Santa's Old Sidekick

 

Santa and Krampus off on Christmas Eve

I was reading one of my new Christmas books the other day called Winter Solstice, and I came upon an interesting and slightly disturbing "fact". I put fact in parentheses because I will be discussing Santa, and while it will be mythological truth, it's not actually true. You know what I mean?

Krampus 

So this interesting fact is that Santa hasn't always been the one to deal with the whole naughty or nice issue. You see back in the day, he only concerned himself with the good kids. It was his job to go around being jolly and rewarding all the good little boys and girls. But what about all the bad kids you might ask? Well, don't worry about them. They got what was coming to them. You see, a log time ago, Santa was one half of a dynamic duo. So who was Santa's partner? Why Krampus! And what does Krampus look like? A monster that looks very much like the devil himself, so frightening that he (literally) scared the hell out of kids. And what was his job? To scare the hell out of kids. Supposedly he would haunt the dreams of bad kids, scare them, possibly kill them (with sickness) and drag them into the pits of Hell. Then (thankfully) someone decided that was a little rough for merely bending the truth, or getting in a tussle with a sibling. So more recently Krampus became the one to put the coal in your stocking instead of treats if you were bad, which I think is quite a substantial improvement over earlier forms of punishment. Besides it made for a smoother transition to Santa punishing naughty children, and Krampus disappearing totally. Can you imagine how confusing Santa Claus would be to little kids if they were unsure whether to expect a Barbie or eternal damnation from him? He would be like an abusive parent. Definitely no good for Christmas.
Isn't that something though? The history of our traditions is so often so different from the way we imagine them! The good versus evil thing is interesting to me too, especially because they weren't enemies, they were partners. And actually it makes more sense than the idea that the modern Santa being mean and not giving a little kid a toy. I mean, hasn't Santa always seemed like a bit of a push over? Well, I guess it's because he's new at the whole judging job.
It's also interesting that the tradition of Krampus is no longer...celebrated (if that's the word for it) except in isolated places in eastern Europe, where a towns person is designated each year to wear a scary costume, and roam the streets rattling chains and scaring little children into being good...for the holidays at least.

Krampus comes for naughty girl.

Maybe the reason he has gone the way of the Dodo, as the saying goes, is because a long time ago kids didn't really get presents, so the threat of bodily harm and eternal fire was the only way to get them to listen. Where nowadays just telling them that Santa wont get them a Wii if they are bad puts the fear of god in them. Not that I'm complaining about him being gone. Krampus is very un-Christmassy, and way to Grinchy for me. So I for one am glad that he has faded from the tradition. But history is history, and the "fact" is that Santa had a partner.

The Philospoher's Stone

When we hear the word alchemy we think of wizards, lizard eyeballs, and magic spells. There is probably some truth to those claims, especially in the very earliest mentions of it. But there is another truth that is less well known and probably a good deal more accurate. Alchemy at least from the 1600's on was considered a true field of research. It was an accepted and legitimate science, practiced by such men as Sir Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, and Tycho Brahe. In fact Newton wrote more about his study of alchemy than any of his more well known works. It was less mystical by then but no less sought after.
It might seem crazy to us to think someone like Newton would become involved in such folly as trying to turn base metals into gold, but if we take a moment to understand the context which led him to believe it was possible it really doesn't seem so far fetched after all. Let me give you an example.

At the time, there was no such thing as inorganic chemistry. In fact alchemy was the precursor to all study of chemistry. Scientists didn't know about or understand chemical reactions and crystal growth during Newtons time. Many alchemists believed, (Newton included) that gold could grow, like a tree or plant by adding the correct "nutrient" recipe of sulfur, mercury, and among other things a secret ingredient called the philosopher's stone . Why would the brilliant minds of the 17th century think that? Our first instinct is to think they were nuts. But we would be wrong. They thought gold could grow because they observed (correctly) that often times in veins of quarts, gold is found deposited in a dendritic pattern. They also noted (correctly) that most plants have adopted the same morphology, and in fact look strikingly similar. And since plants grow...


If you didn't know answer and someone showed you the above pictures and asked you if they were all made the same way what would you say? They didn't have microscopes that would allow them to see that gold didn't have cells like plants did. And it turns out when they mix mercury with gold it (I don't know the technical aspects of this) it can cause the atoms to re-arange, which the alchemist too optimistically thought was "growth".

Many of the other reasons for thinking that gold could be made out of lesser metals were along these lines. They weren't off the wall mutterings of lunatics (at least not before the mercury poisoning got to them). The arguments were sound at the time, and it was only much later when technology had advanced enough that scientists abandoned the idea. Before then, as far as anyone knew it might still be possible. We might think alchemy is a joke now, but we shouldn't forget it's scientific past. And just because someone somewhere might have tried to make gold out of chicken feet doesn't mean there wasn't (possibly) a good reason for them to think it might work.

