Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by AdamTo (U8309140) on Friday, 25th May 2007

  This is an essay I wrote for my critical thinking class. I've already submitted it, so I'm not trying to cheat by getting feedback. Please be as tough as you like in critiquing it.
  Because it wasn't submitted to a history class, it uses the MLA style of formatting rather than the Chicago style.
  
  The pyramids of Ancient Egypt were massive public works projects. They have been derided by many observers for being useless, vainglorious monuments built solely for the benefit of the Pharoahs (The Ancient Engineers, 43). While it is true that they served no practical purpose and diverted resources from other useful projects, it is also true that the pyramids were a better use of resources than the primary alternative for conscripted men and the ruler's treasury: war. It also seems to be false that spending resources on the pyramids rather than on other more practical things led to a lower
  quality of life for the average Ancient Egyptian than they could have had otherwise or that scientific progress was held back. Given
  all this, it is difficult to conclude that the construction of the pyramids were an enormous waste of resources.
  
  While Ancient Egypt existed either independently or under outside rule from about 3100 BC to 332 BC, when Alexander the Great
  of Greece finally conquered it (Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 22), the pyramids were built for only around 1,000 years of that period, from around 2650 BC to around 1600 BC (Ancient Engineers, 37). All in all, most archaeologists believe that between 70 and 110 pyramids were built, the number being an estimate
  as some of the later smaller ones have only been recently unearthed (38 for the number 70) . The largest pyramid is the great pyramid of Cheops built around 2575 BC. It is constructed with 2,300,000 blocks of stone each weighing on average 2.5 tons (Ancient Engineers, 34). It is estimated to have been labored on by 4,000 people at any one time for the twenty years it took to build, except during the three month period when the Nile River flooded each year and up to 100,000 farmers unemployed by this were additionally conscripted into service (41).
  
  The pyramids were burial chambers for the God/Kings of Ancient Egypt known as the Pharoahs (38). The spiritual belief in Ancient Egypt was that the body had to be kept intact for the
  afterlife (40). This led to mummification, a process of drying out the body to preserve it, and it led to building the pyramids large with complex chambers that were meant to foil potential grave robbers (40). That said, it's unreasonable to believe that the pyramid of Cheops was built 480 feet high and made to cover thirteen acres just to combat grave robbing. The reason for this size was either the vanity of Cheops or the belief of the builders that it would please the Gods to build such enormous monuments which, in turn, would bestow good fortune over the land (40).
  
  Although the Pharoahs were no doubt concerned about the fortune of the Egyptian civilization, it is unlikely that their
  primary concern was the 'common good', that is ensuring that the greatest good occurred for the greatest number of Egyptians. It is unclear whether the citizens were pleased to see their taxes spent on the pyramids. There is some belief that the conscripted workmen worked willingly as they saw the construction as a pious duty based on the religious view stated above (40) that building enormous monuments would lead to good fortune and that the citizens may have had the same view, but this is contradicted by the statement of the
  architect Nekhbebu who proudly stated that he "never struck a workman hard enough to knock him down." (41) Whatever their views though, it
  seems difficult to conclude that spending resources on the pyramids significantly reduced the quality of life of the average citizens.
  
  It seem the citizens of Egypt lived as good a lives as could have been expected at the time. Other public works projects that were necessary for the survival of the civilization were undertaken, such as irrigation projects, and other projects that enriched the civilization such as roads for travel and trade were also constructed (50). The only other major project that the resources used to build the pyramids could have been spent on were water-works such as those built by the Harappans of the Indus Valley around the same time as the pyramids (around 1800 BC) (Encyclopedia of Ancient
  Civilizations, 179) or those built by the Romans hundreds of years later (259). This theoretically would have aided the Egyptian
  civilization by improving sanitation. However, using the Roman water-works as an example, they did not seem to aid sanitation greatly. They had the problem that only the lowest level of a
  building was hooked up to the sewer system, so the Roman streets still got filthy and disease still spread (plumbingworld.com). In
  reality, the Egyptian system of a communal dump placed at irrigation canals was likely no worse for spreading disease. (plumbingworld.com)
  
