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 Researchers Still Insist Native American Skull is Not Human

5/10/2015

83 Comments

 
An alert reader of this blog emailed me on Friday to point to a discussion of my posts on the Humboldt and Lovelock skulls (both from Nevada) on the Bigfoot Evidence forum.  Those posts were about the "double rows of teeth" alleged to be on the Humboldt skull (an error the author has now corrected) and the size of the mandible from one of the Lovelock skulls.  I'm not really into Bigfoot, but I found the misinterpretations of the Nevada skulls interesting because of what seems like a pretty high level of "fringe" chatter revolving around what look to me to be normal human skulls of normal size and with normal features. Both claims (double rows of teeth and "giant-size") are nonsense.

Diehard fans of interpreting the Nevada skulls as Bigfoot crania apparently didn't like my analysis, and one accused me of
"not being intellectually honest" because I focused on the misinterpretation of the teeth and avoided "everything else regarding the Humbolt [sic] skull's morphology and ratios, which is what I would have expected an honest, impartial anthropologist to do."  In that same exchange, Daniel Dover said "Andy White calls himself a scientist but I'm not impressed with the way he goes off on stuff, making bad assumptions/rants."  So there you have it . . . making new friends every day through science!  I'm sure neither of these Bigfoot enthusiasts would have had any complaints if I had written a piece declaring that Bigfoot was real.

An aside: I'm not sure why writing a blog post about only one aspect of a skull
makes me "intellectually dishonest." By pointing out that the Humboldt skull doesn't have double rows of teeth (which it doesn't) and the Lovelock mandible is not giant-sized (which it's not), did I somehow commit to analyzing every other aspect of those skulls in the same posts?  No, I didn't. I mentioned in the Humboldt post that I planned on writing more about the Nevada skulls in the future (and a few days later, voila, I did!).  And here I am writing more, which was my original plan. For those of you who want to call me "intellectually dishonest" on some Bigfoot forum that I might never see: if you want to do that (or, perhaps, ask a question or make a point or do something that's actually potentially productive), why not do it on my blog where I'll actually see it?  You can even use your same anonymous screen name so your identity will remain a mystery and you can keep your day job without being made fun of for believing in Bigfoot. Try having an honest discussion about evidence.  You might like it.

Anyway, let's move on.  In this post I'm going to address some of Dover's other claims and interpretations about the Humboldt skull.  Dover says that the Humboldt skull has
a "browridge, sloping forehead, high vault of the cranium, and protruding jawline . . . all typical sasquatch traits."  Here is the image of the skull that he shows, with a "modern human skull" for comparison:
Picture
Screenshot from Daniel Dover's webpage about the Humboldt skull: http://sasquatchresearchers.org/blogs/bigfootjunction/2014/11/19/sasquatch-skull-found-near-lovelock-nv/
PictureOutlines of the Humboldt skull (blue) and the "modern human" skull (red) that Dover uses for comparison, aligned on the Frankfort horizontal and roughly scaled the same.
I have added lines representing the Frankfort plane to Dover's image.  The Frankfort plane is a reference line that is used to consistently orient skulls for comparison.  It is a line that passes through the lower margin of the eye orbit and the upper margin of the external auditory meatus (the ear hole) at a point designated porion.  Superimposing this line on both the profile skull images lets us orient them the same so we can really compare.  I traced an outline around each skull, roughly scaled them the same (lining up the orbits and porion), and superimposed the drawings on each other so they were both in the Frankfort horizontal (figure to the right).

The superimposed outlines show several of the characteristics that
Erik Reed noted in his 1967 paper ("An Unusual Human Skull From Near Lovelock Nevada" - I found a copy of it here on M.K. Davis' website): a supraorbital torus (brow ridge), a sloping forehead, and a well-developed nuchal crest.  The jaw of the Humboldt skull also appears to project more than the "modern human" skull, as Dover notes.

PictureOutlines of the Humboldt skull (blue) and the skull drawing from Gray's Anatomy (green), aligned on the Frankfort horizontal and roughly scaled the same.
Let's talk about the jaw first.  The "modern human" skull that Dover picked for comparison appears to have something atypical going on with the front teeth and mandible.  I don't know what the ultimate source of the image was, but I found a higher resolution version here.  The individual (who I would bet was a female based on the shape of the forehead and the small mastoid processes - physical anthropologists out there can feel free to offer an opinion), had a pretty strong overbite, and I wonder if that doesn't contribute to the difference in the profiles of the jaws.  To check that, I drew the outline of the drawing of a "normal" human skull as depicted in Gray's Anatomy (illustration here). When that outline (in green) is superimposed on the Humboldt skull outline, the "jutting jaw" pretty much disappears.  In other words, the jaw of the Humboldt skull does not protrude greatly compared to a normal human skull.

The brow ridge, sloping forehead, and nuchal crest remain, however.  Does that mean this is the skull of a Bigfoot and not a Native American?  No.  That becomes clear if you try to understand what those features actually mean.

There is a lot of variation in human skulls, and there are several overlapping sources of that variation.  Some variation can be attributed to sex (male and female skulls have patterned differences).  Some variation is geographical (humans in different parts of the world can look different).  Some variation is functional (skulls, like other parts of the skeleton, may reflect adaptions for different environments, different degrees of musculature, etc.).  Sorting out how much variation there is, what causes that variation, and what that variation might mean (in terms of human evolution, gene flow between populations, movements of populations, patterns of physical activity, etc.) are things that physical anthropologists, paleoanthropologists, and archaeologists wrestle with all the time.

I guarantee you the simplest explanation for the morphology of the Humboldt skull is not that it's not human.  The skull is very much human, and the combination of features (brow ridge, sloping forehead, and occipital area with pronounced attachments for the rear neck muscles) that Dover asserts are "unlike what you will ever find on any normal human skull" can be observed on other prehistoric human skulls and in living humans.  That  doesn't mean the skull is "average" - it is described as a large, strongly constructed skull that falls at the robust end of the modern human spectrum.  But it is thoroughly human.  Erik Reed (1967) says the following in his description:

    "The skull obviously falls--among New World material--in the general category of the archaic type which is most often referred to by Georg Newmann's term 'Otamid variety.' More specifically, it resembles Early period central California material from the lower Sacramento Valley (Newman, 1957) and from Tranquility in the San Joaquin Valley (Angel 1966).  Metrical correspondence to the Tranquility crania, as shown in Table 1, is remarkably close.  Strong brow ridges, glabellar prominence, and well-developed occipital torus appear in some of the California material.
    Finally, the Humboldt Sink skull closely resembles the Ophir calvarium from Virginia City, Nevada (Reichlen and Heizer, 1966)--even sharing the special peculiarity of a genuine os inca."

