specifi ed law. No formal Egyptian legal codes have been
preserved, at least not until the seventh century b.c.e., when
the demotic language (a simplifi ed form of Egyptian hiero-
glyphic writing) developed and Egyptians began using writ-
ten legal documents and contracts instead of the traditional
oral agreements of the Pharaonic Period (third to fi rst mil-
lennium b.c.e.).
Th at is not to say that the writing down of laws was un-
important at earlier dates in Egypt. Specifi c enactments were
issued, published, and consulted as laws. Th e surviving evi-
dence of documents, however, is scanty, preserved in a frag-
mentary form on stelae (monumental stone slabs), in archives
on papyrus, or in funerary texts. Important information
about crimes and punishment derives mainly from offi cial
records rather than private documents. Th ose include decrees
on behalf of temples or funerary cults that describe the means
by which a decree was to be enforced, records of the Great
Prison from t he late Midd le K ingdom (2040 –1640 b.c.e.), and
papyri documenting actual criminal investigations of the late
New Kingdom (1550–1070 b.c.e.).
Quite common in the vocabulary of these enactments is
the term hep—like the English term law—which refers to the
specifi c enactment but also to the normative custom and to
the law as an abstract moral order. Hep belonged to maat. It
existed from the very beginning of time as the embodiment
of the order given to the organized world by the creator god.
Th e tight relationship between these two concepts of cosmic
and political order and justice was best exemplifi ed by the ap-
pearance of the maat goddess symbol as an amulet (charm)
motif around a judge’s neck, as described by the ancient Greek
historians Herodotus and Diodorus.
Th e ultimate authority in the settlement of disputes was
the pharaoh, whose decrees were supreme. Law in Egypt,
especially during the New Kingdom, was specifi cally “what
Pharaoh had said.” Th e king referred to himself as a “fi xer of
laws.” Th e Great Edict of Horemheb (r. ca. 1319–1307 b.c.e.)
and the Nauri Decree of the Seti I (r. 1306–1290 b.c.e.) provide
idealized literary expressions of royal control of judging and
administering, presented in the form of specifi c instructions
to limit the independence of authority. For example, in his
edict, Horemheb proclaims that he is “the one who fi xes laws
for the king and gives regulations to the courtiers.” Because
of the complex nature of legal administration, the pharaoh
delegated powers to provincial governors and other offi cials.
Most prominent among them was the vizier, who could ap-
point magistrates as part of his legal duties.
In modern legal systems there is a clear distinction be-
tween public or offi cial law and private cases. Public law in-
cludes basic penal law, administrative law, and relationships
between individuals and functionaries. Private law deals with
relationships between individuals. In ancient Egypt, however,
no basic distinction existed between administrative and judi-
cial authority or function. “Courts,” or “courts of auditors,”
were formed, with offi cers who held administrative as well
as judicial duties and sat “as a court constituted to judge”
(according to the Great Edict of Horemheb). All local courts
were controlled by the “great court” of Th ebes and the court
of Heliopolis; both consisted of the most prominent civil or
military offi cers of Upper and Lower Egypt under the vizier’s
command. Important lawsuits, such as those involving land
or infl uential people, were brought directly to the great court
aft er a written complaint had been laid before the vizier.
Lesser cases were left to local courts. Specialized courts and
judges sitting in permanent rooms developed only aft er the
Twenty-sixth Dynasty (664–525 b.c.e.).
Th e court was responsible for keeping legal records and
documents, such as depositions, and dealt with litigation
and punishment. Th e members of the court were responsible
for the preliminary investigations of a case—questioning
witnesses and suspects, examining the validity and truth of
their statements, hearing the depositions of litigants, and ex-
amining the written evidence. In New Kingdom texts from
Th ebes (southern Egypt), those agents who were responsibleTh e Rosetta Stone, from Fort St. Julien, el-Rashid (Rosetta), Egypt
(Ptolemaic Period, 196 b.c.e.); the inscription is a decree passed by
a council of priests, one of a series that affi rm the contol of the royal
cult of the 13-year-old Ptolemy V on the fi rst anniversary of his
coronation. (© Th e Trustees of the British Museum)laws and legal codes: Egypt 623