Democritus Reformatorium Prehistoric Tribes

Similar lineages have to be traced up also for hominins and recent racial varieties of humankind. The principal dichotomy splits them into the Negritic herbivorous (pre)agriculturalists in the tropical equatorial zone and the Altaic carnivorous (pre)pastoralists in colder regions of Asia. The former applied chopping-tool and hand-axe industry, whereas the latter developed various kinds of flint flake-tools employed as spearheads. This clear division is blurred by uncertainties as to whether the Altaic hunters developed from intracontinental varieties of Asiatic hominids or descended from intercontinental migrations of South African predecessors. Both alternatives have to be seriously tested but available evidence supports only the theories of out-of-Africa migrations. They grant continual transition from hominids to hominins, whereas the lineage of Eurasian hominids was probably interrupted. It is naturally difficult to relate Dart’s osteodontoceratic culture of Australophitecus africanus with later Asiatic carnivorous populations, who were accustomed to hunt big game in Siberian steppes. Hypotheses supporting an independent out-of-Asia model may build only on the recent discovery of the Riwat flake-tool culture in Pakistan dated to two million years ago.

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 5 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 5. 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 it its exodus had a different chronological dating. Their racial typology is compatible even though their Y-haplogroups in Table 6 do not exhibit comprehensible transitions.

Table 6. The Y-DNA transitions during the out-of-Africa and out-of-Asia exodus

Palaeontological digs are relatively rare, so their taxonomic labels have to be determined in accordance with other prehistoric disciplines. The categories of their diachronic phylogenesis may be reconstructed by comparison to synchronic raceology and the ethnology of living varieties. Another guideline is found in the typology and distribution of archaeological cultures because their bearers were ancient anthropological and ethnic groups. Table 6 proposes to solve their mutual correspondences and structural resemblances like an equation in several unknowns. The evolution of human races gets clear contours if their isolated types are arranged into migratory chains linked by similar cultural patterns. The Balkan Dinaric race can be related to the mythological breed of the Mycenaean Cyclopes and the builders of Megalithic monuments in Western Europe. Their common predecessors were probably the Mousterians reputed as big-mammal hunters. Their cultural morphology suggests genetic parallels between Khoisan cattle-breeders and the Palaeolithic stock of Homo rhodensiensis. An important missing link may be discovered also between the Asiatic Denisovans and the East African Kafrids.

Parentals	Lineages	Cultures	Populations	Recent races
H. erectus	Homo africanus	Sango	Sangoans	Negrids
H. erectus	Homo javanicus	Oldowan	Hoabinhians	Melanesids
H. heidelbergensis	Homo asiaticus	Clactonian	Clactonians	Ogres, Ugrids
H. heidelbergensis	H. neanderthalensis	Mousterian	Mousterians	Dinarids, Cyclopes
H. heidelbergensis	Homo rhodensiensis	Lanceolithic	Khoisanids	Khoids, Steatopygids
A. africanus	Homo rudolfensis	Leptolithic	Denisovans	Pelasgids, Tungids
A. africanus	Homo habilis?	Microlithic	Magdalenians	Turanids, Iberids
H. floresiensis	Homo pygmaeus	Pyrolithic	Gravettians	Alpines, Lappids

Table 7. Joint lineages of Palaeolithic and Neolithic races

Comparative parallels confirm that humans races are not isolated local outgrowths but lawful descendant leftovers of one prehistoric migration. Cultural comparison witnesses that African Negrids must have developed into Oceanic Melanesids, Australids and American Amazonids. Despite certain minor differences the South African Sanids seem to be related to Pygmies, European Lappids and Asiatic Sinids. Leptolithic technology betrays hidden affiliation between stocks of the Kafrids, European Pelasgids and Asiatic Tungids. Surprising coincidences associate the African Khoids and Mousterian Neanderthalers, who both excelled in big-game hunting, beehive architecture and manufacturing leaf-shaped heads of lances. The most astonishing phenomenon about such chains of prehistoric relatives appears in similarities of their language structures.

Obvious genetic links between remote continental stocks call for an integrated anthropological reclassification. The first hominids born in Africa deserve a special treatment as primordial Urstämme called palaeo-races, whose generation consists of Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo heidebergensis and Homo floresiences representing the hypothetical Homo pygmaeus. After migrations to Eurasia these racial progenitors procreated a new generation of proto-races that included Abbevillians, Levallosians and Clactonians (Swanscombe man, 400,000 BC). Dramatic changes awaited also Homo erectus. After the departure from Africa he procreated a long chain of Eurasian, Indochinese, Melanesian and Australian Negrids. In the south of Saudi Arabia he permeated with the neighbouring Altaic races to beget the new mixed racial groups of the South Asian Caucasoids and the European Nordids. In the Upper Palaeolithic the generation of proto-races finished splitting into the offspring of younger stocks referred to as deutero-races. The Levalloisian proto-Tungids divided into the branches of the Aurignacian Leptolithic and the Turcoid Microlithic produced by the new race of Turanids. The Mousterian big-game hunters underwent bifurcation into the races of the archaic Ugrids (Dinarids) and the younger lineage of Uralids (Estono-Marids). Unfortunately, no reliable records elucidate the evolution of the African Sanids into Pygmies and the Chadic Semi-Pygmies. After reaching North Africa their travels ended in Annam situated in Southeast Asia. All we know is that about 62,000 BC there occurred a vast colonisation to the southeast archipelagos on bark rafts, whose result was a rise of a new stock called Negrito. Black pigmentation was their secondary trait due to mixing with Melanesids, the original core was formed by short-sized brachycephalous Sinids. They moved also to the northwest and colonised northern Eurasia as the race of Lappids living in semidugouts and earth-houses.

