Are SE Asians Australoids?

Repost from the old site. We have already dealt with this issue previously on this blog, but there is need to continuously revisit old issues that do not seem to be sinking in very well after we do our revisionist and rectification work here. For instance, I do not really care about whether or not SE Asians are part-Australoid, but among amateur anthropologists, the notion is much in vogue. Furthermore, it is regarded as given by Chinese, which unfortunately includes Southern Chinese, who by this definition, would also be part-Australoid. This issue needs to be dealt with because it is such a widespread myth, particularly among some of our best young minds out there in popular culture. Among anthropologists, the only folks saying that SE Asians are part-Australoid are wonderful folks like Richard Lynn, who wants to “phase out” inferior races. So I’m not sure that NE Asian Supremacists should make alliance with these guys. The truth is clear. All of Asia, as far as we can tell, was Australoid up until 9,000 years ago or so. Further, some Caucasians were part-Australoid, and there is some evidence that all of them may have been at one point. Take a recent comment by an excellent mind in my comments section, who states that all SE Asians are Australoids based on their lineage. First of all, lineage doesn’t really mean crap. In the lineage of Caucasians is African, Asian and probably Australoid, going back 45,000 years or so, and maybe more so in between, since India seems to be continuously injecting itself into the Caucasian mix from 10,000-45,000 years ago, and India was Australoid until 8,000 years ago, when it finally transitioned to Caucasian. In fact, Caucasians may have been made up one part African from Masai and Tutsi-type Central African stock, and two parts NE Asian, which at 45,000 years ago was probably an Australoid that looked something like an Ainu. So Caucasians themselves are probably two parts Australoid in their mix going way, way back. There are different ways of doing race, in places where anti-racist nuts have not outlawed it or shamed it out altogether. We can look at facial structure, or we can look at genes. There are no other ways of doing it that make sense. Facial structure is a favorite among White racists, but otherwise it’s ok. White racists despise genes, because too many other “non-White” Caucasians end up being too close to their precious European White Glory. Lots of people hate genes because they give funny results. The exalted Hong Kong Chinese make up a taut subrace with the unknown Taiwanese Ami and the downtrodden and abused Filipinos. We can’t have that. Let’s do faces instead, or skin color, the craziest of them all. We do skin color and we miss tight genetic units like Algerians and Nubians, one White and one Black group that are so closely related they can easily be called a minor race and even a closely-knit genetic family. Faces are interesting, but genes are sort of where it’s at in a way. Negritos and Ainu go to the surrounding Asians on genes, but to Australoids on facial structure. So where do we toss em? Fuegian Amerindians go Australoid on facial structure but Amerindian on genes, so which bin? I’m inclined to toss Fuegians into Amerindians on mere sense grounds, since saying they are Australoids lost in America is just too weird.

A classic Ainu man. Note the uncanny resemblance to an Amerindian. Ainus look Australoid on facial structure and Asian on genes. They are not Caucasian as many have theorized. One theory about why we have some Caucasian looking types in Asia is that the breeding together of an Australoid type with an Asian type can produce as Caucasoid type. That’s just a shot in the dark, but it sounds appealing to me. Some Amerindians, such as the Fuegians of Patagonia and the Pericu of Baja California also look like Ainu, as did the Paleoindians of the Americas, who are thought to be the first to come the continent, even before the Asian Amerindians that we know today. The Amerindians we know today may have shown up only 6,000-9,000 years ago, but they must have bred in with earlier groups.

So, we look at faces of SE Asians for Australoid structure, and we don’t get much. Negritos, Melanesians, and sometimes Polynesians have Australoid faces. So do the Senoi, and possibly the Vedda (though not close to Aborigines), and we get the Tamils. But Polynesians are Oceanians genetically, Senoi are SE Asians, and Tamils are Caucasians. Oh, what a complicated web we weave. We don’t see Australoid facial structure in SE Asians. In some, maybe we do. There are people with woolly hair and dark skin among the Taiwan aborigines and among the Malay and the Filipinos at least. These people do have some Negrito in them. In most SE Asians, we just find that they have faces that look, well, SE Asian. It’s a particular look of a face, and it’s not Australoid or any such thing. I’m not sure what it resembles. It just resembles what it is – SE Asians have developed their own specific facial type, and it is what it is and you like it or you don’t, but it owns itself. If we go looking for Australoid genes in SE Asians, we pretty much come up empty handed. We find Papuan genes in some Southern Chinese, some coastal Vietnamese and some Malays and we find some sort of Australoid-looking genes in Indonesians, mostly to east. We don’t seem to find any at all in Taiwanese, Lao, Khmer, the rest of the Vietnamese, Thai or western Indonesians. Anyway, we only find a tiny amount in those groups, indicating that it’s nonsense to say that they are part Australoid. It’s just a tiny ancient remnant – that’s all. When we go looking at Polynesians and Micronesians, things get way more complicated. For a long time, analyses were finding that these people have up to 5 A paper has recently come out showing that Polynesians and Micronesians are almost all Austronesian from Taiwan, and the Papuan – Melanesian connection is minor or even nonexistent. Even this paper showed that Melanesians had a heavy Papuan element, with a small Austronesian element mostly limited to eastern Indonesia. Download a paper looking at the matter on my site here. Whatever the meaning of these studies, a close look at genetic charts tends to show Oceanians such as Micronesians, Melanesians and Polynesians lining up right alongside Papuans and Aborigines, who are themselves vastly far apart. Clearly there is an Australoid Race. Clearly Aborigines and Papuans are too extremely distantly related aspects of that race, or maybe even separate major races on their own. Including Melanesians is difficult. While some treatments now are finding an Oceanian Race separate from Australoids, others are finding a fairly close link between Melanesians and Australoids such as Papuans. It is probably best to say that Melanesians are Oceanians with a fairly close, but still distant, relationship to Papuans. Whatever relationship Micronesians and Polynesians have to Papuans, it is much more distant. When we line up Aborigines to SE Asians such as Khmer, Malay, Filipinos, Thai, and Southern Chinese, we do not get a thing. The relationship is very, very distant. In many charts, the closest relative will be Polynesians (the connection above again) and then we will find Japanese, Koreans and even NE Chinese. This is probably due to an Ainu-Gilyak Australoid element that was generalized all through NE Asia at this time.

In my opinion, the Ainu and the Gilyak are the remains of the proto-NE Asians. They probably go back to Lake Baikal around 35,000 years ago. At some point they may have gone to Thailand, then over to Japan, and at 20,000 years ago, they must have gone to Australia. At around 16,000 years ago, Ainu types left the Altai Mountains and traveled to the Americas, possibly via a coastal route on boats. Their ancestors today, other than Fuegians and the Pericu. Look at those really long fingers on that woman. That looks so strange. I have seen photos of modern day Gilyaks on Sakhalin Island and they look pretty Japanese. There are projects underway to record and possibly revive their very strange language, which is somehow still alive. These were very much a fishing people, living on the coast and heavily involved in salmon fishing, drying and consumption. They also eat a lot of seaweed. The Japanese diet resembles this in some ways.

Keep in mind at proto-NE Asians (Ainu types) colonized Australia 20,000 years ago and created one of the major inputs into the Aborigines.

A classic Aborigine, possibly from Coon in the early 20th Century. Coon made a number of good studies on Aborigines at that time. An Ainu type called Murrayians is thought to have colonized Australia 20,000 years ago. Around that time, Ainu types were in Thailand and Japan. They seem to have gone from Thailand to Japan around this time as the Jomonese, probably on boats. Surely they must have used these same boats to go to Australia. On the way down to Australia, they seem have made up the proto-Australoids, a strange and little-known group from the Philippines that is thought to be the second arrivals after the Negritos. The description of the proto-Australoids sounds like an Ainu type, and their ancient arrival on the islands fits in well with a very early arrival in Australia.

