|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
The Families of Pelasgic, Tungusic and Uto-Aztecan Languages Clickable terms are red on the yellow background |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Table 1. The Systematic Glottogenesis of Human Language
Families |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 2. Aurignacian
Tungids (38,000 BC) with
ochre burials, tepee tents, lake-dwellings, prismatic knives and Y-hg C (from Pavel Bělíček: The Atlas of Systematic
Anthropology I. The Synthetic Classification
of Human Phenotypes and Varieties. Prague 2018, Map 5, pp. 77) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Palaeolithic Origins of Levalloisian 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
Traditional approaches insist on the dogma of unilinear
sapientisation and concentrate on Homo sapiens sapiens from 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: 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 Rhodesian
man may be closely related to Steinheim man (from
250,000 to 200,000 BC), who probably imported Mousterian-type Tayacian artifacts to The Pelasgic and Turanic Retroflexive Consonants The heritage of European Pelasgians is hidden in clusters of neighbouring
languages and may be reconstructed only by means of indirect parallels. Their
racial and lexical component was significant in Bulgarian, Italian, French
and Irish dialects and constituted the core of the Mediterranean race. The
families of Mediterranean lake-dwellers, Pelasgic
seafarers and mythical Hyperboreans in the The families of Pelasgoid, Tungusoid, Turanic and
Dravidians languages descend from the Levalloisian stock of the Early Neanderthalers or Denisovans,
who were piscivorous fishers and lived in waterside
post-dwellings on wooden piers. Their languages were remarkable for the
opposition of aspirated fortis and lenis
consonants. Another characteristic marker were retroflexive
stop that often degenerated into consonantal diphthongs tl,
dl, tr, dr. They were
preserved best in the Dravidian languages of The Greek Pelasgians
recognised as their closest relatives Lelegs, Karians, Lydians and Palaites. Their original language is usually
reconstructed from a few rare remains in Greek dialects such as the lexical
suffixes -inthos and -issos,
used in hyakinthos ‘hyacinth’ and kyparissos ‘cypress’ (Georgiev
1958; Katićić 1976). The original
appearance of Pelasgian probably resembled Lydian,
an Anatolian language with l-plurals and retroflexed laterals (Shevoroshkin 1967: 24). The Lydians
separated as an independent nation under their ruler Gyges
(692-654 BC). Their own autonym was Maiones
written by the ancient Greeks as Мήονες (Shevoroshkin
1967: 11). The Iranian family consists of pastoralists inhabiting dry arid grasslands and it hardly
contains any ancient lake-dwellers except for the Munja
and Pashai, whose language uses the plural ending -ēlā. The Pashai
plural marker kuli is a less reliable trait
of Palaeo-Bulgarian ancestry because it appears in
many Indo-Iranian dialects (Yefimov, Edel’man 1978: 277).
An Iranian bridge must be presupposed as
a station on the corridor to the Dravidian family. The Dravidian riverside
fishermen and sea peoples consist of the Turcoid
group (Malayam, Kannada, Old Tamil, Kurukh, Kui) with r-plurals
and a Tungusoid group (Telugu, Tulu,
New Tamil, Kolami) with l-plurals. The Tulu plural mēji-lu
‘tables’ adds a plural suffix -lu to sg. mēji. The same
plural marker is attached to the Telugu plural gurrā-lu
‘horses. Modern Tamil uses plurals in -al` where Classic
Tamil applied endings in –ār (Andronov 1962). Gadaba sg. ki – pl. kil ‘hands’ and Kolami buza-l ‘breasts’ illustrate the plural suffix -l.
Kolami kand-l
‘eyes’ from sg. kan,
Naiki kan-l
and Purji kan-ul
‘eyes’ probably indicate a Palaeo-Bulgarian
root kan ‘eye’ (Andronov
1978: 350-5). The same group of Dravidian languages tends to exhibit lambdacism and reproduce z` by l`. While
r-Dravidian languages Kui, Kuvi,
Braui, Konda and Gadaba display the rhotacism z` > r`, Modern Tamil, Tulu,
Kolami carry out a lambdacism
z` > l (Andronov 1978: 340). In r-Dravidian dialect of The opposition of rhotacism
and lambdacism functions as a distinctive trait
evident in the ethnonymic pairs Tur-,
Dravid-, Tulu,
Telugu. It also helps to distinguish two branches of Polynesian
seafarers. One Turcoid group translated the Altaic god
of heavens Torgut as Tagarro
while the other Tungusoid branch called the same
god Tagalo. The Tungusoid
branch did not come from Reconstructing
residual dialects presupposes dissecting them from the
dominant superstratum according
to a few characteristic residual traits. Pelasgoid and Tungusoid dialects may be delimited
roughly as a group of languages with l-plurals, lambdacism, alternations d/t/s/r
> 1, four laterals
with retroflexed pronunciation, ‘dzekanye’
de > dz and futuropraesentia with b-markers. Their characteristic sounds are retroflexed laterals dl, tl pronounced
as lateral diphones (consonant affricates) dl, tl
or consonant clusters dl, tl. Their structure tends to lay the stress on the penultimate and exhibit vertical vowel harmony. Linguistic comparison must, however, be preceded by reliable cultural parallels. Reliable typological criteria can be seen
in pile-dwellings, cave burials, menhir tombstones and mollusc necklaces. The anthropological evidence of Tungids is
less conspicuous, it rests on epicanthus,
leptorrhinia, gracile countenance and higher rates of blood groups
B. (from
P. Bělíček: Prehistoric Dialects, Prague 2004, pp. 559-401) |
|
The Pulmonic Sound-Repertory of Levalloisian, Pelasgic and Tungusic
Languages On the other hand, Altaic small-game pastoralists and nomadic fishers created a specific pulmonic phonology relying on front rounded vowels and
the correlation of fortis and lenis plosives (Table
6). They spoke consonantal pulmonic
languages1 produced by the air
pressure coming from the lungs with different degrees of explosive and aspirative force. According to their tension and
explosive charge, their consonants split into fortis
and lenis phonemes. Their vowels distinguished tense and lax counterparts,
too. They were semantically irrelevant as they harmonised the syllabic relief
by vocalic synharmony. Its purpose was to balance
series of consonantal clusters infilled with front
or back rounded vowels. Their pronunciation was often mutated by retroflex
colouring. Their stock was divided into Turanids
with apical retroflex rhotacism and Tungids with laminal retroflex rhotacism.
Table
6. The pulmonic
phonology of Turcoids and Tungids
with flake-tool industry 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. This categorisation 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 Gothids accepted the dual opposition of
masculine and feminine gender but their core 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 The so-called IE t-stems are
reserved for animal species and prevail in terms for pastoralist
herding and animal husbandry. They must have been imported from Uralic
languages with t-plurals by means of Sarmatian
raiders and Hallstattian colonists. A similar
account may be given to r-stems that append the marker -r in
Latin sg. genus as opposed to pl. genera.
Their origin may be hypothesised as an import of Mesolithic Turcoid tribes with microlith
flake-tools and r-plural. The occurrence of r-plurals and
umlaut change in German Bach – Bächer, Buch – Bücher is
incorrectly elucidated as a consequence of rhotacism
-s > -r without seeing parallels to Turcoid
pluralisation and vowel harmony.
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) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
