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 Provisions

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

As a consistent Marxist, B. F. Porshnev recognized the scientific validity of F. Engels' theory of human emergence and focused on why the division of functions between forelimbs and hindlimbs, and human activity in general, could have such significant consequences. The answer lies in the study of troglodytids, or ancient hominids—upright higher primates defined as "no longer animals, but not yet humans, simultaneously anti-animals and anti-humans".^[10] The unique position of troglodytids relative to humans is underscored by the fact that all living human races do not descend from different higher apes and are not distinct species of Homo sapiens. According to Porshnev, the existence of troglodytids significantly shortens the timeline of the history of the Homo sapiens species, which begins no later than 40,000 BCE.^[15]

By introducing the family of troglodytids, Porshnev entirely excluded australopithecines, archanthropes (Homo erectus), and paleoanthropes (Neanderthals) from the category of hominids. He did not even consider Cro-Magnons —neoanthropes of the Upper Paleolithic— as fully formed humans.^[16] According to Porshnev, the particularly large brain sizes of paleoanthropes do not prove their humanity; rather, they led him to conclude that brain mass increase played a negligible role in anthropogenesis.^[17]

The book describes how the qualitative distinctions of troglodytids as a biological species are primarily manifested in hypersuggestibility (extreme suggestibility), absent in both animals and humans. By learning to imitate the sounds of various animals, troglodytes controlled their behavior; this occurred as primates entered complex symbiotic relationships with predators — felines and hyenas, which often kill more herbivorous animals than needed for sustenance. Hypersuggestibility enabled small troglodyte communities to meet essential needs, primarily for protein-rich food. The earliest tools, found in Paleolithic deposits, according to Porshnev, were products of a complex instinct and were intended for butchering carcasses of animals killed by predators or that died naturally, compensating for the poorly developed teeth and claws of hominids. Troglodytes primarily consumed not meat but brain and bone marrow; in utilizing these resources, they faced no competitors in the animal world of that time. Later-emerging hunting weapons were intended for hunting members of their own species — adelphophagy. The mastery of fire occurred spontaneously during the processing of stone tools on the plant-based bedding used by all primates, meaning early humans had to "learn" to extinguish fire and later utilize its effects.^[18] The absence of fear and a sense of individuality, crucial for species survival, played a key role in these processes, enabling independence from climatic conditions and dispersal across the planet.^[19]

The superfluous need for imitation formed the social and biological foundations for the emergence of speech, as the displacement of signals led to their doubling relative to each other—they became signals of signals. This gave rise to two directly interconnected yet not entirely congruent signal systems, linked to different sensory analyzers.^[20] Visible actions of other individuals, as well as external sounds, dominated among all signals. Signals of signals, or signs of signals, from this point onward ordinary joint actions, including jointly heard and produced sounds, the status of gestures. Thus emerged a sign-based, but not yet symbolic, proto-speech in its immediate form, not yet abstracted from the context of joint activity.^[21]

The emerging speech acquired a new function—interdictive, inhibitory at its core, prohibitive in its meaning, and closely tied to the concept of command.^[18] Interdiction appeared at the end of the Tertiary period, when the human ancestor, with a highly developed imitative reflex, increasingly had to gather in larger and more random groups due to changing ecological conditions, where such a reflex became not only dangerous but also threatened a "biological catastrophe" due to its overwhelming force. Imitation played a dual role in the establishment of interdiction. On one hand, the developed imitative reflex provided a channel for transmitting the interdictive signal itself. On the other, this same reflex made the interdictive signal a necessary condition for the survival of the species. The interaction process was objectively directed against hypersuggestibility. The means of countering suggestibility was the ability to resist it through maximally possible and extreme protective inhibition, arising in acute confrontations between similar communities of human ancestors. Such interaction manifested when extensive expansion and dispersal reached their limits: no free territories remained for the isolated settlement of hypersuggestible communities.^[22]