  Other than that, although the lives of the Egyptians was tough, it was no worse than elsewhere. The average citizen who survived the first year had a life expectancy of around 40 years. ( According to the Greek Historian, Herodotus though "the Egyptians are from other causes also
  the most healthy of all men next after the Libyans." ( So, the lot of the common citizen did not seem to be better elsewhere. Diseases from improper
  sanitation and famine from frequent droughts were the main problems.
  ( As stated above, it's debatable whether diverting resources from the pyramids to water-
  works projects would have alleviated any of the problems, even assuming that the Egyptians were aware that better sanitation could reduce outbreaks of diseases.
  
  Evidence that the lives of the Egyptians were not that bad when they were not suffering from famines is their plentiful diet: "they grew barley and emmer wheat to make beer and bread, supplementing these staples with a wide variety of vegetables, pulses and fruits. They also fished, kept ducks and geese, drank milk and perhaps made cheese." (New Scientist)
  
  Most of the Egyptians were farmers who lived simple lives. They had all of the basic tools and furnishings in life that average people at the time living in other ancient civilizations also had: a basic bed, tools for cooking and donkeys (or other animals) to help with carrying goods and ploughing the farm
  (. Ancient Egypt had no money, taxes were a fixed amount of whatever the farmer grew
  (. Presumably, had the pyramids not been built, these taxes could have been reduced. It's likely to speculate that this would have enabled the farmers to trade for some of what the noblemen were able to buy, consumer goods like more cosmetics, jewelry... Modern 'supply side' economists would theorize from this that this expansion of consumerism would have led to more inventions that would have expanded the economy and improved the quality of life, but despite spending large resources on the pyramids, instead, Ancient Egypt still led the world in technological or scholarly advancement in many areas.
  
  Their technical and scholarly knowledge can be seen in the construction of the pyramids themselves. Although most of the building of the pyramids involved little more than labor intensive practices including quarrying the stones using simple tools, sailing them on a ship down the Nile and then placing them on rolling logs which the workers would then, according to most theories, take up a
  long earthen ramp to the pyramid (Ancient Engineers, 39), there are at least two parts of the pyramids which showed advanced knowledge.
  First, the Great Pyramid of Cheops is aligned nearly perfectly to north, south, east and west which shows a great knowledge of astronomy (Nature, 320). Other pyramids do not come quite as close, but close enough to show that this alignment is not a coincidence (321). Secondly, recent scientific studies have shown that the
  higher stones of at least some of the pyramids were not quarried at all, but were made of poured concrete .
  (
  It had previously been believed that the process of pouring concrete had not been invented until thousands of years later. Finally, the process of building the pyramids led to new knowledge as well in such areas of quarrying, shipping and moving heavy stones (Ancient Engineers, 44).
  The Egyptians were not confined to advanced knowledge as it pertained to the pyramids however. They invented writing with hieroglyphics, paper with papyrus, and smelting of metal. Most importantly for the Egyptian farmers they invented the plough right
  around the same time the first pyramid was built ( egypt-online.com/ancient-egyptian-inventions.html). It's possible to
  speculate that the plough expanded food production to the point where the Pharoahs were able to consider building the pyramids in the first place. They also made great discoveries in medicine including inventing sutures for surgery (The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, 47). The earliest list of medical remedies discovered is
  Egyptian, the Ebers Papyrius which lists 700 remedies and dates back to at least 1600 BC (48). They also made major advancements in
  math, including 'inventing' the number zero (
  online.com/ancient-egyptian-inventions.html). Clearly there is little evidence that scientific advancement was held back with
  scientists and mathematicians doing nothing but help supervise construction of the pyramids.
  
  All of these developments raise the question of what were other civilizations doing
  around the same time if they were not building pyramids but also not leaping ahead of the
  Egyptians technologically. It seems they were fighting with each other instead. Egypt had the
  natural barrier of desert on three sides which made it difficult for other countries to wage war
  against it and Egypt itself, took a defensive military posture during the period of pyramid
  building, fighting only when provoked (Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 25) . From 3100 BC to 1567 BC they started only one war, that against Palestinian tribesmen (25). So, simply put, conscripted men were used to build the pyramids rather than wage war. From this perspective: either building pyramids or waging war, it's hard to argue that Egypt did not make the better choice. Although this may seem to be a false dichotomy, it likely is not. Nearly all absolute rulers of wealthy civilizations liked to leave a legacy that
  would make them 'immortal'. This could be done either through massive public works projects or
  through waging 'great' military campaigns. So for a Pharoah, the choice was either build the
  pyramids or go to war.
  
  It is interesting and almost certainly not coincidental that the Pharoahs stopped building
  the pyramids right around the time they decided Egypt should became a military power instead
  around 1560 (28). Egypt was initially successful in its military campaigns and gained wealth as
  it expanded territorially, but within 450 years, military setbacks weakened the civilization
  greatly and it was overrun (24). This seems to be the lot of every civilization that has waged
  offensive wars: possible success initially, but ultimate ruin. In contrast, Egyptian during the
  1,000 years of pyramid building survived and for most of the time largely prospered despite the
  amount of resources spent with only one major difficult patch brought on by a long period of
  drought around 2100 BC (25).
  
  Clearly, it is hard to believe that spending vast sums of resources on pyramid
  construction did not hold back Ancient Egypt in some ways. However, a comparative
  examination of the quality of life and the scientific and technical progress of Egypt with its sister civilizations suggests that it is
  difficult to find evidence to support the view that Ancient Egypt would have prospered more without the construction of the pyramids.
  
  
  
  "Ancient Egyptian Inventions."
  
  Asimov, Isaac. Asimov's Clu'onology of Science and Discovery. New
  York: Harper Row Publishing, 1989.
  
  Cotterell, Arthur (editor). The Penguin Encyclopaedia of Ancient
  Civilizations Great Britain: Rainbird Publishing Group, 1980.
  
  Paine, Stephanie. "Why the pharaohs never smiled: life in Ancient
  Egypt was very until you needed a dentist." New Scientist July
  2,2005: 36-39
  
  Porter, Roy. The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of
  Humanity.
  U.S.A: Harper Collins Publishing Ltd, 1997.
  
  Spence, Kate. "Ancient Egyptian chronology and the astronomical
  orientation of pyramids." Nature 408 Nov 16,2000
  
  Sprague de Camp, L. The Ancient Engineers. U.S.A: Dorset Press, 1960.
  
  "The History of Plumbing in Ancient Egypt."
  
  The People of Ancient Egypt."
  
  
  
  Postscript: From readings I did after I wrote this essay, I've learned that the first 'industrial revolution' was sparked by the discovery of how to smelt iron. Iron is a plentiful metal that can easily be used to make many things. So, the short answer to the question my essay pondered but was unable to answer at the time was that if Egypt had large deposits of iron or if they could have traded their wheat for iron, they could have developed a market economy based on iron rather than building the pyamids. Without iron, they likely could not have grown their economy whether or not they built the pyramids.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 25th May 2007

  My word - u have been busy
  
  I know very little about the pyramids apart from light reading
  
  My opinion is this - what is the point of them - why do you need a grave that takes 20 years to build ? - when u r dead - dig a hole and throw u in - lol - didnt they have to bend the conqueror in half to bury him ??
  
  whatever u do instead of building a pyramid is better - metalled roads - sewers - parks fountains etc would be better -
  
  really interesting bit about the poured concrete - can u give a source i can look at ??
  
  what i have found interesting that there are recent thoughts that the labour force was not conscripted/slaves/ or forced labour but volunteers - well paid labourers and highly paid crafstmen who lived in well equipped villages (bit like the chunnel workers)
  
  it seems like a good job to get into - you are gauranteed a looooooooong career lol
  
  

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Saturday, 26th May 2007

  Building the pyramids must have been a big event in Ancient Egypt.
  
