Poll: Was Zana a Bigfoot (Russian Almasty)?

On U.K.'s Channel 4 The Bigfoot Files, Sunday, Dr. Bryan Sykes will be unveiling the true origin of Zana, a possible Bigfoot that was captured in the late 19th century in southern Russia, who local people believe was an "Almasty". Some Almasty hunters believe Zana was probably a surviving Neanderthal. In an an excerpt from a press release by Channel 4, Sykes thinks he may have finally solved the mystery:

To answer the riddle and establish what species she belonged to, Professor Sykes has tested samples from six of Zana's living descendants. He has also recovered DNA from a tooth taken from the skull of one of her sons, Khwit. Such work is highly specialized and Sykes was the first geneticist ever to extract DNA from ancient bone.

The results are complex and fascinating. First, they show that Zana was, in fact, no more Neanderthal than many of the rest of modern humans. When the Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010 it became clear that Europeans and Asians contain around 2 to 4% of Neanderthal DNA; almost certainly the result of interbreeding.

But the big surprise in Sykes' results was that Zana's DNA is not Caucasian at all, but African. Khwit's tooth sample confirms her maternal African ancestry and the saliva tests on the six living descendants show that they all contain African DNA in the right proportions for Zana to have been genetically 100% sub-Saharan African.

Though Sykes may have solved the riddle, there's one piece of the puzzle he hasn't been solved yet, and that is the skull of Khwit, one of Zana's sons:

But that theory would not explain her extraordinary features, described by reliable eyewitnesses. There is an even more intriguing alternative theory. Having carefully studied the skull of Zana's son, Khwit, Professor Sykes believes there are some unusual morphological skull features – such as very wide eye sockets, an elevated brow ridge and what appears to be an additional bone at the back of the skull – that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern, human origins.

Reading between the lines and judging by the skull's features, Dale Drinnon of The Frontiers of Zoology blog says Zana may indeed be a very primitive human type or a whole new classification:

I made an additional comment to Syke's statement in the article I put up on my blog. And the Russian Anthropologists have stated that although Khwit's skull shows some African features, they do not dominate and the skull is more nearly like Australian aboriginals. There were prehistoric Africans that had skulls like Australian aboriginals, but they are extinct now. The inference many Anthropologists make is that these were half-breeds with an older, even more primitive human type: so Zana is still actually in the running for that classification.

What Was Zana?
	Neanderthal
	African Slave
	Australian Aboriginal
	Primitive Human
	Bigfoot
	Hank's Cousin
pollcode.com free polls