Ben Potter wrote:
Has anyone ever considered the possibility that knights might really have fought actual dragons?
Well, considered but quickly dismissed, at least by me, with the possible exception of sea creatures, such as giant squid, which would certainly fill the bill as a for-real demon of the deeps. I find the tales of these monsters dragging seamen over the side to their deaths entirely believable. But I also see no reason why ancient fossils of some ferocious beast (from small raptor to T-Rex) could NOT have been taken for the remains of a dragon of some sort. Since they really had no way of guessing how old they actually were or even WHAT they were, the more naive COULD have perhaps believed that they were the remains of dragons. After all, what else would they call them in their time? From there it would have been a short leap of imagination to pair them up with long-dead heroes. While total conjecture, I see no reason that at least SOME stories of dragons found their origins in ancient fossil finds. Besides, early Christian monks and bishops were constantly looking for ways to bolster their religion to convert skeptical pagans, and this would have been just one more tool for them to do that. After all, a pagan's religion encouraged him to raid, pillage, ravage women, burn villages and generally party and wreak havoc, all with the smiling approval of Odin or some other such lusty God. What fun. Christianity, on the other hand, offered prayers, martyrdom, taxes for the church and a relentless guilt for your sins. Which would you choose? I know which one I would.
| Helge B. wrote: |
| Could it be that the dragon mythology orignated in ancient finds of dinosaur fossils? |
that's been suggested by several folks. Paleontologist John Horner has, for example, suggested that the mythological Griffin might have been influenced by fossils of Protoceratops andrewsii, a small-ish ceratopsian dinosaur common to the Gobi of Mongolia and China.
Others have suggested that the Cyclops might come from bones of pygmy elephants on volcanic Mediterranean islands--which would explain the myths of cyclops tossing rocks at passing ships (volcanic bombs).
Remember that the idea of extinction wasn't recognized until the 18th century when it was proposed by French anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier. So it is reasonable that large fossil bones--which we do know were identified as bones--would likely be interpreted as the remains of large animals that must still be around somewhere.
I don't think it is a full explanation, though. Some mythical creatures, maybe, but all?
There's also the (rather popular) idea that dragons are traveler's tales of Komodo Dragons (makes sense to an extent, contact between the East and West has almost always been in place. I can see some Grecian trader talking with a Persian caravan coming from India who heard from his Indonesian spice seller about a "giant man-eating lizard")
One option for, specifically dragons, I personally favor is the idea of snakes. For example, consider the spitting cobra (there's several species, all in genus Naja). These snakes are endemic to Africa and Asia, so several cultures are aware of them at least indirectly. They can grow quite large, on the order of a couple meters and quite large around. They are quite dangerous. They can and will spit their venom quite a distance when pissed off, purposefully aiming for the eyes, and when it hits it burns like the dickens.
Imagine some Roman living in Britain telling tales about the "Giant serpent whose spit burns like fire" that he saw while in Egypt.
(paleontologist in real-life)
| Ben P. wrote: | ||||
Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines by Dennis Swift. Yes, I am a creationist |
To start with the Ica stones are fake. A farmer confessed to making them after being charged with grave robbing. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers confirming that they are not authentic.
Secondly the Nazca lines are proof of alien visitation, not dinosaurs living with humans. :p
Finally, ignoring the mountains of other evidence, it takes nothing more than a core sample from Antarctica to prove without a shadow of doubt that life has been on earth for a much much longer period of time than Creationists believe.
OT: Like Kiki would say: "Stay good! Stay good!"
Discussing religion can be interesting, if everyone can speak without antagonizing another person directly, or without being offended because another as expressed what is for him an heresy...
To the Topic: It's interesting how much some tales have traveled the world, but I think that normally we focus too much on the similarities than on the differences. This is natural, because the same particular on two stories separated from 1000+ klom can be a proof of some contacts between the two civilizations.
But in the case of dragons there were big differences, in the physical aspect (from the Great Worm of England to the wyvern or the araldic dragon) and in the psicology (some were more or less animals, the Worm, other were gods, like in China). And if even the differences are proofs of contacts (the gods of my enemy are the antagonist of my hero)?
Just random thoughts to further the discussion.
A proposal: for every reply in this topic we have to include on image of a dragon. I start with the tradition italian art:
[ Linked Image ]
from http://www.bottegadartetoscana.it/det_opere.asp?codice=10
Discussing religion can be interesting, if everyone can speak without antagonizing another person directly, or without being offended because another as expressed what is for him an heresy...
To the Topic: It's interesting how much some tales have traveled the world, but I think that normally we focus too much on the similarities than on the differences. This is natural, because the same particular on two stories separated from 1000+ klom can be a proof of some contacts between the two civilizations.
But in the case of dragons there were big differences, in the physical aspect (from the Great Worm of England to the wyvern or the araldic dragon) and in the psicology (some were more or less animals, the Worm, other were gods, like in China). And if even the differences are proofs of contacts (the gods of my enemy are the antagonist of my hero)?
Just random thoughts to further the discussion.
A proposal: for every reply in this topic we have to include on image of a dragon. I start with the tradition italian art:
[ Linked Image ]
from http://www.bottegadartetoscana.it/det_opere.asp?codice=10
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||||||
To start with the Ica stones are fake. A farmer confessed to making them after being charged with grave robbing. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers confirming that they are not authentic. Secondly the Nazca lines are proof of alien visitation, not dinosaurs living with humans. :p Finally, ignoring the mountains of other evidence, it takes nothing more than a core sample from Antarctica to prove without a shadow of doubt that life has been on earth for a much much longer period of time than Creationists believe. |
Perhaps you should read the book first. Dennis Swift Conclusively prooves that the stones the farmer had were fakes he also proves that the ones found in graves were the genuine article.
As for core samples those just show warm cold warm cold, you can as many as eleven rings on a tree that's seven years old.
| Ben P. wrote: |
|
Perhaps you should read the book first. Dennis Swift Conclusively prooves that the stones the farmer had were fakes he also proves that the ones found in graves were the genuine article. |
None of them are authentic. Another local admitted to copying images from comic books. It is just another tourist scam.
| Quote: |
| As for core samples those just show warm cold warm cold, you can as many as eleven rings on a tree that's seven years old. |
They have recently drilled down to the soil underneath the ice (millions of years of compacted ice) and found evidence of plant life.
Dan, I think you and I will never agree on the subject, so let's just drop it.
"Secondly the Nazca lines are proof of alien visitation, not dinosaurs living with humans"
Ok dan all I have to say is you say there is proof that aliens visited earth but you don't believe that people could have seen dinosaurs? that idea seems a little crooked if you ask me.
Men can't have seen something that lived on earth but they can have seen flying creatures in spaceships. Just a little twisted.
Oh and on the subject of dragons don't forget Gilgamesh.
Ok dan all I have to say is you say there is proof that aliens visited earth but you don't believe that people could have seen dinosaurs? that idea seems a little crooked if you ask me.
Men can't have seen something that lived on earth but they can have seen flying creatures in spaceships. Just a little twisted.
Oh and on the subject of dragons don't forget Gilgamesh.
| Jared L. wrote: |
| Ok dan all I have to say is you say there is proof that aliens visited earth but you don't believe that people could have seen dinosaurs? that idea seems a little crooked if you ask me. |
You missed the fact that Dan was joking and being facetious.
| Jared L. wrote: |
|
Ok dan all I have to say is you say there is proof that aliens visited earth but you don't believe that people could have seen dinosaurs? that idea seems a little crooked if you ask me. |
I'm not Dan, but I'm pretty sure the response here will go "I think you missed the little tongue-sticking-out smiley"
i.e., he was being snarky.
And to keep with Gabriele's proposal, the requisite dragon artwork:
Raphael's 1505 'St. George Fighting the Dragon"
[ Linked Image ]
*edit: spelling*
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| You missed the fact that Dan was joking and being facetious. |
I'm all for keeping an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
| Eric Allen wrote: |
|
One option for, specifically dragons, I personally favor is the idea of snakes. For example, consider the spitting cobra (there's several species, all in genus Naja). These snakes are endemic to Africa and Asia, so several cultures are aware of them at least indirectly. They can grow quite large, on the order of a couple meters and quite large around. They are quite dangerous. They can and will spit their venom quite a distance when pissed off, purposefully aiming for the eyes, and when it hits it burns like the dickens. Imagine some Roman living in Britain telling tales about the "Giant serpent whose spit burns like fire" that he saw while in Egypt. (paleontologist in real-life) |
In Joyce Tally Lionarn's The Medieval Dragon: The Nature of the Beast in Germanic Literature, the author provides a good argument that the original description of the dragon in Pliny's Naturalis Historia, arguably the first bestiary, is actually a description of some sort of python or giant snake. But there were elements of Pliny's description that were significantly ambiguous enough to allow for later medieval writers to interpret the dragon as possessing characteristics that we tend to associate with them, such as the capacity for flight, and the ability to breathe fire.
As for dragons in medieval literature, I don't believe that anyone has mentioned the dragon in Chretien de Troyes' Yvain. Although it's but a brief encounter without much description, Yvain encounters a dragon fighting with a lion on his journey, and decides to help the lion, since it is the more noble beast. After saving it from the dragon, it becomes his companion, hence the story often being called "The Knight and the Lion."
Eric: Obliviously I had see the Raphael previously, but I have never noticed the lance. It's a real joust lance? It seems more a pole. More this paint demonstrates how to do a man's job you need a man's weapon, not one of those long long swords... :lol:
And now...
[ Linked Image ]
St. George of the National Gallery, London
And now...
[ Linked Image ]
St. George of the National Gallery, London
| James Head wrote: |
| I've recently been interested in the various tales of knights fighting giants and wild men. You don't hear much about those stories, mostly dragons. |
Well, I'm not sure about wild men, but giants are quite common in medieval literature, probably more so than dragons. One classic example that comes to mind is the fight between Arthur and the giant in Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur. I'm also fairly certain that Parzifal fights with a pair of giants in one of his many adventures in the version of the story by Wolfram von Eschenbach.
After seeing all the artwork posted in this thread I think there is a good possibility that the dragon stories came from giant snakes and lizards rather than dinosaur skeletons. The one thing that strikes me about the artwork posted here is that the dragons are so small. Not any bigger than a komodo dragon, crocodile or giant python. Perhaps the notion of dragons being massive 30-50 foot beasts comes from more recent times?
Also, I think most dinosaur skeletons are firmly embedded in millions of years of rock. You don't explore a cave and find a dinosaur skeleton just laying around. I wonder if medieval people had the skill to recognise and excavate dinosaur skeletons from the rock around it. If they did not have that skill then I doubt medieval people would have ever seen a dinosaur skeleton.
Also, I think most dinosaur skeletons are firmly embedded in millions of years of rock. You don't explore a cave and find a dinosaur skeleton just laying around. I wonder if medieval people had the skill to recognise and excavate dinosaur skeletons from the rock around it. If they did not have that skill then I doubt medieval people would have ever seen a dinosaur skeleton.
This subject is not unique to our community but has been discussed for generations through many communities including that of acedemia.
I don't believe man's notion of the dragon has anything directly do with dinosaurs per se. Instead, it's an issue of evolutionary behavior.
Our minds, and those of other animals as well, are imprinted with instinctual behaviors. These include innate fears inherited from our primate ancestors that have developed from their exposure to the dangers posed to them through generation after generation of development.
It's thought that the dangers can be classed into three sub-categories: snakes, big cats, and birds of prey. Supporting this is that many of today's living primates generate a different warning reaction for these categories of animals. This is an observable fact in nature.
If those three categories of creatures--snake, cat, and bird--are combined and formed into a composite image, it might very well resemble much of what we see portrayed as dragons throughout our recorded history across boundaries of culture and period.
We come pre-programmed to understand the form of a dragon and accept it as a potential danger. It lives in the primitive regions of each of our minds.
Beware of the serpent-raptor-cats!!
[ Linked Image ][ Linked Image ][ Linked Image ]
I don't believe man's notion of the dragon has anything directly do with dinosaurs per se. Instead, it's an issue of evolutionary behavior.
Our minds, and those of other animals as well, are imprinted with instinctual behaviors. These include innate fears inherited from our primate ancestors that have developed from their exposure to the dangers posed to them through generation after generation of development.
It's thought that the dangers can be classed into three sub-categories: snakes, big cats, and birds of prey. Supporting this is that many of today's living primates generate a different warning reaction for these categories of animals. This is an observable fact in nature.
If those three categories of creatures--snake, cat, and bird--are combined and formed into a composite image, it might very well resemble much of what we see portrayed as dragons throughout our recorded history across boundaries of culture and period.
We come pre-programmed to understand the form of a dragon and accept it as a potential danger. It lives in the primitive regions of each of our minds.
Beware of the serpent-raptor-cats!!
[ Linked Image ][ Linked Image ][ Linked Image ]
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| It's thought that the dangers can be classed into three sub-categories: snakes, big cats, and birds of prey. Supporting this is that many of today's living primates generate a different warning reaction for these categories of animals. This is an observable fact in nature.
If those three categories of creatures--snake, cat, and bird--are combined and formed into a composite image, it might very well resemble much of what we see portrayed as dragons throughout our recorded history across boundaries of culture and period. We come pre-programmed to understand the form of a dragon and accept it as a potential danger. It lives in the primitive regions of each of our minds. |
I'm a big fan of the theory of the primitive origin of our behaviour, from our reaction to smells (it smell bad because it's bad, not the contrary) to the differencies male-female (Man are from Mars, Women are from Venus). It will be interesting (but maybe outside the scope of this site) to find if the various forms of dragons are related to the dangers that men had to fight (like the wing-less, leg-less worm of Britain)
This maybe would explain the grow in size of the dragon during history: to a men armed only with a iron knife and courage a two meters dragons is a danger. For a modern man who think in therm of guns and aviation is needed a much bigger beast to feel the fear, even if only in his mind (note that it's only about feel: rationally I think I would be scared even for an encounter with a black bear...)
[ Linked Image ]
| Sander Marechal wrote: |
|
Also, I think most dinosaur skeletons are firmly embedded in millions of years of rock. You don't explore a cave and find a dinosaur skeleton just laying around. I wonder if medieval people had the skill to recognise and excavate dinosaur skeletons from the rock around it. If they did not have that skill then I doubt medieval people would have ever seen a dinosaur skeleton. |
Men already started mining in prehistoric times. I think there is a good chance that some dinosaur fossils were found by this. I guess it would have been a very scary encounter for the poor miner who suddenly stumbles over the yaw of a T-Rex in the gloomy and flickery light of a candle.
I believe it is more of a mix of the things - if you look at the myths, you can do some corelation with the known finds of prehistoric fossils in the area, usually. For example, Norse mythology is filled with giants and so on - and, it is well known that there have been finds of wooly mammoth andwooly rhinocerious in area, and huge bones of those animals would rather naturly add to the myths if one where to find them - and for those, you do not even need to dig a mine, they can be discovered, say, in riverbank deposits. Same with some of the dinosaur fossils, especially in China. At the same time, I agree that many of the man's fears and likes/dislikes are linked to the early history and would surely sparked those myths. All in all, I doubt one could say that there is only a single reason for the dragon [or whatever other mythological beast we want to discuss] myths. And yes, got to agree with Dan - there is no more evidence that man ever lived alongside with dinosaurs than there is evidence that man actually fought dragons as they are depicted on the fine images posted on this thread. Even less, really - despite what certain people have said in this thread, geology, and it's offshot, paleonthology have plenty of proof on what was first and what was later, but I suppose that having my primary education in field of geology is enough of a "taint" for any pure creationist to accept anything I say :)
In a lot of those paintings I kinda feel sorry for the dragon.
Page 2 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum