Prehistoric tribes

Prehistoric races

Prehistoric languages

Prehistoric haplogroups








*     Genetic taxonomy

*     Ethnic taxonomy

*     Europids

*     Nordids

*     Indids

*     Littoralids

*     Caucasoids

*     Elamitoids

*     Negrids

*     Melanids

*     Tungids

*     Pelasgids

*     Cimbroids

*     Turanids 

*     Ugro-Scythids

*     Uralo-Sarmatids

*     Lappids

*     Sinids



The Y-DNA Haplogroups of Principal Races

                      Clickable terms are red on the yellow background




Table 1. The Current Official Mid-Range Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree (, 2015) (, 2015)

Table 2. The Hypothetical Model of Long-Range Genetic Transitions of Y-DNA Haplogroups


Map 1. The World Ethnic Bearers of Y-DNA Haplogroups


Archaeological axe-tool cultures

Dolichocephalic anthropological groups

Y-DNA genetics

Kafuans Kafuans + Oldowans

H. ergaster H. ergaster + H. erectus

DE    DE + D

Kafuans Kafuans + Anyathians

H. ergaster    H. ergaster  + Indo-Negroids           

DE   DE + F

Kafuans Kafuans + Sangoans 

H. ergaster Paleo-Negrids + Neo-Negrids

DE   DE + E

Kafuans Sangoans + Chelleans

Paleo-Negrids Neo-Negrids + Chelleans

DE E + F

Sangoans Epi-Sangoans + Lupembans 

Neo-Negrids Congoids + Bantuids

E E1 + E2

Chelleans Chelleans + Abbevillians

Chelleans Chelleans + Caucasoids


Abbevillians Acheuleans + Irrawaddians

Caucasoids Gothonids + Burmids/Hmongids


Acheuleans Micoquians + Yabrudians

Gothonids Europids + Hethoids/Elamitoids


Micoquians Macrolithic + Campignians

Europids Gothids+Jomon/Vindhya Littorids


Macrolithic  Gothids + Gothonids

Gothids Gothids + Levantine Hethoids

IJ   I + J

Gothids Corded Ware + LBK Danubians

Gothids Gotho-Frisians + Langobards

I I1 + I2

Epi-Oldowans Hoabinhians + Lapita?

Epi-Oldowans Papuasids + Melanesids

K2bl S + M

Table 3.  The branching of dolichocephalic cultures, races and haplogroups










































The Mid-Range Reach of Chromosomal Genome Typology


   Current population genetics defends African origins and Chris Stringer’s ‘single-origin model’. It supports theories of strict monogenism in belief that one sapient race colonised the world from one homeland in East Africa (cca 90,000 BP). This influential and widely-acknowledged theory glorifies Homo sapiens as the champion of myths about his triumphal ‘out-of-Africa exodus’. He allegedly exterminated the species of all previous hominins and invaded all continents by his offspring. Such theoretical philosophy of hominisation develops genealogic trees in Table 1 that arrange a series of Y-DNA haplogroups starting from African clades A (Sanids, Pygmids), B (Khoids), CT (East-African Kafrids, and Tungids) and E (Negrids). They explain their succession by adding further adaptive mutations. The crucial pioneering role of a genetic starting-point is confided to the care of the Sanids, Khoids, Kafrids and Negrids, who populated the Old World by the living races of humankind.

Table 4.  The simplified genealogic tree of Y-DNA haplogroups

   The out-out-Africa wandering sounds like as tenable hypothesis but its dating must be shifted to the earlier times of Oldowan migrations from 1.8 mya to 0.5 mya. There exists little evidence supporting the alternative theory of an out-of-Asia model but it is worth taking into account. Besides the Riwat flake-tool culture (2 mya) in north Pakistan it is necessary to scrutinise Asiatic hominins as an independent genetic strain evolving inclinations to green, yellow and red pigmentation. Asiatic orangutans and gibbons exhibited green, grey, yellow and red hair pigmentation. Prehistoric megalith-builders in Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia, Siberia and American displayed tendencies to red hair and also reddish skin. This is why Amerindians called themselves ‘redskins’ and Linné classified them as Homo Americanus rubescens. The Altaic area became the staple cradleland of Asiatic races (Mongolids, Tungids, Uralids, Turanids) and served as the base of their later diasporas. The out-of-Asia hypothesis would be consistent with the out-of-Africa model, if its exodus had a different chronological dating. Their racial typology is compatible even though their Y-haplogroups in Table 4 do not exhibit comprehensible transitions.

   According to temporal durability, anthropological parameters may be divided into short-range markers, mid-range markers and long-range markers. The ABO blood groups belong to the category of long-range markers because they encroach upon typology shared by leptorrhinian apes in the Old World and the platyrrhinian monkeys in the New World. On the other hand, chromosomal population genetics may induce only a subcategorisation operating on a shorter interval of mid-range markers. The Classification of Y-DNA Haplogroups A, B, E developed from lineages descending from Africa and their distribution is  practically confined only to African countries. In Asia they came across the racial division of Denisovans, who were born in Asia. Their haplogroups C and R probably stem from the Altaic cradle land in Asia.

   Most anthropologists adhere to the Chris Stinger’s monogenetic single-origin theory that derived the descent of humankind from African hominids. They support the out-of-Africa model of anthropogenesis that claims that all living races owe their roots to Homo sapiens born in eastern Africa about 130 000 BP. In opposition to its hypotheses Milford H. Wolpoff’s papers advanced arguments giving preference to Weidenreich’s multi-regional approach counting with different  homelands of humanity and several independent regional centres of human evolution. His views point out that Denisovans represented an alternative prehistoric civilisation based on flake-tool industry produced by of methods of Levalloisian technology.

    Current accounts of population genetics have summarised the monogenetic classification that endeavours to arrange all human chromosomal Y-DNA haplotypes into one evolutionary tree. It attempts to explain their rise via series of successive mutations. The contemporary widely-accepted ordering of Y-DNA genomes is outlined in Table 4. It enjoys an autoritative influence but cannot conceal some apparent inconsistencies. It fails to associate the African Negrids with the Oceanic Melanids and the African Pygmids with the Negrito of South East Asia. Neither does it associate the Uralids with the haplotype N with the Ugrids who share the Y-haplotype Q with Amerindian wigwam-dwellers. To our surprise, it finds the N-haplogroup of Uralids closely related kinsmen in the shortsized Sinids with incompatible isolating languages. Table 3 takes these incongruences into account and proposes a hypothetical model of genetic paragenesis between interbreedable racial phenotypes with a high degree of mutual interfertility.


Extract from Pavel Bělíček: The Synthetic Classification of Human Phenotypes and Varieties. Prague 2018, pp. 19-20










































The Anthropogenesis of the Dolichocephalous Axe-Tool People


    All ethnic families are interrelated with our remote forefathers, who descended from the equatorial race of African Negrids. Their stock encompasses almost half of humans stemming from prehistoric axe-tool makers, plant-gatherers and preagriculturalists. Table 3 depicts their evolutionary splitting by means of a genealogic tree graph pursuing the branching of Y-DNA haplogroups (their abbreviations are written E-hg, I-hg etc. This graph omits the lineages of Lappids, Scytho-Ugrids and Ural-Altaic flake-tool makers and concentrates only on the evolution of equatorial dark-skinned Negrids, who mixed with northern boreal races and gradually developed into light-skinned Caucasoids and Europids.

Table 5.  The phylogenetic tree of plant-gatherers and axe-tool makers

    The forthcoming Table 3 attempts to record the parallel splitting of human stocks by the notation of generative grammars. It copes with several unsolved incongruous discrepancies concerning the haplotypes K, D and M. It revives several seemingly obsolete terms of archaeology such as Kafuans, Chelleans, Abbevillians, Anyathians and Campignians classified as Littorids. They are regarded as outdated but appear necessary for filling up certain empty pigeon-holes in the evolutionary process. The category of Acheulean culture covers a period that is too large to express subtle nuances of cultural growth. Archaeologists should follow Louis Leakey, who specified eleven evolutionary stages of the Chelleo-Acheulean ‘hand axe culture.1 The chief problem has to do with the descendants of the Y-DNA haplogroups DE and D. They headed for India, China and Melanesia and must have participated in the birth of Australoid races. A large gap divides from the Oceanic haplotypes M and S, whose rise is erroneously associated with the genome K of Europoid Littorids spreading the shell-midden Lapita culture (5,000 BC). In spite of a few unclarities, Table 3 gives an approximate but instructive visual representation of progress in the largest stock of humanity.


Extract from Pavel Bělíček: The Differential Analysis of the Wordwide Human Varieties. Prague 2018, pp. 11-13

























































1 Peter Robertshaw: A History of African Archaeology. J. Currey, 1990,  p. 81ff.