Bernard Heuvelmans, Conservation, and the Dictators of Science

To date, there is no in-depth review of the history of cryptozoology. The basic facts, dates, and names have been repeated ad nauseam (even despite some of them being incorrect), but little attention has been paid to the context of cryptozoology's proposition and the intentions of its "father", Bernard Heuvelmans. Bernard lived an incredibly storied life, leading him to take inspiration from an underappreciated diversity of sources, people, and events, all of which shine through in his cryptozoological publications. For a full biography, see Jean-Jacques Barloy's Un rebelle de la science. 

The focus of this post is only the roots and cryptozoological manifestations of Bernard's conservational stances, as well as his anti-authoritarianism. Many forget that cryptozoology was intended "to describe new animal forms as completely as possible without having to kill one of their representatives" (Heuvelmans, 1989) and to "obtain the strict protection of species menaced with extinction before they are even officially recognized" (Heuvelmans, 1982); a form of ethical, conservationally-minded pre-discovery and description. Pre-description acted in direct opposition to the stagnant "wait and see attitude" of biologists reliant on physical specimens, potentially resulting in the extinction of many unknown animals (Heuvelmans, 1982), and further became an act of rebellion against "the scientific establishment". Through a biography highlighting key influences, survey of quotes from Heuvelmans' English-language works, and review of the emotional aspect of the Minnesota Iceman case, I hope to highlight the significance of these intentions to Heuvelmans.

It must be stressed that this post is a preliminary and ultimately incomplete, as I lack direct access to many of Bernard's French-language articles and private correspondences. This does not compromise the arguments made, but does prevent in-depth discussions on certain events. Even in its incomplete form, however, this post will surely prove valuable to future discussions on cryptozoological history and its standing within the sciences.

HOMO SAPIENS HAS PROGRAMMED ITS OWN DEMISE
All information in this section, unless specified otherwise, come from Jean-Jacques Barloy's Un rebelle de la science

Bernard Heuvelmans felt that he was born a zoologist, the way one is born a musician. In the introduction to L'homme de Néanderthal est toujours vivant (I'm relying primarily on the posthumous English translation, Neanderthal: The Strange Saga Of The Minnesota Iceman) Bernard clarifies that "there is nothing hereditary in my becoming a zoologist. On my father's side, I stem from lawyers and philologists; on my mother's, from a constellation of actors, painters, and musicians...It seems to me that [my passion for animals] has always been so." Days at the Antwerp Zoo, the regular rehabilitation of several strays and injured animals, and time spent fervently writing about the natural world in his youth cemented his interest. Beyond animals, young Bernard was fascinated with Indigenous American history, and therefore quickly became acquainted with their mistreatment by colonists. Bernard had a Catholic upbringing which he quickly disavowed in his adulthood, becoming a staunch anticlerical and decreeing Christianity's influence on the perception of humans and animals as separate in correspondences and interviews.

Several incidents in Bernard's early adulthood further radicalized his anti-authoritarianism. Bernard's second love, beyond zoology, was jazz music - he was a jazz musician and historian, playing professionally for some time, writing a significant French-language book on the subject, and befriending many highly respected jazz musicians throughout his life. Bernard became well read on African-American plights, and started loudly advocating against racism after the death of Bessie Smith, a beloved singer who bled out after being refused from several hospitals in 1937. Bernard wrote a handful of periodical articles disavowing the treatment of African Americans and immigrants in Europe, describing it as the greatest sin.

Bernard's zoological career started with his thesis on aardvark dentition in 1939, followed soon by a series of papers on sirenian dentition; these established him as a respected afrothere specialist, but represent the extent of his non-cryptozoological academic publications. Several collaborations in technical volumes were planned but ultimately impeded by the outbreak of WWII, as well as a pair of zoological expeditions Bernard intended to be a part of. Bernard was required to serve in the Belgian Army, during which he was unfortunately captured as a prisoner of war by the Nazis, barely escaping the stalags after four failed attempts (Brian Regal in Searching For Sasquatch cites this event as the catalyst for Bernard's "us vs. them" attitude, but it should be clear there were several influences). While on the run, Bernard made a living as a jazz musician and science author, writing about more than just zoology. His first books appeared during the closing of the war - a series narrowing in scope from the origins of the universe, to the history of Earth, to the evolution of man, spanning geology, physics and more, also including Bernard's various Buddhist-aligned philosophical musings. Unfortunately, Heuvelmans published in several periodicals affiliated with Nazi sympathizers, which led him to become a target of the épuration légale; he was arrested and then expelled from Belgium. Bernard's ex-wife and lifelong collaborator Alika Lindbergh described Bernard's life as one seeking a proper home.

Outside of cryptozoology, Bernard's adult life was spent traveling and advocating. Upon learning about the slaughter of Indigenous Amazonians through cryptozoological correspondences in the 50s, Bernard started collecting documentation on the subject and writing to officials - he aided in alerting the UN, UNICEF, ILHR, and Survival International, who started investigating and intervening in the early 60s. He'd speak on this subject in interviews and conferences during the 90s, remarking that "Homo sapiens has programmed its own demise." Bernard traveled the globe, from Africa to South America, conducting cryptozoological research and aiding conservation efforts - he assisted in catching mountain zebras for a sanctuary and smuggled a neglected howler monkey out of a Guatemalan "zoo" (more on that in the third section). Bernard was a member of several European conservation and anti-hunting groups, where he wrote against the killing of animals for pleasure, sport, and science. A letter to Jean-Jacques Barloy dated December 5th, 1975 reads (translated):

“You can count on my support in the fight against vivisection, which I consider to be a dishonorable and pointless practice. I have even come to oppose “specimen harvesting,” that is, the organized slaughter for scientific research. These days, one can very well photograph and measure, and attempt to breed species in captivity. (The numerous deaths that accompany these attempts will provide material for the study of internal anatomy, etc.)”

Bernard converted to Buddhism during his final trip across Asia. At this time he was in his late 70s, and his health was on the decline - he became bedridden the last few years of his life, spending his time reading. He was regularly irritated or even enraged by the Fortean conflation of the paranormal and extraterrestrial with cryptozoology; he felt that cryptozoology was on a downwards turn and even presciently remarked that "the internet is the end of information in cryptozoology." Bernard died in August of 2001, buried in sacred robes gifted to him in Asia and in a biodegradable coffin.

HAVE PITY ON THEM ALL, FOR IT IS WE WHO ARE THE REAL MONSTERS

Bernard began working on cryptozoology sometime after 1948, with his first proper publications on the subject being a series of French-language articles in 1952. His first cryptozoological book, published in English as On the Track of Unknown Animals puts the themes an anti-authoritarianism and conservation of full display. Emphasized by its placement as the final chapter, Bernard's writings on Madagascar's lemur fauna are a clear call to action:

“Are we to believe that during the last few centuries we have let them all die out without having so much as a glimpse of one of them: the giant birds, giant tortoises, giant crocodiles and giant lemurs - the Brobdingnagian inhabitants of this Lilliputian continent? It would be a remarkably bad run of ill-luck. If there is the faintest hope of finding a single one of these creatures alive, we should be mad to neglect it. Some of them have certainly vanished. They have been lost to zoology forever because modern zoologists have been too incredulous or too incurious. We must not repeat their mistake…

We should take the lesson to heart, for there are still numbers of strange or giant forms of animals hiding in the more remote corners of the world, as is shown by the persistent and often exact reports that I have recorded here. Are we to let these monsters die out without attempting to know them? Surely the inquiring spirit of Aristotle and Pliny, Gesner and Aldrovandi, Buffon and Darwin is not dead?

In a sense I hope that it may be. Now that I have reached the end of this book I feel a vague sense of regret - regret that I have revealed the still-undisturbed retreat of so many unknown animals. When I think of what man has done with a rifle, I am horrified that I should offer him new targets. 

The most dreadful of the monsters I have mentioned attacks man only in self-defence or to provide himself with food. Only man kills for pleasure. I hope that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which has already begun to do such good work, lays down an absolute prohibition to protect the creatures which are still unknown to science and are obviously interesting to all. No sooner is one of them discovered than the hunt for trophies begins. These maniacs must be stopped at once. History shows how alarmingly quickly man can exterminate a whole species. We have hardly known our noble cousin the gorilla for more than a century, yet, despite the tireless efforts of those institutions set up to protect him, he has been ignominiously slaughtered, and perhaps will soon vanish without our having learnt anything about his habits, so full of significance from our own point of view.

Tomorrow we may know one of our other relatives: the abominable snowman, for instance, who is surely a shy and gentle great ape; or perhaps an even more human primate like the tiny agogwe or the elusive orang pendek. I hope with all my heart that when he is captured there will be no needless murder. 

Have pity on them all, for it is we who are the real monsters.”

Bernard would clarify these feelings in a less prosaic tone in the Comment & Response section of the 1989 issue of Cryptozoology: 

"In my personal perspective, the ultimate aim of the new discipline is to be able to do without specimens; that is, to describe new animal forms as completely as possible without having to kill one of their representatives. There is nothing wrong with an animal staying a little longer- or even much longer- in its own cryptozoological community before vanishing. When we are familiar enough with the species, we will certainly have a better chance of collecting individuals that died from natural causes, and which will eventually yield the necessary anatomical data. Killing and captivity should be avoided, not only for obvious ethical reasons, but because corpses and stressed individuals, psychologically disturbed by an abnormal environment, are not absolutely indispensable for our scientific enlightenment. This new discipline of zoology I have gradually built up during the past five decennia has indeed a revolutionary nature, as it actually endeavors to replace concrete (autoptical) evidence with a sufficient amount of both testimonial and circumstantial evidence (just as in the medical sciences, researchers of high morals are currently perfecting alter natives for the degrading practice of animal experimentation). It should also be borne in mind that, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, the diligent and long-continued observation in the wild of chimpanzees by Jane Goodall and gorillas by George Schaller, and later Dian Fossey, has taught us immensely more about these fascinating cousins of ours than the former slaughter and capture of hundreds, even thousands of individuals. And what is true for man-apes is naturally true also for sharks, toads, dinosaurs, moas, and whales - and why not? Ape-men, sub-men, or just men. All of them can be studied peacefully, without being harmed: this is the great lesson we owe to ethology, another relatively new discipline of science, whose impact on our own social life becomes increasingly perceptible. By slowing down and hopefully putting an end to the wanton collecting of specimens, which is already threatening with extinction innumerable forms of life, cryptozoology could be instrumental in the adoption of new ethics in zoological research. Morals of this sort have now become imperative, owing to the dizzying destruction and disappearance of much of our planet's wildlife, a tragedy which could someday not only render zoologists - not to mention cryptozoologists - obsolete, but herald the twilight and doom of our own species. Of course, I should not, in a scientific journal, set forth the mere respect for life, which is part of my private Buddhist philosophy. But owing to what I just had to stress, I cannot let the opportunity pass without emphasizing that, in my opinion, the ISC "Policy Statement, " I conceived somewhat after Pilate's fashion - we wash our hands of those innocents' blood - is contrary to the very spirit of cryptozoology as I originally conceived it.” 

Bernard' reiterates throughout his works that cryptozoology aims to “establish a friendly - or at least pacific - relationship” with its subjects (Heuvelmans, 1988), that cryptozoologists should be taking samples, films, and field notes instead of killing specimens. He explicitly states in an interview for the ISC Newsletter that he is "completely, completely" against "the killing or taking of a specimen." The motive for this is summarized best in his 1982 paper What is Cryptozoology?:

“by thus orienting itself toward the discovery of hidden animals, cryptozoology can contribute significantly towards making as complete as possible the inventory of our planet’s fauna, and to aid (before it is too late) in the collection of species whose natural habitats are rapidly being destroyed. The example of the recently extinct animals of Madagascar, which disappeared within historical times, shows that a spectacular fauna can disappear, without our even realizing it (and without being directly exterminated by man). A long-range goal of cryptozoology, in my opinion, is to obtain the strict protection of species menaced with extinction before they are even officially recognized. The spread of its methods of investigation is an urgent matter, and a major motive for its reproof of the “wait and see” attitude."

The "wait and see attitude" refers to the perceived passivity of zoologists awaiting a physical specimen before confirming a species - to sit and wait is to allow their demise. According to Bernard, animals without physical specimens were not just ignored but actively condemned from traditional zoology. He writes in the preface for the revised edition of On the Track:

“It had in fact been decreed on high and, moreover, in a totally arbitrary fashion, that only those species for which there existed a representative specimen, duly registered in some institution, or at the least an identifiable fragment of a specimen, could be admitted into zoological catalogues. Lacking this, they were banned from the Animal Kingdom, and zoologists were morally constrained to speak of them only with an exasperated shrug of the shoulders or a mocking smile. To propose devoting a profound study to sea-serpents, the Abominable Snowman, the Loch Ness monster, or to all such-like, amounted to straightforward provocation. Furthermore, no scientific publication would have accepted it for printing unless, of course, it ended with the conclusion that the being in question was the result of popular imagination, founded on some misapprehension, or the product of a hoax. As for myself, however, in spite of my status as a professional zoologist and my university degrees, I dreamed of delivering all of these condemned beasts from the ghetto in which they had so unjustly been confined, and to bring them to be received into the fold of zoology.” 

Unknown animals were "ignored, and not without disdain" by "the conservative circles of science" (Heuvelmans, 2007), those conservative circles being "the scientific establishment." Bernard describes the establishment in l'homme as "a shadowy organization always united to prevent at all cost any revelation likely to disturb the intellectual comfort of its members. For years this Freemasonry of Science has blocked my path…In the Middle Ages, we would have been burned at the stake; today it is enough to gag us.” Bernard's paper on the history of cryptozoology (Heuvelmans, 1984) pits "free thinkers" against the establishment, those free thinkers making up the genealogical tree of cryptozoology. The second chapter of On the Track, as well as several passages in his papers, are dedicated to criticizing two figures important to the establishment, Georges Cuvier and Richard Owen, deemed "dictators of science" (Heuvelmans, 1984). In On the Track, Cuvier is regarded as a man with a “habitual lack of honesty”, due to his rejection of the gorilla and discoveries of large quadrupeds, and the self-contradictory nature of his theory of catastrophism. Owen is regarded as “intolerant, prejudiced, and skeptical", "a man who could deny evidence when it was before his eyes." "Unfortunately, like Cuvier’s, his word was taken as gospel.”

Bernard regularly attacked Cuvier's "rash dictum", the proclamation that there were no large quadrapeds (meaning novel terrestrial mammals, monkey-sized and above) left to be discovered. For Bernard, debunking the dictum represented a way to break free from the establishment, writing in The Natural History Of Hidden Animals:

“At this hour, when nature is in peril, and when innumerable animal and vegetable species are disappearing, often without our knowledge - more than fifty each day, according to recent estimates - it is well to emphasize by means of striking examples that zoology is not a doctrine frozen in history but, on the contrary, is an adventure of the human spirit, alive and exalting.”

The dance of the establishment and free-thinkers was, ultimately, a necessary thing for Bernard. He writes in On the Track:

“The race of Cuviers and Owens is not extinct. So much the better. Heraclitus of Ephesus used to aver that Polemos, strife, was the father of everything, and that without opposition and competition nothing could grow and prosper. Modern biology maintains that life is a conflict between a conservative stabilising principle of heredity and a dynamic and creative force of evolution. Without the stabilising effect of heredity it would have fallen into chaos, offspring being unable to succeed their parents; and without the adaptability that evolution gives it, it would have been at the mercy of the smallest change of climate. So long as zoology is to be a living science it must have a conservative element of rigorous, positive and dogmatic minds and also a revolutionary element of adventurous, ardent and imaginative spirits. It needs both Cuvier and Lamarck, Owen and Darwin, Lehmann-Nitsche and Ameghino, Edwin Colbert and Willy Ley.”

Bernard's feelings about the establishment were certainly reinforced by his correspondents. His books contain several anecdotes about the rejection of findings from trailblazers such as Latimer and Leakey, but the most significant influences were his fellow cryptozoologists, Boris Porshnev and Ivan Sanderson. Porshnev faced direct censorship under Soviet rule, seeking non-Russian media as an outlet - Porshnev frequently wrote in Italian and French publications, including authoring the first half of l'homme. Sanderson loudly called out the establishment in his various works. Brian Regal in Searching For Sasquatch describes Sanderson's most influential cryptozoological book, Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life, as “two books: one the exposition of the evidence Sanderson thought proved creatures like the Yeti existed, and the other a barely controlled rant against those who disagreed with him, especially academics.” Sanderson further penned an unpublished manuscript titled A Race For Our Souls, which argued that Soviet-funded expeditions to search for the yeti were another showing of their scientific prowess and superiority over the West (not long after Sputnik) who left such expeditions to be funded by eccentric millionaires, and that the discovery of a yeti could be utilized by the Soviets to “rock the entire religious and ethical pyramid [of the West] to its very foundations”, uprooting democracy and freedom itself.

The focus of these works on primates is incredibly significant; Bernard felt a deep kinship with them and their plights Upon seeing the poor conditions of the primates during a tour of the Yerkes Center, Bernard wrote that it was “science for science’s sake, as pointless as literature for literature’s sake;” “I’ve never been so ashamed to be a man.” He apparently could not speak of the facility without becoming emotional. During his trip across South America, Bernard encountered a sickly, neglected howler monkey in a Guatemalan “zoo” and smuggled it out of the country, to be part of a colony managed by Akila and her husband Scott in France (this colony would be rehabilitated and released in Brazil when the couple moved there a few years later). Bernard owned several monkeys, mostly capuchins throughout his life as well. While he disavowed most cryptozoological media towards the end of his life, Bernard found great joy in Harry and the Hendersons, a film whose climax revolves around protecting a sasquatch against a crazed, gun-toting cryptozoologist. Primates populate Bernard's writings as well, from the lemur fauna of Madagascar, to the gorilla which disproves Cuvier's dictum - this kinship ran deep (Barloy, 2007).

ABEL IS NOT DEAD
All information in this section, unless specified otherwise, comes from Heuvelmans Neanderthal: The Strange Saga of the Minnesota Iceman

The Minnesota Iceman incident represents the most significant manifestation of Bernard's conservational stances and anti-authoritarianism; no author to date, to my knowledge, has paid attention to the expressions of emotion found in Bernard's recounting of the subject despite their significance to the Iceman's study and interpretation.

The context of this event is important - the discovery of the Iceman took place during a visit to the United States for the English release of In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents, which was also the first time Bernard met Ivan Sanderson in person. Bernard regarded Ivan as a sensationalist, who occasionally let enthusiasm blind his judgement; the two regularly butted heads in correspondences and on this trip, which would ultimately lead their friendship to dissolve. While in the States, Bernard's daughter Anita rapidly fell ill and died of leukemia, with Bernard unable to say good. Bernard insists that these events had no effect on his observations, but I am inclined to disagree.

Upon seeing the Iceman, Bernard describes having felt “a shock, or some intense emotion,” simultaneously “shaking with terror” and giddily thinking “Porshnev was right! Porshnev was right!;”“the more I examined and studied the specimen, which I did for eleven hours over three consecutive days, the more authentic and valuable it appeared to me” - “cryptozoology was bearing its fruits, and what fruits!” Bernard quotes a letter from André Capart, “You have there a subject as worthy as reaching the Moon!” The enthusiasm was palpable; it further provided a chance for not just redemption by revenge. In Un rebelle, Alika is quoted as saying “Bernard's great sensitivity and keen sense of justice caused him to suffer greatly in secret from the attacks and betrayals he endured.” Bernard writes in Neanderthal that “These efforts brought a number of humiliations and disappointments, which I endured with secret pleasure at the thought of the imminent revenge that I would eventually enjoy” and regarding Sanderson:

“Ivan had been mocked by many establishment scientists because of his heretical views on zoological mysteries and in particular on the Abominable Snowman; his reputation as an excellent naturalist had been slowly eroded over the past few years to the point that, in the eyes of some, he was a mere scribbler for cheap magazines. Ivan, the pariah of science, was finally going to take his revenge on the critics.”

