Systematic methodology

Systematic ethnology

 Systematic anthropology

Systematic linguistics

Population geogenetics

Systematic poetics

 Systematic folkloristics

 

 

Reformatorium

Prehistoric tribes

 Prehistoric races

Prehistoric languages

Prehistoric archaeology

  Prehistoric religions

Prehistoric folklore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*     Language taxonomy

*     Ethnic taxonomy

*     Europic

*     Nordic

*     Indic

*     Littoralic

*     Caucasic

*     Elamitic

*     Negric

*     Melanic

*     Tungic

*     Pelasgic

*     Cimbric

*     Turanic 

*     Ugro-Scythic

*     Uralo-Sarmatic

*     Lappic

*     Sinic

 

 

*       Spain    France

*       Italy     Schweiz

*       Britain    Celts

*       Scandinavia

*       Germany

*       Balts   Slavs

*       Greece

*       Thrace     Dacia

*       Anatolia

 

 

The Common Ancestor of Uralic, Sarmatic and Asiatic Siberian Languages

 Clickable terms are red on the yellow background

 

 

Table 1. The Systematic Glottogenesis of Human Language Families

 

 

 

 

Map 1. The Eurasian migrations of Uralo-Sarmatoids

(Pavel Bělíček: The Atlas of Systematic Anthropology I. The Synthetic Classification of Human Phenotypes and Varieties. Prague 2018, pp. 87, Map 9)

 

Map 2. The worldwide distribution of Asiatic Uralo-Sarmatic tribes

 

The Origins of Palaeolithic Gracile Neanderthalers

   The bearers of the Mousterian culture are identified unambiguously with the classic Neanderthals called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Since their first skulls were excavated in Gibraltar and at Neanderthal near Düsseldorf in 1856, palaeoanthropologists have conducted disputes about whether they have survived in modern races or died out as an extinct offshoot. An unbiased consideration was harmed by comparison to more gracile varieties of Homo sapiens sapiens whose gentler physiognomy doomed the rugged Neanderthals to extinction. Their low foreheads and prominent eyebrow ridges fostered erroneous prejudices about their low mental capacity and made scholars judge them as an extinct regressive side-branch of man. They tended to emphasise their regressive features, prominent eyebrow arcs, low foreheads and receding chins but omitted their progressive traits, larger cranial capacity, stronger arms and great achievements in technology.

    Traditional approaches insist on the dogma of unilinear sapientisation and concentrate on Homo sapiens sapiens from Palestine without noticing his hybrid nature and derived origin. Recent studies (Day and Stringer 1982) trace his first sapient predecessors back to a single source, centre and place, to his original seats in east Africa about 120,000 years ago. They count with his early appearance at Omo I in Ethiopia and Border Cave in Swaziland (from 120,000 to 100,000 BC). They assume that from east Africa he moved to Palestine where his finds were excavated in Mugharet es-Skhūl and Jebel Qafzeh (92,000 BC). This cave man showed a prominent chin, a rounded occiput and a reduced torus supraorbitalis. He represented Early Moderns followed soon by Late Moderns (Nelson, Jurmain 1988: 558) who invaded Europe between 50,000 and 30,000 BC. This theory is confusing because the Palestinian settlements correspond to the Natufian culture of Levalloiso-Mousterian stamp and their inhabitants should be a mixed population of Early and Classic Neanderthals. Their assumed travels to Europe refer to the colonisation of Aurignacian cultures of Epi-Levalloisian descent. It radiated from their Caspian homeland but in Palestine it got an infusion of Neanderthal blood from surrounding Mousterian populations. Their gracile countenance made anthropologists perceive these hybrid tribes undeservedly as ‘mythical sapientisators’ of the world.

    The primary goal of palaeoanthropology is not to deal with recent hybridisation but to explain the prehistoric evolution from primary pure races. Its focus should be on a contrastive analysis distinguishing human races corresponding to the bearers of Mousterian, Levalloisian and Micoquian cultures. The first preliminary step taken usually distinguishes the Levalloisians as the Progressive or Early Neanderthals from Mousterians as Classic or Late Neanderthals.1 The second necessary step presupposes distinguishing various generations of Mousterian colonists into four temporal horizons:

Neanderthal A     Levalloisians: Homo sapiens aniensis (Sergii 1935)

Neanderthal B      Mousterians: Homo s. neanderthalensis (King 1864)

Neanderthal I       Clactonians: Swanscombe man, Choukoutien man

                           Homo steinheimensis (Berckhemer 1935)

Neanderthal II      Tayacians: Fontéchevade man, Ehringsdorf man

Neanderthal III    Mousterians: La Chapelle aux Saints, Le Moustier  

Neanderthal IV    Solutreans: Solutré skeletons.

   The comparative analysis of Neanderthals must count with general tendency to brachycephalisation that is due to mixing with Lapponoid races remarkable for prominent brachycephaly. The Mongoloids are generally believed to exhibit higher brachycephaly than most Negroid races but their skull indices range from mesocephaly typical of Tungids to moderate brachycephaly common to the Armenoid Mongolids with aquiline noses. Accordingly, the Mousterian skull indices rank higher than those of most Magdalenian and Aurignacian finds: Dordogne man 65.7, Brünn 68.2, Cro-Magnon 72.4, Galley Hill 63.4 (G. Schwalbe – E. Fischer2; V. P. Alekseyev – I. I. Goxman3). We assume that the original average of Mousterian skulls did not exceed the skull index 77.8 measured in Neanderthals from Teshik-Tash while Progressive Neanderthals of Levalloisian origin may be calibrated at less than 72 but owing to the subsequent brachycephalisation they rose to higher values observed among modern Mongolids and Tungids. A remarkable feature was their high, angled and prominent nose (M. H. Wolpoff4; H. Nelson – R. Jurmain5), reminiscent of modern aquiline varieties.

   In order to avoid confusion, we should give up labelling Neanderthals as various genera and species (Sinanthropus, Homo neanderthalensis) of extinct primates and treat them as racial varieties of man apt of mutual interbreeding. Inconvenient terms of palaeoanthropology should be dropped and replaced by those of archaeology (Mousterians, Solutreans) so as to unify their taxonomy.

   The Neanderthal skulls differ from Palaeo-Negroid finds clearly in low foreheads and long faces. The Rhodesian man from Broken Hill and Saldanha had a high face, strong eyebrow arcs and receding chins and mandibles. The Neanderthal man from Broken Hill was originally dated to 100,000 BP but this dating must be shifted to a later horizon. The Saldanha man comes from finds in the Makapansgat cave in Transvaal. An upper jaw of a 9-year-old Neanderthal baby was excavated at Tanger in Morocco. A part of a lower mandible was found at Dire-Dawa in Ethiopia. The modern Hottentots and Masais display a clearly Mongoloid type of physiognomy with high cheekbones, long face and even some traces of epicanthus. They fight their foes with leaf-shaped lances though they abandoned the technique of retouching and make them from metal now.

    Rhodesian man may be closely related to Steinheim man (from 250,000 to 200,000 BC), who probably imported Mousterian-type Tayacian artifacts to Europe and deserves to be greeted as a forerunner of Mousterian Neanderthals.1 The Steinheim skull was mutilated in the same way as that of Peking mans, which may be interpreted as an indirect token of their cannibalist practices. On the other hand, Swanscombe man as a probable protagonist of the Clactonian culture may be linked to the Levalloisian tradition propagated by a more gracile Homo sapiens. Their finds are, however, associated with much Acheulean industry due to mixing. The Mousterian tradition continued later into the Solutrean (from 22,000 to 18,000 BC) and Clovis and Folsom leaf-shape cultures (12,000 BC) in America. The only way that allows anthropology to avoid confusion consists in replacing misleading labels by genetic lineages such as Mousterian I-V, Levalloisian I-VI.

 

Uralic, Sarmatic and Asiatic Siberian Languages

 

   Uralic languages are generally classified as members of one Finno-Ugric or Uralo-Ugric Sprachbund. Finns should be excluded from this unity because their name Finland is derived from Vinnaland land of Wends’ and its alternative nickname Suomi refers to Saami people. Both designations are applied to short-sized brachycephalous Lapponoids, who were incompatible with Siberian tall and robust megafauna-hunters. Their purebred forefathers were only Siberian mammoth-hunters who sought their substitutes in the New World. After their extinction they were compelled to chase the moose and reindeer or adopt their raising and herding. In the Neolithic they emerged in two independent groups denotable as Estono-Mordvins and Mansi-Ugrians. The former roved the tundra zone of northern Siberia as the Combed Ware complex affiliated to the Narva culture (4200 BC) in Estonia. They must have come into existence as the western offshoot of the Chulmun/Jeulmun Comb Ware (8000 BC) that won predominance in Korea and Mongolia.

