Systematic methodology

Systematic ethnology

 Systematic anthropology

Systematic linguistics

Population geogenetics

Systematic poetics

 Systematic folkloristics




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 Earliest Ancestors of Acheulean, Yabrudian, Caucasian and Elamite Languages

 Clickable terms are red on the yellow background



Table 1. The Systematic Glottogenesis of Human Language Families


Map 1.  The Distribution  of Ancient Asiatic Language Families









Sperrings Inari










Narva Comb Ware culture, 4200 BC




















Gravettians, 33,000 BC





Gravettians, 33,000 BC















Sumeroid donkey-keepers, astral cults





Microlithic Natufian goat-keepers

Kebaran and Natufian culture




Microlithic rock-cut dwelllings





Yabrudian Macrolithic witht the cult of the Golden Calf





Amudian Leptolithic

Levalloisian, Emuran,  culture























Austrian Sarmatic

Hallstatt princely chariot burials, 800 BC




Austrian Sarmatic

Hallstatt princely chariot burials, 800 BC

























Pelasgic Sea Peoples




Elamitic +  Pelasgic

Elamitoid Cretan bull-leapers







 Table 2. Renaming Asiatic Language Families


Map 2. The Distribution of Caucasoid and Elamitoid Languages with b-plurals and Ergative Constructions

The Elamite and Caucasoid Family of Languages

   The problem of Caucasian proto-language and Indo-European is solved by focusing on avalanches of ephemeral sound shifts instead of considering genetic stability and structural typology. The white Caucasoid race is an outgrowth of macrolithic hand-axe populations of tall dolichocephals with vegetal subsistence and (pre)agricultural dispositions, and its development competed with the Altaic races with flake-tool cultures. These cultural traditions did not differentiate by unilinear monogenesis from a common prehistoric unity but pursued independent growth by paragenesis in several interfertile and interbreedable racial lineages. Their archetypal differences were manifested by absolutely incompatible phonologies and grammatical systems. African Negrids, Asiatic Caucasoids and European Nordids applied cordal languages, whose consonantism was based on the vibration of vocal cords and the opposition of voiced and surd phonemes (Table 3). They pronounced vocalic cordal phonemes based on open syllables and phonemes produced by airstream passing through vibrating vocal cords. If there were any structural changes, they were caused by mixing with Altaic agglutinating systems.

Negritic cordal phonology

Negrids with prenasalised stops

Acheulean cordal phonology


Indo-European cordal phonology


short vowels: i e a o u

short vowels: i a u

short vowels: i a u

weak evidence of long vowels

and diphthongs

long vowels: ī ā ū

diphthongs: ai au

long vowels: ī ā ū

diphthongs: ai au

no long diphthong or triphthong

long diphthongs: āi āu

long diphthongs: āi āu

voiced prenasals: mb- nd- ŋg- 

voiced plosives: b d g

voiced plosives: b d g


voiced plosives: b d g

voiced fricatives: v z h

surd prenasals: mp- nt- ŋk-

surd plosives: p t k

no consonant clusters

surd plosives: p t k

surd fricatives: f s χ

surd plosives: p t k

surd fricatives: f s χ

initial clusters: spr- str- skr- str-

voiced sonants:  j w l r

voiced sonants:  j w l r

voiced sonants:  j w l r

voiced nasals: m n ŋ

voiced nasals: m n

voiced nasals: m n

voiced trill r

voiced vibrant/trill: r

voiced vibrant/trill: r

Table 3. The cordal phonology of dolichocephals with macrolithic hand-axe industry

   Table 3 demonstrates an organic growth of IE phonology from the Ursprache of Elamitoid Caucasoids and its incompatibility with Germanic innovations hiding away Turanid origins. Table 4 attempts to reconstruct the steps that led to transformations of the earliest Oldowan languages into Acheulean structure in grammar. It was a process of changing Bantu language paradigms into the Caucasoid morphology and syntax. It resulted from their clash with Asiatic flake-tool cultures with agglutinating morphology. It implied turning African prefixing morphemes into Asiatic suffixing constructions and reduced Bantu nominal classifiers to the gender opposition of animate and inanimate nouns. Another result was the rise of ergative constructions inherited from Tabunian Proto-Mousterians (Homo heidelbergensis) settled in the Levant or the Arabian Peninsula.

  Elementary grammatical systems fall into three types of nominal and verbal morphology. The gender-oriented morphology is attributable to the language family of tall dolichocephals with hand-axe industry and vegetal subsistence. In its original appearance documented in African, Melanesian and Australian Negrids it partitioned nouns into classes of animate, inanimate, vegetal and arboreal classes. These classed were distinguished by prefixes put in front of nouns. In the Horn of Africa their family ran upon Asiatic races with agglutinating language structures and transitioned to suffixing morphology of inflecting type. The group of Asiatic plant-gatherers, hoe-cultivators and agriculturalists reduced the system of twelve nominal classifiers to the opposition of animate and inanimate nouns. Their category included humans, animals, animistic spirits as well as sacral deities.


Gender-oriented morphology

Negrids with nominal classifiers

Gender-oriented morphology


Sex-based gender categories


prefixing morphology

suffixing morphology

inflective morphology

noun classes/classifiers

prefixing formation

gender: animate/human inanimate

gender class: vegetal arboreal

nominal categories

suffixing gender formation:

animate/human inanimate


nominal categories

suffixing gender formation:

animate/human inanimate


number: singular mu- mo- li- e-

plural prefixes: ba- bi- mi- ma-

number: singular plural


number: singular plural dual


cases: no cases

cases: absolutive oblique

cases: nominative accusative

word order: SVO

adjective attributes: NA

nominal attributes: NG

numeral attribution NNum

word order: SVO

adjective attributes: AN (NA)

nominal attributes: NG

numeral attribution NumN

word order: SVO

adjective attributes: AN (NA)

nominal attributes: NG

numeral attribution NumN

adjunctions: prepositions

conjuctions: prejunctions

adjunctions: prepositions

conjuctions: prejunctions

adjunctions: prepositions,

conjuctions: prejunctions




Table 4. The nominal morphology of dolichocephals with macrolithic hand-axe industry

   The chief representatives of Acheulean languages were found in Anatolia, the Near East and Mideast. Their traces in Asia Minor, Judea and Mesoponamia underwent assimilation, so their best records have been preserved only in Georgian, Mingrelian, Persian and Burmese languages. Another groups of survivals may be sought in Middle and New Egyptian with w-plurals and in Ethiopian dialects. Their fates are difficult to reconstruct but we may presuppose that there existed a strong parallelism of development between Avestan and Sanskrit. Both dialectal traditions were exposed to similar partners and absorbed their influences in phonology as well as morphology.  

    The categorisation in Tables 3, 4 survived also in Anatolian tongues until their further expansion in the Balkans encountered Gravettian tribes of Alpinids with sex-based gender classifications. Their clash resulted in the rise of sex-based nominal gender enriched by masculine o-stems and feminine a-stems. The core of European languages accepted the dual opposition of masculine and feminine gender. Yet some Iranian languages remained reluctant to their addition and continued to adhere to nominal i-stems. Their subclasses coexisted with Caucasoid vegetal u/w-stems that can be explained as remains of Caucasoid b-plurals referring to agricultural crops and instruments of farming activities. The classification of Indo-European thematic and athematic stems may be regarded as a hold-over of ancient invasions and infiltrations surviving in residual form in the territory of Europe. The sex-based gender distinction of the suffixes -o and -a first appeared in African Chadic and Ethiopian Galla languages and their spread all over Europe was due to the Gravettian colonisation of short-sized brachycephals to the north. They were embedded into the system of IE accidence as new thematic stems distinguishing the masculine o-stems and feminine a-stems. The u-stems penetrated into the IE word stock with the propagation of Neolithic farming from the Fertile Crescent to the Danubian river basin.



Old Persian



Indo-Negritic  mb- nd- ŋg-         

Negritisms: amb- and- ang-



Gothoid voiced  b- d- g-

Gothoid Sinisms: bh- dh- gh- nh-

bh- dh- gh- nh-                     Sinic

Scythic ejectives p’ t’ k’

