Piotr:
>(a) It's hard to tell how old the association of `Athtar with Venus >really
>is.
Unfortunately, this is true. However we at least know that the deity's name
is reconstructable in proto-Semitic and that this language is dated long
before 3000 BCE. We also know that the astral association with the deity
goes at least as far back as this. The young maiden associated with a star
is not solely a Semitic myth. It is also embodied within Sumerian Inanna
from the first instances of writing (along with her equally tantalizing
"sister" Ereshkigal, which looks very much to be the jealous "old hag"
aspect, relating back to the "Hera-Juno" deity married to *Dye:us).
I must admit that I find it difficult to find solid proof so far for a
"Venus" association within the 1500 prehistoric years before writing, unless
the "Mother with Child" motifs are a symbolic representation of Venus and
the Sun. Proof in this case would have to deal with identifying such a
connection in religious art void of writing. Religious art often tends to be
"creative" and abstract to begin with.
However, if we use some common sense ("common sense" isn't necessarily a
dirty word), it's hard to imagine how such a widespread and common myth
could have arisen as it exists by 3000 BCE except via a single source some
time before then. We should expect a millenium or so for this mythological
diffusion to fully take hold in Anatolia and the Middle-East as well as
Europe. There's no better time than 6000-5500 BCE when European agriculture
was taking hold and there might even be evidence of early religious markers
moving from Europe into Anatolia (and eventually into the MiddleEast via the
Halaf culture).
>(b) The Semitic name refers to Venus only, not to any other >individual
>star or to stars in general.
>
>(c) IE *xster- (*h2ster-) does not refer specifically to Venus; the >latter
>is often called "Morning/Evening" (Us.ana-, Hesperos, etc.), >but not "the
>Star".
Valid, but one could also think that such a loanword would have started out
referring to the deity herself while a native word for "star" was still
used. As you say, "[...] the replacement of an original native term by a
learned Middle-Easternism is a possibility."
>(d) There is a possible native etymology for *xster-, the root *xah-
> >'burn' (Palaic ha:- 'burn', Avestan a:tar- 'fire'), usually with an >-s
>extension, as in the noun *xahs/*xaho:s 'ashes' (English "ash" is >closely
>related, by the way), Latin a:ra 'altar' (< *xahs-ax-), >a:ridus 'parched,
>dry', ardeo (< *xahs-dHh-). If *xster- is a >realisation of *xhs-t�r-, then
>stars are "embers" in the sky.
Possible, of course. However, we can validly see this also as a case of back
formation. By the process of back formation, it would be accidentally
assumed that the **xs- in *xster- expressed the character of "Venus". It
would be therefore presumed that there was an underlying verb **xe:s- "to
burn" or "to shine". Conveniently for my evil linguistic purposes, this verb
is probably athematic again, nej? (cf. my thoughts on the foreign nature of
the athematic verb).
At any rate, once this new interpretation of "Burner" was given to the name
*Xster, the Morning Star, it would naturally come to be applied to any star
in the sky since _all_ stars are "burners", n'est-ce pas? Even without such
a back-formation, the generalization of the term is possible. The potential
back formation could even explain it better.
So, no wonder then that we find later designations of Her that attempt to be
more specific as to which star in the sky one is referring to. Afterall,
it's hard to make a clear contrast between "the star" and "THE Star" in
English as well as IndoEuropean.
- gLeN
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com