History of paleontology in Germany
Part 3: Challenging Prehistoric Folklore – Overcoming Myths and Monsters

U N D E R     C O N S T R U C T I O N 

The Creationist Milieu: Early Natural History and Biblical Narrative

With the spread of Christianity across Europe, the study of nature developed within a strongly religious intellectual milieu.

God creates animals on stamp of Germany 2014 MiNr.: 3085, Scott: 2790.

Biblical accounts of Creation provided an important framework for understanding the natural world, while the writings of classical authors, especially Aristotle, remained influential. Nevertheless, ancient natural knowledge was not simply lost, and medieval Christian scholars continued to study animals, plants, minerals, and unusual natural objects through a combination of inherited knowledge, observation, and theological interpretation.

According to Christian teaching, the universe was created by God and was therefore neither eternal nor the product of chance. The Earth, the heavens, plants, animals, and humankind were understood as parts of a divinely ordered Creation, as described principally in the Book of Genesis. Life was ultimately considered to have its origin in God, with living creatures created according to the divine plan and humankind occupying a special place within Creation. Although Christian thinkers differed in how literally and chronologically they interpreted the biblical account, the idea of a purposeful divine Creation remained fundamental to the medieval Christian understanding of the natural world.

The earlier fossils discoveries in Germany - 15^th century

In Germany, as elsewhere in medieval and early modern Europe, fossil remains were interpreted in a variety of ways. Unusual stones and fossil forms could be regarded as products of natural processes, the remains of living organisms, or evidence of mythical creatures, such as dragon (Lindwurm) and unicorns, and biblical beings.

A giant on stamp of UK 2009, MiNr.: 2778, Scott: 2675.

Woolly Mammoths on stamp of Switzerland 2024, MiNr.: 2970, Scott: 1989.

When a large leg bone was discovered during the construction of the north tower of St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, Austria it was attributed to a Biblical giant. The bone was inscribed with the year of its discovery, 1443, together with Emperor Friedrich III’s “A.E.I.O.U.” maxim, and was subsequently displayed at the western portal, known as the “Giant’s Gate” (Riesentor).

A mammoth or elephant femur (hind leg bone) could easily be mistaken for that of a human giant, as it has a very similar shape, but is much bigger, especially by someone without advanced anatomical knowledge.

In many early cases, fossils, especially small, very large or unusual object, were interpreted as fancy stones of purely mineral origin. The expression lusus naturae (“sport of nature”), became increasingly prominent in Renaissance and early modern natural history, particularly in the 16^th and 17^th centuries. It served as a safe way of describing anomalous geological formations whose organic origins were not yet understood, attributing their shapes to a creative mineral force within the Earth rather than ancient living organisms.

Overcoming these mineral theories formed part of a gradual, hard-fought shift toward an organic, naturalistic understanding of fossils. Naturalists increasingly compared fossil remains with the anatomy of living organisms, recorded their distinct geological occurrences, and sought explanations based on natural processes. The changing interpretation of fossils thus beautifully reflects the rocky transition from medieval and early modern accounts of extraordinary natural anomalies to the systematic study of ancient life that eventually developed into modern paleontology.

The Unicorn of Schwäbisch Hall - 1494

One of the earliest documented reports of a fossil discovery in Germany dates to 1494, when a monumental bone was unearthed in Schwäbisch Hall, Baden-Württemberg, in southern Germany. The historic episode was originally preserved in the local contemporary chronicle of Georg Widmann (1486–1560) and was later incorporated by the Protestant theologian Martin Crusius (1526–1607) into his celebrated Annales Suevici (Swabian Annals), published in Frankfurt am Main in 1596.

Latin passage from page 498 of Martin Crusius's Annales Suevici (1596), documenting the 1494 discovery of the "unicorn horn" during town hall construction in Schwäbisch Hall.

Matters of Schwäbisch Hall (Halensia quædā).
Widemann evaluates that there was once a vast wilderness around Schwäbisch Hall, and that wild beasts had a customary practice of running there to lick the salty liquid; [he infers this] from the fact that around the year 1494: (at which time the people of Hall were changing their coinage, and through their mint-master Martin Lerche were striking the coins, which are still in common use today), when excavations were being carried out underneath the new town hall (sub nova curia), a long, branchless unicorn's horn was found: a thing previously completely unprecedented in these parts.

The Unicorn's Horn (Monocerotis cornu).
The Mint-Master bought this horn from the laborers for three Florins of the new Schwäbisch Hall currency; and having divided it, he gave portions of it to others from that place.

Translated from Latin by Google AI

As the fossil has not survived, its precise nature cannot be definitively established from the surviving description. However, given that numerous fossils of Ice Age megafauna are known from the region, including the large mammoth tusk discovered in 1605 in Schwäbisch Hall, which has survived to the present day, the object discovered in 1494 and identified as a unicorn's horn likely was a tusk of woolly mammoth.

The Rise of Cabinets of Curiosities and Court Collections

This 1978 DDR commemorative stamp issue celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Staatliche Wissenschaftliche Museen Dresden. The featured collections—including the biological specimens of the Museum für Tierkunde (10 & 20 Pf), the fossilized frog (Palaeobatrachus diluvianus) and agate matrix of the Museum für Mineralogie und Geologie (250 & 35 Pf), and the Enlightenment mechanical clocks and telescopes of the Mathematisch-Physikalischer Salon (40 & 50 Pf)—trace their foundational roots directly back to the natural history and mechanical wonders catalogued in Elector August of Saxony's private 1560 Kunstkammer. MiNr: 2370-2375, Scott: 1958-1963.