 
The Humboldt skull was presumably that of a large male.  The brow ridge and sloping forehead are associated mechanically, as the brow ridge serves to reinforce the face against forces generated during mastication when the forehead slopes away rather than being vertical (that's the explanation of the brow ridge that makes the most sense to me, anyway).  The biomechanical model of the brow ridge explains why it is so prominent in chimpanzees, gorillas, and many early hominids, and less prominent (to the point of being absent) in many modern humans.  The strain placed on the portion of the skull above the eyes increases when the face is more prognathic (i.e., the jaws protrude more), the frontal bone is less vertical, and there is more emphasis on using the front teeth.  The brow ridge - the shelf of bone above the eyes - serves to reinforce the face at the point where strain is greatest.  Mary Russell wrote extensively about the biomechanics of the brow ridge in primates: here is a paper of hers from 1982; here is a paper of hers in Current Anthropology from 1985 (but most of it is behind a paywall); here is a 1985 commentary on Russell's work by Milford Wolpoff.  The take-away point is that the brow ridge likely has a functional (and perhaps even developmental) origin: it's not some random feature that can be used to discern "human" from "nonhuman" skulls.  It's easy to find examples of modern humans with brow ridges, especially associated with large, strong males (which the Humbolt skull presumably was).  How about Lex Wotton? Nikolai Valuev? Cain Velasquez?  Note the brow ridges and sloping foreheads.  Last time I checked, none of these guys was a Bigfoot.

There are also biomechanical explanations for the back of the skull.
Dover correctly states that the nuchal plane is where the neck muscles attach to the rear of the skull.  There is a general relationship between the robusticity of the nuchal crest and the strength of the rear neck muscles - gorillas and chimpanzees have strongly developed nuchal crests because their neck muscles have to hold their heads up while they are moving about as quadrupeds. That doesn't mean that humans can't have big attachments for the nuchal muscles, however, associated with strong muscles at the back of the neck.  I wasn't able to find a comprehensive, cross-primate study of the mechanics of the nuchal line/crest while I was writing this post, but that doesn't mean such a study doesn't exist.  I would bet there are other examples of human skulls with nuchal crests like those of the Humboldt skull (here is a paper
that has a photograph of a Late Pleistocene human from Romania with a moderately well-developed nuchal crest; here is Angel's 1966 paper on the skeletons from Tranquility, CA, that is mentioned by Reed). Dover's statement that "Human skulls have no such markedly protruding nuchal crest" like that of the Humboldt skull is an assertion that I would guess won't stand up to scrutiny.  There's no doubt the Humboldt skull has a big nuchal crest, but that doesn't mean there's nothing else like it in the world and that the skull is therefore not human.

Picture
Finally, for your enjoyment, I give you two versions of the outline of the Humboldt skull superimposed upon the profile of former UFC Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar (source of profile photo).  In the top illustration, I have oriented and scaled the outline of the Humboldt skull by placing the two landmarks used to find the Frankfort plane (the external auditory meatus and the lower margin of the orbit) in their approximate locations on Lesnar's head.  In this configuration, the vault of the Humboldt skull is slightly higher than Lesnar's, but the face actually projects less than Lesnar's. 

In the bottom illustration, I have placed the Humboldt outline so that it corresponds pretty closely to Lesnar's profile.  This puts the orbit a little too far forward and the external auditory meatus a little low, but you get the idea:  the shape of the Humboldt skull, presumably that of a large, powerful male, is not inconsistent with the shape of the skull of another large, powerful male.  I have no idea what Brock Lesnar's occipital area looks like, but it wouldn't surprise me if his skull had a nuchal crest just as pronounced as that of the Humboldt skull. If you think this makes Lesnar a Bigfoot, I'll let you be the one to tell him that.

The Humboldt skull is the the skull of a human, not a Bigfoot.  All the features found on the skull are found in humans.  The impression that the jaw of the Humboldt skull juts out significantly farther than a jaws of "modern humans" is incorrect, as shown by the comparison (in proper orientation) with an average human skull. The remaining combination of features that Bigfoot enthusiasts seem to be homing in on as "nonhuman" - the brow ridge, the sloping forehead, and the well-developed nuchal area - are characteristics that are most often expressed in humans that are large, powerful males.  I would guess that's what the Humboldt skull is - the remains of a large, powerful male. 

A Native American male, not a Bigfoot male.

References:

Reed, Erik K.. 1967.  An Unusual Human Skull from Near Lovelock, Nevada. Miscellaneous Paper 10, University of Utah Department of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

83 Comments
Joe
5/10/2015 08:33:47 pm

Hello Andy.

The relict hominids that are reported to be residing in North American wilderness areas (commonly know as Sasquatch or "Bigfoot") are archaic human, not giant fairy tail monkeys. I would recommend you go check out some Harvey Pratt forensic sketches... They have the same facial and cranial features of peoples such as the Ishi. This is important because for almost ten thousand years, nearly every tribe in North America has referred to these as another tribe of humans; most of the time cannibalistic, but occasionally as a "brother". I'll use your article to support my stance in due course, but thanks for the pointers.

Hope you are well.

Reply
Bob Jase
5/10/2015 09:55:22 pm

"for almost ten thousand years, nearly every tribe in North America has referred to these as another tribe of humans;"

Documentation please.

Reply
Joe
5/10/2015 11:13:27 pm

Check out some stuff by Kathy Strain, or alternatively use Google Search. Some Native tribes insist that they have in fact inhabited "Turtle Island" for 50,000 years. Some studies would point to there being significant credence in that;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

My point is, for many thousands of years, Native cultures have had these legends deeply fixed in their oral traditions. The many Native names (over a 100) for these hominids can in turn be linked to many of the summit ridges and mountain peaks of the US, with the biggest density matching one of the highest frequencies of reports in between Mount St Helens, Mount St Adams and Mount St Rainier.

dave
5/26/2022 11:07:33 pm

"Documentation please" ,... fork-tongue paleface has white man disease.

Andy White
5/10/2015 10:57:09 pm

Hi Joe.

How do you reconcile the "archaic human" idea with the estimates of body size put forward by Bigfoot researchers? I'm genuinely curious.

Reply
Joe
5/10/2015 11:35:43 pm

Hello Andy.

The many reports of alleged Sasquatch sightings are very regularly in the 6-7 foot height ranges. Of course, there are always reports of far bigger individuals that are very much endorsed by researchers... But the aforementioned height range would most certainly fit your idea of a "large powerful male".

Andy White
5/11/2015 12:14:34 am

So you're envisioning a human (a natural, not a supernatural being), that is "archaic" in terms of skeletal morphology, completely covered with hair, that has been living at a very low population densities in North America for thousands of years, using little/no material culture that we can reliably recognize in the archaeological record or in the present? Do I have that right?

Bob Jase
5/11/2015 01:54:10 am

Oral tradition & legends & mythology are not scientific documentation - if they were then Grimm's Fairy Tales would be considered non-fiction.

