Right, Mendeh the Merciless is back to annoy Flash marduck...

The problem I have with saying that it's the umbilical cord is as follows: the umbilical cord is presumably the long 'I' shape. The placenta is presumably the circular shape on top. So what are the twiddly arms on either side?

What my book on symbolism suggests is that whatever the ankh originally represented (part of a shoe, various internal organs or whatever) doesn't really matter, because it became something that was represented by many different forms in real life.

I'm recanting my proposition that it represented the female reproductive system, because beyond a rudementary resemblance to the ovaries, uterus and birth canal I really can't find much evidence for that hypothesis. Likewise, sandlestraps seem a rather strange inspiration for a hieroglyph that meant so much to the Egyptians. I don't think it's the umbilical cord and placenta, because the Egyptians had a separate monoliteral for the placenta (a circle with horizontal bands across it) which bears little resemblance to what would presumably be the placenta on the ankh.

Ulrich's wrong too, I'm afraid. The chariot was introduced in the Second Intermediate Period from 1650 to 1550 BC, with the arrival of the Hyksos raiders. Before that, the Egyptian army didn't have chariots at all.

[This message has been edited by Mendeh (edited May 24, 2001).]

Have you read about the strange habits of the Nacerima? No, not familiar with that one.

Mendeh you mentioned the Hyksos, did you see the topic on them in this section B & A? We were dicussing who they were, I thought they were the Hebrews, any input? I thought chariots were introduced by the Hittites when Ramses II fought them, if this is false I'm going to be very mad at PBS!

I just saw 'The Mummy Returns' today, it contains a 'few' historical errors, other than that it was a lot of fun.

[This message has been edited by marduck (edited May 24, 2001).]

I'll certainly have a look at the topic.

I'm afraid that you're ging to have to vent your anger at PBS, marduck. The Egyptians most definitely had the chariot before Ramses II, because I know for sure that Tutankhamen had a chariot. (Ramses II's dates were from around 1279-1213 BC; Tut's were 1336-1327 BC.)

As a special treat, I'll even quote you a bit from The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (pub. by Oxford University press, 2000)

"It is generally thought that the Hyksos introduced the horse and chariot into Egypt, since there is no firm evidence of either during the Middle Kingdom yet they are present from the beginning of the 18th dynasty... the Kamose texts mention the enemy's horses and the chariot teams of Avaris as part of Kamose's loot and this may account for their introduction into Upper Egypt."

(On a side note, I heartily reccomend this book to you, as it is unbeaten as a reference book for this sort of stuff. I daresay that for those of an American persuasion, you could order it off of Amazon)

I saw The Mummy Returns last Sunday, and I thought that it was not a patch on the original. Maybe it's just because I've got the hots for Ankh in skimpy underwear, though...

On the Nacerima, you'll have to give me a hand, because I've never heard of them in my life. Who exactly were they?

"I saw The Mummy Returns last Sunday, and I thought that it was not a patch on the original. Maybe it's just because I've got the hots for Ankh in skimpy underwear, though..."

That was the problem with both mummy movies, the 'villian' wasn't nasty enough, I got no satisfaction from his demise, in fact I fealt sorry for him, he wanted to bring his girlfriend back to life, so what! she was a hottie, can't blame him. as for ruling the world, so ? as far as I colud tell he had no real evil agenda like Hitler or anything, I'm sure he would have done at least as well as the knuckelheads that rule it now. I love the way they morphed scenes of Egyptian ruins into what they would have looked like 4000 years ago.
I don't know who those Nacerima people were Jess brought them up.