   The common forebear of Estono-Mordvins and Mansi-Ugrians were Palaeo-Siberians living in the northeast corner of continental Asia. The Palaeo-Siberian languages (Eskimo, Kerek, Koryak, Chukchee, Nivkh, Kamchadal) look like their original prototype uniting Mordvin collective t-plurals and Ugric distinctive k-plurals. Their pair functions as a category of number also in the tongues of the Khoekhoe cattle-breeders in the arid areas of Namibia. The earliest appearance of Ugric languages seems to be conserved marvellously in the Algonquin and Quechua language family in America. On the other  hand, the majority of Estono-Mordvin tribes remained in the hunting-grounds of the Siberian tundra and underwent gradual assimilation to Turanic and Tungusic nations.  

  The most impressive trait of Estono-Mordvin tongues remains hidden in the Uralic agglutinative locative case systems with special morphological suffixes for essives, illatives, allatives, elatives and concomitatives. Their residues were preserved also in the Iranian dialect known as Ossetic. The group of Ossetian, Yazgulami, Sarikoli, Ishkashmi, Rushani, Vakhi and Yaghnobi languages  seems to be associated with Sarmatic horse-breeders in southern Russia. The ancient Greeks and Romans referred to Uralic tribes as Sauromatae and nicknamed the Baltic Sea as Mare Sarmaticum. The central group of Uralic tribes was concentrated around Merya and Muroma as moose-hunters and hippophagoi ‘horse-eaters’, while their kinsmen settled in the steppe grasslands south of the Urals as became notable as Sarmatians. They developed advanced ferrolithic cultures using two-wheeled and four-wheeled chariots drawn by horses. The admirable mobility of their squads armed with iron cuirasses, swords and arrows enabled them to conquer large areas in the Danube Basin as Hallstattian warriors. Their precursors were the Sumerian donkey-breeders, Amorite horseback riders, Arabic camel-keepers and Tibetan yak-herders.  

 

isers

 

The Glottalic Sound-Repertory of Palaeo-Scythic Languages

   The third type of phonology was attributable to megalith-builders speaking glottalic languages. Their vocalism and consonantism consisted from glottalised sounds. Glottalic consonants do not rely on pulmonic airstream, they are created by the closure of the glottis that opens a passage from the larynx to the vocal and nasal cavity (Table 7). Such a system distinguished two types of non-pulmonic glottalic phonemes, explosive tense ejective consonants and their lax implosive counterparts. Ejectives are defined as voiceless consonants pronounced with a glottalic egressive airstream.1 They are produced with complete glottal closure and an egressive airstream following the glottal and oral releases’.2 On the other hand, implosive consonants represent a group of stops delivered with a mixed glottalic ingressive and pulmonic egressive airstream mechanism.3 These phonemes are very common in languages spoken by tall robust large-headed brachycephalic mummifiers and mound-builders.

Glottalic languages

Baskids, Ugrids, Scythids

Lappic lingual phonology

Lappids, Alpinids, Pygmids

Sanid lingual phonemes

African Sanids

Murmured breathy phonemes

Hindus and Sinids

reduced mixed vowel ǝ

reduced central vowels ǝ ɜ a

3-level or 4-level vocalism:

closed high, mid, open low

reduced mixed vowel ǝ

vowels: i e a o u

short vowels: i e a o u

long vowels: ī ā ū

no nasal vowels

nasal vowel: ã õ ũ, aⁿ eⁿ uⁿ

opposition of oral

and nasal vowels

nasal vowels: ã ĩ ũ

advanced tongue root

harmony

no vowel synharmony

nasal harmony?

no vowel harmony

nasal harmony?

nasal anusvāra harmonisation

aṁ iṁ uṁ or ã ĩ ũ

pharyngeal vowels iˤ eˤ aˤ oˤ uˤ

no pharyngeal vowels

breathy iʱ eʱ aʱ oʱ uʱ

no pharyngeal vowels

tense ejectives: p’ t’ k’

palatals: by dy gy

palatals: by dy gy

aspirated ph dh kh

lax implosives: ɓ̥ ɗ̥ ɠ̊

sibilant s-affricates

clicks: ǀ ǁ ǃ ǂ

murmured breathy bh dh gh

uvular consonants: q χ

no uvulars

no uvulars

glottal h

assibilated affricates sp st sk

s-affricates: ts dz ʤ

ts dz

s-affricates: ʒ dʒʱ

velarised aspirates:

pγ tγ kγ qγ

satemised velars

ky: > s, gy > z

velarised aspirates:

pγ tγ kγ qγ

plosives: p t k b d

murmured series

trill r

palatal fricative ř

 

murmured breathy flap rh

borrowed tonal systems

tone, melody, pitch

tone, pitch accent

tone, pitch accent

Table 7.  The glottalic and lingual phonology

 

The Grammatical System of Basco-Scythic and Uralo-Sarmatic Languages

 

Article-oriented nominalisation

Bascoids with articles and

category of determination

Case-oriented morphology

Altaic Turcoids with

agglutinating language structures

Case-oriented morphology

Siberian Tungids with

agglutinating language structures

suffixing agglutination

suffixing agglutination

suffixing agglutination

no gender categories

no gender categories

no gender categories

category of determination

indefinite and definite articles

no articles

no articles

ergative constructions with absolutive, oblique and ergative case

locative subcategorisation of

cases into essives and allatives

nominative vs. accusative con-

structions with locative cases

plural and dual number: -k -t

Bascoid: distinctive k-plurals

Uraloid collective t-plurals

number: singular plural

Turcoid r-plurals

number: singular plural

Tungusoid l-plurals

 

possession: possessive prefixes

possession: possessive suffixes

possession: possessive suffixes

cases: prefixing case markers

ergative – absolutive

cases: suffixing case markers

nominative - accusative

cases: suffixing case markers

nominative – accusative

word order: OVS, SOV

adjective attributes: NA

nominal attributes: GN

numeral attribution: NumN

word order: SOV

adjective attributes: AN

nominal attributes: GN

numeral attribution NumN

word order: SOV

adjective attributes: AN (NA)

nominal attributes: GN

numeral attribution NumN

adjunctions: prepositions

conjuctions: prejunctions

adjunctions: postpositions

conjuctions: postjunctions

adjunctions: prepositions,

conjuctions: prejunctions

analytic semipredication with

gerunds, infinitives and participles

semipredication with gerunds, infinitives and participles

analytic semipredication with

gerunds, infinitives and participles

stress: accent on initial syllables

accent on ultimate syllables

accent on penultimate syllables

versification: alliterative

prosody: rhyming consonance

parallelistic consonance

Table 9.  The morphology of Asiatic races with flake-tool industry

   The centre point of Asiatic language families lies in the categories of case, determination, state and possession. Table 9 proposes a typological classification of Non-Indo-European language structures that encapsulated from without into their lexical substance. The left column sums Abkhaz, Scythoid, Ugroid language types into the Bascoid family of article-oriented dialects. Their family is usually counted as a member of the Altaic Sprachbund although it diverges as an independent subtype.

 

(from P. Bělíček: The Analytic Survey of European Anthropology, Prague 2018, p. 35-42)

 

 



1 J. Buettner-Janusch: Physical Anthropology: A Perspective. New York - London: Wiley, 1973, p. 253.

2 G. Schwalbe – E. Fischer: Anthropologie. Leipzig 1923, p. 286.

3 V. P. Alekseyev I. I. Goxman: Antropologiya aziatskoy chasti SSSR. Moskva 1984, p. 9.

4 M. H. Wolpoff: Palaeoanthropology. New York 1980, p. 280.

 

5 H. Nelson R. Jurmain: Introduction to Physical Anthropology. New York - Los Angeles, 1988, p. 540.

1 H. Nelson R. Jurmain: Introduction to Physical Anthropology. New York - Los Angeles, 1988, p. 532.

1  Paul FallonThe Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives. Routledge, 2002.

2 George N. ClementsSylvester Osu:  Explosives, Implosives, and Nonexplosives: the Linguistic Function of Air Pressure Differences in Stops.  Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002: 299-350, p. 56.

3 Peter LadefogedIan MaddiesonThe Sounds of the Worlds Languages. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.