Dharma said:Here I listed two useful websites, you may want to have a look:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/japanese.htm
http://users.tmok.com/~tumble/jpp/japor.html
Actually I noticed that the Japanese traditions and costumes have a lot of similarities with Chinese Han Dynasty (e.g. tatami, low table) and Tang Dynasty Period.
Observe that eyes of chinese are almost all double eyelids with obscure lines. Also, their facial structure especially around eyes and eyebrows are almost flat.
Now looking back japanese eyes, they don't usually have a double eyelid, but the facial surfaces between eyes and eyebrows are not flat, more depth in 3 dimension. Protruding eyebrow and sunken eyes.
SOUTHERN HAN CHINESE: Eyes are generally placed flat to the facial surface with the double eyelids. Also notice that eye and eyebrows are positioned on almost the same level, giving even flater impressions. The epicanthic fold are heavily expressed. Jaws are wider, and possibly roundly formed
JAPANESE: Eyes are placed deeper inside the skull, giving the sunken eyes with single eyelid, or double eyelids formed along with skull (in chinese face, double eyelids are simply formed with eye folds. Japanese double eyelids, if any, have a clear line aligned with skulls, and expressed outerior on the face surface as opposed to chinese interior eyelid). Epicanthic folds not highly expressed, but idyosyncrasies of eyes are expressed as the narrowly visible area of the eyes. Jaws are narrow, and possible crooked teeth are often observed
-- where is the source of this?Statistics show that 50% of Asian women are born with single eyelids.
-- Interesting comment. Your description of southern han chinese could be more biased than my comment. Could you demonstrate your points by giving the examples? Guidelines are that it has to be a picture taken from 1800-1950 so that the lineages are much clearer than modern asian, who are more difficult to traced.The stereotypical southern Chinese:
•Has almond-shaped eyes
•Is shorter and has a smooth, round face (more than likely, no facial hair)
-- My point is more or so that with a thick eye fold, double eyelids can be much easily formed, and does not necessarily mean that all chinese are double eye-lids. But northeastern asian's morphology generally supports the single eyelid theory. Quality of double eyelids on japanese and chinese are certainly different in these regards, if there is one speaking of on japanese at all.Most Chinese do not have double eye lids, the examples you picked just so happened to be a group who does.
May I ask what you're trying to prove by flooding this thread with these portraits (& other pics)? Judging from your (Ken?) thread in another forum, there is probably more to come.Grimmo said:Hi
just found an interesting image on jomon (native islander) and yayoi (continental, korean and chinese). Does anyone have more pictures on this?
Er..., what's the difference? I suppose, there is a greater difference between a French Fleming & a Mediterranean Frenchman than between the Fleming & a Rhinelander.Minty said:Itfs just like Germans and French donft really look the same
bossel said:Outer appearance (esp. modern) is much too varied to conclude from this on what happened 2000 years ago. Concentrating on "nobility" won't do the trick either, because you don't know how much incest has been going on.
Do you have any source for your idea that Ainu are proto-caucasoid?
From here:where is the source of this?
Interesting comment. Your description of southern han chinese could be more biased than my comment.
Could you demonstrate your points by giving the examples? Guidelines are that it has be a picture taken from 1800-1950 so that the lineages are much clearer than modern asian, who are more difficult to trace the root.
My point is more or so that with a thick eye fold, double eyelids can be much easily formed, and does not necessarily mean that all chinese are double eye-lids. But northeastern asian's morphology generally supports the single eyelid theory. Quality of double eyelids on Japanese and chinese are certainly different in these regards, if there is one speaking of on japanese at all.
Lastly, why chinese people likes to state that they are the same people as japanese? Don't they have a pride? In terms of Morphology and genetics, many japanese are remote to han chinese people, and lumping all together is misleading, because some japanese looks caucasoid or polynesian than chinese. If more than 40% of that race is not looking chinese, then the claim of identity in east asia does not hold.
Er..., what's the difference? I suppose, there is a greater difference between a French Fleming & a Mediterranean Frenchman than between the Fleming & a Rhinelander.
