A Possible Origin of Sasquatch


Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by David Batdorf, a Sasquatch enthusiast that is interested in taking an anthropological, bird's-eye-view of the phenomenon and an advocate for species protection. Basically, he's a Bigfoot nerd.

In my last two posts, Sasquatch: Human vs Ape and The Ambiguous Gigantopithecus, I discussed my opinions, as to the likely origins of Sasquatch. I'd like to discuss the topic further utilizing what is known about protohuman migrations, periodic glaciation and the appearance of land bridges.

I will attempt to build a hypothetical model of the potential origin of the Sasquatch, identify which common ancestor we most likely share, offer suggestions for how they got to North America and when that migration could have occurred.

NOTE: I will focus on the Bering Land Bridge. However, I would like to point out that, similarly, the Sumatran Land Bridge is affected by the same rise and retreat of the oceans, offering access to the islands and in some cases, Australia...

The difference between; "Ice Ages" and "Periods of Glaciation"


Most people refer to the most recent peak of extreme glaciation, as the last "Ice Age". The last glacial maximum or peak, in which, the first modern humans crossed the Bering land bridge, or Beringia, occurred 10,000 - 14,000 years ago. The Current Ice Age, also known as, Pleistocene Glaciation, Quaternary Glaciation or simply, "The Ice Age", has actually been underway for 2.58 million years. During this ice age, there have been several glacial periods and interglacial periods. Glacial peaks, known as a "glacial maximums", occur within glacial periods. Periods of glaciation, their peaks and interglacial periods are calculated by measuring the C02 levels in sediments and rocks, then inferring the amount of ice present and temperature changes.

Glaciers, being comprised of compacted snow, are usually formed on high mountains that collect precipitating clouds against their peaks. They slowly and powerfully flow like rivers to lower elevations, shaping the land as they go. It is this inland entrapment of water, that at times of extreme glaciation is over a mile thick, that leads to decreased sea levels and thus, the emergence of land bridges.

At our most recent glacial maximum, the Beringia land bridge was likely one thousand miles, from North to South, or roughly the distance from Seattle to San Francisco, spanned between Alaska and Siberia and not covered in ice, as many would imagine. It was a lush forest environment, much like the Alaskan and Canadian coastline and interior of today. To many of those who inhabited the region, Beringia would have been a seemingly endless, bountiful refuge as the glaciers encroached from the mountains on either side.

Narrowing the Timeline



I choose the development of bipedalism as a precursory point to divergence of modern humans and Sasquatch. If this occurred 4.75 million years ago and the period of Quaternary Glaciation began 2.58 million years ago, we can cut the amount of time we need to look at for the Sasquatch crossing to America nearly, in half.

Glacial maximums and the extremes to which glaciation occurred have been measured, dated and named, within the last Ice Age. The periods of glaciation, from the most recent to oldest with glacial peaks extreme enough to open the land bridge are: Wisconsin or Wurm; Illinois or Riss; Kansasian or Mindel; and Nebraska or Guns. Prior to Nebraska, at about 1 million years ago, there were no glacial maximums that exceed our current level of ice, today and would likely have left Beringia underwater.

Within each these named periods are multiple glacial peaks or maximums. The third peak of the Wisconsin period is where modern people from Siberia came to America 10,000-14,000 years ago. It spans the shift from the Pleistocene to the Halocene Epoch and is still in recession.

NOTE: Pleistocene Mammalian Gigantism has long been a theory of why Sasquatch is so large. In my hypothetical model, if Sasquatch shares common ancestry with us at an overall maximum of 4.75 million years ago and a first potential crossing at 1 million years ago, this gives Sasquatch 3.75 million years of evolution to adapt to a life in the Northern coniferous forest. More than enough time to do so, if only a fraction of that time. Many of those years could have been spent reacting to pressures of other mammals becoming giants and may have followed suit as a predatory or a defense mechanism.

Sasquatch, Out of Africa?!


One reason that the Sasquatch' progenitors may have been on the move is due to the Miocene to Pliocene shift that occurred 5.3 million years ago, which began the deforestation and drying out of Africa. This major environmental change began prior to our specialized bipedal adaptations and is thought to have been the catalyst for the end of our progenitor’s arboreal lifestyle, by forcing us into the growing grassland. By the beginning of our Quanternary Glacial period and Pleistocene Epoch, 2.58 million years ago, human progenitors were upright, but still very different from our more modern variants.

There is much evidence that the exodus from Africa may have happened much earlier than was thought, 30-40 years ago. Homo erectus, was one of the first, longest lived and the second-most widespread of our Genus (second, only to our own subspecies of H. sapiens). They were also the first candidate for the widespread, but not complete global population, for a number of reasons. They are found at 1.8 million years ago and survived, at least, to 500,000 years ago. Some say as little as 65,000 - 35,000 years ago.

Like modern humans on their way to Siberia, Homo erectus' movement from Africa to Eurasia was also controlled by climate change and glaciers, even at their tropical latitude. Sea levels, controlled by the glacial maximums, flooded and drained the rout out of Africa many times during the unimaginably-long reign of H. erectus.

Looking back over the periods of extreme glaciation, one could argue that; IF Sasquatch likely shares a common ancestor with humans, to support a bipedal primate; AND that bipedal ancestor was not our own subspecies; THEN their ancestor's exodus from Africa would have been limited to the waves of H. erectus or H. heidelbergensis that made it to East Asia. (I will explain why I feel Heidelbergensis is unlikely)

There is, of course, no evidence of Sasquatch being related to Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis, but there were many hominids living in Africa in the late Pleistocene... however, no other species are documented to have left for Asia, until our own subspecies did somewhere between 125,000-80,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans appear in africa at 200,000-150,000 years ago, or over 1.5 million years after H. Erectus spread from Africa and likely, as a secondary descendant of the H. erectus that remained in Africa. Erectus has been found from Africa, to Europe, to the East Asian/Chinese coast, all the way down through Sumatra.

Why I choose Erectus


There are many popular theories involving P. bosei or Neanderthal man or H. heidelbergensis as possible origins for Sasquatch, as a surviving relic Hominin. I have personally entertained many of these hypothesis, however, through more research into these amazing species, I found them all to be unlikely.

Paranthropus bosei is out, due to a lack of evidence of ever having left their relatively small geographical niche. This is likely due to their specialized diet and adaptations and likely what lead to their demise.

Neanderthals were highly developed tool/weapon makers and users of fire. Their genetic closeness and somewhat recent, shared lineage with us makes it unlikely that these are the non technological, morphologically different Hominin that we seek.

The Homo heidelbergensis question is one that I have looked at in detail, because some pieces seem to fit. Unfortunately, the more I looked, the less likely it became. The Heidelberg Man is the likely progenitor of anatomically modern humans, the Neanderthal and arguably. Their oldest fossils have been called into question, as they may potentially be that of Erectus and the more recent fossils are said to be proto-sapiens, not Heidelbergensis. Their range was similar to that of Erectus, however, slightly smaller and much more recent. The argued beginning of their reign is 800,000 years ago, or about the same time Erectus was already in East Asia. H. heidelbergensis did not arrive in NE China until 280,000 years ago, at the earliest. This only allows them the same, reasonable access that we had to Siberia in the interglacial period before the most recent, Wisconsin glacial period. Heidelbergensis also began their evolutionary journey with the knowledge and technology of the later, more evolved and advanced Erectus, in Africa.


Homo erectus is unique, because many of the adaptations passed to modern Hominin, like brain size, complex tool making and the use of fire, were developed over their approximate 1.5 million year reign. Brain size is of particular interest, as it lead to the other cultural and technological advances associated with Homo that were passed on to the Heidelberg Man and then us, in Africa. There is an interesting correlation with brain growth and the speed of adolescent development. In the Turkana Boy fossils, we find evidence that adolescent growth was much more rapid than in our own species. This leads to less time for brain growth, similar to nonhuman apes. We find that their cranial vaults began very small in comparison to modern skulls and that their children developed much faster, probably due to environmental stresses to grow up fast. It wasn’t until around 800,000 years ago, in the time of the first transitional Heidelbergensis, that Erectus’ brain was nearing the size of a modern human.

Prior to this, there was around 1 million years of crude tool use and no concrete evidence of an ability to use, make or control fire. More interesting, still, is the fact that there is little-to-no evidence of tools even as simple as a bilateral hand-axe in Eastern Asia, prior to the coincidental appearance of Heidelbergensis, some 500,000 years after Erectus settled there. Also, Erectus does not decidedly use fire until 300,000 - 400,000 years ago, in Europe, well into the time of Heidelbergensis and possibly even Neanderthal.

When looking into the other potential candidates, I cant help but note the fact that Erectus may have crossed into the Americas as early as 350,000 years ago, but would not have been joined by more modern or evolved Hominin in China until 280,000 years ago, or 70,000 years after the potential crossing.

Did Erectus travel to Siberia and become isolated from the waves of subsequent Hominin, or were they already in the Americas and simply returned to Asia, after much evolutionary stress and divergence? Unfortunately, there is no concrete evidence that this actually occurred.

What Does This All Mean, Exactly?


This means that these early, relic humans were migrating, separating and diverging since their evolutionary debut. The H. erectus people likely gave way to Heidelbergenisis (who gave way to Neanderthal and “us”), Florensius and a host of other distinct, post-African, geographical variants, likely including the Red Deer Cave specimen and possibly the forbearers of the Denisova specimen.

Why not, Sasquatch? I would argue that this is a likely scenario, for the above and further reasons. Homo erectus is the most likely candidate to carry the traits of bipedalism to Sasquatch half-a-world-away, while maintaining a less technological lifestyle, as was seen in early East Asian finds. This also means that, in a hunt for Sasquatch fossils, we should be searching the sediment at less than, but a maximum of, 1.8 million years and that Sasquatch divergence from us is less than that total amount of time. Probably MUCH less.

I am not suggesting that Sasquatch is Homo erectus. My hypothesis is that Sasquatch was, like so many other Hominin, preceded by Homo erectus and became their own specific variant. The obvious conclusion in this model, therefore, would be that Sasquatch is of the Genus Homo, so technically, a human... yeah, I went there. Are you surprised?!

Now, Back to Beringia!


If we know that H. erectus was in China by about 780,000-680,000 years ago, we could assume that they may have made it farther North, as this was during an extremely long interglacial period and routs would have been open and very inviting, by today's standards. Beringia would not be potentially open again until the Mindel/Kansasian period, about 350,000-250,000 years ago. This would be the first potential crossing in this model. It is likely that H. erectus was living in East Asia long before the documented fossil find and had access to the earlier, deep glacial peaks, however, there is no evidence to support such claims, so I default to the following period.

We know that the mammalian megafauna had been migrating from Asia to N. America for some time, by 350,000 years ago. H. Erectus, being a mammal eater, would likely have followed his quarry, just as the Native American ancestors did. This is, of course, assuming that they were able to adapt to the climate.

For Erectus, this would have been a test in evolution, rather than our anatomically modern ancestor's ingenuity and environmental manipulation. Like other mammals of the time, thick coats and a gigantic stature would have done the trick to conserve heat and make use of available calories, as well as offer protection from enlarged prey.

If these natural occurring adaptations took place over the course of a minimum of 380,000-480,000 years (divergence between modern human and Neandethal has been dated at 500,000 years), is it possible that Sasquatch was a new and highly adapted variant on Erectus that crossed into America at a maximum of 350,000 years ago? Was that group separated from the Almas and Yeti of Asia by the rising oceans in Beringia? Were the subsequent openings of Beringia and meetings between the cutoff cousins an explanation for the variations seen in different areas in Asia and N. America?

If you take divergent evolution into account, look at what we have become and what the first H. erectus were and imagine something with a completely different set of climate and habitat needs... AND the unimaginably-long timeframe... maybe, Sasquatch is not so far fetched. Future Siberian fossil finds of H. erectus could potentially answer many, longstanding questions... this, I feel, is the missing piece to the puzzle. Siberia has produced more preserved specimen (Mammoth, etc...) than Alaska.

In Conclusion

For Sasquatch to exist as a bipedal North American Hominid, there has to be a Hominid that transported the traits of bipedalism from Africa to Siberia and then on to the Americas. If that Hominid was not a Homo sapiens subspecies or other post-African cousins, which I find unlikely, then it must have roots in an earlier, widespread Hominid.

Because of the dispersal of fossils in the scientific record, I suggest that the most likely candidate is the prolific creator of Homo species, the well traveled and diverse, Homo erectus.

Comments

  1. What about the possibility of bigfoot being a modern version of Gigantopithecus? Or even relic Gigantopithecus? Could our ancestors have interbred with thiers and created the modern bigfoot? I enjoyed the article but it only focused on bigfoot being human. There are many other possible genetics links that could be just as accurate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, could bigfoot be a genetic mutation or throwback of human that had an isolated population for years, then was able to migrate? I know that many humans, myself included, have throwback mutations to earlier humans. I have an extra vertebrae in my spine, the cavum septum pellucidum or fifth ventricle in my brain, my eyes reflect light more than normal and several other genetic mutations. Many are possible links to my myriad of health issues. Are these throwbacks or just mutations? Most docs believe they are throwbacks. My eyes in particular are strange. The pupil is 1-2mm larger than normal and I have great night vision. It is why they reflect more light than normal too. Modern humans have little need for night vision in most of the world. I also have excellent vision both near and far. Yet I am the only one in my family not to need glasses so far. That is why I think bigfoot is more a throwback of a hybrid human. There was some need for their size and likely an isolated population that was able to finally expand it's range. Maybe as the ice melted, it freed them.

      Delete
    2. I think many or definitely some scientists do have or at least know about sasquatch bones, why they won't or can't tell the world is the big question. But somebody somewhere through time must have some of these bones it's highly unrealistic to assume otherwise, unless this species is supernatural somehow it's not possible to escape detection like they have. We really ought to be the most developed and cunning species ourselves so something strange would indeed appear to be going on here, and we won't find these secret beings until we look outside the box and apply new methods.

      Delete
    3. Big Jim, do you also have a mutation of extra dumb?

      Delete
    4. What little remains we have of Giganto, points to it being a giant Orangutan. A quadruped.

      Delete
    5. Really, now that is something new. A giant orangutan. Do you know if it dates back to tbe same period as the giant ground sloth and other giant animals then? I have not read much on giganto, but I would kinda expect it to if that is the case. We should realy focus on that period of giant animals to see what else can be found. Plus, aren't most giant animals in pretty localized areas? Do they find fossils of giant sloths worldwide or only in spots? How close to those are other giant animals? Then if they are not found near each other find an area where none have been found yet and search outside of that area. I would love to find fossils like that. Been one of my favorite things since childhood, fossils.

      Delete
    6. The erectus heritage for Bigfoot does make the most sense (so far). I've mentioned here before I think they're megafauna, and evolved during the time of the cave-lions, short nosed bears, dire wolves, and sabertoothed cats, all of which were cooler climate residents. A bigger and faster erectus with development of nocturnal vision might easily evolve/be selected under this kind of predatory pressure. The age of glaciation started around 2.6 million years ago, right around the time that erectus was gathering his brains and bulk. That heidelbergensis was also an offshoot of erectus, and was also much larger lends support to the erectus-->bigfoot lineage. But it could also be that heidelbergensis just continued to get bigger, faster and continued on into the N American continent during one of the interglacial periods, also before their development tools and fire. The Bigfoots are a product of the megafauna age/environment for sure, in my opinion. Bigger and faster works for 2 leggs as well as four. But, are the bigfoots the last survivors of the megafauna age, and on their way out, as modern humans usurp their environment and food supplies, and temperatures get warmer? Can they hang on until the end of this interglacial period? Good article and commentary by all. Too few and far between.

      Delete
  2. This was a great read, and sounds plausible. It makes me think of the Palau pygmies. They were a wave of modern normal sized humans that landed on Palau and because of limited resources they are thought to have shrunk to between 3 and 4 feet in height over a period of about 300 years. This find always sticks with me when thinking of Sasquatch. Couldn't it also be possible that Sasquatch have evolved rapidly from early modern humans? Certainly use of language would suggest at least the possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I enjoyed this paper; however, I think it misses a key point: Humans, and likely Sasquatch, are the products of an evolutionary period beginning 6.5 to 7 million years ago, the time DNA analysis suggests separation from the great apes occurred. Following that, there was a 4 million year period in which bipedalism flourished. It is thought there were numerous biped species that evolved during that time, in both Africa and Asia. It is out of that species radiation that a line leading to humans came from - Australopithecus, dating to 3.5 million years plus. If this it true, why does Sasquatch, or Yeti for that matter, have to be justified based on human evolution at all? Rather, it makes sense to me that they might simply be hold overs from the period of pre-human bipedalism, a period that undoubtedly overlapped human evolution, perhaps even to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You obviously haven't read "You Are Sasquatch". It doesn't take the smartest man in the world to understand that man devolved from sasquatch in North America.
    FB/FB
    Burp
    Sniff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the species is from another planet possibly stranded by accident - or deliberately left here thousands of years ago. In that case it's maybe no wonder authorities won't dwell much on it.

      Delete
  5. Stubstad said the mtDNA was from the oldest halo-type which puts the split prior to 75,000 ybp if accurate.
    So it seems one of our forays out of Africa prior to that is the connection.

    BTW there are no "have tos" in paleoarcehology on the appearance of humans or Sas in the Americas, as coastal sites in California indicate arrival by boat by Polynesians, among other anomalies in our curent paradigm (cave art in S. America).

    We are related, but maybe not as closely as Neanderthal (and maybe so) and any representation of primarily H. erectus lineage seems the most likely.

    Their migration here could be anytime prior to 75,000 ybp to even greater than 200,000 (our physical emergence as modern humans).

    And that's not a "have to" either, co-evolution is possible and that halotype might go way back.

    Nice to see an article with actual thinking and research here.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. You got approval to post all the copyrighted graphics and photos right? Even if not (or because) please identify the sources, major boo-boo as it stands, otherwise nice article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nope, but beyond the legal how about fair acknowledgment? Fairness, novel concept these days isn't it?

      Delete
    2. To claim fair us it is important that your site to the original source, and this is arguably not such an application.
      Generally, one always cites to their sources, even websites, it's professional and helpful. This didn't spring from David's mind alone and it is helpful to the reader who desires a deeper read to find direction to his sources. As well as acknowledging the hard work of others.

      Delete
  7. THIS JUST IN
    OMFG!?!?! An informative article!?!?!?

    Probably the least viewed page this site's seen in months....
    Megaphone Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, funny all these asshats more interested in him citing his sources than the fact someone wrote something real and not mocking.

      Delete
    2. really should and he knows it...

      Delete
  8. David Batdorf you are so full of shit! Squatches are a form of human. I will fuc you up and kick you in the chest!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I appreciate the constructive criticism and could have cited a few studies, but most information in this article comes from years of interest in anthropology and would be impossible to cite from memory or query. I triple checked (and in some cases averaged) date ranges from google queries and chose educational sites (not Wiki), nearly at random, as oppinions differ from university to university and paper to paper. The educational websites do not offer citations to particular studies, but instead, offer a date range... as I had to, not having access to the original studies.
    Think of this as a generalized overview. I wasn't trying to write a paper... just sharing my thoughts! This is BFE, by the way! ;)
    David

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I enjoyed your article very much. It actually is more science based than what the bigfoot community is currently using to try and prove existence. By this I mean we only hear of studies, but never see them, hear of good footage and photos, which will never suffice, and hear of habitation. Your article gives people tangible areas to start looking. Granted it is in the fossil record, but if someone can prove that bigfoot did exist in the fossil record, that makes the case much stronger that bigfoot could be still around. Especially if they were found to have been isolated, yet still managed to thrive. Evidence like that supports claims of bigfoot being able to survive in limited area and keep out of sight. This site needs more stuff like this. It is interesting to only those who have a true interest in bigfoot, whether believers or skeptics. The ones who cause the most trash would drift away and I could stop feeding the animals.

      Delete
    2. Double bacon cheeseburger, large fries, choc shake - how much these cost @ Scaleburger? I try and go soon

      Delete
    3. http://m.yelp.com/biz/scaleburgers-elbe

      Read reviews, looks like about $15 since two each cost one reviewer $30.

      Delete
  10. Less science, more blobsquatch!!

    Who's with me?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Applying science might make you legitimate..then what?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Truck Antenna- Free of charge Assistive Post For Lightweight Antenna

    My page ... from video to mp3

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am amazed at how much this resembles my manuscript from two years ago. You can find it under "files" on Suzy Matiash's "Bigfoot Community" site. Almost word for word. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?