Gereh and Gerehet

Why this entry exists

This name reached the census from an aggregate list whose only citation for it was a source this reference does not accept — an excluded aggregator, a self-published site, or in one case a student project. Rather than delete the name or describe it as though it were established, the entry records the investigation.

Deleting it would be tidier and less useful: a reader who encounters this name elsewhere deserves to be able to find out what it actually rests on.

What was checked

• 1. Searched every archived source text for the name, including a consonantal-skeleton match to allow for Budge-era vs modern spellings (scripts/lookup.py).
• 2. Checked whether the census's own linked Wikipedia article exists, and what it is actually about.
• 3. Recorded a verdict, the evidence for it, and the check that would settle it.

What was found

Cited only to an excluded aggregator, and no Wikipedia article exists. A masculine/feminine pair of this shape fits the Hermopolitan Ogdoad pattern, where four male–female pairs personify aspects of the pre-creation state.

How much weight this carries

Our archived corpus is entirely Budge-era. Absence from it is WEAK evidence for a modern spelling, because the same god may be written quite differently there. Wikipedia is an aggregate list (Tier C). It can establish what a claim IS and how it is classified, but never that a name is attested. No verdict below promotes a name on Wikipedia's authority alone. 'Unsupported' here means 'no support found by these checks', not 'proven fabricated'.

Verdict — plausible, awaiting a primary source

In plain English: Probably genuine, but nobody has yet shown us an ancient text that names it.

Keep open. If genuine, this belongs with the Ogdoad rather than as a free-standing pair.

What would settle it: Compare against the standard Ogdoad rosters (Nun/Naunet, Heh/Hauhet, Kek/Kauket, Amun/Amaunet) and against Hermopolitan temple material.