Archaeological Methodology

[Wooly Booger]

Greetings,

 

As a Bigfoot researcher with a background in both archaeology and historical analysis, I firmly believe that archaeology can and should be used to help facilitate the discovery and formal scientific classification of Bigfoot.  I find this to be a very underrated topic, but one that has great potential.  Bigfoot are living animals, all living things eventually die and leave behind remains.  Bigfoot are no exception.  Personally, something that I think needs to be done is for a researcher to choose an area located in prime Bigfoot habitat, preferably near a cave or other place that is concealed, and use the archaeological method in an attempt to discover Bigfoot remains and or bones.  As a researcher with archaeological training this is a method that I intend to use in my quest to have this species formally documented by science.  Although I know of a few archaeologists, most notably Kathy Strain, who are interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon, as far as I am aware there has yet to be a serious attempt to use archaeology in an effort to discover Bigfoot remains.  But there is always a first time for everything.  The use of archaeology should be seriously considered by Bigfoot researchers, as it has the potential to produce tangible, scientific results and has the potential to result in formal scientific classification of the species. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[John B]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

Greetings,

 

As a Bigfoot researcher with a background in both archaeology and historical analysis, I firmly believe that archaeology can and should be used to help facilitate the discovery and formal scientific classification of Bigfoot.  I find this to be a very underrated topic, but one that has great potential.  Bigfoot are living animals, all living things eventually die and leave behind remains.  Bigfoot are no exception.  Personally, something that I think needs to be done is for a researcher to choose an area located in prime Bigfoot habitat, preferably near a cave or other place that is concealed, and use the archaeological method in an attempt to discover Bigfoot remains and or bones.  As a researcher with archaeological training this is a method that I intend to use in my quest to have this species formally documented by science.  Although I know of a few archaeologists, most notably Kathy Strain, who are interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon, as far as I am aware there has yet to be a serious attempt to use archaeology in an effort to discover Bigfoot remains.  But there is always a first time for everything.  The use of archaeology should be seriously considered by Bigfoot researchers, as it has the potential to produce tangible, scientific results and has the potential to result in formal scientific classification of the species. 

 

 

There is also some talk of BF burial mounds in some remote areas. Right up yoy alley. 

[SWWASAS]

57 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

Greetings,

 

As a Bigfoot researcher with a background in both archaeology and historical analysis, I firmly believe that archaeology can and should be used to help facilitate the discovery and formal scientific classification of Bigfoot.  I find this to be a very underrated topic, but one that has great potential.  Bigfoot are living animals, all living things eventually die and leave behind remains.  Bigfoot are no exception.  Personally, something that I think needs to be done is for a researcher to choose an area located in prime Bigfoot habitat, preferably near a cave or other place that is concealed, and use the archaeological method in an attempt to discover Bigfoot remains and or bones.  As a researcher with archaeological training this is a method that I intend to use in my quest to have this species formally documented by science.  Although I know of a few archaeologists, most notably Kathy Strain, who are interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon, as far as I am aware there has yet to be a serious attempt to use archaeology in an effort to discover Bigfoot remains.  But there is always a first time for everything.  The use of archaeology should be seriously considered by Bigfoot researchers, as it has the potential to produce tangible, scientific results and has the potential to result in formal scientific classification of the species. 

 

 

You may be onto something.  Years ago I was investigating the lahar on the East Side of Mt St Helens.      For several years I got up there in the spring as the snow melted and patrolled the lahar hoping to find a bigfoot that might have been killed and buried by the 1980 eruption.     Each spring the runoff is strong and washes away the lahar very aggressively.   That did not yeild any direct results but I found a peculiar pile of rocks that was rectangular in form and seemed to have been created by stacking of rocks.     It was about 12 by 6 and the rocks were piled up three feet higher than the surrounding rocky areas.      While a rectangular form was unusual and out of place,   what really got my attention was a some rocks at the West end of the rectangular pile of rocks.     It was several rocks delicately ballanced on each other and looked very much like a birds neck and head.     There is no way rocks could have been deposited there naturally.     If the area was more accessible I would pin the contruct on some human.       But It had taken me two hours of scrambling over rocks to get there.    I had previously discussed the bigfoot burial rock pile with Thom Powell in his fictional book.     He had mentioned that some events in the book he wrote were actual experiences either he or people he knew had experienced.    I asked him about that particular experience of what happened when they started remove rocks from what they thought might be a BF grave.      Remembering that book I approached the rock pile, examined the bird figure,  and took pictures but did not get any closer than 4 feet from it.   All of the time I was there I felt like I was being watched.     I noted its position in reference to the Ape Canyon trail and a very large down tree trunk below it.      The next year I returned to the area and could not find it.   Apparently the embankment had collapsed on it and buried it along with the large log.  

 

If bigfoot buries their dead,  they likely use the same techniques that human nomadic people have used in rocky areas..       The humans, lacking digging tools,   simply cover the remains with enough rock to prevent scavengers from getting to the remains.    Another thing that suggests use of rock, is the frequent sighting of bigfoot in old rock quarries.   Certainly even with tools burial of some 8 or 9 foot creature would be difficult in rooty forest soil.    If my suspected bird is common that certainly would be a sign that BF decorates its graves in some manner.   That certainly would make archaeology methods useful to look for BF remainst.     However if Powells book is any indication of reality,    messing with a grave might be a really bad idea.  

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

Greetings,

 

As a Bigfoot researcher with a background in both archaeology and historical analysis, I firmly believe that archaeology can and should be used to help facilitate the discovery and formal scientific classification of Bigfoot.  I find this to be a very underrated topic, but one that has great potential.  Bigfoot are living animals, all living things eventually die and leave behind remains.  Bigfoot are no exception.  Personally, something that I think needs to be done is for a researcher to choose an area located in prime Bigfoot habitat, preferably near a cave or other place that is concealed, and use the archaeological method in an attempt to discover Bigfoot remains and or bones.  As a researcher with archaeological training this is a method that I intend to use in my quest to have this species formally documented by science.  Although I know of a few archaeologists, most notably Kathy Strain, who are interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon, as far as I am aware there has yet to be a serious attempt to use archaeology in an effort to discover Bigfoot remains.  But there is always a first time for everything.  The use of archaeology should be seriously considered by Bigfoot researchers, as it has the potential to produce tangible, scientific results and has the potential to result in formal scientific classification of the species. 

 

 

While I think this is beyond the scope of most lay man? It certainly hold promise.

Look at the Hobbit-Ebu Gogo connection.

 

I own a shovel and am always on the lookout for bones. (Not that I always know what Im looking at) But I am not the guy that is going to grid out an area and dig with a trowel and a tooth brush inch by inch and document everything.

 

On public lands your probably going to need permits and credentials too. Which could be problematic.

 

I think the problem with general science is they are not digging deep enough to find the things they don't think are there...

[SWWASAS]

Good point about public lands.   Since the finder of the T-Rex Sue got 2 years in federal prison for not having the proper permits to dig on public lands, I would imagine that someone who digs up a BF would get more time in prison than that.  I think one should be careful what you wish for.    

[Doug]

A while back I suggested that the Justin Smedja kill site would be a good place to dig for bones. He claims to have left 2 of them there.

[Wooly Booger]

17 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

You may be onto something.  Years ago I was investigating the lahar on the East Side of Mt St Helens.      For several years I got up there in the spring as the snow melted and patrolled the lahar hoping to find a bigfoot that might have been killed and buried by the 1980 eruption.     Each spring the runoff is strong and washes away the lahar very aggressively.   That did not yeild any direct results but I found a peculiar pile of rocks that was rectangular in form and seemed to have been created by stacking of rocks.     It was about 12 by 6 and the rocks were piled up three feet higher than the surrounding rocky areas.      While a rectangular form was unusual and out of place,   what really got my attention was a some rocks at the West end of the rectangular pile of rocks.     It was several rocks delicately ballanced on each other and looked very much like a birds neck and head.     There is no way rocks could have been deposited there naturally.     If the area was more accessible I would pin the contruct on some human.       But It had taken me two hours of scrambling over rocks to get there.    I had previously discussed the bigfoot burial rock pile with Thom Powell in his fictional book.     He had mentioned that some events in the book he wrote were actual experiences either he or people he knew had experienced.    I asked him about that particular experience of what happened when they started remove rocks from what they thought might be a BF grave.      Remembering that book I approached the rock pile, examined the bird figure,  and took pictures but did not get any closer than 4 feet from it.   All of the time I was there I felt like I was being watched.     I noted its position in reference to the Ape Canyon trail and a very large down tree trunk below it.      The next year I returned to the area and could not find it.   Apparently the embankment had collapsed on it and buried it along with the large log.  

 

If bigfoot buries their dead,  they likely use the same techniques that human nomadic people have used in rocky areas..       The humans, lacking digging tools,   simply cover the remains with enough rock to prevent scavengers from getting to the remains.    Another thing that suggests use of rock, is the frequent sighting of bigfoot in old rock quarries.   Certainly even with tools burial of some 8 or 9 foot creature would be difficult in rooty forest soil.    If my suspected bird is common that certainly would be a sign that BF decorates its graves in some manner.   That certainly would make archaeology methods useful to look for BF remainst.     However if Powells book is any indication of reality,    messing with a grave might be a really bad idea.  

Excellent post, and certainly something to ponder. I have heard the theory that Bigfoot buries their dead and I think that is a possibility. Early hominids buried their dead, and I read also that even modern higher primates such as chimpanzees care for and bury their dead relatives. Bigfoot may indeed posses some form of culture and perhaps even religious beliefs similar to the indigenous North American peoples before Europeans arrived. 

 

I would be very much interested in excavating a Bigfoot burial. I am in Tennessee, and I will likely be planning an excursion to one of the cave systems or rocky outcropings either here or in neighboring Kentucky or Arkansas for the purpose of uncovering Bigfoot remains or even an intentional burial. I have heard it suggested that Bigfoot may make use of caves for concealment and habitation in places with a heavy human population. They may use these areas transiently while passing through hunting grounds or foraging areas. If I find an odd rockpile, I will certainly be on the look out for any bird designs or decorations that might be suggestive of intentional inhumation or culture.  

Edited May 15, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[Wooly Booger]

17 hours ago, norseman said:

While I think this is beyond the scope of most lay man? It certainly hold promise.

Look at the Hobbit-Ebu Gogo connection.

 

I own a shovel and am always on the lookout for bones. (Not that I always know what Im looking at) But I am not the guy that is going to grid out an area and dig with a trowel and a tooth brush inch by inch and document everything.

 

On public lands your probably going to need permits and credentials too. Which could be problematic.

 

I think the problem with general science is they are not digging deep enough to find the things they don't think are there...

It is always a good idea for a researcher to keep their eyes open for bones or remains. 

 

Out of curiosity, have you ever come across any bones that you thought may have been Bigfoot related?

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

It is always a good idea for a researcher to keep their eyes open for bones or remains. 

 

Out of curiosity, have you ever come across any bones that you thought may have been Bigfoot related?

 

 

[norseman]

Here is BTW’s work.

 

 

[Outkast]

I think any scientific methods that can be brought to bear on the subject are welcome,but, the thought of hordes of Sasquatch researchers in the field with shovels.... True, someone might get lucky and dig something up, other valuable evidence might be lost. The rest will probably just make a big mess...

[BlackRockBigfoot]

On 5/14/2021 at 4:31 PM, norseman said:

While I think this is beyond the scope of most lay man? It certainly hold promise.

Look at the Hobbit-Ebu Gogo connection.

 

I own a shovel and am always on the lookout for bones. (Not that I always know what Im looking at) But I am not the guy that is going to grid out an area and dig with a trowel and a tooth brush inch by inch and document everything.

 

On public lands your probably going to need permits and credentials too. Which could be problematic.

 

I think the problem with general science is they are not digging deep enough to find the things they don't think are there...

That’s the issue that I see with this...

 

Given the permitting and manpower requirements, you would need a pretty large and well funded organization to pull this off.

 

It’s a great idea.  I just don’t know how it would be put into practice.  

[SWWASAS]

3 hours ago, Outkast said:

I think any scientific methods that can be brought to bear on the subject are welcome,but, the thought of hordes of Sasquatch researchers in the field with shovels.... True, someone might get lucky and dig something up, other valuable evidence might be lost. The rest will probably just make a big mess...

I agree with that your comment about a mess.      Should someone find a suspected BF bone weathering out of an embankment the best thing they could do would be to photograph it carefully in situ then bring in a scientist to extract it.    That sort of spreads the legal issues out and could keep you from breaking the law somehow.  The scientist would know what permissions and permits need to be obtained.     More importantly than that is the layers the bones are in are just as important because they can provide dating and how the bones are arranged tells a great deal too.   Fully expect to lose possession in the process.   The best you could hope for is a honorable mention in the scientific literature.  

 

Related is those that follow the Oak Island treasure hunt have to be aware that the hunters , including the modern Leginas brothers have basically  destroyed the whole area with shafts,  drilling, and sinking caisons.     They talk about the historical significance of the Templar connection and even the chance that the Arc of the Covenant might be buried there, but if it were, it likely has been destroyed by over 200 years of treasure hunting.   They have archeologists working digs on the surface but apparently ignore the damage they are doing underground.    It would be a shame for an amateur finder of a BF fossil to destroy it removing it from the rock or soil.   .  

    

[hiflier]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:42 PM, Wooly Booger said:

As a Bigfoot researcher with a background in both archaeology and historical analysis.....

 

 

Not all researchers can say this. WB may know exactly how to approach such a find, professionally or privately. And certainly do it better than myself.

Edited May 16, 2021 by hiflier

[Skinwalker13]

I actually had some hands on training by a local Archiologist/Paleontologist over the last two years and I got to clean the remains of a T-Rex from the Hell Creek Formation. It was pretty wild, and yes I kept a fragment from the first bone I exposed to the sunlight!  That said, much of what we call "historic" sasquatch areas really havent changed much in the last 12,500-15,000 years. Those areas were then, and are still today, largely desidious. Desiduious forest is notoriously bad for preservation, not only due to scavengers but also the acidic nature of the forest floor breaking down minerals at an accelerated rate. Your best locations for these types of remains would be areas that were once desiduious and have become more arrid for one reason or another. Ritualistic burrried remains, would have to have some sort of care given to them to keep the earth from reclaiming them as well, we have a working theory that the "giants" found in the Adena mounds were likely sasquatch, so burial mounds would be a good place to look but they are fervently protected, typically by federal law but in some cases local. So thats another road block. Sites like Mt. st. helen though I could see being very promising where sudden environmental shifts occured upheaving layers of sediment very capable of preserving remains for millions of years.