Systematic methodology

Systematic ethnology

 Systematic anthropology                 

Systematic linguistics

Population geogenetics

Systematic poetics

 Systematic fokloristics                    




Prehistoric tribes

 Prehistoric races

Prehistoric languages

Population ethnogenetics

   Literary genres

Prehistoric folklore











*     Racial taxonomy

*     Ethnical taxonomy

*     Europids

*     Nordids

*     Indids

*     Littoralids

*     Caucasoids

*     Elamitoids

*     Negrids

*     Melanids

*     Tungids

*     Pelasgids

*     Cimbroids

*     Turanids 

*     Ugro-Scythids

*     Uralo-Sarmatids

*     Lappids

*     Sinids



*     Spain                France

*     Italy       Benelux

*      Britain         Celts

*      Scandinavia  

*     Germany

*     Balts        Slavs

*     Greece

*     Anatolia




Evolutionary Paragenesis as a Middle Way between Anthropological Monogenesis and Polynenesis

Clickable terms are red on the yellow or green background



The  Theoretical Foundations  of  Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistoric Studies




*     The  Paragenetic Model of Human Evolution from Hominids

*     The Tenets of Evolutionary Paragenesis

*     Evolutionary Paragenesis as a Middle Way between Anthropological Monogenesis and Polynenesis

*     The Folktale Typology of Prehistoric Races

*     The Origins of Human Religious Faiths



*     Errors in the Traditional Classification of Races

*     Principles of Systematic Evolutionary Taxonomy

*     The Phylogenetic Trees of Human Stocks

*     The Transition from Hominids to Hominins

*     Systematic Anthropology


Evolutionary Paragenesis as a Middle Way between Anthropological Monogenesis and Polynenesis


   Classic palaeoanthropology wasted much energy on generic terms, it abounded in terms such as Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus that classified hominins as independent genera. Current nomenclature teems unduly with species, it applies a lot of binomial terms as such Homo habilis, H. ergaster and H. floresiences that should be classed as subspecies or varieties. They do not sound much more acceptable as they presuppose that most hominins represented closely related but not interbreedable or intermarriageable species. They are reluctant to acknowledge that in the Lower Palaeolithic all genetic distances were much lesser than now and there existed gene flow between related varieties. A more critical view maintains that most archaic stocks of man were interbreedable racial varieties so that the most appropriate catchwords for palaeoanthropological categories would be Homo habilis ergaster or Home habilis erectus. The best proof of abundant mutual interfertility is the spread of Homo erectus in Southeast Asia that lasted almost two million years and engendered many mixed races (Zwischenrasen) of black equatorial populations with Oldowan industry and (pre)agricultural dispositions.

   Species and genera are anthropological formations arisen by processes of adaptive speciation in isolated populations. Their origin resembles the hardening of a flux of hot plasmatic magma springing from volcanoes. It is a fallacy to imagine that the ancestors of man developed in a series of ten incompatible genera of primates. A more likely model depicts their growth as a chain of transitional evolutionary forms where one undifferentiated mainstream advanced forth and left over many sidelong outgrowths that later hardened into firm generic shapes on isolated byways. Besides unilinear monogenesis there were also parallel minor side streams of paragenesis cutting across half-bred species. It means that the earliest members of the genus Homo were interbreedable races and their direct predecessors may have hybridised even with advanced Paranthropinae and Australopithecinae.

    Racial varieties do not grow up in a few centuries, their somatic differences are determined by hundred thousand years of adaptation to a definite ecotype and a mode of earning tribal living. They cannot have originated in civilised mixed societies with variegated and diversiform nutrition. Conforming adaptation is possible only in isolated regions with a narrow range of subsistence such as insular Polynesia, whose tribes are entirely dependent on fishing, angling and sailing. The main requirement of speciation are convergent influences of a definite ecotype and local natural sources that can produce amazing stability and perseverance in genetic patterns.

   The primary goal of anthropology is to localise the cradlelands of primary races (proto-races), and find out their links to homelands of secondary races (deutero-races). They usually lie along the long-range migratory routes lined by campsites of mixed transient races. The greatest error in anthropology consists in the false conviction that transient races are independent cultivars grown swiftly out of local climatic and geomorphological conditions. In fact, evolution involves genetic perseverance, it adds new mutations but preserves all the previous mutative changes. Mixed hybrids develop genomes of pureblooded ancestors and remain their subclades. There exist only few primary races but infinitely many derived mixed races that have to be decomposed into ancestral genealogic lineages.









