Egypt tombs suggest pyramids not built by slaves

[D B Campbell]

...I'm afraid that depends on the translated version, Sean.

I was once party to a discussion held by Ben Isaac about whether archaeologists should read Greek and Latin. Certain Romano-British archaeologists in the company claimed that it was sufficient to consult the Penguin edition of an ancient writer. But Isaac argued (quite rightly, in my opinion) that, if the words of an ancient author are to be used in support of an argument, only the original words (as far as we know them) have any credibility.

According to the received Greek text, Herodotus actually wrote: "[1] ... For, having first closed all the holy places, he stopped them from their sacrifices, and then ordered all the Egyptians to work for him. ... [3] They worked distributed into ten myriads of men, each for a period of three months".

Anything extra is just the individual translator's spin.

[Jona Lendering]

only the original words (as far as we know them) have any credibility. ... Anything extra is just the individual translator's spin.

Exactly, and well-phrased.

The point is, of course, that it is impossible to be both an archaeologist and a classicist. One of the examples of the interconnectedness of all disciplines is that the dating of the second, and main, wave of Greek immigrants into Catalonia is based on a story by Herodotus, who says that the Ionian Greeks settled in the West after the Persian conquest of Lydia. This is commonly dated to 547 BC, which is based on an erroneous reading of a cuneiform tablet that has not been noticed because it lies hidden in the appendix to a book. I have discussed it here.

So, a Catalonian archaeologist should not only understand Herodotus, but also understand the publishing habits of cuneiform scholars. This is, of course, impossible, but the example is not unique. This means that scholars will always make mistakes. The only solutions I can think of is that they need to collaborate more closely and must keep their mouth shut about subjects that are not their direct specialism. There's more about it here.

[Paullus Scipio]

Jona wrote:

D B Campbell wrote:
only the original words (as far as we know them) have any credibility. ... Anything extra is just the individual translator's spin.

Exactly, and well-phrased.

...and this was precisely my point, together with another one which I'll come to shortly, but I guess I was a little too subtle about both. It is clear that regardless of Herodotus' terminology, the 'pyramid builders' were not "slaves" in the technical sense, as I pointed out earlier....

The idea that Pharoah Cheops enslaved and used 100,000 slaves ( an impossible number of slaves for all sorts of reasons) is a 'myth'

But to decide whether Herodotus thought of them as such, and whether consequently the 'myth' originated with him is not a simple one, and indeed one that involves MORE than just accurate translation........a little background is required before going further.

In the Egypt of the Old Kingdom, food was relatively plentiful, thanks to the fertile Nile and annual flooding; there was no contraception and the result was a large population, but living at a minimal standard of living. Consequently there was plenty of cheap labour ( and hence no need for "slaves" on a large scale in the technical sense.) Furthermore, during the annual flood, the bulk of the peasant population were 'idle', being unable to work their fields at this time. Not surprisingly, this created the ideal situation for creating massive building projects - Pharoah needed to keep his subjects busy, and there were plenty of them, the idle workers needed some means of earning their daily bread etc.....social conditions were ripe for just such schemes. Thus Pharoah, as an absolute ruler, could 'command/order' the construction of a Pyramid and be obeyed, whereas in other societies such a thing would have been inconceivable. We may note that ancient Egyptian has a word for 'war-captive/slave' - all owned by Pharoah of course, but not for 'slave' per se. 'Slaves', in the sense of privately "owned" human beings did not appear in Egypt until much later, when contracts of sale for slaves appear in the times of the warlike Rameses and his successors, who took many 'captive-slaves'. ( around 13 C BC - subject to dating problems! )

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.
The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. So many 'Slavs' were enslaved, that the terms became synonymous.

(As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than "slave"; it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is "to hear" and occurs in many derivatives meaning "renown, fame." The Slavs are thus "the famous people." Same word, very different meanings in Slavic and English !)

In English slave means a person legally owned by another, and hence can bought and sold as a chattel, and having no freedom of action or right to property, and who is a person who is forced to work for another against his will. In English, a slave is of another ethnic group, for Englishmen could never legally own one another as chattels.

Next, we need to examine the Greek concept of "slave" which is somewhat different to ours. Being different, it is not therefore sufficient merely to accurately/literally translate a word.

To a Classical Greek there were three basic classifications of men:
'douloi' = those born as slaves, or servants, a hereditary class;
'apeleutheroi' = those made free or emancipated, freedmen;
'eleutheroi' =those born 'Free', and in Greek terms this meant a minority. Fewer still of these had full rights as citizens.

Ancient Greece had as complex a 'caste system' as India.

Greeks could own Greeks as slaves, even those from their own city, and famously in Athens, it took "The Reforms of Solon" to abolish being sold into slavery as a consequence of debt. ( Digression: Curiously, in Greek religion, the Gods did NOT own slaves; thus in order to free a slave, one form was to sell the slave to Apollo at a temple/shrine, thus effectively 'freeing' them).

In Greek, there were many words for 'slave' (unlike English), with more subtle meanings (and yet more words associated with slaverye.g. ana-doulos, amphi-doulos and many more).

'doulos' = a born slave or servant
'oikatose' a domestic or house slave - more 'civilised'/sophisticated/educated than an agricultural slave.
'pais' = a child slave or servant
'diakones' = a trained attendant
'theratone' = a basic menial slave.....

....and more.

Needless to say these distinctions were important, not least to the value of the slave......

Then there is also 'andropon' - the Greek word for 'war-captive/slave' ( the terms are synonymous), as opposed to 'doulos'.......

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.

Which brings me to my second point:

This;

D B Campbell wrote:
only the original words (as far as we know them) have any credibility. ... Anything extra is just the individual translator's spin

...is perfectly true, but over-simplifies the translator's dilemma. It does not suffice merely to translate the words, but in order to convey the meaning it is often necessary to go beyond the "literal translation". Hence our use of this phrase to convey that a "literal translation" does not always convey the 'real' meaning, because concepts, and meanings, and etymology differ from one culture to another .... :?

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)

Herodotus, though he may not have said so in direct words, certainly intended his readers to understand that Pharoah's Pyramid builders were his 'slaves', in the Greek sense, and those readers certainly would have, which is a strong argument for De Selincourt's translation ( and he was a superb Classicist) conveying the meaning better than a "literal translation".

We may thus safely conclude that Herodotus was the source of the myth that the Pyramids were built by "slaves", for if they were not so built in the modern English sense of the word 'slave', they certainly were by Greek definition.......

See what I mean by 'not a simple one' ? :wink: :wink:

On a different subject :

Jona wrote:

The point is, of course, that it is impossible to be both an archaeologist and a classicist..........This means that scholars will always make mistakes. The only solutions I can think of is that they need to collaborate more closely and must keep their mouth shut about subjects that are not their direct specialism.

Well, I disagree that it is impossible to be both ( though perhaps not 'expert' in both). We live in a world where specialisation is the order of the day, and certainly the specialist will know more about his specialisation, but that merely makes the specialist more ignorant of everything else. This is why Jona's point about 'connections' not being made between specialisations is true, and a cause of concern in our ever-increasing 'specialist' world. But the answer does not lie in specialists 'keeping their mouths shut', other than about their specialisation, I would suggest.

Surely the solution to this problem lies, at least in part, in having more generalists, or 'polymaths' perhaps who, knowing something about many subjects, can make the 'connections' that no amount of communication between specialists can make. D ( )

[john m roberts]

It could be that people of the Classical era (and later) simply could not imagine free people hauling those colossal stones around. There must have been some guy with a whip involved. And of course huge mobs of whip-driven slaves make for much better cinema than a bunch of grousing, bitching peasants on the ropes with harassed overseers wheedling and bribing them to haul a little harder.

[Sean Manning]

...I'm afraid that depends on the translated version, Sean.

I was once party to a discussion held by Ben Isaac about whether archaeologists should read Greek and Latin. Certain Romano-British archaeologists in the company claimed that it was sufficient to consult the Penguin edition of an ancient writer. But Isaac argued (quite rightly, in my opinion) that, if the words of an ancient author are to be used in support of an argument, only the original words (as far as we know them) have any credibility.

According to the received Greek text, Herodotus actually wrote: "[1] ... For, having first closed all the holy places, he stopped them from their sacrifices, and then ordered all the Egyptians to work for him. ... [3] They worked distributed into ten myriads of men, each for a period of three months".

Anything extra is just the individual translator's spin.

Unfortunately I don't have any Greek yet so I'm reduced to going world-by-word between a Loeb and a Greek-English lexicon (or asking a non-barbarian) in situations like this. If I do graduate training as an ancient historian that will be my first priority. As you say, you can't make a precise argument about a statement in a language unless you can read it.

Still, even with basic knowledge of ancient languages, looking carefully at the original texts can reveal surprising things. The danger is using them without that basic knowledge, or getting too far from the texts in the barrage of modern scholarship and other kinds of evidence.

