Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Think The Ancient Serpent Gods really existed


Ares_Zeusson

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, stereologist said:

That time period is irrelevant to the discussion.

BTW, millennium means 1000 years. That suggests this is a poor translation. Or maybe your translation of the compound word is missing a meaning formed by the compound word.

Seriously? Blaming the translation for using English words? Well fine, if you [want] to play it like that.

[Even if that was so, why not praise me for restoring the word millennium to it's original Sanskrit instead of going into discussion without even "bothering" to read the links?]

Here is another link from the same site using the compound kalpa-ante.

Quote

kalpa-ante — at the end of the day of Lord Brahmā;

Commentary: Lord Brahmā’s day, consisting of his 12 hours, lasts 4 billion 320 million years, and his night is of the same duration....

https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/12/8/advanced-view/

"that time period is irrelevant to the discussion"

Seriously? I was explaining an “esoteric philosophy exposing an extended version of creation theory” so yes, that time period was definitely important to the discussion as it is directly involved in that extended version of creation theory, in which Shesha-naga, the serpent-like being previously posted, plays a role.

Edited by Reignite
brackets=edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reignite said:

And yo are avoiding my question. Have you read my post and the links? I provided explanations as to why I think it is illogical to jump to conclusions.

Can you explain why or provide something that makes it logical to believe flying serpents, as described, existed despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary?

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Reignite said:

Seriously? Blaming the translation for using English words? Well fine, if you to play it like that.

[Even if that was so, why not praise me for restoring the word millennium to it's original Sanskrit instead of going into discussion without even "bothering" to read links?]

Here is another link from the same site using the compound kalpa-ante.

"that time period is irrelevant to the discussion"

Seriously? I was explaining an “esoteric philosophy exposing an extended version of creation theory” so yes, that time period was definitely important to the discussion as it is directly involved in that extended version of creation theory, in which Shesha-naga, the serpent-like being previously posted, plays a role.

You seem to think that the translation is correct. A proper term for a long period of time in English is eon.

Stop the tantrum. I did no blaming. I pointed out that the use of a word meaning 1000 years was a poor choice for your substitution of billions of years.

I see so you want to expand the topic of the thread with a creation story. That too is irrelevant.

That is not a creation theory. It is a creation story.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You seem to think that the translation is correct. A proper term for a long period of time in English is eon.

Yes, Kalpa has variously been translated to the English word aeon. There's even a wikipedi article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(aeon): “The definition of a kalpa equaling 4.32 billion years is found in the Puranas—specifically Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana.”

Quote

Stop the tantrum. I did no blaming. I pointed out that the use of a word meaning 1000 years was a poor choice for your substitution of billions of years.

I really don't understand what you are getting at. Kalpa is the Sanskrit original, Millennium was used in the translation, and 4,300,000,000 years is in the purport. I only added this explanation to connect the dots of what was already there.

Whether you like it or not, at Vedabase the word Kalpa is often translated as “millennium” as can be seen from this site: http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=kalpa#a6

[What did you say again? “BTW, millennium means 1000 years. That suggests this is a poor translation. Or maybe your translation of the compound word is missing a meaning formed by the compound word”. How is that no blaming?]

Quote

I see so you want to expand the topic of the thread with a creation story. That too is irrelevant.

That is not a creation theory. It is a creation story.

Irrelevant? I disagree. Again, it involves a theory where Shesha-naga is involved, which was earlier posted by Coil, and expanded upon by me to show the underlying esoteric symbolism.

Edited by Reignite
brackets=edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Can you explain why or provide something that makes it logical to believe flying serpents, as described, existed despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary?

I'm saying it's illogical to jump to conclusions. Which was in regard to whether the “symbol itself was not based on something someone saw or found”.

Jumping to conclusions is what we've done all over the western world in past few hundred years, and it caused nothing but misunderstandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM, Not A Rockstar said:

I honestly believe the tales are stemming from Ancients finding fossils about and imagining the beasts and how they looked and why they were. Hence that they seem almost worldwide and differ a lot in how they are imagined by different cultures does not surprise me. Who knows what type of dyno they saw to affect how they imagined it? Or how many types.

The heavy duty hatred for snakes as evil from Christianity probably had a later effect on appearance and how they were seen, too. The Wyvern is another oddity in there. It would be great to know how some of these things began in the myths.

Good points Not,  I'm sure some imaginary creatures were based on fossil finds... Dinosaur fossils seems to be the favorite go-to explanation.   But, Dino fossils are nearly entirely Reptilian looking rather than Serpentine. ?

