#ottolatva — Public Fediverse posts

Why the giant squid is not the kraken, or a cryptid

The common association of the giant squid as the source animal of the kraken myth is oversimplified and erroneous. Giant squid were known by sailors and not seen as monsters.

It is widely accepted as “conventional wisdom” when speaking about the giant squid that the animal was the basis for the myth of the Kraken. Additionally, the giant squid is considered a cryptid that was successfully “discovered” to be a real animal. As fun and endlessly repeated as these ideas are, they simply aren’t true. Some modern zoology and history writers (such as Darren Naish in Hunting Monsters, 2016), have stated that the descriptions of the kraken do not fit that of a giant squid. But until 2023, there was not a reference that outlined the evidence against both common tropes. The Giant Squid in Transatlantic Culture by Otto Latva dissembles these ideas.

There are many books, even by respected naturalists, that repeat the giant squid-kraken association. However, none of them went on the proverbial deep dive to examine ship’s records and the depictions of sea creatures prior to the 20th century. Latva is a historian who has produced the “first historical inquiry into the giant squid”. In the process, we see the full scope of what seafaring humans thought of cephalopods through the lens of folklore, natural history, and utility. That outlook changed from the late 18th through the 19th century when concepts of animal taxonomy evolved, nature was seen as entertainment, and media became popular and expedient.

This is the quintessential image of the kraken (as octopus) by Pierre Denys de Montfort. It is an imaginative depiction – it did not really happen. But images are powerful vehicles for belief.

The kraken: a vague monster

Prior to the 18th century, the “kraken” was known as a traditional creature of ancient Scandinavia. It was said to be the most immense creature on the Earth, as big as an island, a mile and a half across. The stories are varied because we don’t have written records from 13th century sailors. Differentiating between the tales of the kraken, “krake”, “kraxen” or “krabben”, and the “hafgufa” is difficult. There was never a recorded sighting of the creature called the “kraken”. From the modern perspective, we can understand that the kraken was not any kind of known animal, but was more likely an overarching label for a variety of mysterious oceanic phenomena. However, that explanation didn’t make a good story.

Pontoppidan’s The Natural History of Norway (1753) introduced the wider public to the stories of the kraken alongside those of sea serpents and mermaids. Among the vague descriptions of a kraken was the claim that a carcass with long arms washed on shore and was identified as a young krake (interchangable with kraken). Yet other ideas about the kraken was that it resembled a huge starfish. Or it was a giant fish/whale. But nobody actually knew, because it wasn’t a singular creature. Therefore, it had no definitive form.

The distinct and strong association between the kraken and an enormous squid didn’t happen until later 19th century (and only by way of the reputation of the octopus or poulpe). In an effort to demythify folklore, and provide natural explanations, several writers linked the kraken to the giant squid and popularized that view. Their conclusion that Norwegian sailors used appearances of gigantic squid (of any species) to create the kraken tales was wholly speculative and without basis. Unfortunately, the association stuck even though the behavior, size, and description were all wrong.

Latva’s conclusion was that there was no historical evidence for the kraken as a derivative of sighting enormous squid by early shipmen. The modern assumption that the kraken had been a mystery creature until the giant squid was discovered ignores the complex cultural processes that created a false association and embedded it into popular culture. Writers like Bernard Heuvelmans (1958), Richard Ellis (1999), and others, didn’t have access to the bigger picture regarding the understanding of gigantic squid throughout history. The kraken = giant squid idea was a convenient and dramatic example used to make modern cryptozoology sound useful, exciting, and necessary. But it was faulty.

From fish bait to Cephalomania

According to ship records (particularly whaling ships), Latva showed that 18th century seafarers were curious about extra large squid they certainly saw. They may have been amazed, but they didn’t fear them. Large specimens were just an oversized version of the typical ubiquitous squid. The animals was not going to sink your ship. More importantly, they saw it as a useful bycatch for dog food and bait. No records or documented stories described the giant squid as a dangerous monster. Latva knocks down the often repeated trope that seamen always saw it as a mysterious monster. Instead, the historical records show they knew it pretty well and thought little of it. No mystery. No monster.

