> > No, it wasn't. The horizon was significant in
> the
> > funerary context, but in addition to Khepri
> there
> > were Re and Re-Atum as well.
>
> Correct. They had a rising sun, a midday sun, and
> a setting sun. When depicted, it appears the
> rising and setting suns took precedence.



Really? Then why, even on the piccie Greg posted the sun was pictured in the highest point of the image with wings?



>
>
>
> > Btw, Re-Horakhty does
> > not mean "Horus in the Horizon" (Horemakhet),
> but
> > "Horus of the (two) Horizons", which IMO
> indicates
> > the sun of midday or anywhere between the
> rising
> > and the setting.
>
>
> That makes no sense to me. Sorry.
>
> Being "of the horizons" probably should not be
> interpreted as "being in the place in the sky
> farthest away from any horizon"... which is what
> the midday sun would be.


Where exactly did I write the Horakhty should be only the midday sun? I wrote "midday or anywhere between the rising and setting". This said, I find it illogical to exclude the midday point when talking about the sun between the two horizons.
Moreover, "akhety" is referring to two horizons or a pair of horizons (the famous "y"). I see this as meaning between the horizing of rising and that of setting.

>
> The horizons are clearly the place of most
> significance in AE cosmography.


Really? Does "Unas shall circumnavigate the sky like Ra, Unas shall course the sky like Thoth" ring a bell?



I think the idea
> that the sun is portrayed as it is seen on the
> horizon is just another important piece of
> evidence adding to that assessment.


And I think, that if you made an effort youd find as many perfectly round representations of the sun as the slightly squat" ones. I think you are clutching to straws to find evidence of the AEs not knowing a circle.






Ritva