64: Further remarks on archaic humans, language and other topics 

 

Written by Linden Alexander Pentecost, as are all articles and books on this website. This article in front of you was published on the 9th of May 2025. This article has not been published previously or in any other format, neither have any articles on this website apart from number 6. This article is entirely separate from the content of my books and Silly Linguistics articles and other articles. In this article currently in front of you, I discuss some other aspects to this picture of archaic humans and language, including the possibility of Macro-Gê and Southeast Asian language links having a connection to archaic humans, and topics in relation to Patagonia, Australia, South Africa and their languages, as well as other topics in connection to this. These topics are interconnected across the paragraphs & there are no sub-titles. This article, like all articles on this site, is only published on this website. (Although a version of a Cumbric article (number 6 on this website) on this website was later published in a Kindle book). This article, (the one currently in front of you, number 64 on this website), contains 1740 words. This article contains some references to other works but no citations. 

 

The Macro-Gê languages are a grouping of languages in South America. Whilst this language grouping is very ancient and diverse, and whilst I know little, I will say that, in some respects, many Macro-Gê languages show features setting them apart from most other indigenous languages in the Americas, in general. A Macro-Gê language from Brazil, known as Kaingang, is one example. This language generally contains short words, making it and other languages like it more closely resemble certain South Asian languages in structure. I have quoted some studies on this before, one example being a paper by Vladimir Pericliev titled: Significant Lexical Similarities between a Language of Brazil and Some Languages of Southeast Asia and Oceania: From Typolocial Perspective. I have not yet read this paper, and the idea right now of creating a ResearchGate account in order to read the article, does not seem appealing. I myself have done a little discussion on some Macro-Gê etymologies, but, I plan to do more in the future. What I will say is something particularly interesting. Some of the studies on Neanderthal DNA in Indigenous Americans, seem to suggest the possibility that indigenous people in parts of Amazonian Peru and on the eastern coast of Brazil might contain the most Neanderthal genetic influence. These studies also sometimes talk of archaic human ancestry in general, and from what I understand, there is also some evidence of Denisovan DNA among indigenous Americans.
But for the sake of simplification in this hypothesis, I will say “archaic human ancestry” for now. The curious thing being, that this potential link between indigenous Southeast Asian languages, and Macro-Gê languages, would be of unknown date. There are also hypothesis that homo-erectus, Neanderthals and Denisovans could have travelled about on small boats. In southeast Asia, also in Papua New Guinea, there are higher amounts of Denisovan ancestry, specifically. Whilst I have identified connections between for example certain Polynesian and Papua New Guinea languages and indigenous American languages, I think linked to “other” events and peoples; could some of these connections specifically between Southeast Asian languages and Macro-Gê languages pertain to interactions between indigenous peoples we know today and more archaic human populations living in Southeast Asia and South America? It is also curious that the eastern coastline of Brazil, is also home to Macro-Gê languages, as well as even more mysterious, unattested indigenous languages; whilst in more recent times the Tupi languages have become the main languages in this region. 

Another thing I wish to look at in relation to this, and which i have not yet, is this idea that Patagonian indigenous peoples may also have very ancient ancestry, possibly connected to some of the first peoples attested in the Americas, and possibly shared with aboriginal Australians; although from what I understand this concept has since been disregarded by and large. But I intend to look into it. Of course, there are also the “Patagonian giants” and “giants” and “cannibal people” mentioned in certain Aboriginal Australian traditions, as well as the possible long-headed individuals, all of which may fit into this picture in some way. My other research has very extensively covered certain aspects of this. We may also consider the Cueva de Los Manos in Argentina, with its ochre hand imprints, practically identical to those found in ancient French cave paintings, for example those at the Chauvet and Pech Merle caves in France. There are clearly very many aspects to this ancient picture of human history, of these times in a previous world, where things were no doubt connected differently from how they are today, many of these connections now obscured.

