Egypt’s Vice Minister of Culture Zahi Hawass seems to think so.  As the critics, both pro and con, chime in with their own analysis of the recent JAMA article, Dr. Hawass seems to cross the line between making a response and taking offense.

“I call on Set, the [ancient Egyptian] god of evil to remain silent this time!”

Criticism of the results of the two-year study of royal Egyptian mummies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) was immediate, one of the benefits of living in the cyber age.  EEF News, an Egyptology forum mailing list moderated by A. K. Eyma, lit up with professional and lay responses to the JAMA article within hours of its publication.  The excitement was viral, but not without its share of “Yeah, ok, but what about…?”

More formal responses are undoubtedly being hammered out on the keyboards of Egyptology writers in the cluttered offices of media experts and the pristine halls of academia.  This is not a personal insult to Zahi Hawass or the many excellent minds who contributed to the work, it is simply how science is done.

In “As if Tutankhamun is Alive!” (Source: Asharq Alawsat), Dr. Hawass points to the fact that the JAMA article was “the peak of our work and efforts over at least the past two years, and the scientific research we provided was accepted by the Journal of the American Medical Association, after it was revised by a number of world-renowned scientists.”  The study has indeed received wide acclaim for its thoroughness and sound methodology.

But publishing a scientific paper, even one as thoroughly vetted as the JAMA article, is not the final word in the field.  Science is not like a court of law, where the evidence is presented, the jury renders a verdict, and the judge proclaims the case closed.  Scientific theories, no matter how apparently “true,” are always and forever open cases. 

Picking Words, Picking Fights, or just Picking?

Part of the problem with the Asharq Alawsat article is that Dr. Hawass is not very specific about who and what he is responding to.  Take the following quotation:

Apart from the gains of this significant publicity, some sad and other laughable things occurred. Dr. Abdel Halim Nureddin told me that someone keeps saying that he was the first to carry out DNA tests on mummies. All I could do was laugh because the project that I’m honoured to be presiding over is the first ever to use DNA testing on these mummies so we have exclusively set up the first two DNA laboratories to study mummies in Egypt. (Source)

Dr. Hawass does not name the person making this claim, so it is difficult to analyze.  But it is worth mentioning that there seems to be a separation between what is claimed and what is responded to.  Someone claims to have been “the first to carry out DNA tests on mummies,” to which Dr. Hawass counterclaims that he is “presiding over the first [study] ever to use DNA testing on these mummies” (emphasis mine).

One of the co-authors of the royal mummy study, Dr. Albert Zink, is also head of the Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, a foundation established to study the famous Ötzi iceman, a 5,300-year-old mummy found in the Ötztal Alps in 1991.  According to the website for the Ötzi Museum, the first genetic analysis of Ötzi was published in 2006 (American Journal of Physical Anthropology: “The Iceman belongs to the European genetic haplogroup K and was probably infertile.”  Rollo, F.U., L. Ermini, S. Luciani, I. Marota, C. Olivieri, D. Luiselli.  Vol. 130, pp. 557-564:2006). 

It could therefore be argued that one of Dr. Hawass’ own team members conducted DNA tests on mummies prior to the royal mummy project, just not those same mummies. The murkiness of the claim and counterclaim, both as presented by Dr. Hawass, do not serve his complaint of harassment very well.

Dr. Hawass goes on to characterize as “false claims” the criticism that the DNA is only 40% confirmed, as opposed to 100% as Dr. Hawass claims.  The truth is, any expert working in a modern DNA lab with contemporary samples taken from living subjects can tell you that the best we can do is narrow a sample down to a likely population.  It is not at all unusual to hear a statement in a courtroom to the effect of “Only one person in 100 billion will exhibit these genetic markers.” 

Given the fact that there are not enough people on Earth for there to be a second person exhibiting those same characteristics, this sort of match is a fairly reliable conclusion!  But this is still not 100% certain, and I am guessing it is fair to say that ancient DNA can be trickier to work with than that taken from a living person.  It may seem like splitting hairs but Zahi’s statement that the tests are 100% accurate is as false a claim as 40%.  A more reliable assessment is likely somewhere in the middle.

This is the problem with taking peer criticism personally and responding with words such as “laughable,” “false claim,” and “I expected those enemies of success and people who are obsessed with fame to come forward to try and stick their noses in the results of our research.” 

Kate Phizackerley and the DNA Problems

There are many intelligent and thoughtful people who are taking a fair but critical look at the conclusions published in the JAMA article.  Kate Phizackerley, proprietor of News from the Valley of the Kings, has had a bead drawn on this story from the beginning.

Starting with “The Consanguinity Problem” and “An example of my consanguinity concerns”, Kate began to question the reliability of drawing specific conclusions from a population where interbreeding was so rampant.  She followed this up with a first rate scholarly article, “DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten,” and made clarifications in “Genetic Sudoko.”  These articles are a good starting point for anyone who is curious about alternative views on the JAMA study and why any scientific work, no matter how well presented, is always an open case.

Kate’s most recent offering, “Questions Roundup and a Combative Zahi,” specifically responds to the Asharq Alawsat article.  “I don’t know what the academic community feels,” she states, “but I personally resent the accusation that I am “obsessed with fame” because I have critiqued the DNA data.”

