Matlox was a Bigfoot

José Mariano Mociño was an important guy in Bigfoot history. Although his name isn't highly recognizable he did contriute history to the phenomenon. He was a naturalist from New Spain and in 1792 he was part of an exploration and scientific expedition to the area today we know as the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. From his travels throughout the region he penned one of the most significant books on nature of his time Noticias de Nutka: An Account of Nootka Sound in 1792.

He noted in his book on exploration that the native people of the Pacific Northwest were scared of a creature who lived in the woods. They referred to it as Matlox.

José states: "I do not know what to say about Matlox, inhabitant of the mountainous district, of who all have an unbelievable terror. They imagine his body as very monstrous, all covered with stiff black bristles; a head similar to a human one, but with much greater, sharper, and stronger fangs than those of the bear; extremely long arms; and toes and fingers armed with long curved claws. His shouts alone (they say) force those who hear them to the ground, and any unfortunate body he slaps is broken into a thousand pieces."

As with any description involving an unknown creature we try to catergorize it and explain it as other "suspects". Lucky for us, in his description José has ruled out several of the usual suspects in Sasquatch sightings. People and bears.

• stronger fangs than those of the bear
• head similar to a human one

It seems what we are left with is a description of an ape-like creature. Long arms, distinct toes and fingers, plus the hair and fangs. Unfortunately this is all we have to go on. José didn't witness the creatures personally nor does he mention them again as part of any other nature descriptions in his book. While this doesn't hurt or take away from his description of the creature, it also provides no clues as to habits or where this creature would have fit in his ideas about the nature systems of the area. From this account the name "Matlox" has been associated with Bigfoots in the Pacific Northwest and more specifically the Nootka Indians also used a variation of "Matlose".

And so the mystery continues....






 

Viking + Bigfoot = Myth

Some will argue that the earliest documented Bigfoot sighting was recorded when Leif Erickson visited the new world in 986 A.D. Many base this off of Samuel Morison's account of the Viking travels in his book The European Discovery of America - The Northern Voyages. (1971. Oxford University Press) In this account Erickson describes creatures as "monsters that were horribly ugly, hairy, swarthy and with great black eyes".  Also attributed to the creature is a horrible sounding howl or screech. Sounds convincing at first glance right?

 And although I do love the subject of Sasquatch I also believe in history and historical evidence. The sagas of Erickson are actually easy to read and understand. Since I wanted to know more about the first "American" Bigfoot encounter I read up on them.

As it turns out the term Skrelling (or Skellring) is used when talking directly about the native people. The Skrelling trade pelts, use weapons, speak native dialect, and build both boats and dwellings. I don't personally think these things combined are very sasquatch-ish.

When it comes to the physical descriptions of hairy creatures, both the original translations as well as Internet translation sources translate that phrase as "bad hair on their heads" and later on "ill looking and dark skinned". Other words taken directly from the sagas show what the Vikings thought, that the natives were quite ugly to them.

When I read the sagas I looked for wildlife references and found very few. Salmon are noted by name and said to be large. Other than that wildlife is virtually left out all together. In fact there is only one English translation that leads to the conclusion of a possible Sasquatch which translates to Skrelling being of course hair. In the other versions I read the translations all are very clear that Erickson is talking about the native people.

“People say they love truth, but in reality they want to believe that which they love is true."
 
Robert J. Ringer

Bigfoot as a Wodewose

Beginning in the 12th Century,  Medieval Europe saw the Wodewose rise to fame in literature and art. From this time through the 16th Century the running theme of a wild man carrying a club was prevalent in tales and stories. Nowadays the debate over this creature seems to have three sides to it. Was it real? If so is it a Bigfoot? Or maybe a neanderthal?

The term derives from an Anglo-Saxon definition meaning "wood man" and later "man of the woods". While brought into popularity during the 12th Century the origins appear to lie within Spain in the 9th Century. Written in a book is the story of a goddess who dresses like a wild man and participates in dances. This would appear to be the beginning of wild-man festivals  (masquerades) which grew in popularity in the Middle Ages.

There are a couple curious clues about these Wodewose:

• They are never described as animals. No references to being ape-like or having more noticeable primate features. They are described as human. With more hair and not as sophisticated, but a man nonetheless.
• They were seen as people living on the fringes of society and just beyond the boundaries of civilization. In more ancient text it was written that wild men were at one with the nature of the forests they lived in. However this is not the case with Wodewose. They were described almost as outcasts or not permitted to be within the mainstream.
• They were depicted as capable of using tools such as clubs and spears
• They also had families which, when described, were given only human characteristics. Wild women and wild children were also seen as human.

