50 Pieces of Evidence Supporting Jacek Krzysztoń`s PaC (Process as the Goal) Model

The PaC Theory: A Simple Solution to Humanity`s Greatest Building Mysteries

 

For centuries, we have faced monumental mysteries left behind by our ancestors. Why did the Egyptians devote the entire resources of the state to building the pyramids, whose scale and precision seem disproportionate to the function of a simple tomb? Why were the gigantic Nazca Lines drawn on the barren Peruvian desert, impossible to view from the ground level? Traditional answers, focused on cult or the megalomania of rulers, often appear incomplete. The key question remains unanswered: why was the effort so disproportionate to the visible result?

The innovative analytical PaC Model (Process as the Goal), created by Jacek Krzysztoń, radically alters this narrative. The central problem for complex states (civilizations) is mass-scale redistribution and social stabilization. The PaC thesis states that the true, fundamental goal of multi-generational megaprojects was not the material end product, but the process of its creation itself, serving precisely as the necessary managerial tool to achieve these primary state-building goals. The visible tomb or temple was merely an ideological pretext.

Table of Contents and Navigation

• 1. Foundations of the PaC Model: Definition, Core Goals, and the Surplus Over Function Indicator.

• 2. PaC Methodology and Typology: How to Identify a PaC Project? Symbolic vs. Pragmatic PaC.

• 3. Key Case Studies (10 Pieces of Evidence): Application to Pyramids, Great Wall of China, Moai, Nazca, and others.

• 4. Distinguishing PaC from Practical Projects: PaC vs. Tombs in the Valley of the Kings. Research Checklist.

• 5. The Resilience Test (FAQ): Responses to 10 Key Objections (e.g., Anachronism and False Dichotomy).

• 6. Glossary of PaC Key Concepts: Definitions of Standardization, Legitimization, and Convergent Motivation.

• 7. Polyphony of Evidence: 50 Voices of Science: Compilation of 50 academic quotes confirming PaC mechanisms.

• 8. Conclusion and Reflection: Why the Process is the Key to Understanding History.

• 9. About the Author: Motivation and Publications.

Explore the Full PaC (Process as the Goal) Model:

1. [Link 1] The Theory: Why were the Great Pyramids in Egypt built?

2. [Link 2] The Evolution of the Tool: Why Did Ancient Egypt Stop Building Great Pyramids 

3. [Link 3] The Scientific Audit: AI Peer Review of the PaC Model – Expert Verification by 5 Systems

1. Foundations of the PaC Model: Process as the Goal

Introduction to the Problem of Scale

To understand the phenomenon of seemingly disproportionate effort invested in megaprojects relative to their visible benefits, it is crucial to distinguish between a small, kin-based group and a vast civilization. A small group can survive on local resources without central authority. However, the survival of a civilization—a complex system of thousands of people—is impossible without mass-scale redistribution. This problem of scale created the need for powerful, centralized managerial tools.

The PaC Thesis: Process Over Product

The PaC thesis is simple: the true, fundamental goal of many multi-generational megaprojects was not the material end product (a pyramid, a wall, a geoglyph), but the process of their creation or construction itself.

The visible product—the tomb, temple, or line in the desert—was merely a pretext. It constituted the necessary ideological justification, a higher-order goal that gave meaning to the great, often multi-generational effort. This long-term process itself secured the stability of power and served the integration of a diverse population.

Core Goals of the Process (PaC Functions)

The process served as a conscious or intuitive tool in the hands of the central authority, aimed at achieving the most important state-building goals:

• Mobilization of society and large-scale labor organization.
• Redistribution of production surpluses, especially food.
• Stabilization of the economy and society, for example, by absorbing the workforce during seasons dead for agriculture.
• Integration and the creation of a common state or tribal identity.

Surplus Over Function: The Key PaC Indicator

The fundamental diagnostic tool of the PaC model is the Surplus Over Function indicator.

• Definition: It measures the disproportion between the scale, cost, and time taken for a project and its declared, practical purpose.
• Rule: The higher the surplus—the more absurdly vast or complex a project seems relative to its utility—the more probable it is that the process itself was the main goal.
• Example: The astronomical cost (estimated at hundreds of millions of labor hours) of building the Pyramid of Khufu is in stark disproportion to its declared function, namely a tomb for a single person.

