> Hi EoH,
> I am well aware of all your arguments. Been there before with a
> number of others. But the fact remains - xwfw has never been
> written in any GP chamber other than Campbell's. To assert xfw
> is the same name as xwfw requires better evidence, imo. It's a
> bit like saying Dana is the same as Dan. You also have to
> explain why in the historical ecord we are given the Suphis
> which transliterates to Khufu. Suphis supposedly built the GP -
> what was the name for 'Khnum-Khuf' and where is it in the
> historical record?
For what it's worth, I agree with Scott (and I believe Audrey does, too). On what basis has the grammatical rule been established that such differences in glyph content necessarily refers to the exact same human? Or a human at all?