This is the same question as the mention of great lizards in the old testament. The silk road had quite a few animals along the way, one of them being monitor lizards, otherwise known as Komodo dragons. You show a 9 foot green lizard with a forked tongue to a white European and see what he calls it.
Source: my professor of rabbinical studies
This is the same question as the mention of great lizards in the old testament. The silk road had quite a few animals along the way, one of them being monitor lizards, otherwise known as Komodo dragons. You show a 9 foot green lizard with a forked tongue to a white European and see what he calls it.
Source: my professor of rabbinical studies
From my understanding some consider large parts of his accounts to be fictional, created to better sell his works back in Europe. Others consider it to be a case of mistaken identity and that this passage is referring to large snakes or crocodiles which were colloquially referred to as something akin to dragons.
From my understanding some consider large parts of his accounts to be fictional, created to better sell his works back in Europe. Others consider it to be a case of mistaken identity and that this passage is referring to large snakes or crocodiles which were colloquially referred to as something akin to dragons.
From my understanding some consider large parts of his accounts to be fictional, created to better sell his works back in Europe. Others consider it to be a case of mistaken identity and that this passage is referring to large snakes or crocodiles which were colloquially referred to as something akin to dragons.
From my understanding some consider large parts of his accounts to be fictional, created to better sell his works back in Europe. Others consider it to be a case of mistaken identity and that this passage is referring to large snakes or crocodiles which were colloquially referred to as something akin to dragons.
From my understanding some consider large parts of his accounts to be fictional, created to better sell his works back in Europe. Others consider it to be a case of mistaken identity and that this passage is referring to large snakes or crocodiles which were colloquially referred to as something akin to dragons.
without reading the full context, all i can say is that it's very possible what he saw was a Dragon Dance. very common during celebrations such as the Chinese New Year, opening a new business, a birth of a son, etc
without reading the full context, all i can say is that it's very possible what he saw was a Dragon Dance. very common during celebrations such as the Chinese New Year, opening a new business, a birth of a son, etc
Just personally I consider that to be evidence of dragons. So many cultures describe them, including the biblical book of Job (Leviathan) the oldest book in human possession.
Perhaps some of the fragments of dinosaur skeletons we’ve found, have been misattributed, and are what the ancients considered to be dragons? There’s shifting thought on how many of the bones attributed to a single species may have been the young of another species for example. It’s evolving ground.
At very least we need to keep an open mind. A lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, especially when we’re talking about contradicting an eyewitness testimony.
Just personally I consider that to be evidence of dragons. So many cultures describe them, including the biblical book of Job (Leviathan) the oldest book in human possession.
Perhaps some of the fragments of dinosaur skeletons we’ve found, have been misattributed, and are what the ancients considered to be dragons? There’s shifting thought on how many of the bones attributed to a single species may have been the young of another species for example. It’s evolving ground.
At very least we need to keep an open mind. A lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, especially when we’re talking about contradicting an eyewitness testimony.
Just personally I consider that to be evidence of dragons. So many cultures describe them, including the biblical book of Job (Leviathan) the oldest book in human possession.
Perhaps some of the fragments of dinosaur skeletons we’ve found, have been misattributed, and are what the ancients considered to be dragons? There’s shifting thought on how many of the bones attributed to a single species may have been the young of another species for example. It’s evolving ground.
At very least we need to keep an open mind. A lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, especially when we’re talking about contradicting an eyewitness testimony.
Just personally I consider that to be evidence of dragons. So many cultures describe them, including the biblical book of Job (Leviathan) the oldest book in human possession.
Perhaps some of the fragments of dinosaur skeletons we’ve found, have been misattributed, and are what the ancients considered to be dragons? There’s shifting thought on how many of the bones attributed to a single species may have been the young of another species for example. It’s evolving ground.
At very least we need to keep an open mind. A lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, especially when we’re talking about contradicting an eyewitness testimony.
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. It’s veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. It’s veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. It’s veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. It’s veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. It’s veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. It’s veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. It’s veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. It’s veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. Its veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. Its veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. Its veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. Its veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator
Knowing the chinese medicine if there were any dragons then Chinese ate them as an impotence remedy.
Knowing the chinese medicine if there were any dragons then Chinese ate them as an impotence remedy.
From the early 19th Century at least, scholars have tended to argue that this is a description of a crocodile or alligator. That is to say the premise of your question - that Polo encountered Dragons is not accepted. In the late 20th and early 21st Century, Christian commentators seeking to prove creationism have began to argue that this is a description of a dragon or dinosaur, but such claims are not taken seriously in mainstream scholarship.
There are descriptions of dragons in numerous Chinese sources including from those contemporary to Polo, but I am not aware if the hunting of them is described anywhere. Chinese Alligators known as “Earth Dragons” are also described in numerous sources and often equated with dragons.
In any case, it is important to note that Polo’s account is a European source written by Rustichello da Pisa (either in interview or from the notes of Marco Polo). It is not a Chinese one. Its veracity has long been questioned due to inaccuracies, mythological/fable-oriented accounts etc. although in recent years scholars have increasingly sought to illustrate the account’s accuracy. I wonder, given all this, if it would be a better endeavour to explore the treatment of “dragons” in other, contemporary European sources.
See:
Bergreen, Marco Polo
Thorbjarnarson and Wang, The Chinese Alligator