- This topic has 5 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
This story just appeared in the news:Egypt tombs suggest pyramids not built by slavesSynopsis of the argument: Tombs for pyramid workers, found in the vicinity of the pyramids, would not have been meant for slaves since slaves would not have been able to be buried in them so close to the pharaoh's tomb. Also, the pyramid workers did not have to pay taxes. Hence, the people who built the pyramids could not have been slaves.Do you buy this new theory about the people who worked on the pyramids?
I've heard something along those lines, but forgot where I saw it. Their reasoning was that the pyramids are so intricately designed, that it took artisans to make them and cut the stones and all that.
I don't know why this is supposed to be new information. I first heard this theory about 15 years ago. It actually makes sense if you think about it. Slaves were generally used for scut work and the skill required to build the pyramids was anything but scut work. The fact that they are still standing after so many years shows that skilled craftsment built them.
I think it's been in the news because of the new evidence which supports the theory. However, I would imagine that the theory has long been that the pyramids were designed by Egyptian engineers who would have had to be schooled in architectural practices, but that slaves were the ones who executed the work. Here, it seems that this new theory claims that slaves didn't even have a part in the execution.
Do you buy this new theory about the people who worked on the pyramids?
Not so new; I used it in my history classes for at least 10 years.Logistics tell the story even without the historical evidence. If it takes 20,000 slaves 20 years to build a pyramids consider how many slave drivers you will need to keep tham in line... with only whips and such like 1 guard for a max of 5? Major waste of manpower for little return as the slaves might not be thrilled with the duty.The fact is these workers were on what amounted to a public works project; they were employed by the gov't when they weren't farming (also possibly to occupy excess workers) to the benefit of the Pharaoh. Made them special helping their God-King, plus got the whole family fed clothed and housed... think Boulder Dam project.
Not so new; I used it in my history classes for at least 10 years.
Right - I stand corrected. The theory is not new, just the evidence which supports the view as mentioned in the article.
This is just more evidence pointing to the workers not being slaves. I read that over fifty years ago they found accounting papyrus detailing what the workers were paid for work on the Pyramid. It was lists of daily bread and beer rations and such if I remember correctly and the amounts were not actually pretty decent. Enough to keep the workers strength up.
I don't know why this is supposed to be new information. I first heard this theory about 15 years ago. It actually makes sense if you think about it. Slaves were generally used for scut work and the skill required to build the pyramids was anything but scut work. The fact that they are still standing after so many years shows that skilled craftsment built them.
I hate to use the Bible as evidence here, but in this case it's very appropriate. Joshua was a stone cutter, a skilled tradesman, and Joshua was a slave. With undertakings this large, it would be very difficult not to train some slaves to be skilled artisans simply for manpower reasons alone.
Not to say all the workers weren't slaves… in fact this makes some sense. Skilled slaves with a bit of watching could have trained others (non-slaves) in the various crafts. Also must consider that old world slavery in many cases quite different than the chattel slavery of the pre-Civil War US.Your example really doesn't offer much direction but your idea about the some skilled slaves does work... in fact they might be more likely to be skilled than the conscript farmers most often given the builder role.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
