Re: [tied] Re: Athene

----- Original Message -----

From: Håkan Lindgren

To: Cybalist

Sent: Saturday, 19 August, 2000 3:29 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Athene

I am not a professional linguist, but I must say I find this critique less than devastating.

 

 

Explaining Athena as coming from Egyptian Ht Nt, "temple of Neit", is just what Bernal does in Black Athena. According to Jasanoff's and Nussbaum's examination of Bernal's etymologies (Word Games, in the anthology Black Athena Revisited) this is false. They write:

It is - - - an excellent example with which to end our survey of Bernal's "name" etymologies, as it perfectly illustrates the deficiencies of his method. Morphologically, the derivation of "Athens" from Ht Nt is suspect for the same reason that the above explanation of "Mycenae" is suspect: it forces us to find separate ad hoc explanations for a recurring sequence ( -a:nai / -a:na ) that is better explained as a unitary suffix.

 

Why is a unitary suffix a better explanation? Mycenae and Athena have nothing in common, so why should they have a common suffix? And what would that leave you with? Mukes - mushroom? + unexplained a:nai, and unexplained Ath+unexplained a:na.

 

 

 Phonetically, the only feature the names Atha:na and Ht Nt have in common is an n preceded by a t(h). Even this agreement is deceptive, for while in Egyptian the t and n are (Bernal's claims notwithstanding) in direct contact, in Greek the corresponding consonants are separated by an accented long vowel which is neither predicted nor explained.

 

Ht Nt is the consonantal skeleton. No-one, including Jasanoff and Nussbaum, knows what the vocalisation was, or whether t and n were directly juxtaposed. It is a priori unlikely that they were, although this observation is based on Semitic rules.

It is one of the problems of tying Greek words to Egyptian (and to a lesser extent Semitic), the fact that we only have the consonantal skeleton, and even there this is problematic, as by Late Egyptian the pronunciation of many of the consonants had changed from the conventions of hieroglyphic.

 

 

 On the semantic side, the Atha:na : Ht Nt equation shows the customary lack of rigor. The simple fact is that the original meaning of "Athens" and "Athena" is unknown; "temple of Neit" is no more likely, a priori, than "olive grove," rocky crag," or countless other possible glosses.

 

I find this argument is utterly ridiculous. Would it be too much to expect some constructive criticism? 

 

 The most that Bernal can say in favor of comparing the two goddesses is that "in Antiquity, Athena was consistently identified with...  Neit" and that "both were virgin divinities of warfare, weaving and wisdom." The latter description is a highly misleading characterisation of Neit, whose association with weaving and wisdom was less conspicuous, as far as we can judge, than her role as patroness of the hunt and mother of the crocodile god Sobek.

 

This shows an almost contemptuous ignorance of the complexity of Neit in Egyptian mythology, and the evolution and syncretisation of Egyptian religion. Her being the mother of Sobek is a reference to the draining of the Fayyum, along with her green face and hands. She also has a place in the solar bark of Ra, almost certainly due to syncretisation into the solar religion. By Mycenean times, she had evolved into an important and highly complex figure.

 

 - - - The all-important fact is that under the rules of the game as laid down in Black Athena, any eye-catching or merely convenient etymological proposal is as good as any other. (p. 193-94)

 

This also is not true. The proposal for Athena, for example, is not given as being as good as any other. From this article alone it can be seen that the proposal is being offered in the absence of any other.

 

 

After reading their essay Bernal has lost all credibility.

I'm not saying that I agree wholeheartedly with Bernal, but he sets forth a highly credible historical scenario which provides a basis for this kind of influence from Egypt and the Levant. What I am arguing for, is the inclusion of the possibility of Egyptian and Levantine influence when one is discussing the origins of otherwise unknown or obscure elements in the Greek language and culture.If you look back to John's original posting on this subject on 14/8, you will find that just about any goddess with -ana- in her name is included as a source for Athena, but Neit is specifically excluded. That is what I am arguing against.

 

Cheers

Dennis