Tne Legal Profession
The Legal System
Khary’s son, the lawyer Nakht, was an official of the judiciary and also held a priesthood of Ma’at. She was the goddess who personified law and symbolized truth, justice and righteousness, as well as maintaining the correct balance and order of the universe and its inhabitants. The Egyptians believed that the concept of law, along with all other principles of their civilization, had been handed down to mankind by the gods at the time of creation. Law and religion were closely interwoven, and the gods were accredited with establishing and upholding the legal system.
In theory, because the ruler was a god-king, he acted as Egypt’s sole legislator, holding power of life and death over his subjects. However, although he was nominally chief official of the judiciary system and High-priest of Ma’at, in reality the king had only limited freedom of choice in legal matters, since outcomes were largely determined by legal precedent. The king was himself subject to the law, and in practical terms, most of his duties were delegated to the First Minister who functioned as High-priest of Ma’at and head of the courts of justice.1
Sources for Legal Practice
Some form of legal system was probably first developed during the Predynastic Period so that people could regularize sales, inheritance, and crime and punishment issues in their own towns and villages. The earliest references to legal arrangements are found on texts inscribed on Old Kingdom papyri (Dynasty 6), and tomb walls and stelae (Dynasty 3). These demonstrate that a formal legal system was already in place by this date, probably as the culmination of a long period of experimentation and development.
Egyptian and Sumerian law (which developed early in Mesopotamia, a region now occupied by Iraq) represent the oldest surviving legal systems. They differed from each other in that the Sumerians had a formalized law code, whereas the Egyptians did not; instead, their legal system was based on custom, with decisions handed down that largely relied on precedent. Nevertheless, Egyptian law was sophisticated and complex, and can be compared with ancient Greek or medieval legal systems.
Archaeology provides some details of legal undertakings: for example, Old Kingdom tomb and stelae inscriptions preserve transactions relating to funerary property, while wall-scenes in the New Kingdom tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes depict his many duties as First Minister, and show him supervising the High Court at Thebes. Rekhmire held high office and was head of the legal system during the reigns of Tuthmosis III and his son, Amenhotep II.
However, most information about Egyptian law is derived from documentary evidence, and this often demonstrates that, although in theory the king had absolute control over the life, death, labour and property of all his subjects, private law existed as an important part of the system, and property could be the subject of private transactions. The earliest extant examples of certain types of legal documents have been identified in papyri fragments discovered at Kahun and Gurob. At Kahun, archaeologists discovered deeds (amt-pr) which record the transfer of property from one individual to another, and in some cases, acted as wills or marriage settlements. Legal documents from Deir el-Medina throw light on the social and domestic law of a necropolis workmen’s community,2 and include accounts of strikes and industrial unrest amongst a workforce engaged in building the royal tomb of Ramesses III (Dynasty 20).3
A papyrus from the same period, perhaps originally housed in the temple library at Medinet Habu, gives a detailed description of the so-called ‘Harem Conspiracy’. It relates how a number of people, including the women and officials of one of the royal harems, conspired to kill the king, possibly in order to place a rival on the throne. Another document tells how the conspirators attempted to achieve this by writing spells and making wax images which they then tried to smuggle into the harem. The plot appears to have been unsuccessful, and the culprits were severely punished.4
In the later Ramesside Period, a series of well-preserved papyri provides information about a number of other trials which continued over a period of many years. The documents describe legal action taken by the kings against those who plundered the royal tombs at Thebes. Although there had always been instances of tomb robbery, the poverty and wretched social conditions that existed towards the end of Dynasty 20 brought about such an increase in crime that the kings were forced to take action and bring the perpetrators to trial.5
Some Legal Transactions
There is a significant increase in information about legal transactions from the New Kingdom onwards, making it possible to outline some of the cases that lawyers such as the imaginary Nakht would have encountered. Some of these transactions focused on private ownership and the transfer of property between individuals. Possession of a legal document usually confirmed that a particular person had acquired ownership of a house or other valuable object. Drawn up by the original owner, this document set out the transfer of ownership and the original owner’s agreement to this transaction, and was witnessed by three named persons. The document was then rolled up, sealed by an official, and given to the new owner. Wills as such did not exist in pharaonic Egypt, although they were known from Roman and later times. However, the Egyptians achieved the same end by using a transfer of ownership transaction: a document could be drawn up with instructions that, after the owner’s death, a house or other valuable item was to be passed on to a chosen heir.
