Re: humanoid animals: fish men, amphibians; bird men.

Thanks for response (unlike others). I am more or less roughly
familiar with G Smith's Chaldean Genesis (and Sayce's book) but can't
remember what he said on this topic so will check link out thanks.
(Smith is wrong about somethings. I also dispute the common "earliest"
claims.) (I have epic of Gilgamesh/12 tablets (except few pieces) and
Enuma Elish/7 tablets.)
But are you implying he says same/similar, or different? My theory on
the beasts/creatures of Omoroka/Thalassa is that they are the mixed
angels & animals (& humans) of judaeo-xtian pre-flood, (also perhaps
prophetic for future GM/GE?) But they can represent a number of
different (other) things at same time (also/alt). I take it by use of
word(s) "archetype" (and/or "human/animal") that you think they are
only archetypes/principles (and/or humanist (deified) &/or evolution
(ape-men)) not also/alt angels/"aliens"?

On Sep 17, 4:26 am, John <x...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Read "The Chaldean Account of Genesis" By George Smith, ed. A.H. Sayce
> (London, 1880) for earliest descriptions of human/animal archetypes.
It's
> available on google books for free as public domain. Also "The Seven
> Tablets of Creation" goes into bird men somewhat. These are pretty much
the
> earliest references to these archetypes. Later they assumed different
> qualities.