Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Pyramid Builders
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 12th January 2010
I see they are trying to claim that the presence of tombs for the workers who built the pyramids, being so close to the pharoah's tomb, proves that the workers were free and not slaves. Well, I think that is pretty thin evidence. On the other hand, I suppose that the very fact that the workers had proper graves, may indicate freedom, since I suppose that most slaves would simply have been discarded, once dead.
-
Message 2
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 12th January 2010
Doesn't it add to other evidence such as the recently excavated workers' villages. These show a degree of luxury which is unexpected for slaves.
-
Message 3
Posted by rooster (U14062359) on Tuesday, 12th January 2010
Hmm, It is now believed that not too many slaves were actually used in pyramid construction.
In certain slack periods of the year,farmers from all over Egypt were obliged to help, or at least provide some of their staff when required to. I suppose that some of these workers must have died carrying out their labours, and would almost certainly have been afforded a decent burial.
We also now believe that the lot of the labourers used was not as harsh as was first thought. There is considerable evidence that they were well fed, entertained, and made to feel comfortable in their temporary homes. -
Message 4
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010
Aaaaaah!
Those were not hieroglyphics, they were just slow playstation games. . . -
Message 5
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010
There is considerable evidence that they were well fed, entertained, and made to feel comfortable in their temporary homes. Β
Please show me this considerable evidence. -
Message 6
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010
Please show me this considerable evidence.Β
It's mentioned in the National Geographic article I linked above.
And in this article from the Independent
"One of the most intruiging announcements from the research team was the discovery of evidence that revealed that the families in the Delta and Upper Egypt sent 21 buffalo and 23 sheep to the plateau every day to feed the workers."
Though that doesn't sound too much for 20,000 or so permanent workers. But it is compared to a largely vegetarian diet of the average peasant.
There's also evidence that they received effective medical treatment.
To flip the question around: Is there any evidence they were slaves other than a Hebrew migration myth? -
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010
"...21 buffalo and 23 sheep to the plateau every day to feed the workers."Β
To put that into context, a modern buffalo is about 400 pounds of meat and a sheep 25-65. That'd give each pyramid builder about 1/2 pound of meat each day (not far off modern recommended protein intake).
By contrast the navvies of Georgian England typically ate 2 pounds of beef every day - though they were famed for the amount of labour they could do. An experienced navvy could shift four times the amount of earth as a newly recruited labourer. -
Message 8
Posted by rooster (U14062359) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010
Yes cloudy, to keep the workers focused on the tasks ahead, they would have to have been reasonably fed. Also, the discovery of gaming boards, dice and simple toys during recent excavations, point to the workers being given "time off" now and again for relaxation.
I can't believe that these magnificent structures were built using just weak and under-nourished slaves. -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010
Though I do not believe the "built by slaves" theory all that is indeed thin evidence as the "slave" title does not mean much more than the naive definition of christians which dates much later. If we are to include all nuances of slavery there are really a lot of sorts of slavery and many of them have nothing to do with harsh life and isolation fro "masters" or something.
Nontheless, I cannot understand why anyone would jump on the slave theory. Slave hands were not that much cheaper than free hands for the very simple reason that a non-motivated man will make less than 50% of the job a motivated man will make for a given amount of food. Even if you had more slaves and given less food to reduce costs, the project would take longer and the quality of work would be dubious. What is certain is that the absorption of an important number of free workers in these... pharaonic... projects means that we should rather search the slaves there were the absence of the workers was felt, thus in the fields or in transportation, but not around the pyramids were skilled motivated people were more critical. -
Message 10
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010
what !!! lol
slaves are far more expensive !!!!
they are a financial asset - they are yours
if they die - u lose an asset - they have to be fed and looked after
employed labour are cheaper - if they die u dont lose anything
they are paid to do something - if they dont - they arent paid
st -
Message 11
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
Hi fascinating,
Wouldn't logic suggest that both kinds of labour were used simultaneously? The construction of a pyramid would have been an enormous undertaking, one where every spare pair of hands were needed, both slave and free men alike. -
Message 12
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
islandawn
you are definitely correct there
surely no slave would be skilled enough to shape blocks and do the skilled bits
and u wouldnt want to pay someone to haul blocks uphill for 20 years
what always make me laugh is that the pharoah has to sit there and watch his burial site being prepared
st -
Message 13
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 18th January 2010
The Romans used Greek 'Slaves' to educate their kids, as they were more educated than the Romans. A 'slave' could be any 'prisoner of war', so they might have had as great a range of knowledge / skills as any of the 'bosses'.
And remeber, it was the Pharaoh who ordered this to be done - he was watching the building of his 'guarantee of immortality', not his grave! -
Message 14
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
Hello fascinating,
I seem to recall that contracts have been saved from the time that the pyramids were built that were probably the first collective bargaining agreements in history. From these it is clear that the pyramid builders were labourers, not slaves. Has anyone more information about this subject?
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 15
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 26th February 2010
No. There's virtually nothing at all that survives from the age of the great pyramid builders.
-
Message 16
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Saturday, 27th February 2010
You might be thinking of some of what's on the Palermo Styone that touches on the labor needs and which laborers are to be reassigned at the Menkaure's pyramid. It is not mentioned by name and might actually refer to one of the "queens pyramids" south of G3. This writing actually dates from long after the great pyramids were built but is believed to be a copy of much older work.
I find it interesting that they still haven't come up with a tomb of the ramp builders or tomb of the overseers of ramp builders. There's no evidence whatsoever for ramps having been used; not even so much as a Goddess of ramps in all these tombs.
What there is is a statue of the overseer of the boats of Neith. One might get the idea that the evidence is quite conclusive that counterweights called "boats" were used to build the great pyramids. These counterweights were probably filled with water and Pyramid Texts might have been quite accurate where they repeatedly claim that the pyramids were built by the Gods. -
Message 17
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 28th February 2010
In a hot and arid climate, the sensible choice of a material to fill counterweights with is sand, not water. Sand doesn't evaporate, and it is a lot easier and cheaper to construct something that will retain sand, than to make a watertight structure. And dry sand will still flow conveniently.
Boats would have been essential to the builders. While much of the stone came from local quarries, all other bulky or heavy supplies must have been ferried in by boat.
People have been searching a long time for the single "method" that the ancient Egyptians used to construct pyramids. But it is far more logical to assume that the builders knew a number of techniques, as well as the condition under which they were the most suitable, and pragmatically combined them. -
Message 18
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 28th February 2010
[quote]"In a hot and arid climate, the sensible choice of a material to fill counterweights with is sand, not water. Sand doesn't evaporate, and it is a lot easier and cheaper to construct something that will retain sand, than to make a watertight structure. And dry sand will still flow conveniently."[/quote]
I think you're obviously correct that sand would be the obvious choice in a desert but it seems less certain that the builders were dealing with desert conditions.
There's ample evidence that they had water on the plateau. It appears they leveled the base with water. There is a sewer in the workmen's village. There is water erosion in man made passages under Giza. There is a water collection system surrounding G1 and evidence that it was used to deliver water to counterweights on the northern cliff face. These counterweights probably pulled up stone from the Sphinx quarry 300' at a time just as Manetho said. These canals leading to the cliff face even have water erosion in them. They are far too small for drainage and far too large for other purposes. Indeed, this idea is consistent with most of the ancient writers. G1 appears to be a five step pyramid and it was "boats" (of Neith) made of short pieces of wood that could easily be moved from step to step and be the machines which pulled the stones up 80' at a time.
[quote]"People have been searching a long time for the single "method" that the ancient Egyptians used to construct pyramids. But it is far more logical to assume that the builders knew a number of techniques, as well as the condition under which they were the most suitable, and pragmatically combined them."[/quote]
I believe people have been overthinking this for far too long. The builders likely did use multiple means of lifting but this serves more to stop thought on the subject than to answer the question of how they lifted the stones to build the pyramids. One thing is pretty certain and that is they had a very robust means of lifting these stones. They are huge which proves the points yet still the job entailed lifting 2 1/2 million of them. This suggests that stones were lifted several at a time. In order to maintain the necessary pace they also used multiple counterweights. With many stones flying straight up the side of the pyramid production rates could be maintained. The Pyramid Texts seem to confirm this notion and the notion that they had water. They suggest that there was a natural process that lifted water to the []b[]w (80') and this process was named Osiris.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.