Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Medieval art of animals often looked… a  little different from the real world species.  

  • And this mismatch was compounded with any animal  the artist had clearly never seen before. European  

  • texts from this period are full of hilarious  attempts to depict of far-off species,  

  • So lets take a look at some of the most  inaccuratebearing in mind it would be  

  • difficult to know what, say, a elephant would  look like if you'd never seen one before

  • And speaking of Elephants, they're a good  place to start when it comes to inaccurate  

  • depictions. Medieval artists seemed to  struggle with the concept of the trunk,  

  • often rendering it in bizzare ways. Many  illustrations also depict elephants supporting  

  • entire stone castles on their backs, spurring from  myths elephants were mighty enough to carry around  

  • entire buildings. This is, of course, incorrect. Another large African animal medieval artists  

  • struggled to portray is the hippopotamus, possibly  to an even greater extent than the elephant. Most  

  • illustrations of hippos from the era are way offwith an assortment of aquatic traits like tails  

  • and dorsal fins actual hippos don't possess. Other  depictions almost make hippos like strange horses,  

  • perhaps due to misunderstandings surrounding the  animals name, which means 'river horse' in Latin

  • Up next we have the giraffe, an animal medieval  artists portrayed with less frequently than the  

  • hippo or elephant. Compared to the hippo atThe very least, some pieces of art actually get  

  • the giraffe's general appearancemostly rightemphasizing the long neck. Well, most of the time

  • Moving on to African predators, we have the hyenaan animal with rather inconsistent interpretations  

  • across different paintings. In some illustrations  the hyena features horns and almost resembles a  

  • carnivorous cow, while others are more dog likeOne curious trend is in many images, hyenas appear  

  • to be consuming the dead. This is because ofcommon myth that the animals dug up cemeteries to  

  • eat human remains, a concept which is inaccurate. Moving to a different part of the world,  

  • another large predator which gets the short  end of the stick in medieval art is the tiger.  

  • Far from the massive predatory felines of the  real world, medieval tigers were small, dog-like  

  • creatures lacking the animal's trademark stripesStrangely enough, in many illustrations the tiger  

  • is drawn looking in a mirror. This stems fromlegend that a hunter could steal a tiger's cubs if  

  • they distracted the mother with her reflection, as  the mother would mistake it for her cub. A pretty  

  • grim legend, and one which would more than. Likely  result in imminent death if tried on a real tiger

  • Moving on to the world of birds, the ostrich  is a species medieval artists seemed to find  

  • particularly challenging. Most images of ostriches  lack many of the animals defining features,  

  • including their long neck and flightless natureIndeed, many depictions of the ostrich just look  

  • like standard birds. One unusual trend is the  ostrich of mideval art is often shown abandoning  

  • it egg in roast in the sun. Although real  ostriches do leave their eggs in exposed ground  

  • nests, this isn't because they're neglectful  parentstheir eggs do just fine in the open.  

  • Another odd trend is illustrating the bird eating  an iron horseshoe. This comes from another myth  

  • that the ostrich could digest anythingeven  metal. Once again, this is distinctly false

  • Another unique bird missing many of it's  most notable features. Is. the Pelican,  

  • which in medieval art is a shot beaked  organism missing it's trademark throat-pouch.  

  • A highly unusual theme is most depictions show  pelican families eating each other. The bizarre  

  • cannibalism comes from a legend pelican babies  try to eat their parents when fully grown,  

  • prompting the parents to eat them in returnThis is an obviously inaccurate notion,  

  • as any real species would die in a few  generations using such a behavioral model

  • Diving into the ocean, the next animal worth  touching on in the whale, an aquatic leviathan  

  • which rarely looks anything like the real  species in medieval art. In most depictions,  

  • the animal looks less like what we know  of as a whale and more like a giant fish,  

  • to the point where some versions are even  covered in fish-like scales. Some whales in  

  • medieval illustrations go a step further away  from the real animal and seem to have legs

  • While we're dealing with the oceanthe dolphin is another interesting,  

  • albeit incorrectly portrayed marine mammal  when it comes to medieval art. Like the whale,  

  • the dolphin usually just resembles like  a giant, slightly goofy looking fish

  • One aquatic organism which deviates even  further from it's real-life counterpart,  

  • however, is the sea turtle, which for some reason  is often portrayed as bipedal with a massive tail.  

  • Sea turtles in medieval paintings also  usually feature curiously shaped shells  

  • and segmented toes. One depiction of a sea  turtle seems to look more like a hedgehog,  

  • with the artist likely hearing the animal was  armored and assuming the species were equivalent

  • Going further inland, a semi-aquatic predator  medieval artist took serious liberties with  

  • is a crocodile, with many images of the animal  being borderline unrecognizable. To be fair,  

  • some illustrations at least look more or less  like a reptile, while others really deviate  

  • from crocodilian features, displaying hairpaws, bushy tails, and short, dog-like snouts.  

  • Then again, some of the drawings of crocodiles  don't include fur don't look all that better

  • Nearing the end of our list and truly veering  into bizarre territory, we have the scorpion,  

  • another animal given fur and mammalian  features without any clear explanation.  

  • There's something about giving a scorpion  a non-arachnid face which makes it look so  

  • fundamentally absurd. At least some  depictions give it more legs than a  

  • standard quadruped. Well, some depictions. At the very end of our journey, an animal  

  • you'd never be able to identify just by looking  at mideval portrayals, the chameleon. Although in  

  • real life the animal is a lizard, mideval artists  sometimes portrayed it as a horse-like organism,  

  • and sometimes more like a cat. In either caseone thing is for sureit looks nothing like  

  • the animals it's based on. The error might come  from phonetic similarities between chameleon and  

  • 'leon' or lion, but truthfully the  reason why chameleons are so inaccurate  

  • in art from the period is anyone's guess.. And that's where our list comes to an end.  

  • I hope you enjoyed this videoif you did,  I have another one like it on the strangest  

  • fictional medieval monsters. Please consider  subscribing and leaving this video like if you  

  • appreciated the content. Thank you so much for  watching, and I'll see you in the next video.

Medieval art of animals often looked… a  little different from the real world species.  

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B2 中高級 美國腔

滑稽不準確的中世紀動物藝術(Hilariously Inaccurate Medieval Art of Animals)

  • 42 5
    Jimmy Putinnie 發佈於 2021 年 11 月 07 日
影片單字