Petrefakten — ammonites, shells and ichthyosaur fossils discovered at Staffelstein, near Kloster Banz, shown in the bottom-left of a Bavarian postcard mailed in 1908.

During the late 16^th and 17^th centuries, German-speaking courts and wealthy scholars began creating large collections known as Kunstkammern (cabinets of curiosities) and Wunderkammern (wonder-cabinets). The term cabinet originally described a room rather than a piece of furniture.
These collections brought together rare objects from the natural world and human craftsmanship, including minerals, unusual stones, shells, fossils, stuffed animals, scientific instruments, artworks, and exotic objects from distant lands.

One of the earliest and most influential examples was the Kunstkammer of August of Saxony (1526–1586), whose court in Dresden assembled a wide-ranging collection of natural and artificial curiosities. The collecting activities of the Saxon court were closely connected with the region's rich mining tradition, especially the mineral resources of the Ore Mountains. Although these collections were not scientific institutions in the modern sense, they preserved numerous natural specimens, including fossils, and provided an important foundation for their later study.

Over time, the collecting of natural objects became increasingly systematic. Minerals, rocks and Petrefakten, the historical term for what would later be called fossils, were gradually separated from the general collections of curiosities and assembled in specialised Naturalienkabinette and Petrefakten-Sammlungen. This development marked an important transition from the Renaissance tradition of collecting natural wonders towards the systematic investigation of geological and palaeontological specimens.

The growing interest in natural objects was not limited to collecting and displaying specimens. By the late 16^th and early 17^th centuries, scholars also began to describe and classify the natural materials they encountered in greater detail.

Bernard Palissy and the Early Interpretation of Fossils

Bernard Palissy on a French stamp, 1957, MiNr.: 1137; Scott: B313.

In the late 16^th century, Bernard Palissy (c. 1510–1590), a French Huguenot artisan, ceramicist, and natural philosopher, argued that fossils were not merely “sports of nature” or products of mysterious geological forces, but the preserved remains of organisms that had once been alive.
Palissy based his interpretations on direct observation of fossil shells, bones, and other natural objects. He emphasized that their detailed structures corresponded closely to those of living organisms and argued that they had subsequently been buried and petrified.
His ideas were published in his major work, Discours admirables, in 1580, in which he discussed natural history, geology, and hydrology and emphasized the importance of first-hand observation. Palissy went further in his interpretation of fossil organisms, arguing that they had not simply been formed spontaneously within the Earth. He maintained that fossil shells and other remains had belonged to living organisms and had been deposited in places that had once been covered by water, including ancient seas and freshwater environments.
These ideas challenged several traditional explanations of fossils current in the 16^th century. Palissy's observations and arguments represented an important early step toward a naturalistic understanding of fossils and marked a significant departure from many of the mythical and speculative explanations common in his time. His interpretation forms an important intellectual background to the more systematic observations of fossil remains that appeared in Central Europe around the end of the 16^th and beginning of the 17^th centuries. One of the early examples was the work of Johann Bauhin, whose observations of fossils were published in his Badbuch of 1598.

Early Observations and Illustrations of Natural Objects in the German-Speaking Lands (1602)

At the end of the 16^th century, German aristocrats became increasingly interested in the therapeutic and economic potential of warm mineral springs and established state spas to exploit them. Around 1596, Duke Friedrich I of Württemberg targeted a natural sulfur spring at Bad Boll, located at the foothills of the Swabian Alb (Schwäbische Alb). Before finalizing the permanent infrastructure of the health resort, the Duke commissioned his personal physician, Johann Bauhin, to investigate the waters and surrounding environment. Following Bauhin’s successful medical validation of the spring that same year, the Duke immediately ordered his master builder, Heinrich Schickhardt, to construct the historic spa facility (Kurhaus).

Johann Bauhin (1541–1613). Image credit: Wikipedia.

Title page of the fourth volume of Historia novi et admirabilis fontis balneique Bollensis, published by Johann Bauhin in Latin in 1598.

Johann Bauhin, latinized as Bauhinus, (1541–1613), was a distinguished Swiss physician and botanist who spent much of his career in the German-speaking duchies. Bauhin served as a personal court physician to the House of Württemberg for over forty years, remaining in office under Duke Friedrich I and his successors until his death in 1613. His detailed empirical observations of the mineral springs, plants, rocks, and fossils near Stuttgart epitomized the Renaissance movement to systematically document the natural world.

Originally published in Latin in 1598 under the title Historia novi et admirabilis fontis balneique Bollensis, the comprehensive work was structured into four distinct volumes. Conceived primarily as a prestigious scientific marketing tool to legitimize the spring's therapeutic efficacy, the text targeted different audiences over time. While the Latin original promoted the resort across Europe to the international academic and noble elite, the work was subsequently translated into German by David Förter and published in Stuttgart in 1602 to make the project accessible to the local German-speaking nobility. This domestic edition was released under the full title Ein neues Badbuch und Historische Beschreibung von der wunderbaren Krafft und Würckung des Wunderbrunnen und heilsamen Bads zu Boll (in English: “A New Resort Book and Historical Description of the Miraculous Power and Effect of the Miracle Fountain and Healing Bath at Boll”), and is today often called simply the "Badbuch".

