Zana The Wild Woman

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Razumov:

Can you shed any light on the location of the 'forests of Zaadan' or 'Mt. Zaadan'?

This location has been cited (even by Porshnev) as one of the two areas where Zana was allegedly captured.

I've tried multiple searches on this name (in both Latin and Cyrillic), and I can't find any information on where this may have been. The only suggestive hits I've gotten seem to refer to Kyrgyzstan - far to the east of Abkhazia / Georgia.
My best guess is that "Zaadan" (Заадан) is a very obscure local name for the forest west of the Marukhi glacier, from this source:

http://mountaindreams.ru/2013/03/kavkazskij-zubr-stranicy-istorii/

"In 1865, during a trip to Karachi, Dr. Radde learned that in the areas located to the West of the Marukhi glacier, known to the locals under the names Zaadan and Argus, the vast mountainous pine forests are inhabited by bison, which are found there herds of 7-10 goals"

The area certainly looks like prime Yeti habitat:

1cy9l6ZbAgY.jpg 3aa74b4s-960.jpg 12878_900.jpg

https://eddy-em.livejournal.com/197008.html

http://www.annakhankevich.com/blog/arxyz-dombaj/

https://nes-i.livejournal.com/4335.html
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Many thanks! I had driven myself near-crazy attempting to locate the 'forests of Zaadan'.

This location in the mountains is interesting because it's essentially in the opposite direction (relative to T'khina) from the coastal area that's also commonly cited for Zana's original capture.
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Sykes' version avoids claiming Achba / Atchba was the original 'owner' to whom Zana was brought after being captured. He mentions only that she was sold to / through a series of owners until she was purchased by Genaba. This is the only account I've seen that claims Genaba / Ghenaba purchased her.

Can anyone correlate the alleged prince 'D. M. Achba' (or Atchba or Chachba) to a historical figure? I can find listings for the Chachba lineage (also known as the house of Shervashidze), but I cannot find any of the house's princes or sons with the initials 'D. M.'.
Now it gets really complicated, but the answer is yes.

Achba/Anchabadze and Chachba/Shervashidze are separate noble houses, but Abkhazians consider them to be the same, so "Achba" could be either or a confusion in the sources.

http://www.mahmutmarsan.com/marsanlar/KOKLER_SAYFA.htm

(a) Manuchar Shirvashidze, Prince of Bedia. Expelled his uncle and seized the family domains, 1798. m. (first) (div.) a daughter of Prince Bulikuku Shirvashidze, Lord of Saberio-Kapiti. m. (second) H.S.H. Princess Kethavan (b. 1792; m. 1823, Prince Rustam Bey - see below), eldest daughter of His Splendour The Pious Prince of High Rank Grigol [Gregori] VI Dadiani, Duke of Dukes of Mingrelia, by his second wife, H.H. The Most Brilliant Princess Nina, third daughter of H.M. The Most Serene King Giorgi XII, King of Georgia. He was k. by his brother, Levanti, ca. 1813, having had issue, two sons:
· (i) Alexander Manucharovitch Shirvashidze, Prince of Bedia. He was k. by Prince Tariel Dadiani, 1829.

· (ii) Dimitri Manucharovitch Shirvashidze, Prince of Bedia. Succeeded his brother, 1829. He d. in Russia, 1832, having had issue, two sons:

· 1. Prince Alexander Dimitrievitch Shirvashidze.

· 2. H.H.E. Prince Giorgi Dimitrievitch Schervaschidze. b. 1847. Grand Master of the Imperial Court, Attached to the person of Empress Maria Feodorovna, Gentleman of the Bedchamber 1885. m. Princess Maria Alexandrovna, née Baroness Nicolay. He had issue, one son:

· a. Prince Dimitri Giorgievitch Schervaschidze. Gentleman of the Bedchamber to the Emperor of Russia 1913, Marshal of the Nobility of Sviantzany.
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
I've been reviewing Sykes' account of the Zana story in his book Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal: A Geneticist's Search for Modern Apemen (accessible in large part at Google Books).