It is true that SE Asians were probably still transitioning from Australoid to SE Asian maybe as late as 5,000 years ago, but NE Asians were making that transition only 9,000 years ago. According the commenter, SE Asians are Australoids because that is sort of what they were 5,000 years ago. But why should we not include NE Asians, since they were Australoids only 9,000 years ago? Why not include East Indians, since they were Australoids until only 8,000 years ago? Hell with lineage. Humans were ape-men not too long ago. Maybe even 200,000 years ago, we were still pretty apelike. Hell, Amerindians were still pretty Australoid up until 9,000 ago, and in Colombia even up until 3,000 years ago. In the Fuegians and the Pericu of southern Baja California, there were physically Australoid types until contact and even afterward, even though the Pericu went extinct. Truth is, lineage doesn’t really matter. We look at things as they are today. Some things came from other things a long time, but the existing things of today are not the things that they transitioned from long ago, nor are they part of what they used to be. Instead, they are whole new things, moving from one existence and creation to a new creation all of their own. I am not my ancestors, nor am I even part of my ancestors. But they are part of the creation story that is me and my kin, and that is a wonderful trail of a tale all on its own. This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Please follow and like us:

20 thoughts on “Are SE Asians Australoids?”

  1. Robert, do you know what the commenter bob means by “PC anthropology which is driven by a Jewish racial bias”?

  2. Interesting. But, you have the Ainu Gilyak heading for Australia around 20,000 years ago. So who were those folks hanging out ’round Lake Mungo 20,000 years before that?

    1. Indeed, yes, I do have proto-Ainu/Gilyak heading to Australia 20,000 years ago, good call!
      I don’t know who those Lake Mungo people were! Obviously, those are the original Aboriginals. I assume that they are most closely related to Papuans, Negritos, etc. They probably went there about 50,000 years ago. This time period is extremely poorly understood, but understand that at 25-30,000 years ago, the people from the area of India to Vietnam looked something like Aborigines.
      I don’t really understand that, but it seems like Australoid types – Aborigines, Papuans, Negritos, Ainu/Gilyak and to some extent Melanesians are the original peoples of Asia.

  3. Robert,
    Yes, I’m a fiction writer. Indirectly, that’s why I came here. I’m working on a series and in one of the books, the hero crash lands in Australia 32,000 years ago — hence the research that brought me to your site.
    Looks like you’ve got a lot of interesting subjects going here. I’ll be back to do more reading as I get a chance.

    1. 32,000 YBP, the Australians may have looked something like Negritos or possibly like Melanesians, it’s hard to say. I think that 24-28,000 YBP in Vietnam, the skulls look Melanesian. We don’t have a heckuva lot of skulls going back that far. I haven’t the faintest idea what the Lake Mungo skull looks like.

  4. coreans say that amerindians are descendant of them, I think australoid is not a race but one of sub spacies of mongoloid race. for the seaweed, tradition of eating dried seaweed(called gim) is from Corea, Coreans eat more seaweed.

    1. Native Americans say they are the ancestors of ” Koreans” since Koreans didn’t exist 18,000 -25,000 years ago when the Americas were first populated. Koreans are new comers to the peninsula. Native Americans do not have moon faces and squinty eyes, and flat faces, only the Inuit and Athabaskans have that phenotype, and they are still an older population than Koreans. Koreans are a Neo-Mongoloids, Native Americans are their own race.

  5. Interesting theories. As far as Melanesians/negritos are concerned, genetic research has confirmed that they are the most genetically diverse, almost as diverse as Africa. The fact that Papua has half the world’s languages on their small island where neighbouring tribes can’t even understand one another supports this research too.
    Many people have a set idea what a Papuan looks like, but in reality they also have diverse physical traits from one tribe to the next – it’s truly amazing. This diversity means that they are the oldest people in this area.
    On the other hand, Polynesians are the most wide spread people over the largest area on earth – the Pacific ocean, and yet there is scarcely any genetic differences, even physically as well as a fairly homogenous language and culture. Being fluent in my own language, I can understand Samoan, Hawaii, and Maori languages.
    Being a full blood Poly with the cliche brown skin and long wavy hair, I would have to say the first time I saw old photos of the Ainu, the uncanny resemblance to our people was very strange. I swear they look just like us. Mind you, I can also see it in the Micronesians too, except that they are half our stature and size like miniature Polynesians.
    Interesting too, when I was in Malaysia and although I was considered tall, the Malay still mistook me for one of them, but then one day I saw a book on the indigenous groups, and my gosh, they looked even more like my family in the village than the Malay who are a modern mix.
    So I do agree that sometime very long ago, we were all one and the same people, possibly we are all from the first wave of migration from out of Africa who eventually diversified. Or maybe there were two waves, the Melanesian/Aborigines were first, then the second wave from East and North Asia, but not the modern Asians we know as today, but brown skinned hunter/gatherers who probably jostled for space with the first wave.
    Those are my thoughts and thanks for your post.