The ancient Egyptians enjoyed life: since they needed few clothes because of the warm climate, and the countryside supplied them with an abundance of food, it was unnecessary to borrow in order to survive at subsistence level. However, Egypt was a consumer-driven society: people amassed luxurious goods (readily available and always in great demand) to enhance their homes and personal appearance, and to prepare their tombs for eternity. Therefore, it is not surprising that some people fell into debt.
A debt was essentially a loan that had to be fulfilled at some time in the future, and a debtor would initially confirm this commitment by taking an oath in which he invoked the king or a god. The rate of interest payable on the debt was fixed to ensure that the value of the original sum could not be doubled. Payments had to be made in kind (coinage was not introduced to Egypt until c.500 BCE), and consisted of objects that were acceptable to the creditor; all were valued according to a general standard. In earlier times, the creditor could only take possession of the debtor’s goods; he could not make the debtor work for him in lieu of payment because every individual was owned by the State and had to be available for corvée duty or conscription into the army. However, from c.700 BCE, it became possible to sell oneself into servitude to repay a loan, or to sell oneself to become a ‘son’. This involved certain duties towards the ‘father’, the most important being the obligation to ensure that the ‘father’s’ burial was carried out in an appropriate manner. A childless couple would sometimes adopt an adult ‘son’ so that he would ensure that they received the correct burial rites.
Customs and property associated with funerary beliefs were among the most important aspects of ancient Egyptian existence. Many legal transactions deal with these funerary matters: for example, the tomb had to be provisioned in perpetuity and special arrangements were set in place to ensure that this was not neglected. Along with all tomb-owners, Khary expected his family and heirs to perform his burial rites (under the law of succession, the person who acted in this capacity would inherit his property and possessions); the family would also continue to bring food and drink to his tomb-chapel after his death, so that his Ka (soul) would have perpetual sustenance in the afterlife.
However, even if these rites were performed regularly in the years immediately after Khary’s death, he knew that they would probably be neglected after a few generations when he had been forgotten. With the passing of each generation, the family would have an increasing number of tombs to care for and some families had no surviving descendants. Therefore, it became the custom to set up a legal arrangement whereby the tomb-owner would establish an ‘eternal property’ or ‘Ka-settlement’. This was a profit-bearing part of the owner’s estate which he settled on a special priest known as a ‘Ka-servant’. According to this arrangement, the priest received an income from the settlement in exchange for providing offerings at the tomb. When the priest died, his own heirs would inherit the income and the obligation of the ‘Ka-settlement’.
However, this system depended on the reliability of the Ka-servant and his descendants, and the duty was often neglected. So, from early times, tomb-owners provided themselves with an additional ‘insurance policy’; in the tomb, they included models illustrating food production, and wall-scenes depicting food offerings, which were also listed in a menu inscribed on one of the walls. The Egyptians believed that magic rites performed at the time of burial would activate this food, providing the owner’s soul with an eternal supply of nourishment.
Family Law
Men and women of all classes enjoyed equal status under Egyptian law, and although the laws were made and executed by men, the system sought to protect and perpetuate the family, and safeguard the economic status of women and children.6 Property was vested in women who passed it on to the next generation. The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus claimed that Egyptian women held a superior position to men regarding the possession and inheritance of property. Although this may have exaggerated the situation, women certainly enjoyed a privileged status which was not found elsewhere in the ancient world.
People expected to get married when they were young. Members of Khary’s imaginary family had married in their early teens; marriages were arranged for members of the royal family, but commoners were free to choose their own partners, although they doubtless took advice from their parents. Marriage does not seem to have been marked with a religious ceremony, but a legal contract was drawn up, and the families of the new couple undoubtedly celebrated with a fine banquet to which friends and relatives were invited. In pharaonic times, there were some marriages between close relatives, but apart from the royal family, these included very few unions between brothers and sisters.
Wooden tomb-model of a man and woman in discussion. Women s privileged legal status regarding the family s domestic and funerary property was not found in other contemporary societies. Unprovenanced. Probably Dynasty 12. Manchester Museum.