   The basic primary prototype of human species was the black ulotrichous equatorial race, whose primary seat lay in the tropical rainforests of Africa. More than a half of other ethnic domains are just derived colonies of its plantations. Its heirs in the Near East, Caucasus and South Asia lost original dark pigmentation but found their ideal natural paradise in the (sub)tropical regions of Melanesia, Oceania and Australia. The woolly frizzly hair of African Negrids changed into the wavy and curly hair of Australids and Melanesids. In Fijians it assumed straight texture owing to high Polynesian admixture. On all continents the black ulotrichous equatorial race paved its own way of gradual sapientisation and gracilisation but everywhere it maintained its previous genetic heritage.

   The most urgent theoretical requirement of prehistoric studies is to abandon the dogmatic Extinction Theory and replace it by the flexible accounts of Alinei’s Palaeolithic Survival Theory. It argues that the human past is not forever dead but it continues to survive in our blood and chromosomes. Inheritance does not jump wildly by mutations from one genus to another but preserves all previous mutations and engenders new subordinated varieties as its subclades. It presupposes the principle of racial interfertility2 maintained by the so-called ring species (German Rassenkreise)3 admitting temporary mixed mating. Such ring species unite series of early populations, which can primarily interbreed with each other but later they fail to beget crossbreds. After a longer period of adaptive speciation and adding new and new specific mutations they cease to be interfertile races.

   Such dilemma befell the genus of Australopithecinae, who acted as an in-between linking open-air hominins with rain-forest hominids. Either they were pulled down into the local or regional gene flow between neighbouring populations or they separated from their mainstream and restored cohabitation with the backward rainforest species. At first they coexisted as interbreedable races but millennia of adaptive isolation made them speciate into a diverse species and genus. Such a model of genetic mating sheds new light on the beginnings of all hominids and hominins. It means that all binomial designations in the genus Homo could live together as interbreedable subspecies or racial varieties, whereas Paranthropinae and Australopithecinae lost contact and underwent regressive mutations due to return to the rainforest thicket.


Extract from P. Bělíček: The Synthetic Classification of Human Phenotypes and Varieties Prague 2018, p. 10-12

Propositions of Evolutionary Paragenesis

    Reconstructions of chief human genetic lineages lead to the following conclusions:

(1) All races of hominins were interbreedable statistic populations that survived in several parallel genetic lineages and simultaneous tendencies. Their growth was not a story of unilinear monogenesis but variegated multi-regional paragenesis in several parallel lines.

(2) There was no single, unique and god’s chosen champion of sapientisation who exterminated all alternative races of hominins. Its progress had many regional heralds, leaders and torch-bringers.

(3) Homo sapiens was not a unique progenitor of humankind but a common evolutionary Middle Palaeolithic stage of all hominins. Its categorial label covered most contemporary racial varieties.

(4) The assumed independent species of the genus Homo have to be differentiated into parallel genetic cultivars and successive evolutionary stages. Homo sapiens was not a type-specific hominin species but an assimilative phase of most Lower Palaeolithic hominins. His concept originated as a consequence of overrating the gracile and slender look of Levalloisian/Aurignacian people with Leptolithic industry.

(5) Long-range anthropic markers (racial phenotypes, folk architecture, clothing style, totemistic cults) demonstrate that there were no extinct races of hominins that fell victim to the predatory fads of one victorious sapiensator. There were only regional minorities absorbed by more advanced populations. 

(6) The evolutionary processes of hominisation, sapientisation and gracilisation affected all genetic lineages of hominids and hominins in equal rates but proceeded at faster pace in cultural centres and at slower speed in peripheral isolation (in insular colonies, exotic paradises and rainforest thickets).

(7) Anthropopithecinae could pursue two alternative fates. In open-air centres they integrated as a subvariety of the genus Homo, in rainforest thickets their progressive evolution lapsed into regressive devolution and converged to integration with lower apes.

(8) Speciation usually terminated progressive evolution and resulted into a phase of genetic stagnation.

(9) The immigrants in the Levantine centre mostly promoted and accelerated their genetic potential, while Australian colonists underwent degenerative changes in contact with isolated local aborigines.

(10) What we discuss as the alleged independent hominins species were actually intermarriageable human varieties that lost interfertility and became independent species only later by isolative speciation.  

(11) The archaeological complexes of Oldowans, Clactonians, Mousterians, Denisovans and Acheuleans did not die out but survived in the living racial varieties of humankind.    

(12) The monistic philosophy of anthropological thought teaches to unite all accessible racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious and archaeological evidence and treat human varieties in one integrated whole.

Extract from P. Bělíček: The Synthetic Classification of Human Phenotypes and Varieties Prague 2018, pp. 22-23



Arguments for Evolutionary Paragenesis

*   The black equatorial race was principally opposed to the Asiatic or Altaic races living in the boreal zone of Eurasia. The beginnings were probably shaped in the colder temperate regions of South Africa. Their earliest antecessors Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis and Homo heidelbergensis look like hypothetical taxa but they are embodied in the surviving racial varieties of the lake-dwelling Kafrids of East Africa and the cattle-breeding nationality of Khoekhoe Khoids. The latter group is now restrained only to arid regions of Kalahari Desert but its residual vestiges can be traced up also in the cupolar beehive huts typical of their clansmen all over the world.

