[goto11]

The final point about positivism is important. Geeks love naturalistic explanations of mythological ideas, however far fetched. Trolls are really cultural memory of Neanderthals. Dragons are dinosaurs. The witch craze was due to ergot poisoning etc.

If anyone is interested in what actual historians think about such theories, read for example this: https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2018/06/delphic-oracle.ht... Tl/dr: The oracle speaking cryptic prophetic verses from a trance is a literary construction. So the ethylene theory is a trying to provide a naturalistic explanation for a fiction.

[mherdeg]

I completely misread this as

> Greeks love naturalistic explanations of mythological ideas, however far fetched.

And wonder whether this is also broadly, historically true?

[goto11]

The Greek philosopher Euhemerus believed that Gods has originated as humans who was worshiped after their death. So the naturalistic explanations existed, although I don't know how widely accepted they were.

[jrumbut]

There seems to have been Greeks like Thucydides who did like that and Greeks like Herodotus who enjoyed the opposite (supernatural explanations of the natural), I wouldn't know enough to make a general claim.

[andi999]

How can dragons be memories of dinosaurs? Or do you think some skeletons were found?

[coastflow]

Quick quote from Wikipedia (via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon#Myth_origins): "In her book The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times (2000), Adrienne Mayor argues that some stories of dragons may have been inspired by ancient discoveries of fossils belonging to dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals.[19] She argues that the dragon lore of northern India may have been inspired by "observations of oversized, extraordinary bones in the fossilbeds of the Siwalik Hills below the Himalayas"[20] and that ancient Greek artistic depictions of the Monster of Troy may have been influenced by fossils of Samotherium, an extinct species of giraffe whose fossils are common in the Mediterranean region.[20] In China, a region where fossils of large prehistoric animals are common, these remains are frequently identified as "dragon bones"[21] and are commonly used in traditional Chinese medicine.[21] Mayor, however, is careful to point out that not all stories of dragons and giants are inspired by fossils[21] and notes that Scandinavia has many stories of dragons and sea monsters, but has long "been considered barren of large fossils."[21] In one of her later books, she states that "Many dragon images around the world were based on folk knowledge or exaggerations of living reptiles, such as Komodo dragons, Gila monsters, iguanas, alligators, or, in California, alligator lizards, though this still fails to account for the Scandinavian legends, as no such animals (historical or otherwise) have ever been found in this region."[22]"

In summary, a historian argues that some, but not all, societies found the fossils of reptiles, and created myths involving dragons using these fossils as inspirations for the dragons' imagery.

[carlmr]

I'm not sure why Scandinavians would need the fossils in their corner of the earth to support this. The stories could have travelled from other parts of the world.

[ProjectArcturis]

The identification of dinosaurs as dragons is a common theory but I believe the historical evidence for it is extremely sparse. Still, it is really strange to me that dinosaur bones were only officially discovered in 1841.

[krisoft]

> Still, it is really strange to me that dinosaur bones were only officially discovered in 1841.

Isn’t this a bit like how America was only officially “discovered” in 1492? To the general surprise of everyone already living there :)

There are descriptions from the 4th century China which can be read to imply that they found dinosaur bones. The area indicated by these writings is known in the present to have such fossils.

Can we say for certain that what they had were dinosaur bones? No, of course not. They didn’t describe their findings in detail and the actual bones were lost since then.

[ithinkso]

Often 'discovered' in this context means 'popularized' or 'made known' to the audience in question. Not neccessarly the very first human who found it

[electroly]

I'm not sure it's really that similar; the word "officially" here is meaning something along the lines of "discovered, and correctly understood what they were".

[krisoft]

I see what you say. The thing I’m challenging is the notion that there is a binary “correct/not-correct” understanding. In my view it is more like a scale where the depth of things correctly understood grows.

The ancient chinese description clearly correctly understood that what they are seeing are the bones of some long ago lived creature with large bodies. The same text also made incorrect assumptions (for example that they died because they could not fly up to heaven).

But it is not like suddenly in whenever you says dinosaurs were discovered they understood everything about them correctly. Just to note a few earlier mistakes: the lack of feathers in depictions, and the famous nose horn of the Crystal Palace dinosaurs.

What might be confusing is that the word “dinosaur” is used in scientific literature while the world “dragon” is associated with fantasy and legends. But this is just a linguistic difference. The world dinosaur is a portmanteau from two greek words, coined by a western scientist. Obviously the ancient chinese sources could not have used it before that.

In short: Are we now more knowledgeable about these once lived animals than the scholars of the 4th century China? Massively, without a doubt. Is there some bright line where we can delineate “correctly understood” from not correctly understood? I would say no, discovery is more of an incremental process.

[dr_dshiv]

Regarding Chinese dragon bones:

http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2021/03/dinosaur-fossils-...

[colinmhayes]

I think that's OPs point. It's shoehorned nonsense.

[mensetmanusman]

They found bones.

[zasdffaa]

Edit: I got this completely wrong, see comment from @Joeri

.

> Trolls are really cultural memory of Neanderthals

Stating this as a fact is wrong, it's conjecture, and very dubious at that. In fact a few seconds research and common sense would undermine that. There are legends of giants in africa <https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gigantes/Africa.html> but the range of Neanderthals included that, see "Known Neanderthal range in..." in map here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal>

> The witch craze was due to ergot poisoning etc.

Ditto, and even less likely if you've done any reading. I think you've badly mixed up two things here.

Baseless but over-confident statements of 'fact' are getting annoying. Please try to elevate the conversation (unless you are, ahem, trolling).

[Joeri]

The comment you’re replying to is mocking these theories, not supporting them.