Draft:On the Beginning of Human History

On the Beginning of Human History

Author	B. F. Porshnev
Genre	Monograph
Publisher	Mysl

On the Beginning of Human History (Problems of Paleopsychology) is a philosophical and natural-scientific treatise^{[Notes 1]} by Soviet historian Boris Fyodorovich Porshnev, dedicated to the problems of anthropogenesis. The initial concept for a book on human prehistory dates back to 1924, although Porshnev directly addressed the topic of the emergence of Homo sapiens in the 1950s in connection with his interest in troglodytidae and the issue of the "snowman". After 1968, the researcher's work was entirely devoted to writing and publishing On the Beginning of Human History, which he considered the main research work of his life.

The book presents a complex interdisciplinary study at the intersection of physical anthropology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, philosophy of history, and some other disciplines. The "beginning" highlighted in the title was, in the author's view, is a key to the entire complex of sciences about human society and the individual within society, creating a research program. For Porshnev, there was a fundamental distinction between humans and all other animals (an "evolutionary gap"), rooted in creativity, which is absent in any animal, even in rudimentary form. In the book On the Beginning of Human History, the author specifically analyzed problems that most researchers did not even consider necessary to address:

• the emergence of neoanthropes and the rapidly growing gap between the dynamics of the "neoanthrope community" and the pace of change in the natural environment;
• the separation of neoanthropes from the environment of paleoanthropes due to specific relationships with the natural environment, primarily with the surrounding animal world;
• the explanation of anthropogenesis from the perspective of physiology of higher nervous activity and psychology.

When considering the transition from animal to human, Porshnev placed at the center of his analysis the model of "individual to individual", rather than "individual to environment" relationships. The requirements for a unique mechanism of interaction between individuals are rooted in animal physiology. The author reconstructed this mechanism up to the stage of the emergence of human speech communication, through which he examined the human psyche, sociality, and capacity for creativity.^[3] Human labor originated in the activities of troglodytids of the Tertiary period, whose primary ecological characteristic was corpse-eating and scavenging. The mastery of fire occurred accidentally during the processing of stone tools, necessary for breaking thick bones and extracting brain and bone marrow —the primary resources of troglodytes. Further development led to adelphophagy— hunting members of their own species. As a result of the divergence in ecology and ethology of paleoanthropes, the paleoanthrope species itself split into two subspecies. Thus emerged — the ecological opposite of Homo neanderthalensis.

By 1972, the manuscript of the monograph was ready for publication but faced sharp objections from the editorial board, primarily due to its revision of Marxist views on anthropogenesis. The typeset was dismantled; according to one version, this contributed to B. F. Porshnev's death. The manuscript was published in 1974 by the Moscow publishing house Mysl in an abridged form (at the editorial board's request, chapters on corpse-eating, mastery of fire, and the formation of modern humans among Neanderthals were removed). From this edition, translations into Slovak and Bulgarian were made. In the 1990s, efforts began to restore the author's original text based on manuscripts stored in the Russian State Library. The restored monograph was published by various publishers in 2006, 2007, 2013, and 2017.

B. F. Porshnev's hypothesis of anthropogenesis has been criticized by some biologists, psychologists, and linguists. It is not widely accepted, with critics arguing that Porshnev relied on incomplete factual information: in the early 21st century, it is considered proven that Neanderthals were not direct biological ancestors of modern humans. Porshnev's concept of suggestion, like similar approaches by Western scholars, is regarded by contemporary specialist in Primitive culture (anthropology) [es] P. Kutzenkov as speculative due to the lack of factual data, which is hardly obtainable in studies of prehistoric human psychology.^[4] Nevertheless, according to contemporary historian of Soviet intellectual thought Galin Tihanov [bg], B. Porshnev's philosophy of history was the most complex and original concept in Soviet humanities of the second half of the 20th century. According to Tihanov, by combining history and psychology in his book, Porshnev succeeded in historicizing the foundation of history — humankind, which had previously been treated as unchanging in Soviet historiography.^[5]

