Imagine you were tasked with drawing an exotic animal you'd never seen before. With a little luck, it might look a bit better than something from a child's imagination. Now, imagine a similar scenario, except you have to draw an animal based on journal entries of explorers who've been to lands you'll likely never see. What would a whale look like if it was almost impossible to get a glimpse of it in its natural surroundings? It's easy to laugh at historically inaccurate drawings of animals, but keep in mind before the camera, historic records — especially drawings — were subjective at best. Think you could fare any better given the circumstances?
Medieval bestiaries were books that included both real and fantastical beasts. But, often, the lines between the two were a bit blurred when it came to accurate depictions. The big spotted cat preying on the stag in this illustration is some kind of strange, leopard-lion hybrid.
Lavish illustrations filled the pages of the Aberdeen Bestiary. It continues to be one of the top examples of bestiary manuscripts from the time. The artistic skill is clear with the hooved animals. But it takes a lot of imagination to see that the prominently featured blue creature is a leopard. The long, winged, alien critter on the right is even more confusing.
Christians created the Physiologus in Greek text in the 2nd century. The Bern Physiologus is an illuminated copy of the Physiologus, created in the 9th century. This illustration is inaccurate in so many ways. The "panther" looks like a cross between a griffin and the artist's family dog.
These sailors may have been at sea too long if they were seeing winged fish soaring above their boat. While the size of this fish may be somewhat accurate, it's missing a major anatomical detail — the saw-like nose extension that the fish is named for.
Most people know what a crocodile looks like, and this illustration shares no characteristics of the giant reptile. It's safe to say the poor human who came into contact with the creature wasn't around to provide an accurate description of the creature afterward.
In Norse mythology, Ratatoskr was a squirrel that lived in the world tree, Yggdrasil. Although the illustration doesn't share much of a physical resemblance to modern-day squirrels, its behavior doesn't seem far off. Ratatoskr was a gossiper who carried messages between the eagle at the top of the tree and the serpent at the bottom.
Artists often depicted the beaver sporting a fishtail because people in medieval times thought the beaver was a close relative of the fish. Many took advantage of this faux pas on religious fasting days. They substituted beaver meat for the less-satisfying fish they were supposed to stick to.
Durer was famous throughout Europe for his highly detailed woodcut prints. While this depiction of a rhinoceros is somewhat accurate, most rhinos don't have skin made from riveted metal. Was it an over-exaggeration of the animal's skin folds, or did an industrious metalsmith forge armor for the rhino? We'll never know for sure.
Artists often added exotic animals to their paintings even though they'd never seen one. As a result, there are thousands of questionable and unusual illustrations of animals throughout history. Many included creatures we can only assume were elephants, although this one looked more alien than mammal.
Most people associate the owl with wisdom, but this depressed, sad-faced bird shows no signs of it. Maybe it's because the artist gave it lips instead of a beak.
Night-sky observers may be familiar with the raven-shaped Corvus constellation in the southern sky. The artist seemed to get a bit lost depicting a raven, and instead, created a generic-brand version of a diving bird with a duck-like head.
Lions and other exotic animals were featured prominently in medieval art, even though the artists had likely only seen portrayals in other artwork. That led to some strange and confusing illustrations that seldom looked like the real-life animal. And few lions had the kind and gentle expression the artist chose to portray on this one.
The lion's appearance in Rubens' oil painting, Hercules and the Nemean lion, is confusing, to say the least, and absolutely inaccurate. The creature's round head and flattened muzzle look less like a vicious beast and more like a victimized American bison minus its horns.
In the Nazca Desert in southern Peru, ancient artists created a group of several hundred line drawings into the soil covering 170 square miles. Although this depiction could be any type of canine or four-legged mammal, the other drawings are easily recognizable. Maybe this dog drawing was completed by one of the artists-in-training.
Obviously, someone who had seen a whale described it to the artist as "a big fish." This painting beautifully illustrates the story of Jonah and the Whale. But instead of a giant ocean mammal, the artist chose to portray the attacking creature as a humongous sea bass.
Sogdiana was an ancient Iranian civilization, a province of the Achaemenid Empire. An artisan crafted this gilded silver plate with the image of a tiger, which appears often in Sogdian artwork and fables. The long legs and dog-like head and body are closer to a Great Dane's anatomy than a royal feline's.
The blue animal wrapped around the tree seems to its two observers completely befuddled. This depiction appeared in Aberdeen Bestiary and its illustrator labeled it "beaver." Although it does appear to be gnawing on the tree, there's nothing else that would lead modern humans to associate it with the brown-furred, flat-tailed animal we know today.
In medieval times, people believed that female vultures gave birth without mating. As a result, the clergy used the vulture as proof that the Virgin Mary could give birth to Jesus. It's unclear as to whether the campaign was successful. Maybe because the "vultures" looked more like eagles.
The horned, deer-like animal in this illustration, a Monoceros, was a rhinoceros with a single horn. Not only was it a confusing rendition, the animal in the picture below it has nothing in common with a bear except for its fur. We won't even try to figure out what the bear is licking on the ground.
Saint Mark, the Evangelist's symbol was the winged lion. Artists frequently featured it in portraits of the holy figure. But because many had never seen a lion, they had no references other than those they'd seen in other artworks. This unknown artist seems to have mistakenly used a sweet llama-like creature to portray one of the fierce beasts.
Many of the big cats depicted in historical and religious drawings took on human features instead of feline ones, yet this one doesn't. In fact, people may struggle to see any resemblance to a lion or any other living creature.
While the process for creating illuminated manuscripts was elaborate, the drawings were often simplified versions of the animal. Many, like this illustration found in the Echternach Gospels, used animals to symbolize evangelical figures in attempts to convert locals. Chances are, this depiction of a forlorn brown bird most likely failed to achieve results.
This crocodile appears in the medieval manuscript, the Rochester Bestiary. Although the word "crocodile" comes from the Ancient Greek word for lizard, the artist seemed to be unaware that crocodiles don't look like toothy salamanders.
This site offers information designed for educational purposes only. The information on this Website is not intended to be comprehensive, nor does it constitute advice or our recommendation in any way. We attempt to ensure that the content is current and accurate but we do not guarantee its currency and accuracy. You should carry out your own research and/or seek your own advice before acting or relying on any of the information on this Website.