Talk:Ankh

Reworking

This article is atrocious, especially when considering it is about the flagship symbol for the Egypt project. It's become rambling and disorganized, as people have tacked on their own contributions without working them into the overall flow of the piece. Let's get to work, folks, and clean this up! Ganbatte! --Agbdavis 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a lot of work has been done so far, excellent. The main problem is the Pop Culture section... every other week or so someone wants to edit in their new favorite items. I think we have plenty of examples, however, maybe even too many as it is, so let us just keep the ones that are there now as a fair representation of the many places this symbol appears until the article is longer. Maybe in time we will need a separate page for examples, but the real work needs to be done first.--Agbdavis 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Earliest Date?

What is the earliest known date of the appearance of an ankh? ~~A. Reader~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.25.169 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Miscellenia

Totally unscientific though it may be, I put in this; i received a vision that the ankh was first a depiction of a tool used in farming, which was important enough to growing the food, that it became a symbol used by the rest of the society. This would contribute to the interpretations that have been given to it in the last 200 years. Susan

"A modified version of the ankh symbol (♀) is used in astrology to represent the planet Venus, in alchemy to represent the element copper, and in biology to identify the female sex."

I don't think so. Its a similar symbol, but it is Roman in origin: Venus' handmirror is more associated with being a representation of teh female womb than the ankh ever was. Especially when contrasted with Mars' shield and spear (a rather phallic symbol).--ZZ 13:41, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have read in a non-authoritative source that the ankh may be a map; the vertical line would be the Nile and the loop is the delta. The horizontal line represents the deserts on either side of the Nile; it represented life because the Nile supports life in between the deserts. Do any real Egyptologists hold this theory? Fishal 22:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Personally I always thought it looked like a person with no legs (or person with legs together), and hence represented a person. Anyone know if any mummy's were buried arms outstretched? Or wasn't it some sort of grain-growing tool?--ZayZayEM 01:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need the list of so many uses of the ankh in pop culture? Couldn't we just summarize in a few sentences? Peter Isotalo 19:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I know some christians think it's satanic:

http://www.exposingsatanism.org/signsymbols.htm "Ankh -Symbolizes fertility rites and the building up of lust within a person. A spirit of Lust is the power of this union of male /female representations. Also called the Long Life Seal"

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=cabc&c=whs&id=8515 "It (the Ankh) certainly doesn't belong on a list of supposedly Satanic symbols."

http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Satanskingdom.htm "Satanists use it as a sex symbol for their sexual orgies."

Rev Jeremiah Wright was just seen preaching in the friendship baptist church in dallas with a Ankh on the podium. Is this now a symbol being used in some black churches? http://www.friendshipwest.org/ http://www.friendshipwest.org/images/index2_04.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sattmaster (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Goth pop culture

I recall observing that goths are really into it. True? Kent Wang 16:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically true; this is said as someone who would self-identify as being or at least having once been a "goth". While it's far from being as universal as wearing black and listening to dark-themed music, many in the goth culture have interests that involve the symbol. An interest in Egyptology, both pop-Egyptology and more serious studies, is common. Even more frequent is a fascination with vampire mythology, which often invokes the symbol. Finally, many goths are also into the occult, many systems of which make use of the ankh as well. Jens Knutson 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope a few people have saved their 3D red-cyan glasses to check out the nice 3D in the Coptic bust posted today.3dnatureguy 08:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for Ankh Unification

I wrote about the ankh in my article Mental Gender which links it to another article, The All which is based off of Hermetic beliefs, which originated in Egypt among the elite classes. I'll just leave this for those who have already contributed to deal with for now.

KV 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'll just do it for now, I'm a little to ansy to wait.

KV 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken KV's article down due to wild speculation and no sources or references to support his claims. If someone can support this claim, please do so, along with actual sources to proev this.

Zos 04:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There are two citations to a main claim that "Hermeticism is a belief system that came out of Egypt and whose beliefs may be able to unify many of the Ankh's meanings" There are no other citations at all.

KV 06:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Although there were citations, none bare fruit to the topic at hand, which is why I deleted it. I notice you have changed the section, and I wont bother with it so long as it remains a concept, although I believe wiki doesnt wish to ackowledge newer theories, which is why I was disputing this.

Zos 06:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ankh Categorization

The following is from my talk page:

The Ankh is not truely a symbol that came from the cross, nor did the cross come from it. A specific type of cross is believed to have involved the ankh in it's design. Therefore I suggest removing Category:Cross symbols and re-adding Category:Symbols. KV 19:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

He has a point. While Ankh does have associations with the cross, it has different facets too - for example, it can be a phallic symbol, and so on. Let me know what others think about the categorization issue. Which one of them we should apply - or perhaps this article will need both? --BorgQueen 20:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the various articles that appear at Category:Cross symbols, I would not say that the ankh is out of place there. Unless that category is a subcategory of Category:Symbols, I would keep both categories. Smerdis of Tlön 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cross symbols is a subcategory of Category:Symbols, and that is why I removed the latter. --BorgQueen 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the article on cross would appear to compass just about any symbol that contains an intersection. Obviously the ankh predates the Christian cross, but Christian crosses are but a subset of crosses. The ankh is another. So yes, this is as it should be. Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ankh in Pop culture ---> Video games

Me, a long-time player of RPG tabletop and computer games, have noticed Ankh's very wide use as a symbol for "Priest magic" and/or "Holy magic" in medieval role playing fantasy games. It is really common, other gamers can acknowledge that. I think it would not be wrong to point out that in the 'Ankh in Pop culture' section, I would do it myself but I think this article is being cared for by a different group of people, so I will leave my comments here and wait for a discussion to arise before doing anything. Pentalis 22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite okay to mention on its usage in RPG, provided you wouldn't go into too excessive details. --BorgQueen 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I will go and make the edit now before I get lazy and forget about this,  :) Pentalis 22:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting sources - original research?

I've removed this material from the article as it appears to be two facts linked together by pure speculation on the part of the editor who wrote it. I'd like to see references for actual Hermetic use of the ankh and for meanings ascribed directly to the ankh in Hermetic documents.

