http://www.anomalist.com/reports/mokele.html
I can confirm that at least two of the pygmies who were directly involved in the killing of a Mokele-mbembe at Lake Tele about three decades ago were acquainted on a personal level with missionary pastor Eugene P. Thomas. I have discussed this incident with Pastor Thomas, and he was able to confirm most of the details of the story which follows.
Around 1960, the forest dwelling pygmies of the Lake Tele region (the Bangombe tribe), fished daily in the lake near the Molibos, or water channels situated at the north end of the lake. These channels merge with the swamps, and were used by Mokele-mbembes to enter the lake where they would browse on the vegetation. This daily excursion into the lake by the animals disrupted the pygmies fishing activities. Eventually, the pygmies decided to erect a stake barrier across the molibo in order to prevent the animals from entering the lake.
When two of the animals were observed attempting to break through the barrier, the pygmies speared one of the animals to death and later cut it into pieces. This task apparently took several days due to the size of the animal, which was described as being bigger than a forest elephant with a long neck, a small snake-like or lizard-like head, which was decorated with a comb-like frill. The pygmy spearmen also described a long, flexible tail, a smooth, reddish-brown skin and four stubby, but powerful legs with clawed toes. Pastor Thomas also mentioned that the two pygmies mimicked the cry of the animal as it was being attacked and speared.
Later, a victory feast was held, during which parts of the animal were cooked and eaten. However, those who participated in the feast eventually died, either from food poisoning or from natural causes. It should be noted that pygmies rarely live beyond 35, and pygmy women give birth from aged 12. I also believe that the mythification (magical powers, etc) surrounding Mokele-mbembes began with this incident.
During my first expedition in 1985, we met with several eyewitnesses who have observed Mokele-mbembes in the Sangha and Likouala aux Herbes Rivers. Our pygmy informants also mentioned that there was at least two Mokele-mbembes still living in the Lake Tele vicinity, but they were simply too afraid to take us to a precise location where we could actually film and observe a specimen of Mokele-mbembe, due to their superstitious beliefs surrounding the animals and fear of reprisals from the Boha villagers who are regarded as the owners of the lake. The Boha villagers are also familiar with areas in the river and swamps where we can observe these animals for ourselves. However, the general belief that speaking of Mokele-membes to white outsiders will result in great misfortune or death is fairly prevalent throughout the Likouala region. This presents huge problems in obtaining accurate and up-to-date information on Mokele-mbembes and other cryptids.
I should add that I am not convinced that Marcellin Agnagna, Rory Nugent, or Herman Regusters have observed Mokele-mbembes. During our two visits to the Congo, my colleagues and I were unable to locate a single one of the "dozens" of witnesses that allegedly observed Mokele-mbembes with the aforementioned explorers. Marcellin Agagna changed his story several times, and is now thought (by Roy Mackal) to have observed the giant African freshwater turtle, Trionyx triunguis. Herman Regusters and his wife Kia are the only individuals on his expedition to have observed a "long-necked member" travelling across Lake Tele, in spite of the fact that 28 other people were with them from the village of Boha. Rory Nugent's alleged Mokele-mbembe photos could be anything, although he may have seen "something" in the distance.
Trionyx triunguis
*Bill Gibbons has conducted two major expeditions to the Congo, in 1985-6, and 1992, in search of the Mokele-mbembe. He conducted two other field investigations on the island of Mauritius in the southern Indian Ocean in 1990 and 1997, after two European visitors claimed Dodo sightings. Operation Congo III, and Project Dodo III are currently under development. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Cultural Anthropology with Warnborough College, Oxford. [He got that degree-but Warnsborough college is in no way connected to Oxford University: it has unkindly been referred to as a diploma mill]
After considering the evidence on this, the most straightforeward and absolutely cold-blooded solution would be that the Pygmies killed a Water Monster that has been identified as a giant turtle, and the most of the description fits a giant turtle.It has the long neck, snakelike or lizardlike head, big round body and four short stumpy legs with clawed freet. It is the short stumpy legs with clawed feet that are the clincher in the identification: that fits a turtle and not a Sauropod or any of the other candidates.The long tail and comb-like deciration on the head are confusions of the description which arise from the descriptions of other traditional water-monsters not distinguished the Mokele-mbembe. Going by the statement made by True Authority:
Mokele-mbembe is Lingala, and can mean a variety of things. The word is commonly defined as "One that stops the flow of rivers," but can also mean "one who eats the tops of palm trees," "monstrous animal," or even "half-God, half-beast." Mokele-mbembe is also used as a generic term to refer to other animals like Emela-ntouka [a rhinoceros], Mbielu-mbielu-mbielu [a sort of crocodile], and Nguma-monene.[an elongated lizard, big snake or an unusual cobra]http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/mokele.htmAnd so it seems there is a confusion to a very large degree inherant in the name used to cover these reports: it would not be very unusual for Pygmies' questions or answers confused in such a situation.