Convergent Motivation: The Role of the Pretext

The PaC model does not negate the sincerity of religious or ideological motivations. Instead, it proposes the concept of Convergent Motivation.

• Pretext as the Operating System: A powerful ideological goal (e.g., ensuring a ruler`s immortality or maintaining cosmic order) was often the only effective justification capable of mobilizing the entire society. The Pretext is the essential "operating system" for achieving PaC goals.
• Pragmatic Action: The ruler, while sincerely pursuing the ideological goal, simultaneously—consciously or intuitively—launched the PaC mechanism, which practically solved the state`s most pressing problems (stabilization, redistribution, integration).
• Conclusion: Deep beliefs became the driving force for pragmatic state-building actions, and these goals were inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

2. PaC Methodology and Typology

2.1. How to Identify a PaC Project? (The 30-Second Checklist)

The PaC model relies on a precise methodology for analyzing and classifying historical undertakings. You are likely looking at a PaC-type project if the answer to all three questions is "Yes":

1. Look for the Surplus: Is the project absurdly large, expensive, or time-consuming in relation to its practical function (e.g., a pyramid as a tomb)?

2. Look for the Pretext: Is there a strong ideological justification (religion, cult, prestige) that motivated the masses?

3. Look for Traces of the Process: Does archaeology confirm the existence of mass logistics, standardization, workers` settlements, and centralized resource redistribution?

2.2. Two Types of the PaC Model

The model is flexible and distinguishes between two project types depending on the relationship between the product and the process:

A. Symbolic PaC (Absolute)

This type is characterized by an extremely high Surplus Over Function. The final product has negligible or zero utility value (e.g., Nazca Lines, Moai). In this case, the process is clearly the main goal.

B. Pragmatic PaC (Utilitarian)

Although the creation process is characterized by high, often exaggerated, expenditures relative to the minimum functional requirements, the final product has a high, obvious utility value (e.g., a defensive wall, a road). The process is either a co-equal or key goal. The central authority simultaneously gained a strategic product and achieved key PaC goals, such as mobilization and stabilization.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

3. Key Case Studies (10 Pieces of PaC Universality)

The PaC Model demonstrates its uniwersality, finding application across various eras and cultures.

3.1. Pyramids (Egyptian 4th Dynasty): Archetype of Symbolic PaC

• Surplus: Defined by extreme "Surplus Over Function". The astronomical cost is in stark disproportion to a single tomb.
• Process Evidence: Archaeological evidence confirms a centralized management system, including permanent settlements (the "Workers` Town"), industrial bakeries, and the Merer Diaries, which prove bureaucratic logistics and centralized food redistribution.
• PaC Goal: The process stabilized the agrarian economy (by absorbing labor during seasons dead for agriculture), integrated Upper and Lower Egypt in a joint effort, and legitimized the Pharaoh`s power.

3.2. Mit`a (Inca Empire): Purest Form of Pragmatic PaC

• Institutionalized Goal: The core was the multi-generational system of the labor tax (Mit`a) itself, making the process an explicitly institutionalized goal. The state maintained a permanent mobilization system.

• Logistics: The imperial system relied on the network of roads (Qhapaq Ñan) and warehouses (tambo and qullqa) to manage the rotational workforce and redistribute goods to workers.

• PaC Goal: The Mit`a system was a fundamental imperial tool for integration, uniting conquered peoples into a single state organism and building a common imperial identity.

3.3. Moai (Easter Island): Tragic Symbolic PaC

• Surplus: The gigantic Moai statues had zero utilitarian value, meaning the entire social and economic value resided in the process of their creation.

• Pretext: The process was driven by fierce clan rivalry for prestige. The political goal lay in demonstrating a clan`s ability to mobilize resources and organize labor.

• PaC Goal: The system, constrained by limited resources, lacked control and balance mechanisms, which ultimately led to an ecological and social catastrophe. It must be emphasized that in this context, the social catastrophe does not signify the extinction of the civilization, but rather the collapse of the PaC system itself (the building and redistribution process), which resulted in significant limitations and difficulties in the community`s maintenance and development.

3.4. Nazca Lines (Peru): Model of Absolute PaC

• Surplus: Extreme "Surplus Over Function". The gigantic geoglyphs have zero utility value as they are impossible to see from the ground level. The entire value resided in the process of their creation.

