Recent unicorns

In popular culture, a unicorn is a white horse with a bony tusk, like that of a narwhal, on the front of its head. However, not all of them have this form. The two supporters of the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (see below) are a lion and a unicorn, but this example, while being mainly horse-like, has a very long tail bearing tufts of fur and it also has cloven hooves. This is confusing to a Biologist interested in these animals, as unicorns thus have the characteristics of both perissodactyls (odd-toed ungulates, e.g. horses and rhinoceroses) and artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates, e.g. sheep, goats, deer, cattle). Although they are mythological creatures, there has always been a fascination with the possibility of finding one.

In The Romance of Natural History, Philip Henry Gosse [1] includes reports of sightings of unicorns from Africa and he describes a drawing made of a cave painting:

In this were represented, with exceedingly characteristic fidelity, several of the common antelopes of the country, such as a group of elands, the hartebeest, and the springbok; while among them appeared, with head and shoulders towering above the rest, an animal having the general character of a rhinoceros, but, in form, lighter than a wild bull, having an arched neck, and a long nasal horn projecting in the form of a sabre.

This unicorn was a giant rhinoceros, of a type now extinct, which co-existed with humans perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. Recently, remains of Elasmotherium sibiricum, named the "Siberian Unicorn", were found in shallow sediments in Kazakhstan. Shpansky, Aliyassova and Ilvina [2] were able to date the remains as being less than 30,000 years old, confirming that these giant rhinoceroses also co-existed with humans.

The horn of E. sibiricum, like that of modern rhinoceroses, is made of keratin and so, like nails, it becomes broken down over time in a way that calcified tissue does not. As a result, we have no direct record of the size and shape of the horn (as far as I know) and must depend on assumptions based on features of the skull. The skull of E sibiricum has a large protuberance that is believed to have supported the horn and the News section of Nature [3] reported in 1878:

..the protuberance of the skull of the elasmotherium presents a rough, uneven surface, traversed by deep furrows once occupied by blood vessels. The whole analogy with the rhinoceros points with the greatest certainty to the previous existence of a horn, which, to judge from the size of the blood-vessels once encircling the base, must have possessed enormous dimensions, and easily exceeded the length of the skull itself.

Measurements taken by Shpansky et al. on the skull they examined gives the diameter of the protuberance, and thus the base of the horn, to be at least 26 cm across and all reconstructions of the Siberian Unicorn suggest a very large horn must have been present (see below).

Our knowledge of the appearance of animals that are reconstructed from fossil material comes from artists' impressions, based on the advice of experts in imagining whole animals from fossil fragments. We love these impressions, with many new finds, perhaps based on just a few pieces of skeleton, reported regularly by the media. We go further with animatronics and video techniques, showing movement and behaviour of extinct animals within their presumed environment. These are hugely popular, but are they always accurate?

  

Interestingly, large and/or dangerous extinct animals hold the greatest interest for us because they induce fear, an emotion that we enjoy at a safe distance. We recognise that there is a difference between myth and reality, yet the margin between the two can become blurred, especially when we let our imaginations have free rein. Having said that, wouldn't it be marvellous to discover a herd of living E. sibiricum, so that we know what they look like and how they behave?

[1] Philip Henry Gosse (1860) The Romance of Natural History. London, J. Nisbet and Co.

[2] Andrei Valerievich Shpansky, Valentina Nurmagambetovna Aliyassova and Svetlana Anatolievna Ilvina (2016) The Quaternary Mammals from Kozhamzhar Locality (Pavlodar Region, Kazakhstan). American Journal of Applied Sciences 13: 189-199.

[3] News (1878) The Elasmotherium Nature 18: 387-389

Strange winged creatures

While watching a television programme that visited the Cheltenham Masonic Hall, I noticed that there was a banner hanging by the staircase that showed strange winged creatures. As a student of such things [1], I was intrigued and Ray Pearson and one of his colleagues kindly supplied me with a photograph (below, upper).

The banner features a version of the Arms of the United Grand Lodge of England (seen above, lower) and is slightly modified to include reference to the Provincial Grand Lodge of Gloucestershire. This is the description of the Crest and Supporters of the Arms given in a translation from the heraldic language [2]:

The Crest consists of a golden ark supported by two cherubs. These have the upper part of the body in natural flesh tints and the lower half covered in brown fur, their wings are in gold and above them, in Hebrew, is the Motto "Holiness to the Lord".. ..The Supporters are two cherubs coloured similarly to the pair on the Crest.

The golden ark is the Ark of the Covenant, containing the two stone tablets on which are written The Ten Commandments and each cherub covers the lid, or mercy seat, with one outstretched wing, a motif repeated in the Supporters.

There are many descriptions of cherubim (or cherubs, the terms being used interchangeably) in The Holy Bible [3] and several quotes are important for our understanding of their appearance:

Ezekiel 10.14 And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

The "cherub" in the quote above has been interpreted by some Christians as being an ox [4], although the reasons for this are not given. If we substitute the term facets for faces, we can see that cherubim are composed of four creatures and this is how they appear in the Masonic illustration, with the lion's mane being represented by long hair. Interestingly, the Cheltenham cherubim are androgynous, appear to have breasts, and their hair (mane) is worn up. Why? Perhaps the artist was influenced by images of French sphinxes (see below)?

Continuing [3]:

1 Kings 6.23-24 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub; from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other wing were ten cubits

We thus know that the wings of cherubim are 50% of their height and clearly some licence is allowed when portraying the creatures. It is noticeable that the arms are replaced by wings, just as in birds, but quite different to conventional portrayals of angels, for example. However, cherubim do have hands as we learn in another passage in The Holy Bible [3]

Ezekiel 10:7-8 And one cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubims unto the fire that was between the cherubims, and took thereof, and put it into the hands of him that was clothed with line: who took it, and went out. And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man's hand under their wings.

So the hands are hidden, but I presume that they are attached to arms and that the arms, in turn, are attached to some part of the skeleton.

What else do we know about cherubim? Within Roman Catholicism, the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (not to be confused with Dionysius the Areopagite) have held sway since mediaeval times and still do today. For Pseudo-Dionysius, cherubim were the second highest rank of heavenly beings, with only Seraphim holding a more important role. There were then various other groups, with Archangels and Angels forming the lowest grouping and only these forms being able to leave Heaven and communicate with humans on Earth [1].

Religious paintings show cherubim, sometimes with long wings and sometimes with very short wings, and the bodies of babies – what we recognise colloquially as cherubs. Whereas the Masonic view of cherubim has a basis in Biblical text, the portrayals in many paintings, and in sculpture, seem the product of imagination, just as the close relatives of cherubim, the putti, clearly are. Putti have no connection with Heaven and were associated with human pleasure and temptation in Renaissance Art. Perhaps they were originally cherubim that had been cast from Heaven because of some naughtiness?

[1] Roger S. Wotton (2009) Angels, putti, dragons and fairies: believing the impossible. Opticon1826 7:1-7.

[2] http://freemasonry.london.museum/os/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/The-Arms-of-the-United-Grand-Lodge-of-England.pdf

[3] The Holy Bible King James' Version: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Bpa6K4Ynk

Biblical birds, reptiles, and .......dragons.

The King James’ Version of The Holy Bible [1] was published in 1611 and remains the most widely-read form of the book. It assumes that readers have a knowledge of different plant and animal types of the Middle East, Northern Africa and Southern Europe (the locations for the narrative) and this is especially true of birds and reptiles. Here are just a few examples of each (with references to Book, Chapter and Verse - there are multiple references to some birds):

Bittern - Isaiah 34:11

Cormorant - Zephaniah 2:14

Dove - (= Feral Stock Dove?) - Matthew 10:16

Gier Eagle (= Egyptian Vulture) - Deuteronomy 14: 17

Great Eagle (= Golden Eagle or Imperial Eagle?) - Ezekiel 17:3

Heron - Deuteronomy 14:18

Lapwing - Leviticus 11:19

Little Owl - Leviticus 11:17

Ospray (= Osprey) - Leviticus 11:13

Ossifrage (= Lammergeier) - Deuteronomy 14:12

Ostrich - Lamentations 4:3

Partridge - Jeremiah 17:11

Peacock - Job 39:13

Pelican - Psalms 102:6

Quail - Exodus 16:13

Screech Owl (= Barn Owl) Isaiah 34:14

Sparrow (= House Sparrow?) - Psalms 102:7

Stork - Psalms 104:17

Swallow - Psalms 84:3

Swan - Deuteronomy 14:16

Perhaps because they are not as easy to identify, or are less visible, there are fewer references to reptiles:

Asp (= Saharan Horned Viper?) - Deuteronomy 32:33

Chameleon - Leviticus 11:30

Lizard - Leviticus 11:30

Tortoise - Leviticus 11:29

Turtle - Jeremiah 8:7

Viper - Acts 28:3

Dragons are also referred to in The Bible and I wondered whether these were real creatures, like those listed above, or whether they were mythological inventions. My first thought was that dragons could be Nile Crocodiles, as evidenced by the following verses:

....Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers.... Ezekiel 29:3

And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes. Isaiah 35:7

Both references suggest freshwater habitats are preferred by dragons, yet they are also found in the sea:

....he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. Isaiah 27:1

Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou breakest the heads of the dragon in the waters. Psalms 74:13

The reports of dragons in the sea are reminiscent of sightings of sea serpents, the source of much speculation in the Nineteenth Century [2]. As no specimens were captured, discussion centred on the reports of sailors and shore observers, with special weight being accorded to the descriptions provided by naval officers. No satisfactory explanation could be agreed upon and that is true of the aquatic dragons described in the excerpts above.

It appears that dragons are also terrestrial, with a liking for undergrowth, and they have the ability to vocalise:

And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons.... Isaiah 34:13

And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Malachi 1:3

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. Revelation 13.11

These descriptions take us further away from believing that the author is referring to recognisable animals in the way that he/she did with birds and with reptiles. Indeed, we know that dragons are not just found on Earth:

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels.... Revelation 12:7

And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. Revelation 12:3

This presents us with one of the problems facing all readers of The Bible - sorting out the factual from the fantastic and allegorical. Unfortunately, I conclude that all records of dragons in the holy book are in the latter categories. 

(By the way, how are ten horns arranged on seven heads?) 

[1] King James’ Bible: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/

[2] Philip Henry Gosse (1860) The Romance of Natural History. London, J. Nisbet and Co..