Except where they’re inconsistent, as you pointed out in your previous post.
The latest information appears to be that the pyramids were built by two kinds of labour:
(1) A fairly skilled permanent workforce of reasonably high-ranking professionals (tombs belonging to this class have been found reasonably recently); and
(2) Unskilled corvee labourers performing physical work as part of their tax during the Nile inundation.
The image of slaves working on the pyramids comes from the OT stories of the Jews, which (even assuming there is any truth to them - there is exactly zero archeaological evidence of a class of Jewish slaves in Egypt) were set in a much later time-period than the construction of the great pyramids.
Perhaps they were built by cats.
So, basically, they’re all members of Habitat for Human-Gods?
Freddy the Pig probably has the answer closest to historical fact. Traditionally, historians believed that workers from the Egyptian populace were drafted during the Nile’s annual floods, when they wouldn’t be otherwise occupied with agricultural labor. More recent historians have been putting forward the theory, not without evidence, that the process was considerably more professional. Highly skilled workers were definitely recruited and compensated, and common laborers may have been simply hired, rather than drafted. Sub contractors may have been used, especially in the process of quarrying and transporting the stone.
The Pyramids, and other Ancient Egyptian monuments, were certainly not built by chattel slaves, Charlton Heston Ten Commandments style.
However, i think the OP is very, very wrong with his belief that the laborers on the Pyramids worked because they loved the Pharaoh, or because they wanted to build something beautiful or lasting. They worked because of compensation or compulsion, or some combination of the two. But that certainly doesn’t mean that someone can’t be proud of something they were paid, or even forced to work on. And while I agree that paid workers are generally better in the long run than forced laborers, plenty of impressive things throughout history have been built with forced labor. Awesome things do not always have moral or efficient origins.
Damn, Malthus said exactly what I said, and he said it first and worded it slightly better!
I will add that my favorite workers on Ancient Egyptian tombs were the ones who came back after the work was done and robbed the place blind. Evidence that at least some Ancient Egyptians didn’t revere the Pharaoh or divine retribution.
Does the US enslave soldiers during times with the draft?
No. Military service is a special case.
Forced labor is highly efficient under the right circumstances. Slave agricultural labor worked quite well in Italy but was almost entirely absent in Egypt for a variety of good reasons.
Considering there is thousands of years between us and them, yes, it is pretty solidly consistent.
What if those soldiers are digging ditches or working in the motor pool? Is that slavery? What if those soldiers are building a pyramid and aren’t expected to fight?
Heh - I wish I thought I could get away with that!
In the latter case, they’re not soldiers. They’re laborers.
Slaves do have to eat, or they’re not much use. American chattel slaves were fed and clothed and housed in some fashion; not all things of value received by workers are properly a wage.
Evidence of what, exactly? Have you a cite?
It’s not a “gut” feeling. You’re going to have to do a lot better than that.
My understanding has been that looting was typically thought to have happened long after construction. Is there evidence to the contrary?
How would being provided with food and lodging make them not slaves? Even the most brutal Alabama or Georgia plantationers did that much. Now, if, as ramel says, they also got luxury goods like cosmetics, that might be of some relevance.
And yes, it is slavery when a military conscripts soldiers. Slavery doesn’t magically become OK just because the job being done has a decent chance of getting the slaves killed.
The evidence suggests that the beer and grain they received wasn’t a daily ration, per se, but a contracted amount based on time worked. When royal workers didn’t receive their pay, they got pissed. We have some marvelous documents from a later period, perhaps most notably the Turin Strike papyrus. When payments were not forthcoming beginning in the reign of Ramesses III, the workers struck. Strikes and walkouts continued for years afterwards. In one case, the payment was so delayed that the workers themselves threatened to loot tombs.
Furthermore, there is simply no evidence that the Egyptian government, such as it was, could muster enough coercive force to keep such an enormous volume of people in one place and working for 30-odd years. Forced corvee labor on the irrigation works was definitely an Egyptian institution, but it was locally organized in its entirety where labor could be measured and enforced. It is not obvious that the government, which had a vanishingly tiny number of actual workers, could have even done the things Herodotus and the bible attribute to it.
None of this suggests that the Egyptians were passive Asiatics who simply could not conceive of defying their God-Emperor and were thus stuck in their Asiatic mode of production. This orientalizing claptrap was discredited decades or more ago. You are welcome to scour the last thirty or forty years of Egyptology to find support for your gut feeling. I won’t hold my breath.
They ate quite a lot of meat and only worked three months at a time. The workers themselves had very nice mud brick tombs quite close to the pyramids themselves. There is still a lot of work to be done since the worker’s village was gigantic and a ton of artifacts have been excavated, but so far, the signs point to good living conditions, rotating local labor, and freedom.
I have a secondary source (which i do believe to be reliable) that says looting was typically contemporary, often done by people who had worked on the tombs, since they knew the location of the loot, as well as how to navigate the mazes, false chambers, etc. A strong argument supporting that the pharaohs feared contemporary looters is all of the anti-looting measures they took when building the tombs. If looters weren’t a problem, why build all the labyrinths and secret tunnels and curses against looters?
Any other doper history buffs have anything to say on this issue? I’ll look for some primary sources, but my research resources have become significantly less extensive since graduating from college.
Ramesses III was a different world, more than a thousand years after the time period I was speaking of.
I think the OP was talking about camps that had actual evidence to support their contentions.