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

According to V.G. Callender and every website I saw, Reisner opened Ankh-haf's G7510 tomb in 1925

Quote
V.G. CALLENDER
....other relatives of the king were to be found at Giza, where REISNER discovered so many con-temporary and later royal relatives that he felt he could provide some-thing of a family history for the Fourth Dynasty. His work has been so warmly embraced by later scholars that it has become the standard view of Fourth Dynasty familial relationships

Reisner made up a few new rules such as the son always followed his father to the throne. He also invented family dramas around what he thought were the family members.

Quote
V.A. CALLENDER re: Reisner
A third idea held that the position of each great mastaba in Khufu’s Eastern Cemetery and its proximity to the pyramid of the king determined the family relation-ship of the tomb owner to the monarch. All of these ideas have since been challenged.

Is she the only one to say this?

Quote
Laurel Flentye
George Andrew Reisner of the
Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Expedition to Giza dated the construction of
the mastabas of Ankh-haf (G751O) and Akhethetep and Meretitcs (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).

So it WAS Reisner who put this Ankh-haf in the 4th dyn. Not an ounce of science behind this deduction. In fact, it doesn't even qualify as a deduction let alone a hypothesis. Yet Egyptologists have repeated and reprinted this nonsense, and you guys recite it here.

The imaginings didn't end with Reisner.
Reisner and Smith believed that Ankh-haf was a vizier under Khafra, probably "his first vizier".
Strudwick believes that Ankh-haf was a vizier under Khufu
Janosi believes that Ankh-haf may be of the "same generation" as Khufu, Le. a "(half-) brother" or "relative of the same generation"
V.G. Callender
Laurel Flentye


And all of this contrivance helps to date the Wadi al-Jarf papyri and prompts Thanos to say...

Quote
Thanos
...the papyri notes Ankhhaf, half-brother of Khufu, was the administrator of the project who is well attested at Giza

Well attested? Hardly

All of this is a result of the location of a tomb, and how this tomb looks similar in some ways with other tombs. Not an ounce of science behind this, nothing remotely resembling science, and certainly no carbon dating. Apparently the only required 'evidence' for fixing a name is someone's creative imagination.

Again it is shown that you all merely recite the current viewpoints without investigating or even beginning to understand how the conclusions were arrived at. Then you have the gall to insult the alts when we do not swallow the guesswork.

The other "evidence" for dating Wadi al-Jarf........ cartouche & pottery.