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.^{[23][Notes 2]} Thus, speech emerged simultaneously with the social, as the flip side of the process of human society formation.^[25]

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.^[26] 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.^[27]

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".^[28]

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.^[18]

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.^[18]

Based on his studies of the ecology of humanity's closest ancestors, 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.^[18]

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:^[18]

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.^[29] 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.^[18]

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.^[17] 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.^[31]

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.^[32]

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.^[33] 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.^[34]

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.^[35]

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.^[36]

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.^[37]

1930s–1950s

In the published preface to his book, B. F. Porshnev dated the initial concept of the work to the "mid-1920s"^[38] 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.^[39]

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.^[40] 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.^[41] 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.^[42]

1955–1969

In 1955, Porshnev completed a study on the food sources of fossil paleoanthropes who inhabited the Teshik-Tash cave in Uzbekistan. According to Porshnev, the Teshik-Tash paleoanthrope did not hunt but merely scavenged the remains of mountain goats killed by snow leopards, consuming what the predator left behind. This work led Boris Fyodorovich to investigate the "yeti," which intrigued him because 1957 reports of relict hominoids were linked to a region abundant with mountain goats. This formed the basis for the hypothesis that behind the entirely accidental and unfortunate term "yeti" lay a real zoological phenomenon — relict paleoanthropes, Neanderthals, who survived into the modern era.^[43] An attempt to establish a Commission for the Study of the Yeti under the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1958 ended in failure and created tense relations between the scientist and Soviet anthropologists.^[44]

In 1961, B. F. Porshnev delivered a report titled The State of Boundary Problems Between Biological and Socio-Historical Sciences;^{[Notes 5]} the journal version was published in Voprosy Filosofii in 1962. In his report, Porshnev highlighted two issues: first, the lack of interest among specialists in biological and psychological sciences in the "phylogenetic" aspects of their disciplines; second, the organizational disconnection of scientific institutions whose research touches on questions of anthropogenesis.^[46]

In 1964, at the VII International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences in Moscow, Porshnev presented a report titled Principles of Socio-Ethnic Psychology, where he formulated the central concept of his socio-psychological paradigm. In the same year, he published a pamphlet titled From Higher Animals to Humans, in which he explicitly discussed the divergence of paleoanthropes and neoanthropes. This served as the foundation for the emergence of the universal opposition of "us versus them".^[47]

In 1966, Porshnev published the book Social Psychology and History, a detailed exposition of the foundations of his socio-psychological concept. It also mentioned the origin of social relations from human interactions with surrounding troglodytes. For the author, the book was conceptually incomplete, so he approached the editorial board of the USSR Academy of Sciences' popular science series. In the spring of 1969, permission was granted to increase the book's volume to 16 author's sheets. A new chapter, "The Simplest Socio-Psychological Phenomenon and Its Complication in the Course of History," was written, but it was published as a standalone study and, as it later turned out, became a draft for a new book.^[48] The 1979 reissue of Social Psychology did not include the later additions.

In 1967–1968, B. F. Porshnev delivered reports at the Moscow Society of Psychologists and the VIII International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences in Tokyo, presenting materials from the article Anthropogenetic Aspects of the Physiology of Higher Nervous Activity and Psychology. This was the only published work by Porshnev on the origin of human history that he himself considered comprehensive.^[49] This work demonstrates that during this period, Porshnev's understanding of the origin of history as a physiological-psychological and socio-psychological process was fully formed, as was the trilogy Critique of Human History. O. Vite summarizes the changes in Porshnev's views in 1967–1968 as follows: the discovery of the suggestive (imperative) stage in the emergence of speech-thinking allowed the process to be divided into two phases. In the first phase, interdiction transforms into suggestion (the first inversion); this phenomenon is the focus of On the Origin of Human History. In the second phase, suggestion transforms into countersuggestion, mechanisms of resistance to suggestion (the second inversion); this stage was intended to be described in the third book of the planned trilogy^[49].

