Starting around 3100 BCE, Egypt had a roughly 3-millenia run as the preeminent society on
the planet, erecting astonishing structures of breathtaking scope, size, and beauty. The
pyramids were so ambitious—and in a time period well before heavy machinery and workplace
safety protocols—that people have long been taught the only way they could have been built
was with forced labor. Men and women who were coerced into servitude so the pharaohs and
their assorted underlings could kick back and relax in their giant new digs. How else
could a “primitive” society inspire Las Vegas architecture?
Well it turns out, enslaved people did not build the pyramids. Yeah. Game changer. We
clear that up and more on this edition of Misconceptions. Let’s get started.
Intro
Hi, I’m Justin Dodd, and if you’re like me, ancient Egypt conjures up images of the
Sphinx, Cleopatra, and Steve Martin. But pound for sand-encrusted pound, nothing says Old
Kingdom like the pyramids. These structures have inspired wonder from the time they were
first built. It might have taken up to 10,000 people to build just a single pyramid, with
workers moving stone blocks weighing up to 15 tons. And, much like modern-day road construction,
it took decades. It’s easy to understand why historians believed these massive undertakings
would require forced labor to produce, but does the available historical information
support this oft-repeated explanation?
Misconception: The Pyramids Were Built With Forced Labor
This myth has long been perpetuated by depictions of Egyptian slave work in popular culture.
It actually dates back to Greek historian Herodotus, sometimes called the father of
history, or as I call him, history daddy, but it may actually be based on a misreading
of his work. Herodotus talks about 100,000 Egyptians being compelled into work, but he
only explicitly mentions these workers building a road, not the pyramids, per se. Even if
he meant for his audience to infer that those same workers were forced into labor on the
pyramids themselves, contemporary experts disagree. In 2003, Egyptologist Mark Lehner
spoke about his decades of research in Giza and how most archaeological clues point to
there being a working class of Egyptians who tackled the pyramids much like a construction
crew works under the watch of a foreman. The pyramid builders had their own living quarters
and were fed well. Lehner uncovered a large quantity of cattle bones from young animals,
indicating a diet rich in what we’d basically call prime beef today.
There also appeared to be a sense of camaraderie among the workers. In the early 20th century
Harvard researcher George Reisner found Egyptian graffiti that labeled teams, like Friends
of Khufu or Drunkards of Menkaure, who presumably knew how to unwind after a long day.
When these builders died, they were buried with their belongings close to the pyramids
occupied by the pharaohs—a kind of hallowed ground that an enslaved person probably wouldn’t
have been allowed to occupy.
Still, it was grueling work, and tens of thousands of pyramid workers got their hands dirty.
So if it wasn’t slavery, what was it? Dr. Lehner suggests that ancient Egyptians subscribed
to a strong sense of civic duty, not unlike the Amish of today. Just as the Amish might
collectively raise a barn because of its benefits for the community, Egyptians of the era might’ve
volunteered to work on the pyramids out of a sense it was contributing to the greater
good. Some Egyptians may have also been working off debt, known as bak, to a higher-ranking
Egyptian. Again, not quite slavery, since even lords themselves owed bak to other lords.
As for how they did it? Historians still aren’t totally sure. But the stone was likely mined
from nearby quarries and transported across sand that was dampened for easier sliding.
One theory says that once the stones were at the construction site, it’s possible
that ramps and a rope-and-pulley system were used to maneuver them into place.
So, not slavery, but still not too cushy a job, either. Excavated skeletons of workers
showed some pretty serious arthritis, which is kind of what you’d expect when moving
literal tons of stone around. But as we found out in our episode of Misconceptions about
Health, their arthritis was not caused by cracking their knuckles.
Misconception: Napoleon Shot Off the Sphinx’s Nose
Giza is also home to the Sphinx, possibly the single most recognizable piece of Egyptian
iconography in the world. At 240 feet long and 66 feet high, it’s a monument to the
ingenuity of the Egyptians and also to Pharaoh Khafre, who’s thought to have ordered construction
of the Sphinx near his father Pharaoh Khufu’s Great Pyramid. Unlike the pyramids, the Sphinx
isn’t made of numerous stone blocks—it’s one gargantuan piece of carved limestone.
And it’s notable not only for its beauty, but because of the fact the Sphinx’s nose
is missing.
As the legend goes, Napoleon Bonaparte did the deed during the French campaign in Egypt
in 1798. He ordered his soldiers to fire a cannon at the Sphinx and knocked its honker
clean off. Great story. Not true at all.
A painting by Danish explorer Frederic Louis Norden in 1737 shows the Sphinx with its nose
already missing—over 60 years before Napoleon was around. Instead, it’s more likely that
a Sufi Muslim named Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahr broke the nose off in the 14th century. He
was protesting the Egyptian practice of idolatry after feeling disgusted watching Egyptian
peasants making offerings to the Sphinx in order to ward off floods—sort of a cutting
off the nose to spite your enemy’s face kind of thing. Also, he might have been executed
for the monumental nose job, though the historical record is murky about that.
This isn’t the only interesting story involving Napoleon and a missing body part, by the way.
Check out our List Show episode about the notable body parts of historical figures to
find out, in the words of my esteemed colleague Ellen Gutoskey, the fate of the Little Corporal’s
little corporal.
Misconception: King Tut Was Murdered
The mysterious death of King Tutankhamun, Pharaoh of the 18th Egyptian dynasty, would’ve
made a great episode of Unsolved Mysteries, Ancient Egypt edition. The host of that show?