Reply
Joe
5/11/2015 02:21:46 am

I'm sorry, but are you aware of how culture, history and identity are passed from generation to generation in indegenous peoples? Also... It's pretty hard to argue when who have an archaic skull (scientific documentation) found precisely where the local natives have stated archaic tribes have resided for thousands of years. I can get into a lot regarding the physical evidence for such an idea, but out of respect for Andy's blog... I won't change the subject matter too much.

little foot
2/24/2016 07:33:10 pm

"The Ishi"? Ichi is the name of one individual, isn't it?

Whatever you're talking, it's probably not of "relict hominds" or even "archaic/early modern Homo sapiens", which would be more proper wording for what it sounds like you're suggesting.

And AFAIK, Native American tribes often tended/probably still tend (for tribes without any contact with civilization) to see only themselves as "humans"/people, and other tribes, with no significant "bigfootiness"/archaicness whatsoever, as some other "kind". It wasn't a three-continent-wide communal egalitarian brotherhood, that even included "archaics".

Reply
Joe
2/25/2016 01:51:47 pm

Apologies Little Foot, you are indeed correct. I meant to refer to the Yahi peoples.

A "relict" in a biological sense refers to a surviving species of an otherwise extinct hominid that formally had a greater range of numbers, that is now theorised to be close to extinction and residing in remote places of the planet today.

I personally adhere to the theory that something akin to an early-modern Homo Sapien is still residing in such remote places, given the nature of evidence and what is widely reported. And actually, there has been significant research into the general Native American perception of what is and always has been reported down through history, and for as long as their oral histories have existed most in North America have referred to them as cannibalistic.

stephanie little wolf
7/23/2017 02:05:15 pm

I do believe sasquatch are people. However they look nothing like Ishi. If a bigfoot resembles natives thats because there was intermingling here and there.

Reply
Bob Jase
5/10/2015 09:53:43 pm

Oh that is definately a bigfoot skull. Notice the very prominent sagital crest as displayed by Patty in the P-G film and others. You see it right? Squint some more.



Reply
Andy White
5/10/2015 10:54:52 pm

Yeah - I'm not sure where the Bigfoot people are now on the issue of the sagittal crest. If someone is looking for a trait that could reliably be used to distinguish a non-human (as in not from the genus Homo) skull from a human one, that would be a good one. But if you think that Bigfoot is just an "archaic human" of some kind . . .

Reply
Bob Jase
5/11/2015 01:52:52 am

Ah, but if they disregard the sagital crest then they have to discard almost all descriptions from 'sightings' and all, including the P-G film, video 'evidence'.

Once you discard all your supporting material what is left?

Greg Little
5/10/2015 10:16:06 pm

Wow, using Brock Lesnar (lesnAr) is utter genius. I think that a lot of the "larger" skeletons recovered in the 1800s were of large, powerful men. Native American actor Will Sampson might be seen as a recent example of what you are discussing here.

Reply
Andy White
5/10/2015 10:51:46 pm

Thanks for the correction on the spelling - fixed.

I think there are probably a lot of complex relationships between body size, brain size, and skull morphology. If brain size stays the same but head size increases somewhat (as you would expect with larger body size, though the size increases are probably not proportional), the vault would naturally tend to be less globular because it has to contain less brain mass for its size. That's why you'd expect sloping foreheads on larger individuals, and those sloping foreheads would often be associated with brow ridges because of their function as reinforcers of that part of the skull that experiences greater strain when the forehead is less vertical. I'm sure there's some good anthropometry out there that might be used to look at those relationships. Just thinking out loud here.

Reply
little foot
2/24/2016 08:01:51 pm

I'm not sure a mechanical adaptation is key to the explanation. Nearly all growth is allometric. The infant has a very small face, that grows proportionally faster than the cranial vault. The more the person grows, the more the face grows, eventually further ahead of the cranial vault. The difference exists even between males and females. Furthermore, there's quite a bit of variation on the slope of the forehead:

http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Nikolai_Valuev.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m63r4XlOgo4/TwcJjAd2T0I/AAAAAAAAByo/zZlH6xuD3ds/s1600/Chief+Wolf+Robe.jpg

But who knows, maybe they're sasquatch/yeti hybrids or grandsons of those hybrids. Whatever needed to keep the dream alive.

Joe
5/11/2015 12:39:33 am

Andy... You have that spot on sir, yes. However, it is recognised that there are many reports of these relict hominids using primitive tools, baskets, clubs, etc, as we would expect from primitive peoples. The artefacts that were extracted from the nearby areas of Humbolt have even included duck decoys.

Reply
Andy White
5/11/2015 01:39:01 am

Define "primitive"? It sounds like you're saying that "relict hominids" actually did create part of the archaeological record of the southwest, including the deposits in Lovelock Cave? If that's what you're saying, how do you propose one could tell "modern" human material culture from Sasquatch material culture?

Reply
Joe link
5/11/2015 02:25:26 am

Wouldn't various tribes of people across a vast land mass acquire the similar customs? This is the case with many indegenous tribes across the US, who have not altogether seen eye to eye over many thousands of years.

Andy White
5/11/2015 03:09:23 am

So you're saying Sasquatch has human anatomy (except for the hair and a bit taller on average) and can make/use the same tools as Native Americans. Is there anything in your view that makes a Sasquatch a Sasquatch other than having lots of body hair? Are there any other key differences?

Bob Jase
5/11/2015 05:56:50 am

"Wouldn't various tribes of people across a vast land mass acquire the similar customs? "

Yes, that is why the customs & beliefs of medieval England were exactly the same as those of Japan.

little foot
2/24/2016 08:14:24 pm

I can guess the direction it's going: perhaps sasquatches in fact aren't really exceptionally hairy; in fact, it's possible they wear fur of animals such as bears. That could have led to the myth/theory of their hairiness. They could be somewhat hairier though, like the Ainu in relation to the rest of the Japanese, perhaps they just share those genes with the Ainu. Both hypotheses aren't even mutually exclusive.

And their "big foot" could be just snowshoes. Soon the orthodox bioantrhopological establishment will have no choice but to accept that there was a Sasquatch tribe after all, but probably they will try to ridicule it with strawman of "giant ape men" for a while, before they finally accept they were just a tribe, with perhaps exceptionally tall individuals, like the Patagonians, tall, but no real "giants". And then cryptoanthropozoologists will have been vindicated.

Joe
5/11/2015 05:46:38 am

Otamids are defined as long and low headed with elongate distal limbs (ie. they were hunters like Late Pleistocene Europeans). We know from the skull up top that when attached to it's living body, it more than likely had large neck muscles (possibly giving the appearance of no neck). A team of scientists from the Boston museum of sciences tested the feet of 398 visitors, and discovered that one in thirteen had flexible ape like feet similar to those found in fossils of our human lineage from two million years ago (midtarsal breaks). All these traits are fundamentally human but when accompanied with hairy bodies are associated with the reports of what is commonly referred to as Sasquatch.