    1. There’s a lot of controversy about this, but it looks like the Polynesians are part Taiwanese and part Melanesian. I am not sure about the Micronesians. I think they have a similar mixture. The proto-Malay types cluster with Polynesians and Micronesians. This may be why you thought the indigenous looked like Polynesians.
      The first line came out of Africa and is seen in the Negritos, then later in Aborigines and Papuans, soon later in Melanesians. This Australoid-Melanesian type is generalized throughout mainland Asia for a very long time – from 9000-24,000 YBP, all Asians looked like Australoids. There is a transition to modern NE Asians at 9000 YBP from Ainu types to modern Japanese – Korean types. The transition occurs later on SE Asia – on the order of 5000 YBP.

  6. Yes, apparently the Micronesians have a similar mix to us – Taiwan origin with Melanesian mix. But I think we mixed much futher back with Melanesians too. So we are either from the same stock or a second wave that mixed. Our oral history explains our later mix and cultural exchange with Fiji Melanesians.
    So as I mentioned before, I don’t ‘think’ other indigenous Austronesians look like us, I ‘know’ they definitely look like us, but even the Taiwan aborigine are very mixed now with Chinese blood. So I guess I am saying that even with all the mixing and evolving, there is still something intinsically similar about all of us, even today.

    1. I think the Micronesian was 2nd wave. I may be wrong, but I think they were Polynesians who mixed with Melanesians, but not sure.
      What I don’t understand is how the Polynesians got so big. There are lots of theories about it, but no one seems to agree. One theory is that on the long voyages, only the biggest people survived.

    2. It is pretty cool, isn’t it? I’ve been trying to promote this idea of a genetic unity between the Austronesians for some time now. Surely there is unity with Polynesians, Micronesians and Melanesians, this is for sure. But also with Indonesians, Filipinos and Taiwanese aborigines. How many Filipinos feel that Polynesians are their brothers? And further back, even the Malays are close to Polynesians. Instead of splitting everyone up, we get a wider and wider circle of brotherhood.
      I really need to do a piece on Polynesians. I have the notes for a nice piece for over a year now, but I haven’t written it up.
      I think they may have originally left out of Central Indonesia instead of Taiwan, but I’m not sure.
      BTW, welcome to the board. We love Polynesians here.

  7. Just thought it may be interesting to add:
    “The Kennewick skeleton has gotten a lot of press becuase of it’s caucasoid affinities and we are now in the position to see how this came about. It should be pointed out that in this context “caucasoid” does not mean European. Rather caucasoids refers to a large highly variable population that includes Polynesians, Australians and the Ainu as well as Europeans.”

    1. Thank you very much.This is excellent! Yes, Kennewick Man looks most like an Ainu and a Polynesian, specifically a Moriori. He’s more or less an Australoid type. And Australoid mixed with Mongoloid looks Caucasian.

  8. Regarding the Native Americans, only the Na Dene/ Athabaskans entered the Americas 6,000-9,000 years ago, and the Aleut/Inuit 700-2,500 years ago. The Fuegans, Pericu, and all other Amerindians from Southern North America to South America are all genetically Native American and descendants of the earliest Paleo-Americans that entered the Americas as early as 30,000 years ago. There is no difference in the genetic history in the Fuegans and Pericue or the Chumash and Tongva Natives from Southern California. The Chumash were one of the most advanced seafaring tribes who had a Maritime economy, and built the only planked boats in North America. They lived on all the Northern Santa Barbara Channel Islands and on the Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Mainlands. The Spaniards were in awe of the Chumash and their boat building and deep sea fishing skills.

    I’ve seen many Mongoloid-Australoid mixed. Even Thais and Malaysians have even 9-11% Negrito maternal mtDNA and around 10-12% South Asian ancestry but even they don’t look nowhere as Caucasoid as the Polynesians. The fact that Polynesian look Caucasian is because they descended from some tribes that more Caucasian the average Taiwanese aborigines tribes.
    There is no prove that Australoid-Mongoloid mix is producing a Caucasoid look.
    The reason why Polynesians look like the way do is due to the fact many of them are already a pseudo-Caucasoid look alike people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)