We are all Layers in the Strata.  Take a Minute and Chill

Zahi Hawass is not alone in bemoaning those ever-present ignorant scoundrels who disagree with our hard work.  Nobody likes going through the process of developing, presenting, and successfully defending a thesis, only to have their parade rained on by the relentless drive of science.  But as any scientist will tell you, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and its giants all the way down.  Eventually, someone will climb onto your shoulders as well.  That’s how the game is played.

I am far too insignificant to offer Dr. Hawass advice, but far too indiscrete to pass up the opportunity.  The next time you want to bash your critics, invite some of your most trusted colleagues to the famous Old Cataract Hotel veranda, and while knocking back a cold Stella and watching the Nile lazily passing by, let it all out.  Just don’t invite the press.

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

If we can take physical samples from some of the most important and fragile “artifacts” in all of Egypt—royal mummies—then why can’t we allow Jean Pierre to conduct completely non-invasive work which may unravel one of humankind’s most abiding riddles:  How was the Great Pyramid built?

After receiving a copy of Khufu’s Pyramid Revealed, Jean-Pierre’s follow-up and supplement to his and Bob Brier’s bestselling book, The Secret of the Great Pyramid, Mr. Rose found himself wondering why M. Houdin’s work has hit a snag at the administrative level.  Jean-Pierre’s request to have his internal ramp theory tested and opened to peer review has met with a suspicious amount of bureaucratic leg-dragging.

Mr. Rose correctly points out that all Jean-Pierre is requesting is an opportunity to spend about eighteen hours using infrared thermographic and similar technologies to test his theories.  The equipment would not come into actual physical contact with the pyramid—it wouldn’t need to.

It does seem as if a double standard is being applied in light of the cautious—but admittedly more intrusive—work recently completed on Eighteenth Dynasty royal mummies, including that of Tutankhamun.  “But surely, if we are comfortable with sampling the royal mummies for DNA, it should be possible to structure this research in a way that meets the permit criteria,” Mr. Rose suggests (Source:  Beyond Stone & Bone:  “Time for the Great Pyramid?”). 

Whether it ultimately proves to be correct or not, Jean-Pierre Houdin’s work is rock solid and based on science where he is a proven expert.  In addition to Bob “Mr. Mummy” Brier, Mark Rose adds his voice to Egyptologists of the caliber of Dieter Arnold and Rainer Stadelman in support of allowing Jean-Pierre to put his theories to the test.

Jean-Pierre Houdin signing autographs for Magdy El-Ghandour, Director of Foreign Missions for the Supreme Council of Antiquities, and Taha Abdallah, Dean of Shorouk University (Photo courtesy of Jean-Pierre Houdin)

The answer to Mr. Rose’s question is a resounding yes:  it is indeed time for the Great Pyramid. 

Dr. Hawass, tear down this wall!

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Photograph of Jean-Pierre Houdin used by permission.  All rights reserved.

All the world is abuzz with the long-awaited release of the current genetic study of the Eighteenth Dynasty, particularly as it relates to the goose that continues to lay the golden eggs—King Tut. 

Your humble scribe is still mulling over the subject before attempting his own contribution, but in the meanwhile, here are a few excellent pieces from some of the most excellent writers in the Egyptology blogosphere.  In the spirit of parsimony, I have narrowed my selection down to the three which I found to be the most unique in their approach and thought provoking in their implications.  Enjoy!

The Egyptians

In After Nefertiti, Tim Reid summarizes some of the questions inferred by the new data.  Who (and to a certain degree, what) was Smenkhara?  Are there some new inductees into the narrow circle of the Amarna Revolution?  Who are the most likely candidates for Tutankhamun’s mother?

News from the Valley of the Kings

In The Consanguinity Problem, Kate Phizackerley raises some questions about the reliability of some of the conclusions drawn from the genetic data.  In particular, she asks how confident can we be about specific relationships in a population where genetic variation has been so narrowed by inbreeding.  Is Kate revealing the elephant in the room—that the data may be more difficult to interpret than we are being led to believe?

The Time Traveler Rest Stop

In The Genealogy of Tutankhamun, writer Marianne Luban shares her own informed speculations about the relationship between Tutankhamun and the Younger Lady of KV35.  She makes an interesting argument for the possibility that Nefertiti may have been the mother of Tut after all.

Bonus Story:

On a related note, Marianne also delivers a fair critique of the world premier-style mass media delivery of “Egyptological announcements” in The SCA and Pharaonic DNA.  Is the Supreme Council of Antiquities serving its wine before its time? 

And of Em Hotep?

Ok, so articles on Em Hotep have been admittedly few and far between in 2010, but that is no indicator of things to come!  The new year has brought a banquet of news from Egypt, a boon to be sure, but it has caused me to review my focus and mission with this website.

As the masthead says, we are all about Egypt(ology) for the curious layperson and the budding scholar, but what does that mean?  What I intend is to provide news and analysis about Egyptology—what we know and what we are learning—that is a cut above mass media but accessible to persons of varying levels of education and expertise.

In that definition I would include high school students who have a fascination with Egypt and her history, college students who may or may not be intending to focus their graduate studies on Egyptology, scholars who appreciate an interdisciplinary approach to this field, and the auto mechanic who spent a decade building a scale model of the Giza Plateau that fills her entire attic.

In other words, I want to provide news and reference material which is interesting and digestible to amateur Egyptologists without dumbing things down, while also providing articles that are relevant and enjoyable to those who are a bit further along in the field.