Scythoid clusters: sp- st- sk- sn- sl- sr-

hp- ht- hk- hn- hl- hr-          Scythic

Scythised cacuminals

cacuminal clusters: spr- str- skr-  zdr-

tr-  dr-            Turanic cacuminals

Scythised laminals

laminal clusters: spl- stl- skl- sn- sm- sl- 

tl- dl-             Tungusoid laminals

Scythic implosives ɓ̥ ɗ̥ ɠ̊

Scythoid surd plosives: b d g





Sanoid clicks and s-affricates: c z ʃ ʒ

tc- dc-                               Sanism



Lappisms: by- dy- gy- ny-  py- ty- ky-

by- dy- gy- ny-  py- ty- ky-  Lappic



Tungisms: tl- dl-, ʈ- ɖ-,  ṭ- ḍ- ṇ- ṣ- ẓ- ḷ- ɾ̣- ɹ̣-

ʈ- ɖ- ɳ- ʂ- ʐ- ɻ-      Dravido-Tungic



Turanisms: tr-  dr-, ʈ- ɖ-,  ṭ- ḍ- ṇ- ṣ- ẓ- ḷ- ɾ̣- ɹ̣-

ʈ- ɖ- ɳ- ʂ- ʐ- ɻ-    Dravido-Turanic

Table 5. Conservative embeddings and regressive intrusions in Old Persian consonantism

   The first autochthons in India were Negrids, whose word stock with prenasalised stops was absorbed into Sanskrit by adding the prothetic vowel a-. As a result, the initial phonemes /mb- nd- ŋg-/ were encapsulated into its norm as amb-, and- and ang-. After the arrival of black-skinned Negrids of Oldowan origin there appeared a colonisation of Acheulean hand-axe cultures (800,000 BP) that discarded prenasalisation and replaced the prefixing ba-plurals of human beings with suffixal b-plurals as in Dravidian Gadaba and Gutob in North Indian Punjab. In dialects of Central Asia they accompanied the ethnonyms of Caspii and Lullubi. 

   The first Indo-European newcomers were Campignian Littoralists (10,000 BC) with cordmarked pottery, who colonized the Vindhya Range in Gujarat. They were not populous enough to Europeanise the entire Indian subcontinent but they disposed of an advanced educated religious tradition that enabled their Brahman descendants to get hold of an enviable scriptural monopoly. They managed to reinforce it as an official administrative standard used in religious rites. Their integration involved embedding the Brahmanic Proto-Gothic voiced plosives b, d, g into the local phonological framework with murmured breathed stops bh-, dh-, gh-. Their heritage may be ascribed to Acheuloid racial groups with Y-haplogroups G and H, whose occurrence culminates in the Indian subcontinent.  

   The Dravidian element in Old Indian was represented by retroflex consonants written as , , , , , , ɾ̣,  ɹ̣ but the IPA standard records them as /ʈ, ɖ , ɳ, ʂ, ʐ, ɭ, ɻ, ɽ/. They were notable for pronunciation with the tip of the tongue bent backwards in a concave or curled shape. Their use was obliterated in most language families but their remains often survive in the affricates tr- dr-, tl- and dl-. Most types of notation do not distinguish their apical and laminal pronunciation. The laminal retroflex consonants were characteristic of Tungusoid fishermen, who disseminated them in Eurasia with Aurignacian colonisations around 40,000 BP. The apical or cacuminal retroflex consonants must have been imported by Turcoid cultures with microlithic flake-tools around 11,000 BC. These ethnic factions influenced also Iranian and Caucasian languages but in less visible measure.



(from Pavel Bělíček: The Analytic Survey of European Anthropology, Prague 2018, pp. 35-41)


The  Elamite and  Caucasoid Languages with b-plurals

    Caucasoid languages do not differ from Palaeo-Negroid languages only in age and dating, their principal difference was one between a mixed heterogeneous system and a pure archetype. They developed a new linguistic type of inflecting declensions and conjugations because their grammatical morphemes lost their original regularity and structural clarity by assimilation. Their inflecting paradigms were hybrid structures mixed from Palaeo-Negroid prefixing languages and Palaeo-Mongoloid suffixing agglutination. Some of their morphemes resulted from transforming prefixes into suffixes and some were agglutinating suffixes adopted from their northern neighbours. The inner Negroid substance was preserved transparent as a substratum in the shape of a Mongoloid environment in order to give birth to Caucasian and Indo-European irregular inflection. This result of their symbiosis was as inorganic as is the white Caucasoid and Nordic race. Both are two incongruous mixtures of black, yellow and dwarfish people in different mutual rates. In spite of their secondary derived origin, they formed compact contact unities owing to a long-term common existence. 

