What proof is their that the egypt pyramids wear made by slaves?

Originally posted by TV_Nation
In my opinion the pyramids were not made by the Egyptians at all...

I am a believer that they more than likely were just the beneficiaries of structures that were already there and in essence they just "moved in" instead of actually creating them.

The pyramids are made with such precision and with such massive stones that I think there was a far superior group of people or entities that created them long before the Egyptians we know came to rule that part of the world.

There is much controversy over the age of the pyramids for example the Sphinx shows signs of water damage and as we all know the Egypt we know and even back 4-5 thousand years ago that could not be possible. I Think they are as much as 12,000 years old probably older because when all the ice from the most recent ice age melted in a hurry there would have been enough water to damage the Sphinx.

I also like this but varied - with the pyramids being built specifically for the human Egyptians. Particularly with the idea that Egyptians were actually refugee Atlantians, perhaps some ancient astronauts/ET delegates gifted these structures out of sympathy, appreciation of past relations, or even in exchange for a futures contract.

I'll use whatever sprelling and grammer I wants so long as my point is understood

Originally posted by bluemooone2
Some of them probably were made by slaves I believe , but there is a huge differance between the smaller pyramids and the great pyramid. The great pyramid has no hieroglyphics and never was a burial tomb (no mummies).

Wrong on both counts.

The Egyptians themselves said that Kufu was interred in the G.P.

Also here's a pic, taken inside the G.P., showing Khufu's name in a cartouche, right there on the wall:



Obviously, there are hieroglyphs in the Great Pyramid.

Harte

It has now been generally accepted that it was an honor to work on the pyramids and that they were well fed (with daily BEER rations) and many buried in close proximity to them. And the number of workers were much smaller than thought previously.

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi Schmidt1989.

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
. . .because there are hieroglyphics detailing how the egyptians built the pyramids.. . .

THAT you have to **show** us ! ! B-)

I have **always** seen/read the countrary : There is NO hieroglyphic stuff about how
they where built.
There are hieroglyphics about ALL WHAT THEY DID, excepted building pyramids.

Blue skies.

img823.imageshack.us...
www.virtualsecrets.com...

Why is it so hard for you people to understand that just because you're not smart enough or willing enough to build something incredible, that the egyptians weren't?

reply to post by Harte


Nope I dont think so really . And that one small patch of hieroglyphs is very suspicious to me.

www.rickrichards.com...

My one question, because this issue puzzles me but I make no presumptions, why are all the pyramids aside from the big 3 in various states of collapse and/or exhibit errors in building (bent pyramid for example)? The big 3 are just as stable as the day they were built. Many of the lesser pyramids are dated after them yet are nowhere near the size or skill level of the big 3. Techniques are perfected over time they don't get worse.

Also harte if you could source the journal or article concerning the heiroglyphics between stones I would appreciate, very interesting. As well that picture of khufus name is the only instance of it found anywhere in the pyramid and it is found amongst other graffiti in a small antechamber above the kings chamber, please mention everything when presenting evidence, I usually have great respect for your posts.

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Harte

 

Nope I dont think so really . And that one small patch of hieroglyphs is very suspicious to me.

www.rickrichards.com...

Obviously, you can "think" what you want, if you care to call it that.

Harte

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Harte

 

Nope I dont think so really . And that one small patch of hieroglyphs is very suspicious to me.

www.rickrichards.com...

Actually, if you teach yourself to read hieorglyphs (I have, and it's not hard), you will begin to understand that:
* rick richards can't read hieroglyphs
* Vyse couldn't read them, either.
* Vyse had no idea what he was looking at. (there are, for example, 7 different types of bird that could appear in a hieroglyph and they meant seven different sounds (one was 'm', one was 'a', one was 'dh' and so forth)) Vyse saw "bird" and drew "bird." he didn't draw what was really there -- he drew an Englishman's interpretation of what was going on.
* compare Vyse's other copies of inscriptions (I did) to actual photos of what he was copying (I have -- but do it after you learn some of the hieroglypic alphabet) and you will see he had no clue what he was copying. And the dimmer the light, the less accurate his copies were.

reply to post by Byrd


Well , to me that patch of hieroglyphs looks like they were drawn there with a piece of charcoal,and to think that they were there when the great pyramid was built is rather silly. What do you think Byrd?