In order to approach this goal with both the tenacity and humility which it deserves, I attempt to pull from the most interesting and reliable sources, to explore the subjects and ask the questions I think will interest my readers, but to also know and honor my own limitations.  This means being inclusive on the one hand, and selective on the other.

Inclusivity

When I first began Em Hotep I had a weekly feature called the Blogroll Roundup, wherein I would point readers to stories on other blogs which I felt were interesting and important.  My objective was also to “promote the Egyptology blogosphere in general.”  In this process I made some excellent connections with other professional and non-professional writers. 

I also discovered that some of the writers I was promoting, quite frankly, wouldn’t give me the time of day!  For the last 4-5 months I have eschewed the Roundup format in favor of specifically promoting sites with whom I feel I have a more reciprocal relationship.  Call me petty, but time is money!

This brings me to the matter of the avalanche of news and my limited ability to weigh in on everything which I think you, Honorable Reader, would find of interest.  But I’m not big on link lists.  From the very beginning I was determined not to become a glorified version of Google news alerts.  I should be quick to clarify that I am not referring to those who provide links to stories which require more digging than simple news alerts  (hello, Tim Reid, Vincent Brown, and Jenny Hale!).

My point is this:  you will either find original writing and analysis on Em Hotep, or links to others who are doing the same.  In order to bring you, Honorable Reader, the stories which I think you will enjoy but which are not covered here, I will be including more topical compendiums of links such as the one above.  Thus inclusivity—I will be including more links to respected peers both to promote their work and to tighten my focus.  Which brings us to…

Selectivity

In order to remain true to my goals for Em Hotep I will be focusing on in-depth feature-length articles and reference material.  This is why my reference material on, say, the Great Temple of Horus at Edfu is more than just a rehash of the Wikipedia article with some of my own photography tossed in.  It begins with Dr. Nadine Moeller’s Tell Edfu Project and the implications of her work there, and then progresses on to the as-of-yet unfinished article on the Great Temple itself.  Speaking of that article…

Narrowing my focus will prevent me from landing in the situation in which I currently find myself:  five pots of stew on a four burner stove.  The Edfu series should have been finished by now, ideally with the article on the temple and maybe even an interview with someone from the Tell Edfu Project before everyone jets off for the 2010 digging season. 

Blogging (I still detest that marginalizing term and use it under duress!) has certain occupational hazards, not the least of which is an obsessive-compulsive drive to “be current.”  That is all good and well within boundaries, but left unchecked can lead to burnout.  It can also result in immersing oneself in a new series before closing the open accounts.

Being inclusive of the work of one’s peers is a salve for that obsessive-compulsiveness.  So long as I am pointing you, Honorable Reader, to others who are covering the news which I am not, then I can be selective in my focus without feeling like I am shirking my duties.

And so

So my immediate goals are to finish up the open accounts, in particular, the Tell Edfu/Temple of Horus series, the Pyramid City series, and a series of articles I am cooking on the new genetic studies of the Eighteenth Dynasty.  Most of the research is already completed for these serials, all that remains is translating several stacks of 50+ pages of notes into several articles which might actually hold someone’s attention!

You may have noticed that I did not mention the Hemienu to Houdin series.  That is because I consider Jean Pierre Houdin’s work to be significant enough that I don’t intend to ever actually finish covering it.  Of course, the current series will be completed, in fact, it is my highest priority.  But I genuinely think that his work on the Great Pyramid in particular and the Memphis Necropolis in general is the number one story in Egyptology. 

This is a bold statement, and I can appreciate that not everyone shares my opinion, especially considering that Tut continues to lay golden eggs.  But Tutankhamun’s claim to fame is managing to stay hidden until someone other than a common grave robber discovered his tomb.  Golden treasures are a huge draw, and tracing the genealogy of the Eighteenth Dynasty and placing famous names on previously anonymous mummies are fascinating and worthy pursuits.

But the pyramids and other monuments of the Memphis Necropolis represent human ingenuity and resolve at their best.  Explaining how they were built does not just answer questions which have perplexed us for thousands of years, it shows that determined but otherwise ordinary human beings are capable of solving nearly impossible problems and achieving epic feats.  These are important things to remember about ourselves these days.

Another up-coming series will be a set of reference articles covering Abydos and what Egyptologists are up to there, partially inspired by David O’Connor’s new book Abydos:  Egypt’s First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osirus, which Amazon just delivered into my eager hands last week.

It may appear that I am off to a slow start in 2010, but I assure you I have been working like crazy!  Of course, I have myself to blame for this perception.  I spread myself too thin to keep fresh material rolling and was too self absorbed to point you, Honorable Reader, toward the work of my fellows in the Egyptology blogosphere.  Mea culpa!  Bear with me while I reorient the ship and I promise fun times ahead!

Your humble scribe has a few stories up his sleeve…

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Dr. Hawass’ statement that “These tombs were built beside the king’s pyramid, which indicates that these people were not by any means slaves” (source) was widely repeated in the press under headlines announcing that the belief that slaves had built the pyramids could now be retired.  But Egyptologists have long known that the Slave Hypothesis was pure Hollywood. 

Along with Hawass, Egyptologist Mark Lehner began uncovering the truth of the pyramid builders more than 20 years ago.  Lehner was consumed with the question of where such a large workforce could have lived.  After conducting the first detailed “to scale” survey of the Giza Plateau, he narrowed his focus to the area around the enigmatic Wall of the Crow, a colossal wall with no apparent related structures.

