Image by William Rebsamen, Used by Permission © 2002, William Rebasamen Table of Contents Benefactors CRYPTO Hominology Special Number II What Are They? Some Thoughts on the Relationships of Unknown Primates and Man Malcolm Smith (© 2002) Investigators have not been slow in speculating on the identities of the unknown primates. Unknown primates are recorded for every continent except Antarctica, while at the same time, there are large numbers of fossil species on record. Common sense tells us that there ought to be a connection. It is far more likely that the current bigfoot, yetis, yowies, almasties, and so forth represent survivals, or at least close relatives, of some fossil species rather than existing in glorious isolation. However, connecting the two presents certain difficulties. The problems forensic science might help put it into perspective. Descriptions of a malefactor by eye-witnesses allow police to produce an identi-kit picture to aid in his capture. However, when the culprit is finally arrested on the basis of other information, it often turns out that he bears only a casual resemblance to the identi-kit picture. Likewise, the discovery of a human skull permits forensic scientists to accurately establish the shape of the overlaying soft tissues, but they cannot determine such features as the pattern of hair or beard, or even the colour of the eyes. Identifying an unknown primate means compounding the shortcomings of both of these sciences. It means using eye-witness testimony, often many years in the past, to relate a living primate to something known only by skeletal material - not an easy task. Nevertheless, I intend to discuss what can reasonably be deduced about the appearance and behaviour of fossil hominids. With regard to the unknown primates, most students agree that more than a single species is involved. Since many are little known, I shall concentrate on two: the bigfoot/sasquatch of North America, and the creatures of the Caucasus, for which, following Koffmann1, I shall adopt the Kabardian name of almasty. The literature on the former is voluminous, and probably well known to my readers. For the other, I shall use the data provided by Koffmann1 and Bayanov2. Body Hair It is a truism that Homo sapiens are a naked ape: the only primate lacking substantial body hair. This is usually considered as an adaptation to possible overheating while hunting on the African savanna, but when it first developed is anybody’s guess. It is highly unlikely that our ancestors wore a full, apelike pelage until they crossed the sapiens barrier, at which point it suddenly dropped off. It is more likely that loss of body hair was gradual, with Homo erectus, who is known to have been a hunter, displaying at least partial loss. It might be going too far to follow those reconstructions which make even the australopithecines hairless, but that cannot be ruled out. Whatever the degree of body hair on our ancestors, it is reasonable to expect that they followed the human pattern i.e. longer hair on the forearms, calves, head, and male chest. This brings us to the next consideration. - 1 – CRYPTO Hominology Special Number II Epigamic Features There are good functional reasons why a man should have broad shoulders, and a woman broad hips. However, the only reason a man has a beard is to show that he is a man, and not a woman or a boy. This is an example of epigamic features: traits whose predominate function is to act as a social signal. In Homo sapiens these are: On both sexes: • long hair on the crown and back of the head; • thick, everted lips – perhaps to highlight facial expressions, and related to the habit of kissing (apes are thin-lipped); • curly pubic hair. On males • beard; • curly hair on the chest (optional). On females • hairless, protruding beasts (apes are flat chested when not lactating). Again, it is unlikely that all of these features first made their appearance with H. sapiens. Some, at least, should have been shared by extinct members of the hominidae, the precise number being determined by the precise position of the species on the human family tree. Those closest to humanity should possess the most. Moreover, experience shows that, with individuals and races, the greater the amount of body hair, the more luxuriant the beard. The tendency in human evolution is to reduce both e.g. among the Chinese and Amerindians. Therefore, it would be expected that, at one point, there would have been a hominid (say H. erectus or H. neanderthalensis) with moderate amounts of body hair and extensive male facial hair. This is quite frequently overlooked by artists, who make our ancestors, thin- lipped, round-headed, and beardless, look more like bipedal apes than pre-humans. No doubt a certain Western mindset is involved here. Nearly all of the paintings of the Garden of Eden show Adam as clean shaven, something which, when you come to think of it, is even more incongruent than the presence of a navel. Behaviour It is too often unappreciated by non-zoologists that a species’ behaviour, and in particular, its social organisation, is as much a part of its genetic makeup as its physical appearance. It is fluid and adaptable, to be sure, but only to a certain extent. Like a rubber template, it can be stretched one way or the other within limits, but always retains the relationships between the parts. Furthermore, because behaviour and physical appearance are both adaptations to a particular lifestyle, they are interrelated, such that certain behavioural patterns go with particular physical features. - 2 – CRYPTO Hominology Special Number II The social systems of the higher primates are all variations on a theme: small to medium-sized groups based on several adults of both sexes, with their dependent young. Males are larger, more aggressive, and more dominant. Females have primary responsibility for care of the young. Mating is promiscuous, but modified by male dominance. Some species possess a different social system, but one clearly derived from the above. It is important to understand that, despite their wide variety, all human social systems are variations on a single theme, and it is derived from the above. The major additions to human society are: (a) long-term pair bonds between individual males and females (marriage) with child care shared between the partners; and (b) the looser bond of male work groups and hunting bands. This is an adaptation to a way of life revolved around tool use and hunting. The lifestyle requires increased brainpower, hence longer childhood dependence, and the need for the father to assist in providing food for the child. This, in turn, leads to a greater reliance on hunting and tool use, in a benign cycle. (A good discussion on this can be found in Morris3.)Since most of the extinct hominids made tools, and were involved in at least some hunting, one would expect them all to display many of the features of such a social system. Finally, all of the higher primates are strictly diurnal in their activity pattern. Their eyes, in fact, do not function effectively in the dark. Bigfoot and Almasties When these issues are examined, where do the unknown primates fit in? For a start, they are bipedal. Since the only known bipedal primates are hominids (mankind and our immediate relatives), the implication is that they belong to that classification. While it is theoretically possible that bipedalism evolved twice, it is strange that this has not shown up in the fossil record. In any case, it calls into question the adaptive advantage of bipedalism. Traditionally, it is considered to have evolved in order to free the hands for tool use, for carrying meat back from the hunt, even for more efficient chasing of prey. This is hardly consistent with the known ecological niche of bigfoot. With respect to epigamic features, bigfoot scores a zero. Its lips are thin. The hair on its head is simply a continuation of its body hair, with no extra length. Occasionally an individual is described as possessing facial hair, but nothing equivalent to a consistent beard. Also, although the animal on the Patterson-Gimlin film sported prominent breasts, this is very much the exception to the rule. Normally, it is difficult to distinguish males from females at a distance. Presumably, the breasts of a female bigfoot enlarge only when she is actively lactating. The creatures of the Caucasus are a different matter. In the first place, they are somewhat shorter than bigfoot. In the second, although they are also thin-lipped and beardless, the females are regularly described are possessing long, pendulous breasts, and both sexes have flowing (if not always clean) locks on their heads. With respect to behaviour, the unknown primates exhibit three traits which, together, are largely responsible for keeping them unknown: - 3 – CRYPTO Hominology Special Number II (1) They are shy of man, often to an almost phobic extent. This may be a learned response. (2) They are largely nocturnal. The number of times they are seen to be active after dark is out of all proportion to what would be expected, given the activity patterns and optical ability of their human witnesses. Indeed, on this basis, Grover Krantz4 estimated that bigfoot is 99% nocturnal. Certainly, most of the sightings close to human habitation have been at night. Eye-shine has also been reported, indicating that they are physically adapted to night vision. (3) They are essentially solitary animals. If they had been as sociable as, say, gorillas, their presence would have been impossible to overlook. Bigfoots are not completely asocial (they presumably have to mate sometime), but the proportions of sightings of two or more adults is very small indeed.