Bernard was encouraged by significant figures in his thoughts on the legitimacy of the Iceman. King Leopold III and several anthropologists felt the specimen was genuine (initially, based primarily on what Heuvelmans said rather than original observation), the Smithsonian and FBI were quickly involved, and discussions with several academics such as Rémy Chauvin and (ostracized, racist) Charleston S. Coon reinforced the idea that the establishment would reject such a claim. The Iceman is, of course, a hoax, and was soon recognized as such. Bernard writes that he “oscillated between impotent fury and despair” over the reception of the Iceman: 

“I was so disgusted by the general attitude of the scientific community that I seriously considered banishing myself from it, by giving up all my university diplomas as well as honorary distinctions, returning all those diplomas to those who granted them, and resigning from all scientific societies I belonged to. I even considered giving up entirely on scientific publication, “seeking on the Earth a remote corner where one has the freedom to be an honest man,” among the animals I love, particularly the monkeys, which have been clever enough to avoid being trapped by the lure of becoming human.”  

Heuvelmans mercilessly attacks his detractors several times in Neanderthal, writing about John Napier “Napier finds himself in an embarrassing predicament: he bears the main responsibility for discrediting so offhandedly the strongest evidence for the greatest discovery of all time. The history of science will never forgive him.” Even Sanderson does not escape without being call, in a more joking manner, at least, “dictatorial.” 

According to Bernard, the Iceman had clearly been shot, and potentially bound. Alika says in Un rebelle that Bernard was apparently haunted by the thought of harm to the Iceman, something that kept him up at night. Bernard would mention the Iceman in essentially all of his cryptozoological publications after 1974, desperate for justice - for the Iceman and himself. Bernard viewed the Iceman as a descendant of neanderthals, ‘de-humanized’ thanks to hunting pressures from humankind, and did not wish for this persecution to continue. The end to the final chapter to Neanderthal reads:

“In conclusion, if I may express a wish, it is to see humans at last become civilized by protecting the pongoid Neanderthals they have persecuted for millenia. I hope that there will be created for that purpose, numerous protected reserves where our unfortunate brothers will be left to live in peace. They are perhaps the image of what we should never have stopped being. Man before the original sin, the sin of suicidal technical skill and boundless aggression. 

Abel is not dead. He recovered from his wounds. Today, we can choose not to finish him off, not to assassinate him once more. Will we not be touched by the eye, kind and fearful, with which he looks at us from a tomb we have already dug? That would allow us at last to escape from the guilt of Cain, the killer, to break away from the curse that haunts our species.” 

CONCLUSION

Through these examples, the origins of Bernard's conservational stances and anti-authoritarianism are easily traceable, and their manifestations contextualized. Cryptozoology as conservation has, for the most part, been forgotten, though it played a role in the crowning of Nessiteras and sat at the center of the "kill or not kill" sasquatch debate. The idea of a scientific establishment colluding to ignore unknown animals and attack their proponents has caught on despite being utter nonsense, unfortunately; it's especially appealing during our current state of socio-economic disarray. Bernard's remark that "the internet is the end of information in cryptozoology" rings quite true in this way.

CITATIONS 

Barloy, Jean-Jacques. Bernard Heuvelmans, Un Rebelle de La Science. Les Éditions De L’Oeil du Sphinx, 2007.

Regal, Brian. Searching for Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology. Routledge, 2011.

ISC Newsletter 3.3., 1984 

Cryptozoology Comment & Response section, 1989 

Heuvelmans, Bernard. On the Track of Unknown Animals. Routledge, 2016.

Heuvelmans, Bernard. The Natural History of Hidden Animals. Routledge, 2007. 

Heuvelmans, Bernard. Neanderthal: The Strange Saga of the Minnesota Iceman. Anomalist Books, 2016.

Bernard Heuvelmans, 1982. What is cryptozoology? Cryptozoology 1, 1-12

Bernard Heuvelmans, 1984. The birth and early history of cryptozoology. Cryptozoology 3, 1-30

Bernard Heuvelmans, 1988. The sources and method of cryptozoological research. Cryptozoology 7, 1-21