As was common at the time, the work covered a wide variety of subjects relating to the area, including its local traditions, flora, and mineral anomalies. The fourth volume (Liber Quartus), titled "De lapidibus metalicisque miro naturae artificio in ipsis terrae visceribus figuratis" (in English: "On stones and metallic objects shaped by the marvelous artistry of nature within the very bowels of the earth"), included detailed descriptions of regional fossils. Bauhin categorized these objects by matching their physical profiles to familiar shapes or living counterparts: coiled ammonites were cataloged under the classical scholarly heading Cornu Ammonis (Ammon's horns), bullet-shaped belemnite guards were systematically labeled Belemnitae, while fossilized gastropods and bivalves were classified under names like Strombitas and Chama.
The book remains highly significant as an early milestone in the illustration of fossils within their localized geological setting. While Bauhin did not interpret these specimens according to modern scientific concepts, his meticulous records represent a foundational step toward systematic paleontology.

Ammonite on meter franking of the Rehabilitation Clinic in Bad Boll, Germany, 2004.

Bad Boll remains a prominent spa and rehabilitation destination centuries after Duke Friedrich I's commission. The Rehaklinik Bad Boll (Rehabilitation Clinic Bad Boll) operates directly on the historic Kurhaus grounds and uses an ammonite in its official logo alongside stylized representations of local healing waters. This deliberate choice of symbolism highlights the clinic's deep connection to the regional landscape, where the ancient Jurassic shale layers not only contain abundant fossils but also enrich the local mud and thermal springs utilized in therapeutic treatments. By featuring this prehistoric shell, the modern facility visually honors the unique natural heritage first cataloged by Johann Bauhin in 1598.

The Mammoth Tusk of Schwäbisch Hall (1605)

More than a century after the first unicorn's horn was discovered in Schwäbisch Hall (1494), another was found directly inside the town on February 13^th, 1605. This specimen has survived to this day and can be clearly identified as the tusk of a woolly mammoth. The mammoth tusk is preserved in St. Michael's Church in Schwäbisch Hall. This fossil was also originally interpreted as the horn of a mythical unicorn.

St. Michael's Church on stamp of Germany 2006, MiNr: 2522, Scott: 2370.

The public presentation of the tusk was directly entangled in a bitter, contemporary civic and theological dispute involving the controversial preacher Johann Weidner. Locked in a fierce ideological conflict with the Schwäbisch Hall magistrate, who sought to silence and dismiss him, Weidner weaponized the sensational February 1605 discovery. He framed the massive fossil as a prophetic, divine miracle sent to vindicate his strict orthodox ministry, effectively rallying public support and preventing the council from executing his immediate exile.

To permanently house the relic within the church's choir ambulatory, the town authorities suspended the tusk inside an elaborate, custom wrought-iron frame. This decorative grille incorporates two circular medallions containing heraldic, horse-like figures bearing distinctively sharp, straight single horns, mechanically reconciling traditional unicorn imagery with the heavy curvature of the fossil.

The mammoth tusk from St. Michael's Church in Schwäbisch Hall. Image credit: Wikipedia.	First Day Cover (FDC) of the German Post with stamp "850th anniversary of St. Michael's Church" from 2006, featuring a cachet of the main hall of the church. The mammoth tusk, discovered in 1605, is not visible in the illustration as it is mounted on a pillar located behind the central viewpoint.

The "Unicorn" of Quedlinburg (1663)

The most famous "Unicorn" fossil of Germany was discovered almost six decades later in Saxony-Anhalt.
In 1663, workers extracting gypsum and limestone in the Seweckenberge, in some sources spelled Zeunickenberg, located in the eastern foreland of the Harz mountains, southeast of Quedlinburg, uncovered the skeletal remains of a large animal in a fissure or cavity within the rock. The find soon became associated with the traditional concept of the Unicornu fossile, a term historically applied to various unusual fossil remains believed to belong to unicorns.

Portrait of Johann Meyer (1607–1665) on the title page of his posthumously continued Schreib-Kalender (Scribbling Calendar) from 1719. The scholar is depicted in his study surrounded by scientific instruments, flanked by the allegorical figures of Astrology and Geometry.

The earliest known account of the discovery was published in 1664 under the title Über das 1663 bey Quedlinburg gefundene Einhorn, by Johann Meyer.

Johann Meyer (1607–1665) was an astronomer, mathematician, calendar maker, and civic official of Quedlinburg. His name is also found in the forms Mäyern and Mayer. Meyer was born into a clerical family and apparently studied medicine and mathematics; in the title of his 1638 calendar he described himself as Johannes Meyerus Qvedlinb. Med. Cand. & Mathem. adj. From 1636 onward, he published calendars and other astronomical writings and served as treasurer of the town, responsible for the town's finances, including the management of municipal revenues and expenditures.

It is most likely that Meyer published his account of the find, together with an accompanying illustration of the supposed unicorn skeleton, as a single-page broadside. This original work has not survived and is known today only through references in later sources. The surviving evidence nevertheless identifies Meyer as the author of the earliest known report accompanied by a figure of the Quedlinburg “unicorn” skeleton.

Although the discovery was made near Quedlinburg, its early history became connected with Magdeburg through Otto von Guericke, the physicist and one of the city's mayors, whose 1672 Experimenta nova contains an account of the find.

Guericke reported that in 1663, in a mountain near Quedlinburg known locally as the Seweckenberge, where limestone was being quarried, the skeleton of a unicorn had been found inside the rock. According to his account, the rear part of the animal lay stretched out, while the head was raised and a long horn extended forward from the forehead. The horn was described as being about the thickness of a human leg and almost 3 metres in length. Guericke further reported that the skeleton had been broken apart and removed piece by piece, with the head and horn, together with some ribs, vertebrae, and other bones, being given to the Princess-Abbess of Quedlinburg.

Quedlinburg on a stamp of Germany 1994, MiNr: 1765, Scott: 1871. The stamp depicts the historic Quedlinburg castle complex. The site is associated with the history of the Quedlinburg find, whose fragmented remains were reportedly kept there under the custody of Princess-Abbess Anna Sophia I.

Although he did not explicitly state that he had personally examined the bones, it is possible that he did. Quedlinburg lies approximately 48 km from Magdeburg, where Otto von Guericke served as mayor from 1646 to 1676. However, no surviving documentation directly confirms that he personally visited the site. Instead, modern historical analysis indicates that Guericke's description relied heavily on an earlier report by Johann Meyer. While the reconstruction of the skeleton was often attributed to Guericke in subsequent literature, the surviving evidence does not support this claim.

According to contemporary and subsequent reports, the surviving bones were kept in the abbey castle (Stiftschloss) under the custody of Princess-Abbess Anna Sophia I.
Some of the bones later entered the private cabinet of curiosities of Gottfried Adrian Müller, who served as the abbey's captain (Stiftshauptmann) from 1759 to 1763.
The bones were subsequently dispersed, with individual pieces being acquired by collectors. The Quedlinburg find nevertheless remained an important subject in the literature on the supposed fossil unicorn and later became the basis for attempts to reconstruct and interpret the mysterious skeleton.

Discussions about origin of horns of unicorn (1666)

Johann Lorenz Bausch (1605-1665). Image credit: Wikipedia. On January 1, 1652, in Schweinfurt, Bausch, adopting the epithet "Jason I.", founded the Academia Naturae Curiosorum (Academy of Natural Curiosities) together with his colleagues Johann Michael Fehr, Georg Balthasar Metzger, and Georg Balthasar Wohlfahrt. This institution is known today as the German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina. It is one of the earliest scientific associations in Europe and the oldest academy in the world still in existence. Bausch led the society he had initiated, serving as its first president from the day of its founding until the end of his life.

Three years after the dicovery of the "Unicorn" of Quedlinburg, some time called "Magdeburg Unicorn", Johann Lorenz Bausch (1605–1665), a distinguished municipal physician in Schweinfurt and co-founder and first president of the Academia Naturae Curiosorum (today the Leopoldina National Academy of Sciences) summarized all known to him discoveries of unicorn fossils and discussed their origin.

In De unicornu fossili ad normam & formam Academiae Naturae-Curiosorum schediasma (An Essay on the Fossil Unicorn According to the Rule and Form of the Academy of Nature's Inquirers), published in 1666, Bausch discussed reports concerning so-called unicornu fossile (“fossil unicorns”) from various parts of the German-speaking lands. Among the historical reports he cited was a discovery made in Schwäbisch Hall in 1494. Referring to Annales Suevici by Martin Crusius, Bausch described the object as something “long and without branches” (longum sine ramis). He did not, however, identify it in this passage as a mammoth tusk or assign it to any particular fossil species.

Bausch discussed different theories concerning the origin of these “fossil unicorns”. He noted that the structure of some specimens resembled that of an elephant's tusk and that some scholars had consequently proposed an elephant origin. Nevertheless, Bausch himself rejected this interpretation and regarded the unicornu fossile as a mineral formation produced within the earth. He associated it with the concept of lusus naturae (“sport of nature”) and with the formation of minerals in the subterranean “womb” of the earth, referring to the mineralogical tradition represented by De Natura Fossilium by Georgius Agricola.

Bausch distinguished the supposed fossil unicorn from the unicorn of his own time, which he identified with the narwhal and its long tusk. He argued that the fossil specimens differed from narwhal tusks in their physical properties and morphology. They were described as exceptionally hard, dense, and solid, while some were heavily curved and hollow rather than straight and spirally ridged. In this respect, Bausch noted their resemblance to elephant tusks.

Hannibal's army crossing Alps on elephants on stamp of Guyana 1992. The famous Carthaginian general stems from the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE), during which Hannibal Barca launched a daring invasion of Europe by marching an army, including 37 war elephants, across the Iberian Peninsula, through southern Gaul, and over the formidable, snow-covered Alps into Italy. While most of his elephants famously perished during the brutal winter crossing and subsequent battles, the memory of this military feat lingered for centuries. As a result, when early modern naturalists unearthed massive, unidentified bones and tusks across Europe, they frequently attributed them to the remnants of Hannibal’s legendary army rather than recognizing them as native, prehistoric megafauna.

Some scholars therefore proposed that these fossil objects were the remains of elephants, perhaps animals that had perished during the Biblical Flood or even elephants associated with Hannibal.
Bausch considered such explanations problematic. Elephants were not native to northern and central Europe, yet objects identified as unicornu fossile were reported from numerous regions, including the Harz, Moravia, Silesia, Thuringia, Saxony, Hesse, Swabia, Switzerland, and Franconia. He questioned how Hannibal's elephants could account for such a wide geographical distribution and why the objects were found deeply embedded in the earth rather than scattered on the surface. He also observed differences between the fossil specimens and the tusks of living elephants.
According to Bausch's reasoning, an animal capable of carrying a skull with such an enormous horn would have had to be of extraordinary size - "comparable in size to a massive ocean-going merchant ship". He therefore rejected the elephant explanation and concluded that the unicornu fossile, whatever the form of the individual specimen, represented a distinctive mineral formation generated within the earth.

The first published paleontological reconstruction in Germany (1704)

Fountain of Klagenfurt on stamp of Austria 1968 MiNr.: 1256, Scott: 696.

The first documented attempt to reconstruct a prehistoric animal in Europe dates to around 1590, when a monumental Lindwurm (dragon) sculpture was carved in Klagenfurt, Austria. Its head was reportedly modeled on a fossil skull discovered near Klagenfurt around 1335, which survives and is still on display at the Landesmuseum für Kärnten.
In a study published in 1840, the same year that the first adhesive postage stamp, known today as the Penny Black, was issued in Great Britain, paleontologist Franz Unger (1800–1870) identified the skull as belonging to an Ice Age woolly rhinoceros, which he called Rhinoceros tichorhinus Cuvier (now Coelodonta antiquitatis), rather than to a mythical dragon.

The earliest surviving reconstruction of a prehistoric animal in Germany dates to 1704, when Michael Bernhard Valentini published a reconstruction of the Quedlinburg “unicorn” in his Museum Museorum. In the third volume, Chapter 30, entitled Von dem wahren und gegrabenen Einhorn (“On the true and fossil unicorn”), Valentini presented several aspects of the unicorn tradition, including a two-legged reconstruction of the supposed unicorn from Quedlinburg. He identified the specimen as a Unicornu fossile and stated that the skeleton depicted had previously been found near Quedlinburg and subsequently described by Johann Meyer, an astronomer and chamberlain of city.

Unicorns represented by Michael Bernard Valentini in Museum Museorum, published in 1704.

The accompanying illustration presented four forms associated with the unicorn tradition:

• Unicornu officinale – the "medicinal unicorn horn", represented by a narwhal tusk;
• Unicornu marinum – the sea unicorn, represented by a narwhal;
• Unicornu fictitium – the fictitious unicorn, represented as the traditional horse-like animal with a single horn;
• Unicornu fossile – the fossil unicorn, represented by the reconstructed Quedlinburg skeleton.

Valentini discusses the origins and medicinal properties attributed to different forms of the unicorn tradition. He explains that the Unicornu officinale used in pharmacies was the tusk of the narwhal, then regarded as a type of sea unicorn. These tusks were brought from Greenland by traders along with products such as seal skins and blubber.
He questions the existence of the traditional four-legged, horse-like unicorn, noting the large number of supposed "unicorn horns" found in treasuries, churches, and apothecaries despite the animal's supposed rarity. He also questions the exaggerated medicinal powers attributed to these horns, particularly their alleged ability to counteract powerful poisons.
Valentini then discusses the Unicornu fossile, describing fossil teeth and horns found in various regions, including the Harz Mountains, Hesse, the Palatinate, and Württemberg. He notes that their nature was disputed: some regarded them as petrified remains of animals or giants, while others considered them natural stone formations. Valentini mentions that Dr. Johann Bauhin supported the latter interpretation in his Tractatus de Unicornu Fossili, but leaves the question open for further investigation.

The Altdorf Vertebrae (1692–1708)

The fossils of the Ice Age Megafauna were not the only fossils that puzzled early naturalists.

Johann Jakob Scheuchzer on the cachet and commemorative postmark of Switzerland 1977	Ichthyosaur vertebrae from book of Johann Jakob Scheuchzer, published in 1708.

In 1692, Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (1672–1733), a Swiss physician and naturalist who studied at the University of Altdorf near Nuremberg visited the so-called Gallows Hill (Galgenberg) with a fellow student, who discovered a rock containing articulated vertebrae. Scheuchzer recovered several of the specimens and later incorporated them into his fossil collection.
In his Piscium querelae et vindiciae, published in Zürich in 1708, Scheuchzer illustrated two of the vertebrae and interpreted them as fossilized human remains, associating them with the Biblical Flood.

Johann Jakob Baier (1677-1735). Image credit: Wikipedia.

Platypterygius ichthyosaur on commemorative postmark of Germany 2005

Ichthyosaur vertebrae (Nr. 32, 33) from book of Johann Jakob Baier, published in 1708.

In the same year, Johann Jakob Baier (1677–1735), professor of medicine at the University of Altdorf, published his Oryctographia Norica, in which he illustrated other vertebrae from Altdorf. Baier rejected Scheuchzer's interpretation, identifying them instead as the vertebrae of a large marine fish. His interpretation was closer to the modern understanding, although the fossils are now known to belong to ichthyosaurs - marine reptiles that lived about 250 million to 90 million years ago.
The correspondence between Scheuchzer and Baier represents one of the earliest documented scientific debates over the origin and identity of fossil vertebrate remains. The Altdorf specimens are also among the earliest documented records of Mesozoic marine reptiles from Germany.

René Descartes and the Mechanical History of the Earth

René Descartes on stamp of France, MiNr: 1864, Scott: 1944.

In the 17^th century, the study of fossils and the history of the Earth increasingly became connected with broader attempts to explain nature through physical and mechanical principles. One of the most influential figures in this development was the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes (1596–1650).
In his Principia philosophiae (Principles of Philosophy), published in 1644, Descartes presented a hypothetical account of the formation and structure of the Earth.
In the fourth part, De Terra (“On the Earth”), he attempted to explain the Earth's present structure as the result of natural physical processes rather than simply describing it as a fixed creation.
Descartes imagined the early Earth as a hot body that gradually developed its present structure through cooling and mechanical processes. He discussed the formation of the Earth's layers, the origin of mountains and valleys, and the development of the oceans and other surface features. His account was highly speculative by modern standards, but his attempt to explain the Earth's formation through natural physical processes contributed to a new way of thinking about the history of the Earth.
Although Descartes did not specifically focus on fossils, this mechanical approach became part of the intellectual background to later geological and natural-historical theories of the late 17^th and early 18^th centuries, including the work of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and his Protogaea.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Another Reconstruction of the "Unicorn" of Quedlinburg (1716/1749)

In 1685, the Elector of Hanover, Ernst August, commissioned his court historian Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to write a comprehensive history of the House of Brunswick to advance the family's dynastic ambitions.

Between 1691 and 1693, as a preface to his planned history of the House of Brunswick, Leibniz drafted Protogaea.
Originally conceived as a natural history of the region around Lower Saxony, it developed into a much broader investigation of the formation and history of the Earth, including rocks, minerals, fossils, and geological processes.

Title page of the Protogaea by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, written in Latin.

Like René Descartes in his Principia philosophiae (1644), Leibniz proposed that the Earth had developed from an initially molten state through natural physical processes. Unlike Descartes, however, he sought to reconstruct the Earth's history from observations of rocks, minerals, strata, fossils, caves, and mining excavations. He also drew on the work of Nicolaus Steno, whose studies had established the importance of fossils and geological strata as evidence of the Earth's past.

Leibniz argued that many fossils were the petrified remains of actual living organisms rather than lusus naturae (“sports of nature”). A similar view had been advocated much earlier by the French naturalist Bernard Palissy in his Discours admirables (1580), in which he recognized many “petrified” objects as the remains of once-living organisms. Leibniz emphasized the striking similarity between fossils and living animals, noting that different species of fish could be recognized from their stone impressions. Fossils therefore became evidence of a buried natural history that could help reconstruct the Earth's past.

Leibniz's position on fossils had developed over time. In an earlier manuscript he had apparently questioned their organic origin, partly for theological reasons, but by the time of Protogaea he accepted the organic nature of many fossil remains. At the same time, he did not accept the transformation of one species into another. Although he considered the possibility that some creatures might have adapted to changing environments, he rejected the idea that terrestrial animals had evolved from aquatic ancestors, arguing that this conflicted with Scripture.

Leibniz also proposed that the Earth's surface had been profoundly transformed by slow natural processes. The forces operating within the Earth, together with the action of fire and water, had gradually shaped its rocks, strata, and landscapes. In this respect, Protogaea presented the Earth as a dynamic body whose present condition could be understood through its geological history.

Although Protogaea was never published in complete form during Leibniz's lifetime, parts of it appeared in print, beginning with an abridged version in Acta eruditorum in 1693. Leibniz continued to revise and expand the manuscript as new observations and information became available. Although Protogaea was never published in complete form during Leibniz's lifetime, the manuscript was eventually edited and published posthumously in 1749 by the German historian, jurist, and librarian Christian Ludwig Scheidt (1709–1761), then librarian and archivist in Hannover. The edition included 12 engraved plates.

The final Plate, XII, combines two fossil subjects.
The upper image shows a mammoth molar from Thiede near Stederburg, identified in the Latin caption as Dens animalis marini Tidae prope Stederburgum e colle limoso effossi (“Tooth of a marine animal excavated from a loamy hill near Stederburg”). The reference to a “marine animal” reflects the difficulty early naturalists faced in explaining large fossil remains found far inland.
The lower image depicts the reconstructed skeleton from the Quedlinburg find, with the caption Figura Sceleti prope Qvedlinburgum effossi (“Figure of a skeleton excavated near Quedlinburg”).
Leibniz reported that he had received a written account and a drawing of the discovery and incorporated them into the manuscript. The report and original drawing appear to have originated with Johann Meyer of Quedlinburg. Leibniz and the engraver Nicolaus Seeländer later modified and completed the reconstruction. The engraving became the best-known historical representation of the Quedlinburg “unicorn”.

