Saturday, October 25, 2014

The Mummy’s Curse: Reality or Fiction?



Figure 1 (Google Images)

 
Idea of mummy curses started early in history in ancient Egypt, according to Egyptologist Dominic Montserrat.  Embalmers and priests spread rumors that the disturbance of the deceased pharaoh would lead to a curse being put on the disturber.  These curses were associated with the godly status of the pharaoh, who was believed to have been a god reborn to rule over Egypt, but they were largely spread in order to prevent grave robbing and looting that was common even then.

The curses were largely forgotten and not taken seriously until Howard Carter’s team started to die shortly after the discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb.  Every death associated with the team, including that of Carter’s pet canary, was scrutinized by the media, and newspapers flew off the stands over reporting of ancient mummy curses.  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes novels, even entered his opinion, supporting the mummy curse hypothesis and further estimating the death dates for members of the team.  The idea of curses did not stop there.  Very recently, former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs, Zahi Hawass, fueled the notion of curses by claiming that over his career he had seen numerous archaeologists fall on hard times, be it losing property or family members mysteriously, after unearthy new and undisturbed tombs throughout Egypt.

Figure 2 (Google Images)

This curse has stayed at the forefront of popular culture due to popular media showcasing it through comics and cartoons (Figure 1), a continued and trendy movie theme (Figure 2), and even in video games (Figure 3).  All of this is a testament to our refusal to give up on this curse.  It is permanently engrained in our popular culture, and in many ways, our world culture.  So much so that when I tell people that I work with mummies, I often times get a snide remark about being cursed myself. 

But is there any truth behind the pharaoh’s curse or a greater curse in regards to mummies?  Do they actually exist?  Are there cosmic powers that enable mummies to curse those who approach them with horribly bad luck?  Is there any evidence of a mummy’s curse?

Figure 3 (Google Images)

As you can imagine, this is a topic that is personal to those of us who have studied and continue to study mummies, so several scholars looked into this matter, in part to dispel the public’s, as well as our own, fears on the matter.  Scholars have noted that some mummies will carry certain bacteria and molds that could be harmful to those who come in contact with them, but in general, these bacteria and mold spores are in extremely small concentrations that they will not be overly harmful to a healthy human being.  In fact, many of us who study mummies love that mummies carry evidence of past diseases, parasites, bacterial infections, etc. because we can study these to gain a better understanding of past societies and peoples, as well as trace the evolution of certain diseases and bacteria. 

So what about Carter’s team?  They all passed away shortly after Tut’s discovery. What happened to them?  Two died of a blood born infection, another of an infection, one from malaria,  all the result of poor sanitation in northern Egypt, one never died but his house was burned to the ground (probably because they used oil lamps), and several were murdered. One committed suicide. Carter himself is believed to have died from the stress associated with his expected bad luck, which occurred a decade later. Therefore his death is most likely the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  All of these deaths are, however, are results of the situations and times, not necessarily a mummy’s curse.    

Furthermore, we have no evidence of curses being associated with other mummies world wide.  In fact, in South America, mummies were brought out several times a year to join the living for celebrations, so their discovery and display today is considered by many to be a new way to celebrate them as occurred in the past.  So in general, there is no evidence of a curse.  It is just a figment of our imaginations.

To learn more about mummies, please see these posts:
  


 

References Cited

Dowdy, Sarah.  “Was there really a curse on King Tutankhamen's tomb?”  HowStuffWorks.  http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/king-tut-tomb.htm

Handwerk, Brian.  “Curse of the Mummy”.  National Geographic.  http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/curse-of-the-mummy/
“Howard Carter and the Curse of Tut’s Mummy”. http://www.unmuseum.org/mummy.htm


Saturday, October 18, 2014

Bigfoot: Myth or Legend? Examining the Biological Evidence of a Cross-Cultural Phenomenon (Part 3)

Sasquatch.  Yeti.  Abominable Snowman.  Boqs.  Sisimite.  Dwendi.  Shiru.  Didi.  Agogwe.  Mahula.  Pedek.  Mapinguari. 