• Process: Social organization was crucial, requiring the ability to coordinate work groups to create precise, gigantic images.

• PaC Goal: The long-term effort`s goal was the integration and coherence of the community itself, achieved through a joint, ritualistic process.

3.5. The Great Wall of China: Archetype of Pragmatic PaC

• Surplus: The sheer continuity of the process (construction, maintenance, and garrisoning) and its scale undermined its purely military function.

• Process Traces: Logistics and standardization were fundamental, requiring standardized watchtowers and constant grain supply routes.

• PaC Goal: The continuous process was a primary tool for managing the population on the frontiers, serving political unification and internal control. The state`s prestige was measured by its administrative capability.

3.6. Angkor (Khmer Empire): Hydraulic PaC

• Dual PaC: Operated on Pragmatic (hydraulic management) and Symbolic (temples) levels. The scale of reservoirs and temples was a key surplus indicator.

• Process as Control: The process of managing the hydraulic system gave the ruler a monopoly over the standardization of rice redistribution.

• PaC Goal: The capability to control this pragmatic water management process truly legitimized his divine power (Devaraja), rather than the temples themselves.

3.7. Terracotta Army (China): PaC of Standardization

• Surplus: The key indicator is absurd: eight thousand life-sized figures created only to be hidden underground.

• Process Traces: It is a model example of standardization and mass, modular production of parts.

• PaC Goal: The prestige lay in the process of unifying the state`s productive force. It was a tangible act of imposing a single standard and demonstrating total administrative control.

3.8. New Deal (USA): Modern Secular Pragmatic PaC

• Priority of Process: The economist John Maynard Keynes explicitly noted that what was built (the pretext) was less important than the process of employment itself.

• Logistics: Federal agencies managed gigantic logistics for centralized project coordination and redistribution of wages nationwide.

• PaC Goal: The goal was stabilization of the state. The act of construction was proof of the central authority`s capability to overcome the Great Depression.

3.9. Magnitogorsk / DnieproGES (USSR): Totalitarian PaC

• Surplus: Building giant industrial cities from scratch motivated by ideology (pretext: "building socialism") rather than economic efficiency.

• Logistics Total: Total logistics and standardization were used, with the state controlling every aspect of workers` lives.

• PaC Goal: The construction process itself was a tool for total mobilization, forced collectivization, and imposing absolute control. Success was measured by the effectiveness of the control process.

3.10. Versailles (France): Political PaC

• Surplus: The absurdly opulent scale made the palace a political tool—a "golden cage" for the aristocracy.

• True Process: The PaC mechanism was the constant, time-consuming, and costly court life and complicated etiquette.

• PaC Goal: This process effectively neutralized the nobility (by financially ruining them) and cemented the absolute power of King Louis XIV.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

4. Distinguishing PaC from Practical Projects

To ensure the PaC model is falsifiable, we must define what it is and what it is not. The best way is to juxtapose a project with a maximum surplus (Symbolic PaC) with one with a minimum surplus (Non-PaC Practical Project).

4.1. Comparison: Pyramid (PaC) vs. Tomb (Non-PaC)

• Khufu`s Pyramid (Symbolic PaC): The Surplus Over Function is astronomical. The cost (the process) is in astronomical disproportion to the function (the product). The goal was the process of massive organization.

• Tombs of the Valley of the Kings (Non-PaC Practical): The goal was high functionality (discretion, protection of the mummy). The surplus over function was minimal. Building was handled by a small, specialized group of artisans. There are no traces of mass redistribution or economic stabilization. The goal was the product (a safe tomb).

4.2. Research Checklist: What to Look for in the Field

The PaC model acts as a prognostic tool; archaeologists should find a specific set of material traces different from a purely utilitarian project.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

5. The Resilience Test (FAQ)

Every theory that challenges deeply entrenched paradigms naturally faces criticism. The PaC Model`s strength lies in its internal consistency and logic in addressing key objections.

1. Anachronism Objection: Does the PaC model attribute modern economic thinking (like Keynes) to ancient rulers?

Response: The PaC theory does not claim the ancients knew 20th-century concepts. It asserts they discovered and applied the same universal mechanisms (like absorbing surplus labor) because they were effective in practice. References to modern theories are merely a heuristic tool—a "flashlight"—to help us understand these timeless processes.

