|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
The Upper Palaeolithic Ancestors of Turanic, Turkic and Cimbric Languages Clickable terms are red on the yellow background |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Table 1. The Systematic Glottogenesis of Human
Language Families |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 2. Palaeo-Turanids
(33,000 BC) with microblades, rock shelters, throwing knives and
Y-hg R*-M173 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 2. Renaming
European and Non- European Language Families (from
P. Bělíček: The Analytic Survey of European Anthropology, Prague
2018, Map 5, p. 29) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Origins of Palaeolithic 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 Perigordian, Turanic, Turcoid and Dravidiand 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) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
