posted
I was trying to figure out which animal is it in the seth pic. May be It is a man masked by something like wolf head? I Searched online and found some stuff. http://www.setegyptian.info/
posted
It is totally unknown what the totem animal of the god Seti was. Some say it is an anteater, others say an antelope, and still others say an unknown species of canine. The face does resemble that of a scpecies of antelope I've seen once but the projections that are its ears or horns are very odd. Like in the video you linked to, the temples and shrines dedicated to Set show an animal that is a quadripedal even canine like but with a long tail that is forked in the end which is strikingly similar to the was scepter or staff carried by many Egyptian farmers and pastoralists.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The only problem with that theory is that 'true anteaters' like the picture above you posted are found only in the Americas. Also the oral opening or lip line is more prominent in the Set animal than in the anteater. The only anteater-like species known in Africa such as the pangolin and aardvark do not bear any resemblence either.
I personally think the face looks an awful lot like a species of antelope I've seen, but the only problem is the rest of the body appears to be canine-like.
If the Set totem is based on a real animal, that animal must be extinct or something because there hasn't been anything seen (that I know of) matching the exact description.
In mythology, Set appears to be a god of pastoralism and perhaps just as his brother Ausar (Osiris) is a god of agriculture. I remember reading somewhere that ancient texts associated Set's animal with the desert just as Set himself is described to dwell in the deserts.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
If the Set totem is based on a real animal, that animal must be extinct...
I'm inclined to go with that prospect. Animals do and have become extinct, but sometimes people tend to forget that.
It is not also inconceivable for the figure in question to have been a mythic creature blending together two different animals or species, just as the case is with the Griffin. Still, I'm inclined to go with the above, because the head of the Seth or Seth-like figures would have instantly been recognized, if the creature(s) being paid homage to, were still around. As discerned from their legends and art, there were very likely even lions in AE or else very close by; today that isn't the case. Interesting topic; needs further examination.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Setesh animal were a composite creature then of course it never existed and was purely imaginary, but from all the ancient depictions it is clearly shown to be a unique animal in its own right and possess peculiar features not seen in any other animal.
The question remains, if this creature did become extinct then where are its remans??
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Are we going somewhere or are you going to keep annoying me with your boring lectures professor-warrior?? Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
If the Setesh animal were a composite creature then of course it never existed and was purely imaginary, but from all the ancient depictions it is clearly shown to be a unique animal in its own right and possess peculiar features not seen in any other animal.
If it were a "composite creature", as I noted, it doesn't have to be "purely imaginary", because then it would be a composite of creatures that actually existed. Yes, the creature itself would be mythic, but the creatures it would be paying homage to, would have been ones which were around at the times in question. Think, for example: the Griffin. As a creature in of itself, it is entirely mythic. But we are quite familiar with the creatures that form the basis of the Griffin.
Likewise, if Seth or Seth-like creatures were based on existing creatures, but harmonized to form a mythic creature that would become the Seth-like canine-looking creature, then I wouldn't consider the concept "purely" imaginary.
quote: The question remains, if this creature did become extinct then where are its remans??
If it were a composite of different then living creatures, then it would be hard to discern, except that some fossils ressembling one or more aspects of the creature might pop up here and there.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
''The question remains, if this creature did become extinct then where are its remans??''
I take it by your double whammy on the question marks this means you know it didn't exist?
And I don't know if it existed either and frankly I haven't given too much thought to it other than to ask (to myself) what is it. Yet someone thousands of years ago saw fit to give it some stamp of authority to put it on the walls.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to cause mischief..what if the animal is really what it looks like... a South American Anteater... Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: If it were a "composite creature", as I noted, it doesn't have to be "purely imaginary", because then it would be a composite of creatures that actually existed. Yes, the creature itself would be mythic, but the creatures it would be paying homage to, would have been ones which were around at the times in question. Think, for example: the Griffin. As a creature in of itself, it is entirely mythic. But we are quite familiar with the creatures that form the basis of the Griffin.
Likewise, if Seth or Seth-like creatures were based on existing creatures, but harmonized to form a mythic creature that would become the Seth-like canine-looking creature, then I wouldn't consider the concept "purely" imaginary.
