[ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Thorgrim on Wednesday, 01 February 2006 (User Info | Send a Message) | You can't blame Christian zealots for carving the White Horse, it was there long before there were any Christians. The horse is 110m long and carved through the grass into chalk. It has been dated to between 1400 and 600BC.
| [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Anonymous on Thursday, 02 February 2006 | Feel free to blame them for anything else though . . . | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Anonymous on Thursday, 02 February 2006 | I understand from the NT information board that dating has been done on the carving of the White Horse to between 2,000 and 3,000 years old, Bronze Age. I retain a scepticism about the dating though, since no reference appears from earlier that Medieval times, and dating the erosive products of other White Horses put them at much younger than previously thought. On the same them though, does it seem too fanciful a theory that the hillside was carved into the shape of a Dragon in order to protect the fort from the North (symbolically speaking)? | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Anonymous on Friday, 03 February 2006 | A few ideas that made me think about the White Horse:
There was a move by the early Chirstian Church to alter to remove/adopt pagan images to help eradicate pagan worship and promote Christian thinking.
First mention of White Horse Hill reportedly dates from around the middle 1000s, from writings found in Abingdon Abbey.
There may have been 'a saddle' on the original carving.
If the image of the horse was added to change the pagan symbolism of the site, then the Iconoclastic doctrine of the time would have outlawed the reproduction of a stylised image of St George.
St George became popular in England during the 10th century, and White Horse Hill seems to have acquired a religious overtone to its history. The cutting is known as 'The Manger".
It would have been very easy to simply carve a horse on to the hill, thus claiming it for Christianity.
[email protected]
| [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Thorgrim on Friday, 03 February 2006 (User Info | Send a Message) | The horse may have been recut, but the style is very similar to that on Iron Age British coins. I understand that the chalk cutting and removed debris has been analysed and dated. Can't see any connection with St George. | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Anonymous on Friday, 03 February 2006 | You have to see the dragon to see the connection with St George.
When I stood at the apex of the cutting, it appeared that the whole hill had been shaped into a dragon, with dragon hill as the eye, and the hill itself as the backbone of the creature. In pre-Christian mythology, dragons had protective symbolism, and it didn't seem such a stretch of the imagination to see how an ancient people may have sculpted a natural feature into a great protective creature. Consider the aspect out across the Thames Valley to the North, and the location of the fort. This site had strategic significance as well as a spiritual beauty.
In Christian mytholgy, dragons were loathed as devilish serpents, symbols of paganism and ungodly thought. The site, were it known as a pagan site, would be offensive to 10th century Christian thinkers, but with a ready made 'religious' tale of St George and The Dragon emerging from the Middle East, an opportunity arose to completely change the significance of the site and give it a NEW Christian history.
The Iconoclastic Christian would be forbidden to represent St George himself, so they carved the horse and saddle onto the back of the dragon, and appropriated the tale of St George and The Dragon for the sight, and with one easy stroke, wiped away the memory of any paganism.
It's imaginitive I know, but it's not so far beyond the realm of possibility. I have no detailed knowledge of how the carving was dated, but I will follow up, if only to reconcile the methods with what I already know of geology from my studies. I am proposing a possible age of 1000 years ago, as opposed to the 2000 to 3000 year suggestion on the NT board.
[email protected] | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Thorgrim on Friday, 03 February 2006 (User Info | Send a Message) | Do you have any evidence that the whole hill was carved by man? | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Anonymous on Friday, 03 February 2006 | I don't think the entire hill was carved.
I think it was originally a natural gully, but the soft nature of the chalk allowed it to be shaped. I can't see how the regular 'sawtooth' pattern on the western side could be formed from usual erosive processes, leaving the opposite side so smooth. I think that the mound (an eye), and the ditch a little lower (the nostril) have been added and carved on the side representing the snout, and the opposite flank has been regularly cut to form the teeth of the lower jaw, or the lower limbs with the backbone coiled around 'The Manger'.
I understand glacial processes have been suggested, but I can think of no other feature similar in any of the chalk downland in the rest of the south east? Also, you may have glimpsed a great ice-sheet away to the North as you stood on the hill 10,000 years ago, but I was not aware that the ice-sheets spread south across the Thames Valley.
My impression is that the 'sawtooth' feature is regular enough to imply excavation, and that the debris was possibly used to flatten the gully floor, or maybe even build the mound, a feature I think looks like the dragon eye. The two slightly raised platforms on the gully floor looked like part of the dragon's tongue, or mouth, but may have served a more practical purpose during celebrations or festivals.
Nor do I think it takes much to see the dragon, or its open mouth, coiled around 'The Manger'. My girlfriend thought it looked obvious once I had pointed out all the features. I can't find a panoramic view from the apex, but I think it's worth a fresh look.
There is an recent analogue worth bearing in mind too. To those of use who have often driven through the huge cutting on the M40, look how quickly it has become covered in greenery in the space of a few short years. Soon, very little of the beautiful white chalk will be visible at all.
I have my doubts about whether such a shallow carving would survive periods of possibly hundreds of years of neglect?
And lastly, I'm not taken to flights of fancy very often. | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Eledhwen on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 (User Info | Send a Message) | Unlikely, Brian. The Uffington White Horse is known to be Bronze Age, so can't be Christian. More likely to be in honour of Rhiannon or some other horse deity. There is an academically unpopular theory that the white carving is not a horse at all, but is a dragon, signifying a great dragonslaying at the site. Whatever the name of the dragonslayer had been, they would inevitably be re-named George in the post-Christian era. The Domesday Book listed the wealth of the nation in towns, homesteads, people and livestock for taxation purposes. The Uffington horse would therefore be irrelevant to the visiting recorder of the time, as it was merely an image of no economic value. | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Anonymous on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 | Re-visited the site during the summer as part of an Archaelogical group. Must be my natural cynicism, but I found the idea that the carving had been maintained in its original state during its 2,000 to 3,000 year history something of a stretch. That would require a colossal effort of will during several very troubled periods in our history. Also, Chalk weathers very quickly, as is shown by the Twyford and Chiltern cuttings, and the bomb craters on Reigate and Colley Hills from the last war are completely obscured by grass.
Of more interest to me however, is the Dragon head shape of the entire hill, and the significance of this feature. Many of the party I was with saw the form quite clearly when I had pointed it out, but had simply never looked at what they didn't expect to see. This would imply that Dragon Hill is in fact a man-made 'eye' and that the western gulleys are part human sculpted. The questions is raises for me are:
Why would they carve a dragon into the hillside?
Does is relate the fort as a centre of commerce?
Could the white horse or dragon be a bronze age 'advertisement' for the commercial centre of trade at Uffington Fort?
Why is the Dragon facing North?
Lastly, being of a somewhat religious background in my youth, I retain an interest in the power of the Chirstian church through human history. I certianly would not mourn the passing into obscurity of the George and the Dragon myth of White Horse Hill. So much wonderful history must have been buried in Christian dogma.
Brian | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Anonymous on Monday, 16 July 2007 | could the white horse be a zebra? | [ Reply to This ]
Re: Dragon Hill by Anonymous on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 | I'm back on my old white horse again! Obviously, not everyone else could see what I could when I toured the white horse hill, much to my frustration. So I checked google earth, only to find the resolution was too broad - so I gave up talking about it.
Then, thanks to my fiancee, I checked Multimap and it is now there for everyone to see. Have a look at the aerial views of white horse hill and I defy anyone not to see some form of open-mouthed creature, with dragon hill as the eye, and the manger as the open mouth. A creature that is protecting the fort perhaps? It is SO obvious...someone tell me you can see it. | [ Reply to This ]
|