Lehner hit pay dirt, and his dogged pursuit of these ancient builders led to the excavation of the very city where they lived and worked—a large complex of barracks and permanent housing, distribution centers, industrial sites, and scribal workshops.  The recently discovered tombs tell us something of the status of the workers, but the Lost City of the Pyramid Builders gives us the everyday details of their lives.

Most of Em Hotep’s readers will be familiar with Dr. Lehner and his work.  But if you are not, then his total absence from the recent news stories may have left you with an incomplete picture of just how strong the case against the Slavery Hypothesis really is.  In this three-part series we will take a look at what Lehner discovered about the pyramid builders.  We will examine the evidence that the workforce had a surprisingly modern division of labor, followed by a tour of the city itself.

The headlines said it all

“Egyptian Tomb Find Suggests Pyramid Builders Weren’t Slaves” (Bloomberg).  “Egypt tombs suggest free men built pyramids, not slaves” (BBC).  The Times Live snarkily distinguished that “Great pyramid builders were wage slaves.” And speaking with sonorous authority, Al-Ahram Weekly declared “Building on facts:  A new discovery at Giza plateau has finally debunked Herodotus’ assertion that the Pyramids were built by slaves.”

Some sources at least acknowledged that this news wasn’t so new after all.  Discover Magazine announced “Egypt Finds Tombs of Pyramid Builders, And More Evidence They Were Free Men.”  The Canadian Press stated “Egypt says newly discovered tombs provide more evidence slaves did not build pyramids.”  JWeekly.com summarized “Egypt unveils more proof that Jews did not build pyramids.”

The headlines said it all, but the articles, unfortunately, did not.    

Egyptologist Dr. Mark Lehner (Courtesy of PBS, from the documentary “This Old Pyramid”)

Thanks to an oversight, Mark Lehner’s name was excluded from the original press release and official blog report by Zahi Hawass regarding the recent discovery.  To be clear, Dr. Lehner was not directly involved in the discovery of the new tombs.  But to leave him out of any discussion of the debunking of the Slave Hypothesis is like a history of the Theory of Evolution that fails to mention Charles Darwin.

Tombs of the workers overlooking Pyramid City (Photo by Jon Bodsworth)

Fortunately Dr. Hawass has amended his blog entry to mention Dr. Lehner by name, but the presses have rolled on to new headlines.  Again to be clear, the importance of the tombs of the overseers cannot be overstated.  They provide corroborative evidence of how the labor was organized, and their proximity to the king’s final resting place removes any question of their status—they were not slaves.

But this discovery is hardly the straw that broke the Slave Hypothesis’ back, as suggested by the media coverage.  It could be argued that while the overseers themselves were not slaves, the laborers were.  After all, not all of the workers who toiled on the pyramids were buried in cemeteries surrounding the pharaohs.  A feasible alternative hypothesis is that this privilege was reserved for freemen, while the rest of the laborers were slaves.

To really know about the pyramid builders we have to look beyond where they were buried to where they lived.  Does the archaeological record point to the presence of a large slave population on the Giza Plateau? 

First let’s set the parameters of the discussion:  what constitutes slave labor and what does not?

The Slave Hypothesis

The Slave Hypothesis is actually pretty simple:  the pyramids and other structures were built by slaves, usually depicted as being Semitic.  This latter part is easily dismissed.  Semitic people do not begin to appear in Egypt in great numbers until the Middle Kingdom Period, particularly during the Twelfth Dynasty. Of this much we can be certain—whether the pyramids were built by slaves or freemen, they were not built by Israelites, or proto-Israelites, or anyone else connected with the Moses of the Bible.  It just didn’t happen.

We owe this myth in part to a loose reading of the Book of Exodus, which gives the account of Moses leading the Children of Israel out of Egyptian bondage.  Although there have been Semitic slaves and kings alike in Egypt (see the Hyksos Dynasty), there is no actual archaeological or historical evidence for the Exodus accounts, even when stripped of its more supernatural elements.

Charlton Heston as Moses

But the Exodus account doesn’t even name the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and makes no mention of the pyramids.  For this we can blame Hollywood.  Movies such as Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments” burned the image of Hebrew slaves into the pop culture psyche.  In large part, the Slave Hypothesis is based on a Hollywood fiction.

So what about the first part of the Slave Hypothesis?  Could the pyramids have been built by slaves if we toss out the Moses part?

Slaves in Egypt

There were many forms of servitude in ancient Egypt, and to a certain extent everyone was owned by the Pharaoh.  As we shall see below, there was also a type of feudalism which bound all Egyptians to a debt of labor to their superiors.  But what about an army of whip-driven state-owned slaves, as often depicted dragging blocks up the pyramid ramps?

To be sure, there were slaves in ancient Egypt.  Most slaves were a product of warfare, with victorious Egyptian armies returning from foreign campaigns with hundreds, or even thousands, of slaves in tow.  Such human booty became the property of the pharaoh to use and distribute as he saw fit.

Some of the slaves would serve directly as a part of the king’s estate, while others would be distributed to temples and work camps.  The king might also grant slaves to individuals as rewards for service or loyalty.  Slave labor was considered to be a resource which, like any other, was sent where it was needed.

Nubian Slaves at Abu Simbel

Most of the slaves would have been civilians who were captured, but many would also have been soldiers who had surrendered.  Some of these individuals would have been highly skilled and their talents were put to use.  Slaves could be found performing service ranging from grunt labor to any vocation not restricted to freemen.

