Talk:Anahit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger

I suggest a merge of this article into Anahita. They are both essentially the same goddess (who is of Persian origins), with some difference in practice of worship. Much of the information here about Anahit (which is name of Anahita in Armenian language) is true for both instances. Khorshid 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better to say Iranian origins not Persian. Anyhow, I can't see why they should be merged when they are not exactly identical. Mithras and Mithra have separate articles. --Eupator 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The goddess has proto-Iranian origins but "Anahita" is of Persian origin and it is from Persians that Armenians get "Anahit". "Anahita" and "Anahit" are almost exactly the same, so comparison with Mithra/Mithras is bad. Only some difference in worship. Much of the information presented here is not specific to Armenian form but to Persian form as well. It is pointless to copy this information to Anahita as well since they would both appear to be the same. Khorshid 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I don't know how true this statement is: "Unlike Iranians, Armenians fused idol-worship into the cult of Anahit." I have never read this about the cult of Anahita among Persians. Khorshid 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see any argument here. You may always request a vote, but we have a clear precedent here with Mithras that almost guarantees a rejection of a merge.--Eupator 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Mithras is almost a completely different deity than Indo-Iranian Mithra and the worship/religion was different. But differences between Armenian and Persian Anahita are negligible. They are virtually the same, in both deity and practice of worship. Both are same mother goddess of water and fertility, both had similar cults, both had "sacred prostitute" type of mythologies and rites. That is a huge difference between Roman and Indo-Iranian Mithras/Mithra. If you can show that Armenian Anahita is also completely different from Persian Anahita than you have a point. But when we look at sources, we find they are almost exactly the same. Khorshid 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Khorshid, my reponse is late but better than never. Here's an excerpt from 'Armenia, Subartu, and Sumer: The Indo-European Homeland and Ancient Mesopotamia by Dr. Martiros Kavoukjian:

Some believe that the name Anahit has come to Armenia from Iran, but it is difficult to concur with such an opinion. Iran has never tolerated the rule of women: generally no goddesses strike us in the Iranian pantheon and Anahit's presence there seems to be merely incidental; she never had there the amount of respect and honour that she enjoyed in Armenia.

Solomon Reinach, the expert on world mythology, says that Anahit was a foreign presence in Iran. He writes: "The goddess Anahita (the Lydian Anahitis) was of foreign origin (in Iran). The Iranian pantheon is, as a rule, deficient in goddessess, woman was always suspect, and the religious law aggravated the miseries of their sex..." It is very difficult, therefore, to accept that the Armenians could have borrowed their most beloved and notable goddess Anahit from Iran, where she was a foreigner herself.

In conclusion, we can say that the goddess Anahit comes from antiquity and is indigenous to the Armenian Highland; she is identical with Inanna-Anunit, the very famous goddess of Aratta, who had acquired preeminence as early as the beginning of the third millenium B.C. She was the goddess who was worshiped in Medzamor, probably as the star Sirius, in 2800B.C., at a time, when the Persians did not even exist in Iran.

We must accept, therefore, that Anahit was a native goddess in the Armenian Highland. As for her presence among the Iranians (if it is of old), it can be explained by the fact that they must have taken her with them as they moved away from the Armenian Highland. --Eupator 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eupator I am very sorry as well for my even later reply but as you say, better late than never! ;) I have no problem with the quote itself but this only shows that there is no consensus among scholars. All of these things are really theories - it is a theory that Anahita is from Armenian roots and it is a theory that Anahita is of Proto-Indo-Iranian roots. Look at the article from Iranica for example: Anahid by the scholars "M. Boyce, M. L. Chaumont, C. Bier". Khorshid 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. Actually I agree that it has proto-Indo-Iranian roots as opposed to what I quoted above, so do most scholars. I just think they went on their separate paths, the entire Armenian pantheon was syncretic. A mix of Hellenic, Iranian, Anatolian and Armenian concepts and figures. Most influence was from Iran as the names suggest, in three layers-Medes, Achaemenids and Parthian.--Eupator 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on what has been said, the verdict, I think, should be that separate entries be maintained. Maintained if only for the reason that those who want them to be combined seem to all be in the "Iranian" camp. Though there are plenty of other reasons: for example, I do not believe that Anahit/Anahita has any place in the life of modern Iranians (unless they be Armenian Iranians), but for Armenians, a festival such as Vardavar is still celebrated and its connection with Anahit still acknowledged. And how many Iranians still call their female children Anahit? Meowy 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Anahit/Anahita not having a place in the life of modern Iranians,...

1. that depends very much on whether present-day Iranian Zoroastrians count as modern Iranians or not. In Zoroastrianism, regardless of geography, Anahita is invoked at (as the goddess of waters, she is indeed *central* to) every worship.
2. Then there is the question of the girl's name 'Nahid', which is the modern Persian language form of Middle Persian/Pazend 'Ardwisur Anahid', which in turn derives from Avestan 'Aredvi Sura Anahita'.
3. The Shahr Banu shrine at Ray (now islamic), which women pray to for fertility, was once a temple to the cult of Anahita.
4. The Lion of Hamadan (built by Alexander) once stood on a site that was an Anahita temple (pulled down by Alexander because Anahita didn't help his friend). Even today women hoping for children touch the stone lion, but don't realize why they are doing this.

-- Fullstop 14:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ps: see also response to Eupator/Khorshid below.

Thanks Fullstop, I hadn't realised that! However, my point is generally still correct because (apart from the Zoroastrians) those in Iran currently practicing those traditions are generally not aware of them having a direct connection with Anahita. Meowy 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents with respect to the Khorshid/Eupator debate above:

Ahem! :) the Iranica article does not say *Armenian* Anahit is from Proto-Indo-Iranian roots. It says "in Armenia, then a Zoroastrian land, ..."

Boyce also uses "Anahit" when referring to Armenian Anahit (for other locations she consistently uses Avestan Anahita). Here she was being circumspect, for although she unambiguously identified the cult of Anahita as a Zoroastrian cult, she was also keenly aware (as Eupator also pointed out) that Armenian Anahit incorporates influences from other cultures as well.

---

But if both Eupator and Khorshid agree on "Proto-Indo-Iranian" roots, then I suggest that the Anahita article be changed to reflect that. The only evidence for "Persian origins" (as distinguished from "Iranian") is Herodotus, who does not actually use the name "Anaitis" or "Anahita" or any of its variations. Even worse, Herodotus identifies that goddess as an analogue of an Akkadian/Babylonian one, and in any case, Herodotus' statement is with respect to the Perses living in Asia-Minor and not the Perses of Pars (which he never visited).

Hence, if anyone is insisting on that goddess being from Parsa proper, then this itself is an argument for a separation of the two articles. Herodotus's goddess is not (Proto-)Indo-Iranian Anahita and hence not Armenian Anahit. Whatever that Herodotian goddess' name was (Boyce proposes *Anahiti), it wasn't Anahita.

However, if you are both agreeing on "Proto-Indo-Iranian", then both may justifiably occur as independent subsections of a single article.

Blurb: An Indo-Iranian Aredvi Sura Anahita is up for peer review. I'm aiming for GA/FA, so please use talk for _new_ material, so that I can coordinate citation. Thanks.

-- Fullstop 14:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Eupator 15:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction suggestion

The Anahit article places the cult in Medean or early Achaemenid times. This is a touch too early since the temple at Eriza/Erez in Acilisene and other signs of Armenian Anahit are first attested in the 2nd century BCE.
Under those circumstances, I suggest a rewording to say "late Achaemenid times or early Parthian times (ca. 4th-3nd century BCE)" -- Fullstop 14:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I believe it's there because Iranic influence on Armenia began with the Medean/Scythian invasion, unless we consider the chnace that there was contact between proto-Armenians and the Indo-Aryan Mittani ruling class. Anyhow, "late Achaemenid times or early Parthian times (ca. 4th-3nd century BCE)" is a sure bet.--Eupator 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing Berossus, clearing up claim about Artemis

In Traditions of the Magi by Albert de Jong (online version here), de Jong states: "The third divinity mentioned by name is Anāhitā, who is of course Iranian. The equation of Anāhitā with Aphrodite points to Berossus as his source, because Berossus (and Herodotus Histories 1.131 in a mistaken way) is the only literary source to equate Anahita with Aphrodite." (pg 247) "In the Greek literary and epigraphical texts, Anāhitā is identified with different goddesses. Herodotus and Berossus identify her with Aphrodite, most authors and most inscriptions with Artemis and some with the Mother of the gods." (pg 269). Now, as I don't to get into a WP:synth issue, I just present that as what I have found supporting the claim about Berossus.--Vidkun (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On naming Anahit "Goddess of Prostitution"

Dear participants, I would like to know your opinion on the fact that in the Azerbaijani language Wikipedia the article about Anahit (there named as Anais), an Armenian deity of fertility and maternity, is named in several sentenses of the named article only as "Armenian goddess of prostitution". The content of the Azerbaijani article may be translated into English with the help of Google translator. I would like to see your opinions relating to WP rules that may permit the existance of such a WP article in general, irrespective of the language this division exists. Thank you in advance for your explanations and opinions, --Zara-arush (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You should write here I think. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed the great ideas of User Gulustan, based on Cesare Lombroso, and there is no need to do it again. Now I am waiting for the reply of Azerbaijani project Administration and the opinion of the users in English Wikipedia, because they seem more qualified in the matters of ancient cults than User Gulustan, judging of the articles and comments, relating to ancient deities, in English Wikipedia, --Zara-arush (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijani project of English wikipedia has no relation with Azerbaijani wikipedia. I think you are wasting your time here. You should look for good sources and edit Azerbaijani wikipedia if you think it's wrong. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know Azerbaijani, so I am not able to make any edits in Gulustan's work. The sources are at in the English and Russian language articles. The rules for the sources are the same in all WP projects and chapters. A psychiatrist is not the proper authority for an article in Ancient deities of fertility. It is my point of view, so I addressed to Azerbaijani language administration to enter the proper edits in their article. Here I needed the opinions of the community for stating the neutral point of view, --Zara-arush (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Then good luck. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance.--Zara-arush (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, who assisted in the solution of this matter. The content and the article were deleted. I am sure it was worth to pass through this experience. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Anais article in Azerbaijani language Wikipedia with its abusive content was recovered proving that what is wrong in Azerbaijani Wikipedia is not my fantasy, --Zara-arush (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anahit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080321103607/http://www.vahagnitsnunde.com:80/pages/vahagni_tsnunde_vishapakax___vahagnitsnunde.compag.html to http://www.vahagnitsnunde.com/pages/vahagni_tsnunde_vishapakax___vahagnitsnunde.compag.html

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091009232419/http://www.britishmuseum.org:80/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/b/bronze_head_of_a_goddess.aspx to http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/b/bronze_head_of_a_goddess.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)