Egypt tombs suggest pyramids not built by slaves

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:

In fact, the correct answer is "No", it is not the word that Herodotus uses here, despite Paul's desperate rearguard action.

...it is NOT, and never has been, in dispute that Herodotus did NOT use the word 'slaves/douloi' on this occasion....the question rather is whether Herodotus, his readers, and the Greek world in general would have regarded what the Egyptian priests told H. as indicating that the 'pyramid builders' were the 'slaves' of Cheops.

The answer to this is a resounding "Yes!", and the words of Plato support this, and demonstrate this attitude which is fully expounded in Greek notions of "freedom", which can be found in texts such as that of Kurt Raaflaub which I referred to earlier......

The case is indeed closed, for the 'pyramid builders' were not 'slaves' as we understand the term, because they were not the chattels of Cheops and could not be bought and sold, but to Herodotus and his fellow Greeks they were indeed 'slaves' by definition, and it is because of this that Herodotus and his readers/fellow Greeks may be regarded as the origin of the 'myth' that the 'pyramid builders' were slaves....

Rumo wrote:

Were the Spartan helots slaves or not?

...although it is a digression, I have already dealt with this question....technically they were neither slave nor free, as Greeks recognised. In modern terminology they were 'state serfs', tied to the land ( cleros/estate) and compelled to give a set portion of their produce to their Lord, with few rights and freedoms, but able to accumulate their own wealth. They were not 'owned' by individuals, and could only be 'freed' from being bound to a particular 'cleros' by the state itself.......

Nor is this idea an 'Everest' type fallacy for, as far as we can tell, the idea of 'freedom' and 'slavery' was not unique to Herodotus and perhaps one or two other writers, but rather general across the Greek world ( see e.g. Raaflaub)....

[Robert Vermaat]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, to the Egyptians the pyramid workers were not slaves, but to the later Greeks they seemed unfree, and us silly Europeans, much later reading the Greek sources but misunderstanding them, went on to fully misrepresent the pyramid workers as pure slaves, maybe even in a wish to see in them the enslaved proto-Jews that Moses had to free?

[Rumo]

...although it is a digression, I have already dealt with this question....technically they were neither slave nor free, as Greeks recognised. In modern terminology they were 'state serfs', tied to the land ( cleros/estate) and compelled to give a set portion of their produce to their Lord, with few rights and freedoms, but able to accumulate their own wealth. They were not 'owned' by individuals, and could only be 'freed' from being bound to a particular 'cleros' by the state itself.......

I do not debate however the modern interpretations but how the ancient Greeks perceived such things, the bone of contention are the views of Herodotus. Was there in ancient Greek world an universal view defining (you have maintained the leitmotif "by definition") the free-men and the slaves, a view concerning all humans and societies, so that we can safely substitute Herodotus' Egyptian men with 'slaves'?

I already quoted Pollux for the status of helots "between free-men and slaves", and as I have already mentioned, for some other Greek authors they were nevertheless slaves. A good example you can find in Plutarch's Lycurgus, XXVIII.4-5, in which the helot (a slave) is more a slave (??????? ??????) in Sparta than anywhere else. Consequently it appears there're no absolute "Greek concepts" of freedom and slavery held by all "5C and onward Greeks" as you suggested. The same people from the same society and even having the same social status looked more or less slaves to different authors, writing from different perspectives. Such perspectives were conditioned by the epoch and culture of the latter (which could have local particularities other than being simply "Greek"), but also by their own thinking.

Nor is this idea an 'Everest' type fallacy for, as far as we can tell, the idea of 'freedom' and 'slavery' was not unique to Herodotus and perhaps one or two other writers, but rather general across the Greek world ( see e.g. Raaflaub)....

This argument is circular - to prove Herodotus held such ideas about the Egyptian people, one can't rely on his testimony. However you referred to Plato and "perhaps one or two other writers" (did I miss something?). Plato's work in particular is mostly political philosophy, so the claim "Plato is here displaying the same attitude of 5 C and onward Greeks" is what this fallacy is about. Can one prove the other Greeks (and also Herodotus) were constantly musing on the perfect democracy :lol: , or generally were thinking like a 5th century Athenian, like a disciple of Socrates or even like Plato himself? "Greeks" is an umbrella term covering some millions of people. Perhaps you'd have a better chance to argue there was a literary tradition, but in this case I'd expect to read about the sources of Herodotus and how they shaped Herodotus' own understanding, or at least redaction of this passage.