    In North Africa the element of Palaeo-Negroid peasants and their prefixing classifiers is still dominant but in the Near East and the Caucasus it was rather suppressed by Hamitoid pastoralists and condemned’ to a subdominant position. Originally, Palaeo-Negroids formed a continuous belt of plant-gathering populations leading from the tropical forests of Africa to the tropical forests of Austronesia. Later one stretch of this belt, centred in the Near East, formed a bridge exposed to a long-term linguistic influence of Turkic, Uralic and Altaic languages. As a result, there appeared a number of Hamitic, Semitic and Caucasian dialects with different rates of their phonemic, grammatical and lexical patterns. The most characteristic survival is a group of Lezghian languages (Budukh, Botlix, Dargin, Godoberi) that have surprisingly preserved Palaeo-Negroid phonemes, prefixing affixation, classifiers as well as subject and object markers. This deep layer of Proto-Caucasian was superimposed by Acheulian and Micoquian newcomers who started their travels in North Africa and spread a new reformed standard as far as India, the Far East and America. Caucasoid tribes remained inactive during the last Wurm glaciation and were restored to life about 10,000 BC when they set out as Basket-Makers to conquer America. Now it is amazing to compare Lezghian languages as an archaic Eteo-Negroid survival with Georgian and Kartvelian dialects that represent the reformed Caucasoid standard.

   Comparative linguistics tends to subsume Caucasoid languages chiefly into two large families. The first group are Semito-Hamitic languages (Cohen 1947; Diakonoff 1965) that were renamed as Afroasiatic family thanks to the theoretical initiative of J. H. Greenberg (1958, 1963a). The second group consists of a few independent families in the Caucasus that A. Dirr (1928) called Caucasian languages but Russian philology insists on applying the term of ‘Ibero-Caucasian languages’. These are divided into Kartvelian, Abkhazo-Adygean, Dagestani and Nakh families (Deshiriyev 1978: 90) or into Kartvelian, Abkhazo-Adygean, Avar-Andi-Cez, Lezghian, Dargino-Lak and Bats-Chechen group (Jazyki narodov SSSR IV, 1967). The Kartvelian (Georgian, Mingrelian, Zan, Svan) and Abkhaz group (Adygei, Abazin, Kabardin) are mostly found in Georgia, the Nakh group (Bats, Ingush, Chechcn) and Dagestani languages are concentrated in the east Caucasus.

    Such classifications of Caucasian languages suffer much from imprecision because it is not based on ‘genetic kinship’ but on real grouping and ‘secondary contact unities’ (Palmaitis 1978). Two layers of their common dominant superstratum, which cannot be mistaken for a common predecessor, are formed by b-languages remarkable for the plural marker -b. Other subfamilies could be classified as overlapping with Turkic, Bulgarian, Ossetic and Scythian families and denoted as something like Turco-Caucasian. Instead of introducing new tedious terms we had better use convenient working coinage such r-Caucasian as an informal concept for all Caucasian languages containing statistically relevant rates of Turcoid r-plurals.

Proto-Caucasian: Godoberi, Tindi, Bagvali, Dargin, Tsaxur, Bezhita, Rutul,

b-Caucasian: Georgian, Mingrelian, Lazi, Svan, Ginux, Gunzib, Xvarshi,

r-Caucasian: Agul, Rutul, Tsaxur, Archi, Budux, Xinalug, Kryz

l-Caucasian: Svan, Avar, Andi, Botlix, Axvax, Bezhita,

    Caucasoid b-languages in Nigeria, Chad and Sudan cannot be divided into areal groups, either. Their westernmost belt starts with the Fula or Western Atlantic subgroup (Wolof, Serer, Fula), Hausa group (Hausa, Yoruba, Kotoko) and a Chadic subfamily (Bolewa, Kotoko). The Coptic group includes (Middle Coptic, Middle Egyptian) and some Cushitic languages (Sidomo, Iraqw). In the Near East their stock was represented by Elamite that stands for related dead languages of Kaspii, Gutii and Lullubei. In the Caucasus their belt continued with b-Caucasian languages. Further travels continued to the east and settled down in Tokharian remarkable for the plural ending -wa (Poboźńiak 1985: 258.). Since the tongues of Harappa civilisation have not been deciphered satisfactorily, their progeny must be sought in most Indian and some Dravidian languages. In southern India the peasant substratum with b-plurals is represented by the Kodagu subgroup of Dravidians (Khonde, Kota, Kolami, Kodagu and Gadaba). Nobody can prove that they are Acheulian autochthons who as far as the Movius Line in eastern India where their eastward travels stopped (Feder, Park 1997: 255).

   More active that this isolated archaic settlement was the group of Basket-Makers that penetrated to the Amur and the Far East about 8,000 BC. The family of Palaeo-Siberian languages with b-plurals includes Youkaghir, Aleutian and Koryak, other kinsmen of this stock probably became extinct amidst the Ural-Altaic element. The plurals in -vlak in Mari may document one isolated islet and one possible travel route across Siberia. After passing the Bering Strait basket-makers proceeded southward to the fertile lowland plains in the southeast of North America but their mainstream headed for Mexico.  The Siouan, Caddoan and Mayan families had probably their starting-po Turkmenistan. The Tupí-Guaraní group, on the other hand, seems to grow out from more ancient roots of Austronesian stamp.


The Caucasoid Declension

    Inflecting languages are considered as one of independent linguistics types common in the European and Caucasian area (Skalička 1951; Miłewski 1948). Typical inflecting systems may be studied in the Indo-European family and the Kartvelian group. Inflection resembles agglutination safe for a lack of clear etymology and structural regularity. Whereas Ural-Altaic agglutinating suffixes may be joined arbitrarily and cumulated mechanically to one another, every Indo-European and Caucasian inflecting marker is a unique complex indecomposable unit without clear etymology. Owing to a strong tendency to fuse morphemes into irreducible units, inflecting and ‘flectional’ languages are also classified as fusional, ‘amalgamating’ or ‘assimilating’ language structures (Axmatova 1966: 532, Erhart 1984).

    The most remarkable manifestation of inflection are Indo-European declensions considered as system of case paradigms divided according to different stems, numbers and gender categories. The Caucasoid inflection may be represented by Elamite that that has two gender categories (genus personale for animate beings and genus materiale for inanimate things). There are two numbers, singular and plural, no evidence of duals was indicated. Singulars of animate nouns end in -k, their plurals are remarkable for the ending -p that corresponds to the markers ua-, ui- and pi- in Hattic. Inaminate nouns have a singular marker -r and a plural ending -me which is often dropped. This state of nominal categories is compatible with Hattic, Luvian and Hittite that display the opposition of animate gender and genus commune for inanimate abstract and material entities (Labat 1947, McAlpin 1974).

    Less typical is the state in Hurrian, Urartean and Georgian. These languages are Caucasoid in lexical substance but they lack nominal gender and their case paradigms exhibit more agglutination than pure inflection (Klimov 1979: 115). The Geogian plural marker -eb, Elamite animate plurals in -p and Hattic ua- and Aramaic -w demonstrate how the Bantu animate plural prefix b/ba- turned into the Caucasian animate suffix -p/b. Under the influence of the suffixing Asiatic languages Caucasoid dialects abandoned prefixing morphology and shifted the classificatory prefixes to the end of the word. The original prefixed plural markers were preserved in Hattic pi-, Gunzib b- or Hokan ba-. In other languages they were shifted to the word-final position and appended to the root as inflecting suffixes.

     On the Caucasian crossroad of prehistoric civilisations the Palaeo-Negroid nominative construction clashed with the Palaeo-Mongoloid accusative construction to give birth to the Caucasian ergative construction. Caucasoid morphology developed from Palaeo-Negroid classifiers by several fundamental overturns. The most important step consisted in abandoning Palaeo-Negroid object markers and verbal infixes that were replaced by case endings attached to nouns. Caucasian case systems and European declensions originated by dissociating verbal affixes from verbs and attaching them to nouns in objects following the verb. So the Bantu causative verbal infix -s- probably turned into the ergative case s-ending in Caucasoid languages and the Bantu plural marker b- became the ending of the Caucasian absolutive case. In European languages, where the accusative construction won owing to Mesolithic hunters of Asiatic origin, this transformation proceeded in a different way. The Negroid causative infix -s- became the ending of plural nominatives and the marker -b- began to refer to plural datives.

   There were several groups of languages involved in the ‘ergative revolution’. Ergativity became very common in the Hamitic, Abxaz and Scythian family of megalithic cultures though their southernmost archaic promontories in South Africa (Hottentot Nama, Masai) have an accusative construction. These pastoralist cultures were intertwined with colonies Caucasian peasants who acquired the ergative construction by copying Hamitic syntax. Indo-European languages either escaped ergative constructions or disentangled their remains by adapting them to Asiatic accusative syntax (Schmalstieg 1980, 1985).

(from Pavel Bělíček: Prehistoric Dialects I, Prague 20014, pp. 206-208, 219-220)