And although the flesh of these turtles is commonly eaten, some people have strong taboos against eating it (the Ancient Egyptians are included) and in some cases, turtles have been eating things that actually make their flesh poisonous to eat...a gourmet delight that can sometimes make you very sick if you eat it.
The shells of these turtles are supposed to be as much as 12 to 18 feet in diameter, and that would be a larger profile area than an elephant, and it is pretty certain these measurements are surely exaggerations. But it is a belief that such turtles grow so large that gave rise to the story that these Pygmies actually killed and ate a gigantic softshelled turtle larger than an elephant, and the description reminded missionaries of a Sauropod dinosaur.
 |
| softshell-wikipedia-tinymen-to scale |
--Best Wishes, Dale D.
 |
| Trionyx triunguis |
http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2011/04/titanic-turtles-of-tele.html
Actually, the description sounds to me like a long-necked monitor lizard. Last spring there was a very good series on the National Geographic Channel called "Beast Hunter" which was hosted by Pat Spain, a biologist who is also the grandson or great-grandson of Charles Fort (I can't remember which). Anyway, there was a point where he noted that many reptiles, especially lizards, often carry salmonella. In this case I think that the pygmies may have killed one of your Congo Dragons and then contracted salmonella or another food poisoning and died.
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
Tyler Stone
Actually I think your partly right and actually I think we're BOTH right:
ReplyDeleteThere is a good chnce that the basic report snakyneck-fat body-and four STUMPY legs with claws- goes with a big turtle report: for my money that sounds like an exellent description and the location is one of the places where the giant softshelled turtles are specified.
BUT
On the other hane there are a couple of details that are left over: a structure like a comb on the head and a long tail DO go with a large monitor lizard: they are given as the identifying characteristics of the Nguma-Monene, which everybody agrees is somehow related to the monitor lizards. So either some Pygmies confused the description OR (way I think is more likely) there were two killings of two different animals in the general range of fifty-sixty years ago by two different groups of Pygmies, and more recent retellings have combined the two events, partly on the basis that the two types of animals are generally confused and referred to by the same name anyway.
Now the real problem with this is that the Nguma-Monene is not reported in the Lake Tele area but to the North, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, whereas the turtle IS reported in Lake Tele. Therefore I assume that tthe parts of the story that describe the monitor-like creature are a foreign tradition that has come into the area from the North or Northwest and grafted itself onto the local story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguma-monene
But because I did see that as a complication arising from a different geographical area I did not want to make a big deal about it in the original posting.
BTW, if there is a local form or the giant monitor lizard legend at Lake Tele that can be discriminated from all of the other "Mokele mbembe" I should certainly like to know the specific name for it there.
Best Wishes, Dale D.
BTW before making this posting, I had communicated with Richard Freeman via email, and he feels very strongly that ALL reports of longnecked creatures in the Lake Tele area are the giant softshelled turtles, called locally Ndenki. I feel that some of them are more likely the Longnecked-Lakemonster-and-Seaserpent types, but I have no reasons to rule the giant monitor lizards out of the area. Since these are called Nsanga elsewhere, I suspect the same creatures are called Nyamala here: but then again you have the problem with the confusion over names of things.
ReplyDeleteBest Wishes, Dale D.
As far as the story goes, there is another alternative; it could be that the creature that was killed was not the same as the creatures seen earlier. Since "Mokele-Mbembe" is a catchall name, it may be that they reported features of turtles (seen browsing in the area) and a monitor lizard (the creature that was killed), and that the descriptions have since become mixed together with subsequent re-tellings.
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
Tyler Stone
...or any other permutation of events would reach to the same outcome, arising from the fact that the name was used ambiguously to start with. There was the gap of probably a generation's time at least between the event and the reporting of the event, so therefore it would be no wonder if there was any such confusion going on.
ReplyDeleteBest Wishes, Dale D.
Thank you so much, I have been saying that the mokele-mbembe sauropod stories are probably soft-shelled turtles for years. I even mentioned it on Tetropod Zoology a few times and am defiantly going to link to this article the next time I see mention the subject. That size comparison picture of the turtle and the pygmies is a thousand words of explanation all on it's own. May I republish that mockup when I start my own blog? I will give you full credit of course.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, and thank you for your interest!
ReplyDeleteBest wishes, Dale D.
I can assure you that the animals being reported in Cameroon are not soft shelled turtles, long-necked monitor lizards or anything like them. The general description from the Boumba/Dja/Ngoko River region is that of an animal that answers the following description.
ReplyDelete1. At least 18-20ft in height.