And it seems that the earliest "monsters" ,and "Gods",were based on snakes...which makes perfect sence because people hate and fear snakes..in fact children instinctively fear snakes.  (not butterflies).       The serpentine monsters evolved getting ever larger and more powerful and developing special abilities like flight or fire breathing.

The Chineses Dragons seem to be serpentine and are over 5000 years old.    Most of the earth has traditionally created Serpentine monsters,and sometimes Gods,....(see the Aztecs)

the European Dragon model looks like a Reptile...and was usually EVIL and even Satanic...As you say, due to Religious influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Reignite said:

I'm saying it's illogical to jump to conclusions. Which was in regard to whether the “symbol itself was not based on something someone saw or found”.

Jumping to conclusions is what we've done all over the western world in past few hundred years, and it caused nothing but misunderstandings.

Is it really jumping to a conclusion when there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Is it really jumping to a conclusion when there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary?

And I disagree with that as well. I have quoted credible sources regarding symbolical interpretations which were conclusively not based on something someone saw or found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Reignite said:

And I disagree with that as well. I have quoted credible sources regarding symbolical interpretations which were conclusively not based on something someone saw or found.

Symbolic interpretations that do not provide or point to a physical piece of evidence. Anecdotal citations that ultimately have nothing to present physically are not compelling or useful, from a logical point of view.

We can absolutely disagree, that's fine with me. I have no problem stating that I don't believe in the existence of flying serpents (again, as described).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again it might be packaged up well or lots of smoke and mirrors but this isnt more to me than reignite believes some sort of flying dragon serpent like creatures really once lived with zero proof no evidence.

Its a true believers thing, logic goes out the window.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Also, your correction is nonsensical because I've already provided many references to fossils being the inspirations for certain myths and being used as ceremonial objects.

I have looked at those references you've provided as evidence

From post  #59:

1) Mayor, A. (2000). The 'Monster of Troy' vase: the earliest artistic record of a vertebrate fossil discovery? Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 19(1), 57-63.

This concerns a “Corinthian vase”

Quote: “This note proposes a new interpretation of a scene on a well-known Corinthian vase illustrating the Homeric legend of Herakles rescuing Hesione from the Monster of Troy. Commentators have assumed that the artist intended to depict the monster as a ketos, an imaginary sea monster, but the features of the beast do not conform to the traditional imagery of sea monsters in Greek art. I suggest that instead of creating a typical hybrid sea monster by mixing the features of various living creatures, this artist used for his model the large fossil skull of a prehistoric mammal. The vase was painted in the midst of widespread interest in large fossil remains, which the ancient Greeks identified as relics of giants and monsters of the mythological age.”

Here is what I can conclude: 1) The author made a suggestion that the artist used a fossil. 2) The artists that painted the vase “intended to depict the monster as a ketos”; so even if he was using a fossil, it means the fossil was the source of the artist's creativity, not the source of the already-existing legend of the ketos.

2) Mayor, A. (2007). Place names describing fossils in oral traditions. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 273, 245-261.

Personally, I found the term “pre-scientific” insulting to the ancient Chinese, Indians, Greeks and Romans.

I found this though: “In ancient China, the immense skeletons of dinosaurs and early mammals were identified as the remains of celestial dragons who brought rain and provided water. A Chinese chronicle of the second century BC reported that during the digging of a canal in northern China, "dragon bones were found and therefore the canal was named Dragon-Head Waterway'. 'Dragon bones' were ground into powder for medicine, a practice that continues today among traditional Chinese (Oakley 1975, p. 40).”

What Chinese chronicle? And doesn't a chronicle represents a record of certain events or happenings? Thus, not some kind of religious literature, or a mythological legend?

Reading Oakley’s book is not possible, but I found an extract: “In China for over two thousand years fossil mammal bones have been regarded as remains of dragons. The use of these bizarre creatures in oriental decoration was both symbolic and ornamental. It is not just a matter of supposition that dragon-bone lore is of such immense antiquity.” (https://books.google.nl/books?redir_esc=y&hl=nl&id=LuYNAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=dragon)

So that's quite a different story: “was both symbolic and ornamental”. Symbolic in what way? Ornaments but no literature? I'm interested into reading more of this but I don't own the book. I wonder if there are references to actual Chinese literature incorporating such Dragon bones.

Another quote: “Traditional place names have also been related to pre-scientific fossil discoveries in Asia. In northern India, for example, the mythic battle of the great Indian epic Mahabharata was said to have taken place in the rich Pliocene fossil bone beds of the Siwalik Hills. Asthipura, 'Town of Bones', was named because of the remains, thought to be those of giant heroes and war elephants, slaughtered during the legendary war.”