Would Big Foot Make a Good Linebacker?

Would Big Foot make a good football player? I'd like to take credit for this awesome question, but alas I cannot. It was my brother who proposed it, and I think he meant it as a joke. At any rate I am sure he wasn't expecting me to take it seriously (well as serious as you can take any question involving Big Foot). But after some digging around on the Internet, here is what I came up with.

Most people claim that Big Foot is around ten feet tall, and one website indicates that witnesses have seen a BF pick up a bucket of rocks weighing 250 lb. It isn't clear why he (or she) wanted a bucket of rocks, and my guess would be that the bucket and not the rock was the prize, but I digress. Based on this information it seems likely in theory that BF would rule the football field in athletic prowess. But the same site claims that they rarely (if ever) leave the shade of the forest and allow themselves to be exposed in wide open.(That's why there are no Big Foots in Arizona or Iowa.) Extrapolate to football and their height would be an obvious advantage in blocking passes (and possibly in throwing them), and they'd be great on a special teams squad to bat down field goal attempts, but their fear of being out in the open might trump their height advantage on the traditional treeless football field. It's hard to say for sure, but I don't think Biggie is destined for the NFL.
There are several other reasons why I don't believe Big Foot could play football though. Most "researchers" think that BF is one of our cousin primates like gorillas, although one site claimed that BF might be a retro-evolved Neanderthal. (That means it might be able to break a nut open with a rock, but it probably couldn't work the Gatoraide cooler on the sidelines). It is possible that the Neanderthal might possess the brain power to play a simple game (like run from the sabertooth tiger) but it is much too optimistic to think they could remember what "52-34-19-Omaha-right flat-on three" meant.
The above linked website also says that the brain of Big Foot is small for the size of it's body, and that's never good news. While it's true the most football players look like their heads are also too small for their bodies, this is only an illusion. Their heads are the right size it's their necks that are too big. Buy anyway, it appears that BF does not have space in it's hairy head to house the rules and strategy required of a football player. It's literally too dumb. But even if he was smart, there would still be problems.
Another roadblock to BF playing ball is that most "witnesses" indicate that they smell terrible, (like rotten rhinoceros intestines covered in drunk person throw up, jock strap sweat, burnt hair and garnished with a dollop of dog diarrhea ) and thus induces involuntary vomiting by all humans within smelling distance. So that would also potentially be a problem for the BF's human teammates, as well as the fans sitting in the first several rows which could result in a decrease revenue for teams, and (in Green Bay) the retiring of the infamous Lambeau Leap. This could possibly be circumvented with sponsorship by Old Spice plus shaving/ and or waxing BF from head to toe, although I don't know what the upkeep would be on something like that. And I definitely wouldn't want to be within 100 yards of Bigfoot when he is getting his ass waxed. It would probably be a full time job and require an extra (very brave) staff member as well.
Another problem is that BF eats a LOT. A normal BF requires about 5,000 calories a day, but a buff-tastic football playing BF would probably require about 10,000. If you combine the amount of time (and skill) required to hunt squirrels, small foxes, rabbits, moles, chipmunks, birds and the occasional skunk (which are BF's favorite foods) and the time it would take BF to consume ten thousand calories of them daily, plus the time for the above waxing and add to it the cost of shotgun shells, plus vitamins and supplements, it's just not economical.
The final problem would be what to do with BF's supposed 4"x 3' long logs of feces, that it might not be able to hold until an appropriate time. Shocked?!? Oh yes, I was too. The length and diameter of BF excrement has apparently been "documented", and for once I thank god the website didn't have photos. Not only would it be a plumbing disaster in the locker room, it could also be a tripping hazard should he have an accident (which gorillas and orangutans often do) on the field. The only solution I can think of is a zamboni-like pooper-scooper, and a portable incinerator, but that would just be silly, not to mention a turn-off for fans as a precursor to all those Budweiser and Chili's commercials they play on TV. 
So the (long) short answer to the question of whether or not Big Foot would make a good football player? No, he would not.

Interesting Big Foot "facts" (taken from above website)

• It would be ideal for a human observer, in an unanticipated encounter, not to stare at the animal, but to sit on the ground, scratch him or herself, "groom" a companion, or "eat" anything within reach in order to convey as benign an impression as possible. In one instance, in which this behavior was followed, the sasquatch tarried long enough to be "talked" to.

• Their feces are sausage-shaped, up to 4" inches in diameter and up to three feet long, forming a folded heap. They are replete with numerous intestinal parasites, including hook worms, as well as small bones, hair of prey and ample vegetal matter. A sasquatch has been observed to wipe itself with its hand and lick its fingers briefly, a decidedly simian gesture.

• the nutritional needs of an average sasquatch can be calculated to amount to about 5,000 calories per day.

Clash of the Storyline

I went to see Clash of the Titans yesterday, and had I been by myself I would have walked out. It was TERRIBLE!
I hardly even know where to begin! The writers (or whomever) took one of the great classic stories from Greek mythology and made almost unrecognizable (and much worse than the original)! It is truly a shame. What's even worse is that millions of Americans will think they know the story of Perseus, and have no clue that the garbage they watched was almost completely false. Here are just a few of errors:
1. There were in fact no Titans in the movie. How ridiculous is that? The Titans were the parents and aunts and uncles of Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, and they were definitely not in there.
2. In the movie Zeus actually liked people...Ummm...since when? Zeus if you recall, only tolerated humans. He seduced women incessantly (afterward turning them into animals, or worse allowing them to be murdered by their husbands for their transgression), and even condemned the Titan Prometheus to having his liver eaten out every day forever because he (Prometheus) felt bad that man was upon the earth and freezing and stole fire from Zeus to warm them. Zeus was a bastard, and nowhere in Greek mythology was he a champion of man.
3. Since when does Perseus marry Io (who by the way as the original story goes was seduced by Zeus, turned into a cow and given to his wife Hera), and not Andromeda? The answer is never. Even in the constellations Perseus, and Andromeda are together. What is the deal with messing up that fundamental part of the story?
4. Zeus didn't give Perseus the sword, Hermes did. And Perseus never got his helmet of invisibility or his winged sandals that were a part of the original story.
5. I am pretty sure I would remember giant the scorpions in the original story had there been any. I do recall reading that the blood dripping from Medusa's severed head produced serpents in the desert, but I hardly see how that could be interpreted as giant man eating scorpions that occurred before they even encountered Medusa.
6. The creatures with the blue eyes...WTF? I don't even know where to begin with that one.I have no idea what they were supposed to be or why they were added. They reminded me of something I'd seen in Army of Darkness.
7. Why was pegasus black? And why wasn't he born from Medusa's severed head like he was supposed to be?
OK, I really don't have the time to rant any longer, but really if you have any interest in mythology do NOT go and see this movie. It was a colossal failure.

Science of Mythology: The Alicante

A friend of mine told me about at kind of snake in Mexico that drinks milk from a cows udder. As soon as he mentioned it my curiosity was quipped. I had never heard of a snake drinking milk before, and I certainly had never heard of one that relied on cows to survive. I was immediately intrigued by the possibility that this was a very recent evolutionary adaption, and was a little surprised I have never heard of it.
As it turns out, the reason I have never heard of it is because it isn't real. The Alicante snake is a legend, that has worked it's way into the real world of the Mexican farmer in much the way Bigfoot has to the inhabitants of the Pacific Northwest. It seems that most eye witnesses are old people (who also tend to be more superstitious), and there is virtually no documentation of any snake suckling any mammal for its milk. (In fact I read that snakes do not possess the ability to suck anything, their mouths and the muscle surrounding it are incapable of forming a suction).
The Alicante in Mexican mythology was a snake that would steal milk from human mothers by charming them to sleep (and putting their rattle in the baby's mouth to keep it quiet) steal her breast milk, and thus starve her infant. Other legends about the Alicante claim that when a mother was pregnant the snake could literally crawl into her body (that gives me the shivers) if she was not careful and so she had to wear certain garments to protect herself. The Catholic church recognized the snake and its threat (or maybe more fairly, they didn't believe it, but they at least addressed the locals superstitions by prescribing specific prayers an expecting mother should say morning and night, and blessing her special underclothes.)
To be fair I must say that my friend who told me about this snake has with his own eyes witnessed a snake that had it's body wrapped around a cows legs, and was indeed attached by it's mouth to an udder. And I have no reason to doubt his account. But I would interpret it differently.
The Alicante (not it's real name, but the one people refer to) is a snake that feeds on small mammals like mice, and moles etc. These animals usually live in barns, under hay, where the cows are (dairy cows specifically, since meat cattle are out in the fields). I can imagine that the snakes often startle the cows while hunting their scurrying prey and it seems perfectly natural that once in a while a snake may get stepped on, or may wrap itself around a cows legs to avoid injury. And if you imagine yourself as a snake, latching onto a swinging udder (or whatever the bag that holds the milk on a cow is called) seems like a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances. And thus, a legend is born! (Well, maybe. I am just postulating here.)

This is why I love science! It's an intellectual exercise that uses so many aspects of the brain. The fact that the Alicante doesn't really exist was a little disappointing. But taking the myth and theorizing about a logical reason why people believe the story to be true was exciting. And in the end it all makes sense (at least to me:) The mystery is solved, and all before lunchtime!
When it comes to myths people generally don't make up things completely out of the blue. I have found that almost every legend has some small kernel of truth to it. And figuring out what that is, is the "science" of mythology.