When the answer is very clearly just snakes?>the word "drakon" in greek literally just meant "big serpent">the Egyptian Apep was literally just a snake but big and was always depicted as such>the mesoamerican plumed serpent was also literally just a snake (specifically a rattlesnake btw) with feathers>even the currently more distinct looking european and east asian "dragons" everybody has in mind when asking this question were originally depicted as just big snakes and it took thousands of years of artistic and mythological evolution for them to become the more ambiguous reptilian chimeras we're familiar with todayPic related, art of a man riding a dragon from warring states period China. No limbs, no horns, just a snake with clouds around it
>>18222754Because they were also described as having other features, and in the oldest myths, were always associated with cosmic catastrophe and the "chaoskampf".For example, the "plumed serpent" was not "just" feathers, it was actually a reference to the deity being luminous and producing fire, which was rendered as "feathery". Like how the Romans described comets as "hairy stars". They weren't literally saying "that star has hair", it's just an approximation of what they were seeing. But what's MOST curious is how globally the SAME features were applied to dragons, and only later did the "dragons" as we know them emerge, being "merely" terrestrial monsters. Though in the East dragons/nagas maintained some echoes of their ancient cosmic nature(with some Western exceptions being the Dragon of Revelation, and Jormungandr).
>>18222754Also, this point>were originally depicted as just big snakes and it took thousands of years of artistic and mythological evolution for them to become the more ambiguous reptilian chimerasis absolutely false. It's the other way around. TYPHON was a dragon, and look how he was described. The earliest myths have dragons as being winged, having fearsome faces like raging beasts, shining with terrible radiance, and/or with wildly disordered and flowing hair. It was LATER that you got creatures like the Python(from which the name of the snake is derived), which was a cthonic, terrestrial creature.The further back you go in mythology, the more exotic and cosmic the dragons become, until you reach creatures like Tiamat.Apophis wasn't ever described the same way "dragons" were, and in fact is barely described at all in ANY surviving texts we have. All there is are the artistic renderings. Dragons were distinguished from other creatures by their cataclysmic nature, their cosmic size and scale, their opposition to the gods OR their nature AS gods, and their role in fashioning the Universe.
>>18222998>For example, the "plumed serpent" was not "just" feathersthat's wrong tho, the feathers on mesoamerican feathered serpents were absolutely just feathers. bright green feathers of the quetzal bird, to be more exact. and as a deity and symbol it was associated with water and wind, not with fire.>But what's MOST curious is how globally the SAME features were applied to dragons, such as? i don't know much about dragons in most mythologies but i do know a lot about mesoamerican plumed serpents, which like OP correctly stated, were indeed depicted as just rattlesnakes with the feathers of a quetzal. they were sometimes depicted with an outlandish, more ambiguous animal snout that could be interpreted as "draconic", but they did that with what were clearly meant to be regular snakes as well and there are just as many more naturalistic depictions where they are literally just snakes covered in feathersthat is all to say, they don't have any features in common with "other" dragons, they're a mixture of two very specific animals that are only found in the americas and thus there is zero reason to believe they're related to anything in the old world
>>18222754Not just snakes, any big and vaguely reptilian creature was referred to as dragons Just as an example, the first Europeans to encounter the Galapagos islands described both the marine iguanas and the giant tortoises as dragons
>>18223356>that's wrong thoNo, it very much is not. Quetzalcoatl was actually one of the early Suns, according to the Aztec. So, he was absolutely associated with light and radiance. The "feathers" are there as a literary device to allude to his radiance, again, much like how comets were called "hairy stars" by some peoples, or as "smoking stars" by the Aztec themselves.The idea that Quetzalcoatl was "just a snake with feathers" is a much later derivation, taken by literalizing what was previous NOT a literal description. It's like saying that Zeus was believed to just be a bearded guy with lightning powers, because Rick Riordan wrote him that way. Quetzalcoat was also described as flying with his brother Tezcatlipoca, a trait NOT exhibited by simple snakes. Though I'm sure this will also be smoothed over and dismissed.Consider the attached image of Quetzalcoatl, the "feathers" are here being used as a "sunburst". This is to illustrate his radiance, much like how in the Popol Vuh, the "Plumed Serpent" was believed to predate the world. They did not believe that a literal feathery snake existed before the universe, this was simply a way to describe radiance and movement LIKE" a snake. Allow me to jump straight to the point: the reason why dragons are described with serpentine features, but were not terrestrial serpents in the early myths is because they were describing plasma formations in the sky, not fanciful tales. >they're a mixture of two very specific animalsNo, they were described as HAVING some of those features, much like comets were described as being "hairy" or "smoking". Comets of course have neither smoke nor hair. But that's all they had to describe them in their language. >such as?The ones I listed in my post.
>>182236633 other gods were "early suns" in aztec mythology, two of which, Tlaloc and Chalchiutlicue, were water gods primarily associated with things like groundwater and rain and one of which was Tezcatlipoca, a god literally associated with darkness and the night sky. the myth really doesn't mean much as you think it does when it comes to god associations. >The idea that Quetzalcoatl was "just a snake with feathers" is a much later derivation...but the earliest depictions of plumed serpents are quite straightforward with most of the complex aspects found in quetzalcoatl being later postclassic developments?and also, the feathered serpent, as a general symbol, is not really synonymous with the postclassic god quetzalcoatl, who was rarely ever portrayed as a literal plumed serpent at all, but rather as a man wearing ritual regalia, like most the other aztec gods. quetzalcoatl and all the things associated with him in the postclassic were relatively recent, around 500 year old, developments. as i said, feathered serpents were traditionally, and primordially associated with water and air, not the sun, light or radiance>Quetzalcoat was also described as flying with his brother Tezcatlipoca, a trait NOT exhibited by simple snakes. yeah, j literally acknowledged in my post that plumed serpenrs were associated with air and wind, that's why it has feathers. we're talking about iconography and mythological roles, i never said that they thought it was a literal snake crawling on the groundand i just realized this whole fucking argument is pointless, you're not even denying that dragons are indeed inherently serpentine like OP implied, you're just inserting some pointless new age shit into why that's the case which i'm not even gonna bother engaging with
>>18222754celestial plasma discharges and big happenings in the sky in historical times
>>18222754>it's just le snake, bro!>a snake with fire breath, wings, intelligence, treasure-hoarding tendencies, and the ability to speak!Sure.
>>18223663>Consider the attached image of Quetzalcoatl,image where?
>>18223788> Tlaloc and Chalchiutlicue,Both are described in similar ways to Quetzalcoat, and all three are described as being the Sun. Evidently, the Aztec believed that the Sun was turquoise.>quite straightforwardYou are, again, totally ignoring my point. Quetzalcoat is claimed to be feathery in the same way that the primordial blue/green radiance of the Popol Vuh was described as being "feathery". It was a way to describe radiance, NOT a description of literal feathers. You just completely ignore this by saying "well it SAYS feathers" as if allusions do not exist. >but postclassicAs I said, I'm addressing OLD myths, the postclassic period was quite recent, and late. It was part of the process of "localization" of these myths.>feathered serpents were associated with water and airThe feathered serpent was a figure of celestial luminance, and the primordial sky was referred to often as "waters". So those three are not mutually exclusive. Note: the Maya described the primordial dawn as blue/green, and Quetzalcoat was also called blue/green. And SO were Tlaloc and Chalchiutlicue. All three were called the Sun.Why does all this matter? Because GLOBALLY these "feathered/hairy/bright serpents" were all described as A)divine in some sense B)cosmic and C) related to creating the world. >>18224236Sorry, attached as pic rel
>>18224233This is a later derivation. The original dragons were enemies of the Gods themselves, and cosmically powerful. They were also associated with lightning and storms almost universally. >>18224218Correct!
>>18224257>Correct!where(or whom) I should read about these sort of things outside that heretic whose name should be not mentioned?
>>18224264Thunderbolts Project is a good YT channel to start with, but I recommend a few authors: Dave Talbot, Wal Thornhill, Dwardu Cardona, Donald Scott, and Ev Cochrane. Here is a very short video of Ev Cochrane's, relevant due to the discussion of the prevalence of "turquoise" when describing the Sun and radiance, I recommend his longer talks though.https://youtu.be/N1jc4lOCtK4There are other authors and figures related, like Anthony Peratt(invaluable due to his research on petroglyphs and their frankly startling similarity to laboratory high-energy plasma experiments), and Halton Aarp, Pierre Marine Robitaille, and the research of Hannes Alfven. There are others as well, this is actually quite a large field.>heretic whose name should be not mentioned?Who's that?
>>18224276>Who's that?dunno, some guy
>>18224300Oh, Velikovsky got the ball rolling, but the guys I mentioned really perfected the theory, and definitely surpassed Velikovsky's original work.
