Of Sea Serpents and Griffins, Plesiosaurs and Protoceratops: The Meaning of Fossils Revisited

Sherrie Lyons
CDL Empire State College

     Full text: Not available
     Last modified: February 12, 2005
     Presentation date: 07/14/2005 4:00 PM in MACK 237
     (View Schedule)

Abstract
In The Meaning of Fossils (1972) Martin Rudwick traced the changing meaning of fossils through history. The original meaning was simply “dug up” and fossils were described in the context of mineral ores, natural crystals, and useful rocks. Once certain fossil objects were recognized as the remains of living organisms, a few natural philosophers realized that they provided crucial pieces of evidence in understanding the history of the earth. Nevertheless, the meaning and interpretation of fossils has always been enmeshed in controversy. In this paper I explore the role fossils have played as connecting links between myth and science in two examples, one from the nineteenth century and one in the present day.
For most of its history, the sea serpent has been relegated to the realm of myth and legend. In the nineteenth century the sea serpent achieved a level of scientific legitimacy that it never had before or since, playing a small, but significant role in the discussions about the history of life. As paleontologists began dredging up plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and other relics from the past, a dramatic increase in sea serpent sightings also occurred. The discovery of fossil “monsters” from the past suggested that the sea serpent was no longer a creature of legend, but a real organism that had possibly survived to the present.
Today, the convergence of myth and reality is seen in Adrian Mayor’s provocative work The First Fossil Hunters. In it she suggests that the Ancients encountered huge fossilized bones, and that they recognized these were remains of primeval creatures. Reading the narratives of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and looking at other kinds of archeological evidence in light of modern scientific knowledge, she suggests that the monsters of myth were grounded in fact. For example, she suggests that the legend of the griffin was based on fossil remains of protoceratops.
Prominent paleontologists have taken totally opposing positions regarding her thesis. I explore some of the objections to her thesis, which raise a variety of other issues. In both the Victorian era and today paleontologists have reasons for wanting to draw distinct boundaries between myth and science. However, the dinosaur had a mythical quality right from its beginning when Richard Owen first coined the term to describe the group of large extinct reptiles. Today, the myth making continues, but for different reasons. Furthermore, in certain respects myths and science fulfill a similar function—they both provide humans beings with a presentation of the world and the forces that supposedly govern it. Thus, perhaps the time has come again to reassess the meaning of fossils in relationship to both myth and science.