There are also many weasel words in these two paragraphs;

• "believed to" (by whom?)
• "may be able" (editorial speculation)
• "it is unclear...or coincidence" (editorial speculation)
• "if the concept..." (whose concept is it, the editor's? or do we have a source?)

So what we have here are two cited facts, neither of which are directly about the ankh, spun together with a bit of spit by the Wikipedia editor who wrote it. No thanks, that's not encyclopedic. —Hanuman Das 10:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In Hermeticism

Hermeticism is a belief system that is believed to have come out of Egypt and whose beliefs may be able to unify many of the Ankh's meanings. It is unclear whether their beliefs created the ankh or added many meanings, or remain a coincidence. Their concept of God was The All, who purportedly claimed: "Nous, God, being male and female, beginning as life and light, gave birth, by the Word, to another Nous, the Creator of the world;"

If the concept of the ankh suggesting the joining of the masculine and feminine is correct, with the top opened up to look similar to Ω representing the feminine (genitals) and the bottom shaft being a phallic symbol, then the rest may follow. If God is both male and female, the ankh is a symbol of hermaphroditism and can be representing God. It also can be representing reproduction as both genitalia are pictured, with Nous having given birth. God is also "life and light," making those now synonymous with a symbol of God. God is certainly synonymous with power, and in the Hermetic view, "While All is in THE ALL, it is equally true that THE ALL is in All." The universe or Cosmos was seen as being the same as The All, making the universe also synonymous with God, and this symbol.

References

Completion

Lads, the ankh is the symbol representing the completion of the opening the mouth cremony, which is not just ab rejuvenating the dead, but is in fact a deification rite. And on, completing it, the person becomes a "living anhk" or giver of life, radiating life all about; and also rep/ing combining energies into a new sun. Quite impressive these lads understood all that 7000 plus years ago (namer has it all there, 5,000 BC) ! when our lads do not yet understand it. TieRoan Tyrell Huangdi SOH - the Stone 69.121.221.97 (talk) 69.121.221.97 (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Its keylike shape also encouraged the belief it could unlock the gates of death."

Isn't it anachronistic? Did the Egyptians had locks and keys similar to contemporary ones, that they could compare to the Ankh?

Per the lock (device) article, they were the first ones to have them, 4,000 years ago.--Agbdavis 02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Section about transition from ankh to cross

I am quite interested to know where the author has received all of his information for the "ankh into cross section" section of this article, as I have not heard about this theory anywhere else (and it is still labeled "citation needed"). This is especially true of its assertion that the Christian cross symbol was not widely accepted until the Egyptians (through their familiarity with the ankh symbol) made it popular. Could someone find a source to back this up? -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Resemblances

The ankh does not resemble a penis---nor the pharoah's "penis sheath"---in any way, shape or form. The head of the ankh resembles a vulva, but the rest of it demolishes that resemblance. Someone said in the article that an ankh has no anthrpological resemblance: utter nonsense, because it absolutely resembles a standing person with outretched arms---one could even impute a likeness of a crucifix. Learnedness takes a dive, when such obvious commonsensical resemblances are ignored. --PLK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.59.70.21 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

While I agree you are right about the Ankh looking nothing like a penis, you cannot make the statement that it does look like a man with outstreched arms because your opinion is derived from 20-21st century interpretations of art, specifically one which is familiar with the notion of the stick man drawing. Real "learnedness" would argue that it cannot be a human figure since it bears no resemblance at all to typical egyptian representations of humans. Thanatosimii 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be radical and suggest we rely on the work of egyptologists, semanticians, and symbolists.--Agbdavis 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's... kind of what I said... Thanatosimii 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you... what is the problem? Did I miss something?--Agbdavis 00:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were disagreeing. No problems. Thanatosimii 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So what has been decided? Someone has reverted the changes, removing this explanation but not giving a rationale. Unfortunately I can't seem to find a proper reference on the net (admittedly I haven't looked all that hard yet) - was this what carter really though? If so, I'd like to revert the change. --Nachmore 00:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this from the article:

• "The ankh with its distinctive looped top portion clearly exhibits anthropomorphic qualities, including its other line elements and overall shape, inadvertently or not"

And I have asked 71.59.74.194 to cite a source and avoid inserting editorial statements into the article. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

photos

This article is indeed very popular for viewing, as well as editing, additions, and talk comments. The lead graphic, an alphanumeric-like symbol, is quite good. I think---other than links---it would be helpful and elucidative to have one or two excellent photos of representative [as well as possibly exemplary/archetypal] images of ankh objects.

Dating in Christian artifacts

A discussion of the symbol's usage in early Christian artifacts is needed. When does the symbol start occurring in Christian manuscripts?172.159.191.49 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)James M. Leonard172.159.191.49 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jl502 at cam dot ac dot uk

Ankh Model Chakra System link

diff What does this have to do with the ankh specifically? Seeing as it does not seem to elaborate on the ankh, but rather a system that uses it as symbolism, I'm not seeing this as a good link for this article. But let's let some debate run on it. KV(Talk) 17:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

comparison

Compare the ankh to a Tau cross!Domsta333 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism of the Ankh

I am curious why none of the so-called experts have collected pictures of the Ankh as a being with attached arms and legs. Examples of this can be seen at http://moses1350.wetpaint.com/page/Anthropomorphism+of+the+Ankh ...How shall this information be included in the article? Iamsmallpeeps (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tenses

It "was" an Egyptian heiroglyphic? Isn't it still one of those? I'm not debating this, exactly, so much as wondering if there's like...a Wikipedia-instituted shelf life on when the tense changes? I mean, Latin phrases are still described as "meaning" something, rather than stating that they "meant" something. Especially a symbol like this, which is still relevant to various spiritualities, philosophies, and, uh, Goth kids with limited anthropological understanding. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro Plagarized

This section:

The ankh (symbol ☥) was the Egyptian hieroglyphic character that read "life", a triliteral sign for the consonants ꜥ-n-ḫ. Egyptian gods are often portrayed carrying it by its loop, or bearing one in each hand, arms crossed over their chest. It is also known as the key of life, the key of the Nile, or as crux ansata, Latin for "cross with a handle". The ankh appears to be associated with the Egyptian glyph for magical protection, sa. However, what the sign itself represents is disputed. For example, Sir Alan Gardiner thought that it showed a sandal strap with the loop at the top forming the strap, but if so, the symbolism is obscure and so his theory has found little support. However, this interpretation seems to have received some acceptance among modern writers.