Ra-bert Stack. No? Would you have accepted Den-isis Farina?
Anyway, Tut ruled the roost around the 14th century BCE after the death of his father,
King Akhenaten, when Tutankhamun was just 9 years old. What does a kid know about ruling
Egypt? Not much. But he had advisers, so it largely worked out.
Then, at the tender age of 19, he died, was mummified, and placed in a sarcophagus. You
could say it was a wrap for Ol’ King Tut…but I think I’m nearing the legal limit for
groan-worthy jokes in a single segment, so I won’t.
Tut’s tomb was discovered by British archaeologist Howard Carter in 1922, which led to decades
of investigation. In 1968, researchers conducted an X-ray exam and were puzzled by the fact
that his skull had bone fragments in it, pointing to a possible blow to the head. Some thought
King Tut may have died while on a chariot, which is a fairly badass way to go out. Or
maybe a political rival disenchanted with the kid king had decided to dethrone him.
One theory held that it was his trusted adviser, Ay, who coveted his throne and feared losing
control once King Tut became a man.
As the widely accepted theory goes, King Tut died and his widow, Queen Ankhesenamun (an-keh-SIN-a-moon),
wrote to the enemy Hittites and begged them to send along a prince to fill the void. She
wrote:
“My husband died. A son I have not…If thou wouldst give me one son of thine, he
would become my husband. Never shall I pick out a servant of mine and make him my husband!...I
am afraid!”
The Hittites wouldst. Or, at least, they triedst. They sent a prince, but he was murdered along
the way. While that might seem to lend some credibility to the foul play theory, science
has proven otherwise.
During a scan of his body in 2005, scientists determined the damage to King Tut’s skull
had been suffered not in life but in death. Either Carter had simply mishandled the mummy,
or the Egyptians drilled a hole in Tut’s skull to extract his brain, as one does. Later
research revealed King Tut had a host of health problems, including malaria and a femur fracture
from a fall. That thigh injury led to a leg infection that later turned gangrenous. It
was the infection that likely spelled his doom, not an assassination, although scholars
aren’t in universal agreement on that.
Why so many health issues? King Tut had some deformities, likely due to inbreeding, a popular
activity among Egyptian royals. In fact, his parents were siblings, and Queen Ankhesenamun
was also his half-sister. Really, the murder story might be a little more flattering.
Misconception: Only Rich Egyptians Got Mummified
Mummification. It’s one of the most intriguing aspects of ancient Egypt. Scores of rich Pharaohs
being laid to rest in elaborate gold coffins after being mummified using treated linens,
their brains delicately and respectfully removed from their skulls via their nose or another
newly-created hole. Their dried bodies were preserved for what the Egyptians hoped would
be a fruitful afterlife, where the soul could live on and harass British archaeologists.
Commoners, on the other hand, had their organs liquified by chemicals and were probably buried
in shallow graves, their families grieving over mounds of dirt. Right? Wrong.
Turns out the practice of mummification was available to just about anyone. In fact, by
the time of King Tut’s reign, there was a kind of mortician gold rush in ancient Egypt,
with mummy artisans vying for all that sweet corpse business. Mummification was affordable,
and its practice by experts wasn’t just reserved for the elites.
So what benefits did Pharaohs and other upper-class Egyptians enjoy post-mortem? Mainly careful
attention to the heart. Egyptians believed the heart was a must-have organ for afterlife
activities and it wasn’t unusual to remove the heart from a departed commoner so the
privileged could enjoy a peasant-free eternity. Retaining the heart was actually a trade secret
kept among morticians.
Other than that, mummification came down to the personal preferences of the person doing
the wrapping. Some stuffed the skull with linen or resin, the golden hue of which represented
the divine power of the sun. Sometimes animals were mummified, like sacred bulls and even
cats.
Misconception: Hieroglyphs Are Ancient Emojis
We see a lot of references to emojis being the modern-day version of hieroglyphs, or
sacred carvings, the form of Egyptian writing that uses pictures as a form of communication.
See a hieroglyph of a house and you’ll think the writer means house. They can, but it can
also signify the sound “pr”-P-R, in English. Egyptians used hieroglyphs not only as logograms,
which represent entire words, but also as phonograms, which represent sounds, and determinatives
that can clarify a word’s meaning. In other words, hieroglyphs aren’t necessarily an
image-for-word translation. A hieroglyph of a house followed by a bird doesn’t necessarily
mean there’s a bird in the house. And really, by the time you’ve carved that note for
the family, the bird has probably flown back out.
Early Greek and Roman scholars believed hieroglyphs were symbolic in nature. A hawk, for example,
might indicate swiftness. It wasn’t until shortly after Napoleon swooped in on Egypt
in 1798 that the Rosetta Stone was discovered. This rock was basically a key for deciphering
the hieroglyphs into Greek script. The Egyptians also used demotic, a form of cursive writing
that was a little cruder but faster than carving pictures into walls. And there were no vowels,
which made everything a little bit trickier.
So no, hieroglyphs are not emojis. Despite being conceived thousands of years ago, they’re
far more sophisticated than the thumbs-up graphic you’re using. Speaking of, don’t
forget to hit that like button. [Could spell out something in a hieroglyph here.] And,
that fancy bell, which means, subscribe.
Oh, and my editors told me that this means I’m Justin Dodd, and thanks for watching
Mental Floss on YouTube. I’ll see you next time.