Two of my inspirations for this little blog are Dr. Darren
Naish’s Tetrapod Zoology
and youtuber Treytheexplainer
If you follow them (and you really should), you’ll notice they’re interested in
the quasiscience of cryptozoology. Cryptozoology is the analysis and
speculation on evidence of previously unknown species of organisms. It can also
apply to the study of out-of-context finds of known taxa in new times and
places. “Cryptids”, known from all forms
of inconclusive evidence, include everything from mythical monsters to
prehistoric survival speculation to simply animals of known clades that can’t
be verified as a specific taxon. Like
the aforementioned personalities, I think cryptozoology does deserve attention,
albeit critical. In college, I was trained in anthropology, and that combines
with my knowledge of zoology and paleontology to provide a pretty unique perspective
I would say.
In my opinion, the best books of this are Darren Naish’s
Cryptozoologicon https://www.amazon.com/Cryptozoologicon-I-Darren-Naish-ebook/dp/B00GDF7OAK,
Daniel Loxton’s Abominable Science https://www.amazon.com/Abominable-Science-Origins-Nessie-Cryptids/dp/023115321X,
and David Daegling’s Bigfoot Exposed https://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Exposed-Anthropologist-Examines-Americas/dp/0759105391.
I myself have had an interest in mythical animals and their possible veracity. I
guess there’s a logical link there; cryptids are often proposed to be
descendants or relics of prehistoric animals, and may often be inspired by
people finding fossils or remembering their prehistoric neighbors. I think
another reason is that prehistoric animals really are mythical monsters in real
life; they’re our dragons and unicorns and centaurs and giants, only they’re
real.
At any rate, I’m going to talk about the most famous North
American Cryptid, the Sasquatch or Bigfoot. The word Sasquatch comes from the
Halkomelem Salish peoples, a variety of different tribes living in British
Colombia near Vancouver. The name is originally Sekuts, and the story is that
they are a tribe of giant supernatural wild people connected to the forests,
who can bless or eat people who come across them depending on their judgement.
They are hairy, wearing few clothes, and associated with rival tribes, bears,
and white men; dangerous and powerful folk.
They are the equivalents of centaurs, fairies, elves, and trolls;
half-natural people with amazing power that hide in the wilderness that should
be left alone at all costs.
There are so many descriptions of what these Sasquatch are
originally, but the general idea is a giant humanoid primate covered in hair.
My personal history involves sightings…in popular culture. My childhood fear of
great apes for their uncanny humanlike appearance led to a similar fear of
these apemen. Even the benign, goofy sasquatch of the sitcom Harry and the
Hendersons and the simple stop-motion Abominable Snow Monster of Rankin Bass’
Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer gave me nightmares. Like most of my fears, it
turned into fascination and curiosity as I grew older.
Where paleontology comes into it is how it could explain the
legend, carried on through the present by constant sightings and humanlike
footprints. When all you’ve got is “big primate”, you can find a lot of
different possible explanations. We can eliminate prosimians right off;
although their nocturnal habits and former range in North America makes them
amusingly more fitting than other primates in those respects. New world Monkeys
are often dismissed considering their small size and arboreal habits; however,
apemen have been part of South American stories as well, and a Dr. Francois De
Loys once tried to pass off a large spider monkey as a new anthropoid ape.
As a rule, Old World Monkeys are never considered as apes
fit the bill much better than their cohabitants. So we come to the apes. One prehistoric ape considered was the very
widespread, long-lived Miocene ape Dryopithecus. Dryopithecus had large teeth
but a gracile jaw, and the long arms suggest it was an arboreal animal. Early
paleoanthropologists thought it might have been an ancestor to humans, but
determining that it was this specific taxon that gave rise to the Australopiths
is almost impossible to acertain considering how generalist and arboreal the
animal seems to have been. One connection is the oak forests (hence the name)
that the animal was found from, but the subtropical environment may have had
more fruit bearing trees as well. Another argument is the ratio of arm length
to height within human proportions; this fails as many other unspecialized
great apes have the exact same limb length, and the limbs are shaped for
quadrupedal limb-running. Finally the
jaw is similarly gracile like that of a human…or a gibbon or monkey.
Australopithecus has the same kind of weak jaw, which distinguishes them from
the genus Paranthropus. Again, this just shows a frugivore morphology, not a
direct link with hominins. We just happened to keep our jaws weak through a
soft food diet. I’ll write about
Dryopithecus later, so stay tuned for more on this ape.
The most popular explanation is Gigantopithecus, the largest
ape that ever lived. The reason is that
Gigantopithecus is fairly enigmatic itself, as it’s only known from a few
mandibles and a hundred teeth. This
fragmentary nature allows for wild speculation on what this animal looked like.
However, we can tell a lot from what we do know. The jaw is a scaled-up version
of an orangutan jaw, suggesting a giant orang. Gigantopithecus has been found
alongside its relatives Sivapithecus and orangs, and is almost certainly a
member of their clade. That would exclude them from becoming habitual bipeds,
as orangs are quadrupeds on the ground for the post part. Indeed, Disney’s
Orangutan-based reconstruction is more likely than the bipedal Sasquatch model.
There’s also the fact that the Sasquatch is said to be an omnivore with a
variety of different food sources to survive in the North American woods, while
Giganopithecus’ teeth have been examined for phytoliths to reveal a diet of
fruit and bamboo. Finally, Giganopithecus seems to have been fairly
specialized, a giant herbivore variation on the primate model. Specialists tend
to evolve to become more specialized for their habitat, not evolve to a
completely different niche and specialty. This is especially relevant as there is no
evidence that Giganopithecus ever reached north of Hubei or Sichuan, indicating
it was a warm-weather animal even in the ice ages. We would have to find them
in Siberia, or a full skeleton that has bipedal characteristics
Physiology and the structure of the feet in the footprints
suggests instead a hominin or bipedal ape. Cryptozoologist Loren Coleman
prefers instead Paranthropus. Paranthropus was a big-jawed, big-toothed
Australopithecine that lived alongside other Australopithecus and the first
species of human. They were as bipedal
as their human counterparts, but rather than continue developing their brains
for tool work, relied on massive jaws and teeth to process fallback foods
during times of famine. Paranthropus is
the closest we get to an ape-man in paleontology. The problem with this
explanation is that Paranthropus, even in its largest species, P. boisei, was
only 4 ½ feet tall at most. Furthermore, they have never been found north or
east of Ethiopia, with no fossil remains in Asia let alone America. While
primate fossils are comparatively rare, the lack of fossils as always prevents
this from being a likely explanation. We would need a transitional form, a
Paranthropine more than 5 feet tall found in Asia. Could ancestral memories
dating from the beginning of our genus place these ape men in modern
consciousness a million years later? That’s possible, but there’s easier
answers.
The Father of Cryptozoology, Bernard Heuvelmans was fond of
using “Pithecanthropus” (an archaic name for Homo erectus) as an explanation
for ape men cryptids. There is a problem with this explanation: his reconstruction
was based on outdated 19th century models of the species of human.
Hand axes and soot at H. erectus sites suggests that they used fire and stone
tools. There’s still some leeway considering the physical and geographical
variation in Homo erectus, enough for there to be a debate if the taxon should
be split into two or more species, but for one to eschew tools and fire to
adopt a solitary, nocturnal lifestyle seems extremely unlikely.
Neanderthals have also been proposed, but their western
distribution, big noses, short stature, sophisticated tools and even a sense of
art and magic counts them out. Neanderthals were once thought to be ape men,
but all that was based on Marcellin Boule’s insistence of Neanderthals being a
human ancestor (ironically another early 20th-century scientist
proposed that said specimen was a regular human of our species suffering from
rickets). Once more and more Neanderthals were found, their range, lifestyle,
and physical appearance became apparent. They were close enough to their sister
species to breed with us. I like to tell people at the museum Straus and Cave’s
phrase that a well-dressed Neanderthal would blend in on the New York subway as
an extremely ugly normal human.
That’s the paleoanthropological perspective, anyway.
Cultural anthropology is closer to the truth, I think; all over the world,
humans have stories of giants, dwarfs, and beast-men. Every culture seems to
have a half-animal, half-human barbarian. To quote Kenneth Wylie in his
fascinating book on Bigfoot and its adherents (in turn quoting an unspecified
author) and paraphrase Voltaire, if a creature like a gorilla did not exist,
mankind would have to invent it.
The Haida have a story of a woman who had children with a
skinchanger who assumed the form of a bear outside his tent. In cultures
contacting with bears, bears are viewed as rather humanlike due to their
omnivory, flat feet, and the ability to stand on two legs. Material ascribed to
the Himalayan Yeti has often turned out to be of the rare Tibetan brown bear
and Asian black bear. I’m not saying sasquatches are based on bears, but I’m
saying that exact thing. Of course, bears shouldn’t get all the blame; ape men
appear in many cultures where bears are entirely unknown, but they make for
thoughts about human-animal connections. In many parts of Asia, people see both
bears and monkeys (apes in South East Asia as well) and see their kinship. David Daegling said that the reason we see
Sasquatch is because we want to see it even on a subconscious level.
As a biological entity, Sasquatch is on shaky footing and a
long shot in terms of what we know about primate biology. As a cultural figure,
however, Sasquatch is very much alive even in these days where nature is fading
and wilderness is lost. I hope people
never stop seeing them, even if they know it’s a dream. I hope we find more about these fossil apes so
mysterious to us. And I hope today’s apes can hang on when their habitats are
condemned to death by short-sighted greed; that the animals we know exist don’t
join the ranks of Paranthropus and Gigantopithecus.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFast cash offer for you today at just 3% interest rate, both long and short term cash of all amounts and currencies, no collateral required. Apply now for your instant approval financialserviceoffer876@gmail.com WhatsApp +918929509036
ReplyDelete