Systematic methodology

Practically all proto-languages, common languages and their language families rely on several unconfirmed and uncertified presuppositions of ‘prehistoric unitarianism’. They believe that human cultures and languages originated by a sort of self-fertilising autogenesis enabling a procreation of a single ancestral Adam, who spread one proto-language, populated some vast area and filled it with his family offspring. Every continent, country and region had one unique progenitor, spoke one pure father tongue and grew into an entire nation. In the Bronze Age human populations of entire Europe spoke an integrated and undivided paternal tongue of Common Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European. As a result, modern European languages arose as pure splinters of one racial, ethnic and linguistic stock and can be derived straight from Sanskrit ancestry. Consequent implications assume that antediluvian populations are now extinct, descendants of Palaeolithic tribes are dead and their survivals are irrelevant. Such an aprioristic template was mechanically applied to all human language families all over the world, although it contradicts available archaeological, anthropological and ethnological evidence.

The following reclassification of traditional languages warns that they represent cumulative sums of heterogeneous contact neighbourhoods and have to be decomposed into elementary atoms of palaeolithic tribal dialects. Its subcategorisation applies various types of pluralisation with plural x-suffixes:

l-dialects: Epi-Aurignacian Leptolithic lakelanders of Tungids with pulmonal fortis/lenis correlations, laminal retroflexed consonantism, vocalic synharmony, agglutinating morphology, l-plurals and SOV word order.

r-dialects: Epi-Magdalenian and Magdalenian Microlithic cliff-dwellers of Cimbrids with pulmonal fortis/lenis correlations, apical/cacuminal retroflexed consonantism, vocalic synharmony, agglutinating morphology, t-preterits, r-plurals and SOV word order.

n/k-dialects: Epi-Megalithic cultures of pastoralist highlanders of Abasgo-Scythoids with glottalic ejective/implosive consonantism, reduced vocalic repertory, incorporating morphology, n/k-plurals and OVS word order.

t-dialects: Epi-Solutrean cultures of pastoralist steppe grasslanders of Sarmato-Sumeroids with glottalic ejective/implosive consonantism, agglutinating morphology, analytic verbal predication, reduced vocalic repertory, collective t-plurals and SOV word order.

b-dialects: Epi-Yabroudian cultures of oriental agricultural Elamo-Hittitoids with flat-roofed labyrinths, tell-sites, voiced-voiceless cordal consonantism, rich quantitative vocalism, b-plurals and SVO word order.

s-dialects: Epi-Micoquian cultures of western agricultural Getids with longhouses in alluvial valleys, voiced-voiceless cordal consonantism, rich quantitative vocalism, s-plurals and SVO word order.

i/e-dialects: Epi-Gravettian cultures of short-sized Lappids/Alpinids with semidugouts and lean-tos in forest thickets, palatal lingual consonantism, rich quantitative vocalism, nasal vowels, tonality, i/e-plurals, reduplicative pluralisation, isolating morphology and SVO word order.

Such x-dialects dissect mixed modern living languages into typologically consistent subphonologies, subvocalism, subconsonantisms, submorphologies and sublexicons.

Indo-European Projections of Language Hyperfamilies

The reformed discretive taxonomy of languages families assumes that most post-eneolithic language group are hybrid cumulative amalgams of heterogeneous ethnic components and ought to be distilled into genuine eteo- languages such as Eteo-Cretic and Eteo-Cypriotic (from Greek eteos ‘genuine, pure’). The principal task of comparative linguistics and ethnology is to atomise current cumulative proto-languages and mixed languages families into eteo-dialects of Palaeolithic tribal tongues. After their subtle differentiation it will be possible to link them into long chains of prehistoric migrations and reconstruct their supracontinental hyperfamilies. These methods will make it possible to unite isolated eteo-languages (Noricum, Celticum, Slavicum) into supranational unities such as Pan-Scythicum, Pan-Sarmaticum, Pan-Cimbricum, and Pan-Geticum).

The best illustration of cumulative amalgamation in post-eneolithic societies is provided by the study of lexical word stock and different ‘sublexicons’ in current mother tongues. The seemingly extinct tribes survive in the traditional Indo-European nominal stems (o-stems, a-stems, i-stems, u-stems, t-stems, r-stems and n-stems) and shine translucently in numerous grammatical exceptions. What looks like a lawful category of archaic Indo-European heritage are mostly individual exceptions and residual remains of double plurals immersed into a common language together with original alien plural suffixes.

Anomalous nominal stems appear as products of different tribal cultures and professional castes in prehistoric civilisations. They elucidate how mixed post-eneolithic societies composed from incompatible incompatible layers. Most of them integrate heterogenous admixtures of rural agricultural lowlanders with dolichocephalous physiognomy, short-sized suburbans of brachycephalous phenotype, big-game hunters remarkable for tall-sized brachycephalous features and piscatory wetlanders with flat faces and protruding cheekbones:

a. the most populous class of Indo-European autochthons encompasses occidental agricultural lowlanders with s-plurals and animate or inanimate i-stems,

b. their oriental brothers were Anatolian farmers, who imported u-stems derived from original b-plurals,

c. big-game hunters descended from boreal steppe grasslanders with kurgan burials and imported Scythian n-plurals,

d. the plural suffix -n probably stemmed from k-plurals and transitional nk-plurals; k-plurals were common among Bascoid megalith-builders, Caucasian Abasgoid kurgan builders and pastoralist highlanders, who intruded into the IndoEuropean area from without,

e. their brotherly Uralic tribes originated from horse-flesh eaters (hippophagi) and contributed by collective t-plurals,

f. their common home was in Palaeo-Siberian languages with collective t-plurals and distinctive k-plurals,

g. Neolithic fishermen composed from Palaeolithic lakeside wetlanders and seaside waterlanders remarkable for retroflexed consonants,

h. Epi-Aurignacian tribes colonised wetland areas located below sea level, specialised as lakelanders, inhabited lakeside stilt-dwellings or pole-dwellings and used original Tungusoid l-plurals,

i. their affiliated outgrowth consisted from Turcoid tribes, who were responsible for spreading Magdalenian and Maglemosian Microlitic cultures; they imported r-plural and applied consonantisms with apical retroflexed plosives,

j. populous incomers included Epi-Gravetttian Lappids with masculine o-stems with i-plurals and feminine a-stems with e-plurals that stemmed from North African Alpinoids (Hausa, Joruba, Vandala, Boleva).

INDO-EUROPEAN DOMAIN

GERMANS ® r-Germans + s-Goths + k-Scandinavians.

k-Scandinavians ® Scots, Scandinavians, Sudini, Sudeten Germans + Varyagi.

r-Germans ® Hermunduri, Irminiones + Teutones + Cimbri, Ambrones + Thuringi + Vikings.

s-Goths ® Goths + Frisians + Angles + Saxons; Langobards + Burgundians + Rugians; Swabians + Franks + Senons.

CELTS ® i-Gauls + r-Cimbri + s-Britons + l-Belgae + t-Volcae.

i-Gauls ® Celts, Gaels + Albanians + Veneti, Gwynt, Goidel, Gwynned.

l-Belgae ® Belgae, Firbolg + Daanu + Picti? + Cornish, Cornubii?

t-Volcae ® Welsh, Volcae Tectosages + Morini (Myrsingen) + Ossi.

r-Cimbri ® Cymri, Cambria-Cumber, Iberi, Hiberni, Ombrones, Eburones.

ROMANCE ® s-Italians + r-Umbrians + t-Oscans + l-Apulians + i-Gauls.

s-Italians ® Italiotes + Bruttii.

l-Apulians ® Apuli, Paeligni + Daunii + Sardi + Latini + Piceni.

r-Umbrians ® Umbri, Cimbri + Taurini, Tyrhenes, Etruscans + Siculi, Sicani.

t-Oscans ® Osci, Ausoni + Volsci, Veleiates + Boii + Marsi, Marsigni, Marrucini, Marici + Sabini, Samnites.

i-Gauls ® Veneti + Albanenses + populi galloitalici.

GREEKS ® k-Cyclopes + i-Hellenes + r-Dorians + l-Pelasgians.

l-Pelasgians ® Paeones, Pelasgiotes + Danaides + Karoi + Leleges.

r-Dorians ® Doroi, Tauroi + Kimmerioi + Greeks, Geryones.

k-Cyclopes ® Thracians + Bessoi, Mysioi, Mosxoi.

i-Hellenes ® Galatians, Hellenes + Ionoi (< *Jav/Alban) + Aetolians (< *Ant).