Quedlinburger Unicorn comparison of reconstructions from: (a) Valentini, 1714, (b) Leibniz 1749, (c) Rust, 2002, (and (d) new interpretation). The “Unicorn” seem to have been composed of (e,f) two different Eemian interglacial Ice Age megamammals such as the straight-tusked elephant Palaeoloxodon antiquus (“horn” = tusk), and the horses Equus ferus fossilis/przewalskii (skull, front legs, anterior vertebral column and sternal bones), which explains the “horse-like” Unicorn reconstruction. (g) Unicornus fossilis illustration as a horse-like animal with narwhale horn (from Topsell, 1658 "Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. UH Digital Library") and (h) new illustration based on the reconstruction of (by George “Rinaldino” Teichmann) The figure is from Diedrich, C. G. (2021). Unicorn “holotype” skeleton from the Late Pleistocene spotted hyena den site Sewecken-Berge (Germany). Acta Zoologica, 00, 1–70. >https://doi.org/10.1111/azo.12392

While both Valentini's and Leibniz's reconstructions of the unicorn were based on the same lost fossil discovery, they reflect very different creative approaches.
Valentini's 1704 illustration is a raw, blocky, and direct copy of the original crude sketch by local official Johannes Meyer, serving as a simple archival record of a strange local curio. In contrast, Leibniz's 1749 plate is a highly stylized and dynamic transformation. Leibniz smoothed out the disjointed bone fragments, giving the creature a more mammalian, upright posture and a sweeping horn to present it as a cohesive, biologically plausible animal structure.

After the publication of the book, several scientists scrutinized this "Quedlinburg Unicorn" reconstruction and noted that its strange skull and fragmented bones heavily resembled those of a rhinoceros. However, because the field of historical biogeography was still in its infancy, these early researchers were at a total loss to explain how a tropical rhinoceros could have ever existed in the cold climate of Germany.

Today, paleontologists agree that the fossil skeleton is a composite created from the bones of multiple different Ice Age animals. Modern analysis demonstrates that the fossil configuration is a chimeric composite assembled from separate megafauna elements:

• The massive shoulder blades and leg bones of a woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius)
• The skull of a woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) or a horse
• The straight horn is probably a narwhal (Monodon monoceros) tusk—a young narwhal has a straight and smooth surface, without spiral grooves. Others suggest it may have been a tusk from a straight-tusked elephant, Palaeoloxodon antiquus, or even a tusk of a woolly mammoth if the tusk was broken up badly enough that the people who reassembled it had the freedom to make it any shape they wanted.
• The origins of the other unicorn bones, such as the ribs, remain unclear.

Skeleton of woolly mammoth on imprinted personalized stamp of Germany 2015	Woolly rhinoceros on stamp of Belgium 2018	Adult and young narwhal on stamp of USSR 1971

Recognition of the So-Called "Fossil Unicorn" as Elephant Remains

By the end of the 17^th century, fossil remains were increasingly being considered as possible remains of once-living organisms rather than merely as mysterious objects or curiosities. Nevertheless, scholars continued to interpret such discoveries within the intellectual and theological framework of their time. These developments helped prepare the way for the more systematic recognition of extinct animals and prehistoric worlds during the 18^th century.
A significant episode in this changing interpretation came with the discovery of fossil elephant remains at Burgtonna in Thuringia in 1695.

The Dawn of Comparative Anatomy: Burgtonna and Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1696)

In 1695, workers digging sand near Burgtonna unearthed the massive remains of a large prehistoric animal, including an enormous tusk measuring about 2.4 meters in length, several large molars, and numerous skeletal bones. Reflecting the popular folklore of the era, the local excavators initially misidentified the strange, tusk as the horn of a legendary "fossil unicorn" (unicornu fossile). The unusual scale of the remains immediately attracted widespread public attention.

Friedenstein Castle in Gotha on stamp of Germany 2018

Various explanations were proposed, including the possibility that they represented a biblical giant or a lusus naturae ("sport of nature"). The Collegium Medicum of Gotha became institutionalized in the debate by direct order of Duke Friedrich II of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg. Because specialized fields like paleontology and geology did not yet exist, state-appointed medical doctors were considered the highest academic authorities on organic anatomy and chemical mineralogy. Upon learning of the bizarre discovery, the Duke ordered the massive bones to be brought to Friedenstein Castle and tasked his sovereign board of court physicians with issuing an official report.

Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1659-1707).

Eager to defend the era's mainstream scientific consensus—which held that the Earth's climate had remained completely static since creation—the council aggressively rejected the notion that tropical megafauna could have ever existed in Germany. They argued instead that the bones were of mineral origin, growing directly within the soil in a manner reminiscent of the conclusions reached by Johann Lorenz Bausch in 1666, some three decades earlier.

However, Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1659–1707), the ducal court historiographer of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, approached the discovery with a more systematic method. He compared each of the fossil bones with the corresponding skeletal elements of a modern elephant, drawing on the detailed anatomical description of a living elephant published by the Irish physician and anatomist Allan Mullen in 1682, as well as the classical observations of Aristotle and Pliny, and the structural insights of modern naturalist John Ray.

In his 1696 treatise, Epistola de sceleto elephantino Tonnae nuper effosso ("Letter concerning the recently excavated elephant skeleton of Tonna"), Tentzel argued from anatomical similarities that the Burgtonna remains belonged to an elephant rather than representing a lusus naturae ("sport of nature") or the remains of a legendary giant. The regularity of the layers in which the skeleton was embedded, he further argued, showed that the remains could not have been placed there by human agency.
Tentzel therefore considered that the presence of an elephant in Thuringia required a general cause, which he explained through the Biblical Flood. Although this interpretation remained firmly rooted in the intellectual and theological framework of the late 17^th century, his use of comparative anatomy represented an important step toward the systematic identification of fossil vertebrates.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on stamp of Germany 1980, MiNr: 1050, Scott: 1329.

Tentzel's systematic methodology quickly drew the attention of Europe's learned elite, involving Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz directly in the international discussion via an intense scientific correspondence.
Intrigued by the Thuringian discovery, Leibniz used Tentzel's meticulous notes to expand the geological and biological theories he was compiling for his own treatise, Protogaea. Remarkably, Leibniz noted to Tentzel that "changes have taken place in the elephants themselves" — suggesting that these ancient creatures were structurally better adapted to cold northern regions than their modern counterparts.
This profound insight provided early hints toward evolutionary adaptation, helping Leibniz bridge the conceptual gap between living species and the petrified monuments of nature.

Palaeoloxodon antiquus on stamp of Nevis 2005, MiNr: 2096, Scott: 1450c.	Woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) on stamp of Jersey 2010, with its molar on attached label

Today, the Burgtonna fossils are recognized as remains of the extinct straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus), which inhabited Europe during the Pleistocene, approximately 2.58 million to 11,700 years ago. They should therefore not be confused with the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius).

Tentzel's interpretation was not immediately accepted, however. The controversy surrounding the Burgtonna fossils illustrates the gradual transition from traditional explanations of unusual fossil remains toward interpretations based on anatomical comparison and geological evidence.

A second elephant skeleton was discovered near Burgtonna in 1799, only about 15 metres from the site of the famous 1695–1696 discovery. The skeleton was found in a compressed and bent position and occupied approximately 6 metres. Its two tusks were about 3 metres long and had fallen from their sockets. Although much of the material was fragile and several bones crumbled during excavation, portions of the lower jaw, large molars, tusks, and other bones were preserved and carefully described. By 1799, there was no longer serious doubt that the Burgtonna remains belonged to an elephant. The principal questions had shifted to the age of the animal and its place in the history of the Earth. The Burgtonna discoveries therefore marked an important transition from identifying fossil remains to investigating their geological age and the existence of extinct species.

References

The Creationist Milieu: Early Natural History and Biblical Narrative

• Bible gateway

The Mammoth Tusk of Schwäbisch Hall

1494 discovery "Annales Suevici siue Chronica rervm gestarvm antiqvissimae et inclytae Svevicae gentis" by Martin Crusius, published in 1596 in Latin. Tübingen University Library, page 498. Mythical Unicorn Wikipedia Encyclopaedia Britannica Strange Science Unicorn of Schwäbisch Gmünd Gamundia Wiki (in German)

1605 discovery "Anchora Sacra, Vel Scorzonera, Ad normam & formam Academiae", by Johann Morhard in 1666 in Latin: Berlin State library. Dissertation of Johann Friedrich Beyschlag, published in 1734. in Latin: Munich digital library. "Johann Friedrich Beyschlags Dissertation von 1734 über das fossile Elfenbein von Schwäbisch Hall" (translation to German of the dissertation of Johann Friedrich Beyschlag), by Walther Ludwig & Hellmar Weber, published in Württembergisch Franken vol. 101 (2017), pages 99-125. Johann Lorenz Bausch (1652-1665) Wikipedia (in German) Leopoldina

Schwäbisch Hall Wikipedia official website (in German) St. Michael church in Schwäbisch Hall Wikipedia (in German) Recent discoveries Spiegel, 17.11.2024 (in German)

Cabinets of Curiosities and Court Collections

Cabinet of curiosities Wikipedia

Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden Wikipedia

Johann Bauhin (1541-1613) Wikipedia

Castle/Abbey Banz Wikipedia "Petrifacts of Castle Banz"

The "Unicorn" of Quedlinburg (The Magdeburg Unicorn)

• Wikipedia
• Natura History Museum of Magdeburg
• Philosophy Now
• LWL Landesmuseum (Das Einhorn von Quedlinburg – Zwischen Mythos und Archäologie)
• T. van Kolfschoten · A. Hesse · The Woolly Rhinoceros from Seweckenberge near Quedlinburg
• "DISCOVERING THE MAMMOTH - A Tale of Giants, Unicorns, Ivory, and the Birth of a New Science", by John J. McKay, published in 2018, ISBN: 978-1-68177-424-4. Pages 41-44.
• "Mammoth Tales" blog of John J. McKay - "Leibniz's Unicorn", from 3 June 2013

Personalities

Johann Meyer (1607–1665) "University of Bremen"

Michael Bernhard Valentini (1657-1729) Wikipedia "Museum Museorum", by Michael Bernhard Valentini, published in 1704

Otto von Guericke (1602-1686) Wikipedia "Experimenta Nova (ut vocantur) Magdeburgica De Vacu Spatio", by Ottonis de Guericke, published in 1672. Page 155 (Book 5, Chapter 3) contains short description about the unicorn discovery.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) Wikipedia

The Altdorf Vertebrae

Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (1672–1733) Wikipedia

Johann Jakob Baier (1677–1735) Wikipedia

Burgtonna and Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel

Mammoth fossil of Burgtonna Susanne Friedrich (2025) Tentzel and the elephant in the room. Inconsistencies in the history of nature and history of humans (not) being discussed when ‘fossils’ were found in Thuringia in 1695, Annals of Science, 82:3, 351-380, DOI: 10.1080/00033790.2025.2483296

Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1659–1707) Wikipedia (in German)