Both France & Germany have quite a mixed population, anyway.
Facial features common to other known proto-caucasoids (either north american or Australian Aborigine)
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/hive/Kenn-Man/Kennewic.htm
Homo sapiens first appeared less than 200,000 years ago, likewise in equatorial Africa. This earliest incarnation we might call Proto-Negroid. One part then moved to North Africa and the Middle East sometime in the period 100,000 to 70,000 B.P. For a long time this new "sapient" form, our ancestors, co-existed with Neanderthals, Homo erectus and perhaps yet other human sub-groups until finally, probably about 45,000 years ago, Homo sapiens alone developed the intellectual tool of language, which enabled him to out-compete and exterminate the other types. (Cf. Ian Tattersall's article in the January 2000, Volume 282, Number 1 edition of Scientific American, referred to in the table above.)
With this first move northward, the first split also occurred: those that remained in equatorial Africa became the ancestors to modern African Negroes or Blacks; the emigrants, on the other hand, gave rise to the rest of humanity.
One strand of the emigrants (still Proto-Negroid) kept to the southernmost portions of Asia and, migrating eastward, gave rise to the Proto-Negroid peoples of Australia and the Melanesian islands north and northeast of it, such as New Guinea, as well as to the subtropical populations of southeast Asia (~40,000 B.P.). Some of this same southern strand continued on even further: sailing up around the Pacific Rim (or perhaps directly eastwards), they eventually colonized South America, thereby becoming the first humans - the true "Native Americans" - in the western hemisphere. All of this happened before the appearance of the Mongoloid type (Amerinds) in the Americas. These early migrants did not spend very much time, if any, in the frigid vicinity of Ice-Age glaciers, and were not subjected to the fierce evolutionary pressures that awaited those who took a glacially slow route through the north. Thus these first South Americans changed little from the earliest Homo sapiens prototype and retained much of the Proto-Negroid nature of their ancestors.
In contrast to this southern emigrant stream, the northernmost portions of the Middle Eastern remainder of the African emigrés spread out to the northwest, north and northeast, losing their dark skin pigmentation in proportion to their northward advance and becoming Proto-Caucasoid (~70,000-50,000). The groups farthest east took to boats and reached (~25,000-15,000 B.P.) Japan, Polynesia and, finally, North America, where they became the ancestors of Kennewick Man, Stick Man and many other pre-Indians. In north Eurasia in the late Ice-Age period of 40,000 to 20,000 years ago, this Proto-Caucasoid northern branch underwent considerable pressures of natural selection due to the intensely cold winters. Among other things, these pressures selected for increasingly higher intelligence and the larger brains required to support it. During this time and especially over the seven-thousand-year period from about 22,000 to 15,000 years ago, the cold-tolerant Proto-Mongoloid form gradually emerged in the barren, icy wastes north of Lake Baikal. Meanwhile the less severe conditions closer to the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas allowed a more "leisurely" evolution. Thus from the Proto-Caucasoid base emerged the Caucasoids in the west and the Mongoloids in the mid-Siberian east, while the less-pressured, easternmost northerners, who formed the basis of the Jomon culture and the later Ainu, did not change very much at all during this period.
So it came about that the Negroid peoples of Australia and Melanesia, together with the earliest inhabitants of South America, retained more of the traits of the earliest, Proto-Negroid forms of Homo sapiens, and are most closely related to African Negroes.
In a parallel manner, the White peoples of Europe retain somewhat more of the traits of the early, northern group of humans (Proto-Caucasoids) before the emergence of the Mongoloid type in the east, than do the Mongoloids. This explains why the Kennewick Man, Stick Man and other pre-Amerind North American relatives (as well as the Ainu of Japan) give an initial impression of being Caucasoid, since Whites are generally closer to the pre-split (and pre-Mongoloid) northern prototype, than are the Orientals who have diverged more strongly from it. (On this, see also "RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective," 2nd Special Abridged Edition, Professor J. Philippe Rushton, U. of Western Ontario.)