Was plagarized word for word from: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ankh.htm

I think you've gone a bit overboard here: the first three sentences are not lifted from the article at all, though everything else after that is (starting from "The ankh appears to be associated with the Egyptian glyph for magical protection..."). Am restoring the first three sentences accordingly. Will see if I can find other introductory info to add to it as well. Captmondo (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight on Aset Ka and Asetian Bible?

What does this have to do with Ankh's other than to highlight a book from small Portuguese occult order? If Aset Ka's materials are considered suitable for this article, than shouldn't references to other Kemetic orders be included as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.239.10 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further research, the Asetian Bible is self published by the Order of Aset Ka, so falls under self published source. See Talk:Vampire_lifestyle#Michelle_Belanger and the criteria involved with WP:SPS--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Asetian Bible (ISBN 9899569402) is not self-published. The author being involved with the Order of Aset Ka does not make it self-published. Self-publishing strictly refers to a book that is published by the author himself and not by any other party, wether or not he is involved with it. And I quote:

Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works.

This is the correct definition. The author is not the editor. The author is not the publishing entity (like in the cases of Lulu, Xlibris or Amazon's Booksurge). Your definition of self-publishing would imply that any book published by the Vatican when the author is the Pope Benedict XVI, or any of Rome's Cardinals, was also self-published. Or that any teacher from the MIT that was publishing a book through the university press, like the MIT Press for example, would be self-publishing, when that is never considered self-publishing in the publishing industry. You need to re-check your definitions. Now, please, just stop vandalizing Wikipedia by removing the Asetian Bible from every article, just in an attempt to give credit to your edits in the Vampire lifestyle article. Thank you. GustavusPrimus (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. In the case of the Pope Benedict XVI, or any of Rome's Cardinals there are reliable third party publications which will vouch for their expertise and authenticity. There is a vast difference between Catholicism, which has several hunderd million, if not a couple billion members, and which is written about daily in numerous media agencies, and a very small fringe occult organization which has no reliable outside sources writing about it. Additionally, you have yet to actually supply any reason why these individuals should be considered credible sources on this topic. Please supply proof that Aset Ka's interpretation of the Ankh is "known in the occult world as the Dark Mark" besides a book published by Aset Ka saying so. Who else references this? The occult community is far lager than one organization and one book.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, yes I would question the validity in your first example if if no one had heard of Catholicism or the Vatican, references to them were circular and unsupported and some guy named Benedict whom no one had ever heard of before hand started putting out books. And in your second example, if MIT were not an already established university and published over 8,000 books thus far, and if professors were not required to publish in peer-review publications, than yes I would question their validity as well.

But this is not the case. As far as I can tell, no one has supplied proof that the Order of Aset Ka is a legitimate organization or that Luis Marques is an established expert in metaphysics, vampirism and Ancient Egyptian knowledge. Please quit quibbling about the fine points of self-publication, and start supplying some sort of proof that outside sources give any sort of validity to this individual or organization. Again, I point to the statements such as the one made in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aset_Ka which point out that the Order of Aset Ka is "a hoax, and not even that good of a hoax. Every source I have found on Aset Ka cross references each other in a way that looks legitimate until you see that it's nothing but a house of cards - each source relying on each other for notability except that none of them provide any true references."

For all the continued insistence that the Order of Aset Ka is relevant and a legitimate organization or that Luis Marques is a legitimate and reliable source as a writer, there has been no proof that this is the case.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting the Wikipedia admin Canderson7 on a similar discussion under the same subject in Talk:Vampire_lifestyle#Michelle_Belanger:

I agree that the Asetian Bible does not appear to meet the definition of a self-published source. Whether or not any of these books is a "Reliable Source" or a "Self-Published Source" is not really the issue here, though, because the article wasn't really attempting to use them as "sources." Instead, these books were part of the subject-matter of the article, which discusses the attitude of society and its authors towards vampiric phenomena. Because the books were subjects of discussion for the article, whether or not they are good sources of fact is not something we really need to debate any more than the authors of the Harry Potter article debate whether the Harry Potter books are good sources of fact.

This covered exactly the point. We are not here to validate wether the claims in a book are valid or not, the article is referring examples that use the Ankh in popular culture, and this is certainly a book using it. It does not matter if it is a true religion or even a work of fiction, but it is an added reference in the usage of the Ancient Egyptian Ankh in popular culture. The references are even supported by the book itself and an outside encyclopedic source, which in this particular case, was not even needed. Wether or not they are a "Reliable Source" is out of the scope of this discussion, since they are not used as sources. The legitimacy of the Order of Aset Ka as an occult organization, a vampiric movement or another name for the Illuminati is not the issue in here. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeking further clarification on the topic of self publication I was informed that the Asetian Bible is indeed considered a self-published work. I still question the relevance of including information specific to Aset Ka in this article. Discussion of the spiritual beliefs belong on a page dedicated to that organization.

It has also not been adequately demonstrated the Aset Ka symbol that has since been deleted from this entry to be universally known in the occult community as the "Dark Mark". Ask most member of the occult community what the dark mark is and they will likely refer to the Harry Potter series. As for the web site references. It is an author-less web article (making it self-published), which references the book (which I reiterate is self published), and an incomplete citation of a non-English television program which makes it impossible to verify.

And there still remains the question of undue weight. It has not been demonstrated that Aset ka is anything more than a very small minority within the neopagan and vampire communities. Including a reference to their spirituality in this entry makes their organization appear much more notable than it really is.