BALTS ® s-Prussians + i-Lapps + t-Uralians + k-Scythians.

s-Prussians ® Borussi, Prutenes + Jaćwings, Jotija.

t-Uralians ® Estonians, Aesti, Eeste + Veltai + Lithuanians, Latvians, Letgala, Lettia + Mera, Muromi.

i-Lapps ® Laplanders (< elves) + Finns (< Wends) + Galinda, Semigala.

k-Scythians ® Scandinavians, Sudavi, Sudini, Tchud’ + Vesi, Vepsa + Varyags.

SLAVS ® s-Prussians + i-Polabane + t-Russians + k-Ukrane + l-Polane + r-Silesians.

i-Gravettian Palaeo-Slavonians ® Slavs + Sorbs/Sorbians + Slovaks + Slovenes.

i-Lusatian Neo-Slavonians ® Holasici + Koledici+ + Polabans + Croatians + Czech + Lechites + Mechites.

i-Polabane (< elves) + Wends + Antes + Vyatichi.

k-Ukrainians/Ukrane (< Ugrids) + Magna Scythia, Scythia Minor + Mazuri +Masovians/Mazowsze +

Varangians/Varyagi (< Ugrids) + Buzhans + Pshovane/Pšovane.

s-Prussians ® Borussi, Prutenes + Jaćwings, Jotija + Chutici (< Goths), Ulichi (< Uglichi, Angl-).

t-Russians (< Erzya, Aorsi, Roxolani) + Ross’ + Carpathian Rusyns.

t-Rusyns + Moravians/Moravane/Merehani + Wallachians (< Volcae) + Veleti + Boihemi.

l-Bulgars ® Polyane + Polotses + Polane + Volha Bulgars + Belarusians + Luitizes + Lendians (< Lędane).

r-Cossacks (< Kazakhs) + Silesians/Slezans + Kaszubians + Tverians + Yam/Hamme (< Huns).

IRANIANS ® n-Scythian + t-Sarmatian + i-Kafir.

n-Scythian ® Persian, Talysh, Tat, Gilaki, Semnani, Sogida, Pashto, Kurmanji, Mazanderani, Mukri, Khowar.

t-Sarmatian ® Ossetic, Yaghnobi, Ishkashmi, Yazghulami.

i-Kafir ® Kashmiri, Waigali, Kati, Ashkun.

INDIANS ® s-Indian + i-Indian + r-Indian + l-Dravidian + r-Munda + t-Aryan.

s-Indian (Vindhyas cord-impressed ware, 10,000BC) ® Getae + Brahmans + Kshatriya.

i-Indian (Buddhist cremating incinerators, H-cemetery 1800 BC ) ® Hindi, Kashmiri, Malayam, Telugu.

r-Dravidian (Turcoid Shivaists) ® Tamil, Tulu, Malayam, Kurukh, Gadaba, Parji, Kolami, Naiki,

Kannada, Konda, Kodagu.

l-Dravidian (Tungoids) ® Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Kolami, Purji, Gadaba.

b-Dravidian (agriculturalists) ® Kodagu, Kolami, Gadaba, Purji.

k-Dravidian ® Kui, Naiki, Tamil, Gondi, Braui, Kuvi.

t-Aryan (Sarmatic raiders, iron metallurgy) ® Aryas, Ashuras, Assamese, Moran, Hmar.

t-Myanmar (Sarmatic raiders, iron metallurgy, Myanmar 600 BC) ® Mru, Rohingya, Asli.

NOSTRATIC DOMAIN

DRAVIDIANS ® s-Indian + i-Indian + r-Indian + l-Dravidian + r-Munda.

r-Indian ® Nepal, Assam, Oriya, Benghali.

r-Dravidian ® Tamil, Tulu, Malayam, Kurukh, Gadaba, Parji, Kolami, Naiki, Kannada, Konda, Kodagu.

l-Dravidian ® Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Kolami, Purji, Gadaba.

i-Indian ® Kashmiri, Malayam, Telugu.

b-Dravidian ® Kodagu, Kolami, Gadaba, Purji.

k-Dravidian ® Kui, Naiki, Tamil, Gondi, Braui, Kuvi.