One of the most popular encounters with a Wodewose can be found in a book from Norway around 1250 titled "King's Mirror".

"It once happened in that country (and this seems indeed strange) that a living creature was caught in the forest as to which no one could say definitely whether it was a man or some other animal; for no one could get a word from it or be sure that it understood human speech. It had the human shape, however, in every detail, both as to hands and face and feet; but the entire body was covered with hair as the beasts are, and down the back it had a long coarse mane like that of a horse, which fell to both sides and trailed along the ground when the creature stooped in walking."

The most interesting thing about the Wodewose is the fact that in Medieval Europe not one reference is made about them in Historical documents. Nothing in letters, records, census reports, or other important documents. This leads some to speculate that they are completely fictional. However the flip side would be that if they were already described as man then there would be no need to mention how much hair one had on their body in official documents.

Theories about the Wodewose include:

1. They were people who shunned society and through years of living in the forests grew extra hair for survival against the elements.
2. They are Bigfoot's cousin in Europe
3. They are neanderthals
4. They are the last remaining hunter/gatherer tribes in Europe
5. They are purely fictional

Hairy Bigfoots Are Girls Too!

Pliny the Elder was a man of many talents in Ancient Rome. He was a naturalist, author, naval commander, and lawyer. For the purposes of this blog we will focus on his naturalist and author sides. His last known work was an encyclopedia titled Naturalis Historia. It is one of the largest ancient texts to survive to modern times. While it is not an encyclopedia as we know today, it focuses on what strange and wonderful things Rome was discovering and bringing home from its expansion throughout the ancient world.

One story that has been connected to Bigfoot has been his telling of a tribe of people called the Gorgades. Located off the Atlantic coast of Africa on a group of islands lived a tribe of people whose women were completely covered in hair. Some scholars today believe the location to be what we now know as the Canary Islands.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History 6. 200 :
"Opposite this cape also there are reported to be some islands, the Gorgades which were formerly the habitation of the Gorgones, and which according to the account of Xenophon of Lampsacus are at a distance of two days' sail from the mainland. These islands were reached by the Carthaginian general Hanno, who reported that the women had hair all over their bodies, but that the men were so swift of foot that they got away; and he deposited the skins of two of the female natives in the Temple of Juno as proof of the truth of his story and as curiosities, where they were on show until Carthage was taken by Rome"

 

Hanno II of Carthage, also known as Hanno the navigator was the explorer credited with the discovery of these tribes. While he described the women as being completely covered by hair we do not have a description of any males because Hanno recorded that the males were so swift that they could not be observed well or captured. He managed to capture three females of the tribe. However upon trying to get them to board the ship they clawed and bit at Hanno's men. So he killed and skinned them. Upon his return home he placed the skins in the Temple of Juno (a female deity) where they remained on display until Carthage came under Roman control. No text survives that shows anything more about these skins or if they were removed or destroyed.

While it would be easy to look at this encounter as nothing more than a gorilla or ape there are a few thought provoking pieces of information which may indicate otherwise.

1. It has been documented in texts that Hanno had contact with apes and gorillas before yet he does not describe these creatures by any of the common names for them during his time.
2.  In the Fulani languages that was spoken where Hanno was exploring  the noun for 'man' was 'gorko'. And he chose to refer to this tribe as Gorgades.
3. In previous encounters with gorillas Hanno never described them as speaking or having any speech. But he puts the Gorgades in the same speaking category as other tribes he encountered and captured. And that the lands of the Gorgades were in the same territory of the Fulani language tribes.

While not conclusive evidence in the least bit, it is food for thought when looking at the historical record of Bigfoot.



Bigfoot Vs A Goat

If your first guess about the title is the feature match at Wrestlemania, I am sorry but you are mistaken. However within later Greek and the emergence of Roman culture the large hairy wild man did lose out to a more popular goat. Throughout Greek society there were tales and fables about these wild men which were larger, stronger, and hairier than regular man. They lived in forests and dense wooded areas. And had no connection to the modern society of the time. With the spread of Roman culture and influence came a new creature of the wild, the satyr.

Romans brought many beliefs and ideals to Greece. Some of them were blended into Greek culture and religion of the time. One such theme was the satyr. First seen in Roman culture as a faun, god of the forests. They were half man/half goat and sometimes depicted with horns of a goat, capable of both helping and harming the modern man of that time. Even though the image had changed from looking more like what we think of as Bigfoot these creatures still held some of the same basic characteristics.

Similarities between wild men and satyrs:

• Both were seen as being one with the forests and nature
• The roots of the names for both creatures can be traced back to the Greek term “hairy one”
• Both acted off of basic instincts, many of which modern man of the time had been able to harness
• While the satyr had the lower half of a goat he retained an extremely hairy appearance on his human-like torso and face. Often seen with very long full beards and hair
• Both were depicted as males only at the time. Later poets and bards would add females in their tales, however they were both an all male race in early accounts
• Encounters with both are typically in wooded areas or isolated grazing pastures
• Both have been described as roaming the wilds even before the Gods

The way the Greeks would incorporate this is instead of tales of wild men, they replaced them with a mythical creature named Pan. A satyr who was god of the wild. He acts on instinct and was instrumental in helping to blend the two cultures of Greece and Rome.
In ancient text about the Roman Colosseum poets would write that the satyr was portrayed with different varieties of goats as well as apes. This lends to the acknowledgement that the satyr was recognizable as a wild man of the forest who was popularly depicted until the emergence of Pan and fauns.

Is it too far-fetched to think that the Greeks took something that was real, the wild men of the time, and put a mythical spin on them to make them more interesting as well as fanciful like the Roman faun? After all what is romantic about a wild man roaming in the woods when there could be a half human and half goat creature who loves music, food, wine, and women. You can easily see why a smelly and solitary Bigfoot would lose out on this one.

However the tale does not stop there. In the King James Bible Isaiah 34:14 reads “The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there and find for herself a place of rest.” I think a very plausible theory for this has two parts. First the writers are trying to incorporate Greek and Roman figures to help people who were holding out on converting see that Christianity could incorporate their religions. Second is that they were not talking about a mythical satyr but a wild man who has been documented throughout history, using the more popular name to call the creature.

The satyr would later rise to fame again. In the 17th century tales of them would surface with the same characteristics. A creature one with nature and the forests, man-like, lived off of nothing more than basic natural instinct. Today we know these creatures as orangutans. In fact, the first scientific name given to them was Simia_satyrus.

The One Eyed Bigfoot

And Herodotus said…. “back in my day Bigfoot only had one eye”!
Ok maybe he did not say those exact words but he did write about a race of creatures that resembled Bigfoot. Written around 350BC he stated  “strong warriors, good horsemen rich in flocks of cattle and sheep and goats; they are one-eyed, shaggy with hairs, the toughest of men”. Known in Greek literature as the Arimaspoi or Arimaspians.

The first mention of these creatures comes from the 7th century BC in a poem by Aristeas titled Arminsapia. Although the writing has been lost to time Herodotus makes reference to it noting that Aristeas made the journey to the Northern part of Europe where he heard of this race of creatures. On a side note Herodotus also recorded that he did not believe the stories Aristeas spoke of regarding one-eyed giants and griffons. However he would go on to write about them in detail. It is worth saying that modern scholars are at times less than impressed by his work and state he fails to weed out actual history from myth. Later poets and bards would also tell tales of these creatures that would eventually lead to legends of the cyclops. Homer also mentions another similarly named Skythian tribe, the Kimmeroi in his epic,  The Odyssey.

Herodotus, Histories 4. 27. 1  : “Of these too, then, we have knowledge; but as for what is north of them, it is from the Issedones that the tale comes of the one-eyed men [Arimaspoi, Arimaspians] and the Grypes (Griffins) that guard gold; this is told by the Skythians (Scythians), who have heard it from them; and we have taken it as true from the Skythians, and call these people by the Skythian name, Arimaspoi; for in the Skythian tongue arima is one, and spou is the eye.”

Herodotus, Histories 3. 116. 1 (trans. Godley) (Greek historian C5th B.C.) :”But in the north of Europe there is by far the most gold. In this matter again I cannot say with assurance how the gold is produced, but it is said that one-eyed men called Arimaspoi (Arimaspians) steal it from Grypes (Griffins). The most outlying lands, though, as they enclose and wholly surround all the rest of the world, are likely to have those things which we think the finest and the rarest.”

The Ariminsapians were continually at war with Griffons over gold. They are the neighbors of the Griffons in Scythia. The Greeks used this word to refer to all the lands north-east of Western Europe and the northern coast of the Black Sea. Also known to later Peoples as Central Eurasia. And eventually the Ariminsapians would win and drive the Griffons out of the mountains all together. Along the way many stories were written about their battles.

For all of the tales and folklore surrounding these creatures all well as cyclops in general we lack the scientific evidence to back up their existence. One very likely theory is that ancients were finding skulls of animals, and with no immediate recognition of what they were, created myths to explain the strange shapes and sizes. For instance below is a skull of a dwarf elephant beside a cyclops drawing. While a little larger than a human it would explain a great deal. From the Ariminsapians being taller, stronger, and faster than humans to the fact they only had one eye.

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Bigfoot Breeding

Ever since I started paying attention to the Bigfoot community I have seen debates and discussions about the topic of The Epic of Gilgamesh. These range from some claiming it to be absolute bunk to others proclaiming it is the earliest documentation of Bigfoot himself. While both views have very solid points and supporters, a closer look along with a theory thrown in throw a different spin on the Epic.

 First let’s look at some historical facts that we can pull from the Epic and time period which we can substantiate:

◾It takes place in the Sumer region in the Persian Gulf. This region is referenced many times throughout history and well documented
◾The Sumerians came to the region in about 4000 BCE
◾King Gilgamesh appears as the 5th king of Uruk according to the king-list. This is an ancient manuscript written in Sumerian which details kings of the region as well as their reigns. Many names on this list can be verified by archeological excavations and other ancient manuscripts.
◾Another Sumerian text tells of a conflict Gilgamesh had with another king named Agga, king of Kish in 2700  BCE
◾His name can be found in inscriptions crediting him with the building of the great walls of Uruk
◾Around the 14th century BCE Akkadians living north of Sumer established Babylon as their capital and took control of the whole area
◾Babylonians preserved the Sumerian language as their language of religion, and with it Sumerian legends and myths
◾Prayers found inscribed on clay tablets address Gilgamesh in the afterlife as a judge in the Underworld. This shows reverence for him even in death

 

As with any Epic, Saga, or Tale there are bound to be embellishments and exaggerations. Gilgamesh is supposable 2/3 divine with a human father (Priest-King Lugalbanda) and goddess mother (Ninsun meaning August Cow). So with any Epic we must be careful and not presume neither 100% fiction nor 100% fact. The truth is there is a mixture of both.
Many summaries of the Epic can be found on-line. If you are interested in reading the Epic in its entirety I suggest this site: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/ . For the purposes of this blog summary will consist mainly of Enkidu.

He is described as a wild and hairy man. He lives within the forest, knows of all the animals, was raised and lives among them. He has no knowledge of human society or its structure. After some time of observing her son as king, Gilgamesh’s mother Ninsun grows tired of his behavior and wants to find someone who can challenge his strength. Ekindu is just such a creature. Taller than the average man and much stronger, the Epic notes he has had run-ins with trappers where he frees wildlife and destroys their traps. So Ninsun sends a whore to seduce Ekindu and teach him the ways of civilized man. After spending days with the whore, the animals of the forest now flee from him and Ekindu goes into civilized society. He and Gilgamesh become friends and have many adventures before Ekindu dies from the trappings of civilized man.

I do not think that at this point in history it is too far-fetched to believe there were men living in the forest. The fact that they were bigger, had more hair, and stronger than “civilized man” during this time period only strengthens the case as this would only aid in their success and survival. I feel the only question left is… what was he?

Maybe he is not Bigfoot in the sense that we would think. But in ancient times he may have warranted that nickname. With years of research and studies done with Neanderthal DNA we have to consider this as a viable theory. In 2011 theoretical geneticists from the University of California, Berkeley stated that humans which live outside the African continent owe up to 4% of their modern DNA to Neanderthals. And by comparing individual DNA in multiple modern human genomes along with those in Neanderthal genomes, the date of that interbreeding between the two can be estimated from 65,000–90,000 years ago. The dates also fit together with archaeological finds suggesting early human migrated out of Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.

But the big question here is… could this lead to multiple Bigfoot species? Consider the following:

• Neanderthal breeds with humans
• Neanderthal breeds with gigantopithicus
• Neanderthal breeds with other ape species
• Neanderthal breeds with other wild men

Start doing brain teasers with all of those combinations and you may get a headache! However it is possible that this is why Bigfoots around the globe look and behave differently. Even regional discrepancies within the United States may be attributed to a group inheriting a certain set of genes that the other did not.

Visit my Bigfoot Website:
http://www.sasquatchhistory.com/Home_Page.html