The Devil's Footprints: Devon's Snow Mystery (1855).
On the morning of 9 February 1855, people across a wide stretch of snow-covered Devon woke to find a strange trail running through their world: a single line of small, hoof-like prints, set neatly one in front of another, stretching — the newspapers said — for a hundred miles, passing through fields and gardens, up to walls and out the other side, over rooftops, and even, it was claimed, across the mouth of a river. Whatever had made them seemed to have walked in a straight, untiring line through the night, ignoring every obstacle a normal animal would avoid. Devon decided, half in jest and half in dread, that the Devil had taken a walk.
AnomalyDesk is reader-supported. Articles may contain affiliate links to books and primary-document collections. Read our full funding disclosure.
What the Devil's Footprints case is, in a paragraph.
The “Devil's Footprints” refers to a celebrated anomaly reported in South Devon, England, in early February 1855. After a night of fresh snowfall (the night of 8–9 February), residents across a broad area — including the towns and villages around the Exe estuary, such as Topsham, Exmouth, Dawlish, and Teignmouth — reported finding a continuous trail of small hoof- or cloven-shaped prints in the snow. As described in the contemporary press (notably The Times and the Illustrated London News) and in local accounts, the marks were roughly four inches long, broadly horseshoe- or hoof-shaped, and arranged in a single line of single prints, one directly ahead of the next, as if made by a biped or by something walking a tightrope-straight path. The reports claimed the trail extended for a very long distance (figures of up to about 100 miles were cited, though this surely aggregates many separate stretches) and, most strikingly, that it continued across obstacles that should have broken or diverted an ordinary animal's track: over high walls, across rooftops, through hedges, up to and apparently emerging from drainpipes, and even spanning the estuary. These “impossible” features, combined with the cloven shape and the unsettling regularity, prompted fearful talk of a supernatural or diabolical origin among a public still steeped in folk belief. From the beginning, however, naturalistic explanations were offered, and they remain the basis of the modern view. No single cause is universally accepted, and the likeliest reality is a combination of factors: a variety of ordinary animals (badgers, otters, rodents such as wood mice or rats hopping, cats, dogs, birds, and escaped or wandering domestic animals) leaving tracks that, partly melted and refrozen, looked hoof-like and similar to one another; weather and thaw effects that distorted and standardized prints; observers connecting separate, unrelated sets of tracks into a single imagined “trail” spanning impossible distances; and likely some hoaxing and embellishment in the retelling. Specific candidates proposed over the years have included hopping rodents, a loose kangaroo (a pair were reputedly kept locally), a weather balloon trailing a shackle, and atmospheric/static effects, none entirely satisfactory on its own. The crucial point made by skeptical analysts is that the “impossible” continuity — the same creature crossing the river and walking over roofs for a hundred miles — almost certainly never happened as a single physical trail, but is an artifact of many local observations being woven together by rumor and the press. The Devil's Footprints is therefore a genuinely historical event — people really did find odd tracks in the snow over a wide area — whose enduring “mystery” is mostly a product of aggregation, distortion, and Victorian storytelling, even though no single tidy explanation accounts for every reported detail.
The documented record.
The tracks were real and widely reported
The event is contemporaneously documented. Verified In early February 1855, hoof-like prints in fresh snow were reported across a wide area of South Devon and covered by the national and local press, including The Times and the Illustrated London News [1][2].
The prints' appearance
The form was distinctive. Verified Witnesses described small (around four-inch), broadly hoof- or horseshoe-shaped marks arranged in a single-file line, which gave the impression of a deliberate, biped-like walk [1][2].
The “impossible” continuity claims
These are the disputed core. Disputed Reports that one continuous trail crossed walls, roofs, hedges, drainpipes, and the estuary for up to 100 miles are the source of the legend; analysts hold these almost certainly aggregate many separate track-sets rather than a single physical trail [2][3].
Naturalistic explanations
Mundane causes were proposed at once. Disputed From 1855 onward, observers attributed the marks to assorted animals, thaw-distorted tracks, and misperception, with later candidates including hopping rodents, escaped animals, and weather effects; no single explanation is universally accepted [1][3].
The competing positions.
The supernatural and anomalist framing takes the “impossible” features at face value — a single trail crossing every obstacle for a hundred miles — and concludes that no natural animal could have made it, leaving a genuine, perhaps diabolical, mystery. Claimed This view, originating in 1855 folk reaction, persists in cryptozoological and Fortean retellings [4].
The naturalistic position is that the event was a wide-area scatter of ordinary, thaw-distorted animal tracks — from several species — that looked alike and were stitched by rumor and the press into one impossible journey, with some hoaxing added. Disputed This archive treats the tracks as real but the single-continuous-trail as a myth of aggregation, regards a combination of animals, weather, and storytelling as the best explanation, and notes that the absence of any one perfect culprit reflects that there was probably never one cause to find. The case is unresolved only in its details, not in its essential character [2][3].
The unanswered questions.
A single confirmed cause
No one explanation fits everything. Unverified Because the reports likely combine many separate track-sets, no single animal or process accounts for every described feature, and none has been confirmed [1][3].
The reliability of the “continuity”
The impossible details are unverified. Disputed Whether a trail truly crossed roofs and the estuary, or whether these are press embellishments and misread separate tracks, cannot now be established [2][3].
The role of hoaxing
How much was faked is unknown. Claimed The extent to which deliberate hoaxing contributed to the trail or its legend is undetermined [3][4].
Primary material.
The accessible record on the Devil's Footprints is held principally in these sources:
- February 1855 newspaper coverage, including The Times and the Illustrated London News.
- Local correspondence and parish accounts from the Devon towns involved.
- Contemporary letters debating the cause (animals, weather, hoax).
- Later Fortean and folklore compilations that preserved and amplified the story.
- Modern skeptical and zoological analyses of the tracks and the continuity claims.
Critical individual sources include: the 1855 press reports; the contemporary explanatory correspondence; and modern analytical reconstructions.
The sequence.
- Night of 8–9 Feb 1855 Snow falls across South Devon.
- Morning, 9 Feb 1855 Residents across many towns find single-file hoof-like prints in the snow.
- Following days The national and local press report a continuous trail crossing walls, roofs, and the estuary; supernatural alarm spreads.
- February–March 1855 Correspondents propose animal, weather, and hoax explanations; no consensus forms.
- Later The case becomes a staple of Fortean and folklore literature; modern analysis favors mixed mundane causes plus aggregation.
Cases on this archive that connect.
Spring-Heeled Jack (File 252) — a contemporaneous Victorian panic over an “impossible” figure.
The Beast of Gévaudan (File 249) — another case where folklore overran a real but mundane core.
The Marfa Lights (File 235) — a natural phenomenon read as uncanny before explanation.
The Loch Ness Surgeon's Photograph — a case where embellishment and hoax built a legend.
More related files coming as the archive grows. Planned: track anomalies and the aggregation of separate sightings into one “impossible” event.
Full bibliography.
- February 1855 press coverage of the Devon footprints (The Times, Illustrated London News, and local papers).
- Contemporary correspondence proposing animal, weather, and hoax explanations.
- Fortean and folklore compilations preserving the case.
- Modern skeptical and zoological analyses of the 1855 tracks and the continuity claims.