Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Certainly of the elite, certainly a prince and it
> > was Jánosi, not Reisner, who suggested he was of
> > Khufu’s generation.
> >
> > So much for Doctor Dubius and his attempt to
> > discredit this by association.
>
> Here we go - again
No, Audrey, here you go again.
[irrelevance omitted]
> So it WAS Reisner who put this Ankh-haf in the 4th
> dyn. . . .
Which is not the same as saying he was a contemporary of Khufu. Try learning the English language.
> . . . Not an ounce of science behind this
> deduction. . . .
An ounce being an optimistic estimate of how much science (or philosophy of science) you’ve studied. So, Audrey, what exactly qualifies you to make such a judgement?
> . . . In fact, it doesn't even qualify as a
> deduction let alone a hypothesis. . . .
. . . or a gerund, let alone a toffee apple—which makes as much sense as what you’ve just said.
Thanks for confirming that you’re not equipped to discuss the question.
Added:
Let’s see that paragraph by Laurel Flentye in full:
Further on, we find this:
http://www.gizapyramids.org/static/pdf%20library/flentye_fs_oconnor.pdf
Where did you imagine I got it from⸮ If you tried reading the material, you might learn something. Flentye argues at length that Reisner got it wrong, so collapsing all of this into what Reisner said is illiterate inanity.
M.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Mar-17 01:28 by Martin Stower.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Certainly of the elite, certainly a prince and it
> > was Jánosi, not Reisner, who suggested he was of
> > Khufu’s generation.
> >
> > So much for Doctor Dubius and his attempt to
> > discredit this by association.
>
> Here we go - again
No, Audrey, here you go again.
[irrelevance omitted]
> So it WAS Reisner who put this Ankh-haf in the 4th
> dyn. . . .
Which is not the same as saying he was a contemporary of Khufu. Try learning the English language.
> . . . Not an ounce of science behind this
> deduction. . . .
An ounce being an optimistic estimate of how much science (or philosophy of science) you’ve studied. So, Audrey, what exactly qualifies you to make such a judgement?
> . . . In fact, it doesn't even qualify as a
> deduction let alone a hypothesis. . . .
. . . or a gerund, let alone a toffee apple—which makes as much sense as what you’ve just said.
Thanks for confirming that you’re not equipped to discuss the question.
Added:
Let’s see that paragraph by Laurel Flentye in full:
Quote
A reassessment of the mastabas of Ankh-haf (G7510) and Akhethetep and Meretites (G7650) in the Eastern Cemetery at Giza is essential to a study of the development of art during the Fourth Dynasty. These two mastabas are located next to one another on the periphery of the eight twinmastabas, which form the original section of the Eastern Cemetery. George Andrew Reisner of the Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Expedition to Giza dated the construction of the mastabas of Ankh-haf (G7510) and Akhethetep and Meretites (G7650) to the reign of Khafra based on their locations outside of the eight twin-mastabas and their mastaba types (REISNER 1942: 28, 73, 84 (t), 148, 212 (4, 5). 308 (d. Ib,c). In fact, he considered their locations the next phase of development of the Eastern Cemetery (REISNER 1942: 73). However, the assignment of these two mastabas to the reign of Khafra following the construction of the eight twin-mastabas is not as definite as proposed by Reisner. Through an analysis of the architectural evidence, graffiti, titles, iconography, and style of the relief decoration and statuary, the mastabas of Ankh-haf (G7510) and Akhethetep and Meretites (G7650) may actually date earlier than the reign of Khafra. Stylistic analysis, in particular, suggests that this was a significant period of artistic development from the late reign of Khufu through Khafra, including Djedefra. Through reference to royal reliefs and statuary, the relief decoration in the mastabas of Ankh-haf (G7510) and Akhethetep and Meretites (G7650) reflects overall changes occurring during this period. In this respect, a reassessment of the architectural, inscriptional, iconographic, and stylistic evidence from the mastabas of Ankh-haf (G7510) and Akhethetep and Meretites (G7650) will contribute significantly to an understanding of the development of art during the Fourth Dynasty.
Further on, we find this:
Quote
. . . Jánosi believes that Ankh-haf may be of the “same generation” as Khufu, i.e. a “(half-) brother” or “relative of the same generation” (JÁNOSI 2005: 111). This would make Ankh-haf and his wife of a similar generation to Khufu with the location of their mastaba on the easternmost edge of the Eastern Cemetery providing an archjtecturaJ frame to the interior eight twin-mastabas in coordination with queens’ pyramids GI-a and GI-b.
http://www.gizapyramids.org/static/pdf%20library/flentye_fs_oconnor.pdf
Where did you imagine I got it from⸮ If you tried reading the material, you might learn something. Flentye argues at length that Reisner got it wrong, so collapsing all of this into what Reisner said is illiterate inanity.
M.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Mar-17 01:28 by Martin Stower.