Reply
Andy White
6/3/2015 10:19:54 am

Joe, I see you've been proclaiming some sort of "victory over Andy White" on your Bigfoot forum. I'm not sure if there was some sort of question you expected me to answer? Frankly your ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense to me, and not really worth responding to. If you have something to say to me, please say it where I'll actually be sure to see it. Otherwise what's the point?

Reply
Joe
6/17/2016 05:03:03 am

Hello Andy. In frequenting another forum, my attention was drawn to this comment that I wasn't aware was posted last year. Can I please suggest you not stoop so low as to listen to what various internet trolls are posting on other forums. I see that you have allowed one to comment down below, as it is your blog you are no doubt welcome to do what you please with it. On one forum in particular, some people are taking it upon themselves to even pretend to be other people posting comments in order to provoke a response. It's really rather juvenile.

If you think my ideas are "nonsense", that's fine. At the end of the day I believe that there is an extant caveman residing in wilderness areas around the world, and I am not too ignorant to acknowledge how extraordinary a concept that is. I would however like to humbly point out that this belief is based on a strong level of different evidences that have not been posted here out of respect for a comment section not catered for that subject matter. Evidences that have led me to be convinced, as opposed to mere blind faith based on sightings reports that have no scientific means of measuring. I would just like to say that I think your work is excellent, would like to congratulate you on a fascinating blog, and would encourage you to keep up the good work. I'll be sure to keep reading.

Andy White
6/17/2016 09:38:11 am

Hi Joe.

Let's start over - I have zero interest in trying to figure out which of your past posts over on that forum are actually yours and which are by people pretending to be you. Is this one from yesterday you?

"That the morphology is akin to that of prehistoric peoples, and the occipital bun is not seen in any known example of modern human. AGAIN; the PHD agrees with me, that the skull is prehistoric in morphological detail and is lacking a comparison of occipital bun. It's really not my fault that Andy adheres to the fairy tail monkey avenue that tainted his premise from the offset."

It's not true that the occipital bun is not present in modern human populations. It is. It's rare, but it's there. As usual, there are several possible factors that influence the morphology of this part of the skull (genetics, size, musculature, etc.), all of which may affect how the feature is distributed in modern and ancient populations. But to say that it is some kind of marker of "Archaic" humans is not correct.

Joe link
5/11/2015 08:00:21 am

Bob Jase, are you slightly confused? There is no land mass attaching England to Japan. It's over seas trade with far later, far more developed technology that made those similarities possible? A slightly embarrassing comparison to the point in hand, which is primitive tool making.

Also... And again I apologise for bringing this subject matter up on a blog not catered for it, but there are two widely reported types of what is being commonly reported as "Bigfoot"; the human-like and the gorilla-like. The latter being what we see in the subject of the Patterson Gimlin footage.

Reply
Bob Jase
5/11/2015 09:11:05 am

Well of course I meant the Portugese and Pacific coast Chinese. The English Channel and Sea of Japan are clearly impassible.

Or doesn't Eurasia count as a land mass?

And I see we're now conveniently adding types of bigfoot so as to grasp evidencial straws.

Reply
Joe
5/11/2015 04:51:07 pm

Bob Jase, this happens a lot, I'm afraid. When an enthusiast draws the attention of the pessimist to information... The standard response more often than not is "convenience". I do not hold this against you, because not everyone is clued up past the mainstream pop culture nonsense that appears to be dragging the credibility of the topic through the dirt, even more so. As was presented in one of my comments up top, please check out some forensic sketches by Harvey Pratt. There is a major difference between the cranial morphology of the subjects he draws and what one would see in the Patterson Gimlin film.

Dr B Sykes link
8/3/2015 06:03:59 am

Dear Dr A White, Please disregard all of the comments by Joe, as he has been quite "ILL" as of late. And keep up the fine work Andy as you are The benchmark of sanity and intellectual honesty.
Thnx your pal, Dr b Sykes

Reply
Dwight Hannah
8/8/2015 04:03:55 am

An adjoining blog talked about the giants in the lovelock cave and had a picture of the scull. It appears to be quite different from the scull in your analysis...it is the second picture from the top sitting on the table. can you determine if this is different from your scull. The jaw appears to be totally different from yours.

http://beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2015/08/who-were-the-ancient-giants-with-six-fingers-and-double-rows-of-teeth-2494010.html

Reply
Andy White
8/17/2015 12:26:41 am

That "skull" is a sculpture of someone's idea of what a bigfoot skull would look like. In other words, it is an art project, not one of the skulls from Lovelock (or Humboldt). And the picture above it is Photoshopped.

Reply
Ramona Bell
8/13/2015 01:02:34 am

I find all the reseach and effort regarding these sculls and the noted lack of distinctions between them very helpful and wanted to thank you for sharing your hard work. I do happen to absolutely believe in the existence of the creature known as sasquatch and am fairly well known as an enthusiast/researcher on the subject. I also realize that jumping to conclusions and using so-called evidence that can quickly be discarded as these skulls were easily used as a way to do that- can hurt the seriousness of the hard work and time spent in the field by some of us who have seen them in the flesh with our own eyes. I respect your work here and can't find anything in your findings that I'd try to argue against. As I stated, I'm firmly certain about my own observations in the field and certain evidence I've collected that keeps me determined to push further in research efforts. I have no doubt that we all have a lot to learn about these creatures and I also expect the doubt and chuckles that may come from those that may assume that a person like me with no degree to place in front of my name- has no place in the spectrum of actual scientific research performed on the matter. So I humbly admit that until I bring better and more compelling evidence to the table- I'm just one among many that have much work to do and remain determined to do just that and must bear the disregard of my enthusiasm and the skepticism that naturally follows my work as well... for me it's just power for the course. In the mean time and although my question will be off this original topic of the skulls... might I ask if there are any bone fragments, teeth, and specifically large jaw bones (like the one found in Canada a few years back) that might have been a further focus of study for you and if so... do you consider any possible connection to the creatures (sasquatch) that I and many others insist they have seen in various places across North America? Again, thank you for the info regarding these skulls and for sharing your findings. Ramona Bell , Kentucky

Reply
Andy White
8/17/2015 12:16:33 am

Thanks for the comment. I'm not familiar with the "one found in Canada a few years back" that you mentioned - where could I find information about it? Every case that I've looked at so far (whether a claim for a giant, or bigfoot, or both) has turned out to be based on misinformation, misidentification, or some kind of fraud/hoax. It is easy to make mistakes when you're not trained in human and animal skeletal anatomy - people have been interpreting animal remains as the remains of giants for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Reply
Ramona Bell
9/26/2015 06:33:23 pm

http://www.sagenews.com/
This is one of the articles regarding what was believed to be the remains of a gigantopithecus. The remains were reportedly found in the Canadian Rockies after unusually severe flooding during early 2013- I believe. There may be further findings that prove the remains were mis- identified but if so, I haven't been able to locate those possible findings.
If it actually was a gigantopithecus and if it was preserved as well as the article stated; it does seem strange that more media attention wasn't given to the matter...
Regardless, we do know that gigantopithecus did exist in the distant past and was a remarkably large primate. Still, until a modern day specimen of what the world refers to as Sasquatch/Bigfoot is located, examined, and compared to existing fossils of gigantopithecus... we will simply never know.
Again, great read!
Ramona Bell, KY

Joe
1/29/2016 04:09:07 am

Ramona... You stated that any suggestion that these skulls be used as evidence for relict hominids in the US is somehow hurting the credibility of this subject, yet you use that website as a source of possible "evidence" for Giganto's existence in North America?

