Talk:Neith

1

The planet Venus was once thought to have a moon, which was called Neith. Perhaps. But this is the kind of statement that needs a little who what when where why huh Wetman 04:49, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

There's more at the Venus (planet) article. RickK 04:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I didn't write the entire article, I just added some tidbits. That was already there when I got here; I know nothing about astronomy so I can't add anything to the article in that regard. Premeditated_Chaos

The line "Plutarch said her temple (of which nothing now remains) bore the inscription: I am All That Has Been, That Is, and That Will Be. No mortal has yet been able to lift the veil that covers Me." contradicts the Sais, Egypt article, which asserts that this was written on a temple of Isis, not Neith. I don't know which, if either is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.7.21 (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

---

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: I have added additional information about Neith's cosmic qualities as goddess of the non-visible elliptical sky above the visible sky, which impacts upon her role as both creatrix and as mother of the sun. This entire article is somewhat garbled as it appears a great deal of "New Age" information has been added in that does not reference actual scholarly information about this goddess. I have tried to remove where I can, but a review of this article and possible rewrite is suggested. I am willing to rewrite if OK'd. Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions. You're very welcome to do a rewrite. Most of these ancient Egyptian religion articles are practically unattended. I keep an eye on them to keep them from getting worse, but in most cases I don't have the time or sources to do more. Just be sure to cite sources for—well, just about everything what you write. It's preferable to cite sources in a format like this: <ref>el-Sayed 1982, pp. 10–11</ref>. That way, the sources will appear in footnotes at the bottom of the article. Happy editing. A. Parrot (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Neith's creation myth

I've heard numerous times about Neiths being originally a creation goddess, having created the world in one version of an Egyptian creation myth. But never a clear story. There are clearer stories about the creation myth of Ra, Ptah, Atum etc. But never that much about Neith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.42.17 (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Neith was considered as a very old deity, even by the Ancient Egyptians. In fact, according to the Pyramid Text, Neith is indeed considered as the eldest of all Ancient Egyptian goddess. This might support the fact that Neith may, in fact, be one of the primeval creator deities of the complex Ancient Egyptian Religion. In addition to this, many contemporary authors regard Neith as the true mother of Ra (who represented the Beginning of Everything from its chaotic, primordial being) - but this is, of course, just one of the many interpretations that we have. Even more, Neith was sometimes seen as a goddess of fate because she was associated with the Weaving Shuttle - where she was said to weave the Strands of Fate (analogous to the Hellenic/Greek Sisters of Fate), thus associating her with Creations, Destiny and, of course, Death. Remember the fact that these stories are just myths and all its meanings are very much inconsistent and often lost to our modern understandings - leaving them open to contemporary interpretations 203.87.203.190 (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ex Nihilo"

The Egyptian myth recalled here does not depict creation ex nihilo as asserted in the article. Ex nihilo means "out of nothing;" the myth describes Neith creating the land out of the "waters of chaos." If you have water, or chaos, or anything else out of which to create, you are not creating ex nihilo. I will be ammending the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.153.242.91 (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that a Was in her hand?

This page, and the page "Goad", say she is carrying a goad. I'm more familiar with that staff being a Was. I've never heard it referred to as a goad before. Then again I'm no expert in the field of Hieroglyphs. Does anyone know which is correct (or if both are)? Magma (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a was staff. From what I understand, the origin of the was is uncertain, and one of the suggestions floating around may be that it derived from some kind of goad. But the theory I've heard (and I think there was at least one reliable source that mentioned this) says that the was came from a snake-handling tool. Anyway, it's more certain that it was a was staff, and it's more useful to the reader to link to the article about the staff. So I did that. Thanks for pointing this out. A. Parrot (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Connection with Tanit

This stuff has been in the article for years and I've never cleaned it out. But it looks like unsourced original research, so I've removed it now. In case a source can be found to support it, I'm copying it here.

Symbol for the goddess Ta-nit

It is thought that Neith may correspond to the goddess Tanit, worshipped in north Africa by the early Berber culture (existing from the beginnings of written records) and through the first Punic culture originating from the founding of Carthage by Dido. Ta-nit, meaning in Egyptian the land of Nit, also was a sky-dwelling goddess of war, a virginal mother goddess and nurse, and, less specifically, a symbol of fertility. Her symbol is remarkably similar to the Egyptian ankh and her shrine, excavated at Sarepta in southern Phoenicia, revealed an inscription that related her securely to the Phoenician goddess Astarte (Ishtar). Several of the major Greek goddesses also were identified with Tanit by the syncretic interpretatio graeca, which recognized as Greek deities in foreign guise the gods of most of the surrounding non-Hellene cultures.

A. Parrot (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable.

I came to comment at the end of the fourth paragraph of section "Symbolism":

It has been suggested the hunt/war features of Neith’s imagery may indicate her origin from Libya, located west and southwest of Egypt, where she was goddess of the combative peoples there.

The problem with this paragraph is that, unlike your thesis, it assumes an extant distinct political and cultural entities of Egypt and Libya at a time when such distinctions wouldn't have yet formed.

It is more likely that at pre-dynastic/pre-historic times the Libyan desert was a still a less hostile habitat, although becoming increasingly arid, where fauna and flora existed - as attested in pre-historic cave paintings - supporting a spectrum of nomadic communities that spread all to the rims of the swamps of the Nile valley. So it is then natural that the precursors of Nieth and TaNit, as well as Amun and Hammon first came into existence, as well as other common symbolism of north Africa such as the feather of the ostrich, not to mention the language itself, where proto-Egyptian and proto-Amazigh were linked. It has been suggested, for example, that the Berber term for "strong man; ruler" might be derived from nsw-bity (Schneider 1993).

--A. Gharbeia (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bisexual definition

The term "bisexual" as used in the 9th paragraph of the Symbolism section seems confusing. The term is most commonly known today as a sexual preference of both male and female (or no preference), and used less often to describe biologically having characteristics of both genders. Could this be written better as "Hemaphroditic" (having both genders), "Epicene" (having traits of both genders or neither) or "Capable of Parthenogenetic reproduction", as stated in the second paragraph? I'm sure there are other synonyms. Wcichello (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I replaced it with "androgynous" for the moment—it's a little more general than "hermaphroditic" and less obscure than "epicene". Feel free to replace it with a different term if you think it works better. A. Parrot (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks good. There is a second instance of bisexual in that paragraph, but it isn't as confusing as the instance that you updated. Thank you again. Wcichello (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mistake or confusing sentence

"The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC) noted that the Egyptian citizens of Sais in Egypt worshipped Neith. The Greeks ruled Egypt at the time and they sought to draw a syncretic relationship to associate Egyptian deities with those of Greece." - the latter sentence suggests that the greeks ruled Egypt in the time of Herodotus, which is of course incorrect as Egypt was under the Achaemeneid Empire at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F04:E409:1A00:2C71:4502:50E2:18B4 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Claimed Berber origin

@Potymkin: I share Lone-078's concern with your edits asserting that Neith was of Berber origin. The most reliable source cited in those edits, the Encyclopédie Berbère article, only says that Neith was "known to the Libyans as early as the 14th century BC", about 1700 years after the first evidence of her worship in Egypt, and makes it sound possible that the Libyans adopted Neith from the Egyptians rather than vice-versa. The next-best source you cite is World History Encyclopedia, whose reliability I've never felt sure of. But in any case, it only says it's possible that Neith was of Libyan origin. The one source that treats a Libyan origin as a certainty is Occult World, which I'm pretty sure is not an RS.

