Egypt tombs suggest pyramids not built by slaves

[Paullus Scipio]

Rumo wrote:

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'.

....and this is where problems begin. Ancient Greeks had a number of definitions and words for 'slave', which in English is a single word, nor are the ancient Greek and modern European 'notions' of' Egyptian',' man' and 'slave the same.....

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.

Stating the obvious hardly shows astuteness on Duncan's part, especially since I didn't say 'Doru' did not mean spear. Nor have you interpreted my reference to 'slang' correctly. I meant that because the Greeks were fond of slang and used it, this was one of the ways in which a word in ancient Greek could change meaning over time. Another example is 'kontos' - a large pole, like a barge pole, used for poling ships off beaches. At first applied as 'slang' to a large two-handed cavalry spear, the word came to mean 'spear' in this sense too over time. So similarly a word for 'shaft' of a spear (Doru) came to mean the spear itself over time....

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"

Yes, Homer uses the word 'doru' to mean spear, though more commonly to mean 'shaft' - but he mostly uses the word 'aichme' to mean spear. ( aichme originally meant highest point; hence 'spearhead'; hence 'spear' generally. Strictly speaking you need an 'aichme/spearhead' AND a 'doru/shaft' to make a spear ! D lol: :lol:
Incidently, the short thrusting/throwing spears of Homer's day usually carried in pairs, and also used for hunting, that he labels 'doru' are NOT the same as the 'doru' - the long thrusting only spear, or Great Spear carried by classical Hoplites in Herodotus time...... another example of a word subtly changing meaning over time.

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

'conquered' is actually a very good translation, because as I pointed out in my earlier post, to be 'conquered/become a war-captive' ( andropon) was synonymous in ancient Greek with 'enslaved' - so the two translations are equally good for in Greek they were the same.......

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.

Since the girl in question is Pharoah's daughter , now a prisoner of Cambyses, she is just that - a war captive/slave. In dressing her as a 'slave' and sending her to fetch water, Cambyses was making that very point ( as well as humiliating her) to her father the Pharoah.
However, I understand your point, her previous status was 'princess' not 'slave' ( as in household maid/doulos ). I was making the point that, by Greek definition, ALL Pharoah's subjects (including his daughter) were his 'douloi', for ALL had to obey their Absolute Ruler and were hence not 'free' (eleutheroi ) in the Greek sense.

[Sean Manning]

It occurs to me that in modern English we have these two meanings of "slave" too: the scientific sense of "a person owned by another person" and the metaphorical one of "a person who is subject to harsh controls, like a slave." Herodotus might have thought that the Egyptians were slaves in the second sense, but not in the first. We also have several words such as slave, serf, servant, subject, indentured servant, et cetera. In short, Digital Age English and Herodotus' Greek aren't completely different: both have several technical words for a slave, each surrounded by a cloud of metaphor.

In my humble oppinion, de Selincourt shouldn't have used the word "slave" since none of the words in Herodotus' Greek has that meaning. The fact that Herodotus believed that the work was harsh and that the Egyptians were unwilling can be communicated in other ways. But I understand how the myth of slaves building the pyramid could have arisen from Herodotus' logos.

[Paullus Scipio]

Sean wrote:

It occurs to me that in modern English we have these two meanings of "slave" too: the scientific sense of "a person owned by another person" and the metaphorical one of "a person who is subject to harsh controls, like a slave." Herodotus might have thought that the Egyptians were slaves in the second sense, but not in the first.

...but as we have seen, the Greeks had not two, but many concepts and words encompassing 'slave' - a person owned by another as a chattel. We have also seen that, to the Greeks, anyone not 'free' ( eleutheroi) is a literal, rather than metaphorical, slave (doulos), and that there were many types of slavery for which there were many different words.Thus, any subject of an Absolute Ruler such as Pharoah or The Great King, was a literal ( not metaphorical) 'slave' because they had to obey and were not 'free' to make decisions..... We have also seen that, to a Greek, a war-captive/prisoner-of-war was automatically a 'slave' (andropon), thus 'conquered/captured' to a Greek is synonymous with 'enslaved'....

We also have several words such as slave, serf, servant, subject, indentured servant, et cetera. In short, Digital Age English and Herodotus' Greek aren't completely different: both have several technical words for a slave, each surrounded by a cloud of metaphor.