The "initial sketch" of the major book —under the same title On the Origin of Human History— Boris Fyodorovich published in 1969 as a 31-page article-report in the collection Philosophical Problems of Historical Science.^[38] However, this text primarily addressed the first part of the planned trilogy; the later published book was intended as its middle part. In the 1969 article (based on a presentation at a seminar on the philosophy of natural sciences at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences), Porshnev openly revised the views of Friedrich Engels, which dominated Soviet science. The researcher identified the following logical fallacy in the classic Marxist framework — confusing labor that preceded the emergence of humans with labor that is exclusively human and emerged with the appearance of humans. This error rendered the formula "labor created man" meaningless.^[42] By early 1969, an important chapter on suggestion was written (published in 1971 under the title Countersuggestion and History in the collection History and Psychology).^[50] This text contained one of the central ideas of the future book: the consideration of suggestion as the basic "unit" of psychic activity that distinguished humans from animals.^[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.^[51] 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.^[52] 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.^[53]

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.^[54] According to the researcher's daughter, E. B. Porshneva, this decision was a severe blow, and Boris Fyodorovich passed away on November 26, 1972.^[55]

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.^[55] 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.^[56]

Criticism

According to historian of social thought G. Tihanov, despite the questionable nature of some anthropological hypotheses, B. F. Porshnev succeeded in uniting history and paleopsychology in his book, thereby historicizing the very foundation of history—humankind—which in Soviet historiography had previously been treated as unchanging.^[9] Although his concept formally adhered to Soviet historical materialism, it transcended the boundaries of Marxist dogma. A significant achievement of Porshnev as a philosopher of history was his concept of suggestion, which he viewed as distinguishing humans from animals and serving as the internal driver and mechanism of history. Consequently, human history was explained not as a process of class struggle, but as an arena of confrontation between successive series of constantly emerging suggestions and counter-suggestions.^[5] Tihanov highly regarded Porshnev's theoretical system and wrote:

...Sifting through the debris of Soviet Marxism — or its illicit hybrids that were undermining Marxist orthodoxy from within — one might still stumble upon veritable examples of high intellectual endeavour that deserve to survive the tectonic shifts of history.^[14]

Reviews by Kh. Momdzhyan, S. Tokarev, L. Antsyferova, and A. Leontiev

The foreword to the posthumous 1974 edition of On the Beginning of Human History was an abridged version of a review prepared by Kh. Momdzhyan, S. Tokarev, and L. Antsyferova prior to its publication. In a brief note "From the Publisher," it was stated that the book presented views not generally accepted in academia.^[57] The main part of the review described the author's method, noting that "the author, carried away by a new and very important hypothesis, sometimes shows a tendency to overly absolutize one idea or another, turning it into the foundational, decisive factor in understanding the issues under consideration".^[58] The reviewers also addressed Porshnev's overarching attempt to develop and elaborate on Engels' ideas about the origin of humans and human society, aiming to "decipher" them.^[59]

The peculiarity of this work is also that, engaging in heated contemporary debates discussed issues, the author defends, with his characteristic scientific passion and determination, only one of the viewpoints present in our literature.^[60]

In 1975, a review by professional psychologist and linguist Aleksei Alekseevich Leontiev was published in the journal Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie. From his perspective, the book's strengths and weaknesses stemmed from its adherence to a single authorial concept. This concept was primarily philosophically argued and grounded in factual material from various fields of knowledge.^[61] Regarding Porshnev's concept of anthropogenesis, the reviewer highlighted two points, agreeing with both. First, he acknowledged the validity of rejecting the reliance on "the presence or absence of tools as contradicting the principles of morphological taxonomy, while calling for consideration of ecological criteria, which are inevitably accounted for in the taxonomy of other zoological species".^[62] Porshnev's concept of carrion-eating among early troglodytids, according to Leontiev, was unlikely to be accepted by anthropologists and archaeologists but was supported by archaeological evidence. The reviewer agreed with Porshnev that primitive tools emerged as implements for butchering carcasses, as there is no direct evidence of collective hunting among archaeoanthropes. This hypothesis also explains bipedalism as a result of the upper limbs taking on the function of carrying.^[62]