In fact the only thing valuable in that entire paragraph is the sentence that was there long before the addition of Asek Ka and Asetian Bible information: "The ankh also retains popularity among Neopagan religious and spiritual movements as a symbol for a variety of concepts relating to life, immortality and the occult, being commonly used in parallel with Energy Vampires." But since the validity of the current citation, which was on when the Aset Ka infomration was added, is in such doubt, and since in other discussions it's been articulated that that the book is about a specific spiritual set of beliefs, it cannot be used to support statements about the larger community. So this portion will either needs to be removed or left as a citation needed.

At this point I have a very difficult time believing you are unbiased in this matter. Researching your history it is evident that the only things that you have contributed are additions to entries about this book and organization, reinstatements of those additions, or defenses of their presence, all of which promptly started up after the failed attempt to reinstate the organization's web page.

Now it's possible I might be operating from personal bias as well. So at this point since there are only two of us engaged in this discussion at this point, I am requesting input from Wikipedia:Third_opinion.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw this being discussed earlier and took a look and have formed an opinion. I did not come here from the posting for a third opinion, as I stopped by to look at things prior to this when I saw SLP asking about what makes a reliable source. Someone from the Third Opinion board shoud come along later with more input, but I thoght I'd add mine. My opinions is that books is not a reliable source, and the claim above that "Wether or not they are a "Reliable Source" is out of the scope of this discussion, since they are not used as sources." is simply ridiculous. If it's not a reliable source than it can't be used as a source at all, and to even mention it in the first place it must be notable in some way, and a self-published book does not establish notability. I welcome another person's input as an official third opinion, and maybe a larger RFC if we need it, but bad info from poor sources have no business being put into Wikipedia either here or elsewhere. I already removed it from Vampire, a page I have watchlisted. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute.

The dark mark, as I understand it, is from Harry Potter. That is not to say that it could not be significant in something else, but I am extremely skeptical of someone claiming that it has another significance. This website is self-published as it does not have an author. It is thus unreliable and should be removed as a source.

As for the Asetian Bible the way it is being used here is not self-referentially. If an article on the book said it had this symbol on its cover which it claimed was the dark mark we could look at the cover and determine this to be true of the book. However, this article asserts a broader significance to it. I consider the work self-published and the crucial distinction is the reliability of the organization which published it. This cannot be compared to something written for MIT Press by an MIT professor because MIT Press is widely recognized as a quality press. Similarly, the Vatican is recognized to speak for the Catholic Church. Everyone knows the pope speaks for them. Note that this does not mean that the pope can be cited as representative of what all Catholics think. But he is a recognized source on the iconography of the Virgin Mary, whereas the Asentian Bible is not a recognized source on anything other than itself. To use it as such is to give "the dark mark" a broader cultural significance which it does not seem to have (or there are no reliable citations for at any rate). Note that this in no way reflects on the belief. I think placing significance in the Virgin Mary is just as silly as placing significance in this dark mark. The difference is that it is very clear that the Catholic Church and Catholic culture places an emphasis on the Virgin Mary. Sidestepping the issue of the reliability of the Vatican altogether, I would point out that this is verifiable with legitimate sources other the Vatican. If you think that the dark mark indeed has such cultural significance find a similarly reliable source. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ankh - representation of Bootes

I have been doing some research and it suggests that the Ankh is symbol of the star constellation Bootes, the guardian constellation of Egypt that protected Egypt from the forces of chaos in the North as represented by the Great Bear constellation, Meshkitu.

Any other sources for this ?

Regards Freyr Ottar, 25th July 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.71.77 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ankh fits perfectly over the points in the constellation The Southern Cross, which appears vertical just above the horizon in Egypt just before dawn on the Winter solstice. Even the loopy handle is a dead ringer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCaz64 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ankh - Eternal Life?

Ankh certainly serves to represent the verb "to live", and other cognates, but why is it claimed to stand for "eternal life" specifically? The verb "ankh" is used far more generally than that. 87.112.13.151 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Nefertum

Ankh in Logan's Run

This was a symbol in the movie Logan's Run --Lindy (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Coptic cross not an Ankh (?)

I believe the alleged connection between the Coptic cross and the Ankh is speculative and tenuous, to say the least, see my comment on Talk:Coptic cross#Non-ankh. The upper part of the Ankh is something like a heartformed loop, where the Coptic cross has a circle. I therefore also believe that the article Coptic ankh is bogus. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Coptic ankh may be bogus, but I think I have seen passing mentions of the link between the Coptic cross and the ankh in Egyptological works. Unfortunately I can't remember where they were, and I've collected such a pile of sources that they'll be hard to find even if I have them. I think it's unwise, though, to be too skeptical of ancient Egyptian traditions persisting into Coptic Christianity; in my reading I've realized that those traditions persisted (and even persist) to an amazing degree. A. Parrot (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's astounding to read the entire Ankh article and see just a single sentence covering linkage between iconography of the Christian cross and the Ankh. Material is conspicuous by its absence, and appears to have been excised since earlier versions. And I think frankly it's a bit silly to try to argue that the Coptic cross is not influenced by the Ankh. Unless you seriously think that early Copts said "this new symbol representing life-force that looks just like that old symbol plastered all over the walls of nearly every building in the country, and also represents life-force, is completely unrelated to it". Fig (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Worshiped in Ultima? don't think so

I have played the Ultima games extensively on Apple ][ (All versions), DOS (AV.), Sega Master System (AV.), Nintendo NES (AV.), Super NES (AV.), Online versions, Gameboy Color (AV.), Gamboy (AV.), Mac, Commodore 64. This more than covers Akalabeth through Ascension, the underworld series, and all other side stories. While I have not played every version of every game, I think I have played all the representative versions. In all of these, I cannot recall any NPCs worshiping an Ankh. It is a symbol associated with religion, but not itself worshiped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.33.117 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ankh materials

This passage has been in the article for a long time, and it looks suspicious, so when somebody tried to tag it as needing a source, I moved it here.