In addition to introducing the previously-uncited son Eshba, Sykes' account diverges from prior accounts on several points.

I also noticed that Sykes misattributes Porshnev's and Machkovtsev's discovery and exploration of the Zana story to the 1950's (in more than one place). Porshnev's account pretty clearly attributes this to the 1960's.

Another error in Sykes' book is that he claims both Huevelmans and Porshnev believed Zana was a relict Neanderthal. Huevelmans (in his introduction to the 2017 book) clearly states this was a dogmatic presumption of Porshnev alone, and he and Sanderson didn't agree with it.
Sykes clearly didn't even read Porshnev carefully
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
· (ii) Dimitri Manucharovitch Shirvashidze, Prince of Bedia. Succeeded his brother, 1829. He d. in Russia, 1832, having had issue, two sons: ...
Great ... :roll:

This turns out to be another standard reference point that doesn't fit the common narrative ... :headbang:

If D. M. Achba / Chachba owned Zana, she was captured long before 1850 and couldn't have been bearing children as late as the 1880's.

If Zana was captured circa 1850, she was never owned by this D. M. Achba / Chachba.
 

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
514
Reaction score
1,489
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
Maid Marion and Friar Tuck are now inextricably linked with Robin Hood, but originally, they were separate and independent characters. Robin himself was variously described as merely a Yeoman, or as Earl of Huntingdon. Merlin is a fictional (made up rather than legendary) character now inextricably woven into the Arthur legend. Slender Man was created in 2009 but has taken on a legendary life of his own. "Everybody knows" that William Webb Ellis "invented Rugby" except that he didn't, and the story of him doing so only took hold a few years after his death.

Point is that people adopt and adapt the facts to make a good story. The fascination with factual accuracy is a comparatively modern idea, and is still not that widespread, even in the affluent, well educated west.

Finding and capturing a wild woman, if it happened at all, would be a short lived story of only local interest.

Keeping her captive might be the start of a bigger story, maybe even a source of revenue, but her captors would need to add convincing (and possibly sentimental or gory) details to attract and maintain attention.

If she were that wild and animal-like, the fact that she was impregnated by a male Homo sapiens on more than one occasion, several years apart, is remarkable. Most historical communities were socially very conservative with strong taboos relating to sex.

Adding specific dates and names to a story gives it a spurious air of authenticity, much like those internet memes about it taking 35,243 words for the EU to define a cabbage.

Until we have mortal remains to examine, we cannot know whether she was part of a surviving Neanderthal population, or atavistic, or had some syndrome that today we would recognise, name, and treat with sympathy and respect.

(On a separate point, my understanding is that "abo" is a derisive or insulting term for Australian aborigines. Maybe there's no need to go to all the trouble of writing "Australian Aborgines", "native Australians" or "First nation people of Australia," or any other fashionable circumlocution, but I'm uncomfortable reading "abo" used as it has been in this thread.)
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... Point is that people adopt and adapt the facts to make a good story. ...
Agreed ... I've found myself drifting toward an theory on the Zana story that has a lot more to do with storytelling than relict hominoids (Porshnev's term). However, I'm not yet ready to lay out the case for it.

At this point I can say this much ...

So far as we know from the evidence to date the Zana story exists solely as a verbal narrative documented no less than circa 70 years after the latest claimed timeframe for its final act.

I have not yet found any documentary evidence for the specific Zana story prior to the 1960's, nor any reference to documentation of the story.

Certain elements incorporated in the most typically encountered Zana story cannot have been involved as the typical story claims. This doesn't necessarily refute the event(s) per se, but it does force one to examine the manner in which those events have been related down through the more than a century since they allegedly occurred.

This shifts the context for the specific Zana story from the Fortean to the folkloric.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
My best guess is that "Zaadan" (Заадан) is a very obscure local name for the forest west of the Marukhi glacier ...
Generally speaking, the headwaters of the Bzib / Bzyb River are to the west of the Marukhi glacier.

Would it be fair to say a reference to 'forests of the Zaadan' could refer to the Bzib / Bzyb watershed area?
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,685
Reaction score
6,207
Points
309
Finding and capturing a wild woman, if it happened at all, would be a short lived story of only local interest.

Keeping her captive might be the start of a bigger story, maybe even a source of revenue, but her captors would need to add convincing (and possibly sentimental or gory) details to attract and maintain attention.

If she were that wild and animal-like, the fact that she was impregnated by a male Homo sapiens on more than one occasion, several years apart, is remarkable. Most historical communities were socially very conservative with strong taboos relating to sex.

Adding specific dates and names to a story gives it a spurious air of authenticity, much like those internet memes about it taking 35,243 words for the EU to define a cabbage.

Until we have mortal remains to examine, we cannot know whether she was part of a surviving Neanderthal population, or atavistic, or had some syndrome that today we would recognise, name, and treat with sympathy and respect.
On a related note, I asked a Chinese friend about the yeren (Chinese Yeti, literally 'wild person'). Not being familiar with the cryptid, she assumed I was talking about tribal people living in the hills...
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Great ... :roll:

This turns out to be another standard reference point that doesn't fit the common narrative ... :headbang:

If D. M. Achba / Chachba owned Zana, she was captured long before 1850 and couldn't have been bearing children as late as the 1880's.

If Zana was captured circa 1850, she was never owned by this D. M. Achba / Chachba.
A human woman couldn't be bearing children in 1886 if she was captured before 1860.

The 1850 date seems to have come from nowhere, and there are other possible matches:


Date Murzakanovich Anchabadze is either #3 or #6.




Abkhazians also served in other military formations, as evidenced by archival documents, including formular, service and reward lists. For example, Anchabadze Date Murzakanovich was a rider of the Kutaisi noble horse-irregular division No. 1. For the distinction "rendered in affairs with the Turks" from June 2 to September 21, 1877 as part of the Ingur detachment, he was awarded the Distinction of the Military Order of the 4th degree, No. 35635. The commander-in-chief of the Caucasian army he was promoted to ensigns of militia on January 15, 1878 and confirmed in rank on September 5, 1878. He died in 1894.

http://www.gazeta-ra.info/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=16794
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Generally speaking, the headwaters of the Bzib / Bzyb River are to the west of the Marukhi glacier.

Would it be fair to say a reference to 'forests of the Zaadan' could refer to the Bzib / Bzyb watershed area?
That sounds right.

h.png

66.png
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19


The Scientific work of Bryan Sykes on the Zana case has not been published. From his book we learn that the mtDNA drawn from Kvhit's skull was human and from the l2c haplogroup. The genetics of Zana's descendants revealed a normal level of Neanderthal DNA for Europeans, and that an analysis of their DNA demonstrated Zana to be 100% African.

The Neanderthal theory would seem to be thus discarded, but there are problems.

The first is that near Khwit's grave a female human skull was dug up along with a galosh with a 1880s date on it. This skull should have been tested along with Khwit's in order to discover the relationship between them. I don't know if Sykes even knew about the female skull.

hqdefault.jpg

The second is that according to Porshnev Zana was a hybrid, which has direct implications for mtdna testing. If Zana was a yeti hybrid with a human mother, her and khwit's mtdna would have been human and the mtdna test would have completely missed any non-human genetics.

The third is that his genealogical chart is a joke. At minimum we need full names and birth/death dates for everyone. Does this Eshba have a grave? Are there any photos? What happened to all the other children?

Until Bryan Sykes publishes his work on Zana, preferably in a peer review journal, his opinions are not Scientific evidence of anything.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Was this later Date Murzakanovich Anchabadze ever a 'prince' or other member of the official nobility (i.e., a noble with authority outside the military context)?
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Was this later Date Murzakanovich Anchabadze ever a 'prince' or other member of the official nobility (i.e., a noble with authority outside the military context)?

