Egypt tombs suggest pyramids not built by slaves

[Rumo]

Now, interestingly, to a Greek if there was an absolute ruler, who must be obeyed in all things by his people, then those people could not be 'eleuthroi' - free people, and must be 'douloi' = slaves, by definition. Thus Herodotus tells us frequently that the subjects of the Great King of Persia, were his 'slaves' e.g. of Persians ; "ou tinos douloi keklêntai".
This way of thinking was also followed by most Greek writers, such as Xenophon or Aristotle - subjects of The Great King ( or any other absolute ruler) were automatically 'douloi'/slaves .

To Herodotus then, the workers who built the pyramids, on the command of Pharoah, as described by the priests were, by definition 'douloi/slaves', and Greek readers would have understood this to be so, without the use of a word for 'slaves'. Subsequent generations of readers would have understood that this was so, hence it may be said the 'myth' originated with Herodotus.

Herodotus did not write 'slaves' but 'Egyptians' (?????????) and 'men' (????????). Some of his readers might consider those workers slaves, perhaps only like the slaves, yet I want to understand what Herodotus tried to say. It's good to know how the text can possibly be read by others but it should be part of a separate study, not embedded in the translation.

However this interpretation is more problematic than that.
For instance in VII.1.3 we find the Egyptians enslaved (???????????) by Persians. But transferring a slave from one master to another is not enslavement, is it?
And how to read then III.14.3 where we learn of a king's daughter and other girls dressed as the slaves (???????)? Doesn't Herodotus acknowledge indirectly there were slaves and non-slaves in Egypt, so that one could be dressed as a slave and be humiliated in this way?

Here is a simple example: 'Doru' in Greek originally meant a tree, or stem, or branch; then came to be used of a mast ; then generally of ship's beams, or planks; then of a shaft generally; then a spear-shaft and finally could be used to mean a 'great spear' itself ( as opposed to shorter lighter spears).
Thus when in historical accounts we see 'doru' we don't literally translate it : 'tree,stem, shaft', but instead use a word which more accurately conveys the meaning - 'Spear'.

Thus, often, it is not merely 'spin' by a translator to add something, but an effort to better convey the exact meaning..... 8)

However, as you pointed out, 'doru' meant also 'spear'. In this example is about choosing one of several existing meanings, not adding a new meaning which the original word didn't have.

We must now examine the etymology to reach better understanding.
In English, the word slave first appears around 1290, spelled 'sclave'. The spelling is based on Old French 'esclave' from Medieval Latin 'sclavus', "Slav, slave," first recorded around 800 AD. 'Sclavus' in turn comes from Byzantine Greek 'sklabos' (pronounced sklävs) "Slav," which appears around 580 AD. 'Sklavos' approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the 'Slovnci', surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian.

Though slightly off-topic, I'd like to add some comments here.

The first name we have for these tribes ('Slavic' as the tradition has them) is 'Sklavinoi' (Procopius et al). It's the History of Agathias where we find the first occurence of the short form 'Sklavoi'. However Agathias lived for a good part of his life in Constantinople and most of his information came from other Roman/Byzantine written sources (with some exceptions, like the raid of the Cutrigurs upon the city in 558-9 which he probably witnessed or at least he knew some eyewitnesses). 'Sklavoi' are also mentioned by John Malalas, whose Chronographia is assumed to rely also on a now lost Constantinopolitan chronicle.
In a late 6th century poem by Martin of Braga we find 'Sclavus' in a list of gentes. As Martin made a pilgrimage to Holy Land and the usual route went through Constantinople (see, for instance, Itinerarium Burdigalense), it may be the case that Martin's knowledge of 'Sclavi' was also shaped by Constantinopolitan (written or oral) sources.

Therefore I dare to believe the short form 'Sklavos'/'Sclavus' might not be genuine ('Slavic'), but born in Greek/Constantinopolitan milieu, perhaps the result of a folk etymology through back-formation (-????, cf. lat. -enus, is a derivative suffix).