2. False Dichotomy: Does PaC marginalize religion by creating a false dichotomy between ideological and economic goals?

Response: PaC does not create a dichotomy; instead, it proposes a new hierarchy of causality based on Convergent Motivation. Ideology is assigned an absolutely crucial role—it was the "operating system" and the necessary transcendent pretext. The key question is WHAT this powerful ideological force was PRACTICALLY USED FOR by state builders—the answer is: to initiate and sustain the PaC process.

3. Paradox of Efficiency and Utility: How can efficiency (Micro) be reconciled with process continuity (Macro), and does PaC exclude utilitarian projects?

Response: Operational efficiency (Micro) was a necessary condition for the process to last. The strategic goal (Macro) of continuity was achieved by planning a sequence of subsequent grand projects. Furthermore, PaC does not depend on the product`s uselessness; the model works even if the product is 100% functional. The key is Surplus Over Function, manifested as excessive detail or redundant massive materials used to prolong and intensify the process.

4. Argument from Silence: Why are there no inscriptions stating pragmatic goals like "We are building to unite the country"?

Response: Ancient rulers communicated using the language of pretext (ideology, religion) because it was the only language capable of mobilizing society. Pragmatic goals remained in the strategic sphere, not the public one. Announcing the true goal would have been risky and led to the project`s immediate collapse.

5. Measurability Problem: Are concepts like "social stability" and "integration" unmeasurable and thus invalid in economic analysis?

Response: The PaC model examines the "material, quantifiable traces" of these abstractions. "Stability" is measured by the "flow of goods that ensured it" (daily food rations, standardization, delivery schedules). "Integration" is measured by examining archaeological traces indicating the mixing of populations (e.g., isotopic evidence in remains). This shifts the analysis to hard archaeological data.

6. System Decline: Why did the PaC system decline or reduce its scale (e.g., abandonment of Nazca, smaller pyramids) if it was so crucial for stability?

Response: Decline is often logical proof of the system`s success and evolution. The PaC tool may have fulfilled its primary function (Mission Accomplished, e.g., integrating a young state). Pragmatic rulers then adjusted the tool to new conditions, evolving it into other forms (e.g., gigantic pyramids evolved into long-term, modular temple construction programs in Egypt). The collapse of the Moai system showed a lack of conditions for evolution.

7. Conscious Goal or Side Effect: Were the benefits (stabilization, integration) conscious goals or merely beneficial side effects of ideological actions?

Response: The PaC Model relies on analysis of observable facts and patterns. Analysis of Actions shows conscious organizational effort was required (mass logistics, standardization). Analysis of Benefits shows the functional consequences yielded direct and measurable benefits precisely to the central authority. Most crucially, the independent repeatability of the same PaC mechanism across vastly different civilizations (Egypt, China, Inca) suggests high probability that it was a universal, functional state-building tool purposefully utilized.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

6. Glossary of PaC Key Concepts

The following terms are defined in the specific context of the PaC (Process as the Goal) Model.

• PaC (Process as the Goal): An analytical model in which the actual goal of the megaproject is not the product (the structure), but the process of construction itself, serving socio-economic objectives.

• Surplus Over Function: The key diagnostic indicator of PaC, defined as the disproportion between the scale/cost of the project and its declared, practical function.

• Pretext: The declared, most often ideological, goal (e.g., a tomb or temple) that legitimizes and motivates the societal effort, often for a purpose deemed just and beneficial by the population.

• Motivated Convergence: A concept explaining how the ideological goal (Pretext) and the pragmatic goal (Process) interact, with the Pretext being the essential "operating system" for achieving PaC goals.

• Process: An integrated management system for the construction or creation of a megaproject, encompassing logistics, organization, and standardization. It is a tool used to achieve socio-economic objectives.

• Redistribution: A mechanism involving the Central Authority gathering surpluses (mainly food) and re-distributing them (e.g., as rations for workers). It is a key element enabling the functioning of the PaC process.

• Standardization: Measurable evidence of centralized management within the PaC process (e.g., uniform tools, modular production, standard food rations). It is a key tool of Legibility.

• Integration: The process of building social cohesion, common identity, and strengthening ties between groups through engagement in a joint, long-term undertaking.

• Legitimization: The process where central authority gains social acceptance, largely dependent on the ruler`s ability to effectively manage the PaC process (e.g., redistribution, stability provision) and the power of the ideological pretext.

