sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bryan Sykes, Yeti

The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 4:67-74 (2015)

Book Review

The of the Beast: The First Genetic Evidence on the Survival of Apemen, , and Other Mysterious Creatures into Modern Times. By . London: Hodder & Stoughton, ©2014. 320pp. ISBN 978-1-444-79125-9. UK£25.00 (hardback).

The highly anticipated question, it appears. Sykes is known outside results of the Oxford- the scientific community of geneticists for his Lausanne Collateral Hom- bestselling books (e.g. The Seven Daughters inid Project, which was of Eve, DNA USA, and Saxons, , and Sykes’ study of hair ) on the investigation of history samples of alleged un- and prehistory through studies of known , were to mitochondrial DNA. He is the founder of be noted during a British Oxford Ancestors, a genealogical DNA testing documentary, published in firm, too. a scientific journal, and discussed in Bryan During his hominid project, Sykes and I Sykes’ 2014 book, The Yeti Enigma. were in close touch, and I respect what he has Who is the author? Bryan Sykes, PhD, is a attempted to do. As the book clearly states, he former Professor of Human Genetics at the felt that he would, as a scientist, test to see if and a Fellow of Wolfson evidence of , Bigfoot, and other College. Sykes is perhaps most well-known as undiscovered primates might be certified as having published the first report on retrieving worthy of further investigations. Neandertal DNA from fossil bone (Nature As he said in the book, “I realised that 342:485, 1989). He has been involved in a cryptozoologists had no chance of convincing number of high-profile cases dealing with the world of the validity of their claims on ancient DNA, including those of “Ötzi the their own. Neither did I think that they had Iceman,” a well preserved natural mummy of been well served by those scientists who had, a man who lived around 3300 BC, and from time to time, accepted samples, often “,” the remains of a human collected under very difficult circumstances, found in Cheddar Gorge, from approximately and who had not even bothered to return 7150 BC, Britain’s oldest complete human proper reports,” (pages 29-30). skeleton. The Cheddar Man findings have Sykes told researchers that he since been disputed, it being suggested that would work with them, if they would work the sample was contaminated with modern with him. Of course, amateurs can prove the DNA. The science of genetics advances, and existence of new species, via live captures, some of Sykes results have been called into dead bodies, and other means. Hair samples

© RHI

SYKES – THE NATURE OF THE BEAST 68 and genetics are important, but there are other thrown down the challenge, but, in the end, he ways to prove something exists. In the case of may have been the one who moved with too yetis, Bigfoot, almas, and orang pendeks, none much haste – via a television documentary and of these methods have been successful for a book – with revealing his findings. unknown hairy hominoids. Sykes added his Sykes is a good storyteller and writer, and academic stature to the quest, and it was his book is full of interesting case files on yeti welcomed. and Bigfoot reports. The book will be enjoyed The documentary (Bigfoot Files, 2013) was for those sections in Part I, especially by those broadcast and a scientific article (Sykes, et. looking for an outsider’s view of the well- al., Genetic analysis of hair samples attributed known accounts familiar to so many in the to yeti, bigfoot and other anomalous primates, field. Sykes’ strong passages, of course, are Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281: his attempts to make sense of why genetics is 20140161, August, 2014) was published. But worthy of utilization to find the stories all during the last two years, The Yeti Enigma these hair samples have to tell us. But when morphed into the 320 pages that is The Nature Sykes tries to share some of the history of the of the Beast by Bryan Sykes, which appeared yeti and Bigfoot, he trips a bit as a historian. in April 2015 from Hodder & Stoughton in the After some personal moments in the field UK. with Lori Simmons, which seemed more for Recall, the unfolding of the details of the emotional content that scientific insight, study took some time. British Channel 4 Chapter 2, “The Yeti Enigma” begins in broadcast their three-parter entitled Bigfoot earnest with the Yeti descriptions from the Files on October 20, 2013, on the anniversary journal of Slavomir Rawicz. This formerly of the making of the Patterson-Gimlin Bluff famed encounter, as recorded in The Long Creek, CA, Bigfoot footage. That premiere Walk, 1956, has long since been found to be date did seem more than coincidental. Then Rawicz’s apparent false narrative derived the results were featured in a two-hour special, from a true story told by another survivor of a Bigfoot: Revealed, produced for Channel 4 in similar escape from . Peter Fleming the U.K. and premiering in the USA on (author Ian Fleming’s brother) and Eric November 17, 2013, on the National Shipton, among others, are critics of the Geographic Channel. Rawicz story, including the tale of the Yetis After the fiasco of the Melba Ketchum affair seen. Thus Sykes limbs into his foundation (much criticized in this book for having stories about yetis and Bigfoot. But he “wasted a lot of valuable material”), many in stumbles so often, it is obvious he needed to the Bigfoot field were careful when Sykes’ have a cryptozoologist or hominologist as a call for samples was announced. Eventually, proof-reader. however, many agreed to share hair samples Sykes tells of ’s debunking with Sykes and his Oxford University-based expedition to the as occurring in study. Will they be disappointed in the 1962 (pages 42 and 65), although Hillary’s outcome they see unfold in this book? The World Book yeti expedition took place in man famed for first retrieving fossil DNA had 1960. This is a fundamental fact that seems to

LOREN COLEMAN 69 have pointed to not enough background apemen,” (page 260). research on Sykes’ part, or not having very There is one more example where Sykes good fact-checkers. seems to be jumping to conclusions without There are other little errors, like listing one all the facts. This involves the hair taken in of Peter Byrne’s associates as “Steve Mattice” July 2005 that was associated with a sighting (page 63), when his name was Steve M. of a Sasquatch in Teslin, Yukon. Matthes, who went on to author a book Sykes summarized the case in his book. He including his Bigfoot experiences entitled notes the eyewitnesses saw a large biped Brave and Other Stories (Red Giant moving through the brush. “They were Productions, 1988). convinced they had seen a Sasquatch and, Other mistakes are more significant, such as when they found a tuft of coarse, dark hair stating the Patterson-Gimlin filming took very close to a large seventeen place in 1968, on October 20 (page 57), when inches long and five inches wide, they sent the it occurred in 1967; or remarking that because hair to the Government of the Yukon Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were rodeo Department of Environment for ident- riders, Patterson stayed on his horse until he ification,” (page 153). decided to get off, when Patterson and Gimlin As was noted by Dr. David Coltman, a encountered the Bigfoot Patterson would film wildlife geneticist in the Department of (page 58). Patterson was, in fact, thrown to the Biological Sciences at the University of ground by his horse. Alberta, at the time, “The DNA profile of the Sykes sometimes transforms theories about hair sample we received from the Yukon fakery into factual statements. For example earlier this week clearly matches reference (pages 52 and 59), Sykes equates theories and DNA profiles from North American bison, media reports (wrongly detailing the Ray Bison bison.” Wallace revelations) as final conclusions that Sykes mentions this is “what had fooled the Jerry Crew was hoaxed when he found good people of Teslin” (page 153) and hints at at Bluff Creek in 1958. As has been them starting “a Sasquatch rumour,” (page documented, the Wallace wooden tooled fakes 154). But for some reason, Sykes morphs this were certainly used to hoax some tracks, but incident into “the good people of Teslin, they do not match, at all, the ones found by Yukon, mistook the backside of a bison for a Crew in 1958 during the initial incidents at the Sasquatch,” (page 308). construction site at Bluff Creek. I personally investigated this case, talked to Sykes does this again with the 1924 Coltman in 2005, and, indeed, we have an Canyon “attack” on the miners. Sykes takes a exhibit on this event at the International 1983 theory of boys from a nearby YMCA Cryptozoology Museum, complete with a camp throwing rocks (pages 56-57) and portion of the hair sample and Coltman’s transposes it into fact when he says later in his documentation. Sykes mentions in his book book, “I was reminded of the Ape Canyon that he knows that the people involved in this incident from Chapter 6 where another cabin sighting had a bison pelt (actually a bison was attacked by mistaken for rug), but does not appear to understand where