Another thing I would like to mention briefly connects to ancient hominins in Africa, who homo-sapiens no doubt interacted with in some way. I have heard it mentioned that the non-Bantu languages of southern Africa, i.e. the complex language families often described and grouped together in the past as being “Khoesan” or “Khoe-Kwadi” could contain some sounds and influences that are representative of the earliest forms of homo-sapien language. On the contrary however, I think that, if we study languages today, as a whole, then we can have a better idea of early homo-sapien languages, whilst I am more inclined to think that the so-called “Khoesan” or “Khoe-Kwadi” languages might contain specific linguistic features, e.g. click sounds, that could potentially have been borrowed by the local homo-sapiens in Southern Africa, from a different hominin, which does, in my opinion, seem more likely, considering the rarity of click-sounds across human languages, and the fact that we know other hominins were specifically living in Southern Africa, and I think it entirely possible that they could have taught homo-sapiens in the area aspects of their languages.
Consider also, the possible presence of the “otang” in Southern Africa. Just as people in much of Asia continue to encounter non-Yeti-like hominins, often somewhat identifiable with known ancient hominins, for example Neanderthal-looking almasty in central Asia, almasty in the Caucasus, perhaps connected to Neanderthals, or to the Dmanisi hominins? And for example others I have mentioned; in addition, perhaps not surprisingly, other hominin sightings appear in Southern Africa. These are known as Otang, seen by indigenous people in South Africa,, and seen by biologist Gareth Patterson working in South Africa. Is it just a coincidence - we have these specific linguistic features in ancient, indigenous languages in Southern Africa; we have evidence of different species of ancient human specifically in that area, and modern sightings of archaic humans in those areas as well? 

As I have stated in different words before, the presence of these beings today may not be entirely a physical one. I wonder if in some way, the presence of their bones and DNA in certain ancient sites allows them to “slip into” our world from other physical spaces that we cannot perceive. Something seems to have happened that cut homo-sapiens off from these other humans, both in our interactions and perception. They seem to have just disappeared, died out. But I am not convinced that this is the case. I think it more likely that homo-sapiens went in a different direction, isolating ourselves from the original “world” in which these other humans still inhabit, their bones and artifacts seemingly decaying before our eyes in our own circle of time. But perhaps it is our “time” and perception that is the enigma, that has spiralled off in its own direction, giving us the perspective that they are further from us than we think. Or perhaps, these other humans are in some way able to influence our perception, and what we can and cannot see of them. 

Either way, if they do have a fragile, physical presence within our world, I pray to the gods and to the creator, that we do not meet them to learn from them, until we are ready. An example of how homo-sapiens time and perception is “off” centre, is in how we seem to destroy nature so easily, sometimes without even meaning to. If the “others” are still there, we are not ready to meet them. And quite frankly, it makes me sick to think that some cryptid enthusiasts and sasquatch-enthusiasts talk about going “hunting” for these beings. This is sickening. And it just goes to show how un-ready humanity would be for such a revelation or officially recognised encounter. On no account should anyone seek out these beings from an intrusive perspective, or because they want to hunt for them, or because they want to claim their find as a prize and show it to the world. This is the trap of human ego and the discrepancies in our nature, and in our relationship to nature. We are not ready. Until we can learn to understand, and to have empathy and respect for nature, we will not be ready. 

Note also that my previous article published on this site, article 63, discusses other aspects to these topics in more detail, and that I have published on relating topics in other articles only on this site, and in books and Silly Linguistics articles I have been working on. My next Silly Linguistics article will focus on the Pamir Mountains, and will touch on some aspects of this briefly. I also plan on writing a short Kindle-only book that will discuss certain other aspects of language in Eurasia and hominins which I have not discussed previously and will not be doing in the Pamir Mountains Silly Linguistics article, which I hope will be published after my Silly Linguistics article focusing on Kabardian and the Caucasus. My most recently published article thus far also discusses Denisovans and their possible influences in brief, this article is titled: On the Mansi and Bashkir languages, and possible holes in widely accepted theories on Indo-European languages - part two of languages in the Ural Mountains, published in Silly Linguistics Magazine Issue #83 April 2025. Note that this article, not the aforementioned one, but the one you are currently looking at on this page, was not planned until I started writing it today and then published it, hence why it has not been mentioned in my other works recently.