Speaker 1: Calavoynan, wicked wizard grasps the handle of his broadsword, asks
Speaker 1: the blade this simple question, tell me, O, my blade
Speaker 1: of honor, dost thou wish to drink my life blood?
Speaker 1: Drink the blood of Calivoynin. Thus his trusty sword makes
Speaker 1: answer well, divining his intentions, Why should I not drink
Speaker 1: thy life blood, blood of guilty Calivoynin? Since I feast
Speaker 1: upon the worthy, drink the life blood of the righteous.
Speaker 1: Thereupon the youth Colervo, wicked Wizard of the north Land,
Speaker 1: lifts the mighty sword of Uko, DIDs adou to earth
Speaker 1: in heaven, firmly thrust the hilt in heather to his heart,
Speaker 1: he points the weapon, throws his weight upon the broadsword,
Speaker 1: pouring out his wicked life blood. Air be journeys to Manala.
Speaker 1: Thus the wizard finds destruction. This the end of colivoidment.
Speaker 1: Born in sin and nursed in folly. Welcome to Stuff
Speaker 1: to Blow your mind Production of My Heart Radio. Hey,
Speaker 1: welcome to stuff to blow your mind. My name is
Speaker 1: Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick. And what you just
Speaker 1: heard was an excerpt from Room thirty five of the
Speaker 1: Finnish epic the Kalavala, as translated by John Martin Crawford
Speaker 1: in Uh, it's a famous scene from the text um
Speaker 1: that has been depicted in art. You'll find depictions of
Speaker 1: it in public statues. Uh. There was one that I
Speaker 1: was able to pull up here for us, Joe, for
Speaker 1: our notes, where you see this very stoic, very grim
Speaker 1: looking figure standing there gripping the laid of his sword,
Speaker 1: not the not the hilt, but the actual blade of
Speaker 1: it as he contemplates deep dark thoughts. Now, as for
Speaker 1: the things that are draped over his midsection, is this
Speaker 1: just sort of straps or from the pelt that have
Speaker 1: tassels like a scarf might have, or are those the
Speaker 1: paws of what was a bear skin with the claws
Speaker 1: still on them. They to me, they look like the
Speaker 1: claws of an animal skin. Yeah. But the way they
Speaker 1: wrapped around him, it looks like he's being hugged from
Speaker 1: behind by a very flattened bear. That's kind of like
Speaker 1: reaching down onto his thighs in a funny looking way. Now,
Speaker 1: that the Calavaya for anyone who's not familiar. But this
Speaker 1: is the national epic of Finland and nineteenth century work
Speaker 1: based on on on Caroline and finish, folklore and mythology
Speaker 1: concerning the creation of the world, the exploits of heroes
Speaker 1: and villains, as well as the magical sampo. So this
Speaker 1: has been this has been given the cinematic treatment a
Speaker 1: few different times over the years, and I know we've
Speaker 1: we've heard from listeners about some of those depicts and
Speaker 1: about just the uh, the epic itself. I myself, if
Speaker 1: have have yet to read it in full, but I
Speaker 1: have to say, after this, um, this little cold open
Speaker 1: reading here, I really like the cadence of it. I
Speaker 1: like the cadence of this translation. So perhaps I'll dive
Speaker 1: back in at some point. Yeah, it's on my mental
Speaker 1: list as well. But so what's going on in the
Speaker 1: scene that you read? Okay, So this scening question concerns
Speaker 1: the character uh Klavo, who of course is also referred
Speaker 1: to as Colorvoi in in this uh this this particular translation.
Speaker 1: And he's a tragic and doomed character. Uh. He has
Speaker 1: this he needs, having this conversation with the unnamed but
Speaker 1: clearly sentient blade that he wields. Uh. There's an element
Speaker 1: of edifice to the character Theo, and he's also something
Speaker 1: of a of a wizard obviously is described as an
Speaker 1: evil wizard. Uh. So there's a lot going on here.
Speaker 1: But the interesting thing for our purposes is that the
Speaker 1: sword speaks. The sword seems to keep a history of itself.
Speaker 1: It knows what it has done, it knows who it
Speaker 1: is killed, in the character of those that it is killed. Um,
Speaker 1: and there's a sense of the blade has some sort
Speaker 1: of will of its own, even if in this case
Speaker 1: it's more of a bloodthirsty indifference to whoever's blood it
Speaker 1: happens to spill. Is it like a kind of propaganda
Speaker 1: that justifies its own use? Yeah, I mean it, It
Speaker 1: kind of makes sense, right, I mean the sword, what
Speaker 1: does the sword want? Well, in this case, the sword
Speaker 1: just wants to spill blood. It doesn't care if it's
Speaker 1: righteous blood, it doesn't care if it's evil blood. Uh,
Speaker 1: it just wants blood. Now, if this particular scene sounds familiar,
Speaker 1: you know it is clearly echoed in the famous is
Speaker 1: this a Dagger which I see before me monologue from
Speaker 1: William Shakespeare's Macbeth. And I've also read that Hamlet too
Speaker 1: was at least in part inspired by this this uh,
Speaker 1: this finished tale that these finished legends. Um. Of course,
Speaker 1: in Macbeth, the dagger does not answer the doomed king. Um,
Speaker 1: he's just speaking to it. He's just, you know, he's
Speaker 1: kind of making it the focus of his monologue. But
Speaker 1: there is an interesting history of speaking swords in myth
Speaker 1: and legend, and of course this also spills over into
Speaker 1: the existence of various speaking weapons in fiction. Um. One
Speaker 1: of the most notable, at least for me, would would
Speaker 1: be the sentient weapons of dungeons and Dragons, particularly the
Speaker 1: sword Black Razor, which has been around and the Dungeons
Speaker 1: and Dragons lore for a while. But we should we
Speaker 1: should also mention some other, perhaps um less obvious examples
Speaker 1: of of intelligent weapons, especially from the film Who Framed
Speaker 1: Roger Rabbit? I think these are actually parodies of old
Speaker 1: like Loony Tunes conventions, But there is a sword that
Speaker 1: sings in it right, right, It's kind of a Frank
Speaker 1: Sinatra cartoon Frank Sinatra sword. And uh, it's been a
Speaker 1: long time since I've seen Roger Rabbit. I remember the
Speaker 1: sword being fairly useless, like it seemed more interested in
Speaker 1: singing and crooning as opposed to being a proper stabbling implement.
Speaker 1: And again it had a will out its own. What
Speaker 1: if there was a sword who just wanted to day ants.
Speaker 1: But but the other thing is, I remember in this
Speaker 1: movie there are like sentient bullets like, uh, what's his name?
Speaker 1: Bob Hoskins gets out of a bunch of bullets to
Speaker 1: put in his gun, and their cartoon like Old West
Speaker 1: cowboy bullets, and that one talks like a prospect or. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'd completely forgotten about this until you shared an image
Speaker 1: with me. I think at least one of the bullets
Speaker 1: as Pipper from Final Sacrifice. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can.
Speaker 1: It's been like again, it's been a long time, so
Speaker 1: I've seen it. But looking at this still, I can.
Speaker 1: I can hear that stereotypical like prospect or voice. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So in this episode, we're going to discuss some examples
Speaker 1: of speaking swords from myth and legend and literature and
Speaker 1: maybe get into what it all means to a certain extent. Now,
Speaker 1: the idea of a weapon that has a mind of
Speaker 1: its own and can even talk and talk to its bearer, uh,
Speaker 1: it goes goes very far back, even farther back than
Speaker 1: Balla Valla. In fact, it goes to the civilizations of
Speaker 1: ancient Spopotamia and their myths. Yeah, because this and this
Speaker 1: is one that's not just an old example, it's just
Speaker 1: it's an example that checks off all the boxes of
Speaker 1: what you want to find in a sentient weapon. It
Speaker 1: is a shower the talking mace, which was a weapon
Speaker 1: that was wielded by the hero god Ninurta. So this
Speaker 1: would have been of Sumerian and then I think later
Speaker 1: Babylonian mythology. Yeah, and um, And like a lot of
Speaker 1: those gods, I think his his trajectory kind of changes
Speaker 1: course over time. He's uh, he was at least initially
Speaker 1: a god of spring, thunder showers and a protector of agriculture.
Speaker 1: I've also seen him uh written about as being more
Speaker 1: connected with the sun, and then in later traditions more
Speaker 1: of like a warrior god. Um. And then he's there
Speaker 1: are there are. There are also some some pretty famous
Speaker 1: depictions of him. There's a like if you just go
Speaker 1: to like a Wikipedia page about ancient Sumerian legend, you're
Speaker 1: likely to see this image of non Urta with it
Speaker 1: with thunderbolts, pursuing this wing a demon an zoo Um
Speaker 1: who has stolen the tablets of destiny. Uh. It's pretty
Speaker 1: famous image. Yeah, and like so much of that great
Speaker 1: old Mesopotamian art, you get this kind of side view
Speaker 1: of the characters right there there in profile as they're
Speaker 1: striding forward. And Unnurta has absolutely fabulous calf muscles. Yes,
Speaker 1: and in this image he has that he has thunderbolts.
Speaker 1: But um, this other weapon is associated with him in
Speaker 1: some of the old old writings. And this is this
Speaker 1: is again Sharro or the Smasher of Thousands, and it
Speaker 1: is a mace. Uh. And I'm gonna have a short
Speaker 1: artifact episode coming up I think next week that gets
Speaker 1: into this a little bit. But uh, just getting into
Speaker 1: the idea of like why a mace? What is it?
Speaker 1: Is it about a mace? Uh? That would have been
Speaker 1: important in ancient warfare and and basically it comes down
Speaker 1: to the fact that, yeah, if you were fighting people
Speaker 1: that did not have metal helmets, a mace was just
Speaker 1: an absolutely devastating weapon to have. It became a symbol
Speaker 1: of authority and many different cultures, and therefore it's exactly
Speaker 1: the sort of thing that a powerful deity would wield
Speaker 1: against monstrous enemies. I think of the mace as being
Speaker 1: very prominently displayed in some some quite memorable ancient Egyptian art,
Speaker 1: for example on the Narmer palette, which shows, of course,
Speaker 1: you know, the Pharaoh clutching the head of the conquered
Speaker 1: enemy and raising the mace in the other hand. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's sort of an image of total dominance. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Apparently the mace was the symbol of of Egyptian power
Speaker 1: for a very long time, because that for for the
Speaker 1: longest their armies only fought enemies with no armor or helmets,
Speaker 1: and so the mace was just a dominant weapon to wield. Now,
Speaker 1: as as far as Shahua goes, this was no typical mace.
Speaker 1: This was a weapon that could speak, It could fly
Speaker 1: across vast distances, and even take on the form of
Speaker 1: a winged lion. As Abraham Amen points out in the
Speaker 1: Monster Hunter's Handbook, the weapon was capable of smashing enemies
Speaker 1: either on its own own or in the hands of
Speaker 1: non Orta, and it also rain fire and venom down
Speaker 1: on its enemies and allowed the hero god to slay
Speaker 1: this terrifying demon Azog, the one that we just described
Speaker 1: from that that illustration. Wow. So, but of course us
Speaker 1: just talking about it, you know, doesn't doesn't really give
Speaker 1: it justice. You gotta you gotta go to the poetry,
Speaker 1: or at least translations of the poetry, and in the
Speaker 1: Sumerian poem Nenorta's Exploits. Uh yeah, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: just beautiful violent language about our hero's use of the mace.
Speaker 1: He said to pound Ausg's body as if it were
Speaker 1: barley like in a mill or yea, like a mortar
Speaker 1: and pestle. Yeah. Yeah, Like he's not going to just
Speaker 1: knock down the monster and and and act like it's
Speaker 1: a Friday that thirteenth movie. Oh, is the enemy dead?
Speaker 1: I don't know. No, he's gonna go over and pound
Speaker 1: that enemy into the ground with this mace. In fact,
Speaker 1: such is the power of Choor that the condition of
Speaker 1: the slain demon's body is compared to that of a
Speaker 1: shipwrecked by a tidal wave. That's the demon you make
Speaker 1: bread out of, yeah or pasta? Yeah. Now. Nnirta's Exploits
Speaker 1: translation of it is available online, and there are little
Speaker 1: bits of it that are you know, that that are
Speaker 1: just lost. But it's well worth looking up and reading
Speaker 1: through because it has all this awesome battle language in it.
Speaker 1: But I want to read just a few quotes from
Speaker 1: it that drive home mostly this idea of the weapon
Speaker 1: as being the sentient speaking thing. Quote. At that moment,
Speaker 1: the lord's battle mace looked towards the mountains, and Shahur
Speaker 1: cried out aloud to its master. And then there's another
Speaker 1: passage here, O beware, it said, concerned lee. The weapon
Speaker 1: embraced him, whom it loved. The Shahur addressed Lord Nenirta.
Speaker 1: Quote the weapon it's heart was reassured. It slapped its thighs.
Speaker 1: The Sharhur began to run. It entered the rebel lands joyfully.
Speaker 1: It reported the message to Lord Nenorta. And then there
Speaker 1: is this one's great. The shower made the storm wind
Speaker 1: rise to heaven, scattered the people like and then as
Speaker 1: there's a fragment that's lost, it tore its venom alone
Speaker 1: destroyed the townspeople. The destructive may set fire to the mountains.
Speaker 1: The murderous weapons smashed skulls with its painful teeth. The club,
Speaker 1: which tears out in trails, gnashed its teeth. The lance
Speaker 1: was stuck into the ground, and the crevices filled with blood.
Speaker 1: In the rebel lands, dogs lift it up like milk.
Speaker 1: The enemy rose up, crying to wife and child, You
Speaker 1: did not lift your arms in prayer to Lord Ninurta.
