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



*       Racial taxonomy

*       Ethnic taxonomy

*        Europe

*        Asia

*        Anatolia

*         Caucasus

*       Africa

*       Arabia

*       India

*       China

*       Indonesia

*        Indochina

*        Polynesia

*        Australia

*       North America

*       South America

*        Spain             France

*        Italy       Schweiz

*        Britain      Celts

*       Scandinavia  

*       Germany

*       Slavs     Balts      

*         Greece   Thrace

*        Anatolia

The Racial Varieties of Indochina

Clickable terms are red on yellow background




A map of Indochinese Linguonyms

(from P. Bělíček: The Differential Analysis of the Wordwide Human Varieties. Prague 2018, p. 151)



The Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burmese and Austroasiatic Ethnic Family


    Modern national mother tongues inevitably provide misleading guidance for ethnic and racial determination because they originated in the Middle Ages as an official written standard of administrative communication. In most civilised cultures they were imposed on folk commoners by the ruling dynasties of foreign invaders. In shortage of ancient manuscripts linguists seldom consult historical sources and archaeological finds, let alone ethnic folk customs. Ethnology, anthropology, raceology and religionistics accept linguistic speculations without distinguishing short-term dynastic fashions and long-term folk customs. Temporary official fashions in culture and language perish, while popular customs remain permanent and endure through time. National languages, monumental architecture, official art, royal vestment, court etiquette, manor parlance and cuisine belong to short-term temporary indicators of ethnicity, as their duration is restrained to a brief period of reigning royal dynasties. Prehistoric studies must get rid of the ill habit of judging their general categories from the court etiquette of the upper ruling classes and descend to the level of common citizens. They ought to concentrate on long durable terms traits provided by popular folklore, folktale mythology, folk huts and folk clothing since they reflect the stable customs of popular masses in the streets and villages. In the concept of Sino-Tibetan unity they must separate the lower public masses of Sinitic peasantry and artisanry from the upper elites of foreign Mongolic invaders from the north. Their ethnic element was embodied by the heroic Epic of King Gesar chanting about a khan that united a great kingdom in Central Tibet in the 12th century. The Sinoid substratum was subdued to the upper caste of Tibetan warriors but its spoken dialectal eloquence ultimately won over the official written standard. 

    The principal objection to the current linguistic accounts of the Sino-Tibetan macrofamily is that its subgroups are not biological children of Sinitic ancestors but only adopted changelings. The Mongolic element raged in Tibetan invaders, who got astray in the outlandish environment and accommodated under a new adoptive mother’s roof. They celebrated temporary victories but at last they accepted the spoken speech of Chinese tonal isolating language structures. Their elites finally succumbed to the surrounding Sinoid language equipment but enriched its framework with their own lexical and grammatical contributions. Tibetan languages resemble Ossetic patterns because both groups preserved Uralic locative cases to an astonishing extent. Classical Tibetan inherited the three cases of ergative languages with absolutives, genitives and agentives and a couple of locative cases of Uralic descent: ablatives in -nas, allatives in -la and elatives in -las.1 In its cultural equipment the Uraloid and Sarmatoid heritage is seen in terms for animal husbandry and yak-breeding, in Sarmatoid marquee tents called ndrogba, quadrangular ramparts with towers, crennels and spires and especially sky burials jhator.2 In this burial rite the deceased’s body is put on the hilltop of a mountain or volcano and left to vultures for excarnation. Such sky burials were common also in Inner Mongolia and document that the core of Mongolids consists of the Chulmun Uralids with the eatern Combed Ware and the Mansi Ugrids responsible for cupola-shaped tents (chums). This implies that Mongolids should not be taken as an independent category but represent a transitional form between Palaeo-Sibirids and Uralids.

   Traditional approaches focused on the medieval formation of national languages and their transition to extensive macrofamilies. These transformations actually resulted from royal decrees of administrative integration but a superficial look on available evidence made them appear as recent dialectal differentiation. The most important task of linguistic studies is to turn attention from recent history to remote prehistory and from the medieval confusion of tongues to their original elements and primary tribal beginnings. It is urgently vital to realise that most overwhelming changes in human glottogenesis did not take place in the period after the Iron Age but occurred as an essential part of archaeologically well-documented shifts of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic colonisations. After detailed analytic reconsideration it is needful to replace most hypothetical processes of bifurcative branching by mutations due to amalgamative integration. The alleged and suppositional processes of divergent splitting and bipartite bifurcation often turn out as outright reversals in chronology and mutual succession.

[Sino-Tibetan] + Austric] Þ Sino-Austronesian

[Tibeto-Burman] + Sino-Lappic (Sinitic, Chinese)] Þ Sino-Tibetan

[Burmic (Burmish)] + [Sino-Tungic (Palaung, Karen)] + Bodic (Tibetic)] Þ Tibeto-Burman

[Austroasiatic] + Austronesian] Þ Austric

[Tai Kadai] + Malayo-Polynesian (Oceano-Tungic)] Þ Austronesian

[Megalithic (Munda + Khasic)] + [Leptolithic (Palaungic + Karenic)] + [Macrolithic (Katuic + Pearic)] + Microlithic (Khmer +  Khmuic)] + [Pyrolithic (Aslian + Vietic)] Þ Austroasiatic

Austronesian Formosan + Tagalog + Balinese + Palau-Tongan

Tibeto-Scythic = (Munda + Santhali) + (Khasic +Jaintia)

Tibeto-Turanic (Kachin + Khmuic) + (Khmer +Monic) 

Tibeto-Tungic = (Palaungic + Karenic) + (Kra + Malayic)

Tibeto-Sarmatic = Mruic + Rakhine + Rohinga

Tibeto-Lappic = Tibeto-Negritic + Tibeto-Alpinic

Tibeto-Alpinic = (Sinitic + Vietic) + Aslian

Tibeto-Negritic = Aslian + (Andamanese + Nicobarese)

Tibeto-Elamitic = (Katuic + Pearic) + Kadai

Table 38. A new formal taxonomy of Indochinese languages



























The Composition of  Sino-Tibetan languages


The alleged Sino-Tibetan unities were not consistently compact genetic families and they should be revalidated by analysing into polyethnic compounds. Their inner compositions ought to be explained as a domain of one leading hegemon and several partially absorbed adstrata. This means that reconstructions of amalgamative proto-languages and common languages have to be replaced by analytic eteo-languages.

   Proto-Sinitic ≈ Common Sinitic Þ Eteo-Sinitic                    Proto-Mon-Khmer Þ Eteo-Austroasiatic

   Proto-Burmic Common Burmic Þ Eteo-Burmish              Proto-Tai-Kadai Þ Eteo-Tai-Kadai

Archaic O1-Sino-Lappids: Jakun 1 ´, Negeri Sembilan 3 ´, Semelai 2 ´, Semai, Semaq Beri 2 ´,

   Cheq Wing 1 ´, Semnam 1 ´.

O-Sino-Lappic stream 1: N-Ghale 1 ´, Helambu Sherpa 2 ´ Nepal, Khaling 2 ´, Kulung 3 ´, Chukwa,

Saam, Bantawa? 2 ´, Kulung 2 ´, Khaling, Lepsha, Lhokhu, Lepsha, Tsangla, Chalikha, Chug, 

Lish, Chocagacakha, Kalaklang.

O-Sino-Lappic stream 2: Chakma 4 ´, Chak, Kaang Chin 2 ´.

Q-Indo-Scythoid stream 1: E-Magar 3 ´, Bahing 2 ´, E-Magar 3 ´, Maithili 4 ´, Mechi, Mundari,

Santhali 2 ´, Mundari, Santhali, Kurux, Mahali 4 ´, Mundari 2 ´, Bihari.

Indo-Scythoid stream 2: Bishnupriya 3 ´, Metei 2 ´, Matu Chin, Mizo 3 ´, Mizo Chin 4 ´, Matu Chin.

N-Uralo-Sarmatoid: stream oriented down the Indus river: Saraiki 2 ´, Marwari 3 ´.

N-Uralo-Sarmatoid stream oriented to Gujarat: Marwari 3 ´, Noiri 2 ´.

N-Uralo-Sarmatoid stream to Burma:  Sauria Paharia, Marma 3 ´, Asho Chin 3 ´, Usoi 2 ´, Rakhine 4 ´ 

   (¬Roxolanoi), Rohingya, Mru 2 ´, Asho Chin 6 ´, Rakhine 7 ´, Rakhine 10 ´, Mah Meri 2´ (Malay).

Harappan Caucasoids with the J-haplogroup and b-plurals (Gadaba, Kota).

Dravido-Elamite J-stream (Macrolithic Dravidians with b-plurals and J-haplogroups): Kodagu, 

   Kolami, Gadaba, Purji.

Burmese Elamitoids/Europids 1: Purum, Kadu 3 ´, Burmese, Parauk Wa 2 ´, Prai, Pray, Prai 2 ´,

    Prao, Kaco‘, W-Bru 2 ´, E-Bru 2 ´, W-Bru, Kataang, Brao, W- Katu, Katua, E-Katu 1 ´.

Burmese Elamitoids/Europids 2:Atong 3 ´, Kok Borok 2 ´, Koda 2 ´, Barisal 3 ´.

Sino-Tibetan C-Tungids: Balti 1 ´, Ladakhi 7 ´, Nepali 8 ´, Dolpo 1 ´, Palpa 1 ´.

Dravidian Tungids: Ravula 1 ´, Irula 1 ´, Paliyan 1 ´, Tulu 1 ´; Telugu 3 ´, Yerukula 3 ´.

C5-Tungusoid Palaung-Karenic stream: Danu 3 ´, Palaung 2 ´, Tayngyo, Pa’o 3 ´, Bwe Karen 2 ´,

Karen 11 ´, Pwo Karen 2 ´, Pa’o, Pwo W-Thailand Karen 2 ´, Pwo Karen 1 ´.

Sino-Tibetan R1a-Turanids: Gowro 1 ´, Kohistani 1 ´, Kinauri 2 ´, Gahri 1 ´;

Tehri 1 ´, Harianvi 1 ´, Kanashi, Kinnauri 2 ´, Tehri, Kunauni 2 ´, Dangaura Tharu 1 ´, Humla 2 ´.

Dravidian R1a-Turanids: Kannada 3 ´, Malayalam 1 ´, Tamil 3 ´.

Khmerian R2a-Turanids: Khum 2´, Khmu 4´, Kasseng 1´, Khmer 11´.

Table 39. The survey of linguonymic chains in Southeast Asia


Extract from P. Bělíček: The Differential Analysis of the Wordwide Human Varieties. Prague 2018, p. 139-154

























1 Nathan W. Hill: Tibetan -las, -nas, and -bas. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale, 41 (1), 2012: 3–38.

2 Daniel Preston Martin: On the cultural ecology of sky burial on the Himalayan PlateauEast and West, 46 

  (3–4), 1996: 353–370.