The Eye of Horus resembles the Pineal Gland

[Scott Creighton]

And my reply wasn't answering a question, it was correcting a misrepresentation.

SC: In terms of the criteria you presented, there was no "misrepresentation" imo. However, for the sake of returning the thread to the topic, this will have to be set aside for the moment. Some other time perhaps.

SC

[Leonardo]

Are there, in any other ancient Egyptian art, other forms which might be reasonably associated with any other structures of the brain?

If not, and given the icon's resemblance to the eye and markings around that of the falcon shown earlier in the thread, then I would suggest that this association to the pineal gland - made in isolation of any corroborating evidence that the ancient Egyptians studied the human brain - is unfounded and has a very high likelihood of being in error.

Unless someone can present any evidence the ancient Egyptians studied the human brain, is there really anything else to discuss regarding this topic?

Edited December 30, 2013 by Leonardo

[cladking]

Are there, in any other ancient Egyptian art, other forms which might be reasonably associated with any other structures of the brain?

If not, and given the icon's resemblance to the eye and markings around that of the falcon shown earlier in the thread, then I would suggest that this association to the pineal gland - made in isolation of any corroborating evidence that the ancient Egyptians studied the human brain - is unfounded and has a very high likelihood of being in error.

Unless someone can present any evidence the ancient Egyptians studied the human brain, is there really anything else to discuss regarding this topic?

They had a special religion or magic just for the head which seems to imply that

they were familiar with some of the unique properties of specific anatomical struc-

tures;

521a. (for) he is come with temple-saliva for this his temple (of the head),

521b. which is painful at the [beginning] of the months, which becomes bald at the beginning of half months.

521c. Wilt thou cool it with the magic, [which thou didst make for the Great One] among the gods,

Here's an interesting article on this bone;

http://www.ncrdoctor.info/what_is_NCR.htm

[Kaa-Tzik]

I was sure that the mention of the Pineal Gland would lead this thread into a different direction, but thankfully, that has not happened so far.

I think it did, but maybe it didn't register with people, or they saw it and sensibly ignored the melanin head binding issue. Well I guess that's a wrap on this then....

[kmt_sesh]

Wow. This thread has been quite a ride.

I'm still calling coincidence on the profile view of the brain and the Eye of Horus.

Has there ever been a skull found that was cut down the middle, that would indicate that ancient Egyptian scientists were learning anatomy? You'd think there would be dozens or hundreds of examples of this if they learned such anatomy AND that it was relevant to the Eye of Horus. That is my opinion anyway.

I was sure that the mention of the Pineal Gland would lead this thread into a different direction, but thankfully, that has not happened so far.

I am aware of no skulls cut in such a manner. Aside from trepanning, there is little evidence the Egyptians performed procedures on the skull and even less on the brain itself. In the case of trepanning, many skulls show some degree of new bone growth around the peripheries of the wound, but most do not show complete regrowth of bone tissue. This more than likely indicates that while many patients lived for at least some time after the procedure, it probably would not have been for a long time. The resulting infection in an open head wound would have been fatal.

The superficial appearance of the pineal gland is at best an instance of modern pareidolia. It stretches logic to the point of absurdity to suppose that Egyptians more than 4,000 years ago were extracting and dissecting human brains, and basing one of their most iconic images (Eye of Horus) off the shape of part of the brain.

Besides, the Egyptians themselves left no room for doubt, as far as I'm concerned. One of the oldest deities in their pantheon is Horus. From the beginning Horus was a falcon god. The markings of a species of North African falcon are very similar to the design of the Eye of Horus. As I recall it's derived from a species of Peregrine falcon. The eye appears on many coffins, stelae, and monuments, and frequently it's exhibited alongside a figure of the god Horus himself:

Is there really any reason to doubt this? Set aside modern anachronistic thinking and New Age whimsy, because the answer is already there. It has been all along.

There is no doubt that the Egyptians placed far more emphasis on the heart, and viewed the heart as the seat of intelligence and emotion. When a person was emotionally charged (i.e., scared, in love, horny), the heart beat faster; the Egyptians believed it was circulating more thoughts and emotions throughout the body. I think this is a beautiful concept. The heart was one of the only major organs left behind (ideally) in the mummification process. When extracted from the skull and through the nose in the mummification process, the brain was deliberately destroyed—it clearly was viewed as unimportant. Efforts were made, however, to leave and preserve the heart in place. Should the heart be destroyed, it was believed the soul of that individual would likewise be destroyed. The Egyptians manufactured little heart amulets as "backups" to ensure this would not happen to the individual. There are no brain amulets.

The Egyptians were the first as far as we can determine to name the brain (nais). However, the word for heart, ib, was the same word employed for desire, wish, affection, and similar concepts. Their word for the brain was never associated with concepts of emotion or intellect.

I mean, how more obvious can it get?

In writing all of this, DieChecker, I do not mean to single you out nor am I deriding you. I was just using your post as an excuse to write this.

[Harry_Dresden]

Are there, in any other ancient Egyptian art, other forms which might be reasonably associated with any other structures of the brain?

If not, and given the icon's resemblance to the eye and markings around that of the falcon shown earlier in the thread, then I would suggest that this association to the pineal gland - made in isolation of any corroborating evidence that the ancient Egyptians studied the human brain - is unfounded and has a very high likelihood of being in error.

Unless someone can present any evidence the ancient Egyptians studied the human brain, is there really anything else to discuss regarding this topic?

It kinda depends on what you would define as proof...in place of a written papyrus that actually says 'the pineal gland is not the inspiration for our Eye of RA symbol, but rather the makings of a hawk, even though our (Egyptian) culture were great believers in magic and the fact that the pineal gland is a associated with inner vision in many cultures that came after ours even when they knew next to little about the brain and magic, which would fit in perfectly with this symbol,' wouldn't a reasonable explanation in place of this not yet found "tome", be that as demonstrated by Egyptian medicine and their thirst for learning and studying and the fact that the similarities between the pineal gland and the symbol for the eye of RA are uncanny and that both have magical properties and since they performed trauma surgery and had temples and schools of learning isn't it highly likely also that something as simple as dissecting a brain to see what's inside and noticing what cannot be ignored seem the more logical as the inspiration to the eye of RA?

[+DieChecker]

In writing all of this, DieChecker, I do not mean to single you out nor am I deriding you. I was just using your post as an excuse to write this.

I did not see any deriding remarks. I simply asked a question and you answered it.

[Harte]

I guess there are no unexplained mysteries and it's time we a;ll pack up and go home.

It was fun while it lasted but now we know professional opinion trumps all.

Well, we haven't actually discovered the labyrinth Herodotus mentioned.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Well, we haven't actually discovered the labyrinth Herodotus mentioned.

Harte

Nor the elusive Hall of Records. Should we get someone to channel Cayce?

[cladking]

Nor the elusive Hall of Records. Should we get someone to channel Cayce?

I might already be doing it; I just found seven of his books at a yard sale.

(Unfortunately I can't seem to bring myself to do more than skim them)

[Willie B Herd]

I can not express the following well enough w/ mere words:

1. I agree w/ Scott's words and position here 100% . My hat is off to you sir.

2. The question remains: How is a person to decide which "professional's" white papers, (each w/ their own 'definitive conclusions') to believe, accept as valid, etc???

3. Although I'm extremely tempted to go off-topic, (again ) and pursue the previously discussed issues further, I will not....only out of respect for our Mod's request.

Back 'on-topic':

Except for Antartica, the Peregrine Falcon is distributed world-wide, (in large part due to the help of humans) w/ the exception of New Zealand; the only ice-free land mass it is not present. There are 17-19 subspecies, w/ debate among 'professionals' on 2 subspecies ongoing.

According to a National Geographic TV program, the highest measured speed of a Peregrine Falcon is 389 km/h (242 mph) recorded in 2005.

Not all Falcons are of members of the Peregrine family, the Praire Falcon, (Falco Mexicanus) is one example.

The subspecies Falco Peregrinoides is most likey the one the ancient Egyptians had access to, etc. and yes, its eye marking do look very similar to the Eye of Horus.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Willie B Herd

[Harte]

Nor the elusive Hall of Records. Should we get someone to channel Cayce?

Yeah, OK, but,...

The Labyrinth might actually exist.

Harte

[Harry_Dresden]

Willie B Herd says...'The subspecies Falco Peregrinoides is most likey the one the ancient Egyptians had access to, etc. and yes, its eye marking do look very similar to the Eye of Horus'

...more similar than the cross section of the pineal gland or less?

[kmt_sesh]

I can not express the following well enough w/ mere words:

1. I agree w/ Scott's words and position here 100% . My hat is off to you sir.

2. The question remains: How is a person to decide which "professional's" white papers, (each w/ their own 'definitive conclusions') to believe, accept as valid, etc???

3. Although I'm extremely tempted to go off-topic, (again ) and pursue the previously discussed issues further, I will not....only out of respect for our Mod's request.

...

Let's make this the final post on the matter. We've already expended an excessive amount of time on it.

Scott and I rarely agree but he's correct about disagreements between historians. There are often variations in theories, but that is the nature of theories. What matters is the evidence that underlies a premise, how adept an historian is at interpreting the evidence, and that historian's level of education and training. There are subjects where I flatly disagree with a conclusion reached by this or that scholar, but for the most part I agree with existing theories in the historical academic world (at least concerning the ancient Mediterranean world, Egypt included).

There is no getting around the necessity of committing yourself to years of study, research, and reading if you're truly interested in learning all you can about an ancient society. You have to delve into all manner of professional literature, from the dry archaeological reports to the more entertaining books published for laypeople. You must make every effort to divorce yourself from modern attitudes and ways of thinking if you wish to place yourself as much as possible in the ancient mind.

The professional literature is and always will be preferable because it follows proper research protocols. This means it is properly cited and sourced. An Egyptologist or other historian will generally explain why he or she has reached a conclusion based on the evidence that exists. Where that historian describes the work or conclusions of another historian, it is usually cited so you can then read the work of the other historian. Over time you will fully understand why academic conclusions have been reached, and also why there is divergence. By that point in time you should be able to form your own conclusions and understand why you favor one or another.

Enough said. Let's return to the brain in ancient Egypt.

[kmt_sesh]

Willie B Herd says...'The subspecies Falco Peregrinoides is most likey the one the ancient Egyptians had access to, etc. and yes, its eye marking do look very similar to the Eye of Horus'

...more similar than the cross section of the pineal gland or less?

Yes, much more similar. Let's look at it another way—by viewing an actual photo of a dissected brain, not a perfect and pretty anatomical illustration. Here is the pineal gland in the real world:

Obviously the North African falcon will win every time...unless you're mired in the intellectual restraints of pareidolia.

But let's put it yet another way. Egyptian motifs are replete with images of the Horus falcon accompanied by the Horus Eye. I showed one example in a recent post. Now, try to find an image on a coffin, tomb painting, wall relief, stela, or other monument of a human brain, dissected or not.

Enough said.

[Harry_Dresden]

Yes, much more similar. Let's look at it another way—by viewing an actual photo of a dissected brain, not a perfect and pretty anatomical illustration. Here is the pineal gland in the real world:

Obviously the North African falcon will win every time...unless you're mired in the intellectual restraints of pareidolia.

But let's put it yet another way. Egyptian motifs are replete with images of the Horus falcon accompanied by the Horus Eye. I showed one example in a recent post. Now, try to find an image on a coffin, tomb painting, wall relief, stela, or other monument of a human brain, dissected or not.

Enough said.

I see you're still trying to push square pegs into round holes cause it's the accepted academic view-point, let me help you...let's be objective for a moment and say that for whatever reason the cross section of the brain shows greater similarities to the Eye of RA than the falcon does (yes it does) let's also say that it could very (falcon) be the inspiration for the Eye of RA and that in the absence of written proof might very well be...BUT saying that the Egyptians had no use for the brain in the mummification process (Oh btw...the brain was removed during the mummification process cause it contained a high degree of water that would more than likely rot the corpse making the body unrecognisable to the spirt in the after life. And not because they thought any less of it, I hope that helps.)

...and therefore by extension the Pineal Gland could not have been of any use OR of inspiration to their religious traditions, because they discarded it during the mummification process OR that because there are no papyrus nor funeral paintings depicting the brain is just overly simplistic in thought...the stomach, liver, lungs and intestines were saved during the funeral process...seen many carvings and paintings depicting these organs? I bet not!

