|
|
Post by gambler32 on Feb 28, 2005 3:26:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zain on Feb 28, 2005 21:23:22 GMT -5
Gracile-med with Mongoloid ,she look more alpine than ,a mongoloid the region (north of Iran ,and east the Caspian sea)was part of the Gracile-med before the mongoloid arrival , and genetic confirm that ,but for Kazakh they are mostly mongoloid |
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 28, 2005 22:16:59 GMT -5
Zain, I never said that Kazakhs are not Mongoloid, I'm totally agree that Kazakhs and some other Turanians belong to Mongoloid race . I do not agree with intermediate Turanid race theory. I'm pro Mongoloid race for Turanids and actively oppose theories and mentality of some Turanids to be classified as intermediate race.
I just disagree with subrace classification of Mike the Hellen posted here. His subraces are too generalized. I think that Kazakhs should be in different subrace than Kalmyks and Khalkha Mongols. Such nations as Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Altay people, Kyrgyz and Northern Uzbeks should be in their own cluster, when Mongols: Oirats and Khalkha, Buryats, Kalmyks in separate, but both subgroups are MONGOLOID! I posted history of turkestan facts because according to Mike ancient Turkestan was originally Mongoloid and Iranian elements came later when it was opposite.
I presented photo of my grandma, who had not any recent Slavic or European admixture (maybe some ancient), to demonstrate how different Turanids could be from Khalha to put them in one subgroup.
P.s. Though she is not typical Turanid, but rare phenotype among Turanids, such phenotype is non-existent among Oirat and Khalkha Mongols.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Feb 28, 2005 23:19:56 GMT -5
What do you mean Turanids aren't an intermediate race? That doesn't make any sense to me. Regardless of the order of which race was in Central Asia first, how comes it the Turanids aren't hybrids? You think yer granny should be classified as a Mongoloid? Maybe we just have different definitions of what a Turanid is. And believe you me, my system is pretty darn precise compared to most. I just have to work out the pesky details.  I mean, I just don't see too much difference between the Mongoloid element of these two people. One of them just seems to have been subject to more Caucasian admixture, 't'is all.   |
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 28, 2005 23:35:19 GMT -5
Right now turanids want to be classifies as separate race, not mongoloid and neighter Caucasoid. I do not think it is right. The frequency of extremely mongoloid looking people are very high and Caucasian people looking low, but overall people look obviously mongoloid, especially Kazakhs. Many people associate mongoloid race with chinese and mongols, but it is very versatile race and if Lappish, which is genetecally slighty over 50% Europeid classify as Caucasians, then why turanids should be classified as intermediate race. They should be classified as Mongoloid. It only would diversify mongoloid race and break stereotype of chinese/mongols.
I do find that your classification of Kazakh Turanids and Khalkha Mongols in a same subgroup is faulty. You seemd to agree about that after all. I tried to explain you why. I do not want to base it only on photos, but genetic , historical and other fact of turkestan, so it would be more clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Feb 28, 2005 23:40:33 GMT -5
I just think if you want to classify the primarily Mongoloid peoples of Turkestan as their own type under Mongoloid, you'll have to find a new name. The word Turanid is too closely associated with Caucasoid hybridization. It wasn't my idea to call the hybrids that. I also would like to make the point that I don't classify Lapps as Caucasians.
Your help has been much appreciated. But I don't understand what the racial difference between Mongoloid Turki and Mongoloid Mongols is. A common Altaic racial origin for all Mongoloid Altaic speakers is very tempting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 28, 2005 23:46:26 GMT -5
P.S. if you do not see the difference between these two it does not mean you have right to classify them as one group. I see the difference (especially in nasal bridge height, cranium form -elongated long head vs round, eye fold (occurence of double eyelid in Kazakhs over 80% when in Mongols it is much lower), facial tissue thinkness is different). You have to base it on more than your vision. Maybe some cranofacial statistic, some mtDNa and Y chromosome diversity and other things rather than your eyes. I also do not see the difference between Germans and Finns, but i do not put them in one group. You have to read, collect and study before creating your classifications.
I would be glad to help, but when i see something is created on basis "All Asians are alike", it bothers me.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Feb 28, 2005 23:53:44 GMT -5
Alright, you make a mighty good argument. And you're right, genetic evidence should also be considered. A.) Sinid1.) Sinic Mongoloid (China) 2.) Chosonic Mongoloid (Korea) [carries some Arctic affinities] 3.) Nipponic Mongoloid (Japan) [carries some Arctic affinities] B.) Tungid1.) Arctic Mongoloid (Arctic North America, northeastern Siberia) 2.) Altaic Mongoloid (Mongolia, Manchuria) 3.) Turkic Mongoloid (Turkestan) 4.) Qiangic Mongoloid (Tibet and some areas of Burma) C.) Austric Mongoloid1.) 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.) AmerindianAll better? |
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Mar 1, 2005 0:08:00 GMT -5
Interesting system I mostly like it MTH.
This was my genereal break down. That I started to make at the beginning of this thread but abandoned because I didn't have time to research it enough or offer good discriptions.'
Arctic
True artics
siberians, lappoids
Asians
East Asian
South east asian
Himalayan
Central asian(more then one type here don't know enough to break them down more).
Amerindians
Northwest amerindian
California Amerindian
Plains indians
Eastern woodlands
Central americans
Andeans, amazonians, and far south americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Mar 1, 2005 0:09:19 GMT -5
It is better but Turkic should not be with Altaic from Manchu and mongolia, especially from siberia. MtDNa of Mongoloid Turkic is drastically different from them, also Y chromosome common allels are rare.
Mongoloid turks should be in separate group. it is also a big population wise group which helps
Mongoloid Turanids (phenotype only):
Kazakhs (Kazakhstan, Russia, mongolia, China, Iran, Afghanistan)
Karakalpaks (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan)
Altays (Russia, Kazakhstan)
Kyrgyz (Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan)
Uzbeks (Jizak region)-not all Uzbeks, but certain regions
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaaaahhh on Mar 1, 2005 0:43:25 GMT -5
Interesting system I mostly like it MTH. This was my genereal break down. That I started to make at the beginning of this thread but abandoned because I didn't have time to research it enough or offer good discriptions.' Arctic True artics siberians, lappoids Asians East Asian South east asian Himalayan Central asian(more then one type here don't know enough to break them down more). Amerindians Northwest amerindian California Amerindian Plains indians Eastern woodlands Central americans Andeans, amazonians, and far south americans. That's a good start. But I believe you can break down Southeast Asian, East Asian even further. |
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Mar 1, 2005 0:52:06 GMT -5
My impression is that most of the variation within those groups is clinal as opposed to sub racial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Mar 1, 2005 0:58:35 GMT -5
I do like your approach!
|
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Mar 1, 2005 3:58:35 GMT -5
I don't think that lappoids can be counted in mongoloid list.
Yes, they have mongoloid admixture, but european influence is much stronger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lycansupreme on Mar 1, 2005 11:16:32 GMT -5
That's a good start. But I believe you can break down Southeast Asian, East Asian even further. Here is a good site that breaks down not only East and Southeast Asians but other races as well. For Southeast Asians I would distinguish Northern Vietnamese, Northern Thai and Northern Laos as lighter and more Chinese looking than the Southern Viet/Thai/Laos and Burmese, who are more Southeast Asian looking. Malays like the Indonesians, Filipinos, etc., might be considered another subrace as they tend to have rounder faces and slightly darker skin IMHO. And Cambodians are probably the most unique-looking of all Mongoloids, as they have darkest skin and some people even think they look similar to people from the Indian sub-continent. |
|