The reviewer raised serious objections to Porshnev's discussions on the emergence of communication and speech. Leontiev rejected the conflation of communication and speech, citing Karl Marx, who emphasized the primacy of communication woven into practical activity. Here, Porshnev made the same mistake he criticized—projecting modern data onto prehistory.^[63] The author overestimated the role of communication in his thesis that the social nature of human activity is realized through speech; the reviewer found the concept of psychologist and educator Aleksei Nikolaevich Leontiev more adequate in this regard^[63]. Porshnev's thesis that conscious purpose is an internalized form of motivating speech communication —commands and instructions— was deemed an oversimplification: "This is true for modern humans. Apparently, in phylogeny, things were far more complex".^[63] While acknowledging the correctness of the position that human language has nothing in common with animal signaling, the reviewer criticized Porshnev's psychological analysis of the internalization process, as it conflated language, speech function, and speech communication. "Thus, the alternative —whether speech is a tool of thinking or thinking is a product of speech— is meaningless. Neither, or, if you will, both".^[64] Discussions on linguistic signs were deemed more or less accurate but could not be absolutized, despite being among the most important postulates of Porshnev's concept.^[65] As a professional psychologist-linguist, Leontiev also criticized Porshnev for an excessive reliance on the concept of K. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya.^[66]

By constructing the triad "activity—communication—consciousness", Porshnev made a logical error by assuming communication was historically primary and conflating the concepts of language and communication. Consequently, parallels between relics of primitive psychology and modern human mental pathologies (including counter-suggestion — resistance to suggestion) were not entirely convincing. Moreover, the author erred in discussing the nature of aphasia, failing to account for the systemic principle of function localization in the cerebral cortex. The thesis that objects previously used in "first-signal life" acquired a symbolic "second-signal function" was also unconvincing.^[67]

In summary, Leontiev concluded:

…The author’s main miscalculation lies in the thesis of the primacy of communication and the "loss" of sociality, in the excessive biologization of primitive humans and the primitive horde, and thus in the biologization of communication itself.^[68] <…> B. F. Porshnev took on the thankless but necessary task of examining the genesis of history through the lens not of a narrow specialist, but of a scholar for whom a particular interpretation of specific issues of human and societal prehistory is merely part of a philosophical concept of Humankind.^[69]

Debates in foreign sources

In connection with B. F. Porshnev's articles published in English, a briefcase discussion of some postulates of his theory took place between 1976 and 1979 in the pages of Current Anthropology. However, it was primarily related to Porshnev's interest in the "yeti" problem. In 1976, an article by I. Burtsev and D. Bayanov titled Neanderthals vs. Paranthropus was published, reproducing Porshnev's arguments about the reflection of human-Neanderthal coexistence in historical times in archaeological artifacts, art objects, and even descriptions by early scientists.^[70] In 1979, G. Strasenburg published a response article addressing Porshnev's works directly, characterizing him as a "persistent and outstanding" scholar in the study of relict hominoids.^[71] Strasenburg systematically refuted several of Porshnev's arguments underpinning his theory of Neanderthal survival in ancient Europe, including the timing of primate and Neanderthal existence. Much attention was given to historical testimonies interpreted as descriptions of surviving Neanderthals, with the latest mention occurring just five years before the French Revolution. None of these testimonies were deemed consistent with scientific descriptions of fossil human species.^[72] Strasenburg did not attempt to critique the theoretical postulates of Porshnev's concept, limiting himself to pointing out inaccuracies in source interpretation.

The 1979 Slovak translation of On the Beginning of Human History garnered some attention, but reviews, such as the one published by J. Švihran in the Bratislava Linguistic Journal, primarily described the book's content.^[73]

Review by Ya. Roginsky

In 1980, renowned Soviet anthropologist Yakov Roginsky published an article in the journal Voprosy Antropologii on disagreements in anthropogenesis theory, with two-thirds dedicated to a review of On the Beginning of Human History. According to O. Vite, Roginsky was the only Soviet anthropogenesis researcher and contemporary of Porshnev to publicly comment on his posthumous book.^[74] Roginsky was acquainted with and debated Porshnev since his first publications on anthropogenesis in the 1950s. In his review, he noted that the book's main content pertained to linguistics, psychology, and the physiology of higher nervous activity in humans and animals, and he focused only on the author's anthropological judgments.^[75] Porshnev's style and ability to engagingly address even the most complex scientific problems received special mention.^[17]

Speaking of B. F. Porshnev’s anthropological ideas, I reiterate that we never disagreed on recognizing the qualitative distinction of neoanthropes from their predecessors. However, his book did not convince me that archaeoanthropes and paleoanthropes were animals.^[17]

Roginsky began his critique of Porshnev's theory by addressing the claim that australopithecines, archaeoanthropes, and paleoanthropes constitute a distinct family of troglodytids. Porshnev's arguments were based on the assumption that systematic categories for humans have a fundamentally different meaning than for animals. However, this logic leads (and led 18th–19th-century science) to isolating humans in a separate kingdom of nature. In other words, Porshnev arbitrarily redefined the meaning of biological taxonomy.^[76] The assumption of a complete absence of hunting among archaeoanthropes and paleoanthropes remained unproven. It is contradicted by modern primatologists' data showing that chimpanzees and other primates engage in hunting small mammals, including lower monkeys. Additionally, carrion was not as accessible and reliable a source of protein as Porshnev suggested.^[77] Roginsky refuted Porshnev's claim that a wooden spear from the Late Acheulean Lehringen site was not intended for hunting but was a lever for butchering an ancient elephant carcass.^[78]

Roginsky noted that Porshnev left the question of the hand's role in human evolution largely unresolved and devoted little attention to evolutionary morphology. This was likely because Porshnev did not consider himself a specialist in this field and viewed troglodytid labor as purely animalistic. However, Roginsky commended Porshnev's calculations demonstrating the extreme slowness of progressive tool development until the neoanthrope stage. Nonetheless, F. Weidenreich's theory explained this by suggesting that the lifespan of early human ancestors was too short to intensively refine their techniques. Porshnev's thesis that ancient humans produced far more stone tools than needed for immediate consumption could also be challenged.^[79]

Overall, Roginsky aligned with the assessment of Porshnev's work given in the foreword-review by Antsyferova, Tokarev, and Momdzhyan. Even the noted factual inaccuracies and debatable points testified to the researcher's independent pursuit, undertaking a "bold attempt to synthesize diverse fields of knowledge to address many unresolved problems of anthropogenesis".^[80] The distinctions between paleoanthropes and neoanthropes are of profound interest to philosophers, as it was at this boundary that social patterns in collective human life became dominant.^[16]

1990s

Cover of the 2006 edition

In the early 1990s, articles and books appeared claiming to develop aspects of Porshnev's theory, particularly those related to the existence of relict hominoids and their connection to the postulate of prolonged Neanderthal population survival. This primarily concerns D. Yu. Bayanov's book, published in 1991 but prepared four years earlier^[81]. The publication included numerous references to B. F. Porshnev, to whom the book was dedicated{{<refn |group="Notes"|In this context, it is noteworthy that Bayanov realized Porshnev’s vision, who in 1966 submitted a proposal to the Znanie publishing house for a book titled Images of Humanlike Creatures in Ancient Beliefs (Neanderthals in Myths and Folklore), which was rejected by the editors. Bayanov only learned of Porshnev’s plan in 2003.^[82]}} During the same period, publications by writer Boris Didenko appeared, offering his interpretation of the concept of adelphophagy.^[83] Didenko served as the editor of the 2006 edition of On the Beginning of Human History.

2000s

Works by P. Kutzenkov and V. Lukov

In his 2008 article, specialist in the cultural studies of primitive societies P. A. Kutzenkov examined the main postulates of B. F. Porshnev's work in connection with the 2007 reissue of On the Beginning of Human History. Kutzenkov acknowledged that new data completely refute certain aspects of Porshnev's concept as presented in his articles and books from the 1960s–1970s.

The most important finding is that the very ancient origin of the species homo sapiens sapiens: can now be considered established: it appeared between 250,000 and 150,000 years ago in Northeast Africa (in the 1970s, it was believed to have formed 60,000–40,000 years ago). The second crucial discovery is the fairly convincing establishment by genetics that homo sapiens neanderthalensis was not a direct biological ancestor of modern humans. According to Porshnev, however, modern humans initially evolved within Neanderthal communities.^[84]

Nevertheless, Kutzenkov stated that "despite the inconsistency of certain (including very important) aspects of Porshnev's anthropogenesis hypothesis with now firmly established facts, the main idea remains unrefuted. Moreover, in some respects, Boris Fedorovich was even more correct than he realized".^[84] Kutzenkov notes that Porshnev's concept of suggestion (like similar approaches by foreign researchers) is speculative in the absence of factual data, and it is inherently difficult to speak of any evidence in this matter.^[4] According to Kutzenkov, Porshnev's paleopsychological ideas continue to be ignored by historians, ethnographers, and archaeologists despite the new edition. An additional reason for this "silence", in Kutzenkov's view, is the negative reputation of the scholar due to his excessive interest in the "yeti" problem, although only some of Porshnev's works address "relict hominids".^[85]

Assuming a 40,000-year duration for homo sapiens sapiens, Porshnev argued that even the slightest shift in stone technologies required about 200–300 generations, which is incommensurate with processes of individual consciousness and informational communication.^[86] In the early 21st century, it became clear that the existence of homo sapiens sapiens spans entire Paleolithic epochs, and thus, its behavior for at least 100,000 years should also be attributed to "ethological phenomena".^[87] In other words, the phenomena of primitive psyche outlined by Porshnev apply not to Neanderthals but to early neoanthropes. By the early 21st century, it was found that many behavioral traits considered exclusively human in the 1970s are observed in chimpanzees, who organize driven hunts, use rudimentary spears, and whose tools vary across populations and have evolved over the past 4,000 years.^[88] "Thus, the distance between archaeoanthrope, paleoanthrope, and Paleolithic neoanthrope is significantly reduced, while the true chasm separating Mesolithic humans from Paleolithic Cro-Magnons becomes increasingly evident. Accordingly, in Porshnev's words about mental pathology as reproducing ‘in a certain small percentage of human individuals certain traits of the ancestral species—paleoanthropes,' the latter can confidently be replaced with ‘early neoanthropes'".^[88]

Despite the erroneous postulate of neoanthropes evolving from Neanderthals, Kutzenkov asserts that Porshnev correctly reconstructed divergence phenomena, but these occurred within a single new species comprising several types based on the degree of sapientization.^[88] A significant achievement of Porshnev is his work on the emergence of speech —the sole means of regulating human behavior— and his studies of aphasia mechanisms, making him a practical founder of Russian historical psychology and, in particular, evolutionary psychopathology, though his works remain little known.^[89]