[Paullus Scipio]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, to the Egyptians the pyramid workers were not slaves, but to the later Greeks they seemed unfree, and us silly Europeans, much later reading the Greek sources but misunderstanding them, went on to fully misrepresent the pyramid workers as pure slaves, maybe even in a wish to see in them the enslaved proto-Jews that Moses had to free?

....Yup! D lol: :lol:

[D B Campbell]

... but to the later Greeks they seemed unfree ...

....Yup! D lol: :lol:

How do we know this? :?

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm afraid I'm with Paul on this one. The text is short but although it may not be spelled out that slavery was meant, I think that the intention of Herodotus was indeed to describe a situation in which the Egyptions were compelled to do work (paid or not) and that they were not free to choose.
Whether the text actually says 'slaves' or not is not the issue, it's clear (to me at least) what point Herodotus intends to make, which is that Kufu was not a nice king (how can a mortal who closes the temples to prevent his subjects from sacrificing - to any ancient a deed necessary to live, be any good?), but one who compelled his subjects to do labours.

OK, we know that Herodotus was wrong, but we're not discussing that. Herodotus wrote a history with wrong facts, but he was believed and often copied. His text formed the basis of our knowledge of anciet Egypt before we learned to read hieroglyphss. So our (wrong) knowledge about the building of the pyramids is almost certainly due to Herodotus' (wrong) knowledge of the facts.

I mean - Herodotus claimed that the top of the pyramid was completed first, and the floor parts the last! :?: :?: :?:

[Paullus Scipio]

The original subject, I would suggest, has rather neatly been summed up by Vortigern Studies, and we have digressed widely onto subjects such as whether translations should be 'free' or 'literal' - the real answer to which is :-
"It depends!" on a variety of factors such as the author/translator's purpose, the audience aimed at, etc. We have also briefly touched upon the complex subject of Greek concepts of slavery and freedom - which, as with any complex subject, are varied and many, but which have a 'common thread', rather than a single 'universal view'.

I do not debate however the modern interpretations but how the ancient Greeks perceived such things, the bone of contention are the views of Herodotus. Was there in ancient Greek world an universal view defining (you have maintained the leitmotif "by definition") the free-men and the slaves, a view concerning all humans and societies, so that we can safely substitute Herodotus' Egyptian men with 'slaves'?

The question of whether to 'substitute' a word is to ask the wrong question, for it pre-suppose that we are dealing purely with 'literal' translation. That Herodotus regarded the 'pyramid builders' as 'slaves/douloi' there can be little doubt, nor that his readers would have understod this to be so without using the actual word. How does a translator convey this to a modern audience? This is where a 'free' translation better conveys meaning than a 'literal' one.....
The views of Herodotus are clear - men who are subject to the whims of Absolute Rulers, are not 'free men/eleutheroi', but 'slaves/douloi' - I have already quoted examples in respect of Persians as 'slaves' to the Great King. For more information see Raaflaub (referred to earlier), or "Slaves,Warfare and ideology in the Greek Historians" Peter Hunt, and others on the subject...a major theme of Herodotus' account is to contrast the "freedom" of the Greeks against the "slavery" of the Great King's subjects, to the point that he often tells us little of Greek slaves participation in battles ( which would muddy his theme). His attitude as to what constituted a 'free man' and a 'slave' is transparent, even if he turns into 'black-and-white' what is manifestly an infinite number of shades of grey......
Nor is this attitude confined to one or two writers, as I said earlier, but rather percolates virtually all our surviving literature, so much so that hundreds of years later, Alexander's opportunistic attack on Persia can be portrayed as a 'crusade' of Greek 'freedom' against Persian 'slavery' ( for example, Isocrates and Aristotle
both decried attacks by 'Barbarians' such as the Persians on 'free men' such as the Greeks, but Aristotle for example, told his pupil Alexander that it was 'just' to attack 'Barbarians', who were after all, mere 'slaves' and should be treated as such..... It was also the concept that only 'slaves' of an Absolute Ruler, not 'free men', performed 'proskynesis/prostration' that caused so much resistance to Alexander's wish to introduce the custom....)

