Is there Archaeological Evidence of Bigfoot? (Part II) cover

Is there Archaeological Evidence of Bigfoot? (Part II)

By


This article is a continuation of another review of Bigfoot. To briefly review, Mitchel Townsend was featured in an article that announced that they had found archaeological evidence of Bigfoot and challenges scientists to refute their findings that the chewed bones they found are evidence for Bigfoot’s existence.
[This article is being co-written by myself, Katy Meyers Emery, and Lisa Bright, a graduate student at MSU in the mortuary archaeology program.]





NoteStream NoteStream

NoteStreams are readable online but they’re even better in the free App!

The NoteStream™ app is for learning about things that interest you: from music to history, to classic literature or cocktails. NoteStreams are truly easy to read on your smartphone—so you can learn more about the world around you and start a fresh conversation.

For a list of all authors on NoteStream, click here.




Read the NoteStream below, or download the app and read it on the go!

Save to App


Is there Archaeological Evidence of Bigfoot? (Part II)

Challenge Accepted

This article is a continuation of another review of Bigfoot.

To briefly review, Mitchel Townsend was featured in an article that announced that they had found archaeological evidence of Bigfoot and challenges scientists to refute their findings that the chewed bones they found are evidence for Bigfoot’s existence.

Challenge Accepted! Today, we continue with Lisa’s rebuttal of the evidence that Townsend found.

Challenging the Evidence

Challenging the Evidence

So let’s get back to the real news- that a professor has supposedly found evidence of Bigfoot. When we look deeper into this, we found two unpublished articles more closely documenting their findings:

©iStock

The Analysis

“Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identify 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 Mills, Mills and Townsend (Forthcoming) and “Tooth Impression Analysis on Predator Killed Elk” also by Mills, Mills and Townsend (Forthcoming).

What's for Dinner?

The Mills and Townsend reports are interesting because they are not claiming to have located Bigfoot. Rather, they believe that they have located evidence of Bigfoot’s dinner:

1. Bone Stacking Technique

They argue that they found nicely stacked piles of bone, which is evidence of human-like behavior, and the Department of Fish and Game determined that the stacking of bones was not a type of behavior seen in any known animal.

More Points

2. Skeletal Evidence      

Bones collected were mainly ribs and vertebrae from deer or elk.

3. Bigfoot’s teeth

They claim that the impact marks are from incisors, canines, and double arched molars in a pattern that matches human teeth.

Looks Normal

Looks Normal

Stacked bones from Mills.

Image by Mills & Townsend 2015.

Evidence

4. Bite Marks

They propose that the bite ratio can be reconstructed from the individual tooth impact marks, and that it is 2.5 times the width of the average human dental arcade.

5. Tooth Impact Marks

They conclude that there were several individuals consuming the deer and elk based on the tooth impressions. They also conclude that the 1.5 inch tooth impact mark width could not have come from a known animal.

6. Timing

The authors treat the “kill sites” as recent, even discussing evidence of grass trampling during the elk eating process.

What does this evidence mean? Bigfoot. Really? Yup, that is what it says- Bigfoot. But how does this evidence stand up to real scientific inquiry- here’s Lisa to dispute the claims!

Bite Marks

Bite Marks

Stacked bones from Mills.

Image by Mills & Townsend 2015.

Lisa’s Evidence and Research

The reason Lisa is qualified to dispute this, is it that they cite a public forum presentation she gave in 2010 as supporting their findings, which it definitely does not do.

Her masters thesis, “Taphonomic Signatures of Animal Scavenging in Northern California: A Forensic Anthropological Analysis”, sought to better understand scavenger behavior and modification of human remains in northern California. She examined skeletal remains housed in the California State University, Chico Human Identification Laboratory collection for scavenging damage, documenting both the pattern of damage as well as tooth impact mark data.

Scavenging Experiment

She also conducted a scavenging experiment by placing pig carcasses in rural wooded areas and used motion activated trail cameras to document scavenging activity.

In this case, it was mostly black bears (sometimes more than 12 different bears) scavenging the pig carcasses. Just like the human skeletal sample, Lisa documented the scavenging damage patterns and tooth impact marks on the pig remains.

Lisa’s Conclusion

She concluded that the tooth impact measurements didn’t work.

She had photographic evidence of what ate the pigs, and using standard methods those tooth pits and punctures by measurement alone could not be traced back to the bears that consumed them. Lisa did, however conclude that bears scavenge in a different pattern than other scavengers by eating areas of the highest fat concentration first (not the internal organs like dogs or coyotes do).

Bear Scavenging

If you’re interested, you can also check out her video of the bears scavenging on YouTube!

Video

Interpretation of the Evidence

1. Bone Stacking Technique

Just because the Department of Fish and Game said an animal didn’t pile the bones does not mean that it is otherworldly. Not only do the bones appear to be at the bottom of a slope (and we all know things roll down hill), but it’s also possible that other humans may have picked up and moved the bones, just like the authors did when they encountered them.

Lisa’s Evidence

Lisa’s Evidence

Still from the video Lisa took during her experiment of bears scavenging a pig carcass.

Points

2. Skeletal Evidence

Ribs are difficult bones to take tooth impact measurements on because of their complex shape, and their delicate nature. Ribs and vertebrae are prone to easy fracturing and distortion when being chewed on.

3. Bigfoot’s Teeth

Incisors typically don’t leave impressions on bone, aside from small scrapes and furrows. Large pits and punctures are typically created by canine teeth.

4. Bite Marks

The authors are trying to take bite mark analysis and dental arcade reconstructions typically used on flesh or soft material, and translating it to bone. That just does not work.

5. Tooth Impact Marks

When animal scavenge its possible for a single individual to leave a range of tooth impact marks dependent on the depth, pressure, and angle at which they are chewing.

They specifically cite a public presentation Lisa gave during the beginning of her thesis research (Bright 2010), where she did talk about the potential ability to infer scavenger activity based on disarticulation sequence, scavenger behavior, and tried to look at tooth impression marks.

However, her research concluded that it wasn’t possible to identify the scavenger to species, or potentially even taxa, based only on the tooth impact marks. She had remains that she watched bears scavenge, that did not match the typical tooth impact marks proposed by the literature.

6. Timing

The bones are highly weathered and sun bleached.

Taphonomy is more than just scavenging; it’s anything that happens to the remains after death including movement by gravity or water, human intervention, natural decomposition, etc. At the low end, it’s likely that the bones have been there a minimum of six months, probably more.

Final Thoughts

In Lisa’s opinion, the damage to the elk and deer remains has a much more logical explanation than Bigfoot.

She have not seen the bones, but based on the pictures provided in the reports, she argues that it is most likely bear or coyote scavenging. Although tooth impact analysis may sometimes work to determine the general characteristics of a possible scavenger, her experience with it indicated that method is questionable.

Sasquatch Crossing

Sasquatch Crossing

©iStock

What the Bones Say

There’s a lot of variation that can occur when a tooth impacts bone, especially on ribs.

Taphonomy is also more than just animal activity. It involves considering the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of bone, length of outdoor exposure, weather patterns, decomposition timing, and a slew of other variables. All of these things need to be considered together when scavenged bones are analyzed.

Bones Don’t Lie

(CC BY-SA 3.0)

What the Bones Say

There’s a lot of variation that can occur when a tooth impacts bone, especially on ribs.

Taphonomy is also more than just animal activity. It involves considering the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of bone, length of outdoor exposure, weather patterns, decomposition timing, and a slew of other variables. All of these things need to be considered together when scavenged bones are analyzed.

Bones Don’t Lie

(CC BY-SA 3.0)