Wasn't sure if this would be more properly created in Ahto, but I figure since this theory is likely to be controversial and the historical significance of such a finding is huge, it would qualify as a "serious topic".

http://khufu.3ds.com/introduction/)

(3d Life Player plug-in required)

Horray! A scientific discovery that...well...nobody cares about.

What do I mean? Unlike the Jesus scientific discovery (current in debate and in doubt), few people actually care how the Pymraids were built. Other than the conspiracy theorists (who do not have much say in the world and would reject all scientists out of hand), most people admire the pyramids...and care little about the history behind it. What the scientist may have figured out (altough tests are needed) is just a footnote.

Which is why I say Horray. If all scientific discoveries were mere uncontested footnotes that people don't care about rather than having huge major scientific discovery that inspires huge flamewars (on other forums) and where people start debating at each other, then the world would be a much peaceful and better place. :)

Do you not understand the implications of this theory, SilentScope? This does not contradict orthodox thinking, nor does it represent a great revolution. Yes, it's a footnote, but its an important footnote. This footnote supports the general theory that free workers built the pyramids, not slaves. So, the Egyptians didn't like using slaves, and would seem therefore to be against enslavement.This would mean that Egyptian society had some of the most forward-thinking social theory behind it ever. Certainly, such a society has not been seen up until our own. How many other ancient societies had women as equals of men? Who could run businesses? Or divorce their partners? How many queens ran the country while the king was away or otherwise indisposed?

We now have reason to say that, based upon the evidence, ancient Egypt in fact had a general principle that all people were equal. Do you not see why this is extremely important?

Suddenly, there is a vast deal more reason for the rule of Ma'at to be so vital to uphold.

That is, if any of this were particularly new. It's interesting, but drawing on existing themes. What it does is back up existing ideas, and modifies a couple. Is it revolutionary, however? I should say so.

From one of your footnotes, SS, can spring whole new takes on history.

@Achilles below: ROFL :D

*checks calendar*

Yep, it's a new month so I can agree with you again. :D

Do you not understand the implications of this theory, SilentScope? This does not contradict orthodox thinking, nor does it represent a great revolution. Yes, it's a footnote, but its an important footnote. This footnote supports the general theory that free workers built the pyramids, not slaves. So, the Egyptians didn't like using slaves, and would seem therefore to be against enslavement. ~snip

I haven't had time to read through the thing or look at the animation, but from the sounds of it this might also discount the story that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for 400 years. I don't know the exact time periods so I really can't make any real assertions, but I'm just throwing this out here to be discussed (and most likely refuted :) ).

Bible insulted, asbestos mode on.

There are already some serious problems with the story of Exodus. Assuming that this does completely refute Israelite slaves, it would just be one more.

I find the equality of women thing extremely hard to swallow, along with the glowing belief that Egyptians were allegedly enlightened about slavery. Given the general widespread view of women as second-class citizens and relatively common presence of slavery in that entire region, it just sounds too good to be true.

I find the equality of women thing extremely hard to swallow, along with the glowing belief that Egyptians were allegedly enlightened about slavery. Given the general widespread view of women as second-class citizens and relatively common presence of slavery in that entire region, it just sounds too good to be true.

The Egyptian civilization has been extinct for over a millennium, replaced by the Arabic/Islamic civilization. How people live and think in that region now would tell very little about how people were in that other civilization that existed in the region so long ago.

(And in general human society development isn't a sharply rising curve, it's had its ups and downs throughout time. There has been some evidence that society was a lot less patriarchal and that men and women were a lot more equal in the period just before the major Monotheistic religions (Judaism) evolved. Don't know if the rise of organized monotheistic religion is tied to the change in attitude and societal norms or if that's just a coincidence though.)

Well, I didn't have a nice link for you, but after posting, I realized that some parts of it aren't appropriate for this forum :(

Jae, most polytheistic cultures had much more progressive attitudes about women. Much of this was lost as the world became monotheistic, therefore we find such attitudes hard to believe. Take a look at the gods in Egyptian mythology. Many of the most powerful and/or important deities were women.

@stoffe: jinx :D

The Greeks and Romans had lots of Goddesses, and they nonetheless treated women as inferior to men for the most part. It's only been in the last 30 years or so that women have achieved something remotely close to equality, and we've got a long way to go still.

Do you not understand the implications of this theory, SilentScope? This does not contradict orthodox thinking, nor does it represent a great revolution. Yes, it's a footnote, but its an important footnote. This footnote supports the general theory that free workers built the pyramids, not slaves. So, the Egyptians didn't like using slaves, and would seem therefore to be against enslavement.This would mean that Egyptian society had some of the most forward-thinking social theory behind it ever.

Wow. I should never underestimate the power of a footnote in order to start up a huge discussion.

Still, I do detect a big leap of logic there.

So the Egyptians did not use slaves to built the pyramids. I already knew that. Does that mean however that they didn't use slaves for OTHER projects as well? Like ship galleys? Serving rich nobles? Maybe to help out farming? I find it hard to believe that Egyptains would hate slavery.

Why would Egyptains not use slaves? Simple, they already got themselves a free labor source, the farmers who are out of jobs when the farming season is over. They need work, so they get sent over to build the pyramids. Why import new workers when you already got home-grown workers as well.

Does it debunk the Israeli immigration story? Er...I don't think so. All it says is that the Israelis were enslaved (or thought they were enslaved). What jobs they were sent to do? No one knows, but we do know they weren't building pyramids.

...But I find the last point, that Egypt was the forerunner to our society, the most distrubting. Equality? Pah! Tell that to the Egyptain peasent who has to be buried in the sand while his ruler, a God amongst men, gets intombed with huge pyrmaids. In their religion, the king will have a great afterlife, while all the peasents get is a chance to farm the soil for an eterinty. That's not equailty, that's Nietczhean slavery!

I said "most" not "all" :) If you'd like another example, try the Norse.

FWIW, the Roman pantheon was taken directly from the Greeks, albeit they changed all the names.

Wow. I should never underestimate the power of a footnote in order to start up a huge discussion.
You should never underestimate the power of dismissing someone else's field ;)

Still, I do detect a big leap of logic there.

I will refrain from commenting on the irony of this statement.

So the Egyptians did not use slaves to built the pyramids. I already knew that. Does that mean however that they didn't use slaves for OTHER projects as well?
that would contraven the 40 Principles of Ma'at, and upsets the Rule of Ma'at? Because the concept of owning other people was alien to their pretty well isolationistic society? Because to owe your alleigance to anyone other than He Of The Sedge And The Bee and the gods could be perceived as blasphemy, likewise to demand it?

Like ship galleys?

No need. Egyptian navy was pretty small.

Serving rich nobles?

They could hire servants.

Maybe to help out farming?

That's what your children, wife and extended family were for.

I find it hard to believe that Egyptains would hate slavery.

That's your issue, you deal with it :)

Why would Egyptains not use slaves? Simple, they already got themselves a free labor source, the farmers who are out of jobs when the farming season is over. They need work, so they get sent over to build the pyramids. Why import new workers when you already got home-grown workers as well.

Yep. For a third of the year, during Achet, they've got nothing to do.

Does it debunk the Israeli immigration story? Er...I don't think so. All it says is that the Israelis were enslaved (or thought they were enslaved). What jobs they were sent to do? No one knows, but we do know they weren't building pyramids.
They weren't enslaved, we can say that much. At least, not literally. Probably, they were an ethnic minority in Egypt. And it is quite possible that while one ruler promised they could come in, another would say 'no' to their requests to leave. It does seem that they took with them, however, parts of the Egyptian legal code, which then was used in the Promised Land. Certainly, there are interesting parallels. Exactly what happened we are unsure, but it does seem likely that if they were in Egypt, they left sometime during the reign of Merneptah.

...But I find the last point, that Egypt was the forerunner to our society, the most distrubting. Equality? Pah! Tell that to the Egyptain peasent who has to be buried in the sand while his ruler, a God amongst men, gets intombed with huge pyrmaids.
And if his ruler didn't perform his job and make the Nile rise every year, the sun rise every morning, protect the frontiers, appease the gods, build the temples etc, his neck was on the line.

In their religion, the king will have a great afterlife, while all the peasents get is a chance to farm the soil for an eterinty.

Curious that they seemed quite content with this, then, isn't it?
That's not equailty, that's Nietczhean slavery!
Maybe so, but the mortals? Were equal.

You couldn't explain any of this to an Egyptian peasant, anyway - he/she would have no point of reference.

I find the equality of women thing extremely hard to swallow, along with the glowing belief that Egyptians were allegedly enlightened about slavery.
Link (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/OBRIEN_DISSPROP_TEXT.HTML)
Link (http://www.stoa.org/diotima/essays/wardlect.shtml)

Enlightened regarding slavery? Perhaps. Certainly there were few slaves in Egypt. The only slavery really conducted was the taking of prisoners of war, who could be treated as possessions of their captor. That was about the limit of it, though.

Sure, not enlightened by our standards, but you cannot judge history by absolute moral standards - to do so is a fool's errand, and besides, what will people say of us in 15,000 years?. By the culture of the time, it was a very enlightened situation.

Link (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/slaves.htm)

Given the general widespread view of women as second-class citizens and relatively common presence of slavery in that entire region, it just sounds too good to be true.
Those societies grew from the Proto-Indo-European root. When those societies were just in their first beginnings, Egypt was already old.

The Greeks and Romans had lots of Goddesses, and they nonetheless treated women as inferior to men for the most part. It's only been in the last 30 years or so that women have achieved something remotely close to equality, and we've got a long way to go still.
The Greco-Roman attitude to women may have something to do with the Greek myth that the gods created women as a punishment for men...

It is interesting to note, however, that prior to the Reformation, women seem to have a much larger degree of liberty than afterwards. For example, the Wife of Bath in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales runs her own business. She can talk in public with whomever she pleases and is, in short, a lot more free than, say, a woman in the 18th century.

As stoffe said, history has had its ups and downs, and is not a uniform gradient upwards in terms of rights, or indeed anything else :)

It's only been in the last 30 years or so that women have achieved something remotely close to equality, and we've got a long way to go still.

What you say is true for our current civilization, but there have been plenty others coming and going before it. In the larger perspective this reasoning would assume that development and change always are for the better, and that once something good has been gained it will remain forever. This does not seem to be the case, neither for technology and innovations nor for social norms and values.

The equality, status and influence of women has shifted quite a lot throughout human history in different cultures and civilizations. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Such changes can even come amazingly quickly when the norms of society are changed radically (for example in Persia/Iran after the Islamic Revolution). There have been plenty of matriarchal cultures, and a handful still remain today, although they are fairly small.

With this in mind I don't have any problems envisioning that the status of women in the Egyptian civilization was significantly higher than in the civilization that later replaced it. Or that one older civilization would frown on slavery while others forming later in time would embrace the practice.