The Bigfoot in history

Were you fooled by the news story a couple of years ago, according to which “the first Bigfoot report” in 1958 was a hoax, and therefore all other Bigfoot reports since must be hoaxes, too?

If you were, please check out the material in Chad Arment's “The Historical Bigfoot”. It turns out that large, hairy and probably smelly hominids were observed long before 1958. Of course they were, since Bigfoot or Sasquatch is originally a creature of Native (American Indian) mythology. Later, White settlers began to see the creature, as well. The rest is indeed history…long before 1958.

“The Historical Bigfoot” is intended to be a reference work. It contains old newspaper reports from all across the United States and Canada from the 19th century until circa 1940. The term Bigfoot wasn't invented yet, so the most common term for reports of hairy bipedal monsters was simply “Wild Man”. A striking difference with modern reports is that many old sightings describe a creature that is more human-like than ape-like. Many others, however, are similar to modern reports, and the newspaper reports often refer to them as sightings of “gorillas”. There are also reports in a grey zone between man and ape, including reports of ape-like creatures wearing rags! Just like today, the creatures were seen in most states of the Union, not just in the Pacific Northwest. The behavior of the Wild Man often resembles that of Bigfoot, including howls, breaking of sticks, uncanny agility despite its massive size, and “paranormal” abilities making the Wild Man impossible to catch. In contrast to modern reports, however, the old encounters were often dangerous for the eye witnesses, the Wild Man being extremely aggressive. People were said to be abducted, killed or perhaps even eaten by the creatures. The Wild Men also attacked each other.

Many newspaper editors were skeptical to the reports, often mocking them. Some stories are obvious hoaxes fabricated by the editors themselves and published on April Fool's Day! The natural explanations offered include actual apes or monkeys escaping from captivity, clinically insane humans somehow surviving in the woods, and misidentifications of bears. Those positive towards the reports often see them as tentative evidence for “the missing link” and suggest that scientists should take a closer look at the phenomenon. Supposed archeological finds of “giants” in a Mexican cave are referenced in several reports.

But what does it all mean? To a skeptic, it's an evolving legend. Today, we have a tendency to see nature as benign, so Bigfoot suddenly becomes less aggressive. Those who endured the “frontier” had a more antagonistic view of nature and “savages”, hence the Wild Man was seen as dangerous. The reports where the creature is human-like yet savage could express fear of degeneracy or miscegenation. Still, the underlying continuity that also exists is interesting. And how could Native peoples who were unaware of apes describe an ape-like creature?

Perhaps the historic Bigfoot is an evolving daimon…

I'm not sure if “The Historical Bigfoot” is suitable to the general reader, due to its encyclopedic character. The book becomes tedious to read after a few chapters. I didn't read all of it myself! However, it may be of some interest to cryptozoology buffs, and I therefore give it three stars.

One thing is certain, though. Hoax or not, Bigfoot was around long before 1958 and will be around long after 2015...