![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 23 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bro2023.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no precise description of how she looked like and no picture!
See the related discussions at Talk:Eilat, including:
That relates her attributes to anna or ianna.
The article titled `Elyôn also needs to be changed as its `E is not in normal use and would only confuse most readers. IZAK 07:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Neither of these terms have a "usual" English transliteration, so the problem here is much less accute than it is in articles about modern cities or regions. I do agree though that these transliterations are strange in that there is no way that anyone is ever going to guess them and type "`Elyôn" into the "go" box. The backticks (`) are indeed accepted transliterations of ayin, though, so I don't know if to suggest to remove it or not. I don't understand the accent-circumflex on the o though. In French, the accent-circumflex suggests that a letter has been lost, and this is not the case here. Nyh 09:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Qhanàt[h] comes up in Strong's as "answer", yet masculine: http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=06067. It says nothing about a god. However, qhan- is a root for "cloud": http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=06052. -lysdexia 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
While I don't doubt that the WoT character's name comes from `Anat, I don't think this is the place for that information. Shouldn't it be in one of the WoT articles, with a link back here? 168.12.253.82 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I notice that these articles have a suggested merging notice upon them. Looking at the content of both, it seems to be a fair suggestion. In fact, Anath could possibly be re-directed to Anat as it seems to be merely a different spelling of the same name. Opinions? Silverthorn 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well it is a different spelling of the same name, but putting everything under "Anat" still calls for the spelling Anath to be used in the transliteration of the Hebrew name, as the name ends with Taw which is always pronounced "th" at the end of a word (not in modern hebrew though)
In "Anat in Egypt" is said that the capital of the Hyksos was Tanis. This is a quite old hypothesis. Ongoing excavations show that the capital of the Hyksos Avaris is identical to Pi-Ramasses, not Tanis. Siffler 11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The article makes this bold assertion (in the section "Anath in Israel") on the Ancient Egyptian etymology of the name Asenath. This is also asserted in the article "Asenath". Can someone provide a citation from a solid modern philological scholarly source for this assertion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setmose ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition to that on the subject of the Ancient Israel section I also see no source for their claim that she was worshiped at Elephantine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 ( talk) 06:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The entire article has a bit of a problem with the credibility and relevance of source - and with favoring Bible scholars, like Ruther, over authors who focus on Ugarit alone, like, say, D. Pardee, A. Rahmouni or I. Cornelius, who all wrote much more detailed treatments of Anat using more recent sources, which might create a neutral point of view issue, I think. The references to "fertility" are also outdated, and trying to connect every Ugaritic goddess imaginable to this term been criticized by Jo Ann Hackett in the 1980s already, and more recently by Cornelius (though it sadly persists in literature, especially in Bible studies and in publications aimed at general audiences, which have trouble with embracing anything newer than the 1980s quite often when it comes to history of the region). Also, where is any information whatsoever about offering lists, theophoric names, festivals? Why is almost everything discussion of literary texts alone? Even just in terms of open access publications there are dozens to pick from in English, German and French.
The worst offender is the Mesopotamia section, which is basically impossible to salvage. The origin of Anat's name has nothing to do with Anu and Antu, and the sources used to support the wild claims made include a notorious fraud ( Zecharia Sitchin), a self-published author posting articles of dubious quality on academia.edu (the iconography article), and a number of articles which do not actually support the claims made (Beaulieu does not mention Anat at all in the Neo-Babylonian Uruk monograph!). We know very well what Mesopotamians knew about Anat, considering she was worshiped in Suhu (in a city quite literally named after her, at that) and the stele of its governor, Šamaš-reš-uṣur, which depicts Anat (among other deities) is a famous artifact pretty commonly discussed in modern literature. You can quite literally find it on Wikimedia Commons. Rather odd not to mention that there is a pretty well established theory that Anat originates roughly in the Mari area, and that the oldest form of the name would be "Hanat" based on attestations in theophoric names from the Mari corpus, but I guess that would get in the way of the Antu confabulations.
There is also the issue of the monstrous hyperdiffusionist graphic on the bottom of the article. What exactly has Anat to do with a random selection of Paleolithic statuettes picked from completely unrelated sites? Why was this even posted on wikipedia in the first place? HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Anat is, demonstrably, not Inanna or Ishtar. Please do not form original theories about Anat relying on publications which pertain to Inanna or Ishtar, like someone attempted previously. HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 10:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The section commenting on the depiction of Anat in the Book of Judges contains an outdated reference to the views of William F. Albright. His views are over 50 years old (as he died in 1971), and his assertions about the historicity of the Book of Exodus, the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges have largely been discredited. Why is he mentioned at all? Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories:
The older image actually showed Anat's well attested attribute, the atef crown, as well as a brandishing pose typical for warlike deities. The new one, added by an anonymous user in place of it, does not, and based on its wikimedia commons description its identification as Anat seems dubious to put it lightly, considering the completely outdated references to "fertility" not taken seriously by the majority of researchers today. I do not remember anything like it being mentioned among possible depictions in Cornelius' monograph, either. I think the old image should be restored. HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 15:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
To my knowledge, it is somewhat hard to speak of "legacy" when the connection boils down to a single person in the 1960s (in a field where sources from as recently as 1980s are not always held to be credible anymore!) asserting myths separated by 2000 years and an enormous geographic distance are sort of similar. The entire section should basically be removed as it borders on a case of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Not to mention the fact that it arbitrarily refers to a "consort" relation between deities which is not even accepted universally. HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 12:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 23 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bro2023.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no precise description of how she looked like and no picture!
See the related discussions at Talk:Eilat, including:
That relates her attributes to anna or ianna.
The article titled `Elyôn also needs to be changed as its `E is not in normal use and would only confuse most readers. IZAK 07:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Neither of these terms have a "usual" English transliteration, so the problem here is much less accute than it is in articles about modern cities or regions. I do agree though that these transliterations are strange in that there is no way that anyone is ever going to guess them and type "`Elyôn" into the "go" box. The backticks (`) are indeed accepted transliterations of ayin, though, so I don't know if to suggest to remove it or not. I don't understand the accent-circumflex on the o though. In French, the accent-circumflex suggests that a letter has been lost, and this is not the case here. Nyh 09:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Qhanàt[h] comes up in Strong's as "answer", yet masculine: http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=06067. It says nothing about a god. However, qhan- is a root for "cloud": http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=06052. -lysdexia 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
While I don't doubt that the WoT character's name comes from `Anat, I don't think this is the place for that information. Shouldn't it be in one of the WoT articles, with a link back here? 168.12.253.82 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I notice that these articles have a suggested merging notice upon them. Looking at the content of both, it seems to be a fair suggestion. In fact, Anath could possibly be re-directed to Anat as it seems to be merely a different spelling of the same name. Opinions? Silverthorn 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well it is a different spelling of the same name, but putting everything under "Anat" still calls for the spelling Anath to be used in the transliteration of the Hebrew name, as the name ends with Taw which is always pronounced "th" at the end of a word (not in modern hebrew though)
In "Anat in Egypt" is said that the capital of the Hyksos was Tanis. This is a quite old hypothesis. Ongoing excavations show that the capital of the Hyksos Avaris is identical to Pi-Ramasses, not Tanis. Siffler 11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The article makes this bold assertion (in the section "Anath in Israel") on the Ancient Egyptian etymology of the name Asenath. This is also asserted in the article "Asenath". Can someone provide a citation from a solid modern philological scholarly source for this assertion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setmose ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition to that on the subject of the Ancient Israel section I also see no source for their claim that she was worshiped at Elephantine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 ( talk) 06:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The entire article has a bit of a problem with the credibility and relevance of source - and with favoring Bible scholars, like Ruther, over authors who focus on Ugarit alone, like, say, D. Pardee, A. Rahmouni or I. Cornelius, who all wrote much more detailed treatments of Anat using more recent sources, which might create a neutral point of view issue, I think. The references to "fertility" are also outdated, and trying to connect every Ugaritic goddess imaginable to this term been criticized by Jo Ann Hackett in the 1980s already, and more recently by Cornelius (though it sadly persists in literature, especially in Bible studies and in publications aimed at general audiences, which have trouble with embracing anything newer than the 1980s quite often when it comes to history of the region). Also, where is any information whatsoever about offering lists, theophoric names, festivals? Why is almost everything discussion of literary texts alone? Even just in terms of open access publications there are dozens to pick from in English, German and French.
The worst offender is the Mesopotamia section, which is basically impossible to salvage. The origin of Anat's name has nothing to do with Anu and Antu, and the sources used to support the wild claims made include a notorious fraud ( Zecharia Sitchin), a self-published author posting articles of dubious quality on academia.edu (the iconography article), and a number of articles which do not actually support the claims made (Beaulieu does not mention Anat at all in the Neo-Babylonian Uruk monograph!). We know very well what Mesopotamians knew about Anat, considering she was worshiped in Suhu (in a city quite literally named after her, at that) and the stele of its governor, Šamaš-reš-uṣur, which depicts Anat (among other deities) is a famous artifact pretty commonly discussed in modern literature. You can quite literally find it on Wikimedia Commons. Rather odd not to mention that there is a pretty well established theory that Anat originates roughly in the Mari area, and that the oldest form of the name would be "Hanat" based on attestations in theophoric names from the Mari corpus, but I guess that would get in the way of the Antu confabulations.
There is also the issue of the monstrous hyperdiffusionist graphic on the bottom of the article. What exactly has Anat to do with a random selection of Paleolithic statuettes picked from completely unrelated sites? Why was this even posted on wikipedia in the first place? HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Anat is, demonstrably, not Inanna or Ishtar. Please do not form original theories about Anat relying on publications which pertain to Inanna or Ishtar, like someone attempted previously. HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 10:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The section commenting on the depiction of Anat in the Book of Judges contains an outdated reference to the views of William F. Albright. His views are over 50 years old (as he died in 1971), and his assertions about the historicity of the Book of Exodus, the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges have largely been discredited. Why is he mentioned at all? Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories:
The older image actually showed Anat's well attested attribute, the atef crown, as well as a brandishing pose typical for warlike deities. The new one, added by an anonymous user in place of it, does not, and based on its wikimedia commons description its identification as Anat seems dubious to put it lightly, considering the completely outdated references to "fertility" not taken seriously by the majority of researchers today. I do not remember anything like it being mentioned among possible depictions in Cornelius' monograph, either. I think the old image should be restored. HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 15:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
To my knowledge, it is somewhat hard to speak of "legacy" when the connection boils down to a single person in the 1960s (in a field where sources from as recently as 1980s are not always held to be credible anymore!) asserting myths separated by 2000 years and an enormous geographic distance are sort of similar. The entire section should basically be removed as it borders on a case of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Not to mention the fact that it arbitrarily refers to a "consort" relation between deities which is not even accepted universally. HaniwaEnthusiast ( talk) 12:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)