Re: Goliath and Uriah the Hittite as IE -

Sabine Wrote:
There is a gigantic hero of the Anatolian coast even, called 'Anax' (a
word
supposedly going back to an original 'wanax', documented in Mycenaean
Greek/Lin.B as wa-na-ka). He was the son of Uranos and Ge (heaven and
earth)
and autochthonic (inborn) king and eponymos (name-giving person) of
Anaktoria, later Miletus (Caria, today western Turkey), father of (one
of
the kings by the name of) Asterios, also king in Miletus, who was
killed by
Miletos (son of Apollo with a Cretan goddess) and fled to Caria to
conquer
the town that then got his name. Asterios was buried on a small island
near
Lade (that's just outside Miletus, then in the sea, now silted up and a
hill). His skeleton was supposed to have been at least ells long (when
it
was found in antiquity). Cf. Robert Graves, Greek myths, 88/b and /3,
where
he also makes the connection with the Anakim of Genesis).
This is interesting when seen in an archaeological light. In the past
few
years the parts of Miletus dating before Greek and Mycenaean times have
been
systematically excavated by the German Prof. W.D. Niemeier (cf. his
article
on the sea peoples and on Tell Kabri I mentioned in the sea people mail,
there is also a newer one on 'Minoan Frescoes in the Eastern
Mediterranean'
in Aegeum 18, 1998). Niemeier found a clearly Minoan layer below the
Mycenaean one, including pottery (local, Minoan style, e.g. conical
cups),
bits of frescoes (Minoan style: white lily on red ground) and a sherd
of a
large local vase inscribed with Linear A signs (as I said). Not far
from the
ancient island- nowaydays hill - of Lade is another hill where in the
beginning of the century typical Mycenaean graves were found (as near
Ephesos, Aphrodisias and other places near the Anatolian coast lately).
Miletus is quite certainly the Millawanda of the Hittites.
As for the etymology of 'wanax' (usually translated as king but still
under
debate, see the discussion of specialists on AEGEANET, summer 1999)
there is
an interesting hypothesis by E. Brown in the article I mentioned in my
earlier mail on Luvian in Troy (Linear A on Trojan Spindlewhorls etc.).
I
cite:
"the pre-forms of Greek γυνή ('gynH') and Luvian 'wana-' with its
extended
form 'wanatti-' (syncopated 'unatti-'), whose meaning is 'woman' or
'lady',
have a common Indo-European root." the he continues in a footnote: "For
the
Luvian preforms, PIE and Proto-Anatolian (*gwnéh2-, *gweneh2-,
*gwóná-), see
Melchert 1994 (Anatolian Historical Phonology, Amsterdam and Atlanta),
264
and 1993(Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Chapel Hill) 36-37 with bibliography
there. /.../ The very notion that we might one day succeed in showing
Linear
A to have been created at a stage in the evolution of Luvian when the
initial voiced labiovelar of Proto-Anatolian *gwona- had become /w/ but
before /o/ had become /a:/ in 'wana-' must be relegated to a footnote.
Yet
the idea that the Mycenaeans must have borrowed their signary at a
substantially earlier date than their first preserved writings is not
new
and helps explain the still unschematized form in which some of the
Linear B
signs became fixed, forms more archaic in fact than their Linear A
counterparts."

So (w-)Anax 'Lord' (in a sacral context!) probably goes back to
Anatolian
'wana-' Lady!
And people using this name (theonym?)once may have been those who lived
e.g.
in Miletus where myth still tells us about them, in this case
historically
referring either to Mycenaean or Minoan times (hardly any other traces
there), if the latter, then clearly using an Anatolian-based language
similar to Luvian but written with Linear A signs (Minoan?).
Very interesting indeed.
Sabine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Sabine

I went back and researched Anak/Anakites in the bible. To see how what
you proposed would hold up. The letter structure holds up pretty well.
The letters are usually A-N-(a)-Q where Q is pronounced as in torque.
Of course the Jews had no X, so they would have used the closest
sounding letter. In a few instances the word is A-N-(o)-Q, where o is
pronounced close to o as in got, so the spelling looks very good.

Just as importantly, the words closest literal meaning is not
significant. (an infrequently used reference for chain, necklace,
jewel) and so would probably not be a descriptor term of the people –
but a sound mimic of what they called themselves.

Joshua 14:15 states "HEBRON used to be called Kiraith Arba after Arba
who the greatest man among the Anakites." And Joshua 11:21 states "So
Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the Hill Country, from
HEBRON...." So it is pretty clear that the original builders of the
city of Hebron were the Anak, and it stayed that way until the Jews
drove them out. Hebron, as a place pre-existed the city that the spies
of Moses found. At the time of Abraham/Isaac it was a gathering place
for shepherds, possibly a small village – but not a city. It appears
the Anak were the first to establish a fortified city there.

In keeping with your proposal, the Anaks took their name from Anak who
was there forefather-Num 13:28- not the ruler-in-place. And because the
name was applied to a peoples regionally – we can infer that it was
some time before their migration to the area that he was the forefather
(i.e. sufficient time was needed to establish a tribal group, and the
name is not localized to one city or clan).