I think there is a danger of blurring important distinctions here - a serf ( whose service is attached to a piece of land, and goes with it) is not a slave ( a chattel who may be bought and sold), which is different again from an indentured servant ( a servant bound by written contract, usually for a period of time) etc.etc...all are different and none are synonymous with 'slave'.
Greek too had such distinctions, and a 'Helot'/state serf, for example, was recognised by the Greeks as being neither 'free' nor 'slave' (e.g. Pollux III.83 where they are described as 'half-slave, half free' ). There is still the important difference that English has only one word for a 'proper' slave, but Greek has many words for many types of 'proper' slave......

[D B Campbell]

The idea that Pharoah Cheops enslaved and used 100,000 slaves ( an impossible number of slaves for all sorts of reasons) is a 'myth' which goes back to ancient times, for this is what Herodotus the Greek Historian (II.124-126) was told by his priestly Egyptian informers - to impress with the 'might and power' of ancient Egypt's rulers .......

To summarise: it seems that Paul's myth belongs, not to Herodotus at all, but to De Selincourt and any other "translators" who have added the concept of slavery to Herodotus' account. So successfully, in fact, that even Paul has been taken in by it. Instead of blaming Herodotus, you should be castigating De Selincourt, who led you astray in the first place, with his "added value" translation. Thank goodness that archaeology has proved Herodotus correct.

[Rumo]

....and this is where problems begin. Ancient Greeks had a number of definitions and words for 'slave', which in English is a single word, nor are the ancient Greek and modern European 'notions' of' Egyptian',' man' and 'slave the same.....

I find English a language rich in words and meanings :wink:

Otherwise I believe this is where the problems should end, because in Ancient Greek ???????? and ????????? do not have the meaning of 'slave', as far as I know. All the analogies on spears, cars and other words, concepts and languages can't undermine this basic fact.

Nor have you interpreted my reference to 'slang' correctly. I meant that because the Greeks were fond of slang and used it, this was one of the ways in which a word in ancient Greek could change meaning over time. Another example is 'kontos' - a large pole, like a barge pole, used for poling ships off beaches. At first applied as 'slang' to a large two-handed cavalry spear, the word came to mean 'spear' in this sense too over time. So similarly a word for 'shaft' of a spear (Doru) came to mean the spear itself over time....

Until some serious evidence is presented about this slang genesis of ???? or that Greeks were particularly fond of slangs, I don't think such assertions can be considered arguments.

To my knowledge there's no evidence ???? was ever a slang word. Before Homer I'm not sure what one can expect to find, maybe a Linear B inscription, but still how would one prove that occurence illustrates a slang, and not the common language of that epoch? Moreover this semantic derivation is so common and trivial, that we can't even be sure this new meaning was coined by a group of warriors (spearmen); probably to most people in Myceneaen (or whatever other pre-Homeric) society there were obvious similarities and correlations between a spear and a shaft.

Yes, Homer uses the word 'doru' to mean spear, though more commonly to mean 'shaft' - but he mostly uses the word 'aichme' to mean spear. ( aichme originally meant highest point; hence 'spearhead'; hence 'spear' generally. Strictly speaking you need an 'aichme/spearhead' AND a 'doru/shaft' to make a spear ! D lol: :lol:

How do you translate then ???? ??????? (Il. XIII.247)?

'conquered' is actually a very good translation, because as I pointed out in my earlier post, to be 'conquered/become a war-captive' ( andropon) was synonymous in ancient Greek with 'enslaved' - so the two translations are equally good for in Greek they were the same.......

I beg to differ. ??????????? is a passive participle from ??????, a verb for which the major dictionaries (like LSJ) list the following meanings: "enslave", "be enslaved" (passive), "make a slave of", "make one's slave", "make subject of oneself", etc. At most you can connect "conquer" with "make subject of oneself', but a complete synonymy with "enslave" is unwarranted.

The slave as captive is ??????????. Whatever other relations of synonymy you suggest, I think they should be validated by reliable dictionaries or lexicographic sources.

Since the girl in question is Pharoah's daughter , now a prisoner of Cambyses, she is just that - a war captive/slave. In dressing her as a 'slave' and sending her to fetch water, Cambyses was making that very point ( as well as humiliating her) to her father the Pharoah.
However, I understand your point, her previous status was 'princess' not 'slave' ( as in household maid/doulos ). I was making the point that, by Greek definition, ALL Pharoah's subjects (including his daughter) were his 'douloi', for ALL had to obey their Absolute Ruler and were hence not 'free' (eleutheroi ) in the Greek sense.

And yet I was referring to their (please read carefully the text) status before they were subjected by Persians and humiliated, as such they were not captives. Those girls, as subjects of the Pharaoh, were something else but slaves for Herodotus and his readers, in the Greek sense. We should never lose sight of the fact we don't read of what exactly happened in Egypt, we only read the story Herodotus is narrating to his Greek audience.

If your hypothesis is correct, then I'd like to see a passage from Herodotus' Histories (or Inquiries, since we're debating the meanings of some Greek words :wink: ) in which he calls all Pharaoh's subjects 'slaves', but they are not enslaved by some other non-Egyptian king.

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:

To summarise: it seems that Paul's myth belongs, not to Herodotus at all, but to De Selincourt and any other "translators" who have added the concept of slavery to Herodotus' account. So successfully, in fact, that even Paul has been taken in by it. Instead of blaming Herodotus, you should be castigating De Selincourt, who led you astray in the first place, with his "added value" translation. Thank goodness that archaeology has proved Herodotus correct.

This whole statement is just so wrong that one hardly knows where to start. The 'concept of slavery' is inimical to Herodotus' ideas of the difference between free men (eleutheroi) and slaves (douloi), and it cannot be doubted that 5 C Greeks including Herodotus regarded the Egyptians as 'slaves'/douloi to their rulers. De Selincourt understood this well, which is why his translation runs the way it does. Secondly, I neither castigate nor blame, nor have I been 'led astray' or 'taken in'. Archaeology has not 'proven Herodotus correct', just the opposite in fact ! ( for he regarded the pyramid builders as not-free, hence 'slaves'.) :lol:

Rumo wrote:

If your hypothesis is correct, then I'd like to see a passage from Herodotus' Histories (or Inquiries, since we're debating the meanings of some Greek words ) in which he calls all Pharaoh's subjects 'slaves', but they are not enslaved by some other non-Egyptian king.

I have tried in vain to explain that, to a 5C Greek such as Herodotus, there are 'free' men (eleutheroi) and 'slaves' (douloi), and that all the subjects of an Absolute Ruler, whether Great King, Pharaoh or home grown Tyrant were, by definition, his 'slaves' because they had no choice but to obey him in all things - no freedom to decide for themselves. I have given examples of this.

I cannot, in a short post on a forum such as this, fully explain Greek concepts of 'slavery' and 'freedom', and can only recommend to anyone interested books such as "The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece" by Kurt Raaflaub ( available in part on-line at Google books) - after reading which, you will be in no doubt as to why Herodotus and his readers regarded the pyramid builders as 'slaves/douloi', and hence why the 'Myth' can be said to have originated with him.

[D B Campbell]

The 'concept of slavery' is inimical to Herodotus' ideas of the difference between free men (eleutheroi) and slaves (douloi), and it cannot be doubted that 5 C Greeks including Herodotus regarded the Egyptians as 'slaves'/douloi to their rulers.

Hmmm ... I wonder why Herodotus didn't write that, then. Your entire argument is based on a convoluted defence of De Selincourt's mistranslation, so that Herodotus can be made to say something that he never said.

My goodness, it seems that you even know what Herodotus thought. Whereas I am constrained by copies of what he wrote (and I mean What he actually wrote, not what Aubrey de Selincourt wished him to write).

[Rumo]

I have tried in vain to explain that, to a 5C Greek such as Herodotus, there are 'free' men (eleutheroi) and 'slaves' (douloi), and that all the subjects of an Absolute Ruler, whether Great King, Pharaoh or home grown Tyrant were, by definition, his 'slaves' because they had no choice but to obey him in all things - no freedom to decide for themselves. I have given examples of this.

I cannot, in a short post on a forum such as this, fully explain Greek concepts of 'slavery' and 'freedom', and can only recommend to anyone interested books such as "The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece" by Kurt Raaflaub ( available in part on-line at Google books) - after reading which, you will be in no doubt as to why Herodotus and his readers regarded the pyramid builders as 'slaves/douloi', and hence why the 'Myth' can be said to have originated with him.

