+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Nature & Conservation (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-nature-conservation)
+--- Forum: Human & Nature (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-human-nature)
+--- Thread: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them (/topic-animals-and-the-cultures-that-worshipped-them)
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - brotherbear - 01-05-2016
(01-04-2016, 10:51 PM)Polar Wrote:(01-04-2016, 07:50 PM)brotherbear Wrote: it is easy to see why the Roman Emperor Constantine hand-picked the lion as the new "King of Beasts." The mane which he wears like a crown. The thunderous roar. The fact that he surrounds himself with a harem of females which do nearly all of the hunting for him. And perhaps for the battles he must fight to hold his place "upon the throne."
I mean the tiger could've been chosen instead of the lion due to its more deeper roar (not louder), its territorial instinct and killer aggression to get things done, and the fact that the resident tiger can prowl its territory in peace and not be disturbed by the various females around itself. Also, it can hunt large prey for its females to eat from it whenever they feel like it, and the tiger also has an awesome coat.
No, the people of Europe during that time had no clue about tigers. The bears of Europe were larger and fiercer than those who survived the war against them. The superstitious people believed that bears had the habit of stealing women and raping them ( as was believed about the gorilla during the 1800s and early 20th century ). Constantine thus waged a war against bears which lasted for nearly 1,000 years; also because some populations worshiped the bear. Yes; a strange history.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - GrizzlyClaws - 01-05-2016
(01-04-2016, 10:51 PM)Polar Wrote:(01-04-2016, 07:50 PM)brotherbear Wrote: it is easy to see why the Roman Emperor Constantine hand-picked the lion as the new "King of Beasts." The mane which he wears like a crown. The thunderous roar. The fact that he surrounds himself with a harem of females which do nearly all of the hunting for him. And perhaps for the battles he must fight to hold his place "upon the throne."
I mean the tiger could've been chosen instead of the lion due to its more deeper roar (not louder), its territorial instinct and killer aggression to get things done, and the fact that the resident tiger can prowl its territory in peace and not be disturbed by the various females around itself. Also, it can hunt large prey for its females to eat from it whenever they feel like it, and the tiger also has an awesome coat.
Meanwhile, a tiger can also meow, because it is the only big cat that has preserved so much vocal pattern of the small felines along with the Snow leopard and Clouded leopard.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Pckts - 01-05-2016
And Tigers actually aren't the only big cat who Chuffs either, apparently the Jaguar will chuff as well.
And actually lions SORT of purr as well as tigers and other big cats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEZr6vzhLWQ
Tigers have also been known to imitate prey sounds "The Pook"
Another unusual sound which may be made is the 'pook'. This is very similar to the sound made by the sambar, a favourite prey animal of the tiger. Because of this fact some experts think it may be a form of mimicry. By imitating the deer the tiger could elicit a reply, so locating the precise whereabouts of lunch. Local hunters also believe that the Amur (Siberian) tiger imitates the wapiti deer by producing the roaring of a stag during mating season.
These ideas are still to be proven and those who disagree point out it is equally likely any attempt at mimicry could spook the prey.I guess you can call that a "meow" but its not used the way a cat meows, its more so used to let others know its there and if any of its females are around. Its basically announcing it self to the jungle.
It can actually be classified as a type of roar or Yowl if you will.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Polar - 01-05-2016
(01-05-2016, 03:02 AM)brotherbear Wrote:(01-04-2016, 10:51 PM)Polar Wrote:(01-04-2016, 07:50 PM)brotherbear Wrote: it is easy to see why the Roman Emperor Constantine hand-picked the lion as the new "King of Beasts." The mane which he wears like a crown. The thunderous roar. The fact that he surrounds himself with a harem of females which do nearly all of the hunting for him. And perhaps for the battles he must fight to hold his place "upon the throne."
I mean the tiger could've been chosen instead of the lion due to its more deeper roar (not louder), its territorial instinct and killer aggression to get things done, and the fact that the resident tiger can prowl its territory in peace and not be disturbed by the various females around itself. Also, it can hunt large prey for its females to eat from it whenever they feel like it, and the tiger also has an awesome coat.
No, the people of Europe during that time had no clue about tigers. The bears of Europe were larger and fiercer than those who survived the war against them. The superstitious people believed that bears had the habit of stealing women and raping them ( as was believed about the gorilla during the 1800s and early 20th century ). Constantine thus waged a war against bears which lasted for nearly 1,000 years; also because some populations worshiped the bear. Yes; a strange history.
How didn't they have any clue? There are some literature in early times (500-600s) in Bavaria (during Roman occupation) relating to Tigers and their shipment from West Asia to the Roman provinces, but you're right in that they didn't worship tigers or hold them dear. Lions are much more conjoined with Europe when referencing distance between Africa and Rome, and as a result, gave an earlier impression of a big cat's majestic appearance and they decided to use the Lion. And yes, even European Brown Bears used to be larger back then as well (according to Ursus on the older CarnivoraForums), but by only 100 pounds, and still slightly less than a modern American Yellowstone brownie.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - GrizzlyClaws - 01-05-2016
The Pleistocene European Brown bears were once as large as the modern Kodiak bears.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - brotherbear - 01-05-2016
The Bear - History of a Fallen King by Michel Pastoureau ( translated by George Holoch ) - 2007.
You can find this book, Polar on Amazon. There was an animal called "tiger" known in Europe, but carvings and drawings depict a rather dog-like animal. Thank you GrizzlyClaws. I believe, according to some reading, that there were some large bears in Europe up into the Dark Ages.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - GrizzlyClaws - 01-05-2016
The lion that was recognized as the totem in the European cultures were the West/Central African lion subspecies.
The very few leftover populations of this subspecies are still struggling against the extinction in some isolated areas in West Africa and India. So better do something before it is too late.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - brotherbear - 01-05-2016
Also, in answer to Polar's question in post #49, in the ancient Roman Arena, bear vs lion and bear vs bull were highly popular entertainment. Why not tigers? They were as yet unknown.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Shardul - 03-29-2016
(01-04-2016, 02:01 AM)LionKiss Wrote:(01-04-2016, 01:48 AM)Pckts Wrote: Zoolatry is the worship of animals and it has been going on throughout the existence of man.
Tigers don't exist in those places, hence why you don't see tiger sculptures. But the Asian continent is littered with tiger sculptures, temples, paintings, etc.
The world is far larger than Europe and N. America my friend.
why had Lions ever existed in Chicago, Paris, Rome or London? they were transported there by man
The world is far greater than Europe and N America but all Great Powers of the past were European and since they had a extremely higher point of education than people living in Asia or Africa they had better judgement.
Do you believe that the people living in India during the Roman Empire, say 100AD had a better level of education than the Roman Citizens.
Besides all sciences, philosophy, medicine, arts appeared in Europe, well this is a historical fact.
What an absolutely idiotic post! You talk of education, but it seems like you've never been to school.
[Easy now, Shardul. There is no need for that kind of tone, especially when there is not anything offensive in the post.
So, if you think he's wrong, then explain it to him. But enough with the ad-hominems, please. Majingilane.]
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Tshokwane - 03-29-2016
Quote:The world is far greater than Europe and N America but all Great Powers of the past were EuropeanThat's not exactly true.
Besides all sciences, philosophy, medicine, arts appeared in Europe, well this is a historical fact.
Egypt was probably the first great force in the world, and it's in Africa. And a great deal of scientific knowledge was discovered there and something similar goes with its architecture.
The same with the persian empire. And the same with the greeks under Alexander and his generals, go extended towards Asia and Egypt.
I don't really know much about Asia so I can't comment there, but for example, here in south america, Aztecas, Mayas and Incas, while primitive in some ways, had a good amount of scientific knowledge and beautiful architecture, paintings, etc as well.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Shardul - 03-29-2016
@Majingilane
Respectfully disagree. That post not only displayed absolute ignorance about the Asian civilizations, but it also basically termed an entire race of people as being intellectually inferior and incapable of making the right judgement. In fact, I think I was being pretty generous. I am all for maintaining decorum here, but that post was borderline racist, ignorant and ill articulated to whatever point he/she was making.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Tshokwane - 03-29-2016
Quote:it also basically termed an entire race of people as being intellectually inferior and incapable of making the right judgement.Maybe, but it's debatable.
Quote:that post was borderline racist, ignorant and ill articulated to whatever point he/she was making.Ignorant, a bit yes. Ill articulated, maybe.
Not racist. This is a word that's thrown everywhere and everytime someone's bothered by an affirmation, and instead of making a solid argument counteracting that statement, people focus on the imagined offense.
There's no need for that to happen here and, as I've said, you can counter what he said, but use logic, data and reason, there's no need to start a fight over nothing.
Let's just keep the topic moving forward.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Shardul - 03-29-2016
When someone makes a statement about the apparent superiority of one group of people over the other, whether indirect or implied, I am not going to engage in an argument with them. End of topic.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Tshokwane - 03-29-2016
Quote:When someone makes a statement about the apparent superiority of one group of people over the other, whether indirect or implied, I am not going to engage in an argument with them.Yet you still have to provide said argument. Otherwise, this is just: "I don't like what he said, so I'm going to get angry".
Emotional babbling is not debating.
RE: Animals and the cultures that worshipped them - Shardul - 03-30-2016
(03-29-2016, 11:46 PM)Majingilane Wrote:Quote:When someone makes a statement about the apparent superiority of one group of people over the other, whether indirect or implied, I am not going to engage in an argument with them.Yet you still have to provide said argument. Otherwise, this is just: "I don't like what he said, so I'm going to get angry".
Emotional babbling is not debating.
No. It is this: "I think what you said is moronic which makes wonder whether you have ever had any sort of education". I thought I had put across my thoughts very clearly.
The OP's reasoning went like this: "Opinion of Europeans >>Opinion of Asians because I think Europeans are of superior intellect compared to Asians." Basically implying that Asians aren't smart enough. Or stupid, in other words.
My retort went along the lines of: "I think what you have posted is idiotic (or something of very low intellect) and your opinion doesn't really matter."
So in a way, I am only using the OP's line of argument.
Now, I could go ahead and post a detailed argument, but there are a few problems with that approach:
1) This is not a history forum.
2) Asia is the biggest continent on earth, it's history, the cultures and civilizations it gave birth to are too diverse and immense for people with pea sized brains to understand and comprehend.
3) You might like to debate with ignorant bigots, I don't.
4) When, and with whom I choose to have an argument, is entirely my prerogative.
I rest my case.