What Is Sasquatch?

[norseman]

disclaimer>this discussion is hypothetical in nature and assumes that a living breathing cryptid primate roams our forests. Thank you.

So what is the best fit for a creature that is 7-8 feet tall, bipedal, covered in hair and does not use fire? I'll list some of the best candidates in my opinion that may have spawned squatch to get the debate rolling.

Homo Heidelbergensis:

This archaic species of human has fossils attributed to it over seven feet tall in Africa. They have a large brain case over lapping modern humans and used tools and fire. They also buried their dead and may have used language. They also left Africa as early as 500,000 years ago.

Homo Neanderthal

It is thought that Neanderthal man evolved from Heidelbergensis during the last glacial period. They became shorter and more robust, had language, buried their dead and used tools and fire.

Homo Erectus

Smaller brain case, used fire and crude stone tools like the hand axe, use of language unknown, does not seem to bury its dead but may have been a cannibal. It's size was slightly larger than humans.

Gigantopethicus

Likely quadruped but possibly bipedal. Largest ape that ever lived at 9 feet tall and 1100 lbs. Ate mostly bamboo and other plant matter per molar wear study. They were closely related to Orangs and probably had a similar social order. Fossils found in Asia.

Oreopithicus

Fossils found in Tuscany are thought to show bipedalism. Making this ape the only known bipedal ape non human ancestor. It ate mostly plant material and was very small only 100 lbs.

[Sasfooty]

How do you know they don't use fire?

[Rockape]

The problem with known fossil hominids, with the exception of gigantopithicus as only teeth and jawbone were found, is that I believe none of them have the large feet of Sasquatch. Not that I know of, anyway. If any do, or are composed of incomplete skeletal remains, I would like to know.

[hiflier]

Hello Sasfooty,

May I answer this one? Hair. Too much hair. It would be tantamount to a recipe for disaster. Even an attempt to extinguish one that got out of control could mean a horrible death. One would also thing the fire pits would eventually be discovered by hunters and deep woods reseachers by now even if the animal's existence is still in question.

[JanV]

Sasquatch (pre-supposing it does exist) must be a primate. Where it falls on the ape human continuum is unknown. I am inclined to think some variant of homo but perhaps not human.

Bob Zenor has an excellent post ( #531) on the Ketchum thread where he discusses what and when something can be considered human. I asked him to post it here too.

Sasquatch appears to have a proto language as well as a social organization of some sort, though its contours are not fully understood.

I do not think it needs or uses fire, but probably does use materials like plant materials (wood) and stones as tools.

My thoughts anyway...

I am looking forward to reading what others have to say.

[norseman]

By the aggregate of reported sightings I think its safe to say that they do not use fire. I also remember the report from the 1800's of the miner in California that after several mystery animal visits. He staked out his camp site and observed a Sasquatch coming in and playing with his fire as a child would with wonderment and glee.

But I have offered several examples that were solid fire users.......non of the examples are a perfect fit, nor is there a chiseled in stone list of traits, just the traits I feel most agree on.

[Guest Stan Norton]

I suggest that given the most recent DNA studies we may be better off forgetting the old notions of human origins. We have much to learn it seems and making distinctions to specific level based on bone morphology is perhaps the least accurate method for understanding relationships. Several scholars in the field don't think that Neanderthal is even a valid categorisation.

[norseman]

Well that may or may not be true Stan, but if real, Squatch came from some where and something gave rise to it.......what was it?

[Guest DWA]

I suggest that given the most recent DNA studies we may be better off forgetting the old notions of human origins. We have much to learn it seems and making distinctions to specific level based on bone morphology is perhaps the least accurate method for understanding relationships. Several scholars in the field don't think that Neanderthal is even a valid categorisation.

I find it humorous that the very first interpretation of Neaderthal remains was Homo sapiens.  And it may have been right.

 

Oh.  I don't see Paranthropus boisei, which I first chuckled at but is now my prime fossil sasquatch candidate (and one of Meldrum's), mentioned in this discussion.

How do you know they don't use fire?

It does make sense to go on evidence in these things.  I am aware of no reports either of deliberate fire use or of the sophisticated tool use that would be required to artificially replicate fire.

Edited December 7, 2013 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

 

Getting back to the topic I think it safe to say that a lot of homogeneity has taken place in eons of hominid developement. The road backwards is fraught with dead ends and general DNA murkiness. Out of Africa there came waves of migration that, to me anyway, were dependent so much on climate that the study needs to include it. The subject of our, or Sasquatch's, lineage is an extremely complex endeavor and cannot depend soley on the field of anthropology. 

 

Branco has interated a three-species from three-global-origin hypothesis. IMHO it's going to take a type specimen to nail anything down that is certain. The non-fire-non-tool aspect would say ape. John Green's conclusion in his "Apes Among Us" (1978) essentially say the same thing: That Sasquatch is NOT Human.

[norseman]

If somebody has their own candidate and can give us a summary that would be great.

[JanV]

Well that may or may not be true Stan, but if real, Squatch came from some where and something gave rise to it.......what was it?

I don't have a specific candidate for the precursor but the homo fossil record seems much more complex than we thought even fifty years ago with new discoveries coming daily, it seems. But this I do know, whatever the precursor species, it has evolved since then.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Well that may or may not be true Stan, but if real, Squatch came from some where and something gave rise to it.......what was it?

Who knows?!

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

You were always one to ask the hard questions . It's difficult to say the Denisovans on just a finger bone. The Red Deer Cave People is one I'm leaning towards but I can find no height data. The recent find in Spain links the 28 skeletons to the Denisovan mitochondial DNA which is mysterious in and of itself as to which came first and went where? Even though the Spain cave find isn't related to Neandertal they have similar physical ststures. Neandertal, Denisova, and Modern Humans all have Homo Heidlebergensis as an ancestor. Whatever! But I have a hard time trying to find a Sasquatch connection in any of it.

Conclusion? i'd have to say ape albeit a smart one. Oh yes....and BIG.

[norseman]

I guess the first question we have to ask is, is it within the genus homo or outside of it?

Our genus has the best chance of giving rise to a bipedal creature, as we best represent bipedalism but that means all the rest of the trappings of the genus homo come with it. Large social groups, tool manufacture, fire, and the active pursuit of prey over long distances.

We still have Homo Sapiens living this lifestyle in places like the Amazon and New Guinea.

Sasquatch doesn't seem to fit that mold, or anything remotely close.

Other than bipedalism they seem to be much more like an Orang. solitary, shy, long vocalizations, limited tool use, nest building and no fire.