Speaker 1: The weapon covered the mountains with dust, but did not
Speaker 1: shake the heart of a zog. The shower threw its
Speaker 1: arms around the neck of the lord. All right, so
Speaker 1: this is a mace, a weapon that not only talks,
Speaker 1: not only cries allowed to its beloved master, but it
Speaker 1: also hugs its beloved master. Yeah, this is a weapon
Speaker 1: that's not going to turn on you. This is not
Speaker 1: a weapon where you're gonna be like where you ask
Speaker 1: get hey, or things pretty bad and the weapons like,
Speaker 1: yeah it's pretty bad. You should push, you should follow me.
Speaker 1: Uh No, this is a mass that stands by you, now,
Speaker 1: doesn't This weapon also essentially function as a long range
Speaker 1: surveillance device, reporting information back to its bearer from a distance. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is um It is an extremely overpowered weapon. It's
Speaker 1: befitting of a of a god hero. But yeah, we're
Speaker 1: we're based on these passages and others. There's this idea
Speaker 1: that it will fly ahead, it will report back, it
Speaker 1: will fly into battle on its own. But it can also,
Speaker 1: you know, very much be wielded as a traditional weapon
Speaker 1: by um by Nenorta. So it does all of these things.
Speaker 1: It also has these these powers of venom and fire.
Speaker 1: It's just absolutely powerful. I think we're in Batman territory
Speaker 1: here because it's kind of like overpowered in the way
Speaker 1: Batman's gadgets are that he just has gadgets that like
Speaker 1: there's no reason he should have. Yeah, and and this
Speaker 1: one just yeah, this does everything you can imagine. It's
Speaker 1: almost as if, like later traditions were like, this is great,
Speaker 1: but let's tone it down a little bit, because I
Speaker 1: don't know if people are going to believe it. But
Speaker 1: like I said, it's it's it's amazing. It's an amazing weapon.
Speaker 1: Sharer has shark repellent properties. That's right, Batman did have
Speaker 1: shark repellent, just carried it around just in case. Than
Speaker 1: now when it comes to to speaking weapons in other traditions.
Speaker 1: We have to pay special attention to to Irish myth
Speaker 1: and legend because it seems it seems a really good
Speaker 1: place to to spend some time, not only for the
Speaker 1: tales themselves, but because it's an area where we have
Speaker 1: some some pretty solid papers written on the history of
Speaker 1: it all. In particular, I was looking at gary are
Speaker 1: Varners the Sword and Dagger in myth and Legend from
Speaker 1: twenty twelve and Omens, Ordeals and Oracles on Demons and
Speaker 1: weapons in early Irish texts from by Jacqueline Borsch Now.
Speaker 1: Varner points out that Irish swords were said to retain
Speaker 1: a memory of the acts committed with the weapon, and
Speaker 1: a warrior would swear by these weapons, but also could
Speaker 1: be rebuked by the sword if they did not speak
Speaker 1: true uh and Apparently this could take a couple of
Speaker 1: different forms. The weapon might simply fail for the hero
Speaker 1: at an important moment in battle, but it might also
Speaker 1: speak and curse them for their false trophies. M. This
Speaker 1: is interesting, the idea of being um accepted or rebuked
Speaker 1: by a weapon. It makes me think of Excalibur, which
Speaker 1: in which I do not think. I was looking around
Speaker 1: for evidence of stories where Excalibur speaks, and I didn't
Speaker 1: find any. But Excalibur does certainly look for its rightful
Speaker 1: owner and uh and and rebukes people who try to
Speaker 1: wield it without the right to do so. Yeah. And
Speaker 1: of course R. Tolkien was was obviously a uh an
Speaker 1: admire of many of these myth cycles that that we're
Speaker 1: discussing here, So you see a lot of this reflected
Speaker 1: and say, the behavior of the one ring, the idea
Speaker 1: that it it chooses who wears it and who wields it,
Speaker 1: and it might leave you if it has decided that
Speaker 1: it it no longer believes in you. Right, I'm done
Speaker 1: with the sealed or no more. Yeah, And so you
Speaker 1: see that in some of these these accounts, you know
Speaker 1: it's not uh, you know it will ultimately be like Okay,
Speaker 1: the the hero has failed and the weapon has abandoned
Speaker 1: them at a crucial moment. Q that Taylor Swift breakup song. Now,
Speaker 1: an example cited by Borish can be found in the
Speaker 1: Sick Bed of Colin. Now, this is a character that
Speaker 1: we've discussed on the show before. This is the Irish
Speaker 1: hero who I believe we did a whole episode where
Speaker 1: we talked about one of his special weapons that may
Speaker 1: or may not be related to the biological properties of
Speaker 1: the stingray. Oh yeah, that's right. I do recall that
Speaker 1: episode maybe being one of our most difficult pronunciation adventures
Speaker 1: of all time. Yeah, globe trotting as we do with
Speaker 1: our clumsy tongues. But but that one was also a
Speaker 1: lot of fun. Uh, those myths are awesome. I remember
Speaker 1: the warp spasm, right, Yeah, yeah, yeah, Klan is as
Speaker 1: a fascinating character. And and I hope I'm saying it
Speaker 1: appropriately here because I've heard it said both way, like
Speaker 1: Kuklan and Kuhlan, and we had a whole lot of
Speaker 1: of Irish listeners right in and um and weigh in
Speaker 1: on this topic. So here we are once again, folks. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but in an early scene, uh, speaking of clumsy tongues,
Speaker 1: they're the warriors bring forth the tongues of their enemies,
Speaker 1: though some have embellished their trophies with the tongues of cows.
Speaker 1: And so the warriors swear with their swords on their thighs.
Speaker 1: And here's a quote from it. For their swords used
Speaker 1: to turn against them when they would declare a false victory,
Speaker 1: that is right, for demons used to speak to them
Speaker 1: from their weapons, so that their weapons were thus guarantees
Speaker 1: for them. I'm not sure I understand the causality of
Speaker 1: the sentence. Let's see, So the demons used to speak
Speaker 1: to them for their weapons, so that their weapons were
Speaker 1: thus guarantees for them, meaning that the demons speaking from
Speaker 1: the weapons would would let you know whether what the
Speaker 1: warrior said was true or not. Yes, yeah, And of
Speaker 1: course then now the whole idea, in the whole use
Speaker 1: of the word demon, we'll get into that in a bit,
Speaker 1: because of course that obviously smacks of of of later,
Speaker 1: you know, Christian era writers making sense of of older
Speaker 1: beliefs and traditions by attributing them to demons as opposed
Speaker 1: to you know, uh, spirits or deities that would have
Speaker 1: made sense within the actual traditions and religion of those
Speaker 1: people's right. Sure. So there are a lot of things
Speaker 1: from the ancient world where where there's a story or
Speaker 1: a text that has a word that means something like
Speaker 1: spirits or gods or something, but Christian writers might translate
Speaker 1: it as demons. Now, a specific example of talking weapons
Speaker 1: that the board springs up is made in the Battle
Speaker 1: of mag Truetta. This is an Irish epic about the
Speaker 1: battles thought by the to Atha Dudon and against the
Speaker 1: first the fear Bold, and then against the monsters from
Speaker 1: Marian's So these are like the the Ta Dudon, and
Speaker 1: these are like the fairy folk of old. They're kind
Speaker 1: of like the Yeah, I guess you should compare them
Speaker 1: to like the high elves, like they were, you know,
Speaker 1: a warrior, magical warrior people, and then these enemies were
Speaker 1: mostly monsters. Quote. Now, in that battle, Ogma the champion
Speaker 1: found Oma, the sword of Tether, ra king of the Fomorians.
Speaker 1: Ogma unsheathed the sword and cleaned it. Then the sword
Speaker 1: told what had been done by it, because it was
Speaker 1: the habit of swords at that time to recount the
Speaker 1: deeds that had been done by them whenever they were unsheathed,
Speaker 1: and for that reason, swords were entitled to the tribute
Speaker 1: of cleaning after they have been unsheathed. Moreover, spells have
Speaker 1: been kept in swords from that time on. Now, the
Speaker 1: reason why demons used to speak from weapons, then, is
Speaker 1: that weapons used to be worshiped by men and were
Speaker 1: among the sureties of that time. Whoa several interesting things
Speaker 1: going on there. So I like the idea that the
Speaker 1: swords being empowered to speak about the deeds that have
Speaker 1: been done with them is in a way presented as
Speaker 1: an incentive for the care and maintenance of your sword. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and for that reason, swords are entitled to the tribute
Speaker 1: of cleaning after they've been unsheathed. But I mean, it
Speaker 1: also seems just like cleaning a sword is important for
Speaker 1: maintaining the sword like keeping it useful. So this seems
Speaker 1: perhaps like one of those myths that that may have
Speaker 1: a sort of practical origin. Yeah. And then, of course
Speaker 1: at the end this bit about well people used to
Speaker 1: men used to worship their swords, that also kind of
Speaker 1: smacks of what we were talking about earlier, as does
Speaker 1: the use of the word demons. And again we'll come
Speaker 1: back to that shortly. But here's another bit. This one
Speaker 1: is from the Cattle Rate of Coolie, and this concerns
Speaker 1: our our hero cuc Colin once again. Quote. Then he
Speaker 1: put on his head his crested war helmet of battle
Speaker 1: and strife and conflict. From it was uttered the shout
Speaker 1: of a hundred warriors, with a long drawn outcry from
Speaker 1: every corner and angle of it, For they're used to
Speaker 1: cry from it like and then there are a few
Speaker 1: different um like old Irish cry eyes which I will
Speaker 1: not try to repeat here, uh, you know, just just
Speaker 1: in case I don't know, I don't know what their
Speaker 1: translation is, and might anger at the warriors of old
Speaker 1: um quote and demons of the air before him and
Speaker 1: above him and around him wherever he went, prophesiesing the
Speaker 1: shedding of the blood of warriors and champions. Now, obviously
Speaker 1: this is a helm as opposed to a weapon, but
Speaker 1: still it contains a record and it sort of speaks
Speaker 1: now if it's saying here though that it's not just
Speaker 1: recalling a record of the past. But it uses the
Speaker 1: word prophesying, which makes me think that it's speaking of
Speaker 1: the future or is this just a version of prophesying
Speaker 1: that speaks of the past. Um, I think we are
Speaker 1: getting into divination here a bit, because as um, as
Speaker 1: we'll touch on on later, you also see the idea
Speaker 1: of the sword as this kind of focus of divination
Speaker 1: in many different cultures. Now here's another account of of
Speaker 1: weapons doing battle on their own, kind of like our
Speaker 1: our ancient Sumerian example of from earlier. And this is
Speaker 1: from the death of a malodron macdemo krone, sometimes the
Speaker 1: violent death, and it contains a passage about a spear
Speaker 1: that would leap into battle on its own and require tribute. Um.
Speaker 1: Actually I don't have the exact quote from that, but
Speaker 1: but that's the that's just the sum of summarizing of
Speaker 1: what occurs. But then in the mescal Ulad, there's a description, uh,
Speaker 1: not only of Cocullen leaping into battle. But his weapons
Speaker 1: are described as leaping into battle as well, um like
Speaker 1: as if like by his side, as if by their
Speaker 1: own will. Like they're not just things that he brings
Speaker 1: with him into weapons. They're not just tools of war
Speaker 1: they were. They're kind of like companions. And then in
Speaker 1: the destruction of Daderga's hostel, there's a living lance called luon,
Speaker 1: which I think Bores says it just means the lance,
Speaker 1: but Borche rites. When this lance is ready to shed blood,
Speaker 1: it has to be quenched regularly in a cauldron with poison,
Speaker 1: otherwise the lance will catch fire. Used in battle, this
Speaker 1: weapon is extremely dangerou us whoa so basically Bore summarizes that,
Speaker 1: yet weapons are guarantees for truth about battle deeds of
Speaker 1: the past. Um, we see this, this idea, this hint
Speaker 1: of them being able to prophesies the future. Even weapons
Speaker 1: know what has been done with them. And there's also
Speaker 1: this idea of of other beings speaking through them now
Speaker 1: and then then of course we've used the word demon already. Now. Um,
Speaker 1: obviously you don't have to know much about about Christian
Speaker 1: histories of pre Christian times to know that the ways
Speaker 1: and beliefs of the old days are often recast as
Speaker 1: blasphemy or worse, and in this case, the idea of
Speaker 1: men worshiping their weapons or or of demons speaking to
Speaker 1: them through the sword, clearly smack of this. Now where
Speaker 1: Boorch ultimately lands on this issue, as it is that
Speaker 1: the term demons may simply be a summarization of the
Speaker 1: infernal deities or furies Alecto, uh tow Sephony Uh Megara,
Speaker 1: as well as the war goddess Bellona. Now these are
Speaker 1: Greek and Roman goddesses um and this, you know, again
Speaker 1: gets with the history of translating and reinterpreting these stories.
Speaker 1: But the Irish war goddess is of course the Morrigan,
Speaker 1: who we I believe we talked about in our what
Speaker 1: we talked about the Morrigan in the Phantom Morgana episode.
Speaker 1: So sometimes she is an individual and other times though
Speaker 1: she is a triad of the war goddesses um babtub Uh,
Speaker 1: Macha and Nemain. Now, in early Irish texts, Bore says
Speaker 1: that the Morrigan is sometimes equated with the monstrous Lamia
Speaker 1: or also or also equated with lilith Uh and relegated
Speaker 1: to the underworld. So there's you know this, this continuing
Speaker 1: tradition of this um. But but I want to read this,
Speaker 1: uh this this quote here from the text, She writes,
Speaker 1: quote this survey from the Tane shows the war goddesses
Speaker 1: appear in battle contexts in which they utter ominous, terrifying
Speaker 1: and inciting shouts, just like the battle creatures from part
Speaker 1: to part in Part two earlier in this documentary is
Speaker 1: referring to demonic creatures inhabiting weapons and shouting therefrom at
Speaker 1: the height of the fight. Uh. She continues, the battle
Speaker 1: creatures are sometimes referred to in the same context, and
Speaker 1: they are somewhat closer to the sword demons of of
Speaker 1: Sirglegikon Coolin, and that they too are directly connected with weapons.
Speaker 1: The connection is more indirect in the case of the
Speaker 1: war goddesses. The most striking example is the is the
Speaker 1: arm grip. This is the clamor alarms caused by an
Speaker 1: attack by a war goddess, But this is less similar
Speaker 1: than the shouts from weapons and armor. However, what brings
Speaker 1: the war goddesses closer to the oracular utterances of the
Speaker 1: sword demons are their prophetic words in battle context. This
Speaker 1: prophetical function of the war Goddesses is not only found
Speaker 1: in the Tain but also in other early Irish texts. Interesting. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this does come back to the the divinatory or
Speaker 1: miracular properties he alluded to. Yeah. Yeah, it's almost like
Speaker 1: the sword is a thing that, um, that kind of
Speaker 1: stands outside of time. It's connected to all the deaths
Speaker 1: before it, and it's connected to all the deaths ahead
Speaker 1: of it. Or the sword stands outside of time, or
Speaker 1: something that speaks through the sword stands outside of time. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The sword is almost like a like a it's a
Speaker 1: radio for talking to God. It's a you know, it's
Speaker 1: like a conduit in a way. Yeah. Yeah. Now, outside
Speaker 1: of actually speaking swords, the use of swords and other
Speaker 1: blades and divination practices is pretty widespread. Um. I was
Speaker 1: looking around for some some interesting specific examples. I ran
Speaker 1: across a few from Asia that we're that we're pretty
Speaker 1: pretty neat. We see this in Korean divination and some
Speaker 1: Korean divination practices, and this was discussed by Yun Yung
Speaker 1: Lee and Korean shamanistic rituals from one the primary focuses
Speaker 1: on Korean shamanism or moodang, and there's a they discussed
Speaker 1: there's a variety of double edged Korean sword known as
Speaker 1: a gillam that is sometimes used in divination, as well
Speaker 1: as a as a Korean variation of the three edge
Speaker 1: spear or trident m I'm also to understand that swords
Speaker 1: were sometimes a part of a traditional divination kit for
Speaker 1: some Thai communities in Vietnam, according to a Thai divination
Speaker 1: kit in the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology by vivan On
Speaker 1: from the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology. And there of course
Speaker 1: numerous examples of ritual daggers and blades used in various
Speaker 1: practices that either are you know, um, objectively divination practices
Speaker 1: or could be interpreted as having divinational aspects to them. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we even see it carried on as a symbol
Speaker 1: in the likes of Taro. The thing about Taro actually
Speaker 1: kind of reminds me of Um, of of the Egyptian
Speaker 1: art that we were talking about earlier, because they're both
Speaker 1: examples of this thing you see very commonly, which is
Speaker 1: that weapons are very often um, inanimate objects are infused
Speaker 1: with lots of meaning. They're they're charged with, you know,
Speaker 1: their symbols in a way, or their signs that that
Speaker 1: that point to all these different concepts and they seem
Speaker 1: to have great stakes and import Yeah. Absolutely, I was,
Speaker 1: and I was thinking a bit about about this, like what,
Speaker 1: you know, what does all of this mean? And um,
Speaker 1: I guess I was reminded in part by that that
Speaker 1: that quote from The Simpsons where Homer talks about how
Speaker 1: it feels when he holds a gun that is like
Speaker 1: how God must feel when he holds a gun. Which
Speaker 1: is a ridiculous quote, but but I think, you know,
Speaker 1: does get to it to a truth. There's something about
Speaker 1: in this case, holding i say, a sword or a dagger,
Speaker 1: especially one with a violent history, that it does have
Speaker 1: the ability to induce a certain kind of thinking or feeling.
Speaker 1: You know, we hold it, and in holding it, we
Speaker 1: update our body schema to include this weapon. It becomes
Speaker 1: a part of us, a part of our body, and
Speaker 1: so too, to a certain extent, does these history and
Speaker 1: its purpose? You know, Um, it's just something that's just
Speaker 1: something about holding holding a tool, and in this case
Speaker 1: that tool would be a sword or a or a mace.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean, I'd imagine that the same way
Speaker 1: we we've talked about how driving a car changes your
Speaker 1: relationship to other people while you're you know, so you're
Speaker 1: operating a car, you don't really see other people the
Speaker 1: same way you would if you were just standing next
Speaker 1: to them on the sidewalk. You know that they might
Speaker 1: start to become slightly less people like and more kind
Speaker 1: of like irritating obstacle like or you know, that's something
Speaker 1: about seeing them through the windshield maybe makes them less significant.
Speaker 1: And you know, you've got to wonder about like holding
Speaker 1: a deadly weapon or something that maybe not only could
Speaker 1: be used as a weapon, but is definitely forged to
Speaker 1: be a highly effective killing tool. Uh, does that also
Speaker 1: sort of change your relationship to people around you while
Speaker 1: you're holding it? Yeah, so, so it makes me wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, to a certain extent, some of what we're
Speaker 1: discussing here. It's like the fantastic and the light gender area,
Speaker 1: the mythic and the magical reverberations of of something that
Speaker 1: all of us or even or maybe just a lot
Speaker 1: of us can sense if we we hold that weapon
Speaker 1: or even just like see that way. Like it's for me,
Speaker 1: I always find it interesting to see some of these,
Speaker 1: like these really old weapons were well preserved and in
Speaker 1: some cases they were purely ceremonial uh in museums. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, just just looking at them and thinking about,
Speaker 1: you know, what they are and how long they've been around. Now,
Speaker 1: another way of looking at this subject is not to
Speaker 1: emphasize the weapon nous, but just to think about these
Speaker 1: stories as stories of an inanimate object or tool of
Speaker 1: some kind that has a mind and speaks and has
Speaker 1: a will of its own. In other words, that it
Speaker 1: is an inanimate object that has the properties of an agent.
Speaker 1: And this is a subject we've talked about a number
Speaker 1: of times on the show before. But I was trying
Speaker 1: to think about, like what this might rep resent in
Speaker 1: the psychological context. So I found a paper that I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about briefly. Uh. This is by Amanda
Speaker 1: Hanks Johnson and Justin Barrett, published in the Journal of
Speaker 1: Cognition and Culture in the year two thousand three, called
Speaker 1: the Role of Control in Attributing Intentional Agency to Inanimate Objects.
Speaker 1: And so one of the authors here, it's worth noting,
Speaker 1: is Justin Barrett, who is a psychologist who has written
Speaker 1: a lot of interesting things about the psychology of religion.
Speaker 1: He was actually the author of that paper. We covered
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago about whether or not Santa
Speaker 1: Claus should be thought of as a god. Oh wow,
Speaker 1: that was an awesome paper. Yeah, recalled Barrett's conclusion on
Speaker 1: Santa Claus was basically not quite a god, but very
Speaker 1: very close. He had like five criteria that god seemed
Speaker 1: to have in common, and he said that Santa Claus,
Speaker 1: in some contexts I think had all five of them.
