Ancient Chinese Sculpture Depicts Dinosaur--
If They Allow You to See That Side
19th century iguanodons.
Here at s8int.com, we had a belief that God created the animals that we call dinosaurs along with all the other animals He created as related in the book of Genesis.
We were fully aware that “science” had now “progressed” to the point that it’s high priests declare that man and dinosaurs never crossed paths and in fact missed each other by millions of years—but it never occurred to us that “science” might be right.
On the contrary, since we believed that man and dinosaur did co-exist, we knew that if we sought evidence in the relics of ancient cultures, that we would find it. If one could prove that man and goat, man and giraffe, and man and wolf coexisted through ancient literature, art and artifacts, then in the same manner, so could the coexistence of man and the animals we call dinosaurs be proved.
Some of the evidence we have found has been presented on pages of this section of the website. What we have found, however is that the machinery of science does not work to place this type of evidence; evidence that does not support the current paradigm out there under the bright lights where everyone can see them and wonder.
Let’s say you dig up some exquisite pre-Columbian ceramic pieces in excellent condition. An exquisite bull or goat or perhaps some fine Moche culture warriors or whistle bottles.
The right people will ask to see the pieces, and you’ll end up selling them to some museum for a nice sum or the State will claim them and they’ll end up on display at a fine museum.
If you find a perfect piece in the shape of say, an anklysaur, more than likely, no one is coming especially if you were to make it known that you’d found some ancient dinosaur ceramic. An expert would pronounce that a fake without leaving his/her couch, certainly without the need to see it.
You might be in luck if the piece is sufficiently ambivalent in nature so that it could be called “mythological”, or a“dragon”, a “cult object”, or an “effigy” piece etc. We’re not at all suggesting that most objects so labeled are not in fact accurately labeled. There are, obviously in fact, many ancient art pieces representing dragons or other “mythological” animals.
Those objects in the "weird" anomalous category we speak of here are likely going to end up in private collections rather than in museums of stature. Or they may end up in small out of the way museums or in the storage facility of said museum of stature. One thing you can be sure of is that no National Museum is going to place a very dinosaur like piece of ancient art or ceramic in its front window.
A few years ago, we came across the Palestrina Mosaic in an old art book. The first century, Roman mosaic contained a section showing dark skinned warriors hunting what for all the world appeared to be a dinosaur.
Zhou Dynasty Dinosaur.
Story Below Under "Exquisite Horned Dinosaur from
Before The Time of Jesus Christ"
The animal was labeled “crocodile leopard” on the mosaic itself. We scanned the mosaic and placed it on our website. The Palestrina Mosaic is well known in certain academic circles and would seem to be an important first century Roman piece, yet at that time there may have been only one photo of the object on the entire internet!
Even now, mostly what we can find are copies of our original scan, though we haven't looked for a while. Note, that what we mean is a photo of the mosaic in which the "questionable" scene can be seen--not references to the mosaic itself.
This all means to us is that yes there is ancient evidence out there which supports the idea that man and dinosaur did coexist—but that it will be much harder to find than it need be.
Take a look at the photo on the top of the page on the right. In the 1800’s, scientists came across the bones of what came to be named iguanodon. Around that time, numerous dinosaur bones began to be found and in fact around that same time, the word dinosaur was coined.
A number of scientists drew iguanodon from their imaginations, based on the bones that had been found. Early on, they tended to see dinosaurs as giant versions of lizards that they were already very much familiar with.
At the bottom of that group, is the way we draw iguanodon today.
We have to ask; why did non-scientists hundreds and even thousands of years earlier do a better job of representing dinosaurs (by accident?) with their art pieces representing mythological creatures and dragons?
What we mean is that dragons and other mythological creatures were often clearly large reptiles, with scales, with horns, with other dinosaur-like characteristics.
Ceramic Man Interacting with Ceramic Dinosaur?
475-221 B.C. Warring States period.
How is it that they drew some dragons with a central spine or spikes like some dinosaurs have. How did they unintentionally hit on the diamond shaped or club tails that anklysaurs and other dinosaurs actually have?
Many did not look at all like dinosaurs and many breathed fire or had wings which we assume were mythological or exaggerated—but the pterosaur did have wings, was reptilian and would have posed a threat.
Exquisite Horned Dinosaur from Before The Time of Jesus Christ
Ceratopsian dinosaurs such as triceratops had horns and frills. Some of the larger plant eating dinosaurs also had horns for protection from predators according to the literature. Many dragons/dinosaurs were depicted with horns.
We also point out that estimates are that as few as 10% of the dinosaur types that have existed have been found. It may be that in some cases where an actual dinosaur was being depicted, some exaggeration of its characteristics occurred on a particular piece.
Notice the bronze piece shown here from Henan Province, China, discovered in 1990. This piece is currently at the Institute of Archaeology and Cultural relics and is dated from 770 to 500 years before Christ.
Curiously, in every picture that we could find, the photo that was shown of the piece was of the off-side, as shown in Figure 3, Above, bottom right. If you look closely at Figure 3, it is very difficult to even make out what the object is without having seen the other side of the object. No other view was offered at several locations.
Institute Director? :0)
We set out to find another view of the object and finally succeeded. The side that was not shown is here listed as Figure 1 and Figure 2. What we have is the obvious body of a horned dinosaur, of the type associated with plant eaters like Apatosaurus, eating some foliage that includes, flowers!
We have a bronze and malachite piece as old as 2,700 years representing pretty convincingly, a plant eating dinosaur—coincidentally enough, eating plants. Let me ask you; if you were only going to show one side of this object, which side would you show?
Certainly, their “accidental” version of the dinosaur is more convincing than the dinosaur the scientists drew above (top) after actually finding the bones of a dinosaur!
Zhou Dynasty Stove
If you look at this item closely, you will see that a juvenile version of the large animal main animal depicted, with its own horns, is playfully cavorting on the main creature’s back. The large dinosaur has a flower sticking out of both sides of his mouth, and his tongue is hanging out.
No wonder they didn’t volunteer this side of the object. Perhaps its appearance, if noted will cause those who are sure that no living man ever saw a dinosaur to doubt its authenticity. Better to show the off-side of the object.
Another Chinese Piece
It should be obvious that this piece from China, from the Warring States period of 221 to 475 years before Christ shows a man astride a very dinosaur-like dinosaur. Never mind the question as to which dinosaur type it represents; can you look at this piece and seriously continue to believe that any resemblance to an actual animal we call a dinosaur is purely accidental? ---That man and dinosaur missed each other by millions of years? Never mind then, you can’t be convinced!
This stove is from the Zhou Dynasty (1100-256BC). This item could be more than 3000 years old. Is there any doubt that the animal represented by this piece is a dinosaur? Or again, did they accidentally create a mythological creature that looks more like a dinosaur than does the 19th century iguanodon drawings done by scientists at that time with the dinosaurs bones in their possession?