5 ms·

The claim isn't that slaves weren't involved, the claim is that the common knowledge that it was all slaves is wrong. It was widely believed the pyramids were

by pluma 9y ago

The claim isn't that slaves weren't involved, the claim is that the common knowledge that it was all slaves is wrong. It was widely believed the pyramids were a massive slave operation because obviously people had to be forced to work on something of that scale and obviously nobody would subject themselves to something this arduous freely. Imagining how they were built conjures up images of Egyptian guards whipping slaves who drag massive slabs in the scorching heat. But new evidence suggests not only wasn't everybody who worked on it a slave, there's even good reason to believe that slaves didn't play any bigger role than in the society at the time in general.

perl4ever 9y ago
The claim isn't that slaves weren't involved? The very first thing you see when loading the page is "Who Built the Pyramids? Not slaves.". Later on, the article says (of Lehner): "He has found the city of the pyramid builders. They were not slaves." Near the end, it says "Slaves or not, as the last season of his dig began, Lehner still did not know where all the workers slept." So I think my original comment was salient and reacting to how the article actually presented things. It makes clear statements that slaves weren't involved. Then it leaves the possibility open at the end. It's common in many articles to overstate a claim in the beginning to grab readers, and I don't care for it.
- pluma 9y ago
  Surely "slaves built the pyramids" implies that at least the majority of people involved were slaves. The article inverses that simplified statement, implying the same caveat: at least the majority of people involved weren't slaves (though some might have been). If slaves were present in the society, it's absurd to interpret a blanket statement like "not slaves (built the pyramids)" to imply no slaves were involved, especially when it's a direct response to the blanket statements "the pyramids were built by slaves" (which noone would take to mean that no non-slaves were present anywhere near the construction site -- it's a given that someone would need to oversee the slaves somehow). But we're literally arguing over semantics. Unless you assume that all generalisations are always intended to be understood 100% literally and that archeologists would want to express 100% confidence in knowing exactly what group in society each person involved in a construction project thousands of years ago belonged to, there really isn't anything worth arguing over. General ignorance has it that the pyramids were built almost entirely by slaves. This article claims that is not the case. Everything else is just fluff to make for a better read.
  - alasdair_ 9y ago
    >Surely "slaves built the pyramids" implies that at least the majority of people involved were slaves. If I heard "structural engineers built the suspension bridge" I'd simply assume they were involved, not that they were physically responsible for over 50 percent of all tasks.
    - bufferoverflow 9y ago
      "structural engineers built the suspension bridge" is a false statement though. Engineers don't build generally, they engineer.
singularity2001 9y ago
"common knowledge that it was all slaves" what? of course there where overseers.
- singularity2001 9y ago
  I somewhere read that the average worker in Egypt had 3 days of the whole year, which blurs the light between slavery and normal employment.
  - megaman22 9y ago
    I'd be curious if you could find the source for that, and I mean legitimately curious - I'd be interested to see what kind of evidence that kind of a claim is based on. Egypt at least does have extensive written records, so that could be codified in a statute somewhere. I'm sort of skeptical by default of archaeological claims that assert conclusions wider than what their findings directly show - too often it seems like they've gone in with a preconceived big theory that they are grabbing at straws to find support for.
    - singularity2001 9y ago
      I remember the museum I read it in. If you are really interested then I could go there and talk to the staff but there are probably easier ways.
      - hutzlibu 9y ago
        Well, you could also name that museum, in case other reader live close by and you are not soo much concerned of anonymity.
  - poulsbohemian 9y ago
    Which ironically is 3 more days than the US has as federally mandated vacation.
mc32 9y ago
I think what people feel sensitive about is the emphasis on slaves. It's like slaves are being retroactively disenfranchised. That probably irks people when they think in a modern framework. Historians don't care so much, so they throw whatever theory fits current evidence, which, with time could again change.
Feniks 9y ago
I guess for a lot of people its impossible to believe that the ancient Egyptians really BELIEVED in their religion and society. Hell you could easily wonder today why entire cities spent a century building cathedrals instead of sewage systems.

by pluma 9y ago

perl4ever 9y ago

The claim isn't that slaves weren't involved? The very first thing you see when loading the page is "Who Built the Pyramids? Not slaves.". Later on, the article says (of Lehner): "He has found the city of the pyramid builders. They were not slaves." Near the end, it says "Slaves or not, as the last season of his dig began, Lehner still did not know where all the workers slept." So I think my original comment was salient and reacting to how the article actually presented things. It makes clear statements that slaves weren't involved. Then it leaves the possibility open at the end. It's common in many articles to overstate a claim in the beginning to grab readers, and I don't care for it.

pluma 9y ago
Surely "slaves built the pyramids" implies that at least the majority of people involved were slaves. The article inverses that simplified statement, implying the same caveat: at least the majority of people involved weren't slaves (though some might have been). If slaves were present in the society, it's absurd to interpret a blanket statement like "not slaves (built the pyramids)" to imply no slaves were involved, especially when it's a direct response to the blanket statements "the pyramids were built by slaves" (which noone would take to mean that no non-slaves were present anywhere near the construction site -- it's a given that someone would need to oversee the slaves somehow). But we're literally arguing over semantics. Unless you assume that all generalisations are always intended to be understood 100% literally and that archeologists would want to express 100% confidence in knowing exactly what group in society each person involved in a construction project thousands of years ago belonged to, there really isn't anything worth arguing over. General ignorance has it that the pyramids were built almost entirely by slaves. This article claims that is not the case. Everything else is just fluff to make for a better read.
- alasdair_ 9y ago
  >Surely "slaves built the pyramids" implies that at least the majority of people involved were slaves. If I heard "structural engineers built the suspension bridge" I'd simply assume they were involved, not that they were physically responsible for over 50 percent of all tasks.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    "structural engineers built the suspension bridge" is a false statement though. Engineers don't build generally, they engineer.

singularity2001 9y ago

"common knowledge that it was all slaves" what? of course there where overseers.

singularity2001 9y ago
I somewhere read that the average worker in Egypt had 3 days of the whole year, which blurs the light between slavery and normal employment.
- megaman22 9y ago
  I'd be curious if you could find the source for that, and I mean legitimately curious - I'd be interested to see what kind of evidence that kind of a claim is based on. Egypt at least does have extensive written records, so that could be codified in a statute somewhere. I'm sort of skeptical by default of archaeological claims that assert conclusions wider than what their findings directly show - too often it seems like they've gone in with a preconceived big theory that they are grabbing at straws to find support for.
  - singularity2001 9y ago
    I remember the museum I read it in. If you are really interested then I could go there and talk to the staff but there are probably easier ways.
    - hutzlibu 9y ago
      Well, you could also name that museum, in case other reader live close by and you are not soo much concerned of anonymity.
- poulsbohemian 9y ago
  Which ironically is 3 more days than the US has as federally mandated vacation.

mc32 9y ago

I think what people feel sensitive about is the emphasis on slaves. It's like slaves are being retroactively disenfranchised. That probably irks people when they think in a modern framework. Historians don't care so much, so they throw whatever theory fits current evidence, which, with time could again change.

Feniks 9y ago

I guess for a lot of people its impossible to believe that the ancient Egyptians really BELIEVED in their religion and society. Hell you could easily wonder today why entire cities spent a century building cathedrals instead of sewage systems.