54713455 Ancient Egyptian Court Systems King Menes King Bocchoris

8/6/2019 54713455 Ancient Egyptian Court Systems King Menes King Bocchoris

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/54713455-ancient-egyptian-court-systems-king-menes-king-bocchoris 1/24

Running head: Ancient Egyptian Courts

1

Ancient Egyptian Court Systems:

King Menes & King Bocchoris

Gordon Tunstall



Ancient Egyptian Courts 2

Abstract

Ancient Egyptian laws, legislation, and administrative regulations were never

codified. However, evidence of their existence has been found on the walls of palaces

and temples. Major differences exist between the court systems of King Menes in the 1st

Dynasty, King Bocchoris in the 24th Dynasty, and the current judicial system in the

United States. These differences include dissimilar court structure, jurisdictional

hierarchy, and appellate practices, particularly with regard to human rights.






abolished the death penalty. According to Baines (2001), King Bocchoris wrote the first

laws in recorded history governing contracts involving loaning or borrowing money.

Egyptian Ancient History

King Menes of the 1st Dynasty.

In the Early Dynastic Period in Egypt (circa 3050 BC – 2890 BC), the 1st

Dynasty was founded by King Menes (Edwards, 1971; Beck, et al., 1999). Menes, whose

birth name was Horus Aha, came from the Thinite province in Upper Egypt (Lloyd,

1994). Menes is the royal nebty-name meaning “he who endures” (Edwards, 1971, p. 11).

In the 1st Dynasty, the Horus name was used for living pharaoh kings, the nebty-nameMenes was used to honor this pharaoh when writing about him after his passing (Lloyd,

1994). There were a total of seven pharaoh kings that ruled during the 1st Dynasty. The

people of Egypt did not refer to the kings as pharaohs; this word was used by the Greeks

and Hebrews.

King Menes “led the army across the frontier and won great glory,” uniting Upper

and Lower Egypt (Verbrugghe & Wickersham, 2001, p. 131). Unification of Egypt took

place around 3050 BC, at the beginning of this Dynasty. Upper and Lower Egypt had

been separate for hundreds of years and could not settle their differences (Millet, 1990;

Cervelló-Autuori, 2003). The two separate states could never function properly because

various individuals vied for power and both states being separate were prone to invasions

(Huzayyin, 1939). Menes made Memphis the capital of Egypt which did not favor either

Upper or Lower Egypt. The capital city was on an island on the Nile that was fortified so

it could be easily defend from attacks or invasions (Cervelló-Autuori, 2003). The king




combined the red crown of Lower Egypt with the white crown of Upper Egypt creating

one crown showing the Egyptian people that both lands were united as one.

This became the first unified and centralized state in history, with an organized

system of government, administration, judiciary, education, police, and army (Fairservis,

1991). King Menes is credited with laying down the oldest legislative system in human

history when he issued the law of “Tehut,” god of wisdom, as the only law that was

applicable over all of Egypt (Wigmore, 1928; Savage, 2001). The law of Tehut was

based on ancient moral codes and outlined the basic understanding of what was

considered right and wrong (Emery, 1949). During these times, moral codes had areligious quality; religion and government were never separate in the ancient Egyptian

world (Emery, 1949). King Menes also made a single religion for all Egyptians to follow

and built the city Crocodopolis, where he established a place of worship for the god Ptah.

(Budge, 1969). The god Ptah was believed to have brought the world into being

(Morenz, & Keep, 1980). Menes had temples built all over Egypt for his people to have

easily accessible places to worship (Huzayyin, 1939).

King Menes used religion and law to help unite the people of Egypt (Redford,

2002). He issued edicts designed to improve food production and distribution, guard the

rights of the ruling families, improve education, and enhance knowledge of the natural

world through geometry and astronomy (Bard, 1992). The king controlled the executive

and judicial powers and exercised his executive powers with the assistance of many civil

servants. In choosing the civil servants, the king abided by the legal rules of seniority

and took into account their literacy level (Brown, 1981). Menes spent most of his time as

king ruling from Memphis. The king collected taxes and managed all of Egypt from the




capital city. Most of the government officials also resided in the capital city (Millet,

1990). After all of Egypt was united under one king, one government, and one religion,

Menes invaded Nubia to the south of Egypt. Before the king unified Egypt, the Nubians

controlled a portion of Upper Egypt. King Menes invaded Nubia to expand Egypt’s

borders so the Nubians would not attempt to invade Upper Egypt and occupy this land

again (Ward, 1969).

