Lost Voices of the Nile: Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt

by Charlotte Booth

  Religious musicians primarily played the sistra, which was sacred to Hathor and comprised a bronze arch through which short bronze sticks were threaded mounted on a handle, or the menat necklace, which was a faience-bead necklace that was shaken to provide a rattling sound. The sound of the sistra and the menat had their roots in an old ritual of Hathor, which was to pull up stems of papyrus and shake them before the goddess. The sistra rattle is thought to sound similar to this.81

  The status of the musician in society is an interesting one, as they were involved in religious processions and therefore could have the same status as the priestesses, and those who played at banquets often wore the same clothes as the party guests, coupled with being named in some tombs. All this indicates they were of the same status as the party revellers themselves.82 There is no evidence that noble women played instruments in public, but that is not to say that elite women could not play musical instruments and did not play in the privacy of their own home. In the sixth-dynasty tomb of Mereruka his wife sits on the end of their bed playing a harp. In the tomb of the Old Kingdom vizier Merefnebef, four wives are shown playing harps for him. Whether these were wives who had passed on or evidence of polygamy is not entirely clear.83

  There were many household roles which were carried out by men and women, and household servants and slaves could be either male of female. The question of slavery often comes up in relation to ancient Egypt, but there is no clear definition of the terminology used. There were various terms which may refer to slave status, including dependants, personnel, forced labourers, workers, servants, royal servants and prisoners of war.84 There seems to be what Meskell refers to as a sliding scale of slavery, ranging from prisoners of war to native Egyptians who were forced to sell themselves into slavery at times of extreme poverty.85 It is believed that once they had paid their debts through their manual labour then they were freed. Many of the male slaves worked as domestic servants, brewers, cooks and farmers.86 Slaves who had been captured as prisoners of war were possibly sold door to door and one woman Iryneferet records how she had paid for a Syrian slave girl. The rather random list of items, some of which were borrowed from other people, indicates perhaps she was buying the slave at the door and was simply looking around the house for items to reach the proposed value.87 Sometimes such female slaves acted as concubines for the master of the house or were purchased in order to bear children for a barren wife, as was the case with the Adoption Papyrus (see chapter four).

  D. Mereruka is entertained by his wife, Saqqara. (Drawing after Manniche, 1991, fig. 70).

  This concept of selling yourself or even your children in payment for a debt was not unusual and one of the documents from the Djekhy and Iturekh archive discusses a loan where Hepy, an embalmer, borrowed 1 deben of silver from Djekhy, which he was to pay back within seven months. He used all of his possessions, even his children, as collateral. ‘They (the capital sum plus interest) will be on my head regarding the securities you will require from me, whichever one, be it house, male servant, female servant, son, daughter, silver, copper, clothing, oil, emmer, or whatever in this world.’88 A later document further indicates that people were indeed used to pay back debts, as Iturech leaves a document describing how he purchased a ‘son’, Hor. The document is a statement from Hor claiming he is happy with the money paid and that he and his children will be ‘sons’ of Iturech. Hor comments on the transaction,

  You (Iturekh) have satisfied my heart with my silver to be your son. I am your son, together with my children who will be born to me, together with all I possess and will acquire. No one on earth will be able to exercise authority over me except you, be it father, mother, brother, sister, master, mistress or any creditor or myself. My children are the children of your children forever.89

  It is uncertain how old Hor was, although it is suggested that as his name is not signed as one of the witnesses he was possibly a minor. Donker van Heel further suggests the word son was used as being more acceptable at the time than ‘slave’.

  Slaves are often believed to have been responsible for the manual labour required on the pyramids and other large-scale monuments in Egypt, but this is not the case. While the Nile was flooded from July to October every year there were numerous agriculturists standing idle until the waters receded. These were conscripted to work on large-scale building works by the state for the same wage as a standard worker. A roll call card from Hawara, which names the monument which is probably Amenhotep III’s pyramid, includes a list of conscripts required to work on it:

  Director Senusret’s son Khety

  Secretary Senet’s son Senbef Senbef […]

  Commander Sat-[…]’s son Senusretankh Senbef [...].90

  As a government-run scheme, unexplained absences from work were viewed as a criminal offence and those who absconded could be treated as deserters, meaning their families were obliged to fulfil their contractual obligations. Some women and children were conscripted into manual service, which was not slavery in the sense that they were not considered personal property, but they were required to work where they were sent and carry out the task specified. What tasks they performed, if indeed there were specific tasks for these state-owned slaves, is unknown, although it seems that many female foreign captives were sent to work in the linen trade.91

  There are references in the texts to servants who worked in private houses but lived elsewhere, indicating that not all household servants were slaves. There were varying titles from the Middle Kingdom for a domestic servant, including housemaid, cleaning woman and domestic servant ­– ‘she who is allowed to walk through the house’. In Deir el-Medina, for example, women hired people to come in to help grind the corn for the family’s flour. It took between 55 and 80 minutes to grind enough flour for one adult for one day,92 and considering there could be six adults in a house plus children this chore would dominate the day’s work. The work was low paid but would have been frequent. A New Kingdom papyrus from Gurob records how Pihy loaned two of his servants to her son Miny. One servant, Kheryt, was to work for seventeen days, and the other, Henut, for only four days; however, a surprising clause in the contract stated that should the days be too hot then the servants were not to work.93

  There are many cases of servants and slaves being freed and rising to the top of a career. For example, Hesysunebef started his life as a slave and was adopted by his master to become a member of the team of workmen at Deir el-Medina. He rose to rank of deputy, which was one of the highest ranks in the village, and he named his children after his adoptive parents94 (for more information about Hesysunebef see chapter four).

  Then, as now, the sole purpose for work, whether it be as vizier or house slave, was to earn enough to live. Even in a society with no monetary system the motivation was the same. It is rather interesting that some working conditions have not changed in 5,000 years. For example, those in government employment, such as the workmen at Deir el-Medina, were paid on the twenty-eighth day of each month. These wages were in the form of rations and were essential for the daily sustenance of the workmen and their families. These rations comprised grain, fish, vegetables, oil and clothes. A workman at Deir el-Medina received monthly from the granary 4 sacks (300 litres) of emmer and 1.5 (115 litres) sacks of barley. Captains received 5.5 sacks of emmer and 2 of barley.95 The workman’s ration was enough to feed a family of ten and provided a little extra, which could be exchanged for other goods. Further supplies from the treasury and the supply staff included, during the reign of Ramses III, 8.4 kilograms of fish per month per workman, plus vegetables, fruit, beer and one or two cakes per month.

  However, during the reign of Ramses III there were numerous problems with the grain supply at Deir el-Medina, starting in year 17, when a corrupt official Paser was using a short measure to distribute the rations, keeping the excess for himself. Akhpet, the scribe of the vizier, noticed that the grain ration was 5 per cent short.96 Akhpet remeasured all the rations with an accurate measure and redistributed
them.

  In year 29 of Ramses III the payment of rations was delayed, resulting in a number of protests from the workmen at Deir el-Medina. From delivery records it appeared that deliveries were made to the workmen every ten days. The records of the strike start on day ten in the second month of winter, and the deliveries show that Sary had delivered the normal quantity of 380 fuel rations but Pashed had only delivered 200 of his 500 fuel rations. This was not the only problem, and the Strike Papyrus, which starts on this date, records that

  on this day the crew passed the five guard posts of the tomb saying, ‘We are hungry for 18 days have already elapsed in this month’, and they sat down at the rear of the temple of Menkhepere. The scribe of the enclosed tomb, the two foremen, the two deputies and the two proctors came and shouted to them, ‘Come inside’. They swore great oaths saying, ‘Please come back, we have matters of pharaoh.’ They spent the day in this place and the night in the tomb.97

  This strike was called as the rations were eighteen days late; however, rather surprisingly strikes rarely started on a work day and instead protests were made at the weekend. In order to make their presence felt they sat down in the road at the rear of the temple of Thutmosis III and ignored all requests to return to the tomb.

  On day twelve the problems had still not been resolved and Mentmose the scribe encouraged them to strike again by saying, ‘Finish whatever you are doing that we may go out.’

  They reached the temple of Usermaatra-Setepenre [Ramses II]. They spent the night quarrelling in its entrance. They entered into its exterior and the scribe Penteweret, the two chiefs of police, the two gatekeepers of the gatehouse of the tomb, the chief of police, Mentmose, declared that he would go to Thebes saying; ‘I will fetch the mayor of Thebes. He … I [Mentmose] said to him.’ Those of the tomb are in the temple of Usermaatra-Setepenre. He said to me …’treasury’ … you … there is not … give you [to the place] one is … They said to them, ‘The prospect of hunger and thirst has driven us to this; there is no clothing, there is no ointment, there are no fish, there are no vegetables. Send to the pharaoh, our good lord, about it and send to the vizier, our superior, that we may be supplied with provisions.’ The ration of the first month of winter was issued to them on this day.98

  So on day twelve they were paid for the first month of winter, however the strike continued until day seventeen when the rations were also paid for the second month of winter. By the third month of winter the workmen were once more on strike due to non-payment of rations. One of the workmen was so desperate in his hunger that he made an oath: ‘As Amun endures and as the ruler whose wrath is greater than death endures, if I am taken from here today I shall go to sleep only after having made preparations for robbing a tomb’.99 Whether he needed to persevere with his threat is not recorded but it is interesting that such a threat was made, although the Tomb Robbery Papyri (see chapter seven) indicate that this was not necessarily an unusual act. However, a statement from the vizier on day twenty-eight of the fourth month of winter showed the desperation of the situation: ‘It so happens that there is nothing in the granaries – but I shall give you what I have found.’100

  In the first month of summer the workmen threatened to go to the public marketplace and protest directly to the vizier about the lack of payment, but they were warned by the scribe Amennakhte, ‘You go then and I will have you convicted in any court you will go to.’101 Another two weeks passed and there was another protest, this time at the temple of Baenra-Meryamun (Merenptah), where they were given fifty sacks of emmer to tide them over until the full rations arrived. These problems and subsequent strikes had been taking place for six months at this point and were to continue at regular intervals over the next seventy years. All of the protests took place at a mortuary temple on the West Bank as this was where the granaries were situated from which the rations were distributed. This continuing problem with the payment of rations was a direct result of the failing political system at the time and the decreasing economy.

  The Egyptian working life was long, with no official retirement age. Although there were a plethora of jobs available, often the career chosen was dictated by the role held by an individual’s parents. It was unusual for someone to break away from family tradition and enter a brand-new industry. This was unfortunate if an individual’s interests were not the same as his father’s, but without a lot of luck there was little anyone could do to change this situation. People needed to accept their lot in life, work hard and if Maat was smiling on them they would live a happy and comfortable life.

  7.

  LEGAL MATTERS

  ‘Confess nothing and I will get off.’1

  Ancient Egypt, like any society, ancient or modern, was comprised of law-abiding citizens and criminals. As with every other aspect of ancient Egyptian life, we have records of crimes committed and, in many instances, the punishments meted out for these crimes. However, there was no official codified law until the Third Intermediate Period, and the earliest example of a set of laws comes from the Ptolemaic Papyrus Mattha. However, this reads more like a practitioner’s handbook than a code of law reference book.

  In the New Kingdom the word hep was translated as either ‘law’ or ‘custom’, showing there was in fact a fine line between the two. Furthermore, there is only one legal text where the punishment was administered according to the pharaoh’s hep. This was a case regarding inheritance and the hep quoted states, ‘Let the property be given to the one who buries.’2 Whether this could be identified as a law or a guideline is open to debate.

  However, the absence of a codified law, as we understand it in the modern world, is not to say the Egyptians were a lawless society; they were governed by a strict moral code by which everyone was expected to live. This code is outlined in the Instruction texts which, while not law books as such, offered advice on the appropriate way to behave in all situations. These rules are further emphasised in the Book of the Dead in the Negative Confession (chapter 125), which lists all the things which the deceased had not done and comprised a combination of criminal and trivial acts together. Moreover, to the Egyptian mind set it was more important to avoid sin than to pursue a virtuous life.3

  Criminal acts were separated into two groups: state crimes, which obviously interested the vizier and included tomb robbery and plots of regicide, which resulted in harsh punishments; or civil acts, such as breach of contract or petty theft, which were sorted out within the community and could incur a fine or a beating.4

  As with most other aspects of daily life in ancient Egypt, much of the information about crime and punishment comes from the records at Deir el-Medina. As Tyldesley rather glibly states, ‘The fifty or so families at Deir el-Medina were a remarkably quarrelsome and surprisingly light-fingered lot.’5 Unfortunately often the ends of papyri are damaged or missing, and while we have the crimes the verdicts have not always been preserved. Papyri records were generally made regarding crimes against the temples or palace and these were kept in the mortuary temples at Thebes. Many notes about legal dealings were additionally made on ostraca and were not official documents but rather personal records of events. Through these records it has been possible to build up a record of standardised crimes and typical punishments.

  With no official legal code in the New Kingdom, identifying a crime was not as straightforward as in the modern world, and with no lawyers or detectives to investigate a potential crime there was a lot of reliance on questioning, torture and hearsay. There were three legal avenues open to someone from Deir el-Medina in the New Kingdom: the oracle of Amenhotep I, the vizier’s office and the knbt (court). These three avenues, however, were not independent of each other and all ultimately were governed by the state and overseen by the same people. The vizier’s office was responsible for criminal matters, the oracle was approached for civil concerns and the knbt for keeping the peace.

  For an injured party often the first port of call was the knbt sDmiw, or court of hearers. At Deir el-Medina the k
nbt was excavated in the chapel area and showed sixteen seats, some of which were inscribed with workmen’s names, indicating they held regular office here.6 These sixteen officials were known as the notables or magistrates. The notables of the Great knbt of Thebes were the vizier, chief priest of Amun, second priest of Amun, two royal butlers, the steward of the House of the Divine Votaress, a lieutenant of chariotry, a standard bearer of the navy and Prince Pesiur of Thebes.7 These groups of notables never included the auxiliary staff of the village, like watercarriers, and therefore maintained a certain class level. Their knowledge of most of the people who came to the court, as well as perhaps knowing background information on the disputes, was part of the reason they were chosen for this role. This was a little like a modern jury, although they were not necessarily there to discover the truth, but rather to maintain public order. This could result in bowing to pressure from the general public in regards to punishment. They did not investigate the cases brought to them; instead they listened to the claimants and the accused and formed their judgement based on that.

  A trial consisted of the examining body, the criminal, witnesses and the notables. The claimant stated their case to the notables and the accused defended themselves against the accusations. If the case was complicated witnesses may be called to speak, but often the claimant and accused were enough. There was no jury (as an impartial group) or lawyers for either side. The innocent put their trust in the truth.8 It is unknown if the notables of the court needed to come to a unanimous decision on a case9, although it seems unlikely, and there was no limit to how long a legal dispute could continue. The case of the police chief Mentmose was active for over eighteen years, which could have been down to the knbt’s reluctance to pass judgement or the plaintiff’s refusal to press charges against the defendant. A case could not really be brought to the knbt unless there was a suspect (as in the case of vandalism or theft), as with no investigation team cases without an accused were never solved.