|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
The Ancient Tribes of Asia Clickable terms are red on yellow background |
|
|
|||||||||
|
Map 29. The
distribution of races in Asia (after Eickstedt) Extract from Pavel Bělíček: The Differential Analysis of the
Wordwide Human Varieties, Prague
2018, Table 29, pp. 85 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Traditional Classification of Asiatic Races A good
starting-point for tackling the taxonomy of principal boreal races of
Mongoloids was provided by Eickstedt’s
classification of areal zones. It reckoned with
compartments for the Northern and Southern Mongolids,
Palaeo-Europids, Indianids
and two racial zones. Dark inhabitants of the subtropical zone fell into the
class of ‘brown races’, while the rest of tribes residing in highlands
defined the partition of ‘mountainous races’. In addition, it applied the
classificatory groupings of Vedoids, Negritos, Tungids, Southern
Asiatic races and Eastern Asiatic varieties.
Table 19. Eickstedt’s subcategorisation of areal zones and racial groups In Biasutti’s subcategorisation3 Mongoloids include Siberids, Tibetids, Eskimids, Tungids, Turanids, Sinids and South Mongolids (Palaeo-Mongolids). A
critical realistic view can, however, acknowledge only independent racial
varieties of Uralids, Ugrids,
Tungids and Turanids,
other groups are mixed ‘mesoraces’ or heterogeneous
groupings. The worst blunder consists in classifying Sinids
as Mongolids: they only share some traits because
their homeland lies in the intersection of Mongolids
in the north, Tungids in the northeast and the Negrito in the south. The principal core of Asians is
seen in Mongolids encompassing most races of
Central Asia, Siberian and the Far East. Unfortunately, they form one of the
vaguest controversial categories of current anthropology.
Table 20. The
traditional classification of Finno-Ugric
peoples |
|
The Anthropocenology
and Ethnonymic Associations of Uralic Tribes
Uralic nations live in isolated inhospitable
ends of the Old World and their seats can easily induce us to think that they
played a marginal role in the Eurasian ethnogeny. This impression is
superficial and misleading because they were heirs of Palaeolithic megafauna-hunters and launched several worldwide
colonisations. In the prehistoric past they conquered many continents but had
to search for new lands because they soon exterminated most species of big
mammals. Their ancestors were Palaeo-Mongolids
akin to Clactonians, Tayacians,
Tabunians and Mousterians.
Their hordes swept the world in several waves culminating with the last
revival in the Bronze Age (from 3000 BC to 1200 BC). Its main bearers were
the Megalithic Ogres in western Eurasia and the Mycenaean Cyclopes in the
Balkans. About 6,000 BC the Old World saw an
amazing diaspora of their younger brothers
nicknamed as Neo-Mongolids. Their cultural identity was discerned according
to the spread of the western and eastern Combed Ware. Fatal disasters in their
history came in the Mesolithic after the extinction of mammoths. Their rarefication made big-mammal hunters retreat to the
boreal regions of northern Eurasia and later also to America. As their
makeshift they had to do with hunting the moose. In Europe, Siberia,
Australia as well as in America their hunting activities had detrimental
effects, about 40 per cent of big-mammal species were irrevocably extirpated.
These conditions make us realise that the Finno-Ugric settlements in northern Russia do not
represent original homelands but only isolated temporary refuges. As a result
their toponomastics has to cope with crossings of
several migrations: the Palaeolithic spread in civilised centres, the
Mesolithic diffusion to the northeast ends, the Neolithic pastoralist
revolution and the triumphal return to the south. Table 23 reconstructs their ethnogeny in schematic descendancy relations. Mongolids = Palaeo-Mongolids
(diaspora 60,000 BC) + Neo-Mongolids
(diaspora 6,000 BC) Ugrids = Palaeo-Mongolids
→ Ugrians, Mansi, Khanty, Ingrians, Izhorians, Veps, Varangians Neo-Mongolids = Western Uralids
→ Cheremis,
Mari, Murom, Merya,
Estonians, Mordvins Yuezhi, Koreans, Japanese, Moro in the Table
23. The schematic plan of Mongolic and Finno-Ugric subdivisions Millennia of regional cohabitation
intermingled Finno-Ugric languages
into indistinguishable clusters. None of them is a pure extraction of
Proto-Uralic ethnicity, they are all amalgamated concoctions degenerated into
hybrid mixtures. Degeneration transformed independent tribal languages into
one chaotic blend. Their original layout can be reconstructed only by the
preparation of residual anomalous elements. The pure remains of prehistoric
traits have usually been retained only in irregular conjugations,
declinations and plural endings. Classic comparative linguistics wasted time
by questing for lexical similarities though its proper duty was to search for
structural irregularities. URALIANS → k-Ugric + t-Uralian
+ i-Saamic +
s-Permian+ l-Bulgarian k-Ugrids
(Basco-Scythoids) → Ingrian, Chudic, Vepsa (Vesi), Varyags, Magyars, Xanty, Mansi t-Uralian Uralids (Sarmatids) → Finnish, Estonian, Mordvin, Ostyaks, Murom, Merya, Meru l-Bulgarian Pontids (Tungids) → Upper Mari, Lower
Mari, Karelian, Bashkir,
Volga Bolgars i-Saamic Lappids
→ Lappish, Samoyedic, Selkup, Nenets, Enets s-Permian Gothids (Corded Ware Nordids) → Uglichi,
Komi, Perm (← Barmia), Udmurt
Table
24. The
Uralic language family classified by plural endings |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
A Systematic Reclassification of Uralic Nations
Table 21. A
new systematic reclassification of Uralids and Ugrids The
dominant role of Eteo-Uralic tribes (Ugrids and Estono-Marids)
should not overshadow a great number of subdominant ethnicities that were
drowned in their peripheral surrounding. They took over the main core of the
Uralic lexical word stock but retained a number of irregularities that betray
heterogeneous origin and distinguish them from alien neighbours.
Table
22. The hypothetical ethnogeny of eastern Uralic and Mongolic tribes Extract from Pavel Bělíček: The Differential Analysis of the
Wordwide Human Varieties, Prague
2018, pp. 84-89 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