  So why didn't the Egyptians write down more about it.
  
  They had a complete writing system.
  
  Yet they don't seem to have left any written records about how and why they built the pyramids.
  
  Or perhaps they did, but the writings haven't survived?
  
  But they wrote on papyrus, with good ink, and the hot Egyptian climate tends to preserve old manuscripts from rotting away due to damp.
  
  So why haven't archaeologists found any writings by the Egyptians, describing pyramid-building?
  
  

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 26th May 2007

  probably a bit like the building of the Millenium Dome lol

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by gerda (U8464279) on Saturday, 26th May 2007

  Sat, 26 May 2007 20:53 GMT, in reply to AdamTo in message 1
  
  who says an economy has to grow? 4000 years is stable! the pyramids used up excess wealth. as you pointed out, the usual way of doing it is through war, but that is very unstable (not to mention macho, and ancient egypt was very woman and home-centred). see Orwell's '1984' for idea of 'perpetual war'.
  also, re. night soil; what better way of using the nutrients than to put it straight back into the soil via the irrigation canals? sewage systems are incredibly wasteful, and putting that much nutrient into the river would have caused eutrophication and killed the delta ecosystem!
  

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 26th May 2007

  Erm, how do you work out that Ancient Egypt was a matriarchal society? I mean the only known female ruler of Egypt had her name stricken form the records by her successors and as such there is nothing to suggest that there was any less emphasis on military organistion.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 27th May 2007

  The 'poured concrete' theory is also not as 'solid' (pardon the pun) as you infer. It's a bit like using Thor Heyerdahl as a primary source for analysing Pacific migrations.
  
  I assume that 'critical thinking' should also differentiate between what is theoretically plausible (labour force conscription), pure theory (pyramid function), factual error (Egyptian matriarchy) and established fact (Egyptian pyramids exist)? Giving equal weight to all of them when citing data as relevant sounds very uncritical to me and can only invalidate whatever conclusion you arrive at.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by AdamTo (U8309140) on Sunday, 27th May 2007

  1.I never mentioned matriarchy.
  
  2.On the 'poured concrete' theory. Chemical tests show different structures between the cut blocks and the poured ones and the structures are consistent with pouring. At least, that's what the people who made the discovery are saying. I suppose repeated tests by non directly involved scientists will confirm or deny this theory.
  
  3.You are correct that the theory behind why the pyramids were built is just a theory, but it is a theory built on evidence that is based on what is known about beliefs in Egypt regarding Pharoahs, Gods and the afterlife and is 'most likely' the correct theory.
  
  It's impossible in a short essay to state distinctions between all types of evidence. First, it would take too long and secondly, it would send the essay off into all different types of directions weighing evidence on all different sorts of things rather than sticking to the thesis of the essay. Had this been a history essay I would have used the Chicago style and it would have been appropriate to add comments like those into the footnotes.
  
  4.The theory mentioned in the essay that is the most incredible, yet regarded as the most plausible, is the ramp theory.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by AdamTo (U8309140) on Sunday, 27th May 2007

  "and putting that much nutrient into the river would have caused eutrophication and killed the delta ecosystem!"
  
  Thanks, I did not know that.
  
  Clearly though sanitation was a problem in Ancient Egypt and doing something to alleviate that would have been a better use of resources than building the pyramids. I don't know if they had the technology at the time to do anything about it, though.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 27th May 2007

  Sounds like 'critical thinking' - if it's not contingent on building a thesis on verifiable data - is a lot easier than history so. Any vacancies left on that course of yours?
  