Main aspects

B. F. Porshnev's monograph is structured as an "enfilade of chapters",^[6] in the introduction of which the author outlined the purpose of his work and its place in his own scholarship. The scholar emphasized the problem of identifying the "beginning" of humanity and human history, as it remains unclear what exactly is meant by "beginning" in a general philosophical sense.^[7] Unlike approaches that analyze the transition from animal to human in the "individual to environment" model, Porshnev placed the "individual to individual" model at the center of his research.^[8] The primary focus of the book is the study of the transformation of animals into humans from the perspective of psychology and the physiology of higher nervous activity, building on a reinterpretation of data and conclusions from Russian and foreign scholars associated with the schools of I. Pavlov (theory of the second signal system), A. Ukhtomsky (dominance theory), L. Vygotsky (model of child consciousness development), and A. Wallon. Porshnev also drew on the ideas of semantic paleontology by N. Ya. Marr.^[9]

A detailed examination of anthropogenesis within the context of evolutionary theory serves as the starting point for his arguments. The researcher primarily posited that humans could not have gradually emerged directly within the natural environment—the difference between animals and Homo sapiens is too vast.^[10] Porshnev asserted the existence of a "Cartesian abyss", a gap between hominids and Homo sapiens; this approach opposed evolutionary views that suggest the transition from animal to human was gradua.l^[11][12] The author's main task was to explain the process of human emergence and resolve the fundamental antinomy: the irreducibility of social to biological, while simultaneously acknowledging that the origins of the social lie solely in the biological.^[13] Porshnev termed his field of study "paleopsychology".^[14]

Evolution of Paleoanthropes

B. F. Porshnev, a Marxist scholar, built on Engels' theory, focusing on the role of troglodytids—upright primates he described as "no longer animals, but not yet humans." Excluding australopithecines, archanthropes, and paleoanthropes from hominids, he argued that even Cro-Magnons were not fully human. Porshnev posited that troglodytids’ unique hypersuggestibility, absent in animals and humans, was key to anthropogenesis, with their large brain sizes playing a minor role.^[15][16]

Porshnev suggested troglodytids scavenged brain and bone marrow from predator-killed carcasses, using early tools for butchering due to weak teeth and claws. Later, hunting weapons emerged for adelphophagy (cannibalism within the species). Fire mastery occurred accidentally during tool-making on plant bedding, initially requiring efforts to extinguish before its utility was recognized.^[17][18]

Troglodytids’ imitative behavior led to the development of speech through signal displacement, creating interconnected signal systems tied to sensory analyzers. This proto-speech, initially gesture-based and context-bound, marked the transition to sign-based communication, laying the foundation for human speech without full abstraction.^[19]

By the late Tertiary period, ecological pressures forced troglodytids into larger groups, where hypersuggestibility posed risks. Interdictive signals, prohibitive and command-like, emerged to counter this, relying on the imitative reflex for transmission. Protective inhibition arose during confrontations between communities, enabling resistance to suggestibility as territorial expansion limits were reached.^[20][17]

Neoanthropes: the Emergence of speech-thinking

According to Porshnev's theory, during this period, the interaction of hominid communities resulted in the mutual weakening of their species-specific trait of hypersuggestibility through actions, gestures, and sounds—means that provided protection from external suggestive influences. The emergence of speech was tied to mechanisms of individual interaction rather than interaction with nature; speech was both a means and an expression of forming social relations.^{[21][Notes 2]} Thus, speech emerged simultaneously with the social, as the flip side of the process of human society formation.^[23]

Only at this stage did speech acquire its significance. Speech that negated a situation detached itself from that situation and became, in principle, transferable from one situation to another. Thus, within the hominid community, the human emerged with symbolic, meaningful speech and relatively low suggestibility, which still allowed intense imitation of others (adults) until individual cognitive abilities developed.^[24] In analyzing the emergence of speech, Porshnev paid special attention to speech disorders—aphasias, which he viewed as functional systems characteristic of the early stage of Homo sapiens development. Studying aphasias, according to Porshnev, enabled research into the evolution of the second signal system. The first phase of thinking development was a simple reaction to human interactions, and at this stage, thinking did not "reflect" the material world in any way.^[25]

The second-signal interaction of humans, according to Porshnev, consists of two main levels, divided into a primary phase —interdictive —and a secondary phase — suggestive. In elaborating the mechanism of suggestion, Porshnev essentially aligns with the concept of the social origin of higher psychological functions developed by L. S. Vygotsky regarding the psychological development of children. According to Vygotsky, all higher psychological functions are internalized social relations. According to B. F. Porshnev, in the process of suggestion, a person internalizes their real relationships with other individuals, acting as if they were another to themselves, controlling, regulating, and thereby modifying their own activity. This process, according to the author, can no longer occur through actions with objects; it takes place as a speech act in the internal plane. The mechanism of "addressing oneself" becomes the elementary unit of speech-thinking. Dyplastia —the elementary contradiction of thinking— was analyzed by the author as an expression of the original human social relations of "us–them".^[26]

Interaction of paleo- and neoanthropes

V. Vasnetsov. Stone Age. Feast. Sketch for a mural, 1883. Tretyakov Gallery

The book develops a hypothesis about how the further interaction of newly emerged ancient humans and troglodytids in a shared environment led to the strengthening of inhibition and prohibition mechanisms — modern humans and Neanderthals coexisted within a single community, with individuals of the former species serving as the primary food source for troglodytes. This later led to the establishment of human sacrifices and initiation rituals imitating death in human culture.^[17]

B. F. Porshnev explained gender relations among neoanthropes, particularly promiscuity, as a necessity to feed paleoanthropes with part of their own population. According to his theory, female reproducers bore numerous offspring, but a significant portion —presumably male— was killed to feed paleoanthropes. Surviving male individuals became isolated populations of "providers," who "ransomed" their species' offspring with hunting spoils. The differences in biological value that male and female neoanthropes represented in relations with paleoanthropes, against the backdrop of an "artificially" developed instinct to kill, led to the emergence of a purely "male affair" — war. Wars were fought only between neoanthrope communities, while a strict prohibition applied to paleoanthropes.^[17]

Porshnev proposed the hypothesis of a "shuffling herd": due to the near-maximal mobility requirements for hunters, females and young were separated from adult males, not seasonally but without the possibility of reuniting. Other males periodically joined females with young during migrations. Unlike the behavior of gibbons and baboons, which have "family groups," neoanthropes had no stable family core, periodically joining different female groups during spatial movements.^[17]

This circumstance is closely linked to the emergence of prohibitions (interdictions). Porshnev noted that all prohibitions in any human culture are associated with exceptions. The origin of the specific formula of cultural prohibitions —prohibitions through exception— lies in the physiological nature of suggestion. Emerging as a tool for inhibiting everything except one thing, suggestion gave rise to two distinct social phenomena: the word of human speech and the cultural norm. By analyzing the most ancient cultural prohibitions, the researcher identified three key groups:^[17]

1. Prohibition on killing one's own kind. From Porshnev's theory, this is a restriction of the fundamental biological characteristic of humans formed during the divergence of paleo- and neoanthropes. Within this prohibition, the primary restriction was likely against eating a human killed by human hands, as opposed to those who died from other, including natural, causes. This untouchability extended from the dead to the living. According to Porshnev, if a living person was smeared with ochre and adorned with decorations within a ritual, they were considered untouchable. At the next stage of development, the right to kill a human was limited to the use of ranged, but not contact, weapons. This explains the strict rules of war in primitive society, where a person killed according to the rules could then be eaten.
2. Prohibition on taking or touching certain objects or performing certain actions with them. This is evidenced by paleolithic art, and Porshnev stated that N. Ya. Marr was once correct in considering cave paintings as a precursor to writing, not visual art.^[27] However, according to Porshnev, images preceded thinking, which can only take a verbal form. The earliest forms of art, such as drawn lines and handprints, are visible traces of counter-suggestion.^{[Notes 3]}
3. Sexual prohibitions. The most ancient of these is the incest taboo, prohibiting sexual relations between mothers and sons and, later, between siblings. Crucially, these prohibitions implied preferential rights for outsider males, inevitable in the "shuffling herd". The resulting conflict between outsiders and younger males raised in place was resolved by separating the latter into a distinct social group with complex barriers and the emergence of exogamy.