When Perenbast married Khary, she retained all the property she had inherited from her own family and the possessions she had brought with her to the marital home. Sometimes, a husband even transferred to his wife the whole of his existing estate and pledged her any future property he might acquire; his wife would hold these assets and pass them on to her children. In practice, however, the husband probably possessed the rights of administration and use of his own property, and even those of his wife, throughout their marriage. It was possible to end a marriage by divorce; this was easier for the man, although he had to pay his wife compensation and she kept all the property that she had brought to the family unit.
Like most commoners, Khary had only one wife; he did not follow the custom, found in some families, of taking serf-concubines. However, his daughter Meryamun and her husband Amenmose were childless, and had therefore acquired a female concubine who had borne children for Amenmose. They could be legitimatized by giving them freedom at the time of their father’s death. There was no legal difference between the children of a wife or a serf-concubine when the father died: they all had equal rights of inheritance with regard to the master’s property.
The use of the term ‘slave’ in the ancient Egyptian context is somewhat misleading; the status of their ‘slaves’ cannot be compared with modern examples, because in Egypt no individual could be ‘owned’ by another since all men and women were the king’s personal property. There were no foreign slaves at all in the Old Kingdom, but later many prisoners-of-war were brought to Egypt as a result of foreign conquests. Documentary evidence shows that they worked at building sites and as domestic servants: for example, official lists from Kahun, used to assess tax liability, confirm the number of family members, servants and slaves in each individual household.
Although ‘slaves’ could not return to their homelands, and usually worked for an Egyptian master, they could own and dispose of their own property, handing it on to their heirs if they wished, and the men could marry free women. Also, slaves could employ their own servants. Khary’s imaginary household, like many others in the New Kingdom, included some foreign ‘slaves’ from Egypt’s conquests in Syria/Palestine, as well as Egyptian-born servants.
All Egyptian women, whether rich or poor, enjoyed security and the privileged status accorded them by the law. They were not confined to the house, but could attend public festivals with their husbands and participate fully in the family’s activities. A wife managed the family’s domestic affairs with considerable authority, and eventually she shared a tomb with her husband. Her burial assemblage would include a full set of funerary goods which reflected her family’s status and wealth.
Any crime that threatened or breached the position of the family unit was severely punished. A man was emasculated if he raped a freebom woman, but if he committed adultery with the woman’s consent, he would receive a thousand blows with a rod whereas she could be burnt to death, divorced, or disfigured by amputation of her nose. Although the murder of children was regarded as a particularly dreadful crime, if parents killed their children, they were not put to death. The aim of punishment was to make them suffer and repent, and so they were forced to hold the child’s dead body in their arms for three days and nights. However, if children killed their parents, their bodies were cut with sharp reeds, and they were put on a bed of thorns and burnt to death. Punishments were severe, but every effort was made to ensure that the innocent did not suffer with the guilty; for example, if a pregnant woman was convicted of a crime, her punishment was delayed until after the child was bom.
Pyramid of Lahun built for Senusret II by his royal workforce, who lived in the nearby town of Kahun. An archive ofpapyri discovered at Kahun includes legal documents which record property transfers between individuals, and official lists of household members. Dynasty 12.
Crime and Punishment
Despite meting out harsh punishment, Egypt was generally more humane than other early societies. The main aim was to preserve and protect life whenever possible, and to re-educate the offender in the hope that it might be possible to rehabilitate them into society. Some serious crimes were capital offences, but a lesser punishment was usually the preferred option; this was based on the belief that disgrace could be worse than death, and that whereas an executed criminal would never be a useful member of society again, a living person might repent or perform a courageous deed which would re-establish them in the community.
Various death penalties existed. Some criminals were thrown to the crocodiles – a dreadful death since it meant that even their bodies were destroyed, condemning them to eternal oblivion. Occasionally, because of a criminal’s former high status or as a mark of special favour, he would be allowed to commit suicide and his body would be returned to the family for a proper burial. Those who intentionally murdered Egyptians or even slaves always received the death penalty, although the king could commute a capital sentence and send the offender to work on State building projects.
