Did a Horned Dinosaur Inspire the Mythological Griffin?

New research challenges the popular hypothesis that Protoceratops fossils inspired the mythological griffin, revealing significant geographical and anatomical inconsistencies

We live in a very unique time in human history. Millennia of scientific research and discoveries have gotten us to a point where we seldom need to make up stories to describe natural events. However, this hasn’t always been the case.

For centuries, humans have explained things such as fossils of animals no human has ever seen alive as mythological creatures. While understanding these creatures and their past ecological contexts is essential for having a better picture of how life on Earth has evolved, they also bring another opportunity for research within the social sciences. How have these fossils shaped culture, religion, and society?

As someone with a background in Paleontology, I find every study at the intersection between biology and cultural evolution fascinating. So, of course, I had to report on this most recent study on the topic.

For decades, both the public and academics have entertained the idea that the Central Asian dinosaur Protoceratops inspired the mythical griffin. The griffin, a legendary creature with the body of a lion and the head and wings of an eagle, has been a common creature of ancient myth from Greece to Egypt.

And for a good reason. It was wild to think dinosaur fossils may have influenced this myth, bridging the realms of paleontology and mythology. However, new research from Dr. Mark Witton and Richard Hing at the University of Portsmouth casts doubt on this theory. Was this its origin?

Folklorist Adrienne Mayor popularized the hypothesis that Protoceratops fossils inspired the mythological griffin over 30 years ago. But how did she reach this conclusion? She proposed that ancient nomads discovered Protoceratop’s remains while prospecting for gold in Central Asia. Indeed, nothing is bringing more paleontological discoveries than mining!

She concluded that, with their beaked faces and frill-like skull extensions, these fossils may have sparked tales that evolved into the griffin myth as they traveled along trade routes to Greece. Mayor’s work garnered significant attention and was featured in books, documentaries, and museum exhibits. It sounded like a solid hypothesis, it made sense.

However, despite its popularity, the hypothesis lacked rigorous scrutiny — until now… Of course, someone had to test it!

Dr. Witton and Richard Hing undertook a comprehensive re-evaluation of the Protoceratops-griffin hypothesis. Their study involved a multi-disciplinary approach, consulting historical fossil records, analyzing the geographic distribution of Protoceratops fossils, and examining classical sources that link griffins to Protoceratops. They also engaged with historians and archaeologists to understand griffin myths’ traditional, non-fossil-based origins. So, all in all, a well-researched study that combines many evidence lines.

The researchers began with the best piece of information: examining the locations where Protoceratops fossils have been found. Protoceratops, a small, horned dinosaur that lived in Mongolia and northern China during the Cretaceous period, is typically found in specific fossil-rich areas known as the Djadokhta and Bayan Mandahu formations. Then, these locations were compared with the known sites of ancient gold deposits and trade routes to assess the plausibility of nomads discovering these fossils while mining for gold.

Surprisingly, the findings challenge the plausibility of the Protoceratops-griffin connection on several fronts.

Firstly, and quite relevant, in my opinion, Protoceratops fossils are located hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest known ancient gold sites. Of course, this significant distance makes it unlikely that gold prospectors would have encountered these fossils during their expeditions. Additionally, and to add to the evidence, no gold has ever been reported in conjunction with Protoceratops fossil sites.

On top of this, the researchers highlight that the visibility of Protoceratops fossils to ancient peoples was likely very limited. As Dr. Witton explained, “There is an assumption that dinosaur skeletons are discovered half-exposed, lying around almost like the remains of recently-deceased animals. But generally speaking, just a fraction of an eroding dinosaur skeleton will be visible to the naked eye, unnoticed to all except for sharp-eyed fossil hunters.” This implies that even if nomads were in the right location, they would have needed to extract the fossils from the surrounding rock — a challenging task even with modern tools. Trust me, I’ve done this myself many times, with varying degrees of failure.

From a more biological perspective, another critical point raised by the study is the anatomical differences between griffins and Protoceratops. While Protoceratops was a beaked, quadrupedal dinosaur, griffins in ancient art clearly combine features of big cats and birds. Griffins typically have the muscular bodies and flexible tails of lions, along with the wings and heads of raptors such as eagles. “Protoceratops is only griffin-like in being a four-limbed animal with a beak,” the authors note. Further, no details in Griffin’s art suggest that their creators referenced dinosaur fossils. Instead, the art consistently shows griffins as imaginative combinations of familiar animals, specifically big cats and birds. Almost like one of my kid’s games.

With this in mind, this study emphasizes the importance of grounding hypotheses in solid evidence and avoiding accepting things that haven’t been specifically tested (guilty, sometimes, as anyone else).

While it is charming to think that Protoceratop‘s fossils inspired the Griffin myth, this ultimately relies on speculative connections rather than concrete data, which is how science shouldn’t be made. The geographic and anatomical inconsistencies highlighted by the research underscore very well, in my opinion, the need for caution when proposing links between paleontological finds and ancient myths.

Dr. Witton commented, “Everything about griffin origins is consistent with their traditional interpretation as imaginary beasts, just as their appearance is entirely explained by them being chimeras of big cats and raptorial birds. Invoking a role for dinosaurs in griffin lore, especially species from distant lands like Protoceratops, not only introduces unnecessary complexity and inconsistencies to their origins, but also relies on interpretations and proposals that don’t withstand scrutiny.”

Dr. Richard Hing added, “It is important to distinguish between fossil folklore with a factual basis — that is, connections between fossils and myth evidenced by archaeological discoveries or compelling references in literature and artwork — and speculated connections based on intuition. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea that ancient peoples found dinosaur bones and incorporated them into their mythology, but we need to root such proposals in realities of history, geography, and paleontology. Otherwise, they are just speculation.”

As a take-home message, I will say that this research reminds us that while stories linking ancient myths to paleontological finds can be compelling and exciting, they must be evaluated critically. The fascination with such connections should not overshadow the importance of evidence-based research and hypothesis testing. Instead, understanding the true origins of myths like the griffin requires a careful and disciplined approach, respecting both the cultural context of the myths and the scientific context of the fossils.

This study invites us to appreciate human imagination and the natural world without correlating the two without robust evidence. While the Protoceratops-griffin hypothesis may be an engaging story, it appears that the griffin myth remains firmly rooted in ancient peoples’ creative minds rather than in dinosaurs’ ancient bones.

In the meantime, I need to update some of my introductory Paleontology lectures and send a few emails to past students, recognizing that I, too, overlooked the lack of scientific evidence regarding the history of paleontology. Always learning, always improving.