File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Can anyone bring me pics of the Egyptian goddess Bastet?
pic unrelated
>> Anonymous
You mean Bast?
>> Anonymous
>>87501
"Bast" is false, it's actually "Bastet". He's talking about the cat-headed goddess.

But if Mr.OP is asking for some cheap knockoff "goddess" who is nothing more than some chick with some cats in her lap I will cut him.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>87505
No, either are acceptable and Bast is the most common infact. FFS Microsoft even called it Bast in AoM and I don't think they would want to look like fools would they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bast_%28goddess%29
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>87554
You do realize how silly it is to base your arguement on what Microsoft did/did not do, don't you?

Anyway, are these trinkets or the real deal?
>> Anonymous
>>87560
I think the "Microsoft argument" had at least a touch of sarcasm in it.

As for the pictures, who knows? I just did a Google Image Search for "bastet" and looked for images where at least one of the dimensions had four digits. *shrug*

And when it comes to a "real deal", I don't think you're going to find any definitive, canonical visual image of her, even if you travelled to Egypt and found some people there who still worshipped the Egyptian pantheon. Most artists - from whatever region and whatever religion - didn't have a perfect guide as to how they should depict their deities. Rather, all they had was a general description. The artists would take that and let their muses guide them into making something that looked good. Therefore, the only definitive description of Bast(et) would be "Egyptian woman with a cat's head". Now, you could try to be more precise and figure out what kind of cats lived in Egypt centuries ago and limit yourself to that if you wanted your own opinion of what's a definitive image of her, but in the long run, I'd say any woman with a cat's head and wearing Egyptian clothing could be considered "the real deal" when it comes to Bast(et).
>> Anonymous
>>87572
Uh, by "are these trinkets or the real deal" I meant "are they cheap souvenirs or priceless ancient relics". I thought that was pretty obvious. Especially given there's no such thing as god/s so of course any depiction is as "real" as the next because she never existed and there is nothing to compare them to.
>> Anonymous
>>87613
Does it matter? Most souvenirs like these, if these are souvenirs, are based off of actual relics. Hell, one of my friends just got back from Egypt. The souvenirs he brought back with him were a complete set of canopic jars carved from basalt. He spent $800 on them after haggling down from $1800. If all you had was a picture of them, would it matter? They're based off of actual canopic jars, visually. Would the images only be valuable to you if that which was depicted actually had contained mummified organs?
>> Anonymous
>>87679
The hell? Bugger off drama queen, I was only asking out of curiosity, kindly remove whatever is up your ass. It's just cool looking at something several thousand years old. There is nothing wrong with my wanting to know if these were made in some factory or were carefully hand crafted by an ancient artisan.
>> Anonymous
seriously...
>> Anonymous
Startrek sucks!