Monday, March 10, 2014

Roland Watson's New Folklore Article (recommended reading)

Thanks to Roland Watson for his latest blog article, The Folklore of An Niseag, which proves an elegant and refreshing read.  Of course if you're here reading this, you've probably seen it already!  But if not, I highly recommend it.  This is like getting a bonus chapter to his excellent book, The Water Horses Of Loch Ness.

More importantly for me, it replenishes my ammunition.  When I run across fluff news pieces related to Nessie online, I cannot seem to leave uncontested blanket statements such as:

"In fact, there are no reports of the beast until less than a century ago."

That's a direct quote from a piece by author Benjamin Radford, ironically entitled "Facts About Nessie", written for livescience.com & located here (click for article).  It's also dead wrong, and I would cite Watson's book and latest blog article as the best places to go for proof of that.

Unfortunately the debate I had with Radford a few weeks ago (posted in the comments following his article) went nowhere, as he refused to step outside his circular logic:  sighting reports cannot exist before 1933 because "Nessie" hadn't been reported by the press yet; therefore alleged sightings prior to 1933 can't be called "Nessie sightings".  They must be called kelpie or water horse legends, and as generalized legends they cannot be counted as reported sightings.  And why again?  Well because they are pre-1933 of course!

Now, I agree legends don't count as eyewitness reports.  We mean something quite specific by the word "report".  There are, as Watson's new article describes much better than I ever could, traditional and modern branches to what's perceived to be part of the Loch Ness Monster story.  Whether a particular account belongs to traditional folklore, or belongs in the record of reported sightings, that's something that must be evaluated on an individual basis.  Some accounts will always fall in the grey area, and we'll never have enough data to safely class them one way or another.  Those cannot be considered as witness testimony per se.  Others will be no brainers:  I think we can all agree on which branch to place talking mermaids (legend), as opposed to where we'd put a Greta Finlay account (sighting report).  But one thing we can not do is classify our data on a randomly chosen line in the sand, such as the year 1933, because the press says so, and pretend that's scientifically objective.

Now the funny thing is I gave Benjamin Radford concrete examples of 19th century sightings with names, dates, publications and the emphasis on these being described as animals.  Who would call the Alexander MacDonald or Duncan MacDonald sightings too folkloric?  (Alexander called what he saw a "great salamander" paddling towards him with definite front limbs.  Duncan was the diver to have the first underwater encounter, and described a huge animal with a frog-like head.)  They described the animals they encountered as animals, with some specific morphological traits, and long before 1933.  And those aren't the only examples.  Alas, Radford deemed these generalized Water Horse legends, and therefore inadmissible, because the animals described didn't sound "Nessie" enough!!!  Somewhere I must have missed the chapter on traditional Water Horses being described as really big but otherwise recognizable amphibians.

Gosh darn it.  You just can't beat logic like that.

8 comments:

  1. Special bonus for salamander fans:
    "Early in the Second World War, Ian [MacDonald] had been on an exercise in the area with the Cameron Highlanders when, going along the shores of Loch Ness, a disturbance was spotted. They all piled out of the truck and, armed with their spying binoculars, they watched "the beast" for a full twenty minutes. When Hamish [MacDougall***] as a little lad was not behaving to Granny's [Annie MacDonald nee Galbraith's**] liking, she would threaten "I will throw you to the salamander" – her name for "the monster" ."

    Peter R. English "A bridge to the past: an oral history of families of Upper GlenUrquhart" (Inverness: Speedprint, 2009)

    * died at Tobruk, 23 Mar 1943
    ** died 1969
    ***living in Muir of Ord at time of publication

    AnonStg

    ReplyDelete
  2. A true gem! Thank you AnonStg!

    I've read the start of this account in at least one if not two LNM books, as I recognized it word for word through the binoculars sentence up to "a full twenty minutes" -- but I swear I'd never seen Annie MacDonald's salamander quote before. I've reread most of the classic LNM books since starting this blog expressly to be sure I wasn't missing any references to salamanders. Whichever author(s) truncated the reference to "the salamander" surely deemed that part unimportant. It clearly is not unimportant, at least not to this blog!

    A good reminder to us all that research on a specific topic cannot be limited to books on that specific topic, especially where history is concerned. And oral history is just full of rare gems -- thank goodness there are writers that transcribe and preserve it.

    So. We have one more reference to the culprit as a salamander. AND one more pre-1933 sighting that is nature-based rather than mythologically based. (I hope Benjamin Radford is paying attention.)

    Granny did NOT say the kelpie would get you. Granny said the amphibious tetrapod would get you. Granny rocked.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Have you seen the other rines photo?its s salamander with large rear legs and a neck like tail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you may mean this one?

      http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/05flipper.jpeg.jpg

      That is one of the alleged "flipper" photos, probably post-JPL enhancement but still pre-airbrushing. At this stage it does resemble a newt tail and adjacent rear legs MORE than it does anything else. It still started life though as a picture of scratch in the bed of the Loch, as did the other "flipper" photo. For an objective analysis of Rines' photos, I recommend this page at Dick Raynor's website: http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/flipper.html

      Perhaps you meant a different photo though? There are several photoshop jobs floating around the Internet that are labeled as "Rines Photos" or "The Lost Rines Photos" that actually didn't come from Robert Rines or any of the APS expeditions, so some caution must be exercised. To my knowledge there are only five APS photos that were alleged to show part or parts of an animal -- these are authentic underwater photos from Loch Ness, just not really photos any animal. Of these, the "head/neck" photo might conceivable be salamander viewed from the rear, but it would be a tiny salamander of the ordinary variety as evidence suggests it was taken from extremely close range -- there's an article on that at Dick's sight as well.

      There are only three species of newt indigenous to Scotland, none of which have ever been photographed in Loch Ness. Surprisingly though the common toad has been caught on camera, cavorting on the *bottom* of the Loch some 300 or so feet down!



      Delete
  4. Sorry to divert away from the thread topic but wanted to see if you had a take on this Steve: http://abcnews.go.com/International/loch-ness-monster-report-rise-sighting-apple-maps/story?id=23394714

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This topic has meandered anyway :) Familiar with the photo from a ways back (it's recent but not really new) I had to follow your link to see what ABC was saying about it. Why. oh why on Earth is the article accompanied by that old video of George Edwards promoting his last hoax photo??? As if it hadn't been debunked and as if Edwards hadn't already confessed it was a hoax? And it has nothing to do with the photo the article is about. Major news outlets are just entirely irresponsible when it comes to covering Loch Ness!

      That being said, the apple photo is a boat. It's 100 feet long, many times larger than any amphibian current or in the fossil record -- cruisers that size do pass through the Loch.

      Sebastian Wang has an enhancement of the photo at: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154135035020145&set=p.10154135035020145&type=1&theater

      Definitely more signs of the boat's structure in this version.

      Delete
  5. Glad to be of help, Steve. I still peruse the old archives at the main library. There are a few old sources I would love to get my hands on, but I'll take them as they come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks GB, and if there's more pre-1933 tidbits lurking in those dusty stacks you'd be the man to spot them!

      Delete