Bigfoot: An uncatalogued species of primate. Possibly a relict hominoid. Loosely based on the skull of Homo heidelbergensis.
Having gone over the possibility of fur and other simian features in my previous posts, I thought I’d offer you all a glimpse at a far less grotesque example. Something less monster and more man, yet still very much its own animal.
The “Relict Hominoid” theory is one that’s always fascinated me as soon as I heard it. As widely as it’s spread, Gigantopithecus always struck me as a poor match for some of the most prominent depictions of creatures like Bigfoot. Most describe a creature with a human-like bipedal stance and often a protruding nose, as well as other facial characteristics in common with us. If reports of such wild men around the world were to hold any grain of truth, it is to our fellow hominins that I would look.
This particular work depicts a Bigfoot based primarily on the skull of Kabwe 1, if my eyes don’t deceive me, as imagined by the talented Sasquatch aficionado, Satanfudge. Though not exactly a scientifically rigorous reconstruction, I believe it more than qualifies for the spirit in which I created this blog.
Even if no such relicts currently remain in our world, perhaps something not too dissimilar once did and the world that cryptozoologists now chase after was the one in which our distant ancestors once lived.
At the very least, it’s interesting to think about.
TID presents the world’s first historical NFTs (hNFTs)-collectible series of digital artwork that provide a new experience for learning about our common history. TID is an ecosystem for the R&D, creation and production of hNFTs (historical NFTs) that celebrate the great stories of history, creating a new platform for learning on the blockchain and the evolving metaverse. Through lively combinations of image, text, video, and sound, our hNFTs tell stories from the recent and distant past. (Source: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tid-hnft-research-institute-announces-its-inaugural-nft-collection-hominins-301566865.html)
There’s a lot to be said about NFTs, but little that I care to. Released by the TID Historical NFT Research Institute on June 24th and available on their page, the Hominins collection is exactly as advertised. A collection of 12 animated hominin portraits made from photos of John Gurche’s work, as can be seen in the sample below.
And so we come to my main focus. The artistry. Whether you have the money or not to pay, you can still enjoy the art. For the sake of convenience, I split the gif so we could get a better look at each.
1. Sahelanthropus tchadensis2. Ardipithecus ramidus3. Australopithecus afarensis4. Australopithecus africanus5. Homo habilis6. Paranthropus boisei
7. Australopithecus sediba8. Homo erectus9. Homo heidelbergensis10. Homo naledi11. Homo floresiensis12. Homo neanderthalensis(Source:https://www.harieditions.com/product-page/hominins-hnft-collection)
Seeing it more clearly like this, many of these angles appear new. Not just new to what I’ve already posted, as there’s quite a lot more to get to, but angles not posted anywhere else.
On that note, while I still have a quite lot more to get to for Gurche and Deak, I will be moving onto other artists for the time being as preparation for the artist and species galleries I intend to create. So look forward to that!
—The Curator
The Hominins Collection by John Gurche gives collectors a unique opportunity to get up close with our earliest ancestors and learn about human evolution. The collection consists of 12 painstakingly researched faces, eight of which are on display in the Smithsonian Institution’s Hall of Human Origins. Live on June 24, lifelike reconstructions of our earliest ancestors – human history as you’ve never seen it before. (Source:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tid-hnft-research-institute-announces-its-inaugural-nft-collection-hominins-301566865.html)
It’s been awhile now since my last true salvage project, scouring through deleted pages for long forgotten URL links to get to you fine pieces of art long since lost to the depths of time. Never believe that anything posted on the internet is truly there forever. Some lingers on, but others may possibly never again see the light of day.
This time, the website itself is still entirely intact, unlike Viktor Deak’s Anatomical Origins, though absent a few former features. As such, I’ve no interest in copying the bulk of it word for word, but to simply present what I could find.
This is a collection of the works of paleo-artist John Gurche for The Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program. You can find more information on their site if you look through any of the links I’ve posted. But for my purposes, I feel his art speaks for itself.
As of the current day, he’s probably the most prominent sculptor in his field, still quite active with his work on display at various museums or his webpage here. Stylistically, his work is quite distinct from that of Viktor Deak, as I’m sure you will notice as we proceed.
Australopithecus afarensis, “Lucy”, adult female. Reconstruction based on AL-288-1 by artist John Gurche, front view close-up. Landscape format.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist Species: Australopithecus afarensis
For the first, I thought I’d present Lucy once more. With this, that brings us to three or four different interpretations of her face, if you count her inclusions in Deak’s murals.
Unlike Deak’s works, the shape and appearance of the eyes here is very human. The lips certainly resemble no non-human ape I’ve ever yet witnessed, and the overall skin texture seems to follow suit. If my eyes don’t deceive me, I catch a hint of human even in the form of the nose.
