Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

Bigfoot, Bone Stacks, and Binford's Body-Part Utility Indices

6/25/2016

18 Comments

 
An ongoing conversation on an old blog post about the Humboldt skull somehow led me to this story about the claim of Mitchell Townsend that stacks of gnawed animal bones in the Cascade Mountains provide definitive physical evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. I had flashes of "Roman sword white paper" as I read this paragraph:

"Townsend’s information will be published in a research paper, and he challenges the scientific community to discredit his information. He said the four-year project helped solve the mystery because the focus was based on forensic evidence. The information used was also heavily based on comparison proof from the top scientists in the world."
Just as I was settling in to wait for the paper, I was happy to find that I had misread the publication date of the news article: it was from May of 2015 rather than May of 2016.  The paper ("Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identity of the carnivore taxa responsible for the deposition and mechanical mastication of three independent prey bone assemblages in the Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem of the Cascade mountain range" by Aaron Mills, Gerald Mills, and M. N. Townsend) came out last June and is available here.  It doesn't appear that the paper generated much discussion, which I find curious given the amount of detail it contains. I don't know if the lack of attention means that the Bigfoot community just didn't buy it (?) or just didn't read it: the paper weighs in at 94 pages and is densely packed with jargon.

I was intrigued, so I waded through it.

The paper describes three "bone stacks" located and documented by the authors in the Mt. St. Helens area in 2013 and 2014. The authors attribute the formation of these bone assemblages to Bigfoot, arguing that (1) the stacks of bones could not have been created by any other known carnivore in the area and (2) the bones preserve evidence of consumption by a creature with very large but very human-like teeth.  Here is a quote from Townsend's "discovery narrative" about the first bone stack (pg. 6):​
". . . ​I did a physical examination of the site contents and discovered at least two sets of deer remains based upon the deer skulls found in direct proximity to the main assemblage of bones. The skulls had their noses/snouts crushed by what looked like blunt force trauma and had been placed in the same general nose downhill orientation. This seemed odd at first glance. What really caught my eye was a pile of bones next to a small log. My first impression was that something or someone had sat down and consumed these animals and just dropped the bones between their legs as they finished them. I further confirmed this by looking closely at the stack and noted some very interesting observations. The bones seemed to be mostly rib bones that showed evidence of teeth marks and mechanical manipulation to varying degrees. Some areas had seemingly been bitten out and discernable dental impressions left behind. These dental impressions looked measurably different from the other known species that inhabit this ecosystem." 

Townsend later (pg. 7) reiterates his vision of the behavior that created the record he was looking at: 

"What resident animal species would kill deer with blunt force trauma on the head, position them in the same directional orientation, eat the animals and drop the bones in a pile? How come scavengers were avoiding this site even though some of the bones still had flesh attached? These were just some of the questions now rushing through my thoughts." 
Picture
Image of the "bone stacks" discussed by Mills et al. as evidence of Bigfoot (from the paper referenced in the text).
The first thing that struck me about the assemblages described by the authors is the representation of body parts: heads, feet, ribs, and spines (with a few other bones also present). The "kill sites" do not include all parts of animals, or even random pieces of the animals. Here is a listing of what the authors report they collected:
​
  • Bone Stack #1 (BP1): 4 ribs, 8 lower foot bones, 2 wrist/ankle bones, a toe bone, and 2 partial hooves from black tail deer (a "partial shoulder assembly" was observed but not collected, and two damaged skulls were present);

  • Bone Stack #2 (EK#1): 4 ribs, 1 vertebra, and 4 lower leg bones from an elk. (in the discovery narrative, the authors report that the skull was also observed in the general area but "The odd thing was we found no leg bones in the area, as if they had been carried off later");

  • Bone Stack #3 (EK#2): "The lower spinal column, some ribs, and one rear leg were located in this location among elk hair tufts" (pg. 30).