Are you aware of how many reports of relict hominids attest to having Native American features, features akin to that of the Kwakwaka'wakw and the Ishi? There is morphology in the skulls of these peoples that have similar features to that of Cro-Magnon fossil specimens; essentially ancient versions of us. Though I fully endorse the authenticity of the Patterson Gimlin footage, "researchers" who promote the theory that Giganto is residing in North America are becoming fewer as time goes by, and is seen as slightly dated in representing the general acceptance of what is actually leaving it's physical evidence on the wilderness of the US and Canada.

Respectfully,

Joe.

Reply
Andy White
9/28/2015 09:46:14 am

Unfortunately, sagenews.com is a satire website (like The Onion) that produces fake news stories as humor.

If tooth size was proportionate to body size, Gigantopithecus was indeed large. We have no bones from its body, however, so we are basically stuck knowing it was a large ape that lived in east Asia. I hope someday soon someone finds more Gigantopithecus remains - they've surely got to be there in the same caves that produced the teeth.

Reply
Joe
6/17/2016 12:45:35 pm

Andy, that wasn't an invitation for you to work through innumerable comments, I was merely stating a fact. It is very much acknowledged that occipital buns are found in rare instances in anatomically modern humans. However, this does not take away from the fact that this feature IS found in ancient humans, and is one of many very interesting features that the anthropologists studying it in 1967 highlighted;

"Unusual features of the Humboldt Sink cranium, aside from the prominent brow ridge and glabellar development and the notably strong nuchal crest, are the low retreating forehead with post-orbital construction, and the true os inca, divided occipital, or interparietal bone, accompanied by by generally high sutural complexity with several Wormian bones in the lambdoid suture."

There appears to be some inner debate within the paper as to whether this is truly as ancient as I'm suggesting, but it appears that there is genuine correlation with morphological features of Palaeolithic finds.

"It could of course be ancient; this determination depends on data other osteological; unfortunately, there is no firm archeological or geographical context. The site at which it was found, not under controlled conditions, contains material ranging from Pinto to Paiute."

Reply
Andy White
6/20/2016 06:26:48 am

Hi Joe, I have a couple of points to make.

1) If a feature (such as an occipital bun) is present in both "ancient" and "modern" human populations (albeit in different frequencies), you can't use it's presence or absence on a single skull to say that skull is "ancient" or "modern."

2) The occipital bun is not the same thing as the nuchal crest (or occiptial torus). The occiptal bun is a bulging at the back of the skull that is related to the interior volume/shape of the skull. The occipital torus is a thickening of bone that (like brow ridges) probably has to do with biomechanics. The nuchal crest is an attachment point for the nuchal muscles. A skull can have a big nuchal crest and/or occipital torus without having an occipital bun. The description you're quoting above mentions a nuchal crest, not an occipital bun.

I take you at your word that those Bigfoot forms are filled with imposters. Not knowing who is who, however, I still get the impression that you like to badmouth me over there and then expect to have a reasoned conversation over here (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't like being misrepresented.

I have seen no positive evidence to suggest to me that Bigfoot exists, and I find the idea that Bigfoot sightings and "giant skeletons" are somehow related to a survival of Archaic humans to be not worth spending a lot of time on. I wrote this post to correct some misinterpretations of the Humboldt skull. There are a lot of things we don't know/understand about human prehistory and the natural world, but credible ideas about the "unknowns" have to be consistent with the things (e.g., evidence) that we DO know about.

Maybe I should start a blog post just for debating your ideas about Bigfoot. Give me a real email address so I can verify whether posts are yours or those of an imposter.

Reply
Andy White
6/20/2016 06:45:28 am

Sorry for all the typos -- going too fast.

Joe
6/20/2016 10:04:09 am

If an occipital bun in a skull is accompanied by many other morphological features that are consistent with palaeolithic specimens, then it's at least more warranted. To elaborate on this, the anthropologists studying the skull in 1967 drew upon many other unusual features, as well as the nuchel crest, that according to them is not found in anatomically modern humans. The brain case lacks frontal lobe capacity and the manner in which the skull narrows behind the eye sockets and sloped forehead are examples of these. Also, you'll notice that the anthropologists states that;
“... Eastern Asiatic subdivision of the general Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens.”
... That's profound. You'll notice that the ideas posed about the unusual features of the skull have been consistent with the things that anthropologists DO know about palaeolithic specimens (the evidence). Apologies about the "occipital bun", I was meant to be referencing the nuchal crest. Admittedly, sometimes I'm an idiot.

If you have not seen any positive evidence for the existence of "Bigfoot", then that does not mean it doesn't exist. The truth is that much of what people know about the subject is brought to them via mainstream avenues that make the subject's state of evidence look pretty barren and reliant on mere sightings reports. I don't think anyone SHOULD be bothered to spend much time on the premise that large human skeletal remains and "Bigfoot" sightings reports are evidence for an extant caveman. Fortunately, nobody is presenting that as an argument to you now.

I get the impression that you're not doing too well about not being offended by certain posts over there. Some people, after repeated goading, have merely stated facts regarding your general uninterest to acknowledge certain points presented to you here, opting to be what many would interpret as being rude instead. One may easily perceive your approach to comments made on other blogs as cherry picking somewhat, in an effort to be offended, as you appear to not have highlighted the areas of your insight that have in fact been utilised in the most respectful of of manners. And don't worry about making a blog post specially for me, I'm really not that important. Whilst I'm pretty sure you'd know where to find me if ever you ever wanted to exchange ideas. If there's a place where I may post my email address safely, then by all means, you are very welcome to it.

Andy White
6/21/2016 11:02:13 am

Hi Joe,

I'm not sure what you mean about "being offended." I occasionally surf some Bigfoot sites just so see if there's anything interesting going on. When I see my name mentioned in the comments I read them. I've seen things I've written misrepresented, but I have no interest in trying to figure out who is saying what -- it all just looks like a big bowl of stupid to me, not worth trying to untangle.

As I understand it, your idea is that Bigfoot is actually a surviving population of "early humans" that still live on this continent. You think that the bones of those hominids can be discriminated from the bones of modern humans by constellations of features that, although also present in modern humans, mark them as more similar to "ancient humans." You think that the "Bigfoot" hominids have a material culture that significantly overlaps with that of prehistoric Native Americans. In other words, part of the skeletal and archaeological record of North America actually pertains to Bigfoot rather than the ancestors of Native Americans, but they're so similar that we can't really reliably tell them apart.

Do I have that right?

Joe
6/21/2016 12:24:05 pm

Hello Andy.

My theory is that there is an extant subspecies of paleolithic Homo sapiens still residing in the US, and that these can be differentiated by collective morphological and anatomical traits that though found in rare singular instances, are not found in modern Homo sapiens sapiens. I am aware of how crazy a concept that sounds.

For Floridian Native peoples, seashells were a very significant cultural trait. Such shells have been found in midwestern mounds, demonstrating that at one time trade was thriving up and down the Mississippi and highly likely in other regions. With regular trade, interbreeding between tribes likely occurred. These two factors are what I'm thinking has blurred the lines from an archeological standpoint. Now I'm not saying that all the large human skeletal remains found in mounds are what is commonly known as "Bigfoot". What I'm saying is if there's a reliable archeological record of large human skeletal remains, as well as skulls that show paleolithic features (found in areas where native oral histories have maintained conflicting, large, cannibalistic tribes have resided), then when someone turns around and asks for a fossil trail one can at least point to a series of archeological data that would seem to support the idea of what I'm claiming "Sasquatch" are.

Reply
Andy White
6/24/2016 04:26:29 am

Hi Joe,

I don't think you have a fundamental grasp of the archaeological record of eastern North America. There is nothing in it -- nothing -- that is consistent with the idea that an extra-large subspecies of "Paleolithic" humans existed in the area and can be connected to present-day ideas about Bigfoot. The skeletal remains dating from the Early Holocene to the historic period in eastern North America are those of unquestionably modern humans that are unquestionably linked to modern Native Americans. The changes in material culture and social organization that we can see in the archaeological record show us that all kinds of interesting things happened as these Native American societies transformed themselves over the course of at least 12,000 years. There are many things we don't know about what happened (hence, we're still doing archaeology), but there are many things that we do know. The idea that prehistoric Native American societies are somehow Bigfoot in disguise is consistent with no evidence that I know of. And when I've seen claims that Native American remains are actually those of Bigfoot, those claims have been ridiculous and full of misinterpretations, wishful thinking, and errors. That was the original subject of this post: if you understand variation in human skeletal anatomy, the Humboldt skull is clearly nothing other than a human skull. Read an introductory textbook on North American archaeology and tell me where in the thousands of years of prehistory that we know about you can spot the Bigfoot people.

Reply
Joe
6/24/2016 06:54:56 am

Andy, there IS however 7-7.5 foot tall skeletons that attest to the contrary, you yourself have acknowledged this. There IS however skulls found that have morphology akin to paleolithic Homo sapiens, with the skull up top attesting to this. Whether that is relevant or not to what I'm proposing depends on what your preferred idea of "Bigfoot" should be. If you feel that if "Bigfoot" existed that it would be the classic fairy tail bipedal gorilla that is the subject of people's eyewitness reports for the past 50 years, that has no modern physical evidence or archeological record then few would disagree with you. If you are however convinced that "Bigfoot" is in fact a tall ancient homo Sapien that different cultures have reported for many hundreds of years, that has modern examples of physical evidence in support, then the archeological record that appears to substantiate this suddenly seems applicable. To state that this can't be the case because it is not in any mainstream introductory text books is not only rhetorical, but to suggest I familiarise myself with such texts is rude and lowering the tone of this discussion. You don't see any mention of Smithsonian Bureuas in such texts either, but this doesn't mean this data is not at least on the fringe of this immediate subject. Might I add, that we know little about the skull morphology of the finds documented in those Bureaus. Now I'm not about to use that as a negative argument (I can't say the same for your stance given that you're seemingly resting on what is possibly yet to be confirmed by modern archeology as an argument, audacious as I'm proposing a new archeological theory), but that IS relevant I think. Given the lack of available data in those finds, it is not unquestionably irrelevant to my argument. Over the course of 12,000 years there was undoubtedly a lot of that occurred, this is very, very much agreed.

Andy White
6/24/2016 08:26:30 am

Joe, for your ideas (as I understand them) to make any sense you'll have to explain how a 7'-tall individual buried in an Early/Middle Woodland mound is a "tall ancient Homo sapiens" that's actually Bigfoot while the numerous other individuals of varying stature that were interred in those mounds are not. And you'll have to explain why the "Paleolithic" Bigfoot peoples had an essentially Neolithic lifeway with pottery and horticulture. And what does that have to do with the burial of a large individual in a cave in Nevada?

I suggested that you read an introductory textbook on American archaeology not be rude, but to try to tell you that we actually have a pretty good understanding of many aspects of North American prehistory. We know a lot of things about prehistoric exchange, demography, cultural continuity, technological change, etc., and it's hard for me to imagine how one could construct a good argument for the existence throughout North American prehistory of some kind of relict population of "Paleolithic" humans living alongside the ancestors of modern Native American peoples. You've talked about a robust skull from Nevada, trade in seashells (a well-documented phenomenon), and some tall individuals reported by the Smithsonian. I don't see how that adds up to "Bigfoot."

Bob Jase
6/24/2016 08:40:29 am

Joe, your definition for what constitutes a bigfoot remind me of the definitions that theists use for what constitutes a god - mangeled circular & contradictory to try to ignore the fact that they just don't define anything.

Joe
6/24/2016 09:41:11 am

Andy,

Might I remind you that I have already stated that I am not claiming that all large skeletal remains found in mounds are of a subspecies of paleolithic Homo sapiens. Trade and interbreeding has already been highlighted a possible factor for these things that you allude to. The Cherokee for example have oral histories of sharing burial places with tribes that possess the same key descriptive characteristics, described by nearly every tribe in North America. This was not always the case however, as most tribes' oral histories refer to them as cannibals. There is no contradiction here, and is diversity that can be attributed to human temperament (be it otherwise primitive in this case). Now I know I am lacking in an archeological record for these ideas, but cultural & oral histories and ideas are still anthropological in nature and are therefore data relevant to my ideas. Wouldn't these tall hairy tribes and native peoples who had interbred with each other merely have carried these paleolithic traits into Neolithic times? I do believe that the Humboldt skull was found in the Humboldt Sink flats and not a cave. The Paiutes in that area have oral histories of the “Pahi-zoho”, tall hairy tribes who would use primitive baskets to capture small children to eat. The “Pahi Zoho”, also referred to as “Tso ‘apittse”, were described as an ogre like being who hunted down women, cutting them up and eating them. Notice the referencing of tools? Tribes both hostile and friendly to one another would no doubt adopt ideas in the same way that many recognised cultures have done so from the beginning of time.

With all due respect, I'm pretty sure theists never had archeological data to prop up their ideas.

Reply
Joe
6/24/2016 10:01:57 am

And by the tribes that the Cherokee were said to have shared burial places with, that had consistent descriptive characteristic across the US, I meant "Sasquatch".

Reply
Andy White
6/24/2016 01:49:23 pm

Now I'm really confused - do you think there is archaeological data relevant to sasquatch, or not? If the "Bigfoot people" are so similar to Native Americans in terms of their stature and material culture, how do you propose that their remains can be reliably discriminated? Some large skeletons are sasquatch and some aren't? How do you know which is which?

Reply
Joe
6/24/2016 02:07:27 pm

By skulls like the one up top that has collective prehistoric morphological features not found in Native Americans?

Andy White
6/24/2016 02:23:31 pm

Question: how do you know it's Bigfoot? Answer: because it has features not found among Native Americans. Question: how do you know those features are not Native American? Answer: because it's a Bigfoot.

Do you see the problem here?

Late 19th and early 20th century racial typologizing of skulls did not hold up to late-20th century scrutiny. There are reasons why professionals don't use categories like "Otamid" anymore, the main one being that morphological variation in skulls doesn't clearly break down into "types." Have a look at this 1966 paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1966.68.2.02a00100/pdf

Andy White
6/24/2016 01:59:04 pm

And can you point me to a credible source for the "Pahi-zoho" information? What I see when I google it is links to Bigfoot sites. Do you know of an original source for the oral history?

Reply
Joe
6/24/2016 02:18:34 pm

https://yosemitemonolakepaiute.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/paiute-encounters-with-bigfoot-like-creatures/

Andy White
6/24/2016 02:28:13 pm

A blog post from 2007 isn't really the kind of source I had in mind. The text from that blog is repeated on several Bigfoot sites. Is that the original source? Is that it?

Andy White
6/24/2016 02:57:34 pm

Here, I did some work for you. This paragraph is from a 1932 ethnography. It describes how the Paiute (at least the ones the ethnographer was talking to) interpreted the archaeological remains they encountered (i.e., things on the landscape that they themselves did not produce):

"Stone archaeological remains are fairly plentiful, although not
spectacular, and are ascribed to mythical pre-Paviotso inhabitants. Thus, " These stone things came from the stories. When animals were people they made them." Pestles are foumd near water, "because Niimuizo'ho (cannibal; literally people-grinder) was drivlen into the lake." Another cannibalistic being, Bahi'zoho, who was "animal but looked like an Indian," has mortars ascribed to himj. Niimiuna (people's father) is held responsible for petroglyphs and for footprints
seen along lake shores.""

Andy White
6/24/2016 03:09:54 pm

Here's some more oral history that's relevant. This publication has lots of references to "giants" (search in the document). If you're going to take one bit of oral history literally, why not all of it?

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/cultural/reports.Par.99842.File.dat/12_N_Pauite.pdf

Bob Jase
6/24/2016 07:54:28 pm

I know Andy already said it nicely but do you seriously consider a blog written in 2007, with no cited references, constitutes ancient legends??

Joe
6/24/2016 02:34:48 pm

Andy, this is how that should have read;
Question: how do you know it's Bigfoot? Answer: because it has features not found among Native Americans. Question: how do you know those features are not Native American? Answer: because we would have examples of native Americans with the same collective ancient morphological features. It was also found in a place with rich oral histories of large cannibalistic tribes.

The problem with the idea that late 19th and early 20th century racial typologizing of skulls is relevant to this situation, is firstly that the paper up top was written in 1967, and secondly we have photos of the actual skull to reference from that same year.

Thank you very, very much for the link. I'll read that at the first opportunity.

Reply
Andy White
6/24/2016 02:42:43 pm

You mean the "rich oral histories" dating back to a single source from 1882 that's been consistently conflated and misrepresented by Bigfoot and giant enthusiasts for years now?

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4390

Reply
Andy White
6/24/2016 02:47:02 pm

"Otamid" is a term coined by Georg Neumann (I think). The reason you don't see it used by professionals anymore is that, like other racial types based on skulls, it wasn't found to be useful or valid.

Reply
Joe
6/24/2016 03:36:59 pm

Andy, I have always found it somewhat ignorant of some sources that think they are warranted in telling Native Peoples what their own oral histories are about. Please check up on Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins. I noticed that fascinating source you posted from 1932 mentions nothing of the Pahi-zoho that have very clear and very elaborated oral histories attached to them in comparison to things like the Niimuizo'ho or the Bahi'zoho. I also thought that a source called "Yosemite Mono Lake Paiute Native American History", where anyone can challenge such oral traditions and seemingly hasn't, would suffice in this instance. I am not at liberty to access your wonderful libraries in the States and am a little limited as to what I can source for you in that respect. Taking into consideration your Sceptoid source... The remains found at Sunset Cave close to Lovelock Nevada were said to be over seven feet tall, with some of these being shipped off to the Smithsonian Institute by L.L. Loud, an archaeologist with the University of California. Apparently. these notes are still on digital file at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology, listed under reference number 544, "An Anthropological Expedition of 1913". And lastly in regards to your Sceptoid source;

"A hair sample from Spirit Cave Man was analyzed by Craig Lahren, then of the Office of the Hamilton County Medical Examiner’s Office. In his report Lahren (1997:2) states, “… density and distribution of the pigment granules in your sample (2064) is typical of a Caucasian individual” and that the “… pigment granules in your sample (2064) are brown.” The report also states that the hair “… has a moderate shaft diameter with minimal variation, and an oval cross-sectional shape. All of these observations are consistent with hair derived from the head or more specifically the scalp of a Caucasian individual.”

"Given the current state of scientific technology, methodology and theoretical framework, there is no biological information available at this time which would allow the assignment of Spirit Cave Man to an affiliation with a particular tribe. There is no available biological information which clearly supports cultural continuity with contemporary North American Indians. The biological information does not indicate that there is, “a relationship of shared group identity which can reasonably be traced historically or prehistorically between members of the present-day Indian tribe...and an identifiable early group,” (Sec 2(2)) as required by NAGPRA . No biological findings to date indicate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that there is an “affiliation” of Spirit Cave Man to a particular tribe."
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/coop_agencies/cr_publications.Par.32029.File.tmp/spiritnotes10.pdf

Anyway Andy, I would like to thank you for a very stimulating discussion. I won't take up much more of your time as I'm sure you have better things to do, like adding to this excellent blog. Thanks again for your ideas, I will take them away and give them some genuine consideration. I almost feel like apologising for some of the "far out" ideas I've presented. I do fully acknowledge the extraordinary nature of what I'm proposing and appreciate someone as educated as yourself taking the time to address them in a respectful manner. Hopefully I'll speak to you in the near future.