  Best of luck with your future studies!

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 27th May 2007

  How old are you?
  
  It's difficult to claim they are a waste of resources when their manufacture and reason have not been firmly established.
  
  Whether or not they would constitute a waste as tombs is really independent of the specific uses for which the resources might have been otherwise employed.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Monday, 28th May 2007

  This thread sort of reminds me of the old TV ad "For mash, get smash." For the ancient Egyptian rulers, these buildings were obviously important, perhaps for astronomical or religious reasons, but almost definitely as status symbols of the power of a pharaoh or Egypt. Let's face it, they're still impressive today.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th May 2007

  Anything that cannot feed you, provide you with more power, or offer you good sex is a pure loss of time.
  
  Pyramids enlist in that category of buildings but so do 1000s of other buildings as well as other human actions on earth.
  
  It is not a privilege of human beings to do useless things, animals tend to do such things also.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007

  Then there's the theory that the kings were entrusted with maintaining maat, cosmic order. So for the people of Egypt spending time building the pyramids could be seen a a kinda sacred tax and as it kept the king in his position of power and thus able to maintain maat. As such it could be argued that it was beneficial to both parties.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007

  This is essentially a critical thinking essay, so its premise is if the Pyramids were a waste of resources, and attempts to answer that question.
  
  Firstly i would have expected a function of the pyramids to be established and then a evauluation of if they achive that functionilty.
  
  Essientially you went with they were burial chambers for God kings, a function they achived, but did not go into if such a function was materialy cost effective, but since the one wanting it put almost no limit on the cost of it, its fair to assume material cost was outweighed by spirtual imperatives.
  
  you made refernces to unemployed Egyptians being conscripted, now if they are going to starve or be employed in a Cheops work programe and fed by him, how is this a waste of resources?, you would need to sho other more benifical projects that were required and that they were more important to the Cheops, who was after all a living God who did what he wanted because thats what living Gods tend to do....
  
  

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007

  "My opinion is this - what is the point of them - why do you need a grave that takes 20 years to build ? - when u r dead - dig a hole and throw u in - lol - didnt they have to bend the conqueror in half to bury him ??"
  
  Indeed! When I'm dead, they can burn my body and flush it down the toilet for all I care. But then again, I'm not a living god. I do not make the sun come up in the morning. I do not make the river Nile flood on a regular and predictable basis. I am not the source of all the essential things necessary to make life in Egypt possible. Maybe someone who can do that is worth the money?
  
  But more seriously...
  The concrete idea has been suggested based on the crystalization patterns within the stones, these are entirely consistent with those of material like concreter which sets with irregular heat distributions. They are not consistent with >known< mechanisms for naturally forming granite. It is possible that conditions were such that some mechanism does cause natural stone to have the same structure, but we just don't know of it.
  
  I thought the latest thinking of the professional builders was that they intermittantly used masses of unskilled labour to do things like haul blocks?
  
  Anyway, worth the cash? certainly - an excellent investment in a fledgling tourism industry which now reaps millions of dollars per year.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007

  cloudyj
  
  
  INDEED - THE BUIDING OF THE PYRAMIDS was an investment in the tourist trade 2000 years later lol
  
  yes the latest thinking is that thousands of unskilled labourers took part in the building - BUT they were all volunteers which is different to what we all learnt as kids
  
  st
  

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 1st June 2007

  On the theory that the Egyptians used concrete, the haed of the pyramids archaeology unit (Dr something or other) is particulary dismissive of this. He pointed out that concrete was used in modern restoration work. he also pointed out that the researchers who proposed this had no permission to take samples, so was bemused as to how they came by their samples.
  
  On why the pyramids were built, I suspect that they were also a unifying project. Less risky than war and had the nice side effect of glorifying the pharoahs.

  Link to this forum: Were the Egyptian Pyramids a waste of resources?

  Report message18

Back to top