Notes on Sources and Monster Historiography Those who searched for manlike monsters in the twentieth century— not as metaphors, but as flesh and blood organisms—have gone largely overlooked by academic historians of science. This field, as with cryp- tozoology in general, became the domain of independent amateur chroniclers producing a range of works of varying quality.1 An excel- lent explanation of what cryptozoology attempts to do is found in Chad Arment’s Cryptozoology: Science and Speculation.2 Since the 1960s, scholarly works on anomalous primates, and cryptids in gen- eral, look to place them in the realm of legend and myth: creations of the human mind rather than of evolution.3 These works tend to fall under what Jeffrey Cohen called “monster theory.”4 Works taking an empirical, physical anthropology approach include Gill, Meldrum, and Bindernagel.5 Recent writings have begun to address the lives of the monster hunters, but follow the tradition of focusing on the folkloric and pop culture nature of Bigfoot rather than on the natural history element, and not on the place of cryptozoology in the context of the history of science. This category tends to lean to the exposé or dismissive side.6 Of use to the discussion of monsters in general are scholarly works that attempt to put studies of human monsters into the history of biological systemization and classification.7 A number of methodological issues need to be addressed in the historiography of anomalous primate studies. There are papers col- lections of leading researchers. Grover Krantz, Bernard Heuvelmans, and Ivan Sanderson have accessible materials, as do Carleton Coon and George Agogino. The papers of other important scientists involved in the story—like John Napier and William Charles Osman- Hill—are harder to find, but are there in varying forms. The cul- ture in which scientists are trained is one that promotes careful note taking and recording of work and the archiving of those records for 188 NOTES ON SOURCES AND MONSTER HISTORIOGRAPHY later generations to utilize. When historians begin a research project one of the first things they do is identify where important papers are located so they can base their work on primary sources. On the ama- teur end of the spectrum, such papers collections are harder to find because the culture of archiving—donating their papers to a museum or library—has yet to make inroads into the monster hunter com- munity. Daniel Perez has produced a useful bibliography of printed works on the subject.8 The vast bulk of original source materials on North American monster hunters reside in private hands. Owners of private collections of monster hunter correspondence and primary documents can run the gamut of helpful to obstreperous, of easygo- ing to high-strung. The models of difficult monster papers collec- tions are those of Tom Slick and René Dahinden. These two pivotal amateur researchers amassed large collections of documents, but their estates have been reluctant to let anyone, especially academic histo- rians, have access to them. This means that an important part of the story will go untold or only appear as shadows at this point. Locations of accessible papers collections are noted throughout the text. The largest and widest ranging collection is at the National Anthropological Archive of the Smithsonian Institution, Suitland, Maryland. This contains the papers of Grover Krantz, Carleton Coon, and George Agogino, along with scattered letters from many of the key monster hunters. Other Smithsonian archives contain correspon- dence pertaining to the Institution’s role in the Minnesota Iceman case. UCL special collections, London, has monster related mate- rial from John Napier. The library of the British Museum of Natural History has a wonderful collection of now otherwise mostly lost British newspaper articles on anomalous primates. A portion of Ivan Sanderson’s papers are in Philadelphia at the American Philosophical Society. Unfortunately, upon his death, Sanderson’s papers were apparently looted, so the APS has only a portion of the original bulk. The APS collection is still highly useful, though. One of the more interesting collections of monster correspondence is in the Mammal Department Archive at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. As far as I can tell, this particular cache had gone unde- tected before I used it. After his passing, the bulk of Boris Porshnev’s papers went to what was then called the Lenin Library, but what is now the Russian State Library, Moscow. His Almasti related materials are in the archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Bernard Heuvelmans papers reside at the Cantonal Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland. This collection represents a major reservoir of