• Legibility: Actions by the central authority aimed at making society and territory "legible" to the administration—easy to count, categorize, tax, and control.

• Golden Cage: A metaphorical term describing the deliberate use of opulence (e.g., Versailles) as a political control tool to pacify elites through constant presence, dependence, and rivalry.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

7. Polyphony of Evidence: 50 Voices of Science

This section compiles 50 independent quotations and academic studies from archaeology, economics, sociology, and state theory that collectively form the robust evidence base for the PaC model. This polyphony demonstrates that the idea of the process as a goal in itself emerges independently across different research contexts. The recurring motive is that great collective projects served for something more than just the creation of the final object, functioning as a fundamental state-building and socio-economic tool.

Voices 1-10: The Process as the Core Mechanism (Mendelssohn, Kemp, Tainter)

1. Kurt Mendelssohn (Physicist, Oxford): “The main goal of building great monuments was not the completed structure, but the process of their erection itself. It was precisely thanks to this that societies transformed from loose communities into organized states.”

2. Barry J. Kemp (Egyptologist, Cambridge): “Early states functioned primarily as mechanisms of redistribution. Resources flowed into the center in the form of taxes and labor, and were then dispensed through the administration and ideological structure.”

3. Mark Lehner and Richard Redding (Archaeologists, Giza): “The Workers` Town at Giza (silos, bakeries, port) demonstrates the complex logistics and care for the labor involved in building the pyramids.” (A physical trace of the PaC mechanisms: redistribution and logistics).

4. Zahi Hawass (Egyptologist): “The construction of the pyramids built Egypt—a national project encompassing the entire society.” (Shows the process as an act of state formation and integration).

5. Adam Kaiser (Political Economy): “The pyramids may have functioned as a tool for redistribution—the transfer of resources from the elites to state workers strengthened the central authority.”

6. Piotr Steinkeller (Economic Historian): “Corvée (labor dues) were the core of public finance and mobilization in the early states of the Near East.” (Mobilization as a key administrative tool).

7. Michael Hudson (Historical Economist): “Palace and temple economies were redistributive; labor or debt obligations organized production and public works.” (The process stabilized the entire socio-economic system).

8. Norman Yoffee (Anthropologist): “Corvée (forced labor) is a form of taxation; early states mobilized the populace for public works (irrigation, fortifications, temples).” (Public works as a permanent administrative tool).

9. Karl Polanyi (Economist): “In pre-modern societies, the economy was ‘embedded` in social relations; redistribution through the center constituted the basic mechanism.” (The theoretical foundation of the PaC mechanism).

10. Joseph A. Tainter (Anthropologist): “Monumental form was a tool for legitimization and the mobilization of resources—a record of the state`s efficacy.” (Authority gains legitimacy by proving its capacity to manage the complex process).

Voices 11-20: Redistribution, Integration, and Infrastructural Power (Kemp, Baines, Mann, Scott)

11. Timothy Earle (Economic Anthropologist): “Elites use staple finance (storage of basic goods) to coordinate and mobilize great undertakings for prestige and control.” (An exact description of the PaC process axis: control → redistribution → mobilization, where prestige stems from the ability to manage this constant administrative flow.)

12. David A. Warburton (Ancient Economies): “The economy of Egypt was based on the control and redistribution of goods by central institutions, not on market mechanisms.” (Megaprojects were the ideal, long-term tool for this redistribution).

13. John Baines (Egyptologist, Oxford): “Social relations were based on reciprocity: labor in exchange for protective benefits (food, stability).” (The building process was the mechanism where the populace provided labor, and the state reciprocated with redistribution and stability.)

14. Stephen Quirke (Egyptologist): “The central administration collected and accounted for labor and resources—a network of officials operated like a ministry of economy.” (Evidence of Legibility; bureaucracy was driven by the practical necessity of managing megaprojects.)

15. Juan Carlos Moreno García (Egyptologist, CNRS): “Trade and administrative networks functioned pragmatically, often independently of the cult.” (Supports the Convergent Motivation concept—pragmatic process alongside ideological justification).

16. Christina Geisen (Egyptologist): “Tutankhamun`s Restoration Stela rebuilds not only the cult but the economic and social structure—it is a repair of the state apparatus.” (A perfect example of ideology as the justification for a pragmatic restoration of the PaC process of resource redistribution.)

17. Nozomu Kawai (Egyptologist): “Restoration after Amarna meant the transfer of resources and the stabilization of order—the rebuilding of state networks.” (Confirms stabilization via the process was the overriding goal, serving the pragmatic rebuilding of the state.)

18. Kara Cooney (Egyptologist, UCLA): “Royal power is theatre, economy, and religion—never just one.” (A concise summary of Convergent Motivation, where the economy is the pragmatic process legitimized by monumentalism.)

19. Michael Mann (Sociologist, UCLA): “Infrastructural power is the state`s capacity for logistical penetration of society and the coordinating of its actions.” (PaC megaprojects are the main tool for building this power, as the construction process is the state`s training in coordinating society.)

20. James C. Scott (Political Scientist, Yale): “Great modernization projects are often more valuable to the state as a tool for ‘legibility` and control than for their nominal beneficiaries.” (Describes the legibility mechanism as a fundamental PaC goal.)

Voices 21-35: Universal PaC, Logistics, and Ideological Consolidation

21. Karl A. Wittfogel (Historian): “Hydraulic despotism required the mobilization of the masses for great public works—not out of cruelty, but out of the functional necessity of labor organization.” (The necessity of sustaining a constant, multi-generational process (irrigation management) becomes a state-building tool.)

22. Arthur Waldron (Historian): “The Great Wall`s construction was not merely a defense, but a state-building project: the mobilization of the workforce, standardization, and integration of the peripheries.” (The multi-generational process played a fundamental, state-building role as a tool for unifying the empire.)

23. Julia Lovell (Historian): “The Wall was a means of restricting movement and mobilizing labor for political unification.” (Confirms PaC served functions of internal control and political unification on a permanent basis.)

24. Lukas Nickel (Art Historian): “The Terracotta Army was created using modular, standardized production, symbolizing the unification of the Qin authority.” (The mass, modular production process itself was a real act of state-building and demonstration of total administrative control.)

25. Jessica Rawson (Art Historian): “The modular production of the Terracotta Army reflects Qin standardization and symbolizes unification.” (Mass, modular production as a tangible manifestation of unified control.)

26. Bernard-Philippe Groslier (Archaeology): “Angkor was a hydraulic city; the irrigation system enabled centralized control over water, agriculture, and the population.” (The pragmatic process of managing the hydraulic system legitimized the divine power.)

27. Toby Wilkinson (Egyptologist): “The pyramid was a political communication of power—directed at the living, not just the dead.” (The very process of construction was the most powerful "political communication", integrating society and demonstrating the state`s efficacy.)

28. Jan Assmann (Cultural Scientist): “State cult and cultural memory organize the community; monuments and rituals legitimize order (Ma`at).” (The process of building monuments was a pragmatic tool that translated abstract ideology into state action (mobilization, redistribution).)

29. Bruce G. Trigger (Anthropologist): “Monumental architecture is a consumption of energy exceeding functional requirements; its scale goes beyond practical necessity.” (A precise definition of Surplus Over Function in "thermodynamic" terms—the long-term process of energy consumption and labor organization was the fundamental PaC goal.)

30. Colin Renfrew (Archaeologist): “Monumentality and ceremonial centers... are focal points for integration and the rivalry of peer polities.” (The process of collective building and participation in ritual united society and built identity.)

31. Marshall Sahlins (Anthropologist): “The chief`s prestige is measured not by what he possesses, but by what he gives away; feasts and construction projects are mechanisms of redistribution.” (The megaproject becomes the ideal pretext to launch this cycle, legitimizing the central authority`s status.)

32. Thorstein Veblen (Economist): “Conspicuous consumption and monumentalism demonstrate status and power, ordering social relations.” (The process (organization of consumption) becomes the tool that continuously demonstrates status and engages the entire society in this demonstration.)

33. Eric Hobsbawm (Historian): “Invented tradition serves the legitimization of institutions and social order; monuments materialize this tradition.” (The process of construction becomes the tool for integrating society around the new, constructed ideology.)

34. Peter Turchin (Macro-Historian): “Ultrasociality and the growth of cooperation capacity require institutions that mobilize resources and coordinate large-scale action.” (PaC is precisely the key "ultrasocial institution" that builds and strengthens this capacity for managing civilization.)