SYKES – THE NATURE OF THE BEAST 70 the sample was found (i.e. on the door frame designations like “The Guru.” “The Professor” of the residents’ house). There are only 122 is about Jeff Meldrum; “The Godfather” people in Teslin, it is a Native village and discusses Bernard Heuvelmans; “The reserve of the Teslin Inland Tlingit First Mountaineer” visits with ; Nation. Coltman and I talked about how what “The Explorer” tells of Christophe probably occurred was that someone earlier Hagenmuller; “The Man Who Shot Bigfoot,” had shaken a bison rug out the door and some even though he didn’t, reflects on Justin hair from it caught on the door frame. The fact Smeja; “The Veteran” profiles Dan Shirley; is the eyewitnesses there found the hair after “The Landscape Gardener” sketches Derek viewing the sasquatch, and made the Randles; “The Indian” ponders Marcel Cagey; association, apparently mistakenly. and “The Russians” gives forth Sykes’ It is highly doubtful that these Teslin Inland portraits of Michael Trachtengerts, Dmitri Tlingit First Nation peoples mistook the Bayanov, and Igor Burtsev, as well as sharing “backside of a bison” for a sasquatch. For notes on Boris Porchnev and the French-born, Sykes to place the incident in that context was adopted-Russian Marie-Jeanne Koffman (also uncalled for. spelled Koffmann or Kaufmann, by other Sykes’ jumping from his theories, in the biographers). earlier sections, to his declarative statements The findings are what most people want to of facts, in Part II of this book, is disquieting. read about in this book, and Sykes does not Despite the book’s shortcomings, I disappoint in Part II – up to a point. genuinely like Bryan Sykes, who I was to Sykes conveys, with exacting revelations, discover was born the same year I was. The his findings, and, as most people within the International Cryptozoology Museum co- field know, no unknown DNA were operated, sent samples to the study, and gave identified. We all anxiously awaited the data, as best we could, for the source of all results, however Sykes conclusions indicated hair we made available. Our yeti sample human, , raccoon, and other common turned out to be serow, as we expected. I, wildlife DNA for samples of alleged Bigfoot, personally, was interviewed by Sykes and the yeti, and other hair samples he received. documentary team, and gave Sykes further “Out of the eighteen hair samples attributed reading on Tom Slick, Sir Edmund Hillary, to Bigfoot [in North America], five had come George Agogino, Ivan T. Sanderson, and from black , four from canids, either others I personally knew and researched, who wolf, coyote or domestic dog, three from had been involved with the early yeti and cows, and one each from horse, deer, raccoon, Bigfoot searches. Sykes writes his Chapter 16 porcupine, sheep and human,” concludes about our interactions and my insights, and Sykes (page 271). entitles it “The Guru.” He further tied that Earlier in 2013, and again in 2014, Sykes section to my interest and museum by having made worldwide headlines when he got “polar it headed with a drawing of a coelacanth (the bear” findings that appeared to match yeti logo of the ICM) by his son. hairs. The Snow-Bear cometh – at least for a Sykes’ employs several other chapter little while.

LOREN COLEMAN 71

The exciting finds stating that two yeti For clarification, brown bears are Ursus samples were a match – a 100% match – to arctos, polar bears are Ursus maritimus, and DNA from an ancient mandible – Himalayan brown bears are Ursus arctos were noted in the documentary, and are isabellinus. repeated in this book. One of the samples In response, Sykes, et al., agreed that their Bryan Sykes analysed came from an alleged yeti samples were not from the “jawbone of a yeti mummy in the Indian region of , at Pleistocene polar bear Ursus maritimus,” after the Western edge of the Himalayas, and was all. They acknowledged the “matches were taken by a French mountaineer who was instead to a modern specimen of U. maritimus shown the corpse 40 years ago. Another more from the Diomede Islands in the Bering Sea recent sample matched that one. Sykes goes reported in the same paper.” into great detail explaining all of the sample The Melton-Sartori-Sykes’ reply points out: sourcing in Nature of the Beast, and largely “Importantly, for the thrust of the paper as a aligns his findings with Reinhold Messner’s whole, the conclusion that these Himalayan giant bear (chemo) theory for yeti (the dzu-teh ‘yeti’ samples were certainly not from a of Sanderson). [In fact, the producers of The hitherto unknown primate is unaffected.” Bigfoot Files seemed bent on explaining away (Proc. Roy. Soc. B 282: 20142434). altogether the yeti and sasquatch as bear Due to these critiques, we are left with three misidentifications.] points after you take into account the first After the cryptozoological intriguing news response to Sykes, et. al.: that Sykes had identified a possible relict 1. The two samples of yeti DNA do make population of Pleistocene brown-colored polar a 100% match to a modern polar bear. bear as the source of two of the yeti samples, 2. What are, at least, two (brown-colored) these results have now been overturned. You polar bears doing in the Himalayan will not know this from reading this book. As biological arena in the space of 40 two formal replies to the Sykes teams’ paper years? found, Bryan Sykes’ group was in error 3. And why were these bear cryptids being matching “yeti” hair samples with a termed “yeti” by locals and outsiders? Pleistocene polar bear DNA. It was, instead, a These questions were perhaps forestalled by direct match to a modern polar bear, one reply a new reply to Sykes, et. al., with a March states. The information was published in C. J. 2015 paper in the journal ZooKeys, which Edwards and R. Barnett’s 2015 comments to states that there was “No need to replace an the original paper (Proc. Roy. Soc. B 282: ‘anomalous’ primate (Primates) with an 20141712). They point out “that the two ‘anomalous’ bear (Carnivora, Ursidae),” by [yeti] sequences” were incorrectly matched to Eliécer E. Gutiérrez and Ronald H. Pine “a Pleistocene fossil more than 40,000 BP of (ZooKeys 487:141–154). They have conducted U. maritimus (polar bear).” But the correct a detailed comparison of bear DNA data match is with “a modern U. maritimus across multiple software approaches and individual from Diomede, Little Diomede concluded that there is “no evidence of a Island, Alaska.” taxonomically unrecognized bear in the

SYKES – THE NATURE OF THE BEAST 72

Himalayas.” book alone. The authors found that the evidence Sykes’ team used to propose the mystery bear is (1) In the “Postscript,” Sykes details an found in multiple species, and that the sample intriguing finding from a hair sample from Dr. was more likely from Ursus arctos, a brown Henner Fahrenbach. It yielded a result that bear, known from the Himalayas. Sykes is still pondering, and we may hear If that wasn’t enough, Sykes admitted to more about in the future. The DNA sample of telling a “little white lie” about his affiliation a “sasquatch” from Walla Walla matched that noted in his published paper. He put down for of a feral “individual from Uzbekistan,” Sykes the journal that he was the chair of the writes (page 282). Institute of Human Genetics at Wolfson College, Oxford. He, however, admitted in (2) Sykes’ verdict on Zana, an alleged almasty March 2015 that the institute is mythical. He captured in the 1850s on the southern slopes told the media, “The journal required some of the Caucasus Mountains, is a nod to the sort of additional address in the college and, labor of the Russian hominologists during four hey, presto, I became an institute!” The decades of the Snowman Commission at original publication of Sykes’ paper had to Moscow’s Darwin Museum. The mainstream issue a correction about his “institute” during media has completely misinterpreted what the Spring of 2015. Sykes’ book has to say about this, and talk of None of these clarifications of the sampling, Zana being an “escaped African slave” his affiliation, or this discussion are to be demeans what appear to be the genetic found in The Nature of the Beast. It remains realities behind the case. You must read an enigma why Coronet/Hodder & Stoughton, Sykes’ Chapter 29, to fully appreciate what he since they held up the book already a year, did has discovered. not wait a bit longer and add this information “Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana to the end of this new book. That’s a shame. means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered So, yes, I was shocked to see no epilogue or with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a “breaking news” appendix at the end of this mane down her back. She was large, about book. I think the publisher did a disservice to 6’6” tall, and extremely muscular with Sykes, and the book should have been delayed exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large a bit longer. And a detailed update added. breasts. Her face was wide with high Should we be dismayed that no clear genetic cheekbones and a broad nose,” notes Sykes evidence was found of an unknown hominoid? (page 296). No, Bryan Sykes delivered, and I congratulate Zana was no slave from Africa, but an him on doing what he set out to do. individual with genetics that tell us much Three open-ended mysteries do, more about the population from which she nevertheless, remain unanswered for those sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s who read this book closely, thanks to Sykes ancestors could have left Africa before the and his associates’ scientific work. These Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they three subsections are worth the reading of the might well be still there [in the Caucasus

LOREN COLEMAN 73

Mountains] to this day, living as they have for to Sykes, and Sykes knew he could find out millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that what mitochondrial DNA it was aligned to. radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,” Sykes was able to find that it was “a European (page 306). mitochondrial DNA sequence, in the clan of (3) There is one more revelation in this book Ursula.” The notion that the “human” of the that caused me great astonishment. Few seem finger might be from a monk had to have read the book closely enough to to be thrown out. Indeed, Sykes writes, “The realize that part of the DNA testing that Sykes Pangboche Finger sequence was almost did gives a complete revision to the status of certainly not from or anywhere else the Pangboche yeti finger findings of only close by…” (page 194). four years ago, when it was dismissed as Sykes did the detective work, figured out merely “human.” who was the most likely candidate to have left We all thought the Pangboche finger bone his DNA on the finger, and compared them to was lost. When it was found again, we all cheek swab DNA he had collected. were told, it was merely that of a “human.” No Amazingly, what Bryan Sykes found mystery we were informed. through his testing was that the Pangboche The result of the DNA analysis was finger DNA sequence matched “in every announced on a program entitled Yeti Finger respect” the mDNA of Peter Byrne. The result on BBC Radio 4 on December 27, 2011. The means the Pangboche finger’s actual origin is program stated: “A DNA sample analysed by still a mystery. the zoo’s genetic expert Dr Rob Ogden has The Pangboche yeti finger was rediscovered finally revealed the finger’s true origins. while on display at London’s Royal College of Following DNA tests it has found to be human Surgeons. The late Dr. William Charles bone. …Dr Rob Ogden, of the Royal Osman Hill, a consultant to the Tom Slick Zoological Society of , said: ‘We had expeditions, bequeathed it to the Hunterian to stitch it together. We had several fragments Museum, which is a division of the Royal that we put into one big sequence and then we College of Surgeons. matched that against the database and we The Pangboche hand, the so-called yeti found human DNA. So it wasn’t too hand, has been the point of much discussion surprising but it was obviously slightly since 1959, which I summarized in Tom Slick: disappointing that you hadn’t discovered True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology something brand new. Human was what we (Fresno, CA: Craven Street-Linden Press, were expecting and human is what we got.’ 2002). I began further researching the Thanks to Bryan Sykes new book, The material, decades ago, when I noticed early in Nature of the Beast, we now understand that is my yeti research that Tom Slick expeditions, hardly the end of the story. In Chapter 19 of the evidence he found, and any results were his book, Sykes tackles the mystery of “The generally ignored in the “Abominable Pangboche Finger,” and the result he found is Snowman” literature. This appeared to be a startling and shocking. combination of the Slick family’s need for Ogden’s “human” DNA result was curious being out of the limelight, the secrecy behind

SYKES – THE NATURE OF THE BEAST 74 the Slick-Johnson expeditions, and the general scholarly utility of the book would have been outcome of the harsh skeptical debunking that improved with a longer list of citations and a occurred during the Hillary-Perkins-World detailed index. Book yeti expedition of 1960. Hominologists, cryptozoologists, anthro- After the first edition of my Tom Slick book pologists, zoologists, geneticists, and graduate was published in 1989, and my 1991 filming students should read this book. Casual readers with George Agogino and Peter Byrne by in cryptozoology and sasquatch studies please NBC’s Unsolved Mysteries, the interest in the take into consideration the above updates to Pangboche yeti hand and the Slick expeditions his “Snow Bear” findings, but add this book to increased. your reading list. You will learn a great deal. I The fact is the Pangboche hand may yet be am hopeful the publishers will release a future an important artifact to re-study and re-test, revised version of the text, and I look forward regarding a piece of the puzzle to solve the to that volume. Furthermore, readers beware, mystery of the yeti. and do not take to heart the media’s quick In summary, while an interesting and overviews of Sykes’ findings, which have engaging tome, Bryan Sykes’ new book, The often been incorrect and too shallow. The Nature of the Beast: The First Genetic Nature of the Beast deserves your close Evidence on the Survival of Apemen, Yeti, attention and careful digestion. Bigfoot and Other Mysterious Creatures into Modern Times, suffers from having been delayed but not updated. There is no index, Loren Coleman, MSW, Director and only three pages of notes give International Cryptozoology Museum bibliographical information. The future Portland, Maine