More detailed arguments on these theses were presented by Kutzenkov in a monograph published a year earlier, where On the Beginning of Human History was cited from the 1974 edition.^[90] Examining the origins of prehistoric art in the emergence of consciousness and speech, Kutzenkov criticized Porshnev's concept of suggestion, as it is not the sole foundational property of human speech and thinking.^[91] The idea of suggestive complexes as the basis for the emergence of speech and thinking led only to a host of unresolved problems. Specifically, Porshnev failed to explain why Cro-Magnons' need to "distinguish sound-suggestive complexes" began to "outpace available speech means". Similarly, the thesis that Cro-Magnons could distinguish objects of manipulation or operation is unprovable. Kutzenkov notes that these theses project modern human psychological traits onto prehistoric times. According to Kutzenkov, the mechanism of extreme inhibition caused by the herd on its leader, as described by Porshnev, is unnecessary in real primitive society conditions.^[92]

Similar views on Porshnev's anthropogenesis concept were expressed by Valery Lukov. Noting that Porshnev's concept "outlines a promising path for combining social psychology research with historical research, which can enhance its heuristic value when supplemented with other approaches to similar research tasks," he nonetheless criticizes Porshnev for not addressing why the same suggestive influence elicits different reactions, even in cases of suggestions directed at or from a crowd. The counter-suggestive mechanism of distrust also remains insufficiently clarified.^[93]

Monograph by V. Glushchenko

In 2020, V. V. Glushchenko published the book The Birth of Humankind. The Beginning of Human History as a Subject of Socio-Philosophical Research, examining the philosophical foundations of B. F. Porshnev's concept and its development prospects. Glushchenko noted that Porshnev, as a Soviet Marxist, was interested in the qualitative transition from biological to social, grounding this question in the concrete history of humankind. The notion of a historically existing "anti-human" provides a basis for new developments in ethics as a scientific discipline. Simultaneously, Porshnev's concept definitively eliminates the premise of the Golden Age's idea: "Not rational, but irrational, humankind emerged from nature and only through socio-historical development acquired reason".^[94]

Porshnev worked within the mainstream of psychological science development, alongside theories like Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance and Gregory Bateson's double bind. According to Glushchenko, the 1990s discovery of mirror neurons clarifies a key neurophysiological mechanism of imitation for Porshnev's concept and likely experimentally confirms his theory of inhibitory dominance and the bidominant model of higher nervous activity built upon it. Similarly, the discovery of random movements as a foraging strategy among African Hadza hunters and gatherers may further support the theory of instinctive labor at the dawn of human history. Research on plant domestication suggests this process was not a conscious act, indirectly supporting the theory of instinctive labor.^[94]

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.^[24]
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…"^[30]
4. Porshnev's works in this field were highly regarded, in particular, by Fernand Braudel.
5. The report was presented to the scientific community twice: first in November 1961, at a meeting of the Historical Sciences Division of the USSR Academy of Sciences; in January 1962, it was delivered again at a joint meeting of the Historical and Biological Divisions of the Academy.^[45]

