Loading this page…
Return homePlease wait while the next page arrives.
Bestiary of Cryptids & Legendary CreaturesThe griffin joins an eagle’s head and wings to a lion’s body, confronting gold seekers in ancient accounts and guarding rulers and memorials in art.
Also recorded as Gryphon, Gryps
The prospectors wait for a moonless night. Aelian’s account gives them spades, sacks and weapons, but darkness is their best protection. [4]
Read the manuscriptA griffin’s body gathers two predators into one figure: the lion supplies its weight and paws, the eagle its beak and wings. Griffin and gryphon are familiar English spellings; the classical name gryps also appears in discussions of the creature. Thomas Browne opens his seventeenth-century account with a more elaborate portrait, adding erect ears and a long tail. His question is whether the animal belongs in nature at all. [3][7]
In On Animals IV.27, Aelian reports two explanations for the griffins’ hostility. Their Bactrian neighbours say they dig gold and line their nests with it. The Indians deny this: the intruders want gold, while the griffins defend their young. Aelian favours the second account. [4]
The seekers enter the wilderness in armed companies of a thousand or two. They dig on moonless nights to avoid discovery. Undetected, they escape with gold that specialists can refine into great wealth; discovered, they die. Aelian says the survivors return after three or four years. The long absence belongs to the danger as surely as the encounter does. [4]
Aelian’s griffin has a black back, red front, white wings and a neck patterned in dark blue. Its eagle-like beak and fiery eyes complete the portrait. [4]
On a Byzantine marble panel dated 1250–1300, the creature turns its head beneath a flexed wing. A circle encloses it within the square slab; leaves and vines fill the surrounding space, and Greek crosses mark the middle of each border. The Metropolitan Museum’s transcript describes the small object in its beak as a pearl or perhaps an eyeball. Even at close range, that detail remains unresolved. The carving’s compactness is striking: a creature imagined crossing inaccessible country fits within a carefully ornamented enclosure. [6]
For Herodotus, the gold story lies towards the north of Europe. Gold is said to be carried away from griffins by the Arimaspians, a people with one eye. He cannot say with confidence how it is obtained, and explicitly refuses to believe that nature produces otherwise ordinary men with a single eye. Yet he remains attracted to the idea that the world’s farthest edges hold its rarest and most beautiful things. His hesitation lives inside the marvel, rather than arriving as a modern correction to it. [1]
Book IV gives the report a route. The Issedonians tell of the creatures and their neighbours; the Scythians receive the account, and others learn it from them. Herodotus even explains the name Arimaspian through what he says are Scythian words for one and eye. The land is remote, but the story does not arrive without intermediaries. Each people becomes a neighbour through whom another, more distant place can be described. [2]
One name keeps returning: Aristeas of Proconnesus, the poet whom Herodotus connects with the Arimaspeia. Aristeas says that Apollo inspired his journey to the Issedonians. Beyond them he places the Arimaspians, then the gold-guarding griffins, and finally the Hyperboreans beside the sea. Herodotus makes a crucial qualification: even Aristeas does not claim to have travelled beyond the Issedonians. The creatures farther away enter his poem through what those people tell him. [2]
The poet himself has an extraordinary story. Herodotus reports hearing it in Proconnesus and Cyzicus. Aristeas enters a fuller’s shop, where cloth is worked and cleaned, and dies. The fuller locks the premises and goes to inform the family. As news spreads, a traveller insists that he has just met Aristeas on the road towards Cyzicus and spoken with him. While the townspeople dispute the report, the relatives arrive with what they need for a burial. They open the shop. No body is there. [2]
In the seventh year, Aristeas returns to Proconnesus, composes the Arimaspeia and vanishes again. Herodotus then records the people of Metapontum in Italy claiming a later appearance. He calculates that this happened two hundred and forty years after the second disappearance, using the two cities’ accounts. The visitor tells them to erect an altar to Apollo and a statue bearing his own name. Apollo, he says, once came to their country accompanied by Aristeas in the form of a raven. The apparition disappears after delivering its instructions. The citizens consult Delphi, receive an answer directing them to comply, and set up the monuments. Herodotus describes the statue beside Apollo’s altar, surrounded by laurels in the marketplace. The poet cited for a remote animal has become the subject of a local memorial and a story of return from death. [2]
Aelian gives the creature a limit: it will not confront lions or elephants. Full-grown griffins cannot be captured, he says, although people take their young. [4]
Browne is concerned with a different limitation, the construction of the body. He compares the griffin to bats and other animals that seem to join the characteristics of birds and beasts. In a bat, he argues, the parts belong to an integrated whole; a griffin looks as though pieces of separate animals have been attached to one another. His objection is directed at the join itself. The same eagle-and-lion combination that makes a powerful image makes him doubt that it could walk out of a picture. [7]
Pausanias brings the remote guardian into the Parthenon. Griffins flank the Sphinx on Athena’s helmet. He turns from that carved presence to Aristeas’s poem and its struggle for gold beyond the Issedones, then resumes describing the goddess’s statue. The brief detour carries the reader from an Athenian sanctuary to the edge of the reported world and back. The creature can occupy both places without the traveller claiming to have followed it between them. [3]
The marble panel’s original destination is less certain. Made possibly in Greece or the Balkans, it may have belonged to a tomb or the exterior of a church. The Met associates its griffin with medieval guardians of the dead and with royal power. A tomb would place that protection around someone who could no longer act; a church exterior would bring it into the building’s public face. Neither proposed setting has been established as the slab’s recovered home. [6]
Browne also worries about what happens when a name crosses languages. The Greek gryps, he argues, can designate an eagle or vulture rather than the composite monster. A reader who automatically makes every occurrence a griffin can consequently find imaginary animals in laws about food and accounts of sacrifice. His discussion moves through Greek and Latin renderings of Scripture to show how a familiar picture can attach itself to a word before the reader has settled what the word means. This is Browne’s linguistic argument, not a report that biblical law classified the winged lion as an actual food animal. [7]
A bronze griffin in the Met was made to support a throne. Probably from western Iran and dated to the late seventh or early eighth century, it was cast around a ceramic core and then worked on the surface. The royal seat gave its extraordinary body a practical load to carry. The museum connects this form with Iranian traditions of animal-legged thrones and with winged creatures expressing royal elevation. [5]
In the museum’s interpretation, the lion and eagle are solar animals, and their combination once suggested a ruler’s ascent towards divine status. Early Islamic rulers adopted the earlier imagery to communicate authority and legitimacy. The support therefore belongs to a history of political reuse: an inherited form can help present a new ruler as someone entitled to occupy the seat. [5]
Browne finds a guardian’s character in the griffin even while rejecting its natural existence. Ears signify attention; wings promise quick action; the lion’s body supplies courage; the hooked beak conveys a firm hold. Each imagined part becomes a demand upon an entrusted person. He extends that reading to princes, generals and other commanders, and to the noble families who place griffins on their arms. The emblem is successful because people understand the animal qualities it combines. It does not need a captured specimen to ask its bearer to be vigilant or brave. [7]
Browne considers a line in which Virgil imagines griffins joined with horses. The occasion is a marriage between Mopsus and Nysa, and Browne takes the impossible pairing as a way of expressing an unnatural union. The creature does not have to exist for the comparison to sting. His final speculation moves from language to sacred imagery: he proposes Egyptian solar meanings for the combined hawk and lion, and discusses griffins associated with Apollo. The solar origin remains his proposal. His clearer conclusion is that the same body can make different kinds of statement, from an insult about a marriage to praise of a ruler. [7]
A modern explanation replaces the living guardian with a fossil. As summarized and challenged by Mark Witton and Richard Hing in 2024, Adrienne Mayor’s proposal connects griffins with Protoceratops remains encountered along Asian gold routes. The appeal is immediate: an ancient finder confronts a beaked skeleton and supplies the rest of the animal. The proposal gives the marvellous body a history of discovery. [8]
Witton and Hing find no convincing bridge between the fossils and the tradition. They identify several hundred kilometres between known Protoceratops localities and the relevant gold deposits, and question comparisons that select a beak and four legs while overlooking differences in skull, limbs and tail. Their objection concerns this proposed connection; it does not rule out every historical use of fossils in folklore. A resemblance starts the inquiry, but cannot supply the missing journey from a particular find to a particular story. [8]
Herodotus III.116 and IV.13–16,27 preserve the reports and Aristeas’s story. Pausanias I.24 places griffins on Athena’s helmet. Aelian IV.27 supplies the prospectors; Browne III.xi debates the animal and its emblem. The Met documents the bronze support and marble panel; Witton and Hing assess the fossil hypothesis. [1][2][3][4][7][5][6][8]
Herodotus · Lexundria · English translation of Greek · Translated by G. C. Macaulay
III.116
Checked 2026-10-09
Herodotus · Lexundria · English translation of Greek · Translated by G. C. Macaulay
IV.13–16 and IV.27; Macaulay translation, https://lexundria.com/hdt/4.13/mcly through /4.16/mcly and /4.27/mcly
Checked 2026-10-09
Pausanias · Theoi Classical Texts Library · English translation of Greek · Translated by W. H. S. Jones
I.24.5–7; publisher introduction at https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias1A.html
Artwork
Select a folio to enlarge it. Its caption describes the account, landscape or artistic choices behind the image.
Manuscript checked 2026-10-11. Artistic interpretations © Scott Schubr / Luminary Oddities.
Return to the Bestiary ↑Checked 2026-10-11
Aelian · Attalus · 1958 · English translation of Greek · Translated by A. F. Scholfield
IV.27
Checked 2026-10-11
The Metropolitan Museum of Art · The Metropolitan Museum of Art · English
Object 1971.143, overview and Artwork Details
Checked 2026-10-09
The Metropolitan Museum of Art · The Metropolitan Museum of Art · English
Object 2000.81, description, Artwork Details, audio transcript and enlarged image
Checked 2026-10-11
Thomas Browne · University of Chicago; online edition by James Eason · 1672 · Sixth edition; first published 1646 · English
III.xi, printed pp. 142–144
Checked 2026-10-09
Mark P. Witton, Richard A. Hing · University of Portsmouth repository / Interdisciplinary Science Reviews · 2024-06-20 · English
Repository PDF pp. 1–3, 9–16, 22–23; DOI 10.1177/03080188241255543; published pp. 363–388
Mayor’s hypothesis is presented through Witton and Hing’s critical assessment, rather than an independent reading of her books.
Checked 2026-10-09