That claim is of little value without source. Besides, asthi has another definition, “kernel of a fruit”. Besides, the place-name where the battle was fought was Kurukshetra, which is actually mentioned in the Mahabharata, as opposed to "Asthipura". Another besides, there is a legend circulating that Asthipura is the place which contained the skull-bone of Buddha.

Anyway, all-together, this articles does not provide enough substantial evidence that fossils were used as an inspiration for myths.

3) Mayor, A., & Heaney, M. (1993). Griffins and Arimaspeans. Folklore, 104(1-2), 40-66.

Quote: “Bolton called Erman's mammoth-bone theory 'attractive' and 'impressive', but discarded it as the basis for the griffin story because the mammoth remains of Siberia were so far from the Altai Mountains of Mongolia, where the griffin tale originated.5 Once again, the idea that the legend might have contained a kernel of zoological truth was set aside.”

Of course, the author refuses this and says: “Moreover, historical examples of folklore based on fossils and artistic reconstructions of prehistoric remains can serve as models for tracing the origin of the griffin legend. Let us briefly review evidence of the ancient interest in fossils and note some examples of folklore associated with prehistoric remains, before turning to modern geological and palaeontological discoveries in Issedonian territory.”

However, what follows is a lot of suggestions, some wild theories and some references without any sources. The author takes the reader on a tour around the world, but I don't see any evidence for fossils being used as an inspiration for myths.

4) Mayor, A., & Sarjeant, W.A.S. (2001). The folklore of footprints in stone: from classical antiquity to the present. Ichnos, 8(2), 143-163.

I cannot download this article, seeing the name Mayor, I'm guessing it's more from the same.

5) Solounias, N., & Mayor, A. (2004). Ancient references to the fossils from the land of Pythagoras. Earth Sciences History, 23(2), 283-296.

Here is what I have concluded after reading the paper: I regards the myth of the Neades. They are mentioned by Euphorion (200 B.C.E.) whose works are lost, but have been quoted by Aelian (3rd century C.E.).

What does this mean? That we have a myth regarding a creature described by only one author whose original texts are now lost. What I do find interesting, is the fact they don't attempt to hide the fact this myth is based on bones: “The same writer [Euphorion] says that their big bones for years and now are display”. In fact, they even put them on display in museums and temples.

I have not been able to find more Greek literature incorporating these Neades, except for this fragmentary (lost original) text.

The author himself says: “Our interpretations make a fascinating and intriguin story, however we reserve caution because we derive our observations from the myths as they have come down to us (i.e., the literal interpretation of words in the myths.) It is impossible to know when a word used in qantiquity means something specific and when it does not. That is, it is possible that our interpretations are attempts to draw too much detail out of little available ancient text and they place too much emphasis on certain words.”

Conclusion: Basically we cannot say what the original intentions were of the author or this myth. We do know that the ancient Greeks were aware of these bones as belonging to some extinct creature. We can also say that it was not used to incorporate into (extant) religious or canonical literature.

From post #227:

1) Elephant or rhino femur at Nichoria, Greece (McDonald, 1972)

First of all, to quote: “In a preliminary report such as the above, there can be no question of drawing definitive conclusions”.

The word "fossil" and derivative forms appears three times. The only word with “myth” I could find was this, “According to the excavator, this may not be a temple proper. but a shrine dedicated to Apollo Daphnephoros and built of laurel in imitation of the mythical temple at Delphi.”

I could not find any evidence regarding “the inspirations for certain myths and being used as ceremonial objects”.

2) Giraffe femur at the Heraion, Samos, Greece (Solounias & Mayor, 2004)

The same as (5) above.

3) Shark teeth and fish fossils at Palenque, Mexico (Alvarado-Ortega et al. 2018)

The only thing I could find was this: “In the Caribbean archeological records there is a basic difference in the use of shark teeth (Borhegyi, 1961; Maxwell, 2000). Small perforations were made in these teeth to use them as pendants elements of necklaces, earrings or bracelets; others, had to have other utility as cutting tools or weapons. Evidences so far accumulated suggest that in the central and Maya areas of Mexico, shark teeth were deposited at ritual contexts, as in funeral and votive offerings, after their use as punches for self-sacrifice, piercing the tongue, ear lobes, nose or penis, and probably once used in ceremonies related with these acts”

The author uses a lot of maybe but not a lot of direct evidence. Although a shark tooth might have been used as a ceremonial object, this does in no way provide credible evidence that fossils were used as an inspiration for myth.

From post #254 :

1) Zhang & Harrison (2017)

I don't see any evidence demonstrating fossils being used as an inspiration for any kind of literature?

