> Regardless of the "exact" relationship with Khufu,
> the provenance of Ankh-haf (Ankhaf) belonging to
> the 4th Dynasty is well attested.
By what exactly? Reisner? It's location in the cemetery is the ONLY thing they're going on. If not, then you show us something else. You're welcome for the two papers BTW
> means, again, this relationship has no bearing on
> the 4th Dynasty provenance of the Merrer diary.
YOU brought it up as evidence for such. Now you say it's irrelevant. Make up your mind.
> Here we have a document written by a guy
> associated with Giza naming a 4th Dynasty pharaoh,
> Khufu, as well as a 4th Dynasty vizier named
> Ankh-haf, including such mundane things as
> accounting ledgers, yet this is "evidence of
> nothing" and is more reasonable to assume it was
> written "hundreds if not thousands of years" later
> by "whoever" talking about completely different
> people and/or different times and/or may just be a
> forgery? Got it. Makes perfect sense.
I didn't say any of that, got it?
I think the dating of Wadi al-Jarf is circumstantial, not a drop of science to support it. It's dated by the Khufu cartouche, period.
> You might want to quote/read a little more of
> Luarel Flentye:
Why do you assume I didn't? I posted it didn't I.
> "The titles of Ankh-haf and his wife,
> Hetepheres, suggest that they are relatives of
> Khufu, particularly as the Eastern Cemetery
> consists of the burials of Khufu's family."
Why don't they carbon date something to back up their suggestions?
A house of cards waiting for a breeze.
> One of Ankh-haf's wife's titles was ""priestess of
> Snefru" in which Sneferu's cartouche is also found
> inside apart from this inscription. One of
> Ankh-haf's titles is "eldest [king's) son of his
> body" which Flentye notes:
> "Hetepheres' connection to Snefru could also
> link Ankh-haf as "eldest [king's] son of his body"
> to that king, possibly as a son".
Grasping at straws, guesswork. That's why they can't decide who the father was.
> Of note, see Fig 7 p297 the Khufu cartouche found
> on a relief in the tomb of Meretites (the other
> tomb the paper talks about) which her and her
> husband bear the titles of "priest of Khufu" and
> "priestess of Khufu".
Now if they only had some proof of who Khufu was. And don't give me that 'context' crap. The context was gathered after the fact to bolster their guesses.
> But this isn't to nitpick over who Ankh-haf was
> related to or not as the point is that this person
> is well attested to have existed in the 4th
> Dynasty which by any standard falls sometime
> within the reigns of Khufu and Khafre.
How is it well attested? What else attests it other than it's distance from something, which is no standard at all. This may be good enough for you, but for others it is nothing. Not a drop of science, only conjecture that is touted as fact.
> While there
> may be some discrepancy over who he was related to
> or not there is none as to his 4th Dynasty
Can you explain that? Can you tell us WHY there is no discrepancy? Don't recite Egyptology, tell us exactly why there is no discrepancy. Let's hear some detail and not generalities like "well attested".
There really isn't anything about you that is alt. You continually recite the status quo and insult those who don't. Personally, I think Egyptology's standards are so low they barely exist beyond their pottery catalog.