• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Porthleven Monster Of 1786

blessmycottonsocks

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
9,438
Location
Wessex and Mercia
Just what did wash up on Porthleven beach (Cornwall) in 1786?

After a huge overnight storm, two boys were exploring the coastline to see if anything of interest had been washed ashore.
They spotted what, at first glance, appeared to be an overturned boat but, when they approached, it showed signs of life.
Men from the village were called and they eventually hacked the creature to death.
Some detailed measurements and descriptions were taken though:

Total length 48ft.
Girth around the widest part of the torso, 24ft.
It possessed a navel.
Vaguely human-looking face, with green eyes and a flat nose.
Two short fore-limbs, the ends of which resembled "monkeys' paws".
Spread hind limbs (or some sort of tail-fluke) measuring 7 feet in width.

On reading the description, my initial thoughts were some sort of Elephant Seal, but the largest ever described only reached 23 feet.
Could this creature have been a Steller's Sea Cow, which may have exceeded 9 metres (30 feet), but which was thought to have been hunted to extinction decades prior to this incident?

cow.JPG



https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/day-sea-monster-half-mermaid-4302932
 
Not in the Atlantic.

And who took the measurements? Not the villagers, who were probably too interested in blubber.
 
Watercolour artist Charles Catton (1728 - 1798) depicted the Porthleven incident thus:

monster.JPG


The arms and fingers seem rather fanciful and don't look remotely like any known marine creature.
The head though vaguely resembles a huge turtle/tortoise:

turtle.JPG


Given that the original report compared the hard back of the creature to the shell of a turtle, could this have been an exaggerated account of a giant Atlantic Leatherback Turtle? The reports of a navel and fluked tail don't tally though. Furthermore, the largest known Leatherback Turtle had a length of 10 ft from nose to tail (https://conserveturtles.org/information-about-sea-turtles-leatherback-sea-turtle/), so unless those Cornish fishermen embellished the size of the beast by a factor of 4 or 5, it seems rather unlikely.
I guess we'll never know.
 
Last edited:
blessmycottonsocks said:
Watercolour artist Charles Catton (1728 - 1798) depicted the Porthleven incident thus:

View attachment 48593

The arms and fingers seem rather fanciful and don't look remotely like any known marine creature.
The head though vaguely resembles a huge turtle/tortoise:

View attachment 48594

Given that the original report compared the hard back of the creature to the shell of a turtle, could this have been an exaggerated account of a giant Atlantic Leatherback Turtle? The largest known Leatherback Turtle had a length of 10 ft from nose to tail (https://conserveturtles.org/information-about-sea-turtles-leatherback-sea-turtle/), so unless those Cornish fishermen embellished the size of the beast by a factor of 4 or 5, it seems rather unlikely.
I guess we'll never know.
Click to expand...

Charles Catton's (admittedly brief) Wikipedia entry states that he was born in Norwich, then apprenticed to a coach painter in London. He exhibited at the Royal Academy in Piccadilly every year. He died, in London, aged 70.

The above illustration, fascinating though it is, is most likely his interpretation of accounts he'd read of the monster, which - in this time period - were hardly likely to be understated...

maximus otter
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Total length 48ft.
Girth around the widest part of the torso, 24ft.
It possessed a navel.
Vaguely human-looking face, with green eyes and a flat nose.
Two short fore-limbs, the ends of which resembled "monkeys' paws".
Spread hind limbs (or some sort of tail-fluke) measuring 7 feet in width.
Click to expand...
That's a very detailed description and, apart from the dimensions, avoids sensationalism. No wings, scales, spines, savage claws, or fangs. Not a human face, but one that had some resemblance to a face. The reference to a navel implies a mammal. Someone had a good look at it, and tried to describe it accurately.

Assuming a circular cross section, for simplicity, a 24 ft girth is a diameter/thickness of about 7' 7", or 2.32 metres. That is substantially more than the height of a tall man.

48 ft is more than 14.5 metres long.

People living near the sea in Cornwall would know, or know of, the large creatures commonly seen locally. Everyone would be a fisherman or know a fisherman and there would be familiarity with basking sharks, dolphins, and the various whales and seals found in the area.

The description can be broadly reconciled with a Steller's sea cow, but if so, it was way outside its usual range. They were believed to be hunted to extinction only a couple of decades before this sighting, but the sea is a big place and there may well have been some survivors.

The creature was described as showing some signs of life. However, it is possible that this was movement caused by gasses in the corpse. If the creature was actually dead, but bloated and partly decayed, this would obviously affect its appearance.


maximus otter said:
...elastic tape measures...

maximus otter
Click to expand...
On a pedantic point, an elastic tape measure would produce shorter measurements than a standard one — at least if the elastic was stretched, otherwise it would give the same measurements! :)
 
Mikefule said:
That's a very detailed description and, apart from the dimensions, avoids sensationalism. No wings, scales, spines, savage claws, or fangs. Not a human face, but one that had some resemblance to a face. The reference to a navel implies a mammal. Someone had a good look at it, and tried to describe it accurately.

Assuming a circular cross section, for simplicity, a 24 ft girth is a diameter/thickness of about 7' 7", or 2.32 metres. That is substantially more than the height of a tall man.

48 ft is more than 14.5 metres long.

People living near the sea in Cornwall would know, or know of, the large creatures commonly seen locally. Everyone would be a fisherman or know a fisherman and there would be familiarity with basking sharks, dolphins, and the various whales and seals found in the area.

The description can be broadly reconciled with a Steller's sea cow, but if so, it was way outside its usual range. They were believed to be hunted to extinction only a couple of decades before this sighting, but the sea is a big place and there may well have been some survivors.

The creature was described as showing some signs of life. However, it is possible that this was movement caused by gasses in the corpse. If the creature was actually dead, but bloated and partly decayed, this would obviously affect its appearance.



On a pedantic point, an elastic tape measure would produce shorter measurements than a standard one — at least if the elastic was stretched, otherwise it would give the same measurements! :)
Click to expand...

Also, was the total length measured flat on the ground alongside the creature or from nose to tail, over the back of the creature's (possibly) bloated corpse?
If the latter, that would significantly inflate (no pun intended) the measurement.
 
This seems to be the contemporary report from 1786:
https://peter-moore.co.uk/blog/historical-miscellany-41-sea-monster-porthleven-cornwall/
(As reported in the Hereford Journal, Thursday 12 October 1786)


A description of Sea Monster found in Cornwall​


The following comes authenticated from a Gentleman of Morillian in Cornwall.


A JUST and particular description of a very curious and most surprising sea monster driven on shore in Portleaven Bay, [sic] on the coast of Cornwall, on the 14th of Sept. 1786, by the strong westerly winds and tempestuous weather, which continued to a violent degree for several days successively, and did much damage at that place and neighbourhood.


This monster was first discovered by two boys who (agreeable to the custom of that place) went in search of wreck soon after day break; and as they stood on the cliff which commanded a prospect of a small sandy cove, they, at a distance of about a mile, discovered something of enormous bulk near the shore, and which after a short time they apprehended to be the side of part of an unfortunate ship which had the preceding night been broken to pieces by the extremities of the shore: they immediately went towards the place with sanguine expectation of great success, and as they approached the spot (the breaking waves at times leaving it dry) they were both struck with the utmost consternation to perceive such motions as convinced them it was something which had life: They then hastened with great fear to some men of their acquaintance, and related what they had seen in a terrifying manner: –


At first their report was not credited, but after many strong and particular declarations of the fact, a great number of people soon collected themselves into a body, and determined to go armed, some with large sticks and pokers, others with hatchets, spits, &c. which was, after some deliberation, carried into execution. On their coming near the spot they perceived it to be something living, as was represented, and it raised its head, which had not before been perceived, and appeared to direct its course towards them. All were alarmed – some stood their ground, others possessed of greater fear turned back, they could see no legs to it, but it appeared to crawl on its belly, raising its body at times a little from the land. Various were the opinions about this creature; some said it was a Mermaid, others a Whale – but the greater number disbelieving the existence of the former, and adhering to the improbability of the latter, they were all equally at a loss.


When it was agreed to examine what it was, they all went towards it, and after an hour’s beating, stabbing it, &c. it expired with a groan. Its length was found to be from the top of its head to the end of its tail, 48 feet 10 inches, and its circumference in the largest part of its body 24 feet and a half: Its head was large, and prickly in the hinder part, and not formed much unlike that of a man; its eyes were greenish; its mouth large; its nose flat, and from its neck to the naval, resembling nearest to the human kind; its back was hard and more difficult to penetrate than the shell of a turtle; it had two short fore feet, formed like the paw of a monkey, and its hinder parts shaped something like the hinder part of a porpoise; it had a large fan tail, which when spread measured full 7 feet in width at the extent, and but 5 feet long.


It is supposed a large quantity of oil will be produced from it, which, with the shell of its back, and its fins, are judged, if properly managed, to be of great value, and will be of considerable benefit to this neighbourhood. No one that has seen it, knows its name, nor has any monster like it ever been described in record, or come within the knowledge of this kingdom.
Click to expand...

I wonder... could it have been one of the rare Beluga-Narwhal hybrids that thrived into adulthood and thus grew to much larger than usual size?
https://www.livescience.com/65757-first-beluga-narwhal-hybrid.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steller’s Sea Cow seems extremely unlikely to say the least. Their limited range was sub-arctic waters around various islands in the Bering Sea. They may once have also extended down the northern part of west coast US. That’s a long way from Cornwall.
 
Fascinating. Of course we also have Morgaw. I have posted on here already about the well educated, professional man who told myself and others a few years ago that in the 1980s he saw “a dinosaur in the sea” off Falmouth whilst volunteering for the National Trust. He described it as “powering out to sea” from the estuary mouth.

As it happens, I will be passing Porthleven tomorrow so I will keep my eyes peeled….

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/morgawr-cornish-sea-serpent.4719/page-2#post-2091334
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top