While each feature is expertly crafted, together it produces an uncanny sense of disharmony, at least for me. A sense that the face doesn’t quite match the expectations set by the structure. But perhaps that’s just my amateur judgement.
Australopithecus afarensis, adult male. Reconstruction based on AL444-2 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH; side view, left. Date: 3.85 to 2.95 million years. Landscape format.Australopithecus afarensis, adult male. Reconstruction based on AL444-2 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH; side view, left. Date: 3.85 to 2.95 million years. Square format.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer Species: Australopithecus afarensis
Here, my feelings of discomfort subside. The hair is thick and believable, the lips more rounded about the snout, and the skin full of subtle wrinkles and colors that lend it an air of realism. The shape of the eyes too feels less off-putting. Overall, I’d say it all quite suits the strong bone structure underneath.
As a curious tidbit, the male of the species averaged roughly a foot and a half taller than the female. Quite a significant difference at their size, 4 ft 11 in (151 cm) and 3 ft 5 in (105 cm) respectively.
Australopithecus africanus. Reconstruction based on STS 5 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Side view, left. Date: 2.7 to 2.1 million years old. Landscape format.Australopithecus africanus. Reconstruction based on STS 5 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Side view, left. Date: 2.7 to 2.1 million years old. Square format.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer Species: Australopithecus africanus
You may note the sex of the specimen unlisted. To explain that matter, although this particular individual, STS 5, has been nicknamed “Mrs. Ples”, the matter is still in dispute as research continues. Perhaps it will turn out to be a “Mr. Ples” after all. Just another example of the limited knowledge and uncertainties a paleo-artist must contend with.
All in all, I fine this to be a rather lifelike, or at least harmonious, reconstruction. That there is a wonderfully simian nose, complementing the prognathous jaws. That smile too gives it a little life and vibrancy it might otherwise lack.
However, I can’t help but think that if such creatures survived to the present, we’d hear the occasional reports of maulings among short-sighted pet owners much as we see with Chimpanzees today.
Homo erectus, female. Reconstruction based on ER 3733 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 1.89 million to 70,000 years. Landscape format.Homo erectus, female. Reconstruction based on ER 3733 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 1.89 million to 70,000 years. Square format.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer Species: Homo erectus
This is perhaps my personal favorite of the lot. Homo erectus reconstructions tend to be rather varied, I feel. Her features here are strikingly unique, clearly distinct from our own, but not ugly in any sense. She’s a healthy and fit example of her own species.
It’s a look I rarely see explored in any works of fantasy or fiction. Few orcs are even half so imaginative as what a mere glimpse of the distant past might inspire. What strange new anatomies could we conjure in knowing the shapes the human form once held and the extents to which it has already been stretched?
Homo floresiensis female. Reconstruction based on LB-1 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 95,000 to 15,000 years. Landscape format.Homo floresiensis female. Reconstruction based on LB-1 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 95,000 to 15,000 years. Square format.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer Species: Homo floresiensis
Ah, Homo floresiensis, the so-called “Hobbit”. It’s interesting how popular and well known these little fellows became so soon after their discovery, and from just one specimen. Especially where there’s probably at least a half-dozen other fossil finds that it seems people just sit on. Perhaps one day I’ll post something up about China’s “archaic” homo collection.
Still, the attention given to our Hobbit here isn’t without merit. While I won’t go into detail, taxonomical studies have found a surprising number of primitive features in her skeleton suggesting she could have split from our lineage millions of years back as a sister species to Homo habilis.
Assuming they’re right, however, it’s possible that the human-like countenance Gurche gave her is in error. If the split were early enough, she might still retain a fuller coat of hair. Paired with the semi-arboreal Australopithecus-like features of her skeleton, her true face and form could have been something far more surprising.
Homo heidelbergensis, male. Reconstruction based on Kabwe by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 700,000 to 200,000 years. Landscape format.Homo heidelbergensis, male. Reconstruction based on Kabwe by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 700,000 to 200,000 years. Square format.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Though listed as “Homo heidelbergensis” on their site, the Kabwe specimen might be more accurately described as “Homo rhodesiensis” as there’s some dispute over whether they should be lumped in with their European cousins.
Personally, I have no horse in that race. That they can be physically distinguished is clear, but so can many modern populations. And while, yes, the European specimens could be considered early Neanderthals, already having developed many of the features of their descendants, it’s not unexpected for such lines to be fuzzy. I imagine that if modern humanity underwent a new speciation event, we would still see continuity with the populations from which each stemmed.
As for the piece itself, Kabwe is distinguished by possessing the largest brow-ridge of any known hominin. Quite impressive I’d say, already placing him well outside the modern range of variation even if we ignore everything else of which there is plenty. However, with the charming expression Gurche gave him, I can see our shared humanity even with that clear difference in species.
Reconstruction of Homo naledi, by John Gurche, created for National Geographic Magazine. Date: 335,000 to 236,000 years.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist Species: Homo naledi
Like Homo floresiensis, Naledi is also quite the surprise. Surviving until fairly recently, certainly overlapping with us Homo sapiens, Naledi seems surprisingly primitive. Like Floresiensis, Naledi seems to retain many semi-arboreal adaptions from their Australopithecine ancestry. Likewise, their brains are fairly small. Our own ancestors outclassed them in that department well over a million years before.
Between those two surprisingly archaic species, there’s evidence of a whole separate sister lineage to ours stretching back to the very rise of Homo. That’s millions of years of potential species yet to be discovered. And no doubt something that would set any avid cryptozoologist slavering at the mouth. If there were a bigfoot, I imagine it would have to have just such an origin, rather than the Gigantopithecus so many hang their hopes on.
To think, our recognizable ancestors lived in a world where the wild ape man was, without a doubt, verifiably real.
Homo neanderthalensis, adult male. Reconstruction based on Shanidar 1 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 225,000 to 28,000 years. Landscape format.Homo neanderthalensis, adult male. Reconstruction based on Shanidar 1 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 225,000 to 28,000 years. Square format.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer Species: Homo neanderthalensis
Perhaps the most famous of our relatives is Homo neanderthalensis itself. Surprisingly, this specimen is not La Ferrassie 1 but Shanidar 1, and that’s perhaps the most interesting comment I care to make here. It’s a wonderful sculpture, and my biggest complaint might be that the beard and mustache are just too thick to clearly distinguish all of the facial structure. I know some angles exist which show it off better, but that isn’t the purpose of this post. Just keep in mind that you may well be seeing more of him, and the rest, later.
Still, if you’re into beards, that and his proportions could possibly make for decent anatomical inspiration for a fantasy dwarf.
Paranthropus boisei, male. Reconstruction based on OH 5 and KNM-ER 406 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 2.3 to 1.2 million years. Landscape format.Paranthropus boisei, male. Reconstruction based on OH 5 and KNM-ER 406 by John Gurche for the Human Origins Program, NMNH. Date: 2.3 to 1.2 million years. Square format.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer Species: Paranthropus boisei
I was lucky enough to find four great angles for Paranthropus boisei, the “Nutcracker Man” himself. Quite the solid slab of skull he’s got there. His mouth almost looks dainty by comparison. With the great flatness those massive cheekbones give him, I don’t believe there’s any ape like this.
Again, it does seem notably more human, and so less simian, than any of Deak’s versions. I think here, more than anywhere else, we can see how Gurche tries to form a connection between the audience and his creation. Not that it’s necessarily wrong, or that he’s overemphasized any human qualities, but it could have been easily reconstructed in such a way that it’d seem hardly more akin to us than a gorilla.
Reconstruction of Sahelanthropus tchadensis by paleoartist John Gurche, one of the oldest species on the human family tree dated to 6-7 million years ago; on display in the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins.
Image Credit: John Gurche, artist / Chip Clark, photographer Species: Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Here we come to the end of the line, or perhaps the beginning, ironically enough. Perhaps our ancestor, perhaps an uncle. An arboreal ape who may have traveled upright through the trees, and the ground as well. Not the most farfetched thought, considering Gibbons do quite similar.
Here, Gurche at last uses the dark sclera typical of apes. Nothing in the features is more suggestive of man than ape. Indeed, I might question his competence if he were to do otherwise. If Sahelanthropus be our ancestor, it is quite the distant one.
Here, it provides a clear example of how Gurche chooses to depict the unambiguous ape. How he styles the hair, colors and textures the skin, and forms the lips. Were the same choices made in the others as they were here, they might hardly be recognizable at all.
I find myself stressing that last point quite often, because this is art and not an authoritative or unquestionable depiction of an extinct species. These are the culmination of the beliefs and tastes of those working on them just as much as they are the result of any exact or solid research, if not more so.
In these works we see not Australopithecus afarensis, not Sahelanthropus tchadensis, nor even Homo neanderthalensis. What we see is a reflection of how John Gurche, and whoever may have worked with him, understands and relates to mankind and our history.
The truth he strives to reproduce is still yet out of reach. Perhaps with time and dedication, we will one day come closer to that elusive goal. But for now, our minds are still somewhat free from such shackles.
With the past a mystery, we may look back and find a friendly face where perhaps there was none. Or envision a savage creature of primeval antiquity, bestial features screwed up in a ferocious snarl. We can discover our likeness in a reflected, or distinguish ourselves from an ancient rival.
It’s even possible that those more resembling ourselves were more aggressive and violent than those in which we might see just a crude animal.
As answers are given, doors will close, and we will be left with just the truth, however fantastical or mundane that might be. Til then, however, let us continue this dream of bygone eras.
The Early Man Gallery 