Thankyou Saruman.

But i think i would be the catalyst for a lot of unpleastness.
And this discussion appears to have been little but arguing for some time :\

I have written many books. One is printed if four languages and sold in the British Museum. But the book I am referring to is a current project, which after some delay, I mean to release this year. No, none of the others are related to dragons or the unexplained, just purely historical and military subjects.

But back to dragons, unless they saw the creatures underwater (unlikely), they can only assume what they are serpents, based on their sinuous necks. However, long, serpent like necks are a common characteristic of the majority of dragon descriptions/sightings. The mane is an interesting characteristic that appears in many descriptions, of both dragons and supposed sea serpents. One scientist postulated this is characteristic of males, and that these creatures may be mammalian and not reptiles.

Many books now??? Before, you claimed to have written one book published before, now all of the sudden you have several, and one in different languages, and sold in the British Museum?? I find this as hard to beleive as the rest of your ridiculous claims.

You just can't make this stuff up. er, wait, maybe you can.

The han dragon pictured is a Bixie...ive posted about it before, you could use the search engine to find them search 'bixie'. It was introduced by the Han, who liked the cultural items, and weapons etc. of those to the west and north of them....barbarians. The bixie starts off as a mushushu from mesopotamia, but through trade etc. via Luristan they come east to China and were popular with the Han. As they evolved further the bixies lost their composite look, and became feline in appearance....and so can no longer be considered dragons.

while the Han dynasty came 206BC-220AD, The earliest archaeological evidence of a 'long' type of dragon dates to circa 3500BC

2000 or so years earlier!

It's a very large assumption, DC, to assume elusiveness = intelligence.

I would find your whole theory rather more tantalising if you could disprove in large part the role cross-cultural contamination played in the commonality of the dragonic motif in Eurasian mythology. You have referred to diagrams from the Han dynastic period in China, but by then the Silk Road was centuries old and cultural myths had plenty of time to be disseminated and absorped into the various Asian and European cultures by way of travellers and trade. If you could show that the motif was nearly identical in, say, the New World from the same time period then you might have more credibility. The New World cultures, however, had no dragon motif that was similar to those of the Eurasian cultures. The Thunderbird and Quetzal-bird being very much avian motifs rather than reptilian. Although the Quetzal-bird was (sometimes) granted some reptilian features it was commonly described as feathered which would indicate either an avian origin for the creature or that there was some remnant Archaeopteryx-like species existent in the Central American jungle up to a couple of millenia ago - I'd go for the avian origin myself.

Your argument regarding the relatively length of time various Orders of animals have been represented on Earth has no bearing on the likelihood of them developing intelligence. If that was the case we'd all be slaves to our jellyfish overlords (although, frighteningly, we may be!!! )

No, DC, you will have to examine and resolve (disprove) the mundane aspects of commonality in mythology before your more esoteric theories can be given any credence.

That dragon does indeed have a very feline face, actually. Forward facing eyes, it's teeth. Not very reptilian anyway.


Oh splendid! I'm going on Thursday, what's it called, and what is your name? I can have a read.

It's weird to state such a thing without telling us what it's called and what it's about. What is the point in mentioning it at all?

Regardless, anyone can write a book these days. And a book's content is no more valid than any other form of media. In fact, being the views of one individual, it's probably not as valid as (for example) this very discussion.

the hind legs of the mushushu are avian (those of an eagle) but the bixie's hind legs are feline.
such an evolution is stylistic and cultural...since no living creature can evolve thus, they cannot be faithful depictions of living creatures.
later bixies look even more feline.

Also didn,t Marduk create the "Vault Of Heaven from Tiamats bones and skin.
Or am I just way off here

Actually we do have nearly identical motiffs in the new world though most people are unable to realize it.

Quetzalcoatl, and Kukulcan, and undoubtedly the more nothward 'dragons" are credited with bring rain, the art of agriculture, etc, EXACTLY like the old world dragons.

And there is nothing necessarily avian about these creatures. The depictions of Q. and K. really don't show them covered in feathers. In fact, their skin in sculpture looks far more like heavily keeled scales that it does feathers.

Quetztal does not mean feather, it is the name of a long tail bird. So calling Q. a feathered serpent may be a mistake. A more correct name would be "long-tailed bird reptile", meaning a reptile that can fly.

Also, the older thunderbird art gives them a more reptilian appearance. The real thunderbirds seem to be winged serpents and dragons, such as the famous pictograph "Anasazi Black dragon" .

It seems white tourists wanted the thunderbirds to be "eagles", so the later indians gave them what they wanted.

The so-called Piasa, or water panther looked surprisingly like a Euorpean dragon according to the French missionaries that copied the pictorgraphs.

But like old world dragons, the new world ones brought rain and wisdom, and demanded offerings, and occasionaly devoured humans. They are surpsingly alike. And even today, in their hiding, Nessie and Champ, old world and new, seem a lot alike.

Damn D.C....You've really thought about this havent you...It's cool how you can combat the claims of skeptics so easily...Lol

Well, Leonardo, there are legends of naitive north Americans that do tend to fit the dragon bill. The Uktenna of the lakes area, was a legged, winged serpentine creature with antlers. There are Navajo legends of magical legged reptilian creatures (considered aggressive and dangerous). As for South America, Q was depicted as a serpent, with feathered wings, not as a solely avian creature. In Austrelia, the rainbow Serpent is sometimes depicted with horns, or wings, or legs.

Many of these creatures are more serpentine than the typical Hollywood dragon, as were early Eurasian depictions of dragons, so this isn't much of a surprise. Obviously, this does not prove existence, but clearly cultural contamination via the Silk Road cannot explain all similarities.

Give us a break, Grem. Don't you realize how dumb that sounds?. You have the unmitigated gall to say a dragon cannot have feet that look like a birds???? What the heck do you think a T-Rex's feet look like? (Hint), A BIG CHICKEN FOOT!!!

In fact, it is quite intriguing that the Babylonian hymn's description of Enki-Ea, in his dragon form includes "heel-less feet", exactly how someone might describe how a theropod dinosaur walks only on its toes.

Now how would they have known what only modern paleontologists could reconstruct? Only by seeing a real dragon, (or dinosaur), of course.

Indeed.

It is because the typical sceptic usually knows frightfully little about what they seek to attack.

They enjoy thinking they are so smart that they can debunk something seemingly so painfully fantastic and unbelievable as "fire breathing dragons", so flock to this forum like like mindless insects to the welcoming glow of an electric bug-killing lamp..

And ZAP! To their dismay, they find they know far too little about the subject, once past their original gut-reaction to what they think is the absurdity of dragons. They may rant, they may curse, but they cannot win the arugument becasue the facts are all on my side.

Billions of humans, aherents of "the world's great religions", unknowingly, ALL worship the dragon gods.

A rendition is an not the same as re-creation or reproduction. Rendition is synonymous with interpretation or in other words, the artist's sculpture is an interpretation of dragons.

Now back to the thread which I can't keep up with.


Why would I apologize? I called you a liar for claiming the picture you posted was, and I quote-



Both statements imply a genuine artifact. You will get no such apology!

And yet i believe he is owed one for he owned up to your little question

Oh my! How could I forget? I do most sincerely apologize for demanding some evidence and/or sources for all of the claims DC has made. NOT! BTW, the first to post some sources linked with Han dragons was LadyO anyways.

Good info, archosaur, however Uktenna/Uktena is a 'great snake' motif and not described as legged or winged in many (if not all) Native American legends of it.

Uktena - Wiki

Uktena - Legend

I will admit my insertion of Quetzal was a little bit of a trap. Quetzal (quetzalli) is one of a member of a family of birds. Quetzalcoatl was undoubtedly serpentine (no legs, no wings) but was alternatively depicted as a man with a feathered headdress. There is some speculation the appellation is a veneration of a powerful ruler from early Aztec history ( Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl) and was/is it not common of tribal leaders to pick an animal motif with which to personify, adding the 'power' of the animal to their attributes and so enhancing their fitness to rule? Snakes are common in that locale if I'm not mistaken?

I don't know an awful lot about the Rainbow Serpent of Australian Aboriginal Dream Time mythology, but in all the stories/depictions I have seen/heard of it nowhere have I seen it described as having wings or legs.