[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).

[D B Campbell]

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.

Hear, hear. My point exactly.

[Paullus Scipio]

Rumo wrote:

Herodotus did not write 'slaves' but 'Egyptians' (?????????) and 'men' (????????).

...Yes, I made this very point - and that he did not need to use one of the many words in Greek which denoted varying types/degrees of slavery. (see my earlier post)

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.

.....exactly ! My point is that translating the words literally does NOT necessarily convey what an ancient source, such as Herodotus, is trying to say, and in a worst case scenario, a literal translation can be downright misleading in trying to convey meaning. This is why I referred to "the Translator's dilemma". We 'moderns' grew up in a different culture, speaking a different language and it is therefore difficult to convey true meaning. What can the translator do? Translate literally, but inaccurately, and then have a footnote the size of my post every half-sentence ? Or try, as De Selincourt does, to convey the meaning behind the original words in the ancient language, in a way that makes sense and conveys the original meaning, yet allows a smooth narrative in the modern language. The same, of course is true of modern language translations too. There are words and phrases which are unique to one language/culture and hence do not translate readily to another e.g. the French 'raconter des salades' translates literally into English as to 'relate/speak of lettuces/salads' but actually means 'to make things up'; or 'mefier de l'eau qui dort' which translates literally as 'be careful of water which sleeps', but actually means 'all is not as it seems', or this delightful phrase, 'marcher a cote de ses pompes' which literally means 'to walk at the side of his pumps', but actually means 'to be totally out of it'..... :lol: :lol:

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?

For the former instance, one of the major points I tried to make in my post was that in English we have just one word for 'slave', but in Greek there were many concepts and degrees of slavery - and many words for 'slave' too - I gave some examples. To be a 'slave' to your own King/Absolute ruler ( and hence not be a 'free' man in the Greek sense) is quite different to being the 'slave' in a more literal way to a foreign conqueror - and indeed, to get this concept across, De Selincourt translates the literal 'enslaved' as 'conquered'. The difficulty and confusion here arises precisely because of the problems of literal translation I was referring to .

In the second instance, I had already referred to the fact that 'proper' slavery had come into existence in Egypt from the time of Ramses onward......so yes, there were 'proper slaves' in Herodotus' day in Egypt. ( but note that here the noble daughter is forced to dress as a 'hand-maiden', or household slave, not a 'field-hand' or more lowly type of slave......and that even Pharoah's daughter is technically, in the Greek sense, Pharoah's slave/subject and not 'free' because she would have to carry out the will/whims of Pharoah as Absolute Ruler)

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.

...No, you seem to have misunderstood, perhaps because English may not be your native tongue. 'Doru' does NOT literally mean 'spear' - it meant originally 'tree, stem, shaft' ( e.g. Homer Iliad V.666 'doru meilinon'/ ashen shaft). The ancient Greeks were great ones for using 'slang' and thus 'Doru', though not originally literally meaning 'spear', came to refer to spear - a new meaning for the word.

This is an example of how words can change meaning over time - another dilemma for Translators ! :roll: :roll:
I have given the example elsewhere of the English word 'car'. It originally meant 'a conveyance to carry people', thus we have 'jaunting car', 'cable car', 'restaurant car' and 'motor car' . Nowadays however ,if we see the word 'car' we understand that 'motor car/automobile' is meant....

Duncan wrote:

Rumo wrote:
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.

Hear, hear. My point exactly.

I agree....but as we have seen, sometimes a literal translation just does not convey the true meaning. If, as you seem to advocate, we only had 'literal translations', it would be impossible for the general reader to read, still less understand, what the original writer was trying to say. Even with non-literal translations this is often difficult enough...... D

[D B Campbell]

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.

...No, you seem to have misunderstood, perhaps because English may not be your native tongue. 'Doru' does NOT literally mean 'spear' ... 'Doru', though not originally literally meaning 'spear', came to refer to spear - a new meaning for the word.

I'm afraid that it does actually mean "spear". Derivation and meaning are two separate issues.

You seem to have a peculiar view of the art of translating. No translator would describe a warrior brandishing a "floorboard", just because one of the meanings of doru happens to be a plank. Another of the meanings happens to be "spear", which is perfect in this context.

By your analogy, we would need to argue that one of the meanings of Aeguptioi was "slaves", which it manifestly is not. My literal translation of the Herodotus passage allows the intelligent reader to make his/her own judgement, whereas De Selincourt has overstepped his brief as translator by adding his own interpretation, which should properly be confined to a Commentary. The mere fact that we are arguing about this shows that he has failed to translate the passage accurately. At the very least, he should indicate which bits are original Herodotus and which bits are his own interpretation.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thanks for that, Duncan!
I agree, as you say, we are all capable of 'interpreting' what an ancient is saying if we have a litteral translation to go with.
I we are studying a translation in which we are getting someone elses conception of what the source is trying to say, then that is all we are getting, is someone elses conception. I think I would prefer to have the freedom to read the actual translation, rather than only an interpretation.
If I am too stupid to make sense of it, then that will be when I need to ask the more learned for guidance. (expect a LOT of questions.... :wink: )

[Ron Andrea]

Forty years ago the instructor at my college art appreciation course told us that, though they may have shifted to slaves later, the early pyramids were build by seasonally gangs of free Egyptians. Don't know where he got his information, but I can't see why he would have made it up.

[M. Demetrius]

If we can believe Herodotus, Ron, and if memory serves, he may have gotten his info from there. That's more or less what Herodotus wrote, even giving details about how many and for how long they worked. If, as some sources report, the Pharaoh was regarded as a god, it wouldn't be so hard to get the people to cooperate in a project, because not only would they believe they were serving their deity, they would have a lasting memorial..."Yes, son, grandfather helped build this pyramid back in the day...."

[Rumo]

Paul,

Duncan said it very well in few words. I'll use some more hoping to help you understand.

I agree with you that different languages (and cultures) have different ways to use their words. You're right, English is not my native language, and one way you see this is that in my writing you find a not so accurate translation of my native non-English thoughts. Whenever I realize and I can, I try to make my wording as English as it can be, but obviously my success will be always limited and the native speakers will always know. Of course, a good translator must make the text translated from Greek (or French, in your example) sound as English as possible, however this is not the case here, because both Greek and English speakers have some distinct words to express notions such as 'man', 'Egyptian', or 'slave'.

...No, you seem to have misunderstood, perhaps because English may not be your native tongue. 'Doru' does NOT literally mean 'spear' - it meant originally 'tree, stem, shaft' ( e.g. Homer Iliad V.666 'doru meilinon'/ ashen shaft). The ancient Greeks were great ones for using 'slang' and thus 'Doru', though not originally literally meaning 'spear', came to refer to spear - a new meaning for the word.

I have just interpreted your earlier "could be used to mean" as knowledge of the fact. Duncan astutely pointed out that ???? actually means (also) 'spear' (and you can also check my Perseus link where you can find the definition of this word in several major dictionaries). And this is no slang, because the word with this meaning is widely used by many different ancient authors in what we regard to be a literary (standard) language.
In Ancient Greek some words are polysemic, that is they have several meanings. This is obviously true for many other (most?) languages, including English. For instance 'wood' can be a 'a piece from a tree' or 'many trees'.

You're right in saying that words change meanings (that means also gain or lose) over time. One favourite example of mine is 'nice'. However in our case the translators should have no worries, ???? meant 'spear' even in the times of Homer: ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? (Od. I.256) = "with his helmet and shield and two spears"

For the former instance, one of the major points I tried to make in my post was that in English we have just one word for 'slave', but in Greek there were many concepts and degrees of slavery - and many words for 'slave' too - I gave some examples. To be a 'slave' to your own King/Absolute ruler ( and hence not be a 'free' man in the Greek sense) is quite different to being the 'slave' in a more literal way to a foreign conqueror - and indeed, to get this concept across, De Selincourt translates the literal 'enslaved' as 'conquered'. The difficulty and confusion here arises precisely because of the problems of literal translation I was referring to .

'Conquered' is not necessarily a bad translation, but 'enslaved' is closer to the original Greek.

In the second instance, I had already referred to the fact that 'proper' slavery had come into existence in Egypt from the time of Ramses onward......so yes, there were 'proper slaves' in Herodotus' day in Egypt. ( but note that here the noble daughter is forced to dress as a 'hand-maiden', or household slave, not a 'field-hand' or more lowly type of slave......and that even Pharoah's daughter is technically, in the Greek sense, Pharoah's slave/subject and not 'free' because she would have to carry out the will/whims of Pharoah as Absolute Ruler)

Arguably those girls were not war captives or any other type of slaves, yet they were dressed as ??????. For a coherent narrative, they must have some other status but that of a slave.

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:

I'm afraid that it does actually mean "spear". Derivation and meaning are two separate issues.
I never said it didn't - of course it does - but it did not ORIGINALLY mean spear, just as 'car' did not originally mean 'motor vehicle'. Nor is the word for 'spear' "derived" from the word for 'shaft' - they are the same word,'Doru'. Over time a word which meant 'tree,stem,shaft' came to mean 'spear' AS WELL.

You seem to have a peculiar view of the art of translating. No translator would describe a warrior brandishing a "floorboard", just because one of the meanings of doru happens to be a plank.
Again, I never suggested one would - you are just setting up your own 'straw men' to knock down.
Another of the meanings happens to be "spear", which is perfect in this context.
Another 'straw man' since I never said otherwise, and so not a fair example....so I will give a better one. Suppose a future translator came across a passage in an eighteenth century book that referred to people getting into a 'car'. Knowing that one of its literal meanings is 'motor vehicle' he translates it thus - and unknowingly creates an anachronism, because motor vehicles did not exist then. It is not enough for a translator to know the several meanings of a word, they must know the history/etymology of the word also...... As to the "Art" of translating, it is indeed just that. Yet if your advocacy of just literal translation came to pass, all we would be left with would be the all-too-literal translations we get from computers, which as everyone knows are 'gobbledygook'.

By your analogy, we would need to argue that one of the meanings of Aeguptioi was "slaves", which it manifestly is not.
Please read what I actually wrote. I stated that the pyramid builders were not slaves in any technical sense, but that by one of the Greek definitions of 'slave', Herodotus and his readers would regard them as such. To Greeks, the subjects of an Absolute ruler were not 'free' men, but 'slaves'
My literal translation of the Herodotus passage allows the intelligent reader to make his/her own judgement,
neither "intelligence" nor "judgement" has anything to do with it, it is a matter of knowledge. If the reader is unaware of how Herodotus and the Greeks defined 'free' men (eleutheroi), then that reader would not know that to a Greek, the subjects of an Absolute ruler were all his 'slaves' (Douloi), because they were completely subject to his will.
.. whereas De Selincourt has overstepped his brief as translator by adding his own interpretation, which should properly be confined to a Commentary.
In your view perhaps. Most readers find travelling to and fro from copious footnotes or a commentary tedious.De Selincourt was trying to avoid this, for the reader's benefit, yet still convey the right shades of meaning, and I think he succeeded admirably. Literal translations and long-winded commentaries are for the specialist, or the academic world, not the general reader....
The mere fact that we are arguing about this shows that he has failed to translate the passage accurately.
In the words of Mr Spock; "Illogical, Captain ! " - disagreement, or even argument about a thing does not change the thing itself....and not only that, but one can argue that De Selincourt's translation conveys the meaning behind the words better than a 'literal' one, and so is more "accurate"in that sense. Compared to your 'literal' translation, it has the virtue of getting across how Greeks/Herodotus saw such people.They were subject to the will/whims of an Absolute ruler ( Pharoah) and so were all his 'slaves'. BTW, this attitude was what made many Greeks so opposed to 'Tyranny', because in becoming a sole ruler, a 'Tyrant' "enslaved" the people......
At the very least, he should indicate which bits are original Herodotus and which bits are his own interpretation.
....For academic purposes, perhaps. For the general reader it is unneccesary, and since all translation involves 'interpretation' ( unless you go back to the mechanical variety and its consequent gobbledygook), where do you draw the line ? After all, the words 'translator' and 'interpreter' are largely synonymous.

[Paullus Scipio]

Forty years ago the instructor at my college art appreciation course told us that, though they may have shifted to slaves later, the early pyramids were build by seasonally gangs of free Egyptians. Don't know where he got his information, but I can't see why he would have made it up.

David wrote:

If we can believe Herodotus, Ron, and if memory serves, he may have gotten his info from there. That's more or less what Herodotus wrote, even giving details about how many and for how long they worked. If, as some sources report, the Pharaoh was regarded as a god, it wouldn't be so hard to get the people to cooperate in a project, because not only would they believe they were serving their deity, they would have a lasting memorial..."Yes, son, grandfather helped build this pyramid back in the day...."

....see earlier posts. We do not need to rely solely on Herodotus, for archaeology has gleaned much information on the pyramid builders. And certainly ancient Egyptians regarded Pharoah as a living "God", as evidenced by many inscriptions etc saying so. As I pointed out in an earlier post, social conditions caused by the Nile flooding leant themselves to such projects too. In other societies, not even a "Living God" could have ordered such a thing, it would simply have been impossible.......