|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
The Glottogenesis of Ugro-Scythoid
and Basco-Scandic Languages Clickable terms are red on the yellow background |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Table 1. The Systematic Glottogenesis of Human Language
Families |
|
Table 2. The Spread of Basco-Abkhaz-Scandian Tribes and Cultures
in Europe |
|
|
Table 3. The Ancient Roman Distribution of Scythic tribes
along the Palaeolithic Mousterian sites (in dotted areas)
The Origins of Palaeolithic 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 Steinheim skull was mutilated in the same way as that of
Peking man’s, which may be interpreted as an indirect token of their cannibalist practices. On the other hand, Swanscombe man as a probable protagonist of the Clactonian culture may be linked to the Levalloisian
tradition propagated by a more gracile Homo
sapiens. Their finds are, however, associated with much Acheulean industry due to mixing. The Mousterian
tradition continued later into the Solutrean (from
22,000 to 18,000 BC) and (Extract from P. Bělíček:: The
Synthetic Classification of Human Phenotypes
and Varieties Prague 2018, |
|
The Glottalic
Sound-Repertory of Palaeo-Scythic
Languages The third type of phonology was
attributable to megalith-builders speaking glottalic
languages. Their vocalism and consonantism
consisted from glottalised sounds. Glottalic consonants do not rely on pulmonic
airstream, they are created by the closure of the
glottis that opens a passage from the larynx to the vocal and nasal cavity
(Table 7). Such a system distinguished two types of non-pulmonic
glottalic phonemes, explosive tense ejective
consonants and their lax implosive counterparts. Ejectives are defined as voiceless consonants pronounced with
a glottalic egressive
airstream.1 They are ‘produced with complete glottal closure
and an egressive airstream
following the glottal and oral releases’.2 On the other hand, implosive consonants represent a
group of stops delivered with ‘a mixed glottalic
ingressive and pulmonic egressive airstream
mechanism’.3
These phonemes are very common in languages spoken by tall robust
large-headed brachycephalic mummifiers
and mound-builders.
Table
7. The glottalic and
lingual phonology The Grammatical System of Basco-Scythic Languages
The most important traits of Basco-Scandic
and Ugro-Scythic languages are agglutinating
structures, the category of state and determination with definite and
indefinite articles, distinctive k-plurals
and collective t-plurals, possessive prefixes, OVS word
order, semipredicative constructions with gerunds,
participles and infinitives and alliterative versification. Table 9 demostrates
their grammatical differences form Turanic and Tungusoid langauges.
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. (Extract from P. Bělíček:
The Analytic Survey of European Anthropology, Prague 2018, p. 35-42) |