HOW TO EXPLAIN DRAGONS
Posted by anthonynorth on September 13, 2008
We have all heard of the Dragon. Known in culture worldwide, it is usually depicted as a huge reptile or snake with two pairs of legs and wings. Often associated with spirituality, it can also breath fire.
In eastern mythology it is often seen as benevolent, whereas to western culture, it is malevolent. Often known as a ‘worm’, warrior knights fight it, usually rescuing a fair maiden whom it had been guarding.
This is the story of George and the Dragon.
And the legend is repeated throughout parts of western Europe. It is a symbol of knightly purity and essential to the idea of chivalry. But this element of the legend is older than Christianity.
Beowulf does battle with the dragon, Grendel, in Saxon mythology. The ancient Greeks had the Hydra. The Dragon is often a symbol of war, and it appears in legendary names such as Arthur Pendragon. It is clearly a symbol of something monstrous which was defeated.
St Michael is essential to the mythology.
He is the patron saint of chivalry and commands God’s army. He is often depicted fighting the Devil in heaven, the Devil usually symbolized as a Dragon.
St Michael has many churches in England today, and they are often associated with leys – ancient tracks, sometimes seen as possessing magical energies, at others simply ancient pagan trade routes.
Do leys offer a hint of understanding?
In the east, the concept of ancient pathways are known as ‘dragon paths’, giving a clear association between the Dragon and the Earth itself. Earth and Dragon seem to be one and the same.
Seeing the Dragon as a serpent can be illuminating. Indeed, all the Dragon is is a monstrous form of serpent. And if we do so, we will find serpents in ancient mythologies throughout the world.
Usually, it is associated with Creation.
Serpents are usually the vessel through which the spark of life is placed upon the land, often caused by the passing of blood or semen. In this sense, the serpent has a clear ‘phallic’ representation.
Such mythologies are pagan. However, in monotheistic representations the serpent is still there, but seen as evil, tempting Eve into the process that leads to sex with Adam. Again we see symbolism of the spark of life through procreation.
Most ancient pagan religious forms were actually based upon fertility, offering a direct link between man and the environment upon which he relied. The fertility of nature was vital to his survival.
Here we find some interesting links, not only with pagan ritual, but also tying the serpent to the land. Thus, it is more than likely that the later representation of the Dragon was actually a symbol of ancient pagan religious forms.
Such fertility forms were ousted when Ego began to assert itself with the rise of the masculine warrior, finally expressed in the monotheist chivalric tradition. This meant the end of paganism as a predominant religious form.
Hence, knights slay Dragons throughout the land – or in other words, put down nature worship at every turn, placing churches of St Michael on their major sites. And as for that serpent itself?
Well, the ancient spin doctors demonised it into something horrendous and evil. And thus, the Dragon is malevolent in the west. But in the east, where religious forms are still well grounded in nature, it is benevolent.
© Anthony North, September 2008
BEYOND THE BLOG 
Selma said
The duality of the dragon is interesting. I was reading some Celtic fairytales the other day and all of the dragons were evil, fire-breathing creatures. Yet on a recent visit to Chinatown they had one of their lovely dragon parades in the streets. Many people told me how lucky I was to see the dragon and that good fortune would befall me. Such interesting mythology.
anthonynorth said
Hi Selma,
Yes, the Dragon mythology is a perfect way to show the difference between eastern and western religious traditions, one based on society, the other on nature.
Twilight said
It’s remarkable, isn’t it AN, that similar myths are found in widely different and distant parts of the world, in the days when travel and communication between countries were minimal or non-existent. I wonder if it’s that communal mind at work again? Or if the symbolism stems from some civilisation which did have the means to travel and communicate, and left similar symbolic tales in many different locations.
The dragon appears in astrology (mainly of the eastern variety). The Moon’s Nodes: “the points where – at the moment of birth – the Moon’s orbit around the Earth intersects the Earth’s link around the Sun. The North Node, also known as the Dragon’s Head, is the ascending point. The South Node, known as the Dragon’s Tail, is the descending point. (The ‘Dragon’ is from Hindu mythology.)”
At eclipse the dragon’s head was thought to devour the tail.
anthonynorth said
Hi Twilight,
I like to call this kind of thing ‘universal psychology’. I think it can stem from culture down the generations, natural psychological traits through being human, or even environment having an effect on us. But certainly these archetypal symbols have an amazing similarity. And as with so many of them, emphasis changes between east and west.
A fascinating subject.
SandyCarlson said
This post sends me back to the Cosmic Mother, a wonderful book the title of which explains itself. The snakes are not the bad guys until the Christians come along. Interesting stuff here, Anthony.
anthonynorth said
Hi Sandy,
Many thanks. Yes, it’s strange to think of the dragon as socio-politics, but it seems that’s exactly what it is.
Travis said
That was fascinating.
anthonynorth said
Hi Travis,
Thanks for that. I’ve been fascinated by such subjects for decades. The way we work is quite amazing.
sarsen56 said
A fascinating subject Anthony. I might also suggest a practical dimension – that throughout the ages people would have been familiar with the chance discovery of major prehistoric fossils, notably those exposed by coastal erosion (such as Mary Anning’s spectacular Jurassic reptiles from Lyme Regis in the 19th century). What on earth would early communities made of such material in the absence of any knowledge of geological processes or the time scales involved?
anthonynorth said
Hi Sarsen56,
Thanks for that, and yes, this is an important point, although the Bible seems to have missed those fossils. Wonder why?
Which is, I suppose, the main reason for the essay – to show more the attitudes towards the subject, which would, I think, have been the same regardless of the fossils. But certainly you’ve added to the discussion by mentioning this. Which is much appreciated.
Anna-Liza said
I find it very interesting that, in modern fiction, dragons are often depicted as frightening, not necessarily benevolent toward humankind in general, but at the same time wise and willing to work cooperatively with humans who show they are “worthy”. The “worthiness” taking different forms depending on the story, but usually involving looking past the dragon’s frightening facade and refusing to automatically judge it as evil. It’s a theme I’ve seen repeatedly in the last fifteen or twenty years.
anthonynorth said
Hi Anna-Liza,
An important point, and you’re absolutely right. I suppose it’s an intuition that there is more to old religious types than the ‘evilness’ they’re made out to be about.
leonardofarroco said
So interesting!
I’m brazilian and I always read about the Tupi mythology . They describe some magic creatures as the Caipora wich represents signs of they culture, in that case, the hunt. It’s just fascinating to see a culture being represented by it’s mythology!
anthonynorth said
Hi Leonardo,
Your comment was snapped up by the Great WordPress Comment Eater – a dragon of sorts. But I saved it from its jaws 🙂
Yes, I doubt if there is a single culture that doesn’t have its dragon, and they’re always fascinating.
Gerald Ford said
Just out of curiousity, where is it taught that “In the east, the concept of ancient pathways are known as ‘dragon paths’”? That one’s new to me. 🙂
Thanks!
anthonynorth said
Hi Gerald,
The concept is particularly well known in China. As for formal teachings in such matters, many eastern concepts are not ‘formalised’ as such, but open to various schools of interpretation. Suffice to say, when a major investigation of leys and mystical sites was begun in the UK, they chose to call it the Dragon Project.
clegg said
Hi Anthony,
Didn’t St George slay the dragon?
anthonynorth said
Hi Clegg,
He did indeed – in the legend.
Ursula said
Fantastic article. I live in Cape Town on what is believed by many here to be one of the earths’ lay-lines I am part of a group who regularly practise dragon-energy meditation. I’ve always believed that its possible that dragons actually existed, perhaps now I can start to realise that their lessons for us may be more biblican in their story-telling than reality….. I’m not sure but as a lapsed Catholic Westerner I lean far more toward the Eastern philosophy and beliefs than the Western which are build on fear and power rather than protection and creation.
wabs said
Dinosaur bones have always been here. Yes it is a more mundane explanation but it’s the easiest one. People found dinosaur bones and were amazed by the size, and modeled dragons after them.
Still, something keeps dragons fresh in our psyche worldwide. I think on some etheric level of reality they are around. Having read many Chinese stories depicting dragons – dragons seem to be in control of the elements.
anthonynorth said
Hi Ursula,
I like the way you define east and west religious impulses. Studying both, I’ve come to the conclusion that the east retains the link with nature, whilst the west redefined spirituality to deal with society – which is where the fear element comes from, I’m sure.
Hi Wabs,
Thanks for that. Yes, dragons did, I’m sure, become similar to an archetype. Thus we can say they do exist symbolically in our collective mind.
Sometimes this is just as ‘real’ as something physical.
How To Explain Dragons said
[…] An interesting blog:https://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/how-to-explain-dragons/ […]
Abe78s said
Dragon = Reptilian. Dosent that explain a thing or two?
Brenda said
I am curious about the Babylonian God Marduke referring to himself as a “dragon” and the interesting dragon image on the gate into Babylon. We don’t usually hear about Middle Eastern dragons. What do you make of this one?
anthonynorth said
Hi Abe78s,
The reptile has always been treated with suspicion by monotheism. As for the Dragon, it differs in one important respect – four limbs and wings. There is no such lifeform on this planet. Unless you count fairies 😉
Hi Brenda,
The dragon mythology is universal. I doubt if there is a single culture without one.
Timothy said
A very interesting topic,
Although dragons are in many cases seen as Malevolent in western culture, someone said that this was mainly after the expansion of Christianity,
In many cases there were dragons shown with both good and bad sides,
Perhaps another example of Christianity absorbing religious traditions, rituals or turning customs against themselves woth an aim to convert?
Just a thought, dont know too much about the topic,
love that theres such a great forum though =]
Jordan said
FYI – In Beowulf Grendel is not described as a dragon. The dragon appears much later in the poem. After Beowulf kills Grendel he must then fight Grendel’s mother. The Dragon only appears in Beowulf’s old age.
mike said
I’d like to respond to this article and some of the responses to it. It is true that snakes are regarded as special animals wherever they are found. I wouldn’t call all snakes dragons though. The small snakes held in the hands of the Minoan and Egyptian goddesses, or the Celtic horned gods don’t seem to qualify as dragons since one normally doesn’t think of holding dragons in your hand. Most of our ideas of what dragons are come from Chinese or Indo-European myth. I wouldn’t say there was no communication between these cultures, the chariot managed to spread out from central Asia to Europe, China, and India. In the Indo-European tradition, long before Christianity or monotheism, from Nordic to Indian mythology, the dragon, as a giant serpent, is an agent of chaos and evil who is killed by a hero god. Typically its the storm god who does this. The Chinese usually link there dragons with rain and water, and the Indo-European myth may symbolize the storm god acquiring the dragons water for the world.
saintlewis said
Odd that you should think the original sin has anything to do with ‘sex’… where do you draw that notion? Biblically, sex seems to be part of the plan in Genesis… it seems to be some sort of knowledge (knowledge of good & evil) or even – maybe – the temptation to create our own view of what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’ is the original temptation. But given that Man & Woman were commanded to pro-create in the garden BEFORE the fall, I don’t think any sexual temptation plays into that story…
anthonynorth said
Hi Timothy,
Thanks for that. Yes, religions have a long history of converting and demonising the previous religious expression.
Hi Jordan,
Well spotted. A silly error by me there. Proof that anyone can make a mistake – especially as I’ve researched the subject well in the past. Proof, also, that a writer should double check absolutely everything no matter how much they think they remember.
Still, the ‘dragon’ point still stands.
Hi Mike,
Yes, snakes are represented in many myths without the dragon. The western dragon was, I think, hyped up to its malevolence by religions as we moved away from nature veneration. In this preocess the subject is mixed up to reflect what the new religion wants to say. Think of Medieval Christendom tagging wtiches as Devil worshippers. Totally wrong, but they did it just the same.
Hi Saintlewis,
The Bible can be twisted any way you want. Generally, Original Sin is perceived as temptation with the end product of sex. That’s why I say:
‘tempting Eve into the process that leads to sex’
In the end, offspring are the result, which didn’t occur before.
Lao Tzu said
Very interesting article, thanks!!! A few comments, though. First, this planet has seen possibly hundreds of thousands of cultures, if not millions, so I think it would be hard to say that ALL cultures had a “dragon”. Second, development in multiple cultures of a similar concept without communication is often termed “parallel development” (e.g., pyramids), and is often the result of something so obvious that parallel development is statistically probable, and less likely from a universal psychology. Most likely, these cultures have found dinosaur bones and developed myths from there. Although I think universal psychology does play a role in that both Eastern and Western dragons share something in common. They both symbolize GREAT POWER, and hence celestial and elemental oversight (eastern) or grand tests of chivalry (western) evolved from there. But how I hope the stories to be true….. Thanks!
baz said
hi anthony
interesting how we manage to mix and match mythologies reptiles. sumerian gods = lizards, also in gilgamesh the e-din is protected by a flying beast with a firery weapon. the serpent/dragon of the americas is benevolent = god. asian dragons bring luck. in the bible the serpent is evil. genesis has lizards. eden has the cherabin defenders with flaming weapons. britain has the welsh/celtic dragon, bringer of doom. also nessie sometimes pesented as a dragon, good for a round of whiskey. which way religiously you are raised seems to give you good or evil dragons.
mabey the truth is simpler. inteligent bi-pedal dinasaurs used adams sperm/serpent to give eve fruit, cain and able. eat your mushrooms.
remember you are god
baz
anthonynorth said
Hi Lao Tzu,
Fair enough, I maybe cannot say all cultures would have a dragon, but I’d offer a pretty good guess that they would all have had something similar. But I accept your point.
My idea of universal psychology can be seen in action with the pyramids. There is evidence that some began with the idea of burial mounds. This seemingly universal form is a fair representation of a womb on the landscape. Early religious forms seemed to understand death and rebirth, almost certainly coming form the seasons. Hence, the burial mound for the revered can be seen as a symbolic rebirth after death. As tech increased, we can see math changing the shape of the burial mound to the more perfect pyramid, as sacred geometry arose.
This is a very basic explanation, I know, but you may catch my drift.
Hi Baz,
Yes, the prevalence is amazing. A definite archetype, I think. Mushrooms or not 😉
Tina said
i love everything to do with History, and i learned something i didnt know today too 😉
anthonynorth said
Hi Tina,
Glad you enjoyed it. It’s a fascinating subject.
Richmond said
“knights slay Dragons throughout the land ”
The knights appeared in history when the roman catholic church was at its peak. I think the stories of “knights slay[ing] Dragons throughout the land ” may also symbolize the church’s negative feeling towards carnal pleasure since according to you the myths about dragons were somehow related to fertility rites of ancient pagan religion.
anthonynorth said
Hi Richmond,
Yes, you could put it like that. But it must be seen, I think, in an overall holistic way – anything that seemed to hint of paganism had to be suspect and put down.
Atrueoriginall said
Of greater importance would be what is claimed as the very first dragon.
Liaohe River Valley: Cradle of Chinese Dragon Culture:
In late 2003, Chinese archaeologists found a jade dragon. These are the oldest archaeology findings of dragons, which are the epitome of Chinese culture and were found in the Hongshan ruins at Niuheliang, which makes it the oldest record of the dragon.
The Hongshan tribes lived in the Liaohe River Valley some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago or better yet, 3000BC to 4000BC. Since the jade dragons were unearthed, others have been found at the Zhaobaogou and Zhahai archeological sites. Although the carved dragons found at these places are not as old as the Hongshan jades, the ruins themselves are 6,000 and 8,000 years old, respectively. Archaeologists feel confident that the dragon culture of the Liaohe River Valley dates back at least 5,000 years.
Now that we might have a date that the above event took place, keep in mind that this was a time of goddesses and not gods.
The Hongshan tribe even had a flood story.
anthonynorth said
Hi Atrueoriginall,
I’d say a good contender for the oldest dragon so far. But I’d add to one point. You say it was a time of goddesses, not gods. In the main, very true, but I think it’s a usual process that goddesses begin to decline as agriculture leads to stable building projects, the masculine taking over.
This society may well have been very early, but it seems to follow the standard pattern of social development – a crossing point, with figures of pregnant women also found. There are also various arguments as to whether it is the first representation of the dragon or not. As I recall, the form is known as the pig-dragon.
indy11 said
Dragons=Dinosaurs.
anthonynorth said
Hi Indy11,
Possibly, but I’m still waiting to hear of a dinosaur with four legs and wings. Any species, infact.
Thomas said
Thanks for the enlightening article Anthony – I am *very* grateful to you for writing it. I have always been perplexed by the dragon mythologies and the difference between the East and West depictions of it. Your article helped my understanding.
I notice someone took you to task on the subject of the serpent leading to sex – Original Sin – and I appreciate both takes. I thought I’d suggest some ideas to get your opinion.
I have noticed that eastern religions speak frequently about the idea that the “knowledge of opposites” is what caused and continues to cause our “fall” (i.e. suffering). The knowledge of Good and Evil is another way it seems to me to express the “opposites”, namely “duality”. For ex:
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make the smallest distinction however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart. If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.” (From the Hsin Hsin Ming, by Seng T’san, the third Zen patriarch of China [d.606 AD])
“If you are attached to your thinking, then everything has name and form. This is the world of opposites.” (Zen Master Seung Sahn)
“…the true Renouncer, firm and fixed,
Who—seeking nought, rejecting nought—dwells proof
Against the “opposites”. (Bhagavadgita)
The fact that the East and West (opposites once again) view the Dragon as good and evil (respectively) also gives me pause. It seems to me that the Bible meant the knowledge of good and evil literally – though I like your comparison with the phallic symbol and the serpent – the fertility symbol that creates life.
The Trinity has been said to be the creation of life: 1 (One) equals God – the all knowing that encompasses all, Two (the male principle) and 3 (the Female principle) are the pairs of opposites (duality) that creates what is *seen* – which were both spawned from the One. It is the knowledge of these opposites creates suffering.
It is my thinking that the Bible is actually agreeing with Eastern thought.
anthonynorth said
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for that. To me, eastern thought is mainly based on our relationship with nature, and is thus cyclic in character. Western religious thought is mainly based upon society, and is there linear, requiring advancement, etc.
One therefore remains holistic, the other specialised, but if you take away the particular emphasis and culture of any religion, what we find is an identical mind-set.
I suppose that means I both agree and disagree with you, depending upon whether we view how a religion appears on the outside, or what is really deep down within it.
KylaPan said
The Hydra as a phallic symbol? Please. The dragons of Greek mythology are clearly yonic. That is, it takes a virile male to “kill” the feminie earth religion of the native culture when the more masculine invaders, well, …invade and concur. St. Michael was even a Greek saint, 5th century. Thus, the symbolism of the dragon vs. the “knight” (at least in my research) clearly symbolises the male vs. the female.
I may not be a feminist, but Remember, the myths, much like history, were written by men. Take them with a grain of salt. And always think about what you read. From both sides.
anthonynorth said
Hi KylaPan,
You said:
‘And always think about what you read. From both sides.’
I couldn’t agree more, but feel you haven’t acted on your own advice. I don’t say the Hydra was a phallic symbol. Indeed, I end that section of the essay with the words:
‘It is clearly a symbol of something monstrous which was defeated.’
What I argue is that the dragon came to represent fertility religions, which were mainly feminine. It changed over time to become mostrous, just as any myth changes to represent contemporary thought.
Your male v female is adequately covered in my essay – but it is far more than that. Best to try to think holistically when trying to understand the ‘reality’ of myth.
zzzdude said
where are the dungeons?
anthonynorth said
Hi Zzzdude,
I’ll give you a hint. Don’t, whatever you do, go into my Archives. If you go down there, man, you’ll never, EVER get out! 😉
Richard Freeman said
I heve researched dragons all my life and published two books, Dragons: More than a Myth? and Explore Dragons. This Ley Line idea explains nothing about dragons! Sightings of dragons are still reoprted to day. I have spoken with witnesses from Thailand, Mongolia, Sumatra, China and Australia who all describe exactly the same creature.
The dragon legend is based on a real species of gigantic reptile unkown to science!
anthonynorth said
Hi Richard,
The above essay is more about the sociological aspects of dragon mythology. Yes, I accept that people report seeing dragons, but I disagree about its physical existence. There are plenty of ‘creatures’ that can be adequately explained through hallucinatory mechanisms.
Sue Hickey said
Hey Anthony – I would also suggest that our fascination with dragons may be partially due to ancestral genetlc memory? That our small mammal brains somehow “passed down” the memories of the big dino predators? It’s almost uncanny that many of our dragon artwork resembles the giant pterosaurs? Just a thought!
anthonynorth said
Hi Sue,
I’m sure this could come into it, but then you’ve got to add cultural expression on top of that – such as why some see it as malevolent, and some benevolent.
balthazarro said
Whilst not wishing to condemn comparititive mythological commentary, the repetition of half conceived ideas does not enhance the use of dragon lore to make spatial/socio/cultural pronouncements. Why is it so hard to believe in the conception of parallel cultural development. Is the observed ressonence more in the eye of the beholder than in the cultural moments the writer has observed? What do eastern dragon paths have to do with the cartographical observations of Alfred Watkins? Is the presense of the meme “dragon” more to do with the imperfect powers of cultural translation that the english language possesses than the idea of a universal experience of the concept of dragoness? I know what my dragon’s are, and i know what my chinese neighbour’s dragon’s are ? We might use the same semantic devie to describe the category they describe, but that similarity ends when you get past the generic descriptive term for the universe the noun describes, semantics should be the starting point for this discussion, then memetics, then throw in what you want, but i can’t see anything here beyond the vision of a beholder who has read too much Macafferty, and then maybe not understood her. Oh and by the way Beowolf was not a knight, Grendel was not a dragon but a troll, and if you want to play in the redundant associations with St micheal and the dragon lines, maybe you need to check St Martha, who had much more interesting things to do with dragons.
anthonynorth said
Hi Balthazarro,
For your point about Grendel, please see comments #27 and #30 above. Your overall hypothesis could well be right, as could mine. I suppose the difference is I am prepared to look at all possibilities and make up my own mind, and not attempt to ridicule others for having other views.
Incidentally, the story of St Martha and the Tarasque seems to me to be just another variation of monotheism slaying paganism. But I could well be wrong.
balthazarro said
Hi Anthony North
Apologies for the brusque tone of my earlier comments, they were not intended as a personal attack on your beliefs or as a dismissal. The point I was trying to advance is that the nature of belief informs the sort of questions we impose upon the reality defined by our perceptions. I have no problem with people identifying connections between correspondences between motes of factual data. But i am suggesting perhaps that the connections that they make owe more to the eye of the beholder than to the silver threads of serendipity that might bind them into a meta-explanation for the mysteries of concordant symbolism.
Belief structures even in the most open minded head formulate an analytical stance. Your piece, whilst stimulating, perhaps misconstrues several important concepts. The notion of universal symbolism, the notion of fertility, your notion of paganism, your notion of east and west. Your terms are simplistic and do not do justice to the intense local variation of complex relationships of human kind to culture and environment associated around the symbol of the dragon. I appreciate your general stance allows you to make the correspondances, but the interpretative links that you make between quite separate cultural echos cannot be investigated because the cultural data pertaining to the origins of these ghosts of shadows that survive exist only in the form of much later interpretative speculation, not from the voices of the holders of these beliefs or from anyone in the belief systems from which they originated.
Personally speaking i am fascinated with dragons and dragon lore, but perhaps the stories to which you refer have more to do with the dominant cultural groups which preserved such traditions in child culture, as metaphors encapsulating the cultural values which you alude to.
But just as with fairies, witches, aliens, the categorisation of each individual group of symbolic beings reveals an astonishingly diverse morphology, all derived from particular local circumstances and cultures. For every aggressive, countryside ravaging, virgin eating, fire breathing behemoth, you can find some astonishing variations which defy such stereotyping, the norse dragons were very distinct in behaviour from the german dragons, who in turn were very distinct from their austrian counter parts. Also that the remains of these dragon tales are snap shotted from the oral tradition by folk lorists redefining their national identity, by changing and altering their stories to such current narrative fashions and mores, further muddies the view on the dragon world. If the evidence is so muddy, why not rely more on a creative interpretation as your analytical tool, you might ask. I would argue, on the basis of your detailed knowledge as evidenced on these pages, you can do better.
The cult of st martha and the tarsque was finacially much more lucrative than that of the crusader knights affection for st george, to the point of which it ran a very close call with the inquisition during the early persecutions of heresy in the 1300s. But the notion of a female saint beguilling the savage beast with her feminine charms ( the object of st martha’s popular veneration amongst the south westerns french peasentry) or prayer( the accomodation made by the local church to accomodate a possibilty older cultural tradtion) might survive as evidence for the dragon slaying as an indicator for patrimony and chauvenism as the monothesitc hegenomy surplants earlier belief structures, but the popularity of the cult, especially in opposition to the st george cult, owes more the the woman’s wisdom, her use of her femininity, which runs counter to the direction your thesis aludes.
I am not saying you are wrong with the symbolism of dragons, i am just suggesting a variety of other paths for your open minded nature to follow. My apologies for not reading 27 and 30 above I have now.
I am always fearful when a scholar looks like they might tread in the same path as Dr Margaret Murray and fit the evidence into their thesis and not their thesis into their evidence, so forgive my pedantic nature, but culture is always formed by informed debate, and thanks for the opportunity to express such opinions as i have, as you can imagine i don’t often get the opportunity to meet my peers. I have no interest in ridicule or suggesting that i am right or you are wrong, but cultural archeaology needs a concept of time, space, history and relativism before creative interpretations are applied. I really dont have any answers, but this is the wasteland in which i am looking for my first encounter with the wyrm.
anthonynorth said
Hi Balthazarro,
Many thanks for that reply. Let me put the opposite argument – that a researcher can become too insistent on detail, and in doing so miss the more holistic viewpoint.
I deal with what I call Patternology, or P-ology, a train of thought that looks at the whole rather than the specialised, attempting to formulate patterns. I’m in search of knowledge that may be missed by compartmentalised thinking, or concentration on a specific topic.
I never claim to offer truth but ideas, and nothing more. You hint that you’ve looked at some of my pages, and thus other essays, so you may have seen a little of what I’m about.
There is a saying that ‘the devil is in the detail’, but I suspect that only concentrating on the detail may cause us to miss those patterns. So I offer patterns and then let others see if the details fit. And what I usually find is that various specialists insist the details don’t fit, but they diaagree on what those details are and how they don’t fit.
Which is true? I suspect my P-ology is already outing a pattern here as to the very nature of knowledge.
balthazarro said
Oh anthony North
i am neither a specialist nor antiquarian nor an academic. When i apply my own holistic viewpoint to the interpretation of cultural observation, i just like to question the nature of the evidence before me, before i shower the world with my conclusions, The quest for definition or meaning or interpretation does not necessitate necessarily a narrow analytical paradigm.
the nature of knowledge is dynamic and dependent on the energies and skills of its participants, its memetic and morphological nature, changes, as the landscape it creates nurtures and shapes the inhabitents that generate it, but always in such a shifting place it is important to make the distinction between the imagined, the perceived, and the real. In cultural archaeology so much is imagined as all the evidence that survives is open to the wildest interpretation as what survives might be regarded as untypical, by the sheer statistical improbability of its survival alone. When the anomaly becomes the focus, because of its unique incidence in surviving to be examined, surely the starting point is to consider the typicality of its message before, the words are fed into the interpretation machine as new gospel??? Whoops a bit more judeo christian bias there, well you started it with your devil in the detail !
saintlewis said
yes, but they had already been COMMANDED to procreate…
anthonynorth said
Hi Balthazarro,
You said:
‘When i apply my own holistic viewpoint to the interpretation of cultural observation, i just like to question the nature of the evidence before me, before i shower the world with my conclusions …’
So much for my quarter century of research, scores of accusations of scepticism regarding my questioning of data, and nearly 30 books eternally awaiting a publisher.
Your method of ridiculing someone who may disagree with you is, I’m afraid, quite typical. And no doubt you don’t even realise you’re doing it.
balthazarro said
Calm down anthony North
I was only suggesting a few alternate paths to a fellow researcher. If all you saw was an attack or an attempt at ridicule, i am afraid that says more about you than what i have said here. I have tried to be constructive, positive and open minded.
I will let you get on without any more intervention from me.
anthonynorth said
Hi Balthazarro,
Did I imagine your words? A few quotes from your comments.
‘the repetition of half conceived ideas’
‘i can’t see anything here beyond the vision of a beholder who has read too much Macafferty, and then maybe not understood her.’
‘i just like to question the nature of the evidence before me, before i shower the world with my conclusions’
I am, actually, perfectly calm, and nothing you have said has annoyed or surprised me. It is a typical and repeatable reaction I get all the time.
Far too many researchers become, I think, too narrow in their subject, and such words flow without a second thought.
A great shame.