The Making of Hominology: a science whose time has come
The Making of Hominology: a science whose time has come
The Making of Hominology: a science whose time has come
The Making of Hominology: a science whose time has come
The Making of Hominology: a science whose time has come

The Making of Hominology: a science whose time has come


Regular price $19.95 now $17.95

Forthcoming title with endorsements by
Dr. Jane Goodall,
Dr. Paul LeBlond, Dr. Nokolay Drozdov & Dr. Henry Bauer


By: Dmitri Bayanov in association with Christopher Murphy
ISBN: 978-0-88839-011-0 [trade paperback]
ISBN: 978-0-88839-285-5 [trade hardback]
ISBN: 978-0-88839-289-3 [epub format]
Binding: Trade Paper / Trade Cloth
Size: 8.5" X 5.5"
Pages: 152
Photos: 42
Illustrations: 0
Publication Date: 01 March 2019


The Making of Hominology is a detailed work aimed at moving the study of relict hominoids from the fringes of science to a fully recognized scientific discipline—The Science of Hominology. The main author, Dmitri Bayanov (born 1932), worked directly with Professor Boris Porshnev and other early Russian scientists investigating the possible existence of Relict Hominoids. Bayanov’s long journey began in the early 1960s and has continued until this day. This book covers the subject from the dawn of written communications in Europe and Asia, and then in North America. Dmitri Bayanov coined the term “Hominology” and from the outset has sought to convince the general scientific community that there is enough evidence to support his recommendation. His “arguments” reflect his significant understanding of the subject and depth of his studies. What he presents is truly convincing. From a scientific standpoint, this book is the most important work on Hominology ever written. It is both fascinating and highly educational with a special illustrated section on what we know about North America’s hominoid—the sasquatch or bigfoot.

Author Biography

Dmitri Bayanov was born in Moscow, Russia, in 1932 He went on to become one of the foremost Russian cryptozoologists and hominologists alive today, Dmitri originally graduated from a teachers’ college in 1955 with a major in humanities. After studying under such individuals as Professor B.F. Porshnev and P.P. Smolin, chief curator of the Darwin Museum in Moscow, Dmitri took part in Marie-Jeanne Koffmann’s expedition in search of the Russian snowman (almasty) in the Caucasus and made reconnaissance trips in the same region on his own. Dmitri is currently an active member of the Relict Hominoid Research Seminar at the Darwin Museum (since 1964) and became its chairman in 1975. He was a founding board member of the International Society of Cryptozoology and served on its Board of Directors until 1992. He is also credited with coining the terms “hominology” and “hominologist” in the early 1970s to describe the specific study of unknown hominoids and those who study them. Dmitri’s hominological career has been spent mainly on the study of relict populations of hominoids including the Russian snowman and the North American Sasquatch or Bigfoot. This is reflected in his several books published in Russia and Canada. He currently lives in Moscow, Russia.

Christopher L. Murphy retired in 1994 after 36 years of service with the British Columbia Telephone Company (now Telus). During his career, he authored four books on business processes. After retirement, he taught a night school course on vendor quality management at the B.C. Institute of Technology. An avid philatelist, Chris has written several books on Masonic Philately. Chris got involved in the sasquatch mystery when he met Rene Dahinden, who lived nearby, in 1993. He then worked with Rene in producing posters from the Patterson/Gimlin film and marketing sasquatch footprint casts. In 1996, Chris republished Roger Patterson's 1966 book, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?, and Fred Beck's book, I Fought the Apemen of Mt. St. Helens. In 1997, Chris published Bigfoot in Ohio: Encounters with the Grassman, a book he authored in association with Joedy Cook and George Clappison of Ohio. In 2000, Chris embarked on a project to assemble a comprehensive pictorial presentation on the sasquatch. This initiative led to his 2004 sasquatch exhibit at the Vancouver (BC) Museum and the publication of Meet the Sasquatch, the first edition of this book. In due course, Chris wrote a supplemental section to Roger Patterson's book, which was republished in 2005 by Hancock House Publishers under the title, The Bigfoot Film Controversy. The following year, Chris updated his Ohio book, again with his two previous associates, and it was published in 2006 by Hancock House under the title, Bigfoot Encounters in Ohio: Quest for the Grassman. Chris's sasquatch exhibit next traveled to the Museum of Mysteries in Seattle, where it was displayed for five months in 2005. In June of the following year, it opened at the Museum of Natural History in Pocatello Idaho, where it was shown for 15 months. Chris has also attended and presented at many sasquatch symposiums, and has taken part in several television documentaries on the subject.


Book Endorsements


"Dmitri Bayanov has proposed a new scientific discipline—hominology—that will study the many reports of hairy upright non-human hominoid like creatures from various quarters of the globe. Beginning in the 1960s, Bayanov worked directly with Professor Boris Porshnev and other Russian scientists investigating reports of relict hominoids, such as the almasty, described as a possibly extant Neanderthal. Continuing that work, Bayanov has authored several books and published papers arguing convincingly that the accumulating evidence for these species warrants a move from the realm of myth and cryptozoology to serious scientific investigation. A lifetime of scholarly examination of this question, with evidence spanning from the dawn of written communications to the present, has culminated in this important book – The Making of Hominology". 


-- Jane Goodall, Ph.D., DBE;
Founder - the Jane Goodall Institute,
UN Messenger of Peace


"For years Dmitri Bayanov has argued forcefully for a scientific approach to the interpretation of the evidence for wild hominids (Sasquatch, Yeti, Almasty…). This book is an eloquent summary of his struggle to promote a scientific “hominology.” It also provides examples of the sober and detailed examinations which he advocates, applied to some of the available evidence. A serious and thoughtful book on a controversial subject".

-- Paul LeBlond, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Physics and Oceanography
University of British Columbia


"Serious study of the “snowman” phenomenon began with Prof. Boris Porshnev's  groundbreaking book The Present State of the Question of Relict Hominoids (1963). He noted in it the emerging science of still unclassified higher bipedal primates that later developed into a discipline termed hominology. As a Moscow University student, I attended Prof. Porshnev’s eyeopening lectures on this subject and was presented by him a copy of his famous book. The relevant research had been initiated by him at the Academy of Sciences and continued at the Darwin Museum by a group of enthusiasts, headed first by museum Chief Curator Pyotr Smolin and followed by Dmitri Bayanov. His present book The Making of Hominology, written in association with Christopher Murphy, is a timely and substantial contribution in this frontier of scientific investigation ".

-- Nikolay Drozdov, Ph.D., Doctor of Sciences in Biology;
Doctor in Geography – Chair of Biogeography,
Lomonosov Moscow University, Russia,

"This book makes the explicit case that the study of yetis, Sasquatch, and the like qualifies as a science—hominology—both because of the nature of science and because the evidence is overwhelming that these creatures are real —and that they are closer relatives of humans than of apes. The author has been with this project essentially from the beginning, and his accounts of its history are authentic. A valuable resource for both fans and skeptics".

 -- Henry Bauer, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Science Studies
University of Sydney, Australia

Foreword by Jeff Meldrum

 In The Making of Hominology, senior Russian homin investigator Dmitri Bayanov offers a timely retrospective and introspective consideration of the conception, gestation, difficult labor and imminent birth of a new scientific discipline. In science, names and definitions of terminology are integral to effective communication of knowledge. “Hominology” is the study of “homins,” a generic term coined by Bayanov to include all forms of “hairy bipedal primates, whose degree of kinship with humans (Homo sapiens) is still to be established.” It is a name essentially synonymous with “relict hominoids,” a term first popularized by Boris Porshnev, and carried on, after much deliberation, in the title of The Relict Hominoid Inquiry (, a singular academic journal established in 2012, as an attendant to the birth of this revolutionary discipline.

The account of this travail contains numerous dichotomies, highlighting contrasting perspectives, interpretations, politics and paradigms. There have been and continue to be interesting distinctions in the US vs. Soviet institutional approaches to this scientific enigma. There have been and continue to be polarized opinions about the nature of homins— more human-like vs. more ape-like. There have been and continue to be disparities in opinion regarding the uniformity vs. diversity of homins – e.g., Sanderson’s Neo-Giants (sasquatch or bigfoot) vs. Neanderthaloids (almas). Exploring these differences makes for intellectual “dramatic tension” that can breathe vigor into the nascent discipline, desirably, and lend resolution and delineation. To this end, The Making of Hominology offers a seminal contribution to the conversation.

With the spirit of the Bolsheviks, but hardly speaking in the majority, Bayanov parallels Kuhn’s principles of scientific revolution with the struggles for scientific recognition of hominology, in the midst of a generational paradigm shift. This paradigm shift has turned from the single-species hypothesis, which posited that two culture-bearing hominins could not exist at the same time, an assumption of the competitive exclusion principle. Now, however, the fossil record shows that myriad now-extinct hominins existed simultaneously across the same landscapes. There was not a single-file line of evolution, but a bushy tree, making room for the possibility that Bigfoot and other relict hominoids could exist. The question remains, what evidence points to the probability of such species existing today? Bayanov offers a frank indictment of the scientific communities on both continents, as ones “duped by the mass media,” rendered largely ignorant of the primary data, in spite of Sisyphean efforts by some to present the evidence through scholarly channels, and engage objective discussion. “The theory is the tool that allows you to see the facts,” anthropologist Esteban Sarmiento says. “For people to see something totally new, they’d need a theory that would allow for it. Unless the academics have new theories, some facts will always be closed to them.” Bayanov credits Porshnev as among the first to provide a theory to accommodate the “anomalous” facts.

Against this backdrop, Bayanov considers the nature of some of the most compelling anomalous evidence at present—the footprints and the film. Smithsonian primatologist John Napier, one of the few scientists to offer a relatively objective assessment of the evidence, concluded on the basis of the footprints, that sasquatch does exist. “There must be something in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints.” (Napier, 1973, p. 205). Bayanov reprints a poster presentation I delivered at the annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in 1999. This evaluation commenced in 1996 when I personally examined a fresh track line in the ground, comprised of 15-inch hominoid footprints. More than 20 years later, I have assembled over 300 specimens of footprints attributed to various relict hominoids around the world. Examples of these are presented in Chris Murphy’s contributed chapter.

It is timely, on the heels of its 50th anniversary, to consider the most compelling photographic evidence—the Patterson and Gimlin film, taken in 1967. Russian investigators made significant contributions to the study and analysis of this film. Here again, another dichotomy is revealing—the contrasting opinions, after regarding the very same film clip, arrived at by the academicians vs. those of the non-academic professionals, who, it is noted, had no “axe to grind.”

The history of the alternate perceptions and pronouncements about the film is very revealing of the sometimes glacial-pace of the realization of paradigm shifts in science. To illustrate, consider once again Dr. Napier, who was among the first scientists to critically examine the film in the USA. In his book, he ultimately came to the conclusion that the film was a hoax, although he acknowledged he couldn’t put his finger on exactly what to base that conclusion upon. Subsequently, he offered this caveat, “The upper half of the body bears some resemblance to an ape and the lower half is typically human. It is almost impossible to conceive that such structural hybrids could exist in nature. One half of the animal must be artificial.” (Napier, 1973, p. 91). In essence, the film subject did not fit commonly held preconceptions of what a hominid should look like, not to mention that the prevailing paradigm would not even allow for the existence of another extant bipedal hominid. Shortly after the publication of his book, a more complete fossilized skeleton a specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, among our earliest hominin ancestors (popularly dubbed “Lucy”) was discovered in East Africa, and publically announced to much fanfare. The experts were cited in the press as noting how interesting a specimen it was—from the waist up it looks much like a chimpanzee, while from the waist down it resembled a human. It seems such hybrids of structure were no longer inconceivable after all. Perhaps the potential of other bipedal homins existing alongside Homo sapiens should not be assumed as inconceivable either.

Kuhn has suggested that it may take the passing of a generation before a novel paradigm can take root and flourish. Bayanov, in essence, is issuing a call to action, which if realized, will likely first be responded to by the upcoming generation of scholars. I have seen signs of such germinations and suspect The Making of Hominology may contribute to their nurturing.

Jeff Meldrum, PhD
Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology
Idaho State University