Skip to main content

Myths & Legends of Ancient Egypt

We occasionally get books in to review that don't fit with the remit of, but are interesting in their own right. Most recent of these is Myths and Legends of Ancient Egypt by Joyce Tyldesley (see at and Archeology is arguably a science, and I've happily covered books about Egyptian proto-science on the site - but this is straightforwardly an introduction to the stories that supported ancient Egyptian religious beliefs, and as such probably belongs here instead.

I have to confess to being a sucker for anything about ancient Egypt. My parents took me to the Tutankhamen exhibition in London those many years ago (early 1970s) to queue all day to see those remarkable grave goods. (We were lucky - hundreds behind us never got in.) But up to now I've mostly concentrated on the architecture and archeology - Joyce Tyldesley gives us a chance to get into the minds of these remarkable people.

It's decidedly worrying when, up front, we hear there were as many as 1500 different deities to deal with, but any such worries are set aside by the fascinating journey we take in the book's introduction. We begin to get a feel for a very alien culture (to modern Western eyes). Not only was there no single myth covering anything from creation to the afterlife - so at least a handful of different gods were credited with the original creation - but different gods could merge and separate. Even their parts could become gods in their own right, with Re's eye regarded as a female god of some power when separated from his body.

Any particular god could have dozens of different aspects, both in appearance - from human, through human with an animal head to fully animal (one was even a brick with a female head) - and in their responsibilities. Of course, not everyone believed every myth, but with no central structure, the religious beliefs became an immensely rich and complex interwoven tapestry of possibility. In death, some humans either became gods or became integrated into gods, while others might live in a kind of paradise, while the common herd were often considered unworthy of an afterlife at all.

The slight disappointment for me - and it's not Dr Tyldesley's fault - is that after the superb and quite detailed introduction, the rest of the book is a bit of a let down. The introduction is so well written that when we get into the details of who the gods are and they myths surrounding them, things inevitably lose a bit of momentum. This doesn't mean there isn't much to find interest in. Some of the myths are pure soap operas, others a fascinating attempt to explain natural phenomena. But for those who haven't spent years studying the subject, it's hard not to start to lose track of a cast list of gods that makes the most epic drama seem like a one man show.

Don't let that put you off, though. If you have an interest in ancient Egypt, this book gives it a context that I've never had from reading about the archeological side alone. Some of the myths and legends may be hard going, but the book does what it says on the tin, it's worth it for the introduction alone, and is highly recommend if this is a subject of interest to you.

Available from and


  1. Hey, I went to that exhibition too! It took me another 25 years to get to the Valley of the Kings, an awesome place, and a visit marred only by the company of my moody teenage son!

  2. Really, Wendy? Both on expeditions from Rochdale?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope