Many different cultures from around the world herald magical beings, both harmful and generous, which depict creatures that can be explained in no uncertain terms. Stories relating to gargantuan men (the "Bigfoot", the "Yeti"), reptilian creatures (The DRAGON, Loch Ness Monster, "Champ", etc...), and other thought extinct creatures are still amid today's folklore. But why? Is it all a figment of one deranged lunatic's imagination? Or are cultures too short-sighted to realize that their teachings are a falsification of a long-winded tale of someones overexaggerated exploits? In my opinion, they are a little of both, but based upon some type of historical truism.
The evidence of the dragon in medieval folklore is one of the most popular, most recognized, and most endeared topics. To suppose that the knights in the Dark Ages symbolically represented their "demons" as a large, fire-breathing, reptilian creature may take a bit of imagination. However, to suppose that the knights of the Dark Ages characterized their demons as a large reptilian creature could potentially be expected. This time period represented an era of brutality, chivalry, and war-mongering. In an effort to claim more resources (land, animals, crops, women), men of the era became efficiently violent, laying devastation beyond comprehension. However, they were also afraid. Afraid of an opponent so powerful that their swords, their arrows, and their might could not overcome it. What could be this powerful? What could pose such an impenetrable obstacle to the might of men? Was it the powerful forces of the different cultures (Jews, Arabic peoples, the Goths, etc...)? Or could it truly have been a sauropod?
To put this interrogation of a concept to the next level, consider that the first true evidence of dinosaur/sauropod existence was discovered in the late 18th century C.E. In this timeframe, fossilzed creatures had already been found, representing mostly aquatic annelids and coelenterates. Plants, small crustaceans, and insects had all been discovered, representing no known existing phyla. However, it was not until the late 18th century C.E. that the major discoveries of dinosaurs/sauropods had taken place. Considering that tales of the dragon slayers, the "fair-maidens" needing rescued, and the presence of "gargoyles" (again... dragonic/reptilian features) gracing the facades of Cathedrals had existed for hundreds of years prior, this poses a unique dilemma. How can one, living in ancient times, possibly have come up with an idea such as dragons, when their actual physical representations were not discovered until the late 18th century?
The most obvious answer is to assume that at some point in time, somewhere, the common humanoid figure, capable of language and culture, experienced a dinosaur/sauropod in "real time". In order to correlate all of the fascinating similarities between the two very distinct and real ideas of dinosaurs and dragons, one would need to experience the meeting between humans and these large reptilian creatures. One can also argue that the relevant argument representing the two in features is uncanny: reptilian in form, scales/scaly skin, LARGE, quadroped (sometimes biped), and vicious.
Granted, the "phone game" probably played its part in spreading the tale of the dragon throughout history. Aspects such as flight, the presence of the fire-breather, and the need for human sacrifice (maiden sacrifice) is probably exaggerated. However, the "baseline" from which to make the hypothesis could hold true! This hypothesis holds true, especially when measured against the many distinct tales of "dragon-like" figures from around the world. Examples of this would be: "Champ" in Lake Champlain, The Congo river sightings, medieval dragon folklore, the Loch Ness Monster, the "Chinese Dragon", etc... How can cultures, isolated for thousands of years due to the lack of technology in travel, all come up with similar stories of dragon-like/dinosaur-like figures?
In all, I am not asking for your agreement that this concept IS how events have come pass throughout human history. However, I am asking for you to agree with me that the correlating factors are increasingly strong, that the occurrence throughout isolated cultures demands additional critique, and that the potential instance of a human/sauropod meeting COULD have occurred. After all, scientists believed that the Ceolocanth, which lived during the mid-Paleozoic, was extinct. That is, until one was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938.
Trust no one, deny anything, question everything...
Jeff Snyder
January 28, 2004