Returning to the Egyptian symbols noted at the conclusion of the previous post. Is it possible to test the proposed identity of the Aten, Uraeus Serpent, and Shen Bond? And more specifically, can it be demonstrated that these involve nothing more than an on-axis view of the White Crown that appears from an on-axis
As for the form on the left, the Aten
, Egyptologists uniformly claim it means the Sun, giving no thought to explicit texts that make clear this was not the original meaning, only a later meaning when, in the absence of the original reference, the Sun progressively displaced or distorted various archetypal symbols. As a rule, Egyptologists will treat each of the three symbols above independently, as if no underlying identities are involved to give deeper meaning and context. The problem of identification is pervasive because, once the specialists identify the red sphere as the Sun, none of the distinctions inherent in the literal language makes any sense. The literal language is shouting at us about things never seen in our sky.
In the Egyptian illustration below, symbols of the Aten are repeated dozens of times. ￼
My contention is that the early Egyptian priests and artists knew very well that the three symbols I noted above meant the same thing. But Egyptologists will not even distinguish between the tight band and the red disk it encloses, though the texts themselves make crystal clear that the two are separate “personalities” in dynamic relationship. The band is the goddess, and the red disk is the warrior king, an identity that holds up through all of the variations in the symbolism. Of course, the fact that the goddess and the warrior-king came to be conceived in human form could only add distortions to the original ideas rooted in observed formations; but it did not destroy them.
By following the implications of the model, we are drawn back to the original relationship of these forms to the primeval Sun. In common treatments of Egyptian religion, this theme is as confused as any subject could get. So how do we determine the predictive ability of our reconstruction? This is where the tests become increasingly demanding, making certain that the model will be refuted if we’ve gotten seriously off track. According to the model, the three forms above must
refer to the central eye, heart and soul of the primeval Sun. Seen inside, or in front of that central star was a small red sphere, the innermost, masculine heart of the radiant feminine heart. If for any reason you do not see that this is a testable and inescapable prediction of the model, then you need to speak up, and I’ll see if I can clarify the point.
Four immediate tests: Was the Aten the mother goddess?
The Aten was, in fact, synonymous with the womb of the mother goddess. Hieroglyphically, it was a band, whose meanings include “consort,” “mistress.” “My Aten has given me birth,” states the warrior-king. Was the Aten an enclosing band around the “head” of the warrior king?
Yes, the king’s head is enclosed by and protected by the Aten. A title of the warrior-king Horus, prototype of the warrior-king on earth, is thus, “the dweller in his Aten.” Was the Uraeus serpent (second image of the three shown above) the mother goddess?
Yes, the Uraeus was the most common symbol for “goddess” throughout all of Egypt. As we should expect, this serpent was regularly presented as a tight band around the head of the warrior-king. And need I repeat that nothing in the character of the Sun would give any meaning to this relationship?Was the Shen-bond a symbol of the goddess
? Yes, Egyptologists themselves acknowledge that it is synonymous with the womb of the mother goddess, beginning with the primeval form of Nut, “mother of the gods.” Nut was the “womb of the sky, with the power of the seed of the god which is in it.” Thus, the Shen-bond appears as a cord tied around the forehead of the warrior-king, in exactly the fashion of the Uraeus serpent, and in many instances the two are juxtaposed so completely as to remove any possibility of separating the two. See the image of Amenhotep III below, in which the Uraeus entwines about the Shen-cord:
(Here I must caution the reader from drawing too many conclusion from the limited narrative so far. Why was the band of the Aten also conceived as a fiery serpent and an encircling cord? The answer to that question comes from what happens
to the Aten-Uraeus-Shen, which involves a much larger story. Getting to that phase of discussion will require us to take up the subsequent spiraling of the material stretching between Mars and Venus, the very stream that, in the phase under consideration, took the form of the conical crown. It is the later spiraling form that will fully explain why the Crown came to be celebrated as a spiraling serpent and a coil of rope.)
And let us not forget one of the most demanding requirements at this juncture. If our reconstruction is correct, the Egyptians must have known something utterly preposterous (when seen through the lens of modern perception). They must have known that all three symbols were nothing else than an appearance
of the White Crown. On this point, our model is uncompromising. The radiant band is what observers on earth saw when looking straight up the axis of the White Crown, as demonstrated in our 3-dimensional rendering of the Crown viewed on axis:
(See the stills from the animated sequence, posted above, 4-23-08)
In the Theban ritual, the gods Horus and Set say to the newly crowned king, “I will stablish the crown upon thy head, even like the Aten
on the head of Amen-Ra.” The White Crown and the Aten-band are the same thing. And in no uncertain terms the texts identify the crown as the goddess, precisely as predicted by our reconstruction. Thus, the Pyramid Texts say, “I know my mother, I have not forgotten my mother, the White Crown.”
Seeing this in terms of our model, it can only mean that the “birth” of the warrior-king (the visual descent of the red sphere, bringing the full crown into view) is nothing else than the “crowning” of the newborn king--i.e,, the king is “born” fully crowned, which is exactly the language used by R.T. Rundle Clark in discussing the symbolism of the White Crown and the rites of kingship. Osiris “emerged fully crowned from his mother’s womb.” Again, it could not have been otherwise according to our reconstruction. And until seen in these concrete terms, the language will appear entirely nonsensical.
But if the Aten is simply the White Crown seen from the on-axis vantage point, and the Uraeus serpent, wrapped around the “forehead” of the warrior king is precisely the same thing, then another “absurd” identity is forced upon us. The priests, knowing the story, must have known that the conical White Crown was a form taken by the very goddess who became the fire-spitting Uraeus. The Pyramid Texts say: “Oh King [in the king’s role as the warrior Horus], the dread of you is in the intact Eye of Horus, the White Crown, the serpent-goddess who is in Nekheb.” So what can only appear as gibberish in standard interpretations actually harbors a unified story. The very relationships and identities required
by the reconstruction are in fact confirmed in explicit terms. And that’s a good reason to wonder just how far this predictive power of the reconstruction might take us.