I feel it should be pointed out that “new species that are really similar and clearly in a family line with known species” isn’t quite the same deal as the “unicorns and dragons and giants and centaurs out of literally nowhere” that the OP proposes.
Yes, that’s true. But they still find new species of megafauna. And the Giant squid was indeed a mythological animal for thousands of years, until it was confirmed.
Megamouth shark 6 meters long, discovered 1976.
Komodo dragon, 3 meters long, discovered 1910.
Okapi, 1901
giant forest hog 1904.
What I read was they took the story offlying lizards and snakes (which do sort of exist - actually they just glide) and lizards that shoot venom and made something out of those. Their might actually have been larger “flying” lizards in the past which are now extinct.
The book I’m referring to, “Sacred Monsters”, puts forth some pretty good arguments (forgive me for not summarizing) for the aurochs or oryx as the “re’em”, and the giraffe isn’t even suggested on that topic. He does consider the giraffe as a possibility for another supposed Biblically-mentioned unicorn, the “tachash”, but in the end concludes that that word doesn’t really indicate an animal at all.
Most modern Jewish Biblical scholars identify the giraffe with the animal referred to by the Hebrew word “zemer”, in the list of kosher beasts in Deuteronomy 14:5. (the NIV seems to translate that word as “mountain sheep”)
What’s your evidence that these creatures were the basis for the mythological Kraken?
Because these creatures are nothing like the mythological Kraken. The reason we’ve only recently learned anything about them is that they are deep ocean species. They don’t frolic about on the surface destroying ships. They aren’t several miles long. They don’t interact with humans in any way.
So how exactly would a Norwegian fisherman see one of these things? They didn’t. Nobody did. These species are not the basis for the legend of the Kraken, any more than the Komodo Dragon is the basis for the legend of the Dragon.
And one of the early photos is of a giant squid…found in Norway.
BTW, I thought about giving the Kracken as an example in the first post, but didn’t because a. they were probably just giant cephalopods so that’s not too unexpected and b. they don’t fossil very well.
Yeah, but so did England, Ireland, Germany, Iceland, Sweden, many Native American cultures, 20th century United States, and nearly every other human culture in existence. It’s like #3 on the list of ‘develop your own culture’. After language and Big Gods comes ‘What’s your variant of little people/elves/dwarves/fairies/gnomes?’.
I don’t think there’s necessarily a connection between a population 60,000 years ago, and stories of little people in a modern culture that’s the result of many, many, waves of colonization/conquering/immigration/trade over the intervening period.
Authors over the years have postulated that the legend originated from sightings of giant squids that may grow to 13–15 meters (40–50 feet) in length.
But when, in 1853, a giant cephalopod was found stranded on a Danish beach, Norwegian naturalist Japetus Steenstrup recovered the animal’s beak and used it to scientifically describe the giant squid, Architeuthis dux. And so what had become legend officially entered the annals of science, returning our image of the Kraken to the animal that originated the myths.
*The kraken was likely based on numerous mythological sea monsters as well as sightings of giant squid, something that probably looked pretty freaky at the time. A closer examination of the kraken vs. the giant squid reveals the legend is a little exaggerated, just like any good myth. The fact and fiction of the kraken becomes even more interesting when you consider the actual marine creature.
Was the kraken just a giant squid? Here’s a look at the legend compared to the real thing.*