I already quoted Pollux for the status of helots "between free-men and slaves", and as I have already mentioned, for some other Greek authors they were nevertheless slaves. A good example you can find in Plutarch's Lycurgus, XXVIII.4-5, in which the helot (a slave) is more a slave (??????? ??????) in Sparta than anywhere else. Consequently it appears there're no absolute "Greek concepts" of freedom and slavery held by all "5C and onward Greeks" as you suggested. The same people from the same society and even having the same social status looked more or less slaves to different authors, writing from different perspectives. Such perspectives were conditioned by the epoch and culture of the latter (which could have local particularities other than being simply "Greek"), but also by their own thinking.

I do not see how you can interpret this passage in that way. The Thebans 'capture' some 'Helots' - who therefore must have been serving against them. They are ordered to sing Spartan songs for the entertainment of their Theban captors. Presumably out of loyalty to their Spartan Lords, they refuse to do so, and are then jeered at by the Thebans who say: "In Sparta the free man is more free than anywhere else, and the slave more a slave." - they are deliberately insulting them, out of frustration, because they continue to obey their former masters rather than their current ones. Remember that their capture means their status has worsened from 'Helot/serf' to 'Andropon/war-captive slave'...and the Thebans are saying their status is even worse than 'slave/douloi'.

Such a passage does tell us something about the differences between 'Helot', 'Andropon' and 'Douloi' , but nothing at all about general concepts, and certainly does not demonstrate what you suggest about Plutarch's attitudes ( a Boeotian living in Roman times), or diverse attitudes among 4 C Greeks of different 'poleis/city states'.

"Nor is this idea an 'Everest' type fallacy for, as far as we can tell, the idea of 'freedom' and 'slavery' was not unique to Herodotus and perhaps one or two other writers, but rather general across the Greek world ( see e.g. Raaflaub)...."

This argument is circular - to prove Herodotus held such ideas about the Egyptian people, one can't rely on his testimony. However you referred to Plato and "perhaps one or two other writers" (did I miss something?). Plato's work in particular is mostly political philosophy, so the claim "Plato is here displaying the same attitude of 5 C and onward Greeks" is what this fallacy is about. Can one prove the other Greeks (and also Herodotus) were constantly musing on the perfect democracy :lol: , or generally were thinking like a 5th century Athenian, like a disciple of Socrates or even like Plato himself? "Greeks" is an umbrella term covering some millions of people. Perhaps you'd have a better chance to argue there was a literary tradition, but in this case I'd expect to read about the sources of Herodotus and how they shaped Herodotus' own understanding, or at least redaction of this passage.

Yes, you did miss something ! I was saying that such ideas were NOT confined to H. and 'perhaps on or two other writers', but rather percolate most, if not all, surviving Greek literature of this era. As but one near contemporary example, consider these lines from Aeschylus' "Persians", speaking of the Athenians:
Atossa: What monarch reigns, whose power commands their ranks?

Leader: Slaves to no lord, they own no kingly power.

You are right that one cannot speak for every Greek of that era - an absurd notion, and a 'red herring' - but we can speak for what has come down to us, and in this instance of Herodotus' attitude to the pyramid builders, we are certainly not concerned with every Greek individual's notion of 'freedom' and 'slavery', but rather that of Herodotus and his contemporary readers, and perhaps other writers of the era. If you want to read more of how H.'s themes and attitudes and how they were influenced, read the texts I have suggested.....

[Sean Manning]

I'm afraid I'm with Paul on this one. The text is short but although it may not be spelled out that slavery was meant, I think that the intention of Herodotus was indeed to describe a situation in which the Egyptions were compelled to do work (paid or not) and that they were not free to choose.

I don't think anyone is disputing that though. The question seems to be whether Herodotus believed they were slaves. I think he would have called a subject of Khufu a doulos, but if pressed would have agreed that he didn't mean a doulos in precisely the same sense as a worker in an Attic silver mine or a Hellene in a city controlled by foreigners.

[Paullus Scipio]

Sean wrote:

I think he would have called a subject of Khufu a doulos, but if pressed would have agreed that he didn't mean a doulos in precisely the same sense as a worker in an Attic silver mine or a Hellene in a city controlled by foreigners.

....indeed, as I mentioned earlier in the thread there were many degrees/types of ( and words for) 'slave' in Ancient Greece - and the ancient world generally for that matter....

[Rumo]

The text is short but although it may not be spelled out that slavery was meant, I think that the intention of Herodotus was indeed to describe a situation in which the Egyptions were compelled to do work (paid or not) and that they were not free to choose.
Whether the text actually says 'slaves' or not is not the issue, it's clear (to me at least) what point Herodotus intends to make, which is that Kufu was not a nice king (how can a mortal who closes the temples to prevent his subjects from sacrificing - to any ancient a deed necessary to live, be any good?), but one who compelled his subjects to do labours.

