Another video on the Homo florensiensis situation. Recent research suggests that the "Hobbit" might not be a dwarfed Homo erectus (sensu stricto) but some kind of pre-human or almost-human. Perhaps an australopith (sensu latto)? I´m not surprised. I had a hunch in this direction already seven years ago. So can we go home now? Second breakfast, guys!
Or is it Mahodgaja-Gaṇapataye Namaḥ? So I asked Gemini to make a picture of Ganesha as a mammoth, rather than as an elephant. This was the result. Would you worship god if he was a mammoth? Interesting question, I suppose! And instead of venerating Baby Krishna, how about doing it with a dwarf elephant? I know, I should go to sleep...
New research on the mysterious "human" (?) species known as Homo floresiensis suggests that they didn´t and couldn´t hunt dwarf elephants in their island habitat of Flores 100,000 years ago. Rather, the Hobbit (as this species of Homo is colloquially called) was feeding on carcasses of said pachyderm. The unfortunate proboscids had already been hunted and killed by Komodo dragons! That is, the extremely large monitor lizards known as "Komodo dragons" (this species of reptile is of course still around).
Not sure what to make of this. If Homo floresiensis is an example of insular dwarfism - a shrunken Homo erectus as it were - then the erecti weren´t fully "human" in our sense of the term, still being subject to natural selection (which our species can at least try to escape or transcend). But isn´t there also evidence that Homo erectus were smarter than hitherto assumed? I mean, how on earth did they even *reach* Flores in the first place?
So I don´t know. Something strange is going on here. Either evolution can in extreme cases "go backward" even in a lineage were intelligence is developing. Or the good ol´ Hobbit wasn´t really a human in the first place, but some kind of stray australopith a long way from home...
Both perspectives are pretty mind-boggling. So if Frodo and his 57 half-cousins keep you up at night, pray that the Hobbits (those at Flores) were just monkeys!
 |
| - Gotta problem with pachyderms, huh huh? |
Why animal rights and veganism doesn´t work. The brains of our ancestors (Homo erectus again) became big thanks to hunting and feasting on primordial elephants...
Without "speciesism", no Man. Deal with it.
Is there a Bigfoot-like creature in South Africa? It´s called the Otang, and is only known from the writings of conservationist Gareth Patterson. He supposedly spotted it while looking for another elusive creature, the so-called Knysna elephants (of which only one remains today). So color me skeptical. But there you go!
I admit that I never heard of this particular Hindu sect before. It´s called the Community of the Many Names of God and has ashrams in Wales and Switzerland. Most members seem to be White, but the head is (was?) a Sri Lankan Hindu Tamil calling himself Guru Sri Subramanium.
He founded the Community together with a British Christian reverend and a Buddhist. Its monks apparently take the vow of Saint Francis, but otherwise the group has a strong Hindu flair and "Hare Krishna vibes". They worship the Hindu Tamil god Murugan plus Kali, Shiva and Ganesha.
The video above shows a procession (somewhere in the Welsh countryside) featuring a murti of Kali. Note the elephant! Supposedly a gift from Sri Lankan president J R Jayewardene. Hmmm...
I admit that this isn´t exactly my cup of chai, but there you go.
Yes, elephant trainers in Thailand are widely known as mahouts in English. However, if you were speaking Thai, you would use the local term Kwan-chaang (ควาญช้าง).
While "mahout" is the international standard, the Thai word provides a bit more insight into the role itself.
Kwan (ควาญ): Means "handler" or "driver."
Chaang (ช้าง): The Thai word for "elephant."
Together, a Kwan-chaang is literally an "elephant handler." While the English word "mahout" actually originates from the Hindi word mahavat, it has been adopted so thoroughly in global tourism that even Thai guides and sanctuaries will use "mahout" when speaking with international visitors.
The role of a mahout in Thailand is much deeper than a simple "trainer" or "job."
A Lifelong Bond: Traditionally, a mahout is assigned a young elephant when both are still very young. They grow up together, and the mahout often stays with that same elephant for their entire life.
Ethnic Heritage: Many of Thailand's most famous mahouts come from specific ethnic groups with centuries of elephant-handling history, particularly the Kui (or Kuy) people in the Surin province and the Karen people in the northern mountains.
The Tool of the Trade: You may see them carrying a tool called an ankus (or "bullhook"). While controversial in some modern contexts, in traditional mahout culture, it is viewed as a guide and a safety tool, used to apply pressure to specific sensitive points behind the elephant’s ear.
Today, the role is changing. In the past, mahouts worked primarily in logging (dragging heavy teak wood) or warfare. Since logging was banned in Thailand in 1989, many mahouts moved into the tourism industry. In high-quality ethical sanctuaries, the mahout’s role has shifted from a "driver" to a "caregiver" who ensures the elephant's health and safety.
Would you like to know more about where to see elephants ethically in Thailand, or perhaps more about Thai animal symbolism?