Or simply put, Bigfoot. 

All of these names are used to describe a creature that has captured the imaginations of people from around the globe.  Bigfoot creatures are described in many cultures around the globe, ranging from North American to Australian Indigenous cultures, and evidence of their existence has been collected from the American and Canadian Northwest to the Himalayan Mountains of Nepal.  While cultural and geographical descriptions do vary, similar characteristics of these creatures have been identified.  Bigfoot creatures are described as being anywhere from four to eight feet tall, extremely hairy, and exhibiting human and ape-like characteristics.  Despite large quantities of cultural evidence on the topic, there remains a debate regarding the very existence of these creatures.  Today’s blog post is dedicated to a physical anthropological discussion on the topic of Bigfoot creatures and the biological evidence that exists.  These pieces of evidence fall into three broad categories: fossil evidence, natural evidence, and modern evidence, and each of these will be thoroughly discussed in individual blog posts as a means of determining if Bigfoot creatures can viably exist in today’s world.  This blog post focuses on the modern evidence as well as conclusion to this series.



Modern Evidence

The biggest pieces of evidence that is considered the best evidentiary support for the existence of Bigfoot are the eye witness testimonies, pictures, and video of Bigfoot.  Thousands of people have come forward publicly or anonymously to share their stories, hundreds of photos of the creature have been produced, and several videos, including the most famous Patterson video, have surfaced.  These illustrations of the creature in the wild are hailed as definitive proof of the creatures’ existence by die hard Bigfoot enthusiasts.

But are they real?

Unfortunately, a lot of them are fakes, and we know this because the people responsible for producing the testimony or footage have later recanted and admitted that they were lying for whatever reason.  Those who have not themselves come forward to admit their fraudulent ways have had several other individuals close to them, including close family members, admit the ruse on their behalf, which has been the case with the Patterson video.  This alone casts doubt on the authenticity of the whole lot of evidence-eye witness testimony, pictures, and videos. 

There are those who, however, still claim that there still exist several legitimate pieces of evidence among the fakes, but even these “legitimate” pieces of evidence have been highly scrutinized and largely considered insubstantial evidence of Bigfoot’s existence.  The reasons for this are quite simple-in an age where everyone has access to a camera (if not one on their person at all times thanks to cell phone cameras), the high tech advancements in cameras in regards to shutter speed and photo quality, etc. pictures and videos of the creature still remain blurry and distant. 

Plus, the subjects focused on in these pictures tend to be predominantly solitary and male.  Human and nonhuman primates tend to be social creatures.  Very few primate species are solitary creatures.  In fact, the only time we see solitary primates is when the social grouping known as female bonded kin groups exists.  In this situation, males travel alone, while females stay grouped together for companionship, protection, and child rearing.  It would make sense to see solitary males as depicted in the majority of photographs of the Bigfoot creatures if they followed a female bonded kin group, but we also have several photos of female Bigfoot creatures and they are alone.  This trend is not consistent with any nonhuman primate social group.  So the evidence of lone females contradicts the natural order already observed among known nonhuman primates for a century or more.  Furthermore, there are no pictures of juvenile Bigfoot creatures, which is further problematic.  Several scholars have noted that for a Bigfoot population to exist and thrive for the period of time that the evidence has chronicled them that at least 500 such creatures would not to exist in any given environmental niche.  Aside from the fact that everyone who enters a Bigfoot creature’s “natural habitat” (e.g. the Pacific Northwest Coast or the Himalayan Mountains) should be able to see at least one, the stark lack of presence of juveniles of any age, particularly among females, is startling and very damaging evidence against the existence of Bigfoot.

Conclusion

Recently, an American hunter came forward and announced for a second time that he had definitive evidence of Bigfoot’s existence.  This evidence took the form of an actual Bigfoot specimen that he had hunted and killed in the northern Texas desert.  He claimed that he was keeping the specimen out of public view for the time being while DNA and other biological tests were conducted on the creature through an undisclosed Washington state university, and because his previous Bigfoot find had been confiscated by an unknown government entity.  Eventually, this hunter announced that the university had confirmed that the DNA belonged to an unknown creature, although the university itself did not put forward any press releases of their own, and he began a US tour of the creature.  The tour was met with applause and recognition from various Bigfoot enthusiasts who felt that finally they had the evidence required to substantiate Bigfoot’s existence: they had an actual specimen.

Or they did until the hunter himself admitted that he faked the whole thing.  He special ordered the creature that he showed on tour through a costume and special effects company based in Washington state.  He never sent samples to any university and admitted that had he done so the samples would have come back as known animals (e.g. the hair used for his Bigfoot was camel hair).  He also admitted that his previous Bigfoot announcement, the one that was confiscated by an unknown government entity, was also faked. 

When asked why he moved forward with his hoax he admitted that the reasons were twofold: money and fame.  His tour netted him over $60,000 in profit and he was in newspapers and news reports across the globe.  This is a common theme among Bigfoot eye witnesses who have later admitted that they faked their evidence.  The attention garnered from telling such a tale or producing a photograph or video is tremendous and all together too difficult to ignore for some people.  And as long as there are people out there who believe in the Bigfoot myth, there will still be those who come forward with “evidence”.

Despite mountains of evidence refuting its existence a recent survey demonstrates that 25% of surveyed Americans believe that Bigfoot is real.  Why is that?  The answer is that humans desire to know and understand.  Psychologists claim that all humans have a natural drive to be curious, which drives our fascination with the unknown.  This curiosity has enabled humans to make cultural advancements that no other primate species has, such as the creation and use of language, science, culture, etc., and it drives us to imagine things that do not exist.  Without this imagination humans would not be where we are today-culturally and intellectually advanced, but with this also comes the negative aspects of the curiosity, which entails searching for entities that may never have existed.

Note: If you are genuinely curious about the existence of Bigfoot (or this creature by a different name, if you prefer) I encourage you to pursue this question through scientific inquiry.  Scientific inquiry and science is empirical and value free, and therefore the most effective and best means of accurately determining if such a creature has or currently exists.  Studies to pursue include biological anthropology, wildlife biology, and/or evolutionary anthropology/biology.  It is through genuine scientific inquiry that you will not only gain the best factual support for the existence of this creature but the attention of die hard skeptics.  If the truth is out there find it with anthropological and biological scientific inquiry.



Works Cited
Bryne, Peter.  1975.  The Search for Big Foot: Monster, Myth, or Man?  Acropolis Books, Washington.

DeSilva, Jeremy.  2010.  "Revisiting the 'Midtarsal Break'."  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141: 245-258.

Green, John W.  1968.  On the Track of the Sasquatch.  Cheam Publications, Agassiz, B.C.

Green, John W.  1978.  Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us.  Hancock House, Seattle.

Harrison, Guy P.  2012.  50 Popular Beliefs that People Think Are True.  Prometheus Books, Amherst.

Highpine, Gayle.  2000.  “Traditional Attitudes Toward Bigfoot in Many North American Cultures.” Bigfoot Encounters.

Hunter, Don and Rene Dahinden.  1975.  Sasquatch.  New American Library, New York.

Landau, Joel.  2014.  ”Man Who Claims He Killed Bigfoot Releases More Pictures of the Mythical Creature.”  Daily News.

Napier, John R.  1973.  Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality.  Dutton, New York.

No Author.  2014.  “10 Reasons Why Bigfoot’s a Bust.”  Discovery News.

No Author.  “Yeti.”  New World Encyclopedia.

No Author.  “Yeti History.”  TheYetiFest.com

Olson, Grant.  2014. “Hunter Confesses that Bigfoot Body is a Fake…Again.”  Daily American.com

Prigg, Mark.  2014.  “Moo-ve along, Bigfoot, nothing to see here: Genetic test of 30 different hairs claimed to be from sasquatch finds they are from bears, wolves and even a COW.”  Daily Mail

Viegas, Jennifer.  2014.  “’Bigfoot’ Cases Solved, But  A New Mystery Surfaces.”  Discovery News.


 

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Bigfoot: Myth or Legend? Examining the Biological Evidence of a Cross-Cultural Phenomenon (Part 2)

Sasquatch.  Yeti.  Abominable Snowman.  Boqs.  Sisimite.  Dwendi.  Shiru.  Didi.  Agogwe.  Mahula.  Pedek.  Mapinguari. 

Or simply put, Bigfoot. 

All of these names are used to describe a creature that has captured the imaginations of people from around the globe.  Bigfoot creatures are described in many cultures around the globe, ranging from North American to Australian Indigenous cultures, and evidence of their existence has been collected from the American and Canadian Northwest to the Himalayan Mountains of Nepal.  While cultural and geographical descriptions do vary, similar characteristics of these creatures have been identified.  Bigfoot creatures are described as being anywhere from four to eight feet tall, extremely hairy, and exhibiting human and ape-like characteristics.  Despite large quantities of cultural evidence on the topic, there remains a debate regarding the very existence of these creatures.  Today’s blog post is dedicated to a physical anthropological discussion on the topic of Bigfoot creatures and the biological evidence that exists.  These pieces of evidence fall into three broad categories: fossil evidence, natural evidence, and modern evidence, and each of these will be thoroughly discussed in individual blog posts as a means of determining if Bigfoot creatures can viably exist in today’s world.  This blog post focuses on the natural evidence.



Natural Evidence

Evidence suggests that Bigfoot exists on every continent around the globe.  The majority of the physical/natural evidence, however, comes from Asia and North America.  These pieces of evidence primarily consist of hair and footprints, which have been widely studied and examined.  As per the scientific method, in order for these pieces of evidence to conclusively support the existence of Bigfoot they must not be attributable to other organisms-known or unknown.  

As mentioned above, the majority of the physical/natural evidence originates from Asia and North America.  Both of these locations have been or currently are the sites of various primate species.  North America does not currently have a large variety of primate species present, although Homo sapiens widely populate the continent.  North America, however, was the site of many early primate ancestors about 65 million years ago based on fossil evidence, which does lend credence to the existence of Bigfoot on the continent.  The continent of Asia plays host to a variety of primate species, ranging from the Orangutan to the Golden Headed Langur.  This also lends support to the existence of Bigfoot on the continent, but it also problematic as these primates could be explanations for Bigfoot sightings.  In fact, several scholars both in the past and present have attributed Bigfoot sightings in Asia to both of these modern and known primate species.  Because of this, it is unclear if Bigfoot truly does exist in Asia when other known and viable candidates could be mistaken as Bigfoot, particularly among panicked and inexperienced travelers who make up the majority of sources of Bigfoot witnesses.

One of the other key pieces of physical/natural evidence that has been offered up includes “Bigfoot hair and skin”.  Scholars, collectors, and hunters have collected a variety of hair and skin samples that purportedly belong to Bigfoot.  Prior to scientific advances, these samples could not be adequately tested, leaving many to believe that they truly belonged to Bigfoot creatures with very little support other than someone’s word.  Under modern scientific scrutiny, these pieces of evidence do not hold up.  A recent DNA study at Oxford University has demonstrated that Bigfoot hair specimens belong not to an unknown creature but known species of animals, such as bears, porcupines, horses, cows, raccoons, and many more.  A Bigfoot scalp has also been attributed to belonging to a bear, not a Bigfoot creature.  Taken together, these results not only cast doubt on the existence of Bigfoot but also the evidence used to support its existence.

The final piece of physical/natural evidence that is used to support the existence of Bigfoot is foot print evidence.  Several thousands of Bigfoot footprints have been found throughout North America and Asia, and the sheer volume would seem to support the existence of such a creature.  That is if they are all real.  The first problematic issue with these footprints is that there is little consistency among them.  Bigfoot footprints vary in length and width as well as general morphology, leading some to believe these differences are due to different individuals of various size, age, and sex creating these prints.  This is a logical explanation, except that these differences can also be attributed to several different individuals creating fake prints.  Many have come forward and admitted to faking Bigfoot footprints, and they have demonstrated multiple means of creating these footprints.  These fakes have been compared to “real” footprints and there are consistencies between many of them.  Other footprints that have not been chalked up to being faked have been ruled out as potential Bigfoot prints because they were caused by other creatures, including bears and wolves. 

Figure 1: Midtarsal break in a chimpanzee foot vs the lack of a midtarsal break in a normal human foot.

The most damaging piece of refuting evidence against the existence of Bigfoot based on footprint evidence came recently from a scholar who was not even attempting to foray into the Bigfoot debate.  One of the key pieces of evidentiary support for the existence of Bigfoot that comes from the footprints is the presence of a midtarsal break (Figure 1).  Midtarsal breaks occur due to a pair of joints that lack the same mobility as seen in bipedally adapted feet.  This trait is common in chimpanzees and other nonhuman ape species, and it was believed not to exist in humans due to the hindrance in bipedal walking.  Jeremy De Silva published a study that demonstrated that some humans, particularly large and overweight individuals, exhibit a midtarsal break.  This study tore apart this key piece of evidence, the support of which rested on the lack of existence of such a diagnostic feature in any Homo sapien (human). 

Taken together, the physical/natural evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot is not without criticism and other viable explanations.  As such, the majority of these pieces of evidence cannot conclusively support the existence of Bigfoot.  Several of these pieces of evidence have been demonstrated to be fakes or potentially and easily faked or belong to other known species.  As such, these pieces of evidence honestly cannot support the existence of Bigfoot, although many individuals continue to cling to this idea. 

Works Cited
Bryne, Peter.  1975.  The Search for Big Foot: Monster, Myth, or Man?  Acropolis Books, Washington.

DeSilva, Jeremy.  2010.  "Revisiting the 'Midtarsal Break'."  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141: 245-258.

Green, John W.  1968.  On the Track of the Sasquatch.  Cheam Publications, Agassiz, B.C.

Green, John W.  1978.  Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us.  Hancock House, Seattle.

Harrison, Guy P.  2012.  50 Popular Beliefs that People Think Are True.  Prometheus Books, Amherst.

Highpine, Gayle.  2000.  “Traditional Attitudes Toward Bigfoot in Many North American Cultures.” Bigfoot Encounters.

Hunter, Don and Rene Dahinden.  1975.  Sasquatch.  New American Library, New York.

Landau, Joel.  2014.  ”Man Who Claims He Killed Bigfoot Releases More Pictures of the Mythical Creature.”  Daily News.

Napier, John R.  1973.  Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality.  Dutton, New York.

No Author.  2014.  “10 Reasons Why Bigfoot’s a Bust.”  Discovery News.

No Author.  “Yeti.”  New World Encyclopedia.

No Author.  “Yeti History.”  TheYetiFest.com

Olson, Grant.  2014. “Hunter Confesses that Bigfoot Body is a Fake…Again.”  Daily American.com

Prigg, Mark.  2014.  “Moo-ve along, Bigfoot, nothing to see here: Genetic test of 30 different hairs claimed to be from sasquatch finds they are from bears, wolves and even a COW.”  Daily Mail

Viegas, Jennifer.  2014.  “’Bigfoot’ Cases Solved, But  A New Mystery Surfaces.”  Discovery News.