Other important features of the penal system were imprisonment or forced labour in the mines and quarries. The latter was designed to ensure that prisoners earned a living and did not become an economic burden on the State. Convicted criminals were held in prisons, usually attached to the law courts, until they could be sent to the mines or quarries. If they were caught while running away, their ears and noses were amputated, and they were returned to their allocated workplaces. Amputation was used as a severe punishment for other crimes. When dishonest officials falsified weights and measures, forged seals and signatures, or made alterations to documents without authorization, both their hands were amputated, while the tongues of those who disclosed military secrets were cut out. Even quite minor misdemeanours (some thefts, taking bribes, petty fraud, keeping false accounts, and other breaches of trust) were punished with a hundred strokes.
In these cases, a male culprit was placed prostrate on the ground and held down by his hands and feet while he was beaten with a stick; women were restrained in a seat and beaten on their backs.
Punishment for theft and burglary was allocated according to the severity of the crime. Some offences carried the death penalty, but usually the authorities acknowledged that theft and burglary could not be stopped or prevented. Instead of punishment, they adopted a pragmatic approach: the thief was required to register his name with the Chief of Robbers, and provide details of everything he had taken. The original owner of the stolen property then gave the Chief some details of his missing items and a payment equivalent to a quarter of the property’s value, which was then handed back to him. The Chief’s payment was probably a compound sum which included a share of the goods, a subvention from the thieves, and an income from the government. Although this arrangement meant that a compromise had to be reached with the thieves, it at least ensured that that the rightful owner could reclaim his property.
The Law Courts
The law courts were pivotal to the legal system, although settlements could sometimes be reached out of court. The High Court sat at Thebes during the New Kingdom, and was presided over by the First Minister, as depicted in scenes in Rekhmire’s tomb. All capital offences had to be decided at the High Court and, by the New Kingdom, much of the administration was also centralized here: for example, all documents dealing with the ownership and transfer of houses were brought to be sealed in the First Minister’s office. Each sizeable town or city also had its own law court (ken bet), presided over by an assembly of local dignitaries under the chairmanship of an official. The kenbet functioned on a local basis, and members of this court, who were paid by the State, acted as judges for less serious cases.
It was their duty to assess all kinds of evidence, and it was considered a great crime to give false information. The complainant presented his case in writing to the court, describing how the alleged offence had been committed, and estimating the damage and extent of his personal injury. The defendant set out a written response which either denied the charge or attempted to show that only a minor offence had taken place. Even if the defendant admitted guilt, he took care to emphasize the excessive nature of the estimated damages. The complainant then replied in writing, and the judges weighed up the evidence.
Judges made every effort to remain impartial: they looked at documentary sources, including tax rolls for disputed ownership cases, and they had powers to ruthlessly interrogate the accused, who was regarded as guilty until proven innocent. He could be beaten until he ‘confessed’ to his crime, and even independent witnesses could be roughly treated until they adjusted their ‘evidence’ to fit in with the decision that the judges had reached. Once the judges had decided on the final outcome, this was ratified and announced by the chairman of the court, but the case was not concluded until the defeated party declared his submission and accepted the verdict.
When assessing a case, it was customary forjudges to receive most reports in writing; this sought to ensure that they were not unduly swayed by orations and verbal pleas presented in court. Nakht and his fellow lawyers amassed and organized the written evidence, but did not argue a client’s case in court. Men and women of all classes were accorded equal status under the law (an important advantage of this system), and were expected to present their own petitions in court.
The general aim of the courts was to judge each case on its legal merits rather than reach a decision based on the personalities of the accuser and defendant. However, from Dynasty 19 onwards, law court procedures became more complex and less convincing because a change was introduced which provided greater opportunity for corruption and abuse. This involved the use of an oracle which could be consulted to obtain a verdict: the god’s decision was ascertained by performing various ceremonies in front of a divine statue which was brought into court to act as judge. The petitioner stood in front of the statue, and read out a list of suspects: the god’s statue was expected to move in a particular direction or give a sign when the name of the perpetrator of the crime was announced. However, law-court officials who held and carried the statue had the opportunity to manipulate its responses, and there was obviously a much greater chance that a biased verdict would be returned, based on their personal wishes rather than any judicial assessment of the evidence.
The legal system to which Nakht and his colleagues contributed played an important role in society. It was designed to help ordinary people by protecting the role of women and the family, and emphasizing that all petitioners had equal rights, regardless of gender or status. The severity of punitive methods and some procedural aspects of the law courts were less appealing, but nevertheless the system served the country well enough for over 3,000 years, and provided the necessary checks and balances for what was by nature a law-abiding society.