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, p. 15.
17. Roginsky 1980, p. 16.
18. Vite, O. T. (2003). "The Creative Legacy of B. F. Porshnev and Its Contemporary Significance" [Творческое наследие Б. Ф. Поршнева и его современное значение]. Almanac "Vostok" (in Russian). 9/10. Archived from the original on January 19, 2016. Retrieved August 4, 2025.
19. Eliseev 2010, p. 27.
20. Eliseev 2010, p. 29.
21. Eliseev 2010, p. 30.
22. Eliseev 2010, p. 31.
23. Rudyakov 2012, pp. 54, 80.
24. Rudyakov 2012, p. 81.
25. Rudyakov 2012, p. 54.
26. Eliseev 2010, pp. 31–32.
27. Kutzenkov 2008, p. 186.
28. Antsyferova, Momdzhyan & Tokarev 1974, p. 8.
29. Porshnev 2007, pp. 464–465.
30. Porshnev 2007, p. 463.
31. Porshnev 2007, pp. 405–406.
32. Porshnev 2007, p. 409.
33. Porshnev 2007, pp. 408–409.
34. Porshnev 2007, p. 410.
35. Porshnev 2007, pp. 411–413.
36. Porshnev 2007, pp. 416–420.
37. Porshnev 2007, p. 19.
38. Porshnev 2007, p. 11.
39. Vite 2007, pp. 577–578.
40. Vite 2005, p. 23.
41. Vite 2005, p. 24.
42. Vite 2005, pp. 25–26.
43. Vite 2005, pp. 27–28.
44. Vite 2005, pp. 28–29.
45. Vite 2007, pp. 649–650.
46. Vite 2007, p. 650.
47. Vite 2005, p. 32.
48. Vite 2005, pp. 32–33.
49. Vite 2005, p. 33.
50. Vite 2007, p. 660.
51. Vite 2005, p. 34.
52. Vite 2005, p. 35.
53. Vite 2007, p. 697.
54. Porshnev 2007, pp. 540–541.
55. Vite 2007, p. 704.
56. Vite 2007, pp. 704–705.
57. Porshnev et al. 1974, p. 3.
58. Antsyferova, Momdzhyan & Tokarev 1974, p. 5.
59. Antsyferova, Momdzhyan & Tokarev 1974, p. 6.
60. Antsyferova, Momdzhyan & Tokarev 1974, p. 10.
61. Leontiev 1975, p. 138.
62. Leontiev 1975, p. 141.
63. Leontiev 1975, p. 142.
64. Leontiev 1975, pp. 142–143.
65. Leontiev 1975, p. 143.
66. Leontiev 1975, p. 144.
67. Leontiev 1975, pp. 145–146.
68. Leontiev 1975, p. 146.
69. Leontiev 1975, p. 147.
70. Bayanov & Bourtsev 1976, pp. 312–318.
71. Strasenburgh 1979, p. 624.
72. Strasenburgh 1979, pp. 624–626.
73. Švihran 1979, pp. 194–195.
74. Vite 2007, pp. 637, 643.
75. Roginsky 1980, pp. 14–16.
76. Roginsky 1980, p. 17.
77. Roginsky 1980, pp. 17–18.
78. Roginsky 1980, p. 18.
79. Roginsky 1980, pp. 18–19.
80. Roginsky 1980, p. 20.
81. Trakhtengerts, M. S. (1991). "Foreword by the Internet Publisher". Bayanov D. Leshy by the Nickname "Monkey". An Experience of Demonological Comparisons [Bayanov D. Leshiy po prozvishchu "Obez’yana". Opyt demonologicheskikh sopostavleniy]. Prepared for online publication by M. S. Trakhtengerts. Moscow: Society for the Study of Earth’s Mysteries and Enigmas. p. 128. ISBN 5-86422-074-4. Archived from the original on November 4, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2025.
82. Vite 2007, p. 646.
83. Didenko B. A. (February 1, 2001). "Civilization of Cannibals. Moscow, 1996" [Tsivilizatsiya kannibalov. Moskva, 1996]. The First Ten of "Russian Binding". Russian Binding. Archived from the original on February 11, 2016. Retrieved August 6, 2025.
84. Kutzenkov 2008, p. 183.
85. Kutzenkov 2008, pp. 181–182.
86. Porshnev 2007, p. 226.
87. Kutzenkov 2008, p. 184.
88. Kutzenkov 2008, p. 185.
89. Kutzenkov 2008, pp. 182, 186, 189.
90. Kutzenkov 2007, pp. 46—50 and others.
91. Kutzenkov 2007, pp. 102–104.
92. Kutzenkov 2007, p. 105.
93. Lukov Val. A. (2004). "Historical Psychology: The Possibility of a Thesaurus Approach" [Istoricheskaya psikhologiya: vozmozhnost' tezaurusnogo podkhoda]. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill (journal) (in Russian). ISSN 2218-9238. Archived from the original on May 4, 2013. Retrieved August 6, 2025.
94. Glushchenko 2020.

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.

External links

• 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» [Almanac «East»] (journal) (in Russian). 9/10. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
• 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.