Australoids As the Basic Asian Phenotype

Thirdeye writes:

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but human settlement in India has been dated to >74 Ka by the Toba volcanic ash overlying stone tools. The Toba event made the subcontinent uninhabitable and isolated the Australasian survivors in southeast Asia from the rest of humanity.

The remnants of the decimated human population were confronted with a very sudden planetary cooling as a result of the Toba event, and the adaptive pressure has been hypothesized as the driving factor in the development of a cold-adapted east Asian branch from the Australasian trunk, enhanced by the importance of founder effects among the surviving remnants.

The Dravidian settlement was the re-occupation of the Bengal shore by Australasians. The tone language trait of east Asian/Australasian cultures (along with an isolated tone language group in the Indus Valley) is believed to reflect African-derived tone language among the original migrants.
Looking closely at the faces of Australasian-derived Indians, the similarities between Australasian and east Asian facial shapes are striking: round, with broad cheekbones and low facial topography. It’s looking more and more like certain northeast Asian facial features (Ainu brows and heavy Korean jaws) are the result of proto-Mongoloid/Caucasian admixture in Siberia. And the closest languages to the Japonic languages are Turkic.

The truth is that the Australoid is the dominant Asian phenotype. All Asians were Australoids until recently. The homeland of the Mongoloid race is in Northern Vietnam. This race was birthed 53,000 YBP. I am not sure what they looked like, but no doubt they were Australoids, possibly a Melanesian type. The Mongoloid phenotype we are so familiar with emerged quite late, 15,000 YBP in Siberia and 9,000 YBP in Northern China. Later it become generalized throughout Asia, moving from north to south.
It is true that in SE Asians, the transition occurred quite late. Vietnamese only transitioned from Australoid to Mongoloid 2,300 YBP with a massive invasion from Southern China. In some groups such as Malays, Filipinos, and Indonesians, the transition was not 100% completed. They are all Mongoloid people, but as the transition from Australoid to Mongoloid was not completed, some Australoid traits remain. These types are best seen as Mongoloids with some residual Australoid traits.
Clearly there are still some pure Australoids in SE Asia such as various Negrito peoples of Malaysia, Thailand (the Mani), the Philippines (the Agta) and Indonesia and the Senoi of Thailand, but these are the minority.
Indeed, Tamil (Dravidian) skulls from South India plot with Melanesian, Papuan, Aborigine, Negrito, Ainu, and Senoi skulls. Therefore on skulls, Tamil types are Australoids. The tribal types such as the Panyers, the Gondis and the Veddoids look very Australoid and probably represent the remnants of a derived group of the earliest Australoid settlers to India. The true first colonists of India are represented by the Andaman Islander Negrito types who came a very long time ago, possibly 40-50,000 YBP.
I have never heard the theory about tone languages deriving from African languages before.
Indeed there was some interbreeding between far NE Asians and Caucasoids. But also keep in mind that when you cross an Australoid with a Mongoloid, you sometimes coincidentally get a phenotype that looks Caucasoid. The early Samurai in Japan often appeared quite Caucasoid.
I agree that the Japonic languages are part of Altaic of which Turkic is a part, but Linguistics has not yet accepted this.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

0 thoughts on “Australoids As the Basic Asian Phenotype”

  1. I’d like to hear more about how connections are inferred among different language families, like Japonic and Turkic. I know this is quite accepted and uncontroversial within language families, for example proto Indo European. But how accepted is analysis that takes the languages further back? There must be something to it, as the humans who emerged from Africa were a fairly small, and not very diverse group. At the beginning they probably spoke a more or less common language, which diverged into different branches as small segments of the population lost contact with other segments.
    Also, as to the categorization by skull: Is this still the go to method of classifying human populations? I would think that genomics would have made it secondary, if not obsolete.

    1. Historical linguistics is a very complex field, but I may go into that for you a bit, just to show you how it’s done.
      There are many proposals to take languages further back, but the general linguistic community rejects all of them.
      You can do race on skulls (phenotypes) or genes. Some races are phenotypically one race and genetically another. For instance, Negritos in Thailand and the Philippines are Australoid on skulls but most closely related to Thais and Filipinos (SE Asians) on genes.

    2. The Japonic/Turkic connection is based on grammatical elements such as subject/object/verb syntax. But there are important differences too, such as vowel harmony that is present in Turkic languages but not in Japonic languages. The debate centers on whether or not the similarities indicate a common origin in a hypothetical Altaic language. But it’s clear that something happened to make the languages of the aboriginal Japanese and Koreans quite different from other east Asian languages. Pidgin trade language with proto-Turkic speakers? Functional advantage in the Steppe lifestyle? Or…..?

      1. There are a ton of cognates too, and even regular sound correspondences I believe.
        The Altaic theory is not a controversy to me. I am certain that it is not only true, but that Japonic and Korean are part of Altaic.

        1. How would true cognates be distinguished from nativized borrow words?
          Now you are getting into the real nitty-gritty of Historical Linguistics, one of the toughest questions of them all! Is it a borrowing or is it a native word, the endless debate and fight.
          There are ways of doing this, but I am not really up on them. For one thing, core vocabulary is rarely borrowed and things like personal pronouns are almost never borrowed.

  2. Hey Robert check out Susumu Ono. His theories were radical in the field of linguistics. He considered Japanese far away from the Turkic languages and closer to other languages.

      1. The Tamil-Japonic connection isn’t quite as off the wall as one might think at first glance. There’s apparently a strong Andaman-Indonesian language connection. The convention of repeat plurals seems to have found its way to Japan. There’s also some similarity between the Finno-Ugric languages, which are Uralic outliers in a sea of Indo-European languages, and Dravidian languages that have a remnant in Pakistan. Contact between proto Dravidian-Uralic and Altaic languages is a real possibility.

        1. This is so interesting. If only we had a machine that could recreate ancient historical events. Then, we would be able to have a solid blue print of human language development 🙂

Leave a Reply

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


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)