As Sean already pointed out, this is not under dispute.

When reading this passage, not only that the nouns for 'slaves' are missing, the entire wording also supports Duncan's translation and some more famous others (H. Cary 1848, Macaulay 1890, Godley 1920 etc.). For instance, ?????? means urge, request, order, bid, etc, what verb is a better fit then, compel (as you put it) or enslave (De Selincourt added "as slaves" even though such emphasis is missing from the original)? Moreover this is not the only passage about Egyptians, nor the only one about their despotic rulers, so why can't we find an instance of Egyptians being slaves of their own Pharaohs if this is indeed what Herodotus thought and meant?

Everyone can interpret this text as (s)he wants, but it well may be that the myth of slaves building pyramids was rather in the minds of some readers of Herodotus like De Selincourt and Paul. But why blame the author and not the readers? Herodotus may be wrong and prejudiced about many things, it doesn't mean he is wrong and prejudiced about everything. Certainly he's not the only one with prejudices, the modern scholars had and still have many preconceptions (and also I have, nil humani a me alienum puto). Such judgements on Herodotus ironically perpetuate Herodotus' own mistakes, creating an antinomic Other to get a better image of ourselves. Something like (if you allow me the hyperbole): we're so smart and if weren't for that deceiving Ionian moron we wouldn't have believed the slaves built the pyramids! It's not our fault, it's his! 8)

I think he would have called a subject of Khufu a doulos, but if pressed would have agreed that he didn't mean a doulos in precisely the same sense as a worker in an Attic silver mine or a Hellene in a city controlled by foreigners.

I'd rather say he could have called a subject of Khufu a slave, but as well he could have called a Greek citizen a slave to mock him for being coward, soft, for doing too much what others ask him to do etc. This is also what I suggested earlier (perhaps I was too shy and too elliptic), and I will also maintain this possibility in my next replies to Paul. But this is metaphor, this is insult. If anyone suggests to understand II.124 like that, I'm ready to read his/her analysis.

[Rumo]

The question of whether to 'substitute' a word is to ask the wrong question, for it pre-suppose that we are dealing purely with 'literal' translation. That Herodotus regarded the 'pyramid builders' as 'slaves/douloi' there can be little doubt, nor that his readers would have understod this to be so without using the actual word. How does a translator convey this to a modern audience? This is where a 'free' translation better conveys meaning than a 'literal' one.....

There's much doubt on what Herodotus meant and our debate here is evidence enough. But then there are the numerous translations and understandings of Herodotus (not along ago you raised a question for those with a "better knowledge of Greek"). Their disagreements should feed our doubts. I find Descartes a wise man. :wink:

However I already objected to your 'free translation' ('free' is also replacing 'men' with 'eggs', 'spoons' or 'orcs') and the philological arguments I asked for are still missing. Therefore I stand by my position, we have here a substitution which still awaits for a justification.

The views of Herodotus are clear - men who are subject to the whims of Absolute Rulers, are not 'free men/eleutheroi', but 'slaves/douloi' - I have already quoted examples in respect of Persians as 'slaves' to the Great King.

Same Everest fallacy. To prove your point you must quote Herodotus making that statement.

For more information see Raaflaub (referred to earlier), or "Slaves,Warfare and ideology in the Greek Historians" Peter Hunt, and others on the subject...a major theme of Herodotus' account is to contrast the "freedom" of the Greeks against the "slavery" of the Great King's subjects, to the point that he often tells us little of Greek slaves participation in battles ( which would muddy his theme). His attitude as to what constituted a 'free man' and a 'slave' is transparent, even if he turns into 'black-and-white' what is manifestly an infinite number of shades of grey......

Regarding these two books mentioned by you, I've read Hunt's but not Raaflaub's. I'll refrain to comment on the latter even though it is available in fragments on Google Books, as I prefer a full reading of it.

I do not understand however how Hunt's book proves your case, a book often focusing on a metaphorical slavishness associated with military ineptitude, weakness and cowardice. Hunt does not even make a point on the "types of slaves" postulated by you, his concern is whether the term is used in the proper sense or the metaphorical one. "Herodotus was aware that Persian subjects were not really slaves" (p. 49) observes Hunt and then adduces VIII.118-9 as evidence for his statement. Herodotus did not use "definitions", apparently he depicted some people to be slaves in order to make a point. That he doesn't call Egyptians that way it may mean something, too. Obviously enough, for a "slave" metaphor to exist, the passage in question must have adequate wording, with explicit or at least suggestive terms. Whenever Hunt turns to primary sources on slaves and slavery, it is about passages having terms almost always referring explicitely to slaves or slavery.

Let's check also this Persian slavishness (in particular of their army). Hunt finds several symptoms: despotic rule, king as a slave-master "exercises his power over people's bodies, marking them as he will, in the first place with the whip", nobles being killed at the whims of the king, military weakness. If we attempt to build an analogy with the harsh rule of Kheops, except first ingredient all others are missing! Herodotus mentioned indeed Egypt being conquered few times, but not in the times of these pyramid-building tyrants. There's no obvious connection between the workers of Kheops and the later Egypt being conquered by Ethiopians, Persians or anyone else. Herodotus shows no signs he intends to mock the Egyptians by 'enslaving' them to their own rulers.

I do not see how you can interpret this passage in that way. The Thebans 'capture' some 'Helots' - who therefore must have been serving against them. They are ordered to sing Spartan songs for the entertainment of their Theban captors. Presumably out of loyalty to their Spartan Lords, they refuse to do so, and are then jeered at by the Thebans who say: "In Sparta the free man is more free than anywhere else, and the slave more a slave." - they are deliberately insulting them, out of frustration, because they continue to obey their former masters rather than their current ones. Remember that their capture means their status has worsened from 'Helot/serf' to 'Andropon/war-captive slave'...and the Thebans are saying their status is even worse than 'slave/douloi'.

Such a passage does tell us something about the differences between 'Helot', 'Andropon' and 'Douloi' , but nothing at all about general concepts, and certainly does not demonstrate what you suggest about Plutarch's attitudes ( a Boeotian living in Roman times), or diverse attitudes among 4 C Greeks of different 'poleis/city states'.

Your assessment is incorrect. First and foremost you haven't read attentively the text. It's not the Thebans who say it, it's a saying (????????) known to some Greeks (the participle is in plural but also Plutarch wrote for an audience), as such it's no deliberate insult coming from masters (Thebans) to slaves (captive Spartan Helots), it's merely an outside view on Spartan society. To Plutarch that Helots refused to sing is what makes the saying true. Perhaps of equal importance is that this saying is not invented by Plutarch, a Greek "living in Roman times" (next time please quote me instead of misrepresenting my statements which you claim to disprove; I said - quoting you - "5C and onward Greeks" not "4C Greeks"!), for it is well-known from Critias, living and writing in 5th century BC.

I wonder why you insist on making these points about Helots. Since you mentioned above that book written by Peter Hunt, you should have known there were several Greek authors sharing similar views (check footnotes for references). As such I believe my point is valid, different authors held different views on Helots being slaves or not.

And instead of "andropon" try to use "andrapodon" :wink:

Yes, you did miss something ! I was saying that such ideas were NOT confined to H. and 'perhaps on or two other writers', but rather percolate most, if not all, surviving Greek literature of this era.
[...]
You are right that one cannot speak for every Greek of that era - an absurd notion, and a 'red herring' - but we can speak for what has come down to us, and in this instance of Herodotus' attitude to the pyramid builders, we are certainly not concerned with every Greek individual's notion of 'freedom' and 'slavery', but rather that of Herodotus and his contemporary readers, and perhaps other writers of the era. If you want to read more of how H.'s themes and attitudes and how they were influenced, read the texts I have suggested.....

Well, you just took the bait. I added "perhaps one or two other writers" hoping you to deny and bring few more counter-examples. You mentioned Isocrates, Aristotle and Aeschylus, three new opinions indeed, but there's no qualitative difference.
You did not get the point. How many authors can you quote? Ten? A dozen? Two dozens? Such a sample is irrelevant for the ancient Greeks in general (to find what did they believe "by definition") and this is certainly not "most, if not all, surviving Greek literature". All of it can't simply be because we have this debate. Most you say? From over 400 authors in TLG (my search was just for 5-4th century BCE) can you at least quote 200? I'm unreasonable? Well, I'm not the one claiming to know what ancient Greeks thought even if they did not write it down. Because indeed "we can speak for what has come down to us" and in his Inquiries, II.124, Herodotus wrote of Egyptian men, not slaves!