Articles and Papers

Teaching Anthropology and Critical Thinking with the Question "Is There Something Big Afoot?"

Turhon A. Murad

A course exploring the notion of whether Bigfoot, the sasquatch, the yeti, or any other such bipedal, hairy manlike monster might really exist can be an excellent opportunity to teach anthropology and critical thinking to students who are in desperate need of such instruction. In response to student interest, I have occasionally taught such a class and have found that the examination of the claims of those for whom Bigfoot-like creatures are real can involve evolutionary theory, primate anatomy, ecology, paleontology, and the history and philosophy of science, as well as cross-cultural considerations of religion, folklore, and myth. In a course entitled "Bigfoot and Other Monsters: Myth or Reality?" I review much of the evidence offered in support of the existence of such monsters (see, e.g., Bayanov and Burtsev 1976, Napier 2972, Porshnev 1974, Sanderson 1961, Shackley 1983, and the bibliographies in Halpin and Ames 1980 and Markotic and Krantz 1984). Stories of sightings, purported photographs, films, and recorded sounds are considered, as is physical evidence alleged to represent the creature such as blood, hair, guts, feces, and the classic footprints, or casts of them. Discussion of this evidence focuses on alternative explanations for it, and it becomes apparent that it can all be rejected in favor of some explanation that does not violate Occam's Razor. The class provides a platform from which to extol the virtues of critical thinking as well as introducing students to the subject of anthropology. I point out that, because the proof of a negative is difficult, the burden of proof falls upon those who believe creatures such as Bigfoot exist. I stress that science requires reproducible results and therefore the only indisputable evidence of these creatures' existence will be the capture of one.

Though all the claims concerning the existence of such creatures present opportunities for training in critical thinking, some are particularly intriguing because of their absurdity. For example, Beckjord (n.d.) has calculated that the sasquatch may weigh 1,224 - 4,284 lb. With a likely average of 2,448. Moreover, he has suggested that the animal may be capable of appearing and disappearing at will and that this quality may be due to an as yet undiscovered physical principle, perhaps related to an extraterrestrial origin (Beckjord, personal communication, February 20, 1981). Speculations like these present an interesting dilemma for science, since it might be argued that failure to capture the creature is simply evidence that it does indeed possess such abilities. When this point is made students frequently need to be shown that this dilemma exists only because it is assumed that the creature is real, which is clearly inappropriate since its reality is what is in question.

Other claims are interesting because they come from trained observers (Gill 1980, Krantz 1971, 1972a, b; Markotic and Krantz 1984). Gill, for example, a Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology and a past President of the Physical Anthropology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, reports that his investigations of the size and color of these creatures, as determined from a selection of reports by various observers, suggests that they conform to the ecogeographical distribution of such traits represented by Bergmann's and Gloger's rules. He states that, assuming the statistical analysis is correct, there can be only two explanations: "1. that the most complex and sophisticated hoax in the history of anthropology has continued for centuries without being exposed; 2. that the most manlike (and largest) non-human primate on earth has managed to survive in parts of North America and remains undiscovered by modern science" (Gill, 1980:272). There are, of course, alternative explanations not the least of which concerns the source of the data, all collected unsystematically by untrained observers under what must be recognized as variable, and generally primitive, conditions over an extended period of time. Thus, while Gill is willing to assume "that random data have not fortuitously produced the meaningful results" (p. 272), in the absence of the creature's discovery that is but one of the assumptions that demands careful scrutiny.

Casts of the Bossburg footprints

Casts of the Bossburg footprints

Krantz, a well-known physical anthropologist and scientist amongst those who accept the animal as real, has measured several purported footprints of the creature and tried to make a science of estimating its stature, weight, and strength. He has identified such similarities among sasquatch footprints as large, wide heel, what is called a double ball, and a straight row of similar-sized toes. Indeed, he has suggested that the creature's foot is unique for various features that reflect adaptations to carrying a heavy body on a pair of legs evolved for bipedality (1972a). In my discussion of Krantz's work, I review what some (e.g. Napier 1972, Gill 1980, Shackley 1983) have considered the most convincing argument for the creature's existence: that the foot Krantz has reconstructed from a series of 1,089 tracks discovered near Bossburg, Washington, would be difficult if not impossible to fake. Specifically, Krantz argues that the prints are those of an animal with a crippled right foot and that they reflect a degree of anatomical correctness unlikely to be achieved by the would-be perpetrator of a hoax (1972a). While this argument may appear convincing to those unfamiliar with the need for skepticism in science in general or with foot anatomy in particular, a review of any textbook on orthopaedic surgery reveals that there are a number of ways for a foot to be crippled, ranging from various kinds of congenital clubfoot to lameness of various kinds as the result of an accident (Appley 1977, Shands, Raney, and Brashear 1963). According to Napier (1972), the animal's lameness in this case may be talipes equinovarus, a common form of club foot — a diagnosis derived from a consensus after "photos of the Bossburg footprints" were submitted to two eminent British orthopaedic surgeons, who as well as expressing their view, consulted a number of their colleagues." (1972:228). 1 Polygenetic factors are believed to play a large role in producing the disorder, although environmental factors such as poliomyelitis and other conditions that might produce myopathies and neuropathies (e.g. spina bifida and arthrogryposis multiplex congenita) are at times found in association with it. As a result, there is extensive variation among those who have this infirmity, the one general similarity recognized being an adult foot that is short and stubby with its anterior half medially adducted (Apley 1977, Shands et al. 1963).2 Thus almost any type of unusual footprint might suggest an analogously deformed or crippled human foot. Furthermore, though Krantz describes the forepart of the right foot as being turned inward about 30 degrees, he also states that both right and left footprints measure about 17 inches in length and that the heel of each is well defined. Thus, while the condition of adduction or inward orientation of the forefoot may be met, that of a short, stubby foot is not. That the heel is well defined causes Napier to doubt that this is indeed a case of talipes equinovarus, since in this condition only the forefoot and toes touch the ground in normal standing (1972:124). Rather, he suggests that the lameness might be due to a crushing injury to the foot in childhood. This raises the question whether a foot deformed by injury will necessarily appear as Krantz has suggested it does in his attempted reconstruction. There is good evidence that it will not, for, as I have said earlier, a great degree of variation in lameness dues to injury has been documented. There is no reason to believe that the Bossburg tracks would have required any greater understanding of anatomy on the part of the hoaxer than other tracks, some of which have been identified as hoaxes by the perpetrators (Dennett 1982).

According to Begley (1987), Krantz now possesses casts that he again suggests contain details beyond the capabilities of a hoaxer to produce. Specifically, some of the new casts are said to possess dermal ridges and hard-to-fake microscopic anatomical details such as sweat pores. As Wilson (1987) points out, however, such details would be easy to fake, requiring only that a latex or silicone mold of a foot be soaked in kerosene. Thus exposed, the mold could nearly double in size and still contain all its fine detail, which could then be transferred to a cast taken from it (Diane L. France, personal communication, 1988).

In answer to the question posed in the title of this report, I am inclined to say that there is most certainly something big afoot. Rather than being a heretofore undocumented species roaming the remote regions of the world, however, it is the well-documented lack of critical thinking amongst members of the species Homo sapiens. That this lack affords anthropologists an interesting teaching opportunity is an under statement.

  1. One is forced to wonder who these surgeons were, for Napier does not give their names.
  2. Napier appears to accept this general feature of talipes equinovarus (p. 124).

References Cited.

From: Current Anthropology 29:5 December 1988