Is There Archaeological Evidence of Bigfoot? (Part I)
In 2015, Mitchel Townsend was featured in an article that announced that they had found archaeological evidence of Bigfoot, the mysterious ape-man said to wander the woods in the Northwest of North America. The article “Proof of Bigfoot is in the bones, college instructor says” reported that Townsend had found stacked bones in the woods with evidence of large human bite marks, and that this was evidence for the existence of Sasquatch. At the end of the article, Townsend challenges scientists to refute their findings that the chewed bones they found are evidence for Bigfoot’s existence.
Challenge Accepted! Luckily for me, I have the wonderfully brilliant Lisa Bright as a colleague at MSU, and her research on taphonomy is cited in the Mills, Mills and Townsend study (not yet published). Today, I’ll be sharing the background and possible interpretations of what the bioarchaeology and archaeology of Bigfoot would be if there was evidence, and tomorrow Lisa will share her research and discuss the issues with the Mills et al. [Forthcoming] studies.
Sign on Pikes Peak Highway ( CC BY-SA 3.0 )
First, let’s get some background and history on the big hairy guy. Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch or Samsquanch if you’re a Trailer Park Boys fan, is a cryptid simian or ape-hominid creature that is said to inhabit the forests and woods in the Pacific Northwest region of the USA and Canada. Many native groups in this region have stories of wild or ape-like men, varying slightly by region and culture. The folklore ranges from stories about nefarious human-like beasts that will carry away children, to more benign creatures who hide in the woods and avoid the modern world. The first major compilation of stories about Bigfoot appeared in the 1920s, a collection of local tales by J. W. Burns. Burns’ articles took different native stories describing similar man-like beasts and argued that they were all evidence of a single entity, which popularized the name of Sasquatch.
- Wildman, Chinese Version of Bigfoot: Sightings, Scientific Tests, Theories
- The Australian Yowie: Mysterious Legends of a Tribe of Hairy People
- Another Human Hybrid? The Controversy Continues One Year Later
Records of Bigfoot sightings by non-natives in the USA begin around the 1850s, with records of hunters being felled by beasts who walked on two legs. Other stories from the 19th century include the “Wild Man of Crow Canyon” and “The Winsted Wildman” both reporting large hairy creatures that looked like men but were not human. In 1924, a prospector in Vancouver reported that he had been kidnapped by Sasquatch, and miners in Washington State reported that they were attacked by Wildman.
The famous Bigfoot sighting from “Patterson–Gimlin film frame 352” by Patterson-Gimlin film. ( Wikipedia)
The most famous sightings of the creature have been in the past half century or so. One of the most famous is the discovery of large barefoot prints found around a construction site in California in 1958. A construction worker took plaster casts of the footprints, and the event popularized the name ‘Bigfoot’ as a pseudonym for the beast. Years later, it was revealed that the foot prints were a hoax- the large feet were created by Ray Wallace, the brother of the construction crew’s overseer. Wallace’s nephew and other relatives shared the story and the pair of 16 inch wooden feet that were used to create the prints. Probably the best known evidence for Bigfoot is the Patterson-Grimlin video taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin in California, which documents a large creature taking long strides through the forest. Patternson and Grimlin had the video examined by experts from the special effects department at Universal Studios in Hollywood, who argued that “We could try (faking it), but we would have to create a completely new system of artificial muscles and find an actor who could be trained to walk like that. It might be done, but we would have to say that it would be almost impossible.” However, in 1999, Bob Heironimus, a friend of Patterson’s, said that he had worn the ape costume for the making of the film, and that the whole thing was a hoax.
Most scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot, considering it as a combination of folklore, misidentification and hoax. There is very little physical evidence for the creature and large numbers of the beast would be required to maintain the population (Despite this, a few researchers have focused their scientific work on the creature: see the work of Grover Krantz , Jeffrey Meldrum , and John Bindernagel ). Also, you can check out the work of Kathy Moskowitz, who tracks archaeological evidence of Bigfoot pictographs (Thanks to Jeb Card for sharing this with us!).
What would Sasquatch look like from a bioarchaeological perspective if we did find the remains of the creature? Reports of Bigfoot describe it as being between 5.9 to 9.8 feet tall, weighing between 320 to 1000 pounds, covered with black to brownish red hair, wide shoulders and hips, long arms with stubby hands and non-opposable thumbs, a large pronounced brow-ridge and a crest at the top of the skull. Many of these traits could be found in human remains- the lower range of height and weight, pronounced brow ridges, and hairier bodies are possible.
Primates without opposable thumbs includes the Marmoset... definitely no relationship to Bigfoot. ( CC BY 3.0 )
Other traits like the non-opposable thumbs would be obvious in the skeleton- opposable thumbs are found in most primates, so this trait would be very odd unless the creature is part human and part Tarsier or marmoset (which would be adorable but unlikely). The hair could be recovered from a burial if the conditions were correct- we find hair in burials where individuals are in dry or anaerobic conditions (like peat bogs). If we were actually to find a Bigfoot skeleton, it is likely that we would be able to identify it based on the irregular height and frame- if it was 8.9 feet and 1000 pounds it would have very large bones- and the lack of opposable thumbs would be very obvious.