According to Porshnev, early religious notions of "good" and "bad" deities also arose during the divergence — selection of neoanthropes among paleoanthropes. Images of deities (proto-deities) and various forms of "evil spirits" reflect the paleoanthrope, with whom modern humans had to interact for a long time, as well as specific features of this interaction. The more ancient these images, the more they contain literal physical traits and behavioral characteristics of the real "living" paleoanthrope.^[17]

Prolonged coexistence of paleo- and neoanthropes

Troglodyte, throwing a stone. Carthaginian dish from the 7th century BCE

The divergence of neoanthropes led to an extremely rapid population of the entire globe, as modern humans sought to flee either from paleoanthropes consuming them or from neoanthrope populations that entered symbiotic relationships with Neanderthals. Porshnev considered the reason for the wide dispersal of early neoanthropes across the globe to be their inability to coexist with each other, rather than a search for better living conditions.^[29] As humans advanced to the most remote corners of the Earth —up to the Americas and Australia— populations began to overlap and neoanthropes returned to already inhabited territories. According to the researcher, divergence continued among humans, with endogamy as one of its mechanisms. The existing network of races and ethnic groups is a continuation of divergence, which acquired a new function.^[30]

Much in the earliest history of humanity will gain additional illumination if we remember that humans developed in opposition to anti-humans—"non-humans", "undead"—living somewhere on a near or distant periphery. This opposition became increasingly conscious. It was the flip side of the self-awareness of ethnic groups. It seems likely that racial formation, at least the formation of primary major races and their early subdivisions, is a fact related to artificial isolation. Specifically, from the original form of neoanthropes, still racially polymorphic, i.e., containing a mix of traits of later races, active selection split the Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids, who saw in each other a certain connection to anti-humans. They eliminated undesirable offspring in this regard through artificial selection and prevented interbreeding (along with any interaction) with representatives of the forming "opposite" race. They particularly vigorously moved away from each other as far as possible. If this is the case, it is not about direct contacts or antagonisms with relict paleoanthropes but about reproducing this relationship within the world of humans themselves.^[31]

According to Porshnev, paleoanthropes that survived their peak did not disappear entirely, as evidenced not only by mythology but also by historical sources. He believed there were numerous archaeological findings showing that Neanderthaloid creatures with their stone industry coexisted at the same sites as Cro-Magnons. Some paleoanthropes survived into the Neolithic and Bronze Age.^[32] Porshnev argued that accounts from ancient authors (Herodotus, Plutarch, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder) about rare encounters with "satyrs" and "fauns" reflected the existence of paleoanthropes on the fringes of the known world at the time.^[33]

Porshnev paid particular attention to the representations in Zoroastrianism, which he viewed as an example of a source reflecting the memory of the ancient interaction between paleo- and neoanthropes. He suggested taking literally the information in the Avesta about daevas, considered by Zoroastrians as living beings. It is possible that as late as the 6th–5th centuries BCE, constant contact with relict paleoanthropes-daevas was maintained through the slaughter of large numbers of livestock for them and their taming by "sorcerers" (shamans). The Zoroastrian custom of leaving a deceased body to be torn apart by birds and beasts is also linked to ancient times, including as a means of feeding "their" paleoanthropes.^[34]

Porshnev considered the last representatives of relict paleoanthropes to be creatures described by naturalists of the 17th–18th centuries, including Nicolaes Tulp. Carl Linnaeus in the first edition of his System of Nature (1735, Leiden) also reserved a place for Homo troglodytes, described based on reports from Dutch naturalists.^[35]

Origin and development of the theory

At the time of writing the book On the Origin of Human History, B. F. Porshnev had gained international recognition as a specialist in 17th-century French history;^{[Notes 4]} in the USSR, however, many of his colleagues considered him a dogmatic follower of Marxism-Leninism or even mocked his passion for searching for the yeti.^[14] Porshnev himself, characterizing his research interests, wrote:

For many years, I have heard caste-based reproaches: why am I dealing with this range of issues when my direct specialty is the history of 17th–18th century Europe? I take this opportunity to correct the misunderstanding: the science of the origin of human history —and, above all, paleopsychology— is my main specialty. If, in addition to this, I have devoted considerable time in my life to history, as well as philosophy, sociology, and political economy, this in no way discredits me in the aforementioned primary field of my research. But the questions of prehistory arise for me in aspects that my colleagues in related specialties do not study.^[36]

1930s–1950s

In the published preface to his book, B. F. Porshnev dated the initial concept of the work to the "mid-1920s"^[37] and wrote that his goal was to create a trilogy on human prehistory, in which On the Origin… would occupy the middle position.^[5] In the handwritten version of the preface, a more precise date (1924) is indicated. However, research into the thinker's archive and scientific diary reveals that the work plan, as presented to the public, dates to no earlier than the mid-1960s, when Porshnev already had more than ten publications on ancient humans, the ecology of their lifestyle, and related topics.^[38]

From unpublished manuscripts of the 1930s, however, it is clear that the general contours of the concept had already taken shape in Porshnev's mind at that time. This primarily concerns the definition of the "primitive" as something alien to both the instinctive behavior of animals and conscious human activity. In On the Origin…, this was described as the method of two inversions — first, animal nature led to a state in which humans began to make their own history, after which primitive traits overturned the initial state.^[39] However, B. F. Porshnev made his concept public only in 1956, when he delivered a report titled Some Problems of the Prehistory of the Second Signaling System at the Institute of Anthropology at Moscow State University, which was never published. According to the transcript, this was not his first presentation to anthropologists. According to O. Vite, this text contains all the key points of Porshnev's theory of anthropogenesis, based on advances in the physiology of higher nervous activity and psychology.^[40] The stimulus for research in this direction was likely the 1952 publication in Bern of the multi-volume Historia mundi. Ein Handbuch der Weltgeschichte, which Porshnev reviewed (together with Vasily Struve). At the same time, he was part of the authorial team of the Soviet World History, the first volume of which was being prepared for publication in 1955. In his publications in the journals Kommunist and Voprosy Filosofii, Boris Fyodorovich contrasted the concepts of European World History with his own approach, grounded in the theories of Friedrich Engels.^[41]

1955–1969

In 1955, B. F. Porshnev studied the diet of paleoanthropes in Uzbekistan's Teshik-Tash cave, concluding they scavenged mountain goat remains left by snow leopards rather than hunting. This led to his interest in the "yeti," hypothesizing that relict Neanderthals survived into modern times, linked to regions abundant with mountain goats. His 1958 attempt to form a Yeti Study Commission at the USSR Academy of Sciences failed, straining relations with Soviet anthropologists.^[42]

In 1961–1962, Porshnev presented a report on the disconnect between biological, psychological, and socio-historical sciences in studying anthropogenesis. Published in 1962 in Voprosy Filosofii, he criticized the lack of focus on phylogenetic aspects and the organizational separation of relevant scientific institutions, highlighting challenges in interdisciplinary research on human origins.^[43]

At the 1964 International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences, Porshnev introduced his socio-psychological concept, emphasizing the divergence of paleoanthropes and neoanthropes, which formed the basis for the "us versus them" opposition. His 1966 book Social Psychology and History explored social relations originating from human-troglodyte interactions, with further developments in a 1969 chapter that became a draft for a new book.^[44]

Between 1967–1968, Porshnev presented his work on anthropogenesis, culminating in a 1969 article, On the Origin of Human History, which revised Engels’ Marxist views on labor. He argued that conflating pre-human and human labor rendered the "labor created man" formula invalid. Porshnev’s concept of suggestion as a key psychic unit distinguishing humans from animals was detailed in a 1971 article, forming the core of his planned trilogy on human history.^[45][9]

1970–1972: Circumstances of the Publication of On the Origin of Human History

According to O. Vite, after 1968, Porshnev's work in the field of anthropogenesis was almost exclusively focused on preparing the monograph On the Origin of Human History.^[46] In early 1970, a contract was signed between the author and the publishing house Mysl for a text with a volume of 27 author's sheets. By the end of the year, a manuscript of significantly larger volume —35 sheets— was submitted. In the conditions of the Soviet planned economy, this meant the manuscript needed to be shortened, as insisted by the publishing house's planning and financial department. The text, stripped of three chapters, went to press in May 1972.^[47] Significant difficulties arose with the review process for the upcoming publication: specialists who agreed to review the manuscript noted that they were unable to evaluate the concept as a whole, limiting themselves to their professional expertise.^[48]

In late summer 1972, the editorial board of the socio-economic literature section of the Mysl publishing house changed, with V. P. Kopyrin taking over as head. In September 1972, a discussion of Porshnev's manuscript was held at the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee. According to recollections, Kopyrin, who chaired the discussion, divided a blackboard in the auditorium into two halves, listing the interpretations of anthropogenesis by Marxist classics on one side and Porshnev's interpretations on the other. The publication was canceled, and the typeset was dismantled.^[49] According to the researcher's daughter, E. B. Porshneva, this decision was a severe blow, and Boris Fyodorovich passed away on November 26, 1972.^[50]

Work on the book continued nonetheless: in 1973, the proof of Porshnev's monograph was sent by the publishing house to the Institute of Psychology of the USSR Academy of Sciences for review. The preparation of the review was assigned to Lyudmila Antsyferova, who was personally acquainted with Porshnev and an unequivocal supporter of the publication. According to her recollections, communication with Kopyrin led to conflict, as he considered the book anti-Marxist.^[50] As a result, a collective review was written, involving Khachik Momdzhyan (head of the philosophy department at the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the CPSU) and Sergei Tokarev (Kunstkamera). This review was later published as the preface to the book. V. P. Kopyrin agreed to publication on the condition that Chapter 8 —"Disputes Over Fundamental Concepts"— be radically revised. In the fall of 1974, the book was published.^[51]

Reviews and critics

Tihanov's Assessment

Historian G. Tihanov praised B. F. Porshnev for integrating history and paleopsychology, historicizing humankind's foundation in Soviet historiography. Despite adhering to Marxist materialism, Porshnev's concept of suggestion as a driver of history transcended dogma, presenting human history as a clash of suggestions and counter-suggestions rather than class struggle. Tihanov viewed Porshnev's work as a significant intellectual achievement amidst Soviet Marxism's decline.^[5]

Reviews by Momdzhyan, Tokarev, Antsyferova, and Leontiev

The 1974 edition of Porshnev's On the Beginning of Human History included a review noting its unconventional views. Critics Kh. Momdzhyan, S. Tokarev, and L. Antsyferova appreciated Porshnev's method but cautioned against over-absolutizing ideas. A. A. Leontiev's 1975 review lauded the philosophical grounding of Porshnev's anthropogenesis but criticized his conflation of communication and speech, oversimplification of conscious purpose, and reliance on certain psychological concepts.^[52][53]

Foreign Debates

Between 1976 and 1979, Porshnev's theories, particularly on Neanderthal survival, were discussed in Current Anthropology. I. Burtsev and D. Bayanov supported his ideas, while G. Strasenburg refuted claims of Neanderthal coexistence with humans, citing inconsistencies in historical evidence. A 1979 Slovak review of Porshnev's book mainly summarized its content without deep critique.^[54][55][56]

Roginsky's Critique

In 1980, Yakov Roginsky reviewed Porshnev's On the Beginning of Human History, focusing on its anthropological claims. He acknowledged Porshnev's engaging style but disputed his classification of early hominids as animals and his denial of their hunting practices, citing evidence of primate hunting. Roginsky also criticized Porshnev's redefinition of biological taxonomy and lack of focus on evolutionary morphology, though he praised his bold synthesis of diverse fields.^[57]

Notes

1. Authors' definitions.^[1][2]
2. Linguist A. N. Rudyakov, in this context, associates Porshnev's concept of language origin with the functional paradigm in linguistics.^[22]
3. Quote:"These ancient images can be considered in the context of bypassing or compensating for the prohibition on touching. By closely examining the depicted objects, we see that they all fit a common meaning: 'That which cannot (or is impossible) to touch in reality.' These are female figurines representing the untouchable mother, where the face and ends of hands and feet were not of interest to the authors and are blurred; red and yellow ochre representing fire, which cannot be touched, and also representing blood, i.e., human life; predator teeth, primarily canines, depicting an animal's mouth, which cannot be touched…"^[28]
4. Porshnev's works in this field were highly regarded, in particular, by Fernand Braudel.

References

1. Vite 2007, p. 576.
2. Porshnev 2007, p. 421.
3. Oleg Vite (October 4, 2004). "Why is B. Porshnev Relevant Today?" [Чем интересен Б. Поршнев сегодня?]. On the 100th Anniversary of Boris Fyodorovich Porshnev's Birth (March 7, 1905 – November 26, 1972). www.porshnev.ru. Archived from the original on April 23, 2016. Retrieved August 4, 2025.
4. Kutzenkov 2008, pp. 188–189.
5. Tihanov 2010, pp. 330–331.
6. Porshnev 2007, p. 40.
7. Rudyakov 2012, pp. 79–80.
8. Rudyakov 2012, p. 80.
9. Tihanov 2010, p. 331.
10. Eliseev 2010, p. 26.
11. Roginsky 1980, p. 14.
12. Vite 2007, pp. 625–626.
13. Porshnev 2007, p. 13.
14. Tihanov 2010, p. 330.
15. Eliseev 2010, pp. 26–27.
16. Roginsky 1980, pp. 15–16.
17. Vite 2003.
18. Eliseev 2010, p. 27.
19. Eliseev 2010, pp. 29–30.
20. Eliseev 2010, p. 31.
21. Rudyakov 2012, pp. 54, 80.
22. Rudyakov 2012, p. 81.
23. Rudyakov 2012, p. 54.
24. Eliseev 2010, pp. 31–32.
25. Kutzenkov 2008, p. 186.
26. Antsyferova, Momdzhyan & Tokarev 1974, p. 8.
27. Porshnev 2007, pp. 464–465.
28. Porshnev 2007, p. 463.
29. Roginsky 1980, p. 16.
30. Porshnev 2007, pp. 405–406.
31. Porshnev 2007, p. 409.
32. Porshnev 2007, pp. 408–409.
33. Porshnev 2007, p. 410.
34. Porshnev 2007, pp. 411–413.
35. Porshnev 2007, pp. 416–420.
36. Porshnev 2007, p. 19.
37. Porshnev 2007, p. 11.
38. Vite 2007, pp. 577–578.
39. Vite 2005, p. 23.
40. Vite 2005, p. 24.
41. Vite 2005, pp. 25–26.
42. Vite 2005, pp. 27–29.
43. Vite 2007, pp. 649–650.
44. Vite 2005, pp. 32–33.
45. Vite 2005, pp. 25–26, 33.
46. Vite 2005, p. 34.
47. Vite 2005, p. 35.
48. Vite 2007, p. 697.
49. Porshnev 2007, pp. 540–541.
50. Vite 2007, p. 704.
51. Vite 2007, pp. 704–705.
52. Antsyferova, Momdzhyan & Tokarev 1974, pp. 3–10.
53. Leontiev 1975, pp. 138–146.
54. Bayanov & Bourtsev 1976, pp. 312–318.
55. Strasenburgh 1979, pp. 624–626.
56. Švihran 1979, pp. 194–195.
57. Roginsky 1980, pp. 14–20.