Yes, he was a prince and a noble. What that amounted to in terms of power and authority, I don't know.
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Agreed ... I've found myself drifting toward an theory on the Zana story that has a lot more to do with storytelling than relict hominoids (Porshnev's term). However, I'm not yet ready to lay out the case for it.
So why did the Soviet State invest so much in a lie?
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Maid Marion and Friar Tuck are now inextricably linked with Robin Hood, but originally, they were separate and independent characters. Robin himself was variously described as merely a Yeoman, or as Earl of Huntingdon. Merlin is a fictional (made up rather than legendary) character now inextricably woven into the Arthur legend. Slender Man was created in 2009 but has taken on a legendary life of his own. "Everybody knows" that William Webb Ellis "invented Rugby" except that he didn't, and the story of him doing so only took hold a few years after his death.

Point is that people adopt and adapt the facts to make a good story. The fascination with factual accuracy is a comparatively modern idea, and is still not that widespread, even in the affluent, well educated west.

Finding and capturing a wild woman, if it happened at all, would be a short lived story of only local interest.

Keeping her captive might be the start of a bigger story, maybe even a source of revenue, but her captors would need to add convincing (and possibly sentimental or gory) details to attract and maintain attention.

If she were that wild and animal-like, the fact that she was impregnated by a male Homo sapiens on more than one occasion, several years apart, is remarkable. Most historical communities were socially very conservative with strong taboos relating to sex.

Adding specific dates and names to a story gives it a spurious air of authenticity, much like those internet memes about it taking 35,243 words for the EU to define a cabbage.

Until we have mortal remains to examine, we cannot know whether she was part of a surviving Neanderthal population, or atavistic, or had some syndrome that today we would recognise, name, and treat with sympathy and respect.

(On a separate point, my understanding is that "abo" is a derisive or insulting term for Australian aborigines. Maybe there's no need to go to all the trouble of writing "Australian Aborgines", "native Australians" or "First nation people of Australia," or any other fashionable circumlocution, but I'm uncomfortable reading "abo" used as it has been in this thread.)
Taking a human slave in Abkhazia at that time was such a normal every day affair, that there would have been no reason to tell any story about it at all.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
The first is that near Khwit's grave a female human skull was dug up along with a galosh with a 1880s date on it. This skull should have been tested along with Khwit's in order to discover the relationship between them. I don't know if Sykes even knew about the female skull.
View attachment 11946
This skull would be either:

(1) The skull excavated in September 1964 and rejected as possibly being Zana's based on Guerassimov's evaluation of it representing a young woman (whom Porshnev presumed to have been one of Zana's granddaughters). Porshnev doesn't offer any details on Guerassimov's examination of the bones or why he ascribed them to a young woman.

(2) The skull excavated in October 1965 from beneath a quince tree one of the elder witnesses had allegedly* pointed out in 1964. According to Porshnev, this female skull's face "... was unfortunately broken by the diggers." Porshnev says no more about this second candidate except the vague statement that a "... study of the other bones showed that they could not have belonged to Zana." The quince tree was cut to determine its age, which was believed to be 40 years old - an age that correlated with Zana's daughter Gamassa's death.

I don't see any signs of digger damage in the profile view you provided.

* NOTE: Porshnev's account states that the tree the same elder pointed to in 1964 had been a pomegranate tree, not a quince tree. I'm confused as to why Porshnev refers to one tree as two different species. If they were in fact two different trees, Porshnev's statement the elder pointed out the same tree twice can't be true.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... The second is that according to Porshnev Zana was a hybrid, which has direct implications for mtdna testing. If Zana was a yeti hybrid with a human mother, her and khwit's mtdna would have been human and the mtdna test would have completely missed any non-human genetics. ...
I agree about the mtDNA prospects for that particular possible combination of parents. However ...

The hybrid attribution represented Porshnev's fervent belief based on Negroid features he (a) attributed to Zana's alleged features (in the stories) and (b) discerned in Zana's descendants. Zana's hybrid status was at best Porshnev's hypothesis and at worst a mere hope for the sake of preserving the historico-social model he'd formulated.

It must also be borne in mind that it's the mtDNA which points to an ancient and presumably extinct African lineage and thus provides the sole known basis for considering Zana to have been a specimen of a relict anything (human; Neanderthal; etc.).
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... The third is that his genealogical chart is a joke. At minimum we need full names and birth/death dates for everyone. Does this Eshba have a grave? Are there any photos? What happened to all the other children?

Until Brian Sykes publishes his work on Zana, preferably in a peer review journal, his opinions are not Scientific evidence of anything.
I totally agree with both these points.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
So why did the Soviet State invest so much in a lie?
I'm not 100% certain whether you're referring to Porshnev, Ivanov, or both (since you started from the standpoint of a possible linkage between the two scholars' works).

It doesn't really matter, because my answer is essentially the same for both. There are 3 reasons why the state's investments (whatever they were ... ) could have been justified.

(1) Nobody knew (then or now) if the Zana story was a lie. A conclusion on the facts of the matter represents the goal, not the starting point. The exploration is intended to pursue that goal, however it may turn out. That's what science is all about. As the sports pundits say, "That's why we play the game."

(2) Both Porshnev and Ivanov were renowned academics with international reputations. Both had the advantages of position and fame in pursuing state sponsorship for their latest projects.

(3) Both projects held prospects for significant payoffs. In the case of Ivanov, it was super-soldiers and super-workers. In the case of Porshnev, it would have meant validation of his fundamentally Marxist-Leninist socio-historical theories and hence additional throw-weight in the ideological wars with the West.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Taking a human slave in Abkhazia at that time was such a normal every day affair, that there would have been no reason to tell any story about it at all.
It's true that Ottoman slavery traditions continued throughout the 19th century in that region, but they were fading in light of socio-political developments.

There definitely would have been a reason to worry about slavery after 1864, once the Russians had taken control of greater Georgia and started working hard to eradicate traditional slavery. The Russians clearly demonstrated how draconian their actions could be with the mass deportation of the Circassians to Turkey and the suppression of revolts against their hegemony. This would have provided plenty of reason to be cautious about involvement with slaves and slavery.

These developments would provide a possible motivation for Zana being transferred from a sovereign prince to a vassal and on to a prominent non-noble in a remote village.
 

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
514
Reaction score
1,489
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
The first is that near Khwit's grave a female human skull was dug up along with a galosh with a 1880s date on it.
This raises 4 queries:
  1. Why would one waterproof overshoe be buried with a skull?
  2. What is the evidence that they were buried together, rather than both being buried in the same ground but at different times?
  3. Why was a waterproof overshoe dated?
  4. If it as dated, why do we only have "an 1880s date" rather than the actual year?
Note also that without other evidence, the sex of a skull can be assessed as a probability, but not determined with certainty: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/forensic-facial-reconstruction/0/steps/25656

Furthermore, if this were not a "standard Homo sapiens" but a hybrid or earlier hominin, the assessment would be less reliable.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Why would one waterproof overshoe be buried with a skull?
Good question. It may have been accidental, or (e.g.) the galosh wore out or failed and was discarded in the grave.


What is the evidence that they were buried together, rather than both being buried in the same ground but at different times?
These were two separate graves. I'm not even sure they were adjacent.


Why was a waterproof overshoe dated?
In the early days of rubber manufacturing vulcanization was still being developed, and rubber goods could readily soften / deteriorate under certain conditions or after contact with certain materials.

The earliest rubber goods manufacturers and vendors sometimes dated items because so many of them were returned. The situation stabilized once Goodyear finally perfected a reliable and effective vulcanization process circa the 1860's, but it's anyone's guess how long it took the innovation to reach the Russian Empire.

I have no idea whether this sort of dating or marking was used by whomever supplied that galosh.