The monstrous reputation was culturally constructed in a particular time period based on certain factors. Natural historians could only speculate on the behavior of cephalopods (which they didn’t differentiate well). In the newly applied system of Linnean taxonomy, the octopus was recognized where the squid was ignored. Also, the octopus was assumed to be dangerous and to grow to gigantic proportions. Even though this was false, the rumors successfully spread. Sailors and writers propagated fanciful stories. Harmless encounters at sea were exaggerated to represent a dramatic battle with a huge, tentacled and ravenous creature trying to pluck men off the ship.

Giant octopuses only exist in the imagination.

Eventually, when enormous squid were recognized as specific animals, based on carcasses and body parts, the squid accreted the negative qualities attributed to the octopus by default. Ironically, we now know that octopuses do not get gigantic, even though some cryptozoologists like to assert that they do. It is some squid that get quite large. Still, no extant squid comes close to being the size of an island.

Turns out we didn’t need a bigger boat.

The monstrous version of the giant squid developed in about 100 years from the late 18th to end of the 19th century. Starting around the 1860s, transatlantic cultures experienced “cephalomania” – an interest in all things related to octopus, squid and cuttlefish. The animals were wanted for aquariums. Fictional depictions appeared in media for entertainment. They became a sensation.

The naming of Architeuthis dux, by Steenstrup in 1860, meant that it had a name. Eventually, Architeuthis became synonymous with “giant squid”, with the term used generically for several different species of enormous squid. It is unclear just how many species are in the Architeuthidae family but they occur worldwide. There is also the more massive colossal squid from the poorly known genus Mesonychoteuthis.

Clash of the Titans movie (1981) featured Zeus giving the order to “Release the Kraken.” There is no Kraken in Greek myth; it’s a Norse myth.

Not a cryptid or kraken, then or now

Casual discussion, on platforms and in media, play very loose with the definition of “cryptid”. What does it even mean to be a “hidden animal”? Why is it hiding? All common animals were once “known” solely based on encounter stories prior to the scientific age. It is incorrect to say an animal used to be considered “cryptid” if it was revealed to explorers in a new land who successfully sought it out and then found it in short order. It wasn’t hiding – it’s just that we weren’t looking in that place to find, collect, study, and name it. Recall that cryptozoology was only developed in the mid 20th century and the term “cryptid” wasn’t derived in 1983.

It is incorrect to call the giant squid a “cryptid” when it was already recognized by seafarers and shore natives. Those who represent the giant squid as a “cryptid” are projecting a false narrative onto its history. It was repeatedly found and even named prior to the 20th century! A cryptid has to be suspected, mostly through anecdotes, so that it gains enough attention for people to look for it. Finding a new creature by accident, prediction, or recognition is regular zoological discovery.

To say that it represented the “kraken” is also wrong in many aspects. Both “cryptid” and “kraken” are context-dependent. The kraken is a monstrous myth of the ocean that represented fear and was dramatized by imagination. It might have more likely been inspired by great whales but essentially it was a tall tale, a fictional entity by which no one living thing is representative. To take it to literally be a giant squid ignores key evidence.

Can we call the “kraken” a cryptid? No. In these modern times we know that many mythical creatures appeared in lore but did not represent a singular unidentified animal. We now know enough to say that the kraken, sea serpents, dragons, unicorns, etc. were symbolic, amalgamations, allegories, misinterpretations, or just entertainment.

Finally, it’s important to recognize that imagery in popular culture has a huge effect on how people perceive the subjects. Popular books and movies are effective at demonizing animals (e.g., Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas and Jaws.). The sensationalized and fictional depiction of giant squid as dangerous monsters was not based in fact, but it created a long-standing reputation. In cryptozoology, where there is an obvious knowledge gap, speculation quickly fills in for knowledge, then gets repeated over and over. After decades, everyone assumes the speculation was based on fact. More often than not, as we learn more, we find the speculation is baseless, erroneous, and is better off discarded.

I have no expectation that this reasoning will stop any of the kids on r/cryptids or the biology-illiterate journalists from naming the giant squid as the kraken of lore. Since this is Modern Cryptozoology, I feel confident in the position that we should leave the nonsense behind and move forward with better information. No doubt, many commenters will put up a fight because they love the cool story, it’s logical and defendable that we drop the “kraken” reference and stop calling the giant squid a “found cryptid”.

I recommend reading Latva’s book for the full story. Find it at your local academic library.
The giant squid in transatlantic culture : the monsterization of molluscs

#cryptid #Cryptozoology #giantOctopus #giantSquid #kraken #OttoLatva