Physical Variation of the Mongoloid Race

[Faelcind]

Very interesting discussion guys great finds. Good point on the noses Nusapiens see also Melanasians.

[mike2]

The hawk nose might be an ancient Australoid trait? Veddoids and Melanesians fit the bill.

I wouldn't rule out the Iranian Plateau either if I didn't feel that everytime the scientists from the days of old surmised that the unusual features among Mongoloids were caused by Caucasoids (the features of the Ainu, Polynesians, and now Amerindians, that is), it often turned out to be Australoids. Whitey always trying to keep the austro down.

[KLI]

how about the Nepalese people? I saw this article about the Nepalese Gurka who are Himalayan guides, and to me they resembled more than anything else typical Central Americans.


What is their ethnicity based on? Are they just India-Mongoloid hybrids???

[mike2]

Mujahid said:

how about the Nepalese people? I saw this article about the Nepalese Gurka who are Himalayan guides, and to me they resembled more than anything else typical Central Americans.


What is their ethnicity based on? Are they just India-Mongoloid hybrids???

I think the Nepalese are related to the Tibetans for the most part and that they just have more East Indian ancestry. The Mongoloids seem to me an undiscovered country of unclassified types.

[mike2]

One question: Would you guys lump the Altaic Mongoloids (Mongols, Mongoloid Turks, Manchus, Siberians), Arctic Mongoloids (Paleosiberians, Eskimos), and Qiangic Mongoloids (Tibetans) in one gigantic Tungid group or would it be better to separate them? I like the idea of including them into a major Tungid group but I know some people have split it up into Artic Mongoloid (Paleosiberians, Eskimos) and Classic Mongoloid (Altaics and Qiangics) but I don't know if there's really much of a difference between the two to separate them when both have been classified as Tungid.

Check out my classification system (a work in progress):
A.) Sinid
1.) Sinic Mongoloid (China)
2.) Chosonic Mongoloid (Korea) [carries some Arctic affinities]
3.) Nipponic Mongoloid (Japan) [carries some Arctic affinities]
B.) Tungid
1.) Arctic Mongoloid (Arctic North America, northeastern Siberia)
2.) Altaic Mongoloid (Mongolia, Manchuria, Turkestan, Western China)
3.) Qiangic Mongoloid (Tibet and some areas of Burma)
C.) Austric Mongoloid
1.) Austroasiatic Mongoloid (Southwestern China, Burma, Thailand, Indochina) [hybridized with Australoids to some extent]
2.) Austronesian Mongoloid (Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Taiwan, New Zealand, Polynesia, Madagascar) [most hybridized with Australoids, purest or original form perhaps found among the Formosan/Taiwanese aborigines from which the Austronesian language stemmed)
D.) Amerindian

[Kazakhgirl]

Which ethnicities are Altaic? I know it is language group.

[mike2]

Kazakhgirl said:

Which ethnicities do classify as Altaic? I know it is language group.

Sorry about that, I just edited my previous post to elaborate my classification system. When I say Altaic I am referring the Mongoloid Mongols, Turks, and Manchus of Tungid stock. I understand that many Altaic speakers are not Mongoloid due to intermixture but I'm not referring to the Turanians so much as I am the original Mongoloid speakers of the Altaic language group.

[Kazakhgirl]

Altaic language group mean Turkish speaking. Mongol speaking group Kalmyks and mongols are Halha. Ther are no mongol speaking in altaic speaking group. It sounds like nonsense.

You also classified Turkestan in one group with classic Mongols. Turkestan are all without exception are Turanids. The whole region.

Altaic is equivalent of Turk language. It isone thing.

[Kazakhgirl]

Tungid:

Tuva
Yakut
tungus

Halha:
mongol
Buryat
Kalmyk

turanid:
Kazakh
Uzbek
Kyrgyz
Uigur
Turkman
Nogai

[mike2]

Kazakhgirl said:

Altaic language group mean Turkish speaking. Mongol speaking group Kalmyks and mongols are Halha. Ther are no mongol speaking in altaic speaking group. It sounds like nonsense.

You also classified Turkestan in one group with classic Mongols. Turkestan are all without exception are Turanids. The whole region.

Altaic is equivalent of Turk language. It isone thing.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The Altaic language family is inclusive of more than just the Turkic languages. It includes Mongolian, Turkic, and Tungusic branches. See Ethnologue.

And regardless of linguistic affinities, the Mongoloid element among the Turki, Mongols, and Manchus is without a doubt the same and can be called Altaic for lack of a better word. Sometimes linguistic affinities and racial affinities run hand in hand.

As for the Turanians, well, I'd hardly call all of Turkestan to be of Turanid racial type, which isn't a very set-in-stone type anyway. Lots of different Caucasians are responsible for the vague Turanid. I strongly believe that if it weren't for the Tocharians the Uighurs would look much less Caucasoid than they do today. And I highly doubt Turkestan has always been a zone of Caucasoid-Mongoloid hybridization. By including Turkestan in the Altaic range I'm referring to the pockets of non-Caucasoid types that emerge in individuals of the region. You yourself have claimed that you consider yourself more Mongoloid than Turanid and judging by your features I tend to agree. Well, guess what, girlfriend, by Altaic Mongoloid I'm talking about you!

[Kazakhgirl]

I agree with you about Altaic including mongol languages. I did a MISTAKE.

I consider myself Mongoloid, but I never would relate Kazakhs/Uigurs/Uzbeks which are major nations of Turkestan to Mongols. They cannot be in a same group.

It is like classifying Italians and Germans in one group.

[Kazakhgirl]

I think that Turanids should be in one group as mongoloid, but Mongols, Kalmyks, Buryats should be in different subgroup.

Manchu, Tuva, Yakuts, tungus could be classified as Tungids.

P.s. Just as exmaple i wanna bring my grandma who is turanid and she would go under the same group as Mongols and Kalmyks?

www.eva.ru/pictures/album_photos/325778.jpg?1106707551609


She sould be classified as Mongoloid race/Turanid subgroup

[mike2]

Kazakhgirl said:

I agree with you about Altaic including mongolo languages. I did a MISTAKE.

I consider myself Mongoloid, but I never would relate Kazakhs/Uigurs/Uzbeks which are major nations of Turkestan to Mongols. They cannot be in a same group.

It is like classifying Italians and Germans in one group.

You're probably right. It would be kind of like me including Ainu as a pure Mongoloid type or Aethiopid as a pure Congoid type. By including Turkestan I was referring to the ancient Mongoloid inhabitants of the region before Caucasoid interference, but it's probably better not to confuse people with prototypes and just stick to classifying living races. I'll update my system tomorrow. I'm gonna go catch some sleep now.

[Kazakhgirl]

Ancient inhabitant of Turkestan were more Med and Uralic looking according to archeological finding of Turkestan and Kazakhstan. I always learned in school and saw all that reconstructions in Museum (chronological changes in appearences of people). Mongoloid elements came after, first came Siberian elements in 6th century, then Mongols and by 13th century Mongolization of Turkistan was almost complete.

[Kazakhgirl]

to mike the Hellen:

I found an article about DNA analysis of Kazakhs and Central Asians, which confirms my previous post here about later Mongolization of Central Asia. When you mentioned Ancient population of Turkestan, classifying them in one subgroup as Mongols, I looked for info about DNA of pre mongol Kazakhs. DNA and photype of all ancient Kazakh samples belong to Eurupean leneage, which proves later mongolization from Siberia.

The chronology is important here, not saying that Central Asians are not Mongoloids, (actually vice versa) but for establishing which sub group they should belong.

mitochondrial DNA sequences from ancient Central Asians

eebweb.arizona.edu/PostDocs/Gilbert/tom_web/papers/L-Fox2004.pdf