Originally posted by sabbathcrazy
You all ways seen in the main stream media, that the pyramids wear made by slaves. Is their text? Hieroglyph's?

There is no evidence that building on much of anything was done by slaves. There's three things that point to this

1) slaves are VERY expensive to own and control. Even in America, before the Civil War, in the South only around 20% of the people owned slaves. Plantations generally had fewer than 25 slaves and fewer than 20 plantations owned 200 slaves. You have to house them (or they die and then you have to go get replacements), you have to take care of the kids (or they die), it takes 10 years for a child to get to a size where they're useful laborers, you have to feed and water and clothe them and guard them. Armies would OCCUPY a country and draft laborers... but that's not the same as slavery because the laborers did have jobs and families that they went back to.

Djoser (2680 BC) has the first one built: en.wikipedia.org...

The Fourth dynasty (largest pyramids built) was a time of peace and relative prosperity. They weren't out catching slaves: en.wikipedia.org...

2) There are no large "internment camps" where slaves could be held for 300 (or 600) years. In fact, there are no signs of any Hebrews/Israelites in Egypt beyond a few "snake spells" (spells in the Hebrew language written in Egyptian hieroglyphs), no Hebrew "borrow words" in the language, no Egyptian words in Hebrew, no appropriation of elements of the Demotic Script into the Hebrew alphabet (which wouldn't be developed until some 1500 years after Giza). No Hebrew names show up in the tombs and temples during this time period (foreign names do show up when Egypt is conquered, but Egypt wasn't conquered at that time and all the names are Egyptian.)

3) there are camps... large ones.. of workers. The area is littered with ostrika (potsherds) where the records of what was given to them appear. Many have tombs in the area (elaborate ones) with the titles of their jobs. They also left records of what was brought to the workers (good food) and they left records of things such as the workers threatening to go on strike beause they had run out of eye makeup (there's other sources for this... I'm just grabbing the first one I find: wiki.answers.com... )

Slaves don't go on strike. Slaves don't have rights. Slaves aren't paid. Slaves aren't useful on projects that require a lot of careful work.

4) There is more than one block with the name of the team on them (someone linked a picture of teams hauling a statue in ancient Egypt (the photo is of the real thing and it is ancient) -- and if you look at the far right of the picture, you will see (for one of the middle columns) something like a dog sitting on a platform with a long handle on it. That's called a "standard" (like a "battle standard" (flag)) and that particular team was dedicated to a god called Wepauwet. The other teams (people on different ropes) have different standards for their teams.

Instead, they were built by people who came from villages that specialized in this kind of work (Dar el Medina, for one) -- talented stonecutters, masons, scribes, painters, woodworkers, etc, and they came during the rainy season when the fields were flooded and there was little work to do. Some of their tools are buried with them, some are left at the site. For your average peasant, if you showed up to work during the time your fields were flooded and unusable, the pharaoh would pay you with good food and beer from the temple warehouses.

It was a "win-win" situation.

Check out the National Geographic site about this and the TourEgypt site as well.

Originally posted by itsatrap
My one question, because this issue puzzles me but I make no presumptions, why are all the pyramids aside from the big 3 in various states of collapse and/or exhibit errors in building (bent pyramid for example)?

Some were made of mud brick in an effort to save money. It doesn't hold up well.

The big 3 are just as stable as the day they were built.

Not really. They've had to do a lot of shoring up on it. Things fall off of it. And over the course of 4,000 years people (including conquerers) started dismantling them (and other pyramids) to grab the handy-dandy precut stones for their own projects.

Many of the lesser pyramids are dated after them yet are nowhere near the size or skill level of the big 3.

There's some evidence that the cost of these things was bankrupting the country and prevented other things (building palaces, temples, preparing for war) from happening.

Techniques are perfected over time they don't get worse.

Bigger isn't better, and yes their stonework got a LOT more consistent over time. The blocks at the pyramid are all sorts of sizes. They got more standardized later and the buildings they put up were a lot more difficult than a pyramid (100 huge columns topped by multi-ton stone roofs is a LOT harder than a pyramid.)

Also harte if you could source the journal or article concerning the heiroglyphics between stones I would appreciate, very interesting.

I have a big list of Egyptology papers and free ebooks (sadly out of date but they'll show you what was going on) linked in a post that's pinned to the top of the forum. I know it's mentioned in some of them and I've seen Vyse's "copies" of hieroglyphs and the originals he was copying.