Your serpentine origination of all these mythic beings is almost certainly the factual one. Snake-god motifs are common around the world as the creature was, and still is, venerated in many cultures. I would rule out any serpentine myth when looking at DC's theory of 'legged, winged, intelligent fire-breathing, demi-godlike dragons'. While the dragon may be a derivative of ancient snake-worship, usually the motif's attributes stay fairly rigid to the form actually converted into the mythic being (size being one obvious exception).

Having legs and wings I'd find it much more likely the dragon is a confusion of (real) animals which has been able to be granted very special attributes (the fire-breathing etc) due to its entirely mythic nature.

The Rainbow Serpent is one of those creatures whose appearence varies from place to place, tribe to tribe. Most inland peoples tend to depict it as similar to a carpet python, and this is the modern pop-culture association also. I've also read that some coastal people depict the rainbow serpent as similar to a pipe fish (though most people wouldn't recognise it, due to the pop culture influence). Some people describe only one Rainbow Serpent, others two.
The common elements of the stories are that the Serpent created the rivers from the tracks he left as he roamed across the land. Other variations include him being a dark streak in the milky way and, of course, the rainbow.
My greatgrandmother and grandmother's people also believed that the Great Dividing Range are the Rainbow Serpent's sleeping coils.
At risk of getting into another war of words, Aboriginal oral tradition makes it quite clear that the Rainbow Serpent is a creature of the dreamtime, a spirit being.
This can be a little difficult for the western mind to grasp, since westerners/europeans tend to think and communicate in terms that are best described as 'filling in the blanks', in that as westerners, we tend to add extra information to vebal communication (and I include myself in this, since that was most of my upbringing. Sadly, having an Aboriginal bloodline wasn't something to be openly proud of from my GG's through to my father's generation. Even in my generation it's only something that's come completely into the open over the past 15 years). So when Rainbow Serpents, Bunyips and other spirit creatures are mentioned, the inclination is to start looking for megafauna Link with the main contender being Wonambi naracoortensis, a massive, extinct 5 metre (15-20') constrictor (Family: Madtsoiidae) Link

for you to say that the idea (one that is given great credence) stating that the mushushu as a concept arrived in china because of trade is dumb does not surprise me. The han liked to buy bronzeware that had its origins in luristan, one of the concepts that caught on was that of the bixie/mushushu.

Stylistically it evolved under the han to become feline in character.....loosing its once avian hind legs....and even further, loosing its long neck.
It was not a real creature. It eventually lost all reptilian dragonic features, and so later examples cannot be considered draconic.

The mushushu was not a real creature, but a concept, a composite of different totemic creatures.

Besides which the 'long' dragon of china is far earlier with archaeological evidence for it (as an early serpent composite) as early as 3500 BC approx.
2000 or more years earlier than the arrival of the bixie into china.


That said, i agree with leonardo on Quetzalcoatl, he is either depicted/described as a feathered serpent (no wings, no limbs) or as a humanoid with a feathered headdress.

There seems to be no similarity whatsoever between him and the mushushu.

very interesting
Its good to get the info from the horses' mouth.
The difference in mindset between the aboriginals and white folk are important as you point out. It demonstrates how careful we have to be when speculating over what a peoples may or may not have believed....its so easy to put words into their mouths and get it wrong.

I'm still waiting to learn the title of the book in the British Museum.

Since I'm going tomorrow evening, I'd like to see.

Indeed it is. Especially when there is such diversity of tribal groups and languages. Coupled with what knowledge it is acceptable to discuss with outsiders (or even genders) and it becomes very easy for the western mind to conclude that many stories are indeed one.
Though this seems to be a common problem for anyone studying a culture which has an entirely oral tradition of knowledge transfer...

On Mushushu, I've found something interesting from a reconsruction of artwok from 576bc (Museum of the Ancient Orient: Ishtar Gate, dragon Muşuşu panel). Link
and 6th century Great Palace Mosaic Museum: mosaic detail of griffin eating something (6th century, from palace of Justinian) Link

In line also with the Bixie becoming more feline, could mushushu have evolved from the griffin/gryphon (A satyr, a griffin and an Arimaspus. Detail from an Attic red-figure calyx-krater, ca. 375–350 BC. From Eretria) Link?

Maybe the dragon ate his homework.

I would say no, because the Mushushu is one of the oldest known, if not THE oldest known 'unidentified flying animal'. The living mushushu seen by many ancient cultures did give rise to the more fantastic Griffin however. The beaked skulls of the protoceratops were found, and thought to belong to creatures similar to the mushushu. This is why griffins are given wings. This is also why, even though we would imagine that should be colored more like a lion, they seem to always be a vibrant green color in ancient art, apparently due to eyewitness accounts of the living mushushu.

The somewhat feline look of some of the so-called Bixie can be attributed to sculptors who did not have a close look at the living creature, but suppposed, since a tiger was a predator, these flying reptiles should have similar characteristics. Some examples, as the one I provided, have no mammalian characteristics, and may have therefore been sculpted by someone who had seen the real creature. We also see this in some of the more naive depictions of dragons in medieval art. They have very wolf-like heads, becasue this is the kind of predatory beast the artists have seen up close.

It is not a rendition. It is a direct casting from an original, and as you can see, complies with other ancient examples. Therefore it is as 'genuine' in form as the orginal the molds wa made from. There are some new Han items on eBay that show more of these exact form of dragon.

I recall a number of rainbow serpent accounts claiming it eats people. And as you confirm, it would have to have a physical, quite heavy and massive body (from eating all those people I suspect), to leave all those heavy tracks and furrows.

So obviously, the original ancient aborigine idea of the rainbow serepent, (who feared being eaten by it), and the modern new age spirit child aborigine idea of the rainbow serepent are very different.

Archaeology has shown some of the oldest art of the rainbow serpent give it arms, possibly wings, and a horned head. We have posted this art here in previous discussions.

The Seraphim dragons of Christianity have also evolved into "spirit creatures" by believers who no longer see the physical creatures, but like the rainbow snake, in ancient times we see christian art of them swallowing human sinners, and scriptures plainly stating their physical bodies are sustained by their victims. Christianity's angel too, were originally thought of as physiacal creatures, with accounts of their eating food, both in heaven and in earth, but like your rainbow serpent, since we do not see them now, Christians say they are 'spirits'.

Is it really so good? According to the ancient aborigine stories, the 'real' people-eating, furrow making, rainbow serpent is a far cry from the neo-aborigine, new age, spirit child rainbow snake. And how many Christians today will acknowledge the ancient scriptures and art that describe the Seraphim as sinner-eating dragons that God uses as a living throne?

You see Grem, 'the horses mouth' as you put, is probably the worst source of all, because human beliefs change, but the ancient sources don't.

The long, wingless stone age dragon clearly springs from a serpent cult, but even these are not the fanciful composite 'modern' chinese dragons, but merely a kind of horned serpent lizard.

But the more compact dragons that you claim are imports are in the stone age too, and sometimes with sylized wings. look at some of the socalled 'pig dragons' for example.



I believe I can prove Q. orginally resembled a mushushu, and like the chinese dragons, became more styized after the dragons lost direct contact with their worshippers. There is an early mesoamerican jade sculpture, napped much like a flint arrow point, of a man riding on the back of a winged serpent dragon. And there are other dragon like entities in mesoamerican art as well exhibiting wings and legs.

And like Enki, Ishtar, Ningishzida of Sumeria, the Dragon Kings of China, and even some western dragon legends, it was also believed that Quetzalcoatl could change from a dragon into a human form........... yet more proof of these stories all being based on the same 'god-creature'.

Because of the wacko fundamentalist who will go ballistic when they read this next book, it will be prudent to publish it under a pseudonym. Therefore I really don't want to divulge my other titles as this time. But here is a hint, it is about the Roman Army, but does have two color photos of Dracos in it.

The mushushu is a composite creature, and there are no 'sighting reports' to evidence the theory that they really existed as you know.

The idea proposed by DC is preposterous.

The creature on the ishtar gate looks like a mushushu, has also been called a sirrush...it has no wings like the mushushu of earlier depiction....it is a totemic composite creature.

The 2 creatures on the lagash vase have also been called both griffon and mushushu. whilst it has feline hind legs, like the bixie, and few discernible reptilian features i can see why it has been called griffon. having both features of a big cat and an eagle.

Some claim that griffons have to have the head of an eagle, but not everyone shares this view.

The griffon in the greek vase, alongside the satyr and Arimaspus could well demonstrate the cultural cross contamination from the north-east and east...of a mythical composite creature. Im not certain if they have their root in the mushushu, there are plenty of composite beasties from mesopotamia of various configurations; prompting the question, why should mushushu be real and not the rest?
If we took a survey of these creatures we'd find that those of a bovine nature are more prolific and have greater importance than those which have reptilian features.

nice links btw

Wrong Grem, the mushushu is not preposterous. It is the earliest evidence, in one of the oldest civilization, of a disturbingly similar sentient flying reptile, now commonly called dragons, that our ancestors all over the world worshipped as gods, and claimed the deities protected them, brouht life-giving rain and imparted wisdom.

It is not my fault that people all over the world believed this. I am simply proposing there is probably certain truths behind these universal beliefs.

Hmmm, here we go again...
Ok, the common 'Rainbow Serpent' mythos was one white guy drawing conclusions based on superficial similarities seen in stories.
I doubt he would have gleaned what was different about each one, since talking about another people's (tribe to you) stories is wrong (taboo in post-modern terms).
People existed in the dreamtime. The difference of course is that they weren't people in the sense that you and I are people. The closest approximation would be the people described in some Native American creation myths. So people in the spirit people sense.

Aboriginal oral tradition has remained largely unchanged for thousands of years. And this is despite family and cultural groups being split up by educated white men (and in some cases groups that are traditional enemies were forced to cohabit with each other. Do we share our knowledge with our enemies and their allies?), and dispersed from their traditional homes.

And if the educated white man is the best source for all our knowledge (please note that when it fits your argument, you're more than happy to acknowledge how wise the natives are), how could he possibly comprehend the subtleties between stories told in over 200 languages and dialects? Basically, your 'real' people-eating, furrow making, rainbow serpent' is something that has been told to a white guy through an interpreter, and he's added the extra information from the rock paintings he's seen. Even the term, 'Rainbow Serpent' is something that a white guy made up, that's become common use (since the western mind has trouble accepting that the dreamtime is more like the biblical garden of eden, than ancient memories of walking with megafauna and each 'rainbow serpent' was individual to each group of people. Actually they had names and not every one ate people, punished the wicked or rewarded the good. There's even a story about a giant frog who swallowed all the water in the land; and the Kookaburra was the only one who thought to make him laugh, thus releasing all the water he'd swallowed. This is why the Kookaburra laughs just before it rains. Are you going to tell us all that frog titans existed too? ).

And finally, before this goes down the path that the last time you started spouting off your neo, new age aboriginal BS did, please be well aware that Aboriginal people take the knowledge that is their stories and traditions very seriously.
I would suggest you examine the circumstances surrounding the Hindmash Island Bridge (and if you truely have any respect for indigenious peoples of the world, you'll be able to appreciate why so much of the information you're reading should not be in print and available to all).
By all means have your 'beliefs', but don't pressume that your 'learned' remarks about my cultural heritage (which has endured through the policies of many learned white men) are correct or even factual.
And if all else fails to deter you from this course, drop in on the 'Skinwalker' thread to see what happened when people started posting culturally insensitive remarks.
Personally I don't want to see this thread close, since there are a few people with some good and interesting information to back up their arguments.

And I do apologise to anyone who has taken offence to my use of the term 'white guy' (I, myself, am part 'white guy').

No, the mushushu exists as a mythical creature, this is not in dispute....but the idea that it was a real living creature is one that i and many others here find preposterous.

Cheers Ancient history and art is one of those areas I'm somewhat lacking in.
I figured I'd better find out what a Mushushu actually is and the Cambridge site was first up on the list (though for some reason the griffin was at the top of the search results. Until I read the heading, I was briefly thinking "wow those ancient Sumerians were advanced as artists and I see why Bixie looks so feline" ). Bit of a strange coincidence that...

Though I'm certain that cultural contamination has played a significant role in the development of the Eurasian mythical menagerie, since the borders throughout the region were extremely porous (and still are in some parts) .
It's even been suggested that Marco Polo's accounts were gleaned from tales told by other travellers, and Marco Polo's travels down the silk road have been regarded as fact for almost 700years. So cultural exchange between east and west is nothing new.

You'll never get it. Before, he claimed to only have written one book, and would not give the name of the book, or himself, under the assumption that everyone would just bash his book, because it was written by him. However, if it on a legitimate topic, and written intelligently, then why would anyone do that?? He is still under the impression that people bash him because of his theories, when it is actually that people bash his theories because of his rough and disrespectfull way of presenting them.
Or, it just could have been an excuse becasue such a book does not exist. Now, multiple books probably don't exist.

You can e-mail me the title.

Besides.

Photos ...of dracos?

Are you implying that there are photos of dragons known to man? Real, dragons?


Agreed, for the time being.

If I could have some sources for his claims which were valid, I'd apologize right away.

Sorry for the double post, I just found this rediculoud article.

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2007/06/29/re...splay-in-china/

But the photo is kind of cool and I wondered if anyone knew anymore about it?

Cool photo. Unfortunately after reading the article, it appears no one knows anything about it. There are no references as to who found it, what they were digging for originally, or even how old it is. If this were real it would definitely not be very ancient at all considering the condition it is still in. And besides that it the validity is immediately questionable when they called it a reptile in one sentence and an amphibian in the very next sentence.

"The China dragon was a reptile animal living in the ocean in Triassic Period about 200 million years ago. It was an amphibian. It spent most of its time living in water, although sometimes it walked on land. It also laid eggs on land. The animal lived on fish and small reptile animals."

Yep - this part of the article sounds like an elementary school book report......and not one done by the brightest kid in the class!!!

You forgot Gene Simons!

That's a cool pic. The story is very interesting, but it sounds to me more like a chinese tabloid or something, I doubt it's real.



Gene Simmons is actually a demon, i'm a big Kiss fan so I know a lot about them...a little too much actually

You know i hate to side with skeptics but i have to agree its a cool photo but it could easly be a fake

The neck doesn't seem to be able to support the head anyways.

I am nearly sure this is a still from the animal planet Mockudrama about the frozen, mummified dragon found in a Romanian ice cave.

And if anybody still doesn't know it, IT"S MAKE BELIEVE PEOPLE!

After all, who but an idiot or smalll child is going to believe 'a piddling human with a sword' could possilby kill something like that, which was the gist of the 'modern fairytale'.

The reason the head looks so big is becasue the body is supposed to be dessicated, much like the remains of the "iceman".

In all truthfullness ( and I have never lied here, even once), my book on the Roman Army that is sold in the Britsh Museum (and The Museum of London), has a color photo of the original and quite famous (if you are 'in' to such subjects), Draco, which was found at Niederbieber, Germany, and over 1,800 years old. And that's the truth.

What, you mean intelligent people believe dragons still exist, that they've guided and manipulated mankind's history? Oh, that's not idiotic or childish or anything. Sheesh.

And why would Animal Planet do such a thing? Because it makes a good story. People will watch and listen to Animal Planet, which gains in influence and wealth.

Why did ancient and medieval storytellers use the media of their day to spin tales of 'real dragons'? Because it makes a good story. People will watch and listen to the storyteller, who gains in influence and wealth.

Those dragons then were as real as this dragon now. And if anybody still doesn't know it, it's make-believe, people.

Some of the world's most brilliant scientists believe in/worship a God that the ancient evidence proves was originally considered a dragon deity. And I think these people are far less idotic or childish as you.

OK, but that does not mean they believe in dragons. That is just an example of you twisting things around. The believe in God, and they believe God created man in his own image. They do not believe he is a dragon. That is a very weak argument to support your theory.
Besides, most scientists I know tend to be athiest, because they only believe in science, and what can be proven by science. God cannot be proven by science, therefore, they do not believe.