After the invasion of Nubia, the king sent his ambassador to Canaan and Byblos

in Phoenicia to establish diplomatic relations and to establish trade routes. The country

flourished with the trade policies established under these meetings. Under King Menes,the government controlled the army and the treasury which allowed for the strengthening

of its armed forces. The Egyptian military was provided the necessary funds to employ

more officers and the forces were equipped with the necessary weapons to defend the

country (Ward, 1969). King Menes had a child with a woman named Neithotepe, but his

wife during his rule was Queen Berenib. King Menes ruled Egypt until he died at 63

years of age. When his child Djer was old enough, he became the next king of Egypt

(Ward, 1969).

Overview of the 1st through 24th Dynasties (circa 3050 AD – 720 AD).

The king was the Head of State who appointed the Great Treasurer, who was

responsible for collecting taxes from the people. The king controlled the executive and

judicial powers and exercised his executive power with the assistance of many civil

servants. The king established the laws, controlled the people, government, and the

country’s economy. The legal system was obligatory and binding to the king whose

powers in selecting and promoting civil servants were restricted (Meltzer, 1990).




Throughout the twenty-four dynasties, the Egyptian legal and legislative system

provided its people with the rights to purchase property (Grimal, 1988). The disposition

of any owned property was a guaranteed right of its owner. Each Egyptian man had the

right to marry only one woman (Dodson, 2004). A woman was considered equal to a

man, and was able to own or sell property (Davies, 2004). Every Egyptian was able to

make their own will, but upon their death, the inheritance had to be distributed equally

among all siblings (Fisher, 1913). Slavery was not sanctioned by Egyptian law, but

foreigners living in Egypt did own slaves (El Amir, 1969). Egyptian water rights laws

allowed for water to be shared by all for drinking, bathing, and watering of crops. In the3rd Dynasty, a decree was issued limiting the amount of hours farmers were to work their

crops (Breasted, 1906).

Royal Court.

The royal court handled legal matters concerning religion as well as civil, judicial,

criminal, and military issues. The royal court also served as the notarizing agency where

land transfers and import contracts could be formally recorded (Bates, 1907). Court

scribes would authenticate legal documents on behalf of a mostly illiterate population

(Meltzer, 1990).

Council of the big ten.

In the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty, the Council of the Big Ten was established.

This was the highest council of the government which was comprised of senior state

officials, army commanders, and one of the royal’s sons. This council controlled Egypt’s

administrative functions and ensured the enforcement of legislative and royal decrees. In

the 5th Dynasty, this council assumed judiciary functions (Meltzer, 1990).




Vizier.

By the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty, the position of the vizier was established.

(Morenz & Keep, 1992; Breasted, 1916). Some of the vizier’s duties included dealing

with complaints brought by citizens concerning other public officials. He punished these

officials if necessary and his punishments were based on common law, customs, and

precedence (Wigmore, 1928).

Police.

The prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals was the duty of local

police and local officials. Special guards were posted at tombs to prevent looting.Investigations were conducted by the police, usually after a citizen’s complaint. Suspects

whose guilt was apparent were held for trial or ordered by police to make amends

(Breasted, 1916). Heads of Police and district representatives had to keep the vizier

informed of activities occurring in the districts they managed. Any government official

who was not enforcing the laws or managing their departments well would be replaced by

the vizier (Breasted, 1916).

In ancient Egypt, the police collected evidence, checked public records, and

organized reenactments of crime scenes (Smith, 1955). In the earlier Dynasty period,

police applied physical coercion through beatings of suspects to obtain a confession to a

crime. Some suspects were flogged until they confessed or provided the authorities with

information about others involved in the crime (Maspero, 1898; Pritchard, 1969).

Suspects were held by police until trial. In the earlier dynasties there were no jail

facilities. Suspects were placed into pits or deep wells, deep enough to hold the offender




to prevent any escape and the prisoners were not fed by during their incarceration. In

later dynasties, prisoners were held behind locked gates in temples (Breasted, 1906).

Administrators as judges.

In the early dynasties, there were no professional judges for the Royal Court. All

civil and criminal cases were tried before administrators consisting of scribes, priests, and

high officials (Smith, 1958). They were responsible for evaluating the merits of a

petition that came before them and rendering a decision. These administrators were

appointed by and answered to the vizier (Smith, 1958). In the 4th Dynasty, a civilian

administrator was appointed to oversee legal matters concerning the royal shipping ports. Judicial changes and public freedoms.

In the 18th Dynasty (circa 1330 BC), King Horemheb issued laws to reestablish

order in Upper and Lower Egypt, divided legal power, and appointed another vizier to

manage the city of Thebes. Now there were two viziers, one in the city Thebes, and one

in the city of Memphis (Grimal, 1992). The king also reestablished the people’s law by

appointing ten judges to the courts in Thebes and ten judges for the courts in Memphis.

He selected fair-minded and honest legal scholars as judges. This was the beginning of

the appointment of legal professionals by the king. Previously, kings were limited in

their selection by the laws of seniority and administrators for the courts were chosen from

a group of clerics, elders, oracles, and sages who were not legal scholars. King Horemheb

also set up regional tribunals to deal with legal issues on a localized level. He also

reestablished religious authority so the clerics, elders, oracles, and sages could help deal

with local moral, civil and legal issues with the authority of the king (Allam, 1991).




King Horemheb also issued several decrees to end corruption and mistreatment of

citizens by public officials. He decreed that Royal Officers, guards, police officers, and

soldiers would be penalized—with flogging, compensation to the victim, or cutting off of

the nose or ear—for any mistreatment or theft of person or goods, stealing of boats,

kidnapping of female servants, intimidating citizens for food, stealing of crops from

private farms, and false or fraudulent taxation of citizens. Under the king’s decree, stolen

religious items were returned to the temples, stolen property was returned to its rightful

owners and virtually all corruption by state officials ended (Allam, 1991).

Judicial changes in the 18th Dynasty: judges, vizier, and the courts.

In the 18th Dynasty, court judges were legal scholars and the position became a

profession. From this period forward, administering the law ran in families: sons of

judges grew up to become judges (Shaw, 2000). The viziers were at the top of the

judicial hierarchy. The vizier also performed judicial functions and became the chief

justice over the Royal Court. The vizier wore a pendant with the insignia of Maat, the

ancient Egyptian Goddess of truth, balance, order, law, morality, and justice. Maat

represented the spirit of truth and fairness in which justice was to be applied (Morenz &

Keep, 1992). Toward the end of the 18th Dynasty, however, Maat lost importance as a

symbol of truth, balance, order, law, morality, and justice. Loyalty towards King

Horemheb became paramount, and he became the symbol of truth and justice for the

Egyptian people.

There were courts at different levels; the highest six courts of justice were the Six

Great Houses. The vizier served as the Chief of the Six Great Houses. Additionally, the

Tribunal of Thirty was established to deal with issues of the dead and the afterworld as




well as issues of the living in regards to property rights, land measurement, and

compensation issues regarding the sale of grain (Breasted, 1906). Citizen courts were

also established with juries, where foremen, artisans, scribes, and workers sat in judgment

over their peers. These courts generally dealt with minor local offenses. In complicated

cases where a decision could not be reached, the people appealed to an oracle. The

punishment the citizen courts could impose ranged from fines, beatings, or the removal of

a tomb-worker’s name from the tomb he was working on—a punishment Egyptians

believed would prevent life after death and which was, therefore, considered worse than a

death sentence (Breasted, 1906).Serious criminal cases were handled by one of the courts in the Six Great Houses

with the state as prosecutor. Serious crimes included crimes against the state, the king,

the gods, and against persons, such as murder or bodily harm (Weeks, 2001). The

accused was presumed guilty unless proven innocent during trial. However, the courts

gave special protections and consideration to widows, orphans, and the timid who were

accused of a crime. The courts viewed these individuals as being incapable of looking

after their own interest (Breasted, 1906).

In court cases for the crimes of robbery, theft, and sexual aggression, the victim

had to bring the case before the court themselves. The accused could have a professional

barrister or lawyer represent them during the trial. Judgment was based on written and

oral evidence. Documents were generally composed by official scribes and witnesses

gave testimony under oath. Judges were expected to be impartial during the trial and

when handing down their sentence. Punishment handed down by a judge was not to be

too lenient or too harsh. Potential punishments included restitution, fines, confiscated




property, imprisonment, beatings, mutilation, banishment, or death. Death sentences

were very rare but, when imposed, the person was burned to death while strapped to a

stake (Ocernoy, 1937).

The convicted could appeal their sentence to the vizier. The vizier was under

strict legal time requirements to review the case and respond to the appeal. The time

frames were based upon travel time from one point to another within Egypt (Breasted,

1906). The vizier could override the sentence, make a new judgment, or let the sentence

stand. Regardless of the vizier’s decision on an appeal, the vizier was obligated to

explain his decision in detail to the petitioner (Shaw & Nicholson, 1995).The Six Great Houses, Tribunal of Thirty, priest, or private referees dealt with

civil matters. Most civil matters involved property rights, inheritance, prenuptial

agreements, and other civil disputes (Breasted, 1906). If a person was found in breach of

an agreement, they were required to rectify the matter and pay a fine on a specific day

ordered by the court. If they failed to pay the fine and rectify matters, the fine was either

doubled or they were beaten in public (Quirke & Spencer, 1992).

Not even the king was above the law in Egypt. Regardless of a person’s social

class status, the law was supposed to be fair but this was not always the case. Individuals

who were rich or well connected with government officials did not always follow the

chain of command if they ran into legal issues. Some would appeal directly to the vizier

or the king in an attempt to circumvent the legal process to avoid conviction (Teeter &

Larson, 1999). Additionally, sometimes criminal investigators were killed so suspects

could avoid any prosecution (Lichtheim, 1973).




At the end of the 21st Dynasty, Egypt was split again and there were separate

states of Upper and Lower Egypt. It remained split throughout the 24th Dynasty. The

24th Dynasty was in the Ptolemaic period of Egypt (circa 724 BC – 712 BC). King

Bocchoris was the second king that ruled in this Dynasty (Redford, 2002). Even though

his reign as king was very short, his law involving contracts for loaning and borrowing

money shaped future contract laws.

King Bocchoris of the 24th dynasty.

King Bocchoris was the second king of the 24th Dynasty. His royal name was

Wahkare which means “Spirit of Re” (Clayton, 1994, p. 188). He ruled Lower Egyptfrom the city of Sais which was located in the region of the western delta of the Nile

River. Under his rule, he controlled the Nile Delta and he ruled from circa 725 BC to 720

BC; this period is known as the Sais Dynasty (Clayton, 1994).

King Bocchoris was very wise and was praised for his judicial decisions and the

laws he enacted during his reign (Wilson, 1959). He wrote all of the laws that governed

the people in his administration. He also wrote the laws for all of the citizens of Lower

Egypt (Siculus, 1933). He abolished the death penalty and punished the condemned

through the use of forced labor. The convicted were placed on chain gangs where they

worked building dykes and digging canals. In the eyes of the citizens, this showed the

king’s humility. Additionally, the work done by the prisoners benefited the communities

immensely by providing water to citizens and farmers for their crops (Siculus, 1933).

Bocchoris wrote laws governing contracts which involved the loaning or

borrowing of money. These contract laws are the first laws of their kind in recorded

history (Baines, 2001). Under the Bocchoris contract laws, anyone who borrowed money




without signing a contract could deny their indebtedness by taking an oath claiming they

did not owe the debt. The purpose of this law was to establish the importance of oaths

before the gods. This law also established for those who abuse the oath, that confidence

in lending money would be lost to the abusers of the oath but not to the process of

lending and borrowing money as a whole. The king believed that basing the law on a

person’s honor would encourage everyone to be virtuous in their character and pay their

debts accordingly (Siculus, 1933). Additionally, the king wrote in his law governing loan

contracts that creditors were forbidden to increase the interest on the principle debt in

excess of double the original amount of the principle loan amount. If a debtor defaultedon the terms of the loan, and a creditor attempted to recover their losses, the creditor

could only recover the property of the debtor, they could no longer take property that was

owned by other family members. Also, creditors could no longer subject debtors or their

family members to bondage or imprisonment for defaulting on a loan (Siculus, 1933).

King Bocchoris wrote these laws to protect all citizens, especially the soldiers in

his military. The citizens could be required to enlist in the military and be sent to defend

Lower Egypt. Bocchoris did not want any of his current or potential military force to be

imprisoned as a result of defaulting on a debt, either as a result of their own doing or as a

result of being sent off to war (Theodorides, 1971).

King Bocchoris was captured by his rival Shabaka who executed him by burning

him to death at the stake. Bocchoris was forty-four years old when he died and was the

last king of the 24th Dynasty. Shabaka became the king of the 25th Dynasty (Clayton,

1994). Even though his reign as king was short-lived, King Bocchoris made the first

recorded law in history involving contracts. His law set the foundation for future contract




laws. Societies all over the world depend on the free exchange of goods and services in

the marketplace and the ability to borrow and lend money to buy those goods and

services. These transactions depend upon contracts and contract laws.

Discussion

Ancient Egyptian Dynasties Judicial System Compared to the United States’

Judicial System

There are major differences between the court systems of the 1st and 24th

Dynasties of ancient Egypt. There are differences in the two dynasties’ jurisdictional

hierarchies, their appellate practices, and in their approaches to human rights. Whencomparing these two ancient Egyptian court systems to the United States’ judicial

system, there are also stark differences in the courts’ structure, the appellate procedures,

and concepts concerning human rights.

1st dynasty’s judicial system.

During the 1st Dynasty, the laws for all of Egypt were based on the moral and

religious ideology of the time and were written by King Menes with the aid of a vizier

(Wigmore, 1928). There is no record that the ancient Egyptians codified their laws or

provided equality to their citizens under their laws (Bard, 1992). In the 1st Dynasty,

there was only one Royal Court that served all of Egypt, and the court heard both civil

and criminal cases. The king had limited authority in appointing judges to the courts.

The king had to follow the laws of seniority when picking from a group of scribes,

priests, and high officials (Ward, 1969). The judges were not educated in law (Brown,

1981). The accused were considered guilty until proven otherwise and were not

represented by any sort of legal counsel. Elders and religious members acted as judges,




heard the legal cases and issued their judgments. Egyptians believed that if mortal judges

were not impartial, the offender would be judged correctly in the afterworld (Lichtheim,

1976). Decisions and sentences were final and could not be appealed; there were no

appellate procedures or appellate courts in place during the 1st Dynasty. Criminal

sentences were often brutal and included beatings, mutilation, banishment, and death.

24th dynasty’s judicial system.

During the 24th Egyptian Dynasty, the laws for Lower Egypt were based on

moral and religious ideology and legal precedence (Clayton, 1994). Most of the laws

created in the 18th Dynasty that established equality for the citizens and judicial fairnesswere still in effect during the 24th Dynasty (Wilson, 1959). King Bocchoris wrote all the

new laws for Lower Egypt and he is known for writing the first laws involving loan

contracts (Siculus, 1933). In the 24th Dynasty, there were several local tribunals and

multiple courts to serve the people of Lower Egypt. The local tribunals dealt with most

of the civil matters and the higher courts dealt with some of the civil matters and all of

the criminal cases. The king had the authority to appoint professional judges who were

educated legal scholars. The accused were considered guilty until proven innocent and

they could be represented by a barrister as their legal counsel (Meltzer, 1990). Judges

heard the legal cases and issued their judgments. Their decisions and sentences could be

appealed to the vizier. If the accused was not satisfied with the vizier’s decision, they

could appeal to the king. Thus, there were two levels of appellate review: appeal to the

vizier and then to the king. Criminal sentences were often fair and fit the crime.

Punishments included fines, forced-labor, beatings, mutilation and banishment (Breasted,

1906).




United States’ judicial system.

The judicial system in the United States includes a codified set of laws and rules.

The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights provides for equality for all citizens

under the law. There are several court systems at the local, city, county, state, and federal

levels. The civil courts and criminal courts are separated (Harr & Hess, 2002). Judges

are voted in to position by citizens or they are appointed by legislators. Federal judges

are appointed by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Most

judges are highly educated in the field of law or possess a law degree. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A person accused of a criminal offense is entitled

to a jury of their peers and to have legal representation by an attorney. If they cannot

afford an attorney, one will be appointed by the state or federal government at no cost

(Harr & Hess, 2002). Litigants can hire legal counsel in civil matters. There is an

appellate process in place for both criminal and civil cases and at both the state and

federal levels. Criminal sentences are fair and based upon the crime committed.

Punishments can range from fines, home arrest, probation, jail sentences of a year or less,

prison sentences of a year or more, to death (Harr & Hess, 2002).

The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known as the Bill

of Rights and afford the citizens fair and equal treatment and protect human rights under

the law. The ancient Egyptians in both the 1st and 24th Dynasties did not have the same

protections as citizens have under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth

Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.




The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches or the

seizing of property (U.S. Const. Amend. IV). The police in ancient Egypt did not have

these restrictions and suspects and their property could be searched (Maspero, 1898, &

Pritchard, 1992). The Fifth Amendment sets forth several restrictions on how the

government may treat a person suspected of a crime, including the right not to be a

witness against one’s self (U.S. Const. Amend. V). In ancient Egypt, many suspects were

beaten or flogged into a confession (Maspero, 1898; Pritchard, 1992). The Sixth

Amendment describes the requirements for a fair trial (U.S. Const. Amend. VI). In both

the 1st and 24th Dynasties, trials were not necessarily fair and, in the earlier dynasties,the judges were administrators with no legal background or education (Breasted, 1906).

Egyptians believed that people who were judged incorrectly on Earth would be judged

correctly in the afterworld (Lichtheim, 1976). The Seventh Amendment preserves the

right to a trial by jury (U.S. Const. Amend. VII). The ancient Egyptians were not

afforded a jury by choice (Quirke & Spencer, 1992). In the 1st Dynasty, there were no

juries; people were judged by an administrator. In the 24th Dynasty, citizen courts which

dealt with minor civil matter had juries of peers, but there were no juries in criminal cases

and in some complicated civil cases (Quirke & Spencer, 1992). The Eighth Amendment

prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment (U.S. Const.

Amend. VIII). Ancient Egyptians who were suspected of a crime were placed in pits and

in later Dynasties locked in rooms in temples and were not fed while incarcerated

(Breasted, 1906). They did not have a bail process and fines that were imposed could be

excessive, in the discretion of the administrator or judge (Breasted, 1906).




Conclusion

The ancient Egyptians created laws, legislation, and administrative regulations

which evolved over time. Major differences existed in the courts systems of the

Dynasties of King Menes and King Bocchoris. When comparing these two court systems

to the United States judicial system many differences can be found concerning court

structure, jurisdictional hierarchy and the appellate practices. There were very few laws

found in Ancient Egypt that dealt with human rights issues.




References

Allam, S. (1991). Egyptian law courts in Pharaonic and Hellenistic times. Journal of

Egyptian Archaeology. 77: 109–21.

Baines, J. (2001). Egyptian letters of the new kingdom as evidence for religious practice.

Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion. 1: 1–31.

Bard, K.A. (1992). Toward an interpretation of the role of ideology in the evolution of

complex society in Egypt. Journal of Anthropologic Archaeology. 11: 1–24.

Bates, O. (1907, June). Sculptures from the excavation at Giza, 1905-1906 . Bulletin of

the Museum of Fine Arts. 26: 20–21.Beck, R.B., Black, L., Krieger, L.S., Naylor, P.C. & Shabaka, D.I. (1999) World history:

Patterns of interaction, Evanston: McDougal, L.

Breasted, J.H. (1916). Ancient times, a history of the early world: An introduction to the

study of ancient history and the career of early man. Boston: Ginn & Company.

Breasted, J.H. (1906). Ancient records of Egypt: Volume II. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Brown, J.A. (1981). The search for rank in prehistoric burials: The archaeology of

death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Budge, E.A.W. (1969). The gods of the Egyptians: Studies in Egyptian mythology. New

York: Dover Publication, Inc.

Cervelló-Autuori, J. (2003). Narmer, Menes, and the seals from Abydos Egyptology at

the dawn of the twenty-first century: Proceedings of the eighth international

congress of Egyptologist, Cairo, 2000. Cairo: The American University in Cairo

Press.




Clayton, P.A. (1994). Chronicle of the pharaohs: The reign-by-reign record of the rulers

and dynasties of ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.

Davies, W.V. (2004, December). The Egyptian inscription at Jebel Dosha. British

Museum SAES. 4: 1–20.