If it as dated, why do we only have "an 1880s date" rather than the actual year?
Good question. It may be that (e.g.) no more than "188*" was visible, and that decade was the most precise attribution that could be made.
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Burstev recently gave a talk at the "Psychic Sasquatch Spiritual Conference" that identifies the source of the female skull and indicates a sample was given to Sykes.

https://scenicsasquatch.com/2018/03...tor-of-the-institute-of-hominology-of-moscow/


Dear Colleagues,

The discussion on the Bigfoot DNA initiated me to share with you some thoughts about this subject.
There are some contradictions in DNA of Bigfoot studies by various researchers caused by the results claimed by Dr. Melba Ketchum – and a lot of critics of her work, directly or indirectly from several geneticists and other biologists.
In this regard I would like to base just on one example I am a person involved in: the study of two skulls connected with Zana case (attached photo #1) attached). One is of her son Khwit, and another one of a woman from the neighboring grave, very old and special one: in the contrary to the others (we exgumed on that time in 1975 some seven burials on one old clan cemetery), she was laid on the side, with legs bent (#2). Her skull is on the #3.
As to their morphology, the Khwit’s one was determined by anthropologists as of Australoid kind, the woman’s – as of an African type. (The reconstruction made by a Russian anthropologist – #4)

Two questions arose: 1. Do both skulls belonged to close relatives? (If yes, a woman’s one could appear Zana’s herself). 2. Were there any differences of Khwit’s mother from the local inhabitants and even of humans in general? If so, to which species could she belonged? We couldn’t answer these questions in the 20th Century. But due to development of genetic studies the hope appeared it the current century.

In the year of 2006 both the skulls were studied by a geneticist Dr. Todd Disotell and anthropologist Dr. Shara Bailey in NY University. After their study I visited them in NY (see the photo #5 attached). Todd’s answer to the first question was: Definitely YES! (Though Shara stayed doubt from the morphological view point). To the second question they answered: NO. (I need to note, that Todd was studying just a mtDNA, not the nuDNA. But as we understand now, we need the full genome to determine the species, including the nuDNA).

In a time period between 2010-2012 another geneticist – Vladimir Yamshchikov in Southern Researh Institute, Birmingham, AL – tried to find the DNA from the both skulls. (I visited him there too in 2011.) At least his conclusion on the first question was YES too – the skulls belonged to close relatives. If so – that woman’s skull belonged to Zana herself. In this case her face could have the outlook shown on #7… Though, I don’t insist on this, it’s just a speculation, I understand.

In 2012 Dr. Brian Sykes due to financial assistance of a NG TV Program studied the samples from both the skulls. His results are more known by BF researchers, that is why I’ll mention only a few points to share. The samples from both the skulls were handed to him personally by the Russian researcher Dmitry Pirkulov who visited London city. After in August 2013 Dr. Sykes visited Moscow, we (Dmitri Bayanov, Dmitry Pirkulov, Michael Tractengerts and me) met with him in Darwin Museum, and I handed to him personally another tooth from the woman’s skull and some hairs from Siberia, definitely left by a bigfoot there on the track. Dr. Sykes ensured me that he’ll study the samples and inform us about results. He also promised to send us his book which was under preparing at that time…

The time of couple years passed after that. We learned about the Dr. Sykes’ book from media, some discussions arose about his conclusions. But no message from him, no book, no article we received since that our meeting in Moscow. I even don’t know, if he studied those samples which I handed to him…

And one important note: as to discussing his results of DNA study of skulls he emphasized definitely, that the skulls DIDN’T BELONG TO CLOSE RELATIVES! He repeated this not once to my questions while we were meeting and correspond at the first time after the meeting…

I attract your attention to this answers about the relativeness to show that there are principal contradiction in conclusions re such a not very complicated question as a determination of the close relativeness. In this regard how we can trust the conclusions re more complicated question as a definition of the species or the differences of the BF DNA and human DNA? And some other questions arising re impartiality of the researchers whom we have to trust…
I make MY OWN conclusion that such analyses yet are VERY MUCH subjective, depending of the attitude of a personality making such a job. And in this regard – let’s wait a little when the genetics as a science will be more transparent, and when geneticists will be more capable to repeat the study of samples and be impartial while checking the results of each other to say exactly what the bigfoots’ DNA shows.

