I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
- Jul 19, 2004
- Out of Bounds
So what would you consider strong evidence that these events were related?
These two sub-questions - in what I consider the order of priority - are:
(1) Is there any evidence of connections, mutual familiarity, cross-reference, and / or cross-pollination between (a) Ivanov's hybrid project and / or the ongoing Primate Research Canter and (b) Porshnev's (or anyone else's) research into relict hominids / hominoids in that region?
(2) Does any evidence obtained in relation to question (1) suggest or indicate mutual objectives, activities, or collaboration between the two sets of parties cited above?
There would be no reason for Ivanov to have known of Porshnev at all. However, it's conceivable that someone working at the Primate Research Center he (Ivanov) founded may have had reason to draw connections to Porshnev's work later (e.g., in the 1960's) or the activities of the people who continued Porshnev's work in this area. It's even conceivable that Ivanov and / or his colleagues had considered options involving relict hominoids rather than human / ape hybrids, long before Porshnev got involved.
Going in the opposite direction ... My instincts suggest any cross-reference from the Porshnev side would most likely have involved Bayanov, Machkovtsev, or Marie-Jeanne Koffmann rather than Porshnev himself.
One reason I think the immediate issue is to to first determine if there's even a hint of cross-connections is that I'd suspect any deep research effort would necessarily lead back to Moscow and the archives of the various agencies or centers that sponsored or otherwise supported these two lines of work. It could well prove difficult to determine which ones to contact and to convince any of them to cooperate without being able to make a case for why you're inquiring.