When a monstrous carcass washed up on the shore of Stronsey, it ignited a mystery that still hasn't been cleanly resolved today. Without further ado, let's dive into...
- The Stronsay Encounter
- Witness Testimony
- The Sketch
- The Debate
- Suspect One: Basking Shark
- Suspect Two: Whale Shark
- Suspect Three: Oarfish
- Suspect Four: Something New
- The DNA
 |
| Orkney is a place well suited to myth and legend... (Ryan Denny) |
The Stronsay Encounter
It was the September of 1808 when an Orkney fisherman saw seagulls wheeling around a strange shape caught on a skerry (small rocky islet) off Rothiesholm Head. They appeared to be attracted by a strange piece of carrion (possibly washed up by a storm) but the rocks made direct examination tricky.
Ten days later another storm moved the remains to the shore, where some of the locals could take a good look. The creature was around 55ft long (and had a 10ft long neck) with a head that resembled that of a sheep or seal. The skin of the creature was gray and interestingly, was smooth if rubbed one way, rough if rubbed the other. The alien appearance was capped off with what seemed to be six limbs and a mane of bristles that had a faint glow to them.
Witness Testimony
We actually have witness statements about the creature thanks to an investigation by the local justices of the peace - the accounts were recorded by a clerk however, so they're not actually direct. You can read the testimony here but I've summarized below.
1. Thomas Fotheringhame
The carpenter Thomas Fotheringhame claimed to have measured the body with a foot-rule, citing it as being 55ft in length and with a 10ft, 3 inch distance between the shoulder and the ear (i.e. the neck.) He also described the creature's "wings" (fins or arms) as resembling a goose wing denuded of feathers, a depth of 4ft between the back and the belly along with a body shape more oval than circular. The skin elastic, gray and devoid of scales, and it was rough when rubbed towards the head, but smooth when rubbed towards the tail - something which sounds suspiciously like shark skin.The eyes were described as quite small - no larger than a seal, while the creature also seemed to possess two "spout-holes" on either side of the neck, each slightly more than an inch across.
The creature's throat seemed to be narrow (narrower than his hand) and the lower jaw resembled that of a dog - but what resembled teeth was soft, so soft that they could be bent by hand. The stomach was around the size of a ten gallon cask (though it had ruptured) and the bowels matched those of a cow in size.
He also described a mane of bristles (around 2 to 2.5 inches across) running from the shoulder to just shy of the tail. These shined (and were even described as luminous) when wet but shriveled and turned yellow when dry. This may not be as strange as you'd expect - decaying fish can glow thanks to bioluminescent bacteria!
 |
| More than one witness measured the carcass with a foot rule... (nadjadonauer) |
2. John Peace
The farmer John Peace was the man who first discovered the carcass, which at first glance he thought was a dead whale. He described realizing it was different from a whale "particularly in having fins or arms." He took a closer look and found that the fin nearer the head was larger than those further down the body, and seemed to be surrounded a row of 10 inch long bristles. These were missing by the time the carcass washed up on shore.
Peace also claims the creature was 54-55ft in length and had six "wings." Finally, he described its stomach as being the thickness of a half anker cask (5 imperial gallons) but around four foot long.
3. George Sherar
The tacksman (a minor Scottish leaseholder who sublet land) George Sherar also used a foot rule to put the creature at 55ft in length, noting that it had a hole in the top of its skull as well as the ones in the side of its neck. He said that the creature's body had a 10ft circumference and supported the claims that the bristles were luminous in the dark.Interestingly, he noted that the limbs were jointed at the "shoulder" like those of a cow, and that the bones were gristly like those of a halibut except the back bone, which was the only solid bone in the body. Interestingly, he claimed that the throat seemed wide enough that he might have put his foot through it.
It seems like Sherar got his hands dirty, since he described the flesh of the creatures as being like coarse, ill colored beef, interspersed with a fatty or tallow-like substance that neither flamed nor melted when held over a fire, instead simply burning away. He also claimed that the limbs were not attached with a ball and socket joint, instead overlapping somehow. Finally, he mentions the presence of two canals near the backbone (one above and one below) big enough to put a finger inside.
4. William Folsetter
The testimony of another tacksman called William Folsetter focused on the stomach. There's not a great deal to add here, except that organ seemed to have membranous subdivisions, that part of it resembled a weaver's read (a comb-like frame) and that it contained a fetid reddish liquid like water and blood.
 |
| Storms washed the Stronsay Beast ashore, but took their toll on the carcass... (JOHN TOWNER) |
The Sketch
Working from the heavily decayed remains and eyewitness testimony, David Petrie created sketches of the beast (a little bit like a cryptid police sketch, I guess) that the witnesses agreed was a reasonable (if not 100% accurate) likeness. It depicted a creature with a serpentine, maned body and six limbs, capped with a small head not unlike that of a sheep.
The Samples
Researchers didn't have to rely solely on eyewitness testimony - several samples were taken from the carcass, reputedly including the skull, upper jaw, some bristles, a portion of skin and several vertebrae. Unfortunately most of these relics seem to have vanished over time, being spread out in different collections before either going missing or being destroyed. We do have some drawings of the skull and "paw" (or fin, or flipper - you get the idea) along with a depiction of the vertebrae, however.
That said, some samples seem to have resurfaced at Orkney's Stromness Museum for the 2026 "Sea Stories" exhibition - though there doesn't seem to be much to work with!
The Debate
It wasn't long before the Stronsay Beast captured scientific attention - two of the preeminent comparative anatomists in Britain weighed in on the creature, but came to radically different conclusions.
Dr John Barclay was a Scottish anatomist, and his identification of the remains was rather fantastical. Working from vertebrae and sketches, he came to the conclusion that the carcass was that of a mighty sea serpent.
His opinion seemed to go down fairly well with Edinburgh's Wernerian Natural History Society, and secretary Patrick Neill proposed to name this creature Halsydrus pontoppidani in honor of Erik Pontoppidan, an 18th century Norwegian Bishop who'd written about sea serpents, kraken and more.
Sir Everard Home had a different and much more mundane opinion. Working from the upper jaw, skull, a fin and vertebrae, he concluded that the monster had in fact been a basking shark - these fish tend to lose their oversized lower jaws as they decay, while their remains can take on a rather strange appearance.
It is worth pointing out, however, that Home disregarded any of the eyewitness testimony that didn't fit his theory. For example, he claimed that the carcass must only have around 30ft long because that's the length you'd expect a basking shark to be. This, to put it bluntly, is bad science. No matter how sure you are, you cannot go around changing inconvenient evidence to fit your personal theory. The fact that the Orcadians were likely fairly familiar with basking sharks (they were islanders in basking shark infested waters) had testified under oath didn't seem to matter to him.
 |
| Take away the lower jaw and you have a small head... (Anonymous) |
Suspect One: Basking Shark
The basking shark is the most commonly accepted explanation for the monster. Not only do basking sharks frequent the waters around Orkney, drawings of the monster's vertebrae do seem similar to those of these fish.
One can also explain away the six wings, limbs, fins or whatever you want to think of them as. Not only do sharks typically have two sets of fins (pectoral and pelvic) on the sides of their body, male sharks have a set of claspers used in reproduction that could be mistaken for a third set of fins. Basking sharks also have an anal fin that, if damaged and split by the water, might resemble another set.
While basking sharks do have teeth, they are pretty tiny and the fish relies on bristly structures called "gill rakers" to filter food from the water.
The problem with the basking shark theory is the eyewitness testimony. The largest basking shark we've been able to measure was 40ft, which puts it a full 15ft shy of the monster. There's also the fact that a group of islanders (including fishermen) did not identify it as the familiar fish.
Suspect Two: Whale Shark
As the biggest fish on the planet, the whale shark does away with the problem of size - the largest on record was 61.7ft long, meaning it's easily big enough to have been the monster. They don't frequent the waters around Orkney though, and would have to be carried from warmer waters by ocean currents to reach the Scottish archipelago. Given that a such a trip (perhaps riding the Gulf Stream) would take months, it seems unlikely that a sick, dying or dead whale shark would reach Orkney before breaking up.
There's also the fact that the head of a whale shark is a huge, broad affair - which doesn't match the small head of the monster at all.
 |
| Whale sharks are the largest known fish on Earth (naushad mohamed) |
Suspect Three: Oarfish
There's actually a fish that really does resemble a sea monster - the oarfish. These bony creatures have long, thin bodies devoid of scales, instead having silvery-grey skin coated in guanine crystals. Their reddish dorsal fin runs the length of their body, while their pelvic fins are surprisingly close to the head and elongated into an oar shape. They also have a habit of swimming vertically in the water, which may have caused them to be mistaken for sea serpents in the past.
These really are alien looking creatures, and they can grow to impressive sizes. The Guinness Book of Records considers them the longest bony fish, with some unconfirmed estimates reaching 50ft in length. They are also bioluminescent... but they lack the appendages of the Stronsay Beast. Only one set of an oarfish's side fins are large - and they have a distinctive, elongated shape that widens at the end (like an oar.)
Suspect Four: Something New
Given that nothing known completely fits with descriptions of the Stronsay Beast, it shouldn't be a surprise that people have claimed it was everything from a new kind of giant fish to the Nessie's cousin. There's not really any supporting evidence for any individual claim, but sharks do come in all kinds of weird and wonderful shapes and sizes - so I wouldn't discount it entirely.
Rather more outlandish is the claim that the creature was a mighty sea serpent - but that's the theory Dr John Barclay supported.
The DNA
You might think that, in the modern era, it would be a simple matter to analyze the DNA remaining in the samples and confirm the species of the beast. Sadly, those in charge of the few samples that remain have been loath to send them for testing - and there's no guarantee that such a test would be fruitful anyway.In summary, while it seems likely that the monster was indeed the decaying remains of a basking shark, the fish would either have had to have been one of prodigious size (far longer than has ever been recorded) or several eye witnesses would have had to have lied under oath. Without DNA evidence, we'll probably never know with 100% surety. Still, if you ever find yourself in the waters of Orkney, keep your eyes peeled and your wits about you!
Thanks for reading - click here to read about the Gloucester Sea Serpent, or try...