We can also infer, with reasonable confidence that the Anak were not
native to the area, and so migrated to it. Abraham/Isaac/Jacob make no
reference to giant peoples, when they freely passed back and forth
through it numerous times. which they most likely would have commented
on. They specifically did not mention the Anaks, but mentioned many of
the groups that the later Jews would also find there during their
conquest. Also the later Jews of the Exodus/conquest were impressed by
the "large" fortified cities the Anak built. Cities in the Levant,
especially in the hills of southern Levant were typically not large at
that time. Large cities were more common only in northern coastal
Levant and Mesopotamia (and I assume in the Anatolia). Large cities
also imply a population that is used to being urban based – as opposed
to essentially semi-nomadic or small village culture found there during
Abraham's time.

I found is a possible tie-in between Goliath and the Anak. Golilath is
with the Philistines, at the time of David. He is from GATH. The rest
of Jos 11:21 states at the time of Joshua: "So Joshua went and
destroyed the Anakites from the country, from Hebron, from Debir and
Anab, from the Hill country of Judah and the Hill country of Israel.
Joshua destroyed them and their towns. No Anakites were left in
Israelite territory: only in Gaza, GATH and Ashod did any survive".

Goliath may have been an Anakite survivor. The remaining cities are
all in what was to become Philistine territory. SO THE ANAKITES HAD TO
BE EITHER INCORPORATED OR DESTROYED. The Philistine freely used
mercenaries. And Marks comment about putting big Warriors at the
front, would make the Anakites that much more valuable to the
Philistines. For their part, the Anakites, having just been devastated
by one group of invaders, may have decided that joining them was better
than fighting them, when faced with another. ((By the way, this
suggests that the Israeli invasion came just before the Philistine's
falling back to the Levant after trying to take Egypt)).

But there is another possible reason why the Anakites, who we are
saying are relate to the Luwians, joined the Philistines – Recall this
groups earlier speculations that the Philistines themselves may be
related to the Luwians/Lycians. Maybe that is why the Philistine chose
the 5-cities area as there base, their relatives already controlled it,
and they were welcomed there. (There isn't much in archaeology showing
that they conquered it). The Anakites welcomed the Philistines as
needed allies against the pressing Jews........ My goodness, this
makes a neat little circle.

If Goliath was an Anakite, his size belies the Anakites being large
people within our normal genetic bounds. He was reported to be nine
feet tall in the bible. This is outside of size increase due to good
nutrition. It is more in keeping with the large size some people
attain due to gigantism – which can be hereditary and is due to
abnormal pituitary gland function. But the bible also says that the
Anak were strong (Deut 9:2) – and two adverse effects of gigantism is
weak muscular and impotency. (explains the hero connection as well –
if I was big and Impotent I would take up fighting in a big way too)
Either way, though, their large size makes them a good marker for
tracing their migration.

I also like that you found links with the Luwians/Lycians. Intuitively
I thought that the Anakites had to be connected with the Hittites
somehow. (Because of their territorial overlap in the region and
because they had allied, early on.

But there are a couple of possible glitches with this tidy scenario:
Numbers 13:22 states: "They ....came to HEBRON, where Aihman, Sheshai
and Talmai, the descendants of Anak lived. Hebron had been built 7
years before ZOAN". Zoan is usually understood to be Avaris in the
delta in Egypt. Avaris is understood to be the site of Pi-Ramesses, or
possibly adjacent to it. Avaris was the capital of 14th Egyptian
dynasty, which was circa1650BCE, and the city may have predated this
date. (Avaris is currently being excavated, and there may be more
precise information.) But since Abraham/Isaac found no city there and
Abraham's journey to the Levant is usually set somewhere around 1900
–1700 BCE, its most likely that the city was built 1750-1650BCE,
perhaps a little bit later. Of coarse, the Anak could have been in the
area, just not at Hebron, before that time. But they were there by
then. The timing seems early for Hittite expansion. This period does
tie in perfectly with the Hyksos invasion of Egypt and the vacuum they
left in their retreat from the Levant, and suggests that the Anak were
related to the Hyksos invaders. On the other hand, maybe those vacuum
and unsettled times drew in a mixed bag of settlers, including the
Anak/Luwians.

But there is another apparent glitch. Joshua 15:13 and 21:11 both
state that "Arba was the forefather of Anak." The term forefather, used
here is predominantly used to indicate father, but is also used in the
sense of "father of his nation, clan etc" hence use of forefather in
this instance (NIV translation). It may be that Arba may not have been
the biological father of Anax/Anak. He may have been the clan
progenitor. It also states in the bible that Abar was "the greatest
man among the Anakites". So he may also have been its mythical hero.
If you can provide a tie-in to this person, I say you would have
cinched the connection up tight. Just a matter of writing it up and
getting published.

By the way, Piotr – did you notice that Sabine provided a tie-in
between Anax and Nephali in the sense that Uranos (=heaven) was
purported the father of Anax.

I was just about to send this and saw your last comment of giant size
Sabine. In the case of the Jews, I don't think they made a myth out of
anyone here. The comments were about peoples they encountered during
their invasion. Their other comments about peoples tend to be pretty
observant and accurate. This is one part of the bible that is very
reliable (Jews discriptions of peoples and customs). I have to give
them the benefit of the doubt. (although I have a hard time accepting
Goliath really was 9 feet tall – probably an exaggeration here to build
up David into a mythical figure) They also used the specific term
"tall" many times. The Anak probably were a relatively tall peoples.

Regards
Brent