Tracking the Ancient Griffin, Modern Monsters and the

Tracking the Ancient Griffin, Modern Monsters and the “Extinct” Pterosaur
Through Art, History and Science
By Chris Parker, Copyright 2009
I want to begin this
article by talking a bit
about “cognitive
dissonance”. That
topic is a bit of
digression though
from our real topic, so
I think that I would be
better served by
stating at the outset
what I mean to
accomplish along with
you by the end of this
article.
What I hope to
demonstrate here with descriptions; photos and drawings is that 1)the ancient griffin; the
“awful”, the “jersey devil”, dragons etc. are all basically one “type” of creature that is still
being seen today; and 2)I hope to show using the same “proofs”—exactly what
that/those creatures likely are. In the course of this work, we hope to show the
cause/source for the griffin’s unique and trademarked beak/grill with a few other
“discoveries” thrown in for good measure.
All right? Perhaps I have been hyped up by National Geographic’s “Ida” hyperventilation
(another alleged “missing link”) and thus affected, am overpromising, but we’ll see.
Cognitive dissonance is the holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously causing the
holder to experience an uncomfortable feeling. At least, it should cause the person in
question to be uncomfortable. “Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a
logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies
the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as
inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur”. Wikipedia
Occasionally in my work or business life, someone will offer me something, or invite me
to participate in something to which my response is something like; “no thanks, I don’t do
that or participate in that—I am a Christian”. To which they respond enthusiastically; “oh,
I’m a Christian too”!
In the recent movie; “Expelled”, Richard Dawkins revealed a bit of cognitive dissonance
when the self-proclaimed champion of reason and logic admitted that it really wasn’t that
he viewed evidence from intelligent design as unscientific; in fact he could accept it if it
was agreed that the “designer” was some advanced alien civilization; and not God.
The dissonance that I want to talk about now though is the one involving dinosaurs and
“dragons”. To the consternation of some evolutionists, the majority of Americans have
not accepted the theory of evolution. Nearly half would want creationism taught in
schools—along with evolution. So, why have they accepted the Darwin company line on
dinosaurs?
I’m not asking anyone to believe that dinosaurs still exist. I’m asking how it is that one
can believe that they became extinct 45 million years before man came along with all the
evidence to the contrary? Even Christians and others who don’t believe man evolvedhave trouble believing that man and dinosaur ever coexisted.
But here’s the crazy part! A person in full possession of his faculties can see a picture of
say a winged dragon, and then see a few seconds later a picture of a dinosaur or
perhaps a pterosaur and never have a question raised in his mind! Virtually every human
culture that ever existed created pictures of dragons (large, reptilian, horned, rough
skinned, sometimes winged, sometimes armored, dangerous creatures) in their art and
in their written history—which are very similar in size and shape to “dinosaurs”, (large,
reptilian, horned, rough skinned, sometimes winged, sometimes armored, dangerous
creatures).
The idea that these ancient cultures imagined but never saw creatures which we have
fossil proof existed is dissonant; is it not? The idea that these two types of creatures are
completely distinct and unrelated has been drummed into our heads by evolutionists,
who have been somewhat less successful drumming the theory itself into our heads.
This despite the historical accounts of real interactions with “dragons” down through
history. “Myth” says science,--and we believe them. This societal brainwashing is
relatively new however; one of the first complete pterosaur skeletons found,
(pterodactylus) is housed in the British
Museum with the Title: “Fossil Of A
Pterodactyl Or Extinct Flying Dragon”.
What you’d think would be happening
instead would be a kind of perpetual,
intellectual “whack a mole”, where every
few minutes someone’s head would pop
up and he’d say; “dinosaurs had to have
been the inspiration for dragons” and
“whack”! The evolutionists would have to
give him a pop to restore order until the next head popped up.
As for the Christians out there with this particular dissonance in their heads, it probably
didn’t help when the KJV translators translated Gen.1:21 “And God created great
“whales”. In the Prior Latin translations of the Bible, for example, in the Latin Vulgate
from the fifth century, Gen:1:21 was translated “So God created the Great Dragons". No
doubt that by the time of the KJV translation in the 17th century, dragons were less
plentiful and unknown in certain parts of the world. The translators decided to “protect”
the Bible by not suggesting that God created “mythical creatures”.
The word that they decided not to translate “dragons” was tanniyn. However, in that
same 17th century translation of the KJV they translated the same word; as serpent in
Ex7:9: When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou
shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast [it] before Pharaoh, [and] it shall become a
serpent.
It wouldn’t have worked to have Moses’ rod to turn into a whale! Of course, that’s not the
only place where the KJV translators and the others who followed suit translated the
word tanniyn as whale in Gen. 1 but as serpent or dragon elsewhere, but we continue to
digress. Ask yourself; when God referred to Satan as that old dragon; was He comparing
him to a real or “mythological” creature?
In the last several hundred years, more than 2,000 witnesses have claimed to have seen
the “jersey devil”. That eyewitness testimony has largely been ignored. People figure,
they’ve probably misidentified a sandhill crane or that maybe there was strong drink
involved or perhaps they just want their 15 minutes of fame.
The cognitive dissonance here is that if just one of those unbelieved, 2,000 witnesses
claimed to have seen you standing over somebody with a knife, the state might quite
possibly convict you of a capital crime on the basis of his/her testimony. The other night I
saw yet another police officer claim to have seen a Bigfoot. I guess that they are out on
lonely roads late at night quite a bit. No one’s going to believe him even though on this
particular show, he passed a lie detector test.