material on the history of monster hunting. There are undoubtedly NOTES ON SOURCES AND MONSTER HISTORIOGRAPHY 189 more primary source materials still waiting to be discovered in vari- ous museum and university archives around the world as well as in all those private collections. Less concrete, but still the cause of some problems, is the fact that as a group the monster hunters have no uniform research techniques or theoretical paradigms to guide their work. As a result each mon- ster hunting group—and each individual monster hunter—must be approached separately. They resist classification into say, Darwinians, Neo-Lamarckians, or other evolutionary biology classifications or schools of thought. Many ideologies cross boundaries into the same organizations due to the fact that few monster enthusiast groups make rules of membership other than general interest in the topic, and even fewer approach their subject in the evolutionary way a biologist or primatologist would. This is great for democracy, but hell on histo- rians. Some enthusiasts are evolutionists, while a surprising number are creationists. Many do not take evolutionary theory into account at all. Just when you think a category will work, it falls apart. There are, in fact, few points, techniques, or systematized thought that monster hunters agree on that the historian can use to organize their story. This book represents an attempt to work out and analyze the history of monster hunting that I hope others will follow. Chronology 77 AD Pliny the Elder 1357 Mandeville’s Travels 1400s Lama Sangwa Dorje takes up residence as a hermit at Pangboche 1667 Panboche Monastery consecrated; Yeti scalp and hand installed? 1832 Brian Hodgson refers to Yeti 1833 William Wheuwell coins the term “scientist” 1835 David W. Patten encounters a hairy “man” in Tennessee 1880 Zana dies 1884 Jacko incident 1887 W. A. Waddell makes Yeti reference 1892 A. C. Oudemans, The Great Sea Serpent 1906 Badzar Baradiin sees a Snowman in Tibet 1908 Kazimierez Stolyhwo proposes Neanderthal relic theory 1920 C. K. Howard-Bury sees Snowman in Nepal; term Abom- inable Snowman created 1920’s Tsyben Žamcarano researches Almas 1924 Ape Canyon incident 1935 Gigantopithecus discovered 1937 Tsyben Žamcarano thrown in prison 1939 WWII begins; Bernard Heuvelmans captured by Nazis; later escapes 1942–44 George Agogino, Dillon Ripley, Carleton Coon serve with OSS; Ivan Sanderson serves with British intelligence 1943 Lt. Col. Karapetian encounters living Neanderthal 1945 W. C. Osmand-Hill searches for the Nittaewo 1947 Flying Saucers seen over Mt. Rainier; Harold Gladwin, Men Out of Asia 1948 Ivan Sanderson, “There Could be Dinosaurs”; Peter Byrne sees Yeti footprint 192 CHRONOLOGY 1951 Shipton photos published; Boris Lissanevitch attempts a Yeti hunt 1952 Bernard Heuvelmans makes Yeti/Gigantopithecus connection in print 1953 Carleton Coon and Dillon Ripley make Yeti/Gigantopithecus connection in private; Daily Mail Expedition born; Edmund Hillary and Tensing Norgay climb Mt. Everest; Grover Kranz (GSK) begins to accumulate material on mystery-apes; René Dahinden arrives in Canada 1954 Carleton Coon makes Yeti/Gigantopithecus connection in print, Zana’s son Kwit dies 1955 GSK graduates with a degree in anthropology; Bernard Heuvelmans, Sur la Piste des Betes Ignorees; Willey Ley uses term “Romantic Zoology,” makes Yeti/Gigantopithecus connection 1956 Tom Slick goes to Nepal and meets Peter Byrne 1957 Harrison Hot Springs Expedition proposed; Life magazine expedition organized; Soviet media accuses Yeti hunters of spying 1958 Daily Mail Expedition to Nepal; Jerry Crew finds Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek; Bernard Heuvelmans, On the Track of Unknown Animals; A.G. Pronin sees Snowmen while on the Fedchenko Glacier; Soviet government forms the Snowman Commission and mounts an expedition to study them; Emanuel Vlček discovers Tibetan wild man in a book 1959 Slick expedition to Nepal; Peter Byrne switches bones in Pangboche Hand; Bud Ryerson finds Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek; Ivan Sanderson, “Strange Story of America’s Snowman” 1960 Hillary-Perkins Expedition to Nepal; Vladimir Tchernezky reconstructs Yeti foot; Pyotr Smolin inaugurates the relic hominid seminar in Moscow; Academician Rinčhen creates finding aide to Žamcarano papers 1961 Ivan Sanderson, Abominable Snowmen: Legends Come to Life 1962 Tom Slick dies in plane crash 1964 Boris Porshnev and Dmitri Bayanov meet 1966 Roger Patterson, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film shot; John Green and René Dahinden visit Bluff Creek; Patterson-Gimlin Film screened at AMNH 1968 GSK begins at WSU; Heuvelmans credits Sanderson with coining term cryptozoology; Minnesota Iceman incident; CHRONOLOGY 193 John Green, On the Track