Kingdom there was a law, cited in P. Turin 2021 + P. Geneva D 409 col. 2.11 as [jmm jr s] nb Abt.f m Axt.f “Let every man do what he wants with his property,” and on the Third Intermediate Period statue Cairo CG 42208 c, 14 as jmm jr s nb sxr n jSt.f “Let every man dispose (freely) of his property.” However, in cases where a non-blood relation was established as heir, it was usually the wife: in P. UC 32058 a husband bequeaths the property that he himself had inherited from his brother to his wife by means of an jmt-pr document. In P. UC 32037, a similar jmt-pr document for the mother of the eldest son was canceled and replaced by one favoring the children of another wife, probably because by then the first wife had died or had been divorced. Both documents date to the Middle Kingdom. It is noteworthy that in the two similar cases of wives being established as heirs from the New Kingdom this was effected not by jmt-pr document but through adoption, while in the Late and Ptolemaic and Roman Periods fictitious sales with burial obligation or special clauses within marriage documents were used.

“The only known jmt-pr document not drawn up for a blood relation seems to have been P. UC 32055, concerning a priestly office as security for a loan; from the fragmented text it does not appear which, if any, kinship relation there was between both parties.”

Marriage and Inheritance

Nakht and family outing

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “Benefits for the spouse: The division of matrimonial property between the spouses with one third belonging to the wife—first attested in the 17th Dynasty, attested several times in the New Kingdom (1550–1070 B.C.), and commonly mentioned in Late Period (712–332 B.C.) and Ptolemaic marriage documents—has often been seen as a matter of inheritance. In reality, however, the wife did not inherit a third of her husband’s property. Rather, she was endowed with it already during her husband’s lifetime, as can be seen from the fact that the third also fell to her in the case of divorce. Since the attestation of the one-third/two-thirds division far predates the earliest marriage documents and is there given as a well-known fact, it can be safely assumed that it was not dependent upon individual arrangements but legally binding from at least the New Kingdom onwards, as is also suggested by the peculiar phrasing of O. DeM 764, in which this division is set up as a general rule with the typical conditional protasis and injunctive or future apodosis structure of later law texts: “If the children are small, the property will constitute three parts: one for the children, one for the man, one for the woman. If he (i.e., the man) provides for the children, give to him the two thirds of all property, the one third being for the woman”. In Late and Ptolemaic and Roman Period marriage documents, the wife could be allotted to inherit larger parts or even all of her husband’s property, but her right of disposal was usually restricted so that the property would after her death fall automatically to the children. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“Benefits for the children: “As seen above, some jmt-pr documents of the Middle and New Kingdoms, and some marriage documents of the Late and Ptolemaic and Roman Periods through which inheritance was allotted to a wife, state that all property is ultimately to fall to the children. In certain types of marriage documents that became current from the 26th/27th Dynasties onwards, the inheritance rights of the children from the marriage in question were established, sometimes even before the children were born. Often it was stressed that the firstborn son of this marriage would be counted as “eldest son” in the sense of the legal order of succession and therefore be the main or even sole heir: the phrasing “Your eldest son is my eldest son [among the children you will bear to me] . . .” was often extended to “. . . the master of all that I possess and will acquire.” In other documents of this type, all children (or occasionally only the sons) were instituted as heirs of the paternal property. If a man who had made a marriage settlement of the above-mentioned kind married a second time (either because he had divorced his first wife or because she had died), he could only draw up another marriage settlement if the first wife and/or his eldest son agreed to it in writing because he had already pledged his property as security for the maintenance of his first wife and promised it as inheritance to the wife and/or the children from his first marriage. This is explicitly stated in a law cited by the judges of the so-called Siut trial.”

Objects of Inheritance

Sandra Lippert of Universität Tübingen wrote: “The kind of property that could be bequeathed included real estate, movables, and certain offices with the benefices belonging to them. Since the possibility of free disposal either through sale, donation, or bequeathing was the main criterion for personal property in a society where, ultimately, everything belonged to the king, the declaration that basically all types of personal property could be bequeathed and inherited is a circular statement. By examining at what period which types of property appear as objects of inheritance and by which means they were transferred, we can, however, learn more about the development of personal property. [Source: Sandra Lippert, Universität Tübingen, Germany, UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 2013 escholarship.org ]

“Real estate (buildings and land): Already in the Old Kingdom (2649–2150 B.C.), real estate was an object of inheritance. In the Inscription of Metjen A, Metjen recounts how his mother made an jmt-pr document for her children, most likely concerning fields, since Metjen either received 50 aurourai out of this or gave them to her for that purpose. Real estate in the Old Kingdom usually included personnel who, however, should not be labeled as slaves since these people could not be sold independently from the land to which they belonged.

“Moveables: Although the main focus of documents of inheritance was usually on real estate, items of lesser value, such as furniture and household implements, were occasionally mentioned, especially if there seems to have been no other property. From the Middle Kingdom onwards, there are attestations that slaves could be inherited.

“Offices and appurtenant income: Not all offices were inheritable, and even those that were usually held restrictions either as to the way in which they were bequeathed and/or to whom; with higher offices, royal (or, during the Third Intermediate Period, divine) approval was also necessary. During the Old Kingdom, inheritability of offices is attested for priestly functions of private funerary cults that, in the regulations, are usually stipulated to fall to the eldest son alone. The standard phrasing for this is “I do not give power to sell or to bequeath by jmt pr to anyone except the eldest son”. Rarely “children” in general is substituted for “eldest son”. It remains unclear whether this actually means that they could not be conveyed in any other way (i.e., through legal succession). For priestly offices at royal funerary temples, and supposedly for offices in the royal administration as well, their inheritability seemingly had to be granted in writing by the royal chancellery, most likely in consequence of a royal decree.

“From the Middle Kingdom onwards, occasionally also state and temple offices such as the mayorship of Elkab or the office of Second Prophet of Amun appear as objects of inheritance, usually through jmt pr. Perhaps this was in fact a legal requirement, because, at least until the early New Kingdom, it meant that the bureau of the vizier had to give its agreement. The incomes of funerary priests (choachytes) for their sevices at private tombs appear quite often in inheritance documents from the Late Period onwards.”

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 September 2018