Cryptozoology and Myth, Part 5: Which came first – the monster or the myth?

This is the fifth and final post in a series examining cryptids (“hidden” animals said to exist based on local testimony), namely lake monsters, in terms of the folklore, tradition, and native tales of these creatures.

Previous parts:

Cryptozoology and Myth, Part 1: The Illusion of Facticity in Unknown Animal Reports

Cryptozoology and Myth, Part 2: Lake Monster Tropes

Cryptozoology and Myth, Part 3: Hiding in the cold, dark water until Judgment Day

Cryptozoology and Myth, Part 4: Crypto-zoologizing the natives’ magic monster

What can we make of folklore tales that cryptozoologists use to support claims that an unknown animal has been historically reported and remains to be identified?


lmtIf the book Lake Monster Traditions (LMT) has a most important message, it is:

It’s more complicated than that!

We simply should not be equating native folklore stories with a true cryptid destined to be discovered and classified by science.

For example, it is a serious error, often committed by journalists and monster fans, to suppose that one mysterious creature accounts for all Nessie sightings. That’s absurd. We can certainly consider logs, several known animals, waves, and hoaxes, at the very least in the run down of possible explanations. To say that all reports can be attributed to A “Nessie” – a flesh and blood creature – is a naive and wrong conclusion. In the same vein, it’s a serious error to say that the water deity or demon of the natives corresponds to a single (or a suite of) mystery animal(s) today.

So which came first, the monster or the myth? Well, both. And, neither. The story through time is a mesh of several different color threads making our legendary beast of today an amalgam of history. Continue reading