Talk:Maat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Inahong, Sashaalexa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Colgate University Wikipedia Editing Project

As mentioned below, after carefully analyzing this page, our group decided to make some changes regarding the structure and content of the article. By changing around the structure and including and revising sections, we were able to create bigger, more relevant sections, rather than having many smalls sections with only a couple sentences in it. Originally there were many small paragraphs or random sentences placed around the article, and through this structure change, we were either able to add more information to these paragraphs and include them in a bigger section, or ultimately remove them if they were unimportant. In regards to the content, we found that some of the links were too narrowly focused, occasionally the language was too broad and lacked information, a few pictures were faded and rather unclear, and many citations were either left out or incorrect. By dividing the work up among our three group members, we each were able to tackle these issues in our individual sections, and try to include more information from reliable cites and better overall links that lead to helpful sources. Finally, we were able to take the time to fix previously noticed flaws, such as the Original Research Warning. We feel that these additions enhanced the overall quality of the article, and made it more resourceful for all viewers. Jhirschberg13 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

HI, I believe you are doing a great job with the article regarding Maat. However, I do believe that more precise information could be added for each section. Overall, It seems to me that you have encompassed and divided the mosrt relevant aspects about Maat. --OMIHEP (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Colgate University Wikipedia Editing Project

Hi, everyone! I'm part of a group of three enrolled in a class at Colgate University that has been assigned to edit a wikipedia article and we have chosen this one. We're hoping to rework the structure a little bit and maybe some of the wording, but we're starting so please be patient with us! Also, if anyone has additional ideas/suggestions/objections to any edits we make, we'd be really grateful for the input! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunazagor (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Confession Language

I wonder, would it not read more clearly if saying rather than "Not have I carried off food", it said, "Naught have I carried off food"?

If anyone agrees I could change it.

This should be added at the end of the list, as a new topic. However, I want to point out that we took these from an actual translation, where it is better to use the actual translation unless you have specific credentials in Egyptian Heiroglyphics.

Then, looking up the definition on Dictionary.com:

naught /nɔt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nawt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. nothing.

2. a cipher (0); zero.

–adjective 3. lost; ruined.

4. Archaic. worthless; useless.

5. Obsolete. morally bad; wicked.

–adverb 6. Obsolete. not.

—Idioms7. come to naught, to come to nothing; be without result or fruition; fail.

8. set at naught, to regard or treat as of no importance; disdain: He entered a milieu that set his ideals at naught.

That would completely change the meaning. So I vote no. KV(Talk) 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

42 Confessions vs. 147 Confessions

I have found several sources, including from Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan, that states that their are 147 Negative Confessions. I think this needs to be clairifed.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.26.141 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Comments number 20 and 21 are identical in the list; this needs tp be double-checked. - Dragonfly31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.88.180 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The declarations are made to different deities in the original text but the repetition may indeed indicate the importance the Ancient Egyptians placed on marital fidelity. Taam (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

This page says that souls were weighed against Maat, who was represented as a feather, but the page on Duat says that souls were weighed against just a feather. Was the feather Maat herself or did Maat have a feather or is it sometimes one way and sometimes another?

Maat was a seperate entity I believe, although she and the feather represented the same things: truth and justice. Maat possessed the feather.-ka

What is the pronunciation of Maat ? Skyarrow 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that Budge suggests that feather is Ma'at, but of course think of Ma'at as an ideal, not a physical being with physical weight.

And I am not completely sure the pronunciation, but I'm trying to figure that out. I'm lead to believe by the book I'm reading (they don't explain the sounds very well) it would be pronounced Mah-uht. I'm going to check the phonetics later on Wiki.

KV 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's suggesting consonant sounds for both a's which isn't what I read, so that was no help. I can tell you that it has the first a described as "glottal stop, like Cockney 'bo' 'le' for 'bottle'." and the second "like trying to say 'ah' while swallowing. Made by clenching the throat muscles to imitate, say 'a/o' with finger on the throat." I had them backwards originally, so it's more like "muh-aht". Also, the first "Called aleph. Originally a throaty trill, it later became a stop, as in cockney pronunciation of bottle as bo'l, and a hat as a 'a' ." and the second "Called ayin. A throaty gurgle, like saying a whilst swallowing."

KV 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Shu-Feather, and Maát, are interchangeable, and the principle, which extended for centuries, actually millenia, was (I am sure), a principle tied with the Role, and Authority of the Pharaoh.

An explanatory example: On the belts of Pharaoh's statues is their cartouche, with their Prenomen. The favorite, for me, and I think the most revealing, or Loftiest-in-Goal, is: Men,Kheper,Re. The meaning is as follows: Men, "Steadfastness", Permanence, Solidity;...."Kheper", the Scarab-beetle, for 'Transformation' , "becoming", and "Re", or "Ra", the Sun, but really: the Life-giving force to the Growth-0f-Crops, the animals grazing, etc.

So... MenKneperRe, Becomes ..."Steadfastly becoming like Ra", quite a lofty goal for any human, much less the leader of a People.

The point I want to get at is that "Maát" , is represented on the the "Ceremonial" Scarabs of Thutmose III, thus: Maat is the seated "Goddess" with the Shu feather on her head for identification, but on her Knee, at 60 degree angle (or whatever), is the Ankh. When you put all these "High" principles together, the Ankh, Maát. the 'She-feather'–of-truth, the Pharaoh, and Kheper, always trying to be better: Transformation. .....All I have to say, is, Thank goodness they were working in Stone, etc. Michael inHotDesertArizonaYUMA,Az--Mmcannis 04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Confessions

Why was the list of confessions changed like they are now? Before, when it was "Thou shalt not ..." it was much easier to read and understand. I realise that they originally say "I have not..." but even then it's easier than it is now, with the extra bit at the beginning of each line. I've generally only seen it on sites written in the first two ways I've mentioned. --WolferGiga 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. It wasn't discussed, so I've restored the latest version of the original list, which is more appropiate for this context. -999 (Talk) 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. An anonymous user has removed the list and put up a link to a site that the user says has an outdated translation. Perhaps people should give their reasons here for changes to the list of confessions. It is a majour part of Maát. I believe the list should be put back on the page, but also with an explaination that it is not the only list, and it's usually written as a post-mortem list in first person, such as "I have not...".--WolferGiga 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It was changed when I discovered that the actual source cited no less made it clear that the actual statements were negative affirmations. The deceased said that they didn't do those things, but nowhere was it stated "thou shalt not". That was changed to make it more understandable to the audience, but to quote them as such would disagree with the source and be inaccurate.

KV(Talk) 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Changing "I have not..." to "Thou shalt not..." doesn't really change the meaning of the confessions. It just changes the speaker and timeframe (post-mortem to pre-mortem). Like I said, "I have not..." would make sense too, just that when I made my first comment, there were long references to gods before each line. It would have no real meaning to people that were just looking for the confessions. And also, originally there was a line explaining that normally they are said in post-mortem "I have not..." instead of the posted "Thou shalt not...". But either way, having them listed as negative confessions is still good. The majour thing I'm worried about is making the confessions overly complicated and long, which could lead to misunderstanding them. --WolferGiga 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the list, it looks good how it is right now. --WolferGiga 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was attempting to do in the transfer. Create the original, in the original context, without making it harder to understand.

KV(Talk) 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Maàt → Ma'at — All our external sources seem to spell the name "Ma'at", which is also the only way I've ever seen it spelled. (I am not an expert.) I didn't think the "a-with-grave-accent" character was part of any transliteration scheme. --Quuxplusone 01:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Quuxplusone 01:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I have only ever seen "Ma'at", sometimes "Maat", never "Maàt". -- SigPig \^{SEND - OVER} 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Clackmannanshireman 01:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Different versions of the 42 declarations

I'm just going to list off some of the sources I have found. Alternatively, I can go read the book itself and list what I can find.

http://www.maatinus.com/Nguzo%20Saba/negative.htm - seems pretty good, though not numbered.

http://hometown.aol.com/tokapu/declar.htm - another good one, though I am not sure of the translator, it is an aol homepage. Calls them declarations of innocence

http://www.ancient-knowledge-breakthrough.net/id17.html - Declarations of Innocence again.

http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Declaration.html - Seems well enough

http://www.smaitawiankh.org/hekau.html - This version tries to expand upon them in parentheses about what they mean. It also says "I will not".

http://www.maatinus.com/Nguzo%20Saba/maatprn.htm - yet another

Those are a few I have found..... but they definately are not 33 in number.

KV(Talk) 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

You can't just copy these off on any website, the translator holds the copyright. Budge could be used, I believe his work is in the public domain. But in any case, source texts are not supposed to be included in Wikipedia. They belong in Wikisource. The correct solution would be to add a public domain version to Wikisource and then link to it from WP. IPSOS (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The page shows where they got it from, straight from Budge. It is simply broken down to be numbered and left without the "Oh <enter god's name here>" part. Not listing them would be like putting a ban on listing the 10 commandments. KV(Talk) 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Budge can be quoted. Anyone else's derivation from it cannot. Also, you did not address the Wikipedia policy about source texts belonging on Wikisource. IPSOS (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, revert it. I'll just take it from Budge specifically later. Though I assure you that sort of transformation would not consist of any copyright violation, because I have editted that source in putting it in the same way they editted tjhe original source. KV(Talk) 01:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please put it on Wikisource. Thanks. IPSOS (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I intend to restructure it to fit into a neat list, much as one would do with the 10 commandments. KV(Talk) 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The details are not essential to this article. Better to put an authoritative public domain version such as Budge's on Wikisource and point to it. IPSOS (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The details are a strict outline of the principle of Ma'at as put forth by the Egyptians. Surely that is essential to an article which deals heavily on Ma'at as a principle. KV(Talk) 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Please be a bit more careful with sources. allexperts cannot be used, it is derived from Wikipedia. Forums cannot be used, they don't meet WP:RS (or is it WP:ATT now), etc. I'll be removing impermissible sources. IPSOS (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I threw on everything I could find that didnt' seem immediately to be a problem figuring that I didn't have time to sort through them all and I knew that some, but not all, would be weeded out. KV(Talk) 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a rule, the source should be a reliable one. The following absolutely cannot be used:

• Wikipedia mirrors or derivatives
• Forums, mailing list, online discussion groups, blogs
• Any site which sells somethings, has a shopping cart, etc, regardless of the quality of the material.

In general, a reliable web source gives its sources. IPSOS (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

None appeared to be that outright. KV(Talk) 01:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You could always find book sources. That forum site turns out to sell the author's books and other products. Please read WP:EL and WP:RS to get a better idea of allowable sources. Just b/c something is on a web source doesn't mean it can be used as a reference. IPSOS (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, none of the sources was any good.

• religioustolerance.org: cites Wikipedia, the very uncited statement you are trying to cite!
• dwij.org: is a commercial site, has links to "order Ahmed's books" and "online store ... feature art and artifacts, CDs, books and workshops." Perhaps you could cite one of his books?
• Mystae.com: a collection of quotes. One says "Five of the Ten Commandments delivered from Mount Sinai can be found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead." but does not say anything about one being derived from the other. We can't interpolate like that.
• uucss.org: a Universalist Unitarian sermon is not an historical reference. Also note down at the bottom: sources include Wikipedia and Religious Tolerance, i.e. the uncited statement you are trying to cite. This is why uncited material should NOT be left in articles.
• africawithin.com: mentions that the 42 confessions preceded the ten commandments historically. Makes no claim that one was derived from the other.

IPSOS (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just picking at it. There is nothing that says they cannot be used as sources... Some of them cite Wikipedia, yes.... but they use other sources as well for that and take the claims well past what Wikipedia stated. And perhaps there is a link somewhere, when it seems that the author owns the site, that's not surprising. But there is no policy that says that you can't use it as a source, only that you cannot add it into external links. KV(Talk) 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, don't you think it's a bit intellectually dishonest to knowingly use an article which cites an uncited statement from Wikipedia as a reference? This sort of thing has been discussed, and it is not allowed, regardless of whether you can currently find a direct statement about it. Please stop starting from your personal opinion on the topic and searching for sources, however shaky, to back you up. That's no way to write an encyclopedia article. Rather, start from a good reliable source and add useful information from that source. IPSOS (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It uses it as a starting point. If that were a vital component, then yes. But it is not a vital component in the discussion. It's not the ideal citation, that is certain, but it should stand until there is time to find a book reference. And actually, the original comment was not mine, I was only citing. I would like to see an official statement that it is not allowed as well, seeing as the policies do not specifically reflect that. One thing I have learned in Wikipedia is that ultimately, no rule is enforcable unfortunately. I'm willing to work within what the policies state, of course. But then I have had several reputable sources, print sources, written by PhDs, and that lost sway because the other editor simply stated that it was false and the opinion of the administrators was that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR were all unenforcable. It all comes down to editor consensus. My personal opinion is only showing in my interpretation of the rules, remember. KV(Talk) 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates

There are no references to dates of each of the mentionings here, they should be included. Faro0485 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never. Hope they helped. Yt95 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed article name change

Suggest changing the article name from Ma'at to Maat because the latter seems the most common in modern scholarly works and it is little bit more keyboard/user friendly. If no objections will proceed in a months time. Taam (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I go along with this. In various (modern) scholarly publications on ancient Egypt I have seen both,.but Ma'at would appear to be more common. Moreschi (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Using Google Scholar search "Maat AND 'Ancient Egypt'" as against "Ma'at AND 'Ancient Egypt'" yields 1,706 hits for the former as against 564 for the latter which seems to reflect my own library. It was only proposed since in the past a previous editor has changed all the cited material to impose a Ma'at spelling. I intended to include the variant but since it appears at least one person wants uniformity I proposed using what I thought was the most common form with a ratio of over 3 to 1 in favour of it. There is no, as far as I'm aware, any nationalist or sectarian issues associated with such a change and that in nearly three months since asking for objections nobody has responded until I asked an administrator to make the change today (there is a disambig page that prevents normal page moves). Taam (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have renamed, after verifying the Google hits (adding '-wikipedia' to all searches). Crum375 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced assertions

I have a problem with "Maat as a principle was formed to meet the complex needs of the emergent Egyptian state that embraced diverse peoples with conflicting interests." - because I don't think there is any evidence that Maat was a response to diversity and suggests that it/she was something to do with introducing uniformity. I intend to remove this and other similar expressions of POV unless someone can give a reference. Apepch7 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference is actually given in the following paragraph: Norman Cohn, "Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come", p9,Yale University Press, 1993, ISBN 0-300-05598-6. ma'at (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

41?

8 April 2010, there appear to only be 41 negative confessions? wh'appen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.144.83 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the papyrus of Ani version has two entries for "I have not committed adultery" and maybe somebody in the past has edited what they took to be a duplicate entry so now we have 41. That being said there is no fixed number as such and it can vary from one papyrus to another though I suspect that 42 was quite common because of its relationship to the number of Nomes and protective deities who are present in the Hall of Judgement at death. [in fact on checking the duplicate text which has been deleted would have read "I have not debauched the wife of any man"]. ma'at (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

untitled

After reading the article, I am not clear how a heart is compared to the feather. Does a sinful heart weigh more than the feather? In the Christian system where the soul is weighed, a sinful soul is heavy. The assertion of the Wiki article "Weighing of souls" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_of_souls) which discusses both the Christian system and the Egyptian, is that in the Egyptian system the heart must weigh exactly the same as the feather or the heart is devoured. I do not see that confirmed or refuted in this article.

Also, in the Christian system the scale usually appears as a balance between two souls, not against a standard. So your damnation is entirely dependent on who happens to be beside you in line for judgement. Hint: Try to stand between two monstrous criminal types :) 76.181.73.131 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Try Google books but FWIW I would explain it so: The feather of Maat represents the good that a person has done in life in words and deeds. In that sense weight of virtue is imputed to the side of the feather, i.e. good conscience. The bad words or deeds are imputed to the heart but the basic idea is not that they should be perfectly balanced but rather that the works of mercy at least match the bad done. If you are approaching it from a Christian perspective then perhaps a read of A. H Sayce Gifford Lectures "Egyptian and Babylonian Religion" which are now out of copyright (try Project Gutenberg) might assist. If I remember correctly he pointed out that Thoth was depicted tipping the balance in favour of the person as he understood only too well human weakness. Thoth is commonly viewed as a manifestation of the Logos that appears throughout history in a variety of cultures (try Google books and pick out the scholarly works from the more pietistic accounts) similarly to the way Maat is often considered a manifestation of divine Wisdom. Whilst this might answer your point about "who is next to you" at judgment, perhaps the other important point is that the person at judgment is "clothed" in Osiris, e.g. it is no longer Ani who lives but the "Osiris-Ani" which might resonate with you. Your comment about judgment in Christianity being entirely dependent on who is next to you is only one strand of Christian thought. All recognize that need for mercy but most I guess still hold to the belief that a person must at least try to be good. Imagine the good thief who expresses genuine sorrow from the heart and compare with the other who didn't - what happened to him? If you are interested in comparative religion with respect to Ancient Egypt then I suggest reading some of the older scholars. I'm not prejudice against modern scholarship, anything but, however the older English language writers were brought up in Christian cultures so they knew their scriptures as well as the classics so people like E. A. Wallis Budge could also write about Early Church fathers without scruples whereas there seems to be too much emphasis on specialization nowadays and that leads to problems in painting the big picture so to speak. Yt95 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140430002426/http://www.shemtaia.com/diss.shtml to http://www.shemtaia.com/diss.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The sceptre

The description of Maat states that she holds a was sceptre, and she does in many examples of Egyptian imagery I've seen. However, the sceptre in the picture is a wadj, or papyrus, sceptre. Not being a scholar of Egyptian history, I don't know where to look for a citation, but I think the description needs to be clear that her sceptre is not always the was sceptre. I have looked in vain for an authoritative source discussing this, but there are many images to find featuring her holding a was or a wadj sceptre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:89:C700:DE70:9804:A1FE:BA40:9515 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

2601:89:C700:DE70:9804:A1FE:BA40:9515: I've removed this passage entirely, as it wasn't sourced, and I can't find replacement sources for what kind of staff Maat carried. A quick search turns up only images of Maat with the wadj-staff, which was typical of goddesses, whereas it was more rare for goddesses to carry the was. If you know of a reliable source that details what staffs Maat could carry, I'd be happy to add it to the article. A. Parrot (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

37 - "blasphem[ing] God"

Is there any indication as to which god the thirty-seventh negative confession refers to? Clearly it is not the Judeo-Christian one, since that god was probably not invented for another several hundred years after the Papyrus of Ani was written. Ikjbagl (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's probably a general term that might better be translated as "a god"; see the point about wisdom literature at Ancient Egyptian deities#Unity of the divine in traditional religion. A more recent translation of the text might translate it that way, but unfortunately, more recent translations are probably copyrighted and can't be quoted at length here. A. Parrot (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't have to quote at length to replace a single word. There is no point in keeping an obviously flawed translation simply because somebody wrote it in a book in the 1800s. The obvious solution is simply to replace it with "gods"; please revert and discuss if there is reasonable objection. Ikjbagl (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The word used is "god" (netjer) and not "gods" (netjeru) in the hieroglyphic text. All modern translations using the papyrus of Ani use "god" i.e. singular and not plural. I have updated the article to conform with the citation and have similarly corrected #11. I have also deleted the interpolated "the" as the definite article is not used in the cited source although a modern translator may interpolate it. This is arguable as "God" is used as a name as far back as the pyramid texts and is translated as such in modern editions.

She is the creator Goddess

I would actually argue that Ma at is the creator Goddess in that she brought order from chaos. She is what we now call "God" Allanana79 (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)