Dodson, A. (2004). Thutmosis III, the family man. The Ostracon. 15: 3–7.

Edwards, I.E.S. (1971), Early history of the Middle East: Volume 1 Part 2., Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

El Amir, M. (1969). Further notes on the demotic papyri in the Turin museum. The

Bulletin of the French Institute of Oriental Archeology. 68: 85–120.

Emery, W.B. (1949). Great tombs of the first dynasty I: Excavations at Saggara. Cairo:

Cairo University.

Fairservis, W. (1991). A revised view of the narmer palette. Journal of Archaeological

Research, 28, 1–20.

Fisher, C.S. (1913, April). The Harvard-university-museum of fine arts Egyptian

expedition. Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts. 62: 19–22.

Grimal, N. (1988). A history of ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Grimal, N. (1992). The Oxford history of ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Ltd.

Harr, J.S. Hess, K.M. (2002). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system (2nd

ed.). Bellmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Huzayyin, S. (1939). Some new light on the beginning of Egyptian civilization. Bulletin

of the Geographic Royal Society. 20: 203–73.




Lichtheim, M. (1973). Ancient Egyptian literature: Volume 1. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Lichtheim, M. (1976). Ancient Egyptian literature: Volume 2. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Lloyd, A.B. (1994). Herodotus: Book II , Leiden: E.J. Brill

Maspero, G. (1898). Studies of mythology and Egyptian archaeologies: Volume 3. Cairo:

Egyptian publicans of Mariette.

Meltzer, E.S. (1990). Letters from ancient Egypt. Atlanta: Scholar Press.

Millet, N.B. (1990). The Narmer macehead and related objects. Journal of the AmericanResearch Center in Egypt. 27: 53–9.

Morenz, S. & Keep, A.E. (1992). Egyptian religion. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

Ocernoy, J. (1937). Restitution of, and penalty attaching to, stolen property in Ramesside

times. Chicago: University of Chicago

Piccione, P. (1980, July-Aug). In search of the meaning of Senet. Archaelogy. 33: 55–58.

Pritchard, J.B. (1969). Ancient near eastern texts relating to the old testament (3rd ed.).

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Quirke, S. & Spencer, J. (1992). The British museum book of ancient Egypt. New York:

Thames & Hudson.

Redford, D.B. (2002). The ancient gods speak: A guide to Egyptian religion. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Reisner, G.A. (1939, April). A family of royal estates stewarts of Dynasty 5. Bulletin of

the Museum of Fine Arts. 220: 29–35.




Savage, S.H. (2001). Some recent trends in the archaeology of predynastic Egypt . Journal

of Archaeological Research, 9: 17

Shaw, I. (2000). The Oxford history of ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shaw, I. & Nicholson, P. (1995). The British museum dictionary of ancient Egypt.

London: British Museum Press.

Siculus, D. (1933). The library of diodrus siculus: Egyptian judicial system, volume 1.

Loeb Classical Library.

Smith, W.S. (1955, Winter). A late reflection of an old kingdom relief . Bulletin of the

Museum of Fine Arts. 294: 80–81.Smith, W.S. (1958, Summer). The judge goes fishing. Bulletin of the Museum of Fine

Arts. 304: 56–63.

Teeter, E. & Larson, J.A. (1999). Gold of praise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Theodorides, A. (1971). The concept of law in ancient Egypt: The legacy of Egypt (2nd

ed.). ed. J. R.. Harris, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

U.S. Const. amend. IV.

U.S. Const. amend. V.

U.S. Const. amend. VI.

U.S. Const. amend. VII.

U.S. Const. amend. VIII.

Verbrugghe, G.P. & Wickersham, J.M. (2001). Berossos and manetho. Ann Arbor: The

University of Michigan Press.

Ward, W.A. (1969). The supposed Asiatic campaign of Narmer. Mélanges de l 'École

française de Rome [journal], 45: 205–21.




Weeks, K.R. (2001). Valley of the kings. Fairfax: Friedman.

Wigmore, J.H. (1928). A panorama of the world’s legal systems: Volume 1. Saint Paul:

West Publishing.

Wilson, J.A. (1959). Authority and law in ancient Egypt. Journal of the American

Oriental Society.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vonnals
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times