Bibliography

• Antsyferova, L. I.; Momdzhyan, Kh. N.; Tokarev, S. A. (1974). "Preface". Porshnev B. F. O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii (problemy paleopsikhologii) [Porshnev B. F. On the Beginning of Human History (Problems of Paleopsychology)] (in Russian). Moscow: Mysl. pp. 5–12.
• Vite, O. T. (2005). "Boris Fedorovich Porshnev i ego kritika chelovecheskoy istorii" [Boris Fedorovich Porshnev and His Critique of Human History]. In Chudinov, A. V. (ed.). Frantsuzskiy ezhegodnik 2005: Absolyutizm vo Frantsii. K 100-letiyu B. F. Porshneva (1905–1972) [French Yearbook 2005: Absolutism in France. To the 100th Anniversary of B. F. Porshnev (1905–1972)] (in Russian). Moscow: Editorial URSS. pp. 4–36. ISBN 5-484-00334-2.
• Vite, O. (2007). "«Ya — schastlivyy chelovek»: Kniga «O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii» i eyo mesto v tvorcheskoy biografii B. F. Porshneva" [“I Am a Happy Person”: The Book “On the Beginning of Human History” and Its Place in B. F. Porshnev’s Creative Biography]. Porshnev B. F. O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii [Porshnev B. F. On the Beginning of Human History] (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Aleteyya. pp. 576–706. ISBN 978-5-903354-46-7.
• Glushchenko, V. V. (2020). Rozhdenie chelovechestva [The Birth of Humanity] (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Aleteyya. ISBN 978-5-00165-012-6.
• Eliseev, O. P. (2010). Praktikum po psikhologii lichnosti: [uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov po napravleniyu i spetsialnosti «Sotsialnaya rabota»] [Practicum on Personality Psychology: [Textbook for Universities in the Field and Specialty of “Social Work”]] (in Russian). St. Petersburg: ID «Piter». ISBN 978-5-498-07456-6.
• Kutzenkov, P. A. (2007). Psikhologiya pervobytnogo i traditsionnogo iskusstva [Psychology of Primitive and Traditional Art] (in Russian). Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. ISBN 978-5-89826-199-3.
• Kutzenkov, P. A. (2008). "Evolyutsionnaya patopsikhologiya (perelistyvaya knigu B. F. Porshneva «O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii»)" [Evolutionary Pathopsychology (Flipping Through B. F. Porshnev’s Book “On the Beginning of Human History”)]. Istoricheskaya psikhologiya i sotsiologiya istorii [Historical Psychology and Sociology of History] (in Russian). Vol. 1. pp. 180–197. ISSN 1994-6287.
• Leontiev, A. A. (1975). "O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii: razmyshleniya nad knigoy B. F. Porshneva" [On the Beginning of Human History: Reflections on B. F. Porshnev’s Book]. Sovetskaya etnografiya [Soviet Ethnography] (PDF) (in Russian). pp. 138–147.
• Porshnev, B. F.; Tokarev, S. A.; Momdzhyan, Kh. N.; Antsyferova, L. I. (1974). Dorogova, L. N.; Kadysheva, I. A. (eds.). O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii (problemy paleopsikhologii) [On the Beginning of Human History (Problems of Paleopsychology)]. Moscow: Mysl.
• Porshnev, B. F. (2007). Vite, O. T. (ed.). O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii (problemy paleopsikhologii) [On the Beginning of Human History (Problems of Paleopsychology)]. Mir kultury. St. Petersburg: Aleteyya. ISBN 978-5-903354-46-7.
• Roginsky, Ya. Ya. (1980). "O raznoglasiyakh v teorii antropogeneza" [On Disagreements in the Theory of Anthropogenesis]. Voprosy antropologii [Issues of Anthropology]. pp. 10–21.
• Rudyakov, A. N. (2012). Yazyk, ili Pochemu lyudi govoryat: opyt funktsionalnogo opredeleniya estestvennogo yazyka: ucheb. posobie [Language, or Why People Speak: An Attempt at a Functional Definition of Natural Language: Textbook]. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka. ISBN 978-5-9765-1400-3.
• Bayanov, D.; Bourtsev, I. (1976). "On Neanderthal vs. Paranthropus". Current Anthropology. Vol. 17. The University of Chicago Press, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. pp. 312–318. doi:10.1086/201725. ISSN 0011-3204. JSTOR 2741548.
• Strasenburgh, G. (1979). "More on Neanderthal vs. Paranthropus". Current Anthropology. Vol. 20. The University of Chicago Press, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. pp. 624–627. doi:10.1086/202353. ISSN 0011-3204. JSTOR 2742140.
• Švihran, J. (1979). "Poršnev, B. F.: O začiatkoch ľudských dejín (Preložila R. Kopsová.) 1. vyd. Bratislava, Pravda 1979. 465 s." [Poršnev, B. F.: On the Beginnings of Human History (Translated by R. Kopsová.) 1st ed. Bratislava, Pravda 1979. 465 pp.]. Jazykovedný časopis [Linguistic Journal] (PDF) (in Slovak). pp. 194–195.
• Tihanov, G. (2010). "Continuities in the Soviet period (chapter 14)". In Leatherbarrow, William; Offord, Derek (eds.). A History of Russian Thought (PDF). Cambridge, NY., etc.: Cambridge University Press. pp. 311–339. ISBN 978-0-521-87521-9.*

Vite, O. T. (2003). "Tvorcheskoe nasledie B. F. Porshneva i ego sovremennoe znachenie" [The Creative Legacy of B. F. Porshnev and Its Contemporary Significance]. Almanakh «Vostok» (in Russian).

External links

• Volkov E. N. (2004-10-22). "V nachale bylo ne slovo — nachalom byla suggestiya. Zabytye prozreniya B. F. Porshneva i nekotorye mezhkontseptualnye psikhologicheskie i sotsiologicheskie paralleli" [In the Beginning Was Not the Word — The Beginning Was Suggestion. Forgotten Insights of B. F. Porshnev and Some Interconceptual Psychological and Sociological Parallels]. KORNI (COURSE): proekt i tekhnologiya. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
• Porshnev B. F. (2003-11-08). "O nachale chelovecheskoy istorii (problemy paleopsikhologii). — Moscow: Mysl, Glavnaya redaktsiya sotsialno-ekonomicheskoy literatury, 1974" [On the Beginning of Human History (Problems of Paleopsychology). — Moscow: Mysl, Main Editorial Office of Socio-Economic Literature, 1974]. Fond sodeystviya razvitiyu psikhicheskoy kultury (Kiev). Archived from the original on 2013-02-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.