Talk:Anat

message: See the related discussions at Talk:Eilat, including:
:: I wish people wouldn't assume Hebrew has some relevance to everything ANE, expecially where we are talking a period before Akkadian spins off from Sumerian. In Egyptian Anat is spelled with the trilieral ant. where t is the feminine determinative. Anat also gets the determinative for goddess.
That relates her attributes to anna or ianna.
:: Forms of Anat/Anath can be dound in Sumerian which is unclassified, also Afro asiatic Egyptian, Akkadian which is Semitic and Hittite which is IE. You can make the case that as a war godess she goes back to about 2600 BC where her name is linked with Ha Dad or Ba el. By the time she shows up in Ugarit her worship is a part of most of the cultures between Ugarit and Egypts delta. Rktect (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need the "`A" in `Anat? 

message: 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)
thread_title: `Elyôn

message: 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)
thread_title: As a modern Hebrew first name

message: 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)
replies: text: I moved it to a "popular culture" heading for the nonce, as has been done with similar trivia in other articles. Mhari 06:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wheel of Time

message: 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)
thread_title: Merging of [[Anat]]/[[Anath]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Capital of the Hyksos

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Asenath 'holy to Anath' was the wife of the Hebrew patriarch Joseph." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  For future editors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pointless image change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fringe speculation in the "Legacy" section