Not all slaves were foreigners.  An Egyptian who was caught in criminal activity could find himself, and his entire family, enslaved as punishment.  Egyptians could also sell themselves into slavery to settle a debt.  Others sold themselves simply to improve their lot in life, finding the life of a slave more stable and secure than trying to get by on their own.  

At least some slaves were clearly treated as property in ancient Egypt.  The pharaoh might grant slaves, land, and cattle to a temple or an individual.  Wealthy Egyptians also included slaves in transactions among themselves. These contracts seem to have been conducted between individuals or with the state, but there were no slave markets as we see in other times and places.

So the question is, how common were such slaves in the Old Kingdom Period?  Could the pharaoh have mobilized an army of slaves to build the monumental structures of the Giza Plateau?  Obviously there were huge workforces of some sort involved, and this undoubtedly involved servitude, but what was the nature of that service?  In his article Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Egypt, writer Jimmy Dunn observes:

For ancient Egypt, a better, or at least more precise definition of a slave might be a “person owned by a master, as was any other chattel, used as the master pleased, to the extent of being disposed of by inheritance, gift sale and so forth”. In reality, such slavery seems to have been fairly rare in Egypt prior to the Greek Period, progressing over time.

Dunn goes on to point out that huge slave populations do not really begin to appear in Egypt’s history until the great conquests of the New Kingdom Period.  As noted above, even when the pharaoh acquired slaves they tended to be distributed throughout the kingdom.  Egypt simply did not have the means to control a huge population of thousands of slaves in one location.

There were slave work camps, but these were smaller localized projects.  Slaves were used in the construction of some temples and other structures, but a project the scale of the Giza Pyramids required thousands of workers.  The archaeological evidence from the Giza Plateau simply does not support the notion of a slave camp of that size. 

But there were thousands of somebodies working on the plateau. 

The Bak Hypothesis

One way or another, pharaohs Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure were able to mobilize huge workforces numbering in the thousands to build the pyramids.  At least 2,000 and as many as 4,000 workers were fed, housed, managed and motivated within an easy walk of these great monuments (the 10,000 figure postulated by Hawass in his blog post is generally considered to be way too high).  Regardless of how you cut it, these were clearly very expensive undertakings.  How could such a project be funded if not performed by slave labor?

One type of organizational structure that could generate a large free-but-obligated workforce would be feudalism.  In a feudal system everybody owes some sort of service to the social rank immediately above them.  Kings appoint nobles, nobles appoint vassals, vassals organize knights, knights build armies, and armies conscript soldiers.  By requiring goods and service in exchange for land, status, and other privileges, the king could mobilize his entire kingdom through delegation.

Lehner proposes that the pyramids, as well as other national construction projects, were organized the same way.  The Egyptian system of vassalage was called bak, and everybody owed bak to somebody above them (not to be confused with baksheesh, which is what tourists and travelers seem to owe to every Egyptian!). 

Priests owed bak.  Scribes owed bak.  Potters owed bak.  Farmers owed bak.  Through this system of obligatory servitude every citizen of the Old Kingdom could be called upon to do his or her shift of work on the pyramid projects.  Simply put, the Bak Hypothesis says that the pyramids were built by a rotating workforce of laborers who were serving their allotted shift to their lords.  (See Harvard Magazine:  “Who Built the Pyramids,” by Jonathan Shaw)

The bak system solves several problems involved in pyramid building.  First, it keeps the overhead low because the labor is essentially free.  Unskilled labor requires little training and the workers are interchangeable.  Similarly, skilled labor is easily rotated because the workers are assigned to duties that take best advantage of their skill set.  By obliging every citizen to invest their skills for a certain amount of time, a huge workforce of skilled and unskilled labor could be employed for very little cost.

Second, the bak system absorbs the cost of supplying the workforce.  Raw materials such as grain and livestock are supplied through taxes and bak, and the workforce required to turn them into hot meals is at least partly composed of citizens serving their bak debt.  We shall see in Part 2 that the Pyramid City included a permanent workforce who made their living off of the building projects.  But even their wages would have come from the bak supplied by others.

Third, the bak system of conscription was actually good for morale.  As we have seen in the wars of the last century, a drafted soldier may not like the idea of going to war, but the esprit de corps he forms with his fellow draftees compel him to give 100% to the effort.  Dr. Lehner and others have found archaeological evidence of this sort of camaraderie around the building projects of the Giza Plateau, which we will look at in Part 2.

So the Bak Hypothesis gives an alternate model of how the pyramids may have been built.  Unlike the Slavery Hypothesis, for which we have no archaeological evidence, Lehner has been able to paint a very detailed picture of the lives of the permanent and rotating citizens of the Lost City of the Pyramid Builders.

In Part 2:  Pyramid City, Inc., we will look at the evidence for how the workforce was organized, and how the evidence supports Lehner’s hypothesis while contradicting the Slave Hypothesis.  We will close the series with Part 3:  A Guided Tour of the Pyramid City, a trip through the Great Western Gate of the Wall of the Crow for a street-level look at how the denizens of the Pyramid City worked and lived.

The Great Western Gate of the Wall of the Crow (Photo by Jon Bodsworth)

Note:  Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA), the organization founded by Dr. Lehner to excavate and analyze the Pyramid City, refers to the site in its official literature as the Lost City of the Pyramid Builders.  For the sake of brevity, these articles will simply refer to the site as the Pyramid City, but we are talking about the same place.

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Photograph “mark.png” from “This Old Pyramid,” courtesy of PBS.org, all rights reserved.  Photographs “plateau_14.png” and “plateau_16” by Jon Bodsworth, are copyright free.  Photograph “Nubian Slaves” is in the public domain and is copyright free.  Still from the movie “The Ten Commandments” courtesy of Paramount Pictures, all rights reserved.

Dr. Bob Brier, co-author with Jean-Pierre Houdin of “The Secret of the Great Pyramid”, will be delivering a free lecture, open to the public, at Poughkeepsie, NY, on January 27, 2010.

Dr. Bob “The Mummy” Brier, one of the top experts on Egyptian mummies in the world, will be speaking on January 27, 2010, at the Vassar Brothers Institute’s 2010 Science in Your Life lecture series.  Dr. Brier will be the first of three lecturers at the event, which will be held in the Our Lady of Lourdes High School Auditorium in Poughkeepsie, NY.  The subject of Dr. Brier’s lecture will be “The Secret of the Great Pyramid,” based on the book of the same name, and admission is free and open to the public.

Having established himself as the top guy on mummies, Dr. Brier has been branching out into Egyptian architecture in recent years.  In his lecture at Poughkeepsie Dr. Brier will be discussing the work of French architect, Jean-Pierre Houdin, whose work we are currently covering in a series here at Em Hotep, Hemienu to Houdin.  According to the source article (Poughkeepsiejournal.com:  “Save the Date for Science Lectures”), Dr. Brier states of M. Houdin’s work:

“After five years [of work], he came out with this radical new theory [about the Great Pyramid] that looks like its right. All the other theories of how it was built, we knew didn’t work; this one seems to work. It’s really a remarkable story. After he visited me in New York and I saw what he had I basically took a year off from the university just to help him. I wrote a book with him called ‘Secret of the Great Pyramid’.”

Dr. Brier has recently returned from a tour of Egypt, and Em Hotep will keep you informed of his lectures here in the States.  With regard to our own series on Jean-Pierre Houdin’s work, Hemienu to Houdin, I apologize for the delay—holidays intervened!  But I am back on track with it and I can absolutely promise that Part 2 will be online before Dr. Brier’s January 27 lecture.  Part 2 will cover the construction of the Great Pyramid up to the fiftieth course, which is where construction of the King’s Chamber begins. 

Topics of Part 2 will include the building materials of the Great Pyramid, the external and internal ramps, construction methods, and how the ramps were built.  Sources for the article will include not only Dr. Brier’s and M. Houdin’s book, but also personal correspondence with Jean-Pierre and a book about the subject that is not yet available in the U.S.  In fact, I have the only copy this side of the Atlantic!  Curious?  More details to come!

Part 3 of Hemienu to Houdin will cover the construction of the King’s Chamber and the remainder of the pyramid.  You will be surprised to see how the pyramid itself was transformed into a machine for the building of the King’s Chamber.  After that we will have a lengthy discussion with M. Houdin with possible hints about what he is working on now.  Stay tuned for details!

Meanwhile, if you haven’t picked it up yet, Dr. Brier’s and M. Houdin’s book, The Secret of the Great Pyramid, is available worldwide in various languages.  Here is a link to the English language paperback version to get you started.  And if you are anywhere near Poughkeepsie, please do yourself a favor and go see Dr. Brier’s lecture.  Jean-Pierre Houdin’s work continues to build momentum—go see for yourself why.

 Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Photo “brier_headshot.jpg” courtesy of the C.W. Post Campus, Long Island University.  Graphic “pyramid to king’s chamber.png” courtesy of Jean-Pierre Houdin and Dassault Systèmes, all rights reserved.

According to the AFP newswire, one of the tombs is the largest yet discovered at Saqqara.  As Zahi Hawass put it, “It took me two hours to look around it” (Source: AFP: “Huge tomb found at Egypt’s Saqqara pyramid”).  Although there is no mention of a pyramid in the story, the story’s title probably refers to the pyramid complex of Djoser, which is often considered synonymous with Saqqara, although there are a number of other pyramids at the site.  It is unclear at this point if the tombs are in any way related to Djoser’s step pyramid.

The larger tomb has a primary chamber described as “vast” with alcoves branching off.  One of the alcoves contained pottery and human skeletons, but no human mummies were discovered in the tomb.  There were mummified falcons, however, in another alcove.  Yet another alcove contained a 23-foot-deep well.

All that we know about the second tomb is that it contained pottery.  The looting of both tombs, according to one source (Earth Times:  “2,500-year-old tomb unearthed in Egypt”), occurred sometime in the Fifth Century AD. 

Details are few at this point, there being no posting as of this date at Zahi Hawass’ Official Website, and the discovery was apparently made by Egyptian archaeologists, so the full story will be released on the Supreme Council of Antiquities’ schedule.

Saqqara has been the location of a number of wonderful discoveries in recent years, including a pyramid believed to belong to Queen Sesheshet, mother of Pharaoh Teti, the first king if the Sixth Dynasty, and the Old Kingdom  tombs of the courtiers lya-Maat and Thinh. 

Update

For some pictures check out Discovery News:  “Largest Saqqara Tomb Discovered“.  Also, it would seem that the word “well” above, as in 23-foot-deep well, was a mistranslation.  It is at this point simply a hole, which of course isn’t simple at all, since it doesn’t seem to be a tomb shaft, so what is it?

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2009.  All rights reserved.

The photos “Camels at Saqqara” and “Guards are forbidden” by Keith Payne, copyright 2009, all rights reserved.

German officials claim that the artifact’s constitution has already been evaluated and she is too fragile for travel, and that the Nefertiti Summit was never about the merits of Egypt’s case to begin with.

Meanwhile, Zahi Hawass intends to assemble a repatriation alliance based on his own model.  “Our strategy became a good case for everyone…. China announced they will do same as we do” (Source: M&C: “Egypt to aid return of Asian, African stolen artifacts”).

It seems rather convenient timing for Berlin to announce after the Nefertiti Summit had ended in stalemate that the analysis of the artifact’s travel worthiness had already been conducted, and with results favorable to Germany.  One would think that Berlin would have been more transparent about the evaluation from the beginning, and that such news might have been deemed relevant to the December 20, 2009, meeting between Dr. Zahi Hawass and Dr. Friederike Seyfried of the Berlin Egyptian Museum.

An independent evaluation of the artifact’s ability to withstand transport has been something those of us on the sidelines have been asking for all along.  For us, watching this debacle has been like watching a favorite niece being jerked around by self-centered parents in a nasty divorce.  But Germany’s thirteenth-hour claim that such a study has been conducted, sans details, invites healthy skepticism. 

Regarding the documentary evidence, neither Egypt nor Germany has changed their stand one inch.  According to Dr. Seyfried, “The position of the German side is clear and unambiguous – the acquisition of the bust by the Prussian state [of Germany] was legal,” (Source:  BBC:  “Germany refuses to return Nefertiti bust to Egypt”).

But Germany and Egypt seem to have had different expectations regarding December 20 meeting from the very beginning.  Seyfried, contrary to both the Egyptians and the world media, denies that the meeting was ever about Nefertiti, but was instead an opportunity to discuss future joint exhibitions (Source:  AFP:  “Germany dismisses Egyptian claims to Nefertiti bust”). 

This is contrary to Dr. Hawass’ press release which states specifically that the talks were for the purpose of discussing the bust, and that Dr. Seyfried was to “act as liaison between Dr. Hawass and the relevant German officials” (Source: Zahi Hawass’ Blog:  Press Release -Meeting with Berlin Museum Director).

This leads one to wonder if the media savvy Hawass essentially hijacked the occasion to focus attention on his own agenda.  Certainly Hawass has always made the repatriation of artifacts a priority, but is the current steroidal emphasis on the subject intended to solidify his new role as Vice Minister of Culture?

Zahi Hawass has always enjoyed a cosmopolitan appeal, but his new position as a Vice Minister adds a more official element to his international dealings.  As champion of Egyptian culture, it would be easy for Dr. Hawass to justify (in his own mind, at least) redefining the purpose of the meeting with Dr. Seyfried from a general administrative function to a summit discussing the repatriation of the bust of Nefertiti. 

And the media, current company included, has been complicit.  Germany has insisted, quite openly, that the meeting was not about the fate of Nefertiti.  In my own defense I might add that Berlin’s protestations could have been a little less vague regarding the purpose of the meeting, and the fact that Dr. Seyfried did use the occasion to present Germany’s evidence that the bust was acquired legally shows that the issue was at least on the menu.

But Dr. Hawass is an old hand at playing to the media, and his repatriation efforts seem to be expanding in both momentum and scope.  According to a speech he gave last week, he intends to build a coalition of nations who feel they have been cheated out of their heritages.

“At the end of March,” Hawass proclaimed, “we will hold a conference to meet with others who suffered like us from stolen artifacts and to discuss how to help all of us in efforts to return the stolen artifacts” (Source: M&C: “Egypt to aid return of Asian, African stolen artifacts”).

Whether Nefertiti is ever returned to Egypt or not, she is clearly serving a diplomatic role for Egypt as a royal hostage to the West.  Given the probable fragility of the artifact, proving Borchardt’s deceptiveness in acquiring it for Germany was always more of a moral than practical goal.  If nothing else, it would place Germany awkwardly in debt to Egypt.

Meanwhile, the camera lights shine, the presses roll, and cyberspace remains honed-in on Zahi Hawass and his growing crusade to free not only Egyptian artifacts from the evil doers, but to lead all the downtrodden nations in a charge to reclaim what is theirs.  Of course, western universities are welcome to continue to expend resources on, western corporations are welcome to continue to invest in, writers to write about, and Hollywood to exaggerate, Egypt’s culture.  Just be sure to pay a visit to the Vice Minister of Culture’s Office.

Update

An article from M&C News (“German museum confirms travel ban for Queen Nefertiti“) has provided some additional details about the examination of the bust of Nefertiti with regard to determining her mobility. 

‘An examination in 2007 of the state of preservation of the bust ruled it unsuitable for transport or loans,’ said the Prussian Heritage Foundation, the parent corporation of the museum. ‘Further tests which have not yet been completed only confirm this’ (Source).

And if that isn’t plain enough:

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s top culture aide, Bernd Neumann, said Tuesday through a spokesman that a loan was now “absolutely out of the question on conservation grounds alone” (Source).

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2009.  All rights reserved.

Photograph “Berlin 053” by RinzeWind is used in accordance with this Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. 

The short version:  Egypt offered no new evidence, but Germany was kind enough to offer some old evidence that seems to favor Egypt, who now feels justified in officially demanding the return of the bust of Nefertiti.

For the long version…

On Sunday, December 20, 2009, Dr. Zahi Hawass met with Dr. Friederike Seyfried, Director of Berlin’s Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection, to discuss the evidence related to the removal of the bust of Nefertiti from Egypt in the early days of the Twentieth Century.  Egypt maintains that Ludwig Borchardt, the German archaeologist who discovered the bust, used “unethical tactics” to secure her for Germany.  The position of the Germans has always been that the artifact was acquired legally and through proper channels.

The debate hinges on whether or not the bust could be considered a unique artifact, and if so, did Borchardt know and try to conceal this fact to acquire the bust for Germany.  According to the rules under which Borchardt was operating, objects sans pareil (without equal, or unique) became part of the Egyptian national collection and Germany was entitled to half of what remained.   In hindsight, the bust of Nefertiti is clearly a unique artifact, but did Borchardt know this at the time, and did he purposely misrepresent the value of the bust in order to keep it?

Back in August, 2009, Dr. Hawass stated that he was compiling evidence that Borchardt had indeed acted unethically and that he would reveal this evidence when he made a formal request to Berlin to return the bust.  But it would seem that the only evidence offered at the December meeting between Hawass and Seyfried was presented by the Germans. 

In particular, Dr. Seyfried presented the original protocol agreed to by Gustave Lefevre of the Egyptian Antiquities Services, which was under French directorship at the time.  The protocol details how the artifacts discovered by Borchardt were to be divided between Egypt and Germany.  Dr. Seyfried also presented Borchardt’s diary, which seems to be the smoking gun. 

The protocol describes the bust of Nefertiti as simply a “painted plaster bust of a princess.”  But according to a press release issued from Dr. Hawass’ website, Borchardt’s diary indicates that he knew the artifact was actually made of limestone covered with plaster, and the he knew it depicted the famous queen herself.  Says Dr. Hawass:

It seems that there was an agreement between Borchardt and Lefevre that all the plaster pieces (which included an important group of plaster masks of the royal family at Amarna) would go to Berlin, and this appears to have been one way that Borchardt misled Lefevre to ensure that the bust would also go to Berlin.  (Source:  Press Release -Meeting with Berlin Museum Director)

There has been no official response from the Germans as of yet, but judging from previous statements it would seem that they feel the evidence presented can be interpreted in more than one way.  In a statement made on December 18, 2009, wherein German officials denied that the Nefertiti Summit was intended to negotiate the terms of their surrender of the bust, it was pointed out that the artifact was photographed and presented in a way that was anything but deceptive.  “The cases stood open for appraisal,” the statement concludes.   ”There can be no talk of deception” (Source:  Haaretz:  “Egypt to demand Germany return bust of Queen Nefertiti”).

But where does the bust’s safety factor into the equation?  Germany has contended for years that regardless of how the bust came to Berlin, it is too fragile now to risk transportation.  Without having the artifact appraised for just that purpose it is impossible to know if this is a genuine consideration or an attempt to keep her in Berlin. 

And who will do the appraisal?  Egypt has a standing demand for the return of artifacts from the British (the Rosetta Stone) and the U.S. (the bust of Ankhaf and the mask of Ka Nefer Nefer), just to name a few.  If experts from any country currently in possession of a disputed artifact decide against the bust of Nefertiti being moved, will that invite a cry of bias from Egypt?

It does seem from Borchardt’s own journal that he knew he was spiriting something away from Egypt that Germany probably had no right to.  But if the bust of Nefertiti is unfit for transport then a shift from talks of repatriation to talks of reparation may be the only solution to this century-old custody battle.

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2009.  All rights reserved.

But with all the jars now opened, work on KV63 is far from over and the most exciting discoveries are certainly yet to come.

Dr. Schaden had three major goals for the 2009 season:  finish mapping the KV63 complex, open and examine the sixteen jars that remained sealed, and get as far as possible into the process of removing the resin from the coffins (Source: Schaden, Otto J.  “KV63 Season 2009.”  KMT vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 18-29).  On March 17, 2009, Dr. Schaden announced that the mapping had been completed.  With the opening of the remaining jars, that leaves the coffins.

Of course, treatment and analysis of the coffins is just one part, albeit a major one, of the work ahead.  We still have no idea of what purpose KV63 originally served.  It was probably intended to be a tomb, but for who?  It appears to be constructed in a style consistent with Eighteenth Dynasty tombs.  Was it temporary storage for the mummy of someone we may have heard of? The removal of the resin from the coffins could reveal clues as to who they were made for, which may tell us something about KV63.

The journal entry states that in addition to the work on the coffins, Dr. Schaden’s team will begin more specialized studies of some of the other artifacts in early 2010.  There is also a section on the symposium held to mark the opening of the Carter House back in November, and some additional projections about 2010.    You can read Dr. Schaden’s journal and follow the team’s progress at the official KV-63 website.

There is an article in the works for Em Hotep! which will serve as a reference point for future discoveries, stories, and announcements about KV63.  The reference article will begin with Dr. Schaden’s serendipitous discovery and will bring the reader up to the current season.  If you have been following the story of KV63 as it unfolded, then the coming reference article may not have much news for you, but if you don’t know KV63 from R2D2, then expect a full account here in early January!

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2009.  All rights reserved.