CAUCASIANS ® b-Caucasians + l-Caucasians + r-Caucasians.

r-Caucasian ® Agul, Rutul, Tsaxur, Archi, Budux, Xinalug, Kryz.

s-Caucasians ® Bats, Ingush, Chechen.

l-Caucasian ® Urartian, Svan, Avar, Andi, Botlix, Axvax, Bezhita, Bagvali, Tindi, Chamalal.

b-Caucasian ® Georgian, Mingrelian, Lazi, Svan, Ginux, Godoberi, Lezghian,

Tindi, Bagvali, Dargin, Kapucha, Tsaxur, Karat, Dido, Gunzib, Xvarshi,

Cez, Bezhita, Rutul, Kryz.

URALIANS ® k-Ugric + t-Uralian + i-Saamic + s-Perm.

k-Ugric ® Vepsa (Vesi), Varyags, Magyars, Xanty, Mansi.

t-Uralian ® Finnish, Estonian, Mordvin. Ostyaks, Meru.

l-Bulgarian ® Upper Mari, Lower Mari, Karelian, Bashkir, Volga Bulgars.

i- Saamic ® Lappish, Samoyedic, Selkup, Nenets, Enets.

s-Permian ® Komi, Perm (< Barmia), Udmurt.

TUNGUSIANS ® l-Tungic + t-Sibiric + s-Khitan Getic + r-Yakut + n/k-Ugric + Chukchi.

l-Tungic (Eteo-Tungids) ® Evenki (-l, -sal), Negidal, Even, Udegei, Birar.

n/k-Ugric (Kerek-Ugrids, from Ugr-) ® Orok, Oroch, Orochon-Oroqen.

k-Tungids(?) ® Udegei (-xal), Manchu (-xon), x-plurals may be derived from the suffix -sal.

t-Sibiric (Uraloid Sibirids) ® Manchu (-ta), Eskimo (collective plural in -t).

s-Khitan Tungic ® Evenki (-sal), Nanai (-sel), Udegei (-l, -xal), Manchu (-sa, -se, -si, -so).

s-Khitan Getic (Cord-Impressed Ware, Jōmon Nordids) ® Manchu (-se)

r-Yakut Turanic ® Yakut (-lar), Manchu (-ri), Barguzin Tungus (-war).

b-Tungids ® Barguzin Tungus (-war), Koryak (-wwi), Aleutian (-wwi),

x-Sinitic ® Chukchi, Evenki, Even and Athapascan Na Dene display reduplicated plurals that betray origin from Sinids.

TURKIC ® r-Turkic + l-Tungic + t-Uralo-Sibiric + s-Khitan Getic + n/k-Ugric.

(The Yamnaya culture with Tungic l-plurals was overlaid by the Catacomb culture with Turanic r-plurals and their overlapping gave rise to the agglutinative double plurals with -lar).

lar-Turkic ® Oghuz Turks, Turkish (-ler, -lar), Azerbaijani (-lar, -lər).

l-Tungic (Eteo-Tungids) ® Polovtsy, Plavtsy, Balkars.

n/k-Ugric (Kerek-Ugrids) ®Turkic (-n, -an).

t-Sibiric (Uraloid Sibirids) ® Turkish (-t, -an).

s-Getids (Corded-Impressed Ware, Baikal Nordids) ® Turkic (-z), Yakut (-čït, -sït), Kirghiz (-z).

(Kitoi and Afanasievo cultures near Baikal Lake created crossbreds of Turanids with Getids).

MONGOLIANS ® t/d-Mongolic + + t-Sibiric + l-Tungic + s-Khitan Getic + r-Yakut + n/k-Ugric.

t/d-plurals ® Mongolic (-d, -ud, -γud, -nuγud), Literary Mongolic (-nar, -s, -d, -ud), Buriat (-t, -D).

d-Mongolic ® Ordos/Urdus (-d > -D or -t).

l-Tungic (Eteo-Tungids) ® Mongol (-l, -tšūl, -čūl).

n/k-Ugric (Koryak-Ugrids) ® Mongolian (-n, -nar, -nad, -nuγud), written Mongolic (-nar), Khalkha (-ner).

t-Sibiric (Uraloid Sibirids) ® Turkish (-t, -γut).

s-Khitan Getids (Corded Ware Nordids) ® Mongolic (-s, -us, -čud, -tšūl < -šūl), Literary Mongolic (-s),

Ordos (-s, -ūs), Khalkha (-s), Kalmyk (-s), Moguor (-s, -sGi), Chuvash (-sɛm, -sayun), Mogol (-s > -z),

Alar Buriats (-šūl, -tšūl).

r-Yakut ® Khalkha (-ner), Yakut (-lar).

Table 2. The Phylogenetic Taxonomy of Discretive Substratum Subfamilies

Syncretic Natiography vs. Discretive Substratum Taxonomy in Prehistoric Studies

Classic prehistoric studies have built an all-embracing syncretic nomenclature of language families based on recent contact mixtures in concentric neighbourhoods and administrative domains. Its tenets cherish several fallacious Linnéan preconceptions misleading to inacceptable conclusions. They believe that human phenotypes originated as a result of short-term climatic adaptations and every continent was populated by a race of white, black, brown, yellow or red people (C. Linné 1756). August Schleicher (1961-62) assumed that every race had spoken a different common mother tongue and elucidated how Nordic Indo-Europeans split into modern families of national languages. His Stammbaumtheorie, J. Schmidt’s Wellentheorie (1872) and O. Höfler’s Entfaltungstheorie (1955, 30–66) devised models of divergent monogenism explaining the genesis of European families from a common proto-language. They reconstructed hypothetical Ursprachen that neglected incongruent heterogeneous components and did not realise ‘the mixed character of all languages’ (Baudouin de Courtenay 1901). Such omissions resorted to methods of syncretic cumulativism that mixed incompatible admixtures into artificial unities boiling in one melting pot.

A curative antidote to syncretic cumulativism was discovered in approaches of discretic decomposition that poised rough synthetic cumulation with procedures of subtle analytic substratic disassembly. New diffusionist trends of the 20^thcentury admitted processes of convergent acculturation and diverted attention from schematic genealogies to cultural typology of indigenous civilisations. Fritz Graebner’s diffusionism (1911) turned focus to migrations of ethnic Kulturkreise that diffused over large areas of the world. Leo Frobenius (1933) discovered surprising transcontinental parallels between African, Indian, Siberian and Southeast Asiatic typological paradigms. Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1939) and Heinrich Wagner (1970) developed a new model of ‘chain theory’ (Kettentheorie) that traced typological congruencies in different families along lengthy migration corridors. A similar theoretical campaign was launched by Vittorio Pisani’s Neolinguistics (1957) and Mario Alinei’s Palaeolithic Survival Paradigm (1996). They refuted preconceptions of Common Celtic and Common Italic that united different ethnic groups in spite of their genetic and cultural incompatibility. Their arguments are supported also by Transparenztheorie (Bělíček 2004, 2018) emphasising that relevant residues of Palaeolithic dialects shine through modern national tongues.

Most terms of prehistoric disciplines are mixed syncretic categories because their evidence is based on late postdiluvian or post-eneolithic archaeological cultures composed from heterogeneous substrates and ethnic castes. Most archaeological technocomplexes and languages families are mixed concoctions of diverse ante-eneolithic remnants. They do not meet requirements of systematic taxonomy and may be arranged only in enumerative catalogues of items. Their assortment tackles the inconveniences of primeval alchemy that worked with mixed substances such as clay, mud and dirt. They lack homogeneous consistence and have to be analysed into atoms of discrete elements. Their hypothetical reconstructions of proto-languages have to be broken into heterogeneous subgrammars before they may be composed into molecules of consistent and congruent macrofamilies.

Syncretic cumulativism confuses prehistoric ethnic groups with medieval principalities and their incoherent multiethnic administrative domains. It does not pursue the natural course of real progressive evolution and proceeds in regressive counter-clockwise direction from the recent present to the remote past. Its reconstructions start from a modern written national language (New English), derive it from late and early medieval predecessors (Middle English, Old English) and end with reconstructing a hypothetical eneolithic subcontinental generalisation (Common Germanic, Proto-Germanic). The latter are grouped into large cultural empires of continental macrofamilies such as Indo-European. Such a readymade template was slavishly applied also to families of Asiatic, African, American, Australian and Oceanic world’s ends. Its chief fallacy consists in relying exclusively on sovereign’s written literary records and neglecting hundred thousand years of tribal oral dialects. It leads to overrating recent national languages and entrusts them with an undue monopoly in identifying ethnicity. It misinterprets mixed nations as pure ancient tribes and creates false language unities that are thoughtlessly transplanted into other prehistoric disciplines. Such misleading subcategorisation necessarily misguides them to a terminological deadlock.

References

Alinei, Mario. 1996. La teoria della continuità. Bologna: Mulino.

Ascoli, Graziadio di. 1861. The First Letter to Francesco D’Ovidio. Rivista di filologia e

d’istruzione classica, 10, 1881—1882, 1-71.

Baudouin de Courtenay, J. 1901. O smeshannom kharaktere vsekh yazykov. Zhurnal

Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya, no. 337, 1901, 362-372; On the Mixed Character

of All Languages [1901], in: A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology. The Beginnings of

Structural Linguistics. Bloomington -London 1972, 216-226.

Bochkovsky, Olgerd. 1927. Natiology and Natiography. Prague.

Bochkovsky, Olgerd. 1934. Foreword to Natiology. Prague.

Bombard, Allan R. Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to the Comparison of Proto-

Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984.

Bombard, Allan R. 2011. The Nostratic Hypothesis in 2011: Trends and Issues. Washington, DC:

Institute for the Study of Man.

Dilthey, Wilhelm. 1883. Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften, Leipzig : Duncker & Humblot.

Gimbutas, Marija. 1956. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.

Graebner, Fritz. 1911. Die Methode der Ethnologie. Heidelberg.

Haeckel, Ernst. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin : G. Reimer.

Haeckel, Ernst. 1877. Anthropogenie: oder, Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen.

Keimes- und Stammesgeschichte. Vol. 1. Leibzig : Engelmann.

Höfler, O. 1955. Stammbaumtheorie, Wellentheorie, Entfaltungstheorie 1. Beiträge zur

Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 77, 30–66.

Linné, C. 1758. Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae. 10 Ed. 1 Holmiae.

Mendeleev, Dmitri. 1868. Основы химии. Osnovy khimii. Moskva.

Paul Reinecke: Zur Chronologie der 2. Hälfte des Bronzealters in Süd- und Norddeutschland.

Korrespondenzbl. d. Deutsch. Ges. f. Anthr., Ethn. u. Urgesch. 33, 1902, 17–22. 27–32.

Reinecke, Paul (1965). Mainzer Aufsätze zur Chronologie der Bronze- und Eisenzeit (in German).

Bonn: Habelt.

Schleicher, August. 1861/62. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen.

(2 vols.) Weimar, H. Boehlau (1861/62)

Johannes Schmidt. 1872. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar :

H. Böhlau.

Trubetzkoy, Nicolai S. 1939. Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem. Acta linguistica 1,

81-89, p. 82.

Wagner, H. 1970. The origin of the Celts in the light of linguistic geography. Trans. Phil. Soc.

1969, 1, 203-250, p. 228-9.

Samuels, L. K. 2013. In Defense of Chaos: The Chaotology of Politics, Economics and Human Action. Cobden Press.

Souzdaltsev, Igor. 1999. Natiology : social science for the third millennium

Wagner, Heinrich. 1970. The origin of the Celts in the light of linguistic geography.

Trans. Phil. Soc. 1969, 1, 1970: 203–250.

Windelband, Wilhelm 1894: “Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft”, reprinted in his Präludien, vol. 2,

pp. 136–160. Translated as “History and Natural Science”, by Guy Oakes, in NKR: 287–298.

The Deadly Sins of Dogmatic Comparative Linguistics

The greatest hindrances hampering progress in comparative linguistics and ethnology consist in the following unpremeditated dogmatic preconceptions or inglorious ‘deadly sins’ (peccata mortalia): (1) preferring the testimony of written inscriptions to oral dialects and (2) regarding dialects as newborn daughters of the medieval royal national standard; (3) inventing an artificial family and common proto-language for every two neighbouring and overlapping national standards sharing similar loanwords; (4) excogitating a vast indiscriminate language unity for every subcontinent and world’s end; (5) neglecting antediluvian prehistory as extinct and starting evolution from postdiluvian mixed civilisations; (6) exterminating the Palaeolithic past as ‘a dead story’ and mistaking eneolithic civilisations for tribal prehistory; (7) blending recent heterogeneous ethnic mixtures instead of analysing them into elementary atoms of pure Palaeolithic tribes; (8) deriving ethnic identity from final geographic destinations instead of searching for original homelands; (9) mistaking vicinal permeation and intertwinement for cognate genetic affiliation, (10) studying sound shifts as phantoms without regard to underlying live tribal bearers; (11) treating cultures as nameless spiritual chimaeras detached from their material ethnic movers; (12) refuting principles of ‘linguistic materialism’ by dissevering language changes from underlying ethnic and social reshufflings; (13) constructing humanities as monodisciplinary chimaerologies where all terms are isolated solitaires incompatible with taxa in their superordinated portative scientific fields; (14) wasting too much time by focusing on isolated hybrids instead of decomposing them into original primordial components; (15) building ethnology and humanities on a rotten basis of breeding hybridology because missing phylogenetic categories are made up for by ad hoc mongrel groupings, (16) disconnecting ancient tribal chains into isolated unrelated phenotypes and filling their contact unities with heaps of incompatible rubbish; (17) fabricating false recent national mixtures into fictitious incongruous macrofamilies and pretending that they are primeval proto-languages; (18) refuting attempts at an all-embracing linguistic typology and ethnic characterology; (19) neglecting the need to coordinate the multidisciplinary systematic taxonomy that links evolutionary glottogenesis with prehistoric migrations and Palaeolithic typological archetypes; (20) yielding to periodic returns of idealistic scholasticism in modern and postmodern prehistoric studies and reducing them to a slavish description of isolated idiographic, person-oriented and subject-specific phenomena (Windelband 1894: 150, Dilthey 1883).

Idiographic preconceptions exert a detrimental effect on all humanities since they dissolve lawful evolutionary processes into unrelated sherds of chaotic factography. What now pretends to be a systematic prehistoric ethnology is actually only a civilised historical natiology (Souzdaltsev 1999) or natiography (Bochkovsky 1927, 1934). What puts on the appearance of prehistoric studies is de facto only modern human geography and political topography (Landesbeschreibung). It replaces valuable prehistoric knowledge by Sunday school stuff training little children in homeland study (Vaterlandskunde). It impermissibly omits prehistoric spoken tribal languages and reduces them to late outgrowths of written national mother tongues. As a result, comparative historical grammar discards prehistoric oral dialects and starts its theoretical accounts from written inscriptions on monuments. Such an inadmissible vivisection prevails in all social and cultural studies. Literary theory omits prehistoric oral tradition and starts with written literary history. Religionistics starts with medieval syncretic religions without realising that they were composed from aboriginal magic cults. Philosophy is no more aware of its roots in proverbial sayings of magic folklore and begins with juristic sophistry. Modern historiography buries prehistoric myths and legends as unscientific excogitations and acknowledges only the testimony of written chronicles. These disciplines cannot establish their systematic taxonomy since they speculate only on last few centuries and bury several hundred thousand years of Palaeolithic origins as extinct.

This is why humanities deserve a fundamental reform of their weak foundations and a radical amendment of their anomalous malformations. They primarily need revisiting chaotic ad hoc terms for isolated local phenomena, distil them into elementary atoms and recast them into valid categories of systematic categorisation. The first step is to devise a tenable systematics of disciplinary ‘pre-sciences’ that can classify stages of evolutionary typology and elucidate archetype predecessors of cultural genres. The concept of pre-science is derived from Latin praescientia and means oral ‘fore-knowledge’ in the early puerile stage of indigenous communities. Current humanities distinguish only applied, descriptive and summative research (-graphy, -logy) but rarely classify prescientific oral ‘fore-sciences’ (-genies), typological classificatory ‘para-sciences’ and systematic nomothetic ‘pan-sciences’ (-nomies) in (Table 1). Such proposals develop Ernest Haeckel’s ‘recapitulation laws’ proclaiming that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and contemporary classificatory phylology maps pathways of prehistoric phylogenesis (Haeckel 1866, 1877).