​Students of anthropological archaeology will have anticipated where I'm going with this based on the title of the post: the bone stacks described by the authors appear to be examples of "low utility" assemblages, composed of the skeletal remains of those parts of the animals that contain relatively little meat.  All hunters know that different parts of a large animal have different "values" in terms of their protein and fat content. For cervids like deer and elk, the highest utility parts of the animal (those with the greatest concentration of edible tissue relative to bone) are the upper limbs. Heads, feet, lower limbs, ribs, and the spine -- the kinds of bones described in the bone stacks -- contain relatively less meat per unit of volume (and hence per weight).  When hunter-gatherers on foot (i.e., lacking ATVs, snowmobiles, pick-up trucks, and other mechanized transport technologies utilized by many sport hunters) must choose which parts of the animal to transport back to camp after a kill, they generally (and logically) pick the highest-utility pieces. As a general theoretical expectation, they will butcher the animal and preferentially transport the upper limbs back to camp, leaving behind the feet, heads, spine, etc. Thus we can generally expect that kill/butchery sites will have high proportions of low-utility parts while the camp/consumption sites will have high proportions of high-utility parts.
Picture
A crib sheet for cervid body-part utility. If you have to choose which parts of the animal to transport and eat, it's going to be the upper limbs.
The use of body-part utility indices as an aid to understanding the relationships between human hunting/scavenging behaviors and the resulting bone assemblages was pioneered by Lewis Binford, a true giant of late 20th century archaeology. Based in part on ethnoarchaeological data collected among the Nunamiut (here is an informal description of that work), Binford argued in the early 1980's against the prevailing interpretation of Lower Paleolithic (i.e., 1.8 million-year-old) butchered bone accumulations as the products of human hunting behavior, forcefully challenging the notion that big game hunting was a key component of early human evolution. Binford noted that the published bone inventories from sites like FLK-Zinj in Olduvai Gorge were dominated by heads and lower limb bones, suggesting that the hominids only had access to the carcasses after the "high utility" parts were gone.  If humans had hunted the animals (and therefore had access to the carcasses before the lions, hyenas, and vultures), where were all the limb bones that would have been transported along with the choice cuts of meat? 

Binford's contribution was the beginning rather than the end of the "hunting-scavenging debate," which continues to this day (e.g., here is an open access paper from 2013). It has been incredibly productive in terms of the development of new theory and new lines of evidence, and is one of the best examples of the inductive-deductive cycles that I know of in archaeological science. Without writing a book about the twists and turns of the history of the debate and where it is now (which I would not be qualified to do), I will just say that it appears to me as though an early human hunting model fits better with the multiple lines of direct and indirect evidence we have in front of us now than does a passive scavenging model. Not everyone will agree with that statement, of course.

But getting back to "Bigfoot:" what could the composition of the head-foot-rib-spine-dominated assemblages of the bone stacks be telling us about the behaviors that produced those assemblages?  The absence of the high-utility parts suggests to me that someone or some thing carried off the parts that had the most meat on them. I don't know much about what bears or cougars do to a dead deer, but I doubt they selectively dismember it and carry off just the good parts. That sounds like human behavior to me. Townsend's vision of Bigfoot sitting on a tree branch and munching on the ends of (low utility) ribs at the kill site doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense if the (high utility) limbs were the prize of the kill. Would Bigfoot enthusiasts who accept this evidence argue that the creatures are employing essentially human foraging strategies, selectively transporting portions of their kills back to a home base to share with friends and relatives? And if groups of Bigfoot are hunting separately but then bringing portions of their kills back to some central place to share (as would be implied by the removal of the high utility parts), where are the dense concentrations of bones that those behaviors would produce? Generally, those kinds of re-occupied, re-used sites "central place" sites are much easier to spot than kill sites that are produced, used, and abandoned over very short periods of time. If we can find these "central place" kinds of sites in Africa from 1.8 million years ago, how come we don't know about any in the Cascade Mountains? Three kill sites with no high utility bones but no sites where the "good parts" are consumed? Is Bigfoot really that tidy? 

What about the stacking behavior? The authors (pg. 67) quote a Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife bear and cougar specialist (Richard Beausoleil) as saying the following:

“To me, the bones look like they were placed there by a human (hunt site, illegal bait site). You looked at a lot of species to explain this, but in my experience with carnivores, this one is likely tied to Homo sapiens”.
Again, I'm no expert on bears and cougar, so it seems reasonable to give some weight to the opinion of someone who is. It is logical to me that a person who was trying to use carcass parts to lure in carnivores would use collections of low utility parts (heads, feet, spines) to do the job rather than prime cuts of meat. The presence of parts of at least two different deer (based on the presence of two deer heads) at the first site described by Townsend suggests to me that the deer parts were transported to the site rather than killed there. Maybe the ribs were carried in a bag and dumped out into a pile by whoever was prepping the bait, if that's indeed what happened. Perhaps the skulls were damaged on purpose in an attempt to enhance the scent of the rotting brains -- hell, I don't know. 

And what of the reported tooth marks?  This is a part of the report I have not yet considered in detail. I would be surprised to find that the tooth marks could not be reasonably attributed to non-human carnivores (perhaps more than one kind). But I'll reserve comment on that until I read through their analysis carefully. 

In summary, we're told that the bone stacks are the results of single events: a Bigfoot killing a deer (or two), sitting down and depositing ribs in a pile, one after the other as he/she eats. But it's easy to imagine an alternative hypothesis (the selective use of leftover, low utility parts in bait piles for illegal hunting) that also appears to account for many of the facts presented by the authors. If those alternative hypotheses were fleshed out, it would be possible to develop critical test expectations that could falsify one or the other. I don't think we're given enough information to judge where in the sequence of butchery and deposition the bones were chewed -- before being "stacked"? after? Did the biting occur around the time of death or later? Are there any cutmarks on any of the bones that demonstrate that tools were used to disarticulate the carcasses? Are there bite marks on any bones that are not in the "stack"?  As shown by the "discovery narrative" I quoted above, the assumption that the killing, biting, and stacking all happened at about the same time seems to have been embedded in Townsend's thinking about these sites since the moment of discovery. Discarding that assumption and considering the formation of the sites as a set of analytical questions (which, admittedly, it may not be possible to address satisfactorily with the information they report) may result in a simpler answer than "Bigfoot."

I'm curious as to why the Bigfoot community did not seem to get excited about this work. Anyone care to chime in?  
​
18 Comments
Jim
6/25/2016 02:09:12 pm

Yup, everyone knows that the safest way to kill an antlered animal is to run in front of the antlers and punch it in the nose. Just like the best way to kill a lion is to stick your head in it's mouth and bite it on the tongue.

Reply
Bob Jase
6/25/2016 06:06:22 pm

So he had three stacks of bones that should have had bigfoot (or other predator) dna on them via saliva - any analysis done? Course not, that might have given conclusive unwanted evidence.

Reply
William Belcher link
6/26/2016 10:00:08 am

The "snouts" of ungulates are extremely fragile compared to the rest of the cranium - these are frequently damaged or missing, so without good photographic evidence of this BFT, I would be hesitant to interpret it as such. I'm surprised at the F&W comments as this pattern can also be interpreted as the taphonomic signature of carnivore and scavenger activity (as noted by Henry Bunn and Ellen Kroll) - soft belly tissue and internal organs are consumed first, followed by meat on the high utility items (forelimbs); this is followed by various scavengers that destroy the bones for the marrow and eventually leave very low index items such as the cranium, ribs, vertebrae, etc.

Another interesting article to look at is R. Lee Lyman's assessment of taphonomic processes on cervid populations in the Mt. St. Helens region: https://faculty.missouri.edu/~lymanr/pdfs/1989MtStHelenstaphonomy.pdf

Reply
Andy White
6/26/2016 10:13:11 am

Yeah, it could be that the upper limb bones were crunched into small pieces (perhaps after being dragged away from the main kill area) that the investigators did not spot.

Thanks for the Lyman paper -- I'll have a look.

Reply
Andy White
6/26/2016 11:30:38 am

Also, what's a "BFT"?

Reply
John
6/27/2016 11:45:37 am

Big Foot Trail?
Big Foot Theory?
Big Friendly Theory?

gdave
6/28/2016 12:00:37 pm

Blunt Force Trauma

Bill Wagner
6/26/2016 10:53:32 am

Devil's advocate here : Utility consideration just as (or more) plausibly indicates that the low-utility portions were consumed on the spot rather than letting them go to waste. The high utility portions would have been transported back home to waiting families.

Reply
Andy White
6/26/2016 11:31:37 am

But if that's the "Bigfoot-related explanation," where are those central places where all the Bigfoots gather to feast?

Reply
Donald
6/26/2016 12:13:33 pm

Another issue is that the Bigfoot creatures were presumably eating raw meat. Assuming that their digestive systems have adapted to accommodate such a diet, it's my understanding that human intelligence has increased significantly since we started eating cooked meat. I'm not sure what level of intelligence Bigfoot would have is he's surviving on a raw meat diet.

Bill Wagner
6/27/2016 01:39:12 pm

"But if that's the 'Bigfoot-related explanation,' where are those central places where all the Bigfoots gather to feast?"

Objection, Your Honor : I pointed out that the observed evidence was congruent with the Principle of Utility, a consideration which didn't seem to have been recognised. Not knowing the exact GPS co-ordinates of they live is a separate issue.

If (since) you're asking (albeit, rhetorically), IMO, the most plausible explanation so far is that they are one of John Keel's "Spectral Phenomena." I.e., entities from a parallel dimension that sometimes temporarily appear in this one due to a band shift, like shortwave frequencies occasionally do -- a model which survives Ockham's Razor, and accounts for all observed data (woo notwithstanding) without having to resort to attacking their validity.

"Reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine." -- John Fort

Reply
Andy White
6/27/2016 01:51:58 pm

Sure, that sounds good.

Reply
Bill Wagner
6/27/2016 06:57:50 pm

It's simple, it makes intuitive sense, and it accounts for the observed data that can't be shown to be bogus.

Have you a better model ? One that accounts for, say, a trail of footprints in mud or snow that ends abruptly, as if the creature that made it just disappeared as completely as the footprints he left do?

Not trying to troll your board, by the way. Just responding to your topic with what it brings to mind.

Reply
Andy White
6/28/2016 07:51:19 am

Your explanation depends on the existence of a parallel dimension and flesh-and-blood creatures that move back and forth between that dimension and ours, conveniently never dying or leaving conclusive positive evidence of their existence in our dimension. I'd say the simpler explanation is that Bigfoot doesn't actually exist and the "evidence" consists of a jumble of misinterpretations, wishful thinking, and hoaxery. That's where I'm at until someone produces a body.

Reply
Steve Byrne
7/19/2016 06:35:26 am

Genetic probability of basic bigfoot traits in humans is relatively high. Hirsuitism, timidness and great size are each only a few genes away from the rest of us. Combinations would be an extreme rarity for modern humans, but give us a few hundred thousand years, environmental calamities and pressures, epigenetic influence, and isolation periods and they probably should exist. Sightings would be about what we get. Bone evidence should be about what we have. Other factors such as footprints etc. would be similar to what we have and native stories would florish as they actually have and the DNA evidence would all say human.

The piece people don't understand is people themselves. 80% or so have a tendency to agree with whatever their group believes... be it religion, politics, fashion or what they hear on the "news". In terms of evolution and selection as applied to humans this is very understandable. We tend to group up as an evolutionary strategy and hunt things and destroy threats as a group.

A non grouping human off-type would have all the traits we ascribed to bigfoot and we would react as we have. Throw in our nature of deception and propaganda with capitalist motive and any rare phenomena can be mythified in no time at all. Combine it with our wimpiness and flight drive and no one chases them down for confirmation.

For the sake of humanity, if you see one, chase it down and get killed or maimed so we can get some better evidence. Not kidding. Do it! Live it! Be a hero! Immortality and heaven awaits (plus 23 virgins maybe)

The term "bigfoot" was coopted by the CIA/forest service to discredit a possible threat to the lumber and housing industries. We done been flipped. Learn it live and love it. WE are the freaks, not them.

Reply
Henrik Lantz Hedström
10/22/2017 04:50:04 am

Would love your comments on this video (don't seem human to me):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Eux2Nh1kY&t=514s

Reply
Henrik Lantz Hedström
10/22/2017 07:23:53 am

Sorry, linked to a place in the video where the wierd stuff has alreade happened, I ment from the beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Eux2Nh1kY

Reply
Don
11/12/2021 01:40:32 pm

Ok there are more uses then just meat. Brains can be used to tan hides or food. Antlers tools, hooves boiled for glue. We have no idea for sure what they were taken for perhaps trophies. Animals scatter left overs. They don't break bones an leave giant human tooth imprints in them. So if your trying to say human. No way not a poacher kill. Bears bury them cats hide them. Nothing but man or some thing like man piles them.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly