It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mythical beasts and fossils.....

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:26 PM
I've came to a little theory on how some mythical beasts may have been concieved. (In the mental sense of course, not the physical sense!)

Anyway, I believe that many mythical beasts, such as dragons, basilisks, manticores and perhaps even demons present in religious script; may have been inspired by ancient fossil findings!

Laughable as it may seem, consider this. Can we seriously believe that since the dawn of mankind, it has only been within the last 100 years or so, that we have stumbled across these gigantic fossils beneath our feet? Now that kind of assumption is what I would consider laughable!

The miners of old would have been almost certain to have encountered fossils, deep underground, giving rise to the whole dragon/cave cliche we all know and love to this day. Also, such myths such as Nessie could have similar connections; does Nessie not look exactly like a Plesiasaur? (ye olde aquatic dinosaur, with a long neck.)

And note how demons and dragons in particular take on similar forms in different cultures world-wide, even those which have had little outside influence! Many would worship deities reminiscent of pre-historic beasts. It is unlikely that during their era they would not find the fossilised remains of some strange, alien creature. (Not alien as in little green men, BTW)

I've probably lost you about now out of sheer boredom, but bare with me.
Have you noticed how mythical beasts (particularly those such as dragons and chimeras) are particulary large? Also, many have multiple heads, or an unfeasable amount of limbs! This is extremely likely to be based off either broken fossils, or fossils containing the remains of several creatures. (As some pre-historic creatures ate their offspring, just as many do today.)
These kind of 'mass fossils' confused many seasoned archaeoligists in the past, leading them to believe that some dinosaurs may have walked on all fours, when in reality, they just found another set of hind legs in the same fossil- obviously belonging to another of the same species.

I've dragged on way too much here, but I think I've made some interesting points. I hope I've made someone (patient enough to read this), think. Although, I could be entirely wrong, making an idiot of myself, but that's the glory of an un-answerrable theory!

[edit on 1-3-2005 by hedgepook]

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:07 PM
that does make some sense but when u said they its unlikly that weve only been discovering them for like the last 100 years thats because havnt started digging before then (well not really deep in a large area)

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:34 AM
so your suggesting that during the entire lifespan of humanity, we have only recently decided, "oh I know, lets dig for fossils, even though we don't know what a fossil is!"....

Lets say you're right; we have only found fossils within the past century, because we were digging them up, right? Well the first of those fossils must have been found by mistake, right? My point exactly.
Are you suggesting that it was only modern western societies, who have found and indeed, been the first to find a single fossil? The human race has been around a lot longer than you give them credit for!

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:42 PM
I agree, I dunno what on...but I agree all the same! Do you believe in Nessie Pook?

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:19 PM
I've never really gave much thought to the monster of the loch. It's unlikely, but who am I to say that Nessie's dead? lol

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:13 PM
Sounds reasonable. *sigh* So much for dragons.

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:34 PM
Hello all I'm new to ATS,

The idea of mythical animals having a basis on fossils has existed for quite some time now. Some believe that the myth of the cyclops is based on Mammoth/Mastodon skulls where a huge gaping hole was present where the trunk decayed leaving the ancients to assume that in its place was a singular giant eye. Additionally, if you look at the first reconstructions of the Iguanadon fossils (later proven to be inaccurate) it is evident that the finder of fossils can often rearrange them to suit thier own preconcieved notions. The chinese were know to refer to "dragon" bones when coming across caches of fossil and used them for medicinal purposes. Finally, there is even reason to believe that mythological creatures have root or at least been influenced by parts of modern animals taken out of context. For example the narwhal horn and possibly horns of certain African antelope may have served to develop the unicorn legend. See if there are any other mythological animals that may have been influenced by fossilized remains, it would be interesting to put together a list.

Hope that was helpful

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:13 AM
I won't discount all mythical beasts simply as the creation of races and cultures long ago viewing fossils. I will however agree with you that some may very well have come from fossil findings. I watched a show on Discover channel, TLC, or Animal Planet late last year proposing what you are and it went into great depth.

I've been searching to try to find more info on it , but no luck yet.

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:24 AM
So it's not just me then?

I didn't know others had a similar idea. Shows that I'm not just rambling about some nonsense.

That thing about Chinese dragon bones, Marty58 said was quite interesting. I didn't know that, my hypothesis was based purely on speculation, I didn't do much research other than what i already knew. ^^;
I just wanted to point out a scary coincidence, it didn't occur to me that I could be on to something!

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:03 AM
There was a show on the The Discovery Channel several months ago that I saw that had this exact theory. They traveled all over the world looking at Mythical Beast Legends and then they showed Dinosaur fossils from the regeions and how they are arrranged and could be mistaken for wings and such.


new topics

top topics


log in