2. tough, scaled neck, body & tail
3. Dermal spikes running the length of the head,neck, back & tail.
4. Four powerful legs ending in clawed toes.
5. The female possesses a longer neck than the male (always long and thin, unlike a turtle)
6. Sometimes observed on land
7. browses on leaves and fruits in the tree branches
8. Extremely dangerous of approached - will sometimes attack and capsize canoes.
9. has a n air-sac under the lower jaw which it inflates to make loud, bellowing vocalizations.
See the MonsterQuest episode here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CeHwgMtvXQ
Best Wishes,
Bill Gibbons
Thank you for the additional information. It is very valuable and it shall require especially close consideration. However in this instance mentioning such a tradition does not address the central matter of this blog posting, which is about an old report that some Pygmies had killed and eaten an unidentified creature in the area of Lake Tele, which had a long neck and four stumpy legs sticking sideways out of the body and with clawed feet. that description STILL fits a large turtle best,it is NOT like a Sauropod dinosaur, and I have the opinion of Richard Freeman and several other Cryptozoologists that the only long-necked Cryptid native to the area and commonly reported on Lake Tele is a giant turtle, exactly as is stated here. The tradition you are speaking of comes from a different area and shall have to be dealt with separately. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteBest Wishes, Dale D.
Hello Dale,
ReplyDeleteI have been to Lake Tele and the local guides hunted and killed lake turtles regularly for food, which my colleagues and I also consumed. In the case of the killing on an 'MM' around 1959, the Bagombe pygmies were very much afraid of the animals as they moved into the lake almost daily via a 'molibo' (channel of water that merged with the swamps) and erected a stake barrier to stop the animals from disturbing their fishing activities. When two of the animals attempted to break through the barrier, the pygmies speared one to death and the other retreated.
Before my arrival in Impfondo, northern Congo in 1985, Pastor Eugene P. Thomas made a point of closely interviewing two surviving members of the group that were present at the killing (but did not consume the animal's
meat later). They described the animals in detail, eliminating any possibility that they might have encountered a hippo (ngubu), and elephant (nzoku) or even a giant turtle (nkoba), as all are perfectly familiar to them. It was a Mokele-mbembe, proper. They were even able to mimic the strange, high pitched cry the animal made as it was being speared to death.
Hope this helps.
Bill
Bill, there is a specific problem when you say "Mokele-mbembe proper" in that in the central Congo there IS no such thing as the "Mokele-mbembe proper"- indeed that term is from a language which is foreign to the area. Roy Mackal even spoke of the term as refering to a mythological concept ("That-which-blocks-the-flow-of-the-water") although presumably based on other discrete types of Cryptids. It is known to be used to refer to "Water-Elephants" (which might be hippos) and also to the one-horned Emela-ntouka, which is evidently the reason why the MM is sometimes also spoken of as having a single horn. In this instance whatever was killed was categorically NOT any kind of a sauropod dinosaur: the legs and feet as specified here are very much against it and this IS one place where those reptilian legs and clawed feet are insisted on. I understand your point of view and I knew it was your point of view when you wrote the source article I quoted here. In this instance I am not basing my opinion on my own opinion alone but on the consensus of a half a dozen other Cryptozoologists as well Each one independantly came to the conclusion that there is not much chance for a longnecked Sauropiod dinosaur to be hiding in lake Tele but the large turtles WERE known to live there. And the fundamental flaw in the identification of any of these Cryptids as Sauropod dinosaurs is that you are assuming an outmoded lifestyle model for the Sauropod dinosaurs in general. Sauropod dinosaurs are not now thought of as being largely aquatic or even regularly going into the water: they were built as land animals, and herd animals. A herd of plant-eating Sauropod dinosaurs would very quickly strip off all available vegetation from around the pools which they allegedly permanently inhabit. BTW, just what name DID the Pygmies actually use for the creature which was slain, seeing as how "Mokele-Mbembe" is not a Pygmy word and is not native to the area around Lake Tele?
ReplyDeleteHello Dale,
ReplyDeleteIn our own investigations, we found that "Mokele-mbembe" (One who stops the flow of rivers)is sometimes used as a generic term to describe any animal that is strange to the Lingala speakers of the Congo Basin area, who may not have actually seen the animal for themselves. However, the most reliable eye-witnesses are those who have encountered Mokele-mbembes in the rivers and also the lakes. They have provided us with detailed zoological descriptions that could not possibly be ascribed to outsized turtles. Remember, too, that hunters and fishermen tend to avoid specific areas where the animals are most often observed (such as the northern side of Lac Tele). They do not show such fear for turtles, no matter how big they might grow. Indeed, they speak of much larger turtles than the ones we find today, that were hunted for their meat and for their sizeable shells, which were used as war shields.
There are over 729 (known) languages spoken in the Congo Basin region. There are 15 different names for the Mokele-mbembe, and the pgymies are just as diverse with their different cultures, languages and religious beliefs than any other tribe. If Mokele-mbembe was a mythical reconstruction or a religious belief, it would be confined to a small geographical location, and not be so widespread. I have detailed all of this in some depth in my book, 'Mokele-mbembe, Mystery beast of the Congo Swamps.'