*  About 500,000 years ago Homo habilis emerged in Eurasia as a live carrier of the Levalloisan flake-tool culture. Archaeologists grudge it the status of an autonomous self-contained archaeological complex but its spread from East Africa to Palestine and the waterside areas of South Europe leave no doubts about the existence of a real tribal stock. A side-branch of their wandering hosts headed for India to propagate fishing subsistence in its waterside areas. They were probably identical to the new lineage of Denisovans comparable to the Asiatic Neanderthals.

* Homo denisoviensis is now classified as a close relative of classic Neanderthals and dubbed also as Homo altaiensis (Altai man) or Homo siberiensis Siberian man’. John D. Croft’s model (Map 1) assumes that they both descended from Homo heidebergensis drifting from Africa. Their difference may correspond to the distinction between the Levalloisian Progressive or Early Neanderthals and the Mousterian Classic or Late Neanderthals.1

* The prehistoric travels of Altaic races are hard to discern because they buried their dead by exposition on the scaffolding or by drowning their corpse in deep waters. Their religious creeds hindered them from interring their bodies by inhumation in the earth because their souls had to be sent out on a long travel to a faraway underworld called Tartarus.

* The Pygmids and Lappids disappeared from the sight of palaeoanthropologists on account of different reasons. They buried their dead forefathers by cremation, carried their burnt ashes in grass-woven bags and scattered them in rainforest solitude. The only probable migrations of their stock were the Negrito diaspora about 62,000 BP in Southeast Asia and the Gravettian expansion in Eurasia about 33,000 BP.


Extract from P. Bělíček: The Synthetic Classification of Human Phenotypes and Varieties Prague 2018, pp. 22-23


The  Paragenetic Model of Human Evolution from Hominids

   The paragenetic model of prehistory presupposes that most hominins and hominids lived in relative interbreeding and their genetic distances were much nearer than now. What we denote as detached genera and species were actually interfertile genetic races, strains, lineages, crosses and hybrids that later lost mutual interfertility owing to isolation in different hominoid populations. It is not plausible that they developed by large jumps from one genus to another, they must have maintained and preserved their genetic pool through progressive evolutionary metamorphoses. Many categories of genus and species were only generations, so the extant binomial and trinomial anthropological classification should adopt a special term for transient generations. All strains underwent parallel processes of hominisation, gracilisation and sapientisation by means of radical revolutions and longer stages of conservative inertia. Hominins split off hominids and hominoids as a special genetic stream competing with alternative strains of Paranthropines and Australopithecines. Participation in different population strains caused intraspecial differentiation. In the following evolutionary series the symbol ­ means digression while the arrow → implies genetic continuity. It does not mean direct mother-daugher inheritance but a complex statistic process with many digressions splitting off the dominant mainstream. The following series are chief statistic mainstreams that suggest that the Palaeolithic Urrassen had different ancestors but converged to one of predominant Neolithic racial varieties.   


Tall robust dolichocephalous herbivores with marked crista sagittalis

Gigantopithecus (9 mya) Ouranopithecus (9 mya) (­ Gorillas (9 mya))Paranthropus aethiopicus (2.5 mya) (­ Paranthropus robustus (2 mya)) Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya) Australopithecus sediba (1.8 mya) Homo gautengensis (1.8 mya) Homo erectus (1.8 mya) → Oldowans (1.8 mya).


Slender piscivores with tall and leptoprosopic flattish faces:

Proconsul africanus (23 mya) Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 mya) Australopithecus afarensis (3.92.9 mya) Homo habilis (2.1–1.5 mya)Homo rudolfensis (2–1.5 mya) → Levalloisians (0.5 mya).


Tall brachycephalous carnivores and big-game hunters with narrow aquiline noses

Australopithecus anamensis (4.5 mya) Laetoli man Homo heidebergensis Homo rhodensis (0.5 mya) (­ Saldanha man) Homo neanderthalensis → Mousterians.


Shortsized  brachycephalous omnivores:

Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya) Ardipithecus kadabba (­ Pan paniscus (Bonobo)) → Australo-pithecus afarensis (3.9 mya) Homo habilis → Sanids Pygmids (­ Homo floresiensis) → Sinids.


Table 1. The paragenetic model of racial diversification












2 J. D. Peck, A. Janitz, L. B. Craig: Ethnic and racial differences in the prevalence of infertility. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 106, 3, 2016, p. 8.

3 Bernhard Rensch: Über die Bedeutung des Prinzips geographischer Rassenkreise. Berlin 1932.

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