Are mahouts in Thailand Buddhists or Christians?
The answer is both, but it depends heavily on their ethnic background and which part of Thailand they come from.
While Thailand is a predominantly Buddhist country, the mahout community is actually a mix of Buddhists, Christians, and Animists (spirit-worshippers). To understand why, you have to look at the two main ethnic groups that traditionally work with elephants:
The Kui are the legendary "elephant people" of Northeast Thailand (specifically the Surin province).
Religion: Most Kui identify as Theravada Buddhists. However, their daily work with elephants is governed by a ancient Animism.
The Spirit of the Rope: They believe in Phra Khru Pakam, the spirit of the elephant-catching rope.
The Karen (or Karian) live in the mountainous regions of Northern Thailand (near Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son).
Diversity: Among the Karen, religious identity is split.
Christian Mahouts: Because many elephant sanctuaries and trekking camps are located in Karen territory, you will meet many mahouts who are devout Christians. They often attend church on Sundays and might have Christian crosses or icons in their homes, even while following traditional elephant-care practices passed down through generations.
Regardless of whether a mahout goes to a temple (Buddhist) or a church (Christian), almost all traditional mahouts share a foundation of Animism.
They believe that elephants have a "Kwan" (a soul or life force) and that the forest is inhabited by guardian spirits. Even a Christian or Buddhist mahout will usually:
Perform a "blessing" ceremony for a new elephant.
Avoid certain behaviors that might "offend" the spirit of the elephant.
Treat the elephant as a sentient being with a spiritual status higher than other livestock.
| Ethnic Group | Primary Region | Dominant Religions |
| Kui (Guay) | Northeast (Surin) | Buddhism & Animism |
| Karen | North (Chiang Mai) | Buddhism & Christianity |
Would you like to know more about the specific rituals mahouts perform to "bless" an elephant, or perhaps about the history of Christian missionaries in the Thai mountains?
Of course animals are religious. They worship their lord. You know, Pashupati...
HA HA HA, this is so confused that it becomes unintentionally funny. Erich von Däniken, come back, all is forgiven! So apparently the Hindu god Ganesha has evolved in a way similar to elephants. Or something. Or maybe something else.
 |
| - Yes, they seem to think that I´m you! |
And camelids, too! Not to mention over-sized specimens of the lutrine persuasion. I never been particularly interested in Nessie or the Loch Ness monster. In fact, the whole thing strikes me as rather silly. I mean, we´re talking about one bloody loch just south of a city with 63,000 inhabitants. Are ye telling me that a breedin´ population of please-your-soars can live there undetected for millennia?! Then, I have a fake tartan to sell you!
It´s a cultural phenomenon, no more. As proven by Karl Shuker´s entertaining article about the monster´s split personality. While a plesiosaur is the most common identification, others have been proposed. Some of them very strange! How about a long-necked seal, a gigantic tullimonstrum, an "elephant squid", an *actual* elephant, or a camelid with a plesiosaur-like head and neck (the latter seen on land?!). There´s also the mother of all otters, also seen on Ireland. Shuker doesn´t mention "a specter conjured by Aleister Crowley", but then, he´s more into the flesh-and-blood portion of the cryptozoology specter, er, spectrum.
Entertaining, I say. And probably not true either way.
This will never happen and is probably just another scam to part rich people and governments with their money. But nice try!
 |
| Credit: Pixabay (Pexels) |
I hope this isn´t a hoax. Elephants in India are said to bury their dead calfs. Could create problems for the theologians, I suppose. Should I or you tell them that corvids also bury their dead?
Was Thomas Jefferson (who also served as US president) the first cryptozoologist, at least in North America? He collected stories about surviving mammoths, mysterious giant lions and lake-monsters in the American wilderness.
None of these ideas were necessarily fringe at the time. I think the idea was that since all animals were created by God, divine providence would never let them go extinct. Ergo, mammoths must still be around.
Jefferson wasn´t particularly credulous either, sometimes skeptically pointing out that some observations of unknown beasts were probably just mountain lions (cougars).
“Hunt for the
Oldest DNA” is a recent release from PBS-Nova. The documentary discusses the
biggest scientific breakthrough of 2022. A team of scientists headed by Eske
Willerslev from Denmark managed to extract DNA from a soil sample taken at Kap
Köbenhavn on Greenland. The DNA turned out to be over 2 million years old! The
previous record holder was one million years old DNA from mammoth bones. Or, to
be more precise, the oldest *accepted* ancient DNA.
During the
1990´s, even more sensational claims were published, including a supposed discovery
of 80 million years old DNA from dinosaur bones (the creationists are still talking
about that one). This virtual “Jurassic Park” territory was soon abandoned,
however. As for Willerslev, he tried for 15 years to extract DNA material from
the Kap Köbenhavn samples, without success. His samples were even known as “The
Curse”, since grad students who tried their hand on them always failed (sometimes
with detrimental results for their careers). Then came the 2022 breakthrough,
and here we are.
Apparently,
certain kinds of minerals can “bind” ancient DNA and make it less prone to
degrade. The clay and quartz at the Greenland site have this effect. The discovered
DNA is from the Pliocene, the last warm period before the onset of the ice
ages. The most surprising find was the DNA of a mastodont. The docu also
discusses Greenland camels, known from the fossil record but not yet from the
DNA samples. The ecosystem uncovered was vast and complex. Despite the warm
climate, half of the year was still Arctic night, raising questions about how
the animals or plants survived.
Since the
Pliocene was much warmer than today, the issue of current climate change inevitably
comes up. Willerslev and his team believes that the quest for ancient DNA could
have practical applications. Apparently, scientists have managed to identify an
ancient poplar gene that made that particular tree adapted to growing in the
darkness of the long Arctic night. This gene has been successfully implanted in
barley, perhaps giving rise to a specimen that could be grown on Greenland if
it ever becomes ice-free again due to man-made climate change. Similar experiments
with wheat and other food crops are underway.
And yes,
one of the US scientists featured sits in meditation posture on a chair throughout
the interview. A real weirdo, if you ask me. The expert on camelids, I believe.
Slow-paced,
and I had to watch it twice to really get it. But yeah, probably worth the
research grants. Even so, most people probably prefer “Jurassic Park”…
An interesting video about Soviet cryptids. I was struck by how unoriginal they were. Yes, it´s essentially the same kind of cryptids as reported from North America or Western Europe: hairy humanoids, lake monsters, sea serpents and extinct charismatic mega-fauna still supposedly lurking somewhere in the far corners of Siberia. In this case the Steller´s sea cow, the wolly mammoth, and the giant short-faced bear (never heard of that one).
There are two possible explanations for this curious fact. One is that the cryptids are actually real. After all, why *would* people behind the Iron Curtain see exactly the same kind of unknown animals as in the rest of the world? Another possibility is that Soviet cryptozoology was influenced by its Western counterpart. That´s not as far-fetched as it sounds, since one prominent Soviet cryptozoologist, Boris Porshnev, was a friend of Bernard Heuvelmans! (A book by Porshnev has been translated to English: "The Soviet Sasquatch") The same transformation of older folklore into "unknown real animals" - typical of much Western cryptozoology - may have transpired in the modernizing Soviet Union, too.
Misidentification is another factor. The Mongolian Death Worm (which was searched for by Soviet scientists) is often depicted as the monstrous Shai-Hulud from Frank Herbert´s science fiction novel "Dune". In reality, the Death Worm is only said to be about one and a half meters long. And it took me about five minutes to find *exactly such a creature* living in Mongolia: the desert sand boa. Case closed.
The Soviet Union was one of the few nations (if that´s the word for it) that launched several scientific expeditions in search of cryptids, both on its own territory and in Mongolia. Soviet scientists also participated in Chinese expeditions to find the Yeti. The fact that these official projects had as little luck as lay cryptid hunters in the US or Scotland is perhaps suggestive.
The creatures don´t exist. Or maybe they do exist, but since they are ghostly in nature, Communists feared reporting what they had *really* found...
This dude definitely suffers from ADHD, ha ha, but he does say some interesting things in these clips. Very interesting, in fact. I´m old enough to remember when saying stuff like this would get you attacked by Skeptics (TM) on the web as a dangerous pseudo-scientist...
First, we have the idea that humans aren´t descended from Australopithecus, since these creatures were adapted to a more arboreal lifestyle. Instead, Australopithecus is a side branch on the hominin family tree. Humans would then be "directly" descended from Sahelanthropus and Orrorin, who lived prior to the australopithecines and were bipedal. Note also the implication that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees would be - relatively speaking - more human-like than ape-like.
Second, there is the famous Cerutti mastodon kill site in California, which has been dated to 130,000 years BP. The mastodon may have been killed by humans, which according to standard accounts didn´t live in the Americas at that time. Indeed, Homo sapiens had hardly left Africa! So either Homo sapiens sneaked into the New World much earlier, searching for tender proboscid flesh, or some other Homo did it.
Of course, ideas like the above have been entertained for a long time by Theosophists, Anthroposophists, creationists and my man prabhu Michael Cremo.
Which doesn´t mean their world-views or methods are right. Mere guess work based on religous scriptures doesn´t count in science. Purely by chance, some religious group somewhere will turn out to be right about something. Still, it is kind of funny that people whose religious convictions made them predisposed to doubt Australopithecus as a human ancestor or Clovis First, may have been on the right track all along. And, of course, there have always been minority reports in science they could "quote-mine"...
But the nerds on the web, who seem to live in an eternal now, will never admit any of this. If somebody finds Atlantis, they will probably act as if Graham Hancock never existed, either.