Palaeo-races, proto-races and deutero-races formed archetypal stocks of humanity, who influenced each other and intermarried as free genetic strains. They represented pure clear-cut somatic taxa with definite ethnonymy, archaeological industry, religious beliefs and cultural customs. The modern living racial groups are hardly more than their mixed and degenerate residual derivates and have to be kept apart as subsequent ulterior neo-races. An analogous subcategorisation has to be carried out also in ethnology and comparative linguistics. These fields deal only with neo-tribes and neo-languages and bury their earlier predecessors as dead and extinct. Their real goal is to decompose them into original pure typological elements arisen from palaeo-tribes, palaeo-cultures and proto-languages. The Palaeolithic Survival Theory1 assumes that it is possible to reconstruct their origins in as lawful integral genealogies as are presently ruling in palaeoanthropology and archaeology.

Such phylogenetic trees of racial varieties partly agree with genealogies looming in population genetics. Sanids exhibited the Y-DNA haplogroup A, the Khoids spread the Y-DNA haplogroup B, the Negrids the haplotype E, and the Kafrids propagated the Y-DNA haplogroups T or C. DNA haplogroups serve as an efficient tool of investigating racial interrelations but their scope of study is confined to the last 70, 000 years. This is why they fail to give a convincing account of earlier prehistory. Historical linguistics is accustomed to work with ‘short-range comparisons’, while they provide efficient methods for enquiring into ‘middle-range comparisons’ between prehistoric stocks. However, it is only archaeology and palaeoanthropology that make it possible to plot ‘long-range genealogies’.

Generally speaking, neo-races, neo-tribes and neo-languages are only fragmentary splinters fallen away from the mainstreams of Palaeolithic anthropogenesis. Besides distilling into pure subcomponents they need rearranging into regional subclades and lineages. Every Palaeolithic palaeo-race and palaeo-tribe is an octopus spreading its tentacles radially in several dominant directions and so their convenient subclassification partitions racial varieties according to regional lineages. The dominant super-lineage unites the regional outgrows of the black equatorial races. It is fathered by its progenitor Homo erectus and its migratory plantations should be kept together by a common taxon of Negrids or Congids. Its continental tentacles ought to be denominated as Euro-Negrids, Levanto-Negrids, Georgo-Negrids, Indo-Negrids, Sino-Negrids, Australo-Negrids and Australo-Negrids. Their unity with the ancestral stock of Bantu people in Africa is broken by proposals of several controversial and dispensable intermediate terms such as Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster covers also southern varieties of H. erectus in South Africa and also Dmanisi man excavated in Georgia. The latter is called Homo georgicus but his identity is almost indistinguishable from H. erectus. The champion of the from-Africa-to-Europe migration that played the crucial role in the rise of the white Nordids may be sought in Homo antecessor. H. antecessor (1.2–0.7 mya) should be classed as a subspecies of Homo erectus and a parent of several regional subclades. If treated as an independent predecessor of European races, it may be associated with the neglected and obsolescent term of Abbevillian cultures. The migratory route via the Iberian Peninsula did not exclude another one via Anatolia.

Extract from P. Bělíček:: The Synthetic Classification of Human Phenotypes and Varieties Prague 2018, pp. 19-21

The Paragenetic Model of Human Evolution from Hominids

The paragenetic model of prehistory presupposes that most hominins and hominids lived in relative interbreeding and their genetic distances were much nearer than now. What we denote as detached genera and species were actually interfertile genetic races, strains, lineages, crosses and hybrids that later lost mutual interfertility owing to isolation in different hominoid populations. It is not plausible that they developed by large jumps from one genus to another, they must have maintained and preserved their genetic pool through progressive evolutionary metamorphoses. Many categories of genus and species were only generations, so the extant binomial and trinomial anthropological classification should adopt a special term for transient generations. All strains underwent parallel processes of hominisation, gracilisation and sapientisation by means of radical revolutions and longer stages of conservative inertia. Hominins split off hominids and hominoids as a special genetic stream competing with alternative strains of Paranthropines and Australopithecines. Participation in different population strains caused intraspecial differentiation. In the following evolutionary series the symbol means digression while the arrow → implies genetic continuity. It does not mean direct mother-daugher inheritance but a complex statistic process with many digressions splitting off the dominant mainstream. The following series are chief statistic mainstreams that suggest that the Palaeolithic Urrassen had different ancestors but converged to one of predominant Neolithic racial varieties.

Tall robust dolichocephalous herbivores with marked crista sagittalis

Gigantopithecus (9 mya) → Ouranopithecus (9 mya) ( Gorillas (9 mya)) → Paranthropus aethiopicus (2.5 mya) ( Paranthropus robustus (2 mya)) → Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya) → Australopithecus sediba (1.8 mya) → Homo gautengensis (1.8 mya) → Homo erectus (1.8 mya) → Oldowans (1.8 mya).

Slender piscivores with tall and leptoprosopic flattish faces:

Proconsul africanus (23 mya) → Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 mya) → Australopithecus afarensis (3.9–2.9 mya) → Homo habilis (2.1–1.5 mya) → Homo rudolfensis (2–1.5 mya) → Levalloisians (0.5 mya).

Tall brachycephalous carnivores and big-game hunters with narrow aquiline noses

Australopithecus anamensis (4.5 mya) → Laetoli man → Homo heidebergensis → Homo rhodensis (0.5 mya) ( Saldanha man) → Homo neanderthalensis → Mousterians.

Shortsized brachycephalous omnivores:

Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya) → Ardipithecus kadabba ( Pan paniscus (Bonobo)) → Australo-pithecus afarensis (3.9 mya) → Homo habilis → Sanids → Pygmids ( Homo floresiensis) → Sinids.

Table 1. The paragenetic model of racial diversification

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