A matter of semantics. You know what I meant. Of course the parts or components of a composite creature are real enough but the creature as a whole is still imaginary.
quote:If it were a composite of different then living creatures, then it would be hard to discern, except that some fossils ressembling one or more aspects of the creature might pop up here and there.
My point however, is that this creature does not appear to be composite but rather its features are very unique. Canine-like is just the best description we have of the creatures body, but not only is the head rather odd but also the tail which seems to end in splayed or forked appendages.
If this creature was a real animal that became extinct, then I'm pretty sure its remains are somewhere in the vast desert that is the Sahara, likely in the vicinity of Egypt.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
''The question remains, if this creature did become extinct then where are its remans??''
I take it by your double whammy on the question marks this means you know it didn't exist?
And I don't know if it existed either and frankly I haven't given too much thought to it other than to ask (to myself) what is it. Yet someone thousands of years ago saw fit to give it some stamp of authority to put it on the walls.
I don't know if the animal existed or not. I just asked a valid scientific question. If an animal existed then there must be some remains of its body, fossilized or what not especially if it a vertebrate with bones and such and especially if it dwelled in the desert. Just because we haven't found its remains yet doesn't mean they don't exist. So far, scientists have found various remains of animals in the Sahara some of which are identified while others have not. Either its remains have been found but not identified or we haven't found it yet. I think that is the best answer to my own question.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Flawed logic. If I had an impression that what you meant is precisely the same thing that I wrote, then naturally, I would not have bothered with the follow up that I gave to your comment; however, I did so, precisely because I took your characterization of "purely" imaginary as misleading. You can't acknowledge that the creature is based on "living" creatures and then characterize it as "purely" imaginary. Now, you might say that the subtlety here is lost on you, but it is there nevertheless.
Furthermore, the cotext of your comment is made from the premise that Seth or Seth-like creatures don't appear to have been inspired by the blending of actual living creatures, and hence your characterization of "purely" imaginary. So, by reiterating the point that the Seth-like canine creatures could still be mythic and yet not be "purely" imaginary, since they would have been paying homage to two or more "living creatures" of the time, I was mooting your rationale that Sethic-creature would have had to have been an actual unique"living" creature in its own right, because it appears to have features that appear unfamiliar to you, and hence, unique to the Seth-like creature. Those so-called "peculiar features" appear to have thrown you off the loop, into questioning the probable extent of creativity of the potential minds behind the Seth concept [i.e. if the Sethic-creature indeed turned out to be mythic, as opposed to a "living" creature of such]. The premise of your post appears to come from an angle , that if these creatures were the product of "blending" together of two or more actual "living" creatures [i.e. a "composite creature"], then it is highly unlikely that one will come across said "peculiar features" -- in other words, the would-be imaginer(s) of the creature would not have been creative enough to add on said "peculiar features", so as to come up with a unique, if not mythical, creature...inspired by actual living creatures.
Case in point, you came back with this:
My point however, is that this creature does not appear to be composite but rather its features are very unique. Canine-like is just the best description we have of the creatures body, but not only is the head rather odd but also the tail which seems to end in splayed or forked appendages.
If this creature was a real animal that became extinct, then I'm pretty sure its remains are somewhere in the vast desert that is the Sahara, likely in the vicinity of Egypt. - Djehuti
You position again, is one of which, whereby you are saying on the one hand, that the Sethic-creature cannot be a "composite creature" inspired by the blending of two or more actual *living* creatures, because it appears to have features "peculiar" to it; on the other hand, it doesn't appear to have existed at all, because other wise, its would-be fossil would have already been recovered. So from adding the two just mentioned arguments together, you had come to the conclusion that the Sethic-creature could only have been "purely" imaginary. So in light of this, you cannot say that my post is unwarranted, simply because I am supposed to have known what you meant. And since there is an obvious difference of viewpoint here, you cannot simply dismiss my response as a "matter of semantics". Indeed, I have an idea of what you meant, and that is precisely why, I replied you as I did.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic