~ Introduction
~ Dragons were once common
~ Intelligent dragons
~ Bestial dragons
~ Dragons as an elaboration of nature
~ Sea serpents
~ Metaphysical creatures
~ Conclusion
One of the most common, and certainly the most debatable question in circulation over dragons is, "do they exist?". Despite being repeatedly asked, a satisfactory conclusion has never really been offered. The reason is primarily because everyone has a different viewpoint on dragon existence, and due to the controversial nature of the topic, we have so far only really been faced with contradiction. To date, theories regarding dragon existence have ranged from a physical, literal presence; the idea that dragons used to roam the earth but were wiped out by chivalrous knights or human advances. Others believe that dragons are little more than a mixture of the untamed forces of nature and human imagination, or that dragons exist on the astral plane, or that they have found their home in our imaginations.
Our focus in this essay is not to try and directly prove or disprove the existence of dragons, but instead to discuss the main possibilities from which we will draw our own conclusion. However, in the end it will be up to you, the reader, to decide how you believe in dragons.
Surprisingly enough, there are in fact very few theories as to dragon existence; the general consensus of theories regarding their life generally accept one of two conclusions, the first being that they do not exist and never have. The second is centered not around on dragon existence itself, but the absence of dragon kind today.
The latter of these two theories is based on the fact that dragons must have once existed because they feature in almost every culture from around the world. Because of this, details as to their existence are overlooked because the idea rests solely on this assumption, and so the theory promptly details why our world is no longer graced with dragon kind. While this is perfectly acceptable, it does create problems due to the fact that dragons have only been known as dragons since the Hellenic times (Allen & Griffiths, 1979), 800 BC- 338 BC (stark.kent.edu, 2004). Prior to this date the (very broad) term or name was unknown, and so technically, they did not exist. For instance, the common species link between the Western and Chinese dragon lies solely in the word itself and, once stripped of it, the two become like chalk and cheese. (Coincidentally the foreheads of both creatures are of importance, as outlined in the Dragon Properties essay. However, this is more likely to be a cultural similarity [the forehead is a very generic area], rather than anything to do with the dragons themselves.)
Also, when we really look at the "dragons" of the ancient world, we see that they are in fact little more than modified serpents; such as Quetzalcoatl (or Kukulkan the "Plumed Serpent"), Jormungand or the Mother Serpent. Not only this, but classing some creatures under the dragon title is subjective because the term is not inclusive.
This is not to say that dragons themselves could never have existed, it merely means the logic that dragons must have existed "because they are found all over the world" isn't accurate. If we concentrate on the idea that dragons physically, in their most literal sense did once roam the world (and that's why they feature so regularly in mythology and folklore), then we can instead take a look at why they no longer co-exist with us. There are two standing theories detailing their disappearance or exinction, and they both focus on human intervention.
Dragons were once as common as birds in the sky, but they were wiped out by us, either directly (knights), or indirectly (with the advance of technology and population expansion):
This idea seems an excellent outlet into which we can file the dragon enigma into, however it seems all too easy. Focusing on the former of the two points (the direct elimination of dragon kind by knights), we should consider the actual knights themselves as they are used in this context. It is important to remember that most "dragon-slaying" knights did not operate in the literal sense, as some people mistakenly believe (to be fair, it is an easy assumption to make). Most dragon-slayers in fact overcame an obstacle or had some victory, usually in a religious manner. For instance, St George the dragon-slayer slew the symbolic dragon of false religion.
The word dragon has been (and still is) used frequently to describe some daunting task or opposition, which is not always necessarily "bad" or "evil", though that generally is the theme. During the year 793 AD, disease and famine ran rampant through England, which were heralded by the arrival of "dragons", as Ralph Whitlock describes in his book Here Be Dragons (1983, p.17), "Dreadful prodigies alarmed the wretched nation of the English; for terrific lightnings and dragons in the air and strokes of fire were seen hovering on high, and shooting to and fro, which were ominous signs of the great famine and the frightful and ineffable slaughter of multitudes of men which ensued."
From these two examples, it seems superfluous to even integrate knights into this theory, as we can see the men themselves and their evil foes are metaphorical in nature. It would be a far safer assumption to leave the idea at, "dragons were once as common as birds in the sky, but they were wiped out." This of course is an open-ended sentence, but if we were to add a natural factor into the demise of dragon kind, such as disease or even evolution, then the theory starts rolling in a more plausible direction.
Since we actually have no dragon remains to study, the wiping out of dragons by a disease- either brought on by mankind or just by nature- cannot be disproven (though history documents would have included this, but since they do not, it seems unlikely). To explain why remains of dragons have not been found, is pushed forth the idea of "dragon graveyards". These are places where dragons go to to die, and this explains why we do not find any skeletal remains. Going hand-in-hand with the extinction theory, the "dragon graveyard" has some obvious good points, and clears away a lot of the first questions that come to mind over the remains we should have theoretically found by now.
However, it does not fully explain why we haven't found these dragon graveyards (they would need many graveyards to support the population- and because most dragons are traditionally perceived as huge [even if they were horse-sized as detailed in the Dragon Anatomy, that is still large], the graveyards would also need to cover a large area).
Also, we are left to wonder what happens to the remains of the dragons who do not make it to the graveyards, as there would certainly been a few individuals who would not make it- an "innate" sense of their time to die could explain this, except that there would be exceptional circumstances where a dragon may have been accidentally injured and/ or couldn't make it in time.
When we consider the evolutionary factor, it is possible that dragon kind themselves were meshed somewhere among the advance of life, and so would have fit into the natural turn of time, and would have gone relatively unnoticed (were we to forget the extra set of limbs for the Western dragon). It seems the likeliest time for "dragons" to have existed would have been at some stage in the evolution process from dinosaurs to birds. This is a half-truth; the Archaeopteryx or "ancient wing" (Benton, 1988) was one such flying/ gliding reptile, and when the Chinese first discovered dinosaur bones they believed them to be dragons. Scientifically speaking, this seems the most probable theory- we would simply have to forego our stereotypical view of dragons somewhat, and give leeway to a more basic, wyvern version. This could easily be accomplished, it would simply require us to think outside our comfort zone.
Moving on to the latter part of our primary point, we come to the indirect elimination of dragons by mankind. This theory usually details that humans and dragons lived together peacefully for some time (or at least tolerated one another), until human technology caused dragons to move away until they were pushed into the undiscovered parts of our world. Again, this theory doesn't dispute or theorise that dragons existed, rather, it focuses on their absence from our world today.
First and foremost, this idea seems accurate when we consider that dragons have been well-documented throughout history in factual terms up until recent times, where they're now accepted as fiction. However, when we consider that many dragons mentioned in history are, like the dragon-slayers, symbolic in nature, then this does discount from the number and popularity of the dragons, but the theory still remains.
However, if dragons were to have once existed alongside mankind, then that leaves us to wonder how they managed to disappear without creating much of an impact on ancient or modern history. Theoretically, we should have known about dragon existence up until recent times, since human technology is relatively young and growing fast. Dragon dissapearance should not have happened too far in the past, and if the world was to suddenly (or even gradually) lose a creature such as the dragon, it seems more than a little odd that it was not documented on the large scale the event would domineer.
However, there are two ways to look at dragon disappearance; both require us to view dragon kind in two different lights- as intelligent creatures, and animalistic beings.
Intelligent dragons:
Seeing mankind advance rapidly in both numbers and the technological fields would have been a scary event for the dragon race, and would seriously have made them reconsider their position. Physically, the typical dragon is superior to mankind, but with new inventions coming thick and fast, it would appear brute strength would no longer matter, and the tide of events would be turned. If this were the case, the dragons probably felt rather threatened, and perhaps decided to detach themselves from the society that co-existed alongside them. This would suggest that dragons and mankind may not have been friends, but perhaps at the very least tolerated one another.
This idea is probable, however it does imply the dragon has sub-human intelligence because running away from another rival species is very short-sighted; while the concept of "each to their own" comes into play here regarding the two species, a move of this magnitude would not happen on a whim. The dragons would have had to sit down and think things over first, and this is where the intelligence factor arises. Having been first-hand witness to mankind's encroaching dominance, any far-seeing person can see that, in the future, people would flush them out in one way or another. An entire species, especially one as large and grand as the dragon, would have a very hard time hiding. This also puts into question one stigma concerning the neo-dragons; that they care and love nature. If we were again to consider this idea, we'd have to forego this cliche somewhat as the dragons would, quite literally, be sitting back and allowing mankind to build on the planet. The latter does not reduce dragon intelligence in any way, it simply puts into question their nature.