Looking through my resources for coverage of this topic, I found this passage in The Great Goddesses of Egypt (1999) by the Egyptologist Barbara S. Lesko (p. 47): "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, 'as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.' Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian."

Moreover, you seem to be treating "Libyan" and "Berber" as synonyms, but I don't know the scholarly consensus on how closely the Egyptians' western neighbors were related to the modern Berbers. It seems better to use the blanket term "Libyan", which scholars generally apply to the non-Egyptian peoples west of the Nile Valley regardless of time period.

In sum, a Libyan origin for Neith seems to be a possibility but far from a certainty, and where the possibility is mentioned, we should write "Libyan" rather than "Berber". A. Parrot (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

And the source provided for the 8.000 BC claim neither reports such date nor mentions Libya or Berbers. Quoting Richard H. Wilkinson's book The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the west­ern Delta."Lone-078 (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Your concerns are indeed valid, however the fact that the Ancient Egyptians themselves reported that Neith came to them from Libya as well as the fact of the scholarly research that you have already accessed shows that the place of Worship of Neith was the area of Egypt with Libyan founders or having strong Libyan element where her oracle existed in Sais in her temple. The fact that the Egyptians themselves attested that she came to them from Libya should be more than enough proof to the Libyan origins of Neith, however knowing wikipedia talk pages, it is important to present further evidence that shows that the worship of Ha-Nit or as she is known as Neith was only present in the Libyan parts of the mediterranean and in egypt only in the libyan part of Egypt. Not only do the egyptians mention that Ha-Nit or Neith lives in the west which is the name of Ancient libya known as 'Ament' as can be in Sahur's pyarmid temple inscriptions attesting to the Libyan origins of this goddess. the ancient libyans like modern berbers at the temple complex in Sais are well known to tattoo-ing their bodies with symbols of Neith and all Libyans are portrayed in this manner by ancient egyptian hyroglyphs of libyans. I have added a few more sources on UNESCO library archives on the Lybico-BERBER (watch the word closely) relations with ancient egyptians by archeologists and professors such as El-Mosallamy El-Rashdy, Mori, Roset and Warmington who are active members of the archeological community on ancient Libya from Ancient egyptian times to Byzantine times. the source on OCCULT I have provided merely summerizes key information about the Goddess neith (origin, inscriptions, deity of what and where...etc), it should be taken as a source of information summary.

To your point on opening a discussion whether ancient libyans were anything else but berber would have been met with extreme ridicule from the Archeological community as well as geneologists since you would be considered one of those people who are under the pretense that either north africans were not native to their homeland something that DNA evidence and archeology already have proven that they are indeed one and the same both linguistically and genetically, or are one of those wild theorists of North africans being anything from Atlanteans, to sea people, to even extra terrestrial. the terms Libyan and Berber are synonymous in the sense we are using them in this historic sense. but here you stand disguising your words with "I don't know whether Libyans are related to modern berbers",

who mentioned anything about modern berbers ? did you sit to consider the implication here is ancient berbers ?

are Libyans not considered ancient Berbers ? refer to more information about this topic in Ancient Libya, please refrain from using the word modern refering to population in a discussion on ancient peoples.

Finally, concerning the Camps source I provided on Encyclopédie bèrbère was published in 1989, Archeology on Ancient Libya (Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco) was taking its first baby steps since most of the research on ground was done during the colonial era especially in French Algeria up to 1962 by Camps and other archeologists, research in ancient Libya is still ongoing as more ancient ruins are uncovered every year beneath the sands using satellite imagery and so archeological studies on Libya are yet to be concluded, what the author talks about in his article where he had done his research in Algeria extensively is that he is talking about those western Libyans that worshipped Tanit or also known as Ha-Nit and Athena. The greeks attested that the origin of athena was from Western Libya as mentions herodotus and Appolodorus and Hesiod that athena was born in lake tritonis, and so do the ancient Egyptians claim that Neith came to Egypt from the west, The author said that Tanit or Ha-nit or Neith or Athena was certainly known to the Libyans during the 14th century BC raising the point that Athena is merely an imported deity from Libya and her worship extends farther back than what was known at the time which was before the greeks especially because they themselves attest to her Libyan origins in addition to the local celebration on Athena that extends back to the Neolithic where two bands of maidens pretend-fight immitating the war goddess and the winner is claimed virgin, in later times Gabriel Camps publishes further books with the archeological community on Libya and affirms that Neith (ha-nit), tanit, Athena are one and the only goddesses with one origin in western Libya dating back all the way to the Neolithic in His books on prehistory in north Africa.

I hope this answers the claims on the talk page, if you would like to contact me on telegram, discord or else for a deep voice call discussion on the topic and further information I am more than happy to conclude a final revision to this wikipedia page in this manner. I will go ahead and replace Berber with Libyan as per your suggestion since both are synonymous. thank you for contacting me in the talk page first before making an edit. let me know what you have decided on the matter and please don't hesitate to make necessary edits to the article where you see fit if you can add information. I would prefer if you made further edits without the 'undo changes' function. I hope we can both add more information concerning Mythology. Potymkin (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

concerning you trusting World History Encyclopedia:

Their publications are recommended by many educational institutions including:

• Oxford University
• Common Sense Education
• School Library Journal
• MERLOT
• University of Wisconsin-Madison

Potymkin (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on the viewpoints found in the relevant scholarly literature. The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Due weight. Broadly speaking, that can play out in one of four ways.

• If scholars with relevant expertise are divided on a question, and the support for one hypothesis is roughly the same as the support for another, Wikipedia describes both as possibilities, not as certainties.
• If there are scholars on both sides of an issue, but we don't have enough evidence to determine which position is more widely held, Wikipedia describes both as possibilities.
• If one hypothesis has broad majority support but the scholars supporting a different hypothesis are a significant minority, then Wikipedia describes one as a majority position and the other as a minority position.
• If one hypothesis has overwhelming scholarly support, and the only support for the opposing position is from figures with marginal qualifications, Wikipedia treats the former hypothesis as fact. The latter is usually not mentioned at all, though if it has attracted wide enough publicity, it may be described as a fringe theory.

On the question of Neith's origins, I think we're looking at the second scenario. I don't think enough scholars have expressed an opinion for us to determine whether an Egyptian or a Libyan origin is more widely supported. So we should treat them both as possibilities. We can't treat either one as a certainty. A. Parrot (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should step back and analyze the situation of what we know and what we can conclude from it

what we know from predynastic and early dynastic periods:

-Neith was worshipped in predynastic times 'all the way at 6000BC or possibly before'

-Neith was worshipped only in lower Egypt in predynastic and early dynastic periods specifically in Sais the part where there is overwhelming Libyan presence and influence

-Inscriptions on the ancient Egyptian "Libyan Palette" shows that only is Sais Libyan territory but the entire western Delta - source : official website of The Grand Egyptian Museum : The Grand Egyptian Museum (archive.org)

-the oracle of Sais was Libyan and the temple priests were Libyan Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt: the Tehenu in Egyptian records - UNESCO Digital Library

-the ancient egyptians themselves describe Neith as the 'Goddess of/from the west', the west is Iment/Ament which is the name Libya for the ancient egyptians and the hyrogliphic symbol for Libya and the west is one and the same which is portrayed as the libyan feather.

-The ancient egyptians attest themselves that Neith rose from the waters of nun and she came to them from Libya following the course of the sea

-Egyptologists agree to the Libyan basis of Sais and the Libyan element of the west delta Sais - Livius 'while the local rulers in the western Delta, also of Libyan descent, started to act independently' (again refer to the official website of The Grand Egyptian Museum : The Grand Egyptian Museum (archive.org)), or from other scholarly sources you can visit such as the journal on egyptian archeology.

conclusion:

since Egyptians themselves consider Neith to be Libyan and the greeks affirm it so, and since her temple and oracle were in the libyan west delta in Libyan city of Sais where we find libyan presence since before the first dynasty from the Libyan Palette as Egyptian journals of archeology as much as museums and scholarly websites agree to such, therefore. it is more than conclusive to say that that goddess that ancient Egyptians and ancient Greeks call Libyan Goddess is indeed of Libyan origin.

If one hypothesis has overwhelming scholarly support which this one does from Journals to museums to Egyptologists, and the only support for the Libyan element of Neith, Wikipedia treats this hypothesis as fact.

if you still disagree, I would like to know where you get to read upon Sais being anything else other than Libyan, that the temple and oracle and the priests at the temple of Sais are not Libyan, and the ancient egyptians themselves denying the libyan origins of Neith ? which Egyptologists deny Libyan Neith to the point where you have to entitle this talk page as the "claimed Berber origin"? Potymkin (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the uncertainty about Neith's origin expressed by Wilkinson and Lesko above, there is Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE (2020) by Susan Tower Hollis, which says "It is also commonly thought that her origins lie in Libya to the west, though her earliest known iconographic representation comes from Upper Egypt." This is in reference to a Naqada II palette fragment from Abydos that bears the earliest known instance of the Neith emblem, described in "Two Protodynastic Objects in Brussels and the Origin of the Bilobate Cult-Sign of Neith" (JEA 1996) by Stan Hendrickx.

That's not to say she definitely didn't originate in the region of Sais—it still seems most probable to me that she did—but that there is very little we can be certain about in a period as murky as the Protodynastic. A scholarly consensus on this issue does not exist, so a Libyan origin should be treated as a possibility and not a certainty. A. Parrot (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

in her book Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE (2020) by Susan Tower Hollis, which mentions: "I have classified such names into a number of different categories: those suggesting cult; those expressing beneficial behavior; those relating her to a geographic location; those reflecting a hunting or warrior spirit; those attesting to a spiritual aspect; those making a statement about Neith herself; and finally those affirming the individual’s attitude or action toward her. Except for the one name that includes a geographical location, “the Libyan Neith is her ka,”", here Susan is not denying the Ancient Egyptian text that clearly underlines the Libyan origin of Neith, what appears to be an issue is that Susan does not strongly agree that Neith's only true place of worship was Sais, but she does not provide any evidence for the existence of another temple or oracle anywhere else during this time period, she is open to the for the possibility of an archeological finding somewhere else to show the possible existence of evidence that Neith could have also been famous somewhere else south of Sais. this was discussed in Journal of the Ancient Egyptian Interconnections

Resume: the argument that Neith did not originate in Sais therefore Neith is not Libyan is weak, neith could be from somewhere else which is not Sais and still be Libyan (in the case she came from Libya as Ancient egyptians themselves say!) and still due to the lack of evidence of the existence of temples and oracles of the goddess anywhere else during this time period and in direct contrast to Susan's ancient Egyptian text attesting “the Libyan Neith is her ka,”. It is difficult to go against ancient egyptians mention of Libyan Neith on their own texts as someone like you and me living 50 centuries later to say such a claim by ancient egyptians is false without falsifying the rest of what they wrote on the era, and Susan understands this quite well and does not try to go against the fact that Neith is Libyan, she is merely open to the possibility of Neith's worship in other areas.

As for Wilkinson, in his book The Complete Gods And Goddesses Of Ancient Egypt, page 32 he recounts how king Aha built the temple of Neith in the western Delta and married his libyan wife Neith-hotep to unify upper and lower egypt, being named after a deity of the same name shows ample evidence of strong existence of the cult of Neith locally in Sais, attesting more to the libyan origins of the goddess. in page 231 he recounts the Libyan population of the delta being invaded during the 5th dynasty and elements of the Libyan captive local population of the Nile Delta being taken portrayed in Papyrus, 97 he recounts again Libyan Sais that did not lose its Libyan element up to the new kingdom, he mentions by name "Neith the patroness of the Libyans", in page 369 he says "Sais the city is the culture centre of the worship of the goddess Neith".

in conclusion: Wilkinson does not deny at all that Neith is the patroness of the Libyans and her origins from Sais, he goes even further to say that the entire west delta was libyan, neither he nor Susan claim that 'Neith is NOT Libyan', Both mention a Libyan Tanit openly. with Susan she is hopeful of further archeology in areas of what she believes has potential to uncover more about the worship of Neith (something that archeology may or may not achieve) which is something that has not happened, to this date the temple of neith in Sais is the chief temple of the goddess and her oracle, and the temple of Esna constructed much later are the only true centres to a cult of Neith,

Finally to discuss Barbara Lesko's book the Great godesses of ancient egypt, in page 47 she describes the following :"Hermann Kees describes northwestern part of the delta as primarily inhabited by Libyans,and points out during the old kingdom Neith was charactarized by egyptians as Neith from Libya", then proceeds to tell us the opposing point that some archeologits whom she refrains to name (perhaps to avoid injuring their reputation of taking a ridiculous or unpopular point of view among egyptologists) that according to them the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian. here Lesko merely mentioned 2 opposing viewpoints, one with a clear source and the full name of the author and a whole quote from his word and the other were mentioned just by passing by, no quote, no author no work, no argument.

in Page 48 she mentions that Neith personified the Kingship of Lower Egypt and thus "it is likely that Neith personifies the leadership of the delta leadership who were finally conquered by Egyptians". here we see clearly Lesko's viewpoint, she massively disagrees with Neith being anything other than a Libyan Goddess with Libyan origin in the Delta to the point where she refrains from mentioning the 'Egyptians of the delta' or 'the Egyptian delta leadership' but describes them instead as 'the Delta leadership' and here you see clearly that Lesko refrains from claiming that the Delta was Egyptian ! she appears to agree with Hermann's point on the Libyan delta and thats why she mentioned his entire point of view to prepare the reader for the next page. She tells us further that the upper Egyptians were conquered not unified by upper Egyptians and here you note the writer's opinion that it is conquest for it was not an Egyptian Upper kingdom Uniying with egyptians but one that conquered a whole other peoples known as the Libyans of the Delta.

in page 58, you again see Lesko describing from the Egyptians themselves "Libyan Neith" as does any egyptologist.

in summary: NONE of the egyptologists you mentionned deny the Libyan origins to Neith nor do they deny the Libyan element to Sais if not the entire Delta, they strongly confirm Libyan Neith and adhere to such an idea. Susan is only open to a different place of worship for a cult of Neith apart from Sais. Potymkin (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I made a few mistakes I will strike through them in the following text

in conclusion: Wilkinson does not deny at all that Neith is the patroness of the Libyans and her origins from Sais, he goes even further to say that the entire west delta was libyan, neither he nor Susan claim that 'Neith is NOT Libyan', Both mention a Libyan Tanit Neith openly.

"She tells us further that the upper Lower Egyptians were conquered not unified by upper Egyptians and here you note the writer's opinion that it is conquest for it was not an Egyptian Upper kingdom Uniying with egyptians but one that conquered a whole other peoples known as the Libyans of the Delta." Potymkin (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You're deliberately ignoring Wilkinson saying "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the west­ern Delta" and Lesko saying "Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian."

@Lone-078: I don't find Potymkin's arguments convincing, but with one against one, there's no consensus. What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not ignore anything, I stated all points c in very clearly in my last comment, take time to read it again, I brought up Lesko's opposing viewpoint in my reply please read it again "she describes the following :"Hermann Kees describes northwestern part of the delta as primarily inhabited by Libyans,and points out during the old kingdom Neith was charactarized by egyptians as Neith from Libya", then proceeds to tell us the opposing point that some archeologits whom she refrains to name (perhaps to avoid injuring their reputation of taking a ridiculous or unpopular point of view among egyptologists) that according to them the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian. here Lesko merely mentioned 2 opposing viewpoints, one with a clear source and the full name of the author and a whole quote from his word and the other were mentioned just by passing by, no quote, no author no work, no argument.". Lesko is clearly not on par with Neith being anything other than Libyan.

Wilkonson considers Delta as Libyan please take time to read the previous reply I sent you with the page numbers in his book. and Barbara states this clearly when she talks about Herrman Kees.

Neither Egyptologist states that Neith is purely egyptian and Barbara does not claim Neith to be purely egyptian, she mentions that there are those that do but does not mention their names or their view point or their arguments. both Egyptologists mention Neith's libyan origins and both mention ancient Egyptians describing Neith as Libyan.

These authors again agree with Libyan Neith because ancient egyptians themselves state that Neith is Libyan Potymkin (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be reasonable evidence to suggest that Neith may have Libyan origins. This in my opinion does not mean that she should be called "a Libyan deity" in the lead, since I don't think there is any academic consensus that states something of the sort. The Roman goddess Minerva is partially based on the Etruscan goddess Menrva. This does not make Minerva an Etruscan deity, and no one would claim this in the lead of the article.
If she actually had Libyan origins, this does not erase the fact that her cult developed in Egypt, is known to us thanks to Egyptian texts, and that she is fully part of the Egyptian pantheon.
Nonetheless, it seems very useful and interesting to me that an "origins" section is added to the article in which the possibility that the goddess has Libyan origins is highlighted. Lone-078 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue here is misinterpreted, the Ancient Egyptians themselves called her Libyan Neith the case is most certainly settled when ancient egyptians called her Libyan neith attesting to her Libyan origins from the west and therefore her origins. the matter is certainly not about her being Libyan, we are wasting time and effort trying to discuss Neith's purely egyptian origins which is something that even the Ancient egyptians themselves did not claim.

I think you should reconsider calling her Libyan deity because the ancient egyptians certainly did so By calling her "libyan Neith", thats why its important to have this statement from ancient egyptians inserted in the lead part of the page. her cult certainly like you said flourished in Ancient Egypt in Libyan city of Sais thats for certain.

The Roman goddess Minerva is partially based on the Etruscan goddess Menrva. This does not make Minerva an Etruscan deity, unless the romans called her "Etrurian Minevra" then the case is certainly settled.

The origins section in my opinion should not discuss the "possibility" of Neith being of Libyan Origins as the ancient egyptians closed the case when they said "Libyan Neith" and therefore this is no longer a "possibility" but a hard archeological fact engraved in stone and written on papyrus. it is important that this is adressed in the lead section due to overwhelming archeological evidence, I suggest that in the origins section we could certainly discuss the possibility of Neith being purely Egyptian. Potymkin (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, Egyptological sources supersede our own judgment. Wilkinson doesn't treat the "Libyan" epithet as a certain indication that Neith originated among Libyans. For comparison, the Egyptians sometimes referred to "Hathor of Byblos", but nobody reads that epithet as meaning that Hathor originated in Byblos.

You are outright rejecting what Lesko and Wilkinson say in favor of your own interpretation of the evidence. Wikipedia articles cannot be based on your personal judgment (or that of any other editor). Your refusal to accept what other people are saying to you is becoming disruptive. A. Parrot (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is specifically made to discuss such matters to come to a conclusion, no disruptive actions were taken to deprive the article of its potential because we are discussing an important aspect of several authors and books, it seems the lack of evidence you provided has left you frustrated and you are opting for a way out of a matter you yourself started. the view points I have presented are strong and have a solid basis, Susan Tower Hollis whom you mentioned as anti-Libyan Neith position has shown herself mentioning Libyan Neith and so you have chosen to ignore your own sources out of bitter misjudgement. Libyan Neith is a belief shared between both Wilkinson and Lesko alike and it seems to be poor judgement from your side that you ignored all the page numbers I shared on the talk page and decided to fill the gap with your own purely egyptian interpretation of their works without providing any points or page numbers from their works, it is important to note that I have taken time to contact Lesko on her email and she strongly disagrees with your ridiculous suggestion that Neith is purely egyptian. this conversation leaves no stone unturned and it is finally time to conclude that Neith is Libyan.

to settle this dispute I suggest we put Egyptian-Libyan instead of Libyan deity to resolve the issue for good, what says you ? Potymkin (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You contacted Lesko? Can you quote what she said? A. Parrot (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

But if you did so, I have my doubts that you represented my position accurately to her, given that you're not even doing it here on this page. I never said Neith was "purely Egyptian". From the beginning, I have said that a Libyan origin is a possibility and should be represented as such in the article, but the Protodynastic Period is too murky for anyone to be certain either way. A. Parrot (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that writing on Wikipedia that Neith is Libyan because ancient Egyptian sources calls her "Libyan Neith" is plain original research by using primary sources. I stand by my opinion, and despite Potymkin's claim that "this conversation leaves no stone unturned", they are far from having reached a consensus for their changes. Lone-078 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that writing on Wikipedia Libyan Neith and using UNESCO Library as source is more than enough to put the matter to rest, The UNESCO Library is a solid proof as a source due to its rigorous commitment to providing accurate, comprehensive, and well-documented information. As an authoritative institution recognized globally for its work in education, science, and culture, UNESCO meticulously curates and maintains its library resources to meet high standards of reliability. The library's vast collection of documents, research papers, and publications is regularly updated and subjected to expert review, ensuring that users access credible and verifiable information. Additionally, UNESCO's mission to promote knowledge sharing across cultures further strengthens the integrity and trustworthiness of its library as a dependable reference source.

- You don't trust UNESCO https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000070515

-nor World History Encyclopedia https://www.google.dz/books/edition/The_Great_Goddesses_of_Egypt/Mb3F7roWPvsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Leonard+Lesko+neith&printsec=frontcover

which their publications are recommended by many educational institutions including:

• Oxford University
• Common Sense Education
• School Library Journal
• MERLOT
• University of Wisconsin-Madison

-nor do you trust archeologists like Gabriel Camps nor Lesko nor any other.

- you don't bother reading books nor Egyptology journals such as "Journal on egyptian archeology"

- You do not even trust the official museum websites like the official website of The Grand Egyptian Museum : The Grand Egyptian Museum (archive.org) that I sourced mentioning the west delta as Libya.

none of this is "plain original research", but meticulous points brought up to show how trustworthy and how reliable the information transferred is.

what do you want ? seriously. Potymkin (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I want you to stop misreading the sources you're citing. None of them unambiguously say that Neith was of Libyan origin, only that it is possible that she was. A. Parrot (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You are beginning to engage in uncivil discussion, take time to calm down then procceed to provide sources that dispute Neith being anything else but Libyan, my advice is to look for sources in internationally recognized organizations like UNESCO like I did or take time to read works on Egyptology Journals and also some works from Archeology. official websites of Museums of Egyptology also offer a great source of information.

So far you have not offered any counter sources from reliable organizations or any sites, the two Egyptologists you mentioned disagree with you as their works and emails show.

I have listed too many sources but you have listed nothing significant on your part except denial without proof, this is a one sided search to end the dispute YOU started on a matter that shouldn't be which you call 'modern revisionism' after Wikipedia:Tag team with Lone-078 on his user talk page.

there are 3 options now

1) Either the two parties concede to Libyan Neith as sources hereby mention.

2) or both parties agree to change Libyan Neith to Egyptian-Libyan Neith.

3) or wait for Admin dispute resolution which I already requested. Potymkin (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to ask, do you happen to work for the UNESCO library? Should these links to institutions that support it somehow increase its reliability even further the Wikipedia reliability standard?
How about the link to Lesko's book passed off as unconditional support for the Libyan Neith claim? Sounds a bit like cherry picking; the author herself writes on page 47 that "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being, at the beginning of history, inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, “as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.” Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian." So the author herself admits that there is absolutely no academic consensus favoring the Libyan Neith hypothesis.
Furthermore, you are boldly stating that you personally contacted the author, without giving any proof of this. And even if that were the case, that's the author's opinion and that's it.
And what is the link to The Grand Egyptian Museum supposed to demonstrate? "One of the sides shows [...] the hieroglyph of the throwing stick on an oval (which means 'region', 'place', 'island'), thus a toponym of Libya or Western Delta (THnw, Tjehenw). " Using this to support the theory that Neith is Libyan is original research and possibly synthesis. Lone-078 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I am glad you asked, wikipedia encourages members to use sources from reputable organizations Wikipedia:Reliable sources This guideline provides details on how to identify reliable sources, including government publications and documents from reputable organizations like UNESCO, the source I provided from UNESCO is up to standard with the requirements of wikipedia reliable sources.

the author Barbara Lesko again, in her book The Great Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, specifically on page 47, regarding the origins of the goddess Neith.

Key Points of she presents:

1. Two Opposing Viewpoints:
   • Lesko presents two different perspectives on Neith's origins:
     • Viewpoint 1: Hermann Kees, a named and cited source, claims that the northwestern part of the Nile Delta was primarily inhabited by Libyans and that Neith was characterized by Egyptians as "Neith from Libya" during the Old Kingdom.
     • Viewpoint 2: Unnamed archaeologists suggest that Neith’s first appearance is purely Egyptian. how she presents these viewpoints:
     • The first viewpoint is well-supported: Lesko provides a specific source (Hermann Kees), his full name, and a direct quote, giving it credibility and weight.
     • The second viewpoint is weakly supported: Lesko mentions it only in passing without naming the archaeologists, citing their work, or providing any direct quotes or arguments. This lack of detail makes the viewpoint seem less credible and possibly even dismissive.

Overall Interpretation:

Lesko might be intentionally downplaying the second viewpoint by not providing full details, possibly to avoid giving credence to what might be considered a "ridiculous or unpopular" opinion among Egyptologists. Barbara Lesko in presenting historical viewpoints, suggests that the way she cites and discusses sources favors one perspective over another. her treatment of the purely egyptian source is inadequate and she does not bother to go in detail about it (read the whole book and prove me wrong if you can I dare you, try to find her talking about purely Egyptian Neith the way she spent half a book discussing Libyan Neith, she even bothered to provide us with Hermann Kees who believes in Libyan neith and libyan delta and his whole viewpoint but nothing from the purely egyptian viewpoint).

-"So the author herself admits that there is absolutely no academic consensus favoring the Libyan Neith hypothesis." this is false since she herself is well decided on the matter and did not discuss the purely egyptian side at all (again, prove me wrong if you can, provide names, arguments sources from her books).

-what the link to The Grand Egyptian Museum supposed to demonstrate?

The ancient Egyptian "Libyan Palette" contains inscriptions that demonstrate not only that Sais was considered Libyan territory, but also that the entire western region of Egypt was recognized as Libyan. This assertion is supported by the descriptions found on the palette, which depict the Libyan influence extending across the western territories of Egypt. According to the preserved information from the Grand Egyptian Museum’s official gallery (archived link: Libyan Palette), the inscriptions on the palette reinforce the historical association of these regions with the Libyans.

This historical evidence aligns with the broader understanding of ancient Egyptian geopolitics, where regions to the west of the Nile were frequently under Libyan influence or control, as illustrated by various artifacts and records from the period.

Let me present the logic behind it since you are unable to make the connection in your head:

Western delta and Sais were considered Libya - Neith is from Sais - therefore Neith is Libyan.

I hope this answers your questions, let me know if you have any further questions. Potymkin (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Lesko supports the Libyan Neith hypothesis, but also states that other Egyptologists dispute this hypothesis. The fact that she does not mention the names of the Egyptologists means very little: with her statement the author herself admits (in an honest way, given that she could easily have left out mention of the dissent) that there is no academic consensus on the matter.

The link of the Libyan palette never mentions neither Sais nor Neith. Your argument that "Western delta and Sais were considered Libya - Neith is from Sais - therefore Neith is Libyan" is a blatant example of WP:SYNTHESIS, therefore invalid.

I have the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt here at hand. At the end of the paragraph relating to Neith it is reported that "it has been suggested that Neith was of Libyan descent; this may in part explain the Saite ruler's fondness for her, because they too were of Libyan ancestry." A possibility as other authors say, but the caution about reaching hasty conclusions ("Neith is Libyan") clearly persists.

As I have already said, in my opinion there is every reason to include in the lead that "Neith is an ancient Egyptian deity of possible Libyan origin", and add a first "Origin" section in which to add the reliable sources about it that have been brought here. Lone-078 (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in a bit late here, I just want to note that of the sources you've provided, they actually say the following:

The earliest portrayal of what is believed to be a sacred shrine is associated with the cult of Neith. Although Neith has always been associated with the northern city of Sais in the eastern delta, this early drawing was found in Upper Egypt. Per "The Great Goddesses of Egypt" that you linked to. This appears to say that an early drawing of Neith was found in Upper Egypt vs. the Sais. Also, they state that Sais is in the eastern delta, but most other sources say western delta.

The source you are attributing to UNESCO is just a journal article in a library database, which was actually published in Libya antiqua, p. 51-68, and it reads| The temple of Sais, in the western delta, the chief centre of Libyan influence in Egypt, bore the name of 'House of the king of Lower Egypt', The chief goodess of this temple was Neith ('the terrible with her bows and arrows") and she was 'living in the west'. The Libyans of north-west Egypt, especially in Sais, tattooed the emblem of Neith upon their arms. It seems that Sais was the residence of a Libyan king of the delta at a certain time. The origin of the uraeus, the royal serpent of the Pharaohs, is said to be traced to an early Libyan king of the delta, as shown from the reliefs discovered in Sahure's pyramid-temple at Abusir bearing the drawing of four Libyan chiefs wearing on their brows this royal emblem. It is worth noting that the Tchenu was the principal Libyan tribe who used to infiltrate into Egypt before the Libyan invasions, which will be dealt with later and that Names like Nitokris may show clear inclination towards Neith, the goddess of Sais, in the Libyan centre. This inclination towards Neith may indicate an expansion of Libyan influence as a consequence of increasing Libyan infiltration into Egypt and their ability to seize power.

This article doesn't definitively claim that Neith was of Libyan origin, but rather that the Libyans of north-west Egypt, seemed to have a particular affinity toward Neith and that once upon a time it seemed that a Libyan king might have resided in that area. Neither of those sources definitively state that Neith was brought to Egypt by Libyan influence. It is also an article from 1986, by the by, so it cannot be said to even represent the most up-to-date scholarship.

Moreover, this this source reads Of particular interest is that none of these names, despite their apparent suggestion of a cult place for the goddess, confirms Saïs as her center and also Egyptologists have commonly called her a war goddess, with some suggesting that she originated among a fighting group, possibly Libya in the Western Desert,57 although, as noted previously, no known mythology about her supports this appellation.

Which says that some Egyptologists called her a war goddess and associated her with possibly libya, but that there is no known mythology that supports this.

In regards to the Libyan Palette, you seem to be representing it as definitively concluding that the entirety of the western nile delta belonged to Libyans, but the interpertation of Western Nile Delta isn't definitive. It says "Western Nile Delta or Libya". Per Page 135 of this source, after the land of the Libyans beyond the western oases

This source says from this early appearance it has been assumed that they lived immediately adjacent to the Nile Valley. Bates placed Tjemehu immediately to the west of the Nile Valley and at least as far south as the First Cataract.

Scholarship does not agree with the interpretation that this palette demonstrates that early Libyans owned all of Western Egypt including Sais which was well within the Nile Delta Valley. And per Wikipedia guidelines, reliably published secondary sources are preferred over primary sources (the palette being a primary source). Brocade River Poems 23:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for jumping into the discussion and also making an important edit to the page. I also would like to thank you for taking the time to read the provided sources, I am very happy that you did and I would love to discuss them with you.

concerning "The Great Goddesses of Egypt" that you linked to. This appears to say that an early drawing of Neith was found in Upper Egypt vs. the Sais. Also, they state that Sais is in the eastern delta, but most other sources say western delta.

an early drawing of Neith could be found in several areas in North africa but it was on purpose that it was not classified as the earliest known drawing.

in fact, the earliest depiction of Neith is found in Libya as statuettes and representations of all sorts (rarely a drawing), her standards were known in predynastic periods, as can be seen from a representation of a barque bearing her crossed arrow standards in the Predynastic Period.

sources: "see, Oric Bates, The Eastern Libyans, (Frank Cass, London, 1914), pp. 205 ff.; Kees and Blissing, Re-Heligtum, II (Plate 7, figure 17) and III, Plate 9, where Neith and Libya figure prominently in the Sed festivals of Nuserre and Djoser, and A. R. David, The Ancient Egyptians: Religious Beliefs and Practices, (London, 1982), p. 145.'

So in simpler terms, you can find an early dollar bill in Georgia from the year 1798 but could that early dollar that you found be considered the earliest known dollar bill in the region?

simply put, her temple and worship at Sais (refer to Neith's page on her worship from 6000 BC) is much older than this early found depiction of hers in upper egypt in fact, this does not mean that she is of upper egyptian origins. also I would appreciate it if you could also provide when this early drawing of neith was dated because here we are talking about who first invented Neith and timing is of the essence.

UNESCO source:

The source talks in detail how predynastic Libyans in Sais named their sons and daughters after Neith, characters such as Neith-hotep which was the princess from lower Egypt when the capital was Sais and she is also the wife of the earliest known ruler from Upper Egypt that unified both realms by marrying her, another example of the name is Ankh-neith and others. these characters named after neith directly show the level of worship and attachement to the goddess neith well before the first dynasty. in exactly a similar manner how carthagenians named their sons after Baal such as Mastanbaal and Hannibaal, today names such as Abduallah, and Abdurrahman show how muslims are attached to their religion by naming their sons and daughters after names of Allah. this not only shows commitment but also strong presence of her worship, however we have no such names after Neith in Upper egypt of this sort in this time period in predynastic egypt.

BOTH of the sources strongly show the reader that Neith not only had strong worship in predynastic lower egypt in Sais, but both sources also discuss the strong libyan presence in Sais, culturally, religiously and also through hierarchy. the source does not discuss the presence of a king by the way but an entire Dynasty of princesses, kings and queens of Libyan characteristics and Libyan origins.

The article of which you say is from 1986 is definitive, meaning UNESCO includes it in its library of factual historic data on history of humankind. it is encouraged to take it as point blank fact along with other UNESCO content until taken down by UNESCO for violating certain international norms. not all books should I remind you can be included in UNESCO library and certainly being there makes the publication high value data.

your quote here is missing key words "Which says that some Egyptologists called her a war goddess and associated her with possibly libya, but that there is no known mythology that supports this." here some egyptologists suggested that Neith is not from eastern Libya (West bank of the nile) but they suggested that neith is from Libya in the WESTERN desert but the author here clearly doubts this is too far a stretch for the author. here the author does not mean Neith is not from All Libya but the author talks about a specific part of Libya that the author mentions clearly as Neith not being from the Western Desert of Libya. let me remind you here that Ancient egyptians and also ancient greeks both considered all the area west of the bank of the nile as Libya, this is especially important concerning differentiating between modern borders of Libya and descriptions drawn by ancient peoples.

Concerning the Libyan Palette :

I am not ready to disagree with you here simply because it is a matter of pure interpretation, for me it was "Western Delta or Libya" as in "United States or America". I applaud your different point of view concerning this one

"after the land of the Libyans beyond the western oases" refers to oases west of the nile including Siwa, Siwa is still to this day a Libyan (berber) stronghold in egypt with a native berber ethnic population. I fail to see the point of this sentence if you still think its important let me know how.

in conclusion :

Scholarship agrees with the interpretation that this palette demonstrates that early Libyans owned all of Western Egypt including Sais which was well within the Nile Delta Valley. And per Wikipedia guidelines the sources provided are very reliable and contain all the information needed to see the Libyan origins of Neith.

PS. if you are capable I would like to discuss these points and others in further detail over social media if possible. if you are able we could discuss this over discord or telegram, email me if you are interested. Potymkin (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

My point regarding "beyond the western oases" is if you look at a map of where Sais is located, as seen here, it is well within the Nile Delta. Moreover, another sources further states the Libyans in question were immediately to the west of the Nile Valley and at least as far south as the First Cataract. That places the Libyans spoken of in the palette a good deal away from entirety of the Western Nile Delta as you are inferring. Even your source from the UNESCO library says that the word Tehenu was used to describe those who inhabit west of the Nile valley It also says The Tehenu were known to the Egyptians as 'the westerners', since they lived close to the valley of the Nile. It seems that the Tehenu were the first Libyans who settled and domesticated animals. The earliest evidence of Libyan cattle is that afforded by the Vth Dynasty relief showing the Tehenu suppliant to Sahure. The other references are to animals taken as booty by Merneptah, 10 and those shown in a Libyan tribute in a XIIth Dynasty tomb-painting at Beni Hasan." Libyan cattle had a widespread reputation and echoes of them are found in Homer. Accurate investigation would show that the earlier and best cattle probably originated from the regions of the Tehenu. Though the word Tehenu also had a general significance, the Tehenu had occupied the oases and the Fayyüm since early historic times. The Fayyüm in question is an oasis located southwest of modern day Cairo, which is a good distance away from where Sais is located. The UNESCO Library source also states The scenes in the Sahure Temple indicate that the Libyans, even in the Vth Dynasty, had reached the south of Memphis. I.E, their control did not extend north of Memphis, which Sais is geolocated North of Memphis. The author also notes on Page 52 that The Tehenu were not always the only population of the oases and the northern desert. It is said that the oasis of Khargah was used as a place of banishment, perhaps, for both Libyans and Egyptians while also noting that The Tehenu settled quite early in a limited area on both sides of the Egyptian border, and consequently were similar in features and dress to the Egyptians. This similarity led historians to think that they were one and the same, which indicates that the Tehenu presence in the Nile Delta was quite limited, not the expansive "it belonged to Libyans" that is being presented here. Further, the author writes Certain historians think that both Narmer and Scorpion won their triumph over Egyptians, not Libyans." It could be said that both points of view are right inasmuch as Egyptians had inevitably mingled with Libyans since the prehistoric periods. On the one hand, the oases were under foreign chiefs who paid tribute to the Pharaohs. On the other hand, climatic changes and the barrenness of the Libyan desert forced the Libyans to migrate towards the Nile valley in successive waves. According to Egyptian records, the Tehenu settled in the delta, the Fayyûm, Wadi-el-Natron on Page 53-54, from this we can see that the Tehenu settled in the delta, the Fayyûm, and Wadi-el-Natron. However, this does not mean that the Tehenu who settled in those areas controlled them, as the author only notes the oases as being under foreign chiefs. Nominally, that indicates Tehenu migration and settlement within territory controlled by Egypt outside of the oases. In most cases, whenever the author asserts some Libyan connection, such as with the origin of the IVth Dynasty on page 55, the author notes that historians doubt the theory as lacking solid evidence.

Re "The Eastern Libyans", that book also states on Page 205, that of the possible connection of this rainsender of the Auseans, and the Dea Coelestis of the Libyans in general, with a goddess of the western Egyptian Delta and further says Neith was a goddess established in Egypt from archaic times. It says a possible connection, which is not enough to warrant a definitive statement that Neith originated in Libya. Moreover, "The Eastern Libyans" which you linked in Page 206 states A writer who has recently discussed this question has formulated the theory that Neith was originally a goddess of Libyans living in pre-historic Egypt, who with them was forced out of an original position in the south to become firmly established in the north-west.-' As presented by its propounder, this theory is ingeniously supported ; it lacks, however, archaeological evidence and from 206 to 207 reads and not yet has a period arrived where any question of early ethnic shiftings in the Nile Valley can be considered as perfectly safe ground. But from the parallel instituted above between the Libyan and the Egyptian goddesses, from this occurence of the Neith-symbol as a Libyan tattoo mark, and from the geographical position of Sais, it seems that some connection between the two divinities is highly probable"

See, WP:CHERRYPICKING as to why we cannot just use the statement that someone put forth a theory that Neith had Libyan origins while ignoring that the author says there is no archaeological evidence for said theory.

Book "The Ancient Egyptians: Religious Beliefs and Practcies" also says During the New Kingdom, expansion brought Egypt into contact with religious cults and ideas in many other lands. Until this period, there had been an exchange of ideas with three main areas. The Libyans who lived in the region to the west of Egypt had contribu- ted to the early 'cultural' processes in Egypt, although the extent of this is still uncertain. Nevertheless, certain elements in the king's ceremonial costume the animal tail on his headdress and the uraeus on his crown-may have been derived from a general North African culture which filtered down in both Egyptian and Libyan customs. Some early Egyptian deities may also have had Libyan origins, such as Neith, the ancient goddess of hunting, and Ash, a god who personified the desert and was later equated with Seth.

The author says MAY have had Libyan origins. That isn't enough to state in an authoritative Wikivoice, let alone in the lead of the article, that Neith is of Libyan, Berber, or other origin. The only thing that can be definitively stated is that Neith's origin is unknown, which is why I changed the wording to state that Neith was "an ancient Goddess worshipped by Libyans and Egyptians", because that statement is true and it sidesteps the entire debate about her origin (which should be content in the article, not the lead).

if you could also provide when this early drawing of neith was dated I don't need to. The published source says what it says, and that is all Wikipedia can represent. What you cannot do, however, is make the article say something which the source (or any source) does not say.

these characters named after neith directly show the level of worship and attachement to the goddess neith well before the first dynasty. in exactly a similar manner how carthagenians named their sons after Baal such as Mastanbaal and Hannibaal, today names such as Abduallah, and Abdurrahman show how muslims are attached to their religion by naming their sons and daughters after names of Allah. this not only shows commitment but also strong presence of her worship, however we have no such names after Neith in Upper egypt of this sort in this time period in predynastic egypt.

This is pure WP:SYNTH and is quite frankly, not at all what the source says and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Again, the source says The Libyans of north-west Egypt Meaning Libyans residing in North-West Egypt, not in Libya. It is not enough to definitively declare anything more than the fact that the Libyans who resided around Sais which was believed to be the center of Neith's worship, worshipped Neith.

Factually speaking, almost every source you have presented bandies in theories and notes that the theories aren't consensus by way of admitting that other scholars find fault with the theories. Consequently, it is not really acceptable to have the article definitively state that Neith is of Libyan origin.

And no thank you, I do not wish to communicate with anyone off of Wikipedia about Wikipedia. Brocade River Poems 03:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

1)thank you for your reply. According to my UNESCO source "As regards features and dress, historians had their grounds to doubt that Narmer was fighting not Libyans, but Egyptians of the delta" the author states clearly in page 54 that Historians had solid grounds to doubt that people who inhabited the delta were Libyans and because the author believes and knows as much as others that the Delta was inhabited by Libyans he states this clearly and decisively.The Fayyüm in question is an oasis located southwest of modern day Cairo, which is a good distance away from where Sais is located.

2) your statement clearly talks about the geolocation of an oasis by the author nothing more and does not talk about any inhabitation of either libyans or egyptians, it is silmply Wiki:Synthesis on your part.

3) from this we can see that the Tehenu settled in the delta, the Fayyûm, and Wadi-el-Natron. However, this does not mean that the Tehenu who settled in those areas controlled them, as the author only notes the oases as being under foreign chiefs. Nominally, that indicates Tehenu migration and settlement within territory controlled by Egypt outside of the oases on one end you say which indicates that the Tehenu presence in the Nile Delta was quite limited and on the other you talk about page 55 which mentions that "This means that the Tehenu were not considered by the Pharaoh as complete foreigners" and you openly glance over such statements that indicate their native origins to the land as considered by the author. here I can see you are arguing in really bad faith as you pick and choose random unconnected statements from each page and you present them as what the entire page talks about for someone who warns about WP:CHERRYPICKING you actively do it yourself which is hypocritical. I honestly expected much better behavior from you.

4) since in your publication did not determine when the drawing was found and you jumped into conclusions stating that the drawing was somewhere else therefore Neith could be from somewhere else other than Sais is original research and should be avoided for sake of argument until you can prove that her worship outside of Sais predates her worship in Sais, the point remains that sais was the earliest known Libyan center of the worship of this goddess and you failed to prove otherwise simply because you failed to show where and when her worship was established outside of sais.

5) This is pure WP:SYNTH and is quite frankly, not at all what the source says

is not true since the source clearly says about the connection between worship of neith: "Names like Nitokris may show clear inclination towards Neith, the goddess of Sais, in the Libyan centre. This inclination towards Neith may indicate an expansion of Libyan influence as a consequence of increasing Libyan infiltration into Egypt and their ability to seize power. On this understanding, the supremacy of Heracleopolis between the Vll th and IX th Dynasties was in reality a Libyan occupation of Middle Egypt" Not only here does the author state that we know that Libyan expansion went hand in hand with the worship of the libyan goddess neith through naming of people which was different from naming of egyptians, but the author also shows that Libyans took over memphis but the whole middle egypt which makes your statement about Libyans never taking over memphis completely void and baseless, The scenes in the Sahure Temple indicate that the Libyans, even in the Vth Dynasty, had reached the south of Memphis. I.E, their control did not extend north of Memphis, which Sais is geolocated North of Memphis the same publication from unesco talks about evidence that shows that memphis fell directly under the grasp of the Libyan invaders as can be seen from inscriptions I quote from page 54 "The Tehenu occupied the west of the delta, the Fayyüm and reached to the south of Memphis during the Vth Dynasty ,as can be deduced from the scenes in the temple of Sahure." not only did their control extend to North of memphis but also SOUTH OF IT!!!.

this is clearly a joke on your part because not only have you skipped lines in a single page but also you have no clear idea about what is mentioned inside 2 pages of the book mind you the rest. I misjudged you as someone who has taken time to have read the entire book or atleast sections of it but now I can see you did not even read pages 54 and 55 that you directly quote from. i bet you feel foolish that you should have chosen to take the offer to discuss this outside of wikipedia but now everyone can see the sinking level of literacy you parade with.

All in all though your edit on the page is still decent and I don't mind if it were the final version. Potymkin (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I am only replying here insofar as to inform you WP:NPA. As the topic is currently under dispute resolution, discussion here is moot. Brocade River Poems 00:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 111 First-Semester College Composition

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2024 and 14 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clanging (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Clanging (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Symbolism Section

There's a whole lot going on in this section at the moment, I wonder if it shouldn't be arranged into smaller subsections for organization and ease of reading. Clanging (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)