Peace!

Andy White
6/25/2016 09:10:01 am

Joe:

The Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins source (1882): the reason I pointed you to that is that it makes no mention of "giants" or anything about the size of the people she's describing. Those are recent additions/conflations by Bigfoot/giants communities to make the "legend" fit their story.

I think Bahi'zoho is probably the same word as Pahi-zoho.

None of the information that I'm talking about here comes from any place other than the internet that I can access while sitting on my couch, just like you. If you're going to claim a "rich oral history" that supports Bigfoot, I think you should be prepared to back up the assertion with evidence better than a 2007 blog post and an 1882 document that has been willfully misinterpreted over and over again. I'm no expert on Paiute mythology and oral history. It may be that it actually does support claims about Bigfoot - I don't know. But I'm going to need something more than a single online source that says "my relatives told me these stories." There's no reason to assume that that's any better evidence for Bigfoot than someone at the gas station telling me he saw Bigfoot. There just has to be more to it than that.

Joe
6/29/2016 03:13:25 am

"The Koop Ticutta didn't know where they came from, but they were very tall and had red hair all over their bodied (Auburn Rhodes). Not only did the Koop Ticutta band fight with these strange Indians, but other Paiute bands also fought them. These strange Indians were said to have eaten human flesh (Sarah Winnemucca). Since they ate human flesh, the Paiute people called them Numa Ticutta, People Eaters (Ione Allen)."
http://www.lovelockpaiutetribe.com/History.html

Also...

http://www.kurtoweber.com/Kurt_Weber/2000/PaiuteMuseum2.jpg

... Here is a photo of the Pyramid Lake Museum Visitor’s Center. It's a Pahi-Zoho, holding a lantern and a cage, measuring 7 foot 4 inches tall (sourced by Micah Ewers). Hope that helps!

Take care Andy!

Reply
Bob Jase
6/29/2016 04:59:35 am

Wow, gen-u-whine hearsay legends with a couple of centuries of telephone tag added!

Reply
Joe
6/29/2016 07:54:21 am

"Gen-u-whine hearsay legends", that appear to have an archaeological record of substantiation. Here's a better photo, again sourced by Micah Ewers;

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/85876433

Bob Jase
6/29/2016 10:05:53 am

Then Paul Bunyan and a shitload of other fictional characters that stautes are made depicted must also exist.

Joe
6/29/2016 11:00:53 am

Bob Jase, just to let you know, sir... If you are looking to drag me down to a level which appears to be that of unintellectual goading, swearing and plain old ignorance in the face of many points presented, you are wasting your time. I mean that in the most respectful way possible.

Reply
Bob Jase
6/29/2016 11:18:43 am

Oh, you forgot to say you'd pray for me.

Reply
Normandie Kent
3/28/2019 01:43:50 pm

Lol!! Classic!

Joe
6/29/2016 11:26:49 am

The reason that statue is highly relevant, is because the museum describes the Paiute tribe’s history & culture. The curators obviously thought the subject of the statue highly relevant to that cause, therefore eradicating any suggestion that anyone could be interpreting what the Paiute people have at their cultural core.

Reply
Bob Jase
6/29/2016 12:49:24 pm

And he's wearing a bandolier like Chewbacca's because the Paiute were jedi?

Andy White
6/30/2016 06:26:05 am

We've already discussed the Sarah Winnemucca reference (which says nothing about height). Who is Auburn Rhodes?

I'm not saying there couldn't be some tradition among the Paiute that resonates with "Bigfoot," but in order to make that case you'll have to do better than a modern sculpture, a reference (Sarah Winnemucca) that is frequently/willfully/ignorantly mis-represented by believers, and some un-sourced quotes about stories people heard. To me, that amounts to a very, very weak case.

Reply
Joe
6/30/2016 03:31:37 pm

I've yet to pour over the Sarah Winnemucca stuff, but I think the claims of misinterpretation, even fabrication on the part of enthusiasts are slightly eroded if there are reliable sources (University of California) of 7 foot skeletal remains being excavated from places they have been alleged to exist in the past? Again, it's not a mere sculpture and is highly relevant because the museum describes the Paiute tribe’s history & culture. And I also don't have "some unsourced stories", I have descriptions of Paiute oral history from two internet sources that come directly from administrators who are themselves Pauite.

I also have a skull that has paleolithic features for reference.

I think that it's very important for me to say that nobody is trying to persuade you, Andy, merely politely contest your ideas. To state that my ideas amount to a weak case is what I expect from a typically rhetorical approach to them, and what I personally think of the points I've presented is that they hold up to your level of scrutiny. I feel like I should attempt to part ways in a respectful manner again, and in case I don't end up responding again to what is a very stimulating discussion, take care y'all!

Reply
Bob Jase
7/1/2016 11:48:15 am

To quote from Sarah Winnemucca's 1882 book, "Their parents tell them stories, traditions of old times, even of the first mother of the human race; and love stories, stories of giants, and fables; and when they ask if these last stories are true, they answer, "Oh, it is only coyote," which means that they are make-believe stories."

Bob Jase
7/1/2016 11:41:32 am

Auburn Rhodes was inducted into the Paiute tribe in March of 2012 accoring to their newletter of the 2nd quarter of 2012. I could find no other information about him.

Reply
Joe
7/2/2016 01:54:30 am

That's because stories of "giants" ARE undoubtedly make-believe... Tall hairy tribes; seemingly not so much. Auburn Rhodes, whatever way you want to strawman it, speaks on behalf of the Pauite.

Andy White
6/30/2016 06:30:49 am

It looks like that sculpture was created for Burning Man in 2013?

Reply
Joe Kiray
12/15/2017 07:15:59 am

Andy, this "Joe" guy you're talking to is a Troll. He doesn't field research, not a day in his life! All he can do is reiterate what others are saying, and most are clueless. He has no idea what's true, and what isn't because he's never researched! I have over 10,000 pics of these creatures, and i can tell you what's true, and what isn't.

Reply
K P
4/14/2019 10:15:18 pm

tall red haired groups were also in Mexico, likely viking

Reply
Jamie Cress
11/22/2020 03:05:09 pm

People jump to conclusions because there is a void in archaeology. The skull in question generates sasquatch theories for one reason. The skull looks very different from Modern native Americans. It's curious to use Brock Lesnar as an example because his features aren't typical for neither Caucasians nor native Americans. The prognathic nature of this skull would make me think this individual was African or South Asian which typical for most Paleoindian skulls. But of course these facts get no attention because they're much harder to dismiss.

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