Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
catutie

Mushrushu

69 posts in this topic

The Ishtar Gate of the ancient city of Babylon dates to the reign of Nebuchadnezzer II, around 580 B.C. The bas-reliefs which decorate the gate include two known animals -- the lion and the wild ox -- and one unknown animal, a dragon. Originally the word for this animal was read as sirrush, but now mushrushu is the accepted form. If the mushrushu ever were a living animal, it apparently is now extinct.

Some cryptozoologists suggest the mushrushu is the same animal as the Biblical Behemoth and the "dragon" which King Nebuchadnezzar kept in the temple of the god Bel according to the story in the apocryphal tale of Bel and the Dragon. In that tale Nebuchadnezzar confronted Daniel with the Bel dragon. Daniel killed it.

Other cryptozoologists suggest the mushrushu may have been a specimen of mokele-mbembe, a sauropod-like animal said to inhabit the Congo area. Another candidate is a giant monitor lizard like the Komodo Dragon.

Forget the story of David and Golith now its David and the Mustrushu :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Ishtar Gate of the ancient city of Babylon dates to the reign of Nebuchadnezzer II, around 580 B.C. The bas-reliefs which decorate the gate include two known animals -- the lion and the wild ox -- and one unknown animal, a dragon. Originally the word for this animal was read as sirrush, but now mushrushu is the accepted form. If the mushrushu ever were a living animal, it apparently is now extinct.

Some cryptozoologists suggest the mushrushu is the same animal as the Biblical Behemoth and the "dragon" which King Nebuchadnezzar kept in the temple of the god Bel according to the story in the apocryphal tale of Bel and the Dragon. In that tale Nebuchadnezzar confronted Daniel with the Bel dragon. Daniel killed it.

Other cryptozoologists suggest the mushrushu may have been a specimen of mokele-mbembe, a sauropod-like animal said to inhabit the Congo area. Another candidate is a giant monitor lizard like the Komodo Dragon.

Forget the story of David and Golith now its David and the Mustrushu :D

Mushrushus are some of the earliest 'gods' of Mesopotamia and like the dragons of China, supposedly taught early man the trapping of civilization. Long before the Book of Daniel was written, they had a great impact in the Bible. The reason Yahweh Himself is described with wings, fiery, breth, and had a fiery flying serpent idol stems from the exploits of Enki, proclaimed in his hymns as the "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven", builder of the Garden of Eden, the deity that warned Noah of the Flood, and the thwarter of the humans building the tower of Babel. After centuries of retelling the tales arround their campfires, the serpent dragon who was a god who tricked Adam out of eternal life, and made man from clay, became a mere serpent, and ultimately, turned into "the Devil" by Christianity.

Most Christian denominations and Judaism itself dismisses the Bel and the Dragon story as a fairytale and it is not Canon. At face value it is quite stupid, and written so long after the real event of the Babylonian captivity, that they even got the name of the King wrong!

But one thing these much later storytellers did know was that monuments of Marduk (Bel) often depicted him riding on the back of a Mushrushu dragon, or having one at his side like an obedient pet. (Yahweh is even depicted riding on the back of a similar dragon in early bibles, suggesting that his firery breath and huge wings belong to his 'mount' and not their God). So it was not a stretch to think there was one in his temple since all of the ancient peoples acknowledged dragons as flesh and blood creatures. The reason the Mushrushu is at Marduk's side was probably an allusion to the fact he was supposed to be the son of Enki, the "great serpent dragon of eden", and today, Christianity's devil and red dragon of revelation.

Curiously, Muhrushu are depicted with wings as deities, but those on the Ishtar gate are wingless, possibly meaning they are only 'sacred' animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Bel and the Dragon, my personal theory is that the story was referring to a temple crocodile (a commonplace feature Egypt and some neighboring countries). This makes the story more sensible, as a domesticated croc would be used to being fed by people, and the priests might have thought Daniel dumb enough to wrestle the croc. Dragons, and other mystical reptile figures of the time, were frequently associated with wisdom, so it seems unlikely such a creature would eat a toxic mass of tar and sulfu in a legend.

As for mushushu, the progenitor serpent-dragon, Tiamat, was described as the mother of the gods, so it is safe to say that many of the gods of that period were considered at least half-dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did I also read somewhere that some Chinese emperors are recorded as having pet dragons and there was supposedly people who made careers as 'official dragon handlers' in china back in ye olde times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
did I also read somewhere that some Chinese emperors are recorded as having pet dragons and there was supposedly people who made careers as 'official dragon handlers' in china back in ye olde times.

Not pets. Chinese Dragons were weather controlling gods that if angered, were believed to cause terrible storms or drought. Yes, there were official civil servants to take care of visiting dragons, and lists of dignitaries allowed to fly on their backs. There is one account of a dragon being given a keg of wine for helping move a junk off of a sand bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Bel and the Dragon, my personal theory is that the story was referring to a temple crocodile (a commonplace feature Egypt and some neighboring countries). This makes the story more sensible, as a domesticated croc would be used to being fed by people, and the priests might have thought Daniel dumb enough to wrestle the croc. Dragons, and other mystical reptile figures of the time, were frequently associated with wisdom, so it seems unlikely such a creature would eat a toxic mass of tar and sulfu in a legend.

As for mushushu, the progenitor serpent-dragon, Tiamat, was described as the mother of the gods, so it is safe to say that many of the gods of that period were considered at least half-dragon.

I woudn't even give the story that much credit because the writers did not even know who the king was at that time. It was Cyrus, NOT Darius. Most historians agree it was written hundreds of years after the actual Babylonian captivity.

The story is actually quite ludicrous if you think about it. The King states the dragon is a god, yet risks its wrath by letting a foreign prisoner attempt to poison it? And even as a valuable temple "pet", it would be no feat to poison a trusting animal, and this in a culture of royal tasters and attempted poisionings? It is no wonder most Christian denominations and the Jews themselves dismiss it as a ridiculous fairytale and keep it out of the Bible.

The interesting thing about it though is that there may have memories of those distant times when they were in Babylon and stories of a 'dragon' that did live in a temple sacred to Marduk and his dragon "father'. Perhaps it was merely a crocodile, or perhaps it was a living Mushrushu, as a crocodile does not look like a Mushrushu and any travelers would know that a crocodile is a mere animal and not a god. But I doubt the Hebrews, including Daniel, as 'unbelievers' would have even been allowed into the Babylonian temples, just as their temple was off limits to pagans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Ishtar Gate of the ancient city of Babylon dates to the reign of Nebuchadnezzer II, around 580 B.C. The bas-reliefs which decorate the gate include two known animals -- the lion and the wild ox -- and one unknown animal, a dragon. Originally the word for this animal was read as sirrush, but now mushrushu is the accepted form. If the mushrushu ever were a living animal, it apparently is now extinct.

Some cryptozoologists suggest the mushrushu is the same animal as the Biblical Behemoth and the "dragon" which King Nebuchadnezzar kept in the temple of the god Bel according to the story in the apocryphal tale of Bel and the Dragon. In that tale Nebuchadnezzar confronted Daniel with the Bel dragon. Daniel killed it.

Other cryptozoologists suggest the mushrushu may have been a specimen of mokele-mbembe, a sauropod-like animal said to inhabit the Congo area. Another candidate is a giant monitor lizard like the Komodo Dragon.

Forget the story of David and Golith now its David and the Mustrushu :D

It would be helpful if you supplied links to the story so members can see the source of the post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be helpful if you supplied links to the story so members can see the source of the post?

Bel and the Dragon is easy to find, and Catholic Bibles have it and other Apocryphal works between the old and new testaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ohelemapit...................all i found was that info...................nothing that DC or anyone else said lol :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
did I also read somewhere that some Chinese emperors are recorded as having pet dragons and there was supposedly people who made careers as 'official dragon handlers' in china back in ye olde times.

crocodiles not dragons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id just like to make one think abundantly clear. There are or were no such things as dragons. Kimodo dragons, yes, Or other reptiles that looked like or were mistaken for dragons, but there never was any such animal that could breathe fire, fly or as DC ridiculously suggests, change the weather! its a mythical creature and a thing of folklore and legend like the minotaur, loch ness monster and mothman. There never has or never will be a shred of evidence to suggest that they did exist, no fossils, no teeth, no living relatives, no photographs or video footage. Dragons are nothing more than legend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Id just like to make one think abundantly clear. There are or were no such things as dragons. Kimodo dragons, yes, Or other reptiles that looked like or were mistaken for dragons, but there never was any such animal that could breathe fire, fly or as DC ridiculously suggests, change the weather! its a mythical creature and a thing of folklore and legend like the minotaur, loch ness monster and mothman. There never has or never will be a shred of evidence to suggest that they did exist, no fossils, no teeth, no living relatives, no photographs or video footage. Dragons are nothing more than legend.

Lets also make it abundantly clear that this is merely your opinion. The thousands of sightings of large reptiian creatures, usually in bodies of water, and many photos of such that have not been determined fakes, could very easily be the creatures our ancestors regarded as "dragons".

There is really nothing impossible about such creatures. Humans can spew fire from their mouths, there is no reason a 'dragon' couldn't do the same if furnished with a suitable, flammable beverage.

The largest skull of any land vertebrate belongs to a pterossaur large enough to swallow an adult human whole.

Even if they could not control the weather, an intelligent flying creature could certainly make it seem that it could control the weather to ancient man.

Parrots can speak human dialects and some seem to actually know what the words mean.

So the only evidence that dragons do not exists is lack of evidence of their remains. But this is very weak because new animals are being discovered all the time, and new dinosaurs as well for which no fossils had been found of them before.

There is really far more evidence for dragons, given their world wide acceptance as living animals for thousands of years, and possible eyewitness accounts all the time, than there is for the Biblical "God", which quite ironically, has many characteristics that suggests this deity is a "dragon" as well. Some of the world's most brilliant scientists and BILLIONS of other people, believe in this God with far less evidence than there has been for dragons.

Intelligent creatures could very easily avoid detection, and hide the remains of their dead. And the legends all over the world all state these are intelligent creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crocodiles not dragons

The ancient Chinese were remarkably advanced for their times, and were also sophisticated enough to realize the difference between crocodilians and intelligent, flying dragons. They even depict these creatures differently in their art to remove all doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

captain............there still are dragons...i cant remember what i was watching but it was on the discovery channel and they said that high in the mountains there were dragon like creatures that swam in the rivers and some could even blow smoke..........so good by to your logic lol :tu::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sirrush is merely a mythological beast carved into an ancient wall by ancient peoples. There is no physical evidence that such a creature ever actually existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sirrush??? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sirrush is merely a mythological beast carved into an ancient wall by ancient peoples. There is no physical evidence that such a creature ever actually existed.

Actually, several scientists have contemplated that it may represent a living animal, now extinct, because the other too animals depicted in the frieze are the very real lion and ox. But then for thousands of years, all of mankind DID believe dragons were real animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, several scientists have contemplated that it may represent a living animal, now extinct, because the other too animals depicted in the frieze are the very real lion and ox.

Speculation, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speculation, nothing more.

linked-image

this image dates to around 500bce,

there was never any animal like this, its clearly a depiction based on imagination, another picture from the same period shows the dragon like this

linked-image

both these depictions evolved from much older pictures the oldest of which is this one which is about 1000 years older than the previous two

linked-image

which allegedly (according to the british museum) shows the battle between the Dragon Tiamat (Mushussu) and the God Bel Marduk

it in turn is based on older depictions of the gods Enlil and Enki (Marduks father)

linked-image

which shows them in a boat

this is chinese whispers over millenia. As the Mushussu was the heraldic animal of the Babylonian God Bel Marduk, its appearence changed along with the rest of the cultural artistic style over a long period. the wording in the ancient texts however didn't and the Mushussu dragon in the oldest texts from mesopotamia is described as fully aquatic, in fact she symbolises the salt water oceans. According to sumerologists there was no such animal either in texts or being talked about in stories from before 2500bce

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e3849.html

Though Tiamat is often described by modern authors as a sea serpent or dragon, no ancient texts exist in which there is a clear association with those kinds of creatures. Though the Enûma Elish specifically states that Tiamat did give birth to dragons and serpents, they are included among a larger and more general list of monsters including scorpion men and merpeople, none of which imply that any of the children resemble the mother or are even limited to aquatic creatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat#Tiamat.27s_appearance

Neither Tiamat or any other creature from mesopotamia is ever described as a God, DC just made that up like most of his claims, the symbol which appears in text in front of the name of ALL gods is the dingir symbol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINGIR

it never appears associated with any dragon and no culture of mesopotamia ever worshipped dragons in at all

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, several scientists have contemplated that it may represent a living animal, now extinct,

really, then perhaps you should name these mystery scientists

whenever youre ready

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ancient Chinese were remarkably advanced for their times, and were also sophisticated enough to realize the difference between crocodilians and intelligent, flying dragons. They even depict these creatures differently in their art to remove all doubt.

Ever heard of an "abstract concept" also CHINA has allways had close relations with countries like INDIA and others yet none of there ambassdors reported seeing actual dragons and if they had them why weren't they used in war like the elephant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
captain............there still are dragons...i cant remember what i was watching but it was on the discovery channel and they said that high in the mountains there were dragon like creatures that swam in the rivers and some could even blow smoke..........so good by to your logic lol :tu::lol:

Yeah, OK.

I can't remember what you were watching either...all I remember is it was fiction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
captain............there still are dragons...i cant remember what i was watching but it was on the discovery channel and they said that high in the mountains there were dragon like creatures that swam in the rivers and some could even blow smoke..........so good by to your logic lol :tu::lol:

and good-bye to yours :D:tu:

In Reply to: Re: Dragon Fossils posted by Roz on March 08, 2006 at 09:45:05:

Looking just a little bit deeper reveals that the Discovery Channel show was indeed a piece of fiction -- a "what if dragons were real?" fantasy. Here is one viewer's review of the show:

"The plot of this movie is about a scientist who believes dragons to be real. The first indication is a scorched skull of a T-rex in his museum. Then he is able to explore a cave in the Romanian mountains where the frozen bodies of medieval knights and the remains of an unknown creature were found.

By examining the carcass he finds evidence for an unknown animal that can fly and spit fire. They concoct 'scientific' explanations for these impossible abilities. Everything is underlined by views on the dead bodies and very realistic computer animated scenes of the life of 'real' dragons.

I have to admit having some problems with the genre of this movie. Despite being called a 'documentary' it is pure science fiction. The scientific explanations for a dragon being able to fly and spit fire sound good but do not stand close examination. There is no space here to give detailed comments on this topic.

However I liked this film, because it is innovative despite a simple plot and above all the animated scenes are very realistic. They are at least equal to 'Jurassic Park'.

Altogether everything looks so real and sounds so rational, people without scientific background may think that it is a true story."

Obviously somebody thought it was a real documentary...

Here is the link to the dragon film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433367/usercomments

I hope this puts the "I heard they found remains of dragons in an ice cave in Romania" story to rest!

http://www.gtlsys.com/FossilForum/messages/18048.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i only caught the part were all the dragons were swimming around lol. that is interesting....sorta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linked-image

this image dates to around 500bce,

there was never any animal like this, its clearly a depiction based on imagination, another picture from the same period shows the dragon like this

linked-image

both these depictions evolved from much older pictures the oldest of which is this one which is about 1000 years older than the previous two

linked-image

which allegedly (according to the british museum) shows the battle between the Dragon Tiamat (Mushussu) and the God Bel Marduk

it in turn is based on older depictions of the gods Enlil and Enki (Marduks father)

linked-image

which shows them in a boat

this is chinese whispers over millenia. As the Mushussu was the heraldic animal of the Babylonian God Bel Marduk, its appearence changed along with the rest of the cultural artistic style over a long period. the wording in the ancient texts however didn't and the Mushussu dragon in the oldest texts from mesopotamia is described as fully aquatic, in fact she symbolises the salt water oceans. According to sumerologists there was no such animal either in texts or being talked about in stories from before 2500bce

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e3849.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat#Tiamat.27s_appearance

Neither Tiamat or any other creature from mesopotamia is ever described as a God, DC just made that up like most of his claims, the symbol which appears in text in front of the name of ALL gods is the dingir symbol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINGIR

it never appears associated with any dragon and no culture of mesopotamia ever worshipped dragons in at all

:tu:

If you are not even aware that Tiamat was believed to be the Goddess and Mother of the other Gods, it is useless to discuss this with you.

And for your information, Enlil, Enki, Ishtar and other mesopotamian gods are given the title, "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven", and Enki, in a later hymn when he is called EA is even described in detail as a dragon, with sharp teeth, claws, scaly body, etc. Virtually every human culture had dragon gods, as any anthropologist knows.

This is very basic stuff everbody on these forums should be aware of.

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.