Orcs: Foundation or Cliche

[Zero Angel]

That may be true, but can you say that the reverse is not true? I find it likely that when other cultures look at they western dragon, they might also say, "that's kinda like a different version of our [insert cultural icon here]." You could in fact say that the dragon is the "western lung" just as you could say the lung is the "eastern dragon."

The point is, yes it's a little Eurocentric to say that Creature X is the [insert culture]'s dragon. But if you look at the bigger picture, it is remarkable that so many different cultures independently "invented" such similar beasts, regardless of what they call them. It's not so far-fetched to thing these different beasts might actually be a series of related creatures being interpreted through different cultural lenses.

To clarify my point, a lion depicted in Chinese art looks very little like a lion as depicted in European art. Does this mean the Chinese lion is not really a lion, but instead its own separate thing? No. It's just being viewed through a different cultural and artistic point of view.

You said a lot of what I said, but much more diplomatically I think and definitely more concise.

Unrelated P.S.: In my attempt to see what Chinese and Japanese people thought of European dragons, I realized that their wikipedias are much "prettier" than ours.

 

[Zero Angel]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for using proper names for things. But if it looks like a dragon, acts like a dragon and for all intents and purposes is a dragon, then it is a dragon. Any Chinese or Japanese experts that know what they call European dragons? I only studied Japanese for two years and never got into geek speak. I just think of this as a specific type of dragon.

I concede that we should call them lung or ryu or whatever to denote the specific type of dragon, but in my mind they are still a type of dragon.

Japanese calls European dragons ドラゴン, which is "du-ra-go-n", but they still have this classified under 竜 "ryu" in their wikipedia which is exactly the inverse of what we do. We have dragons and have Asian dragons such as naga, ryu and lung classified under dragons.

 

[Astner]

Japanese calls European dragons ドラゴン, which is "du-ra-go-n", but they still have this classified under 竜 "ryu" in their wikipedia which is exactly the inverse of what we do. We have dragons and have Asian dragons such as naga, ryu and lung classified under dragons.

ドラゴン is pronounced doragon, and it's technically not a Japanese word.

Similarly with Lord of the Rings, 指輪物語 pronounced: yubiwa monogatari; meaning: story of ring(s), would be Japanese. However the title of the movie in cinemas was: ロードオブザリング; pronounced: Roodo obu za ringu.

That said I don't really think that there's a need to separate them. A western dragon may well be presented as some whether ruling deity as well.

 

[Zero Angel]

...doh!

But still, that was my point. They pronounced it their way of saying dragon, so I conceded that we should specifically call Chinese dragons lung, Japanese dragons ryu, etc, but they are still dragons.

 

[Astner]

...doh!

But still, that was my point. They pronounced it their way of saying dragon, so I conceded that we should specifically call Chinese dragons lung, Japanese dragons ryu, etc, but they are still dragons.

J.K. Rowling did it well. She included various eastern dragons, one that comes to mind is the Chinese fireball. Implying that they were different races of dragons. Similar to dwarves, elves, and men.

However, it depends on what setting we're discussing. Is it a setting with just one type of dragon, or with different types of dragons (including the eastern)? In the former case there's no need for a distinguishing, whereas in the latter J.K. Rowling's approach works well.

 

[Shockley]

I'm going to come back to this when I'm not running between classes, but something was brought up which illustrates my point fairly well. I'm going to address this point, then come back to the others at about one or two o'clock central time.

To clarify my point, a lion depicted in Chinese art looks very little like a lion as depicted in European art. Does this mean the Chinese lion is not really a lion, but instead its own separate thing? No. It's just being viewed through a different cultural and artistic point of view.

When European explorers first entered China, they saw these stone statues in front of buildings. They asked the local Chinese what these things were, and they were answered with 'shi/se.' The European explorer looked at these statues, decided they were looking at lions and decided that 'shi/se' meant 'lion.'

But here's the problem with that interpretation - the explorer assumed he was looking at a lion. He wasn't. He was looking at a representation of a breed of Chinese dog - specifically, this kind of dog:

Here's the kicker: This breed of dog's name, if translated directly from Chinese to English (through way of Tibetan, due to certain unfortunate environmental problems), comes out as 'Snow Lion.' So here's what happened:

We had a term that basically meant 'door guard' and referenced, culturally, a large mammal. The Europeans - not being familiar with the Tibetan Mastiff (which is not a mastiff, further pushing this point), assumed this was a lion. The local Chinese - not being familiar with lions - had no real way of correcting them. To this very day, the Chinese word 'shi/se' is still translated into English as 'lion,' and no one has bothered to correct the error.

I'll tie this all into one thread of thought shortly.

 

[Jabrosky]

Interesting. Anything in particular cause the switch? Also, how have you managed to integrate the new element?

The main reason was that I decided to stop caring about "scientific realism" in my fantasy and loosen up. That said, I haven't really thought about a coherent magic system yet.

@ the whole dragon discussion

It depends on how you define "dragon". If a dragon is simply any large fantastical creature with reptilian properties, then I see nothing wrong with calling the Asian monsters dragons. However, such a broad definition does not mean that European and Asian "dragons" are closely related beyond that sense; they could still have been independently invented by different cultures. Similarly, while we might call African bows and arrows by the same name as similar devices used by Native Americans for the sake of convenience, we can't necessarily conclude that these inventions are related by common ancestry (i.e. Africans sailing over to the Americas and teaching the natives how to make bows and arrows, or vice versa).

Funnily enough, few people call Godzilla a dragon even in the broad sense of the word.

 

[Mindfire]

The local Chinese - not being familiar with lions - had no real way of correcting them.

The local Chinese - not being familiar with lions

not being familiar with lions

Asiatic Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History:

The Asiatic lions were once quite common throughout its historic range in Southwest and Central Asia and are believed to be the ones depicted by the guardian lions in Chinese culture.

EDIT: A bit of cursory reading leads me to believe that the Chinese guardian lion is not solely based on that dog breed. As I understand it, The Chinese got the guardian lion idea from India and Tibet, part of the historic range of the Asiatic lion, having seen them in Indian temples. They then rendered those images into their own cultural style, mixing in things from the Lion-Dogs, such as the shaggy mane. So the guardian lions are in fact lions. The Chinese just decided to take artistic liberties. Also, saying that an explorer would confuse that little dog for an actual lion is an insult to human intelligence.

 

[Zero Angel]

It depends on how you define "dragon". If a dragon is simply any large fantastical creature with reptilian properties, then I see nothing wrong with calling the Asian monsters dragons. However, such a broad definition does not mean that European and Asian "dragons" are closely related beyond that sense; they could still have been independently invented by different cultures. Similarly, while we might call African bows and arrows by the same name as similar devices used by Native Americans for the sake of convenience, we can't necessarily conclude that these inventions are related by common ancestry (i.e. Africans sailing over to the Americas and teaching the natives how to make bows and arrows, or vice versa).

Agreed. But another point is that I don't think many of us consider "dragons" to mean European dragons anymore either, which is why we have all been prefacing the word "dragons" with "European" when we wanted to refer specifically to that type. In English at least, dragon has taken on a broader definition.

Funnily enough, few people call Godzilla a dragon even in the broad sense of the word.

I think of Godzilla more as a Tarasque type creature, which is dragon-like...according to a quick search he was supposed to be a combination of several dinosaurs in design, but mutated by the atomic bombs (why he breathes atomic energy). If you go with dragons are inspired by dinosaurs theory, then I guess you could consider Godzilla a type of dragon, but a "real-life" one where the inspiration (dinosaur mix) started to resemble the myth (dragons). Most of the films treat him as a type of mutated lizard or whatever though, don't they? I think this is probably why you don't see more dragon associations with Godzilla.

...Interestingly enough, he did fight a dragon.

 

[Shockley]

Asiatic Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History:

As much as I enjoy the attempt at being pedantic, you should read your own source before you try and throw it in my face as proof that I am wrong: And I quote, directly: 'The historic range of the Asiatic lion of the Panthera leo Persica subspecies is believed to have extended from Northern India in the east through modern Iran, south throughout the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula and west towards modern Greece and Italy.'

Please notice that 'China' is not listed as part of its historic range. In fact, there's a massive mountain range blocking it from China.

EDIT: A bit of cursory reading leads me to believe that the Chinese guardian lion is not solely based on that dog breed.

Perhaps not solely. But anyone with any knowledge of dog breeds would have to agree that the animals depicted have a closer appearance to dogs as they tend to look in China and East Asia than they do lions.

As I understand it, The Chinese got the guardian lion idea from India and Tibet, part of the historic range of the Asiatic lion, having seen them in Indian temples.

Indeed, though the linguistic evidence continues as far as Tibet. Their word for the statues also equates to 'door guard,' and is also applied to that specific dog breed. The word, as we translate it, is 'Snow Lion' They call their statues 'Snow Lion.' The linguistic evidence is obvious.

I would love to see an image of the 'Snow Lions' in India. I would really love it, because as best I can see from the reading they originate in Tibet. I'm even looking for it now, and turning up absolutely nothing.

They then rendered those images into their own cultural style, mixing in things from the Lion-Dogs, such as the shaggy mane.

This I don't buy. We have thousands of years of Chinese are, and they have no problem depicting any other animal as how it looks. You just have to look at their depictions of tigers, or even culturally obscure animals like giraffes, to get a feel for that.

So the guardian lions are in fact lions.

No. Not in fact. That's just something your insisting based on guesses. My claims are based on linguistic evidence.

Also, saying that an explorer would confuse that little dog for an actual lion is an insult to human intelligence.

You're assuming that the explorer in question would have seen the dog that the statues are derived from. They are an incredibly rare breed of dog, and chances are the explorer in question would not have seen a living specimen unless he also stopped by Tibet.

So, here's what happened as I would guess it: He showed up. He saw a statue, and tried to guess what animal was being depicted. Not understanding that the Chinese gender the statues, he saw a pair of ruishi statues and assumed he was looking at two male lions. Had the explorer understood (remember, these early explorers would have been going in with zero knowledge of the culture and zero knowledge of the language) that he was looking at a male and female pair, he probably would have gone on to some other animal because female lions don't have manes.

It's not saying he's stupid - it's saying he's encountering something that's as strange and foreign to him (the Tibetan snow dog, which rarely live outside of Tibet) as lions are to the Chinese peasant he talks to.

Now, I'll respond to the body of the dragon issue.

 

[Shockley]

On to dragons. I got a little turned around when quoting things, so I might have scrambled bits here and there and completely missed points. Point them out if I did.

That may be true, but can you say that the reverse is not true? I find it likely that when other cultures look at they western dragon, they might also say, "that's kinda like a different version of our [insert cultural icon here]." You could in fact say that the dragon is the "western lung" just as you could say the lung is the "eastern dragon."

That probably does happen. That said, it doesn’t make the view any less ethnocentric.

The point is, yes it's a little Eurocentric to say that Creature X is the [insert culture]'s dragon. But if you look at the bigger picture, it is remarkable that so many different cultures independently "invented" such similar beasts, regardless of what they call them. It's not so far-fetched to thing these different beasts might actually be a series of related creatures being interpreted through different cultural lenses.

My issue is that I don’t see them as similar.

Earlier I said the lung was reptilian – that was me firing off half-cocked, as I don’t see them as particularly reptilian. It has scales, yes, but I’d associate it more as a fish-like creature that can fly.

More to the point, the image of the ‘Chinese dragon’ is kind of a stereotype that doesn’t fit into how they are usually depicted: For instance, (for lack of a better term) ‘the Dragon King,’ who is a humanoid.

They seem almost identical to nature spirits with a particular aquatic preference.

I think this is silly. That's like saying a leyak isn't a type of vampire or Frankenstein isn't a type of golem. We use English to describe things because we are speaking English. If I was speaking Japanese I would say ryu or tatsu and if I was speaking Chinese, I would say lung. But here's the kicker, if a Chinese person was speaking English, they would probably describe their dragons as dragons. ...because they are dragons.

That’s only because of a limitation within language. I’m a history major focusing on early Germanic peoples, so I see things like this all the time.

We realize that something is particularly difficult to translate, so we just skim over it and give it an easy term. A perfect example is the Old Norse concept of the Jotunn. This is almost always translated into English as ‘Giants,’ simply because that makes more sense to as ‘All Consuming Chaos,’ which is a more literal translation. That does not, however, make fire (Loge) or death (Hel) or giant serpents surrounding the earth (Jormungandr) humanoid giants, even if they are regarded as Jotunn.

I think the point he was trying to make was that a theory for similar creatures across cultures (not just China/Europe, but others also) all have this creature which is a hodgepodge of our biggest predators--cats, raptors, snakes, etc.

I don’t think that’s an accurate representation of these figures though. That makes sense within the European tradition, but it ceases to hold water as soon as you move elsewhere. Remember that the Chinese culture doesn’t see the lung as a dangerous or predatory – it is a god, and sometimes a bringer of good weather.

Now, the anthropologist in question is of course relying on the fact that the traditions couldn't be transmitted across cultures and that we are able to genetically program a speciesism into ourselves that would be expressed artistically or under the influence of drugs/fear into a dragon or dragon-like creature. This unfortunately, since the theory is interesting, results in his argument not having as much scientific merit as it might otherwise.

… That doesn’t make sense to me at all, but it does remind me why I try to avoid anthropologists when possible.

OK, so if we equate them with dragons let's just keep using English to describe them then. Right? Since we are speaking English…

Don't get me wrong, I am all for using proper names for things. But if it looks like a dragon, acts like a dragon and for all intents and purposes is a dragon, then it is a dragon. Any Chinese or Japanese experts that know what they call European dragons? I only studied Japanese for two years and never got into geek speak. I just think of this as a specific type of dragon.

You’re speaking English, but you’re describing a cultural concept that is fundamentally alien to English language. That’s the problem I’m trying to point out.

I would say that your "almost universally" representation of western dragons is a little extreme, and only applies to ancient dragons.

Considering that the dragon faded out of western literature for roughly a thousand years and only had a resurrection within the last seventy, I’ll go with tradition on this one.

.'
Does anyone in our genre actually think of the western concept of a dragon when they think of dragons anymore? I think most people think of a Tolkien / D&D concept if they think of anything. In those, dragons were intelligent but could choose their own leanings. There were good and bad dragons and even if they were portrayed as having European body types more often than not, they were rarely malevolent beasts that lived the lives of hedonists without real dreams and goals.

D&D pulled their dragons from Tolkien, basically. Tolkien pulled Smaug almost directly from Fafnir (Who was a dragon that had a horde of gold and had killed a ton of dwarfs to get it. He was faced by Siegfried, who got his hands on a magic ring and was chased by a previous owner of the ring. Then, the ring gets destroyed in a fire.).

I don’t think you can draw a line between Tolkien’s dragons and the traditional European concept of a dragon.

 

[Mindfire]

As much as I enjoy the attempt at being pedantic, you should read your own source before you try and throw it in my face as proof that I am wrong: And I quote, directly: 'The historic range of the Asiatic lion of the Panthera leo Persica subspecies is believed to have extended from Northern India in the east through modern Iran, south throughout the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula and west towards modern Greece and Italy.'

Please notice that 'China' is not listed as part of its historic range. In fact, there's a massive mountain range blocking it from China.



Perhaps not solely. But anyone with any knowledge of dog breeds would have to agree that the animals depicted have a closer appearance to dogs as they tend to look in China and East Asia than they do lions.



Indeed, though the linguistic evidence continues as far as Tibet. Their word for the statues also equates to 'door guard,' and is also applied to that specific dog breed. The word, as we translate it, is 'Snow Lion' They call their statues 'Snow Lion.' The linguistic evidence is obvious.

I would love to see an image of the 'Snow Lions' in India. I would really love it, because as best I can see from the reading they originate in Tibet. I'm even looking for it now, and turning up absolutely nothing.



This I don't buy. We have thousands of years of Chinese are, and they have no problem depicting any other animal as how it looks. You just have to look at their depictions of tigers, or even culturally obscure animals like giraffes, to get a feel for that.



No. Not in fact. That's just something your insisting based on guesses. My claims are based on linguistic evidence.



You're assuming that the explorer in question would have seen the dog that the statues are derived from. They are an incredibly rare breed of dog, and chances are the explorer in question would not have seen a living specimen unless he also stopped by Tibet.

So, here's what happened as I would guess it: He showed up. He saw a statue, and tried to guess what animal was being depicted. Not understanding that the Chinese gender the statues, he saw a pair of ruishi statues and assumed he was looking at two male lions. Had the explorer understood (remember, these early explorers would have been going in with zero knowledge of the culture and zero knowledge of the language) that he was looking at a male and female pair, he probably would have gone on to some other animal because female lions don't have manes.

It's not saying he's stupid - it's saying he's encountering something that's as strange and foreign to him (the Tibetan snow dog, which rarely live outside of Tibet) as lions are to the Chinese peasant he talks to.

Now, I'll respond to the body of the dragon issue.

You didn't read what I said closely enough. At no point did I say that the Asiatic lion lived in China. So your counter to that is by definition a straw man. As for the rest of it, perhaps I was not quite clear. I'll try again. The Chinese depiction of the lion was imported from Indian temples. India is part of the Asiatic lion's range. And if you look at the original Indian art, which is on that same wiki page I believe, they are in fact lions. Furthermore, all evidence I can find points to the "snow lion" being a mythological creature- one that is featured on the flag of Tibet. Also, you know what else the Chinese imported from India? Buddhism. I don't think its absurd to reason that while they were busy importing Buddhism, they also imported the idea of "door guard" lions (from temples no less!), which they then adapted to suit their own culture.

EDIT: It should be noted that I was aware that my post seemed to imply that the Asiatic lion lived in China, which is why I amended the post to clarify my point. Also, I would like to amend this one to note that while the Tibetan Mastiff is colloquially called the "snow lion", whether it is in fact THE "snow lion" is up for debate. Was the myth designed after the dog? Or was the dog bred to resemble the myth? It's a chicken-egg thing.

 

[Shockley]

You didn't read what I said closely enough. At no point did I say that the Asiatic lion lived in China. So your counter to that is by definition a straw man.

The part you quoted was me talking about Chinese peasants (in a period ranging roughly from 600 AD to 1800 AD) not being familiar with lions. So when you point out Asiatic lions as a counter to that, I don't understand any other way to read that line. Please, clarify for me.

rthermore, all evidence I can find points to the "snow lion" being a mythological creature- one that is featured on the flag of Tibet- not a dog breed. Also, you know what else the Chinese imported from India? Buddhism. I don't think its absurd to reason that while they were busy importing Buddhism, they also imported the idea of "door guard" lions (from temples no less!), which they then adapted to suit their own culture.

The 'snow dog' of Tibet is a mythological creature. I'm not talking about that creature, at least not directly.

I'm talking about the 'Snow Lion Mastiff,' which is a breed of dog. The reason I pointed it out is that we (English-speakers that is) call it the 'Snow Lion Mastiff' because the term for the dog breed 'Snow Lion Mastiff' as used by the Chinese is identical to the root they use for the word we translated as 'Snow Lion.'

Edit: To clarify, the picture of the dog I posted above is a 'Tibetan Mastiff.' The term as used in Tibet is 'khyi,' which is a cognate of 'shi.' We English read 'shi' as lion.

 

[Mindfire]

The part you quoted was me talking about Chinese peasants (in a period ranging roughly from 600 AD to 1800 AD) not being familiar with lions. So when you point out Asiatic lions as a counter to that, I don't understand any other way to read that line. Please, clarify for me.



The 'snow dog' of Tibet is a mythological creature. I'm not talking about that creature, at least not directly.

I'm talking about the 'Snow Lion Mastiff,' which is a breed of dog. The reason I pointed it out is that we (English-speakers that is) call it the 'Snow Lion Mastiff' because the term for the dog breed 'Snow Lion Mastiff' as used by the Chinese is identical to the root they use for the word we translated as 'Snow Lion.'

Edit: To clarify, the picture of the dog I posted above is a 'Tibetan Mastiff.' The term as used in Tibet is 'khyi,' which is a cognate of 'shi.' We English read 'shi' as lion.

See the edit to my previous post.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to know what the Chinese have to say on this. Because really their opinion would be the definitive word, wouldn't it? By all appearances, they've made it clear the the qilin is not a unicorn. Why have they not similarly tried to distance the guardian lion from the lion or the lung from the dragon? People highly educated in Chinese culture still call them lions and dragons. Why should it now be "incorrect" to do so?

 

[Shockley]

I sincerely doubt, for what it's worth, that the Snow Lion Mastiff/Tibetan Mastiff was bred to resemble the mythological creature. I base this on several things:

1. That assumption requires that the early Tibetans had a basic knowledge of genetics and the heritability of traits. I don't know if they did or not, but that would have to be demonstrated before it could be assumed.

2. The Tibetan Mastiff, while having that name, is not a unique species to Tibet. It exists in China, other Himalayan communities and even Mongolia.

3. I looked at the American Kennel Club website for more information:

[...]They are considered by many to be the basic stock from which most modern large working breeds, including all mastiffs and mountain dogs, have developed.[...]

The origins of the Tibetan Mastiff are somewhat murky, but earliest written accounts place a large dog around 1100 BC in China. The breed remained isolated in the Himalayan mountains, where it developed into the Tibetan Mastiff we know today.[...]

So there's no real mention of conscious breeding in one direction.

Without evidence, I can't assume that the dog was selectively bred.

 

[Mindfire]

The dog was not selectively bred then. But there still seems to be a difference between "Snow Lion" the dog and "Snow Lion" the lion aka the mythological creature. But regardless, the argument stands that the Chinese got their "lions" from India, and the Indians got their "lions" from lions. Therefore, the Chinese "lion" is still a lion, or at least is descended from iconography of actual lions, though the Chinese may have mixed in Tibetan mastiff traits never having seen a lion in person.

 

[Shockley]

I'm not even convinced of the lion bit, to be completely honest. I know there are status of lions in the odd Hindu temple, but they seem to have a different focus and a different make than the Chinese Lions.

You might be absolutely correct on this, of course, but I don't think the evidence is there. At least not on the same level as the linguistic evidence.

 

[Mindfire]

Well I'm not sure it matters so much who's correct because that's impossible to know. What matters is that both theories are plausible, so i dont think its fair to attribute the "lion" thing to a misnomer by dumb Euro explorers. At least not this time. (Though they did manage to botch names a lot.)

 

[Jabrosky]

Incidentally, even the very concept of a European dragon is nebulous. "Dragon" originates from ancient Greek, yet the "dragons" in Greek art look quite different from Welsh dragons. To validate the concept of a European dragon, we would have to demonstrate that all the vaguely reptilian creatures found in various Europeans mythologies share a common pan-European origin, an effort further muddled by the human propensity for combining originally unrelated ideas into one package.

I'm with Shockley that the serpentine monsters in Asian traditions have a separate origin from the winged ones in European traditions, but while that would preclude linking these two creations as descended from a universal archetype as many mythologists have tried to do, I don't think it precludes calling them both dragons in the broad sense of being giant fictional reptiles. It's no worse than identifying Norse Aesir, Egyptian Neteru, and Yoruba Orishas together as "gods" despite having more or less separate conceptual origins.

 

[Shockley]

I'll accept a ceasefire on this, Mindfire, though I think there are few things that can't be chalked up to Europeans just completely misunderstanding what's going on around them.

@Jabrosky: Welsh is a sub-language of Celtic. Celtic is descended from Proto-Celtic, which itself is Indo-European. Greek itself is Indo-European, so there could be strong basis for the idea that 'dragon' is a universal European concept, especially with a word as clearly understood etymologically as 'dragon.'

That said, you are correct about very different perceptions as to what that term means.