Speaker 1: But these criteria were sort of inconsistently applied to him,
Speaker 1: so very very close. But anyway, in the study, the
Speaker 1: authors wanted to look at the phenomenon of attributing agency
Speaker 1: to inanimate objects. So when you regard an object like
Speaker 1: say a mace or a sword, for example, as if
Speaker 1: it had the qualities of a person, such as a
Speaker 1: mind with goals and intentional behavior, and this would this
Speaker 1: would include flying into battle on its own or or
Speaker 1: speaking or something like that. What causes us to start
Speaker 1: thinking about inanimate objects as if they were intentional agents? Uh?
Speaker 1: And so they start off talking about some factors that
Speaker 1: were revealed by pre existing research. One of the things
Speaker 1: they talk about is the concept of an agency detection device.
Speaker 1: This is a sort of hypothetical module of the human
Speaker 1: brain that is often invoked as one possible factor contributing
Speaker 1: to the origins of supernatural and religious beliefs. Of course,
Speaker 1: all you know, speculation like that into the deep evolutionary
Speaker 1: psychology of humankind is highly speculative, but it seems at
Speaker 1: least a plausible idea worth exploring that um that essentially
Speaker 1: there is a selection bias on the human brain in
Speaker 1: favor of UH. When given an ambiguous stimuli like you
Speaker 1: see something vaguely moving to lean toward, assuming that it
Speaker 1: is an agent with the ability to act on its
Speaker 1: own intentions, rather than just a physical object being stirred
Speaker 1: by the wind. Because it's you know, it's more cautious
Speaker 1: to assume it's an agent. Agents are more dangerous and
Speaker 1: you need to be more ready to guard against their behavior.
Speaker 1: And of course agents would include not just humans but
Speaker 1: also animals. But this study itself has less to do
Speaker 1: with with possible psychological explanations for the origins of religion.
Speaker 1: Is more just about what people do in the moment,
Speaker 1: how they spontaneously speak as if they were attributing agency
Speaker 1: to clearly inanimate objects like ball bearings. Now, previous research
Speaker 1: had showed that people regularly participate in agent attribution even
Speaker 1: with objects as some as two dimensional geometric shapes on
Speaker 1: a display. So so, these other studies had shown that
Speaker 1: people will talk about objects like a triangle on a
Speaker 1: screen and talk about them as if they have characteristics
Speaker 1: such as beliefs, desires or goals, emotional states, and genders.
Speaker 1: And one of the major factors established by this previous
Speaker 1: research is the importance of movement in in creating these
Speaker 1: types of attributions. And it's also not just any movement, uh.
Speaker 1: These studies found that we are especially likely to attribute
Speaker 1: agency to objects that move in what the authors here
Speaker 1: would call non inertial paths without being contacted uh. And
Speaker 1: this is sometimes equated to movement that appears to be
Speaker 1: in a goal directed manner. So non inertial paths means that,
Speaker 1: you know, if you see a stone rolling down a
Speaker 1: hill just following what would be the obvious apparent course
Speaker 1: of gravity, you're much less likely to attribute agency to
Speaker 1: that stone then you would to a stone that just
Speaker 1: suddenly rolls in one direction on a flat surface without
Speaker 1: any apparent cause. So that seems pretty intuitive, right. Like that,
Speaker 1: we're less likely to start wondering if something is an
Speaker 1: agent if we just see it apparently obeying the laws
Speaker 1: of physics. If something moves in a way where we
Speaker 1: can't clearly see a physical cause for it to move
Speaker 1: that way outside of itself, then we start thinking like,
Speaker 1: woe is that thing alive? But then the authors here
Speaker 1: looked at another feature beyond just non inertial pathways of movement,
Speaker 1: and that feature is the control of the observer. So
Speaker 1: what they did here to test this was they used
Speaker 1: an experimental setup where participants were recorded describing their actions
Speaker 1: out loud while they tried to move a number of
Speaker 1: metal ball bearings around on a surface like a tabletop.
Speaker 1: And underneath that surface there were electro magnets that could
Speaker 1: be turned on and off that could influenced the path
Speaker 1: of the balls and how the balls moved around on
Speaker 1: this table. So the two conditions of the experiment where
Speaker 1: you had one condition where participants had direct control over
Speaker 1: the magnets. They had a switch or switches that they
Speaker 1: could switch on and off that were tied to a
Speaker 1: light that would go on and off when the magnets
Speaker 1: were activated and deactivated, So they were controlling the method
Speaker 1: by which the paths of the balls were diverted. And
Speaker 1: then you had another condition where the participants were moving
Speaker 1: the balls around, but they had no perception of control
Speaker 1: over the magnets. Instead, an experiment or was turning the
Speaker 1: magnets on and off, and the results were in line
Speaker 1: with the author's hypothesis. A greater number of participants in
Speaker 1: the no control condition, the one where they could not
Speaker 1: control what the magnets were doing, a greater number of
Speaker 1: them spontaneously made statements attributing mind like agency to the
Speaker 1: balls compared to the condition where people could control the magnets.
Speaker 1: And so what were the spontaneous statements people made that
Speaker 1: attributed agency. It would be things like um like relational expressions.
Speaker 1: So for example, apologizing to the balls, one quote is oops,
Speaker 1: sorry ball uh, sometimes naming the balls to quote from
Speaker 1: the study here describing a relationship with the marbles in
Speaker 1: terms that are literally appropriate only for animals and people
Speaker 1: but not physical objects such as marble's e g. Quote
Speaker 1: and a couple of ones did not like me um
Speaker 1: and then a couple of the other ones where statements
Speaker 1: about the ball bearings like having desires like oh, look
Speaker 1: those two are kissing, or that one didn't want to
Speaker 1: stay there, or saying that the balls are fighting each other.
Speaker 1: So the results would seem to back up the idea
Speaker 1: that we are more likely to spontaneously attribute agency to
Speaker 1: inanimate objects not just when they move in non inertial paths,
Speaker 1: but also when they do so in ways that we
Speaker 1: understand to be outside of our direct control or outside
Speaker 1: the direct control of a human agents such as our elves.
Speaker 1: One interesting side note is that while a greater number
Speaker 1: of members of the no control group made at least
Speaker 1: one agency attribution statement, if you were to just count
Speaker 1: up the numbers of statements, one participant in the in
Speaker 1: control group actually went hog wild, making tons of statements,
Speaker 1: including naming some of the marbles that this one participant
Speaker 1: is where you get the person who started calling one
Speaker 1: of the ball bearings Bob. The most common types of
Speaker 1: agency attributions across all conditions were people ascribing desires and
Speaker 1: dispositions to the to the marbles, such as wanting or
Speaker 1: liking uh. And so the study did support the author's
Speaker 1: hypothesis that that objects moving beyond our controls are more
Speaker 1: likely to be seen as agents. But one thing that
Speaker 1: I thought was interesting was they actually recorded less spontaneous
Speaker 1: agency attribution overall than a number of previous studies. For example,
Speaker 1: the ones using geometric shapes displayed on a screen, and
Speaker 1: they tried to talk about why that was, They say, quote,
Speaker 1: perhaps the representational character of the animated displays introduces bias
Speaker 1: that contributes to the willingness of participants to attribute beliefs, desires,
Speaker 1: and personality traits to geometric shapes. At least adult observers
Speaker 1: understand that images in motion pictures often represent intentional agents. Further,
Speaker 1: while the shapes and the displays certainly do not have
Speaker 1: beliefs or desires, intentional agents who do have beliefs and
Speaker 1: desires orchestrate their movements. Perhaps these conceptual factors of the
Speaker 1: displays contribute to the attribution of agency in animated displays.
Speaker 1: But there was one more section I wanted to read
Speaker 1: that that I thought was interesting, where they were trying
Speaker 1: to explain what could be going on, uh and and
Speaker 1: relating this to to ecologically valid everyday experiences of people
Speaker 1: attributing agency to inanimate objects. And and this relates to
Speaker 1: the condition once again of control over these objects. They write, quote,
Speaker 1: The suggestion is that we treat cars and computers as
Speaker 1: intentional agents, not only because of their perceptual features or
Speaker 1: self propelledness. Indeed, we be rate our cars when they
Speaker 1: quote refuse to move, and not when they do move. Rather,
Speaker 1: it is when objects action violates our own sense of
Speaker 1: causal efficacy that we attribute agency to them. When the
Speaker 1: computer either does something I did not ask it to
Speaker 1: do or does not do something I asked it to do,
Speaker 1: it's then that I remark that it is angry with me.
Speaker 1: Feelings of frustration are the consequence of lacking control, feeling
Speaker 1: that it is no longer my agency that accounts for
Speaker 1: what I perceive, but some other agency that I cannot control.
Speaker 1: And this was interesting because it made me think about
Speaker 1: possible origins of people, especially looking to weapons used in
Speaker 1: battle as something that that has a mind of its
Speaker 1: own or could speak of its own accord, because I
Speaker 1: could imagine that violent struggle is is a time when
Speaker 1: you are especially prone, probably to frustrations with the physical
Speaker 1: workings of your tools. Like you know, when when you're
Speaker 1: you're swinging a sword or a mace in battle and
Speaker 1: it doesn't do exactly what you wanted it to do.
Speaker 1: That seems like one of the most irritating possible situations
Speaker 1: where that could happen. Right, So you might be especially
Speaker 1: prone then to think this thing has a mind of
Speaker 1: its own and it is actually an agent in some way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that the sword has decided that I'm not worthy to
Speaker 1: wield it, and that is why it it seems to
Speaker 1: fail me suddenly. Yeah. And and this also I think
Speaker 1: comes into the old idea of like trial by combat.
Speaker 1: You know, so people are very familiar with trial by
Speaker 1: combat from Game of Thrones these days, but like it
Speaker 1: is an actual ancient practice. And one of the things
Speaker 1: that is often assumed about trial by combat is that
Speaker 1: trial by combat reveals the will of the gods that
Speaker 1: there is you know, that there is divine interven mention
Speaker 1: that reaches in and controls whose weapons and armor and
Speaker 1: all that get the better of the other one. And
Speaker 1: thus the truth is shown not by who has the
Speaker 1: strongest warrior, but by which side the God's intervened on.
Speaker 1: Behalf of Now, one thing that comes to mind and
Speaker 1: all of this, uh, you know, taking and taking it
Speaker 1: into a kind of all of this and comparing it
Speaker 1: to the weapons too, is well, first of all, I'm
Speaker 1: imagining like the warrior or psyche during the height of battle.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously that's going to be a situation where
Speaker 1: you're dealing with a lot of I mean, there's there's
Speaker 1: there's probably a flow state going on to some degree.
Speaker 1: In some cases, it's also highly energized and traumatic time, um,
Speaker 1: which is going to have its own psychological effect. But
Speaker 1: also I'm thinking if you if you're dealing especially with
Speaker 1: the professional warrior, uh, a warrior who is who is
Speaker 1: skilled with their weapon, who has say, run drills with
Speaker 1: their weapon, is uh, to them, the use of this
Speaker 1: sword or this mace is just second nature. UM. It
Speaker 1: makes me think of the the sometimes perceptible disconnect between
Speaker 1: will in the mind and movement in the body. And
Speaker 1: I wonder if that could at times help nurture this
Speaker 1: idea that sometimes it is not me who is who
Speaker 1: is who is striking out with the sword. Sometimes it
Speaker 1: is the sword striking out and I am just following it.
Speaker 1: You know. Yeah, that's really interesting. That lines up with
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. Um, though there's a contradiction here worth exploring,
Speaker 1: which is that Um So, if there is any truth
Speaker 1: whatsoever to us you know, speculating that that maybe uh,
Speaker 1: maybe it's because of extreme frustration with you know, a
Speaker 1: sword or a mace not doing exactly what you wanted
Speaker 1: to do when you you swing it in a fight.
Speaker 1: That causes people to to infuse it with the idea
Speaker 1: of agency and think this has this has a mind
Speaker 1: of its own. This would kind of go against a
Speaker 1: lot of the stories which are about weapons not failing
Speaker 1: in battle but having these really special, awesome powers, like
Speaker 1: doing more than you want doing doing what you want
Speaker 1: beyond what you can make it do with your hands. Well,
Speaker 1: I wonder in that, I mean, it's easy to look
Speaker 1: back on these accounts and think of, you know, think
Speaker 1: of any type of actual human that could have been
Speaker 1: a part of say the the co Colon myth um,
Speaker 1: and just imagine, well that this was a bloodthirsty professional
Speaker 1: warrior who you know, never looked back and reflected on
Speaker 1: the deeds they performed on the battlefield. But on the
Speaker 1: other hand, I wonder, if you know, what if it's
Speaker 1: not the case, what if you have characters like this,
Speaker 1: I mean really in co Colon, we also see this
Speaker 1: idea of the warp spasm, the idea that he becomes
Speaker 1: something out of control on the battlefield, you know. So,
Speaker 1: so maybe there is this Maybe there in some cases
Speaker 1: there is this sense that like, okay, after the battle
Speaker 1: when you're reflecting on what you did, perhaps there are
Speaker 1: moments within that battle that that are in conflict with
Speaker 1: what you think about as your nature and and maybe
Speaker 1: that allows you to lean into this idea of the
Speaker 1: weapon having this empowering or even we a full uh
Speaker 1: uh property to it. Oh, maybe like what you think
Speaker 1: is the is the gods, or what you think is like,
Speaker 1: you know, the divine taz or something is actually adrenaline. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and maybe like a disconnect too, was just sort
Speaker 1: of the state of mind, like the reflective mind and
Speaker 1: the you know, the reactive mind of of of a
Speaker 1: pure combat situation at the time, Yeah, it just makes
Speaker 1: sense to just keep pounding the enemy into the dirt
Speaker 1: with your mace. And then afterwards you're like, oh, that
Speaker 1: was a bit much. Why did I just not stop
Speaker 1: pounding their skull into the dust? Um? That doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like me. I don't know, but this is this is
Speaker 1: mere speculation on my part. Sure, But even outside of combat,
Speaker 1: I mean there are times, even in the you know,
Speaker 1: the noncombatants life, where reflexes will at times seem to
Speaker 1: come from beyond us, you know. I I think of
Speaker 1: like a time where, uh my my son, who was
Speaker 1: a toddler at the time. He like, he falls off
Speaker 1: of a ladder on some stairs, and my arm just
Speaker 1: shoots out and grabs his leg in midfall, you know which.
