THE ANALYSIS OF A SUSPECTED SASQUATCH ARTIFACT:

                                          A BRIEF REPORT

Kathy Moskowitz, M.A., BFRO Curator

On August 26, 2002, I received a package in the mail containing a “cedar ball”, possibly created by a Sasquatch. The package was sent by Judy Trainor, from Tennessee, who has been documenting Sasquatch activity on her property. Her nephew Jordan collected the ball from a place on Judy’s property. Earlier, BFRO investigator Ricky Idlett, saw the artifact in place, and commented that it had a strong urine smell to it.

When the artifact was received in the mail, the first noticeable element was that it smelled strongly of urine. Although the “ball” was clearly dry, the urine smell was very overpowering. The package was left open to the air in a secure location for about a week to allow the smell to dissipate. Analysis began on Sept. 3, 2002.

The “ball” can be described as follows. It measures 260 x 190 x 50 mm., and weighs 22 grams. It is oblong in shape and red in color. The artifact is made of cedar. There are two small oak leaves attached to the exterior of the object. The bottom, or what appears to be the bottom, is slightly redder in color, suggesting that it lay on the ground long enough for the top of the object to fade due to exposure to the elements. The exterior of the ball does not contain any weaving or braiding. On first inspection, the ball had the appearance and texture of a “soft pillow”, with something hard at the center. The exterior was in very poor condition, with the bark separating from itself and becoming splintered.

To begin the analysis of the ball, a cut was made to the right side of the ball. The first layer was peeled back to expose the next layer, and so forth. Each layer was examined with a hand lens for hairs, bone, teeth, and other foreign objects. Any “hairs” were analyzed under a 10X microscope. It should be noted that once the layer was peeled back, it only stayed intact for less than a day before pieces of the layer began breaking off. This might suggest that the object was old, or the process of the mailing the artifact lessened it’s integrity. In addition, the layers were very difficult to pull back due to the fibers being mingled with each other. These fibers had to be broken in order to get the layers to peel off.

The analysis revealed the following information. The object is clearly made of cedar bark strips and fibers ( although it cannot be determined if the fibers were present due to design or as a bi-product of the strips). The center of the ball consisted of a hard, compacted cedar bark “peanut”, measuring 40 x 30 x 10 mm. It was created by wrapping cedar bark lengthwise right to left (clockwise; waft) at least four times, then widthwise right to left (clockwise; warf) at least four times until a small oblong shaped ball was created. These strips measured 10 x 5 x 1 mm. The center ball smelled strongly of urine, but the smell dissipated quickly after it was exposed to air. The next five layers (for a total of six, including the center) were created by the same method, wrapping larger cedar strips, averaging 20 x 5 x 1 mm., around the initial center ball, until it grew to the desired size. All strips were wound clockwise; suggesting that whoever created the object was right-handed.

Although it is unclear if it was due to design or as a bi-product of the strips, smaller pieces of bark were present between the better-defined layers, which gave the ball the soft pillow-like texture. Absolutely no soil, twigs, or leaves were present in any of the layers. No hairs of other items were found in the artifact.

It is obvious from the construction of this artifact that it was made intentionally by someone with the ability to use thought and dexterous hands. There is no possibility for this object to be natural of caused by nature. Although the artifact was not initially thought to be created by weaving, the wrapping method is a well-known and common construction method of native americans in prehistoric times (for example, the duck decoys from nevada) and is considered weaving (Tuohy 1986:228). It is a simple, yet effective construction method. The purpose of it’s construction is not known. However, based on the “reported” Sasquatch activity occurring at the recovery location, this artifact may be associated with this animal.

Finally, a last observation on the analysis of this artifact. To properly study the object, it was effectively destroyed. It no longer has any resemblance to it’s original condition. This was due to either the study method or the condition of the object. In the future, it would be wise to split the sample in half, saving part and studying it so examples of this possible Sasquatch artifact behavior can be saved for the fiuture.

Tuohy, David

1986 Portable Art Objects. IN: Handbook of North American Indians. Great Basin.

Edited by: Warren L. D’ Azevedo, Volume 11, pages 227 – 237.

WCSRO, 2005.