The ankh was almost never drawn in silver; as a sun-symbol, the Egyptians almost always crafted important examples of it (for tombs or other purposes) from the metal they most associated with the sun, gold. A similar metal such as copper, burnished to a high sheen, was also sometimes used.

If a source is found to support it, this text, or something to this effect, can go back in. A. Parrot (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

"The Egyptian Ankh" was a tool used by traders for sales. With a function similar to the dividers we us at the checkout of supermarkets today.

This is how it works;

1) The trader would place a "Ankh" on the table between them and the customer they wanted to serve with the loop facing them, to show them that they are ready to trade.

2) The customer would give the trader their order.

3) The customer and trader would then negotiate and agree on price, at which time the customer would place their coins/pieces on the table, inside the loop of the Ankh.

4) The trader would then use their side of the Ankh as a divider. Placing the customers order on the left-hand side, and any coins/pieces of change on the right-hand side.

5) Once both sides were laid out on the table the trader and customer needed to inspect the trade and agree that it was fair and correct. Neither side was allowed to touch anything on the other side of the table, until they were in agreement.

6) Once the trader and customer had agreed their trade was correct, the customer would take the coins/pieces from within the loop and hand them to the trader.

7) Then, and only then, was the customer allowed to reach across the Ankh to the traders side of the table to take their goods and change.

8) The trader would then pick up the Ankh and place it on the table again in front of another customer, to show they are ready to serve them. BornOfSin (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Missing Discussion: Considering the Ankh, perhaps the oldest symbol for Life in the World, from the point of view of the ancients who made and used it

When understanding such truly ancient symbols, I feel it's essential we consider the view of those who invented and reproduced them for generations little changed, which, up to this point, I have seen less then I would like to (however, I appreciate the thoughts by Damon Simms concerning reproduction above, see my last paragraph). I hope some consideration of the following may be included in the main article.

First, let us understand that ancient peoples made their oldest symbols in direct literal representation of the most basic events or concepts from the environment around them whenever possible. For 1000's of years the peoples we call the Egyptians lived in a fairly flat, open region with clear skies and brilliant solar exposure. Egypt was and is a hot land by day and cool or cold at night. The sun quickly arose from the east, most often from a dark and barren desert, and gave meaning to all things. It was the single most important event of their world, repeated daily against a cloudless sky without fail as confirmation of the continuity of existence. Indeed it was (and still is) why the world IS at all. This is why the Egyptians were foremost a morning sun worshiping people (as many others were and some still are). Thus, classical Egyptians always considered the rising sun as a daily birth of life to the world. They made the Ankh as the depiction of that life. I explain...

Imagine ancient daybreak: the black and grey dispelled by the dazzling disc, emerging, rising above certain sand vistas of the Sahara or a rippling water course such as the Nile. Spreading it's glory to all the event becomes majestic, dramatic and even magical and worthy of making a symbol to carry about to sustain the believer, just a the Cross is used by Christians, the Crescent by Muslims and the Lotus by Buddhists, etc. Anyone of us looking out over an open, cloudless horizon at sunrise may see this exact view, drinking in deeply that the day has begun. At the other end of a day, this is repeated in reverse. Seen as the often glorious withdrawal of this power and imposing rest upon the world. These events have occurred since the clouds cleared over the virgin Earth, some 1,642,500,000,000 days past without fail, when no human eyes existed to watch it.

As such a bright vision, symbolically replicating it would be immensely important. Therefore, the round top half of the Ankh represents a brilliant rising sun, Ra, just fully formed and touching at the sharp horizon, which is depicted as the horizontal arms. The reflected light of this sun on ground or water can be seen as the long lower vertical arm, stretching to every viewer personally (a somewhat religious event of it's own). That the horizontal and vertical lines should widen as they move away from the solar disk is a visually obvious 3-dimensional effect to anyone observing a sunrise. To a sun worshiper, it is the dispensing of the power to all and, most specifically, the owner and observer. Thus Ankh's are most often made or depicted in this manner.

The Ankh would always be imagined as a bright object. The Ankh says that this light, warmth and power is for YOU to use for your life and works. Such does not come from darkness. Quality carved stone reliefs usually show the Ankh so as to catch light in some way. If pigmented, in a lighter or gold color. As noted, it's often depicted in the hands of or worn by most Egyptian gods as a proof of power and energy ready to be dispensed. Here, the Ankh is classically depicted as a light object, gold if it could be had. It is quite possible that depicting an Ankh specifically colored dark in the Egyptian classic world would be considered a sort of blasphemy or curse.

An Ankh was easy to recognize by all and comparatively easy to make physically in proto-smithies. They would've been at pains to search for the materials to make them, spurring exploration and experimentation in mining, smelting, forging and casting. This is all the more appropriate as Gold was Egypt's first metal and seemed to be like a bit of Ra in hand where you can feel it's weight and substance as no other metal has. If you melted, purified and poured it in a hollow it becomes a round golden sun that you could hold and even see yourself in. It was the first metal humans could form and polish, due to it's softness, as reflective as a mirror. It is fairly natural that the Ankh became among Man's first useful decorative metallurgy.

The tie-in to Isis mentioned by Damon Simms above is also understandable and I find a very interesting consideration, though I feel it would be a double meaning. It is true that female attributes may be similar in shape to this rising sun vision. The connection of the life giving sun and life giving women is easy to draw. (Why it isn't more universal is the more curious question.) That Ankh, the life and power symbol, and Isis, the female life deity, should become woven most closely under the Egyptian sun may've been inevitable. Jopower (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ANKH

the ankh was a very inportent thing in the Egyptian times. The sun god Ra was often pictured holding an ankh. the ankh was a symbol of life and a key to the underworld by <>PumpiChick<> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.79.17 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Passages removed from the article

I intend to upload a rewritten version of this article with much stronger sourcing. There are several passages in the article that seem plausible but whose sourcing doesn't seem strong enough to include, and which I haven't been able to find support for in my research so far. I'm going to remove them over the next day or two and copy them here in case sourcing can be found.

The first piece I removed calls the ˁnḫ consonant sequence "a triliteral root probably pronounced /ʕánax/ in Old and Middle Egyptian." I can't tell that this reconstructed pronunciation is supported by the sources in the citation that was added to support this text. The source is The Ancient Egyptian Language: An Historical Study by James P. Allen, page 99, but I can't find it in the Google Books preview of that page, and searches for "ankh" or "live" don't turn up this reconstruction. I've left a note on the talk page of the editor who added this reconstruction, but I haven't received a reply. A. Parrot (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

More text removed from the article:

A symbol similar to the ankh appears frequently in Minoan and Mycenaean sites. This is a combination of the sacral knot (symbol of holiness) with the double-edged axe (symbol of matriarchy) but it can be better compared with the Egyptian tyet which is similar. This symbol can be recognized on the two famous figurines of the chthonian Snake Goddess discovered in the palace of Knossos. Both snake goddesses have a knot with a projecting loop cord between their breasts. In the Linear B (Mycenean Greek) script, ankh is the phonetic sign za.

The ankh also appeared frequently in coins from ancient Cyprus and Asia Minor (particularly the city of Mallus in Cilicia). In some cases, especially with the early coinage of King Euelthon of Salamis, the letter ku, from the Cypriot syllabary, appeared within the circle ankh, representing Ku(prion) (Cypriots). To this day, the ankh is also used to represent the planet Venus (the namesake of which, the goddess Venus or Aphrodite, was chiefly worshipped on the island) and the metal copper (the heavy mining of which gave Cyprus its name).

The sources I have found address the Minoan use of the sign, though not in so much detail. The use of the sign in Linear B seems obvious enough when you look at the za sign in the script, but simply citing "M. Ventris" and "J. Chadwick" without specifying a publication is not sufficient, and a hasty search in some books of theirs turns up no explicit reference to the ankh.

The possibility that the ankh evolved into a symbol that was used on Cyprus and came to represent it, thus evolving into the symbols for copper and for Venus, is interesting but not solidly supported. Cyprus: Our New Colony And What We Know About It is such an old source that it actually strikes me as funny—Britain's acquisition of Cyprus came a few years before its takeover of Egypt, which preceded the Golden Age of Egyptology, before which any source on ancient Egypt must be treated with great caution. The claim that the Cypriot symbol was ankh-like doesn't match the table of symbols at Cypriot syllabary, where ku doesn't look much like an ankh, and it would also seem to contradict the reference at Planet symbol#Venus that says the horizontal stroke in the Venus sign was only added in the 12th century to turn the lower portion of the sign into a Christian cross. A. Parrot (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Blue

Ahem. There is a blue version at File:Ankh_(SVG)_blu.svg. Thanks. -Inowen (nlfte) 03:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Determined to have a more colorful lead image, eh? Can't hurt. I've replaced the black version with the blue. A. Parrot (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Ankh

Who wants evidence that ankh is a symbol of claviceps paspali. Who dares to hide the truth? Mitja Fistrić (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

-- Wow, that was just amazing channeling - I was just searching for symbol meaning after I've heard and experienced some connection between Ancient Egypt and mushrooms and I've checked Wikipedia just in time when you have announced your view about the meaning of the symbol. Amazing. Do you have any contact where I can get in touch with you. I would be indeed interested in your story or facts :). Oh another amazing thing, I am also from Slovenia. - Perhaps you can just come tomorrow to Štarpedov Rod :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.210.74 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mitja Fistrić: Wikipedia is based on reliable, scholarly sources (see the page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for details), and it must represent claims in proportion to their presence in the scholarly community (see Wikipedia:Due weight). In researching the Egyptological literature about the ankh, I have never come across the hypothesis that it represents a claviceps fungus, so unless you can find a significant number of scholars who support this hypothesis, the article should not include it. A. Parrot (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ankh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 13:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to review the article. Amitchell125 13:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Assessment

Lead section

• Links: art leads to the article on ancient Egyptian art, not 'Art' (ditto deities, afterlife) - I would amend the text so that the links matched it;

Done.

• Link for 'cross' - I would remove the link for cross - it's a common word;

Done.

• Changed Goth to 'goth' (as is done in the article 'Goth subculture').

Done.

• Bardillo p. 167 discusses the evolution of the ankh, which eventually becomes known as the crux anksata. I'm not sure that the latter be in bold within the lead section, which implies they are both the same thing, when they are not. What do you think?

I'm not sure either. I was following the practice of the preexisting article, which goes all the way back to 2008—crux ansata does redirect here, after all. It's a real on-the-fence case, but unless the crux ansata is split out into its own article, it may be best to keep the bold text. If you want it removed, though, I have no objection.

Its use continued through the Coptic Egyptians who adapted it as the crux ansata, a variant of the Christian cross with a circular loop similar to the ankh's oval one. - perhaps if this whole sentence was moved to the end of the section, and given its own little paragraph, it would make it clearer that the two symbols are not identical.

I did something similar in the earliest uploaded version of the rewrite, but another editor moved crux ansata up into the first paragraph, probably on the belief that bold text should appear at the beginning of the lead. Maybe it should go back to the old arrangement but with the bold text removed. A. Parrot (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy with that. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Use in writing

• I would suggest that links are needed for: honorific; and Egyptologists ('Egyptology').

Done.

Origins

• the was staff - rename as Was-sceptre, as is done in the Wikipedia article (unless it's wrong there!).

Done.

• amend link to ka so it lnks to 'Ancient_Egyptian_conception_of_the_soul#kꜣ_"double"';
• Is the spelling 'ka' OK? - it appears to be 'kꜣ', if you follow the link I mentioned above.

It depends whether you want a transcription into a readable word, or a technical transliteration. Given that ꜣ, the Egyptological alef, isn't supported by a lot of browsers, and that the transcribed ka appears very commonly in Egyptological works (almost as commonly as "ankh"), I prefer to transcribe it.

Agreed.

• ...argue that the origin of the ankh... - the prose would be improved if you removed the date, to keep the sentence consistently within the present tense.

Done.

• The date given for the First Dynasty needs a citation.
• A citation is also needed for the text covering Loret's theory.

It's cited to Gordon and Schwabe, who discuss Loret's hypothesis before advocating their own. Loret's article can be found online ([1]), but it's inconvenient because it's in French, which I can't really read.

Use in religion and art

• Amulets shaped like a composite of the ankh, djed, and was were more widespread - The words 'was' and 'were' are currently adjacent, which reads strangely - consider improving the prose by rearranging, perhaps as 'Amulets shaped like the was, and a composite of the ankh, the djed, were more widespread.'

I rearranged it differently, but "was" and "were" no longer appear together.

• Andrews p. 86 - there does not appear to be a reference to the was or the djed here.

That's weird. In my copy it says: "Although it is constantly depicted carried by royalty and deities, and being offered to their faces, actual individual ankh amulets are surprisingly few; the shape is more commonly found in composite amulets formed from the djed, was and ankh combined, signifying 'stability', 'dominion' and 'life'."

Good enough for me. That's what comes from when I try to read a source too quickly... Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ancient Near East

• The date range given for the Middle Bronze Age needs a citation.

Teissier gives a date range for Middle Bronze seals on page 12 (with MB I starting at c. 1920 BC and MB III ending at 1550 or 1500). Ancient Near Eastern chronology is much worse than Egyptian—so much so that works like Teissier's have to state their chronological assumptions in advance—and many sources start the Middle Bronze Age at 2100 or 2000. So I rounded her 1920 date to 1950.

Christianity

Ankh symbols on a fragment of cloth (on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London)

• I walked past this when I was in the V&A on Friday, and did a double take. Could the Christianity section benefit from the image, or perhaps the photograph I took?

I photo I took is poorer in quality, and I wouldn't use it. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

My sympathies; museum photography drives me crazy. Unfortunately, the V&A terms indicate that commercial use of their work is permission-only, so their photo can't be uploaded to Commons. I know it's possible to host more stringently licensed images on Wikipedia itself, but that's not something I want to tangle with. A pity..

Agreed, here's the (tweaked) image last week anyway. Perhaps it's not too bad after all.

Citations

• Ref 28 (Du Bourguet) - imo a page number need to be included (page 1), but it's a minor issue.

Done.

Works cited

• There is a link to Fischer available (allows the pdf to be downloaded), which I would add.

Done.

• I would suggest an improved link to Andrews (download the free pdf from here), instead of the Internet Archive link (where you join a queue to view the book).

I don't know that site and am reluctant to link it. Googling it does not inspire confidence (e.g., [2]). Archive.org at least tries to ensure that its books are licensed for free access, and it's noncommercial.

Agreed, let's keep what's there.

• Possibly, and as a courtesy, provide a link to Allen (here) - it links to the 2014 edition of the book, on IA (not 2000), so the pages numbers are unreliable. I don't think it's worth trying to amend all the references in the article, but readers might want to access a version of the full text.

I've added the link, and I think I will re-work the page numbers eventually. I've been working from the first edition for a long time, but it's better to be up-to-date.

I've amended the text for the source to try and make it clear that the linked edition is not used in the article. Thanks for the offer to update the refs at some time, it won't affect the decision to make it GA.

Further reading

• The link that could be added for this source is: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zaes.1973.99.issue-2/zaes.1973.99.2.16/zaes.1973.99.2.16.xml, but it is not freely accessible online, and so may not be worth including.

I added it, though I wish the icon for "subscription required" weren't so glaringly red. A. Parrot (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorted - no more red!

On hold

Hello, A. Parrot, not much to change here. I am placing the article on hold for a week. Please feel free to put me right or ask me anything about the review. Regards. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I've passed the article, thanks for all the work you put in. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Similar symbol used to depict Ishtar / Inanna

... just lower part slightly tapered. Meaning is fairly similar too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.149.201 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Copper

A recent Smithsonian article on the antiviral properties of copper says that "Egyptians designated the ankh symbol, representing eternal life, to denote copper in hieroglyphs." I'm not sure this is true. From what I can glean from Egyptological dictionaries (Raymond Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian and the Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache), the hieroglyphic spelling of the word for copper (ḥmt) did not incorporate an ankh sign. Alternate terms for copper may have existed, and the organization of such dictionaries doesn't make such variants easy to track down, but there's reason to be skeptical.

Moreover, the idea that the ankh is connected with copper goes back a long way, and not, as far as I can discern, through reliable Egyptological sources. See this article about copper from 1923, which is one of the first things to turn up when searching "ankh copper" in Google Books, or this book from 1947. These are not Egyptological sources, and the 1923 article isn't even scholarly.

The link here seems to be the ankh's similarity to the Venus symbol, which was used as the alchemical symbol for copper as well as the astrological symbol for Venus. The most elaborate form of this claim that I've seen was in a past version of this article, which said "…the letter ku, from the Cypriot syllabary, appeared within the circle ankh, representing Ku(prion) (Cypriots). To this day, the ankh is also used to represent the planet Venus (the namesake of which, the goddess Venus or Aphrodite, was chiefly worshipped on the island) and the metal copper (the heavy mining of which gave Cyprus its name)." Supposedly this passage was supported by a book from 1878 (!) about Cyprus, but I can't tell from the limited preview whether the book actually supported the claim. In any case, the assertion that the Venus symbol is descended from the ankh is false: this study of the origins of astronomical symbols says that in the Middle Ages the Venus symbol was a circle with a descending line but no crossbar, and that the modern, ankh-like shape of the sign only became standard in the 16th century as an effort to Christianize the signs. After the ankh had become generally known through the work of early Egyptologists, and sometime before 1923, the idea arose that the Venus sign originated with the ankh. Faulty ideas about history that arose in the 19th and early 20th centuries tend to circulate widely down to the present, thanks partly to the public-domain status of everything published before the 1920s. I think it possible that the Smithsonian article, which is not focused on ancient Egypt and need not have drawn on specialized sources, is repeating a version of this same claim.

Until there's an Egyptological source to support the idea that the Egyptians used the ankh to represent copper, I think we should keep this claim out of the article. A. Parrot (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Gordon and Schwabe's hypothesis

In Ankh#Origins, a large chunk of the final paragraph discusses Gordon and Schwabe's hypothesis concerning the 'ankh', 'djed', and 'was' glyphs as corresponding to a bull's thoracic vertebra, sacrum and lumbar vertebrae, and penis respectively. I have not checked out the cited book, but this hypothesis sounds pretty crazy and untrue. I'm aware that this whole section is speculative, but I'm wondering if this hypothesis is even worth noting?

There is no doubt that the 'was' is a depiction of a scepter (hence "power"). I see no reason to believe it to be a depiction of a bull's penis.

It's also pretty clear that the 'djed' depicts some sort of a pillar (hence "stability"), not the sacrum and lumbar veterbrae. And while the djed pillar, in artwork, was symbolic of Osiris's backbone, it's a stretch to say that Osiris's backbone is a bull's sacrum and lumbar vertebrae. Osiris wasn't even a bull, unless we're really trying to force the Osiris-Apis connection. It all just seems like mere coincidence.

As for why the 'life', 'stability', and 'power' glyphs are sometimes written together, the obvious answer is that it's to express the idea of "life, stability, and power", not because the glyphs themselves are related and/or depictions of parts of the same animal.

2601:49:C301:D810:1449:9043:358F:EAED (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the hypothesis, too, or at least of the parts of it that are related to the ankh. Whether or not the sign originally meant "sandal strap", the early examples of the ankh sign seem pretty clearly to be cloth or rope, not bone, and they look much less like the thoracic vertebra than the mature version of the sign does (the opposite of what one would expect if the sign was originally a vertebra). But that's only my personal opinion.

When I rewrote this article, I thought it best to include Gordon and Schwabe's hypothesis. Gordon is an Egyptologist; Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, one of the major Egyptological journals, published their hypothesis about the was; and The Quick and the Dead was published by Brill, one of the most significant academic presses for ancient history. That makes them reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, so the question of whether to include them in this article is based on how credible other Egyptologists consider their ideas to be (if you're not familiar with how Wikipedia works, this is a principle known on Wikipedia as due weight). I haven't seen Gordon and Schwabe's ideas endorsed or rebutted by other Egyptologists, so they don't seem to have made much of an impact in the field, but neither has it been outright rejected. In a different topic area, where the reliable sources are more voluminous, I wouldn't consider a hypothesis with so little coverage to merit inclusion, but Gordon and Schwabe are the only qualified authors to write much about the origin of the ankh since Henry George Fischer in the 1970s.

As an aside, once one looks at the evidence that Gordon and Schwabe use, their idea isn't as crazy as it first sounds. The Egyptians did use signs for animal organs to represent abstract concepts (e.g., the nefer sign, meaning "good", which is a sheep's windpipe and heart). Dried bulls' penises are actually used as staffs by some cultures in Africa today, and apparently it takes very little modification to form a dried bull's penis into a was shape. (Gordon and Schwabe did exactly that and took a photo to prove it). I agree with you that the three signs were used together because of their symbolic meaning, not because they have a common origin, and that without that assumption there's no reason to believe that the djed represents a bull's spine specifically. So, as surprised as I am to be saying it, I think the was is the most plausible part of their hypothesis. But, again, that's only my opinion. A. Parrot (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Misogyne Monotheistic Phallus fixed Meaning Setting

Ankhs Meaning in ancient Egypt is simple as obvious for non gay men, what Monotheists, praising in sexual ecstasy an God, born by pharaonic and torah patronal inbreed, not includes, like it seems.

Guess what, Hathor is one of most celebrated Divinities in Old Egypt, so her is the Symbol, and her female Shape of Births Channel, nothing more nothing less, no Law, nor Judging Bounds, just giving life. it enough divine power to rule, except you a gay lord like Mose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:e1:e73b:8140:1742:c55d:c781:4e71 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The Ankh was carried by many deities including Ptah. Alone, it has no gender symbolism in Egyptian culture. Liberty5651 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Noting that most of this editor's comments were reverted for using WP as a blog and the IP range blocked since. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ankh holds babies.

Should we add a part in this page about how the ankh is connected to the soul and protect people from losing their babies. I remember Jesus being pregnant and therefore adds a l lot of info as to how he became this way. some people believe he either stole it or was pregnant from his mothers blood. I know schizophrenic people hold a possibility of being pregnant. IF yousell your soul you sell your life. Your babies. 2603:8080:C140:1B92:DDBB:F3A6:A605:4E9E (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Shape Description Teardrop or Raindrop

Let's call it raindrop shaped.

Someone edited the article content to describe the Ankh as shape as having a with a "raindrop-shaped loop in place of a vertical upper bar". "Raindrop" was reverted "teardrop" and the reversion was explained by: "Teardrop is the usual way of describing this shape" . I changed it to "raindrop" again and fully expect it to be reverted. So, i t should be discussed:

The description really is very arbitrary here, no? It's an adjective for the shape. One's nearly as good is the other. I tend to like "raindrop" (not that I'd thought about it before). It seems more natural (though it's not). It's certainly less sad. I guess - best case - the description is somehow relevant to the Ankh's symbolism. Is rain or sorrow more relevant to what the Ankh symbolizes?

Other opinions are requested. ProofCreature (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Star11308, You think raindrops and teardrops don't share the same shape? ProofCreature (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

ProofCreature, no, they're different. Teardrops have that distinctive point and while raindrops are fully rounded. Anyway, I don't really see a reason to change it to raindrop since it's the typical way to describe the shape. Rain and tears are both unrelated to the Ankh, with teardrop just being a normal way to describe a shape of that nature. Star11308 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Specifically, "teardrop" has two dictionary meanings: one meaning an actual tear and one meaning "something shaped like a dropping tear". The word "raindrop" doesn't have the same additional meaning. A. Parrot (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If one phrases it as "teardrop-shaped" or "raindrop-shaped" that doesn't seem to be a problem. ProofCreature (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems drop-shape would be more appropriate than raindrop-shape. That sounds strange. ProofCreature (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)