The Persistence of Symbology Over Time: The Goddesses and Gods of Egypt

Abstract

The symbology by which the deities of ancient Egypt were, and are known, has persisted for æons. Something about them speaks to us to this day. This persistence of symbology seems to address something essential in their deity-forms which remains vivid and of value. Looking at the Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic forms of the Goddesses and Gods of Egypt, it is telling that they acquire much of their symbology in pre-historic times; a symbology that continues to be attached to them, even when it may have been superseded and syncretized into later forms.

Full text

The Persistence of Symbology Over Time: The Goddesses and Gods of Egypt.
Wendilyn Emrys, MA © April 2018
The symbology by which the deities of ancient Egypt were, and are known, has persisted
for æons. Something about them speaks to us to this day. This persistence of symbology seems to
address something essential in their deity-forms which remains vivid and of value. Looking at
the Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic forms of the Goddesses and Gods of Egypt, it is telling that
they acquire much of their symbology in pre-historic times; a symbology that continues to be
attached to them, even when it may have been superseded and syncretized into later forms.
Is there an archetypal based symbolic language that extends pan-culturally? Is there an
onomatopoeic quality to the names of some of the earliest Goddesses and Gods of the Ancient
Egyptians? Classical writers often deride the hybrid nature of the Ancient Egyptian deities, but
perhaps they missed a vital point in their cultural arrogance. Are we to take these deities as literal
human-animal hybrids or are we dealing with observational, essential, symbolic, and archetypal
mechanisms? Does the lioness head resting on Sekhmet’s shoulders mean that she is literally a
lioness, or is it that her essence -- or nature -- is like that of a lioness? Are these animal attributes
merely a shorthand to explain the essence and personas of these vibrant Goddesses and Gods?
Would our study of Egyptian Mythology be enhanced by putting ourselves in their
sandals for a while and trying to imagine things from their point of view? We shall never know,
until we have figured out time travel and universal translators, how the Ancient Egyptians really
spoke or felt about their Goddesses and Gods. Or even what their names really sounded like. All
is theory, but when creating our theories, we need to carefully evaluate the lenses we use and
attempt to drive out our own cultural and personal biases. We need to try at some amount of
objectivity when coming to our conclusions. Albeit, I am not an Egyptologist, and thus my
choices may not be perfectly accurate, as a mark of respect for the Ancient Egyptian culture the

Emrys 2
following Ancient Egyptian naming conventions shall be used in this paper (instead of using the
Greek versions of the deities’ names): Aset = Isis; Asir = Osiris; Net = Neith; Heru = Horus;
Anupu = Anubis; Set = Seth; Hwt-hr = Hathor; and Meh-Urt = Mehet-Weret.
Whilst the Onomatopoeic Theory of Language development is downplayed in the sense
that it is not universally pan-cultural. What reflects a barking dog (bow-wow in English) is
spoken differently in other cultures. Consider, however, if there is a cognate form of bow-wow in
that other culture which reflects an onomatopoeic function. Different cultures hear and speak
things differently. Onomatopoeic Theory may be of value when considered in an individual
cultural context over the history of that specific culture.
Even among branches of languages that have the same source, words vary. Thus, some
of the names of the Ancient Egyptian deities may have their roots in onomatopoeic word
formation. Because of the conservativeness of the Ancient Egyptian religious system, these
forms may have stayed monumental and not have changed much over time.
There is, perhaps, an onomatopoeic character to the names of many of the most ancient of
Egypt’s deities; most especially those dealing with creatures of the wild. Mahes/Mihos and
Sekhmet reflect a sound resembling the meh or chuff of a large felid. The name Mafdet, may
reflect the maf or chuff of a smaller felid. Miw, the ancient Egyptian word for cat replicates the
mew of a small felid perfectly, whilst Pakhet/Pasht or Basht may reflect a human attempt at purr,
or a puss, sound to summon a small felid. As in puss… puss… puss.
These chuffs; mews, and purrs can be friendly greetings, demanding imperatives,
expressions of joy or pain, or frightened appeals. As such they would reflect the intent behind the
name and honorific quality. Creatures that need to be treated with caution and great respect in the
wild, in their Goddess and God-forms, may have needed a reminder that there should be

Emrys 3
affection between their human devotees and themselves. There is a suppliant nature to the names
given to felid deities.
Wepwawet easily resembles a yippy bark of a small canid – perhaps a small jackel or fox.
Anupu, when uttered with the proper inflections resembles a wolfish howl. These barks and
howls may reflect a different, more group or pack, language concept. A summoning to a hunt or
perhaps even a warning.
There are numerous prehistoric and Pre-Dynastic figurines of exultant/dancing figures of
both or indeterminate gender; females; male; bovines; fish; birds; crocodiles; snakes; insects;
felids; and canids. The sheer number of work hours and immense artistic effort spent in creating
these figures likely mean that they have more than a decorative or simple representative value to
the people who treasured them.
It is likely that they have a symbolic and numinous value, as well. Some figures are
remarkably lifelike and of great artistic skill in rendering a realistic character to the piece.
However, many are very schematic, and as such may reflect either a predominantly symbolic
function, or perhaps even a lack of skill on the part of the artisan. However, looking at the
overall skill with which everyday items were manufactured, one might opt for a deliberate choice
in overall design.
Are these items reflective of an earlier concept of the sacred? Are they totemic in nature?
There are myriad representations of standards topped with figures symbolic of various deities,
deities of the various Egyptian Nomes that are constant for æons. Are they simply symbolic or
are they possibly representative of a totemic, local, and or familial association?

Emrys 4
Did these Goddesses/Gods/Animals/Totems represent a type of moiety attachment for the
cultural, or locale, groups they identify with? As Egypt became more unified and syncretized, so
did their deities. Where once Heru and Set protected some of the earlier rulers in an almost equal
manner, slowly Set fell by the wayside and became a type of illegitimate red-headed stepchild
figure. Eventually he became demonized into a near satanic figure.
Certainly, having Set premeditate and murder his brother and king, Asir, was the type of
crime to lay at the door of a chaotic demonic figure. This chaotic nature is perhaps reflected in
the resemblance of his animal form to an Egyptian Aardvark. Aardvarks are known for violently
tearing up termite mounds and anthills and feasting on their inhabitants. However, even Aset still
has sisterly feelings for her brother, feelings that enrage her son, Heru. We are seeing this
narrative through the lens of a later triumphant patrifocal culture. Perhaps earlier versions existed
with a different narrative tone, reflective of a differing time and cultural pattern. Perhaps there is
yet another layer of meaning at work in the story of Asir’s murder by Set. If Asir represents
nurturant acculturation and the taming of Nature, then Set represents the uncontrolled and
chaotic nature of Nature, and thus their rivalry is an eternal one.
Asir teaches humans how to live together and farm, taming Nature. As a force of Nature,
Set is a bringer of Death, albeit his brother, Asir, literally becomes the Lord of the Dead.
Equally, while Asir is described as a nurturant good father of his people, Heru has the persona of
a warrior and pro-active ruler. Asir and his kindly ways are better suited to Amduat, as a living
ruler needs to have the skills of a warrior, as well.
Aset is represented by the throne symbol. Perhaps it is not just a literal throne, but rather
the embodiment and concept of Sovereignty. She is not just a seat to be occupied, she is the
essence of the power of rulership. As such, a wise ruler will accept her protective and guiding
wings. Aset is full of wisdom, cunning, and magic. All things a ruler might use to stay on the

Emrys 5
throne successfully. However, she also cares for her people and rules fairly. As in the narrative
carved on the ‘Metternich Stele’ she punishes the wealthy woman who is uncharitable and
rewards the poor woman who is generous with what little she possesses. Aset will not punish a
child for its mother’s mistake. Yet, she is cunning enough to trick the aging Sun God into
revealing his secret name, and giving her access to his power, through a magical ruse.
Is Asir the ‘Eye of Aset’ or the “Powerful one of Aset’ as his name in hieroglyphs may
suggest, and if so, what does that mean? Is he the watchful one who occupies the throne? Does
he, from Amduat, keep a close watch on the Sovereignty of Kemet as personified in his partner’s
symbolic form. Is this concept a connection with their son, Heru, the Falcon God often
represented as the Eye of Heru. Heru, the falcon who sees all from his vantage point high in the
sky. He who is agile, who swoops swiftly down to attack his enemies, and is intrepid in battle.
All-important qualities for a ruler who may have to take the field in battle to defend his throne.
Or perhaps Aset is the throne who supports the ruler, imbuing him with her power as she
protects him. Is the ruler a form of Dying Year God, who is both son and husband of the
Goddess? As such, the nature of Heru as the son who later becomes the dead partner, Asir, of the
Goddess of Sovereignty may be applicable. It is an apt psychological association, and perhaps
even an almost inescapable one. Every son becomes in some ways like his father, and most
wives have traits that are found in the mothers of their husbands and their own mothers.
Does Net, becoming the decider of who rules Egypt in the Contentions of Horus and Set,
simply reflect the later importance of the Saite Dynasty, or does it also reflect a Pre-Dynastic
confederation between the people of Southern Egypt – the people of Aset, Asir, and Horus and
Northern Egypt – the people of Net, as well? Does Net reflect a concept of Sovereignty in itself,

Emrys 6
as in the Aset Goddess-form, or is it a recognition of Net’s function as an alternate Creatrix
Goddess? Or can Net be seen as the Sovereignty Goddess of Northern Egypt, and Aset as the
Sovereignty Goddess of Southern Egypt, dating from an earlier time in history?
What sort of Goddess is Net in her earliest forms? Her name is of an uncertain
etymology, but perhaps there is a simple solution to the mystery. Perhaps, her name is simply a
root word – net, meaning immortal or divine as in netert, neter, netjer, and neteru? Perhaps Net
is the First Immortal in Egyptian Mythology? This possibility is dependent on the choice of
vowel inserted into the ancient Egyptian word, and thus far, is uncertain.
As to Net’s nature, she has a multivalent one. She is a Primordial Creatrix, Goddess of
War, Goddess of Weaving, and Healing. Net’s Temple at Zau (Sais) was said to be a renowned
medical school. Net’s worship dates far back into prehistory. Her symbol, from Pre-Dynastic and
Early Dynastic times is a peculiar one (see fig. 1).
It has been explained as representing a shield with arrows crossed in front of it. After an
extensive search this author has been unable to find contemporary physical evidence that the
Ancient Egyptians utilized a shield of the figure-eight type as later used by the Minoans,
Mycenaeans, and Boeotians. Or even a smaller version of the same. The Egyptians appear to
have commonly used a shield with a rounded top and squared base for a considerable span of
time.
There are associations with, what are identified as, shields to be found in the Nome
symbols and names of the areas around Zau (Sais). Zau (Sais) is an Egyptian Delta city that Net
is intimately associated with. These Nome symbols are represented by what are considered
Ancient Egyptian shield forms for the standards attributed to the Fourth and Fifth Nomes of
Northern Egypt. With the Fourth Nome being identified as and called “Southern Shield”; and
the Fifth Nome being identified as and called “Northern Shield”. Both are associated with Net