Given the fact that plenty of large turtles have been killed for food (as have sizeable crocodiles), so I absolutely reject the idea that Mokele-mbembes are soft-shelled turtles. Besides, turtles, no matter how large, do not capsize canoes and kill the occupants with tail lashing, nor do they browse on the leaves and fruits of tree branches to a height of 18 feet or more. Most of the eye-witness accounts concern encounters with the animals as they are feeding, with a few independent reports of the animals surfacing under passing canoes, which are broken in half by the rigid dermal spikes that adorn some specimens. They are also solitary creatures, and more than three together have never being seen at any one time.
Regardless of what paleontologists say about sauropod morphology and habits, I have not stated anywhere that Mokele-mbembe is without doubt a living dinosaur. Merely that the descriptions from early written accounts and modern eye-witness accounts describe an animal that at least bears a resemblance to what we would imagine a sauropod might look like in life.
I think that Roy Mackal put it best in a 1984 BBC Radio 4 interview when he stated; "The description of Mokele-mbembe does not correspond with any known living animal within the current repertoire of contemporary zoology.
Needless to say, we will keep trying until some sort of verifiable evidence is forthcoming that will tell us exactly what kind of animal we are in fact dealing with. Who knows? it might be something entirely new. And in a place like the Congo Basin, it wouldn't surprise me in the least!
Bill
Thank you Bill. You did not answer my specific question. I was told that the name used for this creature killed by the Pygmies on Lake Tele was one of the names for the giant softshelled turtle in the area. Eating the animal is taboo to some groups and is NOT eaten for that reason, the belief being that to do so would lead to death. I have independant indication of what the names of Water-Monsters are used by the Pygmies. In this case what we are talking about seems distinct from the "Water-Elephant." Because we have this problem with "Mokele-Mbembe" being generic and used to name more than one kind of animal (which you admit), it is of paramount importance that we be as specific as possible in discussing the matter.--So I ask once again, pray, what was the name of the animal as indicated to you by the Pygmies you spoke to about this incident?
ReplyDeleteLet me suggest that it is your worldview that prevents you from accepting the testimony of the indigenous people regarding this creature. It reminds me of the Okapis that were reported to western scientists in the late 19th century. The scientists discounted the reports because they "were just simple people that didn't know any better". They assumed that they were just mixing up a zebra and a giraffe. In 1904 the scientists discovered their error but didn't learn anything from it. It should be pointed out that the okapi lived right out on the savannah in plain view and could have been easily verified if the scientists had given anyt credibility at all to the natives' testimony. The mokele mbembe lives in the water most of the time deep in an almost impenetrable jungle. In addition to that it can stay under the water for a long time when it needs to and avoids people like the plague.
ReplyDeleteWhen locals have been asked to describe what they have seen they draw a picture in the sand that looks exactly like a sauropod dinosaur and nothing like a turtle. How many turtles can stick their neck out of the water and browse from leaves 15 to 18 feet above the water? Show them a picture of a sauropod and a turtle side by side in a picture book and ask them which it is they saw. There will be no hesitation as they point to the sauropod.
OK, allow me to reiterate some facts that are being repeatedly ignored from your side of the fence:
ReplyDelete1) We are NOT talking "Mokele-Mbeme" here. That term is not native to the Lake Tele area. The actual name used in this particular report as given by the Pygmies has not been identified by Bill Gibbons: I have heard it alleged that it is a name which means the giant softshelled turtle (Called Ndenki as a Cryptid in Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures)
2) We ARE talking about ONE specific report from Lake Tele, this one that is identified as a giant turtle by myself and a number of my fellow Cryptozoologists. The identification rests on several features repeated in the report and NOT typical of Sauropod dinosaurs, highlighting once again the specific form of the legs as reported, which are nothing like the legs of a sauropod but exactly match the turtle.
3) The adherants of the composite category "Mokele-Mbembe" admit that it is being used imprecisely and to name a number of different and discrete creatures. These creatures range over different geographic regions and have different names otherwise. Roy Mackal differentiates a rhinoceros-like one-horned creature, a creature with multiple horns probably some form of ungulate, a creature with a jagged crest along its back that I believe to be a crocodile, and an elongated lizardlike or snakelike creature that I take to be a giant monitor lizard. Plus this same turtle.
4) when you come to the part about Natives drawing pictures in the sand and sticking the neck 15 to 18 feet out of the water, you are neither talking about the same geographical area (Lake Tele) nor about the ACTUAL Monkele-Mbembe, which is located in the Cameroons. You are combining reports into one category abnd then borrowing descriptions from another creature from a different area under another name and applying it to this report in Lake Tele, where the creature as reported and recorded here does NOT match a Sauropod dinosaur.