[+DieChecker]

(Oh btw...the brain was removed during the mummification process cause it contained a high degree of water that would more than likely rot the corpse making the body unrecognisable to the spirt in the after life. And not because they thought any less of it, I hope that helps.)

They dried out other soft tissues, I don't see why they couldn't have dried out the brain if they wanted to. They clearly could have just taken the top of the head off if it was very important to them.

...and therefore by extension the Pineal Gland could not have been of any use OR of inspiration to their religious traditions,

The pineal gland if you are associating the brain with the Eye of Horus, is where the outside pit of the eye is. Perhaps the least important part of the eye. The part where all the crap flushes to.

I don't know about you, but that makes that particular gland very UN-important in my opinon.

[ShadowSot]

Must apologize for my behaviour, I've been without work for a week now. This time of year is always stressful and have had several serious issues in my personal life over the last couple of months that have added a good deal of stress which is getting to me.

[Harry_Dresden]

They dried out other soft tissues, I don't see why they couldn't have dried out the brain if they wanted to. They clearly could have just taken the top of the head off if it was very important to them.

The pineal gland if you are associating the brain with the Eye of Horus, is where the outside pit of the eye is. Perhaps the least important part of the eye. The part where all the crap flushes to.

I don't know about you, but that makes that particular gland very UN-important in my opinon.

...concerning why they didn't 'dry out the brain,'I can't answer that... The function of the brain was ill thought of up until the Middle Ages... Does that mean that academics before this time were ignorant as to the importance and need of the brain? All it says is that they knew it was important but could not know why ( they could have thought it a mystery that only the gods knew and a few initiates, that's my guess).

[Harry_Dresden]

Must apologize for my behaviour, I've been without work for a week now. This time of year is always stressful and have had several serious issues in my personal life over the last couple of months that have added a good deal of stress which is getting to me.

Have a drink or two...always works for me.

[ShadowSot]

Have a drink or two...always works for me.

Doesn't for me.

[kmt_sesh]

I see you're still trying to push square pegs into round holes cause it's the accepted academic view-point, let me help you...let's be objective for a moment and say that for whatever reason the cross section of the brain shows greater similarities to the Eye of RA than the falcon does (yes it does) let's also say that it could very (falcon) be the inspiration for the Eye of RA and that in the absence of written proof might very well be...BUT saying that the Egyptians had no use for the brain in the mummification process (Oh btw...the brain was removed during the mummification process cause it contained a high degree of water that would more than likely rot the corpse making the body unrecognisable to the spirt in the after life. And not because they thought any less of it, I hope that helps.)

...and therefore by extension the Pineal Gland could not have been of any use OR of inspiration to their religious traditions, because they discarded it during the mummification process OR that because there are no papyrus nor funeral paintings depicting the brain is just overly simplistic in thought...the stomach, liver, lungs and intestines were saved during the funeral process...seen many carvings and paintings depicting these organs? I bet not!

Hopefully I can put to rest this silliness between us. What I've noted from you thus far, Harry, is quite a bit of creative speculation but no citing of sources. Unless you are trying to pass yourself off as an expert in ancient Egyptian iconography and medical understanding, you're word alone does not suffice. You've been abiding by the old maxim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence/ Well, there is truth in that, but it's reliable only to a point. You're relying heavily on that maxim while simultaneously brushing aside most of the evidence I've been providing, which derives from more than two centuries of concerted research of the ancient Nile Valley. In other words, you're dismissing existing, reliable evidence in order to posit your own belief. Now, this is a textbook example of forcing square pegs into round holes.

How do you support your conclusions? What research substantiates it? Who conducted the research? How was the research conducted and formulated? What protocols were observed? Remember, your word alone cannot stand alone.

I am not trying to say that the ancient Egyptians were ignorant of medicine or anatomy. Everyone who has a passing awareness of ancient Egypt probably knows how highly regarded their physicians were. An earlier source I recommended is John Nunn's book on medicine in ancient Egypt, and he points out how the Egyptian physicians recognized and named various parts of the skull; he further notes the Egyptians provided a name for the brain (Nunn 1996: 49-51). I noticed a spelling error in my earlier post where I provided nais as the ancient Egyptian word for "brain." It is correctly spelled ais. And it is worth noting that ais was a generic word for "viscera." In other words, the ancient Egyptian word for the brain can be idiomatically translated as "head guts." This is quite telling, I should think. Again I stress that while medical papyri go into detail on the treatment of various head wounds, up to and including open fractures exposing the brain, no evidence exists for procedures performed on the brain itself. It was not understood as an organ, and inventing ideas for the sake of argument is not how an historical argument is presented. All that matters is evidence. To suppose that the Egyptians performed brain surgeries and that all possible evidence for it no longer exists, is simply not remotely realistic.

You mentioned the removal of organs for mummification, and the fact that the organs to be preserved—stomach, liver, lungs, intestines—are not shown in representations any more than the brain is. Well, you're correct, but only to a point. In fact, a great myriad of representations exist for these organs in the form of canopic jars. The tradition was so fixed in place that in most instances the same jars held the same organs (the jackal-headed genii Duamutef protected the stomach, for instance, and the baboon-headed Hapi the lungs). These jars are attested as far back as Dynasty 4 of the Old Kingdom, although they did not bear the heads of genii at that early date. Yet nowhere is there evidence for preserving the brain. The organs which were removed from the thoracic-abdominal cavity do actually survive to the present time on occasion—we have a full set on display at the Field Museum in Chicago—but brains are not attested. They were buried with other wastes from the mummification process in embalmers caches outside the tomb. I confess I don't understand why you can't accept the significance of this. I thought I was overly stubborn!

Let's return to the Horus Eye. I would recommend Carol Andrews's book on Egyptian amulets, which contains a lot of information on this icon. It is first found in the archaeological record in the late Old Kingdom (Andrews 1994: 43), the same time the god Osiris was rising in popularity and approximately when the older god Horus was first being assimilated into Osiris' cult (as his son). The Egyptians themselves tell us of the origin of the Horus Eye, which I suppose I should've led with when we first began our debate.

I won't go into detail on the myth in question, but it's called "The Contendings of Horus and Set." It's widely available in books on ancient Egyptian mythology, as well as on the internet (as long as the site referenced is reliable). During one of the battles in which these two gods were engaged, Set ripped out the eye of Horus. The details vary from period to period, but it is commonly the god Thoth who magically restores the wounded eye to Horus. The ancient Egyptian word for the Horus Eye was wDAt (wedjat), which means "whole" or "sound" in the sense of health. The word wDAt comes from this myth of Horus and Set. For nearly the entire length of dynastic history, the Horus Eye was a symbol of health and wholeness because of the ancient myth. This alone settles the matter, I should hope.

Paintings of the god Horus show him as a falcon-headed god with this eye in place. That in and of itself should be definitive. As I mentioned earlier, the eye icon is often shown side by side with the god Horus; one can see it on the midriff of this Late Period coffin. My apologies for the poor quality of the photo because it is my own (a coffin at the Field Museum, and in dim lighting). You see Horus at the center holding a sekhem scepter, with the Horus Eye immediately behind him. On many other coffins, especially of the older periods, one sees a pair of Horus Eyes as a means for the spirit residing inside the coffin to witness the rising of Re at dawn. Here alone it is obvious the icon is meant to reinforce the sense of sight.

There is no wiggle room here. It is what it is. But like I always say, I am far from perfect and certainly don't know it all. If you can provide reliable sources to refute my positions, please do so. Your word alone does not suffice, however. The ball's in your court.

I apologize for the length of this post but I hope you've taken the time to read it all, especially if you want to carry on the debate.

[kmt_sesh]

Must apologize for my behaviour, I've been without work for a week now. This time of year is always stressful and have had several serious issues in my personal life over the last couple of months that have added a good deal of stress which is getting to me.

Don't worry about it, ShadowSot. More importantly, I hope the coming New Year will bring lots of blessings and successes to you!

[ShadowSot]

Don't worry about it, ShadowSot. More importantly, I hope the coming New Year will bring lots of blessings and successes to you!

I appreciate it. Same to you, and everyone here.

[Scott Creighton]

What matters is the evidence that underlies a premise...

SC: Precisely. I will be sure to quote you on that in future.

Happy Holidays one and all.

SC