> You misunderstand my meaning here.
> I'll try and clarify. I am not talking here about
> the aprw "Friends/Companions of Khufu". I am
> referring here to ALL of these gangs, whatever
> their respective gang names - they were ALL
> "FOLLOWERS of Khufu". Think of it in the sense
> that ALL of these individual gangs each formed
> part of a cult following of Khufu.
> White Crown gang
> Medjedu gang
> Friends gang
> etc, etc
> - were ALL 'FOLLOWERS' of Khufu (as in the sense
> of "FOLLOWERS of Christ"). I am not talking here
> of the actual gang names per se.
Creighton assures us that this has nothing to do with the names of the ˤprw. If so, his one arguable warrant for calling the ˤprw “followers” in this sense—the presence in some of their names of the element šmsw, translated “followers”—is lost. We see it exposed as a purely dogmatic assertion, for which no evidence or argument has been offered.
What is Creighton up to? We see in HOAX, page 150. He invokes the idea of a “Khufu revival cult” to underwrite a claim that some of the characters in the names of the ˤprw of Khufu are anachronistic: wrong for the reign of Khufu.
Is he claiming that only the ˤprw of Khufu are “followers” in this sense? We know what to call it if he is: special pleading. So let’s assume consistency: that he is identifying all ˤprw as latter-day cultists of the kings they are named after.
Where does this leave the ˤprw of Menkaure? Where does this leave his claim that the character mr (chisel) in Mnk3wrˤ śmrw ˤpr is of the standard 4th-dynasty form, while the one in Ḫwfw śmrw ˤpr is seen in comparison with it to be deviant and anachronistic? It has lost any basis it had. By his own argument, all of these writings are of a later era.
Creighton again is so busy trying to take every route to his foregone conclusion that he trips over himself.