Wepwawet--jackal or wolf?

[Setnakht]

From time to time there has been discussion as to whether the Netjer Wepwawet was a wolf-headed or a jackal-headed deity. I have found the
following information inThe Salakhana Trove: Votive Stelae and Other Objects from Asyut. by Terence DuQuesne (London: 2009).
In the necropolis of Asyut there are several very large tombs dating to the 18th and 19th dynasties. A totoal of 556 stelae, 46 figurines, and three other objects were found. The majority of stelae honored Wepwawet as Lord of Asyut (what the Greeks named 'Lycopolis' or Wolf Town.
The Egyptologist Lacau "referred to the sepulchre as 'la grande tombe d'Assiout qui contient les momies de loups.'" The translation is "the grand tomb of Asyut which contains mummies of wolves." (page 19)
The problem, however, is complex because mummies of jackals and "other canids" (i.e., wolves) occur in the necropolis as well. This necropolis was specifically under the protection of Anpu (Anubis) so the presence of jackal mummies makes sense there. Therefore, we may say that Wepwawet bore the head of a wolf--but just tentatively. This mitigates against the notion that Wepwawet is just an aspect of Anubis, but is a separate netjer. The Greeks may have been quite right in naming Assyut
"Wolf Town." The main and largest temple in Assyut was that of Wepwawet.
A smaller temple there was that of Anubis.

[Bezenwepwy]

From time to time there has been discussion as to whether the Netjer Wepwawet was a wolf-headed or a jackal-headed deity.

Ahhh, this old question yet again. I would say he's best described as a jackal, because that's the modern term most associated with the word 'sAb.' However, the full answer is actually quite complicated.

Firstly, it is important to understand that Egyptians didn't use the same sort of taxonomical system that we do. They had three terms used to describe canids. One was 'sAb' which is commonly translate to 'jackal' but which in reality is used to describe any number of canids with the same defining features: tall ears, bushy tail, etc. This is the term most frequently used to describe both Anubis and Wepwawet. They are both, undeniably, 'sAb.' But there are also the terms 'tjsm' and 'wns' (wonsh).

Later in Egyptian history, it seems that 'sAb' fell out of favour somewhat and started to get replaced by the two later terms. 'Tjsm' of course is a reference to a type of domesticated hunting dog, but 'wns' (wonsh) is not so clear. Some dictionaries do try to define wonsh as a 'wolf'... but this isn't taxonomically specific in any way whatsoever. It is entirely nominal. To the ancient Egyptians it was possibly just a word used to describe a 'wild canid' (as opposed to a domestic canid.) Where once 'sAb' was used, 'wonsh' came more into use.

It was the Greeks who introduced the concept of 'wolf' as we think of it to the Egypt. They're the ones who renamed the city and who branded Wepwawet specifically as a wolf. Quite possibly they picked up on the fact that Anubis was increasingly refered to more as a 'dog' due to his nature. (And indeed this trend continues in Greco-Roman times.) In contrast, Wepwawet retained his wilder and more dangerous aspects and so, to the Greeks, would have been best described as a 'wolf' by comparison.

The best thing of all is that the most likely species that influenced the iconography of the sAb are the golden jackal and the egyptian jackal. Neither of which are true jackals. The golden jackal is more closely related to the coyote, and in a wonderful twist of fate, the egyptian jackal is genetically similar to a wolf! Of course one must also consider the amount of interbreeding that would have occured between all the various wild canid species, as well as differences due to environment, localized breeding pools, etc.

In the end, the question of if Wepwawet is a wolf or jackal is... kind of a moot point actually.

[Bezenwepwy]

Ahhh, this old question yet again.

The 'tl;dr' version of my reply above:

Question: Is Wepwawet a wolf or a jackal?
Answer: Yes.

[Setnakht]

Ahhh, this old question yet again. I would say he's best described as a jackal, because that's the modern term most associated with the word 'sAb.' However, the full answer is actually quite complicated.

Firstly, it is important to understand that Egyptians didn't use the same sort of taxonomical system that we do. They had three terms used to describe canids. One was 'sAb' which is commonly translate to 'jackal' but which in reality is used to describe any number of canids with the same defining features: tall ears, bushy tail, etc. This is the term most frequently used to describe both Anubis and Wepwawet. They are both, undeniably, 'sAb.' But there are also the terms 'tjsm' and 'wns' (wonsh).

Later in Egyptian history, it seems that 'sAb' fell out of favour somewhat and started to get replaced by the two later terms. 'Tjsm' of course is a reference to a type of domesticated hunting dog, but 'wns' (wonsh) is not so clear. Some dictionaries do try to define wonsh as a 'wolf'... but this isn't taxonomically specific in any way whatsoever. It is entirely nominal. To the ancient Egyptians it was possibly just a word used to describe a 'wild canid' (as opposed to a domestic canid.) Where once 'sAb' was used, 'wonsh' came more into use.

It was the Greeks who introduced the concept of 'wolf' as we think of it to the Egypt. They're the ones who renamed the city and who branded Wepwawet specifically as a wolf. Quite possibly they picked up on the fact that Anubis was increasingly refered to more as a 'dog' due to his nature. (And indeed this trend continues in Greco-Roman times.) In contrast, Wepwawet retained his wilder and more dangerous aspects and so, to the Greeks, would have been best described as a 'wolf' by comparison.

The best thing of all is that the most likely species that influenced the iconography of the sAb are the golden jackal and the egyptian jackal. Neither of which are true jackals. The golden jackal is more closely related to the coyote, and in a wonderful twist of fate, the egyptian jackal is genetically similar to a wolf! Of course one must also consider the amount of interbreeding that would have occured between all the various wild canid species, as well as differences due to environment, localized breeding pools, etc.

In the end, the question of if Wepwawet is a wolf or jackal is... kind of a moot point actually.

It sounds like you are dismissing the statement of an Egyptologist who examined the mummies of the animals. It seems as if you are basing your reasoning on grammar alone, as if the artifactual record has no real merit in this case. Does it not seem unusual that in the case of other cities given Greek names by the Greeks that they used a Greek term for the city based on the chief god of that city; i.e., Heliopolis is Sun City (Ra's center of worship);Hermopolis, the city of Hermes (Thoth); Cynopolis (Jackal City), the city of Anubis; Bubastis (Bast's city); Aphroditopolis (Hathor was equated with the Greek goddess Aphrodite); Leontopolis (City of the Lion) where Shu and Tefnut were worshipped in the forms of a lion and lioness; Panopolis--where Pan is equated with Min by the Greeks; Krocodilopolis after one of the various crocodile gods. I don't think it's unreasonable to
conclude that the Greeks named Wolf Town (Lykopolis) for a similar reason, namely, that the main god Wepwawet was a wolf god. This is by no means conclusive, but it seems to point in a reasonable direction. And, no, I don't think it's moot.

[Bezenwepwy]

It sounds like you are dismissing the statement of an Egyptologist who examined the mummies of the animals.

Since when does egyptology also include a degree in zoology? And why are you assuming that the egyptologist isn't using the words in a very general way rather than with specific zoological connotations? For example, if I saw a a relatively large wild canid, I would very likely call it a 'wolf'... even if it wasn't. Or if I a saw a smaller wild canid, I might call it a jackal or a coyote or what have you.

Further proof that a more relative approach is called for is that Anubis is called the child of dogs (tjsm) and wonsh (wns.) This isn't a reference to what species of animal he is, because it's well established that the appearance of deities as different animals is purely symbolic. Instead this epithet distinctly highlights his liminal nature, his existance inbetween the domesic and the wild. I am fairly certain this title came about in a time after 'wonsh' started to replace 'sAb' as a way of refering to wild canids with perky ears and bushy tails. (Interesting enough, the meaning of wonsh changed over time. Originally it doesn't appear to have been a really a very flattering term and seems to be a reference to the more negative characteristics of wild canids, but it did then seem to come more in line with sAb.) The reason wonsh started to take over is because 'sAb' began to become exclusive to describing mythlogical jackals (like the Spirits of the West and the wholly jackal forms of deities), rather than actual animals.

I'm not sure I see what your issue is with accepting that the Egyptian way of labeling animals would have been based on different protocols to our own and that concepts like 'wolf' and 'dog' are relative to each other, with context being important. They are descriptive terms, not taxonomical.

Also, keep in mind that Wepwawet's iconography never really changes that much. It always matchs the established 'sAb' appearance. Anubis's iconography does actually change in the later periods, he gains a more whip-like tail in some instances. Which says more about Anubis and his 'domestication', rather than Wepwawet and his possible wolfishness.

[Bezenwepwy]

Cynopolis (Jackal City), the city of Anubis

Also I must point out that calling it "Jackal City" is very misleading. A better translation is "Dog City" which does then relate back to the contextual dog/wolf dynamic I've been talking about.

[Rowanfox]

Also I must point out that calling it "Jackal City" is very misleading. A better translation is "Dog City" which does then relate back to the contextual dog/wolf dynamic I've been talking about.

Just a note on the historical evolution of wild dogs in the middle east might make this a moot point from a genetic point of view .

"However, a collaborative study conducted by the University of Oslo, Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) and Addis Ababa University compared the genetic material from golden jackals in Ethiopia with the Israeli and Egyptian samples mentioned above, and with other wild wolf-like canids. The results place the "Egyptian jackal" and similar "jackals" from Ethiopia firmly within the grey wolf species complex, together with the Holarctic wolf, the Indian wolf, and the Himalayan wolf. The analysis indicated that the Egyptian jackal represents an ancient strain of wolf, together with the Indian and Himalayan wolf, which colonised Africa prior to the spread of Canis lupus to the northern hemisphere." ^ Osborn & Helmy 1980, pp. 370–371

[Bezenwepwy]

Just a note on the historical evolution of wild dogs in the middle east might make this a moot point from a genetic point of view.

Yup. Which is one of the points I briefly touched upon. (Maybe too briefly if it wasn't noticed...?)

And really, I'm not denying that the whole subject is an fascinating one to investigate, but the focus really should not be on genetics. There are layers of meaning behind the forms that the gods decided to use. Egyptians saw these layers everywhere and in everything, which is part of what makes the religion and culture so rich and multivalent. I am sure that part of the reason why 'sAb' came to be more of a divine/mythological animal is because it did take on this whole life of its own with its own sophisticated and divinity-infused symbolism that superceded the previous meaning of 'wild canid with perky ears and a bushy tail.'

Sorry if I am going on a bit. Anything having to do with jackal deities is near and dear to my heart. And this particular topic is one which I have already invested a decent amount of time and thought into. Research is, of course, always ongoing.

[Setnakht]

Just a note on the historical evolution of wild dogs in the middle east might make this a moot point from a genetic point of view .

"However, a collaborative study conducted by the University of Oslo, Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) and Addis Ababa University compared the genetic material from golden jackals in Ethiopia with the Israeli and Egyptian samples mentioned above, and with other wild wolf-like canids. The results place the "Egyptian jackal" and similar "jackals" from Ethiopia firmly within the grey wolf species complex, together with the Holarctic wolf, the Indian wolf, and the Himalayan wolf. The analysis indicated that the Egyptian jackal represents an ancient strain of wolf, together with the Indian and Himalayan wolf, which colonised Africa prior to the spread of Canis lupus to the northern hemisphere." ^ Osborn & Helmy 1980, pp. 370–371

In corroboration of this information is the following quote:
The shield of a king named Recamai, who reigned in Upper Egypt (probably during the "shepherd dynasty" in the "Lower Country"), has been discovered in Asyut.[4] Lycopolis has no remarkable ruins, but in the excavated chambers of the adjacent rocks mummies of wolves have been found, confirming the origin of its name, as well as a tradition preserved by Diodorus Siculus,[5] to the effect that an Ethiopian army, invading Egypt, was repelled beyond the city of Elephantine by packs of wolves. Osiris was worshipped under the symbol of a wolf at Lycopolis. According to a myth, he had come "from the shades" as a wolf to aid Isis and Horus in their combat with Typhon.[6] Other Ancient Egyptian monuments discovered in Asyut include; the Asyut necropolis (west of the modern city), tombs which date to dynasties Nine, Ten and Twelve, and the Ramessid tombs of Siese and Amenhotep. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asyut ).
This info is sourced in the article for further research for anyone interested. I think it is not unreasonable to give weight to the discovery of an Egyptologist. I suspect that a professional would not casually refer to a mummy as a mummy of a wolf unless he was professionally confident of his opinion. I also think that the Greeks, in naming Egyptian towns, would take their clue from the type of god/animal worshipped there. The evidence about the word 'sAb' may be a bit more difficult to nail down since it changed a bit over the centuries.
Please forgive me for continuing the debate because I feel that what animal represents a Netjer actually says something quite important about the nature of the Netjer. Ultimately, though, wolves and jackals are related.
That, too, says something about the deities Wepwawet and Anpu.
Happy Thanksgiving!

[Bezenwepwy]

In corroboration of this information...

I'm sorry Satnakht. You opened up this thread to have a discussion, but I'm not really sure what you're contributing to it? Now you are quoting from wikipedia (not the most reliable source of information at the best of times) and clearly placing far too much confidence in the words of egyptologists, whom as a profession in general have often been proven wrong about their own field of study, let alone about subjects which aren't directly related. If you seriously think that an Egyptologist wouldn't casually refer to a large wild canid as a 'wolf', I'm sorry to tell you that you're mistaken. Even in your very first quote, Terence DuQuesne is very cautious and uses words like "tentatively." Are there canid mummies of different species at Asyut? Yes. I'm sure there are canid mummies of different species at Hardai too. That's because all types of canids are valid for inclusion.

You also seem to be completely and utterly missing the point of what I am saying? The question you are asking, is Wepwawet a wolf or a jackal, is not one which can be answered in anything other than shades of grey and which relies on context. You cite sources which use the word 'wolf'... but how accurate are they? Are there any depictions? How do you know what they mean by 'wolf'? What kind of time-frame are we talking about for these events involving 'wolves' in Egypt? It seems to me they are all very late, all very Greek. The Greeks were probably the ones who introduced the connection between their word for wolf and the Egyptian concept of sAb/wonsh. I'm sure it was a decent enough fit at the time, but rarely are there truly adequate and direct translations between languages. And as I said before, the way Wepwawet actually appears in depictions has never really changed. The Egyptians called him a sAb for thousands of years, but a few Greek references labeling him as a wolf suddenly makes him a wolf, as if that were the end of the story?

Please forgive me for continuing the debate because I feel that what animal represents a Netjer actually says something quite important about the nature of the Netjer. Ultimately, though, wolves and jackals are related.
That, too, says something about the deities Wepwawet and Anpu.

I never said that understanding the form wasn't important. If anything I've been saying that understanding the symbolism of the form is all important because of how it reflects the nature of the deities. Part of the symbolism is indeed grounded in the 'real world' behavior of these animals. But you can't look at any one specific species of animal because that simply isn't how it works. You have to observe all the animals that would have fallen under the umbrella of the Egyptian classifications.

Let me ask you this: Do you really think you can understand more about Wepwawet by slapping the 'wolf' label on him and leaving it at that, or do you think you can understand more about his nature by studying what qualities the Egyptians felt were inherent in sAb (as both he and Anubis are first and foremostly sAb), as well as the further conceptual interplay between 'tjsm' and 'wns'? How about comparing and contrasting the natures of Wepwawet and Anubis, and understanding how it came to be that the Greeks called one of them a dog and the other one a wolf? Personally I find the latter options a lot more enlightening.

At any rate, I think I'm done here. If anybody else brings something interesting to the table, I might step back in again.