Conclusion:

I see a lot of "suggestions" in your references. I do not see much substantial evidence for claiming that “fossils being the inspirations for certain myths and being used as ceremonial objects”. Except for the theory on the shark tooth, which by the way, is based on the words "probably" and "suggest. I also see that many of your references come from Adrienne Mayor. I have discovered her to have a rather demeaning way of looking at ancient cultures. I don't know what her deal is, but it looks like she underestimates the credibility and capabilities ancient cultures quite a bit.

Oh and Carnoferox, it would save a lot of time if you quote the relevant portions of your references...

Edited by Reignite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

Symbolic interpretations that do not provide or point to a physical piece of evidence. Anecdotal citations that ultimately have nothing to present physically are not compelling or useful, from a logical point of view.

I definitely disagree regarding this. At the very least it is useful to dispel certain misunderstandings regarding the claim of “imagination fueled by fossil findings” that some have made here..

Quote

We can absolutely disagree, that's fine with me. I have no problem stating that I don't believe in the existence of flying serpents (again, as described).

Cool.

Edited by Reignite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Reignite said:

I definitely disagree regarding this. At the very least it is useful to dispel certain misunderstandings regarding the claim of “imagination fueled by fossil findings” that some have made here..

Ok then. What can you present to the contrary. By this I mean what fossil findings or genetic studies can you present that can trace back to the actual existence of flying serpents? There is nothing in the fossil record or any other findings that I am aware of that can lend to that line of thinking.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Reignite said:

I have looked at those references you've provided as evidence

From post  #59:

1) Mayor, A. (2000). The 'Monster of Troy' vase: the earliest artistic record of a vertebrate fossil discovery? Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 19(1), 57-63.

This concerns a “Corinthian vase”

Quote: “This note proposes a new interpretation of a scene on a well-known Corinthian vase illustrating the Homeric legend of Herakles rescuing Hesione from the Monster of Troy. Commentators have assumed that the artist intended to depict the monster as a ketos, an imaginary sea monster, but the features of the beast do not conform to the traditional imagery of sea monsters in Greek art. I suggest that instead of creating a typical hybrid sea monster by mixing the features of various living creatures, this artist used for his model the large fossil skull of a prehistoric mammal. The vase was painted in the midst of widespread interest in large fossil remains, which the ancient Greeks identified as relics of giants and monsters of the mythological age.”

Here is what I can conclude: 1) The author made a suggestion that the artist used a fossil. 2) The artists that painted the vase “intended to depict the monster as a ketos”; so even if he was using a fossil, it means the fossil was the source of the artist's creativity, not the source of the already-existing legend of the ketos.

While Mayor suggests that a skull of the prehistoric giraffe Samotherium inspired the "monster of Troy" vase, I think the characteristics more closely resemble those of a monitor lizard. Monitor lizards are no longer extant in Greece nor were they in historical times, but Varanus marathonensis fossils have been found at two Miocene localities in Greece. Given that the skull is also shown emerging from what appears to be a rock outcrop, it most likely represents a fossil. Whether or not it directly inspired the legend of ketos isn't important in this case, rather it demonstrates that the ancient Greeks interpreted fossils in a mythological light in artwork. As I stated before I don't agree with all of Mayor's conclusions, but her main point of ancient cultures discovering and depicting fossils still stands.

11 minutes ago, Reignite said:

2) Mayor, A. (2007). Place names describing fossils in oral traditions. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 273, 245-261.

Personally, I found the term “pre-scientific” insulting to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

I found this though: “In ancient China, the immense skeletons of dinosaurs and early mammals were identified as the remains of celestial dragons who brought rain and provided water. A Chinese chronicle of the
second century BC reported that during the digging of a canal in northern China, "dragon bones were found and therefore the canal was named Dragon-Head Waterway'. 'Dragon bones' were ground into powder for medicine, a practice that continues today among traditional Chinese (Oakley 1975, p. 40).”

What Chinese chronicle? And doesn't a chronicle represents a record of certain events or happenings? Thus, not some kind of religious literature, or a mythological legend?

Reading Oakley’s book is not possible, but I found an extract: “In China for over two thousand years fossil mammal bones have been regarded as remains of dragons. The use of these bizarre creatures in oriental decoration was both symbolic and ornamental. It is not just a matter of supposition that dragon-bone lore is of such immense antiquity.” (https://books.google.nl/books?redir_esc=y&hl=nl&id=LuYNAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=dragon)

So that's quite a different story: “was both symbolic and ornamental”. Symbolic in what way? Ornaments but no literature? I'm interested into reading more of this but I don't own the book. I wonder if there are references to actual Chinese literature incorporating such Dragon bones.