Emrys 7
and have, what are described as, two crossed arrows in front of a shield. After this author’s
fruitless search for an Egyptian figure-eight shield, a bit of Experimental Archaeology was called
for. Looking at artifacts associated with Queen Nethotep and Queen MerNet of the First
Dynasty, the author decided to try and re-create the Symbol/Standard of Net. Considering that
Net is a Weaving Goddess, the author experimented with a bolt of fabric (see fig. 2).
It seems that a rational explanation of this earliest symbol and standard of Net is not a
shield and arrows, but rather a bolt of fabric tied onto the standard with two heddles, two
weaving swords, or loom beams crossed in front of it. Thus, it seems that Net may not be
primarily a War Goddess in her earliest form, but rather she is a Weaver Goddess
(see figs. 3 – 4).
Although many may find a War Goddess far more exciting than a Weaver Goddess, a
Weaver Goddess is just as important as her warrior counterpart. Net is considered a Creatrix
Goddess, and this function often goes hand in hand with the Weaver Goddess function. A
Weaver Goddess creates order and pattern out of chaos.
A Weaver Goddess is often a Fate Goddess, as well. She sets things in place. She often
weaves the tapestry of a person’s life and fate upon her loom. As she who weaves fate, she can
also be the one who cuts the thread of a person’s life. She controls fate, life, and death. Even in
the mundane world, woven items are central to human existence. From the nets that trap fish,
birds and animals for survival, to containers for carriage and storage, fabric (clothing and
bandages), the plaiting of hair, and other materials for human habitation, tools and weaponry –
the art of weaving and plaiting is a civilizing and sustaining force. Thus, the Weaver Goddess is
central to civilization.

Emrys 8
Another theory is that Net’s symbol represents a click beetle, or two click beetles facing
one another: “Neith was apparently originally related to the click beetle, which is commonly
found in the Nile valley as well as in oases. Her symbol consisted of two click beetles, head to
head, over two crossed arrows” (Lesko 46). I find the click beetle theory to be counter-intuitive.
Two click beetles facing one another would have twelve legs, six to each beetle, and in no image
seen thus far, are these many legs visible. Most certainly not in the most ancient of the images.
Later images show what could be interpreted as four legs, but their positioning, without an
additional set of legs to make locomotion possible, would render such a beetle unable to move.
The click beetle is also an agrarian pest of wheat plants, and there appears to be no
connection between Net and this plant (see figs. 5 – 6). Even in representations of scarab beetles,
the most elegant examples have six legs, as with the Scarab Beetle in nature (see fig. 7). Thus,
the click beetle theory regarding the symbol of Net is too Byzantine for satisfaction.
Net is also associated with bees. The first beehives may well have been woven, or
partially woven, structures. Net’s great temple in Zau (Sais) was called The House of the Bee. It
is quite likely that the titular form of one of the ruler’s names, that of “X of the Sedge and Bee”,
with the Sedge representing Southern Egypt and the Bee representing Northern Egypt. The Bee
may reflect another persona of Net; a persona central to the power of the ruler in Ancient Egypt.
Bees are a civilizing force, and as we now know, they are vital to the very survival of many
species, including our own.
Net may also be associated with the Primordial Creatrix Goddess in cow form, Meh-Urt,
whose name has been translated as Great Flood. Net is associated with the giant Nile Perch,
Lates niloticus, which can grow as large as a human and weigh over four hundred pounds.
Another Creatrix form may be addressed here, a concept of a Creatrix Fish Goddess, she of the
primordial waters who creates life and the world (see fig. 8).

Emrys 9
Other Goddesses who may be associated or syncretized with Meh-Urt, along with Net,
are Bat and Hwt-Hr. The name Bat is a bit of a curiosity. When wondering if it might be
onomatopoeic in nature, what would it reflect? It is certainly not a moo or lowing sound. Perhaps
the sound of hooves on wet ground, a bovine headbutt; or bat certainly can sound like the splat
of cow-patty hitting the earth. Might it also be a replication of the sound of water slapping
against a cow’s body as she swam though the marshes of the Delta or the Nile? The sound Meh-
Urt might make as she swims through the primordial waters?
The name Bat has been associated with the word, Ba(t) a female soul: “The early female
divine power is personified in extant monuments from the earlies historical period as the two-
faced goddess Bat, whose name mean “Feminine Power” or “Feminine Spirit” (Lesko 81).
Lurker translates it as: “a psychic force” and “the manifestation of a god” before the end of the
Old Kingdom (Lurker 31). A bird form of the soul that can come and go as it pleases. Certainly,
by the time Bat is syncretized with Hwt-Hr, the name is more translatable. Hwt-Hr, Mansion of
Horus, or perhaps more literally, where Horus goes to rest -- in the sky; or in the arms of Hwt-
Hr; or perhaps eventually in Amduat as the Mistress of the West (see figs. 9 – 10).
Both Goddesses are symbolized by a feminine face with a cow’s ears and a horn
mimicking hair-style. Perhaps looking more like an Egyptian Baladi Buffalo, than a common
domesticated cow. Yet it must be noted that an Egyptian Baladi Buffalo does not have the very
curved horns of the African Buffalo. However, Egyptian Buffalos are native to river and swamp
habitats.
This interesting inversion of the usual style of the Ancient Egyptian hybrid form of
representation of deity occurs in the cases of Bat and Hwt-Hr. Usually the deity has an animal
head or takes a fully animal form. In Bat and Hwt-Hr, they keep their human faces, but acquire
the ears of a cow and bovine horns, or a hairstyle that mimics the curved horns of a bovine. If

Emrys 10
Bat and Hwt-Hr are reflective of a Primordial Cow Creatrix Goddess, would this be the first
beautiful face ever to be seen? Just her beautiful face and head, emerging from the primordial
waters.
As the Openers of the Way, both Wepwawet and Anupu, are depicted as canids. As is
KhentiAmentiu the Foremost of the Westerners. These descriptives may have a similar meaning,
as the God who opens the path to Amduat and the Afterlife. By the First Intermediate Period
KhentiAmentiu is replaced by Asir at his temple in Abydos. As early as the First Dynasty,
Anupu is represented as an embalmer of the dead, and by association may considered the
embalmer of Asir. All three reflect a type of psychopomp, but who are also responsible for the
literal transformation of corpse into mummy. Or in the earliest times, from corpse into clean
bones. When the bodies of the dead may have been defleshed by the carrion eating activities of
these canids (see figs. 11 – 12).
Anupu has been identified with the African Golden Jackal, but the species has been re-
evaluated genetically and they are now called the African Golden Wolf. Anupu is depicted as
black, not a golden grey, his black color perhaps symbolizing Rebirth. and Wepwawet is
depicted white or grey in color, which according to the late Marija Gimbutas, symbolizes Death.
As in the white of bones (see figs. 13 – 15).
Is the ‘Nile River Goddess’ or Goddess with the Upraised Arms like the Water-Bird
Goddess of Old Europe? Or is she like Minoan Goddesses who are theorized to be raising their
arms in numinous awe at the epiphany of the Goddess they are worshipping. Are these figures
dancing? Ancient Egyptian artistic convention shows dancers in a similar position. Yet, just
because they are dancing, does not mean that they are not experiencing a numinous event (see
fig. 16).

Emrys 11
During Ritual, and especially during Ritual Dance, changes in consciousness can occur as
the brain releases specific chemical compounds. These chemical compounds effect levels of
consciousness: Oxytocin (nurturance & bonding); Corticotrophin-Releasing Hormone
(euphoria); Arginine Vasopressin (social bonding); Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone & Thyroid-
Stimulating Hormone (mood & cognition); and Dopamine (pleasure). In Ritual Dance this “[. . .]
rapid external rhythm represents a dominance of the arousal system. [. . .] It should be noted that
this intense arousal stimulation almost certainly includes activity of areas of the brain such as the
hypothalamus, resulting in positive psychological states varying from mildly pleasant to ecstatic”
(D'Aquili and Newberg 99-101).
Perhaps another clue to the nature of the symbology of the upraised arms is the Ka
symbol, that of the upraised arms indicating a soul form. The Ka is a protective and creative soul
form, the divine spark of sentient life. It is the divine double of a person’s soul. As such, the
exultant or dancing position showing the upraised arms signifies in these figures can be denoting
both numinous awe and the change of consciousness that occurs when a numen is encountered.
Perhaps representing a shorthand to denote an epiphany or a contact with the numinous.
The symbology invested in these most ancient deities has persisted throughout history.
Modern Pagans still invoke and honor the ancient forms of the Ancient Egyptian Goddesses and
Gods. They still hold the symbology that represents them as sacred, vivid, and vibrantly relevant.
Perhaps new meanings have been added, but the search for the most ancient forms and the
understanding of these forms continues to this day.

Emrys 12
Works Cited
D’Aquili, Eugene G., and Andrew B. Newberg. “Ritual, Liturgy, and the Mind.” The Mystical
Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience. Fortress, 1999. Pages 95-108.
Lesko, Barbara S. The Great Goddesses of Egypt. University of Oklahoma Press, 1999.
Lurker, Manfred. An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: With 114
Illustrations. Thames & Hudson, 2002.

Emrys 13
Works Consulted
Clark, Charlotte R. “Egyptian Weaving in 2000 B.C.” Metmuseum.org, Metropolitan Museum of
Art, www.metmuseum.org/pubs/bulletins/1/pdf/3257238.pdf.bannered.pdf.
D’Aquili, Eugene G., and Andrew B. Newberg. “Ritual, Liturgy, and the Mind.” The Mystical
Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience. Fortress, 1999. Pages 95-108.
Giuliano, Charles. “The Dawn of Egyptian Art.” Berkshire Fine Arts, Berkshire Fine Arts,
www.berkshirefinearts.com/04-19-2012_dawn-of-civilization-egypt.htm.
Granger-Taylor, Hero, and Stephen Quirke. “Textile Production and Clothing.” Textile in
Ancient Egypt, University College London, 2003, www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-
static/digitalegypt/textil/index2.html.
---. “Technology and Tools in Ancient Egypt.” Textile, University College London,
www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/textil/tools.html.
Hart, George. A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. Routledge & Kegan, 1988.
Hornung, Erik, and Elizabeth Bredeck. Idea into Image Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought.
Timken, 1992.
Kjeilen. "Neith." Neith - LookLex Encyclopaedia. LookLex Encyclopedia.
looklex.com/e.o/neith.htm.
Lesko, Barbara S. The Great Goddesses of Egypt. University of Oklahoma, 1999.
Lurker, Manfred. An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: With 114
Illustrations. Thames & Hudson, 2002.
Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Myth: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2004.
Raffaele, Francesco. “Corpus of Predynastic Palettes.” Corpus of Egyptian Late Predynastic
Decorated Palettes (Ceremonial Slate Palettes), Virgilio.it,
xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/palettes.htm.

Emrys 14
---. “First Dynasty Label Corpus - Aha 3 G Neith Temple.” First Dynasty Labels Corpus,
Virgilio.it, xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/labels/xxaha3.htm.
---. “First Dynasty Label Corpus - Aha 8 Neithotep.” First Dynasty Labels Corpus, Virgilio.it,
xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/labels/xxaha8.htm.
---. “MERNEITH (MERYT-NEITH).” Merneith, Virgilio.it,
xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/merneith.html.
---. “Narmer Macehead.” Early Dynastic Egypt Site: Some Images Various Objects (2):
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Knife-Handles, Mace-Heads, Combs (Naqada IID1-
Naqada IIIC2, c. 3450-2940 BC), Virgilio.it,
xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/narmrmhd.jpg.
---. “PREDYNASTIC AND PROTODYNASTIC EGYPT and a Synthetic Model of the Ancient
Egyptian Civilization Origin and Development.” Predynastic and Protodynastic Egypt: A
Model of State Formation, Virgilio.it,
xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/synthesis.htm.
Sadıkoğlu, Perihan. “ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ART ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ART AND
INFLUENCES ON MODERN TIME THROUGH HISTORY The Life of Ancient Egypt
That Continues in Modern Era AYHAN KALAYCI.” Academia.edu, Academia.edu, 3
Mar. 2007, 4:50 PM,
www.academia.edu/31662004/ANCIENT_EGYPTIAN_ART_ANCIENT_EGYPTIAN_
ART_AND_INFLUENCES_ON_MODERN_TIME_THROUGH_HISTORY_The_Life_
of_Ancient_Egypt_that_Continues_in_Modern_Era_AYHAN_KALAYCI.

Emrys 15
Illustrations
Figure 1 - Stele of MerNeith
“Merneith.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merneith&oldid=825145268.

Emrys 16
Figure 2 - Neith Symbol/Standard by Wendilyn Emrys, MA
A bolt of linen fabric folded and placed over a rod, then tied in the middle and at the bottom.

Emrys 17
Figure 3 -Weaving Sword
“An Important find from Gurob is a weaving sword, complete except for its hand, dating to the
New Kingdom, about 1550-1069 BC.”
Granger-Taylor , Hero, and Stephen Quirke. “Technology and Tools in Ancient Egypt.” Textile,
University College London, www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/textil/tools.html.

Emrys 18
Figure 4 – A Weaver’s Shop
Clark, Charlotte R. “Egyptian Weaving in 2000 B.C.” Metmuseum.org, Metropolitan Museum of
Art, page 27. www.metmuseum.org/pubs/bulletins/1/pdf/3257238.pdf.bannered.pdf.

Emrys 19
Figure 5 – The Goddess Neith
Kjeilen. “Neith.” Neith - LookLex Encyclopaedia, looklex.com/e.o/neith.htm.

Emrys 20
Figure 6 - Click Beetle from Wikipedia
“Click Beetle.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Click_beetle&oldid=833220797.

Emrys 21
Figure 7 - Scarab Beetle a.k.a. Scarabaeus sacer
“Scarabaeus Sacer.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scarabaeus_sacer&oldid=831699123.

Emrys 22
Figure 8 – Nile Perch
“Nile Perch.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nile_perch&oldid=830918726.

Emrys 23
Figure 9 – Narmer Palette
The Cow/Bovine Goddess Bat and The Falcon God Heru
“Bat (Goddess).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bat_(goddess)&oldid=810652338.

Emrys 24
Figure 10 – Hwt-Hr/Hathor
Hathor's head. Faience, from a sistrum's handle. 18th Dynasty. From Thebes, Egypt. The Petrie
Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London
“Hathor.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hathor&oldid=832599671.

Emrys 25
Figure 11 – Pre-Dynastic Egyptian Canid
Raffaele, Francesco. “Corpus of Predynastic Palettes.” El-Ahaiwah Palette in Berkeley,
Francesco Raffaele, xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/palettes/Berkeley.htm.
Corpus of Egyptian Late Predynastic Decorated Palettes (Ceremonial Slate Palettes)

Emrys 26
Figure 12 - Wepwawet
An ivory label depicting the pharaoh Den, found at his tomb in Abydos, circa 3000 BCE.
Originally attached to a pair of royal sandals, which is depicted on the reverse. The side shown
here depicts the pharaoh striking down an Asiatic tribesman along with the inscription "The first
occasion of smiting the East." Wepwawet is located at the upper right.
“Wepwawet.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wepwawet&oldid=823800703.

Emrys 27
Figure 13 – Anupu
A crouching or "recumbent" statue of Anubis as a black-coated wolf (from the Tomb of
Tutankhamun)
“Anubis.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anubis&oldid=831151159.

Emrys 28
Figure 14 – Hermanubis
Statue of Hermanubis, a syncretization of Anubis and the Greek god Hermes
(Vatican Museums)
“Anubis.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anubis&oldid=831151159.

Emrys 29
Figure 15 - Egypt Wolf – Canis anthus lupaster
subspecies of the African Golden wolf Canis lupus lupaster
“Egyptian Wolf.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Egyptian_wolf&oldid=825769384.

Emrys 30
Figure 16 – Goddess/Female Figurine with Upraised Arms
Female Figure, ca. 3500–3400 B.C.E. Terracotta, painted, 11½ × 5½ × 2¼
in. (29.2 × 14 × 5.7 cm). Brooklyn Museum
“Prehistoric Egypt.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prehistoric_Egypt&oldid=830342432#Faiyum_A_culture.