Professor of English and expert on folklore at Penn State Mont Alto tells Down To Earth that cryptozoology is not going anywhere as there is a deep-seated need for unknown sentient creatures to inhabit the liminal spaces around us
Frame 352 of the famous Patterson-Gimlin film, alleged to depict a female Bigfoot. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
On August 26-27, ‘monster hunters’ will converge on Loch Ness, the lake in the Scottish Highlands famous for being home to a legendary monster named ‘Nessie’, to undertake what is being billed as the biggest search for the folkloric creature in 50 years.
Nessie is what is known as a ‘cryptid’, a creature that is unknown, legendary, or extinct and whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated. Cryptids have been reported on every continent and several cultures.
Some famous cryptids include Mokele Mbembe, the dinosaur-like creature of the Congo; the Chupacabra of Latin America and the Caribbean; the Big Foot or Sasquatch of North America and the Yeti of the Himalayas.
The study of cryptids is called ‘cryptozoology’. It is largely considered a ‘pseudoscience’, with no scientific basis at all.
How did cryptozoology come about? What purpose did it serve in the past? Is it relevant in today's world where candidates for ‘the last frontier’ are diminishing at a dizzying pace due to the latest inventions in technology?
To get answers to these questions, Down To Earth spoke to Peter J Dendle, Professor of English and expert on folklore at Penn State Mont Alto in the US state of Pennsylvania. Edited excerpts:
Rajat Ghai (RG): Why is cryptozoology still considered a pseudoscience? Is the absence of evidence also necessarily the evidence of absence?
Peter J Dendle (PJD): Cryptozoology will always remain a pseudoscience by definition, since it looks for creatures unconfirmed by science. Any new documented species no longer falls under its purview. About 18,000 new species are discovered every year, but they are not sufficiently large or exotic to excite the imagination of cryptozoology enthusiasts. The creatures that are discovered are never the ones cryptozoologists were looking for. In the case of larger land species occupying limited habitats in the age of GPS, yes — the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. The most compelling reason to think that Bigfoot and Nessie don’t exist is not that we haven’t found a body or bones, it’s the absence of any interim fossil record. This is like trying to find the tip of a pyramid when there’s no pyramid underneath it.
Cryptozoology is not a quest for animals but for monsters. It represents a valorous last stand to preserve awe and mystery in an over-charted, over-exploited world. Drawing inspiration from earlier periods of bold exploration, cryptozoologists keep alive a wide-eyed sense of wonder that is not ancillary to the human connection with the natural world but deeply rooted at its core. Although easily dismissed by the general public, people in the cryptozoology community inject passion and dedication into archetypal forms that enrich the human experience for all of us. A world without monsters or monster hunters would be a colder, lonelier world.
RG: The Anthropocene has started now. One of its highlights is species loss. Is it still possible then that somewhere, in a remote corner of the world, a species previously known only in myth is actually waiting to be discovered?
PJD: Species loss, wilderness depletion, and the decreased connection of people with the natural world are essential to the rise of cryptozoology. Bernard Heuvelmans, the founder of cryptozoology, wrote in the 1950s and 1960s contemporaneously with Rachel Carson, the pioneer of modern environmentalism. We project protectionism and perhaps guilt onto our monsters alongside fear and admiration.
As far as land animals go, the Giant Muntjac deer found in Vietnam in 1994 is probably among the last discoveries of any notable size we will ever make as a species, on this world and very possibly on any other. It is a beautiful little beast coming in at about the same height and weight range as an Alaskan husky. We should appreciate it more. But mythmaking emerges from countless millennia of human fears and aspirations — running out of land will not make us run out of myths.
RG: Some animals that were once in the realm of cryptozoology like the giant squid, okapi and mountain gorilla are well-known today. Do these discoveries warrant that cryptozoology should be treated with more seriousness than is usually the case?
PJD: The global colonial enterprises of the 18th and 19th centuries resulted in mostly completing the world map and large species taxonomies. If cryptozoologists have to go back over a hundred years to an era of steam-powered ships and telegraph communication to cite the last few triumphs of discovery, this sounds closer to admitting that the era is closed. Furthermore, the discovery of the giant squid did not necessarily vindicate the search for a kraken. Here indeed was a primordial marvel with long tentacles and colossal, humanish eyes, but the giant squid of folklore that dragged galleons down to the icy depths remains the stuff of lore. In Jenny Hanivers and manatees we have not yet found the mermaid. Her call still beckons.
RG: A growing body of scientific research into myths and legends has shown that many have a basis in fact. Should more importance then be given to folklore and legends, especially of indigenous peoples?
PJD: More importance should indeed be given to the folklore and legends of indigenous peoples, not because they happen to know of biological organisms that elude our attention, but because their lore is born of unique experiences through generations of accumulated wisdom. The loss of languages and cultures is perhaps just as tragic as the loss of forests and mammoths, because they encode irreproducible facets of the human condition.
RG: What future do you see for cryptozoology?
PJD: GPS coverage has demystified any terrain exposed to the skies, and near-ubiquitous human occupation and industry have demystified much of the rest of it. Cryptozoology, however, is not going anywhere. There is a deep-seated need for unknown sentient creatures to inhabit the liminal spaces around us, even as the boundaries of that space are ever shifting. We have not yet conquered the night, the ocean depths, the reaches of space, or the landscapes of our dreams. We need there to be unknown creatures of beauty, awe, and terror to keep ourselves humble and to keep the world alive with presence.
The future of cryptozoology could lie in part in the ocean trenches, at least for a little while longer. But it also resides in cyberspace, where digital creatures such as creepypasta have found a home away from the gaze of overhead satellites or trail cams. Just as the last major unexplored habitats such as Borneo and New Guinea were opening up after World War II, the search for unknown creatures turned to the heavens. Alien sightings and encounters are emblematic of our ability to continue looking for monsters in hidden places, not just despite technological advances but fueled by those very advances. US Congressional hearings not four weeks ago included testimony that, along with nonhuman spacecraft, “biologics came with some of these discoveries.” In the absence of evidence that can be corroborated, this remains firmly in the realm of storytelling. But these are the archetypal stories that remind us of our tiny place in a vast, rich universe of mysteries. I do not know what monsters will feature in our stories a thousand years from now, but I have no doubt they will be exhilarating and continuously push us to explore our spatial and psychological boundaries.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.