Bestial dragons:
Keeping our initial theory in mind, if we look at the same idea in another light, it makes quite a lot of sense. If dragons were in fact animalistic creatures, and did not possess the super intelligence legend endows them with, our "operation run away" theory becomes far more likely. An animal whose territory is being threatened by a more intelligent species would most likely be driven out, simply because all animals (predator or otherwise) avoid confrontation as much as possible. Though this does strip the dragon of some of it's nobility (stories would have us envision the dragon gallantly standing it's ground, ready to fight for it's home), it would actually be the smart thing to do- why risk life and exposure for your territory, when you can simply move away and find a new home? And because in this scenario the dragon's intelligence is limited to lower standards, the dragon would not really be capable of considering the fate of it's descendants down the track. It would only understand the here and now of it's own plight. If this idea were to be correct, then perhaps we can anticipate the discovery of a dragon colony some time in the future (this idea would again make us further question their nature, whether they were solitary or gregarious).
Dragons as an elaboration of nature:
Having discussed the possibilities of previous dragon existence, we can look at dragons through a different angle: the dragon represented through purely natural means, ie nature. This theory accepts the fact that dragons have never existed and are purely the work of imagination, with a few outsider prompts. It's main objective is not to disprove (a negative cannot be proven) their existence, but to prove how the legends spawned.
In it's furthest extremes, nature can become highly unpredictable and almost paranormal, even today. So it is no surprise that when we retreat further back in time, events such as storms, fires, floods or natural disasters in general could be labeled as dragons. As we have seen from Whitlock's excerpt regarding human disease and famine, this was in fact the case. Considering it would require a much smaller mental leap to link dragons to nature than it would to disease and famine, this theory should be seriously considered.
Connecting dragons with natural occurrences was not limited to the Western world either. In China, dragons were credited with bringing down storms; on the August Personage of Jade, the dragons were told how much rain to distribute and where (Aldington & Ames, 1959). Having personally heard specific lightning strikes closely resemble what can only be described as the roar of a dragon, this idea seems the most probable. Also, because storms and fire leave little behind in their destruction, and animals and people can hide and become lost in the wilds, there is and would have been nothing to denounce this idea for people both present and past.
Deviating from the natural disaster standpoint very slightly, we should also consider the possibility that the wild imaginations of people past, mixed with the natural life around them, could have spawned dragon kind. This would account for the incredible diversity among dragons, and with this idea, it should become easy to trace their origins.
For example, dragons have traits of different animals, and when we look at dragons through a broad spectrum, we see that they are mostly, if not entirely, composed of different creatures.
Giant butterflies were once often thought to be faerie dragons, while one can see the resemblance between the spiky peluda and the echidna or porcupine. Even Western dragons, thought to be free of any relations between itself and other creatures, shares similarities between others; the spike on it's tail is said to have originated from a scorpion's sting, while one could easily mistake a giant flying bat for a small Western dragon. It's ability to breathe fire could have come from bombardier beetles that spit acid from their abdomens.
Also, the amphithetre is said to have the eyebrows of a jaguar, which is possibly the result of a villager who had an unpleasant run-in with a big cat. Amidst the fear and confusion, it would have been easy to mistake the jaguar for more than it was. The Chinese dragon is said to be contain the properties or body parts of nine different animals (Binder, 1972), and the bunyip of Australia was also composed of different (at times contradicting) animal parts. It's interesting to note that of all the animals credited to the Bunyip, not a single one was native to Australia and, perhaps not so surprisingly, the people who listed it were also not native to Australia (their own culture influenced the way the animal was seen).
This would explain a fair deal, as many dragons have unnatural abilities. At first glance however, it does not fully explain the consistencies through the dragon races (ie. the affiliation Western dragons have to fire), but then we are inclined to remember the world was far more superstitious when these dragons were first introduced- modern science today has done much to help explain the world around us. As a result, most people probably just assumed some strange beast was involved in the local forest fire (such as the Aitvaras whose tail can ignite flames [Nigg, 2002]), rather than realise it was the wind and hot weather that caused the initial spark (or alternatively, the local pyromanic). As we have all been witness to at some stage or other in our lives, rumours spread very quickly and as they have a tendency to do, blow out of proportion.
Sea serpents:
In relation to physical dragon life, the idea of real sea serpents is the most probable theory. Whether or not the sea serpent can be classified as a member of dragon kind, they have shown enough tendencies, physical and characteristic, to lead us to believe they are, at the very least, close kin to dragons. If we were to return to our first point and believe dragons did once exist, then the sea serpent could very well testify to dragon kind world-wide; over the years, due to changing environments, they may have evolved and returned to the waters from whence they first came. Possible evidence for this comes from the dragon traits some creatures of the deep possess, for example, the ability to breathe blue fire, and descriptions such as "a dragon head".
For years we have been graced with blurred photographs, eyewitness accounts (some fake or mistaken, and a few that have stopped and made us think), and of course, unofficial rumours. While there is obviously a lot of "junk" in the sea serpent mix, there is no doubt that the hundreds of people who've reported sightings in the world's water bodies must have seen something, and there has been nothing yet to suggest that sea serpents could not in fact exist, or that every sighting is faked or mistaken.
In regards to our earlier look at dragons as a hybrid version of nature, we can carry this idea over to sea serpents. The natural occurrences of "waterspouts" may help to explain many sightings. When a tornado forms over the sea and touches the water surface it becomes known as a waterspout. Water gets sucked up inside the spinning column, creating the illusion of a dark grey serpent, rising up out of the sea (McKeever, 1993).
While waterspouts would obviously be a major factor for many supposed sightings, it does not satisfactorily explain the enigma of these creatures because weather, especially in more recent times, is taken notice of when recording and documenting paranormal experiences such as the sighting of a sea serpent. Also, some serpents, such as Nessie, have been encountered on land.
Despite the fact that there have been many sea serpent sightings, we must remember that their location makes it virtually impossible to reveal the truth. Most serpents are witnessed in the sea/ lake from a person either on land or in a boat. Water bodies, especially seas and oceans, are incredibly vast and to document one would be near impossible. Therefore, the entire sea serpent myth is in fact very "safe" as water is an unchartered realm and is so big it could hold virtually anything. For example, the Irish country people believed that this world was duplicated underwater (Campbell, 1997), and that's severely limiting the size of the aquatic realm. This means that to say sea serpents exist is a very vague and safe assumption to make. However, this does not make the idea any less legitimate.
Though the accounts of sea serpents differ greatly, sightings of them have remained persistent even to today. They have been seen in oceans, lakes and rivers (and even on land) from all over the globe, and though they have their own differing, individual traits (much like us), they do have a basic body frame and size (again, like people). This consistency would suggest a physical, real creature, and that somewhere these sightings have a truthful basis.
Despite this however, the fact remains that in general, paranormal phenomenon has constantly been a place for hoaxes, and in the past the truth has been embellished for personal gain; this extends to sea serpents, where imagined sightings and lies run rampant. It is because of this, caution and a healthy amount of skepticism is essential when studying sea serpent sightings and making your own decisions regarding them.
Dragons as metaphysical creatures:
Another area of dragon existence extends into the spiritual or astral domain; this area is more controversial and sometimes blotted through with religious undertones. This can make certain ideas and theories less plausible, yet the general overview still stands legitimate and should not be dismissed until closer inspection. Seeing dragons in a spiritual sense is a fairly new outlook on the whole issue, and to date, there is only one real mainstream theory regarding metaphysical existence, with little or no sub-theories attached.
In regards to spiritual dragon existence, the idea of the astral plane has been incorporated into it's base element; D.J. Conway, author of Dancing with Dragons put forth the notion that both dragons and sea serpents in fact exist on the astral plane (an alternate plane of existence where creatures vibrate at a higher rate, and as such, cannot survive in our world), and visit the physical realm from time to time, thus we have sea serpent and, more rarely, dragon sightings. While this does provide a sound explanation for these paranormal sightings, and explains why Nessie never has and never will be found in the loch, the theory itself has many loose ends. Because this theory is presented with no backup or further explanation, we are firstly left to wonder how the creatures can alternate between these planes (physical and astral), especially if they supposedly cannot exist on one. Secondly, a satisfactory explanation as to what vibration has to do with survival on our world or anywhere else has been omitted, and most importantly, it was never explained how a creature who cannot exist on Earth due it's rate of vibration can at the same time visit Earth and come and go as it pleases.
Before these ideas can evolve any further, some extra time, thought and effort will be needed on the theorists' behalf. Perhaps if we look at dragons living in a purely symbolic and mythological sense, then this could be considered as an alternate way of existing. In this sense, the dragon becomes very much a part of our world. Taking this idea away from dragon reality, fiction has always had a significant impact on our lives, so dragons may not even need to exist for them to become a part of our world.
Conclusion:
Theoretically, the most probable theory regarding dragon existence is the elaboration of nature idea. The idea of physical dragon existence is also likely for sea serpents, however the life of dragons has been put in doubt. Still, theory does not always prove to be correct, and there is a difference between idea and reality. There are still undiscovered avenues to be explored, and more arguments to reinforce old theories that have yet to be thought up.
Whether or not the dragon is in fact real, nothing can discount from the fact that they are very much alive in mythology, folklore, ancient societies and religion, right to today, where they have found a home in popular fiction.
Having covered the most common theories regarding the reality of dragon kind, it will be up to you to make your own decisions regarding dragon existence.