I wouldn't say you have tried in vain to explain unless your purpose is to make everyone believe what you do.

My objection was and still is that a) Herodotus doesn't refer to the subjects of the Pharaoh as 'slaves' but as 'men' or 'Egyptians' b) Occasionally Herodotus contrasts a 'normal status' of the Egyptian subjects with that of slavery, therefore the assumption "all the subjects of an Absolute Ruler [...] were, by definition, his 'slaves'" doesn't seem to work in our case.
Some Greeks believed that way, but certainly others didn't, and I see no reason why should we indulge in promoting such (ethnic) stereotypes, nor why should we ammend the extant texts to enforce a certain interpretation and eliminate all the rest (one can think of men as slaves, but no one will think of slaves as non-slaves). "Greek concepts" do have their value when discussing histories of ideas (politcal thought, philosophy), not in sweeping generalizations reducing millions of Greek people to a caricature.

Back to II.124, one may support an analogy in the Greek sense between the oppressive rule of Kheops and the Greek tyrants, yet analogy doesn't mean identity. In particular, we can't expect any semantic hype we pick from the rhetoric against Greek tyrants (or the invading Persians) to be identically applied to any despotic regime, or even emerge in the common language as a new concept, as a new meaning. It is well known that many Greeks fared quite well under "tyranny", collaborated with "tyrannical regimes" and probably some of them did not regard themselves as slaves, perhaps only as mere subordinates.

And our discussion is still trivial, as we work under the assumption all people are somehow rational and have consistent and unchanging views, which is not really the case.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Actually, they were constructed by Stewart Milne Construction Ltd, with his legions of indentured Polish workers!

[D B Campbell]

Actually, they were constructed by Stewart Milne Construction Ltd, with his legions of indentured Polish workers!

Aha -- an alternative translation of Herodotus? Almost as inventive as De Selincourt's.

[Epictetus]

Great discussion. I don't read Greek, but I stumbled across something last night that might be interesting and I immediately thought of this thread.

But what do the citizens in other cities call their rulers?
In most cities they call them masters. But in democracies they simply call them magistrates...
And what, in turn, do the magistrates call the people?
Their employers and supporters.
And what do rulers in other cities call the people?
Slaves.

Plato, Republic, 5.463a-b

Do any of you Greek-readers know what word Plato used that was translated as "slaves" here, and if it is the same word Herodotus used?

[Paullus Scipio]

Yes, the word in question is 'douloi' = slaves ( see earlier posts ) ....the same word Herodotus uses of Persians, subjects of the Great King, and of subjects of Absolute Rulers generally - such as a Pharaoh. Plato is here displaying the same attitude of 5 C and onward Greeks, including Herodotus......

[Epictetus]

Thanks. So here is another source using the same terminology.

[Rumo]

....the same word Herodotus uses of [...] subjects of Absolute Rulers generally - such as a Pharaoh

If your hypothesis is correct, then I'd like to see a passage from Herodotus' Histories [...] in which he calls all Pharaoh's subjects 'slaves', but they are not enslaved by some other non-Egyptian king.

Plato is here displaying the same attitude of 5 C and onward Greeks

Really?

Were the Spartan helots slaves or not? According to many authors (ancient and modern) they were. And yet we may find slightly different opinions: metaxu de eleuther?n kai doul?n oi Lakedaimoni?n eil?tes. With no universal dichotomies at hand, one arguing for alternative readings of Herodotus must prove it on the text.

[D B Campbell]

... is it the same word Herodotus used?

Yes, the word in question is 'douloi' = slaves ( see earlier posts ) ....the same word Herodotus uses of Persians, subjects of the Great King, and of subjects of Absolute Rulers generally - such as a Pharaoh.

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

You need only refer to the words of Herodotus himself, translated here. In this passage, he mentions Egyptians and he mentions men, but nowhere does he mention slaves. Paul seems convinced that Herodotus believed the Egyptians to be slaves, but the passage that we are discussing cannot be used in support of that theory.

In any case, haven't we established that there weren't slaves involved? And, as Herodotus never claimed that there were slaves involved, the case is closed. :roll: