|
|
Post by mike2 on Feb 24, 2005 23:55:16 GMT -5
Looking at them critically, I think I can reconcile the two classifications. I think Scheele's Indonesian-Malay and Baker's Southeast Asian and Micronesian-Polynesian types can be combined into one subrace. It's so tempting to categorize all the Austric-speaking Mongoloids into one supergroup and blame their diverse make-ups on the Australoids they all hybridized with.  The Arctic and Tungid types are virtually identical. Only difference is Baker mentions that there are Tungid Mongols and this might complicate things. Are most Altaic-speaking people really closer to Siberians and Eskimos than they are to Classic Mongoloids? I don't know. The Classic Mongoloid and Northeast Asian types are easy to reconcile. They are the East Asian type incarnate. I assume Baker's Sinid is of Classic Mongoloid affinity but again, I don't have access to his book so I don't know. So sweet and to-the-point are the Amerinds. Not much to talk about there, other than that they can show great regional diversity, which is to be expected of a race that spanned two continents. |
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 25, 2005 0:21:31 GMT -5
Gbloco once wrote a very interesting classification of Amerindians not sure if it was worth a damn as far as scholarship but interesting nice to get back to topic. I keep meaning to give my observations but keep worrying about how long it would take me to write I am trying to study a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Feb 25, 2005 0:34:09 GMT -5
I wish we had access to some American Indian skulls from all parts of North and South America to compare. Maybe the differences between the various Amerinds are entirely superficial. I would expect to find Australoid traces among many, though, especially in South America where some Australoids were said to have landed and settled before being wiped out or absorbed by the invading Amerindian Mongoloids from the north.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 25, 2005 1:46:06 GMT -5
I cannot find in both classification Central Asians Turks. I know that Coon considered them Turanids (mix of European and Mongoloid races), but I think that Turanids are rather mongoloid then mixed sub race.
anyone has any info about Turanids?
|
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Feb 25, 2005 2:02:50 GMT -5
I cannot find in both classification Central Asians Turks. I know that Coon considered them Turanids (mix of European and Mongoloid races), but I think that Turanids are rather mongoloid then mixed sub race. anyone has any info about Turanids? Central Asians are indeed said to be a mix of Caucasoid and Mongoloid, and I'd say that's pretty accurate, though some Central Asians look more Caucasoid whereas others look more Mongoloid. I think the Turkmen look from half and half to mostly Caucasoid on average, whereas I believe the Kazakhs (correct me if I'm wrong) look predominantly Mongoloid. "Turanids" are said to be the dominant element among the Turkic peoples. Even in Turkey, some people have this Turanid look, though it's considerably less common than the Armenoid and east Med types since the Turks in Anatolia were largely assimilated into the larger Caucasoid population. |
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 25, 2005 2:24:19 GMT -5
Kazakhs look very Mongoloid, so I really dislike Turanid Eurasian fade which is very popular lately there. It for some reason speaks racial inferiority to me instead of racial awareness. I'd rather consider myself Mongoloid. Indeed many Turkmans look like Afghani people. The only thing which differentiate Kazakhs from other Turanids that there are many Kazakhs with extremely light skin and quite a few light hair and light eyes of course with Mongoloid features. I think Kazakhs are skin/eyes color wise are the lightest among Asians abd other Turanids.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Feb 25, 2005 2:34:52 GMT -5
Turanid is a good term for the Central Asian Caucasoid-Mongoloid type.
The problem is I don't know which subtypes form it. I assume the Caucasoid factor in the Turanids is Irano-Afghan whereas the Mongoloid factor is either Tungid or Classic Mongoloid. That's my question: What is the Mongoloid subrace for the Turks, Mongols, and other Altaic-speakers? Is the Mongoloid element closer to Arctic/Tungid Mongoloid or Classic Mongoloid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 25, 2005 2:54:15 GMT -5
The problem is that it varies from each separate nation to nation. That's why it is hard to classify Turcik speaking nations. Tungid elements dominant in Kyrgyz nation, when in their neighbor Kazakhs it is non existent. Uzbeks have very obvious Persian thing going, Tartar look very Ladogan and they are practically Many tartars look undistiguishable from Caucassians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 25, 2005 2:55:47 GMT -5
I think that classical Mongoloid is also unapplicable to Turanids.
|
|
|
|
Post by joton on Feb 25, 2005 3:02:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 25, 2005 3:07:47 GMT -5
Bjork does not look Mongoloid for me. She is so Lappish/Uralic. Very cute childish quality. Such face would never age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 25, 2005 4:30:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaaaahhh on Feb 25, 2005 5:15:22 GMT -5
Intresting, are there more specific details that distinctly seperate the various mongoloid sub-groups from one another?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 25, 2005 5:46:01 GMT -5
I have the same question Yahhh. I would like to know more about Mongoloid sub groups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Feb 25, 2005 10:30:40 GMT -5
Hey human2.
You've spent a lot of time on this subject - you should make a webpage about it.
|
|
