him/herself the responsibility of seeing that the opponent was brought
to court (i.e., self-help).^139 Other means of reconciliation were prob-
ably attempted before proceeding to the formal court. Judging from
such texts as P. Berlin 9010,^140 civil lawsuits consisted of oral peti-
tions or arguments presented to the courts by plaintiffand defen-
dant.^141 There is no evidence for lawyer advocates. While the mortuary
estate obviously played a major role in the society and much care
was lavished on setting up such institutions, the mode of enforcing
the mortuary estate stipulations is often left quite vague: “As for any
person who will cause a dispute, there is a case with him.”^142 On
occasion, accusations are made in the name of the king.^1433.2.2 We do not know, unfortunately, in which court the case of
the exceptionally important P. Berlin 9010 was tried.^144 Interpretations
of the case recorded in P. Berlin 9010 differ.^145 The two contestants
are Sebekhotep (no title preserved) and Tjau (who inherited his
father’s title “overseer of caravans”). According to Théodoridès,^146
Tjau inherited the property of his deceased father, User, and indeed
has formal control over his mother and his siblings. Sebekhotep
brings a suit against him, claiming that the father, User, made a
will or document according to which Sebekhotep controls the fam-
ily and its assets. Tjau disputes the existence of this will, declaring:
“His father never made it in any place whatever.”
A central point, therefore, is the existence and authenticity of the
document. This can only be verified by three(?) witnesses swearing
that the document is genuine. They must confirm that they were
present when the document was written.^147(^139) On the technical vocabulary for the process of bringing a law-breaker before
the court, see, e.g., Goedicke, Königliche Dokumente.. ., 169.
(^140) Théodoridès, “Concept of Law.. .,” 295–300, and “Contrat.. .,” 387–94
(= Maat); Martin-Pardy, Untersuchungen.. ., 186–87; Goedicke, “Zum Papyrus Berlin
9010,” 338; Lorton, Civilizations.. ., 347; Coulon, “Véracité.. .,” 125–26; Gödecken,
Meten.. ., 189–90.
(^141) Johnson, “Legal Status.. .,” 6; Goedicke, Rechtsinschriften.. ., 40–41; Seidl,
Einführung.. ., 17.
(^142) wnn w≈'-mdw ̇n'=f, (Urk1, 30, line 13).
(^143) Goedicke, Königliche Dokumente.. ., 220–21.
(^144) Seidl, Einführung.. ., 32.
(^145) See, e.g., Goedicke, “Zum Papyrus Berlin 9010”; Baer, “Letters.. .,” 13.
(^146) “Concept of Law.. .,” 297.
(^147) Cf. Goedicke, Rechtsinschriften.. ., 43; Manuelian, “Essay.. .,” 16.
109
WESTBROOK_F3_91-140 8/27/03 1:40 PM Page 109