Artwork by Bill Asmussen of Bill's Hominid Artwork.* This is a personal analysis of the enigmatic sea creature that washed ashore in Margate, South Africa back in the 1920’s. Although this cryptid used to be the center of attention on this website, my faith in its being a unique species of animal has dwindled over time. Therefore, I have decided to write this essay in order to give information about this cryptid, to show my own reasoning regarding it, and to propose possible identities for it.
The most logical way to begin this is to recite the information about Trunko that has been distributed across many websites. Here is a typical summary that one might come across about the event that has brought this creature into the world of cryptozoology:
On November 1, 1922 on a beach in KwaZulu-Natal, Margate, South Africa, beach-goers were given a glimpse of a truly amazing battle out at sea. A giant, white sea creature appeared to be in combat with two whales. One of the witnesses, Hugh Balance, said that it looked like a “giant polar bear”. In a desperate struggle to survive, the strange monster used its lobster-like tail to strike at the whales, and at times rose its body as much as 20 feet out of the water. However, the creature’s efforts were in vain, as it died 3 hours into the battle.Later that night, the bloodless carcass of the unusual animal washed ashore, where measurements of its body were taken. It's body measured 47 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 5 feet high. Its unusual lobster tail was 10 feet long, and the entire body appeared to be covered in white fur, which was 8 inches long. Strangely enough, the animal didn’t seem to have any kind of distinct head. In its place, there was an appendage similar to an elephants trunk, which was 5 feet long and 14 inches in diameter. The presence of this trunk spawned a nickname for the creature: Trunko.
As intriguing as this beast was, scientists never took the opportunity to examine the carcass. Instead, it was left on the beach for 10 days, until finally the tide pulled it back out to sea. As with many cryptozoological stories, it was another case of a potentially important discovery being lost forever.
It should be noted that some of the information present in this stereotypical dialog contradicts information from other sources. One such piece of information is the date. Many websites claim that the event took place on November 1, 1922. However, according to an article published in London’s Daily Mail, entitled “Fish Like A Polar Bear”, the date is stated as being October 25, 1924. However, Dr. Karl P.N. Shuker notes that the event did indeed take place in 1922, according to his book From Flying Toads to Snakes with Wings. Hence, the exact date is still unclear to me.
Another set of contradictions is presented in another news article published in the Charleroi Mail, in Charleroi, Pennsylvania. This article, entitled “Whales Slain By Hairy Monster” claims that instead of being killed by the whales, Trunko ended up being the victor in the battle, slaughtering its two opponents. Although it also mentions the strange animal as washing ashore, it portrays it as still being alive, yet unconscious, upon its beaching. After a period of 10 days, the creature supposedly awakened, made its way back out to sea, and swam away, as opposed to the widely held notion that its dead body was pulled out to sea by the tides.
The stark set of contradictions present in these two separate news articles proves one thing: information can become altered over time, either intentionally or accidentally. With that being said, how can we know which parts of the accounts are accurate, and which parts are the result of rumor? It’s difficult to say, but this does allow for a more reasonable explanation of the sea beasts identity.
An Honest Mistake? Many features attributed to the Trunko carcass are similar to a brand of phenomena called “globsters”. Globsters are large masses of seemingly organic material that have been stranded on beaches worldwide. Typical attributes of these blobs include a covering of what appears to be fur, a white or diluted color, an amorphous structure, and starfish-like arms or octopus-like tentacles. Scientific tests that have been run on tissue samples from these masses have revealed that some of them are nothing more than decomposing whale carcasses.
Take for instance, a globster found at St. Bernard’s, Fortune Bay, Newfoundland in August 2001. The white carcass was over 18 feet long, and appeared to be covered with hair. DNA tests showed that the blob was from a sperm whale, and the “hair” was actually chafed tissue that was mixed with sand and seaweed. Decomposition had turned a recognizable sea creature into an exotic “monster”.
This globster is not the only one in possession of a hairy integument, however. The famous “Tasmanian Globster” was said to be covered in wool-like hair. The “Bermuda Blob”, another well-known globster, was white and fibrous. Another globster found at Dunk Island, off the Great Barrier Reef, had a hide that was tough and furry. The presence of hair or fur, along with the occasional mentioning of white coloration, brings to mind Trunko, doesn’t it?
The size of the Trunko carcass is also compatible with that of a whale. The humpback whale and the Bryde’s whale can reach lengths of 50 feet, and the sei whale and right whale can grow to 55 feet. All four of these species can be found off the coast of South Africa. It is reasonable then, that Trunko may have been nothing more than a whale carcass, in which decomposition produced both a loss of coloration and a fur-like covering over the body.
The trunk of the animal may also be explained by decomposition. As noted beforehand, some of these globsters seem to possess tentacle-like or arm-like projections. It may be that the “trunk” is similar to these appendages, in which tissue near the head of the whale rotted; leaving behind a tube of flesh that looked superficially like an elephant’s trunk.
The tail of the carcass was purported to have been similar to that of a lobster or prawn. This may also be the result of decomposition. As with all mammals, whales possess a segmented backbone composed of separate vertebrae. It is possible that the flesh surrounding the backbone near the tail of the whale had rotted away, revealing a long, white column of hard segments reminiscent of a lobster’s abdomen. There may have been masses of tissue surrounding each vertebrae, making it difficult to tell that it was indeed made of bone. If part of the flukes had rotted away to give a rounded appearance, then this may have resembled the uropods of a lobster as well.