- The Legend of the Fearsome Chupacabra in Puerto Rico
- Ten unusual archaeological discoveries
- Lovelock Cave: A Tale of Giants or A Giant Tale of Fiction?
Fossil jaw of Gigantopithecus blacki, an extinct primate. ( CC BY-SA 3.0 )
But we don’t have evidence of Bigfoot bones. According to the Bigfoot Evidence blog , the lack of bones is because they have gone missing. Their news articles report findings of large human-like skeletons around 7 to 8 feet tall, but argue that the Smithsonian Museum discounted them as fakes and they were lost. Robert Lindsay argues that full skeletal remains are rarely found in the woods, and that Bigfoot creatures likely bury their dead, making finding their remains near impossible. Lindsay presents evidence that there are records of Bigfoot burials every 4 years and deaths every 2 years- you can visit his blog for an extensive evidence list . For those who find Bigfoot evidence, he suggests that “there seems to be a government conspiracy to cover up Bigfoot existence dating back 31 years. Therefore, the state is not to be trusted one bit with Bigfoot evidence. Universities have a nasty habit of losing Bigfoot hard evidence, so we should not automatically turn evidence over to them.”
Is Bigfoot Real?
A couple of journal articles by Townsend claim that they have evidence of Bigfoot scavenging- stacked bones with large human-like teeth marks. In part 2, Lisa Bright will share her research and rebuttal of the evidence. Stay tuned!
Featured image: The famous Bigfoot sighting from “Patterson–Gimlin film frame 352” by Patterson-Gimlin film. Photo Source. Wikipedia
By Katy Meyers Emery and Lisa Bright
The above article, originally titled ‘ Challenge Accepted: Is there archaeological evidence of Bigfoot? (Part I) ’ by Katy Meyers Emery and Lisa Bright was originally published on Katy Meyers Emery’s blog ‘ Bones Don’t Lie’ and has been republished under a Creative Commons License.
They're real, and they're people, not animals. Most people never mention what to me is the most compelling evidene shown in the Patterson film: it's a FEMALE Sasquatch.
I recently watch a very long, detailed analysis of the patterson film, and with the start/stop and zeroing in on sections of frames, the film actually shows there were three other sasquatches in the forested background when this female was caught out in the open. Also, I've read that the first sasquatch reports that ever made newsprint in N. America occurred in three counties in Eastern Arkansas in the 1840s and was printed in a Memphis newspaper (Memphis Enquirer). This creature was tracked to a swamp in Southeast Missouri. After the Civil War broke out, there were no more reports for a long time, but just at the turn of the 1900s there was a rash of sightings on the Tennessee side of the Mississippi River, about 20 miles or so North of Memphis. There are several forested islands as well as sizeable Cypress swamps in this area. All the locals living here were aware of this creature's presence but never spoke to outsiders about it. After several years it dropped out of sight again but reappeared in the early 70s. The area is now a nearly 14,000 acre State Park that's wilder and more heavily forested than it ever was before. On one occasion, after a bad ice storm , some of the maintenance crew were dispatched to a one-way road running along the crest of the Chickasaw Bluff, to clear the road of fallen trees and branches. In the afternoon, one worker who had been dropped off at the South end to work his way to meeting up with the others on the North end, had stopped to rest an wait for those others to come pick him up----it was almost quitting time for the day. He sat on a log and waited, listening to the others with their chainsaws still running. He said that suddenly a "bear" walked out of the woods on the East side of the road "on its hind legs" and stood there in the road looking and listening to the chainsaws in the distance for a minute. It then stepped off the West side of the road and down the bluff, disappearing into the Bottoms, never once dropping down on all-fours. The man said he had never heard of a Sasquatch/Bigfoot before and still swore it was a bear.
I still consider myself an ametuer in the Bigfoot field. However there is slot of false fluff in the article. The film was digitized in 2012. The features seen cannot be reproduced today. ( Muscle movement, gate, size, and foot movement) there a thousands of foot casts and a fake can be recognized emedeately by meldrem. Melbas work on DNA can't be faked. The next generation machines used to do the 3 nuclear DNA studies can't be faked. Bfro website has 44,000 sighting reports. While only one has to be true a skeptical would have to explain away all 44,000. While idiots from the city will say misidentification anybody who spends time in the woods can identify any known animal in seconds. The article is lacking in info and therefore gives the opinion that Bigfoot is mythical. It's proven with all scientific methods and all skeptical concerns have been addressed. It's real.
I remember seeing a documentary about the Patterson film where and anthropologist (I think) said that the creature in the film didn’t walk like a human in an ape suit. Something about the way the creature turned its entire body when it looked behind itself instead of turning just the neck as a human would. Sorry I can’t remember more, or the name of the documentary; it's been several years since I saw it
"However, in 1999, Bob Heironimus, a friend of Patterson’s, said that he had worn the ape costume for the making of the film, and that the whole thing was a hoax." Maybe Bob just wanted his "15 minutes of fame" and claimed he did it.