5)When you say that the creature stays under water most of the time and rarely comes out, you have described the behaviour of a turtleand not of a Sauropod dinosaur. When you say "Show them a picture from a book" you are once again speaking about a different people describing a different creature under a different name in a different geographic area.
6) You are correct when you say my world view prohibits my seeing the reports as describing a type of Sauropod dinosaur. A sauropod dinosaur has long straight legs held under the body, specifically NOT stated in this account from Lake Tele. Sauropod dinosaurs did NOT spend most of their time submerged underwater but instead spent most of their time on land, feeding constantly like elephants. The evidence of herds of Sauropods decimating the surrounding vegetation of areas they are supposed to inhabit is NOT THERE: there are NOT herds of Sauropod dinosaurs involved because whatever we are looking for does NOT eat vegetation in the mass quantities which Sauropod dinosaurs would require to survive!
I believe I have stated that all before and repeatedly. I do hope that you take the time to actually understand what I am saying this time around. I am not saying that there is no/are no unknown animals involved: simply that there is nothing which compels me to believe that there must be Sauropod dinosaurs involved. And I have explicitly stated reasons why.
I understand perfectly that the above article and your original focus is a different time, location, etc. Not knowing more about the area than has been presented here, and not having been there, I certainly can understand your stance that the animal in question could have been a large turtle. I do wonder that the natives were concerned about it and would try to keep it out, since they were probably accustomed to turtles in their fishing area. Thus, if it was a turtle, it must have been of unusually large size, showing behavior that was not like the ones the natives were used to.
ReplyDeleteIf I may jump ahead to the Mokele-mbembe controversy, I would just like to state that since no one on earth today was around when the sauropods walked the earth in plain view, there is no realistic way to know for sure that all sauropods traveled in herds, on land, all the time. We all know that animals have the (God-given) ability to adapt to changes in their environments, also, so even if sauropods did once travel in herds, mostly on land, there is ample reason to believe that, as civilization spreads and animals become endangered for one reason or another, their behaviors might change. Once land-dwellers, traveling fearlessly in large herds, may, as their numbers get smaller and smaller, be driven to hide in dense forests, using rivers as a means of traveling from place to place. Signs of foraged vegetation along riverbanks indicate that something likes the malambo treetops. As for "mass quantities" being eaten, if no one has been to the inner recesses of the jungles, no one is going to see this if it happens.
To me, the compelling evidence that sauropods live today is that they have been seen and described by natives of those areas in which they are currently sought. Since I do not share your world view, I am obviously much more open to the idea of living dinosaurs today. I say this, having read much on both sides of the creation/evolution, young earth/old earth debates. So, while I concede that the animal in question in the Lake Tele incident MAY have been a large soft-shelled turtle, I firmly believe that it is just as possible that it was indeed a sauropod of some kind, perhaps as yet unknown to us. Its unusually long neck and the fact that it cried out as it was attacked and killed do not sound at all turtle-like.
L.Mullin
Thank you very much. While I can argue your assumptions about surviving sauropods in general, at this point ALL I am interested in is the specific occasion of this one creature at Lake Tele.
DeleteI am the one who posted the anonymous comments about the indigenous people. I would have been happy to have given my name but it never asked for it. It is Milt. I wil try to respond to your response. I have financed several expeditions to the general area and been there myself. I have also talked at length with Roy Mackal and Gene Thomas.
ReplyDeleteI used the name "Mokele Mbembe" because it seems to be the name that in the is most recognizable as being associated with the sauropod we are looking for. It wasn't called that where we were either. We believe many different names refer to this animal. I'm sure in Lingala the natives have a name for turtle that is separate from what would refer to a sauropod.
You seem to be basing your argument pretty largely upon the comment about short, stubby legs. We believe the sauropod has relatively short, dog-like legs if you take its size into consideration. We don't think the legs are much like an elephant's, except for the size of the footprints. We believe it has claws on the front feet and possibly on the back, although smaller. It is strange that if they were describing a turtle they didn't mention what would have been an enormous carapice.
You make a lot of statements about sauropods that come straight from paleontologists, which you apparently trust a lot more than I do! If the creature is a reptile it would be an unusual one if it couldn't stay under the water for extended periods. That also explains many events that have happened to explorers in areas not too far from Lake Tele where further descriptions of sauropods, not turtles, have been given.
Milt
Thank you for your opinion. The legs of a Sauropod dinosaur are NOTHING like a dog's legs and are NOT "Short and stumpy"
DeleteHello Dale,
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why you think that Lingala is not a language used around the Lac Tele area. I can assure you, it is. The last two pygmy witnesses to the killing of one of the animals in 1950/60 conversed only in Lingala when speaking to pastor Eugeme Thomas, who in turned translated for Roy Mackal. The animal that they drew on the ground and picked out from various reconstructed illustrations of dinosaurs was a sauropod, at least in configuration. The name name "Mokele-mbembe" was given to the animals that they observed, and not "Ndeki." Even if the outmoded idea of the sauropods are incorrect with the tail dragging along the ground, the neck and tail are always described by witnesses as being very long and thin (without exception), this presents a challenge for the giant turtle theory.
The Boha villagers, who are regarded as the traditional "owners" of the lake, speak Lingala and French, and converse with the pygmies living around Lake Tele in Lingala, as they trade bush meat and fruits, etc.
The names given for a sauropod-like creature in the Congo Basin area are as follows:
Cameroon, SW Province: "Embulu-embembe" (Chamba Tribe)
Cameroon, Central Province; "Nwe" (Yaunde Tribe)
Cameroon, South Province; "Jago-nini" (Beti-Pahuin Tribe)
Cameroon, East Province M'koo-mbemboo (Bagando Sub-Group)
Cameroon, East Province; "La' Kila-bembe" (Babinga Tribe)
Central African Republic, "Songo" (Baziri Tribe)
Central African Republic; "Diba" (Baya Tribe)
Central African Republic; "Baguidi" (Bozoum Tribe)
Congo-Kinshasa "M'bokale-muembe" (Bakongo Tribe)
Congo-Kinshasa "Mokele-mbembe" (Bakongo, Bomitaba, Bomwali Tribes)
Gabon, "N'yamala" (Fang Tribe)
Sudan, "Lau" (Dinka Tribe)
Uganda "Lukwata" (Bugando Tribe)
Zambia "Isiququmadevu" (Barotse Tribe)
Zambia "M'bilintu" (Njumbo tribe)
They all describe a water dwelling monster with a long neck, small head like a snake, bulky body at least the size of a hippo, and a long flexible tail. The animals are semi-aquatic, hebivorous, sometimes observed on land, and are not, by any stretch of the imagination, turtles of any kind.
The Cameroon animals are by far the largest known, with two (known)western eye-witnesses who saw a large specimen on land, crissing from one area of water to another. What they desribed was something we imagine a living sauropod would look like today. The Cameroon specimens are also described as possessingh tough, caimen-like scales, dermal spikes and an air-sac that allows the animal to make loud, bellowing vocalizations when inflated. None of these features can be ascirbed to a turtle, no matter how large.
Best,
Bill
Thank you for your answer. From the answer given below, it would seem the Pygmies were NOT speaking Lingala and that the name which was used (which I did not say before, I was using Ndenki as a reference)was NOT one of the ones on your list.
DeleteOnce again, we are specifically talking Lake Tele and other information from other areas does not necessarily apply. In specific, the creature we are talking about here is clearly NOT the same as the Mokele-Mbembe of the Cameroons. That wasthe major point I keep harping on. You cannot borrow a description of a :Badigui" from one area and say that it proves your point about a description of a crature in Lake Tele. Similarly other repotrts from Lake Tele have a preferential status in explaining reports from Lake Tele. In Lake Tele the "Ndenki" is described as a water-monster with a circular body 12 to 18 feet across and Roy Mackal says that it means the local Giant Softshell Turtle. Roy Mackal is making the distinction that such reports have been included as "Mokele Mbembes" but that he considers them to be something different.
To quote your list, and remenbering that "Mokele-Mbembe" can be used generically to mean any of half a dozen distinct creatures or more:
Cameroon, SW Province: "Embulu-embembe" (Chamba Tribe)
Cameroon, Central Province; "Nwe" (Yaunde Tribe)
Cameroon, South Province; "Jago-nini" (Beti-Pahuin Tribe)
-We have only Trader Horn's reference for this but it supposedly means "Giant Diver." The tracks which are referenced to this are probably a sort of water-rhinoceros.
Cameroon, East Province M'koo-mbemboo (Bagando Sub-Group)
Cameroon, East Province; "La' Kila-bembe" (Babinga Tribe)
Central African Republic, "Songo" (Baziri Tribe)
Central African Republic; "Diba" (Baya Tribe)
Central African Republic; "Baguidi" (Bozoum Tribe)
-All of these creatures are described as long and snakelike and Mackal equates them to the Nguma-Monene. This could be a type of giant Monitor lizard also reported in points south as the Nsanga and so on. Nsanga is possibly related to Nyamala.
Congo-Kinshasa "M'bokale-muembe" (Bakongo Tribe)
Congo-Kinshasa "Mokele-mbembe" (Bakongo, Bomitaba, Bomwali Tribes)--As above, but in this case the name is used even less precisely as a sort of bogey creature.
The following names are included in the list but they are not from the Congo Basin. They are used in outlying districts
Gabon, "N'yamala" (Fang Tribe)-Described as a possible giant monitor lizard or crocodilian: Heuvelmans gives the name as meaning "Water-Lion"
Sudan, "Lau" (Dinka Tribe)-a catfish according to Heuvelmans, snakelike monster to others; no legs are reported on this one.
Uganda "Lukwata" (Bugando Tribe)-Heuvelmans counts as the same as Lau: alternately could be a landlocked dugong
Zambia "Isiququmadevu" (Barotse Tribe)-Heuvelmans remarks as a possible giant monitor lizard: slides on its belly
Zambia "M'bilintu" (Njumbo tribe)-refers to a creature like the Emela-Ntouka, and similar names are also used to the North of this area.
Once again I allow that unknown creatures are being described. But for the most part they are NOT described as resembling Sauropod dinosaurs in anatomy or behaviour. Especially when they are described as water-monstrers rarely coming to shore and as having short legs coming out of the sides of the body like a lizard's legs and having feet with clawed and distinct digits, which is repeated in reports from Senegal to Tanganyika and Zimbabwe
Thank you, it was the term Milt that I was told was used in reference to the softshelled turtle and a similar word is used in the Nilotic languages (Where eating the turtle is taboo and believed to result in death. The taboo against eating softshelled turtles extended even to ancient Egypt)The name Mata is said to be related and there is even an argument that the name of the South American Matamata turtle came from Africans.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely base the argument in this specific instance on the description of the short, stumpy legs. These are NOT a feature of Sauropod dinosaur skeletons, which have long columnar legs. You are not describing actual Sauropod anatomy when you say that the legs could have been described as short and stumpy. And yes, Paleontologists are the best source for reconstructing anatomy and lifestyle for extinct animals, by deinition.
In this case the short stumpy legs do NOT agree with the descriptions of "Water Elephants" in the Central Congo or anyplace else. Those types are said to have legs like elephants and to leave the round three-toed tracks. I would have thought you would have been pleased that acontradiction had been removed from your database in that instance.
My objection to the Mokele-Mbembre has always been that it is described as a water-monster rather than being like a Sauropod. I repeatedly state that Sauropods would need to consume huge amounts of vegetation and to be eaing pretty much constantly, more so than elephants. There are no signs of such massive grazing around areas designated as MM habitations: quite the reverse, and as I specified in a much earlier blog, there are flatly contradictory traditions that the MokeleMbembe is a fish-eater, hence more likely a Plesiosaur. Some of the depictions are even decidedly Plesiosaur-like as mentioned in an earlier blog, while others are harder to identify as any specific animal. Some of the depictions are pretty schematic, looking like squares or boxes with a head and neck sticking out the front, a tail out the back, and four short legs sticking out the bottom of the box, ending in feet with distinct digits. Yes I have seen reproductions of the "African Brontosaurus" as depicted by Native Africans before and they do not impress me as looking like Sauropod dinosaurs in specific, some of them are pretty much generic "Animals" that are hard to place. And there are other depictions of MMs, too: some like snakes-with-legs, others more turtlelike.
ReplyDeleteI do believe in the Mokele-Mbembe reports being descriptions of large unknown species ofreptiles, in more than one species. But so far there is no cause to rank Sauropod dinosaurs among the candidates. To stay in the water and not come out at all often, and to refrain from overgrazing the immediate vicinity of their waterholes are NOT traits that would be associated with Sauropods. Sauropods would be living in herds and constantly moving from place to place, as elephants do. I am basing my argument on ecology rather than anybody else's opinions on anything. And among my arguments is the fact that modern elephants are the exact ecological replacements of Sauropods. For that reason I would not be expecting any Sauropods around if their ecological replacements aew more widespread.
ReplyDeleteHowever that does not discount the Mokele-Mbembe as a water-monster, many of the observations can be matched exactly against the Loch Ness Monster, including the specific measurements of the body segments and their relative proportions. A lot of the early witnesses at Loch Ness said they were witnessing "Brontosauruses" and the same can be said at Lake Champlain and at various locations in Canada. It was because I understood that part from early in my investigations that I tend to disagree with the Sauropod theory, rather than I should be blindly following the opinion of anyone else. You don't know me very well if you think I blindly follow the opinion of ANYBODY else, I always analyse the constituent data as much as it is made available to me.
And I apologise if I got here late: I have been having problems with Blogger all weekend and that includes Blogger NOT allowing me in to moderate messages posted to my blogs, or to add comments of my own to them. For example, I am having a devil of a time getting my comments posted on this very blog entry even now. I believe I am being hacked and the hackers should have it made known to them, if you are keeping me from passing message that you want posted to the blogs-anonymously or otherwise-by interfering with the normal business of the blog is only keeping your comments from getting posted as well.
ReplyDeleteI have one more comment to make and then I am done, as I just don't have the time to continue it. I would like to know how people know so much about how these creatures (Mokele Mbembes)eat and behave when in our last expedition we were at least sixty miles beyond any sign of human occupation and could have gone another 200 miles without seeing anyone. In one area where we did think a Mokele Mbembe might have benn there was a tremendous amount of vegetation that had been eaten up to 18 feet into the treetops.
ReplyDeleteMilt
This was not Lake Tele was it? we are still talking Lake Tele here
ReplyDeleteThe default explanation would be you had seen where forest elephants had been feeding. There are several known places that are allegedly inhabited by Mokele-Mbembes and NONE of them show anytghing like the complete desolation which would accrue after the regular depredations of small herds of resident Sauropod dinosaurs living at cetain specific pools, year round, year after year. The best that can be put foreward would be places where forest elephants had been feedinfg for a while before moving on. That leaves patches of decimated vegetation such as you describe. I have reports from other areas such as the Mamfre pool where Ivan Sanderson saw his presumed Mokele-Mbembe: he reported what he took to be signs of grazing, but only sparingly on certain specific plants of not much relative abundance ("Jungle Chocolate"). Certainly a kind of Sauropod dinosaur would not be nearly that picky and would leave much more obvious signs of stripping away hundreds of pounds of vegetation at a go. Which is what they DID do.
One last question, Dale. You keep telling us what sauropods DID do. Were you there?
DeleteL. Mullin
No But I know enough to realize that the bony anatomy is analogous to modern land-living animals rather than aquatic ones, something which has been known in Paleontological circles since the late 1960s. You seem to have the idea that once you have a pile of old bones, you can say anything you want to about them. It doesn't work like that-you use what you can infer from comparative anatomy to make assessments. And to the extent that you can make such assessments, you are as good as being there.
DeleteI couldn't resist. I have to make one more comment, Your basic problem here is believing what the paleontologists tell us about sauropods. It is unlikely they were herding animals. Reptiles never are. What the paleontologists observe is animals that were running to escape a worldwide flood. Their behavior would have been nothing like normal, then or now.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when I refer to the legs being "short and stumpy" I think there are some misconceptions. The legs were still very large because the animal is 15 to 18 feet tall. I think the legs are more flexible than an elephant's.
We don't believe they stay in one place too long, so even if they ate a lot of vegetation, which a lone reptile would not, the vegatation loss would be negligible.
Milt
You are the fellow that keeps on saying "I'm going to quit now and no more" Correct?
DeleteI do not care what you think "my Problem" is, as far as I am concerned I have no such a problem in that area.Footprints of Sauropods indicate their normal social behaviour was living in herds, with the smaller individuals in the center of the herd for safety.
We are talking about Lake Tele and no other locations: "15 to 18 feet tall" refers to what is reported in the Central Congo River area far to the North. It does not apply directly in this area.And the legs of a Sauropod dinosaur were certainly NO MORE flexible than an elephant's. They acted as pillars to bear up the great weight in both cases.
You have shown a great lack in knowledge in anatomy, physiology,and the actual mechanics of how a living animal is to be reconstructed from fossils, and you display a constant willfulness to bend the evidence to suit your preconceived but badly outdated notions. I don't believe your opinion on the matter carries much weight consequently. I'm sorry but that's just it.
Dale,
ReplyDeleteYou ignored the very testimony of Bill Gibbons, the man who has investigated the Mokele-Mbembe phenomena more than anyone. The creature at lake Tele did not sound like a turtle and did sound like the other accounts of a huge, long-necked creature that resembles a sauropod. As a speaker of an an African language and someone with familial connections to Africa, I find it insulting that you would think that the pygmies who were born and raised in the jungle were telling the missionary about a turtle! You don't want it to be a type of what we call dinosaurs, and what used to be called dragons as that doesn't fit too well with Darwinism and the belief that the largest and most powerful creatures on the earth inexplicably died out, while a lot of others conveniently survived for 'millions' of years.
Just how disruptive are turtles to fishing anyway!
Indeed I am not ignoring the statements as made by Bill Gibbons: we have communicated extensively with Bill Gibbons and recorded that information here. Evidently you have not read the sections where this blog included that information.NO the creature did not resemble a sauropoid, the legs were entirely different and I continually have to point that out every time some member of the ministry or another goes over the same details again. Sauropods had columnar legs like an elephant: these water monsters have the legs stuck out the sides in a manner commonly seen in modern reptiles. This is one feature that is specified in the reports which shows we are NOT dealing with Sauropods in specific nor yet indeed dinosaurs in general. And I find it insulting that you attempt to refute the statements made above without even bothering to read the specifications included in the account, such as the name used for the creature i question was not even "Mokele-mBembe" but was alocal name that is also used to mean the large softshelled turtles on Lake Tele. What has happened is that a lot of sources on the internediary level are making a lot of assumptions not actually in evidence and therefore drawing false conclusions from them, including the notion that the descriptions are even remotely like Sauropod dinosaurs. They are not, the only point of similarity is the long neck and that feature is described o water monsters thewhole world over.
Delete