Yet, let the exact same guy claim that you were doing 67.5 mph in a 55 mph zone—and
suddenly that guy’s brain is comparable to a high speed video camera and a
supercomputer!
Next time you’re pulled over for speeding go to court and ask the officer before the judge
if he’s ever seen Bigfoot, the jersey devil or a UFO?! Case dismissed!
Part I: Enter the Dragon; the Awful, the Griffin, the “Jersey Devil”, etc. Are
These “Things” Still Around?
An artist once explained to me that once that when it came to a painting or a drawing,
one could always tell whether or not it was
of a real person. In other words, a painting
of a person born out of the artist’s
imagination would never be as convincing
as one done using a “live” model. Is this
true? I don’t know, but it struck me, with that
thought in mind, that the ancient piece
shown above, top right, portrayed its
subjects in incredible, lifelike detail.
The piece,” (At the top of the page) Table
Support in the Shape of Griffins Attacking a
Doe”, is Greek, from South Italy, from the
4th century B.C. Thus, it is approximately
2,400 years old. It is made of marble and
has been pigmented by the artist. It is now
housed at the Getty Villa in Malibu,
California.
There was something about this 2,400 year old piece that struck me. It reminded me of
descriptions of a flying creature I have been reading about for a number of years. The
depiction itself struck me as very realistic and naturalistic. The “griffins” are as fully
realized as is the doe.
I would suspect that many if not most of the ancient griffin depictions we’ve seen have
simply been recreations of other art. This is certainly true for instance of modern day
depictions of pterosaurs and dinosaurs. Look up any dinosaur or pterosaur in Google’s
image database and you will see many copies of just a few versions of that creature,
with slight variations.
This is fine, if the original artists got it right, but it merely perpetuates an incorrect
depiction if they did not (get it right). Here is a rather extended quote from the article:
What Did Dinosaurs Really Look Like and Will We Ever Know”, by William Speed Weed,
in Discover Magazine, Dec. 2000, that illustrates this point:
“There is precious little data about dinosaurs to transcend. What the museum scientists
know about Indians, whales, and elephants is more than enough to mimic real life. But
when it comes to dinosaurs, all they really have to work with is an incomplete jumble of
bones. Indeed, if the exhibits department were limited to just skeletal data for its
dioramas and reconstructions, these halls would take on a most unromantic flavor. For
instance, the Indians in the canoe would lack noses, ears, and breasts, and the diorama
artists (ignoring for the moment that they are humans themselves) would be at a loss for
what to cover them in-slick skin like a dolphin? Monkey fur? Horse pelt?
As for the blue whale, no one would know to make it blue. And the elephants are a
special case. There's a running joke among professional dinosaur artists that goes like
this: Given just an elephant skeleton, they'd probably render a titanic hamster.
Does anyone know what dinosaurs really looked like? Sure we do. We see them
everywhere, not just in the museums, but in magazines, movies, even in value meals at
McDonald's. But all of these lifelike renderings are mostly artistic interpretations based
on very sparse scientific evidence. To begin with, dinosaur skeletons are rarely found
intact, and figuring out how scattered bones fit together is not always clear. Then,
making the leap of placing tissue and skin on those bones is a process fraught with
unknowns….”
Ironically, this might mean that an eyewitness who in ancient times might have his true
recreation go debunked or unrecognized because it does not match a less accurate
modern depiction.
This all will be revisited in Part II of this article when we make some suppositions about
the actual identification of the griffin, the dragon, the “awful”, jersey devil, etc. al.
-------Comparing the 2,400 Year Old Griffin to Certain Modern Descriptions of
Flying Cryptids
In 1925, in an article in the County Courier, Vermont, a story relates that locals were
afraid of a flying cryptid dubbed the “Awful” which was first sighted atop a building at
Main and River streets. The sightings of the creature lasted for the best part of a year
but had entirely subsided within three years.
The creature was described thusly; “was a winged creature that resembled "a very large
Griffin-like creature with grayish wings that each spanned ten-feet." The creature
possessed "a serpent like tail that equaled its wing length" and "huge claws that could
easily grip a milk can’s girth."
In 2006, in the same town, an unidentified citizen claimed to have seen an “unbelievable
looking winged monster” swoop down and snatch a large crow from a tree.
At this point, please briefly compare the description of the “Awful” with the depiction of
the griffin from the 4th century B.C.
Graphic: Ancient seal from Israel showing flying reptile
with tail vane attacking ibex-compared to 1909 jersey
devil drawing.
The Jersey Devil, the supposed mythical creature
of the New Jersey Pinelands, has haunted New
Jersey and the surrounding areas for close to 300
years-or perhaps longer. According to Wikipedia,
“there are many possible origins of the Jersey Devil legend. The earliest legends date
back to Native American folklore. The Lenni Lenape tribes called the area around Pine
Barrens "Popuessing", meaning "place of the dragon". Swedish explorers later named it
"Drake Kill", "drake" being a Swedish word for dragon, and "kill" meaning channel or arm
of the sea (river, stream, etc.).”
The Jersey devil is often described as “dog headed”, or horse-headed, with bat-like
wings and a long serpentine tail. The creature has reportedly left hundreds of tracks. A
Professor Bralhopf, (who?) opined that" the tracks were made by some prehistoric
animal form the Jurassic period"5. He believes the creature survived underground in a
cavern. An expert from the Smithsonian Institute had a theory about ancient creatures
surviving underground. He said the Jersey Devil was a Pterodactyl.
Graphic: Weird Magazine depiction of jersey devil compared to 4th century B.C. griffin.
There have been many, many news stories
about the “devil” but a January 1909 story in the
Hagerstown Mail, about the “devil” or the “terror”
indicated that his range extended far from New
Jersey.
“Already reports show that it has made its
impress over an area of over 1200 square, miles,
and is still moving.
Those who have beheld the imprints of the Terror's feet—and they are legion now—are
among the best and most. pious, fun-loving, church-going residents of the United States,
people who pay taxes and stay off the grocer's blacklist,;. Not one of them thinks there is
any cause for laughter. Investigation of late reports made of the trips of the terror shows
that they come from the most reliable source in every instance and the faker is not on
the job.
The latest returns come from Salem, Riverton, Bristol, Trenton, Moorestown,
Fredricktown, Riverside, Gibbsboro, Gibbstown and other points. One story from Clayton
is to the effect that the Terror was seen last Wednesday night , on the West Jersey
Seashore electric line.
The next sighting occurred the following evening (Jan. 18th). A policeman in Burlington,
New Jersey observed the creature. He described the creature as a “Jabberwock” with
glowing eyes. Later that evening, town residents began to report finding strange
footprints in the snow.
Graphic: 1909 jersey devil drawing and 4th century
B.C. griffin
At 6:00 A.M. the following morning in
Burlington, a Mrs. Michael Ryan sighted the
creature as it prowled through an alley. Her
description gave the creature the head of a
horse with long bird-like legs and short
wings.
Two days later the creature made another
appearance this time in a Philadelphia woman’s back yard. Mrs. Davis A. White said she
encountered the creature at about 4:00 P.M. Her description included alligator skin and
breathing fire. Her screams brought her husband to her rescue. He chased the beast a
distance and it was almost hit by a trolley car. Another report from a Salem policeman
later that evening concluded the night’s activities for the devil. “
One witness testified that his dog had been mangled and killed by the cryptid. In another
account, a dog was also attacked; “Mrs. Sorbinski of Camden heard a commotion in her
yard. She opened the door to see the Jersey Devil standing there with her dog in its grip.
She hit the devil with a broom until it let go of her dog and flew away. She started
screaming until her neighbors came over.
Graphic: 1450. Griffin attacks dog. Museum
Meermanno.
Two police officers arrived at her house
where over 100 people had gathered. The
crowd heard a scream coming from Kaigan
Hill. The mob ran toward the creature on the
hill. The Police shot at it and the devil flew
off into the night. The streets of Camden
were empty after this.”
Several thousand people saw the creature in 1909. Nelson Evans and his wife, a 2:30
a.m. witness gave this description:: "It was about eight feet and a half high, with a head
like a collie dog and a face like a horse. It had a long neck, wings about two feet long,
and its back legs were like those of a crane, and it had horse's hooves. It walked on its
back legs and held up two short front legs with paws on them. It didn't use the front legs
at all while we were watching.
At this point, let’s just focus on the descriptions:
th
Graphic: 1909 Newspaper depiction of the jersey devil and 4 century B.C. griffin
●In 1985, in London, an Englishman named
Kevin Chippendale spotted an unknown
creature flying near the rooftop of an
apartment building. He described it as
looking like "a dog with wings" and "having a
long muzzle and four legs with what looked
like paws.” He also said that it reminded him
of a griffin. …..The griffin was even seen by
a psychologist, John Olssen, one morning
while he was jogging beside the Thames. By
March the griffin was mentioned frequently in
the press and featured on London Weekend Television's The Six O'Clock Show.
●Ron Bogacki, in an article in Unknown magazine entitled "We Saw a Gargoyle,"
recounts an encounter in an Elmhurst, Ill. Park along with several other adults, with a
“gargoylesque” creature. There further description: “large - perhaps 9 feet tall, if standing
- with dark gray leathery skin, a muscular body with strong arms, golden horns on its
head, huge wings and a long curling tail.
Graphic: Parthian Empire, Parthia, Nysa, 2nd Century B.C. Ivory. Elrina’s 753. A lion-griffin with
curved horns and claws is the terminal figure of this rhyton reassembled from 350 fragments.
●"I looked out upon the Delaware and saw flying diagonally
across what appeared to be a large crane, but which was
emitting a glow like a fire-fly. Its head resembled that of a ram,
with curled horns, and its long thick neck was thrust forward in
flight. It had long thin wings and short legs, the front legs
shorter than the hind." — E.W. Minster, Bristol, PA. Sighted
on January 16, 1909
●"As nearly as I can describe the terror, it had the head of a
horse, the wings of a bat and a tail like a rat's, only longer." —
Howard Campbell, who claimed to have shot the devil near Atlantic City (see above).
Sighted on January 21, 1909.
●Woodbury, NJ.: May 13th, 2001: I was on my way dropping off my girl, when something
ran in front of my car. I jumped out and saw that it was not a deer so I jumped back in
my car. It ran off into the dark. He was about 6 feet tall, has wings, horse/dog head, 2
legs with hooves and was black. njdevilhunters.com
,
●2003 Bayonne, NJ. “The monster had a long brown neck with a mouth like either a dog
or a horse (I think more of a horse because it was larger than a dog's mouth). Its wings
were shaped like a bat's, however it was almost like a mix between a bird's and bat's
because the wings were skin. The monster's eyes were blood red, the body of the
creature was almost too dark to see but what I did see was that it had a large figure
either like a horse or something of great power”. njdevilhunters.com
Graphic: Griffin from 4th century and two versions of chupacabra
●Egg Harbor Township, NJ: ”The creature
looked to be about 4 to 6 feet tall. The head
is awful - it has two large eyes, an animal
head or snout, a large bulbous forehead with
what appears to be horns in the front”.
njdevilhunters.com
●One of the more unusual sightings within a raft of unusual sightings was one that
occurred in 1966, in Edison, N.J. …Janet and Frank were sitting & talking, with their car
parked facing the exit out to the road and the quarry cliff side directly behind them, when
they suddenly heard a “very loud, galloping sound from behind” and turned to look out
the rear window at the noise.
What they saw then was described as a “large horse-like creature, with hooves” that
“glowed with a green transparent light” and rapidly flew down into the quarry floor and
dropped down by the couple’s parked car. ….“The scariest thing about this creature was
that I could see right through it” Janet recalled, “It was right at the side car window, I
could see the cliff right through its body, and I remember being amazed that I could see
the cliff ledge and sky so clearly through the creature’s body”.
Both Janet and Frank stressed the loudness of the galloping noises, the horse-like
appearance of this creature and also
the incredible speed with which the
creature suddenly “dropped” down
upon them. “This creature was not a
bear or deer or anything that I could
ever explain”, Frank continued ,“with
the glow around the creature’s body,
I’d say that it was approximately horsesized in actual body but the light it
projected spread as wide and high as the side of a house”…..
http://www.rutgersrarities.com/
It should be noted that as strange and unbelievable as this sighting might seem to be,
quite a number of witnesses have claimed that bioluminescence is a feature of recent
nighttime sightings of pterosaur like creatures such as the Indava of Papua New Guinea.
Along with these oral, eyewitness descriptions, we have provided a number of
photographic and graphic comparisons of the Greek, griffin from the 4th century B.C.
with contemporary depictions of flying cryptids like the
jersey devil”.
Graphic: Monster Quest jersey devil and 4th century B.C.
griffin.
I would argue that there is a strong correlation
between this ancient depiction and the current
drawings the jersey devil, etc. I do recognize that
many of these drawings are not original material
created to illustrate a particular sighting with eyewitness assistance. Many of them are
simply reinterpretations of previous drawings.
This is a factor with ancient dragon and griffin depictions, with contemporary drawings
of the jersey devil and with current drawings of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Still, we do
think that a strong connection can be seen in these physical descriptions and as well as
with the photo/graphic evidence --and that ancient griffin.
Have I successfully made the case? You’ll have to decide that. But in the meantime, just
what are these creatures that were seen and described several thousand years ago and
which are still being seen today—and what kind of proof of their true identity can be
offered?
Part II: On the True and Continued Existence of Real Living Creatures Which Science
Calls “Mythological” and Certain “Proofs” Offered
“I have, therefore, but little hesitation in gravely proposing to submit that many of the socalled mythical animals, which throughout long ages and in all nations have been the
fertile subjects of fiction and fable, come legitimately within the scope of plain matter-offact Natural History, and that they may be considered, not as the outcome of exuberant
fancy, but as creatures which really once existed, and of which, unfortunately, only
imperfect and inaccurate descriptions have filtered down to us, probably very much
refracted, through the mists of time”. Mythical Monsters, by Charles Gould, 1886
As the now thousands of eyewitnesses down through the ages can attest, Charles Gould
was very likely correct when he said that many so-called ”mythical animals” were part of
the “natural history” of the world, but wrong when he uses the phrase “once existed”.
Creatures who were first written about and pictured centuries before the birth of Christ
were seen and described through the medieval period—and as we saw in Part I of this
article, are still being seen today.
Throughout the history of our planet, only birds and pterosaurs have the ability to fly in
the manner described by the eyewitnesses and artists through the ages. Only pterosaurs
have; bat-like wings; a reptilian, dragon-like or serpentine character, long tails (some
species), tail vanes (some species), hands and feet, teeth etc. etc.
Many eyewitnesses have even suggested that the strange, winged creatures that they
encountered or witnessed reminded them of or looked like pterosaurs. And, as I will
develop, a little further into this presentation, I believe that the griffin is a particular type
of pterosaur. There is of course a problem with such identification; science tells us that
pterosaurs became extinct between 65 and 70 million years ago.
It would be a matter of some inconvenience to evolutionary theory if pterosaurs were
shown to still be flying around in the sky today so that the many thousands of eyewitness
accounts have been discounted. It is not just that the idea that they are pterosaurs that is
discounted, the idea that any creatures resembling the griffin of ancient lore actually
exists or have existed in the past is considered laughable and scientifically
unsophisticated.
So, how does science account for the voluminous eyewitness testimony and for the
representation of creatures like the griffin in virtually every ancient culture? Generally, it
has simply labeled all such data as mythological.
In the past few years, Adrienne Mayor, a folklorist currently at Stanford wowed the
skeptical world with her book The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and
Roman Times. In it, she asserts that the “mythology” of creatures like the griffin was
created by the Greeks and Romans to explain the various fossils of dinosaurs that were
discovered in that era.
She specifically identifies the fossils of protoceratops, a “beaked” horned dinosaur as the
inspiration behind the griffin. The beak of the protoceratops she is convinced is the
model for the griffin” beak”, which has been portrayed consistently through many
cultures from 500 B.C. through the middle ages-and even in modern eye-witness
accounts. The protoceratops of course, had no wings.
No doubt dinosaur fossils were seen and misunderstood in ancient times. In modern
times paleontologists originally thought that the pterosaur was a sea-going creature
whose “wings” were used for paddling and the head has been put on the wrong end of a
dinosaur and in another incident, the wrong head placed on a dinosaur’s long neck.
Certainly, the probability of mistaken assumptions about giant fossil remains was even
greater in the ancient period mayor writes about.
Graphic: Protoceratops skeleton
There is however, something somewhat amiss with the
idea of the griffin as a mythological creature. As Mayor
has to admit; it does nothing particularly ‘mythical”-it
acts as a real creature does. Mayor recently had an
exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History
entitled; “The Griffin and the Monster of Troy” in which
she promoted her griffin as protoceratops theory. A
reviewer wrote:
“Mayor writes that the griffin was no simple composite;
that it didn't seem to belong with other 'obviously imaginary' hybrids of Greek tradition
like Pegasus (a horse with wings), the Minotaur (a man with a bull's head), or the Sphinx
(a winged lion with a woman's head). Unlike these creatures, the griffin did not play a
role in Greek mythology, but instead was a creature of folklore, grounded in naturalistic
details. Plus, the descriptions of these griffins seemed to remain constant over many
centuries. These facts led Mayor to believe that the myth of the griffin may have been
based in paleontological legend.”
Clearly Mayor and evolutionists felt that there was “evidence” out there from ancient
sources that needed to be explained in a way consistent with evolution and materialism.
In doing so, they’ve placed the ‘ancients” in an interesting box. They believe them to be
unsophisticated enough to have conjured up myths from fossils of dinosaurs-but dismiss
evidence that the ancients may have been portraying pterosaurs because the depictions
are not scientifically accurate enough.
If a live pterosaur is captured or filmed in an unambiguous way, much will change.
Adjustments will have to be made in the theory of evolution (it’s extremely malleable), a
ready explanation for mothman, the “awful”, chupacabra, the jersey devil, the griffin, the
dragon and many other beasts will be apparent. They may be found to be responsible
for “cattle mutilations” and strange disappearances. If in fact the pterosaur is found to be
bioluminescent, as many witnesses have stated certain “UFO” sightings may find an
explanation. Our view of the lack of sophistication and the myth making and superstition
of the ancients will have to be adjusted. Adrienne Mayor’s books will be less popular and
less influential.
I will now move to that portion of this article in which I try to make the case that the griffin
was based on real creatures (likely the specific pterosaur Scaphognathus) and not on the
fossil remains of extinct dinosaurs like protoceratops.
-------Know Your Pterosaurs
Earlier in this article we quoted William Speed in Discover Magazine pointing out that no
one really knows what a dinosaur looked like. This is most certainly true of pterosaurs as
well.
“No one knows exactly what they (pterosaurs) looked like; to date, no pterosaur fossil
has preserved the coloring of their skin or fur. It is not unreasonable to assume,
however, that they could have sported "plumage" in various colors just like birds, that
served several purposes: to attract mates, display their maturity to rivals, provide
concealment against both predators and prey. It is speculation, but sea-going pterosaurs
could have been colored similarly to the sea-going birds of today. Most are white or offwhite with counter shading between their dorsal and ventral sides.”…… Pterosaur
FAQ’s
There are currently more than 60 known genera of pterosaur. There are probably at
least as many as that which have not yet been discovered. Many of the genera known to
science are known from only one, two or a small handful of partial or incomplete
skeletons. One way to think about the variance in pterosaurs is to picture the genetic
variability of dogs—from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. Not only that, there’s no
reason to believe that their gene pool wasn’t constantly intermixed as dogs are when
different breeds mate.
Graphic: The pterosaur as marsupial bat. 1857. Gosse’s
Omphalos.
Ironically, since the science illustrators and others who
have “designed” the way pterosaurs are depicted today
have never seen a pterosaur, the modern depiction of the
pterosaur is based on the interpretations of prior artists—
which I believe to be the case with respect to ancient
depictions of griffins/dragons/pterosaurs as well. One
thing that you can be quite sure of; no pterosaur
illustration done for or by scientists is going to remind you
very much of a dragon or a griffin.
Early on the pterosaur as bat analogy informed reconstructions of them. It was thought
that like bats, their wings were attached at the ankle or lower leg. This depiction is not at
all similar to the wings portrayed on griffins and dragons of antiquity however, and of
course, pterosaurs are supposed to be reptiles, not mammals though they have the
mammalian four chambered heart; air sacs in their bones like birds and may have been
covered with hair. Very un reptile-like. .
Recent finds of pterosaurs with wings clearly delineated, indicate that pterosaurs had
narrow wings closely resembling those of the dragons and griffins. (Older pterosaur
fossils as well, take another look at the pterosaur skeleton from the British Museum
above.) Though narrow, “sparrow-like” wings vs. wider “bat-like” wings is still an area of
controversy in science, the point is that one can not say that a narrow wing on a griffin,
without an apparent attachment to the leg rules out a pterosaur depiction.
“What did pterosaurs look like when they were alive? Did they have relatively broad wing
membranes [patagia from hereon] that - like those of most bats - stretched as far as their
ankles, or did they have narrow patagia that attached to their hips, or perhaps to the tops
of their thighs? Until the 1980s, pterosaurs were pretty much universally depicted as
possessing broad-chord wings that extended to their ankles. There were exceptions: K.
A. von Zittel (1882) imagined pterosaurs as possessing narrow, swallow-like wings that
did not attach further distally than the knee, and Harry Seeley (1901) opined that the
patagia may not have incorporated the hindlimbs at all. But, mostly, pterosaurs were
regarded as bat-winged, an image that Kevin Padian (1987) argued to be primarily
typological (viz, pterosaurs were initially imagined as bat-like, therefore they must have
had bat-like patagia).
It’s well known that, following his studies of Dimorphodon and other pterosaurs, Padian
championed the idea that pterosaurs were agile cursorial bipeds, and that their patagia
were narrow and did not incorporate the hindlimbs (Padian 1983). This idea was popular
for a while but, judging from the way pterosaurs are depicted today, it doesn’t seem that
popular now (though this isn’t to say that there aren’t scientists and artists who are
reconstructing pterosaurs in this manner).” Darren Naish, Tetrapod Zoology
It’s possible that the various genera of pterosaur had slightly different wing connections,
however, wings attached to lower legs or ankles would have made pterosaurs less
aerodynamic and would have made them very clumsy on the ground. Such was not the
case with respect to descriptions of dragons and griffins (pterosaurs?) in antiquity-those
who potentially actually saw them in flight and on the ground.
-------Pterosaur Anatomy—Body Shape
One of the pterosaurs that we will shortly be
very interested in is Scaphognathus .
according to Wikipedia.. “Scaphognathus .
(meaning "tub jaw") was a pterosaur that lived
around Germany during the Late Jurassic. It
had a wingspan of about 1 meter. At present it
is known from only two specimens…….
Physically it was very similar to
Rhamphorhynchus, albeit with notable cranial
differences”.
Clearly it makes little sense to speculate about the size of Scaphognathus or its range
given the discovery of only two fossils thus far. Note that Rhamphorhynchus, a similar
pterosaur was thought to have a wingspan up to 35 feet which would have made quite
an impression on anyone who had seen one.
John Goertzen, in his paper “Scaphognathus crassirostris: A "Living Fossil" Until the
17th Century, that a “dragon” who had
terrorized the local population near
Rome in 1691 had been killed and a
drawing of its skeleton preserved by
Cornelio Meyer, a civil engineer an
author of among other books; “Nuovi
Ritrovamenti Dati in Luce” (New
Information Brought to Light).
We have said and others have said that the artists currently responsible for our notion of
what pterosaurs look like –have not seen a pterosaur, and don’t really know what the
assembled form should look like. Further, early on and continuing today, scientific
illustrators have assumed a bat-like model for pterosaurs.
Meyer’s pterosaur however, does not evoke the bat; rather it reminds us of the dragon or
the griffin. Naturally science has paid no attention to this man of learning and has
forgotten or ignored this drawing.
Figure 1 shows the “Meyer” drawing on the left compared to a drawing of a fossil
discovery of and assembly of Scaphognathus by modern paleontologists. Figure 2
shows how Meyer’s assembly is consistent with the assembly of the bones by current
scientists and Figure 2A compares Meyer’s drawing with a recreation of a very similar
pterosaur, Rhamphorynchus. I believe that the Meyer drawing is an accurate recreation
of Scaphognathus. In fact, it is a more faithful
and accurate depiction than are our modern batlike version of the pterosaur. (The front arms and
hands of this pterosaur are under the wings,
which is proper).
Tail vane
Some long tailed pterosaurs had a tail vane, a
non-skeletal flap of skin which is believed to have been of used as a rudder. The
ancients often depicted this unusual feature on their dragons and griffins.
-------Pterosaur Anatomy—“Hands and Feet”
Pterosaurs had four “fingers” and five toes, with the fifth toe pointing rearward. The
fourth finger was extremely elongated and formed the leading edge of the wing. If you
were a pterosaur and you were to place your hands out in front of you; there would be
no thumb and your ‘pinky” would be elongated and encased in the wing along the full
length of your wing surfaces to the left and the right. Only three fingers would be
available for grasping or climbing etc.
This means that the “ancients” were correct when they portrayed the hands and the feet
as completely different in form. This may have led some to suggest that a different
animal is being portrayed in the front and back half of the griffin. We’ll make note of that
in a short while.
The fact that pterosaurs had hands and fingers, possibly to grasp or hold prey will be
something to remember when we examine some ancient griffin depictions. This is what
science says about the pterosaur’s grasping capabilities:
“A study of the claws of ancient flying reptiles known as pterosaurs suggests that some
of the creatures may have walked like present-day herons and used claws on their wings
to hold prey.
……Pterosaurs had claws both on their feet and on their wings. An analysis of more
than 100 museum specimens shows that the curvature of claws on pterosaurs' wing
fingers was, on average, comparable to that of perching birds. Claws on the pterosaurs'
feet, however, were almost straight, like those of birds that walk on the ground. This
combination hints that pterosaurs didn't live in trees, says Krauss.
Scientists have long debated whether pterosaurs walked bipedally as people do or
scrabbled along the ground on all fours as bats sometimes do. Krauss and his
colleagues contend that pterosaurs walked upright but used their curved wing claws to
hold prey steady while they consumed it. Such a technique would have helped prevent
wriggling meals from snapping off the pterosaur's delicate teeth”.--S. P. The Free
Library, Science Service
-------Pterosaur Anatomy—“Wings”
We’ve already addressed pterosaur wings with respect to their wideness or narrowness
and concluded that they were “narrow” as clearly shown in certain fossils. If the wings do
attach lower onto the body similar to bats, it is only in some species and the other
attachment may be as high as at the thigh or hips, preserving a wing consistent with that
of the dragon.
But what did the wins look like? The ancients
rarely painted or sculpted a totally bat-like
wing –except in shape. Quite often, the
wings were portrayed with feathers although
managing to maintain a bat-like shape. But if
the ancients actually were eyewitnesses to
living pterosaurs, why did they portray the
griffin with feathered wings?
It could be, that many artists of the time were not actual eyewitnesses themselves but
were portraying limited witness descriptions. It could be that like illustrators do today, let
their drawings be influenced by prior drawings, so that certain features become
“traditional” rather than actual.
Several modern eyewitnesses have provided another clue. They have described the
wings as being halfway between a bird’s wing and a bats wing. It has been discovered
that the wings of the pterosaur were stiffened with fibers (possibly keratinous) on the
underside of the wing, arranged in a pattern that parallels the long axis of the feather
shafts in bird wings!. (Padian)
These regular and very thin structures are called actinofibrils and were noted by some of
the earliest pterosaur fossil discoverers and basically ignored for some time. These
fibers created a feather-like wrinkling of the underside of the pterosaur wing.
Photo: “Parallel fibers that stiffened a
pterosaur's wing membrane—each
just two-thousandths of an inch (0.05
millimeters) thick—are visible in this
fossil of a Rhamphorhynchus. The
fossil was found in Germany's
Solnhofen limestone beds, where
incredibly fine grain preserves
minute details”….National
Geographic
Pterosaur wings appeared to have
been a complex, hybrid structure
which gave the wing strength and flexibility.
In addition to the feather-like actinofibrils, pterosaurs are unique among “reptiles” in that
they may have been covered with hair. For instance, a fossil of Sordes pilosu (hairy
demon) was so named due to its abundance of hair. Science argues that it is not “true”
hair because it has already decided .that pterosaurs are reptiles.
Perhaps the ancients were correct in depicting a narrow, ribbed wing, with the
appearance of feathers.
If as a pterosaur, you were to extend your hands forward, and together, your wings
would extend directly backwards, parallel with the ground.
If as a pterosaur you were to place
your “hands” on the ground as a
quadruped would, (on all fours) your
wings would point directly upwards
over your shoulder roughly
perpendicular to the ground. (Figure
4, Positions 1 and 2 respectively).
This as we will show is a position
(Position 2) often captured in ancient griffin depictions.
-------Pterosaur Anatomy—“The Source for the Griffin “Beak” was not
Protoceratops”
Griffin representations have been amazingly consistent culture to culture and down
through the centuries. One of the consistent features is the griffin “beak’. That’s the
feature that has caused some to suggest that the griffin has the head of an eagle.
Adrienne Mayor has suggested that this curiously consistent griffin feature is the result of
ancient peoples reacting to fossils of protoceratops. A griffin and a drawing of a
protoceratops fossil are shown to the right.
For several years, when it became clear to me that dragons
and griffins and other so called “mythical” creatures were
the result of ancient peoples having been eyewitnesses to
pterosaurs of various types I’ve been looking for the specific
type of pterosaur with the
eagle-like beak.
Dimorphodon is a possible
candidate, (shown here in
“Position 2”) and remains so,
but an alternate solution came
to mind when studying the
fossil skull of Scaphognathus.
First, note the similarity between this sculpture from Ljubljana and Cornelio Meyer’s
drawing of a pterosaur that I was persuaded was Scaphognathus due to the headcrest
(Goertzen). This sculpture comes
from Ljubljana. Dragons are the
symbol of that city. This dragon is
one of a number on Dragon Bridge in
that City and were sculpted around
1895; too early to have been
influenced by the bat-like pterosaur
depictions of the late 1800’s and
early 1900’s. The dragon itself is built
on the model of the dragon which had long been a symbol of the City of Ljubljana,
Slovenia, said to be modeled after a dragon encountered by Jason and the Argonauts.
Figure 5 shows a photographic comparison
of the skull of Scaphognathus with the head
of the dragon of Ljubljana. I noted this dragon
initially because of its lifelike detail. It may be
that this dragon is a closer to life depiction of
Scaphognathus than are the current batcentric depictions of Scaphognathus that
artists currently favor.
Apropos of nothing, perhaps I was even struck by the similarity of the notches on the
back of the Scaphognathus skull and on the head of the Ljubljana dragon.
Figure 6. This drawing (from dinodata.org) of the Scaphognathus skull makes a direct
comparison of the Scaphognathus skull with that of the Ljubljana dragon’s. (The drawing
omits the head notches on the back of Scaphognathus’ skull).
As you can see, the eye
sockets, teeth and jaws
match the very nicely. Most
current drawings of
Scaphognathus assume
that the front teeth protrude
in a downward direction
from the mouth. However,
as you can see from the graphic, the teeth of the skull fit rather nicely into the “beak” of
the dragon.
Is the griffin beak caused by the soft tissue of the griffin wrapping over its front teeth?
Whether or not one agrees that Cornelio Meyer’s sketch and the Ljubljana “dragon/griffin
actually represents Scaphognathus, several pterosaurs have similar “extending” front
teeth and it is certainly possible that this is the origin of the griffin “beak”. I think that my
idea is at least as “scientific” as is Adrienne Mayor’s griffin as protoceratops hypothesis.
Ancient Dragon/Griffin Depictions Indicating Specific, Unexplained Knowledge of
Pterosaur Features
Arimaspe and Gryphon,
Pompeii
“This fresco comes from the Villa
of Mysteries in Pompeii and was
reconstructed from fragments. It
shows a battle between a
gryphon, a legendary beast with
the head, talons and wings of an
eagle and the body of a lion, and
a hooded figure, trying to protect
himself from the gryphon claws
with his leather shield.
It dates from about 120 years
before the eruption which
destroyed Pompeii in AD79”
Aliraqi.com
This “griffin” appears in this fresco as a natural creature. As Mayor noted in her book,
there is nothing particularly “mythological” about how the griffin appears in ancient art
and history. The narrow wings, the long tail (possible tail vane),
Possibly the most telling feature are the “hands” which show three fingers, which is
precisely correct (pterosaurs have four, one of which is elongated and is hidden inside
the wing) and unprecedented elsewhere among wing creatures. The hands are precisely
in the correct location as well—they appear to be on the wing.
The wings are depicted as feathered; what we know about pterosaur wings is that they
were not bat-like as frequently depicted by
modern illustrators but had “hybrid” wings
with “feather-like actinofibrils” on the
underside of the wings for stiffness. The form
of this griffin follows Cornelio Meyer’s 1691
drawing of an alleged living fossil rather than
the bat-like depictions of today.
Lekythos with Boar Hunt
Xenophantos C.380 BC Hermitage Museum
Again, this griffin/pterosaur is depicted in a common
scene; a boar hunt. Scholars have hypothesized freely to
explain why in such a common scene, a “fabulous”
creature is depicted in an ordinary way engaged in
nothing “mythical”.
“This large squat lekythos was discovered during
excavations at a necropolis
in Panticapaeum (Kerch),
the capital of the Bosporan
Kingdom. The vase is
decorated with a hunt
scene: warriors on foot, on
horseback and in chariots
chasing real and fabulous
animals. The presence of
the fabulous blue griffin
side by side with a real wild boar has led some scholars to
assume that this vessel was created specially for the
Bosporans: local gold coins with representations of a
griffin (as the symbol of Panticapaeum) were minted from the 4th century BC……..
This griffin appears to have a pterosaur tail vane and in from resembles the
Goertzen/Meyer “living fossil” dragon almost 2,000 years later. A word about the wing
placement; pterosaur wings extended to the hand, Those ancients who made the arm
part of the wing, even though not scientifically correct, show that they understood that
the wings did not simply grow out of the animals back with no connection to the front
arms.
CORNELIS DE JODE Novae Guinea 1593.
From the Speculum Orbis Terraum published in
Antwerp in 1593. This is one of the first printed
maps to hint at a possible coastline of an
Australian continent: the first landfall was not
made until 1605-6.
antiquemaps.co.uk/book/chapter1.asp
This 1593 sea chart
appears to show not
one, but two types
of pterosaurs. One
pterosaur type
shown flying, is
clearly recognizable
as some type of
pterosaur depiction,
although not scientifically correct.
The pterosaur on the ground has many
recognizable pterosaur features and is very close
to the “living fossil” (Goertzen) of 100 years later.
Some modern eyewitness to the jersey devil
has noted that the creature’s hands hung
limply—in the manner that some would
attribute to t-rex. These creatures’ hands are
hanging also.
Medieval Griffin
England (Salisbury?), c 1230-1240
What is interesting about this medieval
griffin; in form not unlike the Goertzen
“living fossil”, the tail vane of the
Rhamphorhoid pterosaurs, the ability as
science has concluded to grasp prey,
three fingers on each hand.
Now note this; “A strange little bone
called the pteroid protruded from the
wrists of pterosaurs, the flying reptiles of
the Mesozoic. It was sort of like a thumb,
but extended from the base of the wrist
and pointed in the
opposite direction towards the body. Or
at least that's what most palaeontologists believed; because that was
the orientation it always took in fossilized animals. Now, Matthew
Wilkinson, David Unwin and Charles Ellington argue that it pointed
straight forward - and may have been instrumental in allowing the
largest pterosaurs to fly at all.” ….. Journal of Experimental Biology
This is one of a number of griffin/pterosaur depictions that highlight this feature, including
Griffins Attacking Doe, from the 4th century B.C. at the beginning of this article. In
addition to this absolutely conclusive pterosaur identifying feature, it is clear that the
wings of the creature are linked to the arms. One of the connections of actual pterosaurs
is at the elbow.
Griffin Catching Hare; 1490
Griffin catching Hare. Taken from the
medieval carvings (1490 – 1495) from within
the choir stalls of Ripon Cathedral. This three
fingered griffin (pterosaur feature) grasps a
hare with hands (pterosaur feature). Photo:
Medieval Phil
Terminal. Apollo on a Griffin, 4th century BC, Russia; Left This long tailed griffin’s
hands issue directly from its wings, which is correct. Right: Temple of Apollo, Didyma,
Turkey 6th century B.C.
Did Cornelio Meyer know about this Turkish griffin? Or were depictions consistent
because there was in fact a real creature seen and recorded by many cultures?
Conclusion:
Charles Gould was likely correct in Mythical Monsters (1886) when he said “that many of
the so-called mythical animals, which throughout long ages and in all nations have been
the fertile subjects of fiction and fable, come legitimately within the scope of plain matterof-fact Natural History.” There
is a high correlation between
the known features of
pterosaurs and many ancient
and even current depictions of
griffins, dragons, the jersey
devil chupacabra etc. These
creatures apparently have not
been extinct for more than 65
million years but instead have
always been a part of human history.
It may be that certain UFO sightings, (bioluminescence) and certain animal mutilations
can be fairly attributed to them (pterosaurs) as well and might explain why tracks were
not found at the sites of these animal attacks. Of course, certain aspects of this
terrorizing and sometimes merely annoying creature have been mythologized,
exaggerated, mistaken etc. This does not mean that these creatures didn’t exist. They
were probably never common but rare; and as apex predators each probably had a large
territory in which it hunted.
So what happened to them? My guess, the crossbow and gun powder happened to
them and they became even more rare.