The objection that I am likely to get at this point is that I am trying to identify Trunko with a dead animal, whereas witnesses claimed to have seen a living animal in battle with the whales. This may well have been a combination of misinterpretation and misinformation. As UFO investigator and nuclear physicist Stanton T. Friedman once said, “…people are good observers, they’re lousy interpreters…”.
It is possible that the two whales which attacked Trunko were Killer Whales, mainly because of their carnivorous habits (the distribution range of the Killer Whale includes the coast of South Africa). If we assume that Trunko was decomposing whale carcass that was floating off the coast, then a meat-eating denizen of the sea like the Killer Whale may well find it to be an intriguing meal. Killer Whales have also been known to play with their food, such as throwing seals out of the water.
With this in mind, it seems that the “battle” scenario between Trunko and the whales may have merely been a misinterpretation of play. These acts of thrashing, jumping and slapping their tails may have appeared to be fighting of some kind. Although the part about Trunko using its tail as a weapon is difficult to reconcile at this point, it may be yet another visual misinterpretation or exaggeration on the behalf of awe-inspired viewers.
This whale-carcass theory seems to be promising. It is capable of explaining the events that took place during this incident, including the battle and the physiology of the carcass, without having to resort to the inclusion of a new animal species. Since information from the event can and has been altered, as proven by the contradicting news articles, it is reasonable to believe that some of the more extraordinary morsels of this story are the result of eyewitness error and/or rumors. A similar explanation may apply to the Hoade’s Monster of Australia.
Biological Problems Another reason to believe that Trunko was not a genuinely new species is because of its unlikely assemblage of anatomical parts. It seems to combine attributes from mammals and crustaceans, two distantly related classes of animal. The marine biologist Ben S. Roesch believed that Trunko was a newspaper hoax “on the grounds of zoological implausibility alone”. Several problems with Trunko’s supposed anatomy should be noted.
The presence of fur suggests that Trunko was a mammal, but this poses a problem. Why would such a sea mammal need fur? In purely aquatic mammals such as whales and dolphins, bodily hair is very sparse and almost non-existent. The only sea-going mammals with what might be described as “fur” are those which venture out of the water occasionally, such as seals. Fur is apparently a hindering attribute for those animals which permanently dwell in the ocean.
This would suggest that Trunko did in fact venture out onto land at times. This poses another obvious problem: How does a 47-foot sea mammal pull itself onto land? There was no mention of any kind of limbs other than its tail, which could not have been sufficient for such a task. Other mammals of this size, such as whales, die if they are stranded on land. This is because there is nothing to support their enormous weight.
The same problem would almost certainly exist for any land-venturing Trunko. Also, if they did indeed lead such a semi-aquatic lifestyle, eyewitness reports of these creatures should be far more common than they are. After all, how can someone miss a giant, furry monster on the beach? Ignoring the previous problems, I still can’t imagine such a large creature having any amount of dexterity on solid ground, noting how it was never mentioned as having legs.
Another problem with identifying this creature as a mammal is the lack of blood on the carcass. Mammals, like all vertebrates have blood, and lots of it. If indeed a living specimen of sea mammal had fought two whales for a period of 3 hours, one would expect its body to sustain a large amount of injury, especially if it had been killed in the fight. It goes without saying that there should be prodigious blood loss. However, a complete lack of blood is what one would expect if the creature in question was a whale-formed globster.
The tail is further evidence that it was not a mammal. Likening the tail to that of a lobster is a very general description. It never really says “what” about the tail was lobster-like. Presumably, the tail must have seemed to have segments of some sort, and uropod-like structures at its end for a similarity to be drawn between them. This is suggestive of an exoskeleton, classifying it as an invertebrate. This is at complete odds with a mammalian identity. It is possible that the tail wasn’t exoskeletal, but rather was covered in armor of some sort, like a pangolin.
However, it doesn’t make sense for the tail to be covered in rigid armor plates, since it seems to be the only kind of propulsion that Trunko could have had. This would also make one wonder why only the tail is covered in tough plates, and not the whole body. The entire creature is just a paradox.
There is no creature, living or dead, that closely resembles this supposed animal. The species that is closest in appearance to this sea monster would probably be Tullymonstrum gregarium. This extinct invertebrate lived an aquatic lifestyle, and possessed a lengthy proboscis and a segmented tail. However, Tullymonstrum was between 2 and 12 inches long, far short of the 47 feet of Trunko. This creature is not thought to have possessed fur.
Final Thoughts Trunko is still a mysterious and thought provoking entity, even if its existence as an exotic form of life is unlikely. I still like to think about it, and how much I was intrigued upon first learning of it. It was so unlike the other creatures in marine cryptozoology, which are stereotypically serpentine or plesiosaur-like. It really stood out in my mind, and still does. This is part of the pleasure that one receives by studying cryptozoology, learning what may lie in the depths of the ocean, the trees of the forest, or the snow of the mountains, just waiting to be witnessed by mankind for the first time.
Just in case Trunko or related creatures thereof turn out to be a new, biological-defined species, allow me to propose a scientific name for them: Maritomammuthus alba, meaning "white mammoth of the sea". Of course, I am not in any position to formally name such a creature. My proposal is merely conjecture.
*This image was created by Bill Asmussen via my request. He said that the image was mine now, so I feel that it is okay if you use it on your website too.