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that just because you're not smart enough or willing enough to build something incredible, that the egyptians weren't?

Who says just because I'm willing to consider options that I have dismissed yours?

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Byrd

 

Well , to me that patch of hieroglyphs looks like they were drawn there with a piece of charcoal,and to think that they were there when the great pyramid was built is rather silly. What do you think Byrd?

It's in red paint (like they used for marking lines and laying out pattern grids when they were going to draw something on a wall or carve a statue.) So the paint is from the correct era.

And it wasn't done by a scribe. It was done by a quarry worker with a reed pen. He wasn't going to spend all day writing team names down very carefully, just like a modern guy distributing supplies to team. He doesn't write "this one goes to Joe's tea, an that one goes to Sarah's team" (etc) in picture perfect Times New Roman letters. He just writes (or scrawls, in my case) "for Bob" or "For Ann" and goes on. It was close enough for the recipients to read, and that was what mattered.

Vyse didn't do it. He can't tell one bird from another when he's copying hieroglyphs.

Originally posted by sabbathcrazy
You all ways seen in the main stream media, that the pyramids wear made by slaves. Is their text? Hieroglyph's?

2.5million blocks, they say took 25 years to build.

what says maths... 25 x 365 = 9125 days.
9125 x 24 = 219 000 hours.
2.500 000 blocks divide by 219 000 hours. that is if they work't 24/7... but no sun no work = 12hours a day
219 000 / 2 = 111 000 hours of work.
2.500 000 / 111 000 = 22.5 blocks an hour.
60 / 22.5 = 2. 666 666 666 666...
1 block every 2 or 3 minutes... the only place i saw that making sense is in asterix and obelix.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a592f327041.jpg[/atsimg]

Like many ancient monuments (or even modern ones), they were made by a combination of skilled and unskilled labor. We know that slaves were used as ancient labor (and probably for both skilled and unskilled) due to depictions in both art (heiroglyphs and scrolls) and literature (the Bible, for one).

Note too, that there were different KINDS of slaves. Some were military or political prisoners, others were people deep in debt in kind of a default servitude, etc. The word "slave" wasn't as cut and dry as we think of it, in terms of modern slavery.

This idea that all slaves were unskilled is just false. For example, many slaves were slaves due to being captured in war, and if they had a skill, well the ancients weren't wasteful...they'd capitalize on it. Indeed, from some literature, there was fierce competition (and status symbology) for skilled slaves.

That said though, the evidence suggests MOST workers (no way to tell if all) on the pyramids were laborers that were not slaves. However, who's to say what the status of the laborers really was? The desert itself makes a pretty formidable obstacle, so an easy way to keep slaves from running off, as do a lot of folks with arrows.

They were probably built by a combination of skilled Egyptian craftsmen and slaves.
This is just my opinion but seems reasonable since slavery was common to almost every culture in ancient times.
The term slave could also be used in reference to an indentured servant. They would not be as likely to attempt escape.

Slavery in Egypt was not like we think of slavery these days. People could (and did) sell themselves as slaves to a deity, for instance, and became servants of the temple. A poor person could sell himself as a servant to a rich one.
www.reshafim.org.il...

There is really no term for "slave" in ancient Egypt. As this site says:

In reality, such slavery seems to have been fairly rare in Egypt prior to the Greek Period, progressing over time.
www.touregypt.net...

And there's no documents of large sales of slaves before the Middle kingdom though there is the occasional (rare) mention of a slave.
en.wikipedia.org...

The size and scope of the big 3 pyramids is astounding.

It would have required blueprints, inspectors, leads, an entire construction breakdown similar to today...and most importantly a procedure guide (or whatever the Egyptians would have called it). I would love to see the procedure guide specifically. Wouldn't shock me in the least if it could be interchanged with much more modern guides without anybody even noticing.

Well maybe OH&S wouldn't approve, but astounding non the less.

Whilst archeologists, scholars and those with an interest in the subject have known for a long time that slaves did not build the pyramids, a lot of people (the great unwashed, general public etc) still think the pyramids were built by slaves, they often attribute it to Hebrews slaves too - even now in 2011!

I've heard people say all kinds of kooky things about Cleopatra being black or being buried in the pyramids herself! - I quite enjoy setting them straight actually, it can really be a revelation to some people!