Another quote: “Traditional place names have also been related to pre-scientific fossil discoveries in Asia. In northern India, for example, the mythic battle of the great Indian epic Mahabharata was said to have taken place in the rich Pliocene fossil bone beds of the Siwalik Hills. Asthipura, 'Town of Bones', was named because of the remains, thought to be those of giant heroes and war elephants, slaughtered during the legendary war.”

That claim is of little value without source. Besides, asthi has another definition, “kernel of a fruit”. Besides, the actual place-name was Kurukshetra, as actually mentioned in the Mahabharata. As opposed to "Asthipura". Another besides, there is a legend circulating that Asthipura the place which contained the skull-bone of Buddha.

Anyway, all-together, this articles does not provide enough substantial evidence that fossils were used as an inspiration for myths.

The term "pre-scientific" is not insulting in the least, but is accurate in referring to a time before the use of the scientific method. As for the specific Chinese chronicle being referred to, I am not sure. More on Chinese fossils later in this post. Is Kurukshetra located anywhere near the Siwalik Hills? If so, then the ancient interpretation of fossils would still be possible. In your conclusion you ignore all of the other examples of place names taken from fossil discoveries in the paper.

33 minutes ago, Reignite said:

3) Mayor, A., & Heaney, M. (1993). Griffins and Arimaspeans. Folklore, 104(1-2), 40-66.

Quote: “Bolton called Erman's mammoth-bone theory 'attractive' and 'impressive', but discarded it as the basis for the griffin story because the mammoth remains of Siberia were so far from the Altai Mountains of Mongolia, where the griffin tale originated.5 Once again, the idea that the legend might have contained a kernel of zoological truth was set aside.”

Of course, the author refuses this and says: “Moreover, historical examples of folklore based on fossils and artistic reconstructions of prehistoric remains can serve as models for tracing the origin of the griffin legend. Let us briefly review evidence of the ancient interest in fossils and note some examples of folklore associated with prehistoric remains, before turning to modern geological and palaeontological discoveries in Issedonian territory.”

However, what follows is a lot of suggestions, some wild theories and some references without any sources. The author takes the reader on a tour around the world, but I don't see any evidence for fossils being used as an inspiration for myths.

Again this is where Mayor and I disagree. The physical characteristics of griffins are usually those of modern birds of prey and big cats, so I see no reason why they wouldn't have been inspired by seeing those living animals. However, there is evidence for Central Asian and Siberian cultures (and even later European explorers) mistaking woolly rhino horns for the talons of giant birds/griffins. I think it is possible that this mistake was incorporated into the griffin myths of the ancient Greeks. It is also possible that the Greeks themselves found woolly rhino horns considering they ranged into Europe.

41 minutes ago, Reignite said:

4) Mayor, A., & Sarjeant, W.A.S. (2001). The folklore of footprints in stone: from classical antiquity to the present. Ichnos, 8(2), 143-163.

I cannot download this article, seeing the name Mayor, I'm guessing it's more from the same.

You should be able to read and download it. If you really wanted a copy (but I doubt you do) I could send you a pdf.

44 minutes ago, Reignite said:

5) Solounias, N., & Mayor, A. (2004). Ancient references to the fossils from the land of Pythagoras. Earth Sciences History, 23(2), 283-296.

Here is what I have concluded after reading the paper: I regards the myth of the Neades. They are mentioned by Euphorion (200 B.C.E.) whose works are lost, but have been quoted by Aelian (3rd century C.E.).

What does this mean? That we have a myth regarding a creature described by only one author whose original texts are now lost. What I do find interesting, is the fact they don't attempt to hide the fact this myth is based on bones: “The same writer [Euphorion] says that their big bones for years and now are display”. In fact, they even put them on display in museums and temples.

I have not been able to find more Greek literature incorporating these Neades, except for this fragmentary (lost original) text.

The author himself says: “Our interpretations make a fascinating and intriguin story, however we reserve caution because we derive our observations from the myths as they have come down to us (i.e., the literal interpretation of words in the myths.) It is impossible to know when a word used in qantiquity means something specific and when it does not. That is, it is possible that our interpretations are attempts to draw too much detail out of little available ancient text and they place too much emphasis on certain words.”

Conclusion: Basically we cannot say what the original intentions were of the author or this myth. We do know that the ancient Greeks were aware of these bones as belonging to some extinct creature. We can also say that it was not used to incorporate into (extant) religious or canonical literature.

Not sure what your point on this one is. Yes, we can never be 100% sure of the original author/artist's intentions, but some interpretations are more plausible than others. It doesn't matter if the ancients were aware that fossils belonged to extinct animals, only that they were aware of them (which has been proven).

48 minutes ago, Reignite said:

From post #227:

1) Elephant or rhino femur at Nichoria, Greece (McDonald, 1972)

First of all, to quote: “In a preliminary report such as the above, there can be no question of drawing definitive conclusions”.

The word "fossil" and derivative forms appears three times. The only word with “myth” I could find was this, “According to the excavator, this may not be a temple proper. but a shrine dedicated to Apollo Daphnephoros and built of laurel in imitation of the mythical temple at Delphi.”

I could not find any evidence regarding “the inspirations for certain myths and being used as ceremonial objects”.

You didn't read carefully enough. 

"Of some interest is the discovery of the distal portion of an elephant femur found in an archaeological context. The animal represented is a fossilized, extinct, probably
Pliocene form that once occurred in the area. Clearly, a prehistoric inhabitant of Nichoria went to some effort to collect and carry home the fossil fragment, perhaps struck by its massiveness or its mode of occurrence."

Although originally identified as an elephant, it has more recently been identified as a rhino femur (see Mayor, 2011). Considering its size and uniqueness compared to other animal bones found at Nichoria, it was likely collected with purpose and revered.

1 hour ago, Reignite said:

2) Giraffe femur at the Heraion, Samos, Greece (Solounias & Mayor, 2004)

The same as (5) above.

It's another large fossil bone found at a Greek temple site, but apparently that's not worth considering to you.

1 hour ago, Reignite said:

3) Shark teeth and fish fossils at Palenque, Mexico (Alvarado-Ortega et al. 2018)

The only thing I could find was this: “In the Caribbean archeological records there is a basic difference in the use of shark teeth (Borhegyi, 1961; Maxwell, 2000). Small perforations were made in these teeth to use them as pendants elements of necklaces, earrings or bracelets; others, had to have other utility as cutting tools or weapons. Evidences so far accumulated suggest that in the central and Maya areas of Mexico, shark teeth were deposited at ritual contexts, as in funeral and votive offerings, after their use as punches for self-sacrifice, piercing the tongue, ear lobes, nose or penis, and probably once used in ceremonies related with these acts”

The author uses a lot of maybe but not a lot of direct evidence. Although a shark tooth might have been used as a ceremonial object, this does in no way provide credible evidence that fossils were used as an inspiration for myth.

That is direct physical evidence of modification of fossils for ritual use. I don't know what more you could ask for.

1 hour ago, Reignite said:

From post #254 :

1) Zhang & Harrison (2017)

I don't see any evidence demonstrating fossils being used as an inspiration for any kind of literature?

You (post #252) asked for references to "dragon's teeth"; Gigantopithecus teeth were sold as such in Chinese apothecary shops. Zhang & Harrison (2017) discusses this fact as well as Gigantopithecus as a whole. I thought I'd provide an English language source for convenience, but I also provided von Koenigswald (1935) which is the original report on the discovery of Gigantopithecus teeth in Chinese shops.

1 hour ago, Reignite said:

Conclusion:

I see a lot of "suggestions" in your references. I do not see much substantial evidence for claiming that “fossils being the inspirations for certain myths and being used as ceremonial objects”. Except for the theory on the shark tooth, which by the way, is based on the words "probably" and "suggest. I have also discovered that A. Mayor has a rather demeaning way of looking at ancient cultures. I don't know what her deal is, but it looks like she underestimates the credibility and capabilities ancient cultures quite a bit.

You overlook and dismiss the evidence in favor of your personal beliefs. Mayor does not have a demeaning view of ancient cultures, but rather speculates on how they interpreted fossils with the limited knowledge of them that they had.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ :tsu: This, all of this!!!! THANK YOU @Carnoferox!!!!

I will  be the first to admit I'm by no means an expert on the fossil record and how it was interpreted. However, to think that there were such things as described actually existing is ridiculous. Here now in 2019, there is so much information to prove otherwise I'm surprised that people need to believe in those creatures.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

While Mayor suggests that a skull of the prehistoric giraffe Samotherium inspired the "monster of Troy" vase, I think the characteristics more closely resemble those of a monitor lizard. Monitor lizards are no longer extant in Greece nor were they in historical times, but Varanus marathonensis fossils have been found at two Miocene localities in Greece. Given that the skull is also shown emerging from what appears to be a rock outcrop, it most likely represents a fossil. Whether or not it directly inspired the legend of ketos isn't important in this case, rather it demonstrates that the ancient Greeks interpreted fossils in a mythological light in artwork. As I stated before I don't agree with all of Mayor's conclusions, but her main point of ancient cultures discovering and depicting fossils still stands.

The term "pre-scientific" is not insulting in the least, but is accurate in referring to a time before the use of the scientific method. As for the specific Chinese chronicle being referred to, I am not sure. More on Chinese fossils later in this post. Is Kurukshetra located anywhere near the Siwalik Hills? If so, then the ancient interpretation of fossils would still be possible. In your conclusion you ignore all of the other examples of place names taken from fossil discoveries in the paper.

Again this is where Mayor and I disagree. The physical characteristics of griffins are usually those of modern birds of prey and big cats, so I see no reason why they wouldn't have been inspired by seeing those living animals. However, there is evidence for Central Asian and Siberian cultures (and even later European explorers) mistaking woolly rhino horns for the talons of giant birds/griffins. I think it is possible that this mistake was incorporated into the griffin myths of the ancient Greeks. It is also possible that the Greeks themselves found woolly rhino horns considering they ranged into Europe.

You should be able to read and download it. If you really wanted a copy (but I doubt you do) I could send you a pdf.

Not sure what your point on this one is. Yes, we can never be 100% sure of the original author/artist's intentions, but some interpretations are more plausible than others. It doesn't matter if the ancients were aware that fossils belonged to extinct animals, only that they were aware of them (which has been proven).

You didn't read carefully enough. 

"Of some interest is the discovery of the distal portion of an elephant femur found in an archaeological context. The animal represented is a fossilized, extinct, probably
Pliocene form that once occurred in the area. Clearly, a prehistoric inhabitant of Nichoria went to some effort to collect and carry home the fossil fragment, perhaps struck by its massiveness or its mode of occurrence."

Although originally identified as an elephant, it has more recently been identified as a rhino femur (see Mayor, 2011). Considering its size and uniqueness compared to other animal bones found at Nichoria, it was likely collected with purpose and revered.

It's another large fossil bone found at a Greek temple site, but apparently that's not worth considering to you.

That is direct physical evidence of modification of fossils for ritual use. I don't know what more you could ask for.

You (post #252) asked for references to "dragon's teeth"; Gigantopithecus teeth were sold as such in Chinese apothecary shops. Zhang & Harrison (2017) discusses this fact as well as Gigantopithecus as a whole. I thought I'd provide an English language source for convenience, but I also provided von Koenigswald (1935) which is the original report on the discovery of Gigantopithecus teeth in Chinese shops.

You overlook and dismiss the evidence in favor of your personal beliefs. Mayor does not have a demeaning view of ancient cultures, but rather speculates on how they interpreted fossils with the limited knowledge of them that they had.

All of this what you have presented proves that a fossil "might" have been used in a ceremony (which I gladly believe), and another fossil was probably recorded as a Chinese dragon tooth, which I can also come to terms with.

It also proves that apparently, the ancient Greeks were aware of fossil bones and put them to display, but did not falsely covered them up in their religious literature as something else.

Also, all of this does in no way provide valid evidence to the claim that even some (let alone all) of the canonical literature out there was inspired on fossils as some have claimed. For example the Shesha-naga earlier referred to.

Edited by Reignite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Trelane said:

^^^ :tsu: This, all of this!!!! THANK YOU @Carnoferox!!!!

I will  be the first to admit I'm by no means an expert on the fossil record and how it was interpreted. However, to think that there were such things as described actually existing is ridiculous. Here now in 2019, there is so much information to prove otherwise I'm surprised that people need to believe in those creatures.

You just chose to ignore the arguments against such information as well as other theories not in favor to this.

Edited by Reignite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Reignite said:

You just chose to ignore the arguments against such information as well as other theories not in favor to your personal belief.

That's not accurate at all. I considered all items. Those that have no merit due to lack of supporting evidence I discarded. My personal beliefs have no bearing on the facts presented.

If you have something to present to the contrary, I'll gladly have a look.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Trelane said:

That's not accurate at all. I considered all items. Those that have no merit due to lack of supporting evidence I discarded. My personal beliefs have no bearing on the facts presented.

If you have something to present to the contrary, I'll gladly have a look.

Sorry I had edited my post to strip the last part. I have already provided several arguments against this in the past few posts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Reignite said:

I also see that many of your references come from Adrienne Mayor. I have discovered her to have a rather demeaning way of looking at ancient cultures. I don't know what her deal is, but it looks like she underestimates the credibility and capabilities ancient cultures quite a bit.

That's rich coming from someone who thinks ancient peoples had no imagination whatsoever and whatever they wrote should be taken literally (even when there is zero other evidence than the imaginary beasts they described ever could, let alone did, exist)

Which is the crux of the argument.  

There is plenty of evidence that fossils inspired stories.  As did traveller's reports of strange creatures from foreign climes.  There is also a massive wealth of evidence that over the millennia people have had an imagination and used that imagination to make stories exciting and interesting to the listener/reader.  Outside of such stories there is no evidence whatsoever that flying snake people ever existed.  Your belief is based wholly on faith. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Essan said:

That's rich coming from someone who thinks ancient peoples had no imagination whatsoever and whatever they wrote should be taken literally (even when there is zero other evidence than the imaginary beasts they described ever could, let alone did, exist)

Excuse me? When did I claim such things?

Quote

There is plenty of evidence that fossils inspired stories.  As did traveller's reports of strange creatures from foreign climes.  There is also a massive wealth of evidence that over the millennia people have had an imagination and used that imagination to make stories exciting and interesting to the listener/reader.  Outside of such stories there is no evidence whatsoever that flying snake people ever existed.  Your belief is based wholly on faith. 

"Plenty of evidence" and "massive wealth of evidence". Please, go ahead and show me.

Besides, what I said was: “I'm saying that preserving canonical literature including science and history was taken way more seriously than preserving some local folk tale.”

What I see here is some meager evidence showing some suggestions based on a shark-tooth finding, a Chinese dragon tooth [incorporated] in an unknown chronicle, [fragmentary references to a single lost legend] and a suggestion that a Corinthian vase was painted after the model of a fossil.

I don't see any credible evidence yet for fossil findings being incorporated into canonical literature.

[I also see a lot of misinterpretations of my words and a global lack of interest into any arguments and references I provide.]

Edited by Reignite
brackets=edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reignite said:

Excuse me? When did I claim such things?

 


From the start:

When you think

ancient societies once co-existed with serpent-like beings, there are several types of persons who have a predefined opinion about this. There are skeptics, who make fun of you and everyone thinking different. There are scientist (professional or self-proclaimed) who don't actually know anything about the subject, but are sure it can be explained through some device or another. There are historians, who love to bend similarities between historical facts and mythological accounts so that it matches their personal opinion. There are also religious people who accept the fact that such beings once existed because it is part of their tradition.

There also people who understand the importance of ancient literature which contains plenty of narratives describing such creatures. And they do not believe that such stories were made up out of someone's imagination. Certain ancient cultures knew better than to make up stories for fun or mix imagination with philosophy or mix falsification with religious integrity. I am talking about the Indian sub-continent. Not only do three major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism), mention serpent-like beings, this landmass is, coincidentally, supposed to contain a single species of every snake-family!



Okay, so maybe you weren't talking about yourself?   And you do accept such beings were figments of human imagination after all, and did not really exist?  In which case I apologise.   But so far as I can see, your argument throughout this thread has been that they were real beings, not imaginary ones, and the evidence they really existed is that they are mentioned in lengthy, ancient, fantastical stories (which you presumably believe are actual accounts of real events?).   And unless we can prove otherwise, you must be right.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reignite said:

"Plenty of evidence" and "massive wealth of evidence". Please, go ahead and show me.

 

We have already provided you with evidence that fossils inspired stories.  

I will admit however that if you really do not believe that the human species has always had a vivid imagination, and used to make up stories for entertainment, then I really can't help you.   You think Odysseus really did visit all those places and monsters, exactly as described, for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Essan said:

We have already provided you with evidence that fossils inspired stories.  

I will admit however that if you really do not believe that the human species has always had a vivid imagination, and used to make up stories for entertainment, then I really can't help you.   You think Odysseus really did visit all those places and monsters, exactly as described, for example?

And I've already debunked that evidence as "meager evidence showing some suggestions based on a shark-tooth finding, a Chinese dragon tooth [incorporated] in an unknown chronicle, [fragmentary references to a single lost legend] and a suggestion that a Corinthian vase was painted after the model of a fossil".

Besides, at least five of those source came from A. Mayor. This does not compare to "Plenty of evidence" and "massive wealth of evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mass wealth of evidence" refers to thousands of years of literature - from Homer to the Viking Sagas to the Arabian Nights to Chaucer to Tolkien.  Now, you may believe all these stories are real, factual accounts and that humans don't have the imagination to create monsters, or that the discovery of giant bones ever inspired anyone to invent stories of giants and dragons and thunderbirds (or, indeed that megalithic structures and ancient earthworks inspired the same amongst people of more recent times - no doubt every Devil's Dyke was built by the real Devil and all those Giant's Graves contain the as yet undiscovered remains of real 40ft tall man-eating giants?).   But that still doesn't mean there is any more evidence for your flying snake people than there is for the invisible unicorns congregating above your house (which no-one has yet proven not to exist ;) )

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.