Speaker 1: And at the time I'm like, oh wow, I'm already
Speaker 1: holding him. I already caught him, Like I did not
Speaker 1: seem like a wilful act, like, oh, he's following, I
Speaker 1: better catch him. It's just you just react, you know.
Speaker 1: And if one is given to interpret that in in
Speaker 1: a supernatural way, you know, you might think, well, you know,
Speaker 1: this is this was God working through me. This was
Speaker 1: some angel or demon taking control of my arm and
Speaker 1: doing this deed that seemed to occur outside of my
Speaker 1: my my actual wilful cognition. It is amazing. In another
Speaker 1: amazing way to interpret it is the physical way, which
Speaker 1: is like your brain did that and then your consciousness
Speaker 1: had to catch up. Yeah. Yeah, I mean obviously that
Speaker 1: is the you know, the truth of the matter. And
Speaker 1: I think that's the one thing I do want to
Speaker 1: drive home about all of this is that like all
Speaker 1: of these explanations within the human psyche and within the
Speaker 1: human body I think are the most amazing. And that's
Speaker 1: even if you get into, you know, some of the
Speaker 1: more controversial hypotheses, like you know, the by Camraal mind,
Speaker 1: which I think there are a lot of fun applications
Speaker 1: for that when we're looking at this topic. But I
Speaker 1: also see interpretations of some of these mythic weapons. Is like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: obviously this was ancient aliens. Obviously the mace that flew
Speaker 1: across the battlefield and reported back, this was some sort
Speaker 1: of alien technology that the ancient Sumerians acquired. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: I I mean, yes, if you're being very if if
Speaker 1: you're willing to go that way, you can, I guess
Speaker 1: you can explain things away that in that regard, But
Speaker 1: I feel like you're you're missing that where the true
Speaker 1: wonder lies. You know, you're missing the where the true
Speaker 1: magic is, and that is in the complex way that
Speaker 1: we interact with objects and enter and and contemplate our
Speaker 1: own actions. Well yeah, and also I would just say
Speaker 1: like that there is no particular reason to conclude ancient aliens,
Speaker 1: Like there is no evidence for it, and there's like no,
Speaker 1: there's no circumstance that demands it as a conclusion. So
Speaker 1: it's just so you could equally just say, like, well,
Speaker 1: maybe time travelers. I mean, I can't rule it out,
Speaker 1: but there's no particular reason to think that's true. Um.
Speaker 1: But you know, the other thing that I often harp
Speaker 1: on on this show is that we enjoy looking for
Speaker 1: possible physical circumstances and scientific explanations that could give rise
Speaker 1: to you know, experiences people had or things people witness
Speaker 1: that could serve as the inspiration for mythological concepts like
Speaker 1: talking weapons or weapons within with the mind of their own.
Speaker 1: But also, I've said this a million times, there's also
Speaker 1: just human creativity. I mean, sometimes people just come up
Speaker 1: with stories like it doesn't necessarily have to be that
Speaker 1: somebody saw something happen or had an experience themselves that
Speaker 1: felt like they were holding a weapon that was alive
Speaker 1: and had a mind of its own. That that could
Speaker 1: have happened, and that would be really interesting along the
Speaker 1: lines we've been talking about. But you also don't have
Speaker 1: to assume that. I mean, we know from the modern era,
Speaker 1: a lot of times people just come up with cool
Speaker 1: and strange creative ideas. Yeah, And the thing about like
Speaker 1: a lot of these these sci fi ideas that again,
Speaker 1: some people are are more inclined to take a modern
Speaker 1: sci fi concept and apply it backwards in time as
Speaker 1: an explanation as an actual, like real world explanation for
Speaker 1: what's say, uh, you know that that fantastic mace of
Speaker 1: Nenurta was uh where in reality, like the modern sci
Speaker 1: fi fantasy is perhaps better understood as a as a
Speaker 1: reverberation from the original trope, you know, like this is
Speaker 1: just continuation in the fantastic uh imaginative way of thinking
Speaker 1: that has been around for a long time. It is not,
Speaker 1: you know, this is the thing that came before the
Speaker 1: flying club that turns into a lion and and and
Speaker 1: catches mountains on fire. That is the thing that helps
Speaker 1: explain our modern science fiction dreams, not the other way around.
Speaker 1: You know. An interesting thing about that is that somebody
Speaker 1: might come back at you and say, well, but science fiction,
Speaker 1: while having these same tropes, is based on technology, which
Speaker 1: makes it more plausible. Um, and I guess you could
Speaker 1: say that, but uh, but it also starts to me,
Speaker 1: is that a wonderful way of framing that is that
Speaker 1: the course of human history and scientific and technological development
Speaker 1: is reality catching up with myths. Yeah, yeah, so I
Speaker 1: would I do have to point out to that, like
Speaker 1: a mace is technology, you know, like like any idea
Speaker 1: of of a of a magical mace or a magical sword,
Speaker 1: those those are technological stories as well. That's a deadly
Speaker 1: simple machine. I believe a mace counts as a lever. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, well, we're gonna go and close the book
Speaker 1: on this, but we'd love to hear from everybody. We'd
Speaker 1: love to hear from your thoughts on on what we
Speaker 1: discussed here, but also examples of sentient or possibly sentient
Speaker 1: weapons from other uh myths and legends as well as
Speaker 1: science fiction and fantasy treatments as well. Uh Now, and now,
Speaker 1: one thing I do want to mention here. We opened
Speaker 1: with a rather dark reading from the color Vada, so
Speaker 1: I wanted to stress this. If you're troubled by suicidal thoughts,
Speaker 1: you are not alone. In A sympathetic ear is only
Speaker 1: a phone call away. In the United States, considered calling
Speaker 1: the National Suicide Prevention Hotline at seven three, eight to
Speaker 1: five five. You can also visit the website, which is
Speaker 1: Suicide Prevention Lifeline dot org and for additional resources tailored
Speaker 1: towards general and specific needs, such as those of youth
Speaker 1: disaster survivors, Native Americans, veterans, lost survivors, lgbt q I A, UH,
Speaker 1: and attempt survivors. You'll find a list of international UH
Speaker 1: suicide hotlines at suicide dot org um and then you
Speaker 1: can go to the International suicide Hotline section of that website.
Speaker 1: Big thanks, as always to our excellent audio producer Seth
Speaker 1: Nicholas Johnson. If you would like to get in touch
Speaker 1: with us with feedback on this episode or any other,
Speaker 1: to suggest a topic for the future, or just to
Speaker 1: say hello, you can email us as always at contact
Speaker 1: at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Stuff to
Speaker 1: Blow your Mind. It's production of I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts for my Heart Radio with the i heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows,