A continuation of this:

[www.hallofmaat.com]

I have been puzzled by this ‘year 17’ story for years, as there is no sign of any such date in Vyse/Perring/Hill.

Goyon debunked it in Le secret des bâtisseurs des grandes pyramides: Khéops, first published in 1977.

This is what he wrote in an endnote:

Quote

156. On avait, par erreur, rapporté qu'on avait trouvé la date 17 du règne de Khéops dans la première chambre de décharge de la pyramide de ce roi (Petrie, Hist of Egypt, 1927, 60; Grinsell, Egyptian Pyramids, 1947, 105). En fait, cette date a été trouvée à Dahchour (Lepsius, Denk. II, p. 1).

Early editions of Petrie’s History of Egypt had this (on page 41 in the third edition, 1897):

Quote

The name of the king is found repeatedly written in red paint, among the quarry marks, on the blocks of masonry above the King's chamber; this establishes the traditional attribution of the pyramid. . . .

In the tenth edition (1923), this changed to the following (on page 60):

Quote

The name of the king is found repeatedly written in red paint, with the date of the 17th year on the blocks of masonry above the King's chamber; this establishes the traditional attribution of the pyramid. . . .

Grinsell merely cites Petrie.

Although the year specified in the Lepsius lithograph (at Dashur, not Giza!):

[edoc3.bibliothek.uni-halle.de]

—is 16 rather than 17, I remain persuaded that Goyon is right: Petrie has misattributed a date from elsewhere to Giza, probably through misreading (and misremembering?) the illustration in Lepsius. We may note that Petrie always cites Lepsius for these marks, rather than Vyse/Perring/Hill; this is a pity, as the Lepsius is (to a moral certainty) based on Hill and Perring and not on a new drawing. Close examination of Perring might have dispensed with the error at the outset.

It does not help that Hawass made this part of his routine: “year 17, it was—it’s fading.”

It was never there.

M.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2011 12:47PM by mstower.