Thanks for attention!
Igor Burtsev
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
It gets curiouser and curiouser...

Bryan Sykes leaves the female skull out completely in his retelling of the discovery of Khwit's skull. The female skull is obviously a possible candidate for Zana, but Bryan Sykes repeats that Zana's remains were never recovered. Sykes definitely had a sample, but in his work the female skull is never mentioned. There ain't a whole lot of evidence in the Zana case. Bryan Sykes erased 50% of it.

Why would Sykes pretend he didn't know about the female skull?
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
Here is an article from Burtsev describing the discovery of the female skull:

Google translate

Looks like the galoshes were found in another grave.
 

Razumov

zermatism.wordpress.com
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
72
Reaction score
43
Points
19
I'm not 100% certain whether you're referring to Porshnev, Ivanov, or both (since you started from the standpoint of a possible linkage between the two scholars' works).

It doesn't really matter, because my answer is essentially the same for both. There are 3 reasons why the state's investments (whatever they were ... ) could have been justified.

(1) Nobody knew (then or now) if the Zana story was a lie. A conclusion on the facts of the matter represents the goal, not the starting point. The exploration is intended to pursue that goal, however it may turn out. That's what science is all about. As the sports pundits say, "That's why we play the game."

(2) Both Porshnev and Ivanov were renowned academics with international reputations. Both had the advantages of position and fame in pursuing state sponsorship for their latest projects.

(3) Both projects held prospects for significant payoffs. In the case of Ivanov, it was super-soldiers and super-workers. In the case of Porshnev, it would have meant validation of his fundamentally Marxist-Leninist socio-historical theories and hence additional throw-weight in the ideological wars with the West.
So what would you consider strong evidence that these events were related?
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
4,793
Reaction score
7,803
Points
209
Location
Wessex and Mercia
It gets curiouser and curiouser...

Bryan Sykes leaves the female skull out completely in his retelling of the discovery of Khwit's skull. The female skull is obviously a possible candidate for Zana, but Bryan Sykes repeats that Zana's remains were never recovered. Sykes definitely had a sample, but in his work the female skull is never mentioned. There ain't a whole lot of evidence in the Zana case. Bryan Sykes erased 50% of it.

Why would Sykes pretend he didn't know about the female skull?
To me, the female skull looks rather small, with a tiny cranial capacity (but very prognathous jaws).
Could a skull that small be consistent with an individual described as exceeding 6 feet in height?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
It gets curiouser and curiouser...

Bryan Sykes leaves the female skull out completely in his retelling of the discovery of Khwit's skull. The female skull is obviously a possible candidate for Zana, but Bryan Sykes repeats that Zana's remains were never recovered. Sykes definitely had a sample, but in his work the female skull is never mentioned. There ain't a whole lot of evidence in the Zana case. Bryan Sykes erased 50% of it.

Why would Sykes pretend he didn't know about the female skull?
That's a very good question. Sykes makes no mention (that I can find) of having been given material from the second (Female) remains. Sykes only mentions testing Khvit's tooth.

One would expect Sykes would have (at least) mentioned failure in extracting usable DNA from the female's tooth if he'd ever attempted to analyze it.

It does appear as if Sykes deliberately omitted all mention of the second tooth.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Here is an article from Burtsev describing the discovery of the female skull ...
Thanks for that ... Burtsev's account seems to indicate the female skull did not come from either of the two female graves Porshnev's team excavated in 1964 / 1965.

I doubt there's an outside chance this female grave was one of the ones Porshnev's team dug up, because according to Porshnev:

- Samples from one grave were sent to Moscow (and presumably never returned to T'khina), and
- Burtsev doesn't mention his 1975 skull showing signs of the digger damage Porshnev noted for the second grave.
 
Top