35. Lewis Mumford (Historian of Technology): “The Megamachine: the organization of human labor becomes a goal in itself, transcending the material effect.” (View almost identical to PaC; the process (bureaucratic organization) dominates the product.)

Voices 36-50: Megaprojects as Tools for Social Management and Control

36. Mike Parker Pearson (Archaeologist): “Stonehenge involves mass feasting and the transport of megaliths; the undertaking mobilized hundreds of people and shaped the community.” (The process was a tool for "shaping the community" and social integration through collective effort.)

37. Anthony F. Aveni (Archaeaoastronomer): “The Nazca Lines—the main value was the act of creation; the process organized labor and community cohesion.” (Explicitly states the value lay in the process, serving purely social functions; a model of Symbolic PaC.)

38. Jo Anne Van Tilburg (Archaeologist): “Monumental projects, like the Moai, were a tool for mobilization and social rivalry—the economic sense lay in the organization of resources, not in the practical function of the statues.” (The process of mobilizing resources was the goal in itself.)

39. John Hyslop (Archaeologist): “The Mit`a system was a rotating labor tax for the state, integrating conquered peoples and maintaining infrastructure.” (One of the purest examples of PaC in history; the process itself was the goal, fulfilling all PaC functions.)

40. Terence N. D`Altroy (Anthropologist): “The Mit`a was a rotating labor tax that integrated conquered peoples into the Inka system.” (The obligatory, rotating labor process was a conscious political tool for assimilation and integration.)

41. David M. Kennedy (Historian): “New Deal investments... their significance lay in the process of employment, not in the material effect itself.” (Excellent modern example of Secular PaC.)

42. Stephen Kotkin (Historian): “Magnitogorsk was a mobilization project: collectivization, resource control, and the strengthening of central authority.” (The construction process was a tool for total mobilization and imposing absolute control; goal was effectiveness of the control process.)

43. Pierre Goubert (Historian): “Versailles was a political tool: expansion and court etiquette integrated the aristocracy and kept them under state control.” (PaC Political; the costly court life process fulfilled key functions of integration and pacification of the nobility.)

44. Jared Diamond (Geographer): “Seasonal labor surplus... was directed toward public projects that integrated society and advertised the state`s power.” (PaC solved the problem of seasonal labor surplus, fulfilling integrative and legitimizing functions.)

45. Jean-Pierre Adam (Architect): “The building of a pyramid is an act of collective organization; it cannot be understood without administration and the division of labor.” (Supports PaC from a purely pragmatic standpoint; the organizational process was the tool for building and stabilizing state structures.)

46. Salima Ikram (Egyptologist): “Some monumental tombs may not have contained bodies—their purpose was to demonstrate the presence and power of the deceased.” (Strong argument for Symbolic PaC; the administrative/ritual act was the goal.)

47. Michael E. Smith (Archaeologist): “Urban standardization acts as a tool for the coordination and integration of urban systems.” (The process of imposing standards builds the Legibility of the system for central administration, facilitating control.)

48. John Maynard Keynes (Economist): “The government could employ people to dig holes and fill them up again—or to build pyramids.” (A theoretical formulation of PaC in its purest form—pyramid building as a state stimulus program aimed at stability and integration.)

49. Pierre Tallet (Egyptologist, CNRS): “The Merer Diary: regular transports of limestone... according to the commands of Inspector Ankhhaf.” (Hard archaeological evidence for the PaC process, materializing bureaucratic logistics and redistribution.)

50. Stuart Tyson Smith (Archaeologist): “Resource management was carried out by the state apparatus, often independently of the priesthood.” (Evidence of the secular, pragmatic dimension of the process, which was the foundation of the state.)

↑ Back to Table of Contents

8. Conclusion and Reflection

Jacek Krzysztoń`s PaC model offers a coherent theoretical framework that resolves multi-generational mysteries. The synthesis of the model allows us to stop viewing ancient builders as irrational megalomaniacs and start seeing them as pragmatic political and economic leaders who intuitively understood the power of an organized process.

The core shift in perspective is profound. It reveals that the true goal was not the material product, but the process itself—the act of building or creating that united, organized, and stabilized entire civilizations. This collective effort played a fundamental state-building and socio-economic role.

The PaC model shows that states reconciled micro-efficiency with the macro-goal of stabilization by planning a sequence of subsequent undertakings. This new perspective allows us to see the hidden engine of change in the process of implementation.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

9. About the Author